ML20244E221
| ML20244E221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1986 |
| From: | Matthews D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235S055 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8608270082 | |
| Download: ML20244E221 (8) | |
Text
_.
D August 21, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
David B. Matthews, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO SENATOR GORDON J. HUMPHREY In response to a verbal request of Victor Nerses, Senior Project Manager, please find enclosed our responses to issues pertaining to Seabrook emergency planning contained in the letters attached to Senator Humphrey's letter of July 23, 1986.
I believe that the main issues expressed by Senator Humphrey's constituents have been addressed.
However, one issue will be referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since it deals directly with offsite plans and is under FEMA's immediate jurisdiction. We will provide you with a copy of the fomarding correspondence.
If you need any further infonnation, please contact Don Perrotti of my staff, Extension 24865.
Signed by Falk Kantor for David B. Matthews, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
DISTRIBUTION w/o
Enclosure:
Response to Senator Humphrey's RWStarostecki, IE CRVan Niel, IE ltr. dtd. 7/23/86 JGPartlow, IE WLazarus, RI BKGrimes, IE RPerlis, OGC DISTRIBTUION w/
Enclosure:
ELJordan, IE DCS hews, IE SASchwartz, IE DEPER R/F ME KEPerkins, IE e rrotti,p.IE JAAxelrad. IE VNerses, NRR EPB R/F 1
EPB/IE EPRf' yf(
EPB/IE C{ a g /86 DJPerrotti:sc F Mntor DBMatthews I
8/tF/86 8/ /86
[
b C&G589770<6D s'ge.
Issue 1 Basis for Emergency Planning Zone (s) for nuclear power plants.
l The NRC requires nuclear facility operators to establish emergency planning zones (EPZs) around each nuclear plant both for a short tenn " plume exposure pathway" and for a longer term " ingestion exposure pathway." EPZs are defined as the areas for which planning is needed to assure that prompt and effective actions can be taken' to protect the public in the event of an accident. An 1
NRC/ EPA Task Force, in a report on Emergency Planning (NUREG-0396/ EPA 520 016), selected a radius of about 10 miles for the plume exposure pathway and a radius of about 50 miles for the ingestion exposure pathway based on an examination of a spectrum of postulated accidents.
The NRC/ EPA Task Force concluded that radiation levels requiring protective actions for the public would generally not occur outside a 10 mile radius for the most probable types of accidents. For the most severe (but least likely) accidents, protective actions might need to be taken outside the plume EPZ.
i i
The choice of the size of the EPZs represents a judgment on the extent of detailed planning which must be perfonned to assure an adequate response.
In a particular emergency, protective actions might well be restricted to a small part of the planning zones. On the other hand, the response measures established 1
within the 10-miles and 50-mile EPZs can and will be expanded if the conditions l
i
7...
b.
2 of. a particular accident warrant it. Although a plume EPZ is generally cir-cular, in the case of Seabrook the actual shape was determined based on local factors such as demography, topography, access routes, and governmental juris-
.dictional boundaries, and the plume EPZ generally extends beyond 10 miles from the plant.
Issue 2 Availability of information for the public on emergency planning for nuclear power plants (generic) and Seabrook.
Response
Federal regulations require a public information program be developed to acquaint the public with emergency information.
Information should include, for example, what their initial actions should be in an emergency, the principal points of contact with the news media and the procedure for dissemination of emergency information to the public. This emergency information is generally in the fonn of a brochure or pamphlet (s) distributed to the permanent residents and transient population by the operator of the plant. In the case of Seabrook, emergency information brochures printed in English and French will be mailed to residents and made available to transients in the plume EPZ prior to issuance of a license authorizing operation above 5% of rated power. Prior to fuel load and
. low power (less than 5% power) testing, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) will distribute information pamphlets to all residents in the plume EPZ and also make the infonnation available to transients on what to do if they hear the sirens.
Emergency information on posters, calendars and telephone book inserts is also included in Seabrook's public information program. PSNH has agreed to update and disseminate this information on an annual basis.
Issue 3 Impact of Chernobyl accident on U.S. nuclear industry including emergency planning.
Response
The NRC is actively engaged in evaluating the consequences and implications of the Chernobyl accident. We are currently developing a comprehensive program plan for evaluating the impact of the Chernobyl event on United States regula-tory policies and practices. The first objective of the plan will be to systematically detemine, in coordination with other agencies and organizations, t.he facts concerning the Chernobyl accident including the Chernobyl plant design. The second objective will be to determine the implications of the accident on U.S. nuclear regulatory policies and practices including emergency planning. The results of this effort will be documented and made available to l
e - the public when published. However, it is too early to judge whether any changes to-current. emergency planning regulations would be warranted.
Issue'4 Population estimates (winter and, sunmer) used in emergency planning for Sea-brook.
Response
The NRC/ FEMA guidelines in NUREG-0654 specify that each licensee's plan shall contain time estimates for evacuation within the plume EPZ based on population estimates that include consideration of pennanent residents and transient and special facility populations (e.g., schools, hospitals and institutionalized persons). Consideration is to be given for both normal and adverse weather conditions in the analysis. On June 13, 1986, Public Service of New Hampshire forwarded to the NRC an updated Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) and Traffic Management Plan adopted by New Hampshire. The ETE provides total population figures for sunmer and winter within 10 miles of the site as well as population estimates for various groups of people (e.g., pennanent residents, day trippers, transients, and special facility populations). While the peak summer population for Seabrook is high, there are other commercial nuclear plants (e.g., Zion and Indian Point) which have higher year-round population.
1 i
1 ]
Issue 5 Use cf Seabrook to store nuclear waste.
Response
- Public Service of New Hampshire has informed the NRC that there are no plans to use'the Seabrook facility for regional storage of high level nuclear waste generated by other nuclear plants. Under the Commission's regulations, a util-ity 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 would engender a lengthy review process including a safety evaluation and an environmental as-sessment by the NRC staff. A public hearing might also be held by request before any application would be granted.
Issue 6 Non-participation of New Hampshire towns in planning.
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
l
. i the final licensing authority for these nuclear plants. However, FEMA has been assigned the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency pre-paredness for the area surrour. ding nuclear power plants. The concerns expressed in this issue relate to offsite matters and are under the immediate jurisdiction of FEMA. Therefore, a copy of your correspondence is being forwarded to FEMA l
for their response directly to you.
Issue _1 i
l The Federal Government's finding as to the adequacy of the evacuation plans.
l
Response
As stated above, the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of offsite emer-gency preparedness rests with FEMA.
The offsite plans of the State of New Hampshire are currently under review by FEMA with another revision to the plans expected sometime in late August 1986. An exercise involving Seabrook and New i
_ Hampshire was conducted s,.i February 26, 1986. The Seabrook emergency response organization adequately demonstrated its onsite response capabilities. On June 5,1986, FEMA reported a number of deficiencies in offsite emergency re-sponse of the type requirint a remedial exercise. No date has been scheduled for the remedial exercise.
The State of Massachusetts has not formally sub-mitted its emergency plans for Seabrook to FEMA. No exercise date has been set i
L-____-__--_____-
=
4, for Massachusetts. With regard to offsite emergency preparedness,. favorable
)
FEMA findings on-the emergency plans and exercises for New Hampshire and Massachusetts _are required for issuance of a license for Seabrook authorizing operation above 5% of rated power.
i I