ML20237C310

Discusses FEMA Positions Re Facility Emergency Plan for State of Ma Communities,Including Giving Opportunity for Util to Conform Various Plan Vols to New 10CFR50.47 Criteria

ML20237C310
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/15/1987
From:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#188-5269 OL, NUDOCS 8712210241
Download: ML20237C310 (2)

Text

- _ - - - -

ct n3 ~

es

j 'g.si Federal Emergency Management Agency k .. .

Y Washington, D.C. 20472 DEC l 51987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Congel Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nu ea Rejator ,ommission FROM icnard . K ri mm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs

SUBJECT:

Review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC)

This is in response to your two recent memoranda concerning the review of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC). The Office of General Counsel (0GC) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has reviewed

1) the unpublished Commission Order dated November 25,1987,2) your memorandum of November 27, 1987 requesting FEMA to review the SPMC against the Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness recently published in the FederaLRegister for comment and interim use and 3) your December 2,1987 memefandum requesting FEMA to identify which portions currently deleted from the SPMC were necessary for us to complete our detailed review. That memorandum also requested that the review be performed taking into account three basic assumptions, upon which the criteria are based. We realize that these issues were among those discussed at the December 8, 1987, NRC/ FEMA Steering Comnittee meeting and that additional discussion will probably take place. However, we wanted to give you an initial written expression of our position.

First, we again confirm that in the event of litigation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must defend the three assumptions upon which the new criteria are based. We appreciate your confirmation of this commitment during the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee meeting of December 11, 1987.

Second, FEMA's legal position is that all information currently redacted in the SPMC submitted September 18, 1987, to the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) should be furnished to FEMA, as consistent with decisions made on this issue in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. This would allow the exclusion f rom the plan of in-dividual names and their home telephone numbers and addresses. Other information, such as the names of companies and their authorized repre-sentatives entering into letters of agreements, is necessary so that FEMA can make judgments on actual resource availability. Although FEMA counsel has no authority to protect from Freedom of Information Act requestors, or civil discovery, materials in the possession of FEMA unless they fall 8712210241 871215

, - ,s PDR ADOCK 05000443

_I h F db- g PDR

within an appropriate exemption or other statutory protection, FEMA is willing to structure its review process to comply with any appropriate protective orders issued by the NRC or its adjudicatory subunits. Close coordination on this issue is required and our contact point, William R.

Cumming, FEMA OGC, may be reached at 646-4103.

Additionally, because of currently pending litigation involving the NRC and various intervenor groups about the legal effect of the recently published revisions to 10 CFR 50.47(c) (made effective on December 3, 1987), FEMA believes that New Hampshire Yankee-(NHY) should be given the opportunity to conform their various plan volumes to the new criteria, under which the plan would be reviewed, and specifically furnish to NRC and FEMA a statement that they wish this review and all further reviews of plan revisions or amendments to be conducted pursuant to the new rule. Since the plan was not generated to conform to those criteria, there will undoubtedly be some aspects which do not comply. It would be simpler, and in the long-run more expedient, to revise those portions before the initial formal FEMA review.

In all likelihood, the first ASLB on the SPMC will be based on the results of FEMA's first formal evaluation. If NHY chooses not to avail themselves of this opportunity, we would also like a statement to this effect.

Finally, FEMA has already been contacted by the NHY contractor responsible for drafting the SPMC, about the possibility of getting some technical assistance in order to determine what changes might be necessitated by the use of the new criteria as an evaluation standard. All requests for FEMA technical assistance by the utility or its contractors should be made through the NRC. This conforms to the procedures established between our two agencies during the reviews of the Long Island Lighting Company offsite plan for Shoreham.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 646-2871.

1 i

l l