ML20207B565
| ML20207B565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207B569 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-729, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 NUDOCS 8612050410 | |
| Download: ML20207B565 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GM-
~
{
maswasovow.o.c.seems L.f.%(a.
e...*
+
NOV 2 51986 MEMORANDUN FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Region III FROM:
James M. Taylor, Director l
Office of Inspection and Enforcement l
SUBJECT:
TIMELINES3 0F CLASSIFYING EMERGENCIES AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS This is in response to your memorandum of August 14, 1986, in which you express a concern that the regulations fail to specify a time limit regarding how much i
i time may elapse between the occurrence of an event and the time the licensee makes a classification. You recomend that action be taken to amend the regu-l lations to require a licensee to declare an emergency class as soon as events have occurred that can be identified as being classified as an emergency condi-tion as described in the licensee's emergency action levels (EALs).
The purpose of the emergency classification and action level scheme is to ensure that licensees accurately and promptly assess, classify and notify authorities of an emergency.
In its rationale for the final emergency planning regulations, the Comission stated, "In order to discharge effectively its statutory respon-sibilities, the Commission firmly believes that it must be in a position to know that proper means and procedures will be in place to assess the course of an accident and its potential severity, that NRC and other appropriate authorities and the public will be notified promptly, and that appropriate protective actions in response to actual or anticipated conditions can and will"be taken." The intent of the regulations is clear--to provide for prompt assessment and noti-fication.
The wording in Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654 provides further emphasis on the aspect of promptness in notification of offsite authorities.
A plant specific EAL scheme is the mechanism that results in de::laration of an emergency class.
If plant parameters irdicate that conditions have reached an emergency threshold according to the EAL scheme, a declaration is called for.
If a declaration is not made at this time, the licensec has not implemented or followed its emergency plan. In your memorandum you cite three cases in which timely classifications and notifications were not made. A review of enforcement history over the past three years shows that Region III has issued violations in the majority of the cases (7 of 11 reported cases) related directly or indirectly l
l to timeliness in classification and notification.
In addition, based on discus-sions with each region, we find that 11cer. sees are generally making timely notifications to offsite authorities and the NRC.
CONTACT:'
ld J. Perrotti, IE pCID
% 3 a ds0'u G 2pe 3
Xh
-:I James G. Keppler I want to assure you that IE appreciates your concern and that we will continue to monitor the timeliness of licensees' responses to emergency events. While the reguletions do not cite a specific allowable time limit between event occur-rence and when en emergency must be declared, I believe that the regulations, j
the guidance provided in Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654, and the regulatory / enforcement history to date provide an adequate basis for issuing violations to those licensees who delay in classifying, declaring and notifying proper authorities of an emergency condition.
4/
James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement DISTRIBUTION:
JMTaylor, IE CRVan Niel, IE RWStarostecki, IE FKantor, IE JGPartlow, IE DJPerrotti, IE BKGrimes, IE CDeliso, IE 86-481 ELJordan, IE TEMurley, RI SASchwartz, IE JNGrace, RII DBMatthews, IE RDMartin, RIV KEPerkins, IE JBMartin, RV JAAxelrad, IE DCS CENorelius, RIII DEPER R/F EPB R/F EWBrach, ED0 SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES M'
lor i
51 *)4f86 0g
- EPB/IE
- EPB/IE
- EPB/IE DD/ PER/IE
/D PER/IE DDflE DJPerrotti:sc FKantor DBMatthews SAS wartz ELJordan RWSta ostecki 11q/86 11/2 86 11/20/86 11/20/86 11/20/86 11/
86
6am ot r.ct s or BISHOP. LIBERMAN. COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS eroo sc<c~tec~t-s, acct.~ *
- S MsNGTON. O C 2 0C 36
'202? 8s7-9800
- N
% C * *c e.
Otita **CS?* e%*6** v yS=C* u s t e ** a s 4 coc.
't k E C C es t.
2C2 SS' 9e*4 s*%S Avt NWE Cr f ut ama t meC AS Ne w voam. NC e TCe* 'CC 36 October 7, 1986 s
,,,),e......
,c 6 c = n a,.,
i
...?c. S o..<e,.. 6
'E C E FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Donnie H. Grimsley Director ACT REQUEST g,, [f., )
Division of Rules & Records Office of Administration g [ [f U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
5552) and the NRC's regulations (10 C.F.R. 59.3, et ase.),
I request any documents interpreting, or otherwise esG blishing agency or staff policy with respect to, the notification requirements of 10 C.F.R SS 50.72 and 50.73.
I am specifically interested in any NRC guidance on the issue of _ timing of reports to be filed by licensees under those requirements.
This request encompasses both Headquarters and Region documents.
I would greatly appreciate your prompt response as provided by 10 C.F.R. 59.8.
Sincerely, David A.
Repka fl 0 0 n( d( LC
\\
Of (
gu..
-f
-