ML20151P660
| ML20151P660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/19/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8808100140 | |
| Download: ML20151P660 (3) | |
Text
- i
. 1
~ 'g UNITtiD STAT ES
!" t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
{ .,
July 19,1988 i I
%..... I f CHAIRMAN The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Following the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on NRC's FY 1989 authorization legislation, we informally discussed the topic of NRC requirements for a nuclear power facility licensee in the event that the plant's alert and notifi-cation system for the public became inoperable. Subsequently, I requested the NRC staff's views on this subject, and I am enclosing their evaluation for your information.
Briefly, the licensee, or the applicant for a license, would have to provide repairs or a compensatory alert and notification system that would meet criteria set forth by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In the case of an operating nuclear power plant, NRC regulations allow continued operation for a reasonable amount of time while emergency preparedness deficiencies are corrected.
I hope that the enclosed information will provide a useful supplement to our conversation. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely, h%.lo bJ ,
Lando W. Zec Jr.
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Response cc: Senator Alan K. Simpson 8808100140 690719 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
4 .
Enclosure NRC Staff Response Item If sirens used for alert and notification of the public near a nuclear power facility were inoperative, what ccmpensatory reasures would be required?
Background
The regulatory requirements for alert and notification do not specify the method to be used. They require a means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the approximate 10-mile plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone. 10CFR50.47(b)(5). In practice, licensees have used fixed sirens, tone-alert radios distributed to each household and business, and route-alerting to satisfy this requirement. Route-alerting consists of public address systems and/or sirens mounted on vehicles, boats, and helicopters as well as door-to-door notifications.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established approval criteria for alert and notification systems (Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, FEPA-REP-10/ November 1985).
FEPA criteria for these systems include the requirement that at least 90% of the populace be alerted in an actual test of the system. During the plant licensing process, FEMA forwards its evaluation of the system to the NRC for consideration in the determination of the overall adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness for a nuclear plant site.
.o 2
Response
Alttcugh NRC regulations do not require that an operating ruclear power plant be shut down imediately in the event that the alert and notification system beccres inoperable, prompt repair and/or compensating measures would be required. NRC regulations usually allow 120 days for the correction of deficiencies in emergency preparedness, including deficier.cies relating to the cperability of the alert and notification system. If deficiencies are not corrected within 120 days, the Comission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are corrected or whether other enforcement action is appropriate. In determining whether shutdown or other '
en#crcement action is appropriate, the Comission would take into account, among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Comission's satisfacticn that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating reasures have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for ccr.tinued operation. 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii).
It is expected that an applicant or a licensee with an inoperable siren system would institute prompt repairs and/or compensating ;easures, such as issuance of tone alert radios or augmented rcute alerting. These measures would be evaluated on a case-specific basis to determine the overall adequacy of crergency preparedness for the facility.