ML20195J916
| ML20195J916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1988 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | Belair R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G307 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-794 NUDOCS 8801290052 | |
| Download: ML20195J916 (5) | |
Text
- -,..~-,.
-_ __.n.
U S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%Ac tom uovtsi wwetsisi ge %
{
.iseo.ese tvs.
.f n
I i
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM F I"*'
U I '*"
\\,e
/
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST JM 2 6 m see.
>oesnr s v s.s,vr n i 140VisTE R Robert R. Belair PART 1.-RECOROS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATYD ISee checaed 6caest No agency records subror.1 to the request have been located No additoral agency records swbrect to the request have been located.
l i
X Agency records subect to the rootest that are contified e Appendin F
a,e si,.ady avaaet.e to, pum c irep,ction and copyeg m the NRC Puu c Document Room.
1717 H Street. N W., Wash.ngton. DC Agency records owbrect to the request thet see identded m Appendiz _b_
are being etade avadat4e for public sespecten and copyeg m the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H $treet. N W. Washegton, DC. m a fonder under the FOI A r vmber and reawester name The nonpropretary sorson of the proposaksi that you egreed to accept m a teephow conversaton eth a member of my sta f is now being made avaiable for public rececten r
and coymg at the NRC Public Docu ent Room,1717 H Street. N W. WasNrgton, DC. in a foMet under the FOI A number and 'eowester naarw e
Enclosed e eformaton on how you may obtam access to and the charges for copyeg records piaced m the NRC Putdic Document Room.1717 H Street. N W, Washmgton. DC Agency records e b,ect to the request are enclosed Aey apple.able charge for Lopes of the records p*oveed and payment procedures are noted a the commenta secton.
r Records swbrect to the request have been re' erred to another Fede el agencytesi for reve* and d rect response to you In www of NRC's response to the reowest. no fu ther acton a t+ng tasen on as peal let'er cated r
PART ll. A-INFORMATION WI7HHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certam eformaton 'm the reoves*.ed records a beiN ethheld from public declostse pu swant to the FOIA enemptons descreed m and for the reasons stated in Pa1 it. esc-cons B. C. and D. Any reieased portor4 of the documents for who ordy part of r% record e bemg ethhead are bemg mace avadabie for putgic mooecton and copymg m the NRC PutAc Docurwt Room.1717 H St'oet. N W., Washegton. DC. m a fokter under this FOIA number and reowester name.
Comments
,A TL E. DenECT@. Drvise
- RUL E s A OADS
(
- {y'
_M W "'
8801290052 880126
{
PDR FOIA PDR DEL AI R 87-794 NLC F07.M 464 iers e-
,e.
Re: F01A-87-794 APPENDIX F RECORD MAINTAINED AMONG PDR FILES 1.
6/19/87 Ltr to Honor ble Morris K. Udall from Thomas Roberts, w/ enclosures. (31 pages) PDR No. 8707210549 i
/
Re: FOIA-87-794 APPENDIX G j
RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER 1.
Various NRC Emergency Planning Rule Change Index for Frequently Dates Asked Questions. (61 pages)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Emer 2.
Undated Rule Change Short Statement. (9 pages) gency Preparedness 3.
Undated Question 47 and Answer. (16 pages) 4.
3/25/87 Ltr to Honorable Tom Beville from Bradburne, w/ enclosures. (15 pages) 5.
4/27/87 Ltr to Honorable Morris K. Udall from Lando W. Zech, w/ enclosure. (22 pages) 6.
4/28/87 Testimony of James K. Asselstine. (7 pages) 7.
4/28/87 Prepared Testimony concerning Emergency Preparedness Rule Change. (9 pages) 8.
4/29/87 Ltr to Honorable Lando W Zech from Alan K. Simpson. (4 pages) 9.
5/6/87 FY 1988 Budget Testimony Oral Statement of Chairman Zech.
(10 pages) 10.
5/6/87 Statement of Comissioner James K. Asselstine. (7 pages) 11.
5/6/87 Question 4 and answer. (30 pages) 12.
5/6/87 Question 6 and answer. (14 pages) 13.
5/7/87 Memo for Chairman and Comissioners from John C.
Bradburne, subject: Breaux Questions for the Record. (1 page) 14.
7/15/87 Ltr to Honorable Morris K. Udall from Lando W. Zech, w/ enclosures. (27 pages)
- 15. 8/31/87 Memo for Malsch from Houston, subject: Forwarding Coments of Proposed Emergency Planning Rulemaking Analysis.
(7 pages) 16.
1/7/88 Memo for File from De1 Medico, subject: FOIA-87-794. (1 page)
NRC EMERGEf!CY PLANNING EULE CHANGE It;DEX FOR FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS QUESTION REFER T0:
DOCUMENT DAT'E (1) What does the proposed rule change do?
Ques. 53 Letter from Bradburne to 03/25/87 Rep. Bevill.
[ TAB Al
(?)
E' hat is the difference between the proposed rule Page 7 Prepared testimony sub-04/28/ts/
and the current rule?
mitted to ths 5:cuse dub-contaittee on Energy and the Environment.
[ TAB D]
(3) Does the proposed rule weaken the requirement that
- Page 3 "NRC Emergency Planning Undated health and safety be adequately protected?
Rule Change" [ TAB B]
(4) Does the proposed rule sacrifice safety for Ques. 5 Letter from Chm. Zech to 04/27/87 economic concerns?
Rep. Udall
[ TAB Cl (5) What is the legislative history behind NRC's Pages Prepared testimony sub-04/28/87 emergency planning rule?
2&3 mitted to the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Enviromnent [ TAB 0]
(6) Which nuclear power plants have been affected by Page 1 "NRC Emergency Planning Undated lack of participation in en:ergency planning?
Rule Change" [ TAB B]
(7) At the present time, can a State or local Ques. 2.a.
Letter from Chm. Zech 04/27/87 goverunent veto a nuclear power plant by to Rep. Udall
[ TAB C]
refusing to participate in emergency planning?
Ques. 6 (8) Would the proposed rule alter the basic requirement Page 3 "NRC Emergency Planning Undated that emergency planning must be feasible?
Rule" [ TAB B1 (9) Could NRC overrule a State determination that Ques. 8 Letter from Cluu. Zech 04/27/87 emergency planning is not feasible?
to Rep. Udall
[ TAB C]
(10) How would the proposed rule affect State and local Page 8 Prepared testimony sub-04/28/87 goveranents that do wish to participate in emergency mitted to the House Sub-planning?
committee on Energy and the Environment [ TAB D]
b 4
i
@~
TAB A 3/25/87 Letter from John Bradburne to Congressman Bev111 i
l l
,gS'-
$4[;
vl
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART f
SOLTH LOBBi 04 R.0CR tv.sw t ra.,4 a
)
1mX' M GHT. N 1 3,
T M HING TON D C ;X%W1
.i, ; su o uxtla asMt RAM Ft D;is 1
nu.%%t.n "s au e cen.
l
.u u]m
- tia CO il N u nam =
,n muw rs = -
ROBERT R BELAIR
.w n w november 25, 1987 i
LRt% DOM OF INFCRMAT)O9(
HAND DELIVERED ACI REQUEST For A-n %
O Director, Office of Administration gCII'&.5-P'7 Nuclear Regulatory Ecamission Room 4210 Maryland National Eank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Re:
Freedcm cf Information Act Request Gentlemen:
On behalf of c;r client, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, we request, prsuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
5 552 ("FOIA"), and the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") issued thereunder, 10 C.F.R. Part 9, copies of a.y agency records in the possession or control of the NRC relating to the recent NRC rule amending 10 C.F.R.
% 50.47(c)(1) and 13 C.F.R.
Part 50, Appendix E.,
except as expressly excluded below.
The Final Rule concerns the "Evaluation of the Adequacy of Of f-Site Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants at the Operating License Review Stage Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Participate in Of f-Site Emergency Planning" and is set forth at 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (1987)
("Rule").
Without limiting this request, but merely to assist the NRC in identifying records which are responsive to this request, the records which we seek relate to the following:
1.
All docunents authored by employees of the NRC or others dated between October 13, 1987, and November 3,
- 1987, which relate to the Rule including, but not limited to, documents which relate to:
(a) SECY-87-257, dated October 13, 1987, or portions thereof; i:) notes or memoranda of conversations concerning the Rule; (c) analyses pertaining to the legality of the Rule or portions thereof; (d) any analyses related to the so-called "realism" concept discussed in the Rule; (e) communica-
, m it e '
,y*
G!
KI.k?ATRK:K & LOCKHART
- 1 rector, Office of Administration S
- vember 25, 1987 4
Fage 2 tions or meetings concerning the Rule from or to or with any person or entity, and any consideration given by any person at tne NRC to any such communications or meetings l; (f) the deletion in the Rule of certain parts of tne double spaced portion of 5ECY-87-257, namely lines 10-16 on page 21 and lines 23-27 on page 28 (see Attachment 1 hereto which highlights the deleted portions which are being referred to); and (g) the addition in tne Rule of the portions of the Rule highlighted in \\ttachment 2
- hereto, (i.e.,
(1) 52 Fed. Reg. 42082, col.
2, starting at "The Long Island Lighting
." and continuing through col. 3; the line ending "American history amply demonstrates;" (2) 52 Fed.
Feg. 42084, col.
2, line 5, beginning "The final rule.
and continuing through 52 Fed. Reg. 42085, col.
2, up to "Backfit analysis;" and (3) 52 Fed. Reg. 42086, col.
1, bottom of page, beginning "In addressing
." through col.
2, up to "Appendix E-(Amended)."]
2.
All draf ts of SECY-87-257 and all documents which form tne basis for it or relate in any way to it.
This request does not include any of the rulemaking comments submitted pursuant to the March 6, 1987, Federal Register Notice (52 Fed. Reg. 6980).
l 3.
All versions (draf t and final) of the Congressional testimony and questions and answers referred to on page 2 of SECY-87-257 (Attachment 3 hereto identifies the referenced testimony and questions and answers in greater detail).
4.
All documents relating to whether nuclear plants licensed under the Rule would provide a lesser or different level cf safety than plants licensed with state and local government participation in emergency planning.
5.
All documents reflecting any NRC communications or meetings with the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
concerning the Rule and/or any analysis or description of the FEMA comments on the proposed rule, dated April 28, 1987 (Attachment 4 hereto is a copy of the FEMA comments).
1 Such communica tions or meetings include such contacts involving the White House Staf f, including the Office of Science
& Technology and the Of fice of the Science Adivsor, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, any utility company, companies, trade associations, or representatives of any cf these, and/or members of Congress or their staf f s.
K!TdTATRICK & LCCKHART
- rector, Office of Administration Sevember 25, 1937 Fage 3 6.
All documents relating in any way te :riteria for FEMA and/or NRC review of utility plans under the R*..e and the bases f or any such criteria, including all documents related in any way to the following paragraph in the November 9,
';i7, letter from Victor Stello, Jr., NRC, to Dave McLoughlin, F Dda :
In developing evaluation criteria and n
reviewing utility sponsored of f site ecergency response plans, FEMA should assume t.ta-in an actual emergency, state and local officials will (1 ) exercise their best ef forts c
protect the health and safety of the public, (2) cooperate with the utility and f t'.' cw the utility offsite plan, and (3) have rescurces sufficient to implement those portions of the utility of f site plan where state or ': cal response is necessary.
]
This request includes all documents related to any need to publish any review criteria for public comment and/or the use of criteria on an interim basis pending comp *etion of public review ccmment.
In the event that access is denied to any :f the records responsive to this request, please supply the f:' lowing informa-tion:
Identif y the record or withheld port :n of the record a.
and specify the statutory basis for the denial, as well as your reason for believing that an exemption applies, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 9.10 ( b).
b.
Segregate the nonexempt from the allegedly exempt portion of any withheld records and release the former, e
as required by 10 C.F.R. S 9.5(b).
Supply a detailed statement of the ecctent of the with-c.
held document or portion thereof, along with the date on which that document or portion thereof was written; i s section heading or title; and an identification of any persons :r entities who I
have received copies of such records or portions thereof, as required by applicable case law.
Vaughn v.
Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 8 2 6-82 7 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
s l!
d.
Separately state your reasons for not invoking your discretionary power to release the allegedly ext pt records or portions thereof.
i j
~
L:EXPATRICK & LOCKHART Director, Office of Administration i
November 25, 1987 Page 4 l
The undersigned will pay charges for search time and copying fees, as provided by NRC regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 9.14.
If search and copying fees to be incurred by the undersigned will exceed $300, please notify the undersigned before this sum is exceeded.
We expect to receive your response to this FOIA request within ten (10) working days of your receipt of this request, as required by the FOIA, and as set forth at 10 C.F.R. 5 9.9(a).
Sincerely, a[.
./
Robert R.
Belair 4 Attachments
)
i 5
i
s
.i t : :.-. 3.. : 1
- evaluating the adequacy of a utility's emergency plan.
The NRC's realism doctrine is grounded squarely in cocrnon sense.
As the Cocnission stated in LILCO, even where state and local officials ' deny they ever would or could cooperate with (a utility) either before or even during an accident,' the NRC ' simply cannot accept these statements at face value."
24 NRC 22, 29 fn, 9.
It would be irrational for anyone to suppose that in a real radiological emergency, state and local pubitb officials would refuse to do what they have always done in the event of emergencies of all kinds: do their best to help protect the affected.public.
The ' realism doctrine" embodied in this rule goes that far and no further.
It makes no assumptions as,to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments would follow the utility's plan), nor does it prejudge whether their responses would be sufficient to protect public health and safety adequately.'Those issues are questions of fact to be rtsolved in l
Jdividual adjudicatory proceedings., At the present thne, the Comission does not have a basis in its adjudicatory experience to judge either that a utility plan would be adequate in every case or that it would te inadequate in every case, The problem of how the NRC can decide the adequacy of emergency planning in the face of FEMA's declared reluctance to make judgments on emergency planning in cases of state and local non-participation does not app. ear insoluble.
Though FEMA has expressed its reluctance to maka judgments in such circumstances, because of the degree of conjecture that
.would in FEMA's view be called for, we do not interpret its position as 21
u : e --
The Comission's rvle, as Edified and clarified, would establish a process by which a utility plan can be evaluated against the same standards that are used to evaluate a state or local plan (with allewances made both for those areas in which compliance is infeasible because of goverreental non-participation and for the compensa*.ory measures proposed by the utility).
It must be recognized that emergency planning rules are necessarily flexible.
There is no uniform ' passing grade' for emergency plans, whether they are prepared by a state, a locality, or a utility.
Rather, there is a case-by case evaluation of whe*her the plan reets the standard of "adequate protective measures...in the event of an emergency.'
likewise, the acceptability of a plan for one plant is not measured against plans for other nuclear plants.
The Comission, in its 1986 LILCO decision', stressed the need for flexibility in the evaluation of emergency plans.
In that decision, the Commission observed that it "might look favorably" on' a utility plan 'if. there was reasonable assurance that it was capable of achieving dose reductions in the event of an accident that are generally comparable to what might be acccmplished with government cooperation.'
24 NRC 22, 30. 'de do not read that decision as requiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be accomplished either by the utility's plan or by a hypothetical plan that had full st. ate and local participation:
such findings are never a requirement in the evaluation of emergency plans.
Rather, we read the Comission's LILCO decision as consistent with a process by which any plan that is approved -- state, local, or utility --
would have to be adequate and implementable, and as such, all approved plans would be generally coeparable in terms of the protection afforded to the public.
The rule is designed to establish such a process, 28 I
M L :c.-. ;
Fedoest Repstar / Vol. 52. No. 212 / Tuesday. Nomber 3. 387 / Rules and RegulatJ:ns M
findmg that. at least for & f'.nt 120 ta) May NRC usume Nt the state er rebut 9d by for eum;le, a good faith daye even a major decancy a local neponn wiu be m accord w th %
emergency planrung de ee not utibry plant and a tanely proffer of an adequate and a utcma ncally raise a "substansal health Ib) May NRC assume that the sta:e or In0bb e44 or local ra&Wogiul uauf re,ponn plan which would in fact be local response wiu be edgor rehanca on reLed upon irt an emergency. n or safety taeue" wtth retsard to piant oMunos By contrut, s asjor safety (c) Il the NRC rule calla defloency relattag to esemoocy FD4A. and FD4A say: Nt it can t Ste0dmg Ocenams Board shoWd not con 6 bone-for example, the judge emergency planrung except wben he,itate to reiect any claim that state avsilabibry of the emergency cor, there is state and local participation in and loul omcab d m a w m cooling system--wow 4 warrent an nerdse. how can the NRC n er safeguard the health and safety of the
""k'*I"d " "'0"'* "I'"#Y pubbe m the eunt of an actul im. mediate shutdown.
8 In eum, despita language inicaMg h[oc,j$,*th emergency In actul emergencies. state.
t es o n t patef and %nl o&ials han that emerteocy plann2ng was
"'***enal." the Commismon m 1980 in this rule. the Commission adheres invanably done their utmost to protect enstod a regulatory stracrun in =Mch to the "realism doctnne." enunciated a Be caenry, u ednd >un d
'm*rT'OC7 planning was treated its 1986 decision on las Islandl.gAcrqs Amencan h2 story amply demonstra!n eomewhat dxNenntly,in terms of the C.o (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauoa.
At the present time. the Comm4ssion
- t rut 1). C1J-46-13. 24 NRC 22. w bich does not bau a basta m its adjud catory emstrw actions to be takan =b" deficwncses an identf.ed. from th' holds that to an actual emergency. stata expenence to judge eithet that a uuhty engineend safety features chardwars ) and local gov ernmental authentes wdl plan would be edequate to every case or that would be relied on in an e=ergency. act to protect their ciutenry, and that it that it would be inadequate in every is sppropnata for the NRC to take case. implementation of this rule may
/uve se Aaauaung that NRC should account of that self-evident fact in dumately provide that iAformauonal consider a ettljty plan, what entena evaluating the adequacy of a utthty's ba sis.
should appiyf in perucular emergency plan. ne NRC's tealism ne problem of how h NRC can (a) Should the unljty plan provide lust doctnne is grounded squarely m decide the adequacy of emergency ae much protection as a state orlocal common senH. As the Cominission plannma in 6 face of FD4A's declared plan or may lese protecoon be stated m UI.CO. even where state and reluctance to make judgmenta on adequatet local omcels "deny they ever would or coujd cocperete with a uttlity) eith emergency plarming in casee of state (b)If less protection may be adequate, before or even dunns(an accident.,er and local non percopation does not mut N3tC eau fbd teasonable the e asurance that under the echty plan.
MLC staply cannot acc4pt these appeas insoluble. hough FD4A ha s a
uses grotecttve messeres can and itstements at face value." 24 NRC 22. 29 npr,Hed its nluctance to make wtll tasas? Or la it sushcent for NRC fi t. It would be irre tional for an one to judgments in such circumstances, to !bd thet the totaljty M b nak.
sappose that in a real radiologi becaue of the degree of conjectun that wculd in ITMA's vww be called for, w e including an relevant factors, acjudjng e'nergency, state and local pubh.c the lihehant of an scradset amru omcals wedd tofuse to do what they do not interpnt its poemen as one of that there to adequate protecten of have alwa)e done in the event of refi. sal to apply its esper*ise to the pubbe haalth and safery?
emergencies of all kjnds do thett best to evaluation of a utihty plan. For FEMA to engage in the evaluston of a utihty plan I
P Under the rule adopted in this conce.
,' 'd would necessitate no retnet from its y
cm a unhty plan, to pasa muster. is requind included the observauon tf at in an stated view that it is lughj desirable to y
to provide reasonable sasurance that adequate protective measures can and ecodent the "best affort" of state and an, br och nuckar pown plant. a will be tahan in an emergency. ne rWe county emetals woWd include uuhnns atate or local plan with full state and recogruzee-ee did Congrees when it the unbty's plan as "the best source for panicipauen m mugency enacted and re-enacted the prousions of emergency plannmg information and E*^^#8'"'I"U^8 " "8'"CY Section top of the NRC Authontabon opt.cns." 24 NRC 22,31. nis rule le as es enmus (De Cer". mission shares that Act of 1980-that no unhty plan la Itkely u to N Ucensing Bond to pdge what mw ) FutA a aduce would form the "best efforte" of state and local undoubtedly include identification of to be able to provide the same degree of oScals would take. However. 6 anas m which rudgments an public protection that would obtain undee ideal conditione. La. a state ce rulemaking recctd strongly supporta the necesianly conjectural. and NRC's local plas enth fuD state and local proposition that state and local ou auludgment on whethu a unlity s partiopettom. but that it mo7 governmenta believe that a planned plan is adequets would m turn have to response la prefersble to an ad hoc one.
take account of the uncertamties nevertheless be adeqeata. he rel*
Derefore it is only reasonable to included m FBtA's judgment. Beyond a starts tross the presales that anddenta suppose that in the event of a certatn pomt ecertamry as to ec.n happen. and that at every plaat.
rediological emusency, etate and local edetlying facts would plainly make a adequate senergency pleaning saassune omdals.in the absence of a state or positse fmding on "reasonable a re needed to protect the public in th*
local radjological emergency plan a s sur snee" increa singly 6meult. nese event en anMaat occure. Whether in approved by state and local an iswes.however which can be f act a parw. tar utihey plan wdlbe governmente. wsu either look to h addressed in the case-by case found adequate would be a matter foe utlity and its plan for guidance or will adpdicationa on tndmdual fact. specific ediodiention tn individual 16cenaiaq fol!cw some other plan that exista. nua situauer.a It should be noted that while proceedsaga.
