ML20244B173

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Advance Fr Notice of Rulemaking & NUREG-0625, Rept of Siting Policy Task Force. W/O Encl
ML20244B173
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/30/1980
From: Minogue R
NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To: Hart G
SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Shared Package
ML20237F870 List:
References
FOIA-87-462, RTR-NUREG-0625, RTR-NUREG-625, TASK-ES-003-1, TASK-ES-3-1, TASK-OS NUDOCS 8010070291
Download: ML20244B173 (16)
v • d • e


Text

______ ___ - __

Identical letters sent to:

The Hor.orable Morris K. Udall, Chairman The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chaiman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Subcommittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee on Interstate and Foreign United States Hoase of Representattyes Comerce United States House of Representatives The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chainnan g 8 01980 Subcommittee en Environmen), Energy and Natural Resources The Honorable Gary Hart, Chairman Comittee on Government Operations Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation United States House of Representatives Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate.

Washington, D. C.

2059..T..

.,., 9'.. -

5 y

Dear Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation are copies of an Advance Notice of Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register. Also enclosed is a copy of an NRC publication " Report of the Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations, on " Reactor Site Criteria," 10 CFR Part 100.

Any amendments will reflect the experience gained in evaluation of nuclear power plant sites since the original regulations on siting were published in 1962.

As the first step in this process, the Advance Notice requests comments on seven of the nine recomenda-tions of the Task Force report and alternative approaches. Where appropriate, some of these reconsendations are supplemented with coments from the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and with questions to focus on regulatory changes and in the involvement of the public in this important subject area.

The Commission intends that this rulemaking will be completed expeditiously and in close coordination with other related ongoing rulemaking efforts including those on emergency planning, alternative sites, and degraded

-core cooling.

DISTRIBUTION:

Central File ;

EFConti Sincerely, SD RDG/ ALPHA ~

. RPGrill

.,f..'.;.

g,g g8 W 8 A

EPSB RDG/ SUBJECT HORERTB. MINOGUE RBMinogue

.R r - "y

,.. N

~

ICRoberts k. 8

@~7(b2. /,((

Robert B. Minogue, Director

<'" '+c Office of Standards Development

?

~

,4J

-1. Advanchotice 2.NYhb.@NM ky? A ^' - h- + ~ - -

S-2.

NUREG-062527;c d;3.M~-:' "e'"

V

w. > ' ;.

. L.

..::;...:...: 1 ~. *:. ' y' G?.F.. " ~

c.

o.

ccf,. Sen. Alan Simpson SD':EP'SBl,'.,SD:~

j D

D/SHSS:S S

.SD/Dir. v

^

.c...

RPGrill:p1fEFCont berts.

KRGo RG.

RBMinogue.

4 -

~ Nk /8k 7/ff80' 7/ /80 L.

7/jF/B0.

7/j/80) 7/./80 1

.. H. a $ h j ' ? A d [ - [ 9 t h l &;r'W[ ' N.p

..(.

.h.v-C '. '

h A-Y;Y,,,'

' " M h M *" % h

,3 OCA i-WW.

.% X

D i.-

Fr

.. 73 i,

./86,,]N S.,h}as'k,No.p,,.;.,..,.

,03-1 Completes SD-11635-807

~^

ES-0 7

w IC

i 503SO Fedtral Regist:r / vol. 45 No.147 / Tuesday July 29. 1980 / Proposzd Rules

(

Rigulstory Commission, Washington, commenting.Those who do not receive siting matters which were factored into l

D.C. 20555. has been extended to July 21, this mailing may obtain single copies the general staff effort. As an ontgrowth 1980.

without charge by writing to the of these efforts, the Commission-

  • I D2tsd in Washtogton. D.C. this 18:h day of Director, Division of Technical' directed, in August of1978, a task force I

luly1sao.

Information and Document Control US.

of senior staff members to develop a l

Fct ths Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, general policy statement on nuclear Samuel J. Chilk.

Washington. D.C. 20555.

power reactor siting. From this, a -

l Secretory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:Catact Mr.

number of recommendations emerged i

Richard P. Grill Office of Standards which are contained in the " Report of

%,mq Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the Siting Policy Task Force." NUREG-a co,,

Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555, 0625, which has been considered by the l

.r.

(301) 443-5966.

Commission in developi'ig this Advance 10 CFR Partsjo,51 and 100 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOsc Notice. Events dunng the past year, including the events at the Three M:le Modification of the Polley and Backgmund Island Nuclear Station, have made the R;gul tory Practice Governing the The essential elements of nuclear NRC, the Congress, and the public Siting cf Nuclear Power Reactors power plant siting policy are derived increasingly concerned that past sithg A

cy: US. Nucgcar Regulatory from the Atomic Energy Act of1954 and practice may not afford sufficient the National Environmental Policy Act protection to the public health and of 1969 and are contained in 10 CFR Part safety. Considering revision of NRC Action: Advance Notice of Rulemaking-Revision of Reactor Siting Criteria.

50, Domestic Licensing of Production siting policy using the Task Force's and Util2ation Facilities,"10 CFR Part recommendations is, therefore..

'i suussARY:ne Nuclear Regulatory.

51," Licensing and Regulatory Policy and particularly relevant at this time.

Commission is considering the adoption Procedures for Environmental Parallel to this planned revision of the of modified or additional regulations Protection." and in 10 CFR Part 100, ~

siting regulati ns, the Commission is -

csncerning the siting of nuclear power

" Reactor Site Criteria." The regulations embarked upon rulemaking to improve reacters. ne k. tent is to reflect the in Part 100 were promulgated by the

- the protection of the public through experiznce gained since the original Atomic Energy Pemmission in1962 and upgrading eurgency planning 4

r:guisti:ns on siting were published in have remained essentially un4anged requirements for new and existing 1962. Th7 Commission intends that this since that time.The site suitability plants. The effort in en crgency planning t:sk be completed expeditiously.

criteria utilized by the staffin is presenUy at the stage of a proposed j

in this Notice, the Commission performing licensing reviews have been rule for which public comments have.

I requ:ste comments on seven of the nine based upon the principles embodied in been solicited (44 FR 167. December recomm ndations contained le the Parts 50,51 and 100 as modified by 19.1979). Ano&er mle-Jdng which is

> "Rrport of the Siting Policy Task Force."

experience gained over the years by related to but separete from this NUREG-0625. August 1979.The both applicants and staff, contributions Advance Notice is the proposed rule on Commission is also considering certain from the pubbe during the public hearing the consideration of alternative sites cltzrnative approacbes, described in this process, decisions of Atomic Safety and under NEPA Alternate Site Reviews (45 n:tice. Commenters are invited to ~

Licensing Boards (ASL3) and Atomic FR 24168, Apru 9,1980h Whue this choosi between th. proposed Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards particular advance notice is focused

(

l c!tirnstives or suggest their own (ASLAB), consultations with the

.upon sitmg criteria,it should be l cpproachis. W1.ere appropriate, some of Advisory Committee on Reactor rec snfzed that the revised rules on l

these recommendations are Safeguards (ACRS). petitions for mergency plann5g and the rule

, supplzm:nted with comments from the rulemaking received by the remmission. changes for consideration of alternative

! Advis:ry Committee on Reactor research funded by NRC, interaction sites will be applied in the licensing of Safegu:rds (ACRS) and with questions with other Federal and State agencies, future plants and, thus, will become -

to focus comment in areas that will be new legislation such as the National factors considered in developing criteria

, pa,rticululy helpfulin developing the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the.

at wH4e used in de se,lecdon d shes t me.

Clean Air Act, and other environmental g r f ture p ants.

, carss:Whue commeus and

~ ~ legislation, as well as consultation with -

This rulemaking is intended for -

application to facilities for which an suggestions are welcome at any time,'in ' the Congressional Committees to wblch - appheadon for a constmedon order is be considered for this version of MRC is responsible. All of these have thiproposed rule chang ~ s the must be been important factors contributing to filed after October 1,1979. This is in e

received no later thsn Septen er 22, the current license review practics. -

c mp ance wie Secdon 108 d the 1980 i 1980.

In June 1975, the Commission directed NRC Authorization Bill. Nevertheless.

3 I Apone:ses: Written comments should the staff to draw the siting policy and Oe question arises as to whether l be s:bmitted to the Secretcry of the practice that had been developed ener ad donal safety featms and changed

! Commissitn, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the yeare into a single statement As a perating procedures should be required i Commi:sfon, Washington. D.C. 20555.

result, the ataff undertook major efforts I r plants licensed on sites that do not

ADtion: Docketing and Service in a number d areas to provide a basis met Be ww crueria.h quesdon d, for revising Co unission siting policy.

licem,ed reacton and reactors.under -

' Smach. -

- w.

Copiis of the complete text of the.

Also, during this period, petitions for.\\

constmedon in areas of high population

! "Riport cf the Siting Policy Task Force,"

rulemaking 8 were received on reactor density is being considered in a separate NUREG 0625. are being mailed, along ~

...W N.C. '

8eri" pmceeengs, prder oWay 30,

with a copy ofthis Advance Notice, to a

' Nota-in parecular, she raw aks taitiet.d by s 1980 concerning Indian point Station).In recommendadons contained in a Pettico far. y. the meantime, gmm(ss,1on decisions o m Adunc Nou r wm c Wr the d u.4

. number cfindividuale, groups,and. "i.

r cppropriats State officials who may Rulemaktna sled by the Pubbe interest Re.earch '

.have o particularinterest ist y-;,Q,a'-

of a Pendonfor RYema' iN[fde fy Frei ~ 'Y' k

~

y creep, w a PRuaos.a. Joe 2, nl d isp.rt e-* r.nenment toe, w w pRw.as a apre ss. sew q.

7

~ y "

, gr. g

.c-s e

,- l2_.

N!f

=~.

4-y;_l

~

k

,'l' M

~ ~

~-

e y

Fe,d:ral Register / V

45. No.147 / Tuesday, July 29,1980 / " ' posed Rults 50351
3. Dose asarssment should not be "we do not think that thh rsference to the the continued oPeratirn of existing used as the dominant measure of site adeq'uscy er inadequicy of siting criteris lants cre being made on a case-by. case suitability because this approach has inc ded m this notice. Since the NRC has em oyed by other countries should be sis in light of site characteristics, tended to de-emphasize isolation as an neither jurisdiction over foryign siting criteria upgrad:d emergency plant., improved independent safety feature and, f

feature r:quirementa, and other related accordingly.,is counter to the

" fn [e

$8' 4

cperator training. additional safety 3

p a

Commission e intent to reassert the this issue in the context of a rulemaking on The Commission has directed the staff importance of isolation. In other areas of domestac sitig can only serve to rain considerations.

the Commission's review of hcense questions about the-Commission's to review existing sites in order to applications dose assessment will U.S. pubhc so as to accommodate foreign wiihrpesa to temper its protection of the examine whether additional continue to play an important role. In

""*I"' P' 8'*** ~

modifications in operating procedures, establishing an impact assessment design, or equipment might be which is as complete as possible the The Commission is also considering n2 cess:ry. For plants that do not yet Commission's staff will continue to.

certain identified alternative approaches b:ve e1.imited Work Authorization mah calculations of the potential to several of the Siting policy Task (1,WA) er Construction permit (CP). this radiological consequences of releases Force's recommendations. In addition.

discu:sion would be included in the which are specific to the plant under the Advhory Committee on Reactor Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or in an review. In reviewing emergency plans Safeguards has~ submitted comments on cddIndum to the SER.For plants that these same release scenarios will be recommendations and on the goals each of the Task Force's have construction permits or operating used to improve the planning basis for liczns:s, this review would be in the which yuided their developrnent.8 In form cf a report submitted to the emergency protective actions.

order to present these matters clearly, Commission for its consideration in 4.The applicant for a plant with the foDowing format is utilized:-'

case.by. case decisions.

minimum safe [y features on a site which item A. B. C, etc.:

ma It d be noted that the objectives meets all proposed siting criteria is not Alternatives (Task Force of this proposed siting policy do not guaranteed issuance of a Construction Remmmendation alone if no other represent a radical departure from Permit. Although this is a necessary altematives are present) recent practice. A trend towards siting qualification of an acceptable site-plant ACRS Comment on Task Force '

n2w pirnts away from highly populated. comb 6ation, the Commbslon's rules Remmmendations (if any):.

cre:s and major tudustrial facilities has implementing the National AdditionalQuestions(if any):

been underway for several years.

Environmental policy Act of1969 Additional questions have been Because this rulemaking is directed at reqmre that before a Construction siting criteria and attempts to separate Perm t can be issued there must be a prepared, where appropriate, to help those criteria from engineered reactor demonstration, that, with regard to focus comment along directions that the staff believes will be most useful. In sifsty systems,the intent of the environmental considerations, there is Commission with regard to several no obviously superior alternative site.

particular, several questions focss on the substance of the ACRS comments.

issues should be stated here:

AU final alternative sites are required to Comments from allinterested persons L ne origmal hcensing policyg be potentiaDy licensable from the safety are requested on an of the entries under nuchar power plants permitted p3,i standpomt according to avaUable each item and wG1 be considered on any design features to compensate for information (i.e., no safety siting cdteds aspect of improving the safety of nuclear unfsverable site characteris an are vi lated). Under present practice, power plant siting that the publie-has thus, over the years the net e safety matters are only indirectly perceives as important. Priority for this -

bien an increase in design safeN considered in the comparison of ru!*meng bowever,willbe givenin features and a de-emphasis of site dves pt emWe those conLnents bearing on the goals isolation (remote siting. as the concep densities exceed 500 persons per square established by the Task Force (1 tem

]r mile as discussed in Regulatory Guide A ); seven of the nme Task Force ize 4.7) through plant cost estimates, but an recommendatens, includhg alternative wit the r e in the d"I'* bili'I of site isolation ahernate sprroach introduced later in 8pproaches and additional questions..

independent of engineered tures this Advance Notice would change this

{ltems "B" through T, except T).

which can compensate for avors 1,

,,,ctice, site characteristics.

E The Commission recognizes that item A

2. Although the Commhsionis sting criteria, in general, are matters of g

~ inttrested in establishing generic criteria national policy as well as ontional andusedbyth77 s,a m reoclung f:r isolation which are independent of Seography and population distribution g reco

  • rcons were (NUREG-plant design, improved engineering and that other nations do not have the

.gpage7) s.

design iemains a valid, proven, and same Dexibility in siting nuclear 1.To strengthen siting as a fa'etor in -

im rtant way of reducing risk to the facilities as the United States. Thus, the pu lic from operation of a nuclear r--6 ton wishes to make clear that defense in depth by establish power plant. To retain the benefits of in emphasizing the use of isolate'd sites,

re uirements for site approval at are this well-devehped technology, Portions as part of U.S. nuclear siting policy, in ependent of plant design cf the Commission's regulations will be there is no implication that the siting permitting plant design features to consideration [s]. Re present policy of revised to establish a minimum set of engineered safety features that will be plicies and associated design compensate for unfavorable site -

required of all new plants.nis action is segswements of other nations result la characteristics has resultedin improved now being initiated and willbe separate anyless satisfactory protection of the designs but has tended to de-emphasize from the rulemaking being supported by public as Judged in the respectiva.

r!te isolation.

