ML20195E900

Fifth Monthly Status Rept on Emergency Planning & Safety Issues,Per Board 851104 & 860108 Orders.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20195E900
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/04/1986
From:	Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
References
CON-#286-399 OL, NUDOCS 8606090274
Download: ML20195E900 (20)

Text

,

o. CORugg o June 4,198 ,i,g t

\ '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (

i Joy 01986u.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,9'#c ,- Y

/,I/'

\ \

In the Matter of ) TG ' '

) v PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 NEW HAMPSIIIRE, et al.

) 50-444 OL-1

) On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) and Safety Issues NRC STAFF'S FIFTI! MONTHLY STATUS REPO'RT PURSUANT TO Tile LICENSING BOARD'S ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 4,1985 AND JANUARY 8,1986 On November 4,1985, the Licensing Board issued an Order directing submissions by the Staff and Applicants of various identified documents.

By Order dated January 8, 1986, the Board requested the NRC Staff to furnish reports on the status of its review of the documents identified in the Order of November 4, 1985, to be filed by February 3,1986 and no later than every 30 days thereafter. Pursuant to the Board's Orders, the Staff filed monthly status reports on February 3, March 5, April 4, and May 5, 1986. The Staff hereby submits its fifth monthly status report with respect to the matters identified in the Board's Orders.

~

1. Supplement 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report for Seabrook (SSER 4) is in final form, but has, as of this date, not been published.

Formal publication is expected in a short _ time; the Board and parties will receive copies of the published document when it becomes available.

The Staff has attached to this report applicable sections of SSER 4; these sections appear as they will in the published document, g618BM Bt3Bih3 a

g 6 c'

. 2. Subsequent to the issuance of the last monthly status report, the Staff requested additional information from the Applicants concerning the environmental qualification of electrical equipment for Seabrook.

This information is expected to be provided to the Staff on June 5,1986; because of this need for additional information, the Staff review of 1

Applicants' environmental qualification program will not be included in SSER 4. The completed Staff review (in the form in which it will appear in SSER 5) will be provided to the Board as soon as it becomes available.

If the new information resolves the Staff's concerns, the Staff's final review should be provided to the Board and parties within the next 10 days.

3. The Staff has completed its review of onsite emergency planning at Seabrook. That review is documented in Section 13.3 of SSEP 4; a copy of that section is attached.

4. Following its preliminary review of Revision 1 of the Westinghouse Owners Group Emergency Response Guidelines (provided to the Board and parties on October 21, 1985), the Staff determined that Revision 1 could at that time be implemented for licensing purposes.

See Letter dated December 27, 1984, from Darrell Eisenhut to J.'J. Sheppard (also provided to the Board and parties on October 21, 1985). The Staff subsequently closed out a number of the open items mentioned in Mr.

Eisenhut's letter in a review completed in December of 1985. While Revision 1 is considered acceptable for implementation, further refinement is likely by both the Staff and the Owners Group. This refinement process may well continue for a number of years. Ilowever,

. the Staff review of the Seabrook emergency classification and action level scheme (the focus of NECNP Contention III.1 and New Hampshire Contention 20) is now complete; as documented in Section 13.3.2.3 of SSER 4, the Staff finds the emergency classification and action level scheme to be acceptable.

5. In addition to the above information, the Staff has attached a copy of its review of the Seabrook Control Room Design Review which will be published in SSEE 4. This material addresses issues raised in New Har.1pshire Contention 10.

Respectfully submitted, (t'

/

//jjf ,

Q Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of June,1986 l

I

l 13.3 Emergency Planning 13.3.1 Background The staff's initial evaluation of the applicant's emergency plan is provided in Section 13.3 of the SER for the Seabrook Station, NUREG-0896, Supplement No. 1, April 1983. -In SSER 1, the staff identified items requiring resolution or additional information. The applicant has provided the staff with addi-tiomi cr revised information in letters dated June 27, 1983, January 18, 1984, March 14, 1984, and July 30, 1985. On July 25, 1985, the applicant submitted Amendment 55 to the FSAR which included extensive revisions to the Seabrook Radiological Emergency Plan (plan). On July 25, 1985, the applicant also sub-mitted the New Hampshire Yankee Nuclear Production Emergency Response Program Manual (NPER) which contains the detailed emergency plan implementing proce-dures referred to as emergency response procedures (ERs). On August 21, 1985, the applicant transmitted Chapter 9 to the NPER which consists of an ER entitled Corporate Response Organization and Support. On April 2, 1986, the applicant submitted additional information on the emergency action levels that was re-quested by the staff and on April 11, 1986, appropriate changes were.incorpo-rated into the plan by Amendment 58 to the FSAR. All of the submitted material has been reviewed and evaluated by the hRC staff who have also made site visits in conjunction with their evaluation.

