ML20140F561

Notice of 930204 Meeting W/Numarc & Other Industry Representatives in Rockville,Md to Discuss Draft RG DG-1015 & Proposed App B to 10CFR100

ML20140F561
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/11/1993
From:	Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:
Shared Package
ML20007G200	List: ML20140E433 ML20140E885 ML20140E897 ML20140E903 ML20140F445 ML20140F466 ML20140F507 ML20140F517 ML20140F530 ML20140F535 ML20140F540 ML20140F555 ML20140F561 ML20140F568 ML20140F575 ML20140G488 ML20141C175
References
FRN-57FR47802, RTR-REGGD-XX.XXX, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52, TASK-DG-1015, TASK-RE AD93-1-034, AD93-1-34, NUDOCS 9705050056
Download: ML20140F561 (22)

Text

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

t 1

[7590-01] [

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100  ;

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other industry representatives to discuss industry positions associated with proposed Appendix B, " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear Power ,

Plants On or After [ Effective Date of the Final Rule)," to 10 CFR Part 100 and associated guidance documents. The proposed regulation is a revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,"

I to 10 CFR Part 100.

DATE: February 4, 1993 8:30 AM ADDRESS: 5650 Nicholson Lane Conference Rooms A and B Rockville, Maryland i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief, Structural and Seismic Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 describes the seismic and geologic siting and earthquake engineering criteria for nuclear power plants. Because of the advances in the state-of-the-art since the publication of the regulation 4

i (effective December 13,1973), a need for the revision has been established.

e j The proposed regulation, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100, was issued for public i 9705050056 970422 PDR PR 7 ,

K 5,7p 47802 _PDR

t. .

.A e a

comment on October 20, 1992 (57 FR 47802) along with other proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 100 that pertain to reactor site criteria and earth-quake engineering criteria. Draft regulatory guides have been developed to make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC

staff for implementing specific parts of the regulations. The availability of 1 the draft regulatory guides and a related standard review plan section was published on November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55601).

The purpose of this meeting is to meet with NUMARC and other industry representatives to discuss industry recommended alternatives to the positions contained in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015, " Identification and Characteriza-tion of Seismic Sources, Deterministic Source Earthquakes, and Ground Motion."

i No specific agenda is being proposed.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this li day of January, 1993, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l i s i Lawrence C. Shao, Director

~

Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

t

APS 3-1 3

, em P> rt

, Proposed Rules redmai na-me Vol. 57. No. 212 l Tuesday, October am.1992 1

1 l This secten of the FEDERAL REGISTER Deliver seenments to IT555RechviDe the NRC fneerporate minimum exclusion i contains nonces to the public of the pmposed essuance of ndes and pike, Rock,6ile, Marylead, between 7:45 area and low population zone distances

! reguheon he popose of mese neceae a.m. and 4:15 p.m.. Federal workdeys, and popelation density hmits into the Copies of the regulatory analysis, the regulations.On April 28.1977 Free

< **M '"# N 8" environmental assessment anni findu:g

• Environment, Inc. et al., filed a petition

] ,,,,. ""g (

a g,,, of no significant impaat and en====8a for rulemaking (PRM-50-20). The nAes. reenved may be matami==d at the NRC ' remaining issue of this petition requests Puhhc Doasment Room at 212e L Sauet that the centrallows nuclear project NW. (Lower level), Washington. DC. and other reactors be sited at least 40 l NUCLEAR REGULA 00W pon pusmesa esponeBATIOst costfACF=

CNSem miles from major population centers. In Dr. Andrew f. M.arphy, Office of Nuclear August ifr/s. the Commission directed

10 CFR Parte 50,52.end 100 Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear the NRC staff to develop a general Regulatory Commission Washington. Pohey statement on nuclear power

! RIN 3t96 Acee DC 20555, telephone (301) 49r-3800, reactor siting.The Report of the Siting i

" concerning the seismic and earthquake Policy Task Force"(NUREG-0625) was Reactor Site Cettesta; Inedessne Salment engineering aspects and Mr.Leosard issued in August 1979 and provided and Earthquake Engineering Cetterte Soffer, Office of Nuclear ikgulatory recommendations regarding siting of

for Nuclear Power Plante ensL Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory future nuclear power reactors. In the i Proposed Denial of Petition tee Commisalon. Washfagton, DC 2055s, 1980 Authorization Act for the NRC. the j Mulemaidng Frosa Free E C - M telephone (301) 492-39166 concerning Congress directed the NRC to decouple

inc.eteL other siting aspects, siting from design and to specify Acanct W Regaletwy NMNM Commissum 29 1980 4 FR s L Backersund.

I E W an Advanca Notice of Proposed J rule and proposed AcTloss: Pa+ gg Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding j denial of petition forrulemaking fra revision of the reactor site criteria, j Free Enviromnant. hac.et eL IV. Altema$1ves V. Majorru.a. which discussed the recommendations I

' supsesann The Nelena REIN"t"I A. Reactor Siung Cnk:MN<mmwe }. of the Siting Policy Task Forte and j Commission (NRC)is propostng ta B. Seisauc and Earthquala Enepasenng sought pubhc comments.The proposed Criteria. rulemaking was deferred by the j amend its regulations to update the VL Siting Policy Tsek Parco enteria used in dedsions regarding Recommendations, Comrnission in December 1981 to await development of a Safety Goal and l power reactor siting, including gentogic. VE Related Regulosory Guideo and Standard improved research on accident source setsnue, and eerthquake engineering Revmw Pleo Secnen.

considerations for future rmclear power VIIL Future Regulatary Actims. terms. On AuI"at 4.1986 (51 FR 23044).

4 plants. The proposeduale wouhf allow, IX. Refmocad Dacammas k Mud h Mey Saley on i NRC to benefit froes expenence gained X. Subaussion of Comments la Electeams e C t ala ed q ntita in the a@h of b @w med XL Questions. prompt and latent canwr fatality risks.

j meods set M k the curwat A. Reactor Siting Criteria (Naa-w j regulation and to imenrporate the rapid On December 14,1t'en (53 FR 50232), the B. Seismic and Earthquake Fagineering NRC denied PRM-100-2 on the basis advancernante in the earth aci== and Cnterts.

earthquaka engineering. The proposed XE Finding of No SlynficanIhreironmental thatit would unnecessarily restrict rule primarily consists of two separate impact: Availebility, NRC's regulatory siting policies and i chaages, namely, the source term and XEL Paperwat Esshacess3ct Steerment. would not result in a substantial I dose considerations, and the seisade XIV.Replasury Ammtyes. lacrease in the overall protection of the and earthquaka XV. Regulatory Flexibility ( artification. public health and safety.Because of 3 , considers;sous of sting The XVL Bacidis Analreis Possible renewod interest in power i '

Commienion is also proposing to deny I. % 2

, the remaining issue in petition (PRM-as.

The press- agulstian estanding

"*[$ s B e

20) filed by Free Environment. Inc. et al the proposed regulations woodd include reactor sina e ttaria (la CFR gert 1 col population density criteria for future

, DAfss: Comment period erpiree was proomf Jed Aprd12,1sta(27 FR nucfear powar reactor sites, the February 17,19s3. Casaments reselved 3500). Staff guidance on exchasion anon Commission concludes that the after h dens will be e===A=ed niit is and low " some sinne as weH as r==Make issue in PRM-60-20 is being j Pracucal te do se6 bed the t'-is popidatia'd'deandy s men issued inaddsasesIi as part of this rul===Mng eble to assum consideration ordy for Regulatory Guide 4.7,"Gemmaml Site action.

coinments secalwed on as balese this Suitabiktscna ielesNuclearPower 4

date. Appendix A to 10 CFR port Tom Statians," pmWiebedias sessmeet in " Seismic and GeoloBi c Sfting Criteria for anamneese. Mail written conunents to: September 1974. Revision 1 to this guide Nuclear Power Plants." was originally Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory was issued in November 1975. On June issued as a proposed regulation on Comsniss;on. Washington. DC 205&g, 1.1976, the Public interest Research November 25,1971 (36 FR 22601),

Attention: Docketing and Servios Group (PIRG) filed a petition for ~ published as a final regulation on j Brandi. adamahing (PRM-100-2) requesting that November 13,1973 (38 FR 31279), and i

4

Feeleral Register / Vol. 57, No. 203 / Toemd:y, October 20,1992 / Prw Rules m as becama cffectiv2.on December 13,1973. Because the rwined criteda presented regulatory implesmantation (both nere have been two amendments to 10 in the proposed regulation would not be technical and legal), fewer interpretive CFR part 100, appendix A. he first applied to existW planta, thelicenalng debates, and incmased regulatory amendment. issued November 27,1trr3 bases for existing nuclear power plants flexib!!ity. Applicants will derive the (36 FR 32575), corrected the final must remain part of the regulations.

regulation by adding the legend under same benefits in addition to avoiding newfore.the p sed revised reactor licensing delays caused by unhar the diagram. The second amendment siting criteria d be added as regulatory mquirements.

resulted from a petition for rulemaking subpart B in to CFR part 100 and would (PRM 100-1) requesting that an opinion apply to site applications received on or V. Major Gnaages be issued that would interpret and after the effe crive date of the final clarify appendix A with respect to the regulations.%e cdteria on selamic and A. saewSiting Crwarao (Nanseismic) 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 CPR part 100.%e dose criteria in 1982, the Commission has petition was published on May14,1975 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 petitioner's proposal was accepted and CFR part 50 (i 50.54(a) and appendix S, opportunity to reeww 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. Objectiva to reference appendix S.%e proposed influence risk and their range of regulation would also make conforming acceptability. Much of the experience

%e objectives of this proposed amendments to 10 CFR parta 52 and 100L gained by the NRC staffin these reviews regulatory action are te Sections 52.17[s)(1)(vi), and 100.2D(c)(1) has been reflected in the issuance of

1. State the criteria for future sites would be amended to note appendix B Regulatory Guide 4.7. " General Site that based upon experience and to part 100. Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power importance to risk. have been abown as IV. Ahormatives Stations." which was issued for key to protecting pune aealth and casament in 1974, and revised in 1975. It safety. '

The first alternative considered by the also reflects the Commlaston's policy of

2. Provide a stable regulatory basis for Cornmission was to cetim using keeping reactors away from densely seismic and geologic sitmg and curmt regulanons fonhe suha% populated centera. A review of the applicable earthquake engineering determinations. nis is not considered Regulatory Guidelines implementation design of future nuclear powerplants an empta shanadve. Aeddent- , has shown that its application is that will update and clanfy 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 mpmments men dan shing. It is of potential rasctor sites in all regions of technical understandings; and desirable to state directly those siting the nation.

3. Relocate the requirements that "

P ri av n t e He site criteria presented in the apply to plant design into 10 CFR part 50 proposed regulation are based on those thereby effectively decouplins sitin8 assuring public health and safety.

Further, significant advances in the contained primnfly in Regulatory Guide from plant design. 4.7, and represent canent NRC practice.

earth sciences and in earthquake III. Genesis engineering have taken place since the in addition, numerous risk studies on ne proposed regulatory action promulgation of the radioacuve material micaso to Ge and deserve to be rehresent ected in the regulation envir nment under severe accident reflects changes that are intended to:(1) regulations.

conditions have all confirmed that the Benefit from the experience gained in present siting practice is expected to applying the existmg regulation and ne second alternative considered was replacement of the existing effectively limit risk to the public. nese frcm ruearch: (2) resolve interpretive stvdies include the early " Reactor questions: (3) provide needed regulatory regulation with an entirely new Safety Study"(WASH-1400) published flexibility to incorporate state.cf the. art regulation. This is not an acceptable improvements in the geosciences and alternative because the provisions of the in 1975, many Probabilistic Risk earthquake engineering: and (4) simplify licensing existing regulations form part of the Assessment (PRA) studies conducted on bases for many of the individual plants as well as several the language to a more " plain English" specialized studies, and the recent operating nuclear power plants and others that are in various I"n! e proposed regulatory action would obtaining operating licenses. herefore, stages of " Severe Accident Risks- An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants."

apply Io applicants who apply for a these provisions must remain in force (NUREG-1150), issued in 1990.

construction permit. operating license. and effect.

preliminary design approval final Uc proposed criteria basically ne approach of establishing the decouple siting from accident source design approval, manufacturing license, revised requirements in new sections term and dose calculations. Experience early site permit, design certification, or and an appendix to to Cllt part 100 and has shown that these factors have combined license on or after the relocating plant design requirements to effective date of the final regulations. tended to influence plant design aspects 10 CFR part 50 while retaining the rather than alting. Accident source term Criteria not anociated with the existing regulation was chosen as the and dose considerations are proposed to selection of the site or establishment of best alternative. De public will benefit be applied to plant design aspects and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground from a clearer, more uniform, and more would be relocated to part 50. The Motion (SSE) have been placed into 10 consistent licensing process that CFR part 50. This action is consistent Commiulon cocilders it appropriate.

incorporates updated information and is based on the extensive experience and with the location of other design sub}ect to fewer interpretations.He confirmatory studies notad above, to requirements in 10 CPR part 50. NRC staff wiB benefit from Ly d state dinctly those site criteria that

47804 Federal Register / Vcl. 57, Ns. 203 / Tu:sd:y, October 20, 1992 / Prop:s;d Ruhs  ;

have been shown to be key to protecting use of a postulated source term. protective actions were contemplated in public health and safety.%ese reactor assurnptions regarding mitigation the event of a serious accident.The site criteria are expected to be systems and dispersion factors, and the regulations in to CFR 50.47 now requires independent of plant design and, as calculation of radiological consequences plume exposure Emergency 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 Commission area and low population zone. It would plant, considers this appropriate because it instead require a minimum exclusion ne LPZ also places restrictions on expects that future reactors licensed area distance of 0.4 miles (640 meters) the proximity of the nearest densely under part 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 numerical 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 str ff, has been found to LPZ, this requirement has little practical Therefore, there would be an extremely satisfy the dose guidelines in the present effect. Typical LPZs for existing power low probability for accidents that could regulation. An exchaion area of this size reactors have several thousand result in release of significant quantities or larger is fairly common for most residents. If Regulatory Guide 4.7 were of radioactive fission products. In Power reactors in the U.S. It has not followed and a distance of 3 miles were addition,the recommendations of the been unduly difficult for most selected as the LPZ outer radius, a Siting Policy 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 XII of this proposed Finally, this distance has also been 14.000 residents. Finally, the staff has rule. found to readily satisfy the prompt sometimes experienced difficulty in fatality quantitative health objective of definin8 8 dense 1y popu1ated center.**

Rotionale forindividualCriterio the Commission's Safety Boards Policy, The Commission considers that the

1. Exclusion 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 '*"I

immediate vicinity of the plant has been a requirement for siting power reactors I'']I'"""

8'"*"' "' " '

minimum exclusi n area distanc'e feasibility of taking protective actions, have been accomplished by other from the very beginning. This area regulations or can be accomplished by d '

other means. Protective action provides a high degree of protection to the public from a variety of potential

