Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for November 1987. Pages 383-447
	ML20148K624
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1988
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V26-N05, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V26-N5, NUDOCS 8803310244
	Download: ML20148K624 (74)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:/ / NUREG 0750 Vol. 26, No. 5 Pages 383-447 M 7 ? ? @9.74 x 7 p W.. w w 7/r"$F"WWWMWh G1 Wg(sylONw(?W.?w;.,anggy;p- % 3.f w uy ,e,s, w f' m' #w;

y yw a.

~,s $w%d 554 NA %, uw:' S, {@m.,Qf J w. h EAS?B5d i3ColVIMiSSION4 1s m a n m a$h & 4'W % :;; n;btjyJ a w yp: :,p1[ X 4: m + n 7.%; } A.De:.?;q3i k I

w. e.4;9,yW,;% f h qlw:fq,;[* tww.hlov wm-

.u m m'a,; n. w.u/:.\\w . ~;. + w. .n m Aw

'l@

2 l;4 6 % igr Wk' 6.r?l%]if %W ~s ? nby;;t%;r ll'- Llf'd;y'Qpj yf@;1QSff[ '_b 'i q3r ' m..u 9 *. : t;+f :&j,gN:.s y p'.:f m c.9 us.. e r fy49 kW.f *: ..pwy M:3 t '9 ._y yx 4' ~i~-- v y:)w &p; N,. %' !lOtb W: d - W [e,. it Rt.. .,. #px5 v %m.u m 1 :1.

~

c ..~C4.. 19: n.p.cp; q pt v.B: :.V - ?. '6 ,h,y ;T 3 ? f ; ^ ' v a.. ', jfd* lf tf, a :. A;m.. 4 f c 4s. _3

m.wrlT.m,, e,;My.

Q,- er p M s. u sp y; .sw. .g y. s ~, t 9 p, t q# j'y, Q, [ p ( $j,N *f" gil]e.f ) i,, ' f..r,. y, *w?. ;j. }.R;, .nr .sc- ~ x u, y. ~ v '.h L; - 4., ' ? ~ (N. L ~ 'gf .','i+(, ].q{ _.l, _ y ' [,g } 4:q he - 'f j j *,. j . j,4 i [N 9...-:6 % J.',j p/jVp;->!L Q;.t q T;. s ~ ?.. ! j. '.p

[

, o y 4. V

^ '

-,Y n ' *kI.: 'lTp_j $l lb'Q,.'b;lf Nkhh ;'Y}.. f Y$th%a;k;).$.... ;9 ( f fi$ Q4M2rd% ,;;. y!ik/N j khAd$k$hN2hbd.. f_e, ~'.j< [ g't.. I-k $hsf s j .a.T',y;,p* 2

v. w'M,.

w a,, m a.mv. e,au.A '<.h)y m'.v,s a 1 ~ m II ~~;*',Q-t'y h s .:y .b< , <,. 2.' :

' ;, ' ' r..,.s n > $. /1
"P q-q'*

. 5 4 9 Ot ~ <j<. U6. N,c.f?e fy ~1

'y<

s t %-s ~ ),4 ' < 1' 'l. !y. n.

s. ;* '

.7,r, 5 ; .a, f, _ d' f r bj' g'M *C ;A 't 5 4,'f)': & _ ; } ~ j, a,. "( n s y , ;,n + -Qi a. s pr PDR r

i l Available from l Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 j A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication. Single copies of this publication are available from Naticnal Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 j Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492 8925)

NUREG-0750 Vol. 26, No. 5 Pages 383-447 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES November 1987 This report includes the issuances received during the specified period { from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significance. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the Division of Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) J 4 1 .,______.._.,m.

....... _. -.. -. -.. -........ -.. ~ -.. ~ .-....-...-~ -.. I COMMISSIONERS t Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts Frederick M. Bernthat Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers l i i J d i Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panet B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel t 4 !I

?WQ $$roft$S.X&)t $$. M6$j5M.h,W"NhMQMMVMgM*Q*$QIG.4h;y'*LNW"Q':QWG .. w,p, v.,,.. n.., g,..e.a.,,,,. &. w - ,.~ ..~ % Y 25 %12.cm#,&s*ngi kd:; . &yu y,v. M'Mp..T.d M3k: ,f% g e w. n:j,T eM&fMib

.dn.% Mc'.b a.H.,ey35.#Q.Md..x,

W m;s>k m@:h$,$yf.y :.,e. ww g 4 W & p$. w,9.. Q,;g\\;g -s.y g udf E g w@- QC CONTENTS .p.- a 9; 5.< h'&Ga%p%fLfg.k;.y}, $h;N x. hhj Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3. i [4 &eg +j k, hM[@h.dhhNhqlj.y-m.D.a. 9 m'W "d.,,< LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .",.M.v..y Q, JE' 5$ GM'V (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 4gd' $.<,c'sy. gt P.M (J' M'..'@? -n; A d;F*b.@b.4WdV 13 c'6 'M .M Docket 50 322 OL 3 (Emergency Planning) sW4Mf.'y. ~,MW,i/WDMik.. N. D5.1 1.'G,, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI 8712, November 5,1987... 383 Y L. i- .WM; x- . 9 '. i W h W M iY M ;r; n /4 4. D M k 3Ml5...?/;h PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMP5 HIRE, et al. ',fic:y.wd.' pM.:.r&M.n. 'p. n$J%v . w ~. mu N..p< N. Ww.s,%. i.h.. -)p $...(A,w g,) t c Q ,1 (Seabrook Stau.on, Units 1 and 2) 5fMM '6Ry' 4 p Ap Dockets 50-443 OL-1,50-444-OL 1 (Onsite Emergency % :. ? g{,Y.- %. w

m. M., #.a.;. Dt* M.;;g.g'cy.cfA M g &c.4.g Planning and Safety Issues) y 774.$N f8M MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI 8713, November 25, 1987.. 400

.R. $4pW;t Am m D..w $.hNU/.N.if,q%f,y%:,MM...W...y%.-c m

y w

'j:M. . k M Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards 7e 5p. c.. 8m

3 9.%, w M..'$n if FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY t.

w Y.f'$.$Mf-Mc c r. r.y M ' d 5,y, e d..a.3 h fM. d fP<!i@b ('Ibrkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) ':MQ d N ~. a. 3.%Q..m.MM.m$.,.,Mp3 Dockets 50 250-OLA 1,50-251-OLA 1 (Vessel Flux Reduction)

n n a

.{.6 .M MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 878, November 4,1987... 407 .,..,c.g.., s.c, f. g-M. n.w, e.+ I, s... y.. n.

.s.

. s., %... e... 7.s. .w. .w.. ,#' Qipp,e.:N L j' ".f]. ; s

U -: -

~ ~ PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) - 1.,(y .s .. f'.9 '. j Dockets 50-443-OL 1,50-444-OL 1 (Onsite Emergency N,,, ,,j N. V Planning and Safety Issues) ' %, 'i' y..r.f ; i.,,.'. ' k-q DECISION, ALAB 879, November 20,1987................... 410 -.4 ,.n, .y. n y

r. 3 f 7;

,,j .

9. f. q.

'.. v.; i '.. x/.., Iwuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards m c 9, o ,,. n.a. r. ,y y:

.... u. y. ;mc4~c,~.;

t# ai-m.:. ..g 7. e - .t. - w a n.,. , ; 3. 1, ^ 5 ALFRED L MORABITO '. 9 .. D j)dy[ S.C. 'M.. '/. %,:5; ' #T y -.Kd.f, ~ (Senior Operator License for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1) '.,. O >,. W q W '4. : Docket 55-60755 (ASLBP No. 87 551-02 SP) r. ,,; i;7 y 3:Q.- , g .7 J 'q MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 87 31, November 24, 1987.. 436 A, ;e ;; o.

c. M o.r t::. d.. :. ?..L %. '..4 w :.c...

L ... %.,. 3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY m , C... n. g y ~ 4 ^. o,., ,g., t. - Q", ?,~~l Docket 50-322 OL 3 (ASLBP No. 85-539-07 OL) .Q (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) gf. M.~ g e, J,. c a ,%....l.%n v.M.'je;. [ ' p. 7c., ', ;. d (Emergency Planning) ,.; ?. f I ,g g <, jg..,g..,..,-g,. 4.. 3,.. g.,,,3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 87 30, November 6,1987... 425 .sn ...e1. s. , * :.). ~, y, ":;.;. ;; q;n.. c,;y *u $ 4.~ ., J. ':3 y. ..,a , O; . ~._. ; ,. w,- s sT% , 'e t ,b' 1 ; s ; ~.")% 4 ,s ' Sc .,: ' ; e .~ 2.. e o'.. \\ .. # $[.', 'b. r... y ^

- Q'

,} I,

y y t -: -

.r .)- . ;. ;j, -..,; \\. ),. s., ' ?. t l;, ;;.g ;;..' ;, g ..o e +, h$. .'s ',[,*q ~r., I,* f'Q + ? . i-., $.5f[, ,.~,,~},, ..'?* e% + w =. - i, --e r a p y s+

s..,,, m, a p, q.,- q *-.,ay y.cf..-= gv.yg m.,giy.r..c g

, m # . ~. -... a .. a,.. y [ [ {,f;4.I n, a.., m,, ft', g (J*y,* {,, I,. N m w

w...

w. . e.. :A', =.~.w-....... 1.4(',', g f e # y ' t..i :A. v+ n. d', d'* .s s o e ., 3. * ( J t T .' c.g.,, g*'.*

.p 4

,..h,*j Q..',.F; *;p.#.5% f b, .( q v ,3 u" z g [...*A Ipy 3 ;'. _ '-s... .,r.,.'..,\\',,'y m. , j ' * *.h e-(. , 2 * ', i w % f: "N N E, W'* if & & Y?'CNO W'l: N h,':,(,gf,(,-li?&.% A i ;,, '. :',,.~ :l, - f,>.:.i :L. .$ '3. b.ll.g. %, r.. r ~. :r.

x.... : -

ws :.. :R, ..n3,, w .t.v.::.e.. y y m.?, , a ;.f;Q'*:. z,.,&y y:. n. w... n.. .t 1 s R,?h Q7 R... c r.. ~. x:M :. (: % ., t:h e 3,c.';-

.

t.

c ?. .g. -

\\,.., i: L., n.

V_ dv.1, E, n !.'.;J .. vv s.m q:.m,".r w'-i.fM",p;;7 ".."y,.N.e ' y; y:; b."* (, n@n,. 3 "M .f,. ys ' ~; ix. s . up..n.+ - - ; * * ',[ 4 7 , <: : p.

lY'b'hp$7:~-5M'$1]QMD%.w%eM&W;N.d$ ';UNh.g@W78th;k.%'a@@iO6.7.4@.hp NT6dNM M dW% %9MAMW. M M A.W qww wu.:ltzer. IM D OM M M @MW$@& M M M M M M M M MhM MD%MMW'4MMM%SD h.W MWN'1,y'r.v p@ik.:)1, gc.,y4W'..t. .M $wi@dj$M Me M v m.,%., 4q,$m Q,y. d, h.m $) a % ' M [ &,* M @ &rv.x.$. F,v... w;Mvy. e,, tM. u. @ m. w.. A.. w A r. W. m, W.. & @%. H. f W hj&wE-if s w. .r W ~ ea.og.A r, a.- s.-. ..s n s M. PW ~ 4,.:.v.o u e

4. g$ k Yly'Q, h> w } h '. Xyi> 4

.M u.~ h $' d7 Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge p ? %.rqh.,ts n. &y. ; &s

Q ~. M A Q - W y,.j;f, "

n /p q .m * .~ GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORA' ION hI h i h h (Three Mile' Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) NMMUN$kMUWhyggy Docket 50-320 (ASLBP No. 86-534-01-OL) (Civil Penaky) bif MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, AM NoenM, N m o 45 WEf@$w.sdMQfR NWM.W$.,wg.~,.W 1d1&w.we... m. e, a

0..r.m. o..

b m& Qtf= E-w 4.3 4se, w-y

. W w 'Q. a,ird. @3xn y(r.w

.m : J.,+..;4g, -r. m.,.

~x.s...&..

r,b. geg2* s c..m - - mn-w w.

,a,p?y. W: q.%y. y((.,.bf. V.<;J.+f..; g;;,9 pt.

.- p q.e c U , S.,:e. -e..w+ r t a u f - , w.;G gh' s N*., :sq r.,.02 ;;*4.. y'.. Q' 6* c". W > y !,R, ., N lN "J *.W. l'.4 ' f h,,Y l*O S.L. ..,.,.',.O.n RM =jWM *.Q % .' O . ; V., O,Q%, h;. t* ,~ i f j .j e

.O

.~ m 'g*, Y ', $ e l (,,s' i

4 af

. Mz.. &w;,'. /. ?f,-

c. x y,v., %- w' c-ev f

/.6 i ,4',.,- Q 4 ,g * ( r w,, a* s. (gg ',.f 4, _py g.,,. i,n.:t'.,*. .t 4 t,, g 7., A,...,, C, ; .,, *j

1 f.

? R. a f e' .t., A g eg ,,', s] k..' - Q g*]' [4

, 4. r A.

> r., * ' f. * < f * * 'i*.",' y p s5:/ 5 ' t.}g..., fG..* 1,.y l's...* l*-r i ca, s'~ S, q*f.PJ.,*s, i. j * >,,., ' '.n ; ; V,- - 3 e. 4 /-< e gaf 7Q'f*..-- e} ',,. g *n ey., ,, C'sr e l 'n Jg

e. t.

'F -

r,, a,s.

Q' ' "t'.' e,**

, ' n' * #

- [A, ] * . A, :y.,,;

c *, - -

.. m.< n. ",~ ? :*.,,,.. 3 s - v; i y o.y/.;, ' r y,. -*g'._- ., ~ e. .7 a e.<* ,,,. -' /, 1* ?,(l.*jeE*4**'* ^ f*.,) e, ej..[

4. 1*

,.',..+: s s. e ps y ,,?'.'. s.a %e,.' L *. ,,,_b,._-e 4 4

4.., 9...
.**i^ U. {-

w',r,p ~,.,% .* 1'.,e,,-' c 4 .s,- s .s s,.y 3 , / / "'-a ... o ,a 4 ,t, .,P .r z '.,s;*. _ ,t .,,,.,, * ; %.9*lg >

f,py -*,,

,egayc

~- s
y s L.,.

,,s,, v s ;' ,z s. j;:;; n W ;:.pf' % [' Q j U.W,,* . - w' I ~ * *.,5) cly .=. p.g.. e. g ; 6, - .?3,p ~,L".,S, [ U 6.r.*i,/.{fJ. *U I.q Q,#>. - a m c n;m* Q t,, g. .c'*". ..'ed.* -*,. ../* f.~', .>. ~, s

T'* 3 @. g eh Y.M'4~ g'E*~,1);,,... ' e - %' t-t i*,?IQ.. ) c.

s g

tC $.th C

//w-7*y7-i < L M&n M.:i 7 q c.u"hr.[', \\ ff%'.74ff 3;,".

.G QN lW M.: @4.. M:. Q 1 %.Y. l{ ',, y*yQ:,m.~;'&. W.,,,*Q, '..x~ '

- - ,rM" / y$'- e ! b,..

g s ? y.; ' 1.%,, i'e,..., ;* &,a,o. '_ 3 J'- y, s q '?f,

C,K,'$r.,

e
Q s 1

a, ' ; *[ x., a.:- s: n i c f s*m.m. *(**sw, .. p-w s- -"t.(A l-y, '/ M;*. )$,j ~. f.,s[,3. w.1d_'; j e,* '-f . /Mk; /,h),.. .~....,...:*.,,.~,, .%**'..g

- t
0; *s w.ne~'

n* , 4... y ;. g s e t h,,- +f.q, g %. g, g ,gm.. , y g. 3

ct-

".i,..... ,,.==..,;v.. is e

S3
w u p't(.4 4,

. gf ,4 4 '.

je g'i'.t v i

.,_.y.- -'l e -<;,.*-V *N ' (- ir -2 e. u

; h h,, 7**,3.I '..'f'

A,3

t.

s. n ,.% G. - e ' } '*; N% $'s 5 A Ih*;)... , ~.- .p-

*} E '.',',

~. N, , f y j < s ',~~=q'f." ; ^*) f.. < {. s ' 'e. ' o., ,~..,4 , [. ' f,. % m... t'.',. f p -, ]&.^ f.' "%,t, W, M c' t.=A e., G <. <r .g'* ,s, : * '+.s t . A. ,,,., ' *,*^ ), A

p. 57,- -

44,.,N ' 1,. f' ?,, 7,J as

i

%f,*j_=.g-

y y

,n.' 'y ~# 2/* + ',E s * .g Q v.,,. i *,.. 1 . k. Q'.'-)/.,y ? f*<**il W' ~r D a n > M*;.. ~ '-. 1

cs ly g

1., .-,6 / 11*c. 1 t - H 2 t & 4 ; * $, + f ' y _r.- ,4.j;* w*." q -

t., q ? -

1. r , '. ' f, - q s' m, s... p 1. g. s, e r. ;.,

w 1

j e,.

w

' '... 9 /... ~ *.,.,,

.. I : *-l '

s.,.3 3

s,, e,, y?e",;,,,-- -,,z. ..,.7,.,. ,..,,_ y.g.,. ,,3 4 ,'A.

g 4

e s 4 -J f a, ~4 s-g .s = ~, e ~. {,

1. 4*

(d. ) .,s, ?' J. ,y. , r.; y; n (y4. a ' ; t.. ...,.,g,. a, g,s ,n s J.; n a ._ _ {,, ;. j s .**i .,. -.i g

- ,/,y"'

.g,, ~, ' e z, ' s.) r- -4 f i

y

,e H [Y }% ' N d,l {,'. f,V*: L,' [,, e f'., y.,, h, ~;,y .s ( ';,{ ne,n s.,.. -m w.=. [. i f ,9 t c,

~

g-:4.,.~ w;4; WRA_M.:, 4.'4g:.nW.4:&wc4: pw%g.y.1@ _.,.-n.n n w., w7.m.~.m. nm kf W2 R.p.y~h.. Ib5!. h.

h..h' hh..h...,.'i.h.hh.

gg,Mm 4~.,..& c. y.' _W : .w. e, . 3~. "..w v n; n o.;<.3.w, w @,. n, m. n W.aWM@ 2. :. m .V $.::d'$r^QW,9W2 !Qg. i. ~.;..: s ::v.m$$#,c.

ry y.;4 f[:' %m:f$p ~;.

lr..v"'..h$(:. g.:. .s ;3.. :.. v. .Wg;.y.n,r'.4.f'yg D .j'l: .p cyTU i N 9! fj -w. wm w. .i?.4.*',,: %n Q, '.m. G:.:,C,%ew :r u.,.a.n,.0,ub.r.G tu :u,; w;.s.,.<.C %,4.,.1. A M *1 C;.. }p::.w. w.. n:n:wn' ' m,t..,'.,'s, t.w.. c .~.y :~. s.%. p. +. ,w y: w.e..r.o~ n...~@e +. a, s u.b . w.s.s..a a E. a,M.L .w 4 *s.ao.- :..: :,,g-o s'd',dp /g. e, .. ' Le=.Eh l 't y ' '" ? @,.h A,./. i,. '/:~ f:q't e. e 4+0;p .'g v,"aWWW(\\,L.* $c p ii? , ~.....s. tne,: w. v,. %: x,..- / * 's..

x,.

qw.;, ws.e'1 e H.... ~(%,.C,,s.~,f y :.u.m..w..c d.r a.,w..%m.%.._,. 8 ,m s . me m*> g.=. m .* 46 c. 34 c: c.Q y,C.;,WM '" ~ 7' i..i.t' va ;'r'.=,%.*4c-Q."5*/; ~.' i' s),-\\s 2 !} t q,- .q '. g.4 c : l'^ Q 5 % t-

.t;* 4 s - : e' m* -.

s.w. t., N.g.- w. 4. p M..gm n ; e.9. w.. 2. 3.. m3 4.,,c a.

3. -9 m. t. -

l j.e(w. A g,. s.r e V $. n~ ium. .~.:,,n,

e. M.gs.%m.a mww.m,s.,...m. m. -, s w.,.c.ea.

. s,s. 3 new ;w. _ nwr.su. e.z.m:.%. m. ;..me.w~ w:' v..,. 2..;.. w:w@M, w Comm.lSSIOn S, ~ m. ip, MM..p4 W..w n,W. vWW. . 3 .. c) *.. M"T e> ylll,' 5.O ". ? l I% W W i;dMM lSSuanCOS ,'?f *;-y'E. Wk."Q@.O.t ti ' ~f t*. f s.;t.;.Wy e;i >l;..).r q s pw-..r.d g >:;* ;y.R'%lE,. l;..& V.% O: . Yy.b. i.' ?:*y.2i'j :. ' s y-y .m v.g 3 : :",oy ' 0 :. ?.a . y 'll, ' ' h.[W;- V QQlll.y.-., :Sy v.'.lO,;'h ,1 - a.:, %.l:'(' ' r. 7 ", '. ; p' 3 ' @l. 6'.,'.. Sh \\; b.. / A V e i 'y.Js [".' V..y' c.c's.J'l ~

./: p : '.;

<.o: . nd . r 2... n.. ,.b.. ;,:,, '. 2. Q $,. h..A _,W,,y,. u, ; :h'.s-^. S. ? '.

[

, r.,. '4.f M . g.J'jf,.. g 5t*%. s,f;d,s 3...jf w4e-. .3, i ..s s, /'[ y'.. 7 s",- .....: s v. s - - - .r. .-~* , A ;.Q ' .'.t..'s, m"! 3 s glD'* z&,;n c .;A .? . L.c.,* ,.y Ai ., w :,, ,.,y*- . o : y.. :.., 3 y. g, * %. q.g o, @ ;t..s.'. ~. ..g., ' 't 3-g., '. '; g, gn.] gj .... ;,. % : y,,; L .~, s ',c ;, p,.l.p. ? ?.'. O f. i.T/s fr.;g.,,

9. v. -

.s -i M..= 4 'M -* W L .,'~g?., :g <'. s 5.

tS.y h. v.h.'. aw :.v.s

.'y . s,, e.. ". c.,.f.3./ ws,,4. .O ,*% % s.t.,' SA st n,,6,,4 ' e ',. .yg,. j.x r,,(.g. f .7, p.n..,..,*.p s s* w i . -- ; '.. ;,.:,m.;y. w:;. , -, <,.. :., ~ ;..: ; e

_;. i- -.. n fM,,',;)f.s.s. ;

y <z,.5cs,,s y s- .Q wt cs m. v. 'l ~. + ..- e. ..y,,j\\

g,

.g ' (-fe 1 4.. [. l M' ~ .~. ,. ~, r' i i 9 .s. .. *~ s. .,/. .I + s v.

(,,

e e 4' ?.3.. + 2 .m. ,.+ t c .s.. .s .? g '

., i., x.

A-

7.. s

=.. e,,,, 7,'. y,,.=.* ' l t. w. r ,-*,.~y gg ,C.x. '. g.3 e ' ' , _j .) 3 4,. .~.. s a f e ~,_,e- ., f ' $l. y _ 44'. 5 .7-

- '. 4,'.;

,:t, r s .c 5 ..*..a.j,..,p ,r.. ,'g. S$,.. .,s.'.~ 11 s

-Q ' '..,N w-

.c

p, ' p,, 4. 3-..

,3 J. .- +....,,, . i. f. '.a,i s, *,,.., .m ,s.. u .m w..:..s. S. s, s; [,,' ?g {.'J.i' 1

ms - I a

n 'o .s 'h. 1 .c. m. ,.3 ~ a ,.s. 7.. ,s. ~..m, .v. . t - .2 ,...p;. ? g:,

/ -,

.,, y g,..,. q. -..g,.., c.- ,;.t, ,,.p,;, n s .s.., . y y.,y,g..,Q...,,. m. s .. e.,,. -9 '4'- .g. q g.- .,. a.:..e... y.y a.... .c s. s.. 'v,, g f.. ' s..., s. = 4.. '. - * .!',ap [' { j', s., '4.$.%,. ' ".c. [' [. %',,5. d E. ",,, - Es* y '2 ['# ,)

36.'

s g w.' s i a. ) 'S. - ~.. e' s,- ..-. c. ...y.-. ~ ~. - -.,._+_._g- ~,. y ,-s s,n (.- 3...,. < - 4- ...,,. s s..m.3_m__o.s.;..______

M h k k fhf k h b kh hhh k ddMgupfentihgAWNM.Nkl%%w.44:.}9fSW k i M.M.M pt Wmin m m.w W s ::: D s % g @W h. g g h k q W N M a p : $ 0 Q g % % @. g p nMw%s$%swwMh4GNGhBM%56 % 9 4% Q,n %...#WWMME!.iM@n&"D%"gg". aim *M"ctag"B'#"d.&:w"%"iM4fg' k - ~ ~ % w m.. % s~.v.io; Wg s. ,.,... y,.. >. w. %A'?.'dw.j%m %p; fm..eu.w'I , 4

i h,Mh~M@$y*fp'A h.'MricQ@.M I

E-s MNM d MM ' hhh h Ch as 6 NRC 383 (1987) CG8712 Mb @.ip % k ?$ ep:gq =-e gpx UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ jn~ + .d.... WM NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '$y%, y - ,2 4 &py.g. MYM kh$$/' eM&JdW d&#f4 COMMISSIONERS: $4 mn gmh M. G ? M.g,. %.. s m: M1 w&qyd NM $$b. y h5k')g.. ;% Mih.Qj m /* ~ 6 r h6 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman h%$hh@ifd;h. Thomas M. Roberts DNdM%.1GFfW.$8$$%.%' j Frederick M. Bernthal '-e9d, Q,.@ Kenneth M. Carr y;2- @... W,,f W K., mL m.k.- M..,h, ~@w s. n?;p9;- Kenneth C. Rogers 4 -.t e.> ;y.,i;a.,: 9. d. o, W.:.: ;'. gp..,f..f,t W N.. ~.. c ;,3 f. ~ -.. A. R

v. f.2 e 3.y ::.

g., y.

~ ~. t c. . s . L s-w ; r..: y,. ,s . r; ' :.-:,~.~. r:.;w -.v. >:'.,..n y,g.,. a,,, 1+,",_, Q.4fy.% . m.,. W @4,... u..,D, in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 0L.3 .f . M..;s,x,;,. q.:..x 4. p3': @c omk,. o%q :b;j

c..r. f s

4e .s

p %y, (Emergency Planning)

,.p-1 . ~i g... ; q s e. 4*g4 f <--N. .O s.

y e{

%, ',. ',,. c..+;. J..'.s g : E '. y,...%,,R..N. @.C.t,; gf.X@,.a LONG ISLAND LIGHTING c . j

. g. '. "w..-

COMPANY .igt g.j! (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, g ;E. -p 3 3 7 C;.. n' i.. M r.c.,o 7pa..y :7,. m p Unit 1) November 5,1987 a< ,. cm v,. s . ~ ;,r.a.:;,.,,....c.,..~.. .a... / p. ;., : l:,.,n :n. ,y. M

c 3,,;y *-

Q..-4;-u m,. 2' - 2 The Commission reverses ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135 (1986), insofar as it DNh,,M)Dh.D:7k>O..,q[ T j .) allowed the admission of two contentions for evidentiary hearing on whether ,7.;f.N s* M i(J D, ? - - m';... ] the Shoreham Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone should be c$.';$f.O$ h N.M i expanded by a few miles to: (1) provide an adequate base for the expt.nsion ,g/$f[,[.:c D W J [V.. M]# minimize the occurrence and effecu of spontaneous evacuation from outside the .s.. ::. . T '.,*.i of emergency response efforts beyond the EPZ in very severe accidents; and (2) '. U. c. - g ~ 2 - V. M Z.?. e.._,.~.'... c : 4 .r .%%G'@.7;.# fcfC EPZ. The Commission affirms the ALAB-832 remand to the Licensing Board j if.G.5.%.O/.f,li:%.S,'.[M.,s;,.,.#<{J.W.< g. n,., s y - for further consideration of evacuation plans for hospitals in the jaoreham EPZ. A;,-. t..+~,+ > c. :. <, . r c.,s :p. a p, e;* ;;;ph-m.. ',,W~L,i 7.r r,,.j. y..,..s. :, ) . M. ;/cWrP f?'. W;,. Q ';r,?.; 1. g _,2 I EMERGENCY PLAN: EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES (SIZE) s . 4<,:.. n w.,...,9..m:, mv u. grWrij@g,;$;-4;WW._..,'M,.J.j s. .n s ., 5fi:..', T.s The NRC/ EPA task ice report (NUREO.0396), which formed the basis for @ %.f M g. Q the "EPZ" concept in NRC's e4nergency planning regulations, indicates clearly J..] n d. that the margins of safety provided by the recommended 10-mile radius ure N#.M.@cGN*0.'.M'.gfl,..pj .t?.,'8. not calculated in any precise fashion but were qualitatively found adequate as a ,,., d.yn'.s.a;.? T. ~ &s.. S., D. ? ".'4 7 M.c....S' C. a,, matter of judgment EPZ shape and size can be somewhat different than the 10 ib.[. $M:.:.MPld.h;g; f:q mile circular radius implies without compromising emergency planning goals, ,,,wg; m m,... :x..;. - .s s-. r;.:m.. ..?. o 1 -. T.', w,s e ',, ' p; *y +. ,, W. -

f.,.

.. ' 6 *l

, *m

_~. ;.}~*v . * * ^ N,. r j , 4.. a - ls C '.. ;, O,. e.- u ;e -a[_' M s i.. 383 ..j v. ~ ,,..e. ~. 4 _ _.' q,? 7, l-M, s 7,;,, i s- .g.,. */g y.,p ~

3.m s'.,

A 2 *- h s,, un.m y*

- [

l? i

r..

.; r s r

e..

.'j -y =, Q. _g j". f1 "'~{

- '*.??*****l['*^*"'.**'"-*,f

." P'* 4. '* * ** ' [5 ~.'*[* y*""*. **Q */"' i y (*"M :;:y. r, e ',a.. a.*.. T rgt '

- l

.? ~+ y, - '. .,..a-v ,.s,'y.. U J. p.,4 C 1 2 ' 4

yA,*-

.'5.. e - s s .;g

:, p.~y,c ;m,;q..'; y;x'p { s

>g ,o ~ '. ~ c. l e ,,,x. k*; ( n ,9 T', s.. ,,f xa .. C. * "z.l,..,; v* 4-ff,../. * '.fy,y,I.m ..v. .c. n. d .w... r- ..*F* , i"~ .',y*,~.. s,y... ,+; r 4 y m . :,, e

o.

y.- \\..- n s /,. . 4, '1,', C 2 ML y. l.f. w?i&

. ;. 5 " \\.. '.' \\ [

.[w} ;j, ' ; _., ;;,, s

l lN.4

'q ',c$ h' ,'q, ,.s 'p.. s s r s- ~ s,.Mff,G. i J,b _"4 s..., s .I. [_s .., ' ' _,, -.(.JJ. v us...* h.*D'Yh 1 - .d. [ i._, m- 'P . a:

YYY 'k h N Yh hh h M M y. M d N % (*f-$,; A d -GC W W d, k 'I N S 6*f % Y hi 9 E M d r ,M,. h0hpi /'c iW WUM N'@ Wef'.w'n.,W' &y p. m ~ h~..-Jr,,,f, - u & Q4 L?kl %:. a Wl5i & Q h. ~ W. M yy#m~w$:.' A 4.x y c w.x Y h@W w p n x & d) $bh bk khNk s&m wdemed Wm M p%y A+fb 5L-c ff..h[E, W"e.w..p.. m 1 h dhM*dhgp %' W : j as evidenced by the following statement in the report: "judgment,,. will be RhQPs1 used in determining the precise size and shape of the EPZs considering local G&t. '.- 'f ff ip$$ MMjhd conditions such as demography, topography, and land use characteristics, access f 3.Mp[h bhMMM '# h b, T M h f h h t routes, local jurisdictimal bondaries and arrangements with the nuclear facility M UEE ' ' " '' " **** " "'* *"'"*"'*'~ " ' " " aw. hews w m c! g@.n w W W m:p ~W h e X W 'N EMERGENCY PLAN: EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES (SIZE) e.c: .it?.R.y.p,4: 'y mn 3 ..a.gmm :x,q..e. y, "M. y w c 'M-?U L f G Ifd W i.'S:[2'f'y$.q 9;.. Nothing in NUREG-0396 or in any part of the emergency planning rulemak-i,w M T.Pr .b.M...... ing record compels a 6nding that EPZ adquacy is especially sensitive to where

y,.['.QQm s,..%,@.S. f #l'@ lggg, Py l

exactly the boundary falls, and any such conclusion would seem to be at odds . :yy:p!rl'i$ilJ'p fjQg with the overall thrust of the report. In particular, the NUREG-0396 analysis Wgy. -]O.M,.yi.y indicates that "adequate protective measures" in the context of emergency plan-j m... G:%.Of.g ning is not a precisely de6ned concept. n <e u m -4 .r..... .Qg,g. e 4 s % }j ', N Y Q' u.. " g*e J. m W + N<,a. n. 7 ., d;.y;WuCM: e EMERGENCY PLAN: CONTENT ' PROTECTIVE MEASURES) .t .,..M.17.#,Y NRC emergency planning requirements do not require that an adequate plan

fU

~ 'M j 1: i d . '[,.

/Q9#$

achieve a preset minimum radiation dose saving or a minimum evacuation time 7 _R, A. l.. A... for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in the event of a ,-({d-f... ~,, } serious accident. Rather, those requirements are designed to achieve reasonable - 3" j,' m gc 7c and feasible dose reduction under the circumstances; what may be reasonable , v. . y. = .x 1-or feasible for one plant site may not be for another. Long hland ughting c.n. .. /;;.... .c..r[.w., ~j; 1. : Z,',' J. u p,, ; p ,,. y _' ? /., f: Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-8613, 24 NRC 22, 30 Y ?. J ' ...h ~;; (1986). i m .~ ..,.: n .,..,,.. ;v \\ y,y gf tf7.q, ; &,;f..y + '.i EMERGENCY PLAN: EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES (SIZE) a y.;. 3~ c u.i.N gl.,. ply,y ~ g Implicit in the concept of "adequate protective measures" is the fact that '[,@%]. '.f$7%. sff.9 ; y], S/' : ' %'] a4 . g N j/- emergency planning will not eliminate, in every conceivable accident, the '. - ~. W M G,O M.6 f ? %, $'y possibility of serious harm to the public. Emergency planning can, however, be ' WI '. v. !NC@Y!jf. jW,.] - - % m' 7 expected to reduce any public harm in the event of a serious but highly unlikely accident. Given these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate for &, F.. s . 4: the Commission to hold that the rule precludes adjustments on safety grounds to r[ Q s,j.'.y.- M. 1 1., ag..MJf'y yj the size of an EPZ that is "about 10 miles in radius." In the Commission's view,

v. p. U.

'T <. N. b an/ M : N N D ; h W,p:q the proper interpretation of the rule would call for adjustment to the exact size V~ ..T. of the EPZ on the basis of such straightforward administrative considerations as , ' i t ; 4.' .,c J... ' )v t.fN',.M :f W.8.h.. '3 ' avoiding EPZ boundaries that run through the middle of schools or hospitals, or

y that arbitrarily carve out small portions of governmental jurisdictions. The goal w,.

.e : -. z. .. :.. e ~ t ='.,',*,-(,,8_p j y ^ 's e C y+ -.-, e p_ j.;,; }l l s a ,g. T g,,. c;, 3 3g4 ~y,' 4 s.. - a -

5-gg

.m

g s

7 ,y t,.- ,e .q - ? $-y nm .. :. }. e,.:, .e g 7 m ov ; ;,, e..m. n -. : - -.. .1 ~ ~w. + 3;. 3 +n - p.,..t; "js), *, f s qste.,e-- x s.= , ', 4 "6 r 1" .g,- ( ,. f' g. ,/*.., (.., 4 ,,9 5'G~ i ' t ?- . ; 'J P s. s. s ~. t fi 9.. ,i', %f M[ s [ 5,.[', % h7[ Y s s.. s s ?s' s' , p.n. 'n %, ,'...[..( k s.' ' . [h,%.f k. *h. . %,s. l- ~u t

f..,,

p. ....,e. ' '. :. ; r :,y [z 2 m. , q., - m - ' L. ,A _, bL s L m p;u

w e fy W.... q,x;. n.; g %.iv, p,.,4. y h. m.m,, c;r. m.u -.w%.g%MpMW%MPa6+%kMD.3,.:,9.W.. g.:m;,u;w.g g Q.1:R @W, d.7Q.GM (? r y, r g s.:. a< ., t.,f. < wM pg, m.. y. f...c,. .~m.rm...

4. g.

a s r. m y y. yy 0' P.d %.m,@y.Wps, @W g w+ M WM Myan u m *.*t;,p. - a W

h., $gu.-ef.,py./ $-

h. h h:gN;yqM4 [kNY$..

k ll. yup

-y,b.

MjMNh2giQWM is merely planning simplicity and avoidance of ambiguity as to the location of w(/h h,n[. M w w. e ( e% M,dN.M+S' W gM' 9 the boundaries, e ~ w s >fg p w S.e w.gto m&w[sWht:$hff.$hbNhp.,Q4' f H ,:q$h 8bf EMERGENCY PLANNING: EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES hag %W'N?ki%~VU QQ;$.$ dh.kD-}gM 9:";&$@ Even though sheltering will quite likely be the preferred protective action M s h for EPZ hospitals in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, evacuation $h{eMj hh'-}pj L F@$@.M.$hu$iff[LfAg/p% h should not be prejudiced by the failure to plan in advance. Appendix E to 10 h. dN%Wi for special facilities such as hospitals. Moreover, hospitals, as a kind of "special C.F.R. Part 50 requires evacuation time estimates for the EPZ without exceptions 4":h.h,M$.M/M.T@Ffh'0'sh'j# N:kNS$i j facility," are specifically mentioned in the principal guidance document in this O ";,W.%@,$: UW p field, NUREG-0654, and there is no suggestion in this guidance that hospitals M'i' 0:rjWl 'G$ qaggiqQ.:.f M are to be treated specially as exempt from the evacuation planning requirement P. Y .... y :z.b.h.;>Qpn.$$py);,tr," ji .,c;.i M p. jy. that applies to other segments of the population within the EPZ. s ap m:'. ~. a 'M .: ;- w. ;; u-ar p:-

q. 3;g, - ; 3 EMERGENCY PLAN: CONTENT (PROTECTIVE MEASURES) j,.J O, k ^

.?: w, s . y, ' Ml 7 A Commission conclusion that NRC regulations require Applicant to fulfill ~ QJ(.(, ' yy,'r@Q.~ Q Q {&,, 7.c, evacuation as those imposed by the Licensing Board in connection with other like the same emergency planning obligations for Shoreham with regard to hospital .3, f:

g ~

- y.. segments of the EPZ, such as nursing / adult homes, does not necessarily mean

c.g'

-l. i. [ ', is that the applicant's emergency plan is inadequate with respect to hospitals. Under , 3.,.,'- p 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1), the Licensing Board could still approve the utility plan - f *' 7 g.g, '.', ' 1j f t found that the deficiencies related to the hospitals were not significant for t ,,i , 1, - g j j:

Shoreham, u-

%,..,,. '. n.q.,$ ',, '. 3 . ~;, -P , r J.; .e .Y..* d,s.. .s.a f M. SD[a MEMORANDUM AND ORDER u.- %.$... s.;. b7.;963./ i.y \\. e.#f,;. i 1 e.s s. 'd, s c N,, f ? _. in ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986), the Shoreham Appeal Bor.rd reversed and ,j t$Wi.;G.$[9. : ', ~c '.%,;j J' i y.>- 313 c... e remanded three issues, among others, to the Licensing Board: the Licensing c 1,$,....,, ..i i .O '.,M"!?A/.f,i @Ze /6 W], Board's refusal to permit an evidentiary hearing on whether the Shoreham Plume M.2 - 'g Q 'y,.Q'Y j ,.U'i @a ?y?,Vj .fy Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) should be expanded by a f(>:;.. :O.[.

1. M,7 JM few miles to provide an adequate base for ad hoc emergency response efforts Ap, c[ gf.'9 ' y, j y.

3 4' %-O 3 lJ beyond the EPZ in very severe accidents (Contention 22.B); the Board's refusal l ?.'Q (.. d to permit an evidentiary hearing on whether the EPZ should be expanded by a 6 JiA7.h $3 4 K-c.6%... l few miles to minimize the occurrence and effects of spontaneous evacuation j ,c.f..it. e - cy 7 ;;3#sry '4.f' *..' from outside the EPZ (Contention 22.C); and the Board's approval of the g c gg. g. > 1, e...g s e applicant's provisions for hospital evacuation. In an Order dated September f g g,. _q NO,, ~ [.,, / S, 19,1986 (unpublished), the Commission took review of these three issues and

p. :];f,-

4 3,,'.'.J ..w e .. ;... :. g : requested briefs from the panies, ,'.3 y-_s, , n. t 's z#. t

v. ': .~ 3

%.*.,' t e \\ :',,' ' .. ' -y.. ' "3, s ?? q 3., .,b 385 '.p t :.

f.f..

s e

w e p. i e C . k 4 ..p., _an; o j g a y s

,{'

'*..*ei.1 s4*,.g , e.y.g + e ,,y,,. .M w e s, _. ', y.. y.. , s. ,y,^' s s b.. t. ( p s nl1 .f. s, p g,. t e p - 's v.

w.-

.r' ,,p Y . ' Y 7.'[ ( - y [ j. g. .,'}i y- .s..

a 3

' [ ,,.. ;T,c.j,.., 5,, a . ;, 3 t ,3

m - _-

b 4 ..wb? y.ced'...ghf[fhY.& mm.,d p vda ,gd YpggEA%.a-E' o Y,aa,.y,c,M = k *. Y'fbhhhhh $YY ...a .g A E5 $iD M &d M[: W M@'iRAkG,lGR Y y,h:%.ga s. ' gid%,%;4h W p+f

x. w*)T/

W % ha& M . h.Nd F.W. - , /im n 3.pyM-dNrQP'[gij/yy N dd On review, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and the Staff support h h' $' %.%!@pT'. .5P ya.M Q the Licensing Board's decisions on these issues and oppose the Appeal Board's decision. The Intervenors take the opposite view. I$o th.@ We conclude on the EPZ issues that while the decision of the Appeal D,T h-7p& Board is a reasonable one in light of the available, but limited, adjudicatory IM.. h,MkhgpMbN precedent, additional Commission guidance is needed. After careful review of Is. ,.s. g#Dh/:;9hhfhh{QF.$ffh 94t the history of our regulations, we conclude that Contentions 22.B and 22.C %$hN#h jkd20E3M,d constitute challenges to these regulations. Since Intervenors have declined to 5 $MMM cast their contentions in the alternative as challenges to the regulations under ' Mfg %K@h'tASM[@$h Ni MNI 10 C.F.R. { 2.758, litigation of these issues must be disallowed. As for hospital-Q evacuation, we agree with the Appeal Board that LILCO's plans do not fully . wW.n &m.%'. m;Q,.

p... _ p@c:. M.w'E,..,M.7.WT,$.c.Q'g~.'fRg.l#.4)cMmw,i P,:

Wh satisfy NRC's emergency planning regulations. x?W '..n., t,W r m ,* y' v fe , M.7.r s

i A. e. %.-m.:.c,w p;.WP,7M&

L EPZ SIZE 4-

W. J : ~y

7. Wm

" d' TF7f..dk 2%g,gtg.y .c#igp:pyyg QK.6%. ri W@MA$ .M. A.

Background

.m Op j, m,3. n./&-Q: : l'@w.: J .i 4'M.c. Section 50.47(c)(2) of 10 C.F.R. provides that, generally, the EPZ for power ?-[4,c ,m 3 @D,.yg/t@f't reactors shall be "about 10 miles" in radius, with the exact boundaries to be a

,?,;j.gi determined "in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities f @., i.h. [qQ3PO.qh as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land f k;g;' e. +pr. Q'(M.4Vif",

characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries." LILCO's plume ~ /. y .M,", R ?/ EPZ is about 10 miles in radius. l.d [Q.f, < @ M lf "J**; In Contention 22, a four part, ten page (double spaced) contention, Inter. j O, ? ' ;J; f," 'l.} venors argued that the proposed LILCO plume EPZ was not large enough, for m T.h'%d@Nhl'..6, /.: J

' ; 'd i '.

l3 g '. c e, several reasons.' In subpart B, it was argued that a myriad of local conditions .Y ' [ d mandated a larger plume EPZ because, in a severe accident, LILCO would not '.Q@f '.:.d-f e. e. Jg r",.. G. P., @;Hp 1 be able to adequately extend emergency response efforts outside the 10-mile i.. S .D -:M J P 7*'d a area on an ad hoc basis. y-g,j g. $ 4;ifb'. 2U?s.h e;M, '%.d larger than 10 miles, most importantly because massive spontaneous evacuation j M" Q. Q In subpart C, Intervenors argued that local conditions demanded an EPZ m ?/ HQ4:%.hMt@g;(4W49]} by those outside the EPZ would have two disastrous effects: first, residents of ~ tii.6.M M W M. hc; ?. the eastern end of Long Island would spontaneously evacuate through the EPZ @ N [6,~ 8 h M ib,g O W s Q; ;; $e q @;. p ty p - 5, M, A E 07 f. d to avoid being trapped, either passing through contaminated areas or impeding i.'.WR&;J@Gj$~A@wyg,3fQ'... d..W evacuation from inside the EP2.; and second, spontaneous evacuation from west '1 .M... i W, h4. 'W.w "'% q of the EPZ would impede evacuation of the EPZ. IC.e Wrfj7%... w%.u.

. QW,.

l fy $2 'The Licensing Board denied admission of these contentions on the ground ~.7 ;, 9 d that they challenged the Commission's generic determination of EPZ size, as W;W C:.', W W i,.. JW.,,%.... :~9.. *..y;i W.' %.+,Iqq y '... p. C*. Y.,,M}j,I p_,e .g, .q "^*~Y ) s '..%' q 't .. *4.. i' . p r' $ ' * -f...,i. 44..a - h;. y w i,.*,'. '. ' c, %.!.v T

. '..., N

.k Y. y*h ': 1 hy' N e

v :.q:. 3:

_ xv.,c.,c:. 3'. 3 A ~

' ' 1 n ', 'd L ';.f.5 A...a@w:fW :f.'......

%;V:p 6: 386 ~ .a - y : q

* ?.;[ s'.. -[" '4 i %.r.

..Q '., ' t, ' lJ + pi p'T, ) t , c, Q. ' N*.'

a,;

',g. a b., .3 " ] 'y ,,.o x , j,,- 4,'.* 3t s ,6 s., e 'v,t T' (g s,,,.. o,! ' t .[ .n 1;. - v.n.. m -. 4-

y,- -, y, v..-*,re-ar,

- y g,y y <* q ].gm ;...y y. ".*;3* y'p]w9 .,s pl7 .x. .a L 3 y ((,..

~

.. y .y '?', .;... }* - 'a

,.a-3 } ;,,

f:,(. 38 { ,[ g [

.y*. - 3 m. q: ,( _....,,. c ;,. ;.. y,.y,, y...' p g

., p. ; ;,, -. *,. _w o. ,.<W~: W * ..i>.'.',. s ;, 6 . Jr 1['

y*' 7, 3. *. r, L 1 k. a D@,e p

>=.t,.h.., L s, s w'

j. i, - -

s. , p* 3 ] (( N.., M. %. . a I,. > 2 .s . s ' Q.= ^ ' ' Q *- [ yo; ,.y , *2.g,,, / Y m ,3' .Y .i.< N ,,r fe y }; Y

h f. @@.Ac..M@%w.d$g/.WMd, j '$ $ @ M,, B R,M F E M M M $N6 % W W o,4....Mj.8'yv;c.Qw&..s%la.v%w.M.,W.s... mp:s.e.W. y", n'm,w; r 3 %P W 'W; W.-... %.~., . n n w.. - >ru.,; y n-

y-n a.

w s;,e.J.., v qi. e. w..,m.. y.n m+4%Lw"n,,,..t.g::.".n. c. m . a..n. ao.,. u,. , s.. e. -~ '-~ M '% :^S.iv, m'. m. M... w.t."p..m, &a s. w v 3m w W w.7 "-~".,4 .tg n y. . m. t.

f. e p.m.;,;,.y:Q.3.,,v:.g..M::c,.',;y;n;.y.

g ~~ '~ ~ ~- m,w@w:w.g4u.m/J,k.mW,qM.m,,n, e

3 aa w:?

~ ,y s .fM 1 QM

w& y.W.&: .0W h

&$.v4 n w m. m y l.y.hl .SYhh.hhi$dhk[dhw 9,...h,Q Q,,.. w..,. g.8 N. e' $.u-.$.&.b O.h $$. M $Js 12Nd manifested in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(cX2).2 In dismissing Contention 22.B. the Li-censing Board noted the Commission's explanation of the 1980 amendments to .f VM/ the emergency planning rules, where the Commission stated that "[t]hese dis-c'p. N.h. d d h @p f f @ty G M.%. k [ h(: 4%d 4 .g '$ tances are considered large enough to provide a response base that would support $gJ pd'l 'i activity outside the planning zone should this ever be needed." Special Prehear-2 , UE@h @NM'N'hN@h'p f, k h ing Conference Order, Aug. 19,1983, at 10, quofing 45 Fed. Reg. 55,409, col. 2 'Nr, SMfk fg (Aug.19,1980). The Board also explained that, contrary to the Commission's E'd.Q Q"h k'd f '$ ni Q generic determination, Contention 22.B A[..+. 3.l. h..A}jy,jp($g,,~;y, )?Qg W m %.y . ; 4'. s u,zA / w w. w. [,$[5..;at,4.p.qy;s,hd[f*? df,M.7@%p. userts, iin asencel, ihar sannce p anning a coposed to ad Aoc plann.uss. is required l beyond the to-mile EPZ tecause of the eight atleged 'disunguishing characteri:Ucs. To the 4'i,g'g; d.Id*[7-[ cit." p;gibP?W v euent thm this cmtention userts that id Aoc emergency nsponse would be irnponible. it g'.ggg[h YY.?."hM' .p must be rejected as a dalknge to ) 50.47(c)(2). To the euera that it challenges the t It.CO .T. '.y .% p./

/

plan in specine maten, vis transime populadm, inadequae rods, advene wenher, etc., ,.f,8g,J i these concerns have already been asserted in other contentions which we have admitted.

. +; g T.7 e

,', A m ,.. p. t.. .3. .$:fy,V'.j,$.$ .?,. :q. m.. +,i :; 6 cv >. u. w .1.w Y ~ YNN.f Order Ruling on Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Order, sept. 30, n .fl.9, ,,,,,f

,.,; g,,i 1983, at 4. The Licensing Board rejected Contention 22.C for much the same a

..'," 7j reasons. -:. " WS.e. ;l..T 'k h [-?/i"'['$l'C?,'] In ALAB 832, the Appeal Board reversed the Board's disallowance of s.,, m y 'd1..~ these contentions, reasoning that "these contentions do not appear to seek .. q c g g( l ,r ;.".

g: e,,'

anything more than that to which section 50.47(c)(2) entitles intervenors: a y%.8. '. ' ;p ' : c " g ,:.5.. _! determination of the ' exact size and configuration' of the EPZ based upon, y.-+. g,g ["f c ' e.

) s,M.4,

later alia, local conditions."3 On the ground that one set of facts might support g l.,7 more than one contention, the Appeal Board also rejected the Licensing Board's .. f. g.;-[ reasoning that because Intervenors were being permitted to challenge the overall a .g ', j adequacy of the plan to deal with spontaneous evacuation, the disallowance cf

c. J,j W

Q i j0,Wf - e,.l' / s/ Contention 22.B had no effect on Intervenors' ability to litigate the safety matters 3 M,ky i:] WK ' -3.. $ ,.EW.If.;' O,./.iq. N.M. "y' at issue, Id.,23 NRC at 148. In taking review of the rulings on Contention 22.B, the Commission asked: w :: x ~! T. ;

2,... y.* m, y. v x., v..;.

s..,r;,. n.. ..n y,. ; Wl';J ;,...n.,, w s s. .T.M

3
Q -f, %,g:]

W g;pg. (1) whether.. the admission of Contendon 22.B impermissibly challenges the generic L.W,1.'l ' a 'd rulemaking nnding that a 10. mile EPZ will provide an adequae basis for sausfactory ad / I ~7.Q'[ $$( j;5 h,;'.E' cMj.j. ;;m.? f.. id. M;.d .7,.@.. Ch hoc emersency response bepnd 10 miles should this be required (see 45 Fed. Reg. 55,406, .,$, r,.f.... 7 A. f4, col 2) (August 19,1980),' and, o ^ y

ny'.g,p,y Qg. !::. v.;' 'q':f f,.

f$

l% s

f

,y;n ~ s Q'.,;A9.g j yy M . ; - : * *.' /) , (*_ .- J.;' a specul Preheanng Cmference Order. Aug. 19.1983 (unpu%shed), order Ruhng e objectims to specul

Q ' 'y, ?M ^ 5.. S - [ [c

/,' M E.'2-?/ i s Prehearmg Conferae order, sept 30,1983 Osspuushedt ,..J.,,. ^ j. V. c<. Og y w. 23 NRC at 141. However, the Appeal Boad rejected Imervmors' argurnes that the ordy legiumsw hmus on-3 g(t 1 4' q<, . y;/ 1; +:>..g me nu or the EFZ are & cue Imuts dictamd by local omdmes. Insuad, ocned me Ameal Board, me regulaums ' T;y'--;n ' permt omsidesuco mly of "mmcr adpstments (such as a mde or two). ? M at 149 a.41. Cf. ad et 148

, n 4,,

' ' f d. + : 'g e a.37,

ComrM8shan order daad sept. 19,1986, at 2. As noted abme, the Commission stated n me ated federal

'hg * "

q- ;d;l' q;J.5.'ar,
es

[ t Aes rter actice thei ihese distances are considered large enoush io pnmde a response b thei.ouid suppas ~t .J g V.~.',.e, . j ;_...' , %.,';.M [Q: ' "i 3 acuvvy outside the plarvung see should this eve be r-MM." M aY / ,.~s. _ % 't , %g g ,u '.i {. L ., *. ' y *,, }h] ..i e.y , g;

e

-5 Q '..,. .{-c .g >o. '.,e ,+,.,re4 e n, .,.~a-Y I ,{ g %9 g. + F ,( g ^ 6'[

* * * * - Q ** *
- y'.'*+-M*-*".

d. 97 -

s,

g..a 3l-i ~, 3 e =-, ? g

4 n

,'r e, 4 I y .le b 1 g g - (;.s 3. ~ '> - ,. N is. r 2-jl N p.l '

%%.m%W 22:lC.+M4QiMT&. a%,..../.R.y,W,h@*.@.MW::c%g;w% 2W '.W N.'.;.2 W 9 ',J.. W if: d: : u% J M G.. u,. ..u &:.. Q, W W ~, C

:WWQjf

.N$-Y&l:.4:#wg..m; w., Als ~;QcW *,p v e -- W;&g$. b.Mbs.QWWy m.%%:-we.Wm s%.%:4%.". '% u..; a . o d d. a% W:2.: v p ~.M:w VM X 1.t : ;W,.+ ;.. h.$lhi %f.Me 2%

Wii%%

.W: h p\\%?1 n

h.h. E. W. S W Y

W i: W/+.W'.,O.&.f,.e,i~ p & &... W. p% D. du.'r..i h h E h~T O I*T f!;? %.i 4 M<. hk' 1 't. .%,.,,.. W. s,> M. ; ni. e. '.w' +; x. y.N.MM. .S. s n, s. g ,ws .y rd ww..&. J.m w- s 4"'- rM h d " ". '.,o w*Jv>Q-.m.#. c' n. c n y: M k.:s:.,.. w )v 2 .w.. uJ.: f, f t 0 'C. w. g:M n.Y. z.:m. ;esa,.*/. 4.D. l A. W. g Q[9 rij.4 h.. ".e M .T f, . (O' }9)" O.,.. A 1.lf ' h.e..b.s 4.h,y. W ..,,,,t . A. Eh?,h*+.$. W%.g~.y-. ,) a 6s s W M;g,.f,y.e.gDW)Z?wQ 2*' .s; R e]s. g tMr.;6*q -% per,y;e[x,f. ,W ,9,, y (s. u @y..- W'm v -* e t a hQ-g,s h.y::~m.s e.%@q. p..Whw.>#;.w e: -y - s ..w. s

u

-Q It.NN..Qh. -f'q. ;.- ! l (2) in the catext d Contermen 21.C: (a) [mhetherl there is a losical emnection berusen .@Y k ddf;M'M 8U'N.k'". M N // Winne EPZ size ard the ablity to reache problems assocised with possiWe spmtaneous M.zM' M.<a Mg.v. e.,w.,w$$:)$q W U b t.tQ', evacunim, and (b)[wtherl the regulstions contempate that the ponibuity d spmtaneous Mi k '"'""~'''*'""'*"d"""*'"'"""*"*""' ' " "

p y.. % i_

i . % M % $ 2 s#h.w,9.tQ @wMn/W Mg.'m..w n..,i, um z d.h..,r, r pm 'y M 'N B. Partles' Arguments Before the Commistion W. h t %m $p & !:h.h. Q ' Q M ll3'. )N! W 4s 1. Intervenor Argumena w i. m-W ht,Q&p.qf e%w. h5.Ok-Intervenors assert that the contentions, far from challenging the regulations, " c- .s psW .,k22@OIM M5'M%%l[i kMi7.E %C'%,3% merely s e t to enforce them. 'Thus, Intervenors argue, the Appeal Board i!.Sc.N correctly adnowledged the importance of the generic considera' ions that led ' l37.-B.. M,. i,l.7/;W to the choice of the 10-mile guideline,8 but most importantly recognized that .g@R A,'f.2 p.gicVM.t:pgl) f*/ fpyey :,.1 "[n]otwithstanding these generic considerations,.. section 50.47(c)(2) goes ,?..fi,.,! ". M. M V,( on to direct that the ' exact size and configuration' of the plume EPZ 'shall be ,..3 , -O,,.:_ /.,

f fg.C...

.J.M. determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they g :c. W.~;j $p;fg +y ?. .o are affected by such conditions as demogmphy, topography, land characteristics, y ,4 f u, ^. j,g y y':.". %;; d_ access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.'"' .. -. l ,w . _r ,1

f. t g.4'.?

Intervenors offer twt) main arguments on the interpretation of this regulation. ',W- #ny<Z @% N y" W C a 9.Q Tirst they argue that while spontaneous evactaation and lxk of local government .g " 't J c..,./P.; cooperation aren't listed in the regulations as local conditions, the conditions ' _, 3J,",, - m jd-l I sted are exemplary rather than exclusive, Second, Intervenors emphasize that s p{.}.,c',V.j "the determination of the exact size and configuration of the EPZ must be

u..

C*'; -l.

G made 'in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they

^ D,. i,T j are affected by...'" local conditions, Brief at 13 (emphasis in Brief). The l. concept of "local emergency response needs and capabilities," they continue. , O ;,.9 encompasses LILCO's alleged failure to plan for spontaneous evacuation, an evacuation that will result dircctly from listed conditions such as the land ,; y J.;r;._ characteristics of Long Island.' - e 1 ~ . g,?, D ~-> k##' 's 5 Those genenc canaderstxms are ht *(l) proyected doses from rncst accadans ma.14 aca eaceed Federal [ PAO) does lewis beyond that distance frun se facshry and G) daniled planrung mthan 10 srnlee mld pmde " ~' f.,4,l i.[ ',,.. y g a satetarmal base fcr expanman of resporse eserts if thus became necessary" ALAB 832,23 NRC at 145, canag s. .s yt REG.0396 and Nt'RIO.6 3, y,, < > g,..,. 5 .,..,gr f4 ,23 NRC at 145. In ther Reply Bnef, truervanors charge eat 11140 and the staff dfar arpnets to se .J *. 2 3 c, ?.'- the Corrurnsmon on E.PZ mze ht largely address quesuons einer hn those ihat me Cornmisam chose to a {S @,g ; y'- i review. Reply Snef at s. Irmernncre claun est they don't resped to $ese unprgedy ofered arpneras, and c f 3.. ~. q mat the Carnrruaman should act omeder thern. Hoemr, eey cerenue, if the Cornrr-unends to conder ' g g3., '-*p j esse Wrwar arpnents, em is should oHer traernners e p to reaped h fact, hoemr, traerwnors ,i f f-.. -W",, ,. f' N - (\\ ; 3.. ' f ',, ;.J f - devons neady two pages of ther fciuteen-pegs response to these Illfo/ staff argurnets. su Reply Bnet at 6 7. ~ ', + s. ;,5.g,p, y,.f~ ; *% ; 7 1nterwncri add that the lesmmsey of Corsarean 21C is emarmed by the Brenner 1.icesr4 Board's staterners wi 1 ht s would canader the effect d local condanons on E.PZ size. The B.enner Board stated that whether or nca c%. jJs.. cuennons were subtraned on the issue, a would investagste whether, %ecause of the geography of tag taland, , e. '.g - , M- '.c., aurade and to the saa d the EPZ dioomns to evacuate and havmg to do so by coming through the EPl." encuancm planrung wu.hsa en sproannais 14 mile EPz may not be adequate because d the unpsets of peries -n" e /; L3P.8219,15 NRC 601,61819 (1982).111f0 clarns ht this issue was htignied m the form of Cormacons ^, = j. .~.3 23D (evacuanan a an mafecove prosecuve acum because 11140 ham't cmaderW the entent d spcruaneous i . N.. '. 3.',, ,t, . [. ; ' W L y Q. ' '...,, ' ' ' },. (Consmand) -w 's-s'. 5. lJ r ~*,1

3 so. '

E ',3,', i. 1;; q ~; .ct 388 i1 o -= s'. (. t

g s

~ '.g.,. ,,,.,g.,- R' ,'s. ,,'v

g q.,.!,,.r.~: ;a.,q :'M.

f , $. v e .a .t., 7 m. un, ; :3,s., s ff^ 'e: , g f ' ' t i' q ** j !y ~ };.7 fi, ,s,' a e 'fi 'a,,, ', [] p.p., r 'e ,,.,'.<5 i

i h ..b .Y V

f. $

~ M'd W,4 . h + N W: 05Q.3W;,y.t,u,1 b,^?.V. N. rr.%<N>YN,;f,gM'@', s - ;9 9 @/ *

9.r,t'M N */,.. I Yd Py Q;..

'. W pf.e.G..k'a..a.*@d f &.f,; S V q.TM k.h'?.O M..' N.$.:.h.,'?f,.I ?.S,i,,,, u.

M

'f ' ' [m;.%.h.p'.? r py, w.s f&.. q, ?*i n .s m., a.~. 3 _, t 4.. ,J% di iL-:en/ s. :;r s y m.:w. 4,2 -t h c.7 s.. %:e y+. - ?' .t - v f. h,a e w %$iM,C Q d4.Mi.d.ChM-m M; A.4.LL'.b;. :: ;(. 7p% .s Ns a: c:p - n y 4 i ~.h%v%@f% er 9.,N.. h LW

y ny%y;.M,.... > wW..qFl,'Q'.r.5

..D 9p.:, %a Q w .yW.i ,tW q A . ' tam. v.hl Wj y ;..:,b<e. W @ *, g &..~ p&p h. L.:j.n.;) y%. W ?2 .v 1 y ~- >. 'n& Q... . 2. em. ,.n.. -s s&'c f-QA i ~ sM wy.m$ Ji &m, w 94 .QM? c % tF, 6 d:.j%',XGcN,Q,$g L W y/h 'f.Dhb. [. ffi Y Rejecting charges that they challenge the regulations by seeking a 20 mile I DR EPZ, or one that is "dramatically enlarged," Intervenors assert that what they I kh);{'y}g p f @Mi hNk '.:h.f W d %[Q y seek is only what the regulations demand, i.e., an EPZ based on local conditions, Wp%@.hggt'f AW whatever the size.8 49%WM,9,k@:#WP$WGQ M, De Licensing Board had agreed with the Staff anc LILCO that litigation

9. hhp of Contention 22.B required Intervenors to obtain a 52.758 exception to the 3'kI".,. y );y@'R$gge.%?!&4 N h f f.

fhh fulo Prohibiting challenges to the regulations, something Intervenors never d sought. But, say Intervenors, Commtssion precedent meludes cases requiring ,N.G N 4,g : W7'df$' no exception for challenges to the 10-mile EPZ, cases relied on by the Appeal qj U,,.E. %..; 8..,.,$ a,;;? ?,.~.6.. M.,2 1 Mi g g,a 9.1. . s.c,9.,i - Board as well as Intervenors.' Even if LILCO, the Staff, and the Licensing y3 3.p,0.y,WP.91!,h;Q./f%[K] ? Board are correct that only minor adjustments are permitted, Intervenors add, WQf. 26 ' f 7, they were precluded from litigating for these adjustments. Reply Brief at 6, jW l.hy','7 *[*' f.gf,h .M Finally, while claiming that the Commission did not take review of the .y,a c N

J7'-

Appeal Board holding in ALAB 832 that a utility-only emergency response is a f....,f. Q,. '[, M. j i i 2.R D 3? . T / (, ' ' '.l$.[ "local condition" to be considered in determining EPZ size, Intervenors assert y .gQ'k(..r(v ;. -l ,a in response to a LILCO argument that the Appeal Board correctly decided this s ...v.- r m, g

question.

z -- -..,y'f *, % -r.;.-.,?. b w- &,y%, 7.j;., 3 4 s-4' ' q ~, m.v.'%.p e %gwl .n@.f,y;y W WlW W ,,4 u2 .c v y:. ~A 2. Staff and LILCO Arguments m - ;,. j j,'* m'..[ '.. s: ~ y' j ne Staff and LILCO oppose the admission of Contentions 22.B and C mainly I. 3 d.[s.f ~ ?@ , p 'g' .} on the ground that the contentions challenge the generic findings underlying j n .:M, - m.f..J,.. ' ' the Commission's determination that a 10-mile EPZ for power reactors is

x.

\\ e. , ~ - adequate to protect the public, ne Staff and LILCO contest the Appeal Board's .,(~ 5 Q:f

4 4

~,

conclusion that Contention 22.B was aimed at determining the exact size and u shape of the EPZ based on local conditions. Rather, they claim, it is a direct n. m t % e 5 y ; .xu{ g, 3.,+ 4, n ..~ s , p,t.() 4, "'g. q,%,, M... evacuaum that wd! occur) and 2311 (tltro has faued to prende for bt~*

is pvvers spmansous evecuees

.1.','. y'..j ?*4 ) @ j s.~,,l, EPIk Reply Bret at 9. The licenseg Board fond fa titro an both of ihese quesums. fran ernanns ccruammsted areas of ce Erl, temas pesanuaDy harmmg een and unpedes evacuaum fran the j 'y

.,. ; ).., r b;,; ;(. t f: ' d f,,q

'Both Lltro and Irservenas eue a Centmanen dm in Sei on$e to sup thaar pomuma. SewAere ', i.,1 Cel/enue Edsoe Co. (saa onofre Nuclear Gensruung staum, Unas 2 and 3), C1J4310,17 NRC 528 . ; $ 5 -5< q,.s. <D l.5 % y] 533 (19t3h traerwnes pcnis to me Comnnamon's denenpaan $sre of es enersecy plames regulaums as j ~ .c , N.e.,

i.

A.3, y requsnrneras fa *' care plannwg wuh suf%srs planrung 8**May to dm. nap a ressmem ad hoc respese o , c 2.M. ' N..a ': b,':* [q g.'E d;L.+.. .S thans wry annous low pobabihty accsderas that could afect the geeral pes.'" Reply Brhef at 5. All they seek,

' [,

.,,,'A ,s,.v Q. d6. g.O ~.l1 ,' y say itservenzt, is a dance W empb w4ske the "cm planinng" pomed by titro *is in fact 'adows' s .y and has sufscwn waamluy' a perma ihe dmlop(mars ofj a renamam ad A.c r pmase u v. -Q' * "7 ; a e r.. ,.g$ *@ 4 % cases cued are Dde Pe.vr Ce. (Cmwbs Nuclear staum, Uans I and 2), OP.54 37,20 NRC 933,979 89 ,* 4 . c a'.. G. - f.

j (1984), ag 4 ALAR.ll3. 22 NRC 59 0985L and 74aadrIpA.e Elecmc Co. (tamerd Generaarig staum. Unns u '.:.

J[e A r ' Q;, ',* fy i & V 9 '.q, y; I and 2), MP.8514,21 SRC 1219,1236 0985k ag'd se rearms pers, AIAB.436, 23 NRC 479,492 500, 4 Cemuesion revww dec6ae4 July 24,1966 ,. <,,,.<[. C 4 I# ! N. L ' [J - [> j n % [ la czar new, Lluse cases pads only mar 8 mal suppet fa traervenas. La nauher case was the peopimy of adrrutung the casarsums dauer.ged befort the Ameal Board. beaver, the pertment casesam m imenc& was [ coaded in $e alternauve, asserut g that to pervers crm&uens ouimde and edyacers to the E.PZ bcamdary fran ~ ! tratne corarol outsade ihe EPZ. In carssi, Caenums 223 and 21C assert that the mly way to ownply mth , / 1,. unpedmg evacuauan from wuhm the EPZ, m oss necessary eder to sapend the EPZ m to pronds addinaral s g.. f' jl,.'M j'A. [,*'C the NRC's requirenerus is to sarand *e EP7. Thus,imenc& does not &rectly suppret Imervenars' psaxm. js ; ' y; .n . F 7l,,~-, * ~ ( l-g e ..s- _.t, ,Q 389 4 ~ -, -. *4.. g. .m.' .. c. ; 1 . se.; j s.* '.r' .(. - = A g O 4 e a 9 .f .e 4 ~) ,'L m A A,

h$k'hh I I i N 'N M h bY N.24 n...W &,p %y. 4~-. M,..m M c M, @::r W 2.,; &. . b..mM " 'Xb&? iQ.N.Qi% y..> W..:. 5 ; @t, W.n? G h W N RI Q Qf $1 % WQQ;Q.4 :Q: TU ;*h' .r. e'?cd. n sm.@- :$m.. col.S..~N, G R. w .g N% cW .M. &y...,

s.1 c

- > t ;.. .w ?

r.. m.......w s

Ye h' D ' *E i $Y b Y; u77%My,n.ph s.,r sg' w%wmq.. e ,.y % m, w.i.w 3xs ,y : p$ fr K i s.'Qyt % i. M S ',7. $' d.h J. e.?cd'@f.! 4M4-?W.S.p. %n, %.m d W

.y c. w % %z. y h h. h b Y h '.3' M.P J

,s m w :: w. W;;,. W ; .WW iiW ?.,w$;tN:+. yn;M& ..1 hk challenge to the Commission's determination that a 10. mile EPZ in all cases (q Wfi@ h N.tk M N.M g $,N"fN.'.WZgf&% mndd provide a substantial base for ad hoc expansion of ary emergency -fdh?h response. Staff Brief at 12; LILCO Brief at 3-1. As to Contention 22.C, the %jiPQMr@T' MWfk.U-]WJB. rc n Staff and LILCO make three main points: first, that the contention challenges e k %. J b. M N :i, $ W S } ND the generic determinations in i50.47; second, that the local conditions cited hf's,Ny/8$%M.( by Intervenors are not the type contemplated by the regulation; and third, that

j;f,t...%h T4 c: d..W5't' M^,37 M.e. g.. M Intervenors' concerns were litigated before the Licensing Board in the context A9.

y[n.,C mm ;*.3.s -

u 5dED a' /49 of other Contentions.g y @7 7.'Y.J.g.a@ M;I:g@2/2M @..5'N.E.,#,$.M:h.% f MM:: The Staff and LILCO contend that the rules contemplate clearly drawn EPZs, O _E.m. v . M MdM W with minor deviations from the 10-mile radius where dictated by geographic fac-n J,.,%.s?.p/?/NPy$ ".,$. /.@....,+g,4., tors. To support these propositions, the Staff further argues that the Commission ~,.W W .f decided in its 1980 rulemaking that: o ..t -Q~,,..+..c.. g 4. n, .. -4 7.w, ;.g. 4 g <,,.c. w s, / _ '[,t *, ' ' C*;f.. e J... .f 9,.M.,'; et?p.,.$. w.f Predetermined prcsective actions are needed for EPZs;.. it is those within this za.e for .h. f d \\,'.M. mham predetermined protective actions are needed in c@r to preunt exposure to airborne ,. M n,. w.: f';Il '.' O.". s.'@;. radionuclides: such predetermined saims are rot needed for unse outside this zone." sJ s ..s e w: ..c,,.,.- , :,. m N. e.. , 9. F. M M 'u %@,.,.s..... g 4 , v.,i y .~,,3. s . s t'de.'M Further, LILCO notes the conclusion of the NUREG-0396 task force relied upon . M" M.9. <c..Ji.W.ZQi?.l4 $w$ by the Commission in the rulemakmg: h - r,j@' g' y* Q:w:W:;n; : . *. -..,,,..,. p., y . s~

1. C.'y.

..... M, p; f, M T)t was the consensus of the Task Force that emergency plans could be based upon [ ] "','. c,; { _3 0[7, M, McQ y q:....

a generic distance out of which predetermined saions would povide dose savings for

- 'f {* /g.'[',. any such accidents. Bepnd this genenc distance it was concluded that actict.: could be l'.,. 4 -] ] taken on an d Aoc basis using the same concihrstions that went into the initial action ,/,,... J t determinatims. [Thus), the size of the EPZs need not be site specific, las] emerg ncy <? planning needs seem to be best served by adcpting uniform EPZ4 for initial planning studies 2-for alllight =ater reactors t2 J.,. : ~ ) Thus, LILCO argues, while obviously there are both generic and site-specific c.> 'n components to 6 50.47(cX2), the site specific component is merely a fine tuning .] mechanism such that "it makes sense to depart from a perfect circle in order to M,, run the boundary down a prominent highway so that people will know clearly

z. -;

where the boundary is, and... to avoid bisecting a discrete population."

lv

' : j '],., g),..' q.? 1' 9 LILCO Reply Brief at 2. t y' b E 'T r... ",,, ..? To bolster the position that only geographical conditions were to be consid. 7 i ,~ y "i ' J, cred, and then lead to minor adjustments, if any, LILCO cites the NRC Staff's 'll ,, [ [. d presentation to the Commission in 1980, where the Staff explained that the ,..;c ... S t-G,; r,' s... -. ? '.j factors to be considered were "' narrowed to a relatively small range,'" c.g., a c. .>? ...w. Y s?e._ ,1 o ,,e. s .,e .~f.. sd ,E'- -'I N -{ !rsevencrs note that the Appeal Board rejected this argument, and assert eat the C<rmammon "dended not to 6: review" the Ag.en1 Bcard rurt Reply Bnet at 11. u .',;^, Q. ( '.',, ' d !wi. * i staff Bnsf at 15. saaag 45 Fd Reg. s5.406 (Aug.19.1980), and NRC Pecy sostarners. *%nning Bas.s ^, fcr Respcosas to Sclear Power Accideras." 44 Fu Reg. 61,123 (Oct 23,19'9) 2 , } 7, 12 13140 Bnef at 1213 a.17, pasaeg Nt:REo-(096 at 16, m.7,8. - 5 .>.s...., y,?,. .. w. n, q h k g [.1 g h 4 s 3-

\\

.l g 4' .a. 4 N s q .h .,,,y._ ,4- . ~,..... f., .\\ %,.- 6,, ,,,,w,,,~., ,a;* , g 1 ' 5 ', '.s - O e.. -I' ,g ' '.'. g '-.* p,' d 's *. D g l-s. 5.:.. j

.e

'M k +\\ ^ i. . i g,, J s' s,,qf' , I ' e' i ' :g,;. L 's - .K. q ' t l _ 3:@_-.....La ~. s l*y r M; y,.~*.,.4.... . "i ikl s. .3,... f..s. ,,~ r% .. y s

h, :h ~ - s. ' G :m.n U,q,m&;,,, %, o,. e,, uw v. w.&.,. m,4,.. <'h',g g t,- +, n.. ~..,, a %.. v.- 3 : e.r. ;.... s +%r. m mo .. a- .. u. m. ,b G hQ,%@j wA. 4,.e,w& ~... m..s o i

4.M:

l4N.*W6 GM 5MW.N.WQ'WQ ?;..W..%,'hL - : % '95'[& ^.' ~ f,'. h N O !; M % [.@ W, &n ' M.,. b g.f,p a %yw:s; fs.x :.' A.in gdas.W:n;. -y' dy.< ~. 4 x y.m.O,...'. 6m. k =. c '~ 2. w===w..,

. m a w.m:. -..a:.:n r.9.nx 3::..:&....i m >;q

.. ';W@ny % v. - g ;gp ,,3 s

M n.D.: :.w. :.

fe, . ;q c.,.M, e t.c.?jh.d E ' M "$ &.# / -D.9 4 M.$y;#pe99 W... l

v9 y.s.. u. m.n...n m,. p.. S,

,A D. W ; @;.*,g.ls?.!. @ n, dq; m,..~.,,.

... ~., .s . ~,... . ?', n.,f; M . O. 3.~.,1. . c M,~; f.v., n.m,..vs v.,u. %,. m.m:.S 2d %~ $ [, g$ "' major population center' crossing the 10 mile boundary and ' abnormal topo- .p s , + ;@M g n. 3 AM,Mg.g{.4s,0 Q$y.h4 .,l, graphical situations, a very peculiar river valley.'" LILCO Brief at 5 n.6. Even .Wyty%EN' Wd in these "abnormal" situations, Staff's intent was to adjust EPZ boundaries by k.NDD/ -[,9k[S.hd6D.DhI;h '.. M h@.$,>;g.' h[d k small amounts.'" /d. The Staff adds that "the cure for any EPZ related prc.blem arising from events ' O..f. n,.:,A "w W;Mi= taking pixe outside the EPZ is not to expand the zone, but to factor those mat-4 .c e% r<1 h# cN, Ofl' %,$ M.~$ y, ters into the planning for the protective actions to be taken for those within the '.,....n'f[ .' w'M,W., ;v securate, consistent m, formation to the pubh.c wtll mimmtze spontaneous evacu-

10. mile zone." Id. LILCO agrees, stating that the record shows that providing

? g.; p 1, $ e % a,.,. . Q.g, v- .y s. s

..A w

' Q.1.@'j r... y. d.%'M ation, and that this is the remedy contemplated by the regulations. LILCO Brief , M M,],f.$.3a,- p t'.7-D [ at 10, citing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, A,q.

4.,j}, '7/T

, 7:'. y Units 1 and 2), LBP 82 70,16 NRC 756,779 (1982). c' ' '. ' ,- V9 they submit, it isn't the type of local condition that can cause adjustments in - * @g,.g,-. ~4.e 4' -, Further, even if spontaneous evacuation is to be considered a local condition, ..i g. 77 [1.cR. s1 M. j EPZ size, because the conditions contemplated in the regulation are those unique . L M" ' ][, " "., f '..i conditions existing around each plant, as opposed to those that might arise at % q.

y. " f ' '

' '7 the time of an accident at any plant. Staff Brief at 15-16; LILCO Brief at 12. ' i,Mg,' b /G99 y,$l _ 4.\\ ' Continuing, they argue that Contention 22.C challenges the regulations in two ways. First, it posits nongeographic conditions, e.g., spontaneous evacuation , 9. p g, y'.y ; R, N '9 and the utility-only nature of the response organization. Staff Brief, n.8; LILCO W;P.,.;6..,,~ 2 ?, Brief at 4 5,14. Second, the contention argues for more than minor adjustments w. ,. c ....oj V to EPZ size based on these "conditions. Thus LILCO contrasts the 10-mile l: g ' 4.c.- generic finding (in NUREO-0396 and in the Commission's 1980 preamble to / , u'.y.5 .J; the rule) with Contention 22.C's implicit call for a dramatic EPZ expansion, i.e., ' ?. s . w., an expansion "to the west to encompass those persons who may be involved in pmtective actions" and to the east to include "East End residents" (which could 'M '...N[,'l include those 50 miles from the plant) who may have "the perception that they ~ s ..j would be trapped if the wind blew to the east." Ibr such a challenge to the rules, Intervenors allegedly should have sought , [f.k f - 2.?;] permission under $ 2.758 to litigate the contention, something that was suggested 1 V. .i C to Intervenors early in the proceeding. 1 - ;' . 7' -,;... ;j The Staff and LILCO also deny that there is any logical connection between , C / };" ?~j ] plume EPZ size and the ability to deal with spontaneous evacuation. LILCO ,3 y '?, q, y

.lg m argues that "no matter where the boundary is drawn, there will always be

,,,y "N] ,F T ,A people outside it who then become part of a new hypothesized ' shadow,'" a problem earlier recognized by a TAfl Licensing Board. LILCO Brief at 10, ?. 1, ; y j quoting Aferropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ' :.y ^, ,f

7. 6 j LBP 8159,14 NRC 1211,1553 (1981). Thus, says LILCO, with the use of e

e l 7 ~*.~

y I

.:s e s u, s - r 9 ,0 g 391 s e g 9 D / 9 i a 4 e 9 y y 3g a 2 g,

k hS$h'$1b $$$$ IhlY)$$$$15$5bi$0EE?$$?h.Y$5;$NES$ M ;$. g&(n.h h,p %.Y'$ R E $ h $$ e$ N m gg WWMyAk'$c$9WN 'kWw'f;jWR Y@ h'k'b$,hYf.N.$W$&bW} W Q' -W t 6 W W M dF & % T P S@f21$. A .a 9 b@4up wf,v r '%r%@%.M@hy,8j %b Mff.M7 r;,M Intervenors' theories to determine EPZ boundaries, "the EPZ spreads out like f T.^Ef" M.b oil on water till it runs out of people." /d. 2 h h@M?k b h;S.N4M f Finally, LILCO and the Staff note that the Licensing Board specifically p'h ~.#...b?D@.khkh$h N 7 Nh considered potential problems associated with spontaneous evacuation by those 4- .. g' s.W.,f.g C.;;.p., wijg,Afgg.L81.fy3 outside the EPZ, rejecting several Intervenor assertions: 4 s p a -,.. - 2 m SWn.;..,4 -v,x..v;,.4 J,:p$'?.$M,d,. p<8NNN;CfDY'i.Q@p:.6 [

M 8Pontarnas encuaum would punt se pecumim of mose insis se M

. MW<W f<y, 1 (Catenties 23.A.C);3* J ,.:;S ~ b fh 5l-b'I*P************E* Y * * * * ' "

- "l0 'ES
- '*U **0
N s

."g.f. tWJ4,.T.M d.y.e.@J.g;.gG:.3q:Q affect evacuatim times from within se EPZ (h% 65,23.D and 23.H);is i c ..y. 3 u 1,@c.. N$.a S*BN hgdh,N$5f/ERN'NIIf that sportanmus encimes fran miside the EPZ mishi harm semselves by enterins e . M g::?vd M 3Witge'f;4sT[.. $C#7 coimaminmed areas, and might impede evacuatim from within the EPZ (Contention

.M S:'N.%:s&. y@Q.s'e%;%y<,+Wlf@.gYg %5 23.H);" and M.

.W A W fr y we"c;;.m % g m.r 4, g. m. that IJLEO had drown the EPZ boundary imprcperty such that it bisected discrete . w. w. M.:v.......f... ,p :wpt. 3.n n ;q, Aho 6-; 72 l p~ t "~= and jurisdiaions (Contenuen 22.D). .,' NDy; Rib 8W@, p%.g,$;4 tij S v.. .d'.M;%ddt ~ ;;.p.W,2-qNO.b 4Wr@y.'fg, g 9%.% man WP LILCO Brief at 14. M* O "W/.WMrWMMdN4/NW,ikMhh s k.5 h h [

J %hy n yCi~ h~' P'? p$.g'M M C.

Commission Decision .N: .$@h'NM; h .1; Resolution of this issue requires that we examine carefully the history of 7.M[G ] M hhh M y % f 'P e/ 8 the EPZ concept. 'The EPZ concept in NRC's emergency planning regula. -M

... p p.g3 NM tions derives from the report of an NRC/ EPA task force on emergency plan-

?6. i n..f '.. ;'y2 ff, T.,,4 ning, NUREO-0396, "Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local L ' " ' it;;. Jr, - -.j Oovernment Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water .e.e'. .' ' 4 i A Q ' Nuclest Power Planu," December 1978 ("Report"). The Report's conclusions ~. W f ': on EPZ size were based on analyses of both design-basis and serious Class 9 ?... '..... . m' ' .,. f:. s a .., j $ 7 0

.I s: -: s' -

s 3 .,,,.>.<q . 42.,.; " I$ / ] ;,,k '!

,.. u s.

,',S'.' u Aside fran the ladt d a local cenaction, says IAco, traeremoss' proposal has two other impanact ,. ;.,"s , a ' I Z * '4; m,..,,,r p M',I , n, s , y.- - defects. FUst, k would farce Info to one limised plannang resaunes for pegle who generaDy wiu not need f .;G-G (* ' ,,, i tharrt second,is makes imposenble the tank of the planner trying to decide an EPZ boundar.es: '.m 'l. ',,,,1 - U First, the Intervenose claim that the emergency plamar must piedict how rrnach spontaneous evacuauon / *T' . ' ' ;.$ g i <}- t.; 6. y mf. v,. ' y ,. f./, A,l. ?;j 4, b M.f W c C ;;,{f. l.,e.p," y .Oha.t is,. how many peapia and how far swey) these wdl be in an emergency d wiknown n 5 s

-m y g w.

e

m..am,.neum.,ve.s wo use %e,es r. %e, %

.,.'.:e;r.w.y n ;gy:; N.QJ, A s .. +,. ths secord shows that giseen paus connet predict actual emergency behavior).. Enn assuming the r -: m E(,t, ' M; ~: ).. 7,.y pienner can predia the aura d spareaneous mcussen, he then ha io hm a enanan tar where io x.., Y,f * ?o.?',,(, -lm$.y 'MA p . 0,:Y~ arew time. (opmian paus, for uenple, -d1 show fewer spus neau mcuaums u datance from Ul. ! ?> n.. p%g.jh the plars ir

a what pant an dus decreasing funeuan does me and the EPZ?) There is no such

[?W [.[S h[ E,' g;W' W 3 ' -.

.; j nen in ne mg.a cons ,uidanoe. .N'.* MI 'h%,*'c 1240 Brief et 11. b ,( y "8j gy,, f.M J G l* 3u 1ACO Answer M 3-4, ci.a, P!D I,21 NRC a 304,306 09 (U.Co ha sinn rumanable eensideradon to e y. 4-e. ? q'(*. >j. ' s; F ' ',f 7 Jj the possede impecu of shadow eveaunan an encuade umf6c snsmg from wuhm the EPZ? "ucess mcuanon w x N,DE g * ' ' ? A* '

";r i no barner to enoaation d au. part of the EPZ").

.".0 . Ac. u.., -{ E~surr snef n 14, essa,21 Nac = 801.o9. cf. utro sner v u.2. ~... i%. aca,4 rmed.at s.e who me. eme,es,a, hemse d rea, d,e,,.um w c.:. 3.. e m ' D +. 9 M. t.F ;f { fg h (6: ic 2 ..I '.'"p m. J..y. - i.,M 4 mouvenen not to ereer the EPZ? and that LACO's plans for EPZ penmour canual were vessmabia. P!L,,21 N q ,vi% W 40 NRC st s04. 4,e Rl,'Q D.% } N3 - a, 'A g '. b s 5 v -U i 3..m ** .e ,g.

t. "g /,K}l

., fh (.{.i' ', '#.[ f.h '.[&,M .Cy 'i L N i 'f : y,- Q 9W/' 392

y. w e.

s , c,. 9.,4.s. y v.s. ~ ! g; (, i. ..', t, V., )*.f~ d. -,.. ~ >.,,'<.? ,' W. e.t N. . v,.:,, ' ' ' s ':.,s +1 '..*Y,. l 'p**j } A }y ';Q \\Js:;N.).,w.., 'b^ f. x 1 e,,. s s w z ".4-eg ,. i $ 1,*6 e

,+

_ y &...* '1' >. j ;l, ~ ') /;n[. Mg(:$n&.,~f. a.a w. -, 7a; L '% '. :,

1 % Nj,j?m.y

+ ~ ^ n ..Q ,} n y. m & g }t m i c M a % % w,f' JG.T g 2 3 K.L.::: c

p ;c.

%2M . g *5 m2MmW . w. ; + WM E w

M.. ge.w$yw,N,,g%e.;.gM'r.~ % s, ' '.+,e d,- #. -v:Wp. - T3p;s,.,, p. .s>c .,.r ..v .---n .m.e.m.Q. r 8 DAM. ,?j,@. # M,. -$:.t'$..:f' ' 7 's .- x.. <.c e.. #

M.. wag @.w 7 s. '

.:w, ..m.py. :s w. mu.m .. w., ,~ M h.:~a.?>lQ ?.<y,.O.G'$ h2'$.$f f} i' & l*6 \\ s &. w &.u a A Q. Q O. & ff:0,h' W,S . &C'U,Q'.$;$.'{ ~ ,N'%. b ~A.s; Q->[s w. l;.Q- } ?.c (: Q,G,..e<ye. c.,. w. M.w-~~ L.. ' ^ 's s:o' p.~ * ..v. - - w.. w.. -a.:~~ m u s a.: - .(. p.q,.,y p y [Q ,. p.: ,..,.v..,..- . *. # r,%,. ..~. w,e y.,.g, 7,s f.,.;.s g g A)g,. ;. s w _,m w..,i .,s.. s 3.. A ..u s ;.:c ' e. 3 s .e.. W.. ?> s , o. <,.. p A, m r.m N.. M -p .P . w. <,;, ,..~ . j, n

c. w.. > m..,c; p..,..

, o. .,.s., r.., g. ..de,* h 4,M'N. '

j. ' 7 e."

, '[6. 9f.'i/ ]j.4, W,1y'<y'[t.p,h h y& accident consequences using analytical techniques and information available at f a s r Wifb that time."

