ML19208C518
| ML19208C518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/13/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mccormack M HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208C519 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909260559 | |
| Download: ML19208C518 (9) | |
Text
.
/
o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20553
\\*****/
September 13, 1979 h
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Mike McCormack Chainnan Subconinittee on Energy Research and Production Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your letter of August 3,1979 asked for the Commission's views on the merits of, and need for, the State emergency plan amendments that were included in the Senate NRC Authorization Bill for FY 1980, S.562.
The amendments to which you referred would require the following:
(1) an adequate State radiological emergency response plan as a precondition to the issuance of any new operating license for a utilization facility; (2) in those States where a facility is in operation and the Conmission has not concurred in the State plan, the granting of such concurrence by the Comission before June 1,1980, in consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and using the guidelines in effect on July 16, 1979, or the facility for which the State plan applies would be ordered to close down; (3) that the Commission, within six months of enactment, by rule, promulgate minimum requirements for State plans, again in consultation with the Director, FEMA; (The period for compliance with this rule would be left to the discretion of the Commission and during the interim the guidelines in use July 16, 1979 would be considered adequate for concurring in State plans.) and (4) that the Commission, within sixty days of enact 2nent, take compensatory measures to safeguard the public health and safety against the risks of any operating utilization facility where the State's emergency plan does not confonn to Coninission guidelines.
98G229 P00RBRyg
'T909260 N
The Honorable Mike McCormack We believe that the fundamental concerns represented by those amendments are valid, i.e., that changes must be made in what has been the procedure for developing emergency plans.
However, we are not convinced at the present time what specific changes are necessary or what the appropriate timetable should be for their implementation.
The NRC earlier this year concluded that early action is necessary and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, a copy of which is enclosed. We intend to develop this rule by the end of the year. We believe it will address the issues raised in the proposed amendments. Therefore, we recommend that Congressional action on the amendments be deferred until the Congress can examine the final rule which we promulgate.
Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford, however, do not feel that the amendments would foreclose effective Commission action.
Indeed, in their view, the amendments might in some ways provide useful support.
Consequently, they do not join in this recommendation.
On March 30, 1979, the Comptroller General of the United States submitted to the Congress a report entitled " Areas Around Nuclear Fa.cilities Should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies" whrich included recommendations on emergency planning which were similar in effect to the amendments to the NRC Authorization Bill. We are enclosing a copy of our response to those recomme ations for your information.
'ncerely, k
Joseph M. Hendrie
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register notice,
" Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Around Nuclear Facilities", 44 FR 41483.
2.
NRC Action on GA0 Recommendations to Chairman, NRC.
P00R OREl es = o
~
Federal Resister / Vol. 44. No.138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1979 / Proposed Rules -
41433 for continued operation of a nuclear' in Support of Light Water Nuclear facmry. and coordination between the Power Plants." NURECM396/ EPA 5:0/
' licensee plan and State and local plans.
1-78-016. December 1978.See 43 Fed.
.The Commission seeks written "
Reg. sawwt (December 15.1978). see also comments on what items should be 44 Fed. Reg. 23137 [ April 18.1979).
included in the rule.
Further=nore, a number of organintions, oATEs: Comments are due no later than.
includimg Critical Mass and Public August 31.1979.
Interest Research Groups, have renewed ADDRESSm Written comments and supplemented a petition for concerning these issues should be rulemaking, previously denied by the submitted to the Secretary of the Cesim concernmg 6e opersdmal Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory details of evacuation planm"F See 44 Commission. Washington, DC 20555. -
FR m W Sa979A
..Ilse Commi==fon has decided to -
PoR FURTHER INeth4AftoN CoWTACTt Patricia A. Comella. Site Designation h}date un expedited rulemaking Branch. Office of Standards prcad-on the subject of State and.
Development. Nuclear Regulatory tou},=.ergency mponse plans and Commission. Washington. DC 20555, those oI11censees.*fbe Commission is soliciting public comments in this area.
301-443-5981.
particula:rly on the foDowmg. issues:
sueetzheENTARY INFoRhtATlose The NRC 1.Whaet should be the basic objectives requires that power reactorlicense of emergency plammPT applicants plart for radiological a.To reduce public radiation emergencies within their plant sites and exposure 2
' ~ ~ ~
make arrangements with State and local b.To prevent public radiation organizations to respond to accidents exposurel that might have consequences beyond the site boundary. In this way off-site c.To bae able to evacuate the public?
emergency plannmg has been related to To whait extent should these the nuclear licensing process.See 10
@cd be quetiSed?
CFR part 50. Appendix E (1979), see also d&
additional guidance in U.S. NRC, mergency mponse plan for State and Regulatory Guide 1.101. " Emergency local agencies? Forlicenseen? What are Planning for Nuclear power Plants.-
the essential e aments that matle (Rev.1.1977).
. included.in r effective plan? Do To aid State and local governments in existing W, requanents for Ucensees the development and implementation of (1g CFR P; art 50. Appendix E) and adequate emergency plans. the NRC in guidance :for States (NUREG-75/111) conjunction with seven other Federal lack any of these essendal elements?
agencies, has attempted, on a
- 3. Shondd NRC concurrence in the cooperative and voluntary basis, to associatesi State and local emergency provide for trainmg and instruction of response plans be a requirement for e
/dequacy and Acceptance of State and local government personnel continuedi operation of any nuclear Ernergency Planning Around Nuedear and to establish criteria to guide the power plamt with an existing operating Facinties preparation of emergency plans.
License?I"!so when should this general However the NRC has not made NRC requirement become effective?
- [10 CFR Part 50]
approval of State and local emergency
- 4. Shodd prior NRC concurrence in plans a coddition of nuclearpowerplant the associated State and local AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory operation.
emergency response plans be a Commission.-
The accider'it at Three Mile Island hasrequirement for the issuance of any new Action: Advance Notice of Proposed raised a number of questions about the operating license for a nuclear power Ru'emaking.
adequacy of radiological emergency plant?If suo, when should this general response plans. Even before the requireme nt become effective?
suedhtARY:The Nuclear Regulatory accident the GAO had recommended
- 5. bhould financial assistance be Commission is considering the adoption that NRC not license new power plants provided to State and local governments of additional regulations which will for operation unless off. site emergency for radiological emergency response establish as conditions of power reactor plans have been approved by the NRC.
planmng acnd preparedness? If so, to operation increased emergency GAO, Report to the Congress. " Areas.
what extent and by what means? Wiiat readmess for public protection in the Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be should be the source of the funds?
viciruty of nuclear power reactors on the Better Prepared For Radiological
- 6. Should radiological emergency part of both the licensee and local and ~ Emergencies." March 30.1979.The response c! rills be a requirement? If so, atste authorities.The Commission is Commission is also considering new under whose authority: Federal. State or interested m receiving public comment guidance to State and local governments local government? To what extent on objectives for effective plans, on emergency planning, based on an should Fecletal. State, and local acceptance criteria for State / local analysis ~of a joint NRC-EPA Task Force emergency plans. NRC concurrence in Report. "PlannL*1g Basis for Development governments, and licensees be required to participate?
State and local plans as a requirement of State and local Government 7.How aand to what extent should the for issuance of an operstmg license or Radiological Emergency Response Plans public be i.nformed, prior to any P00R DHM
=
.~.
~,-me-a w.
Federal Register / Vo( 44. No.138 / Tuesday, July 41484 17.1979 / "wfM Rules emergency. conceming emergency For the - - - '%
actions it might be called upon to take?
w J. c dik.
- 8. What aetions should be takenin secrwaryofthe Cocumanion.
response to the recommendations of the joint NRC/ EPA Task Forca Report p o.,.-pu.o se a us j w.ocoas w (NVREG-0396/ EPA 520/1-7&-016]?
- 9. Under what circumstances and using what criteria should a licensee nottfy State. local. and Federal agencies of incidents, including emergencies?
r--
When, bow, to what extent, and by whom should the public be notiBed of these incidents?
The cx>mments received will be collected and evaluated by the NRC sta!!. which will,in turn. submit recommendations on proposed rules to the Commission. Based on the comments it receives from the public and the analysis cf the problem presented by the NRC Staff. the Commission will determine whether to proceed with a proposed rule for notice and comment and/or whether to make such rule immediately effective. The f>mmission anticipates completion of this expedited nila nalmng in approximately six months.
The NRC staffla presently conductmg a comprehensive review of all aspects of the NRC emergency planning and preparedness program. Therefore, the Commission is also interested in receiving comments on all other aspects of emerFency planning, including issues raised in the Critical Mass /NRG pention for rulemaking and questions such as the following-
- 10. How and to what extent should the concems of State and local governments be incorporated into Federal radiological emergency response planning?
- 11. How should Federal agencies interface with State and local governments and the licensee during emergencies?
- 12. Should the licensees be repared to.
provids radiological emergency response training for State and local government personnel? If so, to what extent? Should the Federal provide such training?If so, government to what extentT
- 13. To what extent should reliance be placed on licensees for the assessment of the actual or potential consequences of an accident w1th regard to initiation of prgtective action? To what extent shou,ld this responsibility be borne by
}
h3 Federal. Sta te or local governments?
f ""
8
- 14. Would public participation in
)
t rudimogn I =merFency response drills.
I includmg evs ;ustJon, serve a useful purpose? If so, what should be the t
extent of the public participation?
