ML20238E529
| ML20238E529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1987 |
| From: | Hirsch M Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Elliot C ELLIOTT, C.W. |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4332 OL, NUDOCS 8709150049 | |
| Download: ML20238E529 (31) | |
Text
- - --- - - - - . . - .- - - - - -
- n. y qm 4
EEFAoJaaaytptge.m EESEE.7Aff"3 /3G vt ._
a g Federal Emergency Management Agency >
.4 .y" f Washington, D.C. 20472 O D September 4, 1987 .g g g g g
> ?n:
Charles W. Elliott, Esq. D1 I 1101 Building Easton, Pennsylvania-18043 Re: Petition of Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
Dear Mr. Elliott:
I am responding to the July 30, 1987, Petition you sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") on behalf of Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. ( ". LEA" ) . You stated at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the LEA Petition that the FEMA review of State and local Radiological Emergency Response Plans
-("RERP's") relating to the Limerick Generating Station violates FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR Part 350. The only specific allegation which your.
Petition makes in support of that proposition is that the public meeting contemplated by 44 CFR 350.10 can only take place after the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("the Commonwealth") has submitted its Limerick RERP for formal FEMA approval. Because the Commonwealth has not yet submitted its Limerick RERP for FEMA approval, you contend that FEMA's participation in the July 15 and 16, 1987, public' meeting was inappropriate and that this lack of propriety has completely voided FEMA's role in reviewing all of the Limerick RERP's.
We do not agree with your basic contention that a public meeting under 44 CFR 350.10 cannot be conducted until the Commonwealth has submitted its Limerick RERP for FEMA approval. Nor do we believe this is what the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board held in ALAB-836, May 7, 1986, the relevant pages of which are attached to your Petition. The Appeal Board's decision states in pertinent part:
l
...the final FEMA report...must be preceded by the public meeting under 44 C.F.R. section 350.10....the formal FEMA review, of which the section 350.10 public meeting is a part, is not triggered until the Commonwee.lth has reasonable assurance of the plan's adequacy and applies to FEMA for final approval.
This statement by the Appeal Board does not dictate that no public meetings under 44 CFR 350.10 can be held until after the Commonwealth t bmits its Limerick RERP for FEMA approval. The Appeal Board's statement merely indicates that there must be at least one public meeting conducted pursuant to 44 CPR 350.10 before FEMA can act upon t.he Commonwealth's Limerick RERP pursuant tc 44 CFR 350.12, wemSW o
by3
_ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - . -- J
g- x A review of the language of 44 CFR 350.10 in analyzing the LEA Petition is helpful. The regulation states in pertinent part:
During the FEMA Regional Office review of a State plan and prior to the submission by the Regional Director of the evaluation of the plan...to the Assc,ciate Director, the FEMA Regional Director shall assure that there is at least one public meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclee" wrer facility. (emphasis added)
This language d2ctates only that before the FEMA Regional Director can submit the Commonwealth's Limerick RERP to FEMA's Associate Director for FEMA approval, such a public meeting must occur.
. In the context of the Limerick licensing activities, a public meeting has been held in advance of the Regional Director's submission of a plan to the Associate Director.
Therefore, the timing of the Limerick public meeting was appropriate.
If FEMA had intended that such public meetings must take place exclusively after States' submissions of RERP's for FEMA approval, 44 CFR 350.10(a) would have included a phrase stating explicitly that public meetings can only be held "after a State has submitted its plan for FEMA approval." In addition, 44 CFR 350.10(b) states in pertinent part that "The public meeting should be held after the first joint... exercise at a time mutually agreed to by State and local authorities, licensee and FEMA and NRC Regional officials." If FEMA had intended to dictate that public meetinge could only be held after a State had submitted a RERP for FEMA approval, 350.10(b) would also have explicitly stated such an intent.
As a matter of fact, this issue was addressed explicitly in the context of the August 19, 1982, publication in the Federal Register of FEMA's proposed rule relating to FEMA review and approval of State and local RERP's. See 47 F.R. 36386-36393, a copy of which is attached to this letter. FEMA had originally published a proposed rule in 1980, and in response had received a number of comments from members of the public. As indicated at Comment 7 on page 36388 of the attached Federal Register publication, FEMA had received comments questioning the fact that the timing of the public meeting was not specific. In response, FEMA stated in pertinent part:
... flexibility is desirable....the rule permits....the public meeting to occur before submission of the State plan for formal review and approval.
(emphasis added)
Public meetings held in 6 dst'ce of States' submission of RERP's for FEMA approval enable States to coc*ect t2ficiencies in their plans which might not otherwise be identified as procott f. This is indicated by 44 CFR 350.10(b),
which provides in pertinent part:
If, in the judgment of the FEMA Regional Director, the public meeting or meetings reveal deficiencies in the State plan...the Regional Director shall inform the State of the fact together with recommendations for improvement.
L
.g t.
It-is FEMA's position that there are not and should not be any rigid rules dictating'that 350.10 public meetings.can only be held after a State has submitted a RERP for formal FEMA approval. . Such a mandate would inhibit the free exchanges among Federal, State and local officials, as well as members of 4- the public, which are contemplated by 44 CFR Part 350.
h In addition, your' Petition ignores'the fact that 44 CFR 350.10 explicitly
. contemplates that there may.be.more.than one public meeting in appropriate-cases. While there is no'way to credict at this time whether there may be other 350.10 public meetings relacing to.the Commonwealth's Limerick RERP,'he fact that one public meeting has already been held certainly does not preclude another public meeting.
Therefore, we conclude that the LEA Petition lacks merit. I am sorry we cannot be of any assistance.
Sincerely,_
$1 -
Michael B. Hirsch Assistant General Counsel Enclosure cc: Limerick Service List i
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. . .. )
' Eu"'u*.d'Is, t te82 em O
Part 111 Federal Emergency Management Agency
'Ra lo og cal Emerge cy P ans and Preparedness; Proposed Rule
)
?
c ,
36386 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.181 / Thtraday August 19,1982 / Proposed Rules FEDERAL. EMERGENCY sumassestrAsrf INFtJRIAATioet: loss of property.This definition clearly i MANAGEMENT AGENCY Presulential Aseigntrants encompasses an accident at a nuclear l On December 7.1979, the President in power facility. ,.
! response to the recommendations of the Under Section 201 of the Disaster (Docket No.FEaAA THD-35011 President's Commission on the Accident Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5131), the 44 CFR Part 350 at uree We Island (known as the Directoris to establish a program of ;
, , Kemeny Commission), announced,in disaster preparedness which includes,
, part, a series of decisions and took a among other matters, preparation of Review and Approval of State and number of actions in the area of disaste,r preparedness plans for warning, l.ocaJ Radiological Emergency Plans emergeacy planning and preparedness. emergency operations, training and and o #
Among other assignments, the President exercises, and coordination of Federal,
)
nected FEMA to: State and local programs. Further, the k Acesecy: Federal Emergency (1) Take the lead in offsite emergency Director is to provide technical M:nagement Agency (FEMA]. planning and response: assistance and grants to States in Actioet Proposed rule. (2), Develop and issue an updated developing comprehensive plans and
! series ofinteragency assignments which practical programs for proaration
' delineate respective agency capabilities sunsesAsty:This rule establishes against disasters.The technical I
procedures for review and approval by and responsibilities and clearly define - assistance and grant program provided Fed:ral Emegency Management procedures for coordination and under this authority may be used by
, Agency (FEMA) of State and local direction for both emer8ency planning States for planning and preparedness cmergency plans and preparedness for and response. activities related to commercial nuclear coping with the offsite effects of (3) Address the need for improved power plant accidents.
radiological emergencies which may advance preparation for emergencies Some of FEMAs predecess6r agencies occur at nuclear power facilities. The and public education programs in the as well as NRC, have been involved in c ntext of State emergency response planning for radiological emergencies at rule does not cover other Nuclear R:gulatory Commission (NRC) licensed plans. auclear power facilities for some years.
in compliance with the directive to hoe activities were voluntary, as f cilities.The rule sets out criteria which will be used by FEMA in take the lead in offsite emergency neither Federallaw nor regulations .
revi: wing, assessing and evaluating planning and to issue interagency required States orlocal governments to plans and preparedness. It specifies how assignments. FEMA published on March have peacetime nuclear emergency end where a State may submit plans. it 11.1982, interagency assignments in 44 plans, nor required States with plans to discribes certain of the processes by CFR 351 (45 FR 19758). These gast those plans, which FEMA makes findings and assignments replace assignments set out The Atomic Energy Commission determinations as to the adequacy of in a Notice published in the Federal (AEC),later NRC, implemented a non.
