ML17277B587
| ML17277B587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ferguson R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17277B584 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501150274 | |
| Download: ML17277B587 (12) | |
Text
v I<<Jr,
'4 44<<4 I
~
0 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMIVII$$ IQN FI EOF I- 'I>'I'IQI:'I-.,II,"CTPR WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0'F AS RECEiVED Ol!J, $
D,4.T FEB 10 7983 JHH GE."D JJYI Mr. Robert L. Ferguson, Managing Director TE! I
- Washington Public Power Supply System JOP P.O.
Box 968 JIJJ4
'000 George Washington Way CH10iIO Richland, Washington 99352 COOP. FLO.
y~
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
We have reviewed the supplemental information contained in your letters I
'I of January 14 and 17, 1983 concerning the MNP-2 prompt public notification system.
Me conclude that your latest proposal'eets the intent of the HRC y.*
v~ '~
++*4+
FEB I 4 1983 MANAGING DIRECTOR requirements in this area, and there is no need for you to pursue an exemption.
r Sincerely,
"<<4t4, ll
- 4
', -J O<<l Jr.4 r
4
<<J<<Jr IJi
'\\ *
,i '4 I'
~
~
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
- 4. I '
<<S 4<<
OOOLLOOO OOOOOSO7 74 8501 pDR ADOC pDR F
I
<<4
1 4
'l ll
, f
YVashington Public Power Supply System P.Q. Box 968 3000George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 372-5QQQ March 1, 1983 Mr. N. D. Lewis Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC)
MS-PY-11 Olympi a, Washington 98504 1
Dear Mr. Lewis:
. Please note that the NRC has accepted the prompt emergency notification provisions recently proposed by the Supply System. for our MNP-2 reactor facility.
A copy of a NRC letter on this.'subject is attached for your informati on.
Very truly yours, G.
D. Bouchey Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Programs GDB/lm cc:
MH Mayer, FBN H. Fowler, DES
,I
March 'l5, 1983 Via Teleco ier
~,
r NENOkANDN FOR ASSISTANT ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STATE 4 LOCAL PROGRA'<S SUPPORT Attention:
Gary D. Johnson, Chief Technical Hazards Division FROM:
Richard M.
onovan RAC Cha1rman
SUBJECT:
Alert and Notification System for WP-2 On November 30, 1982, I forwarded to you a copy of the Supply System's request to the HRC for an exemption to their Alert and Notification System for WHP-2 near Richland, Washington, I requested that your office coordinate with NRC on this matter.
Attached to that memorandum was a copy of the Region's preliminary approval (Harch 19, 1982) of their Alert and Notification proposal.
Please see the attached corresponaence from HRC to the Supply System and from the Supply System to the State of Washington.
The NRC letter contains the phrase
"...your latest proposal meets the intent of the HRC requirements in tnis
- area, and there is no need for you to pursue an exemption."
(NRC letter dated February 14, 1983.)
The Supply System's letter (Narch 1,
'l983) to the State contains the phrase "...the NRC has accepted the prompt emergency notification provisions recently proposed by the Supply System for our RNP-2 reactor fac i 1 1ty."
It has been this Region's position with NRC licensees that review and approval of Alert and Notification Systems is FERA's responsibility, not NRC's.
Mr. Larry Chandler (HRC's Legal Counsel) and Hr. Sheldon Scwartz
{HRC Emergency Preparedness) confirmed this position to HRC RV on a recent visit (March 2-3, 1983).
Since your office did not follow through on my request for 1nterface with NRC on this issue, 'I would like to know what position you want me to take on the acceptability of the Alert and Notification Sys:em fo.- lhlP-2.
'e had given preliminary approval
{March 19, 1'., 2) on their proposal which
'ontained 14 sirens.
As a result of the Suppl
':ystc..~ and NRC exchange of correspondence and meetings, the Supply System( is curyently going to install'ne siren instead of 14.
The net effect, in <<<y opinso~,
is to remove the assurance of direct coverage of essentially
)Oo perce~t of the population within 5 miles of the site:
approximately 6,00o indus',rial workers; approximately 600 sportsmen
{recreationists>; 'iAigratoly agricultural workers; and 80 permanent residents.
L II
~
~
C Your offfce has requested a revised Interim Finding by Hay 1, 1983.
You will receive the same Regional document you forwarded to NRC on February 8,
- 1983, with minor updates.
How do you want us.to address this matter in our Revised Interfm Ffnding2 Our current Finding says that we have'reliminarfly approved the Alert and Notfffcation System, and are-awaiting a'successful demonstration.
- We had
- , " identified ft as a major deficiency.
Wftb the Supply System's interpretation of the HRC letter as an exemption from FiHA RX's preliminary approval, based on their proposal to us, I feel that we should inform the Supply System that we are withdrawing our preliminary approval and will reserve our pos'ition fn the Finding until the test.
In order to do so, I wou'ld require sufficient resources to conduct a survey of the industrial (transient) workers. (the
'ajority of the people within the 5-mile zone).
I would appreciate a reply from you/your staff by April 15, 1983.
Attachments (21 tiRC Letter (2/14/83),
Supply System letter (3/1/83)
Copy to:
Craig Wingo, SL-NT Ken Green, SL'-NT HTH/RWD/ecc/M752E/DSE 8 18E/3/15/83 DRF MR MR-RF C
~
L CL C ~ r )
Vkr4XL 44 Q4 C(
k-C S.'L ~
g'-c.
r r L'i
., ~ 'C'
~
L
~
~
hr ~
rC C
C h
I '
~tC gC A ~,
'I t"
71'
~
'h
gVhtqh'l~~ JEKM'w; J
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Regional Center Bothell, Washington 98011 APR 22 @83 J.
W. Shannon, Director Support Services N Public Power Supply System 3000 George N Way - MS/650 Richland, N 99352
Dear Mr,
. Shannon:
SUBJECT:
Early Warning, System for hNP-2 The following exchange of correspondence between our staff took place last winter regarding subject matter.
I wrote you a letter on March 19, 1982, granting the Supply System preliminary approval of the Alert and Notification System for WNP-2 (Description of Early
. Warning System for Washington Public Power Supply System's Nuclear Power. Plants 1, 2, and 4 dated December 1981).
That proposal contained a description and reference to four alerting networks:
Supply System within your exclusionary boundary; U.S.
DOE networks within the Hanford Reservation; proposed siren system for portions of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone; and tone-activated radio for the permanent househ'olds within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone.
Our preliminary approval was contingent upon installation and successful demonstration of the various systems to the criteria contained in NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1.
Rev.
1.
Last fall. and winter your office provided us copies of correspondence (November 8, 1982, and January 14 and 17, 1983) between the Supply System and the National Office of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
Our understanding, based upon the meeting (April 1, 1983) between Messrs.
Donovan, Bouchey, and you, is that you believe the revised notification system would meet the criteria in NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1 with the exception that some of the transient population along stretches of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers may require up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> for notification.
4 At Dick Donovan's request, the NRC/FEMA Steering Committee met on April 7, 1983, to ascertain NRC's intent in their letter (February 14, 1983) to the Supply System.
Dick Donovan was informed that the NRC had indicated that their approval of your system was based upon,a determination that the proposed system would meet the NRC emergency preparedness regulations.
NRC's position is that the acceptability of the system is subject to FEl'A's testing and review of the test results.
0 r
J',
Since the Supply System is installing a different system than the one reviewed by us last winter, we are withdrawing our preliminary approval- (March 19, 1982) of that portion of the system relating to the transient population.
As Dick Donovan explained to you, this partial withdrawal of our preliminary approval will not have any adverse impact on the licensing process.
The key issue will be the successful demonstration of your Early Warning System.
If you or your staff have any question, please contact Richard Donovan.
Sincerely, Qn.
H. Mayer Regional Director
kl
'0
~ 'c II Vl h