« PrécédentContinuer »
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY MEETINGS/DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING
July 30, 1985
NRC/PSNH meeting -- discussion of SSPSA submittal according to NRC this included "the regulatory process including the reassessment of emergency preparedness requirements"
September 9, 1985
NRC/PSNH staff and counsel conference call --
October 10, 1985
PSNH counsel, and NRC legal staff discussion -"reduce or eliminate the entire EPZ - Taking Seabrook PRA applying new source term data
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"
October 11, 1985
NRC/PSNH staff conference call -- NRC staff notes 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 NU REG-0396 -- in the comparison it would be good to compare feature by feature"
" (NRC staff) said Seabrook should not be developing the case that Seabrook ..." (incomplete note)
October 22, 1985
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
t and time-to-failure aspects of the PRA
Discussion of the size of the EPZ and legal
Nov ember 26, 1985
72-431 0 - 87 - 2
CHRONOLOGY - 2
and MA state civil defense staffs - Further
"Seabrook Station Risk Management and Emergency Planning Study," Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick
NUREG/CR-4540, "A Review of the Seabrook Station
*Seabrook Station Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study," Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick
NRC, PSNH, PL&G meeting to discuss PSA program
July 9, 1986
PSNH submits the Risk Management and Emergency
July 25, 1986
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" NRC staff notes "What do we (Emphasis added) have to justify to change EPZ? ... need to consider technical and legal" (emphasis in original)
July 29, 1986
PSNH requests that NRC expedite the technical
"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)
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 -- May have to go back and tidy up PRA, but probably not
CHRONOLOGY - 3
August 5, 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."
August 6, 1986
Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL) compiles project description for Review of the Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study for Seabrook
August 6, 1986
NRC Staff, BNL, and PSNH onsite walk through --
August 11, 1986
Internal NRC staff memorandum -- "It is important
August 13, 1986
NRC staff notes -- PSNH request - "NRC will give them top priority ... preliminary review in 3 months - normally takes - out of ordinary"
"Sense of urgency - no discussion of it holding up licensing"
"There are so many options - get rid of Mass. So they don't have to submit" (emph. added)
August 14, 1986
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"
NRC staff - "Unique features of Seabrook containment - Let's try to make it more unique show it's better than average (emphasis added)
August 27, 1986
NRC staff and PSNR meeting -- "Review group to (NRC
"What are possibilities -- 3 mile EPZ with plume?
-- l mile EPZ"
"Agenda (What they could do to show they're
"Shrinking of planning zone vs. evacuation zone ... may be able to reduce evacuation zone but not planning zone" (emphasis in original)
CHRONOLOGY - 4
August 28, 1986
NRC staff memo outlining staff review plan for
"Goals of review:
1. To provide a technical assessment of the
2. In the event it is concluded that the Study does not adequately support its conclusion at the 1 mile radius, to determine the radius at which the study can support a conclusion of equivalent protection."
September 26, 1986
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."
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 night 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. If nothing else, it certainly lended a sense of urgency to the situation."
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?"
PSNH: "... the exercise in New Hampshire will come
"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."
CHRONOLOGY - 5
ACRS Member: "How far is the nearest point in
ACRS Member: "If you had an emergency zone of 2 miles 690 feet you would be in the clear?"
"I think the answer to that question is
October 10, 1986
ACRS full committee meeting
ACRS: "The two reports that we have looked at have
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 my self 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