St:te and local plans and the capability Register on December 24,1975,(40 FR statutory program of planning and cf State an:llocalgovernments to 59494). Dese interagency assignments assistance to the States which included:
affIctiesty
- t these plans and Provide forFederalinteragency & fannation of a FederalInteragency prep redness"m* easures for specific assistance toState and local Central Coordinating Committee sidea. Sue ri= haps and detersaimations g vernmentsin their radiological (FICCC)(now the Federal Radiological cad, whers apreupdah, plan approvals, emergency plansing and preparedness Preparedness Coordinating Committee are to be submitted to the Governors of setiv ules. Federal agency (FRPCC) under the chairmanship of -
the effected States and sc the NRC for re8ponsib!!! ties for responding to a FEMA): the preparation and issuance of its cse tu licensing proceedings.%1s radiological monident are outlined in the the Guide and Check //stfor rule was presculgsted in propseed fona National Radiological EmergeneY Development andEvaluation ofState en June 24,1980, (45 FR 42321) for public Preparedness / Response plan for andl.,ocalGovemment Radiological comment and interim use. His preposed fla==arcial Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plans /n Support rule reflects comments received. Accidents (Master Plan) (45 FR M910). offixedNuclear Focilities, relasued as Beccuse of the long time since the initial Basis for FEMA Assignment NRC NUREG-75/111: and the formation l' proposed rule,it is being published The Director, FEMA, pursuant to of subcommittees on training and again for comments. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of1978 and exercises and emergency Executive Order 12148 of July 20,1979, lastrumentation.%e Office of Daft: Comments are due October 18'
, 1982. It is intended after careful establishes policies for, and coordinates Easergency Preparedness (OEp), later civil emergency planning, management, the Federal Preparedness Agency (FPA),
c s e ati mitigation and assistance functions of and now FEMA, issued descriptions of
, and a propri te adjus ents made, to publish the regulation, which ie Executive agencies. The Director, agency assignments. In January 1973, the FEMA, represents the President in OEP issued a statement that the AEC, as procedural,in final form.
working with State and local lead agency, would provide planning Acomess: Send comments to Rules governments and the private sector to assistance to State and local !
Docket Clerk. Federal Emergency stimulate vigorous participation la civil governments for the preparation of Minagement Agency, Room 835,500 C emergency preparedness, mitigation, radiological emergency response plans.
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20472. response and recovery programs. Da December 24,1975, the FPA issued pon puntwaft INFOResATION CONTACT: The term " civil emergency" is defined a revised and updated Federal Register Mzrshall E. Sanders, Chief. Program in 2-203 of Executive Order 1214s to Notice (40 FR 59494). IAad agency Development Branch, Technological include any accidental, natural, naan- responsibility for " reviewing and H:zards Division. Federal Emergency caused, or wartime emetiency or threat concuning in State radiological Min:gement Agency,500 C Street, SW., thereof, which causes or may cause emergency response plans." was Washington, D.C. 20472 (Telephone 202/ substantialinjury or harm to the assiped to the NRC and the planning 287-4179). Population or substantial damage to or assistance was expanded to include
Fedtral Register / Vol. 47, No.161 / Thursday. August 19, 1982 / Proposed Rules 36387 l transportation of radioactive materials. (3) Complete. as soon as possible, the The document combines the guidance to
! NRC also issued guidance in a review of State and local emergency State and local governments with the HandbooA forfedero/ Assistance to . plans in those States with plants guidance to the licensees of NRC and State andLocal Governments in scheduled for operation in the near supersedes previous guidance and Radiologico/Emegency Response future. criteria published by FEMA and NRC. It
, Planning-NUREG-0093. June 1.1976- (4) Make findings and determination is also intended for use by Federal revised january 1979, applicable to other as to whether State and local emergency officials in reviewing and assessing the Federal agencies.The number of plans are adequate and capable of adequacy of State, local and nuclear involved agencies that agreed to the implementation (e.g. adequacy and i assignments increased from five to power facility operator emergency plans maintenance of procedures, training, and preparedness. NUREG-0654/
seven. These included the resources, staffing levels and FFMA-REP-1. Rev.1, contains a series Environmental the DepartmentProtection Agency (EPA): qualifications and equipment adequacy). of planning standards (which are part of ofliealth, Education (5) Assume responsibility for this rule) and a listing of specific criteria and Welfare, now the Department of emergency preparedness training of for preparation and evaluation of the
. liealth and lluman Services: the State and local officials. planning and preparedness activities of Defense Civil Preparedness Agency and (6) Develop and issue an updated State and local governments as well as the Federal Disaster Assistance series of [ Federal l interagency assignments which would dehneate of the licensees of NRC.
Administration whose functions have now been transferred to FEMA: the respective agency capabilities and This rule is intended to be consistent Department of Transportation: the responsibilities and define procedures with the NRC emergency planning rule Energy Research and Development (10 CFR parts 50 and 70,45 FR 55402).
for coordination and direction for Administration now Department of emergency planning and response. The NRC will base its findings on a Energy; and the Nuclear Regulatory The NRC responsibilities under the review of FEMA findings and determinations as to whether State and T s n er gencyprocess,with NRC Assess licensee emergency plans sa Pable of as lead agency, continued for the next for adequacy. bein plement er 1 gn few years.The NRC established a (2) Verify that license emergency described in this part addresses FEMA's program of voluntary concurrence and plans are adequately implemented (e.g, f f "' "
concurred in several State plans. The adequacy and maintenance of re i lt i ma e os accident at the Three Mile Island procedures, training, resources, staffing under its enab1ing legislation in nuclear power facility which occurred levels and qualifications, and equipment (eterm he r lice es u be r thinki g e ergenc pl rm g and (3 Revi w the FEMA findings and expects to evaluate deficiencies,,if any, preparedness by NRC and by other determinations on the adequacy and indentified by FEMA to ascertam agencies.The accident led to the capability of implementation of State whether those deficiencies are Kemeny Commission Report and the and local plans. . significant and,if they are significant, Presidential actions. (4) Make decisions on the overall determine whether compensatory To implement the President's state of emergency preparedness (i.e., measures have been or will be taken by assignment, NRC and FEMA signed a integration of emergency preparedness the hcensee. ,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) onsite, as determined by the NRC. and This regulation describes a procedure on January 4,1980, describing each offsite, as determined by FEMA and by which FEMA reviews and assesses agency's responsibilities in preparing for reviewed by NRC) and issuance of State and local emergency plans and emergencies at nuclear facilities and operating licenses or [ orders for] shut preparedness to oeal with a radiological activities (45 FR 5847).This MOU was down of operating reactors. emergency, and " approves" such plans.
revised and updated on November 1. ' Thus. the lead for review of the Further, FEMA may use the data 1980, (45 FR 82713). adequacy of offsite emergency plans obtained in its approval process to The terms of the MOU apply to and their capability of implementation support its finds in NRC licensing emergency preparedness for all has been assigned to FEMA and there is proceedings and any related court commercial nuclear power plants, no longer an NRC voluntary concurrence actions; and during any related certain nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and program for State emergency plans. The discovery proceedings.
nuclear materials licensees whose previous NRC " concurrences" do not Insofar as FEMA is concerned, there operations have a potential for satisfy all the requirements for FEMA is no legal requirement that a State or significant accidental offsite releases of approval of State and local plans under local government submit its plan to radiation. Ilowever, the parties intended this regulation. FEMA for review, and FEMA's failure to that The initial program emphasis be FEMA review. findings, and approve such plan is not accompanied placed on emergency preparedness at determinations will be based upon by any sanction or refusal to accord a .
commercial nuclear power plants, the guidance jointly issued by FEMA and benefit. Insofar as the procedure may s focus of this proposed rule. NRC entitled CriteriaforPrepamtion have economic, environmental or legal FEMA's responsibilities under the andEvoluotion ofRodiologico/ consequences or impact, these result MOU are to: Emergency Response Plans and from NRC action on its rule and from the (1) Take the lead in offsite emergency Preparedness in Support ofNuclear role which FEMA plays because of the planning and review and assess state Power Plants (NUREG-0654/ FEMA- MOU in the NRC licensing process. NRC and local emergency plans for REP-1, Rev.1, November,1980). This has, in connection with its rule, adopted adequacy, guidance and acceptance criteria a " Finding of No Significant Impact" and i (2) Complete, by June :380, the review provides a basis for NRC licensees and has made an environmental assessment.
of State and local emergency plans in State and local governments to develop f The NRC assessment addresses the J those States with operating reactors. (A radiological emergency plans and subject of cost, and it is clear from the report was submitted to the President improve emergency preparedness cost data related to offsite planning and June 30,1980.) associated with nuclear power facilities, preparedness that this FEMA rule is not
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -_ _ 1
36388 Fed:ril Regist:r / Vol. 47 No.161/ Thursday, August 19, 1982 / Proposed Rules
. 5 a significant regulation requiring a be submitted to NRC as part of its assisting State end local governments in regulatory analysis under Executive licensing process, requests finding and improving radiological emegency Order 12291. Further, this rulemaking determinations on the adequacy of these preparedness capabilities, proceeding was initiated prior to State and local plans, FEMA will (9) Commentilt appears that the January 1,1981, and thus is not subject comply with such requests. Section 350.3 requirement that a State include in its to the requirements of the Regulatory of the final rule has been modified to application for FEMA formal review and ,
Flexibility Act for regulatory flexibility reflect this commitment. approval ofits plan a statement that the .
analysis. (4) Comment: Criteria or standards plan is adequate to protect its citizens An environmental assessment has against which FEMA will review and living within the vicinity of the affected beet prepared on which FEMA has approve plans are open ended. nuclear power plant, forces States to determined that this rule will not have a Response The language of the rule make factual and legal judgments which significant impact on the quality of the limit the criteria for review and the rule reserves to Federal agencies.
human environment. approval of plans to NUREG-0654/ Response While the argument that Comments and FEMA's Response I' '
) co ,3t. tate"s should be a e ac ua andlegalju g en is Thirty-five comments were received permitted to submit plans on a persuasive, no change has been made to on the proposed rule. They were mainly piecemeal basis. (e.g., State plan for i 350.7(d) because: i from State and local government plume exposure and ingestion exposure (a) This requirement calls for an sources, nuclear power utilities and pathway, local government plans) to expression of opinion by the State that Federal agencies. Some issues were FEMA for formal review and approvat the plan is designed to fulfill one of its raised by the commenters.They also Response The language in i 350.7 primary responsibilities, i.e., the r made a number of recommendations for allows appropriate flexibility where protection of public health and safety; changing the language of the rule. multiple facilities are involved. Beyond and Following is a summary of the that, for FEMA to do an adequate job in (b)It provides assurance to Federal significant comments and FEMA's reviewing and approving plans related reviewers that the State has applied its responses, to a specific nuclear power plant site, a best effort to producing an adequate (1) Comment The definition section is complete package containing the plans inadequate. of all the impacted offsite government Pl an.
p Response The terms, emergency entities should be submitted when planning zone, plume exposure FEMA intends to use the process formal consideration under the rule is '
pathway, ingestion exposure pathway, sought.
described herein in " approval" of any complete exercise and local (0) Comment: A time period should be hi h ht b ' d goovemment, have been added to specified for Regional Director's review [Ief$r the rbecomes .The ne exception to this is the language on 5 350.2. and for the Associate Director s c s luded (2) Comment:There is insufficient emphasis on the role and disapproval of plans.
Response: The review and evaluation
- ['[8 ti es )p responsibilities of local government. process at the Regionallevelinvolves The provisions of 5 350.9(c) will Respanse: FEMA believes that the give-and-take between the State and the continue to be used in the interim.
language of the rule is adequate in this FEMA Regional office with the objective FEMA has determined that this regard since it provides that local of producing an adequate State plan. proposed rule does not have significant government plans must be part of State Placing a time limit on this process is impact upon the quality of the human plans as a condition to FEMA not considered appropriate. The 30 day environment. On this basis, an proceeding with its review and approval period for determinations by the environmental impact statement is not process. For added emphasis, local Associate Director will apply to both a required.
government is defined in i 350.2 as disapproval as well as an approval. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 350 including cities, municipalities and Section 350.12 (c) has been modified t towns within the plume exposure reflect this. Nuclear Power plants and reactors.
pathway emergency planning zone; and (7) Comment:The timing of the public Radiation protection.
I 350.7(a) calls attention to further meeting and complete exercise is not It is proposed to amend Subchapter E guidance on local government planning specific. of Chapter 1. Title 44 Code of Federal
-in Part II.E., NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP- Response:The language of this rule on Regulations by adding a new Part 350 as 1 Rev.t. this point has not been changed since follows:
(3) Comment: Submission of State and flexibility is desirable. As written, the affected local governments plans is rule permits the exercise to follow the PART 350-REVIEW AND APPROVAL restricted to the Governor or his public meeting or vice versa.The A L disignee. language also permits, at the discretion SkA Response:In its formal review and of the Regional Director, either or both PREPAREDNESS approval process under this rule, FEMA the public meeting and exercise to occur sec.
must deal with the plans and before submisalon of the State plan for 3504 purpose.
preparedness of all government entities ~ formal review and approval. 350.2 Definitions.
affected by a nuclear power plant. (8) Comment: Approval of plans 350.3 Background.
FEMA looks to the involved State to put should be done by the Regional Director 350A Exclusions.
these plans into a coordinated package instead of the Associate Director. 350.5 Criteria for review and approval of Response:The rule retains approval State and local radiological emergency and to submit them to FEMA for formal pla d pa review and approval. if the State desires authority with the Associate Director. Sm6 a ta ln elopment of State to participate in the process outlined in primarily to provide another objective and local Plans.
the rule. Notwithstanding this level of review and to permit the 330.7 Application by state for review and channeling of plans, FEMA recognizes Regional Director and staff to approval.
that State or local government plans will concentrate on their main function of 350.8 initial n.MA action on state plan.
Fed 2ral Registrr / Vol. 47. No. Itil / Thursda, August 19. 2982 / Proposed Ru!cs 36389 4 I Sec. Complete Exerche means an event 350.9 Exercises. of this Public Law requires NRC to 350.10 Publ e rneeting in advemce of FEMA that tests the inttgrated capabiht> of establish. by rule. standards for Sta:e
' ~
State and local governments and the radiological emergency response plans 350.11 Act on by TEMA Regional Director. nuclear power plant licensee to in consultation with FEMA: and that the 350 12 FEMA Headquarters review and adequately assess and respond to an Commission willissue a license to approval, accident at a commerical nuclear power operate a nuclear power plant only ifit a
350.13 Withdrawal of approval. plant. The complete exercise shall determines, in consultation with FEMA, 3m14 Amendment to State plans. include;(a) A major portion of the 350.15 Appeals procedures. that a State or local radiological 6 planning standards described in i 350.5: emergency response plan which Authority,- 42 U.S.C. 5131. 5201,50 U.S.C. (b) mobilization of State, local and complies with the Commission's
. App. 2253(gl. Sec.109. PL 96-295. licensee personnel and other resources standards exists.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 19r8 (3 CFR 19r3 in sufficient numbers to verify the Comp. 3291. Executive Order 12127 (44 FR (d) To carry out these responsibilities capability to respond to the accident 19367). Executive Order 12148 (44 FR 43239). FEMA is engaged in a cooperative effort
-- scenario. The exercise shall be with State and local governments and l 350.1. Purpose, considered complete without State other Federal agencies in the The purpose of the regulation in this participation only,if under the part is to establish procedures for development of State and local plans provisions of i 350.9(d)(e). State and preparedness to cope with the review and approval by the Federal participation is not required, Emergency Management Agency Loco / Government refers to counties, offsite effects resulting from radiological parishes, cities. towns and emergencies at nuclear power facilities.
(FEMA) of State and local emergency plans and preparedness for the offsite municipalities within the plume (e) FEMA has entered into a effects of a radiological emergency exposure pathway EpZ when any of memorandum of understanding [MOU]
which may occur at a nuclear power these entities has specific roles in w th the NRC to which it will furnish facility. Review and approval of these emergency planning and preparedness assessments. findings and plans and preparedness involves in e EPZ determinations as to whether State and preparation of findings and ,e efe'rs to the location at which ! cal emergency plans and preparedness determinations of the adequacy of the there is one or more nuclear powet. are adequate and continue to be capable plans and the capabilities of State and of implementation (e.g., adequacy and p ants nm \mous wiA nelea a nuc ear power power plant ismaintenance of procedures, training, local governments to effectively implement the plans. ycyity. resources, staffing levels and qualification and equipment adequacy).
l 350.2 Definitions. 5350.3 Sockground. These findings and determinations will As used in this part, the following (a) On December 7.1979, the President be used by NRC under its own rules in terms are defined: directed the Director of FEMA to take connection with its licensing and Director means, the Director, FEMA: the lead in State and local emergency regulatory requirements and FEMA will Regiono10/ rector means a Regional planning and preparedness activities support its findings in the NRC licensing Director of FEMA: with respect to nuclear power facilities. process and related court proceedings.
Associate Director means the This lacluded a review of the existing (f) Notwithstanding the procedures set Associate Director, State and Local emergency plans both in States with forth in these rules for requesting and Programs and Support Directorate, operating reactors, and those with reaching a FEMA administrative FEMA: plants scheduled for operation in the approval of State and local plans, FEMA means the Federal Emergency near future. findings and determinations on the Management Agencyt (b) This assignment was given to current status of emergency NRC means the Nuclear Regulatory FEMA because ofits responsibilities preparedness around particular sites Commission: under Executive Order 12148 to may be requested by the NRC and EPZ means Emergency Planning Zone, establish Federal policies for and provided by FEMA for use as needed in Eme)gency Plonning Zone (EPZ)is a coordinate civil emergency planning, the NRC licensing process. These generic area around a nuclear facility management and assistance functions, findings and determinations may be used to assist in offsite ernergency and to represent the President in based upon plans currently available to planning and the development of a working with State and local FEMA or furnished to FEMA by the significant response base. EPZs of about governments and the private sector to NRC through the NRC/ FEMA Steering 10 and 50 miles are delineated for the stimulate vigorous participation in civil Committee.
plume and ingestion exposure pathways emergency preparedness programs.
respectively. Under Section 201 of the Disaster Relief Note-An environmental assessment has
- Plume Exposure Pothway refers to been prepared on which FEMA has Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. 5131), and other whole body external exposure to gamma statutory functions, the Director of determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on the quality of the radiation from the plume and from FEMA,is charged with the human environment.
deposited materials and inhalation , responsibility to develop and implement exposure from the passing radioactive plans and programs of disaster plume.The duration of primary preparedness. The regulation in this part does not exposures could range in length from (c) Section 109 (a) of the NRC apply to, nor will FEMA apply any hours to days. Appropriation Authorization (Pub. L 96- criteria with respect to, any evaluation.
Ingestion Exposure Pothway refers to 295-June 30,1980), requires the NRC to assessment or determination regarding exposure primarily from ingestion of consult with the Director, FEMA in the NRC licensee's emergency plans or water or foods such as milk and fresh making a determination that there exists preparedness, nor shall FEMA make any vegetables that have been contaminated a State or local emergency plan for similar determination with respect to with radiation. The duration of primary responding to accidents at the facility integration of offsite and NRC licensee exposure could range from hours to concerned, and complies with the emergency preparedness except as these months. Commission's guidelines. Section 109(b) assessments and determinations affect
30390 Fedml Register / Vol. 47 No.101 / Thursday, August 19. 1982 / Proposed Rules the emergency preparedness of State State and local response plans call for periodic drdla em (will be) conducted to l and local governments. The regulation in reliance on information provided by develop and maintain key skills, and this part applies only to State and local facility licensees for determinations of deficiencies identified as a result of )
planning and preparedness with respect minimum initial offsite response exercises or drills are (will be) to emergencies at nuclear power measures, corrected.
facilities and does not apply to other (5) Procedures have been established (15) Radiological emergency response i facliities which may be licensed by for notification, by the licensee, of State training is provided to those who may l NRC. and local response organizations and for be called upon to assist in an l a emergeng.
$350.5 Criterta for review and appre. " q all response organizations; the content State and local radiological emergercy (16) Responsibilities for plan ;
plans and preparedness. of initial and followup messages to development and review and for 1 response organizations and the pubh,c distribuh of emergency plans are (a) The following joint NRC-F"MA a n "'
planning documents, ISO 47 of NRC's #stabl shed, and planners are properly v early n a d cl e" "* '
Emergency Planning Rule (10 CFR Parts instruction to the populace within the 50 and 70. 45 FR 55409) and Criteria for (b)In order for State or local plans
' pa wa and preparedness to be approved, such Prepamtion andEvaluation of hg" la n ng o a ee s b shed.
RadiologicalEmegency Response plans and preparedness must be (6) Provisions exist for prompt Plans andPapamdness in Support of determined to adequately protect the communications among principal NuclearPowerPlants (NUREG-0654/ public health and safety by providing response organizations to emergency FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, November 1990), personnel and to the public. reasonable assurance that appropriate which apply insofar as FEMA is protective mosnres can and will be (7)Information is made available to taken offsite in ce event of a concemed to State and local the public on a periodic basis on how governments, are to be used in they will be notified and what their radiological emergency.
reviewing, evaluating, and approving initial actions should be in an f 350.6 Assistancein development of State and local radiological emergency emergency (e.g. listening to a local state and local p'ans. J plans and preparedness and in makin8 broadcast station and remaining l any findings and determinations with ed h indoors), the principal points of contact de el pm respect to the adequacy of the plans and with the news media for dissemination f ffsfte rIdiolo8 g
eI '
the capabilities of State and local ofinformation during an emergency governments to imple t them. (including the physicallocation or
[d tYelIcensees o 15 e assistance of the Federal Government is I en ergency s e by the nuclear approad most neh to prode de I and to d for c ordin te best protection to the public. Hence, facility licensee, and by State and local dissemination ofinformation to the organizations within the Emergency Federal agencies,includ FEMA public are established. Regional staff, will be ma e available Planning Zones have been assigned, the (8) Adequate emergency facilities and emergency responsibilities of the upon request to assist States and equipment to support the emergency various supporting organizations have responst are provided and maintained. I calities in the development of plans.
been specifically established, and each (0) Adequate methods, systems and (b) There now exists in each of the tan principal response organization has staff equipment for assessing and monitoring Standard Federal Regions, a Regional to respond and to augment its initial actual or otential offsite consequences Assistance Committee (RAC) (formerly response on a continuous basis. of a radio gical emergency condition are the Regional Advisory Committae)
(2) On-shift facility licensee in use. chaired by a FEMA Regional official and responsibilities for emergency response (10) A range of rotective actions has having members from Nuclear are unambiguously defined, adequate been developed f r the plume ex osure Regulatory Commission Department of
, staffm' g to provide initial facility pathway EPZ for emergene wo ers Health and Human Services, .
accident response in key functional and the public. Guidelines or the choice Department of Energy, Department of areas is maintained at all times, timely of protective actions during an Transportation. Environmental augmentation of response capabilities is emergency, consistent with Federal Protection Agency, and the United ] '
available, and the interfaces among guidance, are developed and in place, States Department of Agriculture and !
various onsite response activities and and protective actions for the ingestion Department of Commerce.The RACs offsite support and response activities exposure pathway EPZ ap repriate to w;11 assist State and local government are specified. (This standard applies the locale have been deve oped. officials in the development of their j only to NRC licensees but is included (11) Means for controlling radiological radiological emergency response plans.
here for completeness). exposures, in an emergency, are and will review plans and observe (3) Arrangements for requesting and established for workers.The means for exercises to evaluate the adequacy of effectively using assistance resources controlling radiological exposures shall these plans and related preparedness.
have been made, arrangements to include exposure guidelines consistent This assistance does not include the accommodate State and local staff at with EPA Emergency Worker and actual writing of State and local the licensee's near-site Ernergency Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Bovernment plans by RAC members.
Operations Facility have been made. Guides. (c) In accomplishing the foregoing, the end other organizations capable of (12) Arrangements are made for RACs will use the criteria in NUREG-augmenting the planned response have medical services for contaminated 0654/ FEMA-rep-1, Rev.1, and will been identified. injured individuals. render such technical assistance as may i
(4) A standard emergency (13) General plans for recovery and be required appropriate to their agency classification and action level scheme, reentry are developed. .
mission and expertise. In observing and the bases of which include facihty (14) Penodic exercises are (will be) evaluating exercises, the RACs will system and effluent parameters, is in conducted to evaluate major portions of identify, soon efter an exercise, use by the nuclear facility licensee, and emergency response capabilities, deficiencies in the planning and L_____________________.
l 1
- Fed:r:1 RIgister / Vol. 47, No.161 / Thursday, August 19, 1982 / Proposed Rules 36391
, preparedness effort including the plans necessary for other nuclear and for public participation (see deficiencies in resources, training of power facilities within the State. If
. staff, equipment, staffing levels, and I 350.10). The activitics occur during separate submissions are made, Regional review and prior to the deficiencies in the qualifications of appropriate adjustments in the State personnel, fowarding of the plan to the Associate plan may be necessary. In any event, Director.
I 350.7 Application by state for review FEMA approval of State plans and and apperst appropriate local government plans I 350.9 Exercises.
(a) A state which seeks formal review shall be site specific. (a) Before a Regional Director can (d) The application shah contain a forward a State plan to the Associate and approval by FEMA of the State's radiological emergency plan shall statement that the State plan, together Director for approval, the State, together submit an application for such review with the appropriate local plans, is, in with all appropriate local governments, the opinion of the State adequate to must conduct a complete exercise of and approval to the FEMA Regional Director of the region in which the State protect public health and safety ofits that State plan, involving participation is located. The application. in the form citizens living within the emergency of appropriatelocalgovernment entities, planning zones for the nuclear power the State and the appropriate licensee of of a letter from the Governor or from such other State official as the Governor facilities included in the submission by NRC.To the extent achievable, this providing reasonable assurance that may designate, shall contain one copy of appropriate protective measures can exercise shall include participation by the completed State plan,includin8 appropriate Federal agencies. This and will be taken by State and local coverage of response in the ingestion exercise shall be observed and governments within the emergency evaluated by FEMA and by exposure pathway EPZ. The application planning zone in the event of a will also include plans representatives of other agencies with governments for allsdictions jun,of alllocal radiological emergency for the site in wholly question. membership on the RACs, and by NRC or partiauy within the plume exposure with respect to licensee response.
pathway EPZ for the applicable nuclear (e) FEMA and the States will make Following the exercise, a critique suitable arrangements in the case of power facility. The application shall involving all parties will be conducted.
overlapping or adjacent jurisdictions to specify the site or sites for which plan permit an orderly assessment and If the exercise discloses any deficiencies approvalls sought. For guidance on the in the State and local plans, or the local government plans that should be approval of interstate or interregional ability of the State and local plans.
included with an application refer to governments to implement the plans, the '
Part 1.E. NUREG-0654-FEMA-REP-1, 9 350.8 initial FEMA action on State plan. FEMA representatives shall make them Rev.1, entitled Contiguous-Jurisdiction (a) The Regional Director shall known promptly in writing to Governmental Emergency Planning. (See acknowledge in writing within ten days appropriate State officials and, to the (e) below.) Only a State may request the receipt of the State application. extent necessary, the State shall amend formal review of State or local (b) FEMA shah publish in the Federal the plan to incorporate recommend radiological emergency plans. Register within 30 days after receipt of changes or improvements or take other (b) Generally, the plume exposure the application, notice that an appropriate measures, such as remedial pathway EPZ for nuclear power application from a State has been exercises, to demonstrate to the facilities shall consist of an area about received and that copies are avaUable at Regional Director that identified 10 miles (16 Km)in radius and the the Regional Office for review and deficiencies have been corrected.
