ML20027B564
| ML20027B564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1982 |
| From: | Hassell D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8209210290 | |
| Download: ML20027B564 (10) | |
Text
- _ _ _
DESICITATED ORIGINAIl M
Certified By_,ffg r
" Aro -
/
September 17, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i BEFORE THE AT0!!TC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
)
50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant )
Unit Nos. I and 2)
)
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITIAL DECISION DATED AUGUST 31, 1982 1.
INTRODUCTION On Agust 31, 1982, the Licensing Board in the above-captioned proceeding issued an Initial Decision (Decision), which authorized the issuance of a full-power operating license for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 subject to certain conditions. On September 10, 1982, the Staff filed exceptions to certain rulings in that Initial Decision in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762(a). The Staff also moved the Appeal Board to toll the time for the filing of briefs related to exceptions until the Licensing Board rules on the instant request for clarification of the Initial Decision.
On September 13, 1982, the Appeal Board granted the Staff's motion and tolled the period for filing briefs concerning exceptions until the Licensing Board rules on the subject motion to clarify the Initial Deci-sion. As explained below, the Staff is seeking clarification of several conditions'which are to be met prior to the issuance of the full-power operating license since the Staff is uncertain as to what actions are required by these conditions.
8209 2102% g
p II. DISCUSSION A.
FEMA Finding o'n State Plan The Initial Decision states that a condition for the issuance of a full-power license is the requirement that "[t]he Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation must secure FEMA findings on the adequacy of the State EmergencyResponsePlan."1/ For several rcasons there is uncertainty about what actions are required by this condition since it appears to the Staff that this condition is unnecessary based on what has transpired in this proceeding.
The issue of the finding on the adequacy of the State plan was raised by Governor Brown before the Licensing Board at the December 16, 1981 Prehearing Conference.
In addressing this issue, the Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order of December 23, 1981 held that the memorandum of November 17, 1981 from Richard W. Krimm of FEMA constitutes the FEMA finding necessary under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Q 50.47.2_/ Furthermore, Mr. Jack Eldridge of FEMA stated in his testimony that the November 2,1981 evaluation and status report together with the accompanying memoranda con-stituted FEMA's findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans were adequate and capable of being implemented.
(Eldridge Testimony, ff. Tr.12682, at 5). Mr. Eldridge also explained, in response to Board questions, that FEMA findings on the State plan comparable to the
-1/
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), Initial Decision.
(Slip Opinion at 218).
(August 31,1982).
-2/
See also, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powei PTant, Units 1 and U Response to Joint Intervenor's Motion for Summary Disposition (Slip Opinion, p. 2) (January 15,1982) wherein the Licensing Board specifically rejected Joint Inter-venor's challenge to this holding.
FEMA findings on the San Luis Obispo County plan would not be made since the basic responsibility for protection of life and property in the State of California rests at the county level.
(Eldridge, Tr. 12709-710).
This Board recognized that there is a division of responsibility between the State and the County and determined that the County has the basic respon-sibility for protection of life and property,3_/ and also found that the County has been assigned major emergency responsibility.SI The Board also observed that the areas of responsibility of the State are addressed in the State plan, that these responsibilities do not require an imed-iate response because they do not deal with life threatening situations, and that it is FEMA's view that the State could respond in these areas if needed.5_/ Based on the foregoing reasons and the record in this pro-ceeding, the Staff believes the necessary finding by FEMA pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(a)(2) as to the adequacy of the local and State Emer-gency Plans related to Diablo Canyon has been made. The Staff is unsure what more is required to provide reasonable assurance that adequate pro-tective measures can and will be taken by offsite authorities in the event of a radiological emergency at Diablo Canyon. Consequently, the Staff believes the Licensing Board should clarify this Initial Decision to make clear that FEMA has made the necessary findings in this instance.
3_/
Initial Decision at 16.
4/
Id. at' 95. Finding 15.
5/
Id. at 16..
B. Standard 0)erating Procedures (S0P's)
';3 issue here~is which SOP's are subject to the Licensing Board's requirement for authentication of 50P's required by Federal Regulations prior to the granting of an operating license.
In the Licensing Board's discussion of the planning standard in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(1) concerning assignment of responsibility, the Board concludes that "those aspects of emergency plans which have been found to be incomplete as regards this standard shculd be completed prior to the granting of an operating license."5/ The Licensing Board then continues that the "[m]atters to be completed are:... (2) authentication of SOP's which are required by Federal regulations."2/
The Staff is uncertain precisely which S0P's are subject to this requirement since the Licensing Board discusses various SOP's in the portion of the Decision beginning on page 11 and concluding with the above-quoted requirements on page 20.
The Licensing Board states that 21 San Luis Obispo County S0P's are completed for cities, fire districts and school districts within the Federally-defined plume exposure pathway zone and 11 S0P's remain to be completed for the San Luis Obispo County plan.S/ The Board then states that work is in progress on all of the incomplete procedures which are p/
Initial Decision at 20.
7/
Id.
8/
Id. at 12.
9 e
. 7 required for the State Basic Emergency Planning Zone (BEPZ).1/ The Board continues to explain that the State of California has completed approximately 85 to 90 percent of the State agency standard operating procedures.EI Nothwithstanding the Board's references to various S0P's the Staff believes an examination of the Board's findings concerning authentication reflects that the only 50P's requiring authentication are those for the San Luis Obispo County plane although it s unclear whether this applies solely to organizations within the Federal plume EPZ or to organizations outside the Federal EPZ but within the State BEPZ. As a consequence, the Staff is uncertain whether, when the Board stated that aspects of the emergency plans found incomplete should be completed prior to issuance of a full power license, the Board was referring solely to the authentication of San Luis Obispo County 50P's for organizations within the Federal plume EPZ, organizations outside the Federal plume EPZ but within the State BEPZ or was referring to the completion of all of the State of California agency's SOP's and San Luis Obispo County 50P's.
