ML20235D931

Intervenor Exhibit I-FEMA-001,consisting of 851224 Memo Providing Interpretative Guidance on NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 Protective Response Evaluation Criterion J.12.Related Info Encl

ML20235D931
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/15/1987
From:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Federal Emergency Management Agency
References
RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL-3-I-FEMA-001, OL-3-I-FEMA-1, NUDOCS 8709250412
Download: ML20235D931 (5)

Text

@hW) hX Al 50-m- 7ps/r7 K-3 pyp;p ggespr,v.c k:bu.'

p g / a,. , a e,,,. ,., m, .. u , . -

7 Federal Emergency Management-Agency

/ Washington, D.C. 20472 DEC 2 4 :955 '87 SEP 7,.. %

h

.r; '

U , , .ng ~hg MEMORANDtM'FOR: NIH Division Chiefs C ~

- s "*

Assistant Associate Director State and Iocal Prcgrams and Support .

SUBJECT:

Guidance en NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation Criterion  !

J.12 21s memorandum provides interpretative guidance on NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 protective response evaluation criterion J.12:

Each organization shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. Be personnel and equipnent available should be capable of monitorirg within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plune exposure EPZ

! arriving at relocation centers.

Se question arises as to the percentage of the evacuees that could raason-ably be expected to arrive at a relocation center (s). Prsvious experience j gathered on evacuation responses to a variety of natural and technological l emergencies is not conclusive. Research into this matter, however, has j revealed that anywhere frm 3 to 20 percent of the evacuees arrived at '

relocation centers or shmters. For radiological emergencies, it is rea-sonable to assume that additional evacuees, to allay their concerns ard fear over radiation, will go to relocation centers whether or not they have been exposed to radiation. B us, the percentage of potential evacu-ees for radiological emergencies may be closer to the upper end of the 3 ,

to 20% range. l De congregate care issue is reviewed as a part of all Attmic Safety ord Licensing Board hearirgs, although it has never been formally litigated at such a hearing. De cevogate care facility capacity in the vicinity of nuclear power plants is usually cited as being between 5 and.15 percent of the estimated number of evacuees. With these percentages in' mind, it is#

apparent that there is significant diversity in the frame of reference sur-rounding this , issue. ,

l de  : i

t ._..

2 g The guidance provided below is based on the following factors (1) Past

• experience with evacuations regardless.of the nature of the emergency, (2) inclusion of fear and uncertainty factors associated with radiological emergerries and (3) percentage of potential evacuees for congregate care facilities cited in ASIA hearings.

Guidance

• The State and local radiological energency preparedness plans-should include provisions at relocation center (s) in the form of trained personnel and equipnent to monitor a minimta of 20 percent of the estimated population to be evacuated. ,

'

• For highly improbable radiological releases involving high levels of radiation enco massing a Islatively large area, it-may be necessary to monitor a greater ramber of evacuees beyond 20 percent of ths, population. In such a situation, State and local goverranents would be expected to develop and implement ad hoc response measures, supplemented, if needed, by Federal and private sector resouras. -

Any questions or concerns about this guidance should be directed to Mr. Bill McNutt at 646-2857.

D

\ i 1

\ ,

1 l

'k  % j

-\h6 t

s a  ;

i 3 i

.,% s s s q T: s. c.g e ,, ,

• a 'Q, 0, *

$ - i h

1 , \ ,

, \ ,4 %

-. ., s 4 .

w e

' Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472

} .

> OCT 2 21985

/

rs MDCRAND(M FOR: Marshall E. Sa velppnent Br Otief, Pol FROM: Cra .W Chief, Field Ope ions Brandt .

Policy Determination Concerning NURIre0654 Element J 12 susJEcr:

he attached October 4,1985 letter from Joe Keller, of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), to Stewart Glass, Regicnal Counsel of FEM Region II, was received in this office and in Region II on October 16, 1985.

Although Mr. Keller asks his questions in w isction with theMr. Glass Shoreham plan review, the issue is also applicable to other plans.

has requested that since this really involves program policy Could you questions, the response. be coordinated at Headquarters in this office. ,,

I please answer Mr. Keller's questions? WeWehave attached ,

l for Shoreham.

Wat finding is referenced in Mr. Keller's letter.

l would appreciate it if you could address this issue soon so that the FEMA witness panel could have an answer before they have to testify o Revision 5 finding.

it is probable that the panel (Kowieski - TD%, McIntire - FD%, Keller - H4E and Baldwin - Argonne National Laboratory) will have to give testimony.

1 Attachnent As Stated l

, l

%9 e

D l

1 l

l

. _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _____A

9 g Westinghouse Idaho o Nuclear Company. Inc.

Box 4000 idaho Falls. Idano 83403 JHK-57-85

' October 4. 1985 Stewart M. Glass, Esc. ,

Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York. New York 10278

Subject:

Clarification of NUREG 0654 Element J.12 I believe that clarification is reauired as to tne meaning or NUREG 0654

( element J.12. Since it is very likely that the FEMA witness panel will again have to apoear oefore tne ASLB on the Shorenam emergency preparedness issues. I would like to see tne answers to the following I auestions:

1. Is tnere an NRC position on tne numoer of evacuees who mignt arrive at a reception center (s) for monitoring and if so i wnat % of tne EPZ oooulation shoula be used in the planning orocess?

2. More 1moortantly, what is the FEMA cosition on tne same cuestionst i raise this issue for two reascns. First, curing the Indian ooint ASLB l nearings I recall a NRC Commission Ruling wh1cn you suppliea as oackgrouna material, which stated that 100% of the EPZ poculation must ce considerea when applying the 12 nour time frame of element J.12. Unfortunately I can-not recall if this statement was in tne bocy of the Ruling or in one of the indivicual opinions apoended to the Ruling. The location of the j statement would have considerable bearing on the issue. Secona, wnile the RAC has founa the LILCO plan inaaequate with respect to element J.12, the ,

reason for the inadecuacy is not the inacility to monitor arriving evacuees within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The ASLB on page 10 of the Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, has founc the LILCO plan to oe defective because of the failure to aceauately plan for the monitoring anc registration of memoers of tne general oublic arriving at tne reception Tne 20% of the EP2 peculation usea in planning for sneltering is

( center.

apparently acceptable but the ASLB points out that the numoer seeking mon 1toring is not necessarily the same as tnat seek 1ng shelter. ,

i 1

1 Stewart M. Glass, Esc.

• I Page 2 D JHK-57-85 October 4, 1985 While the immediate concern is for the requirements to be used in the review of the LILCO plan, this issue effects the review of all plans.

Therefore the FEMA position, and to a somewhat lesser degree the NRC position, should be known and clearly defined.

I'thank you for your help in obtaining a definitive position on this issue.

Sincerely, ll J. H. Keller, Staff Scientist Special Programs 1 cc: M. Lawless - FEMA R. Kowieski - FEMA l

V

- - _ _ - _ _ - _ -