Nuclear Regulation: Emergency Preparedness Issues at the Indian Point 2 Nuclear Power Plant
Released: 2003-03-10T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Emergency plans for commercial nuclear power plants are intended to protect public health and safety whenever plant accidents cause radiation to be released to the environment. Since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, significantly more attention has been focused on emergency preparedness. For example, the NRC Authorization Act for fiscal year 1980 established a requirement for off-site emergency planning around nuclear power plants and allowed NRC to issue a nuclear plant operating license only if it determines that there is either a related state or local emergency preparedness plan that provides for responding to accidents at the specific plant and complies with NRC’s emergency planning guidelines or state, local, or facility plan that provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety are not endangered by the plants’ operation in the absence of a related state or local emergency preparedness plan.

In November 1980, NRC and FEMA published regulations that provided the criteria for radiological emergency plans. The regulations include emergency standards for on- and off-site safety and require that emergency plans be prepared to cover the population within a 10-mile radius of a commercial nuclear power plant. In addition, state plans must address measures necessary to deal with the potential for the ingestion of radioactively contaminated foods and water within a 50-mile radius. NRC and FEMA have supplemented the criteria several times since 1980. For example in July 1996, the agencies endorsed the prompt evacuation of the public within a 2-mile radius and about 5 miles downwind of the plant, rather than sheltering the public, in the event of a severe accident.

FEMA and the affected state and local governments within the 10-mile emergency planning zone conduct exercises at least every 2 years at each nuclear power plant site. In addition, each state with a nuclear power plant must conduct an exercise within the 50-mile zone at least every 6 years. The exercises are to test the integrated capabilities of appropriate state and local government agencies, facility emergency personnel, and others to verify their capability to mobilize and respond if an accident occurs. Before the exercises, generally, FEMA and state officials not involved in them agree to the accident scenarios and the aspects of emergency preparedness that will be tested. In addition, NRC requires plants to conduct exercises of their on-site plans. According to NRC staff, the plants usually conduct their exercises as part of FEMA’s biennial exercises.

Indian Point 2 is one of the 104 commercial nuclear power plants nationwide licensed to operate. The Indian Point site, which is called the Indian Point Energy Center, has one closed and two operating plants. The other operating plant is referred to as Indian Point 3.

In 2001, We Noted That Indian Point 2 Had Struggled to Resolve Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses

Over the years, Consolidated Edison’s efforts to improve emergency preparedness at Indian Point 2 were not completely successful, and the company experienced recurring weaknesses in its program, as we reported in July 2001. The four New York counties surrounding the plant made improvements in their emergency response programs but suggested better communication among NRC, FEMA, and nonstate entities in nonemergency situations.

Consolidated Edison Acted to Resolve Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses, but Its Actions Were Incomplete

Beginning in 1996, NRC identified numerous weaknesses with the emergency preparedness program at Indian Point 2. NRC found, for example, that Consolidated Edison was not training its emergency response staff in accordance with required procedures, and some individuals had not taken the annual examination and/or participated in a drill or exercise within a 2-year period, as required. In response, Consolidated Edison disciplined the individuals responsible, developed an improved computer-based roster containing the current status of the training requirements for emergency response personnel, and began a process to distribute training modules to those employees before their qualifications expired.

NRC relied on Consolidated Edison to take corrective actions for other emergency preparedness problems and weaknesses. However, the company did not correct the weaknesses identified. For example, in 1998 and again in 1999, NRC identified problems with activating the pagers used to alert the plant’s staff about an emergency, as well as other communication weaknesses. In 1999, NRC concluded that Consolidated Edison lacked the ability to detect and correct problems and determine their causes, resulting in weak oversight of the emergency preparedness program. In response, NRC staff said that they met with the company’s managers to specifically discuss and express NRC’s concerns.

Similarly, NRC identified emergency preparedness weaknesses when evaluating Indian Point 2’s response to the February 2000 event. For example, NRC found that Consolidated Edison did not activate its emergency operations facilities within the required 60 minutes, primarily because of the complex process used to page the emergency response staff. This problem delayed the on-site response. NRC’s Office of the Inspector General also identified emergency preparedness issues, including the state’s difficulties getting information about the emergency from Consolidated Edison and the fact that English is a second language for many who lived within 10 miles of the plant. The Office of the Inspector General concluded, and NRC agreed, that recurring uncorrected weaknesses at Indian Point 2 had played a role in the company’s response during the February 2000 event. However, NRC concluded that Consolidated Edison had taken the necessary steps to protect public health and safety.

