ML20138H161
| ML20138H161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1993 |
| From: | Joyner J NRC |
| To: | Mccabe E NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G636 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701030141 | |
| Download: ML20138H161 (2) | |
Text
l l
h
- AS EDITED BY PEPB
- i From:
Ebe C. McCabe (ECM1)
) s '7 To:
Jim Joyner y
i l
Date:
Tuesday, February 9, 1993 y
Subject:
ENFORCEMENT OF NON-DECLARAT F ALERT AT SALEM l
1he following relates to above subject.
1.
An emergenc
.ust be reported in accordance with the emergency pin an cedures, even if the emergency has ended before it cou'd be identifie and declared.
Failure to identify and declare an emergency 9
assi tion based on the licensee's approved emergency action levels alk than the.'1B~mTnu, tes required for an Alert cla'ssifica' tion, and not drb
'e is a violation (At Salem, the loss of annunciators lasted for more F
t declaring' an' Alert was a violation.)
2.
[Faiiure. td. prompt.ly' declare' an emergency.classifiestion, when an ; event' warrants it, unduly prevents'or delays licensee,'NRC, and State and local responses.
Failure to report a previously undeclared emergency j
which has already been terminated is equivalent to pretending the ev nt
)
never happened and is not consistent with the full disclosure that RC.
6 4 ! expects from licensees. Although information about a terminated 7(I emergency may have little or no immediate safety significance, it is j
,l j
_valua_ble to NRC and offsite authorities.who.may have to, respond o-(
i4
[ public inquiries. The~inforiaYi'o)1Fc'af elso$facilitite'lic'ensesand NRC f
6 followup and add to industry and NRC records and statistical data caseh i
i which would otherwise fail to capture the information. The widespread practice of reporting and closing an emergency at the same time appears to meet these needs, but some licensees do not have provisions for doing that without also mobilizing their staff as for an ongoing emergency 9,
(indicating that plan revisions may be appropriate).
3.
At Salem (this may or may not apply elsewhere), an alert classification F
may not be appropriate for loss of the overhead annunciators because of the availability of other indicators and/or alarms.
If so, the Salem
' emergency plan should be revised to reflect this.
p 4.
Finally, the Salem licensee immediately corrected the problem as soon as s
it was recognized and therefore did not make the Alert declaration l
because the event was over. Nevertheless, it would be wise (and probably should be made a requirement) for on-shift and on-call licensee managers to make sure that their management and the NRC and State and local responders know, early on, why a specified emergency condition h,/
l (classification) is not being " declared."
9701030141 961226 i
\\.
O'NEILL96-351 PDR h
(Mf w
- V t
s w
~
s e~- # &
s p g n (#
- (;wn) Jt eJJ& n 50r
i i
i i
i Note To:
Bill Euland From:
Ebe McCabe l
l
Subject:
SALEM AIT, EP ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS I
This routes, for consideration, the RI and HQ Emergency Preparedness staffs' position on the j
emergency classification and reporting issue (a HQ edit of the RI write-up).
1 Since I will be on a recruiting trip on 2/17-18, I can't attend the scheduled enforcement panel (Jim Joyner can't attend on 2/17 or 2/18 either.) Rescheduling so I can attend would be l
appreciated.
- Thanx, 4
..Ebe 7
Copy:
i R. Cooper J. Durr C. Hehl-j M. Hodges D. Holody.
]
J.yoyner T.! Johnson j
W. Lanning S. Shankman j
E. Wenzinger i.,
J. Wiggins J. White i
1 j
.