B12435, Comments Opposing Petition for Rulemaking Filed by Kg Sexton Requesting Reevaluation of EPZ Based on site-specific Data. Petition Would Require Periodic Reevaluations on site-specific Basis.Benefits Do Not Justify Cost

Comments Opposing Petition for Rulemaking Filed by Kg Sexton Requesting Reevaluation of EPZ Based on site-specific Data. Petition Would Require Periodic Reevaluations on site-specific Basis.Benefits Do Not Justify Cost

ML20207T105
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000
Issue date:	03/18/1987
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RTR-NUREG-0396, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-396, RTR-NUREG-654 B12435, NUDOCS 8703230196
Download: ML20207T105 (3)

Text

. s. e General Offices e Selden Street. Berhn. Connecticut sY rs$a cow- P.O. BOX 270

• • • *** me co*=

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 L t j g",",,,,

"J^',,' "'

(203) 66s-5000 March 18,1987 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B12435 Re: 10 CFR 50.47 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by Kenneth G. Sexton On October 6, 1986,(1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a notice of a petition for rulemaking filed by Kenneth G. Sexton regarding emergency planning. The petitioner rcquests that 10 CFR 50.47 be amended tc, require that the Emergency Planning Zene (EPZ) be re-evaluated using current methodologies and analytical techniques and that the EPZ be determined basec' on site-specific data. The petitioner also requests that the site-specific EPZ be re-evaluated once every five years using the latest techniques and information, unless petitioned to perform the evaluation more frequently.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby respectfully submit the following comments.

The present regulations define the plume exposure pathway EPZ as an area of approximately 10 miles in radius and the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ as an area of approximately 50 miles in radius. These sizes were determined through an ef{ ort conducted 0396. 2) The basesbyfor a joint NRC/ EPA the existing taskwere EPZs forcereiterated and are set inforth NUREG-in NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1.(3)

(1) 51 Federal Register 35518, October 6,1986.

(2) NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, " Planning Bases for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Reactors", December 1978.

(3) NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," November 1,1980. {D 8703230196 870318 PDR ADOCK 05000213 F PDR

U'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12435/Page 2 March IS,1987 The methods used to determine the size of these EPZs were technically extensive and very conservative. The evaluation was based on a full spectrum of accidents and corresponding consequences, utilizing WASH-1400 source terms.

The WASH-1400 data provided conservative predictions of radiological releases and conservative quantitative estimates of risk.

The NRC and the industry are currently re-evaluating the source terms that are the basis for the current emergency planning regulations. The effort is intended to provide a sound technical basis for the determination of the size of the EPZs, and preliminary industry results indicate that if any change in the size of EPZs is justified, it will be a reduction, not an increase, due to the inherent ccnserva-tisms in both the source term data and the resulting determination of the size of the EPZs. This process, including any appropriate changes to the EPZs, should be allowed to continue.

The NRC had previously determined that the source term research was not at a sufficiently developed stage to address the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company's (BG&E) application to reduce the size of the plume exposure pathway EPZ around the Calvert Cliffs facility from ten miles to two miles. The Sexton petition does not provide technical justification for the NRC to depart from the precedent set in the BG&F review; therefore, this petition should be denied.

Additionally, simply increasing the size of the EPZs will not increase the effectiveness of emergency planning. Any changes in the emergency planning area should focus on increasing the effectiveness of emergency preparedness, such as focusing on the population at risk, while at the same time recognizing that the risk varies inversely with distance from the facility.

The petitioner requests that site-specific meteorological data be used to determine the EPZ size. This is unnecessary since the most unfavorable weather conditions were taken into account when the ten-mile EPZ radius was generically determined. NUREG-0396 states that the "EPZ recommended is of sufficient size to provide dose savings to the population in areas where the projected dose from design basis accidents could be expected to exceed the applicable PAGs (EPA Protective Action Guidelines) under unfavorable atmospheric conditions."

No data were provided by the petitioner to support the need to include more unfavorable meteorological conditions than those already taken into account.

The NRC stated that a " principal aim in establishing EPZs is to foster a breadth, versatility)and manner."W flexibility inifresponse Therefore, preparation meteorological and capabilities conditions are moreinextreme a systematic than those considered when setting the ten-mile radius, the emergency plan should have enough flexibility to handle these situations. The emergency preparedness associated with the current EPZs provides a more than sufficient planning basis in the extremely unlikely case that expansion of emergency response actions beyond the EPZs should become necessary. This is recognized in the bases for the current EPZ.

/

(4) NUREG-0396, Appendix III, p. 7-8.

+

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12435/Page 3

' March 18,1987 Furthermore, a petitioner who is dissatisfied with the plume exposure pathway EPZ boundaries at a particular site can petition the NRC to take appropriate -

action under 10CFR2.206. Appeal to FEMA under 44CFR350.15(a) is also an option which allows any' individual to appeal a FEMA decision to approve a state's emergency plan.

Finally,' the petition does not demonstrate what, if any, benefits to the health and safety of the public would be realized by re-evaluating the size of the EPZs at'least every five years for each site. However, the cost in time and effort for the licensees, the state and local governments, and the regulatory agencies (i.e., NRC, . Environmental.- Protection Agency, and the Federal Emergency

- Management Agency) is obviously significant.

Conclusion

-In summary, CYAPCO and NNECO support the effort to generically re-evaluate the size of the EPZ as a result of the source term research that the NRC and industry have done; however, we .do not support this petition,: which would

. require periodic re-evaluations on a site-specific basis. No bases exist to treat this _ issue different in principle from the many. other regulations governing nuclear power reactors. A licensee's legal obligation is to continue to comply with all NRC regulations.

Furthermore, we believe that the benefits (if any) which might be derived from

.this. petition would not justify the significant costs that the NRC and the licensees would incur as a result of periodically re-evaluating the plume EPZ at each reactor site.

We trust that these comments' will be useful in the NRC Staff's review of the Kenneth Sexton petition for rulemaking.

- Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY 2 1s)

E.J~Ayodzka f Senio/Vice President cc: S. 3. Chilk, NRC Secretary Dr. T. E. Murley, Region I Administrator

3. 3. Shea, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No.1 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 E. L. Doolittle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 F. M. Akstulewicz, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant l T. Rebelowski, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. I and 2 e

3. T. Shediosky, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 3

l. P. Swetland, Resident inspector, Haddam Neck Plant