1,, f

% :. M. M Qj Ibr design basis / loss-of-coolant accidents (DBA/LOCA), the Report con- ~ N.bNbNNY. -[ cluded, among other things, that for most plants the 25 rem (thyroid) and 5 rem ,I? 6 ,s. 4. g :'.,5..:'3 5.i-G ih y Q 3 p7cy' V.5),%f'M miles from the plant, even using conservative assumptions and analyses. Re. (whole-body) EPA protective action guides 18 would not be exceeded beyond 10 @A n "),'.$'f..;-[; 7,['WP. .gi. .. J ,? 26q port, Appendix I at 4-6. As for serious Class 9 accidents involving core melt ~ W,. D W. / :.Q and containment failure, the Report concluded that these protective ect. ion guides v/-X. W N,y>.. 'M g#s : WQ M:'c.) y.f.' 8 generally would not be exceedul beyond 10 miles unless the containment failed W.M Y ~~bc d N59@'.i. Q* [:f [i Report further concluded that even for very large releases, emergency actions Dr. RA, catastophically and there was a very large release of radioactive material. 'Ihe e ' h.. .f ;. M q% . %. 4. _ s., y. , ; 7. ~ l,. ..,.S such ss aheltering or evacuation within 10 miles would result in significant re. W..l., V / ',,, ductions in deaths and early injuries. Id. at 6-7. From a probability standpoint, l' . ! ' # T'.a.7 s'.. ', I.'.M 1 the Report concluded that the probability of large doses from core melt accidents 7 - ~' ticc, " % 9: 47'.Wh J drops off substantially at about 10 miles from the reactor. Id. at 37, 7 .:c. %,% ks6. %...l';'?,' g.,sy;. d .1,y.. - .. g,.. <v.... /." Based on these considerations, the Report concluded that:

i s

x ,C ' 3( /l m,,i4 W %.,s.%..yQ,7 ,...,1 h.$ ',, v,. - [Elmergency response plans should be useful for respeding to any accident that would y,, T' WTd :'.t/ produce offsite doses in excess of the PAGs. His would inclMe the more severe design h PM* s,E E NYN'[',[f;.g,;.*f. 7""MM ;., basis accidents and the accident speorwn analyzed in the RSS. After reviewing the potential '2.'. Q l y.,pn.g/ ?.cc,' f,e y,,, cmsequences assodated with these types of accideras, it was the concensus (Al of the g,M ik %.gi'D.lh.q'QJ', '4 'M. 9 " q. Task Force that emergency plans could be based upon a genenc distance out to which - y.;c,...;l f s pedetermined saions would provide dose savings ice any such accidents. Beyond this generic J RN ( [. . 'l distance it was concluded that asions could be taken on an ad hoc basis using the same x N e-i-- q, y.y. .j cmsidermions en w into se inidal saim detemions. y,s W * /' he Task Force jWgment on the extent of the Ernergency Planning Zone is deriwd from the }, ', {, characteristics of design basis and Cus 9 accident cmsequerces. Based >n the informadon 4 =' prcwided in Appendix ! and the applicable PAGs a radius of about 10 miles ses seleaed for s; the plume exposure pathwey and a radius of about 50 miles was selected for the mgesdon E' expcsure pathway, as shown in table 1. Ahhough the radius for the EPZ implies a circular .,i area. the actual shape would depend upon the characterisdes of a particular site. Le circular e. , 'd or other defined area would be for planning whereas inidal response would likely invcive .k ' ".9..N 's, 1,...[y'..d only a por6cn ct the total area. s ,-l#,.

' r., 4 s

1P g .s g $.~ % q. M Report at 16. v

w, s
v s.....,,

y ;., ,i s,- r '. , :3,; .v ., c < -n 4, s .[ ; 8' .,' [ s 37 i- -- ^ ~.U,9 5,'i. a. 9. 3 A Cass 9 occMent is an acedere consdered to be so low m probabusy as not to requuo specific addiuonal i provimons a the despi d s reactor facdzty. such easderas mould evolve esquences of succesave fadures more s ~ g. t' yy y.' j eevere than ihose posadsiad f<r the purpons of establashes the deman bass for ptsecuve systems and ang.neered - l4 f safery fesuuss. (Caas 9 evat espances melude thoes leadmg to taal core meh and consequent degradauon or j the ccmtatrrnant boundary and those leading to gmes fust clad faduto ce perual melt wuh mdependers fadures of .5 I the corsaanment boundary). NUREO-03% at M s " Prtsacuve scuce smdes are unas of radiancri dcse wtuch. tf pro;eaad to be recaved by an indmdual, would t' a 'j;; -- warrara protacuve actum. ses Ma=.at of Prosecaw knas Ceedu ad Prosecaw haans for Maclear facidemar, } EPA.5200 7s-001 (September 1975). P t

(

ml ~' g a. 393 m. 'a v g D ~ "r i 3 e o z w 4 g 9 e = O y. a S a

N,$Dhh.h !$ih.hbNh.$ ?b5kf hhhfh b'$hNN$hkhNh.'h$N, k Msh.g 4. n::gM. ~m byn.s.c.h.y; p 4ge e.., a xv....,fe ~,. g. N, mis M M.9 nm. &, %..u..- v,4.x# e.w+;wn. Ae z. --%>!' eu ?: WyN. h. w .t i . $ n. p.,n :: w% .w u., o... y 1 hu. mu.. . p % #"j@MM@NINy-M;,.y30.Qhy.hn.h.,$h$igfd by the recommended 10 mile radius were not calculated in any precise fashion i A reading of the Report indicates clearly that the margins of safety provided 4.? g i h @% G M Q. W M M /.- d .M's but were qualitatively found adequate as a matter of judgment. Given the uncer. n$ W3MNW.gQ tainties in estimations of Class 9 accident probabilities and consequences, there p-D .1 was no other feasible choice in this regard. The EPZ's shape could be somewhat $#.lMCI/ffk[%U.,MSr.Me $NhNAb6@!!! NJ.M different than the 10 mile circular radius implies, without compromising emer-ME!AMd?,E. $k.k.9.v.'@ gency planning goals. Indeed, the Report is explicit that "judgment.., will be Mf used in determining the precise size and shape of the EPZs considenng local '.hNC.y;

3. N hf(($Y5hd @ M [@6 Q @

conditions such as demography, topography, and land use characteristics, access M;M5%%'.@Q d.W routes, local jurisdictional boundaries and arrangements with the nuclear facil-M 'h.5 % %.! M M [$. ity operator for notification and response assistance." These are, of course, the %i %:AK considerations later cited in 150.47(b)(2) with regard to determining the "exact NNhMh@M.,Q)Qyd&%.PQ i ' M'Md;NrlMDMM@N@N!N rQN;* 7 size and configuration" of the EPZ. ?. Mdit QM :h4 Nothing in the Report or in any other material in the emergency planning EM rulemaldng record compels a finding that EPZ adequacy is especially sensitive .. A& N W W Q.E W; nQ E @w.,pa?h D W S.,y. M. n :9~ o to where exactly the boundary falls, and any such conclusion would seem n. hg/p.;e37Mgg to be at odds with the overall thrust of the Report. In particular, the task Mbh;oN W)h@N,PW.9., ~8. -89M'h M (kdh?),h force's analysis indicates that "adequate protective measures"in the context of

, NpM emergency planning is not a precisely defined concept. Earlier in this proceeding l

QMs.Si 'iUjiDNMN UM We explained the concept of "adequate protective measures" in our emergency '., m..*m w w s.r.q; h.,. M Planning regulations in CL1-86-13,24 NRC 22,30 (1986), as follows: + .a /.,y. v

m...

y /:f.y.sgg,,,, N. t P W e s g, t da. s..

7..g e..t

.n,. i, g nis root quaion canot be answered wisham some disemim of wha is m by .te P...6, W4 4... f : ?,1,

adequaie pecienin musms." our unersency planning regulaions are an important part V,, f,', j*f." @ j'[,

Y,,

of the regulasory framework for prosectang the public henkh anc' safety. Bc they differ in j.' - E "- f daracser from most of our siting and engineering design requirsments which are directed ..s }. v ',y cg - 'j at adieving or maintainh a mhirnum level of public safety prosedian. See, es 10 .. ~. 3 4, ,.] adiew a preset mininun radisson done saving or a mininun evocatim time for the pane j C.F.R. I 100.11. Our emergwey planning requirernents do nos require that an adequese ytan . V. ; n ( * ' T; ; 3 y / *,. 3 ; *;g j. ' c J L '.AJ.' j ~; : l exposure pahway emersecy planning sone in the ewns of a serious accidens. Rather. they a4 b ' t # 'tt. W1 ) acamp to achiew reasonable and feasible dose reduction under the circasmstances; whs4 may ,.m, w.. -

M,.l

.. + ;.... I be reasonable or feasible for one plant site may not be for mosher.

., :1 s..

'i...s-::':. w. h. ;y... :.3 A*% /:Ml4.N n;;... 9 It is implicit in this concept of "adequate protective measures" that a de- ]7,l ? l N. :l]. Q:.Q j;$@f,).n.cO ' y,3;[ Vf.. [/,N. ;... 1 / termination that a particular EPZ size will provide "adequate protective mea-j.Rl.W,9 sures" does not in fact mean that emergency planning will eliminate, in ev-Y.. [y.1;d,";' @!M;G.}/Q,} ery conceivable accident, the possibility of serious harm to the public. If this j. 'e.- t 7 1 (. ph ~;.;q.y were actually the enterion, it would be difficult if not impossible to set any ".yQM7v q;';Of. n.! W L '-S! pp:y'V ;-)$.fgQf,g a pdod limits to tte size of the EPZ or to the scope of required emergency '. j planning. Emergency planning can, however, be expected to reduce any public <,7.3./ N ' : ' ' ' 1 M.X '.:s 'a j harm in the event of a Serious but highly unlikely accident. ,Kpgjy gd, B:,l ( ? But 'he rule clearly was intended to set such limits. Even under the Appeal d,.y'.WQ. U.M.. f. 4.....'j,.. >. '. Bontd's analysis, the rule amounts to a Commission finding that adequate u...

.. - %. ', i s. s f.'*;s, s, -

6,. '. pe,.s.c 't -ee,y: .gg 4q - I ,f g;.R.M}.'q ; gy. a 'g _a,;: m. y- ._:,:.' ?i ) w v. 4;' C. C.~~, '+ \\;.g" ;F P c.., 7 w,, .YJ. i, ;.. ". p.*;w.. g a,.$.a \\ 1

- ' S

$ ll ' [p' Y. r s.g,a w,,m 1/ m. .. ' ' t'i, s.s i. '. fi '. ' '.. .% $I-Q. iU j .,.. _..g,. d.M.. m. ', : ! L.s ;2.: w g v.- G..br!,. 'r r.. s n.. q.. , p,. 7.. L ;;..., y} l 1 u, ,q. . - ~.. y'n'.d: 't ;'( '[r,,RN.y

6 ~;';'.J

.c %.;>' Q :::,c... e-,u:} 1. e r s-s.. +... m. ~, ...r. r.e. p. w,,.o n. r.; m m r ...t e y r w a - s '}* kl. %l lll;f -o.. ,. ' ll.

}. }..

.... f"l N ' e'. b .? -+n.a~ n v,' !! .}.7kN.. ,a;,,h..,n. ". g, ,.'.y [. t '

e, l *,' '.?l\\A
~ 'j,2 j e% ~

h' "h. Y Y !% ::6 &%2,'. sg mp 4. 9,.,, ' ; ;A .'. :h, ' .t y'. m. i... .3 n.

7. y.,, ?,, 4,,:4..Q,...

-.3,.. 3 5%$2%..c., %y, ';...'?g: i ~ lW ':1.1:-4.o '. h2: d.. s . g. 3.y. 's. ry %;i;... ,&s ~ % TW % M' A'%'&;L,y,W;; ;M ~,a..y,,, N'D% ' i 2A-

k f 7,.;p. mps.%:((:n 4;.g% g:;;M@4&. y '.1 :m' e: s.. p,o, p,,y,Q,g y:,,. ' Q, ;' %;. m n.; n.>g v, n: g/,%,.:$

2.., %,, g,.:

%: x;r. y', s ;,1,.f.;y:%..~,4.p;~MM,n.v.i.: 44 M. W:.).s.t:.;;: s y:- c. < ?,. n ',. J s 4. ';y. V., v r

1;%: ;._ ? pg ;.-::.w A%.~.a L, %.,'.&,,:(;e.

. ;, :i .. :.p' y.- Q *.;..,;c y(s s s;%

m

., j:.J q :~. g e,% %. . ;;p ,-) ;M:,':g;.,Q h Y, - 6 . v.. ..,q , n ;,: e SE 'Y $Y5 Y .w.,y&.:;j.Ac;z,h.W,,&pha!;..r.qm .w, c 2 %.'. y ?: aQ 9 :n..c. - m x nt;g%Lo;;n;)m. s - Q..

A o. n n,. :s. j g W

d q, s.g .%. r . -; t?..+y*n a.m., ', p'i c f. =. q ?, n...

.,$...,*.,.Q.. s

.. 3...n. .s. y :4j Tfay 4) M-n, s

-. e..: .

..-- 'p, ~ a y,, p; gm..n.q.;p

m..,.,..y en - '.

47, ? 4, y,s c.N.mg.?g;w.c.g3g; p;y?g3 '. (:"lW. t'$;6%qqq +:. n gWt,M .p' Q$ T,. Y[Wp6,g.~% protection can be provided by an EPZ of limited size,10 miles in radius, give NJ or take a few miles, but certainly much less than 20. !M:$ k ~ " @. f.y%Flft#p?.; N Given these circumstances, we think it is ntirely reasonable and appropiiate

Q.i;., q

,W for the Commission to hold that arguments for "adjusting" a 10-mile EPZ to i n.:4.W%.:,; y$} nn.t x.y u- .c ,~ ..u. G / %,i M.d %,p.Q.d., improve safety, especially arguments that entail complex analysis and lengthy ~ ' " a.: - j,y litigation, are an impermissible challenge to the rule. The Appeal Bo'trd has M. '

Ji g f. % fl.s ' Q G jg..E f Pl$,W.e.

in effect also treated the rule as imposing a cutoff, which the Appeal Board u.. . i.n:.V....ir%.u 'G,.' y.W;. J,. ;:d %:M,,&. j'3' n,@

places at somewhere more than 10 miles but certainly less than 20. The Appeal c~

I;'JMUV jd;Mf. 3'c,.1,.p! Board's approach is not much different from simply reading 50A7(bX2) as (g.%$pW.W"" y.[liri T,MM '. f rcquiring an EPZ "about 20 miles in rsdius" and then taking the position we i";O.Q M$' adopt, i.e., refusing to accept contentions that would enlarge an EPZ that meets c

.g5y,%. ' f the criterion. But the rule says 10, not 20. The "outward creep" the Appeal s c. y '.j' 0 S.. p;.5 -Ji'M.,# Mf,N.E W Board would allow seems in the end to have no logical limits, as LILCO and: o., -;t A..,. rg..;, yp..(;J.I the Staff argue.

a.

f. d., D %.

QG( Q 4'.N.M@;I;h,G;% 5 f.f Accordingly, we think the better interpretation is that the rule precludes .M. adjustment.t on safety grounds to the size of an EPZ that is "about 10 miles 9<$... (.$. M.~ n,;<, p w.,? '. ;

u...w: %-

4.. gg.. ~. in radias" and that Contentions 22.B and 22.C should on this ground be deemed NDq...24d[ impermissible challenges to the rule. In our view, the proper interpretation of the h,..M@y @?p6- ,l. ' K,k4 A[*.:.l.. Q'_- M - Ql M h}:'~' Q J U. M, i (Q rule would call for adjustment to the exact size of the EPZ only on the basis of ss;;;g-l ': ;j such straightforward administrative considerations as avoiding EPZ boundaries O '#. /'. that run through the middle of schools or hospitals, or that arbitrarily carve G Q. fl, ' g l- ,.. v,MY'k<f'.#5s~..Y]' j out small portions of governmental jurisdictions. The goal is merely planning h;, ; simplicity and avoidance of ambiguity as to the location of the boundaries. With y'.'s 1 .. j ;y,'y a such clarity, plans can be implemented with an understanding as to who is being i

w. v t.c c

directed to take panicular protective actions." -r 9 s ,. 3 Ti 9.. c ~? :.. ,t II. HOSPITAL EVACUATION s, m,. ,..,. j 3 ..'[s. . J <,'. .7 ..i A.

Background

m 4 t s ' ' 1 ;.1 Y L.'!.. i, Two hospitals, and perhaps a third as well, are located within the Shoreham y'f {. l . gly ( yd 10 mile EPZ. The LILCO plan lists several hospitals outside the EPZ to which ,, Kl. M 5:C-j,'QV '] M.

,~,v?,y.-

s , ~..e j i, l "t.'nder 10 C.F.R.117s8 the safety suracecy ci a tomus EPZ trry sti3 be chrDersed based on a shoevig N,, ' !., )fe. ;

* ^

- / d., h.,,,, c est there are spenal ctreesances is the perucular sua mat were n<a onnsidered in the energency plarsung

g...

'p-y 5.. J. ru'arnaking Interwriors. who are fully fannhar wtm our ndes ut ha regard. have chosen not to cast metr ..,fM. 7 ;% ; M

cementes in the aherrauw as rule chauersges mder i 2.~53. Over 4 years hew now alspeed since ec saberessaan 7'J.l

,. y ' g' a(emergewy plannmg issues fa hagauen. and a recasurg of Corumsms 2aB and ZlC as rule cha3eriges emad be ursarneJy in the entremeu l /1 s Severceless wher.hcr there are spectal etsnanstances at shcream mat were riot ennsimed in the rulanakes and that would enahe a inappwnats to sw;y the 14mde E.PZ ru'e to shorearn mi std! be cmadered as pan of ~_i- ..js,. 9 the NRC sus's rwww of uncorsested issuet To be sure mat no unpersars safety tesus has been a,ertonked us 6 m - 7y*. ha casa, we ropest NRC su5 to renee mu asus and to report to the Canminana on a par to any hemaarts .boe 5s power. o

s s

( ) 1 .T .. t . a0 I z _- 395 i. ~ r ,,a + ae s s p-i , c --.4 O O g g 4 e 5 e 9 6 y 4, g, _,~ a 7

%%h'fC %{s@Mp,p, MSMH C

r. p'y$0h. %- v g cA 4 W'd& W Q

$fW

f. p Il. M M'(M M $ $<. &w g$w %

M w g,y :. x. % W,.,., M3 x.w i w s e m a $.M $bh hospital evacuees might be sent. But the Licensing Board found that LILCO I* h ' 4 M : # f h M !:. %,.g$; i d @$ON b $p?F M f had not obtained letters of agreement with hospitals outside the EPZ concerning 5 3 transfer of padenu, had not provided for transportation for evacuation of EPZ NMMk;Whby&@JdQ@Nh ijph88 ho8pital Padents undi individuals in other "special facilities"(e.g., nursing homes and nursery schools) wre evacuated, had not calculated evacuation times for f3Wh @e 9 .ug-M i o g$[f,h two of the three EPZ hospitals, and had not predetermined the circumstances q $dMM h$ %' N b M [$,W ef N' under which EPZ hospital patients would be evacuated. '%.M, %,.M M@i&f W.N,S,g# y, 2%.sf Nevenheless, the Licensing Board concluded that the LILCO plan was %4.Mik adequate. In the Board's view, arrangements for the relocation of patients %. MN

M Q'%.wm@ M Mi M M. 9 to hospitals outside the EPZ could be made while the emergency was in MMW'? y,~%w: "@.

y M,pj k hy@W;@$ h @M M Progress. This was considered adequate because the hospitals are close to sp d$ the outer edge of the EPZ, where the likelihood of receiving doses requiring Ql%Ed@QQ cvacuadon is small, sheltering is the preferred emergency response in any event M.N D M Qh7 $$ d ip W M % q because of the risks attendan; upon the movement of patients, and the EPZ h.[.kMN}0$%.$7,h#$-h. NhNM hospitals were constructed so as to be particularly suitable for sheltering. .1,;.'.k@:%'@d@AgbM2ig[h.$@$] rM The Appeal Board reversed. It characterized the LILCO arrangements as ad W. d hoc, and found that contrary to the regulations

requirement for EPZ evacuation N'kNk@hhhhQ $,

time estimates, LILCO had not provided time estimates for each EPZ hospital. T; /,M MQ.Ms 2GMW'.y The Appeal Board also noted the Licensing Board's contrasting treatment of

NQ{$$$gg@f hospitals and nursing homes. While the Licensing Board found no deficiency in Pf,;, Q M MM M ( N M $.M.Q?.f,.g LILCO's failure to obtain agreements with hospitals for relocation of hospital sf. i Mf3;i.TQ Padents, it found de6cient LILCO's failure to sufficiently identify and to include v 'r k M. W : vi.y:. d; y@ P M.i letters of agreement with facilities outside the EPZ for accommodating EPZ

[ M y'f p\\ -[:3yp ' 9Q nursing home residents. The Appeal Board was puzzled by the Licensing Board's contrasting trestrnent of these two areas.

,7

4. (,q,.

,3 In taldng review, the Commission asked whether the regulations, !ncluding

.%.s .m, n ,f '; ',.,. ' j, P 150.47(cXI), "require evacuation plans for hospitals in the EPZ even though ,F.. M. : w2 L.N. w[,;, *,4. 4 j i ?) sheltering would be the preferred option in most circurnstancesl' 4 m. ~ ,.~.,; w, l} c g.' 9 L 'l v . ;a g.,,.,. 4 ' 7 ' '3.,. , z.1 B. Parties' Arguments Before the Commission ,.J

l..

tx.$, '&...%.' f.M. :Q{-. ULCO sad Seq 0 Arguments 4.% T NM.a.3[...,.. ..s?a 1. '....z .r yS W W. yen h,i.".1~S.*bi.rfyp LILCO argues before the Commission that NRC's emergency planning N regulations do not require evacuation plans for hospitals. LILCO argues that the ' j[,7.Qij,Jj 9;rp y e i3-Q'g.f'% @': @h y[. 3 hallmark of the Commission's emergency plarming requirements is flexibility, v recognizing the appropnateness of different approaches at different sites and for l, g. Me';?."I f, ~ different potential accident sequences. The key regulation, says LILCO, is 10 U:e - f p,.s.f M. ~ ' ' J:,5, ' Q ; l v. Q g y y J: y ? C.F.R. I50.47(bX10), which requires "[a] range of protective actions... for 9 ? Ng(.. j;ye. :f;'v,D. 'd,,5. LILCO continues, in practice includes sheltering arid evacuation. ~ 'e [r,d @t;- ' :I f' the plume exposure pathway EPZ...." This range of protective actions. 1.G,'.s...%. che,. l /. i . 5.- I s g ',.. n.. wr. y,;) n .9 .p W, *. 7' ;,, W. y 3.,s.,3 c. ' :, p.g D; ~; ' $.e..., . ; v. ,t m,. ._l d < b 3,.-, ' - Y1, .. e'.* U* ft g*- .

c.. jg, 2$ '

ht'.i ? ' ". *j -

3 ",y ,,f, . vp i

m

,..N ; ey .y, es. '. 4 'E[,;r R, y 7 ~,o v.. w&, j ', 5, @f*. w~3,, i g l' \\'$.? e l%, f \\ .,... N,. w e, *.

c. -'.y o..~ ;J. m " ' 'l i

.f.0. 9.. s, 8 f '3 2,. N s. _, ,..: 3 '. j., t. M--* N} t 'o * ' ', ';f ,Q. N'o i &. * % ?. j c . % + /^;' l _N ** ^. I ' ; e r, ,;% > ?. w.:q,..y.s 7 - D. ~.'- - ear. ;. r -~ w., r r ~ p e* q se, m.,y. r.-Twvn" m.mr. f -s. r" =w m ,,. r.;,g a ~;4, ;.; , 3;9.,q ms ;,3;~?)l, t ;$o t p' g. c.,p* J g.*--

y.

v c y,49..y y ..'.L ' ?, ,0. 7 a s'. sni T d; '

+.

'V r-

~, ., j'.2l.'g*~ - ?. h U .. ?. ^l o' , r,.l '.h. m; 4.n n. &f@*sh tN* w :M..% m;);%* k,% '} m ( f;m.% 5.'f:' v-e x:. l* ; ' ?lM '. :.Q ,.,*:.,, /.. ; % ~ 7. n.

c a

..,",, e

n"

- ~,*',:

.e m., .'y yG. pc.. &'l,.. .y' y s-. >.~.,. ~.. i a..,.. \\. :..

m. y,q..n s

e

.a s - ' i 7. ~... w.i.f.. %,,,c. ~F L,:'.; s n;;;y, n.c ~,. g' :;,.. g 3,,rl.c..y4,,n ~

:?.

i g )'e,.

