ML20244E425

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards IE Responses to Questions 2,12,15,17,19 & 22 from Markey to Chairman
ML20244E425
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/10/1986
From: Matthews D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Noonan V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20234B686 List:
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8611180072
Download: ML20244E425 (8)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ __

[ NOV 101986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations FROM: David B. Matthews, Chief ..

Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response  !

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

RESPONSES FOR PARKEY 11/3/86 QUESTIONS l

Enclosed are IE responses to questions 2, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 22 in the_ I November 3,1986 Markey letter to the Chairman. One copy of each of the listed i

documents is also enclosed. )

i d

David B. Matthews, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness 4 and Engineering Response l Office of Inspection and Enforcement i 1

Enclosure:

l Q&A Responses for Markey 4 1

DISTRIBTUION w/Markey responses only: i VStello, ED0 JGPartlow, IE WJLazarus, RI '

JWRoe, EDO BKGrimes IE' CDeliso, IE 86-613 TRehm, EDO ELJordan, IE MLReardon IE l JHSniezek, ED0 SASchwartz, IE ED0 - 2284 l JMTaylor, IE DBMatthews, IE DCS  !

RWStarostecki, IE KEPerkins, IE DEPER R/F ESBeckford,RS JAAxelrad. IE EPB R/F TEMurley, RI FKantor, IE JPMurray, OGC DJPerrotti, IE OGC RGPerlis, OGC OCA ELDoolittle, NRR EP FKYntor:sc Dy atthews 11/r /86 11/q/86 s

1 S .l

- .} } ),f),'il';

t f,.

1

l j

l 1

J y

., s l

I QUESTION 2. When did NRC staff and Public Service of New Hart hire first comunicate regarding the concept or substance'of a PSA update j for the Seabrook nuclear power plant, including but not limited .

1 to reanalysis of the PSA, reanalysis of the strength of the. 1 containment, reducing the size of the EPZ, and assessing alter-natives in the event that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts- ]

detemined it would not participate in emergency planning? -l Please provide a chronology of such communications '(including )

l but not limited'to meetings and telephone calls), a list of the j l participants in each, the purpose, subject, arid substance of the- '

I communications, and the circumstances as to why the discussion took place. . Please provide all records pertaining to such I communications, meetings or discussions. '

ANSWER.

I rs 10$as not communicated with PSNH regarding the concept or substance of a PSA l ' ate for Seabrook, other than attendance at meetings held by NRR with the utility that were previously identified.in response to earlier requests from the Subcommittee.

l I

Markey/IE 11/6/86

s $

l l

}

l Q'JESlION 12. Please inform the Subcommittee of all communications regarding (a) reducing the size of the Seabrook EPZ, and/or (b) expedit- .

ing the licensing of Seabrook, and/or (c) alternatives in the i event that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts determined it j could not participate in the emergency planning process for Seabrook, between any NRC Commissioner, member of the Commissioners' staff (s), and/or NRC staff, and any employee of:

I the White House I Department of Energy; and j FEM.

ANSWER.

In addition to the meetings identified in prior submittals to the Subcommittee  !

dated September 10, September 29, and October 2,1986, IE personnel (D. Matthews and E. Jordan) attended 6 meeting with several FEMA personnel on March 25, 1986 to discuss expediting the schedule for FEMA's review of offsite preparedness for Seabrook. The status of FEMA's review of offsite plans for Seabrook is a routinely discussed at FEMA /NRC Steering Committee meetings as well as in i informal discussions between FEMA and NRC staff. Also, the following documents 'l concerning the February 26, 1986 exercise have been communicated between the NRC and FEMA.

01/29/86 Memo for W. Lazarus, NRC RI, from E. Thomas, FEMA,

Subject:

Seabrook Scenario and Plan Reviews i 1

02/14/86 tetter for V. Stello, NRC, from S. Speck, FEMA, regarding l

information ralated to the exercise.

02/21/86 Letter for S. Speck, FEMA, from V. Stello, NRC, regarding the )

conduct of the exercise. l t

04/29/86 Memo for E. Thomas, FEMA, from W. Lazarus, NRC RI, Clarification j of Requirements for Ingestion Exposure Pathway Participation in j Emergency Exercises. l I

1 1

l t

Markey/IE 11/6/86

  • t qpESTION 15. The October 2,1985 Chronology' of Licensing Related Events notes that "during the period.1/2/86 to 9/24/86_there were approxi-mately 25 telephone calls between D. Perrotti and utility

~

i personnel, NRC personnel, and NRC's contractor (Pacific Northwest "

Laboratories) regarding the review of Seabrook's Emergency Plan."  ;

l Please describe in detail the issues discussed in each of these - l calls.