the presiding IJcenalns Board may the rule makes ejeat that ultimate Issue nr May NRC assume that a presume that state and local decaicnal authonty resides with NRC, it tste or local government wWch refuses governmental authonues wdllook to the does ennaion a role for FD4A in h to cooperate in emergency plannmg wiu utthry for guidance and generally fouow e5ajuailon of utthty plana, although enn reepcod to the beet of tte obtlity in its plan in an actual emergency:
sectoo its of the NtC Aubrushon en echal emnergency? If oce however this preecmpeon may be Act of1980 did not spec 2fy any role for 4
42084 Federal Resister / Vol 52..I 12 / Tatsday. Nosember 3 198. I Rules and Per;'at.ons whic.h a utihty plan would be pdged by utJ.*y's plan or by a hypothetical plan state and Jocal withdrawal from t'at had full state and local g q,,
eg pacr,,,s,y,,,,.[frar,c,e,l.ut*e prov. des eas nI, rar ici,a non in em.rgency pl. nuns nnap. con iuch nnemgi m naer a 5ose criter's would pt,aumaWy be of rvrement tn the evaluaticn of
, no, emergency plans. Die final Me makes c.da g ed by c; cam,n of :*e ficJ %
mistonce to doctrionmakers La
'etermining, under to CML Sue (s)(2Mh).
c enc e r.e4 -
- hether remedial setion shouW be cl ear that every staergency plan is to be eg alsated for adequacy en its own
(,'nde,2e Co. sv.n : 19e0 ~. -.
aken and if so. what hand wheft Se re Jatcry prma eat meetta, without reference to the specific deficiencaes ta emergency plarttung does reductions which m:ght be e;:emented the second of the two ew arnain uncorncted after 1:0 days.
accomphshed under the plan er to the of Section 109 was M-* sl ard
!saue e15. Does the Co nmission e Nle capatnbetes of any other plan It funher especie. ne mies se' ep. n N
' hat a utility plan would offer protection rnakes clear eat a ftndant of adequacy CFR SO 4"cl. allowed a %c.e.r puw r mean that the NRC does not have to find Lt any plan is to be considwred
- . ant to be licensed to
- perre.
notwithstanding its 'a...re to c:c pl.
equivalent to what a plan with full state genenUy comparable to a finding of with the plantura r.a-44P1 of to CW and local partmpation would prendef ademet for any other plan-50 tilb). on a showTg ?.at "deficenv..,
As stated pevviously, under the Nle Ba rule sharge a desped to in the plans are act s'g Scant for f!w adopted in this notice, a utthty plan. to estabbsh procedures and entena pass muster. La required to provide Want in question. tnt acequate :n'e m reasortable assursnca that adequate goveming the case by. case adjudicatory compensat:ng messares have beca evahatsoet at de operat.ng hcense will be taken protopCy. or that tr.,
protective measures can and will be taken in emergency. The N!e raview stage. Of the adequacy of cther compelbng reaaor.a to pe nit ;et i
emervenc) ; tanning in situations in recog?ures-es did Congress when it wh ca state and.'or local authonties cperation. without defining those tv ms forther The Commtsnaon currently enacted and runacted the prousions of Section 100 of the NRC Authontation dechte *o pertic:pate further.n 1,eheves that the plaitturg standarJs..f Act of 19eo--that no utihty plan is hhely eme gency plarning. It is not intended to a CFR 50 4r(b). wh;ch att used to to be able to provide the same deg'ee of ssure 'he acens.ng of any particular evaluate a state or local plan. also rublic protection that would obta:n plant ce piants The rule is intended a provide an appropnate framework N i.ndir ideal conditions. I e. a state or remeev te emmion of specific es aluate a utihty plas T>erefore "e l cal plan with full state and local
- eocecares for Se evaluation of a ut4hiy new rule provides for 'he first it.~e plan 't
- rs the NRC's e utung r.les.
where a unhty plan s submitted :n i
- ..rticapatiort. but that it may reverthelese be adequate.
edepted a tMO tri prouding for the s.tuation of state and/oe local non.
The Commiscon rule. as modited e vale.:m Of a.tihty plan, howes er. the participanec in er egency plann r rde.*: resents no de; arture from the mil be evaluated for edequacy a:. 51 i
a ad clanf:ed. would estabhsh a process e pprosca enutioned in 1940 by the t'e earne s'andards : sed to esalta e 4 1 y which a utthty plan can be esslueted Cargress and by the Commission. In s'a'e or local plan. H:w es er. due c :ainst the same standards that are 19M *1e supplementary information to Owance will be made both for the f
(d to evaluate a state or local plan t
( uth allowances made both for these NRC's 'nal rule stated that Se rale was ra particpation of 2e s' ate and/or
. eas in which compliance is infeasible constrent with the soproach taken by I ' cal (ner'. mental scocnties and f.r t 'cause of governinental non-Congres.a Section 109 of the NRC "e em;e satory ess res prorosed Authorzation Act of 1980 (whirA in a
' v 9e VSt) in rese*.rg a r rticipation and for the compensatory
< cepre%se between House and Senate ue'e rmiraacn w herrer 'rere.:
r asures proposed by the utihtyl It s.rstor.s. preuced for the NRC to wasonab:e assurar:e tat adev., c r 4st be recogruzed that emergency e.alue e a utihty emergency plan in cre'ectise eas. ras :a and m.1 Y r anning rules are necessanly Ceub!e.
D$er than "adequacy." there is no situations whete a state er local plan Nhen was eit.er noneustent or inadeque:el.
Pea p m ch c h i n i.
unf;r n "passing grade" for eme*gency though $e nie itself.ncluded no
.? W s e. Jc:a des ?e :.. e e sns. whether they are prepared b) a s ste. a lxahty. or a utihty Rather.
esphc:t;rousions Rosernana the NRC s a rc.
. ' e C. - < ! rn s.a
=$41uat.:n of a ut:hty plan in s.ch i 4.. /.
- i !. " ; C.
'5-tccre is a case by-case evaluatien of whether the plan meets the standard of ceret.mstances it should be e nphas.4ed t..:c ar %r 5'.t.:. ;..t h C! :
that the rJe is not intended to dimin;si t3 ;4 N '.C ~;; 3 Y.1 ? e
.'e "Jdequate protective measures.
.in public protection from the leseis the event of an emergency."lakewise, previocaly estabbshed by the Cergress
!srth in Mat :ec;s.cn m enh ho!Js that
. car;;rw. e re 3. :"e:: r, the acceptabihry of a plan for one plant or the Commission's rules. once the in an actual e. e tency state and ici al is not measured against plana foeother nue.! ear plante. The Cornmission. in its Comntasion s rules and the Congress gos erementJ auther.:es wJ1 act 'o have smca 1980 prouded for a two. tier
- 'etect the p.tl.c. an
- : tat it s 1986 ULCO deosion stressed the need approach to emergency planning The appropnete "erefore far *.te NRC..n for fl2xabilty in the evaluation of rJe taies as its starting point the esaluating de adequa:y of a utihty s emergency plana. In that decision, the Cor4ressional pchey decision reCetted smetgency ;;an, to take i..to account t9 Commission observed thatit might in section 109 of the NRC Authonration probabia respcase of sxe and local look favorably" on a utthty plaa tf Act of 1981 That statute adopted a two.
authct: ties to be dete...r.ed en a re there was reasonable assurance that it tier approac.h to emergency plannins by. case tas.s aas capable of achieving does The preferred approsch was for That dec: san a:so.-.:.ded !cn u.-
rtductions in the evefit of an accident estret:r's Lcenses to be issued upon a which could te interpvec as that are generally cornparable to what ind:ng ' tat there.s a "State or local enusionar,3 dat the NRC :must estea'e night be accompushed with govemment radiolctcal erne tency response pian the radioWs cal dese eJ.c*.Jons a vcn a cooperation." 24 NRC 22. M We do not
- * * =Sch comphes with the otthty plan would sch.cse. compare read that decaion as requantig a findes Commission standards fur such ;'ans."
them with the radio egal dese of the precsse done reductions that but fades that. it s'so permitted feductions wh.ch wouic be achieved if would be accomplahed either by the I censma :n a showing that there is a there acre a cate or Icul plan with fall
Federal Refistei / Vol. 52. No 212 / Teesdab Nosember 3.198? / Rules cos3 1
a'e ed local part:c::ahon in The rAe th.a n abtshes 'he efe gency planning and pen.:t framework b) wt.:5 the adet.a:) of' maior Federal action s'g nf.:an'h bec. sing orJy if the dose redwet: ens are genersuy ecmparable " Such an ermgeno p;a.v4 in cases of 5 sie affechng the quahty of the t.. -ah and/or local con part c:;at:on. can be enuront ent a. d therefore e ir e pretanon would be contrary to NRC i
euiuted on a cue b. case basis m environmentalimpact s+a'e..e a s n:
p acSce ut. der which emergency plans operatina becae proc)eed;sgs The rule required The Corvnissten has pre;a u are es aNated for adequacy without does not press; pose nor does it dictate.
in suppor' of this fmdtog an refenece to twnencal done reductions what the oi.tcoce of that case.b> case enuronmental assessment w.ch a w hoch m.ght be accomphshed. and asai!ab!e for inspecnon and :o;' sg ' -
w 'hvut con;enng trem to other es alwation wG be As with other issuesa fu at the NRC Pubhc Doe. ent emersency pies real or hpothrical adud,cated us NRC ;nceedings the Room. trl? H Street NW. w.i c' -
The f nal r.;e -aies c tar that es ery outcome of caw by case es aluat.ons of DC e e geny t'e adequaes of erne
- gene) plann.ng i
adedacy o;lan is to be eu..ated for usms a utiht) s f an w:.1 be swtject to Reguloory Wpn n its own mer:ts without reference to the spec.f c dose red.cnors rwl'.;;e 14)ers of admmatratae reuew
.h;ch m.ght ce act:r ;;ahed eder the w:9m the Corr > Ss or ed to r.d:c:al The Commission has pre;rn a res ew n the ces regalatory analy sis for th:s rer... e p;4s or to tre capab.;.tet of any other J This analssis f.rther esam,ets
- m p.a. It f art 3er r aies c:e r that a Backfit Anal) sis and benehts of the proposed nr.:n <.
e t.nd. ; cf adec.ac) f:t arS ;'as a lo b, c: s.ered gene C) cem; awe T a TNs amed et don not n pon any the a;ternatnes cons dered of J
se Commation The analys s a e,u.t,
s
! :. ; of a.'e 2wv) fer. > o"cr ;:en f ew re n n m's on propction or
.' ' t.' cn fac.. "es 't cne ;roudes an for espee':en and co; tne fu a '..
T -ics;/s ard W N ; Cs dec. son Ma 5e mo the NRC P.bhc Docu.>ent R..-
. l'e;d ite etsen ato :r t m an Ce nu or s ew-M m"!
S'recL NW. Washington DC e
r4 Id N S t tre Lee eff
- of s'a'e erd preamble. and un3(er the a.tn.
ec.-5 o!! ::a:s w o..d P.de.'. :.rama' ons De amen &=MfoM is 1
',D " k I;n' " s a : der 10 CDt 50 IW and a l
s.'
'+. a s ;1n u
- e test some for
a t nomd Atom.c Energy Act of 1M4 as a e c e e ; an ;!a ning :-!c at.on a9d og'.ncs " 24 NFC :: 31 7t.s r;'e !v.us Regulatory Meiubilh> Certfication the Ene g> Reorganitation Ar :f Wa as imended. and 5 U S C. 553
.e t; t e Leens.ng Beard 'o lay what Commission a adopting the fc aw
- [, g*g[,{
"- e %~ eficns cf cre su 's.1 y
ameadments to 10 CFR Part M 5 cia.s woi.'d take t.t that r.d[~en.
Q
.u a 34%ca.t no mf icP ART $0--DOWESTIC UCEN5mG OF H4 M H th41 th s t e
-wo.!J be 'nade in ae:ctdarce w.tn wmM
'e a:n gudehnes set fertt e de t.'+
pact oc t a s.bstanN4: ne-ter of.
PRODUCTION AND UTILtIAT) Oat t
a d esp?amed fulther bCcw The ma.n FACluTIES pcy.ud roa apun 5 t !n.:
onh 'o nuclear pow er p et heensets g[e.ments bel.ese that a planned ch are electec ut.;it) :o ;an es 1 T%e authority citation for Pa" k_
w ta e an oca contmuts to read as follows
~N*
J"""4"8s}""
TE Use is preferat:e to an ad hoc ore re m -
%thenty Sees 103 104 16; te. a: -
us au not s aM ettu es ut
.m u.: only teasonab e to
- N N'82'***' I"#'D ^U m u $r t ne n. He m W.
F s.:r:o that m the esent of a and do not meet the smaS bus.ntst ote' ' * * " d ' d " C
- 83 S ' 8 ' "" ' '
a e dedIs: U S C :))) :!)a :::.
.:. og cal emergency state an. local standeds set for h it: Sma:1 Busmus
- .at =>6 n)9 us:t secs :ct :.. <
c ~, sa m the absence of a state or Admmis:tanon ng..a te a. 13 CFR 5 v us: nu nos as aw:.
c-
- m. rad. oles ca! e.?e ge.c) plaa.
P *t 1:1 a;; n ed b) state and loca!
W W M bS'$ 5 0"* 4' '
ges e"..ents will ettner ICck to the Paperwork Reductoo Act See en w sa,,is.es ne,r r.
. n aad :ts ;lan for gzden or w dl This final rue a-e-ds..'c a a', n C nc to n 5'ai :m it: U S C '-
5 :' "i 50 5 at rw some c?er plan t'ai es:sts ge n,ction 7,q,,7,.,.., m,:
w sa M c ej v.
j M;'S yC,D p:Sec,..,,s s.! *
..* ; e si3mg t,cen s.rl g a,.a,,.a) Th.in ty, p,Py, o7, p,... s F,5
..,,,,c:
H*
.. J+4: L a.,r.
'-*m (H U S C 3501 et sey T sse
. so as.e4.nde se: 1H6e5.
j
- es, r.e that state and local i
goser nental author 1es wn. look to the reqairefrents we e appraed bs 're a-e et.4 U S C 030 See *.*
.til>> for guidance and generall O'hce of Manaaement a-Budp' 5010: a% aseo. :er sec Ise 9 -
as plan in an actual emergency:) follow
,ppros al No 31%.40;;
4: USC nm howes er, this presumption sna be F:t **.e poetes of Sec 03 68 5 -
i i
rebutted by. for etample, a goo)d fatth List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
.-ensed I4: U S C Mr3L secs 50 -
and timely proffer or an adeq:, ate and Antitrast. Class!.ed.nforma'.o. F.re c.eietsou soa sou 303.a ce,,
j C' '$b'd "d" "c 161b sa S 4-feas ble state orlocal rad;ological protection Incaporat.on b) refere.cc
.-e-Jedf4: U S C : otity secs %
respea.se plan which wosld m fact te Intergos ernmenta. re'.at.ccs Nuc;e.r N 8' "d 48" \\'d rebed upon m an emergency The pow er plants and reactors. Pena!
