ML20238C315

Advises That Minor Editorial Corrections & Format Adjustments Have Been Made to SECY-87-35.Rule Contains Info Collection Requirements Which Must Be Reviewed by OMB Before Submittal for Signature & Publication in Fr

ML20238C315
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/13/1987
From:	Lesar M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Shields W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20238C308	List: IA-87-794, Discusses Regulatory History Procedures, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning & Requests That Completed Index Be Forwarded by 871018 ML20238C306 ML20238C315 ML20238C319
References
FOIA-87-794 NUDOCS 8712300193
Download: ML20238C315 (8)

Text

. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

O O

res u uei FEMPPANDUF F'P:

William M. Shields Office of the General Counse' FROM:

Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F SECY-87-35 The Divisicn of Rules and Records has reviewed the Comission paper that sets out the propcsed rule concerning the " Licensing of nuclear power plants where State and/or local governments decline to cooperate in offsite emergency planning". We have made minor editorial corrections and format adjustments to the proposed rule that are necessary to comply with the publication requirements of the Office of the Federal Register.

Specifically, we have inserted the current authority citation for Part 50, and corrected the amendatory instructions for the codified text.

This rule contains in'ormation collection requirements which must be submitted to the Office of Panagement and Budget (OMB) for review before the proposed rule may be submitted for signature and publication in the Federal Register.

You should contact Brenda Shelton, Records ManageNnt Branch, on extension 28132 for 'u-ther information on this matter.

If you have any cuestions, please call me on extension ?7758.

Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosures:

As stated RDG

.:;;cSitBJ3" MLESAR ASHEPARD B712300193 871223 PDR FOIA BELAIR87-794 PDR OFC :ADM:0RR:RPB :ADM:DRR:RPB :

NAME M..........

7:............:............:............:............:............:...........

HEPARDN:MLESAR g :

DATE :2/3/87

23/P7 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY A/

J Attcchnent 1 evaluating the adequacy of a utility's emergency plan. The NRC's realism doctrine is grounded squarely in conmon sense. As the Commission stated in [ILCO, even where state and local officials ' deny they ever would or could cooperate with [a utility) either before or even during an accident," the NRC ' simply cannot accept these statements at face value."

24 NRC 22, 29 fn. 9.

It would be irrational for anyone to suppose that in a real radiological emergency, state and local pub 11b officials would refuse to do what they have always done in the event of emergencies of all kinds: do their best to help protect the affected:public.

The " realism doctrine" embodied in this rule goes that far and no further.

It makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local goversnents would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utility's plan), nor does it prejudge whether their responses would be sufficient to protect publje health and safety adequately.'Those issues are questions of fact to be resolved in individual adjudicatory proceeding At the present time, the Coonissien does not have a basis in its adjudicatory experience to judge either that a utility plan would be adequate in every case or that it would be inadequate in every case.

i The problem of how the NRC can decide the adequacy of emergency planning in the face of FEMA's declared reluctance to make judgments on emergency planning in cases of state and local non-participation does not

-appear insoluble..Though FEMA has expressed its relbetance to maka judgments in such circumstances, because of the degree of conjecture that

.would in FEMA's view be called for, we do not interpret its position as 21 f

I

j A t t e c h.?.e..

The Cocaission's rule, as modified and clarified, would establish a process by which a utility plan can be evaluated against the same standards that are used to evaluate a state or local plan (with allowances made both for those areas in which coop 11ance is infeasible because of governmental non-participation and for the compensatory measures proposed by the utility).

It must be recognized that emergency planning rules are necessarily flexible.

There is no vniform " passing grade' for emergency plans, whether they are prepared by a state, a locality, or a wtility ]ather, there is a case-by-case evaluation of s

\\

whether the plan meets the standard of " adequate protective measures...in the event of an emergency." Likewise, the acceptability of a plan for one plant is not measured against plans for other nuclear plants.

The Cocaission, in its 1986 LILC0 decision', stressed the r>eed for flexibility in the evaluation of emergency plans.

In that decision, the Commission observed that it "might look favorably" on' a utility plan *ff. there was reasonable as.surance that it was capable of achieving dose reductions in the event of an accident that are generally comparable to what might be accomplished with government cooperation." 24 NRC 22, 30. We do not read that decision as requiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be accomplished et,ther by the utility's plan or by a hypothetical plas that had full state and local participation:

i such findings are never a requirement in the evaluation of emergency plans.

Rather, we read the Comission's LILC0 decision as consistent with a process by which any plan that is approved - state, local, or utility --

would have to be adequate and implementable, and as such, all approved plans would be generally comparable in terms of the protection afforded to the public. The rule is designed to establish suck a process.

28 s

e

I Attachurg ;

a4 m

Federal Regisier / Vol. 52. Ns. 212 / Tuesday. November 3.19s? / Ru!:s 'and Regulations I'

f. ness that, at least for the first 120 (s) May NRC assume that the state or rebutted by, for emmle, a gooo !aith /

caye,,sa a major dancassey la local response m!! he in accord mth h and a tunely proffshf an edesa wM emerymacy planning does est ut@y plant bl May NRC assume ht the state or feasible state or local radiolopcal ' N 4 i

loc (al rosyNRC rule calls or reliance on estameticaDy rulee a "substannal health temw plan dchouM & by s

will be a uste?

er massey isome" with regard to plunt (cllf Minpon in an emergency. ne

~

v

% gy contrut, e major safety deScamacy mieting to emerguecy TD4A. and FIMA says that it can't predng Ucensing Bond M w b

hectate to reject any claim Ort scate condsname--for raampia, he judge emergency planning excapt wben and local omcials wliesfuse is aca to y*

a of b unorgency core there la state and local participation in contag eyeens -would warrant an exercise, how can the NRC ever safeguard the health and safetyf :he I

r saaneshete shutdows.

make a judgunt on emerge pubtsc in the event of an actual

,,,,,,,cy, g,,gg 3;,,,,,,,c,,

I" 8" We leagues inecenns

[

,th es do n t arti te?

$at emergmacy planmag was la this rule, the &=nmission adheres invanably done their rtemst to pronect l

• M the Camammen in isn to the " realism doctrine." enunciated in the canzmy, as two he N pean of crossed a ngulatory soectum in which its 1ses decision la long Island Ughtug Amancan hiakry ampF deg

,F

/

emerymacy planning was treated Co. (Shoreham Nnctae power Sta tion.

At A manet i me, the Connasson

\\;

,(

sammewhat differently,in terms of the Unit 1). CU-4tL-13. me NRC 22. which does v&tw 4 nsh it ita adpashcatory I

I coereense actions to be taken wbse bolds that in an octual emergency, state

'9enence to judge ei$ee that a stGhty y

dM are identined, from the and local governmental authonties wiB plan would be edsquete la e.very case or,

y c J ealety insteres (" hardware") act to protect their crnsenry, and that it that in s%Id be IAadequate in every that would be relied on a en emergency. is appropriate for the NRC to take cace. Miementation of this ruse ansy 4.

Issue se Aaauming that NRC should account of that self-evident fact in altimata y provide that informan=1 n=-me=r a utility plan, what cntens enluettig the adessacy of a utility's banaa.,

shoehl apply? la particular exergency plan. The NRC's reallam he pob?ein of how the NRC com (a) !Inomid the utiuty plan provide last (Mtrine is groundad equarely in doch.he adequacy of emerpuncy a

es med prossesion a a seses or local common sense. As the Comrnission plareng in b face of FDdNs dechred l

plan, e may less protecten be stated in ULCO, even where state and reluctance to make judgments se

.w local omchals

• deny by ever would or emergemy planning in casse of stau (b)Iless promction may be adequate, could cooperate mth [a utility] either and local non-participation does am

ast leC andt Red reasonable before or even during an accident, the appear insoluble. Dough FEMA has i

nasurumas tiet ander the stihty plan.

NRC

• simply cannot accept these expressed its reluctance to make y,oucen measures can and statements at face valua. 24 NRC 22. af judgments in such circumstances.

mE ha enhunt Or le it =Ar'=at for NRC fn. g. It would be irretional for asi one to a god essa the totahty of the stak, suppose that in a me! rediologi becasse of the degree of coelecnare ht y

would in FD4Ns view be called far. we U

% e5 relevant factors, including emergency, stats and local public do not interpret its position as one af k N of an usadmet usure omesals would refuse to do what they tefusal to apply its expertise to :he met h h k P'da'*= of have always done is the event of evaluation of a utility planJoe FDLA to pobabehenkt safetFf fjgg ""

engage in the evolustion d 4 alary plan do lr best 2 Under die role adoptedin &is notics.

