ML20031F433
| ML20031F433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/03/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031F428 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-323, TASK-RICM, TASK-SE SECY-81-469, NUDOCS 8110190833 | |
| Download: ML20031F433 (30) | |
Text
7a.G n.,,,; o l.
}.
gs.R Kf C
/gr(g\\
T i
I T.Q b o, w ', A g,e,[
l To M
. '.... g SEU-81469 August 3,1981 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Commission Meeting)
For:
The Commissioners.
From:
NilliamJ.Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROMPTPljBLICiNOTIFIChTION-DECISIONONENFORCEMENT, ACTIONS
Purpose:
This paper provides the Commission with information on h
licensee compliance with the Commission's regulations regarding prompt public notification capabilities and provides two options for Commission action; a rule change extending the date for compliance or a course of enforcement actions.
Either option is likely to generate considerable public interest.
Discussion:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning rule which became effective on Novemb'er 3,1980.
The rule required licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2,1981; to submit imple.nenting procedures by March 1,1981; to implement the plans by April 1,1981; and to demonstrate by July 1,1981, that a prompt public notification system is operational.
The options discussed in this paper relate only to the July 1,1981 requirement.
However, it should be noted that the public notification '.
system is only a part of the emergency preparedness improvements contemplated by the Commission's rules.
Onsite appraisals and exerci'ses are bein'g carried out at all operating plants. to assure that required improvements in licensee communications, emergency organization, training, procedures, -emergency facil.ities and equfpm'ent and in'terfaces -_
with offsite organizations have all been carried out.
In addition, FEMA is reviewing the improvements in response
~.
capability through reviews of State and local plans and joint exercises.
On the basis of reviews conducted to date, we believe that a substantial improvement in emergency
~,.
preparedness over pre-TMI accident capabilities has been made at operating nuclear power facilities.
N I
CONTACT:
Brian Grimes. IE/DEP
/
Ext. 24614
~
0110190833 810901 PDR FOIA WEISS81-323 PDR 4
1.'O3b.;'lh 1.
_ - _ _ _ _. m e.w
o O
2-
~~
The design objective of the public notific~at' ion capability is to be able to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Although the activation of such a system remains with the appropriate government authorities, the licensee has the responsibility to demonstrate that the system is installed and operational under the Commission's rules.
By 1stters dated July 1,1981, the Director of each NRC regional office requested all holders of power reactor operating licenses to provide a status report on the operability of the required public notification system' by July 24, 1981.
The responses have been evaluated and are tabulated in enclosure 1.
Because of the low rate of total compliance with the regulation, the staff has given' serious consideration to whether this lack of compliance is an indication that the July 1,1981 '
date was unreasonably short.
Some licensees did take action to procure systems at an early date and were able to complete installation by July 1, 1981.
The July 1, 1981 letter from the Regional Directors requested
~
any unforeseen problems encountered and a schedule for completion of the notification system. is a discussion of the problems encountered around the Indian Point site which are typical of the range of problems encountered by utilities in meeting the requirement. is a schedule for the Salem facility which indicates a sequence of activities typical of those followed by a number ~of other utilities for siren and radio. alerting -
systems.
The following options are outlined for the Commission's consideration.
Option 1
. Change the date required for compliance with the prompt notification requirement to July 1,1982 in view of the difficulties encountered by licensees in installing the
~~
system; many of these difficulties being outside the licensees' direct control.
Extension of the date would provida an opportunity for the NRC (probably through FEMA) to establish the effectiveness, by field evaluations, of the public notification systems that have been installed to date..
s e
.c i
(
Option 2 Take enforcement actions as outlined in enclosure 4, which is written in the form of a notice of significant enforcement action. The approach proposed in this option would provide for civil penalties only after a four month period has elapsed, without system completion, and makes a distinction in severity level and proposed civil penalty between those utilities who had ordered hardware by July 1, 1981 and those who had not yet done so to take account of good faith efforts to comply with the rule. This option would provide for a daily civil p'enalty (after 4 months had elapsed) until the utility certified to the NRC that the prompt public
~
notification capability was in place.
Recommendation:
After considering the improvements ma'de in other areas of emergency preparedness and the difficulties encountered by licensees in meeting the requirement, I conclude that Option 1, a change in the required implementation date t'o July 1, 1982, should be adopted.
M s
William D. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
[be f1
Enclosures:
1.
Public Notification System Statistics 2.
Problems Hindering Installation i
3.
Schedule for Upgrade 4.
Option 2 Enforcement Notice l
Distribution Commissioners
~~
Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations
,r.
ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat e
e*
O o
e n.
n O
CJ.
VCud GW%'
W(-
S - N&
~
t i
O S
)
. * =
- de== ee em m
9
==
N*
gm-es.
m
.e e
m
- d.
.Pe'y
.j..
s 4
S ENCLOSURE 1 O
e 9
l l
m #
=
sse l
l I
, 4 l
l 9
a b
gpI = *.
'O e
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 pVBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM STATISTICS 48 Sites Overall 1/3 now at least partially operational 1/3 on order 1/3 not yet ordered Cateacry A
Operational on July 1, 198'1 12.5% '(6)
B(A) Operational between July 1 and August 3,1981 8.3% (4)
N Partially operational (at least 5 miles) on July 1,1981 10.4% (5)
B 31.2%
B Systems on order by July 1 33%
(16)
C Systems 'not on order by July 1 35%
(17) 85% (21 of 25) Category B plants will have operational systems before 12/1/81.
O e
g e
e
- S 8
6
.___.____mh o @ OONA__
A. _
O e
o
REGION I
~
Expected Facility Category Installation Date Calvert Cliffs A
Complete Pilgrim B
12/31/81 Indian Point 2/3 B
10/81 Beaver Valley B
11/81 Oyster Creek B
10/81 Maine Yankee
-B(A) 7/27/81 (Complete)
Three Mile Island B
8/81 i
Nine Mile Point /FitzPatrick B
10/81 B
1 0/81 Salem Ginna B
li/5/81 Vermont Yankee B
11/30/81 Yankee Rowe B
11/30/81 Haddam Neck C
Millstone C
~
Peach Bottom C
7/82 l
' - ~ ~ ~...
O y
e e
o*
e
- ~
_ g 1....
T3
- e REGION II Expec.ted Facility Cateaory Installation Date Crystal River A
Complete McGuire A
Complete Oconee A
, Complete Hatch A
Complete 1/
10/1/81 Farley B
1/
10/31/81 Surry B
1/
9/30/81 Brunswick B
1/
10/31/81 2
North Anna B
1/
9/30/81 Robinson B
Sequoyah B
8/1/81 St. Lucie B
1/1/82 Turkey Point B
. 1/1/82 2/
10/1/81 - tone alert Browns Ferry C
11/1/81 - sirens early 82 - mobile sirens l
f
~
l
~.
s.
1/ art of system operational on July 1,1981 I
P 2/ art of system ordered before July 1,1981
~
P e-O 9
G B
-..=:-. : c.,;.. +..l3:-c. :
REGION III Expected Facility Category Insta11ation 'Date
~~
D.' C. Cook B
8/1/81 Davis Besse B
3 months after FCC frequency approval 1/,2_/
Palisades C
Dresden C
2/82 Pt. Beach C
3/82 Kewaunee C
12/81 Quad Cities C
3/82 Zion C
3/82 Lacrosse C
Monticello C
3/82 Prairie Island C
3/82 Big Rock Point C
Duane Arnold C
10/1/81 m
' y.
e m
- 6 e
e-e
~
l
- .=-
-_-...s.-
4
~
REGION IV'
~
Expected Facility Category Installation Date Arkansas A
Complete Cooper B(A) 7/31/81 Ft. Calhoun B
1/1/82 Ft. St. Vrain C
t 9
0 e
S y
e e**
e
' y..
6 9
e
- 4 e
t a
e 6
e
-.^ -- *-^ -
O
' " '.__ 9 O
=
.. ~.
~
REGION Y Expected Facility Category Installation Date Trojan B(A) 7/27/81 (Complete)
San Onofre B(A) 8/3/81 Rancho Seco C
5/82 i
Total 48 sites (Indian Point 2/3 and Nine Mine Point /FitzPatrick each l
counted as 1 site)
.6 A
- 12.5%
4 8(A) 8.3%
N 5B
- 10.4%
16 8
- 33%
2CU
_ 35g 15 C t
I 4
e W
,a t
l i
l l
t L
m
O 9
0 e
O
-N*.
e e
une l
f f
e e
e c:
~,.
O Is e
ENCLOSURE 2 h
9 4
Ofi e
a e
e #
em
- m.
,.D G
o e
gam
- M 94 e
e S
e 4.s,..
4 ms, e
~ '
~
tNLLU3UKt HU. 4 Indian Point, 4
l Problems Hindering Installation of the Alert and Notif'ication System
/
The follow'ing is a list of problems / obstacles that have hindered the procurement and/or are hindering the installation.of the alert and notification system:
(1)
Engineering studies necessary to evaluate competing technolo,gies and assure that the most appropriate system would be selected consumed approximately six months.
(2)
All four c.ounties were requested to concur with the siren alert and notification system, in preference to other technologies, prior to the purchase of the system.
Substantial time was spent in attempts to obtain this concurrence.
The Authority.and Con Edison were reluctant to procure a system without firm support from the four
~
counties.
l L
(3)
The sirens are being installed in four different utility i
l service areas and require the use of an outside contractor for installation in three of these areas. -
Coordination with the other utilitics' field staffs has I
been essential and time-consuming.
~
i l
~
(4) obtaining pe'rmi'ts from numerous affecte'd covErnments for
~
installing most of the eighty-eight poles and: sirens has bee'n necessary and time-consuming.
0 l
C-1 W
.-s '
-., 'R '
Incian Point (continued)
(5)
Unanticipat'ed interruption of factory production has required that final assembly of the siren system be completed in the field rather than at the factory.
(6)
Delivery,of the siren system is affected by the large number ordered nationally.
The licensees were unable to negotiate an accelerated delivery schedule.
(7)
Significant technical problems were encountered in the selection of an available existing radio frequency for each county and the determination of appropriate radio activation components for each.
Solution of the technical problems consumed considerable time, hindering the placement of orders for components.
(8)
Requests for different and sometimes additional system functions from county to county necessitated'the pur' chase of different components for respective coun, ties.
Coordination of counties' differing requests and requirements and purchases from more than one component manufacturer ha.ve been time-consuming.
(9)
Modification of exis' ting FCC radio lic~nses to cover e
addition'al use o5 chosen frequencies for' siren activation requires FCC approval.
A g r ea t 'd eal o f' time "is being expended to ensure that all FCC license c'equirements are ' D' ~
met.
e 4
0 C-2 O
G G
e b
inolan Po1ng f
(continued) lj (10)' Resolution of most of the above-listed problims 'has 4
hindered award of contracts to install the siren system in cercain locations because of the need t o' p r e t. a r e completed and thorough contract terms, plans and f
specifica*tions for bidding '
'uments.
9 J
e e
4 4
4 e
em
%y...
e
- C-3 8
e' S
e 9
-.. - - _ _. ~.,...... _... - _ _.. _.. _ _,
mt. _.
- g _,
- O S
4 s
0 4
e
**%N
.e I
i a
s P
4 9
.j 8
6
} ',
e se e
o t
t l'
ENCLOSURE 3 i
G e
l l
O e
9 e
e e
e**
- 6s 1
a 4 ' %e..
O%
4 f
e i
1 lt/
>N#
F,,
4 ip.
u r.
(
I A n-m g
ENCLdStJRENO.3
. Salem SIREN SYSTEM UPGRADE ~
(Designed to meet requirements of NUREG 0654 APPENDIX 3 (B.2))
Comoleted 1.
Existing Siren System and Route Alerting in use to notify public of natural or manmade emergencies 2.
Siren Survey 6/27/50 (Federal Signal Corporation) i 3.
Atlantic City Electric Company 7/22/80 field survey (power availability and sites) 4.
Delmarva Electric field survey 7/22/80 (power availability and sites)
'urvey report received 9/22/80 S
~
5.
from Federal Signal 6.
Purchase of Equipment a.
Sirens (ACA) 2/6/8'l'
~
' ~~~. '
b.
Poles and installation - Delmarva*
3/18/81 c.
Poles and. installation - Atlantic 3/18/81.
City Electric
- d.
Pole and installation - Delaware 3/26/81 Cooperative *
- Included obtaining rights-of-way and easements I
(
.a
.,e s...",._*
- Q.*
r
~.
SYSTEM UPGRADE (Cont'd)
- Salem I
t To be Installation Received Installed Deliver'd Anticipated 7.
Delivery and installation Sirens with, decoder a.
Delmarva 8
8 5
7/31/81 Delaware Electric Coop.
1 1
0 Atlantic City Electric 0
16 8/14/81 b.
Encoders (Base units)
I Delmarva 0
0 2
7/31/81 Delaware Electric Coop.
O N/A None Uses same as Delmarva Atlantic City Electric 0
None Uses existing encoders i
- I
.j 8.
Complete System Installed (operationally tested) 8/28/81 h
'G
' System Test (design verification and acceptance) 9/1/81 Fully operational si$en system 10/1/81
'l?
