ML19325E940
| ML19325E940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1989 |
| From: | Erin Kennedy, Kerry J, Markey E, Mavroules N SENATE |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9402 OL, NUDOCS 8911130063 | |
| Download: ML19325E940 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _
9 V
e==.a vnue[P &y. p L wI uw.xn avussa h v.
/
Mited $tates $tnatt Y
WASHINGTo;t DC 20510
'89 E -6 P ) :28 Qw. _, d.'%
November 3, 1989 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman SERVED NOV -6 WW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are writing to express several concerns regarding NRC regulations on emergency response plans for nuclear power plants.
.i l
As you know, recently the Atomic Safety and Licensing
)
Appeal Board acknowledged to the Commission its inability to interpret NRC regulations (10 CFR 50.47 (a) (1) ) governing what " reasonable assurance of adequate protective measures" anans as it relates to emergency planning.
In doing so, it is' obvious to us that the Appeal Board has shown its J
inability to comprehend chat stendard governs emergency planning review.
This statement troubles us for several' reasons.
- First, it demonstrates that ten years after Congress clearly mandated the NRC to adopt emergency planning standards, the Conmission has been approving plans and nuclear operating licenses without remotely understanding the fundamental standard by which it is to judge such plans.
To that end, we strongly request an immediate explanation from you on why this uncertainty regarding an issue so important ac emergency planning is surfacing at this late date.
Second, in raising this question, the Appeal Board concluded that emergency planning has a 3 esser role in L
protecting public safety than siting and engineering design features.
The Board characterised emergency planning as a "second tier" safety provision not tied to the requirement of
(
I
" adequate protection" (section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act 1
of the 1980 NRC Authorization Act.)
We strongly disagree with this interpretation by the Board.
Furthermore, as you know, over the years the Commission has repeatedly and explicitly assured us in Congress that emergency planning is a primary component to ensuring the health and safety of the public in the event of a nuclear mishap.
For example, in 1983 the Commissione:.s expressed their
- view on tha Jmnnrtance of emergency planning before the L,
8911130063 891103 f
~. _.. - -_-
. ~ n.
o l
4' i
a 2
Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Senator Simpson the Chairman of i
the Committee at the time esked the NRC the following question:
To what extent are the NRC's current emergency planning requirements dire:tly related to protection of the public health from radiological risk, and therefore deemed preemptive of local requirements on those areas?
He received the following response from the NRC:
l The fundamental objective of the NRC's emergency I
planning regulations is to enhance protection of j
public health and safety in the event of a l
radiological emergency.
This objective was explained by the Commission at the tims of the proposed emergency planning rule: "The proposed rule is predicated on the Commission's considered judgement in the aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Is1r.nd that safe siting and design-engineered features alone do not optimize protection of the public health and safety...The accident showed L
clearly that the protection provided by siting and l
engineered safety features must be bolstered by the j
l ability to take protective measures during the L
course of an accident".
Additional statements issued over the years by the NRC have schoed similar sentimants on the importance of emergency planning.
Mr. Chairman, given the uncertainty created by the Appeal Board's recent decision and given what we have understood up until now to be a clear Commission view, we would like to receive your assurance that the NRC still views emergency planning as a "first tjor" requirement of the Atomic Energy Act.
We are further concerned that the NRC may contemplate, or even rule (as the A;omic Safety and Licensing Board has in the Ssabrook case ALAB-922 n.37), that emergency plans for a site are adequate as long as they represent the "best efforts" of the utility or sponsoring state under the circumstances of the particular site.
It seems frightfully clear to us that under this rule, review of emergency response plans would be of little benefit.
In fact, based on that scenario, utilities would be guaranteed an operating license regardless of how serious the risk could be to the surrounding populations.
Surely this is not the intent of the Commission.
- - - - - - - - - - - -l
.y j
)
4 3
We recognize that this issue, is at the core of the Appeal Board's uncertainty stated above.
To that end, we i
await with great interest your development of the precise i
standard governing emergency pla.nning review.
In that regard, we would appreciate your assurance that "best efforts" in no way governs that standard.
Lastly, there is one final issue that relates to p ergency planning standards that needs clarification.
It is our view that the purpose of an effective emergency plan is to enhance the safety of the public; in other words, to reduce the dose of radiation that they may be expcsed to in the event of a nuclear accident.
We are confused, however, by contradicting statements made by the Commission on this issue.
In a 1987 rulemaking governing utility sponsored emergency plans the commission stated:
emergency plans are evaluated for adequacy without reference to numerical dose reductions which might be accomplished,...svery emergency plan.is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabilities'of any other plan.
On the other hand, the Commission has said in the ShDItham decision, 24 NRC 22, 30, that emergency plans must provide " reasonable and feasible dose reductions under the circumstances.". We strongly believe that dose reductions must be taken into consideration when eveluating the effectiveness of an emergency plan.
Your clarification on this' issue would be helpful.
The health, safety and welfare of citizens surrounding nuclear power plants in the United States and of course the citizens near the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant are, as you know, our utmost concern.
Your ability to fully address and clarify our concerns will be very helpful in our complete understanding of the Commissien's view on emergency planning.
We look forward to your prompt response to all of our concerns.
Sincerely, "V
rno b l vroul, John F. Kerry
/
,' &r
{
Edward M. Kennedy h
Edward J. Mt,rkey I
I i
og
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMM188!0N i
.(-
l in the Hatter of I
l 1
i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW l
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL hAMP8 HIRE, ET AL.
l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ond 2) l l
l CERTIFICATE OF BERVICE l
I hereby.certif y that copies of the f oregoing LTR MAVROULES TO CARR DTD 11/3 have been served upon the f ollowing persons by U.b. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requireeents of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
j Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
- 6. Paul' Bollwerk, !!!, Chairman Alan 8. Rosenthal i
Atoalc Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
~
Board t
H U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Howard A..Wilber Adminissrative Law Judge
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Ivan W. Smith, Cha'iraan Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
)
kdainistrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esquire James H. Carpenter l
Atoolc Safety and Licensing Board Alternate Techr.ical Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Comeission 1
Washington, DC 20555
)
Edwin J. Reis. Esq.
Mitri A. Young Office of the Beieral Counsel Attornay U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 2055.
I
,g~
r.._--rr-.
33..
-..y
..v---..._.wr--,._,,.-_.r,-
,,-,,-w-
,...-e.,
~. =,
b o
.l l
v Decket No.(s)S0-443/444-OL
. LTR MAVROULES 10 CARR DTD 11/3 l
Diano Curran, Esq.
Thoeas 8. Dignan, Jr., Esa.
l Hereon, Curran k Tousley Ropes 6 Oray 2001 8 Street, N.W., Suite 430 One International Place Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA 02110
.i Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Backus, Meyer.6 Solcaen thatnes 6 McEachern 116 Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue, P.O. Jox 360 l
Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Bary W. Holees Esq.
Judith H. Mirner Holmes 6 Ells Silverglate, Bernter, Baker, Fine, 47 Winnacunnet Road Bood and Mittner Hampton, NH 03842 88 Broad Street l
Boston, MA 02110 l
Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq.
Jane Doherty Kopelsen and Paige, P.C.
Seacoast Anti-Poll'ution League 77.Frsnklin Street 5 Market Street Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
l Secrge W. Watson, Esq.
Ashed W. Amirlan, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Agency l
I 376 Main Street 500 C Street, 8.W.
Haverhill, MA 01830 Washington, DC 20472 i
Edward A. Thomas Secrge D. Bisbee, Esq.
Federal Energency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General 442 J.W. McCormack (PDCH)
Office of the Attorney 8eneral j
Boston, MA 02109 25 Capitol Street i
Concord, NH 03301 Suzanne Bretseth John Traficonte, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Town of Hampton Falls Office of the Attorney General Drinkwater Road One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Hampton Falls, NH 03044 Boston, MA 02108
-e
-r
,-y
-e v--,-
.,+--.m,.
e-.e.
--w,
-,--..r--,
E Docket No.is)S0-443/444-0L LTR MAVROULES TO CARR DTD 11/3 3
?
The Honorable Peter J. Br6nn Esq.
Edward J. Markey, Chairsen e
Assistant Attorney General ATTN Linda Correia Office of the Attorney General Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and State House Station, 66 Power Augusta, ME 04333 House Connittee on Energy and Coseerce Washington, DC 20515 Richard A. Haape, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Hespe b McNicholas Board of Selecteen 35 Pleasant Street to Central Street Concord, NH 03301 Rye, NH 03E70 f
I Alien Lampert Willian Armstrong Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter, NH 03833 Sandra Bavutisi Chatraen Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD #1 Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Anne Goodman, Chairman Willias 8. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Town Hall - Friend Strast Durham, NH 03824 Amesbury, MA 01913 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Michael Santosuesso, Chairman Lagouits, Hill-Whilton 6 McGuiro Board of Selecteen 79 State Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Newburyport,, MA 01950 Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Norman C. Katner Board of Selectmen 8uperintendent of Schools P.O. Box 710 School Adelnistrative Unit No. 21 North Hampton, NH 03862 Alumni Drive Hampton, NH 03642
(> a:,;(
La J..
.Decket'No.(s)S0-443/444-OL LTR MAVROULES TO.CARR DTD 11/3
- )
'o v
i i
Sandra F. Mitchel!
The Honorable j
Civil Defense Director Gordon J. Humphrey I
Town ef Kensington ATTN Janet Colt
'lom 10. RR1
. United States Senate test Kingston, NH 03027 Washington, DC 20510
+
Dated at Rockville, Md. tr,is 6 day of November 1989
(
aifi;;;i;;;i;;;;;;;;;;;;a;;;t;;i;n i
1
^
\\
1 i
1 l-i 1
i 1
1 a
.