ML16344A282

ACRS Comments on the Consideration of Earthquakes in Off-Site Emergency Planning

ML16344A282
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/10/1985
From:	Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC/Chairman
References
Download: ML16344A282 (2)

Text

D850610 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS COMMENTS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES IN OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING During its 302nd meeting, June 6-8, 1985, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities." This topic was also considered during the 30lst ACRS meeting on May 9-ll, l985, the 297th meeting on January l0-l2, l985 and during a joint meeting of our Reactor Radiological Effects and Site Evaluation Subcommittees on January 3-4, 1985. During these reviews the Committee had the benefit of discussions with the NRC Staff, representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and invited experts. The Committee also had the benefit of the documents referenced, including the public comments submitted to the NRC on the proposed amendment.

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

1.

We see no technical reason for the exclusion of earthquakes from the natural phenomena considered in off-site emergency planning for nuclear power plants. However, we believe that only limited consideration of earthquakes is appropriate. For sites where an earthquake capable of severely damaging emergency travel routes is sufficiently likely to occur, the local off-site authorities should have the benefit of studies indicating the types and potential locations of such damage. The study of this kind already performed for the region surrounding the Diablo Canyon site would clearly meet the intent of this comment.

2.

In the assessment of the impact of natural events on emergency planning, the major effort should be to identify potential problems and to devise alternative approaches for their resolution. This would include requirements for assuring appropriate means for communication, for identifying alternative routes for the evacu-ation of the local population, and for identifying circumstances under which sheltering might be a more effective response than evacuation. In many cases, such assessments may lead to a decision that no further response or action is required. The goal should be to assure that emergency plans, as developed, contain sufficient flexibility to cope with the potential added impacts of such events.

We hope you will find these comments useful.

Sincerely,

David A. Ward Chairman

References:

l. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR Part 50, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,"

Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 247, pp.

49640-49643 dated December 2l, l984

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

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

a. Andre Messiah, Ministry of Industry, Service Central de Surete, des Installations Nucleaires, France, dated March 29, l985

b. I. A. Breest, Federal Minister of the Interior, Federal Republic of Germany, dated March 22, l985

c. Thayer from Taipei, Taiwan, dated April 24, l985 (Limited Official Use)

d. T. Taniguchi, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan, dated April 20, l985

e. M. Wakasa, Reactor Regulation Division, NSB, STA, Japan, dated April l9, l985

f. G. Mandeus, Director Information Services, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, dated April l6, l985

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

Volumes 1-3, dated September 2, 1981