ML19210C794
| ML19210C794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-CP-0009, NUREG-CP-9, NUDOCS 7911200116 | |
| Download: ML19210C794 (86) | |
Text
NUREG/CP-0009 Proceedings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission nLonference on Radiological Emergency Preparedness Training Held at Kansas City, Missouri July 24 - 25,1979 n--
Office of rg State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Comm,ss, ion i
e "'au p
q
!)/I U3
,e Yf 4, 7..... "
7911200
J Available from GPO Sales Program Division of Technical Information and Document Control U.5, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 j '] r/ /s
', l i
\\vi s
NUREG/CP-0009 Proceedings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Conference on Radiological Emergency Preparedness Training Held at Kansas City, Missouri July 24 - 25,1979 L--_ - -' -^:_ _:_ zu: :: : _:_ _ -- - ::--- :
Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 p,
/
I3/3
,i0
pa arco UNITED STATES
+
S \\,
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.c,
- c WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
%.... /
+
October 26, 1979 NOTE T0: SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS:
The NRC is committed to cooperating with other Federal agencies on working with State and local governments to improve their radiological emergency response capabilities.
This training conference has demonstrated the type of cooperative spirit that is necessary for us to accomplish the tasks that lay before us.
I want to personally thank each of you for your thoughts and suggestions at the conference.
Sincerely,
(
l i
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
ABSTRACT On July 24-25, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission soonsored a training seminar for Federal officials involved in the review of State and local radiological emergency response plans. The major purpose of the semina.-
was to discuss the methods used to review the State response plans for accidents involving radioactive materials.
The review criteria, as re'rised, are found in Appendix E.
!373 li2 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1
SYN 0PSIS OF DISCUSSION OF JULY 25, 1979 3
APPENDICES:
A.
December 24, 1975 Federal Register Notice 8
B.
Letters of Invitation to Conference 11 C.
List of Conference Participants 13 D.
Agenda and Reference Material 23 E.
Essential Elements of Review Criteria for State /Loca'
'6 Radiological Emergency Response Plans F.
Letter to other agencias 75 l
/3 i13 V
INTRODUCTION As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 in March 1979, the program of improving State and local radiological emergency response plans (RERP) is receiving substantial attention. The increased interest on this issue has centered on the preparedness of the State and local governments to respond effec-tively to an accident in order to properly protect public health and safety.
The Federal Register Notice of December 24, 1975 published Dy the Federal Preparedness Agency describes the responsibilities and assignments of Federal agencies in the field and outlines a program that includes training, technical assistance, guidance, response plan review and concurrence, and response plan tests and exercises.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was assigned lead agency responsibility for review and concurrence in State and local plans for dealing with radiological emergencies. The Register Notice is presented as Appendix A.
On July 20, 1979, President Carter signed an executive order which merged the Federal Preparedness Agency (GSA), the. afense Civil Preparedness Agency (D0D), and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (HUD) into a new agency, the Federal leergency Management Agency (FEMA); and on August 1, 1979, Mr. John Macy was sworn in as FEMA's first Director. It is likely that the December 24, 1975 Federal Register Notice will be revised and updated in the immediate future to reflect FEMA's role as the single agency in the Federal govern-ment responsible for policy matters and coordination in emergency planning and response. The program for Federal interaction with states on their FERP's will change to reflect FEMA's new role, and further changes can be expected soon both because of legislation now pending in the Congress and as a result of forthcoming recommendations from various investigations and assessments of the TMI accident.
THE CONCURRENCE PROCESS AS IT WORKS TODAY The initial review of State and local Radiological Emergency Response Plans is conducted by a Regional Advisory Committee (RAC), composed of regional representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DGE), Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (formerly DCPA, FDAA and FPA), and NRC.
The reviewers use NUREG-75/111 (including Supplement Nu. l)* as a standard to measure whether or not a State or local government is adequately addressing each of the 10 essential planning elements. Based on the review by each of the individual members, the RAC makes a recommendation to NRC on whether a plan is adequate to receive concurrence from NRC.
To date the States of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Washington have concurrences in plans. (Note: Nebraska also received concurrence relative to the fort Calhoun station on September 21, 1979 and the Virginia plan received a concurrence in October 1979.)
The RACs' continuing efforts in critiquing tests and exercises is critical to assuring State and local prepared-Satisfactory field exercises of the plan must be conducted annually for a State to maintain concurrence.
ness.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/111 (12-1-74); Supplement No. 1 (3-15-17); Guide and Checklist for Development and Evaluation of State and Local Government Radiolegical Emergency Response Plans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities. Available at the Nuclear Regulatory C ommission.
i
A plan after all is a piece of paper; only an exercise will show whether or not it can really be expected to work in an emergency.
Because of the key roles played by the RAC's and their headquarters counterparts, The NRC sponsored a training conference in radiological emergency preparedness in Kansas City, Missouri on July 24-25, 1979. Representa-tives of all of the RACs and th2ir heaoquarters counterparts were present to discuss the methods used to review Stateand local emergency response plans for accidents involving radioactive materials. The letters of invitation are found in Appendix B and the list of participants in Appendix C.
Representatives of the Interorganizational Advisory Committee (ICAC) of the Conference of Radiation Control of Program Directors (CRCPD) also participated. They were: Aubrey Godwin, Alabama; Betty McClelland, Washington; and Howard Proctor, Decatur county, Alabama. During the meeting there were formal presentatiions on a variety of subjects relating to emergency preparedness. A copy of the agenda and reference material is included as Appendix D.
In addition to the formal plenary session, time was allotted for each agency and each RAC to meet separately to discuss draft criteria for reviewing a State RERP. An important aspect of this conference was to attempt to get some uniformity in the quality and depth of reviews by all of the RACs. Each RAC has heretofore operated independently, using its own judgment on criteria. This has resulted in some unevenness in the review of State plans. By applying the same review criteria iiationally, we hope to improve the capabilities of the States to respend effectively to an emergency at a fixed nuclear facility. The review criteria, revised by the to.inents and recommendations received from the participants, are found in Appendix E.
At the closing plerary session on July 25, 1979, all of the issues raised in the individual agency and RAC meetings were discussed. The body of this report is a synopsis of this session.
The participants, by show of hands, generally agreed with the review criteria proposed. A big issue, however, wis the perceived lack of support of the RACS by headquarters agencies. NRC, as lead agency, agreed to discuss this with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the other involved Federal agencies in order to make them aware of the situation and seek support for providing the necessary resources for this program in the field. Chairman Hendrie of NRC wrote to each member agency asking for a renewal of the RAC commitments and to stress the tight ceadlines sugges'" in the version of the FY 80 NRC authorization bill passed by tne Senate (S. 562). Chairman Hendrie's letter to Douglas Costle, Admir.istrator of the t!.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is founc at Appendix E.
J 7
r-l.
2
SYNCPSIS OF CISCUSSION OF July 25, 1979 PLANNING GUIDANCE - REVIEW CRITERIA - CONCURRENCE Emergency Preparedness for Other Facilities A number of points were made with respect to emergency planning for DOE and Department of Defense (D00) facilities. The General Accounting Office (GAO) in its review of emergency planning
- suggested that DOE should upgrade its emergency planning postur0 and involve State and local governments in the planning process. Both DOE and D00 generally accepted these recummendations.
While the current NRC emergency planning program with the State and local governments is structured to deal only with licensed reactors, where the operator is required to have a plan, we should be looking towards inclusion of other licensed facilities in State and local government planning.
Model Plans Representatives of DCPA (now part of FEMA) suggested that Model Radiological Emergency Response Plans might be prepared for use oy State and local governments. NRC opposed the notion of model plans because of previous experience. A number of years ago, model emergency plans were published for use by State and local governments.
The emperience indicates that once the Dianks in the model plan were filled in, the plan went on the shelf, never to be looked at again or understood by those who had a response role.
A suggestion for a better approach is to use the current guidance and, when a plan receives concurrence, make that plan available as an example of how one State did its planning. An extension of the approach is to put together a " library" of particularly well drawn elements from various concurred State plans.
It was generally accepted that, during the development of a plan, those who are responsible for responding will have a better understanding of their role and the scope of their responsibility if they have t5e experi-ence of actually writing the plan.
FEMA plans to continue work on a model plan, taking these pitfalls into account.
Continued Concurrence As part of the criteria for maintaining continued concurrence, a State must exercise its plan annually.
Althoegh a grace period may be allowed for extenuating circumstances, NRC is prepared to withdraw its concurrence of a State plan if it is not exercised at least annually.
Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States: Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies, March 30, 1979.
1 j$ / 25 i i (i 3
Cur rent Method of /AC Evaluation Discussion on how the RAC's evaluate a State plan raised a question as to whether or not to keep the current system of four possible evaluations for any one plan element or to reduce it to only two 1.e.,
either accep-table ur unacceptable.
This issue was put to a vote and the participants decided to keep the evaluation system as it is.
State and Local Plans Prepared by Contractors It should make little difference in the quality of the plan whether it is prepared by State individuals or by a contractor. It is important, however, that all of the parties with responsibilities under the plan know and understand their roles and scope of responsibility, and this is usually easier if State and local officials actually draft the plan.
Role of DOT Currently very little is being done in RERP's for transportation accidents. DOT is-involved in the RAC's and the Headquarters Advisory Committee (HAC), but little guidance has been provided to the States on this issue.
NRC and DOT, as well as the otner involved Federal agencies, are aware of this, and it is an issue that needs work.
00T and NRC, along with EPA and the States, will be working together to improve the guidance on trans-portation accidents involving radioactive.uaterials. A task force approach is preferred.
Administrative Standards When a State plan is sent out by NRC for review to other Federal agencies, there needs to be greater specificity on what the documents contain and as to the status of the plan (Revision? new draf t? old document? etc. )
Also all reference material cited in the plan should be made available to the reviewers, along with a cross check chart (developed bv the state) indicating where each of the elements of the Guide and Checklist (NUREG-75/111, supp. No. 1) is dealt with in the plan.
When a plan is reviewed by a RAC, written comments should be provided to the State by the RAC.
Good docu-mentation and records of meetings and formal plan reviews should be maintained by each RAC.
States should be asked to index plans ard supp0rting documents.
Site Specific Plans State plans shuuld be site specific and should include detailed planning for the locality contiguous to a licensed facility. Each site should N doalt with separately in the overall State plan.
While NRC has concurred in State plans.
little information in county planning has been included, NRC e
will not continue that practice. Conditional concurrence may be granted, however, to allow the State and county a specified time to upgrade local planning. lhis appears compatible with the Senate language in 5.562.
4
Review Criteria The review criteria for evaluating State and local RERP's were discussed at great length during individual RAC and agency meetings. Specific comments and recommendations were included in the revised version included as Appendix E of this report.
The participants agreed that, in order to minimize the unevenness of State plans, review criteria, applied nationally, are necessary. By a show of hands, the participants agreed that, with minor modifications, the criteria are useful and can be used by all of the RACs in reviewing State plans.
Guide and Checklist (NUREG-75/lll)
There was general agreement that NUREG-75/lli (including Supplement No. 1) was an excellent document. While not perfect, it does provide a useful framework for State and local governments to use in devising a plan.
The participants recognized the document needs some revision which should take the form of perfecting a good piece of business without tampering its basic fibre. Additional elements should probably be included in future editions, drawn from the " recommended" list in the 1975 Guide and Checklist.
All 154 elements should be considered in the review of State plans, but RACs should concen; rate their efforts on reviewing the 70 essential elements required for concurrence.
Siting of Nuclear Facilities Heavily Populated Areas States with concurrence already will be faced serious problems with sites in or near heavily populated areas where a new facility is proposed or where an existing site may add new units. NRC must address this in its siting policy now undergoing revision. The suggestions were made that the NRC convene a group of regulatory Feaeral officials to provide input to NRC siting policy and that NRC should include emergency planning in developing its siting policy. Extraordinary measures may have to be taken at existing sites located r,2ar large population centers. Emergency preparedness at such sites must be given the highest priority.
Drills and Exercises Testing Plans The group agreed that testing the plans is extremely imporiant. If a State does not conduct an annual exercise, NRC should lift concurrence on the recommendation of the RAC.
Subcontracting Should Federal agencies consider using contractors in exercises and critiques to ease the burden for RAC members? NRC replied that it was a possibility for the long run, but not feasible or desirable for the immediate future.
t 9
5
Unacceptable Exercises If an exercise were deemed unacceptable by the RAC, NRC should demand correction of the deficiencies by the State. If the State refused to make the necessary improvements, NRC should lift the concurrence.
Radiological Assistance Program Team Participation The DOE Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) cannot participate in all State exarcises. A DOE spokesman noted th3t RAP personnel usually can participate in communications drills. The group consensus was that at least sone of the people from the RAP should be involved in every exercise. And more than that, the RAP should participate in at least one exercise a year to test its capabilities.
Training General There was a call for more training for State and local government personnel and the regional RAC's.
NRC funds a course at the Nevada Test site in radiological emergency response operations. Five slots in each course are open for Federal observers. These are normally filled by Headquarters or RAC members. For the long haul, NRC and FEMA might consider some certification program for State and local of ficials.
Regional Training Several RAC's commented that they need coordinators and decision makers courses. New RAC members should receive some t raining before they become heavily involved. One comment was that the RAC from a specific region should attend the same Course together. NRC agreed to pursue this idea.
Public Education There was a suggestion that either NRC or FEMA should educate the public on the relative hazards of radiation.
NRC policy is not to get involved because it may appear to be promotional. FEMA does not presently see this sort of education as a high priority item.
RAC Role, Membership Role of RACs The role of the regional RAC is to be advisor, reviewer and observer to the State. Their role is not opera-tional for a real emergency, although RAC members might participate in the Federal supportive response via FEMA.
Manpower Most RACs complaim J that they licked support from the various headquarters supporting agencies. If Congress passes legislation relating to emergency planning, the agencies should not have trouble making commitments to this program. In the meantime, RAC VI offered a plan to pick up some of the increased work from the other regions. NRC was urged to write strong letters to the agency heads requesting :nanpower and travel mor.
(See Appendix F.)
j f}
6
Role of F FMA DCPA, FDAA, and FPA are now part of FEMA.
The RAC members f rom these former agencies will now be FEMA rnembers.
The role of the regional FEMA director is a strong one.
If he decides that there should be more than one representative to the RAC, then there will be.
Concurrence Schedule The RAC's are concerned that the concurrence schedule set by NRC can't be met. Quarterly schedules will be started at once for the RAC efforts.
Transportation Accidents There were suggestions from the floor that DOT has not been involved significantly in the planning process.
Also, the authorization bill (5.562) does not talk about transportation accident response. Should the RACs deal with transportation accidents? For now, it probably does not need major emphasis, but one can count on it needing attention in the near future.
It is an area of major concern and cannot be neglected.
Miscellaneous Funding Study All participants encouraged continued efforts on the funding study Beyond Defense in Depth - NUREG-0553.
Federal Plan There is need for a Iederal emergency response plan which might be tested along with the State plan. One problem is the lack of a singular attitude within the Federal igencies. HEW's Emergency Medical Services stresses an ad hoc approach and centralization for ef fectiveness. If enacted, 5.562 would require FEMA to devise a National Contingency Plan for dealing with radiological emergencies.
State Point of Contact Who should the States talk to? The National Contingency Plan which FEMA is working on should provide clear answers for this essential question of responsibility and coordination.
