ML20234C337
| ML20234C337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | Cerne A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Kane W NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234B686 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8709210251 | |
| Download: ML20234C337 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _
,t' b
January 21,198f MEMORANDUM FOR:
W. F. Kane, Director, DRP THRU:
T. C. Elsasser, Chief, RPS3C E. C. Wenzinger, Chief, PB3 FROM:
A. C. Cerne, SRI, Seabrook
SUBJECT:
MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR SEABROOK On January 17,1987 D. Ruscitto received a telephone call in the Seabrook resident office from Captain Kevin Leach, Superintendent of Field Services for the Essex County (Massachusetts) Sheriff's Office. Captain Leach wanted to inform the NRC that his office, which covers all six of the Massachusetts
)
towns within the Seabrook EPZ, should be considered a responding agency with i
respect to any emergency at Seabrook involving Essex County. He also stated that despite the decision of the Massachusetts governor not to submit emergency plans, his office would like to be involved in the emergency preparedness planning process for Seabrook Station.
Captain Leach indicated that his office 1
had already communicated this position to New Hampshire Yankee.
The resident inspectors discussed this phone call with W. Lazarus, Chief. EPS at which time it was determined that Captain Leach would be recontracted to inform him of the role FEMA plays in offiste emergency preparedness. Mr.
Lazarus also indicated an intent to document the Essex County Sheriff Office J
position in a memorandum to FEMA Region I.
i On January 20, Captain Leach again called the resident office. At this time, FEMA's prospective interest in his offer was discussed and he was given Mr. Lazarus' Region I telephone number.
Later that day, the resident inspectors discussed these telephone calls with Mr. R. Perlis, OELD, the Seabrook case attorney.
While the resident inspectors did not discuss in detail with Captain Leach his office's position or offer, he did mention a fairly large staff (200 +
deputies) available for response. The resident inspectors considered this noteworthy from two particular standpoints: (1) the "Shoreham argument" that public protection agencies will respond to emergencies despite nonparticipa-tion by political entities and (2) Captain Leach's statement that the Essex County Sheriff was independent of the governor's decision on this matter and could willingly participate in Seabrook emergency planning.
In accordance with a request by Mr. Perlis, a copy of this memorandum is being forwarded to him.
Captain Leach's phone number is 617-526-1609. While this memorandum is for information only, it is our understanding that additional formal contact with Captain Leach will be handled by the Chief, Emergency Preparedness icction.
8709210251 870916 PDR FOIA Antone C. Cerne CONNDRB7-346 PDR SRJ, Seabrook cc:
W. Lazarus, Chief, EPS R. Perlis, OELD V V. Nerses, LPM,NRR h$.
1
.I
4 d
p 4.
RoDBNG AND TRANSMRTAli SUP
.$[h 70s (Name, ofilce symbol, room number, initials Date butsde Anney/ Post) '
1.
_8 t
1 '-
M
(/.
O s.
- J 4.
E Action File Note and Retum AGi ^aal For Ctecrance Per Conversation As Requested For Corrsction Prepare Reply Circulate ~
> Tor Your faformation See Me Comment lavestigste -
Signature M-:- :netion Justify REMARKS A 4M'
'b a.a es s,
~
~
DN i
00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
-l clearances, and similar actioco -
FR0th (Name, org, symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.--Bldg.
Phone No.
l 8083-W OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) em
-11Jos
- cros toss o - 3:1-s29 (132) y 1
l 1
J
?
w
}
.=
a.
J3 t
ENCLOSURE TO WN-87057 NHY RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION Notice of Violation 87-08-01 I
Technical Specification Section 6.7.1 requires in part that, writteu procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering Emergency Plan implementation.
Emergency Plan implementing procedure ER-1 0, " Classification i
and Notification of Emergencies at Zero Power", Revision 1, requires in part that notifications of the state authorities of both New Hampshire and l
Massachusetts be completed within 15 minutes after the declaration of an i
Unusual Event.
i Contrary to the above, on February 11, 1987, an Unusual Event was declared at i
l 3:30 p.m., however, Massachusetts was not notified until 4:00 p.m., 30 minutes i
after declaring the Unusual Event.
Response
The fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was not notified within 15 I
minutes after the declaration of the Unusual Event is correct.
The delay in i
notification of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was due to the uncertainty l
of the Commonwealth's participation in the emergency planning efforts for Seabrook Station.
i j
j As a result of an initial assessment of act2vitiu associated with the dec1 oration of the Unusual Event on February 11, 1987, the following actions were implemented:
- 1) Management directives were provided to all Shif t Superintendents l
that, when procedures require the declaration of an emergency class, i
the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts i
shall be notified within the required time frame.
l
- 2) An internal evaluation of the activities surrounding this event was l
j initiated.
The results of this evaluation have been compiled into a
'l management report with specific recommendations concerning the event.
This report has been issued to all managers who have direct responsibility for the specific recommendations.
Continuing review of activities surrounding this event resulted in the following additional corrective actions:
- 1) Emergency Response Procedures have been reviewed and, where necessary, revised to linprove guidance to operators in classification of emergencies, notification of requited organizat.fons and termination of emergencies.
S.
- 2) Training will be provided for all Shift Superintendents, Unit Shift Supervisors, and Operations Management. The training will emphtssize' the requirements of Emergency Response Procedures.for classification of an emergency, notification of required organizations, and termina-tion of the emergency. The training'is scheduled to begin in April, 1987, cor. current with the next 6 week segment of operator requalifi-cation training, and is expected to be completed by June 15, 1987.
I o -
(RIDS) i REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1
ACCESSION N3R: 0704290232 DDC. DATE: 87/04/23 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET #
l FACIL: 50-443 Seabroo k Nuclear Station Unit 1,
Public Service Co.
05000443 i
AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION THOMAS,G.S.
Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire RECIF.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION I
Document Centrol Branch (Document Control Desk) g GUBJEC T : Responds to NRC 870323 ltr te violations noted in Insp Rept 50-443/87-08. Correc tive actions: emergency response procedures revised to improve guidance to operators in classification of emergencies.
)
DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE35D COPIES RECEIVED; LTR ENCL SIZE:
TITLE: Emergency Preparedness-Appraisal / Confirmatory Action Ltr/ Exercise Rep NOTES:
RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES i
ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL l
PD1-3 LA 1
0 PD1-3 PD 1
1 1
j NERSES,V 1
1 1
INTERNAL: AR M / DAF /LFMP 1
O NRR/DREP/EPB 3
3 j
NRR/PMAS/1LR5 1
1 REG FILE O2 1
1 l
RGN1 FILE 1
1 RGN2/DR55/EPRPD 1
1 l
l EXTERNAL: LPDR 1
1 NRC PDR 1
i NSIC 1
1
]
l 1
l I
1 j
l TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REGUIRED-LTTR 14 ENCL 12
. t. :
George S. ThomC:s' hJI wee me9oemece Room Pubuc Service of New Hampshire H
W
- New Hampshire Yankee Division NYN-87057 f
4 April'23, 1987 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Document Control Desk l
l
References:
(a) Facility Operating License NPF-56, Docket No. 50-443 (b) USNRC Letter, Dated March 23, 1987, " Inspection Report.
No. 50-443/87-08", Thomas T. Martin to Robert J. Harrison
Subject:
Response to Inspection Report No. 50-443/87-08 Gentlemen:
i In accordance with the requirements of the notice of violation identified l
in Reference (b), enclosed please find our response to that violation.
l Should you have any questions concerning our response, please contact Mr. Warren J. Hall at (603) 474-9574, extension 4046.
Very truly yours, b
Geo e S. Thomas Enclosure cc: Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclesr Regulatory Commission - Region I 631 Park Avenue-King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. A. C. Cern2 NRC Se.nior Resident Inspector
.Seabrook-Station Seabrook, NH 03874 8704290232-870423-g [. 6 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
,d
' P.O. Box 300. Seabrook, NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474-9514
s,
/.--
f
(
~
3 M t c s e.
aceNIe4 proups orsa;)end ta tJ02EG-639 L
'tSBA-LoCA
[
S ST-C) ower %' Thcl eyceeded w',% few a.I-a, i
ra o n 9 a p t w a % I j a l a l, W s, o W h f
9 I
4
-)
Cott.-wel4 w;K hasemi kW(Lel+-throup) (sa:.3)
PAGk 4teedd w'<%a. S-Io dI4 yau.b bW, off de.
90 Nfrp'e;,q,43 9;.4 f-4,4 a
1
/)4.0ShFtC Nd f84JR
- SbI-/)
d' M W.
PAC.j qcceded w,%
100 A.[g 3
\\ $
Yt Nh Ne
>Q mes k
b.M{ U-tn'4 w 'N N 0TMles, 3
M a%s 1
1
,,% f," _id(d /
'f**
'?f.."_**.*
Tld SMilFN h*"IA%%4 T?tM'M 7W'M'"""*'
~
^~' ' ~ ^
m.
., ['
,.o CL':LY f 6% NY & -00)$
8CCD/M/4484 skt$13 Mo si% ace:Jok grupade 4r waye3 r%k;ad4 7 k y e Aps4eus of aMs 1
- % YB A-Loch - low )pgl TAgh gu+ 9eeeQ hk u dod to m;te c
To c'
/Mos-
& ort.- M el4s a k (trIletl ThGS
~- 4 mi of eeeM h 9 owl t a sia ls i
- Fo r Aus r<. La m.el+s - moc4 jd d%
escur MtL lo a:lc T5"ooIik m d q 10 M.le EPt fromid 4s base t
du 4rmtav, y/u.edel.
r 1..-.
Gerno.4 Obseenulihs :
4 Ckoice of lodds 4 sat J a//
ob-woas.
3i4 Iu v clinale mikL4 sapal mlue.s rug,4 $ fim a&44 2
4 as +;/+.
ckoke el to A,Is, A d<f.uiut (+ ene 4)'
ew O. 7A s le </s.
j o
'k C Nfif I64 N GA 6. (btr iA (1$ L L s &
ls %
( a m a% G} fescalsile 40 4ak. ac Ws )
r,s4 heu eaf sl i o*S96.
Senu,
k 1
%d key
+0 I n f 94 eA }hody ta % i o M l.s
}
x r0 W
eu.4tg o ry.
i 8
+,
....,.n
, <* 7 d 4f.f#
$g *,* '
E
.A I ***9* *4.*..a ', VMWM * 'eams v%%MW = + a '-
7 =+
a e**
1 9
J l
1 NRC STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACRS.
)
i ON THE EVIEW PLAN FOR THE
'1 SEABROOK EERGENCY PLANNING SENSITIVITY STUDY 0
q
' SCOPE AND FOCUS OF STAFF REVIEW S. LONG (NRR) -
1 COMPARISON OF PLG-Oll56 WITH NUEG-0396 D MATTFEWS (IE)
-)
STHODOLOGY AND STATUS OF REVIEW:
l i
SOURCE TERMS T.'PRATT (BNL) 1 RISKANALYSIS
" ~
l I
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY-C. HOFMA ER.-(BNL)
CONTAINMENT BYPASS R.LYOUNGBLOOD (BNL).
I INTERFACING SYSTEM LOCA I
l
,.]
O' e-I
p 3
m
[n' y
x 1
J v
PURPOSE OF. REVIEW j
q
-T0 IDENTIFY AND REVIEW 'IHE PORTIONS OF THE STUDY WAT ARE MDST SENSITIVE WIW' 1
RESPECT TO WE STUDY'S PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS j
INDIVID'JAL RISK OF EARLY FATALITY AT SEABROOK.IS.WIBIN' 1
1 SAFELY G0AL l
1 MILE EVACUATI0ff AT SEABROOK PROVIDES SIMILAR RISK 0F EARLY-l FATALITIES TO THE WASH-1400 RESULTS WITH.25 MILE EVACUATION 1
PROBABILITIES OF SPECIFIC RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE LEVELS AT i
1 MILE FROM'SEABROOK-ARE LESS THAN THE CORRESPONDING PROBABILITIES SHOWN AT 10 MILES IN NUREG-0396-
)
4 I
l
.,1
,1 i
1
)
i 4
)
'O
'BASESFORCOPARICONS i
i WASH-1400 SOURCE TERM METH01DLOG EARLY FATALITIES WHOLE BODY DOSES
'I l
l l
4 a
. l l
I i
i n
1 l
i s
1
\\
J
--mm
___ _ _ -s_.ma_A
~
MAJOR CONTRIBlfTORS TO RISK DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTORS FOR DIFFERENT RISK COMPARISONS:
l l
1 1
PROBABil.ITY OF EARLY FATALITIES, GD/EN EVACUATION, 1
l APPEARS TO KAVE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SEVERAL RELEASE CATAGORIES AND EVENT INITIATORS, i
EVENT V WAS DOMINANT IN ORIGINAL PSA,
~
DOSE VS DISTANCE CURVES (N0 EVACUATION) ARE DOMINATED BY SINGLE RELEASE CATAGORY AND SEISMIC EVENT INITIATORS,
)
1 THESE CURVES WERE NOT PRODUCED IN ORIGINAL PSA.
l I
l l
l
9 9
a S
FOCUS OF STAFF REVIEW EFFORT FACTORS SHOWN BY CURRENT ST10Y TO BE IPPORTANT FOR RISK MITIGATION AREAS WHERE SIGNIFICANT RISK REDUCTION OCCURRED BETWEEN UPDATE At0 ORIGINAL PSA
]
a i
I f
1 i
l l
l i
s PLANT DESIGN FEATURES SIGNIFICAf(T TO REVIEW
\\
I 1
i CONTAlWENT STRUCTURE i
RHR VAULT
-l l
I
.l 4
i 1
\\
I I
4 l
]
1 1
i I
l
n a-11 h,
- MODELING FEATURES SIGNIFICANT TO REVIEW:
i l
j CONTAINENT RESPONSE AT HIGH PRESSURE.
-1 CONTAINMENT BYPASS ASSUMPTIONS 1
INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOCAS-j l
COMPLETENESS
)
l CHECK VALVE FAILURE DATA J
3 SOURCE TERM REDUCTION FROM SCRUBBING I
i OPERATOR RECOVERY CREDITS i
EVENT V 1"
STATION BLACK 0llT l
N
\\ s.
l 1
m-i
_.J
- /
a.
- +.
, u...:
y
^
4 b
/Wf 10 MILE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONJ '
UPON 4 PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATIONS. -
~
I 1
1)
DBA DOSES LESS THAN PAGs EEYOND 10 MILES i
2)
MOSTCNREMELTACCID$NTDOSESLESSTHAN i
PAGs EEYOND.10 MILES 3)
FOR WORST ACCIDENTS -
PROMPT DEATHS GENERALLY WITHIN.10 MILES 4) 10 MILES - BASE AREA EXPAND AD-H0C IF NECESSARY 1;
e l
l'
.k
'a i
I i
l t
'i 4
1
L 8'
.b je w
Z O
N O'
2 2
l 2
g
~
a O. 'm.
~
wO ga CC X i
ww Ew w2 2
lD 1
E
.J w
d M Q.
h, 2
C' 2..
w a
N Z C
m 2
~
' W OO m
w o
e-z h
<w g
_t.J n
. b; g Q
-0 7E O
l o.
