ML20236Y034
| ML20236Y034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Moynihan D SENATE |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8712110045 | |
| Download: ML20236Y034 (3) | |
Text
- _ -
um sus DOCKET NUMBER PR 50
.amg\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONHiOPOSED RULE (5 WASHINGTCN. O. C. 20566 y
EMERGENCERhANNING
+
% * * * * *,o/
S
'J3HkC December 2, 1987
'87 DEC -4 A10 57 CHAIRMAN 1
0F4cf J w n - Ar :
The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan 00cKEimu e. wu, United States Senate BR N H Washington, D.C.
?0610
Dear Senator Moynihan:
Your letters of October 28 and 29,1987 ask whether there was inconsistency between the positions taken in public and in private by the NRC on a key It appears that you are referring assumption related to emergency planning. memorandum from Fra'nk Congel (Direct to an October 21, 1987 Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC) to Richard W. Krimm (Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, FEMA). There was in fact no inconsistency in the staff's position, as we shall explain below.
On October 13, 1987, the General Counsel and the Executive Director for Operations sent the Comission a memorandum setting fcrth options for a final rule, including a recomended option. That recommendation, as the staff
. explained at the October 22 public briefing for the Commission, would have made no assumptions about the precise actions that state and local governments would take in the event of an actual emergency. Under the recommendation, the NRC would nave had to make case-by-case determinations of what those governments would do.
In the days preceding the October 22 briefing, in discussions between NRC staff and FEMA, FEMA made clear that to evaluate the adequacy of a utility plan, it would need to know that the decision would be made, by someone other than FEMA, whether the state and local governments would follow the utility That is, if it coul.d be assumed that the state and local governments plan.
then FEMA could offer would follow the Iitility plan in an emergency, TTTty plan, but FEMA itself a meaningful evaluation of the merits of the ut could not be in the position of deciding whether the plan would be followed.
In accordance with that approach, the NRC staff sent a memorandum to FEMA on October 21, desc'-ibing the assumptions to be employed in the FEMA, valuation.
e There was no incon:istency between SECY-87-257 and the October 21 memorandum to FEMA, since nothing in the memorandum to FEMA was inconsistent with a case-by-case finding as to whether the state and local governments would in f act follow the utility plan..
In approving the emergency plannin'g rule at the October 29 affirmation session, the Commission modified the staff propossi in SECY-87-257 to include j
explicitly.a rebuttable presumption that state and local governments will follow the utility plan in an actual emergency in cases of state and/or local To emphasize, that presumption may non-participation in emergency planning.Any party wishing to argue that the be rebutted in individual cases.
87j DS10:
h 871202 P. Crane, H-1035 980 add:
J. Lane, 266 PHIL pg iI
2 presumption is inaccurate with regard to state or local actions will have a full opportunity to make that case in an individual adjudication.
As your letter noted, the release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of coments to the Comission on the subject of emergency The Comission received letters criticizing the staff planning.
recommendation both from public officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or i
local non-participation in emergency planning and from other public officials The who thought that the staff recommendation did not go far enough.
Comission 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. Also enclosed are memoranda, telephone logs and notes which we have identified as pertaining to communications between Commissioners and persons outside the agency in the period between October 13 ar,d the date of q
the letter, j
i We believe that the Commission's actions in the emergency planning rulemaking i
We have welcomed public have been characterized by openness and candor.
involvement and our staff has worked diligently to assure that the thousands In addition, our staff has of coments were individually read and considered.
gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the coments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's The key document for the Comission's decision, Public Document Room.
a memorandum which frankly discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was released publicly and discussed in an open briefing well in advance of the Comissjon's vote. Finally, the reascns for the Comission's decision are We believe that the fully set forth in the Federal Register notice.
Comission has more than fulfilled its statea comitment to an open, public decisional process.'
Sincerely, N.
LandoW.Zec%Jr.
Enclosures:
Letters received re 10/13 recommendation; memoranda, telephone logs and notes E
D
+
i I
i 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) l S
4 i
l l
i i
0 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE HOUSE BOSTON 02133 s
MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS
~"
October 20, 1987 Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C. 21555
Dear Chairman Zech,
The staff recommendation currently under consideration by the NRC Consnissioners 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.
OnFebruary24,L1987ItestifiedbeforetheCommissiontoregistermy 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.
j In my view, the Commission now stands poised to disregard its mandate to f
protect the public health and safety.
Its approval of this proposed rule would not only serve to jeopardize the public health and safety of people in l
Massachusetts but would signify a willingness to run roughshod over the j
traditional interests of sovereign states.
The Commission should not approve I
this proposed rule change.
I urge the Commission to reject its staff's commendation.
e
/
f]
i i
Sincer ly,
~
?
c4 0
l S.Ddaks'L'
'v
/
/
/
Ti a 4
f Governor I
@e0
a Congregg of ti.)e 1Hnittb 6tateg house of Representatibeg Isastington, B.C. 20515 October 20, 1987 l
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission-1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear $r. Chairman:
As you know, we have strongly supported your efforts to amend the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
We also strongly approved of the approach proposed by the Commission in March and the efforts of the Commission's staff in developing that approach for your consideration.
We therefore were surprised and disappointed to see the sta'ff'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 l
take" would be " resolved in individual adjudicatory i
I proceedings" that frequently will not include those governments.
l These are precisely the sorts of inquiries that we had understood the commipsion wished to avoid.
1 qp l
[
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 effect$ve 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 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 hearingc.that may well'be boycotted by the 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 respo'nse.
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 i
understanding that such officials wi.'sl do their best ad hoc in 1
an emergency, it will be difficult to make the finding that
]
adequate protective measures can and will be taken.
Even a i
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 veto threat that the original proposed rule was designed'to remove.
One possible cure f.or 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 2est efforts to plan and prepare for the accident, and (ii) that until they 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 previous Commission decisions, and undoubtedly are supported by l
the rulemaking record.
Moreover, as guidance to licensing boards and hearing participants, the Commission could provide l
l
o O
Th'e Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
October 20, 1987 Page 3 that where it can be shown that emergency planning is feasible at the geographical site and that adequate resources are available to State and local officials, these showings will be sufficient to establish that state and local best efforts will be adequate.
This would appear to be all that could reasonably be demonstrated under these conditions and, in light of that, the provision would almost.certainly survive any legal challenge.
We are attaching proposed language to effect these changes.
j 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 the staff's recommendations with the additional-assumptions and guidance noted above and expressed in the attachment hereto.
Sincerely yours, f,9
/Ral;5h"M. tiall Charles Pashayan Jr.'/
Member f Congress Member of Congr s
)
Attachment ec:
The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr The Honorable Kenneth.C. Rogers E
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RULE In the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the staff's proposal, after " based upon the plan," add "and the assumptions and showings outlined in this paragraph."
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 (i) in an actual emergency state and local government officials will exercise their best efforts to 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 the 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'."
6 i
9 0
t a
).
4 e m==
..-.a== 'm
- A ,0 *J M
=,',=E, ::;a*!'. 'BilitEd $tatts $tilatt l
u"..'.it.'3."#'0 EE$75 EiE.
- m....
=
- - ~ ~..
~ ~
w.smaief tet. DC 3061H176 October 21, 1987 Honorable Lando Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.W.
