ML20054E967
| ML20054E967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1982 |
| From: | Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082840632 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-161 EA-82-029, EA-82-29, TAC-46213, NUDOCS 8206150086 | |
| Download: ML20054E967 (9) | |
Text
-_
05c
' &=
V }m)
%S Dugdesne U; fit m s.. u..,,,,,
goos lia rch 10, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office cf the Chairman Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334, License DPR-66 Notice of Violation EA 82-29 s
Gentlemen:
Pursuant. to the subject " Notice of Violation" dated February 12, 1982, and 10CFR 2. 201, Duque ne Light Company ia submitting the follow-ing information:
Duquesne Light Company completed the installation and testing of all 108 pole-mounted sirens required to be installed in the 10 mile EPZ surrounding the Beaver Valley facility by the February 28, 1982 deadline as established by your February 12, 1982'1ctter.
With the installation I
of the 103 pole-mounted sirens, we believe that we have met the requite-ments of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
The supplemental meter box-mounted mini siren system, for use in' sparsely populated areas, is still under develop-ment but good progress is being made toward design and installation of this supplemental system.
The control equipt snt (co=puter) for the sup-plemental system will be available in May,1932 and sof tware is scheduled for completion in August, 1982.
The installation of this equipment will provide assurance that all individuals.living within the 10 mile radius will receive an audible warning in the event of an emergency.
.f We respectfully request that the' Com=isioners reconsider their de-cision to reject our request for extension dated January 29,1982 and to impose a Severity Level III Notice of Violation.
Considering the vigorous manner in which we pursued fulfillment of this requirement, the degree of difficulty in obtaining individual rights-of-way property agreements, electrical service and the uarning sirens and all associated electrical eq.ipment, we believe that imposing a Severity Level III vio -
lation is unwarranted.
While we failed to meet the February 1, 1982 deadline,which was not officially established until December 30, 1981, we believe that proper consideration has not been given to the difficulty and complexity of in-r stalling an acceptable warning system in the heavily wooded, hilly ter-rain of Western Pennsylvania, Ohio and Ucst Virginia areas.
This terrain 8206150086 820421
(' '
Paga 2 necessitated the performance of comprehensive engineering studies to de-termine the number and strategic locations of the sirens which would ade-(
quately fulfill the requirements.
Prior to the completion of the initial studies and actual field testing of various siren models, a total of forty-six (46) sirens were ordered in Novenber of 1980.
This number has more than doubled upon the completion of the studies, associated field testing, and installation of the system.
A total of one-hundred and fifty (150) individual right-of-way property agreements and twenty-eight (28) separ-ate electrical service agreements were necessary to complete the install-ation of the system.
This was an extremely complicated and time consuming task which involved the negotiations of three states, three counties and approximately thirty (30) local fire departments.
We notified the URC by letter dated January 29, 1982 that the in-stallation would be delayed as a result of several factors, including i
acquisition of right-of-way properties outside the state of Pennsylvania,
{ '
numerous relocations of sites, obtaining power service agreements through other utilities outside our service area, and the equipment availability /
hardware problems we have encountered.
A system chronology is provided (see attached Table I) to summarize our activities over the 2ast two years as proof of our sincere efforts in actively pursuing the install-ation of a public warning system responsive to the guidelines of Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654.
The NRC has been kept informed of our actions to comply with the rule as evidenced by the history of previous correspondence; as outlined below:
\\'-
-June 26, 1981; To Mr. Steven A. Varga, Division of Licensing.
Subject:
Request for Relief of July 1,1981 deadline and summary of design concept of Siren Warning System.
-July 24, 1981; To Mr. Boyce Grier, Office of I & E.
Subject:
Interim Compensatory measures described.
-Dece=ber 2 3, 1981; To Mr. Steve A. Varga, Division of Licensing.
Subject:
Updated status of Warning System.
-January 29, 1982; To Chairnan Palladino, Office of the Chairman.
Subject:
Request for Relief of February 1,1982 deadline.
While we believe that the fixed siren warning system which has been installed within the Beaver Valley EPZ fully meets the intent of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, additional compensatory measures are identified in each respective county plan which would supplement the fixed siren warning system.
These compensatory measures are described in the Attachments to this letter for each risk county.
Re cent equipment problems, discovered during the testing phase, has had a significant impact on full impleraentation of the project.
On February 10, 1982, six (6) siren units were returned to the manufacturer
/
due to unsatisfactory results during the testing phase.
The six sirens.
were repaired and returned on February 24, 1982.
Construction manpower s
was increased, additional overtime was expended, the use of helicopter
- ye o service to expedite installation was utilized, and where written prop-erty agreements have not been acquired, verbal permission was obtained
(
in order to complete installation and testing of the system.
During the last week of February, three (3) additional sirens were found to be un-satisfactory during the initial testing phase which will require repair and/or replacement.
We feel that these equipment problems are beyond our control, but we will continue to actively pursue the completion of the required repairs and testing in the time allowed for that purpose.
We believe that a thorough examination of all the facts related to the manner in which we fulfilled this requirement would lead to the conclusion that the entire task was performed in a conscientious, re-sponsible, professional and dedicated manner.
Based upon the above in-formation, we believe that the Commission should reconsider its issuance of a Notice of Violation in this matter.
j;_
Very truly yours, h
J. J. Carey Vice President, Nuclear JJM:lld Attachments cc: ik D. A. Beckman, Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport, PA 15077 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Document Fbnagement Branch Washington, DC 20555 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attn:
R. C. Haynes, Regional Director Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Brian Grimes U. S. NRC Washington, D.
C.
20555 M r. S. A. Varga U. S. NRC Washington, D.
C.
20555
Table I BEAVER VALLEY POL'ER STATION Emergency Planning Zone
]
Emergency Public Warning System SYSTEM CHRONOLOGY 1.
