ML20039D098
| ML20039D098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Leasburg R VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310314 | |
| Download: ML20039D098 (5) | |
Text
- '
- "%'o,t YELLOW UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAll REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
E REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SulTE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o3o3 m
N OV 1 7 1981 g
' /
Virginia Electric and Power Company y
3 ATIN: Mr. R. H. Leasburg, Vice President sr A
'i Nuclear Operations yO J\\
P. O. Box 26666 Eco D
g 0 Olh Richmond, VA 23261 2 k Q,SM Gentlemen:
1
/
Subject:
Docket Nos. 50-338, 50-339, 50-404, 50-280 and 50-281 N
g \\.
ro 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 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 offsite 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 reviews 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 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 i
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.
j 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.
(
8112310314 811117' DRADOCK05000g h
ZEsy
NOV 171981 Virginia Electric and 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 should 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 extant 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 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.
Sincepely, LA5 er d James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule Change cc w/ encl:
(See Page 3)
NOV 171981 Virginia Electric and Power Company 3
cc w/ encl:
E. Davis, Director Nuclear Security J. H. Ferguson, Executive Vice President W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager J. L. Wilson, Manager
/
4
1 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No.182 / Afonday, September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules 46587 10 CFR Part 50 By July 1.1981. the nuclear power reactor the extended time period for licensee shall demonstrate that compliance, Emergency Pisoning and administrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and established for alertmg and providing prompt ne Commission's decision to defer Utilization Facilities instructions to the pubhc within the plume the date for requiring full exposure pathway EPZ.The design objective implementation of the prompt public Aoasecy: Nuclear Regulatory shall be to have the capabtity to essential 1F notification capability requirement was Commission.
complete the initial notification of the public made, as desenbed above, after ACTioec Notice of proposed rulemaking.
within the plume exposure pathway EPZ additional consideration of industry-within about 15 minutes.
wide difficulty in acquiring the sussesARY:Re Nuclear Regulatory
%e NRC staff has evaluated the level 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.The proposed extension is based of a prompt public notification system sustaining the public tiotification 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 ( Aqi.19,1980), reconsideration would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denini. Ct.I-ao-40,12 NRC 636 (1980). It these systems from July 1,1981 to no unforeseen dif ficulties and uncertainties
- 1. the Commission's continued judgment later than February 1,1982.
surrounding the designing, procuring, that prompt public notification is an DATES: Comment period expires October and installing of the pimpt notification 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 practieel implementation date, the Commiselon nuclear accident. %is offsite protection to do so, but assurance of consideration 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 step
~ tion of the
-ni received on or before this date, schedule and set the July 1981 date with potential severity of the accident by the AoOREsaus: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407).
utility, communication of the perceived invited to submit written comments and While licensees
- cornpIIan= with the threat to offsite authorities, decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notification requirement has offsite officials on the need foe Secretary of the Conrnission, 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.The emergency planning rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nuclear power is premised on redudag to the extent comments received by the Commission plant site.%is insignificant possible-and to the extent the NRC can may be examined in the Commissien'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 step, NW., Washington, D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the rule. including the FOR FURTHER INFORssAT10N C00ffACT:
compliance with 'he upgraded prompt notification system, is still Brian K. Crimes, 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 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 i
and the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as SUPPLERsENTARY INFORheATIO9c witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February I.%e Proposed Rule onsite and offsite emergency 1,1982, flowever, the Commission On August 19,1980, the Nuclear preparedness, intends to take appropnate enforcement Regulatory Commission published in the Based on the above Information and action against licensees who did not, l
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 Api endix E) concerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the july 1,1981 deadline.
upgrading of energency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated He effective date of these regulations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significant licensee performance was November 3,198G. Among other proposing to defer the implementation strengths and weaknesses are evaluated i
I 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). Re SALP January 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 oflicensee 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 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 thet:
event of a radiological emergency during factor in that licensee's SALP.
