ML20248K804
| ML20248K804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Forbes M HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248K808 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806100282 | |
| Download: ML20248K804 (2) | |
Text
!
f h Ps
[
4 UNITED STATES f
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fh p,g WASHINGTON. o.C. 20666 4 001
[
g June 8, 1998 CHA M AN The Honorable Michael P. Forbes United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Forbes:
I am responding to your letter dated May 27,1993, requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) delay any decision on rettart of Millstone Unit 3 for 90 days to evalu?'a the effects of an evacuation on Long Island in the event of an emergency condition at Millstone Unit 3.
The NRC was pleased to hear from the public last week in Eastern Long Island and takes seriously its responsibility to be open and responsive to the public. Much of the public discussion was with regard to the lack of the inclusion of Long Island in required detailed emergency planning for the Millstone Station.
The fundamental requirements for the development of emergency plans, including the provision describing the establishment of emergency planning zones, &re set forth in the Commission's regulations,10 C.F.R. $50.40 in particular. The technical basis and rationale for the size of the emergency planning zones (EPZs) is given in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Govemment Radiological Emergency Response Plans in l
Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants." This NUREG supports an EPZ of about 10 I
I miles in radius for planning the protection of the public from airbome exposure (L1e plume exposure pathway) and an EPZ of about 50 miles in radius for planning for actions to prevent radioactive material from entering the food chain (the ingestion pathway). The size of the EPZs for commercial nuclear power plants takes intn consideration the probabilities and consequences of a spectrum of accidents, and the extent of detailed planning that must be performed to assure an adequate response. Further details regarding emergency preparedness requirements are found in NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
There have been proposals to both increase and decrease the 10-mile EPZ distance. After j
y
.g \\, o "
consideration of these proposals and their supporting documentation and rationale, the f
Commission has consistently concluded that an EPZ of about 10 miles in radius provides an acceptable planning basis for emergency response. Detailed p;snning within 10 miles would also provide a substantial base for expansion of response efforts in the event that this proved necessary.
9806100282 980608 FDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
I
', The Commission has been intensively involv'ed with the great number of issues surrounding Millstone for over 2 % years. During the May 26,1998, public meeting, no additional safety or regulatory concems regarding Millstone Unit 3 that would impact the staff's assessment or the NRC's deliberations were presented. Therefore, the Commission has determined that delay of a Commission decision is not warranted.
I assure you that a Commission decision authorizing the restart of any Millstone unit will be made only when the Commission is satisfied that the conditions which led to the extended shutdown have been addressed to our satisfaction, regardless of the length that process may take.
Sincerely, b
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.