ML19345G513
| ML19345G513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Wellhouser H GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104070419 | |
| Download: ML19345G513 (2) | |
Text
5
\\
00CNET tw ag g SFEO. rm;t, r,ur, ) b. 7 %
- r. x
,,- -- --. 2 ;..-..:. :ccr - -.. y m,,.c e,.u--.. _ x. r : p2-:m;,c.t ;; A,,,--..- ; ;; 2,., -
GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY P O. BOX 81608 In Reply san otEGO. CAL #oANIA 92138 March 27, 1981 Refer To: 696-2060 pi4pss sooo Q
A,,N Mr. John G. Davis 2//c D
o h,rrff, (y
00CKETED Office of Nuclear Materials Safety F.Y UsNr-c a\\
l and Safeguards
, U/
- ', f,17,g Te, 4
I W'51198I
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cot =tissiody Q 5 _ M/
L,'
7-l I
4 *%l' i 9 c' d.
Washington, D.C. 20555
[i a
4. :. ~g~.]
Offhe Cf DS SS*M o.
gg g.gt,Simct
Subject:
ICC Order to Modify Lice \\
,; s.
' Q. :a, g /s/
g Eph nse
/'
Docket 70-734; S!;M-696 e
. f ',.,
/
s
't,
_....N.'.:'
','-hf
- G
Dear Mr. Davis:
~.J On February 17, 1981 General Atenic received by trail frem the Co==ission an order dated February 11, 1981 directing that we submit a Radiological Con-tingency Plan and one or the other of two prescribed requests for nodifica-tion of our license SIGI-696 (Docket 70-734). An order which was purportedly typical was published in the Federal Register on February 17, 1981.
61 lic-ensees including ourselves were identified as recipients.
The purpose of this letter is to furnish some initial views about the pro-cedural aspects as well as the substance of the order. We would like to call your attention to the fact that licensees like CAC have had emergency plans in effect for some time. The order served upon us, the Federal Register, and an NRC regional office press release prior to our eceipt of the order create the impression that no such plans exist.
Incidentally, we first learned of your order through a newspaper. Creating such a situation has high potential for leaving NRC and licensees under an unfair burden of proof, particularly in view of current public apprehension regarding nuclear matters in general.
We view our current e=ergency plans as being fairly complete. They include assessment of facility accidents, fire, earthquake, criticality incidents, etc., and organized responses including procedures, emergency equipment, periodic energency training, limited drills and evacuations. We reject, therefore, and we think justifiably so, the implication that our current plans are conclusively deficient.
In addition:
1 The adequacy of existing energency plans or the status of license re-neval applications and their accompanying revised plans may have been considered before the order was issued and publicity solicited. How-ever, if that was the case it is not apparent from the tent of the order or frca the NRC prei.s release, s #" ' )Cl Me:
S Ip Y0 Lpk t *
(
8104070q%
1
\\
John G. Davis 696-2060 2.
The order seems to require a duplicative Radiological Contingency Plan when other current " guidance," some published quite recently, requires simile.r i=for=atica in other docu=ents under different for=at. Please refer to license renewal Draft Guidance (10/80), Regulatory Guide 3.42 dreed 9/79, and various letters requesting licensees to revise their e.mergency plans to co= ply with that Guide and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Sectioti IV.
In accordance with those, we began preparing cur license renewal application and started revising supporting docu=ents =enths ago. Substantially redirecting those activities will cause vaste and delay with little appreciable benefit.
3.
The press release i= plied there is so=eti.ing novel about NRC's order, and that licensees had no plans.
In fact, Part 70 licensees have, and are required to have, e=ergency plans for accidents at their sites as well as arrange =ents with local police, fire and medical facilities.
4.
If existing plans need a=plification, fev licensees would be reluctant to supple =ent the=.
NRC could achieve that by telling the licensees why NRC believes elaborations are requisite, rather than sf= ply pub-lishing conclusions, issuing orders, and unnecessarily casting lican-sees in a bad light.
5.
The order is troubleso=e in another =anner also. NRC directed GAC, and presumably all licensees, either to apply for new cantingency plans as conditions of licensees or to " apply" for quantity restrictions that are tantamount to resignation fro = substantial participation in the in-dustry. NRC has authority to add needed provisions to licenses without exacting " applications" fro = licensees.
If licensees echo Section V of the order by applying for additional restrictions in their licenses, is it NRC's intention then to bill the= under 10 CFR 170.31 for fees "...for materials licenses, and other regulatory services?" It would sea.= an abuse to do so.
If that is NRC's intention, does it plan to character-1:e the a=end=ents as "=ajor - safety and environ = ental," as "=inor -
safety and environ = ental" or as "ad=inistrative?" Part 170 fees, as a result of the characterization, =ay rang-fro = as =uch as $75,000 to as little as $150.
L'e look forward to your response to the questions raised above, and would ap-preciate your talmg us what is so 4-Sently perilous in the present prac-tices as to require surprise orders.
Very truly yours, HarryJ.5iellhouser, Direc or Nuc1 ar Materials Control Division HW:k'RM:hes Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C - 4ssion.
cc:
m--,
,