Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2009/2010 NRC Region I/FEMA Regions I, II & III Joint Emergency Preparedness Information Conference.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "2009/2010 NRC Region I/FEMA Regions I, II & III Joint Emergency Preparedness Information Conference."— Presentation transcript:

1 2009/2010 NRC Region I/FEMA Regions I, II & III Joint Emergency Preparedness Information Conference

2  Background  Purpose of the REPP Manual  Comment Response  Stakeholders/Issues  Key Issue Summary  Adjudication Process  Adjudication Objectives  Next Steps 2

3  REPP Manual (along with Supplement 4 to NUREG- 0654) was released for public comment in May 2009  Public meetings co-hosted by FEMA and NRC throughout the country during June 2009  Public comment period concluded on October 19, 2009  FEMA established a Public Comment Adjudication Team to address all comments 3

4  Provides FEMA interpretation of regulations and guidance in:  44 CFR 350  NUREG 0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1  Provides a consolidated source of policy and guidance for REP employees, licensees, State, local, and tribal preparedness personnel (i.e., a Desk Reference)  Aligns FEMA offsite activities under 44 CFR 350 with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and NRC’s proposed rulemaking activities 4

5  State and local requests to align REP policy/ guidance with tenets of National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Response Framework (NRF), Integrated Planning System (IPS), National Exercise Program (NEP) and the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP)  Enhance scenario realism and eliminate pre- conditioned exercise activities (negative learning)  Establish “Part II,” embedding planning guidance that was not included in 2002 Interim version  Incorporate and retire FEMA REP’s legacy operative policy and program memoranda 5

6  FEMA received 122 submissions, over 2000 individual comments  Comments received from:  State and local governments (approximately 3/4’s of comments were provided by these organizations)  Other top responding groups:  Private Citizens  Utilities  Anonymous  Top 3 subject areas of comments:  HSEEP  HAB Scenarios  Alert & Notifications Systems 6

7 7

8 8

9  General  The REP Program Manual and Supp 4 should be consistent in the use of “should” versus “shall.” Should implies that something is optional while shall implies a requirement.  Reasonable Assurance  The RPM needs to clearly articulate the final policy on “reasonable assurance” to include in Part I of the manual – since it influences policy/guidance throughout the document.  Alert & Notification System (ANS)  There were many comments on the design basis of 15 minutes for alert and notification, the evaluation of initial alert and notification “in a timely manner and without undue delay,” the 45 minute time limit for supplemental alerting, and the backup alerting “within a reasonable time.” 9

10  Language requiring backup means of alerting and notification should be standardized in the planning standard and associated evaluation criteria.  Add a description of the required timeframe for providing supplementary messages to the public after the first EAS message is distributed.  Annual Letters of Certification (ALC)  FEMA should require changes to the distribution of information to transient populations be submitted as part of the Annual Letter of Certification.  Daycare Centers  It is not possible to plan for unlicensed daycare centers because there is no way to absolutely identify and collect data on them. 10

11  Dosimetry  How much dosimetry and potassium iodide (KI) will the offsite response organizations (OROs) be required to make available to specialized response teams during a HAB incident? The quantity of surge responders is unknown until the incident occurs.  The number of dosimeters provided to an agency is based on the number of personnel at the time of issuance; this changes weekly/monthly. Suggest requiring only the types of dosimetry to be listed in the plans.  What is the basis for requiring early reading of permanent record dosimeters? Some emergency workers are located at great distances from nuclear power plant. 11

12  Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE)  All existing ETEs are based on specific sub-areas/evacuation areas of the entire population; requiring specific time estimate to evacuate specific populations (e.g., school children, special needs, service animals and household pets) is too prescriptive.  ETE should be done every 3-5 years or whenever there is a 5% population increase since the last ETE.  Hostile Action Based (HAB) Scenarios  If there is a “no/minimal release” scenario, OROs cannot adequately demonstrate all appropriate core biennial exercise criteria if no General Emergency, Emergency Classification Level (ECL) is declared (i.e., no protective action recommendations/ protective action decisions [PARs/PADS]). 12

13  Requiring a no-release scenario once per 6-year cycle is not in keeping with the goal of having challenging exercises with a variety of scenarios. It needs to be optional to increase flexibility.  Hostile action planning requirements and exercise criteria need to be established before REP HAB exercises should be developed and evaluated.  Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program  The current REP exercise program is more advanced, cost effective, efficient, and mature than HSEEP and it will be a step backwards to implement REP into HSEEP at this time.  What aspects (if any) of the Standard Exercise Report Format (SERF) documentation standards will remain (e.g., Area Requiring Corrective Action [ARCA], Deficiency, etc). Will the exercise narrative still be maintained? 13

14  Memorandum of Understanding/Letter of Agreement (MOU/LOA)  Some commenters noted that LOAs should be reviewed on a regular basis, annually, or every 5 years. They should not specify an expiration date and should have a cancellation notification period, e.g. 90 days. By contrast, others commented that LOAs are unnecessary because mutual aid is understood and supplied when needed. Some questioned why LOAs and MOUs were needed to specifically address HAB when all-hazard versions are already in place. LOAs are not legally binding.  National Incident Management System (NIMS/ICS)  On-site and off-site plans need to be integrated to ensure consistency and accurate counting of resources. 14

15  Not requiring the utilities to adopt NIMS results in a disconnect between on-site and off-site planning and response, particularly during HAB incidents.  Pets  Monitoring and decontamination of pets is problematic.  There is no DHS or FEMA guidance regarding pets.  Public Information  FEMA should require changes to the distribution of information to transient populations to be submitted as part of the Annual Letter of Certification.  EAS messages should NOT contain any info regarding HAB incidents to prevent major panic in the public. EAS message must remain consistent for emergency classifications regardless of Emergency type. 15

16  Public Comment Adjudication Team – internal FEMA team to analyze and recommend comment resolutions, consisting of Regional, HQ and select REP and NPD SMEs  Joint Comment Adjudication Team – joint FEMA/ NRC team to analyze and recommend comment resolutions on cross-cutting issues between proposed NRC rulemaking and FEMA offsite guidance 16

17  To equitably review, analyze and reconcile public comments  To accurately document all considerations, decisions, and rationale  To achieve effective consensus in a timely manner  To properly incorporate all approved comment resolutions in the RPM 17

18  All 2,000+ comments have been adjudicated by PCAT  FEMA/DHA Management Review  September – October 2010: Tentative Target Date for Publication & Issuance  Notice of Availability and Supporting Documents will be provided via the Federal Register and  Effective date vs. implementation date being evaluated 18


Download ppt "2009/2010 NRC Region I/FEMA Regions I, II & III Joint Emergency Preparedness Information Conference."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google