ANSWER. ,

j The issues discussed during the phone. calls on 1/2/86 to 9/24/86 pertained to emergency planning . issues related to the licensing of Seabrook Unit 1, in general. Items that were discussed included, for example, current status of:

Seabrook emergency preparedness program, request for updated version of emergency plan and procedures, emergency classification and action level scheme, details of Seabrook exercise, followup onsite' appraisals, status of FEMA review of off-site plans, FSAR ' amendments, and hearing board issues. A review of the phone calls showed that there were no discussions between Mr. Perrotti and other parties:

, with regard to the Seabrook: Station Emergency Planning. Sensitivity Study. oe l

s 1

~

i i

q

-Markey/IE 11/6/86-  ;

l q

QUESTION 17. In response to the Subcommittee's-August 28 1985. request for information, NRC provided two meeting. chronologies land two-lists of internal and public documents (Enclosures.1-4)~ Please provide updates of these chronologies for the Subcommittee.which include all communications, including but not-limited to. meetings,-

telephone calls, and records, since.the last communications and records enumerated in your previous answer.

ANSWER.

I The following document should be added to the List of. Interna'l Documents:-

l Seabrook (Enclosure 4 of the September 10, 1986' response to the Subcommittee).

9/22/86 Memo for Novak from Jordan, Criteria .to Evaluate Seabrook EPZ :

Sensitivity Study.

l l

l t

'A

.Ma rkey/IE '

11/6/86

e e ... ..

a I

~

00ESTION 19. Please provide all documents and records prepared by the NRC staff which previously have not been provided to the Subcommittee concerning emergency preparedness and evacuation issues at Chernobyl and

their implications for emergency planning at U.S.

nuclear power plants.- .;

ANSWER.

l Documents prepared by or for the IE staff concerning emergency i preparedness and evacuation issues at Chernobyl which have'not previously been~ provided to the Subcommittee are as follows:

10/27/86 Memo from Schwartz to Speis, "Chernobyl Implications:

Assessment Report."

10/29/86 Note from Soffer to Schwartz, "Chernobyl Implications Assessment Report: Section IV.1, Adequacy..of EPZ Distances."

11/3/86 Copies of 9 viewgraphs' prepared for NRC Senior Manage- )

ment Review Group Meeting on 11/3/86 5 l i

11/5/86 Copies of 3 viewgraphs presented to ACRS on:11/5/86 by S. Schwartz, IE. 1 The NRC staff is in the process of reviewing the Chernobyl-accident l and assessing its implications with respect to the regulatory program i for U.S. comercial nuclear power plants. As a consequence of.

this review, the above preliminary drafts were prepared as "strawmen" prior to completion of the U.S. factual report which is being prepared  ;

by DOE, FEMA, NRC, EPA, and the industry. . The schedule for completion

.of the. factual report is the end of November 1986. The NRC regulatory.

implications report, which %ill include a section on emergency prepared-ness, is scheduled for completion by mid December 1986, and we will provide a copy of it to the subcommittee at that -time.

Please note that these documents are not available to the public and have not been reviewed to determine what portions, if any, could be made available to the public. We request that you pre- '

serve the confidentiality of these documents and restrict their use to' the Members and staff of the Subcommittee.

Markey/IE 11/10/86

L .' ' .j I

QUESTION 22. On_ June 18, 1986 Mr. Edward Christenbury wrote to Mr. Spence Perry at' FEMA regarding a memorandum by a Mr. Thomas Dignan on-the subject of emergency planning, particularly as it ~related to <

Seabrook. In his letter Mr. Christenbury states the following: I

~

"The Dignan Memorandum is incorrect,< however,'in its .

conclusion' that the. emergency ' plans are not required to- 1 be designed to cope with an-early release of radicactiv- ,

ity (Dignan Memorandum at 2-3). This error appears to- i have resulted by confusing the " worst possible accident" I for any accident involving an early_ release....The State-  !

ment' of Consideration, quoted above, clearly recognizes i that "early releases".may occur....

The following guidance is provided in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, i Revision 1 (at 13-14):

'The range of times between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release is of the order of one-half to several hours. The subsequent time period ever which radioactive material may be expected to be released is of the order of one-half hour (short term release) to j

, a few days (continous release).... Guidance on the' time of the release...has been'used in developing the criteria.for '

notification capabilities... _

Emergency planning for accidents involving 'early releases

is required...."

i In discussions with NRC staff and reviewing NRC and PSNH.-

material and the_ transcripts.of ACRS meetings on the sub-ject, it appears that PSNH is arguing that early releases cannot occur given the strength of the Seabrook contain- i ment. However, the guidance referred to above applies to all plants and all licensees. Does the NRC agree that emer-gency planning for accidents requiring early releases is -

required at Seabrook? If not, why not? Please explain in -

detail. ,

L Markey/IE-1 11/6/86

., .i w. . - ' .;' .i e

t QUESTION 22. (CONTINUED)

ANSWER.

NRC regulations require that emergency plans must be designed to cope with a.

spectrum of accidents, including those involving early releases. As discussed in the June 18, 1986 response to Mr. Dignan, the Commission clearly recognized that early releases may occur. and for this reason established prompt notifica-tion requirements in the _ regulations to be responsive to the : range of release times described in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. The prompt notification requirements are intended to cover not only severe accidents but also lesser accidents with

' faster moderate releases. The Seabrook emergency plans, as well as the plans for other nuclear power plants, are' required to include the possibility of early-releases of radioactivity within their planning basis, l

I 1

Markey/IE 11/6/86

_ _ = _ _ _ - _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244E425&oldid=3273107"