ML20207C694
| ML20207C694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1988 |
| From: | Watson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Mclaughlin D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL-I-STATE-046, OL-I-STATE-46, NUDOCS 8808100088 | |
| Download: ML20207C694 (2) | |
Text
'
b DX KLIED
'x July 30, 1987 v
'88 JUL 19 P6 :06 c m ct :i m ue -
00CKEilN14 3E WC.
BRANtm MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dave McLaughlin Assistant Associate Diretor State and Local Programs and Support FRCH:
George W. Watson Associate General Counsel l
x
SUBJECT:
Concept of Reasonable Assurance Your memorandum of July 28, 1987 asked the General Counsel to provide a legal analysis of Ed Thomas's October 16, 1986 memorandum on the meaning of a reasonable assurance finding under 44 C.F.R., Part 350.
Specifically, you have asked whether the interpretations of the reasonable assurance concept advanced by Mr. Thomas are correct and whether they should be used in the Radiological Emerergency Preparedness program.
There are several areas where f
legal questions are closely allied with policy questions and I think it would be prudent for me and members of my staff to meet with you and your staff to
(
)
discuss some important policy questions before we respond to the questions you g
have posed.
k.
If you assume, simply for the purposes of such a discussion, that Mr. Thomas's interpretations of "reasonable assurance" are supportable and that they should I,
be used in the REP program, then you are presented with a number of other issues, for example:
Was NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1 intended to cover every possible h
health and safety iscue related to offsite emergency response planning?
If "reasonable assurance" is not synonomous with compliance with NUREG 0654, what does it mean?
g 4
Does "reasonable assurance" require that there be absolutely no risk j
to the public?
If not, what level of risk is acceptable?
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMll -
l
- w. Mrhlwda;enan t,u. uc. _%...
%m(c_
ma V
PENTi4E9
(
-Y
,.--e BBP*n88R 8S8hl4 mi4%&n
'dW4 o
/
/'
f a
L If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) takes into account factors not enumerated in NUREG 0654, is there an objective standard which FEMA applies?
How is the proponent of an emergency response plan to know what standards the plan will be evaluated by?
Since actions or findings of a government agency which are arbitrary will not be considered valid, how does FEMA substantiate concerns which go beyond NUREG 0654 or guidance documents generally?
Since emergency planning is not a long-established discipline nor an exact science, are there clear and definite procedures for e
consideration of factors not included in guidance documents?
g What procedures, such as peer review, does or should FEMA use to ensure that its findings are defensible?
In evaluating emergency plans, what is the extent of FEMA's investigation and analysis?
Does FEMA accept without question the representations of State and local governments or utility companies or intervenors?
If not, then are there written procedures in place for independent 6
verification of those representations?
Another area to be considered is the range of options available to you. They include:
Deferring action indefinitely; Deferring action until the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Shoreham matter has ruled on the meaning of "fundamental flaw" which is likely to reflect the Board's interpretation of "reasonable assurance;"
Endorsing Ed Thomas's memorandum; Endorsing Ed Thomac's memorandum with qualifications; Developing guidelines for the consideration of factors not included in NUREG 0654.
t I will appreciate it if you will call me to arrange a meeting,
!cc: CF 2, GC/ Perry, FLYNN, Watson GC: FLYNN:hjf: 7/29/87 Document # 0163R U(~ ~%
-