p9 g,

l Long Island Laghtm Co. decision w uld neceuitete no rencee free irm a sakey plan, to pass auter,is mquimd included the observataan tfat in anststed view that it is higtnj cemeubue to 28 Prwetes reasonable ausrance that acculent, the "best effort" of state and hanA eoch aclear pown pkst. a adgassa protesttw maamru can and mR be taken in an amorpacy.he nile county o86cials would include utilizing state or iccal plan with kl stair and I*'*M.ci atton in erw;Nacy the utility's plan as "the best source for P

= did Compens when it emergency plannmg saformation and planning. Including emergency enacted sad regancied to provisions of opuosa

• 24 NRC 22,31.nis rule leaves euerm (The Commission aheres that Secmon ise af the NRC Asthorisation gt to the Liceuing Board to judge what wiew) FU4Ns advice woult!

Act of 1ssawahat me stGier plan is likelf Isso the "best efforts

• of state and local sv.doubtedly inclede Ment #catan axf m be ahts to provide the samme doyee of sedals would take. However, the areas in which 1u43:2. tate are pubhc psetesales that would obtata ruissaking record strongly supports the necessanly conjectural.arNs ander gemet oseditions.ta e stets er poposinen that state and local owraD Judgment on whether a unlitps local plan esteh Ant easts sad local asseressats believe that a planned plan is adequate would in turn have to but that Ra be adegumes,g sospense to pe,ferable to an ad hoc one.

take account of the uncertainties m rule Therefore it is only reasonable to included in FD4Ns judgment. Bryamd a starts besa tie psomise est accidents suppens het in the event of a certain point, uncertainty as to can happen, and tot at euery piset, r=ma p,. emergency, state and local undertyms facts would plainly make a adegasseesasessesy measures eSdals, h the aboemas of a state or Posit 2n finding on " reasonable are===a-d to the la the 1.ent ressalogical acy plan are tuues, howewr, gly difficuk. Diese assurance"increasin event en oomsreL Whetherin oppoved by state and I

which can be fact a perttember stGlty plea wlR be goveramsats, will either look to the addrewed in the case by case lound ashigmate weeld as a matter for unibly and its plan for guidance or will adjudications on individual facs-specific dtwas,=ss== kilashvidesinosaship inBow some other plan that exista. Thus m'tuations. It should be noted that wehile

,o_

te pseutng Ucenatas Board may the rule tookes clear that sit %i taear art tasy NRC assume that a pesume that state and local mcisional authority resides Wt a NIkC. it eute orloomi governmeus whka sfuses gevenmasetal authorstaes willlook to the does eevision a role for ID4A in th a cooperees to emergency pleamms wiD subty for goldence and generally follow evaluation of utility plan, el haisk ee5 roupand to the best ofits abibty la les plan is as actual emnergency; section 100 of the NRC Authonannee an scenal ylf og hswever.&is presumption may be Act of1980 did not specify any raieAr f

3 i

\\

~

]

.y.'

\\

42084 Fedoesi Register / Vol. 52. W 012 / Tuesday. November 3.1987 / Itules and Regu y

which a stility plan would be badged by utdity's plan or by a hypothetical Asg state and local withdrawal from that had full state and local

<$.4?e. kcal or ut hty plan whdh perticipetion in esseyency plassung, participation: such findmgs are never a pecedes easonable assurarce that thq

.$ose critens would pr-bly be of requirement in the evaluation of.

p.bic hu;th and safety is not

,ssistance to deruma-hers to c we.g~ed b emergency plana. The (!nal rule makes corscerne(~ y operation of the Iscihn

.tet:rmining. under 10 01t 303stsX2)(li), clest that every emergency plan is to be whether remedial action abound he evaluated for adequacy on its own t nder te Commission's 1980 rub o iakin. and if so, what med where tnents, without referer4e to the specific the regulatory provision that

<i2ficiencses in emergency plasmag dose reductions which might be implemented the second of the Iwo tiers remain.w A sher 130 ders.

secomplished under the plan or to the of S4 tion 109 was geners! and d

luue su: Does the Comaussion's rule capabilities of any other plan. (t furrAes unspecif.c.The relevant regulaticn. to CFR 50.4*cl. allowed a nuclear pun er mean that the NRC does not haw to find makes clear that a findmg of adequcy l ist any plan is to be considered pla.nt to be licensed to operste.

th:t a utility plan would offer protection y

equivalent to what a plan with full state generally comparable to a finding d notw,thstanding its fadute to cornph and local partidpation would providef edecuacy for any other plan.