The applicant's capability to implement the plan including a review of the ERs was evaluated by the NRC Region I staff during the onsite emergency preparedness implementation appraisal conducted on December 9-13, 1985 and documented in Inspection Report No. 50-443/85-32. A followup appraisal was conducted on March 24-28, 1986 and documented in Inspection Report No. 50-443/86-18.

An exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was condu:ted at Seabrook on February 26, 1986. The NRC reported in Inspection Report No. 50-443/86-10 that the applicant's emergency response actions demonstrated during the exercise were adequate to provide appropriate protective measures for the public. The staff will provide its review of FEMA's findings on the Seabrook/New Hampshire exercise in a supplement to the SER as well as the Massachusetts exercise to be conducted before a-license authorizing operation above 5% of rated power is issued.

The applicant's responses to the items previously identified by the staff in SSER 1 as requiring resolution or additional information are discussed below.

The order of presentation corresponds to the listing of the items in Section 13.3 of the SSER 1. The staff's conclusions are provided in Section 13.3.3 of this supplement.

Seabrook SSER 4 13-8

. - .- . - __ ~ . - ._ .-

During the hearings held in August 1983, certain emergency planning documents relied upon by the parties required updating, revision or completion as noted in a Board Order dated October 4, 1985. The staff's evaluation of the revised and additional information submitted by the applicant in response to the Board Order is included below in Sections 13.3.2.3 and 13.3.2.8.

13.3.2 Emergency Plan Evaluation 13.3.2.1 Assignment of Responsibility (Organizational Control)

Item requiring resolution:

, Updated state and local plans must be submitted to the NRC.

On February 18, 1986, the applicant submitted the offsite plans for the State of New Hampshire and local communities. The submittal included the bulk of the radiological emergency response plan for New Hampshire, draft plans for the seventeen (17) New Hampshire communities situated within the Seabrook plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and those of the six (6) " host communities" located in New Hampshire. On March 4-5, 1985, the applicant sub-mitted the remaining portions of the New Hampshire plan with the exception of an evacuation time estimate (ETE) study.

This item will remain open until the State of Massachusetts and associated local emergency plans are submitted to the NRC as well as the ETE study for New Hampshire. The offsite plans will be reviewed by FEMA whose findings and deter-minations will be provided in a future supplement to the SER prior to authori-zation for operation above 5% of rated power.

. Based on information in the emergency plan, the staff reported in SSER 1 that letters of agreement with New Hampshire and Massachusetts State agencies having radiological emergency responsibilities and functions will be maintained in a future appendix to the applicant's plan. During the onsite appraisal held on March 24-28, 1986, the applicant informed the staff that letters of agreement with the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts were being prepared and would be submitted af ter being signed by the respective states. The letters will be incorporated in a future revision to Appendix D of the plan.

This is an open item pending the submittal of the letters of agreement referring to the concept of operations developed between the applicant and the States of New Hamsphire and Massachusetts. Resolution of this item is required before a license authorizing operation above 5% of rated power is issued.

13.3.2.2 Onsite Emergency Organization Item requiring resolution:

. Updated letters of agreement with local fire, hospital and ambulance service must be submitted to the NRC.

_. Appendix _D_to the_ plan includes letters of--agreement-with Exeter Hospital, Exeter, New Hampshire, and with Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, for the treatment of contaminated injured individuals. Appen-dix D also has a letter of agreement with the Seabrook Fire Department to Seabrook SSER 4 13-9

provide fire-fighting assistance at Seabrook Station when requested. In addi-tion, Appendix D includes a letter of agreement with United Engineers and Construction (UE&C) Project Construction office to provide emergency medical transportation.

The staff finds that the applicant has provided adequate information in the

emergency plan on agreements with support agencies. When the UE&C organization leaves the site, the NRC Region I staff will verify that the applicant has made i acceptable provisions for continued ambulance support service.

13.3.2.3 Emergency Classification System Item requiring resolution:

The applicant committed to develop Emergency Action Levels (EALs) appropriate to Seabrook design and operational features, and to incorporate these EALs into a future revision to the plan.

In addition to the item requiring resolution from SSER 1, changes or additions to Section 5.0 of the plan related to the EALs were identified in the ASLB hearing to be submitted by the applicant for staff evaluation. The affected items were as follows: (a) the set points in the tables of EALs; (b) employment

, of additional radiation level indicators in EAL determination; and (c) correla-tion of the assessment / classification scheme with Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654 including two alleged misclassifications.

1 Section 5.0 of the plan, as modified by Amendment 58 to the FSAR, provides a description of the Emergency Classification System. The system uses a symptom-atic approach to classification through the use of color-coded Critical Safety Function (CSF) status trees which indicate the severity of an off-normal condition and are available to operators on the Safety Parameter Display System. Emergency

, action levels have been developed which relate to levels of challenge to any of the five CSFs: Subcriticality, Core Cooling, Heat Sink, Reactor Cooling System Integrity, and Containment Integrity . The challenge is identified by measurable

and observable indications of station conditions, such as pressure, temperature and liquid level. Miscellaneous emergency station conditions that do not directly challenge a CSF have been identified and event-specific EALs have been developed j

(e.g., fire, security, natural events). In some cases, a combination of mis-cellaneous conditions or a combination of a miscellaneous condition with a CSF result in a specific emergency classification. Emergency Procedure ER-1.1, Classification of Emergencies, specifies the plant status and instrument set points for each initiating condition. A complete set of EALs including instru-ment set points is included in the plan and procedures.

The initiating conditions for plant emergency situations include a comprehensive set of radiation level indicators including additional monitors as recommended by the staff. The list is as follows:

Steam Generator Blowdown Monitor Steam Generator Blowdown Flash Tank Drain Monitor Condenser Air Ejector Monitor Steam Line Monitor Letdown Monitor Containment Hi Range Monitor Seabrook SSER 4 13-10 1

Containment Manipulator Crane Monitor Spent Fuel Pool Monitor Plant Vent Monitor ER-1.1 includes Form ER-1.1.A, Emergency Classification Flow Chart, which depicts the complete classification system of critical safety functions and miscellaneous emergency conditions on one chart. The classification flow chart contains all of the initiating conditions listed in ER-1.1, and provides the operator with a simplified picture of the entire classification scheme. ER-1.1 was reviewed during the onsite emergency preparedness appraisal as documented in Inspection Report No. 50-443/86-18. NRC Region I will verify that corrective actions iden-tified during the review of ER-1.1 are completed prior to fuel load. The appli-cant has also correlated the initiating conditions of the Seabrook classifica-tion system with those of Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654.

The staff has reviewed the description of the Seabrook emergency classification and action level system in the plan, the implementing procedure for classifica-tion, and the Seabrook-NUREG-0654 correlation. The staff has also discussed the classification system with the Seabrook Shift Superintendents who have contributed l .

to the development of the system and would be the persons on shift to use the system. The staff has determined that the emergency classification and EAL scheme, as modified by Amendment 58 to the FSAR, meets the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654 and provides an adequate planning basis for an acceptable level of emergency preparedness. The modified EAL scheme also rectifies the two alleged misclassifications referenced in the Board Order of October 4,1985.

13.3.2.4 Notification Methods and Procedures Item requiring resolution:

Describe the means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

Appendix E to the plan includes a description of the means to provide early notification and clear instructions to the populace in the plume exposure EPZ. Public alerting and notification will be accomplished through the acti-vation of sirens, with simultaneous emergency messages broadcast by designated local radio stations.

A total of 133 new electronic sirens will be installed in the plume exposure EPZ to perform the initial alerting function. These will be complemented by seven mechanical sirens recently installed in the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Sirens in the State of New Hampshire will be activated by radio from the i

Rockingham County Police Dispatch Center in Brentwood, New Hampshire. Those in Massachusetts will be activated from State Police Troop A Headquarters in Framingham, Massachusetts. The 23 cities and towns in the plume exposure EPZ will also have the capability to activate the sirens within their boundaries,  !

if necessary. As an additional backup, there will be a means for siren activa-tion at Seabrook Station as well.

The electronic sirens have a public-address capability. Along the public beaches from Newbury, Massachusetts, north through Hampton, New Hampshire, siren I

Seabrook SSER 4 13-11

locations have been chosen so that the sirens can provide both an alerting tone and a public-address message to notify transient beach users who may not have

' immediate access to commercial radio receivers. Supplementing the sirens, tone activated radio receivers will be provided to institutions.such as schools, hospitals, and major employers within the plume exposure EPZ.

"i n N ndix E to the plan, the applicant specifies that the design of the public alerting system for the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ follows the guidance in Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654. In order to verify the design guidance that was used, selected measurements were made by the applicant of ambient background noise, and outdoor sound propagation was computed for a variety of local weather conditions.

