ML20147H872
| ML20147H872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1988 |
| From: | Ostrander F MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Meyer D Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5761, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL, NUDOCS 8803090091 | |
| Download: ML20147H872 (73) | |
Text
r 576/
ettAw corunstwouncn?n5550r"N W THE COMMONWE%LTRDF MA5JACHUSETTh ~;.j"$
+M
~,
N
}
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL C X hE ?[I 1,
r 7
JOHN W. McCoRMACK STATE OFFICE Butt.olNG
Nr C
'v/
oNE ASHBURToN PLACE. BOSTON 021081698
'88 MR -7 P2 :28 JAMES M. SHANNON ATTonhav othian f!
t]'[g[
SRANC" March 3, 1988 David Meyer, Chief Program Procedures Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency Mail Stop - 4000 MNBB Washington, DC 20555 Re:
Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Precaredness
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Enclosed please find Comments of Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon in Opposition to NUREG-0654/ FEMA / REP REV.
1, Supp. 1, "Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and
-1 Preparedness.
An extension of time until March 7, granted by FEMA Staff on Wednesday, February 24 to file such 1988 was Comments.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours, Y
N Frank W. Ostrander, Chief Nuclear Safety Unit (617) 727-5575 FWO/BT Enc.
cc:
Seabrook Service List 8803090091gjo0043 PDR ADOCK PDR G
0
3.
00CNCTED U W.C 1B W -7 P2:28 y
c_-
F!C# OF $!Catta,.y
~
MfilNG & 3ERVicr' BRANCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL-EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
COMMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
JAMES M. SHANNON IN OPPOSITION TO NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 REV, 1, SUPP. 1, ' CRITERIA FOR UTILITY OFFSITE PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS
- MARCH 3, 1988 (d ;
A:T
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY COMMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON IN OPPOSITION TO NUREG-0654/JEMA-REP-1 REV. 1, SUPP. 1,
' CRITERIA FOR UTILITY OFFSITE PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS' MARCH 3, 1988 These comments reflect the opposition.of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the FEMA criteria for review of a utility radiological emergency response plan in those circumstances in which responsible local and state officials have found adequate emergency planning infeasible and have not submitted governmental plans for review.
The proposed FEMA criteria are contrary to the lessons learned by FEMA from years of experience as the expert federal agency in offsite emergency planning for radiological emergencies.
The criteria fail to provide assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken under a utility plan in the event of a tadiological emergency.
The criteria violate provisions of existing FEMA tules and were implemented without prior notice and comment in violation of the Adninistrative Procedure Act.
l.
Because they rely on assumptions with no basis in fact and are directly contrary to FEMA's experience, the critetia fail to assure that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in a radiological emergency.
Prior to the final adoption of an amendment of the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.47 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on October 29, 1987, FEMA's expert view was clearly that a utility plan could not provide the protection to the public that a state and local government plan would provide.
FEMA recognized the necessary tole that state and local officials must play in ptoviding adequate emergency planning and preparedness.
In an internal memorandum commenting on the proposed NRC amendments to 10 C.F.R. 50.47, FEMA's expert staff comments were explicit on this point:
FEMA has consistently and repeatedly taken the position that such participation (state and local) is essential to a finding of adequacy of offsite preparedness around nuclear power plants.
While the NRC's proposal envisions compensating measutes by the licensee and good faith efforts by the licensee to gain tha cooperation of state and local governments, the basic pienise for the rule making is non-cooperation.
It is, therefore, questionable whether compensatory measutes and other overtures by the licensee will change a situation where the state and the local govetnments are steadfast in their refusal to cooperate.
This cooperation is critical from FEMA's viewpoint.
Whetevet the changed regulatory philosophy toward preparedness would be applied, the integrated onsite-offsite approach, which has been considered essential to adequate preparedness, would be put in jeopardy.
Next in importance to state and local government cooperation in offsite planning and preparedness, is the interaction that must take place between the licensee and offsite authorities and the general public.
This interaction is best illustrated in the required joint exercises, which would be waived under the NRC proposal.
Further, this shift changes the emphasis from preplanning to more ad hoc arrangements within the plume exposure pathway.
Under the cuttent togulatory philosophy, it is expected that all significant emergency functions should be preplanned, and ad hoc arrangements are only telied upon for worst case or atypical accident consequences.
Under the proposed regulatory amendment, this emphasis would be lost since preplanning is devalued and ad hoc arrangements, arising from the assumed participation of non-cooperating governmental jurisdictions, would have to be relied upon for the protection of public health and safety.
Febtuary 27, 1987 lettet from David McLoughlin to Congtessman Markey and enclosed memorandum (a copy is attached as Exhibit 1).
In its fotmal comments to the NRC on the March 1987 proposed changes to 10 C.F.R. 50.47, FEMA restated the concerns of its staff and observed that in the absence of state and local participation, FEMA's experience was that there was no basis on which to answer the ultimate question of whether adequate protective measures can and will be taken in a radiological emergency..
See 44 C.F.R.
350.5(b).
FEMA stated:
In February 1986, FEMA participated in an exercise that did not include state and local governments.
The roles of key government officials were played by FEMA employees.
Fro 9 this experience, FEMA concludes that the practice i
of simulating govetnmental participation has several important consequences.
First, the teal-time interaction between officials and other energency responders is not realistically tested.
That compromises the quality of the findings which FEMA is able to make about the preparedness of those other responders.
Secondly, the preparedness of the state and local governments is not demonstrated in any meaningful sense.
As a result, the conclusions that FEMA would be called on to make about the probable response of state and local governments would be based largely on conjecture.
FEMA is very reluctant to certify that adequate protective measures can be taken where any finding would be based on such a degree of conjecture.
FEMA comments, page 3, (Attached as Exhibit 2).
That a paper plan that is not realistically exercised is an inadequate indicator of the effectiveness of an emergency plan is hardly a new position.
FEMA's rules requite an exercise with the participation of state and local officials before a plan can be found adequate.
See 50 C.F.R.
150.9(a).
The criteria ignore this experience and FEMA's prior policy statenents.
In place of requirements for demonstrated preparedness and actual performance capability, assumptions are substituted into the criteria, without any basis in fact, that state and local governments will implement a utility plan e.nd have the resources sufficient to do so.
Thus, FEMA now proposes to allow its review of utility emergency plans to become a paper game in which state and local implementation of adequate protective measures to protect the public are simply assumed to occur.
Such a wholesale substitution of assumption for investigated fact is not adequate to meet FEMA's responsibility to the public.
The public health and safety is not adequately protected by the type of wishful thinking
- exemplified by the proposed criteria.
4
Following the accident at Three Mile Island and the recommendations of the various commissions which examined the NRC's shortcomings in emergency p'lanning, FEMA was designated by the president to be the lead agency in emergency planning because-of its expertise and experience.
FEMA's earlier concerns noted above reflect that experience and expertise.
The criteria should be revised to require adjudicated facts tather than assumptions when FEMA makes its judgment on the question of whether adequate protective measures can and will be provided.
2.
The criteria violate otovisions of FEMA's own Rules.
It is fundamental that an administrative agency must follow its own tules.
FEMA's rules for review of emergency plans are set forth in 44 C.F.R. Part 350.
FEMA is explicitly prohibited by its own tegulations from adopting and using the proposed criteria and conducting any review or evaluation of a utility offsite plan:
The regulation in this part does not apply to, not will FEMA apply any criteria with respect to, any evaluation, assessment or determination regarding the NRC licensee's emergency plans or preparedness, not shall FEMA make any similar determination with respect to the integration of offsite and NRC licensee emergency preparedness except as these assessments and determinations affect the emergency preparedness of state and local governmants.
44 C.F.R.
350.4 (emphasis supplied).
5-
The proposed criteria suggest that authority for their implementation is found in the October 29, 1987 NRC amendments to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(1)-and in the April-18, 1985 FEMA /NRC Memot'andum of Understanding ('MOU').
However, FEMA's regulations cannot-be amended by the NRC.
Moreover, 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(1) makes no provision fot or requirement of FEMA review of utility-only plans.
FEMA remains responsible for review of state and local plans under 50.47(a)(2) but is not given any role under 50.47(c).
Furthermote, FEMA and the NRC cannot negotiate away a FEMA regulatory tequirement by means of a menotandum.
In fact, the memorandum of understanding makes no provision for FEMA review of utility plans.
50 Fed. Reg. 15485 (April 18, 1985).
The MOU was merely a procedural maneuver permitting FEMA to submit intetim findings on emergency plans.
There is no mention in the MOU of a shift by FEMA from review of governmental plans to utility plans.
Thus, the proposed criteria applying for utility plans are unlawful.
FEMA would have to amend 44 C.F.R.
part 50 before the proposed criteria could be implemented.1/
3.
If the proposed critetia purport to be amendments to FEMA's rules they have been implemented in violation of the procedural requirements of 5 USC 553.
FEMA is the federal agency responsible for establishing and coordinating federal review and policies for emergency planning.
1/
Apparently, as of September 1987, FEMA was of the same view.
Attached as Exhibit 3 are draft amendments to 44 C.F.R.
Part 350 which include an amendnent to 44 C.F.R.
350.4.
Those amendments have not yet been published for comment.
Executive Order 12148, 42 USC 5131 (1982).
Thus it is FEMA's obligation to issue its own regulations concerning its actions in reviewing emergency plans.
FEMA has done so for its review of radiological emergency tesponse plans in 44 C.F.R.
Part 350.
L As noted above, FEMA's existing regulations are geated solely to the review of state and local plans and prohibit its review of utility plans.
44 C.F.R.
350.1 clearly states the purpose of FEMA's regulations:
The purpose of the regulation in this part is to establish policy and procedures for review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of state and local emergency plans and preparedness for emergency which may occur at a commercial nuclear power facility.
Review and approval of these plans and preparedness involves preparation of findings and determinations of the adequacy of the plans and capabilities of state and local governments to effectively implement the plans.
The Administrative Procedute Act requires FEMA to provide public notice and an opportunity for public participation through comments before a tule can be amended.
5 USC 553 (1982).
FEMA has not provided any notice of any intent to anend 44 C.F.R. Part 350.
Therefore, the criteria cannot be implemented.
Assuming that the criteria, although designated as "guidance,' are interpreted as regulations that have amended the plain meaning of 44 C.F.R.
350.4, the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 553, also prohibit implementation of the criteria until after the notice 7-
L and comment requirements.are met.2/
In simultaneously publishing and applying the criteria, FEMA has failed to comply with the requirements of 5 USC 553.
Therefore, if they are intended to amend 44 C.F.R. Part 350, the ctiteria rauat be withdrawn until all of the requirements of the Admtnistrative Procedute Act are met.
4.
Adoption of the proposed criteria by FEMA violates its legal obligations to function as lead agency for offsite emergency planning.
By Presidential ordet, the FEMA is to function as the lead agency for offsite radiological emergency planning.
In this tole, FEMA has primary responsibility for teview and assessment of emergency planning.
This responsibility reflects the expertise and experience of FEMA in this tegard as well as the
. considered determination by Congress in 1980 that the NRC alone should no longer determine what standards or criteria should be used to evaluate offsite emergency planning and should no longet conduct such evaluations.
See Pub. L.96-295, S 109(b)(1)(A) and (B)(ii), 94 Stat. 784 (1980).
2/
Both the NRC and one of the utilities most affected by the criteria, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, apparently do not intend the comment period to produce any meaningful changes in the criteria as they are applied to the utility plan for Massachusetts.
See the attached December 18, 1987 lettet from George S. Thomas and December 2, 1987 Memorandum from Frank J. Congel (Exhioits 4 and 5).
Neither apparently does FEMA.
Indeed the criteria's key assumptions are to be used to evaluate the Massachusetts plan prior to the close of the comment period.
See the attached January 15, 1988 Memorandun from RAC Chaitman Donovan (Exhibit 6).
However, although FEMA informed the NRC that it disapproved i
of a rule amendment that would no longer require state and local governmental participation prior to plant licensing, FEMA has adopted these criteria which have the same result.
Moreover, from an examination of the process by which these criteria were drafted and adopted it emerges that FEMA has i
given up its responsibilities as lead agency ano yielded to NRC pressure to adopt criteria actually drafted by the NRC.2/
This agency ventriloquism has one agency telling another what it wants that agency to say even though FEMA has lead agency tesponsibility in precisely this regard.
Such agency process is simply unacceptable.
5.
Detailed comments about the criteria In Exhibit 9, the Commonwealth presents its detailed comments on the criteria document beginning wt9-several t
general comments and then referencing detailer connents by Planning Standard and Evaluation Criteria number:
3/
Attached as Exhibits 7 and 8 are memoranda that indicate that the NRC and not FEMA wrote these criteria and that "FEMA was requested by the NRC' to adopt the all-important planning assumptions which, as noted, vitiate any meaningful planning
- review, see Exhibit 8.
t I
i t
9-
N e
y f
r, t.---
g
., _ g,.t a.,
- s. p 4
i _D IP.-.r.
3 J
t. 1%
,t.
s I*
r n.-
'. } ;t i,. 'j,? ~.. --
"Lt f.
.e -
0
/.
'y
- 'S'v*,
d
"-S 4-& *'
-q 9
t' *,
NL
'Yt.,,'
v
- r.
.. -y
+
'*e 4,(. '
6
$r
,1 7
u, I
5 et 2 4
/
i 4
by-+
g
~,
~
a.
l
.. +..
j.
l[e(lV:al Einergeray iN!aningernerit Agency
- g 8 ' %= /. e,'
hin nei..n
- 1) C N4ij 4 %
1 Ff3 2 7 T The Honorable Edward J. Markey f.'.S. Maase of Represer:tatives i
Washirgton. D.C.
20515 osar Mr. Maney:
Director Mrton has ae.ed rw to res7aM to ywr 'ebmary 19, 1987, lette in weich you requested inforwtion on TD%'s "cole in the inception anc develorrert" of a Nvetear Regulatory Comission proposed rule eica ovlt permit the licenstrq of nuclear poor plants dere State and local governwnts do not cocrprate in the surgency plareirq process.
The <> ly rilscussions betwen FDW officials and eatside scmarcos on this prcoosed av1emaking were with the Nut suf f.
These diseussions l
ere li:niW to the follovirg:
- 1) 1.a t e i n Decree r 1984. Mr. Ma rt in C. Ma t sc% Depu t y Ge ne ra l Co.,n s e l.
W. telephor*J Mr. Spence W. Perry. Ceneral Ccmansel. FD% and reporte:
that NMC was considertry a charge in its regulations to deal sta situati,9ns where state ard local goverrrwnts fall to perticipate in of f stte ewgercy plamirq.
After receipt of a draf t of the proposed i
rule enang, Mr. perry provided Mr. Malsch his informal, carents by telep %me.
He said tMt he old ret coment on the appropriateress of the NaC propostrq the rule in the contest of lu o.m tirenairq l
avtwrity, a w! that if t*e *mc tulieves that of fsite plannirq ard preparedness is essential to its licensing process, then the involverwnt of state and local of ficials is the acet preferred approecn.
perry 41se es;W concern for the continued participation of Mr.
state and lazal goverruents in the esisting process of plamirq. are the testing of pla.s in esercises armard operatin; ruclear poer plants.
if such 4 qvle wre adoptert.
Mr. Perry rgnasi W that these e:rnnts wre his intttal i..pressions aa the 4ency's lawyer. not the of ficta1
- masition of rt>m.
21 Mr. Richard W. Kriras. Aasistant Associate Director, Natural and i
Toshnelegical Maursis. State and Local Progtre and Sspport. TC%
was pewideki en undated copy of the draf t staf f paper on the proposed rvtemkirg ty Mr. Edmerd L. Jorden. Chlef. CMrgency Prepsredneea anr1 trqineerity Aesperse Division, Office of Inspection and Enforcewnt.
Nic. on Jenu ry 20, 1947 Mr. Krism. not kroning that the 'mC ataf f proposal wse e(gned and sent to the Coosies(en proridod essentially the saw c:rewnt s. meen previaasly by '9r. Perry to Mr. Jordan try telepN:ce -
on rottuary 6, 1917 The same day I called Mr. Victor Stello. the taecutive meector for operatione at Nuc with essentially the see
- 1. tem, was unaware that :Se Nec staf f Nper had been semt cownt s.
to tM C 2 mission.
?
EXMIBIT T
..s
'l 1
l.
,f g
r
/
/
r
.Since the rebevan 6,1997, Mtc stJf f paper to the cerwaission (stcy.37 stated that final views of FEMA on the pectused rutenjting old be solicited during the ccreent period, the rts staf f h.as begun to formulate a recoverded position. The prirw.(pal, initial concerns expr.
the statf are in the enclosed draft. The Jiews expressed in this draf t sPould not be considered the 70% of ficial p.wition.
It should not tw released to other sources.
This draf t', 'alory; with other ccrnent:
that the statf might prepare, will be considered W W repior mananc i !
we plan to provice Nmc with a formal FD% position c6eing the cerrrent pericd eich the Ccreission has appecwed If ycu should need further assistance, please have i cember'of yeqr staf f contxt th* of'i ** of Corv)ressional Relations at 646-4500.
Sincerely, s
l i
Dave McLaughlin Deputy Associate Director state and Local Proge m s and Support Enclosures cc: The rionorable Phill.n A.. S'.arp, Chai::a..
j l
- --i ttee on Energ/ sM 704r
'1 i
\\
)
j s
t f
4 i
f f
6
/ $
/
3
?
'[
p.
j1 ki
\\
( ys 4
t
./ A '
)(, O
')
NCrTC: This draf t was prepared by cry /, staf f for
- )~
consideration of rDu Senior "Jugmt in the I
event NRC decided to issue the pecposed rule for f
ccrment and requested FD% to provtr$e its format R, O /\\I\\ M.{ "I views.
The draf t, therefore, should not be released to other sources.
s I
\\
i I
Principal Concerns aboat the NRC Pecposed Rulemak.irq to deal with the lack of State anc t.ccal Coverrman
{
Cooperation in of fsite D=rgency Planning s
i We have the following principal concerns a.wat the oc progr> sal.
- . The i. meet of absence of State and local ooverment particioation in J
the plannino and preoaredness process.
y x
rDu has consistently arui repeatedly taken the psition that such particip.
l l
V it essential a finding of adequacy of offsite preparedness around nucle.
I pv alants.ySeile the NRC's proposal envisions compensating measures tv 3:7F t acensee and good faith ef forts by the licensee to gain the cooperat.h-
! state ard local goverrrnents, the basic per, mise for the rule making s non-coope ra t ir.,3.
It is, therefore, questionable Wther cernpensate:y
~
reasares and other wertures by the licensee will thenge a situation eere the state and for local goverrwents are steadfast in their refusal to cooperate. This cooperation is critical fn= rou's vie==pointf 4 mui that NE nas S?UrreO cms viewpoISC, since NRC's current regulations prcwide t'ut no operatirq liceme will De issued unless a findits; is made I
that thers is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an radiological emergency.
In this
(
connection,, we note that NRC has not used it's statutory authority to
/
licecae a melear' paper, plant in the absence of a FDu appewed state ard l /
local gr2verment plarve, if the ccessission determines that there is a state, local ce utility plan dich peta' ides reasonable assurance that puhtic healthMal safety is not endarnered by the operation o! the f act1 t:
f cr>nce rned.
- .i l
- 2. _1%mgda,$4cv shilisoohy reflected in the proposed evp makirv ts 4 retreat Trom tho position adosKed Dv r.he Cptssion in 1980, Q tthe poet 1N envirorwent), eten accorded emeroency preparedness l
a status of uncertance essenttally ocua to s i t irvt, 6es ton. (.ons t ruc t i e-a arti ergineered safety systems in enear,icensino doctstons.
The ef fect of this shif t in regulatory philosophy is to assign a succedina l
role to wurgency planning arsi preparedness.
Notwithstardirq the l
intent of the WRC to have it apply only to the liteited ts. seer of cases wne re s t a t e a rt$ loca l gove rTt9e nt s a re non-coope ra t i ve, ot he r S t a t e a nd l es a goverrrents could ha espected to follcw the non-co:p3rative rcute even -w there are r:psratin) plants.
l l
l DRAFT
' art : Th i s dr a f t vJs pt epa red by it?.'. S ta f f f c cons iderat ion of FF?.A ~Wnior Nn.qe et in the event NRC the'. 4. ! to ism the pre /,owd rule f or co-rwnt ard re; vested FEM to pro nde its (n.wl k.'.'
1 view. The drJft, therefore, shmaid not De released to other smarces.
'r_ _ '
e p.
kherever the changed regulatory philosophy toward preparedness Wuld he.
applied, the integrated onsit M ffsite approach, *ich hw teen censidere t
. essential to adequate preparedness, wuld be put in jeopardy. Next in importance to State aM local goverrvent co@eration in of fsita plannirq j
ard preparedness, is the interaction that sust take place betwen the licensee aM of(site authorities and the general public. This interactic is best illustrated in the required joint exercises, which wuld ce
{
.aived wMe r the '.7.7 pro.vr.21.
Further, this shif t char 9es the emphasis frcrs preplanning to more j
ad hoc arraryeewnes within the plurne espesure pathway. Under the current regulatory philosophy, it is expected that all significant energency i
funct, ions should be 9eeplanned, and ad lec arrangements are only relied upon for west case or atypical accident emuences. Under the proposed regulatory aper *ent, this eghasis wuld be last since l
preplannire devalued ard ad hoc arrargenents, arising from the assa I
participat of rm.wrating goverrrental jurisdictions, wuld
(
have to te. 'ied upon for the protection of public health and safety.
J. The lssue of States Richts.
3tates have increasirgly asserted their right to be (or not to bei involi in the of fsite planning aM preparedness at nuclear poor plants and have been led to believe that they have this right through.W and rtm regulatiom and the manner in Wich these regulations have been applied.
FD% believes that the non-cooperative stance of scrie State and local goverments ste:ns frtys a geruine concern for the health and safety of the people livirg in the vicinity of teaclear pm.er plants. We believe these rights and concerns shmaid her respected. We also believe that unequivoca assurance, that the puatic health aM safety can aM will he protectet witheat state and local participation in of fsite energency prepareJness is necessary for t%e ruclear pcur plants in question to ne licensed.
Notwithstanding the emnsatory.masure discussed in the N"4C staf f paper we believe that the prep > sed rule mattrq does not give that assurance.
1 DRAF7
. ~
.,r 3;.
l ':' :
it, ?
I L.
>7-a c.sm.,
T-yr IflpMk, in a.-
g iwq I
6 e
f.
=
a-
-5.
rA g
,Yp g
^
- s!
.m { ; A,"
lA,
-1 K'$
e s
I6
,- J..*s;!
-.i ;
P 4
g g
i' I Y
s 8
t W'
,S q "_
_ht
-u e
k, I
f
, e,
g
/
- y. '_ -
Y, s
_g/'
AQ
_ gg.g' i
~
k'
'E_.,
t s'i'
[A.
t' 3 g.a.3(9, _,
- I s & 4,
--* }' K^,_4 y.
. -%e
- g;;r, '
t,,
,. g.1of ?g..
_..., 3.- gqg.
6
.,e
- qq* q -
., gr 3
N-
.i.y,,., f; 7 (.y -
i.(
- n. s, -
Mi s
}...
r.
s 3
p.
p E
'e A.
T
'Y f
- p, ', ' '-g 4
p 'fi g
r
, pi i
u
}'
'c
,e - _
)
9
@ Federal Emergency Ma Washington, D.C. 20472 g
April 28, 1987
'I7 NIR 23 40 $1 qrgU...
n.
NN 3
amamim'N,,SQ En& '
3 Cs2.n cAto) MM Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comments on Propo16d Rule on Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and Local Governments Decline to Participate in Offsite Emergency Planning Cear Mr. Chilk:
This letter provides the coments of the Federal Evgency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Nuclear Regulatory Cosuel;ston (NRC) proposed rule, "Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and Local Governmentt O nline to Participate in Offsite Emergency Planning." This proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6940).
D The NRC has proposed a change in its regulations which would,iermit the licensing of nuclear power plants where State and local governments decline to particloate in the design, exercise, or laplementation of offsite emergency preparedness planning. Under those circumstances, the proposed rule change would permit the aDolicant to be licensed upon showing that (1) Its Inability to comoly with the normal emergency planning requirements could be remedied or adequately compensated for by reasonable cooperation by the State and local governments, (2) the applicant has made a good faith and sustained effort to obtain this cooperation, (3) the plans dev9 oced by the applicant include all 1
effective measures. to compensate for the lack of coccaration wnich are reasonable and feasible under the circumstances and which take into account a possible State or local response to an actual emergency, and (4) the applicant has prowliled copies of the plan to all governments which would have otherwise have participated and has assured them that it stands ready to cooperate with theel.
FEMA notes, as a first premise to its cosenents, that, under the Atomic Energy Act, legal responsibility for the licensing of nuclear power plants is vested l'
defines the threat to be prepared against, and it is the Commission which exclusively in the NRC.
In setting standards for licensure, the Comission deterstnes what level of preparation is necessary to meet the defined threat.
Prior to the incident at the Three Mlle Island Nuclear Power Plant in March 1979, there was no licensing requirement for offsite emergency planning and preparbdness.
Following that incident and the report of the Kameny Commission in the same year, the NRC strengthened its regulatory requirement that offsite
.jI $JM., F N W ggi041W j M /.4,,,164 N' d 0
m * ** ** 'd
' ' " " ' " ' T
~
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Page 2.
O emergency response planning and preparedness be instituted and be demonstra:ec adequate to protect the public before new licenses would be issued.
It also adopted the Kemeny Commission recommendation that FEM should take the lead responsibility for offsite emergency plan evaluation. Additional requirements were established to insure such planning and preparation would be acconipilsned at previously licensed plants.
As a second premise, FEM acknowledges that decisions by the NRC on cetalning and maintaining operating Ilconses are based in part on a comoosite review of offsite emergency capabilities and those provided by the utility within the piant.
The NRC has the authority to determine the relative importance of offsite emergency preparedness in the licensing decision.
This statement of FEM's views on the proposed rule is made on the assumption that adequate offsite emergency planning and preparedness are still considered essential to obtaining and maintaining an operating license.
The proposed rule change is evidently intended to address the creemption Issae which is at the center of the litigation over licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
The particular issue is whether State and local governments should be able to do indirectly.
by declining to participate in offsite emergency planning, what they may not do directly, that is, effectively veto the regulatory decisions of the NRC as to the siting and licensing of nuclear power plants.
FEM believes that this l
issue of the indirect veto of NRC decisions by state and local governments Involves matters of significant public policy which may ultimately-nave to be resolved by the Congress.
While FEM has no view as to the validity of any position the NRC may take on the preemotion issue per se, the agency does note that the effect of the proposed change is to require a showing that the applicant nas taken all reasonable and feasible steDs to develoo an of# site emergency plan and response capability rather than a showing that the emergency response plans offer reasonable assurance that adequate measures to orotect the cuolic can :e taken in the event of an emergency.
On its face, the proposed rule incorporates a fundamental enange in the way that offsite emergency planning would be evaluated by FEM If the NRC requests findings and determinations 45 to whether offstte emergency plans are adequa:e and can be isolemented.
It would eliminate the need for full-carticipation exercises (those testing the capacity of State and local governments) ooth before and after licensing.
Even if exercises are conducted, their value is seriously diminished without the carticipation of State and local governments.
Full-carticipation exercises serve several imoortant purcoses.
l They are not only tools for evaluating written plans, they are also a means I
for their refinement and a training vehicle for the emergency personnel eno will be called on to respond to an actual emergency.
FEM 15 of tne <iew rat State au I W n-t';ig;; 6, u hi Ge gr;;:-* errm offers all concerned with offsite emergency olanning and preparedness a wealth of eXperlence ;N isn51tivity to local circumstanssi, M ^** ef enich C0uld
^
l l
s
. Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Page 3.
~
have serious adverse consequences for such activities at exitting and future plants.
In February,1986, FEM participated in an exercise that did not include State and local governments.
The roles of key government offletals were played by FEM employees. From this experience, FEM concludes that the practice of simulating governmental participation has several important consequences.
First, the real-time interaction between officials and other emergency responders is not realistically tested. That comproelses the quality of tne findings which FEM is able to make about the preparedness of those other responders. Secondly, the preparedness of the State and local governments is not demonstrated in any meanlagful sense. 4 a result. the conclusions that FEM pquid be called-o&to make-abest-th*-semMa ra w <a M m es_an.d local governments would be based largely,on_c.qnjecture. FEM is very reluctant to certify tAtt-adett. rate protective measures can be taken unwrt-eny f.inding would be based on_ sue 34ey.n af scnbcGr;.
The refinement of emergency plans which is the natural outcome of an exercise could also ce comoromised.
The observations on unich such refinements would be made are less valid without the participation of State and local governments.
Furthermore, these governments may not be committed to CManget s in their usual ways of operating in emergencies. They are certainly not likely to change their routines during an actual emergency, even if they are/
convinced of the wisdom of the enanges. Thelackoftrainingwhichwould.In) all probability, follow from holding exercises without State and local N
D_
. government participation would also increase the risk to the population of tney affected emergency planning zones.
The existing regulatory scheme anticipates that there will be detailed, documented, provisions in advance of an emergency for the plume exposure emergency planning zone (10 miles out from the plant) and that ad hoc responses will be undertaken as necessary to supplement preplanned actions.
This proposed rule would, in effect, sanction extensive across-the-coard a,d
.h,,qq responses. The proposed rule incorporates as a casic premtse tne assumotion that State and local governments are likely to respond in an actual emergency because state law requires them to do so and also because that ecule presumably be the natural reaction of government officials in time of mergency.
Even if the premise is valid, the g,M,o1 nature of their response g
could have unfortunate consequences.
It does not assure that the full range of necessary actions will be taken.
It does make it hignly likely that any response will be uncoordinated.
To the extent that utility company officials step into the roles of government officials, such as by recomending specific protective actions, there is a high probability that the puelle and emergency responders will receive conflicting instructions. FEM also notes tnat,.ni:e tne legal issue of the authority of utility officials to perform critical emergency functions in place of State and local officials nas teen considerec by the courts of New York State, in has not been resolved througnout the country.
D, '.s 1
V.; e fk
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Page 4.
m V
The concerns identifled above relate to conynunities which nave declared or demonstrated an unwillingness to t&Ke part in emergency response planning.
