ML20039C698
| ML20039C698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1981 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039C699 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112300054 | |
| Download: ML20039C698 (11) | |
Text
.
12/28/81 UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0failSSION BEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY AND LIC gj!NG BOARD In the flatter of
)
)
SOUTHERii CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPANY,)
)
50-362 OL
)
m (San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
4 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONSOLIDATED g}
DEC3 01981 > $
INTERVENORS' t10 TION TO RE0 PEN THE RECORD s atum euusscumum naser sumers n I.
INTRODUCTION D
By its Order of October 6, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board closed the record in this proceeding subject to certain conditions.
The record was closed subject to receipt and inclusion in the record of three docunents from the Federal Energency flanagenent Agency (FEt1A).
These documents consisted of:
(1) a letter responding to a series of questions posed by the Board on the record to Mr. Perry, Counsel for FEr1A; (2) a statement of FEMA's position on whether emergency plans should include arrangenents for medical services for nenbers of the general public who may be injured in a radiological emergency; and (3) the further findings end deteminations concerning the adequacy of the San Onofre emergency plans referred to in tir. Jaske's nenorandun of July 14, 1981 to Mr. Grimes.
OSS o$0a$$[
1 PDR
~
I
')
tuk _ _ _
b50 7sog
Items 1 and 2 were included in the record by this Board's Order of October 22,19C-).
Iten 3 was received by the tiRC Staff on December 2, 1981 and served upon the Roard and the parties by the "fiRC Staff flotion to Supplement the Record" of that date.
Pursuant to the Board's Order of October 6,1981, the parties have ten days following receipt of the further FEttA findings to move to reopen the record for further hearings for good cause shown.
Should a notion to reopen be filed, parties in opposition to such a nation, were permitted ten days following receipt of the notien to file a response. On December 16, 1981, Consolidated Intervenors consisting of GUARD, Carstens, et al., filed their "liction to Reopen the Record and Supplement Findings of Fact In Response to fiRC Staff's t-totion To Supplenent the Record" (Intervenors' liotion). The f1RC Staff hereby files its response in opposition to that notion.
II.
DISCUSSI0'l A.
The FEliA Uodate Evaluation On December 1,1981, FEtiA transmitted to the flRC Staff the "FEl1A Region IX Update Evaluation with Respect to the Adequacy of Plans and the Inplementation Capabilities of State and Local Governments Related to San Onofre fluclear Generating Station" (the FE!!A Update Evaluation) dated November 16, 1981. The Staff will first discuss the effect of the FEfiA Update Evaluation upon the record developed in this proceeding on the issue of emergency preparedness.
The fiRC Staff continues to be of the view that the record in this proceeding supports a finding by this Licensing Board with respect to the issues in controversy, that the state of onsite and offsite energency
preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological energency.
~
(See 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1)). This position was urged upon the Boa-d at I
the hearing by both the NRC Staff and FEMA.
(Staff Exhibit 12, p. 13-4; Additional Testinony of Kenneth Naunan, Jr.).
It was argued by the Staff that, although the interim FEttA findings of June 3,1981 (Staff Exhibit 11) identified deficiencies related to offsite emergency preparedness for the San Onofre units, the corrective actions which remain to be done are of a straightforward nature.
I Deficiencies have been identified, corrective action has been proposed br Applicants and concurred in by FEMA (see Applicants' Exhibits 144 and 146) and it can be lef t to the NRC Staff, in conjunction with FEMA, to ensure completion prior to full power operation.
(Grimes,Tr.
11,009-014). Mr. Grines reviewed Applicants' Exhibit 144 on the record
]
and discussed each of the items listed in Enclosure 2 which defined the Q
corrective action program, indicating those which might be i
straightforward and these which might require the exercise of some judgment. Mr. Grimes testified that the seven items were generally of a straightforward nature.
(Grimes,Tr. 11,159-164).. Item 4 dealing with physical improvements to the interin Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and Item 7 dealing with enhancement of the Public Information Progran required some exercise of judgment but, as noted below, these items are generally resolved in the FEliA Update Evaluation. fir. Grimes noted an eighth item requiring corrective action dealing with the precise nature i
of the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) boundary for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3).
(Id.) Mr. Naunan of FEMA also noted this iten and concluded that it was easily resolved.
(Naunan,Tr. 10.990-992).
The FEMA Update Evaluation presents nothing which would cause the Staff to vary from its prior position.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grines attached hereto). The FEMA Update Evaluation raises no new deficiencies and indeed nakes clear that two of the deficient areas, i.e., improvenent
,i of the interin EOF and the Public Infornation Progran, have been generally resolved.
(See III.G.2 and III.G.7 of the FEMA Update Evaluation). While a drill is reconnended to test the interin EOF i
j facility and personnel functions (see IV.B at of the FEMA Update Evaluation), the Staff continues to be of the view that such a drill is a straightforward iten.
