[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31362-31363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14638]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Radiological Emergency Preparedness: Alert and Notification

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FEMA is considering whether it should continue to require 
State and local emergency management agencies to characterize and to 
identify the appropriate Emergency Classification Level (ECL) when 
initially notifying the public of incidents at nuclear power plants. We 
also are considering whether to leave to the discretion of State and 
local emergency management agencies what, if anything, to say about 
protective action recommendations. We invite your views on these issues 
and on any other concerns that you may have about the content of 
initial notification messages.

DATES: Please submit your comments on or before August 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please submit your comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, 
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 
C Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC 20472, or send them by e-mail 
to [email protected]. Please refer to the ``REP Alert and Notification 
Notice'' in the subject line of your e-mail or comment letter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Quinn, Chief, Radiological 
Emergency Preparedness Branch, Chemical and Radiological Preparedness 
Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472; (202) 646-3664, or (e-mail) 
[email protected], or Nathan S. Bergerbest, Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington DC 20472, (202) 646-2685, or (e-mail) 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), through its Radiological Emergency Preparedness program (REP), 
reviews the emergency response plans of Offsite Response Organizations 
(OROs), which are the State and local emergency management agencies 
responsible for responding to incidents involving nuclear power plant. 
FEMA also conducts exercises to test the capability of OROs to perform 
in accordance with the provisions of their plans. These activities are 
undertaken pursuant to FEMA regulations, which appear in Part 350 of 
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations and a Memorandum of 
Understanding between FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which 
appears at 44 CFR Part 353, Appendix A.
    FEMA recently completed a strategic review of the REP program. In 
the course of the strategic review, questions were raised regarding 
what information should be included in the initial message informing 
the public that an incident has occurred at a nuclear power plant.
    FEMA requires that OROs demonstrate their ability to communicate 
effectively with the public following an incident at a nuclear power 
plant. We address how this initial notification should be given to the 
public in several guidance documents. These include the joint FEMA/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation 
of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0654/REP-1, Rev. 1), dated November 1980 
\1\, FEMA's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Manual (REP-
14), dated September, 1991 \2\, FEMA's Radiological Emergency 
Preparedness Exercise Evaluation Methodology (REP-15), dated September, 
1991 \3\ and FEMA's Guidance for Providing Emergency Information and 
Instructions to the Public for Radiological Emergencies Using the New 
Emergency Alert System (EAS), dated February 2, 1999.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Planning Standard F, evaluation criterion E.7
    \2\ Objective 11.
    \3\ Objective 11.
    \4\ Attachment ``B'' to Memorandum for FEMA Regional Directors 
and Regional Assistance Committee Chairs from Kay C. Goss, Associate 
Director for Preparedness, Training and Exercises. The attachment 
can be viewed at htpp://www.fema.gov/pte/rep/easrep.htm. (viewed May 
30, 2001). This document is referred to as the ``February 2, 1999 
Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA regulations require that planning standards and evaluation 
criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1,\5\ and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's emergency planning rule \6\ are to be used in 
evaluating ORO plans and capabilities. While both the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's emergency planning rule and NUREG-0654/FEMA 
REP-1, Rev. 1 contemplate that initial notification messages will be 
made in a timely manner, neither prescribe the content of the initial 
notification message.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 44 CFR 350.5.
    \6\ 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix E) and Part 70.
    \7\ Planning Standard ``E'', evaluation criteria E.7 provides 
that ``Each [ORO] shall provide written messages intended for the 
public, consistent with the [nuclear power plant's classification 
scheme. In particular, draft messages to the public giving 
instructions with regard to specific protective actions to be taken 
by occupants of affected areas shall be prepared and included as 
part of the State and local [emergency response plans]. Such 
messages should include the appropriate aspects of sheltering, ad 
hoc respiratory protection, e.g., handkerchief over mouth, thyroid 
blocking or evacuation * * *''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31363]]

    REP-14 Objectives 11.1 \8\ and 11.2, interpret NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-
1, Rev. 1 as it pertains to notification messages. Objective 11.1 
requires that public notifications reflect official decisions made by 
responsible public safety agencies. Objective 11.2 requires that the 
information in these messages be understandable to the public and 
facilitate initiation of recommended protective actions by the public. 
Notwithstanding that Objective 11.2 seems to favor non-technical 
language, the explanatory material for Objective 11.2 suggests that 
``the plant status should be described by reference to both the 
potential for or actual release of radioactivity and the ECL,'' \9\ 
even if no protective action recommendation is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ REP-14 Objective 11.1 refers to Objective 11, Demonstration 
Criterion 1. This classification system will be used throughout this 
notice.
    \9\ See, Page D.11-2 of REP-14 (September 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 1999, the Associate Director of FEMA for 
Preparedness, Training & Exercises issued guidance indicating that 
initial messages transmitted through the EAS must contain the following 
five items:
    1. Identification of the State or local government organization and 
the official with the authority for providing the EAS alert and 
message.
    2. Identification of the commercial nuclear power plant, 
appropriate [ECL] and current status of radiological conditions at the 
plant (e.g., no release, potential for release or actual release and 
wind direction);
    3. Call attention to REP-specific emergency information (e.g., 
brochures and information in telephone books) for use by the general 
public during an emergency.
    4. Call attention to the possibility that a protective action may 
need to be taken by affected populations; and
    5. Include a closing statement asking the affected and potentially 
affected population to stay tuned to [the] EAS station(s) for 
additional information. This additional information, when necessary 
could be in the form of a ``Special News Broadcast'' that would, as 
soon as possible, follow the EAS message.
    FEMA is considering a proposal that emerged from the strategic 
review of the REP program, which would require the following items in 
the initial message:
    1. The information presently required in points 1, 3 and 5 of the 
February 2, 1999 guidance;
    2. Identification of the commercial nuclear power plant and a 
statement that an emergency situation exists at the plant, in place of 
the information required by point 2 of the February 2, 1999 guidance;
    3. Deletion of point 4 of the February 2, 1999 guidance.
    The effect of this proposal would be to no longer require that OROs 
refer to the ECL, characterize the nature of the emergency situation in 
the initial message or warn the public that a protective action 
recommendation may be subsequently issued in the initial message.
    The proposal does not prevent the ORO from including this 
information in the initial message, at its discretion, or from using 
the limited time available in the initial message \10\ to provide other 
information that supports public health and safety objectives. The 
proposal would not require that the ORO transmit a protective action 
recommendation in the initial message if none has been formulated or 
none is immediately warranted. Nor would the proposal in anyway affect 
the OROs obligation to provide candid information, including a plain 
language explanation of the situation at the plant, including the ECL, 
to the news media. It addresses only what information must be 
disseminated in the initial notification message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Initial messages using the EAS may be limited to two 
minutes in length. See, Background on the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS) at http://www.fema.gov/pte/rep/easrep.htm (viewed June 4, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA believes that there may be merit in such a proposal. Some OROs 
have expressed concern that despite public education campaigns, people 
outside of the radiological emergency preparedness community are not 
likely to understand or recall the meaning of an ECL. Concern also has 
been expressed that the brief characterization of an incident, in a 
two-minute initial notification, might lead people to take action on 
their own, prior to and perhaps in conflict with the OROs announced 
protective action recommendation. We are interested in hearing your 
views.

Coordination With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    FEMA conducts the REP program in part under authority of a 
Memorandum of Understanding with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 
text of the current Memorandum of Understanding is published in 
Appendix A to 44 CFR Part 353. Section E of the Memorandum of 
Understanding provides that the each agency will provide an opportunity 
for the other agency to review and comment on emergency planning and 
preparedness guidance (including interpretations of agreed joint 
guidance) prior to adoption as formal agency guidance. FEMA has 
transmitted a copy of this document to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and requested their comments no later than the date upon 
which the public comment period closes.

    Dated: June 5, 2001.
Archibald C. Reid III,
Acting Executive Associate Director, Preparedness, Training & Exercises 
Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-14638 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-06-P