ML20054E903
| ML20054E903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fort Saint Vrain |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Schwartz S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840632 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-161 NUDOCS 8206150018 | |
| Download: ML20054E903 (4) | |
Text
i
.tlNIT E D sT AT [ s
,f,,
NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
, j ^,.
j,e g
WASHINGTON. D C 70W j h L
5, %,!Ill,af'f g's,...IJ
.....?
January 28, 1982
(-
MEMORANDtfi FOR:
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor P.egulation FROM:
Sheldon A. Schwartz, Acting Chief Emergency Development and Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
LICENSEE'S REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM DEADLINE Effective December 30, 1981, the Commission approved the rule change to change the deadline for implementation of a Prompt Notification System to February 1,1982.
Ft. St. Vrain has requested an exemption from this deadline and for the reasons given in the attached response, it was. denied.
I hereby request that you forward the attached response to the licensee as soon as possible.
/
(
tX' b
f
'$heldon A. Schwart, Acting Chi Emergency Develop..ent and Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Attachment:
As stated
(
/'
i
/
WADE 82-161 PDR
~
Docket No. 50-267 Public Service Company of Colorado ATTil:
Don 11. tiarembourg itanager, Nuclear Production 16805 llCR 19 1/2 Platteville, Colorado 80651-9298
Dear fir. t!arembourg:
This is iri response to your January 8,1982 letter, requesting relief from the February 1,1982 deadline for implementation of your prompt notification l
system. The final rule establishing this deadline, which became effective December 30, 1981, does not specifically address reouests for exemption or relief from the February 1,1982 implementation.date. However, pursuant to 10 CFR 550.12, your request for exemption was determined not to be meritorious.
As noted in the proposed rule (46 FR 46587), the Commission stated that in its judgment, prompt public notification is an important consideration in the offsite protection of the public in the event of a nuclear accident.
The emergency planning rule is premised on reducing, to the extent possible and to the extent the NRC can regulate, the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step in the prompt public notification process.
Therefore, timely implementation of a prompt notifi-cation system is considered to be beneficial to the health and safety of the public.
(Sec 46 FR 46587 & 46 FR 63031 for additional information). In view
(
of the forgoing, it has been determined that granting an extension of time would not be in the public interest.
O
Public Service Company u of Colorado
(-
However, the Commission recognizes that there may be mitigating circumstances beyond your control that should be weighed in determining what enforcement action should be taken.
Specifically, these considerations are:
(1) whether the licensee demonstrated diligence in attempting to fulfill the reouirements; (2) whether or not the NRC was kept infomed of the steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the rule; (3) when those steps were taken, and any signifi-cant problems encountered; and (4) an updated timetable established to achieve full conpliance with the prompt public notification capability reouirement.
The many items of correspondence submitted between September 19, 1979, and January 8,1982, will be taken into considenation in determining what enforcement action is appropriate.
You have kept the NRC informed and although you did not proceed to implement a prompt public notification system,
[
necess:+v A-=
p -a r*
- +;c d ; c e
(
you attempted to elicit a ruling on the circ of ycur caccgeacy plenning rene--
s te m sy(92-) because of your unique situation ~as the only HTGR nuclear power facility.
At the December 15, 1981 meeting, we discussed in detail the rationale for prompt notification systems and concluded that although HTGR's are different than LWR's, the need for a notification system was still present.
This i
conclusion was derived from the premise that, although it may be several hours into an accident before the situation warrants notifying the public, once that decision has been made, a rapid means must be available. This is true regardless of the type of reactor. In regard to your statement that the size of your EPZ classification was based only on size-of-plant considerations, the !!ay 19, 1980 letter to you from Robert L Tedesco states otherwise.
Your letter to Brian K. Grimes dated April 1,1980,
Public Service Company..
of Colorado
/
(
specifically reouested.the EPZ sizes which were approved in the itay 19,1980 letter, to you.
Concerning your request for a waiver of enforcement action, this item will be addressec' in a separate correspondence.
Sincerely, i
Robert A. Clark, Chief r- '
i,Y~
Operating Reactors. Branch #3 Division of Licensing, NRR o
6
-.