Text

Forwards Responses Denying Licensee Requests for Exemption from 820201 Prompt Notification Sys Deadline.Related Info Encl
	ML20055A263
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Rancho Seco, 05000000
Issue date:	01/21/1981
From:	Schwartz S; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Stolz J; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20049H237	List: ML20049H235; ML20049H967; ML20055A260; ML20055A261; ML20055A262; ML20055A263; ML20055A269; ML20055A270; ML20055A273; ML20055A274; ML20055A275; ML20055A277;
References
	FOIA-82-216 NUDOCS 8207160039
	Download: ML20055A263 (12)
	v • d • e

.mTEDSTA ES

..?, _31.R A EGU LA TOR CONMISSION

,)

a-ma : n,..vn

,...i j

t J;.,

MEMORANDLt1 FOR:

John Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Sheldon Schwartz, Acting Chief Emergency Development and Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

LICENSEE'S REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM PROMPT NOTIFICATION 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.

Several licensees have requested exemptions from this deadline and for the reasons given in the attached responses they were denied.

I hereby request that you forward the attached responses to the licensees as soon as possible.

f b,&c 1. WK, Sheldon A. Schwartz', Acting Chief' l

Emergency Development and Response Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attachments:

As stated 8207160039 820528 PDR FOIA WATKINS82-216 PDR

Docket Nos. 50-277/278 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTH:

Shields L. Daltroff Vice President 2301 Market Street P. O. Box 8699 Philadelphia, PA 19101

Dear Mr. Daltroff:

This is in response to your December 18, 1981 letter recuesting approval of a delay in the implementation of your prompt notification system beyond the February 1,1982 deadline.

The revised emergency planning regulation, which became effective November 3, 1980, requirei that, by July 1,1981, the licensee demonstrate that adminis-trative and physical means were established for alerting and providing l

l prompt instruction to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.

Many licensees did not meet this requirement by July 1, 1981; the failure attributed to unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the design, procurement and installation of the prompt notification l

l systems.

In August, the Commission proposed the extension of the July 1, l

1981 date to February 1,1982, but determined that if the systems were not j

installed and operable by February 1,1982, the licensees would be subject l

l to enforcement action.

On December 30, 1981, a final rule change which was immediately effective, delayed this implementation date for prompt public l

notification systems from July 1,1981 to February 1, 1992 (46 FP 63031).

l l

' Philadelphia ElGctric Company.

When the Commission chose the ' February 1,1982 deadline, they were aware that some licensees were estimating that. they might not be able to complete installation of their systems by that date.

Even with this knowledge, the Commission decided that the February 1,1982 date was reasonable, given the fact that all licensees should have been able to meet this deadline by having applied sufficient resources to the task without delay.

This is particularly true since the licensees have known of the requirement since September 19, 1979, when the proposed rule changing 10 CFR 50 Appendix E was published in the Federal Register (44 FR 54308).

In view of the above, and the requirements of the final rule on the prompt public notification system, your request for a delay cannot be granted.

However, in the course of the decision to delay the implementation date to February 1,1982, the Commission was aware as discussed above, that a licensees' inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed to causes beyond his control.

The Commission will take into consideration any mitigating circumstances in determining the dpgree of enforcement action.

l In this regard, your attention is directed to Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1981 (FR Vol. 46, No. 250, Pages 63031 - 63033 copy attached).

Sincerely, John Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachmen t:

As stated

C:: M1

--.=

Rules and Regulations r d-i n+ia Vol. 46. No. 230

~

Wednes sy. December 30, 1981 TNs secten of the FECERAt. REGISTER On August 11.1981, the Cc= mission his decision is based on a c:nta;ns regulatory documents having discussed possible actions because recognition that emergency plans and general a:pucaod.ty and legal effect.,most licensees failed to comply with the July preparedness have significantly -

of ancn are keyed to and codified in 1.1981 requirement centained in 10 CFR unproved within the last year at and 50.47(b)(5) and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E.

around every nuclear power plarit ri'e.

I d u der 5 titles p ua t o 44 I

Section IV.D.3. The licensees' failure to This significant improvement has,cc a U.S.C. 1510.

The Coce of Federal Regulat,ons is sold meet the July 1.1981 date was attnbuted confirmed by NRC teams who has -

by the Supenntendent of Documents.

to unforeseen difficulties and visited a number of plant sites to Pnces of new books are listed in the uncertainties surrounding the design.

evaluate the licensees

compliance h

first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each procurement and install: tion of the the upgraded emergency planning

C"I*'

prompt notification systems.

regulations of August 1980. In addific At the August 11.1931 meeting, the the Federal Emergency hianagemen Commission approved publication of a Agency (FEhtA) and the NRC have NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed nde change which would monitored numerous nuclear emerpm /

COMMISSION provide an extension of the July 1.1981 exercises involving State and local date to February 1.1982. (See 46 FR governments and the licensees, and 10 CFR Part 50 46587). That Federal Register notice again have witnessed a signifi.: ant j

requested public comment dtiring a 30 improvement on ensite and offsite.

Emergency Pfanning and day period ending October 21.1981.

emergency preparedness.

l j

Preparedness for Production and To date, comments have been The decision to delay the l

Utilization Facilities received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also based og ACENCY: Nuclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exist Commission.

nuclear industry, one frcs the general customary warning systems (police.

ra@fficiently effective @in many p eMone) w am Wewed ac j

ACTION: Final rule

suyc. thne kom enviromnental l

organiza t.cns, one from a mass transit su

SUMMARY

The Commission is making system director, and one from a State accident scenarios. In view of the above.

two changes to its emergency planning governor. The comments received from the Commission finds that there exists j

sufficient reason to believe that i

regulations. De change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the appropriate protective measures can

50. Appendix E delays the date by which environmental organizations were prompt public notification systems must against delaying the implementatfor, and will be taken for the protection of be operational around all nuclear power date to Februa*y 1982. De letters from the health and safety of the public in the plants. The change to i 50 54 clarifies the other commenters generally agree event of a radiological emergency durirq 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 H. The Amendment to 10 CFR 50.54 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30,1981.

proposed rule change which has been

^d.

M8} }'

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

accepted and included in these final cu e

hiichael T. Jamgochian. Human Factors amendments. s not to eliminate the Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory four-month period for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the licensee.

I Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State. and local e nergency response F ane l

Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 testing of the prompt notification shall be implemented by Apn! 1.19st. except (telephone 301-443-5942).

system. The Commission now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E that the elimination of this four. month of this part. If after Apnl1.1981, the NRC SUPPL.EMENTARY INFORM ATION period would be inconsistent with the finds that the state of emergency I.%e Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 need to perform a reasonable test of the preparedness does not provide reasonable Appendix E systern and make any needed changes assurance that adequate protective measures as indicated by the test results. The.

can and will be taken in the event of a On August 19.1980, the NRC enclosed effective regulation radiological emergency and if the deficiencies published a revised emergency planning incorporates this concept.The are not corrected within four months althat l

regulation which became effective on installation da te. however. remains finding. the Commission will determine November 3.1980. The rule required February 1.1982, and any licensee not whether the reactor shall be shut down until licensees to demonstrate. among other completing the installation by that date.

such deficiencies are remedied or whether things. by July 1.1981:

would be subject to. enforcement action.. other enforcement action is appropriate."

"that administrative end physical means After evaluating all public comment it has come to the Commission's have been establ;shed for a!erting and.

letters received. the Conu:ussion has.

attention that because this section of the decided t publish, as immediately

. regulation was wntten as one n the pl me ou path y Z.The design objective shall be to have the effective, a final rule change to 10 CFR paragraph. it can be interpreted,to mean capability to essentially complete the initial Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period for the notification of the public witNn the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency preparedress cuposure pathway EPZ within about 15 pub l c notification systems froro July 1.

deficiencies does not apply to "Section mmut es."

1981 to February 1.1982.

IV.D.3 of Appendix E."

i-t t

10. 1951 / Rules and Re:.ihen Feder:! ".+._ r / Vol. 46. No. 250 / Wednudiy. December

^ ^

EM3:

~~

l Thts is a ents:nte.pn:rion of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement D.Mt:f::ctica Procedures C==1ssien's intent. whi s ws.s that the Pursuant to the Reculatory Flexibility

3. A licensee shall have the capability.

fo.:r rnenth period is to apply to any Act of 1980. Pub. L 95-3M. the NRC has ndy nn nsMe stam ad kcas def;c:encies idenufied in use emergency determined:(1) That the delaying of the plans. The Commission is tacrefore implementation date for the prompt htYe s an e e c

e ec codifying i 30.54(s][:) to more clearly public notification systems will not have ofF.cialsYave: tate that the State /'oc i

shall de--ns reflect that intent. The four. month a signif cant economic impact on a l

pemd provided in i 50.54(s)(2), wdlnot substantial number of s=all entities.

notificanos decision promptly on being apply to any licensee for the instaHation pursuant te the Regulatory Flexibility informed by the licensee of an emergen y and init!al test of the public notification Act of 1980, section 605(b) and (2) that condition. By February 1.1982 each nuclear system by February 1.1982. If a liccusee.the rule chans;e to i 50.54(s)(2)is not power nactor !!cesee shall demenstrateyt administranve and physical means have u.

is not in compliance with this sdbject to the pt::dsions of the established for a!artmg and prending pre-requirement for installation and testing ' Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980, inst. c e b L

pl because the Commission has deter =ined,xpc]

by February 1.1982, the Commission y p

,r

, cc, will censider takirg appropriate pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of penod in to CFR 50.54{s)(:) for the correc :

enforcement actions promptly at that proposed nale=aking for i 50.54 (s)(:)

of emergency plan deficiencies shau not time. In determining appropriate need not be issued and that the rule may apply to the initialinstallation of this pubP enforcement action to initiate, the be pron.talsated in final form and nouScatos system that is required by Commissics wdl take !nto account, become effective on De: ember 50.1981.

February 1.1982. The four-month period 67 i

l emong othet factors. the demonstrated cpply to correction of deficiencies ident$ u I

diltgene.e of the licensee la attempting to Paperwork Reduction Act Statement during the initialinstallation and testing ci ft.jF.!! the prompt public not2ication Pursuant'to the provisions of the the prompt publie notification systems e wellas those deficiencies discovered ca psbility requirement ne Commission Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.

thereafter. The design objective of the prcr.s l

will caosider whether the licensee has L 96-511). the NRC has made a kept the NRCinformed of the steps that determination that this final rule does

$, c"[p"ab ty t comp e e tb ess a l

It has taken. when those steps were not impose new recordkeeping.

In;tial nonfication of the public within the taken and sny significant problems information collection, or reporting plume exposure pathway EpZ Mthin about l

encountered, and the updated timetable requirements.

15 minutes. The use of this notincation which the licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of capability will range from Immediate in achiedng full compliance with the 1954, as amended. the Energy notincation of the public (within is minutes f

prompt public notification capabilitF Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, of the time that State and local officials are i

l requirements. The four. month period and section 553 of title 5 of the United nonfied est a situanon exists requinns urgent acdon) to de mon Eely nuts will. however. apply to correction of States Code, lhe following amendments

h deficiencies identiSed during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as ee S a e an5loca gI t

est l offici to test of the pro.npt public notificataan documents subject to codification:

make a judgment whether or not to activate systems as well as those deficicacies the public notiEcation system. Where there u discovered thereafter.

PART 50-DOMESTIC 1.! CENSING OF a decision to activate the notincation syste:-.

Because the amer.dment to PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION the State and local officials will deter =ine 150.54(s)(:)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the entire notification system simultaneously orin a gradue.ted or minor nature, simply resolving.an e authority citation for Part 50 staged manner.The nsponsibility for ambiguity in the rules to the reads as follows:

activating such a public notificauon system Co:nmission's intended meaning at the

.me of promulgation, the Commission Authoritu Sees.103,104.181. tr.:.tas sa shall remain with the appropriata Stat. 938, 937. 948. C53. 954, 935. 958. as governmental authorities.

finds gooo cause to dispense with amended (4:U.S.C. n33. n34. =ct.,M advance notice and opportunity for 233,2 393;,,c,,

31, o, gs,33 3,,,3:43,

,, l 50.54(s)(2) is revised to read as pubhc comment titereon as unnecessary.

1:44. 1:46 (4:U.S.C. 5841. 5842, 5848). unless folIOW5:

For this reason. t.is change shall be otherwise noted. Section m7s also issued 6

cffective as a final rule on December 30, under sec. t=. Sa Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C n5:1 I 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

1981.

Section 50. 78-5021 also issued under sec.

I 184. 6a Stat. 954. as amended (42 U.S.C. =34).

Likewise, the Commission is Secti na 50.100-50.to: issued under sec.188.

(s) * *

publishing the final amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix E (extending tlie

),8[ [.*h9 sdm d dh:P "8 (2)(i) For operating power reactors the

= 8l S

licensee. State. and local emergency implementation date for the installation U.S.C. =731.150.41(1) issued under sec. tett.

response plans shall be implemented by of a prompt public notification system) 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2:01(i)): il 50.70. 50.71.

es effective immediately upon and 50.78 issued under sec.161o. 68 Stat. 950, April 1.1981. except as provided in -

publication. pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

as amended (42 U.S.C. =ct(oll, and the lawa Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to this 553(d)(1), since the rule is expected to referred to m Appendicas.

part.

(i ) If after April 1.1981, the NRC finds relieve the obligntion of certain Appendix E TAmendedl a

sa eme W cypMpareh u licensees with respect to the present

1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to

- "*E""

l July 1.1981 deadline for operational Part 50 is revised to read as follows:

that adequate protective measures can pubhc notiScation systems. In that I

and will be taken in the event of a l

, regard, the Commission notes that the Appendix E-Emergency Planning and radiological emergency (including final rule, when effective, will be Prepandness for Production and Utilization t

findings based on requirements of applied to ongomg licensing proceedings racilities.

APPeodix E. Secflon IV.D.J) and if the now pending and to issucs or l

contention.s therein. Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC. 409 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.

.n,,y.a.t,an h s been ew in con.p.reta.

ch.nse puw.hed m the rederal wesister on Cir.1974).

text showmg changes trtun the propowd ru,le September 21.1941.

.a

Feder,1 Re::ister / Vol. 46. NO. 250 / n'ednesday. Decemba r m31 / Rules and Regulaticns C20'C defic:encies (including deficiencies applies to the application.

Da ted at Bethesda. Maryland. this 11th by based on requirements o/ Appendix E.

recordkeeping. and reporting of December.1981.

Section IV.D.31 are not corTected within requirements contained in NRC For the Nuclest Regulatory Commissior..

.'our months of that finding the regulations.

wmim J. Dirclu Commission will determine whether the On October 30,1981. the NRC accuure Directo. for Operadons.

reactor shall be shut down until such obtained OMB reapproval for the va om n-x-m ru.4 :us.euu deficiencies are remedied or whether information collection requirements s,wuocooeis s.m j

other enforcement action is appropriate.

contained in 10 CFR Part 50. This In determining whether a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 l

other enforcement action is appropriate, setting out the OMB approval number.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY l

the Commission shall take into account, the expiration date of the current among other factors, whether the epproval, and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that contain an approved (D cket No. ERA-R-81-06)

(

Commission's satisfaction that the information collec' ion requirement. This deficiencies in the plan are not amendment also removes the note Powerpl ant and Industrial Fuel Use / -

I significant for the plant in question or concerning the expired GAO clearance of 1978; Final Rules that adcquate interim compensating that follows i 50.110.

cctions have been or will be taken Because this is a nonsubstantive Correcilon promptly, or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor In FR Doc. 81-44770 appearing on compelling reasons for continued procedural matter, good cause exists for page 59872 in the issue of hionday, operation.

finding that the notice and comment December 7.1981. make the following procedures of the Admmistrat2ve corrections-Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553) are (1)In { 503.6(c)(2), the following line Dated at Washington.D.C. this ::3rd day of unnecessary and for making the were inadvertently omitted above the l

December.1981.

ame equation on page 59906:

i For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Und a c e et 9

Simuel J. Chilk, as amended, the Energy Reorganization EQ4 DELTA-COST Secretaryof tAe Commission.

Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.

(ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL) where tra om si-con me smuu.=I 552 and 553, the following amendments COST (ALTERNATE) and COST [ OIL) stwwo coot ysso-ot-e to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by:

document subject to codification. The (2)In i 503.36(a) paragraph (5) was 10 CFR Part 50 authority citation for this documentis:

Incorrectly designated as (b); therefore, on page 59914. first column. in the 30th

/

91 porting, Recordkeeping, and PART 50--DOMESTIC UCENSING OF

.line. "(b) For powerplants..." should Appilcation Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION have read "(5) For powerplants...".

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FACILITIES ouma caos isos.es-=

Commission.

Authority Sec.161. Pub. I 8Mo3. 88 Stat.

ACTION: Final rule.

048 (42 U.Sc :::02)

FEDERAL HCME LOAN 8 ANK BOARD SuMuARY:The Nuclear Regulatory

d. Section 50.8 is added to read as 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 ws.

Commission is amending its regulations INo.81-800) on the domestic licensing of production

$50.8 Reporting. recordkeeping, and and utili:ation far7ies to indicate appucation requirements: OMB approval Payment of Uttgation Expenses of Office of hianagema and Budget (a) the Nuclear Regulatory Federal Home Loan Bank Officers, approval of the information collection Commission has submitted ths Directors,and Employees requirements contained in the information collection requirements regulations. His action is required by contained in this part of the Office of Dated: December 17,1981.

th2 Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.

Management and Budget (OhG) for AGENCY: Federal Home Loan Bank EFFECTIVE DATE:l'ecember 30.1981.

approval as required by the Paperwork Board.

c&n % M.L N W.O.E e

ACTION: Final rule.

FOR FTJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 1 approved the mformation collect 2on Steve Scott. Chief. Document requirements on October 30,1981.

SUMMARY

ne Federal Home Loan Bank Management Branch. Dmston of (1) ne OMB approval number is Board is amending the Regulations for TechnicalInformation and Document 3150-0011.

the Federal Home Loan Bank System to Control. Office of Admuustra'2on.

(2) OMB approva! expires April 30, liberalize the terms on which the Banks Telephone: (301) 492-8585.

. 1982.

may pay expenses of officers. directors.

SUPPtJ"MENTARY INFORM ATICN: ne

(b) The approved information and employees involved in litiga tion Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Pub.

collection requirements include the ansing out of their Bank duties.The L 96-511: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application, recordkeeping. and amendment will allow the Federal Home transferred the responsibility for reporting requirements crintained in Loan Banks to establish their own approving the information ccliection i 1 50.30, 50.33. 50.304. 50.34(b). (c). (d).

policies regarding litigation expenses.

requirements imposed by the Nuclear (f). 50.04a. 50.35(b). m.38. 50.38a. 50.48 EFFrcT VE DATE: December 17.1981.

9egulatory Commission (NRC) on the 50.54(f) (p). (q). (r). (a) (t). (u). 50.55(e).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

2blic from the Cencral Accounting 50.55a. 50.59(b). (c). 50.71(a). (b). (c). (d).

Jffice (CAO) to the Office of (e). 50.7:(a). (b). 50.80. 50.82. 50.90 and James C. Stewart ([200) 377-6457). Office of Cencral Counsel. Federal Home Loan '

Managernent 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. NW.

tnformation collection requirement be I 50 110 IAmendedI Washington. ').C. 20552.

reapproved by OMB as existing CAO

2. The note following i 50.110 is SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORM ATION:The c!carances expire. This requirement removed.

Federal Home Loan Bank Board is

9 Docket No. 50-312 Sacramento flunicipal Utility District ATTH:

John J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer 6201 S Street Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95813

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

This is in response to your December 31, 1981 letter requesting an exemption i

from the requirements of 10 CFR Appendix E,Section IV.D.3 and the Federal Reaister Notice in Vol. 46, No.182, page 46587 that requires the completion of a Prompt Notification System within the plume exposure pathway EPZ by February 1,1982.

The revised emergency planning regulation, wnich became effective November 3, 1980, required that, by July 1,1981, the licensee demonstrate that administrative and physical means were established for alerting and providing prompt l

l instruction to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.

Many licensees did not meet this reouirement by July 1, 1981; the failure attributed to unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties j

surrounding the design, procurement and installation of the prompt notification systems.

In August, the Commission proposed the extension of the July 1, 1981 date to February 1,1982, but determined that if the systems were not

f

" Sacramento Punicipal Utility 2-District installed and operable by February 1,1982, the licensees would be subject to enforcement action.

On December 30, 1981, a final rule change which was immediately effective, delayed this implementation date for prompt public notification systems from July 1,1981 to February 1, 1982 (46 FR 63031).

When the Commission chose the February 1,1982 deadline, they were aware that some licensees were estimating that they might not be able to complete installation of their systems by that date.

Even with this knowledge, the Commission decided that the February 1,1982 date was reasonable, given the fact that all licensees should have been able to meet this deadline by having applied sufficient resources to the task without delay.

This is particularly true since the licensees have known of the recuirement since September 19, 1979, when the proposed rule changing 10 CFR 50 Appendix E

(

was published in the Federal Register (44 FR 54308).

In view of the above, i

and the requirements of the final rule on the prompt public notification system, your request for an exemption cannot be granted.

l However, in the course of the decision to delay the implementation date to February 1,1982, the Commission was aware as discussed above, that a lice'nsees' inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed to causes beyond his control.

The Commission will take into consideration any nitigating circumstances in determining the degree of enforcement action.

i

.-w cy

,_..----y..-w,,-r.,,,4--.

.m

Sacramento Municipal Utility -

District In this regard, your attention is directed to Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Reaf ster on December 30,1981 (FR Vol. 46, No. 250, Pages 63031 - 63033 copy attached).

Sincerely, John Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

As stated

(

1-

C' UM J

Rules and Regulations red-I w i>'-

a Vol 46. No. 230 Wednesday. December 30, 1981 This se: ten of the FECERAL REGISTER On August II.1981, the Commission This decision is based on a centains reguatory documents having discussed possible actions because recognition that emergency plans and general a:scabil.ty and legal effect.,most licensees failed to comply with the July preparedness have significantly c(wyn c[ a p\\e ed to 1.1981 requirement contained in 10 CFR improved within the last year at and

, R ek publisned under 50 titles pursuant to 44 50.47(b)(5) and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E.

around every nuclear power plant site U.S.C. 1510.

