ML20003D834
| ML20003D834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104010092 | |
| Download: ML20003D834 (11) | |
Text
STAFF 03/30/81
^
Mbh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h/
F (10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD S
y
%h*
In the Matter of
)
4 e
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, Docket No. 50-289 ET AL.
)
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON EFFECT OF NEW EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS I.
Introduction In a " Memorandum and Order on Effect of New Emergency Planning Regulations" issued on March 23, 1981, the Licensing Board dealt with i
the effect of the new emergency planning regulations on the restart proceeding. The Board, in effect, ruled that emergency preparedness and plans for TMI-1 must comply with the substantive standards and requirements of the new emergency planning regulations prior to restart and that NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1 may be utilized as a standard by which to measure r'asonable progress in this proceeding.E If The Board stated that the Staff had given inconsistent advice on the question as to whether NUREG-0654 has the force of a regulation, citing the staff's brief of February 24,1981 at pp. 2 and 3-4 and Tr. 4225-30,15083-84. We find no inconsistencies in the cited materials.
Nowhere is it stated in those materials that NUREG-0654 is to be treated as a regulation.
Rather, NUREG-0654 is referenced as setting forth planning criteria (Staff's brief of February 24, 1981, pp. 2, 3, 4), standards (Tr. 4225,4229) and guidance (Tr.
4225, 4228).
These statements are consistent with the new emergency planning rules (see e.g., footnote 1 to 10 CFR l50.47 "These standards are addressed by specific ct iteria in NUREG-0654..." and footnote 4 to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 2, "these objectives are addressed by specific criteria in NUREG-0654....") and are far short of any statement to the effect that NUREG-0654 sets forth binding legal requirements.
e g
8.104orn091
O
. - In the Memorandum and Order, the Board also dealt with the matter of the timing of FEMA's findings and determinations on offsite emergency j_
preparedness and how it may affect the close of the record in this proceeding. / The Board indicated that the Staff should inform the Board in some reasonable detail of the schedule and scope remaining for review by FEMA and the Staff on emergency planning matters and the effect of what is still left open on this proceeding.
In order to respond, the Staff has undertaken a comprehensive review to identify those areas where unresolved items remain and where evaluation and review are not yet completed. This comprehensive review has encompassed not only eaargency planning matters but also the areas of design modification and management so that an overall assessment of remaining unresolved matters for the TMI-l restart hearing and a revised projection as to I
when all such matters may be taken up at hearing may be presented.
The
]
assessment and projection for emergency planning matters is set forth bel ow. A similar assessment and projection for plant design modification matters and management matters will be submitted by the Staff shortly.
2/
The Staff had previously estimated for the Board that the record on emergency planning could be completed by the end of April 1981.
This estimate had accounted for the state of development of offsite i
emergency plans and a projection of when FEMA would be in a position to provide its findings and detenninations.
Based on the most recent information available from FEMA on the state of i
developaent of the offsite plans and FEMA's capability to produce its findings and determinations, basic circumstances have changed such that the assumptions used in the Staff's previous projection for the close of the hearing no longer hold.
4
~
s i
w
II. Areas of Unresolved Items or Incomplete Review for Emergency Planning
- F' A.
Onsite Emergency Preparedness
(
(1) Adequacy of the evacuation time estimate study.
The lack of an adequate evacuation time estimate study for use in protective action recommendations and decision-making was identified as a dt iciency in NUREG-0746, " Emergency Preparedness Evaluation for TMI-1," December 1980 at p. 30, in the "NRC Staff Testimony of Stephen H. Chesnut on Contentions Related to Onsite Emergency Planning and the Licensee's Emergency Plan," February 9,1980 (Chesnut Testimony) at p.
84 and in the " Testimony of Frederick J. Bath.and Vernon E. Adler of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Certain Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions," Februaruy 23,1981 (Bath /Adler 2/23 Testimony) at
- p. 10. The licensee, on March 12, 1981, submitted an evacuation time o
estimate study which is currently being evaluated by consultants for the NRC Staff.
(2) Adequacy of the prompt alerting system.
The establishment of the physical and administrative means to provide pronpt warning to the public in the plume EPZ was identified as an unresolved matter in NUREG-0746, p. 30, in the Chesnut Testimony at p.
83, in the Bath /Adler 2/23 Testimony at p.18, and in the " Testimony of FEMA's Vernon E. Adler and Frederick J. Bath on Contentions Related to Offsite Emergency Preparedness," March 16,1981 (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony) at pp. 11, 15.
The licensee is to submit a design report for its pranpt alerting system by mid-April 1981.
E N
-4.
(3) Public Education and Information Program An unresolved matter with regard to the adequa.cy of public education and i-i information materials, methods and frequency of, and schedule for, i
distribution of such materials and the coverage of residents and transients for such materials was identified in NUREG-0746, p. 30, in the Chesnut Testimony at pp. 83-84, in the Bath /Adler 3/16 testimony, at p.
13 and in the " Joint Testimony of NRC Staff's Stephen Chesnut and FEMA's Frederick J. Bath on Contentions Related to Onsite/0ffsite Emergency Preparedness," March 16,1981 (Joint Chesnut/ Bath Test 1nony) at pp.
9-10.
The public education and information plans are still being developed by the licensee and State and local emergency response organizations.
[
(4) Containment leak rate assumptions.
The need for the licensee to establish more realistic assumptions for containment leak ra'2c based on actual leak rate test data and/or containment pressure was identified in NUREG 0746 at p. 3G and in the Chesnut Testimony at p. 84.
The licensee has not yet provided its revised assumptions in this regard.
(5) Emergency action levels (EAL)
I
.he need for the licensee to appropriately modify a boundary dose rate for a general emergency consistent with NUREG-0654, Revision 1 was identified in the Chesnut Testimony at p. 84.
The licensee apparently
(
intends to propose modifications for Staff evaluation in this regard.
3
~
l l
. +
B.
Offsite Emergency Preparedness The folloJing deficiencies or unresolved matters have been identified by
-p FEMA in, and based on, its written testimony on contentions with regard to offsite emergency planning.
(1) The York County Emergency Plan is not comistent with the State Plan'with regard to the distribution of thyroid blecking agents (Bath /Adler 2/23 testimony, p. 39);
i (2) The York County Emergency Plan is deficient in its failure to include transient and work force pmulations in its population calculations (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, p. 6);
(3) No provision is made in the York County Emergency Plan for posting emergency protection infonnation, including evacuation routes (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, p.12);
(4) Letters of agreement between York County and the Red Cross, amateur radia operators, school districts, the York Chamber of Commerce, the York Area Transit Authority and Adams County should be provided in the York County Emergency Plan (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 22, 29-30, 35-36).
(5) The York County Emergency Plan is deficient because it lacks provisior.; for local, hospital and medical services for persons exposed to radiation (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testinony, pp. 27-28);
4 3
e
(6) The York County Emergency Plan is deficient in its failure to list hdmebrounds and invalids and provide for their care in an 3
emergency (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 30-31).
There is no evidence that municipalities in York County, upon whom responsibility is placed for evacuation of homebounds and invalids, are capable of meeting those responsibilities (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 44,45,53),
(7) The York County Emergency Plan fails to reference and provide for monitoring equipment relied upon for fire, mass care and decontamination operations (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 31, 33);
(8) The York County Emergency Plan should provide a system to utilize transportation resources in an evacuation (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 34-35);
(9) The York County Emergency Plan should be revised to include a listing of school evacuation plans and such evacuation plans and bus rerouting plans should be completed (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 56-57);
(10) The Dauphin County Emergency Plan should assign responsibility to the County Transportation Officer for notification and activation of planned transportation resources for Dauphin County (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, p. 60);
M 7
_..____i.________,
4
~
(11) Dauphin County school evaccation planning should provide for earlyfnotificatin of bus drivers by school officials and should be jf revised with regard to bussing students during an alert (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, pp. 57-58,60).
(12) All County Emergency Plans should provide for backup or substitute emergency mar, age ent coordinators (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, p 49);
(13) Adequate evacuation time estimates should be factored into the state and license Emergency Plans before restart (Joint Chesnut/ Bath Testimony, p. 6) and evacuation plans should be upgraded to account for problems identified in the evacuation time estimate study (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony, p. 55);
(14) Unique groups within the plume EPZ requiring special provisions for protective actions (e.g., Old Grder Amish) should be identified and special provisions for their protectinn c.ade (Bath /Adler 3/16 Testimony,pp.62-63);
(15) Development of training programs for non-licensee personnel should be completed and initial training of such persons completed before restart (Joint Chesnut/ Bath Testimony, p.16).
FEMA"s Findings and Determinations FEMA has been requested to provide its findings and detenlinations g-on the adekuacy of offsite energency planning for TMI on or before
~
i
!!ay 15,1981.
(C)
Overall Integrated Emergency-Preparedness IIRC Staff's evaluation of the adequacy of overall, integrated emergency preparedness cannot be conpleted until the FEMA findings and detenninations on offsite emergency preparedness are available.
(D)
Full Scale Exercise Required by the Commission's August 9, 1979 Order The exercise required by the Conmission's August 9, 1979 Order is now scheduled for June 2,1981.3/
(E) Schedule for Completion of Review and for Addressing Unresolsed MattersT Emergency Planning FEMA has conmitted to provide, by flay 15, 1981, its findings and determinations on offsite emergency planning, based on the state of offsite planning at that time.