FEM 11 equally concerned that the incentive for cooperative State and local governments to continue their efforts could be diminished should the proposed rule be adopted.
In addition to the major concerns expressed above, FEM questions several assumptions made explicitly or Impilcitly in the proposal:
1.
The belief expressed by the NRC that State and local governments which have not been involved in emergency planning would nonetheless respond to an actual emergency and follow a comorenensive utility plan is open to cuestion.
FEM U ta Lne data that would indicate what State and local government reactions eieht be in such circumstances.
2.
The assumption that the proposed rule change will lessen the burden of litigation is debatable.
The phsse of the licensing hearings having to do with emergency planning will be no less intense than before and can be expected to be more complex because of the uncertaintles introduced into the issue of the adecuacy of offsite emergency preparedness.
It follows that the potential litigation costs related to the proposed rule wuld proeably be no less than under current regulations.
3.
The claim that the requirement for planning placed on State and D-local governments by Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 would prompt more State cooperation regarding nuclear power plant emergency planning is not supported oy facts.
The State and local organizational
- structures for carrying out the provisions of Title III are mandated by law and, in most cases, existing structures will be used.
It is not the presence of emergency management structures such as provided under Title III that is at issue.
Rather, the question is whether those organizations are willing to participate in nuclear power emergency preparedness.
The adoption of proposed rule would not, in an of itself, resolve FEM's difficulties in providing findings regarding reasonable assurance for offsite preparedness if state and local governments do not participate.
The current Memorandus of Understanding between FEM and tne NRC charges FEM with evaluating offsite emergency response plans against the criteria set out in
)
the jointly developed guidance document, NUREG 0654/ FEM REP 1, Rev.1.
This guidance document assumes that there will be extensive involvement of state and locai governments in the development and implementation of these plans.
M11Acut such involvement, many of the evaluation criteria cannot be satisfle C -i n addi6ivn, sa 6;;d M"M.
the &C ;nc 0' teate and local involvement frustrates or, at the veryTelsi;, MintM Pn erhf exercistW9 D= M ani Il GM/, i s av6 abis is 0 T ' 9 '
- t evaluat
., ocess !
j a CUTT M slon, !! cannot offer the NRC the findings it requests.
As the NRC l
l
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 5. '
staff seems to have recognized in its presentation of the pro 00$ed rule t: tne Commission, new guidance and standards for evaluation of such an emergency preparedness structure would have to be developed. As staff has rec 0gnlZed, this task is not insignificant and when considered in the light of requisite litigation bears major resource ramifications for this agency.
The NRC state m nts on this rule and our comments above make it clear that we share a cosmon view that off-site emergency preparedness is best served by active state and local government participation. Should the NRC find the proposed rule appropriate and necessary, we would expect to continue our productive relationship.
We would also hope that the NRC would carefully monitor the participation of state and local governments in order to adjust requirements that alght discourage luch participation.
We appreciate the opportunity to connent on this proposed rule.
Sincerely, M
Dave McLoughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support l
e' Vs ya...
(/" b 5 f4 4'ch
..u
/"7
1
%"' E '} pe s.
+ - - ' Sn
{* 'N
- l r j_, gy-Q ' O
.,y sy
%'N.c'e,hy J R.~< x. ',*gLt (:_ l' v*
. r_.-..
,,';.s tj RL 4 --'
dw vW. gia. ?
n.
- 5 %. ;Shby, f %.-.~s 9
o
~ ' '. n.
.v, u.
- ~*
- g&, QWQ,
r :
s itiv
. n ? ch
- y.,
mig
.. u %g *.
'yc. 5-r;. Q ' g%g J. wh* N8W" ;k LM*
- m ; r ni.* %,5,'+'c r, *g.,,_t: 7.s. A.,a.
n 7,.-
pvv
..u.;&.,..r $,;.. g - -# d r, '_, 9 an 9. e 3 -M e D
J e_
1
'h@$Y ' *> *l-
- ~ % ^7" U 7 G s
-1 %* M % " P
A'
N
,.w Y.D2,D 74J,.E;i.bik.*h*ll ' $'ih:{^i ljfk(~ '
<l" W D%.
^ Jf,f:]?)'uf g.$per,,,-
- > t.3 a..c, 4 - + gnj<w,Rf
,.p.
>~
- '; U;'Y.g;CfNi n..: &. @4.
+ w j.. :. ~
A
.c
.c
- ya,
. e,, e.
3
,y,,7.t.e, g;
-: - ' s..
.-v,
, e._
?
- "T y
+;*
' l bs,t g_ %
- ,v.
- c.
- ',,4-,,'.s'
[
- %.%'. +g g -
& n + 4.H r
.01 >. fy f J. '
m A. M.. *D
,: 4" 9
,.-y.
.l s?yd;2 -
- p~
',% 5 l,1
' krij;: g.f,? _ l= ist j
. v::m H:,,P.%,
gr.~ y y;+
,0 h.c e
. : y p f :, -
a J., m-,.
~
3
- g 5.
.-} l,
~)[+ c m n,.
+-'* ! ' Q W. ?.
? Y ' 9,'
e m. -s
~
[' '*
- f _
?%,t.*$ ),
N.
.y s
O F p =-6.
d w, 3.w.
^$
-h;: k 4
ti4M gMs -
i M
,uM.
-s ir t j
.m k
.4 s WNg,
e
.9e'5
- y
- i.A;,8
'4 g'
.%4 f-jV
- . 4R 4gN f
f.
- m
-F".
p.
,-.>.%.v.m n
g s J
l
~
a
DRAFT FZrDAL ENER2WY MANMDCT AGDCI Septerrter 11, 1987 (Docket No. FDiA THD-350ll 44 CFR Part 350 Faview and Appreval of State and Iccal Padiological Dnergenef Plans and l
l Preparedness l
ACDCY: Federal D:ergency Management Agency (EUA)
ACTICti: Procesed Arrendrent to final Rule St;MMAFY: Precosed arendments to PEA's final rule, 44 Cm 350, are crevided for cuolic review and cerrnent. This rule estac11snes policy and procedures for review anc apprcval cy tne Federal Emergency Managerent Agene/ (!uA) of State and 1ccal e:rergency plans and preparedness for ccping with the offsite effects of radiolcgical emergencies which tray occur at ccrrrercial nuclear power facilities. De rule does not cover other Nuclear Regulatory Cecrnission*
(NPC) licensed facilities, ner United States Goverment-o-ned, ncn-licensed nuclear f acilities nor the trarstertatien of radioactive materials. ne rule sets out criteria wnica will be used cy FD% in reviewing, evaluat:.ng and appreving plans and preparedness.
It specifies how and where a State tray suttnit plans. It describes eer_ min precesses the crecess by which FD'A rrakes firdings and deter:.inatiers as to the adequacy of State and local plars and the capability of State and local gcverrrtents to effectively inplerrent these plans and preparedness treasures for specific sites. Such firdings and deter.irstiers and, where apprcpriate, plan approvals, are to be suttnitted to the Governors of the affected States and to the NRC for its use in licersing proceedings. ne current Thes rete was prem21 gated in prc5csed form en June 24,1980, (45 m 42321) and August 19,1982, (47 FR 36386) for pub 1!.c ccrment ard interim use and was cublisned in final on Septercer 28, 1983, (48 FR 4432)._ Thts rute ree:eets eemer:es recetvec en tre por rv e puertence en August 19r iMET E m CTIVE DATE: Ccevrents are due by (60-day ccreent ceried).
EUA intends to cublish the amended Inle af ter careful censideratien of cerments. 21s regulation remales ts effective H ears frem the eate ei puetteatten in the Pederet Regtster as published on Seeterter 28, 1983, until crccosed arend.ents become finni.
FCR FtRIHER INIUPPATICN CCNTACT: Marshall E. Sanders, Chief, Prcgram Develeprent Branch, Technological Harards Division, Federal Drergency Managecent Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20472 (Telephone 202/907 Otf9 646-4131).
SUFFN'!AM IhTCFFATICN:
Presidential Assigreents On December 7,1979, the President, in response to the reccrmendatiers of the President's Comission on the Accident-at Three Mile Island (kncun as the Keneny Comission), announced, in part, a series of decisiens and tock a nt nber of actions in the area of errergency planning and preparednesss.
Accry other assigrenents, the President directed FD% to (1) Take the lead in offsite (radiological] cmergency planning and response; (2)
Develop and issue an upfated series of (Federal) interagency assigncents which delineate respective agency capabilities and resFcnsibilities ard clearly define procedures for coorciination and direction for both emergency planning and respense.
(3)
Address the need for iq:reved advance preparation for emergencies ard public educatien programs in the centext cf State ecergenef resp:nse plans.
l In ccepliance with the directive to take the lead in offsite emergency planning and to issue interagency assigrerents, FD% published on March 11, 1982, interagency assigrenents en March 11,1982, in 44 CFR 351 (45 FR 10758).
Rese assig enents replace assigr. ents set cut in a Notice published in the Federal Register on Cecercer 24,1975, (40 FR 59494).. tey provide for Federal interagency assistance to State and local gcverrnents in their radiclegical emergency planning and preparedness activities.
Federal agency resper.sibilities for pres ~" g to a radiological accident are set forth in the Federal RadiolocicaD Emer ency Fascense Plan (F75.P) that was cueilsnec en Novemcer 8, 1985,i(50 FR 46542). eveet see 2.n ene battecer Facteregrea; l
~ Freegency Preparee.v,testnespense Ptan fee 6eereretet Nec eer Pewer Ptant Aceteente 4 Master Ptant 1,s en 94%%v Thts uMaster Pian 8 wtH be superseeed by the Federet Fadreitgiest E?ergency Reeper.se Pian 4F=.EPJ+ wMen et is peetiened freeaeeted fee RG..,.e 19Et in the Federat Fet eter as an interim t
reser The fps.P is wtH beeece the Federal plan for coordinat:rg and managim the Federal respcFie to all types of radiological accidents including these cccurring at licensed cermercial nuclear powr plants.
l Basis fer FD% Assigrinent te Director, fuA, pursuant to Reorganizatien Plan No. 3 of 1978 ard l
Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979, establishes policies for, and l
coordinates civil emergency planning, managecent, miti tien assistance functions of Executive agencies. De Director, FD%, represents President in work.ing with State and local goverrnents and the private sector to sinulate vigorous participation in civil emergency preparedness, mitigatien, res;cnse l
and reccverf programs.
De term "civil energency" is defined in 2-203 of Executiv~e brder 12148 to include any accidental, natural, tran-caused or wartL e emergency or threat thereof, which causes or cay cause substantial injury or harn to the pcpu-latien or substantial damage to or loss of preperty.
This definition clearly enecepasses an accident at a cermercial nuclear power facility.
2
/
//
The Federal Civil Defer.se Act 1950, as a. erded in 1990, erwides at 50 U.S.C. Ano. S 2302(b)ist for the cevele:ren. of ecerce.nc/ evacuati.:n clars for areas in micn nuclear ecwr clants are lccatec.
~
J Under S'eci.icn 41 oTthe Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5131), the Director is to establish a program of disaster preparedness which includes, among other matters, preparation of disaster preparedness plans for warning, emergency operations, training and exercises and coordinaticTr of Federal, State and local progra.Ts.
Further, the Director is to provide tect.ntcal i
assistance and grants to States in developing ccumrehensive plans and practical progra.Ts for preparation against disasters. R e technical assistance and grant prcgram provided under this autrerity may be used by States fer planning and preparedness activities related to ccrmercial nuclear p:wer plant accidents.
Scce cf FEA's predecesser agencies, as well as the NPC, have been involved in planning fer radiolcgical emergencies at cermercial nuclear power facilities for scce years.
Rese activities were voluntarf, as neither Federal law nor regulatiens required States or local gcVerrenents to have peacetire nuclear ecergency plans, nor required States with plans to test these plans.
ne Atemic Energy Cecmissien (AEC), later NPC, i plecented a non-statutcry program of plannirg and assistance to the States which included: the fo=ation-of a Federal Interagency Central Ccordinating Ccemittee (FICCC) (now the Federal Radiological Preparedness Cccrdinatiry Cecmittee (FRPCC) under the chair-ansnip of FDA); the preparatien and issuance of the Guide and C'.ecklist for Develec, ent and Evaluation of State and Iocal Goverrtent Paciciccical D ercency F.estense Plans in Sue: crc of Ft.xed Nuclear facilities, reissuec as t.VREG-75/111; and tr.e fcmaticn of succccmittees en training and exercises and emergency instrunentation. n e Office of Emergency
~
Preparedness (CEP), later the Federal Preparedness Agency (FPA), and new FS.A, issued descriptiens of agency assignments.
In January 1973, the CEP issued a state. ent which desig-ated the AEC as lead agency.
Cn Cece-cer 24, 1975, the FFA issued a revised and updated Federal Register Notice (40 FR 59494). Imad agency respcnsi.bility for "reviewing and concurring in State radiological emergency response plans," was assigned to the h7C and the planning 3.ssistance was expanded to include transpertation of radicactive mat g als. NPC also issued guidance in a Handbook for Federal Assistanc1rfo' State' and Ircal Goverments in Padiolecical F.Inercencf Fes:crse Planning--NL,QJune 1,1976-revised Januarf 1979, applicaDle to ott.er i
feceral aqTncres. Re nu,Tcer of involved agencies that agreed to the assigrenents increased frcm five to seven. Dese included the Envircr:mntal l
Protection Agency (EPA); the Cepart.ent of Health, Education and Welfare, ncw i
the Cepartment of Health and Human Services; the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency and the Federal Disaster Assistance Mr.inistration, wtese functions have new been transferred to FDA; the Cepartment of Transpertation; the Energy Research and Cevelcpcent Administration (new the Cepart.ent of Energy) and the NPC. Hvetear Retstetery Eemrsseen:
2is interagency prccess, with NRC as lead agency, continued for the next few years. Se tiPC estaclished a program cf voluntary cen<..urrence and concurred in several State plans. Re accident at the tree Mile Island nuclear pcwr 3
facility, which occurred on March 28, 1979, caused a major rethinking of emergency planning and preparedness by the NPC and other agencies. ne accident led to the Kemeny Cecmission Peport and the Presidential acticrs.
To inplement the President's assignment, the NPC and FD'A signed a Mecorardut of Understanding (M) on Januar/ 4,1980, describing each agency's resperst-bilities in preparing for emergencies at nuclear facilities and related activities (45 m 5847). mis' HOU was revised and updated en Nevereer 1,1980,,
(45 m 82713) and Acril 18', 1985, (50 m 15485).
n e terrs of the HDU apply rgency preparedness for all ccrmerical nuclear pcwer plants, certain nuclear fuel cycle facilities and nuclear raterial licersees wtese operatiers have a pctential for significant accidental effsite releases of radiation. However, the parties intended that the initial prcgram enphasis be placed en erergency preparedness at cer=ercial nuclear power plants, the fccus of this rule.
EmA's responsibilities urder the MOU are to:
(1) Take the lead in offsita (radiological) emergency planning and review and assess State and local energency plans for adequacy.
(2)
Cccplete, by June 1980, the review of State and 1ccal emergency plans in ~
these States with ccerating reacters.
(A report was submitted to the President en June 30, 1980.)
(3) Cceplete, as soon as pcssible, the review of State and Iccal energency plans in those States with plants scheduled for cperation in the near future.
(21s review is included in the June 30, 1980, Pecort to the Pres ident. )
(4)
Make findings and determinations as to stether State and 1ccal energency plans are adequate ard capable of inplecentation (e.g., adequacy and raintenance of precedures, training, rescurces, staf fing levels and qualificat;.crs, and equip:ent adequacy).
(5)
Assu e respersibility for emergency preparedness training of' State and I
Iccal officials.
(6)
Develcp and issue an upfated series of (Federall interagency assignments which would delineate respective agency capabilities and respersibilities and define precedures for coordination and directicn for energency planning and response.
(These are descri. bed in 44 Cm 351 (47 FR 10758, March 11, 1982).)
te NPC responsibilities urder the HDU are to:
l (1)
Assess licensee energency plans for adequacy, 1
(2) Verify that licensee energency plans are adequately inplecented (e.g.,
adequacy and raintenance of procedures, training, resources, staffirq l
levels ard qualificatiers ard equiprent adequacy).
I l
4 l
(3)
P.evied the FDA findings ard deter-inations en the adeqJacy and capati-lity of icple entatien of State and local plans.
(4)
Make decisiens on the owrall state of energency preparedness (i.e.,
integration of energency preparedness ensite, as detem. ned by the bE, and offsite, as deterr.ined by FDA and reviewed by bE) and issuance of operating licenses or (orders for) shutdcwn of operating reactors.
Thus, the lead for review of the adequacy of offsite emergency plans and their capacility of irplecentation has been assigned to F&A ard there is no lcrger an NK voluntary cencurrence prcgram for State ecergency plans. te previcus bK "cencurrences" do not satisfy all the requirements for FDA apprcval cf State and local plans urder this regulatien.
FDA reviews, findings and deter ti. nations will be based upon guidance jointly issued by FDA and bK entitled Criteria for Precaration and D/aluation cf Padiolecical D ercencv Pas:cr.se Plans ard Precarecness in Succcrt of Nuclear Pcuer Plants (bus-0654/ RA-FIP-1, Fev.1, Novecoer,1980). nis guidance previces a casts for bK licensees a.d State and local goverreents to develcp radiolcgical energency plans and icpreve emergency preparedness associated with nuclear power facilities. Se doc. rent c:ccines the guidance to State ard 1ccal gcVerr. ents with the guidance to the licensees of bK and supersedes prevacus guidance and crateria published by D A and b7C.
It is also intended-fer use by Federal efficials in reviewing and assessing the adeqJacy of State, local and nuclear pcwer facility cperator emergency plans and preparedness.
hWs-0654/FDA-?IP-1, P.ev.1 centains a series of planni.rg stardards (wtich are part of this rule) and a listing of specific criteria (adc=ted by refere.ce in this rulel for preparation and evaluatien of the planning anc preparecness act:vities of State and 1ccal gcVerr. ent.s as well as of the licensees cf bAC.
B is rule is intended to be censistent with the b?C emergency planning rule, (10 CFR Parts 50, includino Appendix E, end Mr as a, erded),
ne NPC will base its findings en a review of F&A findines and dete=inatiers as to whether State and local plans are adegaate and cacable of being implerented. Re regulation described in this part addresses FDA's review functicn. NRC retains overall respcnsibility for raking decisiers urder its enabling legislation in deter.ining whether licensees should be issued or operations susperded.
Bis regulation describes a precedure by which FDA revieas and assesses State and local energency plans and preparedness to deal with a radiolcgical ecergency and "approves" such plans.
Further, FDA ray use the data cbtained in its approval process to support its findings in NRC licersing preceedi.ms and any related court acticns.
Insofar as FDA is concerned, there is no legal requirecent that a State or local goverreent suttnit its plan to FDA for review, and FD%'s failure to approve such plan is not accccpanied by any sanction or refusal to accord a benefit.
Insofar as the procedure ray have ecencn.tc, envtrcreental er legal consegaences er impact, these result fr n NPC action on its rule and frcm tae role wtich FDA plays because of the FCU in the NPC licensing prccess. b?C i
I 5
I t
^
- m.. ~ -,,
has, in cer.nection with its nile, adepted a "Findir.g of No significant Inact" and has r-ade an envtrer. ental ncess-ent. 'Ihe NPC assessment addresses the subject of cost, and it is clear frcm the ecst data related to offsite plannir.g and preparedness that this FDA nlle is not. a significant regulation requiring a regulatory analysis under Executive Order 12291.
Further, this ruleear.ing proceeding was initiated prict to January 1,1981, and thus is not subject to the requirecents of the Regulator / Flexibility Act for regulater/ flexibility ar.alysis.
An envircr. ental assessment has been prepared in 'ahich FDA has deter-ir.ed that this rule will not have a significant iq:act en the quality of the human envircreent.
Discussien en Preccsed A. end. ents:
(Cnce w have acreed ucon revisers to rale, an ever/tew of sienificant enances anc sup cr*:r.c ratienales will te accec. An ex.erstve sect:.cn su,rart::ina ecr rents en tr.e crevious erc=csec rule anc FDr s restense to tr.em nas ::een celetec since 1 is no Acrcer relevant te cur currer.:
prcecsec a. enc. enes.1
_ LIST CF St mS IN 44 CFR 350:
Nuclear pcwr plants ar.d reacters, radiatien protecticn.
Acccrdir. gly, Part 350 is added to Subchapter E cf Chapter I, Title 44 C:de of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Part 350 - REVIEW AND APPFCVAL CF STATE M,0 !.fCAL RADIC:.CGICAL 05FC:DCl PIANS M.'D FFIPAFIINESS Secticn 350.1 purpose.
350.2 Definitions.
350.3 Backgrcund.
I 350.4 Delusiens.
350.5 Criteria for review ard apprcval of State and 1ccal radic1cgical energency plans and preparedness.
350.6 Assistance in develepcent of State and local plans.
350.7 Application by State for review and appreval.
350.8 Initial T &A action on State plan.
350.9 Exercises.
l 350.10 public.eetirg in advance of m'A approval.
350.11 Action by FDA Regicnal Cirector.
6 i
5 6
Ll.
- 350.12 NA Headquarters review ard approval.
350.13
. Withirawal of approval.
~
350.14 Amendment to State plans.
- 350.15 Appeal procedures.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5131, 5201, 50 U.S.C. App. 2253(g), Secticn 109, FL 96-295; Peorganization plan No. 3 of 1978 (3 CFR 1978 Ccep. 329); Executive Order 12127 (44 FR 19367); and Executive Crder 12148 (44 FR 43239).
Section 350.1 purpose.
1te purpose of the regulatien in this part is to establish policy and procedures for review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of State and local emergency plans ard preparedness for the offsite effects of a radiological emergency which ray occur at a cormercial nuclear powr facility.
Paview and approval of these plans and preparedness involves preparatien of findings and determinatiens of the adequacy of the plans and capacilities of State and local goverrrnents to effectively irrplerrent the plans.
Secticn 350.2 Definitiens.
As used in this part, the folicwing ter s and concepts are defined.
(a)
Associate Director r eans the Associate Director, State and Ircal Prcgra:rs and Support, mA or cesignee.
(b)
Director treans the Director, TENA cr designee.
- (c)
E22 treans Emergency planning Zene.
(d)
TEFA means the Federal Emergency Managerrent Agenef.
(e)
NPC means the Nuclear Regulatcry Cerrmission.
l (f)
Fecicnal Director means a Regional Director of FEA or designee.
l (g) Deficienev is a demonstrated inadecuaev cbserved in an exercise that'culd generally cause a f tncing enat ef fstte emergency precarecness was not ace:uate to previde reascnacle assurance tnat protective measures can be taxen to prote:t tre nealen and safety of tne puolic from tne radiolocical consecuences er an acercent at a nuclear cower facility. Generally, tre tcenti.f tec inace:uacy euld have a direct and infreciate acverse imoact on orcanizational caoactittles to protect puclic healta and safety. A def tciency ts also an inadecuacy not ooserved in an exercise based on ettner a failure of an orcanization to adecuately l
demonstrate its capact11ttes in an exercise or on infor natten cetained en an orcanization's eerfor ance vitacut coservation.
(h) An Area Recuirino Corrective Action (ARCA) is _a deconstrated inade:uac f coservec in an exercise tnat altnouen its correcticn is recutrea in ene next seneculec =tennial exere.se, it is not ecnstcerec, oy itself to acversely 1--cact cacactittles to protect puolle nealtn anc sarety.
e 7
l l '
(i) Drill is a structured event aL ed at testino, develeping and aintainiro soecta11:ec erergency rescense s(111s sucn as ra:101co tca l cru terino.
A drill is often a cw cnent of an exercise.
(i) Dnercency Plannino Zone (EPZ) is a generic area arcurd a cer:rrercial nuclear facilley used to assist in offsite emergency planning and the develeprent of a significant resp:nse base. For ccr cercial nuclear pcwer plants, EPZ's of about 10 and 50 miles are delineated for the plume and ingestien exposure pathsays respectively. For reactors with autheri:ed cower levels less than 250.W ther al and cas-ccoled reacters, tre si:e of EPZ's may ce ceter.inec on a case-cy-case casts.
(k) Plu:m Ex:csure Pathsay refers to whole body external exposure to ga. : a raciation frcm tne plume and frczn deposited materials and inhalation expcsure frcrn the passing radicactive plume. W.e duratien of primary exposures in this cathsay could range in length frcrn hours to days.
(1) Ingestien Decosure Pathway refers to expcsure resulting frem t.he pri.Tarily frcen ingestien of raciologically conta.T.inated water er foods such as milk and fresn vegetables. that have been cente-enated wtth radiettent W.e duraticn of pr: ary exposure in this cathsay cculd range frcrn hcurs to trenths.
(m) Exercise is an event that tests the intecrated cacabilities cf orcani:aticns to res: enc to a si.:ulatec radioiccical emercency as de-enstrated tn:cugn tne t.clementaticn Of trel.: emercency res:cr.se plans anc preoarecness.
(n) Full Particication D<ercise refers to a $cint an exercise in which:
(1) State and 1ccal gcVerr. Tent and licensee energency personnel and other rescurces are mobili:ed e.aeeged in suf ficient ntrrbers to adecuately
. decenstrate and test ver:fy their fundarental caoabilities tne espectitty to respenc to a smulated radiolccical erergency ene settens rentred by the eeetse.e seenarret (2) tre integratec cacao 111 ties of orcani:atiens espers sty to adegately assess and respend to a ractolccical accicent en seerdene at a eecreretet nue ear pewer piane are is tested and (3) tne tnylementation of the cbservable ele ~ents peette.s of State and local and licensee plars ard precaredness is tested.
(o) Partial Particioatien Exercise refers to the engagerrent of State a.ad teest goverr. ent emergency personnel in an exercise sufficient to adequately test directicn and centrol functions for protective acticn decisictrraking related to the approcriate establishment of emergency classificatien ec;i;n levels and ccertunication capacilities a cng affected State anc Iccal goverrcents and the licensee. Partial particication, as defined, typically refers to the li:nited particioation of State covernments in an exercise ncsever, in sotre cases, tais cencept can be used to refer
- .o an exercise Ln wnten 1ccal govern-ents nave 11:nitec carticicatien. Ltmited carticication of State and local orcani:attens is permttec as a ccr't:ensatino reasure for orcani:ations tnat have rester.sittlities for t,.o cr -ore sites.
I 8
(c) Re-edial Exorcise refers to the testirq cf b ere thst tests creaniza*icral deficiencies icentifiec in a_ ei a previcus ]cint exercise that are cces;cercc significant enougn to agact en the pretecticn of public health and safety.
In addition to the particioatien of the organirattents) with deficiencies. rered U l exercises may tnvolve otner State and local orcant:atiens and utilities if tr.etr carticioation is necessary to conf:.rm corrective actiens.
(c) Ircal Gcverrrent refers to borcughs, cities, ccunties, rn.:nicipalities, partsnes, tcwns, tcwnships and other local jurisdictions with the plure expcsure pathway EPZ that have when any ef these enetths has spci.fic roles in ecerger.cy plann.ing and preparecness, i:n the EPS (r) Site refers to the location at stitch there is one or core cermercial nuclear pcw r plants. A nuclear power plant is syncny cus with a nuclear pewt facility.
Secticn 350.3 Backgrcund.
(a) Cn Dece-cer 7,1979, the President directed the Director of DA to take the lead in State and 1ccal energency planning ard preparedness activities with respect to nuclear pc w r facilities. This included a review of the existire ecergency plans both in States with cperating reacters and these with plants seneduled for operatien in the near feture.
(b) This assig ent was given to MA because of its respensibilities urder Executive Order 12148 to establish Federal policies for ard ccordinate civil e ergency planning, manage ent and assistance functions ard to represent the President in workir,g with State ard Iccal goverrrents and the private sector to sti.-.: late vigercus participatien in civil erergency preparedness pr grams.
Ur. der Sectica 201 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5131), and other
- statutcry functicns, the Director cf RA is charged with the responsibility to develcp and i:ple.ent plans and prcgrams of disaster preparedness.
(c) There are two secticnsJ.n the tGC's fiscal year 1982/1983 Apprcpriatica Author:.:atien (Public Q,97-415) that pertain ti tt'e secpe of this rule.
~
it:cate lecislative referer.ce.)
l (1) Section 5 provides fer the issuance of an operatirg license for a cen.ercial nuclear power pian:Lby the imC if it is determined that there exists a State, 1ccal or utilief plan which provides assurance that public health ard safety is not endar.g~ere3 by-the operation of the facility. This section sculd allcw the NFC to issue an operating license for sucn plants withcut mA-ar gved State J
a.rd 1ccal governnent plans.
(2) Secticn 11 provides for the issuance of tedporaffntenserTerTigerating a utilizaticr. facility at a specific powr level to be determined by the Ccmission, pending final action by the Ccmissicn on the application. Also, this section authorizes the tGC to issue tencrary cperating licenses for these facilities without the ccepletion of the required l
(!GC) Ccmissien hearir.g prccess. A petition for such a tegrary license ray ret be filed until certain actions are ccepleted including the submissien cf a State,1ccal er utility energency respense plan fer the facility.
l l
l l
l 9
1
(d) To carrf cut these respensibilities, DA is engaged in a cecperatwa eff:r-with State ar.d local geverr;:ents and other Federal agencies in the develeprent of State and 1ccal plans and preparedness te ecpe with the ef fsite ef fects resulting frcrn radiological emergencies at cervercial nuclear pcser facilities.
FDA re curremety devetepteg ccordinated the develernant of the Federal Padiological Emergency Paspense Plan (f7EPP), wnicn previces for wet preysse the overall Federal support to State and local gcVerrinents, for all types of radiological incicents including these ocearring at nuclear power plants.
The FPEPh when Puettehed fPee eeted fee Beeeseer t993h in the Federst Pegtster es en ir.tecim ruie wett reptece the The TPIPP was cublished in the Federal Pacister en Neverreer 8,1987, (50 FR 46542) arx1 ts tne cceratWe feceral raclolocical rescense Plan.
W.e FPZFP nas receivec tne concurrence of eacn of tne 12 Fe:eral acencies tnat could ce involvec in rescending to a raclolocical e ercency.
O.e fps? reelaces tre Nattenal Faciological Frergency Preparecness/Fespense Plan for Cearercial Nuclear Pcwer Plant Accidents (Master Plan). W.e Master Plan was prcrnulgated by mA en Cece-ter 23,1980 (45 rR 84910).
(e) FDdA has entered into a 5'emerandtrn of Understanding (FCU) with the NPC to which it will furnish assesscents, findings and deter inatiens as to stett.er State and local emergency plans and preparedness are adequate and centinue to te capa=le cf irplecentation (e.g., adeqJacy and rainterance of precedures, train =g, resources, staffirg levels and gaalificatien and eculpr en adegaacy).
2.ese findings and deterinatiens will be used by NPC under its o,.n rules in connection with its '.tcensing and reTalater/ reqJirements and FD% will suppop its findings in the NFC licensing prccess and related court prcceedings.
(f) Notwithstanding the precedures set ferth in this rule these rules for requesting and reaching a &A administratWe approval cf State and 1ccal plans, intert:n findings and de e-ansee-.s en the current status of errergency plann==
arc preparedness arcund particular sites may be req;ested by the NPC urcer ce 3cet NPC/FD% SCU and prcvided by MA for use as needed in the NFC licenseg prccess, nese f = dings med deter-enattens may be based upcn plans currently available to FD% cr furnished to FD% by the NPC thrcugh the NPC/FD% Steerug Cemittee. These findines may also be based uoen FD%'s evaluatien of precaredness as denenstrate: in exercises.
Interi.m. findines pecvided under the doc represent an enens10n cf tne 350 crecess esta=1:snec ey inis rule.
An enviren ental assessment has been prepared en which FD% has dete: u.ned that this rule will not have a significant irpact en the quality of the hu. man enViren:Nitnt.
Sectien 350.4 Exclusiens.
Se regulation in this part dces not apply to, nor will FD% apply any criteria with respect to any evaluatien, assess: rent or deter.inatiens regarding the b7C licensee's onsite emergenef plans or preparedness, ner shall FD% rake any sittilar deter.:u. nation with respect to the integration of effsite and b7C l
licensee ensite energency preparedness except as these assess. ents and deter-inations affect the errergency preparedness of State and 1ccal govern ents.
The This regulatien in thee part applies eniy te State end te-st pienne 1 nnd preperaer.ess wttn reepeet te e-ergenetee at eeeper tet nuetear pewer feettettee
)
10 t
I P
- - - ~,,
eM dees net apply to other facilities which may be licer. sed by SK, ner te U:tited States Goverrrent-omed, non-licensed facilities and the Jurisdicticns surrcunding them ner to accidents involving the transtertatien cf radicactive materials.
Section 350.5 Criteria for review and approval of State ard 1ccal radiolcgical en rgency plans and preparedness.
(a) Seetten 59,6 ef bT@s E=eegency Pianning Bute f t9 EFR Parts 59 #ppeh E)-
eM 79 as acessest and The joint DA-NPC Criteria fer Precaration and Evaluation of Padiolocical E ercency Fescense Plars and Precarecness in Supter*.
of Nuclear Power Plants (NUPE-0654/ f&A-PIP-1, Rev.1, Novencer 1980) tr.a t wmen apply insofar as MA is cencerned to State ard local goverrrents, are to be used in reviewing, evaluating and approvire State and local radiological emergency plans and preparedness and in caking any findings and deterunaticrs with respect to the adequacy of the plans and the capabilities of State and local goverr nents to irplerent them. Both the planning and preparedness stardards and related criteria centained in NUFIG-0654/mA-PEP-1, Rev.1 are to be used by m.A ard the bPC in reviewing and evaluating State and local gcVerr. ent radiological e~ergency plans and preparednesss. While FD% believes the olannirc stardards and evaluatien criteria ince:ccrated in NUPE-0654/ FD%-PEP-1 recrese".t tne apcrevec a preacn to esta:1 sn:.no emercency plan:tino anc preoareer.ess, State anc Accal goverrrents rav re:uest use cf alternat:.ve accrea.nes to DA casec en trel.r uru. cue neccs anc sit.:aticns.
F9% will coorc.inate tne review anc apcreval of sucn recuests frem State anc 1ccal pcVerr: rents witn tne NRC.
If alter ative accreacnes are not recuestec ano apprcvec, tre casts of TA's evaluaticn cf of f site precaredr.ess will re casec en :ne planri.c starmes arc evaluatien cri,teria of NUFE-0654/ F9% :EP-1.
For crevity, only tne planning star. cares centcnec in NUFE-C654/ EUA-FIP-1, Fev. i are presented belcw. W e evaluatien criteria are adepted into this rule by reference.
t (i)
Prirary respcnsibilities for erergency resper.se by the nuclear facility licerse, and by State and 1ccal organizatiers within the Erergency Planning Zenes have been assigned, the emergency resp:rsibilities of the varicus supporting organizatiers have been specifically established I
l and each principal resperse organization has staff to respond to ard aug ent its initial respense en a continuous basis.
(2)
On-shift facility licersee responsibilities for errergency respense are urarctgueusly defined, adequate staffing to provide initial facility accident resperse in key functieral areas is maintained at all ti es, tinely augnentation of response capabilities is available and the t
interfaces areng varicus ensite ressense activities and offsite suppcrt and response activities are specified.
(This stardard applies only to NBC licensees but is included here for ccrrpleteness.)
l l
(3)
Arrangecents for requestirg and effectively using assistance l
resources have been made, arrangements to acs.. Mate State ard 1ccal staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Cperatiers facility have been ez.de and other crpanizatiers capable cf augrenting the planned respense have been identi.fied.
9 11
(4)
A stardard e-ergency classification and actica level sche"e, the bases of which include f acility system and ef fluent parameters, is in use by tra nuclear facility licensee, and State and local resperse plans call for reliance on information previded by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial offsite respense treasures.
(5)
Precedures have been established for noti.fication, by the licensee, of State and 1ccal response organizations ard for tra notificaticn of energency personnel by all response equtizations; the centent of initial a d followup messages to resperse organizatiens ard tra public has been established; and means to provide early notificatien ard clear instruction to the pcpulace within the plume expcsure pathway Emergency Plannir4 Zone have been established.
(6)
Previsiers exist for pronf ccrmunications ancrq principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public.
(7)
Infor-atien is made available to the public en a periodic basis en how they will be notified and what their initial acticns shculd be in an energency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining irdoors), the principal points of contact with the news rnedia for disseminatien of infceatien during an energency (including the physical location or locatiers) are established in advance and precedures for coordinated dirseminatien of infomatien to the public are estaclished.
(8)
Adequate emergency facilities and equipeent to support the erergency resperse are previded and raintained.
(9)
Adegate rethods, systers and equipeen* for assessing and monit:rirs actual or potential, offsite ccnses encer of a radiological emergency cenditien are in use.
(10) A rarse of prctective acticrs has been davelcped for the plu, e expcsure patbay EPZ for emergency wrkers and the public. Guideli.nes for the choice of protective acticns during an emergency, cersistent with Federal guidance, are develcped and in place and protective actiers fer the ingestien exposure pathway DZ apprcpriate to the locale have teen develcped.
(11) Means for centro 111ng radiological exposures, Lt an erergency, are established for emergency workers. The rears for centrolling radiological expcsures shall include expcsure guidelines corsistent with DA Emergency Worker ard Lifesavirxj Activity Prctcctive Action Guides.
(12) Arrangecents are made for redical services for contaminated injured individuals.
(13) General plans fer recevery and reentry are develcred, t
12
(14) Pericdic exercises are (will be) cenducted to evaluate trajer portiens of emerger.cy response capabilities, periedic drills are (will be) cenducted to develep and maintain key skills and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected.
(15) PadiolcxJical errergency response training is previded to these who.tay i
te called upon to assisc in an emergency.
1 (16) Resp:nsibilities for plan develcpment and revies ard for distributien of erergency plans are established, and plar.ners are prcperly trair.ed.
(b)
In order for State or local plans and preparedness to be approved, such plans and preparedness must he determined, based on the acplicatien of the criteria set ferth in succart a of this secticn, to acoquately protect tne pucile nealtn ano safety cy provicing reasonable assurance that State and local goverr. ents can and intend te effect apprcpriate protective measures offsite in the event of a radiological emergency.
Sect:cn 350.6 Assistance in develcpment of State ard local plans.
(a)
An integrated apprcach to the develep ent of offsite radiolcgical emer-gency plans by States, localities ard the licensees of NPC with the assistance of the Federal Gcverr. ent is the apprcac.* rrest likely to provide the test protection to the public. Hence, Federal agencies including FDtA Regicnal staff, will be made available upon request to assist States and localities in the develcpment of plans.
(b) nere new exists in each of the ten standard Federal Regiens a Regieral Assistance Cct=ttttee (PAC) (formerly the Regicnal Advisory Cemittee) chaired by a FDdA Regicnel official ard having.emeers frem the Nuclear Regulater/ Cc=issien, Cepartment of Health ard Hu-an Ser/ ices, Cepart. ent of Energy, Cepart. ent of Transpcrtatien, Enviremenal Prctecticn Agency, the United States Cepart.ent of Agriculture and Cepart.ent of Ccm erce and the Decartment of the Interier and other Federal decart. ents and acencies sucn as tr.e Cecar: ent et Cefense, as acerceriste. Kneress en 44 6FR 35-iy er,e sepererent ce seeenee es restee as a potenttailr Pe=eer of the PAEe7 it is ne*: teted tn this ruie because retitary nuetear fact +ttees are met tre summe of eeneer. -
te PAC's will assist State and local gcVerrinent efficials in the develcpment of their radiological emergency response plans, and will review plans and cbserte exercises and assist in the evaluation cf te eve M e the adequacy of these plans and relatec preparecness.
mis assistance does not include the actual precaration wrettrg of Stata and local goverrrnent plans by RAC memcers.
(c)
In acccrrplishing the foregoing, the PAC's will use the stardards ard evaluatien criteria in NUrdL-0654/mdA-PIP-1, Rev.1, or accreved alter ative acercaches, and will rerder such technical assistar.ce as may ce requirec, apprcpriate to their agency missien and expertise.
In cbser/ing and evaluating exercises, the PAC's will identify, soon af ter an exercise, any deficiencies
- ard other creblem areas ceser/ed in i
- See sect:.cn 350.2 (g) ter cet tnition of deficiency.
I 13 l
i
the planning and prepredr.ess ef fort ;ertaininc to t.Ma availability and use of including deficiencies in rescurces, training of sectt, equipment, staffing levels and deficiencies in the qualificattens cf emercency personnel.
Secticn 350.7 Applicatien by State for review ard approval.
(a)
A State which seeks focal review and appreval by MA of the State's radiolcgical ecergency plan shall subrut an applicatien for sucn revin and apprcval to the MA F.egieral Directer of the Fagien in W.ich the State is located. ne application, in the form of a letter frcn the Governer or frecn such other State official as the Governer ray desig. ate, shall centain one ccpy of the ceripleted State plan, including er age r
of response in the ingestien exposure pathway DZ.
D e applica;, a will also include plans of all apprcpriate local goverr.ments. D e %.e11catica shall 3pecify the site or sites for which plan appreval is sought.
Fcr guidance en the local gcverr. ment plans that should be included with an application, refer to Part I.E. NUFm-0C54/FDR-FIP-1, Psv.1, entitled Centigucus Jurisdicticn Covermental E. ergency Planning (see e). Only a State may request feral review of State or local radiolcgical earprcy plans.
(b)
Generally, the plure expcsure pathway DZ for nuclear po-er facilities
~
shall censist of an area abcut 10 miles (16 Xm) in radius and the ingestica expcsure pathsay DZ shall censist of an area about 50 miles (80 Km) in radius. Re exact size and configuration of the DZ's surrounding a particular nuclear pc'-er facility shall be dete=ined by State and 1ccal gcverments in censultation with FD'A and NRC taking into acccun'. such local conditiens as de.cgraphy, tepcgraphy, land characteristics, access rcutes and 1ccal jur:.sdiction bourdaries. R e size of the D Z's are.=ay be detenined by NT<C in censultaticn with FD% cn a case-by-case casts fcr gas ccoled reacters and for reacters with an authori:ed powr level les9 than 250.W theral. D e plans for the ingestien expcsure pathsay shall fccus en such acticns as are apprcpriate to prctect tae public frcr' ingesting centaminated focd and water.
(c)
A State may submit separately its plans for the DZ's and the 1ccal gcVer. ent plans related to individ=.1 nuclear pcser facilities. ne parpcse of separate suteissiens is to allcw approval of a State plan, and cf the plans necessary fer specific nuclear pc er facilities in a cultiple-facility State, while not approving or acting on the plans necessary for other nuclear pcser facilities within the State.
If separate submissiens are cade, apprcpriate adjustrents in the State plan may be necessary.
In any event, FDR appreval of State plans and apptcpriate 1ccal goverment plans shall be site-specific althcuch States may submit an umbrella olan with site-scecific annexes.
(d) ne applicaticn shall centain a statement that the State plan, togetner with the apprcpriate 1ccal plans, is, in the epinien of the Governer er his/her desictee, State adequate to protect the public health anc safety ci its cit : ens living within tae emergency planning zenes for the nuclear po er facilities included in the subreissien by prcviding reasonable 4
14
l assurance that State and local goverr. ents can ard intend to ef fe~b apprcpriate protective measures offsite in the event of a radioleg al energency. De prevision cf this statement by State authorities d es net negate the necesstry of DNs evaluatien anc accreval of State anc iccal goverrrfant radiolectcal emergency clannim and creoarecness and tr.e creyt-sien of FD4A's findings and determir.atiens to tne NRC fer tne CecTntssicn's use in riaxing licensing cecisions.
i (e)
FD4A and the States will make suitable arrangecents in tra case cf everlapping or adjacent jurisdictions to permit an orderly assessment ard apprcval of interstate or interregicnal plans.
Secticn 350.8 Initial FD A action on State plan.
(a) ne Fagional Director shall acknowledge in writing with.in 20 ten days the receipt of the State application.
(b)
FDdA shall publish a nCtice signed by the FagiCral Director or designee in the Federal Register within 30 days after receipt of the applicatien, that an applicatien frem a State has been received and that ecpies are available at the Regicral Cffice fer review and ccpying in acccrdance with.
44 CF3 5.26.
~.
(c) ne Fegieral Director shall furnish ccpies of the plan to re-ters of tra FAC fer their analysis and evaluation.
(d)
The PAC shall make a detailed review of the State plan, includir.g those of local gcVerrinents, and assess the capabilir, of State and 1ccal gover. ents tes.sf fectively irple-ent the plan (e.g., adequacy and rainterance cf precedures, training, rescurcera staffing levels and qualificatien and equip-ent adequacf). De results cf the FAC evaluatien shall be crevided to the Pecieral Director 'ar.o will use enem in raxinc rec rrer. cec f1..ctr.gs to tne Asscciate Otrector.
iiver:seten ene eee.=ents es e.-e M6 -emeers wen be usee as poet er ene revtew preceest (e)
Curine the review crecess, in ee.necteen wtth t}.e revtewr the Fagicral Directer may raxe suggestiera to States cencerning perceived ~ gaps of deficiencies in the plans, and the State may arend the plan at any tire prier to forsarding to the Associate Director cf FDL (f) wa corditiens for FDA appreval of State plans (includir.g 1ccal gcVerr. ent plans) are the requirements for an exercise (see Section 350.9), ard for public participation (see Sections 350.9 and 350.10.). Rese activities occur during the Regieral review and prMr to the forsarding of the plan to the Associate Director.
Secticn 350.9 Exercises.*
(a)
Before a Regieral Director can forsard a State plan to the Associate Director for appreval, the State, tcqether with all apprcpriate 1ccal goverreents, must ccnduct a joint exercise of that State plan, involving
- see sect;cns 350.2 t n) *r*(m) (ni de& f e) respectively for definitions of excMises, full part:cipatien exernses3, and recedial exercises and McA's.
15
i I
I full participatien* of apprcpriate lccal qcverrinent entities, the state and the apprcpriate licensee of the bTC. To the extent achievable, this exercise shall include participation by apprcpriate Federal agencies.
l
' Itis exarcise shall be observed and evaluated by FD4A and by representa-tives of other Federal agencies with rMrreership en the PAC's and by hTC with respect to licensee resp:r.se~. Within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of the ccepletien of the exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal observers shall be conducted by the Regieral Director to discuss the preliminary results of the excrcise.
If the exercise discloses any deficiencies or AFCA's* in the State and local plans, or the abilitf of the State anc Iccal severreents to irtplerrent the plar.s, the FEMA representatives shall make them kncun precptly in writing to apprcpriate State o:ificials. To the extent necessarf, the State shall arrend the plan to incorporate recccrended changes or irrprovertents or take other corrective measures, such as remedial exercises *, to dertenstrate to the Regional Director that identified weaknesses have been corrected.
(b) 2.e Regicnal Director shall be the FEdA offcial responsible for certifying to the Asscciate Director that an exercise of the State plan has been conducted, and that changes and corrective measures in accordance with sectten 350.9(a) above have been r ade.
(c)
S*ete e.-d teest severr.-ents that have fuHy paretetreted h e iene
~
eseeeeeee wet.m ene year peter to the effeettve dete of thee fina+ rule wee 4 have centta.tt2 g appe-vet ef thete redieeegtest e=ereerey piens and peeperte.aeee by fe "wt. g the frequency t.adieeted h ferthr-i4Fr State a:$d teest geverr.aenes thae have nee fetty paret-speted b a fetne ereresse wethta ese year preer te tP' e eff-eeive date ef thie fi..si rute we t fetYew t.=e frequer y i.-drested h tet-tr-f4F after ee peeeten ef a je nt enretre b wheen they have fuHy partt rpeted; If, in develcping exercise senedu'es with State and 1ccal gcVerraents to irplerrent the require ents in (c) (1)-(4), the.Regicnal Director finds that ur. usual hardships would rasult, he may seek relief free the Asscciate Director.
(1)
EaJ:h State which has a ccenercial nuclear pc%er site within its boundaries or is w; thin the 10-mile plure expcsure pat.Way EPZ E.-ergency Ptennt. g Eene of suen site shall fully participate in an exercise gointly with the nuclear pcwer plant licensee and apprcpriate local goverr. ents at least everf two years.
(2)
Each State with rultiple sites within its boundaries shall fully participate in a jcint exercise at some site en a rotational basis at least everf 2 years.
bhen not fully participating in an exercise at scme site, the State shall partially participate" at that site to support the full participation of apprcpriate local governments. Pricrity shall be given to rew facilities seeking an operating license frca the hAC and which have not fully participated
'See Sect;cns 350.2thl @ fm1(n) M fp1 respectively for definitiens of exercises, full part:cipatien exercises; eed remedial exercises ar.d APCA's.
"See Secticn 350.2 (o) fer definitien of partial participatien exercises.
16 s
in a joint exercise involving the State, local gcVerr. ents and the licersee at that site. State and local gcverments will coordirate the scheduling of these exercises with the apprcpriate l'E:KA ard !GC Regieral Of fices ard the affected licensees.
(3)
Each apprcpriate local gcverrrnent Wich has a site within its boundaries or is within the 10-mile emergency planning zone shall fully part.icipate in a joint exercise with the licensee and the State at least every t.c years. For trcse local goverments that have planning and preparedness resp:rsihilities for more than one facility, the Fagicral Director ray seek an execptien frcrn this requirerent by recorrending alterrative arrangements for approval by the Associate Directer.
(4)
States within the 50-mile emergency planning zone of a site shall exercise their plans and preparedness related to ingestien exposure patNay measures at least once every six five years in conjuncticn with a plure exposure pathway exercise at some site se that stte.
(5)
Famedial exercises may be required to correct deficiencies cbserved in exercises conducted for centinued FSA approval. Should this occur, the FDA Fegicnal Director, in cer.sultatien with the @A Associate Director and the NPc, will deter.ine tne participatien requirec frcrn ene States anc/cr 1ccal goverrenents.
(d)
Within 48 hcurs of the ccepletien of an exercise conducted for centinued FDA appreval, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal ct: servers shall be conducted by the Regional Directer to discuss the preliminary results of the exercise.
If the exercise disc 1cses any deficiencies in the State ard 1ccal plans, or the ability of the State and local gcVerr. ents to
- implement the plans, the. FDA representatives shall rake them know prcr$tly in writing to apprcpriate State officials. To the extent necessary, the State shall acend tne plan to incorporate reccccended changes or irprovenents er take other corrective measures, such as remedial exercises, to deacnstrate to the Regieral Director that identified weaknesses have been ccrrected. D e Regicnal Director shall forward his or her evaluation of and any recc.r ended findines on the exercise conducted for continued FDA apprcval to tne Asscciate Director Ecluding the certificatien that recuisite ener:ges eed corrective measures have been or will be made, i
(e)
Fo11cwing the exercise conducted for centinued FFA approval, the Regional Director shall conduct a meeting in the vicinity of the nuclear pcwer facility l
Wich will include the exercise participants, representatives frcrn the tGC ard other appropriate Federal agencies and the public and media as cbservers. Se purpose of this meeting is to discuss the evaluatien of the exercise. At the discretien of the Regieral Director, written ecceents frcrn the public and media ray be sutrnitted at or af ter the meeting. Rese ceccents will be taken into censideratien by the Fegieral Director in his or her evaluatien.
(f)
Af ter FDA approval of a State and local plan has been granted, failure to exercise the State ar.d 1ccal plans at the frequency and participation described in this section shall be grounds for withdrawing MA appreval.
(See Secticn 350.13.)
17 1
i
Section 350.10 Public meeting in advance Of IDA apprcval.
(a) During the IWA Pagieral Office review of a State plan and prict to the sucrnission by the Regieral Director of the evaluation of the plan 'and exercise to the Associate Director, the EUA Pagieral Director shall assure tndt there is at least one public meeting corducted in tra vicinity of the nucleer pcwer facility. Se purgcce of such a meeting, which may be cerducted cy tre State or by the Regieral Director, shall be to: (1) acquaint the certers of the public in tre /icinity of each facility with tra content of the State and related local plans, and with the conduct of the joint exercise which tested the plans; (2) answer any questiers about ESA review of the plan and the exercise; (3) receive suggestiers frm the public concerning inprovecents or changes that may be necessa:y; ard (4) describe to the public the way in which the plan is expected to function in the event of an actual emergenef. ne Fagional Director should assure that representatives frm appropriate State and local gcVerment agencies, and the affected utility ap; mar at such neetirgs to make presentaticra a. d to answer questiens frm the public.
ne public meeting should be held af ter the first joint (utility, State and 1ccal goverr. ents) exercise at a ti.e mutually hgreed to by State and local authorities, licensee ard IEA and b'RC Fagional of ficials. This neeting shall,
te noticed in the local newspaper with the largest circulatien in the area, er other suen media as the Regieral Director may select, en at least tso occasicrs, cr.e of which is at least t%c weeXs before the eeecing takes place and the other is within a few days of the reeting date. Local radio and televisicn statiers shculd be noti.fied cf the scheduled meeting at least one weeX in advance. FApresentatives frcrn h*FC and other apprcpriate l'ederal agencies shculd also be invited to participate in these reetings.
If, in the judg ent of the EUA Regicnal Director, the public reeting er reetings reveal deficiencies in the State plan and/or tra joint exercise, the Regieral Director shall inform the State of the fact tcgather with recermerdaticrs for inpreverent. No PWA approval of State ard Iccal plans and preparedness shall be rade until a meeting described in this paragraph shall have been held at er near the nuclear pcwer facility site for which the State is seeking approval.
(b) If, af ter the cerduct of a cublic ceetino urder 350.10a, sienificar.t enances are mace to State and local emercency plans (e.c., cnance in tre
~
emercency plannino :ene tnat ellnunates er acds Juriscict:crst tnat 1--:act en tne way in wnlen enet olan is expected to ce trole-entec, tr.en ancer.er cuolic meet:.no snculd ce cercincted corsistent witn tr.e crevisiers of 350.12 t al.
Section 350.11 Action by EUA Regional Directer.
(a)
Upon ecepletion of his or her review, including cerduct of the exercise required by Section 350.9 and af ter the public meeting required by l
Section 350.10, the Regional Director shall prepare an evaluatien of the State plan, ircluding plans for local goverments. Such evaluation shall be specific with respect to the plans applicable to each nuclear facility so that findings and detem.inations can te rade by the Asscciate Directer en a site-specific basis.
18
,(
(b) te Regieral Director ihh11 evaluate the adegaacy of State arxt Iccal plans and preparedness en the basis of the criteria set forth in Secticn 350.5, and shall report the evaluatien with respct to each of the plarmirq standards mentioned therein as such apply to State and local plans and preparedness.
(c)
De Ecgional Directo( snall forward the State p1:an together with his or her evaluation ard gt pr relevant record mate tal to the Asscciate Director. Palevart record raterial will include the results of the exercise (i.e., deficiencies noted ard corcections made), a sumarf of the deficiencies identified durir.g the public meeting, recercerdations made to the State and ccernit:nents made by the State for effectirq in rovenents in its plans and preparedness and actions taken by the State.
Section 350.12 FCU\\ He M gaarters review ard app cval.
(a)
Upon receipt,frcm a Regional Director of a State plan, the Associate Direcer shall conduct such review of the State plan as he or s, e shall deem necessary. Se Associate Director shall arrange for ccpies of the plan, together with the Regional Director's evaluation, to be made available to the eerbers of the Federal Padiological Preparedness Coordinatirq Ccemittee (1~PPCC) and to other offices of FEA with apprcpriate guidance relative to any assistance that ray be needed in the FEA review ard appreval precess.
(b)
If, af ter furral submissien of the State, plan arb the Regicnal Director's evaluatten,,the Asscciate Director deter %ces that the State plans and preparedne m
,I l
/
. (1) are gdequate to protect the health ardi safety of the public living l
m the vicinity of the nuclear pcuer facility by previding reascnable assurance that State and local gcVerrrents can and intend to effect apprcpriate protective measures effsite in the event of a l
radiolcgical erergency.
I g
(2) are capable of beirq igle ented (e.g. adequacy arxi maintenance of procedures, training, rescurces, staffing levels and qualification l
and equiprnent adequacy); the Associate Director shall cpprcve in writing the State plan. De Associate Director shall cqncurrently ccrinunicate this FDA approval to the Goverrd of the S:nte(s) in question, the imC and the pertinent Regicnal Director (s) and i;tm:diately shall publish in the Federal Pegister a notice to this effect.
! i (c)
If, after formal subrnissien of the State plan, the Asscciate Direc*.or is not satisfied with the adegaacy of the plan or preparedness with respect to a particular site, he or she shall concurrently ccrmunicate that decisten to the Governor (s) of the State (s), the tiPC and the pertinent Fagicnal Directer (s), together with a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the decisicn and requestpq apprcpriate plan or preparedness revisien.
Suen state-ent shall be transmitted to the Covernor(s) t'.reugh the apprcpriate Regicnal Director (s). De Asscciate Director shay,
i: mediately publish a notice to this effect in the Federal Prgister.'
(
19
?
o f
i 1
t,
~
y,,4 l}p T IThe approval shall be of tra State plan t gether with the local plans for (d) each nuclear power facility (including outmf-State facilities) fer which app wal has been requested.
FLv may withhold approval of plar's applicable to a' 9pecific nuclear power facility in a multi-facility I
Stata, but nevst:theless approve the State plan and associated local plars applicable to other facilities in a State. Approval may be withheld for a specific site until plans for all jurisdictions witjtin the emergenef planning zones of that site have been reviewd and found adequate.
(e)
Final resecrsibility for making deteminatiers on the adeauacy and
-~
approval of State and local govewnt plans and prepareaness uncer this rule and tne NRC-miA Memorancum of Understanding snall be vestac vita y [
ene miA Associate Director.
t'
- 4..(f)fet Within 60 H days after the date of notification of appmal for a
~
particular nuclear powr facility or within 60 M days of' &f'staternent of disapproval of a State plan, any interest'e"ci person may appeal the
/
decisien of the Associate Director to the Director; hcwver, such an appesi mdst te rude solely upon the ground that the Associate Direc 0?s decition, based en the available record, was ursupported by substantial evidence.
(See Section 350.15 for appeal procedures.)
Sectien 350.13 Withdrawal of appreval.
~
(a)
If, at:any ti:na af ter granting approval of a State plan, the Associate Director detemines, on his c: her own initiative, motion or en the basis 3
cf infagstion another persen supplied, that the State or local plan is no longer' adequate to protect public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that apprcpriate protective measures can be taken, or is no longer capable of being irrplemented, he or she shall imediately advise the Governor of the affected State, thrcugh the apprcpriate I
Regional Directer and the NRC cf that initial detemination in writing.
IDA shall spell out in detail the reasers for its initial detemination, l
ard shall descril:e the deficiencies in the plan or the prgaredness of the. State.
II, after four months frcm the date of such an initial detemination, the State in question has not either (i) corrected the deficiencies noted er l2) summittad an acceptsele plan for correcting l
those deficiencies, the Associate Direcer shall withdraw appreval and shall irrrediately infom the NFC and t% Governor of the affected State,
' cf the determination to withdraw appreval and shall publish in the 4
i rederal Regitter and the local newspaper having the largest daily l
/
' circulatica in the affected State notice of its withdrawal of appreval.
/
d me raiTupon which the Associate Director makes the determination i
for w,itMrtadel of approval is the sane basis used for reviewing plars and oes, i.s., the planning standards and relate:i criteria in NUREM0654/rDtA-FD-1, Rev.1.
t (b)
In *t.e event that the State in question shall submit a plan for correcting 4
the deficiencies, the Associate Director shall negotiate a schedule j
al.1 a tinatable uMer which the State shall correct the deficiencies.
j If, on the agreed upon date, the deficiencies have been corrected, ete Associate Director shall withiraw the initial detemination and the i
)
20 i
i e--
---w e ab a nn.,,,,
J-, n - - -, - -
apprcval previously granted shall remain valid. i'e or she shall inform the Governcr(s), the UPC, the pertinent Pagicnal Directer (s) anc notdf the public as stated in paragraph (a) of this ssction.
If, hcmever, en the agreed upon date, the deficiencies are not corrected, FDtA shall withdraw its approval and shall ccrmanicate its decision to the Gcvernor of the State whose plan is in question, the NBC, the apprcpriate Federal agencies and notify the public as indicated above.
(c) within 30 days afger the date of noti.ficatien of withdrawal of appreval of a State or local plan, any interested person may appeal the decisien of the Associate Director to the Director; however, such an appeal trust be made solely upon the greurd that the Associate Director's decision, based on tra available record, was unsupported by substantial evidence.
(See Section 350.1b for appeal procedures.)
Sectien 350.14 Amenitents to State plans.
(a) t e State may amend a plan submitted to FDiA for review and approval under Secticn 350.7 at any tire during the review process or may anand a plan at any tine af ter FDtA approval has been granted under Section 350.12. A State must amend its plan in order to extend the i
coverage of the plan to any new nuclear power facility which beccres cperaticnal after a FD A approval or in case of any other significant change. Ce State plan shall remain in effect as approved while any 4
significant change is under review.
(b)'
A significant change is one which involves the evaluation and assessrent of a planning standard or which involves a matter which, if presented with the plan, wculd need to have been considered by the Asscciate Director in making a decision that State or local plans and preparedness are (1) adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the nuclear powr facility by providing reasonable assurance that apprcpriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency; and (2) capable of being i:rplenented.
(c)
A significant change will be processed in the sare manner as if it were an initial plan submission. However, the Pagional Director may deter.ine that certain procedures, stich as holding a public meeting or a complete exercise would be unnecessary. De existing FDiA appreval shall remain l
in effect while any significant changes are under review.
l (d)
Changes, sucti as a change in a telephone nunber, that are not significant as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, but are necessary to maintain currency of the plan, should be forwarded to the pagicnal Cirector.
Section 350.15 Appeal procedures.
(a)
Any interested person may appeal a det-isien made under Sections 350.12 and 350.13 of this Part, by sutmitting to the Director, retA, a written notice of appeal, within 60 39 days af ter the appearance in the Federal Pagister of the netice oflecision relating to the matter being appealed.
21 1
ne appeal must be addressed to the Director, Federal D ersency Managecent Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washingten D.C. 20472. Re appeal letter shall stata specific reasons for tra appeal and include an offer to
, provida docwantation supporting appellate arg.:nents.
(b)
Upon receipt of an appeal, the Director or the Director's designee shall review the file, as s'.2mitted to the Associate Director, State and I.ccal Prograns and Support, by the Regional Director of the FDd.A Region corcerned, based on the inforntien contained in the file ard the appeal letter, with supporting docwentation. Re Director or the Director's designee shall decide whether or not tra Associate Director's initial decision was supported by adecuate substantiet evidence in the file and is consistent with FD4A policy.
(c) ne decision of the Director or the Director's designee shall be published in the Federal Register as the final agency decision on the. ratter and shall not be reviewable within FIMA, except upon a showing that it was procured by fraud or misrepresentation.
In addition to publication in the Federal Register, ccpies of the decisien shall be forwarded to the appellant, the Governor (s) of the State (s) affected, the N1C and the affected licensee of the involved power facility.
Julius W. Secten, Jr.
Director I
Date:
Billing Code 6718-01 I
~
(
l l
l e
l l
22
rw n
T-
- vg -
Ik f
i f?-
+
t-3.
4
h*# c y. ' sa '_".. n -,
h#
I
- ~. T k (,. /
f
, x.
a
. a
=
2 1 1*
F.,.
<:2
.+_.7
. '*,- k,' -
, ' +i..
4
, f Fj L's p '
s, 4,
-(
e
's h, y
=
.y
- 5.,
. P9
> s ?r ~
. 1
- *r
._,,7 pq g
t
?%
-
- fw' _
v-
<% ?g q +'4 4
- 3 '3 ', ) '
1 5
- "*.'va g
1,,4.,Q.,.. 14 u iwag-,
a 1y oo a
4'e O
m v
b
~. - -, - _ _. _ _._.
Gecrg: S. Themes 1
.8 v.:. a etc.- s: w > ::.: :-
Pub 4C SOMCe of New W.TgNro New Ham::snire Yankee Division December 18, 1987 W
- e.g g United States Nuclear Regulatory Co:::dssion
' J 57 Washington, DC 20555 G o ocy Attention:
Docu=ent Control Des k
References:
(a) Facility Operating License NPF-56, Construction Per=1t CPPR-136, Docke t Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH Letter (57N-87113), dated September 18, 1987, "Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities",
G. S. Thomas to USNPC (c) Federal Register Doc 87-25439, filed November 2, 1987, "Evaluation of.he Adequacy of Offsite E=er-gency Planning f or Nuclear Power Pl.nts at the Operating License Revie e Stage Where State and/or Local Governments Declint to Participate in Offsite E=e rgency Planning" (d) Federal Register Doc. 87 '7112, Filed November 27, 198 7, "Interim-Us e Docu=ent ; Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Prepa redness)"; NUREG-0654/TEMA-RIP-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 1
Subject:
Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Coccunities (SPMC)
Ge ntlece n:
In our letter of September 18, 1987 (Reference (b)], New Hampshire "ankee (NHY) transmitted a co.sprehensive utility plan, entitled "Seabrock Plan for Massachusetts Communities", which was submitted for NRC Staf f and FEMA review pursuant to 10CTR50.33(g) and 10CFR50 47(c)(1). The SPMC was developed to address the sixteen (16) planning s canCards of 10CFR50.47(b) and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 as well as other planning con-i cerns such as integration of utility, state, local and federal govern-l
=ent response and interf acing with contiguous states.
Subs equent to our subraittal of she SPMC, additional ruleJ, guideline s and criteria were issued which define how the NRC ard TEMA will evaluate l
the adequacy of utility-prepared of fsite emergency plans in situations in which state and/or local governments decline to participate in of f site I
emergency planning. With regards to the NRC's recent cha"Ees to its emergency planning rules (Reference (c)], it is NHY's expectation that I
the NRC review of the SPMC would be consistent with the recently adopted rule changes, which became ef fective December 3, 1987. Additionally, the P O. Box 300. Seabrook NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474-9574
United States Nuclear Regulatory Cornission NY N-5 71; 3 Attention:
Document Control D]sk Page 2 NRC and FEMA have recently issued NURIC-0654/ F EMA-RIP-1, S u pp. I for interim-use, public review, and comment (Reference (d)].
It is also NHY's expectation that this interim-use criteria document be utilized f or Staf f / FEMA review and evaluation of the SPMC. Should that review and comment process or the final criteria document identify any need for changes to the SPMC, NHY anticipates that changes, if any, would only constitute a minor revision to the SPMC.
Furthe rmore, NHY's re-view of the changes identified in Section I.G. of the Supplement indi-caces that some minor specific changes and enhancements to the SPMC l
may be in order for further refinement of the SPMC. NHY is continually l
evaluating and drilling the SPMC and as a result, additional refinements and improvements may develop in this dynamic process. We anticipate that any changes to the SPMC resulting from this process would be ninor in scope.
l In summa ry, NHY believes that the review of the SPMC to the in-terim criteria document would be appropriate and requests that the NRC and FEMA proceed expeditiously. NRC and FEMA comments are 1ecessary so that we can complete the training of well over a thousand emergency response workers prior to our graded exercise as wall as incorporating any of these comments into the plans and procedures in advant ' of the graded exercise.
If ycu should have any questions regarding the above, p* ease do not hesitate to con act our Bethesda Licensing Of fice (Mr. R. E. Sweeney) at (301) 656-6100.
Ve ry t ruly your s,
M *'v.e- [
Morgd S. Theces ec: Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board Service List (Offsite EP)
Mr. Victor Nerses. Project Manager Project Directorate 1-3 Division of Reactor Projects United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. W11Lisa T. Russell Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia PA 19406 Mr. Antone C. Carne NRC Senior Resident Inspector Seabrook Station Seabrook, NH 03874
4 1
g_,h y, 6
- .i--1) I'n[4' y
T' '
t
.r
~
(
4 i;;r.
4*): : 6,'.
Ek E#
vA g ;,. 2
- +..,
w ;* *
.m
'{*'
-34
- a s.,).,
\\;"~ I, - 4 '
4
'I=
j 9
3 8.
t
,g t
4 - {-,
4 9,,'.a J., is 5
t e
p.<-
sf 2r s
= z._-- a +. s.-,p~
-+
,,, y. t._.
k b~-
)
.$M6.c :S t..s s
w WikkU Q f
4 i
4 J-4.
k_.
i91.
+
s.
v g
4 t
b sim
'is
/po nenDo UNITED STATES l'
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cf WASMNON. D. C. 20664 g
\\,
. /
DEC 2 W
FEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Kririn Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Frank J. Congel. Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FEMA SUPPORT FOR NRC LICENSING OF SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION This memorandum supplements our request of November 27, 1987, in which the NRC asked FEMA to review the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cosununities (SPMC).
In reviewing and evaluating utility offsite plans and preparedness, FEMA should assume that in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that
, have declined to participate in emergency planning will:
(1) Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of l
the public; l
(2) Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan; and i
(3) Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is l
necessary.
The above assuusptions were the subject of correspondence between NRC and FEMA on October 21, October 28, and November 9, 1987, and are incorporated in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Prepared-j ness)", November 1987.
As you know, on September 18, 1987, Public Service of New Hampshire (licensee) submitted the SFMC to satisfy the standards established uy the Cermission in CLI-87-02 and CLI-87-03.
Certain information was deleted from the SPMC by the licensee (e.g., names of individuals and cejenies under letters of agreement and cames ara telephone numbers of emergency response personnel) to ensure that there would be no unwarranted invasicn of privacy.
Or, Septeeber 21, 1987, the licensee filed a motion with the Consission to lift the stay of the low pcwer
Richard W. Krim
-2 OC ;
q7 Itcense for Seabrook, Unit 1.
In its Nnvember 25, 1987 Memorandum and Orcer lifting that stay, the Comission determined that, as a cendition of Icw power operation, the licensee must provide to the staff and FEMA any of the deletec information in the SPMC that the staff and FENA deem necessary for the detailed full power review.
Accordingly, please let us knew as soon as practicable those portions of the plan that are currently deleted that FEMA requires to complete its detailed review. A copy of the Comission Order is attachee, i
Frank J. Cangel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
DISTRIBUTION:
Corsnission Memorandum and VTtello, ECO JLBlaha, NRR Order dtd. 11/25/87 JMTaylor, EDO WTRussell, R!
TRehm. EDO TTMartin, R1 JPMurray, OGC RRBellamy, Ri W0lmstead. OGC FJCongel, NRR STurk, OGC 08Matthews, NRR EReis, OGC /
RJBarrett, NRR TEMurley, NRR LJCunningham, 'iRR JHSniezek, NRR CRYan Niel, NRR FJMiraglia, NRR FKantor, NRR FPGillespie, NRR MLawless, FEMA VNerses NRR EDO R/F DJPerrotti, NRR POR R/F EMPodolak, NRR PEPB R/F Central Files
g4
& N a
Qby*y@>:Q*
-t
< v ^~ yh '
r'-
> ~
s
., -f.
. t
.Y,pw g.,
'r t
- f... * *
,4 D V
'\\'%
,4%
~p.
^4 w-ft
?%,
i ' g
.et-3 (si 9 3.-
8-
.,4;
'A.',
s' s'pt t
> +
e#
4
(
_m I,.
"k.
k 4
- $ k '
,a, 3
a.
1
- 4
.4.
f n >,
y, q g' E.,'
~
i 4
y _.
~'
- f.,
t g.. '. : ; %
.9.-
.',-}-
p
.p
,)
4, W
4
,I' d.g
._s,- * ;\\f;',
s.
- . A ' *
,g..m.,
~
g '
f.4
(
O, 1I-s.
+
%, gjw hh w w-c w u(-
,p
,,4. 3. g. _
o
~
m s
A, $.5 '
,s mg.
4 er k
n
\\
[
- 7. y rederal Emergency Management Agency
' ( g Repon X Federal ReponalCenter Bothell. Washin8 ton 9802197%
January 15. 1988 MEMORANDL'M FOR:
Regional Assistance Cosalttee. FEMA Region !
FEMA REP Task Force N -Ad.D = w FROM:
Richard W. Donovan RAC Chairman for the Review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cosaunities
SUBJECT:
Review of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Cosaunities On December 30. Mr. Henry Vickers. FEMA Region l's Regional Director, forwarded to you "Information and Guidance Memorandum. RI-TH-87-32."
The memorandus indicated that FEMA will review the plans developed by New Hampshire Yankee for Radiological Emergency Preparedness in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ. and that FEMA is requesting your assistance in performing this review as Regioaal Assistance Committee (RAC) sembers in Region I.
The memorandua also indicated that I have been detailed to FEMA Region I to act as RAC Chairman for the review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
For this plan review, we will use "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Energency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants." Supplement 1. dated November 1987.
The following assumptions shall be applied to the review and evaluation of the Seabrook Plan and Preparedness for Messachusetts:
In an actual radiological energency. State and local officials that have declined to participate in energency planning will:
i l
Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public:
l cooperate with the utility and follow the Utility Offsite Plan; and I
have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the Utility Offsite i
Plan where State and local response is necessary.
l For situations in which State and/or local governments are participating in this i
process, the existing NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1 evaluation criteria will apply.
My normal process of conducting a plan review is to prepare a draft evaluation of the I
plan and preparedness progress, forward it to the RAC for review, and then schedule and conduct a RAC meeting to receive input, consents, advice and recommendations.
I plan to have the draft evaluation completed and forwarded to you by February 19.
1988.
If any of you have comments that you would like to provide before that time.
please provide direct to se no later than February S.
I look forward to meeting and working with you in the near future.
I will talk with each of you on a routine basis to infore you of my progress and to see how your reviews are progressing.
If you have any questions cr feel the need for additional orientation on the Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness, please let se know (FTS 390-46E3 or 206-487-4693).
Copy to:
Henry G. Vickers. RD. RI SERVICE LIs;
Q-%R%Q;jKvh,
-I***
- "? i *M '
' *~ #
..' <1 ~ -C
- !=*
~
+
c.';'K'i k :O;; ;,
k l
. b.t s. ; $'d * D,( ? #d. ' #
- 3 'N ', ; T v
I~
.m A
i g
4",-
I s
t i
i 2
.'s-y 4-
'I-4
,,,,,f~.-
I 94\\ky.
n'g",
f g
g t-3
, 1
- 3-g
- tt V
{v 2
.)',
-j p.,.,t ; > - :
4 39' mw
(.
s L i' 4 :,.;g,
.u-+ ': * -
- <r g
- E 'y e
+
^
J s
4 4
W 3
(
4 f
k w
[83 w,
I F- :
iw._,,9 4
, 3 'j L
ae T,
y g
5_
^
yN,
%f' e ---
- - - -+ - -
---e
aP%
d"9 Federal Emergency Management Agency
..v-d I
k'.4 ^
Washington, D.C. 20472 October 16, 1987 S CRANDLH K R: Victor J. Stello Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission FROM:
/,/
ve tickughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support SL%'EC*:
revelopment of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria S.is is to follcw up on oeveral issues raised at the meeting yesterday between members of our staffs about the development of criterta suitable for the evaluation of effsite emergency plans developed by utilities.
You raquested that we supply you with the names of the Argerne l'ational
'atoratory staff needed as additional resources in coraection with the project on the utility plan evaluative criteria.
In the process of ca piling the list of names, we have concluded that fcur staff are necessary.
S.e names are: "r. Jchn Ely, Mr. Kerneth Lemer, Ms. Cue Ara Curtis r.d Mr. William Casper. In addition, :: will be necessary for Argonne to supply four additienal staff to bac;: fill and perfer. the functions nemally required by SA during the duratien of the criteria develcpment
- roject.
I would like to stress the igertance of hs.ving written instructions pre-pared by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccrz:ission, before beginning the project, which state specifically the assumptions upon which the plan reviews wculd be conducted.
It would be impossible to develop the criteria without knowing the conceptual framework within which they are to operate success-fully.
Given the above resources and agreement on the assu-';:tiens, we are pre:ared to begin werk with MRC staff on October 26, 1967 on the develcpment of criteria suitable for the evaluation.of utility plans by SA. We wculd also be prepared to disseminate the document resulting frem that project by Neve.ber 12, 1987, to the participants in the meeting to be held en Friday, l
November 13, at 9: 00 a.m. in the FD4A offices. From our view, the purpose of that meetirig would be to consider the criteria document and any potential i
issues which would need to be addressed by TA and NRC nanagemnt.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 646-3692.
l
v * ';-
-.s-7.,
.~_'
y s,.\\ 'a,
I'
/4%>'
V g-
_.T 1
4
-.s i i'
. - ~
.s i
k t
,t 9
e
~Eh Ei;
...- c
- h_I,
[c u n'**,
UNITED states
? \\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
- e W-W Asmwc Tom. o. c. 20ste
%.,..v... f' Octo cer 21, 1987 02C2iVIO M' 2 6 037
.ME140R.WOLN FOR:
Richard W. Krim Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Frank J. Congel, Of rector Division of Radiatien Protection ind Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY OFFSITE PLAM EVALUATION CRITERIA This responds to the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 eeeting between FE 4A and NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlin's October 16, 1987 memorandum to Victor Stello.
We agend that the NRC would provide written instructions which state specifically the $ssumptions upon which utility off-site plan reviews would be conducted by FD4A.
In developing evaluation emergency respense plans,. criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsite FE:4A should assume that in an actual energency, state and local officials will f1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the pubMe, (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan, and (3) apply resources that are within the general capabilities of state and local governments to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.
As we further agreed, any FEMA findings on the adequacy of utility offsite plans will r.ecessarily include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan.
%Y [l Frank J. Congel, Ofrector Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CCNTACT:
Edvard M. Podolak, Jr., MRR 432-7290 l
l l
>ger..,-
a
- 4,.,
s
,f
' ?,.
s
- 4
~j L.
2/ *,r.
- F.
4
-Ij,
4
' s 4 ;* w ai
-s h
e
'...#b.' j i
- } Q. I
)
- ~ en ~ -. -
,f
-[
7 -w t,dr.
6'
'#4
/
h
EXHisIT 9 General Comments:
1.
LThe assumptions are not well drafted and leave open nany'
. critical questions.
Does Assumption Ic. on page 2 mean that the state and loca1' governments will be assumed to have material and personnel?
Does "sufficient to implement
- mean that these tesources will be sufficient to implement the utility plan adequately?
Is FEMA prepared to assume this for Massachusetts even though FE:4A has in f act determined in the past that the Commonwealth's "tesources' are not adequate?
What are the portions of the utility plan "where state and local response is necessary*?
Is this operationally defined on i
page 6 or only illustrated?
What is the actual function of liaisons?
Where will these liaisons actually go and how will they do what is described here?
2.
The definition of ORO on page 3 is unclear.
Does the ORO include organizations other than the utility offsite emergency resconse organization?
If so, many of the evaluation criteria become contradictory.
If not, this definition is poorly worded.
l 3.
Generally, aside from the all-important planning assumptions, the changes from NUREG-0654, Rev. 1 appear to be r
nothing note than the substitution of the words "offsite i
response organization' for state and local governments.
See page 3.
However, as noted below, often the result is t
organi:ational confusion and the loss of any meaningful cr iterion ot requirement.
+
em Specific Comments:
A.la:
Definition of~"offsite response organization' in footnote is contradictory.
Is 'ORO' to include other non-utility organizations?
If so, who speaks.for these other organizations?
d:
Unclear what being "in charge" of the emergency' response means?
This is the person designated by the ORO.
Is she "in charge' of state & local officials who are assumed to participate in an actual emergency?
e:
24 hout-day links maintained by ORO but what is being lin%ed?
In Rev. 1, each organization is linked with the others.
What is linked here?
A.2a:
What does "tequite state and local authorization" mean?
Is it imagined that these listed functions and actions would be performed by non-governmental personnel?
Could the state and locals legally authorize such actions?
How?
Through emergency appointment, deputization or delegation?
If performed by governmental personnel then this should state that l
l these functions requite "authorization" and ' staffing" by state and local governments.
What does the sentence mean that immediately follows the list of ten I
fuGCtions and ptecedes A.2b?
?
l 2-
l P/
l
-b:
What does ' legal ba=3s for such authoritiesmean?-
What is the intended by:
"including those
-that'teser
.sns to state and local governments"?
Is the point nere that the plan must set forth the legal basis for stating that certain_ emergency functions must have state and local government authorization?
If so, the phrase beginning
- including those.
" is redundant because the functions are already identified as those reserved by law to the state and local governments.
Why limit the. legal references to those identified?
The legal basis will also be the state and federal constitutions and state and federal common law.
A.3:
If the definition of offsite response organization set forth as a footnote to A.la is accurate then these written agreements must be between different parts of the same whole.
'Offsite response organization
- must be something different from the "other participating voluntary and private organizations, and.
. federal government ( )* as defined in footnote 1.
A.4:
Assuming the 'ORO' does not definitionally include any othet organizations, then this 24-hour capability is rathet limited.
Rev. I requited 'each principal organi:ation" to have 24-hout continuous operations.
M f
4 This included federal and private sector organizations-if they were considered ' principal.'
In.Supp. 1 only the_ORO must be capable of.24-hour operatione.
But if there are other principal organizations, they should also have to have 24-hour operations capability.
3:
Supp. 1 ignores Planning Standard B no doubt because it is entitled "Onsite Emergency Organization."
f However, there are important features of this criterion that make no sense without state and local i
participation.
A key component to the Rev. 1 9 planning standard is the provision of an "interface" between onsite activities and of f-site activities.
For example, B.2 requires a person to be identified who will initiate protective action recomnendations to
' authorities responsible for implementing offsite emergency measures.'
B.6 requires a block diagram linking onsite functions to the "state and local government response organization."
Finally, B.7 requires specification of personnel for "management level interface with governmental authorities' and fot "release of information to news media during an emergency (coordinated with governnental authorities)."
None of these connections between I
onsite planning and offsite response are dealt with in Supp. 1 because it simply states that planning i
standard B is 'not applicable.'
m C.1:
In general, character of the Federal Radiological t
Emergency Response Plan.("FRERP') is ignored.
In fact, the FRERP was designed to interface with state and local governments.
What is the difference, if l
any, between the ' licensee" and the "offsite response I
organization?'
The Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan is ignored.
Why?
C.5:.
OR0's' personnel that are to advise and assist are not identified by function or task.
Which portions of the plan require state or local response?
l i
0:
This standard still references state and local response plans.
D.4:
Should the implementing procedures provide for the emergency actions or provide for advising state and' local officials on emergency actions?
L f
E.1:
Does this include notification of stata and local officials?
i E.2:
To the extent that state and local personnel are going to actually perform an emergency role or at least, are l
I assuned to perform such a : ole, these people should be notified by somebody.
E.5:
ORO is to disseminate information to the public, inciuding notification of EBS and broadcast media.
Can private organizations do this?
E.6:
~Whose responsibility should it be to activate this system of notification? Also supp. I references Appendix 3 for details of the "administrative and physical means' of notification.
But Appendix 3 requires:
(1) organizations and individuals who will be responsible for actually notifying the populations,.
(2) provision for use of public nedia or commercial broadcast, (3) EBS on NOAA weather radio are to be put on alert at "Alett' category.
Who can do this?
(4) information is to be provided to pubif e within 5 miles over radio and television within 15 minutes.
Appendix 3 expressly teferences the state and local agencies.
Emergency plans are to include evidence of such arrangements including citation to applicable laws.,
(5) calls for primary and alternate channels of
' communications, (6) alert and notification systems must be integrated with state and local EBS Operational Area Plan.
'(A]ctual public notices would only take place upon authorization of governmental authorities.'
3-15.
E.7:
- (M]essages should address the various conditions such as the delegation of authority by the state and local governments to the ORO to issue prompt instructions.'
Is such delegation legal?
E.8:
What is meant by coorlination?
When should it occur?
In our case, would New Hampshire (a participating state) Massachusetts (a non-participating state) and the ORO and/or licensee do this coordinating.
F.1:
A 24-hout hook-up is required but only between the F.la:
licensee and ORO.
The hook-up to state and local governments can be via 911 plus a capacity to transmit on existing radio frequencies.
Doca this make sense?
F.3:
How is this "entire system" going to be tested?
G.1:
But how will the.public actually be-notified and by whom?-
G.4b:
Who are these othet spokepersons?
I.ll:
can federal resources simply be dovetailed with private efforts?
J.7:
This criterion has not been changed although it requires a mechanism for' licensee to recommend protective actions to state and local authorities.
Also, "prompt notification shall be made directly to the offsite authorities responsible'for implementing protective measures.'
J.9:
"establish a capability for implementing protective measures."
What does this mean in this context?
J.ll:
What authority is needed for ingestion pathway measures?
K.3a:
Dois ORO monitot doses for state personnel as well?
b:
How can ORO ensure that state workers' dosimetets are read?
3-
e b-K.4:
Can ORO decide to authorize that state emergency workers get. doses in excess of PAGs?
M.1:-
Can ORO decide to ' relax protective measures"?
N.lb:
"Adequate to verify the capability?'
Without state and local personnel how will this be verified?
' Capabilities to interface with non-participating state and local governments."
What does ' interface' mean here and what standard will be applied?
N.6:
State and local governments need not participate.
How could this ever establish or verify ' capability to respond *?
How could "ali major elements of the plans
'evet be tested?'
O.1:
Who are ' appropriate individuals'?
They are not defined here.
In fact, Rev. I states:
'shall provide site specific emergency response training for those offsite emergency organizations who may ba called upon to provide assistance."
O.4:
ORO is to train those who will implement.
Does this include the state and local people?
Is FEMA assuming these people will be trained or not?
9-
LORO shall traint (d) police, security and fire fight.ing personnel (g) local support services petsonnel: including Civil
. Defense O '. 6 :
ORO offers training to non-participating state personnel.
But is it required?
If not, how can a determination of adequacy be made?
O 10 -
A 6
CXKCTCO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U$wc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 KN1 -7 P2 :28 V'CXQ vi >, m p j g' ICL 00
)
okAN:A
)
In the Matter of
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Frank W. Ostrander, hereby certify that on March 4, 1988, I made service of the within COMMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON IN OPPOSITION TO NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 REV.
1, 1 "CRITERIA FOP UTILITY OFFSITE PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS", by SUPP.
mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, cy first class mail to:
Ivan Smith, Chairman Custave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commissior Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Buildino 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Sethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Sherwin E.
Turk, Esq.
Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissic U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel 15th Floor - One White Flint Nott Commission East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Pockville, ND 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814
~' ~
., rl
.1
[ p 'l.
?
_ l 'i l' ).
LV^'
' / '.
ji
.j
-a H.lJoseph:Flyon, Esq.
Stephen,E.-Merrill l? Ass'.'Atant General Counsel Attorney; General
/
i' OffiMeJof General Cou%sel
.Ge'orge' rana Bisbee, N
. Federal Emergency ffp'nagement As'sistMn't At torney Gene r,al-3
/ l Office of'the. Attorney-General l"',
+ M. Agency-25 Capitol.. Street i, i
0 CLStreet,-.S.W -
0330l}I.
- i j
20 hdshichton,.,DC: 20472-Concord, NH 3
j
. /'
$_ Paul A.
Fritzsche,,Esq.,
-Docketing ~and Service
~
.U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Office ~of theiPublic Advocate
' Commission
' State House ruation'112 Washington,. DC.
20555 Augusta, M2 J4333, 1Roberta C.
Pevear Diana.3 Randal'1 '}
' State.Representatjsve 70 Collins Streer.
Town of Hampton galls Seabrodk,NH 03874 Drinkwater Rc/d Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licdnsing Robert A.
Backus, E s q '.
- Appeal Board Panel.
Backus,,Meyer & Solomon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission
?.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106
'(
d-
+
4 Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Jane Doughty.
Board Pans:(,
Seacoast' Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street c
Commissich Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washlngton, DC 20555
-Pad 1 McEachern, Esq.
J.
P.
Nadeau Matthew T.
Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen
'Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue m/ a', ' NH -03870 P.O.
Box 360 3
Portsmouth, NH 03801
/'
3 1
Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson
' Calvin A. Canney
~
Board of Selectmen City Manager City Hall RFD 1, Box 1154
/
,(
/
Rte. 107
/ //
126 Daniel Streat E.
Kingston, NH 03827 i
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Angelo Machicos, Chairman U.S.
Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gorde n J.
Humphrey Edward G.
Molin 1 Eagle' Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 i
.y
?}
l
..-h']_ IN ('l[.
' Donald E' Chick
' William. Lord
[it/[JyownManager Board of Selectmen
!4own'of'Exeter'
. Town' Hall
(({ ;3 e
)M10 Front Street
. Friend: Street....
,fjQU Exeter, NH 03833-Amesbury, MA:.01913 y_ _
x_7 i ~~ib
- i, Brentwood' Board of' Selectmen GaryLW.{ Holmes,.Esq.
~
3/:
.RFDHDalton Road
. Holmes & E1?is Brentwood, NH 03833 47.Winnacunnet Road Hampton,;NH. 03941~
> 7p
' Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, tag.
. Assistant Attorney = General
- Harmon'& leiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General-2001 S Street, N.W'.
State' House Station #6 washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 Thomas ~G.
Dignan, Esq.
Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.'
R.K. Gad III,.Esq.
Hampe & McNicholas.
-y.
Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant St ree" -
/i '225 Franklin Street Concord, NH 03301 ss
/
Boston, MA 02110
.mg Beverly Hollingworth Edward A. Thomas
/
'209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management
'1 Hampton, NH 03842 Agency y
442 J.W.
McCormack (POCH) h Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil"Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter.
Jewel'1 Street, RFD 2 110. Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exetst, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E.
Goodman, Chairperson
~
Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 i
h Y.
Allen Lampert Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing
'y
. Town of Brentwood Board Panel 2 ty,,
20 Franklin Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Exeter, NJ 03833 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Charles P.
Graham, Esq.
5500 Friendship Boulevard McKay, Murphy & Graham T
. Apartment 1923 Old Post Office Square Chevy Chase, MD 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913
(
-~--, - -
, + = - -,,
r
7_'
~
T w,~ W ~~
l"
" ' ~
. 8 s
t.
'+'i
_' R '~;
g li' J Jdd'i tih H.
Mi zne r, J Esq.
3 Silvergate, Gertner, Baker,'
~ Fine,: Good & Mizner.
~88: Broad Street Boston,.:MA 02110 A.
Frank W..Ostrander Chief, Nuclear. Safety'~ Unit Department of_the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617)'.727-1090 Dated':
March 4,~1988 5_'
'L P
f
,1 "
,..,. +
r
..m.-
..nn
,,.--,vn,