ML20042A431
| ML20042A431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1982 |
| From: | Beoletto J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A432 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203230413 | |
| Download: ML20042A431 (9) | |
Text
,
l CCCl"*~'f U
DAVID R. PIGOTT g
SAMUEL B. CASEY Of OPRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
'O
["' ? ?
,n 1 q
A Professional Corporation 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone:
(415) 392-1122 CHARLES R.
KOCHER JAMES A.
BEOLETTO y,jjjo; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY q
,0 P. O. Box 800 x
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue ff Rosemead, CA 91770
-7
,.a b
Telephone:
(213) 572-1900 T ct[lE2279pp.
~ ts z>
sa c....._
- x. g - r f ~~r~,,
Attorneys for Applicant
-\\
Tr~ ' i" Southern California Edison Company 6
, {\\ -
d7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-206 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
)
EDISON CGi4PANY, et al.
)
)
(San Onofre Nuclear
)
Generating Station Unit 1).
)
)
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR ANNUAL REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM.
Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"),
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 550.12, hereby requests an exemption from the schedular requirements of 10 C.F.R. 550.54(t) to permit a one-year extension of the April 1, 1982 deadline for the required annual review of the emergency preparedness program for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 3
&5
/
(
8203230413 820316
-y-PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR O
(" SONGS 1").1/
This extension would not adversely affect public health and safety and is justified by the comprehensive review of existing onsite and offsite emergency preparedness for the site, including SONGS 1, recently conducted and reported upon by the NRC Staff and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") in connection with the on-going licensing proceedings related to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (" SONGS 2 and 3").
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The facts generally describing the state of SONGS 1 emergency preparedness, compliance with applicable regulations, and review of such preparedness by the NRC Staff and FEMA during the period January, 1981 to the present are set forth in the accompanying Affidavit of Kenneth P.
- Baskin, SCE's Manager of Nuclear Engineering, Safety and Licensing.
1/
The applicable schedule for annual review of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program, which was implemented on April 1, 1981 pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(s)(2), is defined by 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t).
This latter section requires the licensee to provide for a review of its emergency preparedness program "at least every 12 months" by persons who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness program.
This section also requires:
(i) documentation of the results of this review, along with recommendations for improvement, in the form of a report; (ii) distribution of the report to the licensee's corporate and plant management, as well as the appropriate State and local governments; and (iii) retention of the report for a period of five (5) years.
Mr. Baskin's affidavit demonstrates that the apparent purpose of 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t) has been satisfied by the on-going review of the SONGS emergency preparedness program, including SONGS 1, conducted by FEMA and the NRC Staff for the purpose of licensing SONGJ 2 and 3.
(Baskin Affidavit, 11 6-10, 12).
The affidavit further demonstrates that the public health and safety will not be adversely affected by the requested extension because SONGS 1 currently complies with applicable NRC emergency planning regulations and further improvements in onsite and offsite emergency preparedness, identified in the on-going review process, are currently being implemented.
(Baskin Affidavit, 11 5, 6,
10 and 12).
Finally the affidavit supports the conclusion that the public interest will be served by the requested extension which promises to best direct and coordinate resources involved in maintaining the emergency preparedness program for SONGS 1, 2 and 3.
(Baskin Affidavit, 1 13).
II.
THE PURPOSE OF 10 C.F.R. S50.54(t)
HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY SATISFIED.
10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t) provides for annual review of a licensee's emergency preparedness program, as follows:
"A nuclear power reactor licensee shall provide for the development, revision, implementation, and maintenance of its emergency prepardeness program.
To this end, the licensee shall provide for a review of its eraergency preparedness program at least every 12 months by persons who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness program.
The review shall include an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments and of licensee drills, exercises, capabilities, and procedures.
The results of the review, along with recommendations for improvements, shall be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and maintained for a period of five years.
The part of the review involving the evaluation for adequacy of interface with State and local governments shall be available to the appropriate State and local governments."
While there does not appear to be any legislative history expressly stating the Commission's intent in adopting the foregoing regulation, the obvious purpose of 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t) is to assure maintenance of the requisite level of emergency preparedness and to document the involved organizations' awareness of recommendations for improvements.
This purpose is plainly satisfied by the recent emergency preparedncss review and related reports prepared by the NRC Staff and FEMA.2/
(Baskin Affidavit, 11 6-10).
No reason appears to repeat the time and expense involved in these efforts for purposes of SONGS 1 simply 2/
Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and FEMA, the NRC S: 3ff has primary responsibility for review of onsite emergency preparedness and FEMA is primarily responsible for review of offsite emergency preparedness.
NRC retains the overall responsibility to determine whether the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can &-d will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
45 Fed. Reg. 82713 (December 16, 1980).
because those efforts were primarily accomplished for purposes of licensing SONGS 2 and 3.
Such conclusion is amply supported by the facts.