46588 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.182 / Monday. September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules II. Proposed Application of the Mnal final rule, when effective, will be 1244.1246 [42 U.S C 5841. 5842. 5846). unless Rule applied to ongoir.g licensing proceedings otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued now pending and to issues or under sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C 2152).
He Commission also is proposing in contentions therein. Union of Concerned Secti n 50.76-50.81 also issued under sec.184.
this rule that the four-month period for Scientists v. AEC. 499 F. 2d 1000 (D.C.
Sections Sa100-50.102 issued under sec.186.
es StauS4. ae ended H2 ESC 2236 correcting deficiencies, provided in Cir.1974).
68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). For the purposes I 50.54(s)(2), should not apply to any licensee not in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Certification f sec. 223. es Stat. 85a. as amended (42 U.S.C 2273). I 50.41(i) issued under sec.1611 public notification system requirement in accordance with the Regulatory ea Stet. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201[ill; il 50.70. 50.71.
by February 1.1982, the new deadime Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
and 50 7e issued under sec. leto. 68 Stat. 950.
d;t]. 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 toln Appendices.
1982, the Commission will consider significant economic impact on a
- 1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to taking appropriate enforcement actions substartial number of small entities.ne Part So is revised to read as follows:
promptly at that time. In determinin8 proposed rule concerns an extension of r ppropriate enforcement action to the operational date for public Appendix F,.-Emergency Planning and Pared""
initiate the Commission will take into notification systems for nuclear power 6as Cccount, among other factors, the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 d:monstrated diligence of the licensee ar d lotb of the Atomic Energy Act of in Ettempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 2133,2134b.
D p @ Mon e
nitification capability requirement. The The electric utility companies owning Commission will consider whether the and operating these nuclear power
- 3. A ticensee shall have the capability to D
licensee has kept the NRC Informed of plants are dominant in their service go$ernm'eNalasencie[Ot i minutes the steps that it has taken, when those areas and do not fall within the after declaring an emergency. The licensee 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 omcfals have the capability 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 licensee of an emergency with the prompt public notification 121. In addition, since the amendment condition. By February 1.1982. asch nuclear power reactor licensee shall demonstrate that capability requirements.
extends for one year the date by which a rn n strative and physical means have been With respect to requests for the public notification systems are to be d fo I P
"8 pt exemptions that NRC has received from operational, the businesses and state esyb inj a" g
c hi p ne nuclear power reactor licensees and local governments involved in the exposure pathway EPZ.ne four. month conc?rning the prompt public manufacture andinstallation of these period in to CFR 50 54(sl[2] for the conection 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 th 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 ab ut 15 nu e
sfter the new date.This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the
[th aj 9n
,p.
g.
eliminate unnecessary and costly Paperwcrk Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.
from immediate notification of the pubhc administratis e 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 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 h
reduced number of noncompliance 1954, as amended, the Energy
{ot rcation [ys n
h e her a decision situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of1974, 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 adootion of the foliowing amendment to simultaneously or in a graduated or staged exemption requests relating to the July 1.
It CFR Part 50. Appendix E is manner. The responsibihty for activating 1981 operational date requirement.
contemplated.
such a public notification s> stem shall remain if the proposed ru!e is subsequently with the appropriate government authonties-promulgated as a final rule,it is the PART 50-DOMESTIC IJCENSING OF Commission,s present intention to make PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 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 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
S-1 hi1L licensees with respect to the present Authority: Secs.103,104.181.182.181.189, secretory of the commission.
July 1,1981 deadline for operational 68 Stat. 936,937,948,953. 954. 955,958, as public notification systems. In that amended (42 U.S.C. 2133,2123. 2201. 2232.
IFR Dor., st-r?s2s FJed e-le-a1. s 45 am) regard, the Commission notes that the 2233. 2233); seco. 2o1,2o2. 2o6,88 Stat.1243, asumo cooe 7ssm-as
UNITED STATES NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O.C. 20555 l
I 4
1 l
l 1
l l
l I