1717 H Street, 20555 Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr.
the Commission is scheduled to receivel Knowing that briefing, tomorrow,the emergency planning rule, I want to first apoI woul i
docket and made last-minute nature of this letter.that this letter b available to interested parties.
h While' I do not wish to prejudge the decision of.t e tions in Commission, my, review of the SECY pape's raises my mind thatraise with the staff in your discussions.
l it As I understand the Commission's original proposed ru e, re premised upon acknowledged that its 1980 regulatory actions wed local governments the assumption "that all affected state an i g throughout the would continue to cooperate in emergency plann nThe Commissio t
its 1980 regulations were not designed nor intended to 'crea life of the license."
i The possible state and local vetoes of full powe d
s the l
to the Shoreham and situation that has arisen with respect of a full Seabrook plants by, in essence, permitting the issuance fully power operating license in the face of the refusal to te and local participate in the emergency planning exerc delineated in the proposed rule.
he Federal Energy Management Agency, has i tion of does not appear to the proposal contained in SECY-87-257, whichin the Commission's 19 L
correct the regulatory problems inherent the Staf f's recommendation does 'not spell out l
d local how the NRC is to deal with a situapion in which state anl radiol amendments.
- First, l
t officials argue that they will respond to an ac uautilize the utility's pla
- Hence, it may be extremely
. emergency, but will not following the Staff's recommendation, h
i difficult to reach the conclusion that adequate prote
}
A a
l O
Wy measures j
l The Honorable Lando Zech october 21, 1987 Page Two an overly restrictive interpretation of the "real s i
doctrine,"
I the utility, and then the l
i that which appears to require first, ill NRC, read the minds of how state and local gov
- l f that
]
l This would appear difficult d/or local there.is no communication between the state an response.
officials and the utility.
I do not belleve that Congress regarded the concept ofthe utili that utility plans as including a request ill minds of how non-cooperating state and local officials w Certainly, this was not an element of the most ts in votes in over the emergency planning rule which have resultedd as both the House and the senate that many have interprete supporting the Commission's proposal.
this letter be circulated to your four fellow 4
ent ^
Commissioners as well as be placed in the NRC's Public Docum I request that Room.
- cerely, J
N BREAUX nited States Senator 4
f A
e l
L________-_______
9 u... <.
Ur.t'.' 3.9.
2 '.'.',';*?.
r."ff.:'M4",..
.u.
P.7.'.!,*,P ;.*; ~
EUE!dC 11Hittd $tatts $tilatt
$ 5 E.i f
- E L*"..'.",
eou=nas em =vi.o~ue=e ao meoc.oa.s
.J?lf.l,"lllL
- .s.*cto= oc novo
.,s October 21, 1987 Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
dai In March of this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission iss proposed rule that would amend its emergency planning this initiative to resolve the current I support You personally deserve regulations.
impasse on emergency planning.
substantial credit for this effort, k the' final rule.
'Il I am disturbed, however, by several aspects o sincerely hope that these concerns will be addressed.
h final:
As the Comm!ssion staff notes in its recomme i gl
- rule, the emergency planning impasse withoutissue--whether utilit I
in a particular case."
difficult on the basis of an adjudicatory record any This creates the prospect of lengthy litigation in the.
face of non-cooperation by state and local officials.
il I hope the Commission will be able to avoid this pot solve the current problem.
I uncertainty.
were to adopt a rule that did not I am With kind regards, sincerely, 9
Quent n N. Burdick Chairman QNB:db st
~
]
Congress of tfje Enitch fptates' l
gouse of Representatives (Basb(ngton, B.C. 20515 I
October 23, 1987 The Honorable Lande W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regtlatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dear Chairman Zech:
l i
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 rulo so as to effectively facilitate to an even greater degree the
~
licensing of Seabedok and Shoreham.
Moreover, when at least one staff member attempted on our behalf to obtain opies of such letters, his request was refused by the NRC staff.
Only later, J
when we learned that the letters had been released by the NRC to the press, were copies provided to us.
We emphatically do not agree with ydur 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 light of the revelation that the Commission has indeed received communications advocating a rulemaking even less protective of the public than the one
].recommendedbythestaff.
Tho Honorablo.,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 to reconsider your reply.
In addition, we ask that you provide us with a chronology of all i
communications (written and verbal) since october 13, 1987 on the subjects of the Commission's pecposed emergency planning rule or the emergency planning aspects of the licensing of the seabrook or Shoreham nuclear plants between (1) any Commissio. net, member of any Commissioner's staff, General Counsel or any staff of the l
office of General Counsel, or 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,.oMa,.
FEMA, or other rederal 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, the 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, meetings, and telephone calls.
In light of the fact-that only 10 days have elapsed since the rule, we would expect that this latter
' Commission issued its draft request would not require an extensive effort on the part of the Accordingly, because we believe that the public and Commission.
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, Nicholas Mavroules Edwarc, Jb Markej Member of Congre s Member of Congress N
l Chester G. Atkins Geocc[f J pochbrueckne r Member of Congress Member of Congress l
M Thomas J.
Dowrfey Rdtfei t J. ' M r #J e k Member of Congress Member of Cong ess 4
m__-__ _ _. _ _ _ _
~,
t KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOBBY. 9TH M.oCa sxo w osPLAct 18X) M ST1EIT. N.T.
53 STATS sTsarT
[
WASHINoToN. D.C. 200 % 5891 um narnt Avswus WIAMI FL 33131 TN CC2) 7754000 005) 3744t12 Tuzx +e20s sl oc ut g3,, a a Ts12 COPER con ml00 MTTWLECiH. PA t$22&$379 HERBEAT H. BRoTN HID WSoo aca nsas 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 Planning 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 written 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 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 e
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.
. y]
y
e 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 cc:
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
~
Special Counsel to the Governor of New York William Parler, Esq.
General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
A 6
l
e ese aanw.= mw.i w.ms emu >=4 208'8 EDWARD J. mar. KEY
- 71z Distact, Missiewus tts Congregg of tfje Eniteb fptate#
*"O,fr;'s -
n...
c.
""* "T."er "' "
Jpouse of Representatibeg
..co m.
""*EI'~
Wastington, BC 20515
- To'l'At'r%'57.oJ"'
october 27, 1987 i
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
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 that raise the most serious questions about the NRC's candor, openness, and the integrity of With regard to safety, since'this this rulemaking process.
the Commission and staff have to public light, But proposal first cameasserted that the proposal would not diminish public safety.
the Commission provided no analysis to support that assertion or to demonstrate that the essential questions had even been addressed in any detail.
Today I am releasing documents indicating that at least one senior NRC staff scientist who. commented on a draft of the rule proposal expressed serious doubts about the safety impact of not only the NRC's proposed rule change, but also some of the basic assumptions on which that rule change is premised.
A copy of those comments is attached.
I have been informed that the commission's files in the Public Document Room pertaining to this rulemaking contain only and a the comments received on the proposal from outside partree, subset of those comments which the staff found exemplary of the I substantive questions raised by those who submitted comments.
j also have been informed that working papers pertaining to i
rulemaking proposals are not made public until after the close of This necessarily means that internal j
l the rulemaking process.
Commission documents expressing differing points of view on this proposal either are not easily available except by undertaking a or are i
wide-ranging search of diverse Commission files in the PDR, d
i not available at all.
0 I
Tho Honorablo Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Page 2 October 27, 1987
~
I had hoped that the Commission would hold a formal public hearing to receive comments on this rule proposal, and that in advance of such hearing it would release the supporting documents that analyze this proposal and its potential impact.
Since the Commission has apparently' determined that it does not want to afford members of the public an opportunity to present their views directly, I felt I had no alternative but to ensure that these critical staff views are a matter of full public knowledge prior to the Commission's formal vote.
l With regard to the Commission's candor about its so-called
" realism doctrine," the Commission's staff briefing paper.
(SECY-87-257, October 13, 1987) states explicitly that that the
'i NRC's so-called ' realism doctrine' as embodied in the proposed rule change assumes only that state and local public officials would do their best to help protect the affected public in the event of a nuclear accident.
The staff paper reads, and I quote, "the ' realism doctrine' embodied in this rule goes that far and no further.
It makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which, state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utility s plan) (emphasis 1
7 a3Hed).".But today I obtained a copy of an October 21, 1987 letter to rederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'from the NRC's Director of Emergency Preparedness which confirms "the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting between FEMA and NRC."
That letter states specifically that "in developing' evaluation criteria and reviewing the utility sponsored off-site emergency response plans, FEMA should assume that in an actual emergency, state and local officials will (1) exereise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, [and) (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan....[ emphasis added}."
These documents raise the most serious questions not only about the rule proposal and its underlying assumptions, but also 4
about the Commission's process.
Surely members of the public 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 documents go to the very heart of the Commission's mandate to protect the.public health and safety and the rule proposal's safety impacts.
With regard to the " realism doctrine," the Commission staff apparently has misled either the Commission, the public, FEMA, or all of the above.
I ask that you immediately instruct the staff to rescind their agreement with FEMA, and initiate an l
investigation regarding how the staff could execute such an agreement in light of the staff's public assurances in the October 13'SECY paper.
I also ask that, in view of these disclosures, all future meetings of NRC and TEMA staff be open to the public and j
that transcripts be taken..
j I
l l
I
Tho Honorcblo Londo W.
Zoch, Jr.
Pcg3 3 October 27, 1987 furthermore, I ask that you provide answers to the following questions.
Why haven't the attached comments addressing safety been 1.
fully disclosed previously in the NRC's rulemaking notices and l
accompanying rederal Register notices?-
2.
Why haven't the safety-related comments and all other working papers been placed in the rulemaking file in the Public Document Room as they have become available?
3.
Why shouldn't comments and working papers routinely be placed in any rulemaking file in the Public Document Room as they become available?
Why has the exi'stence of these differing staff views on 4.
safety never been disclosed at any Commission public briefing or meeting on this matter, including your most recent staff briefing 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, 198 SECY paper and the directly contradictory instructions to FEi 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. Markey Member of Congross
)
a e
_m..___
_.__.m_.._.s_
' */ 's NUCLE AR REGULAlORY COMMISSION us.mmew.o.c. ams a
5 October 21, 1967
.g e...e MEMORANDUN FOR:
Richard W. Krfnes Assistant Associate Ofrector Office of Natural and Technological Harards Programs j
Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Frank J. Consel Of rector Olvision of Aadiatten Protectior, I
snd Emergency Preparedness Office of fuelear.cactor Regulation 1
i
$UBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT Of UTILITY Of fSITE PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA 1
This responds to the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting between FEM and NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlin's October 16, 1987 memorand.;st to Victor Stello.
We agreed that the NRC would provide written I
instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which utility off-site plan reviews would be conducted by FDM.
I In developing evaluation criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsitt statt emergency response plans, FEM sho.uld assume that in an actual emrgency,healti
) exercise their best efforts to protect the and local officials will D(2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utilit; and safety of the p(ubHe,3) apply resources that are within the general ca offsitt plan, and of state and local governments to irplement those portions of the utilit; offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.
As we further agreed, any FEM findings on the adequacy of stility offsite plan.s will r.ecessarily include the cavest that FEM was re' quested by the NR(
to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan.
h f
Frank J. Congel, Director Olvision of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NAR 492 7290
______m_..___.____.-__...___._____.._m_
.A A A AA 4 0.N O.#
. j )6
,(
'- y
\\
l l
1 l
t 4
I
~
OR. ROSS' COMP.ENTS l
4 a
kroposal:
1 Alley f swance of MKoower license even wt.
7 L
/ la,plementation of offshe E). '
.Prgvidsdthaj:
(
doa-compliance could be remedial or adequately compensa 2) 5 tate or local government cooperation, 1
I
?$,
good faith and sustained effort" by applicant to get coopera i
f ffective musreifto compensate which' era 1.
offsite EP includes alliireasouble, fe481 tile, and take into
$)
, s response,and h
State or local' government have been provided with ' copies E
been assured applicant is ready to cooperate.
A) 7 Special emphasis 1)
. Policy -not new tcience Policy issue--is it essential that we find that some protective m 2) will be taken, as part of a FPL?
31 Minimum change J
4) qnformalrulemaking
,4 Get FEM 4 views during consnent period.
S)
Existing 10 CFR 50.47 1
Pe a. d)(1) has some locpholes--
" deficiencies...not significant'
" adequate unknown compensating actions' l
1 I
'other cornpelling reasons" i
1:e' l'.
1
~
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:
l (a)(?)) Principle response organization has staff to respond.
(b)(1 l
procedures for notification of $8L officials established.
(b)(5)
Ib)(6) exercises conducted Appendix E Identification of State, local officials A.8 Assessment actions--agreed on by State and Local P
Notification D
Administrative a/J Physical means 1.
S&L will determine whether to activate Notify SfL in 15 min.
2.
entire system Exercise with SAL 3.
SFL in remedial exercise.
4.
q Dose Perspective (see figures) i for $$T-1, w/o evacuation, can get 200 rem at 5 miles in 0
A*
For $$T-1, in shelter, at 5 miles, probability of excee 50 percent of exceeding ?00 rem at 3 miles.
Probability is percent.
ih At Zion, at 3 miles, probab'ility is a 50 percent of ex tially zero normal activity..Could reduce toa10 percent w/ shelter, esse Q*
with prompt evacuation.
EP can reduce 70 rem whole dose in plume.
(*
At Surry, at 5 miles, get this-0.
Etol Observation, conclusion See p.14 of paper; the new proposed Para. 6 to Se Part 50 does not clean up the other portions of Artend
/
A,8,D,forexample).
l l
lL
'a states that adequate offsite emergency planning is
- p. 5 of paper: feasible, and all other aspects of foregoing criteria are sa does the mean about Appendix Et states that regulatory flexibility is warranted for
- p. 7 of paper:
EP -less important than ECCS (e.g.1 1
This is No minimum dose savings is established as standard for EP.However, th consistent with the bottom of P. 2 of 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 er nsure EPZ Implies mutually supportive S&L planning (p.16).
1.ocal government plans are particularly important (p.17}). We Plans should not be d.M 1oped is isolation (p. 70.)
20).
Advance arrangements with S&L by utility is necessary (p. ?2).
Response organizations which receive notifications should have a and capability. to take imediate predetermined actions.
Utility cannot compensate for lack of predeterminal actions by S&L.
'!on can be achieved by utility Little on prudent and feasible dose -
along; nearby residents could shelter Ws too effective fe3 mi.. gets f better w/ distance) but evacuation is unthinkable by utility alone, I
j p.10, bottom para..of paper, speaks of best-efforts utility plan fo
/
possible_ S&L cooperation; surely this is speculatative.
1 1
Sursary:
Doses near-in ((3 miles or so) can be life-thre6tening No predetermined actions can be assumed by utility alone, thus no projected dose savings of significance can be assured Fabric of 0654 is woven Appendix E H died with inconsistencies This action should not he approved, unless the utility acrees to an analysis that prom.pt notification directly to affected pe'ople (as determined by new risk info., keyhole witMn a few miles), will re p(rompt evacuatTon, as directed by people unde probably not feasible).
l l
l i,
Congregg of tfje Eniteb fetates Douge of Representatibed masWngtan,D.C. 20515 October 2*',
1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zsch, Jr Chai rman I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis.ien w
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Deter Mr. Chairman:
We have now had c. chance to review tlic ?.ac xript.f con:1udad Thurn6*"'s staff briefing of the Commission and nava that e.%ther letter from us to the Commissien wou.14 be app npriate.
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, remaining differences can be minimized or eliminated.
kri'.e we do not wish to quote from the.*rar.ecript, it is n
clear tnat some participants nt the briefing viewed out position as aeaking an assumption that enc 6 a utility e:cpended its best efforte to produce a utility plan, the Cc mmission and l>.s hearing boards would be bound tc accept. the plan as adequar.e to protect the public.
In light of the complexity.cf the subject matter, we do not fainlt anyone for concluding that our posi tion was in f avmc of such an. assumption.
The fact is, however ths*. we would not Eather. we are in agreement with support any such assumption.
the staf f's recommendation the.t the adequncy of any ori tity plan e f 'o r M minst be and the adequacy of State and local preparedn m probed and evaluated in individual hearings.
7 t appears that our fundamental di f ference with the staf f's the staff's recommendation would make it l
recommendation is thier in deciding whether to :ssue a necessary for hearing boards, to have to rely on the te.4timony of State and local
- license, governments 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 boazds evaluate the capabilities of Stato and l o c.n ' governments both to devise and execute an emergency plan.
Rather than having to anc l om t efficials second-quess the real intentions of State from their testimony -testimony r.har. inevitably will be influnneed by the litigation interests of wch governments-,
an the under our approach t he hearing boardr wenii re
..e.
and othei.
- 1.v r. ". t cbjective J
experier.re, budgeto, manpower, c.'il cnvernments are and 1 f actorr in deciding whether the State
- c.. i. s.-.,.:< e cu t i n g a
}
pap _ab.1,e both of plenning for emergencies plan in an energency.
.____w
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'u recommendation that, if made, would achieve the objectives of our approach.
The first change involveu expanding the staff's recommendation's assumption regarding the best efforts of State and local governments.
While the staf f's recommendation would have the Commission assume that State and local governments would use their best efforts to respond to an actual emergency, we think that common sense entitles the Commission's rule to assume that the State and local governments would also something more:
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 We efforts of State and local officials will be adequate.
believe, however, that the Commission's rule should provide adequacy of such guidance that the boards can determine the 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 seme 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
'To review the matter, under the staff's approach is rejected.a licensing board would decide whether " adequate recommendation, 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 u'tility plan, together with that assumption, falls well short of logically establishing that " adequate protective after measures can and will be taken" in an accident:
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Octob'er 27, 1987 Page Three efforts in times of acknowledging that they will use their best recalcitrant State and local officials will assert an emergency, they will do so only ad hoc, that they will pay no tht' intend even attention to the utility plan, and that they do not 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, If the would make the necessary preparedness as well.
capabilities and resources are in fact established to the board's satisfaction, the board will then face a conflict between common 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 Boards will routinely ask themselves the question:
is resolved.
local officials or Should we rely on the testimony of State and to resolve the conflict?
on common sense, assumption and guidance that we Without the additional the staff's recommendation.ould lea"e the boards w
without direction as to how to resolve the conflict and.to make
- propose, With nur additional assumption the determinations of adequacy.the Commission would avoid confronting the and guidance, though, 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.
that not providing the boards with the We think, therefore, an unfortunate additional assumption and guidelines would be It.would also be abdicatien of the Commission's responsibility.
in flatly inconsistent with the Commission's expressed objective this rulemaking:
to prevent its licensing process from being With the two modifications reduced to a mind-reauing exercise.
included either in the text of the rule or in its noted above, s can be avoided.
statement of consideration, these consequene taken.
We strongly urge that that course be Sincerely yours.
r (DSP i
l Charles Pashayan, r.
Ralp4 M. Hall Member of Congre s Member of Congress l
i
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
October 27, 1987 Page Four The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts cc:
The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal The Honorable Kenneth M. Car The Honorable Kenneth C.
Rogers
~ ;
4 e
4 8
i i
l
.l l
NIo o o KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH lob 8Y. 9TH Floor gxcg4 pag m ss sTAtt sTasst 1000 M 57MIT. N.W.
80sTcN.WA mise WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 5891
,g,g m 143 amer'irst t AygpA,3 b4A44 PL MLH TELEPHQDE 000 775N100 ggg) 3944gg3 EEU t100 OUVER ILEDD4Q N 000f M id0 PtfTSBLRCH. PA 15222 5379
"'8 "
HERNRT H. BROWN October 28, 1987 con twen BY HAND William Parler, Esquire l
General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Parler:
We are writing on behalf of our client, Suffolk County, and with the authorization of the State of New York, 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 actiocs which state and local governments would take (such as whether the stats and local governments would follow the utility's plan)
This statement reflects a consistent theme expressed 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 wr 3 making dec'isions 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 FEMA's participation in the NRC's regulatory process that State and local governments will " cooperate with the utility to follow the utility offsite
. and " implement those portions of the utility offsite plan"..
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 i
I The NRC has suggests that the NRC is being disingenuous.
received affidavits from the Governor of New York and the Suffolk County Executive that explain why neither the State nor County
~
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 4
l William Parler, Esquire October 28, 1987 Paoe Two would ever authorize, use, or otherwise implement the utility's i
The inescapable inference is that the NRC sought emergency plan.
to conceal its instruction to FEMA in order to prevent interested State and local governments from learning what it was doing.
The irreconcilable'e inconsistency between the Staff's public and private statements indicates that the.NRC is seeking to mislead the public, and particularly interested State and local This, coupled governments such as New York and Suffolk County.
with the procedural irregularity addressed by our letter of October 27 to the Chairman and Commissioners, has further l
undercut the integrity and legal sufficiency of the rulemaking.
j Accordingly, the State and County request that:
(1) the instruction to FEMA be rescinded; (2) the rulemaking be suspended pending full disclosure b'i the NRC of all materials and the information related to the issues addressed herein; and (3) public.be afforded the opportunity to consider such materials ahd to file with the N30 position papers as to whether the rulemaking should be terminated or remedied by other means.
Sincerely, Y
,a Herbert H.
Brown cc:
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel t'o the Governor of New York Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal 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 Memorandum from Frank J. Congel, dated October 21, 1987
Federal Emergency Management Agency
)
I W.uhington, D.C. 20472 l
I October 16, 1987 MENORANDUM POR: Victor i. Stello Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Camission PRON:
ve McIoughlin Deputy Assooiate Director State and local Programs and Support Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria
SUBJECT:
'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 additior.a1 resources in connection with the In the process of project on the utility plan evaluative criteria.
ccr, piling the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary.
Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth Lerner, Ms. Sue Ann Curtis
'Ibe names are:
In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne and Mr. William Casper.
to supply four additional staff to backfill and perform the functions normally required by FEMA during the duration of the criteria development project.
I would like to stress the 1. portance of havirs written instructions pre-pared by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, befone beginnir4 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 26, 1987 on the development of to begin work with NRC staff on October We would criteria suitable for the evaluation of utility plans by FD%.
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, 00 a.m. in the FDM ' offices. From our view, the purpose November 13, at 9:
of that meeting would be to consider the criteria document and any potential issues which would need to be addressed by FD!A and NRC ranagement.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 646-3692.
1
I*
NdCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION umanvuann
' lI ',,,,
ws,mv0 f CN. D. C. 20666
.j,
/
October 21, 1987 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krim Assistant Associate Ofrector Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency
]
FROM:
Frank J. Congel; Director Division of Radiaticn Protection ind Emergency 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 McLoughlin's October-16, 1987 memorandum to Victor Stello.
