ML20237L204

Submits List of Outstanding Contentions in Offsite Emergency Planning Proceeding.Some Contentions Include Addl Subjs. Handouts Re EPZ Encl

ML20237L204
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/14/1986
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC
To:	Christenbury E NRC
Shared Package
ML20237L120	List: ML20237L117 ML20237L163 ML20237L178 ML20237L182 ML20237L188 ML20237L204 ML20244E205 ML20244E217
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8709080280
Download: ML20237L204 (7)

Text

,

/ l I

November 14, 1986 l Note to: E. S. Christenbury )

From: S. Turk

Subject:

Outstanding Offsite Contentions in Seabrook The following constitute the outstanding contentions in the Seabrook offsite emergency planning proceeding, grouped according to general subject matter. It should be noted that some of these contentions include additional subjects outside the category in which they are grouped below.

Availability of Emergency Personnel Hampton VI (Revised)

Hampton Falls 2  ;

Kensington 1 Kensington 2 South Hampton 2 NECNP NHLP-2 SAPL 8 i SAPL 8A l Letters of Agreement Kensington 6 South Hampton 1 South Hampton 3 ,

NECNP RERP-2  :

SAPL 15 Availability of Sufficient Emergency Vehicles Hampton IV (Revised)

South Hampton 8 NECNP NIILP-6 SAPL 18

,\

1 g

s j B709080280 870901 PDR FOIA CONNOR 87-346 PDR

,..=

Shcitering As An Available Responso Hampton VIII (Revised) t Kensington 4 NECNP REEP-8 SAPL 16 Emergency Facilities and Equipment Hampton Falls 4 South Hampton 6 Communications Kensington 10 i

'l Special Needs Populations Rye 2 NECNP NHLP-4 SAPL 25 i

Decontamination of Emergency Workers SAPL 7 In addition, the Board has not yet ruled upon the admissibility of the following contentions:

Evacuation Time Estimates SAPL 31 Hampton III (Revised)

\

iout-

!! A N9 c n THE PROBLEM: THE SEABRmK STATION ENRrfNCY PLANS ARE DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE r0/EMOR OF MASSACHlGETTS REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, c

~

/ , .

s o '

2 ml ,

1 mi ~

a 2%

l

! seis n o v) I 9 ) "CC*,' l

.. station ,

1

• tere,

. w 1

'4 fg

'Ls~

p J /d

LEGAL BASES OF PETITION BY PSP TO ALLOW SEABROOK TO OPEPATE 10 CFR 2.758 - WAIVER OF 10 MILE EPZ REQUIR N r RELIES ON SHOWING THAT A 1 (09 2) MILE EPZ AT SEABROOK PR0(I! DES THE SAT (OR BETTER) KGREE OF PURLIC PROTECTinN AS INH NDED TO BE ORTAINED BY THE 10 MILE RE0lflREENT IN HIE REGillATifdS, 1

1

.10 CFR 50,07(c) - FIND ENERGENCY PLAN DEFICIENCY TO BE INSIGN!FICANT RELIES ON SHrVING THAT THE INCREASE IN PUBLIC RISK CAUSED BY REnUCTION IN PLANNING FR 7 10 MILES TO .1 (OR 2) MILE (S) IN S NOT SIGNIFICANT, l

1 l

1

.. TECHNICAL RATimAL FiVEN BY PSNW TO SIPpnRT SEAnRmX PETITION 1,. DOSES FROM TPADITIDA'Al DBAs @L9 NDT EXCEED PAGs OfTSIDE THE ZrNE

2. DOSES FRnM MOST CORE MELT SEmENCES W0llLD NOT EXCE9 THE PAR OlfTSIDE THE ZOPE

~-

?. A. DOSES FROM THE WORST CORE ELT SE0llENCES WrilLD GENEPALLY NOT REAO' y ITEI" ATE LIFE THREATENING LE\ELS DlITSIDE THE ZONE. . . .

. ~>e

') 7 B. THE PROBABILITY OF LIFE THREATEN]NG DfFSES " DROPS OFF SIIBSTANTIAI.Lv" be

/

AT THE AR0llT THE RADil!S OF THE 70NE ROUNDARY, ^'

4. DETAILED PLANNTNG WITHIN THE 70NE WILD PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL PASE FOR A_D HOC EXPANSION OF RESPONSE EFFORTS BEYOND THE 70NE DURING AN ACCIDENT,

5. AClITE HEALTH RISK FOR SEABROOK FITH A .1-MILE EVACUATION IS COMPARA9.E T0 i WASH-1400 RESilLTS WITH A 25-Pil.E EVACllATION,

6. THE INDIVIDilAl. RISK CF EARLY FATALITIES AT SEARROOK WETS THE SAFETY GOAL i WITH No EVACIIATION, 7, THE PISK REDllCTION GAINE9 BY EVACllATION BETWEEN 1 AMD .10 MILES IS NEGL!GIBLE,

l l

NPC RP/IEW ACTIONS FOR PSW QATIONAL l l

)

1 RATinNAL REVIEW

1. PAGs FOR DBAs NRR/RSD

?. PAGs FOR "FT)ST" CORE MELTS t'RR/RNL

3. EARLY FATALITIES FOR WORST ACCIDENTS NPR/PA'l A. GENERALLY NOT OCCUP OliTSIDE ZONE

8. PROD. ABILITY DECREASES RAPIDLY AT BOUNDAPY l U. PASIS FOR AD Hnc PROTECTIVE ACTIONS IE/FEFA 5, CfWARISON TO WASH-]l400 NPR/PNL

