ML20030E164
| ML20030E164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/25/1981 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030E161 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8109180069 | |
| Download: ML20030E164 (5) | |
Text
VIEWS OF~ COMMISSIONER"AHEARNE' ON SECY-81-503
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,' /'Nq=%g'g UNITED STATES l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
}'a E 2-WASHWGTON D.C.20555 e
Y.P/
August 25, 1981 OFFICE 0.* THE
~
SECR ETARY I
.... MEMORANDUM FOR:
. Chairman Palladino
' Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Fioberts I
I l
FROM:
John Ahearne
\\
1 l
}
SU3 JECT:
SECY-81-469, PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION-i DECI5 ION ON MFORCEMENT ACTION AND SECY-81-503, PROPOSED AMENDMENT 70 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E--
IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS I vote to extend the deadline for licensee compliance with t.he rule on prompt public notification systems.
The July 1, 1981 date set by the. Commission was not based on any specific information that it was achievable but rather was an estimate of what was possible.
The Commission also intended the date to apply pressure to licensees so they would take the emergency planning rule seriously.
The number of plants not in compliance (in many cases.apparently af ter good faith effort to be in compliance) indicates the original date was impractical--but it was'useful as a goal.
~
I do not propose the Commission set' future compliance dates based on a criterion that all plants can meet it regardless
~
of level of ef fort.
Consequently, I do not agree with the staf.f recommendation that July 1,1982 be the new effective date of the rule.
I propose the Commission set February 1, 1982 as.the date by which the rule must be implemented.
This date will allow compliance by most licensees, yet keep the pressure on those whom, based on my initial review, appear not to have made a good faith effort to comply.
Attachment I shows the dates indicated by the staff for full compliance.
My commen ts i n A tta c.1 men t 2 are based on a.
review of tne material provided by the staf f.
Some of the plants have been conscientiously working at imp l emen ta ti on,
keeping NRC informed, and others have not.
I think the number of licensees projected not to be in compliance by Feb ruary 1, 1982 is small enough that IE could make a case-by-case evaluation to see if enforcement action is appropriate if that date is not met.
M 9} $ 9 810904~
At*achment '5 PT9.7 P DR.
- _ ~. _. _. - _ _, _.._.. _ ___...., _._ _ _ _._. _,
2 It appears f rom the correspondence and unique characteristics of the plants that the licensees for Ft. St. Vrain and Big
. Rock Point should.bt granted a temporary waiver from-the rule.
Both have req'uested exemptions and are relatively unique (Ft. St Vrain is a gas reactor, Big Rock Point is only 64 Mw).
I propose exempting these two plants pending a specific staff recommendation to be completed in 90 days.
I would also propose that Lacrosse be evaluated for a waiver because it is only 48 Mw, but not exempted frem the rule at this time.
The licensee did not request exemption prior to July 1, 1981.
The licensee's letter of July 29, 1981 still does not request a waiver, but asserts that a 1-1/4 mile notification radius is adequate.
The staff evaluation should be completed in 90 days.
Attachments 1
1 O
e g
w
FACILITIES EDT IN COMPLIANCE AFTER JULY 1, 1981 Facilities Projected Comoletion Date Trojan Now Complete (7/24/81)
Maine Yankee.,
Now Complete (7/27/81)
~
Cooper Now Complete (7/31/81)
Sequoyah 8/ 01/ 81 Cook 8/07/81 San Onofre Now Complete (8/07/81)
TMI 8/31/81 Brunswick 9/30/81 (Partially Operational)
Robinson 9/30/ 81 (Partially Operational)
Farley
'10/01/81 (Partially Operational)
Salem 10/01/81 - 1/0T/82 Duane Arnold 10/01/81 Indian Point 2/3 10/22/81 North Anna 10/31/81 (Partially Ope.ational)
Surry 10/31/81 (Partially Operational)
Oyster Creek 10/81 l
l Fitzpatrick/Nine Mile Point 10/81 Ginna 11/05/81 Vermont Yankee 11/30/81.
Yankee Rowe 11/30/81 Beaver Valley 11/81 3rowns Ferry 11/81 - Ea rl'y' 8 2 Pilgrim 12/31/81 St. Lucie 12/31/81 Turkey Point 12/.31/81 Ft. Calhoun 1/01/82 d
ATTACHMENT 1
/
2 Facilities Not_in Compliance Af ter July 1, 1981 (Cont'd)
Facilities Proj ected Completion Date Davis-Besse Equipment onsite - awaiting FCC frequency clearance.
l Point Beach 2/82
~
Dresden 3/82 Quad Cities 4/82 Zion 4/82 Kewaunee Spring 82 Prairie Island 5/82 (5 Miles Only Proposed)
Rancho Seco 5/82 Monticello 6/82 (5 Miles Only. Proposed)
Haddam Neck Mid 1982 Millstone Mid 1982 Peach Bottom 7/82 Special Cases Big Rock Point Requests total exemption.
Ft.'St. Vrain Requests some relief.
Lacrosse 10/12/81 (1-1/4 Miles Only)
Palisades 6/81 (5 Miles only) a
![
PLANTS LIKELY TO BE IN VIOLATION OE RULE ON PROMPT NOTIFICATION' SYSTEM No.
fter Plant Units Comments ly,1, 1982 Millstone 2
Notified NRC on February 13, 1981 that implementation Haddam Neck i
prior to early to mid 1982 unlikely but gave no evidence-of effort or reason for delay.
Engineering study com-l plate and being reviewed by state and local authorities.
FEMA /NRC review planned before procurement of system.
t l
Ft. St. Vrain 1
Wrote to NitC and met with staff on numerous occasions te request exemption. Most recent letter prior to July 1, 1981 was January 9,1981. NRC has yet to respond.
t Big Rock Point 1 Requested exemption on March 31, 1981 cased on l
completed Probabilistic Risk Assessment.
NRR has not responded.
i l
l Peach Bottom
- 2 Notified NRC on April 28, 1981 of procurement and installation schedule.
Delivery of sirens scheduled for fall.
Plan to have sirens installed 0-5 mi by l
February 1982 and 5-10 mi by July 1982.
I ril 1, Prairie Island
- 2 Notified NRC on February 6,1981 that system design 32 was underway and it was certain that July 1,1981 date t
could not be met. Provided interim alternative based on the status quo. Have committed only to 5 mi zone to be installed by 3/82.
5-10 mi :one plan under review.
RFP issued 7/81; contract award estimated 9/81.
Rancho Seco 1
Requested exemption on June 30, 1981.. Engineering study ccrnpleted in July; equipment procurement in August.
Have been working en system since June 30, 1980.
Contractor started in November 1980.
Pa'lisades*
1 Installed a 5 mi system on June 18, 1981 which they l
have calculated as adequate.
No waiver requested, i.e., they challenge the rule.
Lacrosse" 1
Propose single siren for 1-1/4 mi radius.
Believe Emergency Response Plan adequately covers remaining plum exposure EPI.
No specific waivers requested before deadline.
Have kept NRC aware of status vi5 letters on meetings ruary 1, Kewaunee 1
l )12 on frequent basis since January 2,1981.
Dresden 2
Notified NRC on April 27, 1981 of projected 4-6 month Quad Cities 2
delay caused by engineering study delay, equipment Zion 2
delivery schedule and increased cons:ruction requirement Slow progress particularly unfortunate given the high l
population density.
1
.ess than 10 mi system planned.
ATTACHMENT 2
e :s10,
UNITED STATES
~'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
- e W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20%5 l
September 10, 1981 l
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TRANSMITTAL TO:
DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, 016 PHILLIPS Attached are Staff Requirements memos for placement on the Daily Accessions List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or required.
These memos have not previously been entered on the system.
1.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION 81-32, 3:40 P.M.,
TIIURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, DC OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) DATED 9/4/81 2.
SECY-81-511 - APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED LICENSE TO EXPORT IIIGli ENRICllED URANIUM TO Ti!E FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (LICENSE NO. XSNM01236) DATED 9/4/81
.N n
v @J' II L )s 9,
g*
R
Nancy Shimer l
SEP 1 11981. ;-
office of the Secretary i 6 b"*ed'EM*""f3 b/
s7 Ch
)