ML20210A987
| ML20210A987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1987 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210A879 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8702090052 | |
| Download: ML20210A987 (6) | |
Text
_
Congress of the Sinittb 6 tat 5 house et Representat(bet
~97~
Canisittlee en enerst ant Ceaunette Reest 2123. sortern Desse #Ette Nu(Ittag i
masWnsten, m.c. 20s15
'87 FEB -5 All :51 January 14, 1987 CFF.
L
'*If The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3pgVED F to o ) jgg7 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Mr. Chairman For the second time in the past several months, my office was contacted by attorneys f rom the Attorney General's office in Massachusetts to complain of lack of notice of scheduled meetings between the NRC staff and Public Service of New Hampshire in connection with the Seabrook licensing proceeding.
In this most recent instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts received notice yesterday of a meeting at NRC's Bethesda offices today.
The subject of the meeting is the Brookhsven National Laboratory study paid for by the NRC as part of its evaluation of Seabrook's containment structure.
The study is germane to the licensee's petition to waive the 10-mile Emergency Planning Ione requirement and was discussed at my Subcommittee's November 18,1986 field hearing in Amesbury, Massachusetts.
l The meeting comes approximately two weeks before the NRC*
staff, as well as other parties, are required to submit their views on the licensee's petition for waiver to the Atomic Safety i
and Licensing Board.
It is essential that the Attorney General of Massachusetts and other parties be fully informed about what transpires at this meeting.
There is absolutely no excuse for providing one day's notice which precludes the commonwealth f rom bringing technical experts to the meeting.
NRC's Policy Statement on this subject contemplates two weeks notice of such meetings.
Particularly where the issue is so sensitive, as is the case with Seabrook, there is no reason whatsoever for not complying with the two weeks specified in the Policy Statement.
U Mr. Lawrence Sidman, the Subcommittee Staff Director, and Mr.
Carlton Kammerer of the NRC, discussed the situation yesterday.
Mr. Sidman requested a postponement of today's meeting, at my suggestion.
Apparently, there was insufflent time to arrange a l
postponement.
Instead, they agreed that there would be a stenographic record kept of the meeting which would be delivered to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and that one l
8702090052 870123 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Tho Honstablo Lcnd3 W.
IGch, Jr.
January 14, 1987 Page Two of my staff also would attend the meeting.
They also discussed arrangements for providing adequate notice of f uture meetings of this type, as follows:
1.
All meetings between the NRC staff and any person (s) that pertain to the Seabrook nuclear power plant will be noticed by l
mail two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting date.
2.
Contemporaneous 1y with the sending of the notice, the staff will telephone the interested parties and inform them of the meeting time, place, subject, and participants.
i 3.
A complete record of the notice provided for all meetings, including the dates mail notices were sent and a list of the parties contacted, will be maintained and will be made available upon request.
i l
Please confirm in writing that the NRC will adhere to these procedures in the future.
I appreciate your commitment to improve the notice process, and I trust you will impress upon the staff the importance of adhering to these modest and reasonable guidelines.
Since rely, f}
l Edw d J. Markey Member of Congres h
I l
\\
l l
l
_ _ ~. _., _ _. _ _
'b ED STATES j
NUCLEAR R LATORY COMMI ION u
I wAmanovow,c.c.acess "Xy U December 24, 1986 m.
'87 FEB -5 All :52 The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrev wn United States Senate 00Cm Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Senator Humphrey:
SERVED FEB 0 51987 I am responding to your letter of December 2,1986 signed by you and other members of the New Hampshire Delegation concerning emergency planning at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
I am enclosing a staff sumary on the issues on emergency preparedness which were raised by the Congressional delegations of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
The resolution of offsite emergency planning issues has been raised in the Seabrook licensing proceeding and may come before the Comission as part of the adjudicatory process. Accordingly, I regret that no more specific response to this issue can be provided at this time. The Comission's licensing decisions for nuclear reactors are made in on-the-record adjudications witii due respect paid to the rights of all the parties to the proceeding.
If this issue should come before the Comission, the Comission will carefully consider all the arguments of the parties before issuing a decision.
It is essential to the integrity of the process that the Comission not coment 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 confom with the Commission's understanding of the requirements imposed on the NRC through the Atomic Energy Act and j
other applicable federal laws.
Sincerely, Original sigr.:1 ty Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Enclosure:
As Stated
$7 6 le 3 - 2y
=
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 an 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 Connission 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.
j Also, the NRC staff will provide the governors with information relating to the i
Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment (SSPSA) update. These j
meetings will provide for an open discussion of these topics.
I hope this will provide valuable infomation 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 infomation regarding containment design and radioactive releases from accidents which have the I
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 l
recover from severe accidents. Staff plans remain to review the BNL draft l
report and issue an evaluation.
l l
J
-2 Concerningth[siz'eoftheplumeexposureEPZ,theNRCisreassessingemergency 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 geretic changes in the requirements pertaining to the size of the plume exposure EFZ. 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 550.12, or it could file a petition for a waiver of the regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 62.758. 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 identified in 10 CFR 550.12(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 vaiver request is filed. Any such request will be examined and ruled upon in accordance with the applicable regulations.
mais
/
t Congreggof the1Huitch6tated
~
Rouse of Representatibes mastington,B.C. 20515 i
l December 2,1986 i
Ctzenissioner Lando sech teaclear Regulatory Camaission 1717 H Street, N.E j
l Washington, D.C. 20555 l
Dear Ozumissioner sedi:
As Members.of Congress representing the state of New !!angnhire, we want to make clear our opposition to any change in the regulatory policy of the teaclear Regulatory numission (tac) which would rechace the size of the 10 mile energency planning zone (Ws) for ranclear power plant emergency preparedness.
to provide fo~r better protection of.the public, and to regain credibility in this crucial area of emergency preparedness, the Imc nust begin to exhibit leadership beyond the site boundary. Public trust in the n: clear power plant i
licensing process has been worn thin by the NRC's perceived indifference to public concerns, as well as the events at three Mile Island and Chernobyl. As a result, the NRC can no longer expect the public to place its faith entirely in state-of-the-i art safety standards in the plants alone. For exaeple, off-site energency plans should be required to address particular accident segaences or a " worse case accident."
ittile we recognize that Seabrook Station construction began prior to implementation of the NRC regulation which established the 10 mile 25, it is an extrema disservice to the applicants and the public that we are faced with a flawed Federal process, one which does not regaire evacuation plans to be sulzaitted and approved before a $4.5 billion investment is ready to go on line. Seabrook Station is now canplete and accruing $50 million per month in interest payments alone while acceptable evacuation provisions are sought out. A situation such as this naast never be allowed to occur again.
In closing, we view the 10 mile evacuation zone as the miniman acceptable zone.
We do not believe that a reduction in the EPZ is in the best interest of the safety and well'-being of New Hampshire residents, nor that of the people who live in the seacoast region of our stato. We strongly urge you to use your leadership to establish meaningful emergency planning standards for the public in the n clear power plant licensing process.
Sincerely, rW~
Gordon J. Hunphrey
' karren B. Radnan
- b.,, / n a r? ) 7 gj
""'r g V Juad dragg Robert C. Snith
/
/
UN4 STATES NUCLEAR REG ATCRY COMMidlON E
e g
) -,
-WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 DatvEi t,
1 c
- f up December 24, 1986 Cumu4N 87 FEB -5 All :52 The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chaiman
'c0[,. -
Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 SERVED FEB 0 S 1987
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
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 sumary 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 Comission as part of the adjudicatory process. Accordingly, I regret that no more specific response to these issues can be provided at this time. The Comission'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 Comission, the Comission will carefully consider all the arguments of the parties before issuing a decision.
It is essential to the integrity of the process that the Comission 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 l
matters you identified will confom with the Comission's understanding of the requirements imposed on the NRC through the Atomic Energy Act and other applicable federal laws.
Sincerely, Ref CR-86-154 Original signed by l
lando W. Zech, Jr.
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Enclosure:
As Stated i
cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead 4
j y
..........mww,
)
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 an 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 Comission 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 l
Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment (SSPSA) update. These meetings will provide for an open discussica or these topics.
I hope this will provide valuable infomatinn to the st:tc cfficials 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 infomation 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 Statior 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 energency operating procedures designed to help plant operators recover from severe accidents. Staff plans remain to review the BNL draft report and issue an evaluation.
en
).
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 tems" as well as from study of the Chernobyl accident. The NRC staff review has not progressed to a point where it could recomend 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 tem infomation 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 Consission'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 150.12, or it could file a petition for a waiver of the regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 92.758. 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 comon defense and security. An exemption request must also establish special circumstances as identi'ied in 10 CFR 550.12(a)(?). 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 detemines that a prima facie case has been established for issuance of a waiver, the board must forward the waiver request to the Comission. The Comission then would have to detemine 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.
Congregg o tfje 1Huitch 6tateg
~
Douse of RepreWentatibes MasWngton,D.C. 20515 I
November 25, 1986 The Honorable Lando W. sech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 5 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 As you are fully aware, the Commonwealth of nuclear power plant.
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:.
These emergency planning issues are saf ety of their citizens.
before the Commission and its Licensing Board and no doubt will be I
litigated for some time.
I 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 l
without knowing whether full-power operation will ever occur.
Moreover, we are troubled deeply by the participation of the NRC staff in extensively reviewing, without any formal request before the Commission, Public Service of New Hampshire studies that clearly have as their objective an intent to provide a technical justification for reducing the size of the emergency Regardless of planning zone at Seabrook f rom 10 miles to 2 miles.
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 of fsite emergency planning and preparedness have been fully and completely resolved.
Q G L M u if f } Nf
..)
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 aired 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. Marhey, Chg Lrman Jo @ F. KerryUnitedStatesSen/
Subcommittee on Eneryf ator Conservation and Power
? :-
Edward M. Kennedy j
Nicholas Mavroules United States Segen.us Member of ngress Barney Frdhk akley Member of Co ress ber of Congress Qf Mm C
Gejfry E Studds Chester G. Atkins f
Member (of Congress Member of Congress l
i
-