ML20043D926
| ML20043D926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1989 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2659, NUDOCS 9006110285 | |
| Download: ML20043D926 (15) | |
Text
.
- ,r.
z?gs af 69 ;
f'PS $/3//?b l
CERTIFIED COPY 4
DATE ISSUED: 9/14/89 7Y
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEABROOK AUGUST 17, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND ine ACRS Subcommittee on Seabrook met on August 17, 1989 to review and discuss Seabroak emergency plans for full power operation. The meeting was requested by the utility and the NRC, i
Notice of meeting was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 1989 and August 7, 1989.
Items covered in the meeting and a list of handouts are kept with the office copy.
Two written statements were received fror the public; 1) a letter from the Essex Board of Selectman, received July 31,1989 (letter undated) and 2) letter from L. B. Greer, Department of the Attorney General, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts to W. Kerr, ACRS, dated August 16, 1989 transmitting documents on l
1 Emergency Plans for Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (these documents were also submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the NRC). An oral statement was presented at tha meeting by Ms. Dianne Curran, an attorney of the firm Harmon, Curran & Tousley, representing the New England Coalition on 3h Nuclear Pollution.
o Principal Attendees:
ACRS ou 5
W. Kerr, Chairman M. Bender, ACRS Consultant je@
J. Carroll, Member T. Severn, ACRS Consultant g
C.
lie Member D. Drum, ACRS Consultant 30{
}
DESIG HTED ORIGI HL cortm.43, M 423' 3
=
4; i
t.,n
+,
. Seibrook Subcommittee M::eting '
'2 e
L '. C' -
- F
- i
' August-17, 1989 a
V. Nerses
'E. Reis R. Erickson W-Travers.
F. Kantor R. Serbu New Hampshire Yankee-P..Stroup J. Moody G. Gram T. Feigenoaicm R. DeLoach B. Draw', ridge J. Hart A. Callendre'lo L. Ran J. Grillu D. Barr E. Desmarais J. Vargas R. White R. Sher T. Carter j
R. Sweer.ey T. Harpster Yankee Atomic Electric P. Littlefield J. Robinson J. Jacobson
?
J. Chapman L
Other i
E. Lieberman, KGD Associates l _
D. Noon 6n, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel L_
R. Donovan, U.S. FEMA L
K. Molloy, Schneider Engineering l-W. Dunlap, Schneider Engineering R. Stark, U.S. DOE H. Flynn, U.S._ FEMA l
D. Curran, NECNP l
.I Hichliahts:
1.
Dr. Kerr in his opening comments stated that the ACRS reported on the utility application for a license to engage in low power testing of the Seabrook StationLon Apri1 19, 1983. The Comittee at that time did l
not comment on full power operation because the emergency plan for
~
Seabrook had not been fully developed.
In the continuing evaluative of l
l' 7
the licensee's effcrt to obtain a full power license for Seabrook, the ih'
{
in
4,k
_Seabrook-Subcommittee Meeting-3 J'
' f August 17. 1989 W
NRC staff, FEMA and AR B all appear to have reached a conclusion, that the plant, its management, its staffing, and its-emergency plan have 6chie:,ed a level of performance adequate for full power operation of Seabrook with no undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
He
-reminded-those involved in the licensing process that it is not the NRc nor the ACR5 that d';termines national policy on the. development of nuclear power, but that that responsib4'lity rests in the Congrets.
Congress bes adopted a policy that nuclear power should be a part of the mixture of energy sources that generates electricity in the United States.
4 2.
Ms. Diane-Curran, representing the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, an Intervenor in the Seabrook licensing case, made an oral presentation.
She stated that she speaks for other Intervenors in the Seabrook case not present because of not_being informed of the subcommittee meeting in ample time.
She stated that they would like to have en opportunity to address the ACRS, for they feal that the ACRS celiberations are extremely important. Dr. Kerr replied that members of-the public will have.an opportunity tn address the full ACRS Consnittee y
during its September 1989 meeting, or to submit written information for Committee consideration, before our September meeting.