As required by 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t), FEMA and the NRC Staff are obviously " persons who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness program; the review of emergency preparedness conducted by the NRC Staff and FEMA included "an evaluation for adequacy of interfaces with State and local governments and of licensee drills, exercises capabilities, and procedures," including SONGS 1 procedures; and "the results" of this review, "along with the recommendations for improvements," within the last three months have been " documented" by FEMA and the NRC Staff and reported to SCE management and the involved State and local jurisdictions, as appropriate.
(Bask.in Affidavit, 11 6-10).
These facts leave little doubt that requisite awareness of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program and the necessary assurance that this program is being maintained have been provided by the activities required for licensing SONGS 2 and 3 such that no further review is required this year.
l
///
///
l
(
///
l
///
/// n
III.
THE STANDARDS FOR EXEMPTION FROM AN NRC REGULATION ARE SATISFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
10 C.F.R. S50.12(a) provides:3/
"The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest."
In granting such exemption the Commission is particularly concerned, in addition to the foregoing standards, that the purpose of the regulation will not be sacrificed and there is present assurance that compliance with the regulation will occur within a reasonable time.
See Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station), CL1-75-9, 2 NRC 180, 186-187 (1975).
Each of these considerations is satisfied under the circumstances.
The Commission is generally authorized by law to promulgate emergency preparedness regulations, this authority 3/
Three general approaches to exemptions or exceptions from the Commission's regulations have been recognized in the decisions.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-77-ll, 5 NRC 719 / april 1, 1977); Kansas Gas & Electric Company, (Wolf Creek Generating Station) CLI-77-1, 5 NRC 1 (January 12; 1977).
Direct application to the Commission under S50.12 is particularly appropriate in those circumstances, such as here, where an operating license has already been issued and no Board currently retains jurisdiction over the license.
See WPPSS, supra; Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna),
NRC 2 Nucl. Reg. Rptr. (CCH), 1 30,516.03 fn. 4 (August 21, 1980).
f '
necessarily confers the necesscry discretion to grant exemptions from such regulation consistent with the public health and safety.
42 U.S.C. 2201 p.; S109(b),
P.L.96-295, 94 Otat. 780 784 (June 30, 1980).
Granting the requested extension of time for the next annual review of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program will not endanger the public health and safety.
In the first place, SONGS 1 currently complies with applicable NRC energency planning regulations.
(Baskin Affidavit, 1 5).
Secondly, this compliance has been effectively reviewed by the NRC Staff and FEMA in the process of their review of SONGS 2 emergency preparedness, consistent with requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t).
(Baskin Affidavit, 11 6-10).
Thirdly, again consistent with the purpose of 10 C.F.R.
S50.54(t), steps are currently underway to implement the recommendations for improvements made as a consequence of the recent full-scale exercise involving SONGS 1 and the ongoing FEMA and NRC Staff review effort.
(Baskin Affidavit, 11 6, 10, 12).
Finally, granting the requested extension for review of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program is in the public interest.
SCE is committed to continuing its program for an annual review of the SONGS emergency preparedness program, as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 50.54(t).
(Baskin Affidavit, 1 13).
Thus, there is present assurance of compliance with this regulation in the future.
The.
extension is only necessary to avoid a technical violation of the schedular requirements of the regulations as regards SONGS 1.
See footnote 1, supra.
As more fully discussed above, the purpose of the regulation has been fulfilled and no health or safety issue is presented by the requested extension.
Accordingly, the public interest would only be served by the extension, which would permit the resources that would otherwise have to be devoted to an essentially duplicative annual review effort to concentrate on full-scale exercise preparation and implementation of improvements identified in the recently completed review effort.
(Baskin Affidavit, 1 13.)
The public interest would be further served by the cost-savings involved by allowing the annual review schedule for SONGS 1 emergency preparedness to be more closely coordinated with the analogous requirements for SONGS 2.
Such coordination makes good sense since the emergency preparedness program for SONGS 1 is in all critical respects identical to the program for SONGS 2 and 3.
(Baskin Affidavit 1 13).
Under the circumstances, SCE submits that the purposes of 10 C.F.R. S50.54(t) have been achieved and the standards for exemption from the scheduled requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. S50.12(a) have otherwise been satisfied.
No reason appears to conduct an independent review of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program until at least April 1, 1983.
CONCLUSION SCE accordingly requests an exemption from the April 1, 1982 deadline for independent review of the SONGS 1 emergency preparedness program imposed by 10 C.F.R. S50.54(t) to permit suen review to be completed no later than April 1, 1983.
Dated:
March 18, 1982.
Respectfully submitted, DAVID R. PIGOTT SAMUEL B. CASEY Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A.
BEOLETTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
/S/
JAMES A.
BEOLETTO James A. Beoletto One of Counsel I
i l
f i
l.
f i
_. _