ingestion pathwey EPZ shall consist of copying in accordance with 44 CFR 5.26, (b)The Regional Director of FEMA an area about 50 miles (80 Km) in radius. Subpart C of Part 5 and Appendix A to shall be the FEMA official responsible The exact size and configuration of the Part 5 of this chapter. for certifying to the Associate Dimetor EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear (c) The Regional Director shall furnish that a complete exercise of the State ;
power facility shall be determined by copies of the plan to members of the plan has been conducted, and that those State and local governments in RAC for their analysis and evaluation. changes and corrective measures taken consultation with FEMA and NRC (d) The Regional Director shcIl make a in accordance with i 350.9(a) above taking into account such local detailed review of the State plan, have been made, conditions as demography, topography, including those of local governments, (c) For continued FEMA approval, land characteristics, access routes, and and assess the capability of the State each State and appropriate local local jurisdiction boundaries. The size of and local governments to effectively governments shau ccaduct an exercise the EPZs may be determined by NRC in implement the plan (e.g., adequacy and jointly with a nuclear power facility at consultation with FEMA on a case by. maintenance of procedures, training, Isast annusily. However, States with case basis for gas cooled reactors and resources, staffing levels and for reactors with an authorized power more than one site shall schedule qualification, and equipment adequacy). exercises such that each individual site levelless than 250 Mw thermal. The Evaluation and comments of the RAC is exercised in conjunction with the plans for the ingestion pathway shall members will be used as part of the State and appropriate local government focus on such actions an are appropriate review process. plans not less than once every five years to protect the f ablic from ingesting '(e)In connecting with the review, the for sites with the plume exposure contaminated food and water. Regional Director may make suggestions pathway EPZ partially or wholly within
, (c) A State may submit separately its to States concerning perceived gaps or plans for the EPZ's and the local the State and not less than once every s deficiencies in the plans, and the State three years for sites with the ingestion government plans related to individual may amend the plan at any time prior to exposure pathway EPZ partially or nuclear power facilities.The purpose of forwarding to the Associate Director of wholly within the State. The State shall separate submissions is to allow FEMA.
i I approval of a State plan, and of the choose, on a rotational basis, the site (s)
I plans necessary for specific nuclear (f) Two conditions for FEMA approval at which the required annual exercise (s)
' of State plans (including local is to be conducted, and priority shall be power facilities in a multiple-facility government plans) are the requirements given to new facilities seeking an j State, while not approving or acting on for a complete exercise (see i 350.9), operating license from NRC, and which
36,392 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 47, No.161 / Thursday, August 19, 1982 / Proposed Rules have not had an exercise involving the may be conducted by the State or by the evaluation and other relesant record State plan at the facility site. State and Regional Director, shall be to acquaint material to the Associate Director.
local governments and the licenseer, will the members of the public in the vicinity Relevant record material will include coordmate the scheduling of exercises of each facility with the content of the the results of the exercise critique (i.e.,
with the Regional Director. For State and related Icoal plans, to answer deficiencies noted and corrections continued FEMA approval of State and any questions about FEMA review and made), and a summary of the relevant local government plans, to receive suggestions from the public deficiencies identified during the public exercises shall be conducted as concerning improvements or changes meeting. recommendations made to the follows9 that may be necessary and to describe State for improvements in its plans and to the public the way in which the plan preparedness and actions taken by the (1) Each State which has a commercial nuclear power site within its is expected to function in the event of an State.
boundaries or is within the to-mile actual emergency. The Regional Director should assure that representatives from { 350.12 FEMA Headquarters review and plume exposure pathway emergency , approval planning zone of such site shall conduct appropriate State government agencies, local and county agencies and the (a) Upon receipt from a Regional a complete exercise jointly with a Director of a State plan, the Associate nuclear power plant licensee and affected utility appear at such meetings to make presentations and to answer Director shall conduct such review of appropriate local governments at least the State plan as he or she shall deem every 2 years. questions from the public.These meetings shall be noticed in the local necessary.The Associate Director shall (2) Each State with more than three sites within its boundaries shall conduct newspaper having the largest circulation arranse for copies of the plan, together in the area, or such other media as the with the Regional Diretor's evaluation, complete exercixes as frequently as necessary in order to exercise with each Regional Director may select, on at least to be made available to the members of two occasions. one of which is at least the Federal Radiological Preparedness site at least once every 7 years, (3) Each local government which has a two weeks before the meeting takes Coordinating Committee (FRPCCl and in place and the other is within a few days other offices of FEMA with appropriate site within its boundaries or is within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of the meeting date. Local radio and guidance relative to any assistance that shall participate in a complete exercise television stations should be notified of mey be needed in the FEMA review and jointly with the licensee and test the scheduled meeting at least one week approval process.
direction and control functions within in advance. Representatives from NRC (b)1f, within 30 days after receipt of the State plan at least every 2 years. and other appropriate Federal agencies the State plan and the Regional should also be invited to participate in Director's evaluation, the Associate (4) States within the 50-mile these meetings. If,in the judgment of the Director determines that the State plans emergency planning zone of a site shall exercis,e their plans and preparedness FEMA Regional Director, the public and preparedness:
related to ingestion exposure pathway meeting or meetings reveal gaps or (1) Are adequate to protect the health measures at least once every 7 years deficiencies in the State plan, the and safety of the public living in the and in conjunction with a plume Regional Director shall inform the State vicinity of the nuclear power facility by exposure pathway exercise for the site, of the fact together with providing reasonable usurance that (5) Remedial exercises may be recommendations for improvement. No appropriate protective measures can required to correct deficiencies FEMA approval of State and local plans and will be taken offsite in the event of observed in the scheduled exercises, shall be made until a meeting described a radiological emergency; and FEMA will consult with NRC, as in this paragraph shall have been beld at (2) Are capable of being implemented appropriate, in determining the level and or near the nuclear power facility site (see 1350.3(e); the Associate Director frequency of such remedial exercises for which the State is seeking approval. shall approve in writing the State plan.
! and drills.]8 .
$ 350.t1 Action by FEMA Regional The Associate Director shall (d) After FEMA approval of a State Director. communicate this FEMA approval to the and local plan has been granted, failure Governor of the State (s)in question and (a) Upon completion of his/her to exercise the State and local plans at review, including conduct of the the NRC and immediately shall publish 9 exercise required by i 350.9 and after in the Federal Register a notice to this bd e Pb ci lbeation the public meeting required by i 350.10, effect.
grounds for withdrawing FEh1A the Regional Director shall prepare an (c)If. within 30 days after receipt of approval. (See 1 350.13.) evaluation of the State plan, including the State plan, the Associate Director is plans for local governments. Such not satisfied with the adequacy of the
$ 350.10 PutW meeting in advance of l evaluation shall be specific with respect plan or preparedness with respect to a FEMA approval to the plans applicable to each nuclear particular site.he or she shall During the FEMA Regional Office communicate that decision to the review of a State plan, and prior to the facility so that findings and determinations can be made by the Governor (s) of the State (s) and to the eubmission by the Regional Director of NRC, together with a statement in the plan to the Associate Director, the Associate Director on a site specific f FEMA Regional Director shall assure the basis, writing explaining the reasons for the l
(b) The Regional Director shall decision and requesting appropriate conduct of at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the nuclear power facihty. evaluate the adequacy of State and local plan or preparedness revision. Such statement shall be transmitted to the The purpose of such a meeting, which plans and preparedness on the basis of the critieria set forth in i 350.5, and shall Governor (s) through the appropriate report the evaluation with respect to Regional Director (s).
mnpar in this parer ph to propo ed for public camment as a substnute for i :Sc.s(e) as each of the planning standards (d) The approval shall be of the State putdah d aa lune 2( sono. us rn 4:sm) which mentioned therein as such apply to State plan together with the local plans for
' and local plans and preparedness. cach nuclear power facility (including ism ed# e$x*eSi.eNMdffIc$nYe* od*- (c) The Reginal Director shall forward out-of. State facilities) for which complete exerose that er, considered .4pincent enough to impact on the pubbc benhb and safety. the State plan together with his or her approval has been requested. FEMA
_ Feder;l Regist r / Vol. 47. No.161/ Thursday August 19, 1982 / Proposed Rules 36393 may withhold approval of plans subject to the appeal procedures as holding a public meeting or a applicable to a specific nuclear power specified in ll 350.12(e) and 350.15. complete exercise would be facility in a multi. facility State, but (b)In the event that the State in unnecessary.
nevertheless approve the State plan and question shall submit a plan for (d) Changes, such as a change in a associated local plans applicable to correcting the deficiencies, the telephone number, that are not other facilities in a State. Approval may Associate Director shall negotiate a significant as defined in paragraphs (b) be withheld for a specific site until plans schedule and timetable under which the and (c) of this section but are necessary for all jurisdictions within the State shall correct the deficiencies. If, on to maintaining currency of the plan, i emergency planning zones of that site the agreed upon date, the deficiencies should be forwarded to the Regional have been reviewed and found have been corrected, the Associate Director.
adequate. Director shall withdraw the initial (e) Within 30 days after the date of determination and the approval I 350a5 W pmcehes.
notification of approval for a particular previously granted shall remain valid. (a) Any interested person may appeal nuclear power facility or within 30 days He shau inform the Governor (s), and a decision made under iI 350.12 and of any statement of inadequacy or the NRC and notify the public as stated 350.13 of this part, by submitting to the withdrawal of approval of a State Plan, in paragraph (a) of this section. If, Director, FEMA, a written notice of any interested person may appeal the however, on the agreed upon date, the appeal, within 30 days after the decialon of the Associate Director to the deficiencies are not corrected, FEMA appearance in the Federal Register of Director; however, such appeal must be shall withdraw its approval and shall the notice of decision relating to the made solely upon the ground that the communicate its decision to the matter being appealed. The appeal must Associate Director's decision, based on Governor of the State whose plan is in be addressed to the Director Federal the available record, was unsupported question, to the NRC, and to the Emergency Management Agency,500 C ,
by substantial evidence. See i 350.15 for appropriate Federal a Street S.W., Washington. D.C. 20472. <
appeals procedures. the public as above. gencies and notify The appealletter shall state specific ;
reasons for the appeal and include an !
