ML20031H556
| ML20031H556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Sanders M Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031H550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110280125 | |
| Download: ML20031H556 (4) | |
Text
..
j %o.
ajr.,
me Federal Emergency Management Agency
$(Jyg[)[
Washington, D.C. 20472 OCT 15 !!31 1
Judge Jamas L. Kelley
?*.inistrative Judge r.ic Safety & Licensing Board Panel ahington, D.C.
20555 I mr Juc., Kelley:
TW 1etter sets forth answers of the Federal Emergency Mcnagement Agency (FEMA) ta quastions you posed to Mr. Spence Perry at the recent hearings en San Oncfre concerning special arrcngements for medical services for percons within the 10-mle EPZ around the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations 2 and 3.
Question:
"In determining whether offsite emergency plans concerning the 10-mile EPZ provide adequate protective asures in the cvent of a seriouc radiological emergency, does FEMA believe that any specific arrangements need to be, made for
.cdical services for people in the zona who may be conteminated, suffering from rcdiation or both?
If not, why not? If so, what Finds of arrangements?"
FEF.A believes that special arrangements for medical services need to be nade for prcons within the 10-mile EPZ who may suffer from radiation exposure, radiological centamination of Loth.
Moreover, this pccition is supported by specific planning at 2ndards and criteria in NUREG-0654/ FEMA 4EP.-l Rev.1 for us'. by State and local rc'.ornments in ascuring that adequate strangements are made for the provision of nadical services for accidents encompassing the full range of the fcur classes of cu rgency cetion levels es delincated in Appendix 1.
The questi,7 poacd does not specify whether or not we chculd cddress exposure control rea:hres and tec'ieal :cevices for ec.crgency workers who are more likely to be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
Because the intent nf the qtastion copants to be directed towards the general public nnd not excrgency workers, our ancwer, theiefore, assur.es the general public.
It is significant that your question draws a relationship between arrcngements for medical services and the provision of protective meacures.
The primary intent of protective response mencures as presented in planning stendard "J" of NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1 is to prevent or significantly ninimize the exposure of the general pcpulation within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway to dangerous radiation levels.
In the extent, therefore, that such protective measures cecomplish their purpose, there would be no or littic need for medical services.
0$00 PDR
2-The planning and preparedness guidance provided in NUREG-0654/ FEM 3-REP-1 for medical cervices is based, in part, on the possibility that despite the applicatien of protective response measures, persons within the 10-aile EPZ may be expeced to dangarcun levcis of radiation.
Those persons eo exposed would, therefore, require appropriate medical services.
Planning standard "L" and other related planning standards with NUREG-065'4/
FEMA-REP-1 describe the arranguments that shculd be made by State and local governmants for the provision of medical services tc affsite contaminated and injured individuals.
These arrangements include:
1.
Provision of local and backup hospital and modical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including accurance that persons providing thesr services are adaquately prepared to handle contaminated individuals.
(L-1) 2.
Identification of public, private and military hospitals and other medical services facilities within the State or contiguous States censidered capable of providing medical support for any contaminated injured individual.
The listing should include'the name, location, type of facility and capacity and any special radiological ecpabilities.
These emergency mcdical services provided should include the capability to radiologically monitor contaminated personnel.
Trained personnel within these facilitics should be able to
~
care for centaminated injured persons.
(L-3) 3.
Provision of arrangements for transporting victims of radiological incit its to medical support facilities.
4.
Docunentation by written cgreements of all designated Federal, State and local agencies and medical. support organizations having an ex.argency role within the EPZs.
(A-3) 5.
Provision of radiological monitoring and other appropriate medical services for those' persons who have been evacuated.
(3-12) 6.
Provision for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other con-finement.
(J-10d) 7.
Provision for the use of radioprotective drugs, particularly for institutionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose ir..::edi ste evacuation may not be feasible or very dif ficult, including quantities, st'orage and means of distribution.
D e-m.---.-
,,s
.,,w-nne
~ - - -
n
,--e
.n.
ew
y a
- ~
s State and local organizations' plans should ine]ude the method by which decisions by the State Health Department for administering rr.dioprotective drugs to the general population cre made during an emergency and the predetermined conditions under which such druge may be used.
(3-10e-f)
"-~
8.
Establishment of a training program for instructing and qualifying personnnel who wili implement medical services.
These organiations include those within the EPZs who are party to written agreements with State and local governrt.cnts.
Such organizations and their personnel should participate ia exercises and drills on, at least, an annual basis.
(N-2, 0-1-5)
FEMA is developing two courses related to the provision of medical services for radiologically contaminated individuals.
Two contracts have been awarded to the Oak Ridge Associated Universities' Radiological Emergency Assistence Center / Training Site (FEAC/TS) to develop two courses for training tr.edical personnel on how to handle and previde emergency medical treatment to contaminated persons.
The first course is for paramedica and the second course is for emargency room personnel in hospitals.
It is expected these courses will be ready for training these two groups of specialists in April or May of 1982.
Question:
"In FEMA's consideration of this question (previous question addressed],
what ennsideration is given to very low probability high.-consequence accidents, cemmonly referred to as class 9 accidents?".
Class 9 accidents are comTanly understood to indicate nuclear power plant accidents involving a core melt down.
As indicated earlier, the planning and preparedness guidance provided in NUREG-0654 for the provision of medical services to ccataainated (injured) persons applies to all four clacces of emergency action levels as deceribed in Appendix 1.
The fourth class level, "Cencral Emergency," involves " the actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with the pot:ntial for loss of containme nt. "
(Page 1-3)
In response to your specific question, general guidance is provided for the provision of medien1 services for " General Emergencies." No specific considerations, however, arc provided for a class 9 accident.
If such an accident occurred and if the accident resulted in a large number of. persons being contaminated by excessive lesels of radiction, State and local govern.r.ents would have to rely upon identified aed.ical support organizations in an area beyond the EPZs for the plant where the eccident occurred and even other States tith facilities that have the required capabilities and resources.
e s-
_ 4_
Such cupprort is already anticipated in the guidance prc /ided in NUREG-0654/
by providing uritten agrecreents in their c:aargency response pl Also, all
- dical organizations which are party to nuch agree:nents would assure that their err rgency personnel were trained to ecpe with cuch a scenario.
Participation in annual cxercises and periodic drills would constitute a significant part of a training prograin.
I hope the foregoing is responsive to your questions.
Sincerely, TInI(r sa Acting Chief Technological Hazards Division Office of Natural and Technological Hazards e
.i 4.--,y
++-
g --,
m
.e y
y-am.--
- - -,- *