ML20042E950
| ML20042E950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9005070005 | |
| Download: ML20042E950 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ _ -
o UNITED STATES j'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20565 March 2, 1990 CHAIRfAAN The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chairman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and P,.'311c Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) 42nd quarterly status report on emergency preparedness for nuclear power plants. This report, which covers the period from October 1 to December 31, 1989, has been co-ordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Seabrook was manually shut down on June 22, 1989, during the conduct of a low-power test. Although restart was pennitted once the licensee completed a review of the events associated with the shutdown and of any corrective actions with the NRC staff, so little time remained for operation at low power, as authorized by the low-power license, that restart was considered by the licensee to be impractical prior to receiving a full power operating license.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued decisions in November 1989 concerning emergency planning and license authorization for Seabrook. Under Commission regulations, the license authorization does not take effect until the Commission completes its review to determine whether to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision. By order dated Move.mber 16, 1989, the Commission stated that it would decide all motions to stay the authorization of full-power operation of Seabrook. After reviewing thest matters, the Commission, on March 1, 1990, authorized the issuance of a full power license for the Seabrook Station.
Concerning Comanche Peak,,
11 pirticipation emergency preparedness exercise was conducted on July 25-h, 1989.
FEMA evaluated the off-site portion of the exercise and, in a report issJed on January 12, 1990, concluded that the off-site emergency plans and preparedness for Comanche Peak are adequate.
Currently, there are no NRC actions delaying the schedule for issuance of a full-power license..
Sincerely, MNV James R. Curtiss Acting Chairman
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson
~
($$h fooy m:>oa3 c,,y y Ds wms sn -
CORRESPONDENL 5 ' PDi:
'ff i
.,-n,
' i..
l j
ENCLOSURE-1 NRC 00ARTERLY STATUS REPORT ON LICENSING SCHEDULES FOR TRITEMTH QUARTER OF CY 1989 Seabrook Lowlower A 5-percent power license restricted to Oi75 effective' full-power hours was issued on May 26 1989. The plant achieved initial, criticality at 5:23 p.m. on
.i June-13, 1989. Low-power testing'was in progress on June 22, 1989, when the' j
reactor was manually shut _down during the conduct of a_ natural circulation stcrtup test. The !icensee agreed not to restart the reactor pending-a. review-l of the events surrounding-this shutdown and'a discussion of any corrective actions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff..The NRC sent an augmented inspection team to the site on June 28,-1989, to evaluate the a
circumstances surrounding this. shutdown. The team issued a report on-August 17, 1989, which cited several: violations. On October 25, 1989, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed imposition of a civil penalty of
$50,000. The licensee replied to the notice of violation on November 17, 1989, and did not contest the. proposed civil penalty. A majority of the licensee's-o corrective actions resulting from this shutdown'have_been completed. The intervenors sought to reopen the hearing record based on this incident. On October 12, 1989, the Licensing Board denied thet motion.- The intervenors have.
appealed. Although this appeal is pending.it does not affect consideration to authorize a full power operating license._
Full Power On November 16, 1989, the Commission. issued an Order ~ stating that it, rather than the Appeal Board, would consider any motions to vacate or stay the a
L i-Licensing Board's decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license for q
Seabrook. A briefing by the parties on matters relcted to imediate effective-ness was completed on December 8, 1989. Among the matters pending Commission consideration in its imediate effectiveness review are the following:
New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP)
The Licensing Board decision of December 30, 1988, concluded that the NHRERP was adequate. This decision was appealed by the intervenors.
On November 7, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing-Appeal Board (ASLAB) remanded part of this decision back to the Licensing Board 1
for further consideration. On November 20, 1989,_the Licensing Board determined that the remand did not affect the prior authorization of a full-power license for Seabrook. Both intervenors and the applicant have petitioned the Comission for review of the Appeal Board decision.
e s
4 s.
~
i 4
Seabrook Pls for the Massachusetts Comunities (SPMC) and the June 1988 Full-PcP.:icipation Exercise j
The Licensing Board decision dated November 9, 1989 concluded that L
the SPMC was adequate and the full-participation exercise of June g
1988 did not reveal'any fundament > flaw in the emergency plans. The L
decision authorized, subject to Comission review, the. issuance of a
- full-power license. The intervenors have appealed this decision.
Vehicular' Alert and Notification-System (VANS)
~
.The Licensing' Board's decision of. June 23, 1989, on the adequacy of the siren system for public ' notification was in favor of the applicant.
Intervenors have appealed this decision.
I Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) 1
- On November 9,1989, the intervenors filed a motion to reopen the hearing record on the sufficiency of the EBS upon withdrawal of a station fn that system. On January 8, 1990 the Licensing Board L
rejecteo cne motion to reopen the hearirg record. This decision has been appealed.
l L
1989 On-site Exercise i
The Licensing Board's decision of December 11, 1989, rejected conten-J tions seeking to litigate: the scope of the September 27, 1989 on-site emergency planning exercise. The intervenors have appealed this decision.
l Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Review of l
Emergency Planning i
On September 8, 1989, the ACRS held a meeting on emergency planning for Seabrook.
Following the meeting, the ACRS issued a letter dated September 13,1989, 'to the Chairman cf the NRC concluding that, subject to satisfactory resolution of certain licensing issues, there.
is reasonable assurance that Seabrook Nuclear Station,. Unit 1, can be l
operated at a core power. level up to 3411 MW(t) without undue risk to.
l the health.and safety of the public.
The licensing issues identified I
by the ACRS pertained tc the event (noted above) that occurred June 22, 1989, during a natural circulation test performed by une licensee, and to the installation and operation of the public alert notification system for the comunities within the emergency planning Zone.
4 Imediate Effectiveness Review A Comission briefing was held on January 18, 1990. On March 1 l
1990, the Comission authorized issuance of a full power operating a
license.
4 4
k
~
_ ~..
e L
Comanche Peak The NRC staff has reviewed the Comanche Peak on-site: emergency plan. The most recent full-participation exercise was conducted July 25-26, 1989. The NRC evaluated the on-site portion of the exercise and concluded that, with the
- j exception of demonstrating accountability in the protected area after a site evacuation, the applicant's response was adequate to protect the health and safety of the publi:. The applict.ut successfully demonstrcted its accounta-bility capability in a drill on October 27, 1989. The Federal Emergency-Management Agency (FEMA) evaluated the off-site portion of the July 25-26, 1989.
exercise and in a report issued en January 12, 1990, concluded that the off-site emergency plans and preparedness for Comanche Peak are adequate.
t t
l e
. 1 i
1 3
I i-l O