ML20236Y045

Responds to Re Adoption of Emergency Planning Rule.Action Taken on Emergency Planning Rulemaking Characterized by Openness & Candor

ML20236Y045
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Damato A, Gore A, Erin Kennedy, Kerry J, Mitchell G SENATE
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8712110056
Download: ML20236Y045 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- DOCKET HUMBER PR 50 PROPOSED RULE (52 FR 6980 p, UNITED STATES jo N,UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EtJERGEflCY PLANN O g [ g WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 g

E Latncirr u mmi

,o*a o December 2, 1987 CHAmMAN '87 DEC -4 A10:57 0F'!n ;,__,,, 00caE F 4 9 m ra oR a te i The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy I United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Kennedy:

This is in response to your letter dated November 23, 1987 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule. The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the subject of The Commission received letters regarding emergency planning. the staff recommendation from public officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or loca.1 nonparticipation in emergency planning and from other public officials who thought that the staff recommendation did not go far enough. The Commission l promptly placed those letters in the rulemaking docket and the Publ.ic Docyment Room and released them to the press. Copies of l those letters are enclosed. is also enclosing any existing memoranda, The Commission telepSone logs and notes which we have identified as pertaining to communications between Commissioners or NRC staff and 13 and-persons outside the agency in the period between October October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule). The Commission believes that its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has candor. worked diligantly to assure that the thousands of commen+s were individually read and considered. In addition, our staff has gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room. The key document for the Commission's decision, a memorandum which frankly discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was released publicly and discussed in an open briefing well in ad;ance of the Commission's vote. Finally, the reasons for the DMO: 8712110056 871202 PDR PR add: P. Crane, H-1035 50 52FR6980 PDR J. Lane, 266 PHIL l l

[' 4 o UNITED STATES 4, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P n g, 2,1 WASmNGTON, D.C 20555 4i4,/ CHAIRMAN The Honorable John F. Kerry United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Serator Kerry:

This is in response to your letter dated November 23, 1967 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule. The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the sub.iect of emergency planning. The Commission received letters regarding the staff recommendation from public officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning and from other public officials who thought that the staff recommendation did not go far enough. The Commission 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. The Commission is also enclosing any existing memoranda, telephone logs and notes which we have identified as pertaining to communications between Commissioners or NRC staff and persons outside the agency in the period between October 13 and October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule). The Commission believes that its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and

candor, We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has worked diligently to assure that the' thousands of comments were individually read and considered.

In addition, our staff has gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room. The key document for the Commission's decision, a' memorandum which frankly discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was released publicly and discussed in an open briefing well in advance of the Commission's vote. Finally, the reasons for the j i ~ l

o'aer

• /

o,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8 o { WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 c \\.....l December 2, 1987 CHAIRMAN i The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Gore:

This is in response to your letter dated Novembe'r 23, 1987 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule. The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the subject of emergency planning. The Commission received letters regarding the staff recommendation from public officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning and from 'other public officials who thought that the staff recommendation did not go far enough. The Comm.ission 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. The Commission is also enclosing any existing memoranda, telephone logs and notes which we have identified as per.taining to communications between Commissioners or NRC staff and persons outside the agency in the period between October 13 and October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule). The Commission believes that'its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and candor. We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has worked diligently to assure that the thousands of comments were individually read and considered. In addition, our staff has gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room. The key l document for the Commission's decision, 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 Commission's vote. Finally, the reasons for the i =

p car +- UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 l CHAIRMAN December 2, 1987 l The Honorable George Mitchell United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Mitchell:

This is in response to your letter dated November 23, 1987 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule. The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the subject of emergency planning. The Commission received letters regarding the staff recommendation from pub 1'ic officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning and from other public officials who thought that the staff recommendation did not go far enough. The Commission 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. The Commission is also. enclosing any existing memoranda, telephone logs and notes which we have identif.ied as pertaining to communications between Commissioners or NRC staff and persons outside the agency in the period between October 13 and October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule). The Commission believes that its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and candor. We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has worked diligently to assure that the thousands of comments were individually read and considered. In addition, our staff has gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room. The key document for the Commission's decision, a memorandum which frankly discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was released publicly and discussed in an open briefing well in advance of the Commission's vote. Finally, the reasons for the

7 i + a'

• C

'o,, 4 UNITED STATES l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l [ g wAsHmoToN, D. C. 20565 l 5 g CHAIRMAN December 2, 1987 The Honorable Alforse M. D'Amato United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator D'Amato:

ThisisinresponsetoyourletterdatedNovember 23, 1987 regarding adoption of the emergency planning rule. The release of the staff recommendation of October 13 prompted a number of comments to the Commission on the subject of emergency planning. The Commission received letters regarding the staff recommendation from public officials who believed the staff recommendation went too far in permitting licensing in cases of state and/or local non-participation in emergency planning and from other public officials who thought that the . staff recommendation did not go far enough. The Commission promptly placed those letters in the rulemaking docket and the Public Document Room end released them to the press. Copies of those letters are enclosed. The Commission is also enclosing any existing memoranda, telephone logs and notes which we have identified as pertaining to communications between Commissioners or NRC staff and persons outside the agency in the period between October 13 and October 29, 1987 (the day on which the Commission voted to approve a final rule). The Commission believes that its actions in the emergency planning rulemaking have been characterized by openness and candor. We have welcomed public involvement and our staff has worked diligently to assure that the thousands of comments were individually read and considered. In addition, our staff'has gone to great lengths to assure that the public has useful access to the comments, through indexes and compilations available in the Commission's Public Document Room. The key document for the Commission's decision, a memorandum which frankly discussed the pros and cons of each major option, was released publicly and discussed in an open briefing well in advance of the Commission's vote. Finally, the reasons for the

Commission's decision are fully set forth in the Federal We believe that the Commission Eas more than TU'lister notice.TTTTid.its stated commitment to an open, public decisional Rec process. Sincerely, b 4. \\. Lando W. Ze , Jr

Enclosures:

As stated f

• e 4

e e i

LETTERS October.20 Gov Dukakis October 20 -- Reps. Hall and Pashayan Oc'tober 21 -- Sen Breaux October 21 -- - Sea. Burdick October 23 -- Reps. Markey, Atkins, Mrazek, Mavroules, Hochbrueckner, Downey October 27 -- H. Br6wn (on behalf of Suffolk County) October 27 -- Rep. Markey October 27 -- Reps. Hall and Pashayan October 28 -- H. Brown (on behalf of Suffolk County) 1 9 l e 4 9 m.___.

1 = i TH'E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS C O Executive DEPARTMENT s 5 e BOSTON 02133 STATE HOUSE i s MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS October 20, 1987 Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 21555

Dear Chairman Zech,

The staff recommendation currently under consideration by the NRC Commissioners te approve the proposed rule change regarding the licensing of nuclear power plants in the absence of state approved emergency response plans, requires that I once again, in the strongest terms, voice my opposition. to this proposed rule change. The Commission should not subjugate the well being of Massachusetts citizens to the interests of a handful of utility company owners. On February 24, 1987 I testified before the Commission to re'gister my opposition to this proposed rule change. In mf 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 J 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 gover ments, are essential to protect the health and safety of the public. knmyview,theCommissionnowstandspoisedtodisregarditsmandateto 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 j Massachusetts but would signify a willingness to run roughshod over the traditional interests of sovereign states. The Commission should not approve l i this proposed rule change. I urge the Commission to reject its staff's commendation. e / l f Sincer ly, ~ i 0 f# b / /. b, / Yicha S. Dtfkak s ' f Governor _ O __-_-

Congtedt of tfje 1Buittb htatt$ jpount at Etptt%tntatibts EEastington, D.C. 20515 October 20, 1987 The Honorablo Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you know, we have strongly supported your efforts to amend the Commission's emergency pl.anning regulations. We also strongly approved of th'e 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 i surprised and disappointed to see the staff's recommendation for a final Commisnjan rule on this matter. While it is clear that l substantial thuc.ght and effort have gone into the staff proposal, we believe that the recommendation is sericvsly deficient. It is also seri'ously 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 p';oposal contemplates hearings that will amount to lengthy exercises in just such mind-reading. In the language of the staff's recommended rule, the "likely response of...(State and local) officials" will be probed in hearings in which such officials will be absent entirely or will testify that they intend to respond differently from the way in which the utility applicant predicts they will respond. According to the proposed statement of considerations, "the precise actions which state and local governments would take" would be " resolved in individual adjudicatory proceedings" that frequently will not include those governments. These are precisely the sorts of inquiries that we had understood l ~ the'Co ission-wished to avoid. (. Dh 1

