31362 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

1Planning Standard F, evaluation criterion E.7

2Objective 11.

3Objective 11.

4Attachment ‘‘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’’).

5 44 CFR 350.5.

6 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix E) and

Part 70.

7Planning 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 * * *’’

efforts will not delay urgent medical care for

the victim.

Offsite Response Organizations (ORO)

should demonstrate the capability to

transport contaminated injured individuals

to medical facilities. An ambulance should

be used for the response to the victim.

However, to avoid taking an ambulance out

of service for an extended time, any vehicle

(e.g., car, truck, or van) may be utilized to

transport the victim to the medical facility.

Normal communications between the

ambulance/dispatcher and the receiving

medical facility should be demonstrated. If a

substitute vehicle is used for transport to the

medical facility, this communication must

occur prior to releasing the ambulance from

the drill. This communication would include

reporting radiation monitoring results, if

available. Additionally, the ambulance crew

should demonstrate, by interview, knowledge

of where the ambulance and crew would be

monitored and decontaminated, if required,

or whom to contact for such information.

Monitoring of the victim may be performed

prior to transport, done enroute, or deferred

to the medical facility. Prior to using a

monitoring instrument(s), the monitor(s)

should demonstrate the process of checking

the instrument(s) for proper operation. All

monitoring activities should be completed as

they would be in an actual emergency.

Appropriate contamination control measures

should be demonstrated prior to and during

transport and at the receiving medical

facility.

The medical facility should demonstrate

the capability to activate and set up a

radiological emergency area for treatment.

Equipment and supplies should be available

for the treatment of contaminated injured

individuals.

The medical facility should demonstrate

the capability to make decisions on the need

for decontamination of the individual, to

follow appropriate decontamination

procedures, and to maintain records of all

survey measurements and samples taken. All

procedures for the collection and analysis of

samples and the decontamination of the

individual should be demonstrated or

described to the evaluator.

All activities associated with this criterion

must be based on the ORO’s plans and

procedures and completed as they would be

in an actual emergency, unless otherwise

indicated in the extent of play agreement.

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Archibald C. Reid III,

Acting Executive Associate Director,

Preparedness, Training & Exercises

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01–14637 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–06–P

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

rules@fema.gov. 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)

vanessa.quinn@fema.gov, 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) nathan.bergerbest@fema.gov.

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices 31363

8REP–14 Objective 11.1 refers to Objective 11,

Demonstration Criterion 1. This classification

system will be used throughout this notice.

9See, Page D.11–2 of REP–14 (September 1991).

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).

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.

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.

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