ML20203N026

Responds to Re Constituent Concerns About Safety of Facilities.Issues Pertaining to Offsite Plans Will Be Referred to FEMA

ML20203N026
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/15/1986
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Humphrey G SENATE
Shared Package
ML20203N029	List: ML20203N026 ML20203N032
References
NUDOCS 8609230053
Download: ML20203N026 (24)

Text

]

~ '

i < _ ,

I l^

Distribution:'

Docket File NRC PDR w/cy of encl.

.[*""%'og l

UNITED STATES Lpcal 1 PDR " " I

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ED0 1999 s j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 HDenton/RVollmer PD#5 GT File

+....,/ SEP 15 W PWR-A PD#5 Reading TMurley VNoonan JTaylor GHolahan OCA OGC SECY VStello DMossburg (ED0 1999)

The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey h#r e United States Senate MRushbrook Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Humphrey:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1986 to the Commissioners which enclosed copies of some constituent letters expressing safety concerns

.t regarding the4eanroon stattoy You requested that some of the specific questions posed by your constituents be addrt.ased. Your letter was referred to me for reply since the Seabrook operating license is currently in litigation.-

and the Commission may be asked to rule on matters upon which you'r constituents expressed their concern.

Enclosures 1 and 2 address the concerns identified by your constituents.

One issue, which pertains to offsite plans, will be referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since FEMA has jurisdiction over offsite plans. FEMA will respond to you directly regarding this issue.

Sincerely, Original signed by, Victor Stella # J.

Victor Stello, Tr.

. Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Nuclear Industry Safety

2. Emergency Planning Issues 8609230053 DR 860915 ADOCK 05000443 PDR l

l Enclosure 2 provided by IE Revised by OGC. See previous concurrences PD#5 NRR E h OCA VNerses HDenton VS lo 9-2-86 9-10-86 9/ 86 l

j

Enclosure 1 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SAFETY With respect to the concerns of your constituents over the number of nuclear power plant incidents or mishaps and the nuclear industry's safety record with respect to other industries, we offer the following information. Apparently the 20,000 " mishaps" or " incidents" referred to, correspond to the number of LicenseeEventReports(LERs)submittedtoNRCbylicenseessince1979. The LER system is the primary reporting system by which NRC obtains written information on operating experiences from power plant licensees. Since the reporting system collects infomation on occurrences over a wide spectrum of safety significance, the total number of reports is not a good representation of the safety of nuclear power plants. A much more meaningful representation of the number of significant events is the number of Abnomal Occurrences which are reported to Congress on a quarterly basis. An event will be

{

considered an abnormal occurrence if it involves a major reduction in the l

degree of protection of the public health or safety. Such an event could include but need not be limited to:

i 1. Moderate exposure to or release of radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Comission;

2. Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment; or

3. Major deficiencies in design, construction, use of, or management controls for licensed facilities or material.

l l

l

Over the last several years, Abnorwal Occurrences have been reported at a rate of between 5 and 10 per year. 'Your constituents can be assured that the NRC and Congress provide substantial review and oversight of these events.

The comments from some of your constituents that " nuclear power companies have the worst safety record of any industry" are difficult to understand since there have been, to date, no radiation related fatalities among workers or among the general public from the operation of any U. S. commercial nuclear power plant. In addition, as part of the licensing process, the applicant for a license for the Seabrook plant was required to perform a detailed risk analysis which has been reviewed by the NRC staff. If the NRC grants an

. operating license to Seabrook, it will be only after an extensive review to assure that there is reasonable assurance that the plant poses no undue risk l to public health and safety. It would be the Commission's intent to issue a

license only if operation were viewed as consistent with the Commission's recently published safety goal. As stated in the Commission Safety Goal, "The intent is to require such a level of safety that individuals living or l working near nuclear power plants should be able to go about their daily lives without special concern by virtue of their proximity to these plants. Thus, the Commissions first safety goal is--Individual members of the public should i be provided a level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power plant '

L - operation such that individuals bear no significant additional risk to life i and health."

l l

1

The NRC clearly recognizes that excellence in design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants is essential to establishing and maintaining .

an acceptable level of safety and the NRC is comitted to assuring that the required excellence is achieved.

d l

Enclosure 2 EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES Issue 1 Basis for Emergency Planning Zone (s) for nuclear power plants.