Ms._Dianne Curran's central question regarding the Seabrook emergency plan is the determination of the correct interpretation of the adequate protection standard in NRC regulations, 41*
~
umammmmmmmpamummmmma = f*
anomanummanummesammanummmmmF
6 t
Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting
'4 August 17,.1989 3.
.V. Nerses, NRR, is the Project Manager for the Seabrook Station.
He stated that today's presentation will concentrate on the emergency preparedness of the Seabrook Station. The Seabrook facility is located in.the Township of Seabrook, New Hampshire, about 11 miles north of Boston, MA.
Seabrook is a Westinghouse 4-loop PWR with a rated core power of 3,411 megawatts thermal.
The ACRS low power report was issued on April 19, 1983. A fuel load license was issued on October 17, 1986.
Full scale emergency prepared-ness exercise was performed on June 1988. A low power license was issued on May 26, 1989; and initial criticality was achieved on June 13, 1989.
Lew power testing has been completed and the plant is currently in cold shutdown. 'The NRC staff and the licensee are now evaluating the circumstances surrouncing a delayed reactor trip that occurred on June-22, 1989.
(An AIT report of this event was made available during the meeting.) The licensee expects-to receive a full power license for the
-Seabrook Station in November 1989, if appeal to the Board's November decision is not filed.
He noted that in January 1988, Public Service of New Hampshire, a major joint owner for the Seabrook Station, filed for bankruptcy. This matter is still pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manchester, New Hampshire.
1 On the matter of regulatory status, there are two areas to consider:
litigation and licensing.
In the litigation area, the Licensing Board g
.has ruled favorably on the State of New Hampshire Emergency Preparedness ib
-i -
i -
.[
SeabrookiSubcommittee Meeting 5
August 17, 1989 S
Plan.
Some verification items need to be completed. The Board has-concluded a hearing on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities, and a Board decision is expected in November of 1989. The hearings on
~
T the Vehicle Alert Notification System (VANS) have been completed and a favorable cecision was rendered in June 1989. A notice of appeal involving financial qualifications, onsite emergency preparedness issues, and low power testing has been-filed.
In th'e licensing area, minor work.in the review of the FSAR update and a few technical areas are in progress.
NRR is preparing to issue a fuli power license in late'1989, assuming a favorable outcome of the litigation issues, ACRS Comittee recomenda-tions and a favorable Commission decision, in reply to a question, E. Reis, OGC, stated that the issue of commuter traffic with respect to' evacuation time remains open. A decision is expected when the Board decides on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities matter. Ms. Curran stated that technically, the Siren Rule-and low power license are still pending, although the. siren appeal may have been dismissed.
In a reply to a question regarding the~ likelihood that one will have to use-the emergency plan in a serious accident, W. Travers, NRR, replied
' tha its quite small, of the order of 10-6 or 10-5 With respect to 4
. question on the weakest link in the existing emergency plan, the staff answered that there are none.
In response to another question as to 4
e.
y x
- ' r., '. ' '
s
- 7. : 1o Seabrook' Subconnittee Meeting 6-August 17, 1989-4 y;. Q
~. w
. hether the SPDS system is significantly less reliable than the Class IE:
w 1
, system, t e staff will' provide a response during the full ACRS meeting, i
h
,f l
~
It.was stated by the staff, in response to a question, that the unique-chardcter of the offsite emergency plans at Seabrook vas that the utility prepered the plans for Massachusetts, although at other plants-e.g., Yonkee Rowe, Vermont Yankee nd Pilgrim, the State of Massachusetts prepared offsite emergency plans.
l 4
T. Feigenbaum, Sr. V.P. and Chief Operating Officer of New
]
Hampshire Yankee (NHY), Operating Company for Seabrook Station',
was the lead speaker.
He discussed NHY organization and stated that NHY has' spent in excess of $70 million to satisfy NRC requirements for emergency planning, and its annual budget in emergency planning-is approximately 513 million.
He further stated that Seabrook Station, Unit 2 has been cancelled.
Its CP license expired last October.
With respect to a question on the likelihood that the emergency system will need to be exercind, the Licensee stated that they will respond to
'this question during the full ACRS meeting. With respect to identifying the weakest link in'the emergency plan, the Licensee stated that there are no weak links in terms of the emergency response plans. The plan meets all of PRC's and FEMA's planning standard. The lack of pre-planning and the inability to drill cooperatively with Massachusetts might be characterized as the weakest link.
In response to a question, the utility stated that Massachusetts utilities will
.'f i '
-m
__s :
S;h -
~Sesbrook Subcommittee Meeting
?7 7
EAugusti17, 1989 u
1
~ purc'ha'seielectrical power.from the Seabrook Station when and if Seabrook-becomes operational.
5.
'G. Gram,. xecutive Director of Emergency Preparedness at Seabrook, provided a brief overview of emergency preparedness at the Seabrook S ta ti er..
Some highlights of his presentation are listed below:
o in 1980, as a result of TMI, requirements were established
(
superceding the LPZ and requiring a 10 mile emergency planning 4
- one and 50 mile ingestion pathway zone.
q o
in December 1981, planning to meet NUREG-0654 began in New Hampshire and Matsachusetts, e
in December 1985, the Governor of New Hampshire submitted state and local emergency plans to FEMA for evaluation.
o In February 1986, the first offsite evaluation exercise was held.
In the State of New Hampshire, 11 of 17 local communities, and the utility participated. Massachusetts did not participate because their plans had just been submitted to FEMA for evaluation.
o in April 1986, after the Chernobyl accident, the Governor of Massachusetts-ordered an independent study of amergency.
planning, and the viability of beach evacuation. 6r32
,e a
t i
~m e
os
~
f*.*.
Se6 brook Subcommittee Meeting-;
8
- August 17 -1989 V
results of this; study,-Massachusetts stopped all' emergency-planning for Seabrook Station in September 1986.
Const'ruction of Unit I was completed-in July 1986. Unit I was o
~
granted a zero power license in October 1986.
Li o
In December 1986, the utility' petitioned the NRC to reduce the-10 mile plume exposure emergency planning zone to one mile.
This was denied by the ASLB on the grounds that insufficient '
e
{
sho'iing had been made to justify a waiver of the regulations.
Ir response to a question, Mr. Gram stated that the basis for the petition was a new probabilistic risk assessment.
P o
In June 1987,.CL1-87.05 was issued. This specifies a bonafide utility plan.
In September 1987-New Hampshire Yankee submit-ted the Seabrook plan for Massachusetts c'ommunities (SPMC) and m
began development of_ resources and an organization required to
. implement the plan,
.o in November 1987, the NRC amended _10 CFR-50.47C-providing criteria for the' evaluation of utility prepared emergency plans where' state and/or local governments declined to partic-
-ipate in emergency planning, the :
called " Realism Rule."
o in December 1987, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, New han.,4 hire Yankee conducted its second' annual onsite evaluated exercise.
l
\\
l 1
r e
4
'Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting 9'
August ~17,18589
$I o-In April 1988, New Hampshire Yankee submitted to FEMA a design-report on public alerting and notification system which Linc19dedtheVehicularAlertNotificationSystem(VANS).
o in_ June'1988,.the utility performed onsite and offsite graded exercises.
o In-December 1988, the ASLB issued a partial decision finding that the State of New Hampshire and local New Hampshire Community plans provided reasonable assurance to protect the health and safety of the public. Alsa, FEMA issued its findings on its review of offsite emergency preparedness.
FEMA found that the plan provides' reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public can be protected.. Only the implementation of the public alerting and notification system is an open issue.
