ML20128E656

Forwards Fr Notice Dtd 921020 Re Reactor Site Criteria, Including Seismic & Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants & Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking from Free Environ,Inc

ML20128E656
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/23/1992
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	GENERAL
References
FRN-57FR47802 AD93-1, AD93-1-036, AD93-1-36, NUDOCS 9212080145
Download: ML20128E656 (21)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _

h, OCT g 3 1992 ,

n .

4 I ALL STATE LIAIS0N OFFICERS ALL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONTACTS ALL STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS l REACTOR SITE CRITERIA; INCLUDING SEISMIC AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING CRITERIA 1 FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND PROPOSED DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FROM

FREE ENVIRONMENT, INC. ET AL (SP-92-153) l i

j Enclosed for your information is a copy of the subject Federal- Register Notice i dated October 20, 1992. The proposed rule would allow the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to benefit from experience gained in the application _ of the procedures and methods set forth in the current regulation j and to incorporate the rapid advancements in the earth sciences and earthquake

engineering. The proposed rule primarily consists of two separate changes, i namely, the source term and dose considerations, and the seismic and

earthquake engineering considerations of reactor siting. The NRC _is also proposing to deny the remaining issue in the petition filed by Free Environment, Inc, et al (PRM-50-20).

1 i Note that the comment period expires February 17, 1993. For further i information you may contact Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Office of. Nuclear Regulatory Research at 301/492-3860 concerning the seismic and earthquake engineering aspects and Mr. Leonard Soffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research at j 301/492-3916 concerning other siting aspects.

i

! crizin:) signed by Carlba Kammeret

< Carlton Kammerer, Director

Office of State Programs _ .

j

Enclosure:

. As stated f

l Distribution:

DIR RF CKammerer SLO File Rulemaking File SASchwartz RVirgilio l VMiller SLIR Staff-(4) i RSL0s (S) DZannoni

! AJMurphy, RES LSoffer, RES.

l [PDR3 SA RF

__0_F,Ci _f,S_P S,L_IR__,g, r _S -

,S, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,, __________ ,,,,_ ,,,,_ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

M_ i._R_yirgi_l,i,9jgd_, ,S c, w a r_t L,4,C K gm,e_r_e r_4_,,,,,,_ ___4_ _ _, _ _ _ _ ,,4,,,,,,, _ ,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,

DTE!10/22/92  ! 1 /} Mf2 !10/D92 '

G:\ SITING. ROV

^

9212080i45 92kO23 PDR STPRO ESGGEN /O o-PDR

{ V'\

47802 l

Proposed Rules r"-* **" -

< Vol. 6'r, No. 283 l Tuesday, October 20,1982 This secten of the FEDERAL REGtSTE-R Delevee cosnments to 17555 RochviDe the NRC fncorporde minimum exclusien contains nouces to the putlie of the Pike, Rockville, henrylsed, between 7:95 area and low population zone distances proposed rssumme of n#3 and a.m. and 4:15 p.m.. Federet workdeys, and popalation density limits inta the reguiamon The pwpow of t*ese mec Copies of the regulatory analysis, the

's to g=e r,teresed poesore s" regulations. On Apnl 28.1977. Free l

0 * *"* D P"C" " " ' ' * ' environmental assessaient and Imdmg Environment,Inc. et al., filed a petition 8" ' " ** # ** of no significaal knpar.l. and ensunenta for rulemaking (PRM-50 00). The received may be es.amined at the NRC remaining issue of this petition requests l Public Docmument Roera at 2120 L Street that the centrallows nuclear project NW. (Lower Level), Washington. DC. and other reactors be sited at least 40 NUCLEAR REGULATOM post rwrTHER INFOAM ATION CONTACT'. miles fmm major population centers, in COMWSS&ON Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Office of Nudear August 19 8. the Commission directed i 10 CFR Parta 50,52, and 100 Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear the NRC staff to develop a general Regulatory Commission, Washington. policy atstement on nuclear power RIN 3t54-AOct DC 20555, telephone (MI) 492-3860, reactor siting. The ' Report of the Siting concerning the seismic and earthquake Policy Task Force"(NURECM005) was Reacner Site Cetteeta;incieding Selends engineering aspacts and Mr.Leomard issued in August 19~9 and provided and Earthquake Engineering Cetterte Soffer. Office of Nuclear Regulatory recommendations regarding siting of for Nuclear Power Plants and Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory future nuclear power reactors. In the Proposed Don'ai of Petition tee Commission. Washington. DC 20555. 19c0 Authorization Act for the NRC, the Rulemaking From Free Ermironment, telephone (301) 492,3916, ennr.s.rning Congress directed the NRC to decouple I loc. et al other siting aspects, siting from design and to specify AGENCC 42chrar Regunstm7 suretsssawTany meconssATsest, demographic cnteria for siting. On July Commission, I. Badground, 29,1980 (45 FR Sat 50), the NRC issued es. an Advanca Notice of Proposed actiow: proposed rule and preposed denial of petition for rulemaking from k0 Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding revision of the reactor site criteria, Free Environment, hac.et mL gy,gj,,,,$iy,a, V. Major Cham which discussed the recommendations sussawm The Nucleas Replatory A. Reactor Suing Cruana (Nanse2asuc). of the Siting Policy Task Force and Commission (NRClis proposing ta B Seisnac and Earthquaka Engmeecng sought pubhc comments. The proposed Critena. rulemaking was deferred by the amend its regulations to update tha VL S ting Polky Tsik Pure?

enteria used in decisions regarding Commission in December 1981 to a wait Recommendations.

power reactor inting, includmg geologic, VU. Releted Reguletory Caideo and Standard development of a Safety Coal and seismic, and earthquake engineermg Review Ptaa Sectson.

improved research on accident source considerations for futtrre nuclear power VHL Future Regulatory Acrim terms. On AuFMst 4.1986 {51 FR 23044).

plants. The proposed rule would allow, IX. Referencad Documents the NRC issued its Policy Statement on NRC to benefit from experience gained X. Submission of Comments in Electromac Safety Coals that alated quantitattye in the appbeation of the E'ocedures and Forma t. health obkctives with regard to both methods set fonh in the curved XL Questions. prompt and latent cancer fatality nsks.

A. Reactor siting Criteria (NonseismIch On December 14,1988 (53 FR 50232), the regulation and to ancorporate the rapid R Se smic and Earthquake Engineering NRC denied PRM-100-2 on the basis advancements in the earth sciences and Cnteria.

earthquake engmeering. Themm XIL Finding of No Sigmficant Bntrtmmental that it would smnecessarily restrict rule pnmarily consists of two separate Impact: Availabihty, NRC's regulatory siting policies and changes, namely, the source term and Xnt Papsrwork Reducten Act Steewwnt. would not result in a substantial dose considerations, aruf the schmie XIV. RespAstary Amatysis. increase in the overall protection of the l and eanhquake XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certificatumi, pubh.c health and safety. Because of  ;

considerations of XVL Bachfh Analye e- possible renewed intereat in power N The Commission is also proposing to deny 1. Beckground reactor siting. the NRCla proceeding 1 with a rulemaking in this area. Because '

bed re Environm The presant regulation reganhna the proposed regulations wo=kiinclude reactor sina en,teria (W CFR part 2DL populatlan density criteria los future DATES: Comment period expu?'

February 17.1993. Casasaants received was promulgated April 12.1981(27 FR nuclear power reactor sites, the i 3509). Staff guidance on exdesion raee, Commission concludes that the 1 citer this dsta will be c: " d if it la and low populatiam race ainme as wall as remaining issue in PRM-20 is being 1 practical to do ma, but the Communesesous te population denedy wea issued in addressed as part of thia rulemaking able to assurg consideration onh fee Regulatory Guide 4.7. "Genesen Si&e  !

comments received on or balose this action.  ;

Suitabihty Crderia fes Wela.ar Powue Appendix A to 10 CFR port 70m dat' 1 Statiens!' p'.abbhe =% in Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for I ADonasses: Mail written comments to: September 1974. Revision 1 to this guide Nuclear Power Plants," was originally Secretary, U.S. Ntrclear Regulatory f was issued in November 1975. On lune issued as a proposed regulation on Commiss'on. Washington, DC mm 1,1976, the Public Interest Research  !

November 25,1971 (36 FR 22801).

Attention: Docketing and Service Group (PIRG) filed a petition for l Branch. published as a final regulation on I mtamah (PRM-100-2} requesting that November 13,1973 (38 FR 31279), and

Federal Register / Vol. 57 No 303 / Toeoday. October 20,1992/ Proposed Rules 47803 3

became effective Because the revised criteria ; resented regulatory impleaneetadon (both 1*

nere ha ve been.on two amendmentsDecemberto 10 in the 13.1973.

proposed reTulation would not be technical and legal), fewer intarpreuve CFR part 100, appendix A.We first applied to existing plants, the licensing debates, and increased regulatory amendment. issued November 27,1F?3 bases for existing nuclear power plaots flexibility. Applicants willderive the (38 W 32575) corrected the final must remain part of the regulations. same benefita in addiuon to avoiding regulation by adding the legend under herefore, the p sed revised reactor licensing delays caused by unclear the diagram. The second amendment siting criteria d be added as regulatory requirements.

resulted from a petition for rulemaking sob art B in te Cm part 100 and would (pRM 100-1) requesting that an opinion app to site applications received on or E%%

be issued that would integret and afte the effective date of the final clarify appendix A with respect to the A. JteacJoe Siting Crideria (Neseismic) regulations. The criteria on selamic and determination of the Safe Shutdown geologic siting would be added as a new Since promulgation of the reactor site Earthquake. A notice of filing of the appendix B to 10 CFR part 100 %e dose criteria in 1962. the Commission has petition was published on May 14.1975 calculations and the earthquake approved more than 75 sites for nuclear (40 FR 20983), The substance of the engineering criteria will be located in 10 power reactors and has had an 2

petitioner's proposal was accepted and CFR part 50 (i 50.34(a) and appendix S. opportunity to review a number of published as an immediately effective respectively). Because appendix S is not others. As a result of these reviews, a '

final regulation on january 10,1977 (42 self executing, applicable sections of great deal of experience has been FR 2052). part 50 (i 50.34 and i 50.54) are revised gained regarding the site factors that II. Objecta.es to reference appendix S. De proposed influence risk and their range of regulation would also make conforming acceptability.Much of the experience The objectives of this proposed amendments to 10 CFR parts 52 and 100. gained by the NRC staff in these retiews

'. regulatory action are to Sections 52.17(s)(1)(vi), and 100.20(c)(1) has been reflected in the issuance of

1. State the criteria for future sites would be amended to note appendix B Regulatory Culde 4.7, " General Site that, based upon experience and to part 100. Sultabdity Criteria for Nuclear power importance to nsk, have been shown as Stations." which was f aaued for IV. Alterustives casament in 1974, and revised in 1975. It kefeto sa ty: protecting pubhc health and He first alternative considered by the also reflects the Commission's policy of

2. Provide a stable regulatory basis for Commission was to munue usin keeping reactors away from densely seismic and geologic siting and r:urrent regulations for site eultabt ity populated centers. A review of the applicable earthquake engineering determinations.Thl le not considered Regulatory Guidelines implementation design of future nuclear powerplants an acceptable alternative. Accident '

has shown that its application la that will update and clarify regulatory a urce terms and dose calculations expected to result in low risk to the requirements and provide a flexible currently influence plant design public while allowing a good selection structure to permit consideration of new requirements rather than siting 11is of potential reactor sites in all regions of technical understandings: and desirable to state directly those siting the nation.

3. Relocate the requirements that apply to plant design into 10 CFR part 50 fa nh to ey The site criteria presented in the proposed regulation are based on those thereby effectnely decouphng siting assuring public health and safety Further, significant advances in the contained primarily in Regulatory Guide from plant design. 4.7, and represent current NRC practice.

earth sciences and in earthquake III. Genesis engineering have taken place since the I" 8ddition, numerous risk studies on radioactive material releases to the The proposed regulatory action promulgation of rethe bresent reflects changes that are intended to:(1) and deserve to be ected in the regulation envir nment under severe accident regulations conditions have all confirmed that the Benefit from the experience gained in present siting practice is expected to applying the existing regulation and The second alternative considered was replacement of the existing effectively limit risk to the public, nese frcm ruearch: 12) resolve interpretive studies include the early " Reactor regulation with an entirely new questions: 13) provide needed regulatory regulation.nis is not an acceptable Safety Study"(WASH-1400) published flexibility to incorporate state-of.the art alternative because the provisions of the in tir75, many Probabilistic Risk improvements in the geosciences and existing regulatiras form part of the Assessment (PRA) studies conducted on earthquake engineering; and (4) simplify licensing bases for many of the individual plants as well as several 2

the language to a more " plain English" operating nuclear power plants and specialized studies, and the recent text others that are in various stages of " Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment The proposed regulatory action would obtaining operating licenses. nerefore, for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,"

apply to applicants who apply for a these provisions must remain in force (NUREG-1150). Issued in 1990, construction permit, operating license, and effect. De proposed criteria basically prehminary design approval, rmal ne approach of establishing the decouple siting from accident source i

design appreval, rianufacturing license. revised requirements in new sections term and dose calculations. Experience carly site permit. design certification, or and an appendix to 10 CFR part 100 and has shown that these factors have combined license on or after the relocating plant design requirements to tended to influence plant design aspects effective date of the final regulations. 10 CFR part 50 while retainin8 the rather than siting. Accident source term Criteria not associated with the existing regulation was chosen as the and dose considerations are proposed to i selection of the site or establishment of best alternative. ne public will benefit be applied to plant design aspects and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground from a clearer, more uniform, and more wou'l be relocated to part 50. The Motion (SSE) have been placed into 10 consistent licensing peocess that Commission considers it appropriate, CFR part 50. This action is consistant incorporates updated infonnation and is based on the extenslee experience and with the location of other design sub}ect to fewer interpretations.ne confirmatory studies noted above, to requirements in 10 CFR part 50. NRC staff will benefit from brproved state directly those site criteris that d b

47304 Federal Registee / Vol 57. N2 203 / Tu:sd:y, October 20, 1992 / Ptsposed Rults protecthe actions were contemplatpd in i I have been shown to be key to protecting use of a postulated source term, public health and safety,%ese reactor assumptions regarding mitigation the event of a serious accident.The i I

site criteria are expected to be systems and dispersion factors, and the regulations in 10 CFR 50.47 now requires independent of plant design and, as calculation of radiological consequences plume exposure Fanergency Planning  ; ,

such, are independent of the plant type to determine the sizes of the exclusion Zones (EPZ) of about to miles for each to be built at the site.ne Commisalon area and low population zone. it would plant.

considers this appropriate because it instead require a minimum exclusion ne LPZ aLo places restrictions on expects that future reactors licensed area distance of 0.4 miles (680 meters) the proximity of the nearest densely under pari 50 or part 52 will reflect, for power reactors. populated center of 25.000 or more through their design, construction, and This distance, together with typical residents. However, without nurnerical operation, risk characteristics that are engineered safety features previously requirements for the outer radius of the equal to or better than existing planta. reviewed by the staff, has been found to LPZ, this requirement has little practical nerefore, there would be en extremely satisfy the dose guidelines in the present effect. Typical LPZs for existing power low probability for accidents that could regulation. An exclusion area of this size reactors have several thousand result in release of significant quentities or larger is fairly common for moet residents. !! Regulatory Guide 4.7 were of rad oactive fusion products. in Power reactors in the U.S. It has not followed and a distance of 3 miles were addition, the reconenendations of the been unduly difficult for most selected as the LPZ outer radius, a Siting pohcy Task Force were prospective applicants to find and maximum population within the LPZ at considered in making these changes as obtain a suitable site. the time of site approval would be about discussed in Section Xil of this proposed Finally, this distance has also been 14.000 residents. Fmally, the staff has rule.

found to readily satisfy the prompt sometimes experienced difficulty in

" "' "' Y P*P '

Rationole for individual Criterio e fommisst a ety oards olicy, '.g " "{* si n con ts th 1.Faclusion Area when coupled with plant designs as functions intended for the LPZ, namely.

reflected by those in NUREG-1150, and a low density of residents and the An exclusion area surrounding the ' feasibility of taking protective actions, immediate vichlty of the plant has been ,ga[a ts t 1) ere o the have been accomplished by other a requirement for siting power reactors minimum exclusion area distance from the very beg, m ning nis area regulations or can be accompus hed by p oposed would assure a very low level ther means. Protective action provides a high degree of protection to of risk to individuals, even for those the public from a variety of potential requirerr de defined via the use of located ve close to the plant, the EPZ, *

• revtrictions on population plant accidents and also affords Although an exclusion area size of protection to the plant from potential about 0.4 miles is considered close to ManRan k anM da man-related hazards. appropriate for reactor power levels of pr posed pw % tion dengity ciuria. For .

The present regulation has no these reasons, the Commission is current design, the Commission is also numencal site requirement,in terms of pr Posing to eliminah the requirement considering whether or not this size of an 1.PZ for future power reactor sites distance, for the exclusion area. ne unduly penahres potential reactors that present regulations assesses the have significantly lower power lesels f r pep ses of determining site consequences of a postulated suitability.

and is therefore requesting comments on radioactive fission product release this subject. 3. Population Density Criteria withm containment coupled with assumptions regarding containment 2. Iow Population Zone The present regulation contains no leakage, performance of certain fission The present regulation requires that a population density requirements other product mitigation systems, and low population. zone (LPZ) be defined than the requirement, noted above. that atmospheric dispersion factors for a immediately beyond the exclusion area, the distance to the nearest population hypotheticalindividuallocated at any Residents are permitted in this area, but center containing more than about point on the exclusion area boundary, the number and density rnust be such 25,000 residents must be no closer than The plant and site combination is that there is a reasonable probability one and one-third times the outer radius considered to be acceptable if the that appropriate protective measures of the LPZ.This was recognized as a calculated consequences do not exceed could be taken in their belief in the potentialconcern when the present the dose values given in the present event of a serious accident. In addition, regulation was promulgated. As the regulation. Regulatory Guide 4.7 the nearest densely populated center Commission noted in its Statement of suggests an exclusion area distance of containing more than about 25S00 Considerations on April 12.1962 (27 FR 0 4 miles (Mo meters). This distance has residents must be located no closer than 3509) accompanying the issuance of the been found, in conjunction with typical one and one-third times the outer radius regulation," * *

• in some cases where engineered safety features, to meet the' of the LPZ. Finally, the dose to a very large cities are involved, the dose values in the existing regulation. hypotheticalindividuallocated at the population center distance may have to Future reactors would be expected to be outer radius of the RZ over the entire be greater than those suggested by these as good or better in meeting the dose course of the accident must not be in guides."

criteria at this distance. excess of the dose values given in the As a result of the significant ne Commission considers an regulation. Regulatory Guide 4.7 experience gained in the siting of power exclusion area to be an essential feature suggests that an outer radius of about 3 reactors, the staff issued Regulatory of a reactor site andis retaining this miles (4.8 km) for the LPZ has been Guide 4.7 in 1974. With respect to requirement for future reactors. found to satisfy the dose values in the population density this guide states as However,in keeping with the present regulatica. follows:

recommendation of the Siting Policy Several practical problems have " Areas of low population density are Task Force to decouple site arisen in connection with the LPZ, preferred for nuclear power station sites.

requirements from reactor design, the . Before 1900, the LPZ generally defined High population densities protected for any proposed regulation would eliminate the the distance over which public time during the sfetime of a station are Y

Federal Register / V-l. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20. m2 / Proposed Rudes caos considered darma both the NRC staf stdew health objective in regard to kalent ' he expected to sasare e low level of risk.

and the pubhc beanng pha.scs of the bcensbg cancer fatality states that, within a inchading the risk of latent casease

, then the an e n e atah as d as longlerm tend e te i n e ab apphcant will be required to gm speciel reactM, N nsk to de population of czstmaunatiost Panalty, the Coanisalon attenboo to alternatat ates wstin lower latent cancer fatality from nuclear conrbAs that grunttng of the populatina der, sines power plant operation, incloding petitioner's request to specify popslation

!! the poptJation dermty. LIMng. accidents, should not exceed one tenth criteria out to 40 miles rather than 30 weighted transient populat.on. projected at of one percent of the hkelihood of latent miles would not substantially reduce the the titoe of initial operabon of a nuclear cancer fatalities from all otbet catraes. In risks to the public, but could powre stehen exceeds 500 persons per square addition to tlie risks of latent cancer significantly incruee the difficulty of mile everaged os er an) r* dial betance out to fatalities, the Commission has also obtaining suitable reactor sites in some 30 adles (oumulative populahon at a dwtanct investigated the hkelihood and extent of regions of the nabon. For these reasons.

• [3n d s j' er h me land eentaminetion g-lived ensing from the radioactive species, the Commission is propoems not to edopt the proposal by Free of the fatibt) esteeds mio persona per such as cesium-137,in the event of a sqware mde averaged over any radial Environment, incomorated.

distance out to 30 mdes special(;tention severe reactor accident- An important point regarding should be Fmn to the consideration of 'Ite results of these analyses indiente population projections and their citernatwe snes with lower popeleben that the latent cancer fatality application should be made. Because the der.asties " quantitative health objective noted vahdity and reliabihty of population above is met for current plant designs. projections, particularly for relatively The basis for this guide was that it From analysis done in support of this small regions. decreases markedly as provided fur reasonable sepa ation of eha e' ' the projection time period increases, reactor sites from large population centers while also assunng an adequate

[ gy d i o a population projections for the purpose of selection of sites in all regions of the uvere acc ent suKicient to mquin long assessing site suitability are to be term c ndemnation of land beyond 30 litnited to 40 years population nation. liowever. no comparisons with

• jections beyond this time period explicit nsk criteria were provided at that time' l 28.19"7. F ree Environment, density "f '[t at pop labon restrictions hN 8 ea speculah L out to 40 miles could 40 year period for population projections On Apn ma t h to Inc. et aL filed a petition for rulemaking g ,e ,cmer one of the (pRW5MO) requesting. among other m te plant lifetime.

nation Because analyses beve shown that thinn that "the central towa nuckat Because the population density values protect and other reactors be sited at of Regulatory Guide 4.7 have been in use current plan designs can meet the least 40 miles imm maior population since 1975, and these values afford an Commission's Sakty Goals and that centers The petitioner also stated that adequate supply of potential reactor other nsis can be kept at a very low locatmg reactors 1:. sparsely-populated sites in every r gion of the nation while level at sites that have a,gm,ficantly areas * *

• has been endorsed in non- providing assurance of low risk of latent higher population denstbes than those binding NRC guidehnes for reactor cancer fatabty as well as land being pmposed, the Commission wishes siting " Howes er. the petitioner did not to emphasize that these population contamination. the Commission specify what cor stituted a maior considers it prudent to maintain these density levds do not indicate the upper popula ben center. The only NRC population density values for future limits of acceptabihty.These levels Fuidehnes conceming population power reactor sites _ The Coramission represent preferred values, that, if density in regard to reactor siting are in w shes to emphasize, however, that exceeded, require that an apphcant Regulatory Guide 4.7, issued in 1974, and nuclear power plants meetmg current provide lustibcahon or not locatmg a revised in 1975, pnor to the date of the safety standards could be safety located reactor at an alternatrve site having a petition. This guide provides population at sites signihcantly more dense than lower population density. Therefore, the densay critena out of a distance of 30 500 people per square mile. Population density limits proposed in miles from the reactor, not 40 miles. For these reasocs, the Commission is the regulation are intemied to be used An illustration of the degree of proposing that, at the time of initial site cmly in the aiting deciaim p ocess to be separabon distance provided for in this approval or early site permit renewal. appbed at the time of initial site Faide from population centers of various population density values of no more approval or early site permit renewal to s!zes may be useful. Under this guide, a than 500 people per square mile determine whether alternative sites that population center of about 25,000 or averaged over any radial dratance out to have lower populabon densities should more residents should be no closer than 30 miles be used for judging the be considered. The C-%n does 4 tr.:!es (6 4 km) from a reactor because acceptabihty of future nuclear power not intend to consider bcense ormdat ons a densty of 500 persons per square mile plant sites. Similarly, in keeping with or operating restnctions upon an within this distance would yield a total Regulatory Guide 4.7. the projected operating reactor solely upa the baus population of about 25.000 persons. population density 40 years after initial that the population density around it Simisrty. a city of 100.000 or more site approval should not exceed 1000 may reach or exceed the proposed anting residents should be no closer than about people per equare mile, decision values given above dunng the 10 rniles (16 km). a city of 500.00g or With regard to the petition by Free plant lifetime. Because of the possibihty more persons shouM be no closer than Envirnnment, Inc. (pRW50-2D), the for confusion resultmg from manencal about 20 miles 13 km), and a city of Commission concludes that the criteria values being cated in the reqpdahon the 1.000.000 or more persons should be no in Regulatory Guide 4.7 provide a Cosamission is also requestmg closer than about 30 miles (50 km) from reasonabla degree of separation for a comments on who er nasmencal the reactor. range of population centers, including population density values should be The Commission has exarnined these " major" populat on centers, dependmg cited in the regulabon cr whether theee ruidehnes with regard to the Safety upon their size. Further, cndifying the should be stated in a regulatoey guide Cal The Safety Coal quantitative population dcasity cntaria cd this guide only. The Comm .m is also requestmg

l C806 Federal Register / Vol, 57, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules comments on whether the values of 500 5. Hydrological Factors hl.hways. large pipelines, major and 1000 persons per square mile are airports, etc. Relatively minor changes These factors are important iri appropriate, and whether population establishing the magnitub of external in industrial activity have been shown density criteria need be specified out to to be of httle concern.

30 miles, or whether another distance is hazards from gruand-water contamination. such as by containment The Commission is considering m te appropriate. whether periodic reporting of significant basemat melt through, which could

4. Meteorological Factors contaminate aquifers and thereby affect offsite activities should be required and Radiological doses that incorporate ite m teoro o cal data need no longer u at on adds r od e exi ting a gni ica t off I ac 1 tie t in ive requirements for obtaining information miles of the reactoc should be d term site s i ab .

to characterize hydrological factors at a periodically updated every fis e years.

Meteorological data will still be needed site imponant to riskEs infonnation Interim Change to 10 CFR Part 50 for safety analysis and for assessing the will be reviewed by the staff and used adequacy of certain plant features, as as interface criteria in matching a The proposed change to to CFR part well as to determine plant adequacy in proposed design to the site. 50 would simply relocate from to CFR regard to meteorological extremes, such 6. Nearby Industrial and Transportation part 100 the requirements for each as tornados and maximum probable Facilities applicant to calculate a whole body and precipitation. Therefore, the proposed a thyroid dose at specified distances.

regulation maintains the requirement to This area of review would be. Because these reqmrements affect collect er.d characterize meteorological incorporated into the regulations for reactor design rather then siting. they data representative of the site, determining site suitability. This area of are more appropriately located in 10 The Commission has examined the review has,in fact, been a part of the CFR part 50. For this proposed revision, variations in site meteorology that have NRC review for many years. The the source term and methodology for influenced dose calculations in past proposed regulation involves no performing the dose calculations would licensing reviews. Individual site substantive changes in this area and remain unchanged from the current meteorology characteristics have been merely codifies what has been NRC requirements.

used primarily to determine atmospheric practice for a number of years. These requirements would continue to dispersion or dilution factors in order to' apply to future applicants for a

7. Feasibility of Carrying out Protective evaluate does to hypothetical Actions construction permit, design certification, individuals at the exclusion area and or an operating license, but are intended 1.p2 outer radius. ne degree of dilution The proposed regulation would require that important site factors such to be interim requirements until such increases with increasing distance time as more specific requirements are between the release point and any hypothetically exposed individual, but it andas transportation population distribution, topography'd developed re8arding revised accident routes be considere source terms and severe accident also is affected by other factors, and examined in order to determine insights

• includmg the time of day. In this regard, whether there are any site the dispersion factor could vary characteristics that could pose a B. Seismic and Earthquake Engineering significantly at a given site and show a significant impediment to ths Criteria pronounced diurnal variation. However* development of an emergency plan.

when the time-averaged dispersion Planning for emergencies is part of the ne f 11 wing major changes .m the factor of a given site is compare with Commission's defense-in depth poposed revision to appendix A, that ol'othei sites, the variation betweci approach. ne Commission has Seismic and Gedogic Nuclear Power Plants,, Siting to part 100, Criteria are for one site and another is much less. concluded that site characteristics that Analyses reported in NUREG/CR-227), may represent an impediment to the associated with the proposed seismic

" Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria development of adequate emergency and earthquake engineering critaria Development," dated December 1982, for plans, such as limitations of access or rulemaking:

example, show that calculated average egress in the immediate vicinity of a 1. Separate Siting from Design individual consequences for an identical nuclear power plant, should be postulated release of radioactivity to the identified at the site approval phase. Criteria not associated with site environment using data from weather This is consistent with the approach the suitability or establishment of the Safe statione tnroughout the United States Commission has taken in early site Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion yielded results that varied only by about reviews under 10 CFR part 52. (SSE) have been pleced into 10 CFR part a factor of two. Based u;on these 50.nis action is consistent with the considerations, the Commission has 8. Periodic Reporting cf Man-Related location of other design requirements in determined that the average Ac M es 10 CFR part 50. Because the revised meteorological characteristics between Conditions around a sita may change criteria presented in the proposed one site and another are sufficiently and significant changes in the nature of regulation will not be applied to existing similar that characteritation of the industrial, military, and plants, the licensing basis for existing individual site meteorology is not a transportation facilities may occur. nuclear power plants must remain part significant discriminator in determirdng Early identification of activities or of the regulations.He criteria on site suitability when compared to the facilities that are potentially hazardous seismic a~' ' eologic siting would be uncertaintfes in other areas of the could permit timely changes in the designateu .s a new appendix B, determination of risk to the health and procedures or plant features to minimize " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic safety to the public. However, site the change in the risk to the health and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants on or meteorological characteri tics are safety of the public. Man-related needed in safety analysis and for After (Effective Date of this activities potentially hazardous to a Regulation)," to 10 CFR part 100. Criteria assessing thc adege.acy of certain plant plant are typically major industrial or on earthquake engineering would be design features. transpod facilities such as major designated as a new appendix S, 1

l

Federal Regist:r / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules 47807

" Earthquake Engineenng Criteria for approach. Using this deterministic together and compare the results of each Nuclear power plants." to CFR part 50. approach, an applicant develops a single to provide insights unavailable if either set of earthquake sources. develops for method were used alone. The principal 2 Remove Detailed Guidance from the each source a postulated earthquake to Regulation limitations of the deterministic be used as the source of ground motion evaluatior>--4ts abdity to incorporate The current regulation contains both that can affect the site, locates the only one model and one detr set at a requirements and guidance on how to postulated earthquake according to time and its insbility to allow weighted atisfy the requiremects For esample. prescribed rules, and then calculates incorporation of numerous models-can section IV, " Required Investigations." of ground motions at the site. Although this be assessed by comparing its results appenda A statts that investigations approach has worked reasonably well with the results of a probabilistic are required for vibreJory ground for the past two decades, in the sense evaluation accomplished in parallel.

motion, surface fawlting. and seismically that SSEs for plants sited with this Similarly, the principal hmitation of the induced floods and water wn es. approach are judged to be suitably Appendix A then provides detailed probabilistic evaluation--its tendency to conservative, the approach has not allow its results to be dominated by the guidante on what constitutes an exptcitly recognized uncertainty in acceptable investigation. A similar tails rather than the central tendency of geoscience parameter. Because so little distributions of uncertain knowledge or situation exists in Section V,"Seisnu.c is known about earthquake phenomena and Geologic Design Bases." of expert opinion-can be assessed by eppenda A. (especially in the eastern United States), comparing its results with the results of there have always been differences of Geoscience assessments require one or more detenninistic cvaluations.

opinion among experts as to how the considerable latitude in judgment. %is prescribed process in Appendix A is to %e NRC believes that taken together.

latitude in judgment is needed because be canied out Experts often delineate this approach can allow more informcd of hmitations in data and the state of. very different estimates of the largest judgments as to what the appropnate the-art of geologic and seismic anslyses earthquakes to be considered and Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground and because of the rapid esolution different ground metion models. Motion should be for a given site. Both taking place in the geosciences in terms Over the past dec ade, analysis the applicant's judgments and those of of accumulating knowledge and in methods for encompassing these the NRC will be improved. Therefore, modifying concepts. This need appears differences have been developed and the NRC believes that this approach is to have been recognized when the used. These "probabilistic" methods the best way to acccmplish the ob}ective existing regulation was developed. %e have been designed to allow explicit of this aspect of the revised regulation existmg regulation states that it is based incorporation of different models for and arrive, through analysis, at a site-on hmited geophysical and geological zonation, earthquake alte, ground specific ground motion that information and will be revised as motion, and other parameters. The appropriately captures what is known nacessary when more complete advantage of using these probabilistic about the seismic regime. Using both information becomes available. methods is their abi'ity to not only probabilistic and deterministic liowever. having geoscience incorporate different models and evaluations to complement each other assessments detailed and cast in a different data sets, but also to weight should lead tc, a more stable and regulation has crested difficulty for them using judgments as to the validity predictable licensing process than in the applicants and the staff in terms of of the different models and data sets, pa st.

Inhibitmg the use of needed latitude in and thereby to provide an explicit in order to implement this approach.

judgment. Also,it has inhibited expression for the overall uncertainty in the NRC has proposed a requirement flexibit ty in applying basic pt.nciples to the ground motion estimates and a that the annual probabihty of exceeding new situations and the use of evolving means of assessing sensitivity to various the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground methods of anal)ses (for m, stance. input parameters.

probabihsticiin the hcensing process. Motion at a site be lower than the The level of detail presented in the Probabilistic methods have been used median annual probability of proposed regulation would be reduced by many groups. not only in the seismic- exceedance computed for the current hazard area but in many other areas. In population of the operating plants.His considerably. The proposed regulation the seismic-hazard area, many of the would identify and establish basic requirement assures that the design practitioners participated in either the levels at new sites will be comparable to requirements. Detailed guidance. that is, NRC-1.awrence IJvermore National the procedures acceptable to the NRC those at many existing sites, particularly Laboratory (LLNI.) or the Electric Power for meeting the requirements, would be more recently licensed sites.This Research Institute (EPRI) seismic-hazard criterion is also used to identify contained in a draft regulatory guide to projects over the past decade.

be issued for publi: comment as Draft The advantages of these proba ilistic significant seismic sources. in tertns of Regulatory Guide. DG-1015. methods are mamfest. However, their magnitude and distance affecima t'.ie

" Identification and Cher:cterization of limitations are important too. In the estimates of ground motions at a site.

Seitmi: Sources. Deterr.inistic Source seismic-hazard area. the most important ne Commission la specifically Earthqual es. and Ground Motion." limitation !s that the " bottom line" requesting comments on the questions re;ults from these analyses tend to be contained in section XI.B pertaining to

3. Use of Both Deterministic and the use of probabilistic seismic hazard Probabihstic Evalcations dominated by the tails rather than the central tendencies of the distributions of analysis and the balance between the ne proposed reculation would knowledge and expert opinion. deterministic and probabilistic require the use of 14th probabilistic and For these reasons, the proposed evaluations.ne position (s) stated in the d=terministic evaluations The existing revision of appendix A to 10 CFR part final regulation, supporting regula tory approach for dete mining a Safe 100 has adopted an approach using both guide and Standard Review Plan Section Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion probabihstic and deterministic will be based on Commission (SSE) for a nuclest resetor site, evaluations.The staff proposes to use consideration of responses to these embodied in appendix A to 10 CFR part both the deterministic (currently being questions and comments on all aspects 100, relies on a " deterministic" used) and the probabilistic evaluations of this rulemsking.

aw

,r, _-

] i 47tes Fodseal Regishee ] Vol 57. No 203 / 'IWay. Octobee 20,199c / Proposed Rules '

4. Safe Shendown Earthquake Review Committee." Vol. 5. April teos, applicable stress and deformation limits

• I ne existir g regulation (10 CMt part (Table M1) ranked a decouphPg of the l when enb}ected to the effects of the OBE i 100, appendix A, section Vla)(1)(lvJ) OBE and SSB as thkd M d six @ in comunauon with unnal operaung states 'The maximurn vibratory prianty changes. In SECY-so-01e, loads, accelerations of the Safe Sanrtdown " Evolutionary 1.ight Water Reactoe As stated above, subject to further Earthquake at esch of the various (LWR) Certdicabon lasses and Their confLrmation,it is deterrnined that if an foundation locations of the nuclear Relationship to Carrent Replatory OBE of one. third of the SSE is used, the power plant structures at a given alte Requarements," the NRC staff states that requirements of the OBE can be shall be determined * * ", ne location it agrees that the OBE shoald not control satisfied without the applicant of the seismic input motion control point the design of safety rystema. For the performing any explicit response as stated in the existing regulation has evolutionary reactors, the NRC will analyses (some minimal design checks led to confrontations with many consider requests to decouple the OBE applicants that believe this abpulation is from the SSE on a design. specific baala, and the apphcability of this position to l seismic base isolation of buildings are )

inconsistent with good engmeeting Activities equivalent to OBS-SSE , discussed below). There is high fundamentala. decouphng are also being done in confidence that, at this greund-motion The proposed regulation would aiove foreign countries. For instance, in level with other postulated concurrent the location of the sciamu input rootion Germany their new design standard control point from the foundation-leveg loads, most critical structures, systems, requurs only one design basis and components will not exceed to free field, at the free ground surface earthquake (equivalent to the SSE). currently used design limits. in this case, or hypothetical rock outcrop, as ney require an inspection-level appropriate. The 1975 version of the the OBE serves the function of an earthquake (for shutdown) of 0.4 SSE. inspection and shutdown earthquake.

Standard Review Plan placed tha This lewl was set so that the vibratory ground motion should not induce There are situations associated with contrvi motion in the free-field. The current analyses where only OBE is proposed regulation la also consistent stresses exceeding the allowable stress associated with the design regerements, with the resolution of Unresolved Safety limits originally required for the OBE for cumple, the ultimate heat sink (see issue (USI) A-40, " Seismic Design design.

Regulatory Guide 127, " Ultimate Hea t Criteria" (August 1989), that resulted in The proposed regulation would aDow Sink for Nuclear Power Plants"). In the revision of Standard Review Plan the value of the OBE to be set at:(i) these situations, a value expressed as a sections 2.5.2, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, and 3.7.3.

One.thtrd or less of the SSE, where OBE fraction of the SSE response would be However, the proposed regulation requirements are satisfied without an requires that at a minimum, the used in the analyses. Section Vill of this explicit response or design analyses Proposed rule identifies existing guides honzontal Safe Shutdown Earthquake being performed. or (ii) a value grea ter that would be revised technically to Ground Motion at the foundation level than one-third of the SSE, where maintain the existing design philosophy, of the structures must be an appropriate analysis and design are required.nere With regard to piping analyses, response spectrum with a peak ground are two issues the applicant should acceleration of at least 0 Ig. positions on fatigue ratcheting and consider in selecting the value of the seismic anchor motion are being

5. Value of the Operating Basis OBE: first, plant shutdown is required if developed and will be issued for public Earthquak e Ground Motion (OBE) and vibratory ground rnotion exceeding that comment in a draft regulatory guide Required OBE Analyses of the OBE occurs jdiscussed below in separate from this rulemaking. More The existing regulation (to CFR, item 6 Required Plant Shutdown), and than one earthquake response analysis second, the amount of analyses for a seismic base isolated nuclear appendrx A, section V(a)(21) states that the maximum vibratory ground motion associated with the ODE. An applicant power plant design may be necessary to may determine that at one-third of the ensure adequate performance at all of the CBE is one-half the maximura ubratary ground motion of the Safa SSE level, the probability of exceeding earthquake levels. Decisions rettaining the OBE vibratory ground motion is too to the response analyses associated Shutdown Earthquake ground motion.

Also, the existmg regulation (10 CFR, high, and the cost associated with plant with base isolated facilities will be shutdown for inspections and testing of handled on a case by case basis.

appendix A, section VI(a)(2)) states that equipment and structures prior to the engineenna method used to insure 6. Required Plant Shutdown that structures, systems, and restarting the plant is unacceptable, herefore, the applicant may voluntarily The cunent regulation (Section components are capable of withstanding select an OBE value at some higher V(a)(2)) states that if vibratory ground the effects of the OBE shallinvolve the fraction of the SSE to avoid plant motion exceeding that of the OBE use of either a suitable dynamic analysis shutdowns. However,if an applicant or a suitable qualification test. In some selects an OBE value at a fraction of the occurs, shutdown of the nuclear power cases, for instance piping, these rnulti. plant is required. The supp!emer.tary SSE higher than one-third, a suitable information to the final regulation facets of the OBEin the existmg analysis shall be performed to regulation made it possible for the OBE (published November 13,1973. 38 FR demonstrate that the requirements to have more design significance than 31279. Item Be) includes the following the SSE. A decoupling of the OBE and associated with the OBE are satisfied. statement:"A footnote has been added SSE has been suggested in several The design shall take into accoent wil. to i 50.36(c)(2) of to CFD part 50 to documents. For instance, the NRC staII. structure interaction effects and ihm assure that each power plant is cware of SECY-79-.300, suggested that design fre expected duration of the vibratory the limiting condition of operation which ground motion.The requirement is imposed under section V12) of a single limiting event and innpection and evaluation for earthquakes in associated with the OBEis that all appendix A to to CFR part 100. This structures, systems, and components of excess of some speciEed limit may be hmitation requires that if vibretory the most sound regulatory approach. the nuclear power plant necesaary foe ground motion exceedmg that af the NUREG-1061." Report of the U.S. continued operation witheat undne riah OBE occurs, shutdown of the nuclear to the health and safety of the pubhc power plant will be required. Prior to Nuclear Regulatory Conumssion Piping shall r=* functional and within resuming operations, the bcensee will be l

l 1

Federal Register / Vd, 57. No 203 / Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Peopoeed Rubs 47009 required to demonstrate to the perturbations resulting from the solomic Policy hask Forte," August 1979. %e Commissiort that no functional damage event. %e guidance being developed in individual recommendations and the h:s occurred to those features necessary Draft Regulatory Guide DC-1017 la for continued operation without undue proposed disposition and actions being based on two assumptions, first, that the taken in regard to each of these are risk to the health and safety of the nuclear power plant has operable public." At that time,it wss the discuased below.

seismic instrumentation. including the intention of the Commission to treat the equipment and software required to bcommendodon f Operating Basis Earthquake as a process the data within four hours after limiting condition of operation. From the an earthquake, and second, that the Revise part 100 to change the way statement in the Supplementary protection is provided for accidents by operator walkdown inspections can be inccrporatihg a fixed exclusion area and Information, the Commission directed performed in approximately four to eight protection action distance and applicants to specifically review 10 CFR hours depending on the number of population density and distribution part 100 to be aware of this intention in personnel conducting the inspection. If complying with the requirements of to criteria.

vibratory ground motion exceeding that 1. Specify a fixed minimum exclusion CFR m36. Thus, the requirernent to shut of the Opereting Basis Earthquake distance based on limiting the individual down if an ODE occurs was expected to Ground Motion or if significant plant risk from design basis accidents.

be implemented by being included damage occurs, the licensee must shut among the technical specifications Furthermore, the regulations should down the nuclear power plant. If the submitted by applicants after the licensee determines that plant shutdown clarify the required control by the utility cdoption of appendix A In fact, is required by the Commission's over activities taking place in land and epphcants did not include OBE regulations, but the licensee does not water portions of the exclusion area.

shutdown requirements in their think it prudent to do so, the licen'ee 2. Specify a fixed minimum emergency technical specifica tions. planning distance of 10 miles. The may ask for an emergency exemption The proposed regulation would treat phys cal characteristics of the from the requirements of the regulation plant shutdown associated with pursuant to i 50.12 to 10 CFR part 50 so emergency planning zone should vibratory grour 1 motion exceedmg the that the plaru need not shut down if the provide reasonable assurance that ODE or significaat plant damage as a exemption is granted. evacuation of persons, including condition in every operating license. De C

• transients, would be feasible if needed shutdown requirement would be a ,,p E[ 0 I O to mitigate the consequences of accidents, condition of the hcense (10 CFR 50.54] Down by a Seismic Event,"is being rather than a hmiting condition of developed to provide guidelines that are 3. Incorporate specific population operation (10 CFR 50.36), because the acceptable to the NRC staff for density and distribution hmi's outside necessary judgments associated with Ferf rmin8 inspections and tests of the exclusion area that are dependent exceedance of the vibratory ground * * ' on the average population of the region.

motion or significant plant damage can ,g, pn i o pla -l 't h 4. Remove the requirement to not be adequately characterized in a guidance is also based on EPRI reports calculate radiation doses as a means of technical specification. A new Pnor to resuming operations, the establishing minimum exclusion paragraph 8 50.54(ee) would be added to licensee must demonstrate to the distances and low population zones.

the regulations to require plant Commission that no functional damage Disposition and Action shutdown for licensees of nuclear power 88 plants that comply with the earthquake , con operatfon t ou u Recommendation 1 has been or is engmeenng cnteria in paragraph risk to the health and safety of the largely proposed to be adopted by the public. De results of post. shutdown Commission. With regard to item 1, a l\(a)(3)

Earthquake of Engmeen.ng ProposedCnteria Appendix S' for checks, and fixed minimum exclusion area distance Nuclear Power Plants., to 10 CFR part inspections, surveillance testaoperabilitfbe shal documentedof 0.4 mile, commensurate with past

'

• in written reports and submitted to the NRC experience in the review of design

( Draft Regulatory Cuide DC-1017, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor basis accidents,is being proposed. The l ', Pre-Earthquake p!annmg and Regulation.De licensee shall not Commission believes that the existing Immediate Nuclear Power Plant resume operation until authorized to do requirements regarding control over any l Operator Post-Earthquake Actions."is so by the Director, Office of Nuciar land portion of the exclusion area bemg developed to provide guidance Reactor Regulation. together with current emergency r acceptable to the NRC staff for 7. Clarify Interpretations planning requirements make any new

! determining whether or not vibratory requirements on exclusion area control

! ground motion exceeding the OBE in appendix B to 10 CFR part 100, unnecessary, De recommendations in changes have been made to resolve item 2 were adopted by the Commission

! ground motion or significant plant l damage had occurred and nuclear questions ofinterpretation. As an shortly after the nree Mile Island power plant shutdown is required. The example, definitions and required accident and are contained in to CFR investigations stated in the proposed 50.47, The recommendations in item 3 guidance is based on criteria developed regulation would be significantly are proposed to be adopted except that by the E'ectric Power Research Institute changed to eliminate or modify phrases the population density and distribution (EPRI). The decision to shut down the plant should be made within eight hours that were more applicable to only the limits are proposed to be applicable after the earthquake.The data from the western part of the United States, nationwide. De recommendation of

~

seismic int amentation, coupled with VI. Siting Policy Tsak Fon:e item 4 is proposed to be adopted.

information obtained from a plant Remmm-fetions Recommendation 2 -

walkdown, are used to make the ne Siting Policy Task f3rce made Revise to CFR part 100 to require determination of whether the plant nine recommendations with regard to should be shut down, ifit has not consideration of the potential hazards rension of the reector siting criteria in posed by man-made activities and already been shut down by operational NUREG-0625 " Report of the Siting natural characteristics of sites by ,

_ a.s m en-

~ , - , - , , , , , , _ . , ,

l 1

47 tit Federal Regla6er / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20,19e2 / Proposed Rules

• eatablishing minimum aMf! 2.The NRC etaff shalllafoem local Disposition and Action '

datances for: authorities (planning commisaloa,

1. Ma jor or comraercial airporta, De Commission considen that the country enemissiona, etc.) that W earty site permit prvvisions of to CFR

2. IJquJd Natural Gas (LNG) Lanalnals. activities within the emergency planning part 52 accomplish this

3. Large propane pipelinsa, rone (EPZ) of the basis fee determining recommendation, t 1.arge natural gas pipelines, the acceptability of a site.

5 Large quantities of exploelve or 2. The NRC staff shall notify those Recommendation 8 toxic materials, Federal agencies as in itesa 1 above the Revise to CFR part 51 to provide that

6. Ma}or dams, and

7. Capable faults. may reasonably initiate a future Federal a final decision disapproving a proposed )

action that may inftwence the nuclear site by a state agency whose approvalis Disposition and Acrion power plant. fundamental to the project would be a Recommendation 2 le proposed to be 3. The NRC staff shall require sufficient basis for NRC to terminate adopted in part and rejected in part.10 applicants to monitor and report review.He termination of a review CFR part 100 is to be revised to include Potentially adverse offsite would then be reviewed by the ,

consideration of man-related hazarda, developments. Commission.

However. establishing minimum 4. lf,la spite of the actions described Disposition and Actica standoff distances by regulation for the in items 1 through 3. there are offsite hazards cited is not feasible. NRC developments that have the potential for The Commission is not proposing to review has found that acceptable significantly increasing the risk to the adopt this recommendation because it is separation distances are not readily public, the NRC staff will consides considered inappropriate. This quannfied and can depend upon many restrictions on a case-by. case basta. recommendation would give a State the other factors such as the topography, authority to grant issuance of a sire, and operational aspects of the Disposition and Action construction permit for a nuclear facilities. in addition to the distance This recommendation is already in facibty, Only the Federal Government from the re.-tor. Accordingly, the effect or la proposed to be adopted. Itess has this authority. States do have en proposed regulation will require that the 1 is already covered by existing independent right to deny site approval harards be identified and evaluated so emergency planning requirements. Item as Ing as H is not a radiological health that they can be adequately considered 2 is being accomplished by laanance of a and safety, common defense, or security in the design of the reactor to be located Significant Hazard Consideration concun.

on the site Present NRC review criteria, statement by the NRC staff. The Recommendation 9 as given in the Standard Review Plan Commission is requestmg comments on (SRP). Section 2.2.3, are considered item 3. With regard to item 4, the yelop comma bases for conipartng adequate. Commission retains the right to order the risks for all external events.

Recommendation 3 restricuens on a case-by-case basks. Disposition and Action Revise 10 CFR part 100 by requiring e Recommendation 6 The Siting Policy Task Force's primary reasonabge assurance that interdictive recommendation in this area was that Continue the current approech an interdaciplinary effort should be measures are possible to limit relative to site selection from a safety undertaken with the objective of groundwater contamination resulting viewpoint. but select sites so that there from Class 9 accidents within the developing quantitabve risk are no unfavorable characteristics comparisons of all external events and immediate vicinity of the site. l requiring uniwe or urmsual design to natural phenomena.The Commission i Di.rposition andAction compeneste for site inadequacies. considers this to be a desirable The Commission is not proposing to Dispositica and Action objective but notes that the Siting Policy adopt this recommendation. However. Task Force made no specific requirements on future reactor designa The Commission is not proposing to recommendations with regard to siting will addreas the need to consider sad adopt this recommendation. In the criteria or rulemaking. The Commission mmmuze containment failure undee current and proposed part 100 therefore considers this severe accident conditions. Fetur, regu'ab,ons, applicants may provide recommendation inapplicable in the reactor demgns will need to addresa the specific plant design features to present context of examination of siting potential for ground water c001pensate fcr site inadequacies. As criteria, but notes that recent contammation as part of their long as these design featurve adequetely developmente in probabilistic risk environmental review under to CFR part account for the conditions at the alte, analysis (PRA) have considered 51* public health and safety will be examination of the risk from external protected. %ese specific design features events in detail.

Recommendofion i may involve added costs.However,the and Revise oppendix A le 10 CFR part 100 Commission has concluded that any io better reflect the evo6vig V % economic canalderation should be left to f {ry in assessing seismic hazards, the applicant. , The NRC la developing the following Disposition andAction ReconsmeadoOM , , , f,', ,;*g',*

The Commuasion la peopoems6 to adept Revise part 100 to specify that site prospective licensees with the necessary this recommendation in this rulemaking. approval be estabbshed at the earMoos guid=* for implementing the proposed Recommendcrion 5 decision point in the revlow and to regulation.ne nouce of availability for provida criteria ths.t wound lanve to be these materiala la published elsewhere Revise to CFR part 100 to inrLie saHead for thes approach to be in this inese of the Fedessi Register.

consideration of post 46canaing chamens suboegenetly manyemed in the lscensing 1.DC-1015?Identificeanos and in offsite activities. proceas. Charactertzation of Seemnac Sources, 1

, w Podseal Register / Yol. sr. No. 303 / Theodey October so, test / PW Rules 47811 Deterministic Soams Earthquakes, sed 1.u7.Toalp thales and Imadtag Box 37ead. Wenidneton, DC 30p134082.

Ground Motion? he dran gelde Combinations for Metal Primary Ramaare Copies use also ev=AaMa from the pmvides genere] guidance end Containment Syohm CamPanents? National Testudent inferraeGun Sorrice, recommendations, describes acceptaMe 2.1.51U' Design Baals Floods for saas Port Royal Raed, Spingfield, VA procedures and provides a het of Nr. lear Power Maats? 22161. A copy le also availeMe for )

references that present acceptable 3.1.00," Design Response Spectre for inspection and copying for a fee in the i

methodologies to identify and Selan1c Dealgn of Nudear Power NRC PuWic r h==t Room,2120 L ,

claractertze capable tectonic sources Plants? Street. HW. [14wer level), Washnuton, ]

l cad seismogenic sources. 4.1.83, " Inservice Inspection of DC. >

2. DG-1936. Second Proposed Preseurized Water Reactor Steam Copias a;/ leased reguletary gmdes Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, Generator Tubes? may be purchased fra.n the Government .

" Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentstion 5.132, Tombining Wal Responsee Printing Office (GPD) at the current for Earthquakes? The draft guide and Spatial Compcments in Salamic GPO price. Information on current GPO describes seismic instrumentation type Response palysia. . prices may be obtained by contacting and location, operability, 6.1.102, Flood Protection for Nuclear & Superintesdent of Documents. U.S.

charactenstics, installa tion, actua tion, Power Mag'th Ga # Printing Office, P.O. Box and maintenance that are acceptsble to 7.1.121, Bases f r Pi ng Degraded 370a2, Washbyton, DC 20013.-2171, PWR Steem Generator Tu es.

the NRC staff',, Pre-Earthquake

3. DG-1017, 8.1.122, Development of Floor Design leeued guides may ateo be purcha sed Plannin8 Response Spectra for Selsmic Design of from the National Technical Information

, and immediate Nuclear Power Plant Service on a standing order basis.

4 Operator Post-Earthquake Actions. ne Floor Supported Equipment or Details on this service may be obtained

' Components?

draft guide provides guidelines that a m by writing NTIS,5828 Port Royal Road' ne following regulatory guides will scceptable to the NRC staff for a timely be revloed to update the design or SPriasfleid. VA 221t1.

evaluation of the recorded setamic to SEW m SEC M6. and instrumentation data and to determine analysis change OB" philosophy, forthe to a fraction of example'SE:

S Ab " " " " *

whether or not plant shutdown is 1.1.27,"tfitimate He and copying for a fee at the required. Commieslan's Public Domment Room, Nuclear Power Plants at Sink for

!' 4. DG-1018. " Restart of a Nucleat 2.1.100, " Seismic Qualification of 2120 L M NW, gower levey, Power Plant Shut Down by a Seismic Electric and Mechanical Equipment for Wastuagton, DC.

Event." The draft guide provides Nucleat Power Mants?

guidelines that are acceptable to the X.9=68adan of Comments in 3.1.124. " Service Limits and imeding Elodrounc Formet NRC staff for performing inspections Combinations for Class 1 Unear. Type and tests of nuclear power plant Component Supports." He comment prnes wd be equipment and structures pnot to restart 4.1.130. " Service limits and losding improved if each comment is identified

' of a plant that has been shut down Combinations for Claes 1 Plate-and. with the document title, section heading.

because of a seismic event. Shell. Type Component Supportey and paragraph number addressed.

5. Draft Standard Review Plan Section 5.1.132, " Site Investigations for Commenters are encouraged to submit, 2.51 Proposed Revision 3 " Vibratory Foundations of Nuclear Pont Plantsy in addition to the original paper copy, a Ground Motion." The draft describes 6.1.138, " laboratory investigations of copy of the lettpr tn electronic format on procedures to assess the ground motion Soils for Engineering Analysis and 5.25 or 3.5 inch computer diskette; IBM potential of seismic sources at the site Design of Nuclear Power Plantay PC/ DOC or MS/ DOS format. Deta files and to assess the adequacy of the SSF' 7.1.142, " Safety-Related Concrete should be provided in one of the e Draft Regulatory Guide 4 7 Structures for Nuclear Power Plants following i rests: Wordperfect IBM (Other than Reactor Veseels and Document Content Architecture /

Revision 2. dated December 1991'for General Site Suitabib Nuclear Power Planta.,ty Containments)" Revisable-Fonn-Text (DCA/RFT). or

ThisCriteria guide 8.1.143, " Design Guidance fo, unformatted ASCIIcode.ne format discusses the major site characteristics Radioactive Waste Management and version ahM be identined on the Systems, Structures, and Components diskette's extemal label.

en ironmen 1 issues the C e aff Installed in Lipt-Water-Cooled Nwear XI. Quee6ans considers in determining the suitability Po Pi I' "

other Regulatory Guides and standard all aspects of this rulemaking, the Vill. Future Regulatory Action review plan sections as a reenit of Commission specificaHy mquests proposed changes in the nonseismic comments on the following questions, 8

be rev$ sed too'P riteria am also planned.lf substantive te t rial changes are made durms the revisions, A. Reactor Sithy Cnterio (Nonseismic/

changes or maintam the existing design the applicable guides will be issued for or analysis philosophy. These guides 1. Should the Commission grandfather public comment as draft guides existing reactor sites having an will be issued to coincide with the publication of the final regulations that IX. Referenced Documents exclusion area distance less than 0 4 would implement this proposed action. miles (640 meters) for the possible An interested person may er==ine or placessent of odditional units,if those The following regulatory guides will obtain copies for the dommente be revised to incorporate editorial sites are foand suitable fmm safety referenced in this propoeod rule as set conadeest6 ant

• changes, for example to reference new out below.

paragraphs in appendix B to part 100 or 2. Should the exclusion aree distance appendix S to part 5a No technical Copies of NUREG-0825, NUREG-1150, be ==ilar than c.4 mine (Mo meters) for changes will be made in these and NUREG/CR-2230 may be purdiased plants having reactor power levels from the Superintendent of Donamants, significaatty less than 3e00 Mega watts regulatoQ guides. U.S. Government Printang Offroa, P.O. (thermal) and aboald the exclusion area

4;T 12 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules distance be allowed to vary according to B. Seismic ond EarthquoAe Enrv eering use in the development and evalisation power level with a minimum value (for Criteria of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake nample,0.25 miles or 400 meters)? The proposed guide, DG-1015. Ground Motion should remain an

3. ne Commission proposes to codify outlines concepts and procedures to be important aspect of the siting the population density guidelines in used in conjunction with the regulations for nuclear power plants for Regulatory Culde 4.7 which states that probabilistic/ deterministic seismic the foressable future. The NRC staff the population density should not hazard evaluations. Rationale for the also feels that probabilistic seismic hazard assessment methodolog,es i has e exceed 500 people per square mile out to approach is discussed in section V.B(3) of thl Proposed Rule. reached a level of maturity to warrant a a distance of 30 miles at the time of site

't he staff is currently performing , specific role la siting regulations )

approval and 1000 people per squcre confirmatc,ry studies to evaluate and 2. In making use of the probabilistic mile 40 years thereafter. Comments are refine these proposed procedures. A and deterrHnistic evaluations as specifically requested on questions 3A, limited study has been completed proposed in Draft Regulato Guide DC-3D, and 3C given below, 1015,is the proposed proce ures in demonstrating the feasibility of A. Should numerical values of appendix C to OG-1015, adequate to procedures and the validity of the population density appear in the determine controlling earthquakes from concepts. However, the staff would like regulation or should the regulation to solicit comments on the concepts the probabilistic analysis?

provide merely general guidance, with outlined in the proposed guide at this 3. In determining the controlling numerical s alues provided in a time. To facilitate the review, results of earthquakes, should be median values of regulatory guidef the appl; cation ofit e proposed the seismic hazard analysis, as B. Assuming numerical values are to procedure to four test sites are descnbed in appendix C to Draft be codified, are the values of 500 published separately (Letter report from Regulatory Guide DG-1015. be used to persons per square mile at the time of D. Bernreuter of LLNL to A. Murphy of the exclusion of other statistical site approval and 1000 persons per NRC dated September 24,1991 measures, such as, mean or 85th square mile 40 years thereafter available in the NRC Public Document percentile? (The staff has selected appropriate? If not, what other Room at 2120 L Street NW., (lower probability of exceedance levels numerical values should be codified and Level). Washington, DC.). associated with the median hazard what is the basis for these values? %ere are divergent views on the role analysis estimates as they provide more C. Should population density criteria probabilistic seismic hazard analysis stable estimates of controlling be specified out to a distance other than should play in the licensing arena. There earthquakes.)

