ML20236Y011
| ML20236Y011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P113 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8712110031 | |
| Download: ML20236Y011 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
DOCRET NUMBER PR 50 7, 4 *%
y PROPOSED RULE (52 FR 6980)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EitAERGENCY PLANNING
[~
g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g q g, qg g y
'h NEC g,
3
~.....
December 2, 1987 87 DEC --4 N0:57
~
. cHAl*4 MAN.
1
> 9 hh lLI. ' t II bI' 00cKEigMG klj The Honorable Philip R. Sharp I~
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
~f Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letter dated November 23, 1987 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule.
The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the subject of The Commission received letters regarding emergency planning.
the staff recommendation from public officials who beliered the staf f recommendation went too f ar in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning and from other public officials who thought that the The Commission,
'sta ff recommendation did not go f ar enough.
promptly placed those letters in the rulemaking docket and the Public Document Room and released them to the press.
Copies of those letters are enclosed.
'he Commission is also enclosing any existing memoranda, itelephone logs and notes which we have identified as pertaining to communications between Commissioners nr NRC staff and eersons outside the agency in the period between October 13 _and October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule).
We shall also provide to you, as promptly as possible, any written comments received between slune 4,1.987 (the day on which the comment period closed) and
' October 13, 1987.
p The Commission believes that its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and candor.
We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has
. worked diligently to assure that the thousands of comments were individually read and considered.
In addition, our staff has gonf to great lengths to assure that the public has 'useful i
access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room.
The key document for the Commission's decision, a memorandum which h
discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was frankki in released publicly and discussed in.an open briefing well advance of the Commission's vote.
Finally, the reasons for the DSIO:
P. Crane, H-1035 8712110031 871202 add; J. Lane, 266 PHIL PDR PR PDR ll 50 52FR6980 l
-c--=--iL---_-__-_____________
-,. _. ~ _,
._7
-; e
- g Q_.y7' siJg
,1 @.e
>g m ); +
' ~
,w.
(, ll,s. ' l J
. g(f
-y ' 1 ' ;,
s-
+
[
\\ e (,
t
. li1W' e
e y
4
_m -
-t
,a' 71
('
m 1
\\ '
- ,~ )
Commission's. decision are fully l set forth in'the Federal kf.s R e g i s ter'. n o ti c e.
We believe that the Commission has more than Tulfilitid fits stated commitment to an open.spublic decisional
[3
. rocess?
{ j(
p 1;.
Sincerely,
,j
/,,.
.a l
fg yy,
- gik, l
. n'./
\\,...
l.ando W. Ic 7 {, J h
. ef *
\\t. 'i
\\
'g,
c, "L
,s y()(As s tated.
, _ Encel o s u res :-
y
' r le (
,\\
t J 't I
$r 4 t
t l,
3 t
< cc :-
Rep. Carlos J. Meerhead.
a
,i s
l!/, \\ l }
.s 3
b
? Ef.
- g e
e h
l t
j-h 3
,l i
e
/
e f
9 4
e 4
e
s
.4 4
LETTERS October'20 Gov. Dukakis October 20 ---
Reps. Hall and Pashayan October 21 --
Sen Breaux-October 21 --
Sen. Burdick October 23 --
Reps. Markey, Atkins, Mrazek, Mavroules, Hochbrueckner, Downey -
October 27 --
H. Brown (on behalf of Suffolk County)
October 27 --
Rep. Markey October 27 --
Reps.' Hall and Pashayan October 28 --
H. Brown (on behalf of Suffolk County)-
e 4
- t e
S
4 4
4 h
THE COMMONWEALTH OF FfASSACHUSETTS j
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE HOUSE
+
BOSTON 02133 MICHAEL S. DuKAKis
~
October 20, 1987 i
Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 21555
Dear Chairman Zech,
The staff recommendation currently under consideration by the NRC Commissioners to approve the proposed rule change regarding the licensing of nuclear power plants in the_ absence of state approved emergency response plans, requires that I once again, in the strongest terms, voice my opposition to this proposed rule change. The Commission should not subjugate the well being of Massachusetts citizens to the interests of a handful of utility company owners.
On February 24, 1987 I testified before the Commission t.o register my opposition to this proposed rule change.
In my oral and subsequent written testimony I argued that Commission approval of this proposal would ignore not only the lessons learned from the radiological emergency that occurred at Three Mile Island but would undercut the basic commands of the Atomic Energy Act and other statutes governing the NRC. No arguments have been presented to shake my firm belief that emergency response plans, proposed and approved by state and local governments, are essential to protect the health and safety of the public.
In my view, the Commission now stands poised to disregard.its mandate to protect the public health and safety.
Its approval of this proposM rule would not only serve to jeopardize the public health and safety of people in Massachusetts but would signify a willingness to run roughshod over the traditional interests of sovereign states.
The Commission should not approve this proposed rule change.
I urge the Commission to reject its staff's /, Commendation.
/
I 5
[
.Sincer ly,
~
I i
l f
/c L,
op p
i icha S. Ddkakis Governor l
n
Congregg of tije tHnfteh 6tates Jpouse of Representatibeg IEasfjfngton, B.C. 20515 l
October 20, 1987 l
l The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you know, we have strongly supported your efforts to amend the Commission's emergency p?.anning regulations.
We also strongly approved of the approach proposed by the Commission in March and th'6 efforts of the Commission's staff in developing that approach for your consideration.
We therefore were surprised and disappointed to see,the staff's recommendation for a final Commission rule on this matter.
While it is clear that substantial thought and effort have gone into the staff proposal, we believe that the recommendation is seriously deficient.
It is also seriously at odds with what we.had viewed as a major purpose of the Commission in proposing its rule:. to get the Commission out of the business of reading the minds of State and local officials.
On repeated occasions the Commission has expressed that purpose.
Yet the staff proposal contemplates hearings that will amount to lengthy exercises in just such mind-reading.
In the language of the staff's recommended rule, the "likely response of...(State and local) officials" will be probed in hearings in which such officials will be absent entirely or will testify that they intend to respond differently from the way in which the utility applicant predicts they will respond.
According to the proposed statement of considerations, "the precise actions which state and local governments would take" would be " resolved in individual adjudicatory proceedings" that frequently will not include those governments.
'i These are precisely the sorts of inquiries that we had understood the Commission wished'to avoid.
1 The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
October 20, 1987 Page 2 The inquiries come about under the proposal because the staff is reluctant to engage in assumptions and to circumscribe adjudicatory hearings so as to make the rule workable.
It is of course the case that where states and localities will not cooperate in the planning process, a licensing board will have only a utility plan before it.
No matter how effective that plan is, it will be most difficult to establish the adequacy of preparedness without some understanding--assumed or established--as to the adequacy of actions of State and local officials with respect to the plan.
The staff is prepared to assume that such officials will use their best efforts in the i
event of an accident.
But such an assumption, confined as it is, leaves unanswered such questions as:
Will the officials make use of the utility plan?
Will the officials develop their own?
Will they carry out either in an actual emergency?
Exactly how will they do so?
All these questions are left for the licensing boards to resolve in hearings that may well be boycotted by the l
1 officials whose conduct is at issue.
Such hearings inevitably will be unwieldy and inconsistent with any sense of an orderly regulatory process.
Most significantly, no reasonable guidance will be provided to licensing boards and hearing participants as to how they are to proceed in such hearings or as to what will suffice to provide' assurance of an adequate governmental response.
Finally, given that licensing boards will have available to them only a utility plan (which state and local officials probably will ignore and thus view as irrelevant) and an understanding that such officials will do their best ad hoc in an emergency, it will be difficult to make the finding that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
Even a hearing demonstrating that the utility plan is exceptionally strong may well not support such a finding.
Under these circumstances, the staff recommendation may effectively restore the voto threat that the original proposed rule was designed to remove.
I one porsible cure for these problems is to make the assumptions and to establish the elements of guidance that are now missing from the rule.
As to assumptions, the Commission could reasonably provide that it should be assumed not only that states and localities will exert their best efforts in times of an accident but also (i) that they will exert their best efforts to plan and prepare for the accident, and (ii) that until they l
develop their own plan, they will rely on the only plan available, i.e.,
the utility's, if an accident occurs.
These assumptions are dictated by common sense, are consistent with i
previous Commission decisions, and undoubtedly are. supported by the rulemaking record.
Moreover, as guidance to licensing boards 1
and hearing participants, the Commission could provide
\\
l 4
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
October 20, 1987 l
Page 3 I
1 1
that where it can be shown that emergency planning is feasible at j
the geographical site and that adequate resources are available j
to State and local officials, these showings will be sufficient 1
to establish that state and local best efforts will be adequate.
I This would appear to be all that could reasonably be demonstrated I
under these conditions and, in light of that, the provision would j
almost certainly survive any legal challenge.
We are attaching proposed language to effect these changes.
l In short, if it is your purpose entirely to vitiate the State and local veto, we feel strongly that the clearest way to achieve that purpose is to do away entirely with the "and will" requirement.
While your original proposal would not have removed the "and will" language, it would have achieved the same result.
If, however, you feel bound to include an "and will" requirement in your final rule, we feel that the commission must provide itself a broad set of assumptions that will allow it to make a logical conclusion that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
It is our strongly held opinion that the assumptions in the staff's recommendations are not broad enough, and therefore will leave alive the possibility of State and local vetoes.
Therefore, we urge you to augment t'he staff's recommendations with the additional assumptions and guidance noted.above and expressed in the attachment hereto.
Sincerely yours, 4
/RalWM. ifall Charles Pashayan, Jr.'/
Member f Congress Member of Congr s
i Attachment
\\
cc:
The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts j
The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal I
The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr I
The Honorable Kenneth C. Rogers 0
O L
1 PROPOSED. LANGUAGE FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RULE In the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(lii) of l
the staff's proposal, after " based upon the plan," add "and the assumptions and showings outlined in this paragraph."
l Strike the last sentence of the paragraph and substitute in lieu thereof:
"In making its determination on-the adequacy'of a utility plan, the NRC will recognize the reality that (1).in an actual emergency state and local government officials will exercise their best efforts to i
protect the health and safety of the public, (ii) such-officials will exercise their best efforts to prepare and plan for an emergency, and (iii) until such officials develop a plan of their own, such officials will rely on the utility.
plan in che event of an emergency.
