ML19344E267
| ML19344E267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hansell D ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344E268 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008280289 | |
| Download: ML19344E267 (2) | |
Text
~
R
~
- "(m m
4.
3 UNITED STATES
/
,,f $b /g }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, g-g[Q j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 er+
g.
%s w
,y JUL 311950 7als DOCUMENT COM Pr. Dean Hansell I
Assistant Attorney General POOR QUAN AGES Environmental Control Division ISS West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 50501
Dear Mr. Hansell:
I am responding to your letter dated fiay 8,1980 to the Commissioners and to me in which you request a neeting following the release of a report being prepared by the Federal Emergeacy Management Agency (FEPA).
I believe that the FEMA study to which ycu are referring is the study of evacuation times around several nuclear power plants, including Bailly, that was conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates.
It is my understanding that FEPA has received a draft of that report and has sent the draft to appropriate State and local officials for comment on the accuracy of the assumptions made by the con-tractor.
I also understand that FEPA intends to publish that report within the next two months.
We would certainly participate in a meeting of the appropriate NRC and FEPA officials, State of Illinois officials, and representatives from Wilbur Smith and Associates ;o discuss that FEPA report.
fir. Brian Grimes (301492-7415),
who is the Prog-am Director of the NRC Emergency Preparedness Office, will contact you witain a few weeks after we receive the FEPA report to schedule the meeting.
With regard to,, cur concern about the feasibility of evacuation around the Sailly site, you should be aware that the NRC staff does act consider the difficulty of evacuation planning as the only criterion in judging the accept-ability of a nuclear pcwer plant site.
In this regard, the staff is presently conducting an internal review of nuclear power plants under construction in accordance with a task recently assignedl/ by the Cortission which stated in part:
"However, it is also the intent of the Commission that the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents.
Cases for such consid-erations are those for which a Final Envircnmental Statement has already been issuec at the Construction Permit stage but for which the Operating License review stage has not yet been reached.
In carrying out this directive, the staff shculd consider relevant site features, including population density, associated with accident risk in comparison to such features at presently operating plants. The staff should also consider the likelihood tnat substantive changes in plant design features which may compensate further for adverse site features may be more easily incorporated in those plants when construction has not yet progressed very p
far."
'd
^h s.
l/,-
,J ni
_lf Published in the F.
R., June 13, 1980 (45 F. R. 40101).
/p' y ' 9) 4
- 3. n 80082 8 0.2 h
~
I
Mr. Dean Hansell We have already identified the Limerick facility in Pennsylvania as one which warrants such early consideration and we are presently considering a number of other priority candidate facilities, including the Bailly plant. Those addi-tional plants selected will be requested to perform a preliminary risk assess-ment study for their respective sites. We do not anticipate completing our review of the results of these risk assessment s+udies until about Spring 1981.
In light of the foregoing considerations, I am suggesting that we delay for a nteber of months our response to your Request for Action made pursuant to Section 2.206 of 10 CFR Part 2.
My basis for this delay is that we will be able to respond in an authoritative manner to your Request for Action only after we have reviewed the Bailly risk assessment study. If you have any objec-tions to this delay in our response, we can discuss this matter in our forthcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
- z. ~,.... m.
- 13. hua j Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: *w/incomirg Docket File (50-367)* (Ertter (09004) bcc:
Mr. E. Erie Jones TERA E!ughes NRC/PDR*
M"udge L/PDR*
A5LB EDO rdg OIE(3)
NRR rdg SECY (3) (80-1034)
LBel rdg*
HS ha pa r HRDenton RRyan EGCase PPAS rdo l
DEisenhut BSnyder RPurple Dross RTedesco SHanauer l
JYoungblood AFerguson l
DLynch BGrimes MRus hb roo K*
RVollmer GELD DEDOo' RETYPED IN OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, 7/28/80.
KPerkSs
(
7/48/80
(
DPM: AD/P1T GELD BKGrimes*
JM*
l 7/12/80 7/2/80
/
0L LBdl,,]. DL:LBsl I DL:AD/L,),.DL:DIR,.,1 f g k0 SEurole*
EG e
IMDLynch/ls
- BJYoungbicad*{ RLTedesco*
1 Lisennut-
,HRD nun i
su R N A vE p.........
MRushbrock 6/27/30 6/30/80 l
7/17/80
.q. 7/$8.0.
.7/@/50 NRC FCRM 318 (9 76) NRCv 0243 D U.S. OCVE RNVENT PRINTIN3 CFFICE: 1979 289-369
DISTRIBUTION:*w/ incoming hCC:
er NRC/PDR*
OELD hNh-L/PDR*
GErtter (09004)
ED0 Rdg EHughes NRR Rdg MFudge Mr. Dean Hansell LB#1 Rdg*
ASLB Assistant Attorney General HDenton 0IE(3)
Environmental Control Division ECase SECY (3) (80-1034) 188 West Randolph Street DEisenhut HShapar Suite 2315 RPurple RRyan Chicago, Illinois 60601 RTedesco PPAS Rdg JYoungblood BSnyder
Dear Mr. Hansell:
DLynch Dross MRushbrook*
SHanauer AFerguson I am responding to y
_r letter, dated May 8,1980, to the Comissioners and to oe in which you requesKa meeting following the release of a report being prepared ::y the Federal Ecergency Management Agency. This FEMA report sill sumarize a study of errergh cy planning within a ten mile radius of the Bailly facility.
We would certainly welcome such meeting of the appropriate NRC officials with you and with other interested stat agencies, including the Illinoir, Emergency Services and Disaster Agency. Mr. B an Gri:res who is the Program Directcr of the Emergency Preparedness Office will e conducting this meeting. This r.eeting shculd be held a few weeks after we rece've this FEPA report. We will con +.act you at that time to schedule this meeting.
With regard to your concern about the feasibi ity of evacuation arcund the Bailly site, you should be aware that the NRC staff d s not consider the difficulty of evacuation planning as the only criterion in jud ng the acceptability of a nuclear power plant site.
In this regard, the st4f is presently conducting an internal review of a number of nuc ear power plants under construction in accord-ance with a task recently assigned the Cornission\\hich stated in part:
"However, it is also the intent of the Comission at the staff take steps to identify additional cases that might warrantNearly considera-tion of eitner additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. Cases for such cen-siderations are those for which a Final Environmental Stateinent has already been issued at the Construction Permit stage but for which the Operating License review stage has not yet been reached.
In carrying out this directive, the staff should consider relevant site features, including pmlation density, associated with accident risk in com-parison to such features at presently operating plants. The staff should also consider the likelihood that substantive changes in plant design features which may conpensate further for adverse site features r.ay be more easily incorporated in those plants when construction has not yet progressed very far."
Published in the F.R. June 13, 1980 '(45 F.R. 40101).
~
e Mr. Dean Hansell 2-
'.;e have already identified the Lirerick facility in Pennsylvania as one unich warrants such early consideration and we are presently considering a nurter of other priority candidate facilities including the 2ailly plant.
These 3Mitional plants selected will be requested to per#orn a prelininary risk assessrent study for their respective sites. Ne do not anticipate ccepletino our review of the results of these risk assessrant studies until about Scring 1931.
' In light of. the foregoing considerations. I an delayinc for a nur.ter of conths cur response to your Request for Action cade pursuant to. Section 0.206 of 10 CF9 Part 2. '"v basis for this delay is that we will be able to rescend in an author-itative canner to ycur Pequest for ?ction only after we have reviewed the Bailly risk assessrent study.
If you have any objections to this delay in cur response.
we can discuss this natter in our fort 5ccr-ing rteting.
Si ncerely, 0-i;t13d b H. R. Oatt:,a,/
Harold R. Def. ton, Director Of fice of ?;cclear ?cactor Pequlation
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
e l
- /
/
/
DP
/MT eld y ygy
%/y h( A -
7 BK6rines /-
J'C s
?
@i ni us\\e
)LILBil T,., ' DL'
~
DL:AD/Li.
DL NRR Wy""
,Dt.yrichtisj
"/
R ECa eme = *
~
......
- ARushbradk.j... BJY un:; blood.. R(TejesR..
nhu t..
..HDe
- n..
5/25/80 G/g 30 6/Y/80
((.0
.,g0 Nac comm sie i,. 6, xacx o2.o f
- = --=-' *-'a-**~'**'""-"*
_.