ML16288A469

Emergency Plan for Full-Power Operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit 1

ML16288A469
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/13/1989
From:	Remick F Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Carr K NRC/Chairman
References
D890913
Download: ML16288A469 (8)

Text

D890913 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

EMERGENCY PLAN FOR FULL-POWER OPERATION OF THE SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1 During the 353rd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards, September 7-9, 1989, we reviewed the Seabrook Station em-ergency plan as well as progress on construction and testing that has occurred since our April 19, 1983 report. Our subcommittee on Sea-brook considered the emergency plan during a meeting on August 17, 1989. During our review, we had discussions with representatives of the licensee, the NRC staff, the Federal Emergency Management Admin-istration (FEMA), and intervenor groups. We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.

In our previous report, we provided our conclusion that the Seabrook Station could be operated at up to five percent of its design power of 3411 MWt. We also noted that the emergency plan for the plant had not been completed at the time of the report, and thus we had not reviewed it.

The licensee, in formulating the emergency plan for the plant, has had to take account of the fact that The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and some of the local government entities within the state of New Hamp-shire have chosen not to participate in emergency planning and in the emergency exercises that have been held.

FEMA, after evaluating that part of the emergency plan dealing with the offsite population, has concluded that the plan is acceptable, although some corrective actions have been specified. In its evalua-tion, FEMA included measures taken by the licensee to devise a system for providing information to people in areas within the 10-mile emer-gency planning zone where local authorities have not accepted this responsibility. Consideration was also given to plans, made by the licensee, for other emergency actions that might be required in case of a major accident. Major consideration was given to plans for evacuating the beach areas within the 10-mile zone, in case an acci-dent occurs at a time when there is a significant transient beach population.

The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's planning and the training of the licensee's staff for dealing with emergencies. Practice exercises have been held. The staff is prepared to recommend approval of the licensee's emergency plan, including that part of the plan that has been evaluated by FEMA.

Emergencies that would require site evacuation are low-probability events. The licensee's analyses predict that, even with peak occupan-

cy of the beaches and other areas, the emergency planning zone can be evacuated in less than eight hours. This should provide appropriate radiological dose savings and complies with NUREG-0654, Revision 1 (referenced). The Seabrook Station emergency plan appears to meet the standards that have been formulated by FEMA and by the NRC.

We observe that, if an accident occurs that requires implementation of a significant part of the emergency plan, it is likely to be an accident not specifically planned for. Thus, the emergency plan, even though it is designed to respond to site emergencies as defined in NUREG-0654, is valuable not only because it can respond to postulated scenarios. Its principal value results from the fact that it requires that decisions be made prior to an emergency, such as who is respon-sible for making decisions during the course of an emergency, what communication systems are available, what resources, human and other-wise, are available, and how, within some limits, the organization can function. Given such planning, it is much more likely that even the unexpected can be dealt with successfully. This observation is well encapsulated in the statement by former President Eisenhower, "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

It is also necessary to recognize that in spite of all the precautions that are taken, there is some small residual risk. We do not believe that this risk is unacceptable or is significantly greater than that at other densely populated sites.

The ACRS believes that subject to satisfactory resolution of the issues that arose during low-power testing and corrective actions recommended by FEMA, there is reasonable assurance that Seabrook Station, Unit 1, can be operated at core power level up to 3411 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Sincerely, Forrest J. Remick Chairman

References:

1. Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station, "Final Safety Analysis Report," Volumes 1-15, with amendments 1 through

61.

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0896, "Safety Evalua-tion Report Related to the Operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2," with supplements 1 through 8.

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Seabrook Station (TAC #M63391), July 27, 1989.

4. Public Service Company of New Hampshire and Yankee Atomic Elecric Company, PLG-0300, "Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," Volumes 1-6, December 1983.

5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Prepa-ration and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," November 1980.

6. Written Comments dated July 11, 1989 from Board of Selectmen, Town of Essex, Massachusetts, regarding unresolved reactor safety issues.

7. Written Comments dated August 16, 1989 from Leslie B. Greer, Attorney General's Office, the State of Massachusetts, submitting documents on emergency plans that have been submitted to ASLB and ASLAP.

8. Written Comments dated August 16, 1989 from Board of Selectmen, Town of Manchester, Massachusetts, joining concern expressed in Essex Board of Selectmen letter of July 11, 1989.

9. Written Comments dated August 18, 1989 from Matthew Brock, Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding ACRS meeting on Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

10. Written Comments dated August 21, 1989 from Diane Curran, repre-senting the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, regarding opposition to licensee's request for an exemption from the requirement to exercise the onsite emergency plan within a year prior to issuance of operating license.

11. Written Comments dated August 24, 1989 from Congressman Nicholas Mavroules in support of Essex Board of Selectmen letter dated July 11, 1989.

12. Written Comments dated August 28, 1989 from Patricia Pierce-Bjorklund, presenting visual evidence companion to the Essex Board of Selectmen letter of July 11, 1989.

13. Written Comments dated September 5, 1989 from Matthew T. Brock, Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding Seabrook Station Emergency Planning.

14. Written Comments dated September 6, 1989 from Robert A. Backus representing the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League regarding Sea-brook Station Emergency Planning.

15. Written Comments dated September 6, 1989 from Diane Curran representing the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution regarding Seabrook Emergency Planning.

16. Written Comments dated September 6, 1989 from Matthew T. Brock, Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding ACRS/Seabrook Station Emergency Planning.

17. Videotape provided on September 8, 1989 by Mimi Fallon, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, regarding evacuation considerations at the Seabrook Station.

hD

q

3181221 dhD

Ü3181222 *rD

1/43181223 ZrD

£