ML20205E497
| ML20205E497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608180377 | |
| Download: ML20205E497 (11) | |
Text
'
.i o UNITED STATES g
f g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O i E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4 . . . . . ,o AUG 0 81986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech FROM: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Enclosed is the monthly report for July 1986 on the status of offsite emergency preparedness for operating license reviews.
Offsite emergency preparedness issues continue to impact the licensing process for Shoreham. An exercise of the LILCO emergency plans was conducted on February 13, 1986. The NRC has reported that the licensee adequately demon-strated its onsite emergency response capabilities. FEMA's evaluation of the offsite exercise identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective acti'on. At the direction of the Commission, the Licensing Board is preparing for hearings on exercise-related contentions. In addition, the Commission recently ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham, presu:ning that the state and county would actually participate in a real emergency.
In the Seabrook case, offsite emergency preparedness issues will delay the
. licensing schedule. The State of New Hampshire formally submitted emergency
" plans to FEMA in June 1986. Hearings on the New Hampshire plans, scheduled to start in August 1986 have been postponed at the request of FEMA and have not been rescheduled. An exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was e conducted on February 26, 1986. New Hampshire is implementing improvements and corrective actions identified by FEMA as a result of the exercise and plan reviews. These activities regarding the New Hampshire plan do not appear to be on the critical path for licensing. Activities regarding the emergency plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. Although Massachusetts is preparing its emergency plans, it has not submitted the plans for review.
, The date the plans will be submitted remains uncertain. The staff believes that resolution of offsite emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full-power license although the length of the delay cannot realistically be forecast at this time.
l pl2-i-l /1 CONTACT: Rosemary T. Hogan, IE l 492-4866
/s nv Il l,) yo i
8608180377 860808 1 PDR ADOCK 05000322 l F PDR l
Chairman Zech On May 27, 1986, the Commissioners of Chatham County, one of the counties within the 10-mile EPZ for Shearon Harris, rescinded their approval of the county emergency response plan for Shearon Harris. Subsequently, the County Commissioners voted to cancel their rescission, thereby resolving the issue.
The Commission Decision dates shown in Table 1 of the enclosed report are consistent with the NRR Monthly Report for July 1986.
Original signed bf Victor Stelle( _.
' lictor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal OGC SECY DISTRIBUTION DCS HLThompson, NRR SASchwartz, IE RDMartin, RIV NRC PDR RWKrimm, FEMA DBMatthews, IE JBMartin, RV EDO R/F RWilkerson, FEMA CRVan Niel, IE RTHogan, IE EPB R/F EChristenbury, OGC FKantor, IE MWWeston, RM DEPER R/F BPCotter, ASLBP KEPerkins, IE DCS VStello, EDO DPrestemon, ASLBP SBlack, NRR DEPER R/F JWRoe, EDO JMTaylor, IE TEMurley, RI EPB R/F GCunningham, OGC ELJordan, IE JNGrace, RII HDenton, NRR JGPartlow, IE JGKeppler, RIII
- See Previous oncurrence D/IE* EQC JMTaylor VShllo 8/1/86 8/% /86 EPB/IE* EPB/IE* TECH ED* EPB/IE* DD/DEPER/IE* D/DEPER/IE* OGC*
RTHogan FKantor DGable DBMatthews SASchwartz ELJordan ESchristenbury 7/31/86 7/31/86 7/28/86 7/31/86 8/ /86 8/1/86 7/30/86
l July 31, 1986 !
Table 1 Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness Operating License Reviews Date of Potential Estimated FEMA Offsite EP FEMA Findin Delay 3 Start of Commission Facility Finding 1 Neededg Hearings 4 Decision 5 (Months)
Shoreham 8 8 8 C t Hope Creek C C 0 None C*
Nine Mile 2 C C 0 None 08/86*
Clinton C C 0 None 08/86*
Shearon Harris C C 0 Cs 08/86*
Perry C C 0 C 09/86*
Braidwood C C 0 C8 09/86 Seabrook 10/06/86 10/06/86 7 t* 10/86*
Vogtle 10/01/86 10/01/86 0 t 12/86 Beaver Valley 2 12/01/86 12/01/86 0 None 04/87 Watts Bar C C 0 None t18 South Texas 01/01/87 01/01/87 0 C 06/87 Comanche Peak ' C C 0 C til Total Potential Offsite 8' 7 Emergency Preparedness Delay:
.* Change from previous report.
t Not scheduled.
Notes:
I IC = complete; i.e., FEMA Findings have been provided. Where a date is given in
! parentheses, supplemental information to FEMA Findings previously provided is expected on that date. FEMA Findings on offsite emergency preparedness are not required to issue a license authorizing fuel loading and operation up to 5 percent of rated power.
l 2C = complete; i.e., FEMA Findings have been provided. Where a date is given, it
- is the date by which the FEMA Findings must be provided to meet the proposed Commission Decision date.
l 8The delay is caused by offsite emergency preparedness issues. This delay is in addition to any delays estimated in the report to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
4C = complete; i.e., a hearing has started.
,- - . _ _ = _ -. - . - - . _ . - . -- - - . . . _ _ . _ _ - ,
Table 1 (Continued) 5 Dates are consistent with those reported to the House Appropriations Subcom-mittee on Energy and Water Development and in the NRR Monthly Report. For plants for which construction is complete, the dates shown are for full power licensing.
For the other plants, the dates are those by which the NRC needs the information to act on authorization for fuel loading and low power operations.
60n April 17, 1985, the Licensing Board for emergency planning for Shoreham
- ruled that, although LILC0's offsite emergency plan is generally adequate, LILC0 does not have the legal authority to perform many of the required emer-gency functions set out in that plan. On August 26, 1985, the Board issued a concluding partial initial decision finding that because of LILCO's inability to implement its offsite emergency response plan and because of the refusal of the state and county to cooperate, a full power license may not be issued for Shoreham. Appeals of the April and August emergency planning decisions were filed with the Appeal Board by LILC0 and the intervenors. On October 18, 1985, the Appeal Board upheld the Licensing Board's decision that LILCO does not have the legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. On March 26, 1986, the Appeal Board issued a decision tbat reversed the Licensing Board's determination in part and remanded the pro eeding for further hearings, but ordered the Board not to proceed until ordered to do so by the Commission. On June 6, 1986, the Commission directed the Licensing Board to immediately ini-tiate and expedite a hearing on exercise-related contentions and directed the continued deferral of the issues remanded by the Appeal Board. A pre-hearing conference was held on July 8, 1986. The Board has set August 1, 1986 as the deadline'for submission of contentions. Oral arguments will be heard on August 26, 1986. A hearing date will be established when the admission of contentions has been ruled upon. In addition, the Commission recently ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham, presuming that the state and county would actually participate in a real emergency.
An exercise of the LILC0 emergency plan was conducted on February 13, 1986.
NRC Region I, in an exercise report, stated that the licensee adequately
- demonstrated its onsite emergency response capabilities. FEMA's evaluation of the offsite exercise identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring
. corrective action. Additional delays may occur as a result of the hearing of exercise-related issues. On the basis of the above, a realistic forecast of the impact on the licensing process cannot be made at this time.
7 FEMA has reviewed drafts of state and local plans that were submitted by New
- Hampshire and Massachusetts for an informal technical review. FEMA's comments were transmitted to New Hampshire and Massachusetts for their use in preparing a formal submittal of emergency plans. New Hampshire formally submitted emer-gency plans to FEMA in June 1986. These plans have been forwarded to the FEMA Radiological Assistance Committee for review. Hearings on the New Hampshire plans, scheduled to start in August 1986 have been postponed at the request of FEMA and have not been rescheduled. An exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was conducted on February 26, 1986. New Hampshire is implementing corrective actions identified by FEMA as a result of the exercise and continuing to revise its emergency plans. These activities regarding the New Hampshire l
ww
Table 1 (Continued) plan do not appear to be on the critical path fer licensing. Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. Although Massachusetts is preparing its emergency plans, it has not submitted the plans for review. Massachusetts states it is reassessing emergency preparedness for Seabrook with regard to the Chernobyl accident. The date the plans will be submitted remains uncertain. The staff believes that resolution of offsite emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full power license although the length of the delay cannot realistically be forecast at this time.
80n May 27, 1986, the Commissioners of Chatham County, North Carolina, one of
- the counties within the 10-mile EPZ for Shearon Harris, rescinded their approval of the county emergency response plan for Shearon Harris. Subsequently, the Commissioners voted to cancel their rescission, thereby resolving the issue.
8The Board admitted certain contentions including one relating to emergency
- preparedness; hearings began in October 1985. A decision is scheddled for September 1986.
10A Commission decision date will be scheduled for the spring of 1987.
- 11The ASLB deferred hearings at the request of the applicant and the NRC staff
- until the applicant can respond to outstanding technical issues on construction and design. The applicants have indicated that their schedule for mid-1987 operation is no longer achievable; no Commission decision date has been determined.
..i r
o . .
Chairman Zech On May 27, 1986, the Commissioners of Chatham County, one of the counties within the 10-mile EPZ for Shearon Harris, rescinded their approval of the county emergency response plan for Shearon Harris. Subsequently, the County
- Commissioners voted to cancel their rescission, thereby resolving the issue.
The Commission Decision dates shown in Table 1 of the enclosed report are consistent with the NRR Monthly Report for July 1986.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal 0PE OGC SECY DISTRIBUTION DCS HLT mpson, NRR SASchwartz, E RDMartin, RIV NRC PDR RW rimm, FEMA DBMatthews, I JBMartin, RV EDO R/F ,RWilkerson, FEMA CRVan Niel, IE RTHogan, IE EPB R/F 'EChristenbury, 0GC FKantor, IE MWWeston, RM DEPER R/F BPCotter, ASLBP KEPerkins, IE DCS VStello, EDO DPrestemon, ASLBP SBlack, NRR DEPER R/F JWRoe, EDO JMTaylor, IE TEMurley, RI EPB R/F GCunningham, 0GC ELJordan, IE JNGrace, RII HDenton, NRR JGPartlow, IE JGKeppler, RIII
8 6 8 /86 8/ /86
- EPB/IE *EPB/IE
- TECH ED *EPB/IE DD/D PER/IE,D/DEPER/IE *0GC RTHogan FKantor DGable DBMatthews SASc wartz LgTLJordan ESChristenbury 7/31/86 7/31/86 7/28/86 7/31/86 8 /86 ; 8/l /86 7/30/86 5
Chairman Palladino \
On May 27, 1986, the'Comissioners of Chatham unty, one of the counties within the 10-mile EPZ for Shearon Harris, rescind their approval of the county emergency response plan for Shearon Harri . Subsequently, the Comissioners voted to cancel their r cission, ther y resolving the issue.
The Comission Decision da es show in Table 1 of the enclosed report are consistent with the NRR Mon hly port for July 1986.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Status of Offs e Emergency Prepared ess cc: Comi ioner Roberts Co ssioner Asselstine C issioner Bernthal E
OGC SECY DISTRIBUTION DCS HLThompson, NRR Schwartz, IE RDMartin, RIV NRC PDR RWKrim, FEMA D atthews, IE JBMartin, RV ED0 R/F RWilkerson, FEMA CR n Niel IE RTHogan, IE EPB R/F EChristenbury 0GC FKa tor, IE MWWeston, RM DEPER R/F BPCotter, ASLBP KEPe kins, IE DCS VStello, ED0 DPrestemon, ASLBP SBlac , NRR DEPER R/F JWRoe, ED0 JMTaylor, IE TEMurl y, RI EPB R/F GCunningham, 0GC ELJordan, IE JNGrace RII HDenton, NRR JGPartlow, IE JGKeppl , RIII
- TECH ED Wi kE DD/DEPER/IE D/DEPER/IE OGC Ir Oh l RTHogan FK r DGable W atthews SASchwartz ELJordan EScht stenbury 7/3;/86 7/3)/86 7/28/86 7/3)/86 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/30/86 E"I'7)
Chairman Palladino The Commission Decision dates shown in Table 1 of the enclosed repo are consistent with the NRR Monthly Report for July 1986.
r.
Victor Stello,,
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal OPE OGC SECY DISTRIBUTION DCS HLThompso NRR SASchwartz, IE RDMartin, RIV NRC PDR RWKrimm, EMA DBMatthews, IE JBMartin, RV ED0 R/F RWilker on, FEMA CRVan Niel, IE RTHogan, IE EPB R/F EChri enbury, 0GC FKantor, IE MWWeston, RM DEPER R/F BPCo er, ASLBP KEPerkins, IE DCS VStello, ED0 DPr stemon, ASLBP SBlack, NRR DEPER R/F JWRoe, EDO J aylor, IE TEMurley, RI EPB R/F GCunningham, CGC Jordan, IE JNGrace, RII HDenton, NRR JGPartlow, IE JGKeppler, RIII DD E D/IE ED0 JMTaylor VStello
/ /86 8/ /86 8/ /86 EPB/IE EPB/IE TECHgQ, EPB/IE DD/DEPER/IE D/DEPER/IE OGC RTHogan FKantor DGab W' DBMatthews SASchwartz ELJordan ESChristenbury 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/)6/86 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/ /86
July 31, 1986 Table 1 Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness Operating License Reviews Date of Potential Estimated FEMA Offsite EP FEMA Findin Delay 3 Start of Commission Facility Finding 1 Neededg Hearings 4 Decision 5 (Months)
Shoreham e e e C t Hope Creek C C 0 None C*
Nine Mile 2 C C 0 None 08/86*
Clinton C C 0 None 08/86*
Shearon Harris C C 0 Cs 08/86*
Perry C C 0 C 09/86*
Braidwood C C 0 C8 09/86 Seabrook 10/06/86 10/06/86 7 t* 10/86*
Vogtle 10/01/86 10/01/86 0 t 12/86 Beaver Valley 2 12/01/86 12/01/86 0 None 04/87 Watts Bar C C 0 None t10 South Texas 01/01/87 01/01/87 0 C 06/87 Comancho Peak C C 0 C til Total Potential Offsite 8' 7 Emergency Preparedness Delay: 1
\
Change from previous report.
t Not scheduled.
Notes:
1C = complete; i.e., FEMA Findings have been pepvided. Where a date is given in parentheses,supplementalinformationtoFEMAFtqdingspreviouslyprovidedis expected on that date. FEMA Findings on offsite gmergency preparedness are not required to issue a license authorizing fuel loadfog and operation up to 5 percent of rated power.
2C = complete; i.e., FEMA Findings have been provided. Where a date is given, it is the date by which the FEMA Findings must be provided to meet the proposed Commission Decision date.
l 3The delay is caused by offsite emergency preparedness issues. This delay is in addition to any delays estimated in the report to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
4C = complete; i.e., a hearing has started.
I
Table 1 (Continued) sDates are consistent with those reported to the House Appropriations Subcom-mittee on Energy and Water Development and in the NRR Monthly Report. For plants for which construction is complete, the dates shown are for full power licensing.
For the other plants, the dates are those by which the NRC needs the information to act on authorization for fuel loading and low power operations.
60n April 17, 1985, the Licensing Board for emergency planning for Shoreham
- ruled that, although LILCO's offsite emergency plan is generally adequate, LILCO does not have the legal authority to perform many of the required emer-gency functions set out in that plan. On August 26, 1985, the Board issued a concluding partial initial decision finding that because of LILCO's inability to implement its offsite emergency response plan and because of the refusal of the state and county to cooperate, a full power license may not be issued for Shoreham. Appeals of the April and August emergency planning decisions were filed with the Appeal Board by LILC0 and the intervenors. On October 18, 1985, the Appeal Board upheld the Licensing Board's decision that LILC0 does not have the legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. On March 26, 1986, the Appeal Board issued a decision that reversed the Licensing Board's determination in part and remanded the proceeding for further hearings, but ordered the Board not to proceed until ordered to do so by the Commission. On June 6, 1986, the Commission directed the Licensing Board to immediately ini-tiate and expedite a hearing on exercise-related contentions and directed the continued deferral of the issues remanded by the Appeal Board. A pre-hearing conference was held on July 8, 1986. The Board has set August 1, 1986 as the deadline for submission of contentions. Oral arguments will be heard on August 26, 1986. A hearing date will be established when the admission of contentions has been ruled upon. In addition, the Commission recently ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham, presuming that the state and county would actually participate in a real emergency.
An exercise of the LILC0 emergency plan was conducted on February 13, 1986.
NRC Region I, in an exercise report, stated that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emergency response capabilities. FEMA's evaluation of the offsite exercise identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective action. Additional delays may occur as a result of the hearing of I
exercise-related issues. On the basis of the above, a realistic forecast of the impact on the licensing process cannot be made at this time.
\
- 7 FEMA has reviewed drafts of state and local plans that were submitted by New Hampshire and Massachusetts for an informal techpical review. FEMA's comments were transmitted to New Hampshire and Massachusetts for their use in preparing a formal submittal of emergency plans. New Hampshire formally submitted emer-gency plans to FEMA in June 1986. These plans have been forwarded to the FEMA Radiological Assistance Committee for review. Hearings on the New Hampshire !
plans, scheduled to start in August 1986 have been postponed at the request of '
FEMA and have not been rescheduled. An exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was conducted on February 26, 1986. New Hampshire is implementing corrective actions identified by FEMA as a result of the exercise and continuing to revise its emergency plans. These activities regarding the New Hampshire
.s Table 1 (Continued) plan do not appear to be on the critical path for licensing. Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. Although Massachusetts is preparing its emergency plans, it has not submitted the plans for review. Massachusetts states it is reassessing emergency preparedness for Seabrook with regard to the Chernobyl accident. The date the plans will be submitted remains uncertain. The staff believes that resolution of offsite emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full power license although the length of the delay cannot realistically be forecast at this time.
80n May 27, 1986, the Commissioners of,Chatham County, North Carolina, one of
- the counties within the 10-mile EPZ for~Shearon Harris, rescinded their approval of the county emergency response plan for Shearon Harris. Subsequently, the Commissioners voted to cancel their/ rescission, thereby resolving the issue.
8The Board admitted certain contentions including one relating to emergency
- preparedness; hearings began in October 1985. A decision is scheduled for September 1986, s 10A Commission decision date will be scheduled for the spring of 1987.
- 11The ASLB deferred hearings at the request of the applicant and the NRC staff
- until the applicant can respond to outstanding technical issues on construction and design. The applicants have indicated that their schedule for mid-1987 operation is no longer achievable; no Commis'sion decision date has been determined. \
\\
\