The NRC requires nuclear facility operators to establish emergency planning zones -(EPZs) around each nuclear plant both for a short term " plume exposure pathway" and for a longer term " ingestion exposure pathway." EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident. An NRC/ EPA Task Force, in a report on Emergency Planning (NUREG-0396/ EPA 520 016), selected a' radius of about 10 miles for the plume exposure pathway and a radius of about 50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway based on an examination of a spectrum of postulated accidents. The NRC/ EPA Task Force concluded that radiation levels requiring protective actions for the public would generally not occur outside a 10 mile radius for most of the severe low l probability accidents requiring emergency protective actions. For the most l severe (butleastlikely) accidents,protectiveactionsmightneedtobetaken 1

outside the plume EPZ.

The choice of the size and shape of the EPZs represents a judgment on the ,

extent of detailed planning which must be performed to assure an adequate i response. In a particular emergency, protective actions might well be restrict 2d to a small part of the planning zones. On the other hand, the e response measures established within the 10-miles and 50-mile EPZs can and will be expanded if the conditions of a particular accident warrant it.

3 i

> I pav----e- - - - , - ,,-----,-,r-<- ,~,--msn-m,~ .e-,e--,.- .-~- ~ ~ ,. e-+, ,,,,se, ,-,,-e,a ,,---- - -n- e,-_---ww.r--,nnw ,-,-,,---,------w,--, - - ,,- , ,-

3 s

n 4

Although a plume EPZ is generally circular, in the case of Seabrook the actual shape was determined base'd on local factors such as demography, topography, access routes, and governmental jurisdictional boundaries, and the plume EPZ generally extends beyond 10 miles from the plant.

Issue 2 Availability of information for the public on emergency planning for nuclear power plants (generic) and Seabrook.

1 Federal regulations require a public information program be developed to acquaint the public with emergency information. Information should include, for example, what th,eir initial actions should be in an emergency, the principal points of contact with the news media and the procedure for dissemination of emergency information to the public. This emergency information is generally in the form of a brochure or pamphlet (s) distributed to the permanent residents and transient population by the operator of the plant. In the case of Seabrook, emergency information brochures printed in English and French will be mailed to l residents and made available to transients in the plume EPZ prior to issuance of a license authorizing operation above 5% of rated power. Prior to fuel load and

! ( -

)

l s I. 4

(

. l ,

low power (less than 5% of rated full power) testing, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) will distribute preliminary information to all residents in the plume EPZ and also make the information available to transients on what to do if they hear the sirens. Emergency information on posters, calendars and telephone book inserts is also included in Seabrook's public information program. PSNH has agreed to update and disseminate this information on an annual basis.

Issue 3 Impact of Chernobyl accident on U.S. nuclear industry including emergency planning.

We have determined that based on the significant design differences between ,

t U.S. reactors and the Chernobyl reactor, that no immediate regulatory action 6 is needed. However, the NRC continues to be actively engaged in evaluating the consequences and implications of the Chernobyl accident. We are currently developing a comprehensive program plan for evaluating the impact of the l Chernobyl event on United States regulatory policies and practices. The first objective of the plan will be to systematically determine, in coordination with

! other agencies and organizations, the facts concerning the Chernobyl accident including the Chernobyl plant design. The second objective will be to '

L determine the implications of the accident on U.S. nuclear regulatory policies and practices including emergency planning. The results of this effort will

, . - - - - , - - - - , - , - - , - - - , , - . , -,,-+,.-,,,,--,-,--,-,,---,---,~---.,----.,n.-,, , - , , - - - . . , , , , , - -

r r # - - - -

- - e, 7 -

,- ,.} , ,

, f ,

f! < _

y j

.. l

( . j- /

_% -f' 'Qh. . f4

( ) j f,7 ,b O' }; i . 4

-e 1

& i

-4 However, it n u be' documented and made *

. li' plrailable to the public when published.

is too early to judge whether any changes to current emergency planning

^ .;

, regulations wodd be warranted. t

s. . p

.f. Ns<!1 (v Issue 4 . ,

a -

s. s I

.s  ! l Population estimates (winter and summer) used in emergency planning for Sea-7 .

broo&  :

i ,

a '

The NRC/ FEMA guidelines in NUREG-0654 specify that each licensee's plan shall o

contain time estimates for evacuation within the plume EPZ based on population estimates that include consideration of permanent residents and transient and

, 'special facility populations (e.g., schools, hospitals and institutionalized a

3 persons). Consideration is to be given for both normal and adverse weather

conditions in the analysis. On June 13, 1986, Public Service of New Hampshire H .

forwarded to the NRC updated Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE)

,nd a Traffic Management Plan adopted by New Hampshire. The ETE provides total Y 'popblationfiguresforsummerandwinterwithin10milesofthesiteaswell as population estimates for various groups of people (e.g., permanent residents,

, day trippers, transients, and special facility populations). While the peak r

summer population for Seabrook is high, there are other commercial nuclear 4

4 plants (e.g., Zion and Indian Point) which have higher year-round population.

e-

,---r, --,,,2 ,,--w.-.r---y-.w e---,

Issue 5 Use of Seabrook to store nuclear waste.

