ML20207C694

Intervenor Exhibit I-State-46,consisting of 870730 Memo on Concept of Reasonable Assurance

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. _% .. .  ;

ma %m(c_ V PENTi4E9

-Y -

(

,.--e BBP*n88R o

8S8hl4 mi4%&n/

/'

'dW4

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(~ ~%

-