'w., c -..,.,,.s

. Q.ls.% s.t. - . tr. s, a, r- .s .4 .4 .s.. . '.Q ,r f, [.* .. >.,],} lysf,, y y'\\

p.

,J q:,o 'y Q - l l

c > ; c ::, M p n w,w'. w.:;m.w~.,./.4.'.w :~v.. ~.s. ;,+z.~x. - e: W~.~m.'.. :. % r" > c r.. m.,..

. : M.. n ~? "., w vu. . m. +. wyy w ~. .~.%. e.5;Le... n. . v.. c.f. Pt,V~3..,mlf."w g,v +e e. v, m

m..~. n ~.w..h m.u. w,., n..s.w. u :.4.s...>+b.

y . w.- 3... a u w. .v;.x c . _ q. 3 y ~S,.'; f.G, M /.,pe.3 % 7h;,4*';I~ s.+.r.ua.v a g - J,t.s * - .sa y'm* s. #S Z% y pj .. ~, ,.. g;; ~:A g$y.y A-jy W9.1 s.pm .y .s. .. e v. ,v... gn c. p... w. n.. .~~...,x,,,3. ;. t.. y+ w%s ::.,, ',, q~.:., 1.t

w..

q.m ~,.

h *.y' ;,b M ?,. h> m.Spj, 7yl~ s y g;g,%yl[ . a. y

.qw fhhyy'ya While conceding that its plan doesn't have all of the detail contemplated j' by NUREG.0654, LILCO argues that the standards of NUREG 0654 do not 7.7'.I j;', Y,. DD.M8MM constitute requirements, but rather are suggestions. LILCO then lists some of y, Wl/S'.NM.Wh9 .KW:0 ~ M19 those NUREG-0654 "suggestions," e.g., that plans "shall include.,, means f, Q /. hQ for protecting [ hospital patients].., means of relocation,... time estimates 9.,; e j/ 9 M. Y;,, f for evacuation,.. an estima.te of the [ hospital] population... (which] d c.'n,,P,4' ;GM - fM D,'y'@f.3 Q./, H ;.3 V W,

shall usually be done on an institution by. institution basis, [and] the means

f. 5.r.N,;.

$ Rc.h...' v'",.. $...p.. ;.N.. .r im d 4. l/y of transportation... (for the hospital population].'" Brief at 19 20. LILCO et.,/j; J.p; ; gpg.., y.y.,,, 4. - concludes from these passages that "none of these provisions requires every ,s Q..,j<.,

r. 4 G:w?.

.C..,.::m-4.L %#it licensee to maintain a detailed plan for both sheltering and evacuation of every -- a c 4 M. M. - facility and population group in the EPZ." LILCO finds support for its position w r;,f,..g.jf 0-e G - M - - g ;. C g. d ggf.;.g q;..u e< .y q:f: S J.; g.l. ' in the EPA Manual of Protective Action Guides, which "expressly acknowledges y l . 7 Y,_. ! Y M. P:[ C - ? . V ^. ? '. jb. ~ the need in certain circumstances to apply different criteria in establishing M fN;M '7 M appropriate Fotective action for special populations such as hospital patients." ..y '., ;>;Nf j..?.~:.$ N;M[f3;R., Af"3 Id. at 20. Thus, LILCO concludes, "the regulations and guidance ' explicitly' r4 l' U. M.; (,i allow different treatment for different groups such as hospital patients." -;M M.;..'-- ?CsN.'.7/J:. ' f'. LILCO's next argument on the hospital evacuation issue, and the only ) 9 f s M M Q D,i d E : ? argument offered by the Staff on this issue, is that even if the regulations ' ?[W s.C[,.$.h@.$h: 3M.9h generally require evacuation plans, the Shoreham plan is not signifcamly '.y h. deficient in this regard, and thus, under 150.47(c)(1), the Commission is not ' Mt, W' ? p. h g.y;y M W f* '. ~,7:%v.K..L.g: 7..,1 compelled to deny the issuance of a license Both LILCO and the Staff suppon y .., f.;, : N this argument by pointing to the Licensing Board's findings on the distance of j ' - QMqM;Q the hospitals from the plant (over 9 miles), on the heavy masonry construction ^ -.," A,' '.4-q,, ,p g

g. Q ' ' '

of the hospital buildings leading to 0.2 shielding factors (i.e., the dose inside l 2 a " b,'.

3 the buildings would be 20% of the dose outside), on the danger of evacuation for patients, on the low probability of accidents that would require evacuation

+ e for those more than 9 miles from the plant, and on the existing arrangements

~

'. s.1 - 5 e' ? for eventual evacuation of the hosp tals. i +,. . ]. Finally, LILCO argues, it has developed reasonable evacuation plans for the , q hospitals. Evacuation vehicles first would complete their nursing / adult home . l O.h. 4l runs, and then report to hospitals on an "as needed" basis, as determined by 3,y ,., M.p g(.,, y.; hospital administrators upon balancing information including that on weather, . n-y' (;: /:

q projected doses, and the risk of transporting patients. Moreover, LILCO argues,

' ' [ ' M l '. q the Appeal Board was mistaken that LILCO had not adequately calculated j.s .c y. ; ;. :.b evacuation times for hospitals, since the Licensing Board specifically found that e. .s.% Qf.7, @..'. the hospitals could be evacuated within 9 hours.* s Rl .l., S* 7(f, 9'l.% hs Laureria Board found thac W (A)mbulances emid not complena!y evacuate the suffo& Courry Mrmary unul s<rne 8 hmen, s0 rmramas shar the unaal rwuAcances.. De evacuenan cf h<spaah co,dd==4 seks aMar a=uar.r e/ aan et './ least ash agard to arnhdances.... [With regard io arnbuleues), the hcupu.als are a a surslar psaman t ,f' [to the s,dfan Carny Mrmary, fcr *tuch ambulents encuaoan wW take 4 hars. 40 rrmanas). ,1 S...,/ ',) 12P ss.12,21 Ntc at $4s-46 (empasas added) r l' '..l 1 . e r, r. 397 f gi % .g ig ~.' s ( i,"**b' m .i _

,,g,%

I a 5 I 1 8 I 9 g 4 1 b g 9 k g g 4 4 'n ~ w. . +,'

e w..w p. ,o...c w..M y,4 dp.....,.., ;. (,.rer wgs 'A ywm@h h u.

m. y.w m.m.m(h.a.z;.yh&M.;.-: .y.&@,,,;,Ihk}

i If! w ,.g ;.+ g, TW m C 4 Q@Q g.M:&& pW Kd'$..q.M.ilh.Q ) MM c@ I % :.L.,. Mi m. s ,<3.V m ~.- . /. W 5.? % * %m W.. .'. ;.d G. y i n Q+,Q. Wis;QWMb f 7,b.J.t l a'en .?.l : 2 Interrenor Arguments EM.,2+,4.N;W.3:;n;j g y. m.. s. ,D.,dh;Dt $.hv.,r..- Intervenors argue that "LILCO's failure to plan for ewcuation of hospital )TE.iN@[i[d.YeM.,$9g.%xy M WN h patients is total," with vehicle arrangemenu "expressly acknowledge (d]" in MM:p; t M $ P ',Q f.iq 4}6] the plan as ad hoc, and provisions for evacuation only 'il vehicles become bN.Y2Y.N8.' i hYl %N"i.M.$ available." Brief at 15. 'Ihese aspects of the plan allegedly violate the regulations i s M. $ 3 %).,5. F... w @... 9,9;= W Q q and NUREG-0654 by failing, for example, to identify relo:ation centers for TSM,ifydMDE,d;.Mgp;'@g e tM hospitals (an alleged violation of NUREG-0654 lilLA.3, J.10.d. and J.10.h),

c. 5. A.O.,,

p , sQi'h. by failing to proviue evacuation time estimates for each facility (an alleged f.lY M,SJ.i.@ M U N;i M fEks M .W Q 'M p MipMGQMgg,% violation of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50), and by faih,ng to plan routes or Procedures for hospital evacuation (an alleged violation of both 5 50.47(b)(10) .I'h 6(gi,W Mj'% d M.NM and EPA Protective Action Guidelines). %pgjji% %[ M,kki($9AM;)[i f.f.6-TJ.h Intervenors support the Appeal Board's view that the improbabdity of ever MN$3 >l.h ' N%-$; needing to use any given protective action is irrelevant under the NRC's ';isl{ONh? .' M;%f. 4 emergency planning rules because those rules are based on an assumption that G Y. $ g; % C @ hh h &[:Y M i, lx:ZW a serious accident might well occur. Brief at 19 20, citing Philadelphia Electric '.l b M ' @g t @ N N h N;, @i k M dea i' ,W Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,713 h (1985;, review declined, CLI 86-5,23 NRC 123 (1986) Moreover, Intervenois M.7t # p @ S =l d ly,' 3 7 $ 'dfe.h h assert that LILCO's allegedly "complete failure" to plan for hospitals can never jh@:ph. ' s( $ W S M Q $ be viewed, using 5 50.47(c)(1), as insignificant." M' .w. 9%Su - u.m. A r,,c q.-q m 2.g . Cv - sv ~p

n n y n+ m;:..~..s.

y

R;ijGd.4Mf,,qfM.;M3';d;,pr C.

Commission Decision . m:..;;, sc v w n 'A w r. 4 ', d;Q We agree with the Appeal. Board's reasoning on this issue. Even though ,.3 -..;, y.-. ./ sheltering will quite likely be the preferred protective action for EPZ hospitals ,,y - 7 0,' M in the event of a serious accident, evacuation should not be prejudiced by the

E

- ? *, j failure to plan in advance. Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 requires evacuation ^ t. 'd-f time estimates for the EPZ without exceptions for special facilities such as c ,17 l j hospitals. Clearly, evacuation plans for hospitals must at least be developed in ' ' - a.'. ,f , c.'

': ]

sufficient detail to provide a basis for these estimates. Moreover, hospitals, as j <d 72, w;! 6.{ a kind of"special facility," are specifically mentioned !n the principal guidance ,- g, i f.,:,, A.

- h# -

gj document in this field, NUREG-0654, and there is no suggestion in this guidance .. '.': ]: j w" i M ~: that hospitals are to be treated specially as exempt from the evacuation planning N '.M,;;f [R ;[m(Q M.4J requirement that applies to other segments of the population within the EPZ. g/g y EM.<, h We therefore conclude, in agreement with the Appeal Board, that the regula-1 i p, 1; O

f M '.7J.g tions require the Applicant to fulfill the same planning obligations with regard u : -; '

,'f' '6:rW 4 y E to hospital evacuation as the Licensing Board imposed in connection with other ..Q, ' ~ ' ( '. like segments of the EPZ, such as nursing / adult homes. This conclusion does not .c .. s w. ,V 4 ,y. ..G' i.;(ge. l' ' 4 s, ', uin m. pen to utco. sner, traerv a. e,= u m. caramaxm shwd disrecrd rnimy or utco. ..t.:., 4e,W&w armurn== be== ther = autad. me.w. er m. canrrumwn. revw. p oms. p rus rir m.orar u utro , p J h,,,. [. ;. g;,.,. 5,3 -'q*j* saarnpa to show that there e ad.quate planrung and pepaneens for hospttal evscueum. t --. yl. ? A' ' Q'? t. ='.* j.4 '*; ' ' ; t;' & '. '* . ;'s ' ;. s '.~ . e' .? r

e g

4 * .,e 1

' w, ll,: :'

g '; L g 398 \\ j q,, s; p ..g

n.

,- Q (@ ',% fc.7, ' ; ^ p..,, y- ]'.q . y n. g j' { ~, ;....,' . '.u.

Q s'

.,s ?,s , ',.d

,.,y

,y... ,p f, 3._ .;; in yeme,,7g7===- ry ev=]* N* ="s,** t * "% ' f { t tt 7y{y 59" f s; lc]

f ; ', N -

,?.' , {%e. ; f [ a [.f.

4 %.* #W:'g.* g ' S. - C v f "

,c'* O s .. ' s ....* [. . Q m m'.' . - s b,.,' %. # (# t . G ;.

f..

.. ((. ~ 3 ff 'E',- . '.***=!' .I j',lQT&,e's.f a.., w. g y c,,, s}., (}w.,. 'Q 'y" g 1 s y h s

47: fa#

's 4 %.[,... (- th i* k,.. g.,]. f:f: 'lj } [' ( .,'4, m .e 3 ~ s.- ...k j,, i) ' .e 3* o e ..,b ', ',$ '. *.,'} - l

Cb' I

.,e h* g - =., .e ~.....,.... ~ b. I g g* t "'4) N~_ u t I

WM;,9yh..w. i" a.m.; a. c.. e w v s..., n;:%n.,c W h &'M f. W.' X%'aM & i@[C: "86.'LQ M N;?,.;,%..,.._.\\,;';'.C; Q o u M. m, n.9.t, m,. @n. >q:-) . n.m.m s:%.. s..n.~.a,,,.,.,;ncs.,%,. my t -, a. u..a.. w. s... c ,w .e 2 :. y,.. p.:y ~ w.::-s. W,o.,;; y. r,.~ u.n.cf;c.e w.. .., e n, m....: w~ wy po.w

M,,m.,e,?,

y. go g 32 - , m..

y..

,.n w .c e.. &.n;n..v :.q v.,3..e v a m,'i:jy m.. 7: - g g. j u -,A.., m;wr.w.;; m,._., ;.;_ p;><.g. 3,.

y..,.y r.

cg y .g.c 7j-3,j .. ~.. n ~ -m. .c : g.%. r.u. ~.s .;.. c. ;[m. c(Mw,,. + < e.. y v..W.,4(v.~;;yp..pJ,./.% ,.,. o : ,.. /.:J. y..o,.:.%. W@.,. : :;wh, m vm.n,%;,,w,

w. i ;.

,xc o

r b.,.

m :. m e. % uu u.a,6., M &.&s..s~,..,e.': ~,, Lax.e<. :.v..n. .a, n. w.i t< :..,, ~.,..L:.ww p a ..,s.-- 2m.c. o- .s m,.. y.m.. g %. %./. - g m...y t 9 %>r. L ... y: ,.a

1.,....r

. ;; e 7;f- ~i:e .p, g. .a.a -. ~

, a m m.. t y: ,; h. M. 9

,.. 17l'.NW'.O.')' ~ M ~j:.. *<,: .C.,'.,. ,;'PQ ss .N (.**y v.,D.*Y: *. ', * ; tw:%v+*v;.'R.y .(,.* * ,Q.,.Q..

4?.,,,:

, + ,f..,x t.< u 21..,. ~. a. s. a .-my

,..,<....,-..,.. ; e.../: .s, y w, m[,,..

.e, ..q.,,- m,. 3:. .:3. +, , v..[th .a.. . '.,[ af d.y

V

.N", { M M,4if.tyWg$i:@;% s,.R.,./ M x ' D "' Mg.;-.,%f a h ". . a n-s 7 .c M, necessarily end the inquiry as to whether LILCO's Emergency Plan is adequate . Mc:<s with respect to these hospitals. Under i 50.47(c)(1), the Licensing Board could h8A@,Gr.. M@?f,$).@k;@X;,; E,"ckMkk still approve the LILCO plan if it found that the deficiencies related to the hospi-i't M JN/dT~?F.$ factors that may have relevance to this question, such as distance from the plant tais were not significant for Shoreham. In fact, the Licensing Board did identify .W.T${'..... 9 " /'< ;q. SY.bN[P cE.q.'fd. %@ld,>y"i .[ -Q f;7k MT and construction characteristics of the hospitals. However, it is not clear to us f[ % r'd 2.;$.j'JiW fc that this was a matter adequately presented to or considered by the Licensing .MyQ M;g;%.; Board, since the Licensing Board did not specifically discuss $ 50.47(c)(1). On /in% remand, LILCO and Staff are free to raise the issue for appropriate resolution. 3.s...: W, #.-; -y..w.j. W..n. ;.. a.w@.w*s:%.. 3,,,c..,w.., h. 44 ,..g,~- js ..c.l; @y%y. f '.,.m,> &My.. .,q Si. ,,.w ~. o..........w

M l

HL

SUMMARY

W,,.,;f,.'. g,.,[,s:..j M.. Z. W..% S ; Q., -y. u..,. y.. ,..1 UjT8,< _ '@,#,/ ,..w. r.c, %(, a, '!-%..,w[ In summary, we take two actions. First, we reverse the Appeal Board's .a.. a. 1Q[ld- ,7 ! / .?.... decision in ALAB-832 insofar as it admits Contentions 22.B and 22.C for -. w@w. J.. '4c;.

v. 7.- %

?. d; >.. .. ?. M... M,'W, v9:pN?, license for operation above 5% power whether there are special circumstances at hearing. However, the NRC Staff is to advise us prior to issuance of any i G,'. , W.f':: M b,N @% f: ,f. G i $.$ MNW 2$[: Shoreham that were not envisioned in the emergency planning rulemaking, and b1y $dhk %..Q(r;N@h@;,OM@hg% that would make it inappropriate to apply to Shoreham the generic decision that M I[,'b;. Q W @M %O kM.Gf[_f$y.M@Ji.d,s O2T an EPZ of about 10 miles is adequate for emergency planning purposes. Second, / 'MUS W8iWy,g we uphold the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-832 that the proceeding must G4. be remanded to the Licensing Board for further consideration of the evacuation . i' r,:.'y,.e. J.,.a. - l Ws.,., ".7'.< .al g. H..J p ..:. - M R. O... Z;4 .. N plans for hospitals in the EPZ. v;, /;e;. It is so ORDERED. 4. c b fy. .. e. s. s e m. g..r

. < ' '9

4..:..

n ~ D.: Ibr the Commission

r,

'O :, .m Y ,s ..:;3} . ~. w s 1..,. 4/1 SAMUEL L CHILK g,. 7,. ', l 7g'] Secretary of the Commission T. s.5 P;j Dated at Washington, D.C., . c.. Q.s. s. .g - lm ,,'SlWd i

v. '

g-7,.0 .. ;;.J q, this 5th day of November 1987. n.c - ~.:.,,- . m...s..m_3 ., r -. .e 3 'f y.'.C.Q (The appendu has been omitted from this publication but can be found in the . k.' f a ...N !! Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.] 9 '- N ~ w ..t.. g. ..,{

., p J ',.

w s,..*y c. ,v. v '. (I:1:, d , ~,, 'J ,? 3 t 6 ..,t-..;.:. / '.'., ;s.e {

Cornnunnasers Barra.hal and Resers were am poners fu i.he affirmsuon d ens ceder, if they had been pesent i;

they wouW have agreed n .-z. j s - x.

4. - e' 1.

.J. '{ e " e 7.- 399 a- * * , -'.. ; g '. a f..

.y c.y.

^ J.-

.,<s.

z.. s .. g.! ' <j. 2. _.. _,,.. i

, i s

.c s s s ,'-s. i s 4 s I g .4

3 3-

\\, 4 s' O - U g 8 .a t e s

M.cMWhww.k k Y Y W W. yt.7'#: w.7%y ps.u.0%WA.% ;g e.a% m W,.: s.&: - t. s .y& 4 W. p@q@9,.:% @:tw 4.M.n,y:M;4&.W.M,;:.?;%:.ncs. mmys %A,w. q ,... s.% wy p.W. ..g:: y..; d;u;;p.w.-;.w:.q%n.oa%%

s. w y

w e e y-v p g s.y.:w'%i %uM A w a =y n%a=. .wl.. ou.n:CW' w;y&qp 4> wn M M'?Nb # M 6 &m.m. m.,N M B: w:..s,,.u:,.; c n.:w.%.. u.W ekMW,4,mm&^.. w&c,Wi!Q~ 4W: C a w n.?.u.....y.. we.v s e s c eww g.. e:.. ..m.. mwn pwn gw. i. A W ;.:M.y:sM&a k,. a w .c., ,.rxa2.2:e L.~L MiQ2M wh %m.69,.wp.w%w m a&2; c a.u. n A m.C,.;.s,;,aym.::M.;gep;m.m.:4. s.xM- %q>p J,$;s : v.: .,4 c. e. v.. w.i;9. :.sg.w;;',hy; <1 %.= w: @m. W. g %:: E. ; n.W q D g n..w.. v3

gy.s ~...,kn c 1.;4..

w >:.: m @p $ n... 4 @.n rQU'# P. ' W< u ~. U&Ir& e s.+.. A;;;,..e:..+ 3. m. s.4....;,4 - .~z. h h N $ ' [,2'.., h h;mb'h.6(p Cite as 26 NRO 400 (1987) CLl-8713 .w.. y., f. D.o...7.@g@, A[w3Ih @@..w.,.D%.W.Q', OlM@gW Rye %y .M. 4; - y j .M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )n's.M,..+,#.,K.7,,4,.:sW.,s. x.,,$.,Q 'p.w$,.J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s l* % : e,p V..". L'.n.'. Q W s,. ,, y =%nM@9:9'"%g%.,;y:PM;,9 i,}} '%M.MMn COMMISSIONERS: W 'M.p. J3M.*.' J .A .,rw &..p.3c,3.w.w. g, , 3., y;;,.w. w. s .n v.2.g s.v. c

'.T, n: ' w.....w, - w,4.,.,,,3.D M =f.d;;.r.M p.:v w4; m. a,a

., ~. ;;m.

ym%p&n.JJQs.;-3,Mf@M;O@s c.q

,N $@j.T Q.] Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman 3a ,......s... a.,L.... ys.. Thomas M. Roberts p ,s. ,1

:M.m.d.A@M: b-M,.t f. A,..e. :.,.',$.E;;. ;j f.

P Wh9.W',- w Frederick M. Bemthal .. L u. c. Kenneth M. Carr

g;.,;p.c?.a u-Q.lH.',

t ' Mf f yr.,r -A..t. < -a. Kenneth C. Rogers d . :W k- . u.., -o. r .. n

Q 4.,s.c

,4. q .a.,,.. m.3 4..~,* .,f. -,. -. .g '.;...t- >.+.f. '. q,,,,* ;%. d f .v..a - s. t, C,.s. 4 m? :;p.~, y,. w y., m m.q h 4+ - : :~ t d. s. .f ,s n r: n.: ', r.. ms, > s 5 .4 . e k.- - a p# 3,g. +.n;3 sv. c, % , d;.'v. W. W i' @f. n... ~ : o .v

. ;., i;' ~..

] in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 0L 1 , a v - w - s., -.b,. Q:h. s. &.. %..;:9)d M??qy., l W 50 444 0L.3 -x. ...'/p y. 9 N. #; %. ^.,,';:. W. y/j p',. g p (Onsite Emergency Planning h y.- and Safety issues) 7t,;.y /,g 'M; m.., ?,cW.L.Q " W y%., c.f J m:. f-.\\. ;.p.,.4:e ' 4.,. ~.;:y:: ~ - $:.. "'J :rn Q '..T. M:9 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 3-!.y % '6;C$$D'O M;;)Y] %{'i';," '" i.~ ~.L.en Q : NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. E.* (Seabrook Station, Units 1

1. l s.

