ML19262B903
| ML19262B903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Simpson A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262B904 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160456 | |
| Download: ML19262B903 (7) | |
Text
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "E
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....
b d lY1 M December 21, 1979 CHAIRMAN h
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
Thank you for your letter of December' 14, 1979 in which you. requested a status report on our progress 'in r'eviewing and concurring in State radiological emergency response plans since Senate action on S. 562 last July. Two States (Nebraska and Virginia) have received NRC concurrence since July and a third State (Tennessee) is expected to complete the review process necessary to receive concurrence by the end of the year.
Our responses to your first four requests for information are presented in tabular form in enclosures 1 through 4.
Fourteen States have received NRC concurrence to date and in addition, the State radiological emergency response plans in 26 States are under development by tne State or are under Federal agency review.
There are no. commercial ruclear power plants located within 50 miles of the 10 remaining States.
You also asked us to indicate whether the three conditicns identified by the NRC staff last summer are being met and whether we expect these conditions to be met through June 1,1980, the period projected as necessary to bring each State plan into compliance.
The first condition was cooperation by the States and the other Fede~ral agencies ~ involved in the review process.
The other Federal agencies have been supportive of this program, both at the headquarters level and in the Federal regions across the country.
The States have been very concerned about emergency preparedness since the Three Mile Island accident and have been moving very promptly in plan development and testing.
The second condition was that the NRC's Office of State Programs receive additional resources to review the State plans.
Additional resources were assigned to support the program.
These resources will continue to be made available.
The third condition was that the standards for judging the adequacy of the State plans should not be changed until after June 1,1980. After, further consideration of this issue, the Commission has undertaken efforts to upgrade the emergency planning around operating nuclear power plants.
Earlier this year, NRC mounted its own program to encourage nuclear power plant licensees to improve their own emergency 1754 2M 8001160 fd f
The Honorable Alan Simpson ~
=
plans.
This program called for licensees to cooperate imediately with State and local government authorities and to put into place, on an
~
accelerated basis, the 10 mile plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 50 mile food ingestion pathway EPZ recomended in the NRC/ EPA Task Force Report and recently adopted by the Comission.
Licensees were also required to set up early warning procedures.
While technically these changes were addressed to NRC licensees, they have, as a practical matter, significant implications for State and local governments.
In the Comission Policy Statement published in the Federal Register on October 23,1979 (Enclosure 5), the staff was directed to incorporate the planning basis guidance into existing documents used in the evaluation
[
t of State and local plans to the extent, practicable.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency "(FEMA) is now participating in the State plan reviews to a much greater extent than was previously the
' case.
Criteria differing from the guidelines which were in effect on July 16,1979 have been applied during recent FEMA reviews of State plans. These criteria include such items as the Emergency Planning Zone concept, plans for all impacted counties within a State, and the provision of a host area outside a 20 mile radius. The President's announcement of December 7,1979 directing the FEPA to assume responsibility of all offsite emergency preparedness may also affect the current concurrence process and schedules.
We ara making every effort to meet the schedule suggested by the staff last June and as shown in Enclosure 4.
With concurrence based on the criteria recently used by FEMA, we are reasonably confident of achieving this goal for States in Category A, i.e. those with presently operating plants.
We thank you for this opportunity to provide you with the current status i
of the review and concurrence of State radiological emergency plans.
Si,ncerely,
/
i 1-i-
John F. Ahearne
[
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Director, FEMA b
l'754 238 STATE PLANS THAT HAVE RECEIVED AN NRC CONCURRENCE AND THOSE THAT HAVE NOT States With Concurrence States without Concurrence State Date of Concurrence Category A Alabama 2/9/79 Colorado Arkansas 5/3/79 Georgia California 8/15/78 Illinois Connecticut 12/21/77 Maine Delaware 7/24/78 Maryland Florida 8/4/78 Massachusetts Iowa 2/27/79 Michigan
. Kansas 9/19/78 Minnesota Nebraska 9/21 / 79 North Carolina New Jersey 9/30/77 Ohio New York 1/23/79 Oregon South Carolina 11/23/77 Pennsylvania Virginia 10/22/79 Vermont Washington 3/29/77 Wisconsin TOTAL = 14 Category B Missouri New Hampshire Rhode Island West Virginia States Not Imnacted bv Commercial Nuclear Po' er Raactors Category C w
Arizona Alaska New Mexico Indiana Hawaii North Dakota Louisiana Montana Utah Mississippi Nevada Wyoming Oklahoma Idaho South Dakota Texas TOTAL = 10 Tennessee Category ~D Kentucky TOTAL = 26 With one or more commercial operating reactors.
