ML20215B330
| ML20215B330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215B297 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8612120120 | |
| Download: ML20215B330 (3) | |
Text
.
- er-mco cau n
w oun o c.om.uo A,
EDWA.01 MA.IttY,IAASSACMU.ftrS. CMAssimean m0ht Q023 22Hs24 aHC L&
Om0
u,174.,,,,=
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES aAtfu"2*ti'"dff.
=o".$s'I"Ew'E,"vo".
SU8 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION El'.*'.*dfi
,$lll.or.
""'""' ~
AND POWER T l,, 7 "****"
,nne,,,,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE u.i.
WASHINGTON, DC 20515 November 20, 1986 The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Two days ago, on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, the Subcommittee conducted a hearing in Amesbury, Massachusetts which focused, in large measure, on NRC staff assistance to Public Service of new Hampshire in connection with a possible request by PSNH for an exemption from the emergency planning regulations.
Such an exemption request, if forthcoming, would seek to reduce the EPZ around Seabrook from ten to two miles or less.
The effect of granting such a request would be to exclude the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all six Massachusetts communities in the immediate vicinity of Seabrook from the emergency planning zone.
Since Massachusetts and those six communities have determined not to submit emergency preparedness plans because they do not believe that any such plans can adequately protect the health and safety of their citizens, their nonparticipation represents an impediment to issuance of a full-power license.
At the hearing, Public Service of New Hampshire admitted that it is considering the request for exemption as a means of circumventing the Massachusetts obstacle.
I stongly hope that you and the other Commissioners will receive a personal, in-depth briefing f rom Mr. Richard Vollmer, Deputy Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, who served as spokesman for the NRC at the hearing.
I am sure that he will convey to you the sense of outrage on the part of the Governor of Massachusetts, key State and local elected officials, and the more than 700 citizens who attended the hearing at the notion that NRC staff could be expending any resources to assist Public Service of new Hampshire in evaluating a possible request for exemption f rom the emergency planning regulations for the purpose of excluding Massachusetts.
8612120120 861205 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRE'SPONDENCE PDR
!)
The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Page 2 Novembe r 20, 1986 Beyond the local opposition which was so clearly evident at the hearing, a fact underscored by a pledge f rom Rep. Bob Smith (R-NH) -that he will not support an attempt to shrink the EPZ, the hearing clearly revealed that NRC efforts in this direction are absolutely contrary to the policy established with respect to i'
Baltimore Gas and Electric's petition to shrink the EPZ around the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant.
The rationale for NRC's l
decision that such action should not be done on a site-specific 4
basis, but should be lef t to generic rulemaking, is set forth in the attached January 27, 1986 memorandum which was the subject of extensive discussion at the hearing.
There is not a single iota of evidence or one sound policy reason, in the case of Seabrook, which justifies a departure f rom this reasonable approach.
Moreover, I expressed grave concern at the hearing about the allocation of scarce NRC resources to this project in the light of Victor Stello's. April 30, 1986 memorandum outlining severe constraints on saf ety related research.
The award of a $245,000 contract to Brookhaven National Laboratories for the purpose of assisting NRC in evaluating PSNH's technical studies which would form the basis of its possible request for exemption is an utter
]
waste of monies appropriated by the Congress.
More than anything else, last Tuesday's hearing brought out the enormous f rustration of elected officials at all levels of State and local government and of the people they serve with the NRC's perceived lack of sensitivity to their concerns.
It also revealed a disturbing distrust of the NRC's ability to regulate i
licensees with whom it is perceived to have an inappropriately close working relationship.
I implore you to make yourself fully aware of the brewing storm of State and local opposition to the role.of the NRC in the licensing process, which is manifest not only in my home State of Massachusetts but in States around the country, such as New York and Ohio.
Absent the strongest and boldest leadership on your part to allay these legitimate concerns, there is going to be enormous political pressure in the Congress to rewrite the Atomic Energy Act in a fashion which radically alters the existing balance between Federal and State and local governments in the area of nuclear power.
As evidence that you are prepared to meet this challenge, and that you can be responsive to the overwhelming record compiled at the November 18, 1986 hearing, I urge you to direct the NRC staff to cease all work associated with PSNH's " exploration" of the possibility of filing a request for exemption f rom NRC's emergency planning regulations, ef f ective immediately.
I further request that the NRC immediately terminate its contract with Brookhaven associated with that effort for the convenience of the Government and execute no further contracts addressing similar goals.