$ 360.13 Withdrawalof approvat l 350.14 Amendments to State plans, offer to provide documentation (a)If, at any time after granting (a) The State may amend a plan supporting appella?e arguments. j approval of a State Plan, the Associate submitted to FEMA for review and (b) Upon receipt of an appeal, the Director determines, on his or her own approval under i 350.11 at any time Director or the Director's designee shall initiative, motien or on the basis of during the review process or may amend review the file, as a submitted to the information another person supplied, a plan at any time after FEMA approval Associate Director, State and Local that the State or local plan is no longer has been granted under i 350.12. A State Programs and Support, by the Regional ade unte to protect public health and must amend its plan in order to extend Director of the FEMA Region concerned safe y by providing reasonable the coverage of the plan to any new based solely on the information i assurance that appropriate protective nuclear power facility which becomes contained in the file and the appeal j measures can be taken, or is no longer operational after a FEMA approval or in letter, with supporting documentation.
capable of being implemented, he or she case of any other significant change, the Director or the Director s designee shallimmediately advise the Governor The State lan shall remain in effect as shall decide whether or not the of the affected State, through the approved hile any s!gnificant change Associate Director's initial decision was appropriate Regional Diector, and NRC is under review, supported by substantial evidence in the ,
of that initial determination in writing. (b) A si nificant change is one which file-FEMA shall spell out in detail the involves e evaluation and assessment (c) The decision of the Director or the ,
reasons for its initial determination, cnd of planning standard or which involves Director e designee shall be published in j shall describe the deficiencies in the a matter which,if resented with the the Federal Register as the final agency plan. would need have been decision on the matter and shall not be {
plan or the preparedness of the State. If, ,
after four months from the date of such considered by the Associate Director in reviewable within FEMA, except upon a an initial determination the State in making a decision that State or local showing that it was procured by fraud uestion has not either (1) corrected the plans and preparedness are:(1) or misrepresentation. In addition to deficiencies noted or (2) submitted an Adequate to protect the health and publication in the Federal Register, acceptable plan for correcting those safety of the public living in the vicinity copies of the decision shall be deficiencies, the Associate Director of the nuclear power facility by forwarded to the appellant, the shall withdraw approval and shall providing reasonable assurance that governor (s) of the State (s) affected and immediately inform NRC and the appropriate protective measur:s can be to the NRC and affected licensee of the Governor of the affected State, of the taken offsite in the event of a involved power facility, determination to withdraw approval and radiological emergency; and (2) capable Dated: August 11,1982.
" shall ublish in the Federal R ter and of being implemented. Lee M. Thomas, theI al newspaper having th largest (c) A significant change will be A,,ociate Directnr. State and4oco/Pmsmms daily circulation in the affected State processed in the same manner as if it and Support Directorate, Federo/ Emegency notice ofits withdrawal of approval. were an initial plan submission. ManagementAgency.
Such action by the Associate Director is However, the Regional Director may grn ox swesee ru.d s-se-at a4s amj determine that certain procedures, such swwo coot sm.e-a 1 i
l l
l i-J
law orrects BROSE AN D PoSWISTILO 1101 BUILDING l EAsToN, PEN NSYLVANI A I E.scRouE mRosE 18o42 TELEPHONE FRANM S. PCSWISTILO -
- THOMAS R. ELLf 0TT, .l R. 258 2M4 CHARLES W. ELLIOTT TELEX 047401 ll July 31, 1987 Office of the Director FEMA Federal Center Plaza 500 C. Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472 Re: FEMA Review of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness for the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Pottstown, PA
Dear Sir:
Enclosed for filing with the Agency is the original of " Petition of Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. for Relief Pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act and 44 C.F.R.
Part 350".
Together with a copy of this letter, a copy of the petition is also being forwarded to the following agency offices for review and action-pursuant to the regulatory delegations of authority to those offices:
Office of the Deputy Director i Office of the Associate Director, State and Local Programs and J Support l Office of the General Counsel j Office of the Inspector General j i
All correspondence concerning this matter should be directed to me and, in each case, copied to the other individuals executing the petition at the address set j forth therein. j i
_ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ . _ - - _ . . _ ._ ._ - _ - - _ -_ o
T-
- l. .
l . .
l BROSE AND POSWISTILO l
Office of the Director July 31, 1987 Page 2
.Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours, n'
D $<- & h.[ & .gs" -
Charles W. Elliott CWE:mr Enclosures cc: Office of the Deputy Director Office of the Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support Office of the General Counsel Office of tne Inspector General l
I
)
l i
l
- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ n
' d 4 BEFORE THE 4 FEDERAL EMERGEF Y MANAGEMENT AGENCY In Re: FEMA Review of State and :
Local Radiological Emergency :
Plans and Preparedness for the :
Limerick Nuclear Generating :
Station, Pottstown, PA :
PETITION OF LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC. FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND 44 C.F.R. PART 350 i
i Petitioner Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., by and through its counsel and pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. s551 et seq.) and 44 C.F.R. Part 350, petitions the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for relief in I accordance with the request for relief set forth below and for the reasons set-forth below:
- 1. Petitioner Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (" LEA") is a Y non-profit corporation organized in 1972 in response to the plans of Philadelphia Electric Co. to construct and operate the
' Limerick Nuclear Generating Station (" Limerick"). Petitioner's memb ers include many persons who reside and/or work within the plume _ exposure and ingestion exposure pathways of the emergency planning zone ("EPZ") for Limerick as defined by 44 C.F.R. %350.2
[ (g)(h)(1). LEA in an " interested person" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 555 (b).
I l
L______.___.___. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -
1..
,. c l
- 2. LEA was an intervenor before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and its predecessor the Atomic Energy 1
Commission, ("AEC") in each adjudicatory phase of the'NRC and AEC licensing process for the construction and operation of the Limerick nuclear facility.
- 3. In the course of its intervention before the NRC, LEA raised a contention relating to the conduct of emergency drills and exercises as set forth in the various radiological emergency q response plans-(RERPs) for Limerick. LEA withdrew this contention in reliance upon FEMA's anticipated compliance with 44 C.F.R.
Part 350, and Jr. p;"ticular, the timely conduct of a public meeting in ecmpliance wl'h 44 C.F.R. 350.10. See, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station Units 1 & 2, ALAB -
836, May 7, 1986, slip op. pp. 73-55.
- 4. LEA, by its representatives, appeared at a "public meet-ing" on July 15-16, '1987 purportedly held pursuant to the provisions of 44 C.F.R. Part 350. LEA objected at that time to the meeting as lacking compliance with 44 C.F.R. Part 350.
- 5. The "public meeting" of July 15-16, 1987 was invalid, void, without effect, and in violation of FEMA regulations.
- 6. The FEMA review process to date.for the State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness for the Limerick Nuclear _ Generating Station, to the extent such review is purported to constitute a review by FEMA pursuant to 44 C.F.R.
4
J l
1 Part 350, is void, invalid, without effect, and'in violation of l 1 FEMA regulations. I 6, i
- 7. The reasons in support of Paragraphs 5 and 6 above include the following:
(a) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not yet filed an application to FEMA for review of the radiological emergency plans for Limerick pursuant to 44 C.F.R.
350.7; (b) no.such application does, or could possibly, state as required by 44 C.F.R. 6350.7 that the plans are " adequate to protect the public health and safety of its citizens living within the emergency planning zones for [ Limerick] by providing reasonable assurance that state and local governments can and intend to effect appropriate protective measures offsite in the event of a radiological emergency", particularly in view of the public statement of the Bucks County Commissioners presented to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
("PEMA") at the July 15, 1987 "public meeting" (copy attached as " Exhibit 1").