Moreover, where it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that emergency preparedness is feasible at the geographical location of the facility and that adequate resources are available to state and local' officials, such showings will be sufficient to
., establish that state and local best efforts will be adequate."
e J
)
l
!.m*.*f':!',.0":t".'** '"
- 21.'"u'Xt'.4'."*:'.
!C.'.'L":."J"*
ele Enited ji5tates ji5tnate 1"'it*C. h.
525?* ENw*
Cowuf7748 CN 84vmoNW(WT Me3 Pv6WC WOMS 64, hoYanTs.
04 WAl=<8s0704.0c 20sthatf 6 October 21, 1987 Henorable Lando 7.ech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.W.
1717 H Street, 20555 Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr.
b the Commission is scheduled to receive a relative to from the staff on SECY 87-257,to first apologize for the Knowing that briefing, tomorrow, the emergency planning rule, I want I would also like to request last-minute nature of this letter.that this letter be k t and made available to interested parties.
While' I do not wish to prejudge the decision of the commission, my, review of the SECY paper raises som.e q I would hope you and your fellow Commissioners will my mind thatraise with the staff in your discussions.
it As I understand the Commission's original proposed rule, ised upon acknowledged that its 1980 regulatory actions were prem l governments the assumption "that all affected state and loca throughout the i
would continue to cooperate in emergency plann ngThe Commission possible state and local vetoes of full powe life of the' license."
i The was intended to address the proposed rule, as I understood it, to the Shoreham and situation that has arisen with respect f a full Seabrook plants by, in essence, permitting the issuance o pawer operating license in the f ace of the refusal to fully d local participate in the emergency planning exercise by state an delineated governments if the applicant could satisfy four tests in the proposed rule.
Now, the Commission's staf f, af ter eensultation with the i
i of Federal Energy Management Agency, has recommended a var at pear to the proposal contained in SECY-87-257, which does not apin the C correct the regulatory problems inherentthe Staff's recommendation'doe l
how the NRC is to deal with a situa)fon in w amendments.
- First, l
i l
l
- Hence, l
utilize the utility's plan.
it may be extremely j
emergency, but will not following the Staff's recommendation, difficult to reach the conclusion that adequate protective
) measures"canandwill"betakenbasedontheutility'splan s
~
1 j
The Honorable Lando Zech october 21, 1987 Page Two an overly restrictive interpretation of the " realis i
the utility, and then the that which appears to require first, read the minds of how state and local f that respond in the future and then litigate the effectiveness oto do in ins
- NRC, This would appear difficult d/or local there is no communication between the state an response.
officials and the utility.
I do not believe that Congress regarded the concept ofthat the i
utility plans as including a request ill minds of how non-cooperating state and local of ficials w l
respond and then litigate the ef festiveness of that response.
Certainly, this was.not an element of the most recent debates i n-votes in over the emergency planning rule which have res supporting the Commission's proposal.
this letter be circulated to your fnur fellow t
Commissioners as well as be placed in the NRC's Public Documen I request that Room.
- erely, N BREAUX ited States Senator O
a 9
0 0
t I
4
.x...................
U;;;l.'M.i*::",,a "' ****
'ul 'e!.':,';*.'.*.;l',"*"1
- ".n'.:'s.Y4%
.s.,
N:,',1:.'"""; "
$;5[.51$.*'~
EEE'.7.
EllitEd $tatC5 $dlatt COWWiffit CN 84viacaiuthf a=0 NeuC W0sts sEv s t.peshYvoe W A$Ni=Gt0*e DC 205:0 4ifl October 21, 1987' i
Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20S55
Dear Chairman Zech:
issued a I
In March of this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed rule that would amend its emergency planningthis ini I support You personally deserve regulations.
impasse on emergency planning.
su.bstantial credit for this effort.
'I I am disturbed, however, by several aspects of the fina.1 rule.
sincerely. hope that these concerns will be addressed.
final As the Conunission staf f notes in its recomm i
impasse witho6t fully resolving the really the emergency planningissue--whether utility plans will be found acce in a particular case."
difficult on the basis of an adjudicatory record is creates the prospect of lengthy litigation without any in the certainty as to the ultimate licensability of the plant face of non-cooperation by state and local officials.
I hope the Commission will be able to avoid this po l
were to adopt a rule that did not solve the current prob eni.
uncertainty.
With kind regards, I am Sincerely, R
rw %
Quent n N. Burdick Chairman t
QNB:dbtet
--~1_
l (OHFt$$ Of tijt UnittD 6tafts.
l Jpouse of Representatives
{
l Glashington, D.C. 20515 october 23, 1987 1
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 September 22, 1987 we wrote to you requesting that the Commission keep a public log of all written and verbal
{
communications regarding the Commission's draft emergency planning rule.
On October 13, 1987 the Commission issued a staff paper (SECY-87-257) which included a draft Federal Register notice and recommended.that the Commission proceed with this rulemaking..
Yesterday we received your letter refusing our request.
We note that you stated that the Commission "could hardly have structured a more open process."
Yet yesterday we learned, as a result of an apparently inadvertent comment by Commissioner Bernthal during your briefing from the staff, that the commission has received several letters from other Members of Congress urging the Commission to change its proposed emergency planning rule so as to effectively facilitate to an even greater degree the licensing of Seabrook and Shoreham.
Moreover, when at least one staff member attempted on our behalf to obtain copies of such letters, his request was refused by the NRC staff.
Only later, when.we learned that the letters had Leen released by the NRC to the press, were copies provided to us.
We emphatically do not agree with your assessment that the Commission's solitary action of issuing its draft rule for public comment -- an action required.by administrative procedure --
ensures that this process is fully open to public scrutiny.
If persons at senior levels of the commission have had communications with parties outside the NRC regarding this rulemaking, the public has every right to know about those communications.
There should be no question that the Commission's decision is based on any information other than that in the public record.
This matter becomes all the more significant in 14ght of the revelation that the Commission has indeed received communications advocating a rulemaking even less protective of the public than the one recommended by the staff.
@i
4 The' Honorable ando W, Zech, Jr.
Page 2 October 23, 1,987
.As such, we renew.our original request-to you of september 22, 1987, and strongly urge you te reconsider your reply.
In addition, we ask that you provide us with a chronology of all communications (written and verbal) since October-13, 1987 on the subjects of the Commission's proposed emergency planning rule or the. emergency planning aspects of the licensing of *he Seabrook or Shoreham nuclear plants between (1) any Commissioner, member of any Commissioner's staff, G6aeral Counsel or any staff of the office of General Counsel, os the Executive Director.'for operations or any staff of his office, and (2) any employee or representative of (a) any utility or nuclear / utility trade-association, or (b) the White House, Department of Energy, OM8, TEMA, or other redefal agency.
For each communication,.please provide the names of the participants, the date of each communication, a detailed summary, an indication of who initiated the communication and why, and any documents pertaining to such communications.
For the-purpose of this request, :he word
" documents" includes but is not limited to all handwritten or typed communications, documents, drafts, memoranda, letters, notes, and so forth; and the word " communications" refers to all written (as per the above) and/or verbal, communications including all conversations-, meet.ings, and telephone calls.
In light of the fact that only 10 days have elapsed since the Commission issued its draft rule, we would expect that this latter request would not require an extensive effort on the part of the commission.
Accordingly, because we believe that the public and the process will benefit by full disclosure of all communications prior to the Commission voting on this issue, we ask that you provide a full response to this more limited request no later than Tuesday, October 27, 1987.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, h
l Edwa rd J
Marke Nicholas Mavroules 4
Member of Congre s Member of Congress Chester G. Atkins Geor{p' J yochbrueckne r Member of Congress Member of Congress
[
M r
Thomas J.
Dowr ey RMe r t J.' M r dj e k l
. Member of Congress Member of Cong ess L
L
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SoUniLOBBY 9DiFlooR EXCHANGEPLACE 18(X) M STREET. N.'W.
13 sTAu sw WASHINGTON. D.C. 200 % 5891 22 HJ,0 BluCEILL AVENUE 64AMt. PL 33131 TELEPHONE CO2) T158W0 005) 37+4112 Tz1I.xuc2ce n oc Ut i, a e TELECOPIER C00 77H100 PHT58UROH, PA 15222 5J79 HERBERT H. BROWN MID 35200 con nses October 27, 1987 BY HAND Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman Commissioner Frederick M.
Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Kenneth M.
Carr Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Emergency Pldnning Rulemaking
Dear Mr. Chairman and' Commissioners:
We are writing on behalf of our client, Suffolk County, and with the authorization of the State of New York, in reference to three letters writ. ten last week to the Chairman by several Members of Congress and in reference to the Commission's October 22 briefing on the proposed emergency planning rule.
It was inappropriate for the Commission to consider the contents of the subject letters and to discuss the merits of them with the Staff.
The letters, which object in the most pointed terms to the Staff's recommendations for the proposed rule in i
SECY-87-257 and urge radically different actions, do not even give lip service to public safety.
Any reliance by the Commission on these letters would be unlawful as sanctioning the operation of a nuclear plant in circumstances where the requisite public safety finding cannot be made.
Moreover, the, fact that the Commission has considered these letters without having afforded other interested persons an equal opportunity to present their views was not only insensitive to public concern for the integrity of this rulemaking, but procedurally irregular and slanted to disfavor the legitimate bases upon which Suffolk County and New York State have acted to protect their citizens.
4
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 27, 1987 Page Two The Commission's actions have fouled the rulemaking.
Therefore,. the Commission must either reject and disregard the subject letters or commence a fresh rulemaking and afford the public an opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours, Herbert H. Brown 1
cc:
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor of New York William in 1.-r, Esq.
General Cc-11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
6 4
'I 1
4
)
[.
a i44 a..
aev e un<a e,vo-o
=,,,,
..m..... _.
* n' t'ra.i -
"."v'.'co." 2"'.
Congregg of tije 1Hniteb fptateg 0
.inm...
$ouse of Representatives
.mio
""* "?,"Ju**""*
Washington, BC 20515
"""*EE" "1"JA0$L'fiY"sf*
October 27, 1987 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 These on proposed changes to its emergency planning regulations.
proposed changes would permit the Commission to license government participation in the emergency planning process, despite the fact that the States of Massachusetts and New I am attaching two documents thet raise the most serious and the integrity of questions about the NRC's candor, openness,With' regard to safety, since this this rulemaking process.
the Commission and staff have proposal first came to public light,the proposal would not di.minish public sa But asserted that that assertion or the Commission provided no analysis to support to demonstraf;e that the essential questions had even been addressed in any detail.
am releasing documents indicating that.at least one senior NRC staff scientist who commented on a draft of the rule Today I proposal expressed serious doubts about the safety impact of not but also some of the basic only the NRC's proposed rule change, rule change is premised.
A copy of assumptions on which that those comments is attached.
I have been informed that the commission's files in the Public Document Room pertaining to this rulemaking contain only the comments received on the proposal from outside parties, and a subset of those comments which the staff found exemplary of the I substantive questions raised by those who submitted comments.
also have been informed that working papers pertaining to rulemaking proposals are not made public until after the close of This necessarily means that internal the rulemaking process.
Commission documents expressing differing points of view on this proposal either are not easily available except by undertaking a wide-ranging search of diverse Commission files in the PDR, or are not available at all.
h\\
Tha Honorablo Lcndo W.
Zoch, Jr.
1.
l P393 2 October 27, 1987 1
I had hoped that the Commission would hold a formal public I
hearing to receive comments on this rule proposal, and that in i
advance of such hearing it would release the supporting documents i
that analyze this proposal and its potential impact.
Since the Commission has apparently determined that it does not want to i
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 I
(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 'reslism 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 l
7 and local governments would follow the utility s plan) (emphasis a33edJ."
aut 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 l
emergency response plans, FEMA should assume that in an actual l
emergency, state and logal officials will (1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, (end] (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan....[emphas W added)."
These documents raise the most serious questions not only j
about the rule proposal and its underlying assumptions, but also l
about the Commission's process, surely members of the public l
should have been made fully aware of both the differing views 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 1
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 I
apparently has misled either the Commission, the public, FEMA, or j
all of the above.
I ask that you immediately instruct the staff l
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 I
i 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.
q l
l
d
e The Honorablo LCndo W'. Zech, Jr.
Page 3 october 27, 1987 I
I ask that you provide answers'to the following Furthermore, questions.
~
1.
Why haven't the attached comments addressing safety:been I
fully disclosed previously in the NRC's rulemaking notices and accompanying Federal Register notices?
2.
Why haven't the safety-related comments and~all other 1
l working papers been placed in the rulemaking file in the Public I
Document Room as they'have become available?
l 3.
Why shouldn't comments and working papers routinely be placed in any rulemaking file-in the Public Document Room as they become available?
4.
Why has the exi'stence of these differing staff views on safety never been disclosed at any Commission public; briefing or recent staff briefing meeting on this matter, including your-most on October-22, 19877 5.
What explanation does the Commission offer to the American people regarding the clear discrepancy between the staff statements in the October 13, 1987 SECY paper and the directly contradictory instructions to TEMA contained in the NRC staff's letter to FEMA of October 21, 19877 6.
What steps will the NRC take to investigate the staff's action with FEMA 7 Please provide answers to these questions by close of business, Friday November 6, 1987.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter..
Sincerely, Edward J. Marker Member of Congress e
9
'-----------_--._-__l__
. }"5(
'"~';' " igg,g,7,T,,,,,, e, nu, October 21, 1987 q
l 1
MEMOR.\\NDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krinen Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological liarards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:-
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection
.3_
I snd Emergency Preparedness Office of ;fuelear 2eactor Regulation 8
$UBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY Of fSITE PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA i
f This responds to the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting; between FEMA and NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlin's October 16. 1987 memorandum to Victor Stello.
We agraed that the NRC would provide written I
. instructions which state specifically the. assumptions upon which utility off-site plan reviews would be conducted by FEM.
I In developing evaluation criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsite '
state emergency response plans, FEXA should assume that in an actual emergency, health and local officials will J(1)) exercise their best efforts to protect thecoo and safety of. the p(ubHe,3) apply' resources th'at are within the general ca 2
offsite plan, and of state and local governments to irplement those portions of the utility offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.
As we further agreed, any FEMA findings on the adequacy of utility offsite plans will necesserfly include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC to use the above assumptions in evaluating ~ a utility offsite plan.
M f [I l0 m
Frank J. Consel, Of rector Olvision of Radiation Protection and Emer)ency Preparedness Office of ;1pelear Reactor Regulattun CONTACT:
Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NRR 492-7290 3
L- -
_w..
OR. ROSS' COMMENTS Proposal:
Allow issuance of full-power Ifcense even when there is lack of cooperation by State and/or local governments in development or implementation of offsite EP.
Provided that:
non-compliance could be remeddal or adequately compensated 1)
State or local government cooperation, good faith and sustained effort by applicant to get cooperation,
?)
offsite EP includes a11' effective measures to 3) response, and State or local government have been provided with copies of the A) been assured applicant is ready to cooperate.
Special emphasis i
1)
Policy-not new science Policy issue--Is it essential that we find that some protective measu 2) will, he taken, as part of a FPL7 31 Minimum change 4)
Informal rulemaking Get FEMA views during coment period, i
5)
Existing 10 CFR 50.47 Para. (c)(1) has some loopholes -
I
" deficiencies...not significant' f
)
" adequate unknown compensatirig actions"
'other compelling reasons' 1
h
4 Nuggets from'50.47 and Appendix'E
- adequate protective measures can and will be taken*
(a)(1) whether State and local emergency plans as adequate responsibility of State and local organizations assigned.
FEMA:
(a)(?)
Principle response organization has staff-to respond.
(b)(1) procedures for notification of S&L officials established.
(b)(5)
(b)(6) exercises conducted Appendix E Identification of State, local officials A.8 Assessment actions--agreed on by State and Local P
Notification D
Administrative and Physical means 1.
S&L will determine whether to activate 2.
Fotify St.L in 15 min.
entire system 3.
Exercise with SAL SFL in remedial exercise.
4.
Dose Perspective (see figures) for 557-2. w/o evacuatica caa set 200 rem at 5 m A*
For SST-1, in shelter, at 5 miles, probability of exceedi 50 percent of exceeding 100 rem at 3 miles.
Probability is percent.
At Zion, at 3 miles, probability isa 50 percent of excee Could reduce toa10 percent w/ shelter, essentially zer Q*
normal activity.
1 with prompt evacuation.
EP can reduce 70 rem whole dose in plume.
f 1I
- At Surry,at 5 miles, get this-0.
l Observation, conclusion f
See p.14 of paper; the new proposed Para. 6 to Sect Part 50 does not clean up the other portions of Appendix A,B,D, for example).
~ ^ ' ^ ' ^ ^ ~ - - - _ _ _
states that adequate offsite emergency planning is
- p. 5 of paper: feasible,'and all other aspects of foregoing criteria ar
~does the mean about Appendix E7 states that regulatory flexibility is warranted for
- p. 7 of paper:
EP.-less important than ECCS (e.g.)
This is No minimum dose savings is established as standard for EP.However, th i
consistent with the bottom of p. ? cf 0396.The recomended planning basis
- p. 5 should be considered. Emphasis _on pre-detemined action.
should be re read.
The principle purpose of the plume exposure EPZ ImpliesmutuallysupportiveS&Lplanning(p.16).
Local. government plans are particularly important fp.17f). W Plans should not be developed is isolation (p. 70.)
20).
Advance arrangements with S&L by utility is necessary (p. ??).
Response organizations which receive notifications should have a and capability to take imediate predetermined actions.
Utility cannot compensate for lack of predeteminal actions by S&L.
Little on prudent and feasible dose-reduction can be achieved by u along; nearby residents could shelter (not too effective fe3 mi., gets better w/ distance) but evacuation is unthinkable by utility alone.
p.10, bottom para'. of paper, speaks of best-efforts utility plan fo
~
possible_ S&L cooperation; surely this is speculatative.
Su rary:
Doses near-in ((3 miles or so) can be. life-threatening Ho predetermined actions can be assumed by utility alone, thus no i
projected dose savings of significance can be assured Fabric of 0654 is woven died with inconsistencies Appendix E H This action should not he approved, unless the utility aprees to an analysis that prompt notification directly to affected people (as detemined by new risk info., keyhole within a few miles), will resu p(rompt evacuatTE, as directed by people under probably not feasible).
.l
I Tongregg of tfje Sniteb fatates Jponge of Representatibeg WasWngton,D.C.' 20515 Detober 27, 1987 The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
j Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Deer Mr. Chairman:
i We have now had a chance to review tbc r.w.,cript f
concludad Thurndey's staff briefing of the Commission and nava that another letter from us to the Commissien wou.4 be 1
appropriate.
It is clear to us that there is some misunderstanding of what we are recommending, and it is therefore the possible chat once that misunderstanding is cleared away, remain,ing.differeness can be minimized or eliminated.
'Eni'.e we do not wish to quote f rom the. tranmript, it is clear tor.t some. participants nt the briefing viewed out position as neeking an assumption that once a utility expended its best offerte to produce a utility plan, the Commi ss, ion and l >.s hea ring boards would be bound to accept the plan as adequate to protect the public.
In light of the complexity of the subject matter, we do not fault anyone for concluding that cur position was in favo) of euch an assumption.
The fact is, however that we would not support any such assumption.
Eather, we are in agr eement with the staff's recommendation that the_adequocy of any ott.ity plan 8
and the adequacy of State and local preparerinns ef forts must be probed and evaluated in individual hearings.
