ML20244E332
Text
i DCT 2 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement THRl%;,W siv.d sy, Edward L. Jordan, Director
- g. L Jord n Division of Emergency Preparedness I and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: Kenneth E. Perkins, Chief Incident Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response j Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE ORDERS H.R.5192 REPORTED The House Interior Committee on September 17, 1986 ordered reported H.R.5192, "The Nuclear Power Emergency Response Data System Act of 1986." Three amend-ments offered by the principal sponsor, Mr. Huckaby (D-LA), were agreed to ,
7 during the markup session. The amendments, attached, would: j l
- 1. Clarify the intent that no other entity would supersede the Federal j government in providing an emergency response data system;
- 2. Make clear that NRC Emergency Response Program Staff does not have the authority to intervene in plant operations or relieve a utility
, of responsibility to maintain his reactor in a safe operating condi-tion; and l
- 3. Eliminates licensee contribution for this activity but retains require-ments that funding for the establishment and operation of the emergency response system be subject to normal existing NRC appropriations.
Future action on the bill is not known at this time.
Cr%IntiSigand By Kenneth E Perkhs Kenneth E. Perkins, Chief Incident Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Attachment:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
DCS IRB Reading DEPER Reading ra JPartlow h87 4RB:DEPER c
IRB;1EPER IRB:DEPER E D/0 R:IE 8
BGrimes JHickman:tt RPriebe KPerkins SS wartzd EJordan JAxelrad ? /Af/'86 / P/86 / /86 "l/y/86 [p// /86 SSchwartz KPerkins RPriebe JHickman w
TLLDM OLM X4
Q( Mn e, uk Q Y8.ar:,
- " 1 T&*a #r*"%,
m has started as a beir6er as seduce the inyess. - :. wgk,, enstameg, se,. y
' M i' ' 's 10mashedg(sspLegsudagnostes fast rescsor and.sdaad presumus. In tagger seg i M. ION.duranterte sysut Sl5pamaan on the PFR program aWnat for insemotugwh I slantim.adshdhamshed 8BhalBlen wapppes on therrmal seactors, estafa4%andlism contribudom r';
tambit$ Tb6hund( 9esertamon was roughly an=hia tes af the previous year, in keep- e ing witada plan to put the ashanty on a trading fund basis daring she current fiscal year. W ans:iset*ee done ona contractor / customer basis rusher thee about half being
=
lL,_. - - ^
'" : - Ceeks. London 2 n
.r.,,,.
w e. . S ee s.: . A. . ,
NUS PROCESS SUtWCES CORR,(NUSPSC) by L SERVICES wa.A
,(eptemberin order to- ofbr ,
a fab line of services in aba SSisallpn peryear docontamina-gps &so M^^ 'wilpe,dvoksne = wservicar- / ,_ u,; ;=t, Jdot!,
r==*5 a* f nadna NacEIr expects to bring techaa'W , .,aspo,,t . .com; pany, thsaugh its Canadsen sister commpany f muina Ntclear Ltd., he ' e *au "
Wstadour -M.:.a -_ - smadNU3FSC headq=srursktPalamanigMF shoniiijmetM19E7 ,: "
of which 405 will:endt from utility. "-
wor $
6_s _. .A.$}p . '
share ofinconne wiD be y.
O- m u - r 4,,73,,,,0n y,,.
_ ~:[
, :" G, #
" 7: ,;- - .
i f '
',it -
OVED ~
. .. ly ddQ' ..
goberplanatumsdiidt Affairs comud,asa 1; 4<
y i :, . ,
J . .n ' ;,r)
- t n -
y .
q.
l'34 o t
.~
,/ ,
.m .,.
,h,
.. g g,g, h.n ;
fQ , ,
l.' '
l
' o; gc 4 -
- wv-,. ~.-
i
- s. .i l w ML. i. .
bib spesi6cauy pashtumibs NEROS , dp ,
I
. an M '60es any authority the aan===maien aheadphes its isen-ses guayidenti6sd~ tat the licensee ses act takingappsopeinte l 3% L ~"
..c w e .~ e d- usa i r or M
_ L- E-li n iystems(inadnT8tc.18%g.,117.
s Aldeugitier
'- thetfestfi 1 W-sits as regi rted s makethe'Tif@-
thar:
W$ ascek%'ufustry
" sn fr source said. With the arnendmentr iir~ plack
, ,, ,- .. 3 - ,,. , % bill.'s Congresnonal sbott,6 .,- sni!-Daw Airoro, Washfdston ONTARIGHYWRO TEAM 995 CUSSING NUCLEAR SERVICES WITM SOVIETS
[NEnerggJvHEN$srN Masse heads the Maa r delegation discussEngnuclear safety and radiology,protaction at Vienna this week, Ontano Hydro has four nuclear engineers exploring poes%
tmiaans in Moscow. "%f probably e have the spectrum of nuclear semces as weg. packaged and integrated as anyone che butI don't kdow what is going to.come out preadedtof an d== Arvo i of fthis Russiap trip,s"' Hydro's Technologyisin- % execu dy$and agiIs has Afl!)s g Theajtight not beinviandsomeNiitenberg
'of or people to come over for a die" iaa It's q', piss possible nothing5C1 a match of what we could provule saa whagthey might,want ,
told " ha Nucleorucs
- s. _ ,- tses
- 1 i
STATEMENT 0F T. C. MCMEEKIN i l
ON H.R. 5192 - EMERGENCY. RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM ACT OF 1986 BEFORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE CN INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 1
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT !
AUGUST 11, 1986 l I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1j My name is T. C. McMeekin. I am. Chief Engineer, Electrical Division, Design Engineering Department of Duke Power Company. I appreciate'the invitation to appear before this subcommittee.
The purpose of my testimony is to provide Duke l Power's perspective on H.R. 5192 -
~ Emergency Response !
Data System Act of 1986 and on the subject of Emergency Response Data Systems in general.
As a result of post-accident evaluation of the March, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island there.was ;
significant activity in the development of emergency ]
response capabilities. These activities resulted in I numerous industry and NRC initiatives. This activity culminated in the development of several documents including NUREG 0737 (Clarification of TMI Action !
Plan Requirements). Supplement I to the NUREC'0737 q (Requirements for Emergency Response Capability) and '
associated NUTAC (Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee) Guidelines on Emergency Response Capabili-ties.
l
i
-. f j H.R. 5192 - EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM ACT OF-1986 .c I Tu,y PAGE 2 1
'! ; \
i 1
II. CRISIS MANAGEMENT' PHILOSOPHY ky 'f The Duke Crisis Management Plan was developed on .g ,
the basis that an accident'should be managed by the .), ,
on site staff in the short term and that off site.
- A/
technical support should be available for-longer term recovery actions. [4
!L This approach was adopted f or two fundamental [L reasons. First, dynamic plant condiddons can only be effectively assessed by the on site s e t. f f . .This q'
'g L staff has available total current plant'information- -
I which includes measured parameters, out of service g status, physical damage assessments,.and other subtle indicators. Such current information;cQanet be effectively transmitted off site. . S e c orJdly , the experienced on site staf f is mos t f antiliar with - the-plant specific features and plant' operating characteristics.
\
III. DUKE EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA FYqTEM Duke, and the industry in gene'ral, has implemented crisis management plans, operating procedures, and ,
related hardware to substantially improve.emergfncy t'
response effectiveness, .g e -
+% ;
The Duke Emergency Response Data System design considerations included user responsibility, user qualification, importance-of data validity, systemi reliability, etc. The system provides for on site real time data acquisition and off site, data subsets -t which are periodically updated. On site NRC repre-sentatives have access to this same real time data and the off site NRC representatives'have' access to:
the periodically updated data subsets.
IV. DUKE POSITION ON H.R. 5192 While Duke generally supports the concepts out-lined in the bill, we have the following concerns:
- The bill does not limit data'transmi$sion to site '
emergency conditions, s b
- n l :I
, 5it, t
- t. 4
' h?
i i l i b%
l
43 e
I '
>r ] l p <
h H.R. 5192 - EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTFJ4 ACT OF 1986 '
, tu 8 PAGE 3 u
q w
ri
)
1 .i ' b
- l Q g 11,
. t gt e^ '
i IV. 1 Crik POSITION ON H.F. ' 5192 (CONT'D)
- The bill does notfspecifically define limitations g" s on requireme nts,'sh, r implemen ta tion o f the 7 emergency resTonse ' data system. L>
b
\ '
- The' ht11 woulv "requit e a single transmission system which topld not be practically interfaced with the numero'us variations of systems.
5
- Th'e bill make s clear. that the program staff does not haNr the' authority to relieve the operator of i the respons2bility to maintain his reactor in a
( 3 safe operating condition. It should also be clear s
, that the program staff does not have au t,h7 t i t y to
'N, irf.ervene in plant operations.
I- The bill does not contain Federal preemption provisions to preclude similar State or County l 1egislation, l
- Lice n'se e s should not be required to contribute '
, ; funds for NRC activities related to the establish-isent and operation of emergency response' data
, systems. Sucy activities should be funded through. g existing appropriation channels.
N,lRC V.
SUMMARY
Duke supports the emergency preparedness concepts before this subcommittee. However, we have
, ;\ concerns related to limitations on requirements I for implementation, practicality of implementa- <<
tion, authority over plant operation, lack of f a."% a Federal preemption provision, and source of fund-l .
irg f or the program. Finally, we believe that current Crisia Management Plans adequately provide data for the licensees and the-NRC to fulfill -
their responsibilfVies. I urge this subcommittee to consider these comments in'your d elib e ra t icas , i I
- P Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, ,
I
' ' I
, i t
't j
t
( {-
?
I
\ "M -
s g (' -
i 1
. .