Section 11.2 of the plan specifies that installation and testing of the prompt alerting system is scheduled for completion prior to fuel load. In addition, in Appendix E to the plan the applicant specifies that a public information program has been underway since July 1985 to acquaint residents of and visitors to the EPZ of the prompt alerting system and what to do if they hear the sirens.

The staff finds that the applicant has adequately described the means for alert-ing and providing clear instructions to the public in the plume exposure EPZ in the emergency plan. The NRC Region I staff will confirm that the prompt alerting system is installed and operational prior to fuel loading. The con-formance of the overall alert and notification system with the guidance of Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654 will be evaluated by FEMA in the course of its review and administrative approval of offsite emergency preparedness under 44 CFR 350 of FEMA's rules.

13.3.2.5 Public Education and Information Item requiring resolution:

Distribute educational information on emergency planning to the public.

Draft copies must be submitted to NRC when available.

2 On March 4,15'86, the applicant submitted the New Hampshire draf t public infor-mation material (e.g., brochure, calendar and telephone book inserts). This

material was also sent to FEMA and will be evaluated during the course of FEMA's review of state and local plans. The material for the State of Massachusetts is still under development.

i

" This will remain an open item until the public information material for the State of Massachusetts is submitted to the NRC (and FEMA) and the New Hampshire and Massachusetts materials are distributed to the public within the plume exposure j pathway EPZ. Resolution of this item is required before.a license authort2ing l operation above 5% of rated power is issued. The applicant has committed to distribute information pamphlets prior to fuel load to all residents in the plume exposure EPZ and to also make the information available to transients.

q 13.3.2.6 Emergency Facilities and Equipment

• i Items requiring resolution:

Seabrook SSER 4 13-12

A future revision of the plan must include checklists and location of emergency equipment.

The applicant must furnish emergency response facility information in accordance with the requirements of Supplement 1 te NUREG-0737.

Section 6.1 of the plan includes the following information on ERFs:

. Technical Support Center (TSC)

A TSC has been established in the Control Building adjacent to the Control Room to direct post-accident evaluation and assist in the recovery actions. The TSC is habitable to the same degree as the Control Room for postulated accident conditions. The TSC will have the capability to access and display station i

parameters, including the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), independent from actions in the Control Room. The TSC is included in the station emergency communications network. The TSC will have access to the station Final Safety Analysis Report, the station Radiological Emergency Plan and procedures, and a complete set of system prints, system flow diagrams, cable / wiring diagrams and equipment specifications. The TSC will have the capability to assess radiological habitability conditions by monitoring for direct radiation and airborne parti-culatts, and sampling for airborne radioiodines. A layout of the TSC is provided in Fijures 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 of the plan to show that the TSC is sufficient to accornodate NRC and utility response personnel, equipment and documentation.

Operational Support Center (OSC) i l The OSC, located on the first floor of the Administration and Service Building, I

provides a general assembly / dispatch area for assigned station manpower needed to effect protective and corrective actions in support of the emergency situation.

The OSC is included in the station emergency communications network. Emergency equipment will be provided at the Radiation Controlled Area (RCA) Control Point located within the OSC.

Emergency Operations Facility (E0F)

The applicant has relocated the E0F from the basement of the onsite Seabrook Station Education Center to the Public Service of New Hampshire fossil-fueled 5

power station in Newington, New Hampshire, approximately 14 miles north of Seabrook. The EOF is shown in Figure 6.7 of the plan. Part of the EOF has been assigned as the State of New Hampshire Incident Field Office.

The EOF is included in the station emergency communications network which links all emergency response organization facilities, monitoring and assistance teams dispatched from the EOF, and offsite agencies. The E0F will have the capability to access and display station parameters, including the Safety Parameter Display System, independent of both the TSC and Control Room. Copies of selected build-( ing prints and general building arrangements, all emergency planning arrange-ments applicable to Seabrook Station including area maps, emergency response procedures, emergency plans of states and locals, and the station FSAR will be available in the EOF. -

l The EOF has sufficient assembly space and is designed to accommodate the recov-ery organization, and the responding representatives from government and j Seabrook SSER 4 13-13

i industry, responsible for corrective action to terminate or limit onsite damage and offsite consequences. The EOF will serve as the base of operations for i

station material control, coordination of industry support, and establishment of a long-term organization to recover from the accident conditions and results.

The E0F can serve as a centralized meeting location for key representatives from offsite authorities and station management. The E0F, TSC and OSC were used during the emergency preparedness exercise on February 26, 1986.

