ML20128C464

Responds to Re Adequacy of Emergency Preparadness at Plant

ML20128C464
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/24/1970
From:	Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Hatling R MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
Shared Package
ML20128C468	List: ML20128C464 ML20128C478
References
NUDOCS 9212040433
Download: ML20128C464 (3)

Text

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ .. _ __ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ ~

i

, its (, h i

APR 2 4 1979 l

l Mr. Russell Ratling Mrector of pubits Informaties (0

l

\

Misseeets tuvironmental Centrol Citimens Asseelettea

!f 26 East Enchange St. Paul, Minnesota $5101 l

i Dear Mr. Matlings i Your letter of March 9,1970, to Chairman Seaborg, which has been referred -

to me for response, raised several points concerning the adequacy of emer.

!l t

gency preparedness associated with the Monticello station. To discuss emergency planning in proper perspective, it is necessary to describe l- briefly the overall review process associated with the granting of a license to operate a nuclear power plant.

The ABC's review of an application to construct a reactor facility (such as the one filed by Northern States Power Company (NSF) for the Monticello f6cility in August 1966) involves a thorough esantination by experts of the

acceptability of the proposed site, the adequacy of the design features l and criteria provided to prevent accidents and to limit the potential consequences of any possible accidents. gramples of accident. preventing design features include the extensive and redundant control systems designed to shut down the plant at very consorystive levels in the event operating parameters approach values which indicate abnormal conditions.

The provision of conservatively designed primary coolant systems and containment are examples of consequence limiting design f0stures. The ABC regulatory staff's evaluation of the application is supplemented by an independent review by the Advisory Comum1ttee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRg).

Both the ABC regulatory staff and the ACRS make outensive use of consult.

ants in special technical disciplines who are active both.in government and indus t ry. The ABC also assures that the applicant will provide a very thorough and carefully reviewed program for quality assurance during design, construction and operation. In addition, the application is again reviewed at a public hearing by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. ,

Af ter considering all evidence introduced at such a hearing the Board makes a determination as to whether the issuance of a construction permit'should be authorised.

Prior to issuing.an operating itcones for a reactor facility, the ABC staff and the ACR8 perform. thorough reviews of the final design of the plant to assure that the facility was constructed as proposed. As part of the safety review at the operating license stage,-the ABC determines whether the appit-cant possesses sufficient technical competence to operate the plant so that l there is no undue risk to the health and safety of the public. g

\ omet > .

.g- SURNAME >

FIRST PAGE RETYPED AT REQUEST OF OGC. SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE! .

~

num ux.a is " L ,.-,mmna. oe

~" ~ " ~ " "~"

9.2/20 y0453

' ' Mr. R. Natling -2 APA 2 4 S/0 Our review of eastgemey plans proposed by applisease sesh as N8p is per.

formed as one part of the everall oefety review briefly described in tbs foregoing discussion. More spestftsally, with regard to emergency preparedness, we determine that the app 11 east has prepared an emergency

[ plan for seping with potential seeidents whiah providas fort ,

s. an 6tgentsation for septag with potential emergemeios, is which authetities and reopensibilities are clearly

,{

delineated, and which provides for rapid mobilisation of personnel poesessing unique qualifications to be utilised in an amargency

b. determining the magnitude of any release of radioactive materist from the plant site

c. determining what protective measures, if any, should be undertakent

d. establishing agreements with local, state and federal effi-cials regarding precedures for implementatism of protective measures, should these steps become necessary or desirablel

e. emergency first aid and personnel decentaminatical

f. treatment of the injured at off-site treatment facilitieel 3 testing of emargency plans to assure that plant personnel are familiar with their emergency dutiest

h. training of persons. ether than employees of the licensee whose assistance udy be needed in the event of an emergencyl and

i. establishing post-accident recovery precedures.

Based en our review of the Monticelle applicatten for a provisional opera-ting license we have concluded that NSF has an adequate plan to cope with emergency situations in accordance with the aforementioned list of characteriet.ics of emergency plana.

As your discussicas with Minnesota sfficials have emphasised, the decision to evacuate the public is a very important one. The responsibility and authority to order and direct such an acties belong to state and local officiale.

)

\

l

,_ ,__ _ __ - _ _ , _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . . , . , _ . _ _ _ . , _ , - _ . _ .._,...___._..._~m_.__ ,

i f

J t

1 4

'. Mr. R. Ratitas 3 APR 2 4 IWO l

i In the entremely moltheir event of en aseident uhtok ande eveematies asses-eary or desirsble, the responsible publie official would base his initial destoies, is large part, sa informaties immediately ovailable f ee the ,

i 11eensee regardies the matere and estaat of the radiologiest hasard. The

g .eth.de of t ,le.netatten of eveemeten .e tarse ensbere of pee,le, in the j face of radielegical hasard, would met differ substentially free these esployed in the event of other major inesstrial eseidents or motoret 4

disasters such as floods or tornadoes. In view of the demeestrated espa. '

bility of state and loest agenetes ,in Nieasseta to cope with emergencies,

I as for smaaple in " Operation Foresight" La the spring of 1969, we are 1 unable to agree with your comelusion that the state of Minneeeta te

...tetally unable to cope with an emergency should it occur."

i -

l As you are aware, the Commission has scheduled a public hearing for ,

4 April 28, 1970, in St. Paul, Minnesota, to consider whether a provisional i operatias license should be issued for the Monticelle facility. Your organisation, the Minnesota Environmental Centrol Citisens Association,

! has been admitted as a party to that proceeding. I would suggest that you l consult the NSP application and the AEC regulatory staff's Safety Evalua.

tien (copy attached) for further detail regarding the NSP emergency plans

and their adequacy.

Sincerely, l ,

Original Signed by i

Peter A. h! orris i Peter A. Morrie, Director Divisiem of Reacter Licensias-i i Encleeures l Safety Evaluaties for i Monticelle facility bec w/o enc 1:

H. L. Price, DR C. K. Beck, DR

! C. L. Henderson, DR j M. M. Mann, DR J. Felton, DR

( H. K. Shapar, OGC l '

D. J. Skovholt , DRL R. S. Boyd, DRL 4

D. Thompson, DRL PDR G. Ertter, DR l\ >

!\ oma i, l.... oS 8 BR1Q,, ,

,,g0ph},AtWR:DR OGC D: DRL I

( Itthompson:j r DJSl(pvIfolt R9 Boy P ris su-c .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4/24/70 4/24/70; ..4/) .k. .. .. . . 4A

. . ./70 /70 om i, mno uc. is +,. ..u, 4/.7[

U L . - ,.e.

..f...

l m -o . .

l

. . . . _ _ . _ _ . , . _ _ _ . _ . . . _- -- .._ ._. ~ ..- _ _. _ .-. _ - .-. 2.