In December 1979, Duquesne Light contracted the A.M. Voorhees and
' Associates, Inc. to perform a mass notification and evacuation study of the Beaver Valley Power Station emergency planning zone.
Although the primary purpose of this study was to provide the evacuation time estimates required to be submitted to the USNRC in January 1980, the study scope included an assessment of alternative
?i methods to provide area-vide mass notification and to identify a
( '
method or combination of methods for the Beaver Valley Power Station emergency planning zone.
The final report was presented to Duquesne Light at a meeting on March 27, 1980.
2.
The Voorhees report was given a preliminary review, and a Construction Order was issued on April 18, 1980, Following some initial groundwork, an initial design concept was approved by the Duquesne Light Co rporate Committee on April 30, 1980, and was issued Iby 1, 1980.
3.
Engineering activities for the Beaver County portion of the emergency planning zone commenced.
Discussions were held with siren vendors
[
in early Iby 1980 and with Westinghouse Electric (mini-sirens) in
\\s_
early June.
Out of these efforts came proposed siren locations, siren specifications, siren control systems design and a siren field tes't procedure.
4.
A field test of sirens from two manufacturers was conducted on September 18, 1980, to determine the effective range under conditions typical to the Beaver Valley ' Power Station emergency planning zone.
5.
The proposed Beaver County system was presented to the Director, l
Beaver County Emergency Management Agency and the Director of the i
Beaver County Communications Center at two emergency held in October 1980.
6.
On November 14, 1980, a purchase order was issued to Westinghouse Electric for equipment and engineering related to the mini-siren l
system.
7.
On November 31, 1980, a purchase order was issued to ACA for 16-125 db and 30-112 db sirens.
Delivery was received June 19, 1981.
8.
A series of meetings were held with fire department officials in Beaver County.
9.
Preliminary engineering activities com=enced for the siren systems l(
j in Hancock County, West Virginia, and for Columbiana County, Ohio, r
10.
During tha usek of Jcnuary 19, 1981, fiva dsys of mini-sir:n testing was conducted.
Similar testing was conductcd cgsin during tha w;aks of February 10, 1981, and thrch 2, 1981.
11.
On January 30, 1981, a request for bid for the radio / encoding equip-ment for siren control was issued.
A proposal was received on March 25, and a purchase order issued on April 27.
Deli;ery of the system was projected to be late October.
An interim manual system which will be rented to Duquesne Light was received June 19, 1981.
12.
On February 20, 1981, representatives of Duquesne Light met with fire department and emergency services personnel in Hancock County to a cquaint these personnel with plans for siren installation in Hancock County and to solicit their input and cooperation.
A similar meeting was held in Columbiana County, Ohio, on thrch 12, 1981, with local, county and state officials.
13.
In late February,1981, letters were sent to the mayors, the local fire j.
departments and local emergency management agency directors in Beaver K-"
County identifying the proposed locations in 'their respective juris-dications, outlining the Duquesne Light offer to incorporate fire signals and discussing other pertinent aspects of the proposed system.
Similar letters were sent to Hancock County, West Virginia, and Columbiana County, Ohio, in March 1981.
14.
On April 16, 1981, the purchase order to ACA was revised to provide for 40-125 db and 6-112 db additional sirens.
Delivery was projected for la te August.
The Westinghouse purchase order was also revised.
15.
In early June, acceptance tests for the initial siren order were held.
Delivery of the initial order of sirens was received June 19, 1981.
16.
Right-of-way authorizations are presently being obtained f rom state, municipal and private parties for installation purposes.
17.
Late August, 1981, received partial order of siren equipm'ent from ACA.
Only 15 complete siren units were received out of the 2nd order of 43 sirens.
Shortage of parts identified by manufacturer.
18.
End of November, 1981, received complete order of 43 siren units with parts coming piece-meal during this period.
19.
November 24, 1981, Westinghouse identifies supplemental alerting system computer equipment to be available for installation by April, 1982.
20.
Final order of 15 siren units (total 104) delivered January 9,1982.
- 21. ' Janua ry 13, 1982, initiated individual siren testing in Beaver County.
Testing to continue for the next few weeks until all have been complete-ly tested and verified by local county agency representatives.
22.
Februa ry 22, 1982, ir.itiated individual siren testing in Ohio and West Virginia.
23.
Februa ry 28, 1982, completed the installation and initial testing of all
(
108 pole-mounted siren units.
s.
O a
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Beaver Valley Power Station Letter dated !! arch 10, 1982 Attachment I Proept Notifications and Instructions to the Public in the event of an Emergency (Compensatory measures)
Beaver County, PA The Director of the Beaver County Emergency }hnagement Agency (BCEMA) v has indicated the following actions would be taken to supplement the in-
?,.
stalled siren warning notification system, and as back-up measures should the installed system fail.
Upon notification that protective actions are required offsite, BCEMA will mobilize municipal police and fire vehicles to alert the public in affected areas.
The public address systems and/or sirens on these vehicles and/or hand-held bullhorns will serve as the signal-ling devices.
Once alerted, persons residing in the affected areas would turn to the Emergency Broadcasting Stations on radio and television.
Each of the 27 municipalities in the affected area has devised alert-ing route maps for the fire and police vehicles under their jurisdiction.
Mobilization scheme used for normal police / fire supression activities would be used to mobilize the necessary vehicles.
In each municipality, these a rrangements are documented in the municipality's response plan.
As part of the Beaver County public information program, Duquesne Light Company has completed the preparation and publication of the BCEMA brochure.
The brochures were distributed by mail in February. Daquesne Light Company has also completed the prepartion of full page ads which were inserted in area newspapers during the first week of February.
The information in these ads parallel that information contained in the brochures.
A copy l
of the county brochure is attached for your information.
l
~
i i
(
[
4
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY Beaver Valley Power Station Letter dated Ma rch 10, 1982 Attachment I Prompt Notifications and Instructions to the Public in the event of an Emergency (Compensatory measures)
Hancock County, WV The Director of the Hancock County of Emergency Services (HCOES) has
-t indicated the following actions would be taken to supplement the perman-y ently installed public notification system, and as back-up measures should 95..
the installed system fail.
Upon notification that protective actions are required offsite, HCOES will mobilize the Hancock County United Fire-fighters to alert the public in affected areas.
The fire vehicles will attract the attention of the public by passing over pre-designated routes in the risk portion of the county with sirens and public address systems in operation.
Once alerted, persons residing in the affected areas would turn to radio and television.
The fire-fighters are activated by a County controlled Plextron alerting system.
Although these departments are volu-nteer forces, experience in previous fire emergencies indicate the ability e-to activate the firefighters in a timely period.
%si The notification arrangements are documented in the HCOES " Beaver Valley Site Emergency Response Plan" as Attachment I to Annex P.
As part of the Hancock County public information program, Duquense Light Company has completed the preparation and publication of the public information brochures.
The county has distributed the flyers in their respective areas.
Duquesne Light Company has also completed the prepar-ation of full page ads which were inserted in area newspapers during the first l
week of February.
The information in these ads parallel that info rmation l
contained in the brochures.
A copy of the county brochure is attached for your information.
I e
as
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPAhT Beaver Valley Power Station Letter dated March 10, 1982 Prompt Notifications and Instructions to the Public in the event of an Emergency (Compensatory measures)
Columbiana County, Ohio The Director of the Columbiana County Disaster Services Agency (CCDSA) i.
has indicated the following actions would be taken to supplement the perman-s(
ently installed public notification system, and as back-up measures should the installed system fail.
Upon notification that protective actions are required offsite, CCDSA will mobilize fire departments in the risk portion of the County.
Fire department vehicles will alert the public using public.
address systems.
b' hen alerted, the public is expected to turn on radio cnd television for further instructions.
The notification arrangements are documented in the CCDSA " Beaver' Valley Site Emergency Response Plan" as a Standard Operating Procedure.
(
As part of the Columbiana County public information prog am, Duquesne f
Light Company has completed the preparation and publication of the public
\\s-information brochures.
The county has distributed the flyers in their re-spective areas.
Duquesne Light has also completed the preparation of full page ads which were inserted in area newspapers during the first week of Feb rua ry.
The information in these ads parallel that information contained in the brochures.
A copy of the county brochure is attached for your inf o rma tion.
t 4
S
e
('
COMM0tNEALTH OF PENilSYLVANIA) h,'.
)
SS:
M COUNTY OF BEAVER
)
On th's
/$ N i day of $/$d&
/f0, before
~ It,/ru //.,2NMcg6, a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth me, and' County, personally appeared J. J. Carey, who being duly sworn, depose ~d, and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said
(
Company, and (3) the statements set forth in the Submittal are true and s.
correct to the best of his kncwledge, information and belief.
LL (2)
/
EEtLA L ft.TT02!. CTitt PUtitC 5HIPPtf.tP:ti F33. CIAYZt C0llGY uf Coct!S::::: (Irat!$ sEFi. IC 1905 NefnM*. Ft3%*sidt #4WX.iu cf k:*Jtie; O.
sELEcTMEy-I>3 TOWN OF PLYMOUTH OFFICE OF GEORGE W. BUTTERS
(
THE SELECTMEN
$Av o r."af*IoT 11 LINOoLN STREET ROGER E. SILVA PLY mouth, M ASSACH US ETTS oAVID F. TARANTINO.
WILLI A M R. GRIF FIN, 02360 Cuaanwan oO EXECUTIVE SECR ETARY (617) 747 1620 047 March 10, 1982 y ".
4-Mr. Ronald C. Haynes Ch
'! O, %
h
' N.;
I' 1)Mdl',Gp'l [ /*Cg[
Regional Administrator, Region I H
U U.W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l-631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 bec~,fe 6
Lear Mr. Haynes:
<9 g
The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts is writing to you regarding the outdoor Warning System (sirens) re-cently installed by the Boston Edison Company. The sirens have been sounded on two different occasions, and a number of issues raised regarding their effectiveness.
~
As a result, the Board of Selectmen has voted to respectfully re-
[
quest the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other appropriate federal agencies to hold a test of the siren system as soon as s_
possible, that test being supervised and monitored by those agencies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, BOARD OF SELECTMEN n
hh A(,fA l
William R. Gri(fin l
Executive Secretary l
WRG:hm cc: Gerald Hayes, Civil Defense Director i
Robert Tis, Boston Edison Co.
r l
i 1
sto310 Id
$$33M OS00Uh5N 3
'.[
.. I g7 Y" THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMlH ATING COMPANY ILLUMIN ATING 8 LOG. e PUBLIC SCUARt e CLtVf LAND. OMIO 44101 e TELtPMONE (216) t:31350 e MAIL ADDRESS: P. O. 80X 6000 Serving The Besyocationin the. Nation
.'N Dahyyn R. Davidson
@ L
.7 vitt PReseDENT g.,
, l[.\\
N syste u (NoiNEtamo no coNstauctioN G
- iQ 9+ m. 6
~.l y( ~~'7?gs}),{?p?A T.
08 7
March 10, 1982 y
y 2
h Robert L. Tedesco ca Assistent Director of Licensing Division of Licensing Licensing Branch No. 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50 440; 50 441 Prompt Notification in the Event of an Emergency
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
/
In response to your letter of July 20, 1981, we have prepared this status report on development by CEI of a prompt alerting system (PAS) to provide early warning to the public surrounding the Perry Nuclear tower Plant (PNPP) in the event of an emergency.
This lette : vands on our PAS commitment expressed in our February 1982 1.g.nses to NRC Emergency Plan questions of December 1981.