However, the Staff believes the Board's conclusions that (1) it has no authority to enforce State standards which exceed those required by Federal regulations,El and (2) that the requirements the County plan must meet are the Federal requirements as stated in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 for a 10-mile 9/
Id. at 13.
10/ Id. at 16.
11/ Id. at 99-100, Findings 27, 28, 30 and 31.
12/ Id. at 12.
~ y EPZ and a 50-mile ingestion EPZEI clearly suggests that the proper inter-pretation of this r~equirement is that the Licensing Board intended this requirement to apply only to the authentication of SOP's for County organizations within the Federal plume exposure pathway EPZ. Accordingly, the Staff requests the Board to clarify whether this interpretation of the requirement is correct.
C.
Acquiescence by State Jurisdiction to S0P's The last condition for which the Staff requests clarification is the condition on page 218 of the Initial Decision which states:
"The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall obtain a written acquiescence by the appropriate State jurisdiction binding them to participate in those Standard Operating Procedures required to be followed by Federal Regulations."
There are several aspects of this condition which the Staff finds ambiguous.
First, it is unclear as to what is meant by an " appropriate State jurisdiction", as well as which " Standard Operating Procedures" are being referred to. As discussed above in this pleading, there are a number of plans which contain numerous standard operating procedures.
Without knowing which plan and operating procedures the Licensing Board is referring to in this condition, it is impossible to determine what is the " appropriate State jurisdiction." Secondly, assuming that the Staff could determine the appropriate jurisdiction, it is unclear whether the Director should obtain the written acquiescence directly from State
, jurisdictions (entities over which the Director has no jurisdiction),
13/ Id. at 13.
. j or indirectly by having FEMA obtain the written acquiescence and forward them, in whatever form they take, to the Director.
Finally, the reference to SOP's " required by Federal Regulations" is unclear. The Staff's uncertainty as to what is intended by this requirements is not aided by searching the body of the Decision since we are unable to locate a discussion which relates directly to the terms of this condition. The Staff is unaware of any NRC regulation which would clarify this condition. The only area of the Initial Decision which, it appears to Staff, could arguably be related to this condition is the requirement for the authentication of 50P's required by Federal Regula-tions.EI However, the Licensing Board's explanation in findings 30 and 31 related to authentication makes clear that the authentication process concernsonlylocalCountyagenciesandorganizations.E/ Consequently, it may be that the Board is referring to these local jurisdiction within the State when it speaks of " appropriate State jurisdiction".
For the above reasons the Staff requests that the Licensing Board j
clarify the above condition as to 1) what action would contstitute "acqui-escence" as used in the condition, 2) what " State jurisdiction" and
" Standard Operating Procedures" are being referred to, and 3) what
" Federal Regulations" are being referred to.
I 14/ Id. at 20.
15/ Id. at 99, 100.
9
. j CONCLUSION The Staff requests that the Licensing Board clarify the above identified portions of the Initial Decision in an order. Such clarification will serve to alleviate any possible misunderstandings as to the implementation or compliance with the above conditions which have been placed on issuance of the Diablo Canyon Full Power License.
Respectfully submitted, Donald F. Hassell Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of September, 1982 e
9 l
I
UNITED STATES OF A**E;.!CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMISS10N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 'Af1D LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
1 50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant thiit Nos. I and -2
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of " MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITI AL DECISION DATED AUGUST 31, 1982," in the above captioned pro-ceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission's internal mail system, this 17th day of September,1982.
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Richard E. Blankenburg Administrative Judge Co-publisher Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South County Publishing Company Washington, D.C.
20555
- P.O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Glenn 0. Bright, Esq.
.)
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. Gordon Silver Administritive Judge Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1760 Alisal Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Washingtc.1, D.C.
20555
- Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Elizabeth Apfelberg Snell & Wilmer 1415 Cozadero 3100 Valley Center San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phcenix, Arizona 85073 Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 321 Lytton Avenue P.O. Box 7442 Palo Alto, California 94302 San Francisco, California 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Mr. Frederick Eissler 3216 North 3rd Street Scenic Shoreline Preservation Suite 202 Conference,.inc.
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Carbara. California 93105 i
Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell F.each, California 93449
l
. i Atc.mic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.
U.S. Tiuclear Regulatory Commission John R. Phillips, Esq.
1.'ashington, D.C.
20555
- Center for Law in the Public Interest Ator.ic Safety and Licensing Board 10951 West Pico Boulevard Panel Third floor U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles, CA 90064 t.'ashington, D.C.
20555
- Byron 5. Georgiou Docketing and Service Section Legal Affairs Secretary U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Governor's Office Washington, D.C.
20555
- State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 11 ark Gottlieb California Energy Coninission David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
lis-18 P.O. Box 1178 1111 Howe Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Sacramento, California 95825 Richard B. Hubbard MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K San Jose, California 95125 John I'arrs, fianaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P.O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Herbert H. Brown Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Harry M. Willis Seymour & Willis 601 California St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108
~
Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Lav;rence 0. Carcia, Esq.
350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California. 94102 Mr. James 0. Schuyler I uclear Pro.iects f ogincer Pacific Gas and Electric Company c
//
~
MvM '6 j gd( ' /
77 Beale Street i
San francisco, California 94016
'DoWil'dT!iasse 1
^
J foums@)l for L9fC Sttm#f