Category A With an operating reactor in an adjacent State within Category B 50 miles.
With a reactor under construction.
Category C With a reactor under construction in an adjacent State.
Category D 1754 239
PRESENT DEFICIENCIES IF Ally, FOR EACH STATE PLAfl USING THE GUIDANCE IN EFFECT Oi! JULY 16, 1979 State Essential Elements Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Categu.y A Colorado
^8 2
~
~
Maryland' 12 58
~
Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota 46 24 North Carolina 52 18 Ohio 58 12 Oregon 53 17 Pennsylvania 33 37 Vermont Wisconsin 57 13 Category B Missouri' 55 15 New Hampshire Rhode Island West Virginia Category C Arizona Indiana Louisiana 51 19 Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee 69 1
Texas 39 31 Category D Kentucky 48 22
- State plan not reviewed.
- Under Federal agency review.
1754 240
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN CORRECTING DEFICIECIES id IN EACH STATE PLAN SINCE JULY 16, 1979 r{
t State Progress 1
2 3
4 5
6 Category A p
Colorado -
X X
X X
X Georgia X
X X
X Illinois X
-t=
Maine X
3 Maryland X
X X
-X 11
[j i
Michigan X
X Minnesota X*
X
.X.
1 I
North Carolina X-X X
X Ohio X
X X
X X
X f
Oregon X
X X
X g
X
=
Vermont X
7 Wisconsin X
X X
X X
X Category B Missouri X
X X
X X
Category C Arizona X
Indiana X
X e
X X
=
=-
Oklahoma X
-y Tennessee X
X X
X X
X Texas X
X X
Category'D j
Kentucky X
X X
CODE 1.
Plan under development by State.
2.
Plan submitted for Federal agency review.
3.
Plan under revision by State.
4.
Plan revision. submitted for Federal agency review.
5.
Exercise scheduled.
6.
Exercise held.
1754 241-
A PROJECTION OF THE TIME REOUIRED TO BRING EACH STATE PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE r.
WITH THE GUIDANCE IN EFFECT ON JULY 16, 1979 State Projected Concurrence Date Category A Colorado May 1980
~_
Georgia March 1980 Illinois June 1980 Maine May 1980 p
Maryland May 1980 n;
Massachusetts May 1980
!.i Michigan April 1980 Minnesota February 1980.
El V
North Carolina May 1980 Ohio March 1980 r
Oregon May 1980 ~
fi Pennsylvania March 1980 g
Vermont May 1980 Wisconsin February 1980 si Category B Missouri February 1980
~
New Hampshire May 1980 Rhode Island May 1980 West Virginia May 1980 Category C Arizona 1981 Indiana June 1980 Louisiana July 1980 E
Mississippi 1981 Oklahoma 1981 s
Tennessee December 1979 h
Texas 1981 Category D Kentucky March 1980 1
f 5
s E:
E.I e
m V754242 1
NUREFA396. EPA 5 Jh s-cts. dated appropriate and prudent for e=srgency December 1978. Single copies of the planrung guidance to take into repcrt can be obtained by writing to the consideration the principal Director. Division of Technical characteri.stics (such as nuclides Information and Document Control, released and distances likely to be Nudear Regulatery Co mission.
involved) of a spectrum of design basis Washingten. D.C. 20555. The task force and core melt accidents. While the
. report was published for public Co-m#en recognizes that the comment in the Federal Register en guidance may have signincant responsa
\\
December 15.1978 and the comment impacts for many local jurisdictions.11 period was extended to May15.1979 to believes that implementation of the allow additional comments resulting guidance is nevethelesa needed to frem the ac=ident at 'Bree Mile Island.
i= prove emergency response planning 9
A synopsis of the cc=ments received and preparedness around nucasar powee and the task force consideration of these reactors.
comments is available from the The Commission is direction its staff Q
- AssistantDuectorforE=argency to incorporate the planning basis
{
Preparedness. OfSca of State Programs, guidance into existing 6cuments used q
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==rssten, in the evaluatinn of state anlocal.
