ML20027C584
| ML20027C584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1982 |
| From: | Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8210180206 | |
| Download: ML20027C584 (6) | |
Text
10/12/82 f :-
DOCKETED USNEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12 GH 15 N0:24 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0Fr;CE OF SECRETAW' DOCKETl!!G & SERVICE BRANCH In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION This motion is filed with respect to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision, dated September 14, 1982.
Consumers Power Company (" Licensee") is seeking clarification of that portion of the Licensing Board's decision concerning the legal requirement derived from its reading of NUREG-0654 as that document addresses the subject of relocation (Decision, slip op. pp. 5-6).
The Licensing Board correctly used NUREG-0654 as a l
I guide in attempting to flesh out the meaning of subsection (8) of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 / as that requirement may apply to a l
l contention asserting that licensee "should be required to l
I
~*/
The relevant portion of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47 states:
l "The offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:
(8) adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and main-tained."
l r
B210180206 821012 PDR ADDCK 05000155
}Q&
0 PDR
n o
V assist persons without vehicles to leave the area during an emergency evacuation."
It also appears reasonable to assess the relationship between the guidelines covering the initial notification system (Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654) and the reloca-tion guidelines on pages 61-62 of NUREG-0654 to determine the nature of the " relocation requirement" under Commission regulations.
In so doing, the Licensing Board stated:
Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 requires that special attention be paid to households that lack an automobile and are therefore j
dependent on public transportation.
1 NUREG-0654 also requires that the initial notification system will assure direct coverage of essentially 100% cf the population within 5 miles of the site.
We construe the means of relocation requirement in relation to the 100%
notification requirement.
There is no point in requiring notification of people who lack vehicles unless the regulations contemplate that, after notifying them, there will be some way for them to be relocated, if that is appropriate.
Consequently, the evacuation plan should be interpreted to require bc th notifica-tion and relocation of individuals.
(Decision, slip op. pp. 5-6 (Citations omitted)).
The exact meaning of the relocation requirement as fashioned by analogy from the notification requirement is unclear.
One interpretation (and the one that Licensee
]
believes is intended) is that the Licensing Board has reached the common sense conclusion that the Commission's regulations require that one objective of state and local emergency plans I
is to strive for relocation, if necessary, of essentially 100%
r of the individuals in the relevant emergency planning zone
r U ("EPZ").
Licensee has no quarrel with this interpretation.
Another interpretation is that since NUREG-0654 requires notification of 100% of the population within the relevant EPZ, a concomitant requirement exists to guarantee 100% relocation of the same population.
Licensee disagrees with this interpretation.
Such an interpretation would be based on a premise not supported by the Commission's emergency planning regulations, namely, that said regulations require a firm uncompromising guarantee that essentially 100% of the population within the relevant EPZ will be notified by the initial notification system.
Neither Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 nor NUREG-0654 contain such a requirement.
Section D.3. of Appendix E makes it quite clear that the notification requirement is a design objective. The meaning of and philosophy underlying the term " design objective" is found on page 3-1 of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654, where it is stated that:
This design objective [ initial notifi-cation] does not, however, constitute a guarantee that early notification can be j
provided for everyone with 100% assurance or that the system when tested under j
actual field conditions will meet the design objective in all cases.
I Thus, it is clear that licensed operators of nuclear power reactors are required by the Commission's regulations to use their best efforts to achieve the objective of notification of essentially 100% of the population within the relevant EPZ.
l l
r
_4_
Given this perspective, it must be concluded that any require-ment for relocation fashioned by analogy from the initial notification regulation necessarily must also mean that state and local governments will use their best efforts to achieve the relocation of essentially 100% of the population, if appropriate, within the relevant EPZ.
Licensee requests the Licensing Board to clarify, as explained above, the meaning of the " relocation requirement" specified in the September 14 Partial Initial Decision.
If that requirement is intended to attain a guarantee of 100%
relocation of the population in the relevant EPZ, Licensee requests the Licensing Board to reconsider that determination based on the foregoing legal analysis, and to modify its September 14 decision accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
% -: b b 0 g9 J6seph Gallo One of the attorneys for Consumers Power Company I
I Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated:
October 12, 1982
4' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS. POWER' COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Po:er Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME and MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION were served on all persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 12th day of October, 1982.
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Oscar H.
Paris U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission Office of the Secretary i
Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 4
-vn-_
,w..
- Richard J.
Goddard, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms. Christa-Maria Richard G.
Bachmann, Esquire Route 2!, Box 108C Counsel for NRC Staff Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jim Mills Washington, D.
C.
20555 Route 2, Bcx 108 Charlevoi::, Michigan 49720 Herbert Semmel, Esquire Urban Law Institute Ms. JoAnne Bier Antioch School of Law 204 Clinton 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. John O'lleill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664
%d g7 J6seph Gallo l
l l
l l
l l
I
__