ML19309H035
| ML19309H035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Fish H HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309H036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005080210 | |
| Download: ML19309H035 (4) | |
Text
8 005080 t\\D IWW 'rUULIC g. u.._ m,
[ g..,;.,
INIWMUUM UNITE D STATES E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h
[ i :. i-g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5, y Cd k*
i fJR 9 19 K The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 Daar Mr. Fish:
The letter of your constituent, Jeffrey F. Kovite, has been forwarded by the NRC Office of Congressional Affairs to this office for response. Mr. Kovi te 's letter asks a number of specific questions. We list below the questions and our reply.
1.
Who approves the emergency evacuation plans that are submitted to the i;RC?
By direction of President Carter on December 7, 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for review of emergency plans, which includes evacuation planning, of State and local authorities in the environs of a nuclear power plant. The NRC works closely with FEMA in this regard.
Upon completion of its review, FEMA will present its findings on the adecuacy of offsite emergency plans to NRC, and the NRC will then make the final licensing decision.
2.
By what date are these plans supposed to be submitted and approved?
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, specifies the elements to ta included in the emergency plans of an applicant for a license to operate a nuclear power plant. Additional and more stringent requirements have been published in a proposed rule change to Appendix E, 44 Fed. Reg. 75167 (December 19, 1979), which would require compliance not later than January 1, 1981 if promulgated as a final rule.
3.
Can we be assured that this date will not be moved to accommodate the plant operators if this deadline cannot be met?
Public comments, including those of States, local agencies and utilities will be considered in setting the final effective date. There will likely be provisions for alternative interim compensatory methods of compliance in the final rule.
4.
What penalties will be imposed if no adequate evacuation plans can be devised?
l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognizes that there are special l
problems at Indian Point, and, as was pointed out at the Indian Point Emergency Planning meeting on December 18, additional plant modifications to reduce the consequences of core melt accidents are being considered.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has not precluded plant shutdown as a result of this review.
Z D it l E w n &..
6
2-The Hor.orable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
5.
Will the public have an adequate opportunity to review these plans before tney are approved?
Revised emergency plans, like all submittals of a licensee in response to a licensing action, will be placed in the Public Document Room as soon as they are received. This is well before they receive final NRC approval and consequently there will be adequate opportunity for review by the public.
Public comment is welcome and encouraged.
6.
Uill there be another hearing when the plant operators revise their plans?
Meeting with the public as were previously held near the Indian Point site are not part of the NRC hearing process but are being held to seek upgrading of emergency preparedness before formal requirements are in place.
No further meetings are currently planned near the Indian Point site on Emergency Preparedness. The NRC Commissioners have requested public comments on whether a public hearing should be held on the safety of Indian Point. A copy of this notice is enclosed.
7.
Provision should be made either by a special vote or as part of a regular election for the plan to be placed before the voters for their rejection er approval.
The NRC does not have the authority to impose on State and local governments any particular process for the adoption of State and local radiological emergency plans.
Such process is a matter decided upon by the affected State and local governments. NRC, however, must in any event determine whether the State and local plans provide adequate protection for public health and safety with respect to the operation of the nuclear power plant under consideration.
I trust that these answers respond adequately to your constituent's questions.
Sincerely, 3
ged)T. A.Rehm William J. Dircks Acting Executive Director for Operations 4
Enclosure:
Notice J
w
j 1
\\
Federal Regist::r / Vol. 45. No. 37 / F6 day February 22. two / Notices U969 i
l IDockets Noa. 50-3,50-247, and 50-286)
CocooNdsted Edloon Co. of New York (indian Point, Units Nos.1 and 2) and Power Authortty of the State of New Yort (Indian Point, Unit No. 3);
Schettation of Comment on Otrector's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 On February 6.1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the Director ofits Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to issue orders relating to the Indian Point nuclear facility (Units 1. 2 and 3) in Buchanan.
