ML20039D060
| ML20039D060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Collier A OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (SUBS. OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRI |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310269 | |
| Download: ML20039D060 (5) | |
Text
.
-8 4
UNITED STATES P
o),
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION YELLOW
'f
'I REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.,SulTE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3
/, 'Ps NOV 171981 A
Offshore Power Systems
\\
ATTN: Mr. A. R. Collier, President N 1 P. O. Box 8000
- Q9 p.
.\\
Jacksonville, FL 32211 Ogg3 A
)
m 0 gg/1 7
Gentlemen:
A
/
s eg
' ' Q,, % -
x 4
Subject:
Docket No. 50-437
\\
~
s This letter is being sent to nuclear power plant licensees ford [ ge clarification on emergency preparedness issues.
It is realized that some provisions may not be pertinent to all licensees, in that exercises with State participation may have already been held and State plans found to be adequate.
However, you should extract from the following that information which does still pertain to your facilities.
As you are aware, the revised NRC emergency planning rule,10CFR50, which was published on August 19, 1980, requires that emergency preparedness be upgraded and maintained both at and around nuclear power plants.
In determining the adequacy of of fsite preparedness, the NRC consults with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which has been designated as the Feca al lead agency for improving offsite preparedness.
FEMA findings. are based on reviews and approvals which are accomplished according to the proposed FsMA rule, 44 CFR 350. FEMA will not consider any State or local plan for final approval until a full-scale exercise has been conducted with the site in question.
Such an exercise must include the State, appropriate local government entities, and licensees.
Should FEMA notify the NRC that timely progress is not being made under its proposed 44 CFR 350 procedures with respect to the upgrading of offsite plans, NRC may determine that this constitutes a significant deficiency in emergency preparedness and initiate actions under the NRC regulations identified above.
For continued compliance with 10CFR50, annual full-scale or small-scale joint exercises, as defined in that rule, are required.
A full-scale exercise must have been conducted at a facility site before any new license can be granted.
The scheduling of these exercises will be largely at the initiative of State and local governments and licensees in coordination with the appropriate FEMA Regional office. This office will provide observers for the onsite aspects of these joint exercises.
We will also consult with the FEMA Regional office on the adequacy of proposed scenarios and schedule conflicts.
In order to effectively schedule the emergency exercise, we believe that we should stress the necessity to coordinate your exercise schedule with that of State and local governments and with the FEMA Regional office and to supply a copy of the scenario, which has been coordinated with the appropriate State authorities, to this office and the FEMA Regional office well in advance of the exercise. If you have any problems in this coordination, we will assist you.
8112310269 811Ii7 PDR ADOCK 05000437 F
!'d
\\
NOV l l W Of fshore Power Systems 2
Additionally, the following constructive comments concerning the conduct of recent emergency exercises reflect FEMA and NRC observations which could be of value to you.
1.
The content of the exercise scenarios should be handled on a "need-to-know" basis, such that individuals who may be exercise " players" do not have access to the scenario to be used.
2.
In order to make the exercise a valid test of emergency preparedness, the particular scenario to be run should not be used in " practices" While certain functions are similar regardless of the scenaric, certain others (assessnent, protective-action-decision-making, in plant surveys, etc.)
may differ significantly.
Therefore, to the extent practical, training or practice scenarios should differ from the scenario used for the fullscale exercise.
3.
Careful consideration should be given to the manner in which scenario cues are presented to the players and to the content of the cues, such that inadvertent coaching or direction to the player is minimized.
The content and timing of cues should be consistent with information and sources that would be available to the players in a real emergency (e.g.,
simulated alarms, instrument readings, survey data, etc.).
This will result in the most realistic participation and interaction by everyone; the operating staff and their offsite support elements, the NRC, FEMA, state and local governments, and others.
Exercise controllers should also be cognizant of actions necessary to ensure continuity of the exercise without unduly hindering nor aiding the participants' initiative, free play and decision-making processes.
On a related subject, as you have probably already heard, the NRC has proposed changing the implementation date of prompt notification systems from July 1, 1981 to February 1, 1982.
I have enclosed a copy of the proposed rule change for your information.
This appeared on September 21, 1981, in the Federal Regi ster for comment.
No response to this letter is necessary.
Should you have any questions, the appropriate contact in Region II i s Mr. George R. Jenkins, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section at (404)-221-5541.
Sincer> y,
/
/
.f
/
James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule Change
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / hionday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules 46567 10 CFR Part !IO By July t.19et. the nuc! ear power reactor the extended time period for
!icensee shat! demonstrate that compliance.