4 ' ', ~,

h contexta.

this Advance Notice but willbe hiteference to !!em #5 above,"

"'e ch* man John FAearu from Mmom accomplished in parallel so that both r= ksioners CIhnsky and Bradford rul:s can be implemented at -

commented separately, as foBows: '

YK$d""* fjgQMQ;.

approximately the same time,

~

.~

.v

~

~,

c.,

j e

,"}

.g s

Fe'srel Registir / s a. 45. No.147 / Tuesday, July 29, 5980 / <iroposed Rules d

50 m

2. To take mto consideration in siting The ACRS believes that well-founded Furthermore, the regulations should th2 ri:h assocated with accidents nuclear power plant siting policy and clarify the required control by the utility beyond the design basis (Class 9) by practice are a national as well as a over activities taking place in land and sstabhshmg population density and regional need.%e Committee suggests water portions of the exclusion area.

distribution enteria. plant design that as part of a broad approach to LWR

2. Specify a fixed minimum emergency improvements have reduced the

(( Light Weter Reactor)) siting. the NRC planning distance of to miles.The l

should explore the possible physical characteristics of the probability and consequences of design development of a nationwide program to emergency planning zone should isis accidents, but there remains the residual risk from accidents not identify a bank of near-optimal sites provide reasonable assurance that considered in the design basis. Although regionally distributed for various types evacuation of persons. including.

this risk cannot be completely reduced of energy-generating plants. By transients, would be feasible if needed i

to zero It can be significantly reduced combining considerations of acceptable to mitigate the consequences of by selective siting, risk. the nsks from various energy accidents.

3 To require that sites selected will sources, cnd the national needs for

3. incorporate specific population mial-i~ the risk from energy energy, together with other relevant density and distribution lunits outside gmeration. ne selected sites should be factors, a better long term for the exclusion area that are dependent cmong the best available in the region determming appropriate criteria for on the average population of the region.

where new generating capacity is LWR siting should be possible. In the

4. Remove the requirement to needed. Siting requirements should be absence of such a broad approach. the calculate radiation doses as a means of stringent enough to limit the realdual ACRS recommends that changes to past establishing minimum exclusion risk of reactor operation but not so siting policy be interim in nature and be distances and low population zones.

stringent as so eliminate the nuclear designed primarily to provide an Alternative B option from large regions of the country. acceptable basis for near-term nis is because energy generation from decisionmaking.

Consideration should be given to cny source has its associated risk. with ggg;g;,,,, q,,,gy,,, p,,,,,,, g, y,,,,

Mn o%dresMds for each risks from some energy sources being parameter. One would be the gre:ter than that of the nuclear option.

1. Should the present policy of acceptance limit. Any site that does not ACRS comments on the SitinE Policy Permitting plant specific design features meet that acceptance limit would be Task Forcepoals.-With regard to lhe to compensate for unfavorable site disapproved regardless of other l

l

[thme Task Force] goals discussed characteristics be continued, or should considerations. The other would be an f 'cbov3 the ACRS agrees that siting, as a site approval be independent of plant acceptance floor-any site that did not factor in the defense in depth design conalderations?

exceed that floor would be approved philosophy. should be strengthened.

2. Should considerations.of acceptable with respect to that criterion. Between i

4 However, the ACRS believes that any risk to the public and the risks from these extremes would be a middle l

mimmum regmrements for parameters other energy sources be included in ground where residual risks would be l

such es the exclusion zene radius, reactor siting decisions? If taken into account in deciding whether surroundmg population denalty, or

. considerations of acceptable risk are to approve a site. The thresholds would distance from population centers should included, should they be based primarily be nationwide, rather than varying with

! be est:blished, if possible, within the on the risk to be maximally exposed regions. (Commenters may refer to this

! fr mework of an overall Nuclear individual or on the overall risk to the alternative as the "three-tier" approach.)

Regul: tory r.amm4sion safety exposed population?

The rationale of such a "three-tier" i phibsophy for future reactors.

3. Should site acceptability criteria be approach restion the view that even Such a philosophy should be based on nationally uniform or regionally when the population density is not preestablished Commission objectives varying? If regionally varying, bow large" prohibitively high in any absolute sense, for ecceptable risk both to individuals should be the regions considered and one should try to do better.The end society.nis will of necessity, what are the important regional alternative sites evaluation process is includs consideration of matters such as variables (e., need for power, overall suited to determination of how well one the potential effects of a broad spectrum population. availability of remote sites?

can reasonably do in a particular area cf reactor accidents, the identification of which should be considered?

under consideration. 'Ite process would en ALARA (As low as Reasonably Itasa B illuminate specific alternatives. A priori Achi2vchle) criterion for the reduction judgments on a regional basis would be cf risk from acx:idents, and a general AhernativeA avoided. In view of the inherent statement of policy concerning the Task Toice Recommendation 1 Imprecision of the comparative cb}ectives to be sought in reactor design (NUREG-0625, pages 46-50 und 64-65) evaluations, the comparative judgments with reg _rd to the prevention and the would focus only on gross differences in mitigation of accidents..

Revise Par @ to change the wsy the raw numbers (on population density he establishment of demographic.

protectie ls provided for accidents by

.and distribution, etc.): destiled dose rehted cite criteria willinevitably incorporating a fixed exclusion and calculations would not serve a useful protective action distance and -

purpose in this context and are not juhuire a considerable amount of re int. However, the choice will be Population density and distribution intended.

less crbitrary if made. within the crDaria.

ACRS comment on Task force !.

L Specify a fixed minimum exclusion Reconimendation1 "Part1.The ACRS frcmewerk of an overall NRC safety F2ak from design basis accidents.[8] distance based on limiting the ind

/

policy.The ACRS believes that an cver:Il NRC safety philosophy is s'so minimum exclusion distance should needed in connection with the third include consideration of the risk from all objective of the Task Force,namely that

'8"te-The Task Forte Report also disens accidents, not just design basis

'p"ans"k, s**$,m'.Es$',$'p*N"E,

of sebeting sites to minimize the risk accidents. h should include 7 4 i.

from the utilization of electridty wa.eoon ip ceo, i y toc,,..tose consideration of the number of reactors' gen 1 rating sor.rtes.

ww= datanos.

at the site. Any long term criterion.~.

i

. ".e w. l ~.