13/3
.20 7
Appendix A WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24,1975 h
ikU:s
's,.,. h sams=_
ummme
!373 l2!
e "O&
8
W SOTICES
,,, g GENERAL SERVICES
..f nucicar materials. Current ph r.ning o.A ateti wit h ERDA und ERDA con-ADMINISTRATION activities are taking place at a.i ic<cis of trar. r radiologicul incident r espuare govern ment, su well as in private plumu+, ami t bi State and Ivcol tr-F ederal Properedness Agency md etry.
t.>olu t apabilit ies und resourros iu e R ADIOL OGIC At INCIDENT E MERGENCY Resporutbiliites. The Nuclear Regula-fully courdinatest with ERDA to mt* -
Rf SFONSE PLANNING; FIXID FAClu. Lory Commisalon (NRCs is the lead gate the o! bite consequences of radiolos-TIES AND TRANSPORI AflOh nurncy in radiologlos! incident emer-ical incidents wority response planning, training and 2 Cooperation with the intohed Fed-Irvtere6ry Regpemelhelibes other a.*nistance activities cGyered in this eral agencies in the development and I hm n'atk e H lo m.1 by tim Fe decul nottre. 'Ihe Federal Preparedness Agency, implementatten of radiological emer-Preparedneu Agrne y. ( 6eneral Horutc5 OSA, exercises general monitorship of i; ncy response plannmg assistance foi Administration s OSA'. to provide full these activities. Responalbilitters of NRC, State and local governments, con.sistent public informbtlon cons t rning the Fen-the Federal Preparedness Agency, GSA, with NRC guidance.
erni course r.nd method by which certain and other Federal agencies are detailed
- 3. Determination of the accident po-tential at each non-licensed ERDA fixed radiologicalincident emergency response below.
pla in responsibilities are rhnuncled The Nuclear Regulatory Commission nuclear facility.
n e rmined (5 USC 22iai t tiiB)).
'NRC) Is responsible for:
- 4. Assisting other agencies in the de-It roupersedes the Frorsa: nrustu notice 1 Issuance of guldance to other Fed. velopment and estabhshment of guide-of January 24.1973 (38 FR 2LG'. pub-cial agencies concerning their responsl. Imes on effectate Fystems of emergency lished by the Omce of timeigeno Pre-biliues and authoritles in radiologicalin. radiation detection and measurement.
paredness.
cident emergency response planning and meludmg instrumentation, for State and local governments, in cooperation with Purpose. To state the responsibilitics in providing planning assistanee to State NRC.
as agreed between certain Fadtral agen-and local governmenta.
cles for radiological emcigency response
- 2. Development and promulgation of The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare eDHEW) is responsible for.
planning covering fixed nuclear facilitles guidance to State and local governments
- 1. Assisting State health departznents, and tra rtation mcideny involvir g in coordination with other Federal agen.
State hospital associations, and other radio'a metertals and for providing cles for the preparation of radiological organ ations nd ambu-
,gormnated Federal assistance tn State emergency response plans.
{rofessiona and local governments m their em er.
- 3. Review and concurrence in such plans for the prevention of adverse ef-rency response olanning reihted to such plans. f Proper correlation among State, fects from exposure to radiation,includ-incidenti Po!!< y and planning guidance loca! government, Ifcensee. and national ing the use of prophylactic drugs to re-to Federal agencies for assistance to plans is an element of this review.)
duce radiation dose to specific organs.
States sil! be directed toward those in-
- 4. Determination of the accident po-This ne ude he a d medic ca e cidents whose effecta extend beyond the tential at each licensed fixed nuclear boundaries of the facility or site or the facility.
dh BM W immediate area of an meident involving
- 5. Issuance of guidance for establish-NRC the transportation of radioactive ma-ment of effectivt systems of ernergency 2.
ssuance of guidance on appropriate terial. It is intended that the plans and radiation detection and measurement.
planmng actions necessary for evaluat-arrangements developed by Federal The Environmental Protection Agency ing and preventing radioactive contami-agencies and b) the States for responding iEPA) is responsible for:
nation of foods and animal feeds, and to the contingencies set forth in this
- 1. Establishment of Protection Action the control and use of such products CUC P
Guides (PAO) in coordination with ap-should they become contaminated.
"g p' d S t-d propriate Federal agencies. These guides
- 3. Issuance of guidance on emergency ments which provide for the f ull spec-will be in terms of projected radiation radiation doses related to the health trum of peacetime nuclear emergencies doses which might result from radiologi-and safety of ambulance services, hos-en! incidents at fixed nuclear facilities pital, and other health care personnel, f Re : o s bl i es w 11 r Ic a r in the transportation of radioactive in cooperation with EPA.
ums stimulus to state and local govern-materials.
- 4. Establishing and issuing guidelines
- 2. Recommendations as to appropriate for radiation detection and measure-to rad to I si d,,
protective actions which can be taken by ment systems for use by ambulance serv-Background--Formal 3tatement of the governmental authorities to ameliorate ices and hospital emergency depart-roles of the Federal departments and the consequences of a radiological incl-ments, in cooperation with NRC.
agencies, as set for th in this notice. Is dent at a fixed nuclear facildy or from The Department of Transportation made pursuant to Executa e Orders 11051 an incident involving transportation of iDOTe is responsible for:
and 11490 and in connectmn with the radioactive materials'
- 1. Providing guidelines, in cooperata)n responsiblitty of the Federal Prepared-with NRC and other Federal agencies, 3 Mding assistance, followmg the ness Agency to. stimulate vigorous State gutgance issued by NRC, to State agen-and consistent with NRC guidance, for and local participation in emergency pre-the development of that portion of State cies with r iological emergency response paredness measures and in achieving a and local emergency plans pertaining to responsib!Itles in the development of coordinated w ?rlung i ela tionship be-transportation incidents involvmg radio-their emergency plans relative to nuclear active vrials as described in the Pur-tween the va:Lous elements of State gov-facilities and transportation incidents pose pot.~n of this statement.
crnments and the Fedeial agencies to involving radioactive materials.
which sperine emeigency prepaiedness
- 2. Ass; stance to State and local go/-
functions have been a ssigned While
- 4. The establishment of emergency ernments in emergency planning for there is substantial assurance of an ex.
radiation detection and measurement such transportation incidents.
credingly low p obabihty of incidents in, systems guidelines in coopctation with The Defense Civil Preparedness volving radioactive materials ni fixed nu.
N RC.
Agency iDCPA) is responsible for:
clear facilities hnd in the tinnoportation The Energy Research and Develop-
- 1. Asi..tance to State and local au-of those materials. the antarinated pro-ment Administration (ERDA) is respon-thorities.n planning the emergency pre-liferation of micten t power DLmts and sable for*
paredneu actions required to provide materials in the amar fo' Hic icquues I. Providing guidance, consistent with the mecnanism for coordinating emer-ently conaideianon of tin m obkm and NRC guidance. to State and local gov-sency a,3crations in response to radio-ndequate emeircia s riain m foi such ernments on the develcpment of that logic.tl incidents, consistent with NRC postJon of their radiological inc: dent guidance rentingencies At the Fehr al let ti sev-emcigency response planning which is 1 Iwa.ance of guidance on the use of oral agens les sic cooperat me to Icud as-iclated to ERDA-mnnaged and ovecated ca ll. fu.se rcsources including warn-sistance to State and local a es crnments fattlities and ERDA-controlled rad;oac. lac. o mmun: cations, training, and ra-in deve laping emergency pl.ms for fixed live materials in transit to assure that: diological defense emergency response nuclean facilitics and the liart pot tatlan u-State and local planning are co-systema itDERAL REC M ill Vol. 40. NO 248-WEDNt5 DAY, L&CEMsER 24, 1915 9
fj/j
,{}
NOTICES 594tG Pederal Dinaster Annintance Admints-tration (FDAA) of the Department of linuging and Urban Development in re-sponsible for:
- 1. Providlns puttinnee to Ctate and local authoritt's, on the daunter pre-puedness aspectA of State cmergency D**D
- D'9-3 planning for fixed nuclear facilities and t ansportation lucidentA involvint: radio-active materials, consistent with NRC
- p D [
- ]-
cuidance, for the preparation of radio-3
- ogical emergency response plans.
2 Reco nmendations to NRC as to a >propriate planning actions necessary f or evaluution and review of State and local planning activities developed under this notice.
The Federal Preparedness Agency
'FPAs. OHA, will exercise general mont-torship of Federal radiological emergency renponse planning and training activities related to this notice. Specifically, FPA responsibilities include:
- 1. Review and endorsement of NRC guidance *o other Federal ngencies and NRC guidance and planning assistance to State s.nd local governments.
- 2. Assistance in resolving Federal in-ter agency or Federal-State problems when neerssary to the fulfillment of the responsib!!1 tics to Federal agencies in this notice.
- 3. Encouragement of St stes to produce plans rele.ted to this notice as part of their general State emers ency planning.
- 4. Assistance to NRC, ERDA and DOT in developing priorities, when required, for providing this planning assistance to State and local governments.
- 5. Facilitating State and local con-tjacts for NRC. ERDA and DOT.
- 6. Maintaining an overview of plan-ning activilles and providing policy and planning guidance when required.
Participating Federal agencies will sup-port the development and conduct of emergency response preparedness pro-grams, to include training, consistent with their respective respunsibilities.
Other Federal agencies will be involved in specific instances of radiological inci-dent emergency response planning par-ticipation and assistance in accordance with their basic responsibilities and func-tions. Details of such participation as part of the coordinated Federal effort will be a development of each localized planning activity.
Dated: December 10. 1975.
Lesur W. BRAY, Jr.,
Director, Federal Preparedness
.4gency. General Services Ad-ministration.
it it thw r.14n3R Filed 12 2 l 75 0 45 aml 1373 123 FEDERAL RIOl5TIR, WL 40, NO. 248-WIDPet10AY, DICIMatt 24, 1975 10
APPE. DIX B N
v aro,
o o
UNITED STATES g
y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
~%...../
JUN 151979 Mr. John W. McConnell Assistant Director for Plans and Operations Defense Civil Preparedness Agency Washington, D.C.
2 301 Dear Mr. Mernnnou-As you know, NRC's 0 ce of State Programs is conducting a meeting at the Hilton Airport Plaza Inn (I-29 at N.W.112 Street in Kansas City, Missouri, (816) 891-8900) on July 24 and 25, 1979 to discuss the methods we use to review State and local emergency response plans for accidents involving radioactive materials.
If this meeting is to be successful, we should have all of the members of the Regional Advisory Comn ttees and the Headquarters i
Advisory Committee present and participating.
I ask that you notify all of your agency's Regional and Headquarters Advisory Committee members about this meeting and strongly encourage their participation as part of the commitment under the Federal Register Notice of December 24, 1975.
The NRC has some limited funds to support individual travel and per diem where it is impossible for an agency to support its own participation in the meeting.
If support is needed, please call Mrs. Shirley Welch on (301) 492-7210 to make arrangements.
A draft agenda and hotel registration cards are enclosed.
A block of rooms has been reserved for July 23 and 24.
Please note that the registration cards must be returned to the hotel by July 13, 1979.
I believe that this meeting can be a major element in our program of improving State and local government emergency response activities.
Quality reviews that use criteria we can all agree on are critical if we are to assure adequate State and local response to a nuclear accident.
I look forward to meeting with you in Kansas City.
Sincerely, 1
I Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated.
!3/3 iz.;
11
J IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT T0:
Mr. Donald Carbone Disaster Programs Officer Federal Disaster Assistance Administrtion Mr. Clarence G. Collins, Director Department of Transportation Mr. L. Joe Deal, Assistant Director for Field Operations U.S. Department of Energy Mr. Floyd L. Galpin, Director U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Bernard Shleien, Assistant Director for Scientific Affairs Food & Drug Administration Mr. James Thomas Federal Preparedness Agency 1373 125 12
APPENDIX C Attendance List Radiological Emergency Preparedness Training Seminar DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Combs, Gerald L.
Keheley, Ed EP&PS San Francisco Operations Office DOE DOE 12215 Middle Road 1333 Broadway Wheaton, MD 20906 Oakland, CA 94612 Deal, L. Joe Smalley, Wayne DOE Oak Ridge Office Washington, DC 20034 DOE P.O. Box E Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Edwards, Robert Kansas City Area Office DOE Turner, Pat P. O. Box 202 DOE Kansas City, MO 64141 Box 550 Richland, WA 99336 444-7285 Farkas, Stephen W.
Idaho Operations Office Webb, Robert C.
DOE Savannah River Operations Office 905 Koster Ave.
DOE Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 P. O. Box A Aiken, SC 29801 Foster, David L.
Yessberger, Jerry DOE Region X, Richland Office P. O. Box 5400 DOE Albuquerque, NM 87115 P. O. Box 550 Richland, WA 99352 Friess, Robert Brookhaven Area Office DOE Upton, N.Y.
11790 Jascewsky, Edward J.
Chicago Office f j., [. 3 l{g DOE 9800 South Cass Ave.
Argonne, Illinois 60439 13
- s DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO.1 Beneventi, John R.
Porco, John N.
FAA Reg. Office Federal Highway Administration DOT /FAA DOT P. O. Box 1689 31 Hopkins Plaza Ft. Worth, TX 76102 Baltimore, MD 21201 Darley, Vernon 0.
Walthall, Bennie J.
RETCO Emergency Transportation Rep.
DOT /FAA Region 4 DOT P. O. Box 20636 915 2nd Ave., Rm. 3588 Atlanta, GA 30320 Seattle, WA 98174 Lutz, Paul First Coast Guard District Whiteside, R. C.
DOT Bldg. 40 150 Causeway St.
FHWA/ DOT Boston, MA 02114 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Olson, Peter L.
e Office 1 Zahn, Tony DOT /FHWA FHWA/ DOT 18209 Dixie Highway P. O. Box 19715 Homewood, IL 60430 Kansas City, M0 64141 Stapleton, John R.
OET DOT 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, D. C.
Sullivan, J. Monroe f
Region 9
}3[3 j{/
DOT 630 Sansome St., Rm 1303 San Francisco, CA 94126 14 e
JNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Brinck, William L.
Langford, David Region VII EPA-3 EPA Philadelphia, PA 19106 324 E. lith St.
Kansas City, M0 d4106 Logsdon, Joe E.
ORP Cowan, Edward EPA Region Ten Washington, D. C.
20460 EPA 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 May, H. D.
Region 6 EPA Duncan, David L.
1201 Elm Street Region IX Dallas, TX 75208 EPA 215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105 Payne Richard Region, IV EPA Giardina, Paul A.
345 Courtland St.
Region II Atlanta, GA 30308 EPA 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007 Tedeschi, Pete Chicago Region 5 Giedt John EPA Region VIII 230 S. Dearborn St.
EPA Chicago, IL 60604 1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80275 Keene, Byron E.
Region I EPA l}/}
. 7
'dV JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 15
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Alley, N. Paul Donovan, Richard W.
FEMA FEMA-X (FPA)
Bldg. 710, Denver Federal Center 686 Federal Bldg.
Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Seattle, WA 98174 Ferris, Stephen W.
Anthony, Rick J.
FEMA Region IV, DCPA 811 Grand St., Rm 132 Federal Center Kansas City, f10 64106 Battle Creek, MI 49081 Gammal, Al bert A., Jr.
Bernacki, Ronald E.
FEMA (FPA)
Region II, FDA 73 Sagamore Road 830 3rd Avenue Worcester, MA 01609 Brooklyn, NY 11232 Gibson, John M.
Plans & Preparedness Boyett, R. H.
FEMA Plans & Preparedness, Region 4 1111 18th St., N.W.
FEMA Washington, D. C.
20740 FRC Thomasville, GA 31792 Hahn, Al Disaster Response & Recovery FEMA, Region 3 Bozicas, William G.
6th & Walnut Sts.
