ML20148C072

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Discussion of Alternative Organizational Approaches for NRC Emergency Preparedness & Related Ofc Comments. Emergency Preparedness Licensing Functions Should Be Functions of NMSS & Ofc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ML20148C072
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/27/1979
From: Gossick L
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20148C069 List:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001250058
Download: ML20148C072 (15)
v • d • e


Text

l..

-, i.. _..

m

~

1-Q>/

l{

h ' ". e ~ %.

{.Q- } - F.t. \\ zk'). Q

?

- y v

. #.**8Cu4,~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.M e (d7 ;

. WASHINGTON. C. C. 2055$

\\.yQf*]

SECRETARIAT RECORD C

\\'b' /

IiG,., 1579 m.-

h l m,.r,m 0n:

Chairman Hendrie

anm u r Comissioner Gilinsky Com.issicner Kennecy.

Commissioner Dradr. ora Commissioner Ahearne rnv, n M, :

Lee V,. u.cssick,.xecu:1ve Director for Operations SU3 JECT:

APPROACHES FOR ORGANIZING NRC'S EMERGENCY PFIFAPIDNESS ACTIVITIES

. paper addressing alternative organiza-ional approaches for emergency prepared-ness a NRC is attached ( A::achment 1).

This paper is in response : tne SECY di rective dated September 14,1979 (

Subject:

Staff Re:uirements - Briefing on

.,J,,n, - -

Reper: or task r.orce en.mergency..rianning).

u T1ce commen s related ic the organization o,, emergency preparedness activities are also a tached (Atta:hmen 2).

Fiease no e tha

nese coments were prepared in response to a previous draft of the paper.

IE's ecmments were previced crally

-- Mr. Stelle believes consclidatien of emergency pre:aredness activities in IE (Option 4) is the preferred long-c m sclution.

While I agree -hat' Option 4 has merit, it is a sienifican; depar;ure f r:h cur con-ven-ional way of doing business in e ner tecnnical areas.

Op ; ion S, which places

ne emerger.:y prepare: ness licensing fun::icns in N.:. and NMSS and :ne resocndinc an: tes:in; functions in IE, is a logical interim s e: :: Option 4.

Movinc to

~

l

-ion 3 n < would reduce the curren organi
t.ional f agmentations anc woulc

- eep NF.:, ieacersnip in the curren effer c upgrace e ergency plannine.

I ; w:vid

~

115 0 cerri; tne FEM: r:le.

De clearly estabiisnec :e'eme making a fi al decisi:n

T *r,e N.C Organi:a';icr.al s *ructure. 'I therefore be'ieve tha: We sh:gi: -. ve ;;

C*-#

for s' cut a One-year perio; after whi*h ne a: san, aces of a fyr:ner m yg

~

  • C.i^r 4 WOuld be evalua*.ed.

\\.e r.........o-. _...

Lee V. Gossick

-xecu 1ve Dire:;er for Operations 3.

s pi.e.

8,8 * * *

1. v.i
  • E c. v.*3. n *

.( *. 3. E. *.,

3 9 0. e.a

.,*. 't t 6 v

(*3 EE Ae f.

w w..

m..C..M. *..C3 P. #.

P.81 s *s u n P $.

A a

S. M W C. W.. f 6

. $. c.

-ye a#

.-A

=

e 3...e.-

.e ab gg. )

O

--OW

.:. -:. e,,. - :e a

[,

    • h o' h e. g

'fA

$"h i

.a 8001250 0 d

s I

?

..ine Commission.

t-c: w/attacnments:

SECY IE i- -

OGC SD 5

OPE SP E

NRR RES Nr$5 ADM v.- -

l.,

?

I gr v.-

1:-

i.

e a

e M7 e

O s

e 8

a L

i e

e a

40 I

4 s

=

M 6 6 CbillHCll 6 I NRC ORGAN 12ATIONAL OPTIONS FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS l

AN M?A OVERVIEW

!r The attached paper evaluates alternative lonc-term approaches to organizing NRC's energency preparedness activities -- principally the functions of planning, licensing, imolementing and testing, and responding.

The four o;; ions considered in the paper would assign primary authority and responsibility for emergency preparedness to:

o An EDD-level coordinator, who would oversee the existing configuration of emergency preparecness activities in NRR, 5

NMSS, IE, S D, and SP.

(Option 1, status cuo) i+

o An EDO-level staff office, either SP or a new office.

(Option 2) th o

Three orogram offices, NRR/NMSS and IE.

(Option 3) o A sincie crocram office, IE.

(Option 4)

Choosing a preferred organization for NR 's emergency preparedness activities is highly F

u
gmental.

MPA weighed ne following factors heavily in considering the four. options.

1.

Removai of Fra;rentation:

Effe :ive emergency preparecness requires One effor s of many participants, carryinc ou: different functions, tc be focused in an operational program.

It is necessary to remove the fragmentation that now characterizes NRC's emercency preparedness activities.

2.

Union of Planninc and Resconse:

Sound operational cractice strongly sugges:s :na; emergency pians ce developed and teste: by :ne same people or orgar.i:ation charged with carrying them out.

2.

Use of Line Excertise and Auth:rity:

In contrast :: staff offices, iine program offices in NRC nave :ne grea es: techni:a1 and opera-tional expertise as' well as dire:: authority anc responsidili y for orograms o pr::ec; public heal:n anc safety; tr.is expertise anc authority is necessary and sufficien: for effec:ive emergency pre-

arecness.

Stated simoly, line offices are bes eogippec to ceai wi}n operat'ional programs.

Over the long term, M?A prefers Option 4, consolidation in a single program office.

Tnis option would significantly reduce fragmentation and force the recognition and i

eatmen of emergency preparedness as an coerational program.

MPA believes that I

rimary authority anc res:ensibility shoul ce ves ec in IE so tha: ne offi:e

-.:ive: wi:r, responcin; :o ali yces cf emergency situations also prepares anc g.

es:s ne emergency plans.

IE is a line office with suostantial e:nnical excertise ee:ec

. plannin; for emergency situations, an: IE nas coerational fieic ex:ertise

" v:ivin; cally on-site interactions wi n licensees as weil as locai, State and "i e#al ;;Vernmen: con a:!s.

i 1

1 i / 0 / i. :.

4 I

l I

i t 1

m E

i eV

..q

(: -

iF?A feels the other options are inferior to Option 4 Option 3, consolidation in three

[
program offices, continues some fragmentation and would tend to separate aspects of emergency planning frem emergency response.

However, because of NRR's current lead nr.:

in the emergency preparedness upgrade activities at power reactors, Option 3 may serve 2.

'as the preferred mode of transition to Option 4 in the long term.

Option 2 consoli-

??

cates all emergency preparedness functions in a single EDO staff effice, but suffers i?

1 from having an operational responsibility without having line office expertise or

~

authority.. Option 1, :ne EDD-level coercinator, perpetuates fragmentation, fails to tie planning with response, and overlays a level of management tna: can probably do 94

.little more than coordinate.

. v-l Dd )

[E:.-[ l Certain points raised in office comments merit additional discussion.

o Lead Office.

It was suggested that the paper consider an organization

~'

in wnicn one office is designated a lead office for coordinating all emergency preparedness activities.

This concep; is treated at its 9-extremes in Options 1 and 4.

The EDO coordinator in Option 1 would

="

serve as a surrogate for the lead office by coordinating the efforts 5I of NRR, NMSS, IE, SD, and Sp.

IE would become :ne lead Office in 7"

Option 4; censolidation would make IE responsible for NRC's emergency QF j

preparedness program, but the other offices would continue to provide scme technical support to IE on a routine basis and wouic assist in NRC's response to an accident.

c Transfer to FEMA.

Transfer of NRC emergency preparedness responsibil-1:1es to FEMA was also suggested as an option.

Wnile the precise role cf FEKR relative c NRC and its licensees is ye: te be defined, the Ccmmission, in responding to the Kemeny Commission Report, indicated that NRC must continue its central role in emergency preparedness.

MFA celieves Optien a woule provice the best singie poin of contac:

is Oc facili; ate NRC's cealings with FEMA as well as with licensees, State and locai gcvernments, anc c:ner Federai ac.encies.

-ne attached paper provides rationais for determining NE:'s emergency preparedness Organi:ation.

However, fc11owing a cecision, many de:alis will nesc to be negotiated i

wi:nin and among the par;icipating offices anc cocified in Manual Chapters; for exam:le, if Option 4 is chosen, the IE heacquarters orcanization wouic probably have to be m0di-fied to acc'omhodate the major emergency preparedness role.

Transition from the current Organization to the chosen option (if other than Option i is selected) will also require close staff cooperation, particularly with regard to the ongoing upgrade that involves E"

field visits by NRC teams staffed by different offices.

Recardiess. cf wnich c;tien is chosen, MPA reccamencs tha the C mmission decice seen c..

cn'a terranen: Organi:ation (anc, if appr:priate, a methoc cf transition) in crder cr :ne staff to cevete attention exclusively to the im: r:an: mission of im: roving e

NRC's emer;en:y ;re:arecness capability an: focus;ing NRC's emergency preparecness activities int at coera:icnai program.

l l

l i

l

NRC ORGANIZATIONAL OPT 10N5 FOR EMERGENCY PRE?AREDNE55 r

~.

I.

Commission Directive and Accroach

~

r, This paper responds tc the Commission recuest that, as a long-range sclution p::

  • 1.:.

E=-

to organizinc emergency preparedness wi-hin NRC, alternative crganizational i.

approaches should be developed.* The C0mmission asked that the alternatives

,(;

91 considered incluce:

(1) creation of a separate EDD staff office, (2) consoli-i-.

O cation in a major program office, anc (3) organiza-ional approacnes se: forth

&~

in SECY-79-499, " Report of the Task Force on Emergency Planning."

};

l

ine inree "11e,sland acciden; ma, es it clear that serious accidents :an and i

x

.:~

will nappen.

NRC must place greater em:hasis on planning for the aftermath yk. l i

ci at:1 dents and responcing in a way :.na: nmits their narmiul e.fects en the r.

1 public.

sc l ine itsx r:r:e proposed a numcer Of actions intended to improve emercency

~

i l

preparecness tiithin NRC, an: some Of -hese can be f acilitated by Orgiri:ationai nan;e.

H0 wever, orgari:ational changes alene canno substitute for the major ic; ion necessary to imor0ve NRC's emergen:y crepare ness functions of planning, iicensing, im:lemen.ir.; an: testing, and resp;ating ar actual emergency.

N Tna: is, i; is imperative :na: NRC's emergency prepare: ness activities os

[.*r i

pulled toge:ner into a singie program that re:0gni:es the operational na ure of these tasks.

a

.r Tne lessons Of :ne Three Mile Island at:icent and findings of the e ". - : e. s.. ". s =. v a...= 1 c. n =.. '....-...a r. *... n s '. c a. *. ". i - m.. e.s.r. * ". l -

. a s k. : -..-.. c. - -..

o

. 3 i.i r d 4. $.o c c. i e - 2

  • c..m e.:.s
  • 4.. c-. j e r.

3 o.s y i];

o v.

e....e. r.- o. n.-),
m. e.c. s.s r.

- m. e..e g

e. r.

.s'cg w.i.-s; o a

re.

,,.r,.,,....:e.

i,

't

/

.. c.

  • e.c i e..e.

s e. e...C.

" J ' 'A,

.C : * \\.....

. '. - e..e r :

q,

.. a..

.e w.

.e i

..N

,J c :... e. e. r..

c....e.. :a m. e... ;o e r c.a :r. c. v-r s. t e "
4. c j o.'.. "L a J.. e r
  • j o n c n

4

..l r

e o..

u.

o.

., l.2 e. e. o...,

'l '1 '.e n s I 8 6 ),

'I "s..- )A.". 10 *. 6. '4 1 *.

  • C. f. 4 r', & f8 " " C. C * * "' i E "
  • E*-

2" e

. J I

4

.8d.

.w.

.. i a uai emerger.:y.

ine 00=?Onents f tnese functions are shown ir Iable I.

4 1

l' f

2 i

t.

1..

i o

The Task Force found that NRC's emergency preparedness process-was

~

fragmented and inconsistent in dealine with the licensee, State, local

[.,

2g.

and other Federal agencies.

This fracmentation sh0uld be reducea er eliminated.

frr o

Emergency preparedness recuires a close linkage between planning for s

and responding to an accident. Those responding must be very f amiliar with the details of the plans, preferably by developing the plans or y

participating in a central way in this cevelopment, as well as through I_!

tests.

Also, the planners must have operational knowledge about the realities cf an emergen:y respense.

~

Emergency preparecness, because it inholhes technical and cperational o

expertise in all the functions of planning, licensing, implementing and

~

l testing, and respencing, should be par: cf NRC's operational program i

and integra ed with similar expertise and functions.

II.

Cr;anizational 00-icns T0 perform sne essen-ial emer;ency :resare: ness func icns, this pa:er considers 2

f:ur o;; ions for cr;anizine emergency precareoness at NRC:-

0;; ion 1:

(Status Que) An EDD-level Cocrdinator; Option 2:

Create (or augment) an EDO-level Staff Office;

.f Option 3:

Consolidate in licensing offices and IE;

0;;icn 4

Cons:lida:e in a Sin;ie Program Office, i

Ins ep;iens are arraye: cy function an: Offices responsitie in Table 1.

0

,w 4

w 0

e W

  • O W

D WW e

is 1:Or ved,-abcu: 43 ?e:ple w"il',

he' available Curir.; EY 1930 f:r ar.y f :ne emergency repare ness Op* ions.

9

Discussion of Or:anization Options 0 :i:n 1 - 5:stus :u0. an EDO-level Coordinator.

This is essentially the offices' responsibilities as they existed prior :: the accident a TMI.2 with the addition cf a coordinator reporting to :ne EDO.

The coordinator's fun:tions are (1) with the help of Offi:e representatives, monitor all emergency preparedness activities among offices; and (2) represent NRC in interagency activities. Under this option, SD promulgates upcated rules and gui:ance ir, coc;eration with the licensing effices; NER continues, and NL'.55

egir.s, to approve aci n:y emergency plans; h...

ane

,c,..c.c provide technical s

nn assistan:e curin; an ac:icent; 5F continues to ;r:vice traininc anc field assistance an: c:ncurs in State plans; and II ins;ects for compliance with ap;r0ved plans and :rovices a focal scint for ac:ident response.

Ai:ncugh this 0;tien orevides increase: coordina:icn within NRC and a sin;ie pei r.: Of contact for outsice entities, a coordinator with:ut separate expertise an: : i re:: line cen:r:1 cver staff w:ui ce able :: c: li::le more than track 5:r.e:.ies an: try :: prevent du:li:atics of eff:r:s.

This does li::le te ti..inish :ne fragte :ation of emergency :reparedness a::ivities in NE: because Of.:he many cifferen: cffices and tneir werk with different constituencies --

Feceral agencies (IE, SP), State and local authorities (SP, IE), and licensees e", n :. 7... e.e, I

., n..e n...

s m

'b y

e e

D h

y e.e ;en:y :re;are: ness res:ensibilivies ir$ a sin:le ef#i:e re::-tin; cire::iv

:-e E::, ei-her :y ex:an:in; s; s r:ie :r :rea:in; a new, ce:ica:e: :efi:e.

(

Ir.e :ffice U vi e res;;rsible f r all emer:enCy re:are ness functions l

l l

4

. rare.

.p;

.a

3-

.....q....

m j............. i q.Sa ui. 3 - 9:,.;..._.g...g.. q.p a.y.. g.;

(Iis*.t nliise luiun has leail)

Oplion 10 Option 2 Option 3 Option'/

l 1 Atilll.llG

~ Develop ~snidance/ rules for 111til/ Nil 55, SD SP/ flew EDO Office, tiltil/flilSS, SD IE, SD 1irensee plair, ilRil/titlSS, SD Develop quidance for State SP, SD SP/ flew EDO Office, tiltit/flilSS, 50 IE, SD anil local plans 50

- Develop flitt response pian

10. SP SP/New EDO Office, Hitil/NilSS, il IE 10 1.101IISlilG

-- llevicu & approve 1icensee plans fiftil/titlSS SP/New EDO Office **

liftll/NilSS lE**

- llevicw & concur in 51 ale and SP SP/ flew E00 Office Hilll/llf1SS

~10 local plans Irlpi l tti filitlG L II.511tiG Inspect liccusecs attainst plans IE lE IE IE

- l'repare f or,'parl icipale in, and SP, IE SP/New EDO Office, IE, flltit/NilSS IE.

evalnale exercises IE l'roviile Iicid assistance &

SP SP/ flew EDO Office IE lE training Itll,l'Orin i flG 10 1111itGl.IlEY 0

- l'roinp l. I ie til response IE IE IE IE

- Itun incislent itesponse Center (IRC)

IL IE 10 10

- Carry out flRC plans and monilor EllI, SP IflT, SP/New EDO Lill EMI licensee, State aiul local, and Office federal actions (involves information flow, evaluation, assistance and clirect inn where appropriate).

Itale of 1.00-Enordinator would be to coordinate atul monitor all the above activities.

llrgan i /al inn inilicated would approve plans as an input to the tillit or flMSS licensing process.

l.fil = l.xerutive flanagement Team.

- - ;;4...;;

- r e: -

,:.1,.

.m-

~ ~ - - -

I

.t t

except inspecting, prompt field response, and running the IRC.

This cption wouic transfer nearly all responsibility for emergency preparedness from tlRR anc NP55.. and SP, if a new office is created.. :: the EDD cffice.

0 s.3,,,

w-...v. 3 u.

-.c.

.. c.a.a..

c.~ "..e i c. *. e. n.

c. -". i c a n - a.

sw i c e n s a.a. s.

r.

a w...w c.ivino. a sin:le er., ice responsib111t.v tor reviewinc. and concurring in licensee, State and local plans, this option would improve the interaction am:ng all participants wnich may be cme m0re crucial i# 00ncurrence in State plans be:Omes a mandatory pre-condition for licensing.

This option woult' provice

=

.e i r. - l a.

m*i..

^#

d 5 4 - a l a. v =.1 4 r. N R " # o.

o C *. w" i n.2 + "6 n e...e. ; a...,v w'..a.-.

.**. 2 r

.i

.i:.

i

+

3

.2. c. o r e..c e g. 4.y..jo.e i r.: l i.

,)'..r i e

.. i d

d d

1, C.. a. c,

'I o g g i

.. s.

icr$. :

c. r.:

. i o....

] 4. r. s. e.. s c' c... '." e s c.

'.,V

'. h. P.a.

a. e.

e. r.. ' ".n. ' i r4'. s C.

~

--....*.C.,

ImX',

Iu" '..<..<,, <~

anw# I.~.

o u

w.

9 4e c.., =.,. 4 C,..

r.,. 4.,

.4.,.,..

.a r

ivo i a

4i n

r. o...,. 4 n y : r n.. ac.

3.

1 C,...

i.s in

. 1Cn I,

e

e....

=.....

h. w 3. \\.c. r., n... e. -,. 0.
  • ,1 e.w.
i.,,......

.e

.e.. e.. 13,. V c. 'i.

r. e... r.

.c i.a, s

10,,.

ov..c.

c.

vs.

e,,e 4.

2

.q,

q. c. c.,.
c.... n c. c. 4. 3. h e-C " c.. = *. 4. 0 n c ~1, Cr l#nc,..:.."., r = c #,

i

'. !. :. '.i -., 0 -. i. ~* O ". * "... i. n n o. c e :.. e. e....., f

.. e.. :.. e.

n. =. c e... r. -. r.2...
r. - 'i.:. ;

o.

r 2

e.... j,.,,

S.

,. 3..

4.

..,p.

  • s ^.. e. # ~. # 'i i. v
  1. . ~'.

d-

,,... e #, #, 4, i.. n....

.g

. i An a::i.ionai ;rebiem with the new EDO cffice role is that it woul: n:: help I

n:: -

e. i.n,. i. t.,y

. n.

~

o. r,.,, s. i y e. e

.e..,. i...

w3 s

~he ng s+.a:.:i v.

1.. w,,~.

h,ve

.e ra.-.

nza..

o3 c as...

r w:

3

. e.

e..

3, a... < a. c. s 2.... e r. s.,

4. >'

. :. 2... c. r...,

4. :
2.. e. e y e.. c j.,,..

,. i

..i 6

..i.

