ML20141G937
Text
6 o ,
1]-( ,
2 2 J
. -t
(
DEC 5119R4 The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a notice of a proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register.
In the Diablo Canyon decision the Commission stated that it would initiate rulemaking "to address whether the potential for seismic impacts on emergency planning is a significant enough concern for large portions of the nation to warrant the amendment of the regulations to specifically consider those impacts. The chief focus of the rulemaking will be to obtain additional information to determine whether, in spite of current indications to the contrary, cost-effective reductions in uverall risk may be obtained by the explicit consideration of severe earthquakes in emergency response planning."
CLI-84-12 (Slip Opinion at 9).
The amendments to 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E which the Commis-sion is proposing would explicitly incorporate in them the interpretations in the Commissions San Onofre and Diablo Canyon rulings. A new paragraph (e) would be added to 10 CFR 50.47 and a paragraph would be added to the " Introduction" section of Appendix E. The Commission wants to assure that it has the benefits of-comments of all interested persons on the subject. The Commission is invit-ing comments not only on the text of the proposed rule, but also on the funda-meltal question of the relationship between earthquakes and emergency planning at nuclear power facilities and on the merits of three possible alternatives:
- 1. Adoption of the proposed rule explicitly incorporating the
-Commission's interpretations in San Onofre and Diablo Canyon;
- 2. Leaving the issue open for adjudication on a case-by-case basis; or
- 3. Requiring by rule that emergency plans specifically address the impact of earthquakes.
' C-H B601130195 051125 kLB 3 PDR
o l
- f. *
\ 1 L.
I
< j The Honorable Morris K. Udall 2
'The Commission is also considering whether to include in this rulemaking tornadoes and other low-frequency natural events. In that possible case, offsite emergency response plans submitted to satisfy the applicable standards of 10 CFR S 50.47 and Appendix E would not need to specifically consider the impact on emergency response capability of earthquakes, tornadoes or any similar
- low probability naturally occurring phenomena which are presumed to occur proxi-mate in time with an accidental release of radioactive material from a licensed facility.
Sincerely, higinal signed Byg ROBERT B. Rygoggg ,
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice of ~
Proposed Rulemaking 6
cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan
- SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES CRESS:SS RES:HEB RES:HEB RES:HEB RES:HEB RES:HEB 5520 MJamgochian JMalaro MErnst FGillespie Dross i ge 12/14/84 12/ /84 12/ /84 12/ /84 12/ /84 12/ /84 12hy/84
y- _
? o
. *a
(
The Honorable Morris K. Udall 2 The Commission would be most assisted by comments which offer specific policy and technical reasons for preferring ore alternative over the others.
The Commission is also considering whether to include in this rulemaking tornadoes and other low-frequency natural events. In that possible case, offsite emergency response plans submitted to satisfy the applicable standards of 10 CFR S 50.47 and Appendix E would not need to specifically consider the impact on emergency response capability of earthquakes, tornadoes or any similar low probability naturally occurring phenomena which are presumed to occur proxi-mate in time with an accidental release of radioactive material from a licensed facility. Comments on this possible alternative are requested.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan c.
CRESS:SS 4ES- . .RFS iEB 5:H RES:HEB RES:HEB RES:DIR 5520 l a cy a d' JM o ME t FGillespie Dross RBMinogue 12/13/84 12/jp/84J 12/ /84 12/ 84 12/[)/84 12/ /84 12/ /84 V
. _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _
4
}
.i . ._.. . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ ,
tl i
DEC 3I as4 l
t REP AND EARTHQUAKES (Questions and Answers) 4 Q . 1. Commissioner Asselstine states in the NRC proposed rule of December 21 1984, that FEMA and NRC staff consider the effects of various types of natural phenomena including snow, hurricane, tornadoes, and even
. earthquakes in the course their work on emergency planning at particular nuclear power plant sites. It this true?
A. Yes, FEMA and NRC staff do take into account the effects of various types of weather related (not including earthquakes) natural phenomena on ,
planning for accident at comerical nuclear power plants. The basis for such activity is found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, J.2 and J.10.k, as well as Appendix 4, pp.4-6 and 4-7. We have singled out adverse weather 4
, * . phenomena because they are the most likely to occur and, as such, there is more hist'orical data available on the effects of these events on roads, i moving vehicles, emergency services and other factors that have a bearing on evacuation. Since this expericence is susceptible to discrete quantification and computer modeling, it provides a sensible and useful '
relationship to planning evacuations around nuclear power plants.
In contrast, severe damaging earthquakes are infrequent and less precisely forecasted events. Specific historical data on effects in the environs of of nuclear power plants is very limited. In addition, this type of earthquake
, is expected to produce such wide-spread destruction that response will be developed specifically for coping with such an event. Additional consideration of an earthquake in the offsite radiological emergency plan for a nuclear power plant does not appear warranted.
- Q. 2. If Mr. Asselstine's Statement is true, for what purpose is this activity undertaken?
I A. There are three purposes for undertaking this activity as presented in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. (1) J.2 - To assure that onsite personnel can be evacuated from the nuclear power plant to offsite locations under s inclement weather. (2) 10.k - To assure that the offsite population can 1
be evacuated under adverse weather condition such as a snowstorm.
(3) Appendix 4.pp 4-6 and 4 In developing evacuation time estimates (ETE's), emergency planners are required to formulate these i ETE's for both normal and adverse conditions, adverse conditions being site specific such as flooding near a plant on the coast of Florida. Appendix 4. requires that planners consider only one
- adverse condition for a particular site.
C4
F l
2-Q. 3. If FEMA and NRC are currently taking into consideration the potenial impacts of various natural phenomena , why does FEMA object to a requirement that emergency plan specifically address the impact of earthquakes, or other phenomena such as tornados?
A. FEMA does not object to addressing the impact of suddenly occuring natural events such as earthquakes and tornados in emergency plans around commercial nuclear power plants. What we do object to is placing additional regulatory requirements for addressing these events, above and beyond the rather extensive planning that is already done to cope with them under existing programs. As mentioned in the proposed rule, and in my prepared statement, we prefer to continue the specialized planning for these types of natural phenomena and to rely on these plans and on our Integrated Emergency Management System approach to cope with the remote chance of a concurrent radiological and earthquake emergency.
O O
O e
/
~ _ - . . -- -. . ._-- - . _ -
- s December 28, 1984 REP AND EARTHQUAKES Aooroach
- Background on current policy issue related to relationship between REP and earthquakes.
- Relationships between FEMA's IEMS concept and the Agency's REP and Earthquake Programs
- Overview of Selected Aspects of FEMA's Earthquake Program FEMA's position on the current policy issue - generic planning for concurrent radiological releases and severe earthquakes Background on Current Policy Issue i
- Policy issue: Whether the Commisssion should consider on a generic basis if its regulations should be changed to address the potential impacts of a severe earthquake on emergency planning for commerical nuclear power plant accidents
- Catalyst: licensing decisions for the San Onofre and Diablo Ca ayon plants
- Comission actions: The Commission ruled on December 8,1981, in the San Onofre proceedings that its emergency planning regulations do not require consideration of potential earthquake effects on emergency plans for nuclear power reactors. The Commission recently (August 1984) affirmed this position in the Diablo Canyon proceedings. On December 21, 1984, the Commission published proposed amendments to its emergency planning regulation (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E) in the Federal
. Register to provide an explicit policy statement on this issue in its l regulation and to invite public comments. The conenents period l expires January 22, 1985.
l Relationship Between FEMA's IEMS Concept and the Agency's REP and Earthquake Programs
- IEMS Concept: FEMA's activities and programs for both natural and and technological hazards are carried out to address both the common emergency preparedness requirements for all types of emergencies such I as the need for communications, alert and notification and evacuation
! as well as the specialized requirements of specific types of hazards i such as radiological instrumentation and measurement and earthquake vulnerability assessment.