Public Service of New Hampshire has informed the NRC that there are no plans to use the Seabrook facility for regional storage of high level nuclear waste generated by other nuclear plants. Under the Commission's regulations, a util-ity can apply to amend its license to store high-level nuclear materials such as spent fuel from another reactor at its site. Such an application would initiate-a lengthy review process including a safety evaluation and an environmental as-sessment by the NRC staff. A public hearing might also be held by request before any application would be granted. ,

j Solid radioactive waste generated as a result of operation of the Seabrook reactor is not stored but rather it is processed in accordance with NRC regulations for shipment to appropriate disposal sites within the U. S.

j Also, liquid and gaseous radioactive waste are not stored but are processed for disposal.

Spent fuel elements taken from the Seabrook reactor are handled and temporarily stored in a Seabrook site spent fuel pool in accordance with NRC

're'julations until the Department of Energy's high level waste repository is ready.

I y ww--. , - ,w-wv"ww-,wr,- -ww ,- w ~mov~m- ~-= =~"' -&*"mw's w ='m v~c'* *

• w#"^~'^ ' ''*' ' ' ' "" ' ' " " ' ^ ^ ' " " "' '

' ~*

Issue 6 Non-participation of New Hampshire towns in planning.

As you may know, the NRC is primarily responsible for assessing'the adequacy of onsite emergency plans developed by nuclear power plant licensees and for having the final licensing authority for these nuclear plants. FEMA has been assigned the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency pre-paredness for the area surrounding nuclear power plants. Therefore, your 4

constituents' concerns regarding offsite matters are under the immediate jurisdiction of FEMA. A copy of your correspondence is being forwarded to FEMA for their response directly to you.

Issue 7 The Federal Government's finding as to the adequacy of the evacuation plans.

As stated above, the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emer-gency preparedness rests with FEMA. The offsite plans of the State of New Hampshire are currently under review by FEMA. An exercise involving Seabrook and New Hampshire was conducted on February 26, 1986. The Seabrook emergency response organization adequately demonstrated its onsite response i j capabilities. On June 5,1986, FEMA reported a number of deficiencies in

(

offsite emergency response of the type requiring a remedial exercise. No date has been scheduled for the remedial exercise. The State of Massachusetts has not formally submitted its emergency plans for Seabrook to FEMA. No exercise date has been set for Massachusetts. With regard to offsite emergency preparedness, favorable FEMA findings on the emergency plans and exercises for New Hampshire and Massachusetts are required for issuance of a license for Seabrook authorizing operation above 5% of rated power.

l l

t

TheHonorable\GordonJ.Humphrey United States Senate .

Washington, D.C', 20510

Dear Senator Hum rey:

YourletterofJuly 23, 1986 to the Comissioners enclosed copies of some constituent letters expressing safety concerns related to the Seabrook Station. You reque'sted that the Comissioners address some of the specific questions posed by 'our constituents.

Enclosures 1 and 2 a dress the concerns identified by your constituents.

One issue, which per ains to offsite plans, will be referred to the Federal Emergency Management A,gency (FEMA) since FEMA has jurisdiction over offsite plans. FEMA will resp 9nd to you directly regarding this issue.

Sincerely, b) T. A, Rehm hctor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Nuclear Industry Safety

2. Emergency Planning Issues Distribution Docket File t- tg OSC NRC PDR W/cy of inc. St Y (1) local 1 PDR w/cy of inc. VS llo EDO # 1999 dmo burg (ED0 1999) l EDO Reading PBak (2)

HDenton/R. Vollmer CTrar. 11 w/cy of inc.

PWR-A MRush ook PD#5 Reading (w/cy of inc.) PD#5 Gr en Ticket File V. Noonan TMurley G. Holahan JTaylor

\

Enclosure 2 provided by IE.

• See next page for previous concurr n s PD#5 DIR:PD#5 . D:PWR-A U:NR Dd VNerses:ss* VSNoonan* TNovak RVollmer HDenton tello

9/2/86 9/3/86 9/ /86 9/ 8)/86 9/go/86 90 /86 i an 9/ /86 9/so / 86 l

., /

/

The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate

/

Washington, D.C. 20510

/

,/ .

~

Dear Senator Humphrey:

Your letter of July 23, 1986 to the Commissioners enclosed copies of some constituent letters expressing safety concerns related to the Seabrook/

Station. .You requested that the Commissioners address some of the specific questions posed in the enclosed copies of your constituent's letters'-

/

Enclosures 1 and 2 address the concerns identified by your constituents.

One issue, which pertains to offsite plans, will be referred to'the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since FEMA has .jurisdictiop'over offsite plans. FEMA will respond to you directly regarding this issue. I will provide you a copy of our forwarding correspondence to FEMA'.

Sincerely,

/

/

/

/

Victor Stello,'Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

/

Distribution ,

Docket File /

NRC PDR W/cy of incoming /

l.ocal 1 PDR w/cy of incoming /

EDO # 1999 /

ED0 Reading /

HDenton/R. Vollmer PWR-A f' PD#5 Reading (w/cy of incoming)#

OEl.D /

SECY(1) /

V. Stello- /

PPAS (ED0#-1999)w/cy ofjincoming P. Baker (2) .

C. Trammell w/cy of incoming M. Rushbrook' J' PD#5 Green Ticket File V. Noonan

• See next page for previous concurrences PD#5 / DIR:PD#5 hD: PWR-A DD:NRR VNerses:ss* VSNoonan* TNovak RVollmer 9/2/86 9/3/86 / /86 / /86 DIR:NRR ED0 HDenton VStello

/

j/ /86 / /86

/

/

, - - - - . - - - , . , . - ,,.c -,e - - , . . - - - - , . - , . ,

The'.Fonorable C;rde- . Humphrey-United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Humphrey:

Your letter of July 23,198 to the Commissioners enclosed copies of some constituent letters expressi g safety concerns related to the Seabrook Station. You requested that n response to you that the Commissioners address some of the specific question posed in the enclosed copies of your constituent's letters.

My Office is delegated the resp sibility to respond to you. .therefore, I have enclosed (Enclosure 1 and 2) inf rmation addressing many of the concerns and issues raised by your constituent . However, one issue, which pertains to offsite plans, will be referred t the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since FEMA has jurisdiction ver offsite plans. FEMA will respond to you directly regarding this issue. I will be providing you a copy of our forwarding correspondence to FEMA.

Sin erely, Victor S ello, Jr., Executive Director for Ope ations

^

Distribution Docket File NRC PDR W/cy of incoming local 1 PDR w/cy of incoming EDO #

EDO Reading.

HDenton/R. Vollmer PWR-A PDf5 Reading (w/cy of incoming)

OEI.D SECY (1)

V. Stello

' PPAS (ED0f-- - Iw/cy of incoming P. Baker (2) i C. Trammell w/cy of in ing M. Rushbrook PD#5 Green Ticket File V. Noonan \

f P , DIR:PDAS AD:PWR-A DD:NRR

' e es:ss VSNoona TNovak RVollmer 9/p/86

/(/8 / /86 / /86 DIR:NRR EDO PDenton VStello

/ /86 / /86 i

4

- + * .--,-mc > - - - ,--e r,-n----.e- -we-- w,---------+-----e,---,sy-- ,,,,--as- --e-mm-wn-----se,<- , c,, ,--wn~me,,,w,---,-v

Enclosure 1 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SAFETY -

With respect to the concerns of your constituents over the number of nuclear power plant incidents or mishaps and the nuclear industry's safety record with respect to other industries, we offer the following information. Apparently the 20,000 " mishaps" or " incidents" referred to, correspond to the number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted to NRC by licensees since 1979., The LER system is the primary reporting system by which NRC obtains written information on operating experiences from power plant licensees. Since the reporting system collects information on occurrences over a wide spectrum of safety significance, the total number of reports is not a good representation of the safety of nuclear power plants. A much more meaningful representation of the number of significant events is the number of Abnormal Occurrences

, which are reported to Congress on a quarterly basis. An event will be considered an abnormal occurrence if it involves a major reduction in the degree of protection of the public health or safety. Such an event could include but need not be limited to:

1. Moderate exposure to or release of radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission; l 2. Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment; or i

l

3. Major deficiencies in design, construction, use of, or management controls for licensed facilities or material.

i i u .. - - -_ _ - _ - _ . . .-- - -_ - ---.. -- --. - - - - --.-- - ----- --

i Over the.last several years, Abnormal Occurrences have been reported at a rate of between 5 and 10 per year. Your constituents can' be assured that the NRC and Congress provide substantial review and oversight of these events.

