ML041210046

Consideration of Sheltering in Licensee'S Range of Protective Action Recommendations

ML041210046
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/02/2004
From:	Reis T NRC/NRR/DIPM/IROB
To:
moody r e nrr /eppo-b 415-1737
References
RIS-04-013
Download: ML041210046 (6)

See also: RIS 2004-13

Text

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001August 2, 2004NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2004-13CONSIDERATION OF SHELTERING IN LICENSEE'S RANGE OFPROTECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATIONSADDRESSEESAll holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who havepermanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed

from the reactor vessel.INTENTThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS)to clarify the regulatory requirement that licensees develop a range of protective actions that

includes sheltering for the public in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone

(EPZ). This RIS requires no action or written response on the part of addressees.BACKGROUND INFORMATIONSection 50.47(b)(10) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states in part thatlicensees are to develop a range of protective actions for the public in the plume exposure

pathway EPZ. In addition, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) states that in developing this range of

protective actions, consideration is to be given to sheltering, and that the guidelines for the

choice of protective actions be consistent with Federal guidance. Following an inspection at Point Beach in August 2003 (ML040360104), the NRC staffperformed a review of licensee emergency plans, implementing procedures, and notification

forms to evaluate the extent licensees considered sheltering when recommending protective

actions to offsite organizations. During the review, the NRC staff has noticed that licensee

emergency plans, implementing procedures and notification forms consider sheltering in one of

three ways: (1) sheltering as an alternative to evacuation (shelter rather than evacuate),

(2) sheltering as a supplement to evacuation (evacuate downwind sectors and shelter the

remaining sectors until further instructions are provided), and (3) sheltering is not considered by

the licensee. The NRC staff has also noticed that some licensees have addressed sheltering

inconsistently in their emergency plan, implementing procedures, and notification forms. For

example, sheltering is considered as an alternative to evacuation in the emergency plan, but it

is not included as an option in the implementing procedures or on the notification form.ML041210046

RIS 2004-13Page 2 of 4DISCUSSIONThe decision to recommend a protective action involves a judgment in which the radiation doseavoidance provided by the protective action is weighed in the context of the risks involved in

taking the action. Since the decision will most likely be made under emergency conditions,

considerable planning is necessary to reduce the complexity of decisions required to effectively

protect the public at the time of an emergency.Plant conditions are the major determining factors in developing early protective actionrecommendations. To be most effective, protective actions (evacuation or shelter) need to be

taken before or shortly after the start of a major radioactive release to the atmosphere.

According to the original version of Appendix 1, Emergency Action Level Guidelines for Nuclear

Power Plants, in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power

Plants," the initial protective action for a General Emergency is to shelter the population close to

the plant while considering the advisability of evacuation. The guidance in the original version

of Appendix 1 further states that if core damage is in progress and containment failure is judged

to be imminent, shelter should be recommended for people in those areas that cannot be

evacuated before the plume arrives. Although the original guidance was never intended to

imply that the appropriate initial protective action for severe accidents was to only shelter the

population that is near the plant, it was not explicit on this point.Subsequently, portions of Appendix 1 were revised in Supplement 3 Criteria for ProtectiveAction Recommendations for Severe Accidents, to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, "Criteria for

Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in

Support of Nuclear Power Plants." Revised Appendix 1 states that for a General Emergency,

the preferred initial protective action is to evacuate immediately about two miles in all directions

from the plant and about five miles downwind, unless other conditions make evacuation

dangerous. Note 5 to Figure 1, Severe Damage or Loss of Control of Facility Public Protective

Actions, in Supplement 3, states that sheltering may be the appropriate action for controlled

releases of radioactive material from the containment, if there is assurance that the release is

short term (puff release) and the area near the plant cannot be evacuated before the plume

arrives.10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) requires that the consideration of sheltering be included in the range ofprotective action recommendations consistent with Federal guidance. In addition to the Federal

guidance discussed above, EPA 400-R-92-001, Manual of Protective Action Guides and

Protective Actions for Nuclear Accidents (EPA 400), dated May 1992, also contains information

on evacuation and sheltering. Section 5.5.3, General Guidance for Evacuation and Sheltering,

states that the process of evaluating, recommending, and implementing evacuation or shelter

for the public is far from an exact science, particularly in view of time constraints that prevent

thorough analysis at the time of an emergency. The effectiveness of evacuation and shelter

can be improved considerably by planning and testing. Also, EPA 400 states that sheltering

may be appropriate (when available) for areas not designated for immediate evacuation

because: 1) it positions the public to receive additional instructions; and 2) it may provide

protection equal to or greater than evacuation.

RIS 2004-13Page 3 of 4SUMMARY OF ISSUE

The NRC staff has identified a generic misinterpretation of the regulatory requirement to includesheltering in a licensee's range of protective action recommendations (PARs) consistent with

Federal guidance. The NRC staff has found that some emergency plans specifically state that

the licensee will provide only evacuation as a PAR. In those cases, the appropriate protective

action recommendation consistent with Federal guidance may not be made to State and/or

local authorities. Even if the licensee has established an understanding with State and local

authorities not to recommend a sheltering protective action, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) still requires

that sheltering be considered in developing the range of protective action recommendations in

the licensee's emergency plan.Federal guidance states that sheltering may be the appropriate action for controlled releases ofradioactive material from the containment, if there is assurance that the release is short term

(puff release) and the area near the plant cannot be evacuated before the plume arrives.

Federal guidance also states that sheltering may be appropriate (when available) for areas not

designated for immediate evacuation because: 1) it positions the public to receive additional

instructions; and 2) it may provide protection equal to or greater than evacuation. Additionally,

a licensee's emergency plan, implementing procedures, and notification forms need to include

the consideration of sheltering consistent with Federal guidance.BACKFIT DISCUSSIONThis RIS clarifies the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) related to the need forlicensees to develop a range of protective actions (including sheltering) for the public in the

plume exposure pathway EPZ. This RIS does not impose new or modified staff requirements

or uniquely prescribe a way to comply with the regulations, or require any action or written

response. Therefore, this RIS does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 and the staff

did not perform a backfit analysis.FEDERAL REGISTER NOTIFICATIONA notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS was not published in the FederalRegister because this RIS is informational and pertains to a staff position that does notrepresent a departure from current regulatory practice.

RIS 2004-13Page 4 of 4PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENTThis RIS does not request any information collections and, therefore, is not subject to therequirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Robert Kahler by telephone or bye-mail at the numbers listed below./RA/Terrence Reis, Acting Chief

Reactor Operations Branch

Division of Inspection Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationTechnical Contact:Robert Kahler, NSIR(301) 415-2992

Email: rek@nrc.govAttachment: List of Recently Issued Regulatory Issue Summaries

ML041210046*See previous concurrenceOFFICEEPPO:BTECH EDITOREPPO:AEPPO:BOES:IROP:DIPMNAMERMoody*PKleene*RKahler*EWeiss*CDPetrone*DATE04/25/200404/26//200405/06/200405/06/200407/20/2004OFFICEOGCD:EPPOCRGR*OEPMASNAMEMBupp*NMamish*DMcCain*DATE05/17/200405/20/200407/07/200406/14/200407/15/2004OFFICEOCIOA:SC:OES:IROB:DIPMA:C:IROB:DIPMNAMEBShelton*AMcMurtray/Markley*TReisDATE07/15/200407/29/200408/02/2004

______________________________________________________________________________________

OL = Operating License

CP = Construction PermitAttachmentRIS 2004-13

Page 1 of 1LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUEDNRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARIES

_____________________________________________________________________________________Regulatory Issue Date of

Summary No. Subject IssuanceIssued to

_____________________________________________________________________________________2004-12Clarification on Use of LaterEditions and Addenda to the

ASME OM Code and Section XI07/28/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors except

those who have permanently

ceased operations and have

certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the

reactor vessel.2003-18,Supplement 1Use of Nuclear EnergyINSTITUTE (NEI) 99-01,

"Methodology for Development ofEmergency Action Levels,"Revision 4, Dated January 200307/13/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors and

licensees that have permanently

ceased operations and have

certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the

reactor vessel.2004-11Supporting Information Associatedwith Requests For Withholding

Proprietary Information06/29/2004All submitters of proprietaryinformation to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.2004-10Preparation And Scheduling ofOperator Licensing Examinations06/14/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors, except

those who have permanently

ceased operations and have

certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the

reactor vessel. 2004-09Status on Deferral of ActiveRegulation of Ground-water

Protection At In Situ Leach

Uranium Extraction Facilities06/07/2004All holders of materials licenses foruranium and thorium recovery

facilities.2004-08Results of the License TerminationRule Analysis05/28/2004All holders of operating licensesfor nuclear power reactors,

research and test reactors, as well

as decommissioning sites.Note:NRC generic communications may be received in electronic format shortly after they areissued by subscribing to the NRC listserver as follows:To subscribe send an e-mail to <listproc@nrc.gov >, no subject, and the followingcommand in the message portion:subscribe gc-nrr firstname lastname