- Assistance to State and Local Governments: FEMA provides funding and
' technical assistance to State and local governments to establish and maintain an emergency management infrastructure to support mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities for all types of hazards.
The provision of technical assistance to State and local governments is coordinated by FEMA for many involved Federal agencies.
l t
(
)
2
- Federal Response Planning: FEMA coordinates the emergency activities of many Federal agencies to develop and maintain capabilities to respond to State government requests for assistance for actual emergencies. FEMA has developed and published the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP, 9/84) for radiological emergencies and expects to publish a similar plan for earthquakes in December 1985.
Both of these plans will represent extensions of generic FEMA emergency plans for all types of disasters and emergencies.
Overview of Selected Aspects of FEMA's REP Program
- Siting vs Offsite Preparedness Foci: The NRC is responsible for examining the ramifications of earthquakes upon power plant operations onsite through its licensing responsibilities related to the design and construction of plant facilities in highly seismic risk areas. Both the NRC and FEMA share responsibilities for assessing the offsite pre-praedness capabilities of licensees, State and local governments.
While the NRC evaluates licensee capabilities, FEMA has the lead responsibility for evaluating State and local governments capabilities.
These evaluations are made on the basis of the criteria contained in a joint guidance document, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP.1.
- Evaluation Approach: FEMA coordinates the activities of 10 Federal agencies in reviewing and evaluating State and local government planning and preparedness around nuclear power plant through its 10 Regional Assistance Committee (RAC's). These evaluations are effected through assessment of emergency plans, observation and evaluations of exercises designed to test the capabilities to implement emergency plans and meetings involving State and local government officials, licensee representatives, the public and the media.
i
- REP Program Objective: The objective of FEMA's REP program is to assure that an integrated capability exists for State and local governments, together with utilities, to implement protective measures to protect public health and safety in the event of an emergency.
Overview of Selected Aspects of FEMA's Earthquake Program
'
- FEMA's Legislative Charge: Under the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act of 1977. Congress designated FEMA as the lead Federal agency for developing, leading and coordinating the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP).
i
- i e
-,.----,,,-,,,--,_.m_. .c,-,--.,., .,~,-.,-,------r-- -,m,- , -.._,,,,,,,_,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,__._,,_--.__,.,--,m-
- Program Elements: Our program focuses on four principal elements -
sesmic design and const?uction, State and local earthquake hazards reduction, public awareness and education and Federal response planning.
- Program Coverage: While priority is given to the implementation of these programs elements in highly seismic areas, the program encompasses all areas of the country where seismic hazards exist.
- Coordination Mechanisms: To meet the leadership challenge posed by the NEHRP, FEMA created and chairs the Policy Coordination Group which is composed of senior policy-level officials from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, the National Bureau of Standards and FEMA. There is also an Interagency Coordination Committee of the NEHHRP which is composed of principal program mangers of the Federal agencies mentioned above.
- Annual Report: FEMA provides Congress with an Annual Report to give the status of the NEHRP and to identifiy and describe program activities undertaken during the past year.
FEMA Position on Current Policy Issue
- FEMA Position: FEMA has provided the NRC with a statement supporting this position: offsite emergency response plans, submitted to satisfy the standards set forth in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, need not consider the impact on emergency planning of earthquakes which cause, or occur proximate in time with, an accidental release of radioactive material from a facility.
- Combination of Preplanned and Ad Hoc Responses: FEMA believes that pre-planned preparedness measures established per MUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and ad hoc actions initiated in response to a concurrent radiological release and earthquake would provide an adequate basis for flexibly responding to such an event.
- Enchanced State and Local Government Preparedness: FEMA believes that State and local governments that are particitpating in both our REP and earth-quake programs will have an enhanced capability to respond to a concurrent radiological and earthquake emergency.
e