ML20050A618
| ML20050A618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050A619 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204010500 | |
| Download: ML20050A618 (6) | |
Text
.
[("
s-y o
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
%*****/
March 1, 1982 N
CC CHA mMAN ay g r# 5 0 w;
g' g M 9 3 2. "
l H wo88 The Honorable Morris K. Udall v
"hm*223 "
s E
cat Chairman, Subcomittee on Energy and the Enviromient Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1>
y United States House of Representatives Y
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
This letter responds to your request of October 2,1981 in which you ask several questions concerning NRC policy and responsibilities about emergency prepa redness.
The enclosure answers your specific questions.
A fundamental question underlying this issue is the responsibility of the licensee or the State and local government to provide for the protection of the public health and safety throughout the operating life of a nuclear power plant.
Many changes to the demographic characteristics and emergency response facilities are within the control of local and State governments.
If these changes:
(1) are a significant departure from the assumptions used in proposing the siting of the plant, (2) occur after an NRC authorization to construct a nuclear power plant, and (3) are not within the control of the applicant, then the primary responsibility to provide adequate emergency response capability should fall to the local and State government. We consider it inappropriate for a licensee or a local or State government to impose a severe financial burden on the other party because of inadequate planning or unwillingness to shoulder the. burden of conscious decision making.
We see this as a potential problem and, as yet, unresolved.
At the present time, neither FEMA nor the NRC has agreed,that a new bridge will be required to provide adequate emergency routes from Hutchinson Island.
If FEMA determines that additional protective measures are needed to provide adequate protection for public health and safety, the NRC will so condition continued operation of the plant.
Commissioner Bradford does not agree with this response. He believes that unless the licensee is required to compensate all surrounding communities when the plant is licensed, a nuclear plant construction pennit cannot be taken as a 40-year license to sit back with folded arms every time a new subdivision is apprwed and require State and local governments to assume costs not required by present emergency planning regulations.
Nothing in the licensing process lays the groundwork for so lighthanded a requirement, which, properly understood, would increase local opposition to new nuclear power plants.
8204010500 820301 PDR COMMG NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
t lb The Honorable Morris K. Udall 2
In Commissioner Gilinsky's opinion, the issue of allocating the cost of improvements in emergency preparedness required by developments subsequent' to the licensing of a plant is one which must be resolved between the licensee and the appropriate State and local authorities.
t I trust this is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, 41&y &
i AW Nunzio. Pa adino 3
Enclosure:
Answers to Questions cc:
Rep. Manuel Lujan f
1 i
i I
I l
l u...
ENCLOSURE AUSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN MORRIS UDALL'S LETTER OF OCTOBER 2, 1981 Question 1 To what extent does NRC have authority to impose condition.s (e.g., construction of a bridge) upon a previously issued op-erating license, if it is determined that conditions around the site have changed such that existing emergency planning and preparedness no longer provides adequate protection of public health and safety?
Answer The NRC regulations allow for the imposition of conditions 5
upon a previously issued operating license if the Commission determines that conditions have changed such that the public health and safety is jeopardized for any reason, not just be-cause of inadequate emerger.cy preparedness.
Specifically, 10 CFR 2.206 states that any person may file a request to the Commission to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or take other action.
The request must specify the action requestad and give the reasons why the requestor believes the action should be taken.
However, the NRC's jurisdiction is limited to the licensee.
In the question of the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness, we would'have to rely on the FEMA findings.
If FEMA determined that additional protective measures were needed to provide adequate protection for public health and safety, the NRC could condition continued operation on such measures.
Question 2 To what extent does the.NRC have responsibility, subsequent to the initial issuance of an OL, to assess on a continuing basis the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness to protect public health and safety?
Answer The NRC has a responsibility to assure continued safe operation of nuclear power plants (including maintaining emergency planning and preparedness) throughout the operating lifetime of a licensed i
I t
.=.. _ - -.
t 2
reactor.
10 CFR 50.54 (q) requires the operator of a licensed reactor to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and to obtain NRC' approval prior to implementing changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency plans.
One of the re-quirements of Appendix E is that adequate offsite plans will be maintained.
However, the specific responsibility for assessing offsite preparedness capabilities rests with FEMA.
FEMA pro-vides its findings to the NRC, and NRC then considers the FEMA findings in arriving at a determination of the overall state The regulations provide [(10 CFR of emergency] preparedness.
- 50. 54 (s) (2) )
that if deficiencies are found in emergency re-sponse capabilities, the licensee shall be given four months t'o correct the deficiencies or enforcement action, including reactor shutdown if necessary, can be taken.
Question '3 What specific procedures does NRC follow to assure the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness throughout the operating lifetime of a licensed reactor?
Answer The NRC is currently conducting an Emergency Preparedness Im-plementation Appraisal (EPIA) program.
The purpose of the EPIA i
program is to verify that licensees have attained an adequate state of emergency preparedness.
The objectives of the ap-praisal at each facility are to evaluate the overall adequacy and effectiveness of emergency preparedness and to identify areas cf weakness that need to be strengthened.
Following the conclusion of the EPIA program, a routine emergency prepared-ness inspection program for licensed reactors will be estab-lished.
This routine program will include, on a periodic the o, servation by the NRC (onsite) and FEMA (offsite)
- basis, b
of the operator actions and offsite emergency organization i
response during a major radiological emergency exercise.
Following the exercise, FEMA provides a report 'to the NRC with its evaluation of the offsite response.
The NRC uses this report, in addition to its own evaluation of onsite re-sponse, to determine the overall state of emergency. prepared-ness.
1 l
10 CFR 50. 54 (t) requires power reactor licensees to review and update their emergency plans every 12 months, document the findings, and retain the records for five years.
The areas of the plan to be reviewed are also specified in 50.54 (t),
f i
I
3 and include the emergency plan's " capabilities."
If any of the key parameters have changed to the extent that the emer-gency plan's effectiveness could no longer be assured, under 10 CFR 50. 54 (q), the licensee would have to submit proposed ~
changes which would re-establish the effectiveness of the plan.
For example, if the demography around a plant has changed so that the plan's evacuation time estimates are af-fected, revisions to the plan would be required to reflect appropriate estimates.
Revisions to procedures.with regard to optimum traffic control points might also be appropriate.
In the case of the St. Lucie facility, the NRC is requesting the licensee to submit updated population estimates every five years, including transient population estimates, out to a distance of 10 miles.
The NRC is also requesting updates of population to a distance of 50 miles when new census estimates become available every 10 years.
Of course, NRC will rely on FEMA's assessment in judging the continued adequacy of the offsite plans given any changed conditions.
Question 4 What criteria does NRC use to determine whether or not changed conditions around an operating reactor are of a magnitude such that existing offsite emergency planning and preparedness no longer provides adequate protection of public health and safety?
Answer No specific criteria are used.to directly determine whethe'r or not changed conditions around a reactor are of such a magnitude that existing offsite emergency planning and preparedness no longer provide adequate protection of public health and safety.
However, as discussed in the answer,to Question 2, adequate off-site emergency plans must be maintained or the licensee is give'n four months to correct the deficiencies.
If conditions are sub-stantially changed from those in existence at the time of the original license, an emergency plan reassessment, including new evacuation time estimates, may be required as discussed in the answer to Question 3.
The Commission believes that evacuation time estimates are
~
useful in refining and improving offsite response plans and are an important tool for the decisionmaker during an act.ual emergency when choices between protective actions to minimize exposures must be made taking into account the specific accident
(
{
i f
4 conditions.
Should actual population growth result ditions approaching that of the highest population density in con-plants now licensed, consideration would be given to requiring risk assessments to be performed to determine whether addi-tional facility modifications could significantly reduce the consequences of severe accidents or extend the time which would be available for the taking of offsite protective measures.
Commissioner Bradford believes that generic minimum evacuation
~
times and ef fectiveness requirements should be established so that if demographic or other significant changes result in the calculated effective evacuation time being above the minimum, the emergency plan would become unacceptable.
other transportation routes or protective measures would have In that case, to 'be proposed to the Commission.
I j
l l
l l
i
.