ML19308B684
| ML19308B684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Cranston A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308B685 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160654 | |
| Download: ML19308B684 (2) | |
Text
yl' YEkn gSA MCg,
,g
['
jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
/
L3 4 1979 The Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
We are pleased to provide you with information as requested by Mr.
D' Abbracci relating to the determination of whether the Three Mile
)
Island accident should be considered an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence."
The term extraordinary nuclear occurrence (ENO) is a specific statutory term defined in the Price-Anderson Act (Public Law 85-256, as amended) as a nuclear incident resulting in (1) substantial offsite release of radioactive material or substantial offsite radiation, and (2) substantial offsite damages.
The statute further requires the Commission to establish criteria for applying this two-pronged test to specific events.
The Commission has done so in sections 140.84 and 140.85 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 140.
The Price-Anderson Act, which Congress enacted to provide a system of private funds and government indemnity totalling $560 million to pay i
public liability claims for personal injury and property damage resulting from a nuclear incideat, provides that if the Commission determines that an incident is an EN0, then among other things the so-called " waiver of defenses" provisions of the Act apply. This is significant here since if the Commission determines that the TMI accident meets the criteria established under the statutory two-pronged test and thus constitutes an ENO, the defendants (such as Metropolitan Edison and certain of its suppliers) in the TMI' lawsuits would be required to waive certain traditional defenses (such as contributory negligence) they might otherwise have.
If the Comission does not declare the March 28th accident to be an EN0, then the waiver of defenses provisions do not apply and claimants would have exactly the same rights that they nomally have under existing negligence law.
On July 23, 1979, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice that pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act, the Commission was initiating the making of a determination as to whether or not the accident at TMI 6u N 8001t
V The Honorable Alan Cranston constitutes an EN0 as defined in the Commission's regulations.
The notice invited interested members of the public to submit written comments with any information relevant to this determination. On August 17th, the Commission directed that a panel composed of members of its principal staff be formed to evaluate public comments received in connection with the July 23rd notice and other technical information assembled by the Commission from its own and other sources.
That EN0 panel is presently reviewing the comments provided by the public and reviewing and updating as necessary the data and analyses provided by the numerous studies on offsite releases.
Among these are reviews of the external dose measurements and environmental radioactivity levels.
On November 21, 1979 a one-day informal hearing was held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to provide interested members of the public the additional opportunity to present oral statements to selected EN0 panel members and supporting NRC staff who are among those making the technical evaluations of the pertinent data.
At the time the EN0 Panel completes its report and submits it to the Commission, the report will be made available to the public for comment.
We would be pleased to send a copy of the report to Mr. D'Abbracci.
Sincerely, onlGinE E-Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Letter to Congressional Liaison, NRC, from Sen. Cranston dated 11/5/79 2.
Ltr. to Sen. Cranston from Tony D'Abbracci dated 10/1/79
-