ML20055D070

Forwards Response to Containing a Robinson & L Bruner Comments on Facility,Including Availability of INPO Safety Repts & Unsafe & Unsatisfactory Emergency Plan

ML20055D070
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/18/1990
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Wilson P SENATE
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9007030176
Download: ML20055D070 (3)

Text

,, . - --

. n, ; ,

4 --

., p ntazo 4- .

(- f.,, .

UNITED STATES f* 1 1

-[,- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' :; ;j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

'/

• June 18,1990 The Honorable Pete Wilson United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Wilson:

I am responding to your May 22, 1990, letter to the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Congressional Liaison in which you forwarded comments about the Seabrook power plant that were made by your constituents, Alan Robinson and Lisa Bruner (case 0142070001). Specific responses to your constituents' comments are enclosed.

Sincerely,

//

m W

. Ta or E cutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Response to Concerns

2. Ltr fm A. Robinsor and L. Bruner dtd 3/15/90 FUu; TEXT ASCll SCAN 9007030176 900618 PDR ADOCK 05000443 H PDC fh t-c l

e.

t. . .

Lc ..

ENCLOSURE i u* .

e RESPONSE'TO CONCERNS RAISED BY ALAN ROBINSON AND LISA BRUNER Comment 1: Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) safety reports on all the nuclear power plants in the United States should be made public.

NRC Response: After the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant, the 55 utilities owning and operating nuclear power plants joined together-to create INP0, a private organization whose stated purpose is to upgrade the quality of operations and safety performance at nuclear power plants. One of INP0's methods of achieving improved performance is through the conduct of periodic team evaluations at all reactor facilities. After assessing the information gathered from these activities, the ,

inspection team writes a report to the utility, which documents ~

the strengths and weaknesses that the team observed. The-utility is required to report back to'INP0 on the steps that the utility plans to take to address the observed weaknesses.

INP0 then reviews these items during subsequent. evaluation visits. These INP0 activities are independent of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) activities.

INP0, as a private organization, has taken the position that~

its reports are private and shodld not be made public.

Because the reports are treated as proprietary information, member utilities maintain that they feel free to accept-and answer candid reports of weaknesses' v:ithout becoming defensive and argumentative about matters reported. Although INP0 does not make its evaluation reports public and is not required to submit them to the NRC, our staff is able to review these reports on site at each reactor facility. These reviews are normally conducted by one of NRC's resident inspectors who is assigned full time at each licensed power reactor. NRC reviews are conducted to ensure that INP0 reports do not contain any_significant adverse safety information that was not previously revealed by our inspection program. In addition, by regulation, every utility must directly notify the NRC of any matter, including a finding by INPO, which indicates a condition that the utility's license would, otherwise require them to report to the NRC. Thus, while INP0 evaluation reports are private, we believe that the public safety is aided through the industry's INP0 self-assessment initiative, as an addition to the NRC's direct inspection program, and the NRC's ongoing review of INP0 activities.

i , ,

A. 1 Comment 2: The plant is not safe and no satisfactory emergency plan is-in place or even can be formulated. i NRC Response: The hRC has considered the findings of all the NRC staff ,

reviews and inspections performed with regard to the Seabrook '

Station and has concluded that the plant meets the regulations.

and that there is reasonable assurance that the plant can and will be operated without endangering the health and safety of i the public, i i

The Commission's emergency planning requirements, including evacuation plans, are clearly stated. In the text of the regulations, in rulemakings on the subject of emergency plan-ning, and in adjudicatory decisions interpreting those regula-  !

tions, the Commission has made clear that judgments on'the adequacy of emergency planning are to be. based on conformity with the 16 planning standards given in 10 CFR 650.47(b). i Detailed criteria for evaluating emergency plans are contained '

in guidance developed jointly by HRC and FEMA, primarily in ,

NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Pre-paredness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants." For offsite planning, the regulations provide that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).shall make " findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be imple- t mented,"[10CFR550.47(a)(2)].

The HRC staff has also concluded, and has successfully argued before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic i Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (both of these boards are '

part of the adjudicatory arm of the NRC), that the record in the Seabrook licensing proceeding demonstrates that the  ;

( emergency plan for the Seabrook Station satisfies the.NRC '

requirements for emergency planning and provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.  ;

b .

PETE Wl'ASON . Couurrnts:

)

CitC 0ktiA s AputD 5thicts -l 1- *'

1 AcalCULTV#L kVT%ITION.140 70st$t%v ]

CovutaCL SCithCE AND TRAN$P0atAT60h -

S*tCsAi COMuitTit om Amih0 l MnilcD'Minics Mennic ' ' ' ' ' " ' * "*""

W ASHING TON. O C. 20510 I

May 22, 1990 1 l

Congressional Affairs Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

I have-enclosed a copy of a letter which I received from Alan Robinson and Lisa Bruner of El Cajon, California regarding I.N.P.O. safety reports. I would appreciate it very much if you would bring this letter to the attention of the appropriate individuals within your agency for consideration and respond to me at your earliest convenience.

Please return with your reply the correspondence which I have enclosed referring to case 0142070001.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, A

PETE WILSON PW:pd Enclosure

'?N MiiEEEd V..

[.

/

.s ,

Senator Pet'e Wilson 720 Hart Bdig. ,

Washington D.C. 20510 ,

tiarch 15, 1990

Dear Senator Wilson,

=l am writing to ask you to see to it that the "1.N.P.O." safety reports.an all the nuclear power plants in the United States are made public. I would also urge you to support the congressional oversight hearings on the N.R.C. and the Seabrook power plant in particular. It is my understanding that the plant is not safe and that no satisfactory emergency plan is in place or even can be formulated.

1.thank you-in advance for gour attention to these matters.

Yours sincerel

./ <

Q ,

) \

r ,

< s-

. Alan L. R .so 8 isa B. B ne 13217AuroraDr[.# 1  ;

El Cajon, CA 92021 -

a