ML20236K882

Responds to Recipient Expressing Concerns Re Public Feelings of Exclusion from Plant Hearing Process & Effectiveness of Util Offsite Emergency Plans

ML20236K882
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/03/1987
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Gregg J HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20236K884	List: ML20236K882 ML20236K891
References
CON-#487-4757 OL, NUDOCS 8711100011
Download: ML20236K882 (5)

Text

Distribution:  !

d~ ' -

• Vstello SECY 1097  !

/*%

A UNITED STATES JTaylor

.TRehm E00 3181 VNerses.

!jg %

gy g

e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTO N, 0. C, 20555 WTRussell DPerrotti g JMurr EReis, GC D d November 3, 1987 TMruley STurk, 0GC q

% , ,% g JSniezek RBellamy, RI i RStarostecki MCoons FMiraglia CentralFiles]

[ N3 JBlaha PEPB R/F DMossburg ED0 3181 NRC PDR FCongell Local PDR i' The Honorable oudd Gregg DMatthews OCA United SI.ates House of Representatives RBarrett Washington, D.C. '20515 LCunningham CRVan Niel

Dear Congressman Gregg:

FKantor 3 I am responding to your September 17, 1987 letter in which you expressed concerns about the " feelings of exclusion" of the public from the Seabrook  ;

hearing process and the effectiveness of offsite emergency plans prepared by (

the utility. You suggested that in order to ensure public confidence, the l Commission should reconsider your February 20, 1987 proposal for an external l review of the utility plans by an ad hoc committee composed.of experts in l transportation and emergency plannTng. j

.i l I want to assure you that the Commission respects and treats very seriously the, l views of the public and.their elected representatives. The procedures that the Commission follows in formal licensing proceedings such as the Seabrook case, however, derive from the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and~other applicable Federal laws. The Commission's licensing decisions are made in l on-the-record adjudications, and the Commission's Boards, as well as the l Commission itself, serve as impartial judges in the adjudicatory proceedings over which they preside. The Comission must resolve the matter of emergency planning for Seabrook within this legal framework, which does not provide for the creation and reliance upon by the Commission of an ad hoc panel such as you have suggested. The framework is one that provides avenues for fctmal i participation by 0 .erested persons, as groups or individuals, and by state and local governments. Moreover, numerous interested persons, the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and many individual towns are participating in the formal process for Seabrook. The Commission therefore believes it will reach a fair and responsible decision in Seabrook within this framework.

Regarding the application of this process specifically to the Seabrook case, a distinction must be drawn between the New Hampshire and Massachusetts portions of the emergency planning zone. The State of New Hampshire and the majority of

the local New Hampshire communities cooperated in the development of l radiological emergency response plans for the New Hampshire portion of the 10-mile plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). An exercise of I

these plans was conducted in February 1986, and a public hearing on contentions related to these plans began on October 5, 1987, in Concord,.New Hampshire. In a memorandum issued on September 24, 1987, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board for Seabrook provided for the direct personal-appearance of the-l representatives of the public w'io are in a position, and have the authority, to l explain public concerns. The doard invited all towns and government agencies j N the EPZ, including those active and inactive in the hearing process, to

! express their views on the issues at the hearings through their official

! representatives.

8711100011 071103 Originated: NRR:Kantor ADOCK 0500 3

{DR

( . . .

s Because the Governor of Massachusetts decided not to submit emergency plans formally to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for review, the Seabrook i utility developed an emergency plan for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ. i In the Shoreham licensing proceeding the Commission considered itself legally l obligated to consider whether a utility plan, prepared without State and local i government cooperation, meets the Commission's requirements. I am advised that I current NRC staff plans provide that the utility plan for Massachusetts will be i reviewed and tested in an exercise. A public hearing similar to that conducted for the New Hampshire plans must be held to adjudicate any contentions related ,

to the plans before full power operation of the facility will be permitted. We i believe that such an approach, in which the basic groundrules for consideration of utility plans are set by a public rulemaking and then the plans themselves are measured against the groundrules in a formal adjudicatory hearing, can  !

effectively determine the adequacy of the offsite plans for Seabrook. We ,

believe that the public's concerns can be adequately addressed by this process.

