ML20052F120

Responds to FOIA Request for Records Re Siren Sys Installed to Provide Early Notification to Populace in Plume Exposure Pathway Zone Around State of Ny Nuclear Reactors After 811230.Forwards Documents Listed in App a

ML20052F120
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/12/1982
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Miglietta J PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK
Shared Package
ML20052F121	List: ML20052F120 ML20052F131
References
FOIA-82-158 NUDOCS 8205120133
Download: ML20052F120 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.'? g,a a: <,o, 'Q UNITED STATES

,}' Nb,; i i y

g" NUCLE AR REGULATORY COTAMISSION j WASHING 1ON, D. C. 20555 o "r. : \\ D e-cd j April 12, 1982 g 9 RECEgygg APR13gggjh } niPJggyp Mr. John Miglietta g Researcher to Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. IN RESPONSE REFER New York, NY 10038 TO F01A-82-158

Dear Mr. Miglietta:

This is in partial response to your letter dated March 17,1982, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, records relating to siren systems installed to provide early notification to the populace in the plume exposure pathway zone around New York State's nuclear reactors after December 30, 1981. Appendix A is a list of documents which are subject to your request. These documents are enclosed. The review of additional documents subject to your request has not yet been completed. When this review is complete, we will advise you of our disclosure determination. Also, one document has been referred to the Federal Emergency Management Admir.istration (FEMA) for their review and direct response to you. Sincerely, J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration l l

Enclosures:

As stated l i 1 820S120133 820412 hGL 2-158 PDR

Re: F01A-82-158 C" Appendix A 1. Letter from John D. O'Toole, Consolidated Edison Co., to R. C. Hayles, NRC Region I, " Alert and Notification System," December ll, 198;. 2. Letter from J. P. Bayne, Power Authority of the State of New York, to Harold Denton, NRC, James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant," Janua ry 4,1982. 3. Letter from D. P. Dise, Niagara Mohawk to H. R. Denton, NRC, "Nine Mile Point Unit 1," January 28, 1982. 4. Letter from John D. O'Toole, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York to H. R. Denton, NRC, " Alert and Notification System," January 29, 1982. 5. Letter from Richard C. DeYoung, NRC, to John D. O'Toole, Consolidated Edison, February 12, 1982. 6. Letter from Richard C. DeYoung, NRC, to J. P. Bayne, Power Authority of the State of New York, February 12, 1982. 7. Memo from Kenneth E. Perkins, NRC, to Steven Varga, NRC, " Licensee's Requests for Exemption from Prompt Notification System Deadline," Februa ry 12, 1982. 8. Letter from John D. O'Toole, Consolidated Edison to Ronald C. Haynes, NRC Region I, " Alert at d Notification System," February 26, 1982. 9. Article from New York Times, " Siren Tests to Start at Indian Point."

d I i N.[ POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK i-( 10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 4 IRVING PLACE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10003 V-I December 31, 1981 8 l s- ,9 n =.. : ' c. Mr. Ron.11d C. Haynes, Regional Administrator [ Office of Inspection and Enforcement ,;. 3-l Region I ts =* ', " / U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g's , ~, 631 Park Avenue j *.. . '/ King of Prussia, PA 19406 . - { \\ ' # *~ [ /, 3

SUBJECT:

Indian Point Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-03 and 50-247 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 Alert and Notification System

Dear Mr. Haynes:

[ By letter dated October 30, 1961, the Power Authority of.the State of 'k New York (Authority) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) provided you with an estimated schedule for installation of the Alert and Notification System for the Indian Point site 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone. The Autnority and Con Edison wish to inform you that the aforementioned Alert and Notification System is in the final stages of installation ?. and testing. It is anticipated that the remaining activities will be completed by the implementation date specified in the amended NRC emer-gency planning regulations. Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact us. l Very truly yours, f l w J. P. Bayne hn D. O'Toole Senior Vice President ,'Vice President Power Authority of the Consolidated Edison. Company State of New York of New York, Inc. ( CC: Continued s ~ ,$b wnIUT74-811231 ic f PDR ADOCK 05000003 F PDR f/

p o ;<z~ a - I r i Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Division of Dnergency Preparedness e l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission f Washington, D. C. 20555 t' Mr. Ted Rebelowski, Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 38 Buchanan, N. Y. 10511 'I i t P Y r r 9 4 !g I iI '.- I i I t-t e i s f i G .. w s i i i t

4. {. ' - POWER AUTHORITY OF-T!;Z OTATE OF NEW YORK ( fo COLUMeus CIRCLE NEW YORK. N. Y. Ioo19 (212) 397 6200 GEORGE 7.BER TRUSTEES ema navisse crestan JOHN S.DYSON JOHN W. BOSTON nr ses y noctounta

• P'"#0""EE GEORGE t. ING ALLS wet s cosaanes&M JOSEPH R, $CHMIEDER ats CE a CMIEF CiCHARD M.FLYNN RO.E RT i. wittONz' January 4, 1982

{iey'a,,I,^he===v rRzOE mica R. e t

• R ic JPN-82-1

ric =

THOMASR FREY Mr. Harold Denton, Director ".",' O,i'", ;",',,*,',*,' " ' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

- James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Prompt Notification System

References:

1. Letter, from J.P.

Bayne (PASNY) to H. Denton (USNRC) dated October 9, 1981 (JPN-81-81) 2. Letter, from D.P. Dise (NM) to H. Denton (USNRC) dated December 29, 1981, RE: Nine Mile Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220

Dear Sir:

In Reference 1 the Authority indicated that the prompt notification system would be completed as designed by December 31, 1981. As previously mentioned, the Authority is participating jointly with Niagara Mohawk in the installation of the prompt notification system. The status of the system as of December 29, 1981 was submitted by Niagara' Mohawk in Reference 2. The Authority will continue to work with Niagara Mohawk to complete the installa-tion of the system as soon as possible, but certainly no later than February 1, 1982. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. m Very truly yours, \\ nior Vice President Nuclear Generation .c cc: attached + (( ( RECEtVED 42 seo1o7onny e20104 5 J AN 6 1982% 04f' PDR ADOCK 05000220 m rim WM W gf $ PDR W[' I 9 p .l

. - -.. r u ~. _\\. cc: Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 671 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 e I Y 0 s .k O w., r - y

C $ V jdllshm O _)f q ( NIAGA":A MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION /300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST, SYRACUS Y.13202/ TELEPHONE (313) 474 1511 January 28, 1982 Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 DPR-63

Dear Mr. Denton:

Our letter of December 29, 1981 provided a status of the prompt ~ notification system being installed in the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 ten mile emergency planning zone. That letter indicated that all equipment, except the 600 tone alert radios not considered the original design, would be installed and tested by December 31, 1981. The additional tone alert radios were to be distributed by February 1,1982. This letter is to inform you that all of the required equipment was installed and tested by December 31, 1981. However, the tone alert radios were not received until January 22 and 26,1982. Therefore, it will not be possible to test and distribute these by February 1,1982. Due to the -[ possible ramifications of inclement weather, Niagara Mohawk cannot assure k distribution of these 600 units until February 26, 1982. Since the 600 tone alert radios were not considered in the origingal design, Niagara Mohawk believes that the four month grace period allowed by 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) is applicable. Paragraph D.3 of 10 CFR Appenidx E specifically allows this grace period for correction of deficiencies identified during the initial installation and testing. Therefore, we consider this a deficiency which warrants relief beyond February 1,1982. Very truly yours, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION f .4_) D. P. Dise Vice President Engineering GJG:ja cc: Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [h Region I 671 Park Avenue ~ j King of Prussia, PA 19406 Q g-{ {- 7A ( Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ~/- 10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 a CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW 70RK, INC. 4 IRVING PLACE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003 January 29, 1982 Mr. H.R. Denton, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Indian Point Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-03 and 50-247 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 Alert and Notification System

Dear Mr. Denton:

By letter dated December 31, 1981, the Power Authority of the State of New York (Authority) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) provided you with a status of the installation of the Alert and Notification System for the Indian Point site 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The Authority and Con Edison wish to inform you that the initial installation of the Alert and Notification System (ANS) for Westchester, Putnam, Orange and Rockland Counties, the four counties within the 10 mile EPZ, has been completed, except for the installation of an encoder in Rockland County. In addition, the initial testing of the ANS for Westchester and Orange Counties has been completed. A deficiency discovered during the initial testing of the Putnam County ANS is currently being corrected. In the fourth county, Rockland, a recent development has delayed completion of initial testing. Rockland County intends to use the radio transmitter licensed for its county highway department (RCHD) to activate the ANS. On or about January 16, 1982, Rockland County, the Authority and Con Edison discovered that the Federal Communications Commission had rejected ( Rockland County's application for renewal of its license for l the RCHD transmitter. The Authority and Con Edison, working l Ppiv l gggg y->y ?> } u

e .p (2) in cooperation with Rockland County, have been seeking expedited reinstatement of the RCHD license and the necessary amendment to that license to permit it to be used to activate the ANS. The Authority, Con Edison and Rockland County were notified that this renewal was granted today, January 29, 1982. It is antici-l pated that the aforementioned encoder will be installed and initial testing of the ANS in Rockland County will commence on or before February 1, 1982. Therefore, purs uant ot 10 CFR 50.12 (a), the Authority and con Edison hereby petition the Commission for a parti-al and limited exemption from the provisions of Sectic n IV.D.3 of Appendix E i to Part 50 insofar as may be necessary. The Authority and Con Edison have further determined that such partial and limited exemption will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. t Should you or your staff have any questions concerning the detail of the initial installation and/or initial testing of the ANS, please contact us. Very /trulyyoprs, ~ 4y .P. Bayne ohn D. O'T le Senior Vice President Vice President ower Authority of the Consolidated Edison Company v State of New York of New York, Inc. cc: Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Ted Rebelowski, Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Post Office Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 (

