ML20039D081
| ML20039D081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins, Cherokee  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Dail L DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310297 | |
| Download: ML20039D081 (4) | |
Text
. dv"%
YELLOW p
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REEULATERY COMMISSION o
L E
REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, G EORGIA 303o3 g
k, g NOV 171981 Duke Power Company Q
Bis ATTN: Mr. L. C. Dail, Vice President 7
N O
Design Engineering N
kon H
P. O. Box 33189 04 Charlotte, NC 28242
\\\\'. GOpm II N - 9
\\
Gentlemen:
s',
- d. <,i
Subject:
Docket Nos. 50-491, 50-492, 50-493, 50-488, 50-489, 50-4'90'u; t,
s This letter is being sent to nuclear power plant licensees for general 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 mle,10CFR50, which was published on August 19, 1980, requires that emergency preparedness da 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 Federal lead agency for improving offsite preparedness.
FEMA findings are based on revicws, and approvals which are accomplished according to the proposed FEMA 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 cust include the State, appropriate local government entities, and licensees.
Should FEMA notify the NRC that timely progress is net being made under its proposed 44 CFR 350 procedures with respect to the uprrading of offsite plans, NRC may determine that this. constitutes a significant deficiency in emergency preparedness and initiate actions urder 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 f acility 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 of fice on the adequacy of proposed scenarios and schedule conflicts.
In order to ef fectively 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 appropriete 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.
F n
it0V 1 7 1981 Duke Power Company 2
Additionally, the follewing constructive comments concerning the conduct of recent emergency exercises reflect FEMA and NRC observations which could be of value to you.
1.
The content cf 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 scenario, certain others
( a s se s s:ren t, 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 staf f and their of f site 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 Register for comment.
No response to this letter is necessary.
Should you have any questions, the appropriate contact in Region II is Mr. George R. Jenkins, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section at (404)-221-5541.
Since[ly,
/
/d h I
ames P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule Change cc w/ encl:
J. T. Moore, Project Manager e
M i
-g b
f Federal Reg! ster / Vol. 48. No.182 / hfonday. September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules 46587 10 CFR Part 50 By July 1.1981, the nuetear power reactor the extended time period for
]
licensee shall demonstrate that compliance.
Emergency Planning and admimstrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and estabbshed for alerting and providing prompt De Commission,a decision to defer instnicti ns t the pubhc within the plume the date for requiring full M
k thittzation Facilities exposure pathway EPZ."Ite design objectise implementation of the prompt public AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory shall be to have the capability to essentially notification capability requirement was Commission.
con plete the imtial notification of the public made, as described above, after within the plume esposure pathway EE additional consideration of industry-ACTIOm Notice of proposed rulemaking.
within abcut 15 minutes.
wide difficulty in acquiring the St'MMARY:The Nuclear Regulatory The NRC staff has evaluated the level necessary equipment, pennits, 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 notification systems must reactor licensees have been able to meet departure from the rationale the I
be operational around all nuclear power fully the July 1.1981 date for installation Commission used in adopting and plants.ne proposed extension is based of a prompt public notification system sustaining the public notification onindustry-wid difficultyin acquiring which meets the criteria in 10 CFR 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 clearanco. If adopted the proposal licensees inability to meet the July 1.
55407 (Aug.19.1980), reconsideration would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. CLI-80-40.12 NRC 638 (1980). It these systems from iuly 1.1981 to no unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued ludgment latar than February 1.1982.
surrounding the designing. procuring, that prompt public notification is an DATES: Comment period expirrs October and installing of the prompt notification important consideration in the offsite 21.1981. Comments received efter this systems. In establishing the protection of the public in the event of a date will be considered if it is practical implementation date, the Commission nuclear accident. This offsite protection to do so but assurance of consideration was concerned that these factors would of the public inch. des a number of cannot be gived except as to comments inhibit the ability to comply with a short separate stepe-recognition of the received on or before this date.
schedule and set the July 1981 date with potential severity of the accident by the ADDassses: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407).
utility, communication of the perceived 3
invited to submit written comments and While licensees' cornphana with the threat to offaite authorities, decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notification requirement has offsite officials on the need for h
Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
been delayed, the NRC considers that protective action. capability to spread Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
emergency plans and preparedness have public warning, and actual response by Washington D.C.20555. Attention:
significantly improved within the last the public.ne emergency planning rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nuclear power is premised on reducing to the e.xtent comments received by the Commission plant site.nis insignificant 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 Room at 1717 H Street NRC teams who have visited a number uncertainty associated with each etep.
NW, Washington. D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the rule, including the
(
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTt compliance with the upgraded prompt notification system. is still
~
Brf an K. Grimes. Director. Division of emergency planning regulations of required. In changing the Emergency Preparedness. Office of August 1980. In addition, the Federal implementation date of the prompt Inspection and Enforcement. U.S.
Emergency Management Agency public notification capability Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(FEMA) and the NRC have monitored requirement, the Commission recognizes q
Washington. D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-numerous nuclear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement i
492-4614).
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 y'
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM AT1ON:
witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February l.The Proposed Rule onsite and offsite emergency 1.1982. However, the Commission i
On August 19.1980. the Nuclear preparedness, intends to take appropriate enforcement Regulatory Commission published in the Based on the above information and action against licensees who did not.
Federal Register (45 FR 5M02) on a recognition that there exist prior to July 1.1981. notify the i
amendments to its regulations (10 CFR customary warning systems (police.
