ML20207E414
| ML20207E414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1986 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kerry J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207E315 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701020175 | |
| Download: ML20207E414 (5) | |
Text
.
8(f M:o $j e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g,
p
%...../
December 24, 1986 cHAmMAN The Honorable John F. Kerry United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Kerry:
I am responding to your letter of November 25, 1986 signed by you and other members of the Massachusetts Delegation concerning emergency planning at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
I am enclosing a staff summary on the issues on emergency preparedness which were raised by the Congressional delegations of New. Hampshire and Massachusetts.
The question of whether a low power license should be issued and resolution of offsite emergency planning issues have been raised in the Seabrook licensing proceeding and may come before the Commission as part of the adjudicatory process. Accordingly, I regret that no more specific response to these issues can be provided at this time.
The Commission's licensing decisions for nuclear reactors are made in on-the-record adjudications with due respect paid to the rights of all the parties to the proceeding.
If this issue should come before the Commission, the Commission will carefully consider all the arguments of the parties before issuing a decision.
It is essential to the integrity of the process that the Commission not comment on such matters without first hearing from the parties and issue its decision on the adjudicatory record.
I appreciate receiving your views and assure you that consideration of the matters you identified will conform with the Commission's understanding of the requirements imposed on the NRC through the Atomic Energy Act and other applicable federal laws.
Sincerely, l
Lando W. Zy h, Jr.
Enclosure:
As Stated 87010gj BM hRESPONDENCEPDR
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES RAISED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE Following the accident at Three Mile Island and in recognition of the need for more effective emergency planning, the NRC undertook a formal reconsideration of the role of emergency planning in ensuring the continued protection of the health and safety of the public in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. The NRC issued revised regulations requiring that prior to the issuance of a full power operating license, a finding must be made that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. A significant feature of the revised rule on emergency planning is that planning considerations must be extended to cover Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) which consist of cn area about ten miles in radius for the plume exposure pathway and an area about 50 miles in radius for the ingestion exposure pathway.
Since the issuance of the regulations, all operating nuclear power plants have upgraded their onsite and offsite emergency plans to conform to the extensive requirements of the revised rule.
The NRC is committed to assessing the potential impact of ongoing research on severe accident releases on its emergency planning regulations. The staff is also preparing a report on the implications of the accident at Chernobyl. The staff held a discussion of these matters with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) earlier this month. The Commission has directed the NRC staff to meet with the staffs of the Governors of Massachusetts and New Hampshire to share information on the implications of the Chernobyl accident.
Also, the NRC staff will provide the governors with information relating to the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment (SSPSA) update. These meetings will provide for an open discussion of these topics.
I hope this will provide valuable information to the state officials regarding issues affecting Seabrook.
Brookhaven National Labs (BNL), a consultant to the NRC, issued a draft report on its review of the SSPSA on December 5, 1986. Copies of this report and the one on Chernobyl implications should be available in sufficient time to allow review by the attendees before any meetings.
The Staff considered it appropriate to have the Seabrook SSPSA update submittal reviewed in order to obtain a better overall perspective of risks at Seabrook.
The SSPSA update provides additional plant specific information regarding containment design and radioactive releases from accidents which have the potential for bypassing containment. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) identified design features for the Seabrook Station which PSNH states have the potential for significantly reducing the radiological consequences resulting from certain accidents. Review of these studies provides the staff with additional insights for its review of other plant features, including (as an example) the emergency operating procedures designed to help plant operators recover from severe accidents. Staff plans remain to review the BNL draft report and issue an evaluation.
e
~
Concerning the size of the plume exposure EPZ, the NRC is reassessing emergency planning in light of new insights arising from the extensive research on severe accident releases or " source terms" as well as from study of the Chernobyl accident. The NRC staff review has not progressed to a point where it could recommend any generic changes in the requirements pertaining to the size of the plume exposure EPZ.
If the NRC emergency planning rules are subsequently revised, based upon new source term information or Chernobyl implications, and the size of the EPZ is either increased or decreased, the Seabrook facility as well as other nuclear power plants would have to comply with the new rules or demonstrate a basis for an exemption or waiver.
In regard to concerns on a reduction of the 10-mile EPZ there are two principle means under the Commission's regulations by which a licensee could seek relief from the 10-mile requirements. A licensee could either request an exemption from the regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 950.12, or it could file a petition for a waiver of the regulation pursuant to 10 C7R 52.758. On December 18, 1986 PSNH filed a petition requesting both an exemption from and a waiver of the NRC's emergency planning regulations.