Appendix F of the plan contains a list of emergency equipment maintained in each of the station's emergency response facilities, the TSC, OSC and EOF.

Based on information in the applicant's emergency plan and procedures, the findings of the onsite emergency plan implementation appraisal, and observa-tions made during the February 26, 1986 exercise, the staff finds that, on an interim basis, the Seabrook emergency response facilities are adequate to sup-port a response effort in the event of an emergency. The NRC Region I staff will verify that the corrective actions identified in the appraisal are com-pleted on a schedule to support licensing.

Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 (issued via Generic Letter No. 82-33) indicates that the NRC will conduct post-implementation reviews of the final emergency response facilities (ERFs) and provides all licensees and applicants with the require-ments and guidance against which the ERFs will be evaluated. The staff will i conduct a post-implementation appraisal of the Seabrook ERFs in accordance with

! the provisions of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 on a schedule to be developed l between the applicant and the NRC.

i 13.3.2.7 Accident Assessment Items requiring resolution:

Establish EALs for each example initiating condition in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654.

Describe the post-accident sampling system, the inplant iodine instrumentation, and the effluent sampling and analysis system.

Incorporate data from these systems into emergency response

, procedures for radiological assessment purposes.

Section 5.0 of the plan and ER-1.1, Classification of Emergencies, describe the applicant's EAL scheme and its implementation. The applicant has correlated the Seabrook EALs with the initiating conditions in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654 as indicated in Section 13.3.2.3 of this report.

Section 10.1 of the plan describes the use of effluent monitoring instrumentation for radiological assessment for two monitored release pathways, the primary vent stack and the main steam lines. In addition to these monitored pathways, high-range containment area monitors are capable of measuring the exposure rate I

within the containment. The noble gas effluent monitor has an upper range of 105 uci/cc. The containment monitoring system consists of redundant monitors with an ionization chamber with a range of 100 to 107 R/hr. The post-accident sampling system and radiological instrumentation are described in detail in the i

Seabrook SSER 4 13-14

FSAR in accordance with the requirements of NUREG-0737. Data from this instru-mentation are utilized in the ER series of procedures to assess the consequences of an accident.

The staff has reviewed the information in the emergency plan an'd procedures and concludes that the applicant has adequately responded to the identified items.

13.3.2.8 Protective Response Items requiring resolution:

Describe the capability for monitoring and decontamination of plant evacuees and their vehicles at the plant and at the offsite assembly area.

List equipment and its location for individuals remaining or arriving on the site for respiratory protection, protective clothing and radio-protective drugs.

Provide the information required by Sections J.10.a and J.10.m of NUREG-0654.

Section 10.4.3 of the plan describes station decontamination facilities located in the OSC at the RCA Control Point. Showers for personnel decontamination pur-poses, and survey instruments for personnel monitoring are available. The plan also describes the decontamination capability for relocated on site personnel which exist at the Route 107 Warehouse and the EOF.

Appendix F of the plan contains lists of equipment and supplies including pro-4 tective clothing, respiratory equipment and potassium iodide tablets maintained in each of the station emergency facilities for the use of personnel arriving at or remaining on site.

Criterion J.10.a of NUREG-0654 specifies that maps showing pertinent emergency response information be included in the emergency plans. Appendix C of the plan shows major evacuation routes. Section 7.1 of ER-5.2, Site Perimeter and Of fsite Monitoring and Environmental Sampling, contains Figure 1 entitled "Of f-site Monitoring Team Grid Map". Figure 1 of ER-5.4 is a map of the 10 mile emergency planning zone with letter designators for sub areas and sectors.

Criterion J.10.m of NUREG-0654 specifies that the bases for the choice of rec-ommended protective actions should be included in the emergency plans. Sec-tions 9.2 and 10.2 of the plan and ER-5.4, Protective Action Recommendations, address the elements of criterion J 10.m. l l

An item identified in the Board Order related to the hearing concerned the  ;

alleged omission from the applicant's emergency plan of recommended protective l measures to accompany the different EAls. Section 9.2 of the plan describes '

the response actions for each emergency class and Section 10.2 discusses pro-tective action recommendation criteria. Section 9.2.3 of the plan states that station conditions will be continually assessed and protective action recommen-dations to offsite authorities will be made on the basis of this assessment according to ER-5.4 " Protective Action Recommendations." This could involve l

station conditions related to the potential for radiological impact prior to the l Seabrook SSER 4 13-15

_-__-__-_l

1 occurrence of an actual release. ER-5.4 includes the instruction that for a General Emergency or an emergency without radiological releases in progress, protective action recommendations shall be made based upon station conditions.

In addition, protective action recommendations must be transmitted to state authorities within 15 minutes of a change in emergency classification. Form ER-5.4B of ER-5.4, entitled General Emergency / Station Parameter Protective Action

Recommendation Worksheet, lists recommended protective actions of shelter and/or evacuation for areas around the plant based on the actual or potential magnitude of the radiation source. The magnitude of the source, i.e., core damage and resulting radiation release into containment, is related to containment and '

I personnel hatch area radiation monitors in Form ER-5.48.

Based on a review of the pertinent information in the emergency plan and pro-cedures, the staff concludes that the applicant has adequately described the basis for the choice of recommended protective actions and the method for devel-oping recommended protective measures in conformance with the guidance of NUREG-0654.

13.3.2.9 Medical and Public Health Support Items requiring resolution:

Confirm that a properly trained first aid person is available on each operating shift.

Letters of agreement for local and backup hospitals and for ambulance service must be submitted.

A further description of first aid facilities including supplies, layout, capacity, and access to decontamination capabilities must be provided.

i i

Section 10.5.1 of the plan states that a minimum of two Emergency Medical Technicians will be onsite at any one time to provide 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> emergency response

C0verage.

1 l

Appendix D of the plan includes letters of agreement with Exeter Hospital,

' Exeter, New Hampshire and with Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachu-4 setts. Appendix 0 also includes a letter of agreement with UE&C to provide ambulance service.

Section 10.5.1 of the plan states that station medical facilities are provided in the first aid station located adjacent to the RCA "antrol Point where decon-tamination facilities are also located. The station is equipped with cabinets, sink, water closet and examination area as well as consumable medical supplies, examination table and examination equipment, stretcher, resuscitator, basins and refrigerator.

The staff has reviewed the information in the emergency plan and concludes that 4

the applicant has adequately responded to the identified items.

)

Seabrook SSER 4 13-16

Offsite Emergency Planning Medical Services In a recent decision, GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the U.S.

Court of Appeals vacated the Commission's interpretation of 10 CFR $50.47(b)

(12) to the extent that a list of facilities was found to const'itute adequate arrangements for medical services for members of the public offsite exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. The Commission has now provided guidance to be followed in determining compliance with this regulation pending its determi-nation of how it will proceed in response to the Court's remand. In particular, the Commission directed that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, the staff, should consider the uncertainty attendant to the Commission's interpre-tation of this regulation, especially in regard to its interpretation of the term " contaminated injured individuals." In GUARD, the Court left open to the Commission the discretion to reconsider whether that term should include members of the offsite public exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and, thus, whether arrangements for this population of individuals are required at all.

For this reason, the Commission observed that it may reasonably be concluded that "no additional actions should be taken now on the strength of the present interpretation of that term." Accordingly, the Commission observed that it can be found "that any deficiency which may be found in complying with a finalized post GUARD planning standard (b)(12) is insignificant for the purposes of 10 CFR 550.47(cT(1). " In this regard, the Commission, as a generic matter, noted the low probability of accidents which might result in exposure of members of the offsite public to dangerous levels of radiation as well as the slow development of adverse reactions to overexposure. See, Emergency Planning; Statement of I Policy, 50 FR 20892, May 21, 1985.

\ J Consistent with the foregaing Statement of Policy, on .lanuary 29, 1986, the applicant submitted a list of medical service facilities for the involved offsite response jurisdiction:.. On March 12, 1986, the applicant committed to fully comply with the Commission's response to the Court's remand.

Accordingly, on the basis of the factors identified by the Commission in its Statement of Policy, the staH has determined that the requirements of 10 CFR S50.47(c)(1)havebeensatis8edsoastowarrantissuanceoftheoperating license pending further action by the Commission with respect to the require-

. mentsof10CFRS50.47(b)(12)e. FEMA will tain a list of medical servic. facilities confirm during thethat the offsite course plans of their con-of review the plans.

13.3.3 Conclusion i

i The staff concludes that the Seabrook Station Emergency Plan provides an ade-quate planning basis for an acceptable state of onsite emergency preparedness, i and meets tie requirements of 10 CFR 50 and Appendix E thereto for issuance of a license authorizing fuel loading and operation up to 5% of rated power. The

' staff's conclusions on the resolution of certain other items related to offsite preparedness, as identified in Section 13.3.2, will be provided in a future

supplement to the SER prior to authorization for operation above 5% rated power.

After receiving the findings and determinations'made by FEMA on state and local emergency response plans and preparedness, the staff will provide its overall i

i Seabrook SSER 4 13-17 4

i i

conclusion on the status of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness for the Seabrook Station in a supplement to the SER prior to authorizing operation above

, 5% of rated power.

1 I-i i

i l

J t

l 1

t 1

l I,

Seabrook SSER 4 13 18 4

18 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 18.1 Control Room Design Review (TMI Action Plan Item I.D.1)

DISCUSSION As specified in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, Seabrook Station is required to complete its DCRDR prior to licensing. SER Supplement No. 3 dated July 1985 (Ref. 1) indicated that the DCRDR process for Seabrook was nearly complete and listed the specific areas in which the review was incomplete. Subsequently, PSNH has completed most of these reviews and has made several submittals (Ref. 2, 3, 4) describing the results and recommending improvements. The im-provements have been prioritized and a schedule for implementation provided.

All improvements for human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) potentially affect-ing safe plant operations will be accomplished prior to loading fuel. A change to the Video Alarm System (VAS) color coding scheme to make it more consistent with the oth,er control room CRTs will be accomplished prior to commercial opera-tion. All other lower priority HED resolutions will be implemented prior to startup from the first refueling outage. The staff has reviewed the applicant's review and recommended improvements in these areas and finds them to be satisfactory.

The remaining reviews to be accomplished and schedules for corrective actions are as follows:

1. Control room furnishings, their adequacy, obstacles to operator movement, and presence of unnecessary furnishings and equipment have been reviewed in the simulator with no HEDs identified. Subsequent to completion of installation of furnishings in the control room a review will be conducted by PSNH and any HEDs found will be resolved prior to startup from the first refueling outage.

2. Protective and emergency equipment storage space has been reviewed and judged adequate. Once equipment has been purchased and installed, the storage facilities will be re-evaluated by PSNH. Any HEDs found will be resolved prior to startup from the first refueling outage.

3. Final evaluation of the control room environment (temperature, humidity, airflow, acoustic noise, auditory signals) will be completed and reported to the NRC for confirmatory review within one year af ter commercial opera-tion is achieved. This will allow one full cycle of heating and cooling to.be experienced and will ensure plant noise is evaluated at full power.

Should any HEDs be identified, proposed resolutions and a schedule for implementation of corrective actions will be included in the report.

The staff will verify the satisfactor mentation'of any r~equ' ired corrective'y completion of these reviews and actions. imple-

~ ~~

l l

l Seabrook SSER 4 18-1 1

CONCLUSIONS The staff concludes that PSNH has conducted a DCRDR for Seabrook Station, Unit 1 that satisfactorily meets the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. The remaining applicant reviews are confirmatory in nature, as are the scheduled implementation of any proposed corrective actions and improvements. The staff further concludes that, with the improvements that have been identified by the applicant, the potential for operator error leading to serious consequences as a result of human factors considerations in the control room will be suffi-ciently low to permit safe operation of Seabrook Station, Unit 1.

REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0896, Supplement No. 3, dated July 1985, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to The Operation of Snabrook Station, Units 1 and 2."

2. PSNH Letter SBN-839 dated July 17, 1985 to G. W. Knighton from i

J. DeVincentes, " Supplemental Information as a Result of Continued De-tailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) at Seabrook Station."

3. PSNH Letter SBN-914 dated December 27, 1985 to V. S. Noonan from i

J. DeVincentes, " Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) at Seabrook Station (SER Outstanding Issue No. 19)."

4. PSNH Letter SBN-948 dated February 20, 1986 to V. S. Noonan from J. DeVincentes, " Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) at Seabrook Station (SER Outstanding Issue No. 19)."

l 18.2 Safety Parameter Display System (TMI Action Plan Item I.D.2)

NRC Task Action Plan Item I.D.2 requires all licensees and applicants for an operating license to provide a safety parameter display system (SPDS) (NUREG-0660, NUREG-0737, and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737). Implementation is to be on a schedule negotiated with the staff. The purpose of the SPDS is to continu-ously display information from which the plant safety status can be readily and reliably assessed. The principal function of the SPDS is to aid control room personnel during abnormal and emergency conditions in determining the safety status of the plant and in assessing whether abnormal conditions warrant cor-rective action by operators to avoid a degraded core. A written SPDS safety analysis shall be prepared describing the basis on which the selected parameters are sufficient to assess the safety status of each identified function for a wide range of events, which include symptoms of severe accident.