Fedsrzl'Registsr / Vol. 45. No.147 / Tuesday. July 29. 1980 / Propozed Rul s 50353 objective, and that interim criteria and no more than one. half of the

. neerning a minimum exclusion should be developed, the Committee allowed totalin any single 22%* sector

  • stance would best be established believes that the adequacy of such Would this graduated, regionally ithin the framework of a general NRC oficy on LWR safety. Intenm guidance parameters will depend on the safety dependent appro4ch be desirable? What related design and operational other sets of values would be a more ould be determined with the benefit ofrequirements and on the effectiveness of reasonable expression of populatinn C

ormation developed from NRC Staff emergency measures. Also,the ACRS density and distribution limits?

udits end information submitted believes the establishment of such 6.11 a "three-tier" approach were 1

$uring a proposed rulemaking on interim parameters involves the assumption of approach, what values should be utilized as set out in the alternative staff -

l tenges in the site criteria.

some accepted band of risk which P:rt 2.The ACRS generally supports should be specified. While the ACRS is utilized for the upper (exclusionary) and als r: commendation with the not opposed to removal of the Part 100 lower (de minimis] thresholds? (For und rst:nding that appropriate attention bould be given to potential problems at requirement for caculation of radiation example, the 100.150 and 400 persons' doses or to the specification of regionally per square mile values could be l

greater distances.

dependent acceptable population considered de minimis thresholds. The I

Part 3.The ACRS believes the densit!ea, the Committee believes these corresponding exclusionary limit could wordingcf this recommendations matters need in-depth evaluation.

be set -for example--et 250,375 and vrgua end it could be interpreted to be 1.000 persons per square mile. A more excessively restrictive or very Addadanol Quesuons Relative to item B conservative approach might use 100 permissive with regard to demographic

1. Should a uniform. mimmum 150 and 400 ts exclusionary limits an'd requirements. Additionalinformation is exclusion distance, applicable to all establish de minimis thresholds of 30. 50 nudsd to establish interim criteria of reactors, be established? Whether and 100 persons per square mile.)

this sort within the context of an NRC uniform or plant-specific should the,

Item C rulz. Among the factors which require minimum exclusion distance be based conidtrstion are the following:

on limiting the individual risk from Alternadre A ua (s)1f some regions of the country are design basis accidents 71f not, on what Task Ton:e Recommendoflod 2 permitt:d to employ higher maximum should it be basedy (NUREG-0625' pages51-521 populati n densities, should there be

2. Should there be a single population cny additional requirements for such density / dis'ribution limit set applicable Revise Part 100 to require plants in design, operation. or to the entire country, or should such consideration of the potentialharards emzrg:ncy planningt if not, what basis limits recognize different demographic posed by man-made activities and will be provided for designating characteristics of regions and be natural characteristics of sites by regiontily dependent acceptable risks?

depencent upon those characteristics?

establishing mintmum standoff (b) Should the NRC place a similar or

3. Should any criteria established to distances for:

a substantially greater emphasis on limit acceptable population densities or

1. Major or commercial a orte.

improb2ble. large accidents in its siting distributions be applied only to

2. I.f quified natural gas G)

(tnd d: sign) requirements than is populations current at the time of site

3. large propane pipsfines terminata, l

utiliz:d for other new societal activities approval or should they also be applied

4. Large natural gas pipelines, posing h:zards similar in magnitude and to projected post beensin8 populations 5.Large grantities of explosive or probability (c)How should the effectiveness of (for example, to projected populations over the expected operating lifetime of toxic materials, cmtrgsney measures, such as the plant)? Should the same criteria be
8. Major dams d: contamination, be ascertained and applied to projected populations as to
7. Capable faults.[*]

svacusticn. sheltering and

[8. Liquified propane gas (lpg) frct: red into a judgment concerning populations current at the time of site terminals}

  • approval?If not, how should the criteria

[9. Navigable water way's which are' minimum exclusion and emergency for projeded populations be related to used for the transportation of hazardous planning distancest those for populations current at the tw.

materials.js (d) Should meteorology not be given of site approval?

i consideratiosiin regard to the 4.ls the gradueted approach w.

[10. Other nuclear power piantsj' pment of siting criterist I

Part 4.The ACRS agrees with the regually. differentiated popul~ated Alternative B dev density and distribution unuts (as Consideration should be given to Tcsk Force that the approach used for recommended by the Task Force] or the provision of two thresholds for each l

l the p:st two decades has not provided alternative nation-wide "three-tier" parameter.One would be the i

snough gmphasis on site isolation.The approach a more reasonable way to acceptance floor. Any site which does Committee believes that the emphasis proceed? Wduld a different approach be not meet the mintmum acceptance floor on engineered safety features to meet.

more appropriate? II so, what approach?,for each factor would bg disapproved,

Pcrt 100 for the postulated accident If the regional approach is regardless of other constderathas.The without direct consideration of other, recommended, how should the region be other threshold would be a de minimls more szrious possibilities hasled to a definedF threshold--any site that exceeded that 1:ss than-optimum approachto safety.

