05000266/FIN-2003007-04: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 95003 | | Inspection procedure = IP 95003 | ||
| Inspector = A Vegela Vegelj Chiloyan, J Lenahan, L Kozak, M Kunowski, R Morriss, Collinsm Morrisr Krsek, P Lougheed, M Wilk, F Ramirez, N Valos, T Ploski, B Palagi, C Moore, J Geissner, M Kunowski, P Higgins, L Haeg, R Alexander, J Munday | | Inspector = A Vegela, Vegelj Chiloyan, J Lenahan, L Kozak, M Kunowski, R Morriss, Collinsm Morrisr Krsek, P Lougheed, M Wilk, F Ramirez, N Valos, T Ploski, B Palagi, C Moore, J Geissner, M Kunowski, P Higgins, L Haeg, R Alexander, J Munday | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = 10 CFR 50.54(q) provides, in part, that a licensee authorized to possess and operate a nuclear power reactor follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in 50.47(b). The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to the plans without NRC approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of 50.47(b). Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency plans may not be implemented without application to and approval by the NRC. 10 CFR 50.47(b) requires that the onsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors meet each of 16 planning standards, of which, planning standard 10 states, in part, that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for the public, and in developing this range of actions, consideration be given to evacuation and sheltering and that guidelines for the choice of protective actions also be developed and put in place. Contrary to this, the Point Beach Emergency Plan, Chapter 6.0, Emergency Measures, Section 5.1.2.a.5 (a), states, in part, Although the State of Wisconsin and the counties could implement sheltering, and because sheltering has different meanings for NRC and FEMA, Point Beach Nuclear Plant will only recommend evacuation as a protective action for the public. As a result, the facility has not developed a range of PARs. The finding was determined to be an unresolved item pending further regulatory review of the potential generic aspects of this issue, including a review of past correspondence and generic communications with the industry regarding PARs (URI 50-266/03-07-04; 50-301/03-07-04). | | description = 10 CFR 50.54(q) provides, in part, that a licensee authorized to possess and operate a nuclear power reactor follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in 50.47(b). The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to the plans without NRC approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of 50.47(b). Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency plans may not be implemented without application to and approval by the NRC. 10 CFR 50.47(b) requires that the onsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors meet each of 16 planning standards, of which, planning standard 10 states, in part, that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for the public, and in developing this range of actions, consideration be given to evacuation and sheltering and that guidelines for the choice of protective actions also be developed and put in place. Contrary to this, the Point Beach Emergency Plan, Chapter 6.0, Emergency Measures, Section 5.1.2.a.5 (a), states, in part, Although the State of Wisconsin and the counties could implement sheltering, and because sheltering has different meanings for NRC and FEMA, Point Beach Nuclear Plant will only recommend evacuation as a protective action for the public. As a result, the facility has not developed a range of PARs. The finding was determined to be an unresolved item pending further regulatory review of the potential generic aspects of this issue, including a review of past correspondence and generic communications with the industry regarding PARs (URI 50-266/03-07-04; 50-301/03-07-04). | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:31, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Point Beach  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000266/2003007 Section 4OA4 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2003 (2003Q4) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 95003 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Vegela Vegelj Chiloyan J Lenahan L Kozak M Kunowski R Morriss Collinsm Morrisr Krsek P Lougheed M Wilk F Ramirez N Valos T Ploski B Palagi C Moore J Geissner M Kunowski P Higgins L Haeg R Alexander J Munday |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |