ML19207B726
| ML19207B726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Mancuso F CONNECTICUT, STATE OF |
| To: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0553, RTR-NUREG-553 NUDOCS 7909050137 | |
| Download: ML19207B726 (2) | |
Text
.
- a%,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT s
O ZI'A*L 3 DEP ARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 2:=4kt3.
OFFICE OF CIVIL PREPAREDNESS y
>by 3, 1979 Mr. Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Ryan:
We have reviewed the report of.Dr. Stephen N. Salomon of your office.
Some of Dr. Salomon's recommendations are favorable, and others we feel may be very inappropriate in this state.
Part of the difficulty arises regarding funding, because single towns in Connecticut receive major tax benefits from nuclear facilities, whereas an incident may impact on many towns or com= unities.
In other words, there is a divergence between the risks and the benefits geographically.
One case in point would be the suggestion for a S20,000 mini =um yearly salary for local Civil Preparedness Directors in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
The salary should be in line with the heads of other emergency deparrment heads to keep from causing problems in small towns.
In our state some towns exert more emergency leadership than others and population size in many cases exerts the pressure for a greater need for emergency leadership.
It would appear that a more equitable funding technique would be to set a top aum available for towns and states to increase their peacetime nuclear preparedness and allow them (the towns and states) to submit an individual grant application for funds to serve their needs for plans, equipment and personnel.
Some towns are already better prepared in some areas of emergency preparedness than others.
Some of Connecticut's towns would have a greater need for a media center or special communications network rather than a more comprehensive planning effort.
Some items of concern to Connecticut not covered in the report are:
1)
Refresher training for those trained at Las Vegas in the RERO course.
2)
The problems of standardization in planning - i.e.
incident classes vary from state to state, record keeping of public e::posure, on-site monitoring pre-cedures and evacuation signs.
,dl Ubs m-,
r="-
566-3150 40 3rm str~ - Mr:cri cue==t x <
gQ5Qh W m Ezat ::cer :.m + E:nta ?
q
. 3)
The need for contiguous state planning with follow-up drills and exercises where needed.
4)
The requirement for media cent.ers.
In sumnry we are in agreement that funding will be needed to assist in the planning and preparedness process; but we do have additional concerns, and we do not entirely agree with the method of raising or distributing the funds.
An additional 10 NRC consultants will probably not provide an immediate answer to the needs of state and local government.
Very cruly yours,
",o Frank Mancuso State Director FM:aq cc: A. Hekking 10AC C.F.
3.U.078