ML19208C572
| ML19208C572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Dircks W, Levine S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909270094 | |
| Download: ML19208C572 (4) | |
Text
'
~'
,..f.
pu tsc s-
'o UNITED STATES
!h
- ,,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 V*1e/
JUN 111979 1
(
IEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR William J. Dircks, Director, NMSS Saul Levine, Director, RES Robert B. Minogue, Director, SD Robert G. Ryan, Director, SP Howard K. Shapar ELD Victor Stello, Director, IE FROM:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations SUBJEC :
iASK FORCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING At Thursday's meeting (June 7), the Commission agreed to establish a Task Force on Emergency Planning, reporting to me, to formulate the scope, direction, and pace for NRC's overall emergency planning activities. The Task Force membership will include:
Tom Carter, NMSS - Chairman Justin Long, NMSS - Secretary Brian Grimes, NRR Jay Durst, RES Mike Jamgochian, SD Dudley Thompson, IE Haroldlo11 ins,SP Roy Voegeli, ELD These persons will oevote their full time to Task Force efforts fro now throuch June 29, 1979, and will be located in Room 82S of the Willste Building.
OPE afid MPA staff will provide part time support to the Task Force.
Task Force responsibilities are to be carried out in two phases.
In the initial phase, the Task Force will provide the Comission with policy considerations for use in formulating a new NRC rule on emergency planning. The initial phase, to be completed by June 29, is comprised of four tasks:
Task 1 '- Develop for Commission consideration a list cf raajor issues, with tentative alternative solutions, that shculd be acdresse:'
through rulemaking proceedings.
Issues to be considered should include:
Should prior NRC concurrence in state plans be a requirement for issuing an operating license?
Should HRC concurrence in state plans be a requiremer.t for existing plants to continue cperatiens?
i 7909270o W 1044 049
e nn n M NL wn 1, A m:s ytuw c
What criteria should be utilized in evaluating emergency plans?
Is NRC guidance to licensees and state and local governments adequate?
Concurrently with Task 1, describe and objectiveTy critique Task 2 NRC's current emergency planning process, especially considering recent TMI lessons learned.
Task 3 Define and recorrend an approach for developing a comprehensive plan that would formulate the scope, direction, and pace for NRC's overall emergency planning activities.
Brief EDO and Cornission on results of Tasks 1 3, is; sues Task 4 requiring Co=ission guidance, and future plans.
Cu-ing the second phase, development of the comprehensive plan shoulch:
ensure that the wide range of issues identified at the Co rnission level (e.g., OPE's May 18 and May 23 memoranda) and at the staff le. vel (e.g.,
SP's May 29 memorandum) are addressed, stressing in particulair the monitering and co nunications issues on pages 4 and 5 cf Enci osure 1 to the May 18 OPE memorandum; suggest ways to develop the methodology to' evaluate the effec-tiveness of current emergency plans and to upgrade thes'e plans in cases where they would not adequately prctect the public; provide for an' analysis cf the division of responsibility betsween the emergency planning activity at NRC and related activities.Et :cther federal, state, and local government enti:ies, an:' previce re.co=nenda-tions that will help make the emergency plans for areas arocrac any particular nuclear plant truly integrated; and propose the means of organizing our work on emergency planning so that it is properly coordinated inside NRC (e.g., aspects dealing with the licensee should beclearly defined relative to the other aspects) and so that it meshes properly with the work of agencies outside NRC.
Tne se:ond phase is scheduled to be completed by early August,1979.
1044 050
3 JUN 11 1979 Attached is a milestone chart depicting the timing of major tasks and their relationship.
., - l
~/
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations Attach.ent:
m As Stated.
cc w/ attach:
Chairman Hendrie Comissioner Gilinsky Co missioner Kennecy Comissioner Bradford Co=issioner Ahearne SECY 0P:7
=
pgi P
1as<,,,c.,.:e. e,s 1
4 1044 05'
N Ln O
O TASK FORCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING HILESTONE CilART iltlal Phase _
(Rulemyng Proceeding)
(Rulemyang Proceeding)
/_
/
DeV8105 maior ittun
,_peyt}QL(gat (({ve for rulemaking alternative solutions 6/2 6/15
\\
\\
Prepare nnerihe Hpr_% current Cr1tique N
OCH Process 0'I*II"9 6 6 emergency plannin process 6/19 6 2 Rulemaking Proceeding)
\\
6/26 6 29
. Defint_Ldtvelop approach for
~
k 6/13 comprehensive plan 6/2 brief, brief
?
\\
I I-cond Phase hvelophiled
_ tiritino Assignments A Review &
A Final Q
outline of compre-6/
d 6
/2d rewrite y7 8/3 hensive plan 7f9 7fg3 h
h Status Status First Review iteview Draft g
g j
Frief Drief
-}
g.,. f
-j
_=us 3,
E7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (10 CFR Part 50 Appendiz E)
ADEQUACY AND ACCEPTANCE OF EMr_xGENCY PLANNING AROUND NUCLEAR FACI 1.2 TIES AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission B
ACTION:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rule =2. king
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Cec =1ssion is considering the Moption of additional regulations which wi].1 establish as conditions of power reactor operation increasei emergency readiness for public protection in the vicinity of nuclear power reactors on the part of both the licensee and incal and state authcritles.
The Commission is interested in receiving public cc nent on objectives for effective plans, acce;;ance criteria fer State / local emergency plans, NRC concurrence in State and Local plans as <_ recuirement for issuance of an operating If. cense er for cen-tinued operation of a nuclear facility, and cocrdination between the licensee plan and State and 1ccal plans.
The C : ission seel.s eritten comments en what items should be included in the rule.
DATES:
Cc==ents are due no later than (45 days s.f ter puh-11 cation in the' Federal Reriste5).
ADDRESSES:
Written ec=ments concerning these issues should be submitted to the Secreta y cf the Cen.T.issien, T.S. !!uclear F.egulatory Oc==ission, Washingten, DC, 20555 FOR FURSER INFORMATICN CONTACT:
Patricia A.
Cccella, Site Designa-
- icn 3 ranch, Office of Standa"ds revelepten:, ::: clear' Regulatory Oc==ission, Washingten, IC, 20555, 301 ut3-5951.
p 79o 9so W /
1044 053
2 E7590-01]
Supplementary Information:
The NRC requires that power reactor license applicants plan for radiological energencies within their plant sites and make arrange '
=ents with State and local organizations to respond to accidents that might have consequences beyond the site boundary.
In this way eff-site emergency planning has been related to the nuclear licens-ing p5ccecs.
See 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (1979), see also addi.icnal guidance in U.S. NRC, Eegulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants," (Rev. 1, 19"7).
To aid State and local governnents in the develepcent and i=plementation of adequate emergency plans, the NEC, in conjunction with seven other Federal agencies, has attempted, on a cooperative and voluntary basis, to provide for training and instruction of State and loc al govern =en't personnel and to establish criteria to guide
-he prepara:1cn cf energency plans.
R0 wever, the !3.0 has not made
- 5.0 approval of State and local emergency plans a condit-icn of nu: lear pcwer plan cperatien.
The accident at Three Eile Island has raised a number of questiens about the adequacy of radiclogical emergency : esponse p lans.
Even before the accident the G AC had recc== ended that NRC nct license ne: power plants for operatien unless off-site emergency
- 1&ns have been approved by the NRC.
3AC, F.epore to the Ccngress,
" Areas Arcund uclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepa: ed Fcr
?.adiclogical Energencies," yar:h 30, 1979 The Oc=rissien is also c:nsidering new gu.idance tc State I.nd local governmenes en e=ergency 1044 054
3 17590-013 planning, based on an analysis of a j oint NRC-E?A hsk Force
?.ep ort.
" Planning Basis for Development of State and Local Govern-ment Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG A396/ EPA 520/1-78-016, December S_g 43 Fed..epq. 58658 (December 15, 1973), see also 44 1978.
3 Fed. Regg. 23337 (. April 18, 1979).
Furthermorc, a number ol organi-zations, including Critical Mass and Public Interest P.esearch Groups, have renewed and supplemented a petiticm for rulemal:ing, previously denied by the Cennission, concerning the operational details of evacuation planning.
See 44 Fed. F.ec. 32486 (June 6, 1979).
The Commission has decided to initiate an expedited rulemaking procedure on the subject of State and local emergency response plans and those of licensees.
The Commission is soliciting public ccm ents in this area, particula-ly on the following iss :es :
1.
What should be the basic objectives of emergency planning?
a.
To reduce public radiation exposure?
b.
To prevent public radiation exposure?
c.
To be able to evacuate the public?
To what extent should these obj ectives be cuantified?
2.
'dhat constitutes an effective emergency response plan fer State
=_nd 1ccal agencies?
Fcr licensees?
What are the essential elements tha:
.u s be included in an effective plan?
De existing HP.: require-rents for licensees (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix El and. guidance for 1044 055
ii 4
1759.0-012 States (NUREG-75/111) lack any of these essential ele =ents?
~
3 Should TRC concurrence in the associated State and local emergency response plans be a requirement for centinued operation of any nuclear power plant with an e.xisting operating license?
If so, when should this general requirement beceme effective?
2 Should prior NRC concurrence in the associated State and local energency response plans be a requirement for the issuance of ar.y new operating license for a nuclear power plant?
If so, when should this general requirement becc=e effecti/e?
5 Shoald financial assistance be pr.vided to State and local govern-
=ents fer radiological emergency response plann'ng and preparedness?
If se, to what extent and by what means?
What should be the source of the funds?
f.
Should radiological energency respense drills te a recuirement?.
If sc, under whose authority:
Federal, Scate c-icnal government?
Tc what extent should Federa_, 3 tate, and local govern =ents, and licensees be required to participate?
7.
Iiow t.nd to what extent should the public be informed, prior to any energency, concerning energency acticns it =1ght be called upon Oc take?
1.
S.~h at actions should be taken in response to the recomme:..iations
- f the,'oint : RC/ EPA "ask Force F.eport (1:"?.E3-C 39 5 /IP A 520/1~.7 5-016 ) ?
1044 056
5 f.7590-01]
g l
h e
9 Under what circumstances and using what criteria should a licensee notify State, local, and Federal agencies of incidents, including energencies?
When, how, to what extent, and by whom should the public be notified of these incidents?
The cocments received will be collected and evaluated by the NRC staff, which will, in turn, submit recommendations on proposed rules to the Oc =issicn.
Based on the ec=ments i receives frc: the public and the analysis of the proble presented by the NRC Staff, the Cennission will determine whether to proceed with a propcsed rule for notice and ce= ment and/or whether to make such rule i= edi-ately effective.
The Con =1ssion anticipates cc-pletion of this expedited rule =aking in approximately six months.
The URO staff is presently conducting a ec prehensive review of all as;ects of the NEC e=ergency planning and preparedness progra..
Tnerefcre, the Oc=ission is also interested in receiring cc =ents en al'. other aspects of emergency planning, in cluding issues raised in the Critical Eass/PIEG petition f cr rulemaking and questions such as the following:
10.
How and to what extent should the concerns of State and local gcVern=ents be inecrperated into Federal radiclegical emergency respense planning?
11.
Ecw sh:u d Federal agencies interface vi:. State and loca-_
gcVernment s and the licensee during emergencies:
1044 057
2.-
6 g590-013 12.
Should the licensees be required to provide radiological e=er-gency response training for State and local government personnel?
If so, to what extent?
Should the Federal government provide such P
training?
If so, to what ext ent ?
13 To what extent should reliance be placed cm licensees for the assessment of the actual or potential consequences of an accident with regard to initiation cf protective action?
To what extent shculd this responsibility be borne by Federal,. State or local 5::v ernment s ?
14
'dould public participation in radiological energency respense drills, including evacuation, serve a useful pu= pose?
If so, what should be the extent of. the public participatico?
For the Consissics
?
'll i tY S AEE J. ;Ch'~_LF.
Secretary cf the Oc==ission Cat ed at Washington, D. C.,
thisf day of July, 1979 1044 058
? d.
(I y
- h Riog'o C
f r
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
.,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...+ /
August 2,1979 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gary }l art, Chainnan Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning emergency preparedness.
In your letter you pointed out that the NRC FY 1980 Authorization Bill as reported out by the Committee on Environment and Public Works provides for an addi-tional $1,485,000 including funds for eight new positions in the Office of State Programs to improve NRC's efforts in emergency res;ponse planning with the States. The wording contained in the recently passed Senate Authoriza-tion Bill requires that the additional $1,485,000 be reprogransned from within the balance of Program Technical Support (PTS). iWithin this amount,
$1,085,000 is for program contractual support. The total amount of the program contractual support funds we requested in FY 1980 for all of the PTS Offices was $1,930,000, of which $1,380,000 was designated for the Office of State Programs.
If NRC were to apply the balance of $550,000 to the Office of State Programs, thereby deleting program contractual support from the other offices, we would still be $535,000 short of the acathorization.
The Commission shares-the Committee's concern over the need for adequate resources devoted to emergency preparedness.
In this specific case, however, we are faced with the practical question of how to fund the Authorization Bill action. As we have illustrated above, the funding inas to come from sources outside of our PTS program.
Inasmuch as this reprogramming is induced by Three Mile Island, we are contemplating including the requirement in our FY 1980 Supplement.
You also expressed concern about the ability of our agency to carry out our emergency planning efforts before the beginning of the new fiscal year in October. The Executive Director for Operations has take:n several steps to provide augmented support in the Office of State Programs for emergency planning until the end of this fiscal year. Four professionals within this office have been temporarily reassigned from other assignments to emergency preparedness activities. Three professionals from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation have been detailed to the Office of State Programs.
Additionally, four temporary employees have been hired from outside of the NRC. We have also arranged for contract support to assist in developing exercise scenarios and in observing and evaluating exercises that test State and local govern'nent emergency plans.
~~ N_
044 059 M.
T y n u rn s s
k.
The Honorable Gary Hart I u
I have written to the Governor of each State with a nuclear power plant in operation (and to those States contiguous to those with operating reactors) where NRC has not concurred in the State's emergency plans, to urge their imediate attention to this important area and to offer NRC's assistance in the development of the State's emergency response plan.
In addition, we have recently transmitted similar letters to the Governors of those States in which nuclear power plants are being constructed. The returns from these letters are encouraging. A great deal of work is now being done and will continue to be done on State plans in the months ahead.
You also requested that we review the voluntary guidelines used in our evalua-tion of State emergency plans and that we begin imediately the process of developing regulations to fonnalize our requirements for such plans.
In this regard, we have initiated two concurrent actions.
In early June, we established a Task Force on Emergency Planning to formulate the scope, direction and pace for NRC's overall emergency planning activities. A copy of the charter for this Task Force is enclosed.
In addition, the Comission has requested the Task Force to identify any interim steps that should be taken to improve emergency preparedness by early August. On July 17, we issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the adoption of additional regulations which will establish, as conditions for pcwer reactor operation, increased emergency readiness for public protection in the vicinity of nuclear power reactors on the part of both the licensee and local and state authorities (44 FR41483). A copy of this notice is enclosed.
It is our intention to have appropriate regulations in effect by the end of this calendar year.
In the interim, we support the provision contained in the Senate Authorization Bill S. 562 that current criteria for NRC concurrerce in State emergency plans should continue to be used until the new regulations are put in place.
You also asked that we pay particular attention to the guidance on evacuation planning.
Evacuation as a protective measure will be tfnoroughly reexamined in our above mentioned activities related to emergency planning guidelines and regulations.
We also now have before the Comissiom a staff paper and proposed policy statement (enclosed) concerning the recommendations contained in the NRC/ EPA Task Force Report, NUREG-0396/ EPA-520/1-78-016.
That document scopes offsite emergency planning, including evacuation considerations.
It recommends, among other things, that an Emergency Planning Zone for the plume exposure pathway of about ten miles in radius be establiished around all existing and future commercial nuclear facilities.
In the July 17 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we specifically requested public comment on the actions which the Commission should take in response to the recomendations of the joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report.
I will keep you advised of the Comission's action on this matter.
Concerning your questions as to the adequacy of guidelines for the ingestion pathway for food and livestock, as you know, under a Federal Register Notice of December 24,1975 (40 FR 59191), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has been assigned responsibility for providing this guidance. On 1044 060
t e
The Honorable Gary Hart December 15, 1978, HEW's Food and Drug Administration published proposed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) and invited public comment (43 FR 58790).
The Comission regards this guidance as generally satisfactory and useful in its present form. As soon as the Secretary of HEW promulgates it as fonnal Federal guidance, we will commend it to the States for inclusion in existing and future State plans.
It will also be considered for inclusion in any NRC regulations on State and local emergency plans,
- incerely,
' q.,
h Joseph M. Hendrie
Enclosures:
1.
SECY-79-461 2.
Emergency Planning Task Force Charter 3.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,7/17/79 cc: Senator Alan Simpson e
1044 06l