ML19207B742
| ML19207B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1979 |
| From: | Carriker A TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0553, RTR-NUREG-553 NUDOCS 7909050175 | |
| Download: ML19207B742 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T
J nseucs 4~o snciat neon 4=s mouwsnancs 1 IG11101*G11alil11 out, May 22, 1979 m,.,,,
sua;tet Draft Report - Beyond Defense-in-Depth: Cost and
,.i.,,.,
Funding of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Commercial Nuclear Power Stations, NUREG 0553, March 30, 1979.
nom Health Physicist, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation Materials Transportation Bureau m
Robert G. Ryan Director, Office of State Programs Muclear Regulatory Coc: mission The subject draft report has been reviewed. Although it is directed at fixed nuclear facilities, the objectives for improving capabilities at state and local levels certainly impact capabilities for handling transportation accidents.
The statements on page II-69 understate the differences between the plans and preparedness for power station and transportation emergencies.
Several of the significant differences, in addition to unknown location, for transportation emergencies are:
1.
Smaller source terms and attendant lower risks; 2.
Greater frequency of occurrence of minor consequence incidents that will draw public interest and concern; 3.
All state and many local governments within the states need coordinated plans; 4.
There is seldom any radiological expertise on the scene until some time after most inciaents occur; and 5.
Effective plans and preparedness within a state will result in shallow capabilities of broad geographic coverage that can readily draw en in-depth capabilities from stratrgic locations within the state.
The emergency response system for transportation emergencies must be closely integrated with the system for nuclear power facilities, at least at the top levels in a state.
The data in table 13, page II-84, supports the basic position that the early protective actions for i
, J 4
- 909050/75-
4 2
transportation radiological emergencies will need to be taken by personnel who have little radiological training but regularly deal with many other emergencies more serious than most transportation radiological emergencies.
In consideration of the " Preferred Approach", page II-115, the revenues to local and state governments derived from the utilities might not be significantly decreased if NRC provided all funding for plaus and preparedness from increased fee schedules. This might simply result in further inflation of utility charges to customers.
The funds from NRC would free funds within the states for application to transportation plans and preparedness. This might be considered inequitable for the power stations to be essentially funding the transportation plans and preparedness; however, the same revenues also fund schools, parks, welfare, etc.
Since all states require plans and preparedness for transportation emergencies for all hazardous materials,it =ay be more appropriate for FEMA and/or other agencies to develop the progra=s and administer funding for the transportation radiological emergencies as a component of a broad transportation emergencies system. This would require the agencies to work closely with NRC at state, regional, and local levels, and NRC'would exercise the primary guidance for the radiological aspects.
Asf/A A A. Wendell Carriker
- 1 1/4