ML18022A414
| ML18022A414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Buckley B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murdock H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18022A415 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609190066 | |
| Download: ML18022A414 (4) | |
Text
gp,S AKCy Wp O~
Cy qO
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September 12, 1986 Mrs. Harold Murdock, iJr.
Route 1,
Box 182E Chapel Kill, North Carolina 27514
Dear Mrs. Murdock:
) /
I am pleased to respond to your letter addressed to Mr. Denton dated
~brune 5,
- 1986, in which you expressed certain concerns regarding the Shearon Harris NIjclear Power Plant.
You stated that you "oppose the start-up of Shearon Harris as a nuclear power plant" due to the possibility of an "accident to nuclear waste in transit through the Bingham Township to the site.....[which is] endangering
[the] highways, I.the] groundwater supply and [the] agricultural livelihood" of the Bingham residents.
You also stated that any possible contamination of the water supplies "would necessitate evacuation of an area far larger than the planned ten-mile radius."
In response to your concern regarding a possible accident of nuclear waste in
- transit, the transportation. of nuclear waste from the site to a future reposi-tory would be regulated by'the Federal Government, involving both the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U+OT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
At the present time, the USDOT regulates the safety of the shipments of spent fuel by designating the safest routes through the states, as well as the safety of'he carrier involved in the transportation of spent fuel.
The NRC is responsible for surveying the DOT designated routes from a safeguards standpoint (i.e.,
immune from any possible sabotage).
The shipping casks designed to contain the fuel in the event of an accident are also approved by the NRC, which is responsible for providing assurance that these casks are in compliance with 10 CFR Part 71 regulations.
These casks are fully tested under accident conditions to ensure that they are leak-proof, fracture-proof, etc.
I would also like to add that state and local governments have an important role in the designation of the transportation routes that are identified by DOT.
The states are encouraged to propose alternative routes to DOT before a final decision is made.
The selection of an alternative route should be based upon the input of the affected local residents to their respective state and/or local representatives.
To date there have been numerous shipments of spent fuel between storage facilities, nuclear plants, and federal research facilities without any release to the public or the environment.
I assure you that the transportation of spent fuel from the various nuclear power plants to a repository would be closely regulated by both the NRC and DOT as described above.
8609i90066 8609i2 PDR ADOCK 05000400 H...,
September 12, 1986 Mrs. Harold Murdock, ilr.
With respect to your comment on increasing the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (Plume EPZ) around the plant from 10 miles to at least 25 miles, conmercial nuclear power plants in the U.S.,
based upon requirements of the
- NRC, have two concentric emergency planning zones (EPZs).
EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident.
The choice of the size of the Emergency Planning Zones represents a judgment on the extent of detailed planning which must be performed to assure an adequate response.
In a particular emergency, protective actions might well be restricted to a small part of the planning zones.
On the other hand, for the worst possible accidents, protective actions might need to be taken outside the planning zones.
/
The first zone, called the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ, is an area of about 10 miles in radius from the center of the plant which is the applicable radius for Shearon Harris.
The major protective actions planned for this
- EPZ,
'evacuation and sheltering, would be employed to reduce fatalities and iniuries from exposure to the radioactivd plume from the most severe of the core-melt accidents and to limit unnecessary radiation exposures to the public from less-severe accidents at nuclear power plants.
The second zone, called the Ingestion Pathway EPZ, is an area of about 50 miles in radius from the center of the plant.
The major protective actions planned for this zone, putting livestock on stored feed and controlling foodAnd water, would be employed to reduce exposure to the public from ingestion of cbntami1iated food and water.
The ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of 50 miles was selected because federal protective action guidel'ines would generally not be exceeded beyond'50 miles for a wide spectrum of hypothe-tical accidents.
The response measures established within the 10-mile and 50-mile EPZs can and will be expanded if the conditions of a particular accident warrant it.
- Also, although an EPZ is generally circular, the actual shape is determined based on local factors such as demography, topography, access
- routes, and governmental jurisdictional boundaries at a particular site.
Smaller EPZs have been established for gas-cooled power reactors and smaller water-cooled power reactors.
The principal technical documents that describe the process of defining the size of the EPZs and the planning and protective measures to be taken within them are NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, "Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiologic'al Emergency
Response
Plans in Support of Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,"
December 1978 and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision I, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response
Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"
November 1980.
The principal technical study upon which the sizes of the emergency planning zones were based is NUREG-75/014, "Reactor Safety Study:
An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants," October
- 1975, kASH-1400.
I would also like to point out that the North Carolina State Emergency Plan in support of the Shearon Harris plant, CPALs Corporate Emergency Plan, and the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan are all located at the local public document room at the Wake County Public Library, Fayetteville Street,
- Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mrs. Harold Murdock, 0r. I hope I have been responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, Bart C. Buckley,, Senior Project Manag'er PWR Project Directorate No.
2 Division of PWR Licens'ing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION YT 869386 Doc et F
e 5 -
0 w/incoming NRC PDR w/incoming L PDR w/incoming TNovak DMossburg LRubenstein BBuckley OM111er lP(< BCNNi FBrenneman AJohnson (2)
PPAS HDenton/RVollmer LgpI1O'/t(
/86 0
S F
n eman ghee/
6 PM:PAD¹2 BBuckley 9/)~6 PD:
¹2 P
2 LRube stein J uillen 9/<q /86 9/l~/86
0 w
t lt