Ernergency Planning and adinmistrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and estabbshed for alernes and providing prompt ne Commission's decision to defer Uttitzstion Facilities instructions to the pubhc within the plume the date for requiring full exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective implementation of the prompt public A0aNCv: Nuclear Regulatory shall be to have the capabdity to essential!F notification capability requirement wee Commission.
cor plete the imt at notdication of the pubhc made, as desenbed above. after ACTioec Notice of proposed rulemakirg.
withm the plume exposure pathway EPZ additional consideration of Industry.
within about 15 minutes.
wide difficulty in acquiring the suesesaw:ne Nuclear Regulatory ne NRC staff has evaluated the level neceanry equipment. permits, and Commission is proposing to amend its of compliance by the industry and noted clearances.nis proposed deferral does regulations to extend the date by which that only about 12% of NRC power not represent any fundamental prompt public mtification systems must reactor licensees have been able to meet departure from the rationale the be operational Found all nuclear power fully the July 1.1981 date for installation Commission used in adopting and plants.He prop Ad extension is based of a prompt public notification system sustaining the public notification on industry. wide Jifficulty in acquiring which meets the criteria in to CR 50.47 capability requirement. See Final Rule the necessary equipment, permits, and 50.54. and Appendix E to Part 50. The on Emergency Planning. 45 FR 55402.
clearances.If adopted the proposal licensees inability to meet the July 1.
55407 (Aug.19,1980). reconsidetution would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. C13-ao-40.12 NRC 106 (1980). It these systems from July 1.1981 to no unforeseen diliiculties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued bdgment later than February 1.1982-surrounding the designing. procuring, that prompt public notificatig b an oaTes: Comment period expires October and installing of the prompt notification important consideration in the offsite 21.1981. Comments received after this systems. In establishing the protection of the publicin the event of a date will be considered ifit is practical implementation date, the Commiselon nuclear accident. nis offsite protection to do so, but assurance of consideration was con =rned that these factors would of the public lacludes a number of cannot be gived except as to comments inhibit the ability to comply with a shcet separate step: :~aition of the received on or before this date, schedule and set the July 1981 date with potential severity of t'he accident by the Aoonasses: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407).
utility, communication of the perceived invited to submit written comments and While hcensees' W-with the threat to offsite authorities, decision by suggesticas on the proposal to the prompt noti $ cation requirement has offsite officials on the need foe Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
been delayed, the NRC considers that protective action, capability to spread Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
emergency plans and preparedness M public warnmg. and actual response by Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention:
significantly improved within the last the public, ne emergency p%nning rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nuclear power is premised on reduong to the extent comments received bv the Commission plant site.nis insigni5 cant possible-and to the extent the NRC can may be examined in the Commission's improvement has been confirmed by regulate-the time required for and the Public Document Reom at 1717 H Street NRC teams who have vialted a number uncertainty associated with each step.
NW., Washington. D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees
- Every aspect of the rule. including the Fon FURTNER INFOMesATIOes COstTACT:
compliance with the upgraded prompt notification system is still Brian K. Crimes. Director. Division of emergency pf anning regulations of required. In changing the Emergency Preparedness. Office of August 1980. In addition, the Federal implementation date of the prompt inspection and Enforcement. US Emergency Management Agency public r.otification capability Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(FEMA) and the NRC have monitored requirement, the Commission recognizes Washington, D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-numerous nuclear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4814).
involving State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the and the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as supri.tastwTAny eMeonasATtO*C witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February
- 1. De Proposed Rule onsite and offsite emergency 1.1982. However, the Commission On August 19.1980. the Nuclear preparedness, intends to take appropriate enforcement Regulatory Commission published in the Based on the above information and action r gainst If tensees who did not.
Federal Register (45 FR 55402) on a recognition that there exist prior tt July 1.1981, notify the amendments to its regulations (10 CFR customary warning systems (police.
Comm asion of their inability to meet Part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the ju'y 1.1981 deadline.
upgrading of emergency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated ne effective date of these regulations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significant licensee performance was November 3,1980. Among other proposing to defer the implementation strengths and weaknesses are evaluated things, the regulations required licensees date of the prompt public notification in the NRC Systematic Asussment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requirement from July 1.1981 1.lcensee Performance (SALP).ne SAI.P jandary 2.1981, submit implementing to February 1.1982. In view of the program specifically includes evaluation procedures by March 1.1981, and above, the Commission finds that there of licensee performance in emergency implement the emergency plans by April exists sufficient reason to believe that preparedness. Accordingly, a licensee's 1.1981.
appropriate protective measures can efforts in attempting to meet the July 1.
One element that must be and will be taken for the protection of 1981 date for instalhng the prompt demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the public in the public notification capability will be a licensee's emergency plan is that:
event of a radiological emergency during factor in that licensee's sal.P.
)
46588 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / Monday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules
- 11. Proposed Application of the Final final rule, when effective, will be u44.124a. (42 U.S C. 5841,5842. 584el, unless Rule applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwin noted. Section soJs also issued now pending and to issues or under sec.122,66 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C. 2152).
The Commission also is proposing in Secti n 50.78-50.81 also issued under sec.184.
contentions therein. Union of Concerned this rule that the four-month period for 68 Stata as amuded (42 ESE 2234L Scientists v '4EC. 499 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.
c rrecting deficiencies, provided in Sections 50.10A50.102 issued under sec.186.
