ML20039D331
| ML20039D331 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Grimes B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039D326 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310530 | |
| Download: ML20039D331 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:s., i ghA k' UNITCD STAT *c ~'C* HUCt.2AM. ECTRA-Y C.';'.1.'.1!C0!CN Attachm:nt 3 g [ C31 PAAX AVISU3 KING OF PP.U 3;A,73?;?myt,y;;nA 1p*,,:3 %, om August 21, 1981 HEMO.%NCUM FDR: Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Emergancy Freparedness FROM: Boyce H. Grier, Director Region I SUBJECh: FB1A LETTER DATED AUGUST 19, 1981 In your facsimile transmission dated August 20, 1981, you asked for a draft letter to the New York Utilities transmitting the FS!A letter datad August 19, 1981 to them. You stated that the transmittal letter should say that, "this resolves your earlier April 22[(sic) letter." The FEM letter may be an adequate basis for not requiring reactor shutdown and for not taking enforcement action at this.tims,..b.ut. __ I believe that it is far from resolving the concarns in our April Enclosed is a draft latter 0 24 letter and the attachments thereto. which places things in their proper perspective. r3 ,I a +Q* ~' i W- / Boy e H. Grier Director Inclosure: Draft letter dated 8/21/81 j ~ L l cc w/ enclosure: l Sheldon Schwartz, 00, EP l.. l l l esW'" e O / G l.
0:nselicated Edison Cc=cany of e 4 ppp, ggi New York, Inc. 2 fe er than ten (IC) licensees and therefere, is not subje:: :: the Pacerwerk Recu::icn A:: of 1930 (PL 95-511). If any ur. usual problems devel p we are a.ailable :: werk with you and the State and 10:al authorities aions wit'. EM A
- res:Ive-:..e prc:lem.
Additional notifications of this type =ay be issuec as our exerce9:y cre:aredness review continues through Observations of :ne annual fein; exercise, ahd ensite inspections of your emergency :recarecness. Sincerely, {~~ 6. y/.*.-- . t .A-w w e vce n. ur,.er . ire :Or En:::sures: As Stated
- w/encis:
sactsen,, lite eresident, Nuclear Power a. w. Eu-ke, Direc ce, Requia: cry Affairs c.amlin, n.ssis snt to Resicen Manager ( e.. p,,y) a. n-Ma ra, Resident Construction Manager, Indian Pcint o ~
- r..
- r. Re:shaw, h,uelear,icensing e.ngineer Jcy:e r~. uav,.s, squire
~ Bren- . Brandenburg, Assistant General Counsel H:n=ra:le Hugn L. Carey, Governor of New York State :f New York, Department of Health e,.::ing seg1onal Director, r:Mn. O. 2. 5 ven, Chie# Executive, Putnam County -e- :ach, :nief Executive, 0 ange Coun y i .,e!, . r... ,cck.iand County
- xecutive, r.
- ant, A. 3. ZeI3elic, "hief Executive, West Ches er County
'-. Cu seinerger, New York State Energy Office W. 2. e ne: y, :nairman, Disaster Precarecness Coccission J. C':sey, Cire::Or, EEP Divisien, EM' l 00:,Jencis: IE *a & ~iles (.: r A::repriate Distribution) -v e n t ra. .., e s 1 i r1 + v.- ~ur i:
- u ent Room ( 0R) i..... ru....::,ccu=ent n.oom (,urDa.,j
..-e-a N.:' ear Safety :nfer=ation Center (NSIC) Te ' ical Irferma-ion Center (TIC) I
- r. e : : neating e.:::
l State cf New Yerk h....... sesicent inspecter J:an Holt, NY PIRG a l ) 1 - - ^ - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^
....t ? ' ', ~ ' Attachmsnt 4 DRAFT (Licensee) By letter d'ated April 24, 1981, I transmitted to you a-copy of a letter from the Federal Emergency Managament Agency (FEMA) dated April 23, 1981 and its attached letter from FEMA to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Ccmission dated April 5,1981. The attachments to the April 6,ietter listed numerous deficiencies in the New York St5te' and local-energency response plans for the area around your reactor site. .The enciesed letter from FEFA dated August 19,.1981, refen to the d ficiencies in the aforementioned April 6,1981 letter. FEP.A expresses tNeir belief that pending the evaluation of exarcise results, present State and local emergency planning is adequate. Based on actual prograss __ __..__ _. correcting daficiencies and your apparent good faith efforts to centinue ~ ~ to do so, no enforcement action is intended at this time. Nonetheless, the NRC canno't judge 'emeFgen~cy preparedness as' being edequaEe at your fact Hty the Emergency plan Ic:plementation Appraisal has been cc$ipleted; factitty, ( until: State and local emergency plans have been reviewed; a fu11 scala usrets'a " has been conducted; and deficiencies which have been identifieh in each of these areas have been corrected. Sincerely. Boyce H. Grier Director l l
Enclosure:
l As stated l- _.7 i
p 3Mt1 --{dJcW N M ~ ( s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- 4 SEP1981 2
- T:
view of Int im Critique of Exercise at Nine-Mile Point h.:_c FRone: Jy dean ional Radiation Representative To: Ihor W. Husar RAC Chairman We have reviewed the FEMA critique of the exercise at Nine-Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station, September 15, 1981. The additional comments presented below are prompted by the recognition that many aspects of the exercise, while subtle, were not evaluated in the form used by FEMA. The basic question of whethsr an emergency could be adequately handled has not been answered in this case for two reasons: (1) the scenario was not designed to provide an appropriate test of the plan, and (2) too many participants reacted as i'f they had extensive knowledge of the planned scenario. Specific coments follow. I. Emergency Operations Facilities and Resources. m II. Alerting and Mobilization of Officials and Staff. No additional comments on I and II. III.. Emergency' Operations' Management State - Monitoring teams do not report to the State, but to the Jounty. Therefore, the comment, "more play between all monitoring teams and State EOC appears to be'needed" should be revised to read that more evidence of monitoring activity should be established through appropriate reporting channels. I County - Implementation of protective actions was apparently premature; however, once the decision was made it was carried out very efficiently. There were no monitoring activities per-formed by local response organizations due to the structure of scenario. Monitoring teams were on standby two hours before the scripted release, but were inadequately trained for their roles and unfamiliar with their radiological instruments. IV. Public Alerting and Notification. No additional comments on IV. V. Public and Media Relations EOF - It is probably preferable to have stock press releases on hand to be filled in with the appropriate data rather than try to create them during an emergency. VI. Accident Assessment EOF - The NFO liaison officer at the County EOC provided excellent coordination on accident assessment and protective action decision making. The plan does not call for the State to participate in field monitoring unless the Governor declares that an emergency state exists. There was no field data to be obtained by the county monitoring teams to be passed on Fwm 1320 6 (Rev. 3 76)
g.- 2. ,e to the EOF due to tihe inadequacy of the scenario in this area. However, the field team (s) which did report scant data did not do so in a timely manner. Even data reports indicating background readings are important in planning for evacuation or sheltering. VII. Actions to Protect the'Public. VIII. Health, Medical and Exposure Control Measures. The lead responsibility for these areas lies with the Count.y. However, State EOC observations revealed that State personnel were providing good support for County decisionmaking. County - There was not a " token demonstration of access control measures." Observers were shown the facilities that might be used at the County EOC for decontamination purposes. The arrangement observed was inadequate at the present time. IX. Recovery and' Reentry Operations. County - Activity within the EOC was excellent; however, the, simulation did not extend to notifying field teams of actions being y taken. X. Relevance of the Exercise Experience - Additional Comment. Based on the results of this exercise, it has not been established that at this time the capability for dealing with a radiological emergency is.present. cc: Ken Travis/ Harry Calley RAC Members - Ron Bernacki Tom Elsasser e e n e---or,~,-- eem e. +,- ,-e,--
t t th /\\ - {2 tib' - J._ -N 7'1 -( ' .am i UNITnD STATES ENYlRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 SFP 1981 7' EMA News Rel se on Status of Off-Site Planning in New York St M k/ ce ldman ' 4Ser81 og 55 gion 1 Radiation Representative Ihor Husar RAC Chairman Tho attached news release arrived recently as a routine mailing fm n
- g iC \\
The conclusions stated in the FEMA memo to NRC (August 19, 1981) au confirmed by the most recently submitted versions of the State / local . g, cmergency plans which we have received. In a conference e,all on July 27, 1981 involving EPA and FEMA Regiona.1 staff members the' continued conflict in direction and control (evident tha prior drafts of the NYS/ local government plans) present in the forr.. submission'of the NYS/ Oswego plan was discussed at length. ( At that tim.- it was. agreed that the deficiency in this area had not been resolved. In cdditional conversations during that week, the major problem of the county's inability to perform the indicated assignments due to the present l'ick of equipment and trained radiological emergency personnel was also r::c3gnized. A cursory examination of the plans submitted for Ginna and Indian Mic:c indicates that these major deficiencies are present, in varying de' ret e-:, in all three plans. If a more recent formal submission to FEMA has corrected all the preefe..1) idsntified inadequacies, please forward a copy to this office so that we may review'the appropriate version. As was discussed by telephone and confirmed by our subsequent formal reo.. comments (August 26, 1981), the " inconsistencies in direction and cons..( wara only one of the major inadequacies of the plan. If no new vers e s w,s v; submitted, I would appreciate an explanation of the justificwtions 2e c %.c finding by FEMA that "the present state of planning is generally adeg,.tc to carry out the responsibilities of the State and local governme.'t ..T case of an accident..." cc: Jan Geiselman Harry Calley/ Ken Travis Ron Bernacki Tom Elsasser Leroy Martin 4 (R2, 3 76)
{hM*k Y d" b ') g4 gg jggpHITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ) rg: l 4 visions to Ind'an Point County Plans 0 4 t 3,,e ce eldman egional Radiation Representative L '0 Ihor Husar RAC Chairman 1 The Radiation Branch has received a packet of corrected sheets for the Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester County Radiol _ogical Emergency Response Plans and Procedurcs~from Marvin I. Silverman of the New York State Nuclear Emergency Planning Group. Unfortunately, the identification for'the corrected sheets and the pages to be replaced are identical (i.e. Rev.1, 8/1/81) but the information content differs., In order to be properly utilized the corrected pages should have been identified as Rev. 2, 9/18/81. This duplication has already resulted in the inadvertent exchange of several pages. cc: Marvin I. Silverman RAC Committee Members Tom Elsasser Ron Bernacki Roy Martin Paul Lutz Ken Travis/ Harry Calley O N I -}}