ML092800079
| ML092800079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/2009 |
| From: | Sabo G Ashtabula County, OH |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 74FR23253 00014, PR-50, PR-52 | |
| Download: ML092800079 (11) | |
Text
PR 50 and 52 Rulemakinq Comments (74FR23253)
From: George R. Sabo [GRSabo@ashtabulacounty.us]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:42 AM To: Rulemaking Comments
Subject:
Comments on Guidance Changes Attachments: Rulemaking Comments for ORO Review 1001 09.doc
Dear Sirs,
As the Director of the Ashtabula County EMA which is located in the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone for the FirstEnergy Perry Nuclear Power Plant I would like to submit comments to you regarding the proposed guidance changes.
Please find attached comments and suggestion that were compiled after review of the proposed changes. It is my opinion that the proposed changes will not benefit the preparedness of the offsite response organization nor the planning process that is utilized currently. The changes may significantly increase costs incurred by the ORO in exercising the plans with no positive impact on protecting the public safety and health. Revisions are needed in any guidance document but only when they have added value and can be supported by all participants. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns.
Ashtabula County EMA 25 West Jefferson St.
Jefferson, Ohio 44047 (440)576-9148 DOCKETED USNRC October 6, 2009 (9:54am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF 2F 1 n-rlý* 6n-1 1 DSI/0
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking NRC Rule Area: Challenging Drills and Exercises Position/Comment on Issue the Proposed Cross Cuts To Basis / Comment Rulemaking Draft NRC Interim Staff Guidance The current exercise REP Program Manual, Compression of the proposed scenario elements (NSIR/DPR-ISG-01): cycle should be expanded NUREG 0654, Supp. 4 including the hostile action scenario within the from six years to an eight existing 6-year exercise cycle is impractical. Tracking Exercise Cycle: NRC and FEMA year cycle to include all of each scenario element in 3 evaluated exercises are requiring specific scenario scenario variations, creates such predictability and inflexibility that variations to be included in the contradicts the intent of the rule of providing six year cycle with the addition challenging drills and exercises.
of hostile action scenario and rapid escalation to SAE or GE at Expanding the exercise cycle to eight years is a more least once every eight years. effective way to add variability to exercise scenarios as opposed to having numerous requirements in a 3-exercise cycle.
For those states that have multiple NPPs within their jurisdiction, the requirement to include HAB events within the respective 6-year cycle defeats the cost effectiveness of the new requirement where the-same ORO assets would be required to repeatedly demonstrate the same response within given cycles which unnecessarily over burdens public safety assets.
Rev.4 10/1/09 Page 1 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking Draft NRC Interim Staff Guidance Delete statement, ORO Coordination Determination of release or no release and size of (NSIR/DPR-ISG-01): "Sccnaries ...ith no ra NUREG 0654, Supp. 4 release should be left up to the scenario development unplanned minimal team and should not be prescribed by the ISG. The Exercise HAB Event Extent of radiologieal Fe;ease purpose of an exercise is to improve performance and Play: NSIR/DPR-ISG-01 page 29 ehould not be used in having a radiological release during a HAB provides states "Scenarios with no or an onse,,utivc hkstile little training value.
unplanned minimal radiological action~p bascd exerciscx" release should not be used in This is an irrelevant requirement that is counter to consecutive hostile action-based the philosophy of the rule change on "Challenging exercises." Drills and Exercises" in that it specifies a sequence associated with hostile action based exercises that allows the emergency response organization to anticipate scenario design with respect to radiological releases.
The ISG would require that once every other demonstration, a HAB exercise would include a large release.
Further, requiring a large release associated with a HAB exercise is neither risk informed or realistic.
Exercises are typically designed using design basis events, relevant source terms, and include additional equipment failures not anticipated in design basis events which lead to radioactive releases.
Current philosophy exists with the current HAB drill scenarios. Scenarios are designed such that they exceed to DBT, however boundaries exist such as no take back is required in order to secure the plant.
HAB exercise scenarios should remain consistent with the extent of play requirements outlined in NEI 06-04.
Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 2 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking NRC Rule Area: Licensee Coordination with OROs (also see NUREG 0654- Supp. 4 Comment Matrix, page 6)
Issue Position/Comment on the Cross Cuts To Basis / Comment Proposed Rulemaking 10CFR Part 50, Appendix E, The extent of "ORO REP Program Manual, Based on our evaluation, we see that day-to-day Section IV.A.7, Draft NRC coordination". NUREG 0654, Supp. 4, public safety functions could potentially be evaluated Interim Staff Guidance Section III under the REP umbrella as well as redundant (NSIR/DPR-ISG-01): The potential impact here regulation and evaluation by both FEMA and the NRC.
is setting public safety The NRC rulemaking contains agencies up for evaluation statements of consideration for of the adequacy of mutual Offsite Response Organizations aid resources and the that include: redundancy and potential
- a hostile action based event for conflicts with Annual will place additional and Letters of Certification different demands on local submittals. Further, would law enforcement agencies additional REP training be and fire departments. The required of mutual aid out rule requires licensees to side of the EPZ?
coordinate with OROs to ensure resources are Sections of the ISG on With these statements in the ISG, the NRC is available. page 19 where the inappropriately directing action by the ORO - a paragraph starts off with responsibility that belongs to FEMA.
One example, "OROs should ......" should
- Verification of mutual aid be deleted. Licensees should be allowed to verify the availability agreements, including of ORO resources in a manner consistent with ORO rosters, training records, Sections of the ISG on inter-jurisdictional mutual aid/support protocols that page 19 and 20 that are already implemented for all hazards and law require the licensee to enforcement events.
verify ORO program elements should be modified or deleted, Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 3 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking NRC Rule Area: Back Up Means for Alert and Notification Position/Comment on Issue the Proposed Cross Cuts To Basis / Comment Rulemaking NRC 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, The Alert and Notification REP Program Manual, With the proposed language, a robust primary ANS isSection IV.D.3, Draft NRC rulemaking area requires NUREG 0654, Supp. 4, not being credited by the NRC and may in fact Interim Staff Guidance each site to identify, in Section IV discourage capital or other improvements to primary (NSIR/DPR-ISG-01): the event of a siren ANS.
malfunction, a backup method. The FRN states: "Guidance would be provided for Adding a requirement to provide Some sites already determining the acceptability of the backup methods a backup capability to the commit to a backup in based on the alerting and notification capabilities of primary alert and notification their plans, route the methods selected, administrative provisions for systems (ANS) alerting. NRC stated in implementing and maintaining backup methods, the public meetings that identification of resources to implement backup route alerting methods, and periodic demonstration of the backup implements the rule. methods." A review of rulemaking documentation Some sites have robust does not provide a clear picture of the expectations siren systems with for backup notification.
independent backup activation and sufficient It appears that NRC is not following the direction of back up power the Executive Branch. The proposed rule does not capabilities. And, recognize current directives at the federal level to according to SECY09- develop comprehensive emergency alert and 0007, these are notification systems that utilize a wide range of acceptable and yet the technologies to disseminate alerts and notification language in the ISG is messages for diverse conditions and events - missing creating new children, local weather hazards, mass casualty requirements that go situations. These technologies can be utilized for beyond the rule supplemental nuclear power plant emergency language. alerting and notification purposes, and would be more effective than single purpose methods Delete the 45 minute developed solely for nuclear power plant requirement. emergencies. A case in point is the FEMA Integrated Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 4 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). The vision of IPAWS builds and maintains an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible and comprehensive system that enables the public to receive alert and warning information through as many means as possible.
Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 5 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking NRC Rule Area: Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Updating Position/Comment on Issue the Proposed Cross Cuts To Basis / Comment Rulemaking NRC 10 CFR Part 50.47(b)(10), ETE revision threshold Details of the ETE updates and submissions should be Appendix E, Section IV: should be presented in provided in guidance documents. Therefore, future guidance not in the Code changes to the details of the updates would require Require licensees to review and of Federal Regulation. revision to guidance documents only, and not require update ETEs periodically and rulemaking.
submit to NRC for review and The threshold should be approval. Proposed changes to based on population The suggested population sensitivity study alternative App. E would provide the effect; not just a change supports the assessment of the effect of population required frequency and details in numbers. change on ETE between decennial Censuses on a site-of the ETE updates and specific basis, rather than a generic criterion (10%
submissions. population change Further, NRC has recently Several of the new requirements may be based on concluded that ETE information inaccurate interpretations of traffic control principles.
is important in developing public protective action strategies and 'The language in guidance focuses on high density should be used to identify population areas that is not the norm for the majority improvements to evacuation of the NPP sites and the respective EPZs plans.
NRC proposes that population changes of 10% result in updates to the ETE and the updates be completed by 180 days following release of census data.
Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 6 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking NRC / FEMA Rule Area: NUREG -0654, Supplement 4 NUREG 0654 SUPPLEMENT 4 POSITION/COMMENT BASIS LANGUAGE/ REFERENCE II. Integration of National Preparedness Section IV Challenging Drills and Exercises and The HSEEP process focuses on objective Initiatives into ORO Response Plans and the NRC ISG directly contradict the HSEEP process development that is based on capabilities and Activities, p.4: "The NEP was developed to test for exercise development, training needs; and is NOT scenario driven.
collective preparedness, interoperability, and What's being proposed by both the NRC and collaboration across all levels of government and A more practical approach to accommodating the FEMA is a scenario driven approach to exercises the private sector; it incorporates HSEEP as the objective of the rule would be to expand the that is not in conformance with HSEEP.
policy and guidance for exercise design, conduct, exercise planning cycle to 8 years.
and evaluation." NRC and FEMA's prescription for new scenario variables as described here and in the NRC ISG Section IV. Challenging Drills and Exercises, compressed into the 3 evaluated exercises in a
- p. 8: States that FEMA and the NRC have added planning cycle severely limits the creativity and new scenario variables, including varied release the quality of scenarios. Further, the tracking conditions, non-sequential escalation of emergency of these scenario elements enables them to action level, and incorporating HAB events." become very predictable to all exercise participants.
Inclusion of HAB events into the current 6-year cycle unnecessarily overburdens OROs particularly in those states where there are multiple NPPs.
III. Planning and Preparedness for HAB Criterion C.6 should stand alone and delete HAB events are being single out as the only Events, p 6., Coordination between Licensees the associated discussion. contingency that could strain ORO resources at and OROs the onset of an event at a NPP and assumes NRC stated in 9/17/09 meeting that this is not a insufficient resources available during an HAB "However, an HAB event will place increased new requirement and that if licensees are event.
demands on OROs, who will be expected to dependent of OROs to come on site ....... [check implement portions of State and local emergency 9/17 Public Meeting transcript] The proposed implementation of the new plans, such as traffic control points, route alerting, I criterion does not add value in that if a licensee Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 7 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking etc., as well as respond to potential hostile activities The implied implementation of this new and respective OROs had specific MOUs and at the NPP site and potential simultaneous offsite requirement is impractical. other associated attributes specifically hostile activities. This situation could detract from designated for a HAB event at a NPP, in the State and local emergency response if plans have The proposed implementation of criterion C.6 event of attack or other public safety event that not been revised to address this contingency. would introduce new and significant regulatory occurred prior to, or concurrent with the HAB OROs should be able to support implementation of burden and associated costs, without any event at the NPP, the MOUs, etc. are of no emergency plans during a broad range of commensurate increase in the ability to protect value.
contingencies, including HAB events. Emergency public health and safety. This criterion, and the response plans and procedures should be revised to associated proposed change to 10 CFR 50, OROs plan for contingencies all of the time incorporate these elements. Licensee agreements Appendix E,Section IV.A.7, essentially deal with regardless of whether there is an event at a with OROs (e.g., memoranda of understanding or the question of "backfilling" public safety NPP, a shopping mall, or a school. This new letters of agreement) should also be updated to personnel who may be assigned dual response criterion encroaches on arrangements/
reflect the arrangements for HAB events at an NPP roles - one at the NPP and one supporting the resources that are planned for as part of routine site. OROs should work with the licensees to identify offsite response plan for the NPP. The proposed ,public safety planning solutions that will ensure timely implementation of criterion is problematic on several fronts.
emergency response plans. For example, an ORO Concerning the Augmented ORO (AORO) Public safety agencies already have may enter into mutual aid agreements with resources. agreements, pacts, etc. that enable them to get neighboring jurisdictions and private sector entities, the support and resources when they need including both for-profit and not-for-profit
- There is no effective way of tracking changes them from any available resource. This is what organizations (sometimes called non-governmental to, or availability of, AORO resources. Public they execute every day for ANY event that organizations), to identify alternate personnel to safety agencies are under no obligation to consumes first responder resources. This is supplement local resources. The revised ORO plans provide resource assessments to either the already a principle of NIMS/ICS, as part of the and procedures should address required training for licensee or the NRC. If fact, many States response capabilities for Incident Command and the primary and alternate personnel. have laws specifically prohibiting the EOC Management.
Radiological training that would be necessary for dissemination of such information. In some functions could be delivered through an online addition, licensees have no effective means to Moreover, specific information detailing LLEA course or in the classroom at a frequency monitor staffing or personnel changes at resources and capabilities is proprietary to that determined in ORO plans and procedures. ORO AORO agencies. agency and would not be released/provided to plans and procedures should also include provisions
- Given the infrequent training or drill the licensees.
for just-in-time training updates as the event opportunities, and the natural turnover of progresses. Participation in drills and exercises personnel, AORO responders will likely have Licensees should be allowed to verify the should be encouraged to reinforce and to validate little to no familiarity with offsite response availability of ORO resources in a manner planning. Plans and procedures should also address plans and procedures for the NPP. This may, consistent with ORO inter-jurisdictional maintaining additional duty rosters of qualified in fact, detract from command and control mutual aid/support protocols that are alternate personnel." effectiveness at the time of the emergency. already implemented for all hazards and
- AORO resources may have competing law enforcement events.
demands in their own communities, or in other communities with which they have mutual support aqreements, at the time of the Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 8 of 9
Position and Comments on NRC Rulemaking New Evaluation Criterion: NPP emergency thus precluding their response.
C.6 Each organization shall make provision to
- In some cases, AORO resources would have enable onsite response support from OROs in a to respond (travel) against the flow of hostile action-based incident as needed. evacuees from sectors close-in to the NPP.
This will hinder their travel and lengthen response times.
- The criterion, as implemented by the NRC through NSIR/DPR-ISG-01, INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE, EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, will require NRC inspectors to verify ORO and AORO resources, verify mutual aid agreements (including notification, activation, training, and maintenance of duty rosters), and verify arrangements in ORO plans and/or procedures. This places NRC inspectors in a role of evaluating ORO planning and response capabilities.
The existence of "State of Emergency" laws obviates the need for this new criterion. After a governor declares a State of Emergency, virtually all State resources are available for response, on a prioritized basis, to a NPP event. Further, many States have entered into regional public safety agency compacts; these agreements facilitate rapid inter-State sharing of public safety resources. There is no need for the NRC, through the licensee, to drive the generation and maintenance of additional MOUs for AORO resources.
Section V: Backup Means for Alert and Same comments on Page 4 of this matrix, in Notification Systems response to:
NRC 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3, Draft NRC Interim Staff Guidance (NSIR/DPR-ISG-01)
Rev. 4 10/1/09 Page 9 of 9
Received: from mail .nrc.gov (148.184.176.41) by TWMS01 .nrc.gov (148.184.200.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.393.1; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:42:46 -0400 X-Ironport-ID: mail1 X-SBRS: None X-MID: 6866410 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroMADqVyUpFNj9T/2dsb2JhbABNgQVYExjBbgmNQoJKgWAE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,505,1249272000";
d="doc'32?scan'32,208,217,32";a="686641 0" Received: from mail.co.ashtabula.oh.us (HELO mail.ashtabulacounty.us)
([69.54.63.83]) by maill.nrc.gov with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2009 09:42:26 -0400 X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <65f464dd00020c10@ashtabulacounty.us>
Received: from ASHEXCHl .Common.AshtabulaCounty.Local ([172.16.1.52]) by ashtabulacounty.us ([192.168.254.48]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.0) id 65f464dd00020c10 ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:46:04 -0500 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- = NextPart_001_01CA45C1.A9A618B2" Disposition-Notification-To: "George R. Sabo" <GRSabo@ashtabulacounty.us>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject:
Comments on Guidance Changes Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:42:20 -0400 Message-ID:
<2966ECE8B1 F9C54EBADA38D214358FAB012461 FE@ASHEXCH 1 .Common.AshtabulaCou nty.Local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments on Guidance Changes thread-index: AcpFwalPLRYsEVK7RHe71Lm+9UO8Lw==
From: "George R. Sabo" <GRSabo@ashtabulacounty.us>
To: <Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov>
X-TM-AS-Prod uct-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.6298-5.6.0.1016-16928.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.081-5.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--27.081-5.0-31-1 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No Return-Path: GRSabo@ashtabulacounty.us