[rfsk$oi]ifidu is ven o requirements are defined via the use of located ve close to the plant the EPZ. while restrictions on population plant accidents and also affords Although an exclusion area " size of protection 10 the plant from potential close to the plant can be assured via about 0.4 miles is considered proposed population density criteria. For man.related hazards, appropriate for reactor power levels of these nasons, the Commission is The present regulation has no current design, the Commission is also numerical size requirement,in terms of proposing to eliminate the requirement considering whether or not this size of an LPZ for future power reactor sites distance, for the exclusion area. The present regulations assesses the unduly penalizes potential reactors that for purposes of determining site have significantly lower power levels smtabilHy.

consequences of a postulated and is therefore requesting comments on radioactive fission product release this subject. 3. Population Density Criteria withm containment, coupled with assumptions regarding containment 2. Low Population Zone The present regulation contains no leakage, performance of certain fission The present regulation requires that a population density requirements other than the requirement, noted above, that product mitigation systems, and low population zone (LPZ) be defined atmospheric dispersion factors for a immediately beyond the exclusion area. the distance to the nearest population hypotheticat individuallocated at any Residents are permitted in this area, but center containing more than about the number and density must be such 25,000 residents must be no closer than point on the exclusion area boundary, The plant and site combination is that there is a reasonable probability one and one. third times the outer radius of the LPZ.This was recognized as a considered to be acceptable if the that appropriate protective measures calculated consequences do not exceed could be taken in their belief in the potential concern 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 containing more than about 25.000 Considerations on April 12,1962 (27 FR suggests an exclusion area distance of

• O 4 miles (640 meters).This distance has residents must be located no closer than 3509), accompanying the issuance of the been found, in conjuncti)n 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. hypothetical individual located at the population center distance may have to Future reactors would be expected to be outer radius of the LPZ 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 The 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 staffissued Regulatory of a reactor site and is retaining this Guide 4.7 in 1974. With respect to miles (4.8 km) for the LPZ has been requirement for future reactors. found to satisfy the dose values in the population density this guide states as However,in keeping with the present regulation, follows:

recommendation of the Siting Policy Several practical problems have " Areas oflow putation denalty are Task Force to decouple site arisen in connection with the LPZ. preferred for nudar power station sites.

requirements from reactor design, the . Before 1980, the LPZ generally defined lush population densities pro}ected for c..y time during the lifetime of a station are proposed regulation would eliminate the the distance over which public

I 1

Fedseal Regimene / W1. 57.'No. 23 / Tissoday, October m.152 / Proposed Budse WWe5 j

i is expected to answo a new losel of risk, j considered during both the NRC star uevlow bealth objective in sogard to leiset

• end the public beartas phases of the hasasing - cancer fatality states that, within a including the risk ofletsset concer process. If the population denetty at the distance d ten adles (M km) from &e fatality as well as Weerm land l proposed Me not scoopteW low, ten to seector, the risk to &e population of s==*==saation. Phoelly, the f'a==halon i

" 9* * * *I latent cancer fatality froin nuclear that gresting of the g,[,, amadedse,a request to specify population I $i , ,

power Pl ant operation, including petitioner populauon densities. accidente, should not exceed one-tenth criteria out to 40 adles rathat than 30

!! the population density,lachading af one percent of the hkehhood oflatent adles would not substantially reduce the

welshted transient population. protected at cancer fetahties from all other causes. In risks to the public, but could i

the time of initiet operation of a nuclear alpelficantly increase the dtthculty of j power station exceeds 500 persons per square addition to the risks of latent cancer mile averaged over any redial datance out to fatalities, the Commission has also obtaining seitable reector sites in some j

20 miles (cumulative popuistion et a distanes hivestigated the likelihood and extent of regions of tlw nation. For these reesons.

divided by the area at that distancel. or the land contamination arising from the ese Comunission is proposing not to  !

projected population density over the hfetime rel m e d ind radioacHve des, @ b proposal h N

Environment, i.n~s,mted.

• ' such as cesium 437,in the event l .',[*,hy*,*,*,*,'jo)$y'* 'dj' severe reactor accident. An Important point regarding distonce out to 30 miles, speciat attention Ra results of these analyses indamte population projections and their l should be given to the consideration of that the latent cancer fatality application should be made. Because the alternetive sites with lower population quantitative health objective noted wahdity and reliability of population densities." abon is awt fw curent plut designs. projections, particularly for relatively The basis for this guide was that it Fmm analysis done in support of this small regions, decreases markedly as provided for reasonable separation of d change in regulation, the the projection time period increases, reactor sites from large population Ikelihood of land contamination imm a population projections for the purpose of i

centers while also assuring an adequate senn occident sufficient to mquin long assessing site suitabihty are to be selection of sites in all regions of the term condemnation ofland beyond 30 limited to 40 years. Population nation. However, no comparisons with miles (50 km)is very low. Other projections beyond this time period explicit risk criteria were provided at analyses indicate that population become unreliable and speculative.%e gg desity rwtnc ns ut to 40 40 year period for population projections On April 28,1977. Free Environment, make it diEcult toi obta,n abk sun,mun is tocen)d be distinguished from the 60 year or Inc. et. al., filed a petition for rulemaking ' more plant lifetime.

(pRh4-50-20) requesting, among other things. that "the central lows nuclear "8["'d"I"*"'"81"*

"* Because analyan han shown eat Because the population density values current plan designs can meet the protect and other reactors be sited at of Regulatory Guide 4.7 have been in use Commlasion's Sakty Goals and est least 40 miles from,ma}or population since 1975, and these values afford an other risks can be kapt a,t a, vary low centers." ne petitioner also stated that adequate supply of potential reactor kul at sites est han r%ady

" locating reactors in sparsely-populated sites in every region of the nation while higher population densinn een eose areas * *

• has been endorsed in non- providing assurance of low risk oflatent being proposed, the rmamission wishes binding NRC guidelines for reactor cancer fatality as well as land to emphasize that these population siting " However, the petitioner did not contamination. the Commission density levels do not indicate the upper specify what constituted a major considers it prudent to maintain these limits of acceptability.%ese levels population center.The only NRC population density values for futum mpresent preferred values, that,if guidehnes conceming population power reactor sites. %e Commission axceeded, require that an applicant density in regard to reactor siting an in wishes to unphasize, however, that provide justification or not locating a Regulatory Guide 4.7, issued in 1974 and nuclear power plants meeting carmot reacim at an alternative ede having a revised in 1975, prior to the date of the safety standarda could be safely located lower populaban density. %erefore, the petition.This guide provides population at sites aigmficantly more dense than population density limits proposed in density criteria out of a distance of 30 500 people per sqm e mik. the regulation are inlanded to be used miles from the reactor, not 40 miles. For these reasons, Se Commission is only in the siting decin6an process to be An illustration of the degree of pmposing that, at the time of initial site applied at the time of initial elta ,

separation distance provided for in this approval or early alte 1ermit repawal, approval or early site perusit renewal to l guide from population centers of various population dervaity vabes rif so more determine whether alternative sites that i

sizes may be useful. Under this guide, a than 500 people per equare mile have lower population densities should population center of about 25.000 or .sveraged over any radial distance cet to be considered. The r===i-n does more residents should be no closer than M miles be ned for judging the acceptab0ity of future nuclear power not intend to conssder hcense canditions 4 miles (6.4 km) from a reactor because or operating restrictions upon an a density of 500 persons per square mile plant sites. Similarly, in keeping with operating reactor solely upon the basis j within this distance would yield a total Regulatory Guide 45, the projected that the population density around it population of about 25.000 persons. population density 40 years after initial may reach or exceed the proposed miting Similarly, a city of 100.000 or enore site approval should not amosed 1000 decision values given above during the residents should be no closer than about people per square mile. plant hietame. Because of the possibihty to miles (16 km) a city of 500.00q or With regant to the petition by Free for confusion rezelting fraen ammerical more persons should be no closer than Environment, lac. (PRh4-50-30k the " "- the values being desdin the .

about 20 miles (32 km), and a city of Commission concludes that the criteria Cosamission is also regnestang 1.000.000 or more persons should be no in Regulat Guide 45 provide a reasonable e of separetion $ar a comments on wiisther ====rical closer than about 30 miles (50 km) from population density values abound be the reactor. range of population centers, including cited in the regulatnam or whether these The Commission has examined these " major" population centera, i; W should be stated la a ruedatory pdde ruidelines with regard to the Safety upon their elas, Further, codifying the population density criteria of this guide only. no Commission is also sequesting Cnl The Safety Coal quantitative

-n

i i

47005 Federal Ragleter / Vol. 57, No. 20s / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules i

1 comments on whether the values of 500 5. Hydrological Factors highways. large pipelines, major l and 1000 persons per square mile are

g,,, g,,gon m g,po,,,,, g, aliports, etc. Relatively minor changes

appropriate, and whether population in industrial activity have been shown estabhshing the magnitude of external hasards fmm ground-water to be of hule concern.

! 30 mil s ethe ano is The Commission is considering t more appropriate. contamination, such as by containment

- basemat melt through, which could whether periodic reporting of significant

! L Meteorological Factors contaminate aquifers and thereby affect offsite activities should be required and Radiological doses that inco rate large populations.The proposed is requesting comments on whether i site meteorological data need n onger regulation adds or modifies existing significant offsite facilities within five

! be calculated for the purpose of requiremente for obtaining information miles of the reactor should be

! determining site suitability, to characterise hydrological factors at a periodically updated every five years.

i Meteorological data wdi still be needed site important to risk. nis information Interim Change to 10 CFR Part 50 t for safety analysis and for assessing the will be reviewed by the staff and used i adequacy of certain plant features, as as interface criteria in matching a The proposed change to 10 CFR part j well as to determine plant adequacy in proposed design to the site. So would simply relocate from to CFR l regard to meteorological extremes, such 6. Nearby Industrial and Transportation part 100 the requirements for each

! as tomados and maximum probable Facilities applicant to calculate a whole body and i precipitation. Therefore, the proposed a thyroid dose at specified distances.

regulation maintains the requirement to This area of review would be' Because these requiremer.ts affect l

l collect and characterize meteorological incorporated into the regulations for - reactor design rather then siting, they l data representative of the site. determining site suitability.This area of are more appropriately located in 10 l 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 I influenced dose calculations in past proposed regulation involves no performing the dose calculations would substantive changes in this area and remain unchanged from the current licensin6 reviews. Individual site

neteorology 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 7. Feasibility of Carrying out Protective apply to future applicants for a evaluate does to hypothetical Actions construction permit, design certification, individuals at the exclusion area and or an operating license, but are intended 1.PZ outer radius.ne degree of dilution . De proposed regulation would to be interim requirements until such increases with increasing distance require that important site factors such time as more specific requirements are between the release point and any as population distribution, topography, developed regarding revised accident hypothetically exposed individual, but it and transportation routes be considered source terms and severe accident also is affected by other factors, and examined in order to determine in'I 8ht**

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

Planning for emergencies is part of the The following major changes in the when the time-averaged dispersion factor of a given site is compare with Commission's defense in-depth proposed revision to appendix A.

that of other sites, the variation between approach.ne Commission has Seismic and Geologic Nuclear Power Plants,,, to part Siting 100. areCriteria fo one site and another is much less. concluded that site characteristics that Analyses reported in NUREC/CR-2233, may represent an impediment to the associated with the proposed seismic

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

exampic, 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 identi8ed at the site approval phase. Criteria not associated with site environment using data from weather This is consistent with the approach the suitability or establislunent of the Safe stations throughcut the United States Commission has taken in early site Sheldown Earthquake Ground Motion

• yielded results that varied only by about reviews under to CFR part 52. (SSE) have been placed into 10 CFR part a factor of two. Based upon these 50.his action is consistent with the considerations, the Commission has 3. Periodic Reporting of Man-Related location of other design requirements in determined that the average Acuvides to CFR part 50. Because the revised meteorological characteristics between Conditions around a site may change criteria presented in the proposed one site and another are sufBelently and significant changes in the nature of regulation will not be applied to existing similar that characterisation 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 signincant discriminator in determining Early identification of activities or of the regulations.ne criteria on site suitability when compared to the facilities that are potentially hasardous seismic and geologic siting would be uncertainties in other areas of the could permit timely changes la the designated as a new appendix B.

determination of risk to the health and procedures or t features to mainanise " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic safety to the public. However, site the change in risk to the health and Siting of Nuclear Power Plants on or meteorological characteri. tics are safety of the public. Man-related After [ Effective Date of this needed la safety analysis and foe activities potentiauy basardous to a Regulation]." to to CFR part 100. Criteria assessing the adequacy of certain plant plant are typicaDy major ladustrial or on earthquake engineering would be design features. transport facilities such as major designated as a new appendix S.

4 Federal Register / Vcl. 57. N2. 203 / Tuesd:y, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rulis 47307

" Earthquake Engineering Criteria for approach. Using this determimstic together and compam the results of each Nuclear Power Plants." to CFR part 50. approach, sa applicant develops a single to provide insights unavailable if either

!i set of earthquase sources, develops for method were used alone.%e principal 1 Remo.ve Detailed Guidance from the each source a postulated earthquake to limitations of the deterministic Regulation

! be used as the source of ground motion evaluation-its ability to incorporate

] he current regulation contains both that can aHect the site, locates the only one model and one date set at a j requirements and guidance on how to postulated earthquake a to time and its inability to allow weighted

catisfy the requirements. For example. prescribed rules, and then cal ates incorporation of numerous models-can j section IV. " Required investigations." of ground motions at the site. Although this be assessed by companng its results

, appendix A. states that investigations approach has worked reasonably well with the results of a probabilistic

! are required for vibratory ground for the past two decades. in the sense evaluation accomplished in parallel.

j motion, surface faulting, and seismically that SSEs for plants sited with this Similarly, the principal limitation of the

induced floods and water waves. approach an judged to be suitably probabilistic evaluation-Its tendency to j Appendix A then provides detailed conprvative, the a has not allow its results to be dominated by the q guidance on what constitutes an exp'Ecitly uncertainty in tails rather than the central tendency of i

acceptable investigation. A sunilar , geoscience parameter. Because so little distributions of uncertain knowledge or j situation exists in Section V. Seisnuc is known about earthquake phenomena expert opinion-can be assessed by

end Geologic Design Bases, of (especially in the eastern United States). comparing its results with the results of j appendix A. there have always been differences of Geoscience assessments require one or more deterministic evaluations.

i opinion among experts as to how the 1 I considerable latitude in judgment.%is De NRC believes that taken together.

latitude in judgment is needed became hrescribed process in Appendix carried out. Experts often delineste A is to t his approach can allow more informed 1

oflimitations in data and the state-of. Very different estimates of the largest judgments as to what the appropriate l the-art of geologic and seismic analyses earthquakes to be considered and Safe Shutdown Earthquake Grour.d j cnd because of the rapid evolution diNerent ground-motion models. Motion should be for a given site. Both taking place in the geosciences in terms Over the past decade, analysis the applicant's judgments and those of l the NRC will be improved.Rerefore.

