[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47546-47548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22929]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Radiological Emergency Preparedness: Alert and Notification

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA is issuing revised guidance concerning the required 
content of an initial notification to the public in a plume Emergency 
Planning Zone (EPZ) following an incident at a nuclear power plant.

DATES: This guidance is effective October 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief, Radiological 
Emergency Preparedness Branch, Technological Hazards Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472; 
(202) 646-3664, or (e-mail) [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), through its Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) program, 
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 plants. 
FEMA also evaluates exercises that test the capability of OROs to 
perform in accordance with the provisions of their plans. These 
activities are undertaken

[[Page 47547]]

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 requires that OROs demonstrate their ability to communicate 
effectively with the public following an incident at a nuclear power 
plant. One of the components of effective communications is the 
delivery of an initial alert and notification message directed to 
persons in the EPZ.\1\ We address how this initial notification should 
be given to the public in an EPZ 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 \2\ 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term EPZ is defined in 44 CFR Sec. 350.2(g). The plume 
EPZ is generally a 10-mile radius around the nuclear power plant.
    \2\ Planning Standard E, evaluation criterion E.7.
    \3\ 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 http://www.fema.gov/pte/rep/easrep.htm. (viewed 
August 31, 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,\4\ and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's emergency planning rule \5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 44 CFR 350.5.
    \5\ 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix E) and Part 70.
    \6\ 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 * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Guidance

    On February 2, 1999, the Associate Director of FEMA for 
Preparedness, Training, and 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 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.

Revised Guidance

    Effective October 1, 2001, the initial notification to the public 
in an EPZ of an incident at a nuclear power plant must contain the 
following elements:
    1. Identification of the State or local government organization and 
the official with the authority for providing the alert signal and 
instructional message;
    2. Identification of the commercial nuclear power plant and a 
statement that an emergency exists at the plant;
    3. Reference to Radiologocal Emergency Preparedness specific 
emergency information (e.g. brochures and information in telephone 
books) for use by the general public during an emergency; and
    4. A closing statement asking that the affected and potentially 
affected population stay tuned for additional information or that the 
population tune to another station for additional information.
    The revised guidance addresses the minimum content of the initial 
message that must be given to the EPZ population. This message is 
intended to alert the public in the EPZ of the need to be attentive to 
the situation at the nuclear power plant. Other information that 
supports public health and safety objectives, including the ECL and 
information concerning protective actions, may also be included in the 
initial message at the ORO's discretion.
    This guidance does not diminish the ORO's obligation to provide 
complete and candid information--including a plain language explanation 
of the situation at the plant, the ECL, an explanation of the ECL, and 
details concerning any protective action decisions--to the news media 
for use in special news broadcasts that provide more detailed 
information to the population of an EPZ and general news coverage. This 
guidance addresses only the information that must be disseminated in 
the initial notification message.

Consideration of Public Comments

    FEMA sought public comment in the June 11, 2001 edition of the 
Federal Register (66 FR 31362) about whether it should revise the 
February 2, 1999 guidance. We indicated that we were specifically 
considering whether to continue to require that OROs refer to the ECL 
and alert the public to the possibility that a protective action 
decision (sometimes also referred to as a ``protective action 
recommendation'') will be subsequently issued by the ORO. However, we 
also encouraged commenters to suggest other appropriate revisions to 
the February 2, 1999 guidance.
    We received twenty-five comments in response to the Federal 
Register notice. Seventeen commenters supported the proposal published 
in the June 11 Federal Register. Six opposed the proposal. The position 
of the remaining two commenters could not be determined.
    The commenters that supported the proposal noted:
     The initial message should be used principally as an 
alerting mechanism, not as an informational tool;
     The public should not be expected to understand the 
meaning of an ECL. Identification of the ECL might even unduly alarm 
members of the public. This information can be included in follow-up 
public information, which is more detailed.
     Announcing an ECL in the initial message will result in a 
large number of unnecessary, non-emergency 911 calls, especially from 
people outside of the EPZ who do not receive the public information 
materials that are distributed to people within the EPZ.
     Information accompanying protective action decisions is 
normally detailed and not suitable for inclusion in the Emergency Alert 
System format.
     FEMA should allow the OROs to include in the initial EAS 
message the information that they deem necessary.

[[Page 47548]]

    Two of the six opposing comments came from individuals. One of 
these comments stated, ``Nothing would be gained by giving the public 
less information in the initial message following a nuclear disaster.'' 
We respectfully disagree with the commenter. The initial message is 
intended to alert people in the EPZ of the need to be attentive to the 
situation at the nuclear power plant. We believe it is more important 
that the OROs utilize the EAS to provide the most essential 
information, rather than the greatest quantity of information.
    Another commenter suggested that FEMA should be more stringent in 
the information that it requires OROs to give the public. This 
commenter, who appears to reside outside of the applicable plume EPZ, 
suggested that the public was not provided with sufficient information 
about a February 2000 incident at the Indian Point nuclear power plant 
in New York State. As noted in the June 11 Federal Register notice, 
FEMA's proposal to change the required content of the initial message 
does not detract from an ORO's obligation to provide the news media and 
the public with complete and candid information.
    Several emergency management agencies also opposed the proposal. 
These commenters argued that exclusion of the ECL and warnings that a 
protective action decision may be forthcoming provides the public with 
an ambiguous picture and may cause inappropriate responses. A State 
argued that the ECL informed parents of school children that the school 
was taking certain predetermined actions. However, two counties in that 
State submitted comments urging FEMA to not require a reference to the 
ECL in the initial message. Another commenter stated ``Nothing less 
than the five elements currently in place are acceptable.''
    FEMA's decision accommodates these commenters. We believe that the 
OROs are in a better position than FEMA to decide which information 
must be included in the initial message to the OROs' constituents. 
However, we are concerned about the apparent disagreement between a 
State and two of its counties about what information should be 
included. We encourage the State and the affected counties to come to a 
common understanding on this issue.

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 specifies that 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 2 adoption as formal agency guidance. On August 10, 
2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff provided written comments 
on the June 11, 2001, Federal Register alert and notification notice. 
These comments were supportive of the revised guidance.

    Dated: September 6, 2001.
Lacy E. Suiter,
Assistant Director, Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate
[FR Doc. 01-22929 Filed 9-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-06-P