ML20196B413

Provides Suppl to 871127 Memo Requesting FEMA Review Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.List of Assumptions Incorporated Into Suppl 1 to NUREG-0654/FEMA- REP-1,Rev 1,Nov 1987

ML20196B413
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
Shared Package
ML20196B399	List: ML20196B392 ML20196B413
References
FOIA-87-813, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 NUDOCS 8802110233
Download: ML20196B413 (2)

Text

_

, %o UNITED STATES E c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

• g .... / DEC 2 597 p h/

s 6

KEMORANDUM FOR: Richard L Krim Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards

_ Federal Emergency Management Agency h FROM: Frank J. Congel, Director k -

Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness i __

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

FEMA SUPPORT FOR NRC LICENSING OF

$l SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION i-h; This memorandum supplements our request of November 27, 1987, in which the NRC asked FEMA to review the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Comunities (SPMC).

In reviewing and evaluating utility offsite plans and preparedness. FEMA should

- assume that in an actual radiological emergency. State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning will:

(1) Exercise their best efforts to protect the bealth and safety of

the public; E- (2) Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan; r and P -

(3) Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of

" the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.

$ The above assumptions were the subject of correspondence between NRC and FEMA on October 21, October 28, and November 9, 1987, and are incorporated in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1 i "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Prepared-ness)", November 1987.

As you know, on September 18, 1987, Public Service of New Hampshire (licensee)

- submitted the SPMC to satisfy the standards established by the Comission in CLI-87-02 and CL1-87-03. Certain information was deleted from the SPMC by the

- licensee (e.g., names of individuals and ccmpanies under letters of agreement and names and telephone numbers of emergency response personnel) to ensure that there would be no unwarranted invasion of privacy. On September 21, 1987, the licensee filed a motion with the Comission to lift the stay of the low power G002110233 000005 PDR FOIA WEIBSO7-r313 PDR b//

1

Richard W. Krim -2 DEC : M7 license for Seabrook, Unit 1. In its November 25, 1987 Memorandum and Order lif ting that stay, the Commission determined that, as a condition of low power operation, the licensee must provide to the staff and FEMA any of the deleted infonnation in the SFNC that the staff and FEMA deem necessary for the detailed full power review. Accordingly, please let us know as soon as practicable those portions of the plan that are currently deleted that FEMA requires to complete its detailed review. A copy of the Consnission Order is attached.

't Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION:

Comission Memorandum and V5tello, EDO JLBlaha, NRR Order dtd. 11/25/87 JMTaylor, EDO WTRussell, RI TRehm. EDO TTMartin, RI JPMurray, 0GC ' RRBellamy, R1 W01mstead, OGC FJCongel, NRR STurk, OGC DBMatthews, NRR EReis. OGC RJBarrett, NRR TEMurley, NRR LJCunningham, NRR JHSniezek, NRR CRVan Niel. NRR FJMiraglia, NRR FKantor, NRR FPGillespie, NRR MLawless, FEMA VNerses, NRR EDO R/F DJPerrotti, NRR PDR R/F EMPodolak, NRR PEPB R/F Central Files See previous concurrence PEPB/NRR* PEPE/NRR* C/PEPB/NRR* D/DREP/NRR lb'\

j DJPerrotti:sc FKantor DBMatthews FJCongel s, 12/2/87 12/2/87 12/2/87 12/ 2,/87

, )

55Sc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION '87 El 25 R2:36 C0m!SS10NERS:

Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman  % f 8 . .. ~

Thomas M. Roberts Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers SERVED NOV 25 587

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET ~AL. ) . ,.50-4.44-OL-1

)  :(Onsite Emergency. Planning 6 (Seabrook Station. Units 1 ) andSafetyIssues) .

and 2) ) -

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (LIFTING THE ORDER STAYING THE 0! RECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FROM AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATIONS OUE TO THE LACK OF AN EMERGENCY PLAN FOR HASSACHUSETTS)

By this rnemorandum and order the Comissdon grants Applicants' September 21. 1967 motion to vacate the stay entered in the Comissice.'s order of January 9,1987 [unpubitshed). The January 9 order barred the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation fror issuing a low power licerse for Seabrook in the event issuance of such a license was otherwise i authorized so that the Comission night consider whether as a natter o' law or policy low power coeratiers should proceed absent the subtritta' l

-~ ,, ,- -, p s, i p_ ,

i.,

C . - ,. .-

/ ,I

,. 2 J

of an emergency plan for that portion of the plume exposure emergency planning zone that lies with the Connonwealth of Massachusetts.1 This order lifting the stay does not itself authorize a low power license for Seabrook, as we explain more fully below. Also, consistent with its instant decision, the Comission denies the remaining pending portion of the Request of Attorney General James M. Shannon, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Town of Hampton for Briefing Schedule and Hearing on Applicants' Utility Plan, dated September 21, 1987, in which the named parties sought among other things an evidentiary hearing on the sufficiency of ,

the Applicants' utility plan before low power operations would be authorized for the Seabrook facility. Finally, the Consission dismisses <

as unripe all other motions seeking to stay Icw power operations that ,

are pending before it; these motions may be refiled should a low power license be authorized in the future.

Background

Beth matters that we here address--the motion to vacate the stay and the request for an evidentiary hearing en sumary review--arote from the Applicants' submittal, under cover of a letter dated Septenber 18, 1987, of its utility emergency plan for Messachusetts. Such a plan for J I 3y subsequent orders the stay was continued in 'orce until the

Applicant shall have submitted a bona fide drility plan. See, this .

docket CLI-87-02, 25 NRC 267 (1987) and CLt-87-03, 25 NRC (Are 11, i 1987).

i l

l l

3 . .

9 -

... 3 Seabrook had been required by the Comission as a matter of regulatory policy on April 9,1987. CLI-87-02, 25 NRC at 270. In setting this {

requirement the Consnission did not open the door to an evidentiary pre-htaring on emergency planning issues, but stated that on sumary review the plan need demonstrate only that adequate emergency planning was not foreclosed, i.e. , that it was "in the realm of the possible." .

On June 11,1987, rejecting an earlier submittal by the Applicants, the Comission elaborated in CLI-87-03 on the standards for s';ch a plan.

The Comission emphasized that the plan must be a utility plan including ,

measures to compensate for the absence of state and local governmental ,

planning and that it necessarily must be a good faith submittal.

Evidentiary Hearing Denied As should have been clear from the Comission's order in CLI-67-02, all that the Connissien intended need occur with resgect to a utility plan submittal before low power operations at Seabrook was sumary 3

review. The Comission's policy decision to require subnittal of a bona r

i fide plan before low operations was not intended to effect an exception ,

to the Concission's rules which provide that a full evioentiary hearirg on the offsite emergency plan is available before full power operations, but is not required before low pcwer. 10 C.F.R. 50.47. Accordingly, the motion for a hearing is denied.I 2

Also denied are the various repetitio ! of this request i

incorrerated by the parties into other legal papers, j

- -- .-im.---- -----.m -

l i

i Vacation of Stay l

3 On review of the positions of the parties on both the sufficiency of the submittal and the motion to vacate the stay and on its own review j of the Applicants' utility plan, the Consnission accepts and agrees in i essential respects witn the analysis of the NRC staff which supports the '

, motion to vacate the stay. The staff's analysis closely followed the Cossaission's guidance in CLI-87-03 and based on the recitations in its .

affidavit describing its sungnary review concludes that the Applicants' utility plan appears to constitute a bona fide utility plan for those portions of the emergency planning zone which are located in the ,

1 Congnonwealth of Massachusetts. See NRC Staff's Response to Appiteants' ,

Motion for Vacation of Stay, Oct. 20, 1987.

As the staff stated, the utility plan addresses the sixteen planning standards by which emergency plans are judged (see 10 CFR j 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654); has compensating measures for the lack of t

state and local government participation, has been submitted to FEMA and the NRC for review; and appears to be intended for implementation.

i l Staff's Response at 7-11.

Our susinary review of the utility plan and the record be' ore us, ,

convinces us that adequate emergency planning for the Massachusetts l portion of the emergency planning zone is "in the realm of the possible" or, stated conversely, we are satisfied that the Massactusetts enrgency P

l The Comission grants the motion to pennit late filing by the Town of Newbury and SAPt. which were unopposed. l

,i I

1 l

_ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _.__ _ ____ . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . ._ c . _ _ _ _. _ . _ _ . . _ - . .

5 planning issues are not "categorically unresolvable." Ct.!-87-02 at 6.

In CLI-87-02 the Comission, after analyzing its prior decision in Shoreham, CLI-83-17,17 NRC 1032 (1983), and the decision in Cuomo v.

NRC, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir.1983) dismissed as moot (March 12,1987),

contrasted the situation where emergency planning issues are "categorically unresolvable" with more typical situations where there are litigation and political disputes about emergency planning whose outcome is speculative. As we said in the decision, (T]he disputes which fueled the controversy in Shoreham were, by their nature, litigation and political disputes. And, as noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of ,

Colus61a Circuit, we observed in regard to Shoreham, 'the -

outcome of litigation and political conflicts frequently surrounding the grant of a final license is particularly speculative." Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C. Cir.

1985). The emergency planning uncertainty at Shoreham could have changed favorably or adversely at any time as viewpoints changed or as acconinodations were reached. This is characteristic of many matters in litigation, and the Comission properly declined to regard the existence of such litigation as a factor precluding issuance of a low-power license.

