ML20128B196
| ML20128B196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1969 |
| From: | Brauner A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Grimes B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212030590 | |
| Download: ML20128B196 (3) | |
Text
_
\\
PR JUL 31 13fh Brian Grimes, Technical Coordinator Reactor Projects, EL DRAFT MATERIAL IN RESPONSE TO SJESTIONS PROM Mi. STRYE J. GADLER FIRTAIN-ING TO THE MOIFf1 CELLO NUCLEAR GEEIRATIN3 PLANT In his letter of April 30,1969, k. Steve J. Gedler, menbar of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, questioned the fact that the AEC did not provide complete plans for establishing:
1.
alert warning methods, and 2.
adequate medical facilities and evacuation procedures in the event of a nuclear accident.
We succent the attached material be used to answer these questions.
A. R. Brauner
. / Operational Safety Branch, DRL
Attachment:
/sa eteted cc:
D. J. Skovholt, AD/RO, DP1 D. Vasesllo, RPDfl, DP1 9212030590 690731 DR ADOCK 05000263 PDR
/
ornet >.... 0S D
- 03. 9 ARBrauner:Js Drh spson
_.7/31_/.69.. J. 7/31/.69.................
ean >
rom Aic-m mn. 9.m neu ono
,......,,,,,,,.,,,,a,,,,,,,,,,.,,,
~
,,=
i 1
I Draft Material in Response to Epostions frorn Mr. Gadler 1!
The assumption that the Northern States Power Ocapany does not propose
- f
1. to have an adequate warning or alarm system at the Meeticallo site is I Although it is true est tbs Monticello facility vill mis 1 x ting. l not employ the type of public warning network opparently advoested by l Mr. Gadler, the plant possesses extensive lastrussatation to detect the occurrease of malfunctions and to monitor plant conditions in an d l accident situation. The determination of the most desirable action to be taken in the 2 the unlikely event of an accidaat involves many factors, includin6 nature of the accident that has occurred and the prevailing environ-Variable factors such no these argue against the i mental conditions. desirability of a standard public varning network such as Mr. Gedler J seems to be proposin6, since an inflexible' evacuation plan might not l ) i i ! !l be the most desirabic protective measure. i An applicant for an operating license for a nuclear power plant ic 2. required to submit to %e ABC regulatory staff his plans for coping with I .t smarasacies, in mooordanoe with esetion 50 5, Title 10, tbde of As part of the evalustama of ne' appli- ,,6,,,1 p.gulations, part 30. cant's provisions for establishing and maintaining contact with local and state su%orities, and with bespital officials who might be onlled upon in the extremely unlikely event of an accident at the facility I. -l Since the autbority to order i that could have consequences off site. i I ,.,.,-,-.,r-- .-,._..--.__....,~.,# ,,m,,.
2-evacuation of the local ares or to impose other protective meccures resides with the local authorities and not with the applioant, we estermine hat a plan exists in dish %e applicant notifies, assiste and advises such groups regar4 Lag he extent of any assident dich might affect the public and he desirability of initiating prptective action such as evsoustion. Psweistoms have alas been maan mur breat-ment at local hospitals of injured and/or radioactively contaminated individuals. We require that the necessary liaison between the appli-cant and such local groups be established and maintained by the appli-cant as part of the emergency preparedness plannin6 Northern Staten Power Company has agreed to maintain such liaison as part of ito emergency plan for the Monticello site. In addition to our pre-licensing evaluation of an applicant's planc for coping with emergencies, AEC inspectors verify the adequacy of the procedures for implementhtion of the emergency plan, as part of the Com:ission's incpection pr> gram extendin6 over the lifetime of the facility. 4 4 l}}