p D]C: 8 UNITED STATES fggh;, . _,NU. CLEAR REGULATOR,Y; COMMISSION,_ ., l - -j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o > %.,/.. J g j.- +..o FCB 12 ce i Docket No. 50-247 -EA 82-34 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ATTH: Mr. John D. O'Toole Vice President - Nuclear Engineer.ing and Quality As;urance 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Gentlemen: In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) ard Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations, each nuclear power reactor licensee. was required to have demonstrated by February 1,1982 that administrative and physical means had been established for alerting ant. providing prompt instructions to the public located within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. Based on information provided to the NRC by letter dated January 29, 1982, it appears that you did not meet the February 1,1982 deadline for the Indian Point Power Station, Unit 2. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation for failure to meet [. this deadline is enclosed. The failure to meet the February 1,1982 deadline is . q' considered to be of significant regulatory concern and, therefore, has been categorized as a Severity 1.evel III violation in accordance with the NRC Interim Enforcement Policy (45 FR 66754, October 7,1980). The enclosed Notice of Violation provides that a response is due within 5 days of completing the initial installation and tcsting of the system or 30 d.ays from the date of this letter, whichever is later. No further enforcement action is contemplated for those licensees that complete the installation and initial testing of the prompt public notification system by February 28, 1982. Notice is hereby given that, in order to provide an incentive for compliance with the Commission's requirements, daily civil penalties will be proposed for those licensees who complete the installation and initial testing on or after March 1,1982. The NRC Interim Enforcement Policy provides that a civil penalty of $40,000 can be imposed for each day for which a violation continues. However, after considering this matter, we have decided to use a graduated schedule of civil penalties for failure to have the prompt public notification system installed and tested as required. A daily civil penalty of $1,000 will be proposed beginning on March 1,1982. Daily civil penalties will continue at the rate of $1,000 per day until March 31, 1982. On April 1, 1982, the daily civil penalty rate will be increased to $2,000 per day. Dai.ly civil penalties will continue at the rate of $2,000 per day until Ma'y 31, 1982. On June 1,1982, the daily civil penalty rate will be increased to $4,000 per day for that day and each day thereafter until a prompt public notification system is properly installed and tested. )h fd EU'H$nEo M03Tco%

Consolidated Edison Company IG 1 e ligf f i The NRC does not intend to issue a Nctice of Proposed Imposition of Civil - Penalties until you have responded to the enclosed Notice of Violation. In preparing the Notice of Proposed Imposition of" Civil Penalties, the NRC will consider whether circumstances justify reducing the daily rate of civil penalties discussed above. Consistent with the December 30, 1981 Statement of Considerations extending the July 1,1981 deadline for the notification system to February 1, 1982 (46 FR 63032),'tions to comply with the rule; (b) the compensatory measu the NRC intends to consider (a) whether the NRC was kept informed of your ac in effecc, percentage of system completion, and degree of effort to complete the system as of February 1,1982; and (c) any uniqu'e problems and the diligence i used in resolving or attempting to resolve these problems. When responding to the Notice of Violation, you may provide, in addition to the required information, any additional information you wish the NRC to consider prior to proposing the civil penalties discussed above. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to i the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96'511. ( Sincerely, ( t I !, _,<)w w fj, i, s;, vd ' u lg j " \\ I i Ri hard C. DeYoung, Direc or - Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation cc: C. W. Jackson, Vice President, Nuclear Power K. Burke, Director, Regulatory Affairs W. D. Hamlin, Assistant-to Resident Manager F. Hatra, Resident Construction Manager Lewis F. Liberatori, Nuclear Licensing Engineer Thomas J. Farrelly, Esquire Brent L. Brandenburg, Assistant General Counsel

(

S A.

u ~ NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ' Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point Power Station, Unit 2 EA 82-34 As a result of information submitted by the licensee, the following violation, categorized in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy (45 FR 66754, October 7,1980), was identified: 10 CFR 50.54(s) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (46 FR 63032, December 30, 1981) require each nuclear power reactor licensee, by February 1,1982, to ' demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. Contrary to the above, by letter dated January 29, 1982 the licensee notified the NRC that it would not be able to demonstrate by February 1, 1982 that administrative and' physical means had been established for alerting and promptly providing public instruction within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Indian Point Power Station, Un,t't 2. ( This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement 1). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Consolidated Edison Company is hereby required to submit to this office within five days of the date of completion of the installation and initial testing of the prompt public notification system or 30 days after the date of this Notice of Violation, whichever is later, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation and (3) the date when full compliance was achieved. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i , 4 ) nC i - ii.c'.p. Richard C. DeYoung, Director /# Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland l this _ i'! day of February 1982 b =* e

NA UNITED STATES e j g[c, p : NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASH,[NGTON, D. C,70555 y

,, 4 a

y ( FEB 121982 Docket No. 50-286 EA 82-35 Power Authority of the State of New York ATTN: Mr. J. P. Bayne Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Gentlemen: In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) and Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations, each nuclear power reactor licensee was required to have demonstrated by February 1, 1982 that administrative and. physical means had been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public located within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. Based on information provided to the NRC by letter' dated January 29, 1982, it appears that you did not meet the February 1,1982 deadline for the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Station. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation for failure to meet this deadline is enclosed. The failure to meet the February 1,1982 deadline is f considered to be of significant regulatory concern and, therefore, has been

I categorized as a Severity Level III violation in accordance with the NRC Interim

\\ Enforcement Policy (45 FR 66754, October 7,1980). The enclosed Notice ~of Violation provides that a response is due within 5 days of completing the initial installation and testing of the system or 30 days from the date of this letter, whichever is later. No furtler enforcement action is contemplated for those licensees that complete the installation and initial testing of the prompt public notification system bj February 28, 1982. Notice is hereby given that, in order to provide an incentive for compliance with the Commission's requirements, daily civil penalties will be proposed for those licensees who complete the installation and initial testing on or af ter March 1,1982. The NRC Interim Enforcemant Policy prov. ides that a civil penalty of $40,000 can be imposed for each day for which a violation continues. However, af ter considering this matter, we have-decided to use-a graduated schedule of civil penalties for failure to have the prompt public notification system installed and tested as required. A daily civil penalty of $1,000 will be proposed beginning on March 1,1982. Daily civil penalties will continue at the rate of.$1,000 per day until March 31, 1982. On April 1, 1982, the daily civil penalty rate will be increased to $2,000 per day. Daily, civil penalties will continue at the rate of $2,000 per day until May.31, 1982. On June 1,1982, the daily civil penalty rate will be increased to $4,000 per day for that day and each day thereafter until a prompt public notification system is properly installed and tested. {, ~~i _( O gyQT[j ,(- CERTIFIED Mall RETURN RE0 VESTED ._f I. e

i N3 1 2 W'~~ thority of the State - York does not intend to issue a Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil. s until you have responded to the enclosed Notice of Violation. In g the Notice of Proposed Imposition of-Civil Penalties, the NRC will whether circumstances justify reducing the daily rate of civil penalties d'above. Consistent with the December 30, 1981 Statement of Considerations g' the July ~ 1,1981 deadline for the notification system to February 1, FR 63032.), the NRC intends to consider (a) whether the NRC was kept of your actions to comply viith the rule; (b) the compensatory measures t, percentage of system completion, and degree of effort to complete em as of February 1,1982; and (c) any unique problems and the diligence resolving or attempting to resolve these problems. When responding to te of Violation, you may provide, in addition to the required information, tional information you wish the NRC to consider prior to proposing the nalties discussed above. dance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, , Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this lett'er will be placed RC Public Document Roomi anses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to rance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, as required by rwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. Sincerely, q~..,t mCJ j /- ^ \\.h I

• l*

.ki, chard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement ~ l 2: Violation r ge T. Berry, President and tief Operating Officer

. Brons, Resident Manager

1. Pratt, Assistant General Counsel llausmann, Vice President - Quality (surance lalama, Quality Assurance Superintendent

. Davis, Chairman, Safety Review Comm. iurke, Director, Regulatory Affairs (con Ed) 'homa, Project Manager l S I

p ? 's w e 1( NOTICE OF VIOLATION Power Authority of the State of New York Docket No. 50-286 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Station EA 82-35 As a result of information submitted by the licensee, the following violation, categorized in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy (45 FR 66754, October 7, 1980), was identified: 10 CFR 50.54(s) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (46 FR 63032, December 30, 1981) require each nuclear power reactor licensee, by February 1,1982, to demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. Contrary to the above, by letter dated January 29, 1982 the licensee notified the NRC that it would not be able to demonstrate by February 1, 1982 that administrative and physical means had been established for alerting and promptly providing public instruction within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the, Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Station. This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement 1). k Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Power Authority of the State of New Yor is hereby required to submit to this office within five days of-the date of completion of the installation and initial testing of the prompt public notification system or 30 days after the date of this Notice of Violation, whichever is later, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation and (3) the date when full compliance was achieved. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. -F0 THE NUCLEAR REGiJLATORY COMMISSION '-.41,7W3fh L bb 1 Richard C. DeYoung, Dir,ector Office of Inspection and Enforcement ~ Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this i;L day of February 1982 /W ,Mo9/Mfb i O V. Oe

e j,g a zec bcC bM ,o UMITED STATES i; t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i( f February 12, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-003/,247/286 f1EMORANDUM FOR: Steven Varga, Chi.ef Op.? rating Reactors Branch #1'. Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Kenneth E. Perkins, Acting Chief Incident Response and Development Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

LICENSEE'S REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM FROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM DEADLIfr. r Effective December 30, 1981, the Commission approved the final rule changing 'f_ the deadline for implementation of a Prompt Notification System to February 1, k 1982. PASNY and Con Edison have requested a partial and limited exemption from this rule for the Indian Point facility. For the reasons given in the attached responses, we propose that it be denied. I hereby request that you forward the enclosed responses to the licensee as soon as_possible. [ W Kenneth E. Perkins, Acting Cliief Incident Response and Development Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Draft Letters to Con Edison and PASNY with Attachment Q h -y-(y - 4 1

Docket Nos. 50-003/247' ( , Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. . ATTN: John D. O',T. cole Vice President 4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 e.

Dear Mr. O'Toole:

This is in response to your January 29, 1982 letter, requesting an exemption f, rom the February 1,1982 deadline for implementation of your prompt notification ( system. The final rule establishing this deadline, which became effective December 30, 1981, does not specifically address requests for exemptica er relief from the February 1,1982 implementation date. However, pursuant to 10 CFR. 950.12, your request for exemption was determined not to be meritorious. As noted in the proposed rule (46 FR 46587), the Commission stated that, in its judgment, prompt public notification is an important consideration in the offsite protection of the public in the event of a nuclear accident. The emergency planning rule is premised on reducing, to the extent possible and to the extent the NRC can regulate, the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step in the prompt public notification process. Therefore, timely implementation of a prompt notifi-cation system if consider'sd to be' beneficial to the health and safety of the public. (See 46 FR 46587 & 46 FR 63031 for additional information). In view of the forgoing, it has been determined that granting an extension of time would not be in the public interest.

c Consolidated Edison Company ~ s. , of New York, Inc. However, the Commission recognizes that there may be mitigating circumstances / beyond your control that should be weighed in determining what enforcement action should be taken. Specifically, these considerations are: (1) ether the licensee demonstrated diligence in attempting to fulfill the wh requirements; (2)-whether or not.the NRC..was. kept informed of the steps taken to fu'lfill the requirements of the rule; (3) when those steps were taken, and any significant problems encountered; and (4) an updated timetable established to achieve full compliance with the prompt public notification capability requirement. J The information you have provided, in this and previous correspondence, will be taken into consideration in determining appropriate enforcement action. Sincerely, i l Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Enclosures:

l 1. 46 FR 46587 ~ ~ ~ 2. 46 FR 63031 ~ ( 0 6

. l '. Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / Monday. September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules 46587 [ 10 CFR Part 50 By July 1.1981, the nuc' ear pewer reactor the extended time period for !icensee shall dernenstrate that compliance. Emergency Planning and administntive and physical means beve t.een Preparedness for Production and established for alerting and predding prompt ne Commission's decis. ion to defer Utilization Facilities instructions to the public withis the plume the date for requiring full exposure pathway EFZ.ne design cbjecth e implementation of the prompt public AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory shall be to have the capability to essentially notification capability requirement was Commission. complete the initial notir. cation of the public made, as described above, after ACTtON: Notice of proposed rVIemaking. within the plume expcsu e pathway EFZ additional consideration of industry-within about 15 minutes. wide difficulty in acquiring the SUMM ARY:%e Nuclear Regulatory The NRC staff has evalueled the level necessary 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 notification systems must reactor licensees have been able to meet departure from the rationale the be operational around all nuclear power fully the ]tily 1.1981 date for installation Commission used in adopting and plants.The proposed extension is based of a prompt public notificatiott 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. The on Emergency Planning. 45 G 55402 clearances.lf adopted the proposal licenseee inability to meet the July 1. 55407 ( Aug.19.1980). reconsideroflon would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. CLT-80-10,12 NRC 636 (1980). It these systems from July 1.1981 to no unforeseen diliiculties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued judgment later than February 1.1982. surrounding the designing, procuring, that prompt public notification is an - Darts: Comment period expires October and inshfline of the prompt 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 ifit is practical implementation date, the Commission nudear accident.This 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 steps-recxygnition of the received on or before this date. schedule and set the July 19s1 date with potential severity of the accident by the Acoatssts: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407). utility, communicaba ci the perceived invited to submit written comments and While licensees' compliance with the threat to offsite authorities, decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notification requirement has offsite officials on the need for 7 Secretary of the Commission.U.S. been delayed. the NRC considers that protective action capabuity to spread I 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 ptanning rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nudear power is premised on reducing to the extent comments received by the Commission f plant site.%1s insign! Scant 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 step. NW., Wa shington. D.C. of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the rule,induding the FOR FURTHER INFORWAT10N CONTACT: compliance with the upgraded prompt noti $ cation system,is still Brian K. Grimes. Director. Division of emergency planning regulations of required. In hing 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 Washington D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-numerous nudear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4614). invohing State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the and the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as SUPP1.E M ENTARY INFORM ATION. witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February

1. He Proposed Rula 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 hs regulations (10 CFR customary warnmg 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. 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 3.1950. Among other proposing to defer the i=plementation strengths and weaknesses 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 1 icensee Performance (SALP). The SALP janda ry 2.1981, submit implementing - to February 1.1982. In view of the program specifically indudes evaluation procedures by March 1.1981, and above, the Cc==ission finds that there oflicensee performance In emergency implement the emergency plans by April ex.ists su!Iicient reasen to believe that preparedness. Accordingly, a licensee's 1.1981, apptcpriate protective measures can efforts in attempting to meet the July Iq l! One element that rnust be and will be taken for the protection of 1981 date for installing the promi ti demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the public in the public notification capability will be a l licensee *s emergency plan is that: event of a radiological emergency during factor in that licensee's sal.P. l

(._

i.,

L 365C3 . Federal Resister / Vol. 46. No.182 / Monday. September 21. Ir-n / Proposed Rules posed Application o~ the Final final rule, when effective, will te 134.124t. (42 U.S C. 5H1. 5M2. 5ME). un!ess applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwise n6ted.Section 53Je also issued Tha Comma.sion also is propcsing in now pending and 1o issues or undu n-122. M Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). section 50. t.-50.81 also issted u.nder sec. 3M. t'!: ru.e that $e four menth period for conten.tiens therein. Union of Concerned a. asame d B2 RS C 2M .e ic s n. F.2dI W @ C.

r. e:Mrg def'ciencier, provided in Sectic.s 5>:s511t2 isi.ed under uc.1M.

f Cir. W4). I M.!M(2), sheeld not apply to any R Stat. 515 (42 U.S C.222E).rer the purposes 1:c. ens ce not in compliance with the' Regulatory Flexibility Certification cf uc. 23. a Stat M.E. a s amended [42 U.S.C., 3). I 50 41(:) issued under sec.1611.

urlic notificatien systern requirernent In accordance with the Regulatory f.S Stat. 5 49 (42 U.S.C. Co1[i)); i l 5030. 50J1.

by February 1.1082. the new deadline.' Flex bihty Act of 1980.5 U.S.G'. 605(b), and !.o.n is sued under e ec. t elo. se Stat. 950, date. lf a licensee is not in compliance the Commission conc 7udes that this rule as emended (42 U.S C. netto), and the laws with this' requirement by February 1. will not.if promul ated, have a referred toin Appendices. E 1562, the Commission will consider, significant econcmic impact on a

1. Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to tak!ng appropriate enforcement acticns substantial number of small entities.The Part Sois revised to read as foHows:

proroptly at that time.In determining proposed rule cortcerns an extensien of A Pen 6x Museccy Madg and cppropriate enforcement action to the operational date for public P "'D, " *"d U initiate, the Ccmmission will take into notification systems for nuclear power account among other factors. the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 d:monstrated diligence of thelicensee and 1Nb cf the Atomic Energy Act of in attempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954, es amended,'42 U.S.C: 2133."2134b..r D MMohehres notification capability requirement.The The electric utility companies owning Commission will consider whether the and operating these nuclear power

3. A UCW" sh&H h8ve the Capability to licensee has kept the NRC informed of plants are dominant in their service

"*fh".', pons sencies w7 thin 5 minutes-le t$e staps that it has taken.when those areas and do not fall within the after declaring an ecergency.ne licensee sitps wt a taktn and any ?i;dfita.t definit;cn of a smaU business fcur.c. !^ shah ciemenstrate that the State / local problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 cmcials have the capability to make a public timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632, or within the SmsU Business netincatien decision prc=ptly on being wUl be raelin achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 GTR Part infor=ed by the ticensee of en emergency

• with the prompt public notification 121.In addition, since the amendment condition. By February 1.19s:. aach nuclear capability reguirements.

extends for one year the date b'y which P *? '." ' '*' ' U '" ' h

• II d ' " " ' ' *h * '

'd*'" ' '" d N ' II ""' h * " ' 'th terpect to requests for ll.e pub!;c notification systerns are to be

tions that NRC has received frem operational, the businesses and state established for alerting and providing prcmpt e

th " .a. power reactor licensees and local gover..ments involved in the ,y [ ',hthe p ,y y n , month conce:ning the picmpt public manufacture and installation of these period in 20 CDt 50.M[s)(2) for the coruction s nstification requirement and deadlines. systems are not economically affected in of amergency plan denciencies shall not f:r installab,on end operational any significant manner. Accordingly, a pply to denciencies in the initial installation capabihty, the Commission has decided there is no significant economic impact cf this pblic notification system that is to deny these requests in light of the on a substantial number of small - required by February 1.1962.The design proposed extension cf the July 1.1981 entities, as defined in the Regulatory objectis e of the prompt public noti 5 cation date. Any hcer.see ncable to meet the Flexibility Act of1980. system shan be to have the capability to new deadline date of February 1.1982 nuntist!y complete the mital notincadon of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the public within the plurre exposure cher the new date.This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the "j'y ij,'$ ',2 k"Ii bi e chmtnate unnecessary and costly Paperwork Reductior. Act of 1950 (Pub. from !=cediate nouncation of the pubhc ad. min:strative actions needed to L 96-511), the NRC has made a (within 15 minutes el the time that State and conside: prtsent exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officials are nea'ied that a situation that will essentially become moot by the does not impose new recordkreping, exists requiring uisent actirn) to the more prepesed extensien of the jely1.1981 information collection, or reporting likely esents where there is substantial time date. This approach will also permit the requirements, available for the State and local NRC 16 focus its consideration upon a Pursuant to the Atomic Enerty Act of f m "'"I'III'i'I" "'k' 'I"d *'" 8 r:duced number of noncompliance 1954, as amended. the Energy whether er not to activate the public situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, a engste ' ' ;a't ti er' , n i he S the new deadline. it is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United and local ofncials wiU determine whether to most efhcient t,se of NRC resources will States Code. notice is hereby given that activate the entire notification systrm be achieved by this treatment cf present adoption of the following emendment to ,imultanecuity or in a graduated or stated e memption requests relating to the July 1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E is canner.The responsibihty for actis ating 1951 cperational date requirement. contemplated. such a public netincation system shallremain !! the preposed rule is subsequently with the apprcpriate gevemment authunties. prcmuigated as a final rule. it is the PART'50-DOMEbTIC DCENSING OF Cemmissicn's present intention to rnake PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION si eflective it. mediately upon FACILITIES Dated at Washingten. D C.this 16th dey cf / atien, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sep: ember 1931. 4 ( '1). since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Fart 50 .e the ebbration of certain reads as follows: for the.Nue: ear Regulatory commissien,. Sunuall. Csik. 1;tenst es with respect to the present Authority: Secs.103.104.161.1El 1 E 3 129. g,g,,;;,,. g ,,a,, ccy,j,,jej: e j..v 1.1981 deadhne for eperational 68 Stat.s6. 937, see. s53 SM. s!! fit. as

h

net:Scatica svstems,in that a rended (42 U.S C. 2133. :1:3. :r:. =22.

