ML20039D096
| ML20039D096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310312 | |
| Download: ML20039D096 (5) | |
Text
e YELLOW
[nweb o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 I
REGION 11
{
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 NOV 171981 Alabama Power Company-p i {,
ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald
~
Vice President-Nuclear Generation P. O. Box 2641 4"
QM Birmingham, AL 35291 b
%:ggE o
C:n Gentlemen:
c b
Subject:
Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
,\\27W This letter is being sent to nuclear power plant licensees for general-clarification on emergency preparedness issues.
It is realized that some pravisions 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 Federal lead agency for improving of f site preparedness.
FEMA findings are based on reviews and approvals which are acccmplished 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 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 FEPA 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 ard 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 of fice 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.
L/
8112310312 811117 PDR ADOCK 05000348 F
PDR W 3I mA
NOV 171981 Alabama Power Company 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 shoulJ not be used in " practices". While certain functions are similar regardless of the scenario, certain others
-(assessment, protective-action-decision-making, in plant surveys, etc.)
may differ significantly.
Therefore, to the extent practical, t raining 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.
Tha 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 Register for comment.
Ns 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.
Sincerply, (h jIc.
4 James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator [
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule Change cc/w encl:
(See Page 3)
- 7 Gal Alabama Power Company 3
cc w/ encl:
W. O. Whitt, Executive Vice President F. L. Clayton, Jr., Senior Vice President H. O. Thrash, General Manager-Nuclear Generation
- 0. D. Kingsley, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Technical Services J. W. McGowan, Manager-Safety Audit and Engineering Review W. C. Carr, Supervisor-Safety Audit and Engineering Review W. G. Hairston, III, Plant Manager i
l i
n
i e
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / Monday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules 46587 10 CFR Part 50 By idy 1.1981. the nuclear power reactor the extended time period for licensee shall demonstrate that compliance.
Emergency Planning and administrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and estabbshed for alerting and providing prompt he Comm!ssion's decision to defer instructions to the pubhc mthin the plume the date for requiring full Utilization Facit! ties esposure pathway EPZ.ne design objecthe implementation of the prompt public AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory sh.ll be to have the capabihty to essentially notification capability requirement was Commission.
complete the initial notification of the pubhc r: sde, as desenbed above. efter withm the piume exposure pathway EPZ additional consideration of industry-ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakirg.
withm about 15 mmutes.
wide difficulty in acquiring the
SUMMARY
- ne Nuclear Regulatory he NRC staff has evaluated thelevel necessary equipment. permits, and Commission is proposing to amend its of compliance by the industry and noted clearances. %Is 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 be operational around all nuclear power fully the July 1,1981 date for installation Commission used in adopting and plants.%e proposed extension is based of a prompt public notification system sustaining the public notification on industry-wide difficulty in 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. %e on Emergency Planning. 45 FR 55402.
clearances. 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 836 (1980). It
'hese systems from july 1.1961 to no unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties is the Commissiot.'s continued judgment later than February 1.1982.
surrounding the designing. procuring, that prompt public notification is an carts: Comment period expires October and instafhng of the prompt notificatica important consideration in the offsite 21.1981. Comments received after 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. His offsite protection to do so, but assurance of consideratios was concerned that these factors would of the public includes 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 AooRasses: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407}.
utility, communication of the perceived invited to submit written comments and While licensees
- comal* with the threat to offaite authorities, decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notification requirement has offette officials on the osed for 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 warmng 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 reducmg to the extent comments received by the Commission plant site.His 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 717 H Street NRC teams who have visited a nunber uncertainty associated with each step.
NW., Washington. D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the rule, including the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
compliance with the upgraded prompt notification system. is still Brian K. Crimes. Director. Division of emergency pianning regulations of required. In chaneing 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 Wa shington, D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-numerous nuclear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4614).
involving State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the ar.d the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as suPm.rutxTARv twroRuATiose witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February L The Proposed Rule ensite 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 against licensees who did not.
Federal Register (45 FR 55402) on a recognition that there exist prior to July 1.1981. notify the amendments to its regulations (10 CFR customary warning systems (police.
Commission of their inability to meet Part 50 and Appendix E) cancerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the July 1.1981 deadline.
upgrading of emergency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated The 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 weaknesse: are evaluated things, the regulations required licensees date of the prompt public notification in the NRC Systematic Assessment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requirement from July 1.1981 Licensee Performance (SALp).The SALP 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 est there of licensee performance in emergency implement the emergency plans by April exists sufficient reason to beliew that preparedness. Accordingly, a licensee's 1.1981, appropriate protective measures can efforts in attempting to meet the July 1.
1 One element that must be and will be taken for the protection of 1981 date for installing 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 SALP.
l, 1
l l
16588 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / hfonday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules II. Proposed Application of the Final final rule, when effective, will be 1244.1248. (42 U.S c. 584:. s842. 584e). unless Rule applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwise noted. Section 5018 also issued De Commission also is proposing in now pending and to issues or under sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 US C 2152).
this rule that the four.ntonth period for contentions therein. Union of Concerned Section 50.?s40.81 also issued under sec.184.
e lends.'s v. AEC 499 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.
es Statan as amended (42 m 2W correcting deficiencies, provided in 7ir 19"'4)-
Sections Sa10Mo.102 issued under sec.18tL l 50.54(s)(2). should not apply to any ea Stat. ess (42 U.S C 223el. For the purposes
~
licensee
- t in compliance with the Regulatory Flesibility Certification "I
f h223 6a 5 ae
(
, d
- e 1811.
public - dication system requirement In accordance with the Regulatory es Stat. iHo (42 US.C 2201(i)). ll 50.70. 50 71.
by Feorury 1.1982, the new deadline Fleubility Act of 1980. 5 U.S C. 605(b),
and 5018 issued under sec. telo. 66 Stat. 950, dat2. If a licensee is not in compliance the Commission concludes that this rule as amended (42 U.S c. 2201(ol, and the lawe with this requirement by February 1.
will not,if promu! gated, have a referred toin Appendices.
1982, the Commission will consider significant economic impset on a
- 1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to t: king appropriate enforcement a substantial number of small entities.He Part 50 is revised to read as follows:
promptly at that time.In determm, ctions in8 proposed rule concerns an extension of cppropriate enforcement action to, to the operational date for public A P[,*"d p,J"[IQnd'"
g,,
6 non initiate. the Commission will take in notification systems for nuclear power 7,m cccount, among other factors, the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 d.monstrated diligence of the licensee and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of D
cdon un s in citernpting 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
- 3. A licensee shall hase the capabihty to
'*IY b
lic nsee has kept the NRC informed of plants are dominant in their service
,",y, m eb asenc es with minutes the steps that it has taken, when those areas and do not fall within the after dectanns an emergency. ne licensee st;ps were taken and any significant definition of a small business found in shall demonstrate that the State / local i
problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 officials have the capabibty to make a public tim; table which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632. or within the Small Business notification decision promptly on beins will be met in achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part informed by the licensee of an emergency with the prompt public notification 121. In addition, since the amendment condition. By February 1.1982, each nuclear capability requirements.
extends for one year the date by which pow n ' h "'
' ' ha ts e dp ns h b,
With respect to requests for the public notification systems are to be exemptions that NRChas received from operational, the businesses and state established for alerting and providing prornpt i
instructions to the pubhc within the plume nuclear power reactor licensees and local governments involved in the exposure pathway EPZ.The four month concerning the prompt pubhc manufacture and installation of these i
period in to Cm So s4(sl(2) for the correction l
notification requirement and deadlines.
systems are not economica!!y affected in of emergency plan deficiencies shall not for installation and operational any significant manner. Accordingly.
apply to deficiencies in the initialinstallation capability, the Commission has decided there is no significant economic impact of this public notification system that is to deny these requests inlight of the on a substantial number of small required by February 1.1982. The design proposed extrnsion of the July 1.1981 entities, as defined in the Regulatory objective of the prompt public notification date. Any bcensee not able to meet the Flexibihty Act of1980.
'istem shall be to have the capabihty to new deadline date of February 1.1982 essentially complete the miCal notification of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the public within the plume exposure efter the new date.This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the p wa a
t 15 n nute g
p.
},
t}, e eliminate unnecessary and costly Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(Pub.
from immediate notification of the pubhc i
l administra!is e actions needed to L 96-511). the NRC has made a (within 15 minutes of the time that State and consider pasent exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officials are notified that a cituation that will essentially become moot by the does not impose new recordkeeping, e xists requiring urgent action) to the more proposed extension of the July 1.1981 information collection, or reporting hkely events w here there is substantial time l
date. This approach will also permit the requirements.
available for the State and local l
NRC to focus its consideration upon a Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of governmental officials to make a ludgment reduced number of noncompliance 1954. as amended, the Energy whether or not to actqate the public situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of 1974. as amended, n[
t on ste e7 cm e a dec,s, n the new deadline. It is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United
,9 9,,,,
and local officials will determme whether to most effic:ent use of NRC resources will States Code, notice is hereby given that activate the entire notification sptem 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 re.ponsibihty for activatmg 1981 operational date requirement.
contemplated.
such a pubhc notification s> stem shall remain If the proposed rule is subsequently with the appropnate government authonties promulgated as a final rule. It is the PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF Commission s present intention to make PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION tt effective immedistely upon FACILITIES Dated at Washington. D C., this 16th day of publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
September 1981.
553(dhl), since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
For the Nuclear Regul. tory Commission licensees with respect to the present Authodty: kca. 103,104.161.182.183.189.
July 1.1981 deadline for operational 68 Stac 036. 937. M8. 953. 954. 955. 956. a s g,c7,fgfy,f g3, comgj,,jg, public notification systems. In that amended (42 U.S.C. 2133. 2123. 2201. 2232 I'" D" '#528 * '" ' *5 *"4 regard, the Commission notes that the 22312239); secs. 201. 202. 20s. 88 Stat.1243.
s'umo cooc inw4i-as
UNITED STMES MISSION wash NGT N 1 m.__