Section IV.D.3. The licensees' failure to This significant improvement has be -

The Cc::e of Federal Regulations is sold meet the July 1.1981 date was attnbuted confirmed by NRC teams who have t:y tne Su::enntencent of Documents.

to unforeseen difficulties and visited a number of plant sites to Pnces of new books are listed in th9 uncertainties surrounding the design.

evaluate the licensees

compliance w :

first FEDERAL REGISTER tssue of esch procurement and installatibn of the the upgraded emergency planning m nth.

prompt notification systems.

regulations of August 1980. In additir At the August 11.1981 meeting, the the Federal Emergency Management Commission approved publication of a Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY proposed rule change which would monitored numerous nuclear emergerr

COMMISSION provide an extension of the July 1.1981 exercises invohing State and local date to February 1.1982. (See 48 FR governments and the Ifeensees, and 10 CFR Part 50 46587). That Federal Register notice again have witnessed a significant requested public comment dtiring a 30 Improvement on onsite and offsite Emergency Planning and day period ending October 21.1981.

emergency preparedness.

Preparedness for Production and To date, comments have been The decision to delay the Utilization Facilities received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also based on AcENCY: Nuclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exist Commission.

nuclear industry one from the general customary warning systems (police.

ACTION: Final rule.

public, three from environmental radio, telephone) which are viewed as organizations, one from a mass transit sufficiently effective in many postulateci

SUMMARY

The Commission is making system director, and one from a State accident scenarios. In view of the above, two changes to its emergency planning governor. The comments received from the Commission finds that there exists sufficient reason to beheve that regulations.The change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the appropriate protective mr asures can

50. Appendix E delays the date by which environmental organizations were prompt public notificatfort systems must against delaying the implementation and will be taken for the protection of be operational around all nuclear power date to February 1982. The letters from the health and safety of the public in the l

plants.The change to i 50.54 clarifies the other commenters generally agree event of a radiological emergency during l

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 10 CFR 50.54 EFFECTIVE D ATC December 30.1981.

proposed rule change, which has been FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

accepted and inc]Uded in these final

$

4(8N 3' Michael T. lamgochian. Human Factors amendments. is not to ehrrunate the Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory f ur-m nth period for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the licensee.

Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State, and local emergency response plans Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 testing of the prompt notification shall be implemented by Apnl1.1981. except (telephone 301-843-5942).

system. The Commission now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E that the eliminatiort of this four-month of this part. If after Apnl 1.1981, the NRC SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION period Would be inCGnsistent with the finds that the state of emergency I.The Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, need toperform a reasonable test of the preparedness does not provide reasonable Appendix E system and make any needed changes assurance that adequate protective measures as indicated by the test results. The.

can and will be taken in the event of a On August 19.1980 the NRC enclosed effective regulation radiological emergency and if the deficiencies published a revised emergency plannm.g incorporates this concept.The are not corrected within four months of that i

(

regulation which became effective on installation date. however, remains finding. the Commission will determine Novembcr 3.1980. The rule required February 1.1982, and any licensee not whether the reactor shall be shut down until l

licensees to demonstrate among other completing the installation by that date such deficiencies are remedied or whether things, by July 1.1981:

would be subject toenforcement action.

other enforcement action is appropriate."

"that administratise and physical means After evaluating all public comment It has come to the Commission's have been established for alertmg and.

letters received. the Commission has attention that because this section of the decided to publish, as immediately regulation was written as one v h n the plume po ure path The asign objective shall be to have the effectne, a final mie change to 10 CFR paragraph. It can be interpreted to mean capabihty to essentially complete the initial Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period for the n:tification of the public within the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency prep; redness exposure pathway EPZ withinabout 15 public notification systems from July 1.

deficiencies does not apply to "Section minutes."

1981 to February 1.1982.

IV.D.3 of Appendix E."

30. 1981 / Rules and Rc::ul. !!c."

Feder:!.".[ter / Vol. 48.. No. 250 / Wednnday. Decemb=P EM3 Th:s is a c:is:nte pictation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement D.Mt:lkenca Proce6res Commission's intent, which was that the Pursuant to the Reculatory Flexibility

3. A licensee shall have the capabO!y to four. month period is to apply to any Act of 1980. Pub. L (0-354. the NRC has def;c;encies identified in the emergency determined:(1) That the delaying of the

'*[$I[."[,";'f,'n 8

ith is inutes plans. The Commission is therefore i=plementatica date for the prompt fter5claring an emergency.The licensee

=odifying 150.54[s)(2) to more clearly public notification systems will not have shall de=enstrate that tne State /lcral reflect that intent. The four. month a significant economic impact on a o$cials have the capability to make a publ.

penod provided in 150.54(s)(2), willnot substantial number of small entities, nonficanos decision promptly on bemg apply to any licensee for the instaBation pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility infor=ed by the licensee of an emergency and initial test of the public notification Act of1930. section 635(b) and (2) that condition. By February 1.1982. each nuc!act system by February 1.1982. If a licensee the rule change to i 50.54(s)(2)is not power nactor licensee shall demo:utrate ti adm=tstrative and physical means c.2ve be-is not in compliance with this subject to the pronsions of the established for alerting and provid: g pro =:

requirement for installation and testing Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980.

by. February 1.1982, the Commission because the Co==ission has determined

$'p*,',

No

)

y I

wul consider taking appropriate

' pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of period in 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) for the n rectis I

enforcement actions promptly at that proposed rulemaking for { 50.54 (s)(2) of emergency plan deficiencies shaC.ot j

time.In determining appropriate need not be issued and that the rule may apply to the iratialinstauation cf tr ;;blis enforcement action to initiate, the be promulgated in Enal form and notincation system that is required Commission will take into account.

become effective on December 30.1981.

February 1.1982. The four-conth p - :d wil among other factors, the demonstrated apply to correction of deficiencies Cc:tzfiec diligence of the licensee in attempting to Paperwork Reduction Act Statement durmg the initiatinstallation and In &g of fulfill the prompt public notification Pursuant to the provisic'ns of the tAe proarpt public noti # cation syst es

- 1. ## 0 #* d'I'###""# #'*"

capability requirement. The Commission paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.

will consider whether the licensee has L 96-312), the NRC has made a p d[I,###,'uon

'A' tec shall be h e kept the NRC Informed of the steps that determination that this Enal rule does the capability to essentially complete the it has taken, when those steps were not impose new recordkeeping, trutf al non!! cation of the public within the taken and any significant problems information collection, or reporting plu=e exposure pathway EPZ within about encountered and the updated timetable requirements.

15 nunutes.ne use of this notincauen which the licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the Ato=ic Energy Act of capability will range from immediate in achieving full compliance with the 1954, as amended, the Energy notification of the public (within 15 rates prompt public notification capability Reorganization Act of1974 as amended, of the time that State and local officists cre regturements. The four-month period and section 553 of title 5 of the United n nSed that a situation exists requiring

"#3 '"' D "I '* O' * "

"IY ****

will. however. apply to correction of States Code, the following amendments deficiencies identified during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as he Sta e loca gov ent ofnc. e test of the prompt public notification documents subject to codification:

make a judgment whether or not to acuvate systems as well as those deficieocies the public notincation system. Whern there i I

discovered thereafter.

PART S0-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF a decision to activate the nouncation :ys:e=

i Because the amendment to PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION the State and local of!!cials will deteu ne 150.54(s)(2)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the entire notific !v2 8u Y

ae n r

s i

or b gui nte Is e

reads as f 11 ws:

activating such a public notificanon s3 wm i

Commission's intended meaning at the shau reo: sin with the appropriata Jne of promulgation the Commission Authority: Secs. 103.104,161.182.189, 6a Stat. 930. 937,948. 953. 9M. 955. 958, as governmental authorities.

finds 8ood cause to dispense with amended (42 U.S.C. 2133. 134. :201. **_

advance notice and opportunity for

233. ::39): sea :st. :c:. :os. 88 Sta t.1243.

, i em b used m nad as public comment thereon as unnecessary. 1:44.1:ss (42 U.S.C. sa41. 5842. 58481 unles:

f0lIO*8:

For this reason. this change shall be otherwise noted.Section 50c s also issued effective as a final rule on December 30 under sec.122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. :152).

I 50.54 Conditions ofIIcenses.

1981.

Section sa. 78-50.81 also issued under sec.

Likewise the Commission is 184. 68 Stat. 954. as amended (42 U.S.C. ::34).

publishing the final amendments to 10 Seu ns 210%mic:;ssued under sec. Isa.

(s) * *

CFR Part 50. Appendix E (extending the o N[S af9 sEm ded k us

( )(i) For operating powerreactnrs, the licensee. State, and loca1 emergency implementation date for the installation U.S.C. :273). t 50.41[Il issued under sec. '.'11.

I of a prompt public notification system) 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.SC :201(i)): il 50.70. 50.71.

response plans shall be tmplemented bp as effective immediately upon and 50.78 issued under sec.161o. 6astat. 950.

Apnl 1.1981. except as provided in -

publication. pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

as amended (42 U.Sn.:::n(all. and the I..a Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to this 553(d)(11. since the rule is expected to referred to in Appendica.s.

part.

E relieve the obligation of certain Appendix E [Amendedl Y E"E*"

licensees with respect to the present

1.Section IV.D.3 of Appeodix E to does not provide reasonable assurance July 1,1981 deadline for operational Part 50 is mised to mad as foHows:

public nottfication systems. In that that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a l

regard. the Commission notes that the Appendix E-Emergency Planning and radiological emergency (includmg

, final rule. when effective, will be Preparedness for Production and Utilization racilities.

/indings based on requirements of applied to ongoing licensing proceedings '.

l' now pending and to issues or Appendix E Section IV D 3) and if the contentions thcrein. Union of Cancerned Scientist.s v. AEC 499 F. d 1069 (D.C.

.The rev atum h.. b+en ened in cow.persim change pue.hed m the reder :nesisi.e on a

Cir.1974).

test.homng changes fman the pmposed ruis Septeciber c1.1941.

Federal Regista / Vol. 46. No. 250 / Wednesday. De:emb::] :031 / Rules and Regulati:ns 633].3 defic:encies (including deficiencles applies to the application.

Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. :his 11th 4 based on requirements c/ Appendix E.

recordkeeping, and reporting of December.1981.

Section IV.D.3) are not corrected within requirements contained in NRC For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissie '

four months of that finding. the regulations.

WEHam J. Dircks.

Commission will determine whether the On October 30,19al, the NRC Exec: dire Directorfor Operations.

reactor shall be shut down until such obtained OMB reapproval for the p o,.n. m a w is.s.n 2 5 i deficiencies are remedied or whether information collection requirements erwwo coor rsem-m other enforcement action is appropriata.

contained in 10 CFR Part 50. This In determining whether a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 other ecforcement action is appropriate, setting out the OhG approval number.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission shall take into account.

the expiration date of the current ame::g other factors, whether the approval and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that contain an approved Commission's satisfaction that the information coHection requirement. This (Docket No. ERA-a-81-06) deficiencies in the plan are not amendment also re= oves the note Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use -

significant for the plant in question.or concerning-the expired CAO clearance of 1978; Final Rules that adequate interim compensating th:t follows 1 50.110.

actions have been or will be taken Because this is a nonsubstantive Correc' ion promptly, or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor In FR Doc. 81-34770 appearing on compelling reasons for continued procedural matter good cause exists for page 59872 in the issue of Monday, operation.

finding that the notice and comment December 7.1981. make the followinF procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) are (1) In i 503.6(c)(2), the foUowing 11:;

Dated at Washington. D.C. this :3rd day of unnecessary and for making the were inadvertently omitted above the December.1981.

amen e e eeti e c

e

.1981.

For the Nuclear Regulatcry Commission.

equation on page 59906:

g9 g

1g,q S1muel J. ChUk.

as amended, the Energy Reorganination EQ4 DELTA-COST Secertay of the Commission.

Act of 1974, as amended. and 5 U.S.C.

(ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL) where tra om n.mi m tos.4ms al 552 and 553. the foHowing amendments COST (ALTERNA*E) and COST (OIL) siwwo coor isso-o1-8 to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by:

document subject to codification. The (2)In i 503.38(a) paragraph (5) was to CFR Part 50 authority citation for this documentis:

incorrectly designated as (b): thereforc.

on page 59914. first column. in the 30th Reporting, Recordkeeping, and PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

.line. "(b) For powerplants..." should Application Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION have read "(5) For powerplants...".

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory FACILITIES sawwo caos ssom-=

Commission.

Authority: Sec.181. Pub. L 8M03. 68 Stat.

ACTION: Final rule.

948 (42 U.S.C. ::al)

FEDERAL HCME LOAN 8ANK BOARD

1. Section 50.8 is added to read as

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 T U wa:

Commission is amending its regulations on the domestic licensing of production i 50.8 Reporting, recordkeeping, and INo. 81-8001 and utilization facilities to indicate appucadon requirements: OMB approval Payment Of L!tigation Expenses of Office of Management and Budget (a) the Nuclear Regulatory Federal Home Loan Bank Officers, approval of the information collection Commission has submitted the Directors, and Employees requirements contained in the information collection requirements regulations. This action is required by contained in this part of the Office of Dated: December 17.1981.

the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.

Management and Budget (OhG) for AcENCY: Federal Home lean Bank

(

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30,1981.

approval as required by the Paperwork Board.

FCR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Reduction Act (Pub.1.96-511). OMB ACTION: Mnal rule.

Steve Scott. Chief. Document approved the mformation coUection Management Branch. Dmston of requirements on October 30,1981.

SUMMARY

The Federal Home Loan Bank TechnicalInformation and Document (1) The OMB approval number is Board is amending the Regulations for 3150.-0011.

the Federal Home Loan Bank System to Control Office of Admuu,stration.

(2) OMB approval expires April 30.

liberalize the terms on which the Banks Telephone: (301) 492-8585.

. 1982.

may pay expenses of officers, directors.

SUPPLEM ENTARY INFORM ATION:The

(b) The approved information and employees involved in litigation Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(Pub.

collection requirements include the ansing out of their Bank duties.The L 96-511: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application. recordkeeping, and amendment wiU allow the Federal Home transferred the responsibilitV Cr reporting requirements contained in Loan Banks to establish their own approving the informatN collection ii 50.30, 50.33,50.33a. 50.34(b). (c). (d),

policies regarding litigation expenses.

requirements impe a by the Nuclear (fl. 50.34a. 50.35(b). 50.30, 50.30a. 50.48.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17.1981.

Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the 50.54(fl. (p). (q). (r). (s). (t). (u). 50.55(e).

'ublic frca the General Account:ng 50.55a 50.59(b) (c) 50.71(a). (b). (c). (d).

FOR ruRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!

Jffice (CAO) o the Office of (e). 50.72(a). (b). 50.80. 50.82. 50.90, and James C. Stewart U:00) 3M57). Mce, Management and Budget (ONG). The Appendices A. B. C. E. C. H. J. K. and R.

'","fd Act requires that each existing g

00 S e information col!cction requirement be i 50.110 [ Amended!

Wa shington, D.C. 20552.

reapproved by OMB as existing CAO

2. The note following 150.110 is SUPPt.E M ENTARY INFORM ATION:The clearances expire.This requirement removed.

Federal Home Loan Bank Board is

pg BOSTON EDISON CO M PANY 800 BOYLSTON STREET N

80STON, MASSAf*HUSETTS O2199 (tow ^ao Ho=ao NCE%ED 9'

.JA;q w.

WSEfi1

h January 21, 1982 P.cc VP-N #82-26

/j u Mr. Ronald C. Haynes Director, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 License No. DPR-35 Docket No. 50-293

Dear Mr. Haynes:

The purpose of this. letter is to request extension of the February 1, 1982 implementation date for prompt public notification systems in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station area.

It now appears that the prompt public notification system for the Pilgrim area will be fully installed and tested on or before April 15, 1982. We believe that an extension through that date is warranted for several reasons, which are enumerated and discussed

~

below.

(1) The Time Reouired for Imolementation Varies Widely by Site, and Depends Upon Characteristics of the EPZ The Pilgrim EPZ combines a number of characteristics which have demanded a complex and time consuming approach to full system implementation.

The topography and demography of the EPZ has required a carefully designed system involving 91 sirens. The political composition of the EPZ has demanded continuous and diligent attention to the desires and needs of five local governments, each of which had developed and implemented plans to accomplish public notification using existing capabilities in December, 1979.

The intent of the Commission in establishing a deadline for implementation clearly was to ensure all due speed and diligence in meeting its requirements. We believe that Boston Edison has taken all possible actions toward early implementation which are consistent with sound system design and emergency preparedness practice.

VlY

~

B 62Gia 0374 820121 e

PDR ADOCK 05000293 gb F

PDR G,j A

BD3 TON EDISON COMPANY Mr. Ronald C. Haynes January 21, 1982 i

The extension of the deadline to February 1, 1982, may have

' permitted full implementation of less comprehensive systems, or systems in less politically demanding environments.

System complexity, political considerations, and equipment delivery delays beyond the control of Boston Edison have made it impossible to meet the February 1, 1982 date despite demonstrable diligence on the part of the licensee.

l (2) Prompt Notification System Completion is on a Reasonably Firm Timetable, Progress is Demonstrable, and Remaining Problems are Being Resolved Our recent letter to you (BECo Letter #82-5, January 7,1982) reviewed the status of Boston Edison's efforts to fully implement the prompt notification system for the Pilgrim site, and noted that equipment delivery delays and a failure by the Board of Selectmen in one of five EPZ communities to act upon Boston Edison's permit requests are the principal problems still being faced.

Progress over the past week appears to have been steady, and our anticipated implementation completion date of April 15, 1982, appears reasonably achievable.

Sub-i stantial portions of the system, including all units within a five-mile radius of the site, could very well be in place and t

tested considerably earli3r than April 15. Areas where progress continues are summarized below.

Equipment has begun to arrive at Plymouth, and Boston Edison is receiving repeated assurances from Federal Signal Corporation that revised schedules can be met or approximated.

If this is the case, equipment for all sites within five miles should be on hand before February 1, and the balance of equipment should be delivered during installation of initial shipments.

A hearing for site permits has been scheduled before

he Duxbury Board of Selectmen for January 25, 1982; j

Boston Edison and Town Counsel have agreed on all outstanding issues, and, as a result of Boston Edison initiatives, key Town department heads have indicated that they will support Boston Edison's request.

All arrangements for siren installation, control unit installation, installation of central activation equipment, and wiring of units by the local utility are in place.

Progress is steady in securing permits (seven outstanding, outside of the Town of Duxbury, which involves 17 sites).

,y-

,,.. ~ -

m,

,,_r

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY H

Mr. Ronald C. Haynes -

January 21, 1982 Boston Edison has made arrangements to install and test control equipment, has been working with local governments 4

in developing activation procedures, and is arranging for training of Fire /Pold.ce Dispatch personnel.

I (3) Adequate Interim Compentating Actions have been Taken, and Additional Compensating Actions are being Taken Promptly In a letter to Mr. Boyce H. Grier (BEco letter #81-174, July 21, i-1981) Boston Edison described the many compensating actions that were being taken to assure an adequate state of emergency preparedness pending implementation of the prompt notification system.

The material below reviews, updates, and expands that descriptica.

Emergency Action Levels have been extensively revised, 3

j emergency procedures have been improved, and considerable

~

training and facility improvement has taken place.

This activity should, collectively, assure that the decision to notify off-site authorities is made in the shortest possible time.

At the request of state authorities, and following 4(

consultation with members of the NRC Onergency Appraisal Team, a new system for prompt notification of local governments was adopted.

Boston Edison has purchased i

tone-voice encoder / transmitters for utilization by the State Police for simultaneous notification of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months warning i

points in each of eight corinunities to assist in the rapid marshalling of local officials.

Primary and backup communication with both the State Police and State Civil Defense has been improved.

Full implementation of these-measures awaits equipment delivery, currently, scheduled for no later than January 31, 1982.

The procedural.means to recommend prompt protective action to local authorities directly or through the State Police i

have been established.

Such actions can now be initiated more readily if state Health and Civil Defense officials are unavailable.

Prewritten emergency public information messages have been developed and reviewed by the Region I RAC Committee.

Boston Edison received a request from the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency on January 12, 1982, to assist in improving the state's Energency Broadcast System through m

%+-

--w-

-4

=E F

ws~m+-e i'----w vig-g-wm-w*=i'w y-.w

-yw<

w w

e m--wmew----sii m

w e

v

--,---P-

w-ti----c

-+e www-

, COSTON EOGON COMPANY Mr. Ronald C. Haynes January 21, 1982 purchase of RPU equipment (transmitter / received and associated antennas) at the State E0C and at Radio Station WROR in Boston.

This request was immediately cpproved, and plans for procurement and installation are underway. These actions will reduce the time needed to take effective protective action through rapid and effective emergency public information.

A new Emergency Public Information Brochure was developed, and has been mciled to each addressee in the Pilgrim EPZ, and otherwise broadly distributed.

In Place Rapid Notification Capabilities have been revised, updated and improved.

Boston Edison has aided this effort through the provision of continuous consultant support to the state and its localities since May,1981. With the help of this support, existing systems for alerting the public, using sirens, fire norns and mobile alert capabilities have been strengthened.

These systems will be maintained upon full implementation of the full prompt alert system, both as backup and for validation that protective actions recommendations are followed.

J" Additional Equipment Needs exist at both the state and local level to assure a very high level of emergency preparedness.

Boston Edison had invited local governments and key state agencies to identify such needs, and has made a commitment to meet them to the extent that they are supportable under NUREG-0654 criteria, and consistent with local and state plans and sound emergency preparedness practices.

Boston Edison has supported the development and delivery of emergency operations and radiological protection training in each of the communities in the PEZ, as well as designated reception communities. This training will help to improve notification times on an interim basis, and to improve the effectiveness of protective response, both before and following implementation of prompt alert capabilities.

(4)

Boston Edison has Demonstrated Diligence in Attempting to Meet the Promot Public Notification Capability Requirement Boston Edison has been intensively involved in defining, designing, developing and procuring the components of the prompt public notification system since shortly after publication of NUREG 0610 in September, 1979.

During 1979, Boston Edison had been working closely with Massachusetts officials in expanding and upgrading off-site plans to meet the guidance contained in NUREG 0396.

These

.p,

-r--

l

,COSTON E"Ol5 O N COMPANY Mr. Ronald C. Haynes January 21, 1982 plans, which were published in December,1979, included all towns in a ten-mile EPZ, and provided for public notification using existing capabilities. During January and February,1980, the.

Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) began to explore the potential requirements of prompt alert systems with the Federal i

Emergency Management Agency, and requested FEMA assistance in defining such requirerrents.

In March,1980, MCDA officials met with FEMA officials, and agreed to the following:

There was a good deal of uncertainty as to the final form e

proposed prompt alert systems would take; In view of these uncertainties, licensees should be encouraged e

to work closely with the state in defining potential system requirements.

1 Utilities should be encouraged to undertake independent e

engineering analyses as to what system or combination of systems would meet both system design criteria and the needs of local government; Utilities, centractors, the state and local officials should

,i e

work closely together during design and installation to assure full integration of the system into local emergency preparedness plans and programs.

Boston Edison agreed with these conclusions, and began working with l

MCDA in May,1980, in drafting a request for proposals to undertake the required engineering analysis.

MCDA assisted Boston Edison in f

preparation of the RFP, in review of resulting proposals, and in I

selection of a contractor (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation) to conduct the analyses. 3oston Edison, Stone & Webster and State personnel were in the field, briefing local officials on the proposed analyses, before the final guidelines became generally available in December,1980.

i Progress throughout 1981 was continuous and satisfying.

State and l

l local government has been kept not only fully informed, but fully I

integrated in the decision-making process.

Both the NRC and FEMA have been kept fully infonned of problems and progress throughout the process.

In August,1981, Mr. Robert H. Cunningham of Boston Edison appeared before the Commission during deliberations regarding revision of the prompt notification implementation date, and, as a spokesperson for the industry, enumerated problems faced. When asked by the Comission, Mr. Cunningham stated that Boston Edison's best current estimates indicated completion no later than the end of the first quarter of 1982.

,ESTON EDISON COMPANY

'Mr. Ronald C. Haynes January 21, 1982 Despite anticipated problems, it did not become certain until the final hours of 1981, when Federal Signal Corporation notified Boston Edison of an additional equipment delay, that the February 1, 1982 date would be impossible to meet.

(5) Consideration of Enforcement Action Should Await FEMA Evaluation of Prompt Public Notification System Commission Staff have advised Boston Edison that the Comission is considering prompt enforcement action against licensees who fail to meet the February 1, 1982 date.

In the absence of a full evaluation of the effectiveness of a prompt notification system by FEMA, through field surveys or statistical sampling in the EPZ, it would appear that enforcement action is premature.

Boston Edison has been pursuing a course of action since late in 1979 which we believe will result in one of the mest comprehensive and fully integrated systems in the nation. A less rigorous approach to the problem and its complexities may well have resulted in a system which could have been implemented earlier, but would have been less likely to fully meet both design criteria and comunity needs.

Boston Edison has and continues to work diligently with state and local officials, and all others involved to assure full implementation at the earliest possible date, and has pursued

/

every available opportunity to assist in completing actions which can help to compensate for the absence of prompt notification capability during its development.

Boston Edison is confident that, in the long run, the soundness of this rigorous approach will be evident, and that, under these circumstances, our request for an extension of the implementation date through April 15, 1982, should be approved.

I will continue to keep you fully informed of the progress in this area.

Sincerely, 6

M/

,i i

V-J

h

[nk UNITED STATES g

7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

wasmwoTow.o.c.2 ossa January 21,1982

...../

Dockets Nos.

277 and 50-278 l

Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Vice President and General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101

Dear Mr. Bauer:

This is in response to your December 18, 1981 letter requesting approval of a delay in the implementation of your prompt notification system beyond the February 1,1982 deadline.

The revised emergency planning regulation, which became effective November 3,1980, required that, by July 1,1981, licensees demonstrate that administrative and physical means were established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone. Many licensees did not meet this requireinent by July 1,1981; the failure was attributed to unforeseen 1'

difficulties-and uncertainties surrounding the design, procurement and installation.of the prompt notification systems. As a consequence, the Comission proposed the extension of the July 1,1981 date to February 1, 1982, but detemined that if the systems were not installed and operable by February 1,1982, the licensees would be subject to enforcement action.

On December 30, 1981, a final rule change, which was imediately effec-tive, delayed this implementation date for prompt public notification systems from July 1,1981 to February 1,1982 (46 FR 63031). When the Comission chose the February 1,1982 deadline, they were aware that some licensees were stating that they might not be able to complete installation of their systems by that date.

Even with this knowledge, the Comission decided that the February 1,1982 date was reasonable, given the fact that all licensees should have been able'to meet this dead-line by having applied sufficient resources to the task without delay.

This is particularly true sincr: the licensees have known of the requi.re-l ment since September 19, 1979 when the proposed rule changing 10 CFR 50 Appendix E was published in the Federal Register (44 FR 54308).

In view of the above, and the requirements of the final rule.on the prompt public notification system, your request for a delay cannot be granted.

However, in the course of the decision to delay the implementation date to February 1,1982, the Comission was aware as discussed above, that a licens'ees' inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed -

l to causes beyond his control.

The Comission will take into consideration i

any mitigatin.g circumstances in determining the degree of enforcement f;wwDgp/fth e ~ p (.2-

2-Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

action.

In this regard, your attention is directed tu Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on December 30,1981 (FR Vol. 46, No. 250. Pages 1

63031 - 63033 copy enclosed).

l Sincerely, L4L I

oh' ~ F. Stolz, Chief ating Reactors Branch #4 vision of Licensiraj

Enclosure:

FR Vol. 46; No. 250 Pgs. 63031-63033 cc w/ enclosure:

.See next page 9

l l

O 9

9

.y.

.__.,.--., ~_-._ _,,-

..,,_c..

~

Philadelphia Electric Company cc w/ enclosure (s):

Eugene J. Bradley Philadelphia Electric Company Regional Radiation Representativi Assistant General Counsel EPA Region III 2301 Market Street Curtis Building (Sixth Floor)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Troy B. Conner, Jr.

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

M. J. Cooney, Superintendent Washington, D. C.

20006 Generation Division - Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Government Publicatioris Section Thomas A. Dcming, Esq.

State Library of Pennsylvania l

Assistant Attorney General Education Building Department of Natural Resources Commonwealth and Walnut Streets Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. W. T. Ullrich Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Mr. R.'A. Heiss, Coordinator l

Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse Governor's Office of State Planning o

l Albert R. Steel, Chairman and Development l

Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 1323 Peach Bottom Township Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 R. D. #1 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Curt Cowgill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station P. O. Box 399

. Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region I i

Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

63031 r da i n+-

Rules and Regulations

. Vol 48. No. 250 Wednesday. December 3o.1981 This sectson of % FEDERAI. REGISTER On August 11.198L the Commission his decisionis based on a contains regulatory documents having discussed possible actions because recognition that emergency plans and general a pucabihty and legal effect most licensees failed to comply with the July preparedness have significantly

d '8 L 1981 requirement contained in 10 CFR improved within the last year at and

( CD *]

al Rm is 50.47(b)[5) and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E.

around every nuclear power plant site.

published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 Section IV.D.3.The licensees' failure to This significant improvement has been U.S.C. 1510.

meet the July 1.1981 date was attributed confirmed by NRC teams who have The Code of Federal Regulat;ons is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

to tmforeseen difficulties and visited a number of plant sites to Pnces of new books are listed in the uncertainties surrounding the design.

evaluate the licensees' compliance with first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each procurement and installation of the the upgraded emergency planning

"A prompt notification systems.

regulations of August 1980.In addition.

At the August IL 1981 meeting, the the Federal Emergency Management Commission approved publication of a Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have monitored numerous nuclear emergency l

NUCt. EAR REGUI.ATORY proposed rule change which would exercises involving State and local COMMISSION provide an extension of the July L 1981 I

date to February 1.1982. (See 46 FR governments and the licensees, and 10 CFR Part 50 46587).ThatFederalRegister notice again have witnessed a significant.

1

~

requested public comment during a 30 improvement on onsite and offsite l

Emergency Planning and day period ending October 21.198L emergency preparedness.

l Preparedness for Production and To date, comments have been The de-ision to delay the Uti!!zation Facilities received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also based on AcENcy: Nuclear Regulatory individuals or organizations in the the recognition that there exist nuclear industry, one from the general customary warnmg systems (police.

Public, three from environmental radio telephone) which are viewed as 1

. Commission.

I Act:ON: Final rule'.

organizations. one from a mass transit sufficiently effective in many postulated accident scenarios.In view of the above,

SUMMARY

The Commission is making system director, and one from a State the Commission finds that there exists two changes to its emergency planning governor.The comments ree' ived from sufficient reason to believe that e

regulations.The change to to CFR Part the general public and from the -

50, Appendix E delays the date by which environmental organizations were appropriate protective measures can and will be taken for the protection of against delaying the implementation the health and safety of the public in the prompt public notification systems must date to February 2982.The letters from event of a radiological emergency during be operational around all nuclear power plants.The change to 5 50.54 clarifies the other commenters generally agree the extenced time period for the language of the rule to conform with with extending the implementation date.

the Commission's intent at thq time of along with additional suggestions.

. compliance.

promulgation.

One suggested modification to the II.The Amendment to 10 CFR 50.54 EFFECTIVE DaTE: December 30,198L proposed rule change. which has been

^

54(sH2h accepted and included in these final Cu re FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

amendments,is not to eliminate the MichaelT.Jamgochian. Human Factors four-month period for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the licensee.

Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial State and local emergency response plans Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory testing of the prompt notification shall be implemented by April 1.1981. except Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555 system,De Commission now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E

'(telephone 301-443-5942)..

that the elimination of this four. month

'of this part.If after April 1.1981,the NRC finda that the state of emergency SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:

period would be inconsistent with the preparedness does not provide reasonable need toperform a reasonable test of the L %e Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 l

assurance that adequate protective measures system and make any needed changes can and willbe taken in the event of a Appendix E as indicated by the test results.The. -

radiolosical emergency andif the deficiencies On August 19.198' the NRC enclosed e'ffective regulation are not corrected within four months of that O

l published a revised emergency planning incorporates this concept.ne finding. the Commission will determine I

regulati,on which became effective on installation date, however. remains whether the reactor shall be shut down until Novemoer 3,1960.The rule required February 1.1982, and any licensee not such deficiencies are remedied or whether licensees to demonstrate, among other completing the installation by that date other enforcement action is appropriate.-

things, by July L 198t would be subject to, enforcement action.

"that administrative and physical means After evaluating all public comment It has come to the Commission's have been established for alerting and letters received, the Commission has attention that because this section of the decided to publish. as immediately regulation was written as one h the p ume exp u e p thw Z.The effective, a final rule change to 10 CFR paragraph,it can be interpreted to mean design objective shall be to have the Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the foer. month period for the capability to essentf ally complete the initial

(

notification of the public within the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency preparedness

[

exposure pathway EPZ within.about is public notification systems from July 1.

deficiencies does not apply to "Section rmnutes."

1981 to February 1.1982.

IV.D.3 of Appendix E.'

l

~

$2032 Federal Er:.;ister / Vol. 46. No. 250 / Wednesday. December 30, 1981 / Rules and Rc;:ul.2tiens This is a misinterptctation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement D.Notificctica Procedures Commission's intent. which was that the Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

3. A licensee shall have the capabilit four. month period is to apply to any Act of 1980. Pub. L 9M354. the NRC has

"**i# P'"'IDI' 3' '"d I***I Y

I deficiencies identified in the emergency determined:(1)That the delaying of the 8""""'"' 'I ' 8 '"d " *

'8""""'"

l plans.The Commission is therefo e implementation date for the prompt

' [t i

modifying i 50.54(s)(2) to more clearly puolic notification systems will not have g

te th e

reflect that intent. The four. month a significant economic impact on a omeials have the capability to make a public period provided in i 30.54(s)(2). willnot substantial number of small entities, notification decision promptly on being apply to any licensee for the installation pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility informed by the licensee of an emergency ~

and initial test of the pubhc netificatica Act of1980, section 605(b) and (2) that condition. By February 1.1952. each nuclear system by February 1.1982. E a hcenses the rule change to i 50.54(s)(2) is not power reactor licensee shall demonstrate dat administrative and physier.'. means have been -

is not in compliance with th'.s sdbject to the prodsions of the established for alerting and providing prompt requirement for installation and testing Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980.

'N by February 1.1982 the Commission because the Commission has determined will consider taking appropriate

' pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of

'f.fod

))Ir$a 1

ction enforcement actions promptly at t

proposed rulemaking for 150.54 (s)(2) of emergency plan deficiencies shall not time.In determMng appropriate need not be issued and that the rule may apply to the imtialinstallation of this public enforcement aetion to initiate, the be promulgated in final form and notification system that is required by Commission will take into account.

become effective on December 30.1981.

February 1.1982. The four. month period will among other iactots. the demonstrated apply to correction ofdeficiencies identified diligence of the licensee in attempting to Paperwork Reduction Act Statement during the initio1/nstallotion and restins of fulfill the prompt public notiEcation Pursuant to the provisions of the the Prompt publie notification systems as wellas those deficiencies discorered capability requirement. The Commission Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Pub.

thereofrer. The design objective of the prompt will consider whether the licensee has L 96-511), the NRC has made a l

kept the NRC informed of the steps that determination that this Enal rule does

[",

p"[b ty t e[n le a $'

it has taken. when those steps were not impose new recordkeeping.

Initial notmcation of the public within the i

taken and any significant problems information collectioc. or reporting plume exposure pathway EpZ within about i

encouutgrtd. tnd the updated timetable requirements.

15 minutes.De un of this not$cauon l

wL h tha licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the AtomicEnergy Act of capability will range frem immediate in tchieving full comp!!aace with the 1954, as amended, the Energy noti 5 cation of the public (within is minutes of the time that State andlocal ofBcials are pr 2mpt public notification capabilitT Reorganization Act of1974. as amended, i

r: auirements. The four-month period and section 553 of title 5 of the United notiSed that a si: nation exists requiring urgent neuan) to esinom mely events will, however, apply to correction of States Code, the following amendments

'j's'-

deficiencies identiSed during the initial to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as the Sta e 1

l offi a.

test of the prompt public notification documents subject to codlHcatiam make a judgment whether or not to activata systems as well as those deficiencies the public notification system. Where there is discovered thereafter. -

PART 50-00MESTIC LICENSING OF a decision to activate the cotincation syste=.

Because the amendment to PRODUCTION AND UTluZATION the State and local offcials wtil deter =ine i 50.54(s)(2)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES

. whether to acuvate the entire notification

' Y'""

""" * "' " I

"*8""**

minor nature, simply resolving *an The authority citation for Part 50 staged manner.%e respons bility for i

ambiguity in the rules to the reads as follows:

acuvaung such a public notification system Commission's intended me'aning at the ane of promulgation, the Commission Authority Sees.1cs. :os.1st.1rJ.182. 68 shall remain with the appropriate Stat. 938. 937. 948. 953. 954. 935. 958 as governmental authorities.

finds Eood cause to disEense with amended (42 USC. 2133. M34. 001. 2232.

$et

$2 42 $ s I s hi. N 2. 5 N ) N. e2.150.54(s)(2)is revised to read as reon a u ec ssary.

foHows:

For this reason. this change shall be otherwise noted.section so.7a also issued effective as a final rule on December 30.

under sec.122. ca Stat. s39 (42 U.S C n52).

! 50.54 Conditions of Ticenses.

Section 30 8-50.81 also issued under :ec.

1981.

184. 6a Stat. 954 as amended (42 UAC =34).

Ukewise, the Commission is Secuens Sa100.so.202 instied under uc. las.

(s) * *

publishing the final amendments to 10 Ge u.

8" CFR Part 50. Appendix E (extending the

),8 [ M *s h,

e (2)(1) For operating power reactors. the nd 2 Licensee. Sta te, and local emergency implementation date for the installation USC =73). I 50.410) inued under sec. :si!.

response plans shall be implemented by of a prompt public notiScation system) sa Stat.949 (42 Usc 2:01(f)): 115c30. 50.71.

as effective immediately upon -

and 503s issued under sec.1sto. castet. 950, April 1.1931. except as provided in publication. pursuant to 5 U.S.C' as amended (42 USC =m(o)). ano the lawsSection IV.D.3 of Appendix E to this 553(d)(1). since the rule is expected to referred to in Appendicas.

part.

(ii)If after Aprill.1981,the NRCfinds relieve the obligation of certain

. Appendix E' tAmended]

that the state of emergency preparedness licensees with respect to the present

1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to does not provide reasonable assurance July 1.1981 deadline for operational Part 50 !s revised to read as follows:

that adequate protective measures can public notiEcation systems. In that an wi a en e went d a.

regard, the Co==ission notes that the Appendix E-Emergency Planning and radiological emergency (including final rule, when effective.' will be Preparedneu for Production and Utilization findings based on regulrements c/

applied to ongoing licensing proceedings *racilitlaa.

A pendix & Sectlan IV.D.3) and 11.

P now pending and to issues or contentions therein. Union of Concerned Scient/s!.s v. AEC. 499 F. 2d 1069 (D.C.

. n.re @ n b e w e w ed %.ri es eanse panhd de rederat uesi. e on -

Cir.1974).

tut showu scases from the propo.ed raie sepiember zt. 2oet.

i l

e.

Federni Register / Vol. 46. NO. 250 / Wednesday. December {1951/ Rults and Regulations C3013 deficiencies (including deficiencies applies ta the application.

Cated at Bethesda. Maryland this 11th day based on requirement.s oIAppendix E.

recordkeeping, and reporting of December.1981.

Section N.D.3) are not corrected within requirements contained in NRC For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

four months of that finding, the regulations.

Wd!Iam J. Ducks..

Commission will determine whether the On October 30.198t the NRC Executive hetorforOperation.

reactor shallbe shut down until such obtained OMB reapproval for the tra on.n-rmo w usc el deficiencies are remedied or whether information collection requirements mu.mo coomes.es a other enforcement action is appropriate.

contained in to CFR Part 50.This In determining whether a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 other enforcement action is appropriate, setting out the OMB approval number.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission shall take into account, the expiration date of the current among other factors,whether the approval. and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that contain an approved IDocket No. ERA-R-81-06]

Commission's satisfaction that the information collection requirement.This deficiencies in the plan are not amendment also removes the nota Powerp: ant and Industrial Fuel Use Act significant for the plant in question, or 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 nonsubstantive Correction promptly, or that that there are other amendment dealing with a minor. ts for In R Doc.8W770 appearing on compelling reasons for continued procedural matter, good cause exis page 59872in the issue of Monday.

l operation.

, finding that the notice and comment December 7,198L make the following procedures of the Adrninistrative cdons-Dated at Washington.D.C. this ::3rd day of. Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553) are (1) In i 503.8(c)(2), the following lines were ina erten@ ommed abe 6e Deceder, set.

,'nd e emb r30,198L e ec ve equation on page~59906:

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Under the Atomic Energy Act of1954.

Samuel J.Ch1Ik.

as amended, the Energy Reorganization EQ4 DELTA-COST (ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL) where Secretaryofthe commission.

Act of1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.

COST (ALTERNATE] and COST (OIL)

[rn on. n. con ruw use us==1 552 and 553, the following amendments s:u.mo coes 7sso.ow to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determinedby:

(2)In i 503.38(e), paragraph (5) was document subject to codiScation.The Incorrectly designated as (b); therefore.

10 CFR Part 50 authority citation for this documentis.

on page 59914. first column. in the 30th Reporting, Recordkeeping, an'd PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

,line "(b) For powerplants..." should App!! cation Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION have read"(5)Forpmverpients...".

FACILITIES en.Las caos isos.ew AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

. c= mission.

Authority: Sec.181. Pub. L 83-703. 88 Stat.

C ACTION: Final rule.

948 (42 U.S.C,=ci)

FEDERA!.HOME LOAN BANK BOARD

d. Section 50.8 is added to read as 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory ows.

Commission is amending its regulations INo.81-8001 cn the domestic licensing of production i 50.8 3eporting, recordkeeping, and and utilization facilities to indicate appucation requirements: cms approval.

Payment of Litigation Expenses of -

(a) the Nuclear Regulatory Federal Home Loan Bank Officers, Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection Commission has submitted die Directors, and Employees requirements contained in the information collection requirements I

regulations. This action is required by contained in this part of the Office of Dated: December 17.isat.

the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980.

Management and Budget (OMB) for AGENCY: Federal Home Loan Bank EFFECTIVE D ATE: December 30.198L approval as required by the Paperwork Board.

educ & Q Act M.L M W. M ACTION: Final rule.

FoR F1JRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

approved the information collection Steve Scott Chief. Document requirements on October 30.1981.'

SUMMARY

The FederalHome Loan Bank Management Branch. Drvision of (1)ne OMB approvalnumberis Board is amending the Regulations for TechnicalInformation and Document 3150-001L theFederal Home Loan Bank System to Control. OfEce of Administration *

(2) OMB approval expires April 30.

liberalize the terms on which the Banks 1982.

may pay expenses of ofHeers, directors.

Telephone:(301) 492-8585.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The

(b)Theapprovedinformation and employees involved in litigatics Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Pub.

collection requirements include the arising out of their Bank duties.The L 96-511: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application.recordkeeping, and amendment will allow the Federal Home transferred the responsibility for reporting requirements contained in Loan Banks to establish their own approving the information ecliection i 150.30, 50.33. 50.33a. 50.34(b). (c). (d).

policies regarding litigation expenses.

requirements imposed by the Nuclear (f). 50.34a. 50.35(b). 50.30, 50.3sa. 50.48.

EFFECTIVE D ATE: December 17.198L Regulatcry Commission (NhC) on the 50.54(f). (p). (q). (r). (s). (t). (u). 50.55(e).

FoR FtsRTHER INFoRMATloN CONTACT:

public from the General Accounting 50.55a. 50.59(b). (c) 50.71(a). (b) (c) (d).. James C. Stewart ((232) 37 Office (CAO) to the Office of-(e). 50.72(a). (b). 50.80. 50.82. 50.90, and Cen

'L Management and Budget (0MB).The Appendices A. B. C. E. C. H. J. K. and R.