30 miles (50 kml. for example,20 miles is a general consensus within the NRC 4.The proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR (32 km)? If a different distance is staff that the revised seismic and part 100 has included in Paragraph V(c) recommended, what is its basist geological siting criteria should allow a enterion that states:"The annual

4. Should the Commission approve consideration for a probabilistic hazard probability of exceeding the Safe anahsts.There is also a general belief Shutdown Earthquake Cround Motion is sites that exceed the proposed population values of to CIR 100.21. and that the outcome of a probabilistic considered acceptably low if it is less if so, under what conditions? analysis should be compared with the than the meman annual probability results of past practices for siting and computed from the current (EFFEC 1'lVE

5. Should holders of early site permits, licensing the current generation of DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] population construction permits, and operating nuclear power plets.%ere is a general of nuclear power plants." This is a license permits be required to consensus that gwand motions should relative criterion without any specific periodically report changes in potential be calculated using deterministic numerical value of the annual offsite hazards (for example, every 5 methods once the controlling probability of exceedance because of years within 5 miles)? If so, what earthquakes are determined. With the current status of the probabilistic regulatory purpose would such reporting regard to the role of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. However, this requirements servet analysis, views range from an advocacy requirement assures that the design

6. What continuing regulatory of a predominantly probabilistic levels at new sites will be comparable to significance should the safety analysis to the probabilistic/ those at many existing sites, particularly requirements in to CFR part 100 have deterministic proposed here to a more recently licensed sites. Method after granting the initial operating predominant}y deterministic approach depenaent annual probabilities or target license or combined operating license as used currently, Civen these divergent levels (e.g.,1E-4 for LLNL or 3E-5 for under to CFR part 527 views, the NRC staff would like to invite EPRI) are identified in the proposed

7. Are there certain site comments regarding the use of regulatory guide. Sensitivity studies meteorological conditions that should Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis addressing the effects of different target preclude the siting of a nuclear power and the balance between the probabilities are discussed in the plant? If so, what are the conditions that deterministic and probabilistic Bernreuter to Murphy letter report.

can not be adequately compensated for evaluations.nis and other associated Comments are solicited as to:(a) lasues are itemized below. At s the whether the above criterion, as stated, by design features?

detailed technical studies are completed needs to be included in the regulation?

8. In the description of the disposition some of the staff positions may be and, (b) if not, should it be included in of the recommendations of the Siting confirmed. but specific comments would the regulation in a different form (e g., a Policy Task Force report (NUREG-0625). be helpful at this time.) specific numerical value, a level other it was noted that the Commission was 1. In making use of both deterministic than the median annual probability not adopting every element of each and probabilistic evaluations, how computed for the current plants)?

recommendation. Are there compelling should they be combined or weighted. 5.For the probabilistic analysis, how reasons to reconsider any that is, should one dominate over the many controlling earthquakes should be recommendation not adopted and. lf so, other? (The NRC staff feels strongly that generated to cover the frequency band what are the bases for reconsideration? deterministic investigations and their of concern for nuclear power plants?

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. XD / Twaday, October 20,1902 / Npo,ed Rules CB13 (For the four tnal plants used to develop h anetxmmental assessmmt and J. Murphy. Office of Nuclear Regula tory the entena presented in Draft findmg of no significant impact on Researth, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Guide DG-1015, the average which this determination is besed are Con .isskm, WesMngton, DC 20555, of results for the 5 Hz and to Hz spectral available for inspection at the NRC telephone (301) 492-3860.

velocities was used to establish the Public Document Room 2120 L Street The Commission requests pubhc probabihty of eaccedance level. NW. (Lower Level), Wa shington, DC, comment on the draft regulatory Controlling earthquakes were evaluated Single copies of the environmental analysis. Comments on the draft for th . frequency band. for the average assessment and finding of no significant analysis may be submitted to the NRC of1 and 2.5 liz spectral r*sponses, and impact are available from Mr. Leonard as indicated under the "Apontsses" for peak ground acceleration.) Soffer Office of Nuclear Regulatory heading.

XII. Finding of No Significant ' "'

o a i on,'DC XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certifiution EnvironmentalImpact: Availability telephone (301) 492-3916, or Dr. Andrew in accordance with the Regulatory The Commission has determined Murphy. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1900 (5 U.S C. 005(b)).

under the National Ennronmental Policy Research, US Nudear Regulatory the Commission certifies that this Act of1969. e: amended and the Commission, Washing 1on DC 20555, proposed regulation will not,if Commission's regulations in subpart A telephone (301) 492-3800. promulgated, have a significant of to CFR part 51, that this proposed XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act economicimpact on a substantial regulation. tf adopted. would not be a number of smaD entitles.This pmposed Statament major Federal action stimificantly regulation affects only the licensing and affecting the quabty of the human This proposed regulation amends operation of nuclear power plants. ,

environment aod therefore an Anfmation couecuon mquimmts that Nuclear power plant site appbcants do environmental tmpact statement is not are subject to the Paperwork Reduction not fall within the def nition of small required Act of 1900 (44 U.S C. 3501 et seq.). This businesses as defined in Section 3 of the The revisions associated with the propcsed regulation has been submitted SmaU Dusiness Act (15 U.S C. 632), the reactor siting cnteria in 10 CW part 100 t the Office of Management and Budget Small Dusiness Size Standards of the and the relocation of the plant design for resiew and app oval of the SmaH Dusiness Administrator (13 CFR requirements from 10 CFR part 100 to 10 paperwork requirements. part 121]. or the Commission's Size CFR part 50 hase ten evaluated There is no public reporting burden Standards (56 FR 50671; November 6.

again : 3e cu rent requirements, ne "I"'.ed to the nonseismic siting criteria. 3993),

Public reporting burden for the Cone ' ; has concluded that XVL Backfit Analysis

' " " collection ofinformation related to the c IN i rt nd ed lig d '*

m seismic specific site entena to part 100 does not criteria is estimated to average 800,000 and earthquale engineering ne NRC has determined that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not decrease the protechon of the public un P" mpme,inclu&ng de Mme apply to this proposed regulation. and health and safety rrver the current "" M 888 8 therefom, a backfH analysis k not regu!anons. The proposed arnendments exi8tm8 data sources, gathering and mainta ning e data nuded, and reqnited for this proposed regulanon do not effect nonradiological plant because these amendments do not effluents and hase no other c mpleung and review ng the coUntion .

n "8 involve any provisions that would envi onmenta: :mpact impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR l The addihon of append:s B to 10 CR 8 ^ 50.109(a)(1). The propoacd regula tion es mate or n th a c1 f th W uld apply only to APPh cants for l part 10n and tbe addition of appendix S coUection of information, including i

to 10 CFR part 50 will not change the suggestions for reducing this burden, to future nuclear P wer Pl ant construction radioloacal enuronmental impact the Information and Records permits, prelimmary design approval.

offsne Onsite occupstional radiation Management Branch (MNBD 7714). U.S. final design approval, manufacturing exposure assowed with inspection and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ycenses, earh ah dws, opeatmg me:ntenance wil: not change. These Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk hcenses, and combined operating activines are prinapally associated with Officer, Office ofInfortnation and bcensea, base br:e mspactions of structures.

Regulatory Affairs NEOlb3019 (3150 IJst of Subjects equipment. and p' ping and with 0011 and 31500M3). Office of mamtenance of seismic instrumentation. Management and Budget, Washington, #

Base hne mspechons are needed to DC 20503, Antitrust, Clasalfied information, differenhate between p e-existmg Criminal penalty, Fin protection, conditions at the nuclear power plant E R@am MM Incorporation by reference, and earthquae re'ated dan age The The Commission has prepared a draft Intergovernmental relations. Nucle ar structures. equipment and pipmg regulatory analysis on this proposed power plants and reactors, Radiation selected for these inspections are those regulation. The analysis examines the protection, Reactor siting criteria, routmely examined by plant operators costs and benefits of the alternatives dunng normal plant walkdowns and Reporting and recordkeeping considered by the Commission. The requirements.

inspections. Routine maintenance of drsft analysis is available for inspection ceismic instrumentation ensures its in the NRC Public Document Room 2120 # N#

operabibty durmg earthquakes. The L Street NW. (Lower Level), Admmistrative practice and location of the seismic instrumentation Washington, DC, Single copies of the procedure, Antitrust,Backfitting, is similar to that in the existing nuc!:ar analysis are available from Mr. Leonard Combined license". Early site permit, power plants. The proposed Scffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Emergency planning, Fees, inspection, amendments do not affect Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory limited work authorization, Nuclear nonrad:ological plant e!!!uents and have Commisaton, Washington, DC 2E55, power plants and reactors. Probabilistic no other environmental impact, . telephone (301) 482-8018, er Dr. Andrew risk aseeeement. Prototype, Reector

47814 Federal Resister / Vol. 57. No, 203 / Tuesday. Oclober 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules.

siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting population zone, and population center 50.81, 50 83, M64. 50 65. 50 71. 50.72.

and recordkeeping requirements, distance to read to read as follows: 50 80,50 82,50.90. 50.91, and Appendices Standard design. Standard design certification. 56M DeMeons, A. B. E, G. H.1. J. K, M, N. O Q. R. and g,

g g pg g

• As used in this part. . . . . .

Nuclear power plants and reactors, 4. In i 50.34, footnotes B,7 and 8 are Reactor siting criteria. Exclusion oreo means that area redesignated as footnotes 8. 9 and 10.

surrounding the teactor,in which the For the reasons set out in the paragraph (a)(1)is ievised and reactor licensee has the authority to preamble and under the authority of the determine all activities including paragraphs (a)(12) and (b)(10) are added Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, exclusion o'r removal of personnel and to read as follows:

the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, property from the area. This area may I 50.34 contents of appacations; tectm6 cat as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553. the NRC be traversed by a highway, railroad, or Womacon.

is proposing to adopt the following waterway, provided these are not so amendments to to CFR parts 50,52 and close to the facility as to interfere with (a) ' '

• 100. (1) A description and safety normal operations of the facility and assessment of the site and a safety provided appropriate and effective assessment of the facility. Site PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND tJT1UZATION arrangements are made to control traffic characteristics must comply with part $

FACluTIES on the highway, railroad, or waterway, 100 of this chapter. Special attention in case of emergency, to protect the must be directed to plant design features

1. The authority citation for part 50 public health and safety. Residence intended to mitigate the radiological continues to read as follows: within the exclusion area shall normally consequences of accidents. In

^" 04 be prohibited. In any event, residents performing this assessment, an 3 g33 ,\02.1 g3 1,82- shall be subject to ready removalin applicant shall assume a fission product 954.955.956, as amended, sec. 234. 83 Stat' case of necessity. Activities unrelated to release

• from the core into the 1244. as amended (42 U.S C 2132. 2133,2134. operation of the reactor may be 2135. 220t 2232. 2233. 2238. 2239,2282h seca, containment assuming that the facility in permitted in an exclusion area under operated at the ultimate power level 201 as amended. 202. 206. 88 Stat.1242. as a nended. 1244.124et (42 U.S C 5841. 5a42.

appropriate limitations, provided that no contemplated.The applicant shall 5846L significant hazards to the public health perform an evaluation and ar "ysis of and safety will result, the postulated fission product release.

Section m? also issued under Pub. L 95- . , e *

• 60L sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U S C 5851). using the expected demonstrable Sechon 5010 also issued under secs.101.185. bvPOPulation zone means the area containment leak rate and any fission 68 Stat. 936. 955. as amended (42 U S C. 2131, immediately surrounding the exclusion product cleanup systems intended to 2235L sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853142 area which contain re:Idents, the total mitigate the consequences of the U.S C 4D2) Sections 5013,254(dd) and number and density of which are such accidents, togethe with applicable site 501o3 also issued under sec.108. 68 Stat. 9J9.

as amended (42 U.S C. 2138). Sections 50.23, that there is a reasonable probability characteristics, including site

that appropriate protective measures meteorology, to evaluate the offsite B5 68 Stat 95 ( 5 c ons could be taken in their behalf in the radiological consequences. The 50 33a. 50 55a and Appendix Q also issued event of a serious accident.These evaluation must determine'that:

under sec.102. Pub L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 guides do not specify a permissible (i) An individuallocated at any point U.S C 4332). Secuons 50.34 and 50 54 also population density of total population on the boundary of the exclusion area issued under sec. 204. 6a Stat.1245 l42 U.S.C.

5644) Sections 50.58. 50.91 and 50.92 also within this zone because the situation for two hours immediately following the may vary from case to case. Whether a onset of the postulated fission product sued under Pub L 97-415. 96 Stat. 20"3 (42 specific number of people can, for release would not receive a total Se tiIn 5538 also issued under sec.122. 68 example, be evacuated from a specificradiation dose to the whole body in Stat 939 (42 U S C 2152L Sections 50.80-50.81 area, or instructed to take shelter, on a excess of 25 rem ' or a total radiation Cso issued under sec.184. 68 Stat. 954 as timely basis will depend on many amended (42 U S C 2%). Appendix F also factors such as location, number and issued under sec.1&?, L4 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C

• The fission product nlesse assurned for this

M size of highways, scope and extent of "*lanon hould be be.e4 upon a maior accident.

For the purposes of sec 223. 68 Stat. 958, as advance planning, and actual h *"'**d " d'"""'"'d I'* * * "d"* " "* '

• • d"'"""""*"d"'""'"

amended (s2 U.S C. 2ca). Il 50 5. 50 48 (a) distributi *

• n f residents within t.he area.

• *

• pounnai hasa,ds not eiceeded by iho.e from any and (b). and E54(c) are issued under sec. ***'d'"'

' "*'d'"d '"d'ble. Such accidenis ha ve 161b 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S C

, Population ceNetdisfance means the * " ' '

y,","g'M"3",*"*$'3,'"bsk("e'nf'e'i

, I.'e' nto ottb)L 1125. 50fta). mt0(sHc) m34 (a) distance from s reactor to the nearest and te). 50 441sHc). 50 48 (a) and (b). the coniauunent of appreca ble quantines of finison 50 47(bh 50 48(at (ch (db and (el. 50.49(a), boundary of a densely populated center producta E54(a )(Il (i)(1 L (1Hn). (p) (ql (t). (v). and containing more then 25,000 residents. ' The whole body dou of 24 mm refund to

. . . . e (yL 255(fl. 50.55a(s). (cHeb (s), and (hb above hn been stated to correspond numerwally to 50 59(c). 50.00(a). 50 82(b). 50.64(bh 285 and 3. In 5 50.8, paragraph (b) la revised to the once le a hfetune accidenial or emers.ncy done M80 (a) and (b) are issued under sec.1811. 68 read as fouows: for e.diation workers which. accordins to NCRP Stat. 949. as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(i)); and recommendanons may be d sregarded in the dennmnanon of thetr radiahon uposure status

!I 50 49(d). (h). and (lb 50.54(w). (r). (bb). l MS Woemenon cotection (see NBS handbook as dated June 5. tese). More (cc). and (dd). 50.55(e). 50.59(bL 50.81(bL muirements: Oeds appmat. neently. mis whde body dow n1m has aim bem 50.62(b). 5030(a),5011(aHe) and (e). 5032(a). * * * *

• P' * " @ " * * * * " "

5073 (a) and (b). 5034 m78, and 50.90 are performins emerency services invohins hfe saving (b) The approved information issued under sec.1elo. 68 Stat. 950 as ' acuviun or proiecnon ofisrse populanon whm amended (42 U.S.C co1(o)). collection requirements contained in this lo*'t dOs are not practicable teee EPA. Manual of

2. In i 50.2, add in alphabetical order part appear in il E30, E33. E33a, Protecuve Acn a Cuides and Prouctae Actions for the definitions for exclusion area low Sa34, 50.34 a. 50.35, 5438, 50.36a, 50.48 50.49, 50.54, 50.55, 50 55a. 50.50, 50.80, I,"$',','m" j,",,, fd,'N",'),,"C""'

cann w l

} _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

9-Federal Regis4er / V:L E7. No. 333 / haceday, October 20,1m2 / Proposed Rades C815 dose in excess of 300 rem to la tbytted this dapter, as partial conforumance to 1L MPe from lodine exposure. General Dealgn Cnte&n 2 of emendix m evalmeens deed,oed in this appendix

ii) An individual located at any point A to this part, shaU comply with the are within b empe ofinvestigations or, the outer radius of a low populatian earthquake engineering criteria of pmnitted by I so to(c)(1) of tbs chapter.

zone who is exposed to the radioacthe appendix S to this part. However,if the fy, gpfwg.,

cloud resulting from the postulated construction permit was issued prior to As used in these crtteria-fission product release (during the entire [t.rrruME DATE OF T11E FTNAL Combinedlicense means a combined period ofits passage) would not receive RUlI). the appucant shall comply with mnstruction permit and oper'e ting bcens a total radiation dose to the whole body the earthquake engineering criteria in with comittions for a nuclear power facility in excess of 25 rem or a total redistion Section VI of Appedh A to part 100 of issued pursuant to sobpart C of part 5: of tbs dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid this chapter, cha pter.

from lodine exposure. For purposes of . . . . . Daign cert @ootion means a Commissim this es aluation, a low population sone appeal. hd punuant to suW B @

boundary of 3.0 miles (measured from

6. In i 50 54' are ph (ee)is added " ' 'E ** " '

ft8d 88 fou W8- ovelear power faciLty. A design so approved the reactor center point)is assumed.

(iii) With respect to operation at the i 60.64 Coeduone of Dconees. ""Y I *.,referred to as a "cartifaed standards projected injtial power level, the . . . . .

d"[Operatig Rasie Earthquale GrouM applicant is required Io submit (ee) For licensees of nuclear power Mobon (OBE)is the vibratory ground motion information rescribed in paragraphs for which those featurn of the nucJo.. power i

(a)(2) throug (a)(B) of this section as plants that have implemanud the earthquake engineering critena in plant necouary for continued operelion well as the mformation required by this Appendix S of this part, plant abutdown with ut undu nok to the baalth and ufety of paragraph,in support of the application the pubbe wdl remain funct, nal The for a construction permit.

is W d the ma b Paragraph Operating Basts Earthquah Ground Mew I\,(a)(3) of Appendix S are exceeded. is only anocuted with plant ebutdown and Nota. Reference is made to Techmcal Prior to resuming operations, the Informatior. Document (TIDI14644 dated impection unleu Wcally eclected by the licensee shall demonstrate to the appbcant as a darviinput.

pr u t rele s co nment h has Commisalon that no functional damage A response meczmm is e plot of the been used in past evaluations. ne fluion has occurred to those features necessary maximum rupouas (eccelersuon, veluctry.

product release given in TID-1444 may be for continued operation without undue ordesplacement)of a fanujy ofidealaed used es a po;nt of departure upon risk to the health and safety of the singlsiegmf frwhen oecdletors as a consideretion of severe occident research public. fuococo of the natml Emquencaes of the msmbts avs.lable since its issuance. upon & Appendix S to part 50 is added to ***ill I ' a siven dampurg value. ne considerstron of plant design festures r*Sponse spectma Le calculeted for e miended to mingate the consequences of tead as ioUows: opecified vibrato y mouan inpot et the l

l stcidents, or upon charactensues of a Appendix S to Part 2-Earthquaka C*cilla tors' supports.

t parncular reactor. Copies of Tednical Engineering Critaria for Nuclear Power D* S*/' ""'d"'" %d* C"""#

fnformation Document 14844 may be pgg Mohan (SSE)is the vibratory greemd moton obtained from the Conurussion's Public foe which certatn structures, systems, and Document Room. 2120 L Street. NW. (Lower GenalInformate components most be designed to remain D ct f' e E c Ws appenda appbn to appbcants wh b en a on U apply for e design certification or combined The syetama, and components Nuclear Replatory Comnussion, Washington. DC 2o555 bcenn punnant to part 52 of this chapteror a i e ndh @ @ &&

I

. . . construction permit or operating license M & G W w uon u l . .

surfoce deformouon are thou necessary to O E a cant ho } v th cons III ' \"I'8'I'Y 'I "'*I*'* t *"'

apply for a construction permit pursuant issued prior to {ERICTIVE DATE OF DE to this part, or a design certification or RNAL RULE}. the operating license applicant

$ bibty to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe ebutdown onndition, combined license pursuant to part 52 of shall comply with the earthquake engmeering o, this chapter, as partial conformance to criteria in Sectu VI of Appendix A 1o 10 (1) ne capabihty to preesnt or mitigate the I General Design Criterion : of At dix Cnt part 100. consequen=, of eccidents that could result A to this part. shall comply with the I Introduction in potential offsite expc.euree comperable to earthquak e engmeenng enteria in the guidaltne exposums of 1 E54(e)(1) of this Each applicant for e construction permit. chapter.

Appen.da .. S of this part.

I g) operating bcense, design certification, of Suffoce deformobon is distortion of eolls or l c mbtned beense is required by (10) On or after [EFTECTWE DATE rocks et or near the gmund surface by the OF THE FINAL RL'I E). applicants who h,* ,$h*"h,"th pmcases of foldmg. faulting. compression, or part extension as a result of various earth forces.

apply for an operatirg hcense pursuant to design nuclear power plant structures.

to t is part. or a esign certification or Tectonic surface deformation is associated combmed Ucense pursuant to part 52 of systems, and components important to safety with earthquake procewes.

l to withstand the effects of natural l , phenomena, such as earthquakes. without IV. #P codonh To Engineering Design thyroid esposure as set forth in this sectaan are loss of capabthry to perform their sa.fety ne following are pursuant to the setsmic rended to unply tr.n these numban countute functions. Also, e condition of all operating and geologic design basis requimments of accepable hmits for emergency doses to the public licens8rs for rodear powae plants, as paragraphs V (a) through (f) of appendix B to under accident conditions Ra'her this :$ rern specified in l M54(ee). is plant shutdown if part 100 of this chapter whole body value and tne 300 rem thyro.d vehne the critena in Paragraph IV(e)(3) of this (e) Vibratory Ground Motion.

appendix are exceeded. (1) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Geound e h be c e al t plaat design features with respect to postujeted reactor ese ritene implement General Design Modo & na Safe Shutdown Earthquake accidents, m order to sasan that sach des.gns Criterion 2 insofar as 11 requires structures, Ground Mobon must be characterised by prende assurance adow rsa of pubbe exposan to systems, and compocants important to safety free-field ground motion response spectre et

. raJ. awn. m the event of such accmients. to withstand the effects of earthquakes. the free ground earface or hypothetical rock

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~

47816 Federal Re.glater / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October 20. 1992 / Proposed Rules m ,_ -

outc. rop. as appropnote in view of the limited continued operation without undue risk to the i St.ty Centents of apphe hes.

tota asadable on vibretory ground anotions he sith and sefety of the public must remain of stror4 -arthquaken. it usuaUy will be (a)(1) The application must contairi  %

functional and within opphcable stress arid approprate that the dest responn spectre deformation Itmita.

the information required by 50.35(aHd).

le emmthed spectre deutoped from en p) ftequired plant Shutdown.81f vibretory the information required by i 50.34 ensemble of response spectra related to the ground motion eaceeding that of the (a)(12) and (b)(10), and. to the ev.ent sibretory motiona caused by more tban on* Operating Baels Earthquak e Ground Motion approval of emergency plane is sought earthquale. At a minimum. the bornantal o, gr ,,snificant plant damage occurs. the under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, befe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion et hcensee must shut down the nuclear power the information requhtd by 6 50.33 (g) the foundation level of the structures must b' plant. prior to resuming operations. the and (j). and 5 50.34(b)(6)(v). The en oppropnote response spectrum with a peak ground ecceleret on of et least 013 hcensee tr.ust demonstrate to the Commission application must also contain a

"[g'tesee des ed that no functional dam.ge has occurred to those features necessary for continued description and safety assessment of the g to r y, .

site on which the facility is to be Ground Motion occurs. certeln structures, operation without undue risk to the health located. with appropriate attention to sptems. and components w.tl temmin and safety of the pubhc. features affecting facility design The functional and within applicOe stress and (1) Required Seismic Instrumentation.

assessmer.1 must contain an analysis deformation hmits In aJdation to seismic Suitable instrumentation must be provided so and evaluation of the major structures.

loads. applicable concurtent normal that the seism 6c response of nuclear power opereng. fut ctional, and occident. induced plant features important to safety can be systems, and components of the far.ility loads must tw taken into act;ount in the evaluated promptly after en earthquake.

g -

gg design of thets safety related structures. (b) Sir f ac4 Deformation. ne got-ntial fo, acceptability of the alte under the optems. and cornponents. ne design of th surface deformation must tw take'iinto radiological consequence evaluation riuclear pos.et plant must also take into account in the design of the nuclear power factors identifir 3 in l 50 34(a)(1) of this accourt the possible effects of the Safe plant by providing reasonable assurance that chapter. Site characteristics must Shutdown Earthquab e Ground Motion on the ut the event of deformation. certain comply with part 100 of this chapter. In f atihty foundations by ground disruption. stru tures. systems, and components will addition, the application shnuld describe such ee fissunna. lateral spreads. differential teanin functional, in addition to surface the following.

settlernent, hquef action, and landshding. as ceformation induced loads, the design of requir-d in paragraph F,l) of appendis D to safety features must tak e into account par' .00 of this chapter seismic loads, including aftersh4k s. and (vi) %e selsmic, meteorological.

The required safety functions of structures. apphcable concurrent function.i and hydrologic. and geologic characteristics

, svetems. tad component meet be ensured i

accidenunduced loada. The design of the proposed site; dunng and after the vibr* tori round motto.) * *

• rovnions for surface deformati6 : v ttw *

• at unke nd ion rou h design. dfrec ion d am a d nder ny pe of 9. In to CIT part 51 appendix Q.

testing or quahfication methods.. paragraph 8 is added to read as follows:

the nuclear power plant. unless evidence indicates this assurrption is not appropnete. Appendix Q to Part 52-Pro Application 61 ute nters ti et efft ts a th e duration of vibratory motion. It is permissible and must take into account the estimated rate at which the surface deformation may occur.

Early Revlew of Site Sultability issues to design for strain hmits in esceu of yald , , , , ,

strain in some oI these safety reIated (c) Seismically Induced Floods and W ater Waves and Other Design Cc editions a Notwithstandirig paragraph 7. any

"" 8 Se'emically induced floods and water waves apphcation for renewal of an early site afe hu down EarthquIk C d Motion and under the postulated concurrent from either locally or distantly generated permit is subject to e full early site permit loMs- provided the necesury safety seismic activity and other design conditions review-functions are maintamed. determined pursuant to paragraphs V (e) and (21 Operet".3 Basis Earthquake Ground (f) of appendia D to part 100 of this chapt,, PART 100-REhCTOR SITE CRITERIA Motion must t4 taken into account in :he design of

{i) The Operating Basis Earthqua'ae Ground the nucJear power plant so as to prevent 10. The authority citation for part 100 Motion must be c.haractented by response undue risk to the health and safety of the contmues to read as follows:

opectra 'ste vs.4 of the Operstmg Basis pubhc. Authority Secs.103.104.161.182. 68 Stat.

Farthquake Cr'ound Motion must be set to 9m ag?, Ha. 953, ee amended (42 U.S C. 2133, one of the following chu.ces; PART 52-EARLY Sr.C *ERMITS: r 34,2201. 22321. sec. 201. as amended. 202.

( Al One third or less of the Safe Shutdown STANDARD DEflGb CERTIFICATIONS; M Stat.1242, as amended, ~ 244 1 (42 US C.

Earthquak e Ground Motion. 's he AWD COMBINED UCENSES FOR sa41. 5a42).

requtrements associated with this Operating NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Basis Earthquake Ground Motion in 11. De table of cot ants for Part hXi parastaph (aH2)h)(BK/) can be satisfied 7. The authority citation for part 52 is revised to read as fi.llows:

without the appbcant performir.g emphcit continues to read as follows: -

response or design analyses, ce l'Ahi 100-REACTOR SITE CRITEltti (D) A salue greater than one-third of the Authority: Secs.103.104.101.182,183.186, Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion. 189,68 Stat. 9m Ma 953. !v4. 955,9M as Sec.

Analpts and design must be performed to amended. sec. 234. 83 M st.1244 as amended 100.1 Purpon.

demonstrate ths.t the requirements associated (42 U S C 2133. 2201,2232. 2233. 2212230, 100.2 Scope, with this Operating Basis Earthquake Ground 22A2;. secs. 201,202, too. 88 Stat.12411244. 100.3 Definitions.

Motion in Paragrsph (aH2HiXBKS an. 1248. es amanded (42 USC 5641. 5642. 5846). ton 4 Communications.

eatisfied. Ths *tesign = **t take into account 100.8 Information collection requirements-eoil structure interem effects and the 8. In 151.17. tite introductory text of OMB opproval.

expected duratsoit of Grotory ground l'aragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(1)(vi) motion. are reytaed to read as follows: Subpart A-Evaluet6on Factors for (S Whensubjected to the effects of the Steuonary Power h 3He App #ce6one Operstmg Basis Earthquake Ground Motion i Cadance le beine developed in Draft itetulatory or in combination with normal opereting loads. Cukie DG-tott. " Pre F.arthquaka Plannare and all structures systems, and components of immediaw % clear Pwet ekna O*iereHit Poep 100.10 Factors to be considered when the nus - r power plant necessary for Earthquaha Actions" evaluating sites.

, - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ . . __ ___ ~- - - - -

rederal Register / Vol. 67. N). ans / Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rul:s 47817 10011 Determinetion of eadwalon area. low exclusion or ivmoval of personnel and 11555 Rodvi!Ja pike. Rockville, population sone and populeuon senter distance. property from the are e, nis area may Maryland.

be traversed by a highway, railroad, or 16. Section 100.8 is revised to read as Subprt 54 vetuetka f actu, for weterwsy, provided these are not so follows:

Steponary Pww Finactor (,me A ; r.; clost to the facility es t; interfere with on or Aner lttfeettre Dete af the Final normal operations of it.e facility and Niek ptwided appropriste and effective .,,, ,,,

too.:o rectors to he considered when strangements .re made to control traffic (a)ne Nuclear Regulatory neluettng sites. on the highway, railroad, or waterway. Comminion bas submitted the 100.21 Detenmnetton of endosion stee and in case of emergency to protect the information collection requirements i population distribuuon.

1 toom Enlustion of potental men.related pubhc health and adety. Residence contained in this part to the Ofhte of hasards within the esclusion area shall normally Management and Budget (OMD) for be prohibited. in any eyelit, residents approval as required by the paperwork Appendit A-$alemk and Geologic $lting shall be subject io ready removalin

'.ittoria for N.idear Power plt.nts Reduction Act of tisoo (44 U.S.C. 3501 et cage of tieoostity. Activities unrelated to seq ). OMB has approved the Approdin B- Citterla for the Beismic atxi opnadon of b reactor may W inbshnco M e t wnb Geologic $1 ting of Nudear Power >tants on o, permitted in an exclusion area under contained in this part un et control After ltJfectne Date of the naal Mulej appropriate limits tions, provided that no number 31fA0003,

12. Sectjon 2001 is revised to read as signscant haaards to the public health (b)The approved information gyn,,', and safety wiU tesult.

