ML20235J718

Final Response to FOIA Request.App B Documents Being Made Available in PDR & Forwarded.App C Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5).Recipient Agreed to Limit Request to Records Not Already Available in Pdr,Per 870623 Telcon

ML20235J718
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/30/1987
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	Connor L DOC-SEARCH ASSOCIATES
Shared Package
ML20235J720	List: ML20235J718 ML20235J847 ML20235J883 ML20235J903 ML20235K495
References
FOIA-87-347 NUDOCS 8710020066
Download: ML20235J718 (6)

Text

, -- -- . - - - - . .. - _ _ _ - -

F01A-87-347

[* * %I j useoNseYvet

! RES SE TO FREEDOM OF > X I """ - l '"" I "5 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST 6

1. 0CN l DOCKET NUM8ERISI ur el REQUESTER Ms. Lynn Connor PART 1.-RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked bones)

No agency records subpect to the request have been located.

No additional agency records sublect to the request have been locatet Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix are already available for public inspectior and copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

t.gency records subpoet to the request that are identified in Appendn R are being made evaliable for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Docurnent y Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under the POfA number and requester name.

The nonproprietary verson of the proposails) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now bemg modo avatable for public kupseton and coying at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N W , Washington, DC, an a folder under this FOIA number and requester nome.

Enclosed is information on how you rnay obtain access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washingen. DC.

Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copies of the records provided and payment procedures are noted in the comments section.

Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federad egency0es) for review and direct response to you.

In view of hiRC's response to this request, no further action is bang taken on appeal letter dated -

i PART tl.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE l

l Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described in and for the reasono stated in Part it, asc.

tions B, C and D. Any released portions of the documents for whsch only part of the record is being wrthheld are being made availab6e for public inspection and copyng in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Sueet, N.W., Washmgton, DC. in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.

Comments In a telephone conversation with Natalie Brown of my staff on June 23, 1987, you agreed to eliminate from the scope of your request those records which are already available in the Public Document Room. .

j l

l l

l l

l I

i

.1

$60pAffRE, DIRECTOR. D171fION O LES AND R ORDS WW ub H, -

in 4 .

!i f0NNgas7-347 N AC FORM 464 (Part It iSast

1 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REIPONSE k

FOIA NUMBERISI: FOTA-87-347 PART 118- APPLICABLE FOlA EXEMPTIONS DATE:' eh b) m '"

n

{

I Rtcords subject to the recpest tIat are described in the enclosed Appendices b are being withheld in their entirety or in part under FolA Extmptions and for the reasons set forth below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CFR 9.5(a) of NRC Regulations. j i

1. The withhold informator a prope@ classified pursuant to Executive Order 12356 (EXEMPTION 1) l

2. The withheld mformenor mistas solely to the intamal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 2)

3. The withhold informoeon a specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute indicated: (EXEMPTION 3)

"*"~

Section 141145 of 1M Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data i42 U.S.C. 2161-2166).

Section 147 of the Anome Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

4. The we* informoeon e a trade secret or commercial or financialinformation that is being withheid for the reason (s) indicated: (EXEMPTION 4) h e Hfesan a coredered to be confidential busineca (proprietary) information.

{

l The information a cormdered to be proprietary information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dHIL The information was m.emtted and received in confidence from a foreign source pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dH2).

l S. The withheld informalmn conssts of interagency or intr: agency records that are not available through discovery dunng litigation. Declosure of predecisional information would tend to inhibit tN coen and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberetsve process. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextricably  !

X intertwmed with the prednesesonal information. There also are no reasonably segregable factual portons because the release of the facts would permit an indwect inquiry mto the predecesonal process of the agency. (EXEMPTIOL b)

6. The withheld informaeon a exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (EXEMPTION 61

7. The withheld informenon consists of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated.1 EXEMPTION 7) l Disclosure would enerve enth en enforcement proceeding because it could reveal the scope, duection, and focus of enforcement efforts, and thus Could posasbly allow them to take action to shield potential wrongdoing or a violaton of NRC requvements from investigators. (EXEMPTION 7(A))

I Disclosure would consecute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (EXEMPTION 7(Cl)

The information consosus of names of individuals and other information the disclosure of which would reveal identities of confidential sources. (EXEMPTION 7(D))

l PART ll.C-DENYING OFFICIALS l l

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 and/or 9.115 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, it has been detenrened that the inforrnetion withheld is exempt from production or d and that its production or dedoeure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officials and the Direciar. ' t Divesson of Rules and Records, mfice of Adminstration, for any denials that rnay be appeale*f to the Executive Director for Operations itDoi.

