ML20195J879
| ML20195J879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/06/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Humphrey G SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195J882 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801290042 | |
| Download: ML20195J879 (2) | |
Text
>>o*%
UNITED STATES
/
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
3 January 6, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Humphrey:
I am responding to your letter of November 23, in which you asked
' hat the Commission clarify aspects of its recently promulgated argency planning rule.
We are pleased to provide that
_.. a r i f i c a t i o n.
Specifically, you requested the rationale for the NRC's position that it can assess the adequacy of a utility-prepared radiological emergency on the basis of a presumption that "in the event of an actual radiological emergency, state and local officials would generally follow the utility plan."
Your letter also suggested that it was inconsistent with that position for the Commission to state in its discussion of the final rule that in the absence of an approved state or local emergency plan, state and local officials will, in an actual emergency, "either look to the utility and its plan for guidance or will follow some other plan that exists."
It should be stressed that the presumption to which you refer is a rebuttable presumption -- that is, any party to an adjudication is at liberty to attempt to establish that the presumption is invalid in the particular case.
The rationale for the presumption is that the rulemaking record makes clear that states and localities believe strongly that planned responses to nuclear emergencies offer far better protection of public health and i
safety than unplanned, ad hoc responses.
That being so, if a nuclear power plant is~ licensed to operate, and if an emergency should occur, it seems reasonable to suppose that state and local authorities would either (1) look to the utility and its previously developed plan for guidance in preference to formulating their own response on the spur of the moment, or (2) rely on some previously developed plans of their own.
In the second case, such plans might have been developed for radiological emergencies, but might never have been evaluated by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Or such plans might have been developed for other emergency purposes.
The rule, however, does not prescribe that either situation would necessarily happen in every case.
By creating a rebuttable presumption, the rule gives State and local officials the opportunity to inform the NRC and the public of what plans they would follow in the event of an actual emergency, if these plans are different from what is set 8801290042 880106 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
K,L 6
2 forth in the presumption.
Once the State and local governments' plans are ascertained, they can then be evaluated to see whether there is "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency."
We appreciate your recognition that the Commission remains committed to approving operation of nuclear power plants only when there is "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency," and that common sense supports the position that in an actual emergency, state and local governmental officials will act to protect their citizenry.
Sincerely, Lv.
[.
Lando W.
Zec Jr.
- - -