ML20244E217

Forwards Response to to Chairman Zech Addressing Constituent Concerns Re Emergency Planning for Plant. Licenses to Load Fuel & Operate at Full Power Will Not Be Issued Until Safety & Emergency Planning Criteria Met

ML20244E217
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/20/1986
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Rich Smith HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20237L120	List: ML20237L117 ML20237L163 ML20237L178 ML20237L182 ML20237L188 ML20237L204 ML20244E205 ML20244E217
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8608260449
Download: ML20244E217 (3)

Text

h-  ;

1 l' -

1 JP -

AUG 2 0 W The Honorable Robert C. Smith United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Smith:

I am pleased to respond to your letter of July 7,1986, to Chairman Zech of the Nuclear Regulatory Cossnission. Your letter addressed the concerns of a group of your constituents regarding emergency planning for the Seabrook nuclear generating station. I wish to assure you and your constituents that neither a lic::r.se to load fuel nor a license to operate at full power will be issued for Seabrook until we are satisfied that relevant safety and emer-gency planning criteria have been met. ,

Enclosed is a restatement of the specific concerns of your constituents and the explanations we are able to provide to alleviate those concerns. I trust this information is responsive to the concerns of your constituents.

Sincerely, Original signed bg

.Vict0E Ssalley

- Victor Stello, Jr.

" Executive Director for Operations Response to Constituent Questions DISTRIBUTION:

HRDenton, NRR SECY NO.86-789 ESchristenbury, OGC TEMurley RI ED0 - 1998 .

OCA RWStarostecki, IE DJPerrotti IE JGPartlow, IE RGPerlis, OGC BKGrimes, IE ELDoolittle, NRR )

i ELJordan, IE CDeliso, IE 86-444 SASchwartz, IE MLReardon, IE DBMatthews, IE DCS KEPerkins, IE DEPER R/F EPB R/F JAAxelrad,IE,)

CRVan Niel, IE FKantor, IE D/IE FJK OGC JMTaylor* V3 0110 ESchristenbury* *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE <

8/ /86 8/g86 8/ /86 BY PHONE EPB/IE* TECH ED* EP8/IE* DD/DEPER/IE D/DEPER/IE* DD/IE*

FKantor:sc DGable DBMatthews SASchwartz ELJordan RWStarostecki 8/11/86 8/11/86 8/11/86 8/ /86 8/11/86 8/12/86 IP

I s P*

RESPONSE TO CONSTITUENT 00ESTIONS

' Issue 1(a)

I Why approval of off-site emergency planning is not a Nuclear Regulatory I Comission nuclear power(NRC) criteria for issuance of a Ifmited 5% power license to plants.

Response  !

The Commission has fully considered the risks of operating a nuclear power I reactor at low power in detennining the requirements for offsite emergency planning. I In a revision to the emergency planning and prepare &ess rule FR 30232, July 13, 1982), the Cosnission noted that the risks of low-power (47 operation (defined as up to 5% of rated power) are significantly lower than i the risks of operating at full power and the degree of emergency preparedness  !

necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety is  !

significantly less than that required for full power operation. In this re-gard, the Cosnission noted:

testing is much less than during higher power operation due to t of reactor power and short period of operation; (2) at low power there is a significant reduction in the required capacity of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents compared to the required capacities under full-power operation; and (3) the time available for taking actions to identify accident power. causes and mitigate accident consequences is much longer than at full active releasemeans This the operators should have sufficient time to prevent a radio-from occurring.

(at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />), even for a postulated low-likelihood sequence eventually result in release of the fission products accum the environment),

the public would allow adequate precautionary measures to be taken to 4

protect near the site.

Although it is physically possible for an accident to occur in a nuclear plant operating at low power levels, it is the i Comission's judgment that the likelihood of occurrence of an accident at low power that would require protective measures beyond the boundaries of the plant is negligibly small, and even then a considerable amount of time would be avail.

able to effect these measures.

Issue 1(b)

Has the NRC emergency ever issued a 5% power license without first approving off-site planning.

Response

Yes, there have been several Ifcensing cases in which the NRC has issued a license authorizing fuel loading and low power operation (up to 55 of rated power) prior to receiving a finding of adequacy on offsite emer and preparedness from the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA).(gency Two planning recent cases are Shoreham located on Long Island, New York, and Limerick which is located near Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Limerick received FEMA approval approximately five months after low-power authorization while Shoreham received offsite emergency planning. low-power authorization in July 1985 and

- U Issue 2 j There.fs persistent concern that Seabrook will be used for storage of nuclear weste generated by other nuclear plants in New England. Can you provide assurance that the Seabrook facility will not'be used for regional storage of high-level nuclear waste.

Response

We have been. informed by Public Service of New Hampshire that there are no plans- I to use the Seabrook facility for regional storage.of high level nuclear waste {

generated by other nuclear plants. Under the Connission's regulations, a l utility can apply to amend its license to store high-level nuclear materials such as spent fuel from another reactor at its site. Such an application wuld engender a lengthy review process including a safety evaluation and an l, environmental assessment by the NRC staff. A public hearing might also be held )

by request before any such application would be granted. {

l Issue 3 j Issues relating to the role of local comunity involvement in emergency planning:

(a) Why have there been no drills where Seacoast residents are actually evacuated. J l (b) What are the criteria which will ensure the safety. and evacuation of schools, senior citizen centers, and hospitals.-

(c) How can the role of local connunities in the emergency planning process be improved.

(d) Are emergency plans which call for busing assistance from as far away as Loudon, easily an hour and a half drive to the Seacoast, adequate and realistic.

Response -

As you may know, the NRC is primarily responsible for assessing the adequacy of onsite emergency plans developed by nuclear power plant licensees and for having the final licensing authority for these nuclear plants. However, FEMA has been assigned the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite eser-gency preparedness for the area surrounding nuclear power plants. The concerns expressed in this issue relate to offsite matters and are under the.imediate jurisdiction of FDH. Therefore, I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to FEMA for their response directly to you. '

1