ML19256E370
| ML19256E370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dail L DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E371 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911020233 | |
| Download: ML19256E370 (5) | |
Text
.
yn REQvgm fj h,
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 8
o
%...../
Docket Nos: STN 50-488 OCT 2 U 073 STN 50-489 STN 50-490 Mr. L. C. Dail, Vice President Design Engineering Department Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Dail:
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REQUIREMENTS - PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 In a recent letter dated October 10, 1979 on the " Followup Actions Resulting from the NRC Staff Reviews Regarding the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident",
we outlined the staff's requirements resulting from its Emergency Preparedness Studies.
In that letter we stated that the Commission was considering wnat changes to current regulations and policy would be appropriate as a result of the Siting Policy Task Force Report (NUREG-0625), and it was likely that they would endorse the 10- and 50-mile emergency planning zones recommended by the EPA /NRC study.
On October 18, 1979, the Comission concurred in and endorsed the guidance on emergency planning zones recommended in the NRC/ EPA report.
In a policy statement on that date (Enclosure 1), the Comission directed the NRC staff to incorpcrate the planning basis guidance into existing documents used in the evaluation of State and local emergency preparedness plans to the extent practicable.
Thus, in addition to the requirements now set forth explicitly in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and the requirements of Enclosure 7 of our October 10, 1979 letter, it is the st aff position that for near term cps, preliminary plans for coping with the potential consequences of emergencies beyond the site boundary must include provisions for a plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and an ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone. The EPZ for the plume exposure pathway must encompass an area of about 10 miles in radius, and the EPZ for the ingestion pathway an area of about 50 miles in radius.
733 s
7911020
Mr. L. C. Dail The following information must be provided and evaluated in order to implement this staff position.
1.
Contacts and agreements with local, State and Federal governmental agencies with responsibility for coping wi.n emergencies for development of final plans must be documented for the areas within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone. This shall include agreement in principle between these agencies on a framework for emergency notification and protective action criteria acceptable to the NRC. For a description of the draft Emergency Action Level Guftfelines see Enclosure 2.
The principal government office or agency in each local political jurisdiction (county and municipality) within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, which would have the responsibility for prompt implementation of protective action warn-ings and instructions to the public, must be clearly identified.
2.
A preliminary analysis which describes the means to be employed in the notification of State and local governments, Federal agencies and the public in th9 event of an emergency must be submitted for the plume exposure EPZ and for notification of the agricultural agencies and other governmental bodies having jurisdiction within the ingestion pathsay EPZ.
A commitment must be mace to provide prompt notification to offsite author-is;ies and to assur ? thct offsite authorities have the resources to provide a general early warning and clear instructions to the public, acceptable to the NRC, in the plume exposure EPZ within 15 minutes following notifi-cation from the facility.
3.
Preliminary planning must reflect the need to include facilities, systems, and methods for identifying the degree of seriousness and potential scope of radiological consequences of emergency situations within and outside the site bourdary, including capabilities for dose projection using real-time meteorological information and for dispatch of radiological monitoring teams within the EPZ's. The =licipated role and capabilities of offsite agencies in radiological monitoring and dose assessment in the environs must be described for both plume and ingestion exposure pathways. P re-liminary planning must reflect the role of the on-site technical support center and of the near-site emergency operations center in assessing information, recommending protective action and disseminating information to the public.
4.
Preliminary planning must reflect provisions for initiating protective actions for ali exposure pathways, onsite and offsite; including:
(a) Direct radiation exposure from a confined source in-plant, an airborne plume, and ground deposition, (b) Inhalation exposure from an airborne plume, and (c) ingestion exposure from contaminated water, milk, and other agricultural products.
1259 J 3ff r
pc
Mr. L. C. Dail A preliminary analysis which describes various available protective action options must be submitted for the areas within the Emergency Planning Zones.
This must include estimates of evacuation times for various sectors and distances within the plume exposure EPZ. Preliminary plans for protective action recommendations within the plume exposure EPZ must include evacuation, sheltering, and area access control. Preliminary plans for protective action recommendations within the ingestion exposure EPZ n:ust include taking cows off pasture when required and controlling the use of milk, drinking water, and agricultural producD whose source is within the ingestion EPZ.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the NRC Project Manager for your faciiity.
Sincerely, D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Comission Policy Statement 2.
NRR Staff Draft Guidelines 5e w/ enclosures:
See next page
Duke Power Company ccs: (w/ enclosure 1)
William L. Porcer, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Chairman Duke Power rampany Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cownission Washington, D. C.
20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Dr. Donald P. deSylva 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Associate Professor of Marine Science Washington, D. C. 20036 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miama William A. Raney, Jr.
Miami, Florida 33149 Special Deputy Attorney General Attorney for the State of Dr. Walter H. Jordan North Carolina 881 W. Outer Drive Department of Justice Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Allan S. Rosenthal, Chiarman Atomic Safety and Licensing Mary Apperson Davis, Chairman Appeal Board Yadkin River Comittee U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Route 4, Box 261 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board P. O. Box 928 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D. C.
20555 David Springer Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
The Point Farm Atomic Safety and Licecsing Appeal Board Route 4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 Washington, D. C.
20555 William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq.
2124 Wachovia Building Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General S. C. Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Colunbia, South Carolina 29211
DISTRIBUTION: (w/ enclosure 1)
Docket Files ACRS (16)
LW4-4 File S. Va ga M. Williams B. Moore L. Rubenstein Project Manager Licensing Assistant (2)
Attorney, ELD I&E (3)
D. Vassallo B. Grimes h
/
.