Frequently Asked Questions – Miscellaneous
Revised 01/17/2012
1) Question: How do I receive a copy of the RPM?

A: FEMA REPP Website

2) Question: How can I ask a question regarding information in the manual?

Answer: Contact your FEMA Regional Assistance Committee Chairperson. The Chairperson will forward your questions to the RPM Frequently Asked Questions Committee.

3) Question: Can FEMA delay the REP Program Manual (RPM) until revisions to NUREG-0654 are complete?

Answer: FEMA already released the final RPM and Supplement 4. Given that FEMA and the NRC share responsibilities for providing oversight for radiological emergency planning and preparedness, FEMA developed the RPM and Supplement 4 on a schedule parallel to the NRC’s proposed emergency preparedness rulemaking activities. Each Agency sought to issue its final products simultaneously with the other. 
   
Although it aligns with NRC efforts, the RPM exists as an independent document. In the upcoming year, FEMA and the NRC will begin the lengthy task of revising NUREG -0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.  This process will be stakeholder inclusive and allow additional revisions to the RPM.  Stakeholders use the RPM as a desk reference when they need to answer questions or receive clarification on REP planning, exercises, and administrative procedures. The new version of the RPM incorporates previously issued FEMA guidance memoranda, policy memoranda, and some FEMA-REP series documents. This updated RPM also effectively retires incorporated documents from use as independent resources. Retired guidance documents appear in Appendix D as historical resources. The RPM retains active guidance documents on specific technical areas such as the FEMA-REP series documents and other REP Program documents too lengthy to incorporate as stand-alone references.

4) Question: Can FEMA delay the publication of the RPM, release the adjudication of public comments, and then permit a second comment period?
	
Answer: Administrator Fugate has signed the revised RPM, making it final and effective, which precludes a second comment period. FEMA has now posted the comprehensive public comment adjudication matrices to our website to serve as clarifying references.

FEMA received over 120 submissions containing more than 2,300 individual comments about the RPM and Supplement 4, each of which it adjudicated. The process began on May 18, 2009, when FEMA published draft versions of both the RPM and Supplement 4 in the Federal Register for public comment (74 FR 23198, May 18, 2009). The original notice required comments on or before August 3, 2009. In response to stakeholder requests for additional time to comment, FEMA extended the comment period through October 19, 2009 (74 FR 27557, June 10, 2009). In addition, from June 2-23, 2009, FEMA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) jointly hosted a series of public meetings in various cities nationwide, each of which allowed time for audience participation (74 FR 26418, June 2, 2009). These meetings included teleconference and Web-conferencing capabilities to permit remote participation. 

Many of the 2,300-plus comments focused on aspects of exercise planning and play, such as the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) and hostile action-based (HAB) scenarios. FEMA constituted a team of Headquarters and Regional representatives and adjudicated every comment received. This multi-year process required a substantial effort from all REP Program personnel and culminated in the recent publication of the final RPM and Supplement 4. These same personnel must now shift their focus from revising the RPM and Supplement 4 towards both implementing this guidance and addressing new projects.

While FEMA will not provide a second RPM comment period, we have posted matrices that detail the adjudication of each comment we received.  Two versions of the matrices exist: one matrix lists the individual comments, while the other matrix arranges the comments by topic issue. These documents now appear on both the FEMA REP public webpage and www.regulations.gov, docket ID FEMA-2008-0022. In addition, comprehensive notes from the joint FEMA/NRC public meetings appear on www.regulations.gov, docket ID FEMA-2008-0022-0034.

5) Question: Will FEMA delay release of documents until stakeholder concerns are addressed? 

Answer: FEMA already published the final RPM and Supplement 4. Given that FEMA and the NRC share responsibilities for providing oversight for radiological emergency planning and preparedness, FEMA developed the RPM and Supplement 4 on a schedule parallel to the NRC’s proposed emergency preparedness rulemaking activities. Each Agency sought to issue its final products simultaneously with the other. 

FEMA and the NRC created the NRC/FEMA Integrated Transition and Implementation Plan (ITIP) Working Group to work on the next steps for the publication and roll-out of the RPM, Supplement 4, and the NRC rulemaking documents. Upon final publication of the FEMA and NRC documents in the Federal Register, a series of scheduled, joint FEMA/NRC implementation forums with stakeholders will begin. 

While the guidance contained within the RPM and Supplement 4 are now final, opportunities to engage in additional discussions concerning the implementation of the RPM still exist. On November 8, 2011, NRC and FEMA staff conducted a webcast to explain the changes to the NRC regulations and related NRC and FEMA guidance documents. This meeting acquainted meeting attendees with the documents and where to find certain types of information in them.

The remaining meetings, scheduled to take place between November 2011 and February 2012, will offer multi-day opportunities for engagement between the NRC, FEMA, licensees, and OROs in a forum format. Each NRC Region will host a forum, and the NRC will also host one near its Headquarters. At these forums, NRC and FEMA staff will provide brief presentations on the changes, and after each presentation licensees and OROs may ask questions to improve their understanding of how to implement the program changes. Members of the public are invited to observe these meetings and the interaction between NRC, FEMA, licensees, and OROs. Opportunities for members of the public to ask questions will occur at designated times on the agenda.

Select meetings will also be available online. For information on how to register to participate by telephone or through the Web, please see the notice for the meeting that you wish to attend on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm, as well as the FEMA REP public webpage.

These forums will allow NRC and FEMA staff to answer questions about the final rule and related guidance documents. The forums are not opportunities to negotiate the content of the final rule or guidance documents. FEMA and the NRC encourage meeting participants to review the documents prior to the meetings and to bring their own copies should they wish to refer to them during the meeting.

In addition to the implementation forums referenced above, FEMA Regions are currently coordinating government-to-government meetings with each State. The Regions will announce the schedule for these meetings as soon as they finalize the details. These meetings will take place either at the individual sites or at a central location for multiple sites to gather, depending on the State preference. 

6) Question: Why did the October 2011 RPM not include stakeholder adjudication of comments? 

Answer: FEMA has posted matrices that detail the adjudication of each of the 2300-plus comments we received. One matrix lists the individual comments by who submitted them, while the other matrix arranges the comments by topic issue. These documents now appear on both the FEMA REP public webpage and www.regulations.gov, docket ID FEMA-2008-0022. In addition, comprehensive notes from the joint FEMA/NRC public meetings appear on www.regulations.gov, docket ID FEMA-2008-0022-0034.

7) Question: How does the use of mandatory language clarify the nature of the guidance documents? 

Answer: These documents transmit only interpretive rules or general statements of policy. The guidance contained in the RPM and Supplement 4 helps FEMA clarify, interpret, and apply the evaluation criteria listed in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NUREG-0654). 

NUREG-0654 contains evaluation criteria for meeting the intent of the 16 regulatory Planning Standards outlined in 44 CFR § 350.5 and 10 CFR § 50.47. Given its incorporation by reference into 44 CFR Part 350, NUREG-0654 establishes obligations on the parties responsible for emergency preparedness planning in the areas surrounding nuclear power plants. OROs may propose alternative approaches to meeting the Planning Standards in writing to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FEMA Regions, Headquarters, the NRC, and other Federal Departments and Agencies (where appropriate) will review these proposed alternative approaches prior to acceptance. Therefore, an ORO may determine for itself whether to adhere to REP Program guidance or to pursue an alternative approach. Language in the RPM quoted directly from regulatory material uses both shall and should to denote requirements. The remaining text in the RPM uses the terms shall, must, and require denoting mandatory items originating in regulatory material including NUREG-0654 and the CFR. The terms should, suggest and recommend denote guidance outlining a Federally-approved means of meeting the intent of the REP regulations. The term may denotes an option, neither required nor necessarily recommended.

8) Question: Did FEMA consider how new criteria will affect State and local resources?

Answer: The updates reflected in the final RPM have led to recommendations that FEMA consider the impact on State, tribal, and local costs and resources of new evaluation criteria in the RPM. It was pointed out that FEMA added new evaluation criteria to the RPM without notification of change or opportunity for public comment as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, that FEMA did not include a summary of the regulatory impact analysis, and that this will result in significant implementation costs.

The Administrative Procedures Act does affect the publication of “major rules”. Neither the RPM nor Supplement 4 constitutes a “major rule” subject to its provisions because these documents transmit only interpretive rules or general statements of policy. The guidance contained in the RPM and Supplement 4 helps FEMA clarify, interpret, and apply the evaluation criteria listed in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NUREG-0654). 

NUREG-0654 contains evaluation criteria for meeting the intent of the 16 regulatory Planning Standards outlined in 44 CFR § 350.5 and 10 CFR § 50.47. Given its incorporation by reference into 44 CFR Part 350, NUREG-0654 establishes binding obligations on the parties responsible for emergency preparedness planning in the areas surrounding nuclear power plants. This means that FEMA requires OROs demonstrate the criteria contained in the regulations, but does not mandate use of REP Program guidance to meet the 16 Planning Standards. OROs may propose alternative approaches to meeting the Planning Standards in writing to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FEMA Regions, Headquarters, the NRC, and other Federal Departments and Agencies (where appropriate) will review these proposed alternative approaches prior to acceptance. Therefore, an ORO may determine for itself whether to adhere to REP Program guidance or to pursue an alternative approach.

The guidance published by FEMA should not increase costs nor drain resources. Most (if not all) of what are considered as new requirements already occur under the existing evaluation criteria or as part of the Annual Letter of Certification (ALC) process. For example, “Requirements to provide a detailed listing of Federal, State, tribal, and local resources that might respond to an incident including estimated arrival times” already appeared in evaluation criteria C.1, in place since 1980 and never revised, while the “Requirement to include signature pages of LOA/MOUs in plans,” was already provided for in the Annual Letter of Certification. As for utilizing varied exercise scenarios such as the HAB scenario, the limited/no-radiological release scenario, and the rapidly escalating scenario in REP exercises, these do not necessarily create any additional costs as biennial REP exercises must occur regardless. The OROs must still demonstrate the same evaluation criteria previously required by FEMA. These varied scenarios simply add to the menu of scenarios for demonstration in a REP exercise.

In some cases, the changes in the RPM and Supplement 4 may decrease costs.  For example, a more uniform use of HSEEP in REP exercise development and planning could reduce the cost of an exercise because most States already use HSEEP. This same logic applies to many of the national preparedness initiatives, such as NIMS and ICS. FEMA made these changes with the goal of aligning the REP Program with the broader efforts underway in the field of emergency management. These changes should neither drain resources nor increase costs.   

9) Question: What is the difference between “shall” and “should”? (Revised 01/17/2012)

Answer: Shall denotes mandatory items originating in regulatory material. If should is quoted from NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and the basis for the material is referenced in 44 CFR 350-354, then it means shall, and, therefore it is a requirement. The only instance of this in the current RPM is Planning Standard G. All other instances of should in the RPM denote guidance outlining Federally-approved means of meeting the intent of the REP regulations.

10) Question: Referencing page I-2, where can we receive more information on the Planning and Preparedness Assessment Strategy?

Answer: The REP Program currently relies on a combination of exercises, site assistance visits (SAVs), plan reviews, and an ALC to develop a recommendation of reasonable assurance. Over the course of the last 30 years, the reasonable assurance assessment began to rely on the biennial exercise over the other components. This edition of the RPM introduces multiple policy changes that allow an ongoing assessment approach through evaluation of a broader range of activities than those previously used.  FEMA‘s planning and preparedness assessment strategy uses a combination of exercises, drills, training, SAVs, and reporting to ensure that offsite planning and preparedness remain adequate to protect the health and safety of the public. The Assessment Strategy is designed to provide a continuous assessment of state, tribal, local and licensee offsite preparedness to validate Reasonable Assurance. By creating more frequent assessment opportunities, less emphasis will be placed on “grading” during the biennial exercise FEMA Regions may request additional information from the FEMA HQ Reasonable Assurance Staff.

11) Question: Why is the definition of “Offsite” and “Onsite” the same?

Answer: The “Offsite” definition is correct. “Onsite” is defined as “the area within the perimeter of the fence line of the nuclear plant.” FEMA will correct this by page change, when possible.

12) Question: How is “Reasonable Assurance” determined?

Answer: Per 44 CFR 350.5, Approved plans and preparedness, “must be determined to adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be take offsite in the event of a radiological emergency.” FEMA makes its adequacy determination by conducting inspections, providing staff assistance visits, organizing, conducting and reviewing training, participating in, observing and evaluating drills and exercises. FEMA takes into consideration plans, procedures, personnel, training, facilities, equipment, which, in its professional judgment are important to the effective implementation of protective measures offsite.

13) Question: Where can copies of the references listed in Appendix C be found?

Answer: Copies of all references will be found on the FEMA REP Program website, eventually.  In the mean time, contact your FEMA Region for copies.

14) Question: Throughout the RPM there are references to list of individuals, list of personnel, and rosters, are OROs required to give FEMA names of individuals?  

Answer: FEMA reviews titles/positions, and does not need personally identifiable information. The ORO may also provide reference to a roster, where required.  

15) Question: Where can OROs find more information on the Credentialing Framework? 

Answer: Information on the Credentialing Framework can be found page IV-34 and IV-35.  Additionally, contact your Region for a copy of the Credentialing Framework.   

16) Question: The RPM discusses FEMA determining reasonable assurance by use of inspections.  Can FEMA clarify what this means?

Answer: Inspections would be considered for items such as the review of facilities for 1.b.1., review of equipment for 1.d.1. or 1.e.1.  This is new terminology, not a new requirement. FEMA Headquarters and Regional staff provide support to OROs through SAVs. Such assistance can include: technical assistance with plan development, review, or implementation; attending meetings with OROs and the licensee; participating in or observing non-evaluated exercises and drills; evaluating exercises and drills to fulfill biennial requirements; and verifying ALC and plan information (e.g., KI inventories, equipment maintenance, training courses offered).”  


17) Question: What does page I-14 mean when it states that controlling surface contamination is a protective action?

Answer: Minimizing/Controlling surface contamination is not a Protective Action Recommendation, but it is a protective action that an ORO may want to consider.  EPA-400 1992 discusses controlling surface contamination.  Controlling surface contamination at the emergency worker monitoring and decontamination centers would be a protective measure taken. The intent here is to provide examples that may be implemented.


18) Question: What is FEMA’s planned process for updating the RPM in the future?

Answer: FEMA’s intent is to review the RPM periodically, and updated as needed. FEMA plans issue all future REP Program guidance as page changes to the applicable parts of the RPM. The first full revision of the RPM will take place approximately one year after the implementation of the 8-year cycle, and every three years thereafter.

19) Question: How has information from Fukushima affected the size of the EPZs in the US?

Answer: The Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) have not changed as a result of the information from the Fukushima event in Japan. See the following link: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1122/ML112230068.pdf.