ML19270G576
| ML19270G576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270G577 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7906140107 | |
| Download: ML19270G576 (48) | |
Text
h T4
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(
Place - Washington, D.
C.
Date. Tuesday, 8 May 1979 Pages 1-37 2270 042
{
7.i. phen.:
(202)347-3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters (I
444 North Capitol Street UllUghld}l I
U31 L
Washington. D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-f -iLY 7906140167;4 ;
G 1
I
~~
CR46.70 8
.- r
.t
,\\
.s.
~
l DISCLAIMER -
7'.
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesdav, 8 May 1979 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, it. W., Wasningt.on, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. The transcript is intended solely for general infoma'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the fomal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final detaminations or beliefs.
io pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as.the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
~
2270.043 k
l G
- f..
2 6
l CR4670 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
I 4
PUBLIC MFETING l
BRIEFING ON INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGIC'.L ASSISTANCE PROGRAM l
5 t l
l 6
i 7
Room 1130 8,
1717 H Street, W.
i Washington, D.
C.
l 9l l
l Tuesday, May 8, 1979 10 !
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m.
11 l
BEFORE:
l 12 !
DR. JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
14 l RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner l
15 l l
PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner 16 '
JOHN F.
AHEARNE, Commissioner
!7; ALSO PRESENT:
18 Messrs. Gossick, Davis, Sniezek, Chilk, and Sanders.
19 !
i 20 '
2270 044 i
21 1
l 22 l
I 23 I
24 a
jeral Reprters, Inc.
{
25 j
3 CR4670 1
PRQQEEQlEES huLTZER/mm 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we get started.
3l:
The meeting this morning is a briefing by the Staff I
i I
i 4!
on the Interagency Radiological Assistance Program.
It has I
i 5
been scheduled for an hour, but I would very much appreciate 1
it if we could get through it in half that time:
j 6l 7
A; I am running late this morning, and B; we have 8
got another matter we ought to take up before we break.
- And, 9
people have noon appointments and so on and so forth.
So, if 10 !
we can step brisky through the thing, why it would be much 11 appreciated.
12 MR. DAVIS: All right, sir.
13 MR. GOSSICK:
Go ahtad, John.
14 MR. DAVIS:
We will move quite promptly through this.!
15,
What I would like to do first, is characterize --
l 16 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Isn't Dick coming?
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Same just said go ahead without 18 him.
19 1 MR. CHILK:
He has indicated we can start without l
20 1 him.
21 MR. DAVIS:
I would like to characterize what this 22 briefing consists of.
Primarily, it will be a very brief run 23 through of the concepts of IRAP. And then last, it will be our 24 impressions of the implementations of IRAP to Three-Mile Island.
c seral Reporters, Inc.
25 l And I wish you would carry in mind that we have not l
2270 045 i
1
/
e s
I mm 1
met with other offices, with other agencies for any relook of l
4 2
what's going on. So it is our impressions.
l l
t 3'
If you will look at the first slide --
l I
4 (Slide) 5
-- the TMI response was under the general umbrella of IRAP.
6 Initial planning under IRAP really developed from the SL-1 l
7 incident about 1961.
It is a planning document primarily for 8l coordinating the response of various agencies in the event of 3
l I
a radiological incident.
9l 10 !
With me today I do have Dudley Thompson, who is my 11 executive officer for operations support,who will be the technical 12 briefer; and Jim Sniezek, the director of the Division of 1
13 Geofacilities, Material Safety Inspection in IE, under whose i
14 responsibility our health physics and environmenta.1 efforts are 15 ;
conducted.
I 16 !
I will discuss very briefly the concepts, Thompson 17 will discuss principally the agencies, the resources, the 18 capabilities in response to Three Mile Island.
1 19 1 And lastly, IE will give some early views on lessons 20 l learned, and perhaps improvements that are indicated.
21 The purpose of the Interagency Radiological Assistance 22 Plan, or IRAP,is to provide a prompt and effective radiological i
23 assistance that may be needed for protection of health, safety 24 and welfare from radiological hazards that may result from a m.i nemnm. ine. l c.
25 l radiological incident.
l 2270 046
5 l
1 I
I mm It has the purpose of coordination. And this coordina!-
l 2
tion is intended to extend not only through the federal 3i environment, but also to state and local radiological assistance l
I operations.
5 That is conceptually.
6 And then lastly, it has the purpose of encouraging l
1 7
the development of state and local plans, of capabilities to j
l 8
cope with radiological incidents.
9 Now, from my perception, I would say that at least 10 in the NRC, we have placed more attention on prompt and 11 ef fective radiological assistance than we hav e the other two.
12 Now state programs -- Marshall Sanders is here from:
state programs.
He, of course, has an effort towards coordina-tion with states, and of course, the development of state 15 lcapabilities and plans.
(Slide) 17 The second slide shows the objectives of IRAP. These 18 objectives are principally to establish procedures for 19 coordination of response to an incident and the use of available 20 !
j resources.
2I Here again, the coordination is intended by concept 22 to extend not only from the federal establishment, but from 23 the state and local agencies also. The objectives in ciude:
24 l Jeral Reporters, Inc. f c
25 !
l for reporting of radiological incidents, and for the exchange of' i
i L
2270 047
6 i
mm i
information.
And again, state, local and federal.
i 2i And lastly, an objective is to develop response I
i i
3{
information and training guidelines, principally for the use of l
i 4
state and locals.
In other words, the federal goverment under i
i 1
5 this is to have developed this information training guide for the l
use of state and local officials.
6, l
7 (Slide) l, 8
The next slide talks about the policy of the assis-9i tance plan. And I think this is a point Dudley will be talking 1
10 '
a bnit to some degree when he gets to his part of the discussion.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
John, when you are talking i
12 aoout policy objectives, et cetera, it started in '61.
Are you !
l 13 saying, here is the latest version?
I 14 MR. DAVIS: This is the latest version. And it has 15 been a duvelopmental type thing since '61, right, sir.
16 It is largely, as I will just get tc, a DOE creature, 17 or an old AEC creature.
18 The policy of this is for the signatory agencies to 19 1 contribute resources, that is,_
facilities and personnel as they-20 i are needed for developing the federal radiological assistance 21 capability.
And they will make them available during an incident.
22 Now, one thing is that until the TMI incident, NRC i
23 had not considered itself to be a large reservoir of resources 24 for use at the sites.
a
.eral Reporters. Inc.
25 ;
Rather, we had looked primarily to obtain these 1
l
[
2270 048
1 7
I mm l
Il through DOE.
I 2l Of course, another policy of IRAP is to make sure the e l
3 capabilities are used effectively through preplanning.
And l
i l
1 4'
here again, state and local as well as federal --
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You are talking about dealing l 5
1 6
with the consequences of an incident, right?
I 7
MR. DAVIS: We are talking about responding to the 8
accident, yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see.
j 10 '
Do these plans envisage managing the accident, or 11 l dealing with the radiological consequences?
I2 MR. DAVIS:
More for the consequences than for the I3 management.
I I
I# l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does it have any management 5
aspect to it?
16 MR. DAVIS:
There are some words that would lead I7 you to believe there is some management.
I8 With regard to -- and I guess this is one of them --
l 19 l the element of policy is that a federal agency, to make such l
20 l resources available to another federal agency or a nonfederal 21 organization, does not place itself under the authority of such '
22 l an agency or organization.
Rather, as planned, it would be under 4
23 the general direction.
i 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What does that mean?
a
- eral Reporters, Inc.
25 i l
MR. DAVIS:
That's very interesting.
I i
l, 2270 049
8 l
i mm 1
As TMI unfolded, NRC, of cousre, moved into the 2 j, general direction role, and the other agencies performed under l i
i 3I that role.
l i
i 4'
However -- and particularly during the early stages l
l 51 of TMI, precise instruction or directions were not given to the 6,
other agencies.
They had plans which they utilized. And particu-l 7l larly, DOE.
i 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is this then a plan in which 9
it essentially specifies who might be coming to the area, and I
10 ' what they might be doing?
But, they are doing it almost 11 independently?
12 MR. DAVIS:
Yes.
13 l In fact, over the years, the biggest shift that I i
14 personally have seen in IRAP, as it has been developed, is that 15 '
at one time -- and that time is not too distant in the past --
16 l NRC or AEC Regulatory, as it was known then, really was of the i
17 impression that once they called on DOE, that DOE brought in 18 the capabilities and DOE basically began making the decisions.
I 19 l Now I will say this:
That my impression of what has i
20 l transpired in more recent occurrences, is that DOE is becoming 21,
more in a supportive role than in a decisionmaking role.
In I
22 '
other words, you tell us what you want and we will get it for
{
23 you or give it to you.
24 i But when you start talking about how you are going to
.eral Reporters, Inc.
25 ';
use it and all, the lead agency calls the shots much more than i
i
[
2270 050
9'
?
mm 1
they used to. At least that is my perception.
And this has 2
been an evolving thing.
l i
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did this have in mind any 4'
specific types of accidents, or incidents?
i l
5 (Commissioner Kennedy arrived at 11:30 a.m.)
I 6
MR. DAVIS:
No, not to my knowledge.
l i
7.
To my knowledge, it was not developed around l
I l
8I scenarios.
It was developed around, within the federal i
.I i
9 establishment there are capabilities that can be brought to l
i i
10 bear on incidents involving radioactive material.
These are I
11 l where in the stable of these resources, DOE is the " s tablemas ter" i
12 ! and they call them out as it then unfolds.
f 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But it was then supposed to i
i 14 l cover TMI-type, civilian nuclear power plants that have radiation I
15 released?
16 l MR. DAVIS: Yes.
0 17 j COMMISSIONER AHEARIE: DOE facilities that have radiation 18 released?
19 1 MR. DAVIG:
Yes, sir.
l 20 l Any type of radiological incident.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEt Underground nuclear events, t
22 into the atmosphere?
23 l MR. DAVIS:
That's my understanding.
Any event that l
I 24 ! may have a radiological impact on the public.
a
.wc amorms. inc.
25,
MR. THOMPSON: For example, Commissioner, the recently i
2270 051
o 10 l
mm i
1 well-publicized search for debris from the Soviet Cosmos 2
satellite was conducted under IRAP.
i 3 i MR. GOSSICK: Apart from that in the past, has it I
I l
4 been mainly transportation spills and that sort of thing that S
they were called in on?
l 6
MR. DAVIS: That's correct.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
It's been exercised about a hundred 8
times a year on the average, primarily on transportation events.
9, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A hundred: times a year?
i 10 !
MR. DAVIS:
The fourth item under policy, again, 11 relates to the federal agencies relationship with the state and 12 local authorities.
And here it speaks to making training 13 capabilities available.
14 And the last element of policy is the encouragement 15 l,of statt and local agencies to use these training capabilities.
t 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What form does that take?
17 MR. DAVIS: Basically -- and I have been attempting to<
18 somewhat sort this out -- from my involvement in this, as I 19 1 mentioned earlier, I believe that IRAP as implemented by NRC, t
20 i has been aimed primarily at the first two elements of policy.
I 21 That our involvement -- "our" being NRC involvement -- in the l
t 22 last two elements have been basically through state programs 23 I with regard to their efforts to have the states come - up with l
24 i acceptable plans.
ct aeral Reporters, Inc.