Sincerely, W- ,

Lando W. Zech, r. [j {

l 1

l l

' \

l l

l l

l l

- n

"( g7 g" N# f; Honorable Judd Gregg '

Because the Governor of Massachusetts decided not to submit emergency plans formally to the Federal En.argency Management Agency for review, the Seabrook utility developed an emergency plan for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ.

l In the Shoreham licensing proceeding the Commission considered itself legally 1 obligated to consider whether a utility plan, prepared without State and local ,

government cooperation, meets the Commission's requirements. However, as you '

are aware, Commission consideration of utility emergency plans is the subject of a pending rulemaking proceeding in which the Commission has had the benefit I

of an NRC staff analysis, briefing,' and recommendation, but has made no final rulemaking decision. ,

1 I am advised that current NRC staff plans provide that the utility plan for Massachusetts will be. reviewed and tested in an exercise. A public hearing l similar to that conducted for the New Hampshire plans must be held to  !

adjudicate any contentions related to the plans before. full power operation of 1 the facility will be permitted. We believe- that such an approach, in which the basic groundrules for consiiferation of utility plans are met by a public rulemaking and then the plans themselves are measured against the groundrules l in a formal adjudicatory hearing, can effectively determine the adequacy of the -

offsite plans for Seabrook. We believe that the public's concerns can be i adequately addressed by this process, i

Sincerely, 1

Original signed by 1.ando Zech, Jr.

Lando W. Zech, Jr.

l l

cmu> . .c/........ 9@............ ..9CH............ ..................... ..................... ..... .... ~ ........ ....... ~ .. ~ .....

• ~> k.wd Y ...

. . . . . R. . . . .a n . . . ..................... ............... ~ ... ....... ~ .... ~ .... ............ ~ ... ~ ..~~~~~~

om > 10/27/87

.................. ./..f./. . ]. . .....................

. ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . .

nac ronu m no em nacu o2d OFFICIAL RECORD COPY A v.s.am ym- oo.m

8 n) N N

~

o! ' ' '

i 1

..+, .

,7, 7:qpp p erc ' - . ,

\  ;]

',t-g f (fy .; C; e- ' 4 f UNITED STATES : '  !. ..,6>

"ij

. g' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' <

6. f}8 Wii'i i (

. WASHINGTON, D.' C. 20655 : ,

~

7.;

,.1

}....

? 1 zACTION '

s'

?).'; ,s .

.. , _ ., A . ,

T. , ',

,x ,

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROLc i* -j 6'd  %$

]

FROM DUE:.10/02/87:- ,

ED1 CONTROL: . 003181:

.' DOC;DT 109/17/87;'

~ '

(L

. . . . . . s REP. JUDD GREGO '

4 FINALiREPLY

- s

' s tot' '

4

+'

CHAIRMAN ~7ECH qf , .

.7 3.. ,,

':FOR SIGNATURE' oft. **?PRIORITYT**L' '

SECY- NO :::1097f r . [;

CHAIRMAN ,

j (l DESC~ 1 ROUTING 1 h CONCERNS.RE EVACUATION PLAN FOR SEABROOK STELLO.'

.TAYL.OR' DATE:?09/24/87. 'REHM

.ASSIONED TO: NRR CONTACT: MURLEY  ? RUSSELL .

~ ~ -.- MURRAY .-

l . .

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:' -

W% t,, .) ,

8 l

~NRR RECEIVED: SEPTEMBER 25, 1987 J 4 iU eJ '

4. ,.

ACTION: DREP:CONGEL -

k 3 ,

q h NRR' ROUTING: 'MURLEY/SNIEZEK l i ,

H MIRAGLIA . . .

STAROSTECKI ACT10W FUNCHES BLAHA MOSSBURG tDUE T03RR DIRECTOR'ST0FFICE

+

'b, .

} A g ._-~

, +

i a .}

4' j

i z

, ., - }.-i i C i ___ __ _ l' '

.- t,] _ f ,  !*

J E

OFFICE.0F THE' SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:, CRC-87-1097 LOGGING DATE: 'Sep 23 87 '

ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: J. Gregg AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LET'.?ER. DATE: Sep 17 87- FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Seabrook' 1

SUB7ECT:. Urges the. Commission to reconsider the proposal.for external review of the'Seabrook emergency plans ACTION: Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION: RF, OCA to Ack, Docket SFECIAL HANDLING 'None

.- l' NOTES:'

DATE DUE: Oct 5 87 ,

l SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED: '  !

l AFFILIATION: i I

a t

l i i

l Rec'd Off, E03 Date - 9_- M ~ Y ~)

Time --.1 b_. _

1.

i l i

(-

i EDO --- 003181_ i