ML20207C538
| ML20207C538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Becton J Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| OL-A-038, OL-A-38, NUDOCS 8808090268 | |
| Download: ML20207C538 (6) | |
Text
do - W3/44V' DC 42 Ore A-37 1! %
c_ Federal Emergency Management Agency 00lMETE0
.s (7
Washington, D.C. 20H2 UwRC U
D e Honorable John Glenn, Chairman Comittee on Governmental Affairs oncg g,m
' United States Senate 00CKEir, A SEri:0.
Washington, D. C.
20510-6250 WM
Dear Senator Glenn:
his is in response to your letter of May 2, concerning the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FS%) in the offsite emergency planning for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire.
You were concerned specifically with our recent decision on the sheltering of the beach population.
In your letter, you request the answers to several questions and copies of a number of documents. We shall try to respond to some of your questions in. this letter and will indicate den we can respond to your other questions and send you the documents that you requested.
Specifically, you inquired about the role of Mr. Edward Romas, Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division (MH), FEM Region I, as a witness before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASIS) Hearing on the beach population issue. Mr. Thomas, who has been intimately involved in the numerous and extensive deliberations related to the Seatrook beach population issue, is 5
also Chairman of the FDA Region I Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC). The FAC is composed of specialists from eight other Federal Agencies who provide technical advice to FWA on State and local radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities. As to the beach oopulation issue, the majority of the RAC consistently disagreed with Mr. Romas' position as filed in the June and September 1987 EMA statements. After much deliberation and extensive discussion by technical, policy and legal experts in a meeting which Mr. Romas attended and participated in, a final decision was made concerning the position that FEMA would take in the March 14 testimony. All of the participants in that meeting were asked if they would support it as an Agency position and if they could support it from a personal and professional vieapoint. Mr. R omas t
said that he could support it as an Agency position, but that he differed with it from a personal and professional viewpoint.
In view of those reservations, the FWA Office of General Counsel then recomended that it would not be appropriate for Mr. Emas to be a witness for the Agency on that issue and that it would be unfair to ask him to shoulder this burden. The decision was made Man h 4,1988, to use Headquarters witnesses and a technical expert from Idaho National Engineering laboratory which is under contract to FFA.
You menticned that the decision not to present Mr. homas as a FDA witness followed a series of contacts between the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and FEM concerning the sheltering of the beach population, includina a high-level meeting on Januarf 19, 1988, from which Mr. Emas stated that he was excluded. Actually, the beach sheltering issue had been discussed extensively at meetings of the FWA-chaired Region I PAC, of Wich the NRC is a member, O
over a 1 ng peri d of time.
Likewise, it was discussed by the FWA/tGC Steering Comittee at its regular meetings over a period of a year or more.
8800090268 880526 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g
PDR r
v w
T
,---r
4 I
l i
I
('
e g g
's wJ O
t$
4
~
h I I
'{'
,. 0 1\\
hN4
.\\
i "d
I t
\\
a s.9q0 4
8 gM il ti '
J
?; e y 6 '::
O]Mg lM l.
-1 s
i 9
~
a ~c
\\
G t u
=% $,,
{
1 b
i o
i U
y, i
i t
3 n
1 A
h
4 2
'Ihe FE%/NRC Steering Cornittee is established by an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a copy of which is enclosed, between FE% and the NRC to discuss and resolve matters cn offsite preparedness. At the meeting on Januarf 19, 1988, there were several topics discussed, including the question of the sheltering of the beach population.
It was at that meeting that the NRC reiterated its position that sheltering is not a requirement under the NRC regulations. This was a meeting of Headquarters representatives frca two agencies, and the discussion topics also dealt with a variety' of issues unrelated to Seabrook.
herefore, we did not consider it necessary or the best use of his time to include Sir. Rcmas in the meeting, although he was in Washington at that time working with the FE% Office of General Counsel.
On the issue of pressure from the bhite House on offsite emergency planning, there has been no pressure from the bhite House in this area, to the best of our knowledge. You mention that Mr. Thomas stated that when he urged FE% to
~
assert its lead in emergency planning. that he was warned by FE% Headquarters staff that "every time we take that kind of a stand there were calls from the bhite House." We are not aware of anyone in the Headquarters staff making such a state-ent. There has been no causal relationship between FE%'s position and any khice House connunication.
Indeed we knoa of cni'f two contacts with the hhite House on Seabrook.
The first occurred in 1986, when the exercise for the State of Nee Hampshire was planned. The Assistant Associate Director for the Office of Natural and g
Technological Hazards Programs did mention to Mr. Thomas that Dr. Speck, the then Associate Director for State and local Programs and Support, who is no longer a FS% employee, had received an inquiry from the khite House en FEM's willingness to evaluate the exercise. A copy of Dr. Speck's affidavit is enclosed. The second instance is incorporated into our response to the second question in your letter.