F D" w ser m ei ns.c .;cf. the Cc-.iss'ic notes that the C33. 03il: secs 201. 21 CE E4 5:st m 3.

• • C""

Rules and Regu!ations r<d d w '" Vol. 46. No. 250 i g Wednerday. December 30.1E TNs secben cf the FECERAL REGISTER On August 11.1981. the Ccmmission his decisien is based er c:n:ams rep:a::ry documents having disc:ssed possible actions because recognition that emergency ge..e:al 2:r!.:a: Sty and Ie;at ef'e:t mest of och are keyed to and coc fied in licensees failed to co= ply with the July preparedness have signific2 the Code cf Federal Regu!abens, which is 1.1951 re cuirement contained in 10 CFR improved within the last ye-b! ed nder 50 taties pursuant to 44 50.47[b)(3) and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E, around every nuclear powe: S & L'mu' failure to This significant improv,emer The Code of Federal Regulations is sold ' meet the July 1.1981 date was attributed cenfirmed by NRC.taams wi by the Socnntendent of Documents. to unforeseen diffledtjes and visited a number of plant sh Pnces et new bocks are listed in the first FECERAL REGISTER issue of each uncertainties strro :nding the desip. evaluate the licensees

• ccm; procurement and installation of the the upgraded emergency plc
• 0"W prompt notiDeation systems.

regulations of Aufurt 1960.1 At the August 11.1981 meeting the the Federal Emergency Man; Com=ission approved publication of a Agency (FEMA) and the NRt NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed rule change which would momtored numerous nuclear COMMISSION provide an extension of the July 1.1931 exercises invohing State an: date to Febnary 1.1982. (See 4'S FR g vernments and the license 10 CFR Part 50 46587). That Federal Register notice again have witnessed a sign-Emergency Planning and requested public ce==ent dtiring a 30 Improvement en ensite and r Preparedness for Production and day period ending October 21.1981. e.nergency preparedness. Utiti:ation Facilities To date comments have been Tae decision to delay the received fmm four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also 1 AcsNcT: Nuclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exi Commission. nuclear industry, one from the general customary warning systems i ACTION: Final rule. Public, three from environmental radio. telephone) which are v organizations one from a mass transit sufficiently effective in many S UM M ARY: The Commission is making system director, and one from a State accident scenarios. In view o e (- regulations. He change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the sufficient reason to believe th two changes to its emergency plartning govemer.The comments received from the Commission finds that th

50. Appendix E delays the date by which environmental crganizations were appropriate protective measu prompt public notification systems must against delaying the implementation and will be taken for the prot be operational tround all nuclear power date to February 1982. De letters from the health and safety of the p' plants. The change to i 50.54 clarifies -

the other commenters generally agree event of a radiological emerp the language of the rule to conform with with extending the implementation date the extended time period for th_e Commission's intent at the time of along with additional suggestions. c mpliance. promulg a tion. One suggested modification to the II, The Amendment to 10 CFA trrccT:VE DATt: December 30.1981. proposed rule change which has been FOR rURTHER INFORM ATiON CONTACT accepted and included in these fiD3I Micha el T. Jamgochian. Human Factors amendments. is not to eliminate the curr n Teq ires th Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory i ur. month period for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State. and local emergency respec Commission. Wa shington, D.C. 20555 testing ithe prompt notification shall be implemented by Aprill.: (telephone 301443-5942). system. The Commission now believes a s provided in Section IV.D.1 ofC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION* that the elimination of this four month of this part. If after April 2.19st.t' period wou}d be inconsistent with the finds that the state of emergency I.ne Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, need toperform a reasonable test of the preparedness does not proiide tes Appendix E system and make any needed' changes assurance that adequate protectivi On August 19.1980, the NRC as indicated by the test results. The. can and wi!! be taken in the event published a revised emergency planning enclosed effective regulation radiological emergency and if the a regulation which became effective en ncorporates this concept The are not corrected within fcur' ment November 3.1950. The rule required Installation date, however. remains finding. the Commission will deter licensees to dernonstrate. among other February 1.198:. and any licensee not whether the reactor shall be shui c completing the installation by that date '"Ch d' Iici'"C8 e remedied er, things, by July 1.1981: wo'uld be subject to. enforcement action. cther enforcement action is appre- "that adrninistralise and physical means have been established for alerting and After evaluating all public comment it has come to the Comr:lissic providing prompt mstructions to the pubh. letters received, the Com:-Ussion has attention that bec;ause 'this sc:- c ( wohin the pinme esposure pathw my E.p2. The decided to publish, as immediatel Y re*culation was written as cne design ebiective shall be to have the effective, a final rule change to 10 CFR paragraph. It can be Interprete: capabiloy to essentially complete the irutial Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period feri notircation of the pebbe within the plume implementation date fer the prornpt correction ci emergency prepa; ciposure pathway ETZ withirt about 15 public r.otifiestica systems from luly 1. icliciencies does not apply to " minutes." 1961 to Tcbruary 1.1982. IV.D.3 of Appendix E."

E2 32 Feder:1 *.

r / Vol. 4t;. No. 250 / Weinnity. D cember 30. 1951 / Ru!cs and St:.:{.M This is a misintcipratica ci the Regulatory Tlcxibility Act Statement D.Nor:ficaric Procchics C:=missien's intent. which was that the Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility lour.menth period is to apply to any Act of 1980. P.:b. L 55-354, the NRC ha's 3 ^ h"''h'

( deft::encies idenuSed in the emergency determined;[1) That the delaying of the ((NF '", ,,[cf',' . plans. Tne Comm:ssion is therefore j in 33 i=p ementation date for the prompt after5claring an e=er;ency. Th mec,.y:ng i 50.54[sl(2) to raore clearly public notificatiori systems will not have shs.D de=ce.s:: ate that the State /

cDect that intent. The four.conth a sicni5 cent econo =.ic impact on a of5cials have the capability to =.

period provided in i 20.5"(s)(2), w1U not substandal:".:.mber cf smaU entities. notihca ne: decisien prc=;:!y en apply to a:y licensee for Se instaustica pursuant to de Regulatory Mexibility infermed by the licensee cf an en and initial test of tne public noti 5catic3 Act of1980. section 605(b) and (2) th'at cenditien. By February 1.1952. e a sys:em by February 1.19o2. lf a Lcensee the rule change to { 50.54(s)(2)is not P ""."trat.ve and Ws!23 d*

• d ' liC'"5" 8 is not in ec=pliance with ils

.sdbject to th,e provisions of the admsms ical met: requirement for instaUation and testing Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980. '['d I ibi by rebruary 1,1982 the Commission because Se Comnission has deter =ined ns to e; exposee pathway EPZ. "ise foc-w2U censider taking appropriate - pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of period in 20 CFR 50.54(C[') for th enforcement actions proznptly at tha't proposed ru}e=aking for { 50.54 (s)(2) of emergency plan deficiencies sb time.In determining appropriate need not be is' sued and that the n:le may apply to the ini:ialinstallation of enforcement action to initiate, the be promulgated in final form and notincatics system that is require Commission wiu take into account. become effective on December 30.1981. February 1.19a2. Defm.mond among other factors. the demonstrated cpply to ccrreckon of deficiencie, diligence of the licensee in atternpting to P8Perwork Reduction Act Statement during theinitialinstallction and ful5)) the prompt public noti 5 cation pdrsuan't to the provisions of the de pic=ptpu@b,##" "##nctfi,'eti, ~ capabiUty requirement. The Com.cussion Papenvork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. will consider whether the licensee has L SS-511) the NRC has made a p $[(#[,* '((tefs'haU bi ge. kept the NRC infor=ed of the steps that determination that this Enal rule does the capability to ess'entia!!y cc=; it has taken. when those steps were not impose new recordkeeping. initial notincatien of the pubDe w taken and any signincant problems information ccuection. orreporting plume exposure pathway EFZ wt encountered, and the updated timetable requinments. 25 ninutes.The use of this notinc. which the licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of capability will rtnge frem imme6 in achiedng full compliance with the 1954 at amended, the Energy. not!5 cation of the public(within3 prompt public notification capability Reorgani:ation Act of 1974. as amendei of the time that State and local et requirements. The four. month period and sectica 553 of title 5 of the United n ti5ed that a situatien exists req will. however. apply to correction of States Code, the foUowing amendments '#3 '"' ' *d *"I ' deficiencies identiSed during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as N'3,f,*$'jo'c",j'g*,".$, eo'taj, test of the prompt pubhe notification documents subject to codincatics: r:ake a judsmcat whether er not t-systems as well as those deficienc2es the publie noti 5 cation system. W1 discovered thereafter. PART 50-DOMESTIC 1.lCENSING OF , decision to,etivate the cetinent Because the ame::dment to PRODUCTION ANDIJTILIZATION the State a.nd local of5cials wiD di i 50.54(s)(2)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the entire net minor nature. simply resching ao The authority citation for Part 50 .$e"' esp # I e a o ibi v read 5 asI II ws: s onsit de m aning at the activating such a publienotincatic .me of promulgation. the Commission Authority Secs. 2G3. W. 26L 222.189. 63 - shau nesis-with the appropriate finds good cause to c:spense wtth Stat. 935. 937. E-41953. S54. 955. 95L as governmental authorit:es. amended 14:U.S.C. 21:3. :234. :201. ::32. advance nottce anri opportunity for