Initial planning for installation of a PAS surrounding PNPP began during the fall of 1981. After several PAS design contractors' proposals were evaluated by CEI, the firm of Bolt, Beranek, and Ne wman, Inc. (BB and N), was selected by CEI to assist with the design, equipment bid evaluation, and installation of a PAS.
BB and N began work on the project in December of 1981.
BB and N will submit a preliminary system design to CEI for our review during the week of March 15, 1982.
CEI, government officials, and BB and N will work diligently to establish a final PAS' design by April 15, 1982. Current CEI plus call for installation of the sys' tem to begin in December 1982. This date is well in advance of PNPP's fuel lead date, now scheduled for November 1983.
We also note with great interest strements by CRGR and DOE that tiiere is no technical basis for a 10-trile basic emergency planning d[
zone and that the source term used for expocure calculations may be UM
- /
conservative by a factor of 50. The source term may be even more conservative for a BWR/6 Mark III due to the scrubbing effect of
/
/#D our suppression pool.
/
k r :03TC~
e 3
A 050C0 F
C
(
O s
O Mr. Robert L. Tedesco March 10, 1982
~
(
As you are aware, emergency planning activities age a burden on both the utility and local community in terms 'of both financial and human resources.
If the basic emergency planning zone were reduce'd by NRC from ten to five miles, for example, the planning area would be reduced by a f actor of four. In our specific case, a five mile planning zone would encompass only one county instead of three and contain significantly fewer people.
Ef fective planning and development of a prompt notification system depends upon an accurate estimate of exactly where the public-at-risk resides. Thus, NRC should direct prompt attention to the task of reevaluating the basic emergency planning assumptions to assure that the scope of emergency planning ef forts is ac'curately defined.
To address your other concerns--potential PAS project implementation problems and adequacy of CEI's schedule for installation of the system--
at this time would be premature. We will provide you with additional information on our PAS as it becomes available. Contact Rebecca B. Cof f ey at (216) 259-3737, ext. 506, if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
/
Y D. R. Davidson Vice President
('
System Engineering and Construction
\\'
DRD: dip cc: Jay Silberg, Esq.
John Stef ano Max Gildner Brian Grimes k
l0O f
1 1
March 11, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237, 50-249; 50-373, 50-374; 50-295, 50-304 Commonwealth Edison Company ATIN:
Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1982, to Mr. J. Keppler, Regional Administrator, in which you referenced the initial test deficiencies of your prompt public notification system as detected in the Emergency Planning Zones around the Dresden, Quad-Cities and Zion Stations. Also we noted in this letter your schedule for correcting these deficiencies prior to June 1,1982, at each station.
Should these deficiencies not be corrected by June 1, 1982, appropriate regulatory action will be taken.
We will examine your corrective actione at a subsequent inspection.
(
Sincerely, Y
J.AfHind ector A Division of Emergency Preparedness and Operational Support G
cc: Louis O. De1 George, Director of Nuclear Licensing Q
s D. J. Scott, Sta. Supt.
.OECgs N. Kalivianakis, Plant Supt.
g 7
R. Cesaro, Site Const. Supt.
/,tg,
b]s e.,y.,l,4 '3 70g 7)
T. E. Quaka, QA Supervisor
?:J:r. g? ~: 3
?
K. L. Graesser, Sta. Supt.
,Qj B. B. Stephenson, Project Mgr.
r,-
.&y/
cc w/1tr dtd 2/16/82:
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII Mary Jo Murray, Office of Assistant Attorney General Mayor John B. Spencer City of Zion RIII RIII RIII '
RIII RIII RIII a
(
\\'.S
'tN S l0Vb'
}l ?!
031:'-
}i'
(,.Patt tirs on/ so Axdqcb Paperiello
' Hayes V'alker
, ind 4 e 9 i l /,,c,5 '.'
3/4/82 3 j;I/ ^
Jjpg C
1
~
4 203170329 820311 PDA ACCCK 05000010 m
~ '
5.,
Crmm::nw=lth Edirn
- one First National Piara. Ch+cago. Ill.nois PRIrkIrgy,37jyp
/ DIR l377 g Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 '
CNeago, Illinois 60690 F
- (
dD _
_:140 l
1 s/n l
[-g1 f
-~_
f M&"I 3ELTI l
O VJEDf45 mile February 16, 1982 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Directorate of Inspection ano Enforcement - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Commonwealth Edison Company Prompt Public Notification Systems Status of Installation and Initial Testing Dresden Station Units 1, 2 and 3; Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2; Zion Station Units 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-237/249, 50-254/265 and
., p f(m y 50-373/374 ReferekIds(1):
L. O. DelGeorge letter to J. G. Keppler dated January 27, 1982.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Commonwealth Edison has notified your staff informally that the Prompt Public Notification Systems required by 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) for the emergency planning zones (EPZ) around Dresden, Quad Cities and Zion Stations were installed and an initial test l
(see Reference (1)) performed by February 1,1982.
The purpose o f this letter is to document our schedule for remedial action to l
correct aeficiencies identified as a part of the initial testing.
This report addresses only those fixed siren locations that have been added within the subject EPZ's to fulfill the requirements o f 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2).
Sirens that have been in use by cities or towns within the EPZ's for civil defense, fire alarms, etc. and which are to be used as part of the prompt notification syste~m were assumeo operable because they have already been tested oy the local users.
For the fixed sirens acoed to complete the public notification systems, all sirens were successfully tested locally l
verifying the coeration o f each siren (i.e. local actuation - growl I
test).
As was inoicated to Mr.
W.
Axelson o f your staf f curing the week o f Februa ry 1, 1981 certain of these siren locations cid not indicate an actuation as a part o f tne integrated system operability,
~~.
tests performeo between January 29, and Feoruary 1,1982.
These s'
$)W
- r' " '
1 -;.
QQD?
FER 2 21o32
3 4
- failures are judged to L ' a ttrioutaole to the radio control portion of the units; that is:
1.
Encoder trouble at the remote control location.
2.
Signal level at the output of the encoder or audio input to the base station radio.
3.
Signal path resulting in low signal level at the receiver.
4.
Receiver antenna trouble.
5.
Receiver trouble.
6.
Decoder trouble.
7.
Wiring problems from the decoder to the siren controls.
In order to assure future reliable operation of all siren
\\I locations, it is our intention to check the radio controls at each siren location whether or not the siren faileo on initial test.
\\..
Using Whalen Engineering personnel assisted by Commonwealth Edison Company personnel to do the raoio checkout, the following is the schedule for the work.
Zion Station 27 locations - Begin 2-15-82, finish 2-23-82.
Quad Cities Station 64 locations - Begin 2-24-82, finish 3-12-82.
Dresden Station 60 locations - Begin 3-15-82, finish 4-2-82.
If it is determineo that a revision is necessary to a particular siren location (e.g.:
relocate an antenna), this work will be initiated as soon as the requirement is identifiec.
The revision work will progress concurrent with the overall radio.
control checkout and the revision will be retested after it is complete.
Correction o f all deficiencies to the systems will be completed prior to June 1,1982.
We will advise you pericolcally before June 1,1982 o f the
)
status of these activities.
We will also attempt to provide any
7
( information made available by state and local authorities relative to siren coverage ef fectiveness tests to be performeo later this year, as cescribed in Reference (1).
To the best of my knowleoge and belief the statements contained herein are true and correct.
In some respects these statements are not cased on my personal knowledge but upon information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees.
Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
If you should have any questions on this matter or other relsted information provided previously please direct them to this o f fice.
Very truly yours, L. O. De1 George f'
Director of Nuclear Licensing cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - D/QC/Z d
3452N
{
March 12, 1982 4
g
// gC@N Docket No. 50-266(DEPOS)
Docket No. 50-301(DEPOS) g gp' 7 ;
%"?M 4
~
Wisconsin Electric Power Company a
ATI'N:
Mr. Sol Burstein 6
N f,.
g Executive Vice President
/
8 Power Plants oa p
231 West Michigan N
Milwaukee, WI 53201 Gentlemen:
This refers to a special inspection' conducted by Mr. W. G. Guldemond and Mr. R. Hague of this office on January 30, 1982, of activities at Units 1 and 2, and to the discussions of our findings with Mr. James Knorr of your.
staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
This inspection of your prompt public notification / warning system was conducted to determine whether your system as described in your letter of December 16, 1981, has been installed and, tested. Final judgment to determine if your system meets the full design objectives of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654 will be made jointly by NRC and FEMA in the near futu'e.
r Our interiin findings indicate that your system appears to meet the require-ments of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3.
The enclosed copy of our inspe'ction report identifies areas examined during the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and in-terviews with personnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course os this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractors) believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by tele-phone within ten (10) days from the date of this' letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within twenty-five (25) days from the date of this letter a written application to this office
(
f I 8703260268 a20312 e
PDR ADOCK 05000265
$W O
e
~
Wisconsin Electric Power Company 2
March 12, l982
('
to withhold such information.
If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than seven (7) days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be estab-lished. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons which are the bases for the claim that the information should be withheld from public disclosure.
This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear from 'you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter and the' enclosed inspection report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspe' tion.
c Sincerely, a
J.
- Hind, irector i / Di' vision'of Emergency Preparedness and Operational Support I
Enclosure:
Inspection Repor s No. 50-266/82-04(DEPOS) and No. 50-301/82-04(DEPOS) cc w/ enc 1:
G. A. Reed, Manager DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII l
John J. Duffy, Chief Boiler l
Inspector l
Peter Anderson, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade Stanley York, Chairman Public Service Commission l
l RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RI I
W/
}
p Pattierson/so P
aro on Pal iello 4 d
1 3/5/82 3 ll q 7, W
g)h
- l 1
l 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.UISSION REGION III Reports No. 50-266/82-04(DEPOS); 50-301/82-04(DEPOS)
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Inspection At:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Site Inspection Conducted:
January 30, 1982
~
Inspectors:
W.
Idemond82 8/ff/[8)
/
3/f(h2,.
.R.
gu
//
J.-
atterson
//
/
/
\\
I j
/
i Approved By:
W. h. AIe d Chief
% /(( /k1 Emergency Preparedness Section A
) // 7 C.
ape,iello, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on January 30, 1982 (Reports No. 50-266/82-04(DEPOS);
50-301/82-04(DEPOS)
Areas Inspected:
Special announced inspection of Prompt Public Notifi-cation / Warning System and testing of the system. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by three inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-(
Bb0 chhhhjf6 C
On February 1,1982, the licensee must demonstrate that physical and
(
administrative means exist for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective s
'of the system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within about 15 minutes. The technical basis for review of the system is given in Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided are the bases for determining if the prompt public notification system installed is as described in your Emergency Plan or other correspondence sent to the Commission.
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
About 60% of the installed sirens were physically sighted - three in Manitowoc County and three in Kewaunee County.
2.
The following questions were directed to the licensee:
$ill the system provide both an alert and an informational or a.
Lastructional message to. the population throughout the ten mile (five miles for Lacrosse and Big Rock Point) Emergency Planning Zone within.15 minutes?
(
The system provides an alert signal only and relies on people to
's-turn on their radios to local stations for information, b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through a. a'bove)-
would be used to provide an instructional message to the public after the sirens have been activate'd?
The permanent means is through Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) by Jocal radio systems. This is backed up by mobile announcing systems. This information has been publically distributed through the local media.
Licensee intends to send out an upgrade informa-tional brochure to the public in March 1982 containing this information.
c.
Does the public information-distribution program provide information regarding this system?
