ML19220C962
| ML19220C962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160107 | |
| Download: ML19220C962 (9) | |
Text
'
.3.7
?y 50- n D Three-Mile Island:
Emercency Planning and Evacuatico 1.
Impacts which aculd result frca evacuation include prov;sion of rescurccs for food and lodging, disruption of inccse and production, as well as any risks asscciated with the evacuation process itself 2.
The applicant and the Pennsylv?nia itate Ocpartment of Envircnmental Resources (PCER) are responsible Sr developing emergency plans for evacuation of the site and sect. s of the Icw popul:ticr. zor.e (LX) adj3 cent to the Three-Mile Island plant.
The LPZ is deficci in IC ^FR Part ICO.3 (b) as the v 2a i.rmediately surrounding Diant site shich contains residents, the total nurber cf.,nicn s scch that there is 3 re3scn3 Die crob3bility tnat cratective easures cculd be imole en*.ed in
'l.. a a_ X +v ecnu_z _ ~ 4. '> c_ c
- _ ;, a.
- s n.
_.s.u...n*
-f v c 4. e_.e, a
F-a
..w
- 2.., i rJq ce.
L w
v.
plant and approximately 2,2C0 people resided seithin :ne LPZ in 1970.
3.
The population which mignt be evacuated in the event of a substantial release could depend to a great intent ucco metecrological cor.citions at the time of the accident as well 35 the crecise nature of the 2ccident.
The.1ighest pcculation density aithin the L?Z is directly.,est of 'MI 1970 population in this sector was around 400.
Middletown is roughly 3 miles due nortn from the plant (pccalation around 15,000),
- bicstcro, a very small tcwn, is due.yest af tne clant, across the -ucueshanna N
/Q
\\h0<O' 7905160/o7, y
a n:,
c a C..1 i.R r. ci/:.11
, c.c Lm., 2 _ m.-.
o n
m m
1, Aerial surveys at '.30 p.m.,
3/20; nidnight, 3/30; and 3 a.m.,
3/31:
At or.e mile frc, the plant, maximun readings ranged frcm.5 "R/PP to 1.5 MR/HR.
At 15 miles:
readings of 0.1 to.2 "R/HR ere obtair.ed on two earlier surveys and 0.5 MR/ER cn the latest.
Flignts being made at roughly three hour intervals.
2.
Off-site gcound gamma in.Middletc<.n and north; between 9:30 p.m.
(3/30) and i a.n. (3/31):
levels from 0.2 to 0.5 "R/HR.
Yeasure ents were taken in the general direction of the plune ~easured in aer; 21 surveys.
a.
,p.m.
7 a, / g a. ;r
,.11cersee cul,ied i_;,s recm if t1xe,a cosal tuns n1,.nin s
c 15 nile radius of site.
ILD's had oeen in place for three mon n:,
n:
exposed f:r 32 hcurs after the incident.
T.vc TLD's showed exposures above normal, Hignest reading was cn Three "iie Island,.' niles north of reactor -- a quarterly accuculated exposure was El YR (about 55 ':R above the normal quarterly exposure rates).
Other high exposure at. 7 miles NNE of tne reactor at the entrance to the site. At this locaticn, total quarterly accumul ated exoosure as 37 PR's -- about 22 "R accve the nornal quarterly ex csure rate.
3.
Milk samoles during evening milking (3/3C) by Dennsy:.>ania Deat. of Envir. Rescurces (Harrisburg, York, Micdletc.sn, Sain:rij;e, E ters:
show nc technical icdine.
\\\\
_2_
4 Penn DER aster s rcles at filtration plants, Cait.bia, P3. (fcr Lancaster) and '.lrightsville (3/20 cening and early af ternoon) sample points ac.snstream of TNI, tio detactable activity.
118 271
FRC't NRC E'!Eli REPCRT - 3/30 1.
3 p.m. 3/30:
NRC analyses of eight off-site vegetation samples showed no detact3ble activity.
2.
5:30 p.m., 3/20: Penn State Rad Healtn Cesartment.
oater and air samples in vicinty TMI showed no detectable activity except for XE-133 and XE-135.
No activity levels above background in milk sample analysis.
3.
Of f-site ground level gamma surveys in Middlete,n and Golasboro (' et.,een c
3 and 6 p.m >, 3/20) ranged f ecm.01 to.1 *G/HR.
a.
Helicoptar survey (4 to 6 p.m.,
3/20); concentric circles at cne mile inter'.als fr:m 3C'; to i,CCC #t; h !;hcst re 2 dings were over the site and measured 3 tc ; 0 c'R, H; For pla ne, nignest readings.verc 6.o 3
.x/nx.
riume fa,.lcweg. river in northwesterly direction and was no; detectable beyond 5 to 6 miles frcm the site.
Site ground level surveys betoeen 7:30-5:00 p.m. ranged from.01 to 1.5 R/FR.
5.
4 p.m.,
3/20; upper level winds frca the southeast.
i 18
,2,/ c
GAO Recort:
Emergency Preparedness Arcund Nuclear Facilities Needs Improvement, Craft, Nove.mber, 1973
.Key Conclusiant-Finding:
r-ently, there is only limited assurance of public p ctectica near fixed nuclear facilities fecm the radiolcgical ccncequences of 3 serious accident.
Reccmmendations - NRC should:
1.
Require license applicants to identiff clearij respectisc cesponsi-bilities of the facility 2nd state end lccal age ^:ies in e ergency plans ano require applicants to make agreements with state and lccal agencies assuring their full particioaticn in annua! cmcrgency dr lls.
i
?
7, n'.
.-rlj.c..-
i.
a.r 2
.~.,.r s
,v..=.
u'.n d '.. : 'i = - =. r - e -. j-.. '. 'a r, ha s*
.~
e
~.
..:=.
all essential p,ianning e,iements or ahere spalicant has agreed to provice financial assistance to state and lccal governmer.ts to develop emergency plans that include all essential elements.
3.
'!erify that states and iccal agencies are capable of effectively implementing their emergency plans.
Require *. hat local governments -- as nell is states -- be included in the cevelc; rent offsite nuclear e ergency resccnse clans and crepareaness arcund.NRC licensed ;coer ceactors.
118 273
. Finding:
The Fcderal gcvernment d:es not require states tc have peace-time nuclear emergency plans.
T;RC licensing officials review state and local emergency plans submitted by utilities requesting licenses.
Recommendation:
Emergency preparedness should ::e resolved before nuclear power plants begin operation.
. Firding:
Emergency planning zones around ccreercial nuclear reactor; are much smaller th3n the area that would be affected by a sericuc radiolcgical release.
Current zones are usually 5 miles or less and based on T.9C radinion dose criteria which aere establishea to site nuclear ccoer clants.
Reccmrendation:
E?N:,RC Task Force has reccTrended that emergency planning areas around reacters be increased to 10 miles, the most likely area in whicn i ~ediate emergency actico, e.g. evacuation, night M m to be taken. 320 recemcends adoption of recomendation on a pricrity basis and require licensees to modify their emergency plans accordingly.
. Finding:
The general public in areas surrounding fixed nuclear f acilities is not well informed about potential hazards nor abcut protective action against radiation exposure.
118 274
& Recccmer,dation:
Inforn pe:P c living rear nuclear f.3cilitit s 2bcut the l
potantial hat',rd, p1ans fcr emergen'y ar.ticns and actions tc be taken in case of accidental radicb.4i ra) r,)n y,
\\\\8 275
NRC Response to GAC Craft Report:
" Emergency Preparedness Around Nuclear Facilities Ne2ds Impro/cment," Cecember 11, 1978 I
In re reccmmendation that TRC snculd accrcve license apolicaticns only in stetes with concurrcd in plans:
. State and local emergency plans provide an 2dded mrgin of safety fer a nuclear facility in which we believe that an adequate reasure of safety already exists.
The licensing decision process is based on a wide r. umber of standards and criteria to the end that sucstantial conservatisms exist in design and cper3t'ng safety margins.
Cffsitt em:rgency plans, inile rel3ted to the licensing process, are not essential elenents in dete -
mini c whether the plant can be cperated withcut undue risk to public health and sa#ety.
. NRC does act lave s t 2tu:c "y iutrority c /er state and 'cc 31 gc zermen's ta reouire them to maintain emergency plans.
. NRC continues to provide guidance, assistance and training in emrgency planning and resocnse activities to states and evaluates their plans #cr concurrence wicn the essential " Guide and cnecklist" of 70 planning elements identified by NRC.
. Tnecugh ccoperative metns, NRC has achieved consider 3cle success in upgrading state and local radiolcgical emergency respcnse plans.
lP C activities have included:
-- preparition and issuance of a "'iuide and Cnecklist" of 7C clinning elements to be incoracrated into clins; 118 276
-- develc;"ent of training courses 'cr state and loc 31 perscnnc';
-- concurrence in 11 state plans;
-- cccrdir,ation of emergency response ef fcrts of '.RC 3pplicants and offsito agencies of state and local go.errrents;
-- preparation wi.h e,n, of a tas,< torce report wnich provides a,,-,ianning t
r Sas is for the Deveicpment of State 2nd Local Government Radiciegicai Emergency Response Plans in Suppcrt cfLight Waster Nuclear ?cwer Plants" 1978.
NRC's Regulatcry Guide 1.101 (Secticn 5.4 of Annea A)
Equires "3
ces:ripticn for a3ch (affsite) agency of saecific resoonse c3: abilities in terms of ex:cetise cf personnel 2nd other organiz aticc 31 resource-availible."
2120, 3 olic ants sst irccepcrate in frei
^1 ins prc. :icns for drills and test exercises for offsite 3;enclos.
NRC cannct recuir:
particip3tico.
. NRC believes thit greater testing of state 3nd local plins,culd be desirable.
118 277
Pennsylvania State Council of Civil Cefcnse, " Disaster Cperations Plan,"
July, 1977 OSP has made no review of the plan and it is not under review presently.
OSP gives priority to plans of states which request such revicws.
It is unlikely that the Pennsylvania plan <till incorporate all 70 or the elements set forth in the NRC Guide and Checklist sense no state plan has received concurrence oa its first attemot.
The Pennsylvania plin has not yet been submitted to the Regional idviscry Ccrnittee, the interagency task force chaired by.'iRC.
k0.