(c) the requirements of 44 C.F.R. 350.7 have not been met; (d) the requirements of 44 C.F.R. 350.8 have not been met; (e) the requirements of 44 C.F.R. 350.9 have not been met; (f) the requirements of 44 C.F.R. 350.10 have not been met; (g) the "public meeting" contemplated by 44 l- C.F.R %350.10 must occur as part of the l FEMA formal review process (see Phila-delphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-836 May 7, 1986, slip op. p. 75 in which the Appeal
.________-__-___-___s
l Board concluded that "the formal FEMA review, of which the section 350.10 public
' meeting is a part, is not triggered-until the Commonwealth has reasonable. assurance of the plan's adequacy and applies to FEMA for formal approval", copy attached as Exhibit 2)'-
(h) other applicable regulatory and statutory
. requirements have not been met, as will be shown.
WHEREFORE, petitioner Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.,
requests the following. relief:
(a) recognition by FEMA of LEA as an
" interested person" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. %555(b), and admission to the agency proceeding as a " party";
(b) the conduct of an investigation of FEMA's review of radiological emergency plans and preparedness for the Limerick facility by FEMA's office of the Inspector General pursuant to the delegation of authority under 44 C.F.R. 62.70; (c) the conduct of public hearings with respect to such investigation, and the conduct of public hearings in connection with any further review of the Limerick plans, both such hearing processes to be voluntarily conducted in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.O. 554(b)(c)(d);
(d) the issuance of an order by FEMA's Director or Associate Director requiring that any further review of the Limerick plans be conducted in accordance with the provisons of 44 C.F.R. Part 350; (e) the issuance of an order by FEMA's Director or Associate Director requiring that a "public meeting" within the meaning of 44 C.F.R. %350.10 be held after the require-ments of 44 C.F.R. % 350.7, 350.8 and 350.9 are satisfied in accordance with law;
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ . -- - n
, i (f) such further and additional relief as may be requested by LEA.
t
, 4L bk Y$fGN Charles W. Elliott, Esquire 1101 Building Easton, PA 18042 (215) 258-2374 Attorney for Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC. '
- ~
By:
David Stone '
ll'lHrY Z<- s'"lV/lffk lQp[
Maureen Mulligan Dated: JulyJe , 1987 Box 761 Pottstown, PA 19425 I
STATEMENT BY BUCKS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CARL F. FONASH AND LUCIL PRESENTED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, JUI.Y 15, 1987, CONCERN)NG EMERGENCY PLANS AT THE LINERICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 6
We, the maj ority Bucks County - Commissioners , want to restate our opposition to.the negligent emergency evacuation plans involving the Philadelphia Electric Company's nuclear power plant at Limerick.
- Nearly. one million people live within a 25-mile radius of the Limerick nuclear 1 plant whose towers we can see from the Bucks County Courthouse.
Although Bucks County is outside the 10-mile radius, called the Evacuation Planning Zone, much of our county is within the 25-mile high risk. zone recognized by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) as " impractical" to evacuate.
Instead, under the existing emergency plans, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) has designated Bucks County as a " host" community required to accept, decontaminate, shelter and care for up to 24,000 evacuees. PECO has also stated that this evacuation plan will be handled mainly with the schools in Bucks County.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) must not bow to
.the pressures of PECO and the NRC to license Limerick at any cost. PEMA
-has fostered the notion that a nuclear emergency can be handled like any natural disaster. This is not true. "
PECO and PEMA have both relied on the heroic sense of duty of local emergency workers to consider sacri'ficing themselves in the case of a nuclear accident. We maintain that no amount of profit for a private utility is worth the risk to our school children and citizens.
PEMA now has the burden to produce a realistic and workable evacuation plan, or recommend that Limerick be shut down.
" EXHIBIT 1" l
__ o - _________z__________________________
_5 e <
I .
' LIMERICK EMERGENCY PLANS ADD ONE
,, , Bucks County has not signed any approvals of evacuation plans and will not participate in any more " paper" drills until realistic and workable cmergency plans are developed. Bucks-County cannot commit its emergency i resources to cover PECO's assets. .
We believe.that even with the best possible evacuation plan, the safest course for Bucks County citizens would be a calm and orderly evacuation. We now recommend evacuation for Bucks County citizens in the obsence of any usefu1~ plan from the state agency, PEMA.
Bucks County emergency personnel did participate in one " paper" drill in October 1984 in an-attempt to determine the extent of protection for .
our citizens and~to fulfill perceived lawful duties. Afterward, it was clear the emergency plans were a charade.
Bucks County signed no approvals of the plan, but PEMA used Bucks ,
County's participation to justify to the NRC that the emergency plans are adequate They are not adequate. In addition, since 1984, events have occured.that demonstrate the increased potential of a nuclear accident at Limerick.
CilERNOBYL Chernobyl devastated the Soviet Ukraine, andcontaminatedlarkeregions of Europe. We now know a nuclear meltdown is possible, and it is a
-catastrophic emergency affecting an enormous population with terrifying medien1 consequences. Ultimately all that stands between exponential deaths is reasonable evacuation planning and adequate safety precautions.
We now know that weather conditions are a prime factor in evacuation procedures so all planning is based on an " ideal" emergency. Chernobyl also increased citizen awareness of the seriousness of a nuclear disaster and that froc now on evacuation planning must involve more citizen participation and approval.
= _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _.
A
m-> . . .
l
[ ,, . .LINERICK' EMERGENCY PLANS ADD.TWO-INCREASED POPULATION i
Increased development in central Montgomery County, which is downwind of the radiation plume at Limerick, may also increase the potential for core people to enter Bucks County and at an earlier and more random way. ,
' Bucks. County cannot accept this responsibility, nor can Bucks County accept the liability for related decisions made by Montgomery County and PECO.
LIMERICK 2 Construction of Limerick 2 has been renewed since 1984, and unless it
.is halted by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission '(PUC) there may be two units operating under the same roof at Limerick. PECO's plans to house both of the nuclear reactors at Limerick in the same building triples the risk of severe' accident, with trouble at one unit spreading to the other unit.
Pre-Chernoby1/ post-TMI emergency planning was contemptuous of the possibility of a Class 9 nuclear accident at Limerick, despite the fact' that the NRC has determined that Limerick is the second most dangerous nuclear plant in the United States, and despite the NRC prediction that there is a more than 45 percent chance of a major nuclear accident in the U.S. within the next 20 years. /
f
-PECO MISMANAGEMENT PECO's inability to maintain operations at Salem are well documented.
But more recently the NRC forced a shut down of PECO's "model plant" at
, Peach Bottom in response to plant operators sleeping while on duty several years ago. The fact that the NRC was under national scrutiny for leaking- .-
information to negligent utilities at the time, and that it shut down at Peach Bottom, does not increase our faith in PECO or the NRC who are supposed to insure public safety.
_. - _ _ _ _ ^
e LIMERICK EMERGENCY PLANS ADD THREE PROPOSED BRADSHAW RESERVOIR 4
The proposed Bradshaw Reservoir, a component of the Point Pleasant Diversion, was originally designed to hold one day's emergency water for pumping to Limerick. On December 31, 1986, the outgoing Thornburgh's -
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) approved PECO's revised plan to cut the reservoir size to one-third its original capacity.
We question this last-minute approval by DER indicating PECO's revisions were environmentally safe and sound. To our knowledge, the proposed reduction of cooling water to Limerick has not been studied by the NRC and the Bradshaw reduction compounds an already troubled water supply system, which would rely on four different sets of electrical pump stations to supply Limerick.
We also maintain this greatly increases chances for a " Loss of Coolant Accident" at Limerick.
STATE'S RESPONSIBILITip In 1984, PEMA did not act in the best interest of Pennsylvania by allowing the NRC to issue an operating license for an unsafe nuclear power 1 plant. What should have become the test case for state's rights against the nuclear industry in Pennsylvania, has been used successfully $ gainst two East Coast nuclear plants, Shoreham on Long Island and Seabrook on the I
New Hampshire-Massachusetts border. Both plants have been prevented from operating because they have inadequate evacuation plans, and by actions of vigilant governors protecting the overriding public interest.
The responsibility"for our evacuation plans falls soracwhere between *'
PEMA and the NRC, which issure operating licenses, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Currently, none of these agencies have rcalistic plans to deal with a nuclear emergency at Limerick.
e--- ,-- ,- --
.. f.I . ..
q ,,
LIMERICK EMERGENCY PLANS' ADD FOUR Furthermore, the plan does not outline what government entities would u'Itimately carry the extraordinary financial burden that would arise from such a disaster and the ensuing evacuation and care of contaminated.
residents..
CONCLUSION Overall, we remain extremely concerned that the PEMA evacuation plan never' properly addresses Bucks County's responsibility to house neighbors-who may suffer radioactive contamination, and all the severe accompanying problems such as traffic, potable water and safe foods.
The plan, in particular, also must address electronic and mechanical' .
warning devices that are subject to failure under normal operations not to i mention the enormous strain on such sensitive devices during an extended i
emergency.
In conclusion, Bucks County's decision not to support PEMA's plans is not a new position. b'e call upon Governor Robert P. Casey, on the basis of these and other concerns, to direct PEMA to reinvestigate the entire emergency planning surrounding the Limerick nuclear power plant.
