ML16340B676
| ML16340B676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1978 |
| From: | Krejsa R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340B670 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105040490 | |
| Download: ML16340B676 (54) | |
Text
189 San Jose Court.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 5 December 1978 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o San Luis Bay Inn Avila Beach, CaIifornia Honorable Chairperson and Members:
My name is Richard J. Krejsa, I am a concerned property owner taxpayer., =father and husband in San Luis Obispo. I am also a Professor of Biological Sciences at Cal Poly State University. I teach "General Biology" and "Introduction to Conservation" on a part-time basis and therefore try to keep current on public issues which affect the quality of life and/or our natural resources. One of my functions as a teacher is to make students aware and to make them think about the world they have inherited.
One of the things I emphasize is energy and energy waste in society.
In fact, we are still in an energy crisis situation. But, contrary to what P.Ge& E. would have us believe in the rash of ads that always seem to sprout in local newspapers prior to such hearings as these, the crisis is not in electrical energy. It is, primarily, one of heat energy and vehicular fuel energy. Making nore electricity is not a rational response to the shortage of fossil fuel energy!
It is my understanding that nuclear markets and nuclear expecta-tions in member nations of the O.E.C.D. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) are collapsing. According to Amory Lovins, "the nuclear era, far from being inevitable, is already a dead letter in the market economies."
This outside perspective, is very interesting because we here locally tend to see things parochially. But outside the County, people are concerned also. My mother, for example, who is neither pro- nor anti-nuclear, sends me articles from her local newspaper, The San Diego Union. My mom worries about me and my family because we live so close to Diablo. She sent me this clipping most recently, dated 15 November 1978, It's entitled: "Diablo Canyon: A Horrible Example."
The article a monument
~ower.
begins by
~
stating:
"The massive hulk stands on a b1uff overiookino the Pacific Ocean, to the bad faith, ~arro ance and incompetence that have un 7 e
'90 S>OS0~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Hoard Page Two 5 December 1978 "The l ~
It further berserk."
states:
current cost-to-completion g
- ro ection is
-~~9
$ 1.4 billion I'd like to pursue that point. on a different tangent, one which and the deals with how decisions are made in public by government, commissions, or agencies supposedly designed to serve the people.
In reality, with all due respect to your honorable members, what we witness here today and at other hearings is an example of what has become known as the "science of m~uddlin ~throu h." Elsewhere, it has been given a more bureaucratic name by Charles Lindblom who calls "disjointed incrementalism" approach to public policy making.
it the In such a decision-making process, changes are made step-by-step and the decision-makers need only understand the specific context of the choice currently in front of them In.today's case, seismic ~safet ; but at other times and p'laces, cost, radioactivity, reacto~r sa ety. environ-ment, reactor uranium supply, nuclear terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, waste disposal and transportation! And except for the intervenors and members of the public, no one government agency takes, or bothers to search for, a broader perspective on the situation. In fact, it's considered a waste of time and energy.
Ho sense of .purpose is evident to anyone who tries to find one and the changes, as long as they are careful and not too abrupt, slide into acceptability.
According to Langdon Winner, in his book: "Autonomous Technology,"
ti ff If( i f 2 d~l 1 v j
, Ladies and gentlemen, we have too long assumed that human logic and technology could solve all our problems. Much of our technology today
, is becoming counter-productive of its original intent. Some roblems cannot be solved, but we are too arrogant to accept that~ccor bing to David Ehreniie d in his book "The Arrogance of Humanism," "what we need is a more humble view,. one that recognizes that natural 'laws also govern our lives."
I subscribe to that view and respectfully urge ~our consideration of i t al so.
Thank you.
/s/ Richard J. Krejsa
sc I NXsee+
Diablo waste plan .urged <
San Luis Obispo Couutr should tate Kreisa said be waa parttouiari7 oncccocd shoat transportation cf
~
steps to satcgoard the pubUc tracts dsngcvaW radloeafve tnstcriai being radiocnve waste canisters trom tbe transported Qtrough lhe count7, Diablo Can7Ql nuclear power plant guternsa'ichard J. Kriss sail norther Portgan Luis.
Tocsda7. 'lbe which weigh tuore than 1N tous. wiH be trucked on hvda County supervisors agreed to cco- Road to Piston Beach lor shltsncnt.
sldcr tbe toattcr at their Jan. 15 PaciHo Gas and Electric Ca.
spokcananRchstdP. DevinsaiL a~1 ~i
l A SURYEY OF NUCLEAR ACC IDENT PREPAREDNESS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Or. Richard J. Krejsa Supervisor, Fifth District San Luis Obispo County June 2, 1976 ABSTRAi T'ue to the presence of two nearly-completed nuclear reactor units, an attempt was made to ascertain the state of nuclear emergency preparedness of private and publ ic agencies in San Lui s Ob i spo County. Repre" sentat ives of agencies having primary invol ve>>
ment in the event of a nuclear emergency were.
interviewed by two independent student survey.
teams in December, $ 875, and aga i n in Ma rch, 1976. Resul ts indicate that the overal l state .
of preparedness is Iow. While some few agencies are aware of their responsibilities in the ev nt of a nuclear accident, most agencies are pre" pared onl y for a genera) emergency.. However wel 'I the publ ic or private agencies are becoming prepared to coordinate their activities in th event of a nuclear emergency, few have the bud-get, equipment, or trained personnel necessary to carry out their function in a responsibl manner.