[a d secs
- tes.deg Ucensmg Board shov
- d not Radiat:en protecton. Reac%r s.tmg
.,e 3 r 3 So.U eSh S
o5 ~h 5
hes
- ate to re;ect any c! aim that state croeta. Reportmg and pnord*"? R
, c,,,,.e d a ce i-
~
and loc.1 off. cia!: will refue to act to requ:rements s. m u w encedi4: U S C.:~
S.!cs.ard the healta and ufen of $e Enuronmental Asussment and Findmg l 50 0 l Ame $ded!
- .b
- c m the esent of an actual of No Significant Eau.ronmental impact
- In 10 CFR Part 50 peagrar-e e gercy in actual e ercentes stre The Commatiot has de'erm: red of i 50 C is Mused to read as t.
- oa! and federat off. cia:s Fee
.nur: ably done their utmco 'o prc'ect under the Nationa'. E..s :ronmenta: Po:in At' of N as a e-:e: andthe me c t: tent) u two hundred prs of
(~eman h>Cor) ampl) detero rei Ctn.wssion rer.:c.: s m S.bpart A ic:11) Folute to meet the appi :
cf to CFR Part $1.. at 'na rua is not asi.adards set forth in paragrarr -
th.s section may neult m the lA
5edesel Eqdatur / Vol.
- Wo[212 / Tieesder. November 3, my j g g 43W Corneu= oa sedam'ag to teams em pubstanta#y the reenlJ el aark ptamung 2,,,, w g wwn a m er operse,ag kr.emast however lhe pal **P*' Lam o/ saata and/er leced 2,41 pvwiin w e pertac, ped.8 un a ppticaat wdl hoes as -p -
y%
Pneramacia, d mey be presumed that as aamw % %,;rspandaa*'
4D hsweesees ne aho -
the event sf as actual cadnenegncal Com.anianaon that de Odeocee terter emergency staae and kos) odleals plans an tw s,gndcast forthe pleeds wonid punernity foUow the oubry plan.
P'" * *=e'es wm : ens dned.
questaca, that adequase irtarte However. thee preeuapaos may be
- ti 5"*e h eer4 n!es ccsN-tag accama hua beta er wtD rehadted by. for axaampie, a good fs th
'##'""d* D' 8'm and as M men
'"*"*** ""*" "*"d* *'
- te t ahan ;;ompaly, at this hre sie aa:1 daseiy proffer of as adequeta and
- "*3*
thes w= Arts rea.a^na te perian plaas feaesble stato and/or loceI re6olo1pcal operstions. Where an appbcant for an emarpeacy plan that would to (act be Ceaseg.,e ecas opereting bc4nse ae64rts that its robsd upos is a re6ologpcaj ecnargecey.g Mtc inabibry to demonstrete compCaeoe m,% g gg g with the reqmtamanda of pezagraph (b) on NB.C nosecas awreaey %,,, me p%
wa of this pecnon tssults whouy or 1 In 1D CDt Part 50. AppeMix E. e ec
,,n, d.c.,,, c,,,
sub: tant.s0y !mm tha daaaano of stata new paregraph 6 ia added to eactSc.a se,e.:,ed a du up wiu.y c4,, t,, a and/or local govsmmest.: not to fV I to read as fouo w :
,,c,.w er.w, ;4 u p.naiwe umana partapata harther in amarganc7 IL ne partepanon of state med local com;*n**C88 **"' *m8'r W CF1t i
platuna4 an opermitng D:ecas may be p.,ensmets a an essarpacy exarrwe ta mot ma'[cj(tk nm whJe aars cadd be iuued d the appl! cant descrattates to
. qr red w se extant that me applaaet hee utensan latozoas ud rrrew regarding the th*=ds sacsfactao that doen'.ed **e toveessanu as r,A as is whethar se reis e crtuna ari set, ca ogd (i) N eppbcanta tnatanty to com pareetpate heaar.a arm smocy phan.no L;hely be etnest to the rene= and utsecon with the requirements of paragraph (ply b)
- ct":'* N*.ast to to CDt Wiegth to ecost ewns psecseau i
g %,,,,,
of this secuoc is whoBy or rutetanually
'"c8 8**** an eurese ihan be held =,e se w cant a beensee and mch smmnsteal a
th2 result of the men pm*Jdpeton of assoas u e4.e1 to peupite ta b N.mped se seer aemacy sonowcas state and/or local gevert:netite.
gne.y ;g g,,,
g m,gg g, 4 m g,3 (ii) Time oppnennt bes mode a Detad aa W FTMA =s2 amed is deense roman.rtae to natained, reied faith e5ert to meet oeg,,, ige,enMastan. DC, thee ::si.h day at denke artians Imr rettser of edbry pJana and rotate the parsespeece of the ye w w andfor a revtrw to plans on a cue huse pertnect stete sodler lom!
- bama, harn. mental *erm'"*- includicg the
% d @ d na areargeru y S*c M7 #?e Cerurassiert tnduaty pia,.
we. ne re,w1=d,,,u,,,
um ee.
~.e.c e. e (10) N epplicant's emergency pian anatrita ed env renmental assesament wC1 becamos esse e as way w promes, a j
a ace s;ipear in h Code of Pederal eds esca of Guer essmal appaamasa, wbether prendes r -~^h!* sunrears that i
any pericidar enhay pies in2 senety es ruls public health and safety La nog endangered by operadon of the fachry tarulaamry eLaalyste-4vahaatse d the HC'" "d'*'7 'A8'5d 8'ners2y bes48:
cooorrned. To tesis that bding, the
% d Mene Lnertency Phantag br hm W h
- am a 4 so eat applicant muet demccatttte that, as W Pr=w Piano et to Opershis f*i8 f* W" Saa k fwaminW.
outlined be'.ow, adepate pectactie DDtase whre 9te todler P.ec mam,ee ca. aa me a ehe me, u,* b.n aw. e..,, a.
m.,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
eveat of an ernargracy. A unhty plan to pass enaw a res. sed is arves wil] be evalsabed agesned this 64eme
$de:sewat ef se P eelem ressenmeda ammesace het edewate placeurtg standards appbcatie to a s44te ta 19e1 Coegrese e=seted prensions
- "C'ecco eenewee cae and wiu he tasse e or lac.al plan. as lketed.a parapsph (b)
$nt r4 'n2 eerrync7 hag for mdeer an e'te poc7 Be ** ricosasa+-ee a>d of thee necsoa. intb due aBewenee power pluts e N Mtc Aahoriu: ice A.ca Cas eu wem it inacted as,d rwaacted me made boe Scpr -
k' '*I F 18"a S'C4** IC8 'f S 41 ^ C1 F"'*8 8 3f '*= 13 d ce MtC E w nww e irme Awaatas Aa of tut =O re
( A) Noe eiet=ents for wbch state
- '78'*"'***"'***d*8**"
d" D E!"8
- ann u be aNe te pron:e and/or local non partictp4tice maito "local *NY plas 84er ed moa eues prenty c'm:ne des w of pwu.c w
e Comphance Inftasible and or wen '"' W N E pubbeasd protecton tha: won;d obta.a urder ideal (B) N utility a measures designed to regolans tener maa ye., e.,,,,
,,n3,ne,,,,,,, ate or kical ptan wsch hul co foe any 4*h desaped to be cor.aueot wwin 'J" etste and totad parocpatxm. ruch e paen e sy esos bem a& ate and/or Imslaan.