Bucks County cannot and does not intend'to effect the protective.
measures outlined in the current d ra f t of Bucks County's radiological support plan for Limerick.
H k # M e.
l 1
l l
{
- l. c, "%
g; y e
... . . mw m - , . .
wg .
- s. , 1 i N, ,fr e
MAY 7 1986K S! J'
\. c==sa s '
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 .:_ r1:::3 C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh - ' dO '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAM U EJ- ,
I i Administrative Judges- 1 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman May7,k EMY8 $
Gary J. Edles (ALAB-836)
- Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy , .
I 1
) ,
In the Matter of ) l
) l Docket Nos. 50-352 OL l PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )
) 50-353 OL (Limerick Generating Station, ',)
Units 1 and 2) s' ! ) ,
) .
David Stone, Pottstowr, Pennsylvania (with whom Phyllis Zitzer and Maureen Mulligan, Pottstown/
Pennsylvania, were on the brief), for intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
1 9 <
Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor !
pro se and for intervenor Friends of the Earth.
Robert M. Rader,, Washington, D.C. (with whom -
Troy B. Conner, Jr., and Nils N. Nichols, Eashington, D.C., were on the brief)5~Ior applicant Philadelphia Electric Company.
Zori G. Ferkin, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. .
Henry J. McGurren (witb whord David F. Hassell and Nathene A. Wrightswere on the brief) for '
the Nuclear RegulatorylCommission staff. j DECISION ,
Injits third partial initial decision in this operating license' proceeding, the Licensing Board discussed the numerou:t issues raised concerning the adequacy of the ,
1
" EXHIBIT 2" i
u___. <
- i _______M
, .3 , 73 I to four months). This time corresponds to the summer school (5
recess, during which large-scale school evacuation would not
, be necessary. Considering the totality of circumstances, we l
therefore find compelling reasons to permit continued plant l
' l operation, despite the demonstrated emergency planning ;
deficiency, and remand this matter to the Licensing Board 6
efor prbmpt action in accordance with this decision.
V. Emergency Exercises In an unnumbered contention, LEA claimed that the conduct of emergency drills and exercises was not sufficiently detailed in the various RERPs, and that such exercises would not provide a realistic test of the emergency plan. LEA Off-site Emergency Planning Contentions at 42. LEA, however, voluntarily withdrew this contention at a March 1984 prehearing conference after learning that a FEMA regulation, 44 C.F.R. S 350.10, requires a public meeting after such exercises but before final FEMA evaluation of the emergency plan. LEA determined that this meeting would provide " ample opportunity" to address its
!/ concerns about the adequacy of the drills, obviating '
6 We also note that LEA did not raise bus driver availability in its request for a stay of the Licensing l Board's decision, suggesting that LEA did not consider that issue to be a strong basis for postponing plant operation.
See LEA Motion for a Stay (May 16, 1985); Supplement to Limerick Ecology Action's Motion for a Stay (May 20, 1985).
1
(
1 .
[AT~
+ ,
o 7..e y 74 Lo litigation of the' issue. Tr. 8079-87 See LBP-84-18, 19 NRClat 1062.
O
'On appeal, LEA refers to several May 1985 FEMA
-Memoranda (see supra note 20) and essentially complains that FEMA has therein. issued its final report on the emergency' .
-plan, without. holding the public meeting required by 44 d.F.R. S 350.10. LEA claims it is entitled to this. meeting or an equivalent opportunity to comment, or, in the alternative, admission and litigation of the contention it earlier withdrew. LEA's Brief at 56-57 We disagree.
+
Nothing has changed in this regard since the prehearing conference. LEA has misinterpreted the May 1985 FEMA Memoranda. To be sure, the memorandum dated May 21, in particular, refers to various full-participation, supplemental, and remedial exercises conducted during 1984. ,
and 1985 and states that certain deficiencies previously noted'have been corrected. It also concludes that "offsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness is now adequate to provide reasonable assurance that protective i
measures can be implemented to protect the public health and
, safety in the event of a radiological emergency at the Limerick Generating Station." FEMA Memorandum (May 21, 1985) at 2. But there is no indication that this or the other memoranda are intended to be the final FEMA report -
i <
(granting approval to all of the state and local offsite emergency plans for Limerick) that must be preceded by the u_____u'____._.___._________m_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ h . _ _ _ _.__._____-.__-...___.u..__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - . . _ _ _ _ ;
f 76
,o public meeting under 44 C.F.R. S 350.10 Rather, the o memoranda are the " interim findings" that FEMA is obli:ed to )
}
provide to the NRC periodically for use during the licensing process. See FEMA /NRC MOU, 50 Fed. Reg. at 15,486.
3 Moreover, the formal FEMA review, of which the rection
~
[ 350.10 public meeting is a part, is not triggere6 until the 7 ,
/ Commonwealth has reasonable assurance of the plan's adequacy
}.
'3/ and applies to FEMA for final approval. See 44 C.F.R.
i '
F l 5 350.7; commonwealth Brief (August 8, 1985) at 15. The I
Commonwealth has net yet made.such a' request, but has committed itself to s";eing that FEMA holds tne public l meeting required by the latter's own regulati.cnr., Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,493, at 3-4; App. Tr. 74-75.
We therefore have no cause (and LEA provides none) . to doubt that, in due course, FEMA will hold the section 350.10 public meating. Further, this regulation specifically.
7 provides for public input. See 44 C.F.R. S 350.10 (a) (3) .
LEA wi.11 thus obtain all that it claims to have sought when 1
l /
77 As the NRC staff points out, LEA has nonetheless airnady had such input indirectly in this proceeding,,
despite the withdrawal of its contention. FEMA's reports on j two 1984 energency exercises were admitted into evidence j (FEMA Exhr.. E-T and E- 5) , and LEA cross-examined the FEMA
- witnessel in this regard. NRC Staff Brief (August 16, 1985) ,
I at 53. See, a.g., supra pp. 41-44, 50, 54 ,
l , , , , . _ _ _
'YhMdhhbdY N di $$ Y$[..:.'jyfg g:7,{
_' sQ.flQYi;;. . . 5I "E??$AW 'N 1 b- -
.. m. e.:
. ..e n
, . 1 y C !
l 4 1 p.
76
. ._y t
it first proffered, and later withdrew, its contention concer'nirig~ekercises and drills.78 5 .
=0 The Licensing Board's third partial initial decisien, LBP-85-14, is reversed insofar as it finds reasonable assurance of the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate students in the Spring-Ford and Owen J.
Roberts School Districts; accordingly, this. matter is remanded for prompt action in accordance with this opinion.
Otherwise, LBP-85-14 is affirmed, subject to the following license condition: the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is to verify the expeditious establishment of additional traffic control measures in the area of Route 100 and the Downingtown interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
/*
70 LEA's reliance on Union of Concerned Scientists, 735 F.2d 1437, is misplaced. In that case, the court overturned a former Commission rule that precluded litigation of the o results of an emergency preparedness exercise in a licensing proceeding. The Licensing Board, however, did not exclude LEA's contention on the basis of that rule or any other ground; rather, LEA voluntarily withdrew the contention for the wholly unrelated reasons stated above.
t . .
gg txxce*#M m ..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NlELEAR RDGUIAIORY COMMISSION 87 SEP -9 P3 :20 cn BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFLTl AND LICENSING BOARD 0%r i t
In the Matter of )
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352., d
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of my September 4,1987, letter to Charles Elliott, as well as the Limerick Ecology Action Petition to which my letter responds, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 8th day of September, 1987:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 2301 Market Street Wsahington, D.C. 20555 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Connor, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Mark J. W3tterhahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Connor and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour Charles E. Rainey, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Chief Assistant City Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Law Department, City of Philadelphia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Reading Center Washington, D.C. 20555 1101 Market Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Mr. Frank R. Romano Air ard Water Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 ;
l
____J
Thomas Gerusky, Director John R. McKinstry Bureau of Radiation Protection Assiutant Counsel Dept. of Environmental Resources Carronwealth of Pennsylvania 5th Floor, Pulton Bank Building 505 Executive House
'Ihird and Locust Streets P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Director Barry M. Hartman Pennsylvania Emergency Managument Governor's Energy Council Agency P.O. Box 8010 Basement, Transportation & Safety 300 N 2nd Street Building Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Gene Ibily Robert L. Anthony Senior Resident Inspector Friends of the Earth of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camission l Delaware Valley P.O. Box 47 103 Vernon Iane, Box 186 Sanatogs, PA 19464 tbylan, PA 19065 Timothy R. S. Campbel), Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Emergency Services Board Panel 14 Eas'. Biddle Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission West Chester, PA 19380 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Davis Wersan Board Panel Consuner Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Offion of the Secretary Jay Gutierrez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Regional Counsel Mshington, D.C. 20555 USt1RC, Region I 631 Park Avenue Angus R. Love, Esq.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Montgomery County Iegal Aid 107 East Main Street Theodore G. Otto, Ill Norristcun, PA 19401 Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections Robert M. Wisman P.O. Box 598 Counsel for NRC Staff Camp Hill, PA 17011 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission Washington, D.C. 20555 vb# 2/ _m-A Michael B,.541irsch ' q'
/ Colnsel for FEMA