We agrad that the NRC would provide written instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which utility off site plan reviews would be conducted by FEMA.
i In developh.g evaluation criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsite emergency response plans, FE'iA should assume that in an actual emergency, state and local officials will.(1) exercise their:best efforts to protect the health 1
and safety of the pubMe, (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 offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.
As we further agreed, any FEMA findings 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.
.A w
Frank J. Congel Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation l
l CONTACT:
E6(ard M. Podolak, Jr., NRR 492-7290
@)
1 L____
. Lawmaker: NRC Staff pEma wouXd be sased fbe the timesaming era BYSMan
-r-a--- paamt when state mad seemi sev-m N ame assuassey e -- a.
enumente rename to emepeswtm in amuse-denstarbensivun the federal
. Time rules emeld Emelp sout's esamessmey a
somey p -
^
Losag tat==414g sting g
1 af as elled " rem 3.'
. s Staer=h=== plant anst abr time See-laun* "heory than the verulen it erwe to hemok pleast im Near Hamapahire.
t t
, the public, a Massachumstas invastaar The rule change esmbodies the NBC's m - theesy. that tam a reap abstged.
aa
. Edward Marnay' GMEsos.),
l state mand leesal gewers.
who led the a
" appoed. -
ommergencyld Imelp evnemate r==Id== ras onesste wou ties to en NRC propenalto salesamor.
in itse 10-ssdle emnersonney samme. Sua samey-plasmang. rules for menieerw the esope of that ;-,- Jean de the plean ilmmmmma, solemoed docuensato eent> ject erMastey's eri+4-8==u
'pastardmy that be said sidses *giamo.
Amst week, the N3tc staff vessen-
. tiens about the tatsgrity er the cosa..
====d= a the _ -
. g p e massion's presses and the saader er time essen of the rule that===u= mas ttne gor-
===='-'=='s staE*
eransents would help out diaring mm
'lin NBCis%rulee ender esmersoney - but anot that they would whink a M ".. '-
e,---*4--.
'n Net Candid on Policy l rolt<Se the e'i1Ity's plan. The versioen Ceangel,.d.. ector of the NRC"o divis6een 5
mow befora. :o five usember aar==in-of radistic.m protection and esanerWomry
-B anon,whie.%.a etc.m a vote tomoorrow,says prepeureds oma, andd last smisht, tus eeund the rulo "mu.:o:: no ameumptions am to usett rempor.45 until he metn=1Ey anses ttne the prwunse.,r.Jern.1 which state and lo-documnenta rulesnand by Markey.
i eal governrr. man would take (meda as "n:Je ets.aws the -==I==En*=i to ptst-whether the state and Boemi sowrn-ting een a eAnge abow, muist--,sier the M
swasste wouM..alkw the astility"m plan)."
peablic thsuugh theatrice while hahlemnt M
But run er. Oct 21 memormaduen the scennes faking metion that's in ente-h aan the N7.0 staff to the Federmi cet opposities." amid Hartnert H.
Em ;'~Lavoaved in enumergency-mnag====t Agesney, an a Wa-h a metersney wine is NBC =an-=-
fight 1 the rule rear SeaShik.
pB===Iny pic;Ja.res amid that to de,
Petmane, a fornner FE MA re-As n* : %= criteria tr gionel dirockv who works Ear SeafFolk emmeW p.anc,y which to evaluate PTh8 A abound as.
County, andd: **If they can't as=e==8e
===== that th :, governments will
- coop-annossget themselves wtaat dir= d'a= to erste with C:s utility and foL3cm the a=ka, then sommeone tarttur enk= this oest utility osmite ;:,lan."
of the h===rl= of the NRC conapletely. It
, :I:hr. guttner or pm. memo,,p=pk.J.,, eheim th.ni to no w=.,tgirsd,ry. -.
b
j
~
m t
o l
i l
MEMORANDA j
\\
l i
1.
Memo from McLaughlin, FEMA, to Stello, NRC, dated 10/16/87, subject:
)
Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria.
E.
Memo from Congel, NRC, to Krinun 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.
1 4
Draft document prepared by FEMA /NRC Task Force, dated October 28, 1987, entitled, " Concept of Utility Offsite Planning Evaluation Criteria."
N 1
e I
OCT.19 '87 22:23 FEMA WASH FED CTR 1 p.02
, Federal Emergency. M.anagement Agency Washington, D.C. 20472
?
04tober 16, 1987
{
l
)
M!!NCRANDUM PCR: Victor J. Stello Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Rcgulatory Commission FROM:
vs mci.oughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Iccal Progra:ns and Support
SUBJECT:
Develo;raent of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria This is to follow up on several issues raised at the meeting yesterday between members of our staffs about the develogunent 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 I4boratory staff needed as additional resources in connection with the project on the utility plan evaluative criteria.
In the process of campiling the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary.
The nams are: Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth Lerner, Ms. Sue Ann Curtis and Mr. William Gasper.
In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne to supply four additicr.a1 staff to backfill and perform the functions nor= ally required by FEMA during the duration of the criteria development project.
I would itke to stress the importance of having written instructions pre-Meed by the !belear Regulatory Ccmission, before begi.nning the project, 41ch state specifically the assumptions upon which the plan reviews would be conducted.
It would be icpossible to develop the criteria without knowins the conceptual framework within which they a.re 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 develo;raent of criteria suitsble for the evaluation of utility plans by MA. We would also be pregred to disseminate the docu;ent resulting from that project by Nenember 12, 1987, to the participants in the meeting to be held on Friday, hvertber 13, at 9:o') a.m. in the FD'A offices. Fran eur view, the purpose of that meeting would be to cor. aider the criteria docu:2nt and any potential issues which would need to be addressed by M.A and SRC canagermnt.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 645-3692
/
5 f$
1
-u
,,* (e:19'o UNITED STATES J.
~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
W A5HINGT ON, D. C. 20556 0,
4
%,0
/
October 21, 1987 3..*
l MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krism i
Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Frank J. Congel,. Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nucgen Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY OFFSITE PLAN EVALUATION CRI,TERIA 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 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 ernergency, state and local officials will ((1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health 2) cooperat and safety of the public, offsite plan, and (3) apply resources that are within the general : capabilities of state and local governments to implement 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 necessarily include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC to use the abcve assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan.
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NRR 492
________..__________.c
O k
Federal Emergency Management Agency 4
[
Washington, D.C. 20472 OCT 2 8 icy Mr. Victor Stello i
Executive Director for Operations i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
We have reviewed the assumptions, presented in the October 21, 1987 mem randum fmm Frank Congel of your staff to Richard Krim of my staff, which you wish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to use in evaluating radiological emergency response plans submitted by a utility in those cases where State and/or local governments do not participate in offsite emergency planning amund nuclear power plants.
I believe that this issue is of such importance that you and I should 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 metrorandum, 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 mertorandum which calls for the assumptions that State and local goverraents will respond and follow the utility offsite plan in an actual emergency. The O
alternative wording reflects my understanding of your position on the resources issue, as discussed in our meeting of October 15, 1987 1
As stated in our meeting of October 15, 1987, since the assumptions originate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and are based on general presumption rather than specific verified facts, FEMA 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 l
a utility plan, there may be a need to add or delete assumptions or make other changes. However, assumptions 1, 2 and reworded 3 should provide a working framework for he criteria effort.
l i
1 f
j
. t I
During our mee
on October 15, 1987, you and I also discussed sending I
out the criteria tur public comment prior to using it for the evaluation o'f J
an offsite radiological emergency response plan submitted by a utility.
As
]
an alternative, you proposed a procedure whereby after 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
~q 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 l
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
- l changes in the criteria will be made promptly after review of the public y-
,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 plan reviewed under the 1
interim criteria might also require changes due to the revised, final criteria.
Lastly, I wish to thank you for arranging for the additional resources placed at our disposal to assist us in carrying out the project on the utilitg plan evaluative criteria.
If you have any questions, please call me at 646-3692.
Sin erely,
/
Dave McLoughlin i
Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support i
6 e
I
h$/
/
/ M
+
i CCNCEPr OF UTILITY OFFSITE PIANNING EVAWATION CRITERIA 1.
1he cW4 of 'offsite response organization" is adopted and 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 quclear power plant. Throughout the revised Evaluation Criteria "offsite-response organization" replaces references to State and local governments.
2.
In addition, Evaluation Criteria were modified or added to compensate for lack of participation by State and local goverments in the planning process, j
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 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 local governments where possible-(E.3.).
e)
Provision for notifying the public with a backup A&N system-where the licensee is prevented from establishing a primary A&N system (E.6.b.).
f)
Provision for comrrunications with non-participating State and local emergency operations facilities (F.1.f.).
g)
Provision Ior public information describing the role of the offsite response organization vs. the State and local organizations during the emergency (G.1.e.).
t h)
Establishment of an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling offsite response functions (H.3.).
l l
i)
Special consideration for the fast breaking General Dnergency
)
wheTe the offsite organization cannot be activated in time to respond. The licensee would contact directly the State or local gcVernment (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.).
4 e
a
I l
4 k)
Provision of training for personnel of State and local governments 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.).
m)
Provision for pericdic notification of non-participating State and local governments of the details of the offsite plan, the arrangements included for timir involvement in the event of a real emergency, and the availability of training (P.11.).
I l
t e
l l
O W
1 I
bhff s
l PICFOSED Pt)R INTERIM USE AND CCMerr Appendix 6 Evaluation Criteria for Utility Offsite Plans i
i The following provides Criteria to be used for the development and l
evaluation of utility offsite emergency response plans ard preparedness.
These (The Planning Standards are repeated here for convenience.)
Evaluation Criteria modify those applicable to State and local Response The Evaluation Criteria organizations and should be used in their place.The following assumptions were applicable to the Licensee are not changed.
used in developing the Evaluation Criteria in this appendix.
l In an actual emergency, State and local officials will:
exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety 1) of the public; cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan; 2)
- and, have the resources sufficient to inplement those portions of 3) the utility offsite plan where State or local response is necessary.
4 0
4 e
4 S
6 e
I e
a
Oraft EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UTILITY OFFSIT'E PLANS Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria A.
Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control) l 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-pcrting organizations have been specifica.lly established, and each principal response organization *has staff to respond and to augment its initial response
~
on a continuous basis.
Evaluation Criteria The offsite plan shall identify the elements of the offsite response 1.
a, organization.*
]
b.
The off site response organization shall specify its concept of l
operations, and its relationship to the total effort.
The off, site plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a c,
block diagram.
i d.
The offsite response organization shall identify a specific individ-ual by title who shall,be in charge of the emergency response.
- 0ffsite response organization is defined as the utility offsite emergency response organization along with other participating voluntary and private organization.s, and local, State and Federal governments engaging in the
(
development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear power plant, j
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 1
10/28/87 b -.
_----------------_--------_-_d
Draft The offsite response organization shall provide for 24-hour per day e.
emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communica-j l
tions links.
]
1 i
The offsite response organization shall specify the functions and l
2.
a.
responsibilities for ma.jor elements and key individuals by title, of emergency response, including the following:
Command and Control, Alerting and Notification, Communications, Public Information,.Acci-i dent Assessment, 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),
i 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 shall 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 sucport organizations having an emer-gency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones.
The agreements l
i shall identify the emergency measures to be 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 1
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
Oraft 4.
The offsite response _ organization shall be capable of continuous (24-hour) operations for a protracted period.
The individual in the offsite response org'anization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources l,
l (technical, administrative, and material) shall be specified by title.
/
l I
~
i l
i CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 3
10/28/87 i
Draft B.
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-:ite Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and other organiza-tions capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified.
i 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 into 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, ccmmand posts, telephone lines, radio frequencies and telecommunications centers.
The offsite response organization may dispatch representatives to the 2.
a.
licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility.
(Technical analysis representatives at the near-site EOF are preferred.)
~
i CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 4
10/28/87
Draft I
b.
The offsite response organization shall prepare for the dispatch of a representative to principal offsite governmental emergency opera-tions centers.
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 an emergency.
, The offsite response organization shall identify r.uclear and other facil-4.
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.
5.
The offsite response organization shall provide personnel to adviso and assist State and local officials in implementing those portions of the offsite plan'where State or local response is necessary.
M e
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 5
10/28/87'
~
Oraft I
D.
Emergency Classification System Plannino Standard A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which j
i 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-1 site response measures.
i Evaluation Criteria
'l 3.
The offsite response organization shall establish an emergency classifi-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 actions recommended by the nuclear facility licensee, taking into account local offsite conditions l
that e'xist at the time of the emergency.
d eum CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 6
10/28/87 A
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 'RMowup messages to responseorganizationsandthepudichey'beenestablished;andmeanstopro-vide early notification and cMr Struction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency]/la,nning Zone have been established.
t l
Evaluation Criteria ('t
-l l
.f 1.
The of f sitt re'sp,onse organization shall establish procedures which 7,
describe the mutially agreeable bases for notification of response organi-
, u tions consistent with the emergency classification and action level kehemesetforthinAppendix1ofNUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,Rev.1.
These procedbres shah include trieans for verification of messages.
The specific details of verification.need not be included in the plan.
('
The offsite response organization shall establish procedures for alert-2.
irig, no"tifying, and mobilizing emergency res'ponse perhnnel.
l
.)
A
~,
^3.
The lic!psee in conjunction with the offsite respons,e. organization f
- ^I shall establish the' content of the initpil emerp ncyimessages to be sent from the plant.
These measures shall contain Information about the c' lass b eturgency, whethers/ release is taking placd, potentially affected population and areas,N;nd whether protective measures may be necessary.
i here shall be prov[sions for coordinating thede messages with Stpte and
\\
local governments d are possible.
/
I
(
x 4.
Each licensee shall make provisions for followup! ressages from the facil-
, -1 ity to the offsite response organization (and to offsite authorities q
wbero possible) which shal.1 contain the following information if it is l,
knwa and appropriate:
n CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 7
40/7.8/87 n
l C
t
.)
Oraft location of. incident and name and telephone number (or communications 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; g.-
meteorological conditions at appropriate levels (wind speed, direc-
. tion (to and from), indicator of stability, precipitation, if any);
)
i h,
actual or projected dose rates at the boundary; projected integrated dose at site boundary; i.
projected dose rates and integrated dose at the projected peak and
~
at 2, 5 and 10 miles, including sector (s) affected; I
j.
estimate of any surface radioactive contamination inplant, onsite or of f si te.;
.k.
licelsee emergency response actions underway; i
1.
recommended emergency actions, including protective measures; request for any needed onsite support by offsite organizations; and m.
)r
.q
'd v.,
v l
. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 8
10/28/87 L
L
m V
- p.
.. n 4
al-
,.ffj
,f
.[ Draft
- e,. Q.-
1 e
h l
e
-hrognosisforworseningorterminationofev'entbasedonplant
- h..d,[%v h
n.
information.
m
_%.p i
[, US.
Theoffsitere.<jhnseorganizationshallhstablishasystemfordisseminat-
.vL
. e p
j ing.to the public appropriate.4informaticdcontained in initial and followup T
-message =Lreceived from th'e licensee including the appropriate notification 7
jg
, to appropriate broadcast media, e g., the EmergencyLP9adcast System (EBS).
^ ^i ;
~.
The offsite response organization shall establish administrative and
-6.
a physical means, and the time required for nott? ing and providing f
promptinstructionstothepublicwithintheplumeexponfepathway Emergency Planning Zone (see Appen fix '3 of NUREG-0654/F04A REP-1, x
Rev. 1).
It shall be the'licensa,e's responsibility to dHonstrate I
that such means exist, regardless' o'f who implements this requirement.
ItshallbetheresponsibilityoftheStateandlocalhovernmentsto activate such a -system.
(See discussion for the contingency of the
[
fast breaking accident under J.9.) The,offsite response organization sht!1 provide advice and assistance W necessaryfto' State and local governments for performing this function.
4
[n o.
b.
.Where the licensee is prevented from establishing a physical means of g
notifying the public within about 15 minutes, a backup system cap-ableofmeetingthe45-minutecriterionofAspendix3Sectionb.2.(c) of NUREG-0654/FrflA Rep. 1, Rev. 1, shall,be es/ablished'by the licensee.
r 4
7.
The offsf te response organization shall provice written messages intended f
for the public, consistent with; the licansee's classificatiori scheme.
In particular, draft messages to the public giving instructions with regard to tpecific protective sctions to be taken by occupants of affected areas shall be irepared and included as part of t.he of f site plans.
Such nessages should include,the appropriate aspects of sheltering, e.g., hand-kerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking or evacuation.
The role of the
',1censee is to provide supporting information for the messages.
i I
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 9
10/28/87 q
. nc g
_ _ = _ _
_x___
Draft l
1 l
F.
Emergency Communications Planning Standard i
j j
Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organiza-f f.
tions to emergency personnel and to the public.
I!
Evaluation Criteria j
i 1.
The communication plans for emergencies snali 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 link: that initiate emergency response actions.
b.
provision for communications with contiguous States and local govern-ments within the Emergency Planning Zones; provision for communications as needed with Federal emergency c.
response organizations; d.
provision for communications between the nuclear facil'ity and the licensas's near-site Emergency Operations Facility, offsite response organization's emergency operations centers, and radiological monitor-ingTeams; O
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 10 10/28/87 l
Draft provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in eac,h e,
response organization.
provision for communications (primary only) with State and local f.
Emergency Operations Centers; and The offsite response organization shall ensure that a coordinated 2.
communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities exists.
The offsite response organization shall conduct periodic testing of the 3.
entire emergency communications system '(see evaluation criteria H.10, N.2.a and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1).
t t
e f
W O
e CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 11 10/28/87 s
r_--
Draft G,
Public Education and Information Planning Standard Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how tney 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-mation to the public are estabifshed.
Evaluation Criteria The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodic 1.
(at least annually) dissemination of information to the public regarding
~
how they will be notified and what their actions shoul.d be in an emer-This information shall include, but not necessarily be limited gency.
to:
educational information on radiation; a.
b.
contact for additional information; protective measures, e.g., evacuation i.1utes ar.d relocation centers, c.
sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprosective drugs; and d.
special.needs of the handicapped.
specTal steps to be taken to describe the role of the offsite re-e.
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 areas; and publications distributed on an annual basis.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 12 10/28/87
Draft 2.
The public information program 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 prevision 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, posted 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 will be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs.
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 physica.1 locations for use by news media during an emergency.
should include provisions for accommodating State and local government public informat' ion 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 in' formation."
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.
The offsite response organization shall conduct coordinated programs at 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
Draft H.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment Planning Standard Adequate emergency facilit,ies 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.
l 7.
The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall provide.for l
offsite radiological monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the nuclear facility.
10.
The offsite 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 or 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-etably associated with the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations Facility), for the receipt and analysis of all fie'd monitoring data and coordination of sample media.
CRITERIA /UTIL1; 0FFSITE PLANS 14 10/28/87
Draft I.
Accident Assessment Planning Standar Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or 4
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 liquid or gaseous release pathways.
This shall include activation, nott-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 measure radioiodine concentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low as 10 ' pCf /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 measured parameters (e.g., contamination levels, water and air activity levels) to dose rates for key isotopes and gross radioactivity measurements.
Provisions shall 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 l
. described in separate procedures.
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 15 10/28/87
_.-------__--_.-_._x
~
Oraft
- 11. Arrangements -to locate and track the airborne radioactive plume shall be
- made, using either or both Federal and offsite response organization resources.
e S
't 4
6 8
e M
e CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 16 10/28/87
Oraft J.
Protective Response Planning Standard l
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 j
protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are I
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 organization shall make provisions for evacuation routes and transportation for onsite individuals to some suit-able offsite location, including alternatives for inclement weather, high traffic density and specific radiological condi.tions.
9.
Each offsite response organization
- shall establish a capability to rec-ommend 'on the implementation of protective measures to State and local The organizations based upon protective action guides and other criteria.
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.
icgical sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas; "Special consideration shall be made fc 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 17 10/28/87
Draft b.
Maps showing populati'on distribution around the nuclear facility.
This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees shall also present the information in a sector format);
c.
Means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population; d.
Means for protecting" those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement; e.
Provisions for recommending the use of and making available radio-protective drugs, particularly for emergency workers and institu-tionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose immediate.
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; 1.
Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions; j.
Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibili-ties for such control; I
"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
Oraft k.
Identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments (e.g., seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation rcutes, and contingency measures;.
I 1.
Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (see Appen-dix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1); and Whe 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 shall be put on stored feed. The plan shall identi'fy procedures for detecting contami-1 nation, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled
{
ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, l
1 decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation.
j The location of maps for recording survey and monitoring data, key land use data (e.g., f arming), daf ries, 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 their use.
The maps shall start at the facility and include all of the 50-mile iIgestion pathway EPZ. Up-to-date lists of the name and location of all facilitics which regularly process milk products and other large i
1 amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion p,athway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, snail be maintained.
1 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 19 10/28/87
Draft 12.
The offsite response c ganization shall describe the me.ans 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 EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
i 0
4 0
O O
1 1
I CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 20 10/28/87
Oraft K.
Radiological Exposure Control _
I 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 j
Activity Protective Action Guides.
]
Evaluation Criteria The offsite response organization shall make provision for 24-hour-
)
3.
a.
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 involved in any nuclear accident.
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).
The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall specify 5.
a.
action levels for determining the need for decontamination, b.
TheEffsiteresponseorganization,asappropriate,shallestablish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel j
wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal.
j 4
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 21 10/28/87
Oraft L.
Medical and public Health Support
~
P_lanning Standard Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.
Eval ~uation Criteria l
1.
The offsite response organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of l
radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons providing 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 redical 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 personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.
4.
The of f site response organization shall arrange for transporting victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities.
~
m 9
4 l
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 22 10/28/87 i
s m.__m___
___m.
1
_1
Draft 4
Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations M.
Planning Standard General plans for recovery and reentry are developed.
I Evaluation Criteria The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall develop general 1.
'lans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by p
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.
The offsite plan shall specify means for informing members of the offsite 3.
response organization that a recovery operation is to be initiated, and of any changes in the organizational structure that may occur.
The offsite plan shall establish a m,thod for periodically estimating e
4.
total population exposure.
W e
CRIT.ERIA/ UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 23 10/28/87
r----------'.---
Oraft
)
N.
Exercises and Orills 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) co'rrected.
1 Evaluation Criteria An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a 1.
a.
major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency pre-paredness plans and organizations to the extent possible. The 1
emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite. radiological releases which will require responsa by offsite response organizations.
Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.
I 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 scenar,io shall be varied from exercise to exercise such that all major elements.of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six year pericd.
Each organization shall make l
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 shali be supervised and evaluated by a qualified drill instructor. The offsite response organization shall
+
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 24 10/28/87 l
J
_-._.__.______________________.l.________.__d_______.____.__._________
Oraft conduct drills, in addition to the biennial exercise at the frequencies indicated below:
Communication Orills a.
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' ingestion 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 If practicable, attempts should be made to include non-messages.
participating organizations in the monthly communications drills.
b.
Medical Emergency Orills A inedical emergency drill involving a simu, lated contaminated individ-ual which contains provisions 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.
Radiological Monitoring Orills c.
Plant environs and radi.ological monitoring drills (onsite and off-site) shall be conducted annually.
These drills shall include collection and analysis of all sample media (e.g., water, ' vegetation, soil and air), and provisions for communications and record keeping.
Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.
e 25 10/28/87 CRITERIA /UTILITYOfFSITEPLANS
Draft r
d.
Health Physics Orill Health Physics drills shall be conducted semiannually which involve response to, and analysis of, simulated elevated airborne and liquid t
samples and direct radiation measurements in the environment.
i 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; c.
The simulated events; d.
A time schedule of real and simulated initiating events; A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exercises or c.
' 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-f f
mation activities; and f.
A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be j
f provTded to official observers,
)
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
_______m._______t 5
Oraft 4
e 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.
exercise, and a formal evaluation shall ' result from the critique, 5.
The offsite response organization shall establish means for evaluating 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.
l O
8 e
i M
i i
1 1
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 27 10/28/87 i
~0 raft 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 training and periodic retraining programs (including the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the following categories:
Directors or coordinators of the response organizations; a.
b.
Personnel responsible for accident assessment; l
Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel; i
c.
d.
Police, security and fire fighting personnel; First aid and rescue personnel; e.
f.
Local support services personnel including Civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel (training shall be offered);
l CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 28 10/28/87 7
{
l
c Oraft g.
Medical support personnel; h.
Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency information and l
instructions.
1 1
l 5.
The offsite response organization shall provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities.
I 6.
The offsite response organization shall provide specific training to persons who will be responsible for interfacing with state,ar.d local i
f responders.
7.
The offsite response organization shall provide training to State and local governments and other organizations who elect to receive such training.
1 l
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSIT2 PLANS 29 10/28/87
._._.._...___._._.._______-.__.._.._._________._____________E
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 established, and planners are properly trained.
Evaluation Criteria The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of indi-1.
viduals responsible for the planning effort.
The offsite response organization shall identify by title the individual 2.
with the overall authority and responsibility for radiological emergency response planning.
The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning 3.
d i f
, Coordinator with responsibility for the development and up at ng o emergency plans and coordination of these plans with other response or.gani zations.
The offsite response organization shall update its plan and agreements 4
The as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis.
update shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises.
The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans 5.
shall be forwarded to' all participating organizations and appropriate individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans.
Revised 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 and their source, i
f 30 10/28/87 l
CRITERI,A/ UTILITY OFFSITE '_ANS
\\
l
Oraft 7.
The offsitt 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 implemented by each procedure.
8.
The offsite 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 i
CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 31 10/28/87 i
TELEPHONE LOGS 6
6 4
l l
l Ir e
9 4
t. '.4
- t NRC48 UNITED STATES' CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELERHONE LOG 0C[bd M to l 7 TIM E NAME ANSWER W
d aimm
/'
f SS $4'-
e4vh
/
e e
.~
e O
4
%b e
_u M
u---__
A
d[$.
(.i UNITED STATES
- CHAIRMAN ZECH N.7.C48 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG 1
[h[b Jil to b TIM E NAME A N SW E R I
s'.3f a,daw evr-33so-Eus/k g - s,j. y-r y
g e
1 6
9 esAbst_.
l 1
s a
S 4
l l
4 0
g
- O m___.__________
e
y l
,e
(
i, CHAIRMAN ZECH NRC48 UNITED STATES '
u.w s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON A'
/
\\
it i
TELEPHONE LOG 4
.4 s 'a
. u Ad4Ar~ 27
,e /f
%=__
m TIME
/
NAME l,
ANswEn,/ -
f
/
w
- r d
- 0f' b
&W&
fl.- O r$,,0.b ~~ b_$
f
//.3~@ M n n w /L ' !Aoan.5 % ?$'%
y k
ox da-s:veV b'
/
~~
ser q,
/
f*
/
k t
i g--
-a 7
.~
l
.~
, y st t ^.
(
)
l h
6 x
l i
. emum l
l
,g '
A l
I. '
n m.
w e
~
{
\\
{
_L.
{
- .m k t
- ::t.
4 I
.(
O.
____________,i i
-_a
lji'/.1
.. / J 4
(:
gi..:,.
NRC48 UNITED STATES-CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.t WASHINGTON 1
TELEPHONE LOG 0 del $bv'A9 to off e
TIM E NAME ANSWE R b'./f
/
b':3 /
fu f&v V c/
/
s O
l i
e l
I s
m 4 m spr*w I
~
1 0
4 O
e A
O O
j
. 2._...g '... -
l (gi
)
o l
COMMISSIONER CAPk -
i e
1 l
i
?l
?
- l 1
l i
/
0 f
9 2 s. to n %d%"- h: A *~ 6!-
I e
a w
l
/
6 NRc44 UNITED STATES.
COMISSIom cm h
I*'
NUCLEAR REGU'LATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON t
TELEPHONE LOG' db 1sN TIME NAME ANSWEA 4
4 4
9 0
0 4"5 lh w.umu A&c A i n a.
/
~*
~
V hadh.sv/
5 4
t G
G
(
1 l'
l l
O v
[
b 4
gn inna lP ycnegrem D
E ES n
e S
o UC r
S e
I t
D t
S e
l.
C e
I sl P
iu O
Hr T
N_
O 9
CE X
7 L
8 E
9 T
1 9
1 R
E C
B R
OT Y N X
C B
N O
D O F
E N
O TA K
IT E
I E
N C O
W' l
RN O
S_
r LA ra UD C
Ci R V m
NI m
DN o
C I
a n
Q an m
ma m
CK sy e
R U N D sa eh I
rs ga e
N V nP O
I ND o
N C
I 78
/
22 e
E
/
TA 0
1 D
y* ^ ae '
)[y sd
,;~
mitedEtatesEtnate' g[
wAsHwoToN. DC 20510 October 29, 1987
'TA-
Dear Chairman sech:
It has come to my attention that despite the words of your revised emergency planning rule change proposal and despite the briefing provided by your staff on October 22 of this year, the Commission'4-staff is actually preparing to make a key assumption specifically disavowed therein.
By this I refer to th'e question of whether the Commission will assume not only a best offort response in the event of a nuclear disaster, but also a response that follows the requirements of utility-produced emergency plans.
Just one day before that October 22 briefing, senior NRC staff directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to do precisely that.
Is this something'of which you are aware?
Are you not able to assure that'the staff make the same assumptions in private that11t makes in public?
In a related matter, I understand that since the October 13 publication 'of the staff's recommendations to you 'on this issue, broad interest in it.has been expressed to the Commission.
Please provide to me, as ranking member of the Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, all memoranda, telephone logs and notes pertaining to communication with other agencies and others outisde the Agency on this matter between October 13, 1987 and today.
Sincerely,
.M Daniel Patri oynihan 4
l The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20555 M
O
.