The Staff connents on each of the deficiency itens follows.
(See to Apolicants' Exhibit 144).
References will be to the itens identified in the FEMA Update Evaluation and will include as a separate iten, Iten 8, specification of the plume exposure pathway EPZ boundary.
Item 1:
1 Tnis iten required the developnent of a nunber of SOPS dealing with a variety of topics.
Sections III.G.1 and III.G.3 of the FEMA Update Evaluation address this subject.3I FEMA notes that 50P development remains to be completed and that certain SOPS will require major i
nodifications. The nodifications discussed by FEMA include a need for
~1/
The itens discussed in III.G.1 through III.G.7 of the FEMA Update Evaluation do not correspond numerically with the itens presented on of Applicants' Exhibit 144.
The Staff will discuss these itens in the order in which they appear in Applicants' Exhibit 144.
+
t
~...
_~
cooperative developnent and local jurisdictional approval and the resolution of certain inconsistencies.
(III.A; III.D; III.I). The Staff continues to be of the view that finalization of the SOPS required by this iten is straightforward and that diligent applica tion of Applicants' and State and local resources will resolve the matter.
Furthermore, the L;;rd need not await finalization before it can note its finding of reasonable assurance with respect to issues in controversy. (See Affidavit of Brian K. Grimes).
Item 2:
This item calls for procure 1ent of equipment required to carry out 4
radiation nonitoring functions.
FEMA addresses this iten in III.G.1 and III.G.S.
FEr!A notes that equipment concerns bave partially been met with jurisdictions reporting about 90% of the equipment delivered but that equipment lists were not clear.
FEttA has requested information to clarify this area (III.3) and, assuning favorable clarification, will find this iten satisfactory (IV.E). Again, the-iten is of a straightforward nature and requires the exercise of due diligence to ensure rapid resolution.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grimes).
Item 3:
J.
This items called for the developnent of additional connunications capability.
FEttA addressed this iten in III.G.1 and Iil.G.5.
This iten i
deals primarily with equipment procurement and, as noted in the discussion above related to Item 2, pending clarification, this iten will be satisfactorily resolved.
This iten is straightforward in nature and will be finally resolved upon verification by FEliA of equipment procurement.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grines).
. Item 4:
This item calls for physical improvements to be made to the interim EOF. This iten is discussed by FEMA in III.G.2 and FEMA notes that both the interim EOF procedures and the development of the facility are satisfactory.
A drill is recommended to test the facility and personnel functions (IV.B) but such a drill is a straightforward iter and, in the Staff's view, is confirnatory in nature.
(See Affidavit of Brian K.
Grines).
Item 5:
This item called for the installation of sirens. This iten is addressed by FEMA in III.G.4 The sirens are installed but tests remain to be conducted. Such testing again may be described as confirmatory.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grines).
Item 6:
This item called for additional training in the use of new and existing procedures, facilities and equipment.
This iten is addressed by FEMA in III.G.1 and III.G.6.
FEMA notes that training is being conducted and personnel have attended courses, but this item has only partially been met. Training program information was confusing and unclear.
FEMA has requested program clarification. The training program lacked organization, an overview, and a long-tern schedule of courses.
Drill 1
demonstration has not been completed (III.F; IV.F; IV.G; IV.H). Again, in the Staff's view, this item is straightforward and requires simply the exercise of due diligence on the part of the Applicants and the State and local jurisdictions to adequately define the program and to conduct the confirmatory drills.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grir.s).
. Item 7:
This item calls for completion of the Public Information Progran.
This iten is discussed by FEttA in III.G.7.
FEttA notes that the p >gran has been submitted and is satisfactory.
Conpliance with this standard is considered to have been met. (IV.D).
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grines)
Item 8:
This iten developed at the hearing and is related to the precise boundary to be set for the plume exposure pathway EPZ. This iten is addressed by fella in III.G.4 FEttA recommends that the plune exposure pathway EPZ include the entire jurisdiction of San Juan Capistrano and also Dana Point.
Emergency planning in both of these areas is complete with respect to the requirenents imposed upon the plume exposure pathway EPZ with the exception of prompt notification.
(PilmerTestinony,
- p. 19). Consequently, FE!!A recomends that some fonn of pronpt alerting in the area of San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point outside the Applicants' suggested plume exposure pathway EPZ should be provided (III.C; IV.C).
The Staff has no objection to the FEftA recommendation. The Staff would note that NUREG-055dl sets out criteria with respect to the means for providing prompt alerting and notification of the population.
While the criteria do call for the capability of providing an alert signal throughout the plume exposure pathway EPZ within 15 ninutes, it is sufficient that there be direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles and special arrangements made to assure 100%
i 2/
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of fluclear Power Plants,"
NUREG-0654, FEttA-REP-1, Revision 1, November 1980.
4.
coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ.
(NUREG-0654, p. 3-3).
There is evidence of record that helicopters and emergency vehicles equipped with loudspeakers would be available to alert and notify the public within the expanded plume exposure pathway EPZ.
(Applicants' Exhibit 53,Section V.B.2.a(1); Turner, Tr. 8917; Coleman, Tr. 8597-8598; Killingsworth, Tr. 8271-8281). Additional sirens are also a feasible option.
Consequently, resolution of this iten can be readily achieved once agreement is reached anong local jurisdictions with respect to the precise boundary of plume exposure pathway EPZ.
The areas which will require supplemental notification are well defined, and the capabilities available to assist in that notification are also well defined.
The Staff has no objection to implementation of the FEliA recomendation but considers this to be a straightforward item which can be left for resolution by the NRC Staff in conjunction with fella prior to full power operation.
(See Affidavit of Brian K. Grimes).3_/
From a discussion of the matters contained within the fella tipdate Evaluation, the Staff submits that it is clear that there is no need to reopen the record for further hearings in this proceeding. The FEt1A r
Update Evaluation is evidence of the continuing efforts on the part of of 3/
As stated in the letter transmitting the Staff's proposed findings on December 3,1981, the Staff intends to submit supplemental findings, as appropriate, depending upon ultimate disposition of Intervenors' motion by the Bosrd.
. Applicants and State and local jurisdictions in inplementing final corrective action. flo new deficiencies are identified hut rather " great progress" is noted in addressing the corrective action items (III.A) and the actions voluntarily taken by the local jurisdictions in response to the init'al FEt1A findings and their accomplishnents at this juncture have been " excellent" (V.A). The FE!!A Update Evaluation closes certain items and narrows the scope of the additional work needed to be done to resolve the outstanding items. Consequently, the Board is now in a better position than it was at the close of the record on September 30, 1981 to judge for itself that the items requiring resolution may be left to the oversight of FEt:A and the fiRC Staff and that the Board nay now find that the requisite reasonable assurance called for by the Commission's regulations with respect to the issues in controversy exists. The Staff will now discuss the argunents nade by Intervernors in their notion to reopen.
B.
The flotion to Reopen On December 16, 1981, Consolidated Intervenors moved to reopen the record and supplement their findings of fact in this proceeding. The thrust of Intervenors' argunents on both points is unclear. There is no claim that the FEIM Update Evaluation has raised any new deficiencies in the energency preparedness area.
Intervenors do, however, allege that the FEfM Update Evaluation, " casts serious doubts on the applicants' promises to upgrade the status of emergency preparedness." (See Intervenor's Motion, p. 2).
Intervenors again appear confused by the nature of the findings required to be made by this Board with respect to the issues in controversy. Not every issue need be. fintily resolved as Intervonors appear to suggest. What is required is an evidentiary showing with respect to those natters in controversy of reasonable assurance that, at the time an operating license issued, adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a rEdiological emergency at SONGS 2 and 3.
The record developed supports such a finding. The FEf1A Update Evaluation confirns the soundness of the record developed and demonstrates that a reasonable assurance finding is proper. Additional hearings are not required.
Further, to comply with this Board's Order of October 6,1981, Intervenors must do more than suggest that "further hearings and written testimony would be helpful." The Board was clear in its Order that showing of good cause required to reopen the record must he
... based upon particular parts of the FEttA findings and denonstrate that an opportunity for cross-exanination (as distinguished, for example, from an opportunity for further written conments) is required for a full and time disclosure of the facts.
(Order, p. 2)
Intervenors have failed totally to demonstrate any need for reopened hearings.
Their general references to the FEMA Update Evaluation are insufficient to satisfy the requirement imposed by the Board in its Orde r.
With respect to the only four allegations nade in Intervenors' Motion, all parties knew at the close of the record that S0Ps were not i
finalized, that training was incomplete, that certain drills had not been conducted and that siren testing was yet to be done. The finalization of the precise t.oundary of the plume exposure pathway EPZ was also before
- the Board and the parties. Further hearings will add nothing to this state of the record and, indeed, Intervenors do not suggest with any kind of reasonable specificity what areas discussed in the FEt1A lipdate Evaluation require cross-exanination to assure the full and true disclosure of the facts.
For that natter, since the FEl1A Update Evaluation raises nothing substantively new, there is no need to probe further the very matters which were extensively exanined during the prior hearings.
In short, the record is adequate as it stands. As argued above and as reemphasized by the Affidavit of Brian K. Grimes, the Roard may nake the findings it is called upon to make in this area.
C0!1CLUSI0f1 For the reasons given above, the Board should deny Intervenors' "ftotion to Reopen the Record and Supplement Findings of Fact...."
Respectfully submitted,
//
Lawrence J. Chandler Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda,ftaryland this 28th day of December, 1981