[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53752-53755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25716]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 
10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director of the Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has 
issued a Final Director's Decision with regard to two related 
Petitions, both dated April 14, 1999, submitted by Mr. Scott Cullen, on 
behalf of Standing for Truth About Radiation, the Nuclear Information 
Resource Service, New York State Senator Ken LaValle, and New York 
State Assembly members Fred Thiele and Patricia Acampora (the 
Petitioners), requesting action under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206). The Petitions pertain to the 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, operated by 
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO, or the licensee).
    In the first Petition, the Petitioners requested that (1) the NRC 
immediately suspend NNECO's licenses to operate the Millstone Nuclear 
Power Station until there are reasonable assurances that adequate 
protective measures for Fishers Island, New York, can and will be taken 
in the event of a radiological emergency at Millstone, (2) the 
operating licenses should be suspended until such time as ``a range of 
protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway 
EPZ [emergency planning zone] for emergency workers and the public'', 
and (3) these matters be the subject of a public hearing, with full 
opportunity for public comment. The basis for the Petitioners' requests 
is that the Millstone Nuclear Power Station is not in full compliance 
with the law. Specifically, the Petitioners contend that the site is in 
violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47 with regard to emergency 
planning requirements because Fishers Island, New York, which is 
located within the 10-mile EPZ for Millstone, has no functional 
emergency plan.
    In the second Petition, the Petitioners requested that the NRC 
institute a proceeding, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to suspend the 
operating licenses for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station until the 
facility is in full compliance with the law. Specifically, the 
Petitioners maintain that all of the regulatory listed factors, that 
is, ``demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and 
jurisdictional boundaries,'' were ignored in establishing the 10-mile 
plume exposure pathway EPZ (10-mile EPZ) for emergency planning at the 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station and, as such, constitute a violation of 
10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47.
    By letter dated May 14, 1999, the NRC informed the Petitioners that 
their request for the immediate suspension of the operating licenses 
for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (first 
Petition, Request 1), was denied. In that letter, the NRC also informed 
the Petitioners that their request for an informal public hearing 
(first Petition, Request 3) was denied. The NRC also told the 
Petitioners in the May 14, 1999, letter that their request, in the 
second Petition, to initiate a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to 
suspend the operating licenses for Millstone did not satisfy the 
criteria for consideration as a 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. The reasons for 
these decisions were explained in the May 14, 1999, letter and in the 
``Final Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-12).
    As noted in the May 14, 1999, letter, the NRC stated that the areas 
identified in the Petitions related to the adequacy of evacuation and 
protective measures planning for Fishers Island, New York, would be 
evaluated within a reasonable time. The staff has completed its review 
of this area with the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. For the reasons given in the Final Director's Decision, DD-99-
12, dated September 28, 1999, Request 2 of the first Petition is 
denied.
    Additional information is contained in the ``Final Director's 
Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-12), the complete text of 
which follows this notice and which is available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms 
located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Community-
Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and 
at the Waterford Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
    As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Final Director's 
Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the

[[Page 53753]]

Commission for the Commission's review. This Final Director's Decision 
will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after its 
issuance, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes review 
of the Decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Final Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    By letter dated April 14, 1999, Mr. Scott Cullen, on behalf of 
Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR), the Nuclear Information 
Resource Service (NIRS), New York State Senator Ken LaValle, and New 
York State Assembly members Fred Thiele and Patricia Acampora (the 
Petitioners) submitted two separate but related Petitions pursuant to 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206). 
In the first Petition, the Petitioners requested that (1) the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately suspend Northeast 
Nuclear Energy Company's (NNECO's) licenses to operate the Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station until there are reasonable assurances that 
adequate protective measures for Fishers Island, New York, can and will 
be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Millstone; (2) the 
operating licenses should be suspended until such time as ``a range of 
protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway 
EPZ [emergency planning zone] for emergency workers and the public''; 
and (3) these matters be the subject of a public hearing, with full 
opportunity for public comment. The basis for the Petitioners' requests 
is that the Millstone Nuclear Power Station is not in full compliance 
with the law. Specifically, the Petitioners contend that the site is in 
violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47 with regard to emergency 
planning requirements because Fishers Island, New York, which is 
located within the 10-mile EPZ for Millstone, has no functional 
emergency plan.
    In the second Petition, the Petitioners requested that the NRC 
institute a proceeding, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to suspend the 
operating licenses for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station until the 
facility is in full compliance with the law. Specifically, the 
Petitioners maintain that there are no mechanisms by which the 
conditional factors of demography, topography, land characteristics, 
access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries can be evaluated, 
resulting in a complete lack of reasonable assurances that adequate 
protective measures can and will be taken on Long Island in the event 
of an accident at Millstone. The Petitioners' contend that this 
constitutes a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47.
    The NRC informed the Petitioners in a letter to Mr. Cullen dated 
May 14, 1999, that their request for immediate suspension of the 
operating licenses for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 
and 3 (first Petition, Request 1), was denied. The denial was based on 
the NRC's finding about the current state of emergency preparedness at 
Millstone. The Federal agency with lead responsibility for assessing 
the emergency preparedness of State and local governments within the 
EPZs surrounding nuclear power plants is the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA's responsibilities are defined in NRC's 
and FEMA's regulations (10 CFR Part 50 and 44 CFR Part 350, 
respectively) and in a memorandum of understanding between the two 
agencies (58 FR 47996, September 14, 1993). The NRC evaluates onsite 
emergency planning and reviews FEMA's evaluation of offsite emergency 
preparedness for the purpose of making findings on the overall state of 
emergency preparedness. As stated in 10 CFR 50.54(s)(3):

    The NRC will base its finding on a review of the FEMA findings 
and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are 
adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC assessment 
as to whether the licensee's emergency plans are adequate and 
capable of being implemented.

    FEMA has reviewed the State of Connecticut's emergency plan. FEMA 
has also reviewed the plans for the nine local communities within the 
Millstone plume exposure pathway EPZ, including Fishers Island, New 
York. Further, FEMA has evaluated several exercises of these plans. 
FEMA originally provided its findings and determinations to the NRC in 
October 1984 on the adequacy of offsite planning for Millstone, in 
accordance with 44 CFR Part 350 of its regulations. Following the 
latest exercise, FEMA confirmed that the offsite radiological emergency 
response plans and procedures for the State of Connecticut and the 
affected local jurisdictions, including Fishers Island, New York, 
specific to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, can be implemented and 
are adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures 
can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the 
event of a radiological emergency at Millstone. This was documented in 
a December 29, 1997, letter from FEMA to the NRC. The letter forwarded 
FEMA's report for the August 21, 1997, full-participation plume pathway 
and the October 8-10, 1997, ingestion pathway exercises of the offsite 
radiological emergency plans for Millstone. Regarding Fishers Island, 
no deficiencies or areas requiring corrective action were identified in 
the exercises.
    Further, the NRC has found that the licensee's emergency plans are 
an adequate basis for an acceptable state of onsite emergency 
preparedness in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 
Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 as documented in the NRC's letter to the 
licensee dated June 4, 1998.
    In the first Petition, the Petitioners raised a concern about the 
evacuation of Fishers Island residents to New London, Connecticut, a 
direction closer to the site and to an area that may have already been 
affected by a radiological emergency at Millstone. Fishers Island is 
located about 7\1/2\ miles east/southeast of Millstone. The New London 
port is located about 5 miles northeast of Millstone. As stated in the 
NRC's May 14, 1999, letter to the Petitioners, the NRC found no prima 
facie evidence in the information submitted by the Petitioners that the 
protective action of evacuation to New London will not provide an 
adequate level of protection to the public. Further, the Petitioners 
did not submit any other information that would raise an immediate 
concern with the NRC's finding regarding the adequacy of emergency 
planning for Millstone. On the basis of a review of FEMA's findings and 
determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness and on 
the NRC's assessment of the adequacy of onsite emergency preparedness, 
the NRC determined that (1) there was reasonable assurance that 
adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 
radiological emergency and (2) there was insufficient evidence to grant 
the Petitioners' request to immediately suspend the operating licenses 
for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
    The Petitioners were also told in the May 14, 1999, acknowledgment 
letter that their request for an informal public hearing (first 
Petition, Request 3) was denied. The denial was based on the NRC's 
finding about the current state of emergency preparedness at Millstone. 
Specifically, the denial was based on the NRC staff's determination 
that the information provided in the Petitions did not identify 
deficiencies in offsite

[[Page 53754]]

emergency preparedness that would preclude the implementation of 
adequate protective measures for the public in the event of a 
radiological emergency at Millstone. Further, the NRC staff determined 
that the issues did not rise to the level of significance that 
justified conducting an informal hearing on the Petitions.
    The Petitioners were told, however, that their Petition did raise 
the potential that enhancements could be made to emergency planning for 
Millstone that could improve the protection of public health and 
safety. Further, the May 14, 1999, acknowledgment letter indicated that 
the areas identified in the Petitions related to the adequacy of 
evacuation and protective measures planning for Fishers Island would be 
evaluated within a reasonable time. Since FEMA has the primary 
responsibility for evaluating the emergency preparedness of State and 
local governments, the NRC requested the assistance of FEMA, in a 
letter dated June 4, 1999, in evaluating the potential enhancements 
identified in the Petitions.
    The NRC also told the Petitioners in the May 14, 1999, letter that 
the request in their second Petition to initiate a proceeding, pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.202, to suspend the operating licenses for Millstone did 
not satisfy the criteria for consideration as a 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. 
Specifically, the NRC concluded that the referenced factors regarding 
the determination of the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ were 
properly taken into account. The NRC determined that the second 
Petition request did not contain sufficient information to warrant 
further action by the NRC to require that the 10-mile EPZ be expanded 
to include the eastern end of Long Island, New York.