Under the NRC's regulation on exemptions, any request for an exemption must demonstrate that it is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and is consistent with the common defense and security. An exemption request must also establish special circumstances as identi# fed fr 10 CFR 650.12(a)(2). To obtain a waiver of a regulation, a party must establish before a licensing board by affidavit that application of a particular regulation, given the particular circumstances of the case, would not serve the purposes for which the regulation was adopted. After hearing from all parties, if the licensing board determines that a prima facie case has been established for issuance of a waiver, the board must forward the waiver request to the Commission. The Commission then would have to determine whether the request waiver should be or would not take in the event an exemption or waiver request is filed. Any such request will be examined and ruled upon in accordance with the applicable regulations.
l l
j, pa nerg'o, UNITED STATES
- +Fg 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c.
N WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h*i
+9 * * * * * +0 i
'j 1.g EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
- - - - =
FROM:
DilE: 12/08/86 EDO CONTROL: 002346 MASSACHUSETTS CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION DOC DT: 11/25/86 REP. MARKEY. ET. AL.
FINAL. REPLY:
TO:
CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- PRIORITY **
SECY NO: 861245 CHAIRMAN DESC:
ROUTING:
SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS -
STELLO POSSIBLE EXEMPTION REQUEST BY PSNH ROE REHM DATE: 11/26/86 SNIEZEK ASSIONED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON TAYLOR
~
BECKJORD MURRAY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
,MURLEY REF. EDO 2335 PREPARE RESPONSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REHM'S DISCUSSION WITH VINCE NOONAN.
NRR RECEIVED: 11/26/86 ACTION:
udDPLA:NOVAKaa NRR ROUTING:
DENTON/VOLLMER PPAS MOSSBURG f
I i
l
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-86-1245 LOGGING DATE: Nov 25 86 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
E. Markey, J Kerry et al; AFFILIATION:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE:
Nov 25 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Seabrook
SUBJECT:
Emergency planning issues for Seabrook ACTION:
Signature of Chm & Comm Review DISTRIBUTION:
RF, OCA to Ack, OGC SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Dec 10 86 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
1 Rec'd off. t00 Dateg_ 3 4 TimeQm Cv c P 2. tl G
s Congregg of tije lHuitch 6tateg Jpouge of Representatibeg Basijington, B.C. 20515 4
I November 25, 1986 i
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As Members of the Congress, we are seriously disturbed about the Nuclear Regulatory, Commission's posture regarding the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
As you are fully aware, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and thirteen local communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire have declined to participate in emergency planning for an accident at Seabrook as a consequence of their conviction that no emergency planning can adequately protect the health and safety of their citizens.
These emergency planning issues are before the Commission and its Licensing Board and no doubt will be litigated for some time.
We are concerned that the Commission is not giving sufficient weight to these legitimate concerns as it reviews decisions regarding the issuance of a low-power license.
It would be a disservice to the citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire to permit the operation and contamination of the Seabrook f acility without knowing whether full-power operation will ever occur.
I Moreover, we are troubled deeply by the participation of the NRC staff in extensively reviewing, withcut any formal request l
before the Commission, Public Service of New Hampshire studies j
that clearly have as their objective an intent to provide a l
technical justification for reducing the size of the emergency planning zone at Seabrook f rom 10 miles to 2 miles.
Regardless of l
whether or not a formal petition is filed, this effort is a clear attempt to circumvent the intent of Congress as expressed in P.L.96-295 to require Commission approval of adequacy of meaningful emergency planning around nuclear power plants before issuing an operating license.
We strongly request that the NRC cease any further expenditure of its staff time or contract funds for the purpose of reviewing these PSNH studies, and that the Commission make a public commitment that it will not consider any such attempt to reduce the size of the emergency planning zone at Seabrook or any other nuclear plant.
We also request that the Commission defer any action on issuance of a low-power operating license at Seabrook until all issues related to offsite emergency planning and preparedness have been fully and completely resolved.
NN g p/ 7o / d R
'd The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Page Two
' November 25, 1986 To proceed otherwise only will inflame public sentiment on a matter that already is deeply mired in controversy, and will raise further questions regarding the Commission's responsiveness to State and local concerns in the licensing process and the implications that raises for appropriate revisions to the Atomic Energy Act.
Sincerely, Edward J. Marley, Ch rman Johh F.
UnitedStatesSen/
Kerry Subcommittee on Ener /
ator Conservation and Power Edward M.
Kennedy j
Nicholas Mavroules United States Segen.ur Member of ngress Barney Frahk oakley Member of Co ress ber of Congress nef Mw C0 1
Gefry E, Studds Chester G. Atkins Member (of Congress Member of Congress l
.--