ML20247M162

Forwards ACRS Providing Views Concerning Adequacy of Emergency Planning for Facility

ML20247M162
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/15/1989
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Cole R, Mccollom K, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#389-9192 OL, NUDOCS 8909250145
Download: ML20247M162 (4)

Text

=,

/

'o,,

UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION apy -

p, t

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20566 NL s

'89 SEP 19 P2 :23 September 15, 1989

?

vo! f.

Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judpe-Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and 'Les nsing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.

N uclear Regulatory Com mission Washington, D C 20555 Washington, D C 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1107 West Knapp Street Stillwater, O K 74075 I

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-SiteEmergencyPlanning-kY

Dear Administrative Judges:

Enclosed is a letter from the Advisory Connittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to the Commission, dated September 13, 1989, in which the ACRS provides its views concernir.g the adequacy of emergency planning for Seabrook Station, j

Sincerely, Ad)/hO Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/ Encl.: Service List g,2;gggggga G

.60l

~

• g UNITE] STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

m t

g AovisORY COMMITTEE ON [EACTOR SAFET.UARDS 9tASHHeGTO81. D. C.agget 1

\\*...*!

b 3

i September 13, 1989 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Carr-t

SUBJECT:

EMERGENCY PLAN FOR FULL-POWER OPERATION OF THE SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1 During the 353rd meeting of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safe-3 guards, September 7-9, 1989, we reviewed the Seabrook Station em-j ergency plan as well as progress on construction and testing that has occurred since our April 19, 1983 report.

Our subcommittee on Sea-j brook considered the emergency plan during a meeting on August 17, 1989.

During our review, we had discussions with representatives of 3

the licensee, the NRC staff, the Federal Emergency Management Admin-4 istration (FEMA), and intervenor groups.

We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.

In our previous report, we provided our conclusion that the Seabrook Station could be operated at up to five percent of its design power of 3411 MWt. We also noted that the emergency plan for the plant had not been completed at the time of the report, and thus we had not reviewed it.

The licensee, in formulating the emergency plan for the plant, has had to take account of the fact that The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and some of the local government entities within the state of New Hamp-shire have chosen not to participate in emergency planning and in the emergency exercises that have been held.

FEMA, after evaluating that part of the emergency plan dealing with the off site population, has concluded that the plan is acceptable, although some corrective actions have been specified.

In its evalua-tion FEMA included measures taken by the licensee to device a system for providing information to people in areas within the 10-mile emer-ger.cy planning zone where local authorities have not accepted this responsibility.

Consideration was also given to plans, made by the licensee, for other emergency actions that might be required in case of a major accident.

Major consideration was given to plans for evacuating the beach areas within the 10 wile zone, in case an acci-dent occurs at a time when there is a significant transient bcaen population.

The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's planning and the training of the licensee's staff for dealing with emergencies.

Practice

m The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr September 13, 1989 exercises have been held. The staff is prepared to reconnend approval of the licensee's emergency plan, including that part of the plan that has been evaluated by FEMA.

Emergencies that would require site evacuation are low-probability events. The licensee's analyses predict that, even with peak occupan-cy of the beaches and other areas, the emergency planning zone can be evacuated in less than eight hours.

This should provide appropriate radiological dose savings and complies with NUREG-0654, Revision 1 (referenced). The Seabrook Station emergency plan appears to meet the standards that have been formulated by FEMA and by the NRC.

We observe that, if an accident occurs that requires implementation of a significant part of the emergency plan, it is likely to be an accident not specifically planned for.

Thus, the emergency plan, even though it is designed to respond to site emergencies as defined in NUREG-0654, is valuable not only because it can respond to postulated scenarios.

Its principal value results from the fact that it requires that decisiens be made prior to an emergency, such as who is respon-sible for making decisions during the course of an emergency, what l

communication systems are available, what resources, human and other-wise, are available, and how, within some limits, the organization can function.

Given such planning, it is much more likely that even the I

unexpected can be dealt with successfully.

This observation is well encapsulated in the statement by former President Eisenhower, " Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

l It is also necessary to recognize that in spite of all the precautions that are taken, there is some small residual risk. We do not believe that this risk is unacceptable or is significantly greater than that at other densely populated sites.

The ACRS believes that subject to satisfactory resolution of the issues that arose during low-power testing and corrective actions l

reconnended by FEMA, there is reasonable assurance that Seabrook l

Station, Unit 1, can be operated at core power level up to 3411 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

1 Sincere Forrest J. Remick Chairman

References:

1.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station, " Final Safety Analysis Report," Volumes 1-15, with amendments 1 through 61.

l 2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0896, " Safety Evalua-tion Report Related to the Operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2," with supplements 1 through 8.

L ig;

~The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr September 13, 1989 3.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Seabrook Station (TAC #M63391), July 27, 1989.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire and Yankee Atomic Elecric

4..

Company, PLG-0300, "Seabrook. Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment," Volumes 1-6, December 1983.

5.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Couniission and Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, " Criteria for Prepa-ration and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," November 1980.

6.

Written Comments dated July 11, 1989 from Board of Selectmen, Town of Essex, Massachusetts, regarding unresolved reactor safety issues.

7.

Written Coments dated August 16, 1989 from Leslie B. Greer, Attorney General's Office,.the State of Massachusetts, submitting documents on emergency plans that have been submitted to ASLB and ASLAP.

8.

Written Comments dated August 16, 1989 from Board of Selectmen, Town of Manchester, Massachusetts, joining concern expressed in Essex Board of Selectmen letter of July 11, 1989.

9.

Written Comments dated August 18, 1989 from Matthew Brock,

/

Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding ACRS meeting on Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

10. Written Coments dated August 21, 1989 from Diane Curran, repre-senting the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, ragarding opposition to licensee's request for an exemption from the requirement to exercise the onsite emergency plan within a year prior to issuance of operating license.

11. Written Comments dated August 24, 1989 from Congressman Nicholas Mavroules in support of Essex Board of Selectmen letter dated July 11, 1989.

(

12. Written Comments dated August 28, 1989 from Patricia Pierce-Bjorklund, presenting visual evidence companion to the Essex Board of Selectmen letter of July 11, 1989.

13. Written Comments dated Septeder 5,1989 from Matthew T. Erock, Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding Seabrook Station Emergency Planning.

14. Written Comments dated September 6,1989 from Robert A. Backus representing the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League regarding Sea-brook Station Emergency Planning.

15. Written Comments dated Septeder 6, 1989 from Diane Curran representing the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution regarding Seabrook Emergency Planning.

16. Written Comments dated September 6,1989 from Matthew T. Brock, Attorney General's Office, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regarding ACRS/Seabrook Station Emergency Planning.

i

17. Videotape provided on September 8,1989 by Mimi Fallon, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, regarding evacuation considerations at the Seabrook Station.

_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _