ML20234B883

Requests Technical Assistance W/Review of Evacuation Time Estimate for Facility,By 860430.Addl Review & Monitoring of FEMA Review Efforts May Be Required If Revised Estimate Becomes Admitted Contention.Epz Discussion,Dtd 860106,encl

ML20234B883
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/21/1986
From:	Matthews D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Essig T Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
Shared Package
ML20234B686	List: IA-87-346, Forwards Update of Summary Status Rept on Seabrook Emergency Planning & Prepardness Program.Fema Stated That State of Nh & Local Plans Do Not Provide Assurance That Protective Measures Can Be Taken Offsite in Event of Emergency ML20234B684 ML20234B883 ML20234B913 ML20234B978 ML20234C014 ML20234C094 ML20234C120 ML20234C186 ML20234C337 ML20234C976 ML20244D730 ML20244D955 ML20244E425 ML20244E555 ML20245B475
References
FOIA-87-346 NUDOCS 8709210106
Download: ML20234B883 (6)

Text

-_ ..

1. p sstou

• g UNITED STATES 5

[Y 3e 3'f gj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

%),$ March 21,1986 Docket No. 50- 443/444 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas Essig Section Manager Health Physics Technology Section Radiological Science Department, PNL FROM: David B. Matthews, Chief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - NRC EtiERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM PLANT NAME: Seabrook Units 1 & 2 LICENSEE / APPLICANT: Public Service of New Hampshire EP REVIEWER: Don Perrotti, 492-4865 oc Please take action as indicated. If you have any questions regarding the information, activity or schedule, contact the reviewer whose name is shown above.

I. Area of Review

1. ( ) Emergency Plan

2. ( ) Dose calculation

3. (X ) Evacuation time estimates

4. ) Prompt notification system

5. Emergency Response Facilities

6. Emergency Action Levels

7. Other:

II. 1. ( ) Radiological emergency plan (Revision # )

or applicable portions dated

2. ( ) Implementing procedures Nos.

3. ( ) (DRAFT) Ertrgency Planning Evaluaticn Report (EPER) sectinns -

4. ( ) Submittal from the licensee / applicant dated 3/5/86: 3/11/86 (Accession No. 8603110050: 8603130065 * )

5. ( ) Meeting announcement

6. (X ) Other Above mentioned sent to Dr. Urbanik on 3/20/86 under separate cover.

1

d. 1 8709210106 870916 NE -346 PDR . j

i l-l III. Scope of Activities:

1. ( ) Conduct review for deficiencies and submit questions -

for clarification.

2. ( ) Conduct review and submit evaluation for preparation of input to EPER. '

3. ( ) Participate in implementation appraisal at the site.

4. ( ) Participate in exercise observation at the site.

5. ( ) Review EPER input and furnish comments.

6. ( ) Attend meeting.

7. (X ) Other Conduct review for acceptability and monitor FEMA'.s '

review efforts; if revised ETE becomes an admitted contention, IV, Schedule expert testimony may be required.

1. ( ) Urgent: Contact EP Reviewer upon receipt .

FEMA interface,

2. (X) Provide response Ay for acceptability by 4/30/86; as appropriate.

3. ( ) Initiate meeting to discuss findings (10 working days prior to response date) 4 ) Site implementation review on

5. ) Exercise on

6. (X) Other: Summary disposition motion 5/21/86. Hearing begins 7/21/86.

V. Supplemental Information or Instructions: FEMA has the lead on ETE review.

Dave Matthews will meet with FEMA on 3/25/86 to discuss overall ETE review e f fo rt . Clarification of Dr. Urbanik' erface wi h FEMA I, Ed Thomas, will follow.

D id B. Matthews, hief Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection end Enforcement cc:EP Reviewer J. Martin, PNL M. McClain, PNL T. Urbanik, TTI S. Turk, ELD F. Kantor V. Nerses l R. Van Wiel l l

l l

~ . . . . .__

-- .- ,. . _. ~ .

g ( ~ - .-. . g.

FACSIMILE RE0tTEST l

. Date: January 17,1N6 1

\

f 1

Sherwin Turk, ELD WERALf:R TO: '

.q i

MMBB TELECDPY NUMBER:

4 act.upmo nrfy EzQUser Fom NUMBER OF PAGES: _

ggg g yggg Jay M. Gutierrez azGION I lt H C OF M US8 u , F D W A. o u . s .w.m .c.

l l

2RANSKITTED BY:

i, DATE & TIME: i l YERIFIID BY:

1 S. Turk:

This was a hand-out at a recent T. Murley Press Conference at Seabrook, Jay .

3%G I 7o23 124 '

Fbb 77

< \

• 4 t

M.

f)

NO. 00t! 002

.10:44 tRC REG 1~ i 01/20A36 l

I TEN-1/6/86-  ;

EMERGENCY PLANNING

,i 1'

In the wake of the March 1979 accidentiat TMI-2, the NRC ' undertook a fonnal. . . .

i l

reconsideration of the role of emergency planning in ensuring the continued; i

protection of the public health and' safety in areas around nuclear. power . )

i The Commission., issued regulations requiring, prior to the issuence of a plants. 5 i

an operating license, a finding of " reasonable assurance'that adequate p,cotective measures can and will be taken in the 2svent of a radiological-emergency". The regulations set forth 16' emergency planning standards and l

define the areas of responsibility of the licensee and state and local )

organizat{ons concerned with emergency responses. l A key feature of the regulations is the. Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)= concept.. 1 1

which has been adopted as an added conservatism to the'NRC's " defense'in -)

I depth" safety philosophy. Briefly stated, this' philosophy: .(1) requires high 1 quality in the design, construction and operation of nuclear plants to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions in the first instance; (2) recognizes that equipment can fail and operators can make mistakes, therefore requiring safety -

.l systems to reduce the chances that malfunctions will lead to accidents that '

release fission products from the fuel; and (3) recognizes that, in spite of these precautions, serious fuel damage. accidents can happen, therefore requiring containment structures and other safety features to prevent the ~

The'added feature of- emergency planning release of fission products offsite.

l

^81Na6 10:45 tNC REG 1 HD. N 1 om3

., .l 1

1

.)

11 1)

~Z= - i to the defense in depth philosophy provides that, even in the un11kely event 1

of an offsite fission product release, there is reasonable assurance that ll

~

emergency protective actions can be taken to protect the population around s nuclear power plants. The Commission,;in order to bound the range of possible q

accident consequences, adopted a ten mile ~ radius around a plant sita as the i EPZ.

1 The overall objective of amargency response plans is'to provide a range of l protective actions- that could be taken to provide dose savings to the popu- i lation within the EPZ for a spectrum of acefdents. It is'not the ob.jective~of emergency planning to assure evacuation of the EPZ in all possible accidents.'

For example, in a rapidly evolving accident with early offsite release,- -

sheltering of the population within the EPZ during the passage of the radio- 1 active plume (or cloud-like release) would provide a greater dose savings to the public than attempting to evacuate. After passage of-the plume,- .

~

evacuation may be appropriate to protect the public from cont 1nued exposure.to I

the ground dose from radioactive particulate material deposited from the. plume.

ll l* With respect to the adequacy of emergency plans, the standard of reasonable j assurance requires the NRC staff to make a predictive finding that there are no 4 l

undue risks to the public health and safety. It does not require a finding of i zero risk. In particular, the standard of reasonable assurance does not require an absolute demonstration thatithe population within the EPZ can be'  !

I I .

l

. , , i

~

~

'08/EEV96 10:46 (EC REG 1 - PC. N1 004 .

l l

~J 1 (

el i

3 i evacuated within a specified time or that a specified radiation dose be 1 l

i prevented. There may, in fact, be circumstances (such as a severe ice storm) I 1

i where sheltering rather than evacuation would be the appropriate protective .

action because evacuattan could involve greater risk to the public than j exposure to low levels of radiation. Therefore, what constitutes reasonable assurance in the area of emergency planning is a finding that adequate i emergency plans are in place to' permiti a range of protective actions as l 1

dictated by conditions, that there are adequate staff and facilities to imple- .!

ment the plans and that the plans have been found to be workable in 'an i

emergency exercise, 1

.l ac

]

i l

l i

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . .