ML20211A407

Informs of Intervenor Concerns Re ACRS Role in NRC Review of Rev to PRA for Plant.Improper & Unfair for NRC to Agree to Review Adequacy of Basis for Reduction in Size of Emergency Zone.Related Correspondence

ML20211A407
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/10/1986
From:	Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
CON-#486-1064 OL, NUDOCS 8610150121
Download: ML20211A407 (3)

Text

l

, gtJM HARMON & WEISS DXKElEP nw 200s S STREET. N.W SUITE 430 WAsnINo rox, D.C. cocoo-nas '86 0CT 14 P3 :46 TELEPHONE GAIL MCG REEVY M ARMON (202)328 3500 ELLYN R. WEISS OlANE CURR AN {((L t . * ,.

d. '

DEAN R. TouSLEY 00CKr. %

ANONC A C. FERSTER *QM' October 10, 1986 David A. Ward, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t;CCET ?!UMOER 1717 H St reet N.W. PROD. 8, UTIL FAC. Q. gcg py-CL 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: ACRS Review of Seabrook Probabilistic Risk Assessment -

Dear Mr. Ward:

On behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution

("NECNP"), an intervenor in the Seabrook operating license case, I am writing to express NECNP's views regarding the ACRS' role in the current NRC review of revisions to a probabilistic risk as-

.;essment ( "PRA" ) for the Seabrook nuclear power plant. We under-stand that a subcommittee of the ACRS has undertaken a review of the PRA revisions, and will be making a presentation to the ACRS unis afternoon.

The Coalition is deeply concerned that by participating in this PRA review, the ACRS may become an unwitting partner in ef-f orts by New Hampshire Yankee and the NRC Staf f to review the rerits of exempting New Hampshire Yankee f rom certain NRC emergency planning regulations, without the full participation of the interested public. As you know, the Seabrook operating li-cense is now in serious jeopardy due to the Governer of Mas-sachusetts' refusal to submit emergency plans for the Seabrook EPZ. It is common knowledge that the principal purpose for which New Hampshire Yankee has submitted its revised PRA to the NRC Staff is to obtain approval for a reduction in the size of the Seabrook EPZ from ten to approximately two miles, which would eliminate Massachusetts from the planning process. However, New Hampshire Yankee has gone f ar out of its way to avoid articulat-ing any formal request for waiver of the NRC r egulations estab-lishing a ten-mile emergency planning zone for nuclear power plants.

Without a formal request for a waiver from the emergency 8610150121 861010 ~

PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR N *4

4 i

HAnxoN & WEISS

- David A. Ward October 10, 1986 Page 2 planning regulations, there appears to be no current basis for litigation of this issue before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Thus, the lack of a formal waiver request preempts inter-venors from filing a contention and obtaining formal discovery on this PRA review.

Our attempts to participate informally in the PRA review have also been thwarted. Although intervenors are routinely served with licensing correspondence between New Hampshire Yankee and the NRC, we were not served with copies of the revised PRA when it was sent to the NRC. The ground asserted for this omis-sion was that because PRAs are not required for licensing, New Hampshire Yankee was not obligated to serve it on the parties to the Seabrook licensing case. Only in September, after repeated '

complaints by intervenors, did New Hampshire Yankee finally serve the intervenors with a copy of the revised PRA and emergency planning sensitivity study. We have had no indication from New Hampshire Yankee, however, as to whether or not it will continue to serve intervenors with all correspondence and reports relating to the review of the PRA revisions.

In spite of the fact that it had already reviewed a PRA for Seabrook, and in spite of New Hampshire Yankee's failure to articulate any specific reason why the NRC should undertake a second review of the PRA, the NRC accepted New Hampshire Yankee's request that it evaluate the revisions to the PRA. In fact, the Staff has fully committed itself to an exhaustive study. In ad-dition to the evaluation by the ,NRC, the staff has contracted with Brookhaven National Laboratory for a review that is expected to take nineteen professional staff months, and will not be com-pleted until September of 1987. The NRC staf f has also asked the ACRS to review the PRA revisions.

Thus, based on a tacit understanding with the NRC Staf f regarding its purpose in submitting the new PRA, New Hampshire Yankee has managed to obtain a comprehensive NRC review of the merits of reducing the size of the Seabrook EPZ without making the formal licensing request that would trigger obligations to fully include intervenors in that process.

NECNP believes it is improper and unfair for the NRC Staff to agree to review such an extraordinarily significant safety issue as the adequacy of the basis for a reduction in the size of the Seabrook EPZ , based upon a wink from New Hampshire Yankee ra-ther than a formal request for a regulatory waiver. We urge that you refuse to be a party to the evasion, and refrain from un-dertaking a review of the revised PRA until you have received a clear statement regarding the purpose of the review. This is consistent with the ACRS Charter, which directs the ACRS to e .- e -- , - , . O' , y r,. , ,h. *h' y, - -

e 4

~

HAgggg ,'Ew },Qd October 10, 1986 Page 3 review safety studies and facility license applications referred to it. In this case, no effort has been made to demonstrate the relevance of these PRA revisions to the Seabrook license applic.a-tion, which includes no request for a reduction in the size of the EPZ. We hope that the ACRS will not place its imprimatur on chis effort to obtain extra-hearing review of a regulatory waiver request.

Sincerely, Diane Curran cc: ACRS Members Seabrook service list for offsite planning issues o@ms, ?