with the pWnning standard of to CVR As stated previonely, under the rule

~ The tule change is designed to me lb). en a showmg that "deficienci. s adopted in this nor'ca. a stdity plan, to establish procedures and entena m the plans are not significant for the pass massar is requod to provide plant in question, that adequate mierim recsonable assurana that edegoate governing the case.by-case adjudicatory. compensat:ng measures have been or evaluation, at the operating license wdl be talen promptly or that there are protective measures can and wtB be rertew stage, of the adequacy of cthee cornpelling reasons to permit plant takin in emergency.The rule emergency planning in situations in operatiort without defining those terms racognizes-es did Congress when it which state and/or local authontie<.

further.The Commission currently

-L en:cted and re-enacted the pronsions of decline to participate further in bel. eves that the planning standards of Ti Section 105 of the NRC Anthonzation Act cf 1980- 4 hat no etahey plan is likely emergency plannmg. It is n.a mtended to 13 CF1t 50 4r(bl. which are used to

{

assure the licensing of any particular evaluate a state or local plan. also to be able to provide the sans degree of plant or plants. The rule is intended to provide en appropnate framework to j

public protection that would obtam remedy the omission of specific evaluate a etslity plan. Therefore. the und:r ideal conditions. La. a state or lvcal plan with full state and local procedures for the evaluation of a ut4hty rew rule provides for the first tirne +.o plan from the NRC's exisdog rules, where a utdtty plan is submittr'd. in,i p irticipation. but that it may r:evsrtheless be adequate.

adopted in 1980. In providing for the -

s;tuation of state and/or local non.

The Commission's rule. as a odJied evaluation of a utthty plan.howeser, the rale represents no departure from the participation in emergency plann:rz.

wdl be evaluated for adequacy a:;d est and clanfied. would establish a process approach envisioned m DB0 by the the same standards used to ewlca:e a L y which a utdity plan can be evaluated Congress and by the Commission,in c.sd to evelaate a state or local plan 19ea the supplementary information to s' ate or local plan. However, due c :sinst the same standarth that are

(.sith allowances made both lot tMee hAC's fmal rule stated that the rule wasa:lowance wdl be made both foe ie

)

l run ; participation M the state and/or 6 ess in which comphance ia mfeasible xonsistent with the approach taken by 11cause of governmental non.

Cengtess in Section 109 of the NRC

1. cal gover.meral authorities and for Pe ecmpensatory measures proposed AuAorization Act of 1980 (which. m a by the utthry m reachir*g a

irticipatson and for the compensatory rwasures proposed by the utstyi. It comMmise between House and Senate Gwr nicarica whether there is

)

rwat be recognized that enwrgency sers ons. provided for the NRC to p'anning rules are necessanly fleiuble.

e.aluate a utdaty's emergency plan m "reascnable assurante that adequeir protecue :.cesures"(an and wi'l ha Other than " adequacy." there is no situations where a state or local plan taken.

was either nonexistent or inadequel.

uniform passang grade" far emergency though the rule itself included no The arp : ch reflectn in:ns tu 1

8 I

p'ans, whether they are prepared by a s'ata. a locality, or a utibty. Rather.

euphcit provisions gove*nma the NRC's ephCct.d c!arifies the gu: dante there is a case-by-case evaluation of evaluation of a utihty plan m such grouc N n ?e Ccmm:st.cn s den m. -

circumstances. It should be emphazed

.a L..re 1.l.:n ; i;3rz.y ca. [Shorr.*

w h2ther the plan meets the standard of that the rule is not intended to dimmishNuclear."ower fction. Unit 1l. C!.l. a.

" adequate protective measures... in public protection from the levels U. N NRC mw.). Tr.e ru'e the svent of an ernergemey."IAewiss.

morpr.ites.hc *'re.dism dac:.-int".i the ceceptabstity of a pies for see plant previsesly established by the Congress furth in hat decision. whach holds that or the Commission's rules. smce the is n:t measured against plansIer other Commisalon's rules and the Congress m an actual ernergency, state and local nucle:r planta. 'fbe Commessism. is its l' ave since 1980 provided for a two tier government ! authorities wdl act to 1986 LILCD decision, stressed he seed sPproach to emergency planning The protect the p.blic, a.nd that it is l

for flexibilty is the evalentiseaf rule takes as its starting point the appropnate therefore for the NRC. in Comrnission aboarved that it "might Confessional policy decision reCected evaluating the adequacy of a utditys smitgency plans. In that decistsa, es in section los of the NRC Authorization emergency plan, to take into accobrit the look lavorably" en a utibly pism"If Act of1980.That statute adopted a two.

