ML20054E957
| ML20054E957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fort Saint Vrain |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840632 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-161 NUDOCS 8206150072 | |
| Download: ML20054E957 (1) | |
Text
~.
B. & i
\\
I - #[
jg UNITED STATES '
.g
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,rl II.
!j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
+1 m,
(
i\\
r)g '22 1982 NOTE T0:
T. Novak j
The attached provides a terrible performance record for the'NC.
The U. S. Government cannot be in a situation where we simply don't, reply to a licensee's request.
Please discuss the attached letter with Brian Grimes and work out an appropriate response.
i As a separate, but related matter, recall that we are contracting with ORNL and LASL to provide us assistance in determining which LWR Post-TMI requirements are applicable to this HTGR. This -effort a was initiated in response to a request from the ACRS.
Please explain, '
how that contractor was utilized in this decision, how such efforts "
will be factored into cur efforts in the future, and explain NRR's involvement (or lack thereof) in developing an answer for PSC and in answering their correspondence.
./
l
% ' f
- ] i[senh.g -(
~
Darre ifector Division of Licensing cc: H. Denton R. DeYoung B. Grimes /
R. Clark G. Kuzmycz e
N.
8206150072 820421 l
WADE 82-161 PDR
w
- g. es.~p A
}*,
U
=
' ['
L
/
... :.e:- c 0 cc: c.;=y of Oderado
(,
s
/ %- 3.%
1 16805 WCR 19 1/2, Platteville, Colorado 80651-9298 j
).'
[g{
January, 8, 1982 Fort St. Vrain Unit #1 n*
P-82006
.f Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Fort St. Vrain '.! nit No.1 Early Warning /Jert System
Dear Mr. Grimes:
^
On December 3, 1981, we were informe y
uring an on-site Comm sion ORNL that our meeting with the Nuclear Regulatoryfrom the Early Warning ~ATiir.and request for relief t (EWA) requirements had been denied. We were further informed that on the basi,s of this denial that the February 1, 1982, date for implementation of the Early Warning Alert System presently proposed by 10CFR50 would be applicable to Fort St. Vrain.
This oral communication was of. serious concern to us, and as you are aware, prompted our request for the December 15, 1981, meeting with the Emergency Preparedness Group as well as other Nuclear Regulatory Commission representation.
We came to the December 15, 1981, meeting with two main concerns:
l 1.
The basis for the oral communication was not clear in that we have received nothing in writing. We were interested in determining the extent of the review of our position as well as the basis for denial.
2.
TLe late date of the denial places us in an untenable l
position with reference to meeting a February 1,
- 1982, implementation date.
i
!(
4 pt/ "fM
/
y
.. Q
' /,..,,1 ' '
g
~
, reference to our first conce'n we are still of the opinion that With r
our position was not adequately considered on a technical basis.
Accident situ'ations at Fort St. Vrain are very predictable and take.
much longer to develop than similar accidents in light water reactor technology.
ORNL reached this same conclusion in their report on the applicability of NUREG 0737 to Fort St. Vrain and, although ORNL did not make any specific time recommendation, they did specifically state that we should be afforded more time in an alert situation than that allowed for light water reactors.
Because we have a first-of-a-kind plant our original accident analysis went far beyond those accidents considered to be credible and many of the analyzed accidents were non-mechanistic.
In spite of all these accidents, coupled witt conservative assumptions, we were able to show that exposures fro}m all accidents remained well below 10CFR100 limits..
These accidents were based on expected and de si g'..
circulating activities and conservative fuel failure models.
In our meeting on December 15, 1981, we were placed in a class of small light water reactors similar'to the classification for EPZ's.
This classification is erroneous and is based only on size-of plant f"
, considerations with no consideration to the time required for development of accidents.
Although we stil.1 believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commissio'n has been remiss in the evaluation of our position we believe that further action on our part would no doubt prove fruitless as the Nuclear Regulatory Comisison appears unwilling to evaluate the technical merits of our request.
On this basis we are proceeding with the installation of a tone alert system to meet the Early Warning Alert requirements.
However, we are not waiving any rights we have to appeal the imposition of the February 1,1982 deadline.
Given that we are proceeding with the implementation of an Early Warning Alert system brings us to our second concern, the February 1,
,1982, implementation date.
As we-stated in the December 15, 1981, meeting we believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been irresponsible and remiss in their action concerning our repeated-efforts to resolve this matter.
Our position was first setforth in {
September, 1979, followed by many more letters and several meetings.,
Over two (2) years later we still had not receivet any response to position, and finally on December 3, 1981, we were informed that our our request for relief from the Early Warning Alert' system had been denied.
l
(
. It is requested, therefore, that we be given relief from the February 1,1982, date based on the following:
1.
We initially set forth our general position on the Early Warning Alert system as early as September 10,1979, in our letter P-79205 to Mr. Jack Roe who was then assigned as the leader of our Emergency Planning Review Team.
