ML20041G056

Responds to Forwarding RG Mccollum Re Feasibility of Evacuating South Fork of Long Island in Event of Nuclear Accident.Evacuation & Other Protective Actions to Be Taken Discussed

ML20041G056
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/08/1982
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Damato A SENATE
Shared Package
ML20041G057	List: ML20041G056 ML20041G060
References
NUDOCS 8203190137
Download: ML20041G056 (6)

Text

_

t i

n t

i i

i IIIRFIIa00FF FEB 8 1982 s y,/,s 50-322

/

/

't P[ W t

%3 The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato 7,

0.-

United States Senate x 63

~

Washington, D. C. ~ 20510

],

g l

Dear Senator D'Amato:

,x

'y7 This responds to your letter of January 8,1982 wherein you forwa December 11,1981 letter from Mr. Richard G. McCollum expressing his concern with the feasibility of evacuating the South Fork of Long Island ir the p

event of a nuclear accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and t

indicating that the Suffolk County Planning Department is developing an j

evacuation plan which includes that area.

i 4

It is our understanding that the detailed evacuation plans for Suffolk l

County do not include the South Fork area since it lies well beyond the 10 mile plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). However, some consideration was given to the South Fork area in that one of the east-i west roads outside of the EPZ was " reserved" for persons who may wish to leave that area. This road was excluded from the evacuation plans for use by potential evacuees from the EPZ. As a matter of information, evacuation is only one of the various protective action strategies that could be taken in the event of a seri'ous accident.

In fact, for most of the serious low probability events, we envision that sheltering ~would be the more desirable action from a risk-benefit viewpoint. Even for the most serious type release, sheltering followed by a more leisurely relocation may be the t

optimum choice of protective measures. Here again, as in most disaster i

situations, the actual measures to be taken at the time of the event will be influenced by the many variables that bear on the decision-making process.

In the case of a nuclear power plant, such factors would include the release characteristics, meteorological conditions, operational time constraints, and the availability of shelter facilities.

The NRC considers it highly unlikely that evacuation would be requi red as i

a protective measure for the plume exposure pathway beyond the 10 mile 1

EPZ. This position is reflected in the enclosed NRC Policy Statement published in the Federal Register on October 23, 1979 (44 FR 61123),

and is discussed in detail in a joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report (NUREG-0396,copyenclosed)uhichwasendnrsedbytheCommissionforuseby State and local governments.

L i

.Exper ence~shows that evacuations are a relatively coamon event in this l

4 country.

In fact, the records show, at least since 1960, that an evacuation 7

takes place somewhere in the U. S. on ainest a weekly basis. The number

-l of people evacuated in these events has ranged from a few to hundreds

[

of thousands and some have occurred in high density urban and suburban e

r

.*.a.

• ~$319013782020e

' " ' " " ' " ' ~

gDRADOCK 05000322 PDR

- NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCMUm OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

- ~,. - - -. -. - - -.... - -

. - -. -i

The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato FEB 8 1982 areas. One evacuation occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1968 where 150,000 persons were evacuated in two hours. Another occurred in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania in 1972 where 75,000 persons were evacuated in five hours. Also, the metropolitan business district of downtown Portland, Oregon with a population of 101,000 persons and a population density approaching that of New York City, was evacuated in less than one hour during a Civil Defense test exercise in 1955. One of the largest evacuations in our history took place in 1961 as a result of hurricane Carla where over 500,000 people were evacuated from the States of Texas and Louisiana. Even though these are just a few examples, we consider that large scale evacuations are indeed feasibla, and are a viable option depending on the constraints imposed by the actual conditions at the time of the emergency.

We appreciate having this opportunity to respond to the concern of Mr. McCollum and hope that this infonnation will be of value to him.

Sincerely.

(signed) T. A, Rehm William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION:

1.

NRC Policy Statement IE Files dtd. October 23, 1979 EPLB Reading (44 FR 61123)

NRC PDR (w/ incoming) 2.

NUREG-0396 Local PDR (w/ incoming) 3.

Incoming Letter WDircks HRDenton GCunningham LUnderwood RCDeYoung JSnlezek BGrimes SSchwartz FPagano DMatthews RPriebe SWelch EPeyton BMatosko PBrandenberg (ED0-ll398)

SECY (82-27)

• For previous concurrences IE:D/DIR:DEP OCA (3)

OCA m//

see attached ORC

• SSchwartz 2

h 2/1/82

,, /

2/9/82 c yf

->. I E : EP,LB.,,,,,.. I E: EP(B,,,,, JE.:J M.