25 ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Marshall, is it under IRAP i
i 2270 052 i
lt
a 11 l
nn I
then that an added test site program run by Reynolds where i
2j you people --
does that come under this?
i l
3l MR. SANDERS: Not really.
i 4'
We conduct that under the general aegis of the l
5 Federal Register notice that was promulgated by the Federal l
6 Preparedness Agency Decembe r 24, 1975. And the IRAP makes i
7' reference to that Federal Register Notice, actuult.y an earlier l
8 version of it, and says in effect that whatever training is done; 9l with respect to state and local authorities will be done under l
10 l the aegis of the Federal Register Notice.
11 MR. DAVIS: With regard to the organization and 12 l responsibilities, there is under IRAP, an Interagency Committee '
13 on Radiological Assistance --
14 (Slide) 15 j
-- which has a representative from each of the signatory agencies.
16 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Wait a minute.
18 You say under IRAP.
19 l MR. DAVIS: That is a part of IRAP.
20 i It is under the Interagency Radiological Assistance 21 Plan, that there is this committee.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is this plan something that 23 is written dIown?
24 l MR. DAVIS: Oh, yes, sir, the plan is written down.
..rai r.norters, inc.,
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is this run by somebody?
2270 053
12 i
I mm MR. DAVIS:
It is basically, if you will look at the >
2 next element here, basically a creature of the Department of i
Energy.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So someone in DOE is 5
responsible for IRAP?
I i
0 l
MR. DAVIS: We have contacts within the Department ofI i
7 Energy.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who is the person in DOE who 9
j is responsible for IRAP?
10 MR. SNIEZEK:
Joe Deal in DOE is our primary contact.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is he the -- under the IRAP, 12 l is there some designated official in addition to DOE?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there a director?
MR. DAVIS:
For IRAP?
15 l I don't know whether that is formalized.
16 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What part of DOE is he in?
MR. SNIEZEK:
I believe it is Assistant Secretary for Environment he reports to.
19 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could we check that?
i 20 MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.
21 The last meeting insofar as I have been able to 22 ldetermine of the ICRA was about four years ago.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Relatively moribund organiza-24 l
.erai neoorters. inc. '
25 '
MR. DAVIS: And they ended up with this latest version' il i
2270 054 l
1
13 mm of the plan which has been published.
2h i
And as it is noted on the slide, this Committee l
3-is responsible for interpretation of the plan, approval of i
i 4
i changes, and --
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How many agencies are there?
6 MR. DAVIS:
That will be laid out for you in just i
7' a moment.
8l The Department of Energy, under the concept of the 9 !
I plan, directs administration, implementation and application of 10 !
IRAP.
I 11 l l
And other agencies cooperate with DOE.
12 i l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Please, before you go on.
13 !
j Is there any other than this committee, obviously I
14 I which is not a dynamic committee, is there any other normal 15 mechanism for review of the plan or updating of it, or checking 16 I; how the various agencies' working relationships are set up?
17 MR. DAVIS:
I am not aware of any element within the 18 l plan or organization, which calls for " checking out" the other i
I 19 l agencies as to their readiness to cooperate on the plan, other 1
20 than this committee.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are there any kind of periodic '
22 meetings at the staff level of representatives from each 23 agancy?
24 '
mai n.oonm ine. l MR. DAVIS: To my knowledge, the only time we meet c
25 j l
h 2270 055 a.
14 mm I
with them are when we have an event, everybody gets called 2 l out and then we get together af ter that and kind of rehash i
3 what's transpired.
I 4
I know of no periodic meeting.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does the national coordinatian 6
office that was established in the plan in the first place, 7l still continue to operate?
I 8i MR. THOMPSON:
Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What is that?
10 '
They provide the t
11 lisecretariat for the plan.
I 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Who runs this coordinating 13 office?
14 MR. THOMPSON:
DOE.
15 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What part?
16 MR. THOMPSON:
That is the same one we are getting l
end 2 17 t' an answer for.
Joe Deal is the staff rep.
18 19 1 l
20 ;
2270 056 21 22 1
23 24 !
.eral Reporters. Inc. f c
25 l i
I le
,CR 4670 NM:jwb 15 j
(Slide.)
2 MR. DAVIS:
The next slide shows the responsibility i
3 of the signatory agencies.
They do make resources available l
4 on request from DOE.
5 One point I might mention here is that there is 6!
built into the plan that the resources to be available for i
7' radiological emergencies are subject to being committed to l
l 6
first fulfilling essential operational priority requirements i
9 of the signatory agencies.
10 l We did not encounter any problem with this at I
u 11 !
Three Mile Island.
The signatory agencies do provide an i
l 12 agency representative to the Committee.
They furnish 13 radiological instant capability data.
That is, what are they 14 capable of supplying when an incident happens?
And other 15,
information principally to DOT, DOE, and the other signatory I
16 i agencies.
i 1-7 !
The signatory agencies carry within themselves the 18 responsibility for assuring that they can implement IRAP, and i
19 then lastly, they do carry out radiological systems functions l
20 i when called upon.
21 Now Dudley will go through --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does " implementing l
23 IRAP" mean?
24 MR. DAVIS:
That means when IRAP is -- to assure Jeral Reprters. Inc.
l 25 that plans exist within the agency so when called upon they l
l 2270 057 l
,3-2 jwb 16 i
I can in fact supply the resources that they have committed.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And who calls them?
3 Mr. Deal?
l 4
MR. DAVIS:
DOE is the overview of that.
Now how 5
does DOE get turned on?
We turn on DOE.
If it's an occurrence 6l under NRC, a licensed facility, then we notify DOE and DOE 7
turns on --
S COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The state can also?
I 9!
MR. DAVIS:
And the licensee can, and the state l
10 can.
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there any inventory of 12 '
capabilities somewheres?
13 MR. DAVIS:
Yes, sir, there is supposed to be.
i 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we have it?
i 15 MR. THOMPSON:
We'll be discussing that in just a 16 '
moment.
I 17' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
John, in the Three Mile 18 Island sequence, when was the call notifying DOE actually l9 made?
20 l MR. DAVIS:
It's one of the first calls, but I t
1 21 '
don't have the time.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did that come from us, or 23 the operator?
24 MR. GOSSICK:
It came from us to DOE.
c Jeral Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. DAVIS:
They may have been notif.iad.
2270 058 l
,3-3 jwb 17 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Had the state notified j
1 2
them?
I 3 l' MR. THOMPSON:
Almost simultaneously.
l 4
MR. DAVIS:
In fact, most of the DOE response at i
5 Three Mile Island was done in response to state requests, j
l 1
6 and they operated under general state direction.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did they have someone available 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day?
l 8i I
I, i
9l MR. DAVIS:
Yes, they do.
I 10 l MR. THOMPSON:
Yes, sir, j
i I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So in other words, l
II 12 different parts of DOE are responding to different requesters?
13 MR. DAVIS:
No, it's the same part of DOE, but l
i Id they respond to more than one requester.
In other words, 15 l DOE does not sit there and say to the licensee, "If you want 16 our help you better tell NRC and they'll tell us."
The 17 l licensee can go directly to DOE and secure assistance, as can I0 the state.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For example, the ARMS l
20 helicopters and airplanes and Brookhaven van were called by 21 who?
i 22 MR. DAVIS:
They were called -- we specifically 23 requested those particular --
l 2#
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought Brookhaven was a
deral Reporters, Inc.
25 requested by DOE?
2270 059 l
i
3-4 j,wb 18 l
i i
i I
MR. GOSSICK:
I think our region also did.
It was 1
2l a multiple request.
3 MR. DAVIS:
What'I'm saying is, there are multiple 4
channels to turn on DOE.
They're not bureaucratic in the 1
5 sense that they only turn on when they get a request through l
a specified channel.
l 6'
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the effort is 6
coordinated through some central plan?
l l
9 MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
The Emergency Operations 10 Center in DOE under General Bratton over there are the people I
11 we're dealing with.
j I2 MR. DAVIS:
And they know that DOE resources that 13 have been supplied -- in fact, if we call say 10 minutes after l l
Id the licensee asks us for something, we call and ask for it, l
15 l they would say so-and-so has already asked for that particular 0
item and it's on the way, or whatever actions they want to i
I7 take.
I 18 Now Dudley will talk about how this worked in i
lo i
'l Three Mile Island.
I 20 (Slide.)
j 21 MR. THOMPSON:
The next slide repeats some informa- !
l 22 tion that Mr. Davis has discussed already in the way of j
i 23 history on IRAP.
24 The Interagency Committee that was established in l
4 Jeral Reporters, Inc.
25
{
the post SL-1 accident period first set up IRAP in 1961.
It 2270 060 i
3-5]}wb 19-20,
l I
has been through several revisions in the intervening years t
l 2
with the latest revision having been made in April of 1975.
3 For the April 1975 revision, there are 13 signa-4 tory agencies which I will identify in a subsequent slide.
5 Fundamentally, IRAP is really a general planning document j
6 and an interagency agreement to provide responses within the 7
capabilities of the signatory agency.
6 It does set forth some fundamental agency capa-i i
9l bilities and the anticipated responses that the signatory l
l 10 l agencies might provide in the event of an incident requiring I
I II help from that agency.
i 12 As you have gathered already from the discussions i
13 thus far, the document is very flexible, perhaps to a flault, Id I
j but it does provide for substantial flexibility for the
~
15 responses of the federal agencies that have signed the plan.
16 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Dudley, what do you mean?
i I7 '
I don't understand the comment that it's " flexible to a fault."!
18 MR. THOMPSON:
A number of the questions we have 10 had so far have been directed to the specificity with which 20 the control of responses by the agencies involved can be 21 directed by a particular calling agency.
22 There may be some questions legitimately raised I
23 about who is in charge in the employment of IRAP.
We'll l
i 24 discuss this a little bit more later.
a jeral Reporters, Inc.
[
25 MR. DAVIS:
I think another aspect of it, built into' 2270 061
3-6 jwb 21 this plan, as I've already mentioned, if the agency has its I
i 2
resources already employed for his own operational situation, i
3 my impression is he can refuse to give it.
It's subject to their availability.
5 Now we have never encountered such a situation.
0 MR. THOMPSON:
The final item on the slide is l
simply a reiteration of things we have covered in some detail l
7' 0'
that the National Coordinating Office that we characterize i
l' 9,
as the Secretary for IRAP is provided by DOE.
l
\\
10 1 (Slide.)
l 11 The next slide lists the 13 signatory agencies to i
12 !
l the April 1975 revisions of IRAP.
There is one typographical 13 error on the slide that I would like to call to your attention.
l 15 The fifth agency listed, the Department of Energy, l
16 '
does not have an asterisk on it.
It should have an asterisk I
on it, and the asterisk designates those agencies that 18 provided some degree of substantive response in the Three l
10 Mile Island event.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
It shouldn't i
21 be that hard to put an asterisk on a slide.
MR. THOMPSON:
Simply oversight.
We caught it at 23 l
the last minute.
j f
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What did ICC do?
j c
Jeral Recorters, Inc.
25 MR. THOMPSON:
ICC provided some clearances for 2270 062
,3-7 jwb 22 I
truck shipments that came from Texas to Pennsylvania.
T:tey also provided assistance in location of carriers when they f
2 I
were running into trouble on some transportation.
I can l
3 4
very briefly characterize the nature of the response that 5
was provided by these agencies.
6 DCPA worked with the Pennsylvania Civil Defense 7
people primarily in the ad hoc evacuation preparations that 6
were made in the early stages in response to the TMI incident. ;
9 The Department of Agriculture, in a subsequent i
10 li slide I will indicate to you what they announced ahead of i
11 '!
time they cot:ld provide.
As a matter of fact, the Department
{
i I2 of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, provided about 13 200 hand-held radios that were delivered on the 29th of I4 March and provided substantial communications assistance in f
15 that radio network, primarily for survey operations.
