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 The Honorable Gary Hart, Chairman and Natural Resources 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,

. RPGrill A

.,f. .'.; . g ,g g8 W 8 SD RDG/ ALPHA ~

r - "y EPSB RDG/ SUBJECT -

HORERTB. MINOGUE RBMinogue , . . N ,

@~7(b2. /,((

~

.R Robert B. Minogue, Director ICRoberts k. 8 ~

<'" '+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

.';. .. . j SD':EP'SBl,'.

.c... .

,SD:~

D D/SHSS:S S .SD/Dir. v  : ^

. - RPGrill:p1fEFCont berts. KRGo RG. RBMinogue . '

1 4 -

~ Nk /8k 7/ff80' 7/ /80 L. 7/jF/B0. 7/j/80) 7/ ./80 -

,3 .

h A- Y;Y, ,,' '

' " M h M *" %;Dh i.- OCA i-WW.

.. H . a $ h j ' ? A d [ - .h.v- .% X

[ 9 Ct '.h' l &;r'W[ ' N.p Fr  :..(.

73 i , ' ' ,. .

7 ES-0 Completes SD-11635-807

~^

, ./86 ,,]N S.,h}as'k,No.p,03-1 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 luly1sao. I 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

%  % ,mq Richard P. Grill Office of Standards which are contained in the " Report of a co,,  %,, Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the Siting Policy Task Force." NUREG-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- 50, Domestic Licensing of Production siting policy using the Task Force's Revision of Reactor Siting Criteria. recommendations is, therefore. . 'i and Util2ation Facilities,"10 CFR Part 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 .

. 4 experiznce gained since the original Atomic Energy Pemmission in1962 and upgrading eurgency planning -

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 .upon sitmg criteria,it should be (

(ASLAB), consultations with the .

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.

This rulemaking is intended for -

, carss:Whue commeus and ~ ~ legislation, as well as consultation with -

application to facilities for which an suggestions order is be considered are welcome at any for this version of MRCtime,'in ' the Congressional is responsible. All of these have Committees to wblch - appheadon for a constmedon thiproposed rule chang ~e s the must be filed after October 1,1979. This is in been important factors contributing to received no later thsn Septen er 22, the current license review practics. - c mp ance wie Secdon 108 d the 1980 i 1980. ,

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

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,

' Smach. - - w. -

for revising Co unission siting policy. licem,ed reacton and reactors.under - .

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

. number cfindividuale, groups,and . "i. recommendadons m Adunc Nou r wm c contained Wr the d u.4in a Pettico far . y . the meantime,

, ,, - gmm(ss,1on r decisions o cppropriats State officials who may Rulemaktna sled by the Pubbe interest Re.earch '

~

.have o particularinterest istyy-;,Q,a'- of a Pendonfor RYema' k iN[fde fy Frei ~ '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" s e , gr. g .c- , _

y;_l - -

,- l2_ .

N!f -

~

=~. 4-

,'l' k

~ ~

. , . , >- M .. ~-

e y

45. No.147 / Tuesday, July 29,1980 / " ' posed Rults 50351 Fe,d:ral Register / V "we do not think that thh rsference to the
3. Dose asarssment should not be adeq'uscy er inadequicy of siting criteris the continued oPeratirn of existing used as the dominant measure of site em oyed by other countries should be lants cre being made on a case-by. case suitability because this approach has inc ded m this notice. Since the NRC has 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, '"

cperator training. additional safety feature r:quirementa, and other related accordingly.,is counter to the " 3fn [e p

" f

$8' a this issue in the context of a rulemaking on 4

Commission e intent to reassert the considerations.

The Commission has directed the staff importance of isolation. In otherquestions areas about of domestac the-Commission'ssitig can only serve to rain the Commission's review of hcense wiihrpesa to temper its protection of the to review existing sites in order to applications dose assessment will U.S. pubhc so as to accommodate foreign examine whether additional continue to play an important role. In modifications in operating procedures, ""*I"' P' 8'*** ~

establishing an impact assessment design, or equipment might be The Commission is also considering which is as complete as possible the n2 cess:ry. For plants that do not yet certain identified alternative approaches Commission's staff will continue to. to several of the Siting policy Task b:ve e1.imited Work Authorization mah calculations of the potential (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 Safeguards has~ submitted comments on review. In reviewing emergency plans cddIndum to the SER.For plants that each of the Task Force's have construction permits or operating these same release scenarios will be recommendations and on the goals 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, 4.The applicant for a plant with the foDowing format is utilized:-'

