ML20245B475

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Update of Summary Status Rept on Seabrook Emergency Planning & Prepardness Program.Fema Stated That State of Nh & Local Plans Do Not Provide Assurance That Protective Measures Can Be Taken Offsite in Event of Emergency
ML20245B475
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/11/1987
From: Perrotti D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Congel F, Matthews D, Van Niel C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20234B686 List:
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8706170147
Download: ML20245B475 (11)
v • d • e


Text

r. ,f ,

' June 11,1987

'5 i

NOTE T0: Distribution FROM: Donald J. Perrotti, PEPB

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF SEABROOK EP i Enclosed is an update of the summary status report on the Seabrook emergency planning and preparedness program that was provided to you on May 4,1987.

j Changes are indicated by a bar in the margin of affected pages.

On June 4, 1987, in its response to an interrogatory by the Massachusetts

! Attorney General, FEMA RI RAC stated that, based on a lack of shelter for the

( beach going population, the New Hampshire State and local plans do not provide I

reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook (See p. 4).

, A i Donald J. Perrotti, PEPB DISTRIBUTION:

FJCongel, NRR Central Files DBMatthews, NRR PEPB R/F CRVan Niel, NRR FKantor, NRR DJPerrotti, NRR RJBarrett, NRR STurk, 0GC ETrottier, NRR A

g 7 $ 6 J . au 4 _J ' o 4

, t ,,

(/

i l 1

l I J

l 0

-1 l -.1 l

[' SEABROOK STATION

'l

-i l EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS BRANCH

SUMMARY

OF STATUS OF EMERGENCY J

1 \

PLANNING FOR LOW POWER LICENSE ISSUANCE (JUNE 1987) l j l

l l

1. EMERGENCY PLAN - All outstanding onsite emergency plan items required for fuel load and operation 'up to .5%. of rated power have been resolved..

i (SSER 4). 'l

2. HEARING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES - A hearing on onsite. emergency. pre-

< ig paredness issues before the ASLB was held in August .1983.3 On October 4, 2 1985, the ASLB ordered the staff to provide its evaluation 'on certain on-site plan items identified by- the Board, as well as_ copies of the Appli--

]i cant's submittals. SSER 4 addressed all of the onsite plan items (all ~

.)

have been resolved) identified by the Boa.rd. A hearing.on certain onsite L emergency preparedness issues related to emergency action levels was held. I l- September 29 - October 3, 1986. On October 7, 1986,'the ASLB authorized a fuel load and precriticality testing license and on October 17,1986, that ' license was issued. On March 25, 1987 the Board issued a partial initial decision authorizing NRR- to issue a low power license :(up to 5%) i i subject to a~ condition related to environmental qualification.

t 9 With regard to the hearing on .offsite' plans and preparedness, on July 11, _ ,

1986, the hearing on New Hampshire RERP, .previously scheduled for August 1986 was postponed by the Board at the request of FEMA. On February 18, i

-.- ___-_-_-_- w_ - - _ - - _ . . - _ _ _ _ - . . . - - - -..,n

o .

l J

l 1987 (and subsequently clarified) the Board announced its ruling on each of the contentions on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans (RERp) filed by multiple parties to the proceeding. A total of 30 contentions, wholly or pa rt ial ly, were admitted by the Board. -)

September 14, 1987, has been set by the Board as the new date for the I l sta rt of this hearing which is expected to run for several weeks. See  !

Section 7 for information on FEMA's review of offsite plans.

1 l

On October 7, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an Order authorizing l

issuance of a license to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing.

ed Massachusetts and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League filed sepa rate '

I appeals of the Board's Order; Massachusetts additionally requested a stay I

of the issuance of a license. The stay request was denied by the Appeal Board on October 17, 1986 and an operating license to load fuel and con-l duct precriticality testing was issued on that date. The Appeal Board denied the Massachusetts appeal on November 20,1986 (ALAB-853) _ and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League appeal on December 8, 1986 (ALAB-854).

Massachusetts petitioned the Comission to review ALAB-853. The issue raised in the petition is whether any license can be issued prior to the submittal of offsite emergency plans. The Staff responded on December 22,.

1986 in opposition to the petition. The Commission, by an Order _ of .

I January 9,1987, stayed the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook pending further Commission review. On April 9, 1987, the Commission

, , .: l I

d 1

]

issued its decision on ALAB-853, ' stating 'that a low power license cannot be issued absent submittal of an offsite' emergency plan. On April 8,.