Final _ FEMA findings are expected to provide confirmation that PANS and VANS are installed and operable.
o In' June'1989, ASLB hearing on adequacy of the Seabrook plan.
for Massachusetts communities (SPMC) and performance and scope of the 1988' graded exercise were completed. The ASLB notified the' Commission that a decision can be expected in November.
- 1989, o
.In July 198s,' 0 staff issued a draft Supplement Safety Evaluation report concluding that onsite and offsite emergency a
t i
+
. ~. -
.,'f * ". X,.
Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting 10
'E August 17, 1989 preparedr.ess provides reasonable assurance that adequate
.protettive measures can and will be taken when FEMA verifies that offsite alert notification capabilities are in place.
6.
G. Gram, next presented a brief overview of the Seabrook Station onsite plan which covers concepts of operation, facilities and re-sources, and several characteristics unique to Seabrook's present status.
Seabrock's onsite concept of operation is typical of the rest of,the inoustry, which is besed on four emergency classification levels; unusual event, alert, site area. emergency, and general emergency.
One of the unique feature!, of' emergency preparedness at Seabrook Station.
is that the onsite organization and facilities have been in a state of.
readiness since 1986,_ and that key response positions have-been filled by the same individuals for about three years.
In addition, because of
~
licensing delays the same organization has been through three NRC:
-evaluated onsite exercises. With the receipt-of a zero power license in October 1986, the plant has been formally under FSAR and Tech. Spec.
requirements.
Because of these requirernants and licensing delays the--
organization has had to identify, classify and respond to two unusual events prior to initial criticality. These were personnel air lock leakage on the containment equipment hatch, and loss of power to the meteorological tower.
i l
n
'.c. -
Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting-11
[
LAugust 17. 1989 In. reply to'a question,.it was stated that if a TMI type occurrence happened today, at most utilities there would be evacuation considerations, in some cases automatic evacuation actions.would occurr based on currerit criteria, even though TMI did not have uncontrolled
- releases, i
o 7.
A. Callendrello, Manager of Emergency Preparedness Licensing, discussed the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan c
1 (NHRERP), and the challenges faced during its preparation. The chal-lenges were. nonparticipating towns within the EPZ and a significant beach population within 2 miles of the plant. With' respect to the chbilenge of nonparticipating towns, a compensatory plan was developed in 1986 when seven of the 17 EPZ communities indicated that they would not participate in the development, training for or testing of-the plans.
Since then three nonparticipating communities have becoma' rarticipants. As a result of the non-cooperation of those communities r
the state developed a compensatory response plan that could be used to assist any EP7 community. The plan was a specific application of the ncrmal state procedures of supplementing local resources at the time of an emergency. These activities-are the verification of transportation needs, coordination of transportation resources and traffic and access ~
control.
The other challenge is the concern of the nearby beach population.
Planners from both states, FEMA, and New Hampshire Yankee have worked extensively.to develop the best plans-possible to protect this popu-
.lation in the event of an emergency. The principal concern was the
(?
?
'.o
.Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting.
12 "6 '
August 17.:1989~
7 1
near-plant beaches th6t are within about 2 miles of the Station, and are within the jurisdiction of the State of New Hampshire. All of the Massachusetts beaches are beyond two miles from the Seabrook Station.
Precautionary actions for the nearby beach population are listed below:
o Alert with degrading' condition; close beaches within 2 miles.
o Site area emergency with stable conditions;'close beaches within 2 miles, o
Site area emergency with degrading conditions; evacuation of NH beaches within 2 miles, e
General eraergency; evacuation of general public on NH beaches within 2 miles..
These precautionary actions are used during beach season (May 15 to Sept. 15). The purpose of these precautionary actions is'1) to' remove beach population prior to reaching conditions that could exceed PAG and,2)-to reduce beach populet+'.on to expedite later actions.
S.
P. Stroup, Cirector of Emergency Respan3e and Implementation, presented an overview of operations, resource requirements, and special challenges associated with the Seabrook Station plan for the nonpartic-ipating Massachusetts State agencies.
The SPMC is imphmentEd by the utility offsite response organi2ation (ORO). The ORO consists of five elements; radiological health, support liaison response and implementation, public notificat-:on and public-information. The.SPMC is based on the assumption that the Comormealth h
7
m_
u.____,
t w f.
l \\r
~
~
Seebrook Sua:amittee Meeting <
13 August 17, 1989 9
will respond in a real emergency.
(The Commonwealth has, in fact, stated as part of the SMPC litigation that they will respond to an emergency at tt}e Seabrook Station.) The uncertainty exists in determining prior to the time of an emergency how the Commonwealth will respond and with :e5at resources.
P. Stroup believes'that the establishemsent of liaison positions enhances expected coordination as well as the strategic location of the OR0. Nevertheless, training q
liaisons in all aspects of the S NP and acquainting key ORO personnel in the Commonwealth response organization mechanics, as.well as the added steps necessary to obtain Commonwealth approval of proposed actions affecting tr.e public present, unusual circumstances that need to be addressed.
He stated that each of these special challenges have been addressed.
In conclusion, P. Stroup, stated that the NHY offsite response orga-nization stands ready to respond to an emergency at Seabrook Station with'. plans, procedures,. personnel equipment and facilities. NHY will preserve the state of readiness through ongoing maintenance and update of progrems until such times as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decides to participate in emergency response plans for the Seabrook
- Station, in reply
- question, G. Gram stated that about C months ago a chemi-cal releasc occ w rad in Nashua, NH that involved mutual aid evacuation between the states of New ticoshire and Massachusetts, No difficulty in the evacuation activity oci e ed, indicating a workable liaison.
. ~ _. _.
- $
- 1
- Seabrook Subcommittee Meeting 14.
August 17, 1989 T
lt was also noted that'within the past month the States of New Hampshire =
and Massachusetts have participated 4.--a drill for Vermont. Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
G. E. Desmarais, VANS Project Manager, presented an overview of the Vehicular Alert Notification Systems (VANS) which is the New Hampshire compensatory siren system for the six Massachusetts comunities'in the Seabrook EnZ.
(The New Hampshire alert system consists of conventional pule mounted sire system.) This arrangement was necessary because some of the~ citizens of Massachusetts challenged the use of siren poles.
The VAh5 components consist of io primary vehicles, 4 backups ar.0 2 in maintenance / surveillance. Dual sirens with an on-board generator are 7
available-in each vehicle. There are six staging area, and_1 summer satellite staging area. The vehicles are manned on a 24 how continuous-basis.
10.
G. Gram, next-discussed the Seabrook Station Emergency. Planning Exercise.
The exercise of June 1988, was designed to fulfill-the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, which required that.a full participa* ion exercise be ore that exercises as much as is reasonably.
achievable of the plans, procedures, facilities, equipment and personnel in order for federal evaluations to determine if apropriate protective i
measures can and will be implemented. A comprehensive scenario simulated every phase of a real radiological emergency, which covered
- the 10 mile EPZ-and 50 mile IPZ, which spans three states, and required 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of participation by res. ponders. The NRC's onsite evaluation
'N**-
Seabrook Subconimittee Meeting-15 J4'-
O' August 17, 1989 oV indicated that no violation' occurred.
FEMA's evaluation report also g-found noideficiencies.
- /
m" 11.
G. Grem,. discussed remaining items that needed implementation.
These are the implementations of the VANS system in Massachusetts, which is due to be ' completed and fully nanned by November 1989, and pending Board decision of the SMPC and exercise litigations.
If all goes well, he stated that NHY will be ready to receive a full power license by the end of November 1989.
NOTE:
A transcript of the meeting is available at the NRC Public Document Room, Gelman Bldg. 2120 "L" Street, NW., Washington, D.C. Telephonc (202) 634-3383 or can be purchased from Heri-tage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20C05, Telephone (202) 628-4888.
,1
., _..... _ _ _,