Washington. D.C. 205ss, emergs.ncy response plans to the extani
,?
~
practicable.The NRC has recently g
~
Pla nm.nt Basis published and Advance Notice of The major recommeddation of the Proposed Fnbm=N concernmg report is that two Emergency Phamng add.itionalregulations en enxergen y Zones (EPZs) should be established
. plans,44 FR 41484. Tuesday, July 17, around light water nuclear power plants. 1979. Additionalguidance willbe The EPZ for airborne exposure has a provided fobowing this rulemaking.This radius of about D miles: the EEZ for ad$tional gu! dance can be expected to contaminated food has a radius of aboct co= sider how local constions euch as 50 miles. Predetermined protective demography. land use. and metecrology action plans are needed fer the EPZs.
can influence the si=e an shape of the The exact size and shape of each EPZ EPZa and to address other issues.su=h '
will be decided by e=ergency plan *3 as evacuation h++
oEicials after they consider the specific Specific impbma ta' tion dates for full' conditions at each site.These distances i=plementation of the task force are considered large enough to provide a recommendations and any others that response base which would support are developed will be established as activity outside the plan =ing :one part cf the ongomgrulembng effort.
Planning Basis for Emerger>cy Respenscs to Nuclear Power Reactor should this ever be needed..
The Comission also expects the staff AccMents.
The repert also.provides pla" g to assist state and local governments in basis guidance in the fer=.of a range cf i= proving their wsyr;y response acuer Nuclear Regulatory time values in which emergency capabilities at existi=g sites in the Cc. mission.
"8P 88 C*
Pr8PE 8 0 i= mediate future.
Ac 1cnc NRC Polier3 State =ent.
i=cle=ent protective action. De report-Dated at W=*hton. D.C this uth day of indicatas hat, depending on such Purpo+e facters as the specific sequence of For the Nuclear Retndatory Cc=m:smo=.
. This is a statement of policy with events durmg an accident which results S*"'UN regard to an Environmental Protection in the release of radioactivity to the Agency (EPA) and Nuclear Regulatery atmoshpere and the prevailing Secirteryof theCommission.
Cc--is sien [NRC) task force report en meteorological conditions, protective-p o maan ru.a wa.m au :
e,. m o cooc rno. m s guidance for use in state and local action may be recuired from perhaps radiclogical emergency response plans one-half hour to cne day after the at nuclear power plants.
intiation cf the accident. Develop =ent periodic testing of procedures for
===.
Background===
and,d notincation of e=ergency repi The NRC. received a request from the response officials is encouraged, since -
Ccnfere:ce of Radiation Control the time available for action is strongly Prepa= Di. enters, an organization of affected by the ti=e consumed in State ef5=als, t * "make a determination notfication.
cf the =:st se vere accident basis for ne che=ical and physical whi== radiclop=al =ge==y response characteristics cf thosera$cauclides
- a
- s shmnd be ceveloped by cEstte which centribute most signincantly to acencies."In ww. an EPA end NRC human exposure are presented.
ta sa force was established which NRC Po..ucy
- e
- .a.--i a repcrt enntied " Pia =n=g Easa ic-the Development of State and NRC cen==.s in r.nd end ses for use Leca.! Gcve nment Radiolognal the Fuirir.nce contained in the task force E.::,erpency Response plans in Support of repcrt. In encinrn=. this guicance, the L;h: Water NuclearPower Pia:ts."
Commist. ice recognizes that it is El54 243