233. :239). secs. *'tri.207 205. 88 Stat.1243.

public comment thereon as unnecessary. sm.1:<s (42 U.S.C. 5s41,5542. 5s4el, unleis

2. i 50MsX2) is reWscg to r For this reason. this change shall be otherwise noted Section 50.78 miso issued I UO"5:

eflective as a final nile un December 30 under sec.122 c.s Stat.s39 (t: USC. 215:1 I 50.54 conditions ofiteenses. 1931 Section.m 75-5021 also tssued under sec. I ewise. the Cocimission is . m. s Sut. SR as amended (4: U.Sc ::34).. publishm.g the final amendments to 10 Sect 2erts 50.100-50.302 issued under sec.18ai , (s). 68 Sut 955 R2 U.SL sh For the purposes CFR Part 50. App mdix E (extending the of sec. ::3.sa Stat. 952, as amended 142 ' I2 F ' E*'* implementation date for the installation U.Sn :r3). g 50 <sfij i sved under sec.1c11. licensee. State, and loca1 emen of a prompt public notification system] 68 StaL 949 (42 U.SC 201(il): 1150.70. 50J1. response plans shall be,mplen i as effective immediately upon ~ and 5038 issued under sec.161o. 08 Stat. 950. April l.,1981, except as provide publication. pursuant Io 5 U.S.C. n amended (42 'J.S C. ::c)(o)). and the I.ws Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E ti 553[d)(1). since the rule is expected to referred to im AppendiceA part. relieve 11 ^ ligation of certain Appendix E IArnended) N licenset s respect to the present July 1.1L deadline for operational

1. Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to does not provide reasonable as:

Part 50 is revised to read es follows: public notiEca tion systems. In that that adequate protective meast; regard. the Cert:nission notes that the Appendix I: -tmer:ency Planning mod und will be taken in the event c) (

• fi.al rule, when effective, will be preparedness for Production end Utiti: iion raMog, cal emergency Uncke t

applied to ongoing licensing proceedings now pending and to issues or

• racilmes.

findings based on requiremenu Appendix E Section IV.D.3) a; contentio:ts therein. IJnion of Concerned Scientisu v. AEC. 409 F. 2d 2009 (D.C. .n.,t.w.. we n ine.d in ce-.r.r.ta, ch 4e psw.ked in ne reder.1tesi.te Cir.1974). teal. hows eran;ei l = ibe ; opo.,.d r.ie Se re. ber :1.1sa t.,, l

Fed:ral Rc;ister / VcT. 46. NO. 250 / Wednesday. Decernb: ' .!$1 / Rules :nd Repuistic deficiencies (in:luding deficiencies applies to the epplication. Daled a 7xthesda. Maryland. bas ed cn rec.awments o/ Appendix E. recordkeeping. and tepotting cf Dece=ber.1981. Sectien !r.D.3) are not corrected w: din requirements contained in NRC Fer the Nuclear Regu}atory Cc:: ( four months of that finding,the regulations. William J. Dirch. Commission will determine whether the On Oc:ober 30.1931. the NRC Leeuzive Dine:orfor Opero:!cos reactor shall be shut down until such obtained OMB reapproval for the p ra n.n ers.n m us=1 deficiencies are remedied or whether information collec: ion requirements ow.c cooc ru n_. other enforce =ent action is appropriate. contained in 10 C' R Part 50. This In determining whether a shutdown or amend =ent adds a new & 50.8 to Part 50 other enforcement action is appropriate, setting out the O.NG approval number. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Cc= mission shall take into account, the expiration date of the current among other factors. chether the approval. and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that ' ontain an approved c Cc= mission's satisfaction that the inf a. nation collectics requirement.This [D cket No. ERA-R-81-0$], deficiencies in the plan are not amend =ent also re= oves the note Poy<erplant and Industrial Fui significant for the plant in question, or concerning the expired GAO clearance of 1978; Final Rules that adequate inte:im compensating that follows i 50.110. actions have been or will be taken Because this is a nonsubstantive Correczion promptly, or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor. In FR Doc. 81-3477D appearu compelling reasons for continued procedural matter. good cause ex2sts for page 59672 in the issue of Mon l operat2on. findm, g that the notice and comment Decch 7.1981. de the fo procedures of the Adnumstrat2ve corrections: ceb Ad (5 E M are Dated at Washingten. D.C. this 23rd day of (1)In i 503.6(c)(2).lhe follow December.1931. unnecessary and for :naking the were inadvertently omitted abl equation on page 59906: For the Nuclear Regulatory Cemmissie-Und o 9'4 Sa =uel }. Chi!k-as amended, the Energy Recrgani:ation EQ4 DELTA = COST Secnrary of the con:rnisr/on. Act of 1974, as amended. and 5 U.S.C. (ALTERNATE)-COST (OILh p om - m u~m us=1 552 and 553, the following arnendments COST (ALTERNATE) and COS cwwc coce 7se-as to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by: j )cument subject to codification. He (2)ln i 503.3S(a), paragraph 1 10 CFR Part 50 uthority citation for this do:n=nentis: incorrectly designated as (b);11 on paEe 59914.first column. in I Re porting. Recordkeeping, and PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF .line. "(b) For powerplants..1 Application Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION have read "[5] For powerplanta AG ENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FACILTTlES sw c cocc nos.ouw Com=ission. Authoritp Sec. 2 et. Pub. L s3-703. 68 Stat. ACTION: Final rule. 948 B2 U.S.C. n:cs) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK Seedon 50.8 is added to read as SUM M ARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 g Commissirm is amendmg its regulations on the domestic licensing of production i 50.8 Reporting, recordk eeping, and INo. 8 b8001 and utilization facilities to indicate appHcation requirements: OMB approval Payment of Utigation Expens' Office of Manager =ent and Budget (a) the Nuclear Regulatory approval of the information collecticm Commission has submitted the ~ Federal Home Loan Bank Offi Directors, and Employees requirements contained in the information collection requirements regulations. ~nis action is required by contained in this part of the Office of Dated: December 17.1981. the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980. Manageme=t and Budget (OMB) for AGENCY: Federal Home Loan B4 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30.1981. approval as required by the Paperwork Board. e on M N.L N11). O.W ACTION: Final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: = approved the,nformat:,on collection i Steve Scott, Chief. Document Management Branch. Division of requirements on October 30.1981. SUMMARn The Federal Home IJ TechnicalInformation and Document (1) The OMB approval numberis Board is amending the Regulatii 3150-0011. the. Federal Home loan Bank @ Control. Office of Admuustratacc. (2) OMB approval expires April 30. liberali:e the terms on which th Telephone: (301) 492-6585. . 1982. may pay expenses of officers. d S UPPLEMENT ARY INFORM ATION: De

• (b) The approved information and employees involved in litigI Paperwork Reduction Act of19G0 (Pub.

collection requirements include the arising out of their Bank duties) L 96-511: 44 U.S.C. Cha pter 35[ . application. recordkeeping, and amendment will allow the Fede transferred the responsibility for reporting requireme::ts contained in Loan Banks to establish their oi approving the information ecliection il 50.30. 50.33. 50.33a. 50.34(b). (c) (d). policies regarding litig.ation,exp requirements imposed by the Nuclear (f) 50.34a. 50.35(b). 50.35. 50.35a. 50.48 EFrtCTIVE o A rE:DgtembCr 17,1 Regulatcry Commission (NRC) on the 50.54(f). (p). (q). (r). (s). (1). (u). 50.55(el. FOR FURTNER INFORMA, TION COk public from the Cencral Accounting 50.55a. 50.59(b). (c). 50.71(a). (b) (c) (d). Office (CAO) to the Office of (e). 50.7:(a). (b). 50.80. 50.s2. 50.90, a nd James C. Stewart ((202) 377-645 of Ccncral Counsel.FederalHei Managerncot and Dudget (OMB). The Appendices A. B. C. E. C. H. J. K. and R. Act requires that each existing Bank Board.1700 C Street. Nd informahon collection requirement be ! 50.110 Amended) Wa shington. D.C. 2055. resp; roved bv OMB as existing CAO

. The note following i 50.no is sUPet.tutNTAnY tNrOnu ATicN:,1

} c! car:nces cipire.This requirement remcved. Federal Heme L::an Fani Scard

l e j Docket No. 50-286 t, \\ l-t Power Authority of the State of New York ATTN: J. P. Bayne, Senior Vice President 10 Columbus Circle New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr..Bayne:

l I This is in response to your January 29, 1982 letter, requesting an exemption I ~ from the February 1,1982 deadline for implementation of your prompt. notification [ system. The final rule establishing this deadline, which became effective M,~ December 30, 1981, does not specifically address requests for exemption or relief from the February 1,1982 implementation date. However, pursuant to 10 CFR 550.12, your request for exemption was determined not to be meritorious. As noted in the proposed rule (46 FR 46587), the Commission stated that, in its judgment, prompt public notification is an important 1 consideration in the offsite protection of the public in the event of a nuclear accident. The emergency planning rule is. premised on reducing, to the extent possible and to the extent the NRC can regulate, the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step in the prompt public notification process. Therefore, timely implementation of a prompt notifi-cation system is considered to.be. beneficial to the health and safety of the public. (See 46 FR 46587 & 46 FR 63031 for additional infonnation). k In view of the forgoing, it has been determined that granting an extension of time would.not be in the public interest.