i 1 l The Honorable Lando.W. Zech, Jr. October 20, 1987 Page 2 I l l The inquiries come about under the proposal because the staff is reluctant to engage in assumptions and to circumscribe I adjudicatory hearings so as to make the rule workable. It is l of course the case that where states and localities will not cooperate in the planning process, a licensing board will have only a utility plan before it. No matter how effective that plan ) is, it will be most difficult to establish the adequacy of { preparedness without some understanding--assumed or established--as to the adequacy of actions of State and local officials with respect to the plan. The staff is prepared to assume that such officials will use their best efforts in the event of an accident. But such an assumption, confined as it is, leaves unanswered such questions as: Will the officials make use of the utility plan? Will the officials develop their own? Will they carry out either in an actual emergency? Exactly how will they do so? All these questions are left for the licensing boards to resolve in hearings that may well be boycotted by the officials whos'e conduct is at issue. Such hearings inevitably will be unwieldy and inconsistent with any sense of an orderly regulatory process. Most significantly, no reasonable guidance will be provided to licensing boards and hearing participants as to how they are to proceed in such hearings or as to what will suffice to provide assurance of an adequate governmental response. Finally, given that licensing boards will have available to them only a utility plan (which state and local officials probably will ignore and thus view as irrelevant) and an understanding that such officials will do their best ad hoc in an emergency, it will be difficult to make the finding that adequate protective measures can and will be taken. Even a hearing demonstrating that the utility plan is exceptionally strong may well not support such a finding. Under these circumstances, the staff recommendation may effectively restore the veto threat that the original proposed rule was designed to remove. One possible cure for these problems is to make the assumptions and to establish the elements of guidance that are now missing from the rule. As to assumptions, the Commission could reasonably provide that it should be assumed not only that states and localities will exert their best efforts in times of an accident but also (i) that they will exert their best efforts to plan and prepare for the accident, and (ii) that until they develop their own plan, they will rely on the.only plan availab.3, i.e., the utility's, if an accident occurs. These assumpte ns are dictated by common sense, are consistent with l previous Commission decisions, and undoubtedly are supported by the rulemaking record. Moreover, as guidance to licensing boards and hearing participants, the Commission could provide _-----_J

Zech, Jr. The Honorable Lando W. October 20, 1987 Page 3 that where it can be shown that emergency planning is feasible at i 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. 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 locar 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, / / RalphM./ Hall Ch'arles Pashayan Jr.7 Member pf Congress Member of Congr s I Attachment i cc: The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal l The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr The Honorable Kenneth C. Rogers

g t PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RULE In the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of l .the staff's proposal, after " based upon th'e 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 pl'n of'their own, such officials will rely on the utility a 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 I adequate." j

8 I' 6 ~.=ux~ m:;

r.~:: = =. - ~

w,= E: r *'

'Enittd,$tatts,$tnatt r

=?.:.rcr E'

$$'dF~=~ ;.n%~ ....n.....-.,,,,_., n. 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 rece Knowing that i briefing, tomorrow,the emergency planning rule, I want to f rst aI wou docket and made last-minute nature of this letter.this letter be noted available to interested parties. that f the While I de not'wish to prejudge the decision o questions in Commission, my. review of the SECY paper raises so ill my mind thatraise with'the staff in your discussions. d rule, it l As I understand the Commission's original propose i d local governments acknowledged that would continue to cooperate in emergencythe assu The Commission also has acknowledged that reate possible state and local vetoes of full pow life of the license." ation. The 3 was intended to address the proposed rule, as I understood it, to the Shoreham and issuance of a full situation that has arisen with respect Seabrook plants by, in essence, permitting thel to fully power operating license in the f ace of the refusaby state a participate in uhe emergency planning exer ts delineated in the proposed rule.- i h the Federal Energy Management Agency, has riation of h does not appear to the proposal contained in SECY-87-257, whicin the Commission's 1 correct the regulatory problems inherent the Staff's recommendation does not spe!.1 out and local how the NRC is to deal with a situapion in which state amendments.

First, g

of ficials argue that they will respond to an actual r

Hence, utilize the utility's plan.

ly emergency, but will not following the Staff's recommendation, it may be extreme ie difficult to reach the conclusion that adequate protect v T ility's plan. i go measures "can and will" be taken based on the ut \\

The Honorable Lando Zech october 21, 1947 Page Two an overly restrictive interpretation of the "rea i doctrine," the utility, and then the that which appears to require first, ill read the minds of how state and local governments w i of that respond in the future and then litigate the effect venessto do in

NRC, This. would appear dif ficult d/or local there is no communication between the state an response.

officials and the utility. I do not believe that Congress regarded the concept ofthe u that utility plans as including a request il ill minds of how non-cooperating state and loca onse. recent debates Certainly, this was not an element of the most in votes in over the emergency planning rule which have d as supporting the Commission's proposal. this letter be circulated to your four fellow commissioners as well as be placed in the NRC's Public D I request that hoom. pkgcerely, N BREAUX ited States Senator I n

.....o.............

• • '"..'.?.'.'n;."r"'

.4 O.".t.*.'W.". '0" * '"' Y.,',.':.'.n

• E.'^- BlitEd $ tate 5 $010tt

" " i Y.?,*.Ta % .s., E Y 3- ...$5.E" 7.%"4", eouunit c= tw aowine *=o gwc wones .4,'" b"*llON

• al==Ct0= OC 204 '0 4 8 7 8 October 21, 1987 Honorable Lando W.

Zech, Jr. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

da In March of this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission iss proposed rule that would amend its emergency planning I support this initiative to resolve the current You personally deserve. regulations. impasse on emergency planning. substantial credit for this effort. l 'I sincerely hope that these concerns will be ad h final! As the Commission staff notes in its recommendati tule,'the proposed final rule "gives the appearfully resolving the realli. impasse without the emergency planningissue--whether utility plans will be found on the basis of an adjudicatory record in a particular case. difficult y This creates the prospect of lengthy' litigation without an in the certainty as to the ultimate licensability of the plant face of non-cooperation by state and local officials. i l I hope the Commission will be able to avoid this potent a if the Commission It would be unfortunate indeedsolve the current problem. uncertainty. were to adopt a rule that did not With kind regards, I am Sincerely, Quent n N. Burdick Chairman g4 y / QNB:db:et

Congregg of tfje Enitch fptateg Jpouse of Representatives (Easf>(ngton, D.C. 20515 October 23, 1987 i The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1717 H Street N.W. i Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear chairman Zech:

On September 22, 1987 we wrote to you requesting that the Commission keep a public log'of all written and verbal { communications regarding the Commission's draft emergency planning l rule. On October 13, 1987 the commission issued a staff paper (SECY-87-257) which included a draft rederal Register notice and recommended.that the Commission proceed with this rulemaking. l 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 ye'sterday we learned, as a result of an apparently inadvertent comment by Commissioner Bernthal during your briefing from the staff, that the Commission l has received several letters from other Members of Congress urging l the Commission to change its proposed emergency planning rule so as to effectively facilitate to an even greater degre,e the i licensing of Seabrook and shoreham. Moreover, when at least one staff member attempted on our behalf to obtain copies of such letters, his request was refused by the NRC staff. Only later, when we learned that the letters had been released by the NRC to the press, were copies provided to us. that the We emphatically do not agree with your assessmen.t 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 significant in 14ght of the revelation that /becomes all the more the Commission has indeed recei.ved communications advocating a rulemaking even less protective of the public than the one } recommended by the staff. d 4 0

Tho Honorablo.ando W. Zech, Jr. Page 2 l 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 communications (written and verbal) since October 13, 1987 on the l subjects of the Commission's proposed emergency planning rule or the emergency planning aspects of the licensing of the Seabrook or Shoreham nuclear plants between (1) any Commissioner, member of l any Commissioner's staff, General Counsel or any staff of the 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, OMB, FEMA, or other rederal agency. For each communication, please the names of the participants, the date of each provide communication, a detailed summary, an indication of who l'nitiated the communication and why, and any documents pertaining to such communications. For the purpose of this request, the word l " 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 and/or verbal communications including written (as per the above) 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 i Commission issued its draft request would not require an e.xtensive 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, i Nicholas Mavroules Edward J. Markej Member of Congress Member of Congre s I Chester G. Atkins Geor(fJ6Acchbrueckner Member of Congress Member of Congress dr bL AJb? Thomas J. Dowrfey Rdde r e J.' M r dj e k Member of Cong ess i Member of Congress 1

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOSBY. 7:N floor meCHANGE PLACE 1800 M Tf1tMT. N.T. WASHINCTroN D.C. 200%5891 esin zum te BRICIELL AVENLE 14AML PL 33131 TELM4Cet GBD Manco 00H 3Mell! nux *am n oc u TRIJCWER 000 77s4100 MrrELSON. PA 15222.$m HERBERT H. BRoTN Mm messo con nsans j October 27, 1987 i - 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 o6 behalf of our client, Suffolk County, and l with the authorization of the State of New York, in reference to i three letters written last week to the Chairman by several l Members of Congress and in reference to the Commission's October l 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 i give lip service to public safety. Any reliance by the l Commission on these letters would be unlawful as sanctioning the operation of a nuclear plant in circumstances where the requisite public safety finding cannot be made. Moreover, the fact that the Commission has considered these letters without having afforded other interested persons an equal opportunity to present their views was not only insensitive to public concern for the integrity of this rulemaking, but procedurally irregular and slanted to disfavor the legitimate bases upon which Suffolk County and New York Stats have acted to protect their citizens. _2---------