1987, the applicant submitted a utility plan -covering the Massachusetts )

portion of the EPZ, and filed a motion with the Commission to moot. its ,

=l decision on ALA8-853 and vacate its stay on the low' power license in light ]

of. its submittal of an , offsite plan. ~ This plan, entitled "Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Commonwealth of )

1 Massachusetts," conrists of 25 volumes of plans and operating ' procedures .{

for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 'six local' communities located i within Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook plume ~ EPZ,- four ' school

=l districts, and two ' host communities. On April 9,1987, the. Commission

)

requested the views of the parties on the April 8,1987 motion.' )

l On April 28, 1987, in response to the Applicant's ' submittal, tho MASS l Attorney General informed the ASLB that the plans are not sponsored by 1 state and local governments. (See Section 7 for additional information on the utility plan)

~

On May 1,1987, 0GC provided the staff's views on.the Applicants' April 8, 1987 filing and the mootness issue. The staff's views . present the '

Commission. with the facts of the matter and bases upon which the Comis-sion can render a decision on the mootness issue.

3

' '7 s si- -]

. 1 n ,

o 4

06 June 4,1987, FEMA responded to an interrogatory by. the. Massachusetts  ;

Attorney General pertaining to'. an admitted contention' regarding protec-tion of the beach going. population at Seabrock in the event.c7 alacci- 1 dent. FEMA noted that it appears that thousands of people could be unable

.to leave during an accident at Seabrook involving a major rele'ase.of radio activity without adequate. shelter for as much as .the entire duration of l that release, . Based on this issue, FEMA stated that the 'New Hampshire and. local plans do not provide reasonable assurance that appropriate pro-tective measures can be taken offsite in' the event of a radiological 1 emergency,

3. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IMPLEMENTATION ' APPRAISAL- -

Initiated.-on.

December 9-13, 1985, and documented in IR 50-443/85-32. Followup inspec-  !

l l tions on appraisal open items were. held' on March 24-28, 1986, June 9-13, 1986 and during the period July 1986 to Narch 1987. Region I. will-verify the completion of the remaining open items prior to full power operation:

1) Distribute final PI brochure 3
2) Complete training for State personnel ,
4. FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE -

The initial full participation exercise 3 (New Hampshire only) was held on February 26,.1986, and documentea in IR 50-443/86-10. There were no mafor onsite problems.- On June 5, 1986,

y f .

?

i q.

e I'h.

a FEMA reported that the State of New Hampshire and ter local communities

within the plume EPZ participated in the' exercise, while seven: communities within the plume EPZ chose not to participate. FEM identified'd'eficien -

cies* and areas L requiring corrective action ' during the < exercise.'

f 0n-September 8,1986, New Hampshire notified FEMA that it implemented correc-q tive~ actions identified byy FEMA as -a! result of the exercise and: indicated that these changes were included in their September 19861 plan. revision.

[ No date-(s) have been set- for a New Hampshire. remedial exercise or a Mass-achusetts initial exercise. 4 e

5. PROMPT ALERTING AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM-(ANR .Several motions requesting . '

that the record be reopened on onsite emergency planning based on' alleged-inadequacies in the sirens located in:MerrimacE MA and East-Kingston, NH, have been filed with the Board' by' MASS AG and 'SAPL. The Board has issued l

l

. . Y

  • Deficiencies are demonstrated and observed inadequacies that. would cause : a :

i finding that offsite _ emergency preparedness was ' not adequate; to provide -rea-sonable assurance .that appropriate protective measures can'.be taken to ' pro-l tect ' health and. safety- of the public living ini the' vicinity of _ aL nuclear l' power facility in ' the event of ia radiological emergency.- Because = of ' the -

I potential ' impact of deficiencies on emergency preparedness,; they are required to be, promptly corrected through appropriate remedial. actions including' reme-dial exercises, drills or other actions.

Areas requiring corrective actions are' demonstrated and observed inadequacies of State and local government per-formance, and 'although their correction is required during the next'. scheduled -

biennial exercise, they are not considered, by themselves,7to adversely-impact public health and safety.

l 1

j

t decisions on all the motions in favor of the applicants. In a separate >

matter, the Plaintiff, Town of Rye filed suit against the Applicants revoking the permits previously issued for erection of siren poles. The Town of Hampton Falls also intervened, seeking the removal of utility poles erected on s ta te-maintained highways within Hampton Falls. The matter was heard in the Rockingham County Superior Court, and the Court found for the Plaintiffs and ordered PSNH to remove the poles. On Feb-1 rua ry 13, 1987, PSNH appealed the Superior Court decision and the case is-now before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

1 i l  !

1 8 The Applicant has designed and constructed an ANS that meets the require- l ments of 10 CFR 50, Appenc'f x E, IV.D.3,(SSER #4). The system (sirens) has been undergoing testing. Region I has confirmed that the siren system has been satisfactorily operability tested. The determination of conformance '

of the total ANS with the guidance criteria of Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654 will be verified by FEMA at a later date in the course of FEMA's review and formal administrative approval of offsite emergency preparedness under 44 CFR Part 350 of FEMA's rules.

I l

6. PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE - A PI brochure is under development by the Applicants. FEVA will evaluate the brochure during the course of its re-view of offsite plans. The Applicants have distributed an interim PI brochure and have agreed to distribute the final version prior to opera-l tion above 5% power. Region I will confirm that the brochure is distrib l l uted as agreed upon. I
7. FEMA REPORT ON OFFSITE PLANS - FEMA has reviewed drafts of state and local plans that were submitted by New Hampshire and Massachusetts for an in-formal technical review. New Hampshire formally submitted emergency plan:;

to FEMA in December 1985 with the latest revision (Rev. 2) submitted in September 1986. On December 12, 1986, FEVA fomarded its report on Rev. 2 l of the NH State and local plans to the State of New Hampshire. The State has not responded to FEMA's December 12, 1986 report which identified l

approximately 30 inadequacies in the plan. Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. On September 20, 1986, the Governor of Massachusetts announced that he will not submit emergency plans for that part of the EPZ in Mass-achusetts because he does not believe adequate protective measures can be developed for that area. The Commonwealth indicated that it is reassess-ing emergency preparedness for Seabrook with regard to the Chernobyl l accident.

l l

l

y 1

'- o .H l l

1 l

l 1'

On February 13, 1987, PSNH submitted the ingestion pathway emergency plan' associated with'Seabrook for the State of Maine.

l

)

On . . April 8, 1987, New Hampshire Yankee . submitted to'. the NRC emergency l.

I response plans for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 'and the. six LMassa- >

chusetts communities within a 10-mile radius of the Seabrook Station....

o The utility stated that the' plans were prepared by Massachusetts--and had' been reviewed earlier -by FEMA. On April 24, 1987, . FEMA forwarded those copies to the NRC Staff for its " disposition", noting that the "NRC't.as neither requested FEMA to review these documents nor discussed time sched-

-on-ules or other criteria for such a review." At this time a FEMA i review of-the Seabrook Station RERP is neithat currently scheduled nor.in progress.

l~ It is not clear to the staff what impact the submittal of these. plans will- l l

1 1 l have on licensing of Seabrook. H

8. 0FFSITE MEDICAL. ISSUE - On January 29,'1986, the Applicants confinned that the emergency plans of the involved offsite response jurisdictions contain a list of local and regional hospitals which are capable of handling con-taminated. injured individuals. The existence of such' a list in the per-

. tinent plans will be c'onfirmed by FEMA. In addition, on Marchi12, 1986,- J l

the Applicants' committed to fully comply with the Ccmmission's response to further regulations or requirements relating to 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

(S$ER4).

i I

_ _ . _ .__..______._.--_..._--mm._._____..._.______u __ .- - _ __..__b-.-

1' 1

.g.

IE Information Notice No. 86'-98: 0ffsite Medical Services, which Twas:

distributed on December 2,1986 to all nuclear rea'ctor facilities .

1 holding an operating license or a construction permity transmitted a FEMA Guidance Memorandun (GM) MS-1, " Medical: Services?' that addresses-

~

implementation of the Commission' policy on.offsit'e medical-' services :

published on September 17, 1986 in the. Federal' Register. On June.13, : ,

1987, the staff requested that PSNH provide a report on the status.' of arrangements for medical services in the offsite plans with respect to MS-1, including a schedule for submitting offsite medical services i

j information to FEMA's regional office.

9. PSNH REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF 10-MILE EPZ RULE - On December 18,. 1986, the l Applicants filed with the NRC a petition purst: ant to 10 CFR 2.758 for a-waiver of all applicable regulations [ principally 10 CFR .50.47(c)] that-require the. establishment of a 10-mile plome exposure EPZ for Seabrook.. m The petition is based on a number of technical analyses- the Applicants .;

have prepared to support their proposr1 for a' one-mile EPZ for Seabrook.

On April' P2,1987, the. ASLB issued a ruling denying the Applicants peti-4 tion, concluding that " Applicants' instant petition does not- provide a '

gri_ma facie showing on its technical merits." In its discussion,' the Board used the staff's thinking, as well as that of interveners, as the basis for its decision of the technical merits of the . case. Notwith-

- - _ - _ - - . _ - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - -

l 4 standing the many unresolved technical issues identified in its decision, the Board said that it vould be premature to recoinmend to the Commission at this time and that further consideration should be given to Applicants' motion. The Beard stated, "We do not take a position that a one mile EPZ for the Seabrook Station is unjustifiable; only that Applicants and Staff need more time to determine convincingly whether it is." (emphasis added).

The staff currently has stopped review on the technical merits of the l

l petition.

l On February 18, 1987, The State of New Hampshire submitted to the NRC a i

signed agreement between the State of New Hampshire and New Hampshire l Yankee relative to the company's continued support for emergency planning for the full ten mile EPZ in New Hampshire. .

i

,1 1

q q

4 1  ;

l 4

i

_.~-----a_.--.- - --.---.- - - wa.-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20245B475&oldid=3273041"