ML20040B913
| ML20040B913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Concoran T, Corcoran T HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B914 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201260587 | |
| Download: ML20040B913 (7) | |
Text
v
/
%g UNITED STATES
.~ o
~
E' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
W/4HINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,*****/
December 10, 1981 CHAlNMAN Y
g a
[
RECEWED t
t DEC2 91981 > F3
~
The Honorable Thomas Corcoran usemusumemmam United States House of Representatives 9
" n "ac 7
. Washington, D.C.
20515 m
Dear Congressman Corcoran:
This. letter is in response to your inquiry of September 25, 1981 requesting information on emergency exercises for nuclear power plants. addresses your specific questions.
A list of recent exercises held in Illinois is provided in Enclosure 2.
Specific exercise dates are scheduled by States in coordination with the nuclear plant utilities.
Recent correspondence with regard to the Federal Emergency Management Agency assessment of the La Salle exercise is provided in Enclosure 3.
I trust this information is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, 7
.A%y
-fd 8e-f(ss y '
Nunzio J. {a ladino
Enclosures:
- 1. Answers to Questions 2.
Recent Exercises in Illinois l
- 3. FEMA Assessment _of La Salle I
l
{
l l
8201260587 811210 t
PDR ADOCK 05000010 l
F PDR
~
l RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY CONGRESSMAN THOMAS CORCORAN IN LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1981 1.
Question:
What federal statutory authority exists that requires emergency exercises at commercial power stations?
Answer:
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. as amended, provide the NRC with the responsibility and authority to regulate the use of nuclear power and to promulgate rules and regulations to protect the health and safety of the public.
In addition, the NRC Auth-orization Act for FY 1980 (Pub.L.96-295) provided additional authority in the area of emergency planning and preparedness.
2.
Question:
What federal regulations exist that implement any existing statutory authority regarding these exercises?
Answer:
The Federal regulations that implement the statutory authority are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The s pect 'ic regulations related to emergency preparedness and emergency exercises are contained in Part 50 and were revised in 1980.
A copy of the revision printed in the Federal Register is enclosed.
The provisions relating to exercises are found in 55 50.45(b)(14) an.d 50.54(q) and in l
Appendix E.
Part IV.F (pages 55409', 55412-13 of the Federal Register).
In summary, the regulations require that licensees develop emergency plans, and that they exercise them on an annual basis.
The regulations also require that the licensees l
ensure that offsite plans are developed, and that licensee plans be exercised in coordinatien with the offsite pl a ns.
l 3.
Question:
l Are there di f ferent kinds of exercises or drills?
If so,
please explain.
Answer:
There are different kinds of exercises and drills from the standpoint of participation of various parties,.
Section II,
2 Subsection d of the attached guidance document, "C ri te ri a for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of. Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, November 1980),
describes the differences between an exercise and a drill and provides descriptions of several kinds of drills.
4.
Question:
To your knowledge is there any pending federal legislation regarding this issue?
Answer:
To my knowledge, there is no pending Federal legislation regarding this issue.
5.
Question:
Is there any federal rulemaking, current or contemplated, regarding this issue?
If so, please describe.
Answer:
We are contemplating a change in the current regulation which requires an annual exercise.
The change would stipulate that no State or local government would have to exercise fully more than once a year.
6.
Questicn:
l What is the basis for determining the frequency of exercises?
Answer:
l l
The requirement for the frequency of exercises is based on i
judgment.
There are.at least two purposes for the exercises:
(1) to allow responders to become familiar with the roles they would plcy in an emergency, thereby reducing the chance for error at that time, (2) to test the integrated capabili ty of the basic elements and to discover deficiences which must be corrected.
Whether these purposes can be accomplished by exercising once per year or at some other frequency.cannot
~
be decioed absolutely.
In some disciplines, exercis~es are more f requent than. annually.
For example, the Joint Committee on Accreditation of the American Hospital As.sociation requires hospitals to havt internal disaster, fire, and evacuation plans c
e w
I l.
3 and that drills for these plans be held at least quarterly for each work shift of hospital personnel (totaling not less than 12 drills per year).