Students in both survey classes were un" animous in their evaluation that most San Luis Obispo County public and private agencies are not prepared or sufficiently trained to handle a nuclear emergency should one occur now or with" in the irrxnediate future.
l NTR ODUCT I ON San Luis County, by virtue of'wo nearly" completed nuclear reactor units at Diablo Canyon, has entered the nuclear age. ln connection with an energy-related course at Cal Poly ("Technology in the Twentieth Century" ), I thought it wou'ld be of general interest to determine whether or not, in the event of a nuclear accident, appropriate county wide coordination procedures exis'ted and adequate training was rec ived by the responsible emergency service related individuals.
1 of 6
By means of .two independent student-coordinated surveys, l sought the answers to two general questions:
I) Were a nuclear accident to occur in San Luis Obispo County this year, are the various private and governmental agencies prepared to coordinate the resul t ing emergency?
and
- 2) Are the responsible private and publ ic emergency personnel adequately trained to deal with an off-site radioactive con tami na t i on?
Survey resul ts, indicate the aiiswer to the f irst question is "partly yes, partly no". The answer to the second is an un-equivocal "NO!"
HlSTORICAL BACKGROUND Early last year, in the draft version of the Hazardous Wastes section of the Solid Waste Management Plan, the County-Cities Solid Waste Management Committee addressed several of the known or potential problems related to storage,, handling, and disposal of nuclear wastes, Last November, however, the County began the process of formulating' Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan (NPPERP) in accordance with a state mandate. The purpose of this plan is to coordinate the various private and public agencies that would be called upon to respond to a nuclear crisis. When the Solid Waste Management Committee learned that the 'County Civil Disaster Coordinator was prepar-ing the NPPERP, those draft sections of the Solid Waste Manage-ment Plan dealing with nuclear waste problems were eliminated.
According to the County Civil Disaster Coordinator, Mr; George Silva, the draft NPPERP is near completion. lt is my under-standing that the plan will not address problems of 'nuclear waste handling and disposal, or the more imminent problem of long term spent fuel storage at the Diablo Canyon site.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES Concurrent with the above actions and following the Nuclear Forum in November, 1 enlisted the 'aid of two separate classes at Cal Poly to carry out a citizens'urvey of preparedness by various private and public agencies. nuclear'ccident Representatives of the following agencies were contacted and interviewed in person or by telephone SLO County: Sheriff's Office; Health Off'icer*;
Hospital; Environmental Health; Civil Disaster Coordinator.
SLO City': Police Dept.; Fire Dept.; Civil Defense.
- Note: Agency interviewed only in December, 1975.
2 of 6
I Media: KVEC KSLY; KUNA 'ATY; KZOZ-*
Health Services: 'rench Hospital; Sierra Vista Hospital; San I uis Ambulance; Five-Cities Ambulance--
Others: PGF E; County Of f ice of Education;-
California Highway Patrol~
In each case the interviewer was instructed to "start at the top" with the Department Head or Division Director. The following questions were asked:
- l. In the event of a arenuclear accident (on site)
(;off site), what your responsibilities:
to the County as a whole?
-to the general publ ic?
<<to your own employees?
"to the State or Federal'overnment'
- 2. Do you have (or are you aware of) a written contingency plan for nuclear accidents (on site) (off site)?
"When was it written?
"Shen was it updated?
". Have you had mock drills
" Is your written plan available yet? Mhen? Nhy not?
to a private citizen'? How? Mhere? Nhy not?
- 3. To whom do you report in the event of a nuclear accident?
"Meltdown type (Diabl.o, on site)?
~Accidental release of plume (Diablo, off site)?
"Spent fuel transportation spill (on site) (off site)?
'What local, state, or federal regu'Iations or guidelines determine your responsibilities in the event of a nuclear emergency?
RESULTS OF THE F IRST SVRVEYI The first survey was taken by eleven students in December, 1975. The foI lowing summarizes the most im" portant f indings:
Few agencies knew of the existence or prepa" ration of a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan. Some were aware of general emergency'rocedures or plans, however out" dated or outmoded. These plans are generally not available to the public.
~Note: Agency interviewed only in March, 1976.
3 of'6
Some persons interviewed were quite candid, others seemed less so. The level of prepared-ness of each county, city, or private agency fluctuated with the direct knowledge or aware" ness of the individual being interviewed.
