NUREG-0767, Transcript of 810507 Affirmation Session 81-7,in Washington, Dc.Pp 1-4.SECY-81-211,SECY-81-215 & NUREG-0767, Criteria for Selection of Fuel Cycle & Major Matls Licenses Needing Radiological Contingency Plans, Encl
| ML19347F357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F358 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, RTR-NUREG-0767, RTR-NUREG-767 SECY-81-215, NUDOCS 8105190061 | |
| Download: ML19347F357 (7) | |
Text
n
/r e?)/l.
// /
?
ym
,bhh(f-)f
'i A-NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN Q;j, O
\\
~. :
C In the M1 N of:
COMMISSION. MEETING AFFIRMATION SESSION 81-17 DATE:
May 7, 1981 PAGES:
1 t s,.,,
g,
{
AT:
Washington, L. C.
5
\\
M E%X REPORTING S=
c
)
400 vi_gd d a Ave., S.W. Wm e d g.::=, O. C. 20024 Ta.lachc=a : (202) 554-224*
I
(.
81052 9cO6l
r MN 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+++
(
AFFIRMATION SESSION 81-17 4
=
5
+++
h 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130, 1717 H Street, N.W.
q f
7 Washington, D.
C.
v a
f8 Thursday, May 7, 1981 dd 9
The Commission met, pursuanc to notice, at 4:05 p.
m.,
i h
10 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
E 5
11 BEFORE:
0 d
12 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission 3
h 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i
E l
14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner b!
15 JOHN F.
.HEARNE, Commissioner s
16 ALSO PRESENT:
M g
17 SAMUEL J. CHILK 18 LEONARD BICKWIT, JR.
=
WILLIAM J. DIRCKS 19 20 MARTIN MALSCH 21
+++
22 23 i
24 l l
25 l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
n 7
r.s- -
This 1.s a= t=cffd d % c 2=se dpc cd a. =anc1=g of the C=1:ad 7
Sca:as Nuclear lag =la== 7 C.-
'esic= held cc May 7, 1981 1::. the Cesian's. officas a: 1717 E Straec, N. '4., '4 ash' r:==,
U. C.
The r.mer'=g as open cm puht '- a :-"d=me-a=d cbsa:rsH ~.
. This. &*--f-c *cas=== beec :se_.ered, cc==ac:ad, c= edi:nd, a=i L: ma7
- *~'"~~
" = *.
l t
Iha c:==sc=dp= is. i= = d-/. selal7 far g:cera.L d #c
' de-*t pu=posas.
A.s p==vid-> by 10 CD. 9.103,1: is ce pa== cf de fc:=aI. c - 1 L
'_ rac=ri of dard*ic=.of the ca :ars disc =ssed.
E=p=assd -* of ep d== i=.-ils c:2=scrise dc sc: =acassa:117 d
aflac= fd=a.L dar=
" e:1c=s or ba T 4afs.
No pl= = dd ; er c:ha paper =a7 h e. "d ' -d W :5. the C.
= sic. i= a=7 precaedd T as ^=-
- ssu.L: of c: ad'- assed. to a~.y s 1 ----_: = = 1-e - ---: c==- ' ~ ad.
ha 312, 4=OSpC as de. C -- '
- sic Ca7 andC'-b* *.
e 0
e 1
[
l m
, *. 7
,,b k
i k
~
2 1
EEEEEEElEEE 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission will pleasc come to
(,
3 order, and we will deal with affirmations in hand.
4 I will ask you, in preparation for one of the items,for
=
5 affirmation, to join me in voting to hold on less than one week's 6
notice an affirmation meeting on SECY-81-250, Response to 7
Reynolds~FOIA Appeal.
=
l 8
Those in favor please say aye.
dd 9
(Chorus of ayes-four.)
5g 10 So ordered.
E
{
11 Sam, lead us in the reading of the affirmations.
U y
12 MR. CHILK:
SECY-81-176A, Additional.iesponse to the 13 Holt FOIA Appeal.
l 14-The Commission has unanimously agreed to withhold 2
15 seven documents and has also agreed with Commissioner Ahearne's E
y 16 cuggestion that OGC be asked to provide ways of asm ured w
6 17 improved coordination in these matters.
18 Would you please affirm your motion?
19 (Chorus of ayes - four. )
R 20 SECY-80-215, Rulemaking to Upgrade the Emergency 21 Preparedness of Certain Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees.
22 All Commissioners have approved the paper with the OGC 23,
modification,and iCommissioner Ahearne's suggested changes to 24 which all of you have agreed.
25,
Would you pleass affirm your motion?
I auBre w fsrir M BrE m
s.
r 3
1 (Chorus of syes-four.)
~
2 SECY-81-211, Alternative Site Issues in Operating 3
License Proceedings.
('
4 The Commission has approved unanimously an amendment to
=
5 10 CFR Part 51 to preclude the consideration of alternate sites E
6 in operating license reviews in the context of the NEPA.
7 Commissioner.Ahearne has urged :he Commission direct 3
8 8
the staff to complete action on the rest of the proposed rule, d
d 9
to which all of you t. ave agreed.
b 10 Would you please affirm your votes?
E
{
11 (Chorus of ayes-four.)
3 g
12 SECY-81-241, Review of Director's Decision under 5
I 13 10 CFR 2.206, matter of Pacific Gas and Electric.
{
14 All the Commissioners have agreed to issue the 5
2 15 memorandum and order as modified by Chairman Hendrie and g
16 Commissioner Gilinsky.
w d
17 Would you please affirm your votes?
18 (Chorus of ayes-four. )
5 g
19 SECY-81-250, Response to Reynolds FOIA Appeal.
n 20 The Commission. unanimously approved the holding of 21 11 document unde,r exception five.
22 Would you please affirm your vote?
23 (Chorus of ayes-four.)
24 SECY-81-231, Amendments to 10 CFR Part 19, To 25 Establish an RC License Authority -- strike that.
That paper DLDERSOM REPORTING COMPANYm I N C,
s.
4 I
has been moved up.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, 231 and 227 are off for-3 today.
t 4
MR. CHILK:
That is right.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Along with 223 and 197 and.220.
l 6
Okay.
Thank you very much.
^e.
6, 7
(Whereupon, at 4: 10 p m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)
X]
8
+++
d d
'9 i
h 10 s
E 11 g
12 s
- i 13 5
l 14 m
2 15 s
t{
16 as 6
17 5
18 19 R
20 21 22 23 l 24 25,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j,.
s NUCLEAR, REGULATORY COMMISSION Thi,s'~is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
,R
\\
Nuclear Reculatory Ccrmission in the matter of:
Affimation Session 81-17 Date of Proceeding:
Thursday, thy 7,1981 Docket Number:
Place of' Proceeding: Ibcn 1130, 1717 H St., N.W., Washincton, D.C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
Marilynn M. Nations Official Reporter (Typed)
Official Reporter (Signature)
m.
.a 1
L
l(
l((l
(((
(
li ((T
( ( ( '(
((h(h] (h (h(f(h(h(h(h{h (hth(h(h
/
R TRANSMITTAL TO:
8 Document Control' Desk, 016 Phillips p
P O
The Public Document Room DATE:
May 11, 1981 b
Attached.is a. Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document /s/. 'These are available for placement in the Document Control System.to they will appear on the Public Document Room Accession List.
Any document not stampted original should be checked for possible prior entry into the system.
g 1.
Transcript of Affirmation Session 31-17, May 7, 1981.
a.
SECY-81-211, Rulemaking Issue Paper dated April 1, 1981, subject:
Alternative Site Issues in Operating License Proceedings.
(1 cy) b.
SECY-81-215, Rulemaking Issue Paper dated April 2, 1981,
Subject:
Rulemaking to Upgrade the
.i Emergency Preparedness of Certain Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees.
(1 cy).
O m
y IOperationsBran jA brown Office of the Secretary
[
[
R[h{
s wa n w;=
w
=
e " w=-
s h.
4 r=,
B B.
m -,s, g
.s p n=*c,
o April 1,1981 SECY-81-211 q%/s RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
ALTERNATIVE SITE ISSUES IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of amendments to 10 CFR Part 51, in final fom, to preclude consideration of alternative sites in operating license reviews in the context of NEPA.
Category:
This is a policy matter requiring Commission approval.
Discussion:
On April 9,1980, the Commission published in the Federal Register (45 FR 24168) a proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 to provide procedures and performance criteria for the review of alternative sites for nuclear power plants under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed rule specified 1) information by the Commission, 2)ying for an alternative site reviewt requirements for appl the region of interest to be considered in selecting sites, 4) criteria for the selection of sites, 5) cri-teria for comparing a proposed site with alternative sites, and 6) requirements for reopening an alternative site decision. Minor conforming amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 were also proposed.
See SECY-79-481, August 10, 1979.
Twenty seven letters of public comment were received on the proposed amendments.
Although the staff has not completed its review of the entire proposed rule, the staff believes that it is appropriate for the Commission to act now on a portion of the proposed rule, namely,
Contact:
Bruce Berson, OELD 492-7678 SL(64#EQ 572 TmR
't "
i
l
\\
The Commissioners the requirements for reopening, at the operating license stage, the alternative site issue.
j Specifically, paragraph VIII.1 of the proposed Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51 provided in pertinent part that "[A]
reopening and reconsideration of the alternative site i
dec;rion #ter a final limited work authorization or construction pemit decision will be pemitted only upon a reasonable showing that there exists significant new i
infomation that could substantially affect the earlier decision." As discussed more fully in the attached Federal Register notice, the staff recommends that the proposed rule be revised to preclude all consideration of l
alternative site issues in operating license reviews and t
to make clear that an applicant's environmental report at
[
the operating license stage need not discuss alternative sites.lf However, a waiver or exception from application of this rule to particular OL hearings will be entertained in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.758.
The basis for this recommendation is that once the OL stage is reached, the costs of delay and of moving a partially constructed nuclear power plant to some alter-native site are so large that the staff can conceive of no realistic situation in which new infomation could tip the cost-benefit balance.
See Seabrook, CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503 (1977). Thus, at the OL stage, alternative I
siting is not a reasonable alternative; NEPA requires only that reasonable alternatives be considered.
Friends i
of the Earth v. Coleman, 513 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1975),
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton 458 F.2d i
827 (D.C. Cir.1972).
it should also be noted that I
alternative site issues have not, so far, been raised by parties to operating license proceedings.
l We recommend that the Commission proceed by rulemaking to foreclose consideration of alternative sites at the OL stage, subject to challenge under 2.758.
The Federal Register notice makes note of the six public comments,2]
1/
The requirements for reopening the alternative site question prior to l
the OL stage, and the treatment of costs in any such reopened hearing, will be considerad by the staff when the rest of the proposed rule is reviewed in light of the public comments.
j 2)
Several other commenters addressed the treatment of costs in any reopened altnerative site decision.
However, since this rule will preclude the f
consideration of alternative sites at the OL stage, those comments will be addressed when action on the rest of the rule is proposed.
i
The Commissioners ;
all from the nuclear industry, which did address the proposed standards for reopening the alternative site question and points out that the prohibition on consid-ering alternative sites at the OL stage may be waived in particular cases only in accordance with the pro-visions of 10 CFR 2.758.
Recomendation:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve publication in the Federal Register of the amend-ments to 10 CFR Part 51 as set forth in Attachment A as a final rule.
2.
Note that:
a.
The amendments will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, b.
The appropriate Congressional committees will be infonned by letter.
(AttachmentB).
i c.
The amendments do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment or involve unresolved conflicts concerning available resources.
Accordingly, no environmental impact statement, negative declaration or environmental impact appraisal need be prepared.
d.
A public announcement will not be issued.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
?
A.
Proposed Federal Register Notice.
B.
Draft letter for Congressional l
committees f
I
_4_
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c,.o.b. Thursday, April 16, 1981.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT April 9,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of April 20, 1981. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, 2 hen published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP i
Secretariat 5
e.
d
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (10 CFR Part 51)
ALTERNATIVE SITE ISSUES IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i ACTION:
Final Rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," to provide that, for NEPA purposes, alternative sites will not be considered in operating license reviews for nuclear power plants and need not be addressed by operating license applicants in their environmental reports submitted to the NRC at the operating license stage.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(Thirty days after publication in the Federal Register.)
