ML20207A145
| ML20207A145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205J677 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-7 NUDOCS 8611050227 | |
| Download: ML20207A145 (75) | |
Text
-
. .*f. o ne ri -
- UNITED STATES ,
- ?,
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In ij W ASHINCTON,0. C. 20$55
%# October 30, 1986
.- . ,.o:
- MEMORANDUM FOR: Raymond Fraley, Executive Director Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards FROM: Th'emis P. Spets, Director Division of Safety Review and Oversight Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,
SUBJECT:
CHERN0BYL INFORMATION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW As discussed with Richard Savio, of the ACRS Staff, we enclose draft write-ups on the various Cnernobyl candidate issues, as background for the review by the Subcommittee on Safety Philosophy Technology, and Criteria, scheduled for November 5. The write-ups are preliminary, but they have reached a stage at which they should be suitable as background for' the scheduled Subcomittee review.
~
Because of the preliminary, pre-decist'o nal nature of the write-ups, they are
~
not i.itended for public release at this time. -
h %"
Themis P. Spets, Director Division of Safety Review and Oversight Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: V. Stello R. Savio E. Beckjord- R. Lobel H. Denton S. Acharya
- J. Taylor B. Boger R. Vollmer F. Congel E. Jordan 0. Lynch R. Bernero B. Morris F. Miraglia H. Richings T. Novak S. Schwartz W. Russell G. Sege E. Rossi B. Sheron R. Hernan L. Soffer J. Stang feZH-87-7
, gry i g)
thSO[$lo Jonc. O ctciot. her Acco*rc+
- +c2c l Oqhcccclicci Q uJctLcbooi 3 %sto-9ers.ted (wce_wy besox~ ty in p f 9 Aepoet- cnd che or anyonc ekn. Jo plunne on ce.ncir cnd owtc owe. Acetyst., offs bcrn held, ern u # 9qmcqu io ce1) be ces.ocelIccI.
Chc. cwtcc) uAcn n. AcpeN wcu to cornt o u:A O:nd ux. ectrmedccl- enc! og hovernbc/ - 6)cvc. v>e epth-corrv.- go corn SNL on No/c mbu 7, #cn ux.
u;ootci houc- o ccid ed Jecs 2-3 wee 3 p AECccvcu l
l l
Fe/+-fr ? - 7 e/.cf
IVJ/J%
B e +4 p ,,,, ,~ A J s
' n S <4ed +u : a l, nue
+c V;m ec *r oest y seskom s, VI^'t by PSNH in respamce They inelsde fie A llo w:,,
fke e r:9 :- s i s, uaw.
Z kve u a 1- ;ee h. J e ,( :n fAe
"" s ; & cd L: 9..r> wL ra.L sve i n H u t. - e. 4 I
sys & .
J 1 Ke T~ ~ e. l Cl,lorina-l1.- l D: s+<;L w+: . - I l ,
41 G 3 - F - 20 2 << 1- 4
' y f f Diaysm.,
v ery G en e a ,1 wn +e r Ty s4 c~ - Pl+ CES
- 1. "SEABROOK STATION PPOBAPILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT," PICKARD, LOWE AND GAPRICK, INC., PLG-0300, DECEMBER 3983.
- 2. GARPICK, B. JOHN, KA9L N. FLEMING, AND ALFRED TOPPI, "SEABROOK STATION PPOBASILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT, TECHNICAL
SUMMARY
REPORT," PICKAPD, LOWE AND GARRICK, PLG-0365, JUNE 1984.
- 3. GRAHN, H. C., LETTEP FROM BNL TPANSMITTING THE BNL PROPOSAL TITLED " REVIEW 0F THE PRA FOR THE SEABF00K NUCLEAP POWER PLANT," FIN NUMBEP A-3778, P90POSAL DATED SEPTEMBER ?), 1984, LETTEP ADDRES.*ED TO DAVID SCHWELLER, PNL AREA 0FFICE, U.S.
DEPT. OF ENERGY, SEPTEMBEP 26, 10P.4.
4 KHATIB-RAHBAP, M., A. K. AGPAWAL, H. LUDEWIG, AND W. T. PPATT, "A REVIEW OF THE SEABROOK STATION PP0BABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT: CONTAINMENT FAILURE PODES AND RADIOLOGICAL SOURCE TERMS," PP00KHAVEN NATIONAL LAPORATORY, NUREG/CR-4500, BNL/Pl! PEG-51961, MARCH 1986.
PARKEY/NPP 11/10/86
l l
PUESTION 10 PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL THE ROLE OF THE OGC nin ELD STAFF IN THE REVIEll 0F THE SSPSA llPDATE.
ANSWER.
OGC AND OELD STAFF HAVE NO ROLE IN THE TECHNICAL PEVIEW OF THE SSPSA UPDATE. HOWEVER, THE OGC BETHESDA ATTORNEYS (FORMERLY OELP)
MAY BE ASKED TO PPOVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO NRC STAFF MEMBEPS CONCEPNING ONE OR ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SSPSA AND THE STAFF'S REV!EW THEREOF, WHILE OGC ATTORNEYS MAY BE ASKED TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO Tile COMMISSION CONCERNING THE SSPSA UPON REQUEST BY THE COMMISSI MARKEY/P!RR -
i 11/10/86
_ _ _ - - .- - . _-= _
$ OllESTION 11. IN ITS SEPTEMBEP 29, 1986 RESPONSE TO SUBCOMMITTEE CUE
POSSIBILITY OF PEDUCING SEAFP00K'S EMEPGENCY PLANNING ZONE WITH WILLIAM DERRICKSON AND OTl!ER ,
PSPH PERSONNEL. THESE MEETINGS TOOK PLACE ON JULY 30, 1985 AND ONE "A FEW MONTHS LA'ER."