(Explain)
Yes, the present 'public information distributica program does provide some information on what to ao after a siren is sounded.
However this Laformation could be improved and will be with the issuance of a new information brochure scheduled for release in March 1982 by the licensee.
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site?
(Explain) 2
('
Yes; however, mobile notification is only provided for the Point
(
Beach State Park Area.
Only one main road is provided in the park making mobile notification easy. State / County notification procedures in conjunction with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourc'es have been developed.
The siren system currently covers the northern part of the park.
However, no prompt signal is provided for the southern half.
County public notification procedures require the notification of the Park Varden, Department of Natural Resources. The Warden maintains residence at the park.
It is not clear if the transient population at the park can be notified within 15 minutes. This will be tested by FEMA during the March 9, 1982, exercise.
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal?
All population concentrations are covered by the sirens. About 30% of the geographical area is covered by sirens which includes 90% of the population within the total EPZ. Mobile police cars will be used for the rest of the area. The system design is for' 100% coverage between zero and 10 miles.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 10 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification?
Mobile police cars with loudspeakers from County and local police departments plus local media broadcasts will assure 100% coverage in 45 minutes to all population in the,10 mile EPZ that did not receive the initial signal.
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes?
No specific notification arrangements have been made in Manitowoc County. These special facilitic: are on informational call list when an alert or greater emergency is declared. However, no such call lists exist for followup to siren activation in Kewaunee County.
This county relies on the sirens alone.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
Yes, all sirens in Manitowoc County were tested on January 30, 1982. One siren in Kewaunee County failed on January 31, 1982, test, but it was successfully activated locality.
i.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g.,
licensee, local government, or State)?
The licensee.
3 l
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) system?
^
Governor of Wisconsin via the Visconsin Division of Emergency Government, k.
Whct QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
The siren system will be tested monthly as part of the Civil Defense tests. Furcher, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, a test of the public notification system shall be conducted in conjunction with the annual exercise.
1.
Name of licensee contact:
James Knorr.
3.
Operational' Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
Sirens were remotely activated from both th~e Manitowoc and the Kewaunee County Sheriff's offices.
b.
Was State and County involved:
County only.
c.
Was FEMA present:
No.
l d.
Who witnessed the test:
l l
Resident Inspector.
1 e.
Names of licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
James Knorr, Emergency Planning Coordinator.
f.
Review records of the test ~ (Comment):
1 Not applicable.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
Installation:
l None.
(
4 k
]
~
Test Result:
Three attempts were required in Manitowoc County due to a severed telephone line to the transmitter.
The line was repaired and the tests satisfactorily conducted. One siren failed in the Kewaunee County test and had to be manually activated at the siren.
Records:
None.
Others:
Formal provisions for notification in Point Beach State Park have yet to be formalized. No post-siren call list has been generated.
It is not clear if the transient peak time summer population can be notified within 15 minutes.
This item is currently unresolved pending FEMA's review and evaluation. - (50-266/82-04-01; 50-301/82-04-01) 5.
Persons Contacted Nandy Crowley, Manitowoc County Emergency Government-Coordinator Jerry Coenen, Sheriff, Kewaunee County
- James Knorr, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for Point Beach Nuclear Power Station
,,(
\\
- Denotes.those 'present at the exit interview.
6.
. Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 5) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 30, 1982.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
I 5
-r.,,_.
_y.
y*s i
March 12, 1982 g3 Dockct No. 50-305(DEPOS)
//
Wisconsin l'ublic Service j
ggp Corporation
/ Of.
3 ATTN:
Mr. E. R. Mathews 2
MAR 2 51982* ~-
~
Senior Vice President Power Supply and 6
m g g g [u 4
Engineering Inc Post Office Box 1200 g
Green Bay, WI 54305 y
p Gentlemen:
This refers to a special inspection conducted by Mr. B. E. Fitzpatrick of this office on January 25.through January 30, 1982, of activities at the Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station and to the discussions of our findings with Mr. J. J. Wallace and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
f~
This inspection of your prompt public notification / warning system was I
conducted to determine whether your system as described in your letter of
\\ -
November 20, 1981, has been installed and tested.
Final judgment to deter-mine if your system meets the full design objectives of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654 will be made jointly by NRC and FEMA in the near future.
Our interim findings indicate that your system appears to meet the require-ments of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and in-terviews with personnel.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you (or your contractors) believe to be exempt fro:n disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4),
it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within ten (10) days f rom the da* 2 of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within twenty-five (25) days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information.
If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than seven (7) days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that 4
8203260317--820312 PDR ADOCK 05000305 hg a
.#G
~
(
Visconsin Public Service 2
\\
Corporation a new due date may be established. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons which are the bases for the claim that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the con-siderations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The informat. ion sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part o; the affidavit.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, y,,
I
^'
J. A. Hind', Director Division of Emergency Preparedness j
and Operational Support
(_
l
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-304/82-03(DEPOS) cc w/ enc 1:
D. C. Hintz, Plant Superintendent Drib / Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII l
John J. Duffy, Chief Boiler Inspector Stanley York, Chairman Public Service Commission i
l
[
RIII RIII RIII RIII II
/pl } on 0
- llo MV rl hatteis o
Fa re Kchklin Hn 4
M D[82
) /t &
3/f a
/
ip L
/
U.S. NUCiEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-304/82-03(DEPOS)
' Docket No. 50-305 License No. DPR-43 Licensee:
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Post Office Box 1200 Green Bay, WI 54305 Facility Name: Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Kewaunee Nuclear Generating Station Inspection Conducted:
January 25-30, 1982 Y
Inspectors:
B. E. Fitzpatrick ad h,19 6 2.
GAro /997 SJ.P.
t erson t
C' Approved By:
W.
e
, Chief e o. I9 8L Emergenc Preparedness Section Sj
/D)/ $h >
C. J. Paps; ello, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on January 25-30, 1982 (Report No. 50-305/82-03(DtPOS))
Arcas Inspected:
Special announced inspection of Prompt.Public Notifi-cation / Warning System and testing of,the system. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector and an in-office review by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(
"8203266'323 820312 PDR ADOCK 05000 0
'~
On February 1,1982, the licensee must demonstrate that physical and C,'
administrative means exist for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The design objective of the system shall'be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within about 15 minutes. The technical basis for review of the system is given in Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
This special inspection is not in the usual format, but consists of questions directed at the licensee. The questions and answers provided are the bases for determining if the prompt public notification system installed is as described in your Emergency Plan or other correspondence sent to the Commission.