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 4 U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission October 27, 1987 Page Two l L 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, 'r - 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 I i l i t 4

... ~ I 0'I nowdo -n 779 Ot1TDCT, Id145ACMWllTTS '"C. ' ""'"' Congregg of tfje lHnittb 6tafts '"*$,,755*- C0asesitttts

• " ""P.T' Jpouse of Representatives

..Co-n# ~ EE" Wasfjington, BC 20515 ~

• • ?oN0'T%.'4*i%"*

October 27, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear chairman Zech:

On Thursday, October 29, 1987, the NRC has scheduled a vote These on proposed changes to its emergency planning regulations. l proposed changes would permit the Commission to lice government participation in the emergency planning process, despite the fact that the States of Massachusetts and am attaching two documents that raise the most seriousopenn I questions about the NRC's candor,With regard to safety, ion and staff h since this this rulemaking process. the Commiss proposal first came to public light, ass'erted that the proposal woul But that assertion or the Commission provided no analysis to support to demonstrate that the essential questions had even been addressed in any detail. t indicating that at least one senioToday I am releasing documen sr NRC staff scientist who comm 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. 1 l I have been informed that the Commission's files in the l Public Document Room pertaining to this rulemaking contain only the comments received on the proposal from outside parties, and a subset of those comments which the staff found exemplary of the I substantive questions raised by those who submitted comments. also have been informed that working papers pertaining toclose of rulemaking proposals are not made public until after the i This necessarily means that internal Commission documents expressing diff(ring points of view on this the rulemaning process. wide-ranging search of diverse Commission files in th or are 'not available at all. g

The Honorablo Lcndo W. z o c h', Jr. PCge 2 Oct~ober 27, 1987 I had hoped that the Commission would hold a formal public hearing to receive comments on this rule proposal, and that in advance of such hearing it would release the supporting documents that analyze this proposal and its potential impact. Since the Commission has apparently determined that it does not want to afford members of the public an opportunity to present their views directly, I felt I had no alternative but to ensure that these critical staff views are a matter of full public knowledge prior to the commission's formal vote. With regard'to the Commission's candor about its so-called " realism doctrine," the Commission's staff briefing paper (SECY-87-257, October 13, 1987) states explicitly that that the NRC's so-called ' realism doctrine' as embodied in the proposed rule change assumes only that state and local public officials would do their best to help protect the affected public in the event of a nuclear accident. The staff paper reads, and I quote, "the ' realism doctrine' embodied in this rule goes that far and no further. It makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utilitF7s plan) (emphasis a33ed)." But today I obtained a copy of an October 21, 1987 letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from the NRC's Director of Emergency Preparedness which confi~ ras "the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting between FEMA and NRC." That letter states specifically that "in developing evaluation criteria and reviewing the utility sponsored off-site emergency response plans, FEMA should assume that in an actual emergency, state and local officials will (1) exercise their best efforts to protect the~ health and safety of the public, [and) (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan....{ emphasis added)." These documents raise the mos't serious questions not only about the rule proposal and its underlying assumptions, but also about the Commission's process. Surely members of the public should have been made fully aware of both the differing views 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 investigation regarding how the staff could execute such an agreement in light of the staff's public assurances in the October 13 SECY paper. I also ask that, in view of these disclosures, all future meetings of NRC and FEMA staff be open to the public and that transcripts be taken.

1 Tho Honorablo Londo W. Zoch, Jr. Page 3 October 27, 1987 l Furthermore, I ask that you provide answers to the following I questions. Why haven't the attached comments addressing safety been 1. fully disclosed previously in the NRC's Eulemaking notices and accompanying Federal Register notices? Why haven't the safety-related comments and all other 2. werking papers been placed in the rulemaking file in the Public l Document Room as they have become available? Why shouldn't comments and working papers routinely be 3. placed'in any rulemaking file in the Public Document Room as they become available7 Why has the exi'stence of these differing staff views en 4. safety never been disclosed at any commission public briefing or meeting on this matter, including your most recent staff briefing on October 22, 1987? 5. What explanation does the Commission offer to the American people regarding the clear discrepancy between the staff 13, 1907 SECY paper and the directly statements in the october contradictory instructions to TEMA contained in the NRC staff's letter to FEMA of october 21, 19877 What steps will the NRC take to investigate the staff's 6. action with FEMA? Please ' provide answers to these questions by close of business, Friday November 6, 1987. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, L Edward J. Marker Member of Congress 6.-

y yN ' 'i NUCLE AR REGULM)ORY COMMIS$ic c e } ,3 m,

y.,. e. nn.

,.,( / ? octob$r 21, 1987 0 'N C ,o i jb d [ l MEMORANDUM FOR: Atchard W. Krf ass H. Assistant Associate Of rector '1/ f, Office of Natural and Technologusik Heurds Programs d 1 L Federal Emergency Management Agur,cy ] ) FROM: " < ', Trank J. Con!el. DirectoE 'tl34(( ^ s / /. " Division of adiation Protec

1. rl ind Emer1ency Preparedness i

/ r Office of fuelear Reactor Regulation f (9 l-8 v

SUBJECT:

DEVELOPMENT OF UTILITY OffSITE PLAN N EVALUATION CRITERIA .(t i /, W This responds,to the ' understanding reached at the October 15. 1987 meettaf between FE% and.NRC, and reflected in Dave McLoughlin's October 16. 1987 We agreed that the NRC would provide writter.' 'u memorandum ~ to Victor Stello. l ', instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which utility off. site plan reviews would be conducted by FEMA. s. l In developing evaluation criteria' and in reviewing utOlty sponsored offsitt emergency responst plans,(FEMA should asstpe that in an ~4c and local officials will.1T) exercise their best efforts trhrotect t and safety of the pubHe, (2 offsite' plan, and (3) apply resources that are within the general e>nabilitfe; of state and local gevarnments to implement those portions of the utilitt offsite plan where state or local response is necessary. .}. As we further agreed, any FEMA findings on the adequacy of, utility offsitt s r.tquested by t?ie MRO plans will necessarily include the cavest that FEMtW'fsite plan. to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utilithr (l /a 'o ^ i k vu.y f. Trank J Congel. Of rector 9 01 vision of Radiation Protectida ll 1 Office of hency Prepat9dness fu and Emer s \\ ,e CONTACT: Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NRR 'f 492-7290 ( 'l ~ fv g), '/ /*. i e a ) L

l.' l DR. ROSS' COW.ENTS Proposal: Allow issuance of full-power license even when there is lack of cooperation by State and/or local goverrunents in development or implementation of offsite EP. Provided that: non-compliance could be remedial or adequately compensat 1) State or local government cooperation, good faith and sustained effort by applicant to get cooperatio 2) offsite EP includes a11' effective measures to 3) response, and State or local government have been provided with copies o /' a) been assured applicant is ready to cooperate. / Special emphasis 2) Policy--not new science Policy issue--Is it essential that we find that some protecthe me 2) will he taken, as part of a FPL7 31 Minimum change 1 4) Informal rulemaking Get FEPA views during coernent period. 5) . Existing 10 CFR 50.47 Para. (c)(1) has some loopholes - " deficiencies...not significant'

• adequate unknown compensator.g actions' "other compelling reasons *

/ l g Y .. o i f t t

p; fi v Nuggets from 50.47 and Appendix E " adequate protective measures can and will be taken* (a)(1) $hether State and local enrgency plans as adequate d responfbility of State and lectl ceganizations assigne, TIPA: Principle response organization has, staff to respond, a b procedures for notifiestion of $8L officials establishe y 1 (h)(5) b Ib$t 6) exercises conducted nq pppendix E s Identification of State, local officials A.8 Assessment at; dons--agreed on by State and Local Pc Notification D Administrative and Physical means 1. 58L will detersnine whether"to activate Notify $6L 'in 15 inin. 2, s* entire system A Exercise with SAL 3. SFL,in remedial exercise. 4 Dose Perspective (see figures) x 2-3 hours for SST-1, w/o evacuation, can get 200 rem at 5 miles in s' is 10 f A* For SST-1, in shelter, at 5 m0es ; probability of ex l g* Probability is i'h percent. At Zion, at 3 miles, probability is-50 percent o; Q* normal activity. with prompt evacuation. EP can reduce 70 rem whole dose in plume, C* At Surry, at 5 miles, get this-0. Observation, conclusion dix E to See p.14 of paport the new proposed P i A,B,D, for example). J __m-ml.'.

states that adequate cffsite emergency planning is

p. 5 of paper: feasible, and all other aspects of foregoing criteria a does the mean about Appendix E?

bility is warranted for EP--less important than ECCS (gulatory fleri

p. 7 of paper: states that re e.g.1 This is No minimum dose savings is established as standard for EP.However, th consistent with the bottom of P. ? of 03')6.The recomended planning basis

p. $ should be considered. Emphasis on pre detennined action.

should be re-read. The principle purpose of the plume exposure EP ImpliesmutuallysuppurtiveS&Lplanning(p.16). Local governmert plans are particularly important fp.17f). We Plans should not be developed is isolation (p. 70.) 20). Advance arrangements with Sil by utility is necessary (p. ?2). Response organizations which receive notifications should hav and capability to take imediate predetermined actions. Utility cannoti compensate for. lack of predetenninal actions by $8 Little on prudent and feasible dose reduction can be achieved b along; nearby residents could shelter (not too effective 123 mi., g better w/distar.ce) but evacuation is unthinkable by utility alone. f p.10, bottom para. of paper, speaks of best-ef. forts utility pla{ possible S&L cooperation; surely this is speculatative. l Sumary: Doses near-in ((3 miles or so) can be life-threatening No predet'armined actions can be assumed by utility alone, thus no projected dose savings of significance can be assured Fabric of 0654 is woven Appendix E 15 died with inconsistencies This action should not he approved, unless the. utility aprees to an analysis that prompt notification directly to affected people (a detennined by new risk info., keyhole within a few miles), wil p(rompt evacuatTdn, as directed by people un probably not feasible). l 4 ~^

( i Congregg of tfje 1Hniteb fptateg Douge of Representatibeg Eastington,B.C. 20515 Octobor 77, 1987 The Honorable Lando H. Zech, Jr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 'g.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We have now had :. chance to review tbc P<a.wcript ei concludad ' Thurn6ey's staff briefing of the Commission and nava that another letter from us to the Commissien wou.4 be 1 appropriate. It is clear to us that there is some misunderstanding of what we are recommending, and it is therefore the possible chat once that misunderstanding is cleared away, remaining differences can be minimized or eliminated. it is Whi'.e we do not wish to quote f rom the tran.-e:ript, turt some participants nt the briefing viewed out position c l ea t-as seeki6g hu asnuif.ption that Once a utility e:cpended ats best the Commission and i>.s hearing efforts to produce a utility plan, boards would be bound to accept the plan as adequate to protect the public. In light of the complexity of the !.ubject matter. we posi tion' was in f avor do not fault anyone for concluding that o '.i r of such an assumption. The fact is, howeve': thst we would not support any such assumption. F.ather. we are in agreement with the staff's recommendation that the adequacy of any ori.ity plan f ef4rh met be and the adequacy of State,and local"preparednscu. o probed and evaluated in individual hearings. It appears that our funda. mental di f ference with the staf f's the staff's ' recommendation would make it recommendation is thie: in dec ding whether to issue a necessary for hearing boards, to have to rely on the test neny of State and local

license, governk.ents as to their real intentions and likely responnes in an accident, whereas our approach would remove that necessity end

'1 substitute in its place a requirement that the hearing boards governments both to 5 evaluate the capabilities of Stato and loc.9 devise and execute an emergency plan. Rather than having to and ler.il efficials J second-guess the real intentions of State rom their testimony -testimony r.har. f nevi tably will be influnneed by the litigation interest.* of wch gover:nments-, under our approach the hearing board: veuli re .r. an the experience, budgetc, manpower, and othar. -1." c, r d ebjective e. L ;nvernments are and 1 g factorr in deciding whether the State

n. i o.-.:< e cu e. i n g a X

c_m.p__able both of planning for emergencian plan in an energency. l 1

t + i The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. l October 27, 1987 l Page Two In other words, the staff's recommendation makes necessary 1 the " mind reading" that'the Commission has indicated it wishes to i avoid. Our approach, on the other hand, has as its primary-l virtue that such " mind reading" is entirely unnecessary. There are two simple changes to the staff's re' commendation if made, would achieve the objectives of our approach.

that, The first change involves expanding the staff's recommendation's ascumption regarding the best efforts of State and local governments.

While the staff's recommendation would have the Commission assume that State and local governments would. use their best efforts to 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 j 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.tur 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. l 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 guidance that the boards can determine the adequacy of such efforts to prepare and execute nn omergency plan by probing and evaluating evidence concerning the adequacy of the actual capabilities and_ resources of the State and local governments. we should make clear, would consist of State and { This evidence, local governments' organizations, budgets, equipment, manpower, { experience in non-nuclear and in some cases nuclear emergency l 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 i, would happen if the staff's recommendation is adopted and our approach is rejected. To review the matter, under the staff's recommendation, a licensing board would decide whether " adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in an emergency by l 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 falls well possible utility plan, together with that assumption, short of logically establishing that " adequate' prot 9ctive i measures can and will be taken" in an accident: after 1 l

The Honorable Lando W: Zech, Jr. October 27, 1987 Page Three efforts in times of acknowledging that they will use their best an emergency, recalcitrant State and local officials will assert that they will pay no that they will do so only ad hoc,and that they do not intend even attention to the utility plan, 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 f act 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 Routinely, the question of whether a license should be issued will be reducible to the question of how this conflict inadequate. . Boards will routinely ask themselves the question: is resolved. Incal officials or Should we rely on the testimony of State and to resolve the conflict? on common sense, Without the additional assumption and guidance that we the staf f's recommendation would lea"e the boards without direction as to how to resolve the conflict and to makd

propose, With our additional assumption the determinations of adequacy.the Commission would avoid confronting the and guida'nce, though, because the boards would be free to boards with the conflict, make their determination by relying on the actual thei.r capabilities of State and local governments--not express intentions.

that not providing the boards wi'th the We think, therefore, an unfortunate additional assumption and guidelines would be It would also be abdicatien of the Commission's responsibility. flatly inconsistent with the Commission's expressed objective in this rulemaking: to pre ent its licensing process from being With the two modifications reduced to a mind-read.uy exercise. included either in the text of the rule or in its noted above, can be avoided. statement of consideration, these consequences We strongly urge that that course be taken. Sincerely yours, i Charle$ Pashayan, r. Ralp( M. Hall Member of Congrets Member of Congress

~ The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Octobe'r 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 p 9 9 e e i O w-._ b

EYoo.c o4 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART .cenuom.,rH n. con ss TAtt staarr IRIO M STREET. N.W. SOSTCN, MA 01100 WASHINoTON. D.C. 200 4 5891 gm gm 1428 88JCl3LL AVINLA beAML PL JJul TTLEPHONE QCD WOOO 005) 37641!! Taux =0m n oc vi TEuCOME1004 Nt00 ,tTT58UROM. ?A IS122 5pt "S *" HEMRT H. Brow october 28, 1987 aca n$wn BY HAND I William Parler, Esquire 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 dhe~pending emergency planning rule change. Specifically, in the Staff's emergency planning briefing paper to the Commission, SECY-87-257, the Staff stated that the proposed rule "makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utility's plan) This statement reflects a consistent theme expressed throughout the SECY paper and your October 22 briefing to the i Commission. However, the attached documents disclose that at the very time the Staff was publicly making the foregoing representations, it'was privately making the opposite representations -- indeed, the Staff was making decisions and actually taking actions in repudiation of its public pronouncements. Specifically, the attached October 21, 1987 memorandum from the NRC Staff to FEMA instructs FEMA to " assume" for pu'rposes 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 strongly I ) facts whi,ch the NRC knows to be precisely the o The NRC has suggests that the NRC is being disingenuous. received affidavits from the Governor of New York and the Suffolk j County Executive that explain why neither the State nor County d m_.-_-

l KIRKPATRjCX & LOCKHART william Parler, Esquire October 28, 1987 Page Two would ever authorize, use, or otherwise implement the utility's 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 inconsistency between the Staff's public and private statements indicates that the NRC is seeking to mislead the piablic, and particularly interested State and local governments such as New York and Suffolk County. This, coupled with the procedural irregularity addressed by our letter of October 27 to the Chairman and Commissioners, has further undercut the integrity and legal sufficiency of the rulemaking. Accordingly, the State and County request that: (1) the instruction to FEMA be rescinded; (2) the rulemaking be suspended pending full disclosure by 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 NRC position papers as to whether the rulemaking should be terminated or remedied by other means. Sincerely, Herbert H. Brown cc: Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Special Counsel to' 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, l { 1987 i l

... gc% Federal Emergency Management Agency j) Washington, D.C. 2002 4~ : October 16. 1987 MENORANDUM FOR: Victor J. Stello Executive Dimetor for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Comission FROM: ve McIoughlin Deputy Associate Dinector State and local Programs and Support

SUBJECT:

Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria 'Ihis is to follow up on sev6ral issues raised at the meeting yesterday between members of our staffs about the development of criteria suitable for the evaluation of offsite emergency plans developed by utilities. You requested that we supply you with the names of the Argonne National laboratory staff needed as additional resources in connection with the In the process of project on the utility plan evaluative criteria. the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary. cmpilir4 Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth I.erner, Ms. Sue Am Curtis 'Ibe names are: In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne and Mr. William Gasper. to supply four additional staff to-backfill and perform the functions nonnally required by FDiA during the duration of the criteria development project. I would like to stress the importance of having written instrJetions pre-pared by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, berom beginning the project, which state specifically the assumptions upon which the plan reviews would It would be impossible to develop the criteria without be conducted. knowing the conceptual. framework within which they are to operate success-l fully. Given the above msources and agreement on the assumptions, we are prepared to begin work with NRC staff on October 26, 1987 on the development of We would criteria suitable for the evaluation of utility plans by PD'A. 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 FEFA and NRC management. I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 646-3692. ) 0

vr<istub Alts f ,eg ,,,, y g NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -{ r W ASHING TCN. 3. C. 205S5 Is,... / October 21, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krinu Assistant Associate Director 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 agreed that the NRC would provide written instructions which state specifically the assumptions upon which u'ility off site plan reviews would be conducted by FEMA. ~ l . In developing evaluation criteria and in reviewing' utility sponsored offsite ( emergency response plans, FE'4A should assu:ne that in an actual emergency, state { and local officials will.(1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health j and safety of the pubHe, (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility 1 offsite plan, and (3) apply resources that are within the general capabilities of state and local governments to impleoent those portions of the utility offsite plan where state or local response is necessary. As we further agreed..any FEM findings on the adequacy of utility offsite i plans will necessar'ily include the caveat that FEMA was requested by the NRC to use the above assumptions in evaluating a utility offsite plan. A Frank J. Congel, Ofrector Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation 1 } CONTACT: E6ard M. Fodolak, Jr., NRR 492-7290 O

e ~ . Iawmaker: NRC Sta er - '=gere plan wduldbe usedfbrthe BySumma Benhahmain --n--- paant when seate mad le==1 sov-na m Nea-r s i.ney ernmente rename to cooperate in enumerw almaasefriesgivuethe asesrel . T3ne rules esuld insip souncy p e ut.a area 3.- 1 k===== 1Ang tat w Ligtsting mest's a t asad Eer taae Sea. . e Sher-awen issm# eory thma the verslee m ps,e to th brook platart im Haanpuhirm. the public, a 28====rhaastas leremaker The rule eineage essabodies the NBC's m t=== h.i. that fan a real ekseged. a . Edward Markey'S. atmos.), etate asad Ieent gewers. ehe led the n ' eppoe6. - d help evacuate ree6desats unente time to em NE propoemltereiseesmerw isa time 10. mile emnergunney "name. But rules for seelear, the esope of that _: __.c - As tbs t gesey plant selsesed desamments einbject er Markey's ersticdmet. yesterter that he said ndams 'gname. Idet week, time NRC staff sesses-tismo about the lesagrity ershe coun - - =?=1 the -w= ' ioen adopt a ver-unuse's psumans and the enader af tame seiess of the rule that =-n-tlne goe-W 1sstaf." erumments would help out during en which a -**"'%" 4_ev==-e4.= emnergency - but met that they would ' time NEC is rutas under 4 0 Net Candid on Policy l rolic r the c '111ty's plan.' Time versioes Counsel..d.'estor of time NRC's divisieus mew twrora. m five.runember ar-nsni=- of radiotic.a protmetiaan and emanerWenc7 m&oe.which. ru:.:;e vote tosuorrow,asyo preparede.ren. medd laet nigist be could I the rule W.usc ano ensur pt. ions am to not rempor.al until ine setumily moes the the prvicine.. Mons whic'a state ard lo-docu===ato relemmed by Markey. cal governr..sts, s;;*.a e=km (each as ""nais etzows the s- --

- 8on le put-whether the state and lar =t gewrn.

tieng on a stage abow, assist = anti =gr the amants wou2c'.. ath,w the utility's plan)." publie

• Aa=*= ice while h=hlant $

Set in er. Oct. 21 memormadunn the scenes e= Insg actaen that's im este-froma the N'I.O staff to the Fedessi seriest oppenition," emid Hemisest H. h cy "answ=====t Agency, man Brown, a Wa=ht atteruney who is NRC am i-2 innvoTved in eonergency-fighti the rule for Seafroth, pa..1=, p,cM..res said that is de, Petronne, e fortnaar FEEdA re N veloping crite.-ism try which to evaluate dirwceer who trerks for SeafFolk ecoergersey p:2:ss, FTM A minould ae-ount'y, muid. "If they casm*t decade an=== that, the go rern-to will *esop-amongot themselves wt>at directiess to erste with C::: utility asad fo13ee the take, then monsoons tetter mkm this out e utility oSmite :;>1ars." of the k==d= of the NRC eoemapletely. It . II:hr. gutbe: or pg.pymo,,p ag.J.,, pha,m there =e %d=-,4ir#ngry."-. e.- e

~ ~ I I 4 l MEMORANDA l 1. Memo from McLaughlin, FEMA, to Stello, NRC, dated 10/16/87, subject: Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria. 2. Memo from Congel, NRC, to Krim, FEMA, dated October 21, 1987, subject: Development of Utility Offsite Plan Evaluation Criteria. 3. Letter from McLaughlin, FEMA, to Stello, NRC, dated October 28, 1987. 4 Draft. document prepared by FEMA /NRC Task Force, dated October 28, 1987, entitled, " Concept of Utility Offsite Planning Evaluation Criteria." l i e 9 4 e i 9 ) S

OCT.19 '87 82:23 FEf% WASH FED CTR A P.02 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 cetober 16, 1987 MENCRANDUM PCR: Victor J. Stello I Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Ccacission FROM: ve mci 4ughlin Deputy Assosir.te Dirwetor State and Local Programs and Support

SUBJECT:

Development of Utility Plan Evaluative Criteria 'Ihis is to follow up on several issues raised at the meeting yesterday between members of our staffs about the development 'of criteria suitable for the evaluation of offsite emergency plans developed by utilities. You requested that we supply you with the names of the Argonne National I4boratory staff needed as additional resources in connection with the project on the utility plan evaluative criteria. In the process of empiling the list of names, we have concluded that four staff are necessary. Re names are: Mr. John Ely, Mr. Kenneth Immer, Ms. Sue Ann Curtis and Mr. William Gasper. In addition, it will be necessary for Argonne to supply four additional staff to backfill and perfom the functions normally required by FEMA during the duration of the criteria developm,nt e project. I would like to stress the importance of having written instructions pre-pared by the !belsar Regulatory Com.ission, before begiming the project, which state specifically the assumpticra upon which the plan reviews would be conducted. It would be impossible to develop the criteria without knowing the conceptaa framework w thin which they are to operate success-fully. Given the above resources and agreement on the assumptions, we are prepared to begin work with M C staff on October 26, 1987 on the develo;nent of criteria suitable for the evaluation of utility plans by ?!EA. We would l also be prepared to disseminate the docu:ent resulting from that project i by November 12, 1987, to the participants in the meeting to be held on Friday, N:,vertber 13, at 9:00 a.m. in the FD% offices. Pron car view, the purpose of that meeting would ce to coaaider the criteria docu:wnt and any potential issues which would reed to be addressed by 7EMA and MC manadement. I hope that this is helpful. If you have any gaestions, please feel free to call :ne at 646-3592, l

I / 'o,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c j I wasmNGTON,0. C. 20$56 k..... p October 21, 1987 1 I MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krhun Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological ) Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agen,cy I FROM: Frank J.' Congel. Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuegeg Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

DEVELOPMENT dF UTILITY OFFSITE PLAN EVALUATION CRI.TERIA 7 This responds to the understanding reached at the October 15, 1987 meeting { i 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 emergency, state and local officials will (1)) exercise their best efforts te protect the healthcooper and safety of the public, (2 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. v Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT-Edward M. Podolak, Jr., MRR 492-7290 y l

[M Federal Emergency Management Agency j s Washington, D.C 20472 OCT 2 8 is? Mr. Victor Stello i F.xecutive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Stello:

We have reviewed the assumptions, presented in the October 21, 1987 menorandum fmm Frank Congel of your staff to Richard Krim of my staff, which you wish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FD%) 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 sh3uld correspond directly on the agreements that we reached at our meeting on October 15, 1987, and on related matters. We can accept tentatively assumptions numbers 1 and 2 as stated in Mr. Congel's October 21, 1987 menoreduru, out we suggest alternative wording for number 3, as follows: (3) have the resources sufficient to implement those 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 memorandum which calls for the assumptions that State and local governments will respond and follow the utility offsite plan in an actual emergency. The alternative wording reflects my understanding of your position on the resources issue, as discussed in our meeting of October 15, 1987. As stated in our meeting of October 15, 1987, since the assumptions or1 1nate 6 4 with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and are base <$ on general presumpt1on rather than specific verified facts, FHM will not be in a position to defend the assumptions in NRC regulatory proceedings. It is expected that the NRC will defend the assumptions in hearings and in other legal and public forums. Let me reiterate that what we agree to at this time is tentative. As we proceed jointly with NRC in the project concerning criteria for the evaluation of a utility plan, there may be a need to add or delete assumptions or make other changes. However, assumptions 1, 2 and reworded 3 should provide a working framework r the criteria effort. J l

9 During our meeting on October 15, 1987, you and I also discussed sending out the criteria for public comment prior to using it for the evaluation o'f 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 9 review the utility plan for the Massachusetts part of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone, according to the provisions nf the FEMA /NRC Memorandum of Understanding. At the same time, a notice would be published in the Federal Register that the criteria are available for comment. Copies would also be sent to States and other parties for comment. A similar process was used in 1980 for the publication of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. Based on this-precedent, we accept this, procedure, with the understanding that any appropriates changes in the criteria will be made promptly after review of the publie 'g,' n 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 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 -utility plan evaluative criteria. If you have any questions, please call me at 646-3692. Sin erely, M /. Dave McLoughlin Deputy Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support l 4 I i ) l 1 l 1 ___--__-_____---_D

CCBCEPT OF UTILITY OFFSITE PIKrSDG EVAIEATICN CRITERIA of "offsite response organization" is adopted and defined as 'the cvi e 1.the utility offsite emergency response organization alorg with other participating voluntary and private organizations and local, State and Federal goverreents engaging.in the development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear power plant. 1hroughout the revised Evaluation Criteria "offsite response organization" replaces references to State and local governments. In addition, Evaluation Criteria were modified or added to compensate for 2.lack of participation by. State and local goverments in the planning process, such as: a) Identification of the functions and responsibilities-for major-elements of the anticipated State and local response to an emergency (A.2.a.). b) Provision of additional personnel to advise and assist State 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 'l I 10=1 ;;L. :.nt: where possihle (E.3.). e) trovision for notifying the public with a backup A&N system where the licensee is prevented from establishing a primary j A&N sy tem (E.6.b.). ] f) Provision for communications with non-participating State and local emergency operations facilities (F.1.f.). g) Provision for public information describing the role of the offsite response organization vs. the State and local organizations during the emergency (G.1.e.). . h) Establishment of an emergency operations center for use in directing and controlling offsite resporse functions (H.3.). 1) Special consideration for the fast breaking General Dnergency wheTt 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.). f l 1 m________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _

o 9 2-k) Provision 'of training for personnel of State and local goverrinents 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 periodic notification of non-participating State and local governments of the details of the offsite plan. the arrangements included for their involvement in the event of a real emergency, and the availability of training (P.11.). e a e O O M A l 1 l 1

I y PROPOSED FOR INTERIM USE AND CN Appendix 6 ) Evaluation Criteria-for Utility Offsite Plans 1he following provides Criteria to be used for the development and evaluation of utility offsite eme, w response plans and preparedness.. These (the Planning Standards are repeatki here for convenience.) i Evaluation Criteria modify those appitcable to State and Incal ResponseThe Evalua organizations and should be used in tM ir place.The following asstaptions were applicable to the Licensee are not chancied.used in developing the 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 plant 2)

and, I

have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of 3) the utility offsite plan where State or local response is necessary. e O M e _______m_____m___1_-mm_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O Oraft a EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS Planning Standards and Evaluation Criteria A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control) Planning Standard Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various sup-porting organizations have been specifically 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.* l b. .The offsite response organization shall specify its concept of operations, and its relationship to the total effort. The offsite plan shall illustrate these interrelationships in a c. block dfagram. d. The offsite response organization shall identify a specific individ-ual by title who shall be in charge of the emergency response. "Offsite response organization is defined as the utility offsite emergency response organization along with other participating voluntary and private organizations, and local, State and Federal governments engaging in the development of offsite emergency plans for a nuclear power plant. l 1 1 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS I 10/28/87 l

Draft a The offsite response organization shall provide for 24-hour per day e. emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communica-tions links. The offsite response organization shall specify the functions and J 2. a. responsibilities for major elements and key individuals by title, of emergency response, including the following: Command and Control, j Alerting and Notification, Communications, Public Information, Acci-dent Assessment, Public Health and Sanitation, Social Services, Fire and Rescue, Traffic Control, Emergency Medical Services, Law Enforce-ment, Tr.ansportation, Protective Response (including authority to request Federal assistance and to initiate other protective actions), f 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 j 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 of fsite plan shall contain (by reference to specific acts, codes l or statutes) the legal basis for such authorities. l 3. The of f site plan shall include written agreements referring to the con-cept of operations developed between Federal agencies, the offsite response organization, and other support organizations having an emer-gency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones. The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrartge-ments for exchange of information. These agreements may be provided in an appendix to the plan or the plan itself may contain descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the plan may serve.to verify the agreements. The signature page format is appropriate for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders where separate written agreements are not necessary. l I l CRITERIA /dTILITY 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 organization who will be responsible for assuring continuity of resources (technical, administrative, and material)~shall be specified by title. e 4 3 e 6 e m W I CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 3 10/28/87 a q

l Oraft 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-site Emergency Operations Fa'cility have been made, and other organiza-tions capable of augmenting the planned response have been identified. Evaluation Criteria 1. The Federal government maintains in-depth capability to assist licensees, States and local governments through the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan. Each offsite response organization and licensee shall make provisions for incorporating the Federal response capability l into its operation plan, including the following: specific persons by title authorized to request Federal assistance; a. see A.I.d., A.2.a. e b. specific Federal resources expected, including expected times of arrival at specific nuclear facility sites; and specific licensee and offsite response organization resources avail-c. able to support the Federal response, e.g., air fields, command l 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.) CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS. 4 10/28/87

Draft l 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. 4. The offsite response organization shall identify nuclear and other facil-ities, organizations or individuals which can be relied upon in an emer-gency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be identified and supported by appropriate letters of agreement. 5. The offsite response organization shall provide personnel to advise and . assist State and local officials in implementing those portions of the offsite plan where State or local response is necessary. i l l CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 5 . 10/28/87 l

1 Draft i D. Emergency Classification System Planning Standard A standard emergency classification and action level scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facil-ity licensee, and State and local response plans call for reliance on informa-i tion provided by facility licensees for determinations of minimum initial off-site response measures. Evaluation Criteria t 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 w'hich are consistent with the emergency actions recommended by the nuclear facility licensee, taking into account local offsite conditions that exist at the time of the emergency. i l l O 8 0 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 6 10/28/87 l

Draft E. Notification Methods and Procedures l Planning Standard Procedures have been established for notification by the licensee of State and local response organizations and for notification of emergency personnel by all response organizations; the content of initial and followup messages to response organization > and the public has been established; and means to pro-vide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established. Evaluation Criteria 1. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures which de;cribe the mutually agreeable bases for notification of response organi-zations consistent with the emergency classification and action level scheme set forth in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. These procedures shall include means for verification of messages. The specific details of verification need not be included in the plan. 2. The offsite response organization shall establish procedures for alert-ing, notifying, and mobilizing emerger.cy response personnel. 3. The licensee in conjunction with the offsite response organization shall establish the content of the initial emergency messages to be sent f, rom the plant. These measures shall contain information about the class of emergency, whether a release is taking place, potentially affected population and areas, and whether protective measures may be necessary. There shall be provisions for coordinating these messages with State and local governments where possible. Each licensee shall make provisions for followup msssages from the facil-4. ity to the offsite response organization (and to offsite authorities where possible) which shall contain the following information if it is known and appropriate: CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 7 10/28/87

3- .e (.I Jfr Draft Y" n ,c r y 1, ? \\ j I location of incident and name and te'lephone number (or communications a. channel identification) of caller; (g; _,i<?( (' } 'I b, date/ time of incident; f g / l:I c. class of emergency; i / )',.i ) d. type of actual or projected release (.11rborne,i waterbo,r.ie, surface spill), and estimated duration / impact times; / y i \\

• F

\\ 'l estimate of quantity of radioactive material releated or being re.- e, t leased and the points and'tief ght of releases;' f. chemical and physical form of released material, including estimates i of the relative quantities and concentration of noble gases, iodines and particulate; meteorological conditions at appropriate levels (wind speMd, d) rec-g. ~ ion ~ (to and from), indicator of stability, precipitation', if any), t 's t actual or projected dose rates at the bounda'y;*pr6Jectd. integrated r h. a dose -at site boundary; yf .c

('

i. projected dose rates and integrated. dose at the projected peak and at 2, 5 and 10 miles, i'ncluding sector (s)aif fe:ted; 7, J. estimate of any surface radioactive contamination inplant, onsite or o f f si te.; .l> k. lice 7see emergency response actions underway; J l r ~ recomended emergency ' actions, including protective madres; l 1. e t I i rbquest for any*needed onsite support by offsite organizations; and 7 m. 1 7 t ~ { c.. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 8 10/28/87 l f ( }

? Draft b, f. a ' q/ ,l[ q. (phgnosis for worsening or termination of event based on plant , f, f 3 ' id ormation. Y .A 5. The of f si ta response organization shall establish a syttem for disseminat- [ ,ingtothe4411cappropriateinformationcontainedininitialandfollowup l [\\i (, f messages reda!ved from the Ideensee including the appropriate notification ya f ,3 3 o to appropriate oroadcast media, e.g., the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). t g i l { 6. 4. The offsite response organization shall establish administrative and* I g(

45,jetireans,andthetimerequiredfornotifyingandproviding promp.I Mructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway P

v\\ I Emergencyf Planning Zone (see Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, j U Rev. 1). lIt shall be the licensee's responsibility to demonstrate '? that duch'means exist, regardless of who implements this requirement, k It s'nall be the responsibility of the State and local governments to activirtesuchasystem. (See discussion for the contingency of the fast breaking accident under J.9.) The offsite response organization 3 shall pnvide advice and assistance as necessary to State and local governments for performing this function. 4 Whereth'ftconseeispreventedfromestablishingaphysicalmeansof b. irotifying the public within about 15 minutes, a backup system cap- ,,able of meeting the 45-minute criterion of Appendix 3 Section b.2.(c) 3 h \\;' of 'NUREG-0654/ FEMA Rep.1, Rev.1, shall be established by the licensee. ,z i /0 ( i y.'ht offsite response organization shall provide w T 7 s. In fort.Kpublic,consistentwiththelicensee'sclassificationscheme. 3O' pargicular, draft messages to the public giving instructions with regard r Iy/ to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of affected areas [ shallbe'pleparedandincludedaspartoftheoffsiteplans. Such me messages should include-the appropriate aspects of sheltering, e.g., hand-t f kerchief over mouth, thyroid blocking or evacuation. The role of the uh y licensee is to provide supporting information for the messages. 1 i r a \\ - ' g i \\ CFt:TERIA/ UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 9 10/28/87 Q; 'd,

1 s, 6 Draft j Why... 0 t F. Emeroency Communications j Plannino Standard i Provisions exist for prompt communications among principal response organizac-tions to emergency personnel and to the public. Evaluation Criteria J 1. The communicat an plans for emergenci'es shall include organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the communication links. Reliable i primary and backup means of communication.for'the utility and the offsite response organization shall be establi h d. Each plan shall ine)vde-J- 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 Mok and alternate, including 24-hour per day manning of communication ~ links that initfate emergency response actions. 1 f ( 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 or;anizations; d. provision for communications between the nuclear facility and the license.e's near-site Emergency Operatto'ns Facility, offsite response organization's emergency operations centers, and radiolog' cal mnnf tor-ingTeams; \\ i 10/28/87 CRJTERIA/ UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 10

u I ' Graft provision for alerting or activating emergency personnel in eac,h e, response organization. f. provision for communications (primary-only) with State and local Emergency Operations Centers; and 2. The offsite response organization shall ensure that a coordinated communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities exists.

• 3.

The offsite response organization shall conduct periodic testing of the l entire emergency communications system (see evaluation criteria H.10,. N.2.a and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1). 6 ] 4 a i l ll' i i 1 i 1 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 11 10/28/87 j -__m_L__ ___I___ i

Oraft 4 G. Public Educ'ation and Information 4 l l Planning Standard Information is made available to the public on a p<eriodic basis on how they l 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 pringipal 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 established. Evaluation Criteria 1. The offsite response organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at least annually) dissemination of information to the public regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should be in an emer-This information shall include, but not necessarily be limited gency. to: educational information on radiation; a. 1 b. contact for additional information; protective measures, e.g., evacuation routes and relocation centers, c. sheltering, respiratory protection, radioprotective drugs; and d. special.needs of the handicapped. specTal steps to be taken to describe the role of the of f site re-e. sponse organization vs. the State and local organizations during the emergency. ~ Means for accomplishing this dissemination may include, but are not l 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 i 9

Draft ~ l 2. The public information program shall provide the permanent.and transient l adult population within the plume exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to i become aware of the information annually. The programs should include l provision for written material that is likely to be available in a resi-l 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 physical locations for use by news media during an emergency. should include provisions for accommodating State,and local government public information personnel assigned a role under the offsite response plan. The offsite response organization shall designate a spokesperson 4. a. ~ who :, hall have access to all necessary information, b. The offsite response organization shali establish arrangements for timely exchange of information among designated spokespersons. The offsite response organization shall establish coordinated c. arrangements for dealing with rumors. 5. TheoffsiEeresponseorganizationshallconductcoordinatedprogramsat 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. O CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 13 10/28/87

Oraft H. Emeraency Facilities and Equipment Planning Standard Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained. Evaluation Criteria 3. The offsite response organization shall establish an emergency opera-tions center for use in directing and controlling offsite response functions. 4. The offsite response organization shall provide for timely activation and staffing of the facilities and centers described in the plan. 7. The offsite response organization, where appropriate, shall provide for 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 l least once each calendar quarter and after each use. There shall be j sufficient reserves of instruments / equipment to replace those which are .1 removed from emergency kits for calibrati.on or repair. Cal'ibration of 4 equipment shall be' at intervals recommended by the supplier of the equipment. 11. The offsite plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emer-gency kits by general category (protective equipment, communications equipment 7radiologicalmonitoringequipmentandemergencysupplies). 12. The offsite response organization shall establish a central point (pref-erably. associated with the licensee's near-site Emergency Operations i Facility), for the receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination of sample media, CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 14 10/28/87 J _..-_._._m__.__.____-_______

Oraft i I. Accident Assessment Planning Standard Adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. Evaluation Criteria 7. The offsite response organization shall describe the capability and re-sources for field monitoring within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone which are an intrinsic part of the concept of operations for the facility. 8. The offsite' response organization, where appropriate, shal.1 provide methods, equipment and expertise to make rapid assessments of the actual or potential magnitude and locations of any radiological hazar'ds thr'ough liquid or gaseous release pathways. This shall include activation, noti-fication means, field team composition, transportation, communication, monitoring equipment and estimated deployment times. 9. The offsite response organization shall have a capability to detect and measure radiciodine concentrations in air in the plume exposure EPZ as low as 10 ' uC1/cc (microcuries per cubic centimeter) under field condf-tions. Interference from the presence of noble gas and background radia-4 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 ) dese,ribed in separate procedures. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 15 10/28/87

Draft

11. Arrangements to locate and track the airborne radioactive plume shall be made, using either or both Federal and offsite response organization resources.

i 1 4 0 O 9 W 4 9 4 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 16 10/28/87 j I -~

Draft -w J. Protective Response 4 Plannino Standard A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure path-way EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective at.tions 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 conditions. 9' Eac'h offsite response organization

• shall establish a capabi,11ty to rec-ommend on the implementation of protective mcasures to State and local The organizations based upon protective action guides and other criteria.

offsite response organization shall adyise 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 afrborne plumes, and with those of DHHS/FDA regarding radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds. i 10. The offsite organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include: Maps ~ showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, preselected radio-a. logical sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas;

• Special consideration shall be made for the fast 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 population distribution around the nuclear facility. l This shall be by evacuation areas (licensees shall also present the information in a sector format); Means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident c. population; d. Means for protecting

• those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement; Provisions for recommending the use of and making available radio-e.

protective drugs, particularly for emergency workers and institu-tionalized persons within the plume exposure EPZ whose immediate evacuation may be infeasible or very difficult, including quantities, storage, and means of distribution. f. The offsite response organization's plan's should include the. method by which decisions by the State Health Department for administering radioprotective drugs to the general population are made during an emergency and orovide for advising State Health Departments regard-ing such decisions. g. Means of relocation; h. Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone; i. Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions; .i. Control of access to evacuated areas and organization responsibili-1 ties for such contro.; 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 -m_________.___

i Oraft i k. Identification of and means for dealing with potential impediments (e.g., seasonal impassability of roads) to use of evacuation routes, and contingency measures; 1. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) l for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning tone (see Appen-dix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1); and She bases f'or the choice of recommended protective actions from the m. plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions. This shall in-j ciudo expected local protection afforded in residential units or other shelter for direct and itnalation 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 identify procedures for detecting contami-nation, for estimating the dose commitment consequences of uncontrolled ingestion, and for imposing protection procedures such as impoundment, decontamination, processing, decay, product diversion, and preservation. The location of maps for recording survey and monitoring data, key land use data (e.g., farming), dairies, 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 an;f a plan for their.use. The maps shall start at the facility and include all of the 50-mileiIgestionpathwayEPZ.