authontaes. to be determined on a ras.

probable response of state and local there was reemoeable asseroam that it tier approach to emergency planning.

by. case bas.s.

wea capeble of achievtse does The preferred approach was for reductions in the event of as scodset that are generally comparabis to what operating licenses to be issued upon a That decisioa also included languap:

might be F- _ - f t with geserament finding that there is a " State or local

' which could bw interpreted as radioisgical emergency response plan ensisiocur.g that the NRC must estimate cooperetlW 34 NILC 22. m We de not

• *

• which comphes with the the rad >o!+raldose reductions which a utihty plan wouM achieve. compare recd that decamion as requirW s flading thaaion's standards fur such plans " them with the radiological dose i

of th2 precise does reductions est but Isiling that. it also permitted i

reductions whach would be achieved if

~

wculd be accomplished either by the hcensing on a showmg that there is a there were a state or localplan with full

)

myr'r.

' ^

Fedant keS sta i Vol 5* No. 212 / Tuesday. Nosembit 3.1987 / Rules and R i

3 42065

}

state end local partiemsson a The ru's thus eaaShshu the emergency planmng.e4 pear:t f-bcensms only if the dne redr.: tees are framework by which the redequacy of maior Tede sl action significantly emergency planmq m cases of state affecting the quahry of the human

• generally comparable"Such as -

and/or for,al non. participation. can be envirormeer and therefore an interpretation woule be cont 7ty ?o NRC evalme*!on a casa.by case basis m environmental impact statement is not pract.chtdtr v.Ud emerge:cy plans operatedscenae proceedmgs. The rule required The Commission has prepared.

are evaluattd tor.dequacy wtrut does not ptsupMro nor does it dictate.

m support of this findmg. en reference to rumencal dose nduc:nes environ = entad assessment which 2s whmh might be accorrphshed ad what the otJcome of that can by. case available for anspecuon and cop)mg. for w rthout ccmpenng t'sem to otter e$sluation will be. As with other issuesa fee. at the NRC Public Document adsde.sted in NRC proceedmas, the Room. l'171f Street NW., Wash:gnton.

emeyeracy plans.rnJ or hypc6mest riutcome of case.by. case evaluations of The f:rd mle mskes clear that escry the adequacy of emergency planning DC.

emerpncy plan la to be evah.a ed kr usms a uhhty's plan will be subject to Regulatory Analysis adeque; ords own ments. wahunt muluple layers of admmistratise renew reference to se speufic dose mdr.iors withm the Commission and to judicial The Commission has prepared a which might be accorrphshed at der the reuew m the courts.

regulatory ana)3 sis for this regulat:on.

plan or to the rJipabihties of try oder

),

This anal)sia hrther examines the cess plan !? furthermakes clear the a Backlit Analysis and benef:ts of the proposed act:on etj tmdag ut adecuarv forar7 p?a a to b, This areendment does not impose any the alternatives considered by the -

co isidered g hersuy ccw.praLe 4 a riew requirements on production or Comreisson. T'he analysis is available fr.d.ng of adequary for.?> ot ar ;M pr. tion facilities. it only provides an for inspec*>on and copying. for a fee. at the NRC Pabhc Document Room.1*1 If

)

'In< Lery /slondLipty Cu dec sior.

b'ternam e rnethod to meet the Street. NE. Wa shington. DC.

n.ch.ded the obserution th.i :: an

• • 'ssi 6 s megency plannmg t

.wdent. the "best effort ~ of stre ed anons. The amendment therefore is For the rasems act out in the rour.tt officials would :nch.de ::;..::. g

-ot a backfit under 10 CFR 50109 and a preamble.and under the authant> of :h the udht)'s plan as "tre best soe:e for deckf;t s.na!ysis is cot required.