,,a e
~
OF mD HO l'
2 CC I
W<
.O l
0 n i;I ii. ii ei i i
liii e i i,i i
0<
i i i i
i i,
J
- o m
o.
i 2
IN3OlODV 173W 3800 V NS AID SBSOO A008 3 lOHM DNIO333X3 dO Ailll8V808d w
l CC O
O
.i l
l 4
~ - ---
...t_.--_----
E R
S U
N S
- . O O
I TE P y' -
X A N L
E O
U E
Z g
s C
M f
e n
o
~s LG d
0 i
o AN U e
d 0
e L
c 1
g CI n
N P x
n i
s e
n e
i s
f e
e e
S NR o
l i
t c
l a
m T
i n
e e
m AO c
a r
0 N
LF n
0 h
h 1
c t
E a
1 t
P h
e e
D S
c t
f u
a n
o i
ol YE s
b I
g C C L 0
e n
n a
s a
3 o
d i
I C
h d
n NM t
d t
e o
u AE o
G s
e s
c y
b A
e x
e T G0 AP L
e b
1 o
LR h
EET MMU EO E
B R
A O
C F
O
~
~.
$ [2 0[f%
9 noUMNO AND TRANSMUTAI. SUP
- w.,oom,,s..e,.
,,,,t.' g-
= m.me. e
. Post)
W #18. Agency /
' M
$* Yh.
I"* l
/
- l, t.
1). M a / E M
\\
l s.
- 6. W
/.L L L> '
g f, 9bD-
<. [5_ W S.
AcDon File Note and Retum Approval For Cleerence_
Per Conversation As Requested For CorrecSen Prepare Reph
~
Circulate
-Tor Your information See Me Comment investigate Signature I
CWinetten Jus'ih JtEMARKS N #W w y M~atz m (n=ap a &, m s
- a
\\
~
s gy d
h A
w u.-.
s ou p p /n 00 NOT use this form as e RECORD of appewels, concurrences, d4posals.
clearances, and similar actions M (Neme, org. symbol. Agency / Post)
Room No. --86dg.
f Phone No.
sost-see FORB4 41 (R3v. 7-76)
EN8A NI
- IL300
- GPO 1983 0 = 391-6H G3D q
s o
m
f i'
SEABROOK STATION
SUMMARY
OF STATUS OF EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR LOW POWER LICENSE ISSUANCE (JUNE 1986) 1.
EMERGENCY Plan - All outstanding onsite emergency plan items required for fuel load and operation up to 5% of rated power have been resolved.
(SSER 4).
2.
HEARING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES - A hearing on onsite emergency pre-paredness issues before the ASLB was held in August 1983.
On October 4, 1985, the ASLB ordered the staff to provide its evaluation on certain on-site plan items identified by the Board, as well as copies of the appli-cant's submittals.
SSER 4 addressed all of the onsite plan items'(all have been resolved) identified by the Board.
The Board has not issued its initial decision on this proceeding.
With regard to the hearing on offsite plans and preparedness, on April 1, 1986, the Board announced its ruling on each of the contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans (RERP) filed by eight parties to the proceeding. Oral arguments on each contention had been held on March 25-26, 1986. A total of 34 contentions, wholly or partially, were admitted by the Board. The hearing on New Hampshire RERP has been scheduled for August 4-8 and 11-15,1980. The State of Massachusetts has not yet formally submitted its offsite plans to FEMA for review.
No hearing date has been set for these plans.
.)
~. - -..
,t
.f
- )
1 i
I r i
- j r - F T
a
.pc i.
i
't 4
.[
\\
l
' l i
On June. 18, 1936, abaring of oral argument was he?d rencerning thb'5 tate
.l 9
of Massachtise$ts Adjutant Gehei al's contentfon related(to sheltering of.
thebhachpsalation. This contention had been rejected:by the Board in its April 1, 1936 Orderi
.j i
3.
EMERGEl:CYPREFAREON6bIMPIMENTATION APPRAISAL - Initisted on..
I recemb6r 9,13,1985) and documented in :!R 50-h43/85-32.
Fol!owup,inspec-J I
tions onipprsisal open items were ' eld on March 24-28, 1986,~an'd June 9a13,.
h 1986,.; The icllowing ' schedule has 'boen established (at the exit meeting on
~
s.
June 23, If86) b.y the Region I team leader for completing the remaining i
open items:
1)
Histor;y'of Meteorological data
- fuel Ir>ad 7) 09te. hssessment Model'- !cdine; compor ent
-; fuel load-3)- Complete CR instrumentation
- fuei Joad 4)
Distribute interim PI brochure
- fuel load 5)-
Insta11atien t.M testing of alrens
- fuel load i
'6)
Proyide qualific4alternat.1ves for key
- full power
^
(R0do:itions - 26 hour3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> basis R
7)- LP.evise procedure for.onsite (out of plant)
- full,pok r.
j
/.
surveys l
8)
Distributo' final PI brochurc '
- full. power 9)
Comp'ete trvining for State parsonnel
- fuTi r power:
10)-
Complete installation of PASS
- full;poweh 4
= - -
1
.- o i
.1 j
4.
FULL PARTICIPA. TION EXERCISE - The initial full participation exercise L
-(New Hampshire only) was Lheld on February 26, 1986, and documented in.
IR 50-443/86-10. There were no major onsite problems..On slune 5,1986, j
1 FEMA reported that the State of.New Hampshire and ten. local communities
)
1 within the plume EPZ participated.in'the exercise, while seven communities
.I within the plume EPZ chose'not to participate.
FEMA identified defi-ciencies* and areas: requiring corrective action during the. exercise. ' No date(s) have been set for a New Hampshire remedial exercise' or a, Massachusetts initial exercise.
J oo
- 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 protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of aLnuclear power facility in the event of a radiological emergency._ Because of the potential
~
i impact of deficiencies on emergency preparedness, they are required-to be-promptly corrected through appropriate remedial actions including'iemedial exercises, drills or other actions.
' Areas ' Requiring Corrective Actions are demonstrated and' observed inadequacies -
of State and local government performance, 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.
______n______________
q s
J
. l S.
PROMPT ALERTING AND NOTIFICATION S'ISTEM (ANS) - The applicant has designed
}
and constructed an ANS that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, IV.D.3 (SSER #4). The system (sf rens) was undergoing initial testing on June 9-13, 1986, during the most recent followup appraisal. Region I will confirm that the siren syster Ms been satisfactorily operability p
tested. The determination of confC r.ance of the total ANS with the guidance criteria of Appendix 3 to NUREG W ' will be verified by FEMA at a later date in the course of FEMA's rerw and formal administrative approval of offsite emergency preparedness crir.r 44 CFR Part 350 of FEMA's rules.
l 6.
PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE - A 01 brochure is under development by the applicant. FEMA will evaluate the brochure during the course of its review of offsite plans.
The applicant has agreed to distribute an 4
k interim PI brochure prior to fuel' load and a final version prior to operation l
above 5% of power.
Region I will confirm that the brochures are distributed as agreed upon.
7.
FEMA REPORT ON OFFSITE PLANS - FEMA's review of New Hampshire RERP is underway. A recent submittal to NRC from the applicant (June 5, 1986) pro-i I
vided an updated evacuation time estimate study by KLD Associates for the State of New Hampshire RERP. Additional revisions to the RERP are expected.
j l
The monthly report for May 1986 shows an estimated FEMA Finding Date of October 6, 1986.
FEMA's informal review of the State of Massachusetts off-
]
)
1 l
i
.a 1
(
1
- l 4
site plans has been completed.
However the State of Massachusetts has not l
1 formally submitted its plans to FEMA for review.
8.
OFFSITE MEDICAL ISSUE - ON January 29, 1986, the applicant confimed that the emergency plans of the involved.offsite' response jurisdictions contain j
1 a list of local and regional hospitals ~which are capable of handling con'-
J taminated injured individuals. The existence of such a list in the.
pertinent plans will be confirmed by FEMA.
In addition, on March 12, 1986, 1
the applicant colmnitted to fully comply with the' Commission's response.to l
further regulations or requirements relating to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)..
l (SSER 4).
l l
1
/ '
l i
l l'
I
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.