] Boa

'S a on c I et o re uirement be

.I 50.1to IAinended)

Washington. D.C. 20552.

reapproved by OMB as existing CAO 2.ne note following i 50.1101:

SUPPt.EMENTARY INFoRMATION:De L

clearances expire.This requirement removed.

Federal Home Loan Bank Board is

).

D

@ RECO 4

o UNITED STATES

[ g] "b#

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

/sj WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 k....+ p January 21, 1982 Docket No.

0-312 l

Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street P. O. Dox 15830 Sacramento, California 95813

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

SUBJECT:

PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION This is in response to your December 31, 1981 letter requesting an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Appendix E,Section IV.D.3 and the Federal _ Register Notice in Vol. 46, No.182, page 46587 that requires tne completion of a Pmmpt Notification System within the plume exposure pathway EPZ by February 1,1982.

The revised emergency planning regulation, which became effective November 3,1980, required the licensee to demonstrate that adminis-trative and phys.ical means were established for alerting and providing prompt instruction to the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone by July 1,1981.

Many licensees did not meet this requirement by July 1,1981; the failure attributed to unfore-seen difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the design, procurement and installation of the prompt notification systems.

Consequently, the Commission proposed the extension of the July 1,1981 date to February 1, 1982, but detennined that if the systems were not installed and operable by February 1,1982, the licensees would be subject to enforcement action.

On December 30, 1981, a final rule change which was immediately effective, delayed this implementation date for prompt public notifica-tion systems from July 1,1981 to February 1,1982 (46 FR 63031).

When the Commission chose the February 1,1982 deadline, they were aware that some licensees were stating that they might not be able to complete installation of their systems by that date.

Even with this knowledge, the Commission decided that the February 1,1982 date was reasonable, given the fact that all licensees should have been able to meet this deadline by having applied sufficient resources to the task without delay.

This is particularly true since the. licensees have known of the requirement since September 19, 1979, when the proposed rule changing 10 CFR 50 Appendix E was published in the Federal _ Register (44 FR 54308).

In view of the above, and the red uirements of the final l

rule on the pmmpt public notification system, your request for an exemption canno.t be granted.

gy/O-&OY ppg f,f0 L

f

.r Mr. J. J. Mattimoe Since the Comnission is aware that your inability to meet the July 1,1981 date could be attributed to causes beyond your control, the Commission will take into consideration your particular circumstances in determining the degree of enforcement action.

In this regard, your attention is directed to Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Supplementary Information Section of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1981 (FR Vol. 46, No. 250, Pages 63031 - 63033 copy enclosed.

Sincerely, L

Jofn F. Stolz, Chie

@erating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

FR Vol. 46, No. 250 Pages 63031-63033 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page e

e

l' Sacramento Municipal Utility Rancho Seco, Docket No. 50-312 District cc w/ enclosure (s):

David S. Kaplan, Secretary and

, Christopher Ellison, Esq.

General Counsel Dian Grueuich, Esq.

6201 S Street California Energy Commission P. O. Box 15830 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95813 Sacramento, California 95825 Sacramento County Ms. Eleanor Schwartz Board of Supervisors California State Office 827 7th Street, Room 424 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Rm. 201 Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

.20003 Business and Municipal Capartment Docketing and Service Section Sacramento City-County Library Office of the Secretary 828 I Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sacramento, California 95814 Washington, D. C.

20555 Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco c/o U. S. N. R. C.

14410 Twin Cities Road Herald, CA. 95638 Dr. Richani F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Regional Radiation F.epresentative EPA Recion IX Mr. Frederick J. Shon 215 Fremont Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Francisco, California 94111 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Robert B. Borsum Washington, D. C.

20555 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Chairman, Atomic Safety and Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Thomas Baxter, Esq.

Washington, D. C.

20555 l

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

~

l 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.

1900 M Street, N.W.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.

20036 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Helen Hubbard Washington, D. C.

20555 P..O. Box 63 Sunol, California 9,4586 er e

---,---,w

,-.--,,,7-..y

.-e v.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. Robert H. Engelken, Regional Admin

.4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 H. California Boulevard, Suite 202 Washington, D. C.

20555 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety. and Licensing Appeal Board i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Cal.ifornia Department of Health ATTN:

Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 l

W

?

~

G

63032 Federal T.: ster / Vol. 48. No. :'50 / Wed.csday. December 30, 1931 / Rules and Repulati::.s This is a misinterpretation of the Regulatory Mexibility Act Statement D.htificctica Pmcedt.rres Commission's intent, which was that the Pursuant to the Regulatory Mexibility four month period is to apply to any Act of 1980. Pub. L 95-354 the NRC has

3. A licemn shan han the ca.

to n tdy rn; able State and locat deficiencies identified in 3e emergency determined:(1)That the delaying of the s vemmmalendu 15 e n plans.The Commission is therefore Imp!cmentation date for the prompt 8^'

modifying 150.54(s)(2) to more clearly public notification systems will not have

[e 1ra e tha he o

reflect that intent.The four-month a significant economic impact on a officials have the capability to make a publ period provided in i 50.54(s)(2), will not substantialnumber of small entities.

notincation decision pron ptly on being apply to any bcensee for the installation pursuant to the Regulatory Mexibility Informed by the licensee of an emergency and initial test of the public notification Act of1980, section 635(b) and (2) that condition. By February 1.1952. en ch nucleo system by February 1,1987.11 a licensee the rule change to i 50.54(s)(2)is not power reactorlicemee shan demonstrate P ad=inistrative a'nd physical means have be is not in co=pliance with th!.s subject to the provisions of the established for alerting and providing proE requirement for installation and testing Regulatory Mexibility Act of1980, instructions to the pubb,e within the plume by February 1.1982 the Co 2 mission because the Co=missica has determined ko :) JI r$e will consider taking appropriate

' pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of od In r ctic enforcement actions promptly~at that proposed rulemaking for { 50.54 (s)(2) of emerEency plan denciencies shad not time.In detennining appropriate need not be issued and that the rule may apply to the initialimtallation of this public enforcement action to initiate. the be promulgated in final form and notiScation system that la required by Commission will take into account

beco=e effective on December 30.1981.

February L 1982. The four. month period wis among other factors, the demonstrated apply to correction of deficiencies identifie diligence of the licensee in attempting tn Paperwork Reductian Act Statement durin the initiolinstallation and testin of fulfill the prompt public notification Pursuant to the provisions of the rAe proo-- spublic n,orificction systems as welios those defic encies descorend capability requirement. The f'nmmission Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (Puh.

Wrrofter. The design objective of the prom will consider whether the licensee has L 96-5u), the NRC has made a kept the NRC Informed of the steps that determination that this finalrule does

$",$p"ab ty to essEn

=ple it has taken. when those steps wer*

not impose new recordkeeping, initial notification of thepublic within the taken and any significant problems information coHection, or reporting -

plume exposure pathway EPZ within about encountered, and the updated timetable requirements.

15 minutes.The use of this noti 5 cation which the licensee expects will be met Pursuant to the Ato=icEnergy Act of capability w111 runge from Immediata in achieving full compliance with the 1354, as amended, the Energy notification of the public (withinis minutes of the time that State andlocal officials are prompt public notification capabilit7 Reorganization Act of1974. as amended, requirements.The four-month period and section 553 of title 5 of,the United notiSed that a situation exists requiring urgent action) to the more likely r will. however apply to correction of States Code, the following amendments deficiencies identiSed during the initial to 10 CHI Part 50 are published as N's"g,','"f3eb'g*"

,3,,g,

,i, test of the prompt public notificat:en documents subject to codiHcadon:

make a judgment whether or not to activate syste=s as well as those deficencies the public notiEcatico system. Where there discovered thereafter.

PART 50-OOMEST1C 1.! CENSING OF a decision to activate the notiscation syste:

Because the amendment to PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION the State and local of5cials win deter =ine i 50.54(s)(2)is interpretative and of a FACILITIES whether to activate the e= tire notification system simultane usly rin a graduateds minor nature, simply resolving.an The authority citation for Part 50 staged manner.The responsibility for i

ambiguity in the rules to the reads as f 11 wat activating such a public notification syste:s Com=ission's inte=ded mewnine at the shah remain with the appropriate

.me of promulgation, the Comniission Authoritu Secs.1c2.1M.161.12.2.1E9. sa Stat. 938. 937,94!L 953. 954. 955. 958, as governmental authorities.

find: good cause to d:.spense with amended (42 USC 133.:134.2201.2232.

advance notice and opportunity for

=33. 2239); secs. 231. 20*. 206, 88 Stat.1243.

2. I SWs H2)is reviseg to reag as public comment thereon as unnecessary. 1: 44.1246 (42 USC 5841. 5842. 58481. unless follows:

For this reason. this change shall be otherwiss noted.Section 50.78 also larued,

effective as a final rule on December 30, under sec. :22. 68 Stat. s33 (c USC. 152).

I 50.54 Conditions of Ticenses.

1931.

Section so. 78-SaJti aiso issued under sec. 154. ca stat. 954. as. amended (u USC ::ss).

I.ikewise, the Commisslon is Seeti na so.1ma: Issued under sec. tse.

(s) * *

Pub!: shin 3 the final amendments to 10 68 Stat. 955 (42 USC. 2236). For the purpo.es (2)(i) FoI Per8ti:8 Powerreac1ers, t' chi s) art 50. Appendix E (extending the of sec. =3. es Stat. 958. as amended 14:

b.eensee. State. and local emergency implementation date for the installation USC =73). l so.41(1) lar6ed under sec.teil, response plans shallbe implemented b i

of a prompt public notification system).

68 Stat. 949 (42 USC. ::01(i]); !! 50.70.50.71.

as effective immediately upon

and 50.78 issued under sec.1610,68 Stat. E50 April 1.1981, except as provided in c

publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C' as amended (42 USC. :=1(o)). and the tan Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to this 553(d)(1). since the rule is expected to referred to in Appendicas.

part.

(ii)If after Aprill.1981.theNRCfini l

relieve the obligation of certain Appendiz E' ! Amended]

- - - - # # E'#*

l licensees with respect to the present

1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to coes not provide reasonable assurance July 1.1981 deadline for operational ad % !s rem.ed to read as Mows:

that adequate protective measures can public noti 5 cation systems. In that regard, the Commission notes that the Appendix E-unegency Plar.ning and radiological emergency (inclur#

final rule, when effective, will be Pnparedness for Production and Utilizatico findings based on requltcmer applied to ongoing licensing proceedings. Tecilitias A PendixE.SecficaIV.D.3)a.

.n o P

now pending and to inues or contentions therein. L'. a.: T'dcerned Scientists v. AEC. 499 F. 2d 1069 (D.C.

ne res.Ja% has been wed in cm persties change pu%ehed in the rederal R esistae ce -

Cir.1974).

tut shomns chanses t n:n the p.mposed rate September 21. 3 sin.

i

1__

G3032 o

Rules and Regu!stions rederal xesisier Vol 46. No. 250 Wednesday December 30. 1981 j

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER On August 11,1981, the Commission

%is decision is based on a contains regulatory documents having discussed possible actions because recognition that emergency plans and general app 6cability and legal effect.

of wNch are keyed to and codfied,rnost licensees failed to comply with the July preparedness have significantly in 1,1981 requirement contained in 10 CFR improved within the last year at and

[ dud {r h

50.47(b)[5] and 10 CFR 50. Appendix E.

around every nuclear power plant site.

n p

U.S.C. 1510.

Section IV.D.3.The licensees failure to This sigmilcant improvement has been The Code of Federal Regulations is sold. meet the July 1,1981 date was attributed confirmed by NRC teams who have by the Superintendent of Documents.

to unforeseen difficulties and visited a number of plant sites to Prices of new books are listed in th9 uncertainties surrounding the design, evaluate the licensees

compliance with first FEDERAL REGISTER hsue of each procurement and installation of the the upgraded emergency planning mom prompt notiilcation systems.

regulations of August 1980.In addition.

At the August 11,1981 meeting the the Federal Emergency Management Commission approved publication of a

' Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have NUCLEAR REGULATORY proposed rule change which would monitored numerous nuclear emergency COMMISSION provide an extension of the July 1,1981 exercises involving State and local date to February 1,1982. (See 46 FR governments and the licensees, and 10 CFR Part 50 46587). Dat Federc' Register notice again have witnessed a significant.

requested public comment during a 30 Improvement on onsite and offsite Emergency Planning and day period ending October 21.1981.

emergency preparedness.

Preparedness for Production and To date, comments have been The decision to delay the Uti!!:ation Faci!!!ies received from four NRC licensees, five implementation data is also based on AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory individuals er organizations in the the recognition that there exist Commission.

nuclear in:iustry, one from the general erstomary warning systems (poh,ee.

public, three from environmental radio, telephone) which are viewed as organizations, one from a mass transit suf!!ciently effective in many postulated

SUMMARY

The Commission is making system director, and one from a State accident scenarios. In view of the above, two changes to its emergency planning governor.ne comments received from the Commission finds that there exists

\\

regulations. ne change to 10 CFR Part the general public and from the sufficient reason to beheve that

50. Appendix E delays the date bv which environmental organizations were appropriate protective measures can prompt public notification systems must against delaying the implementation and will be taken for the protection of be operational around all nuclear power date to February 1982.The letters from the health and safety of the pubhc in the plants. The change to i 50.54 clariflas the other commenters generally agree event of a radiological emergency during the language of the rule to conform with with extending the implementation date the extended time period for the Commission's intent at thg time of along with additional suggestions.

. compliance.

promulgation.

One suggested modification to the II.The Amendment to lo CFR 50.54 EFFECTIVE D ATC December 30,1981.

pr osed e :han a which ha b en Additionally,10 CFR 50.54(s)(2),

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

p amendments. Is not to eHminate the currently requires that, Michael T. Jamgochian. Human Factors Branch. Office of Nuclear Regulatory four-m nth peri d for correction of any "For operating power reactors, the licensee.

Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory deficiencies identified during the initial state. and local emergency response plana Commission. Washington. D.C. I.0555 testing of the prompt notification shallbe implemented by April t.1981, except (telephone 301-443-5942)*

system.%e Commission now believes as provided in Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E that the elimination of this four month of this part.If after Aprill.1981, the NRC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:.

period would be inconsistent 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 reasonable Appendix E system and make any needed changes assurance that adequate protective measures On August 19.198'O. the NRC as indicated by the test results.The.

can and wi!! be taken in the event of a enclosed effective regulation radiological emergency and if the deficiencies published a revised emergency planning incorporates this concept.The are not c rrected within four meaths of that regulation which became effective on installation date, however, remains finding. 6e Commision wiH detumine November 3.1980.The rule required February 1.1982, and any licensee not whet!:er is reactor Gau be shut down until licensees to demonstrate, among other comp leting the installation by that date such deficiencies are remedied or whether things, by July 1.1981:

would be subject to, enforcement action.

othu enforcemmt action is appropriate."

"that administrative and physical means After evaluating all public comment It has come to the Commission's have been established for alerting and letters received, the Co=rJssion has attention that because this section of the providing prompt instructions to the public decided to publish. as immediately regulation was written as one N

objeet$e shYIISto ha {

effective, a final rule change to lo Cat paragraph. it can be interpreted to mean F

capability to essentia!!y complete the initial Part 50. Appendix E which will delay the that the four. month period for the notification of the public within the plume implementation date for the prompt correction of emergency preparedness exposure pathway EPZ withirtsbout 15 public notification systems from July 1.

deficiencies does not apply to "Section minutes."

1981 to February 1,1982.

IV.D.3 of Appendix E."

5-

Federal Registir / Vol. 46. No. 250 / Wednesdzy'. Decembc: R.1081 / Rules and Regulations 630.'13

..=

deficiencies (including deficiencies applies to the application.

Dated at Dethesda. Maryland. this uth day based on requiremenis oIAppendix E.

recordkeeping, and reporting of December. 29at.

Section IV.D.31 are not corrected within requirements contained in NRC For the Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission.

four months of that finding, the regulations.

WILm J.Dutim..

Commission will determine whether the On October 30.1981, the NRC LecutiveDinctorfor Operofloar.

reactor shall be shut down until such obtained OMB reapproval for the p ca.si.snm ro.4 m amas deficiencies are remedied or whether information collection requirements on.u=o cooe rm4us other enforcement action is appropriata, contained in to CFR Part 50.This In determining whether a shutdown or amendment adds a new i 50.8 to Part 50 other enforcement action is appropriate, setting out the OMB approval number.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission shall take into account, the expiration date of the current among other factors, whether the

approval, and a list of sections within 10 CFR Part 503 licensee can demonstrate to the Part 50 that contain an approved Commission's satisfaction that the information coUection requirement.M

[ Docket No. ERA-A-81-061 deficiencies in the plan are not amendment also removes the note Powerplant and Industrtal Fuel Use Act significant for the plant in question.or concerning the expired CAO clearance of 197aginalRules that adequate interim compensating that follows i 50.110.

actions have been or will be taken Because this is a nonsubstantive Correction promptly, or that that'there are other amendment dealing with a minor.

W h M770 npearing on compelling reasons for continued

, procedural matter, good cause ex2sts for page 59872 in the issue of Monday...

finding that the notice and comment December 7.1981, make the following operation.

procedures of the Admmhtrative C}

503.8(c)(2), the following line's December.19et. ' on.D.C. this 23rd day ~of Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) are

(

Det at ashi d,o th

" *C*ssa were inadvertently omitted above the d

981.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Under the AtomicEnergy Art of1954, equation on page'59906:

Samuel J. CM.

as amended, the Energy Reorganization EQ4 DELTA-COST Seensary offAe Commission.

Act of 1974, as amended. and 5 U.S.C. -

(ALTERNATE)-COST (OIL} where p on. es-rnwi ru.d u-as4a aas =l 552 and 553, the following amendments COST (ALTERNATE) and COS40!L) ortuno coog 7sso45 as to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as a are determined by:

document subject to codiScation.The (2)ln i 503.36(e), paragraph (5) was to CFR Part 50 authority citation for this documentis:

Incorrectly designated as (b): therefore.

on page 59914. first column, in the 30th

. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

.line "(b) Forpowerplants..." should Application Requirements; Approval PRODUCTION AND UTluZATION have read "(5) For powerplants...".

FACIUTIES artu=c coac isoseus AcENCY:Nudear Regulatory Authority: Sec.161. P::b. L 8M03. 68 Stat.

Cornmission.

AcnON: Final rule.

94a (42 U.S.C.=a11

. FEDERAL HOME LCAN BANK BOARD

SUMMARY

The Nudear Regulatory gj. Section 50.8 is added to read as 12 CFR Parts 522 and 545 Commission is amending its regulations on the domestic licensing of production i 50.8 Reporting, recordkeeping, and

[No. 81-4001 and utilization facilities to indicate appucation requirements: oms approvat.

Payment of L!tigation Expenses of -

OfEce of Management and Budget (a) the Nudear Regulatory Federal Home Loan Bank Officers, approval of the information collection Commission has submitted the Directors, and Employees

~

requirements contained in the information collection requirements regulations.%is action is nquired bF contained in this part of the OfUce of Dated: December 27.1981.

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Management and Budget (OMB) for AcENcY: Federal Home Loan Bank trrEenVE D ATE: December 30.1981.

approval as required by the Paperwork Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMaTION CONTACT:

Reduction Act (Pub.L 96-511). O,MB ACron: Final rule.

approved the Information collect 2on a]g [

$$nof requirements on October 30,1981.

SUMMARY

The Federal Home lean Bank TechnicalInformation and Document (1) The OMB appmval zmmber is Board is amending the Regulations for 3150-0011.

the Federal Home Loan Bank System to Control. Office of Administratich.

Telephone: (301) 492-8585.

(2) OMB approval expires April 30, liberalize the terms on which the Banks 1982.

may pay expenses of officers. directors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFoRMAnON:The

(b)De approvedinformation and employees involved in litigation Paperwork Reduct.on Act of1980 (Pub-collection requinments indude the arising out of their Bank duties.De L 96-511: 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) application.recordkeeping, and amendment will allow the Federal Home transferred the responsibility for reporting requirements centained in Loan Banks to establish their own approving the information collection ii 50.30,50.33. 50.33a. 50.14(b) (c). Idt policies regarding litigation expenses.

requirements imposed by the Nudear (f). 50.34 a. 50.35(b). 50.38, 50.36a. 50.6 ErrtCnVE D ATc December 17.198L Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the.

50.54(f). (p) (q). (r) (s). (t) (u). 50.55(eJ.

""" '"*" A"C" C## CU public from the General Accounting 50.55a. 50.59(b). (c) 50.71(a) (b). (c). (d).

Office (CAO) to the OfSce of*

(e) 50.72(a). (b). 50.80. 50.82. 50.90, and James C. Stewart ((202) 377-6457). Office, of General Counsel. Federal Home Loan Management and Budget (OMB).The Appendices A. B. C. E. G. H. J. K. and R.

Act requires that each existing Bank Board.1700 C Street NW.

Information callection reouirement be

$ 50.110 [ Amended!

Washington. D.C. 20552.

reapproved by OMB as existing CAO 2.The note following I 50.110 is SUPPLEMENTARY INFoRuaTION:De dearances expire.His requirement removed.

~

Federal Home Loan Bank Board is

.__m A-PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET I

P.O. POX 8699 8\\

PHIL ADELPHIA. PA.19101

.".iiCE*'lY9 WMM'#3 sHistos L oaLTnorr F.3 9, }$$2% 7 l* l stscteic paooucnom g< g Ag-3t,*; n g.

L 4 M;3CZsq January 27, 1982 p

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 1, 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 request consisted o2 (1) a letter dated December 18, 1981, S.

L.

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 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 by the counties to Philadelphia Electric Company, who in turn, would contact supervisory personnel on duty 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months 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.

Each employee would have predesignated sirens, with a maximum of eight assigned to any one employee, which they would have F

\\

(

Mr. B.

K. Grimes Page 2 responsibility to operate.

When notified, the employeo rould 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,

~

1

!?~

cc:

R. C. Haynes, (NRC-Region I)

D.

G. Eisenhut, (NRC)

.. _ _

ML20055A263

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Daltroff:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

Attachment:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Haynes:

Dear Mr. Bauer:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Grimes:

Navigation menu

ML20055A263

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Daltroff:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

Attachment:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Haynes:

Dear Mr. Bauer:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Mattimoe:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Grimes:

Navigation menu

Search