l of accumulating knowledge and in methods for encompassing these

$ modifying concepts.This need appears diferences have been developed and the NRC believes that this approach is i to have been recognized when the used.%ne "probabilistic" methods the best way to accomplish the objective i of this aspect of the revised regulation

~

i existing regulation was developed.He have been designed to allow explicit existing regulation states that it is based incorporation of diNerent models for and arrive, through analysis, at a site-on limited geophysical and geological zonation, earthquake size, ground specific ground motion that i information and will be revised as appropriately captures what is known motion and other parameters.ne i necessary when more complete advantage of using these probabilistic about the seismic regime. Using both i information becomes available. methods is their ability to not only Probabilistic and deterministic

!' However, having geoscience inccrporate diferent models and evaluations to complement each other assessments detailed and cast in a diga ent data sets, but also to weight should lead to a more stable and i regulation has created difficulty for them asing ludgments as to the validity predictable licensing process than in the applicants and the staff in terms of of the stifferent models and data seta, past. 1

inhibiting the use of needed latitude in and the eby to provide an explicit 'In order to implement this approach. l 4 judgment. Also, it has inhibited expreubn for the overall uncertainty in the NRC has proposed a requirement

! flexibility in applying basic principles to the grour.d motion estimates and a that the annual probability of exceeding j new situations and the use of evolving means of assessing sensitivity to various the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground i methods of analyses (for instance, input parametera. Motion at a site be lower than the 4 pmbabilistic) in the licensing process. Probabilistic methods have been used median annual probability of De level of detail presented in the by many groups, not only in the seismic- exceedance computed for the current 3

proposed regulation would be reduced hazard area but in many other areas. In population of the operating plants.%is considerably. De proposed regulation the seismic hazard area, many of the requirement assures that the design I would identify and establish basic practitioners participated in either the i

levels at new sites will be comparable to requirements. Detailed guidance, that is. NRC-lawrence Livermore National those at manI existing sites, particularly I the procedures acceptable to the NRC Laboratory (LIRI.) or the Electric Power amore recently licensed sites.This

! for meeting the requirements, would be Research Institute (EPRI) seismic-hazard criterion is also used to identify contained in a draft regulatory guide to projects over the past decade. significant seismic sources,in terms of be issued for publi: comment as Draft he advantages of these probabilistic magnitude and distance, affecting the Regulatory Guide. DC-1015, methods are manifest. However, their estimata of ground motions at a site.

j' " Identification and Cher:cterization of limitations are important too. in the Salemic Sources, Deterministic Source seismic-hazard area, the most important %e Commission is specifically i Earthquakes, and Ground Motion." limitation is that the " bottom-line" requesting comments on the questions results from these analyses tend to be contained in section XI.B pertaining to i

3. Use of Both Determinist 2c and dominated by the tails rather than the the use of probabilistic seismic hazard Probabilistic Evaluationa central tendencies of the distributions of analysis and the balance between the De proposed regulation would knowledge and expert opinion. deterministic and probabilistic require the use of both probabilistic and For these reasons, the proposed evaluations.He position (s) stated in the deterministic evaluations %e existing revision of appendix A to 10 CFR part final regulation, supporting regulatory approach for dete mining a Safe too has adopted an approach using both guide and Standard Review Plan Sect!on Shutdown Earthquske Ground Motion probabilistic and deterministic will be based on Commiesion (SSE) for a nuclest reactor site, evaluations.%e 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 rulemaking.

caos rederal negineer 1 Vol SF. No. 2(Is / Ten xtsy. Octcher M 1992 / Proposed Rules i

S. . '

4. Safe Sheldown Earthquake Review t'a-dttee." Vol. 5. Apdl iesE. spplicable stress and deformation limits The existing regulation (10 CPR part (Table M1) ranked a demaphas of the when subjected to the effects of the OBE i too, appendix A. section V(a)(1)(lvJ) OIE and SSE as !Jed r at of six high in combination with normal operating states 'The maximum vibretory priority changes. V SECY-80-013, loads.

accelersuons of the Safe Shetdown 'doletionary Lig' i Water Reactor As stated above. subject to further Earthquake at each of the various W.Whtion lesses and Thser confirmation,it is determined that if an foundation locations of the nuclear Relat %Hp to Carrent Regulatory OBE of one-third of the SSE is used, the power plant structures at a given site Requh aamsts," the NRC staH states that requirements of the OBE can be shall be determined * * *".%elocatiam it agress that the OBE shoeld not control satisfied without the applicant of the seismic input motion control point the design of safety systesas. For the performing any explicit response as staled in the existing regulation has evolutionary reactors, the NRC will analyses (some minimal design checks led to confrontations with many consider requests to deocuple the OBE and the appheability of this position to

', applicants that believe this stipulation is from the SSE on a design. specific basis, seismic base isolation of buildings are inconsistent with goed engineering Activities equivalent to OBE-SSE , discussed below). %ere is high fundamentale, decoupling are also being done in confidence that, at this ground. motion

, The proposed regulation would neov, foreign countries. For instance,in level with other postulated concurrent the location of the seismic inpet motion Genmeny their new design standard loads, most critical structures, systems,

~

control point from the foundation-leveg requires ordy 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 They require an inspection-level the OBE serves the function of an appropriate. The 1975 version of b earthquake (for shutdown) of o.4 SSE. inspection and shutdown earthquake.

Standard Review Plan placed the his level was set so that the vibratory There are situations asso<.iated with control motion in the free-field. The ground motion should not induce current analyses where only OBE is proposed regulation is also consistent stresses exceeding the allowable stress associated with the design rcquirements, with the resolution of Unnsolved Safety limits origmally required for the OBE for example, the ultimate heat sink (see issue (USI) A-40, " Seismic Design design. Regulatory Guide 1.27. " Ultimate Heat Criteria"(August 1969). that resulted in The proposed regulation would allow Sink for Nuclear Power Plants"). In l the revision of Standard Review Plan the value of the OBE to be set at:(rj these situations, a value expressed as a sections 2.5.2,3.7.1,3.7.2, and 3.7.3. One-third or less of the SSE, where OBE fraction of the SSE response would be However, the proposed regulation requirements are satisfied without an used in the analyses.Section VIII of this

, requires that at a minimum, the explicit response or design analyses Proposed rule identifies existing guides horizontal Safe Shutdown Earthquake being performed, or (ii) a value greater that would be revised technically to Ground Motion at the foundation level than one-third of the SSE, where maintain the existing design philosopby.

, of the structures must be an appropriate analysis ared design are required.%ere With regard to piping analyses,

response spectrum with a peak ground are two issues the applicant should positions on fatigue ratcheting and acceleration of at least 0.13 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 Earthquake Ground Motion (OBE) and vibratory ground motion exceeding that comment in a draft regulatory guide t Required OBE Analysea of the OBE occurs (discussed below in separate from this rulemaking. More item 6 Required Plant Shutdown), and than one earthquake response analysis The existing regulation (to CFR. second. the amount of analyses for a seismic base isolated nuclear appendix A. section V(a)(2)) str tee that associated with the OBE. An applicant power plant design may be necessary to the maximum vibratory ground motion may determine that at one-third of the ensure adequate performance at all of the CBEis one-half the maximura SSE level, the probability of exceeding earthquake levels. Decisions pertaining vibratory ground motion of the Safe the OBE vibratory ground motion is too to the response analyses associated Shutdown Earthquake ground motion. high, and the cost associated with plant with base isolated facilities will be j Also, the existing regulation (10 CFR, shutdown for inspections and testbg of handled on a case by case basis.

appendix A. section Vl(a)(2)) states that equipment and structures prior to the engineering method used to insure 6. Required Plant Shutdown I-restarting the plant is unacceptable.

that structures, systems, and Derefore, the applicant may voluntarily The . urrent regulation (Section components are capable of withstanding select an OBE value at some higher V(a)(2d 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 occurs, shutdown of the nuclear power or a suitable qualification test. In some selects an OBE value at a fraction of the plant is required. The supplemer.tary cases, for instance piping, these multi- SSE higher than one-third, a suitable information to the final regulation facets of the OBE in the existing analysis shall be performed to (publir.hed November 13,1973. 38 FR regulation made it possible for the OBE demonstrate that the requirements 31279. Item 6e) includes the following to have more design significance than associated with the OBE are satisfied. statement:"A footnote has been added the SSE. A decoupling of the OBE and The design shall take into account soil- to i 50.36(c)(2) of 10 CFR part 50 to SSE has been suggested in several structure interaction effects and the assure that each power plant is cware of documents. For instance, the NRC statt, expected duration of the vibratory the limiting condition of operation which SECY-79-300, suggesaed that design for ground motion.The requirement is imposed under section Vl2) of a single limiting event and inspection . associated with the OBEis that all appendix A to to CFR part 100. This and evaluation for earthquakes in structures, systems, and components of limitation requires that if vibrr. tory -

excess of some specified limit may be the nuclear power plant necessary for ground motion exceedmg that of the the most sound regulatory approach, continued operation witheat undes risk OBE occurs, shutdown of the nuclear NUREG-1061." Report of the U.S. to the haalth and safety of the pubhc power plant will be required. Prior to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping shall ressain f-*-at and within resuming operations, the licensee will be

Federal Register / Vel. 57. No. 303 / Tuesday, Ocid - 20, 1992 / Psoposed Ruhe 47809 )

required to demonstrate to the perturbations seselting from the seismic Policy Task Force." August 1979. He Commission that no functional damage event. He guidance being developed in ladividual recommendations and the has occurred to those features necessary Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017 la for continued operation without undue proposed disposition and actions being based on two assusnptions, first, that the taken in esgard to each of these are risk to the health and safety of the nuclear power plant has operable public." At that time,it was the discussed below.

seismic instrumentation, including the intention of the Commission to treet the equipment and software required to hmmendodon f ,

Operating Basis Earthquake as a process the data within four hours after Revise part 100 to change the way limiting condition of operation. From the an earthquake, and second, that the statement in the Supplementary protection is provided for accidents by operator welkdown inspecuons can be incorporating a fixed exclusion area and Information, the Commission directed performed in approximately four to eight ptotection action distance and applicants to specifically review to CFR nours depending on the number of population density and distnbution part 100 to be aware of this intention in personnel conducting the inspecuon. If criteria, complying with the requirements of to vibratory ground motion exceeding that 1. Specify a fixed minimum exclusion CFR 50.36. Thus, the requirement to shut of the Operating Basis Earthquake distance based on limiting the individual down if an OBE 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. lf the submitted by applicants after the licensee determines that plant shutdown clarify the required control by the utility I cdoption of appendix A. In fact, is required by the Commission's over activities taking place in land and applicants 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 licensee 2. Specify a Exed minimum emergency technical specifications. planning distance of to miles.The may ask for an emergency exemption The proposed regulation would treat physical characteristics of the from the requirements of the regulauon plant shutdown associated with Pursuant to i 50.12 to 10 CFR part 50 so emergency planning zone should vibratory ground motion exceeding the that the plant need not shut down if the provide reasonable assurance that OBE or significant plant damage as a evacuauon of persons, including I condition in every operating license. ne exgp]io t .tl{to ulde DG-1018 transients, M k fen & U ne shutdown requirement would be a " Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Sihut to mingate se consequenco of accidents.

condition of the license (to CFR 50.54) Down bY a Seismic Event **is bei"8 rather than a limiting condition of developed to provide guidelines that are 3. Incorporate specific population operation (to CFR 50.36), because the acceptable to the NRC staff for density and distribution limits outside necessary judgments anociated with Pe "" ' "d the exclusion area that are dependent exceedance of the vibratory ground ,uci 8j 1pmen an I on the average population of the region.

motion or significant plant damage can structures prior to plant restart. His 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 ,

tschrucalspecification. A new Prior to resuming operations, the establishing minimum exclusion )

" 'd I licensee must demonstrate to the distances and low population zones. i regu ation equ re Commission that no functional damage Disposition ond Action shutdown forlicensees of nuclear power has occurred to those features necessary plants that comply with the earthquake I , g3g , , ,

,g,'k$o eh a en sa ty o th largely proposed to be adopted by the angineering criteria in paragraph

,IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S, public.%e results of post-shutdown Commission. With regard to item 1. a l

Earthquake Engineeri inspections, operability checks, and fixed mininium exclusion area distance Nuclear Power Plants,,ng Criteria to to CFR part for surveillance tests shall be documr:nted of 0.4 mile, commensurate with past 54 in written reports and submitted to the NRC experience in the review of design ,

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017a Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor basis accidents, is being proposed. The i

" Pre. Earthquake Planning and Regulation. %e licensee shall not Camission betime that the exisung Immediate Nuclear Power Plant resume operation until authorized to do requirements regarding control over any j Operator Post-Earthquake Actions."is so by the Director. Office of Nuclear land portion of the exclusion area i being developed to provide guidance Reactor Regulation. together with current emergency acceptable to the NRC staff for planning requirements make any new <

E Clarify Interpretations requirements on exclusion area control determining whether or not vibratory in appendix B to 10 CFR part 100, unnecessary, he recommendations in ground motion exceeding the OBE changes have been made to resolve ground motion or significant plant item 2 were adopted by the Commission damage had occurred and nuclear questions ofinterpretation. As an shortly after the %ree Mile Island example, definitions and required accident and are contained in to CFR power plant shutdown is required. The 50.47, ne recommendations in item 3 investigations stated in the proposed guidance is based on criteria developed regulation would be significently are proposed to be adopted except that by the ESctric Power Research Institute changed to elirre. ate or modify phrases the population density and distribution (EPRI).%e decision to shut ocwn the limits are proposed to be applicable plant should be made within eight hourswestern that were more applicable to part of the United States.

only the after the earthquake. ne data from the nationwide. De recommendation of seismic instrumentation, coupled with VL Siting Policy Task Farce item 4 is proposed to be adopted.

information obtained from a plant n== tions kcominendouon 2 -

walkdown, are used to make the ne Siting Policy Task Force made Revise 10 CFR part 100 to require determination of whether the plant nine recommendations with regard to consideration of the potential hazards should be shut down. If it has not revision of the reactor siting criteria in posed by man-made activities and ciready been shut down by operational NUREG 0825 " Report of the Siting - natural characteristics of sites by i amp one e.=

i

47 ate redman nesi.ner / vol. s7, No. 2m / heeday, Oct:bar a 2est / Proposed Rules

establishing seininsume stando5 1.& NRC staff shallinfoen local Disposition and Action

distances for: authorities (planning -laalaa

1. Majar or comunercial airports, country rmannimaions, etc.) that control & Commission considers that the

• • riy eit' pennit sions of to CFR l 2. Liquid Natural Ces (LNC) lavalaals, activities within the emergsacy planamp

3. Large propane pipelines, paru2 ocam 2

j 4. Lange natural gas pipelines.

sone (EPZ) of the basis for i ---t awag~ ,

the acceptability of a site. l

. 5. Large quantities of exploeive or 2.N NRC sta5 shall motify thoes Recommendatim 8 toxic materials, Federal agencies as in item 3 above that Revise 10 CFR part 51 to provide that i

6. and

7. page ta. may reasonably initiate a fatore Federal a final decision disapproving a proposed j action that may inneseos the nuclear site by a state agency whose approvalis i Disposition andAction power plant. fundamental to the' project would be a Recommendation 2 is proposed to be 3.He NRC staff shall require sufficient basis for NRC to terminate 4

adopted in part and mjected in part.10 applicants to monitor and report review.b termination of a review CFR part 100 is to be revised to inc}ude potendally adverse offsite would then be reviewed by the 4

consideration of man.related hazards. developments. Commission.

} However. establishing minimum 4. lf. In spite of tie actions described Disposition andAction j standoff distances by regulation for the in items 1 through 3. there are offsite i hazards cited is not feasible. NRC developments that have the potential for & Comissim is wt proposing to .

l review has found that acceptable significantly increasing the risk to the adopt this recommendation because it is j separation distances are not readily public, the NRC staff will consider considered inappropriate.This l quantified and can depend upon many restrictions on a case-by-case basis. recommendation would give a State the

other factors such as the topography, authorny to grant issuance of a j size, and operational aspec's of the Disposition and Act>.on construction permit for a nuclear facilities. In addition to the distance his mcommendation la already la facility. Only the Federal Government i

from the reactor. Accordingly, the effect or is proposed to be adopted. item has this authority. States do have an j proposed regulation will require that the 1 is already covered by existing independent right to deny site ap royal i

i hazards be identified and evaluated so emergency planning mi -t.inem as long as H is ut a raWcal eale that they can be adequately considered 2 is being accomplished by issaance of a and safe, mmme ddense, w securuy l in the design of the reactor to be located Sli pificant Hazard Consideretion camn.

on the site. Present NRC review criteria, statement by the NRC staff.The Recommendation 9 as given in the Standard Review Plan Conunission is requesting =n=enta on (SRP). Section 2.2.3, are constdered item 3. With regard to item 4, the I0r c mpering f adequate. g 'h**,gg ,'y ,,

Commission retains the right to ordee i

b Recommendou.on 3 restrictions on a case-by-case baaia. Disposition andAction j l & Shing W Task Fwee's prianan i

Revise to CFR part 100 by requiring a Recommandofion g nasonable assurance that interdicHve mcommudation in this area was that )

Continue the current approach

, measures are possible to limit an interdisciplinary effort should be

• r amina ting relative to site selection from a safetF undertaken with the objective of viewpoint, but select sites so that there

{

i

{" ,

am n unferaMe charockristics developing quantitative risk compensons of all external events and

. immediak vichky of die sh- requiring unique or unusual design to natural phenomena.The Commission Disposition andAction compensate for site inadequacies, considers this to be a desirable The Ce=%e is not proposing to Disposition and Action objective but notes that the Siting Policy adopt this reconamendation. However. Task Force made no specific Canission is ut proposing to requirements on furwe reactor designs recommendations with regard to siting will address the need to consider and adopt this recommendation. In the criteria or rulemaking. The Commission n nman = contan==ent falhare under N Mntand P mP W a d thmfom considers this severe accident conditions. Feture resul8tions. applicuits may p.- vic,e recommendation inapplicable in the reactor desages will need to address the specinc Pl ant design featums to present context of examination of siting l powntial for mod wahr compensate for site inadequacies. As criteria, bot notes that recent I I ng as these design features adegestely developments in probabilistic risk contan=anties se part of their envuummental aview nader to CFR part account for the conditions at the site. analysis (PRA) have considered 5L Public health and safety will be examination of the risk froen external protected. Noe specific design features events in detail.

Recommendation i may involve edded costs. However, the Revise appendix A to to CFR part les Commisalon has concluded that any egul[eonuidesand to better reDect bwoiivias % economic sonalderation abould be lea to 48 applicant.

in a=aaaa == seismic baserde. . The NRCla developmg the followmg Disposition andActiory Recommendation 7 ,, ,

W g,, ,,c ,

% r amammaian is peepeasag to adsps Revise part 100 to specify that n i.g:9've licensees with the necessary this recommendation in this rulemaking. approval tie estabhshed at he essenes guidance for lanplesmenting the proposed decision point in the review and to regulation.N notice elavailabihty for Recommendation 5 provide erheria hat wand hm Me, &ese mater 6els la published elsewhere Revise 10 CFR part ses to indade satiantd for this approach is ha in this innes of the Fedammi Regleter.

consideration of post-heenslag changes =4aaq===dy usepened in the licensing 1. DC-1015. "Ident&aar= and in offsite actietales. process. Chesammetsatssa of Seisen6c Sources,

_ _ _ . i

Federal Register / Vol 87 No. 303 / 'Damantay. October 20, 2se2 / Proposed Renes m it Deterministic Soums Earthquakes. sad Lu7."Desiso lamits and Manhag Box 37e82 Wa=kpon, DC 30013-7082.

Ground Motloa." he draA guide Combinations for Metal Primary Rsector Copies ses also sWlaNa from the provides geneml guidance and Containmani Syskm Ca==^an'a " National Techsscal informatkm Service, recommendations, describes acceptable 2.1.5e, Tealgn Baals Floods for sans het Royal Road, Spring 6 eld, VA procedures and provides a het of Nuclear Power Hants." 22161. A copy is also available for references that pmsent acceptable 3.1.00, " Design Response Spectre for inspectico and copying for a fee in the methodologies to identify and Seismic Dealgn of Nuclear Power NRC Puhlic rh===t Room,2120 L charaetertze capable tectonic sources Piants." Stree1. NW. (lower level), Washington, and seismogenic sources. 4.1.83," Inservice Inspection of DC.

2. DG-1016. Second Proposed Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Co ofisoned regulatory guides Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, Generator Tubes." may purA===A from the Government .

" Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation 5.1.92. "Combirdag Modal Responses Printing OHice (GPO) at the current for Earthquakes." The draft guide and Spatial Components in Selamic GPO price. Information on current GPO describes seismic instrumentation type Response halysis. prices may be obtained by contacting and location. operability, 6. t102 " Mud Pmtectie fm Nuclear the Superintendent of Documents. U.S.

characteristics. installation, actuation. P werPlante. . Gv-.st Printtog Office. P.O. Box 7.1.12L " Bases for P!

and maintenance that are acceptable to PWR Steem GeneratorTgu es.ns Degraded 37082. Washington, DC 20013-21 the NRC staff. lesued guides may also be purchased

• 88" ma and' e ae a Power an pg be Operator Post-Earthquake Actions."He ts " Deta e e this smice may be obtained draft guide provides guidelines that are Comffo[owing

% regulatory guides willw g a at yal Road, acceptable to the NRC staff for a timely be revised to update the design or Springfield, VA 22181.

evaluation of the remrded seismic analysis philosopby, for example, to SEU M M M6, and instrumentation data and to detemine change OBE to a fraction of the SSE: ASH-1400 are available for inspection whether or not plant shutdown is and copying for a fee at the 1.1.27 " Ultimate Heat Sink for required.

Nuclear Power Plants'" n,s Wh Docenent Rum.

4. DG-1018. " Restart of a Nucleer 2.1.100. " Seismic Qualification of 2120 L 9trat. NW. (lower Isn4 Power Plant Shut Down by a Seismic Electric and Mechanical Equipment for W n$ n. DC.

Event." The draft guide provides Nuclear Power Mants." X. 9-henL==lan of Comments in guidelines that are acceptable to the 3.1.124 " Service limits and loading Electronic Farmat NRC staff for performing inspections Combinations for Class 111near. Type and tests of nuclear power plant Component Supports.o %e mmmmt promes wiU be equipment and structures prior to restart 4.1.130. " Service IAnits and Imeding improved if each c= ment is identified of a plant that has been shut down Combinations for Claes 1 PlatM with the document title, section heading.

because of a seismic event. Shell-Type Component Supports." and paragraph number addressed.

5. Draft Standard Review Plan Section 5.1.132. " Site Investigations for Commenters are encouraged to submit, 2.5.2. Proposed Revision 3 " Vibratory Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants.- in addition to the original paper copy, a Ground Motion." The draft describes 6.1.138, "!Aborttory Investigations of Copy of the lettpr in electronic format on prcedures to essess the ground motion Sous im Engineering Analysis and m a M M mmpe Meh M potential of seismic sources at the site Dealgn of Nuclear Power Plants.- PC/ DOC w MS/ DOS fomat. Data files and to assess the adequacy of the SSE.

6. Draft Regulatory Guide 4.7 S ct s Nuc ta o i ma r BM Revision 2. dated December 1991, (Other than Ranctor Vessels and Document Content Architecture /

" General Site Suitabihty Criteria for Containments)" Revisable-Fom-Text (DCA/RfT). or Nuclear Power Plants." This guide 8.1.143, " Design Guidance for unfomatted ASCII code.ne format discusses the major site characteristics. Radioactive Waste Management and version shouki be sdentiSed on the

' Systems. Structures, and Components diskette's external label.

I' P " It nd sa y d n ir e 1is C gy Installed in Light Water Cooled Nuclear XI. Ques 6ans considers in determining the suitability Power Plants.

of sites Mmor and conforming changes to in addition to soliciting comments on other Regulatory Gedes and standard all aspects of this rulemaking the VIII. Future Regulatory Action review plan sections as a resn!t of Commission specdically requests proposed changes in the nonseismic comments on the foDowing questions.

Several existing regulatory guides will criteria are also ple=d.lf substantive be revised toincorporate e&torial A. Reactor Siting Criterio (Nonseismic) changes are made during the revisions, changes or maintain the existing design the applicable guidee will be issued for 1. Should the Commission grandfa ther or analysis philosophy. These guides public r aaw=nt as draft guidee existing reactor sites having an will be issued to coincide with the exclusion ares distance less than 0 4 publication of the final regulations that IX. Referenced Docmnents miles (640 meters) for the possible would implement this proposed action. An interested person may eramme or placensent of additionalunits,if those ne following regulatory guides will obtain copies for the docaanents sites are found suitable from safety be revised to incorporate editorial referenced in this proposed rule as set consideration?

changes. for example to reference new out below. 2. Sbeeld the exclusion aree distance paragraphs in appendix B to part 100 or Copies of NUREG-OS25, NUREG-1150, be smauer than 0.4 mile (940 meters) for appendix S to part 50. No technical and NUREC/CR-2230 may be purchased plants having reador power levels changes will be made in these from the Superialandent of Docasanets, significaatly less them seco Megawatts regulatory guides. U.S. Govemment Printing OfGoa. P.O. (tharmal) and abonid the exchasion eree

i l

l 47612 Fede Register / Vol. 57. N:. 203 / Tuesd:y, Octsber N,1992 / Proposed Rul:s "i

dhtance be allowed to vary according to B. Seismic andEarthquake Engineering use in the development and evaluation power level with a minimum value (for Criteria of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake example. 0.25 miles or 400 meters)? ne proposed guide DG-1015. Ground Motion should remain an 3.%e Commisalor! proposes to codify outlines concepts and procedures to be important aspect of the alting i the population density guidelines in used in conjunction with the regulations for nuclear power plants for l Regulatory Guide 4.7 which states that probabilistic/ deterministic seismic the foreseeable future.The NRC staff l

the population density should not hazard evaluations. Rationale for the also feels that probabilistic seismic .

hazard assessment methodologies have  !

l exceed 500 people per square mile out to approach is discussed in section V.B(3) l a distance r,i 30 miles at the time of site of this Proposed Rule. reached a level of maturity to warrant a The staff is currently performing . specific role in siting regulations.)

s; proval .md 1000 people per square mile 40 years thereafter. Comments are confirmatory studies to evaluate and 2. In making use of the probabilistic refine these proposed procedures. A and deterministic evaluations as specifi: ally requested on questions 3A. proposed in Draft Regulatory Guide DC-as, and 3C given below. limited study has been completed demonstrating the feasibility of 1015 is the proposed procedures in A. Should numerical vah!es of appendix C to DG-1015. adequate to

, g procedures and the validity of the

' conceFts. However, the staff would like determine controlling earthquakes from egu at n r sh uld the r tfon to solicit comments on the concepts the probabilistic analysis?

provide mereIy general guidance, with outlined in the proposed guide at this 3. In determining the controlling

j. numerical values provided in a time.To facilitate the review, results of earthquakes, should be median values of regulatory guide 7 the application of the proposed the seismic hazard analysis, as B. Assuming numerical values are to procedure to four test sites are described 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 se,u .re mile at the time of D. Bernreuter of11NL to A. Murphy of the exclusion of other statistical site approval and 1000 persons per

• NRC dated September 24.1992, measures, such as, mean or 85th square mile 40 years thereaftee 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 km), for example,20 miles is a general consensus within the NRC 4.The proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR staff that the revised seismic and part 100 has included in Paragraph V(c)

(32 km)? If a different distance is a criterion that states:"ne annual recommended what is its basis? geological siting criteria should allow consideration for a probabilistic hazard probabihty af exceeding the Safe

4. Should the Commission approve Shutdown Eartnquee Ground Motion is analysis. Rere is also a general belief sites that exceed the proposed considered acceptably low if it is less that the outcome of a probabilistic popugation vagues of to Cm 100.21, and analysis should be compared with the than the median annual probability i so, under what conditions? computed from the current (EFFECTIVE results of pact practices for siting and

5. Should holders of early site permits- licensing the current generation of DATE OF THE RNAL RULE] population construction permits, and operating nuclear power plants. nere is a general of nuclear power plants." This is a hcense permits be required to consensus that ground 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)7 If sio, what earthquakes are determined. With the current status of tt.e probabilistic regulatory purpose would such reportrJ md 3 the role of the probabilistic seismic haurd analysie. However, this requirements serve? aslysis views range from an advocacy requirement assures that the design

6. What continuing regulatory of a predominantly probabilist : levels at new sit:s wi'J be comparable to significance abould the safety analysis to the probabilistic/ those at many ewing sites, particularly requirements in 10 CFR part 100 have d:ktministic proposed here to a more recently licensed sites. Method after granting the initial operating predominantly deterministic approach dependent annual probabilities or target license or' combined operating license as used currently. Given these divergent levels (e.g.,1E-4 for 11NL or 3E-5 for under to CPR part 527 views, the NRC staff would like to invite EPRI) are identified in the proposed comments regarding the use of mgulatory guide. Sensitivity studies

7. Are there certain site addressing the effects ci different target meteorological conditions that should probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the balance between the probabilities are discussed in the preclude the siting of a nuclear power Bernreuter to Murphy letter report.

deterministic and probabilistic plant? If so, what are the conditions that evaluations.nis and other associated Comments are solicited as to:(a) can not be adequateIy compensated for whether the above criterion, as stated, by design features? issues are itemized below. (As the detailed technical studies are completed needs to be included in the regulation?

e 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 (NURECA625). specific numerical value, a level other it was noted that the Commission was be1.helpful In making at use thisoftime.)

bot h deterministic than the median annual probability

not adoptmg every element of each and probabihatic evaluations, how computed for the current plants)?

! recommendation. Are there compelling should they be combined or weighted. 5. For the probabilistic ansiysis, how l reasons to reconalder any that is, should one dominate over the many controlling earthquakes should be recommendation not adopted and. If so. other? (he 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?

i I Fedesel Register / Vol. 57, No. 303 / Tuesday. October al.1992 / Proposed Rules (1813 (For the four trial plants esed to develop W enetrommesdal assoassment and [ Murphy Office of Nuclear Regulatory the criteria presented in Draft finding of no signincent impact on Research U.S. Nocieer Regulatory Regulatory Guide DG-1015. the average which this determination is based are Commissbn. WeeMngton. DC 20555 of results for the 5 Hz knd to Hz spectral available for inspection at the NRC telephone (301) 492-3800.  ;

velocities was used to establish the Public Document Room 2120 L Street he Commission requests public probability of exceedance leni. NW. (Lower Level). Washington. DC. comment on the draft regulatory '

Controlling earthquakes weie evaluated Single copies of the environmental analysis. Comments on the draft for this frequency band, for the average assessment and finding of no significant analysis may be submitted to the NRC of 1 and 2.5 Hz spectral responses. and impact are available from Mr. Isonard as indicated under the "anonesses" for peak ground acceleration.) Soffer. OfSce of Nuclear Regulatory heading.

XIL Finding of No Significant ,,', w' *8" XV. "

,,, DC 7I thility Castifiution EnvironmentalImpact: Availability telephone (301) 492-3916. ce Dr. Andrew in accordance with the Regulatory W Commission hae determined Murphy. OfBce of Nuclear Regulatory Flexibility Act et 1980 (5 U.S.C. 805(b)).

under the National Environmental Policy Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the Commission certifies that this Act of 1%9. as amended, and the Commission. Washington DC20655, proposed regulation will not,if Commission's regulations in subpart A telephone (301) 492-3880. promulgated have a significant of to CFR part 51, that this proposed XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act eceomic impset u a substantial regulation.if adopted, would not be a number of small entities.nas proposed Statement major Federal action significantly regulation affects only the licensing and affecting the quabty of the human This proposed regulation amends operation of nuclear power plants. ,

environment and therefore an information collection requirements that Nuclear power plant site applicants do environmental :mpact statement is not are subject to the Paperwork Reduction not fall within the definition of small required. Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This businesses as defined in Section 3 of the The revisions associated with the pro sed regulation has been submitted Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), the reactor siting criteria in to CFR part 100 t ' 8C8 0 8888888DI and the relocation of the plant design for review and approval of the88d B8d88I Small Basiness Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR requirements from 10 CFR part 100 to 10 Paperwork mquirements. part 121), or the Commission's Size

!' CFR part 50 have been evaluated There is no public reporting burden Standards (56 FR 50671; November 6.

l against the current requirements.%e related to the nonseismic sitir.g criteria.

Public reportin burden for the 3,ggy Commission has concluded that relocating the requirement for a dose collection of information related to the XVI.Bedfit Analysis calculation to part 50 and addmg more seis ic and earthquake enginewing

& NRC has determined that the specific site enteria to part 100 does not criteria is estimated to average 800.000 backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109, does not decrease the protection of the public h um Pu mpuse.incbding Mme apply to this proposed regulation, and health and safety over the current I '.nviewing instmetime, searching therefore, a backfit analysis is not regulations. The proposed amendmenta ex3 sting data sarces, gathering and reqnfred for this proposed regulation maintaining the data needed, and i do not affect nonradiological plant because these amendments do not l effluents and have no other c mpleting and reviewing the collection involve any provisions that would 1

of infonnatie. Impose backfits as defined in to CFR di on of a ndix B to lo CFR es ate n N part 100. and the addition of appendix S collection of information. including th 50.100{aX1b

• uld 8Pply y proposed regulation to applicants or  ;

to 10 CFR part 50 will not change the suggestions for reducing this burden, to un r Pown panWnech radiological environmentalimpact the Information and Records Pends #mbary % apal offsite. Onsite occupetional radiation Management Branch (MNBB 7714). U.S. final design 8pproval manufacturing  ;

exposure associated with inspection and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Heenses. e4 she N Ws. Pea %

maintenance will not change. These Washington. DC 20555; and to the Desk licenses, and combined operatirg activities are principally associated with Officer. Office ofInformation and I'**^***'

base line inspections of structures. Regulatory Affairs.NEOB-3019,(3150- List of Subjects equipment, and piping. and with 0011 and 3150-0093). Office of JO CMMO maintenance of seismic instrumentation- Management and Budget. Washington.

Base hne inspections are needed to DC 20503. Antitrust. Classified information.

differentiate between pre. existing Criminal penalty. Fire protection.

conditions at the nuclear power plant M. Regulatory AnaWs incorporation by reference, and earthquake related dan age. The The Commission has prepared a draft intergovernmental relations. Nuclear structures, equipment and piping regulatory analysis an this proposed power plants and reactors, Radiation selected for these inspections are those regulation.The analysis examines the protection. Reactor siting criteria.

routinely examined by plant operators costs and benefits of the alternativer Reporting and recordkeeping during normal plant walkdowns and considered by the Commission.%e requirements.

Inspections. Routine maintenance of draft analysis is available for inspection seismic instrurnentation ensures its in the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 ## M #

operability durms earthquakes.The L Street NW. (1swer lavet). Administretive practice end location of the seismic instrumentation Washington. DC. Single copies of the pwL, Antitrust. Backfitting, is similar to that in the existing nuclear analysis are available from Mr. Imonard Combined license.r Early site permit, power plants. The proposed Soffer. Office af Nuclear Regulatory Emergency planning. FeeA Inspection, amendments do not affect Res earch. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Limited work authorization. Nuclear nonradiological plant e!!!uents and have Commina40 2 Washington. DC 20556. power plaats and reactors. Probebilistic l no other environmentalimpaet. . telephoma (ast) eds-sels, er Dr. Andrew risk -* Paetotype. Reector

e.*-.ew*.ee 47814 Federal Register / Vol. 57. Ns. 203 / Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rules l i

siting criteria. Redress of site. Reporting population zone, and population center 50.61. 50.63.50.64. 50.65. 50.71. 50.72.

and recordkeeping requirementa, I distance to read to read as.follows: 50.80. 50.82. 50.90. 50.91, and Appendices 3

Standard design. Standard design l certification. I50.2 Denmona. A. B. E. G. H.1. J. K. M. N. O. Q. R. and l 3, I

,ocra nre a ^""d '." chl'. p*"- - - - - -

Nuclear power plants and reactors. 4. In i 50.34, footnotes 6. 7. and 8 are Reactor siting criteria. Exclusion arvo means that area redesignated as footnotes 8. 9 and 10.

surrounding the reactor,in which the I For the reasons set out in the paragraph (a)(1)is revised and '

reactor licensee has the authority to paragraphs (a)(12) and (b)(10) are added preamble and under the authority of the determine all activities including to read as follows Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, exclusion o'r removal of personnel and I

the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, property from the area.This area may 1 50.34 Contents of appecatk no; technicad as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553. the NRC j be traversed by a highway railroad, or 8"**#8"-

l Is proposing to adopt the following waterway, provided these are not so amendments to to CFR parts 50. 52 and (a)*

• close to the facility as to interfere with (1) A description and safety t 00.

normal operations of the facility and assessment of the site and a safety provided appropdate and effective assessment of the facility. Site PART 50-OO44ESTIC UCENSING OF PRODUCTION ANO UTIUZATION arrangements are made to control traffic characteristics must comply with part FACILITIES on the highway, rellroad, 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 3 continues to read as follows: within the exclusion area shall normally consequences of accidents. In be prohibited. In any event. residents l performing this assessment, an i le at 93[9[N8 951 shall be subject to ready removalin applicant shall assume a fission product

]

954.955.5 % es amended. sec. 234. 83 Stat. case of necesnity. Activities unrelated to release

• from the core into the i 1244. as amended (42 USC 2132. 2133. 2134, operation of the reactor may be containment assuming that the facility is 1

2135. 2201. 2232. 2233. 2238, 2239. 22a21 seca. permitted in an exclusion area under operated at the ultimate power level l 201. as amended. 202,200,86 Stat.1242, as appropriate limitations provided that no contemplated. The applicant shall I amended. 1244.1248. (42 USC 5841. 5842. significant hazards to the public health perform an evaluation and analysis of 5846).

and safety will result the postulated fission product release.

Section 27 also issued under Pub. L 95- . .

• 601. sec.10. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 USC 5851).

using the expected demonstrable Section W10 also issued under secs.1o1.185, LOWPOPulation zone means the area containment leak rate and any fission 68 Stat. 936. 955. as amended (42 USC 2131. im.nediately surrounding the exclusion product cleanup systems intended to 2235). sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 area which contain residents, the total mitigate the consequences of the U S C 4332) Sections 50,13. 50.54(dd) and number and density of which are such accidents. together with applicable site M103 also issued under sec.106, se Stat. 939 that there is a reasonable probability characteristics including site  ;

as amended (42 USC 2138). Sections 50.23. meteorology to evaluate the offsite

that appropriate protective measures l 8 68 S' tat. 9 ( .

5 i ns could be taken in their behalf in the radiological consequences.De 50.33a. 255a 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). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also population density of total population on the boundary of the exclusion area issued under 50sec. 204. 88 for two hours immediately following the 5844). Sections 58,50.91 andStat.1245 50.92 also (42 USC within this zone because the situation e

may vary from case to case. Whether a onset of the postulated fission product issued under Pub. L 97-415. 96 Stat. 2073 (42 specif c number of people can, for release would not receive a total b

4

'~ example, be evacuated from a specific radiation dose to the whole body in St (4 S 2152) Se s 50 ares, or instructed to take shelter. on a excess of 25 rem ' or a total radiation also issued under sec.164, es Stat. 954. as tirnely basis wi!! depend on many ametided (42 USC 2234). Appendix F also factors such as location, number altd ' The fission product release assumed for this i.ssued under sec.187. Os Stat. 955 (42 size USC of highwsys, scope and extent of 'va1**',on .hould be be.ed upon a maior accident.

3y) g y g hypoenized w detennined im cuidmum M gg For the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, as lis b t!on '* '

amended (42 U S C 2273). Il 50.5. 50.46 (a) te idents thin the area. po al h : ot en b f m any and (b). and 50.54(c) are issued under sec. accident considend credible. Such accidents have l 161b. 66 Stat. 948, as amended (42 USC POPu/ation center distance means the .senweur been of anumed 1

meltdown the coretowith result m substantial subsegunt reinn into 22o1(b)): ll 50.5. 50.7(s). 50.10(aHc). 50L34 (a) distance from the reactor to the nearest the contauunent of eppreciable quannues of fiss on l

i and (el. 50 44(a Hel. 50.48 (a) and (b). boundary of a densely populated center products.

50 471b). mea (s). (c). (d), and (e) 50.49(a). containing more then 25.000 residents. ' The whole body do of 24 rem nfened to i

50 54(a)(i). (iH1). (1Hn). (p) (q). (t). (v). and . . . . . above hu been stated to correspond numencany to (y). 255(f). 50.55ala). IcH e). (s) and (h). the once in a hfeume accidental or emersency do e 50.59(c). 50.e0(a). So.a2(bk 50.64(b). 50.65 and 3. In 150.6. paragraph (b) is revised to for radiation workers which, accordme to NCRP 1 50.80 (a) and (b) are inued under sec.1611. og read as follows: reconumendauons may be disresorded m the i

Stat. 949, as amended (42 USC 22o1(i)): and d" " "P '"'

Il 50 49(d). (h). and (j) 50.54(w). (2). (bb). $ 50.8 h weng W d"*'"s* a "**handbook

1. 'h'* as" dated lune sm'"" 'M mpdrwnenta: 0488 apperst " " "

(cc), and (dd). 255(c). 50.59(b). 50.01(b).

g,"j pd su eni 50.a2(b). 50.70(a). 50.71(aHet and (e). 50.72(a). p,fonnm, emer,ency services invoMn, hre uving sus (a) and (bl. 50.74. 50.7s. and 290 are (b) ne approved information acavtues or prosecuan of tarse populanone whm issued undee sec.161o. es Stat. 950, as Collection requirements containtd in this town dom m not pmcucable (ou EPA. Manual d amended (42 USC 42o1(o)). part appear in ll 50.30. M E33a. Protecun Actaon Guida and Protocuve Actions for

2. In i 50 t. add in alphabetical order Nuclear Incidents. Draft. September 19e0) However.

50.34. 50.34a. 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a. 50.4a.

neithw its um nor that of the 300 rem valm for the definitions for exclusion area. loM 50.40. 50 54. 50.56. 50.56a. 50.50, 50.80, ceawd

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

Fedesel Register / Vol Sr. No. ses / 3% seed:y, October an,1 sat / Proposed Rales eB15 l dose in ennena of 300 resa to the thyroid this chapter. es partial condormance to 8.Jlcape from lodine exposure. General Design Criter6on 2 of appendix h eeslentone deselbed in & appendix 4 iii) An individuallocated at any point A to this part, shall comply with the are within the scope oflavestientione

, en the outer radius of a low population earthquake engineering criteria of paradtted by I so.totc)(1) of h chapter.

sone who is exposed to the radioactive appendix S to this part. However,if the g,g,jj,jn,,,

i cloud resulting from the postulated construction permit was issued prior to

• l fission product release (during the entire (EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MNAL ^*used g , ,gg

period ofits passage) would not receive RULE), the applicant shall comply with onnetroemon permit and opefaths beenu j e total redietion dose to the whole body the earthquake daa-ing critaria in with conditions for a nuclear power facility a

in excess of 25 rem or a total radiation Section VI of Appendix A to part 100 of leeued purament to subpart C of part 52 of &

4 dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid this chapter. chapter.

l from iodine exposure. For purposes of . . . . . Dee(sn certificadan means a Commission 4

this evaluation, a low population sone 5. In 5 50 54 paragreph (ee)is added approval. lessed pursuant to subpart B of part boundary of 3.0 miles (measured from a2 of 2 chapter, of a standard daign for a

to nad as W" muclear power fadlity. A design so approved the reactor center point)is assumed.

j (iii) With respect to operation at the gsom4 censsensetnoensea, miey be, referred to as a corGed etandarda j projected iniual power level, the . . . . .

da gn.

i appbcant is required to submit hilon /OBE)is the vibratory ground motion (ee) Forlicensees of nucimar power <

information rescribed in paragraphs for which those Isetures of the nuclear power plants that have implemented the l

(a)(2) throug (s)(8) of this section, as plant neommary for contioned opereuen earthquake engineering criteria in

well as the information required by this Appendix S of this part, plant shutdown without andue risk to the health and safety d l ptragraph,in support of the applicauon is ired if b criMa in Paragraph the Public wiu remain functional &

1 for a construction permit. IV(a)(3) of Appendix S are exceeded.