Region I, DCPA Philadelphia, PA 19106 Old Marlboro Road Maxward, ii.A 01754 Hardy, Thomas E.
FEMA, Region 3 (FPA)
Federal Bldg., 600 Arch St.
Devlin, John Philadelphia, PA 19106 FEMA Hdqtrs.
Pentagon Building Washington, D. C.
Heard, John C., Jr.
Plans & Preparedness FEMA De La Garza, John, Jr.
1776 Peachtree St.
FEMA, Region VI Atlanta GA 30309 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242 1373 1 pj 16
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (continued)
Hensley, James C.
McNamee, Leo C.,
Jr.
Region III Region 5, FEMA FEMA 1 No. Dearborn St.
Ol ney, MD Chicago, IL 60515 McPhail, H.
Junge, Ken FEMA (FPA)
Region 5 7908 E. Jefferson Ave.
FEMA Denver, CO 80237 230 S.
Dearborn St.,
Rm 3714 Meade, Terry FEMA, DR&R Kasparian, C. M.
211 Main Street Region II San Francicco, CA 94105 FEMA 26 Federal Plaza, Rm 2353 New York, NY 10007 Mosier, Ken FEMA (FPA Section)
Kinsey, Steven E.
Region 9, M/S 12 FEMA 525 Market St.
911 Walnut St.
San Francisco, CA 94105 Kansas City, Mo 64129 Peyton, Leland E.
Region VI, FRC Lund, Jay N.
FEMA Region IX Denton. TX FEWMA Box 7286 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Pickering, Harold R.
Region 7, FEMA 811 Grand Avenue, Rm 132 McCabe, Ronald L.
Kansas City, MO 64106 Region 7 FEMA 1125 Grand, Rm 919 Kansas City, MD 64106 Pugh, Warren M., Jr.
FEMA 13 Marlborough St.
Boston, MA 02114 McClanahan, James E.
Region 7, FEMA 1125 Grand, Rm 919 Kansas City, MO 64106 l },/ }
17
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (concluded)
Richardson, Jac4 Region 4 FEMA 308 Ridgecrest Drive Thomasville, GA 31792 Thomas, James FEMA (FPA) 18th & F St., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20405 Vogel, Frank FEMA Pentagon Bldg.
Washington, D. C.
20031 1373 131 18
HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE Brennan, Joseph A.
Jacobson, Gerald A.
Region IV, FDA Region 7, FDA 880 W. Peachtree St.
Regional Radiological Health Rep.
Atlanta, GA 30109 1009 Cherry St.
Kansas City, M0 64108 Conway, William J.,
Jr.
Kocol, Henry Philadelphia Field Office FDA, Region III FDA 900 U. S. Custom House 2nd & Chestnut Sts., Room 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Kraeger, James A.
Dillard, Bobby L.
FDA Regit, VIII 175 W. Jackson Blvd.
USPHS/FDA Chicago, IL 60604 500 U. S. Customhouse Denver. CO 80202 Lofsvold, Fred L.
FDA Fry, Edmund 500 U. S. Customhouse FDA Denver. CO 80234 1009 Cherry St.
Kansas City, M0 64106 Gaeta, Neil Seal, Morgan S.
FDA/ERO PHS/FDA 109 Holton St.
Region 9 Winchester, MA 01890 50 Fulton St.
San Francisco, CA 94102 Grove, W. Remle Shane, Clifford G.
FDA HEW /FDA Rockville, Md (Hdqtrs) 1009 Cherry St.
Kansas City, M0 64102 Hallisey, Robert M.
Region I Schleien, Bernard FDA HEW /FDA 585 Commercial St.
12780 Twinbrook Parkway Boston, MA 02109 Rockville, MD 20857 l3[3
}b2 19
HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE (concluded)
Snyder, Leo H.
HSA/BMS 6525 Belcrest Road Hyattsville, MD 20872 Te.pilak, Michael S.
HEW /FDA/BRH 12720 Twinbrook Parkway Rockville, MD 20857 Van Pelt, W. F.
FDA 909 1st Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 Zellner, Litsey L.
Region VI FDA 3032 Bryan Street Dallas, TX 75204
)blb b
20
OBSERVERS McClelland, Betty Emergency Services State of Washington 4220 East Martin Way Olymoia. WA 98504 Starostecki, Richard Science Applications McLean, VA Lobdell, John Occupational Health & Safety Tennessee Valley Authority Muscle Shoals, AL 35660 Godwin, Aubrey, V.
Radiological Health Alabama Dept. of Public Health Montonmerv, AL 36130 Proctor, J. Howard Civil Defense Court House Decatur, AL 35601 Strickland, George NUS Corporation 4 Research Court Rockville, MD 20852 l}/}
} ;i 21
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Aron, Joan Jaske, R.
OPE SP Miller, Jim Axelson, William 00R Region III, I&E 799 Roosevelt Roac Sanders, Marshall E.
Glen Ellyn, IL SP Bajwa, Singh Smi th, Donovan A.
SP SD Banks, Christine Sniezek, James H.
Region II, I&E I&E 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, 67 30303 Trojanowski, Robert E.
Region II, ISE Brown, Glen D.
101 Marietta Towers Region IV, I&E 4tlanta, GA 30303 611 Ryan Plaza Arlington, TX 76012 Robart, A.
Region V, California Cleveland, Richard SP Van Niel, D.
DSE Collins, Harold E.
SP Gaut, Harold SP Cunningham, L. J.
IE Ryan, Robert G.
SP DeFayette, Robert SP Schwartz, Sheldon A.
Dukes, Arthur J.
SP OSP/EP Elsasser, Thomas C.
Region I I3/3 l35 King of Prussia, PA 22
APPENDIX D REVISED AGENDA FOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TRAINING CONFERENCE JULY 24-25,1979 HILTON AIRPORT PLAZA INN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI July 23 - Monday 7:00 - 9:00 P.M.
Registration July 24 - Tuesday 8:00 A.M.
Registration - Litton North 8:30 A.M.
Opening Plenary - Litton North Welcome and Introduction - Robert G. Ryan, NRC Principals from Federal Agencies Charles Amato, EPA L. Joe Deal, DOE John Gibson, FDAA John McConnel, DCPA Bernard Shleien, FDA John Stapleton, DDT Jim Thomas, FPA Status Report - Harold Collins, NRC e Review of Licensee Plans e Task Force on Emergency Planning a Commission Advance Notice of Rulemaking e NRC/ EPA Task Force Recommendations 9:30 A.M.
Field Assistance Eff?st - Harold Gaut, NRC 10:15 - 10:30 A.M.
BREAK 10:30 A.M.
Discussion - Harold Collins, NRC e Review of Existing Concurrences - Robert Jaske, NRC f3/3 jj6
e Status of States with Operating Plants and No Concurrence - Richard Van Niel. NRC e Status of other States without Concurrence -
Richard Cleveland e Acceptance Criteria - Harold Gaut, NRC 11:30 - 1:00 P.M.
LUNCH 1:00 - 3:15 P.M.
Federal Agency Meetings (See Attachment 1) e e Review Acceptance Criteria e e Surface and Document Problems (technical and logistical) e e Prepare and Submit written issues for Wednesday Morning panel 3:15 - 3:30 P.M.
BREAK 3:30 P.M.
Discussion (cont.) - Harold Collins, NRC (Litton North) e Exercise Scenarios - Kichard Starostecki (SAI) e Review and Critique of Exercises - John Heard (RAC IV) e Planning vs. Preparedness - Richard Donovan (RAC X) e Training.- Robert DeFayette, NRC e PRERAD - Jim Dukes, NRC e Funding Study - Shelly Schwartz, NRC 5:00 - 7:30 P.M.
DINNER 7:30 - 9:30 P.M.
RAC Meetings (See Attachment 2) e e Review Acceptance Criteria e o Surface and Document Problems e e Outline Plan for Existing Concurrences e e Prepare Floor Questions for Wednesday Morning 13/3 137 24
July 25 - Wednesday 9:00 - 10:30 A.M.
Panel on Issues - Robert Ryan, NRC chairs (Litton North) 10:30 - 10:45 A.M.
BREAK 10:45 - 12:00 P.M.
Closing Statements by Federal Agency Senior Staff
!$/3 13J 25
ATTACHMENT 1 1:00 P.M. Federal Agency Work Sessions Agency Room No.
NRC Liaison NRC 109 EPA 118 R. Van Niel DOT 119 R. DeFayette DOE 123 T. Elsasser DCPA 208 J. Hufham FDAA 220 A. Robart FPA 221 T. Essig HEW 308 R. Cleveland 13/3 139 26
ATTACHMENT 2 7:30 P.M. Adivsory Comittee Work Sessions Comittee Room No.
NRC Representative RAC 1 (Boston) 220 R. DeFayette RAC 2 (New York) 221 R. Jaske RAC 3 (Phildelphia) 208 T. Elsasser RAC 4 (Atlanta) 308 J. Hufham RAC 5 (Chicago) 109 T. Essig RAC 6 (Dallas) 118 G. Brown RAC 7 (Kansas City) 119 S. Bajwa RAC 8 (Denver) 123 R. Van Niel RAC 9 (San Francisco) 320 A. Robart RAC 10 (Seattle) 321 R. Cleveland HAC 408 H. Gaut l3[3 i$]
27
A LOOK AT TWELVE STATE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS HAVING NRC CONCURRENCE Robert T. Jaske Technical Advisor to the Director Office of State Programs For Presentation at the NRC Radiological Emergency Training Conference, July 24, 1979, Kansas City, Missouri 13/3 i,i 28
A LOOK AT TWELVE STATE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS HAVING NOC CONCURRENCE In the months just before Three Mile Island, the Office of State Programs was able to concur with the emergency preparedness plans of 12 States. This was accomplished in the face of a number of obstacles by a lot of hard work on the part of the regional and headquarters advisory committees, and by the States. With the experience of Three Mile Island behind us, the office is now hopeful that all States involved directly or indirectly with fixed nuclear facilities can reach concurrence during 1980. This wil! place additional burdens on the established plan review system in the face of potential changes resulting from legislation and rulemaking.
As part of this new effort, we thought it would be useful to examine the 12 concurred-in plans in order to help us find areas of interest which may need additional attention. This examination was done in two parts. First, we looked at the reports of the regional advisory committees seeking threads of concern for the treatment of specific elements in the existing guide and checklist document, NUREG-75/111. Second, in the light of Three Mile Island, we reviewed the individual plans in order to find elemen.s which might be better addressed.
Both of these 9xaminations revealed important lessons which I would like to share with you today. In the discussion which follows, I would like to emphasize that we are looking for ways to do the job better. Most of the judgments are highly subjective, and rest on con-ceptual notions of events which might never take place. Specific elements of State plans which I will mention may in fact mean different things to different people. I hope you will join with me in the spirit of this undertaking, and if you disagree on a given judgment, try to find why such a differing view can exist, and what we can do about it.
To begin with, I mentioned obstacles. I will preface this discussion with a brief list of th'se as they relate to success and consistency of the planning process. In my judgment these obstacles are:
1.
There is no consensus on the nature of the accident to plan against.
2.
NRC guidance in critical areas of early notice and accident assessment is imprecise and unevenly administered.
3.
Response activities are hampered by lack of radiation instrumentation for early warning and assessment.
4.
Funding for training and support has not been adequate, and existing expenditures are unevenly focused at differing levels of government.
1373 i42 29
5.
Information gathering and assessment technology is insufficiently deployed at all levels of government.
6.
Federal guidance on protective ection guides is slow in coming.
Three Mlle Island has served to emphasize these obstacles, and all of these are currently being addressed by a host of investigating bodies. Meanwhile, we must get on with the job and do the best we can.
Turning now to the job at hand, I begin by listing the 12 States for which concurrenca exists.
Table I - States with Concurred-in Plans Original Plan Date Concurrence Date Alabama 2/16/78 2/9/79 Arkansas 5/78 5/3/79 California 8/78 8/15/78 Connecticut 3/77 12/21/77 Delaware 6/6/78 7/24/78 Florida 6/78 8/4/78 lowa 6/30/78 2/27/79 Kansas 8/78 9/19/78 New Jersey 8/77 9/30/77 New York 12/78 1/23/79 South Carolina 9/77 11/23/77 Washington 5/76 3/29/77 All of these achieved concurrence before Three Mlle Island.
Observations of the Regional Advisory Committees In reviewing plans, the regional committees are asked to seek the 154 elements listed in NUREG-75/111 and make a judgment as to their existence, their strength and if uncertainties in strength exist to flag these. If all of the 70 elements deemed essential by the Office of State Programs are present, a plan is considered for concurrence pending a formal exercise.
The records of this plan evaluation process are important in determining if generic topics which can be called consistent problem areas are identified. Such problem areas may well rest with the NRC guidance documentation itself. The Office of State Programs has recently met with a number of regional advisory committee people in order to work out a more consistent basis for making judgments on plan content and strength. We will be talking about that later on today.
The regional committee reports did identify some critical elements where there are either weaknesses or reasons to withhold final judgment.
l a., /... 3 l c, ;
30
Table II - Critical Elements Requiring Aoditional Attention Element Element Name 204 Formal Intragovernmental Relations 246 Communications Plans 249 Public Communication 258 Medical Transportation 265 24 Hour Dosimetry Service 266 Radiological Exposure Control 281 Liaison for Radiological Response Training 291 Review and Update of Response Plan 311 Radioprotective Drug Administration 422 Accident Area Controls Taken as a whole, thi '. group implies a generic problem in mobilization of radiological informa-tion and in comand responsibility for knowing what is going on and what to do about it.
This generic problem was present at Three Mile Island with respect to early conditions and in the assessment of those conditions which required formal actions by authorities.
The committees also noted weaknesses or unresolved matters in 29 additional elements not on the present critical list. For brevity, I have grouped these into the four headings of the guidance document NUREG-75/111.
1.
Radiological Emergency Response Elements The 17 elements needing attention or clarification could be grouped into four key topics.
These are:
a.
Functional descriptions of transportation and rescue activities including provision for operation in inclement weather.
b.
Means to integrate the Federal response in a timely and effective manner.
c.
Means to deal with operations in the controlled area in authorities, communications, information and records, and physical support.
d.
Exercise scenarios which adequately test the response plan.
2.
Implementing Instruction Elements The three elements found here deal with the very important generic subject of accident categories, the implementing of RAP /IRAP team responses to these categories and regional arrangements for organizing general Federal assistance in response to the categories.
3.
Operational Procedure Elements Four relatively diverse elements were found to need attention. These were:
b lbk 31
a.
Operations in Controlled Areas b.
Medical Foilow up c.
Equipment Testing d.
Provisions for Updating Plans 4.
Resource Elements The five elements in this category related to the generic problems of identification and listing of consultative support, equipment inventories and distribution, meteorological liaison and provisions for feeding people and animals.
Taken as a whole, the analysis of the regional advisory committee response suggests some reevaluation of what is deemed critical in several important areas. These are:
1.
General planning to integrate the Federal response 2.
Radiological assessment and operation control in the controlled areas 3.
Attention to exercises, scenarios and plan updating 4.
Information analysis, records and data management in real time 5.
General planning to better integrate communications, personnel and equipment 6.
Clear guidance for evaluation of essential <hments Personal Observations on Concurred-in Plans With the data from the regional advisory groups available and Three Mile Island fresh in mind, I reviewed the plans of the 12 States which had achieved concurrence. As a general obser-vation, I found considerable variation in form and conceptual approach. In each of the 12 plans, there were some notable good points which I will cover briefly later on.
I also found what I think are some generic weak points which I have listed below. I stress that these are personal judgments and impressions upon which reasonable persons can disagree, but which I commend to your attention. The order of listing is not a priority but follows the sequence from planning to dealing with an actual event.
1.
The State plans are genera!1y weak in the formulation and testing of exercises and drills and are uneven in the relative response of counties and the States. States are stronger in those aspects of planning which reflect ongoing experience with natural disasters which occur from time to time and give incentive to plan development.
2.
Attention to formal training and the certification of persons with established credentials is limited outside of police, fire and military operations. The designation of key deci-sion makers is not clearly related to the depth of knowledge and experience in emergency management. This is especially evident at the local government level.
3.
The relationship with the Federal government is not clear either in designation of respon-sibilities or the use of Federal resources. Accident categories are not related to Federal response in either time or severity. Also it is not clear that Federal agencies 1373 i45 y
have a site specific response plan which integrates witn State and utility accident plans. For a severe accident which develops within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, with the present plan-ning structure, it does not appear that Federal resources could be effectively used.
Those aspects of State plans which are derived from planning for general military attack better address Federal response, perhaps reflecting longer term thinking and preparation in conjunction with the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
4.
The plans for utilization of radiation detection instruments, especially dosimeters, are highly dependent on the ability to mobilize the appropriate response team. Only one State, Connecticut, has a firm plan for overal dosimeter distribution. Of the lessons learned at Three Mile Island, this one is very significant to response planning it appears time that we should pay more attention to radiation assessment and response over short time *.ntervals, and more attention needs to be focused on dosimetry and associated record keeping. This impacts directly on the relationships of State and county command functions.
5.
The utilization of laboratories, the availability of instruments and the planning for massive sampling is somewhat taken for granted. We have also learned from Three Mile Island that sampling, timing, analysis and reporting are integral parts of the executive management response and a highly organized, multiagency effort supported with good com-munication needs to be in place when needed.
6.
Notification arrangements with facility operators are not clear, and are not well supported with formal agreements. The judgment on notification with respect to accident categories is often convoluted by communication chains through local government. Such a system is appropriate for lesser accidents (through Class 8), but could involve breakdown of the system if major accidents are impending over a short time frame.
7.
Many States have adopted nonuaiform accident categories which differ from NRC guidance such as Reg. Guide 1.101.
Also, planning in some States (Florida, New York, Kansas and New Jersey) is expressly limited to design basis accident (Class 8) scenarios required by NRC licenses. Other States such as Connecticut and California implicitly accept the design basis accident by reference to utility plans. It is clear that resolution of this matter is of high priority and adoption of the Emergency Planning Zone concept (NUREG-0396) and plausible scenarios as part of Federal guidance is necessary before States can act to clarify this aspect of their plans.
8.
With the exception of Connecticut, there is little evidence of planning for the retention of essential public services or dealing with the curtailment of industrial operations such as refineries or metal reduction plants. The limited evacuation plans are imprecise in this regard and they do not account for sheltering of key workers at critical facili-ties. This aspect of planning suggests a closer merging of thinking between a general emergency from a fixed nuclear facility and that of limited nuclear attack.
j h
33
9.
Finally, the comnunication plans of most States, excepting California, rely heavily on the commercial telephone. We know from Three Mile Island that the use of commercial tele-phone is infeasible in a general or lesser emergency. Critical persons cannot be mobi-lized or equipment dispatched because of overloading of circuits. The situation calls for improvements especially for those aspects which involve mobilization, data gathering and command decisions. Also, the wide range or radio frequencies employed in the United States for normal actisities enormously complicates command function in either real emergencies or exercises.
On the positive side there is much good in the 12 concurred-in plans. In the aggregate they represent a lot of hard work by a lot of dedicated people working with very limited resources. At the risk of leaving some strong points out, I will make a brief comment on each of the plans in order to put some perspective on the group as a whole.
Alabama This plan emphasizes county responses from the ground up and is based in part on the use nf fixed monitors to supplement the early notice by operators. It has a well developed notifi-cation chain for State and local government, but is less strong in planning for Federal involvement.
Arkansas This plan depends heavily on State of ficials and is relatively nonspecific about county actions. The legislative basis is well defined, and much of the detail on individual actions is specifically delegated by statute.
California This State has a well developed communication plan based on an independent microwave network and places minimum reliance on commercial telephones. The county plans are strong, but The plan relies specifically on use of the military department to support evacua-uneven.
tions, and reflects the frequency of natural disasters which impact that State. Early notice by facility operators is well organized and supported by specific memos of understanding.
Connecticut More than any State, Connecticut has a very detailed command and response plan down to individ-ual officials of local government. It has express provisions for dosimeter distribution and radiation assessment down to local government. The procedural checklist is exhaustive. It organizes resources effectively and includes specific command functions for maintenance of essential functions such as water supply and sewerage through the engineering staffs. It is less well developed with respect to the operator / government interface and with Federal agencies.
Delaware The State level plan is well balanced between planning and resources and is commendable for a State without an operator facility. They pay a lot of attention to radiation control in the impacted areas. As in Connecticut it deals with the engineering function for essential x
13/3 147
services very effectively. Delaware is, however, not strong in county response and training, and depends hea #ily on coordination with Maryland and New Jersey for notifications.
Florida Florida has a gooi balance between State and county responses and the administrative interties are well developed. The county evacuation plans are detailed and the authorities are well documented. Dosimeter distribution is planned from State Health Department stocks. Florida has, however, limited its planning to design basis accidents which reflects on its planning for accident area control and coordination with Federal agencies. The State plan reflects a maturity gained from frequent exposure to natural disasters.
Iowa On paper, the Iowa plan is the tightest administrative package and is well detailed in essential areas of authority and response control. The plan places heavy emphasis on the national guard through the Military Division. The plan is unique in its emphasis on transpor-tation planning including air traffic control. The coordination with Federal agencies is clearly developed, including early notice. The State patrol is part of the radiation assess-ment function. Less strong are its provisions for central control of the responses to accident categories.
Kansas Responsibilities are clearly indexed by a matrix and command authorities are strong and specific. Like Florida, its plan is specifically limited to design basis accidents and the State may have insufficient resources for a larger accident particularly with response to radiatioa assessment in the control area. Since it has no operating reactors, it depends on Nebraska for early notice. Accordingly, county plans are generic as to evacuation and popula-tion control New Jersey The New Jersey plan is technology forcing, based on the design basis accident data of the operating facilities. Lines of authority are crisp and well defined. The evacuation plans are specific, including a 6-hour time goal, and are carefully coordinated with county authori-ties. Specific attention is given to the facility internals and the responses are clearly tied to the stated accident categories. Advance provisicns for area wide monitoring and sampling exist and the provisions for effective use of radiation control laboratories are exceptional. As in many other States, however, provisions for integrating the Federal response are not well developed.
New York The basic planning is complete and well supported by legislative basis. Communications are well developed and have extensive redundancy. As in the New Jersey plan, it is closely related to design basis accident plans t,j utilities. There is = -ass provision for DOE / RAP participation. Considerable attention is given to agricultural land controls. The plan is, however, relatively weak in accident area controls, radiation assessment coordination and evacuatkn response. The categories of response differ from facility to facMity.
13/3 i40 35
South Carolina This State plan is also well developed and has good administrative support. Response is keyed to development of an ongoing incident through effective integration of radiation assessment functions. Planning for evacuations is specific and supported by clear lines of authority. The plan does not include specifics on county capabilities, and response depends heavily on the State management function. The communication plan depends heavily on commercial telephone and could use additional resources.
Washington The Washington plan emphasizes the role of counties to a great extent because of the practica,1 difficulties of mobilizing State response. It includes complete analyses of control room functions of commercial facilities and carefully integrates operator response with potential accident categorie; and evacuation response. The administrative function is well defined and supported by legislative basis and memoranda of understanding. The State Patrol is prepared to participate in radiation measurement and accident area control with local government. Express provisions for interstate cooperation are in place. Washington relies heavily on Federal assistance but the express provisions for integrating Federal response could be strengthaned.
It is clear that we ought to be doing something to improve plans with an NRC concurrence.
We intend to work on a cooperative basis with these States and local governments during the months ahead. I have consulted with the emergency preparedness staff and have the following observations to offer.
First; our letters of concurrence sent to the lead agency officials in the State, responsible for this kind of planning, identified some essential planning elements which in the opinion of the regional advisory committees were judged to be only "f air" in terms of adequacy. Our letters go on to say that the States should pay particular attention to the adequacy of these planning elements in annual exercises of the emergency plans. Necessary improvements in the plans should then be made based upon the results of these exercises. The Federal team and the States should be paying particular attention to those " fair" planning elements, and to the other generic weaknesses that I have just mentioned. The Federal team and the States should work together to eliminate or minimize the weaknesses and upgrada the planning elements judged to be " fair" in terms of quality of development.
Second; we need to have good exercises, testing as much of the emergency plans as we can.
The exercises should involve the entire response organization, right down to the local government level. NRC will, with the help of Sandia Laboratories and its sub-contractors, prepare standardi:.ed exercise scenarios that the States and local governments can use to test emergency plar.a. " Tabletop" exercises are of limited value and are useful as a pre-exercise drill to work out the bugs prior to conducting a definitive exercise in the field. " Tabletop" exercrses will not be acceptable to the Federal teams observing an exercise to test a plaa. We will be asking the States with concurred-in plans to advise us of the specific oates for their next exercise so we can schedule Federal teams, assisted by contractor personnel, to assist the States and local governments in c.onducting, observing 36 l 3 [ ') l(9
and evaluating the exercises. We are making plans with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to have NRC teams observe, evaluate, and critique the licensee's portion of each exercise. Licensee excercises and State and local exercises should be jointly conducted.
Third; we intend to look at the concurred-in plans from an acceptance criteria standpoint, primarily as acceptance criteria relate to those plannirg elements judged to be " fair" and to the generic weakness which I have mentioned.
In closing, I wish to thank you for your continued assistance in the review and development of these plans. My own review has been designed to assist your work by providing the perspective of a new look by a previously r,oninvolved party in combination with my own view of the problems posed by Three Mile Island. I hope this review has been useful.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
f J / 3 l
'l 37
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.138 / Tuesday, July 17. 1979 / Proposed Rules 41C3
_t -
for continued operation of a nuclear in Support of Light Water Nuclear facility, and coordination between the Power Plants " NUREG-CJ90/ EPA 520/
Licensee plan and State and local plans.
1-784 6, December 1978. See 43 Fed.
The Commission seeks written Reg. SPtS8 (December 15.1978), see also comments on what items should be 44 Fed. Reg. 23137 (April 18,1979).
included in the rule.
Furthermore, a number of organizations, DATES: Comments are due no later than.
including Critical Mass and Public August 31,1979.
Interest Research Groups, have renewed and supplemented a petition for ADDRESSES: Written Comments rukmahng, pmiously denied by the concerning these issues should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, concerning the operational details of evacuation planmnF See 44 Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Co es on as decided to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAG initiate an expedited rulemaking Patncia A. Comella. Site Designation procedure on the subject of State and Branch. Office of Standards local emergency response plans and Development NudearRegulatory those of licensees. The Commission is Commission, Washington, DC 20565-soliciting public comments in this area.
301-443-5981.
particularly on the following issues:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION:The NRC
- 1. What should be the basic objectives requires that power reactor license of emergency plannmg?
applicants plan for radiological
- a. To reduce public radiation emergencies within their plant sites and exposure?
make arrangements with State and local b.To prevent public radiation organizations to respond to accidents exposure?
that might have consequenccs beyond c.To be able to evacuate the public?
the site boundary.In this way off-site To what extent should these emergency planning has been related t objectives be quantifiedt the nudear licensing process.See 10
- 2. What constitutes an effect2ve CFR Part 50. Appendix E (1979), see also additional guidance in U.S. NRC, emergency response plan for State and Regulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency I cal agencies? Forlicensees? What are the essential elements that must be Planning for Nuclear Power Plants,"
(p,y, 3, 3977),
included in an effective plan? Do To aid State and local governments in existing NRC requirements for licensees the development and implementation of (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E) and adequate emergency plans, the NRC, in guidance for States (NUREG-75/111) conjunction with seven other Federal lack any of these essential elements?
agencies, has attempted, on a
- 3. Should NRC concurrence in the cooperative and voluntary basis, to associated State and local emergency provide for training and instruction of response plans be a requirement for State and local government personnel continued operation of any nuclear Adequacy and Acceptance Of and to establish cnteria to guide the power plant with an existing operating Emergency Planning Around Nuclear preparation of emergency plans.
License? If so, when should this general Facilities However, the NRC has not made NRC requirement become effective?
[10 CFR Part 50]
approval of State and local emergency
- 4. Should prior NRC concurrence in plans a condition of nuclear power plant the associated State and local AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory operation.
emergency response plans be a Commission.
The accident at Three Mile Island has requirement for the issuance of any new ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed raised a number of questions about the operating license for a nuclear power Rulemaking.
adequacy of radiological emergency plant? If so, when should this general response plans. Even before the requirement become effective?
sUMM ARY:'Ihe Nuclear Regulatory accident the GAO had recommended
- 5. Should financial assistance be Commission is considering the adoption that NRC not license new power plants provided to State and local governments of additional reFulations which will for operation unless eff. site emergency for radiological emergency response establish as conditions of power reactor plans have been approved by the NRC.
plannmg and preparedness? If so, to operation increased emergency GAO, Report to the Congress, " Areas what extent and by what means? What readiness for public protection in the Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be should be the source of the funds?
vicinity of nuclear power reactors on the Better Prepared For Radiological
- 6. Should radiological emergency part of both the licensee and local and Emergencies," March 30,1979. The response drills be a requirement? If so, state authonties. The Commission is Commission is also considering new under whose authority: Federal, State or interested in receiving public comment guidance to State and local governments local government? To what extent on objectives for effective plans, on emergency planning based on an should Federal, State, and local acceptance criteria for State / local analysis of a joint NRC-EPA Task Force govemments, and licensees be required emergency plans NRC concurrence in Report. " Planning Basis for Development to participate?
State and local plans as a requirement of State and local Govemment
- 7. How and to what extent should the for issuance of an operating license or Radiological Emergency Response Plans public be inform' d, prior to any e
1373 151 38
41484 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1979 / Proposed Rules emergency, concerning emergency For the Comminion.
actions it might be called upon to take?
Samuel J. r hitk
- 8. What actions should be taken in Secretaryofthe Comminion.
response to the recommendations of the p % 3.uys,u.4,-ie-, us i joint NRC/ EPA Task Force Report sum.o coot neo.43-m (NUREG-0396/ EPA 520/1-78-016)?
- 9. Under what circumstances and using what criteria should a licensee notify State local, and Federal agencies of incidents, including emergencies?
When, how, to what extent. and by whom should the public be notified of these incidents?
The comments received will be collected and evaluated by the NRC stafL which will. in tum, submit recommendations on proposed rules to the Commission. Based on the comments 1 //f it receives from the public and the i3/J j
analysis of the problem presented by the NRC StafL the Commission will determinc whether to proceed with a proposed rule for notice and comment and/or whether to make such rule immediately effective.The Commission anticipates completion of this expedited rulemaking in approximately six rnonths.
The NRC staff is presently conducting a comprehensive review of all aspects of the NRC emergency planning and preparedness program. Therefore. the Commission is also interested in receiving comments on all other aspects of emerFency planning. includino issues raised in the Critical Mass /PIRG petition for rulemaking and questions such as the following:
- 10. How and to what extent should the concems of State and local govemments be incorporated into Federal radiological emergency response planning?
- 11. How should Federal agencies interface witn State and local govemments and the licensee during emergencies?
- 12. Should the licensees be required to provide radiological emergency response training for State and local govemment personnel? If so to what extent? Should the Federal government provide such training? If so. to what extent?
- 13. To what extent should reliance le placed on hcensees for the assessment of the actual or potential consequences of an accident with regard to initiation of protective ection? To what extent should this respo.<ibility be borne by Federal State or local governments?
- 14. Would public participation in radiological emergency response drills.
including evacuation. serve a useful purpose? If so, what should be the extent of the public participation?
39 Dated at Washmgton. D C., this 12th day of Jdy.19N.
July 19,1979 1.
Some Notes on Acceptance Criteria The original NRC guidance document " Guide and Checklist" was first published in December 1974. The original list of gui.Jance elements was developed as an all inclusive list of items that would be desirable in a comprehensive State radiological emergency response plan.
When the States started using this guidance document, however, they soon observed that many of the elements, although certainly desirable, did not appear to be absolutely essential.
There was a concensus that some items didn't affect the ability of the State to protect the health and sa'ety of the public during the early phases of an emergency.
Provisions for.ecovery, for example, would not necessarily be part of the emergency plan alth g they would obviously be a necessary component for after accident response. The original list of 154 elements was after long review by interested parties narrowed in 1977 to 70 essen-tial elements.
Supplement 1 published in March 1977 said all of these would have to be adequately addressed in the response plan before concurrence would be granted by the NRC.
We moved then from a theoretical discussion to a practical one. We must now ask fundamental questions such as what constitutes an adequate discussion of an element in the plan. During the two years that the " essential element" concept has been used,the interpretation of " adequate" has been left to the individual reviewers.
Generally speaking, this has been satisfactory.
But, now that the State / local radiological emergency response planning is becoming more formal, we believe that the review process should be made as objective as possible.
If we do th o, it will allow reviewers to evaluate all elements in the same way and keep the subjectivity to a minimum. The attached document describes acceptance criteria in objective terms for each of the elements.
Not only will it give the Federal reviewers a baseline upon which to review a plan, but it will also give 40
the plan writer a better understanding of what is required for concurrence.
These suggested criteria are not hard and fast; they must be reviewed and " field tested" by all parties who will be using them.
II.
Definition Acceptance criteria are baseline or minimum criteria that must be addres-sed before an element can be found to be satisfactory.
We hope that each State will not limit itself to simply satisfying them but they will use thi criteria as the baseline to develop whatever further planning may be necessary for its own situation.
III.
Concurrence As was stated earlier, Supplement 1 to NUREG-75/lll, which was published on March 15, 1977, describes the essential elements.
The supplement also said that the plan must be tested at least annually by the State in order to maintain the concurrence.
We also believe and have said for sometime that a new plan must be tested before concurrence is granted.
Such an exercise must go beyond a " table top" exercise.
It must include, as a minimum, a limited field exercise.
The exercise should include participation by all parties described in the plan.
We also recommend that the exercise be conducted in conjunction with the annual exercise conducted by licensees.
The basic purpose of the exercising is to check for capabilities in addition to determining of the plan itself is satisfactory.
IV, Plan Review During the review process, as reviewers evaluate the elements assigned to them they should have only three choices:
either to accept what is written or to reject it or note that it is missing.
In the past, there have been four choices; 13/3 l54 41
- 1) missing; 2) unacceptable; 3) acceptable but needing improvement; 4) acceptable.
We think the time may have come to eliminate the third step, " acceptable but in need of improvement."
In addition, when an element is not accepted, the reasons for the rejection should be stated in writing to the State or local government.
We will enccurage the States to submit a table or index listing each essential element and where it can be found in the plan.
Such a list will enable each State to determine if it has forgotten any element and also make our review easier.
Finally, the concurrence process should not be considered static.
Rather, it must be dynamic. A plan should undergo continuous review and updating.
If at any time during the process one or more essential elements are found to be inadequate, the State shall be notified and urged to correct the deficiency.
If this correction is not completed in a timely manner, concurrence can be withdrawn by the T4RC af ter consultation with other members of the Federal Interagency Central Coordinating Committee (FICCC).
We have had many questions about the relationship of local plans to State plans.
Obviously, many of the essential elements pertain more to the local level than to the State level.
If local plans are submitted for review with State plans, then the local plans are also reviewed.
The 70 essential elements rust be found adequately addressed in the two plans.
If local plans are not submitted, then the 70 essential elements nust be adequately addressed in the State plan.
Finally, the question of tests or exercises for States with more than one facility must be addressed.
We recommend that the State be intimately invi ved once a year with at least one facility and locality.
For other facilities only the local aspects would be involved; in all cases the communications should be checked out annually with the State.
1373 155 42
We intend that such concurrence be site specific.
In other words, it is quite possible that a State / local plan could be acceptable for one site in a State but not for another. This could come about in several ways.
For example, a local plan could be acceptable for site A but the local plan for site B may not be.
Or, the State plan may not be required to address the elements of contiguous planning for one site if there are no other States within 50 miles.
But there could be a second site in which contiguous planning is required.
In this case, the plan would receive concurrence for the first site but not for the second.
If there are any questions which cannot be resolved by the regional reviewers, the questions will be resolved by the Headquarters Advisory Committee.
ls/3 isu.
c 43
Definitions and Acronyms in Attached Material Category "A" States Those with operating facilities and no
" concurred in" plan.
Category "B" States Those (other than "A") contiguous to an operating facility in an adjacent State.
Category "C" States Those (other than "A" or "B") with plants under construction.
Category "D" States Those (other than "A,"
"B," or "C") contiguous to a plant under construction in an adjacent State.
Category "E" States Those who have already received NRC concurrence.
Stages of development that States Stage I-Identification of principals, appear to be in:
determination of internal State priorities, and assessment of.,the status of State planning material.
Stage II-Development / compilation of planning materials.
Stage III-Evaluation / upgrading of planning materials.
Stage IV-Critique of exercises.
PRERAD (Peacetime Radiological Emergency Response Audit Device) A " PERT" type system for making an objective and semi-quantitative evaluation of a plan / exercise.
RAC Regional Advisory Committee.
1373 157 44
AIIACUMENT I Statt Assigriscrits 1.
Alal Gaut will coordinate tiela a ssis tarice, review 6 concurrence operations and follow up on existing concurretices.
- 2. Bob Defoyette will support development of New Enigland regional plusi, manage t r a initig prog rairi and assist 1:n coordinattora of overall fielu assistarace ettorts.
3.
Rod Mason will interface with the public sector, assist in coordinationi or in-house activity in support or tielo assistatice dnd deal Witu special problem ateas ds required.
4.
Dick Clevenger will develop demographic data in support at local & cogittguous planning etforts, and specitic field needs and priorities.
5.
State programs Legional start (Iom Elsasser 6 Andy Eocart) will retaisi icau iri NBC regions 16 5.
6 IE regionial statt will retatti lead in NBC regions 2,3,6 4 as time permits, keeping coordinator or tield operatioits aware or any projectto short-tall.
7 Dick Vara hiel will support eftorts in the 16 category
'A' States & coordinate toeriodic State status reports tor all categories.
- u. Dica Cleveland will support Ltforts in the 12 category
'b 8 scheduling permit.)
,'C' 6
'C' States. (And
'A' as time o 9.
Singh Dajwa will support eftarts in category
'E' States and apply PEERAD a ria l yses to ' pe nding ' and 'concurted in' plaris.
10 Bob Jaste will provide quality control support on the concurrence process, including a critical review or the 12 eXisti!!g Col:CurrCnCes.
- 11. Ben Haricss 6 Steve Salomor will edit exercise reports, de velo p improved methods or exercise evaluation, evaluate cost impact or exercise activity and prepare responses to congressional and related enguities tot detailed emergency prepareaness intornattori.
- 12. Bob Jaske, Marshall Sanders, 6 Steve Salomon will pursue special proulcan/ states as needed, or noted telow.
13 Jim Dukes will implement PEEEAE, instruct tield statf in its use and document ALP systems requirenents in support of EP plan / capability analyses, act as liaisort to MPA, 6 provide tremediate ACP support as required.
(Eemainder of ettort will be applied to overall 03P needs.)
- 14. MPA will develop tunctiosial systems in response to requiretr.erits e volveu in item 13 above and na tntain active-in v o lv e me n t its the tield test stage at the FEEFAD system to ensure its teliabilit y as an applied reaource during the accelerated EP teview period.
l3/j lj,]
45 D *
- lD
- lD 3' Y g
. e M e M ll XL
(Staf f who have
- 8. support' roles will tunction basically as a headquarters project inan a g e r/ cons u l t a n t, working closely with both the a pprop ria te regiosaal ad visor y coir.li.ittee c h airinan (or co-chair ran) and the NEC actiott otticcc tot a particular State.)
j 13/3 159 46
se July 17, 19/9 A17 ACliMENT II A CATEGGEY
'A' States (Ge ne ra l p r o jec t agr. - UlcK Van Niel)
State facilities (stage)
(action ot ticet) - comnent/ status COLORADO F t.
S t.
Vrain (Stage III) (Pa ul Alley-DCPA) Revised plan due in Septemter.
Regionaal Advisory Conmittee review conplete. FEEFAD administerea 5/ 21,22 Concurrence tu projected for octocer 1979 GEORGIA fla t ch lo2, Vogtle 162 (Stage II) (Jim H u f h arn) New lead agency is the Dept of Na t u ra l Fesources. Dratt p la n is due by end of July 1979.
Concurrence is projected ror Decemter 1979.
I L LI NOIS Dresden 1/3, guad cities, Zion 162, uraidwood 162, Dryon 16 2, Clinton 162, lasalle 162, Carroll 162 (Stage II) (Bob JasAe) liigh priority ef tort Legan 6/ 12/79 with goal or submission to NEC by 12 31/79 Funding assured by
/
executive allocation. State legislature moving to establish a fund froin 11ccasing fees. Concurrence As projected for mid 198L.
MAINE Maine Yankee (Stage 31) (Dob DeFayette) Plata is part of regiorsal plan effort. (See VT) State is also proceed tang irid'ependently. Dratt plan due in August. No projection is available for concurrence.
MARYLAND Calvert Clifts 162 (Stage III) (Dick Van Niel) Plan is under review Dy RAC.
Concurrence is projected lor Decemter 1979 MASSACHUSETTS Pilgrim 162, tanxee-Ecwe, Montague 162 (Stage II) (Bob Defayette) Part or regional plan effort. (See VT) Also proceedirig inaependently. trait plan due in November. No projection is ava11aule fcr concurrence.
MI Cili G AN Palisades, utg Rock Point, Cook 162, Fermi 2,
M idla rid 162, Greenwood eo)
(Stage II) (Dica Vara Nieljelati is 11: preparation. Expected to be submitted 100 EAC review in August.
Exercise scheduled in August with Palisades. No projection availatle f or coricurretice.
MINNESOTA Monticello, Fraice Island lo2 (Stage II) (Bill Axelson)Eevised plan is due to FAC for review in July 1979 Exercise planned with Prairie Island.
Concurrence pro jec ted lor Octouer 1979.
NEBRASKA Pt. Calhoun 1,
Cooper Station (Stage IV) (Harold Pickering-FPA) Plaza acceptable. Exercise with Fort Calhoun scheduled 7/31.
Concurrence is projected for August 1979 NORTli CAFOLIha Urunswica 162, liarris 1/4, McGuire 162, Perkins 1/3 (Stage III) (Ji;n liut ham) Plan is almost completed. RAC review complete. Concuttence is projected for Fall 1979.
D D
9~ 1 a 47 D"*No m
}3/3 l50 oe
July 11, 1979 AIT ACliMENT 11 b CATEG06Y
'b' States (Ge riera t project nyt. - Dick Cle veland)
State facilities (stage)
(action ot11ce t) - comacnt/ status MISSOURI Callaway 162, Cooper (in NE)
(Stage II) (Dicx Clevelarid) Plan is beitig written as priority effort. Draft due to RAC tor review 9/ 10/79.
dC targets concurrence, including exercise, by 1/d0 NEW li A M PS tiI R E Sedoroon 162 (Stage I) (Bob DeFayette) patt et re7ional plain eftort.
-see Vermont)Also proceeding with independent action. NBC meeting with N il uet tor 6/13/79.
Piari coric u r r etice projected ter 5/du.
RHODE ISLAND Millstone, Connecticut Yankee (in C1) 6 F11g rim (in dA)
(S tage I) (Lick Clevelarid) 6/1/73 plan exists f or riuclear dCCidelits. 9/70 plan exists for Disaster Erepdredness.
Both plaris need major work arid a new p la ri is urider active development.
No date yet set for submittal to NBC/EAC, Lut expected within 2 months. FI is being corisidered tor inclusion in the New Engloald regiornal plari, mEST VIRGINIA (Stage 1) (Dick Cleveland) 4/15/69 L'eace tine Badiological Incluerits Control Eldri is iri eftect.
Aaroe (Rad Health) drid Anderson (C i v i l Derense) have both asked for NEC assistance in mdKirig a riew plan. Meeting ot Nhc with aV tentatively targeted f or d/79.
Sucmittal or plan for NFC/ LAC review targeted tor 1/80.
mm m
9 9
3-AAUL oc o
I373
- c!
48
OHIO Cavis dessie 1/3, 41mmer, Perry 162, Erie 162 (S tag e AII) (Dica Van Niel) Eevised plan out tor RAC review.
Fesponse due by 7/J1. Cancurrence projected tot Fall 1979.
OBSGON Trojan, Petrie Springs 162 (S tag e III) ( Arid y Roua rt) Partial Regional Advisory Committee review comple ted. Plan needs work. State representatives are iri a state or flux as lead agency charigirig, ho projection available for concurrence.
PENNSYLVANIA Deaver Valley 162, Feachbottom 263, TdI 162, Limericx 162, Susq ue h a rina 162 (S tage II) (Tom hisasser) Ce velo pmen t/ a c tiv e review in progress. Iblu will be a joint estort or NEC and DCPA during the riext tew months. No projection available on concurrence.
VERMONT Vermont Yankee (Stage III) (Bob DeFayette) Flan is part or regional plan effort.
Meeting neld 6/11/79 in Montpelier (DeFa ye t te) to h'elp state get started on a re-write of its plan. Governor Snellings is pushing the regional plantning coricept. bordering States are supportirig it. Statt plan due by Dece rr be r 1979 No projection a v aila ble cri comicu rretice.
VIRGINIA Nortn Antia 1/4, Surry 162, Central Virginia 162 (Stage IV) (Tom Elsasser) FAC review eistntially complete.
Good exercise history. Concurretice projected for August 1979.
WI SCON SI N Kewaunee, Point Beach 162, Lacrosse, T y r orinc, Haveri (Stage III) (0111 Axelson) hAC review couplete.
State informed of areas needing revision.
Impending shift to
- ontractor operated labs could cause problems.
Exercise dutiCipdted With LaCrosS in July 1979.
Concurrence projected Ior Fall 1979.
D**D
" T) N }IL g'
- S N on s
I373 2
49
July 17, 1979 ATTACHdENT II C CATEGCRY
'C' States (Gesteral project myr. - Dict Cleveland State facilities (stage)
(actiori of ficer) comment / status O KL A HO M A Black Fox 162 (Stage II) (Dick Cleveland) New start, no previous ettort.
Preliminar y dratt has been mailed Ly the State on day 29, 1979 tor internal State review. No projection yet for submittal tor RAC review. 1st operating plant scheduled fot late 1962.
TENNESSEE Hartsville 1,2,364, Seguayah 162, Watts Ear 162, Phipps Bend 162, (Stage III) (Jim Hutham) 1st operatisig plant scheduled for 10/79 Plan under RAC review and EAC concurrence (Seguoyah aspects only) expected to be completed by 7/ 31/79.
APIZONA Palo Verde 1,2,3 (Stage II) (Dica Cleveldud) New start. Previous plans of about 1974 6 1976 are out-uated.
1st operating platit is scheduled for 1983 startup. No schedule yet ror plan submittal for RAC review.
MISSISSIPPI Grand Gulf 162, Yellow Creek 162 (Stage III) (Dick Cleveland) Plan is under development by State. RAC is monitoring progress and submit ^tal Ior review is expected 10/79.
1st ope ra ting plant scheduled for 3/81.
LOUISIANA Eiver Besid 162, Waterford 3, Grand Gult 162 (in flS)
(Stage III) (Dicx Cleveland) Plan under actual development wa reviewed by hAC 1/79. Resutaittal estimated for 1/60 1st operating plasit is scheduled tor 9/81.
TEXAS (Stage Ill) (Dick Cleveland) 197d dratt plan under hAC review. SAC ine t with Sta te 5/22/79 P l asi tevisions expected 10/79. Much wort still needed on plasi.
INDIANA Dailly Station, Martle Hill 162 (Stage II) (Dick Clevelanu) New start to revise 1974 plan which was not clearly durined.1st operating plant scheduled tar 7/83 though is within 50 asiva or operating plant (Cook).
NBC met with IN state staff b/18/79 New dratt p la ti needs major work betore subaittal for EAC review.
IN plans to su'mit drait plan c
by 10/79.
~
D *
- lD *D'l Y f
{3/3 lg3 mom m
JL A o
50
es July 1/, 1979 AITAcildENT II D CATEGCRY
'D' States (General projec t agt. - Lick Cle veland)
S ta te Facilities (stage)
(action of fice r) comuent/ status K EllTUCK Y darble 11111 (in IN), Zinner (in 011)
(Stage II) (Dica Cleveland) BAE lie a l t h worxing to update plan (current version is circa 1962) Peter Conn, Sec'y of KY bept or liuaan Resources, adKed a t 11mmer hearing 5/2J/79 for Federal dSsistance tot n! and no license tol Zimmer until ettective plan is in place. Judge Greenwood of Trimbie County has asked Public Service of Indiana Lor specific help tor local plan at Marble 11 i 1 1. 41pmer (in onto) is scheduled tar operation in 3/80.
OSP/EP was brieteu 6/21/19 at meeting in Frankfort.
Administrative part or new plan sent out tor RAC review 6/2d/79 (d ue to te completed 8/17/79). Eest of plan expected 9/79.
00b 0k0h0h0, 13/3
- 64 51
se July 17, 1979 A11 Acrid ENT II E CATEGCRY
'E' States (G e tie r a l project myr. - Singh Bajwa State Current State plans of record 1:1 EP/OSF A la ba ma 2/16/7d A la ba;r.a Energeticy Plari ( Alisse x b)
A r karisa s 5/7d Emer. Operations P la ri ( A nne x g)
Californ.a d/70 Nuclear Power Plant Emer. EESP. Plan Connecticut 3/7d FNF REEP (Annex V to St.
E. O. P. )
Delaware (a d j. ) c/b/7d Radiological Emer. Response Plan Florida 1978 Radiological Eir e r. Elan tor FHE Iowa b/30/76 Iowa Energency Plan K a ri s a s (a d j. )
11/1/7d Arinex A - FHF uuc. I ric. Resp. Plati New Jersey 11/1/77 State PIPAG gra tt ua l w/ app.
New Yors 12/76 State Emer. Plan for Eadiation Acci.
South Caroliria 12/30/7d Peacetime EEEP 3
Washingtori 4//7 State Emergency Plain for kNF.
om o
1373
!e,-a D
D A
M oJ_
o 52
Attachment III 7/17/79 SCHEDULE OF EXERCISES Required Projected for by Concurrence State Scheduled ALABAMA J1.
EXERCISE DUE 1/d3 U/79 b/30/ 6C*
7 ALASKA 32 EXEECISE ARIZONA m3.
EXERCISE ARKANSAS d4.
EXLRCISE DUE 4/80 1/16/79C CALIFORNIA JS.
EXEECISE DUE 8/60 5/2/79C 7/79 11/6/70 COLORADO d6.
EXEECISE CONNECTICUT a7.
EXERCISE DUE 11/79 b/ 12/ 79 5/12/79C DELAWARE 80.
EXERCISE DUE u/79 U/13/79 9/ 26/ 7 8C DIST/COLudDIA s9.
EXEECISL FLOEIDA J10.
EX E ECI SE DUE 7/00 N1T 10/79 8/23/79 GEORGIA J11.
EXEECISE HAWAII 312.
EXtECISE IDAHC d13 EXERCISL ILLINOIS 414.
EXERCISE INDIANA #15.
EXEECISE IOWA s16.
EXcRCISL DUE 1/81 5/15/79c KANSAS s17.
EXEhCISE DUE 10/79 6/4/ 79C KENTUCKY d18.
EXLECISE LOUISIANA c19.
EXEECISE MAINE s20.
EXERCISE 10/18/76 MARYLAND d21.
EXEhCISE 6/27/78C MASSACiluSETTS 822.
EXEECISL 10/21/75 MICilIG A N 823.
EXERCISE d/79 MINNESOTA 824.
EXERCISE b/4/75C MISSISSIPPI w25.
LXEPCISE MISSOURI s20.
EXEECISE MONTANA s27 EXEhCISL NEURASKA m28.
EXEECISE 7/31/79 NEVADA d29.
EXEhCISE NEW ll AM PSilIRE J30.
EXEECISE 10/21/75C NEW JERSEY a31.
EXERCISE DUE 6/ /9 9/31/79 9/26/76C NEW MEXICO J32 EXERCISE NEW YORK d33.
EXERCISE DUE 12/79 NORTil CAEOLINA J34 EXEECISE 9/79
-NORTH DAKOTA d35.
LXEECISE 10/79 01110 #36.
EXERCISE OK L Al10M A $37 EXEECISE 8/79 9/18/78C OREGON J38.
EXEhCISE PENNSYLVANIA 439.
EXEFCISi b/24/76C PUERTO RICO 849.
EXERCISE R 110 D E I S L A N D e41.
EXEECISE SOUTli CAROLINA d42.
E X E. it CI S E DUE 5/79 6/79 11/14/78C SOUTH DAh0TA 843 EXEECISE TENNESSEE d4f4.
EXERCISE 7/6/7dC TEXAS d45.
EXERCISE U T A ll #46 EXERCISE VERMONT 847.
EXERCISE 7/6/78C VIRGINIA s40.
6XEECISE 11/ 4/76C W ASilI NG10 N d49.
EXERCISE uuE 4//9 8 80 d/18/77C
/
WEST VIRGINIA 850.
EXERCIS2 WISCONSIN 951.
EXERCISE 7/27/79 WYOMING #52 hXLECISE
- "C" indicates completed.
7
!'C 53 D %a A LB l n.
D DfYf c
/TTorn!irNT IV ST/.FF GUl0ANCE lESJURCES NU!1EG 75/111 - Guide and checklist for 1r(P's.
Supplement J1 to NUilEG 75/111 - Essential el en,en t s to concurrence.
NU3EG 0093 - Handbook for ficld assistanca to State & loc 71 aovts.
NUdEG V396 - Plannin; Basis fer Nuclear Accident RFlP's.
iti sc. Technical documents. (EG funding study, PAGS, Ki Tuidance, etc.)
REitP informatico sheets (both State and subj ect orient?d).
Field activities calendar (updated every few days).
Localities fi l e ( de.r.og raph i c da ta under development).
License Status Report (compiled fror the rainbow Sock series).
Library of State plans of record (master reference files).
Status reports (detailed) on plans under review by dfC's.
Exercise evaluation reports of record.
Capability reports (as provided to Nil 1 by SP).
General State correspondence files, dosters of participants in N2C sponsored 191 courses.
Rosters of ilAC, !! AC, FICCC members from all participatin~
agencies.
ilosters of State CD and dA9 Health directors.
D**D "D'9' Y &
.A lm 13/3 le_/
.e m
54
STUDY OBJECTIVES
. HISTORICAL COSTS AllD FUilDIliG 0F STATE AllD LOCAL GOVERNMEi1T RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESP 0llSF PLAils A!1D PREPAREDNESS Ill SUPPORT OF COMMERCIAL tluCLEAR POWER STATIONS
=
e FUTURE COSTS
. COST IMPACTS OF EMERGENCY PLANNIllG Z0llES
. FUTURE ALTERNATIVE FUNDI llG MECHAtlISMS C
U iluREG-0553 MAilUSCRIPT COMPLETED:
MARCH 27, 1979 DRAFT REPORT MANUSCRIPT PRINTED:
MARCH 30, 1979 g-co
STATES STUDIED STATES NRC CONCURREllCE COSTS FUilDING LOCAL GOVERilMENT ALABAMA X
X X
3 SITES ARKANSAS X
X X
4 COR0RADO X
X X
2 DELAWARE X
X X
1 (NJ)
FLORIDA X
X X
3 g
ILLINDIS X
X 2
i1EW JERSEY X
X X
2 i1EW YORK X
X X
2 OREG0ii X
X 1
[
G LESSEE X
X 2
U
' 'ch '.IGTON X
X X
2 (1 OR)
WISCuiMN X
X 3 (1 IL) ci, TOTAL:
14 8
14 12 24 SITES
LOCAL GOVERilMENTS STUDIED e ONE STATE PLA,1NIflG BROWNS FERRY (AL)
ST LUCIE (FL)
HUMBOLDT BAY (CA)
TURKEY P0l!1T (FL)
RAtlCHO SECO (CA)
OYSTER CREEK (i1J)
SAN ONOFRE (CA)
FITZPATRICK & flINE MILE POINT (NY)
HADDAM IlECK (CT)
I!1DIAN POINT (NY)
MILLSTONE (CT)
KEWAuflEE (WI)
CRYSTAL RIVER (FL)
POINT BEACH (WI)
. TWO STATE PLAilillflG FARLEY (AL & GA)
SALEM (NJ & DE) e QUAD CITIES (IL & IA)
TROJAN (OR & WA)
C ZION (IL & WI)
U
. STATIONS UNDER C0llSTRUCTION q
BELLEFONTE (AL)
WATTS BAR (TN)
DIABLO CANYON (CA)
WilP (WA)
SEQUOYAH (Til)
SOME IMPORTAilT CONSIDERATIONS THAT AFFECT COSTS
- PLANS MANPOWER, TRAINIilG, TRAVEL, SECRETARIAL SUPPORT, MAPS, PRINTING
- PREPAREDi1ESS EXERCISES:
TABLE TOP TO FULL SCALE TRAlilli1G:
ilRC - OPERATIONS MAllAGEMEilT & EMERGENCY RESPONSE RESOURCES:
COMMUNICATIONS - NOTIFICATION, COMMAND, TACTICAL, WARtili1G DOSE ASSESSMENT - SURVEY, COMPUTER, RING PROTECTIVE MEASURES - DOSIMETERS eOTHER:
UTILITY ASSISSTAtlCE g
EMERGENCY PLAlNING Z0tlES - 10 MILE EPZ - LOCAL EFFORT
- 50 MILE EPZ - STATE & REGI0ilAL EFFORT vl C
ci
COSTS OF PLANS AliD PREPAREDlESS FOR A TYPICAL STATE NRC C0i1CURRENCE EPZ e PLAli INITIAL
$50,000
$100,000 UPDATE 5,000 PER YEAR 10,000 PER YEAR e PREPAREDNESS
. EXERCISES 10,000 PER YEAR 20,000 PER YEAR PER SITE PER SITE
. TRAli1ING g
INITIAL 10,000 20,000 UPDATE 2,000 PER YEAR 4,000 PER YEAR
. RESOURCES y
li11TIAL 100,000 100,000 s
UPDATE 10,000 PER YEAR 10,000 PER YEAR
- s. I
[%,
COSTS OF PLANS Af1D PREPAREDNESS FOR TYPICAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT NRC C0tlCURRENCE EPZ
- PLAN INITIAL
$20,000 (2 JURISDICTIONS)
$40,000 (4 JURISDICTIONS)
UPDATE 2,000 PER YEAR 4,000 PER YEAR e PREPAREDr1ESS EXERCISES 10,000 PER YEAR 20,000 PER YEAR TRAINING INITIAL il0NE - USUALLY DONE BY STATE CONDUCTED BY STATE UPDATE RESOURCES INITIAL 30,000 (COMMUNICATIONS) 60,000 (COMMUNICATIONS)
C UPDATE 3,000 PER YEAR 6,000 PER YEAR U
c;
SITES REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION (THOSE WITH POPULATION GREATER THAtl 100,000 WITHIN 10 MILES) e BAILLEY - INDIANA - 103,000 PEOPLE e
BEAVER VALLEY - PEiltlSYLVANIA - 154,000 e
ENRICO FERMI - MICIIIGAfl - 185,000 e
INDIAN POINT - NEW YORK - 329,000 e
LIMERICK - PEfiNSYLVANIA - 281,000 e
e MILLSTONE - C0ili1ECTICUT - 119,000 e
TilREE MILE ISLAilD - PENNSYLVAi1IA - 121,000 e
ZI0i'l - ILLINDIS - 282,000 e
NORTH C0AST - PUERTO RICO - 115,000 PEOPLE C
w BASIS:
1970 CENSUS h
SOURCE:
NUREG - 0348
FUNDIllG STATE GOVERi4MENTS e CIVIL DEFEllSE/EMERGEilCY SERVICES e
APPROPRIATIONS e
DEFEilSE CIVIL PREPAREDiiESS AGEilCY (DCPA) e FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTAi1CE ADMINI573ATI0i1 (PL 93-288) e RADIATION HEALTil e
APPROPRIATI0iiS e
OCCASI0iiAL UTILITY ASSISTANCE l0
- PRI_0RITY SETTIfiG s C0iiCLUSI0ilS:
OVERALL STREi1GTH BASED ON HIGH FREQUEllCY NATURAL OR MAN MADF INCIDENTS e
FutIDIdG LEVELS CONSTANT WITil DEMANDS IllCREASING e
C C:'
bI
FUilDING LOCAL GOVER;lMEilTS e
CIVIL DEFENSE / EMERGE;1CY S_ERVICES e
APPROPRIATI0ils e
DEFENSE CIVIL PREPAREDilESS AGENCY e
PRIORITY SETTING e
BUDGETS LESS THAI 11% OF COUilTY BUDGETS e
SOME JURISDICTIOWS HAVE ONLY VOLUilTEER OR PART TIME DIRECTOR e
ALL RISK CONCEPT - ilUCLEAR IS O!lLY OilE OF MANY RISKS S
e UTILITY TAXES e
MAJOR Fli1 DINGS t
e
[10T ALWAYS ADEQUATE FUilDS IN HOST JURISDICTIONS
[
e RARELY ADEQUATE FUilDS Iil ilEIGHBORIllG JURISDICTIONS e
il0 ASSURANCE OF C0dTIllUITY OF FUiiDI!1G g>
FUTURE ALTERNATIVE FUNDIllG MECHAllISMS e
CURRENT ilYBRID APPROACH e
IllADEQUATE, SPORADIC, UilCERTAlil, FRUSTRATING e
NOT REQUIRIilG ADDITI0ilAL FEDERAL FUNDS e
STATE TAX, LOCAL TAX, EXTEilSION OF SOCI0 ECONOMIC FUFID, STATEWIDE FUf1D FROM LOCAL TAX REVEi4UES, EilERGY TAX, APPLICANT FEE, EXECUTIVE BUDGET FUND, JOINT UTILITY / STATE / LOCAL EFFORT, UTILITY FUliDING BY T1EAi1S OF NRC LICEi1Sli1G REQUIREMENTS e
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS C0ASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM, EXTEilSION OF FEMA P & A FU: IDS TO ALL RISKS, e
g COST SHARING a 75/25, FEDERAL C0iiSULTANTS, FEDERAL TRAIiiING & QUANTITY PURCHASING OF EQUIPMEi1T, LEAA FUf1 DING 0F COMMUNICATIONS, NOAA FUNDING OF REPEATER STATIONS e
REQUIRIilG ilRC FUiDS LICENSE FEE ON UTILITY APPLICANTS, RESEARCH FUNDS, GENERAL TAX REVEliUES, e
Rj OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS CONSULTANTS ON LOAN TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERilMENT 8
PREFERRED APPROACH:
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESP 0ilSE PLAflS AiiD PREPAREDilESS FEE OF $1 MILLION PER SITE
iiATI0ilAL PROGRAM FOR 40 STATES, 113 SITES PRESENT WORTH COSTS 1980 - 2000:
$147 MILLION
$35 MILLION FOR (IRC COllCURRE;lCE OF ALL IMPACTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMEi1TS; e
$27 MILLION FOR IMPLEMEllTlilG EPZ'S FOR MOST SITES; e
e
$15 MILLION FOR 24 4IGilER RISK SITES;
$20 MILLION FOR UPGRADED PLANS AilD PREPAREDflESS IrlVOLVING ARAC AND RING SYSTEMS; e
$5 MILLION FOR 10 0FFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS CONSULTAilTS ON LOA.'l TO STATE AND e
LOCAL GOVERNME!lTS;
$5 MILLION FOR TRAINIllG, RESEARCH, REGIONAL PLAilS FOR NRC/ EPA 50-MILE EPZ, AilD e
g OTHER MISCELLAilEOUS ITEMS; AilD e
$40 MILLIO!1 FOR FEDERAL EMERGENCY MAflAGEMENT AGENCY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION FUiiDIdG 0F LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT 100 PERCENT SUPPORT.
C S
PRINCIPAL FUNDI llG MECHAllISM C,
e FEE OF $1 MILLION PER SITE PAID BY NUCLEAR POWER STATI0fl OWNER TO NRC RADIOLOGICAL EMERGEllCY RESP 0ilSE PLANS AND PREPAREDilESS FUND FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERtlMENT
APPENDIX E ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF REVIEW CRITERIA FOR STATE / LOCAL RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS FOREWORD in order to maintain quality and torsistency in the reviews of State and local radiological emergency response plans, criteria have been developed against which to judge the plans in the determination as to NRC's concurrence with them.
Oraft criteria were presented at the Kansas City meeting in July 1979. Comments on that draft and on a subsequent draft dated August 13, 1979 have been considered in this present formulation of review criteria.
These criteria are based on the 70 essential elements identified in Supplement No. I to NUREG-75/111. These criteria basically clarify and amplify the guidance given in NUREG-75/Ill. There are many ongoing reviews of emergency preparedness as a consequence of the TMI accident in March 1979, including specific consideration of revision of UUREG-15/lli and the essential elements. Consideration of the results of these reviews and implementation of their reconsendations will be conducted over the next year or more. Meanwhile, NRC has indicated it will continue to use the current criteria for at least the next six months. This is consistent with the guidance from the Congress as eFpressed in 5.562, the Senate passed version of NRC FY 1980 Autho-rization Bill.
All comments on the draft criteria were not incorporated. Those comments which relate to revision, deletion, or addition of criteria generally have been set aside for consideration in a full revision of NUREG-75/111.
It is appropriate, therefore, to regard these current review criteria as interim criteria for which there will be continuing assessment and revision as new information and policy decisions are developed.
i F6
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF STATE / LOCAL RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
Reference:
NUREG 75/111 Supplement No. 1 (70 checklist essenti.-1 elements)
DESIGNATED STATE / LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Al 201 The Plan shall specify overall authority and responsibility for radio'?gical emergency response planning as assigned by the governor, head of local government, or appropriate legislation.
DESIGNATED STATE / LOCAL PLANNING EXECUTIVE A2 202
- 1. e Plan shall desigt ate, by position, a specific individual in each State or local jurisdiction who is responsible for radiological emergency response planning.
FORMAL INTRAG0VERNMENT AGREEMENTS A3 204 t
The Plan shall include written agreements, delegations of authority, and other formal understandings among State and local agencies involved in radiological emergency response. If not part of the plan, they should be referenced to appropriate legislation, executive orders, or other legal instruments.
RESOLUTION OF LEGAL LIABILITIES A3 288 The Plan shall identify provisions for addressing any legal liabilities incurred by emergency operations personnel in pursuit of their duties in carrying out the radiological emergency response plan.
SPECIFIC FACILITY / GOVERNMENT AGREEMENTS A4 244 The Plan shall includa written emergency planning agreements, or abstracts thereof, among the facilities and State and local governments.
PROCEDURES FOR F ACILITY/ GOVERNMENT INTERACTION A4 428 Facility / government agreements shall set forth detailed procedural relationships governing emergency response operations and general exchange of information before, during ano after incidents.
AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A5 205/207/209/223/231/233/215 The Plan shall specify authorities and responsibilities for major functions of emergency response, including the following: Command and Control, Warning and Evacuation, dommunications, Public Information, Accident Assessment, Protective Response (including authority to request Federal assistance), and to initiate other protective actions and Radiological Exposure Control. Legal bases for such authorities shall be indentified.
I l
A s a ei
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS B1 203 The Plan shall set forth a concept of operations that describes the operational interrelationships of all organizations with emergency roles.
ORGANIZATIONAL LISTING B2 239 The Plan shall contain a list of State and local government agencies and private sector organizations that are elements of the overall emergency response organization.
FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES B4 206/208/210/244/232/234/236 The Plan shall describe the functions and responsibilities of all State and local government agencies and organizations with emergency support roles. The descriptien of these functions shall include a clear, concise summary, such as a table of primary and support responsibilities using the agency as one axis and the function as the other. The described functions shall include the folicwing: Command and Control, Warning and Evacuation, Communications, Public Information, Accident Assessment, Protective Response, and Radiological Exposure Control.
EMERGENCY OPERATING CENTERS B6 237 The Plan shall designate the primary and secondary locations from which activities of supporting organizations can be directed. It shall include provisions for implementing and staffing these centers in a timely manner.
The Plan should also include specific plans for communicating with the NRC EOC and the command center for IRAP when established.
LOCAL / STATE RELATIONSHIPS B7 245 The Plan shall include local plans and clearly identify the relationship and interface between State and local emergency response plans.
COMPATIBLE PROTECTIVE ACTION GUIDES C2 313 The Plan shall provide that mutually acceptable protective action guides and protective measures are established by agreements among government bodies in States containing or contiguous to the nuclear facility. Bases for any deviation from Federal guidance shall be explained.
INTERGOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS C3 243 The Plan shall describe or reference jurisdictional agreements which are the basis for coordinating the efforts of Federal, State and local bodies with contiguous jurisdictions during an emergency. Artas addressed must include communications, accident assessment, protective actions, decisionmaking, and resolution of legal problems. Such agreements shall assure that coordination will exist during emergency response operations.
C<
j e1 68
RAP /IRAF LIAISON D1 276 The Plan shall describe the liaison with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Regional Coorinating Office responsible for implementing the DOE Radiological Assistance Plan (RAP) and the Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan (IRAP). The Plan shall set forth current telephone numbers of the RAP regional coordinator office and reference the resources available through RAP /IRAP. The command interaction with RAP /IRAP should be specifically described, including provisions for making use of RAP /IRAP resources, specification of persons authorized to request RAP /IRAP assistance, and assignment of operational control of RAP /IRAP teams and equipment.
NUCLEAR FACILITIES LIAISON D2 278 The Plan shall describe the liaison among the State, licensed nuclear facility operators and other nuclear or non-nuclear establishments within 100 miles of the facility capable of rendering assistance in an emergency.
The Plan shall include contacts and procedures which will t'e used in obtaining such assistance, including those involving the Federal Government.
BASIS FOR STATE / LOCAL NOTIFICATION E.1.a 302 The Plan shall describe notification procedures that include mutually agreeable bases for notifications for each facility to which the Plan is applicable. They should be consistent with emergency action levels and other provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101 or spelled out in separate memoranda of understanding among parties to the notification steps.
FACILITIES' GOVERNMENT CALL LISTS E.1.c 406 Notification procedures shall include the call lists of those responsible authorities (by position) to be notified by the operator of each facility to which the Plan is applicable. Lists should include alternates and should specify the communication pathways to key personnel.
CONTENT OF NOTIFICATION TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS E.1.f. 402 Notification procedures shall list the specific information to be reported by the operator of each facility to which the Plan is applicable. This information shall include at least those items which are set forth in Section E.1.f. on pages 14 and 15 of NUREG-75/Ill (12-1-74). Methods of message verification should be included. Notification item E.1.f. (11) should include need (if any) f r Federal assistance.
POPULATION NOTIFICATION E.2 275 The Plan shall set forth procedures for rapid notification of the populace near each nuclear facility to which the Plan is applicable. These procedures shall include: Identification of the specific organizations or individuals who will be responsible for notifying the affected population, the methods that will be used, the bases (i.e., emergency action levels) for notification, a capability for 24-hour-day notification, and a description of the information that would be communicated to the public under given circumstances.
13/3
, 2 69
PRGCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATION OF CONTIGUOUS STATES E.3 403 The Plan shall set ferth procedures for notification and exchange of information between State and local governments in the State in which the nuclear facility is located and those in contiguous States. The Plan shall reflect that the procedures are mutually agreeable to the responsible government authorities involved and should reference appropriate instruments of understanding.
CONTENTS OF NOTIFICATION TO CONTIGUOUS STATES E.3 404 The Plan shall provide that notifications to State and local governments in contiguous States shall be patterned after an established format and shall include at least those itmes included in Criterion E.1.f. 402 (Content of Notification to State and Local Governments).
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN F.1. 246 The Plan shall include a communications plan for emergencies, specifying 24-hour-day primary and backup communications links among the nuclear facilities, State offices, Federal agencies and local governments. It should be assumed that the commercial telephone may not be available for incidents involving PAG level releases to the public.
PROVISION FOR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC F.2. 249 The Plan shall provide for use of public communications media or other methods for issuing emergency instruc-tions to members of the public. The Plan shall provide for prompt alerting of the public after such need is determined and for continuing instructions as to emergercy actions to follow and updating of information about the emergency.
PUBliC INFORMATION CONTROL POINT G.I. 273 The Plan shall describe the management control of post-accident public information matters. This shall include central control and governing authorities over issuance of post
- accident public announcements within State and loc?1 governments.
DESIGNATED PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER G.2 272 The Plan shall identify the specific position in the State and local government (and alternates) responsible for public announcements for the categories of incidents used in the notification basis (E.1.a. of NUREG-75/lli (12-1-74).
PUBLIC WARNING PROCEDURES G.3. 412 The Plan shall describe the spe;ific information which shall be given to the public. In particular, messages to the public giving instruction with regard to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of affected areas shall be preplanned and included as part of the State Plan. All planned announcements shall be consistent with operational authorities and protective action guides specified in the State response plan.
The Plan shall provide for continuing transmittal of information to the public over the course of the emergency.
l 70
AVAILABILITY OF RADIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES H.4 501 The Plan shall provide an inventory of radiological labnratories or other facilities (both government and non government) and their capabilities, whose assistance can be acquired on a timely basis. Federal faci-lities available in conjunction with mobilization of RAP /IRAP teams should be referenced.
ACCIDENT CATEGORIZATION DEFINITIONS I.1 238 The Plan shall identify classes of emergency situations which conform to those of the nuclear facility. Such classes shall be identified by succinct verbal designations which are compatible with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101 classification categories. Where more than one facility or more than one State is involved, all parties shall use the same system.
ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT METHODS I.2 415 The Plan shall include the State methodology for performing accident assessment and the specific arrangements to involve Federal assistance. The methodology shal' permit rapid assessment by cognizant individuals.
PROVISION FOR FIELD / MOBILE RESOUCES I.3 260 The Plan shall provide for deployment of field and mobile radiological assessment resources. It shall include, as a minimum, details of who activates the system, field team composition and transportation, communication, monitoring equipment, and notification and deployment times. Any dependence on Federal response resources shall be identified.
PROVISIONS FOR RADIOLOGICAL TEAM COMMUNICATIONS I.6 251 The Plan shall provide for a multiple level communicaticns system to be used for the rapid transfer of infor-mation from field survey teams to State and local EOC's.
It should be assumed that commercial telephone may not be available for incidents involving radiation at PAG 1evels. The Plan shall include the locations of radios and means by which they may be procured. In the absence of radios, an estimate shall be provided for the time required from data collection to availability at the central control point.
FACILITY ENVIRONS MAPS I.7. 432 The Plan shall include maps of the environs of each facility to which the Plan applies. These maps shall identify evacuation routes and reception centers. These maps shall show key points for collection of survey and monitoring data, plus key land use data sich as farms, food processing plants, watersheds, water supply intake and treatment plants and reservoirs. Aiequate supplies of maps shall be maintained at key locations.
PROTECTIVE ACTIONS GUIDES (F0ODSTUFFS) J.2. 308 The Plan shall include PAGs and associated protective actions.for the ingestion pathway. Bases for any deviation from Federal guidance shall be explained.
f"[
Oi
'i
.i 71
METHODS FOR CONTROL OF FOODSTUFFS J.3 425 The Plan shall list all critical ingestion pathways around each facility to which the Plan applies. It shall specify procedures for detecting contamination, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of eating contaminated foods, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation.
PROTECTIVE ACTION GUIDES (CONTAMINATION) J.4 309 The Plan shall include PAGs and associated protective actions for ground deposition contamination which poses potential for radiation exposure to persons. Bases for desiation from Federal guidance shall be explained.
EVACUATION PLANS AND PROCEDURES J.7 417 The Plan shall include evacuation and relocation procedures within the low population zone (LPZ) and beyor.d as appropriate. Such procedures shall be coordinated with a standard description and sequence of sectors in projected plume pathways.
ALTERNATIVE PROTECTIVE MEASURES J.8. 312 The Plan shall discuss alternative measures to evacuation, including sheltering in private homes, and the bases fnr takirg such alternatise measures.
RADI0 PROTECTIVE DRJG ADMINISTRATION J.9 !!1 The Plan sha'l describe the policy and procedures for administering and distributing radioprotective drugs to members of the populace and emergency workers. This shall include storage locations, organizations involved, and methods of distribution for various accident categories.
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA J.10. 240 The Plan shall contain population distribution maps for a 50 mile adius surrounding each facility to which the Plan applies. Updating shall occur at least during the year following each U.S. census.
ACCIDENT AREA CONTROLS J.12 422 The Plan shall provide for establishing control of access into areas by all transportation modes within 10 miles of each facility to which the Plan applies; shall specifically identify the Federal / State / local chain of command responsibilities, and the authorities for such controls.
PERSONNEL ACCOUNilNG IN AFFECTED AREAS J.13. 420 The Plan shall specify procedures for accounting for persons involved in the accident and/or evacuated from the accident environs.
2 Z
\\
~
-) l -)
i (, :)
72
RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL K.I. 266 The Plan shall specify criteria and bases which govern radiation exposure of emergency workers and the general public. A basis for estimating total population exposure shall be part of the exposure control plan. Any deviation from applicable EPA /FDA PAGs shall be justified.
24-HOUR DOSIMETRY SERVICE K.2. 265 The Plan shall include provisions for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per-day capatiility to determine the doses received by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear incident, including voluriteers such as the Red Cross. Locations and means for distribution of dosimeters shall be included. Such services shall include both selfreading and permanent record devices.
RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF EVACUEES K.S. 262 The Plan shall provide for the systematic monitoring of evacuees as appropricte and the recording of their measured or estimated radiation exposures. It shall also describe the methods for such monitoring.
DECONTAMINATION OF PERSONNEL K.6. 261 The Plan shall provide for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, evacuees, supplies, instruments, ana equipment. It shall provide for necessary equipment and waste disposal to perform decontamination. It shall contain instructions and action levels for advising personnel who may be contaminated to report to a screening area.
LOCATIONS OF MfDICAL FACILITIES L.3. 513 The Plan shall include maps showing the locations of hospitals and other medical facilities capable of treat-ing radioactively-contaminated patients out to a radius of 50 mi' es.
These facilities should be covered by appropriate agreements to receive patients.
TRANSPORTATION TO MEDICAL F ACILITIES L.4. 258 The Plan shall identify medical services organizatiors (ambulance service, rescue squad or fire department) within 50 miles of each facility to which the Plan applies which can transport of f site victims of radiological accidents to a medical facility.
STATE AND LOCAL DRILLS AND EXERCISES N.l. 284 The Plan shall provide that an emergency response exercise will be conducted prior to adoption of the Plan and at least once per year thereaf ter to demonstrate the viability of the Plan. An exercise must include mobilization of State and local personnel and resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to the given accident scenario.
CRITIQUE AND IMPROVEMENTS OF ORILL AND EXCERCISES N.3. 285 The Plan shall provide for a critique of the annual exercise by Federal and State observers / evaluators.
13/3 o
73 t yJ
EQdlPHENI AND SYSTEMS TESTING N.4. 286 The Plan shall provide that communications systems and other emergency equipment will be tested as part of annual field exercises.
RADIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TRAINING 0.1. 28U The Plan shall include a radiological response training program for instructing and qualifying the personnel who will implement the Plan.
LIAISON FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TRAINING 0.2. 281 The Plan shall identify the responsibility of each facility to which the Plan applies to provide site specific radiological response training for those of f site emergency organizations who may be called upon to provide assistance to the facility in the event of an emergency.
PROVISIONS FOR PERIODIC TRAINING 0.3 283 The Plan shall provide for annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities.
ANNUAL REVIEW AND UPDAlE OF RESPONSE PLAN P.l. 291 The Plan shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. Provisions for incorporating improvements found needed by exercises shall be identified. The position responsible for this effort shall be specified.
PROVISIONS FOR PROMULGATION OF PLAN CHANGES P.2. 290 The Plan shall provide that approved changes to the Plan will be forwarded to all of the users of the Plan.
The change procedure shall provide that change pages are dated and marked to show where changes have been made.
PROVISIONS FOR PLAN DISTRIBUTION P.4. 292 The Plan shall provide a distribution list for the Plan, which will include all of those emergency support organizations who have a response role in implementing the Plan.
Q agreements and proceddres not integral to the plan must be available for review upon request.
I3/3 iE;/
74
YW( [t UNITED STATES APPEt! DIX F 2
3 NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION QVCL !
W ASH IN G T ON. D.C. 20555
% r.-[p
%.h g
September 4, 1979 OFFICE OF THE CH AIRM AN The Honorable Douglas M. Costle Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.,
20460 Dear Mr.
tle: b Because of the accident at Three flile Island, there has been : increased attention by the Federal government and the States on the who'le question of State and local radiological emergency response plans for ffixed nuclear facilities. I am writing to ask for your support of our increased efforts in this area.
The Federal Preparedness Agency's Federal Register flotice of December 24, 1975 assigned various responsibilities to the Environ:nentcil Protection Agency as well as the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the agencies which are now consolidated as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEf4A).
Under the notice, the lluclear Regulatory Commission has lead ctgency responsibility for review and concurrence in State plans, but this is a responsibility which we have never carried out alone.
In the past, we have relied on the efforts and technical competence of EPA individuals at the regional and headquarters levels in carrying out this task.
It has been the collective expertise and hard worl< of all Federal agency participants, particularly at the regional level, which to date has allowed us to concur in the plans of twelve Staten.
- But, much work remains to be done.
Legislation is now pending in the Congress which would, if enacted, make concurrence in State plans a condition precedent to the opera tion of new commercial nuclu nwer plants.
Under S.562, the Senate's v<ersion of i1RC's 1980 Authorizat#
dill, unless States have concurred-in plan s for dealing with radiologica; emergencies at nuclear power stations by JuTie 1,1980, HRC must close the facilities down.
Under the Senate bil1, ICRC may not issue operating licenses for new facilities unless the application contains a copy of the concurred-in State plan.
Concurrence has not been achieved in sixteen States with operating nuclear power stations and there are twelve States where such stations are under construction or which are adjacent to nuclear power stations already operating or under construction.
(See enclosed lists.)
13/3
.^J 75
As you may know, NRC chairs the Federal Interagency Central Coordinating Comittee on Radiological Emergency Response Planning. At the June meeting of this group, the members, including your representative, Mr. Floyd L. Galpin, again pledged support for the continuing Federal effort in this field, but they were quick to point out that they were not in a position to do anything more than exhort their regional offices to cooperate.
I should say that the cooperation we have had to date frcm the EPA regional staff has been very encouraging.
But I would like to ask you now to underscore to your regional and headquarters management and staff who work in this area the urgency of this matter during the next year.
Modest funding may also be required to support increased efforts and travel by regional personnel of EPA through the spririg of 1980.
Their participation in field assistance visits, plan reviews and critiques of exercises will be needed to an even greater degree than before to achieve final concurrence in the plans for the States not yet having concurrence.
I earnestly ask for your personal support and the support of your Agency for this important work.
. Sincerely,
\\
0-(
Jo,seph M. Hendrie Chai rman
Enclosure:
As stated 1373 IB?
76
12 STATES WITH PLAtlS HAVING NRC CONCUPREllCE Alabama Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Florida Iowa V2nsas ilew Jersey flew York South Carolina Washington 16 STATES WITH OPERATING fiUCLEAR POWER STATIONS - DO NOT HAVE PLANS WITH llRC CONCURREliCE Colorado Georgia
- llinois
!1aine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota fiebraska North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Vermont Vi rgi nia Wisconsin 12 STATES WITH NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR ADJACENT TO STATES WITH STATI0f1S UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATING - DO NOT HAVE PLANS WITH NRC C0fiCURRENCE Missouri fiew Hampshire Rhode Island West Virginia Oklahoma Tennessee g
n3] g "
OR,D nrizona l}/}
-)
Mississippi 4 'J uL J
)
Louisiana iexas Inciana Kentucky 77
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.138 / Tuesday, July 17, 1979 / Proposed Rules 41c3 for contmurd operation of a nuclear in Support of Light Water Nudear factbry, and coordmation between the Power Plants." NUREG-0390/ EPA 520/
licensee plan and State and local plans.
1-78-016. December 1978. Sec 43 Fed.
The Comcussion seeks written Reg. 58658 (December 15.1978), see olso comments on what items should be 44 Fed. Reg. 23137 (Apnl 18.1979).
induded in the rule.
Furthermore, a number of organizations, DATES: Comments are due no later than.
including Critical Mass and Pubbc August 31.1979.
Interest Research Groups, have renewed a d supplemented a petition for ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning these issues should be rulemaking, previously denied by the submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, cacerning the operational Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory acuada plannmgJee 44 ea I8 Com=ission. Washington. DC 20555.
o ss on bas decided to POR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
initiate an expedited rulemaking Patncia A. Comella. Site Designation procedure on the subject of State and Branch. Office of Standards local emergency response plans and Development. Nuclear Regulatory those of licensees. The Commission is Commission. Washington. DC 20555, soliciting public comments in this area.
301-443 4 981.
particularly on the following issues:
SuPPLEME NT ARY INFORM ATION:The NRC
- 1. What should be the basic objectives requires that power reactor license of emergency planmng?
applicants plan for radiological
- a. To reduce public radiation emergencies within their plant sites and exposure?
make arrangements with State and local b.To prevent public radiation organizations to respond to accidents exposure?
that might have consequences beyond
- c. To be able to evacuate the public?
the site boundary. In this way off. site To what extent abould these emergency planning has been related i the nuclear bcensing process.See 10 objectives be quantified?
CFR Psrt 50. Appendix E (1979), see olso addithmal uidance in U.S. NRC.
mergency nsponse plan for State and F
Regulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency I cal agencies? For licensees? What are Planning for Nuclear Power Plants.-
the essential elements that must be (Rev.1.1977).
included in an effective plan? Do To aid State and local governments in existing NRC requirements for licensees the development and implementation of (10 CFR Part 50. Appendix E) and adequate emergency plans, the NRC. In guidance for States (NUREG.75/111) cxmjunction with seven other Federal lack any of these essential elments?
agencies. has uttempted. on a
- 3. Should NRC concurrence in the cooperative and voluntary basis, to associated State and local emergency provide for training and instnaction of response plans be a requirement for
/
State and local government personnel continued operation of any nuclear p.2equacy and Acceptance of and to establish cnteria to guide the power plant with an existing operating Erriergency Planning Arcund Nuclear preparation of emergency plans.
license? If so, when should this general Facihties However, the NhC has not made NRC requirement become effective?
(10 CFR Part 50]
approval of State and local emergency
- 4. Should prior NRC concurrence in plans a cortdition of nuclear power plant the associated State and local AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory opc ation.
emergency response plans be a Comnussion.
The accident at Three Mile Island has nquirement for the issuance of any new Action: Advance Notice of Proposed raised a number of questions about the operating license for a nuclear power Riemaking.
adequacy of radiological emergency plant? If so. when should this general response plans. Even before the requirement become effective?
auMMAny:The Nuclear Regulatory accident the GAO had recommended
- 5. Should financial assistance be Comnussion is considering the adoption that NRC not license new power plants provided to State and local overnments S
of aditional reFulations which will for operation unless off. site emerFency for radiological emergency response estabbsh as conditions of power reactor plans have been approved by the NRC.
l P annmg and preparedness? lf so, to operatior. increased emergency GAO Report to the Congress. " Areas what extent and by what means? What reudmess for public protection in the Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be should be the source of the funds?
v:ciruty of nuclear power reactors on the Better Prepared For Radiological
- 6. Should rad ological emergency par of both the licensee and local and Emergencies." March 30.1979. The response drills be a requirement? If so.
state authonties. The Commission is Commission is also considering new under whose authority: Federal. State or tuerested in receiving public comment guidance to State and local governments local government? To what extent on ob;ect;ves for effective plans, on emergency planning, based on an should Federal. State, and local acceptance entens for State / local analysis of a joint NRC-EPA Task Force governments, and licensees be required emergency plans. NRC concurrence in Report. " Planning Basis for Development to participate?
State and local plans as a requirement of State and LocalGovernment
- 7. How and to what extent should the for issuance of an operating bcense or Radiological Emergency Response Plans public be informed, prior to any D
- lD lD 3'[h Jj/j
- Q'l 78 M
e M ll %
41484 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.13a / Tuesday July 17. 1979 / Proposed Rules emergency. conceming emergency For the hwh actions it might be caued upon to take?
8.=
I J. chilk.
- 8. What actions should be taken in Secrwaryofthe Commission response to the recommendations of the ps m-rv.4, pa us ;
lomt NRC/ epa Task Force Report sumo coot tes**a (NUREG-0396/ epa 520/1-7&-018)?
- 9. Under what circumstances and using what criteria should a licensee nottfy State, local, and Federal agencies of incidents, includira energencies?
When. how, to what extent, and by w bom should the public be notified of these incidents?
ne com.nenta received will be collected and evaluated by the NRC staff, which will. in turn, submit reconurendations on proposed rules to the Commission. Based on the comments it receives imm the pubbc and the analysis of the problem presented by the NHC Staff. the Commission will determine whether to proceed with a proposed rule for notice and comment and/or whether to make such rule immediately effective. He Commission anticipates completion of this exped2ted rulemaking in approximately six tnonths.
The NRC staffis presently conducting a comprehensive review of all aspects of the NRC emergency planning and preparedness program. Herefore, the Commission is also interested in receiving comments on all other aspects of emerFency planning. includire issues rened in the Cntical Mass /PIRG petition for rulemaking and questions such ae the following:
- 10. How and to what extent should the concems of State and local governments be incorporated into Federal radiological emergency response planning?
- 11. How should Federal agencies interface with State and local governments and the licensee during emergencies?
iy/J
//
i
- 12. Should the bcensees be required to
{J 1
t_
provide radiological emergency response training for State and local govemment personnel?!f so, to what extent? Should the Federal government provide such training? If so, to what extent?
- 13. To what extent should reliance be placed on licensees for the assessment of the actual or potential consequences of an accident with regard to initiation of protective action? To what extent should this responsibdity be borne by Federal. State or local governments?
- 14. Would pubbe participation in rndiological emergency response drills.
includmg evacuetion, serve a useful purpose? If so, wbat should be the extent of the pubbc participation?
79 Dated at Waalungton. D C., this 12th day of
}c!).11r 9.
~3 3 b gm D
D Ak
=
a
'U" U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG/CP-0009 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
- 4. TITLE AN D SUBTITLE (Add Voturne No., of appropronte1
- 2. (Leave bla1kl Proceedings of the Radiological Eneraency Preparedness Training Conference July 24-25, 1979
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
- 7. AUTHOR (S)
- 5. D ATE REPORT COMPLE TED Office of State Programs M ON TH YE AH October 1979
- 9. PE RFORMING ORGANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS tinclude lip Codel DATE REPORT !SSUED MONTH YEAR November 1979 V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State Programs 6 <teeve be>nal Washington, D.C.
20555
- 8. (Leave blank}
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include leo Codel
- 10. PROJE CT/ TASK /WOHK UNIT NO Same as 9 above
- 11. CONTH ACT NO l13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD C Ov E RE D (/nclusive datest Conference Proceedings July 24-25, 1979
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 Ileave n'an * )
- 16. ABSTR ACT t200 words'or lessi On July 24-25, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored a trainina seminar for Federal officials involved in the review of State and local radioloaical emeroency response plans. The major purpose of the seminar was to discuss the methods used to review the State response plans for accidents involving radioactive materials. The review criteria, as revised, are found in Appendix E.
- 17. KE Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALYSIS 17a DE SC RIP T O RS Radiological emergency response program State emergency revMv criteria 1373
.03 17b. IDENTIFIE RS/OPEN EN DE D TE RMS 18 AV AILABILITY ST ATEMENT 19 SE CURT TY CLASS (Th,s report) 21 NO OF PAGES Unlimited Availability
- g
,Tyc As tra,so,,,
22 eRiCe 1RC FORM 335 (7 77)
UNIT E D ST ATE S NUCLtAH NtGULATORY COMM'SSION f
~
W AS*4 SNG TON D. C 20555 POSTAGE AND F R E S P AIO OF F ICI AL BUSINE SS U5 NUC LE A R RE GUL A ToRV com us55aON PE N A L T Y F O H PRIV A T E USE. 53%
U S "#
,-~8 k.
(
/
x _-
/^' 7
/
12 0 '> ') 50; l1:
9NhC 909E 9F 9 LS
.h t
}
5"LN i' l h 'flI D U C i>51 c ia l RCLM PF At.C F Ch[ f HST L t.51 Y HaD'If61C,
A 0555 v
d
( / i' r.
1
}Jl i
J i
i
,