ML20247G037
| ML20247G037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1989 |
| From: | Gordon Peterson Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654 OL-A-043A, NUDOCS 8905300259 | |
| Download: ML20247G037 (3) | |
Text
[<
~~ _ -
~--n W f3a -
Page 1 of 3 Federn Emergency Management Agency t
1 Washington, D.C. 20472
' R,%;[
{
i DEC I 41988
'89 MY 22 P,7 3B i
Mr. Victor J. Stallo Executive Director for Operations c,n u l
00cn W -
U Nuclear. Regulatory Commission dW Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dear Mr. Stallo:
l' This is in further response to the September 9,1988 memorandum from i
Frank J.- Congel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Richard W.
Krimm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA confirming the schedule for the issuance of FEMA's findings and detenninations on the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
This also. represents FEMA action in response to requests received from the States of New Hampshire and Maine for FEMA approval of their offsite radiological emergency plans and preparedness for Seabrook under the provisions of 44 CFR 350.7. These requests were published in the Federal Register on October 28, 1988, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.8.
Finally, this further carries out certain agreements reached with the NRC and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASI.B) on the Seabrook Plan forMassachusettsCommunities(SPMC). In the August 3 4, 1988, pre-hearing conference on the upcoming litigation on the SPMC, FEMA agreed to provide a review of the SPMC by October 14, 1988, in order to accommodate the scheduling needs of the AS!.8 hearing. That coramitment was met. FEMA had also agreed to provide a consolidated finding for the offsite plans of the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization in November. Unfortunately, the discovery demands on the FEMA Region I Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Chairman for Seabrook prevented us from meeting this deadline.
We have completed our integrated review and evaluation of the offsite plans and preparedness for Seabrook. The enclosed documents, all of Wich are dated December 1988, represent the results of that review. Due to their 1arge combined volume, we have bound them as six separate documents. The documents are:
- 1. Review and Evaluation of the State of Maine Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station.
- 2. Review and Evaluation of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Station.
- 3. Review and Evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
110CbEAR REGUl.ATORY COMMISSION -
so-4 & oL l
Docket No. 3OdGOL Official Exh.'No. _LL3A_m-3 In the matter of Shhc_ SMNyra Cn oM.GmLBomp@;re, 8905300259 890321 Staff
/
ltamnED _M.d3(0- ~
4 gg
/ _ _RNMD_18153__
j DR ADOCK 0500 3
inheanor
_ REJECTED fi C n 's Offr C a.:!rc.: tor
[..
DATE
} Mb
- one
_ c mi G_---______.-.____-__-_.______-_
y
r - -._
- u.. 3, g g g: n er s ;pt: _ ".. __.
~ - -
- .3 a
b Pao;e 2 of 3 g
- 4. Status of Corrective Actions for the 1988 FEMA Graded Exercise.
- 5. Report of the Public Meeting for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
- 6. Findings and Determinations Document for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
The exercise report was provided to you on Septemoer 2,1988, but should be considered part of this submittal.
The plans for the States of New Hampshire and Maine were reviewed against the standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.
The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities was reviewed against the standards and assumptions of NUREG-0654/
FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Suppl ement 1.
Those assumptions are that in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning will:
i
- a. Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public;
- b. Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan; and
- c. Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State ano local response is necessary.
In accordance with an agreement between NRC and FEMA, we expect that the NRC will defend any legal challenges to these assumptions.
We would like to note the following events and actions which support and document the fihdings to follow:
4
- 1. A joint exercise was held on June 28 - 29, 1988, in accordance with 44CFR350.9(a).
- 2. A briefing of exercise participants and a public meeting were held on July 2,1988, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9 (a) and 44 CFR 350.10.
- 3. Requests for corrective actions (and implementation schedules) for inadequacies resulting from the June 1988 exercise were made to the appropriate organizations.
- 4. Responses to those requests were received and evaluated.
- 5. Integrated reviews and evaluations of the offsite plans for the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were made, including review by the FEMA Region 1 RAC.
Based on the results of the above mentioned plan reviews, exercise and analyses, and the recormtendation of the FEMA Region i Reg'ional Director, we make the following findings for the three jurisdictional
- areas in the Seabrook EPZ:
l
=
l
h ".
,- g -,- m m w a. m,.-. m. c - - - - - - -
~
~ - ~ ~
Par.e 3 o f'.'3 -
h
- ^
'It' is. FEMA's position that Maine's ingestion pathway plan _ and preparedness are adequate to protect the_ health and safety of the public living in the _ Maine portion of the ingestion pathway of Seabrook by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective l
measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological. emergency and are capable of being implemented.
In response to the State of Maine request, FEMA has initiated the process for granting; approval under 44 CFR 350 for its ingestion pathway plan for the Seabrrok Nuclear Power Station. We are distributing the FEMA Region,1-review of. the Maine ingestion plan and preparedness to the Federal' Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee for their review,
, prior to granting 'fomal approval.
- Concerning the ' plans and preparedness for the State'of_ New Hampshire, the Seabrook alert and notification system design for the New Hampshire portion of the'Seabrook EPZ has met the design requirements of FEMA-REP-10 When the proposed enhancements to the alert and notification systte for the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ are installed and operable, it is FEMA's position that the
)
3 plans and preparedness will be adequate to pectact the health and safety of the public living in the New Hampshire portion of the
.l Seabrook EPZ, by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate i
protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological
- emergency and are capable of being implemented. At that time, we, will t,e able to make a FEMA approval undar 44 CFR 350.
- Concerning the Seatrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities, developed by New Hampsnire Yankee, the Seabrook alert and notification system design for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ has also met the design requirements of FEMA-REP-10. When the vehicular alert and notification system is installed and operable, it is FEMA's position that plans and preparedness will be adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event a radiological emergency and are capable of being implemented. At that time, a positive finding can be made, j
In conclusion. I believe that this evaluation of plans and preparedness for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station represents a thorough evaluation of the plans and preparedness as they exist today.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 646-3692.
Sincer y,
C71 3 e--
Grant C. PetNson
{
Associate 11 rector State and Local Programs and Support
~
En m sures
~
\\
As Stated l
>