DENYING OFFICIAL _ TITLE /OFflCE RECORDS DENIED

. APPELLATE OFFICIAL

>eputy uenerai tounsei seca m ny wo James P. Murray for Hearings & Enforcement C-2 & C-3 X irhomas E. Murley Director sNRR C-1 X ,

l l

PART tl D- APPEAL ftlGHTS i The denial by each denying officialidentified in Part ll.C may be appealed to the Appellate Officialidentified in that section. Any such appeal must be in writing and must be made within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate to the Executive Director for Operations or to the Secretary of the Comrrussion, U.S. Nuclear Re that it is an " Appeal from en initial FOIA Decision.gulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20566, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the le NIC FoIM ese IPert 21 is sei U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSKm FOlA RESPONSE CONTINUATION 1

1. C Re: F01A-87-347 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR

1. 9/15/86 Letter from Cong. Markey to Chairman Zech. (5 pages)

2. 11/18/86 Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Comittee on Energy and Comerce Announcement. (2pages)

3. 1/7/87 Memo from V. Noonan to Addressees. (2 pages)

4. 1/21/87 Memo from A.C. Cerne to W.F. Kane. (1 page).

5. 1/28/87 Memo from J. Murray to V. Stello. (2 pages)

6. 4/16/87 Memo from J. Asselstine to Chairman Zech. (11 pages)

7. 4/24/87 Memo from C. Kamerer to H. Denton. (1 page)

8. 5/28/87 Letter from E. Brown to Comission. (3 pages)

9. Undated MRC Staff Presentation to the ACRS on the Review Plan for the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study. (7 pages) l l

l l

l l

l 1

l

,,,.r. Re: F0IA-~ n7;aa7 APPENDIX: ~ c

, RECORDS TOTALLY WITHHELD

NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EX,MPTION E

1.: 1/12/87 Viewgraphs: BNL RE:.'iew of Seabrook Station Emergency ,

Planning Sensitivity Study. (37Pages). Exemption 5

2. Handwritten notes of Sherwin Turk,;0ffice of the General: 1 Counsel,;on copy of viewgraphs noted above. . Exemption 5 'I

3. 3/9/87 Viewgraphs: Briefing for EDO - Seabrook EPZ Review, with .)

handwritten notes of Sherwin Turk, OGC. (5 pages) l Exemption 5 i

i l -

t l

l l

l 1

l I.

DOC-SEARCH ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 7 Cabin John, f4D 20818  !

& w \v,Icuf7

[REEDOM 0F WFORMMM T REQUEST -

~

47.S 4 ~)

Director Division of Rul'es and Records /h .b 4bO US 11uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act would you please place [

the following document (s) in the Public Document Room: ,- j Om e JLA,> ,M M y m k s ^ >t%b a~ !d % Cal %skAf a.p-x am n, y Subwk suAn s. .

I Thank you.

Sincerely, Lynn Connor V21 n n n (7 U[ of 6() ~

/. i

f 4

g

- . ~ - g

~

, . . . - , . . . , , - J s.weunas assen ceases. W ee e aan.. ems.s p.. . - =*.7.,.,

-==-i-

.;r.: L ";'a. UJ::l, ,

== U.S. HOUSE OP ftEMeg r .ui

. =1 .O'.' = . *"L. = _, -

.,{

5.'4ES.w,.,

'E~ ~ t.

. AND POWER-er E-  % ,_

< -. es ...- *** COA 848'ma oss sNanov Asse WASHueGTON.OC 20S45 Septeaser 15,17% g y // k /'

fffy W/h The Honorable Lando W. Sech, Jr.

Chai rman N v.s. xuelen newletery Comessaien -

d

'(~/" /. 3 /

1 m a street, m.w. .  !

Wa!dnington, D.C. 20555 '

, (/

Dear Mr. Chairmans on Monday, . October 6,1788, at 10:30 a.m. , the subconsittee on Energy conservation and Power will hold a hearing on nuclear licensing issueswill relating to, the seabrook nuclear power plant.

The- bearing focus on emerge planning and preparedness -

- icaues Newbu rypo r t, and will be held at. the New ryport City Ball, in Massachusetts. .

The subcommittee invites victor stello, Jr., Ezeentive Director heating.

for Operations, to represent the Commission at the

- His testimony should include discussion of the NRC's participation in emergency planning and preparedness activities tor the seabrook plant. Additionally, please provide written answers septemberto.the 29)_1986. attached questions for the hearing record by

(

should Mr.beStello's written testimony may be of' eny length and typed, double-spaced.

In oroer for members of the Subcommittee to ask questians of all witnesses, his oral statement should be limited to 5 minates.

/ Please deliver 25 copieN of Mr. Stello's prepared statement 1986. subcommittee office no later than 5:00 p.m., october 2, to the review his testimony.This will allow the Members and staff the opportuelty to to the hearing rooss at the time of the hearing.An additional 100 copies

} I look f orvard to Mr. 8tallo's testimony on October 6.

t Sincerely,

. Wy g .p "r'.

g

' Q.f Q.h I g r ,.ri;A I.-

' mewud a. nerkey  !'A *

, [i Ch*i'"*"

n t.M[# .

1 i

'; p.a&

fN.

growing l

"[Q ' mA -

,1 r

l l'

f 4 -

$*)

'i

. .. .r V '

OtrESTIcus FOR TER unc m g* (%

9 lc

1) T Fiease provide a chronology of events, includlag dates of all i J wac or asLa orders, bearings, meetings, eten related to 'the.

consideration of emnergency pleaning and prepaaeh $ssues JE/ctd.

yn with respect to the seabrook plant. f$r Q Q ,tplease; i provide a brief stammary of the action tah.ea. . ....

l

2) The subcommittee stadt has sev& owed the andated meneranden of '

L OGb nsees Dipan of appee and eamy on behalf of the Seebtook i

. appueant,a relating to the so-called' amisconceptieas' about. - .

emergency planning., The mesmorandus was reviewed in a June 18, 1986 memorandus by Edward S. Christenbury, Director and Chief scaring Counsel of the NBC. The review was requested by Edvard Thomas of Fr.Mk Region I.  !

a) Does the WRC routinely review legal messoranda prepared by licerase applicants which are not submitted as part et

., any formal proceeding? -

. b) Does the commission have '

any procedures with respect to such reviews?

c) Please explain, to the best of your knowledge, what prompted the writing of the Dignan mestorandum, and its

r ev iew.

3) Please provide all documents the Commission has received i related to the difficulties soviet of ficials f aced in

• evacuating the populatice around the Chernobyl nuclear power pl ant , and all other aspects of their radiological emergency response activities subsequent to the accident (both on- and offsite). These shou 1(I include but not be limited tg > - -

internal staff memoranda, analyses and reports concer response by Soviet officials to the emergency. at chernaty1GM h'

)

$ 41 Based on the Chernobyl related inferination the WBC has

'pg received, what has it learned about the need for carefully coordinated offaite planning and preparedness activities at nuclear power plants in advance of an emergency? What does

. the Chernobyl experience reveal about the human factors j involved in effectively implementf.ng a radiological emergency

, response plan?

. 53 some analysts maintain that the chernobyl accident was each less serious than the very worst case scenarios considered ist

/gg .

the Probabilistic Risk Assessments for U.S. nuclear power Pl ant s. Analysts, also assert that it was much less serious 4 than the worst case scenarios that have provided the basis

! f o r th e 10-mil e emer ge ncy p1 = ani ng s ome (RFE) . Bowever,

. ,\

g ..

a f 1 -: ,

~ _.

. .- -.. . . .. \

e I 5 V: f *)

t %. t he evacuate A. ~- .

j

< e soviet officials deemed it eres more them thsd emergency pien kilander radius of the plant,gbs mise of the EFE fo required in the United States. is'the sac ~ ,

wake _ si the chernobyl esta or relemaking . . set -

accident, j g) $ derf 84 4% .poligt aad preparedness .,1pte '

eniog emer "

I emp3ain a e %s Please op.osals tsaggg Q p  ;

f Is the Commissico considerta nofor no anytheprerscoation nuclear power plantsf er the  ;

b) establishing time requir amergency plasming mones Please explaim in detail.

ore the House Suboensittee on  !

.en August 2,1993 hear ng i

ittee on Interior and ,

4) ereight and Investigations, < dn,Support, Deputy Associate FEM, tastified, Director -

0 gnsular Kffairs, David McLouandlated Local oint, concorrent progress f

.M for 8 tate a : or source of

, the may jr, n* *review aothofram and the NRC 50RBG-0454, FEMM bb&e i ernments ha developing theirchan

guidance to stat 9 and locat ities.

iscal year 1985.* j piens and preparedness capabar6 anticipated beginn '

idance to State and localRan-0dS4, FtH a) The existing source ofernments remaina Rev sion 1 of NO at revisions verrutent have bee guidance cri ..

'a&de to the State and loc j suR8G-06547 nc/rs m fotaal l I

b) What revisions review procdss have best made tod the minoe 19837 f u  !

J b

i l ,_c)

S11:sse pror(de a sogy and F8m.of theIs the carrent NBC Mesoran u l

' understanding between ,. o the M007 l considering any c.ti (9835) have- ih j f ,,

7)

1. f Scialea thatofthe Public Service of New Probabt?.istih safBaspahire sty Assessment U st 1s currently being reviiswed, he energency pisaning somefliel for a- reductionHas in PSWE the size fo rgency plan process?

for seabrook. bcommittee, the Nac regoesting a change to

. f money and

8) Abcording to documentu provided to tha sub N'- ,, ,,' stafft$etime purpose, to reviow a of deciding whether p' reduced.

d no titica.to the  ;

eted?-

l a) In light of the f Act that PSNN' has ma ewhy is this stu I te@uce the 842,

(

n. - ,s -

Y. -

M3 y

_ . _ r". , _ .

tow has the Coensissies potleit##d, or' ,,._ _ _ ds pahite,, m

' b) participation in the reelow of this issue?

stedies, each as .

c) Has the- Cossaission sles been review at, to determine.'

those accespanying the Chernobyl aegi i whether . the Ep3. Eor twactora should be instetes47 ; a, d) aas the commission gaff ever advised FSNE soesserslag - i the studies it would dieem appropriate for $estifyine aIf so, please raketion et the 5757 ' * * "* 4*4 8 * * *4.*;#=. :

- of such discussions.

9)

The subcommittee has receAved a copy emergency to discuss -of an attendance planning-listatat* ,l

• a meeting on March.27, 1 the meeting attendees discussed ,

l d ,E 8eabrook. -According to ,

eBarcise review and the W3C l

U *tA4 complete F5Mk pihn e l 1

geacing process, and how this wonid affect an integrated and l achedule f or projected sqsbrook planning, exercise, (same At. c saf ety and Licenslag soard (ASLB) ev ent s. The. -

le was sent to tbd state the following day.)*

beh attendees were Ed Jordan and Ed Christenbury of NRC,10 FEMk -

t of ficials, Edward trous, of 3bew -Rampshire Yankee, Bruceand Thomas D McCarthy of BME 5trateg$es, G ray .

a) Please provide s&1 notes, or transcripts, . of this 'f nae ti ng.

b) No record of this septing appears in the " Chronology' of

[

Westings and Discussions with utility - and other Groups -

(eabrook,' which ghe Nac Please provided for thethis explain subcomunittee omission. l (nSeptember 10,"5986.

c) Has the kmc sticipated in other such meetings, of If so, whi.ch,it'h mtormed the subcommittee?

~

! please of.

al{l documents related to those meetings,;

,indlud( not limited to iaternal menoranha, notes -

and t yta.

(.

di Were other parties to the seabrook licensing proceedings j including statee, localities, and interveners notified of this meeti1547 4

ijka Chronology of Me'ptings provided' to the Subcoussittee by

.f. g t)g commission. indicates a signif1' cant level of L

rrespondenca and meetings between the NRC- staf f and ggpresentatives for seas.

el Es it customary fos NaC to participate in such meetings?

I, b) What le ,the functica of the thC representatives at thage j . ' ~

modt1 9 9 '

. ~

l -

>.. l .  ;

y ..

• "b 3. .b

e -

14 f]85 t ,

What proce< hares quide W3C partiespation lit such ~~.

=. c) e 1: q

"- meetings? , ,

I d) save. the other parties to the seatprook licensing ,

1 proceedings includ$mg States,10eelities,. and interrenors been mehigied of eacti of theme meetings?'If not, why nok 1, i save they been inviter to participate? -

11) a) Please profide a brief summary .of the history-'of g cosyp1tance With the post-Three M11e Island emergency ; ; .

p1>maning regulaticas.

b) Please provide a list of ' enforcement actions taken by . l the WRC f or violatibes of emergency preparedness requirements since January 1,1983. ,

c What deficiencies still esist in emergency planning ama b) preparedness aroca$.U.S. nu'elear power plants, i especially with regard to alert and notification eystems? - l pm, it) lease provide all documents, including internal memorandar,:..

. Po. _/ f t c e Region I office to MAC Needquarters, related to 4

e y planning ed preparedness issues since January 1, y

, 1985.

\

h 13,) Please provida all OGC, COPE, and' BLD internal memoranda .I 3 f related to emergency plahaing issues at Seabrook, and all internal memoranda related to emergency planning and pr'eparedness a$ analear ydwer plants without state and local' s

community part4cipation, since January 1,1996. g

14) What pr a are before the Commission related to 'special h jb considera ' such ps abeltering beach populations, and t imp}e$ tnt'e on of enggeW plans in adverse weather? .

Ema 4 esion en .

gA' ,15) wa.$e,ow.u. at .eoantered theleer hor .. problems e ,1of shelter.ing ants, . da ..

.l the ' Commission 'do in those cases?

pmA 16) Eas he CpasteNion eeafr denied a petition for aPlease seco power provide' low potet license? tt yes, in which cases? t 1

", brief de'scription Of wach case, itw% bce %,, /d l

I r,

i&

\ '-  :  : i!  !

I

~

e m

- _m s t

a h

t l

a c

y c

t r n m t s o o ig a

_ m.

e s

u s e

u l

l e

t w

g n l o

o t g

A

. m..

a h

c a

s I u se oe D i

l l h n n e

- s g n Ct 3 o c m 0 s n u t 1 B e e

- 0 a i n si 4 T g2

-  : M s u am y a7 S d n4

- _ S N E O 0

1 , en nt l m m oo R l ed rva n a0 I

E C y ca n 1 hC eio2 a M2

_ IVTA R t r il h

o 3 0 c 3 vtR4 ea l my s

- T V E M

a u LP J e3 i y Ng 3 8 aac.

AR E b e1 Btt3 r

- A s0 r

- T S O I5 6 s Cr e u ee s2 u0 een ne0 e orr guge n C.

NN 8 e Re l o l neo k n t o gD E O C D 0 5 9 A

m Wwo b sH bEtH lsn beuB s

a iarr N

S C 1 a a A WNPe ,

- E R

YA GE N 2 A C , , n dP r ott e, a,neM r arcN rpa E r

gfsZo nn 8 l ar onet oen ,

P EODRWeYG D. 1 o a nuad nasa , nRnn ee iod t E RN 1

o ge entr om t n o i o nv 0 a rlg R E NP F E O r BsSo BreSo 8 reaan don T h nl e c BeWt iid3 Cczri F N E G e c ic even it t t p at a0 eaaes M i aeh OOA b S nu ea9 m N N hoho hhtho lao .fRds E

m nN TGTC ht0 a EtR ea E E OhS e a TCSTB TS2B n rf S TT t A v h

g lk eerN R MO Fw t o i Po -

lso, UW T W N H o O M T

f yr deb rrh

_ Hn M w y

, y cb r na rpat n

_ . C o r oeHu o S. U S C

a u ee e nR o i US d

s b

s gS d s s o em A s r s n e Bel s s e e ee e ttt i u m mh k i a v v eat r nm T x A Et a eet i ti htio om k l ea dt l aF TSLP i o

_ u AttC it3 tC D t n4 a l%. l e

eie5 cms Bn7 as e4 l y5 ur5 go5

@*~ L* a nme:

eorP rem arP et0 m""

T *" h rCp bp r rRa2

" c 3 w e - ' r e3 eo l mf i 3 ayR ru.

~ h***l

• M 3 aR 3 og

"  : e1 Lg t1 B e1 l

." s2 l rt

_" E  : e rfs2  ! s2 oocP e C.

M u0 eeou0 ecu0 I

T l o l n c l - o Vta D S b R cer bEeE

_ T I a A beH deRa ,

%, L r eM a s A as A .

rr en

• . D r ,ceM rueM N ": S I ort noa , U onet n oot , n airl o hDact

" A  :

onBat n ,

nBa i k*w%".OT C" S ont n c eug E E E L o t n i yl N n

% M,Q N E T

C A

J B

N T

E H

SrSo evee e t L

E N

RreSo it eaaes t

teSo t t L

g Rtc u .ih A U eaes g

• ., D L

P S l

w A

E hohc A hhtho htho a.,. re. pA S. sa TcTE P TCSTB TSTB .

2 MD Uw e

r o

n t o c -

e -

sn n r

1 r io 0 i dina ee8 dD s e atom nhu3 e2 l d n r hiir 6 rcn0 u4 aea rwe3 ni Slta 4 eae n8 nso eov3 oh 3 hEv kee3 onR yTi0 is sp

.auF ol 05 ccAH rcv0 De 0 o r3 GCle60 aM N aiA cfn7 mfd 0 im ol2 E d Ml aeh8 o va ddPa1 cd o , ohH MDo3 t e iH nn D T Mnoh tPtN J0 redH D oar xV awt r r- dl euiN w mlado, l eu efo, iig bgs ee ygenB uslo bown vvnH rat ,

eN 4 anla y aepm o ho aioN eesr k 7 rec e Pnas Rfet DCL HLee nf 8 ul2n iMt eAp , Wt ao 3 . wNl t .a r .i m .e0e .e e n Y 0 re iDu rh5o th6a r y7 y rh1x w e MN HRP MS2P MC6H MR6R MT5E o

r ec

_ ri0E B iv0N hr3 s

.tse ,

u AnpSxk r i em oo o d ddacBo t a riHi r c R as l .b n e wewbOa a r e k dreu.e m .i l o EPNPPS .l qe D i o M r si e b 2 Ep s n a 4

,S n e e 8 1 e' T B 3 sd 0 f -

0 un ka 1 k a

3 e e 3 t s

3 t1 lD h' 1

. c ,t 0 h 1 e9 l t 9 n H -

a e s 1 d e1 el 1 l N Bse m e1 r r0 hi n n 0 na og urH i c2 o- t cv H ari ,

.ktN h a0 L S ti N hoh lA h AcS S l A iC gtt2A l c a ,

P m dM M , uci8M asea tBl r l A a n n n oeW3 rnve r e eCeM ina, yolo Mr , aiB e ,l et hRl laly dtlt isxy icr M blvs oloe cIp, aPmn y lmhr itgu ngag anHn mDnor o eBu miDn il o R

L E

N RiLh

.e

.N6n c STt

.S eo s

L E

N Wcib

.l eHs e

Si

.sns nwn i Tdz

.li .bs Mbnt uap

.pem

. A r 1 a sA7o A re1m seoe riie t O. e m seca P M'O 1 M MM3B P MS7A MTTK MFCPA '

MROH il(! t [

January 21,198 f MEMORANDUM FOR: W. F. Kane, Director, DRP THRU: T. C. Elsasser, Chief, RPS3C E. C. Wenzinger, Chief, PB3 FROM: A. C. Cerne, SRI, Seabrook

SUBJECT:

MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR SEABROOK On January 17,1987 D. Ruscitto received a telephone call in the Seabrook resident office from Captain Kevin Leach, Superintendent of Field Services for the Essex County (Massachusetts) Sheriff's Office. Captain Leach wanted to inform the NRC that his office, which covers all six of the Massachusetts towns within the Seabrook EPZ, should be considered a responding agency with respect to any emergency at Seabrook involving Essex County. He also stated that despite the decision of the Massachusetts governor not to submit emergency plans, his office would like to be involved in the emergency preparedness planning process for Seabrook Station. Captain Leach indicated that his office had already communicated this .cosition to New Hampshire Yankee.

The resident inspectors discussed this phone call with W. Lazarus, Chief, EPS at which time it was determined that Captain Leach would be recontracted to inform him of the role FEMA plays in offiste emergency preparedness. Mr.

Lazarus also indicated an intent to document the Essex County Sheriff Office position in a memorandum to FEMA Region I.

On January 20, Captain Leach again called the resident office. At this time, FEMA's prospective interest in his offer was discussed and he was given Mr. Lazarus' Region I telephone number. Later that day, the resident inspectors discussed these telephone calls with Mr. R. Perlis, OELD, the Seabrook case attorney.

While the resident inspectors did not discuss in detail with Captain Leach his office's position or offer, he did mention a fairly large staff (200 +

deputies) available for response. The resident inspectors considered this noteworthy from two particular standpoints: (1) the "Shoreham argument" that public protection agencies will respond to emergencies despite nonparticipa-tion by political entities and (2) Captain Leach's statement that the Essex County Sheriff was independent of the governor's decision on this matter and could willingly participate in Seabrook emergency planning.

In accordance with a request by Mr. Perlis, a copy of this memorandum is being forwarded to him. Captain Leach's phone number is 617-526-1609. While this i memorandum is for information only, it is our understanding that additional formal contact with Captain Leach will be handled by the Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section. ,

W Antone C. Cerne SRI, Seabrook cc: -

W. Lazarus, Chief, EPS 1 R. Perlis, OELD V ,

V. Nerses, LPM,NRR

-n - -

h$_

-(M v i W vW (<(Jcw </ \

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _