ML20214N566

Responds to Re NRC Resources Expended on Further Efforts by Util to Justify Epz.Nrc Review of Petition Ceased.Probabilistic Safety Assessment Update Under Review. Served on 870528

ML20214N566
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/27/1987
From:	Bernthal F NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP.
References
CON-#287-3608 OL, NUDOCS 8706020215
Download: ML20214N566 (4)

Text

_

gloD3 o UNITED STATES

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIT 3 TON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Cg(g g*

(o h liin May 27, 1987 '87 MAY 27 P4 :30 CHAIRMAN 0F A O.

OCCh: N, e:. . r ."

The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives SERVED MAY 28 007 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

l I am responding to your letter of May 4, 1987 concerning NRC l resources being expended on further efforts by Public Service respany of New Hampshire (PSNH) to justify a reduced emergency phrning zone (EPZ). As a result of the Atomic Safety and

,icen>ing Board decision to deny PSNH's petition on reducing the if :A l ' e E P Z , I have been informed that the NRC staff review of the l

retiti inte-d a has ceased. I understand that the NRC staff does not n to meet further with PSNH concerning its past proposal to reduce the size of the Seabrook EPZ. Further meetings on PSNH's desire to reduce the EPZ will not take place unless and until a new request to reduce the EPZ is received by the NRC. The staff will continue to meet with PSNH on issues related to its appli-cation to operate the Seabrook facility and generic safety issues.

We consider the review of the Seabrook Station Probabilistic l Safety Assessment (SSPSA) Update by the NRC staff appropriate to l obtain an additional perspective of the risk associated with operation of the Seabrook plant even though that document was a i part of the PSNH petition. The staff is reviewing the SSPSA Update to identify any new plant-specific information that may have generic implications or information that augments ongoing analyses of issues already identified as concerns. Issues such as potential accidents during plant shutdown conditions and induced depressurization in response to the potential of direct containment heating are examples of Seabrook specific information which will be utilized in current activities addressing these generic issues.

Each year a report of insights gained from probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) reviews is disseminated to the staff and industry to increase awareness of the factors which have been found to dominate risk in PRAs for numerous plants. In addition, results of PRA reviews and a summary of PRA-related activities are provided to Congress each year in the NRC Annual Report. In view l

8706020215 870527 3 0-PDR ADOCK 05000443 33 G PDR ,y

i 2

of the potential public health and safety benefits of reviewing updated risk analyses and plant information, the staff plans to continue reviewing and evaluating the SSPSA Update.

Commissioner Roberts did not participate in this response.

Sincerely, ,

^

l A f vtd IW Frederick M. Bernthal Acting Chairman l

1 I

l l

l l

l

I 2 '33 R. sv.= wovs oua evov, EDWARD J. MARXEY

) , . o,, .. u.,,.c es.... - g ;;, g m w ~ "' " ,,,.<, e. ,o

"'""^~

c '?""'' C011grEnd Of IIJE dillitED $DfatEn ^#,"?! 02;'!!#"

Susc0MMITTEE ON t6I71565-2900

• ""%"22" house of Representatibeg

'"""' " '"%" $"^" masfjington, BC 20515

' Es.53."e"~5""u"&^"

May 4,1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chai rman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

On April 22, 1987, the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board (ASLB) rejected Public Service of New Hampshire's December 18, 1986 petition for waiver of the Commission's emergency planning regulations to reduce the Seabrook emergency planning zone to one-mile. The Board's decision lef t open the possibility that the utility may submit a new petition if it develops more complete supporting documentation. I urge the Commission to direct the NRC staff and its consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory, to terminate any further review or analysis of the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Risk Assessment Update (SSPSA), including any other technical documentation applicable to an EPZ reduction proposal for Seabrook, until or unless a new formal petition is submitted by the licensee.

I have previously communicated to the Commission my strong objections to PSNH and the NRC staf f's cooperative ef fort since September,1985 to develop persuasive arguments that the Seabrook emergency planning zone could be reduced without threatening l public safety. The NRC staff's conduct has raised the most basic questions about its impartiality and f airness, thus undermining public confidence in the integrity of the Commission's licensing process.

The Commission has justified the NRC staff and Brookhaven reviews on the ground that such reviews provide a better perspective of risk at Seabrook. I have consistently rejected the Commission's position as disingenuous. In a letter dated January 20, 1987, Commissioner Asselstine concurred by stating, "It is clear that the extensive NRC staff discussions with the Seabrook applicant and the detailed BNL review of the SSPSA were for the purpose of f acilitating and expediting a subsequent petition requesting a reduction in the ten-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Seabrook plant."

J

l d

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

May 4, 1987 Page Two It is my understanding that the NRC staff and PSNH have scheduled a meeting for tomorrow, May 5,1987, to further discuss the technical merits of the utility's EPZ reduction proposal. By letter of April 21, 1987, I requested that the Commission's staf f recuse itself f rom further participation as an independent party in the licensing proceedings for Seabrook. Since I have not yet received a response to my letter of April 21, I request that the Commission now also consider the Licensing Board's April 22 decision and enjoin the NRC staf f f rom meeting f urther with the utility in connection with this issue until such time as a new petition is submitted.

In light of the substantial unresolved technical issues enumerated by the Licensing Board in its April 22 decision, simple common sense and fiscal prudency dictate that the NRC staff not use its limited resources to entertain any discussion or analysis pertaining to further PSNH efforts to justify a reduced emergency planning zone. Mo r eov er , the Board's decision provides an opportunity for the NRC staf f to redeem itself, in part, in the eyes of the public. The NRC should not concern itself with any consideration of the above-mentioned documents or analyses until such time that PSNH submits a formal petition for NRC consideration. Rather, commensurate with the Commission's mandate to protect the public health and safety, the NRC staff should responsibly return its attention to the numerous generic safety questions which trouble the nuclear industry.

Sincerely, s

Edwhd J. Markey Member of Congres I