ML041210046
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