Congreesson 11y mandated appreactL bei unretne be adquis m rs:e suni nn ppe gnagig,
$ry ed are noe. Jade epacec canoce cd g,
,,,, g g
in : making tte dotarudnesise es the
'ti'ay plata N abusse of >=ch a pronason h et oery pint adowe arpni y s @ cy d a s % M.b M M cnte,e b, w.me, e t a ut.,,.,_ o, m e
,a.c
- ~
,, c de p
end *he p'a^ms tatsarts an semied to proemics $4
- erea aeo - -td r
ermergency. state and local pretminent g 3,, asset r*rukhg u disiopeal W WMet ta bri e partedar unitry plas wsu officists *rt'! ellert164 their best af' orts to cian.*y bed an ?tSCe chtenen to cr==adae ce found adegnata wesad be e renar for protoct the health asd s4faty of tha e wey pina et he r; warms 6==== unse m
- d Macitx* * *dn'Aa= 'a *o*cs public. N NRC wiU deter =.:se the caws of sme and/or tocal neo parac+u oe p et< e *d.'et adequacy of that especipdgaspcnaa in
.a e:ne rency ;'attrur3 and de standards 7.,,,,, g g
- 'an
- M met a peem = mJd be co,mbtnacon wi,,th the u,t$ '{aem.y. e,u. sed, m pc:pc.ed ameM=res =eWd net e
affect other WC,qmments g,,,, %, g,gt eo g, edlisukur
@ go,.
Cas tecer e guidance {n addresstng Ge m % gg.j,,,
cttsuttaaniacs es6eae api ssat's gimbtlity art 'o mp'estami the pobry ederWas i.he No conetresta kan tman aseestfed thet di to coes,ty we4 abe eegnessaarm of ies) A tsevaann Aa and to on,, t,
.resci op.e3 ets e er se prope e peregrsph [hMthne escoon ' whdy or farm 4.uisa =n ei Ana cenarpracy a2.aonens s
l
2
.j Attachnen 3
remedy the omission from the NRC's 1980 emergency planning rules of provisions dealing explicitly with such situations.
On February 24, 1987, the Commission held a public meeting at which it was briefed on the proposed rule and heard from a large number of witnesses, including state and local officials and Members of Congress.
The Commission subsequently determined, by a 4-1 vote, that it would benefit from hearing the views of the public on the proposed rule and the issues involved.
Before approving the rule for publication, the commission modified the Supplementary Information to include an emphatic statement that *(alny consideration of possible changes in the Commission's emergency planning requirements must recognize one: central and salient "act:
that such a change would not alter the Commission's paramount obligation to assure public health and safety.
For each license application, the Commission would remain obligated to determine that there is ;easonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected.
If the Commission, for whatever reason, cannot find that the statutory standard has been met, then the license cannot be is s ued. '
T'he proposed rule was published for comment on March 6, 1987.
52 Red. Reg. 6983.
The sixty-day comment petiod was subsequently extended by thirty days, finally expiring on June 4,
- 1987, i
The proposed rule was the subject of hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and
, Development of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 22, 1987, and before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 29, 1987.
The proposed rule was the subject of questions from the House Subcommittee on Energy I
and rovironment both before and after the April 29 hearing.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Appropriations Committee asked questions about the proposed rule in advance of its March 16, 1987 hearing on the NRC's budget request.
On each occasion, the
..c m.. 4..c 4
gb Federal Emergency Management Agency 7
mshington. D C 20472 April 28, 1987 l
1 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Comi ss ion Washington, C.C. 20555 i
Re: Ccments on Procesed Rule on Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and local Governments Decline to Participate in Offsite Emergency Planning Oear Mr. Chilt:
This letter provides the cocurents of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on t9e Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed rule. "Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where Sta te and Local Governments Decline to Participate in Off site Emergency Planning."
This proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 6.1987 (52 FR 6980).
The NRC has proposed a change in its regulations nich would permit the licensing of nuclear cover plants where State and local governments decline tc carticipate in the design, exercise, or imolementation of offsite emergency preparedness planning.
Under those circumstances, the proposed rule change would permit tne acclicant to be licensed voon shc ing that (1) its inability to cceoly v*tn the normal emergency planning requirements could be remected er adequately ccacensated for ey reasonable cooperation by the State and local governments. (2) the apolicant has made a good faith and susteined effort to obtain this cooceration. (3) the plans developed by the apolicant incluce al' effective 'neasures to compensate for the lack of cocceration which are reasonable and feasible under the circumstances and unich take into account a possible State or local response to an actual emergency, and (4) the aoolicant has provided copies of the plan to all governments unich would have other.ise have participated and has assured them that it stands ready to cooperate with there.
FEMA notes, as a first premise to its comments, that, under the Atomic Energy Act, legal responsibility for the licensing of nuclear power plants is vested exclusively in the NRC.
In setting standards for licensure, the Commission defines the threat to be prepared against, and it is the Comission wnich determines what level of preparation is necessary to meet the defined threat.
Prior to the incident at the Three Mlle Island Nuclear Dower Plant in Maren 1979, there was no licensing requirement for offsite emergency planning and Following that incident and the report of the Kemeny Commission preparedness.
in the same year, the NRC strengthened its regulatory requirement that off site
[j(Ob n'
,,le I
e
Wr. Samel J Chilk. PI9e a
emergency response planning anc reparedness de instt tated an! Oe :e ewate:
adequate to protect the public :efore new licenses,oylg e i m eg
- g 3 - 3) adopted the (emeny Connission recoerenda tion that FEMA sicul3 take tre 'eaJ responsibility for offsite ene*gency plan evaluation were established to insure sucn clanning and preparat'On woul
- Addi tl0na l
'ec.' *e em:s at previously licensed plants.
ce a:: y ' s e:
As a second premise, FEMA actnc= ledges that decisions by the NRC or ::taining and maintaining operating licenses are based in part on a comoosite e,te of offsite emergency Capabilities and those provided by the utility witn'a the plant.
The NRC has the authority to determine the relatise iscortarce of off site emergency preparedness 'i tne licensing decision.
This statement of FEMA's views on the proposec ev'e is made on tne assumption that ace:cate offsite emergency planning and Dre0aredness are still considered essential to obtaining and maintalning an coerating license.
The proposed rule change is evicently intended to address the preemption issue which is at the center of the l'tigation over licensing of the Shorenam Nuclear Pcwer Plant and the Sea:*oc( Nuclear Power Plant.
The particular issue is unether State and local i
governments should be able to do ledirectly, by declining to participate in o'f site emergency planning, what they say not do directly, that is, effectivel y veto the regulatory decisions of tre NRC as to the siting and licensing of.Nclear power plants.
