ML20234C120

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Update of 870416 Summary Status Rept on Plant Emergency Planning & Preparedness Program
ML20234C120
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/04/1987
From: Perrotti D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Congel F, Matthews D, Van Niel C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20234B686 List:
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8709210178
Download: ML20234C120 (10)
v • d • e


Text

. ,_-_. 3,

(

.} i 5. ...e May ;4,1987  !

\

.i

'l p 1

. (

i i

NOTE 70: Distribution

.FROM: Donald J. Perrotti, PEP 8

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF SEABROOK EP '

j Enclosed is an update of. the summary status report on the Seabrook'eme,r- i gency planning and preparedriess program that was provided to you'on April 16, )

.s 1987. Changes are indicated by a bar in the margin of affec ed pages. ' '

4

~1

.c j

Donald J. Perrotti, PEPB 1

DISTRIBUTION -

FJCongel. NRR J DBMatthews, NRR EPB R/F CRVan Niel, NRR FKantor, NRR .n DJPerrotti, NRR .)

RJBarrett, NRR STurk, OGC i i

l t

j L ,,

j i

.l.

a

- .l b 8709210176 PDR i:Oig 870916 '

,J/.vCONNORB7-346 PDR

..?

O

~

l i

I SEABROOK' STATION

.i 1

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BRANCH

SUMMARY

OF STATUS.0F EMERGENCY PLANNINGFORLOW.POWERLICENSEISSUANCE'(APRIL'1987);

1

1. . EMERGENCY PLAN - All outstanding onsite emergency. plan items required for fuel load and operation up to 5% of rated power 'have been resolved.

L H l~

(SSER4).

l

2. HEARING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES - A hearingLon ensite emergency, pre--.

paredness issues before the ASLB was held 'in August 1983 ~ 0n October 4, l 1985, the ASLB ordered the staff to' provide its evaluation on certain on-i ,

j site plan items identified by the. Boar.d, as well as copies of the Appli-cant's submittcls. SSER 4 addressed al1 of the onsite plan items (all:

have been reso?ved) identified by the Board. A hearing .on certain onsite <

emergency preparedness issues related to emergency action' levels was held i

September 20 - October 3,1986. On October 7,.1986, the,'ASLB authorized' l

, a a fuel load and precriticality testing license and on 0ctober 17, 1986,

- that license was issued. On March 25, 1987 the Board . issued a partial initial decision authorizing NRR ts' issue a low power license (up.to 5%)'

subject to a condition related to environmental qualification.

l ..

With regard to the hearing on offsite olans and preparedness, on July.11, 1986, the hearing on New Hamphire RERP, previously scheduled for. August' l

1986 was postponed by the Board ai the request of FEMA. On February 18, 1

--____2_ .a . -

u- ,

t

  1. , ,o

.t .c s

i e g. i 1987 (and subsequently clarified) the Board annoiinced its ruling onjeach of the -contentions on the New HampshireL Radiological Emergency Response Plans -(RERP) filed by multiple parties to the. proceedikig. A total : of '

, 32 contentions, wholly or partially, were admitted by ' the -Board. - June ,1,; , o o

1987, has been set by the Board as the .new date for the start of this ?,

hearing which is expected to run for soveral: weeks. See Section 7 ' for - s-a >

information on FEMA's review of offsi_te' plans. 1 0n July 2,1986, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts petitiened the'Boardt to revoke regulation 50.47(d) or alternatively to ~ suspend its application

.ae in the Seabrock licensing proceeding on the -basis of hon-participation by

,1 Massachusetts and local communities .in emergency planning for -Seabrook.

On July 30, 1986 the ASLB denied the petition. . The. Board Order was.

i l enpealed by Massachusetts on the grounds that Stata and local plans must l be submitted to the NRC before any license is issued pursuant to 50.33(g).-

On November 20, 1986, the Appeal Bo'ard issued a decis1_on (ALAB-853) in favor of Applicants stating that submission of such' plans was not a pre-l condition to the' granting of. .a "iicense authorizing ' only fuel . load and-I precriticality testing. Following the Appeal Board decision, the~Commi'-

s sion' decided to review the matter of'shbmittal of State and local' plans as l

l a pr6 requisite for issuance of a- license. The ' Conunission Order of 'Jan'- .

I uary 9,1987, stayed the Director, NRR from authorizing low power opera- C tions until the Commic:foli's review is coinplete. 4 l  !

l 1

f

, i .i

- mud - w

  • L f j

! On April 9,1987, the Commission issued CLI-87-02, in which it continued I its stay of the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook and set. l aside, as a matter of policy, the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-853.

In so ruling, however, the Commission noted than on April 7,1987, the j Applicants had filed a " Suggestion of Mootness and Request for Vacation of Stay" (Suggestion of Mootness), in which they indicated they would soon l submit a " utility plan" for portions of the EPZ ' within Massachusetts; I

according to the Applicants, this filing mooted the Commission's review of ALAB-853. The Commission detennined it would treat the Suggestion of i l

Mootness as a request to vacate CLI-87-02 on grounds of mootness, and it I provided an opportunity for the other parties to present their views on i

the Applicant's filing. -

  • On April 8, 1986, New Hampshire Yankee submitted to the NRC, " pursuant to .

l l 10' CFR 9 50.33(g) and n.4 thereto", a document which it characterized as l I

a " utility plan". This document, entitled "Seabrook Station Radiological j l

Emergency Response Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," consists l

of 25 volumes of plans and operating procedures for the Commonwealth of ]

Massachusetts, six local communities located within Massachusetts-portions of the Seabrook plume EP2, four school districts, and two host communities. (See Section 7 for additional information on the utility l

plan)

--- __a- _ - - _ - _ _ . - - - _ - - - - _ _ - _ _ . - - _ . - - . - - . _ _ _ _ ____- _ _ - - _ - - - - - -

f On May 1,1987, OGC provided -the staff's' views on the Applicants' April- 8, 1987 filing and the mootness. issue. The staff's views 1 present the-Commission with the facts of the matter and bases upon which the Commis-L

~s ion can render a decision' on the mootness issue.

3. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IMPLEMENTATION APPRAISAL- -

Initiated-'on December 9-13, 1985, and documented in IR 50-443/85-32. Followup inspec;

~

tions on appraisal open items were held on _ March 24-28, 1985,7 June 9-13,-

1986 and during the period July 1986 to' March 1987. . Region I will verify the completion of the remaining open items prior to full' power operation:

..m d

1) Distribute final PI brochure'
2) Complete training for State personnel ,

)

q On October' 17, 1986, Seabrook was issued a license. to load, fuel' and: con-duct precriticality testing. ,

The initial full participation exercise!

4. FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE -

(New Hampshire only) was held on February 26, 1986, and documented in i IR 50-443/86-10. There were no major onsite problems. ' On June; 5,~ 1986, FEMA reported that the State of New Hampshire and' ten . local communities within the plume EPZ participated in the exercise, while seven-communities i

~y,q l

l l ,

within the plume EPZ chose not'to participate. FEMA identified 'deficien- 1 cies* and areas requiring corrective action during the exercise. On I-September 8,1986, New Hampshire notified FEMA that it implemented correc-- ,)4 tive actions identified by FEMA as a result of the exercise and indicated that these changes were included in their September 1986 plan revision. ,

No date(s) have been set for a New Hampshire remedial exercise or a Mass-achusetts initial exercise.

J 5; PROMPT ALERTING AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM (ANS) - Several motions requesting l that the record be reopened on .onsite emergency planning based on alleged >

1 inadequacies in the sirens' located in Merrimac, MA and East Kingston, NH, have been filed with the Board by MASS AG and SAPL. The Board has issued' decisions on all the motions' in favor of the applicants. ~In' a separate matter, the Plaintiff, Town of - Rye filed suit against the Applicants

  • Deficiencies are demonstrated and observed inadequacies that would cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness was not adequate to provide rea-sonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken. to pro-tect health and safety _of. the public living in the vicinity of, a nuclear power facility in' the event of a radiological emergency.. Because of the potential impact of deficiencies on emergency preparedness,- they are required to be promptly corrected through appropriate remedial actions including reme-dial exercises, drills or other actions. Areas. requiring corrective actions are demonstrated and observed inadequacies of State and local government per-formance, and although their correction-is required-during the next scheduled biennial exercise, they are not considered, by themselves, to adversely impact public health 'and safety.

'ld

v

s.

l revoking the permits previously issued for erection 'of siren poles. The Town of Hampton Falls also intervened, seeking the removal of utility poles erected on state-maintained highwayss within.-Hampton Falls. The-matter was heard in the Rockingham ' County Su'perior. Court,. and the . Court found for the Plaintiffs and ordered PSNH to remove .the ' poles. On L Feb-rua ry 13,1987, PSNH appealed the Superior-Court decision and the case is now before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. ,

)

i Tne Applicant has designed and constructed an ANS that meets the require-I ments of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, .IV.D.3 (SSER #4). The. system.(sirens) has been undergoing testing. Region I .has confirmed that the siren system has-been satisfactorily operability tested. The detennination of conformance6 of the total ANS with the guidance-criteria' of Appendix. 3 to NUREG-0654 l

l will be verified by FEMA at a later date in the course' of-FEMA's. review i- 1 and formal administrative approval of offsite emergency preparedness under-l 44 CFR Part 350 of FEMA's rules.

6. PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE - A PI brochure is. under development by the l ,

Applicants. FEMA will evaluate the brochure during the course of 'its re-view of offsite plans. The: Applicants have distributed an. interim 'PI =

brochure and have agreed to distribute the final version ' prior:to opera- i tion above 5% power. Region I will confirm that the brochure is~ distrib-uted as agreed upon. i i

i 1___.____________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______u_._____ _ _ _ . _ _ .___.__: _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ___________.)

> r

7. FEMA REPORT ON OFFSITE PLANS - FEMA has reviewed drafts of state and loca,1-plans that were submitted by New Hampshire and Massachusetts for an in'-

1 .

l formal technical review. New Hampshire formally. submitted emergency plans to FEMA in December 1985-with the latest revision (Rev. 2) submitted in September 1986. On December 12, 1986, FEMA forwarded >its report on Rev. 2 of the NH State and local plans to the State of'New Hampshire. The State has not responded to FEMA's December 12, 1986 report which identified approximately 30 inadequacies in the plan. FEMA review of; the New Hamp-shire plans does not appear to be on the critical path for-licensing.

Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. On September 20, 1986, . the Governor of Massachusetts announced that he will not submit emergency plans for.that ,

part of the EPZ in Massachusetts- b'ecause he -does not believe adequate -

I protective measures can be developed for that area. The Commonwealth ;

indicated that it is reassessing emergency preparedness' for Seabrook with.

regard to the Chernobyl accident.

On February 13, 1987, PSNH submitted the. ingestion pathway emergency plan associated with Seabrook for.the State of Maine. ,

On April- 8, 1987, New Hampshire Yankee submitted to the - NRC emergency-response plans for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the six Massa-chusetts communities within a 10-mile radius of the Seabrook Station.

x

__.----__-._-__----------%-__-_.__-------__- - - . . _ - - - - . _ _ - - _ u __ _- - - . _ - _ .2._J

s .,

i re-I The utility stated that the plans were. prep;; red by Massachusetts: and 'had been reviewed earlier by FEMA. On April 24, 1987, FEMA forwarded those copies to the NRC Staff for its " disposition", noting that the "NRC ,has' i neither requested FEMA to review these documents 1nor discussed time 'sched-ules or other criteria for such a review;" At this time a FEMA review of.

the Seabrook Station RERP is neither currently scheduled nor in progress.

L It is not clear to the staff what impact the submittal of these plans will l

have on licensing of Seabrook.

S. OFFSITE MEDICAL ISSUE - On January 29, 1986, the Applicants confirmed that 'l the emergency plans of the involved offsite response jur_isdictions contain- -

plist of local and regional hospitals which are-capable of> handling c~on '

taminated injured individuals. The existence of such a list in the per-tinent plans will be ' confirmed by FEFA. .In addition,- on March 12, 1986, the Applicants committed to fully comply with the Commission's response to further regulations or requirements relating to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

(SSER4).

9. PSNH REQUEST' FOR WAIVER OF 10-MILE EPZ RULE - On December 18, 1986, the Applicants filed with the NRC a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758 for a waiver of all applicable regulations [ principally 10 CFR 50.47(c)] that require the establishment of a 10-mile plume exposure EPZ for Seabrook.

The petition is based on a number of technical analyses the Applicants t have prepared to support their proposal for a one-mile EPZ for Seabrook.

1

-9  :

i On April 22, 1987, the ASLB issued a ruling on the Applicants petition,. -

)i concluding that "Appli ca n t s.' instant petition does ,not provide a prima l facie showing on its technical merits." In its discussion, the Board'used  !

the staff's thinking, as. well as that of interveners, as' the basis" for 4

its decision;of the technical merits of the case. . Notwithstanding the .

L many unresolved technical issues identified in itsTdecision, the -Board; 1 said that it would be premature to recomend to the Commissiom at this  ;

l time and that further consideration should be given to Applicants' motion.-  ;

The Board stated, "We do not; take a position. that' a one mile EPZ for the-Seabrook Station is unjustifiable; only that Applicants and Staff need more time to determine convincingly whether it is."

(emphasis added).

l l' The staff is currently reviewing ~'the technical . merits of the petition.

l l

1 On . Februa ry 18, 1987, The State of New Hampshire submitted to' the NRC a signed agreement between the State. of- New Hampshire and. New Hampshire ,

Yankee relative' to the company's continued support for emergency planning ,

for the full ten mile EPZ in New Hampshire, f,

___.____aw.____.__.-.a______.m.---.--

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234C120&oldid=3274429"