Opwoung Buis Ear & quake Ground Mouon 4

Note Reference le made to Technical My amoaawd e paw Mdan ud

, Prior to resuming operations, the g,,,,,go, ,3,, ,p.,,ncany selected by the j information Document (11D) 14844. dated I censee shall demonstrate to the applicant u a duien input.

1 et r se En co ent wt i .h has Commission that no functional damage A c=p==a* 4pecurum is a plot of the n used in past evaluations. m 6 eion has occurred to those features necessary maximum raponses feansieretion niocity, prodnet releau given in TID-14a44 may be . for continued operation without undue or ^;' - -- --t) of a immily of idenhzed used as a point of departure upon risk to the health and safety of the V L -%wdom oedliston as e l I

l consideration of severe accident research public. function of the naturaliminenoes of the insights evallable since ite issuance, upoa 6. Ma~lh S to part 50 is added io ***U *" I"

• I8 " *"#"8 '" "

considerstron of plant design features reePanee spectrum le calculated for e i intended to mingate the consequenme of read a"s follows. .

epecified vibratory monon hput at the j sccidents, or upon characterisuce of e AppendLx S to Part go-Earthquake ons6biaton'suppats.

pirticular resetor. Copies of Tedmical Engineering Cataria for Nuclear Power ne Safe Seusdows Earthven&e Ground Information Document 14a44 may be pg,,g, Medan (SSE)le the vibratory ground moben 4

obtained from the Commission's Public for which certain structures, systems, and 3 Document Room. 2120 L Street, NW. (tower Generalleformation componente meet be designed to remain a level). Washington. DC., or by writing the functional Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S. His appendix apphes 2 appbcants who l ne so smNeue, speassee, sad aa-panents Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion, apply for a design certification or combined muired to afthetend the e#ecse of the Safe Washington DC 20555. hoense purenant to part 52 of this chapter or a hide v Krathqua&e Groused 2 tion or

. . . . construction permit or opereting license

. surfact deformation are those mar ===ary to pursuant to part to of this chapter on or after (121 On or after [EFITCTIVE DATE """*

gg,rrxuVE DATE OF THE FINAL RLU).

OF THE FINAL RULE), appbcants who However,if the construction permit was P

d',Fy ' " * * ' " * ""'

apply for a construction permit pursuant inued prior to [ EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE (2) ne capabthey to abat down the reactor io this part, or u design certification or FINAL RLU). the opereting license applicant and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, combmed bcense pursuant to part 52 of shall comply with the earthquake engineering ,,

this chapter, as partial conformance to criteria in Sechen VI of Appendix A so lo (3) h cepebility to preeent or mitigate the General Design Criterion 2 of Appendix Cm part 100. consequenose of soddente that could result A to this part, shall comply with the 1. Introduction in Potential offeite exposures compareble to

'" " **P""

Each applicant for a construction permit, 8 p[ n. i. .S f sp . opereting license, design certification, or Surfoce cleformation is dietertice of sous or ccmbin'd lic'n** 18 "9ul"d bY rocks et or near the ground entface by the (10) On or after (EFFECITVE DA1T OF THE FINAL RULE]. epplicants who apply for an operating license pursuant h I,g to design neclear power plant structures.

o thm part [k", f f i ,

f*"

g Tr'N" Tectonic surface deformation is es ociated to this part, or a design certification or systems, and componente important to safety with outhquke processes i

combined license pursuant to part 52 of to withstand the effects of natural phenosnena, such as earthquakes, without IV, Application ToErtgineerittgDesign thyroid exposun as wt forth in tius section om lose of capability to perform their safety %e following are pureuant to the seismic imended to imply that these numban comentate functions. Also, a condition of all opereting and geolog6c design basie requimments of scceptable tunits for emersency doses to the public licensee for nuclear power plants, os paragraphe V (e) through (f) of appendix B to under accident conditions. Rsther this 25 rem specified in l Go.64(ee), is plant shutdown lf part 100 of this chapter:

whole body value and the ano rem thyro d enlee the critene in paragraph IV(eX3) of this (e) Vibratory Groudd Motion.

have been set forth is this secten as mierence appendix are exceeded. (1) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground salues. which can be used in the evaluateon of plant These criterie implement General Design Motico. m Safe Shutdown Earthquake

~'

"I*

r In c rNo~a'.EuI$. si , Criterko 2 insofar es it mquime structume. Goosed Monos meet tw cherectorised by provide assurmou oflow nak of pubbc exposure to eyetems, and components important to safety free-fleid ground anotion mopostes spectre et

, rediaison, m the event of such socidenta. to withstand the effects of ee;" , 6 the free groured earfeos er bypothetical rock

~

4 47818 Federal Register / Vel 57, No. 203 / Tuesday, Oct ber 20, 1992 / Proposed Ruhs f outcrop. as appropriate, in view of the limited continued operation without undue risk to the l St.17 Centents of appaamat===

data available on vibretory ground motions health and safety of the public must remain of strong es.t M it usually will be functional and within applicable stren and (8)(1) The APPli cation must contain

appmpnate that the design response spectre defonnation limits. the information required by 50.33(aHd).

j be smoothed spectre developed from an (3) Required plant Shutdown.8 If vibratory the information requtred by i 50.34

! enumble of moponse spectre related to the ground motion eacseding that of b (a)(12) and (b)(10), and. to the extent r vibratory motions caused by more than one Operating Basis Earthquake Ground Motion approval of emergency plans is sought earthquake. At a minimum, the bonsental under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

or if significant plant damage occure, the

Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion at licensee must shut down the nuclear power the information required by I 50.33 (g)

the foundation level of the stmetures must be an appropriate response spectrum with a plant. Prior to resundag operations, the and (j), and i 50.34(b)(6)(v).The l

• hcensee must demonstrate to the Cosimission application must also contain a l P*h8", h"[,' ( that no functional damage has occurred to description and safety assessment of the i so that. if the Safe Shutdown Earthquake &me featurn necesary fw cetinued site on which the facility is to be i Ground Motion occurs, certain structures, operation without undue risk to the health located, with appropriate attention to 1 systems, and components will remain and safety of the public. features affecting facility design.The

functional and within applicable stress and I4I R'9uimd Seismic Instmmentation. assessment must contain an analysis j deformation limits. In addition to seismic Suitable m.etrumentation must be provided so and evaluation of the major structures.

• loads. applicable concurrent normal that the seismic response of nuclear power i operstms. functional and accident-induced plant features important to safety can be - systems, and components of the facility loads mut be taken into account in the evaluated promptly after en earthquake. that bear significantly on the I design of thne safety-related structurn, (b) Surface Deformation.De potential for acceptability of the site under the i systems. and components.De design of the surface deformation must be taken into radiological consequence evaluation i nuclear power plant must also take into account in the design of the nuclear power factors identified in i 50.34(a)(1) of this account the possible effects of the Safe . plant by providing reasonable assurance that chapter. Site characteristics must i Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion on the in the event of deformation, certain comply with part 100 of this chapter. In l facihty foundations by ground disruption, structures, systems, and components will addition, the application should describe l such as fissuring. Lateral spreads. differential remain functionalin addition to surface the following:

{ settlement, liquefaction, and landsliding. as deformation induced loads, the design of . . . . .

! required in paragraph V(f) of appendix B to safety features must take into account

part 100 of this chapter, seismic loads, including aftershocks, and (vi) The seismic, meteorological.

i~

The required safety functions of structures, applicable concunent functional and hydrologic, and geologic characteristics systems, and components must be assured accident-induced loads. De design of the proposed site; i dunns and after the vibratory ground e otion provisions for surface deformation must be + * * *

• l [rt u e i ion :

daign.

band a pm u d

occurw nce

,g 9. In 10 CFR part 52. appendix Q.

j testmg. or qualification methods.- the nuclear power plant, unless evidence Paragraph 8 is added to read as follows:

l

[* ' "Um d e indicates this assumption is not appropriate. Appendix Q to Part St -Pro-Application duration of vibratory motion. It is permissible and must take into accounuhe numawd raw Early Review of Site Suitability issues i at which the surface defonnation may occur.

to design for strain hauts in excess of yield , , , , ,

strain in some of thew safety-related (c) Seismically Induced Floods and Water Waves and Other Design Conditions. a. Notwithstanding paragraph 7. any

' "8 butio i u Seismically induced floods and water waves application for renewal of an early site from either locally or distantly generated Permit is subject to a full early site permit Motion and under the postulated concurrent

! loads, provided the necessary safety wismic activHy and othw daign cedities ***

21 era mgi r'thquake Ground 0 88 't Pte, PART 100-REACTOR SITE CRITERIA Maijon, must be taken into account in the design of

(i) %e Opereting Basis Earthquake Ground the nuclear power plant so as to prevent 10. The authority citation for part 100 Motion must be characterized by response undue risk to the heahh and safety of the continues to read ae foUows.

l

spectra ne value of the Operating Basis Public. Authodty: Secs.103.104.161.182. es Stat.

' Earthquake Ground Motion must be set to 938. 397. 948. 363 as amended (42 USC 2133.

one of the following choices: PART 52-EARLY SITE PERWTS: 2134,2201. 2232); sec. 201 as amended. 202.

l (Al One. third or less of the Safe Shutdown STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; as Stat.1242 as amended.1244 (42 USC l Earthquake Ground Motion.De AND C000081ED e nr aras"* POR seet sa42).

i requirements associated with this Opereting 900 CLEAR POWER PLAff73  !

l . Basis Earthquake Ground Motion in it.The table of contents for Part 100 i i paragraph (aM2HiXBX/) can be satisfied 7.The authority citation for part 52 is revised to read as follows:

without the applicant perfo ming explicit continues to read as follows: '

l response or design analyses, or PART 100-REACTOR SITE CRITERIA l (B) A value greater than one-third of the Ausbodty: Sece.103.104.191.1tL 183.188, ,

1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion. 1se, se Stat. 338. 948. 963. 964. 385. 988, as Sec.

~

Analysis and design must be performed to amended. sec. 234. as Stat.12M as amended 100.1 Purpose 1 demonstrete that the requirements ammaetated (42 U.S.C 2133,2301. 2232,2233. 2238,2238, 100.2 Scope.

with this Opereting Basis Earthquake Ground 22st): esca. 201. 203. 20s, se Stat.1242,1244, 100.3 Definitions. I Motion in Paragraph (aN2NIXBMI) are 1248, as amanded (42 UAC Stet. 3042,8046). 100.4 Comununications, satisfied. The design must take into account 100.a Information collection requirements:

I soil. structure interaction effects and the 8. In l 52.17. the introduct text of OMB approval.

i en ted duration of vibretory ground (a and (a)(1)(vi) ,

k (/) Wheasubjected to the effects of the gessenery power Reester Slee Apptootone Operetmg Basis Earthquake Ground Motion sofwHEMeeuw Does of um Ptnel Rule]

j! a candense is behg developed te Draft assulatory and for Test Reesters in combination with normal operating loads. Guide DG-tetr. NuMaanks and all structures, systems, and ea-pa===to of n-A-a= Nasisar Power QU ".quaesr Pess. 100L10 Factore to be considered when

! the nuclear power plant noossaary for Earthquake Actnesc evaluating sites.

1 i

.. - - . - . . .-- - .-. c , -- . . . -

i Federal Register / Vol. 57c No. 303 / Tuesday. Octabr 20, 1992 / Lyr cm! Rul:s 47317 100.11 Determination population of exclusion zone, and population center area. low exclusion or removalonel of and 11555 Rockville Pike. Rockville.

distance. '

property from the area. area may Maryland.

be traversed by a highway, railroad, or Subpert 5--Evolustion Factors for waterway, provided these are not so 16. Section 2004 is revised to read as 1 r , Power Reactor Site Appesotions close to the facility as to interfere with follows:

4 on or AfterIEffocewe Date of the Final normal operations of the facility and Rutel- i 100.8 information ootection pmvided appropriate and effective 'egdremones: Otss apprwel 100.2o Factors to be --- 'M when arrangements are made to control traffic evaluating sites. (a) The Nuclear Regulatory 100.21 Determination of exclusion area and on the highway, railroad, or waterway. Commission has submitted the populanon distnbuuon. in case of emergency to protect the public health and safety. Residence information collection uirements j 100.22 Evaluation of potential man.related contained in this part to e Office of bazards. within the exclusion area shall normally Management and Budget (OMB) for be prohibited. in any event, residents Appendix A-&olemic and Geologic Siting shall be subject to ready removalin approval as required by the Paperwork Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et case of necessity. Activities unrelated to seq.). OMB has approved the Appendix B--Criteria for athe h and oPerstion of the reactor may be Geologic Siting of Nr.Jear Power Plants on er permitted in an exclusion area under information collection requirements contained in this part under control

! Aher ! Effective Date of the Flaal Rule] appropriate limitations, provided that no number 3150-.0093 1

12. Section 100.1 is revised to read as significant hazards to the public health I (b)%e approved information

' follows: and safety will result Lowpopulation zone means the area collection requirements contained in this

9 100.1 Purpose immediately surrounding the exclusion part appearin appendix A and appendix I j (a)This part sets forth standards for B.

area which contains residents, the total i

=

evaluation of the suitability proposed number and density of which are such 17. A heading for subpart A is added i

sites for stationary power an testing that there is a reasonable probability directly before i 100.10 to read as reactors subject to part 50 or part 52 of that appropriate protective measures gugjg,,, '

this chapter. ,

j could be taken in their behalfin the (b) This part identifies the factors event of a serious accident.These tutspwt A- Evaksotion Factors for

' considered by the Commission in the stoconwy poww Reactor site guides do not specify a permissible.

evaluation of reactor sites and the population density or total population Appucauons Before pective Date of standards used in approving or within this zone because the situation the Final Rule] and for Test Reactors.

disapproving proposed sites. may vary from case to case. Whether a

13. Section 100.2 is revised to read as specific number of people can, for 18. Section 100.10 is revised to read as J

follows: follows:

e'xample, be evacuated from a specific i 100.2 scope. area, or instructed to take shelter, on a i 100.10 Factors to he considwed when (a) This part applies to applications timely basis will depend on many * * "'8"88"***

factors such as locadon, number and filed under part 50 or part 52 of this Factors considered in the evaluation size of highways, scope and extent of of sites include those relating both to the chapter for early site permit. advance planning, and actual construction permit, operating license, proposed reactor design and the or combined license (construction distribution of residents within the area. characteristics peculiar to the site. it is Population center distance means the expected that reactors will reflect permit and operating license) for power distance from the reactor to the nearest

, end testing reactors. through their design, construction and

boundary of a densely populated center operation an extremely low probability

' (b) The site criteria contained in this containing more than about 25.000 part apply primarily to reactors for residents. for accidents that could result in release l which there is significant operating of significant quantities of radioacuve

experience.These site criteria can also Power reactor means a nuclear fission products. In addition, the site bo applied to other reactor types, such reactor cf a type described in i 50.21(b) location and the engineered features or i 50.22 of this chapter designed to included as safeguards against the es for reactors that are novelin design produce electrical or heat energy.

and unproven as prototypes or pilot hasardous consequences of an accident,

Testing recetor means a testing should one occur, should insure a low plants. For plants without significant facility as defined in 150.2 of this i risk of public exposure. In particular, the

' operating experience,it is expected that chapter.

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 censideration in determining of experience.In the application of these the acceptability of a site for a power or criteria which are deliberately flexible. i 100.4 Communicetona, tesung reactor:

the safeguards provided, either site Except where otherwise specified in (a) Characteristics of reactor design isolstion or engineered features, should reflect the lack of certainty that only this part, all correspondence, reports, a cations and o tten d wh Mu@

g g

14. S[ction to is r ised to read as to CFR 100 chould be addressed to the level and the nature and inventory of follows. '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, contained redioactive materials:

i 100.3 DefirWtions. A"ITN: Document Control Desk. (2)%e extent to,which generally Washington, DC 20555, and copies sent ac6epted engineering standards are As tsed in this part: to the appropriate Regional Office and applied to the design of the reactor, Exclusion area means that area Resident inspector. Communications surrounding the reactor,in which the (3)%e extent to which the reactor and reports may be delivered in person incorporates unique or unusual features reactor licensee has the authority to at the Commission's offices at 2120 L determine all activities including having a significant bearing on the Street, NW., Washington, DC, or at prt,bability or consequences of

4 i

f 47818 Federal Register / Vol. 57. Nm 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 / Proposed Rults 4

t' accidental release of radioactive the expected demonstrable leak rata reactor would not initiate an accident in

, materiale; from the containment and the anothar.the size of the exclusion area, i meteorological conditions pertinent is low population zone and population  !

j (4) The safety features that are to be 1 engineered into the facility and those his site to derive an exclusion area, a center distance shall be fulfilled with barriers that must be breached as a low population zone and population respect to each reactor individually. %e J

result of an accident before a release of center distance. For the purpose of this envelopes of the plan overlay of the radioactive material to the environment analysis, which shall set forth the baals areas so calculated shall then be taken 1 can occur, for the namedcal values used, the as their respective boundaries.

(b) population density and use a cant should determine the (2)If the reactors are interconnected l foi owing' characteristics of the site environs, to the extant that an accident in one j (1) An exclusion area of such size that reactor could affect tne safety of

. including the exclusion area. Iow 4 population zone. and the population an individual located at any point on its operation of any other. the size of the l boundary for two hours immediatelY exclusion area. low population sone and

center distanoe.

- (c) Physical charactedetics of the site, following onset of the postulated fission population center distance shall be including seismotory, meteorology, product release would not receive a based upon the assumption that all 4 geology, and hydrology, total radiation dose to the whole body la interconnected reactors emit their (1) Appendix A to part 100. " Seismic excess of 25 rem 8 or a total radiation postulated fission product releases

! and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear dose la excess of 300 rem to the thyroid simultaneously. his requirement may 3 Power Plants." describes the nature of from lodine exposure, be reduced in relation to the degree of investigations required to obtain the (2) A low population zone of such sina ling between reactors, the geologic and seismic data necessary to that en ladividual located at any point cou(ability pro of concomitant accidents j determine site suitability and to provide on its outer boundary who is exposed to and the probability that an individual

! reasonable assurance that a nuclear the radioactive cloud resulting from the would not be exposed to the radiation power plant can be constructed and postulated fission product release effects from simultaneous releases.The

} (during the entire period ofits passage)  !

operated at a proposed site without applicant would be expected to justify '

> undue risk to the health and safety of would not receive a total radiation dos' to the satisfaction of the Commission the public. It describes procedures for *to the whole body in excess of 25 rem or the basis for such a reduction in the determining the quantitative vibratory a total radiation dose in excess of 300 source krm.

l  !

' ground motion design basis at a site due tem to the th id from iodine exposure.

to earthquakes and describes (3) A pop ation center distance of at g(3)%e. applicant is expected to show I information needed to determine least one and one-third times the mt le rea o t si will not result l k distance from the reactor to the outer I l whether and to what extent a nuclear in total radioactive effluent releases power plant need be designed to boundary of the low population zone. In tb haw limits of l

< withstand the effects of surface faulting. *PPl ying this guide, the boundary of the 8pplicable regulatione.

(2) Meteorological conditions at the population center shall be deterndned j Note: For further guidance la developing <

i site and in the.aurrounding area should upon consideration of population distribution. Political boundaries are not the exclusion area. the low population zone.

be considered. and the population center distance, reference

! (3) Geological and hydrulogical controlling in the application of this "'

I* **d' ' ' i j characteristics of the proposed site may guide. Where very large cities are dat l ( "" na

have a bearing on the consequences og involved, a greater distance may be procedurel method and a sample calculation j an escape of radioactive material from necessary because of totalintegrated that result in distances roughly reflecting the facility. Special precautions should population dose consideration- current siting practices of the Commission.

{

be planned if a reactor la to be located (b) For sites for multiple reactor ne calculations described in Technical l

at a site where a significant quantity of facilities consideration should be given Information Document 14844 may be used as j

radioactivp effluent might accidentally to the following: a point of departure for consideretton of i particular site requirements which may result j flow into nearby streams or rivers or -(1)If the reactors are independent to the extent that an accident in one from evaluation of the characteristica of a i might find ready access to underground Particular reactor,its purpose and method of

! we ter tables. operation. Copies of Technical information

[d) Where unfavorable physical accidental e,emia, thei we.id me.h in p.mmeal Document 14a44 may be obtained from the l huarde not exceeded by hee from ser namenne

' characteristics of the site axist, the considered imedibia. such sce6denis have genermuy Commission a Public Document Room. 2120 L i proposed site may neworthelese be Street. NW. (Lower Level). Washington. DC -

4 been emuned se reseh in embetasual swtidown of found to be acceptable if the design of the core with subsequent releem of appreciable or by writing the Director of Nuclear Reactor

)

i the facility includes appropriate and quamenes of Asses psedusm- Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory a m whole body dose of as re n referred to Comuniasion. Washington. DC. 20665-i adequate compensating engineering abou % . 1 aumencauy to the once in a i safeguards' hfense accidental or ommspancy dem sur sedia.m 20. Subpart B (il 100.20-100.22) is

19. Section 100.11 is revised to read as woden which, acom6as m NCRP added to read as follows; follows: recamasendseems may be disressrded in the n Subpart 5-Evolustion Factors for 4 100.11 Detersensson of ens.he. ten area, me ,.,w .n - an ,s,.s e.n=r now r.o , m fe.'e E I O ss M. .us*eY.".e"s["'"

. ef sm a sten.nny P or R ctor sn.

veine for .ymid empenum ao est for. in these sue Appgessons On er Anor [ Effective ansteios, j (a) As an and in evaluating a proposed 18"Jd"**",d'.' 7, ,, y Date of the Pinel Rule]

4 .ite. an .pplicant shouid as.us a - se .e ,.h.c m , s Rather.this as sum whole body volum and the Els

,,,s.,,,,,,,,,,,e,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

i fission prodiact release 8 from the oors; ggggg,

som thyroid unius have base est farth in thsee su6dse a soferums valuut which ens be used in the The Comadselon will take the j i The assima pueduse nosen assumed ler these evolmsman er senseer seems et. ses,em i. p iemeni following factors into considerstion in ai-i- sh==id be based even e unen -aa-a r ses, sendenen af enemmenwy hun esehehemy of determining the acceptability of a site hw " for pas of one smalys= = -andIse n

• sipmaicamps m for a stationary power reacter:

J. postulated ham emusessmuses of passaan ,

se6.ess. .

1 J

l Fedaeal Register / W1. 87. No. 303 / Tissed:y, Oct:ber 30, 1992 / Proposed Rttles 47819 (a) Population density and use everlay of the sun of the exclusion characteristics of the site environs, (b)N effects of offsite hazards must areas for each reactor. lf the mactors have a very low probability of affecting including the exclusion area, the are interconnected to the extent that an the safety of the plant.& likelihood population distribution, and site.related accident in one reactor would initiate an and consequences of offsite hazards characteristics must be evaluated to accident in another, the size of the must be estimated using data and determine whether individual as well as exclusion area for each reactor must be assumptions that are as realistic and societal risk of potential plant accidents determined on a case by case basis, representative of the site as is practical. '

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

development of a plan to carry out given in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 21. Appendix B to part too ls added to suitable protective actions for members the site will not be approved by the read as follows-of the public in the event of emergency, Commission unless the applicant 1 (b) The nature and proximity of man- demonstrates either: Apponex 5 to Part 6 fw es related hazards (e.g., airports, dams, Selsmic and Geologic Bidag omuclear (i) ht there are no reasonably  ;

transportation routes, military and available alternative sites with Power Plants On or After [Wiecdve Date  ;

chemical facilities) must be evaluated to determine whether the plant design can significantly lower population densities,

'I O' M"*I W l

,, g,,,,,3 i,g,,,,,,i,,

a n whe e fe rfs f ther (ii) t the proposed site is preferred This appendix apphw to applicants who hazards'is very low. over an alternative site with apply for sa early site permit or combined l

(c) Physical characteristics of the site, signif cantly lower population density license pursuant to part 52 of this chapter. or on the basis of other considerations. a construction permit or operating beenu includmg seismology, meteorology' pursuant to part 80 of this chapter on or after geology, and hydrology. (2) De populatica density, including (1) Appendix B " Criteria for the weighkd transient population, p@ cud (EFFECITVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULEj.

at me Mme ofinidal sim appmval w Howevn.if the construction pennit was Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear issued prior to IEFTECTTVE DATE OF THE early site permit renewal should not Power Plants on or After (EFFECTIVE FINAL RU1JE), the opereting license opphcant DATE OF THE FINAL RULE)," exceed 800 people per square mile shall comply with the seismic and geososic describes the criteria and nature of averaged over any radial distance out to siting critwie in Appendix A to Part 100 of investigations required to obtain the 30 miles (cumulative population at a this chapter.

distance divided by the total circular geologic and seismic data necessary to amaat t di n e pro te gg,,

determine site suitability. l (2) Meteorological characteristics of p0P ty ding ich transient population 40 years after the to part so of this chapter requires that nuctur the site that are necessary for safety i analysis or that may have an impact time of initial site approval or early site poww plant structurn, systems, and i components important to safety be designed upon plant design (such as maximum Permit renewal should not exceed 1000 to withstand the effects of natural

)

probable wind speed and precipitation) P80ple per square mile averaged over phenomena euch as earthquakes. tornadoes. i i

must be identified and characterized. any radial distance out to 30 miles. hurricana, floods, tsunami, and seiches (3) Factors important to hydrological (3) Transient population must be without lose of capabihty to perform their radionuclide transport (such as soil, included for those sites where a safety functions. it is the purpose o,f these sediment, and rock characteristics, significant number of people (other than criteria to set forth the prtacipal seismic and adsorption and retention coefficients, those just passing through the area) QC **"*d'*,",*,"gggjde e the ground water velocity, and distances to work, reside part time, or engage in suitabihty of proposed situ for nuclear the nearest surface body of water) must recreational activities and are not power plante and the suitabihty of the plant be obtained from on-site measurements. permanent residents of the area.he design bases estabhshed in consideration of The maximum probable flood along with transient population should be the seismic and geologic characteristice of the the potential for seismic induced floods considered for siting purposes by proposed sites.:

discussed in Appendix B must be weighting the transient population 'these.critwie are based on the current estimated using historical data. according to the fraction of the time the geophysical geological, and seismological

' transients are in the area. Information concoming faults and earthquake i M21 DeuminsWon of enchaston eres (c)Physicalcharacteristics of the occumnen and effects. my win be rmoed and popummon emiressanon.

proposed site, such as egress limitations as necneary when more complete (a) Each reactor facility must have an from the area surrounding the site, that information becoma available.

exclusion area, as defined in i 100.3(a) could pose a significant impediment to E Scope -

of this part. the development of emergency plans, hea entwia, which apply to nuclear (1) For sites with a single reactor must be identified. pown plants, describe the nature of the facility, the distance to the exclusion investigations required to obtem the geologic area boundary at any point (as 610023 gvaluellen of potentini man- and meismic data necessary to determine site measured from the reactor center point) '808888 M suitabihty and provide reasonable assurance shd. he at least 0.4 miles (640 meters). (a) Potential hasards to the plant from that a nuclear power plant can be (2) For sites with multiple reactor man-related activities associated with onstructed and operated at a proposed site facilities, consideration must be given to nearby transportation routes, military, without undw rtek to the health and ufety of the following:If the reactors are and industrial facilities must be the pubhe. Geologic and estamic facton independent to the extent that an identified and their potential effects be la n omns

",9 gg accident in one reactor would not

• evaluated. Potential hazards to the plant iden h '

initiate an accident in another, the size include such effects as explosions, fires, of each exclusion area must be toxic and/or flammable chemical determined with respect to each reactor releases, dams (both upstream and individually. The exclusion area for the downstream), pipeline accidents, and ei

%%$D*" **

an ,,,,ee.di. iai. rye.34 and i site must then be taken as the plan aircraft crashes and impacts. siendard revies, pies escomma.

1 i

i

• ~ ,. - , . -

E 1

47B30 Federal Register / Vel. 57. No. 203 / Tuesd!:y Oct:ber 30, 1902 / Proposed Ruhe 1

' The investigatione descr6 bed in this Com&ised horaee means a combined directly by fault movement and is distinct f appendu are within the scope of construction posit and operating beenes from nontectonic types of smund disruptions.

2 investigatione permitted by 8 50.10(c)(1) of with conditions for a nuclear power facihty such se landslides. fissures and craters.