Consolidated Edison subsequently evaluated its entire emergency preparedness program to determine the causes of the deficiencies and to develop corrective actions. Consolidated Edison concluded that senior management did not pay sufficient attention to the emergency preparedness program or problems at Indian Point 2 because these problems were not viewed as a high priority warranting close attention and improvement. As a result, emergency preparedness had relatively low visibility, minimal direction, and inadequate resources. The company also found that (1) the emergency response organization had been stagnant, understaffed, poorly equipped, and consistently ineffective; (2) the emergency manager performed collateral and competing duties; and (3) for a time, a contractor held the manager’s position. Furthermore, the professional development and continuing training of the emergency planning staff had been minimal. The company undertook initiatives to address the deficiencies noted.

Despite these initiatives, in April 2001, NRC reported that it had found problems similar to those previously identified at Indian Point 2. NRC again found weaknesses in communication and information dissemination. It also found that the utility’s training program had not prevented the recurrence of these issues during on-site drills and that its actions to resolve other weaknesses had not been fully effective. NRC said that Consolidated Edison had identified the major issues in its business plan, which, if properly implemented, should improve emergency preparedness at the plant. In commenting on a draft of our July 2001 report, NRC noted that its April 2001 inspection report concluded that Consolidated Edison’s emergency preparedness program would provide reasonable assurance of protecting the public.

The Four Counties Strengthened Their Emergency Preparedness Programs but Suggested Better Communication Among NRC, FEMA, and Nonstate Entities

The need to improve communication between Consolidated Edison and the counties about the extent of the emergency and the potential impact on the public was highlighted during the February 2000 event. At that time, Consolidated Edison reported that a radioactive release had occurred but that it posed no danger to the public. County officials, on the other hand, reported that no release had occurred. This contradictory information led to credibility problems with the media and the public.

Before the emergency, the counties did not have a defined process to determine what information they needed and how they would present the information to the public. At the time of the February 2000 event, the Radiological Emergency Data Form that Consolidated Edison used to inform local jurisdictions provided for one of three choices about a release of radioactive materials: (1) no release (above technical specification limits), (2) a release to the atmosphere above technical specification limits, and (3) a release to a body of water (above technical specification limits). In April 2000, Consolidated Edison, in partnership with the state and counties, revised the form to ensure that all affected parties were “speaking with one voice” when providing the media and the public with information. The change to the form provided for one of four choices: (1) no release, (2) a release below federally approved operating limits (technical specifications) and whether it was to the atmosphere or to water, (3) a release above federally approved operating limits and whether to the atmosphere or to water, and (4) an unmonitored release requiring evaluation.

The counties had also taken some other actions to improve their radiological emergency programs. For example, all four counties agreed to activate their emergency operation centers at the “alert” level (the second lowest of four NRC classifications). Before the February 2000 event, the counties differed on when they would activate their centers, with one county activating its center at the alert level and the other three counties at the site-area emergency level (the next level above an alert). As a result, once the first county activated its center during the event, the media questioned why the other three counties had not done so. The counties also connected the “Executive Hot Line,” which linked the state, four counties, and governor, to the emergency operations facility at Indian Point 2 to establish and maintain real-time communications during an emergency.

In addition to these actions, county officials suggested to us in 2001 that other changes to improve communications among NRC, FEMA, and nonstate entities could be taken. In particular, county officials said that since they are responsible for radiological emergency preparedness for Indian Point 2, NRC and FEMA should communicate directly with them during nonemergency situations. Absent these direct communications, the counties were not privy to issues or initiatives that could affect their emergency preparedness programs.

NRC staff tried to meet every 5 years with officials from all states that have operating nuclear power plants. NRC staff told us that they met with some states more frequently and that the requests to meet exceeded the agency’s capability. Although NRC’s policy was to meet at the state level, its staff believed that local officials had various options for meeting with NRC. For example, local officials could participate in the meetings held at least every 5 years with the states and could interact with NRC staff during public meetings, including those held annually for all plants. Emergency preparedness officials from the four counties around Indian Point 2 said that they did not believe that public meetings were the appropriate forums for government-to-government interactions. Therefore, the counties suggested that NRC should meet with them at least annually. According to NRC staff, routinely communicating with local officials has resource implications and involves tradeoffs with its other efforts, such as maintaining safety and enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of operations. However, NRC, at the time of our review, had not assessed the costs and benefits of meeting with local officials nor the impact that such meetings might have.