Atomic Erergy Act of 1954, as amended.

emerpncy plannmg info-matio: ara the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

ophons " 24 NRC r. 31 This rG Ice es Regulatory Flexibility Certification as amended, amd 5 U.S C. 553. the n to the Licensms Board to judg= wt.at in accordance with the Regulatory Comminice is adopting the followmg form the "bes! efforts" of state a:d.'xal F"exibiht) Act of 1980. 5 U.S C. 60$[bj

' **"d# ## ' "*

ofhc:als would take, but that bip.en*

rre Comrnission certihes that this rule' would be mude in accordsnce wta mil not have a significant economic PART 50-000sESTIC LICENSING OF certain guidelmes set forts m the rs.,

Wact upu a substamial numbu of PRODUCT 1001 AND UTILIZATION t

ano explained further bdM Tin mad enmies. The proposed rule apphes FACILITIES rulemaking record strong!) supper's m M&ar p wer Nam licensees e

proposition that state and local m'hich are electric utihty compartes 1 W ado chahon for Pan 50 governments'.nheve that a plar:cf ymment in their service areas. These contmues to read as follows:

response irgeferable to an ac i:n er e prenwes ne n t maH niones, as set Authonrr Seca 103.104.161. t o: ta) : n Therefore it :s only reasonable te e.e Pin the Regulatory Flexibtht) Act 1e9 6a Stat sE E3*.148.953. 95* 953 0%

suppose that in ge enent og a a::6 do ret meet the small busmess size

.s, mended sec. :34 a3 Sist 1:44. as radiological emergency, state an:: k.a',

,.andards seI forth in Small Busmess arrended (4:U S C 2133. 2134 301 =n 2:33 C36 =39 C22t secs 20L 00: :qr. am j

oficals. ir. the absence cf a t! ate or A mmistration regulations m 13 CFR Stat 1:411:44.1:w6. as amended (4: t's (.

(

local radiological emergency p;s:

F et121.

appros ed by state and local 5641 5641 '44s1. amiess otherwise no'ec

{

Paperwork Redaction Act Secnon 5or !sa issued under Pub L ei-a l

got ernments. will either look to =e 601 sec. to s:Stac 2951(4:U S C son

t. tat > and its plan for gwdance e wC This fmal rule amends mformation Secens 5o 5 di 50 58. 50 91 and 50 9:..

'r follow some other plan that exis** Ths ccMection requirements that are subjec, su d u b L N h St.t M the presiding Licensmg Board mas

p. the Papuwork Reducnon Act of 1980 presume that state and loca!

14,4 9 3 C. 3501 et wq L These

• 50 'isued ur. der mer_164 6a St t m..

got ermental authorities mu. k *o the requirements were approsed by the

,mer.dee 3:t S C =34i Sect.ons so 1-

!oo

)

utthty for guidance and generall) folku', O"hte of Management and Budget.

5010: also iss ee ander see 1s6 6a Sr <

14:U S C =16L at5 plan in an actual einergency:

3;;. pro. al No. 3154 0011.

For the purposes of sec 2 3 6a St.o 09...

however, this presumplico may be

' Ust of kbjects in 10 CFR Part 50 s mended 14:USC 2rr31. sece 50 toi J eebutted by. for examph. a good faith and act 50 44 toa so 48 5054 a-d 5m

)

and timely proffer or an adequate and Aemst. Classified informahon. Fire are issued uncer see 161b. as Stat 5 4e.i i

feasible state orlocal radiologicd protectien. incorpora tion by reference.

. mended 14:U S C ::ottbn. sees 50 ic :.

response plan which would in fac be Innergosttr).mentai ada tions. Nuclear t.a Si.t Me as amemded(4:*"d I6 rehed upon in an emergency. The power planta and re utors. Penalty, U.S C presiding Licensing Board should not Radiauon protectron. Reactor sitmg hesitate to reject any clatm that state crAena. ReNrung sud Recordkeepmp s'o" 3,'nd 50 s a e

~

o ed u er s i t.

E m

i and local officials will refuse to a:t to reqlurrements.

9.1 eio as anended (42 US C CottM.

safeguard the health and safety of the Environmental Assessment and Finding I50.47 iArnendess3

}

pubhc in the event of an actua) f/ % Significant EnvironmentalImpact j

emergency. In actual emergermes. state.