We find here that the disputes about the adequacy of the Seabrook utility plan are, as was the case with Shoreham, litigation and political disputes. While the outcome of those disputes is uncertain, we cannot conclude on the basis of the papers row before us that they are categorically unresolvable. We r.ecessarily find, therefore, that adequate emergency planning for the Massachusetts portion of tre emergency planning zone is within the realm of the possible. Becable the policy concerns which caused us to imoose our stay have new been satisfied, that stay is hereby vacated. '

[*{

'6 l 1

The various intervenors in this proceeding have raised a nus6er of issues in their responses which we do not here address in detail. Those i l

issues may turn out to be legitimate questions for the full power hearings on the emergency plans, and as such they will be addressed in the first instance by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Suffice it for now for us to find that the issues raised reach a level of detailed review that goes beyond the inquiry that we intended as a condition for lifting the stay of low power operation.

This is not to say that the Consission is unconcerned about the extent of the deletions of information from the plan. While the ,

Consission can well understand why the Applicants might wish to withhold individuals' names and phone numbers given the emotionally charged atmosphere that surrounds this particular plant, that concern must eventually give way to the needs of the staff and FEMA to review the emergency plans. However, the Comission does not believe that it needs to have that information in its possession to satisfy itself that the utility plan satisfies the policy concerns which we set out in CL!-87-03. Those concerns have been satisfied for the reasons set forth in this order. We find that the plan is bona fide and in the realm of the possible. That decision does not require us to evaluate every detail of the proposed plan. Such an evaluation will be made in the full. power proceedings, tieverthelessg)ss a condition of low'pdsir#

r lf. opeat[ieny l the licensee must provide to the staff and FEMA any of the deleted information that the staff and FEt'A deem necessary for the detailed full power review of the emergency plan. Until such information is provided no low pcwer license shall issue. Also prior to

l

' I

.o i

l low power applicants should clearly state for the record their willingness to provide the detailed information to the other parties to the proceeding, if necessary under appropriate protective orders from the Licensing Board. The Consnission is confident that the Licensing Board can fashion appropriate orders and procedures to allow full litigation of contested issues without unnecessarily violating personal privacy.

Posture of the Proceeding As the parties are aware, the Appeal Board's October 1,1987 ,

decision on review of the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 partial initial decision authorizing low power operations" may have disturbed the legal footing of authorization for low pcwer operations. As 5

directed by the Appeal Board the Licensing Beard shall expeditiously ,

deterinine whether considering the issues that -it is hearing on remand. -

it is appropriate to renew at this time its authorization of low power or whether low power operations must await further decisions. The Appeal Board shall also consider whether any riatter of which it has jurisdiction should be resolved before low power.6 The Comission "See ALAE-875, 25 hRC (October 1,1987) affirming in part and remanding in part LBP-87-107 NRC 177 6 See ALAB-875, slip op, at 48-50. L 6 The Comission b're notes that it appe,ars that certain issues relating to Newburyport sirens and the environmntal qualification of (

coaxial cable may be before the Appeal Board.

l

(

., 8 ratifies the Appeal Board's order that any decision by the Licensing Board prior _ to completion g the remand, if it authorizes low power, shall not become effective for a period of ten days following the date of its service to enable any dissatisfied party to seek agency appellate relief.

Consonant with the foregoing discussion, the Commission lifts its stay of low power operations. The conditions regarding the providing of emergency planning infonnation to FEMA, NRC staff, and the parties unast be satisfied before any low power license can be authorized. Moreover, because no order currently in force authorizes low power operations at .

Seabrook and because the voluminous motions and related papers before us ,

are in some respects o4tdated, the motions and supplemental motions seeking a Commission stay of such operations are dismissed. Should low power be authorized in the future, opposing parties are free to file updated stay motions.

We wish to emphasize that our decision today is dictated by the fact that the applicant has made a good faith submittal of a utility emergency plan. Our decision in no way results from or depends on the recently published revision of the Commission's energency planning regulations. 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (November 3,1967; effective date

i 9

1 December 3,1987). Our decision would be the same whether the old or the new supplemental emergency planning rules applied. I Commissioner Rogers disapproved in part, his additional views are attached.

It is so DADERED.

. For the Cosnission um f

'w.'M l 5AMUEL J. M LK n2 '

$, 4 , , p Secretary of the Cosumission Dated at Washington, D.C.

this d day of november,1987, 1

i i

Additional Visws of Comissioner Rogers The majority has indicated that it requires the submission of infomation deleted in the utility plan to the staff and FEMA, and under protective order to the other parties prior to the issuance of any low powD license.

I am of the opinion that the information withheld from the plan should be furnished to the Comission prior to the lifting of the stay, so that we can assure ourselves that the utility plan does indeed satisfy the policy concerns set out in CLI-87-03. ,

b I

, I P