Power Authority of the'. State of New York However, the Commission recognizes that there may be mi$igating circumstances beyond your control that should be weighed in determining what enforcement action should be taken. Specifically, these considerations are: (1) _ hether the licensee demonstrated diligence in attempting to fulfill the w requirements; (2).whether or not.the NRC..was. kept informed of the steps ~ taken to fulfill the requirements of the rule; (3) when those steps were i t I taken, and any significant problems encountered; and (4) an updated timetable established to achieve full compliance with the prompt public notification capability requirement. The information you have provided, in this and previous correspcndence, I will be taken into consideration in determining appropriate enforcement action. [\\ Sincerely, l l' Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. 46 FP 46587 ~ 2. 46 FR 63031 i <( l .,--a g

2 's u l v 3 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / Mondsy September 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules 46587 10 CFR Part 50 By Idy 1.19e1. the nuclear power reactor the extended time period for licensee shat! demenstrate that cotnpliance. Emergency Planning and administratn e and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and estabbshed for alerting and providing prompt ne Commission's dec,s, ion to defer i Utilization Facilities instructions to the public within the plume the date for requir'.ng full exposure pa:hw ay EPZ.He design cbjective implementation of the prompt public AG E NCY: Nuclear Regulatory shall be 'o have the capabili*y to essentially notification capability requirement was Commission. complete the initial notir.catien of the public made, as described above, after ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakirs. mthin the plume up sun pathway EPZ additional consideration of industry. withm about 15 minutes. wide diffir.ulty in acquiring the SUM W ARY:The Nuclear Regulatory The NRC sisif has evalussed the level necessary equipment, permits. and, Commission is proposing to amend its of compliance by the industry and noted clearances.nis proposed deferral doe's 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 ]tUy 1.193i date for installation Commission used in adopting and plants.The proposed extension is based of a prompt public notificatioh 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.The on Emergency Planning. 45 FR 55402, clearances.If adopted the proposal licensees inability to meet the July 1. 55407 (Aug.19.1980). reconsideroflon would extend the compliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. Ct.f-80-40.12 NRC 636 (1980). It these systems from July 1.1981 to no unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued judgment later than February 1.19C-surrounding the designing, procuring, that prompt public notification is an - DATcs: Comment period expires October and instafhne of the prompt 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 practical implementation date the Commission nudear accident.This offsite protection io do so, but assurance of consideration was concerned that these factors would of the public locludes 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 1931 date with potential severity of the accident by the Acontssts: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407). utility, communication of the perceived invited to submit written comments and While licensees' compliance with the threat to offsite authoritica, decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notification requirement has offsite officials on the need for Secretary of the Commission. U.S. been delayed the NRC considers that protective action, capabuity to spread l Nuclear Regulatory Commission, emerSency plans and preparedness have public warmng, and actual response by ( Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention: significantly improved within the last the public, ne emergency phnning rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nudear power is premised on reducing to the extent conunents 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 assodated with each step. NW., Wa shington. D.C. of plant sites to evaluate the licensees' Every aspect of the rule. induding the FOR F1JRTHER $NFORWATION CONTACT: Compliance with the upgraded prompt notification,ystem. is etill Brian K. Grimes. Director. Division of emergency planning regulations of required. In chanang 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 nudear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4614), invoMng State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the and the licensees, and again have installation of this system as soon as SUPPLEM ENT ARY INFOR M AT)ON. witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February

1. He 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 acticn against licensees who did not.

Federal Register (45 FR 55402) on a recognition that there exirI prior to July 1.1961 notify the 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. upgrading of emergency preparedness. sufficiently effective in many postulated The effective date of these regulations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significantlicensee p'erformance, 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 Assessment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requirement from July 1.1981 IJcensee performance (SALP).The SALP January 2.1981, submit implementing - to February 1.1982. In view of the program speci5cally indudes evaluation procedures by March 1.1981. and above, the Co=missien finds that there of licensee performance in emergency implement the emergency plans by April exists suf5cient 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 1961 date for installing the prompt demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the public in the public notification capability willbe a licensee's emergency plan is that: event of a radiological emergency during factor in that licensee's SALP.

1. 9

._ ~ j6583 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.182 /.Nienday. September 21. W1 / Proposed Rules / II. Proposed Application of the Final final rule, when effective, will be n44.1246. (42 U.S C. 5N1. 5E42. So4El. un!ess L Rule s applied to ongoing licensing proceedings othe wise noted. Section 50.r8 also issued The Commission also is proposing. now pending and to issues or oder sec. n2. so stat. s39 (42 U.S C. 2252).. m this rule that the four menth period for contentiens therein. Union cf Concerned ca"'I*" # 8-

• 1 *II"'d #d " " C 3 M-S cerrecting deficiencies, provided in

~e

1. # V' ',~rC' F'2d (D.C' em as ameded 62 ES C 22M Sectic'.s !.3 2co.50.3c2 iss: red ur. der sec.156.

1 MM(e)(2). shou!d not apply to any M Stat. cn 142 U.S.C. 2236). Fct the purposes licensee not in compliance with the' Regulatory T!exibility Certification of sec. 22.3. ca 5 a t. 558. as amended (42 public notificatien system requirement by February 1.1082. the new deadline in accerdance with the Regulatory U.S.C. 2r3). t 50.41ii)assued under sec.1611 date. If a licenses is not in complihnce. Flexibihty Act oileSo,5.U.SC. 605(b). se Stat. sue (42 U.S.C. 22c2(i)); il 50.70, t,o.n. and 50.7s issued under sec.tetc.ca Stat.sso. < with this requirem7nt by February 1 the Commission' concludes that this rule es i:nended (42 U.S C. 22m(o). and the laws - 19E2, the Commission will consider will not. if promulgated, have a referred toin Appendices. - taking appropriate enforcement actions significant econcmic impact on a promptly at that tirne.In determining substantial n' umber of small entitles.The

1. Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to appropriate enforcement action to proposed ruft co:rcerns an extelisierrof part 50 is ravised to read as follows:

initiate the Commission will take into the operational date for public Appendix E--Emergency Planm.eg and account, among other factors. the notification systems for n'uclear power ,'g;$ drmonstrated diligence of thelicensee plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 in citempting to fulfill the prompt public and 10.ib of t!)e Atomic Energy Act of nrtification t.apability requirement. The 1954, as emended.~42 'U.S.C. 2133;'21.4b..- D o@ccuan u s Csmmissien will consider whether the. The electric utility companies owning and operating these nuclear power

3. A licensee shall have the capabuity to licensee has kept the NRCinformed of plants are dominant in their serdce

"',P ns Ste1e a the steps that it has taken, when those areas and do not fall within the ,] ng,, thi 5 minutes steps were taken and any r!gn!P.: ant definition of a small business found in after decarL g an acertency.The licensee problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 shall de:nonstrate that the State / local timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business notifica tion decisico prempdy on being cfncials have the capability to make a public wDI be met in achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 with the prompt public notification 121. In addition since the ame,CFR Partinformed by the licensee of en emergency ndment condition _ By February 1.1952, each nuclear capability reguirements. With respect to requests for extends for one year the date by which Power,nactor licensa shall demmWte that -semptions that N3C has received from the public notification systerns are to be admuuswo,n and Asical mun han ban opera tional, the busines .ucim power reactor licensees and local governments m,ses and state {5 '[l%',"dj';*,Y ,'*,mpt yolved in the - concerning the prompt public manufacture andinstallation of these exposure pathway EPZ.The four month notification requirement and deadlines. f:r mstallation end cperational systems are not economically affected in period in 10 CFR 50.His)[2) for the correction of emergency plan denciencies shall not capabilitv.the Commission has 'ecided any significant manner. Accordingly. apply to denciencies in the initialinstallation to deny these requests in light of the there is no significant economic impact of this public notification system that la proposed extension cf the July 1.1981 on a substantial number of small required by February 1.1982.The design d2tt. Any licer.see-not,.able to meet the entities, as defined in the Regulatory objective of the prompt public notification nrw deadline date of February 1.1982 Flexibihty Act of1980. system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notincation of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reductico Act Statement the public within the plume espesure. cittr the new date.This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the [th*'*[ tere on a$abil IIase sliminate unnecessary and costly Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(Pub. ,g administrative actions needed to I. 96-511), the NRC has made a from immediate notification of the public c;nsider prtsent exemption requests that will essentially become moot by the determination that this proposed rule fwithin ts minutes of the time that State and local ofncists are notified that a situation does not impose new recordkeeping. exists requiring urgent action) to the more prcpcsed extension of the July 1.1981 informstion collection, or repcrting likely events where there is substantial time dstr. This approach will also permit the requirements. anilable for the State endlocal NRC to focus its consideration upon a r2duced number of noncompliance Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of govemmental officials to make a judgment situatiens which remain at the time of 1954, as amended, the Energy whether or not to activate the pubbe Reorganization Act of1974 as amended nlti Lajiongste (e {s ahe Sla - er th2 n2w deadline. it is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United e rnost efficient use of NRC resources will States Code. notice is hereby given that and local orncials will determine whether to be achieved by this treatment of present adoption of the following amendment to - actinte the entire notification system e xemption requests relaling to the July 1. simul:aneously or in a gradiiated or staged 1961 ep' era tional date requirement. 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix Eis canner. ne responsibihty for activating contemplated. such a public notification system shall remain if the proposed rule is subsequently pro:nulgated as a finaltvle.1,t is the wah the appropriate goveminent authorities. Commission's present intention to rnake PART SOLDOMESTIC UCENSING OF it effective i:nmediately upon PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Dated et Wash!ngton. D C this yth day cf: ub!!calion, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. FACILITIES / tid)(1). since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 september 19es. ( .i2re the ebligation of certai's reads as follows: For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

cenices with respeet io the present Autbotity: sees.1cs.104.163.1E2.1E3.1e9.