There is also a requirement for an external disaster plan which must be developed by consulting local civil authorities.
To quote from the Accreditation Manual, "The external disaster plan shall be rehearsed at least twice per year.
There should be evidence that a concerted effort has been made to use the plan in a coordinated When the NRC and FEMA developed the current exercise frequency, comments were solicited from many sources, including an advisory committee called the Interorganizational Advisory Committee (10AC) of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, which consists of four representatives each of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (the State radiological health officers), the National Emer emergency service directors)gency Management Association (State
, and the U.S. Civil Defense Council (local civil defense directors).
from the I0AC objected to annual exercises because States withOne The final NRC rule provided that a licensee at a partic need only exercise with a State fully pa -ticipating once every five years provided enough additional exercises were held to allow the State to participate fully in an exercise annually.
The rule revision now under consideration would not require a State or local government to exercise fully more than once a year.
We do believe it to have an initia.1important for each State and local jurisdiction as possible.
exercise with each newly licensed site as soon 7.
Question Are there any special considerations applying to areas that are located within more than one " emergency planning zone"?
Answer:
1 i
The present regulations States that have more than one reactor site.take into consideration special ca the revision now under considera~ tion would provide relief forAs mentioned abo local jurisdictions as well.
l l
9
Tucsday August 19,1980 t
E V
a - =.
a
_::= 6==sde==
=_
m T,
r,a==l
.= _=
w_
g = e =. -
m S_.
~
r_ _ - _ e
~
=_
Part Vill
=
w w
M Nuclear Regulatory Commission w
s E.
=E Emergency Planning; Final Regulations lie!====-
l
.~
^
l
=
W M
E s
=
=
--.h
= = _
m g==== J E.L !!!
a
_- --=
E _. _ _.J E
E
NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1 Rev.1 Criteria for Preparation and Eva uation o Racio ogica Emergency Response P ans anc 3reparedness in Support o
\\ uc ear Power 3lants U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Emergency Management Commission Agency pa "%,
47 h,k!Nh,f c-u
\\
E
' ~~
ENCLOSURE 2 k?
- s 9
LIST OF RECENT EXERCISES
' AT ILLIN0IS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES Status of FEMA Facility Exercise Date Written Critique LaSalle 12/04/80 Complete
' ~
Quad Cities 5/20/81 Pending Zion 7/29/81 Pending Dresden 9/30/81 Pending..
P e
l f
a s
6 e
-m w.
g y.
y y
-.wf 6
-e-
.-n----c
~
ENCLOSURE 3 x&%
.ffQ kk'p Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472
~
~
OCT 2 21981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Brian Grimes Director Division of Emergency Preparedness U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commassion ijhj c')
FROM:
Robert T. Jaske'9.rJ.
p5f Acting Chief 8
Technological Hazards Division Office of Natural and Technological Hazards
SUBJECT:
Interim Findings for the La Salle Nuclear Power Facility in Illinois This responds to the schedule in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Feden Emergency Management Agency joint monthly report tc Congress which commits us to l
make the subject finding.
i By letter of May 13, 1981, we informed you in an interim finding that there were two deficiencies in the off-site preparedness for the La Salle facility that pre <
cluded a finding of adequacy.
One of these was the poor performance of Grundy County in carrying out its responsibilities under its preparedness plans in the exercise of the Dresden facility on October 28, 1980, and repeated in the exereir of the La Salle facility on December 4, 1980.
The second deficiency of a major dimension'was the fact that the La Salle area wps not yet equipped with an j
alerting / notification system that conformed to the requirements of Appendix 3 of the NURt'G 0654.
We are now able to advise you that both of these deficiencies have now been remo) en September 30, 1981, Grundy County participated in a second exercise for the D facility and this time it did demonstrate an adequate capability that assures th protection of the health and safety of the public.
We have reviewed in detail G i
County's performance, keyed to the elements of the NUREG 0654 and we are satisfi that the county of ficials not only understand their responsibilities but can car them out with an accepted level of capability.
