ML19221A577
| ML19221A577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1978 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19221A578 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-78-450, NUDOCS 7905230230 | |
| Download: ML19221A577 (11) | |
Text
F "hN-
~-*-+
w=
grv3 uc u-mm NUC:.EA,T REGut.Amay COMMis31CN
^"S"5" 'S78 INFORMATlON R EPORT SECY-78-450 For:
The Ccmmissioners From:
Robert G. Ryan, Director for Office of State Programs Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations' /,5 / '
Thru:
U.
/
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER EidIRONMENT REPOR (CBE-7865)
Subject:
" NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVACUATION PLANS" Purcose:
To provice the Ccmmissioners with an analysis of the sub-ject report and the status of several key elements of the NRC effort in assisting State and local governments in Radiological Emergency Response Planning.
Issue:
The subject report is critical of NRC and Federal pro-grams and efforts in preparing emergency plans for evacuating the populations surrounding nuclear pcwer plants.
Disscussion:
On May 15,1978, an organizaticn called'" Citizens For a Better Environment:
(CBE), based in Chicago, held a press conference and issued a report entitled " Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Plans" (No. CBE-7865). is a copy of the report; enclosure 2 is the CBE press re-lease.
i The report covers a variety of matters related to Federal emergency planning and preparedness.
A detailed State Programs staff analysis is at enclosure 3.
The highlights l
of the report and release are as follows:
CBE is critical of the NRC and other Federal agencies o
involved in what is called " Evacuation Planning" by CSE. The CBE accuses the NRC of refusing to take responsibility for evacuating people surrounding licensed nuclear pcwer plants.
CBE further accuses the NRC of assuming responsibility up to the fence line bordering the plant, and leaving it up to other agencies to handle the problems once the radioactive plume travels beyond the licensee's property.
e CBE cites casualty numbers in excess of 300,CC0 persons which wculd result frem a serious accident at a nuclear facility. This number was obtained frem a Union of Concerned Scientists' report wnich re-viewed the NRC Reactor Safety Study (WASH-la00).
Contact:
RGRyan, OSP tot: 492-8170
~'.,,.
s 1 HECollins, OSP 7 9 0 5 2 3 0 "' 3 0 Tel: 492-7210 J
y <..
165 049
_r_
o e CBE refers to NRC's emergency planning and prepared-ness program (with the States and local governments),
as a" makeshift" program to try to get the States to develop their own " evacuation plans." CBE criti-cizes the Federal Preparedness Agency's (GSA) at-tempts to come up with a " Federal Response Plan for Peacetime Nuclear Emergencies" over the past 3 years and claims that FPA/GSA assigned the responsibility for evacuation planning in case of a major nuclear plant accident to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an agency that CBE says, is neither qualified to do the job nor interested in doing it. CBE also states that there is no Federal agency developing plans to evacuate large numbers of people in the event of a major accident at a nuclear power plant.
e CBE states that the role of evacuation planning thus falls to State and local agencies, "who are ill equipped,under trained, and almost totally unfunded."
CBE states that "their degree of preparedness to evacuate significant numbers of people in a nuclear plant accident ranges from negligible to nonexistent."
e CBE identifies the NRC as "the real culprit which jealously guards its legal authority to regulate the small radioactive releases that routinely emanate from nuclear power plants, but disclaims any respons-ibility for insuring that the public is evacuated in the event of large radioactive releases that would r,esult from an accident."
e CBE charges that the NRC is violating its obligations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which ~ requires that the peaceful utilization of atomic energy must be "to the maximum extent consistent with the ccmmon defense and security and with the health and safety of the public' (Atomic Energy Act, Section 3 (d)).
s CBE says it intends "to pursue legal remedies very soon to rectify this negligence on the part of the Commission."
e CBE believes "that the culpability for the current situation extends to the White House, where the htional Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the President's Reorganization Project have produced no solution to the impasse on developing a Federal plan for peacetime nuclear emergencies."
e CBE concludes that effective emergency plans do not exist.
165 050
' The report unfortunately is broad brush and negative in character and many of the allegations do not square with the facts related to flRC activities.
It contains littla constructive criticism and there are no positive recommendations for improv-ing emergency planning and preparedness.
The report and the CBE press release describe fiRC's emergency preparedness program and our efforts with the States as " makeshift," which is demonstrably not correct. The report concentrates on evacuation planning and implies that evacuation is the exclusive remedy available to a State or local government in the event of a serious nuclear accident, ignoring virtually all other protective measures.
The Comission should know that SP staff spent several hours on the telephone with the primary author of the report, Mr. Peter Cleary earlier in the year, supplied numerous documents and answered many questions in writing. Mr. Collins' February 21, 1978 letter to Mr. Cleary is attached as enclosure 4.
The SP staff analysis of the CBE report (Enclosure 3) points to a number of errors and omissions in the report, and provides facte on the NRC and other Federal agency activities in assisting State and local governments in radiological emergency prepared-ness.
Our analysis makes no judgment of the adequacy of activ-ities controlled by FPA/GSA, FDAA DHUD or other Federal agencies or the President's Reorganization Project dealing with emergency preparedness.
While we obviously dispute the sweeping denunciation of our program by CBE, we do not mean to suggest that the program is perfect or should remain static.
On the contrary, many import-ant things remain to be done and serious questions remain to be answered.
For instance:
1.
The completion of the ilRC-EPA Task Force an Emergency Planning report and Comission/ EPA Administrator approval of this report. This report will provide guidance to the States on the type of accidents at nuclear power reacters for which thy should do emergency planning. A draft was sent to the Comission April 28, 1978, as an enclosure to SECY 78-231. The final revised report should be ready for Comission consideration in September 1978.
2.
We are particularly concerned about the ability of State and local governments to finance their radiological emergency preparedness efforts. We propose to reccmmend to the Commission ways of meeting those needs, specifically funding for development and testing of emergency response plans.
A Commission paper on this itein should be ready also in the Fall.
165 051
. 3.
While we are pleased with the radiological emerge.ncy response operations course we are now conducting at the Nevada Test Site, we think that the number of courses should be increased from 10 to 16 per year and we have taken step; to provide for this increase.
Courses for first-at-the-scene and medical personnel currently under development must be put in place.
We have included in our bu'dget requests for FY 1979 and FY 1980 funds to cover these projected increases and additions.
4.
We must review the legal authority under which cw program with the States proceeds.
SP continues to believe the NRC's radiological emergency preparedness efforts with the States are producing generally acceptable results with-out specific legislative compulsion.
But, there continues to be lingering doubt in some quarters.
Our views and any appropriate recommendations on this subject will be in-cluded in a Ccmmission paper during the nexc several months.
In the past, the emergency preparedness program involving State and local governments has been a backwater at the Commi:;sion.
NRC expenditures for this program in FY 1978 will total $250,000.
This represents.15% (.0015) of the total NRC FY 1978 budget.
The SP radiological preparedness staff censists of three full time professionals and one clerical person; this represents.154
(.0015) of the total NRC FY 1978 complement of 2,662 employees.
To assure its success, the NRC obviously will have to devote more time and resources to the program in the future than it has in the past. We are pleased that the Ccmmission approved our request for the addition of one professional in the FY 1980 budget for the purpose of increasing our capability in the evaluation and concurrence of State and local radiological emergency response plans.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations
(
Secretariat Robert G. Ryan, Direct r Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
1.
CBE Report 2.
CBE Press Release 3.
SP Staff Analysis of the CBE Report 4.
February Letter Frcm Collins to Cleary With List of Enclosures 165 052
8 4
4 es ENCLOSURE 1 1
1 a
i 165 053
_