FEMA generally implements its programs through the states and relies on the states to communicate relevant information to local jurisdictions. County officials responsible for emergency preparedness at Indian Point 2 identified instances in which this method of communicating with local jurisdictions had not been effective. For example, both New York State and county officials told us that the February 2000 event identified the need for flexibility in FEMA’s off-site exercises. County officials said they responded to the 2000 event as they would have responded during FEMA’s exercises, which are conducted to the general emergency level (the highest of NRC’s action level classifications). Yet, they noted, the response for an alert like the one that occurred in 2000 is significantly different from the response needed during a general emergency, when a significant amount of radiation would be released from the plant site. State and county officials suggested that it would be more realistic to periodically conduct biennial exercises at the lower alert level, which, they noted (and NRC data confirmed), occur more frequently than a general emergency. In commenting on a draft of our report, FEMA said that the emergency plans for the four New York counties require them to conduct off-site monitoring and dose calculations at the alert level.

FEMA officials also noted that the agency’s regulations allow state and local jurisdictions the flexibility to structure the exercise scenarios to spend more time at the alert level and less at the general emergency level. Nevertheless, county officials who participated in the exercises were not aware of the flexibility allowed by FEMA’s regulations, in part because they did not participate in developing the exercise scenarios.

Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses at Indian Point 2 Have Continued

In reviewing NRC’s reports on its on-site inspections and evaluations of the plant’s emergency preparedness exercises or drills completed since we issued our 2001 report, we found that the facility’s emergency preparedness program has continued to experience problems or weaknesses. For example, NRC reported that, in an emergency exercise conducted last fall, the facility gave out unclear information about the release of radioactive materials, which also happened during the February 2000 event. In addition, NRC reported that several actions to correct previously identified weaknesses had not been completed. For example, NRC noted that the timely and accurate dissemination of information was identified as a weakness in the fall 2002 exercise and had been documented previously in drill critique and condition reports.

In addition, in our 2001 report, we noted that NRC’s Office of the Inspector General found that, during the February 2000 event, the Indian Point plant’s technical representatives did not arrive on time at the local counties’ emergency operations centers. To help address this problem, Consolidated Edison said that it would install a videoconferencing system in the centers to enhance communications between the plant and the off- site officials. According to county officials, the videoconferencing system had not been installed as of February 2003.

With respect to our 2001 recommendation that NRC and FEMA reassess their practices of primarily communicating with state officials during nonemergency situations, federal and local officials indicated that little has changed since our report. NRC officials told us that they did reassess their policy since our report was issued and determined that no changes were needed. According to FEMA officials, the agency will continue to work with state and local officials to carry out its emergency preparedness program but has not made any changes regarding nonemergency communication with state and local officials.

Given this history of inadequate efforts to address weaknesses in Indian Point 2’s emergency preparedness program, we continue to believe that both NRC and the plant owner could benefit from being more vigilant in correcting problems as they are identified. In addition to improving the plant’s program, a better track record in addressing these problems could go a long way in helping alleviate the heightened concerns in the surrounding communities about the plant’s safety and preparedness for an emergency. Similarly, more frequent, direct communication by NRC and FEMA with officials of the surrounding counties could improve local emergency preparedness programs and, in turn, help local officials better communicate with their constituents about the plant’s safety and preparedness for an emergency.

The Witt Report Raises Emergency Preparedness Issues at Indian Point and Other Nuclear Power Plants

On August 1, 2002, the Governor of New York announced that James Lee Witt Associates would conduct a comprehensive and independent review of emergency preparedness around the Indian Point facility and for that portion of New York State in proximity to the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford, Connecticut. According to Witt Associates, the review encompassed many related activities that were designed, when taken together, to shed light on whether the jurisdictions’ existing plans and capabilities are sufficient to ensure the safety of the people of the state in the event of an accident at one of the plants, and how the existing plans and capabilities might be improved. According to Witt Associates, it has considered and incorporated public comments on a January 2003 draft of its report and plans to issue the final report this month.

We have not evaluated the Witt report or verified the accuracy of its findings and conclusions. We did note that the draft report identifies various issues—such as planning inadequacies; expected parental behavior that would compromise school evacuation; difficulties in communications; the use of outdated technologies; problems caused by spontaneous evacuation in a post September 11, 2001, environment; and a limited public education effort—that may warrant consideration at Indian Point and nationwide. The draft Witt report concludes that NRC and FEMA regulations need to be revised and updated. We understand that FEMA agreed, to an extent, in its review of the draft report. According to the agency, the draft report raises a number of issues that should be considered for enhancing the level of preparedness in the communities surrounding the Indian Point facility, such as better public education, more training of off-site responders, and improved emergency communications. In addition, FEMA stated that some of these issues should be evaluated for their applicability nationwide. However, FEMA also said that a number of the issues raised in the draft report were not supported by its own exercise evaluations, plan reviews, and knowledge of the emergency preparedness program. According to NRC, the draft report gives “undue weight” to the impact of a terrorist attack. The agency said that it saw no difference between emergency plans for releases caused by terrorist acts and those caused by equipment malfunctions.