ML20054B716
| ML20054B716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B712 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204190115 | |
| Download: ML20054B716 (1) | |
Text
r
.psantou k
UNITED STATES l
- a. g
/
5 S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20SS5
%...../
l 1
orriCE or THE March 15, 1982 CHAIRMAN l
l The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
I am writing in response to your February 4,1982 letter to me expressing concern that some utilities missed the February 1,1982 deadline for the installation of systems for prompt public notification of nuclear power plant accidents.
The Commission is also concerned that some utilities missed the February 1 deadline for installation of the prompt public notification system.
Consequently, enforcement action, including a graduated scale of proposed civil penalties, has been initiated. An example of the enforcement action and a status description for each of the utilities who failed to meet the February 1 implementation date are enclosed.
I believe these enclosures should answer your questions.
Sincerely,
(
,w,hd no A.(f r d w'
l N nzio J Palla Chairman
Enclosures:
1.
Letter to Licensee 2.
Status Descriptions l
l l
8204190115 820315 i
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPObOENCE PDR l
f...g FEB 12 52 Docket No. 50-213 EA 82-31 Conn'cticut Yankee Atomic Power Company e
' ATTN:
Mr. W. G. Counsil Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 i
Gentlemen:
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) and Append'ix E of 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's regul.ations, each nuclear power' retc'tdr 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 18, 1982, it appears that you did not meet the February 1, 1982 deadline for the Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station. Accordingly, a Notice of Violation for failure'to meet thisodeadline is enclosed.
The failure to meet the February 1, 1982 deadline is considered to be of significant regulatory concern and, therefore, has been
. 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 i'nitial installation and testing of the system or 30 days from the date of this letter,
(
whichever is later.-
No furtherehforcement action is c'ontemplated for those licensees that complete l
the installation and initial testing of the prompt public not'ification 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 p'enalty 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 52,000 per day.
Daily civil penalties wil1 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 tb S4,000 per day for that day and each day thereafter-until a prompt public notification system is properly installed and tested.
CERTIFIED IMIL RETURN REQUESTED 0
l t
I
w~ re.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic.
Power Company r
The NRG does not intend to issue a Notice of Propo. sed Imposition of Civil -
Penilties until you have responded to the enclosed Notice of Violation.
In preparing the Notice of Proposed Imposition of' Civil Penalties, the NRC will consider w. ether circumstances justify reducing the daily rate of civil pen 61 ties discussed above.
Consistent with the December 30, 1981 Statement of Considerations extending the July 1,1981 deadline for the notifi' cation system to February 1, -
1982 (46 FR 63032).the NRC intends to cortsider (a) whether the NRC was kept
. informed of your actions to comply with the rule; (b) the compensatory measures in effect, percentage of system completion, and degree of effort to complete the system as of February 1,1982; and (i:) r.ny ur.ique problems and the diligence used in resolving or attempting to' resolve thes,e 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' s,
in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not[ subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget, as required by s
the Papenvork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely, y [i. p l C.l. }j f,. U W l,L - '
/. '.
/
Richard C. DeYoung, Director /
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Notice of. Violation cc:
R. Graves, Plant Superintendent D. G. Diedrick, Manager of Quality l
Assurance i
R. T. Laudenat, Manager, Generation.
Facilities Licensing J. F. Opeka, Vice President, Nuclear Operations e
~
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-213 Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station EA 82-31 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 Paf t 50 (46 FR 63032, December 30, 1981) require each nuclear power reactor licensee, by February 1,1982, to demonstrate that a.dministrative and physical means have been established plume exposure, pathway emergency plan,tructions to the public within the for alerting and providing prompt ins ning zone'.
Contrary. to the above, by letter dated January 18, 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 Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Conitecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company is hereby required to submit to this office within five days of the.
date of completion of the installation and initial testi.ng 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 th' authority of Section e
~
l 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
\\
\\
\\
l
.p. m..t. *lT,, s.'_\\.j a cj g.
t Ridhard C. DeYoung, Director l
OfficeofInspectionandEnforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this t.1 day of February 1982 kb g
qg h,
.b L
+
i.--mv ~ -== - e===
1m-~==:.
HADDAM NECK / MILLSTONE ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STATUS i
l 1.
Type of alert system:
Siren j
l 2.
Dates design study initiated and completed:
Bids 09/01/80; Selection and Purchase. Requisition 12/07/80; Design study completed 06/01/81; Sent to FBtA 08/14/81; NRC 09/09/81 3.
Date equipment ordered:
November 1,1981 - poles and sirens 4.
Amount of equipment on hand: *No sirens until February 1,1982 5.