.IE:

. P_

.DIR_

. lE.

==4 *R,P,r,iebe,:e,sp.,*QMA t. thens...

• EPagana..

..B, i

.d eze.k,_,,

.RC

g..

WQirc.ks....

c=> 19982...

11.29182.....

1L29L82.....

2/h'82......

2L.182..

2& M-.. AlblB2...

""c'"""~*'"""

2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

c umm a

n. persons were evacuated in two hours and in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania in 1972 where 75,000 persens were evacuated in five hours. Also, the metro-politan business district of downtown Portland, Oregon with a population of 101,000 persons and a population density approaching tha,t of New York City, was evacuated in less than one hour during a Civ1VDefense test exercise in 1955. One of the largest evacuations in our history took place in 1961 as a result of hurricane Carla where over 500,000 people were evacuated from the States of Texas and Louisjana. Even though these are just a few examples, we consider that,large scale evacuations are indeed feasible, and are a viable option depending on the constraints imposed by the actual conditions at the time of the emergency.

j We appreciate having this opportunity to respond to the concern of Mr.

McCollum and hope that this information,will be of value to him.

/

Sincerely, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

,/

1.

NRC Policy Statement DISTRIBUTION' dtd October 23,1979 (44 FR 61123)

IE Files SWelch 2.

NUREG-0396 IE R/F OCA (3) 3.

Incoming letter EPLB R/F Secy (82-27)

NRC PDR (w/ incoming)

BMatosko PBrandenberg)

TERA (EOD-ll 398 Local PDR (w/ incoming)

WDircks EPeyton

/

KPerkins

,/

EKCornell

/

RCDeYoung b MA ffpful.S

/

BGrimes g pgigag

/

SSchwartz j/

FPagano

/-/

CRVan Niel

-rraoma5 Attorney, OELD

/

HRDenton

/

LUnderwood GCunningham OCA t

i s/ !

[f 1/

/ap

]

OFFICE) g g

""" " >..RPr.iebe"...

. DMa.tOews..

.JGPagan.

.....S S wartz..

. 80 e

..RCDeYougg..

... M J D.i r.ck s...

........ /. / 8 21/ /82 1/ /82 i

1/4 1/a0 /82 3.1lI/82 29

....M.../.8 2...r.)...........

.../4't./. 8 2 1

osac) 2.

NRC FORM 318 410,801 N RCM O210 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• usceO iseo-329 82a

i w

q Federal Register / Vol 44. No. 20s / Tuesdry. October 23, 1979 / Noticee 81123 priate and prudent for emergency NUREG-030s. EPA 520/1-78-018 dated a

December 1978. Single copies of the

' guidance to take into report can be obtained by writing to the consideration the principal Director. Division of Technical charactenstics (such as nuclides Infor. nation and Document Control.

released and distances likely to be Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

involved) of a spectrum of design basis Washington. D.C. 20555. ne task force and core melt accidents. While the report was published for public Commission recogmzes that the comment in the Federal Register on guidance may have significant response December 15,1978 and the comment impacts for many locallurisdictions 11 period was extended to May 15.197L :o believes that implementation of the allow additional comments resulting guidance is navetheless needed to from the accident at nree Mile Island.

improve emergency response planning A synopsis of the comments received

- and preparedness around nuclear powse and the task force consideration of these reactors.

comments is avail.sble from the The Commission is direction its staff

- Assistant Duector for Emergency to incorporate the planning basia Preparedness. Office of State Programs, guidance into existing denmants used U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the evaluation of state anlocal.

Washington. D.C. 20555.

emergency response plans to the extant practicable.He NRC has recently Planning Basis published and Advance Notice of The major recommendation of the Proposed Fn1=== king concerning report is that two Emergency Planning additional regulations on emergency Zones (EPZs) should be established

. plana. 44 FR 41484. Tuesday, July 17.

around light water nuclear power planta. 1979. Additional guidance will be The EPZ for airbome exposure has a provided following this rulemaking.%is radius of about to miles: the EPZ for additional guidance can be expected to contaminated food has a radlua of about consider how local conditions such as 50 miles. Predetennined protective demography, land use, and meteorology artMn plans are needed for the EPZs.

can influence the size an shape of the

• fhe exget size and shape of each EPZ EPZs and to address otherissues, such will be decided by emergency planning as evacuation planning.

officials after they consider the specific Specific implementation dates for full conditions at each site.These distances implementation of the task force are considered large enough to provide a recommendations and any others that response base which would support are developed will be established as Planning Basis for Emergency activity outside the planning zone part of the ongoing rulemaking effort.

I Responsas to Nuclear Power Reactor should this ever be needed..

The Commission also expects the staff Accklents The report also provides plancing to assist state and local governments in basis guidance in the form of a range of improving their emergency response AcaNCYt Nuclear Regulatory me va ues in which emergency capabilities at existing sites in the Commission-response ofilcials should be prepared to immediate future.

ACTioet NRC Policy Statement.

Implement protective action. The 1eport a

slada day d indicatee that, depending on such da g[

Purpose fectors ae the e,,m:ifi: sequence of For the Nuclear Regulatory Co==la=ia=

- This is a statement of pob,ey with events during an accident whica results IN regard to an Environmental Protection in the release of radioactivity to the Agency (EPA) and Nuclear Regulatory atmosbpere and the prevailing SecretaryoftheCommission.

Commission (NRC) task farce report on meteorological conditions, protective IM Du Sml rund Su aos aml same coor moes.es guidance for use in state and local action may be required from perhaps radiological emergency response plans one-half hour to one day after the at nuclear power plants.

intiation of the accident.Davelopment and periodic testing of procedures for

Background

rapid notification of emergency The NRC received a request from the respense officials is encouraged, since '

3 Conference of Radiation Control the time available for action is strongly Program Directors, an organization of affected by the time consumed in State officials, to "make a determination notification.

of the most servere accident basis for The chemical and physical whida radiological emergency response characteristics of those radionuclides plans shmdd be developed by ofIsite which contribute nost significantly to agencies."In response, an EPA and NRC human exposure are presented.

task force was established which prepared a report entitled " Planning NRC Policy Basis for the Development of State and NRC concurs in and endorses for use Local Government Radiobsical the guidance contained in the task form Emergency Response Plans in Support of report. In endorsmg this guidance, the Light Water NuclearPtnoer Plants."

Commission recognizes that it is

~

e

~,

f,-

e-v I-! y,,

h

. p.

g...:+.

a, 9-3:

FROM:

s ACTION CONTROL

' DATES CONTROL NO s 3,,c u r,,,, 3. = g COMPLDenO m errin -

1B98:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT-INTERIM REPLY-j fgg

-$'/g [~f '-

PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE '. l/

TO; FINAL REPLY M/kL g

CHAIRMAN FILE LOCATION -

D EXECUTIVE DIR'ECTOR ;

blM h%h 2lMQb OTHER:

DESCRIPTION -

LETTER O MEMO. O REPOPT- 0 OTHER SP'ECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REf4 ARKS,

s.

Enc 1 Itr As Richard G. McCollten. Vf11 age ef Marth Haven re avacuattaa plan fer roJd4 M d pac Y ".

koc-1sp,dch 4(DOR-obboO'

- CLASSIFIED DATA OOCUMC 1T/ COPY NO.

CLASSIFICATION l NUMBER OF PAGES -

CATEGORY, POSTAL REGISTRY NO.

O NSI ' O RO JD FRD ASSIGNED TO:

DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW -

0 FINAL-O COPY

"- -- - ' f r 1/1A117 M ga ASSIGNED To:

DATE L OBJECTIONS p

Cuesteghan~

o EoO AOMiNt>CORnEs en ljgd4 h EXT.

/

COMM ENTS, NOTIFY:

E X T. -

h A h CT C.,

N JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:

O vEs-U NO

' NRC FORM 232 '

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS' 00 NOT ' REMOVE'THIS Chi'Y PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE-CONTROL 9

Qf 82-27 Logging Date 1/15/82

- No.

NRC SECRETARIAT D.t.

TO: O commissioner E xec. DirJOper.

O cen.couns.i O soi.citor O cons ti.ison.

O secret.rv O Pubtw: Aff. irs 0 in.oector. Auditor o

C Policy Evaluation Sen Alfonse D' Amato, Const Ref incoming:

Richard G. McCollum From:

1/8/82 NRC

o.,

evacuation olan ta for the SHoreham station ro:

subject:

O P,

,. r.,iv tor.i.n. cur. or:

O ca.irm.n O commission.,

- O Eoo. oc. ct. sol. PA, SECY, I A, PE O sien.eur. biock omite.a 0

- O R.iurn onein.i os incomin,.ita r oni.

M ror dir.ci r.piy-Suspense: Jan 29 0 eor ropri..ciion

?cc'd crf. gag

, h

.,;. Q y./.

O rorinvorm.iion p....r OCA to Ack, docket billi6 ror the Commission:

i ch

' send three (3) copies of reply to secy correspondence and Records er ACTION SLIP mac42 i.

6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _