ML19208D162
| ML19208D162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Staats E GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909280064 | |
| Download: ML19208D162 (6) | |
Text
E h[b f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
]
W ASHIN GTON,0.C. 20555
[,
June 26,1979 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN M @ P fF f
li' ([b Mr. Elmer B. Staats
~'
Comptroller General of the United States IU h. fN, ]lp r General Accounting Office o i Lj (Uj u uO Washington, D. C.
20548
Dear Mr. Staats:
On March 30, 1979, the Comptroller General of the United States submitted a report to the Congress entitled " Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies."
The report made two specific recommendations to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, oae recomendation applicable to the Chairman and the Secretaries of Defense and Energy and specific recommendations to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy.
In addition, the report made a recommendation to the Director, Federal Emergency
!sanagement Agency that has direct implications for an interagency program for which the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff provides leadership.
I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed statement of actions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to take in addressing the recomendations directed at this agency, It also includes a reaction to the recommendation made to the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In addition, Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford want to make clear their view that the NRC should allow nuclear power plants to begin operation only where satisfactory emergency plans covering the response of the utility and the local and State authorities are in place and where arrangements have been made for periodic exercise of these plans.
They are not convinced, however, that the present State emergency plans, being developed ind concurred in by the fiRC, are what is required.
For the longer term a definitive approach will be developed through a rulemaking as described in the Commission response. In the near term, they look to the recently formed NRC Task Force on Emergency Planning to develop an interim approach in about a month.
Sincer y,
1 O
Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman
Enclosure:
Response to GA0 Report 1051 277 0 0928006
NRC ACTIONS ON GA0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHAIRMAN, NRC G*s0 Recomendation l.
"The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Comission should allow nuclear power plants to begin operation only where State and local e=ergency 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."'
NRC Response In carrying out it mandate to protect the public healtht and safety, the NRC has, to date, focused its primary attention o.: the site characteristics and design features of nuclear facilities which are proposed by license appli-cants.
Our licensing process has been structured accordibigly, with a view toward ensuring substantial conservatisms in the design and operational safety margins of nuclear power plants.
In addition to ensuring that the proposed facility site and design meet our licensing stan:dards 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 cne proposed facility.
Tne NRC's licensing requirements related to an applicant's e:nergency plans are set forth in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, " Emergency Plans for Pro-duction and Utilization Facilities."
Additional guidance is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Pbwer Plants."
In addition to establishing plans and procedures for coping with emergencies within the boundary of the nuclear power plant site, appI-icants are required to make certain emergency readiness arrangements with State and local organizations to cope with plant-related emergencies outs-ide 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 tihe nuclear licensing process.
Tne NRC, with the cooperation of seven other Federal age-n-ies, has had some success in assisting State and local governments in the preparationr and evaluation of their radiological emergency response plans and in other activities to improve State and local preparedness efforts.
This activity does not rest on any specific statutory authority, however, and has been accomplished 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-
- -iate protective measures are available in the event of an accident with eff-site consequences.
N?.C has formulated basic guidance documents to assist State and local govern-rents to improve their capabilities to respond to the off-site effects of a raclea power plant radiological accident.
However, we have not considered i
necessary to require that State and local radiological emergency response plans contain all the Comission's essential planning elements as a condition precedent to issuing a nuclear power plant operating license.
~
~
1051 278
In the past, NRC has encouraged the licensee to make ar-angements for erner-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 questions about the adequacy of emergency radiological response plans and the legal requirements for such plans.
The GAO recomendation that the NRC shculd not license additional nuclear power plants for operation unless the associate.d State and local emergency response plans have been concurred in by the NRC has been viewed by many as the answer to these ouestions.
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 notice of proposed rulemaking.
This rulemaking will include consideration of the following issues, as a minimum:
a.
What should be the overall objectives and specific goals for State and local emergency plans, and for licensee plans?
b.
What constitutes an effective emergency response pian for State and local agencies, as well as for licensees (i.e., what are the critical elements that must be included in an effective pla:G?
c.
Should periodic joint drills or exercises involving the nuclear facil-ities and the States and local governments be a specific requirement for initial and continued NRC concurrence in emergency response plans?
d.
Should prior NRC concurrence in the associated Stt'.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 should this general requirement become effective?
e.
Should NRC concurrence in t'1e associated State and 7ecal emergency response plan be a requirement for continued operation of any nuclear power plant with an existing operating license?
If so, when should this general
~
requirement become effective?
f.
What should be the criteria for judging acceptability of the interface between, and coordination of, on-site licensee emergency plans and off-site State and local plans?
g.
What actions should be taken in response to the reco:nnendations of the joint NRC/ EPA Task' Force Report?*
n.
How should local planning be funded, particularly in the first year (s) wnen most of the basic work must be done?
9 Tne Comission recognizes the need for expedited action with respect to this rulemaking.
Gianning Basis for Development of State and Local Government Radiological E ergency Response Plans for Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants,"
G EG-0396/ EPA 520/1-78-016, December 1978.
14)51 279
u P00RORGK1.
The current objcctive of the NRC in this regard extends beyond the question of requirements associated with the granting of licenses for operation.
is our goal to ensure that effective, tested State and local emergency response It plans are established, as well as licensee plans, wherever needed and on an accelerated schedule.
Nowhere is this need more evident than in States-where we already have nuclear power plants in operation.
To this end, we are now engaged in a comprehensive re-evaluation of NRC's approach to radio-logical emergency response planning and preparedness.
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 tne
~
responsibilities of NRC, licensees, State and local governments, and related Federal agencies.
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 previously concurred-in plans should revisions in the guide and checklist seem appro-priate.
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 tiRC concurred-in State plans do not presently exist.
We have already written to the Governor of each State with a nuclear power plant in cperation (and to those States contiguous to those with operating reactors) where NRC has not concurred in the State's emergency plans, to urge his 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.
. We have solicited coments from the States on GAO's specific recomen-dation, and we will consider their suggestions in the re-examination of our program and in the upcoming rulemaking.
In sumary, NRC is committed to meeting the objective of having effective, tested emergency response plans in place, wherever they are needed, as early as possible.
To this end we will additional resources as ne,cessary. reprogram present resources and seek GAO Re:omendation 2.
"Tne Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission, should establish an emer-ger.:y pia:1ning zone of about 10 miles around all nuclear power plants as recomended by the Environmental Protection Agency / Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission Task Force, and require licensees to modify their emergency plar.s accordingly."
1051 280 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-0396/ EPA-520/1-78-016, recomends the establishment of about a 10 mile emergency planning zone for the plume exposure pathway and another zone of about 50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway.
The report was published for coarnent and we extended the public coment period from March 30 to May 15,1979.
The Commission will give careful consideration to the recoce,endations of the Task Force, the public comenters, the NRC staff, other Federal agencies, and the GA0 on the matter of establishing emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants in the context of the. forthcoming rulemaking on emer-gency planning.
(See item g of the rulemaking issues to be considered, in response to GA0 recomendation #1.)
GA0 Recomendation 3.
"The Chainnan, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, and the Secretaries; of Defense and Energy should, to the extent that national security is not jeopardized, require that people living near f acilities be periodically provided with information about the potential hazard, emergency actions planned, and what to do in the event of an accidental radiological release."
NRC Response The experience of TMI shows that the present procedures for informi:ng the potentially affected population near nuclear power plants should be-re-examined.
Consequently, we are evaluating all our procedures in the com-munications area.
We have to determine what information -- general and site-specific -- should be given to the public prior to an emergency to assure effective response if a radiological emergency occurs.
In a.ddition, we must clarify procedures for comunicating with the public during; a radiological emergency:
who should provide the information, what information should be provided, and what modes of communications snould be used.
The Comission will take the necessary actions to implement the GAO recommen-dation in connection with its ongoing assessment of regulatory requirements and'the adequacy of Stata and local plans in emergency planning ancl pre-paredness.
The Comission makes no comment on the GA0 recomendation to DOD and DOE.
However, we will provide appropriate support in those States and local areas where joint planning is necessary for emergencies from both licensed and government nuclear facilities.
IC Recomendation a.
The report recommends that the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assume the responsibility for making policy and coordinating radiological emergency response planning around nuclear f acilities.
~
1051 281
_~
T Ip h Nl)Q []p flRC ResDonse f
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 gover,nments 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 overseeirg radiological training) for the interim a J tc m-evaluate our role when FOM is fully organized and staffed.
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.
O e
1051-282 O
O