ML20032C112

Ack Receipt of Re State Emergency Plan for Major Radiation Accidents Involving Nuclear Facilities.Criteria for Plan Development Discussed

ML20032C112
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/27/1975
From:	Collins H NRC
To:	Davies S NEW YORK, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML100141336	List: ML20032C109 ML20032C110 ML20032C111 ML20032C112 ML20032C113 ML20032C114
References
NUDOCS 8111070493
Download: ML20032C112 (3)

Text

.

v..

. v..,

r v+

- '. 1.ni. [.'4.,

..; - Q

.Q...; _.:

...._ :: i. _

'm:-..... ?

'......*: ' pm

.... ::l% 1.;~W.,.' D.:.

a r ws.

., ~..

c.

-..,: : :. a. :.

.?..

.... z.

~

.e c.,

t.

n

. a...

lE v..

r Mr. Sherucod Pavien, M.P.M., P.E.

..,4".'-

,. '.... I

.. ;f.; ' p Director, tureau of Radiological I;calth

'a.

. 2

. State of Ncv Tork v

.( ' ;..,.7 lDepartnent of licalth i

-845 Central Avenue T'

,t' : 'f: 1,. f., ;.{ ' f.

. J).lhany, Iicu York 122061 S...

s.

. ~ ~:.s.. s..v '.'. :\\ ':.*: l.

..2

... ~..

..Dcar 1tr. Davics:

,,e

' 'i c ', f ;).

.. 7 i

This kiill achnouledre receipt of your letter of January 6th.rclating

. J to the Neu York State E:narr,cncy Plan for Major Rai istion Accidents

,l>

'.'; ' M. '

, involving Nuclear Pacilitica and your apparent concern uith tha impact 7

~"

',of Federal ap,cncy. guidance in the further elevelopment of thja plan.

J.....

l'a' ' l; -

iYour basic concern, as I understand it, and as it is outlined in your-

'?~

' letter, ccena to be that the scope of cectrency planninp. to be under-

^~

taken by States cud local governnents to assure protection of the public s

. health and cafety should be based upon a hypothesized nccident of defined 3

~licits.

Further, you express concern that tha Z C is recor ending that-Neu York' provide response pinne for an accident that is 10 tines nore

l~

r

-ceri>us than you had understood uas considered appropriate a few years ago,.

{' '

.'.and,that you should include plans for the evacuation of the population in

.,.,[-

.jarcas beyond ths I.ov Population Zone surrounding nuc1 car facilitics in the' State,

.m

• 'Oon of the rencons for this concern centers about the interpretation of

~

jlJCtestinonyon' July 12, 1971 in a hearing concerninr, the Indien Point --

.. l' !.

.. Nuclear Pacility (Unit 2), uhich you cito in your letter. This testi=ony

. p.",

.'lvas not intended to set a rigid limit on c~;creency plans.

It was, and is,'

.our vicu that there is en inevitable unpredictability chout accidente,

• ' t".

.'f

.: and that er.cr3cccy plans should be developed.to respond to the entire'

.. '.. ; ~,'

.' ?

,. potential spectru 1 of accidents.

.s...

c. '..

7,The adcquacy of planned response, i.e. the stat'c of preparedness,'is, of. -

f '.' *

~ course, a natter of jud.mcat. Uc consider that documented State plcns-

."Jconctitute one of the inportant cicnents of evidence that' can be judged. ;.

1i

..Uith respect to such plans relativ'c to f13:cd nucicar facilitics, uc have

'A

,, ' ' developed 1 ASH-1243, frequently referred to as our "Cuide and Checklist" for the express purpoco of providing an objective basin for nahin;; such c

' *j udgnent s. Uc-ha E recognized tLat nany of the checklint itcca are

[.cubject to bro d interpretations and it.ias for this reason that we

'.: attempted to c.uide the reader uith the Intret'uction section of this

.... docucent. You.may already have recognized that this was one'of the

~ i. ".'. ' '. b,.F.-

c.

8111070493 760206

'4.-

,, ' i

)

.:~

\\*.'

s.-

PDR ADOCK 05000003 G

ppg

[.

~.

e.:

s.

. c..

.l

t

.1

.o p,, ',

_ \\ _v

~.:.

. 9 c

2

<..m p _

.g

.; mr. Sherwood Davics

,~- -

, :~ e -

Significant chantes from the draf t version of the " Guide and Checklict"

'vhich vc distributed in Novenbor 1973. Uc havo nico reconnited that, ono of the'nost connon que.stinns which ecerr,eucy planners have raised, and

, i' ' [. j.:

uhich is onn of your prirary cencernn, is typified by the querf ""ov big

an accident do te need to prepare for?" Our response to this cuestion

~.

. i

'is' intended to be direct, nei 10 four..I in the st tenant in Section 1.D.2

' yf[ UASII--1293 concernine..the "nagnitude of'the accident" uhich indicater.

,,, that uc consider that it is reasonable, foi purpouco of energency planning -

, wl.

>ralative to fined nuclear facilitics, to prepare for the potential consc--

the nost serious

,,(-

$..jquences of accidents of severity up to and includin::

., decir,n basis accident analyzed for citint purpeces.

,It van our intent.

f 1

.',}here to call attention to the fact that the consequences of such accidents 7.';as analy:cd for sitin,t purpocos are treated in an c'etrencly conservativa.,,, 'g -. r.

~

J '. fashion and stand in narhed contract to the far core likely consequences

-W -

'of.the sanc accidents (insid2 the plant) as analy:cd on a nuch r. ore probabi-

-.'(

P'

-. listic basis and reprocented in Environnental' Stctonents prepared for cach facility. Thus, uc consider the ranr.c of pocalble conacquences to be quite l

(broadindeed. We can and do assert t; hat the prgbability of occurrence of i

.yaccidents uith consequences borderine. the nost severe oud of this scale is I

.. e cxecedin;;1y l'o i, and as you correcti/ point out, the draf t r: port 'r' ASH-1400

~ t

-Lappcors to add considerable uci@t to this cssertion. We have not bonically

.d. chanced our -ricus about the likelihood of accidents but vc belic/c that it 6.is.prudcat to. develop plans to respond to the entire potential spectrun of -

..7 3

~

c

...~

..l a

s.. accidenta.

~c h'

.'~-statenent in UAS!!-1293 at Section 1.D.1 to the effect that it is clear

'% * '.. l

,Jurther insight into our vic;.is nay also bc cained by reflection en t o I

-f'.:,that (cuer;;ency) planc should be increasin ;17 definitive as the areas.of

[considerationare1ccatedclosertothesite(ofthecccident).

Uc consider.

'-ei M that it is nanifcatly prudent to have corprehensive enctnency plans but sthis should.not he construed as ir.plyinr. the hinJ of excessive detail your

~

^ cor.nents and those of Mr. T. K. DeBocr sect to be concerned about.

~-

..a.,

'. -With regard to Mr. T. K. Dc3oer's letter of July 5,1974, to !!r. Ucrbert !!. - -,

V.,

. Broun, uc perceived this letter to have been uritten as a response to our letter of June 17, 1974, requesting cornents on our Movenber 16, 1973,

.interin " Guide and Checklist," the precursor to i.'AS'i-1293.

'Je could not,.

..of course, respond specifically to th.: nu-crous coments received fron

,. States and other 4,terested parties concerning the revicu and revision

'of the "Guido and Checklist." Where-feasible, heuever, specific construc-

, '. ',. l tiv'c contents received frcn the Stacco and othern, vore incorporated into

~

UASE-1293.

, ~ ~ '....

f As to the questions concerninn cr'ergency preparedness that you refer to

' os havin; been poned in Mr. Detour's letter, uc assu ce that uhat you have

[

1

.in r:ind are the c,ucations raised in your draf t attachnent to your letter

.of January 16, 1974, to Dr. Clifford K. Ecck, then'the Director of tho

~

.f.

1 s

. 9

• 'r

..r :.

(;. _ m.

.... :.s 1,

,yN

.t

2. 7 ;97-3 n., i '

Mr. Shen:ood Davies 4-

...s.~

. s.

t.. - -

~,

.!.s..;...

Office of Covern,ent Liaison - Pc ;ulation.

Mr. Dc?.oer'c letter doca express!'

a nur.ber of opinicas which a o es :catially tha car. cs the questions raiced in the drcf attach,:nt to yon: January 16, 1974 letter and which, in the ncin, beer cc. certain internal policien c,d problems specific to the State of-';eu York.

As you.nay recall, Dr. 2nch and AZC staf f ter.bers, not with New York State representatives in Bethesda on March 5, 1974, to discuss the questions raised in your letter of January 16.

I rocall that although dif ferent vieupoints vere expressed upon sono of the questions, there was '. ? ', g..'

generni agreenent that there vere certain steps that ;!cu York could cnd

.~chould tohc to improva its Radiological Enerr;cacy Response posture supportive of fixed nuclear facilitics.

, ' ~

Tho'57C and other involved agencies have' Federally assigned rer.ponsibilitics-

/

to encourane the developccat and improvencat of State and local governnent Esdiolo;;ical rner<.cncy Response Plans in support of fixed nuclear facilitics.

(The Federal Office of Prepare.!nens, General Services !.d::inistration is ex-I panding these responsibilitics to include transportatica accidents involv-

-l inr. radioactive natorials. The 1:P.C ns " Leaf. /.~cncy" in nuclear incident r

cr.crgency rcaponse plannine,suppercive of fixed facilitica, in cooperation with oth.-r l'ederal cgencies, is attenptin;; to neet these respc,nuibilitics

,q by providin., guidanca (e.p.

UASH--1293), for n1 traininc., assintence and our

~

' field cusistance effort carried out by the Federal Interagency Field Cedre.

a.

Vo' regret that you arc'of the opinion that our Federal Interagency ricid^ #

7,*

• 'e beliave and hope that nost Ccdre could not be of asaictance to you.

Stntca share our concerns and vill try to inprove their radiolo-ical._

resources. Uc nre of the

'.f energency response por,ture within their existine; opinica that States can do this by 1..cninicine, cooperction cnons the various cor.ninnnt State agencies having encry,cacy preparedness responsibilitiec

. '. ',.[., T '

. and.by 7.ahing improve:. cats in their plans where necessary.

....\\

l Our offer of assistr.nce remains, should you desire it.

y

.~.

Sincorcly,

.. - ' - ' {_ :. -

l,. !;;.,'.

. g, - t

~ -

t ;-,.

.. ~.

Ilarold F.

Collins a

.Emerr.cncy Preparedness

'i,,,,,

3 Office of International

~,

nnd State Prograns a

cc:

Mr. T. Dercer, Scu York

~

~ ~ '

I I'.cj. Gen. J. C. Daher, NY Mr. L. Czech, Kf

~

.t; g

__