1.
Physically verify that the sirens are in place by observing a random sample (i.e., about 20%) of siren locations.
All sirens identified in the November 19, 1981, letter (E. R. Mathews to J. G.,Keppler) are in place. A simplified map was provided in that letter and a detailed map is being prepared by the licensre.
e The Resident Inspector verified installation of sir' ens No. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
2.
The following questions were directed to the licensee:
[' ~
Will the system provide both an alert and an informational'or a.
Lustructional message to the population throughout the ten mile g'.'
(five miles for Lacrosse and Big Rock Point) Emergency Planning Zone within 15 minutes?
An alert signal will cover essentially 100% of the 5 mile combined Point Beach /Kewaunee EPZ and greater than 90% of the population within the. combined 10 mile EPZ will be provided an alert signal.
The Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) will adequately provide an
~
instructional message to the entire 10 mile EPZ.
b.
What system (if messages cannot be transmitted through c. above) would be used to provide an instructional message to the public after the sirens have been activated?
The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) will be utilized by the State l
to provide an instructional message to residents of the EPZ.
For
~ slower occurring events, message initiation may occur from the Joint Public Information Center.
Does the public information distribution program provide c.
information regarding this system?
(Explain)
The brochure "Just In Case" lists 12 area radio and 5 television stations for information sources. The brochure addresses the use of sirens as one means of alerting the population.
2
('
d.
Does the initial alerting system assure direct coverage of
\\
essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site?
(Explain)
Yes, adequate coverage is provided based on conservative estimates allowed by NUREG-0654, Appendix 1.
e.
What percent of the population between 5 and 10 miles will not hear the initial signal?
Less than 10% of the population may not hear the initial signal.
Kewaunee and Tko Rivers constitute the only major population centers (as well as Mishicot) within 10 miles of both plants:
These population centers are covered by sirens.
f.
What special arrangements have been made to assute 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population within the entire 10 mile EPZ who may not have received the initial notification?
The sheriff will dispatch emergency vehicles to the affected sectors with mobile siren capability. The major population centers (Kewaunee and Two Rivers) have siren coverage.
~
g.
What special arrangements for prompt public notification have' been made for special facilities such as schools, hospitals,'
and nursing homes?
These facilities are located close to the sirens and will receive alert /notifi:ation from the siren /EBS arrangement.
h.
Have the sirens and/or other alerting devices been tested?
l l
Initial integrated testing was complete'd prior to February 1,1982.
i 1.
Who is responsible for maintenance of the alerting (siren) system (e.g., licensee, local. government, or State)?
The new sirens are under warran' tee for one year.
At' expiration, a maintenance contract will be in place with a local contractor as provided by WPS and administered by Kewaunee County.
j.
Who has the authority to activate the alerting (siren) s'ystem?
State of Wisconsin directs the Manitowoc or Kewaunee County Sheriff dispatcher to activate the sirens in the respective
~
counties.
k.
What QA/QC program has been established to assure continued reliability of the alerting (siren) system?
(
An annual statement of periodic test results will be requested by the licensee from the county.
I 3
~
1.
Name of licensee contact:
f\\
J. J. Wallace, Nuclear Systems Supervisor 3.
Operational Test of Siren System a.
What type of test?
(Explain):
Each individual si'ren was tested locality and a full integrated system test was conducted prior to February 1, 1982.
b.
Was State and County involved:
County only.
c.
Was FEMA present:
No.
d.
Who witnessed the test:
Th'e resident inspector.
e.
Names of -licensee personnel who witnessed the test:
/~
John Wallace, WPS
~
John Richmond, WPS
('-
f.
Review records of the't'est (Comment):
Not applicable because initial tests were just completed prior to February 1,1982.
4.
List of deficiencies identified as a result of the inspection:
Installation: None.
Test Result: Three sirens initially malfunctioned, however, one was repaired and satisfactorily retested on January 30, 1982.
Another siren would not response to the radio signal for activation, but it can be mannually activated. The re-maining siren is under repair, These deficiencies are open items.
(50-304/82-03-01, Records:
Not applicable.
Others: Not applicable.
(
4 w
)
s
/
5.
Persons Contacted
\\
- J. J. Vallace, Nuclear Systems Supervisor John Richmond, Plant Services Superintendent
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 5) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 30, 1982. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
e r
h.v...
'N 5
) //#' ~j
- MAR 121982
/
Docket No. 50-312 EA 82-37 m
m.
~
r Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street, Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Attention:
John J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer
Dear Mr. Mattimoe:
~.
Thank you for your letter, dated February 12, 1982, which provides a, status report on progress on completion of the prompt notification system at Rancho Seco.
As stated in the Notice of Violation issued to you on February 12, 1982, a fonnal reply to the Notice of Violation should be filed within five days after achieving full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), and Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
Sincerely, James Lieberman, Acting Director of Enforcement Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc:
A. Johnson, RV ES:IE D:E
~
bg L JHende on/jh JLie nnan gO 03/09/82 03//d /82 f')()
k.
g IE :IQ'E.?:lc copy MAR 15 1982 Docket:
50-298
- o. g i l'}i f,,
8
'tV?!?:1 Nebraska Public Power District p,
..., 8 l962 >,-
3 :A? L ATTN:
J. M. Pilant, Director
- ,Cyypfl*gT-.i-/
Licensing & Quality Assurance E
P. O. Box 499 tu Columbus, Nebraska 68601
,j.
Gentlemen:
I
Subject:
Early Warning System This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 7, 1982.
I understand that one deficiency was identified on August 15, 1981, and
(
corrected on August 22, 1981.
N-Sincerely, Original signed by John T. Collins John T. Collins Administrative Officer cc:
L. C. Lessor, Superintendent Cooper Nuclear Station P. O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 bcc DMB:
(IE35) bec distrib. to RIV:
RESIDENT INSPECTOR SECTION CHIEF KANSAS STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH NEBRASKA STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH J. COLLINS, RIV C. HACKNEY, RIV N
(
EC...
DRA -
R PAV CAHackney:gb KVSeyfrit JT. llins
//
3/5/82 3/4 /82 3/ - /82
/
82031~90323 820315 PDR ADOCK 05000298
}'
5 recors
as I
i GENERAL OFFICE P O Box 499. COLUMBUS. NEeRA$KA 68601-0499
- Nebraska Publ.ic Power Distr *ict mtPNo~E mn su. so a ____ _____ _._..____ ___.
LQA8200081 Fabruary 8, 1982 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011
Subject:
Early Warning System
Reference:
- 1) Letter, J. M. Pilant to u R. Denton dated January 2, 1981, ergency Preparedness Plans"
Dear Mr. Collins:
As requested by your staff, this letter is to confirm that the early.
warning system for Cooper Nuclear Station, as described in Reference 1, has been installed and is operational.
During a test conducted on August 15, 1981, one deficiency was noted.
This deficiency was cor-rected and subsequently tested satisfactorily on August 22, 1981.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact my office.
Sincerely, M
M Jay M. Pilant Division Manager of Licensing and Quality Assurance JMP:KCW:cmk c--
-r-sec3 ffdd29 - 820315 PDR ADOCK 050C0492
7, i
~
f Osuun
[
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C) 6201 S Street, Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813; (916) 452-3211 N.
1 4
March 18, 1982 c)
Sg i
//
'3C59.%
.=,fAR221982a; w w'3
+
s RICHARD C DE YOUNG DIRECTOR rd 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT b
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D C 20555
- lM 4
DOCKET 50-312 RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NC 1 PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
REFERENCES:
10 CFR 50 Appendix E Section IV.D.3 District letter of June 30, 1981 District letter of July 24, 1981 Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 182 p46587
!.} -
NRC Region V letter of October 20, 1981 j[(
District letter of December 31, 1981 NBC Region V letter of January 21, 1982 Notice of Violation, February 12, 1982 t -
District letter of February 12, 1982 District letter of March 3, 1982 i,
The following is the current status of our Prompt Notification System:
Materials Alerting Communicators of America (ACA)
As last reported, ACA planned to ship the first 10 control i,
panels on March 5th. Due to design problems with the siren control circuitry, they were not able to ship on this date.
]
Subsequent modifications were made to the controls. On j
March 10th & lith, a modified control panel and encoder were brought to our offices by an ACA Field Engineer. He supplied us with information on installation and testing of the siren equipment and also demonstrated the operation of the modified Oqt{
i control panel. During the demonstration, the* decoder in the 3
control panel failed to operate properly. ACA worked March 12th J
through the 14th to solve the problem, and are presently making another modification. This has delayed shipment of the control D
panels.
ACA received all of the modified siren motors on March 15th, g3%$PSEdi!
Ah (LECTRlt SYSTIM $[RVihC MORE THAN 600.000 IN THf HEART OF CatIFORheA
p, w
.s RICilARD C DE YOUNG March 18, 1982 and are currently in the process of testing the motors and assembling the siren units. We have received all of the siren mounting brackets and all of the antennas with mounting brackets and cable. ACA's schedule now calls for 20 sirens, complete with control panels, to be shipped on March 19th, with the remaining 15 sirens to be shipped on March 25th.
Interfaces FEMA / State / Counties l
The meeting mentioned in the District's letter of March 3,1982 was held.
FEMA, the State, and the Counties were updated on the design and schedule of the project.
l The District is prepared to test and install the siren equipment immediately upon arrival. Provided there are no more shipping delays, we are still planning.
to have an installed system by April 15, 1982. The District will keep you informed as further information develops.
4 John. Mattimoe Acting General Manager cc:
R H Engelken, Director Region V, Office of Inspection and Enforcement I
l i
I 1
G
'b
.g l
yr Northem States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mal Minneapoks. Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 PRINCIPAL ST/JF March 19, 1982 DIR
?
- E&IS A/D
~
h, AO D/D 6
4 M L')
i Mr James G Keppler
/3R&PI b Regional Administrator DM' U S Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission i
g
,y 799 Roosevelt Road
+7 y 3EP&OS Lile L./
Clen Ellyn, IL 60137 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No 50-263 License No DPR-22 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No 50-282 License No DPR-42 50-306 DPR-60 Subj ect: Emergency Preparedness
(
Public Notification System N
Your letter dated March 3, 1982 requested that we inform your office upon completion of corrective actions for three defective siren radio receivers. The defective radio receivers (two for Monticello and one for Prairie Island), identified as a result of initial system testing, were repaired or replaced the last week of February 1982.
.0 'Y V
D E Gilberts Senior Vice President Power Supply DEG/GDH/bp
\\
4 cc G Charnoff
[/V f
C H Brown g. gg.30 g
C D Feierabend v
Brian Grimes, Director b
..,,, 3 *,CJ 2 7 T
-i Division of Emergency Preparedness
{. c?M.[:.:p
-4 Washington DC 20555
- 13 s
.i>,,,,, t &
(
x i 0 eECO260229 820319 fDR ADCCR 050002s3
/
y 3g f.
"