ML20003F983
| ML20003F983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/17/1981 |
| From: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiezek J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104270418 | |
| Download: ML20003F983 (1) | |
Text
b.
',k UNITED STATES
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COT.'.7.i!OSION I fp g
- t\\ W '
~C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.f:-??ifl
<s \\
%,,',, h" April 17, 1981 p
afPRgj mg y
MEMORAtlDUM FOR:
James H. Sniezek, Director, Division of Reside Regional Reactor Inspection, IE FROM:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director e
8 s
for Operating Reactors, DL
\\
M_\\ \\
SUBJECT:
INTERIM PROCEDURES A!!D TRAIT!IfiG FOR STATION BLACK 0UT Reference (1) - February 25, 1981 letter; Eisenhut to OR and fiTOL Licensees; Station Blackout Referens (2) - March 3,1981 Memo; Eisenhut to Sniezek; Station Blackout Reference (3) - April 6, 1981 Memo; Sniezek to Eisenhut;. Station Blackout This is in response to your memo, reference 3.
The request for interim procedures and training regarding station blackout, had two purposes. The first to insure that all licensees were aware that this event had been considered, in a reasonable manner, and found to warrant evaluation as a design basis for one Florida facility.. The second, to request that all licensees take timely action to prepare their operators for this event.
Wnile acknowledging that NRC was not prepared to provide detailed acceptance criteria for these actions we did set forth areas to be considered.
The first purpose was accomplished by issuing Reference 1.
For the second purpose we determined that fiRC followup was desirable to insure that serious and timely attention was given to this request.
That followup is intended to be a confirmation that licensee's have provided guidance to their operators; not an f;RC evaluation of that guidance beyond the capability of IE inspection units, with their krowledge of the considerations set forth in Reference 1, to review this guidance.
With respect to the formation of owners' groups, we do not view that cs necessary in response to our request.
Furthermore, we would find unacceptable a proposal to submit generic operator guidance for NRR review six months from issuance of Reference 1 in lieu of implementing interim procedures and
~
~*
training at the plants.
Based on the above we continue to request that IE perform the actions set forth in Reference 2.
7 w
homas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors l
Division of Licensing
\\
P moy Mo
'