ML20039D103
| ML20039D103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1981 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Stampley N MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310319 | |
| Download: ML20039D103 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
.[e ntau%o,1, UNITED STATES YELLOW f.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
E REGION il 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEoRol A 30303 Mississippi Power and Light Compan%0V 171931 ATTN: Mr. N. L. Stampley
, -g Vice President of Production Q/y
- p. O. Box 1649
[
" T, Jackson, MS 39205 l
b S
Gentlemen:
'Q_J
~_
2 3 s
Subject:
Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 WN8 This letter is being sent to nuclear power plant licensees for general ib clarification on emergency preparedness issues.
It is realized that some provisions may not be pertinent to all licensees, in that exercises with State '
participation may have already been held and State plans found to be adequate.
However, you should extract from the following that information which does still pertain to your facilities.
As you are aware, the revised NRC emergency planning rule,10CFR50, which was published on August 19, 1980, requires that emergency preparedness be upgraded and maintained both at and around nuclear power plants.
In determining the adequacy of offsite preparedness, the NRC consults with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which has been designated as the Federal lead agency for improving off site preparedness.
FEMA findings are based on reviews and approvals which are acccmplished according to the proposed FEMA rule, 44 CFR 350. FEMA will not consider any State or local plan for final approval until a full-scale exercise has been conducted with the site in question.
Such an exercise must include the State, appropriate local government entities, and licensees.
Should FEMA noti fy ;ne NRC that timely progress is not being made under its proposed 44 CFR 350 procedures with respect to the upgrading of offsite plans, NRC may determine that this constitutes a significant deficiency in emerge 1cy preparedness and initiate actions under the NRC regulations identified above.
For continued compliance with 10CFR50, annual full-scale or small scale joint exercises, as defined in that rule, are required.
A full scale exercise must have been corducted at a facility site before any new license can be granted.
The scheduling of these exercises will be largely at the initiative of State and local governments and licensees in coordination with the appropriate FEMA Regional office. This office will provide observers for the onsite aspects of these joint exercises.
We will also consult with the FEMA Regional office on the adequacy of proposed scenarios and schedule conflicts.
In order to effectively schedule the emergency exercise, we believe that we should stress the necessity to coordinate your exercise schedule with that of State and local governments and with the FEMA Regional office and to supply a copy of the scenario, which has been coordinated with the appropriate State authorities, to this office and the FEMA Regional office well in advance of the exercise. If you have any problems in this coordination, we will assist you.
8112310319 811117 PDR ADOCK 05000416 i
N OV 1 7 1981 Mississippi Power and Light Company 2
Additionally, the following constructive comments concerning the conduct of recent emergency exercises reflect FEMA and NRC observations which could be of value to you.
1.
The content of the exercise scenarios should be handled on a "need-to-know" basis, such that individuals who may be exercise " players" do not have access to the scenario to be used.
2.
In order to make the exercise a valid test of emergency preparedness, the particular scenario to be run should not be used in " practices". While certain functions are similar regardless of the scenario, certain others (assessment, protective-action-decision-making, in plant surveys, etc.)
may differ significantly.
Therefore, to the extent practical, training or practice scenarios should differ from the scenario used for the fullscale exercise.
3.
Careful consideration should be given to the manner in which scenario cues are presented to the players and to the content of the cues, such that inadvertent coaching or direction to the player is minimized.
The content and timing of cues should be consistent with information and sources that would be available to the players in a real emergency (e.g.,
simulated alarms, instrument readings, survey data, etc.).
This will result in the most realistic participation and interaction by everyone; the operating staf f and their offsite support elements, the NRC, FEMA, state and local governments, and others.
Exercise controllers should also be cognizant of acticns necessary to ensure continuity of the exercise without unduly hindering nor aiding the participants' initiative, free play and decision-making processes.
On a related subject, as you have probably already heard, the NRC has proposed changing the implementation date of prompt notification systems from July 1, 19S1 to February 1, 1982.
I have enclosed a copy of the proposed rule change for your information.
This appeared on September 21, 1981, in the Federal Regi ster for comment.
No response to this letter i s necessary.
Should you have any questions, the appropriate contact in Region II is Mr. George R. Jenkins, Chief, Emergency Preparedness Section at (404)-271-5541.
Sinc y,
/
s
/
ThuC~ e-ames P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Proposed Rule Change cc w/ encl:
D. C. Gibbs, Vice President Middle South Energy, Inc.
C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager l
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.182 / Kfonday. September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules 46597 10 CFR Part 50 By July 1.1981. the nuclear power reactor the extended time period for licensee sha!! demonstrate that compliance.
Errwrgency Planning and administrative and physical means have been Preparedness for Production and estabbshed for alerting and providing prompt He Commission's decision to defer instructions to the pubbe withm the plume the date for requiring full Uti:!zation Facilities esposure pathway EPZ.11:e design objective implementation of the prompt public AoENCY:Nuclest Regulatory shal be to have the capabdity to essential!F notification capability requirement was Commission.
cornplete the imtial noufication of the public made, as desenbed above. efter within the plume esposure pathway EPZ auditional consideration of industry-ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemdhirg.
within about 15 minutes.
wide difficulty in acquiring the
SUMMARY
.The Nuclear Regulatory The NRC staff has evaluated the level necessary equipment permits, and Commission is proposing to amend its of compliance by the industry and noted clearances.%is proposed deferral does regulations to extend the date by which that only about 12% of NRC power not represent any fundamental prompt public notification systems must reactor licensees bave been able to meet departure from the rationale the be operational around all nuclear power fully the July 1.1981 da'e for installation Commission used in adopting and plants. De proposed extension is based of a prompt public notification system sustaining the public notdication on industry. wide difficulty in acquiring which meets the criteria in to CR 50.47 capability requirement See Final kule the necessary equipment, permits. and 50.54, and Appendix E to Part 50. The on Emergency Planning. 45 FR 55402 clearances. If adopted the proposal licensees inability to meet the July 1.
55407 (Aug.19.1900). reconsideration would extend the conoliance date for 1981 date has been attributed to the denied. CLI-ao-40.12 NRC 636 (1980). It these systems from July 1.1981 to no uriforeseen difficulties and uncertainties is the Commission's continued judgment later than February 1.1982.
surrounding the designing, procuring, that prompt public notificaticn is an DAfts: Comment period expires October and installing of the prompt notification important consideration in the offsite 21.1981. Comments received after this systems,in estabbahing the protection of the public in the event of a date will be considered if it is practieal implementation date. the Commission nuclear accident This offsite protection to do so. but assurance of consideration was conarned that these factors would of the public includca a number of cannot be gived except as to corr.ments inhibit the ability to cornply with a short separate stepe-recognition of the received on or before this date.
schedule and set the July 1981 date with potential severity of the accident by the Aconassets: Interested persons are this in mind (45 FR 55407).
utiiity, communication of the perceived invited to submit written comments and While licensees
- conmH-with the threat to offsite authorities. decision by suggestions on the proposal to the prompt notiScation requirement has offsite officiala on the need for Secretary of the Commission. U.S-been delayed, the NRC considers that protective action. capability to spread Nuclear Regulatory Commission, emergency plans and preparedness have public warning, and actual response by Washington.D.C.20555. Attention:
significantly improved within the last the public.De emergency plannMg rule Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of year at and around every nuclear power is premised on reducing to the extent comments received by the Commission plant site.%is insignincant possible-end to the extent the NRC can may be examined in the Commission's improvement has been confirmed by regulate-the time required for and the Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NRC teams who have visited a number uncertainty associated with each step.
NW Washington.D.C.
of plant sites to evaluate the licensees
- Every aspect of the rule, including the FOR FURTHER INFOnMATION CO*ff ACT:
compliance with the upgraded prompt notiScation system. la still Brian K. Grimes. Director. DMsion of emergency planning regulations of required. In changing the Emergency Preparedness. Office of August 1980. In addition the Federal implementation date of the prompt Inspection and Enforcement. U.S.
Emergency Management Agency public notification capability Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(ITMA) and the NRC have monitored requirement, the Commission recognizes Washington D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-numerous nuclear emergency exercises the continued need for this requirement 492-4814).
involving State and local governments and expects all utilities to complete the and the licensees, and again have instalIation of this system as soon as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT10fc witnessed a siginficant improvement on practicable but not later than February L The Proposed R *d onsite and offsite emergency 1.1982. However, the Commission On August 19.1980 the Nuclear preparedness.
intends to take appropriate enforcement Regulatory Commission published in the Based on the above information and action against licensees who did not.
Federal Register (45 FR 55402) on a recognition that there exist prior to July 1.1981. notify the amendments to its regulations (10 CFR customary warning systems (police.
Commission of their inability to meet part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the radio, telephone), which are viewed as the July 1.1981 deadline.
upgrading of emergency preparedness.
sufficiently effective in many postulated The effective date of these regulations accident scenarios, the Commission is Significant licensee performance was November 3.1980. Among other proposing to defer the implementation strengths and weaknesses are evaluated things, the regulations required licensees date of the prompt pubhc notification in the NRC Systematic Assessment of to submit upgraded emergency plans by capability requirement from July 1.1981 Ucensee Performance (SALP).He SALP Jamlary 2.1981, submit implementing to February 1.1982. In view of the program specifically includes evaluation procedures by March 1.1981. and above the Commission finds that there of licensee performance in emergency I
implement the emergency plans by April exists sufficient reason to believe that preparedness. Accordingly. a licensee's 1.1981, appropriate protective measures can efforts in attempting to meet the July 1.
One element that must be and will be taken for the protection of 1981 date for installing the prompt demonstrated in an acceptable the health and safety of the public in the public notification capability will be a licensee's emergency plan is that:
event of a radiological emergency during factor in that licensee's SAlf.
46588 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.182 / Monday. September 21, 1981 / Proposed Rules II. Proposed Application of the Final final rule, when effective, will be 1244.1246. (42 U.S C 5841. 5842. Sa4e). unless Rule applied to ongoing licensing proceedings otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued now pending and to issues or under sec.122. es Stat. 939 (42 U.S C 2152).
De Commission also is proposing in Secti n 50.78-50 at also issued under sec.184, contentions therein. Union of Concerned this rule that the four-month period for Scientists v. AEC. 499 F. 2d 1009 (D.C.
es Stam as amended H2 U.SC 2234b Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under acc.186.
correcting deficiencies, provided in Cir.1974)-
I 50.54(s)(2), should not apply to any 68 Stat. e55 (42 U.S.C 2236). For the purposes licensee not in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Certification of sec. 223. ea Stat. osa, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273). I 50.41(i) issued under sec.1611 pubh.c notification system requirement In accordance with the Regulatory es Stat. 940 (42 U.S.C 2201[ill; il 50.70. 50.71.
by February 1.1981 the new deadline Flexibihty Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
and 50.78 issued under sec. telo. 68 Stat 950, date. If a licensee is not in compliance the Commission concludes that this rule as amended (42 U.S C. 2.T1(o). and the laws with this requirement by February 1 will not. if promulgated. have a referred to in Appendices.
1982, the Commission will consider significant economic impact on a
- 1.Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E to taking appropriate enforcement actions substantial number of rmall entities. ne Part So is revised to read as follows:
promptly at that time. In determining proposed rule concerns an extension of appropriate enforcement action to the operational date for public Appendis E-Emergency Planning and initiate, the Commission will take into notification systems for nuclear power f,s[**nns f e Pmduc6on and UtiHzation account, among other factors. the plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 demonstrated diligence of the licensee and tolb of the Atomic Energy Act of in attempting to fulfill the prompt public 1954 as amended 42 U.S.C. 2133,2134b.
D Nouficadon hums notification capability requirement. The The electric utility companies owning Commission will consider whether the and operating these nuclear power
- 3. A licensee shall hne the capabthty to n t fy resp nsible State and local licensee has kept the NRC informed of plants are dominant in their service tfie steps that it has taken, when those areas and do not fall within the bterNc$a aa e erg ncy e Lee ce steps were taken and any sigmficant definition of a small business found in shall demonstrate that the State / local problems encountered, and the updated Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 officials have the capability to make a public timetable which the licensee expects U.S.C. 632. or within the Small Business notification decision promptly on being will be met in achieving full compliance Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part informed by the licensee of an emergency with the prompt public notification 121. In addition, since the amendment condition. By February 1.1961 each nuclear capability requirements.
exten<ls for one year the date by which power react r licensee shall demonstrate that admim8trative a d physical means have been With respect to requests for the public notification systems are to be exemptions that NRC has received from operational, the businesses and state
'g' l,d fo
[me u
pt p e nuclear power reactor licensees and local governments involved in the exposure pathway EPZ.The four-month concerning the prompt pubhc manufacture and installation of these period in 10 CDt 50 54(s)(2) for the correction notification requirement and deadlines.
systems are not economically affected in of emergency plan deficiencies shall not for mstallation and operational any significant manner. Accordingly, apply to deficiencies in the initial installation capability, the Commission has decided there is no significant economic impact of this pubhc notification system that is to deny these requests in light of the on a substantial number of small required by Febniary 1.1982. The design proposed extension of the July 1.1981 entities, as defined in the Regulatory objective of the prompt public notification date. Any licensee not able to meet the Flexibihty Act of1980.
system shall be to have the capabihty to new deadline date of February 1.1982 essentia!!y complete the ini'ial notification of will be subject to enforcement penalties Paperwork Reduction Act Statement the pubhc within the plurre exposurt after the new date.This provision will Pursuant to the provisions of the pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. The eliminate unnecessary and costly Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub.
f[,I,,,[a not fOca70n ftfe ubl c administrative actions needed to L 96-511), the NRC has made a (within 15 minutes of the time that State and consider pnsent exemption requests determination that this proposed rule local officia!s are notified that a situa' ion that will essentially become moot by the does no' impose new recordkeeping.
exists requiring urgent action) to the more proposed extension of the jely 1.1981 information collection, or reporting hkely events where there is substantial time date. This approach will also permit the requirements.
avai!sble for the State and local NRC to focus its consideration upon a Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of govemmental officials to make a judgment reduced number of noncompliance 1954, as amer.ded, the Energy whether or not to activate the pubhc situations which remain at the time of Reorganization Act of1974, as amended, n[tif( i n c;
stem er s
,c
,, 9 he S t the new deadhne. It is expected that the and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United and local officials will determine whether io most efficient use of NRC resources will States Code, notice is hereby given that activate the entire notification s> stem be achieved by this treatmet t of present adoption of the following amendment to simultaneous!> or in a graduated or staged exemption requests re!ating P) the July 1.
10 CFR Part 50. Appendix E is manner. The responsibihty for activatir.g 1981 operational date requirenent.
contempla ted.
such a pubhu notification s> stem shall remain if the proposed rule is subseluently with the appropriate govemment authonties promulgated as a final rule. It is the PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF Commission a present intention to make PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION st effective immediately upon FACILITIES Dated at Washington. D C., thir 16th day of publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
September 1981.
553(d)(1). since the rule is expected to The authority citation for Part 50 relieve the obligation of certain reads as follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hcensees wtth respect to the resent Authority Seca. 103.104.161.182.183.189 Secretaryof the commission.
July 1.1981 deadline for operational 68 Stat. 9as. 937. 948. 953. 954. 955. 956, a s public notification systems. In that amended (42 U.S.C. 2133,2123. 2201. 2232.
P* *'-**' ' d'd '~ ~*' *
- 5 '"I regard the Commission notes that the 2:33. 2234 secs. 201,202. 206,88 Stat.1243.
suseo coot news-as l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C..M555 4
_ --_-_ _ - -_-____-______________