You also state that FE% reversed its position on the sheltering of the beach population after the February 16th Nee Har:pshire Presidential Primarf. The change in our position cn the beach sheltering issue actually evolved from September 1937, and was so reflected in our testinony filed on Januarf 25, 1988, a copy of which is enclosed. This was prior to the New Harpshire Presidential Primary.
In your letter, you have requested copies of several documents. We shall /
sesrch our files for these documents and send you what is available.
In the interim, I am sending you a copy of the deposition of William R. Ctming before the Nuclear Regulatory Co=11ssion's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearings on the matter of the Public Service Company of Nee Ha~pshire, et al, Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2.
In 'tr. Cumming's deposition, there is a descriptien of the process that FER used in arriving at our decisico on the beach population issue.
In ycur latter you have listed five questions which I wish to address, where possible, cr indicate to you when you will receive an answer.
7 L
r
,. _,.h Your f,irst questim relates to documents and informaticn abcut comunications between FDs and the White House cn the subject of mergency response planning for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant frem 1981 through the present. Other than the instances mentioned:above, there have been no cceunications or written exchanges of informatico on guidance between FDR and the bhite House specifically regarding the Seabrock Nuclear Pcwer Plant. Thus, there are no documents relevant'to your request.
Your'second questicn requests information cn the mechanism and process for comunications between FD% and the khite House cn matters relating to emergency planning offsite for commercial nuclear power plants. There are no established contact mechanisms or process for this purpose. FEPA dces not consult with the White House en offsite emergency planning for nuclear power plants. However, the hhite House has on occasion contacted FEPA to inquire for general infomation purposes about nuclear pcwer plant matters. An example of this was when the Suffolk County legislature ran a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post opposing the Shoreham Nuclear Pcher Plant exercise. He bhite House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Press Office called FD%
seeking information and clarification about the issue. In addition, the Administration has, on occasion,. sought information from FEPA relative to nuclear power energy issues.
In 1987, the Office of Management and Budget (mB) held a meeting with representatives both from Department of Energy (DOE) and FEPA to discuss Agency ccmments on a proposed rule change by the NRC.
e Furthermore, in January 1988, DOE expressed an interest for another meeting with 06 and FDn about streamlining nuclear pcwer Itcensing procedures. No
.such meeting materialized; however, a copy of FDR's 1988 testimony for the Seabrook ASLB Hearing was sent to WB and the bhite House Intergovemmental-Affairs Office for the purpose of explaining FD%'s role in offsite eergency planning. The testimony provided to them discussed FEFNs process for reaching conclusions on reasonable assurance. This delivery was done after the document became available to the public. No other contact or corr.aunicaticn has taken place since that time.
I would add that it is not unusual for PDW to receive information phone calls from the bhite House in connection with its programs, for example, our Federal Disaster Assistance Programs. As a result, w do not view such a contact as pressure. Again, we have not received any pressure from the bhite Hcuse relative to cur decision-making process on Seabrook.
ne available infotmation requested in your third, fourth and fifth questicos, will be forwarded to you at a later date. We shall try to respcod fully to all ycur questiens a:d to send ycu all available documents requested by June 2nd.
In conclusion, I do want to assure ycu that the positica taken in the March 14 testimony resulted frot a very thorouch review of the technical and regulatory bases for evacuating and sheltering the beach population in the vicinity of the Seabrook Muclear Pcwer Plant. This position also relies heavily cn the advice of the FEPA-chaired Regicnal Assistance C:mittee. They devoted considerable time to the problens related to the evacuation and sheltering of the beach l.opulation at Seabrook. Our position is consistent with cl.e majority view of the PAC.
I A
'I
~
5
,,, mU Grant Peterson, the Associate Director for State and Iocal Progres and Support, dere the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Prog am is stinistered, and members of his etaff are looking forward to a meeting with your comittee staff in order to explain the WA process as advisors to the NRC in the evaluation of offsite emergency planning and exercises around nuclear pwar plants. Please let me know if you have any coments or questions.
I con be reached at 646-3923 and Mr. Peterson can be reached at 646-3692c In addition, my Office of Congressional Affairs at 646-4500 is available to assist you.
Sincerely, Julius W. Becton, Jr.
Director Enclosure O
1 L
i l
l l
l l
l O
l t
i, O
EMMM on reo srnrEs sectE^n asCotArOar cOnM1ss10N l
APPLICANT
....r.............................................
Iri the Matter of:
~
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
)
Dochet No.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Offsite Emergency
)
Planning
\\o LOCATION:
Concord, New Hampshire DATE:
June 14 througn 15, 1988
.=================....-=....========================'
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O
aman 1224 L Street, N.W., Sehe 600 WseMagton, D.C. 20005 (292) 6M x
N
..