[
Distribution of EDS Radios (if needed'to augment siren system) 10/15/81
' Test EBS Radio System (operationally tested) 11/14/81 i-l' C 5.'
e
o Salem RADIO ALERTING (NOAA)
(' Designed to augment' siren system where required) 5 Began discussions with NOAA on Remote 1/2/81 Transmitter and State interface 2.
Requested NOAA to apply for frequency 5/13/81 from FCC 3.
Purchase of equipment Dependent upon NOAA frequency selection 4.
Installation,and testing - completion 1/1/82 Anticipated G
e p
e S O D
3
_4_
~
~z.-
4.m O
9 S
O e
.N==
n.,
g,. m g
G S
0 9
i s
m ENCLOSURE 4 S
9 e
E O
e em,
%' N b.
O g.D e
9 pp
- en 9
9 4
4 O-l g..,*
e e
4e me e
- .e e
ENCLOSURE NO. 4
, EN,81-OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
?
NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION Licensee: Category B and C plants in Attachment A
Subject:
Notice of Violation This is to infonn the Comission that a Notice of Violation will be issued on or about August 1,1981, to each li' ansee who has failed to demonstrate i
that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prempt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The ykhc~ ions specifically involve a failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(5) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Part IV.D.3.
P Licensees were required by the regulations to assure that the prompt notification system was implemented by July 1, 1981.
On that date the NRC transmitted a letter to all licensees requesting th'at they respond to us by July 24, 1981, to provide the status of the system installation and implementation. We havd j
categorized the responses to our July 1 letter, three ways:. A.
. licensees who are in compliance; B.
lice., sees who are not'in compliance but who ordered.
the harhare before July 1; C.'
licensees who are not in compliance and had
, w.
not orderad the hardware before July 1.
Attachment A to this Enforcement 4
iotice gives the breakdown by licensee.
We are taking the following enforcement actions:
dl e
e s
a l-
- p. - -
i Category A -- No enforcement action f
Category B -- 1.
Severity level IV violation t
2.
Licensee to b'e notified that it has four months from-i the date of the letter to comply to avoid a civil penal ty.-
l 3.
If licensee has not complied by that time, a civil penalty of up to $15,000 per day will be imposed until licensee is in compliance.
Category C -- 1.
Severity level III violation 2.
Licensee to be notified that he has 4 months from r
the date of the letter to comply to avoid a civil penalty.
s 3.
If licensee has not complied by that time, a civil penalty of up ta $40,000 per day will be imposed
~
until lic,ensee is in compliance.
It should be noted that this enforcement action will not oreclude other remedies (e.g., plant shutdown) if the civil penal' ties do nofresult in
's.
prompt system installation. The civil penalty may be less than the maximum amounts indi.cated where the public notification system is operational, with minor exceptions, by the end of the four month period. The four month period' which is granted to achieve compliance is consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54 (s)(2).
k.
1.
m
=
i; L
L o,.
1.
=
Although the installation of prompt notification systems may be subject to Ehe control of authorized State and local governments, licensees are required to demonstrate that the systems are installed and operational. We believe licensees have had ample opportunity and time to do so because the emergency planning rule which_ implements this requirement was published on August 19, 1980.
Some licensees have made a good faith effort to purchase and install It is for this the systems, while others have.made very little progress.
reason that we have graded the enforcement actions. Those licensees who have at least ordered the equipment before July 1 should be penalized less severe,1y than those who had not ordered equipment.
It should also be noted that in i
a few cases licensees requested an exemption or a deferment from this requirement hefore July 1,1981, which have not yet been processed. These Notices essentially reject such requests.
Licensees have not been specifically informed of the enforcement actions and they have 30 days from the date of the Notice of Vio.lation to respond.
The schedule of issuances and notifications is:
Actions signed (date)
Mailing of Notices (date)
~
Telephone Notification of Licensees (date)
~
~
Telephone Notification of States (date)
A news release will be issued about the time the licensees are notified.
~
Congressional, press, and public inquit ;es can be expected.
- 2..
4
Contact:
B. Grimes, IE 24614 D. Thompson, IE 24909.
Distribution:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Ahearne C. C. ' amerer, CA K
Comissioner Gilinsky S. J. Chilk, SECY Acting Director, PE Comissioner Bradford ACRS (fordistribution) 0 6
5 4
i 4
e 0
e#
' y..
S g.
4 e
i I
- ~.