Obviously, if PSNH elects to file a formal request for exemption l
from the emergency planning regulations, the NRC will have to deal with that request, but should expend not one more cent on this scheme before that time.
}
=
- j The Honorable Lcndo W.
Zech, Jr.
Page 3 Novembe r 20, 1986 I look forward to receiving a specific response to each of these two requests no later than close of business, December 1, 1986.
Sincerely, Y
t Markeh Edward J.
Chairman 5
I t
l l
l-tto Lsk., ao
[
- 1 s** *'%g UNITED STATES e
j,
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisst0
/
j
/
l
)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20585
\\...'.. /
JAN 2 71986
(
'l.,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director 1
office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/d/
&&y r -
FROM:
Robert B. Minogue Director h
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
~
(
SUBJECT:
REDUCTIONINEMERGENCYPLANNINGZONE(EPZ)FORCALVERTCLIFFS m,
\\
This is in response to your December 11, 1985, request for RES views on the application of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (c)or an exemption to.t f
emergency p.lanning requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (2) and Section I of
_ l planning zone,pendix E to reduce the Calvert Cliffs plume exposure emergency 10 CFR 50 Ap from about 10 miles to 2 miles.
At the last RES quarterly review meeting it was agreed that a decision on this matter would be premature at this time and that no decision in this area would have a firm foundation until after NUREGs -0956 and -1150 are published.
Nevertheless, in response to your request we recomend that the requested exemption be either denied at this time or that a decision be postponed until a generic rulemaking on the subject is completed in FY 1987 or FY 1988.
Oi.r reasons for this position are multiple:
o NRC has under evaluation a petition for rulemaking (PRM-60-31) to expand the plume exposure EPZ to 20 miles.
4 o
Although BG&E states that an exemption would relieve an unnecessary burden l
f from Dorchester and St. Mary's counties, it does not provide any infoma-
'l g tion to delineate or scope the burden to be relieved or the benefits to be derived from the requested exemption.
o Under the current emergency planning regulations, both FEMA and State and local agencies must be involved in a decision regarding changes in EPZs.
Intervention and hearings are predictable upon the introduction of any change which wot:1d appear to reduce provisions for public health and safety, which a reduction in the EPZ would appear to be to many.
o The orderly progression of generic rulemaking on the emergency planning 1
i issue will serve the public better than a piecemeal, site-specific approach.
l i
e i
J //O O A C l
l W J@ G
,,)
Harold R. Denton 2
M 274 i
o BG&E does not make clear at all how a reduction in the plume exposure EPZ (from 10 miles) would relieve licensee, State and local emergency planning
. (g '
burdens, if any, regarding the planning requirements for the 50-mile food and agricultural products EPZ.
In fact, in its application, BG&E ignores the relationship of the two EPZs.
o The technical basis provided by BG&E relies heavily on the NRC staff draft
. report, NUREG-0956; and the public coment period on that document was extended to January 7,1986.
o One of the major admonitions in NUREG-0956 is to consider uncertainties in source terms in any regulatory application (p. xxiii), which BG&E da ignored in its application.
You also requested views on several " interesting" legal and technical issues.
i-My brief response to these issues is:
'o The public must be involved in major rule exemption or rulemaking decisions.
However, because of. the broad policy implications of this action, the public would be better served with a generic rulemaking rather than a site-specific one.
o An titernative discussed in the past is reconsideration of various emergancy preparedness provisions within the 10-mile EPZ, rather than a change in the 10-mile EPZ, per se.
Provisions for a graded emergency response plan would be a major example of such a change. The question of the role of site-specific versus generic information and decisions is a major policy question that should be resolved in rulemaking as opposed to site-specific litigation.
I o
RES would prefer an integrated approach looking at the source tems Ind risk from all of the six SARRP/NUREG-1150 reference plants to detemine what the generic NRC positions should be and what, if any, plant-specific alternatives might exist.
To proceed first on a plant-specific basis could preclude a more rational, policy-level look at the problems, which l
could result in inadvertent, unfortunate decisions.
o
.Before we can discuss our opinions on " Technical Options," the important question "What are the prcblems?" must be answered.
It would be better policy to explore the problems first and then develop generic solutions.
V Harold R. Denton 3
JAN g7gggg We understand-you have sent a letter to BG&E to the effect that it is premature to consider reducing the EPZ, and we strongly support that action.
\\
Aun w
Robert B. Minogue Dire cor Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U
b S
O 6
6 6
l
^ *
.