~
FOR FURTliER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce A. Berson, Office of the Executive Legal Dire tor, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone (301)492-7678.
i
! i l
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 9,1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (45 FR 24168) a proposed amendment to its regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," to provide procedures and performance criteria for the review of alternative sites for nuclear power plants under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The proposed rule specified 1) information requirements for applying for an alternative site review by the Commission, 2) the timing of Commission j
review, 3) the region of interest to be considered in selecting sites, 4) criteria for the selection of sites, 5) criteria for comparing a proposed site with alternative sites, and 6) requirements for reopening an alternative I
site decision. Minor confonning amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" and " Domestic Licensing of i
Production and Utilization Facilities," respectively, were also proposed.
i Interested, persons were invited to submit written coniments on the proposed l
l amendments by June 9, 1980.
l l
Twenty seven letters of public comment were received on the proposed amend-ments. The Commission has carefully considered the comments regarding the proposed requirements for reopening the alternative site question after a l
favorable decision at the construction permit or early site review stage (Item 6 above) and has decided to take final action on this issue, insofar as j
it relates to operating license (OL) proceedings, while the staff continues i
l working on the other issues raised in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission has determined that alternative i
k
i-I site issues decided by the Commission and its adjudicatory tribunals (Atomic I
Safety and Licensing Boards and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards) as i
part of construction permit (CP) or early site review proceedings may not bereopenedattheoperatinglicensestage.M The proposed rule has been revised accordingly.
In addition, a minor conforming amendment to 10 CFR 951.21 makes clear that applicants for operating licenses need not address alternative sites in environmental reports submitted to the NRC at the operating license stage.
Paragraph VIII.1 of the proposed Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51 provided that
"[A] reopening and reconsideration of the alternative site decision after a final limited work authorization or construction pennit will be permitted only upon a reasonable showing that there exists significant new information that could substantially affect the earlier decision."U The rationale and
~
. discussion supporting this aspect of the proposed rule provided that:
_1f The Commission will address the standards for reopening the alternative site issue prior to the OL stage when it considers the remainder of the proposed rule.
y 45 FR 24177, column 3 (April 9,1980).
The remainder of proposed paragraph VIII.1 and paragraph VIII.2 address questions pertaining to the treatment of the costs of delay and of moving to another site.
Proposed paragraph VIII.3 pertains to the procedures applicable when two sites within a region have received a favorable NRC decision en alternative sites. These particular issues are inextricably inter-woven with other aspects of the proposed rule.
The Commission will consider these questions wher the remainder of the rule is before it.
Hence, the Commission expresses no view on the merits of these issues at this time.
1
(-
,. l At some point after issuance of the CP, the alternative of siting the l
nuclear power plant elsewhere likely will no longer be a reasonable alternative for the purposes of NEPA.
That is, there is a point where comparative forward costs and the temporal proximity to the provision of needed (or desirably substitutable) power so favor the partially con-structed site' that, there likely is no real possibility that the nonsafety-related considerations at an alter'ative site would be n
obviously superior to the proposed site.
At that point, the recon-sideration of alternative sites likely would not be required, unless the proposed site has been judged unsuitable for some safety or environmental reason.
Of the twenty seven commenters, six, all representing the nuclear Industry, addressed this particular aspect of the proposed rule in their letters.
Two commenters recommend that the proposed rule be clarified to provide that the "new information" required to support a' reopening 'of the alternative site decision should be limited to new infonnation pertinent to the proposed site and not include information relating to an alternative site.
Two other commenters called for more explicit guidance as to what constitutes "a reasonable showing that there exists significant new information that could substantially affect the initial decision." One of these commenters recom-mends that the alternative site issue should be reopened only when there is definite evidence showing there exists significant new infonnation.
The fifth and sixth commenters also call for more stringent criteria for reopening the inquiry.
The fifth commenter recommends that the criteria in I
i
' 10 CFR 2.606(b)(2) for reopening a partial initial decision on site suita-bility issues be followed and the sixth commenter would prohibit reopening unless the person seeking reopening makes a prima facie case, based upon i
new infomation, that the previously approved site is unsuitable.
The Commission agrees with the general thrust of these comments, and, indeed, now believes it clear that once the operating license stage has been reached, the alternative site question should not be an issue.
This con-clusion is grounded in the rationale and basis supporting the proposed rule, i.e., that at some point after issuance of the CP, the alternative of siting the nuclear power plant elsewhere is no longer likely to be a reasonable alternative for the purpose of NEPA.E The Commission believes tnat this i
point has clearly been reached, if not passed, by the time the OL applica-tion has been submitted to the NRC staff for review.
Typically, an operating license application is submitted to the NRC staff within 3 years of the estimated construction completion G te.
Construction is usually about 35 -
i 65 percent complete at this time (depending upon the number of units to be built at the site) and a corresponding portion of the total construction
[
L 3/
Judicial precedent makes clear that NEPA requires agency decision-makers to only consider reasonable alternatives.
Friends of the Earth v. Coleman, 513 F.2d 295 (9th Cir.1975); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir.1972).
This " rule of reason" has been recognized by the Commission.
See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 540 (1977).
, costs have already been incurred. Major construction related environmental impacts have already occurred at the site and by the time the staff has completed its review of the application and the operating license hearings begin,O the plant will be even further along.
Given this factual back-ground, the Commission cannot readily conceive of a situation where new l
infonnation concerning the proposed site could be of such significance as to tilt the cost-benefit balance in favor of an alternative site.
(Inany
[
event,10 CFR 2.758 of the Commission's regulations would pennit an excep-tion to or waiver of the rule in particular cases if special circumstances areshown.)
These practical considerations have also met the test of experience.
Since j
1972 the Commission has commenced or completed more than 50 operating license proceedings.
During this time, neither the Commissic, nor its adjudicatory tribunals have been called upon to resolve in an OL proceeding an issue regarding alternative sites and the Commission is unaware that any 1
party to an OL proceeding has even raised the issue as a possible contention; i
no contentions on alternative sites are now pending before the Commission or its licensing boards in on-going operating license proceedings.
y Hearings are not required at the operating license stage unless the license applicant or a person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding requests a hearing.
In recent years, hearings have usually been requested.
l 1
i.
, Since the Commission finds that new information at the operating license stage is very unlikely to upset the prior conclusions concerning alterna-j tive sites, the Commission finds it appropriate, for the reasons stated above, to resolve this issue through rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Commission is revising the proposed rule to preclude consideration of alternative site issues in operating license proceedings.5/ The standards for reopening the alternative site issue at an earlier stage of the Commission's adjudicatory process will be considered when action on the remainder of the proposed rule is taken.
In addition, a minor confoming anendment to 10 CFR 51.21 makes clear that applicants for operating licenses need not address alternate sites in environmental reports sub-mitted to the NRC at the operating license stage.
Application of the revised rule to operating license proceedings may be waived only in accordance with the procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.758 of the.regu-lations, " Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in adjudica-tory proceedings."
SJ Promulgation of this final rule does not affect the Commission's earlier denial of a petition for rulemaking, PRM-51-4, submitted by Boston Edison Company, et al.
See 45 FR 10492 (February 15,1980).