It appears that our fundamental di f fgrence with the samff's recommendation is this:
the staff's recommendation would'makh it necessary for hearing boards, in deciding whether to issue a to have to rely on the testimony of State and local
- license, governn.ents as to their real intentions and likely responses in an accident,,whereas our approach would remove that necessity and substitute in its place a requirement that the hearing boards evaluate the capabilities of Stato and loca! governments both to i
devise and execute an emergency plan.
Rather than having to second-guess the real intentions of State and 1om t efficials from their testimony -testimony thar. inevitably wi11 be
. influenced by the litigation interests of such governments-,
under our approach the hearing boarda wculd en
,.an the H.w n n t cbjective experience, budgets, manpower, and othe.'.
w.t v;overnments are factors in deciding whether the State and 1
o.- necuting a ca,p_,ab_le both of planning for emergenci as.wi plan in an energency.
V i O( 3 d p @.1 a, - [f(
f f
(
l I
d The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
October 27, 1987 Page Two In other words, the staff's recommendation makes necessary the " mind reading" that the Commission has indicated it wishes to avoid.
Our approach, on the other hand, has as its primary virtue that such " mind reading" is entirely unnecessary.
There are two simple changes to the staff's recommendation that, if made, would achieve the objectives of our approach.
The first change involves expanding the staff's recommendation's assumption regarding the best efforts of State and local governments.
While the staff's recommendation would have the Commission assume that State and local governments would use their best efforts to respor d to an actual emergency, we think that common sense entitles the Commission's rule to assume i
something more:
that the State and local governments would also use their best efforts merely to make preparations for an Thus, we believe it is common sense that the State emergency.
and local authorities would use their best efforts to prepare for an emergency either by relying on a utility's plan or by developing their own plan.
The second change involves the nature of the evidence required for the Commissions and boards to determine that the best efforts of the State and local authorities will be We agree with the staff that a primary function of a adequate.
licensing hearing must be to determine whether the assumed best efforts of State and local officials will be adequate.
We believe, however, that the Commission's rule should provide guidance that the boards can determine the adequacy of such efforts'to prepare and execute nn emergency plan by probing and evaluating evidence concerning the adequacy of the actual
~
capabilities and resources of the State and local governments.
This evidence, we should make clear, would consist of State and local governments' organizations, budgets, equipment, manpower, experience in non-nuclear and in some cases nuclear emergency preparedness, and the like.
These, then, are the only changes that we believe are needed.
What may be more important to explain, however, is what would happen if the staf f's recommendation i s adopted and our approach is rejected.
To review the matter, under the staff's recommendation, a licensing board would decide whether " adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in an emergency by reviewing a utility's plan,and assuming that State and local governments will use their best efforts in an actual emergency.
The difficulty with that formulation is that even the best possible utility plan, together with.that assumption, falls well short of logically establishing that " adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in an accident:
after 4
The Honorable Lando M. Zech, Jr.
October 27, 1987 Page Three acknowledging that they will use their best efforts in times of an emergency, recalcitrant State and local officials will assert that they will do so only ad hoc, that they will pay no attention to the utility plan, and that they do not intend even to develop a plan of their own (assuming they take the position Other parties will best suited to their litigation interests).
argue that such assertions run counter to common sense and that, since the States and localities in question have shown themselves to have adequate capabilities and resources to protect their the Commission can have reasonable assurance that they
- citizens, would make the necessary preparedness as wel'l. If the capabilities and resources are in fact established to the board's the board will then face a conflict between common satisfaction, sense and the testimony of State and local officials--testimony that has as its major purpose to establish that preparedness is inadequate.
Routinely, the question of whether a license should be issued will be reducible to the question of how this conflict is resolved.
Boards will routinely ask themselves the question:
local officials or Should we rely on the testimony of State and to resolve the conflict?
on common sense, Without the additional assumption and guidance that we the staff's recommendation would lea"e the boards
- propose, without direction as to how to resolve the conflict and to make the determinations of adequacy.
With nur additional assumption and guidance, though, the Commission would avoid confronting the boards with the conflict, because the boards would be free to make their determination by relying on the actual their capabilities of State and local governments--not
_ express intentions.
, e think, therefore, that not providing the boards with the W
additional assumption and guidelines would be an unfortunate abdication of the Commission's responsibility.
It would also be flatly inconsistent with the Commission's expressed objective in this rulemaking:
to prevent its licensing process from being reduced to a mind-reading exercise.
With the two modifications included either in the text of the rule or in its noted above, statement of consideration, these consequences can be avoided.
We strongly urge that that course be taken.
j i
1 l
Sincerely yours, i
Charles Pashayan,/r.
RalphfM. Hall Member of Congre(s Member of Congress
The Ho.'.orabie Lando'W. Zech, Jr.
October 27,.1987 Page Four l
The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts cc:
The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal The Honorable Kenneth M. Car The Honorable.Kenneth C.
Rogers 9
9 e
i
?j*lo o o KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOBBY 97H Floor cxcxAwon ptacs -
sJsTA7:nasp 1800 M ST1 LEET N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20045891 jn l
amurwnAvwun wma. ri.utu TELEPHOF'5 00D ntt000 pos) n44:12 j
l m +eme n oc ut na0 ouvem sumno I
TE11Cori:A 002) n5M00 Pff754ullCH. PA 15121-53M
"'8"""
HERBERT H. BROWN October 28, 1987 acu nses A
l BY HAND _
William Parler, Esquire General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dear Mr. Parler:
We are writing on behalf of our client, Suffolk County, and with the authorization of the State of New Ycrk, in reference to the attached newspaper article and documents which strongly suggest that the NRC is deliberately deceiving the public with respect to the pending emergency planning rule change.
Specifically, in the Staff's emergency planning briefing paper to the Commission, SECY-87-257, the Staff stated that the proposed rule "makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utility's plan)
This statement reflects a consistent theme expressed J
throughout the SECY paper and your October 22 briefing to the Commission.
However, the attached documents disclose that at the very
)
time the Staff was publicly making the foregoing Representations, it was privately making the opposite representations -- indeed, the' Staff was making decisions and actually taking actions in repudiation of its public pronouncements.
Specifically, the attached October 21, 1987 memorandum from the NRC Staff to FEMA instructs FEMA to " assume" for purposes of FEM A's participation in the NRC's regulatory process that State and local governments will " cooperate with the utility to follow the utility offsite plan".
and " implement those portions of the utility offsite l
plan where state or local response is necessary."
Moreover, the Staff's instruction to FEMA, in the face of facts which the NRC knows to be precisely the opposite, strongly suggests that the NRC is being disingenuous.
The NRC has received affidavits from the Governor of New York and the Suffolk County Executive that explain why neither the State nor County rn
~
km;,+
@th'cT' W $ )'
--_im-_ - _ _ _ _. _.,
k: {\\- [.\\[
,\\ (s.
/
s s
8 c
(.
%a M
i t
t (fs s
n KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART. '
V s
)
n, William Parler, Esquire 3
J
//
October 28, 1987 7s.(,
Page Two q{/
- r.
would ever. authorize, use, or otherwiseq f?mplement the uti N ty's
,l emergency plan.
The inescapable inference is that the NRC sought l
to conceal its instruction to FEMA in o'rder'to prevent interested State and local-governments from learning what it was doing.
The. irre oncilable inconsistency b4 tween '.ths / Staff's public and private statements indicates that thd NRC Ks,'seekipg[to f.
mislead the public, and particularly interested ~5tsta pod local governments such as New York and Suffolk County.
This, coupled with the procedural irregularity addressed ~by our letter sf
, (,4 October 27 to the Chairman and Commissioners, has further undercut the integrity and legal sufficiency of the d'ulhmaking..(i Accordingly, the State and County request that:
' ili)' the i'
s instruction to FEMA be rescinded; (2);the rulemaking be suspende{l F'
pending full disclosure by the NRC of all materials and information related to the issues addy'a: sed herein;. and (3) the public.be afforded th'e opportunity to'cdnsider such. materials ahd to file with the NRC position papers as to whether the quiemaking should be terminated or. remedied by other means.
Sincerely, f
/g s
p---
Herbert H.
Brown
(
f T
i cc:
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
3 Special CounselEto the Governor s
s 5
of New York 4.
i Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal t
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
')
Commissioner Kenneth M.
Carr Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers
Enclosures:
Newsday article, October 28, 1987 Memorandum from Victor J.
Stello, dated October 16, 1987 l
l Memorandum from Frank J. Congel, dated October 21, 1987
/
1 e vs l
D',
e me
__.__.___..m_._
v s
ws l.
',[ G!g% Federal Ernergency Management Agency c
i
//
Washington, D.C. 2002 G
October 16, 1987 1
MDORANDUM FOR: Victor J. Stello Executive Director for Operations 1
Nuclear Regulatory Comission FFOi:
ve McIoughlin j
Deputy Associate Director State. and Iocal Programs and Support
SUBJECT:
Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria
'Ihis is to follow up on several issues raised at the meeting yesterday between members of our staffs about the development of criteria suitable for the evaluation of offsite emergency plans developed by utilities.
You requested that we supply you with the names of the Argonne National Laboratory staff needed as additional resources in connection with the project on the utility plan evaluative criteria.
In the process of e
ccrtpiling the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary.
Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth Ierner, Ms. Sue Ann Curtis
'Ibe names are:
and Mr. William Gasper. In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne to supply four additional staff to backfill and perform the functions nonna11y required by FD% during the duration of the criteria development project.
I would like to stress the importance of having written instructions pre -
pered by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, before beginning the project, which state specifically the assumptions upon which the plan reviews would be conducted.
It would be impossible to develop the criteria without knowing the ' conceptual framework within which they are to operate success-fully.
Given the above resources and agreement on the assumptions, we are prepared to begin work with NRC staff on October 26, 1987 on the development of criteria suitable for the evaluation of utility plans by FEMA. We would also be prepared to disseminate the document resulting from that project by November 12, 1987, to the participants in the meeting to be held on Friday, November 13, at 9:00 a.m. in the FD4A offices. From our view, the purpose of that meeting would be to consider the criteria documnt and any potential issues which would need to be addressed by FDM and ~NRC mnagemnt.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 646-3692.
q l
unis tu s Aith j
- g,
NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION
- y
.g W ASMitC TCN. O. C. 205tt
.],,
j
?"g.....,
October 21, 1987' MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krina -
-)
Assistant Associate Director i
Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:.
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection snd Emerg'ency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
-DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY OFFSITE PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA This responds to the understanding reached at' the October 15, 1987 mpeting between FEMA and NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlins October 16. 1987 H
n:emorandum to Victor Stello.
We agreed that the NRC would provide-written instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which utility off-' '
site plan reviews would be conducted by FEMA.
In developing evaluation criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsite 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 2) and safety of the p(ubMe,3) apply resources that are within-the general capab1 offsite olan, and of state and local governments to. frplement those. portions of the utility offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.
As we furth'er agreed, any FEMA findings on the adequecy of utility offsite plans will necessarily include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC
]
to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan.
A Trank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness
]
Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:,26ard M. Podolak, Jr.. NRR
/492-7290 e
g
. Lawmaker: NRC Sta BySusam maahah===
plan would be used rorthe ti_ awer.
"*"'**" plant when state and secuni gev.
The Nedmar Enguimenry 0emmis-mate refhmo to n==y==ste in======
deadashangimthefadoral WWEncy DImamE3ng. Tine 3RRIes OERR$d In*I aw P
11,==== forImag rat = a L4gisting made olhande a i
ft, u s.a a 3..
.'s Stnorma.-= plant med sier tano See-r r-imm ', theory them the version it gave to broek plant Ian New Haanymbirm.
the public, a Massachaastia inweaker The rule change omabodies the NRC's mas-th.+..r. that ian a real sharymL asp. Edward Marley (D-aises.),
state and neesal gewers-esmersency who has led the n
" syposi..
sunsrunts womajd help evacmate residents
?
tion to em NBC propenal ta relas emners.
in the 10-mile emnargency sonne. But adaaming rules kr modeer.
the ecoPo er that w " is the f
gamey 13=====
retenarid deemaments plant manbject or Mastey's critietaan.
'yestarsay that he amid runnes "gtsee.
Last week, the NRC sataff seeen
. tiene about the ietserity er the cosa..
- =*=f the ce===t==ican adop'. m ver-mesman's presses and the enader of the sion of the rule that --=== the gov-m3=='=='s stas."
ernments would help out during am which a -***%_,_ ruiesunder N N B C ia emmergency but not that they would
-L evesmetiosa 6
e Net Candid on Policy l
)
folt<4r the t-'llitys plan. The versioes Congel, d. ector of the NRC"o divisioen N
snow befora. = fave-member -mis-of radistic.a protectice med=====rWesec7 anon.wb3c2n. an.s a vote tosnorrow,amys prepareds oss. andd last nigtst. he eeund I
the rulo "mn.:e:: no assumptJcas am to not rempord until kne metn=Ely mess time the prmesme 4.dernes which state and 30-docin===nta relemand try Markey..
emi governr= ats would tak= (such as
""Itale abowin the = --- w- 'osa le pr at-whether the state and lae=1 ting can a stage show, malml===Gingr time
===nts wou% *athw the astility's plan)."
public theatrics while ba=s.I,e g But in an Oct. 21 memormaduas the acerraes g metimen that's iam ente-firesa the N.0 staff to the Federal garacmi oppenitiess."==1d H ertnert H.
1 E=
g "'"'innvoaved in emergency-anm6====t Agency, an Brown, a W==hi sesornney who is NRC adm =-
fighti the rule four Saa m mik.
p9=nsing McMures==3d *Amt in de.
Petroene, a former FEMA re-e.)
-^
velopiang criteria by winich to evalente gional director who works for Seafrolk emnergersey p; ann, FEMA shouk! me-County. maid: "If they em.an't d== ide
== that the governments = rill coop-annongot themselves wbot dir
- E=n to erste with C:a utility and rotfoe the take, then an===ane better *=k = this otat satility oeisite plan."
of the hands of the NRC cauzapleemly. It
..Th.,utbor or pm.mesno, e <=pk.J.,, ebo=rm ther@ =e.twierwisrshgry.".
~
a g4
_.. s e
1
v i
MERORANDA
- )
i 1.
Memo from McLaughlin, FEMA, to Stello, NRC, dated 10/16/87, subject:
l Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria.
2.
Memo from Congel, NRC, to Krimm, FEMA, dated October 21, 1987, subject:
Development of Utility Offsite Plan Evaluation Criteria.
3.
Letter from McLaughlin, FEMA, to Stello, NRC, dated October 28, 1987.
4 Draft document prepared by FEMA /NRC Task Force, dated October 28, 1987, antitled, " Concept of Utility Offsite Planning Evaluation Criteria."
i 9
e e
e
1 j
Federal Emergency Management Agency R
Washington, D.C. 20472 October 16, 1987 MENCRANIfJM FOR: Victor J. Stello Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Ccm:1ssion FROM:
ve McLoughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Local Program and Support
SUBJECT:
Develo;rJent of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria his is to follow up on several issues raised at the meetirg yesterday between members of our staffs about the development of criteria suitable for the evaluation of offsite emergency plans developed by utilities.
l You requested that we supply you with the names of the Argonne National laboratory staff needed as additional resources in connection with the project on the utility plan evaluative criteria.
In the process of compiling the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary.
he names are: Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth Imrner, Ms. Sue Ann Curtis and Mr. Villiam Gasper.
In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne to supply four additicr.a1 staff to backfill and perform the functions nomally required by FEMA during the duration of the criteria development project.
I would Ibe to stress the importance of having written instructions pre-pared by the Nuclear Regulatory Occmission, before beginning the project, which state specifically the assumptions upon which the plan. reviews would be conducted.
It would be 1:::possible to derrelop the criteria without knowing the conceptual framwork within which they are to operate success-fully.
Given the above resources and agreemnt on the assumptions, we are prepared to begin work with NRC staff on October 26, 1987 on the development of criteria suitable for the evaluation of utility plans by ?mA. We would also be prepared to disseminate the document resulting from that project by November 12, 1987, to the participants in the meeting to be held on Friday, hvember 13, at 9: 00 a.m. in the FmA offices. Fran our view, the purpose of that meeting would be to consider the criteria docum nt and any potential issues which would need to be addressed by FEA and NRC canagerJent.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questians, please feel free to call me at
-3692.
---_-_________.---_-.-_---__.______._______-___-_A
- aseg'o, UNITED STATES
[,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON,0, C 20555
]
?,
%,c
/y October ' 21.,1987 oo.*
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Frank J. Conge'1,. Director
)
Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuc egg Reactor Regulation i
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY OFFSITE PLAN l
EVALUATION CRITERIA This responds to the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting between FEMA and NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlin's October 16, 1987 memorandum to Victor Stello.
We a' greed that the NRC would provide written instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which utility off-site plan reviews would be conducted by FEMA.
In developing evaluation eriteria and in reviewing utility sponsored'offsite 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, (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan, and (3) apply resources that are within the general capabilities of state and local governments to implement those portions of the utility 1
offsite plan where state or local response is necessary, As we further agreed, any FEMA findihgs on the adequacy of utility offsite plans will necessarily include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan.
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Rediation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
CONTACT:
Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NRR
{
4 2-7 9 V
Federal Ernergency Management Agency v
1 h
Washington, D.C. 20472 1
OCT 2 8 igi 1
i Mr. Victor Stello F.xecutive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
i We have reviewed the assumptions, presented in the October 21, 1987 memorandum i
from Frank Congel of your staff to. Richard Krdan of ray staff, which you wish the Federal Dnergency Management Agency (FEMA) to use in evaluating radiological emergency response plans suhnitted by a utility in those cases where State and/or local governments do rot participate in offsite emergency planning around nuclear power plants.
I believe that this issue is of such importance that you and I sh3uld correspond directly on the agreements that we reached at our meeting on October 15, 1987, and on related matters.
We can accept tentatively assumptions numbers 1 and 2 as stated in Mr. Congel's October 21,'1987 menorandum, but we suggest alternative wording for number 3, as follows:
(3) have the resources sufficient to implement trose portions of the utility offsite plan where State or local response is necessary.
This change clarifies that FEMA, in its evaluation of the utility plan, will not be required to review the existence or adequacy of State and local resources.
This alternative wording is consistent with the approach presented in Mr. Congel's menorandum which calls for the assumptions that State and local governments will respond and follow the utility offsite plan in an actual emergency. The alternative wording reflects my understanding of your position on the resources l
1ssue, as diccussed in our meeting of October 15, 1987.
As stated in our meeting of October 15, 1987, since the assumptions originate with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and are based on general presumption rather than specific verified facts, FB4A will not be in a position to defend the assumptions in NRC regulatory proceedings.
It is expected that the NRC will defend the assumptions in hearings and in other legal and public forums.
Let me reiterate that what we agree to at this time is tentative.
As we proceed jointly with NRC in the project concerning criteria for the evaluation of a utility plan, there may be a need to add or delete assumptions or make other changes. However, assumptions 1, 2 and reworded 3 stould provide a working framework for t criteria effort.'
i i
4
. During our meeting on October 15, 1987, you and I also discussed sending.
out the criteria for public comment prior to using it for the evaluation off an offsite radiological emergency response plan submitted by a utility. As an alternative, you proposed a procedure whereby af ter ' concurrence by FEMA and NRC, the utility plan criteria would be used on an interim basis to ""
review the utility plan for the Massachusetts part of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, according to the provisions of the FEMA /NRC Memorandum of Understanding.
At the same time, a notice would be published in the Federal Register that the criteria are available for comment.
Copies would also'be sent to States and other parties for comment.
A similar process was used in 1980 for the publication of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.
Based on this-precedent, we accept this procedure, with the understanding' that any appropriates changes in the criteria will be made promptly after review of the public s;-
- j, comments. Since.we are proceding on 'the basis that any' revised criteria will be applicable to plan development as well as evaluation, there should also be an understanding that any offsite utility plaa reviewed under the i
interim criteria might also require changes due to the revised, final reiteria.
Lastly, I wish to thank you for arranging for the additional resourcet piaced at our disposal to assist us in carrying out the project on the utilitz plan evaluative criteria.
If you have any questions, please call me at 646-3692.
Sin erely, M
i Dave McLoughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support l
j
f/
/gp.gf ff' l
l
}
C0tCEP1' OF UTILITY OFFSITE PIKMIN3 EVAIEATION CRITERIA 1.
'Ihe conmpb of "offsite response organization" is adopted and defined as the utility offsite emergency response organization along with other participating voluntary and private organizations ard local, State and Federal governments engaging in the development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear power plant. Throughout the revised Evaluation Criteria "offsite response organization" replaces references to State and local goverments.
2.
In addition, Evaluation Criteria were modified Qr added to compensate for lack of participation by State and local goverments in the planning process, such as:
a)
Identification of the functions and responsibilities for major elements of the anticipated State and local response to an emergency (A.2.a.).
b)
Provision of additional personnel to advise and assist State I
and local officials in an emergency (C.5.).
c)
Provision for advising State and local officials on emergency actions to be taken (D.4., E.6.a, J.10.f.).
d)
Provision for coordinating emergency messages with State and 4
local governments where possible (E.3.).
1 e)
Provision for notifying the public with a backup A&N system j
where the licensee is prevented from establishing a primary A&N system (E.6.b.).
I f)
Provision for comrrunications with non-participating State and local emergency operations facilities (F.1.f.).
1 g)
Provision for public information describing the role of the l
]
offsite response organization vs. the State and local organizations during the emergency (G.1.e.).
h) Establishment of an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling offsite r'esponse functions (H.3.).
i)
Special consideration for the fast breaking General Emergency where the offsite organization cannot be activated in time to respond. The licensee would contact directly the State or local government (J.9. and J.10.d.).
j)
Provision for participation in exercises and drills by State and local governments that elect to participate in the emergency planning process (N.6.).
O
g 1
d
. 1 k)
Provision of training for personnel of State and local goverrvnents who elect to participate in planning-(0.6.).
1)
Provision of training to persons in the utility's offsite response organization who will be responders (0.7.).
i m)
Provision for periodic notification of non-participating ' Stat.e and local governments of the details of the offsite plan, the l
arrangements included for their involvement in the event of a real j
emergency, and the availability of training (P.11.).
l l
l i
f e
e g
e l
'e y
i t
l
- a.
i PROPOS!!D FOR INTERIM USE AND CQ9ENT
. Appendix 6 Evaluation Criteria for Utility l
Offsite Plans
~
l The following provides Criteria to be used for. the development and evaluation of utility offsite emergency response plans and preparedness.
These (The Planning Standards are repeated-here for corrvenience.)
Evaluation Criteria modify those applicable to State and Local Response organizations and should be used in their place. 'The Evaluation Criteria applicable to the Licensee are not changed. The following. assumptions were.
o.
used in developing the Evaluation Criteria'in'this appendix.
In an actual emergency, State and local officials will:
exercise their best efforts to protect the health and' safety 1) of the public;
- 2). cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plant
- and, have the resources sufficient to inplement those portions of 3) the utility offsite plan where State or local response is necessary.
G 4
4
)
W
\\
0 0
Draft i
i l-EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS i
l Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria A.
Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control)
Planning Standard Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various sup-porting organiz,ations have been specifically established, and each principal response organization has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis.
\\
Evaluation Criter'ia 1.
a.
The offsite plan shall identify the elements of the offsite response organization.*
b.
The offsite response organization shall specify its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total effort.
c.
The offsite plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a block diagram.
i d.
The offsite response organization shall identify a specific individ-
)
Val by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response.
"Offsite response organization is defined as the utility offsite emergency response organization along with other participating voluntary.and private organizations, and local, State and Federal governments engaging in the development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear p.ower plant.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 1
10/28/87
Draft
-l The offsite response organization shall provide for 24-hour per day e.
emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communica-tions links.
2.
a.
The offsite response organization shall specify the functions and responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title,'f j
o l
emergency response, including the following:
Command and Control, I
Alerting ed Notification, Communications, Public Information, Acci-dent Assusment, Public Health and Sanitation, Social Services, Fire and Rescue, Traffic Control, Emergency Medical Services, Law Enforce-ment, Transportation, Protective Response (including authority to request Federal assistance and to initiate other protective actions),
and Radiological Exposure Control.
The description of these functions shall include a clear and concise summary such as a table of primary and support responsibilities using the agency as one axis, and the function as the other.
The plan shall also identify similar func-tions and responsibilities and interfaces for an anticipated State and local response to an emergency.
b.
The offsite plan shal'1 contain (by reference to specific acts, codes or statutes) the legal basis for such authorities.
3.
The offsite plan shall include written agreements referring to the con-cept of operations developed between Federal agencies, the offsite response organization, and other support organizations having an emer-gency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones.
The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to ba provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrange-ments for exchange of information.
These agreements may be provided in an appendix to the plan or the plan itself may contain descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the plan may serve to verify the agreements.
The signature page format is appropriate for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders where separate written agreements are not necessary.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 2
10/28/87
= _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Draft 4.
The offsite response organization shall be capable of continuous (24-hour) i operations for a protracted period.
The individual in the offsite response organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title.
e Y
k I
W l
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS
. 3 10/28/87 l
l l
1
m l
Draft j
l I
4
?
~
l 8.
Onsite Emergency Organization (Not Applicable)
C.
Emergency Response Support and Resources Planning Standard Arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and other organiza-tions capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified.
Evaluation Criteria 1.
The Federal government maintains in-depth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan.
Each offsite response organization and licensee shall make provisions for incorporating the Federal response capability in'to its operation plan, including the following:
specific persons by title authorized to request Federal assistance; a.
see A.1.d., A.2.a.
b.
specific Federal resources expected, including expected times of arrival at specific nuclear facility sites; and specific licensee and offsite response organization resources avail-c.
able to support the Federal response, e.g., air fields, command posts, telephone lines, radio frequencie's and telecommunications centers.
j 2.
a.
The offsite response organization may dispatch representatives to the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility.
(Technical analysis representatives at the near-site EOF are preferred.)
4 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 4
10/28/87
Draft b.
.The offsite' response organ'ization shall prepare for the dispatch of
)
.a representative to principal offsite governmental emergency opera-l tions centers.
l l
3.
The offsite response organization shall identify. radiological labora-tories and their general capabilities and expected availability to pro-vide radiological monitoring and analyses services which can be used'in L
an emergency.
4.
The offsite response organization shall identify nuclear and other facil-
.ities, organizations or individuals which can be relied upon in an emer-gency to provide assistance.
Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement, i
5.
The offsite response organization shall provide personnel to advise and assist State and local officials in implementing those portions of the offsite plan where State or local response-is necessary.
i i
\\
i M
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 5
10/28/87 I
Draft u'
D.
Emergency' Classification System Planning Standard A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facil-ity licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on informa-tion provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial off -
site response measures.
Evaluation Criteria 3.<
The offsite response organization shall establish an emergency classiff-cation and emergency action level scheme consistent with that established by the facility licensee.
4.
The offsite response organization should have procedures in place that provide for advising State and local officials on emergency actions to be taken which are consistent with the emergency acttons recommended by'the nuclear facility licensee, taking into account local offsite conditions that exist at the time of the emergency.
i 1
t
.l
' CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 6
10/28/87 l
__.___._____m___-_____
f.
Draft E.
Notification Methods and Procedures Planning Standard Procedures have been established for notification by the licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations; the content of initial and followup messages to response organizations and the public.has been established; and means to pro-vide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established.
Evaluation Criteri_a 1.
The offsite response organization shall establish procedures which describe the mutually agreeable bases for notification of response organi-zations consistent with the emergency classification and action level scheme set forth in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.
These procedures shall include means for verification of messages.
The specific details of verification need not be included in the plan.
2.
. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures for alert-ing, notifying, and mobilizing emergency response personnel.
3.
The licensee in conjunction with the offsite response organization shall 3stablish the content of the initial emergency messages to be sent from the plant. These measures shall contain information about the class of emergency, whether a release is taking place, potentially affected population and areas, and whether protective measures may be necessary.
There shall be provisions for coordinating these messages with State and local governments where possible.
4.
Each licensee shall make provisions for followup' messages from the facil-ity to the offsite response organization (and to offsite authorities where possible) which shall contain the following information if it is known and appropriate:
4 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 7
10/28/87
Draft 8
f location of, incident and name and telephone number (or communications j
a.
channel identification) of caller; i
b.
date/ time of incident; c.
class of emergency; d.
type of actual or projected release (airborne, waterborne.. surface spill), and estimated duration / impact times; estimate of quantity of radioactive material released or being re-e.
leased and the points and height of releases; f.
chemical and physical form of released material, including estimates of the relative quantities and concentration of noble gases, iodines and particulate; I
g.
meteorological conditions at appropriate levels (wind speed, direc-tion (to and from), indicator of stability, precipitation, if any);
h.
-actual or projected dose rates at the boundary; projected integrated dose at site boundary; i.
pro'scted dose rates and integrated dose at the projected peak and 2, 5 and 10 miles, including sector (s) affected; i
j estimate of any surface radioactive contamination inplant, onsite 6r offsite4 k.
lice'nsee, emergency response actions underway; 1
l l
1.
recommended. emergency actions, including protective measures; request for any needed onsite support by offsite organizations; and m.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 8
10/28/87
~~
j Draft
\\
~
n.
prognosis for worsening or termination of event based on plant information.
5.
The offsite response organization shall establish a system for disseminat-ing to the public appropriate information contained in initial and followup messages received from the licensee including the appropriate notification to appropriate broadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS).
6.
a.
The offsite response organization shall establish administrative and physical means, and the time required for notifying and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway l
Emergency Planning Zone (see Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1).
It shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate that such means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement.
It shall be the responsibility of the State and local governments to activate such a system.
(See discussion for the contingency of the fast breaking accident under J.9.)
The offsite response organization shali provide advice and assistance as necessary to State and local governmen'ts for performing this function, j
b.
Where the licensee is prevented from establishing a physical means of notifying the public within about 15 minutes, a backup system cap-able of meeting the 45-minute criterion of Appendix 3 Section b.2.(c) of NUREG-0654/ FEMA Rep. 1, Rev. 1, shall be established by the licensee, 7.
The offsite response organization shall provide' written messages intended for the public, consistent with the licensee's classification scheme.
In particular, draft messages to the public giving instructions with regard to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of.affected areas shall be prepared and included as part of the offsite plans.
Such messages should include the appropriate aspects of sheltering, e.g., hand-kerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking or evacuation.
The role of the licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages.
e CRITERIA /. UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 9
10/28/87
_______m__
J
Draft F.
Emergency Communications Planning Standard Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organiza-tions to emergency personnel and to the public.
Evaluation Criteria t
1.
The communication plans for emergencies shall include organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the communication links.
Reliable primary and backup means of communication for the utility and the offsite response organization shall be. established.
Each plan shall include:
provision for 24-hour per day notification to and activation of the a.
offsite response organization's emergency response network; and at a minimum. a telephone link and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication links that initiate emergency respon>e actions.
b.
provision for communications with contiguous States and local govern-ments within the Emergency Planning Zones; i
provision for communications as needed with Federal emergency c.
response organizations; I
l d.
pr'ovision for communications between the nuclear f acility and the
]
i licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility, offsite response organization's emergency operations centers, and radiological monitor-ingTeams; J
e CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 10 10/28/87
Orgft c
e provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in each.
e, response organization.
l f.
provision-for communications (primary only) with State and local Emergency Operations Centers; and 2.
The offsite response organization shall ensure that a coordinated communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities exists.
1 3.
The offsite response organization shall conduct periodic testing of the entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10, N.2.a and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1).
t 0
W 1
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 11 10/28/87
_I-______.____._._.__._
' Oraft e
e G.
Public Education and Information Planning Standard i
Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be notified and what their initial actions shall be in an emergency (e.g., listening to a local broadcast station and remaining indoors), the principal points of contact with the news media for dissemination of informa-tion during an emergency (including the physical location or locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of infor-l mation to the public are established.
Evaluation Criteria 1.
The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at least annu, ally) dissemination of information to the public regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emer-This information shall include, but not necessarily be limited gency.
to:
a.
educational information on radiation; b.
contact for additional information; protective measures, e.g., evacuation routes and relocation centers, c.
sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprotective drugs; and d.
special.needs of the handicapped.
specTal steps to be taken to describe the role of the of fsite re-a.
sponse organization vs. the State and local organizations during the emergency.
Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
information in the telephone book; posting in public a eas; and publications distributed on an annual basis.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 12 10/28/87
l Draft 2.
The public information p'rogram shall provide the permanent and transient adult population within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to become aware of the information annually.
The programs should include provision for written material that is likely to be available in a resi-dence during an emergency. Updated information shall be disseminated at least annually.
Signs or other measures (e.g., decals, pested notices, or other means, placed in hotels, motels, gasoline stations and phone booths) shall also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that wiIl be helpful if an emergency or accident occurt.
Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies.
3.
The offsite response organization shall designate the points of contact This and physical locations,for use by news media during an emergency.
should include provisions for accommodating State and local government public information personnel assigned a role under the offsite response plan.
. The offsite. response organization shall designate a spokesperson 4.
a.
who shall have access to all necessary information.
b.
The offsite response organization shall establish arrangements for timely exchange of information among designated spokespersons.
The offsite response organization shall establish coordinated c.
arrangements for dealing with rumors.
5.
Theoffstieresponseorganizationshallconductcoordinatedprogramsat least annually to acquaint news media with the emergency plans, informa-tion concerning radiation, and points of contact for release of public information in an emergency.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 13 10/28/87 e
n--__.-----_-__--.
Oraft
~
H.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment Planning Standard Adecuate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained.
Evaluation Criteria 3.
The offsite response organization shall establish an emergency opera-tions center for use in directing and controlling offsite response functions.
4.
The offsite response organization shall provide for timely activation and staffing of the facilities and centers described in the plan.
7.
The offsite response organization, where approp.iate, shall provide for offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility.
l
~
10.
The offsi'te response organization shall make provisions to inspect, inventory and operationally check emergency equipment / instruments at least once_each calendar quarter and after each use.
There shall be sufficient reserves of instruments / equipment to replace those which are removed from emergency kits for calibration of repair.
Calibration of equipment shall be at intervals recommended by the supplier of the equipment.
11.
The offsite plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emer-gency kits by general category (protective equipment, communications equipment 7radiologicalmonitoringequipmentandemergencysupplies).
12.'
The offsite response organization shall establish a central point (pref-erably associated with the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility), for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 14 10/28/67 9
---_________-_-Q
Draft I.
Accident Assessment Planning Standard Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use.
Evaluation Criteria 7.
The offsite response organization shall describe the capability and re-sources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone which are an intrinsic part of the concept of operations for the facility.
8.
The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall. provide methods, equipment and expertise to make rapid assessments of the actual or potential magnitude and locations of any radiological hazards through l
liquid or gaseous release pathways.
This shall include activation, noti-fication means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and estimated deployment times.
9.
The offsite response organization shall have a capability to detect and seasure radioiodine concentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low as 10 ' pCi/cc (microcuries per cubic centimeter) under field condi-tions.
Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radia-tion shall not~ decrease the stated minimum detectable activity.
- 10. The offsite response organization shall establish means for relating the various miasurad parameters (e.g., contamination levels, water and air activity levels) to dose rates for key isotopes and gross radioactivity measurements.
Provisions shc11 be made for estimating integrated dose from.the projected and actual dose rates and for comparing these estimates with the protective action guides.
The detailed provisions shall be described in separate procedures.
1 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 15 10/28/87 w
)
Draft
- 11. Arrangements to loca'te and track the airborne radioactive plume shall be made, using either or both Federal and offsite response organization i
resources.
9 4
4 e
+
4 4
e O
e O
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 16 10/28/87
Draft l-J,,
Protective Response Planning Standard A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure path-way EPZ for emergency workers and the public.
Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective actions for the ingestion exposure path-way EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed.
Evaluation Criteria 2.
Each licensee and offsite response et:anization shall make provisions for evacuation routes and transportation for ;.:ite individuals to some suit-able offsite location, including a'.ternatives for inclement weather, high traffic density and specific radiological conditions.
9.
Each offsite response organization
- shall establish a capability to rec-ommend on the implementation of protective measures to State and local organizations based upor, protective action guides and other criteria.
The offsite. response organization shall advise the State and local governments on how to implement these protective measures.
This shall be consistent with the recommendations of EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes, and with those of DHHS/FDA regarding radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds.
10.
The offsite organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include:
Maps ~ showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, preselected radio-a.
logical sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas;
- Special consideration shall be made for the fast brea~ king General Emergency where the offsite organization cannot be activated in time to respond.
This shall include special actions by the licensee to directly contact the State or local governments and make the appropriate protective action recommendation.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 17 10/28/87
Draft' Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear f'acility.
l b.
l This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees shall also present the information in a sector format);
Means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident c.
population; d.
Means for protecting
- those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement; Provisions for recommending the use of and making available radio-e.
protective drugs, particularly for emergency workers and institu-tionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose immediate l
evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult, including quantities, storage, and means of distribution.
f.
The offsite response organization's plans should include the method by which decisions by the State Health Department for administering radioprotective drugs to the general population are made during an
, emergency and orovide for advising State Health Departments regard-ing such decisions, g.
Means of relocation; h.
Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles; beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone; i.
Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions; j.
Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibili-ties for such contro.1; "Special consideration shall be made for the fast breaking General Emergency where the offsite organization cannot be activated in time to respond.
This shall include' special actions by the licensee to directly contact the State or local governments and make the appropriate protective action recommendation.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 18 10/28/87 e
Oraft
.E e
o j
k.
Identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments j
(e.g., seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation routes, and contingency measures; 1.
Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions)
{
i for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (see Appen-dix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1); and l
i She bases for the choice of recommended protective actions from the m.
plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions.
This shall in-
]
clude expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacua-tion time estimates.
11.
The offsite response organization shall specify the protective measures
]
to be used for the ingestion pathway, including the methods for protect-ing the public'from consumption of contaminated foodstuffs. This shall include criteria for deciding whether dairy animals r, hall be put on i
stored feed.
The plan shall identify procedures for detecting contami-nation, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, I
decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation.
The location of maps for recording survey and monitoring data, key land I
use data (e.g., farming), dair,ies, food processing plants, water sheds, water supply intake and treatment plants and reservoirs shall be iden-tified.
Provisions for maps showing detailed crop information may be by including reference to their availability and location and a plan" for I
their use The maps shall start at the facility and inc.lude all of the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ.
Up-to-date lists of t's name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall be maintained.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 19 10/28/87
{
3
Oraft 4
i
.2.
The offsite' response organ'ization shall describe the means for register-ing and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available shall be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in'the plume exposure l
EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
l l
G e
e 0
O e
. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 20 10/28/87 1_________
Draft K.
Radiological Exposure Control Planning Standard Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers.
The means for controlling radiological exposures shall include exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides.
Evaluation Criteria l
3.
a.
The offsite response organization shall make provision for 24-hour-per-day capability to determine the doses received by emergency personnel involved in any nuclear accident, including volunteers.
They shall also make provisions for distribution of dosimeters, both self-reading and permanent record devices.
b.
The offsite response organization shall ensure that ' dosimeters are read at appropriate frequencies and provide for maintaining dose -
records for emergency workers invo1ved in an,v nuclear acciden't.
l 4.
The offsite response organization shall establish the decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to incur exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action Guides (i.e., EPA PAGs for emergency workers and lifesaving activities).
5.
a.,
The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall specify action levels for determining the need for decontamination.
b.
TheEffsiteresponseorganization,asappropriate,shallestablish the means for radiological decon'tamination of emergency personr.el wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 21 10/28/87
Oraft s
L.
