In 1980, after the accident at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant, Congress mandated that every U.S. nuclear power plant must develop?and test periodically?a comprehensive emergency response plan. The 1980 NRC Authorization Act strengthened and expanded the emergency preparedness requirements already imposed on nuclear plants. Before TMI, the NRC had required utilities to formulate and test emergency response plans. But these were limited to actions by emergency response organizations on site. Under current rules, the plans have a much broader reach. Local, state and even national officials are included in the plan, and in periodic exercises to demonstrate the plan's viability. At the power plants, the people involved in emergency preparedness now number a few hundred.

Today, no plant can operate in the United States without an approved and tested emergency response plan. New plants cannot operate above 5 percent power until the NRC approves both on-site and off-site plans. FEMA must review and provide recommendations to the NRC as to the adequacy of off-site emergency response plans of local and state agencies.

In June 1996, the NRC issued a revised rule that reduced the required frequency of full-scale emergency exercises by each plant site from once a year to once every two years. For each exercise, the utility creates a confidential emergency scenario to be played out by on-site and off-site emergency response organizations, including plant employees, local hospitals, radiological monitoring teams and others. Post-exercise critiques by the federal agencies and the participants themselves identify areas that need to be corrected in future exercises or improvements that need to be made to the plan itself. If the objectives of the exercise are not met, or if either the NRC or FEMA gives failing marks to any aspect of the exercise, the utility must correct the deficiencies in a timely fashion, or the NRC can take action on the operating license of the plant.

In its revised rule, the NRC also required plants to conduct training drills in the alternate years to test at least some of each plant's response capabilities. These drills may include participation by state and local emergency management officials. Since the drills are not graded, supervised instruction and resolution of the drill scenarios' problems are permitted.

NRC headquarters and regional staff participate in at least one emergency exercise per year in each region. The agency's 24-hour-a-day emergency response facility and its response teams?which are trained in resource management, coordination and support, and liaison among federal, state and local officials?are critiqued on their responses to the simulated emergency.

More frequently, unannounced drills of various aspects of a plant's response plan are conducted to develop and maintain key skills, including coordination, communications, assessment of emergency medical and fire brigade response, and radiation dose assessment. Each utility must also provide for initial training and annual retraining of everyone with emergency response responsibilities.

Federal agencies have joined utility, state and local officials in two "federal field exercises"?the first at Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie plant and the second at Commonwealth Edison's Zion plant. Tabletop response/recovery exercises were held in 1985 at Duquesne Light's Beaver Valley plant and in 1990 at Entergy's River Bend plant. In 1993, a federal radiological monitoring assessment center exercise was held at the Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun plant.

Such extensive field testing of emergency plans maintains a continued state of readiness, upgrades emergency preparedness based on lessons learned from drills and exercises, and demonstrates coordination among all parties to ensure a totally integrated and effective response to any emergency.

Federal guidelines require a plant to ensure that protective responses are in place for communities in 10-mile and 50-mile "emergency planning zones." Residents within the 10-mile emergency planning zones are provided with information?frequently in the form of calendars, brochures or messages in the public-service section of local telephone directories?explaining radiation and telling them what to do and where to go in the event of an emergency. They learn how they would be notified to tune in to the National Emergency Alert System?either by sirens, tone-alert radios, the "Paul Revere" method or a combination.

Included, too, is information noting that a potentially serious accident, if it occurred, would likely evolve over a period of several hours, thus providing time for orderly sheltering or evacuation, if necessary. In the 50-mile emergency planning zones, state agencies formulate plans for radiological monitoring and for protecting residents against consumption of possibly contaminated food and water.

A 1989 Nuclear Energy Institute study showed that during the nine-year period 1980-1988, the United States experienced 250 emergencies that each required the evacuation of more than 1,000 people. None were related to the operation of a nuclear power plant. The emergencies ranged from hurricanes and floods to spills and leaks of toxic chemicals.

Several nuclear emergency response plans, however, were activated successfully by local officials for use in non-nuclear emergencies. All the evacuations were performed safely and in an orderly fashion. A few examples:

Some critics have voiced skepticism that any large number of people could be evacuated in a short time period. But experience demonstrates the opposite.

NEI's 1989 study of evacuations found that communities that had conducted field exercises of emergency plans performed better than communities that had not. The study concluded that there was significant value in testing plans, probably because such tests revealed areas in need of improvement.