That petition would have excluded consideration of such matters as need for the plant, need for power, alternative sites, and alternative energy sources at the operating license stage.
The denial of the petition was grounded largely on the petitioners' erroneous assumption concerning the scope of an operating license safety review.
However, the Commission specifically noted in the denial that it was considering proposed rules on alternative site issues (the proposed rule under discussion here) and that as a result of the rulemaking might limit the scope of alternative site reviews in OL proceedings if as a practical matter there can be no significant new infomation as to alternative sites at the OL stage.
. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amended, and sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10 Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, are published as a document subject to codification:
10 CFR Part 51 is amended as follows:
1.
The authority citation for Part 51 is ' revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 161h., i., o., Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201 (h), (i), and (o)); Sec. 102, Pub.
L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Sec. 201, as amended, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat.1242; Pub. L.
94-79, 89 Stat. 413 (42 U.S.C. 5841) i 2.
10 CFR 51.21 is revised to read as follows:
6 51.21 Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage.
l l
Each applicant for a license to operate a production or utilization facility covered by 6 51.5(a) shall submit with its application the number of copies, as specified in 6 51.40, of a separate document, to be entitled " Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage,"
l which discusses the same matters described in 6 51.20 but only to the
.g.
extent that they differ from those discussed or reflect new infonna-tion in addition to that discussed in the final environmental impact statement prepared by the Commission in connection with the con-struction permit.
The " Applicant's Environmental Report -Operating License Stage" may incorporate by reference any infonnation contained in the Applicant's Environmental Report or final environmental impact statenent previously prepaled in connection with the construction permit. With respect to the operation of nuclear reactors, the appli-cant, unless otherwise req'uired by the Commission, shall submit the
" Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License Stage" only in connection with the first licensing action that would authorize full power operation of the facility.
No discussion of alternative sites for the proposed plant is required in the report.
3.
In 10 CFR 51.53, paragraph (h} 15 added to read as follows:
9 51.53 Hearings 6;e : e g Licenses.
~
+
(b)
Presiding officers shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning alternative
10 -
sites for the proposed plant in operating license hearings and shall not raise such issues sua sponte.
1 Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of
, 1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission i
f e
I
[
t i
f I
I t
b s
e ATTACHMENT B
Dear fir. Chairman:
Enclosed for your information are copies of a final ule to be published in the Federal Register by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission..The amend-ment to 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection" will preclude the consideration of alternative c
sites in Commission operating license reviews in the context of NEPA.
As explained more' fully in the enclosed notice, che regulation is based on a factual finding by the Commission that at. the operating' license stage of its proceedings, the alternative of moving the partially constructed nuclear power plant to an alternative site is not reasonable.
Moreover, it has been the Conmission's experience that, in contrast to construction pennit proceedings, the issue of alternative sites is not raised by parties to operating license proceedings.
Notice of proposed rulemaking to provide procedures and performance criteria for the review of alternative sites was previously published in the Federal Register.
As the notice explains, the final rule constitutes Commission
~
action on a portion of the proposed rule, while its staff continues work on the remainder of the rule.
s
i v.
_ )
The final rule.will become effective thirty (30) days after publication in i
the Federal Register.
Sincerely, Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
Enclosure:
Proposed Federal Register Notice.
i 1
1 i
1 1
I
'i 1
.i
)
y-4 p nay 6 ) *2 A 7 I 1 E 5 y ;gg i
SECY-81-215 April 2, l'981 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
RULEMAKING TO UPGRADE THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF CERTAIN FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIALS LICENSEES
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval for publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a notice of disposition of a related petition.
Category:
This paper covers a major policy question requiring Commission consideration.
Resource estimates are Categury 1.
Issue:
Whether the emergency preparedness of certain fuel cycle and materials licensees should be further upgraded through a rule-making.
Discussion:
One of the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident in March 1979 was that improvements in emergency preparedness planning and coordination for some NRC licensed activities may be needed to minimize the danger to the public health and safety foll,owing an accident.
In recognition of this, strengthened requirements for emergency planning at nuclear power reactors were issued (10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E of Part 50, 45 FR 55402).
Consideration is now being given to a rule change to specify strengthened emergency prepar-edness requirements for those fuel cycle and materials licensees which have the potential for accidents involving radioactive materials which could threaten the health and safety of the public.
Contact:
Michael Jamgochian, OSD 443-5966 f
SECY NOTE:
This paper is currently schedule for an information briefing at an Open Comission meeting on Tuesday, April 7,1981.
1
^
l s
The Commissioners 2
A reevaluation by NRC staff of previously submitted emergency plans for fuel fabrication plants disclosed important deficiencies.
For example the plans failed to adequately describe (1) the means J
for measurement and assessment of accidental releases of radio-active materials, (2) the equipment and procedures to protect workers against the types of radiation hazards that would be encountered following an accident, (3) the arrangements for prompt notification of rec'eral, State, and local government agencies, (4) plans for recovery actions that would restore safe conditions following an accident, and (5) emergency plans of State and local governments.
Upon noting these deficiencies and identifying other licensed activities with similar potential for accidents which could threaten the public health and safety, and which were not required to have emergency preparedness plans, the NRC staff prepared orders (described in SECY-81-47), to require these licensees to prepare and submit comprehensive onsite. radio-logical contingency plans.
These orders, which were issued in February 1981, specifically required licensee planning for actions to be taken onsite in the event of an accident to:
protect workers, limit offsite releases of radioactive materials, assess radiation doses, and mitigate adverse con-sequences of the accident.
The orders were issued to operators of fuel processing and fabrication plants, UF produttion plants g
and rar'Sisotope installations which possess and use significant quantities of unsealad radioactive materials.
The installations selected were those which possess and use quantities of nuclear materials that might reasonably be expected to result in a poten-tially serious radiation exposure of an individual on or offsite as a result of a s'rious accident.
e Enclosure D, NUREG-0767, sets out a list of threshold quantities of various radioactive materials which was used by the staff to select the licensees who were served orders.
These licensees i.
were believed by the staff to have possession limits large enough to require that they improve their onsite response capability i
in parallel with the staff's efforts to develop improved offsite emergency preparedness requirements.
The threshold quantities in NUREG-0767 are a preliminary effort by NRC staff to relate radioactive material license possession limits for fuel cycle and materials licensees to the offsite radiation doses established as Protective Action Guides (PAG's) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The (PAG) doses requiring protective actions are 1 rem to the whole body, 5 rems to the thyroid and 3 rems to any other critical organ in the case of individuals offsite.