{ this chapter. inued pursuant to subpart C of part 52 of this

! Each applicant for a construction permit, chapter. IV. Requiredinvestigotions j operating hcense, serly sitte permit. or A determinlet/c source earthquake (DSE)is De geolog! cal, utsmological, and

< . combined license shall investigene all se6esenc the largest earthquake that can reasonably be engmeering characteristice of a site end its i and geologic factors that may aHect the expected to occur in a given setemic source in environe must be investigated in sufficient i design and operation of the proposed nudeer the cumat tectonic reguns and is to be used scope and detail to permit an adequate j power plant irnepecuve of whether each is a deterinimatic saalysia. It is generally evaluation of the proposed site, to provide

! factore are explicitly included in these based on the maximum biotorical earthquake sufficient information to support both j cnteria. Both determinletic and probabilistic associated with that seismic source unless probabilistic and deterministic evaluations

evaluations must be conducted to detersune recent geological evidence warrents a larget required by these entena, and to permit

{ site suitabahty and meismic duip earthquake, or where the rete of m -- adequate engineering solutions to actual or j requiremente for the site. Addauonal of earthquakes indicates the likelihood of potential geologic and esismic effects at the investigetions or more conservative larger than the largest histortcel event. proposed site.no sina of the region to be

detenninetiene than those included in these Early Side permit means a Co=='=aaaa investigated and the type of data pertinent to j criteria may be required for sites located in approvalissued pursuant to subpert A of the Invutigatione must be determined by the areas with complex geology recent tectonec part 52 of this chapter, for a site or sitee for natum of the region surrounding the proposed

. deformation. or in areas of high setemicity. lf one or more nuclear power facilities. site.De investigations must be camed out

an applicant believes that the particular A fbult le e tectonic structum along which by a rev6ew of the pertinent hterature and j eetsmic and geologic characteristice of a site differential slippese of the ediscent earth field investigatione se identified in parageoph

indicate that some of these criteria or meterials hee occurved perellel to the fracture a) emugh (el of ek appen&x.

i portions thereof. need not be satisfied, the lane. A fault may have pause or breccia I applicant shall identify the specific sectione een its two walle and lacludes any "IC "'

The purpose of these investigations is to i of these criteria in the license application and associated monechnal flemure or other ' " " ' '

g present supporting date to cleerty lootify such similar geolope structural feature. do %a gm d o departurve. The Director. Office of Nuclear De aqsnitude of an earthquake le a i'

Reactor Regulation approves any deviations. measure of the else of an earthquake and is a caPa tect urc related to the energy released in the form of

[ , g n-g setemic waves. Magnitude means the must be identified and evaluated. ne As used in these criteria: numencel velee om a standardised scale sedt deterministic source earthquakes must be A copoble decionic source is a tectonic as, but not limited to. Moeient Magnitude, evaluated fw each selemic soun structure that can generate both earthquakes Serface Wave Maputade. Body Wave N TecMc Surface Ddwmedon.

Magnitude, or itichter Mapitude scales. De Purpose of these investigations is to t and tectonic surface defornimuon each as faultme or folding et or near the surface in A responer spectrum is a plot of the some the pownHal fw technic surface i deformation near the site end. if any. to what

the present seissiotectonic regime. it le ===i=um responsee (acceleration, velocity.

i cherectenaed by at leest one of the following or displacessot) of a family of ideahsed extent ee nucher power plant mde w be charactertetit* single degree-of-freedom cecillators as a i

4 (1) De presence of surface or near-surface function of the natural frequencies of b ddiP'd I" O"' "'"'""".

(c) Nootectonic Deformation 8

deformation of landforms or geologic deposite oscillatore for a given damping value. De The purpose of these investigations is to

! of recurring nature within the last response spectrue le calculated for a aseems the potentaal for surface deformatione I approximately ennann years or et least once specified vibretory snouan impet at the not directly attributable to tectonics such as in the last approximately 50.000 years. oscillators'suppoem. the es ociated with subsidence or collapse (2) A reasonable association with one or ne Sofe Shuidown Karthquake Ground as in karst terrein glacially induced offsets.

more large earthquakes or sustained Afouan (SSE)is the vibretory ground enodos and growth faultms. Paragraph IV(b) i earthquake activity that le usually for which certala structures, systessa and conceme investigations required for tectonic j accompanied by significant eerface coroponents joust be desipod to remala surface defamation that can occur j deformattaa. functional. coseismically. Nontactonic phenomena can i

(3) A struceeral associotton with a capable A seismic source is a general term referring repmeent eipificant surface displacement

! tectonic source having characterletics la to both seisamogenic operces and capable hasarde to a site, but can in many cases be

! paragraph Ill(1) of this definitiae so that tectonic sources. monitored controlled, or mangsted by j movement on one could be reasonably A seismogenic sosite le a portion of the engmeering, or it can be demonstrated that expected to be - M by mesement on earth that has uniforme earthquake potential conditions that were the cause of the i the other. (same deteruninistic seuros earthquaks and if-- - to no longer exist. Geological and i in some esses. the geologic evidence of fregeency of. -__. --) distinct from the geoPh ysicallovestigations must be carried i past activity at er near the ground eerface surrounding area. A i soeres wGl out to identify and define montactonic j . alons a particular capable tectonic source not cause surface displacements. deforenetion features and, where possible.

l may be obscured at a particular ette. Die Setemosenic sources cover a wide range of distinguish them fmm tectonic surface might occur. for annenple, et a site havhg a possibihties frose a well<lefland tectonic displacemente. If such distinction le not

!' deep overburden. For these mese. evidence etmeture to simply a large region of da"see possible, the questionable feetures must be i saay exist elsewhose along the eerweture from 'seisedcity (seismotectonic province) t treated as tectonic deformation.

$ wiuch an eyelsetion of He characteristice is to be characterised by the same earth (d) Seismica!!y Induced Floods and Water 1 the vtcinity of the ette enn be reasonably recorrence model A seisenogenic source is Wavees 3

based.nie evidemos most be need la eleo chareoterteed by its levolvement in the De purpose of these investigations le to

) determining whether the eeueswo is a cwvent *=naa=le sughee se refloot-d in the essess the poteetial for nearby and distant capable tacenaic sourse enthh this definitions Quaternery(approstaately thelast: ma== teemands and other waves that could effect j Notwithstandaag peregraph (1), (2) and (S) years) geologic history. coastal sites. Incieded la this aseosoment le i of this defhution, eennetural ===adama= of a Surface _l --- ~ - is distortion of seile er the determination of the potent 2al for shdes j - stractwo with geologic etsessural features rocks a6er near the poemd earface by the of easth material that could generate waves.

that are geologically old (at least pro, promeses of folding. fealtiegs comprese6es, or Information regardmg distant and locally

• Quotemary) such as many of those foemd la entension as a result of vertoes earth forces, generated waves or tsunamis that have l the Eastern reglen of the United States must. Tectonic surface deformation le escociated affected the alte, and available evidence of la the abeoems of conflicting evidense. with a." , -' processem rusep and drewdown associeted with these d

desuc.aemote that the strusame le met a Searjlese Anakey le deflorential yound essete, shall be snelysed. imcal featurve of

! capable testemic sessme seethin this deAxities. =h r a ====* et er near the esadeue seemed osastel er undernes topography which could I .

l Fesleral Register / Vol. 67. No. aos / 'Doenday. October 20, 1982 / Pyoposed Rules 47821 I i modify wave rump or dre adows must be essent and antwo of surfees deinemadees 1

^

(2) Operseg Basia Barthgeake Creemd considered. For ettes noce ad near lahoe or amet be 4====tsed. {

4 Moties (OIE). 4

' rtvers. analysee anwt ine ude the potential for - le) Delaranimesion of Damien Bases for (3) Ragehed Plant Sheldown. l seisnumily induced flor de e- weter wevos. Seismically laduced Floods and Weter (4) Required Setemic lastrusnestatloa. I es. for exemple, freen .e fellere our;.is en Weves.

earthquake of a dem upstroom or fmn alides (b) Surface Deformation The eine of esieunionHy indeced Goods and (c) Boissancelly Indeced Floods and Weter of earth or debne into e nearby lake, water weves that eeund effect e she from

} (e) Volcanic Activity. Waves and Other Design Conditions.

either locally er dietaatly gaaerated esionic 4 The purpose of these investigatione is to octivity must be determined, taktag into Dated at RodviDe. Maryland, this 13th day 1 esses the potential volcanic hasards that of October 2002.

consideration that results of the investiention would adversely affect the alte, required by paragraph IV (d) of this For the Nudear Reguletary Commissim appendix. . Samuel J.(3 ilk, f V. Seismic and Geologic Drsign Boses (f) Determination of Other Design Secnttory ofthe Commission.

(a) Determinetion of Deternuaistic Source Conditions.

Earthquakes. (1) Soil Stability. Vit retary ground motione [FR Doc. e3.-28240 Filed to-M 44 am)

For each seismogenic and capable tectonic determined in peregraph V(b) can coene soll anaams caos mes.ew j source identified in paragraph IV(e), the instabihty from ground dieroption such as s

determimetic source earthquake must be flesunng 1steralspreads, differential

$ evaluated. At a mmimum, the deterministic settlement and liquefactica. behich is not l source earthqueke must be the largest directly related to surface faulting. Godlag6 cal N F M RES N

{ histoncal earthquake in each source. The features that could effect the foundations of uncertamty in determining the deterministic the pmposed nuclear power plant structums i source earthquakes must be accounted for in must be evolueted, taking into account the 17 CFR Part 4 I the probabihstic analysis. Infmation conmming the physical e_ ~

hh b etermir.ation of the Ground Motion at {d ffe of the te gro nd fair Ce Otherwise Reguisted The ground motion at the site must be motim deterned in peregraph V(b). Persons From Wie Definition of the

' estimeted from all earthquakes includmg the (2) Slope stability. Stability of all slopes. Term "t +Ti Pool Operator"

• g ' both natural and artificial, must be

$ w th ac considered the failure of which could

e. b ould h "n Dy Aeepeev Commodity Futures Treding i affect the site using both probabihstic and adversely affect the nuclear power plant. An Commission, j deterministic approaches In the detenninistic

• nual lg*y"*e","y",1, ", ', eytlg

, ACTIost Proposed Rulamaking l thquak as a ed it es source must mm nat on we

! be assumed to occur at the part of the source ,, SussesARY:'The Commodity Futures i

wh;ch is closest to the site. Appropriate information concerning the physical Trading Commission (" Commission" or

' e d h mM WW h h "CFTC")is proposing to amend i be d c na f in in ' and the effects of the vibratory ground Regulation 4.5 which excludes certain j estimating the ground motion for the site. The motion determined in paragraph V(b). otherwise regulated persons from the 1 grouno : notion is defined by both horizontal (3) Cmling water supply. Assurance of an definition of the term " commodity pool

! and vertical free-field ground motion j ad uste cooling

• water supply for emergency operator" ("CPO"). The rule currently i

response spectra the free bround surface or h",d oe8 md Permits such persons to maintain this hypothet2 cal rock outcrop, as appropriate. inseie f e nuclear power plant. taking into account exc uston to be exknt eat.infee, .

(c) Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion. information concoming the physical (1) the commodity futures or option The Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground properties of the materials underlying the Positions which they assume are either

, Motion is charactenzed by free field ground a te. the effects of the Safe Shutdown bona fide hedging positions or long motion response spectra at the free ground Earthquake Ground Motion, and the design positions which are " incidental to a 3

' basis for tectonic and nontecsonic surface qualifying entity's activities in the i a hr at Nese s ec are d$eio' ped d'I""**im. . Calderatie of river blockage underlying cash market" and (2) the frorn or cornpared to the ground motions ' '"" " "

a r mas ajpl aggregate initial margins and premiums l

j determ ned m paragraph V(b) Deterministic the flow if o U for all such positions does not exceed and prue :xhstic seisrme hazard evaluations subsidence. tsunami runup and drawdown.

rnust be used to assess the adequacy of the and the failure of dams and intake structures five Percent of the fair market value of ,

, S fe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motson. must be included tn the evaluation where the entity's assets. The Commission i The anml probabilty of exceedma the Safe appropriate, proposes to permit the assumption of Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion is (4) Distant structures. Those structures that commodity futures and option positions t considered ac:eptabi) low !!it is less than am not located in the inunediate vicinity of that are neither hedging not " incidental" the site but are safety related meat be to the extent that the market exposure rom t e '

nt [ ] D FTHE attained through such positions,does not FINAL Rt:LE} poniation of nuclear power ut o Es ua e un oti n design basis for surface faulting snust be Predommate a qualifying entity e overal p' ants.

i determined on a basis comparable to that of market exposure.The Commission also

At a mm6 mum. the horis.ontal Safe the nuclear power plant, taking into account Proposes to (1) remove the current Shutdown Ea thquahe Ground Motion at the the material underiytag the structures and the restriction that permits assumption of foundaten level of the structures must be an different location with respect to that of the only lorg non-hedging positions and (2) appropriate response spectrum with a peak site.

modify the five percent margin / premium l

} te n o Need o stgn for WA PP/icofion 7'oEngineeringDesign limitation to exclude margins on bona i Surface Tectoruc and Nontectonic Pursuant to the seismic and geologic design fide hedging positions from computat2on Deformations. basis requirements of peregraphs V(a) of the five percent Sufficient geological. seismological and through (f) applications to engineering design dates: Comments must be received by geophysical dets must be provided to clearly are contained in Appendix S to part so of this December 4.1992.

1 estabbsh that surface deformation need not chapter for the following areas:

l be taken into accoun;in the design of a (a) Vibratory ground motion. Aponesssa. Comments should be sent nuclear power plant. When sun. e (1) Safe Shutdown Earthquaka Ground to the Commodity Futures Trading l- deformation is likely an sanassmas t of the Motion (SSE). Comminalon. 2033 K Street. NW.,

1

]

1 .

4

. T.

}

M 11 1E MEMO 9ANDUM FOR: Michael Lestr Regulatory Puislications' Branch, ADM FROM: Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES

SUBJECT:

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - NOTICE OF MEETING Please publish in the Eederal Reaister the enclosed notice of a public meeting on February 4,1993 with the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other industry representatives. The purpose of ,

the meeting is to discuss Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015 and proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100.

, .g 5%

MY., geo Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES ,

Enclosure:

As Stated cc: A. Murphy, RES G. Bagchi, NRR N. Chokshi, RES R. Rothman, NRR R. McMullen, RES P. Sobel, NRR R. Kenneally, RES G. Giese-Koch, NRR E. Zurflueh. RES A. Ibrahim, NMSS T. King, RES D'. Houston, ACRS C. Ader, RES M. Taylor, EDO DISTRIBUTION: RESReading DCS ,RKenneally NChokshi AMurph. RBosnak LShao SSEB/DE/RES SSEB/DE/RES SSEB/DE/RES D E/RES E/

Rkenneally:fkm NChoksh AMurp nak FMN N I (/93 1 / 14 / 9 3 1/T /93 1/pp/ I/[7 /93 CMb505OD54 -

. v.

i L

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other industry representatives to discuss industry positions associated with proposed Appendix B, " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear Power Plants On or After [ Effective Date of the Final Rule)," to 10 CFR Part 100 and associated guidance documents. The proposed regulation is a revision of l

Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,"

to 10 CFR Part 100.

DATE: February 4, 1993 8:30 AM i

ADDRESS: 5650 Nicholson Lane Conference Rooms A and B Rockville, Maryland FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief, Structural and l

Seismic Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 describes the seismic and geologic siting and earthquake engineering criteria for nuclear power plants. Because of the advances in the state-of-the-art since the publication of the regulation (effective December 13,1973), a need for the revision has been established.

The proposed regulation, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100, was issued for public ALD<oc;DDSE

.. .s.

l comment on October 20, 1992 (57 FR 47802) along with other proposed changes to I 10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 100 that pertain to reactor site criteria and earth-i quake engineering criteria. Draft regulatory guides have been developed to j make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the regulations. The availability of the draft regulatory guides and a related standard review plan section was published on November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55601),

i i The purpose of this meeting is to meet with NUMARC and other industry representatives to discuss industry recommended alternatives to the positions contained in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015, " Identification and Characteriza-tion of Seismic Sources, Deterministic Source Earthquakes, and Ground Motion."

No specific agenda is being proposed.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this li day of January,1993, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l l

s Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering 1 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

l l

.