ML20027A056
| ML20027A056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Specter A SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410060158 | |
| Download: ML20027A056 (3) | |
Text
'
September 29, 1994 The Honorable Arisn Specter i
United States Senate Washington DC 20510-3802
Dear Senator Specter:
I am responding to your letter of August 18, 1994, in which you forwarded correspondence from Robert Gary to Dennis Rathbun concerning the evacuation zone around the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Station. The st.aff responded directly to Mr. Gary on September 20, 1994. A copy of our response is enclosed.
~
I trust this response clarifies the staff's position in regard to Dr. Gary's questions about the evacuation zone around the TMI Nuclear Station.
Sincerely, Originals 1gned by James M.Tayh James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page l
www DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\HERNAN\\ SPECTER.9-6 0FFICE LA:PDI-4 l
PE:PDI-4 l
PM:PDI-4 l
ADRI(actg) l TECH ED l
NAME SNorri F "
MGriggs:cn, W1 RHernan 6/14V CMiller 4 MMejac*
c DATE 09/Ji/94 09/St/2P '
p9/21/94' 09/IN/94 09/06/94 0FFICE D:DRPE A AD M / \\
4:NRR/ &
EDON/
//M NAME S9sVg) 4fMhVrmaW 'd WRussell JT816r'
'i
(/A DATE 09E"/94 09M /94 \\\\
09/sh/94 09/>y94 D bCt i
gBTCIAL RECORD COPY
\\
0 J/.L 00 & a /Si)
XM ggq
_. s
V bAtDfQ1 hk l
Distribution:
Letter to A. Specter. Dated Seotember 29. 1994 s
' Central File (50-289).(w/ incoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
E00 #0010400 EDO Rdg.
JTaylor JMilhoan HThompson KCyr, 0GC JBlaha WRussell/FMiraglia RZimerman AThadani DCrutchfield PD I-4 Controlled Correspondence File (w/ incoming)
.'!n ra a CMiller (Acting)
JStolz OGC OPA OCA SECY # CRC-94-0838 NRR Mailroom (EDO #0010400 w/ incoming (0-12-G-18)
N01 son LDodley ADRI Secy RHernan w/ incoming MGriggs SNorris JFRogge, RI REmch JCalvo I
- +
m
+=
Q&
e-0b
. (B\\
3, n > c...
uum.
\\ \\
g.
i i
[
The Honorable Arlen Specter T>
cc:
Michael Ross Robert B. Borsum O&M Director, THI-1 B&W Nuclear Technologies GPU Nuclear Corporation Suite 525 Post Office Box 480 1700 Rockville Pike Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Rockville, Maryland 20852 John C. Fornicola William Dornsife, Acting Director Director, Licensing and Bureau of Radiation Protection Regulatory Affairs Pennsylvania Department of GPU Nuclear Corporation Environmental Resources 100 Interpace Parkway Post Office Box 2063 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Jack S. Wetmore Dr. Judith Johnsrud TMI Licensing Manager National Energy Comittee
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation SO:rra Club Post Office Box 480 413 Grlando Avenue Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 State College, PA 16803 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire Mr. T. Gary Broughton, Vice President Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge and Director - THI-l 2300 N Street, NW.
GPU Nuclear Corporation Washington, DC 20037 Post Office Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Board of County Comissioners Mr. Joseph La Fleur, Director of Dauphin County Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency i
Dauphin County Courthouse Transportation & Safety Building i
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Rm. B151 Forster & Comonwealth Avenues 01G.Jm'*
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Board of Supervisors of Londonderry Township Mr. Dennis H. Kwiatkowski R.D. #1, Geyers Church Road Federal Emergency Management Agency Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 500 C Street, SW
~
Washington, DC 20472 Michele G. Evans Senior Resident Inspector (THI-1)
Ms. Rita A. Calvan, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region III Post Office Box 311 Federal Emergency Management Agency Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Liberty Square Building 105 South Seventh Street Regional Administrator, Region I Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3316 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
,p* " %,.,
t.
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 J
October 3, 1994 I was not sure if the distribution sheet was attached to the central file, so I am sending another copy.
~
%g UNITED STATES l
W*.
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
,4
{
f wAsmNGTON, D.C. 20666
~
September 20, 1994 0FFICE OF THE SECR E TA R Y
'Mr. Robert Gary Senior Researcher Pennsylvania Institute for Clean Air 2211 Washington Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Gary:
I am responding to your letters of August 1,1994, to Chairman Ivan Selin, William Russell, and me. Those letters sought reconsideration of Director's Decision D0-94-03 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(NRC)-insofar as the decision denied your request to expand the 10-mile Exposure Plume Pathway.
Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Three Mile ' Island Nuclear Station (TMI) to include the entire City of Harrisburg.
I am also enclosing my response to Mayor Stephen R. Reed's letter of July 27, 1994, to William Russell that also requested reconsideration of the Director's Decision.
The letters cited above request a Commission-level review of the Director's Decision on the ground that " mistakes of fact" were made in that decision, as well as in a letter to you from William Russell, dated June 10, 1994.
Specifically, your letters state that the Director's Decision and Mr. Russell's letter of June 10, 1994, were based on "the same mistaken interpretation" of Mayor Reed's letter to you, dated February 8, 1993.
Further, you state that this mistake of fact was " corrected in a timely fashion by PICA [ Pennsylvania Institute for Clean Air] and Mayor R ed,"
presumably, by Mayor Reed's letter of July 27, 1994 to Mr. Russell. Your letters also request reconsideration of 00-94-03 on the ground that F
Mayor Reed's July 27,.1994, letter contains new and important information.
The staff advises that DD-94-03 and Mr. Russell's June 10, 1994, letter correctly interpreted Mayor Reed's letter of February 8,1993, as indicating i
that Mayor Reed. be.li.eved the City of.Harrisburg would._be _able to mo.bilize sufficient resources to support evacuation of both Harrisburg's portion of the j
10-mile EPZ and the contiguous area of Harrisburg to the north. DD-94-03 and Mr. Russell's June 10,1994,. letter both referenced Mayor Reed's February 8, 1993, letter to you, which states:
For Harrisburg, therefore, we would expect to mobilize resources sufficient to evacuate not only our part of the official EPZ but areas to its north. We have sufficient identified resources in our plan to accomplish this, even though such is not officially recognized by any other level of the emergency management system.
Additionally, Mayor Reed's July 27,1994, state 6ent that official emergency t
plans address evacuation only within the 10-mile EPZ, but not for the entire i
City of Harrisburg, confirms and doe ~s not contradict his February 8, 1993, letter, which states that evacuation of Harrisburg is not officially recognized in the emergency management system. Accordingly, the staff concludes that you and Mayor Reed have not demonstrated any mistaken t_
g%i ENCLOSURE
a F -
i Mr. Robert Gary t interpretation of Mayor Reed's February 8, 1993, letter, by either DD-94-03 or by Mr. Russell's June 10, 1994, letter.
In addition, I have been advised by the NRC staff that Mayor Reed's assessment of Harrisburg's emergency response capabilities was discussed in but not
. relied upon for the staff's decision. The staff advises that the Director's Decision was based primarily on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's reviews and investigations of the emergency plans for TMI and evaluations.of THI's emergency plan exercises.
You and Mayor Reed have also requested reconsideration on the ground that Mayor Reed presented new and important information in his letter of July 27,
- i 1994, summarized as follows:
Based on Harrisburg's experience during the TMI accident, an unplanned mass evacuation will occur in the Harrisburg area outside the 10-mile EPZ surrounding TMI if evacuation is recommended inside the EPZ. This unplanned mass evacuation will impede effective evacuation of the EPZ. Although the City of Harrisburg has an All-Hazards Emergency Management Plan, the plan does not have sufficient resources to deal with an unplanned mass evacuation outside of the EPZ. The i
EPZ should be expanded to include Harrisburg so that planning would properly address these problems.
1 The NRC staff also advises me that the potential effect of an unplanned mass evacuation outside an EPZ has been considered and addressed in previous cases by the NRC. Notably, it was addressed during the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing for Shoreham.
Since the TMI-2 accident, emergency preparedness plans around nuclear power plants have improved greatly.