Commission of their inability to meet Part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the July 1.1981 deadline.
y upgrading of emergency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated v
The effective date of these regalations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significant licensee performance v>as November 3.1980. Among other proposing to defer the irr.plementation strengths and weaknesses are evaluated things, the regulations required licensees date of the prompt pub!k mtD:ation in the NRC Systematic Assessment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requiremero /. J Q 1.1981 IJcensee Performance (SALP). The SALP Jandary 2,1981, submit impiementing to February 1.1982 ' ~ v4 -.ftbe pmgrpm mcifically includes evaluation
==
uccedures by March 1.1981 and above. the CoM c h is tL d there oflicenae performance in emergency implement the emergency plans by April exists suffic' w *-w-
,efieve that preparedness. Accordingly, a licensee's j
1,1981.
appropriate ; ^;" a r
, mr es can efforts in attempting to meet the July 1.
One e!cment that must be and will be tmn for u phet'on of 1981 date for installing the prompt a
demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the pu'olk in the public notification capability will be a
=
licensee *s emergency plan is that:
event of a radiological emergency d; ring factor in that licensee's SALP.
/
46588 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.182 / hfonday. September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules II. Proposed Application of the Final final rule. when effective, will be 1244.124s. (42 U.S C. 5s41. 5842. 584a), unless Rule applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwise noted. Section 50Je also issued now pending and to issues or under sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C. 2152).
De Commission also is proposing in contentions therein. Union of Ccncerned Secu n ms-50 at also issued under sec.184.
this rule that the four-month period for Scientists v AEC, 499 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.
68 Statm as amended (42 M 2234L Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under sec.186.
correcting deficiencies. provided in 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. sa Stat. 958. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273). I 50.411i) issued under sec.1611.
pubh.c notification system requirement In accordance with the Regulatory es Stat. He (42 U.S.C. 2201(111: il 50J0. 50.71, by February 1,1982, the new deadline Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
and 50.7s issued under sec.161o. 6a Stat. 950, dite. If a licensee is not in compliance the Commission concludes that this rule as amended (42 U.S C. 2201(o), and the laws with this requirement by February 1.
will not,if promulgated.have a referred to in Appendices.
1982, the Commission will consider significant economic impact on a
- 1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to taking appropriate enforcement actions substantial number of small entities. ne Part 501s revised to read as follows:
promptly at that time. In determimng proposed rule concerns an extension of A P' appropriate enforcement action to, to the operational date for public
'p'8'"Nd P
p,,
d don initiate. the Commission will take m notification systems for nuclear power 7, gig roccount, among other factors, the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 dtmonstrated diligence of the licensee and 14tb of the Atomic Energy Act of D ou adon h um in attempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954, as amended 42 U.S.C. 2133,2134b.
notification capability requirement. The The electric utility companies owning Commission will consider whether the and operating these nuclear power C'"* Q *h8f,,h**',$ j W S 3
j, he:nsee has kept the NRC informed of plants are dominant in their service govemmental agencies within 15 minutes tfie steps that it has taken, when those areas and do not fall within the after dectana an errersency. ne licensee steps 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 public timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business notification decision promptly on being will be met in achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part informed by the hcensee of an emergency with the prompt public notification 121. In addition. since the amendment condition. By February 1.1982, each nuclear
' ha capability requirements.
extends for one year the date by which
[j"t a dp ca ns be With respect to requests for the publ;c notification systems are to be exemptions that NRC has received from operational, the businesses and state established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume nuclear power reactor licensees and local governments mvolved in the exposure pathway EPZ.ne four. month concerning the prompt pubhc manufacture and installation of these period in to CR 50 54(s)(2) for the correction notification requirement and deadlines.
systems are not economically affected in of emergency p!an deficiencies shall not for installation and operational any significant manner. Accordingly, apply to deficiencies in the initial installation e.apability, 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. ne design proposed extension of the July 1.1981 entities, as defined in the Regulatory objective of the prompt public notification date. Any hcensee not able to meet the Flexibihty Act of1980.
system sha!! be to have the capability to new deadline date of February 1,1982 essentially complete the ini'ial notification of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the public within the plurce exposure after the new date. This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the Q*[ *nc'hi" *h "' *5$nutes ne i
n pb eliminate unnecessa md costly Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.
from immediate notification of the pubhc admin' stratis e actions needed to L 96-511), the NRC has made a (within 15 minutes of the time that State and consider picsent exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officiais 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 the July 1.1981 information collection, or reporting hkely 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 governmental officials to make a judgment reduced number of noncompliance 1954 as amended, the Energy whether or not to activate the public situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of1974 as amended.
[,",2 E o fica i n sys7e ct te t the S ate the new deadime. 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 E is manner. ne responsibihty for activatir.g 1981 operational date requirement.
contemplated.
such a public notification s3 stem shall remain If the proposed rule is subsequently with the appropriate govemment authonties promulgated as a final rule. it is the PART 50-DOMESTIC l.lCENSING OF Commission's present intention to make PRODUCTION ANDUTILIZATION it effective immediately upon FACILITIES Dated at Washington. D C., this 16th day of publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
September 1981.
553(d)(1). since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3
licensees with respect to the present Authority: Secs. 103.104.161.182,183.189.
Secretaryofthe 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.
In ou eurm ra,a e wi.s es.mi regard. the Commission notes that the 2233. 2239); secs. 201. 202,20s. 88 Stat.1243.
sumea coot rimsas
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O.C. 20555 l
f