Samuel J. Chilk. Jh 1.1981 deadhne fer eperational M Sta t. 626. 53). 544. 953. rM. 955. 956. a s g,,,,,,7,f,3, c,mm;,,f,,1 ' -Mic notdication systems. In that amer.ded ist U S C. 2133. 2n3. 2201. On. M**""'***"" $erstd. the Cerr.=issica netes that the un OH). secs m. =2. n u sta m3.

• *"5 t o" " **

b

m Rules and Reguistions naa i u iM" + s Vol. 46. No. 250 j-Wednesday, December-30.19b Th:s sect:cn of t.5e FEDERA!. REGISTER On August 11.1981. the Co=missien his decision is based on a cc..ta:r s re;2atery escuments having discussed pessible actions because rece;nition that emergency; generat a;;Scabi!.ry and legal e*fect. mest licensees fai'ed to comply with the Julv preparedness have significan Fe7eral Reg ator 1.1981 re tirement contained in 10 C[R i=ptcved within the last ye he C e ch is publis. Sed under 50 ti!!es pursuant to 44 50.4((b)[5] and 10 CFR 50. Appenc,ix E. around every nucl The Cc:le et Federal Regulations is sold.. 68CI1CRIY U 3. De beensees' failure to his sigmficant im, eat powe provement U.S.C. 1510. meet the July 1.1981 date was attributed con 5rmed by NRC teams w by the Superintendent of Documents. to un. foreseen difficulties and visited a number of plant site prices of new books are Ested in th9 ' uncertainties surrounding the desi;n. evaluate the licensees

• com fkst FEDERAL REGISTER issue et each -

procurement and installation of the the upgraded emergency pl prompt notific'ation systems. regulations of August 1980.In i At the August 11.1S81 meeting, the the Federal Emergency Manae A ency (FEMA) and the NRC j Commission approved publication of a S NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed rule change which would monitored numerous nuclear COMMISSION provide an extension of the July 1.1981 exercises invohing State and date to FebruUy i.1982. (See 46 FR governments and the licensee-46587).That Federal Register notice again have witnessed a signi! 10 CFR Part 50 requested public comment dtiring a 30 Improvement on onsite and. 5 Emergency Planning and day period ending October 21.1S81. emergency preparedness. Prepareoness for Production and .;. dh eds hve been De decision to delay the Utilization Facilities received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also b( AcENCY: Nuclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exisi l Commission. nuclear!ndustry, one from the genera} customary warning systems (p ACTION: Final rule. public, three from environmental radio, telephone) which are vii s organizations.one from a mass transit sufacaently effeco,ve in many y

SUMMARY

The Commission is making system director, and one frem a State accident scenarios.In view of j I

i - two changes to its emergency planning governer.The comments received from thr Cc= mission finds that they ' Y.. regulations.The change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the sufficient reason to believe tha

50. Appendix E delays the date by which environmental organizations were appropriate protective measuri prompt public notification systems must against delaying the implementation and will be taken for the prot be operational around all nuclear power date to February 1982. The letters from the health and safety of the plants.The change to i 50.54 clarifies lye other commenters generally aFree event of a radiological emergy the language of the rule to conform with with extending the implementation date :the extended time period for the_ Commission's intent at the time of along with additional suggestions.

compliance. promulgation. One suggested modification to the II.The Amendment to 1D CFR ' EFFECTIVE DATc December 30,1981. proposed rule change. which has been FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! accepted and included in these final Ad tionally.10 CFR 50.54( Michael T. Jamgochian. Human Factors amendments,is not to eliminate the curren y requires a t. Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory f ur. month pen,od for correction of any "For operating power rea ctors. the) Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State, and local emergency respons Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 testing of the prompt notifiestion shall be implemented by Aprilt.sg (telephone 301-443-5942). system. The Commissien now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 of Ac that the elimination of this four. month of this part. lf after Apni t.1981. SUPPLE MENTARY INFORM ATION* Period Would be inconsisteni with the ' finds that the state of emergency I.%e Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, need toperform a reasonable test of the preparedness does not provide ree Appendix E system and make any needed changes assurance that adequate protectiv4 as indicated by the test results. The. can and will be taken in the event On August 19.1980 the NRC enclosed effective regulation '*dioloS c7 'm'rtency and if the - i1 published a revised emergency planm.ng incorporates this concept.The

• 'e nei corrected within four mona regulation which became effective on installation date. however, remains finding the Commission will deteni November 3.1980.The rule required February 1.1982. and any licensee not whe'ther the reactor shall be shut licensees to demonstrate, among other completing the installation by that date such deficiencies are remedied or things, by July 1.'1982:

woiild be subject to. enforcement action. other enforcement action is app ~ that administralise and physical means After evaluating all public comment !! has come to the Commissi ""*" ce e sskn has suenhn that becaus6 this see o d ng pro p astructio s e public within the plume esposure pathway EpZ. The decided.o publish, as immeciately re;ulation was Written as one design objective shall be to have the effective. a final rule change to 10 CFR pers;raph,it can be interpretes capabihty so essentially complete the initial Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period ford notification of the public wit:iin the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency prepad esposure path'way Eo2 withirt about is public notifiestion systems from July 1. deficiencies does not appiv to d m nuies.-

• 19S1 to Feb tary 1.1982.

-IV.D.3 cf Appendix E."

o C o n Feder:! T. 1:'r / Vol. 45. No. $!O / Wed..:rdsy. Deccaber 30, 1051 / Rt:les and Rcp o a e This is e misinter;te:ston of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement D.I. r:f;:::sca proceh C:=missicn's intent. which was that de Pursuant to de Replatory Flexibility f,:ur.rnenth period is to cpply to any Act of 1950. Pub. L ss-3M. the NRC has 3 ^ h"'" 'h'U h*" E cenciencies idenusseo m, the emergency determined:(1) That the delaying of de

1. ' " E * * #' S ' #

T plans.The Commission is therefore 'I'*** - E'"'* ui modifying i 50.M(s)(2) to more clearly ]jj,g=3((:}{c.. da:e !c-Se rompt ation systems ill not have sh'[j

• ",jif,ie tt, $e) renect that inte.t. The four-month a Si nincant ec:no=ic != pact on a c.?. cia!: have the capabiliti E

period provicec In i 30.54(s)[2]. willnct substanda! number cf smau entities, r.otificanen decisica prc:np apply to any bcensee fcr the instaDatics ,Qg;suant in the Regulatory Flexibilitygg.950, section 6 ur in!ct ed by the licensee cfi and injtial test of the public noti!!caten ccnditen.By ebruary1.2 y system by February 1.1982. lf a licenses the rule change to { 50.M(s)(2)is not pcwe nectorlicensee shq !s not in co=pliance with this subject Jo the pic.isions of the established for alertir.g an.j administrative and physica requ!rement for installation and testi=g Regdatory Mexibili:y Act of 3960, E "' by February 1.1982. the Commission because 6e Cc=n.ission has determined [.'p',]'d*h,'y "o7 [ y wiU consider taking appropria,te ' pursur.nt to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of pe: icd in to CTR 50.!Ats)t2) enforcement actions promptly at that proposed rulemakin.g for { 50.54 (s)(2) of e=egency plan deficiend 1:me.In determining appropriate need not be issued a:d that the ru}e may apply to the initialinstallag er.forcement action to initiate, the be promulrated in Esal form and notification system that is Comm!ssion wiU take into account, become effective on Dece=ber 30.1981. February 1.19E2. The /o among other factors. the demonstrat'ed c; ply ro correc:fon ofdefig diligence of the licensee in attempting in P2Perwork Reduction Act Statement during the initiclinstouctif ~~ fdfill the pro =pt public notification Purs'ua:Ito'de provisions of de '3# F'#PFf FUhlI# "8'i/ "O ## O##

1. b.'"###

capability require =ent. The Commissics Paperwork Reduction Act of 1950 (Pub. will consider whe ther the licensee has L 95-5u). the NRC has made a

1. ^ **I'"

'.c esign bjeg kept the NRC 1nictmed of the steps that determination dat this Ensi rule does [he capsb o eslend it has taken. when those steps were not impose new recx>rdkeeping, initialnetificaties of thepug taken and any stgmncant problems infonnatica ccDection. or reporting plun e exposun pathway Eq encountered, and the updated timetable requirements. 15 minutes.The use of this nl which the licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the Alcmic Energy Act of cepability will range from1:i in achieving full compliance with the 19M. as amended, the Energy notiscation of the public (wtj prompt public notincation capability Reorgani:ation Act of 2974, as amended, of the time that State endlog requirements. The four-month period and seetion 553 of title 5 of the United

• $'d O'1
• si*'d*" '*i31

[ will. however. apply to correction of States Code, the foDowing amendments "4'd ' *d *".I '* 0' *

• b deficiencies identified during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as Y,*31,h'O#' l, ;'** "

s j g,. test of the pmmpt public notificatgn documents subject to codiDeatio= m t,, e 'gment whether e systems as well as those deSciencies the pubbe notification syste: discovered thereafter. PART 50-DOV.ESTIC 1.! CENSING OF a decision to activate the noi Because the amendment to PRODUCTION AND UTILtZATION the State and local of3cials s i 50.54(s)(2)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the entin minor nature, simply resching.an . y I 50 syste:n simultaneously orin 4 u staged canner.The responsi - ambiguity in the rules to the Commiss' ion'a intended me'aning at the activating such a public noti' .me of promulgation, the Commission Autho.g Sees.10s. 2M.1st. 2e: 2ss. sa shall n=ais with 6e am finds good cause to dispense with Stat. 935. 937. Ha. s53. s54. 955, s$a as govemme.atal authorities. amended 142 U.S.C. :133.:134. = ci. =32. + + + advance notice and opportunity for 2233. 2239): secs. :n. : 02. 205. 53 Stat.1243, public comment thereon as unnecessary. n44. n<6 (w US.C. 5541. 5842. 5846). unles:

2. I 50.54[s)[2] is rev.isec For this reason. this change shall be otherwise noted. Section 50.ra also iseued IUO*5 effective as a final rule on December 30.

under sec. n: es Stat. S39 (<2 USC :1521 { 50.54 Conditions of 11 cert 1981. Section 50.28-50J!1 also a,ssued under sec. 1.ikewise, the Commission is 164. 66 Stat. 954. es amended (42 U.SuC. 2234 Secti ns mob 50.2c2 assued under sec.156. (s) * *

• publishin8 the final amendments to 10 6a Stat s55142 US.C. _36). For the purposes art 50. Appendix E (extending the of ser_ =3. 6s Stat s58. ss amended 14:

(2)(i)F r peratingpowi CFRS licensee. State. and local a implementation date for the installation U.Sn.:.73). t $0.<ttilissued under sec.se21. of a prompt public notification system) 63 Stat. M9 (42 U.SC =ln[il); 11 50.70.50.71. response plans'shallbe,tr as eficctive immediately upon and 50.78 issued u. der see.151o. f.8 Stat. 950 April 1.1981, except as prt publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. as amended (42 U.SE :=1(oll, and the laa Section IV.D.3 of Appendi; l 553(d)(1). since the rule is expected to referred to in Appendicza. part. 1 relieve the obligation of certain W H der Apd 1.H81 Appendix E lA. mended) licensees with respect to the present.,

• * *'E
• N l

July 1.1981 deadline for operational

1. Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to does not provide reasonab.