One rem to the whole body and 5 rems to the thyroid are the minimum doses requiring protective actions by l
the Environmental Protection Agency in their Protective Acticn l
Guides (PAG's), EPA-520/1-75-001.
Three rems to other vital
5
'?
The Commissioners 3
orgaas is an equivalent criterion.
Doses constituting signif-icant exposures of workers are at least 5 times greater than those, i.e., about 5 rems whole body, about 25 rems thyroid and about 15 rems to other critical organs.
In addition to license possession limits, the improve-ments in emergency preparedness requirements will address accidental overexposure of workers and accidents involving process chemicals or other hazardous non-radioactive materials which may impact the safety of licensed activities or cause a radiological accident.
Offsite emergency preparedness was not included in the actions required by the orders pending completion of further staff analysis on how to proceed with the effort to upgrade offsite emergency preparedness for these licensees.
State Programs has asked the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors to appo' int two individuals.to consult with NRC in this matter.
Margaret'Reilly, Chief, Division of Environ-mental Radiation of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation, and Gerald Allen, Director of the Kansas Bureau of Radiation Control were chosen (Enclosure F).
The staff will meet with them in the near future to review the history and progress to date of this i
effort; review the technical bases for the rulemaking; solicit State views on the overall direction and relative priority that i
should be given to this effort, including consideration of impacts upon NRC and Stace staff and other resources (note this issue is identified in the Notice, Issue No. 5) and how to best include the States into this effort.
In 1974 the State of New Jersey petitioned the NRC (PRM-50-10) to, in part, have the emergency preparedness requirements of i
Appendix E Part 50 extended to all licensees subject to Part 20.
The staff believes it appropriate to address this part of that petition in the subject recommended rulemaking.
t Alternatives:
Two alternative approaches are available for effecting an upgrading of the emergency preparedness of those fuel cycle and materials licensees that could pose a threat to public l
health and safety.
Alternative A.
A notice of proposed rulemaking could be issued which would require fuel cycle and materials licensees to establish appro-priate emergency preparedness.
The State of New Jersey would be informed that its petition for rulemaking in this area, PRM-50-10, is consolidated with the proposed rulemaking.
This l
I
l
)
q The Commissioners 4
i proposed upgrade of emergency preparedness at those fuel cycle and materials licensees which should have emergency plans would be made a continuation of the emergency prepared-ness rulemaking for reactor facilities.
This rulemaking would be completed in 1982 with implementation effectively completed in late 1982 or 1983.
Pros: a.
The proposed rules would be issued fairly quickly in 1981.
The time required for an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with its associated public comment period could be saved.
b.
Implementation of the final rules would be required to be completed in 1982.
t Cons: a.
Little time would be available for consultation with i
State and local governments including Agreement States prior to publication of the proposed rules.
b.
Would require immediate drafting of proposed rules l
without the benefit of public and industry comments on the criteria and analytic approach (i.e., accident, transport and dispersion assumptions) used to set the i
threshold quantities in NUREG-0767 for various radio-l active materials.
l Alternative B.
The upgrading of emergency preparedness for fuel cycle and materia.15 l
licensees could begin with the publication of an Advance Notics of Proposed Rulemaking.
Such an ANPR for these licensees would be issued early in 1981, a proposed rule would be issued late in 1981 or early in 1982 and a final rule would be issued in 1982.
'l The State of New Jersey would be informed that its petition for i
rulemaking in this area, PRM-50-10, would be consolidated with this rulemaking.
Pros: a.
Would assure that State and local governments, industry l
and citizens groups will have ample opportunity to contribute to the rulemaking process.
l b.
Would allow time to meet with State and local govern-l ments, the industry and the public after the ANPR, to discuss both the criteria and analytic approach in l
NUREG-0767 and to get some feedback from the public about expected impacts prior to preparing a proposed rule.
Cons: a.
Depending on priority assigned, implementation of the upgraded emergency preparedness requirements would be delayed until 1983 or later if difficulties are en-countered.
}
The Commissioners 5
Resource Estimates:
Regardless of the alternative used the upgrading of emergency preparedness will require about 23 person years and about $1,240,000 j
over the 1981 to 1983 period.
The timing of expenditures will j
vary with the alternatives chosen and the priority assigned to the activity.
Preliminary estimates show office resource require-ments of:
NMSS 10 person years
$540,000 i
SD 3 person years
$200,000 IE 10 person years
$500,000 The office requirements will vary somewhat with the alternative t
chosen.
Note:
These resource requirements are not all budgeted.
l Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve Alternative B:
Issue the attached ANPR now with a proposed rule and draft guidance for licensees to be issued in late 1981.
2.
Approve informing the State of New Jersey that the emergency preparedness rulemaking part of its petition is being incorporated into this rulemaking effort.
3.
Note:
a.
That the appropriate Congressional committees will be notified. -(Representative letter prepared as Enclosure E.)
b.
That an environmental assessment will be prepared.
c.
That this rulemaking is in consonance with the licensing actions planned by NMSS as indicated in SECY-81-47.
t d.
A preliminary value/ impact assessment has been prepared.
[
(Enclosure B) e.
A regulatory flexibility analysis will be prepared as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
f.
This proposed rulemaking is consistent with the Commission's Policy, Planning and Program Guidance.
g.
That the staff has already made arrangements to work with the States on this matter and obtain their input.
l Views of local governments and the public will also be i
solicited at an appropriate time.
N l
The Commissioners 6
h.
When the enclosed Federal Register Notice is published, it will be mailed to all NRC Fuel Cycle and Materials licensees, State regulatory agencies, and other interested persons.
/
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i
Enclosures:
"A" - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "B" - Preliminary Value/ Impact Statement "C" - Letter to Petitioners "D" - NUREG-0767, Criteria For Selection i
of Fuel Cycle ano Major Materials v
Licensees Needing Radiological Contingency Plans "E" - Draft Congressional Letter i
"F" - Letter to Chairman, Conference of Radiation l
Control Program Directors i
Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary) by c.o.b. Friday, April 17, 1981.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, shotli be submitted to the Comissioners NLT I
April 10,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is e
of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised ofwhen coments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of April 27, 1981. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when publishrd, for a specific date and time.
3 DISTRIBUTION
~
i Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP S:cretariat i
I i
i
T 9
9 ENCLOSURE A 9
.e h
)
3
[75 0-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UPGRADED EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR CERTAIN FUEL CYCLE A.10 MATERIALS LICENSEES AGENCY:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemakir.;
SUMARY:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering the adoption of regulations which will require NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees which have the potential to cause significant radiological impacts to the public from accidents to establish appropriate emergency preparedness. The emergency preparedness required will vary in cost and complexity dependent upon facilities' potential for accidental radiological impacts to the public.
The Commission is interested in receiving public coment on the objectives for emergency preparedness and acceptance criteria for varying categories of these NRC licensees cnd on impacts expected to result from the proposed rulemaking.
DATES:
Coments should be submitted on or before Coments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to coments received on or before that date.
~
ADDRESSES: Written coments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Att. l. ion:
Docketing and Service Branch.
I 1
Enclosure "A" i
I l
)
[7590-01]
/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Contact Mr. Michael Jamgochian, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, (301) 443-5966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
One of the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident in March 1979 was that improvements in emergency prec. redness planning and coordination for some NRC~ licensed activities may be needed to minimize the danger to the public health and safety following an accident.
In recognition of this, strengthened requirements for emergency planning at nuclear power reactors were issued.
10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E, 10 CFR Part 50, (45 FR 55402).
Consideration is now being given tu a rule change to specify strengthened emergency pre-paredness requirements for those fuel cycle and materials licensees which have the potential for accidents involving radioactive materials which could threaten the health and safety of the public.
A reevaluation by NRC staff of previously submitted emergency plans for fuel fabrication plants disclosed important deficiencies.
For example, the plans failed to describe adequately (1) the means for the measurement f
and assessment of accidental releases of radioactive materials, (2) the equipment and procedures to protect workers against the types of radiation hazards that would be encountered following an accident, (3) the arrange ~
l l
ments for prompt notification of Federal, State, and local government agencies, (4) plans for recovery acticns that would restore safe condi-tions following an accident, and (5) emergency plans of State and local i
governments.
l 2
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
Upon noting these deficiencies and identifying other licensed activities with similar potential for accidents which could threaten the public health and safety, and which were not required to have emergency preparedness plans, the NRC staff prepared orders to require these licensees to prepare and submit comprehensive onsite radiological contingency plans.
These orders, which were issued in Februaiy 1981, specifically required licensee planning for actions to be taken onsite in the event of an accident to:
protect workers, limit offsite releases of radioactive materials, assess radiation doses, and mitigate adverse consequences of the accident.
The orders were issued to operators of fuel proce, sing and fabrication plants, UF6 production plants and radioisotope installations which possess and use significant quantities of unsealed radioactive materials.
The installations selected were those which possess and use quantities of nuclear materials that might reasonably be expected to result in a potentially serious radiation exposure of an individual on or offsite as a result of a serious accident.
NUREG-0767 describes the bases used for development of the criteria for selection of the licensees issued orders.
The report is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555.
Copies of this document may be purchased from the Government Printing Office.
Information on current prices may be obtained by writing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Publications Sales Manager.
The threshold quantities in NUREG-0767 are a preliminary effort by NRC staff to relate radioactive material license possession limits for fuel cycle and materials licensees to the offsite radiation doses 3
Enclosure "A" 1
[7590-01]
.t l
estalished as Protective Action Guides (PAG's) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The (PAG) doses requiring protective actions are 1 rem to the whole body, 5 rems to the thyroid and 3 rems to any other critical organ in the case of individuals offsite.
One rem to the whole body and 5 rems to the thyroid are the minimum doses requiring protective actions by the Environmental Protection Agency in their Protective Action Guides (PAG's), EPA-520/1-75-001.
Three rems to other vital organs is an equivalent criterion.
Doses constituting significant overexposures of workers are at least 5 times greater than those, i.e., about 5 rems whole body, about 25 rems thyroid and about 15 rems to other critical organs.
NRC believes it necessary now to codify the onsite radiological emer-gency planning requirements set forth in the orders, to possibly extend them to uranium mills and to other source materials licensees, as appropriate, and to specify offsite emergency preparedness requirements for all of the NRC licensees whose radioactive material possession limits and processes i
are such that accidents could result in (i) serious radiation over-exposures of workers from a release of radioactive materials, (ii)
I f
offsite radiatioh doses exceeding offsite PAG's, or (iii) releases of process chemicals or other nonradioactive materials which could adversely impact the safety of licensed activities.
i This rulemaking will also be responsive to a petition filed by the l
State of New Jersey, (PRM-50-10, 39 FR 15900) which requested that the emergency preparedness provisions of Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 be extended to licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 20 as appropriate.
Accordingly, requirements are being considered for rulemaking which would assure that fuel cycle and materials licensees establish and maintain appropriate emergency preparedness.
The requirements being considered include:
4 Enclosure "A"
I
[7590-01]
1.
The potential impacts to the public from these fuel cycle and materials licensees range from insignificant harm at the large majority of NRC materials licensees to accidents which could result in significant radiological impacts to the public near the site.
The rule changes being considered would require that licensees with possession limits above certain specific threshold levels perform analyses to deter-mine the risk to the public and therefore the emergency pre-paredness appropriate for their licensed activities.
A fairly large group of licensees may be affected.
The risks i
to the public.and the appropriate emergency preparedness required for various types of licensees wou'ld be determined by analysis of the form and amount of radioactive material licensed to be possessed and used throughout the facility.
2.
Any NRC licensee facility which has the potential to cause off-site radiation doses to members of the public in excess of the Protective Action Guides established by EPA, would be required to establish and maintain appropriate eme gency preparedness plans, or to make process ur inventory adjustments which remove or reduce tne potential for such offsite effects.
l 3.
Some licensees may be required to incorporate Emergency
~
l Planning Zones (EPZ's) similar to those set forth in NUREG-0396*, into their emergency preparedness program.
- Copies of this document may be purchased from the Government Printing Office.
Information on current prices may be obtained by writing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention:
Publications Sales Manager.
l 5
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
4.
Some licensees have large quantities of process chemicals, stored fuels, and water impoundments at or near the licensee's l
facility.
Since the emergency response to accident <s associated with such facilities could be complicated by accidents involving nonradiological materials those licensees required to have emergency plans will be required to account for all hazards to the public inherent in the licensed facilities operations including the presence, onsite and near site, of hazardous materials and conditions which might affect the emergency i
response to an accident involving licensed materials, or j
might cause a radiological accident.
The NRC is especially interested in public comments related to the following issues and questions:
1.
There are approximately 8,000 NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees.
Staff estimates indicate that only 1 to 2 percent of these licensees would be required to have emergency plans and fewer than one percent'would be required to have plans including offsite arrangements for response and support from agencies of Federal, State and local govern-ments. What categorization schemes would ensure that licensees needing emergency plans establish and maintain an appropriate plan but at the same time ensure that licensees who either do not need plans or need only simple plans are not required to submit unneeded information? How can the approach set out in NUREG-0767 be expanded or adopted to determine the number of categories and criteria for categories of licensees needing emergency plans?
2.
How should Federal, State and local governments affected by the proposed rulemaking work together and with the licensees to ensure that NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees establish an appropriate level 6
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
l of emergency preparedness?
In some cases, State and local governments will be able to draw upon the work that has been done to improve emergency preparedness at nuclear power reactor sites.
After TMI, there was con-siderable effort and assistance provided by Federal, State and local governments and the nuclear power reactor licensees to establish accept-able radiological emergency preparedness onsite and offsite.
- However, there are State and local governments which have no nuclear power reactors located within their jurisdictions, but do have other NRC licensees within their jurisdictions.
These governments may not have benefited from the Federal, State or licensee cooperative efforts and assistance and may, therefore, face a more difficult task if a facility in their area requires offsite planning and preparedness.
f 3.
What basis should be used to establish Emergency Preparedness Criteria for various categories of NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees?
Some fuel cycle and material licensee's facilities are located in, or adjacent to, densely populated areas where accidental radiological releases could result in exposures having public health significance.
For these
. operations, we recognize the need to perform detailed accident analyses as part of the licensing review process and to upgrade the emergency plan-ning for these facilities as appropriate.
NUREG-0767 sets out a pre-l liminary analytic method which could be expanded and used for selecting I
those licensees requiring extensive analysis, and for setting the various categories of licensees by risk.
4.
Would there be significant environmental impacts from the pro-i posed rulemaking? What form are the impacts apt to take?
Is the pro-posed rulemaking likely to result in unduly high costs to consumers or j
licensees? What economic and legal impacts may be involved in this proposal?
7 Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
1 5.
Agreement States will p~robably adopt emergency preparedness regulations comparable to NRC rules, but a time delay is inevitable.
How can this delay be reduced, and how much delay is acceptable? There are about 12,000 nuclear activities licensed by Agreemer.t States.
How are the impacts likely to differ in Agreement States and Non-Agreement States? How largc is the category of Agreement States licensees for which Agreement State licensing agencies may need to issue orders
[
(similar to the NRC orders), to prepare emergency preparedness plans?
j 6.
What role should the Federal Emergency Management Agency have in reviewing offsite emergency preparedness for these NRC licensees?
How will FEMA /NRC/ Agreement State Cooperation be structured? How will FEMA review authority apply in agreement States?
7.
Will the impacts on differing categories of licensees be small relative to the resources of the licensees or will certain processes I
i or services provided by smaller licensees no longer be economically i
feasible due to high costs of meeting emergency planning requirements?
i It is probable that a si,gnificant number of small entities will be,
affected by the upgraded' emergency preparedness requirements to be devel-oped in this rulemaking process.
For this reason, the NRC will prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis prior to issuance of proposed rules to upgrade emergency preparedness for fuel cycle and materials licensees.
In order to facilitate preparation of that analysis, the NRC i
l is particularly seeking comment from small entities (i.e., small busi-i nesses, small organizations, and small jurisdictions under the Regulatory I
Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) as to how the rulemaking will l
l affect them and how the resulting regulations may be tiered or other-I wise modified to impose less stringent requirements on small entities 8
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
while still adequately protecting the public health and safety.
Those small entities which offer comments on how the regulations could be modified to take into account the differing needs of small entities should specifically discuss:
(a) the size of their business and how the rulemaking would result in a significant economic burden upon them as compared to larger organi-zations in the same business community; (b) how the regulations being considered could be modified to take into account their differing needs or capabilities; (c) the benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, if the regulations being considered were modified as suggested by the commenter; (d) how the regulations, being considered, if modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opoosed to providing special advan-tages to any individuals or groups; (e) how the regulations being considered, if modified, would still adequately protect the public health and safety.
(Sec. 161b., i., and o., Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201);
Sec. 201, as amended, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, Pub. L. 94-79, 89 Stat. 413 (42 U.S.C. 5341))
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of
, 1981.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 9
Enclosure "A"
/
9 9
i ENCLOSURE B O
e
(
PRELIMINARY VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.
PROP 0f'dD ACTION The NRC proposes to issue a new rule to require certain NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees to establish emergency preparedness appropriate for their operations.
1.1 Description The proposed action would result in three major changes to current prac-tices.
These are:
1.
Require that certain NRC fuel cycle and materials licensees and applicants L
for these NRC licenses establish adequate emergency preparedness.
Emergency preparedness required would be based on analysis of on-site and near-site condi-tions relevant to the potential for the licensed operation to cause significant radiological impacts to the public.
The emergency preparedness plans would be submitted with any related emergency plans of and mutual support agreements I
with other entities necessary to provide emergency response to an accident involving the proposed licensed activity.
2.
Require that emergency preparedness considerations be extended to Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for a few licensees.1
'EPZs are discussed in NUREG-0396.
They may vary in size due to specific licensee possession limits and types of operations conducted.
1 Enclosure "B"
.?
- ~
3.
Require that each licensee shall maintain adequate emergency prepared-ness.
Changes in plant operations or near-site conditions which impact the licensee's emergency preparedness would be reported to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 and shall be timely incorporated into the licensee % emergency preparedness program.
1.2 Need for Proposed Action One of the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident in March 1979 was that improvements in emergency preparedness planning and coordination for some NRC licensed activities may be needed to minimize the danger to the public health and safety following an accident.
In recognition of this, NRC developed and, on August 19, 1980, issued strengthened requirements for emergency planning at nuclear power reactors (45 FR 55402).
Consideration is now being given to a rule change needed to specify strengthened emergency preparedness requirements to protect against accidents at those NRC fuel cycle and material licensee's facilitie's which have the potential for accidents involving radioactive materials which could threaten the health and safety of the public.
A reevaluation by NRC staff of previously submitted emergency plans for fuel fabrication plants disclosed important deficiencies.
Examples of these were a failure to describe adequately (1) the means for measurement and assess-ment of accidental releases of radioactive materials, (2) the equipment and pro-cedures to protect workers against radiation hazards encountered following an accident, (3) the arrangements for prompt offsite notification of Federal, State, and local government agencies, (4) plans for recovery actions to return a plant to a safe condition following an accident, and (5) emergency plans of State and 2
Enclosure "B" l
i 1
l local governments.
After noting these weaknesses and identifying other i
i licensed activities exhibiting similar potential threats to the public health and safety, but not required to have such plans, the NRC staff has prepared orders (described in SECY-81-47), to require these licensees to prepare and submit comprehensive onsite radiological contingency plans.
These orders were issued in February 1981.
Specifically, these orders require licensee planning for actions be taken onsite in the event of i
an accident to protect workers, limit offsite releases of radioactive materials, assess radiation doses, and mitigate adverse consequences of the accident. The orders were issued to operators of fuel processing and fabrication plants', UF6 pr duction plants and radioisotope installations which l
possess and use significant quantities of unsealed radioactive materials.
The l
f installations selected were those which possess and use quantities of nuclear i
materials that might reasonably be expected to result in a potentially serious radiation exposure of an individual on or offsite as a result of a serious accident.
Enclosure D, NUREG-0767 which is available in the NRC Public Document i
Room, 1717 H Strdet, Washington, D.C. 20555, sets out a list of threshold quan-tities of various radioactive materials which was used by the staff to select the licensees who were served orders.
These licensees were believed by the staff to have possession limits large enough to require that they improve their onsite response capability in parallel with the staff's efforts to develop improved offsite emergency preparedness requirements.
The threshold quantities in NUREG-0767 are a preliminary effort by NRC l
staff to relate radioactive material license possession limits for fuel cycle and materials licensees to the offsite radiation doses established as Protective l
Action Guides (PAG's) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The (PAG) doses l
l 3
Enclosure "B" l
.s requiring protective actions are 1 rem to the whole body, 5 rems to the thyroid and 3 rems to any other critical organ in the case of individuals I
offsite.
One rem to the whole body and 5 rems to the thyroid are the minimum doses requiring protective actions by the Environmental Protection Agency in their Protective Action Guides (PAG's), EPA-520/1-75-001.
Three rems to other vital organs is an equivalent criterion.
Doses constituting significant over-exposures of workers are at least 5 times greater than those, i.e., about 5 rems whole body, about 25 rems thyroid and about 15 rems to other critical argans.
In addition to license possession limits, the staff expects the improvements in emergency preparedness requirements to address accidental overexposure of workers and accidents involving process chemicals or other Hazardous non-radio-active materials which may impact the safety of licensed activities or cause a radiological accident.
Offsite emergency preparedness was not included in the actions required by the orders pending completion of further staff analysis on how to proceed with the effort to upgrade offsite emergency preparedness for these licensees.
1 In 1974 the State of New Jersey petitioned the NRC (PRM-50-10) to, in part, have the emergency preparedness provisions of Appendix'E to 10 CFR Part 50 extended to all licensees subject to Part 20.
The staff believes it appro-priate to address this part of that petition in the subject recommended rulemaking.
1.3 Value/ Impact of Proposed Action 1.3.1 NRC The value of improvements to the emergency planning regulations would be (1) to provide better assurance that the response capabilities of the licensee and State and local governments would function properly in the event of a radio-4 Enclosure "B"
J logical emergency in order to protect the public health and safety, and (2) to provide more clarified and expanded regulatory bases for the evaluation of applicants' and licensees' emergency planning efforts.
1.3.2 Other Government Agencies Improvements to the emergency planning regulations would contribute to improved State and local emergency response around activities licensed by NRC and eventually around activities licensed by Agreement State licensing agencies.
The impact of implementing this proposed action on State and local agencies would be that a few States could require substantial additional resources.
The guidance may have very significant impacts for some local jurisdictions, particularly where planning of this sort has not previously been done.
The staff estimates that costs at various facilities could range from the modest cost of determining that no offsite emergency preparedness is needed at some small licensees, to hundreds of thousands of dollars at those sites with significant potential for offsite radiological impacts due to accidents.
~
Implementation of the proposed rule changes would have special political, institutional, an'd economic impact at both State and local levels whenever the plume exposure pathway EPZ encompasses more than one State or local jurisdic-tion. For this reason, State governments will need to be early involved in the Proposed Rulemaking.
Agreement State governments will participate in the proposed rulemaking, and will probably adopt emergency preparedness regulations comparable to those issued by NRC.
These Agreement State regulations will affect some small per-centage of the 12000 licensees licensed by Agreement State go w nments.
i I
e l
l 5
Enclosure "B" l
l~
1.3.3 Industry Improvements in the emergency planning regulations would provide more clarified and expanded guidance for the development of applicants' and licensees' emergency plans.
It is estimated that the cost of the proposed action could range from a minimal effort to three man years per licensee of effort.
A special potential impact of the proposed action is that licenses to operate nuclear facilities now under construction could be delayed and that operating facilities may be required to prepare emergency plans on a priority basis.
1.3.4 Public Improvements to the emergency planning regulations would provide increased confidence that the health and safety of the public would be protected during a radiological emergency because the response capabilities of the licensee and State and local governments would be in place.
Goods and services produced by NRC licensees will reflect the cost of improved emergency preparedness which is required by the new regulations.
1.3.5 Decision on Proposed Action The proposed rule changes will be published in the Federal Register to obtain public comments thereon.
2.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES Because the proposed rule change is being undertaken to address and resolve the concerns of the Commission and a Petition (PRM-50-10), no technical alter-natives to their recommendations have been considered.
6 Enclosure "B" t
3.
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES Potential NRC procedures that could be used to promulgat., the proposed action of a proposed rule change include the following:
Regional Workshops with States, Industry, and the Public Rule Change 4.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Authority The rule change is intended to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended.
4.1 Need for NEPA Assessment Since the rule change may represent a major action, as defined by 10 CFR 51.5(a)(10), implementation of the proposed rule change will be reviewed in an environmental assessment to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
~
5.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICY These proposed amendments to existing rules comprise an extension of a broader rulemaking activity announced in the Federal Register (44 FR 41433, July 17, 1979) in the subject area of emergency planning.
7 Enclosure "B" l
l
6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS To proceed with the rulemaking.
a 8
Enclosure "B"
. ' =
c' I
l ENCLOSURE C e
me
?.
Dr. Glenn Paulson, Assistant Commissioner for Science Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey i
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Dear Dr. Paulson:
i The petition filed by the State of New Jersey on March 27, 1974 (PRM-50-10) requested in part that emergency preparedness provisions of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 be extended to licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 120.
This part of the New Jersey State petition is being consolidated with the NRC rulemaking announced in the attached Federal Register Notice.
We appreciate your interest and efforts to date and will insure that further information related to this rulemaking process will be sent to you to enable the State of New Jersey to continue to participate in the effort.
p Ray G. Smith, Acting Director Office of Standards Development Enclosure "C"
/
e G
ENCLOSURE D O
4 e