6. COMPARISON TO SAFETY G0AL NPR/BNL

7. RTSK REDUCTION FPnM EVACUATION BEYOND 1 MILE NOT ADDRESSED

\

j 1

l

ALTERNATIVE PATICA'AL UNDF.R 10 CFP50.47(c)

REQllRF FERGENCY PLANNING TO .10 MILE RADIUS RE0llRE PSNH TO S!!BMIT PLAN THAT TAVES ACTIONS ON BEHALF 0F MASSACRSETTS CITIZENS IN L1 Elf AT MASSACHUSETTS GOVER*ENT ACTIONS TO MAXI v EXT FT FEASIBLE ESTIMATE RISK INCREASE CAUSED BY FAllllRE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO PLAN FfR (ASSIST IN) EVACl'ATION IN MASSACHUSETTS PORTION OF ZONE, DETERMINE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENTIAL. BETWEEN MASSACHilSETTS PARTICIPATION AND NO MASSACHUSETTS PARTICIPATifW, 1

l I

l l

1

)

i 1

s

_._____.__.____.____.___._______.__________________._________.._____.._____.______________.______-______________________.___________._._J

January 7,1987 i Note to: R. Volmer E. Jordan T. Novack

Subject:

Scabrook Exemption Request 4 iJ Attached is a Licensing Board order of January 7, 1987, reaffirming its '

previous order that the parties are to address whether the Applicants have made a prima facie showing that the requirement for a 10-mile EPZ should be waived, by January 27, 1987. The Board indicates that this need not to be l the parties' view on the merits of the application. The Board further states that if a party cannot then set out its views on whether a grima facie showing has been made, it should submit a partial response and set out a i reasonably certain date of when it would complete its response on the prima facie issue.

Although this order may change our response to the Board, it should not i

affect our development of the schedules and the statements of work agreed to I at the meetings on January 8, 1987. At those meetings it was agreed that

) that schedules and statements of work to determine if the Applicants' petition made a prima facie showing, as well as whether a waiver should be granted, j would be completed by January 14, 1987. *~

i

- . l Edwin J eis cc: C. E. Rossi D. Matthews V. Noonan V. Nerses -

e 6

4 qq$5 Y .J -

7 1 f

e

• s atcu ,

o UNITED STATES f

!Y)

I

( [,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /NO f

g <

n AsmNoton. o. c. 20sss ow

\, 8 January 28, 1987 I

l

?!EPOPAFDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations FROM: James P. Murray Deputy General Counsel

SUBJECT:

FLEETING VIITil SEABROOK REPRESENTATIVES This is to provide a brief record of the meeting we had last evening with Mr.

Derrickson and Mr. Feigenbaum of Seabrook. Mr. Derrickson had requested i

the meeting in a telephone contact vrith your office last week. The stated

' purpose of the meeting was to introuduce Mr. Feigenbaum, the newly appoint-ed V.P. for engineering, to you. You asked me to sit in on the meeting and make a record of it for possible future reference.

The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 1987 and ended about 45 minutes later. After introductions you stated your understanding of the reason for the meeting and noted the Congressional interest in certain types of meetings between the staff and Seabrook representatives. You stated that we did not consider that this meeting was the sort for which advance notice was required man Markey. to,You be given under a commitment the NRC has made to Congress-noted that I was present, however, to make a record of the meeting in the event it might later prove to be of interest.

Derrickson remcrked that he bed just come from a visit at TVA and a discus-in ensued as to what Derrickson had been doing at TVA, what he saw as some of the probicas there, how he thought solutions might be implemented, and the general philosophy of prioritization in the context of resolving numer-ous problems.

modifications. You explsined your approach to prioritizing numerous plant You then asked whether Seabrook was planning to submit a utility-generated emergency plan for the portion of the EP zone in Massachusetts. After noting the emergency planning efforts already undertaken in Massachusetts, the anticipated antagonism to any utility plan, and other "real world" prob-lems. Derrickson raid that a plan would be ready by the cno of April.

However, submit it. he said the company had not decided whether and, if so, when to You then observed that if ene were to put political and complex procedural issues aside for a moment and focus solely on the technical issues, it seemed a formal to you the strongest technical core for public safety would include plan.

Derrick snre noted the otrong and growing opposition to the expensive plant ever operating but ascerted that he thought Geabrook h6d made a strong case in its 2.758 petition for relief from the ten mile EPZ requirement . He said that if it is cdjttdged to have established a prima facie case for relief under the rules he would like to see fine] resolution of the matter proceed quickly.

{

pp% ^

i

0 q>.

i  !

2-You asked what the distribution of the population was within the portion of the EPZ in flassachusetts. Brief discussion suggested it was non-linear and l that most of the population was 5 miles or more away.

The meeting then ended on the note that the Seabrook people were an>dous to j do anything they could to bring matters to a conclusion. 1 l

l A - #

James P. Murray

/

/ Deputy General Coun/

sel t/

f ]

I i

l I

DOC-SEARCH ASSOCIATES P.O. Dox 7 Cabin John, !!D 20810 IO Ik )

g .

FREE 00M 6F INFORMATION 45T REQUEST Director Division of Rules and Records 47Q%

US 11uclear negulatcry Commission k /h h-gg Mashington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act would you please place'6-the following document (s) in the Public Document Rooms h] LC- lWM J >0 ff"$ WX"W3 Thank you.

Sincerely, b/w n -

Lynn Connor q q@1 *I y-

- - _ - - _ - _ - -____--__