Medical and Public Health Support
' Planning Standard Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.
Evaluation Criteria 1.
The offsite response organization shall arrange' for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons providiia these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individuals.
3.
The offsite response organization shall develop ' lists indicating the location of public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical services facilities within the State or contiguous States con-sidered capable of providing medical support for any contaminated injured individual. The listing shall include the name, location, type of facility and ambulatory /non-ambulatory capacities and any special radio-logical capabilities.
These emergency medical services should be able to radiologically monitor contamination personnel, and have facilities and trained per.sonnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.
4.
The offsite response organization shall arrange for transporting victims i
of radiological accidents to medical support facilities.
~
1 l
l J
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 22 10/28/87 I
__---L___ ____
Draft M.
Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations Planning Standard General plans for recovery and reentry are developed.
l t
Evaluation Criteria l
i 1.
The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall develop general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by which decisions to relax protective measures (e.g., allow reentry into an evacuated area) are reached.
This process should consider both existing and potential conditions.
l 3.
The offsite plan shall specify means for informing members of the offsite response organization that a recovery operation is to be initiated, and,
of any changes in the organizational structure that may occur.
4.
The offsite plan shall establish a method for periodically estimating toi.al population exposure.
l O
W CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 23 10/28/87 s__.____
_.-.m.-_
m-__
Draft i
s N.
Exercises and Drills Planning Standard Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emer-gency response capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises or drills are (will be) corrected.
Evaluation Criteria 1.
a.
An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency pre-paredness plans and organizations to the extent possible. The emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite radiological releases which will require response by offsite response organizations.
Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.
b.
An exercise shall include mobilization of offsite response organi-zation resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response.
The offsite response organization shall provide for a critique of the biennial exercise by Federal and offsite response organization observers / evaluators.
The scenario shall be varied from exercise to exercise such that all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six year period.
Each organization'shall make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.
Exercises shall be conducted during different seasons of the year.
At least one exercise shall be unannounced.
2.
A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed at testing, developing and maintaining skills in a particular operation. A drill is often a component of an exercise.
A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a qualified drill instructor.
The offsite response organization shall CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 24 10/28/87
r-
~
Oraft conduct drills, in addition to the biennial exercise at the frequencies indicated below:
1 a.
Communication Drills Communications with the offsite response organization within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone shall be tested monthly.
Communications with Federal emergency response organiza-tions and offsite response organizations within the ingest, ion pathway shall be tested quarterly.
Communications between the nuclear facility, offsite response organization's operations centers, and f.ield assessment teams shall be tested annually.
Communication drills shall also include the aspect of understanding the content of messages.
If practicable, attempts should be made to include non-participating organizations in the monthly communications drills.
b.
Medical Emergency Orills 1
A medical emergency drill involving'a simulated contaminated individ-ual w'hich contains provis1or.s for participation by the local support services agencies (i.e., ambulance and offsite medical treatment facility) shall be conducted annually.
The offsite portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the required biennial exercise.
c.
Radiological Monitorinq Orills Plant environs and radiological monitoring drills (onsite and off-site) shall be conducted annually.
These drills shall include collIctionandanalysisofallsamplemedia(e.g., water, vegetation, soil and air), and provisions for communications and record keeping.
Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 25 10/28/87
Draft d.
Health physics Drill Health Physics drills shall be conducted semiannually which involve response to, and ana' lysis of, simulated elevated airborne and liquid samples and direct radiation measurements in the environment.
j 3.
The offsite response organization shall describe how exercises and drills are to be carried out to allow free play for decisionmaking and to meet the following objectives.
Pending the development of exercise scenarios and exercise evaluation guidance by NRC and FEMA the scenarios for use in exercises and drills shall include but not be limited to the following:
The basic objective (s) of each drill and exercise and appropriate a.
evaluation criteria; i
b.
The date(s), time period, place (s) and participating organizations; I
c.
The simulated events; i
d.
A time schedule of real and simulated initiating events; j
e.
A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exercises or drills to include such things as simulated casualties, offsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective cloth-ing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams, and public infor-mation activities; and f,
A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be J
provided to official observers.
l 4.
Official observers from Federal government and the offsite response organization shall observe, evaluate, and critique the required exer-cises. A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 26 10/28/87
___t____-._____
Draft
~
to evaluate the ability of organizations to respond as called for in the plan. The critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the l
exercise, and a formal evaluation shall result from the critique.
t 5.
Ths offsits responst crgani:ction shcli astablish m6ans fcr svalbiting observer and participant comments on areas needing improvement, including emergency plan procedural changes, and for assigning' responsibility for implementing corrective actions.
The offsite response organization l
shall establish management control used to ensure that corrective actions are implemented.
6.
The exercises and drills shall be held with the utility and other organi-zations that elect to participate in the emergency planning process.
1 i
i l
l
?
l CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 27 10/28/87.
Draft 4
O.
Radiological Emergency Response Training Planning Standard Radiological emergency response training is provided'to those who may be called on'to assist in an emergency.
Evaluation Criteria 1.
The offsite response organization shall assure the training of appropri-ate individuals.
The offsite response organization shall participate in and receive training. Where mutual aid agreements exist between local agencies such as fire, police and ambulance / rescue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the mutual aid district.
4.
The offsite response organization shall estab'lish a training program for instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement radiological emer-gency response plans.
The specialized initial trainingLand periodic retraining programs (including the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the.following categories:
a.
Directors or coordinators of the response organizations; b.
Per.sonnel responsible for accident assessment; c.
Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel; d.
Police, security and fire fighting personnel; c.
First aid and rescue personnel; f.
Local support services personn'el including Civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel (training shall be offered);
4 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 28 10/28/87
Draft 2'
1 g.
Medical support personnel; h.
Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency information and lastrbctians.
I 5.
The offsite response organization shall provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities.
)
6.
The offsite response organization shall provide specific training to
-l persons who will be responsible for' interfacing with state and local responders.
l 1
l 7.
The offsite response organization shall provide training.to State and local I
governments and other organizations who elect to receive such training.
I l
1 l
l
\\
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 29 10/28/87 l
l L_--_____._
_ _ - _ _ - _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _
m,
Draft P.
Responsibility for the Planning Effort:
Development, Periodic Review and Distribution of Emergency Plans Planning Standard Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distribution of emer-gency plans are establit,hed, and planners are properly trained.
Evaluation I:riteria 1.
The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of indi-viduals responsible for the planning effort.
2.
The offsite response organization shall identify by title the individual with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning.
3.
The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Coordinator with responsibility for the development and updating of emergency plans and coordination of these pla'ns with other response organizations.
4.
The offsite response organization shall update its plan and agreements as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis.
The update shall take into account changes identified by drills and i
exercises.
5.
The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans shall be forwarded to all participating organizations and appropriate l
individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans.
Revised l
pages shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been made.
6.
The offsite plan shall contain a detailed listing of supporting plans i
and their source.
-l l
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 30 10/2'8/87 I
l
_--g---_-___
Draft a
i.
7.
' The off site plan shall contain as an appendix listing, by title, pro-cedures required to implement the plan. The listing shall include the section(s) of the plan to be imp'.emented by each procedure.
L 8.
The off site plan shall contain a specific table of contents.
Plans sub-mitted for review should be cross-referenced to.these criteria.
- 10. The offsite response organization shall provide for updating telephone numbers in emergency procedures at least quarterly.
11.
The offsite response organization shall provide copies of the offsite plan
]
to non participating State and local governments.
- i j
0 q
1 M
e e
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 31
'10/28/87
9 4
0 4
i l
l I
e l
TELEPHONE LOGS 1
r I
O e
9 i
- t S
1 e
i
!i l
i 0
1 1
i i
l
-Wp D.
NRC48 UNITED STATES' CHAIRMAN ZECH NUC' LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG 0C(6b1tJa26 3g / 7 TIM E NAME ANSWER q
J l
/
r W
e e
i t
O SW O F l
l e
o t
0
./
[
(-['.;
h l
NRC48 UNITED STATES
- CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON I
TELEPHONE LOG
[h[ b 4[
19 TIME NAME AN SW E R f
53564 /Wedsuav-) c3f-33 V/ - 8 sd./%t 6 - sid. &ff-y-
y e
o O
b t
0
+
9 e
e
..(-
CHAIRMAN ZECH NRC48 UNITED STATES' "Y'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG Orts luw a7
,e5f TlM E NAME ANSWER A
- 0f
.44'F7 W V (4 O
$,0.*> " bh f
//.3~$ Mm~w / d,J.< ! s, ! T.o $ ? $'nWizd Ltc (A. ska
-sceV
/
e
.~
1 4
I s
3 e
0 e
e e
b ksk NRC48 UNITED STATES' CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG 0dbOA9 19 U TeME
,NAME ANSWER l
$'./_f
/
f.' 3 /
Chd hWW V e
/
e 0
b i
e i
O e
i 6
COMMISSIONER CARR O
e
'r
.1 1
1
'l l
l l
l 9
% Mgw-Ju: AA 6./.
l
,9 2 (,-
to a ek' l
.%l
.r 1
L......
NRC48 UNITED STATES. -
COMMISSIONER'CARR
~
NUCLEAR REGl/LATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON i
TELEPHONE LOG db 19 TIME NAME ANSWER O
e 0
t
- 5
/%muinu /so &hsna.
/
~ "
'V k M ] s r y'/
l l
l 0
a e
e
C in R
n E
a l
N P
O I
y S
S ne I
g M
r M
e O
D m
C E
E SS n
U o
CS r
I e
D t
t S
e C
l I
e P
sl u O
i T
Hr NOC 7
E X
8 L
9 E
1 T
9 1
R E
B C
O R
T YN C
B -
X O
N DO F
EN O
TA K
I E
T E
I 2
W NC I R N
SL r
A r
U a
O C
CI RV m
NTDN o
I C
S n
L an CA ma RU sy ND sa
- I eh NV rs OI ga ND nP N
o I
C 78
/
2 E
2 T
/
A 0
D 1
6
,