New York. These orders constitute a partial grant and a partial denial of a petition to the Commission, filed by the Union of Concemed Scientists in September 1979. The petition was treated as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's rules, under which l
persons may request the Director of l
NRR to institute a proceeding to modify.
l suspend. revoke, or take such other action es may be proper with regard to a specific license.
One order directs the licensee to show cause why Unit 1 should not be decommissioned. A second order directs -
the licensees (Consolidated Edison of New York and the power Authority of the State of New York) to take a number of short. term actions designed to increase the safety of Units 2 and 3.The orders with respect to Units 2 and 3 were ' confirmatory orders", meaning that they gave legal force to commitments already agreed to by the l
licensees.The Director's decision denies the UCS petition with regard to Units 2 and 3.
In ruthorizing the Director of NRR to issue these orders, the Commission made clear that it had not made a final judgment as to the merits of the orders, nor as to the form further Commission consideration of the matter should take.
The Commission expressed its intent to seek the views of the interested public and parties before decidmg whi.h of several possible forms its further r
i consideration of the Director's actions I
will take.The Commission decided against prohibiting operation of Units 2 and 3 pending further consideration of this matter. This determination was Mthout prejudice to re-examining the continued acceptability of operation of these facilities in future consideration of g9 m
D D
D this matter.The purpose of tha Notice is WW w
J
119 0 Federal Register / Vcl. 45. No. 37 /' Friday. February 22. 1980 / NoticIs 4
i to eclict dew both on the merits of the merits of the Director's denial.The Separata %'w' of Commision r Bradford D.recter's decision and on the form that Commission requests that these I aper that this Federal Register Notce l
further Commission consideration comments be filed no later than states the decision nached by the 8
thodd tak e.
February 29,1980. In order to permit Cormissier. and I therefore concur in issuir,g Unde tr.e Com:nission's rules. a thorough consic'etation of the Directers ic However.1 would have preferred to base Directc a partial or complete derual of a denialin light of the comments that ray taken the Director's decision as advise y to petit.cc under 10 CFR 2.206 is be filed. the period within which the the Commission and put it out for coe. ment review able by the Co:ranission on its Commission may exercise its authority on that beats.The Commission itself wodd own irc atn e. if the Commission to review the Director's denial has been then have spoken with some ficabry at the dec. ides within 20 days of the Director's extended until March 7.1960, outset in charting the procedural course to
&al we 6e gunbona nised by Ind.an action to emercise that authority. The 20 Dated at Washington. D.C the 15th day of Point day pe od may be extended.In February weo' In the p esen! Federal Register Notice. I editicr. as to CFR 120Qc) states For de Comminion.
think it a mistake to Lst Opuons 1 and 2 exphcit'y. the Conmission's power to S*mu'lI N (review and no review) It is toconceisable resw staff actions under this provision of the les does not hmit in any way Secretary of the Comminion.
that the Commission win not nytew some the Cc.=:ssion's supervisory authority separate views of Commiulanar Gihnsky aspects of the In6an Point question, and p tential e mmenters abodd not have been over de:egated staff actions.De I spee that the Director's orden denhra asked to w aste their time preparmg Cor=!ssicn also retains the authority to with safety improvements at the Inian Pcmt e mments n " opt 2ons" not teall) before us.
initaate rulernaking actions which may and Zion power plants should b, Ad6tionaUy. the Federal Register Notice affect tese and other nuclear power imme6ately effectise. However.tn plants.
continutns to deal with tbs matter as a should have expressly noted that the Commission e decision in this matter could The Cer. mission's options include review of the Dnctor's nsponse to a pet: tion those Lsted below. This list is not under part 2.20e of the Corr.m2ssien s affect other nuclear power plants in densely exhausJte. and some of the options are regulations, the standard for which is populated areas besides In6an Pomt 2 and 3.
whether the Director abused has 6scretor.
For example, the Dtrector will shortly luue not mu ual!v exclusive.