The applicant's SPDS safety analysis report was submitted January 6, 1986 and additional information was provided by letter dated April 2, 1986. The report and additional information are under review by the staff to confirm: (1) the adequacy of the parameters selected to be displayed to detect critical safety functions; (2) that means are provided to ensure that the data displayed are valid; (3) the adequacy of the design and installation of the system from a human factors perspective; (4) the adequacy of the verification and validation (V&V) program to ensure a reliable SPDS; and (5) the adequacy of isolation de-vices to provide an acceptable interface between Class 1E safety-related in-strumentation systems and the SPOS. An audit of the system is scheduled for Seabrook SSER 4 18-2

l

, . )

i l l

I

. l May 20-22, 1986, at which time resolution of many of the open issues may be verified.

a The applicant has proposed a June 30, 1986 implementation date for the Seabrook j SPDS and this is acceptable to the staff. However, some items identified in

the staff review may not be resolved by that time. A schedule, approved by the staff, will be required for the resolution of these items. If necessary, a l license condition will be established in accordance with staff guidelines to ensure that any remaining items identified by the staff during its audit re-J view will be implemented by the licensee prior to restart following the first j refueling outage.

1 i

i

)

4 1

i i

I i

i 1

)

i 4

i

.i Seabrook SSER 4 18-3

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

In the Matter of )

! }

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY nF ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 neb' !!AMPSIIIRE, et al.

) 50-444 OL-1 i ) On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) and Safety Issues CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of "NRC STAFF'S FIFTI! MONTilLY STATUS a REPORT PURSUANT TO TiiE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDERS OF NOVEMBER 4, 1985 AND JANUARY 8,1986" have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 4th day of June,1986.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman

• Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear P.cgulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Dr. Jerry llarbour* - Carol Sneider l

Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor 1

b'ashington, D.C. 20555 Boston, MA 02108

Beverly llollingworth Stephen E. Merrill 209 Winnacunnet Road Attorney General llampton, Nil 03842 George Dana Bisbee Assistant Attorney General Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Office of the Attorney General Board of Selectmen 25 Capitol Street RFD 1 Box 1154 Concord, NII 03301-6397 Kensington, NH 03827 Richard A. Ilampe, Esq.

New 11ampshire Civil Defense Agency 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301

Calvin A. Canney, City ? Tanager Allen Lampert City IIall Civil Defense Director 126 Daniel Street Town of Brentwood Portsmouth, Nil 03801 20 Franklin Street 1

Exeter, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear State Representative Angie Machiros, Chairman

! Town of flampton Falls Board of Selectmen Drinkwater Road 25 !!!gh Road Hampton Falls, N!! 03844 Newbury, MA 09150 Mr. Robert J. liarrison Jerard A. Croteau, Constable President and Chief Executive Officer 82 Beach Road, P.O. Box 5501 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire Salisbury, MA 01950 P.O. Box 330 Manchester, Nil 03105 Diane Curran, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss l Robert A. Backus, Esq. 2001 S Street, N.W.

Backus, f. feyer & Solomon Suite 430 116 Lowell Street Washington, D.C. 20009

Manchester, Nil 03100 Edward A. Thomas Philip Ahrens, Esq.

Federal Energency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General 442 J.W. McCormack (POCil) Office of the Attorney General Bceton, MA 02109 State flouse Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 H.J. Flynn, Esq. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Ropes & Gray Federal Emergency f fanagement Agency 225 Franklin Street 500 C Street, S.W. Boston, MA 02110 Washington, D.C. 20472 i

Jane Doughty A'omic Safety and Licensing Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Board

• 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, Nil 03801 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Paul McEachern, Esq.

4 Appeal Panel

• Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaines & McEachern Washington, D.C. 20555 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, N!! 03801 I

l l

l l

i

i .

j . .

, Docketing and Service Section* William Armstrong Dffice of the Secretary Civil Defense Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Town of Exeter Washington, D.C. 20555 10 Front Street Exeter, N!! 03833

] Maynard L. Young, Chairman i Board of Selectmen Peter J. Matthewr, Mayor 10 Central Road City Hall Rye, NH 03870 Newburyport, MA 09150 i

l Michael Santosuosso, Chairman William S. Lord

Board of Selectmen Board of Selectment South Hampton, NII 03827 Town llall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03662 R. K. Gad 111 Esq. Gary W. IIolmes, Esq.

Ropes a Gray Holmes & Ellis I 225 Franklin Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Bosten, MA 02110 flampton, NH 03842 l/ f/ &

Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff 4

A e

a

- _ . ~ . _ _ , - . _ . , - . . .. _ _ . ._-...,._ __ _ _.___ -___----._ .

- -