There remain some minor deficien but we believe that with further drills and training, these will be corrected.
Concerning the alerting / notification system, we refer to a copy of a letter in os file from Commonwealth Edison Company dated April 27, 1981, to Mr Harold Denton the NRC advising him that a siren system will have been installed by October 19, and which should.be operational one month later.
The system will be required to tested and evaluated by the FEMA Region V as to whether it meets the Criteria of l
Appendix 3.
On receipt of this information, we will so advise you.
l In summary, our interim find'ing is that the off-site preparedness for the La Sal facility subject only to the confirmation by our Region V concerning the alerti notification system has now attained a level of acceptable adequacy as to provid.
l reasonable assuredness for the protection of the public health and safety.
l l
If you have any further questions, please ' contact Frank Bourgin, Project Officer for La Salle.
wW gf f / A c /, e r &J,
i.
f
\\
l ng
)
\\
t 1
't
\\
l
.~., -.
~
.~. :. -..~ ~.:
. v i
..n.,
i" L : *
.-'s \\.
b
..t"e "cn D C 2' M 2 i
,( n y ~
M Ig MAY 13 19 81 I
Mr. Brian Grimes 8
Qy 25 g Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness s
4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
$s NM c.
\\M-
Dear Brian:
kh This responds to your memoranda of March 10 and March 17, 1981, requesting findings and detrmination on the status of State and local off-site preparedness relative to the LaSalle nuclear station in Illinois.
We_have reviewed the State and local plans in draft as completed in
.I: -f December 1980.
The State of Illinois has since, by letter dated March 31,
)
1981,,. formally submitted its radiological emergency plans to the Federal j
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region V office.
It included the " State l
.,N Plan for Radiological Accidents for the State of Illinois" and the local plans for LaSalle and Grundy Counties which are impacted by the ' plume zone.
The FEMA Region V Regional Assistance Committ'ee (RAC) is currently reviewing the plans.
j Two joint. exercises have been held on the State plan; the first for the site specific Dresden plan on October 28, 1980, and the second on December 4,1980, for the LaSelle. site..The LaSalle exercise evaluation confirmed the conclusioK of the earlier exercise, that the State had effectively demonstrated a capabil$
to protect the public in the event of a plant emergency.
The two counties impacted by the plume exposure zone, LaSalle and Grundy, showe widely differing degrees of capability in the exercise. This was LaSalle County's first experience with a radiological exercise and it generally reveal lack of knowledge and familiarity of the procedures. This is minor and correctable through further training, the use of checklists and SOPS. Grundy County, however, has given a very poor performance in both tha LaSalle and Dres l
exercises by casual indifference and lack of knowledge of its plans and pro-cedures.
H There is no reference in any of the plans to meeting the requirements for aler@
and notification as described in Appendix 3 of Criteria E-6 of NUREG-0654/FEMAq REP-1, Revision 1.
A public meeting was held on December 5,1980, at Ottawa, ;
Illinois, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.10.
The FEMA Region V has submitted iQ recommendations resulting from the LaSalle exercise to the State, but as of thj; date, the State has not responded.
Frcn the foregoing, we find that the State of Illinois per se appears adequate 3 preparedtoprotectthepublicintheeventofanuclearaccidentattheLaSal(
site. We find that while deficiencies exist in the capabilities of LaSalle Co v it does have an adequate capability to respond, but conditioned upon further l l
training of its officials and developing checklists and SOPS. We find that Grundy County, having performed poorly in both the Dresden and LaSalle exercic%
must be judged as not having a capability to protect the public.and at substan}
improvements are needed to meet'a level of adequacy. Finally, we find that th alerting and notification system does not meet the current criteria.
F
7' 7,,
~~
The foregoing describes the status of the plans and preparedness for the LaSalle site at this time.
At such time as we complete the formal process outined in 44 CFR 350 (proposed), we will promptly provide final findings and determination.
Sincerely yours,,
-Qo fi E.'DiEke'y
'[
Director, Radiological Emergency
_, Preparedness Division e
I l
l l
l l
I 9
9