FEMA's written findings and determinations will also address the status of resolution of those unresolved items and deficiencies (designated above as items (B)(1) through (B)(15)) identified in FEf1A's written testimony on contentions.
I
-3/
It is the Staff's understanding that FEMA and the Commonwaalth are discussing a rescheduling of the exercise which would result in the exercise being held at a date later than June 2,1981.
No resched-uling has occurred at this time. The Staff is now preparing an information paper to inform the Commission of the current FE!!A-State discussions and possibility that FEffA and the Canmonwealth may seek to delay the exercise beyond June 2.
By Ny 29,1981,14 days after issuance of the fella findings and detenninations, the Staff will. issue an Emergency Planning SER g
t Supplemen't (NUREG-0746, Supp.1) which will address the resolution of four of the five unresolved matters on onsite emergency planning (designated above as items A(2) through A(5)), incorporate the FE!1A fi'idings and detenlinations of May 15, 1981, and present a determination o1 the adequacy of the overall emergency plann;ng for T!11-1.
The Staff v:ould propose to of fer the FEl1A findings and detenainatins and the Emergency Planning SER Supplement into evidence as soon as possible after the Emergency Planning SER Supplement is issued.
As to the licensee's evacuation time estimate study (designated above as item A(1))
the Staff's consultant's report on the adequcy of the methodology of that study and its conformance to the guidance of NUREG-0554 will be issued by April 6, 1981.
The Staff's consultant would be available to
}
testify shortly thereafter although the precise date of his availbility for testimony has not been established.
Tha NRC/FEt1A report on the full scale exercise will be issued 14 days after the exercise is conducted.
The Staff and FEMA thus would be prepared to testify as to the results of the exercise upon the issuance of the exercise report in the event that the Licensing Board, in its discretion, detennines that testimony on the exercise should be pro-vided.
Respectfully submitted, t
/*4 c y
[b sep '
ray oun _1 for NRC Staff 7 Dated at Bethesda, i4aryland this 30th day of 14 arch,1981
e UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter nf MElROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S MEM0RANDUM AND ORDER ON EFFECT OF NEW EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in I
the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comnissit n's internal mail system, this 30th day of March, 1981:
Ivan W. Smi th, Esq., Chainnan*
Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Administrative Judge Deparbnent of Justice Ato:nic Safety and Licensing Beard Strawberry Square,14th Floor 25 North Court Street Harrisburg, PA 17127 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Steven C. Sholly Dr. Ualter H. Jordan Union of Concerned Scientists Adninistrative Judge 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 501 25 North Court Street Washington, DC 20006 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Linda W. Little Bureau of Radiation Protection Adninistrative Judge Department of Environmental 25 North Court Street Resources Harrisburg, PA 17105 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittnan, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 1800 M Street, N.W.
6504 Bradford Terrace Uashington, DC 20006 Philadephia, PA 19149 Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Metropolitan Edison Company 505 Executive House ATTN:
J.G. Herbein, Vice P.O. Box 2357 President Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 Hen 0rable Mark Cohen 512 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 4
!!s. Jane Lee John Levin. Esq.
R.D. #3, Box 3521 PA Public Utilities Connission Etters, PA.17319 Box 3265
~
Harrisburg, PA 17120 i-Ms. Gail P. 'Bradford
~
Al:GRY Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
245 West Philadelphia Street Fox, Farr and Cunningham York, PA 17404 2320 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 John E.111nnich, Chairman Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Ms. Louise Bradford Pauphin County Courthouse TMI ALERT Front and Market Streets 1011 Green Street
!!arrisburg, PA 17101 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Robert Q. Pollard its. Ellyn R. Weiss 609 Montpelier Street Sheldon, Hamon & Weiss i
Baltimore, MD 21218 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Chauncey Kepford Uashington, DC 20006 Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Thomas J. Gennine, Deputy
' uclear Power Attorney General 433 Orlando Avenue Division of Law - Room 316 State Col.lege, PA 16801 1100 Ray.nond Boulevard Newark, N.J.
07102 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Postponement Panel
- 2610 Grendon Driva U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wilmington, DE 19308 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal R.D. #5 Panel (5)
'Coatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Uashington, DC 20555 Senator Allen R. Carter, Chainnan Joint Legislative Committee on Docketing and Service Section (7)
Energy Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 142 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 513 Senate Gressette Bldg.
Washington, DC 20555 Columbia, SC 29202 44Y
&1 7 seph R. Gra
/
0 dounsel for NRC Staff
-