16 !
The Department of Commerce, of course, through 17 I
the National Oceaneographic and Atmospheric Administration 18 and the Weather Service provided us with meteorological data lo l throughout the incident.
20 The Department of Defense provided transportation l
21 and accommodations locally for use by response teams.
22 The Department of Energy at one time had 105 people ;
23 in the vicinity of the site on the 2nd of April.
They did l
i 24 provide radiological assistance teams from a number of the jeral Reporters, Inc.
l 25 national laboratories and analytical capability at some of the 2270 063 l
,3-8 jwb 23 i
i I
others.
4 2
They did provide the airborne monitoring system, i
which we refer to as " ARMS" incorrectly, and the nest team i
4 communications pods and capabilities that were on the scene l
1 5
on the 30th.
l 0
The Department of HEW, through the Bureau of i
7 Radiological Health and the Food and Drug Administration 1
0l provided assistance in surveying and analysis.
l 9'
The Department of Labor shows as not having provided; 10 i
substantive response in this event.
It is quite true that 11 they did not provide a whole lot -- not because they were i
i 12 l unwilling.
As a matter of fact, they did provide some 13 liaison with organized labor to be sure that the then-current I
truckers strike was not going to interfere with transportation 15 and the Department of Labor acted as our liaison with organized 6
labor in that endeavor.
l 7
The Department of Transportation did provide I0 transportation assistance primarily in locating tankage --
10 tank cars, and liaison with the trucking industry.
That is, 20 the management side of the trucking industry.
21 In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration, 22 which is of course a part of DOT, exercised air space control in the vicinity of the site.
I 24 We have had some public citizen inquiries about
,g 25 that.
However, the purpose of the exercise in controlling i
i 2270 064
,3-9.jwb 24 t
i I
the air space was to make sure that our helicopters could jump off the ground in a hurry and not bump into something e-3 that was already in the air.
l b-4 EPA has of course participated actively throughout 5
the whole post-incident response and survey analysis.
l l
l 6
i ICC did participate by providing clearances for 7
interstate truck shipments that were required on an expedited 0;
basis.
I 9 j I also show that NASA did not provide substantive 10 !
I response, and that's true in the course of the immediate 11 post-accident period it did not.
Subsequently they have 12 !
provided substantial administrative assistance in some tape 13 reproduction, and use of their facility.
14 NRC's -- I think we are pretty well familiar with 15 I the response of NRC in the TMI incident.
16 l And the Postal Service was not called upon --
17 although it does appear that in the post-accident recovery 18 period they may have a substantial service to provide in the 19 1 l
volume of mail that is being transmitted back and forth.
20 '
I should note on this slide that there is another 21 federal agency that provided substantial assistance, particularly 22 from our viewpoint, in the Bethesda Operations Center.
That 23 is not a signatory to IRAP, but was of substantial assistance, 24 and we hope that in subsequent revisions they will become a
,,,,,g,,,,,,
25 signatory.
And that is, HUD and the Federal Disaster 2270 065
4-10.jwb 25 i
Assistance Administration that provided a great deal of help 2
to us in procurement of federal assistance fron other 3
agencies, and acted as the coordinating agency with other l
4 i
federal agencies that were responding.
1 5!
MR. GOSSICK:
How about DCPA?
j 6
MR. THOMPSON:
DCPA is at the top of the list.
i 7'
l MR. GOSSICK:
Oh.
Excuse me.
l f
(Slide.)
9' MR. THOMPSON:
The next slide is an indication of 10 !
the commitments made by signatory agencies in IRAP itself.
11 It's provided as a matter of information.
12 '
In the interest of expediting our response, I 13 :' don't propose to run through those characteristics unless 14 l there are questions on it.
It is rather interesting to note 15 '
i that the Postal Service makes no commitment but is a signa-16 i
- tory, I presume on the assumption that everybody knows what i
17 l the Postal Service does and can provide.
I 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say that we are 10 responsible -- committed to provide manpower resources --
20 MR. THOMPSON:
Primarily in analysis and expertise, 21 not in large numbers of manpower.
NRC has never been staffed 22 or prepared to provide substantial manpower resources in 23 support of IRAP, but has consistently provided its expertise i
24 6
Jeral Reporters, Inc.
25 And because of the number of incidents in which a l
2270 066
4-ll,jwb 26 l
I licensee may be involved in one way or another, it's quite l
2 clear that we need to be a participant in IRAP.
In terms of manpower resources, surprisingly 3
4 enough perhaps the largest manpower resource capability 5
exists within DOD through military radiological assistance teams at military bases throughout the country.
l 6
l 7
In terms of numbers, they are larger.
In terms of 8j actual response capabilities, DOE and its contractors i
i 9l probably provide more substantive response, largely to small f
I 10 transportation-type incidents, and of course they did provide i
i 11 substantive response in the TMI --
l MR. GOSSICK:
Dudley, in thinking about the future, i
13 I you know, such things as the military airlift that we got, li is DC -- does CDA take care of that -- DCPA, rather?
That's t
i 15 not really the agency within DOD that was involved in that.
16 '
Should we broaden, or try to get more of a DOD involvement?
i I7 !
MR. THOMPSON:
In the DOD portion of IRAP, it's a 18 very generalized response that essentially makes the entire 10 military establishment available to the federal agencies that I
20 !
are signatories.
And as a matter of fact, as you noted, the 2I support that was provided to us went through FDAA to the j
22 National Military Command Center, and then into the normal i
23 l
military establishment, not DCPA.
i 24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does that include the c
feral Reporters, Inc.
special communications network?
2270 067 I
4-12 jwb 27 l
l I
MR. THOMPSON:
The special communications network i
i 2
that was provided to us through the Signal Corps was at the 3
White House's behest, and the White House is not a signatory.
4 However, it was obviously of substantial assistance to us in 5
harden..g our communications and expediting clearances when i
6:
we needed it.
i 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now with the coming into 0
existence of the -- what is it? -- FEMA?
9 MR. THOMPSON:
FEMA is in the process of coming 10 into existence.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What relationship will they l
I2 have with IRAP?
13 MR. THOMPSON:
They will undoubtedly be a signatory i
I#
j in the next revision, and FEMA will involve DCPA, FDA, FPA I
15 in a new blanket organization that is in the process of coming 16 into being now.
I7 We anticipate that FEMA will definitely be a 18 signatory to the next revision, and we have no reason to believe i
jo '
that they would have any desire not to be a signatory agency.
l 20 i Fundamentally, the staff members that are going 21 into FEMA now are the same staff members who participated in l
22 earlier IRAP efforts.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What is the underlying 24 '
I Jeral Reporters, Inc. gl philosophy as far as you can see as to why DOE is sort of the 6
25 lead agency?
2270 068 I
4-13 jwb 28 i
1 i
j MR. THOMPSON:
I think it's probably rooted in the 2'
beginnings of IRAP, which of course was at an AEC contract 3'
l facility.
And the long-standing capabilities through the j
4 DOE contractor organization in terms of the substantial 5
amount of capability for the total plan available through 6!
DOE.
1 7
I believe there has been no effort --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The whole operation was l
9, i
l conducted under the general management of the general manager l
10 l!of the AEC.
11 1 MR. THOMPSON:
That is correct.
And that historical
- 12,
background has carried forward, and none of the federal 13 agencies that have been signatories to previous versions have 14 been particularly inclined to step up and challenge that 15 i
leadership.
i 16 !
I suspect that with the foundation of FEMA with 17 '!
NRC's changed role, the relationships may be modified slightly,,
18 but I know of no agency that has taken the position that it i
19 '
is completely improper.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there any suggestion that 21 it could possibly take over the role?
22 MR. THOMPSON:
I've heard no discussions, but I l
23 think that would probably be a topic of discussion at the next 24 I
ier.i n.ponm, inc.
committee meeting.
{
(Slide.)
2270 069
4-14 jwb 29 l
I i
I I
The next slide is a very brief summary of our 2
first impressions from IE's point of view as to what was 3
provided to the TMI response by the signatory agencies.
4 I need to reiterate Mr. Davis' notice that this 5
was not the result of any investigation on our part.
We have 6!
contacted none of the other agencies involved, nor have we j
l 7
talked to other offices within NRC.
These observations seem S!
to be rather obvious on the surface, in looking back over I
9 those hectic first few days in particular, but I don't want 1
I i
10 to characterize them as the staff providing you with a l
II j
substantive evaluation of IRAP.
l l
12 10 out of 13 agencies did respond with some 13 substance to their response.
I Id COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are not meaning to, but 15 as you pointed out earlier the lack of the other agencies is 16 f more of a lack of being requested.
I 17 MR. THOMPSON:
That's right.
They were not in a 18 '
position that they were called upon.
l9 '
The responses really were basically as outlined 20 under the capabilities section of the Appendix of IRAP that 21 deals with the agency capability.
There was one notable 22 exception.
If one pursues the capabilities of the Department 23 of Agriculture, in no place in IRAP is there any indication 24 that the Department of Agriculture would provide communications '
Jeral Reporters, Inc.
s 25 assistance.
And the Forest Service response in that is outside 1
2270 070 l
30 4-lE.jwb i
i the scope of the capabilities outlined for DOA in IRAP right 2
now.
I am quite sure that, as a result of this experience, i
3 they will see fit to include that in the future.
I As a matter of fact, we were approached by the Department of Agriculture before Three Mile Island with the 6,
offer of these communications capabilities, and we took them i
up on it, of course, right away, and it was very helpful to l
7 i
Sj us at TMI that they provided that and quickly.
9l We did not, during the TMI response, that there was i
10 I t
some overlap of responses particularly among those agencies i
i ll '
that were providing environmental survey capability.
Fortu-12 nately, the overlap that did occur probably was beneficial, 13 '
and within a period of about 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> from the first responses 14 there got to be a little more coherence to the response, and 15 I
we did get a little bit better coordinated than we were to 16 I
~
begin with.
~
i l
17l That overlap of responses really didn't result in 18 coverage being missed; it probably resulted in more coverage i
10 l than was necessary.
I 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I recall the charts that 21 we saw the other day on the radiation monitoring, it began to 22 get fairly comprehensive somewhere around the 31st.
i MR. THOMPSON:
That's correct.
I l
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So there were at least a u
Jeral Reporters, Inc.
25 couple of days in which it wasn't.
2270 071
4 - 16,,j wb 31 I
MR. THOMPSON:
The coverage was there, but the l
2 coordinated response began about the 31st.
And I believe it 3
was the evening of the 30th that the State requested DOE 4
to function --
5 MR. SNIEZEK:
As a coordinating-type agency.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you saying the data is 7
available but we have.t't seen it?
6 MR. DAVIS:
I think, Commissioner Ahearne, really 9
the integrating dosimeters which are of course very important 10 measurements, did not go out until the date you indicated in II l any great number.
Prior to that, the data is basically survey 12 l I
type data with teams going out and making instantaneous readings 13 at various places.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that because no one had 15 asked for the equipment to be there?
Or that it had been 16 asked for and it took --
I7 MR. DAVIS:
For the TLDn, I'm not certain when the 18 TLD coverage was initiated or was asxed for.
10 MR. SNIEZEK:
As soon as EPA and the Food and Drug 20 Administration got on the scene, they started setting up TLDs.
i 2I 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Was that that they were l
22 doing that on their own?
Or it had been asked for?
23 MR. SNIEZEK:
They were doing that on their own.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So we didn't ask them?
c Jeral Reporters, Inc.
MR. SNIEZEK:
We did not ask them to do specific 2270 072
4-17 jwb 32 9
I types of monitoring.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or to expand the available monitoring.
4 MR. SNIEZEK:
That's correct.
They talked to us.
5 We knew what they were doing, and what they were doing seemed 6
appropriate, and we did not ask them to cut back.
We didn't 7
want to ask for any cutback at that time.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is this the first time that 9
IRAP has been used in the context of a reactor?
MR. DAVIS:
It was exercised at Fort St. Vrain.
It 11 was the first time it was used, fortunately, to this extent l
simply because they haven't had anything of this magnitude.
l 12 3
IRAP, though, anytime there is an indication, a i
I Id serious indication that there are impacts on the public, it's 15 generally " exercise."
We call DOE, and they begin to call 16 around and put people on the alert.
But then where the people i
I7 really go out and begin to do all this depends entirely on i
I8 what's transpired.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I wonder if it doesn't make 20 sense, though, to have a provision that increases the amount 21 of instrumentation that's put out almost immediately upon the i
activation of IRAP so that, for instance, two days wouldn't l
22 1
23 be lost?
j 1
24 i
MR. DAVIS:
Commissioner Bradford, really we are s
- mi Reponm. inc.
25 working on that as a more blanket approach to routinely have
{
2270 073
4-18.jwb 33 1
more TLDs out.
That's one of the new elements under t
2 Mr. Gossick's "what are you doing because of TMI?"
Then I l
l 3
think you will see a fair number recommended by IE of l
i additional monitoring stations of TLD stations.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But are you saying that 6
that would be required of the licensee as a normal basis?
Or i
7 Just emergency response?
j I
8 MR. DAVIS:
We are looking at it from both direc-9 tions, that perhaps NRR might want to reconsider requirements l
10 on the licensee.
But in addition, IE would hcve its own l
I 11 j
either done through the state or done directly by us in l
12 larger numbers.
l 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I noticed in the list that 14 Dudley had put out about what each agency is responsible for, l
15 or commitments, that Labor and NASA were committed to provide 16 radiological monitoring.
Had we asked either?
e-4 MR. THOMPSON:
We did not.
b-5 (Slide.)
19 The final slide is again characterized, as was the 20 previous slide, as "very preliminary" and "very subjective."
21 We believe they are valid, but they do not l
represent full staff participation nor any lessons learned 23 from consultation with other agencies.
We think it's rather l
24 obvious that there is some improvement in coordination l
g,,i g,,,,,,, %,
25 planning ahead of time that's called for, so that we can avoid j 2270 074 l
5-19.jwb 34
,9 I
duplication of effort and possible lapses.
We don't believe 2
serious lapses occurred in the TMI response, but we want to 3
be better prepared to preclude those in the future.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As to the relationship 5
among agencies, it seems to me that the kind of interagency i
I 0
agreement, if you will, characterized in relationship between I
7 I DOE and before it the AEC and the Department of Defense in 6l' the exchange of documents which they explored very, very 9
precisely delineates the responsibilities of each, and the i
10 channels of response through which each will proceed.
I 11 So that the question of lack of coordination or 12 '
the question of who's in charge simply doesn't arise in a 13 circurastance where DOE and the AEC in the old days -- DOE and DOD are now involved -- it seems to me that the approach of I5 '
that kind through the IRAP would probably resolve at least in 16 Part -- probably substantial part -- the coordination II question.
It seems clear, Commissioner Kennedy, lo that this will be a very definite outgrowth of all the 20 efforts that are underway right now.
That "who is in charge" 2I question is a very pertinent question.
MR. GOSSICK:
Certainly things like the matter of l
22 23 collecting environmental data is developing now in these latest, 24 directions out of the White House, and the EPA memoranda.
i jeral Reporters, Inc.
j u
25 That ought to be, it seems to me, laid out clearly so that, t
2270 075
5-20.jwb 35 1
you know, we don't have to answer that question if this ever i
2 should ccme up again.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Who is our representative 4
on -- if there were a meeting to be called of IRAP, who would 5
be our representative?
6 MR. DAVIS:
That representative has to come out i
7 of Inspection and Enforcement under its general charge by the t
i 8
agency as being responsible for emergency planning.
l 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have -- Lee, or John, have 10 you given a thought to asking for a meeting of the committee II '
l to begin to assess what changes ought to be made?
12 MR. GOSSICK:
Clearly that's something that has 13 to be done.
I just don't think we have gotten to the point i
14 where we are yet ready to ask for such a meeting, but I 15 certainly think this is in order -- a review of how this has 16 gone and find out what has to be done or should be done to l
i 17 further tighten up.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You might consider planning 19 !
to call -- putting out a call for such, because it's going 20 to take many of the agencies four years in the past --
21 procedures may, at this stage, be more informal.
t 4
22 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, I have not talked to Bratton 23 or whoever it is over there that would probably be the leader i
24 of such a meeting, but I can, and I think probably as I l
c ar i nemnm. ine.
25 understand it now it would be normally expected that DOE would l 2270 076
5-21 jwb 36 l
l I
call such a meeting.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm a little puzzled on that 3
side.
Bratton is in the nuclear weapons side, or defense l
l 4
programs side.
And you said Joe Deal is environment.
5 MR. GOSSICK:
We have to check.
Our dealings 6
during the whole exercise, as far as the Center anu the DOE I
i response,wasthroughBrattonandhispeopleandtheOperationsl 7
6l Center.
l 9j MR. THOMPSON:
And I think the reason for that is i
10 l General Bratton's organization runs the emergency center and l
I acts as a communications point.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
But I'm not sure why 13 DOE should necessarily be the one to call the meeting.
I l
Id 1 would guess any members of IRAP ought to be --
15 MR. THOMPSON:
I believe that the signatory 16 agencies would be responsive to the requests from the NRC at 4
I7 this stage.
i 18 As I indicated by the bullets on the last slide, l
l9 I believe these lessons learned are relatively obvious, and 20 rather than running through them I will respond to further j
l 21 questions, if there are any.
j i
22 (No response.)
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are there questions?
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
c Jeral Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
2270 077
p-2 2,.*j wb 37 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you very much.
2 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m.,
the hearing was 3
adjourned.)
4 5
i 6!
7 2270 078 i
si I
l I
9!
i i
I 11 l
t 12 '
13 14 l 1
15 l 1
16 !
17 '
18 19 i
20 I
21 I
22 l
23 l
l 24.
l r.
Jeral Reporters, in.
25 l
8 o
e INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN PURPOSE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE COORDINATION ENCOURAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND CAPABILITIES m
N N
O O
N 4
INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN OBJECTIVES ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR COORDINATION OF RESPONSE AND Llui 0F AVAILABLE RESOURCES j
ESTABLISH A SYSTEM FOR REQUESTING AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE REPORTING OF RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION DEVELOP RESPONSE INFORMATION AND TRAINING GUIDELINES na N
N O
CD 00 CD
S O
O O
~
INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN POLICY SIGNATORY AGENCIES CONTRIBUTE RESOURCES MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE USE OF CAPABILITIES AGENCY PROVIDING RESOURCES IS NOT UNDER AUTHORITY OF AGENCY IT IS ASSISTING -- IT IS UNDER GENERAL DIRECTION FEDERAL AGENCIES WI'_c MAKE TRAINING CAPABILITIES AVAILABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES ENCOURAGED no DJ
'4 CD C3 CD e
INTERAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE (ICRA)
REPRESENTATIVES OF SIGNATORY AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERPRETATION OF PLAN) APPROVAL OF CHANGESJ PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH STATUTES AND ORDERS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DIRECTS ADMINISTRATION, IMPLEMENTAT' ION AND APPLICATION OF IRAP OTHER AGENCY COOPERATE WITH DOE na nJ
~4 CD CD l
Cna
9 SIGNATORY AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR:
MAKE RESOURCES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM DOE PROVIDING AN AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE TO ICRA FU.RNISHING RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENT CA.PABILITY DATA ASSURING INTRA-A6ENCY ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT IRAP CARRYING OUT RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT FUNCTIONS N
N N
O O
OO e
U
~.
INTEPAGENCY RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN (IRAP) 9 DEVELOPED BY INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE - E61 e
(.ATEST REVISION '- APRIL B75
- 13 SIGNATORY AGENCIES e
BASICAU.YAPLANNINGDOCUMENTANDINTERAGENCYAGREEMENT e
SETS Foam FUNDAMENTAL /hENCY CAPABILITIES AND ANTICIPATED RESPONSES e
PR0vlDeS SUBSTANTIAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FEDERAL RESPONSE m
N ca NATIONAL COORDINATING 0FFICE (SECRETARIAT) PROVIDED BY
=
H
.-eW-e
IRAP SIGtMTORY AGENCIES e
DEFENSE CIVIL PREPAREDNESS AGENCY" e
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
- e DEPARTMEIR OF C0f44ERCE*
e DEPARTENT OF DEFENSE
- e DEPARTMEffT OF ENERGY e
DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
- e DEPARTMENT OF l. ABOR e
DEPARTMENTOFIRANSPORTATION*
e ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- e INTERSTATE C0fEERCE C0ff41SSION*
e NATIONALAERONAUTICSANDSPACEADMINISTRATION e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f44ISSION*
O e
POSTALSERVICE o
CD LT1
~
SIGNATORY AGB1CY CGNITENTS DCPA
- ASSIST LOCAL Civil DEFENSE AGENCIES; RADIATION INSTRlf4ENTS UM
- ASSISTANCE TO PuBLIC; ESTIMATE EXTENT RADIATlat DNiAGE TO AGRICULTURAL RES0lRCES DOC
- PR0vlDe METEOROLOGICAL ASSISTn4CE D0D
- PR0vlDE RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE no LOGISTICAL SUPPORT IBI
- PHS - ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCALITIES IN MEETING HEALTH OiERGENCIES PDA - ENSURE POODS AND ANIMAL FEEDS ARE SAFE; ExPOStaE TO RADIATION IS MINIMIZED DOL
- CAN PR0vlDe RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING no EXPERTISE PLUS SUPPORTING PERSONNEL DOT
-ARRANGEMENTOFSPECIALTRANSPORTATIONACTIVITIES DOE
- Mom RADIOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE FRG4 DOE SITES EPA
- IbilTmING ASSISTANCE um EVALUATING IMPACT TO PuaLIC no EfNIROFBIT ICC
- ASSISTING EXPEDITING EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATIQ1 0F PEOPLE AND/OR PROPERTY NASA
- RADIOLOGICAL EbNITORING PLUS SPECIALIZED SUPPORT HRC
- INVESTIGATION OF RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS; MANPOWER RESOURCES Na POSTAL - NO C0mITraiT N
SERVICE o
O CO Os
IPAP RESPQlSE TO El ACCIDBir 10 0F 13 SIGNATORY AGENCIES RESPOOED SUBSTANTIVELY e
e RESPGISES BASICALLY AS OUTLINED IN IRAP Sms OVERLAP OF RESPONSES BUT No SIGNIFICANT LAPSES FROM e
FEDERALSECTOR INITIAL FIELD ACTIQ 1S WERE SOMEMiAT UNCOORDINATED - IMPROVED S
N N
WIm TIra N
O O
CD N
IRAP LESSONS LEARNED RU1 TMI e
IMPROVEMENT IN COORDINATION PIR4NING NEEDED e
AGENCY CAPABILITIES NEED UPDAT.ING e
S0ucIT FORMAL PARTICIPATION BY OTHER AGENCIES N
N N
O e
PERIODIC GENERAL REVIEWS SHOUW BE SCHEDULED co
.