The crash of USAir Flight 427 in Pennsylvania in September 1994 called on the expertise of the emergency responders from Beaver County, who had trained and practiced through many years of drills and exercises with Duquesne Light's Beaver Valley nuclear power plant. Employees of Beaver Valley's emergency preparedness department worked with the local emergency management agency in the recovery effort. The plant also filled the state emergency management agency's request for disposable suits, gloves, boots, etc., for use by workers at the crash site, which had been declared a biological hazard.

Not all nuclear plant "emergencies" are major. The NRC provides guidelines for classifying incidents at nuclear plants based on their potential severity, ranging from "notification of unusual event" (no emergency-plan activation needed) to "alert," "site area emergency" and "general emergency."

Based on industry experience, NEI developed an improved methodology for utilities to determine emergency action levels. In August 1992, the NRC endorsed the methodology, which utilities can now use as an alternative approach. In February 2000, NEI submitted an updated methodology, including lessons learned, decommissioning, dry storage, and shutdown classifications. The new method clarifies conditions that would lead to a particular classification and brings greater consistency to the process.

Since 1991 there has been a dramatic drop in the number of events categorized as emergencies by the NRC. The number of declared emergency events, which fell from 63 in 1996 to 40 in 1997, declined still further to a total of 30 in 1998 and 1999. Credit for the decrease goes to nuclear operating companies' voluntary implementation of an industry-developed methodology or the NRC's Branch Technical Position for classifying emergency action level events.

Emergency preparedness at U.S. nuclear power plants is an integral part of daily operations. A commitment to excellence throughout the industry, coupled with continual training and testing, has produced a much higher level of preparedness than existed prior to 1979. For example:

The Nuclear Energy Institute holds annual workshops and information exchanges so industry emergency planners can share lessons learned.

http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=58

Emergency Planing: Protecting the Community

Emergency preparedness plans mandated by Congress. In 1980, after the Three Mile Island accident, Congress passed a law requiring that every U.S. nuclear plant develop and test periodically an on-site comprehensive emergency response plant and ensure that off-site plans exist. Local, state, and national officials are included in the plans and in periodic exercises. At the plants, the people involved in emergency preparedness now number a few hundred. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves on-site plans and the NRC coordinates with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to approve off-site plans.

Testing emergency plans. Twice a year, each nuclear plant conducts a full-scale emergency exercise involving a confidential emergency scenario to be handled by on-site and off-site emergency response organizations, including plant employees, local hospitals, radiological monitoring teams, among others. The NRC evaluates performance of the on-site plan and FEMA the off-site plan. Necessary improvements are identified to be corrected. In alternate years, plants conduct training drills, frequently unannounced, involving such key factors as coordination, communications, assessment of emergency, medical, and fire brigade response, and radiation dose measurement.

"Emergency Planning Zones" emphasized. Federal guidelines require nuclear plants to provide protective responses for communities in 10-mile and 50-mile "emergency planning zones," that is, within a 10-mile and 50-mile radius of the plant. Residents in the 10-mile zone are provided information?frequently in the form of calendars, brochures, or messages in the public-service section of local telephone directories?explaining radiation and telling them what to do and where to go in the event of an emergency. They would be notified to tune in to the National Emergency Alert System?by sirens, tone-alert radios, the "Paul Revere" method, or a combination. They are also told about the possibility of orderly sheltering and evacuation in case of a potentially serious accident. In the 50-mile zone, state agencies formulate plans for radiological monitoring and for protecting residents against consumption of possibly contaminated food and water.

Nuclear plant emergency plans proven successful in real-life non-nuclear situations. A study conducted between 1980 and 1988 noted that there were 250 emergencies in the United States requiring the evacuation of more than 1,000 people, ranging from hurricanes and floods to spills and leaks of toxic chemicals. None were related to the operation of a nuclear power plant. Several nuclear emergency response plans, however, were activated successfully by local officials for use in non-nuclear emergencies: Cedar Rapids, Iowa, July 1985, 10,000 people evacuated from toxic fumes from a fire; St. Charles Parish, La., Dec. 1982, 17,000 people evacuated from a leak at a chemical plant; Nanticoke, Pa., Mar. 1987, 13,000 people evacuated from toxic smoke from a fire; and Grover City, Ca., July 1985, 6,000 people evacuated from a grassland fire.