ML20071Q485

Forwards Consolidated Regional Assistance Committee Comments for Five Unrated Planning Elements.Comments Should Be Part of Initial FEMA Findings & Determination of Effectiveness of Offsite Emergency Planning

ML20071Q485
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/18/1983
From:	Mcloughlin D Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NUDOCS 8306090114
Download: ML20071Q485 (5)

Text

, .

fN hT*p Federal Emergency Management Agency 2 Washington, D.C. 20472 e

MAY 181983 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Dircks:

Please refer to the January 14, 1983, transmittal from Lee M. Thomas to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which contained the initial Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) finding and determination on the status of offsite emergency preparedness planning at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant. The report included discussion of the planning standards as addressed by Bay, Saginaw, and Midland Counties and the State of Michigan. However, there was no rating on five of the criteria items from NUREG-0654,-FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, since further review of these items by the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) was required. The unrated planning elements from NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1 included H-12, I-8, A-3b, K-5b, and L-1.

The RAC reconvened on January 13, 1983, to review the unrated planning elements and to rate each of the elements. Subsequently, these ratings were forwarded to the State of Michigan for inclusion with the original interim report and for review and corrective actions.

I have enclosed the consolidated RAC comments for the five unrated planning elements with a cover memorandum from FEMA Region V. This should be appended to the initial status report provided to the NRC on January 14, 1983, and should be considered as a part of the initial FEMA findings and determination on offsite emergency planning at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.

The radiological emergency preparedness exercise scheduled for March 1983 was postponed due to onsite problems at Midland. The exercise will be rescheduled for early 1984 if possible. The State of Michigan responded to the Regional findings and determinations on April 11, 1983, and that response is currently under review in the Region.

If you have any questions, please contact Richard Krimm at 287-0176.

Sincerely,

, 4 #

Dave McLoughlin 6 4 Deputy Associate Director F PDR State and Local Programs and Support Enclosure 1 /s

• 8

'l. . Federal Emergency Management Agency s r Region V 300 South Wacker,24th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 353-1500 MEMORANDUM FOR: Assistane Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards ATTN: Megs Hepler FROM: Acting Chief, Technological Hazards Branch, FEMA Region V

SUBJECT:

Midland Nuclear Power Plant Interim Report dated January 24, 1983 This memorandum is in response to your telephone query of March 16, 1983 concerning the Interim Report for the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.

The State of Michigan requested the Region V Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) to conduct an informal review of the above plans. Several deficiencies in emergency planning were identified. These included: assignment of responsibilities, lack of commitments through written agreements, authenticity verification procedures for notification, the absence of a public notification system, communications with radiological monitoring teams, and j

tra'ining.

Based on the RAC review, FEMA Region V currently considers the draft radio-I logical emergency preparedness plan for the Midland Nuclear Power Plant to i be less than adequate to protect the public if this plant was in operation.

l The Midland Nuclear Power Plant is currently under construction. Obviously, some of these deficiencies (i.e. , prompt alert and notification) will be corrected as plant construction nears completion. Other planning deficiencies I should be corrected as the State revises this plan.

The Emergency Management Division, Michigan Department of State Police, has been provided a copy of the above Interim Report and a schedule of corrective actions has been requested by February 10, 1983..,

I .9 / $N. .

Dan Bement l

l

. .. Federal Emergency Management Agency

M

.4 Region V 300 South Wacker,24th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 353-1500 March 1, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATURAL AND TICHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS Ati.ention: Megs Hepler, field Operations Branch, SL-NT-TH FROM: Dan B. Bement, Acting Chief Technological Hazards Branch, NT Region V  :

SUBJECT:

Midland Nuclear Power P anE inter'im Report, dated January 24, 1983 Subject Interim Report referred to five crd.teria items that were not rated pending further review by'o6r Regional ~ Assistance Committee.

The attached is a copy of our letter to the State of Michigan reflecting the ratings and comments subsequently developed by the RAC for those five items.

(hu /W 4 Dan B. Bement Attachment e

9

'..'.,,,, {.,. " ' '. .b

'l

=

, . - :1?.

'.* F ..

g, p3 t.. . > , 3 :.G%

y;.ji 2 k N N

~

Captain Peter El._2aag%pp., .

Deputy Director, E g..cy Services Division Department of State Police 111 SouthCCapitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Captain Basolor Please refer to our memorandum of December 10, 1982, to the Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards,

Subject:

Interin Report, Midland Nuclear Power Plant.

u. -

Section II of the Midland Interim Report contains a consolidation of the Regional Assistance Committee comments resulting from its review of the Emergency Operations Plans for Midland, Bay, and Saginaw Counties. As stated in the report, 5 of the criteria items from NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, were not rated pending further review of the RAC. During its meeting on January 13, 1983, the RAC requested the following changes to the report:

NUREG 0654 Criteria Item Rating and Corrected Comment H12 INADEQUATE. Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties. The on-scene]

State EOC is identified as the central point for receipt and analysis of field monitoring data. The county plans cake no l

mention of the coordination of sample media, l

18 f.DEQUATE. Bay County. All counties have recognized their instrumentation limitations and will r&ly on State support.

Eay County has deferred to the State, the responsibility for providing methods, equipment, and expertise to make rapid assessments of the actual or potential magnitude and locations of any radiological hazards through liquid or gaseous release pathways.

INADEQUATE: Midland County. The liidland County plan states that upon declarction of a site area energency the RADEP l Officer will report to the EOC and vill dispatch field l radiologien1 conitors to the appropriate locations and offsite

=onitoring results will be provided to the plant cnd to the State. It is esticated t1Jat monitoring teams can be deployed with full equipment in approxicately one hour. The plan, houcver, does not discuss composition of the field team, trancportation arrcngements and co m nications equipment.

,. = hs

• .2 4

INADEQUATE. Saginaw County. Similarly, in the Saginaw County pinn, field team pomposition and transportation arrangements for the tegna are not discussed.

f K3b INADEQUATE. Eay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties. Each county plan provides for the reading of dosimeters period'ically.

At the time dosimeters are issued, workers should be briefed on the proper time periods for reading the dosimeters. It is suggested the following wording be appropriately added to l the plans, t&1 state: " Depending up&n the radiation field to which the worker is assigned",' dosimeters will be read and 4 exposure will be limited in accordance with guidance from the RADEF Officer."

K5b ADEQUATE. Bay, Midland, ahd Saginaw Counties. (Coment is deleted.) - - - - .

l f

L1 ADEQUATE. Bay County. . "'he Bay County plan provides for a list of medical facilities and trans Letters of ggreement have been' portation provided services to Consumers Power in Bay County.

Company for handling injurdd, radiologically exposed, or contaminated persons. --

ADEQUATE. Midland'Ccunty. The Midland County plan lists two hoepital facilities which have letters of agreement with Consumera Power for handling injured, radiologically exposed

• or contaminated persons. ,

INADEQUATE. Saginaw County. In Saginaw County, there are no

' hospitals, nursing hems, or other medical facilities within the primary emergency planning zone (EPZ) . Although the plan states ,

that certain hospitals and ambulance services in the county have the capability to care for contaminated persons, they are not enumerated in the plan. The hospital / medical facilities for, -~~

which conra

• atdd patients (residents of Saginaw County) would be sent have not been $dentified in the plan.

Please consider the changes above in your revision to the Midland site-specific plans and incorporete the changes into the schedule of corrections l

, requested from you in Section III of the Midland Interim Findings Report, l An additional copy of the report is enclosed for your convenience.

We would appreciate having your schedule of corrections by February 10, 1983, i

[.$ rely, g.,

- A~~ $ &-.sf* .

rom Fr , inch, Chairman

' R5'/NT-TH /R.I An,thony/ db / x6011/1-21-83 Regional Assistance Comittee File: EMO-REP-Midhigan utdland Encleoures cc: RD NT Division

_ _ _ _ , _ __ , _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ .. _ ___- _ _ _ __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _