Images de page
PDF
ePub

ATTACHMENTS

CHRONOLOGY OF KEY MEETINGS/DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING
NRC AND PSNH AND FEMA STAFF RELATIVE TO REDUCED EPZ

July 30, 1985

September 9, 1985

October 10, 1985

October 11, 1985

October 22, 1985

November 26, 1985

NRC/PSNH meeting discussion of SSPSA submittal
according to NRC this included "the regulatory
process including the reassessment of emergency
preparedness requirements"

NRC/PSNH staff and counsel conference call
Discussion of a possible rulemaking petition and
idea that a 10-mile EPZ is not necessary at
Seabrook based on source term research

-

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Discussion that "once technical analysis is done
subject to peer review group if the peer review
group raves, then sometime in Nov. 1985 will come
in with a package"

[ocr errors]

NRC staff notes

NRC/PSNH staff conference call
that feedback about the approach Seabrook was
taking on demonstrating the ability to reduce the
EPZ appeared to be different from what he
understood in an earlier discussion (with PSNH
staff)

" (NRC staff) noted that what he explained to (PSNH
staff) in previous discussion was that the approach
Seabrook will need to take is to compare the risk
of Seabrook to the risk of typical reactor (WASH
1400) used as a basis for the regulation. (NRC
staff) suggested Seabrook review NUREG-0396
the comparison it would be good to compare feature
by feature"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

in

(NRC staff) said Seabrook should not be developing the case that Seabrook ..." (incomplete note) Seabrook coordination meeting with FEMA, NHY, NH and MA state civil defense staffs - Includes discussion of impact of the probabilisitic risk assessment on emergency planning issues

FEMA staff notes that Brookhaven is reviewing the containment and time-to-failure aspects of the PRA Discussion of the size of the EPZ and legal analysis work

Seabrook coordination meeting with FEMA, NHY, NH

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

December 1985

February 1986

April 1986

July 9, 1986

July 21, 1986

July 25, 1986

July 29, 1986

[blocks in formation]

"Seabrook Station Risk Management and Emergency Planning Study," Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick

NUREG/CR-4540, "A Review of the Seabrook Station
Probabilistic Safety Assessment: Containment
Failure Modes and Radiological Source Terms,"
Brookhaven National Laboratories

"Seabrook Station Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study," Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick

NRC, PSNH, PL &G meeting to discuss PSA program
PSNH submits the Risk Management and Emergency
Planning Study (RMEPS) and the Seabrook Station
Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study to NRC for
review

11

NRC staff meeting "(PSNH staff) says before they go for it give them a reading by October what are the merits of this piece of work does it provide some basis to go forth with exemption"

[ocr errors]

NRC staff notes "What do we [Emphasis added] have to justify to change EPZ? ... need to consider technical and legal" (emphasis in original)

PSNH requests that NRC expedite the technical
review of RMEPS as follows:

"A future submittal, depending on the results of the technical review, may request a change to the emergency response plan process for Seabrook Station. We cannot, at this time, specify what action such a future request may seek, but it is important that we address as soon as possible what options are available to us relative to full power licensing. This is important in light of the apparent strategy of the State of Massachusetts to delay the process." (emphasis added)

[ocr errors]

July 18 or 29, 1986 NRC staff meeting "(NHY) wants to know if this could serve as a technical argument. If not, he won't file. Point out which technical arguments are good vs. no"

"Seabrook has thrown away containment failure"

"Did they include any real data vs. generic
have to go back and tidy up PRA, but probably not"

-

May

CHRONOLOGY 3

August 5, 1986

August 6, 1986

August 6, 1986

August 11, 1986

August 13, 1986

August 14, 1986

August 27, 1986

NRC Staff and PSNH meeting "NRC is beginning an expedited review of the study to assess the technical adequacy of PSNH's analysis to support the study's conclusions."

Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL) compiles project description for Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study for Seabrook

NRC Staff, BNL, and PSNH onsite walk through --
"Objective to reexamine emergency planning basis
wanted enhanced mathodology for site specific
planning determine risk impact of different
options"

-

-

Internal NRC staff memorandum "It is important to decide what direction NRC is going to take on this issue before a detailed technical review can start. A decision chart set up in the form of three questions is attached for your consideration"

[blocks in formation]

[ocr errors]

Meeting at BNL with NRC staff and PSNH NRC staff notes "Do review in short period of time to get positive response or questions needed to get there"

[merged small][ocr errors]

containment

"Unique features of Seabrook

Let's try to make it more unique show it's better than average" (emphasis added)

-

NRC staff and PSNH meeting "Review group to (NRC
staff), coordinated with the utility, with a list
of goals ...
We need to think about what this group
can do in 3 months"

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"Shrinking of planning zone vs. evacuation zone may be able to reduce evacuation zone but not planning zone" (emphasis in original)

...

[blocks in formation]

August 28, 1986

September 26, 1986

NRC staff memo outlining staff review plan for
Seabrook EPZ Sensitivity Study:

"Goals of review:

1. To provide a technical assessment of the
adequacy of the Seabrook Station Emergency Planning
Sensitivity Study to support its conclusion that
the degree of public protection afforded by a 1
mile emergency planning radius around the Seabrook
Station is equivalent to the degree of protection
that was perceived for a 10 mile emergency planning
radius at the time the 10 mile generic planning
radius was established in NUREG-0396.

2. In the event it is concluded that the Study does
not adequately support its conclusion at the i mile
radius, to determine the radius at which the study
can support a conclusion of equivalent protection."
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Subcommittee meeting PSNH staff comments: "Step
one was for us to write and submit (the safety
assessment). We really need to know the conclusion
of the NRC as to our results so that we can move
forward. We really can't move forward until we
know we have some level of agreement."

[ocr errors]

...

PSNH: "We started this effort some time ago
because we had been getting indications from the
State of Massachusetts that in fact what happened
last Saturday might happen I am not sure
whether we would have done it anyway. But given
the fact that we have had some difficulty in
Massachusetts prompted us to do this in 1985.
nothing else, it certainly lended a sense of
urgency to the situation.

[ocr errors]

If

ACRS Member: "Can you go ahead by just agreeing
with NRC and FEMA that your plans are okay and
Massachusetts can sit up there and suck its thumb
all it wants?"

So we

PSNH: "... the exercise in New Hampshire will come
possibly after the decision in Long Island.
are going to know before we finish with New
Hampshire whether or not that path is really
viable.

"We are trying to learn from everybody. We want to
look at every possible alternative and everything
we can do so that we increase our range of options
in case one option doesn't work."

[ocr errors]

October 10, 1986

[blocks in formation]

ACRS Member: "How far is the nearest point in
Massachusetts from the plant?"

[blocks in formation]

ACRS Member: "If you had an emergency zone of 2
miles 690 feet you would be in the clear?"

PSNH: "I think the answer to that question is
yes.

[ocr errors]

ACRS full committee meeting

ACRS: "The two reports that we have looked at have
both been reviewed by an outside, independent group
of experts in each case, and these experts
concurred with the results of the findings.
However, when we asked in terms of the containment,
I questioned why there wasn't a containment expert
on the independent review groups, and they pointed
out that the staff, NRC staff, through a contract
with Brookhaven National Laboratory, is reviewing
that aspect. So it will be reviewed."

[ocr errors]

ACRS: "I would hope the (NRC) staff develops some
kind of safety philosophy, if it hasn't, that it
uses to guide itself in decisionmaking concerning
these matters.
I'm speaking for myself but let
me strongly suggest that you try to develop some,
what I'll call general philosophy in this regard,
and then some, what you might call generic
quantitative guidelines, before trying to make an
ad hoc decision on a specific case.

ACRS: "But let's face it. They wouldn't be
reviewing this PRA at this time if they didn't
think there was something like a change in the
prior guidelines for emergency planning in the
wind. Otherwise, I would like them to tell me why
they are taking time away from other tasks like
finding out how good a mark 2 containment is,
etc.?"

« PrécédentContinuer »