ML19325C705

Requests Answers to Listed Questions Concerning Recipient Role,If Any,In FEMA Mar 1988 Reversal of June 1987 Position on Sheltering Issue for Plant,Per Recipient Nomination as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs

ML19325C705
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/26/1989
From:	Humphrey G SENATE
To:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19325C685	List: ML19325C705
References
NUDOCS 8910170197
Download: ML19325C705 (4)

Text

. , , .-. - . - . . - . - - . . - - - - - . _. --

E. ':

Mees *g.ngumuy aseaw o,gi u mymasens

- -p y f . , , , , , , , , , , ,

an meg.,g,gansee "'"

11Ritd,$tatts $tRatt 4

z amr, .- s s ,e o

m w., .

• September 26, 1989.

N l -

I Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr.= J y Executive Director.  ;

L office of operations .

l K. o U..S. Nuclear Regulatory commission l Y' 1717 N Street, NW' i Washington, DC 20555 Dear Mr. ttellor l The Senate has received your nomination to be Given theAssistant.

problems secretary of Energy for Defense programs.

E associated with the Department's defense-related activities, l the-importance of-this nomination ~sannot be understated.

L You are well' aware'that licensing of the Seabrook L

D '

nuclear facility in-my> state has been contenticus. I have

- followed the process closely with the objective'cf attempting to ensure that legitimate concerns At times, associated I have foundwith evacuation this to be planning are addressed.

extraordinarily frustrating.

-One:of the more bizarre and unnerving incidents L associated so-calledf" FEMA with Seabrook Flip Flop". evacuation planning was the. Federal reg L Federal' Emergency Snagement Agency (FEMA) to provide t-

" finding and determinations as to whether: state and local.

emergency-plans are adequate and-whether there is-reasonable assurance that they can be-implemented."

In June 1987, FEMA had concluded that the evacuation h plans submitted by the State of New Hampshire did'not provide

)

adequate seabrook, facility.

protection of the beach population surrounding "...it theFEM appears that thousands.of. people could be unable to lea l radioactivity without adequate shelter for as much as the I entire duration of the release." Unless the issue was resolved, FEMA concluded, the New Hampshire plans could not be' deemed " adequate".

By March 1988, yEMA had reversed position on the shcitering issue.

Well over a year after FEMh's startling reversal, many details of the events which led up to it are unclear.

Subsequent testimony, however, does suggest that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and you as its Executive Director 1

may have had a role in influencing FEMA's reversal. '

~

O"aE$ 8 IDO---004775 dN 0170197 891002 ***"**"'

PDR ADOCK 05000443 th,,, PDC ,

lL l } [

h ,fQS . g -[

j

$9I~s - :s * }

ap '

, t ur. l Victor Ste110,: Jr.

O September 26,-1989:

j Page Twoi ,

p Your pending nomination presents a splendid opportunity '

to clear up what actually happened.- At issue are questions of' judgement, respect for proper procedure and a commitment to the full-protection of the public--all-clearly germane to the Senate's deliberations for the post to which you have

?Y; 'been nominated. I would therefore appreciate your responses to tne followings.

1. On what date did you first'become involved in the E

" emergency evacuation planning process for the seabrook '

facility?

.--2. When were you firt,t made aware of the 7EMA official '

!~' . position filed with regard to seabrook- Jicensing in June 1987 that the New Hampshire 1.dRP does not provide a " reasonable assurance.that adequate protective measures can and will be.

takenLin the event ofta radiological emergency"?

' 3. Did you discuss the FEMA position with any other official of:the Federal government, including FEMA, or the If so, please l.

state of New Hampshire, on or after June 19877 j

give the-date and nature of the discussion and wfth whom the L

~ discussion was held.

4. Did you direct, authorige or require any official

-from.the NRC to take any action, pursue any question or j

l suggest-anyfchangewithregardtotheFEMApositionasra. eased-in Ju t

September 1987.- If so, what action did you direct, authorise or; request?

7 ;.-

5. Please. list'all contacts between you or any other member of the NRC staff with officials of FEMA regarding

' evacuation planning at Seabrook.- Please provide detailed information about the nature of'the contact and what transpired.

6. In a deposition of Ed Thomas, a former FEMA official deeply involved in the Seabrook proceedings, he testified of a meeting held on January 19, 1988 at which you were alleged to have stated that the NRC would " engage in total war with FEMA if we.[ FEMA) didn't change our testimony in the beach population." Curiously, the Boston Einha reported on March 18, 1998: " Victor Etello, the NRC's top safety official, confirmed thatOur attorneys and [FFMA's) attorneys worked together in the Seabrook case.' He said that his only

-involvement was a week ago, when he got a call from (FEMA Director Grant) Peterson advising him that FEMA was about to i

d-

Of .

., j!'j. f'

y[pW;  ?'

i

V' ,

k-t .

' Mr. Victor 8tallo, Jr.-

• g c  :

l september 25, 1989 '

. Page Three t

-file testimony reversing its position. 'I got it, read

-it...and it sounded fine to me,' Ste11o said.'"

A.RHow do you reconcile these conflicting accounts? P

-B. What was-the-axtent of your personal involvement in discussionstwith FEMA on Seabrook emergency planning inegotiations prior to March 19887

7. Please provide copies of all NRC documents relating to' negotiations or-discussiona with FEMA on emergency planning at Seabrook, . including transcripts of meetings or notes from meetings involving officials from the two agencies.

8.,Mr.LThomas has also testified that then-FEMA Assistant General Counsel Flynn told him during the week of

" FEMA, in essence, was doing a January'18, 1988 that,

180-degree shift in its position with ratpect to the Seabrook i l beach.

with tgopulation. . .that this };.ad been promised at a meet ng i L e NRC's' Victor Stello.

A..Are you. Aware ut such an agreement?

8. Were you a direct party to such an agreement?

L

c. If such an agreement were entered into, please cite th's legal basis for it,Jincluding how such an agreement would L be consistent with FEMA's obligations under emergency 1 planning regulations. ,

9. Testimony indicates that on January 15, 1988, you L, .: telephoned the FEMA ~ Associate. Director for State and Local LPrograss- and-Sup; port, Grant Peterson, and that you "showed concern" about what you had heard of FEMA's testimony with 1 regard to Seabrook (On-January 13, FEMA counsel had indicated i

to Judge Smith that FEMA would be sticking with its original position wLth regard to the adequacy of emargency plans).

A. Who reprted to you on the Janu6ry 13 FEMA testimony to Judge Smith 7

3. Please give your account o'f this conversation with Mr. Peterson and specify the nature of your " concern [s]".

I would appreciate a prompt response to this letter.

• • e- %- .e-....-~-...-....-w .-_m --=w - - . . _.- - -s-- _ - ___.________________e

c ,, .-

. 8 m, ..

l o.-

g ,.. ' , ,

,ti et.;l

.., o-

' i, l

- . + . . . ,

Y.gy *' 1

.c < L .

w =. ._

3 gr .1 Victor ste11o/ Jr.- .;

$ ,.3; September 26,L1989- j 7

Page Four ,

V u " sincerely yours, -

.; f. -

( ,

.. s c

7Gordon .-Hump y, l

t

[

s 4

GJH/gm~- i 3

o t I:

I k

i t

Y 6

l t

l.

l

! i

[';

'a

\f. _

l'

,1o I- r ,

I

'(

5 c .:

i i

l:

1' I

0 I

- g 5 6 . _. . _ . . . . - - - - - . . . . - - . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . , . . . . - _ _ . . . _ . - . _ _ _ - _ . , - _ . .