Date installation of equipment began:
11/15/81 - installation of poles; Siren installation not begun 6.
Date installation of equipment complete:
08/01/82 7.
Fraction of system installed:
0% installed for sirens and associated electronics 8.
Date of initial alerting system. test:
Not defined, subject to insta11ation progress 9.
Results of initial alerting system test and scheduling for fixing deficiencies:
N/A 10.
Proposed compensatory measures until alert system initial test:
Radio pagers for all county and State officials in EPZ.
Existing fixed and mobile alerting public system as. described in Evacuation Study.
For '
further details, see October 10, 1981 letter 4
,.__.__.r
_-.,,.-,.w._.._....-
s HADDAM NECK / MILLSTONE FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor problems:
Put on waiting list for 5 months because vendor was supplying other licensees.
2.
Local design approval problems:
State law passed July 1,1981, indicated licensee has to pay for total prompt notification system.
It was not known pr.ior to July 1,1981, who would pay, install and decide what system would be used.
~
~1.
Right of way problems:
Pole placement being protested by adjacent property owners (10 cases for Millstone, 5 cases for Haddam Neck).
State laws give these property owners the right to contest installation of any equipment.
4.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
February 13, 1981
- Counsil to Eisenhut (inable to make July 1,1980 date)
July 24, 1981
- Counsil to Grier (response to July 1,1980 letter)
September 9, 1981
- Counsil to Grimes (FEMA study)
- 0ctober 20, 1981
- Counsil to Chilk,(summarizes all problems)
January 18. 1982
- Counsil to Dircks (request for exemption)
G
PEACH BOTTOM UNITS 2 & 3 e
~
ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STA.TUS 1.
Type of alert system:
County-controlled sirens 2.
Dates design study initiated and completed:
May 1980 - Looked into type (s) of system (s); January 1981 - Arrangement with Federal Siren for Field Tests; March 1981 - Study initiated; May 1981 - Results completed.
3.
Date equi.pment ordered:
September 3,1981 4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
Poles and siren - 100%
Radio control cabinets - 0%
5.
Date installation of equipment began:
Siren sub-assemblies (e.g., poles)
October 19, 1981 Sirens - December 11, 1981 6.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Expect 02/15/82 for 5 mile radius; 04/01/82 for.10 mile radius 7.
Fraction of system installed:
100% poles and sirens 0% radio control 0% operable 8.
Date of initial alerting system test: ' Expect initial testing for 5 mile radius before 02/01/82 9.
Results of initial alerting system test'and scheduling for fixing deficiencies:
N/A l
10.
Proposed compensatory measures until alert system initial test:
Mobi.le l
public siren and route alerting as described in July 16, 1981 response O
~
PEACH BOTTOM UNITS 2 & 3 FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor problems:
Delivery delays relating to siren control cabinets First shipment January 15, 1982 Last shipment' expected January 29, 1982 2.
-Local design approval problems:
Local concern relating to one-way radio reliability for activation caused delay to review process.
Decision made by licen.see to install radio and fix any deficiencies during testing.
"3 Right of way problems:
Negotiations not completed until December 1,1981
- 63 of 70 sirens were obtained thru routine negotiations with fee of
$50.00 per siren
- Remaining seven sites were located in limits of adjacent highways by virtue of pennit granted by local authority since suitable alternative sites could not be obtained 4.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
1.
April 28,1981 Daltroff to Denton -(Request for extension to 07/01/81) 2.
July 16, 1981 Daltroff to Grier (Response to Regional July 1,1981 letter) 3.
December 18, 1981 Daltroff to Grimes (Summarizes equipment and right,of way problems) 4.
January 27,1982 (Request for exemption) 4 L&* sam 6 e-m *M is e o wee ~.- - -,
- =ehTD Y
~-
PILGRIM ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STATUS 1.
Type of alert system:
Fixed sirens 2.
Dates design study initiated and completed:
Initiated - date not available Completed - May 1981
~3 Date equipment ordered:
August 1981 4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
First shipment on 01/07/81; Expect 100%
~
~
- 15. 1981 for 5 mile EPZ by January 5.
Date installation of equipment began:
Poles - December 1981; Sirens - Not initiated 6.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Expect 04/15/82 O
7.
Fraction of system installed:
65% of poles; 0% of sirens 8.
Date of initial alerting system test:
N/A
~
9.
Results of initial alerting system test and scheduling for fixing deficiencies:
N/A 10.
Proposed compensatory measures until alert system initial test: Mobile voice audible sound system and state-wide Emergency Broadcast System-O m%
O
~
~
~
PILGRIM FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor problem:
Five month delay for component delivery.
2.
Local design approval problems:
L'imiting Factor - 1 canmunity requiring 17 sirens out of 91 has not granted any permits (All sites are outside of.5 mile radius) 4 3.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
Morisi to Eisenhut (Request Extension)
June 5, 1981 Morisi to Grier (Responses to Regional July 1,1981. letter)
July 21,1981
~~
(Summarized Problems and Schedules)
January 8, 1982
' January 21 1982 - (Request Extension) e 9
9 e
e e
O e
G e
, g p,, e d.
41 e mm-g -3 1
N MM ben-r +-
Whe' WJKMC
-b
, d Ee'M e 4I3 I s'.% e p
- e
-- % e ' Y 'S I F
'MJF A5 Fe"
"&4D"'mV-"-
BEAVER VALLEY ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STATUS -
t 1.
Type of alert system:
Fixed sirens supplemented with residential electric meter box mounted mini-sirens.
2.
Dates design study initiated and completed:
Initiated:
Dr.cember 1979; Completed:
May 1980 3.
Date equipment ordered:
Fixed Sirens and Mini-Sirens:
November 1980 4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
100% of pole mounted sirens and control; 100% of mini-sirens but 0% of computer activation system and software development.
-5.
Date installation of equipment began:
Received first shipment (40'of 106 sirens) - April 1981, and installation started April 1981.
6.
Date installation of equipment ~ completed:
Unable to estimate completion d' te.
a 7.
Fraction of system installed:
70 of 80 sirens in Pennsylvania; 3 of 13 sirens in Ohio; 6 of 11 sirens.in West Virginia.
8.
Date of initial alerting system test:
01/13/82 9.
Results of initial alerting system test and scheduling for fixing de'ficiencies:
To be determined.
10.
Proposed compensatory measures'until alert system initial test:
Each county' has written into their county plans, an interim notification system whereby
~
local police and fire departments would implement route alerting procedures.
In addition, fire sirens that are already installed.would be used.
S
BEAVER VALLEY FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor problems:
Vendor unable to support their schedule of delivery.
Received incomplete.
- packages (piece-meal components) rather than complete assemblies.
2.
Local design approval problems:
Negotiations for locations and system designs were time consuming when
'lso needed three separate activation and dealing with tihree sta'tes.
A control systems.
3.
Right of way problems:
Duquesne Light Company being s utility franchise to operate in Pennsylvania cannot legally obtain property rights in Ohio
'and West Virginia.
Wer; to Ohio Edison and Monogahela utilities to obtain right of ways in Ohio and West Virginia but progress is slow.
Problems still exist making it impossible to estimate completion date.
In addition, had to relocate 30 sites.
4.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
Carey to Varga (Request for Extension)
June 26, 1981 July 24, 1981' Carey to Grier (Response to Regional July 1,1981 letter)
December 23, 1981 - Carey to Varga (Request from Steve Ramos which details situation with Ohio and West Virginia counties)
Carey to Palladino (Request for relief)
January 29, 1982 e
o G
0
....,es.
-**r.
e s+... *
-~ / s ~ ~ *. w' e ' 4-e i
- '"*%5S **% A s*' ****
'E
' ' ^ '
l -.. _ -., _, - - - -.,,,, - - -..
- -, - -..= ---
INDIAN POINT 2/3 j
ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STATUS
- i-l 1.
Type of alert system:
Sirens 2.
Dates design study initiated and completed:
Unknown i
I 3.
Date equipment ordered: Unknown l
4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
All 5.
Data installation of equipmen't began:
Sirens - 07/09/81 Radio Controls - 10/06/81 6.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Sirens a 01/82 "7.
Fraction of system installed:
All, except for the Rockland county encoder 8.
Date of initial alerting system test:
01/82 for 3'of 4 counties 9.
Results of initial alerting system test and scheduling for fixing deficiencies:
Currently correcting minor deficiencies.
l 10.
Proposed compensatory measures until alert system initial test:
Unknown e
e o e %.
9 6
e w-----
INDIAN POINT 2/3 FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT
~
1.
Equipment vendor problems:
Production problems necessitated final assembly in the field 2.
FCC frequency (license) problems:
Initial ap'lication for renewal of a county transmitter license was p
d.enied, subsequently it was granted i
3.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
July 24,1981
- Provided schedule, description, and problems for system October 30, 198.1
- Revised schedule December 31, 1981
- Est. mated completion 02/01/82 January 29, 1982
- Describes encoder problem for Rockland county e
9 e
e a 'e e
4 e
e e
6
<, ~ - _.-,
--,,e---
e,_m..>--,,,-.,.n,p..
,.w,ev.
