ML20198G682
| ML20198G682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1985 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G688 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512180451 | |
| Download: ML20198G682 (3) | |
Text
- . g t
/
UNITED STATES E
p y,(
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 j
December 11, 1985 Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 MEMORANDUM FOR; Guy H. Cunningham, Executive Legal Director James M. Taylor, Director Q
! Office of Inspection and Enforcement Robert B. Minogue, Director dQ Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research gf i
N Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator Region I k__
/ f Themis P. Speis, Director
}
N
, Division of Safety Review and Oversight, NRR FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REDUCTION IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE (EPZ) FOR CALVERT CLIFFS On November 18, 1985, we received an application for exemption from rule (10 CFR 50.12) from Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) relating to our requirement that an EPZ be established at a radius of " generally" 10 miles (per 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) and Section I of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E). BG&E has proposed that their EPZ be established at a radius of 2 miles from their Calvert Cliffs containment / auxiliary building ccmplex. The application from BG&E raises a number of interesting legal and technical issues including:
Procedural matters - What are the legal / procedural aspects of going forward with this action as opposed to other options such as rule-making or rejection? How, where and when should public participation be encouraged?
l Use of plant-specific vs. generic data - If the licensee relies substantially on generic data, should we consider generic rule-making or a plant-specific /rulemaling combination?
Source term - How will the present source term work impact timely response to BG&E's proposal?
(e.g., should we wait until the completion i
of the review of the new source term data and methodology described in NUREG-0956 and/or the completion of the evaluation of the reference plant risk profiles (NUREG-1150) before we undertake the revi.ew of the BG&E proposal or should we proceed in parallel with the above activities?)
What are the pros and cons of such an approach?
MP L
. Technical options -
What other types of technical solutions might exist (i.e., a distance other than the proposed 2 mile EPZ, phased response within 10 miles, etc.)?
We request your views by December 31, 1985 on these and any other issues which you might consider to be significant. The PWR-B division has the lead responsibility and copies of your comments should be sent to the Project Manager (D. Jaffe, PBD#8) for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
A copy of the application is enclosed.
/
w Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated e
e
.