FEMA believes that this issue of the indirect veto of MRC decisions by state and local goverrments involves matters of significant suulle policy wk.lch may ultimately "ave to be resolved by the Congress.
While FEMA has no view as to the vallC ty of any position the NRC maj take on the preemption issue per se, the agency does note that the effect Of t*e proposed change 15 to require a snowing that the applicant has taken all reasonable and feasible steps to develop an off site emergency plan a':
response cacapility rather than a showing that the emergency response ;;&ns offer reasonable assurance that adequate measures to pr0tect tne pub'ic can De caken in the event of an emergency.
On its face, the proposed rule incorporates a fundamental cnange in tne way that of fsite emergency planning would be evaluated by FEMA if the NRC requests findings and determinations as to whether off site emergency olans are acequate and can be implemented.
It would eliminate the need for full-partic':ation exercises (those testing the capacity of State and local governmentsi toth before and af ter licensing.
Even if exercises are conducted, their sal.e is seriously diminished without the carticipation of State and local governments.
Full-participation exercises serve several important ov:cses.
They are not only tools for evaluating written plans, they are also a seans for their refinement and a traint9g vehicle for the emergency personeel who will be' called on to respond to an actual emergency.
F EMA i s of the s t e w that State and local participation. 45 In the present approach, offers all concerned with offsite emergency planning and preparedness a wealth cf experience and sensitivity to local circumstances, the loss of which :culd
/ l
l vr. Sat.e' J W ik. N ge 3.
have serious adverse Consequences for such a:!* ' tie s a t e n t s t'eg anc 'sts plants.
ee In February,1986, FEMA participated in an eie :Ise tnat did not inc tuce state and local governments.
The roles of key goverment Officials ere etajec of FEMA escioyees.
From this esperience FEMA concludes that the practtee of simulating governmental participation has several important consequenegg, First, the real-time interaction between officials and other emergency responders is not realistically tested.
That c mpromises the quality of the findings which FEMA is able to make aeout t9e preparedness of thost other Secondly, the preparedness of tne State and local govtenments is responders.
not demonstrated in any meaningful sense.
As a result, the conclusions that FEMA would be called on to make about the proba:le response of State and local governments would be based largely on conjecture.
FEMA is very reluctant to certify that adequate protective measures can be taken where any fin,1tng would be based on sucn a degree of conjecture.
The refinement of emergency plans which is the natural outcome of an ruercise could also be ccepromised.
The observations on which such refinements would be made are less valid without the participation of State and local Furthermore, these governments may not be commi tted to changes governments.
in their usual ways of operating in emergencies.
They are certainly not likely to change their routines during an actual emergency, even if they are convinced of the wisdom of the changes.
The lack of training which would, in all probability, follow from holding enerCists wi thout State and local government participation would also increase the risk to the population of the affected emergency planning zones.
The existing regulatory scheme anticipates that there will be detailed, documented, provisions in advance of an emergency for the plume tiposure emergency planning zone (10 miles out from the plant) and that ad hoc responses will be undertaken as necessary to supplement preplanned actions.
This proposed rule would, in effect, sanction estensive across-the-board ad hoc responses.
The proposed rule incorporates as &
~
Oas'c premise the aisumption that State and local governments are lia.ely to rescond in an a:tual emergency because state law requires them to do 50 and also because that woul,1 presumably be the natural reaction of government officials in time of emergency.
Even if the premise is valid, the as noc nature of their resconse could have unfortunate consequences.
It does not assure that the full range of necessary actions will be taken.
It does make it highly likely that any response vill be uncoordinated.
To the extent that utility company officials step into the roles of government officials, sucn as by recommending specific protective actions, there is a high probability that the public and emergency responders will receive conflicting instructions.
FEKa also notes that, while the legal issue of the authority of utility officials to perform critical emergency functions in place of State and local officials has been considered by the courts of New York State, in has not been resolved throughout the country.
~.
Mr. Samuel 3 Chilt. Plie 4-The concerns ldjntifled above relate to communi ties.nien ea,e :e:'a e:
demonstrated an unwillingness to take part in emergencj resco :e ::3.c. ;
FEMA is equally concerned that the incentive for cooce'sti<e 5:ste am 1:ca-governments to continue their efforts could be diminished show :
rule be adopted.
t e :e:c ;,:
In addition to the major concerns expressed above, FEMA auesti:rs se,e 3:
assumptions made esplicitly or implicitly in the propos.1:
1.
The belief expressed by the NRC that State and local ;o.ernments which have not been involved in emergency planning wculo nonetheless respond to an actual emergency and follow a comorenerst.e utility plan is ocen to cuestion.
FEMA has no data that woul: indicate.nat State and local government reactions might be in sucn :f rcumstances.
The assumotion that the croposed rule change will lessen the burden 2.
of litigation is cetatable.
The phase of the licensing bearings having to do with emergency planning will be no less 'ntense than before and can ce e Dected to be more complet Decause of the uncertalntles introduced into the issue of the adequa f of offsite emergency preparecress.
It follows that the potentle' litigation costs related to the procosed rule would probably be c less than under current regulations.
3.
The claim that the requirement for planning placed on State and local governments by Title !!! of the Sucerfund Amen:~ eats arc Reauthorization Act of 1986 would prompt more State c:cceration regarding nuclear power plant emergency plac.itng is net supDorted by facts.
The State and local organizational structures 'or carrying out the provisions of Title !!! are mandated by law 4*:,
in mit cases, existing structures will be used.
It is not t*e :resence Of emergency management structures such as provided unde T' tie 111 i
that is at issue.
Rather, the question is.hether tFeie organl24tions are willing to participate in nuclear D:.e emergenc/
preparedness.
The adoption of proposed rule would not, in an of itself, resolve FEMA's difficulties in providing findings regarding reasonable assurance for offsite preparedness if state and local governments do not Darticipate. The current Memorandue of Understanding between FEMA and the NRC charges FEM with evaluating offsite emergency response plans against the criteria set out in the jointly developed guidance document NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP 1, tev.1.
This guidance document assumes that there will be extensive involvement of state and local governments in the development and implementation of t9ese plans.
14tthout,such involvement, many of the evaluation criteria cannot te satisfied.
In addition, as noted above, the absence of state at: tocal involvement frustrates or, at the very least, complicates the pr: cess of exercising the plans.
If FEMA is not able to bring its evaluati:n : recess to conclusion, it cannot offer the NRC the findings it requests, 4
as the NRC t
P
J pr. Sas el J. Chil(. Page 5.
staff seems to have recogniced in its c'esenta:'On Of tre ge:Cosed rule
- e Commission. new guldance and standards for evahat ten of suen an e er;e :,:
preparedness structure would have to Oe de<eleced.
As staf f has ret: - ce:
this task is not insignificant and enen ::ns tcered in the light of re;;ui litigation bears major resource ramt'i:ations for this agencj.
t :e The NRC statements on this rule and our c enments above make it clear
- at.e share a common view that off-site emergency preparedness is best ser vec ty active state and local government Dar:1ct:ation.
Should the NRC finc the proposed rule appropriate and necessary, se would excect to continue our productive relationship.
He would also hCDe that the NRC would carefully monitor the particloation of state and local governments in order to acjust requirements that might discourage sJch particlDation.
We appreClate the opCortunity to coment on this prCCosed rule.
$lSCere1y, 12-<JaL L.
Da<e McL0ugnlin De:uty Associate Director State and Local Programs and Succert n.
~ --