%f]3 Deted at Washmrton. D.C., this 12th day of jdy, wts.
tiRC ACTIONS ON GA0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHAIRmK, NRC GAO Recomendation 1.
"The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Comission should allow nuclear powet-plants to begin operation only where State and local emergency response plans contain all the Comission's essential planning elements.
In addition, the Comission should require license applicants to make agree-ments with State and local agencies assuring their fuT7 participation in annual emergency drills over the life of the facility "
tiRC Response In carrying out its. mandate to protect the public health and safety,, the NRC has, to date, focused its primary attention on the site characteristics and design features of nuclear facilities which are prooosed by license appli-cants.
Our licensing process has been structured accor&Imgly, with a view toward ensuring substantial conservatisms in the design a:nd operational safety margins of nuclear power plants.
In addition to ensuring that the proposed facility site and design meet our licensing standards and criteria, we review the applicant's emergency plans, which are designed to provide an additional margin of protection for the public living in the near vicinity of the proposed f acility.
Tne fiRC's licensing requirements related to an applicarrs emergency plans are set forth in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, " Emergency Plans for Pro-o;ction and Utilization Facilities."
Additionai guidance is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants."
In addition to establishing plans and procedures for coping with emergencies within the boundary of the nuclear power plant site, applicants are required t: make certain emergency readiness arrangements with StMe and local crganizations to cope with plant-related emergencies outside the site boundary, with particular emphasis on the low population zone.
In this context, we have regarded off-site emergency plans to be related to :Se nuclear licensing process.
Tne NRC, with the cooperation of seven other Federal acer:cies, has had some
. success in assisting State and local governments in the 2xreparation and etaluation of their radiological emergency response plans, and in other a:tivities to improve State and local preparedness effort.s.
This activity does not rest on any specific statutory authority, however, and has been a:complished on a cooperative and voluntary basis.
Such plans are necessary since they do provide an added assurance to the State and local officials and to the general public in the vicinity of nuclear power plants that appro-p-iate protective measures are available in the event of an accident with eff-site consequences.
tiRC has formulated basic guidance documents to assist State and local covern-
~
ren s to improve their capabilities to respond to the ef#-site effects of a raclear power plant radiological accident.
However, we have not considered i necessary to require that State and local radiological ernergency response plans contain all the Co:: mission's essential planning elements as a condition precedent to issuing a nuclear power plant operating license.
300RORBNAL es _
~
In the past, NRC has encouraged the licensee to make arrangements for emer-gency drills by State and local governments.
This participation has been encouraged by the NRC in-two ways:
on the licensee side through the language in 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, paragraph IV.I; and on the State side by making a test of a State plan a precondition to NRC concurrence.
We expect the State plans to be updated and tested annually thereafter.
The Three Mile Island accident has raised a number of equestions about the adequacy of emergency radiological response plans and the legal requirements for such plans. The GA0 reconnendation that the NRC sinould not license additional nuclear power plants for operation unless time associated State and local emergency response plans have been concurred in by the NRC has been viewed by many as the answer to these questions.
This proposed licensing requirement will be the subject of an upcoming, expedited NRC rulemaking procedure.
Within the next two weeks we anticipate issuance of an advance notico of proposed rulemaking. This rulemaking will in:clude consideration of the following issues, as a minimum:
a.
Wnat should be the overall objectives and specific ; goals for State and local emergency plans, and for licensee plans?
b.
What constitutes an effective eme gency response plan for State and local agencies, as well as for imensees (i.e., what are the critical elements that must be included - an effective pla=3?
c.
Should periodic joint drills or exercises involving the nuclear facil-ities and the States and local governments be a spe=ific requirement for initial and continued NRC concurrence in emergency response plans?
d.
Should prior NRC concurrence in the associated Stat:e and local emergency response plan be a requirement for the issuance of any new operating license for a nuclear power plant?
If so, when she:old this general requirement become effective?
e.
Should NRC concurrence in the associated State and '7acal emergency response plan be a requirement for continued operation of amy nuclear power plant
' with an existing operating license?
If so, when sinnuld this general requirement become effective?
f.
What should be the criteria for judging acceptabili;ty of the interface between, and coordination of, on-site licensee emer gency plans and off-site State and local plans?
g.
Knat actions should be taken in response to the rec ocumendations of the joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report?*
liow should local planning be funded, particularly iin the first year (s) n.
wnen most of the basic work must be done?
Tne Comission recognizes the need for expedited actiert with respect to this rulemaking.
cianning Basis for Development of State and Local Goveranemt Radiological E ercen:y Response Plans for Support of Light Water Nucl: ear-Power Plants,"
N'P.EG-0395/ EPA 520/1-78-016, Decemb gggg Un LHSI
" BS??2d
The current objective of the NRC in this regard extends beyond the question of requirements associated with the granting of licenses for operation.
plans are established, as well as licensee plans, where It accelerated schedule.
where we already have nuclear power plants in operation.Nowhere is this To this end, we logical emergency response planning and preparedness.are now e Our current efforts in this regard are outlined below:
. As an interim measure and in preparation for the rulemaking, we are re-examining our program in the emergency response area with respect to the related Federal agencies. responsibilities of NRC, licensees, State and loca We will review our guide and checklist of essential elements in State and local plans in the light of lessons learned at Three Mile Island, and we will examine how to review previou concurred-in plans should revisions in the guide and checkl#,st seem appro-pri ate.
We will investigate ways in which NRC can provide additional technical assistance to State and local agencies once their plan has been approved, e.g., by providing realistic scenarios for use in tests and drills.
. We are moving rapidly to assist States in which NRC concurred-ira State plans do not presently exist.
each State with a nuclear power plant in operation (and to those:We contiguous to those with operating reactors) where NRC has not c:encurred States in the State's emergency plans, to urge his inmediate attention to this important area and to offer NRC's assistance in the development of the Scace's emergency response plan.
similar letters to the Governors of those StateeIn addition, we have recently transm plants are being constructed.
in which nuclear power
. We have olicited coments from the States on GA3's specific reconrnen-dation, anl we will consider their suggestions in the re-examination of our program and in the upcoming rulemaking.
In summary, NRC is conmitted to meeting the objective of having effective, tested emergency response plans in olaca, wherever they are needed as possible.
To this end we will
,, as early additional resources as ne,cessary. reprogram present resources and seek RC Re:omendation 2.
"Tne Cnairman, Nu: lear Regulatory Commission, should establish an emer-gency planning zone of about 10 miles around all nuclear power plants as e:omended by the Environmental Protection Agency / Nuclear Regulatory
- c=,ission Task Force, and require licensees to todify their emergency ians accordingly."
P00R KfM
~
-4 NRC Response The EPA /NRC Task Force report entitled " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Sup-port of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0395/ EPA-520/1-78-016, recomends the establishment of about a 10 mile emergercy planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and another zone of about 50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway. The report was published f~or connent and we extended the public comment period from March 30 to May 15,1979.
The Comission will give careful consideration to the recocznendations of the Task Force, the public connenters, the NRC staff, other Feder al agencies, and the GAO on the matter of establishing emergency pla:nning zones around nuclear power plants in the context of the forthcoming rul=*ing on emer -
gency planning.
(See item g of the rulemaking issues to be considered, in response to GA0 reconnendation fl.)
GAO Recomendation 3.
"The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the: Secretaries; of Defense and Energy should, to the extent that national securi-ty is not je.opardized, require that people living near f acilities be periodically provided with information about the potential hazard, emergency actiions planned, and what to do in the event of an accidental radiological relt.ase."
NRC Response The experience of TMI shows that the present procedures for informi:ng the actentially affected population near nuclear power plan.ts should be: re-examined.
Consequently, we are evaluating all our proctadures in tne com-munications area.
We have to determine what informatio:n -- general and site-specific -- should be given to the public prior tc) an emergency to assure effective response if a radiological emergency o ccurs.
In addition, we must clarify procedures for communicating with the public during; a radiological emergency: who should prctide the informa-tion, what information should be provided, and what modes of comunications sh.ould be used.
The Connission will take the necessary actions to implement. the GAO recommen-cation in connection with its ongoing assessment of rectulatory requirements and the adequacy of State and local plans in emergency planning and pre-paredness.
The Cornission makes no comment on the GA0 recomendatiion to D0D and DOE.
However, we will provide appropriate support in those States and Tocal areas wnere joint planning is necessary for emergencies from both licensed and government nuclear facilities.
1.:. Recomenda: ion a.
Tne report recc= ends that the Director, Federal Eme gency Management Acency (FEK*) assume the responsibility for making policy and coordinating radiological emergency response planning around nuclear facilities.
P00R ORBEL em
-5 NRC Response The NRC believes that FEMA should have an active policy and coordinating role in this area.
However, because FEMA is newly established and has not yet had an opportunity to develop inhouse expertise in radiological emergenc planning, it would be premature for it to assume the lead role now. y response while FEMA is gaining that expertise, it will be necessary for the agencies At least already involved, such as NRC, EPA, DOE, and HEW, to continue providing assistance to State and local governments in emergency planning and prepared-ness. In this regard the NRC is prepared to retain the functions essential to its role as nuclear regulator (e.g., for on-site monitoring and overseeing radiological training) for the interim and to re-evaluate our role when FEMA is fully organized and st'affed.
forward to working with that agency in coordinating Federal, State an planning and preparedness to improve protection of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
?00RBR8NAL 2"
_,