ML20032C113
| ML20032C113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1975 |
| From: | Davies S NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Collins H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML100141336 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111070499 | |
| Download: ML20032C113 (2) | |
Text
'[
_ f, s(LW V
C1d '.
Q h cc TATE OF NEW YORK cauumry ut3tra scaviccs N. db DEPARTMENf OF HEALTH
^aaua c}"Ma o-f
,- w.: V, Assocs AT E couMassioNEm g'~g',,
S45 CENT *RAL AVENUE n At,H c. c onx.
.o.
htLIS 5. IN GR A H Ast, M.D.
ALBANY, N.Y.1220G C Z MMI S O ON E R DURE AU OF R AOtOLOG:C AL HE AL TH
$H E RwCOD D AVIE S, M.P.H., P.E.
OlH E C TO R April 22, 1975 Mr. Ilarold Collins Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office o~f International and State Programs Washington, D.C.
20545
Dear Mr. Collins:
In reply to your letter of March 27, 1975, uc agree that accidents are completely unpredictable and that caergency plans should be developed to respond to the entire potential spectrum of accidents.
The "New York State Emergency Plan for Major Radiation Accidents Involving Nuclear Facilitics",
and the Specific Operating Procedurcs (SOP) for each nuclear-facility site cnd the supplemental response plan t/nich deals uith contamination of milk, food, or water sources, cover the complete spectrum of accidents from a puff release to an accident having offsite consequences greater than the Design Basis Accident (Alert C).
In fact, we have expanded our plan to deal not only with the inhalation doso, but the potentially more serious problem of c:ntamination of milk, food, and water sources.
It is our intent to take the necessary action to protect the population in the vicir.ity of nuclear facilitics whether exposure occurs from iahalation cr ingestion.
New York State representatives met uith U.S. Atomic Energy Cocaission staff on January 15, 1971 to discuss our overall approach to-emergency planning and to establish the accident level for which detailed plans should be required. Our response plan was developed in 1971 based upon the limits cgreed upon at this meeting and was not solely based, as you state in your letter, upon our interpretation of the AEC testimony of November 12, 1971 in connection with Consolidated Edison Unit No. 2.
Apparently our' basic differences stem from the question of t. hat details must be incorporated in writing in an energency plan as opposed to a: ply considering them in the preparation and formulation of the plan.
At the
. March 5, 1974 meeting with Dr. Bcck that ycu referred to, the State represen-tatives were assured that it was the USAEC's intent that the items in the
' Draf t guide and checklist must be considered in the plan preparation and that the details did not have to % s:citten "a
the plan. We vou!d specific-ally like to know if this is :.sC's intent p verntng the analication of the D ccaber 1.- 1974 revi:, ion of the guide and checklist (We 8111070499 760206 i
PDR ADOCK 05000003
(
G
@J5m JJ
= = ~
L
.g O2 mil o im Mr.
Ilaro,ld Collins 1962 We have maintained a nuclear facility caergency response plan sinceWe have recently and are continuously improving and updating our plans.
d control over milk, to our plan which will provide surveillance anPopulation exposure a supplement agricultural products, and water sources.;nated products may be a vastly 1;reater milk prolucts, We believe that Ncv York State is the first these conta from i:
inhalation i h the ingestion than c.y
.mc ti :a to develop such a detailed plan to deal specifically w t problem.
is in the protection of the Please be assured that our primary,interestthis can only be accomplished through the com j
public. We believe that cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies.
1 j,
s Sine ]- ly yours,
/
/ffMf f ~,s f l
$hcruood Davies, h.P.ll., P.E.
/
Director Bureau of Radiological 11ealth j
I sr Major General J. C. Baker cc:
lir. Theodore K. DeBoer lit. Eduard 11. Smith h
t i
4