ML20003F412

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses 810330 Meeting Re Emergency Operations Facility. Presently Assigned Shift Personnel Could Adequately Perform All License Required Functions.Addl Personnel Could Be Provided to Site in Timely Fashion
ML20003F412
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 04/16/1981
From: Marsolais L
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FVY-81-68, NUDOCS 8104210210
Download: ML20003F412 (1)


Text

VERMONT YAN KEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPOR ATION SEVENTY sEVEN GROVE STREET 7,g 7,3 RUTLAND, VEMMONT 05701 FVY 81-68 REPLYTO:

April 16, 1981 ENGINEERING OFFICE 1671 WORCESTER RO AD FRAMING H A M. M ASS ACH USETTS O1701

' E' t" o " E * '

  • 8 * '"

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation A7/

References:

(a) License No. DPR-28 (Docket NO. 50 g (b) Letter, USNRC to All Licensees of Operating Plants and Holders of Construction Permits, dated February 18, 1981 Subject :

Minutes of Meeting Concerning Vermont Yankee Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) March 30, 1981

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to document the e,alient portions of the subject meeting. The meeting was requested by Vermont Yankee to provide an opportunity to explain to the NRC how Vermont Yankee meets the functional intent of the requirements of the Enclosure to Reference (b). The areas discussed are or.tlined below:

Shift StaffinF, - Vermont Yankee explained how the presently assigned shif t personnel could adequately perform all the functions required in Reference (b). In addition, actual historical data was used to demonstrate that additional personnel could be provided to the site in a timely fashion.

Location of EOF - The locations of the primary and alternate emergency operations f acilities were described and reasons presented for their adequacy.

Protection Factors - In conjunction with the discussion on the location of the EOF, the lack of a need for increased protection factors for these facilities.

The members of the staff attending at the meeting were receptive to the arguments presented. They suggested that if these arguments could be presented in Vermont Yankees response to Reference (b) and supported with detailed information in that response, the staff would probably be able to accept our position.

~

Very truly yours,

  • N1 >

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION i

/a-3.

W J

U L. D. Marsolais

/I?O Cc VY Operational Project Manager nv

'2 y

.s.

0 ;98k 7 Q

W'on

,9

\\

p @@

810 4 210 slo' y

.