ML20207C613
| ML20207C613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Eric Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| OL-I-STATE-043, OL-I-STATE-43, NUDOCS 8808100023 | |
| Download: ML20207C613 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _._
N 5 hhg -
}
Y' P,03 c
.u. 20 '87 12:03 rem REGICN I (ggR REGut. Atony coqmag 1
I f'Wr::tuct_'$hfrm d*! h MChW(Cd4h, No'" =Y 3 N' *s,5 4,, 7 g, -
ms i:
i m.
c Q
-s
- 3) M W e
V WUmmo ~V '33 - g l ^ m
,, y eg
~
drh w spr 3
dV k e
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm
~
Assistant Associate Director FR0tt:
Edward A. Thomas Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division SliSJECT:
"Reasonable Assurance
- This is written as a follow.up to our meeting concerning the Seabrook hearing.
During the meeting the question of whether any considerations be "a State plan was adequate to could find pursuant to 44 CFR 350.12(b) that:
protect health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of a nuclear we r pl ant...." At the meeting it was suggested that if FEM finds tha amer-ency plans comply with the standards of the FEMA and NRC guidance document NUREG-0654 FEMA REP.1, Rev. 1. FEMA cannot consider other factors, but must make a finding that there is a reasonable assurance that public health ano safety would be protected in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant (hereafter called a "reasonable assurance" finding).
We believe that the correct answer to this question is that FEMA will include a review of all factors reasonably relating"to emergency planning in determining l
whether it can make a ' reasonable assurance finding in a given situation.
1.
sumary We have reached the conclusion that a FEMA "reasonable assurance" finding should include a review cf all factors reasonably relating to emergency planning First and most important we believe that FEMA regulations for several reasons.
at 44 CFR 350.5 requires the Regional Office include al) factors reasonably relating to public safety in our review of emergency plans for the areas around a nuclear power plant.
by our regulations to consider factors beyond those in NUREG-0654, we believe that nothing in the regulations precludes either the region or headquarters including factors which affect public safety from consideration in our findings.
Furthermore, we believe that a fair reading of the purpose and intent of FEMA and NRC regulations and guidance documents indicates that it is rational for us to There-include in our reviews all factors which reasonably impact public safety.
fore, we believe that our finding should include a review of all factors we O coasid r rei vias to chiavias the intent sad puracie of our resuietioni and guidance documents.
l 8808200023 080527 I
gDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR
2 - f.<
.c.iO '87 12:04 FEN PEGION I EG TCN 1 P.04 q.
4qr l y
O **tes compliance with puaEG-06$4 with "a reasonable assura
- $t$aa.
- a t **i$
- a * ***r= artatas i ar r e iati ai wat==
t equa In the absence of clear reculatory language we cannet underntand how Ftm san somehow be forced to equate a mechanical app,lication of a twidence decaent te l
the filfillment of its regulatory responsibility of detemining whether a reasen-able assurance of public safety is provided by the develeposet and exercise of a particular set of plans. Finally we believe that both procedent and normal procedure indicate that we should wait until all the facts in the)situatica at hand are fully established before we indicate that any particular fact will always be enci.ded fr. our deter.ination as to whether er.ot there is a reasonau e.ssurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident at a particular nuclear power plant.
Our reasoning is more fu11y explained below.
We believe that the FEM Region must consider all factors which Reason 1 couM 1mpact en the public safety in reviewinTpTans to protect the public in the went of an accident at a nuc10er power plant.
Di scus sion,,
FEM Regulations at 44 CFR 360.11(b) specifies the standeres
~
r how the Regional office shall evaluiats the adequacy of state and local plans o
and preparedness as being the factors "set forth in (44 CFR) (3bO.b". Sectlen 350.5 contains two subsections which list the relevant standards. Subsection (a) basically requires a myiew using the MRC emergency planning rules as well es the i
lanning guidance contained in NUREG 0664. FEM REP-1, Revision 1.
Subsection l
b) states '(1)n order for $ tate of (sic) local plans and rmparedness to be pproved such plans and preparedness must be deterstned to adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emer.
gency ' This office has, therefore, concluded that in reviewieg rep plans, we i
must not only look to the (350.5(a) quantative criteria set forth in NUREG-0664 and the NRC, emergency planning rules, but we must also look to qualitive criteria l
reasonably affecting public safety as required by $360.l(b).
We believe that even if the Regional office may only censider NUREG-R_eason 2 post in considering whether the public safety would be protected in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant, the Associate Director of 5LPS is not so constrained.
Indee6 language in both the FEM and RRC regulations supports the concept that all mlevant factors must be included in a finding of reasonable assurance of public safety.
Discussion The pertion of our regulation which deals with the revtew of 5 tate plans by the FEM Regfonal Director (44 CFR 360.11(b)) spec 1ftes the bests en which the region shall review the plans (44 CFR 350.5 (a) and (b)). However, that pertion of the mgulations which specifies how the Associets Director shall reach a finding about the adequacy of the plans to protect the public does not specify any particularized and narrow basis for review. Tnerefore, we believe that regardless of whether the FEM Regional Director may er should consider f actors beyond those in NUREG-0654, the Associate 01 rector's review is bounded only by an seministrative law standard of masonableness.
In reviewing whether 4EMA exercised reasonable, judgment in including relevant emergency planning
' aonsiderations. it is likely that a court would m ytow our regulatory basis for
gpg gzo e712:es rcm eccan I scsm i m as
[E meloding a review of factors beyond those in NUREG.06M, and would give great deference to our judgement about which factors were relevant to our findings of fact.
g
. regulations of both FEM and the MC seem to indicate that all facters reason-ably relevant to amargency planning will be incloded. MC's emersency plemaing regulations state thau :...no operating license for a evclear power reactcc will be isswed unless a findtng is made by MC that there is a reasonable assuranse that edeewate protective measure _s can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical energency." UO cFR 10.47(1) (emphasis added)). The MC regulattens go cn to state that MRC will base its findings en a review of FEMA find ngs. which v111 he primarily based on plan review and any other information available to FEM with respect to the implementation of the plans (10 CFR $0.47 2)). mile the regulations then go on to list sixteen regulatory standards whic(h key into NUREG-06H. it nevertheless amars that the regulatten contemplates wortable plans which will provide reasonably adequate protective measures in the eveet of an accident.
In acottion, the regulation indicates that FEM's findings are primarily (not exclusively) based en the plans,a,nd, any other relevant informe.
n tien on the implementation of these plans.
Additional support for the concept that all minvant factors must be included in our nytew of omrgency plans is found in NRC rules and FEM guidance can.
carning) Alert and Motif 1 cation hystens. MC's rules (10 CFR 50. App. E (D)(1),
and (3) and our guidance document (FEM REP-10) set forth detailed requirements for prompt alerting and notification of the pualic.
It seems strange that such en elaborate warning system be set up if we cannot motify the public to take I
some gewrally effective protective action.
l l
r reasoning for believing that FEM regulations require the inclusion of all levant factors in our findings of fact concerning reasonable assurance of p:: bite safety is set forth in Reason 1.
$vpre.
The conclusion that FEM findings are not restricted to a mere mechanical and cinisterial review of MUREG-06M seeses inescapable from a review sf the specific language at wel) as the intent of the pertinent FEM and MC regulattens.
It l
1s. in fact, easier to argue from the regulations that FEM,mgt include all relevant factors in its findings than to argue that FEMA must not incIwde such factors in its findings.
_ Reason 5 Even if there were no specific basis in oor regulatiens for con-sidering factors beyond those in huREG-06M and the NRC emergency plannia0 rules t: hen we review the adequacy of State plans to protect the public, there is as bests in sur regulations for the concept that ceapliance with MUAEG 06M and the NRC emergency planning rules necessarily required a FEM finding of reasonable assurance that the public would be protected in the event of eccident at a etc) ear power pleet.
DiscLasion In ordar for FEM to be under a compulsten te make a
- reasonable assurance" finding anyttee that 5 tate plans complied with the NukEG-06H standat#s and the NRC emergency planning rules. it would seem that our regulattens must specify that there was an irrebuttable presmytton that compliance with auREG 06M and the NRC energency planning rules must equal reasonable assurance that the public would be protected in the event
- Tan accident at a nuclear power lant. The FEMA regulations say nothing of the kind, gutte to tsu contrary, Ohe regulctions very carefv11y indicate that NOREG-06M and the NRC rules are 4
but one of two factors te et c:n:1 cered in the reglen's review of emergency
b,. 4
.,_ m o.
m. m u.m -, i e-, 4 m ee
- e-
-4 A
plans.
(Cf. 44 CFA 360.5 (a) ano (b).) The regulations concerning the regten i
U,rf the Associate Director of SLP3 do not even specify any parties 1ar yardstica r the final determination as to whether me can make a finding of ' reasonable i
l l
assurance'.
In the absence of clear langusta in our regulattees. requirtag us i
to res;.h settain conclustans if the $ tate and local government complies with certain specified facters, we de not believe that we can be tempelled to issue creasonable assurance of public safety" finding if there are facters met a
j specifically covered in NUREG.0454 which would lead us to conclude that a reason.
oble assurance of public safety die not in fact exist.
There exists at least see clear precedent for our consid?ratten of Reason _4 en evacuation time estimate prior tG issuance of a ' reasonable assurance' finding.
i Discussten On April 18, 1983, a group called sensible Maine Power filed a petition with the MC to close the Maine Yankee Nuclear power Plant becauw adequate evacuation routes did not exist. FEM responded by indica ~.ing that the evacuation time estimate (ETE) for Maine Yankee was not yet clearly established because of population count oncertainties. In a July 23, 1984 menerandum to Edward Jordan of MRC. FEMA Headquarters indicated'...that it is premature to i
coment on the impact the ETE nsy have en public safety entil we have finalized l
the time estimates....' We later completed a review of the reviaed Maine Yankee ETE and concluded that public safety would not be adversely impacted by the i
time required to evacuate the EP2. since the particular factual situation at Naine Tankee enabled the State and local governments to achieve a "reasonable assurance of public safety."
e consideration of the impact on public safety has ten a standard part of r review leading to a FEHA finding af ' reasonable assurance' in this Aegion ause of the requirements of 44 CFA 350.6 (b). We understand that this facter is aise considered in at least some of the other regions as well. We very clearly considered the ingact of ETE times on pubitt safety as part of National FEMA policy during the review of the sensible Matae Power petition. We, therefore believe that even if our regulations did not clearly require consideration of facters beyond those in NDREbo654 and the hAC rules when we make a ' reasonable assurance" findin1. our ayncy's estabitshed precedents require us to include such constoer-
- i ation i n cur decisionmaking.
i teason 5 As a matter of normal procedure and tactics, we should not reach a premature conclusion that in making findings of fact on public safety we would power consider tactors which af ght reasonably affect pub)1c safety just because TTose factors are not specifically included in some guidance document er the rules of another agency.
Discussion A time may wil artie when this agency would want to include some fact in our decistomaking process which was not specifically covered by a guidance document. We believe that we should reach decisions based en the facts in front of us at the time and not pre-judge how we will make a sectston beyond saying that we will follow our regulations.
Therefore, we believe that the correct answer to the question of Conclusion gher factors such as sheltering, evacuation times roes network etc. will
l sr tz:e re
. c.:.
c.w inciveed in our review of the state emergency plaes to protect the public is event of an accident at sesbroot ist fes, this review is now in progegrse and such factors will o snaum n. we findings of fact en whether a ressemable aassurance of public s:....
We have aise prepared a somewhat longer answr to the question:
Answer (eit schlag) b e Met.suclir.:
1.
FEMA has promulgated rules relative to the evaluation of plans to protect the public in the event of en accident at l
a Muclear Power Plant. We will of course, follow those rules in reviewing the plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at leabroet.
2.
The FEMA rules indicate that once a State submitt plans to FEMA for review and approval the FEM egiaaal Office will conduct a review of those plans in I
con,1onction with the federa) interagency Reglenal Assistance Comittee (RAC).
The review of the plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at
$eabrook is now underway under the supervision of the RAC Chairman, fdward A.
Thomas, who is here with me today.
i I
The FEMA Regional Office and the RAC will use as a basis of the rev ew a twen-part test set forth in 44 CFR 350.5 In a nutshell the basis of reviewing and evalva-ting the State Plan is:
Whether the plans submitted meet the standards of NOREG 064. FEMA REP.I.
a.
Revision 1, as wil as Section 60.47 of MRC's Energency Planning Rule (10 CTR Parts 50 Appendix E and 70 as amended).
Whether the plans submitted are setermined to
- adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective nessures can be taken of f site in the event of a radiological energency.'
The FEMA Regional Office has already received extensive input from the peblic through meetings and correspondence which wi)) assist us in evaluating the week-ability of the State plans to protect the public the event of an accident at Seabrook.
1 4
After the FEMA Regional Of fice has concluded its review it will forward that review and related documents and correspondence to the FEMA Headquarters Office of hatural and Technological Hazards which will solicit cesements free various offices within FEKA as we11 as the Federal Agencies which comprise the Federal Radio)ogical Preparedness Coordinating Ceceittee (FkPCC) for review and cement.
Robert W11kerson who is else here today will supervise that review. After the Headquarters staff has reviewed all of this material, it will be sy responsibility to deturnine if the state plans:
(a)re adeqeate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective nessures can be taken offside in the event of a radiological emergency.
(44 CFR 360.11 (b)))
If the fitWing made by FEMA includes the results of an esercise of the plans, my gviewwouldalsoinciweadeterwinationastowhethertheplant (a)re capable of t;t,,, i:.;,1c :.t:f.... (44 CFR 350.12 (b) (2)).
~
-[_
' " r.20 '97 12:09 FEt% FEGICr4 I B03T44 1 p,c3 a
.g.
Therefore, the FEMA review now in progress will encorpass all facters reasonably relevant to the protection of the pubite in the event of an occident et Seebeoek.
Please feel free to call if you have questions.
i I
cc M. Joseph Flynn, Esq., OGC Robert S. Wilkerson, Technological Hazards Margaret Lawless, fechnological Hazards Henry G. Vickers, tantonal Director Daniel W. Warren.11... Deputy Regional Director i
Kan Horak, Public Affairs Officer Eavin Merli, Program Manager Jack Dolan. Sr. toergency Managment Specialist i
Larry Robertson, Emergency Managment 5pecialist EAThomas/R1-NT/cfr/10-16-46 cc: FEMA R.F., subject, Chron O
I l
l O
-