ML20135E101
| ML20135E101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1985 |
| From: | Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-493 LBP-85-35, OL, NUDOCS 8509160284 | |
| Download: ML20135E101 (8) | |
Text
Yb TJO September 12, 1985 N0:49 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c r,.-
SECRt,y,
Gac T Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3gfifg ERVl> <
In the Matter of
)
)
d' THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441 O L-
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION I.
INTRODUCTION On September 3, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its
" Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, Hy-drogen Control and Diesel Generators" in the operating license proceeding for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.
LBP-85-35, 22 N.R.C.
(September 3, 1985) (served September 4, 1985)
(" Partial Initial Decision").
Applicants hereby move the Licensing Board for clarification of (1) that part of its Order which would require the satisfaction of cer-tain conditions relating to offsite emergency planning prior to issuance of an operating license (as contrasted with authority for operation at greater than 5% of rated power), and (2) the Licensing Board's description (in its Opinion and Findings of Fact) of the schedule for having in place the emergency kits for monitoring and decontamination of property at reception centers, and the locations where the kits will be kept.
8509160284 850912 PDR ADOCM O$000440 0)
C PDR
b I
II.
ARGUMENT A.
Time for Satisfaction of License conditions 4
i The Licensing Board's Order specifies seven conditions i
t which must be met prior to the issuance of " licenses for the t
f operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2."
i Partial Initial Decision at 122.
Three of those conditions re-i late exclusively to the offsite emergency plans.
Condition 2 f
i j
requires that letters of agreement be obtained from all school i
districts which supply buses for use during an evacuation.
Id.
J at 123.
Condition 3 requires that training of fire personnel in monitoring and decontamination procedures be complete, and l
l that all reception centers be provided with the necessary decontamination equipment.
Id.
Condition 4 requires Appli-cants to commit in writing to comply with the commission's re-i l
sponse to the remand of the United States Court of Appeals for i
j the District of Columbia Circuit in GUARD v. NRC, concerning l
medical services for the general public.
Id.1/
i j
Since fuel cannot be loaded, and low power testing cannot l
be accomplished, prior to the issuance of an operating license, I
i conditions 2, 3 and 4 could be interpreted literally to prevent fuel loading and low power testing prior to satisfaction of the i
i i
i I
r i
1/
The Licensing Board acknowledges in its Order that it has l
l already received notice of Applicants' commitment to comply with the Commission's response to GUARD.
Partial Initial Deci-l sion at 123.
See Letter from Colleen P. Woodhead, Counsel for
{
NRC Staff, to the Licensing Board (August 13, 1985).
[
i 4
1
! [
t i
I
,~. -.
c
-,...--- -.,- -.- - -,,... ~
specified conditions.
This consequence would be contrary to the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(d), which specifies that:
no NRC or FEMA review, findings, or deter-minations concerning the state of offsite emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and capability to implement State and local offsite emergency plans are required prior to issuance of an operating license autho-rizing only fuel loading and/or low power operations (up to 5% of the rated power).
(Emphasis added).
Accordingly, Applicants request that the Li-censing Board's Order be modified to specify that conditions 2, and 32/ must be met prior to authorization of operations of greater than 5% of rated power, rather than prior to issuance of an operating license.E!
2/
As stated supra n.2, Applicants already have complied with Condition 4.
3/
Applicants acknowledge the decisions in similar circum-stances in Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-27, 20 N.R.C.
125, 126 (1984), and Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), LBP-82-ll2, 16 N R.C.
1901, 1902-03 (1982).
In both Wolf Creek and Waterford, the licensing board clarified that its order did not require satisfaction of conditions relating to offsite emergency planning prior to operation above 5% power, but declined to modify the order on the theory that it could not authorize a low power license absent a motion filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.57(c).
Customary NRC practice is to issue a low power license even in the absence of a motion filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.57(c).
However, Applicants' concerns would be satisfied with explanatory language similar to that of the licensing boards in Waterford and Wolf Creek. ;
a B.
Emergency Kits for Monitoring and Decontamination of Property at Reception Centers Finding 55 of the Licensing Board's Findings of Fact states that:
55.
Emergency kits containing equip-ment and supplies for monitoring, decontamination ar d handling of property and vehicles are being assembled and will be in place at each reception center prior to fuel load.
[Baer, ff. Tr. 3055] at 3; Baer, Tr. 3056.
Partial Initial Decision at 85 (emphasis added).
First, as Applicants pointed out in their reply findings on emergency planning,d/ the emergency kits will not be stored at the reception centers themselves.
Rather, they will be kept at the fire departments responsible for monitoring and decontamination activities at reception centers so that the equipment can be periodically checked and maintained.
Tr. 3060 (Baer).
Second, Applicants did not in their testimony (or anywhere else) commit to having the kits in place prior to fuel load.
According to Applicants' testimony, at the time of the hearing the kits were " scheduled to be in place for all reception cen-ters prior to fuel load."
Baer (Contention U), ff. Tr.
3055, at 3 (emphasis added).
See Tr. 3056 (Daer)
("...our goal is to have them in place prior to fuel load").
As discussed f/
Applicants' Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-sions of Law Filed by the Other Parties (Emergency Planning and TDI Diesel Generators) (June 10, 1985), at 19 n. 18.
supra, the Commission's regulations prohibit any requirement that the emergency kits be in place prior to operation above 5%
of rated power.
Accordingly, Applicants request that. Finding 55 be modified as follows (with the proposed changes indicated by underscoring):
55.
Emergency kits containing equip-ment and supplies for monitoring, decontamination and handling of property and vehicles are being assembled and are scheduled to be in place for each reception center prior to fuel load.
Id. at 3; Baer, Tr. 3056, 3060.
Conforming changes should also be made to the Opinion at page 16 (i.e., the last sentence should read, "The Board does be-lieve, however, that these letters should be obtained prior to issuance of a full power operating license.") and page 17 (i.e., the sentence "This activity will be completed prior to fuel load." should be changed to "This activity is scheduled to be completed prior to fuel load.").
III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants request that the Li-censing Board clarify (1) its Order to reflect that the condi-tions imposed relating to offsite emergency planning must be satisfied prior to operation above 54 power, (2) its discussion,
5
~
a l
1
[
of emergency kits for monitoring and decontamination of proper-i i
ty at reception centers to reflect that the kits will be main-tained at the fire departments, and that they are scheduled to be (but need not be) assembled and in place prior to fuel load.
Respectfully submitted, 1
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS AND TROWBRIDGE l
t' t
o e b"I (4
Jay b-il ) erg, P.C.
I i
Mici e
A.
Swiger
}
Counsel for Applicants t
1800 M Street, N.W.
t Washington, D.C.
20036 I
(202) 822-1000 i
f Dated:
September 12, 1985 i
i
[
I I
h i
1 e
I i
i l
t I
i
1 I
September 12, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, _ET _AL.
)
50-441 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Appli-cants' Motion for Clarification of Partial Initial Decision" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of September, 1985, to all those on the attached Service List.
h/U IQ1W MICHAEL A.
SWIGER f
DATED:
September 12, 1985 4
A 4
6 g
w w e-y
---a-
-.4,mn-e-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST James P. Gleason, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Appeal Board Panel Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glenn O. Bright Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Terry Lodge, Esquire Appeal Board Suite 105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Donald T.
Ezzone, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appeal Board Lake County Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Center Washington, D.C.
20555 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 Gary J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety and LJ ans'.ng Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulato / Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Ms. Sue Hiatt Prosecuting Attorney 8275 Munson Avenue i
Ashtabula County Courthouse Mentor, Ohio 44060 l
Jefferson, Ohio 44047
._.