Cir.1974).
I 50.54(s)(2). should not apply to any 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). For the purposes lic:nsee not in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Certification of sec. 223. 68 Stat. ass as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273). I 50.41(i) issued under sec.1611.
public notifies on system requirement in accordance with the Regulatory 6a Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C 2201(111: 1I sofo 50.71, by February 1.1982, the new deadline Flexibility Act of l980. 5 U.S.C. 005(b).
and 50.ra issued under sec. teto. so stat. 9so, d:te. If a licensee is not in compliance the Commission concludes that this rule as amended (42 U.S C. 2201(o). and the lawe with this requirement by February 1 will not,if promulgated. have a referred to in Appendices.
1982. the Commission will consider t: king appropriate enforcement a,
significant economic impact on a
- 1.Section IV.D.3 of Anpendix E to promptly at that time. In determm, ctions substantial number of small entitles. ne Part 50 is revised to rei.d as follow::
ing proposed rule concerns an extension of cppropriate enforcement action to the operational date for public Appendit E-Emergency Plann!ng and
- I*
"'d " *"d "D'd "
initiate, the Commission will take into notification systems for nuclear power account among other factors. the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 d:monstrated diligence of the licensee and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of in cttempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954. as amended. 42 U.S.C. 2133,2134b.
D Noupcouon h m notification capability requirement. The The electric utility companies owning Commission will consider whether the and operating these nuclear power
- 3. A hewn shall hase the capability to licensee has kept the NRC informed of plants are dominant in their service Y ",'$3
- ',' *"[nYminutes tft2 steps that it has taken. when those areas and do not fall within the n
, n after declanns an emersency. ne ticensee st:ps were taken and any significant definition of a small business found in shall demonstrate that the State / local problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 officials have the capabihty to make a pubhc timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632. or within the Small Business notification decision prozptly on beira will be met in achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part informed by the licensee of an emersency with the prompt public notification 121. In addition, since the amendment condition. By February 1.1962. asch nuclear capability requirements.
extends for one year the date by which power nactor hcan shall dematnte est adnunistum and pysical muns have Wn With respect to requests for the public notification systems are to be exemptions that NRC has received from operational, the businesses and state nj snd P
's d fo "8
P h
c,nthin p1 nuclear power reactor licensees and local governments involved in the exposure pathway EPZ. The four. month concerning the prompt public manufacture and installation of these period in to CFR 5054(sl(21 for the correction notification requirement and deadlines.
systems are not economically affected in of emergency plan deficiencies shall not for installation and operational any significant manner. Accordingly, apply to deficiencies in the initial installation capability, the Commission has decided there is no significant economic impact of this public notification system that is to deny these requests in light of the on a substantial number of small required by February 1,1982. The design proposed extension of the July 1,1981 entities, as defined in the Regulatory objective of the prompt public notification date. Any licensee not able to meet the Flexibihty Act of1980.
system shall be to have the capability to new deadline date of February 1.1982 essentially complete the initial notification of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the public within the plume exposure after the new date. This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the
[thyi, gfc fo' c,"p'a*bil
!$ age n
eliminate unnecessary and costly Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.
from immediate notification of the pubhc administrathe actions needed to L 96-511), the NRC has made a (within 15 minutes of the time that State and consider pre.sent exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officials are notified that a situation that will essentially become moot by the does not impose new recordkeeping, exists requiring urgent action) to the more proposed extension of tb July 1,1981 information collection, or reporting LLely events where there is substantial time date.This approach will also permit the requirements.
available for the State and local NRC to focus its consideration upon a Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of sovemmental officials to make a judgment rnot a the p reduced number of noncompliance 1954, as amended, the Energy
'[*'u thete a decision situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, to activate the notification system, the State the new deadline. it is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United and local officials will determine whether to most efficient use of NRC resources will States Code, notice is hereby given that activate the entire notification system be achieved by this treatment of present adoption of the following amendment to simultaneously or in a graduated or staged exemption requests relating to the July 1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Eis manner. The responsibihty for activating 1981 op'erational date requirement.
contemplated.
auch a public notification system shall remain If the proposed rule is subsequently with the appropriate government authonties promulgated as a final rule,it is the PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF Commission a present intention to make PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION it effective immediately upon FACILITIES Dated at Washington, D.C., this 16th day cf publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
September 1981, 553(d)(1), since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
3, licensees with respect to the present Authority: Secs. 103.104,101.182.183.189.
Secretory of' <e Commission.
July 1,1981 deadline for operational 68 Stat. 936. 937,948. 953, 954. 955,956, a s public notification systems. In that amended (42 U.S.C. 2133,2123. 2201. 2232.
N #
" d * '**'**3 regard, the Commission notes that the 2233. 2239h secs. 201. 202,20s. 88 Stat.1243, one r nm
1 o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASH 4NGTCN. O.C. M555 i
)
{
_