ML20244B306
| ML20244B306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/29/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-41FR27141, RULE-PRM-100-2 NUDOCS 8904190116 | |
| Download: ML20244B306 (7) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _ _ _
i 00CKET NUMBEftN PRM (()$'c)
PETITION R LE
$Eimo*
., y [;dication
'88 DEC 27 A10:06 677..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CdMN!$$10N'-
-10 CFR Part 100
[DocketNo.PRM-100-2]
Public Interest Research Group, et. al.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.
~
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking filed by Louis J. Sirico, Jr, Esq. on behalf of the Public Interest Research Group, et. al. The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its regulations to prohibit the construction of nuclear power reactors where the population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical j
limits. The petition is being denied for the following reasons:
1)itwould unnecessarily restrict NRC's regulatory siting policies and procedures by elevating population density criteria above other siting criteria such as environmentalandecological. factors,and2)itwouldnotresultina substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety, as compared to the current siting criteria when combined with' calculations of potential health effects. The NRC has carefully considered the issues raised l
in the petition, and has taken them into account in reaching a decision on the areas which fall within its jurisdiction.
1
+
8904190116 891129
~
1 1__---_--_--___-_----_
s ADDRESSEES:
Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Stewart, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Petition II.
Basis for Request III. Public Comments on the Petition IV. Staff Action on the Petition V.
Reasons for Denial e
a e
2.
\\
l s
The Pe'tition By letter dated June 1,1976, Mr. Louis J. Sirico, Jr., Esq., on behalf of the Public Interest Research Group and 25 other specified citizen groups, filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a petition for rulemaking. The petitioners requested that the Commission amend its regulations of 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," to set numerical limits on allowable population density around nuclear power reactor sites. The amendments to.10 CFR 100.11(a) proposed by the petitioners would set 0.4 miles and 3 miles as the minimum distances for the outer boundries of the exclusion area and the low population zone, respectively. A new section of 10 CFR 100.12 proposed by the petitioners would set a maximum population density of 400 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to a distance of 40 miles. The petitioners proposed that the Commission also deny Construction Permit Applications where, during the effective period of the plant's license, the maximum projected population density would exceed 800 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to a distance of 40 miles. Additionally, the petitioners proposed that all population figures and projections include transit populations.
Basis for Request The petitioners indicated that despite an official policy against building nuclear power reactors near cities, both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
(NRC), and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, have permitted utilities to build nuclear power reactors too close to metropolitan areas.
It is the view of the petitioners that reliance on broad policy statements and regulatory guides in this matter are inadequate, and that current Commission policy should be incorporated into NRC regulations. The petitioners proposed criteria that would prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants where the I
population in the surrounding area exceeds or will exceed specified numerical limits.
e 3
- _ =. _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _. _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _.
Public Coments on the Petition A notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal.
Register on July 1,1976~(41FR27141).
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the petition by August 30, 1976. The NRC received 14 coments in response to the notice:
11 from public utilities, utility representative organizations, nuclear power plant vendors and industry representative organizations, and 3 from individuals. Twelve of the comenters (86%) opposed the petition. The main reasons cited by these comenters were:.1.
The petition's proposal would result in a..." serious loss of regulatory flexibility..." because this would greatly reduce the number of suitable sites for nuclear power plants, especially in densely populated areas j
such as the State of New Jersey. The comenter stated that..." elevating l
population density criteria above these other concerns (ecological or environmental impacts) by a rigid and mechanical test (density criteria) cannot in every case work in the best interest of the public." 2.
The petition's
. proposal..."has misjudged both the content and adequacy of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's siting policies and practices. The NRC's regulations and siting practices when combined with the conservative accident calculational procedures they require are more than adequate to protect the health and safety of the pubitc."
3.
The petition's proposal established..."no factual basis for which the proposed amendments would further the public safety by establishing arbitrary values for minimum distances for exclusion area (s) and low population zones and on allowable population density."
The two comenters supporting the petition's recommendation were from the petitioners themselves. The petitioner's chief concern was the..." fear that putting this plant (in Iowa) so close to so many people creates an unacceptable public health menace." The petitioner's position was that all future nuclear power plants should be sited in areas of low population density in order to better protect the health and safety of the general population.
6 4
l
t i
Steff Action The response to the petition for rulemaking was delayed because of pending j
Commission action concerning population siting criteria.. An NRC staff paper (SECY-78-624) was submitted to the Commission on December 4, 1978.
In a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated February 15, 1979, I
the Commission deferred action on the population density siting criteria issue pending~ submission of the Siting policy Task Force report. The petitioners
- were notified of this deferral and that the petition would be. considered in the context of the rulemaking on siting criteria.
Recent events, including the reactor accident at Chernobyl in the USSR, continued uncertainty over certain aspects of the accident source term work, and the lack of projected Construction permit Applications have led the Commission's Executive Director for Operations to conclude that the rulemaking' on siting criteria ~should be terminated. Therefore, there is no reason to further delay action on-this petition.
However, the need for additional rulemakings or rule revisions will be considered in the context of a study on the readiness to resume licensing that is currently underway by the NRC staff.
It is expected that the NRC staff will address thal the question of siting policy and criteria adequacy as part of this broad study.U60WMCn
/
W Reasons for Denial QQ90%
The NRC shares the petitioner's concern regarding siting future nuclear power plants in areas of low population density. As stated in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7... " Areas of low population density are preferred for nuclear power station sites. High population densities projected for any time during the lifetime of a station are considered during both the NRC staff review and public hearing phases of the licensing process.
If the population density at the proposed site is not acceptably low, then the applicant will be required to give special attention to alternative sites with' lower population densities." In addition, NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7 recommends a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 miles andminimumdistanceof3milesfortheouterbound@y'ofthelowpopulation zone.. Further, this Regulatory Guide indicates that transit population should be included in population density calculations for those sites where a significant number of people work, reside part-time, or engage in recreational activities, and are not permanent residents of the area.
5
b i
However, the NRC's specific population density parameters for siting nuclear power plants differs from those indicated by the petitioners. The NRC's population density parameters are for no more than 500 persons per square mile averaged over.any radial distance out to 30 miles, or the projected population density over the lifetime of the facility not to exceed 1,000 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (Regulatory Guide 4.7).
If this density siting requirement cannot be met, special attention should be given to the consideration of alternative sites with lower population densities. The petition's proposed criteria would limit existing l
permissible population density to 400 people per square mile within a 40-mile j
perimeter and limit maximum projected population density limited to 800 people per square mile.
At first glance, it might appear that the NRC's population density siting parameters and the population density siting parameters indicated by the petitioner are similar - 500 vs. 400 per square miles averaged over any radial distance of 40 vs. 30 miles for the initial operation of the nuclear power plants.
However, the real difference between the NRC's and the petitioner's populatien density siting requirements is regulatory flexibility. The NRC's siting requirements allow for the consideration of alternative sites with superior environmental parameters, e.g., suitable meteorological, natural-resources and water temperature conditions or superior geophysical conditions, e.g., suitable geologic, hydrologic, and tectonic conditions if the popuiation density parameters cannot be met. However, on the other hand, the petition's siting requirements would automatically eliminate any site from further consideration if specific population density criteria are not met regardless of i
any other mitigating factors.
The NRC believes that Regulatory Guide 4.7 adequately addresses population density siting considerations and that no new rulemaking as proposed by the petitioners is justified at this time. Also, the petitioner offers no basis l
for the specific numerical population density limits indicated in the petition.
Therefore, the petition would not result in a substantial increase in t,he overall protection of the public health and safety, as compared to the current NRC siting criteria when combined with calculations of potential health effects.
6-
l'
'O e
I However, the NRC staff is preparing to carry out an additional review of the Commission's present siting policy and criteria in light of its ongoing risk assessment activities and in view of a study by the NRC staff that is now underway to examine our readiness to resume licensing.
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, thi day o 1988.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
}d m
ViEor Sd
[
Executive Director for Operations.
b e
7
.