ML20236W448
| ML20236W448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/20/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712080036 | |
| Download: ML20236W448 (2) | |
Text
-
eat UNITED STATES '
1 j.
L og
~
'l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
'5
$1 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 20, 1987
- CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United-States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
Your. letter of October 27, 1987 asks questions about two documents related to emergency planning. The first is three.pages of notes from January 1987'.
entitled "Dr. Ross's. Coments." ' The1 second is ' an October 21, 1987 memorandum from Frank Congel (Director,' Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC) to-Richard W. Krim
- (Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards-Programs, FEMA). The Comission does not agree with the suggestion that either document is evidence of. impropriety on the part of NRC..
The notes were prepared by.Dr. Denwood F. Ross-(Deputy Director for Research.-
o-
-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC) for his use at a January.20,1987 meeting of the Committee for Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR)'that was scheduled to discuss a-January 13, 1987 preliminary draft of a memorandum
. proposing possible changes in. the NRC's emergency. planning rules. His notes l identified a number of issues that'he believed might deserve discussion. The CRGR discussion-on.. January.20, the minutes of which have been in the Public Document Room since February 24,1987,' led to modifications of the draft which were reflected in the memorandum forwarded to the Comission on' February 6, 1987 asjSECY-87-35. With still further modifications', the Commission-published the proposed rule for public coment on March 6,1987. Thus Dr. Ross's comments were not on the proposal that was put out for.public comment on March 6, but rather on.a still earlier draft. There was thus no reason to place them in the docket that had been established for comments on the March 6 rule. The intent of the notice of proposed rulemaking was to solicit the views of the public on the proposal which the Commission 'was publishing.. That purpose would not have been advanced in this or any other case by asking the public to comment instead on individual staff members' comments on preliminary drafts.
.The October 21, 1987 memorandum from F. Congel to R. Krim also is not evidence of any impropriety. On October 13,1987, -the General Counsel and the Executive Director for'0perations sent the Commission a memorandum setting forth options for a final rule, including a recomended option. That recommendation, as the staff explained at the October 22-public briefing for the Comission, would have made no assumptions about the precise actions that state and local governments would take in the event of an actual emergency.
Under the recommendation, the NRC would have had to make case-by-case determinations of what-those governments would do.
'8712080036 e71120 PDR.COMNS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR L-
e 1
g o
?[
g In theLdays: preceding.the Oct$b'er 22 briefing. in discussions between NRC staff and FEMA, FEMA made clear' that to evaluate the' adequacy; of a utility plan, it would:need to know that the decision would be made, by someone other than FEMA,.whether the state and local governments would follow the utility plani in other words, if it could be assumed that the state and local f
' governments would follow the utility plan in an emergency, then FEMA could'
. offer a meaningful evaluation of the merits of the utility plan but FEMA
.itself. could not be in the position of deciding whether.the, plan would be-followed.
In accordance with that approach..the.NRC staff sent a memorandum
.to FEMA on October 21, describing the assumptions to be;em' ployed in the FEMA' evaluation. There was no inconsistency between SECY-87-257 and the October 21
-memorandum to FEMA, since nothing in the memorandum to'FEhA was inconsistent with'a case-by-case finding as to whether. the state and local governments would in fact follow the utility plan.
In approving the emergency planning rule at the October 29 affirmation session, the Commission modified the staff's proposal in SECY-87-257 to-include explicitly a rebuttable presumption that state and local. governments
- will follow the utility plan in an actual emergency in cases of state and/or local' non-participation in emergency planning. To emphasize, that presumption-may be rebutted-in individual cases. Any party wishing to argue that the.
' presumption is inaccurate with regard to state or local actions'will have a full opportunity to make that case in an individual' adjudication.
' Sincerely, plek W.
Ih.
Lando W. Zech J r.
d
')
l L
-- _