Part 50 is revised to read as follows: public notiDeation systems. In that that adequate protective a , regard, the Com=ission notes that the Appendix r Eme gency Plaening mod and will be talen,in the cri

i final rule, when effective. wiu be papandness for Production ecd utiliz.iion radiolog

esl emergency-(fa applied to ongoing licensing proceedings

• reciliti...

findings based on requirc.-- Appendix L Section JY.D.. now pending and to issues or contentions thercic. Union of Concerned Scientist.s v. AEC, 499 F. 2d 10G9 (D.C. .n, 4,,,n x,, w,g i, en.7,,, n,, es. 4,,sg,.,.* e rederam Cir.1974). iens shows cAarges f-.s ce pm,wd r.Je Sepe =ber :2.1s41.

Federal hie;ister / Ve!. 46. NO. 250 / %*ednesday. De:e:nbt: ".f.;S1 / Rules and Regulati:r ~ defic:encies (including deficiencies applies to the application. Daied at Bethesda. Maryland.

• s.

<* e bc : don nquirements ofAppendix E. recordkeeping. and teporting oi Dcce:=ber.1981. Section IV.D.3) a.re not corrected within requirements ecolained in NRC for the Nuclear Regu.!atory Cc.v four months of that finding, the regulations. Wi" lam J. Dtrcks. s Corn =issica will determine whether the On October 30,1981. the NRC

• Ir er:;rire Dinctorfor opere.ise:s.

reac:or shall be shut down until such obtained OhG reapproval for the in, om n me rn.4 3:-s--s.=1 deficiencies are remedied or whether in!cr:natica collection requirements ew=a oca me e.= other enforcement action is appropriate. centained in 10 CFR Part 50. His In determining whether a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 cther ec!creemcet action is appropriate, setting out de OhG approval number. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Com=ission shall take f.nto account, the expiraden date cf the cunent amo::g other factors, whether the approval. and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the P_ art 50 that centain a.n approved Cc=. mission's sati.?tction that the informatica collectics requirement.This Met h EW-8W{ - deficiencies in the plan are not amendme:t also re= oves the note Powerp!:nt and Industri$! Fuel significant for the plant in question.tr , concerning the expired GAO clearance Of 1978; Final Rules that adequate interim compensating that follows i 50.110. actions have been or will be taken Because this is a consubstantive Correction promptly. or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor. compelling reasons for continued procedural matter good cause ex2sts for In FR Doc. 81-34770 appeaN4 operation. , finding that the notice and comment page 59S72 in the issue of Mondi December T.1981 make the folli procecures of the Accunistrat2ve eg,cg,., r cedure Act(5MC.553) an Dated at Washington D.C.this 3rd day of (1)In i 503.6(c)(2). the followi December.1 set. unnecessary and for :naLng the were inadvertently omitted abo, ame For the Puclear Regulatory Cornmission. equation on page 59006: nd o i 9*4 Sa muel J. Chilk, as amended. the Energy Recr r.nination EQ4 DELTA = COST e Secre: cry ofrAe commission-Act of1974. as a= ended. and 5 U.S.C. (ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL) w,r in om n.rm ru ir-cres.=1 552 and 553. the following arnendments COST (ALTERNATE) and COST to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by: ewwc coor mo-e-u document subject to codificationJThe (2)ln s W3.3S(e). paragraph (5 10 CFR Part 50 authority citation for this documentis: inconectly designated as (b); the on page 59914. first column. In th [ Reporting. Recordkeeping, and PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF .line. (b) For poserplants..." i I, Application Requirements; Approvnl PRODUCTION AND tmLIZATION bave read *(5) For powerplants < AcENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FACILITIES ewwc cooc isos*S-= Cornmission. Authority: Sec. 2st. Pub. L 63-703. 6a Stat AcmON: Final rule. s48 (42 U.S.C. n:c2) FEDERAL HOME LOAN 8ANK li

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory

. Section 50.8 is added to read as 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 f ws. Commission is amending its regulations on thEdomestic licensing of production f 50.8 F4eporting, recordkeeping. and (No. 81-800) and utilization facilities to indicate appfication requirements: OMB approvat. Payment of UtigatJon Expenses Office of ManaEement and Budget (a) the Nuclear Regulatory approval of the information collection Commission has sub=itted the ~ Federal Home Loan Bank Office Directors, and Employees requirements contamed in the informatio. collection requirements regulations. This action is required bY contained in this part of the Ofuce of Da ted: Dec' ember 27.1981. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Manageme:t and Budget (OhG) for AcENcY: Federal Home Loan Ban EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30.1981. approval as required by the Paperwork Board. FOR FURTNER INFORM ATION CONTACTt Reduction Act (Pub. L 96-Sn). OMB AcmON: UnaI rule. Steve Scott. Chief. Document approved the tnformation collection Management Branch. Division of requirements n October 30,1931. SUMMARr.ne Federal Home Los Technical lnformation and Document (1) ne OMB approval number ts Board is amending the Regulatior Control. Office of Administratich. 3*-00"" the Federal Home Loan Bank Sys Telephone: (301) 492-8585. (2) OMB approval expires April 30 liberalize the terms on which the 1982. may pay expenses of officers. c:.r1 SUPPLIItENTARY INFORM ATIOPC Tbe

• (b)The approvedinformation and employees involved in litigat Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(Pub.

collection requirements include the arising out of their Bank duties.T L PS-5n: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application, recordkeeping. and amendment will allow the Federa transferred the responsibility for-reperfing requirements contained in Loan Banks to establish their ow: approving the information collection il 50.30. 50.33. 50.33a. 50.34(b). (c). (d). policies regarding litigation expc: requirements imposed by the Nuclear (f). 50.34 a. 50.35(b). 50.36. 50.38a. 50.48. Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the EFrtcTrvE o ATE.: December 17.19;

(

public from the General Accounting 50.55a. 50.59(b). (c). 50.71(a). (b) (c) (d). '0"""*E"'"#0"*"0"C # 50.54(f) [p). (q). (r). (s). (t). (u). 50.55(e). Office (CAO) to the Office of (e). 50.7:(a). (b). 50.80. 50.82. 50.90. and James C. Stewart ((20:) 377-64573 Management and Dudget (OMB). The Appendices A. B. C. F. C. H. J. K. and R. f Ceneral Counse!. Federal Mc=< Act requires that each existing Bank Board.1700 C Street. NW. information collection requirement be i 50 110 IAm'nd'd! Washington. D.C. 0552. } reapprcred by OMB as existing CAO 1 The ne:e fo:lewin; I 50.no is, SUPPt.E ME VTARY INFORM ATIO*C 'I"r i clearances espire. nis requirement removed. Federal Heme Lean Enni Sea-d :

i 3-4 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 4 IRVING PLACE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003 e February 26, 1982 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Office of Inspection and Enforcement 9

• /g)6 Region I

1. D U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e

631 Park Avenue 'U EECEfVED \\\\ King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 99 C " A. 05 582

• C

SUBJECT:

Indian Point Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-03 and 50-247 { Q9] Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant y 4 s Docket No. 50-286 0; 9 Alert and Notification System (ANS)

Dear Mr. Haynes:

By letter dated January 29, 1982, the Power Authority of the State of New York (Authority) and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) provided you with the status of the Alert and Notification System (ANS) for the Indian Point site 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone. The Authority and Con Edison wish to inform you that initial installation and initial testing of the ANS in all four coun-ties surrounding the Indian Point site have been completed. Each siren was tested locally, by manually depressing the pushb'uttons located in the control boxes mounted on each siren's nuclear alert, growl, pole to test the following four functions: fire and cancel. In addition, each siren's electrical circuitry was tested by sending a radio signal from an encoder located The overall-in each county's emergency operations center. system was found to be operational during the initial testing and although some deficiencies with individual sirens

program, were identified, they will be corrected within the time frame

( specified in the emergency planning regulations. 'Ih,p C2030007f2 620226~^~ ~~ I g PDR ADOCK 05000003 j PnR

Mr. R. C. Haynes February 26, 1982 ( ~ Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, / t~.

1. {/huf]

'T(t - ~ d o n D. O'Tqo e J. P. Bayne Senior Vice President Vice President Power Authority of the Consolidated Edison Company State of New York of New York, Inc. cc: Mr. Brian Grimes, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness c U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Ted Rebelowski, Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 38 Buchanan, N. Y. 10511 f Mr. W. H. Baunack, Acting Chief, Indian Point U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 Mr. T. J. Kenny, Resident Inspector Indian Point Unit 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Buchanan, New York 10511 s O}}