Lowpopulation tone means the area collection requirements contained in this

{ t00.1 Purpose apt. ear in appendix A and appendix immediately surrounding the exclusion (a)This part sets forth standards fc; area which contains residents, the total evaluation of the suitability of proposed number and density of which are such 17. A beading for subpart A is added ,

sites for stationary power and testing that there is a reasonable probability directl gy, y before i 100.10 to read as reactors subject to part 50 or part 52 of that appropriate protecuve measures ,

this chapter. could be taken in their behalfin the (b) This part identifies the factors Catiport A4 valuation Factors for event of a serious accidert.These considered t y the Commission in the guides do not specify a permissible Stat 4nery Power Reactor Site evaluauon of reactor sites and the population density or total population AppucaHone Befora l'ffective Date of standards used in approving or within dis tone because the situation the Final Rule) and tw Test Reectora.

i disapproving proposed sites, may usy from case to case. Whether a 13 Section 100.2 is revised to read as 8pecific number of people can, for 18. Section 100.10 is revised to read as fouows: follows:

example, be evacuated from a specific i M2 Scop *. area, orinstructed to take shelter, on a $ 100.10 Factors to tus coneWered when timely basb WI depend on many weha=#ng eMea.

(a) This part apphes to applications factors such 6 ;ocation, number and filed under part 50 or part 52 of this Factors considered in the evaluauon site of highways, scope and extent of of sites include those relating both to the i

chapter for early site permit, advance planning < and actual construction permit, operating license, proposed reactor design and the

) or rombint i hrense (constru: tion distnbuuon of residents Wthin the area. characteristics peculiar to the site. It is

permit and operating license) for power Population center distance means the expected that rea; tors wiu reflect i

and testing reactors, distance from the teactor to the nearest throth their design, construction and boundary of a densely populated cc .ter

'b) The site cnteria contah ed in this containing more than about 25,000 operation en extremely low probabihty part apply primanly to reactors for for accidenie that could result in relecae residents. of significant quantitles of radioacuve wr.ich there is significant operating expenence. These site criteria can t!so Power reactor mekna a nuclear fission products. In addition, the site be apphed to other reactor types, such reactor of a type desenbed in l 50.21(b) location and the engineered features or i 50.2t of this chapter designed to included as safeguards against the as for reactors that are novelin design produce electrical or heat energy, and unproven as prototypes or pilot hazardous consequences of an accident, Testing reactor means a testing should one occur, should insure a low pants. For plants without s!gnincant facility as defined ir i 50.2 of this operating experience,it is expected that chapter. risk of pubhc exposure. In particular, the these basic criteria will be applied in a Commission will take the following

15. Section 100.4 is added to read as manner that takes into account the lack follows: factors into consideration in dearmining of expenence. In the application of these the acceptability of a site for a power or critens which are debberately flexible, I m4 conm6cevona. testing reacton the safeguards provided, either site Except where otherwise spenfied in (a) Characteristics of reactor deal8 "

! isol& tion or en meered features, should this part, au correspondence, reports, and proposed operation including-l reflect the 16ck of certainty that only applicationr and other written (1)1ntended use of the reactor esperience can provide. communicatfor.: submitted pursuant to i

including the proposed maximum power

14. Section 100.3 is revised to read as D CFR 100 should be addressed to the level and the nature and inventor fouows: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, contained radioactive materials: y of 9 100.3 DWtions- ATTN: Document Control Desk, (2) ne extent to.which generally As used in this part: Washington, DC 20555, and copies sent aceepted engineering standards are to the appropriate Regional Office and applied to the osign of the reacton Aclusion oreo means that area Resident inspector, Communicadone surrounding the reactor,in which the (3) ne extent to which the reactor and reports may be delivered in person incorporates unique or unusual features resctor licensee has the authority to l determine all activides including at the Commission's offices at 2120 L having a significant bc 2.a on the Street, NW., Washington, DC, or at probability or consequences of m

E i

a p 47818 Federal Registee / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October 20. 1992 / Proposed Rules accidental rtlesse of radioactive the expected demonstrable leak rate reactor would not initiate an er.cident in materials; from the containment and the another, tia site of the exclusion area.

(41 The safety features that are to be reeteorolotrical conditions pertinent is low population tone and p>pulation engineered into the facility and those he site to derive an exclusion area, a ccnter distance shall be fulfilled with barriers that must be breached as a low population tone and population respect to each reactor individually. The r result of an accident before a release of center distance. For the purpose of this envelopes of the plan oserlay of the radioactive material to the environment analysis, wh!ch shall set forth the basis areas so calculated shall then be taken can occur, for the numerical values used, the as their respective boundaries.

(b) Population density and use appticant should determine the (2)If the reactors are it.terconnected characteristles of the site environs, followin8' to the extent that an a:cident in one including the exclusion area. low (1) An exclusion area of such size that reactor could affect the safety of population tone, and the population an individuellocated at any point on its operation of any other, the size of the center datance, boundary for two hours immediatelY exclusion area, low populatime zone and (c) physical characietistics of the site, following onset of the postulated fission popdatira center distance shall be including seismology, meteorology, proJo t release would not receive a based upon the ess.umption that all geology, and hydrolegy, total radiation dose to the whole body in interconnected reactors emit their (1) Appendix A to part 100. " Seismic excess of 25 rem e or a total radiation postulated fission product releases anti Seologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear dose to excess of 300 rem to the thytold simultaneously.%is requirement may power plants." describes the nature of frorn todine exposure, be reduced in relation to the degree of investigations required to obtain the (2) A low population zone of such else coupling between teetors, the geologic and seismic data necessary to that an individuallocated at any point probability of cor , utant accidents determine site suitability and to provide on its outer boundary who is exposed to and the probability that an individu..

reasonable ass" ance that a nuclear the radioactive cloud resulting from the would not be exposed to tb3 radiation power plant can be constructed and postulated fission product release effects from simultaneous releases. %e operated at a proposed alte without (during the entire period of its passage) applicant would be expected to justify undue nsk to the health and safety of would not receive a total radiat.co dose to the satisfaction of the Commission the public. lt desenbes procedures for

• to the whole body in excess of 25 um or the basta for such a reduction in the determining the quanttistive vibratory a total radiation dose in excess o! 300 source term.

ground motion design bssis at a site due tem to the il told from iodine exposure. (3) ne applicant is expected to show to earthquakes and describes (3) A pop ation center distance of at gI g g infonnetton needed to determine least one and one-third times the mjltiE le actor at a i e 11 not result whether and to what extent a nuclear distance from the reactor to 'be outer I"

• power plant need be designed to boundary of the low population tone. 'n i withstand the effects of surface faulting. applying this guida, the boundary of the applicable regugauons, b 7o 1 (2) Meteorological conditbne at the population center 6 hall be determined upon consideration of population Note: For fu-ther Fuldance in developing elle and in the aurrounding area should

' considered. distnbution Pohtical boundaries are not the esclusion area. the low populabon tone.

and the population center distance. teference (3) Geological and hydrologicai controlling in the application of this e nforma ument characteristics of the proposed site may guide. Whers vec Mrge cities are tegede4 have a bearing on the consequences of involved. a grea.edistance may be proceduraltaethod and a semple calculation an escape of radioactive mtterial from necessary because of totalintegrated that result in distances roughly reficcting the facility. Special precautiona should population dose consideration. current sitmg practices of the Commission.

be planned if a reactor is to be located (b) For sites for multiple reactor the calculations desenbed in Technical at a alte where a significant quanuty of fac!!ities conalderation should be given information Document 14a44 may t.e used as radioactive effluent might accidentally to the following: a point of departure for consideration of flow troo nearby streams or nvers or (1)If the reactors are independcut to particular one requirements wtuch may result might find ready access to undergrcund the extant that an accident in one from evaluaison of the charactenstics of a perucular ter.ctor. 6ts purpose and method of water tables. peratior. Copies of Technicalinformation (d) Where unfavorable physical ecadenial eventa, thei would reeuh is pairenal h***'d8 ^*H**d*d by thou tram any acciden, Document 14644 may be obtained from the characteristics of the site ax,ist, the Commission s pubite Document Room. 2no L

• """d'"d * **

ErvEosed site tr.aY nevertheless be bwn muewd to revolt 5"'* "d'"'8 te nt stantialh* " 8'"'eu[

meltdown o Street. NW. (Lewer 14 vel). Wa shmgion. DC.

• found to be acceptable if the design of h con with subseqwnt relem or opprec4 bie of by writmg the Director of Nuclest Reactor the f acility includes appropriate and quannee ai r oe prodens- Regulation.U.S Nuclear Re1rulatury adequate compensating enginearing '1h *hnte body dm of 2s rem nfermd to Commialen. Washmgton. DC. 2066S-eafeguards. *l*" cor ponde emncally to the ona in a eun* ecodetual on *n=rseecy A se tw rwaathm 20. Subpart B (Il 100.20-100 % )is 19, Section 100.11 le tevised to read ae workers wbch, accordme to fCRP added to raad as follows; fo}]ows.. recunmendatione methe dier'sarded in the E ndted t Subpart 5--Evaluation Fectoes for i 100.11 Determinoson et esceuelon area. Powewr. nein.se in use noe too popneamen sene, and poputocon conser at dsku , rem the aao Stationary Power Reactof Site e.tance. esiae toe (brroid useum u sei fonb to see ena Appl 6 cations on or Anor Knective

" Date of the F1nal Rule]

, (a) he an aid in evalnating ei proposed . *"ZM*,,g[*,",dM*,$,y site an applicant abould assume a dosee +, the pued.c under accmsens es.ditao -

gg3 p,,% g g ,,,g,,g g,,

fission pnaduct talease 8 from the core.- Feihen. tha as rem whole body enha rad she .no eveduaung anoe.

rem thyroid valse have beee ut tw. 3 tien guidee as reference e hsee, whH 1e be used la the De Commlaslor will take the

• Th itse produci re4eeen essessed for thees evslantese er seeceae sNes t 9th t= arse le powenet folloWtng factors into Considtrelion in t.kulattare hvothmetud skreld to based for pwpom upos d on. a seek.e

. 1re er acahise4 reester ocewn.e. sad a.a=Aaae io. nek atd me en apeans (etermining e eagly alese probehelny d the acceptability of a alte {

i**'"I*'*d tre escedersnans W paene reeuess . for e stationary power reactae:

,e Federal Regist:r / Vd. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rtil:s 47819 (a) population density and use everley C the sum of the esclusion (b) ne effects of offsite Lazards must characterishcs of the site environs. amas for e6ch reactor. lf the reactors have a very low probabihty c' affecting includ:ng the esclusion area, the ato interconnected to tLi utent that an the safety of the plant. The hkehhood populatic.n distnbution, and site.related accident in one reactor would initiate an and consequences of offsite hazards charactenstics must be evaluated to accident in another, the site of the must be estimated using data and determme whether individual as well as exclution area for each reactor reust be assumptions that are as reabstic and societal risk of potential plant accidents det?rmined on a case by case basis, representative of the site as is practical.

is low, and that site-related (b)(1)If the offaite population density The design bases for which the plant is characteristics would not pres ont the at the proposed site exceeds the values designed must be specified.

desclopment of a plan to carry out given in patyraph (b)(2) of this section. 21. Appendit B to part 100 la added to suitable protective actions for itemttre the sit; Cll not be approved by the read as follows:

of the pubhc in the event of emerfener Cem.9n unless the appbcant (b) The nature and proumity of mah- demnstrates either. Appeella B to Part 100--Criteris for the related hazards (e g., airports, dams, (i) That there are no reasonably Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nucjaar transportation routes, mthtery and available alternative siten with Power Plants Do or After [ Effective Data chemical facihtles) must be evaluated to algnificantly lower population densities. * 'I determme whether the lent design can or carmrd taformation d ""

Pa'"*J'an%'ha" "i ,'s't i"Aer W m'

• nmr~d '"' " r~'""d -- d- rr' ' er'<> "' -h hazards is very low, smer an alternative site with apply for en early site permit or combmed

{c) physical charactenstics of the site, r Xficantly lower population density beense pursuant to part 62 of this cierter. or g ,he basir of other considerations. e censtructan permit or operating bcense includmg seismology, mt'eorology, Punvent to part 60 of this c.hepter on or after geology, and by drology. (?) The pop.11ation denalty, including (1) Appenda B. Cnteria for the weighted transient population, prolected lrmGVE DATE OF mr FIN AL RL'LE l However,if the construction pe*mit wu Seistnic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear at the time of initial site approval or issued pnor to (ImGVE DATE OF WE power plants on or After (EFIT. early site permit renewal should not f1NAl, RiflI). the operstmg bcense opphcant exceed 500 people per square mile D ATE OF THE FINAL RULE] . CTWF. shall menMy with the seismic and geolore averaged os er any radial distance out to sitmg entene in Appenda A to Part 100 of describes the enteria and nature of investigatiers required to obtain the 30 miles (cumulatts e population at a this chapter.

geoloFic end seismic data necessary to distance divided by the totcl circular ,

7 area at that distances The projected da termine site suitabi1it)- g General Dengn Cntenon 2 of appendia A (21 Meteorological characten,stics of to part 60 of this chapter requires that nuclear the site that are necessary for safety transient population,40 years after the power plant structures sptems. and analpis or that may have an impact time of initial site approval or early site compo,ees important to safety be desiped upon plant desWn (such as maximum pennit renewal should not exceed 1000 to withstand the effects of natural probable wind speed and precipitation) people pu squam mile evnaged over phenomena such as earthquakes. iomadoes.

must be identified and charactented. any radial distance out to 30 miles. burncanes, fkuis. tsunarru and seiches (3) Factors important to hydrological (3) Transient population must be without loss of capabihty to perform their

• radionuchde transport (such as soil, included for those sites where a ufety funcuons. it is the purpose of these sediment. and rock characteristics, significant number of people (other than critens to ut forth the pnncipal seistrac and adso*ption and retention coefficients, those just passing through the arta) pg {s d onen,s that g e]+

,, 99n ground water s elocity, and diet. *1ces to work, reside part time, or engage in suitabthey of prop th aearest surface body of water) must recreational activities and are not po,,, p;,ng, ,,, osed sites for the suitabihty nuclear of the plant be obtained from on site measurements. P"")anent residents of the area.The deogn base, estabbshed in consideration of The mnimum probabic flood along with transient population should be the seismic and geolc1pc charactenstics of the the potential for seismic induced fle ds considered for siting purposes by proposed sites i discussed in Appenda D meist be weighting the transient population nese entena are bued on the curnnt estimated using historical data. eccordmg to the fraction of the time the scophnical geological and eeismological transients are in the area. informa%n concemmg faults and earthquak e

{ 100Jt Determmation of eschas&on area (c) physical characteristics of the occ"n'"' *^d 'fI'c D'Y "'ll te revised and populatH>n dtstritartion.

proposed site. such as egress limitations as necessary when more cumplete (a) Each reacter facihty must have an from the area surrounding the site, that inf nneuon tecomn evouaue exclusen area. as defined in i 100.3(a) could pose a significant impediment to II Scope of this part the development of emergency plans. Then cnteria. which apply to nuclear (1) f or sites with a single reacter must be identified. power plants, describe the natun of the facihty. the datance to the exclusion invesuptions required to obtam the geolope area boundary at any pomt (as l 100J2 haluat6on of pokottal m* end seismic date necessary to determine site measured from the reactor center point) P&ted hazania. suitabibty and provide renonable assurance shall be at least 0.4 milee (M0 meters). (a) Potential hazards to the plant from that a nuclear power plant can tw (2) For sites with mrit.ple reactor man-related activities associated with constructee.. and operated at a pmposed site facihties, consideratien must be given to nearby transportation routes, military, without undue nok to the health and safety of the fc!!owmg If the 1eaWes are and industrial facihtles must be the pubbe. Geolcipe and seismic factors independent to the extent that an " h accident in one reactor would not

• identified and their potential effects ",9 " h * '"ar d

ep st 8

evaluated. Potential hazards to the plant toenufied' initiate an accident in another, the size include such effects as explosions, fires, of each exclusion area must be touc and/or flammable chemical determined with respect to each reactor releases, dams (both upstream and ,,',,7 @ "basa 'P I*

downstream), pipeline accidenta, and a >N' individuall). The er.clusion area for the d.e ussian are provided in rerwistory sedes and site must then be taken as the plan aircraft crashes and impacts. staa.dard re== plae moana

b 47820 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October so.1992 / Proposed Rides l The inintigabons twenbad in this Combased/scense mienne e conMned directly by f ault moiement and h dishnet orpsudsa are withm the scope of comtruction penait and oserrung beense from nontectonic types of ground disruptions investigouone perinitted by i Sa10(c)(1) of mtth conditions for a nuclear power facihty such ae Endshdas. finutes, and cesters.

this dapter. tesued pursuant to subpart C of put 62 of thle F.ach opphcent for a construct 6cn pennit, chapter.

M MuMareshpodons opereting ht enw. early s' ate perm 64, or A descem/rder/c soume earthquoAe (DSF1is De geological, telsmologic al. and cornbmed luence shallinveellgete all sesemic the lary et earthquebe that can reasonably be engineering chsrecteristics of a site and its and geologic f actors that may aflect the espreted to occur in a sivon solemic source 14 environe must be investigsted in sufficient design and opereuon of the prvposed nuclear h current lectoruc regtme, and le to tw used eccpe and detell to permit an adequate power Cent trnspective of whether sec.h to e determiniet6c enelysis It is seaereUy en slueuen of the propowd site. to provide factore are espliudy induded in these based on the manimuen histoncal earthquake suf0ctant information to support both cnteria Both determintetic and prvbebillsbc associated with that seismic sourte. unless probabdieuc and determinist c evaluet ons euluatione must te conducted to determine recent geological evidence werrante a larger ,, quired by thne enterta. and t, p.rmat sne sutiebdity and neunuc dnan earthquake.or where the rete of occurnnoe adequate enameer*ng solutions to octual or requiremente for h site. Additsonal of earthquakes tradirates the likelihood of potenual geologic and seismic effects at the investigations or more conservathe laryer than the larpeet histortcal event. propowd site.De stu of the region to be determmettone than those inc'uded in these Early Sde Perm # swane a Com alplon inmttgeted and the type of data pettinent to

c. rite *ia may be required for eitn located in approval.lwued pureuent to subpart A d h inentisations must be determined by the areas with complem geology, rnent intonec part 62 of the c.haptet, for a site or altee fo' natum of the reston surrounding the propowd ckformattori. or in ains of high eeismicity. lf one or more nudear pow er factittles, ette. De ins astigettone must be comed out en appucent bellene that the perucular A fou/t le a tectonic structure along which by a rev6ew of the pertinent I terature and seismic and geologic charactertadce of a eite dafferential sHppage of N ediscent earth field investigatione as identified m poteg*eph in,sicate that some of these criteria or materiale hae Orterted parallel to the fracture IV N thmugh le) d ele appendb.

portions thereof, need not be settsfied, h plane. A fault may heve sousu or breccio (a) Vibretory Ground Motion.

opplicant shallidentify the spectfic secuons between its two wn!!e and lacludet any he purpm d hu investigatione is to of these entena in the beenu apphceuon and seacciated anonochnal fleaure or otho' obtam informadon ceeded to assees the Safe present supporting dets to clearly lastify such elmuer seulogic structural fntura. $hutdown tarthquake round motion. De departurce he Director. Office of Nuclear The magrutade of an earthquake la e seismic ocurces (capab e intonic soortes Reactor Regulation approves any deviations measum of the site of an earthquake and is and seamopmc sources)in the site region related to the energy released in the form of g snust be identified and evaluated. De seiemic waves. Magnitude means the deterministic source earthrauskes snust be i

A4 used in these enteria: numencel A capable sectame soorts is a tectonic as, but not value limitedonto, aMoment standardised scale eudi entuated for each ulemic source.

Magnitud*, (b) Tectonic Surface Deformation, structure est c.an generate both earthquakes Surface Wave Magnitude. Ilody Wave De purpm W thm innsegauone h 2 and tectonic surfort deformation such n Magnitude, or IUchtw Messutode scales. emu the pounual for tecknic sudece faultma or foldme et or near h surface in A rwponse opscowm de o plot of the deformation near the elle end. if any, to what the present 6eismotectonic regime. it is madmum respousse (accelersuon, velocity, entent the nuclear power plant needs to be chatactertred by at least one of the following or displacement) of a family of Ldealand cherectenettes: single-degree.of. freedom oscillatore as a d"I8"'d I ' M** OCC""C'**

ltl ne presence of eurface ce near.eurfece function of the natural frequencies of the tel Nontactonic Deforme Lion.

deformetion of landforms or geologic deposite cecilleton for a given damping value. ne ne purp ee d tbm insuugauons le 2 asun the potential for surface deformations of recurring asture within h test responw erectrum la calculated for a not directly attributable to tec.tonica. such u approaimately $00.000 years or et leset once specified vibretory modon input el the those sesociated with subsidence or collapse in the tool apptottmately 50.000 yene, oectuators'supporta, De Safe Shutdown Karthquake Crod as in kerst terraln. glectally induced omets.

(2) A reenonable unocistion with one co- and growth faulung. Paragraph IV(b)

, more lerp earthquakn or mustained Motion (SSEf te it i vibestory groused motion for which cwtain structuru, eyotema, and ameems investigeuons required for tectonic earthquake activity that le usuUp acwmpanied by signifkant ev'fece componente must be designed to remain surfere deformauon that can occur deformatton. functional. coulosucally Nontectome phenomeno can (3) A structural nasociatton with a rapable A seismic soufre le a generet term refurlas P'oesnt signifkant surface displacement haterde to a ette, but can in many cam be tectuNe source having charactertetice in to both setemogenic enartes and cap.ble paragraph 111(t) of th6e definition so ht tectonic searcos.

monuncL controUed, or mitigeted by movement cm one could be reasonaldy A seiemogenic accrw le e portiae of the engineertos, or it can be demonstrated that expected to be nomsapen6ed by ow,ement om earth ht has ureforse earthquake potential conditions that were the coup of h the other. seks and d6eplacemente no longer exht Geological and (utne detwenianouc suurce es in some caesa. N geologic evidence of frequency of remarronce) distinct the Pophysicalinvestigations must be carried past activity at cr near the ground surface surroundmg area. A solemagenic sowte wul out to 6dentify and define nontectonic -

- along e particular r.spable tectonic ecuros not cauw surface displamments. deformet60s features ar6d. where posuble.

may be obscured at a particular ette. nle Seismopnic sourceo cover a wide range of distingukh hm from tectonic surface might occur, foe enactple, et a eHe hav6ng a possibdittee from a well<lefined tectonic dhplacements, if such distinction is not deep overburden For thew caeas, evidenw structure to etmply a lary: restow of ddfore poselble, the questionable features must be

• treated as tectonic deformation.

may estet ennewhere along the structure fooan 'neismicity (seamotectonic province) tho which an evolution of its charectoriettes la to be characterised by the same earth . (d) SeismicaDy induced floods and Water the victrtity of the site can be reesonably recurrence model. A senteogerde source le Wavees bued. nie evidence meet be seed in elao c.haredwtood by lie lavolvement in tem We purpose of these invretigations is to detwmining whether the structure to e current tectonic regime as re n=*=t la the aseees 'ho poteotial for neerty emi distem capable tectonic source within this definitios6 Que (appromienately the last g edutaa tsunamie 3nd othu wene ht could affect Notwithstandans paragraph (1), (2) and (31 years) ge history, coastal sites. tncluded la this esweement is

+

of th6e definitiost eaructural assoctahan of a Sarfew dehrmesion is distortson of sella or the deteminanon of the potential for shdes structure with geologic etsectur.] features rocks ab oe asas the pound surface by the ' of earth statorial that could generate wevee.

thol are geologically old (et leaal pre- p*wa=ama of folding, fealting, coenpresados, or Information regardmg distant and locally Quaternary) such as many of thou found la entension as a twult of various earth forms. genereted waves or tsunamis that have the Eastwn reglon of the United States must. Tectonic entface deformation is associated affected the ette, and avallable evidence of in the ebeense of coanictang evidensa, with panthgeake processen, runsp and drewdown sesociated with these demonstrete that the strucause le not a Saarpow jendsig le diflerential yound egents. shall be analyred. Iml featwee of cepable tectcetc sensee unthin this dotations U --- - ^ at er amar Ibn esodese seased oessiel er underess topogrophy which could I

f

4 Federal Re:We / Vc167. No. 203 / Tweeday. Octobee 20. 1992 / Proposed Rules 47321 i

mcdtfy

• ave rimp or dre*desa muel be estent end mesure of surface dedunnettone (f) Opeesting ihmeis Ear 6qiaske Cepend N

umsivered ior eues located nest lakes or esset be chareceertsed. Motsee (0114 ttsers. anoines snust Arnlude the potential for le) Determinatian elDealen Basee for p) Reqatied Nnt Shundewit seismically induced floods or wetre waves, Geismully induced Ibuds and Weter (4) Required Setemic instrummetsuon.

es. for esempie. Imm the failure dunns en Weves (bl Surface Defortnation eerthquake of a dem upstreem or frno shdo De stre of octemloolly induced Omde end (cl Salmirally indumd rhode end Weter of earth or debns into a twarby lake water weeee that ovuld eDect e ette from Wevee and Other Dn6sn Candit6ons.

le! Volcanic Actmry. either founty or distan0y genereted eelarnic Dated aI Rocaw!1a. Maryland, this Oth day The purpose of these savesugetions is to activity sDual be deterWDed, taksng into

, essess the potential volcanic hasards that considereban that resulta of the uweetigation of October m l would edseteely affect the site. tequired by paragraph IV (d) of due for the Nuclear Regu! story Commission oppenda. Samoel 1. ChLik, V. Sea:ruc ed Geolvp Desp Bases gf) Detertninethon of Other Design kcretary of the Comtmssion to)Determmauon of Detemusiistic Soune Conditions lerthq ua k e s. (11 Soil Siebthty Vibrotory smund motions [fB Dx 03-m rded IMIKc. 4 45 em]

saAmso coca poem For esth seist.nogenic and c.apable tectume detertnined in patogespb V(u) can conee eoll sounc ider, tits d in peregraph IV(e). the instabibty from ground dieroption such as Faeurma, la teral opreads, ch fierential determir.isSe sounc earthquene must t.e eulusted At a mmimum, the deterrninistie setdement, and bquefechon. Whed is not directly related to eurface faulung Geological COWWOOfTY RfTURES TRADtNG soutw earthquebe trust be the terrest COMMlW ON 4

! histoncal earthquak e m ead source The features that could effect the foundations of uncerta nty in determinityt the deterministic the preposed nuclear wer plant structurn g g pg 4 source es thquakes must be ocmu,ted for m must be rulusted,la into account the the peub bilanc acahsis. Information mnceming e physical j t "' ' " h"'

pg g ettrTr mation of the Gmund Motion at {Nd of nd for Certain Otherwloe Regulated The graund meton at the site must t.e notion determined in peregraph V(b). Persorse Frorn the Definition of the eiG.T.eted from all earthquakee includarts the (2) Slope stabihty. Siebihty of all slopes. Term " Commodity Pool Operator" deterministe soune earthquake associated teth natural and attaficial, must be w nh each sour u. whu.h could potentiauy c naidered, the fadure of whkh could AetsscY: Commodity Futures Trading affet t the site mns both probabibstac atad adsersely affect the nuclear power plant. An Commhslon.

a rahted sti so tre C'O O '" I ear *hquabe *ssocieted wnh each sou*ce must t>e assame, o occur at the part of the sourte ne g ns of ]s

,g j,on w d ion with tuentARYt The Commodity Eulurc:

information conIe ning the ph seul Trading C4.mmission (" Commission" or e ne dn i al e o d7:ons must pmpenin t.f 04 matenals ur erlytng the este "Cl*IC")is pmposing to amend tie reo to account for unwrtamtg in and the effects of the vibratory gmund Regulation 4.5 which excludes certain estirnatmg the gauund motwn for the sne. The motion determmed in paragraph \ (b). Otherwise regulated persons from the ground motion is ciefined by both honsontal (3) Cochng water suppl). Assurance cif an definition of the term "commodit) pool and sertaal fru fie'c gmund motion adequete cooling water supply for emergency and long term shuidown deuy heat removal operator"("CPO"). The rule currently rnponse spectra the f ee g m.nd surface or permits such persons to maintam this

bypothet. cal ed outcrop as appropnele

- , , , est.lusion to the extent thstt. infer olio.

tcl Determ: nation of Safe Shutdown f.atthquak e Ground Matwn. information unceming the ph sical (1) the commtidity futures or option properties of the matenals un erlying the Positions which they assume are either M ni r$c It f)ee f1d to a sae. the effects of the Safe Shutdown bona fide hedging positions or long rrot en re spoe spectre at the free ground basisjor tectoruc and nontectoruc surf ace""h positions uske which are "Motion, Gmund incidental to the and a design sur'.cc of b,wthetaa! m<k outcrop as qualifying entity's activities in the apowrwe new spectra are developed deformation. Considtratmn of rher blockage underlying cash market" and (2) the

imm or ror'pred to the g'ound motions m da nsen w ch f ahms est may M aggregate imtlal margins and premiums de'errt r ed m caraie aph Vit>l Detemunistic i,

ar'd pv 4 Whit 4 seamic hazard esaluations fubs d n am n p nd dra ,

for all such positions does not exceed and the failure of derns and intake structures five percent of the fair market value of trusi be word ta assess the adequacy of the inust be mcluded in the evaluation where the entity's assets. The Commission SA Shedown Istboake Ground Mohon. appropnate. proposes to permit the assumption of The anul pryt ab,1?> of esteedmg the Safe (4) Dis' ant structurn Those stmetures that commodity futures and option positions r ed a p at! an i1 can.f tr the immediate v6ctruty of that are neither hedging not " incidental" L t lent an the rMan annul emb&bt> computed d[si i the estW that the market exposure f*or the current Illi1CTIVE DATE OF TFiE ed ti d ef eIt of t e Safe attained il mugh such positions Shutdown EartFquake Ground Motion, The il\ Al lit'Lil popJa'.on of nuclear power design basis for surf ace faulting must te predominalt a qualifying entity,does e o erall not I"* determined on a basis comparable to that of market exposure.The Commission aho At a m nwn the hontental Sefe the nuclear power plant. taking into account proposes to (1) remove the current Snutavn F.mhauske Ground Motion et the the matenal underiytng the structures and the restriction that permits assumption of fcunda9an its el c-f !!.e s:ructures must be an different toutmn with respect to that of the only long non hedging positions and (2)

" w h a peak ade-gc d !ct t no so taodify the five percent margin / premium idl Determ; nation of Need To Design for W ATP hcotion T'o Engineering Design limitatJon to esclude margins on bona Surfaa "Iectonic and Naritectonic Pursuant to the seismic and geoltre design fide hedging positions from computation i Deforma tions, of the five percent.

i basis requirements of peregraphs V(al Sw!ficient geological seismologicat. and through tf). opphcations to engineering design DAtte: Cornanents must be received by peophmcal data rnust be provided to clearly are contained in Appendts 5 to part 60 of this December 4,1992 t

estabbsh that surfste deformation need not c.bapter for the following stees be taken irto account it the design of a ta) Vibratory g*ound motion ADosetSSES: Comments should be sent

$ riuclear power plant. When surface (t) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground to the Commodity Futures Tradtng

! defo-maten is hke!). en assessment d the Motion (SSE) Commission. :an K Street NW.,

l b