5 NUREG-0625 gives examples of the threshold would be approved with However,if the recommendation of part following specific population density

~

4 is cdopted, some alternative means of and distribution limits which would vary

    • -Aleash conmot* *a "9m*b
s dsttrmining the need and adequacy of regionaEy: out to five miles from the b " Y M
  • N ' C ' M P*["h' engineered safety features will be plant, the grester of 10() persons per g

ex=nplexity of this topic and the===u=,ns of the.

In summary, although the ACRS square mile or % the average population ' cosnizant staff fp oGer setMrJes of pendns required.

density of the region; from five to ten hnp nam'nquin that emwenum of alsJopk.

tgrets that the specificalice of mmimum miles,the greater of150 pctsons per

". D M ',,3 7 g j 7 exclusion and emergency planning dist nces and population density and -. sgarse mile or three-quarters of the l

distribution limits is a commendable.

sverage population density of the region

  • Conunmee on Rmtar Safeswds.wy n

. f..

1 i

~

50354 aderst Registzr / Vol. 45. No.147 / Tuesday, July 29. 1980 / Proposed Rules respect to that criterion. Between these item D public, the NRC staff will consider extremes would be a middle ground. toTask Force Recommendation 3 restrictions on a case-by-case basis.[']

where residual risks could be taken m (NUREG-0625, page 53)

ACRS Comments on Task Force l

account in deciding whether to approve Recommendation 5.-This

~

o site. (Commenters may refer to this Revise part 100 by requiring a recommendation relates to post-citernative as the "three-tier" approach.) reasonable assurance that interdictive licensing changes in offsite activities but ACRS comments on Task force measures are pcasible to limit does not specify what population / time Recommendation 2, "This groundwater contamination resulting period would be used. For example, recommendation proposes minimum from Class 9 accidents within the would it be the present population, that standoff distances for potential hazards immediate vicinity of the site.

at the projected end oflife of the plant, I

posed by man-made activities and ACRS Comment on Task Force or an average over the time period natural characteristics. The Committee Recommendation 3.-The ACRS during which the plant will be operated?

believes that such a recommendation is supports the recommendation. However. This should be clarified.The appropriate but the list is incomplete.

the Committee notes that the current recommendation also does not specify l

For example. LNG terminals are wording is subject to a range of what is considered to be a "significant included but not 1.PG. Similarly.

interpretations which could include, for increase in risk." Another consideration hazardous cargo on rivers is not example, the necessity for developing that might be taken into account is the i

mentioned.l']

interdictive measures for particulate Dature and use of the land surrounding a l

In addition. the proposed approach.

fallout or reinout that could result in site. Whether neighboring land is used l

Iscks an adequate rationale for specific groundwater contamination. The i r residential or industrial purposes, numbzrs suggested. A distance of at Committee recommends that the and whether it is fertile land or a desert.

l Isast 12.5 miles from all capable faults, wording of the recommendation be could alw be important.

j with no distinction as to fault size,is made more explicit.

Additional Questions Relative to / tem F proposed, as is a specification that no

1. Whit, if any,, legislative authority reactor sites located on a flood plain Item E r c ul be & to qin order should be closer than five miles ToskForce Recommendation d u

to: a. Assure population densities or downstream of a major dam.De reason (Deferred: text is included for gr upings at und nuclear plants remain why either of these two proposed l

805P et""}

numbrrs is suitable is not clear to the within acceptable criteria during the ACRS. For example, dams many miles Revise Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 operationallifetime of the plant.

sway could be equally or more to better reflect the evolving technology

b. Preclude instaDation of activities or dangerous to a nucic2r plant; on the in assessing seismic hazards.

facilities that might be hazardous to the other hand, small capable faults nearer Iris planned to implement this plant during its hfetime?

l than 12.5 miles might not pose recommendation in a sepasae action in

2. What actions abould be considered I

signiccant design problems-two or three years. Comments are not by the Commission, and under what It is nc,ted that the recommendation solicited at this time on the revision of circumstances should these actions be does not provide standoff distances Appendix A to Part 100. For additional taken if, at some time after a licensed between nuclear plants 4') The potential information on this recommendation nuclear power plant begins operating, edverse influence of one plant on its consu't the Repor' of the Siting Policy the surrounding population no lenger n:ighbors in the event of a serious Task Force (NUREG-0625, page 54).

patisfies estabhshed density or eccidrnt requires consideration in distribution crNria?

M design.

3. Under what circumstances should Additional Questior;s Relative to item C Task Force Recommendation 5 the Commission requin chnnges in -

(NUREG-0625, pages 55-56) operating procedures (including plant

1. What would be an appror. ate

, shutdown) or engineered design changes basis for specifying standoff distances:

Revise Part 100 to include to accommodate the construction of-

c. A single minimum standoff distance consideration of post-licensing changes facilities (including other nuclear power cpplicable to all categoriest to offsite activities: 1. The NRC staff plants) or changes in existing hazardous
b. A separate minimum standoff sher inform local authorities (planning o(fsite activities, after a licensed nuclear distance for each category?

camssission, county commissions, etc.)

power plant begins operating, which c.The "three-tier" approach with a tbstcentrol activities within the might compromise plant safety?

sep rate set of thresholds for each

"gency planning zone (Ep7) of the item G category?

basis for determining the acceptability

d. Soine other basis (specify)t Ahede A.

