Images de page
PDF
ePub

deficiencies are found in the future, we will certainly require that they be corrected.

I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, one comment with regard to, it is really in addition to my prepared testimony, it is on the very important issue of the integrity of the NRC licensing process, and the question of advocacy which has been raised.

You expressed concern that the NRC had extended itself to advocate alternatives to the emergency planning regulations for Seabrook. I would like to indicate that it is clear that the NRC has been given certain technical information by the utility on this. But the NRC does not charter a course for the utility or its approaches. And if we did, we certainly could not guarantee, speaking for the staff, or even estimate its chance for success, because our regulations as you know provide for a very detailed review and evaluation process, as well as a very detailed adjudicatory process in such case as this where there is a contested hearing.

The NRC has held a number of meetings noticed and open to the public on this issue, since we have received the Seabrook submittal in July 1986. We have not yet formed any conclusion relative to the merits of any technical information provided by Seabrook; nor have we seen any particular proposal relative to the emergency planning issue.

Further, our statutes require, and the NRC will assure, that all elements of the regulatory process, both legal and technical, will be fully satisfied before a license to operate the Seabrook plant will be issued. This will include for Seabrook a full review and assessment of any emergency planning, technical materials, or exemption requests that may come along, completely open to the public, followed by adjudication of such issues in an open proceeding.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the NRC is fully aware of its responsibility with respect to the public health and safety, and that the NRC places this mission above all other considerations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Vollmer.

Now, again, it is the subcommittee's understanding that Mr. Craig Wingo who is from the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will serve as the spokesperson for that agency today.

We welcome you, Mr. Wingo, and we ask, once again, if you could please try to limit your remarks to the briefest possible time. The chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes.

TESTIMONY OF CRAIG S. WINGO

Mr. WINGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Craig Wingo.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Wingo, could you just move the microphone in a little bit closer and speak into it.

Mr. WINGO. My name is Craig Wingo. I am Chief of the Field Operations Branch, Technological Hazards Division, in the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency deeply regrets that your request for appearances by other senior officials of the agency could not be met on this particular date. As FEMA Director Julius

Becton indicated to you, pressing operational commitments facing the agency this week precluded such appearances. We appreciate the committee's understanding of this situation.

However, as the Branch Chief for Headquarters Field Operations for the radiological emergency preparedness program, I am pleased to appear before you to represent FEMA, and to discuss the REP program, as it relates to offsite emergency planning in the plume exposure emergency planning zone for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.

Before discussing Seabrook specifically, I would like to outline the context of program procedures and philosophy in which the Seabrook situation has unfolded.

The primary concern of FEMA's REP program is the health and safety of the public around nuclear power plants. FEMA works to achieve this goal through an evaluation of plans and preparedness under the process published in 44 C.F.R. 350.

This FEMA process, commonly referred to as the "350 process,' is based on a formal submission by the Governor, or his/her designee, of the State and local plans for the emergency planning zone [EPZ] around a specific nuclear power plant.

The evaluation process includes participation by a Regional Assistance Committee [RAC], chaired by FEMA and including officials from the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Health_and Human Services, Transportation, Agriculture, Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The RAC reviews the plan and its members render advice on their particular area of expertise. The plans are reviewed against the criteria of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. This guidance document was developed jointed by FEMA and NRC with full public participation. It encompasses the standards for developing, reviewing and evaluating licensee, State and local government radiological emergency planning and preparedness.

The appropriate regional office coordinates the planning review and assures that an exercise is conducted to adequately test the plans. The regional office or State also conducts a public meeting to inform interested parties of the content of the plans and what would be expected of the public in the event of an emergency at the plant.

The plans are approved by the FEMA Associate Director of the State and Local Programs and Support Directorate. Currently, this authority has been delegated to the Deputy Associate Director, Mr. David McLoughlin.

Following approval, FEMA notifies the Governor and NRC and publishes a notice in the Federal Register.

This is done only if a determination is made following appropriate plan exercises that the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the plant can be protected in the event of a radiological emergency at the plant.

However, the process does not end with the initial approval. The State and the affected local governments must continue to keep plans updated. They must also participate in periodic exercises with the utility as a condition of continued FEMA approval.

FEMA and NRC have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU], most recently revised in April 1985. This MOU calls for FEMA to supply NRC with advice on offsite preparedness issues which do not fall within the bounds of the formal "350 proc

[merged small][ocr errors]

Typically, under the MOU, FEMA provides interim offsite safety findings that are used in licensing decisions made by the NRC. These interim findings are a snapshot in time of the preparedness posture at a given site.

Today's hearing is concerned, in part, with the adequacy of offsite plans and preparedness for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. As the subcommittee is aware, there are some unusual offsite preparedness issues associated with Seabrook. At most fixed commercial nuclear generating facilities in the Nation, State and local governments have undertaken planning and preparedness to fulfill their responsibilities to protect the public health and safety.

The plans and response capabilities are subsequently demonstrated in exercises involving State and local government participation with the utility. However, in the case of offsite preparedness for Seabrook, the Commonwealth and the six local Massachusetts communities-excuse me, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the six local Massachusetts communities within the 10-mile plume EPZ have neither formally submitted offsite emergency plans to FEMA for review nor participated in the February 26, 1986, exercise.

In addition, on September 20, 1986, Massachusetts Governor Dukakis stated that he would not submit emergency evacuation plans. This contrasts with the State of New Hampshire which not only submitted plans to FEMA for review but also actively sought the conduct of the February 1986 exercise.

In fact, when 7 of the 17 New Hampshire communities located within the plume EPZ declined to participate in the February REP exercise, the State developed and exercised State plans to compensate for the absence of these local jurisdictions in the exercise planning and preparedness posture.

FEMA makes every effort to enlist full and informed State and local participation in the planning process throughout the entire EPZ. As an example, upon request, FEMA provides technical assistance to State and local governments in developing their emergency response plans. FEMA and the Regional Assistance Committee have worked extensively in the past with both New Hampshire and Massachusetts to assist them with their emergency plans for the protection of the public around the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.

In November of 1982, FEMA regional staff met with Assistant Attorney Generals for both States to discuss FEMA's role in reviewing emergency response plans for Seabrook. Beginning in 1983, FEMA organized and sponsored approximately 20 coordination meetings with the State of New Hampshire, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the utility. Those meetings provided a forum by which FEMA was able to provide technical assistance on a range of topics.

FEMA has also performed extensive reviews of the State and local plans for both New Hampshire and Massachusetts over the past three years.

In my written testimony submitted for the record, I have included a more detailed history and status of FEMA's interaction with each state concerning their emergency response plans for Seabrook.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that it is our strong preference to work with State and local governments in order to achieve our common goal of protecting the public health and safety. While FEMA recognizes that there may be differences of opinion on how best to attain this goal, we look forward to Massachusetts' reentry into the planning process for Seabrook.

I am prepared to respond to your questions.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Wingo.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wingo follows:]

deficiencies are found in the future, we will certainly require that they be corrected.

I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, one comment with regard to, it is really in addition to my prepared testimony, it is on the very important issue of the integrity of the NRC licensing process, and the question of advocacy which has been raised.

You expressed concern that the NRC had extended itself to advocate alternatives to the emergency planning regulations for Seabrook. I would like to indicate that it is clear that the NRC has been given certain technical information by the utility on this. But the NRC does not charter a course for the utility or its approaches. And if we did, we certainly could not guarantee, speaking for the staff, or even estimate its chance for success, because our regulations as you know provide for a very detailed review and evaluation process, as well as a very detailed adjudicatory process in such case as this where there is a contested hearing.

The NRC has held a number of meetings noticed and open to the public on this issue, since we have received the Seabrook submittal in July 1986. We have not yet formed any conclusion relative to the merits of any technical information provided by Seabrook; nor have we seen any particular proposal relative to the emergency planning issue.

Further, our statutes require, and the NRC will assure, that all elements of the regulatory process, both legal and technical, will be fully satisfied before a license to operate the Seabrook plant will be issued. This will include for Seabrook a full review and assessment of any emergency planning, technical materials, or exemption requests that may come along, completely open to the public, followed by adjudication of such issues in an open proceeding.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the NRC is fully aware of its responsibility with respect to the public health and safety, and that the NRC places this mission above all other considerations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Vollmer.

Now, again, it is the subcommittee's understanding that Mr. Craig Wingo who is from the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will serve as the spokesperson for that agency today.

We welcome you, Mr. Wingo, and we ask, once again, if you could please try to limit your remarks to the briefest possible time. The chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes.

TESTIMONY OF CRAIG S. WINGO

Mr. WINGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Craig Wingo.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Wingo, could you just move the microphone in a little bit closer and speak into it.

Mr. WINGO. My name is Craig Wingo. I am Chief of the Field Operations Branch, Technological Hazards Division, in the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency deeply regrets that your request for appearances by other senior officials of the agency could not be met on this particular date. As FEMA Director Julius

« PrécédentContinuer »