ML20141H029

Requests That Independent Review of Encl RES Rulemaking Review Package Be Conducted.Voting Sheets Should Be Provided to Commission Indicating Positions on Rulemaking.Responses Requested by 850607

ML20141H029
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/30/1985
From:	NRC
To:	Arlotto G, Goller K, Morrison W NRC
Shared Package
ML20140C992	List: IA-85-563, Forwards Listed Info Re Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning ML20140C988 ML20140C994 ML20140G689 ML20141G898 ML20141G903 ML20141G911 ML20141G914 ML20141G919 ML20141G924 ML20141G927 ML20141G932 ML20141G937 ML20141G942 ML20141G946 ML20141G950 ML20141G956 ML20141G961 ML20141G968 ML20141G974 ML20141G978 ML20141G988 ML20141G992 ML20141G998 ML20141H003 ML20141H008 ML20141H012 ML20141H018 ML20141H023 ML20141H029 ML20141H066 ML20141H071 ML20141H083 ML20141H087 ML20141H099 ML20141H108 ML20141H125 ML20141H137 ML20141H151 ML20141H159 ML20141H168 ML20141H176 ML20141H182
References
FOIA-85-653 NUDOCS 8601130313
Download: ML20141H029 (8)

Text

_

'[*

f,.

n

=

esse N N N" W MAY 3 01985 mgesmegenom w.

amen osie 3, W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB I

g K. R. Galler, Member, RIRB 3 G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB L

E, X heuen ras Neto and Resum ir per caewones per comweemen 1n.noeuested rer CervesNon

. Ptepero Reply tzreussee per veur essermanen see R$e bomment emessassee alsneture L-r ---

m

~

RIRB members are requested to conduct an independent review of the attached RES rulemaking review package and provide the Chairman, RIRB, with their voting

- sheets indicating their positions on the rulemaking..

Responses by c.o.b. JUN _.71985

- will be appreciated.

RAMRB will use the voting sheets to assemble the complete RES review package for eventual transmittal to the OEDO and the Director of the user office.

90 000T use tHs term as a REcoRO et approvels, sensumances, illeposete.

easwensee, and samaer essene WWite:(Name, org. symbef. Agency /Peet)

Asem No. %

RAliRB stafff pnene see.

penti 41 Stev. 7-76) sea w at pt Itaes

• cPoi ases o - ass sts (2:2)

M 8601130313 851125 PDR FOIA BELLB5-653 PDR

I t.

i UNITED STATES g ** %,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[

t WASHINGTON. O. C. 20555

%...../

DWT MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director For Operations Robert B. Minogue, Director FROM:

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONGOING

SUBJECT:

RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES-sponsored proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--Consideration of This recomendation in draft fonn has been with this specific rulemaking.The ba' sis for our recomendation is as follows.

coordinated with IE.

In the Diablo Canyon full power license decision the Comission stated that it would initiate rulemaking "to address whether the potential for seismic impacts on emergency planning is a significant enough concern those impacts."

The This rulemaking is the staff's response to the above Comission decision.21, 1984 and proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on D Adoption of the proposed rule codifying San Onofre and Diablo o

Canyon Leaving the issue open for adjudication on a case-by-case basis o

Requiring by rule that emergency plans specifically address the o

impact of earthquakes.

As a result of public coment the staff is now considerin the con' plicating effects of severe, low frequency natural phenomena.

The staff is now preparing to recomend to the Commission, based on a thorou

o a

t r.

. William J. Dircks 2

I four public coment analysis, a final rule which would embrace one of the alternatives mentioned.

The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:

DEDROGR) and to the Director IE.

I Robert B. Minogue, Director j

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research G

o William J. Dircks 2

I public coment analysis, a final rule which would estbrace one of the four alterr.atives mentioned.

The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:

DEDROGR) mid to the Director IE.

Robert B. Minogua. Director

[

Office of Nuclear Regulatr,ry Research i

Distribution RAMRB r/f Subject Circ /Chron WFloyd HJamgochian JMalaro MErnst FGillespie Dross RMinogue

• SEE PREVIOUS OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FOR CONCURRENCES

,,R,,S,: D,,,,,

E

>"=> RAMRB:RES*

RES:RAMRB*

f,,: RAM,,,,',,,gg,:pp,,,[,, p,

,:p, /,iA

,,R,,,: D,D,,,,,,

E5,

map WFloyd:tpg MJamgochian Ma M

s F

1 {

Dross RMinogue OFFICIAL 1%ECORD CO'PY ac mau sie nosoi uncu a2'

t e

b s

UPDATED NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY W

a-

TITLE:

Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 l

ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule would consider the need to take into account the complicating of fects of earthquakes on emergency preparedness. Existing regulations require that nuclear power plants be designed to safely shut down f or most earthquakes. The probability of earthquakes large enough to cause major onsite damage that would result in a f*ignificant radiological release from the plant is low; and for large earthquakes, of f site damage could make prior of f site emergency plans premised on normal conditions marginally useful.

One alternative to the proposed rule change would be not to require that the emergency plans specifically address the impact-of earthquakes. The staf f believejs this to be an inappropriate alternative because of the flexibility of existing emergency plans as well as the very low probability of the occurrence of an earthquake of substantial magnitude and a radiological release from the plant. Another alternative would be to adjudicate the issue on a case-by-case basis. The staf f believes this to be an inappropriate alternative because it would be extremely time consuming ena at tne same time woula necessitate the unwarranted extensive NRC staff resources. The proposed rule change is the best alternative f or achieving the specific regulatory objective.

The proposed amendment will not greatly affect the industry since licensees are required to have approved emergency response plans which are flexible enough to assure that appropriate protective measures can be taken to mitigate the consequences cif a nuclear emergency. The public will not be af fected as adequate emergency preparedness at nuclear reactors will be assured. T'ie staf f anticipates that there will be no increase in cost to the NRC, State, and local governments and to licensees associsted with the proposed rule changt because it is interpretative in nature.

TIMETABLE:

NPRM 12/21/84 49 FR 49640 NPRM Comment Period Begin 12/21/84 49 FR 49640

, N> @/Si NPRM Comment Period End 01/2l?/85 FINAL RULE FOR DIVISION REVIEW Final Action N

DFFICE CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULJ C0ftPLETEtj

- r / 3o[W(ii

/**/* S' FINAL RULE PACKAGE TO EDO - 7/

/

g

/

LEGAL AUT50RITY:

FINAL RULE PUBLISHED 42 USC 2133; 42 USC 2134; 42 USC 2201; 42 USC buel EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No 7 / #ss, es

_-----_.__....,,._____-..x_

... ~

i TITLE:

Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Eniergency Preparedness AGENCY CONTACT:

Mike Jamgochian Of fice of Niiclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7615 W

e t

4 46

c s

','.o.,

W C

O RULEMAKING AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED (TEXT OF FINAL RULE HAS NOT YET BEEN DRAFTED) l

[

t I

l l

l l

N f)

D

!(

UNITED STATES

,(

o,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS o

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

....+

June 10,1985 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.

20555

Dear Dr. Palladino:

SUEJECT: ACRS COMMENTS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES IN OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING During its 302nd meeting, June 6-8, 1985, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the proposed amendment to 10 CFR Sn, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities."

This topic was also considered during the 301st ACRS meeting on May 9-11, 1985, the 297th meeting on January 10-12, 1985 and during a joint meeting of our Reactor Radiological Effects and Site Evaluation Subcommittees on January 3-4, 1985.

During these reviews the Comittee had the benefit of discussions with the NRC Staff, representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and invited experts.

The Comittee also had the benefit of the documents referenced, including the public coments submitted to the NRC on the proposed amendment.

On the basis of these discussions, we offer the following coments:

1.

We see no technical reason for the exclusion of earthquakes from the natural phenomena considered in off-site emergency planning for nuclear power plants.

However, we believe that only limited consideration of earthquakes is appropriate.

For sites where an earthquake capable of severely damaging emergency travel routes is sufficiently likely to occur, the local off-site authorities should have the benefit of studies indicating the types and potential locations of such damage. The study of this kind already perfonned for the region surrounding the Diablo Canyon site would clearly meet the intent of this coment.

2.

In the assessment of the impact of natural - events on emergency planning, the major effort should be to identify potential problems and to devise alternative approaches for their resolution.

This 1

would include requirements for assuring appropriate means for communication, for identifying alternative routes for the evacu-ation of the local population, and for identifying circumstances under which sheltering might be a more, effective response the evacuation. In many cases, such assessments may lead to a decision l

l that no further response or action is required. The goal should be h

EDO -- 000705

.d$,b1hr Sh M

g.

~

(-.

W,

.'a Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino June 10, 1985 to assure that emergency plans, as developed, contain sufficient flexi-bility to cope with the potential added impacts of such events.

~

We hope you will find these comments useful.

Sincerely, Davi Cheirman

References:

1.

U.

5.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 10 CFR Part 50, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facil-ities," Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 247, pp.

49640-49643 dated December 21, 1984 2.

Sixty-one public coments received by S. J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, in response to Reference 1.

3.

Correspondence from the following in response to requests for information regarding this subject:

a.

Andre Messiah, Ministry of Industry, Service Central de Surete, des Installations Nucleaires, France, dated March 29, 1985 b.

I. A. Breest, Federal Minister of the Interior, Federal Republic of Germany, dated March 22, 1985 c.

Thayer from Taipei, Taiwan, dated April 24,1985 (Limited Official Use) d.

T. Taniguchi, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan, dated April 20, 1985 e.

M. Wakasa, Reactor Regulation Division, NSB, STA, Japan, dated April 19, 1985 f.

G. Mandeus, Director Information Services, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, dated April 16, 1985 4.

TERA Corporation, " Earthquake Emergency Planning at Diablo Canyon,"

Volumes 1-3, dated September 2, 1981

T S

o b E/L M

JUN 12 IS85 MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director For Operations FROM:

Kabert B. Minogue. Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES REVIEW 0F ONGOING RES SPONSORED RULEMAKING Based on our review of the ongoing RES-sponsored proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E--Consideration of Earthquakes in the Context of Emergency Preparedness, RES recomends that the NRC should proceed with this specific rulemaking.

This recommendation in draft for.n has been coordinated with IE. The. basis for our recommendation is as follows.

In the Diablo Canyon full power license decision the Comission stated that it would initiate rulemaking "to address whether the potential for seismic impacts l#

on emergency planning is a significant enough concern for large portions of 4

the nation to warrant the amendment of the regulations to specifically consider those impacts."

This rulemaking is the staff's response to the above Comission decision. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 1984 and U

requested public coment on the merits of three possible alternatives:

o Adoption of the proposed rule codifying San Onofre and Diablo Canyon l

o Leaving the issue open for adjudication on a case-by-case basis o

Requiring by rule that emergency plans specifically address the l

impact of earthq akes.

(

As a result of public coment the staff is now considering another alternative which would require that the emergency plans include a limited assessment of l

the complicating effects of severe, low frequency natural phenomena.

The staff is r.ow preparing to recomend to the Coemission, based on a thorough c-2 l yb,n

' n M 1lK J V ol T ]

-v

~~

unc comu sie no-soi macu on4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

J f

William.1. Dircks 2

JUN 121985 public cocinent analysis, a final rule which would etrbrace one of the four alterratives mentioned.

The cornplete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:

DEDDOGR) ated to the Director IE.

Robert B. Minogua, Director Office of Nuclear Regulator,v Research Distribution RAMRB r/f Subject Circ /Chron MJamgochian + A WFloyd JMalaro MErnst FGillespie Dross RMinogue

• SEE PREVIOUS OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FOR CONCURRENCES P

.........B*

F... : FtA. N......

.. RA. O.:.D.D... ^...

.D.