O**

2. What man made activities or the NRC staff shall notify those Task Force Recommendation a-

. natural characteristics, other than those Federal agencies as in item 1 above that.(NUREG-0625, page 57-59) discusted above, migbt require that may seas nably initiate a future Federal minimr.s2 standoff distances be scena that may influence the nuclear Continue the current approach g.

relative to site selection from a safety ut a s e a them ties e con d e tti criteri, LHe NRC staff shallrequire l,

]

frr standoff distances?

igpacants to monitor and report

3. What specific standoff distance or y=a==* ally adverse offsite d"k men

' Note-m upsreded emersener plannins set cf thresholds would be appropriate

?

requirement, now beins implemented bound reveal for each category?

LE m spite of the actions describe'd informadon about such prowts. If any such,

is kans 1.through 3, there are offsite d"'lorm'nt8 *r' not*d try any means the

. Nets-Added to tlst in Task Force E'velopments that have the potential for.

ph,"in

[shutd a cf p

Recornmendeuon 2. See footnote s, pantly increasing the risk to the plant in gusuon..

l I

4 t

8 a

e p

  • i s

' 3*cd'eral Registe.

Vol. 45. No.147 / Tuesday. July 29. h

/ Proposed Rules 50355 requiring unique or unusual design to basia should such characteristics be recommendation consult the Report of compensate for site inadequacies, evaluated?

the Siting policy Task Force (NUREG-3.Of the two options described-the 0625 page 63).

Alternative,B Siting Policy Task Force's All comments received will be In this alternative, marginal Recommendation 6 and Alternative B-evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff differences in safety aspects of a site which is more appropriate?

will utilize the comments in preparation would be considered in the NEpA Item H of recommendations and proposed rule alternative site analysis.

changes for consideration by the Under the recommendation of the Task Force Recommendation 7 Commission.

Task Force (Alternative A) staff (NUREC-0625. page 60)

Dated at Washington. D.C., this 23rd day of practice would change to preclude Revise Part 100 to specify that site luly 1980.

consideration of sites which have

}

charactedstics that do not meet safety approval be established at the earliest For the Nuclear Reguletory Commission.

decision point in the review and to

' samuel l. Chilk, criteda, even if they are amendable t provide criteria that would have to be Secretary of the Commission, unique or unusual compensating satisfied for this decision to be engineering design or feature which would offset the undesirable site subsequently reopened in the Ia. casing suo coot nsSeim characteristic. On the other hand, for pmcess.

sites that meet all of these criteria no Additiona1 Questions Relative to item H further consideration of marginal

1. At what polnf in the licensing differences in safety would be process should a ir Nng site approval contemplate deciolon be made?

The alternative B aproach would

2. Once a site has been approved, recognize the possibilit, that some when in the licensing process. under compensating engmeenng designs or what conditions, and using what I

features may not tgso unusual, unique, or involve uncertainties significant criteria, should the questions of site enough to be rejected on an absolute acceptability be allowed to be standard, but nevertheless should be reopenedf accepted only if there is *lo otherwise item I s

)

comparably attractive alternative site '

J without the characteristics requiring the Task Force Recommendation 8 compensatory engineenng designs or (NUREG.0625. pages 61-62) features of concern. In cuch cases, the Revise Part 51 to provide that a final alternative site review under NEpA decision disapproving a proposed site should permit consideration of these by a state agency [ acting within proper l

matters.

state authority] 'whose approvalis ACRS Comments on Recommendation fundamental to the project wc tid be a 6.-The Committee suggests that the sufficient basis for NRC to terminate phrase. " unfavorable characteristics review.Such termination of a review requiring unique. or unusual design." be would then be reviewed by the clarified. Many characteristics that cre Commission.

c ens eifa by esign. ocluding Additional Questions Relative to item I some of an " unusual" nature. Design

1. Should the Commission retain the features to provide permanent site flexibility to address site disapprovals improvements should be permissible by state agencies on a case-by-case when suitably reliable.Perhaps these basis instead of modifying the problems could be solved by deleting regulations?

the word. " unfavorable." and

2. Should this alternative be bounded substituting the work. " unproven." for so that only actions taken by specific

" unique or unusual".

. state agencies or with specific reasons AdditionalQuestions Relative toitem G would be considered? If so, which ones?.

1. If all the characteristics of a site II'" I meet the criteria upon whlch threshold Task Force Recommendation 9 acceptability have been established (Deferred: text is included for w

(such as the criter'a discussed in Items B completeness) and C). should the site be considered Develop common bases for comparing acceptable from a safety standpoint or the risks for all external-eventa, should the possibility of compeassting-This recommendation may be 1

i engineering features be considered in implemented by the NRC at a futgre."

j selecting between attemate sites?

time. No comments are solicited at this

~

2. Should site characteristics,the time, but any comments are welcome.

l impact of which on the safety ofplant For additionalinformation on this operation can be assessed quantitatively only with great

.. Note.--tesueee addea io the recommendation' i

uncertainty, if at all, be considered in -

of the $1ttog Pobey Tesk Force on the advice of the

site approval decision? If so, on what NRCs Omce of the Cenml Counca.

.\\

j

.y+

a,s.sn

aumes,

i l

1 I

f 1.

(

,/-

\\

r[ l - Q 0,

~'

.(,'

\\

Laf ism.- bU,

,. t 6 a

% uds

)

/

f

/ c c %. 9 l

7-gTam7l28fSa l

JLs 1

I w

l l

i l

V ol. A-07-%L L

Ait

1 1 1

t l

d oC8 c@l i' " T" 3 so-y 2q J%

y vcq v $s

<8 oyst g\\e w,4 bo o

a e

em Fora-87-%7 AG a

l l

l a vou wrac cAtteo ev-O vou wear visitco ev_

WL

  • tt(L "h W L1 a, Leuc cau.-

a;8UM 2 24 - BBop 'a rrs

( C WILL CALL AGAIN O is warriao To see cou O actuaatiaroua g 'g.A *g es usaeroikruckr n

! =c==

I wo-tss1 E,0 or

, %MM wpr.J w 71* f O 1,% ism

.w om <

omy

/kxowsMV4/W3' listisA o.

y Ebl09 M $8 (Ame. 6 75)

PPM MI 01.II.6

  • USGP0:1918; 28 f-164/ I4

.c.,. rao e m4w Lko6W',g 4 Y i6 h NN h

/

4 (8 1

F~o.1 A 42.

A 14

+

3

Ys q

  • o;,,

c

..y j

O l

'g

/

~.

b

,j S..,~.,

.g s

t

J

/

.vO

,.. )

CO }s'

., i L

._ t.

's

/sJ 1

i k., )

T?

9

.y3 n

Y g/

i N-N e

I

',. /9

/

hd l

MAW VL 1Y

)

f f.y sh '

._\\.#,,

g t

s s ~

s s.

4*

)

. ~l...

4 foI A-W7--%s As er if

D ft0UhstG AND TRANSMITTAL SUP TO: (N:me, ofRc3 symbol. toom number, initials Date

['

buttning. Agency /Peet)

J s.

f 1

1 E

j S.

~

N Flie Note and Retum Approwel For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Propero Reply l

Circulate For Your information See Me -

1 Comment lavestigste Signature -

CWinstion Justify i

REMARKS ft

%cP i

i e

& rwtOrdi M

l A W f antaA*S

  • hM /

l j2k '

$7

\\

0LlT-7/O/fu 5

DO NOT see this form os a RECORD of approwels, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions

{

FR004:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)

Room No.--Sids.

I Phone No.

(

sost-102 OPTIONAL FOftM 41 (Rev. 7-75) j rma set

-11.aos

)

e u e sovin==s.n mun o or, ice i,.

..o. i.. nz l

i i

Fb l. A -s?-%2.

AI6 p,

if

7 Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP 7jg g TO: (Name. ONice symbol, room number, initials Date DeMing, Agency / Post) 1.

3CM i

2.

3.

1 I

4.

i i

Action File Note and Return Approwel For Clearance Per Conversation

)

As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your information See Me Comment investigate Signature Coordination Justify l

l REMARKS Ouv-Ye vlav 7ec r e + n is od N'.

/Ebf h

GYL

$*v iYi h

S OV (Oy YC C.'s )Y A Y[yi f by (4%

I If t'

/ 1 c.,c yo,,, ni c ~ ~i W es. %<

(gU Q

T~.

ny 0vL AM*

Vf' il DO NOT ese this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,

{

clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)

Room No.-Bldg.

\\

1713 W1W68 9 Oc _

CAW,f v DN g

Phone No.

l

/

-% 2 7006

[

FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) so41-to2 rma (41

-11.aos e vs oovena anteninti. orr,c

,,,.......iu l

4 FoI. A -B*T-%t hn

/7 n

i l

)

)

l i

I

/

Y BLbu BAG MAIL f

SENDER'S RECEIPT 2'

SENT DATE l

TIME Q

1lll(190 lit n i

BY:

[

'(Tv J

j U

TO-i

' l} lLK.

e

=

'h 8

01h-6 7-OI NRCFORY 234 '6 761 At6 w

l I

m ROUT 1NG JD TRANSMITTAL SUP

~

TO: (Narne, asce symbol, room number.

Initials Date budding, Agency / Post)

L bd(

bD,

3y fM #o Ndhl Re4iSb NR A sed b z.

$'6CY 7hs-lso (A. CA :)d I

/

WhYfStio?

T.

S%

0 Wk YoV80 L' du ph b C%,a,,y Co,. y,a Action File I

Note and Retury

-N

~~

For Clearance Per Conversation Approwel As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your information See Me Comment investiga's Signature Coordination l

Jesti'y REMARKS

(.A(

P \\/O-COI

~

g

(

(( V C T

'mc b;ct Gr;tt b wth M

O O

Q

\\(R hOk

( $L ' ' O YI kd N hl l( d /

boe

- E.m vo et M L-

\\(Ue Chech

?V.A fl DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvels, cent.urrences, esposats, clearances, and semilar actions FRole:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post) f Ruce6 No-hidg.

~

%vritN$.

IONAL FgM 41 (Rw. 7-76)

  • k-302 FPun gas eJ53 sa,1 at %

AR l

l \\cy ig.

i I

I 1

l

?

1 1

Date i

nom...G AND TRANSMRTAL SUP L

10:

oince bol, room number, init Defe b

?

Y S.

C G-l j

s.

4.

S.

Action Ffe Note and Retum Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Itoquested For Correction Prepare Reply For Your Information See Me Circadete

~

lavestigste Sigwture C: - --. :"

Coordination Justify I

REMARKS p

4y hdWd>NL 8M LW1.

n tm E 6 c625-M %*

m B-c rma.d vS. Ahodd o d

& %nwww mm).

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org, symbol Agency / Post)

Room No.-Bldg.

hM"h7 b1 Phone No.

3 Aw

-i--

o n

,oR..

M T 'fR E m<Re. 7 7 cm

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244B173&oldid=3915773"