!.g

9

.v

.. c.,

e...
4. r..; '..

" f.e c.

4..Je.

3 l e i 2. mew 2.i

.g s,

,,.g.

pe......

Ac.

r.e.:.. e. =. = 4,. 2....,g.

p p

.ii.. t.y 7

g.: e...

b,. 4..

.rg

  • .Jaq...;

3,.. ; } 4..,,

3;. =I,,,,,...,.

3,.

,. 3 i

.....i.

I; i...

4.

,.. c...

4,,. g

e..

3,...

,,,r.,g

.,g 3,,.

.,g,g

......i..,....

i.

6,3

.**5,.

  • a 3..d

.p.

.p g

gP....P.{.*.6

.. 6.

4

c Dotion 3 - This option calls for a limited consolidation, centrali:ing f-p responsibility in the appropriate licensing Offices and in IE.

It divides lead responsibilities as follows: planning and licensing to NRR/NMSS with

[.}t implementing, testing and responding primarily in IE.

NER and NMSS woule review the plans cf licensees, States and local governments and oversee SD's h.i oevelopmen; or. uc.c.racec c.uices and re:ulations.

a wou ld be responsi5,ie,, or

...=

the implementin:, testinc. and response functions.

[

r;

r m'

ilmi u

hls...te: 00nso n ea:1on woul:. reduce the num er or. or71ces involved in i

emercenc.y "re aredness, thus reducing some Of the fracmer.tation.

While i would e <

provice more centrali:a lon, the key functions or planning, tes ing, anc-responcing Woui:..:e spn: :e we en k... /te...c.q an:. n..

n In su==ary, Option 3 w:uld permit health an: safe y responsibilities for emergency m y c.. s e. c. A.n o. g g. m. s..e j e. c. j.v.,

..e.. c e. *****g.

g. t. j e. c. e.

e Ti i.

m. J r *. ;. *..,., g y-i s. p. e g,..

he

. J r..

v

..w3 Would re*eiVe attention fr00 theprograroffice(NEE)hahina the COS: site-rela e:

experience ir, emergency planning, and testin: and responding woulc os in :ne offi*e (IE) Wi n a field or ani:ation tha~ perCi s ClOse interactiCn with li;ensees,. "

i

.c. s. : 3.,. ] w~.s.1

.s..... -. 4. i s. $.

..g a. y s..,

c.,... c. 1

.w i.. m..e s v.. e j a

.. t e,

e. n y.

.a 1..i w.i..

1

=. -. o..c e. 1.. -.. i.-. =. - i y i c e.

.s...... -. g e.

e e. i,. e..

t.c c. :. T.s j e i

e. c

.c..e - a. s 4..". "... i t e.

s

.s r.

v t

o.

t j

. :e., e,p.c.c a.3

.)

.. y h*

Oo:icn 4 -

This c: tion would consolidate the leadership for ali emer:ency pre.

ye

.i..,.I',y...,.

O.,,

N r...

r

..,,.. r. e 4

. p. C P.s.. e,

.s * *

c... e. *. - :.

,y a c.e., g p c - e.. c. c e.

e... - -. i g i s.

ga. y a.-

m. e. e. - ) e,. i..- s. c..

l..

y 1 I e

4 g

p 7

i w

. 44 O..P.

.$. 3. O

.O,

.O.. s w- @6 e Op b..

O G.

P. s y. ~

.N

. O $..

.g.M..

...nj.

.,.... J p g.

pg g

g g

g,gg,g m..

4.

s

........3.

].s* ' 4. e e - e..-. J.

c..,. c. e.....

..,,.. >.s. c s.,4

... s \\. 4.. j a..c.

s F

9 pg p

....P gy m e

W

( j * * *, '.) P..P (

@-#... P. 8 f. F 8 r..$

(

g(*3M

(

g8 g

p

..#1..

pgegp..r..

g mp

.p.g t

.w,

a.. e...3 :-e. z e.
    • g
  • .s*g S.. c
  • c.

=:.y:.

-=:=

y.'l..*.*, p g e =. m e..e, 4..m a

  • 4. =. j,.*

,a

-se 1

  • : c... e...........:

.....j

. '.. c..

.s e. e g e e -..- i -

4.e.= a. c. e.. e y.s. e.

.e..s. e. e : c e.e c... a.

T. :.

1

.e

.;.. a i a

.5 a

.i s... -

i.

1 l

6 Option 4 provides the greatest degree of centrali:ati:n and coordination for t

all emergency preparedness activities and promotes an integrated ap: roach to 5,

mitic.atinc. the conse,uences of an accident.

It also places emergenc.v planning and responding together in an office with technical and operational responsi-i bilities for health and safety at all licensed nuclear f acilities and with a h:

?:.

well-established field organization capable of responding to an accident.

{}

e Under :nis option, a sin;1e line Office (IE) would have primary res:ensibility

~

for emergency,reparec. ness.

inis approacn ci centra...n:1ng in a line c,,1ce recogni:es the emergency preparedness functions as an operational program.

Optien 4 establishes the im:ortance of emergenc.v planning while providine continuity, c0ntrei and consistency.

Furtner, it su:: orts an important pein; discussed at the c nference en F,acioicgical Emer;ency Preparedness Training, tha-

"... th:se wnc are responsibie for resp:nding will have a better un:erstanding cf neir rcle in: sc0:e cf their resposnibility if they have the ex:erience of

.....C..,..1*

3.

n,

.s..

.w.

g.,

3 e e i==

.ti.

> t ie I

l O

4 0

p....,....

e..

A s

SUMMARY

OF STAFF COMMENTS AND MPA RESPONSE 5

-.ne Tollowing is a summary of the comments received trem :ne stati.. citices on the

^

craft paper.

Mem:ranca receivec are attached.

NRR Comments Comments 1 & 2:

NRR suggests:

1) the designation of one office to direct Il emercency preparecness policy, anc wnich would rely on the expertise of other Offices, and 2) emergency planning reviews should be an' integral part of everall a: plication reviews.

MPA Rescense:

Tne "leac office" conce;; is addressed in the MPA overview.

Tne relationship of IE anc NRR/NKSS in the planning and licensing functicns is addressed in :ne paper.

Ccmmen 3:

T_ he : aper mixes emergency preparecness with emergency res:ense.

Cr.iy licensing reviews and preplanning for response are amenable for consciidatier..

M A Rescense:

The paper does distinguish betweer. emergency planning and response -- b :r func:icns being :ar: cf emergency preparedness.

The union of

':.anning, testing, an: resp:nse is ciscussed in :ne M:A evervies.

Comment 4:

NRR is willin; :: serve as the lead licensir.; cffice, giver. its

mments.in ite: 1, above.

NRR should be responsibie for implementing tear reviews.

MPA Resconse:

The HDA overview suggests that, because of NRR's lead in the ur: race, NRR assume a joint lead (00: ion 3) in the short term as part of the

-ansition to 0::i:n 4

_ ll NMSS Comments Comment 1,:

Cen ralization,'in one or more offices, of HRC's emt preparedness functions could result in a substantial improvement.

MPA Resconse:

Centralization is discussed in Options 2, 3, and 4.

1 Comment 2:

Removal of NRR and NMSS from those aspects of emergency i-preparedness that deal with licensee operations is unacceptable.

MFA Resconse:

The revised paper and new Table i include NRR and NK55 in tne licensing function.

Comment 3:

A redefinition of the phases of emercency preparedness (planning, licensing, implementation and testing, and ac val emergency resconse) would be useful.

MPA Resoonse:

These phases (or functions) have been emphasi:ed in the revised paper.

See Table 1.

5F Comments i

1 Commen: 1:

Assign the emergene.v planninc and presare: ness functior.s as they relate :: State and local governmen s t the new Fe:eral Emergency Manacemen: Agency (FEMA).

Al erna ely, cesignate a lead Office.

M A Comment:

This commen-is addressed in the overview paper.

Also, in

ne near term transfer :f some or all functions to FEMA was considered ill i

l acvised because action :n State and local pians should be taken expeditiously, t

ut :ne crocess needed for transfer an: for FEMA's tv id-u: in all likeiinood w:uld ake longer.

however, none of :ne

ions in :ne pacer pre:iute such a "ans fer rinen EEMA is rea y.

See ais: NOAJs resD:nse :: NRR C: men ~s i an: 2

n:ernu ; :ne i:EE Of a lea: Office, q

t T

  • i 3-Co m ent 2:

The argument that SP has a " conflict of interest" should be applied across the board to all offices.

MPA Resconse: We have deleted the " conflict of interest" concept from

~.

ne paper.

Commen: 4:

inere is confusion in appearing to tie review o,. emergency n

plans to weakening fiP,C's response to an accident.

MPA Resoonse:

We believe the latest draft of the paper has resolved this point.

.y Comment 4:

In the absence of the FEMA solution, 0 : ion 1 (EDO Coordinator) is preferrec.

E M:A Eesconse:

Nc conTnant.

Co=en: : :

ine National Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP) should be aedressed in the paper.

M:1 esconse:

We believe that tne NEPP is an Obvious adjunc to any option selectec.

For exam:le, if Option 4 is selected, the NEPP would Decome the res:ensibility of IE and wouic be ir. line witn rela se res:cnsibili-ies of the

.... s. o. r... : e--nee. o..-..

.....w~

':. Cements Comment 1:

It is inconsistent to dismiss SP-IE joint efforts.

M:A Ressor.se :

If :his comment refers to Option 2, we did not dis.>iss this c::icn cecause of a.icint SF-IE effe-.

However, we te',ieve 00: ion 4 i s superior

...;n.

c

..v..uv.-

ou ww

...Oa..

ww<..

l f n.o e 5 a v. e Q gg 5egew. 5av g o. C ' d V, $ 5 m g, 5

  • pme p.

noe

.Awg mg emi q

(d o

ivs 4.

a 6 w.

.s w w.i..

f.'. O i. O c..e..a c t =. +

r. a. t.
  • m.e c.

- m. e. *.

t.

=*

we e ww w w.a 4s

\\

4-i.

Cc=ent 3:

Option 3 puts NRR in the materials safety and safeguards business which ca.v be inconsistent with the Enerev Recreani:ation Act of 1974.

MPA Resconse:

The revised paper addresses the NMSS review of materials and fuel cycle licensees.

Cc=ent 4:

Under Options 3 and 4, it is net clear what happens to SF.

E MPA Resconse:

The responsibilities of SP concerning review and con-currence in State and ic:ai plans, field assistance and traininc, partici-pating in exercises, and monitoring response activities would be transferred.

e *. e. n.,me n..-

Cc=en: 1:

0: tion 3 is :referrec because a: Propria:e technical expertise is available cr can be ceveic:sc easily, ::perade efforts can continue without inter u::icn, and if necessary NRR can ensure an orderly transfer of CP and F*

C'.

con:urrences reviews :: FD ',A.

":A :lescense:

Ne cc=ent.

Cc=snt 2:

NMSS shouic re: in emergen:) pre.are: ness fun :icns similar

..,,e.

e t.

e c..r..

a

":A Resocnse:

Tne revise: : aper accresses ne NMSS reviem Of materiais 1

a.: fuel cycle licensees.

I Coren: 3:

The paper should clarify that SD will retain responsibility

  1. - writing emercency preparedness standards, regulations, and NUREG repor s.

M. e,...s :. -=~c..

sn~eid show is" - -

'. "w n. w. '. a ni.e +' vC.d "e

c ##, d - o,e

.=a-c.

"s-c-

..d w

w wn w

we iw s

sw was

.ig wa.

a..
4.,s,,n i.

a a

e

  • N Cw".",.
  • m.a.
  • A.
  • D. e.

.C P. A n. +. #. E. i. e. c.w. 0..c, ',*

  • e.

.. O. c e. w s. t. C.

...A l

. me C

a s. g " C C. P

  • A fw s w.

w.:

J... q. e.. j e. e..

"", p a w yss. g a g. *.

4*4.

a Jme

a..g e rwa n 4

a 4. J i a c. e.

p+. m. 5.,

...4....g

. n. g...

a=m.e..

e iw.

w..

i..,

ww

...s.

..w.

, 4,. 2 ; ] *1

. v. a. n. t e J.

.. g p e. A *

  • t
4. *o
  • 1 g-
  • q c.
a... d. a *..e.

v.

. w

?

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148C072&oldid=4176370"