While the interviewers were instructed to "start at the top", in many cases they were referred to an assistant or lower eschelon person. In other instances, the secretary or person who answered the original inquiry routed the question.to yet another person, or promised to have someone return the phone call. .In some cases, information received thusly from two persons within the same agency was contradictory to, or in conflict with, answers previously given.
fn general, it can be stated that while police, f i re, hosp i ta I, and ambul ance servi ces are prepared for meeting general emergencies, none of them possess the proper equipm nt or train" ing required for a nuclear emergency! No agency has yet had a mock drill. Several did not think it necessary to have one "until the Oiablo Canyon plant goes into operation."
Specific interviews indicated many instances wherein one agency assumed that another agency was performing a specific procedure or carrying out a specific responsibility. Most assume that PGFE or the Federal Government were in charge.
For example, local hospital and ambulance per-sonnel simply assumed that'octors woul d be on the scene and decontamination and/or detection equipment ava i I abl e at Oiabl o Canyon. When questioned about the availabil sty of medical facil ities for contaminated persons, a PGFE spokesman at Oiablo Canyon responded "This is not a hospital!!" The survey showed that radioactive isolation wards are simpl y unavai I-able in area hospitals at the present time.
Equipment is also a matter of concern. Much of the detection and monitoring equipment pos" sessed by various agencies is outmoded or would be inadequate in the event of a nuclear acci dent. For exampl e, whi1e a di rect commun" ication link exists between PGF and the Sherriffs'ffice no such link Eis present be-tween the Sheriffs'ffice and the Courthouse and between the Courthouse and the Primary Emergency Broadcasting System Radio Station..
Oof6
- 6. -.
Many of the interviews required several phone cal Is over.'several days before the interviews cou1d be conducted with the proper person or a cal I was returned. In cne instance the only person who allegedly had any information was on of itself, speaks to the general "vacation".'his, lack of preparedness.
- 7. Of the agencies surveyed, only the Environ" mental Health Division (which had been work" ing on the Solid Maste Management Plan) and
,the Sheriffs'ffice (which had worked out an evacuation route plan with PGFE) can be given reasonably high marks, for awareness ot their responsibilities. PGFE is well aware of its role. at the Oiablo Canyon site but its responsibility is confined to the area within the plant gates. PGGE's responsibility to the County as a whole ends when they trotify the Sheriff. Even in the event of a nuclear meltdown or release of a radioactive plume off"site, PGFF's respon-sibility would be discharged once it noti" fied the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Sheriffs'ffice.
I RESULTS OF THE SECOND SURVEY The second survey was conducted by another class of twelve students in March, 1976. The students on this follow up survey team were not aware of the re" suits of the first survey or of the questions asked.
They were, however, given identical instructions and questions. In all cases they were assigned to contact the same persons as were interviewed in the Oecember survey, but in most cases they end d up speaking to a different person.
Responses to the second survey essentially mirrored those of the first. Agencies were now aware that some kind of nuc)ear accident plan was being prepared but several interviewees seemed annoyed by their lack of specific knowledge of the plan. At least they knew that the 'County rather than just PGGE was somehow involved' of 6
CONCLUS ION: Students in both survey classes were
.unanimous in their evaluation that most San Luis Obispo County public and private agencies are not prepared or sufficiently .trained to handle a nuclear emergency should one occur at this time or within the immediate future.
Theoretically, the agencies contacted had had three more months of planning involvement on the nuclear emergency response plan and the spur oF the original interview in December to make them aware.
While the awareness level rose between Oecember and March, the level of preparedness did not.
it is important that local Government and private agencies be appraised of the current state of emergency preparedness and precautionary steps be taken to pro" tect the health and safety of the people of San Luis Obispo County in so far as. possible before nuclear operations begin at Diablo Canyon.
~ g Note: 1. Original student interview reports for each agency, a va i 1 ab 1 e on reques t.
6of6
47~
lsvl ~ ~0I lasso
~~ p 0~ VtQ>thf rI0 0 VIOLIN (i.-
Hist
~ ' ~
w
~
~ iVONCf W tf~ IHI OOKI tla~g l
- '.
- ;i g'r
~ ( CNLetsT v ~ J Ct ~~ WN Na Oo
~ 100IOI 1%1 ~ ~
0 CkiLNW H(O 4 ItKO~ le ~
I ~
~ S~
QQ y5~ '2~gO .~c+
~ uss<vs a W ~ ~
Wwau ICNlt~ NO~) ~
j GOu~lty At:lrniniStratire.OffiCe COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i ROOM KIT, COURTHOUSE ANNEX r SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 t AC/805 543 1550 WILLIARDV. WAGGONER COUNTY AOMINISTR*TIVEOFFICER November 4, 1976 OPENING STATEMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES We would M<e-to thank this committee of the State Energy Commission for inviting us to testify today in reference to nuclear emergency planning in San Luis Obispo County.
The Co&ty Office of Emergency Services has the responsibility for developing..and coordinating emergency procedures in this County under the guidance of the County Disaster Council. These procedures are implemented when a Local Emergency is declared by the Board of Super-visors or the Director of Emergency Services, in their absence, as a consequence of a disaster affecting the unincorporated areas of this County. The office includes the Director who is the County Administra-tive Officer and the Civil Disaster Coordinator.
According to a recent estimate given the County by a representative of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Unit No. 1 of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant could be in operation as early as April 1977. As a conse-quence, County government has selected March 31 as a target date for the completion of the basic emergency response procedures for those agencies in the County having emergency responsibilities in the event of a nuclear incident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
I I The fundamental and overriding purpose of the Nuclear Emergency Response and Evacuation elements of our. Emer'geacy Plan. is to provide for the public safety in the event of a radiological emergency in. the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County.
The Nuclear Emergency Response and Evacuation elements are based on the same statutory authorities and organization as described in the basic County Emergency Plan. That document prescribes that the Board of Supervisors or the Director of Emergency Services, in their absence, has the authority to proclaim a LOCAL EMERGENCY in those cases where it appears that a situation of substantial peril to public safety exists in the community which may 'exhaust local resources in the response. When a LOCAL EMERGENCY-is proclaimed, the Emergency Director Group is responsible for .the overall direction of the County Emergency Organization. This group is made up of the Chairman of the Boar'd of Supervisors, the Director of Emergency Services with staff, and the heads of. each of the six principal erhergency response agencies: Medical Health, Law Enforcement, Fire;Traffic Control, Shelter/Welfare and Engineering.
In developing the Nuclear Emergency Response and Evacuation elements to the County Emergency Plan, th'is office attempted to keep uppermost in mind the. nature of the potential hazard as it might impact on the threatened populations of our County. That hazard consists of airborne r adionuclides, including halogens, and the subsequent potential problem of deposited radioactive material which could become a danger as a result of chronic exposure, inhalation or ingestion by individuals. As a.consequence, we did not include a variety of detailed accident sequences as they might relate to the reactor.
On August 24,. 1976, the Board of Supervisors directed the County Administrative Officer to expedite the completion of the County's Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans. The C.A.O.
subsequently assigned three members of his staff to assist the Disaster Coordinator to accomplish the task. The completed drafts of these two elements were presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 25. At
that time, the Board scheduled public hearing on these plan elements to be held on December 2, 1976.
In the development of the Response and Evacuation elements, staff used as reference material the California Nuclear Power Plant Emercmency R~es onse Plan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG 75illl, the Environmental Protection Agency's t1anual of Protective Action Guides and Appendix VI of the Reactor ~Safet ~Stud (Rasmussen}, "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences."
. The Nuclear Power Plant Response and Evacuation elements of the County Emregency Plan address the author'ities, organization, procedures and resources that would apply in the event of a serious radiological emergency threatening this County. It must be recocpnized that these documents in themselves do not represent a comprehensive emergency response system. On November 1, 1976, the Board of Supervisors approved augmentation funding for disaster planning in order to make possible the development of the necessary implementation procedures. These include:
0 Coordinating the County nuclear emergency procedures with those of each of the six incorporated cities.
- 2. Coordinating procedures with school districts, hospitals, etc.
- 3. Assisting individual County departments in refining their procedures.
- 4. Conducting radiological training for those individuals tasked with radiological monitoring responsibilities.
- 5. Developing emergency information and instruction for the public.
- 6. Determining special equipment requirements.
- 7. Developing and conducting a County exercise to test, the effective-ness of the plans.
Th~s office feels that the hearing being conducted by your committee today will serve a useful purpose for our jurisdiction insofar as it explores in a constructive manner, those essential elements to be con-sidered in the development of a comprehensive system capable of respond ing effectively to a radiological hazard of an accident at a nuclear power plant.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Couamraass Avmx r S~ Lms Oars', ~o~ 93401 r 805-503-1550, Ezr. 321 syfanbers of the Board Testimon for Nuclear Response Plan HANS HEILMANN M. E. WILLEPCRD KURT P. KUPPER Or. Richard J. Krejsa HOWARD MANKINS December I, 1976/Oecember 2], 1976 DR. RICHARD J. KREJSA Genera I Comments:
Given the time frame in which this document was pieced together, the staff did a remarkable job of gathering infor-mation. Not all the necessary information was gathered, however, and the plan, as it now stands, is inherently un" workable.
1 think you oughtto modify the format slightly starting with an introductory statement of Situation followed by a statement of Goals and Obiectives, next Activation and then Authorities. As your second chapter, you could have "Types of Accidents" you are planning for. Authorities, now given first, are not as important as the Situation and Goals.
Page I The document shoul d be examined in I ight of its stated purpose(s) given on page 1. Those "purposes",
however, are really objectives which hopefully will be achieved. The real "purpose" (or goal ) is hidden away on top of page 0, i.e., "to provide for evaiu-ation of and resoonse to a postulated incident (accident) at the Oiabio Canyon Nuclear Generating Plant."
