ML20207S214
| ML20207S214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Harris, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207Q708 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-843 NUDOCS 8703190134 | |
| Download: ML20207S214 (8) | |
Text
! O k b DW h% h, c.
.... %'o,
UNITED STATES
- ?'
"t, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASNINGTON D.C. 20555
{
g
\\*..*/
OFFKE OF THE August 7, 1986 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William C. Parler
[
General Counsel D
SecretkJ FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk,
SUBJECT:
SECY-86-166, EMERGENCY N G TTIME ALERTING
,,The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved OGC's recommendation to request the staff to respond to the ay 16, 1986 letter to the Commission from the Shearon Harris LicensingBoard.}
fCommissioners Asselstine and Bernthal requested that the staff also address alertability during a stormy winter night in response to the June 9, and July 10, 1986 letters to the Commission from members of the Indian Point Licensing Board.J Attached are copies of the Commission's directive to the staff and the letter sent to the Shearon Harris Licensing Board.
Attachment:
As stated Copies:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal
?
p, e'.
tg X
k t
8703190134 870317 l
/,-
POR FOIA f
)
MU1PHYB6-843 PDR l
[
F/>.
1 f
%C-e%&
Issues raised in the proceeding relate to the fo110 wing areas:pr (1) drug use; 1/t3fY b 14N N (2) emergency planning; (3)
NEPA cost / benefit balance; s
(4) radiation effects; i,
(5) radiation monitoring; (6) steam generators; (7) management qualifications; s
(8) environmental qualificat'on, bf electrical equipment; i
(9) fire protection and. control; (10) welding; (11) concrete construction. -
j 4 :-
l T
9 t
l e
k
,1 g SY 1st Partial Initial Decision on Environmental Contentions L6f K d,2ipu 90 fin Licensing Board erred in deciding only the ) env 1)
I controversy.
2)
Environmental issues litigated before ASLB and appealed.
a)
The appropriate time periods for considering the health and
'i effects of normal radiological releases from the Harris plant.
(Joint Contention 11(c))
b)
The environmental effects of radionuclide attaching to fly ash existent in the atmosphere.
(Joint Contention 11(e))
c)
The environmental effects of Table S-3 coal particulates.
(Eddleman Contention 8F(1))
3)
En vironmental contentions rejected by ASLB A S L B's rejection ap pealed.
a)
Contentions claiming that A pplicants' operational radiological monitoring program is deficient with regard to three sample points listed in the Environmental Report.
(CCNC Contentions 16-18) b)
Contentions proposing additional radiological monitoring equip-ment for emergency response decision-making.
(Eddleman Contention 2) c)
Contention claiming Applicants had not included in their appli-cation documents analysis of the effects of dumping into the ocean' low-level radioactive waste produced at the Harris Plant.
(Eddleman Contention 12) d)
Contention claiming A pplicants' preoperational environmental radiation monitoring program is deficient.
(Eddleman Contention 82) e)
Contentions challenging A pplicant's cost-benefit balance for
. failure to include economic costs of waste disposal, fuel and payroll.
(Eddleman Contentions 15, 22(a) and (b), CH ANGE Contention 79(c))
f)
Contentions seeking to raise the issue of the potential environ-mental impacts of trans portation of spent fuel from other reactors to Harris for interim storage.
(CCNC Contention 4 and Eddleman Contentions 25, 64(d), 64(e) and 126x) 4)
Denial of Eddleman's 10 C.F.R. I 2.758 petition to waive the Commis-sion's rule regarding not litigating need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues at Operating License Stage.
~
2nd Partial Initial Decision on Safety Contentions
//$f-gf-2f, 22Ngc 732 h 1)
Safety issues litigated before ASLB and appealed.
a)
Whether the Applicants have demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating and maintenance personnel to safely operate, maintain and manage the Harris plant.
(Joint Contention I) b)
Whether the TLDs and measuring equipment and processes to be used at the Harris facility can measure occupational doses with sufficient accuracy to comply with N RC regulations.
(Joint Contention IV) c)
Adequacy of a Rockbestos environmental qualification test report to qualify certain types of Rockbestos cable.
(Eddleman Contention 65) f r;rryg foug A hp cAdeeAv3 y ubricgge yde Qs %
l d)
Adequacy of concrete pladements in the basemat, interior walls and dome of the Harris plan containment.
(Eddleman Contention 65) 2)
Safety contentions rejected by A S L B - A S L B's rejection a ppealed, t
a)
Contentions challenging the integrity of containment concrete at the Harris plant.
(Eddleman Contentions 65A and 8) b)
Contentions claiming that the design of the Harris plan control room did not meet re tions 132 A, 8, C(a) gulatory requirements.
(Eddleman Conten-and D) 3)
Safety contentions dismissed on summary disposition ASLB's rulings granting summary disposition appealed.
a)
Contention concerning radiation dose rate effects on polyethylene cable insulation.
(Eddleman Contention 11) b)
Contentions alleging A pplicants underestimated radio iodine releases during normal operations and have not demonstrated i
that normal radio iodine releases will not exceed 10 ~ C.F.R.
Part 50, Appendix I, limitations.
(Eddleman Contentions 29/30) c)
Contentions alleging that the steam generators, feedwater, ECCS, main steam system and their components are not properly desig ned,
constructed and tested against water hammer.
(Eddleman Contention 45) d)
Contention concerning Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valve originally installed on the IF - 300 rail spent fuel shipping cask owned by Applicants.
(Eddleman Contention 64(f)))
2-e)
Contention claiming Applicants failed to provide the design for a direct water level indicator for the reactor vessel.
(Eddleman Contention 132) f)
Contention claiming there are locations in the Harris plant control room where an operator would have his view of certain panels blocked by other panels.
(Eddleman Contention 132 C(II))
g)
Contentions concerning A pplicants' calibration of continuous monitors and portable air samples and the adequacy of Appli-cants' environmental monitoring system.
(Joint Contentions V
& VI)
W s
e 1
3 e
t l
l l
i
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ '
h*
(3l1@
3rd Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning & Safety Contentions W f M R 74 AJA C f W (M.//t 1()
l 1)
Contentions litigated by ASLB and appealed, a)
The adequacy of the Applicants' review of sheltering other than single-family residential in Applicants survey of potential shelters in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning 2
i zone (EPZ) of the Harris plant.
(Eddleman Contention 57-C-10) b)
The adequacy of the A fire protection program.
9 (Eddleman Contention 116) pplicants' i
c)
Allegation that there exists effective pipe hanger welds that i
have been improperly inspected and approved.
(Eddleman r
Contention 41) 4 d)
Whether A pplicants are required to consider multiple tube g
ruptures in the steam generator tube rupture analysis in their FS A R.
(Joint Intervenor Contention VII (4))
2)
Contentions dismissed on Su mmary Dis position by ASLB.
ASLB rulings appealed.
a)
Whether a specific quantity of potassium iodide for emergency workers and for institutionalized persons must be set forth in z
1 the off-site emergency response plant itself, or whether the plan's provision for determining the required quantities of potassium iodide is sufficient.
(Eddleman Contention 30) 3)
Contentions rejected by ASLB - rejection appealed.
a)
Contention alleging that insufficient consideration has been given in the off-site emergency plans to the effects of severe r
snow and ice conditions and evacuation times.
(Emergency Planning Joint Contention 1) i b)
Contention alleging emergency plan does not provide adequate i
assurance of prompt and safe evacuation because it does not 2
include special measures for dealing with North Carolinians who have consumed alcohol or drugs which is likely to cause traffic and other control problems.
Contention alleging emergency plan does not provide adequate assurance of prompt and safe evacuation because it does not Z
address the evacuation of churches on a Sunday morning.
l (C.H AN GE Contention 21) d)
Contention claiming that in order to provide reasonable i
~'
assurance that the task of clearing evacuation routes can be accomplished, emergency. response personnel be equipped with i
. and trained in the use of radiation detection equipment.
(CH ANGE Contention 4) e)
Contention criticizing emergency plan for its failure to provide for the potential adverse reaction on the part of the general y
populace from the administering of potassium iodide to emergency workers and institutionalized persons, and not the general public.
(CH ANGE Contention 9) 1 f)
Contentions seeking the addition to the emergency plan of more detailed information on the process of protective action decision-making by the State Emergency Response Team Leader i
(Wilson Contentions 3 and 4) g)
Contentions challenging the adequacy of hospitals to treat y
injured persons.
(CHAMGE Contention 33 and Eddleman Contention 57-C-7) h)
Contentions challenging the boundary of the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
(Wilson Contention 1 ' C H ANGE Contention 23, Eddleman Contentions 57-C and 57-C-2) 1)
Contentions challenging evacuation time estimates and whether the evacuation of the EPZ can be accomplished quickly enough.
(Eddleman Contentions 57-D-1, 2 and 3) j)
Contentions related to the Emergency Planning Exercise conducted at Harris on Ma (Eddleman Conten-tions EPX-4, 9,19 and 11) y 17-18,1985.
k)
ASLS dismissal of contention is appealed.
Initially, ASLB admitted a contention relating to harassment of A pplicants' employee relating to harassmert of A p plicants' employee Chan Van Vo.
However, when advised that Chen Van
,/ hse Vo wculd not be avellable as e witness, ASLB dist.issed j
contenticn.
4)
Contentions Litigated before ASLB - appealed.
a)
Contention alleging widespread drug abuse by App (licants f
employees during construction of the Harris plant.
CCNC Cortention WB-3)
I b)
Contenticn challenging the ability of the Harris alert and notification system to alert the public on a summary night when mcst people are asleep.
(Eddleman Centention 57-C-3) l
Issues in the i 2.206 Petition 1)
Emergency Planning o
a)
Chatham County resolution b) need for a second full-participaticn exercise c) activation of a single siren in the early hot.rs of June 8,1986 d) a challenge to the size and configuration of the EPZ
- )
Allegation that Applicants falsified Patty f;irielic's radietion expcsure records 3)
Allegation based en a letter by Fatty Miriello that approximately 10%
cf the tields in the inservice ir.spection program at the Harris plant are defective and improperly dcccmer.ted.
4)
A request for the NRC tc prepare a supplemental EIS to take into account psychclogical stress and the impact of new conditions (e.g.
C herr,cbyl, Chatham Cou nty's previcus with drat.cl from the emergency plar. and the effects cf the siren incident (1(c) above).
e