ML20236F161
| ML20236F161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1987 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F162 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8711020023 | |
| Download: ML20236F161 (3) | |
Text
L1 DOCKET HUMBER PR 50 2133 nmon woun omes evo.o EDWARD J. MARKEY -
PROPOSED RULE (52 FR 6980) wa~' ooc imi C
. m o,,,,,c,#.. coo.in.
EMERGENCY PLMINING -
'"'"" = * "-
Congregg of tfje hiteb dibtateg
$$$3,r~
m-,u.
c 3l)ouge of Representatibeg
'f355 lNi[RIOR AND INSULAM NiasfAngton, EC 20515
^"^*5
.a OrnCE O... &~rd-
- U##4Jo"N"'fu"&^"
r w 4
00CKEDMG ^
October 27,.1987 BR AW The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
On Thursday, October 29, 1987, the NRC has scheduled a vote on proposed changes to its emergency planning regulations..These proposed changes would permit the Commission to license the Seabrook and Shoreham nuclear power plants with no state or local government participation in the emergency planniiig process, despite the fact that the States of Massachusetts and New York have concluded that no realistic emergency planning is possible.
I am attaching two documents that raise the most serious questions about the NRC's candor, openness, and-the integrity of l
this rulemaking process.
With traard to safety, since this proposal first came to public light, the Commission and staff have asserted that the proposal would not diminish public safety.
But the-Commission provided no analysis to support that assertion or to demonstrate that the essential questions had even been addressed in any detail.
Today I am releasing documents indicating that at least one senior NRC staff scientist who commented on a draft of the rule proposal expressed serious doubts about the safety impact of not only the NRC's proposed rule change, but also some of the basic assumptions on which that rule change is premised.
A copy of those comments is attached.
I have been informed that the Commission's files in the Public Document Roon pertaining to this rulemaking contain only the comments received on the proposal from outside parties, and a a
subset of those commet.ts which the staff found exemplary of the S E substantive questions raised by those who submitted comments.
I also have been informed that working papers pertaining to 4$
,N rulemaking proposals are not made public until after the close of
- g the rulemaking process.
This necessarily means that internal h5 Commission documents expressing differing points of view on this v3 proposal either are not easily available except by undertaking a wide-ranging search of diverse Commission files in the PDR, or are
..' D not available at all.
8
, hf
$10 023 871027 1
50 52FR6980 PDR
Tho'Honorablo Lnndo W.
Zoch, Jr.
Pago 2 October 27, 1987 I had hoped that the Commission would hold a formal public hearing to receive comments on this rule proposal, and that in advance of such hearing it would release the supporting documents that analyze this proposal and its potential impact.
Since the Commission has apparently determined that it does not want to afford members of the public an opportunity to present their views directly, I felt I had no alternative but to ensure that these critical staff views are a matter of full public knowledge prior to the Commission's formal vote.
With regard to the Commission's candor about its so-called
" realism doctrine," the Commission's staff briefing paper (SECY-87-257, October 13, 1987) states explicitly that that the NRC's so-called ' realism doctrine' as embodied in the proposed rule change assumes only that state and local public officials would do their best to help protect the affected public in the event of a nuclear accident.
The staff paper reads, and I quote, "the ' realism doctrine' embodied in this rule goes that far and no further.
It makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state 7
and local governments would follow the utility s plan) (emphasis a33ed]."' But today I obtained a copy of an October 21, 1987 letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from the NRC's Director of Emergency Preparedness which confirms "the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting between FEMA and NRC."
That letter states specifically that "in developing evaluation criteria and reviewing the utility sponsored off-site emergency response plans, FEMA should assume that in an actual emergency, state and local officials will (1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, [and] (2) cooperate with the utility and rollow the utility offsite plan....[ emphasis added}
These documents raise the most serious questions not only about the rule proposal and its underlying assumptions, but also about the Commission's process.
Surely members of the public should have been made fully aware of both the differing views j
within the NRC's own staff regarding safety, and the staff's instructions to FEMA contradicting the Commission's public briefing paper.
And surely the record should have reflected the differing views on safety early on -- especially because these documents go to the very heart of the commission's mandate to protect the public health and safety and the rule proposal's safety impacts.
With regard to the " realism doctrine," the Commission staff apparently has misled either the Commission, the public, FEHA, or all of the above.
I ask that you immediately instruct the staf f to rescind their agreement with FEMA, and initiate an investigation regarding how the staff could execute such an agreement in light of the staff's public assurances in the October 13 SECY paper.
I also ask that, in view of these disclosures, all future meetings of NRC and FEMA staff be open to the public and that transcripts be taken.
~,,
[ '{
1
' < The Honorable.. Lando L W.- Zoch,. J r.)
t He i Page i 3. '
o.
- Octoberi27,;1987-F..&. ;
=Furthermore, I.askfthat?youfprovideLanswers toithe.following,-
??
- questions.'
1.J Why' haven' tithe attachedicomments addressingLsafety been,
.. full'y dis' closed'previously'in the'NRC's rulemaking notices and.
j accompanying FederalfRegister notices 7 J
Why' haven't thefsafety-related comments and all<other 2.-
Lworking papers 1been-placed~in thefrulemaking file in1the Public Document < Room asitheyf have:becomeLavailable7L 2
- 3. : Why.shouldnfticomments' and working papers: routinely:be placed in.any:rulemaking file in.the Public Document Roomias they, become available?'
4.
Why h'as;the existence of these. differing' staff 1 views on-saf ety neve r1been disclosed at:-.any Commission. public briefing 1or recent staff' briefing.
meeting on.thisimatter',-including your most on October. 22,119877 t
L5. ~What: explanation does1thelCommission offer'to the l
American. people regarding1the clear discrepancy between the staff, (statements in~.the October 13,;1987ESECY1 paper:and.the directly l
contradictory 1 instructions to FEMA contained in the NRC staff's-letterato FEMA'of-October 21,:19877'
,6.
What-steps will;the.NRC;take to investigate theEstaff's' action with FEMA 7-U Please provide answers to-these questions by7close of' business, Friday: November 6i 1Cd7.
Thank you for your cooperation-a j
inLthisl matter.
,1 Sincerely, Edward-J. Marker Member of Congross
'i q
1 1
(
e l
.