ML20054E961
| ML20054E961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Perkins K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840632 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-161 TAC-46213, NUDOCS 8206150077 | |
| Download: ML20054E961 (3) | |
Text
.
,,. gm p2'fi gg N6
' \\ h )'
.3.,
~ 'q UNITED STATES 3.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gy a;
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Jlp
(
%y% (~jf o, -
February 12, 1982 3e Docke.t No. 50-334 i
t MEMORANDUM FOR:
Steven Varga, Chief f' h7 Operating Reactors Branch #1
/'.
Division of Licensing P
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 PROMPT NOTIFICATis' SYSTEM DEADLINE Effective December 30, 1981, the Commission approved the rule change to change the deadline for implementation of a Prompt Notification System to -
February 1, 1982.
Duquesne Light Company has; requested relief from this deadline and for the reasons given in the attacijed response we propose that it be denied.
I herebi request that you forward the attached > response to. the licensee as soon as possible.
I r
i
/
1A Q
Kenneth E. / erkins, Acting Chief P
Incident Response and Development Branch Division
- of Emergency Preparedness Office of' Inspection and Enforcement
Attachment:
As stated
~
8206150077 820421 i
[
e
~
s Docket No. 50-334
(
t Duquesne Light Company ATTN:
J. J. Carey, f
Vice President, Nuclear 435 Sixth Avenue
~
r= :
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 y
DearMr.Carey:
,l This is in respons~e to your January 29, 1982 letter, requesting relief from t,he February 1,1982 deadline for implementation of your prompt notification y
I system.
The final' rule establishing this deadline, which became effective
\\..
December 30, 1981, does not specifically address requests for exemption or relief from the February 1,1982 implementation date.
However, pursuant to 10 CER.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 consideration in the offsite protection of the public. in the event of a nuclear accident.
The, emergency. planning rule is premised on reducing, to i
the extent possible and to the ex, tent the NRC can regulate,' the time required for and the uncertainty associate'd with each step in the prompt public notification process.
Therefore,ftimely implementation of a prompt notifi-cation system is' considered to be ~bencficial to the health and safety of the public.
(See 46 FR 46587 & 46 FR 63031 for additional information).
7 In view of the forgoing, it has been determined that granting an extension of time would not be in the public interest.
Ducuesne Light Company '
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) whether the licensee demonstrated diligence in attempting to fulfill the requirements; (2), whether or not the NRC.wa-s. kept infomed of the steps taken to fulfill 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.
The infomation you have provided teill te taken into consideration in determining appropriate enforcement action.
Sincerely, Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Peactor Pegulation f
Enclosures:
1.
46 FR 46587 2.
(
d
[
. lq L}
e'
[
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
.~
2301 MARKET STREET G
Q P.O. BOX 8699 8
PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101 E.IiCU.UiYO l-SHICLD$ L. D ALTROFF t
,2?::"l.*a'..
E aa. w.mnaan 1
u m:~44 a Ea January 27, 1982 g
Docket Nos'. 50-277 50-278 Mr.
B.
K.
Grimes, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Grimes:
This letter requests an exemption from the February i,-1982,
(
implementation schedule for the emergency public alert system
(
required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3, as amended on December 30, 1981.
Previous correspondence supporting ~this I
request consisted of (1) a letter dated December 18, 1981, S.
L.
I Daltroff, Philadelphia Electric Company to B.
K. Grimes, NRC, (2) a letter dated July 16, 1981, S.
L. Daltroff to B. H.
Grier, NRC, and (3) a letter dated April 28, 1981, S.
L.
Daltroff to H.
R.
Denton, NRC.
As a compensatory measure for our inability to have the emergency public alert system in full automatic operation by February 1, 1982, we propose to establish manual operation of the I
sirens within the five mile radius by February 1, 1982, and to have the entire system within the ten mile radius fully automated by February 22, 1982.
This compensatory measure will be in,
addition to that presently planned with the counties as described in my letter to B.
K.
Grimes of December 18, 1981.
Local manual control would consist of telephone notification I
by the counties to Philadelphia Electric Company, who in turn, E
would contact supervisory personnel on duty 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day to initiate a notification and siren operation procedure.
Company employees in the area of the sirens have been designated and will be instructed in procedures for manually operating the sirens.
l Each employee would have predesignated sirens, with a maximum of eight assigned to any one employee, which they would have
(
20msn(knF77k ~~
06 DR ADOCK PDR I
l g,
g 1
F
Mr. B.
K.
Grimes Page 2 I
responsibility to operate.
When notified, the employee would travel by automobile to the designated sirens and operate them, reporting back to the general headquarters on the status of the assigned work.
It is estimated that the sirens could be actuated within 45 minutes of the initial notification by this method.
This method would only be required for those sirens for which the remote control cabinet and radio controlled receiver had not been installed.
~
The prompt notification telephone system installation is in progress and is expected to be completed and in service by February 1, 1982.
The remote radio control capability is scheduled for completion by February 8, 1982.
This would enable remote operation by the counties of those sirens whose control cabinet and radio control system has been installed.
These compensatory measures, and the recognition of the fact that an increasing number of sirens will be automated during the period of requested exemption, provides adequate capability for prompt public notification.
\\ '-
If you need additional information or have any questions, we would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
^
F r
A$ j
I cc:
R. C. Haynes, (NRC-Region I)
D.
G.
Eisenhut, (NRC)
I l
1
(
n --.
,