1 j PLEASE HAVE MP. BERNEPO PREPARE DETAILED SUMMARIES l OF THESE MEETINGS (AND ANY OTHERS ON THE SUBJECT THAT HE NAY PECALL), AS WELL AS ANY OTHER PELATED COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS MATTER, AND PPOVIDE THESE SUMMARIES TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
i l ANSWER.
i AS INDICATED IN OUR PREVIOUS PESPONSE TO YOU, MR. BERNERO DISCUSFED THE GENEPAL SUBJECT OF RISK AND EMERGENCY PPEPAREDNESS, NOT THE
- SPECIFIC POS$1BILITY OF REDUCING SEABP00K'S EMEPGENCY PLANNING I ZONE, WITH REPPESFHTATIVES OF PSNH ON THE TWO OCCASIONS IN 1985 J ,
. WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. MR. BERNER0 HAS NO PECORDS OR
. t NOTES OF THESE MEETINGS OTHER THAN HIS JULY 30 CALEPDAR NOTE. HE RECALLS THAT THE MEETINGS WERE AT PSNH REQUEST AND WERE TO SEEK l FURTHER DISCUS $10N OF A SPEECH MR. BERNERO GAVE ON TH15 $UBJECT !
ON MAPCH 12, 1985, AT A TECHNICAL CONFEPENCE IN CHAPLESTON, SOUTP CAROLINA. A COPY Or THl3 SPEECH IS ATTAPHFD FOR THE COMMITTEE'S P l
' l PARMF.Y/PRP 11/10/86 :
}
f
QUESTION 11. (CONTINUED) USE. YOU MAY Pl0TE THAT THE ATTACHED PAPER, WHICH WAS THE BASIF
~
FOR DISCUSSION, EMPHASIZES THE GENERIC POSSIBILITY OF USING NEP SOURCE TERM INFOPPATION AS THE BASIS FOR REGULATOPY CHANGE Ill EMERGENCY PLAtlNING (P. 9FF).
6 ENCLOSUPE:
PAPER, R. M. BERNERO, .
DTD 3/12/85 i
1 l
1 1
i MARKEY/NRP 11/10/86
/
~
OUESTION P. PLEASE INFORM THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF ALL COMMUPICA-TIONS REGARDIffG (A) REDUCING THE SIZE OF.THE SEABROOKEPZ,AND/OR(B)EXpEDITINGTHEk.ICENSING OF SEABROOK, AND/OR (C) ALTERNATIVES IN THE CVENT THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DETERMINED -
IT COULD NOT PAPTICIPATE IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING PROCESS F04 SEABROOK, BETWEEN ANY NRC COMMISSIONER, MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS' STAFF (S), AND/0R NRC $
STAFF, AND ANY EMPLOYEE OF: ,
O THE WHITE HOUSES '
O I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY) AND O FEMA. . .
ANSWER, '
TO THE BEST OF OUR Kl40HLEDGE MEMBERS OF 1HE NRC ' STAFF llAVE t OT' '
)
COMMUNICATED WITH ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, OR DEPARTMENT -
](
0F ENE9GY REGARDING (A) REDUCING THE SIZE Ol' THE SEABROOK EPZ, '
l
- . l AND/OR (B) EXPEDITING THE LICENSING OF SEABROOK, AND/0R (C) '
, j ALTERNATIVES IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA!iSACHilSETTS ,
DETERMINED IT COULD'NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE EMERGEfiCY PLANNING )
PROCESS FOR SEABROOK.
o
.. )
i 8
1 PAPt'EY/NPR -
11/10/86'
( t
~
. ,b l 1
i
'0VE'STION 12. (CONTINUED) -?- l d
MEMBERS OF THE NRC STAFF HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH FEMA REGARDING EXPEDITING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEMA'S REVIEW OF OFFSITE PREPAPED-NESS FOR SEABROOK.
IN ADDITION TO THE MEETINGS IDENTIFIED IN PRIOR SUBMITTALS TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE DATED SEPTEMBER 10, SEPTEMBER 29, AND OCTOBER 2, 1986, t .
IE PERSONNEL (D. PATTHEWS AND E. JORDAN)' ATTENDED A MEETING WITH SEVERA_L FEMA PERSONNEL ON MARCH 25, 1986 TO DISCUSS EXPEDITING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEMA'S REVIEW OF OFFSITE PREPAREDHESS FOR SEABPOOK. THE STATUS OF FEMA'S REVIEW OF OFFSITE PLANS FOR SEABronk.!S ROUTINELY DISCUSSED AT FEMA /NPC STEERING COMMITTEE
- i MEETINGS AS WELL AS IN INFOPMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FEMA AND NRC STAFF. ALSO, THE FOLLnWING DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE FEBRUARY ?6,
}986 EXEPCISE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED BETWEEN THE NRC AND FEPA.
' 01/29/86 PEMO FOR W. LAZARUS, NPC RI, FROM E. THOMAS, FEMA,
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK SCENARIO AND PLAN REVIEWS, 02/1g/86 LETTER FOR\ /. STELLO, NPC, FROM S. SPECK, FEMA, REGARDING INFORMATION PELATED TO THE EXERCISE.
02/21/86 LETTER FOR S. SPECK, FEMA, FPOM V. STELLO, NRC, REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE EXEPCISE.
04/29/86 MEMO FOR E. THOMAS, FEMA FROM W. LAZARUS, NRC RI, (L/P!f! CATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INGESTION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PARTICIPATION IN EMERGENCY EXEPCISFS.
inded s 5/
MARKEY/NRR i
])/10/86 l
. . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - - , __ - - _. ._ __ - - _ . _ _ . _ . , _ . , ._ r
, nUESTION 12. (CONTINUED) F SIMILAPLY, MP. CHRISTENBUPY HAS NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, DOE, OR FEMA CONCERNING THESE MATTERS. HOWEVER, MR. CHRISTENBURY AND THE SEABROOK CASE LAWYERS MAY HAVE HAD GENERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH FEMA REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SEABROOK APPLICANTS MIGHT SEEK AN EXEMPTION TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE SEABROOK EPZ. IN ADDITION, THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS ,
HAVE HAD GENERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH FEMA ATTORNEYS, FROM TIME TO TIME, CONCERNING HEAPING SCHEDULES IN THE SEABROOK PROCEEDING.
't w
.i MARKEY/FRR 11/10/86 4
DUESTIOP 13. WHEN WERE THE "SEABROOK STATION RISK MANAGEMENT AND EMEPGENCY PLANNING STUDY" AND THE "$EABP00K i
STATION EMERGENCY PLANNING SENSITIVITY STUDY" j
TRANSMITTED TO THE NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOMS, AND ~
SPECIFICALLY TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM IN ,
EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE? PLEASE PROVIDE THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
. ANSWER, THE "SEABROOK STATION PISK MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY PLANNING I
STUDY" AND THE "SEABROOK STATION EMERGENCY PLANNING SENSITIVITY STUDY" WERE PLACED IN THE NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON AUGUST 5, 1986. THE DOCUMENTS WERE TRANS-MITTED TO THE NRC BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LETTER, DATED JULY 21, 1986,
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION PP0BABI-LISTIC SAFETY STUDY ASSESSMENT UPDATE (ACCESSION #R607240181).
THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO SENT TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM IN EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE ON AUGUST 5, 1986. IN A TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE LIBRAPIAN AT THE EXETER LIBRARY ON NOVEMBER 7,.1986, THE STAFF CONFIRMED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM, 1
l
)
MARKEY/NRR _
11/10/86
P e
QUESTION 14. ON OCTOBER 2, 1986, NRC PROVIDED THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH A CHRONOLOGY OF LICENSING RELATED EVENTS.
BEGINNING WITH THE JANUARY 7, 1985 LETTER, PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF EACH OF THE LETTERS IDENTIFIED IN THIS CHRONOLOGY.
ANSWER.
A COPY OF EACH OF THE LETTERS IDENTIFIED IN THE OCTOBEP 2, 1986
- CHRONOLOGY OF LICENSING RELATED EVENTS IS ENCLOSED.
ENCLOSURES:
I MARKEY#!PP 11/10/86
l 00ESTION 15. THE OCTOBER 2, 1985 CHRONOLOGY OF LICENSING RELATED EVENTS NOTES THAT "DURING THE PERIOD 1/2/R6 TO 9/24/86 THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 25 TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN D. PERROTTI AND UTILITY PERSONNEL, NRC PERSONNEL, AND NRC'S CONTRACTOR (PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES) REGARDING THE REVIEW OF SEABROOK'S EMERGEFCY PLAN." PLEASE DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN EACH OF THESE CALLS. ,
ANSWER.
THE ISSUES DISCUSSED DUPING THE PHONE CALLS ON 3/2/86 TO 9/24/86 PERTAINED TO EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES RELATED TO THE LICENSING OF SEABROOK llNIT 1, IN GENERAL. ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED INCLUDED, FOR EXAMPLE, CURRENT STATUS OF SEABROOK EMERGENCY PPE-PAREDNESS 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 OFFSITE PLANS, FSAR AMENDMENTS, AND HEARING BOARD ISSUES. A REVIEW OF THE PHONE CALLS SHOWED THAT ,
THERE WEPE NO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MR. PERROTTI AND OTHER PARTIES WITH PEGARD TO THE SEABROOK STATION EMERGENCY PLANNING SENSITIVITY STUDY.
MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86
OllESTION 16, ON OCTOBER 2, 1986, NRC PROVIDED THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH A CHRONOLOGY OF INSPECTION RELATED. EVENTS, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS AND RECOPDS RELATED TO EACH STAPRED (*) ITEM IN THE ATTACHED COPY OF l THE CHRONOLOGY.
ANSWER, ALL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS RELATED TO EACH STARRED (*) ITEM IN THE OCTOBER 2, 1986 CHRONOLOGY OF INSPECTION RELATED EVENTS IS PROVIDED HEREWITH, MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86
QUESTION 17, IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S AUcVST 28, 1986 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, NRC PROVIDED TWO MEETING CHRONOLOGIES AND TWO LISTS OF INTERNAL AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (ENCLOSURES 1 - h), PLEASE PROVIDE UPDATES OF THESE CHRONOLOGIES FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH INCLUDE ALL COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND RECORDS, SINCE THE LAST COMMUNICATIONS AND RECORDS ENUMERATED IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER, ANSWER, ENCLOSED APF UPDATES OF TWO MEETING CHRONOLOGIES AND TWO LISTS OF INTERNAL AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS ENCLOSURES 1 - 4 TO THE STAFF'S SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 LETTEP TO THE SUBC0f.MITTEE. ALSO ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF THE INFORMATION LISTED IN ENCLOSURES 3 AND 4.
ENCLOSURES:
AS STATED (4) d 1
MARKEY/NRR j' 11/10/86 l
ENCLOSURE 3 CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH UTILITY AND OTHER GROUPS - SEABROOK UPDATE 09/08-09/86 SITE VISIT BY NRC AND BNL PEPSONNEL (SEE MEETING
SUMMARY
).
09/10/86 CONFERENCE CALL WITH NRC, BFL AND PSNH PERSONNEL TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SITE SIMULATOR VISIT.
09/25/86 TELEPHONE CALL BETifEEN E. DOOLITTLE AND M. HAYES (HAVERHILL GAZETTE) TO DISCUSS ACRS MEETING.
09/26/86 JOINT MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEES ON OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND SEVERE (CLASS 9) ACCIDENTS.
10/.10/86 SEABROOK ACPS FULL COMMITTEE MEETING.
10/]5-17/86 SEABROOK SITE VISIT (S. LONG, G. BAGCHI, D. HICKMAN, W. LYON, R. YOUNGBLOOD, C. HOFMAYER, D. WESLEY, J. MOODY).
MARKEY/NRR 31/10/86 1 l
ENCLOSURE 3
_q_
10/?9/86 TWO CONFERENCE CALLS WITH NRC AND PSNH
- LONG, BAGCHI, LYON, MAIDRAND
- LONG, LYON, MOODY 10/30/86 TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN E. DOOLITTLE AND J. DOUGHTY TO DISCUSS UPCOMING MEETINGS ON NOV. 6, 12 AND 19.
l MARKEY/NRR 11/]D/06
ENCLOSURE ?
CHRONOLOGY OF INTERNAL MEETINGS - SEABROOK UPDATE 09/03/86 MEETING WITH LONG, MATTHEWS, PERROTTI, PERLIS, SOFFER TO DISCUSS CPITERIA FOP COMPARISON WITH NUREG 0396.
09/04/86 MEETING WITH NOONAN, LONG, DOOLITTLE, BAGCHI TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS.
09/11/86 MEETING WITH NOONAN, LONG, DOOLITTLE TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS.
09/12/86 CONFEDENCE CALL WITH NPC AND BNL.
09/16/86 MEETING WITH NOVAK, N0ONAN, LONG, DOOLITTLE TO DISCUSS UPCOMING ACRS MEETING.
, 09/22/86 MEETING WITH NOVAK, NOONAN, LONG AND OTHERS TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS. .
09/23/86 MEETING WITH NOONAN, DOOLITTLE, LONG TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS.
MARKEY/NPP 13/.10/86
ENCLOSURE ?
_p_
09/24/86 MEETING WITH NOONAN, DOOLITTLE, LONG TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES.
10/07/86 MEETING WITH ROSSI, BAGCHI, NOONAN, LONG TO DISCUSS-REVIEW STATUS.
10/08/86 MEETING WITH F00 NAN, NERSES, DOOLITTLE, LONG TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS.
10/22/86 MEETING WITH F0VAK, NOONAN, ROSSI, LONG, DOOLITTLE, BAGCHI TO DISCUSS REVIEW STATUS, 10/23/86 CONFERENCE CALL WITH NRC AND BNL (LONG, LYON, BAGCHI, PRATT).
10/30/86 MEETING WITH NRC AND BNL (N0vAK, NOONAN, LONG, BAGCHI, ROSsi, PRATT, BARRY).
P MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86
ENCLOSURE 3 LIST OF PUBLIc DOCUMENTS - SEABROOK 09/26/86 TRANSCRIPT OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
09/29/86 LETTER FROM G. THOMAS TO V. NOONAN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, 10/08/86 LETTEP FROM S. LONG TO R. HARPISON REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFOPMATION.
10/10/86 TRANSCRIPT OF ACRS FULL COMMITTEE MEETING.
10/23/P6 LETTER FROM S. LONG TO R. HARRISON REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION G. THOMAS TO V. NOONAN.
10/27/86 LETTER FPOM V. STELLO TO J. SUNUNU PEGARDING STATE LIAISON OFFICER RICHARD STROME.
10/31/86 LETTER FROM J. DEVINCENTIS TO S. LONG PROVIDING RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
MARKEY/NRR 1]/10/86
ENCLOSURE 4 LIST OF INTERNAL DOCUMENTS - SEABROOK 09/03/86 NOTES FROM MEETING WITH MATTHEWS, KANTOP, PERLIS, SOFFER, PERROTTI, LONG CONCERNING CRITEPIA FOR PISK COMPARISONS.
09/04/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH NOONAN, DOOLITTLE, LONG, BAGCHI
- REVIEW STATUS.
09/09/86 NOTES ON SEABROOK SITE VISIT BY NRC/BNL.
09/11/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH NOONAN, LONG, DOOLITTLE - PEVIEW STATUS.
09/15/86 PEMO FROM SPEIS TO NOVAK CONCERNING SCOPE OF BNl. REVIEW.
09/16/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH NOVAK, NOONAN, LONG, D0OLITTLE
- ACRS MEETING.
09/19/86 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION FROM R. YOUNGRLOOD To S. LONG -
PAGES FROM NSAC-84 (ZION NUCLEAR PLANT P.ESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL PRA).
09/22/86 MEMO FROM JORDAN TO NOVAK - CRITEPIA TO EVALUATE SEA-BROOK EPZ SENSITIVITY STUDY.
l MARKEY/NPR H 11/.10/86 i
ENCLOSUPE ft 09/22/86 ROUTING SLIP FROM NovAK To PAGCHI, NOONAN, LONG COVERING 9/15/86 MEMO FROM SPEIS TO NOVAK.
09/23/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH NOONAN, DOOLITTLE, LONG - PEVIEW STATUS.
09/23/86 NOTES FROM PUBLIC METING AMONG NRC, BNL AND PSNH TO EXCHANGE TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
09/24/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH NOONAN, DOOLITTLE, LONG - REVIEW STATUS.
09/25/86 MEMO FROM SPEIS TO NOVAK - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE BNL REVIEW OF SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANNING STUDY.
09/25/86 NOTES ON CALL WITH DOOLITTLE AND HAYES.
L 1
09/26/86 NOTES ON SEAPROOK ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
1 09/29/86 MEMO FROM HERNAN TO NRR DIVISION DIRECTORS - AIF PAPER ON EPZ vS SOURCE TERM.
MARKEY/NPR 13/.10/86
ENCLOSURE 4
_3_
30/01/86 LETTER FROM R. E. WHITE TO BNL - SEABROOK PSA STUDY -
PIPING IS0 METRICS, 10/06/86 MEMO FROM LYOU TO BERLINGER - REVIEW 0F SEABROOK DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO CHANGE IN EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE SIZE.
30/07/86 SEISMIC FRAGILITY UPDATE.
10/08/86 NOTES ON MEETING WITH F00 NAN, NERSES, DOOLITTLE, LONG -
REVIEW STATUS.
10/09/86 LETTER FROM FLEMING TO MAIDPAND - KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING UPDATED ANALYSIS OF INTFRFACING LOCA, 10/10/86 NOTES FROM ACPS FULL COMMITTEE MEETING.
10/15/86 PURPOSE AND AGENDA, TRIP TO SEABROOK STATION AND TO ~
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY, i
10/21/86 MEMO FROM BERLINGER TO NERSES - SEABROOK STATION RISK EVALUATION PERTINENT TO EMEPGENCY PLANNING.
MARKEY/NRR 11/30/86
l
- s. ENCLOSURE 4 l
10/??/86 NOTES FPOM BRIEFING FOR N0vAK nN REVIEW STATUS. !
1 10/23/86 NOTES FROM TELECON BETWEEN NRC AND BNL CONCEP.NING CONTAINMENT EVENT TPEES.
l 10/22/86 AGENDA FOR BRIEFING ON REVIEW OF SEABROOK EPZ STUDY.
10/?4/86 MEMO FROM LONG TO NOONAN - STATUS OF NRC REVIEW OF SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANNING SENSITIVITY STUDY.
10/29/86 NOTES ON CONFEPENCE CALL WITH FAIDRAND, SANCHEZ, LYON, 4
BAGCH1, LONG.
10/30/86 NOTES ON TELEPHONE CALL WITH DOUGHTY AND DOOLITTLE.
31/03/86 DISTANCE OF INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTUPES FROM MASS.
COAST. .
MARKEY/NRR 11/30/86
OllEST!0N 19, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PPEPARED BY THE NRC STAFF WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONCERNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EVACUATION ISSUES AT CHERNOBYL AND THEIP IPPLICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AT U.S. NUCLEAP POWER PLANTS.
ANSWER, DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS PREPARED BY THE NRC STAFF CONCERNING EMERGENCY PPEPAPEDNESS AND EVACUATION ISSUES AT CHERNOBYL AND THEIP IMPLICA-TIONS FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AT U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND NOT PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE APE HEREWITH PROVIDED, ENCLOSURES:
- 1. A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE PERTINENT WRITEUP FOR THE NRC CHERNOBYL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT ENTITLED "IV, EMERGENCY PLANNING," AS SUBMITTED TO THE ACRS ON OCTOBER 30, FOR REVIEW BY ITS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SAFETY PHILOSOPHY, TECHNOLOGY, AND CRITERIA.
?. TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM, T. SPEIS TO R. FRALEY, DATED OCTOBER 30, 1986, TRANSMITTING THE ABOVE ALONG WITH OTHEP MATERIAL THAT IS NOT RELATED TO DUESTION 19 AND IS NOT HERE ENCLOSED, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MATERIAL IS PRELIMINARY AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE AT THIS TIME.
.I MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86
p OLIESTION 19. (CONTINUEL) l
- 3. 10/27/86 MEMO FROM SCHWARTZ TO SPEIS, "CHERNOBYL IMPLICA-TIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT."
l
- 4. 10/29/86 NOTE FROM SOFFER TO SCHWAPTZ, "CHERNOBYL IMPLICA-TIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT: SECTION IV.1, ADEQUACY OF EPZ DISTANCES."
- 5. 11/3/86 COPIES OF 9 VIEWGRAPHS PREPARED FOR NRC SENIOR MAb'AGEMENT REVIEW GROUP MEETING ON 11/3/86.
ENCLOSURES:
AS STATED l
t PARKEY/NRR 11/10/86
OVESTION 20. IN A MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 26, 1986, MR. ROBEPT MINOGUE, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH WROTE TO HAROLD DENTON REGARDING THE PENDING
- BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMP /NY REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SIZE OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE FOR THE CALVERT CLIFFS HUCLEAR POWER PLANT. A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM IS ATTACHED. MR. FIN 0GUE WROTE THAT "WE RECOMMEND THAT THE REQUESTED EXEMPTION BE EITHER DENIED AT THIS TIME OR THAT A DECISION BE POSTPONED UNTIL A GENERIC RULEMAKING ON THE SUBJECT IS COMPLETED IN FY 1987 OP FY 1988." PLEASE RESPOND TO THE POINTS PAISED BY MR. MINOGUE IN EACH OF THE i BULLETED ITEMS. (SUBSTITUTE "PSNH" r0R "BG8E" AS APPROPRIATE.) WHAT IS THE CURRENT NRC POSITION REGAPDING EACH OF THESE POINTS? FOR EXAMPLE, DOES STAFF CUPPENTLY BELIEVE THAT "THE ORDERLY PROGRES-SION OF GENERIC RULEMAKING ON THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUE WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC BETTER THAN A PIECEMEAL, i
SITE-SPECIFIC APPROACH"?
4 ANSWER.
THE NRC RESPONSE TO THIS OUESTION WILL BE PROVIDED BY DECEMBER 1, 1986.
FAPKEY/NRP 11/10/86
QUESTION 21. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SUBCOMMITTEE WITH ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COPIES OF THE MINUTES, TRANSCRIPTS, NOTES, AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, PEP-TAINING TO THE "LAST RES QUARTERLY REVIEW MEETING" REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGPAPH OF THE FIN 0GUE MEMORANDUM CITED ABOVE, AS WELL AS FOR ANY OTHER NRC STAFF MEETINGS ON THIS SUBJECT, ANSWER, i
, ENCLOSED ARE THE FOLLOWING PEMORANDA PLUS THE AGENDA FOR THE
- DECEMBER 2, 1985 COMBINED THIPD AND FOURTH QUARTER PROGRAM REVIEW.
i THE ISSUE OF ENERGENCY PLANNING FOR CALVEPT CLIFFS DOES NOT APPEAR i
4 ON THE PRINTED AGENDA. THIS ISSUE WAS APPARENTLY DISCUSSED IN I CONNECTION WITH RULEMAKING SCHEDULE SLIPPAGE (ITEM 12 0F THE i
AGENDA),
i ENCLOSURES:
- 1. MEMOPANDUM G MARCUS TO T. REHM "1985 COMBINED THIRD AND FOUPTH 00ARTER PROGRAM REVIEW: NOV. 32, 1985
, 2. MEMORANDUM T. REHM TO R. B MINOGUE "RES 1985 COMBINED THIPD AND FOURTH QUARTER PROGPAM REVIEW" N0v. 21, 1985
'l AGENDA 1
4
' PARKEY/NRR 11/10/86 l
OVESTION 25, PLEASE EXPLAIN FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE THE WAY IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING TOPICS AND/OR DOCUMENTS ARE i
RELATED IN ASSESSING THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN GENERAL AND THE SAFETY OF ANY SPECIFIC PLANT:
(A) SOUR TEPM STUDIES
! (B) PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENTS i
(C) WASH-1400 (D) NUREG-1150 AND NRC RISK REBASELINING WORK (E) NUREG-1050 (F) PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS (PSA) FOR ANY GIVEN PLANT (G) ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (S) WHICH INCLUDE t
1 ESTIMATES OF SEVEPE ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES
~
(H) SAFETY EVALUATION REPORTS (I) CRAC2/MACCS AND SIMILAR COMPUTER MODELS (J) SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK ASSESSMENTS
- (K) BASIC RESEARCH AND UNCEPTAINTIES PEGARDING CORE PHENOMENA DURING ACCIDENT CONDITIONS 1
, ANSWER, i l
l THE NRC RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE PROVIDED BY DECEMBER 1, 1086, .
I 1 l
I MARKEY/NP.R 11/10/86 i
OllESTinN 22. ON JUNE 18, .1986 MR. EDWARD CHRISTENBUPY WROTE TO PR. SPENCE PEPRY 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:
"THE DIGNAN MEMORANDUM IS INCORRECT, HOWEVFP, IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE EMERGENCY PLANS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNED TO COPE WITH AN EARLY PELEASE OF RADIOACTIVITY (DIGNAN MEMO-l RANDUM AT 2-3). THIS ERROR APPFARS TO HAVE RESULTED BY CONFUSING THE " WORST POSSIBLE ACCIDENT" FOR ANY ACCIDENT INVOLVING AN EARLY RELEASE....THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION, QUOTED ABOVE, CLEARLY PECOGNIZES THAT "EARLY RELEASES" MAY OCCUR....
- THE FOLLOWING GUIDANCE IS PROVIDED IN NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, REVISION 1 (AT 13-14)
"THE RANGE OF TIMES BETWEEN THE ONSET OF ACCIDENT
)
CONDITIONS AND THE START OF A MAJOR RELEASE IS OF l THE ORDFR OF ONE-HALF TO SEVERAL HOURS. THE
! SUBSEQUENT TIME PERIOD OVER WHICH PADI0 ACTIVE i
MATERIAL MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE RELEASED IS OF MARKEY/NRR J 11/10/86 a
r,_. .,,,. ,_
QUESTION 22. (CONTINUED) THE ORDER OF ONE-HALF HOUR (SHORT TERM RELEASE)
TO A FEW DAYS (CONTINUOUS RELEASE).... GUIDANCE ON THE TIME OF THE RELEASE...HAS BEEN USED IN DEVELOPING THE CRITERIA FOR NOTIFICATION CAPABILITIES...
EMEPGENCY PLANNING FOR ACCIDENTS INVOLVING
'EARLY RELEASES' IS REQUIRED...."
IN DISCUSSIONS WITH NRC STAFF AND PEVIEWING NRC AND PSNH MATERIAL AND THE TPANSCRIPTS OF ACRS PEETINGS ON THE SUBJECT, IT APPEARS THAT PSNH IS ARGUING THAT EARLY RELEASES CANPOT OCCUR GIVEN THE STRENGTH OF THE SEABROOK CONTAIMMENT. HOWEVER, THE GUIDANCE REFERRED TO ABOVE APPLIES TO ALL PLANTS AND ALL LICENSEES. DOES THE NRC AGREE THAT EMERGENCY PLAN-NING FOP ACCIDENTS REQUIRING EARLY RELEASES IS REQUIRED AT SEABROOK? IF NOT, WHY NOT? PLEASE
- EXPLAIN IN DETAIL.
ANSWER.
NRC REGl'LATIONS REQUIRE THAT EMERGENCY PLANS MUST BE DFSIGNED TO COPE WITH A SPECTRUM OF ACCIDENTS, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING EARLY l
MAPKEY/NRR 31/30/86 i
l 0(!ESTION 22, (CONTINUED) !
l PFLEASES. 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 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE l REGULATIONS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE PANGE OF RELEASE TIMES DESCRIBED IN NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. THE PPOMPT NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE l INTENDED TO COVER NOT ONLY SEVFRE ACCIDENTS BUT ALSO LESSER ACCI- .
DENTS WITH FASTER MODERATE RELEASES. THE SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANS,
! AS WELL AS THE PLANS FOR OTHER NUCLEAP POWER PLANTS, ARE REQUIPED TO INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF EARLY RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY WITHIN THEIR PLANNING BASIS.
i i
1 l
l l
}
l MARI'EY/NRR 11/10/86 i
QUESTION 23. THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONTAINMENT MAY BE COMPROMISED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HUMAN ERROP. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY MATERIAL PE-GARDING HOW THE CONTAlt! MENT AT SEABROOK MIGHT BE SO COMPROMISED, INCLUDING INFORMATION REGARDING THE SERIOUSNESS OF OFF-SITE CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY RESULT IF THE CONTAINMENT ERROR OCCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORST POSSIBLE ACCIDENT CASE CONSIDEPED POSSIBLE FOR THE SEABROOK PLANT (REGARDLESS OF PROBABILITY). PLEASE DESCRIBE 3 MOST SEVERE ACCIDENTS CONSIDERED POSSIBLE FOR THE PLANT AND THE ASSOCIATED MOST SEVERE CONSEQUENCES, AND ON WHAT THESE ACCIDENT SCENARIOS HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS THE MOST SEVERE.
ANSWER.
THE NRC STAFF IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING HOW INTEGRITY OF THE SEABROOK CONTAINMENT MIGHT BE COMPROMISED FROM A VARIETY OF CAUSES, INCLUDING HUMAN ERROR. HOWEVER, PRA AtlALYSIS TECHNIQUES ARE NOT DESIGNED TO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE "THE WORST POSSIBLE ACCIDENT CASE CONSIDERED POSSIBLE ... !REGARDLESS OF PROBABILITY)." RATHER, THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ESTIMATE THE TOTAL PUBLIC PISK BY IDEllTIFYING THE SEQUENCES THAT HAVE A COMBINATION OF PROBABILITY AND CONSEQUENCES THAT CONSTITUTE THE MOST RISK. THEREFORE, OUR REVIEW IS SEEKING PARKEY/NRR 1]/10/86
i
! OVESTION 23. (CONTINUED) :
l l TO DETEPMINE IF PREEXISTING COMPROMISES OF. CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY I COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE PUBLIC RISK, BASED UPON THE PROB-
- ABILITIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF VARIOUS LEAK SIZES.
1 WE HAVE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PSNH TO FACILITATE
)
OUR REVIEW OF THIS ISSUE. QUESTION 22 IN THE LETTER FROM S. LONG .
TO R. !!ARRISON, DATED OCTOBER 8,1986, REQUESTED THAT PSNH CON-
]
SIDER CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY VIOLATION EXPERIENCE CONTAINED IN NUREG/CP-4?20. IN ADDITION, DUESTION 21 IN THE SAME LETTEP AND
- QUESTION 48A IN THE LETTER FROM S. LONG TO R. HARRISON DATED
! OCTOBER 23, 1986, ARE PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE BECAUSE CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SOME OPERATING MODES WHEN THE l
) PEACTOR IS SHUT DOWN. QUESTION 78 IS ALSO PERTINENT. PSNH l PESPONSES TO OUESTION 21, 22, AND ?8 WERE PROVIDED IN THE LETTEP FROM J. DEVINCENTIS TO S. LONG, DATED OCTOBER 31, 1986.
j ENCLOSURE R TO THE LETTER FROM G. THOMAS TO V. NOONAN, DATED SEPTEMBER ?9, 1986, IS ALSO RELEVANT TO CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY.- l
! WE ARE CURRENTLY EVALUATING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED AND AWAITING -
l RESPONSE TO OUESTION 48A.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCIDENTS WITH PREEXISTING CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE :
j WOULD BE CALCULATED USING THE SAME RELEASE CATEGORIES ALREADY l INCLUDED IN PLG-0465. RELEASE CATEGORY S6W PEPRESENTS A CORE MELT s
i l MARKEY/NRR l 1]/10/86 i ,
0 '
- OVESTION 23. (CONTINUED) l ACCIDENT WITH AN OPENING OF 50 SOUARE INCHES (8" DIAMETEP PIPE)
- EXISTING FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE EVENT. THIS IS THE SIZE OF i
THE ON-LINE CONTAINMENT PURGE, WHICH IS THE LARGEST OPENING PER-l MITTED (AUTOCLOSURE CAPABILITY REQUIRED) BY TECHNICAL SPECIFICA-TIONS WHILE THE REACTOR IS OPERATING AT POWER. LARGER OPENINGS l INCLUDE THE EQUIPMENT HATCH (37'-5" DIA.), THE PERSONNEL AIRLOCK !
~
(7' DIA.) AND THE REFUELING PURGE LINE (36" DIA.). RELEASE CATEGORY S2W REPRESENTS A SMALLER LEAK (3" DIAMETER PIPE) THAT i
DOES NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE REACTOR VESSEL IS BREACHED BY A CORE MELT, AND CATEGORY SlF REPPFSENTS A GROSS BREACH OF CONTAINMENT :
THAT OCCURS WHEN THE PEACTOR VESSEL IS BREACHED. IF CONTAINMENT
- LEAKAGE WERE PPEEXISTING RATHER THAN INDUCED FOR RELEASE CATE-l GORIES SlF AND S?W, THEN SOME RADI0 ACTIVITY COULD BEGIN EXCAPING i EARLIER THAN MODELED FOP THESE CATEGORIES. THE EARLIER RELEASE TIMES WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE PESULTS OF THE CONSEQUENCES CALCULATIONS EXCEPT WHERE EVACUATION HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
l THE APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCE CURVES FOR THESE PELEASE CATEGORIES i WITHOUT EVACUATION APE FOUND IN APPENDICES A AND B 0F PLG-0465.
RELEASE CATEGORY SlW, WHICH IS THE SAME AS RELEASE CATEGORY PWR-1 4
IN WASH-1400, REPRESENTS THE MAXIMUM CONSEQUENCE RELEASE CATEGORY i
IN BOTH STUDIES, GROSS PREEXISTING VIOLATIONS OF CONTAINMENT 1 -
l INTEGRITY DURING A CORE MELT ACCIDENT WOULD PRODUCE CONSEQUEP'CES THAT ARE BOUNDED BY THE SlW RELEASE CATEGORY.
MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86 -
_ M__._.___.__.____-_. _ _ . . __ -
i DUESTION"N,~-INJULY,1986THECOMMIS$10NRELEASEDNUREG-09b,
" REASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAC BASIS FOR ESTIMATINo SOURCE TERMSi" ACCORDING TO DISCUSSIONS THAT SUB-COMMITT'dE STAFF HAVE HELD'WITH NRC STAFF, THE SOURCE TERM MODELS INHT'IS STtIDY WILL BE UTILIZED l IN COMBINATION WITH RISK ASSESSMENT WORK I
(NUPEG-1150) INITIATED IITER THE THREE MILE ISLAND .
ACCIDENT WHICH IS INTE'NDED 70 IMPROVE ON THk' s PROBABILITY $ ESTIMATES ~OF'WASl-140G. .NPC' STAFF.
HAVEINFORMEDTHESUBCOMMITTEETHATTAKEkTOGETHER,- ',,
1 THESE TWO WOPK PRODUCTS (NUREG-0956 AND NUREG-1350)
MAY PROVIDE A BASIS FOR CHANGES IN VARIOUS REGULA.- ,
,4 ,
TIONS, INCLUDING EMERGENCY PLANN-!NG REGULATIONS. .,
WE UNDERSTAND THAT NR*C 3TAFF HOPE TO MELEASE THE
, a ?-
NEW STUDY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT IN EARLY 1987,'AND i T O P E L E A S E T H E F I N A L V E R S I'O N I N L A T E 1 9 8 7 O R E A R L Y 1988. -
(A) TO WHAT REGULATORY ARENAS ARETHE ABOVF '. I a < .
s MENTIONED STUDIES RELEVANT, AND WHAT PE00:.A- l TIONS IS THE NRC CONTEMPLATING REVISING;IN LIGHT OF THE AB0VE-MENTIONED STUDY RESULTS?
O l
4 l
'MARKEY/NRR l
, 11/10/f36 ,
,,__ ,[ _
, _ ~ ,. -
,, -- --=ym --- r ^
w- -
wY39 -
? .,' '
l OVESTION 24(A)., (CONTINUED) -
2-ANSWER'.
)
l THE ABOVE MENTIONED STUDIES ARE RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING REGULA-TORY AREAS:
s
- 1. STAFF ASSESSMENT OF ACCIDENT PISK IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS),
? BWR SUPPRESSION POOLS AS A FISSION PRODUCT CLEANUP SYSTEM, 3; EMERGENCY PLANNING, 11 . .CdNTAlfmENT LEAK RATES AND INTEGRITY,
- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT,
- 6. SAFETY ISSUE EVALUATION,
- 7. C$NTROLROOMHABITABILITYANDAIRFILTPATIONSYSTEMS,
- 8. SITING,
- 9. ACCIDENT MONITORING.
POTENTIAL PEVISIONS IN MOST OF THESE AREAS ARE CONTEMPLATED WITHOUT CHANGES TO ANY COMMISSION REGULATIONS BY MODIFICATION TO EXISTING STAFE CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE, SUCH AS REGULATORY GUIDES OR APPRO-PRIATE SECTIONS OF THE STANDARD REVIEW PLAN. HOWEVER, THE NRC DOES CONTEMPLATE REVISING ITS RFGULATIONS IN TWO AREAS, NAMELY, EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SITING.
MARKEY/NRR 11/10/86 s -
g - . . . _ . - -, -
CUESTION 24 (B), WHEN IS THE EARLIEST SUCH RULE CHANGES MIGHT BE OFFERED, AND WHY?
ANSWER, REVISIONS TO THE EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS, 10CFR50.47 HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BY JUNE 3987, THIS DATE IS
, CONSIDERED TO BE PRACTICABLE IN TERMS OF FACTORING IN CONCLUSIONS ,
AND INSIGHTS FROM NUREG-1150 AS WELL AS ANY IMPLICATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT. CHANGES TO THE NRC SITING CRITERIA, 10CFR PART 100, APE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER, ]987, BASED,0N A LOWER PRIOPITY.
OUEST10N 24 (C), SPECIFICALLY, HOW MIGHT EMERGENCY PLANNING RULES BE AFFECTED?
ANSWER, THE NRC PRESENTLY HAS NO SPECIFIC INDICATIONS OF HOW THE EMERGENCY PLANNING RULES MIGHT BE AFFECTED.
OllESTION 24 (D), IS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE Sr.HEDULE OF THE j RELEASE OF THESE STUDIES CORRECT? IF NOT, S
PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THE CORRECT INFOPMATION.
I ANSWER. I s 1 8
YES.
MARKEY/NRR
))/10/86 )
.