We did not receive any response to this letter.
On March 18, 1980, we submitted our proposed Radiological Emergency Response Plan via letter P-80083 and once again we indicated our position on the Early Warning Alert system.
Following the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on-site review team visit on May 21, 1980,,
and subsequent receipt of Nuclear Regulatory Commission comments in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's letter of July 23, 1980, we resubmitted our Radiological Emergency' Response Plan along with our response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission comments via our letter P-80288, dated August 28, 1980, which again set forth our position on the Early Warning Alert system.
2.
This round of correspondence was followed by a meeting on December 10, 1980, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at Public Service Company's request.
We found during this meeting that our letter P-80288 submitted in August had not been reviewed by the Emergency Preparedness' Group. We even were informed that we would receive comments on this letter by ~ February, 1981, comments which we finally received on December 17, 1981.
3.
Following the December 10, 1980, meeting we submitted our initial response to NUREG 0737 in our letter P-80438, dated December 20,
- 1980, and once. again expressed our concern about the lack of resolution to our previous correspondence.
j 4.
Recognizing that time was becoming a major factor we then wrote directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners. In
~
our letter P-81009, dated January 9,1981, we set forth a detailed technical justification for relief from the Early Warning Alert requirements.
l 5.
On February 27,
- 1981, we submitted our Radiological Emergency Resp.onse Plan, Implementing Procedures, and the
- State Radiological Emergency Response Plan, via letter P-81074, and again expressed concern about the lack of Nuclear Regulatory Commission response.
. i 1
. 6.
On April 8,
- 1981, (reference P-81116) we responded to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Letter 81-10 and once again we expressed concern for the lack of Nuclear Regulatory Commission response with reference to the various time tables that had been established to implement the various requirements.
7.
On July 13,
- 1981, in response to a letter from Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV on the Early Warning Alert system, we once again set forth our position on the Early Warning Alert system in letter P-81184.
8.
Following publication of the 10CFR50 rule extending the Earfy Warning Alert system implementation to February 1, 1982, we immediately expressed our concern to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission via letter P-81243, dated October 5, 1981.
In this letter we indicated we could not meet the February 1,1982, date and requested that the time tables and schedules for Fort St. Vrain be based on~ completion of the ORNL review. We were informed verbally that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was preparing a letter to that effect, but we did not receive such a letter.
9.
On September 30, 1981, we received ORNL's evaluation of the applicability of NUREG 0737 to Fort St.
Vrain, and on October 22, ~1981, we provided our comments to ORNL via letter P-81263.
10.
In this entire period we received no comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commisison in response to correspondence in spite of our many attempts to obtain resolution. Then on December 3,1981, we were informed of the denial which we still have not received in writing, and were informed that the February 1,1982, date would be applied to Fort. St.
Vrain.
6
(
_ 11.
It should be noted that during this time we were making preparations to install an Early Warning Alert system should our requests be denied. Early in 1980 we had an EPZ study conducted by Federal Signal Corporation to define a siren system.
We obviously had major concerns about a siren system because of the turkey farms in the area as well as other concerns; however, at that time the National Weather Service did not have sufficient NOAA weather radio coverage in our area for us to consider a tone alert system. The
~
siren study was completed and the location and size of the
~
sirens were defined.
Preliminary investigations were therefore completed to permit us to proceed with the installation as expeditiously as possible should our appeal be denied.
Later, in our work with the National Weather Service, we learned that a NOAA weather statt3n was to be installed near Mead, Colorado, by mid 1981.
This station,
- however, only provided marginal coverage in our area and a second station was planned for Point of Rocks.
These two stations provided more than adequate coverage and we proceeded with the design of a tone alert system.
We were out for bid on the system in November, 1981. Again our efforts here were to complete all preliminary work short of actual purchase to allow us to proceed as expeditiously as possible should our request be denied.
We believe the items described above clearly demonstrate our efforts to resolve this issue, and clearly demonstrate our efforts of preparation for implementing an Early Warning Alert system should our request be denied.
In spite of these efforts, however, we do not feel we can be expected to respond in implementing a system in less than two (2) months when it has taken the Nuclear Regulatory Commission almost twenty-seven (27) months to give us a response We recognize that the proposed 10CFR50 rule calls for enforcement
, action to be taken against those utilities that are not in compliance by February 1, 1982, but this action must consider timely action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commisison.
It is obvious that timely action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not take place. As we indicated in the December 15, 1981, meeting we not only believe that it is unrealistic to apply the February 1, 1982, implementation date to Fort St. Vrain, it is also unreasonable to apply enforcement action for failure to comply when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission played a. very responsible role in leading to our failure to comply.
k
- We have purchased the weather radios (tone alert radios), and we expect delivery early in January.
We are proceeding with the development of public information brochures providing instructions
,for use and care of the radios, and we are proceeding with our plans for distribution of the radios.
Procedures are being developed in concert with the State, local government, and the National Weather Service.
Based on our present schedule we believe we can have most of the radios distributed by mid February.
This schedule, however, is extremely optimistic and contains very rough estimates as to the a given day.
It numbers of personal contacts that can be made in does not al, low much time for situations such as people not at home, or additional time that may be required due to a lack of understanding.
Further, we have spent a lot of time and effort in developing the confidence of the public in Fort St. Vrain and it is extremely important that we implement our program properly to maintain this confidence. These are areas which are very difficult to estimate.
Our schedule depends on procedural development by l
governmental agencies which are not under our control.
r' We believe a more realistic schedule, given the many tasks to be I
accomplished and the many unknowns associated with these tasks would
\\s -
be April 1, 1982, for total implementation. We intend to proceed as expeditiously as possible, and we will keep our NRR project management informed as to our progress.
I
(
- l..h
(
-7 Optimistically we are proceeding on schedule of implementation by mid February. We are, however, requesting relief to April 1, 1982, as a more realistic basis and we are further requesting a waiver of any Nuclear Regulatory Commission enforcement action until April 1,1982.
We believe our request is justified and we request your consideration and timely response.
Very truly yours,
/7 Y W Don W. Warembourg
/
Manager, Nuclear Production Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station DWW/alk cc:
B. Clark G. Ku:mycz J. Collins
[
DeYoung
\\
Dirkes D. Eisenhut l
I
\\
e
l L
h' q
( _l/ DlDAMWAND
[
[k COOPERAT/V6 2615 EAST AV SOUTH
. LA CAOSsE. W1SCONSIN 54601 (608) 788 4 000 S
RSCIEi%' j 9
n January 22, 1982 FEB l'1982 >
.0 Tggy' In reply, please refer to LAC-8033 mc ff 4
00CKET NO. 50-409 Mr. J. A. Hind, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness A'P.IFCIFAL STAFF v5IR MiIS-and Operational Support United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission WD bo i
Region III h'Lo 799 Roosevelt Road A/D I
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 g,pg
SUBJECT:
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (DPC) iDE&TI
%, I p.,,") 4*
LA CROSSE B0ILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)
PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-45 PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM e
REFERENCE:
(1) NRC Letter, Hind to Linder, dated January 20, 1982 Gentlemen:
In response to your request for infonnation regarding the prompt public notification system for the la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (Reference 1) we provide the following information as requested.
NRCQUESfLOJ (1) What percent of the total 5 mile EZ population vill receive the initial alerting signal?
DPC RESPONSE (1) Our most recent survey, completed during the week ending January 22, 1982, disclosed that 1160 people reside within the 5 mile EPZ. Of these, 637 (55%) reside within 3 miles of the facility.
The initial alerting signal is to be provided by an outdoor siren. Based on performance specifications for the siren selected, the audible range is expected to be at least 2 miles.
Although field data obtained at another similar power plant site in the Dairyland system indicates that an audible siren range greater than 2 miles can be obtained, the use of AM alert radios will be planned as needed to supplement the siren to insure that 100% of the population within 3 miles will receive the initial alerting
(
signal within 15 minutes.
WP1 3202020309 820122 J AN 2 '71982 PDR ADOCK 05000409 f
. ~...... _ _ _
.m.
3.
Mr. J. A. Hind, Director January 22, 1982
(.
Division of Emergency Preparedness LAC-8033 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC QUESTTON What provisions e ist with tte loc governments to ensure that 100% of (2), the population, uho did not receive the initial signal, vill be notified uithin 45 minutes?
DPC RESPONSE (2) Arrangements have been made with the Sheriff of Vernon County, Wisconsin to provide notification to persons living within the 5 mile EPZ not receiving immediate notification within 45 minutes.
This includes the use of telephonc contact and squad cars equipped with sirens or speakers.
The Sherif'. of Houston County, Minnesota will assist in a similar manner on the west side of the Mississippi River. Some off-duty Vernon County Deputies have equipped squad cars at their residences to facilitate immediate assistance to on-duty personnel for this notification.
NRC QUESM (3) Ensurance that 100% of that population within 3 miles of the plant vill receive the initial signal in 15 minutes.
r
/
DPC RESPONSE
\\c~
(3)
The initial alerting system as described in Response 1 above being installed by DPC at LACBWR is designed to provide an initial alert signal to 100% of the population living within 3 miles of the plant within 15 minutes.
Authorization for this response to be submitted later than the date specified in Reference 1 was granted to Mr. John Parkyr. an Friday, January 22, 1982 by Mr. Carl Papierello of your staff.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours, DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE v
/
Frank Linder General Manager FL:JDP:eme cc:
J. G. Keppler, Regional Director, Region III Resident Inspector i
s m.
WP1