ML20148C104

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Draft Organizational Options for Emergency Preparedness,Per 791031 Request.Agrees W/Option 3. Development & Implementation of Comprehensive Emergency Planning Involves Many Considerations & Disciplines
ML20148C104
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/23/1979
From: Minogue R
NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To: Haller N
NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA)
Shared Package
ML20148C069 List:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001250089
Download: ML20148C104 (1)


Text

.

f

^

m.*. t C,,,4, gr c-UNITED STATE 3 f

7. +.: T t.

NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION C

- 4.c.3,,,,, r-..'"..>

a WASWNGTON C. C. 2ns55

. ~., : n.

%,. '.. n Nove-ber 23, 1979 l'EMORANDU'i FOR:

Norman M. Haller, Director

~.

Office of Management and Program Analysis s

FR0u:

Robert B. Minogue, Director

?*

Office of Standards Development

SUBJECT:

DRAFT PAPER ON NRC ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS FOR f

-,e..,. R r L (t w s,rv --

n.-

nn ee L.

Q Yh rnhLun.4J As recues ted in your memorandum dated October 31, 1979, we have reviewed the draf t paper on NRC organizational options for emergency preparedness.

i :eiieve t,.at t.ne gevelopment anc..1mpiemen ation of cocorehensive emergency 01anning involves a very broad score of censicerations and disciplines.

On ti is basis, for reactors, I agree with your recommendation of option number 3, :cnsolica icn cf emergency pre:aredness functions in two program offices, a n,., 1 where varied encineerinc, sa ting, anc emergency planning n--

ex:ertise are available or can easily be develoced.

Aisc, this woul d allow N:: anc IE to cen*.inue present eff:-ts to upgrade emergency response plans anc prc:ecures, as well as make i: possibie for NRR to ensure an orderly t ans fe" of CP anc OL concurrence reviews c FEMA.

1 M c '. e v e r, for o:ner fuel cycle facilities, the o; tion should be included for N..55 to retain cer.ain emergency :reparedness functions analogous to those of NE:.

The dra #t ca:.er seems te dismiss this cotion by referring to the

re. i ous conscii da.i cn o f sa fec.ua rcs revi ews i n NY.55.

It can be arc.ued that

\\

- e e are many sir'iarities between sa feguarcs f r react:Ps and safecuards e,. -. E n..-

fa.4.14.*.iz..e.

' o w e. v e. r, =. ~. a. *.

  • c. m
  • v ". ' * "m*. #..,~ " ^
  • e i.dc. ". c- *. 4. o a..e
  1. . ^ Y. r e & * * * *. s

..o.

a rs.uc. dif fet en: fr r c:nsidera-icns fer fusi cycle facilities, because tre

=-tial a:-idents anc their consecuences are cor. letely different.

1: seems

vs that N".55 coulc approcriateiv retain emercencv planning functions for the fe'
  • fuel fac111:1es under its Jurisdiction, with a minimal resource ccmmitment.

We assu e that uncer any reorgani:ation, be Office of Standards Development acui d re.ain resrcnsibili y f0r wri-ing emergency :ianning standards as i. c. s. in e*-.=.

x ;.. e.

.x.

m... e..

,....: 4

..i

..c e..

i.. :. e.

e %. m., ) ;.%,

e i.3, r i #. 4i a s.,

4

.n s

in

'he.

,r s 8 '

In fE2er $nI be b) unC ons 5 eb a kChend X shCu e eXoab 6

" 'aciude not On'y ceVelo0 men: Of regulatiCns, bu*. all ty?es Of s ta0 Cards s: -- s s " c aul a tc *y 3'. i ce s a nc NURE G E e Po,rk s.
  • is:,, J :Dendi x I. sn0uld be

..,....fe,..::i,

,e..

/

..Io.

e...

..a ne..e

.y>r

,..--o.. --:n..

n i

.i....y i

g.

w

.w wai.

ws.lw

/

/

f'

/ :...s a.

v e. ~.... e., S.i*e"w**r ggh

e. e e s, -..e e.i..:

.e.

N,,.I-.

e.....

v v

-