II. Discussion

    The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(q) and (s) governing 
emergency planning for operating nuclear power plants require the 
submittal and implementation of licensee (onsite) and State and local 
government (offsite) emergency plans that conform to the emergency 
planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix 
E to 10 CFR Part 50. FEMA is the Federal agency with the lead 
responsibility for evaluating offsite radiological emergency response 
plans and preparedness.
    Fishers Island, New York, is located within the 10-mile plume 
exposure pathway EPZ for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station and is 
included in the State of Connecticut's Radiological Emergency Response 
Plan for Millstone. This plan has been approved by FEMA in accordance 
with 44 CFR Part 350 of its regulations. The Connecticut emergency plan 
(Revision 1, dated July 1997) contains the following information 
regarding Fishers Island:

    Fishers Island, located about 7\1/2\ miles east/southeast of 
Millstone, is primarily residential with a small year-round 
population of about 300 persons and a summer population estimated to 
be approximately 3000 persons. On the Independence Day (July 4) 
weekend, this transient population may peak at approximately 5000 
persons. Fishers Island is a Hamlet, [a] political subdivision of 
the Town of Southold, New York, which is in Suffolk County on Long 
Island.
    Because of the logistics associated with the island's location, 
there has been a long-standing operational agreement between 
officials of Fishers Island, the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, 
the State of New York, and the State of Connecticut. Under this 
agreement, the lead responsibility for assessing the initial 
radiological impact of an incident on Fishers Island, and providing 
assistance with the implementation of any protective actions, 
belongs to the State of Connecticut. Officials of Fishers Island and 
the Town of Southold, however, have the authority to implement 
public protective actions.
    The State of New York coordinates the assessment process and 
resulting protective action recommendations made by the State of 
Connecticut for Fishers Island, maintains communications with 
Suffolk County, and provides support to Suffolk County and Fishers 
Island, as necessary. The Town of Southold, as well as Suffolk 
County, provides back-up communication capabilities and support, and 
would lend additional emergency services to the island, if 
requested.
    The State of Connecticut offers resource support to Fishers 
Island in the area of protective actions. Emergency Alerting System 
(EAS) announcements for Fishers Island will be made over the 
Connecticut Emergency Alerting System. The island relies on the 
nearby Town of Groton, Connecticut, for back-up activation of the 
public alerting system. Fishers Island residents are designated to 
go to the host community of Windham[, Connecticut].

    On September 2, 1999, FEMA responded to the NRC's request for 
assistance, including a report prepared by the Regional Assistance 
Committee (RAC) Chair of FEMA Region I, the FEMA region in which 
Millstone is located. The RAC Chair is the leading staff technical 
person with radiological emergency preparedness responsibilities in 
each FEMA region. FEMA stated that they performed a thorough review and 
assessment of the emergency evacuation planning for Fishers Island, New 
York. FEMA noted that Fishers Island is included in the State of 
Connecticut's approved radiological emergency response plan and that 
the Fishers Island plan has been tested several times since it was 
approved, most recently during the August 1997 exercise of the State of 
Connecticut's plans for Millstone.
    FEMA's report stated that in the unlikely event of a nuclear 
incident at Millstone, the residents of Fishers Island would be 
directed to shelter in place or to evacuate. If directed to evacuate, 
the Fishers Island evacuees would be moved by ferry to New London, then 
transported by bus to the host community in Windham, Connecticut. New 
London was chosen as the ferry's destination because the Fishers Island 
Ferry District, which would provide service in the event of an 
evacuation, is based on Fishers Island and normal everyday traffic 
travels between New London and Fishers Island. Should an incident at 
Millstone require the evacuation of Fishers Island, residents would 
evacuate the island using the regular ferry service, and would be 
transported to the host community in Windham, Connecticut, by way of 
the Port of New London. Should New London not be available to the 
Fisher Island evacuees (i.e., if radiological conditions have resulted 
in its evacuation), then the Connecticut Emergency Management Director 
and the State of New York Emergency Management Office would jointly 
choose to direct the ferry to another port, such as Stonington, 
Connecticut, located northeast of Fishers Island and east of New 
London. FEMA's report noted that the protective actions of sheltering 
and evacuation are the same two protective actions that appear in all 
other Connecticut emergency response plans.
    With regard to the Petitioners' specific concern about the August 
8, 1997, Millstone exercise, FEMA's report stated that the postulated 
condition of the Millstone plant during the exercise was such that the 
Governor of Connecticut ordered residents in all EPZ communities to 
evacuate. With the postulated conditions, the protective action for 
Fishers Island was to evacuate through New London. The Petitioners were 
concerned that this was a direction that brought the evacuees closer to 
the plant. FEMA indicated that the Fishers Island evacuees would not 
have been at risk during the conduct of this protective action because 
the plume, had it been real, was traveling in a westerly direction, 
away from New London, according to the exercise scenario. As such, 
during this scenario, the evacuees could pass through New London 
without the threat of exposure to radiation. As discussed previously, 
should New London not be available

[[Page 53755]]

(for example, the plume has passed over New London and adverse 
radiological conditions exist), the ferry would be directed to another 
port.
    FEMA's report indicates that certain enhancements to the Fishers 
Island plan are being considered and its September 2, 1999, report 
summarized some of the ongoing emergency planning activities. In July 
1998, Northeast Utilities (the licensee), the Connecticut Office of 
Emergency Management, and FEMA Regions I and II, participated in a 
demonstration of a ferry run from Fishers Island to Stonington, 
Connecticut. The objective of this demonstration was to determine the 
feasibility of having the ferry pick up people from Fishers Island and 
take them to Stonington, which is located about 7 miles northeast of 
Fishers Island. The plan and preparations for adding the Port of 
Stonington, Connecticut, as a receiving port for Fishers Island 
evacuees is projected to be completed by the end of 1999. Windham, 
Connecticut, will continue to be used as the host community for Fishers 
Island residents. FEMA will review changes to the offsite emergency 
plans to ensure that the plans are adequate and capable of being 
implemented.
    FEMA's report stated that an agreement exists between the 
Connecticut Office of Emergency Management and the Fishers Island Ferry 
District for the exclusive use of their ferries in the event of an 
incident at Millstone. Further, FEMA indicated that negotiations are in 
progress for an agreement between the Connecticut Office of Emergency 
Management and the Cross Sound Ferry Company for the use of five of 
their ferries in the event of an emergency at Millstone.
    FEMA's report also noted that in September 1998, a meeting between 
Connecticut and New York State emergency management agencies was held 
in Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss offsite emergency preparedness for 
Millstone and the degree of coordination and communications. At the 
meeting were representatives of the Connecticut Office of Emergency 
Management, the New York State Emergency Management Office, Northeast 
Utilities, FEMA, and the NRC. Further, in October 1998, the Connecticut 
Office of Emergency Management and the New York State Emergency 
Management Office met to discuss other ways of improving communications 
in making appropriate protective action decisions for Fishers Island.
    On June 22, 1999, the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management 
held its quarterly emergency management director's meeting on Fishers 
Island to discuss emergency response issues concerning Millstone. The 
emergency management directors from the Millstone EPZ communities 
attended this meeting, including those from Fishers Island, the Town of 
Southold, New London, Stonington, and the host community of Windham, 
Connecticut. This meeting gave these key emergency management directors 
an opportunity to communicate directly.
    In its September 2, 1999, letter to the NRC, FEMA stated that on 
the basis of its assessment of emergency planning for the Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, there is continued reasonable assurance that 
adequate protective measures can be taken to protect the public health 
and safety in the event of a radiological emergency at Millstone.

III. Conclusion

    After reviewing FEMA's findings and determinations on the adequacy 
of offsite emergency preparedness and the NRC's assessment of onsite 
emergency preparedness, the NRC has determined that there is continued 
reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be 
taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Millstone. In 
addition, based on FEMA's findings on the adequacy of emergency 
preparedness for Fishers Island, the NRC concludes that the Fishers 
Island emergency plan is adequate and there is reasonable assurance 
that it can be implemented. Further, the NRC recognizes that potential 
enhancements are being implemented to improve the protection of the 
health and safety of the population on Fishers Island. As a result of 
these findings by FEMA and the NRC, the NRC has determined that the 
Petitioner's request to suspend the operating licenses for Millstone 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 until a range of protective actions are developed for 
the 10-mile EPZ (first Petition, Request 2) is denied.
    A Copy of this Final Director's Decision will be placed in the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms located at 
the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical 
College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and at the 
Waterford Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
    As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Final Director's 
Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the 
Commission's review. This Final Director's Decision will constitute the 
final action of the Commission 25 days after its issuance, unless the 
Commission, on its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within 
that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-25716 Filed 10-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P