ML19256F656
| ML19256F656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1979 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190738 | |
| Download: ML19256F656 (3) | |
Text
e Y,pR MGej,'g UNITED STATES 8 } ).,-, 'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I.'Qs ' *
i WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 8
a t., v /
HOV 2 31979 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR FROM:
Robert G. Ryan, Director, OSP
SUBJECT:
INPUT FOR RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN FINAL GA0 REPORT ENTITLED " EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AROUND THE RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT: A CASE STUDY" (EMD-79-103)
Enclosed is our suggested input for answering two of the GA0 recommendations in the subject report.
i Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs Enclosure as stated.
cc:
B. K. Grimes, NRR, w/ enclosure L. V. Gossick, EDO, w/ enclosure 1626 187 7912190 7 3 8
i First Recommendation: NRC guidance for States and local governments indicates that the annual exercises are required to maintain con-currence.
This exercise must include mobilization of State and local personnel and resources adequately to verify the capability to respond to a given accident scenario. We are developing scenarios which can be used for this purpose.
In addition, we are in the process of c; grading licensee emergency plans and one of the new re-quirements is a joint exercise involving Federal, State, and local response organizations. The scope of this exer-cise should test as much of the emergency plan as is rea-sonably achievable without full public participation.
We believe these requirements are in general agreement with the thrust of the GA0 recomendation to require longer exercises with involvement from all emergency response agencies.
Although we can, and do, require site emergency plans to be exercised to some extent on nights and weekends, we have no authority to require the participation of offsite agen-cies during these times and I suspect we would find it very difficult to get participation by all involved agen-cies during these times. With respect to costs, we have recently published a report "Beyond Defense-in-Depth" (NUREG-0553) (copy enclosed) which addresses the subject of funding state and local government radiological emer-gency response plans. The report was published for puolic comment on November 9, 1979 and following this comment 1626 188 period, which expires Occember 31, 1979, we will be considering the recommendations made in it.
Fourth Recommendation: We have been evaluating the ARAC system for some time and have recently had discussions with the Department of Energy (DOE) for installing it as a pilot project at a commercial nuclear power facility. Our Office of State Programs has proposed a phased, pilot installation of ARAC which would include eqaipment in two or three State emergency operations centers, replicate equipment at a reactor site and local government emergency operations centers in those States, and an installation at the NRC Operations Center. This action would allow a greater understanding and evaluation of the technology and methodology associated with ARAC and would permit resolution of any institutional and techno-logy transfer problems involved in the creation of a national newtork system. We have decided that the first installation would be in New York State (Indian Point) followed closely by installations in Illinois (Zion) and California (Rancho Seco). We have requested funds in the FY-80 Supplement budget for this purpose.
1626 189