Commission for its consideration in minimum safe [y features on a site which ma case.by. case decisions. item A. B. C, etc.:

d be noted that the objectives meets all proposed siting criteria is not It 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 prepared, where appropriate, to help siting criteria and attempts to separate Perm t can be issued there must be a focus comment along directions that the those criteria from engineered reactor demonstration, that, with regard to environmental considerations, there is staff believes will be most useful. In sifsty systems,the intent of the particular, several questions focss on Commission with regard to several no obviously superior alternative site.

AU final alternative sites are required to the substance of the ACRS comments.

issues should be stated here: 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 an are vi lated). Under present practice, unfsverable site characteris has power plant siting that the publie-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 mile as discussed in Regulatory Guide wit the r e in ]r ize 4.7) through plant cost estimates, but an A ); seven of the nme Task Force recommendatens, includhg alternative the d"I'* bili'I of site isolationtures ahernate sprroach introduced later in 8pproaches and additional questions . .

independent of engineered avors 1, this Advance Notice would change this {ltems "B" through T, except T).

which can compensate for ,,,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 design iemains a valid, proven, and and that other nations do not have the same Dexibility in siting nuclear

.gpage7) . _ s. .

im rtant way of reducing risk to the facilities as the United States. Thus, the 1.To strengthen siting as a fa'etor in -

pu lic from operation of a nuclear defense in depth by establish -

r--6 ton wishes to make clear that re uirements for site approval at are power plant. To retain the benefits of in emphasizing the use of isolate'd sites , -

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 consideration [s]. Re present policy of .

there is no implication that the siting revised to establish a minimum set ofplicies and associated design permitting plant design features to "'

engineered safety features that will be compensate for unfavorable site -

required of all new plants.nis action is segswements of other nations characteristics result la has resultedin improved now being initiated and willbe separate anyless satisfactory protection of the but has tended to de-emphasize designs "

from the rulemaking being supported by public h contexta.as Judged in the respectiva.

r!te isolation. 4 ' ', ~ .

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

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

approximately the same time, commented separately, as foBows: ' YK$d""* fjgQMQ;.

- .v ..'- ,

~ - -

.~ . ,

. c., j

~

~ , e s ,"} ,

.g

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

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 should explore the possible l physical characteristics of the '

probability and isis accidents, butconsequences there remains the of designdevelopment of a nationwide program to emergency planning zone should 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 to zero It can be significantly reduced combining considerations of acceptable to mitigate the consequences of i 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 option from large regions of the country. acceptable basis for near-term Alternative B -

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 characteristics be continued, or should l l [thme Task Force] goals discussed 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 4 philosophy. should be strengthened. 2. Should considerations.of acceptable with respect to that criterion. Between i 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 Imprecision of the comparative Task Toice Recommendation 1 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 protective action distance and - calculations would not serve a useful '

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

less crbitrary if made. within the crDaria. , .

L Specify a fixed minimum exclusion ACRS comment on Task force !.

frcmewerk of an overall NRC safety .

Reconimendation1 "Part1.The ACRS /

policy.The ACRS believes that an cver:Il NRC safety philosophy is s'so F2ak from design basis accidents.[8] distance based on limiting the ind 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

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

from the utilization of electridty 'p"ans"k, wa.eoon ip s**$,m'.Es$',$'p*N"E 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 ~ .

50353 Fedsrzl'Registsr / Vol. 45. No.147 / Tuesday. July 29. 1980 / Propozed Rul s .

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 parameters will depend on the safety dependent appro4ch be desirable? What oficy on LWR safety. Intenm guidance related design and operational other sets of values would be a more C

ould be determined with the benefit ofrequirements and on the effectiveness of reasonable expression of populatinn ormation developed from NRC Staff emergency measures. Also,the ACRS density and distribution limits?

udits end information submitted 6.11 a "three-tier" approach were 1

believes the establishment of such

$uring a proposed rulemaking *on interim parameters involves the assumption utilized of as set out in the alternative staff - l tenges in the site criteria. some accepted band of risk which approach, what values should be 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 requirement for caculation of radiation example, the 100.150 and 400 persons' bould be given to potential problems at doses or to the specification of regionally per square mile values could be l I

greater distances. dependent acceptable population considered de minimis thresholds. The 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 150 and 400 ts exclusionary limits an'd

1. Should a uniform. mimmum 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: Alternadre A ua on limiting the individual risk from - .

(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 Revise Part 100 to require .

density / dis'ribution limit set applicable 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 terminata, populations current at the time of site l utiliz:d for other new societal activities approval or should they also be applied 3. large propane pipsfines '

posing h:zards similar in magnitude and to projected post beensin8 populationsLarge natural gas pipelines, 4.

probability 5.Large grantities of explosive or (for example, to projected populations toxic materials, (c)How should the effectiveness of over the expected operating lifetime of

8. Major dams cmtrgsney measures, such as
  • the plant)? Should the same criteria be svacusticn. sheltering and 7. Capable faults.[*]

applied to projected populations as to [8. Liquified propane gas (lpg) d: contamination, be ascertained and populations current at the time of site frct: red into a judgment concerning approval?If not, how should the criteria terminals}

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

(d) Should meteorology not be given materials.js of site approval? [10. Other nuclear power piantsj' i consideratiosiin regard to the 4.ls the gradueted approach w. "

I dev pment of siting criterist regually . differentiated popul~ated Alternative B Part 4.The ACRS agrees with the density and distribution unuts (as Consideration should be given to l

Tcsk Force that the approach used for recommended by the Task Force] or the the p:st two decades has not provided provision of two thresholds for each l alternative nation-wide "three-tier" parameter.One would be the i snough gmphasis on site isolation.The approach a more reasonable way to Committee believes that the emphasis acceptance floor. Any site which does proceed? Wduld a different approach be not meet the mintmum acceptance floor on engineered safety features to meet . .

Pcrt 100 for the postulated accident more appropriate? II so, what approach? ,for each factor would bg disapproved If the regional approach is without direct consideration of other, regardless of other constderathas.The recommended, how should the region be other threshold would be a de minimls more szrious possibilities hasled to a 1:ss than-optimum approachto safety.

definedF threshold--any site that exceeded that 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 :s dsttrmining the need and adequacy of **-Aleash conmot* *a "9m*b regionaEy: out to five miles from the engineered safety features will be plant, the grester of 10() persons per b " Y M

  • N ' C ' M P*["h' g ex=nplexity of this topic and the ===u=,ns of the.

required. square mile or % the average population ' cosnizant staff fp oGer setMrJes of pendns In summary, although the ACRS 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 exclusion and emergency planning ". D M ',,3 7 g j 7 dist nces and population density andsverage - . sgarse miledensity population or three-quarters of the on Rmtar Safeswds.wy of the region

  • Conunmee n

l ,.,

distribution limits is a commendable . .- . 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 reactor sites located on a flood plain Item E - 1. Whit, if any,, legislative authority should be closer than five miles ToskForce Recommendation d u r c ul be & to qin order to: a. Assure population densities or downstream of a major dam.De reason (Deferred: text is included for why either of these two proposed gr upings at und nuclear plants remain 805P l et""} within acceptable criteria during the numbrrs is suitable is not clear to 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?

design. M 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 O** -

Ahede A . .

the NRC staff shall notify those Task Force Recommendation a-

2. What man made activities or

. natural characteristics, other than those Federal agencies as in item 1 above that .(NUREG-0625, page 57-59) may seas nably initiate a future Federal discusted above, migbt require that Continue the current approach scena that may influence the nuclear minimr.s2 standoff distances be g . relative to site selection from a safety LHe NRC staff shallrequire ut a s e a them ties e con d e frr standoff distances?

tti criteri, igpacants to monitor and report l, ] >

3. What specific standoff distance or y=a==* ally adverse offsite

' Note-m upsreded emersener plannins set cf thresholds would be appropriate d"k men ,

? .

LE m spite of the actions describe'd requirement, now beins implemented bound reveal for each category? 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 . p ph,"in [shutd a cf ,

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

l 4 .

I 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 - -

of recommendations and proposed rule Item H 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) practice would change to preclude Dated at Washington. D.C., this 23rd day of Revise Part 100 to specify that site luly 1980.

consideration of sites which have approval be established at the earliest charactedstics that do not meet safety 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 unique or unusual compensating Secretary of the Commission, satisfied for this decision to be engineering design or feature which subsequently reopened in the Ia. casing * * " "

  • would offset the undesirable site pmcess.

suo coot nsSeim characteristic. On the other hand, for ,

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 acceptability be allowed to be enough to be rejected on an absolute 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? ~

2. Should site characteristics,the time. No comments are solicited at this - '

time, but any comments are welcome.

impact of which on the safety ofplant l '

operation can be assessed For additionalinformation on this quantitatively only with great uncertainty, if at all, be considered in - . . of Note.--tesueee addea io the recommendation' the $1ttog Pobey Tesk Force on the advice of the i

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 ,

a

,. t 6

% 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 ' 3 so-i'-" T" y vcqJ%

y 2q v $s g\e <8 oyst 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 n g 'g . A *g es usaeroikruckr

c=

wo-tss1

! I E,0 or

, %MM wpr.J w 71* f O

.w om < omy , 1,% ism

/kxowsMV4/W3'

o. listisA y ,,

Ebl09 , M $8 (Ame. 6 75)

- ' PPM MI 01.II.6

  • USGP0:1918; 28 f- 164/ I4 h NN h m4w Lko6W',g 4 Y /i6 4 (8

.c.,. rao e 1 F~o.1 A 42.

A 14 3 +

Ys q o;,,

c . . ..y ..

j . _ ,

. .. - O l

'g .

~. /

b ...... ,j

J

.g s

/ S..,~.,'. vO t

,. . ) CO }s' ..

. ., i L ._ -t .

's #

i .

1 k., )

/sJ '

, T? -

.y3 9

, .- n _  :

Y g/ - .-

i N- ,

N e

I * -

' , . /9 /

l MAW hd l

. VL

  • 1Y )

sh f._\.#,, f.y t

s s~

g -

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 e i i M

A W f antaA*S

& rwtOrdi

  • l '

l hM /

j2k ' $7 \

0LlT-7/O/fu DO NOT see this form os a RECORD of approwels, concurrences, disposals, 5

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 e u e sovin==s.n mun o or, ice i , . ..o. i . . nz rma set -11.aos )

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' . ,

& GYL $*v iYi h h /Ebf 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.  %<

0vL AM* Vf' (gU Q T~. ny 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 l 9 Oc _ CAW,f v g DN Phone No.

/ -% 2 7006 so41-to2 FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

[

e vs oovena anteninti . orr,c ,,,.......iu rma (41 -11.aos l

4 FoI. A -B*T-%t hn n /7 .

i l

)

)

l i

- I

/

Y BLbu BAG MAIL f SENDER'S RECEIPT 2' , , SENT

$ DATE l TIME Q

BY:

1lll(190 lit n i

j

[

U

'(Tv J

TO-i ' l} lLK.

e

=

'h 8

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

l I

m ROUT 1NG JD TRANSMITTAL SUP

~

TO: (Narne, asce symbol, room number. Initials Date budding, Agency / Post)

L bd( 3y bD , fM #o

z. Ndhl Re4iSb NR A sed b

$'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 -

~~

Approwel For Clearance Per Conversation N '

As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your information See Me Comment investiga's Signature Coordination l Jesti'y REMARKS

~

(.A(

g (( V C T P \/O- COI

(

'mc b;ct Gr;tt b wth -

M O O Q \(R hOk ( $L ' 'O YI kd N hl l( d /

- E.m vo et M L- -

boe

\(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) hidg.

f Ruce6 No-

~

%vritN$.
  • k-302 IONAL FgM 41 (Rw. 7- 76)

FPun gas eJ53 sa,1 at % .

AR l

ig.

l \cy

i I

I 1 l -

? ,

1

.. 1 i

Date L

nom...G AND TRANSMRTAL SUP 10: oince bol, room number, init Defe S. C b  ? Y

, G- ..

l j

s.

4.

S.

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

~

C: - --. :" lavestigste Sigwture 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.

Phone No. hM"h7 b1

-i-- 3 on ,oR . . Aw

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244B173&oldid=3273251"