-+.,,+-w,,,,4n,..n-,.-,,-e,www~s-e--w g-w m=ew y~-ve n s=
ww ms w-e-r-
RANCHO SECO
~
ALERT SYSTEM DATA AMD CURRENT STATUS 1.
Type of alert system:
Siren 2.
Dates design study initiated a0d. completed:
Start:
November 1980, 1st Scope Change May 1981., 2nd Scope Change July 1981, Completed:
August 1981 2,
Date equipment ordered:
Contract approved by SMUD Board December 17, 1981 (Initial. bids rejected lui November 3,1981 - didn't' meet. technical requirements) 4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
None
~ ~5.
Date installation of equipment began:
Expected:
Some Time in February 1982
~
(Contract final delivery date March 25,1982) 6.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Expected:
Some time in Ap'ril 1982 7.
Fraction of system installed:- N/A 8.
Date of initial alerting system test:
Expected in April or early May 1982 9.
Results of initial alerting system test and scueduling for fixing deficiencies:
N/A 10.
Proposed compensatory measures until alert system initial test.
Two Sacramento Sheriff's Department helicopters equipped with loud speakers would be used to alert the public in the EPZ.
An additional helicopter is available through the California Highway. Patrol.
4 4
k-----.-
,-mr..
-y._----.,-.-x-
,wr.v- -
.-y,--.,
,.w...
~
RANCHO SECO FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor Problems:
As a public utility SMUD must go through the i
written specifications and bid process.
The initial bids were unacceptable because they did not meet the technical requirements.
A new package had to be prepared.
2.
Local design approval problems:
Comments by the three involved counties and the SMUD Management Safety Review Committee caused additional work by the Design Consultant after the January 1981 draft report. The additional work was in the areas of alternatives cost / benefit analysis, design and siting criteria, environmental impact assessment,' system maintenance, and system activation alternatives.
3.
-Licensee written communications to NRC of factors above:
States complete system received, installed and June 30, 1981 activated by 01/01/82 and requests exemption from Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E,10 CFR Part 50.
States system activation in May 1982 and requests July 24,1981 exemption from Section IV.D.3 of' Appendix E, 10 CFR Part 50 December 31, 1981 4
%=
e e
6 0
8 d aC 'd te dN$
- A %e em.
mm
=ih,a, I w.%rw w y esa, -- Ag gp=w.g gy,myrg _, g 3, g g g 73, -
,,agqjg.
,,j,,
0YSTER CREEK ALERT SYSTEM DATA AND CURRENT STATUS 1.
Type of alert system:
Sirens complemented (but not dependent) with tone alert radios for route alerting and special institutions.
2.
Dates design' study initiated and completed:
First study. completed 11/19/80 -
disagreed with results; second study initiated 11/15/80t completed in final draft 04/16/81.
3.
Date equipment o'rderedi Eval'uation of ~ vendors - March thru-June 1981.-
June 12, 1981 - selection of vendor; signed contract June 30, 1981 4.
Amount of equipment on hand:
100% as of November 1, 1981 5.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Expect 07/01/82 6.
Date installation of equipment completed:
Expect 07/01/82 7.
Fraction of system installed:
11 of 46 sirens; 24% of total system 8.
Date of initial alerting system test:
Informal individual testing (silent and Growl) completed at time of installation.
Formal testing -
after complete installation.
9.
Results of initial alerting system test and sched'uling for fixing
~
deficiencies:
1.
Fix deficiencies found furing initial (informal) testing at time of installation; 2.
Ai1 results not formalized at this time.
10.
Proposed compensatory measures until al.ert system initial test:
Route-alerting procedures e
A-e-
___..m,
2-OYSTER CREEK FACTORS BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT 1.
Equipment vendor problems:
a.
First review study was challenged.
b.
Late ~ del,ivery.on s'ome components.
c.
Some defective equipment which the vendor is responsible for repairing.
2.
Right of way problems:
Two major problems that were limiting in installation i
~
schedules:
(a) local Board of Freeholders did not want to accept ownership at the final stages thus delaying acquiring right of way.
Because utilities in New Jersey are not free from zoning requirements, had to fiie for a variance from the Board of Public Utilities.
Granted October 1981 except for 11 sirens in Pine Lands.
(Present negotiations look favorable);
(b) Resort area and problems with find'ing clear title have resulted in approximately 2/3 of sirens being on public property.
For each right of way, had to attend two meetings and get two approval votes.
3.
Licensee written communications to NRC on factors above:
1.
October 1981 Response to Notice of Violation (Summarized problems).
2.
Received 01/04/82 Arnold to NRR Director (Request Extension).
3.
February 1,1982 (Request Exemption)".
e e
1
[
I 0
.