ML19246B476
| ML19246B476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130562 | |
| Download: ML19246B476 (5) | |
Text
f "%,
['e
['i UNITED STATES l,fg
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y[
W ASHIN GTO N,0.C. 205SS
- :A 5 June 26, 1979 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
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, one reconmendation 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 Management Agency that has direct implications for an interagency program for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 recommendations 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 satisf actory emergency plans covering the response of the utility and the lccal and State authorities are in place and where arrangements have been ma:e for periocic exercise of these plans.
They are not convinced, however, tna; the presen: State emergency plans, being developed ar.d concurred in by the NRC, are what is required.
For the longer term a definitive approach will be developed througn 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.
Sincere y, 1
Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Er cio s u-e :
Res;;onse to GAC Report
}{Q Q[Ij cc:
Rep. Clarence J. Erown
-j/
0542
.i NRC ACTIONS ON GA0 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHAIRPM, NRC GAO Recomendation 1.
"The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Connission should allow nuclear power plants to begin operation only where State and local eaaergency 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 full 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 proposed by ' license appli-cants.
Our licensing process has been structured accord rngly, with a view toward e'isuring substantial conservatisms in the design e:nd operational safety margins of nuclear power plants.
In addition to e:nsuring that the proposed facility site and design meet our licensing starzdards 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 facility.
Tne fiRC's licensing requirements related to an applican.t's emergency 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 Power Plants."
In addition to establishing plans and procedures for coping with emergenc-ies within the boundary of the nuclear power plant site, applicants are required
- make certain emergency readiness arrangements with State and local organizations 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 =ine nuclear licensing process.
Tne f;RC, with the cooperation of seven other Federal agencies, has had some success in assisting State and local governments in the ::xreparation and evaluation of their radiological emergency response plars and in other a::ivities 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 de 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 cff-site consequences.
!;.: has formulated basic guidance documents to assist State and local govern-cents to improve their capabilities to respond to the of#-site effects of a ra: lear power plant radiological accident.
However, we have not considered i: necessary to require that State and local radiologica'l emergency response pians contain all the Comission's essential planning elements as a condition precedent to issuing a nuclear power plant operating license.
360 0/6
~
_~
. In the past, NRC has encouraged the licensee to make arrangements for emer-gency drills by State and local governments.
This participation has been encouragod 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 GA0 recomendation that the NRC should not license additional nuclear power plant for operation unless the 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 o# e upcoming, expedited NRC rulemaking procedure.
Within the next two week 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 plan for State and local agencies, as well as f or licensees (i.e., what are the critical elements that must be included in an effective pla c)?
c.
Should periodic joint drills or exercises involving the nuclear f acil-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 State 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?
Should NRC concurrence in the associated State and incal emergency response e.
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 interf ace between, and coordination of, on-site licensee emergency plans and off-site State and local plans?
g.
Knat actions should be taken in response to the recommendations of the joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report?*
Hove should local planning be funded, particularly in the first year (s)
- r..
when most of the basic work must be done?
-ne Comission recognizes the need for expedited action witn respect to this rulemaking.
%0 Oil 7
ianning Basis for Development of State and Local Government Radiological C
Emergency Response Plans for Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants,"
G EG-0395/ EPA 520/1-78-016, December 1978.
f 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, wherev 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 en in this regard are outlined below:
Oc:r current efforts
. 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
~
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 NRC concurred-in State plans do not presently exist.
We hav? already 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 his imediate attention to this important area and to offer NRC's assistance in the deve'nopment 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 GA0's specific recommen-dation, and we will consider their suggestions in the re-examination of our program and in the upcoming rulemaking.
In summary, NRC is comitted to meeting the objective of having effective, tested emergency response plans in place, wherever they are needed as possible.
To this end we wil
, as early additiorel resources as ne,cessary.l reprogram present resources and seek Et Reco m endation 2.
"Tne Cnairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should establish an emer-ger.:y planning zone of about 10 miles around all nuclear power plants as ecomended by the Environmental Protection Agency / Nuclear Regulatory
- ians accordingly."Cor.ission Task Force, and require licensees to modify their e 360 07B
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 rniles for the ingestion exposure pathway.
The report was published for comment and we extended the public coment period from March 30 to May 15,1979.
The Comission will give careful consideration to the recomendations 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 reco=nendation #1.)
GA0 Recomendation 3.
"The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 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."
'iR: 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-soecific -- should be given to the public prior to an emergency to assure effective resoonse if a radiological emergency occurs.
In a ddition, v.e must clarify procedures for communicating with the puolic during; a radiological emergency:
who should provide the information, what information should be provided, and what modes of communications should be used.
The Comission will take the necessary actions to implement the GAO recommen-cation in connection with its ongoing assessment of regulatory requirements and'the adequacy of State and local plans in emergency planning and pre-paredness.
The Comission makes no comment on the GA0 recommendation to DOD and DOE.
However, we will provide appropriate support in those States and local areas cere joint planning is necessary for emergencies from both licensed and government nuclear facilities.
2A: Recomencation i.
Tne reocrt recc= ends that the Director, Federal Emercency Manaaement Agency (FEMA) assume the responsibility for making policy and coordinating radiological emergency response planning around nuclear f acilities.
%0 079 m
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 FEPA 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 staffed.
We welcome the establishmnt of FEMA and look forward to working with that agency in coordinating Federal, State and local planning and preparedness to improve protection of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
_