Unfortunately, nowhere in this document is there a mechanism or guideIine for "evaluation of...a post" ulated incident", and the document does not yet clearly detail what the necessary "response to a postulated incident" might ~full entail.
The purposes (more properly objectives) I isted on page I seem to imp'ly City involvement but yet no such involvement is assumed by the plan, i.e.:
environm-
- 1. a. "to establish organizational responsibii" ities...in the event of..."
Q Ooes this mean County of San Luis Obispo organization oniyf
- b. "to minimize radiation ~ex osure and entall contamination".
E f8~A
CAI'ITOL hnDIIESS f/' wf COSGfITKES STATS CAtrfoTe KoocoTfotf Fof~
Ql~
.'LacaawxffTo 98814 Vloo Choirman 44~848 JL'otCLULT Covnwwmrrit. Qn~~vfos DISTRICT OFFI~ PiKl'8 PB&t8 ~mvc lV~~
P.O. Box 1188 MOT8 Joan's
~zrzzz, J~ron Lzcum~m Some Cfuxannon w
Cosfiarrgr.
IISS SIAaoff Starer Bxvmos or Favnf. Cooc S~ Lms Ooaro 98401 DONALD L. CRGNSKY JofNT LzcQI 'LTfvc COMMzrfox os Lza~vxvc Enffco S~TOR SANTA CRUZ, SAN ffKNITOo MONTKRKY AND SAN LIIfS Off!SPO COUNTIKS July Zl, l976 Dr. Richard J. Krejsa Vice Chairman and Supervisor, Sth District San Luis Obispo County Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California-93401
Dear Dick:
This is simply to acknowledge receipt of your .letter
.and enclosed copy of a report you presented to the Board of Supervisors on the preparedness of the County to react to a nuclear disaster.
I appreciate hearing from you and found your enclosed report most interesting and. informative.
I hope you will continue to keep me informed of further developments at the local level.
Kindest regards.
Sincerely, Donald . Grunsky DLG: bdb
Testimony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Two Oec. I/Dec. 21, 1976 Q. Is exposure accepted as a given? In what amounts? Who is taking the precaution to orevent exposure?
- 2. "Establish a mutual understanding...of civil government..."
Q
~ Within ~Count civii government oniy?
- 3. "Incorporating..:non-governmental agencies and organizations" into the County emergency organ-ization.
Q
~ Ooesn't this assume that (al I) governmental agencies are already incorporated into the County emergency organization? (see al so Al"7)
Page 2 You speak of a "Class C or 0 radiological accident" before such accidents are even defined (on page 5 ).
You refer to a "radiological accident" here, and also in the Table of Contents you list "Types of Accidents...
page Li". Yet, on page 4, you list: "Types of Incidents".
There is a continual inconsistency in usage of the term "accident" and "incident", with almost exclusive use of the word "incident" where "accident" is meant. "Accident" is used in the Table of Contents, on page 2, and again on page 18 and A4<<1. Incident, on the other hand, is used (incorrectly) on: pp. 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,17,18 (on either side of the paragraph bearing the word accident),
19,20; and in the appendices; Al"I, A2" I, A3" I, A4-2>
A4-7> A5-1 81-1, 89. Nowhere in the text or the gl ossary are the terms de f ined. An "i nc i dent", according to Webster', is an event "which happens aside from the main design". That is, something not designed or planned for,not premedi tated, i t has: '. neutral emot iona I value. An "accident", on the other hand, is an unusual effect of a known cause and theretore not expected. Accidents connote negati ve emot ional value. They are, in a sense, premedi" tated inci dents.
Since the Diablo Canyon Reactors have been planned for and designed to withstand al l. manner of imaginable events, i.e., earthquakes, mel tdowns,foretc., the failure of the hard-ware to handle an emergency which it was designed, mu'st
...be considered an "accident" not an "incident". Examoie:
on page 3 it states, "The principle deterrent to an incident is prevention through correct desian, construction, etc."
and again on page 0 "and response to a ostulated incident".
Correct design may prevent an accident, ut itpiannati cannot pre ror vent an incitient, i.e., an event wttc is not
I I,
Testimony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Three Oec. I /Oec. 21, 1976
~ lg d . y y lyg acci dents, not inci dents.
Page 3 The near exclusive use of the neutral word "incident" in this document unconsciously mirrors the use of neutral words in P.G. F E.'s publ ic I iterature which states, quite matter-of" factl y, that:
i) "radioactive gases... (are)... removed in the ~uri Fi-cation process;
- 2) "The radioactive gases in waste gas streams...are released to the atmosphere on a control led basis...";
and
- 3) "The radiation exposures from nuclear power plant dl 1 y ...yt y 1 ~ib1 operation resui t in ~ver smai i addi t ionai pubi ic Iow in relation to the radiation that exists natur" ally in our environment."
I am pleased, therefore, that on page 3, the word "hazard" is used in relation'o the "highly radioactive by" products" released in a "nuclear generating plant incident". To my knowledge,'it is the first time in this County that an official public document mentions the word in relation to the Diablo Canyon facility. 1 hope it doesn'0 get stricken from the document.
Page 4 '1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. This sentence is redundant if you state the goal clearly. However, since "evacuation of persons", it it mentions should be cross referenced to "Evacuation Plan".
Under Class B Accidents. it should be noted that plans are now underway for minor medical treatment of from 0 to 5 persons in an on-site release. (Or. G. Main, Oct. 21, 1976)
Page 5 Under Class 0, the "populated zone...downwind from the plant" is listed but'not defined. How does this compare with the LPZ'?
Page 7 Hazards and Exposure Criteria Title should probably be in capital letters.
Under a. "Mhole Body Exposure"
Testimony for nuclear Response Plan Page Four Oec. I/Oec. 21, 1976 Q What good are the California Admin. Code permissible limits in the event of an emergency?
Q: What "practicable measures will be taken to I imit the whol e body exposure dose" in the event of an emergency?
Page 8 Same Question: What "practical measures" will be taken to limit the projected thyroid dose to any individual?
"Practicable" and/or "practical" or "possible" measures are not defined anywhere in the document.
Regarding large doses of iodine 131 in the thyroid, it states "Consequently, a post emergency medical program of survei I lance and treatment must be establ i shed and continued after an incident."
Who pays for this? PG. F E'? County? State?
Fe ds?
Emergency Workers:
- . Public employees and others in disaster organizations (disaster service workers) and "any person required to mitigate the effects of an incident" are "emergency workers" and "it is possible that emergency workers who are i'nvolved may be exposed to radiation and contaminated while carrying out their duties." (also see page 14: "persons impressed into service".g... Do all County employees know that they are disaster service workers?
Q How will such persons be trained and by whom? How and by whom wiii such workers be compensated for radiation ~in u r or cancerI N hat insurance i iab ii-ity for County?
Q
~
Wi I I such persons be al lowed to refuse to serve as an emergency worker when asked? I f so, what con" tingency exists for the rest of the plan?
Page 9 Rescue personnel shoul d be broadl y fami I iar wi th the con-(~) sequences of exposure.
Q How does this apply to persons "impressed into service" a la page 14?
(7) "....in the extreme case, complete thyroid loss might be an acceptable penalty for a life saved."
Q: How save the "I ife" of a completely dosed patient?
Test imony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Five Dec. I/Dec. 21, 1976 Page 10 "persons receiving such an exposure should avoid procrea" (1) tion for a period ~u to a few months."
Q: Source? Hay be forever?
Regarding "Extraordinary Emergency Operat ions."
Q: Who measures these addi t iona 1 ext raardi nary doses?
Page 11 "Planning" preparation is a "joint cooperative effort of...
local, state and federal governments..."
Q. Does 'local" here mean "County only" or 'County and City", i.e., refer to notes on page 1.
"Each organizat ion defines i t's rol e, prepares pl ans, etc."
Q Who ensures that this is done'? Who pays?
"Plans and agreements are coordinated in advance."
Q: By whom? When?
"Local monitoring teams are activated and commence opera-tions'when radiation released is escaping past the gener-ating station site boundary..."
Q
~
How are these teams activated? Who is a member?
Who. pays for their training? Who pays for their equipment? How much will this training and equip-ment cost?
page 12 . "Off-site direction rests with local government."
Letter from Lee V. Gossick is contraryl "local government warns the people."
Q: Which local government? City or County? How?
page 13 The decision to evacuate "is expected to be an early major decision".
Who makes it? CAO; OES Director; Chairman of the Board of Supervisors? On what basis? in what time frame? (see page 21)
Testimony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Six Dec. I/Oec. 21, 1976 "If time permits, the decision should be based on...
doses determined bv off-site radiation monitirina"...
"...surface monitoring teams, aerial monitoring teams and evacuation support teams are dispatched to assigned areas.."
Q
~
Who does this? With what equipment? What train-ing? Who pays? Oispatched from where?, (also see page 19)
"8/S may decIare a local emergency."
Q Has anyone drafted a Resolution of Oeclaration of Local Emergency for Board of Supervisors-just in case?
Page 14 "Persons impressed into servic ".
Q
~
What insurance I iabi1 ity and coverage does County bear for such individual s or any employees?
"Al I publ ic employees....are di saster service workers"..
Q
~ Will we be asked to negotiate hazard oav for all h i k i I ll lethal as facing the gun of a criminal being pur-sued by a Sheri ff's deputy? ' How wi I I we handl e tha t s i tua t i on when we can even I egall y ha ndl e one deputy wounded in the I ine of duty'?
Orcanizational Structure based on:
"Clear I ines of authority and channels of communications."
Qo Are there "clear I ines" in this" plan between County and cities?
Pages "Consol i dation under a single chief."
15-16 indicates no tie-in with. city response plansi Especially City Engineers and road crews.
Page 17 "State and County Agencies and Oepartments...will provide SOP's..."
Q: What about Cities?
"State OES...will review and approve local plans and SOP's."
Q: Who will coordinate?
Testimony for Nuci ear Response Plan Page Seven Oec. I/Oec. 21, 1976 "The operator...has developed and on- will implement plans for on-site actions to cope with site and off-site releases..."
Q: Can you document and detail their plans for "coping with off-site releases of radioactivity" ?
Page 18 Alertinc "Alert information shall provide...sufficent information..."
Q: By whom? ln what format? Who will interpret?
who will assess? The magnitude, nature and con-sequences?
"Upon verification of the notice, the S.O. will notify the County Oi,rector of Emergency Services...(543"1074)
Q
~ What happens at night? After 5 p.m.? County Health Agency phone number 543- 1200 is daytime number. As are County Engineer and Social Services.
Page 19 "Two basic techniques of radiological monitoring wil I be employe Q: Who trains? Who pays?
Page 20 "Resources will be made available upon request..."
Q
~
Are the necessary agreements signed? (see page 24) page 21 "The decision wi1 I be based on an evaluation. of actual and predicted radiological and meteorological conditions."
- How can the citizenry be certain that the decision will be made on time or be made at all?
Page 22 Regarding evacuation procedures.
Qi How will you "provide for alert, warning, and notification... for persons located in a potential evacuation area", especial I y i f they have no radio'?
Q
~
In considering the "special needs" of school children, etc., you ought to consider the needs of those(poor) people who have no transportation. Will you provide (commandeer) buses and I arge vans For mass transpor-tation? What arrangements wi1 I be made?
Testimony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Eight Oec. I/Oec. 21, 1976 "Special medical care may be required for irradiated and/or contaminated patients."
Q When wi I I this be arranged for oft" si te rel eases?
The only contract thus far is for on-site release!
There are no a rrangemen ts For of f- s i te medi ca I he I p.
Page 23 None of this has happened yet. Who pays?
Page 24 "Plans should include them."
Q: Oo they?
Page 25 Public !nformation Before of after? Which is preferrable?
6 26 "Programs and refresher courses."
Q: Who pays?
"Each individual agency must train..." "These programs wil 1 be coordinated..." "These courses wii be avail-1 able...and will be conducted each year."
Q: Who pays?
Page 27 "The OES wil i assist any County agency..."
Q: Who assists the ~Cit agencies? Who pays?
"The Heal th Agency wi I I provi de to agenci es .."
Q: To al I or ~an agencies or to County agencies?
Exerc i ses "as often as they deem necessary."
Qe This is not an implementation plan, otherwise specific dates are needed!
"Exercise wil I include County, State, FederaI and Private Agencies..."
Q: No cities?
Testimony for Nuclear Response Plan Page Nine Oec. 1/Oec. Zl, 1976 Summa ry:
Our County government, through a misplaced bel ief that any-thing could go wrong, has reflected the same widespread unquestion-ing faith in technology that energy producing companies subject a'l l of us to everytime we open our monthly electric bill. The chances of a power plant accident happening, they say, are infinitesimal.
So don't worry'. you might get hit by lightning sooner than by escaped radiation!
Sut the people are becoming aware. They know that Murphy's law works: that if something can happen it will happen. Nothing is accident proof.
The document is inherently unworkable as it now stands.
hope the implementation phase works out the details without rushing.
In closing I would like to quote from Albert Einstein (1946):
"Our representatives depend ultimately on decisions made in the village square...To the village square we must carry the facts of atomic energy. From there must come America' voice."
We are in the village square today and the voice of America' people is clear: there are serious problems associated with nuclear power safety and there are serious public costs associated with them that are yet to be determined.
Thank you for your attention.
RJK: submit copies of exchange of information by RJK - for the record.
3 I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CouaTIIOUSK Ai.cEX i Shà LIIm OD?SPO, CAIJPOE iLL 93401 r SOS-)%3-1530, Exr. 321 I~
- c
>gcmbers of Iho Board HANS HEII MANN M. E. WII I EFORD September 17, 1976 KURT P. KUPPER HOWARD MANKINS DR. RICHARD J. KREJSA The Honorable Robert J. Lagcmarsino Congressman, 19th District, Ca I i fornia House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Oear Bob'.
The letter from Lee.Gossick was most inter sting.
I am enclosing a copy of my reply. One point you might find startl ing: the Sheriff's Evacuation'Plan (the exclusive plan on which we have depended for the past few years) only applies to the Low Population Zone around the Diablo Canyon facility. This is an area within a 6"mile radius 'of. the plant. it includes 18 or fewer peo'pIe. Within a 7"mile rad.ius, the number jumps over one'housand, and within 12 miles, it in" eludes about half the popu,lation of our County!
Thank you for your help in bringing my inquiry about nuclear accident preparedness to the proper persons in the N.R.C.
Sincerely, DR. R I CHARD J. KR J Supervisor, Fifth District San Luis Obispo County R'JK: d encl osu re
I
~ v, o ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ' ~ v ~ ~ ~ V'o ~ i g4 l lv IUttTY Of SAQ LUI 08ISWO r IIOOr4 XIT. CCUIITHOVSC *IIBCX r S*H LUIS C8I fO. CAl IfCRtrIA, g5woI ACTOCS
~ ~ ~ 8 D. CONRAO JR ~
gvirii>C"g g COURTS hOkWISTAATIYC OfflCXTI rgiJhp
.Decembe r -18, 1972 Mr- Raymond-)/- \/hite, Manager Claims and Safety Department Pacif ic Gas and Electric Company 245 Ma rke t S t ree t San Francisco, 'Cal ifornia 94106 Attent. ion: . Nr - Hugh N. Reynol ds
Dear Mr- Reynolds:
.. Thank.you for your letter of December 8, 1972-bilitieses As you know, th Board of Supervisors is. charged with the. rcspons ibi1i ty of caring for the ci t izens of the County, and readi ly accepts th! s premise insofar as the statutory and moral scope of their responsi-.
are concerned ~
Our Office of Civil Defense and Disaster stands ready to assist your company in efforts to protect the 1 ives and v;el being of citizens should such an.
1 emergency occurrence arise at your Diablo. Canyon Nuclear Plant-You are aware, { am sure, that the Board oF Supervisors should need to off icial ly order thi s of f ice to put into effect the general rescue, transportation,
'nforcement and oe'rsonal care faci ities and planning 1 based on .the- ne d of each individual - You wi11 f ind them most receptive to the emergency needs at al times- 1 Lf we can help you further in this matter, please
.do not hesitate to call-
~ '. Very truly yours;
~ . RUSSELL K- PO"/ELL
, Beputy Administrator Speci a 1 As s i glen t:s ch
I . ~
~ ~
-~F0 )SCi:DIQP u Yg Jug g erg
. Qi Ãc54/Q I=~~p@~~~gy Op~ II/
SAN LUIS OBISPO County residents in the six-mBe radius low, of any monitoring for south county Supervisor Richard Krejsa population zone (LPZ). vegetable fields that could become Thursday disputed PGEcE's What, he asked, e ould become of contaminated.
contention that the Aug. 18 Diablo those residents "and the sheriff's And he said the drill director Canyon emergency drill was deputy" if.a more serious accident . commented "itwill be two ot three succ essfu). with prevailing v;inds of 12 m.p.h. ~
m onths. before we can have a Krejsa, who was away on county had sent a radioactive cloud to the realistic . test of the em ergency business during tho-Tuesday- outer edge of the zone in 30 system:"
Wednesday hearing of the Nuclear minutes?
Regulatory Commission's atomic "In fact, v:hile meeting the He sai4 to meet federa I
'federal requirements PGEcE must . only safety and licensing board, requirjments only arrange .medical services" for challenged the PG&E testimony in requires consideriag the people a letter to the board's chairman, within the LPZ, what happens to .employes injured'on the site and Mrs. Elizabeth Bowers. all the persons in SA and Prefumo there are no emergency provisions:
. for off-site nuclear accident vic-He said that during the mock canyons who live within yards of ~
titns, the general public, in. any of.
emergency PGhE, plant engineer the arbitrary six-mile radius wh --" the county's hospitals at present.'
James Shiffer, wgo testified at the don't 'legally'ave.to be notified?
hearing, had to stand against the glass window in the'upervisors'oom to pick up messages from tbe "Furthermore, what about the near 50 per cent. of the count s '
po'pulation Hving within the 12-mile
.Krejsa said the test was suc-cessful only to the extent.that the sheriff's.office had the after-5 p.m.
plant on his walkie-talkie. radius of the plant who do not have phone number ef disaster coor-
"Vfhat will happen to trans- . to be 'legally'otified?" dinatur George Silv'a which it missions when vie set up the ~
Xrejsa also said he doesn't know didn't have a year ago.'~
temporary emergency operations center'in the windowless basement f of the San.Luis Obispo Ueterans Memorial Buildin~"'rejsa asked.
" He said radio messages from the !
field teams monitoring 'the
.potential'spread'f radioactivity.
"garbled and incoherent" 'ere and it took a sheriff's car an hour~ .
and 20 minutes to alert the 20
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (","
CoURTIxoass ~ < S~ Lms Oszmo, Cuxroama 9$ 4C4 934OS 805-543-1550, E .. 321 =.~ ~~ ~iII Members of Ihc Board HANS HEILMANN M. E. WILLEFORD KURT P. KUPPER HOWARD MANKINS DR. RICHARD J. KREJSA PRESS RELEASE TO: ALL MEDIA FROM: Dr'. Richard J. Krej sa Supervi sor, Fi f th Di strict
SUBJECT:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Safety Hearings DATE: October 20, 1977 The attach'ed letter was sent today to the Chairperson of the Atomic Safety and Licencing Board.
a ttachment RJK:d