- 1. Re.te E Director s denicI Under the Cocunission is tip-toemg around its cetfirmato y orders for Zion Units 1 and 2 rupens.bihties when it should be confroctmg which will be similar to the orders for In6an this op* ion. the Commission would them 6tectly.
Point Unita 2 and 3.
review the D: rector's denial on its The importance of the questions facmg 6e Based on the staff messment that the D'"'
Co=urassion cannot be doubted. The f ar
,bhc henhh
- d saf*
'd' "
- 2. De:hne to review Director. dem. l.
reach of the Director's orde s underhnes this protected. it is my vie = that In6an Pomt 2 s
e Under sis eptmn. the Commission point.ne NRC staff esticates that operaton
" # **I E*"#'
would contmue to exercise its of the In6an Point and Zaon plants opunt2on at least pena Communien supernso y power over the staff, ar.d contributes approxirnately 40 percent of the 1
nuew Me c mments s heited here.
could s:cp in if it saw the need for total accident nsk attnbutable to nuclear Neverthelesa, there seems to be wide add.Scr.al a etion.
power genershon in the Uruted States.
aF-eement that the In6an Point site wou d
- 3. /r. :.cte r:!!emcAing proceeding to The Commission must come to gnps. as
'consicer societc/ risAs of twclectpower soon as possible, with thne quesuons:
not be acceptable by todafs standards p/ents ;n high.dersitypopt;/atson crecs, whether it should adopt the safety pohey and Consequently the long run acceptabihty of Under its approach. the Seneric issues objecuve for eustmg reactors near high these two uruts. esen wnh the p oposed cuentrah ns populataon imphcit m the changes, remams an open questien in m) corr..". te faci!' ties located in high.
Director e approach. or whether it should view. lt is a question that requires a dens:t> population areas would be adopt another safety objective; whether the maximum of trJormed assessment of the risks considered m. a rufemaking proceedmg.
measures presenbed by the D. rector meet the and the benefits and the alternatises by This p xceding would explore issues safet3 standard approved by the citizens in the area and by the government of such as the safety measures appropnate Comnuuion; and whether the plants may the state of New York as well as by this for nu:: car pow er reactors in high contmue to operate while the first tw agency. Future procee6ngs will need to be popu! anon density areas.
quest ons are being resob ed.
atruerured with this need in mind.
- 4. Ee 'er Director's denic/ to o The Comm:ssien should now obtain pubhc hcensmg boctd or to the Commission comment to help it formulate the safety I" D" "*" N 8" a " '*l itsel.' /cr odjudication. Under this policy and objective that should uide saismo cocc roam-as F
nme6a! action at Indian Pomt and Zion.
approath. the acceptability of the Dire:ter's denial would be tested in a Afte such a pobey has been adopte6 and this should tak e no more than 90 days, the forma! adjudicatory hearing. If the dectsien were refe red to a licensinE and L.icensing Boards to adjudicate the boa-d. the Cor mission would have the adequacy of the safety messares presenbed oppc-t:.nity to review the decision by the Director ir. terms of the safety reached by that board.
objective adopted by the Commission. In 5 Ccaduct cn informc/proceedmg view of the significaner of the issues to be before :he Commission. Under this decided by the Ucensing Boar 6 the approa:h. designated parties would Comminion should now decide that it will present their views on the correctness review the Board a determinatien. Fmally. the Commission shou!d decide at the outset. cn i
and suiciency of the Director's the basis of a fuller record than it has before decisic: in an informal format. Such a it, whether to permit cont:nued operatim of proceeding coc!d either precede or the plants dunns the foregoms heanngs D.at follow a Commission decision on record should cos er not only the safety state-l l
wheder to review the Dire: tor's denial.
of. affairs at the In6an Point and Zion p: ants The Comm:ssion welcomes the views and the degree of pubhc pretection possitie, of intertsted parties and the pubhc on but also the present need for the electncity these and other options, and on the Fenerated by these plants.