. RN....D.D......

. R.E

~

orrica >1RAMRB:RES*

RES:RAMR

.,F.1oyd :tpg MJaragochian Ma M

s sunn 4 W g..,.,.,.......,.,...,.,.,.....

.p...,........,.,..,.......

g......g.,g,.,.e s

g OFFICIAL RECORD CO'PY cae ronu sia no-soi wacu ano h

o a

-t William J. Dircks 2

The staff is now preparing to recommend to the Commission, based on a thorough public comment analysis, whether to withdraw the proposed rule or to proceed to publish a final rule which would not permit consideration of earthquakes in emergency planning.

This final rule, if published, would then codify the Commission's San Dnofre and Diablo Canyon decisions.

The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:

DEDROGR) and to the Director IE.

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution RAMRB r/f Subject Circ /Chron WFloyd HJamgochian JMalaro MErnst FGillespie DRos!.

RMinogue

• SEE PREVIOUS.0FFICIAL RECORD COPY FOR CONCURRENCES jRB DRA0-DRAO:D RES:DD RES:D ome,p RAMRB:RES

• RES:RAMRB

• RES:RA FGillE QTe

• RNinogue""

' DRd n "..".."......

,,,,,,,> Wi~o'yd".fg"" WJiidgBchriH"('Jg4TL,'.".?""' 4 /9....."..'.".."..".

oan) 4/ /85 4/ /85 g5

/85 4/ /85 4/ /85 4/ /85 n.c ro = si......

. ancu on4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i

r k

1 William J. Dircks 2

h "* " (~~t= q Ther fere, th; N ;;; for...

r;;a.... ding thr. ;;r.tir... Gen of uns W-kim 6.

tv-fer l'he staff dto reconnend to the Comission, based on a thorough public coment analysis, whether to withdraw the proposed ruleWor to proceed to publish a final rule which would not pemit ennsideration of earthquakes in emerger.cy planning. This final rulegwould then codify the Comission's San-Onofre and Diablo Canyon decisions. /* eclA {

The complete RES review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:

DEDROGR) and to the Director IE.

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution RAMRB r/f Subject Circ /Chron WFloyd MJamgochian JMalaro MErnst FGillespie Dross RMinogue l

.L

\\

R RES:

P RES:RAMRB DRAO:DD DRAO:D RES:DD RES:D

..AMRB: @RES o,,,c, p

...sp

.j suamame)W F..l.o. y.d...:.t.g.....

..M..J.......M.. a.n...

.. J..M..a. l..a..r.o.........

.M..E..r.n..s. t...........

..F. G.i..l.l..e..s.p.i.e.....

.D..R.o..s..s............

..RMi.n.oue......

4/ d 4/ /85 4/ /85 4/ /85 4/ /8 g.

.....(f./ 85 mare)4/tg/85 unc ro.= i. no..oi nac= on' /

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

4-44 re-w p-

.a 3

l -

.iy.

4,s "i e f

1. I 5 [$k fl{Q a

- D*at W,e@BMp t$

sotpfwL__g;f

&:4 _ [q 3)

M,

-..a m..

ae s

r-

'g '

.(ry

.g g

T e

s E

{.

f.; QM. O

~3 l

?.

V3 yag;.: g Vyf

O.j'y,

J g a

- g y p y.

~_

t y

g -

--.-.C kh a

l En' L-l% m.

m insnesse

^ - -

<2s. >

.p.

..y -

4; n >

j EMut s

g g, =w.c 'gg 7. +.g.,,.w. ; i ~

_ Q. d f.,,-.2% --daK.msf&g.YS-QM n-,

f i..

.2-Q 'ngC'k

• My L. ~

e. L..

w5&$

$ fr^ h f f h "

~

a w u = A X_u

-m ces se b.

i py g, g esserences, and simifer somens raceA: (Nmne, org, symbol. 4ency/ Post)

Room No.-Gedg.

}h

, $hM P 0, IlS S

• m no._G/V Y93-/

c5

. = =n.nmu e

.