The comments from some of your constituents that " nuclear power companies have the worst safety record of any industry" are difficult to understand since

- there have been, to date, no radiation related fatalities among workers or among the general public from the operation of any U. S. commercial nuclear power plant. In addition, as part.of the licensing process, the applicant for a license for the Seabrook plant was required to perform a detailed risk analysis which has been reviewed by the NRC staff. If the NRC grants an operating license to Seabrook, it will be only after an extensive review to t

assure that there is reasonable assurance that the plant poses no undue risk '

to public health and safety. It would be the Commission's intent to issue a license only if operation were viewed as consistent with the Commission's ,

recently published safety goal. As stated in the Commission Safety Goal, "The intent is to require such a level of safety that indisl duals living or working near nuclear power plants should be able to go about their daily lives without special concern by virtue of their prcximity to these plants. Thus, the Commissions first safety goal is--Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant additional risk to life and health."

i J

. . . , . _ . _ , , _ . _ _ , , . . , _ _ , . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , , - - _ . _ , , _ . . . _ . _ . , _ , . - . _ , , , , _ . . . . , . _ . _ . . _ . _ - _ . , _ , , . , , , _ . . . , , , - , _ _ - ~ - .

The NRC clearly recognizes that excellence in design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants'is essential to establishing and maintaining an acceptable level of safety and the NRC is comitted to assuring that the required excellence is achieved.

t b

J 1

i v v ,, --y v,-- v,v , , - - ,- - - - - - - - e-~n,e- ---,--e,,,--, --aw,,,m,,-,-,---,-n -, w,-m-w,- ,--w-,, ,,,w-e- - , . , ,-, , , ,-< - - --,~,. ,,-

_ * '1 l Enclosure 2 EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES

-Issue 1 ~

q Basis for Emergency Planning Zone (s) for nuclear power plants.

The NRC requires nuclear facility operators to establish emergency planning _

zones (EPZs) around each nuclear plant both for a short term " plume exposure pathway" and for a longer term " ingestion exposure pathway." EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident. An NRC/ EPA Task Force, in a report on Emergency Planning (NUREG-0396/ EPA 520 016), selected a radius of about 10 miles for the plume exposure pathway and 4

a radius of about 50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway based on an examination of a spectrum of postulated accidents. The NRC/ EPA Task Force

, concluded that radiation levels requiring protective actions for the public would generally not occur outside a 10 mile radius for most of the severc low probability accidents requiring emergency protective actions. For the most ,

severe (but least likely) accidents, protective actions might need to be taken j outside the plume EPZ.

The choice of the size and shape of the EPZs represents a judgment on the

~

extent of detailed planning which must be performed to assure an adequate response. In a particular emergency, protective actions might well be restricted to a small part of the planning zones. On the other hand, the

response measures established within the 10-miles and 50-mile EPZs can and i

will be expanded if the conditions of a particular accident warrant it.

i

. _ - .1 N

Although a plume EPZ is generally circular, in the case of Seabrook the actual  !

shape was determined based on local factors such as demography, topography, access routes, and governmental jurisdictional boundaries, and the plume EPZ generally extends beyond 10 miles from the plant.

Issue 2 Availability of information for the public on emergency planning for nuclear power plants (generic) and Seabrook.

Federal regulations require a public information program be developed to acquaint the public with emergency information. Information should include, for example, what their initial actions should be in an emergency, the principal points of contact with the news media and the procedure for dissemination of .

emargency information to the public. This emergency information is generally in the fonn of a brochure or pamphlet (s) distributed to the permanent residents and transient population by the operator of the plant. In the case of Seabrook, emergency information brochures printed in English and French will be mailed to residents and made available to transients in the plume EPZ prior to issuance of a license authorizing operation above 5% of rated power. Prior to fuel load and

. \

)

low power (less than 5% of rated full power) testing, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) will distribute preliminary information to all residents in the plume EPZ and also make the information available to transients en what to do if they hear the sirens. Emergency information on posters, calendars and '

telephone book inserts is also included in Seabrook's public information program. PSNH has agreed to update and disseminate this information on an annual basis.

Issue 3 Impact of Chernobyl accident on U.S. nuclear industry including emergency planning.

We have determined that based on the significant design differences between '

U.S. reactors and the Chernobyl reactor, that no immediate regulatory action is needed. However, the NRC continues to be actively engaged in evaluating the consequences and implications of the Chernobyl accident. We are currently developing a comprehensive program plan for evaluating the impact of the Chernobyl event on United States regulatory policies and practices. The first objective of the plan will be to systematically determine, in coordination with other agencies and organizations, the facts concerning the Chernobyl accident including the Chernobyl plant design. The second objective will be to determine the implications of the accident on U.S. nuclear regulatory policies and practices including emergency planning. The results of this effort will

s be documented and made available to the public when published. However, it is too early to judge whether any changes to current emergency planning regulations would be warranted.

Issue 4 Population estimates (winter and summer) used in emergency planning for Sea-brook.

The NRC/ FEMA guidelines in NUREG-0654 specify that each licensee's plan shall contain time estimates for evacuation within the plume EPZ based on population estimates that include consideration of permanent residents and transient and i special facility populations (e.g., schools, hospitals and institutionalized persons). Consideration is to be given for both normal and adverse weather .

conditions in the analysis. On June 13, 1986, Public Service of New Hampshire forwarded to the NRC updated Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) and Traffic Management Plan adopted by New Hampshire. The ETE provides total population figures for summer and winter within 10 miles of the site as well as population estimates for various groups of people (e.g., permanent residents, day trippers, transients, and special facility populations). While the peak summer population for Seabrook is high, there are other commercial nuclear plants (e.g.,ZionandIndianPoint)whichhavehigheryear-roundpopulation.

S Issue 5 Use of Seabrook to store nuclear waste.

Public Service of New Hampshire has informed the NRC that there are no plans to use the Seabrook facility for regional storage of high level nuclear waste generated by other nuclear plants. Under the Commission's regulations, a util-ity can apply to amend its license to store high-level nuclear materials such as spent fuel from another reactor at its site. Such an application would initiate a lengthy review process including a safety evaluation and an environmental as-sessment by the NRC staff. A public hearing might also be heid by request before any application would be granted.

Solid radioactive waste generated as a result of operation of the Seabrook '

reactor is not stored but rather it is processed in accordance with NRC regulations for shipment to appropriate disposal sites within the U. S.

Also, liquid and gaseous radioactive waste are not stored but are processed l for disposal.

f Spent fuel elements taken from the Seabrook reactor are handled and i temporarily stored in a Seabrook site spent fuel pool in accordance with NRC regulations until the Department of Energy's high level waste repository is ready.

, L , . i . ',

4 Issue 6

Non-participation of New Hampshire towns in planning.

As you may know, the NRC is primarily responsible for assessing the adequacy of onsite emergency plans developed by nuclear power plant licensees and for having the final licensing authority for these nuclear plants. FEMA has been assigned the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency pre-paredness for the area surrounding nuclear power plants. Therefore, your constituents' concerns regarding offsite matters are under the immediate jurisdiction of FEMA. A copy of your correspondence is being forwarded to FEMA for their response directly to you.

Issue 7 i

The Federal Government's finding as to the adequacy of the evacuation plans.

f As stated above, the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emer-gency preparedness rests with FEMA. The offsite plans of the State of New Hampshire are currently under review by FEMA. An exercise involving Seabrook and New Hampshire was conducted on February 26, 1986. The Seabrook emergency response organization adequately demonstrated its onsite response capabilities. On June 5,1986, FEMA reported a number of deficiencies in l

(

i

._ . . , . ~ . _ _ _ , , , _ , _ . , , . . . _ _ , _ , . _ _ . __ . _ , _ _ _

, i, , ,o~

4 offsite emergency response of the type requiring a remedial exercise. No date' has been scheduled for the remedial exercise. The State of Massachusetts has

.not formally submitted its emergency plans for Seabrook to FEMA.- No exercise date has been set for Massachusetts. With regard to offsite emergency preparedness, favorable FEMA findings on the emergency plans and exercises for New Hampshire and Massachusetts are required for issuance of a license for Seabrook authorizing operation above 5% of rated power.

4 i

=

I l

i

--. , ,. , , _ - _ _ _ . - - _ _ , . . . , . . . . . _ . - _ _ . _ . - , . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - . _ _ _ . - . . _ . _ - _ _ .