Up-to-date lists of the name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products originating in the ingestion pathway Emergency Planning Zone, but located elsewhere, shall be maintained. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 19 10/28/87

Draft

12. 'The offsite response organization shall describe the means for register-ing and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available shall be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in'the plume exposure I-EPZ arriving at relocation centers.

l l l 9 9 q 1 I l i GD 1 ) CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 20 10/28/87 l j l

Draft K. Radiological Exposure Control _ 4 Planning Standard Means for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling radiological exposures shall include exposure guidelines consistent with EPA Emergency Worker and Lifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides. Evaluation Criteria 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 an.v nuclear accident. 4. The of fsite 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. The Iffsite response organization, as appropriate, shall establish the means for radiological decontamination of emergency personnel ) wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal. l l \\ CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 21. 10/28/87

Oraft. L. Medical and Public Health Support Planning Standard i Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals. Evaluation Criteria 1. The offsite response organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that persons 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 medical support for any contaminated injured individual. The listing shall include the name, location, type of fact)ity and ambulatory /non-ambula' tory 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 contaminat. 7jured persons. 4. The offsite response organization shall arrange for transporting victims of radiological accidents to medical support facilities. I ) = W e . CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 22 10/28/87 i

' Draft Recovery and Reentry Planning and Postaccident Operations M. Planntna Standard General plans for recovery and reentry are developed. l Evaluation Criteria The offsite response organization, as appropriate, shall develop general 1. plans and procedures for reentry and recovery and describe the means by which decisions to relax protective measures /r.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 method for periodically estimating 4. total population exposure. 4 4 W i 1 1 f l CRITERIA /UTIt.ITY OFFSITE PLANS 23 10/28/87 4 ___________m__.

1 Draft 4 N. Exercises and Orills l Planning Standard 8 l i Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evalua.te 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 f exercises or drills'are (will be) corrected, Evaluation Criteria An exercise is an event that tests the integrated capability and a 1. a. l major portion of the basic elements existing within emergency pre-paredness plans and organizations to the extent possible. The { emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that f results in offsite radiological releases which will require response by offsite're'sponse organizations. Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules. An exercise shall include mobilization of offsite response organi-b. zat. ion 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 i by Federal and offsite response organization observers / evaluators. l The scenario shall be varied from exercise to exercise such that f I all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a six year period. Each organization shall make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Exercises shall be conducted during different seasons of the year. At least one exercise shall be unannounced. A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed at testing, developing 2. and maintaining skills in a particular operation. A drill is often a component of an exercise. A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a l qualified drill instructor. The offsite response organization shall CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 24 10/28/87 j l -J

Draft t conduct drills, in addition to the biennial exercise at the frequencies indicated below: a. Communication Ort 11s 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-messages. If practicable, attempts should be made to include non-participating organizations in the monthly communications drills. 'b. Medical Emergency Drills A medical emergency drill involving a simulated 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 Drills c.

~ Plant environs and radiological monitoring drills (onsite and off-site) shall be cenducted annually. These drills shall include collIction 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. CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 25 10/28/87

Draft d. Health Physics Drill Health Physics drills shall be conducted semiannually which involve response to, and analysis of, simulated elevated airborne and liquid samples and direct radiation measurements in the environment. 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; 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 l e. drills to include such things as simulated casualties, of fsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective cloth-ing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams, and public infor ' mation activities; and f. A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers. i 4. Official observers from Federal government and the offsite response { organization shall observe, evaluate, and critique the required exer-l cises. A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercise f l CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 26 10/28/87

Draft-to evaluate the ability of organizations to respond as called for in the plan. The critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the 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 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. O e 6 e O 6 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 27 10/28/S7

Draft 1 L 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 di strict. 4. The of f site 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 frdquency) shall be provided in the,following categories: Directors or coordinators of the response organizations; a. b. Personnel responsible for accident assessment; Radiological monitoring teams and radiological analysis personnel; 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); I CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS-28 10/28/87

Draft g. Medical support personnel; h. Personnel responsible for transmission of emirgency information and l instructions. l S. The'offsite response organization shall provide for the initial and annual retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities. 6. The offsite response organization shall provide specific training to persons who will be responsible for interfacing with state and local responders. 7. The offsite response organization shall provide training to State'and local governments and other organizations who elect to receive such training. e a 9 4 e WD b CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 29 10/28/87 l i

r - - _y l i Draft J P. Responsibility for the Planning Effort: Development, Periodic Review and j I l Distribution of Emergency plans l Planning Standard Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distribution of emer-i gency plans are established, and planners are properly trained, -Evaluation Criteria 1. The offsite response organization shall provide for the training of indi-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. 3. The offsite response organization shall designate an Emergency Planning Coordinator with r' responsibility for the development and updating of emergency plans and coordination of these plans with other response organizations. 4. The offsite response organization shall update its plan and agreements a's needed, review and certi.fy it to be current on an annual basis. The update shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises. 1 5. The offsite emergency response plans and approved changes to the plans i 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 CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 30 10/28/87 I

l Draft e 7. The offsite 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 l i CRITERIA / UTILITY OFFSITE PLANS 31 10/28/87 =__2__-__

1 e f 8 I .g - e l l TELEPHONE LOGS f 1 1 l e 4 4 0 0 4 e i I l j .) 4 l .t i e I i 4

---

____m.

W$ NRC48 UNITED STATES' CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG 0C[b Vo?8 19U TIM E NAME ANSWER ~ d e 0 f SS S 4'- ) e4v6 / v v i E t e e b e 0 0 6 1 M

NRC48 UNITED STATES

• CHAIRMAN ZECH i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG [ [ b 4[ .19 TIM E NAME ANSWEA e 5 3$ 64 ?Aad c3f 53 V/ - $ od/Me A - ni d. dz //. ( y 4 4 .~ P e t 4 e G

( NRC48 UNITED STATES' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i WASHINGTON TELEPHONE LOG bd o77 1ch TIM E NAME ANSWER I I N;0 f &&um w l a C/ J,W-3] +l/ //. 5$ Mm~w /l A !-s. ! W l $ 'a~ht k <Jr A ce-segV / 4 I e a 6 s am M 1 O g

(: /, 1., - N2C4s UNITED STATES' l'c CHAIRMAN ZECH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I6 1 r, s / WASHINGTON 1 l TELEPHONE t.OG R h' l h TIME NAME f A N SW E A i $'./f / f. 5~.' 3 / fm \\ f&v V l c/ / ) ,(

_64, i

Os

• )

t' \\ = q= n + 9 1 g', k'\\

2. _

5 h P f tl j t. 'r ) Q[ ,y .? t g l i i,t / i' 'g. 't g 6, f f.. ( / c p k t 2 ax AY, N 5 \\ V N l i: )*, t e,, (, ? ,i, f I 5 Y A E l ' l l' r -e. \\ 6 ,u muuamme., e>+ en-et / / \\,' / _ ~k-t /, g 8 s m.--- \\ $ I l i e- \\ ); u. .) f $( e yr I ~ s r s / g i ,/ j i f e s t 'i.l - l ) i ". t \\' ti

~ i 1 { l COMMISSIONER CARR I,) / g + (. r i .j f i ,f ( f h A AI ,,\\,1 /, f 's f, / \\ t i l 4 sc' k \\, 1 9 of }.t l'Q * $ * $ Y

• f ye

\\ s 4 4 h e

., NMc48 UNITED STATES. COMMISSIONER CARR 'i NUCLEAR REGdLATORh COMMISSION.- s WASHINGTON k i TELEPHONE LOG I { jg a_, I TIME 'NAMR ANtW E A t i ~ I 0 ] 4 ) i , emnetme. '!" (nywenu /Ain &lGua. 7-V u na sew ~~ / .I g 1 8 ) L

4 e d EP g g 4 e i .F E- "g '. De UC 3 i o, W Ms 8 l y s. 5 2eW M i r== u WP - g" g O M &i 'El i O '{ O M W rI J g W Ch &l m M M Ol o u 00 = e ,,E i Wf u. 4-uW .$} Z OI -w 1 Zl w< ub 8 a O CE E E-l O el e, 4 pF E.E a# e bd E > Ch 4 O w E 0" j E C: O Ee-al O 3 a3 %N ._ kL O _g_ J

1. oHNKDRY J

mecmsms p JW Mited $tatts $tnatt ' g f/ D < t WASHINGTON, DC 20510 October 28, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

As you know, on October 23rd a number of our House Colleagues wrote to the Commission requesting that the NRC make public a log of all of the communications and related documents since October.13, between the senior NRC staff and outside parties on the subject of the Commission's proposed change to its emergency planning regulations. It is our belief thet their request was a reasonable " one, particularly in light of the seriousness of the issue at hand. The proposed rule change represents a significant action on the part of the Commission. It has attracted widespread attention.and an unp.ee.. dented number of comments We agree 'ith our House Colleagues that any from the public. w NRC communications with outside parties regarding the rule should in fact be available and open to the full American public. We also believe that full and complete disclosure of such a public log is key to maintaining public faith in the regulatory process. We therefore urge the Commission to comply fully with the request to make public its communications before the Commir,sion votes on the matter of a new rule. Sincerely, %Aow/ / /L) 4. y 9? /Nfff/WY-fJff)) 10/30...To OGC for Signature of Chai rman...Date due: 11'/9...RF, OCA to Ack, Docket, Cmrs.. 87-1258.

4 October 28, 1987 Page Two C W El/ / e a 1 4 6 A e i J n}}