Evacuation Time i
Estimates analyze the traffic patterns for an evacuation of the EPZ, and emergency plans for the EPZ include provisions for traffic control. Al so, actual behavior in all kinds of emergencies studied by behavioral experts over J
the years indicates that, given accurate and consistent'information, most people respond rationally in an emergency. Nugar. power plant emergency plans are designed to provide that accurate and consistent information. Mayor Reed's current statements-about a potential unplanned mass evacuation did not raise new and important information. In conclusion, the staff advises that no new or important information has been presented that warrants reconsideration of the Director's Decision.
NRC regulations provide that the time period for Commission review on its own motion expires, and the Director's Decision becomes final, when the Commission declines to review a Director's Decision. itg 10 CFR 2.206(c)(1).
You and Mayor Reed were notified on May 6,1994, that the Commission declined formal review of DD-94-03.
Further, NRC regulations pr9 vide that the Commission will-not entertain petitions for review. Egg 10 CFR 2.206(c)(2). Accordingly, 00-94-03 remains the final agency action in response to your Petition.
i
s Mr. Robert Gary Although the Commission will not formally reconsider D0-94-03, your letters were referred to the NRC staff for its consideration. As discussed above, i
I have been advised by the NRC staff that you have not presented grounds that could, in any case, justify reconsideration of the issues addressed in DD-94-03.
Sincerely, I
k_
hn C. Ho e i
Acting Secretary
Enclosure:
Letter from John C. Hoyle to Mayor Stephen R. Reed, dated September 20, 1994 cc w/o encl:
See next page
j/* %%
UNITED STATES 3g.
k e*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j,
W ASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20555 s
September 20, 1994 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Honorable Stephen R. Reed Mayor of Harrisburg Harrisburg City Government Center Harrisburg, PA 17101-1678
Dear Mayor Reed:
I am responding to your letter of July 27, 1994 to William Russell.
I am also enclosing my response to Mr. Robert Gary's letters of August 1, 1994, to Chairman Ivan Selin, William Russell, and me. Those letters sought reconsideration of Director's Decision DD-94-03 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) insofar as the decision denied a request to expand the 10-mile Exposure Plume Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (THI) to include the entire City of Harrisburg.
Your letter also requested reconsideration of the Director's Decision.
The letters cited above request a Commission-level review of the Director's Decision on the ground that " mistakes of fact" were made in that decision, as well as in a letter to Mr. Gary from William Russell, dated June 10, 1994.
Specifically, Mr. Gary's letters state that the Director's Decision and Mr. Russell's letter of June 10, 1994, were based on "the same mistaken interpretation" of your letter to Mr. Gary, dated February 8,1993.
- Further, he states that this mistake of fact was " corrected in a timely fashion by PICA
[ Pennsylvania Institute for Clean Air) and Mayor Reed," presumably, by your letter of July 27, 1994, to Mr. Russell. Mr. Gary's letters of August 1 also request reconsideration of DD-94-03 on the ground that your July 27, 1994, letter contains new and importan't information.
The staff advises that DD-94-03 and Mr. Russell's June 10, 1994, letter correctly interpreted your letter of February 8, 1993, as indicating that you believed the City of Harrisburg would be able to mobilize sufficient resources to support evacuation of both Harrisburg's portion of the 10-mile EPZ and the contiguous area of Harrisburg to the north. DD-94-03 and Mr. Russell's June 10, 1994, letter both referenced your February 8, 1993, letter to Mr. Gary, which states:
For Harrisburg, therefore, we would expect to mobilize resources sufficient to evacuate not only our part of the official EPZ but areas to its north. We have sufficient identified resources in our plan to accomplish this, even though such is not officially recognized by any other level of the emergency management system.
Additionally, your July 27, 1994, statement that' official emergency plans address evacuation only within the 10-mile EPZ, but not for the entire City of Harrisburg, confirms and does not contradict your February 8,1993, letter, which states that evacuation of Harrisburg is not offjcially recognized in the 54 h A(L91 ^ t 4/1_. Q,/
v wttulctT
~(
.y. -
' The Honorable Stephen R.' Reed <
t emergency management system.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that you and Mr. Gary have not demonstrated any mistaken interpretation of your February 8, 1993, letter, by either DD-94-03 or by Mr.' Russell's June 10, 1994, letter.
In addition, I have been advised by the NRC staff that the assessment of Harrisburg's emergency response' capabilities was discussed in but not relied upon for the staff's decision. The staff advises that the Director's Decision was based primarily on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's reviews and investigations of the-emergency plans for TMI and evaluations of TMI's emergency plan exercises.
You and Mr. Gary have.also requested reconsideration on the ground that you presented new and important information in your letter of July 27, 1994, summarized as follows:
Based on Harrisburg's experience during the TMI accident, an unplanned mass avacuation will occur in the Harrisburg area outside the 10-mile EPZ surrounding TMI.if evacuation is recommended inside the EPZ. This unplanned mass evacuation will impede effective evacuation of the EPZ. Although the City of Harrisburg has an All-Hazards Emergency Management Plan, the plan does not have sufficient resources to deal with an unplanned mass evacuation outside of the EPZ. The EPZ should be expanded to include Harrisburg so that planning would properly address these problems.
The NRC staff also advises me that the potential effect of an unplanned mass evacuation outside an EPZ has been considered and addressed in previous _ cases by the NRC. Notably, it was addressed during the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing for Shoreham.
Since the THI-2 accident, emergency preparedness plans around nuclear power plants have improved greatly.
Evacuation Time Estimates analyze the traffic patterns for an evacuation of the EPZ, and emergency plans for the EPZ include provisions for traffic control. Also, actual behavior in all kinds of emergencies studied by behavioral experts over the years indicates that, given accurate and consistent information, most people respond rationally in an emergency.
Nuclear power plant emergency plans are designed to provide that accurate and consistent information.
Your current statements about a potential unplanned mass evacuation did not raise new and important information. In conclusion, the staff advises that no new or important information has been presented that warrants reconsideration of the Director's Decision.
NRC regulations provide that the time period for Commission review on its own motion expires, and the Director's Decision becomes final, when the Commission declines to review a Director's Decision. Eq.g 10 CFR 2.206(c)(1).
You and Mr. Gary were notified on May 6,1994, that the Commission declined formal review of DD-94-03.
Further, NRC regulations provide that the Commission will not entertain petitions for review. Eg.g 10 CFR 2.206(c)(2). Accordingly, DD-94-03 remains the final agency action in response to Mr. Gary's Petition.
s
.e; The Honorable Stephen R. Reed,
Although the Commission will not formally reconsider DD-94-03, your letters were referred to the NRC staff for its consideration. As discussed above, I have been advised by the NRC staff that you have not presented grounds that could, in any case, justify reconsideration of the issues addressed in D0-94-03.
Sincerely, ah n e
Acting Secretary
Enclosure:
Letter from John C. Hoyle to Robert Gary, dated September 20, 1994 cc w/o enc 1:
See next page v.,-.
.-ona l
I l
1
y i
e 3 N a, l
o EDO Principal Correspondence Control G
FROM:
DUE: 09 94
/
EDO CONTROL: 0010400 p4 g
DOC DT: 08/18/94 FINAL REPLY:
F oj Sun. Arlen Specter Y
TO:
Dennis Rathbun, OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 94-0838 Executive Director DESC:
ROUTING:
ENCLOSES CORRESPONDENCE FROM ROBERT GARY, Taylor PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTE FOR CLEAN AIR (PICA)
Milhoan REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION Thompon (DD-94-03) PERTAINING TO EVACUATION ZONE AROUND Cyr, OGC TMI DATE: 08/23/94 j
ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
JJRR Russell SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
.w +
AUGUST 23,.1-94 ACTION l
i NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA DUE TO NRR D.'RECiuR S OFFICE NRR ROUTING:
RUSSELL MIRAGLIA ZIMMERMAN i
BY j
THADANI CRUTCHFIELD g
B0HRER
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDFNCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-94-0838 LOGGING DATE: Aug 22 94 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
Arland Specter AFFILIATION:
U.S.
SENATE.
ADDRESSEE:
Rathbun LETTER DATE:
Aug 18 94 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
Constituent's interest'in obtaining reconsideration.
of Director's Decision DD-94-03 -- City of Harrisburg's Emergency Management Plan ACTION:
Direct-Reply DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT:
Robert Gary NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Sep 6 94 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
1 1
EDO --- 010400
-