Tno Commission has determmed of I 50 47 is reused to read as follow s

2. In 10 CF1t Part 50. paragraph (ci.P local and federal officials hase tMn the Nahonal Environmental Polics snt ariably done their utmo41 o preect the citizenry, as two hur.<'vd y es s of At l of 1969, as amended. and the Arnetican history amply demorist ves Cctmmission's regulat ons m Subpart A (c)(1) Failu e to eneet the appbcab:e stendards set fort in paragraph (bl of en M CFR Part 51 that this rule is not a this section may result in the V.

s a

sa

._m

Y 5edmal Adsger / Vet st. Alo.'213 / Tweeder. November 2, mer f g W

co -

md g.s - a a.ta-aa, rea u pm., cum.t.,,s.,, e,

.here.t e.r opereting licsess housyser,.s partidpaaies of eenla and/ar local local gov.a g cid, t a partacapels

• GD posumannah,it any be presumed that si eppficant wd hous = ', -

theseemt of as acamelsanslagnani eents sens,,,,,, p,,,,,,,, preparodases g

dancesumes to P" th=inaios thae-kribs emegamer staas andlocal oSemis

^#'""***"

- "" *l'*rneen plans are not pipusScent derths plant kB would generally fouew tbs medidy pias.

% 1***4.e won considend.

e enweins rela question, that ad=pam mesels Hoegest, this presumpties may he

% i;,,,N " *"d**"**"*

campsmaatiris acalmas base been er win rebutted by, for example, a good laish 8

be take.prompalp.at that thus are and timely proffer af as adequem and p,umblep b y M "'"'

other cri palkrig tuences to perinit plaat fesable state and/or local rarhanarval operations. Where an applicant for an einerymacy plan that would in fact be Cosseguesess operating license emeerts that its relied upos la a redaological emergency. g NitC insbility to demommeses coungdlease with the reqmr====** of pampaph (b)

Appenda E-.{P hs *** wtll prohaly not impact ce Pac ressmens aurssedy bene und a of this section resuhs whaDy or 11a 10 CFR Part 30. Appendia E, a heensing emens because survism MC pokey, substanal Imm Ibs declains of stats new paragrsph e is added to anchen d,eisped la the misadannery case Is r, a to c.nd/or 3ov======= not to IV.F to read as follows:

nahmie entity pleas as poemble ineens participais harther n===T"7 IL ne part cipanon of state and leent C88P8"**8188 8c8888 "'dar 10 CFR en opermeeg Econes many be snormensats is an amerymacy saarano is ass ta47tc)(1) nus, while them could be plannag, he applisant demonstrates to issued R t requared as the entset that the opphemme has extensive htigatias and review regardtre the th=laau='s asasInctim thst; idennSed those severnmanes as redamme to whether tbs rule's criteria em met. this would (i) The appbcamre toebGty to ly part6cipate further in amargency piammans hkely be elmCar to the review and litisation with the requiremmets of paragraph 1 acurines, pureuant to 10 CFR 3&47ted11 la madur current pesettes.

of this sectionis who8y er subetantiaBy such mes an eweise shan be held wHb the Other Covernment Associos d

he of the sempmecipedem of

[

esNeYt

.Ne impac.t om.oth.er essac.y samourses psetscepe in eta and/-ions. vamme=

e - d.smi -

wm.

e is.aas,e.e. u (11) Time opptemes has made a Deted as Weehingtam DC, this assh day of FINA wGI mand to dovets resources to sustained, good teen dent m amm' october ieer.

devels, attarts sur miser af etssy plans and rotein the pariksyseas of the ya,g, y,,i

,g,,i,,,,,e m and/or is evtew the plans as e case-by case pertinent state and/orlocal

basis, gg of Secstary of the Comamsion ladusty

-rm sm os,om

=

..s hme, as..

h hem is as way to pse s.ve QU) The appuceurs amargency plan analyme and envtroamental aseeemasat we t

st, is

"",' appearja the Code of poderal advance af their.asanalapptanalse,whether provides p=aaan.M. amamenmes that E-toy pertanlar al ty plus will astlefy the rats ublic health and salsty is act e

l>-.8vahaalism However. hdusey ahomid gameraa hansas ndangered by opere Regulaamry Ana. lye.t.

s

c.,af Gu.s r

co,,,,,mouo m.b..tias of.the fa.cility

., m, e

u.guacy of O.

i s.g h.

fr - -is. = mi- - P - - -

i applicant maast Armmanserete that as Powe Manes at ths Operseng M b=@- unb M M hk M"

outlined below. adagnate preesctise Due w h

OGem nummymacy P%

t'nder the rule beerg adspeed e stery pima.

]

mesanses can and wE he taken la the evest of as

. A utility pian to pass master,is rapmed to preends wg] be av agahest the sans Statement of the Anblem rossanshie asammane that edsspaste planning standmads appheaWe to a state in teso. Congrees enacted provisions prowcun meeseres can and will be takas is or local plan, as limand s pareyeph (b) deshng with emesseney pismasse fur madner an emergency.h rule resspimes-es 6d i

cf this sect 6ce, wie due eBowance P0"*r plants in the NRC Authoristthan Ass Congress when it enacted and re-enacted the m:cle l>o& g for flacal year test Sectico top of that Act primaions of CaMaa las of the NRC h

.a tu M state proutdod for the NRC to reeww e eitbey's Authortsance Act of teso--that while ao 8metency pian in esenetions in wedsk a stees utahry plan is hkely to be able to petmde 8

local DoefudC8Peum mak" or local anapuncy plan eest abd met adst precinty the ume degrw of public compuaam M M or we hashNpases. As WilC published proaecten that would obtain under ideal (B)1ine utGl'y's measures designed to repdauses leasr esa peer that wwo consona, k a stew M plan 4 full E - --_ rt for any de&sisesias designed to be consisesel with the oww and local parecipedon, such a pies swy teenItise fuem aest endler leselass.

--"y mandsted approach, but nevertheless be edgeste. De rule starts tres P

participation.

.ey ed act Wals se meneen d the premse est socidente can hoppma, and in mairing tes deemsuminmaine aes, edidy man. N abesans of.such e asovience that et every plant, adegeste emergsmay to unes a

e cdagency of ar etty pina, to MC wG plaanang measures are needed to pseemat the g

recepulse te fouhy that ta en actusi critark wM. oush a ples areald he pubhc to the event an accidet seems, einersency, state and leed premunesst judged,ne peesset ruissinidag ts W m whether is feet a particuint mellity pies will cafletsis wtB snarense their heaf effness to clanfy both the Mace sedisonna i esmeed,,

be found deep te weeld he e mener f.,

protect the healt and anfaly of tha e ustry plan at the opassnes hauene sense an adiodication e individuals.ceastas public. 'line NRC wdl determhs the cases of state and/or local no:Spam-paw Promdanga.

adequacy of that nee, la in enwrgency plaruung and the standards

%,,, other %ireirierrer "ehised.'8h ***

• P'" *"'W h*

De prol osed amendments would not j

88'"8' *l combination wt& the capwneschug simmuses W

effect othe NRC requirements.

bd sh W " --

ww guidancegn act1ressing the ne obkeove of the proposed amendenenes C#"8'"dr cita'=lann=fe gudhems appliensfs insbuity are to irnpleasant the pahey widertrums the No constrelate here been ad=='en.,t hat t

ta consply seguesemph af teso Ar sharizaaten Act and to renoems. ler affect amplementanse of the proposed paragraph aussicals shelly er formelisensirs, what afsna easresusy a=== Nam.

I

j A : : a :...m.e r.: 3 remedy the omission from the NRC's 1980 emergency planning rules of. Provisions dealing explicitly with such situations.

Ca February 24, 1987,' the Commission held a public meeting at which it was briefed on the proposed rule and heard from a large number of witnesses, including state and local officials and Members of Congress.

The Commission subsequently determined, by a 4-1 vote, that it would benefit: from hearing the views of the public on the proposed rule and the issues involved.

Before approving the rule for publication, the commission modified - the supplementary Information to isclude an emphatic statement that "[a]ny consideration of possible changes in the Commission's emergency planning requirements must recognize one: central and salient fact:

that such a change would not alter the commission's paramount obligation to assure public health and safety.

For each license application, the commission would remain obligated to determine that there is reasonable assurance that' the public health and safety will be adequately protected.

If the commission, for whatever reason, cannot find that the statutory standard has been met, then the license cannot be iss ued. '

Ehe proposed rule 'was published for comment on March 6, 1987.

52 Eed. Reg. 6980.

The sixty-day comment petiod was subsequently extended by thirty days, finally expiring on June 4, 1987.

The proposed rule was the subject of hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 22, 1987, and before the subconsittee on Energy and Environsad of the Rosse Committee on Interior and' Insular t fairs on 1

April 29, 1987.

The proposed rule was the subject of questions from the House Subcommittee on Energy-and Environment both before and after the April 29 hearing.

In addition, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Bouse Appropriations i

committee asked questions about the proposed rule in advance of its March 16, 1987 hearing on the ERC's budget request.

On each. occasion, the e

e e

f-

-