Enclosure No. 4 ENFORCEMENT CATEGORIES l'
..o REGION I A
B C
~
Calvert Cliffs Beaver Valley Haddam Neck Fitzpatrick Millstone Ginna Peach Bottom Indian Point 2 & 3 Maine Yankee Nine Mile Point Oyster Creek Pilgrim Salem Three ' Mile Island Vermont Yankee Yankee.Rowe REGIONIII A
B C
Crystal River Browns Ferry Hatch Brunswick McGuire Farley Oconee North Anna Robinson St. Lucie Sequoyah Surry Turkey Point REGION III A
B C
- 0. C. Cook Big Rock' Point Davis Besse Dresden Duane Arnold Xewaunee Lacrosse Monticello Palisades Prairie Island Point Beach Quad Cities-Zion '~
REGION IV
~
A B
C Arkansas Cooper Ft.'St.'Vrain
~'
Ft. Calhoun REGION V A
B C
San Onofre Rancho Seco Trojan e
st ':.C ~ _ =
. %%~-:l R
Updated 8/10/81 ENCLOSURE N0. l' PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM STATISTICS 48 Sites Overall 1/3 now at least partially opera'ional t
^
1/3 on order 1/3 not yet ordered Category A
Operational on July.1, 1981 12.5% (6)
B(A) Operational between July 1 and August 3,1981 8.3% (4)
N Partially operational (at'least 5 miles) on July 1,1981 10.4% (5)
B 31.2%
B Systems on order by July 1 33%
(16)
C Systems not on order by July 1 35%
(17). :
85% (21 of 25) Category B plants will have operational systems before 12/1/81.
t m**
~~:
p e -
e be g..,.
7-.-
i REGION I Expected i cility Category Installation Date Calvert Cliffs A
6/29/81 Pilgrim B
12/31/81 Indian Point 2/3 B
10/22/81 Beaver Valley B
11/81 Oyster Creek B
10/15/81 Maine Yankee B(A) 7/27/81 (Complete)
Three Mile Island B
8/31/81 Nine Mile Point /FitzPatrick B
10/81 Salem B
10/1/81 1/1/82 Ginn&
B 11/5/81 Vermont Yankee B
11/30/81 Yankee Rowe B
11/30/81 Haddam Neck C
Mid 82 Millstone C
tiid 82 Peach Bottom C
7/82 e
e e
O m 9
e
- h. -
'L..
i REGION II.
~
E/pected.
Facility Category Installation Date Crystal River A
Complete McGuire A
Complete l
Oconee A
Complete Hatch A
Complete E
1 0/1/01 Farley B
E 10/31/81 Surry B
E 9/30/81 Brunswick B
N 10/31/81 North Anna B
N 9/30/81 Robinson B
Sequoyah B
8/1/81 St. Lucie B
1/,l/82 Turkey Point B
1/1/82 U
Browns Ferry C
l!/1/81 ei.-ly 82 - mobile sirens 4
~
g..
E art of system operational on July 1,1981 P
U art of system o,rdered before July 1,1981 P
e*
,...t--
REGION III Expected Facility Category Installation Date D. C. Cook B
8/7/81 Davis Besse B
3 months after FCC frequency approval Palisades CE None beyond 5 miles Dresden C
3/82 Pt. Beach C
2/1/82 4
Kewaunee C
Spring 82 Quad Cities C
4/82.
Zion C
4/82 Lacrosse C
1-1/4 mile 10/12/81 Monticello C
6/82 (5 mi,les proposed)
Prairie Island C
5/82 (5 miles proposed)
Big Rock Point C
D' ane Arnold C
10/1/81 u
4
'y e
S
- l J
\\
l
.~
i 1
._m.
o
~
~
REGION IV Expected Facility Category Installation Date Arkansas A
Complete Cooper B(A) 7/31/81 Ft. Calhoun B
1/1/82 Ft. St. Vrain C
4 D
O O
e #'
em
,p 6
4 8
W 4
7i 8
e h'um' llu
2 REGION Y 4
Expected Facility Category Insta1 5 tion Date Trojan B(A) 7/24/81 (Complete)
San Onofre B(A) 8/7/81 Rancho Seco C
5/82 i
i j
)
l Total 48 sites _(Indian Point 2/3 and Nine Mine Point /FitzPatrick each counted as 1 site) t 6A
- 12.5%
j 8.3%
l 4B(A)
N
- 10.4%
I 5B t
16 B
- 33%
l
..f 2C]
2 3g, 15 C l
l;,
4' s
p d
~~~