-.y and 2) November 25,1987 e,. '4 -\\ g .f, The Commission lifts in stay on issuance of a low. power operating license

i. y '

for Seabrook in the event uch a license is authorized and dismisses as unripe all -j s ',j other pending motions seekic.g to stay low-power operations. The Commission + also denies a request for an evidentiary hearing on summary review of the '..(, M _. f.i. w' U:.,D sufficiency of the Applicants' utility plan. .s....-y ~.s ..t, y 3 .l.[.:5.. ? :. s, ', Q.,. { ~ ]. n EMERGENCY PLAN: UTILITY PLAN AS SUBSTITUTE _. w .m

. s; f.j.i 17

g # '. ll)i....,- -.qc. g In requiring Applicants to submit their utility emergency plan for summary

.. ;,-"] review, the Commission did not open the door to an evidentiary prehearing ' !. [ .. v.' ' cy q-on emergency planning issues. On summary review the Commission intended 7 ,q e o' -j that the plan need demonstrate only that adequate emergency planning was not 7 -V' -C foreclosed. 1- ,a .. c, k' ' '., s: v. 'a s .. ' a x ;, f, ? O " r l ' 1 e'O .L,. s.,g. k.. .'i .~:. - s; 3 4 1 e s. ,c q. ,,E., ...-s ,s A ,k 3.v. '.T, y, ' -. -. L,- 'p. y 4. g ,t., 400 s;- ,,3 ..,r. s ; . h* y,. ' -.,,. -,.'" .\\'

s' g

,.y"-, ,3.. e ,c. w i., L* 4

e. 3...

-i .v, i, + p., .8 g-.%f. q= rg T* -. P *g's - #,qq- --9. 5 ^ *F r* D3g

- S*,,,ftr g 9 7

,..%.g .g .. e e-p ;y.3.ym + 4; g s qgwy=, - = + s 4 ,?,.. L'? ','i,a*s - '. gg. s *(*,5. '-)., ? ' ', ' W* s,% .a* [* g -r s .'F.,' ,.: f *- .s .2 . u e, ,f ..,4 .+, - T - J... g.%

si 'd^.,
e t. *q _

A.i4.. N ( s..- .A.....*. ,. ~ - 4--,'.e' h,*'m .. A q'-. -il ,. ' l A i. n.' .c ' d', i- ~ ~. s i

A: s

.t , :s .c.6,< o.' s,. ';Q ].(*, l A('* j i 2.^', f ;.,;, ", *j c. C, '.gl i s .f y, ,.u , :1. y. y. ;. m.,.,.. 3 . y >s,, *. : + .xN..,.- .s., e. ....*5.'**.5 o 4, i c,..'g.. /

.. n.,

- s ' .,4 ..n ep. N: s e +

ff r >.,':m.;.a.w[- h,pY, M,N .j.l W.J. %. W Q, N

$1&O&h.h h l b y,$ [. k [ h: h s.-

h$., h$$$$N! f hk w.. M s.f . w. h,, n -c. w - mA ., m, > :\\ ;y w n,p.g.n ym;m..:f %,)p.e.y:mm;w q:.q;.;%y,p:,;y 5<<-

n

,^. .e ,yyt. W h...mn w h :phh. w.0k.,pWg5NNiWYE': i ny mw. w U N O A - ? p....n n a r,1 r v v '- m.: \\. y:. a 1

7. y,

s. a SN.,f;t :v:, j .a

h... $,,,-W. s.l.,~. o NU S

~~ Me i M<...,M;<.ym d .v 4.. c. .y.pyr 3.:..; sg..yc g,.- nu . a,. A., y,..g. w e.,. ..,,., +; y.y;.9.y, w.g g g<;3..- a. .;.. p ;~ ...e ,.m.. ...WJ2.;;;.:p .:,.O w X:;r,~." '.., ,%g},9. ;,~,a,;j p ' Q y. ' [, ~_.s.p: f, ...c.M'did%D.c, ,k.9'"I',0?M.. - EMERGENCY PLAN: UTILITY PLAN AS SUBSTITUTE W 'y[ M ' N [ N[ 5 @.. ~..b..

f.,,.M,7 N. c@.,[6..T I....M 1 ~

'Ihe Commission refers to the standards for submittal of a utility emergency V,I!N g,djj$ $ @39[.f.i M; T.J p-plan that were elaborated in CLI 87 3, 25 NRC 875 (1987) and reemphasizes .-JDC 7 that a utility plan must include measures to compensate for the absence of state 6,:?A... ilJ;M., r iM.i a..k,w '.,, 2..d5.,;, and local governmental planning and that it necessarily must be a good faith . ir..,M /.g: 1.G ..o n 4.,. ::.,. m..m.P M C,i-submittal. n.. J.....,M., c.. +. s:. .,;.N.m.. -

c...
@py: :,; a. :.

. m3.;: %..; D.wi.cn,.; m. x,' e. v. w $.... R,. w e. m.f. y, yhhN@lh,,s,,[_, .s NF W+W..4 EMERGENCY PLAN: LOW. POWER LICENSE si W W 4 - l'.Ihh -Ih. 3 .y. - b. 'Ihe Commission's rules provide that a full evidentiary hearing on the effsite ) h.;; M 9 7;.Mj G:E. ?@".,;ff emergency plan is available before full-power operations, but is not required e.W. o /8. $., n%;. y., 7 '..W.; >.,,^.. ) before low power operations.10 C.F.R. I 50.47. c v.y ~y,... 1 q.. n. -w g c. ~...,..,. -:. w,m. :/. ~a. %.d.. 4. 'M.. . u:

y. ' j; p. '.M... P< -~@. /f...'.M d<..,.. ". L...

EMERGENCY PLAN: UTILITY PLAN AS SUBSTITUTE ..E. h,7.i'N N f M@y;. y.,<a.a:. w..g z .N k.NNN? On summary review, the Commission fnds that the disputes about the ,yQ,hI'N@y%'@i@4'E Gr$.d.p S: idNJ :O adequacy of the Scabrook utility plan are, as was the case with Shoreham, &di[? 09Qc

d$,@,

litigation and political disputes. While the outcome of those disputes is uncertain, ,Q7y[J@ the Commission cannot conclude on the basis of the papers before it that they re N..i r. ;9 5y g e: <. M,. R. W. T,g, r i $ ; are categorically unresolvable, g . n m.,,4..- w H..; cv; p;. ' '.;a^ V;

V a.:

.. - p,.. NA 5 rl,,l m,.~0 J.. ?,.:. m, y.. O,

'.t' x: r s v.. s

.e /,, M,b:e.v ?. ., o. s.'. w i.,' EMERGENCY PLAN: LOW POWER LICENSE (

SUMMARY

r

/,...c.c./J,c.

REVIEW OF UTILITY PLAN) ..m. m.;p '^ y .s. s , j ' The Commission concludes that the other issues raised by Intervenors go d beyond the summary review intended here. Those issues may be legitimate

('

1., '/ l-q questions to be raised at the full power hearings on the emergency plans. J 4 } 3-- .., q.: Jj[ < v.s - j EMERGENCY PLAN: LOW POWER LICENSE (SUMhiARY .;.f.

W rf.g.. - f -

1 3.,.? ";., v ' .J REVIEW OF UTILITY PLAN) ..c p. <. a , ~,e g u. ?.. -. t... /.L ;. ;.., .e. _t Ibr its threshold determination, the Commission does not need cenain ,y..'nl c,,.' y 14' :% information deleted by Applicants from the utility emergency plan. Deleted /. f Q information that Staff and FEMA deem necessary for full-power review of ,..d the plan must be provided by the Licensees before low power operation. Also, .V" s 9-j Applicants should sta:e for the record their willingness to provide the detailed s ] information to the other parties if necessary under appropriate protective orders, e .J >,t t.,,. 6 . * ~, e) ,y 8 I

- .f

)*' k e E- 'e' ' A t .4 e 401

.. s r... s

. ~ r .. p; v, p :...g d,., u. 's. 4 ',v.,.. ;;. .sn,. - -r yo y ,b m em 1 -g ,,.e.. -e-x,"; 9 4 g f a\\ 'T [ ' g'*' / g V. + 9 s. '.l ff. c.., m ..t.. 3^ 3; ~ o t -~ 2 c_

h Nh.M*h $4h.h.!!/.N E N'I O M +' N@w&'ft AMg$@* 2.,$: '2-MNV M'$~ WM 'MN' 61 8 W. %.@IU M @W 9: N,p&.C:N2.%g[v.s&% :WhW%;M[' &v 1 G w n :. M W.. D :.J T. .:;;. r ?. 1 6 t Ms ;- kg n&MhT2 W/ MM"@W 5.;;p%. W@M. 9.& %.;dk%M.M.i.M.f.AC: ^ WWE/[.1%

n. $'.fl W

w '=-(",$lb M 9N 9 MG W.O 1 6.D4 .. g.w %,; m&e. % p. k i w %.~>.' %..in a M L W E A M;?.0; K R M A "*d" '

WM..

u ,s a;..m.m;; pk

..., v

y?.m %. g ~w. w;s..,+w n.. v.. w. a:w. m. a ..y v. -. u; >. .A.... ~.ne4+;e v..n.. %n:s f p. w y, y,.s.n.ny =..L. m W,.,u.,......g,y W.%; ..i. e -. ~ x. %,1 w ~ y.. (w...y" .>.p c -v e,- w;.w. w#, * *' '.- e,.n[6 sa }p n 1 . V..O ' , { 49'

m. %n; s. f,*., t a.a.,.. 3.
v. <.. %..... % u~, r,. M...

J*'..a.v, o; q s . q $[pl.u.$ N[.Y.;n:h@.M; %g&@&{.yhiD..M .. v Y f.d EMERGENCY PLAN: LOW POWER LICENSE (

SUMMARY

y

,"..] ;.]lgCl N j f g;ij[ip 4 g.

REVIEW OF UTILITY PLAN) i

M6 W
Q;l&W,*9

$@kh J.Ml/ 7,'d@u.M;.MfM p %e Commission's decision to lift the stay on low power operations is dictated %QM by the Applicants' good faith submittal of a utility emergency plan and in no way $'<MdMf $ N. N D @T M 9 3 5 N f %. R M V M 9'.$ results from or depends on the recently published revision of the Commission's emergency planning regulations. 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078 (1987). , u.W,w... s.e.::.sse.v.. g..o.t:(4n.y,e.. w. n. m,.: ~.w A m . s. x . +p w.c. v. ..u.... u .Wg i .n..

@s

..u,l,f$. 7...,M. sD$MdM.. ;.W..- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . i r.. i t m %.. t e t, m - c- .m hy7SJ l>$5F'@NW ~ 6 .INQ@$.~. MD5 .l. (Lifting the Order Sta%ng the Director of Nuclear Q;iNMM' #: l? [ M. @p.n.A,.M~.Mx Ml.;$R4fg$,,jd Reactor Regulation from Authorizing Low Power . N-T-7 .1 Operations Due to the Lack of an Emergency Plan .f - fd;< q'.:.. e. S $,M...~~&.',. d, for Massachusetts) )

.W

.m,. m w... J yM.%[f,5Nh $7.% l $. c f..NE@:h By this Memorandum and Order the Commission grants Applicants' Septem- , ?,-q, . f 'f' F 5 N.1DQ j j\\ Ze. 4f,,';I;M;W;.p@.d'g f '.. MT;j ' ber 21,1987 motion to vacate the stay entered in the Commission's order of 3 0YM. f;9hE)E.$.8 [ W.?( h* 2DM yj@ January 9,1987 (unpublished). The January 9 order barred the Director of Nu-D.C j.' M '((dM.,@hMi*p b , 0.: clear Reactor Regulation from issuing a low power license for Seabrook in the j eYent issuance of such a license was otherwise authorized so that the Commis-J

@^2 y:C N;?c',UWy,fff;9 sion might consider whether, as a matter of law or policy, low power operations

7., M.<;e /.6.;,:d'f-/ M i x ', :.4 -f should proceed absent the submittal of an emergency plan for that portion of the

.,.1 y < ;,. 4 '..g$. plume exposure emergency planning zone that lies within the Commonwealth .~ % e ; J.s of Massachusetts.1 y i, [ <, A i nis order lifting the stay does not itself authorize a low power license for - '" - i Seabrook, as we explain more fully below. Also, consistent with its instant de-cision, the Commission denies the remaining pending portion of the Request of s Attorney General James M. Shannon, Seacoast Anti Pollution League (SAPL), ~,j,4 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and Town of Hampton for Briefing ~ q Schedule and Hearing on Applicants' Utility Plan, dated September 21,1987, in C ~. ',. - which the named parties sought among other things an evidentiary hearing on n ,,s. - m. {,, - / the sufficiency of the Applicants' utility plan before low power operations would '?#- 3 be authorized for the Seabrook facility. Finally, the Commission dismisses as ,[? , b a.. ?.J.!. ?, ; unripe all other motions seeking to stay low-power operations that are pending

4. e. -

7.. ~,

,2 J,' ' 3 f 7, ac: -.d in the future. A.a before it; these motions may be refiled should a low power license be authorized ~ ' ~.-t'.. c y. g. s ,~ ' s r l ,. w :: m 1 ..g .e, ...i O s. .* G, ', ' 4,... < 1 - I / q By subsequers orders the Slay Sta OM! bed M forC4 Mid the Apple 4tKS Shall havt tubmnted 8 bm3 6de utddy

y 3,.,

,(,

e.

3, plan. see CU 47 2. 2s NRC 267 (1987). and CU-87 3. 2s NRC 87s (19s7). -f, - s w - ( f : [. .9 ', I } ' ', g' s %. f, g'3 6

.1

} t/ Vl ..,' J. u - ^ 7g* j y. 9 Y, o; ,t j 402 . - ~., - .1.... To - % ,,, a + , z$ i };.' p 4 ~iy i r e d J ' ')l r% t '6 'y.. .3 { .c, -, m..-,, _ ~.,. m....c. c.. a" I ; g. * %. ., -... + m.,. 3.,.m.. g - - .r . i. a4* f ~. 4 e, 4.A.m * '. iI t 's, '4 -fv.' r 3' = g y p, y yt* ,y .O s [. ,..... s.

g j -

J '. t s 3 ;i.. g. 4 t..,,

b 4

c'. *h,cir A. g .g

g ih

'5'. / Q .s ,v,, s. + - h (. 'g , [ 'g,

4 g

.=

m

....c ~s, ;, - u s; r,e . M, ' y,,,_ .s ,s. [ *\\- a .~ ;g. .T, t s,,1,.. I.* ' (-.,, 4.[ c,.,.

f #; b.. f ','

,1. s .<s i s g ,s t i . a a, o., s s 4, N. 1. (., i (- F j, 't,,,,,;., agg ,b. { g,, ,,f, s 7, g

~;. a:.i c%+p ;y eMgpup%pp%,M.;tyew%p.m%q:,.&l&y:&w;/UVfM.xc .y T. y.l,.q: 6

.p. K % piL.sg'Q 5

.s M,Q%%$.mu23,,.u Msm%m :;QlY :,.qwdy 'mMy ? %.l

pGbM..QXf%s#,;e...

aiG M Q A ..m... w ../.,., % =.,c.,. e. q.. %s,y;,c-.a,c .,+<, .m am.u. mm x, , '.'w,. a@+Mgd gq.p.W t r g g c... A, e)n; %: m.3..,. pll:.s. m......'y M. M 'A,,2, %,o.. q *b w .y f '*i.:g;WQ? 4 2$vs&.v\\ 6 fy' :yc c.w: .x. Vg p. .s ear

e. a m

i 4 L'f n . w W@ W.y w)/ @ $c...;m.wp.~f;t.<..' .ma I BACKGROUND ['.s N . s on $.v M.~.m O [** @ p t W _!,. y. 4 ; E.,a. g. h.h dk'N/.* $$b,MN ! '* QhpM8MMppM;.,:f Both matters that we here address 'he motion to vacate the stay and Mh.G[ yap (c'}$$$$$f A: id%' Qf the request for an evidentiary hearing on summary review - arose from the 7 M f,$. d U. % j$ h % ' N -i M. APP cants' submittal, under cover.of a letter dated September 18,1987, of li dM f 9 their utility emergency plan for Massachusetts. Such a plan for Seabrook had 6 ?NdO @M.Ey'i?.90 @W cWI:U.9?M[i.5!NEMM5hMMES 4 2TW been required by the Commission as a matter of regulatory policy on April 9, ".Y 1987. CLI-87-2,25 NRC at 270 In setting this requirement the Commission did s.f.. RE.g@W.4. e.h. e' 's.'4.m..m.WY;,J a g. W. ~ not open the door to an evidentiary prehearing on emergency planning issues, 2-s, W.h ycdM P but stated that on summary review the plan need demonstrate only that adequate 77.$.i$'<W$[%F@;'MT ,,'Nc. i.' 6hr$ O$26th. emergency planning was not foreclosed, i.e., that it was "in the realm of the 5;f N!dh,j.3 %..fy; %.$ g$ ? M $ / % % Q;F: % # .yg.9 possible." On June 11, 1987, rejecting an earlier submittal by the Applicants, i the Commission elaborated in CLI.87 3 on the standards for such a plan. The

p;r

.f 9 m.,e..u7,. s;; Commission emphasized that the plan must be a utility plan including measures 'h hhh to compensate for the absence of state and local governmental planning and that . -c;&m,;f 5 R.,[y'.,b6.p@? :>,:,sa ;p < w..n. de

n..q

'g'M lt necessarily must be a good faith submittal.

v

, k./.* * -

A sM > g .w m m l c~:nM;7 M G &,~m d:m.y. p W .s v:qm.c. p'(8g. @.,.f.,sy.g..w.s M A 4.r w.4 d m EVIDENTIARY HEARING DENIED <q, M,.y'D d '@Q.,,g;f. fs;Wf@f ip e ~ - - - egM g.* :.

p. z..

s irF. W .piLMyp h As should have been clear from the Commission's order in CLI.87 2, all 1. $ y % $ E.) N N 3 h 'd yf. M s that the Commission intended need occur with respect to a utility plan submittal e .:. 4,MMOd$@k;>r$k,.]:u, before low-power operations at Seabrook was summary review. The Commis. t, d. ~. x' :cd,c. : f N.,.,M,.,.c ; J,W 3: c-sion's policy decision to require submittal of a bona 6de plan before low. power w, +- .9 MS ::.; 7/,7g@.m - operations was not intended to effect an exception to the Commission's rules .ya which provide that a full evidentiary hearing on the offsite emergency plan is r 's.- ,e ,., < d.' y/ ' (J .t?T j d available before full. power operations, but is not required before low power.10 N c- .. a %... a. ,, s . g... ,d. C.F.R. I 50.47. Accordingly, the motion for a hearing is denied.8 L Y, M.

t..'J - / :;.X :

o t.i p- '.g n,..,. ~ s 4.;.. b SE.,: '..~ g r d; ;,.' s VACATION OF STAY .,ji.t. p., . y, c. x.f ; y 9.d j[.N. .h)' h.h On review of the positions of the parties on both the sufficiency of the 5 'a - M g.; 7$i ",3 q submittal and the motion to vacate the stay and on its own review of the 'M i., [jg '@,3:. b7{.' '.. Applicants' utility plan, the Commission accepts and agrees in essential respects s,:(, : j C2. 79 : ,E;' g

with the analysis of the NRC Staff which supports the motion to vacate the

,,/ ~ ~ ) stay. The Staff's analysis closely followed the Commission's guidance in CLI. J,, f '.- f'.j/. qs ;

f.,

.#g 87 3 and, based on the recitations in its affidavit describing its summary review, ~.,o ,c f. A-concludes that the Applicants' utility plan appears to constitute a bona fide utility q,, q.; > .. - ;, p. ' i _ (8. h., "..

/ ?

L ,s'" I i, , <,,.[ Alse darued are the verwans rupeutnane cs IPss reques incorporated by the pernas inno cahar legal papers. I ' 4 * '. 71: I. ,;.c ,;i. ... 'i The Censrussum araras the mai.nans to perma law thns by the Town or %%ry and sA% which were .'. Q ' ] =11" g. ',-. c. 4 -' F* e. .A.t' I

s. ;,,. -

e s lg. l

l

, y y '., A 403 nw a, m -, o.. w...,, .e, r ., s J o '. ** i> u.2,4, s. -. u _' M '. 3 ed. [ '. .*/..f ! V a .,.' [

.,t'*...'

- g gas g+(.. s.. v..w'. 9q- ...~m 's s 4. .r" 5. ,@ Af,.3$.Nr'., ";',. .'>.4,.t. 5. " *.7 g""; .,N c '4 *' " a . ',Y *d - " " ~ ' ' ' [ 1.- 4 r* ;*'r {' - ' ' (,, ; *. -)$

N t'f.

{} 4[s i~ - ' ~ ? s - ,s. . ~ l T '- Q) j ' s 4 a. e g [. g 'h .d . ~,b.. s. k# ( E. " 5 - q #. %,,'"' ,., A g y > ' '

i. q @ * ' y,,,,,... *

.s. , 3' .c, 3' y lj 9 r . ~ y

RS??%We@W" *DS*W"GMM MsW @x,s%$5$$WA4 h k M M Ms. w %.,L W M w.M m.u, S MM@w.w M $sww. n%p,w w:3f M M h'MR 8

.Q y l

kiM. sky.w..w p.auy NM 1 w. x:v~.y#.g(.m,;.w'g[.eet/ %. e $p?Qwg $.$4 plan for those portions of the emergency planning zone that are located in the .m .m u.a

.,%.e.

4 - s. 9 F h.M M M M. %' % Q hg5 @lL'. M N y,., Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See NRC Staff's Response to Applicants' M $ M.Q.d #jjj,$ M.h W Motion for vacation of Stay, oct. 20,1987. .Mg '7-f.E.h As the Staff stated, the utility plan addresses the sixteen planning standards by / .b.'YMhs%y!.E'.9tr.g9;AQWdi$% which emergency plans are judged (see 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b) and NUREO-0654); i wM.A%'.)M,,%!b.4FJ"UAM,k. has compensating measures fcr the lack of state and local government partic-e.. N9%n-.$:l PA.7...nM ipation; has been submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency T i;n*p,q.yipM.3%+QM[& .9. ;... s u.L fM (FEMA) and the NRC for review; and appears to be intended for implementa. [Mb$.I.hhd.hhhN [.M.( tion. Staff's Response at 711. $$Mh 9 Our summary review of the utility plan, and the record before us, convinces N'd!MbI.S'$ Q @ F-W 9. k M h g us that adquate emergency planning for the Massachusetts portion of the f M...g;;M@9 A.. emergency planning zone is "in the realm of the possible" or, stated conversely, q.Q:/ %.g e. n.n %.m as a W.. :M u,. M....h ..4,M.%... L%.y w.@. %... %. 9. G.. we are satis 6ed that the Massachusetts emergency planning issues are not

MpWG $M$PMM, "categorically unresolvable." CLI 87 2, 25 NRC at 270. In CLI 87 2, the Commission, after analyzing its prior decision in Shoreham, CLI 83 17,17 NRC Y P M t A r. M M i k M.d(*O #.7,: %NM.MMO@M A.c M-1032 (1983), and the decision in Como v. NRC,772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir.1983)

WV$. M Mhh(.dMMQ$% y dismissed as moot (March 12,1987), contrasted the situation where emergency g/f$$%M5f planning issues are "categoncally unresolvable" with more typical situations N F',E N 9.,','$@ h M[h. hp: w [. g@ iNMJ%2M, where there are litigation and political disputes about emergency planning whose w,'h['ihM Ig outcome is speculative. As we said in the decision, . ;n, n :.,; m.w;..w ge;p.~ .1/.W;e'yh.l [Ilhe disputes that fueled the ccmaroversy in SAoreham wen, by their nature, tids. don and .,7 S;'g.,c]'" 9 r7';,, f@$ DCM . k'.#, ~ y$.y:%;.p%.h!/ : ( -lJ, @y. g @ :,1.,*3., p,N,y .\\d,i . y crcuit,.e ob.erwd in ns rd to %nham. She outcome of lids.6m and pobecal mnniets poudcal disputes. And, as nosed by the U.S. Court d Age ls for the District d Columbia G. frquendy surroundes the grant of a Anal ticen e is perucularly speculatin." Cuomo v.NRC,

y. 4. -

,3,,,. y c,: 772 F.2d 972,976 (D.C. Gr.19s5). The emersency planning uncertainry at Shoreham could

'~;.*c E 4 -J.',.

h w chansed favorably or edwriety. ny time viewpoires ch.nsed or.ccornmod.d.s im - f. were re &esL This is char cierisdc d many maners in lids.non, and the Commission '.-o'^ . 'g. '. J.o U. < ~7..g,, S. M preerly decimed io msend the uistence of sua tidsenon as a factor precludes issuance N g.9 G d low-power license. ,s: e t. i' -j. Gel y.',., 4 * -- o.. . lL' s, y ,,' '.. ! ' ' 7. a,. s n l.ne. CLI 87 2,25 NRC at 270. We find here that the disputes about the adequacy ..1 m.

a..,.M.J.. O]-

s p of the Seabrook utility plan are, as was the case with Shoreham, litigation and .,q s a 7....., r. :J .l ,s [!q 3 *. political disputes. While the outcome of those disputes is uncertain, we cannot .. ? q,P[.A QM, :?./"1'ff.i.),%g(:q,3 $idd. Z conclude on the basis of the papers now before us that they are categorically . M '.1 unresolvable. We necessarily find, therefore, that adequate emergency planning N.,q. 'M h Q[p. N;;?.' K'M :f. "y for the Massachusetts poruon of the emergency planning zone is within the ' 'Q: d.U?;' realm of the possible. Because the policy concerns that caused us to impose our l. t,. f [~. f (, y,: 4 m tN.: Wf y;'@;'$,.$j 'g stay have now been satis 6cd, that stay is hereby vacated. p m The various Intervenors in this proceeding have raised a number of issues in 3; .m ,,.A.... r.S r.. their responses that we do not here address in detail. Those issues may turn out j .,4 q '(',,.;,..P % [.5U$,$1[] to be legitimate questions for the full power hearings on the emergency plans, ,d..J;g j @'.x M Qf. @ %,y and as such they will be addressed in the Srst instance by the Atomic Safety and be. "$.O M 'Rc a e.g f, '.*J,. E N,.,. ., w ...s 3 c? vd p,. g.,s:,P/* y. .N A.'. 1.f i,y,...,. ..,.4 .,.g. ' [..., }. ;

[ f, ',

s~; s,[, ~ : n'.,',... o n.'c. ~ 1 h, N M 1 ..,g,, s" , t). i q.,; J; '.'s, M. ;.:t '.'..;y. q.

S' t s

,s_.,. <, g i 'o ~ .c ' t.,

s s'.j1 fy,' A'.,.,

.."i ; y Q.p.. j ' ~ ,W d g. 2. :** j ,f, j p, a . 7, r> . s,.,,

c..

/,,; ' , ~. 9

,e..p.r,n 7,

,c. m. ~ r.,~y.,6. r.m -e-am.;r..,s,7m.m n..,.,..v 7,.. ,..w..,..., _.m. y,, r -,1 . ~;. ,as s. . e .8 s e ,e .,..<? %. -,.4;'*:. ' ; f.i h4..;.;.W

. - g. ',,.t is.. f - ;

c.q,, f,, s *, yy g 4.. < ;

7.,,.....y 7,; y s.

3 ; 5... # t ' (. 6.f", ? p i.VJ ;J.. j,. fit '.

J.,L' s', ~>L** q' i.~. :. t';.c':A.W=W :*)A,' ii *, - a g m- . M l ~~'

i G 2n:

'A^ . <,. t~ G,.,_,,o,s..' a > %a. ~ c ?,.h'.l.lp Y d [!' '.*y .. g',. g *,y'..,*e,.q1'f

4 "'

,g .p . v ,(,, ..e ,,7 j y* / C# D* s s ~'6 i* l~p isy;.,'%- ll. K),Q. *- e. i % * ;* ; ** >~ , s ..,:..-Q, %.'A...., ,..,,6 y., g / s,. -lU'.. c, qi.Q.c,.,*.l.. *;;,'., p. y e % ,,,;p 's.,. s ,,,,. >',,f,, 4 ,.C e s i ,74 gf.,;,5@3C y..u. ^ /- 2 3, q ;..- t Q (< + ., g,_g (. w,-

,.,p.

%.T W W 5 % W.

W:WWy6; % T\\ ., y &p.w. :x 4::. p:.d q@.q: :d.i - E

.r yy g j. Q. g.?;n g* M :.?: m. q ; @M;,W W 4

.g:q gf M P g !Q . _, m 4;M;%W;-)Wp%g;g%@::$s:.qM:.Q.g&@ig22.al:y@d%.m g,MQ; jpd h

i. :ej.' Jig;

%C: j ' :. my.:v. pf 4 vs p.. m*,4 wh::;<&:Mm;.W~D%.- i:.Q.e&w% v yp .suiW Mc A y.: m-a;; ;4l. c%.g 't;& a &g'%.u,%.,, Ge f,. d.. y ..W:g : ', 'a c M gllRf,sp[.,4 yU.!*..",., h;of-M.- v c ) sg. s', '..s / - '. N J f*....<[m. g e **[. '. s g l

1.. m. 4 '...s.. a.f, c

.. :,-. r ~. a . w; e. ~: + .e %... q.%' y... .+ n..sx.. 3 \\ s,.

e,.c w.,>: p.y;.1 m - %

'w

$a 6;% 6".^.g M@y y'MMhh _fM$ ;

Licensing Board. Suf6ce it for now for us to find that the issues raised reach l d'.dM; %.if a level of detailed review that goes beyond the inquiry that we intended as a D M C )},; M M N m M. M d y gM M M &SW M.WC M This is not to say that the Commission is unconcerned about the extent of M% condition for lifting the stay of low power operation. ) MN.y!kl.M$d.M@kU@f;OOl'.1, N' C'7.W.'f.U.T D.D 1 the deletions of information from the plan. WMle the Commission can well i MM9,MU DA understand why the Applicants might wish to withhold individuals' names and N7$M;I.7 phone numbers, given the emotionally charged atmosphere that surrounds this '.u..,.i. M i. S' d d M ;g.X ' % s*! I.y ll ' $M Y5h NN Partzular plant, that concern must eventually give way to the needs of the Staff yem.. r d; and EMA to review time emergency plans. However, the Commission does not m' g;%,M. yQn$ '& q M believe that it needs to have that information in its possessien to satisfy itself that . ~. -.

f. ' 7;lNR hih@m

' %, a~ .Mp the utility plan satis 6es the policy concerns that we set out in CLI 87 3. Those

, ' l ~ ;6 jQ3.T$.ggn49},-@.'

s g7 ' E.gy;.t?Q concerns have been satis 6cd for the reasons set forth in this order. We find that - @ ' W@ l. h y p@ M,$7 Q @ M @. M T /I-the plan is bona 6de and in the realm of the possible. That decision does not M.,[Q' require us to evaluate every detail of the proposed plan. Such an evaluation will ' 'Yi

W d be made in the full power proceedings. Nevertheless, as a condition of low.

[.O.f:M/@O /kYM.i power operauon, the Licensees must provide to the Staff and FEMA any of the c/ C.GNM.k.- %).hift'ip deleted information that the Staff and FEMA deem necessary for the detailed ' $ N T D[-p. %, W [ M.y $. p[ M. Q,M e full. power review of the emergency plan. Until such informahon is provided, M M M bX M. no low. power license shall issue. Also prior to low power, Applicants should N.i;hd@!$.$$$/WW.Jr D. M ik % D k M'N clearly state for the record their willingness to provide the detailed information to the other parties to the proceeding, if necessary under appropnate protective f*('16Tl.I[NM,1+hM d$@q .b'.f$ orders from the Licensing Board. The Commission is con 6 dent that the Licensing . M 6'$M.*f$;nlD.,ys G.. contested issues without unnecessarily violating personal privacy. '1% Board can fashion appropnate orders and procedures to allow full litigation of 4 c c.v..,E,;. e.' y. .;S. .,r,. s %.,wm,. . a Je*= A., f .y w.,

y.

., p.

.;'^t POSTURE OF THE PROCEEDING y - ~.;,

J

~ 3~....,4 w ,f., s..;( ' 7 as ~ As the parties are aware, the Appeal Board's October 1,1987 decision

/ t 7

, i t -- ,. cy rca.v.o on review of the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 partial initial decision "O.f.[56'U;p'pj.g i h'.,@ M

j authorizing low. power operauons' may have disturbed '

legal footing of y 'y ? -, authorization for low. power operations. As directed b) w Appeal Board s f,u g '.4.'c* g(.;g p,,y' 4;,#..? % $ pfg's the Licensing Board shall expeditiously determine whether considering the 9

]-

7#fN.'{.h issues that it is heanng on remand, it is appropnale to renew at this time its

p,..d; W ', e.g % T,% ',& '

authorization of low power or whether low. power operauons must await further K U:.N;;%.

e " / ';;

Y decisions, The Appeal Board shall also consider whether any matter of which it $.; J . " ' ' [ g-3j has junsdiction should be resolved before low power.' The Commission ratifies '? y . y. m.;. c, - J.M the Appeal Board's order that any decision by the Licensing Bnerd prior to .3s. .n 4 i 's 4 ' ? a :,j - w' 'sm AIAB.875. 26 NaC 2510957), af's is part and reaundar e peri. LAP 8710. 2s NRC 177 0987). 4 - ' s Ism AIAB 47s. 26 NaC a 276. -* ^ - %p ~ ,2' T i.i,.-, J' 'T V here acass that it appen ihm eenma umaas relauns is bewinryport suuns and the emswemmeal .a. q,f, ' quahAcease or enamal cebie essy be before the Appeal acesd. .w a , f 5..s-y '. l- -.' '.s N. ,s 3 .~w-4n.; r.; 4 o '.- w' :- :q n . p. 7 y J,..., '..f;f y. o.,.. 4gg a. 1.

" 7, t T. W.

. r:: p, 4 '. a.'s.d. y ..h* ',. f.#,10. f. y;.. N. %m*" f...; ;.; y V: y ;;._ e l: c O - t.1 m.s e g u. %-e',; ,n. n -~ Y ,,~%,ls.- s f.? %.. s '.Ti ---F' ,sp ..c ~;<. u.v. ~ ~. - ~ ' '.T., ; ; ). -.'. ~~*

, m<

~ - - ~ ~ - s .f;g." C y{tc .' = 'e .i ,s s ,mm s c. s z ,, o., y M x c. ,t s ,,- ;,7 t. , g.,- -, 4, s.- + s-s ~

!.1 ' ? !

'[.. 'i ...., ? ';..'. N g -M. '* ~, + .. y-s. ...5 n.. m ss 4 e..... .s e e _u

%$8.Wh' k.3 $$.'55r$.'WSk&.Fq.'M e.&@W;R}W?R:&.s.~'0.%wm* *.~'T'&r. # w: m U, 'S'NI?6 ?.P;Q%1.sUr 4 'y.k r.v.. w ~ w6 n.s ' ; Y - v L h,;,,g.p,%.:$. g.'. W./p;. '.m;;&'d.c..iQQ,.k.k. c.a s.W..n. g. if.. . l.W f,Q.eQ.:cm%:!.C';llaQ..?f (g,&

p. jh

,y.. % jyi;:' A:QA12. iTQMb.M., M .Ma',Gi*;,. 2MLL2...,n%m xE;:.'AMd5'% h &M A~..~. .x. x.. g.. s : -., ,.a fW.Mc 0 f.1'5z . DLM

wm %m t 4 ?Wp~ ;. w., cyV...

w.M .m%m c;n>.p cd.M.r .G: r...c n;4.mus *,: w w y.94 b..,. ?.:u,mm ... - n w a 4 N W,'. m.. m;y. ,.w a,. n,m. v. & w9,s..,.,., =. ,, 3..p ssscac c..s. s. w : M :4W Q M Myk.- t. 6 h,MM;,J.J3%am%ga;'wyNhMfdbfM @4 'm.W: W. .A@4y y completion of the remand, if it authorizes low power, shall not become effective . W.q'<,9r.:.,E p;. g h {1 & A g M g p N 6. 'W for a period of 10 days following the date of its service to enable any dissatisfied NIOIl6%:CW@yp.$ M.y;h cW h party to seek agency appellate relief. . M D.W d Consonant with the foregoing discussion, the Commission lifts its stay of low-M,hD$Mh5M[@h[,$'ir-f Power operations. He conditions regarding the providing of emergency planning f.Mf?;JW).M,'dMWSDG gM@c,Q g..:. f[M S. @h 8I?5 M; [@h S/4 j information to FEMA, NRC Staff, and the parties must be satisfied before any M[. f G Iow power license can be authorized. Moreover, because no order currently in ,i

3. ~.;f:

A S. w.w:.w/:s n,.' r force authorizes low. power operations at Scabicok and because the voluminous .h p.c.ww n.s. O. R: p g @ M b ef $ $,.q?g motions and related papers before us are m. some respects outdated, the notions .iW.,.M.. j.'M.G..d. d'@W6'J.p@if.,Q,.'S L i.fy. l. .Wi 'y and supplemental motions :ceking a Commission stay of such operations are y_^, s % i dismissed. Should low power be authorized in the future, opposing parties are r .n..o d. n:'..p,.fu. a.; (..?.p.N.Se. A.. free to file updated stay motions. .e f '. h.s. Q) m - 4:M%Af j', We wish to emphasize that our decision today is dictated by the fact that the Z. /,, c.A

g, 7.. %.. s,@.. e... -.. /Qy Applicants have made a good faith submittal of a utility emergency plan. Our J W'?'cy K. h M.W 'M;y W.Q,r: m.. ;
g;;

l F.. E.W C M *i'; p i.') decision in no way results from or depends on the recently published revision of g,y;7 N 7. t 4. ;;5. w:%.pg'.@..$ $4 J' iq the Commission's emergency planning regulations. 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078 (Nov. 3, . Q;, ...1 1987; effective date Dec. 3,1987). Our decision would be the same whether .~ .a $n. p cc %. b.. M': %,.,,i N.. s..-,. w,. y, p + g dME ;&.y['; the old or the new supplemental emergency planning rules applied. . m jj C,.w-? .g. y ;R:<.,; j Commissioner Rogers disapproved in part, and his additional views are

f..ti c -

m 3,, i

7. g rcec C."...u.~.q.....

/. m;.,

attached, s.... i.. -

e = l' 5 ~ e i. l *..,S.,.,e.,s.-. .. ~;,. (- a m .s-

e

, ;.,. ya( :d. Q, ta.g;., s.., M. c ,4 yg ,a ,..f.

.' ' '.. l 7 f.

For the Commission ..s N T y' -

<....j 2

,. -. 7 7 ',,4,.- /,NJ SAMUEL L CHILK - ( I f _l e., , ') Secretary of the Commission r.. ]~,N, rSy ' - Q'Dated at Washington, D.C., ,...T. .,. e 2. '.c ;. 7 < ; c,;. ;. this 25th day of November 1987. b s ..1 ','b.

y g

.m.', t y 5.... ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ROGERS . ~.. c. . s. s r. ',.s.$g.,.x 4' De majority has indicated that it requires the submission of information F. ,.2.E, a ?,./ y'; $ deleted in the utility plan to the Staff and FEMA, and under protective order to

s. ; 9 ". ;

-,' -7;,

,j..

the other parties prior to the issuance of any low-power license,

d..: S. Ci[. {*,

I am of the opinion that the information withheld from the plan should be ,1 '..s<,4. m:;g-1. s furnished to the Commission prior to the lifting of the stay, so that we can assure q,., f ourselves that the utility plan does indeed satisfy the policy concerns set out in / Y CLI 87-3. c. n.- . e .e e. a 4 e.. t ~; .* ' scQ* : s;. - ge t >w'- 3 ,y, .i. g., m. .s .s.,. e n o,r. s q-c... v, ,.~ s,. l -. '. L" . ~j j -/'/.? 406 fy '..a7 , 3,. <4.q.;h,,

c.,;... :

4- .e- - r, s 3, 4 1.y. n i .. r e, -.

(

J',.,'i,*.,.s. r , r ~. -,.m. s,, J., a >.,i * ~

r

("g., '[ *,[ .s j. g, j... % '.. .r. 7 ,a ,s, , a t.......

,p.

s 8. ' ; ..g. "8,. s

s. v

.r-- -3 ,e ]5S 1.- ,e I '*r ! s, .g s- .c y - [qp,s.

l.,, \\ ', '.,,

3'.. L;.6 ','s s .~.3,'t,. ., ', n.*. .p' - :-. .1 .,q==_ - *j. - - 4,. 'i .t, p,, L, g ;W,-~'r' TN ~. ' - n ..Q r

,. ^.......,. ~.. @.b8 Q+ e ' %.* %../ p b 3. e,, i t' .g.,..

,,.faa,*,.

.c . - g.,. e-4 s*r. .= ia A+.

t

+. ici,. e,, c '%,, p y*.. '* p 'l. e ; g( ',%g y*, g.3.*.. ' g,, c g '.,,j.f' y, y.b, e.g. c_g, j,4 p,a.p,, ,f. ' l. -. '.,.'A.- fj, f a . *. M.'W/. 'st,, Y,.g:f.,w<,Ah',*#.(-t, ,*,*.e?Y,{qIi.. j, ,.g .+ ,.".'. ' Y..' a A . I };,s m 6',,4 L ff v.g , yf, w,%.,1i,',pV;, e g%g ,, r ca. .= W'r,.*;;'. j 3 ;.u lp. p * .' 4.. - j' y;- '^ . o r., : ..y. ty . '.. c. 's" y' q@&n' J r. f,;. 0,,'G,' Q S.['y' l' ;?. J,6 ., u m',,;T . r, -

9 c,.,
., DM ', 7, 7. i i 'J ' -

- ;h i' A ~ ' ' '[ 7.w % i ~^' - . ^$ y. n.i i.', :. q:,' ;,. ',, ' "j ', -.W - ,.,u.' s g. e.' ' 'G [; :. ~ ' ' c'. -; f: ' ,s ...,.,,.r --< (~ ,... t,y n

w. y.e. v,,t

,",. ".&',,. [','j l j ' 1 t-s _ ('{g k,, *... ..,., y r ,'ns. e .,, * { e i S *# .a n[,[ '[,h,., e.f ' *' ,.a.,,<.+,.,. ; ,,,'{.sgi !~ ^- [- e, N;[t$-+ Q&Ne*d h. w.,- ,v. >s ,. ;1m.. 4. h*/[.h. '. [4,j, ), j,,, ,1 [ "g', ,,,,, {ly [- -l .e~ s

* =. y

,o ,s ,c i ah[b.Y g. M*ha ', ;...... e.,. 7. D*) ,r .,}. g , c. g.),9 4.. ( .*.I '. D en' -* p - ys S. .-s s~.~ n". g ...g e 4 .l R... ^ ~A,. '

y, *..

't.:...>b~ 's= u. .. s,,- e,., 4, - n l,.' s. a; s ,$: L , I,' ?.,'Q. : s' i.., ,~, ; /*-.g 6- ) %. 4,,4. +4.pf %, f.. %.-* n, %.; s ,7 .".6.s.

= /, *
h,..j - ry.

g s .,.3.,.i. v,. - e g e +1 s. 4 i % m ', m,.4 1. t Jrm gym..'* qg .I A',_.

9 m

'8 .'(. '.p,, , - 4,*

a'a. '

.?.;. r M:.s @y,.4 3.. *n," ( 3,. ' ~p^.. = 3,. :.. s s. s .,s * 't -.gi g -.* 4a e... W =. . a, g. a.... n. s...,. e,..,...,. . y :G I a.: N. %.,~~ M ;.n.s.. S~: M.,, 3, Atomic Safety and _? m,., . ~, e @r@ 1g@. $ icensing ppea a

1. w;.m ry...

Boards issuances v... -: > c. .,2.. s.,., s ,. v(.."o," ,.O',., c. s l ? i. v. u,,, m, _,, - ; s. e.. .m M V. J ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL ,'1x- ~:n..... S, ,u: 6 i 7 -./ - - s.. a. : ~,. ... 4 *,;. _. ?c. uu: is.. . awn._S. Rosenth.a.l., Chairman w .W c, . t. - c -. 3 ; i G. ?..,,.',..., 6 ol~.,.u,' y f@ge,(? Q .. 2

. c.e

...'.. / C Dr. W. Reed Johnson Q ' B.. '. 2 i c Thomas S. Moore ?- gg, y,aT/:'. U. ; e ." h.y.. i.l m.- s. 3 Christine N. KoN 3 s ,., ;j,.t. Howard A.~WWber r ,..,. m.n. 4 -g-c i l{,. 5-t ,~f ,, y, > > #*. (

e "I

,_en'sy 0 gY. g - n' .s v* d .M. = ,"A-E h ,'_g t 4 1 g ~

%' l, e

s g .*g. 4 .g - 4 4 .a '-.-P'_ .<.e r-g 3 s - -g. ~- s, p1_ e p#4 i 1- .2, i W w 4 9 e

, Y

, j. ,e b b s* j g 9 ,s 4 . E e fa g 4 j 4. 3

)

.a e W F b e *f c f e y a 3 i ...,e.*. =,.- -.p.,. 3 .ip ,' [ 't c' , f*; O 8

e :

J* e j%.' 8 4 ie w-*-

3 g.

.s g t, 8 e O g g J 4 i s. 4 r i b 4 A g, e, vg-w- 4 e --i-I -b w e

---ee-w e--e w

---S w-w--. w-- 46-4, w.-- .m,-m'wd----ewe =-w-*--wm*-*'8-FTT.' mh-F.v-

?W' :,.:m n. :.yy$.g-$kv..w m yr.w.=v 3y&, xyh,W.}.G. : 4q w m W a p$$: ' r;F.2 . t, N,0.i,.v

.y :OM.'d?WN.g.

5.. M %:';y,.w:.%. 9.Qu /2 % l;.,. n?,i, ;i V ;V. w M m*!..V..,s;. Q$.4bY!W Ox C. D'O.S$' N'D VGb @p'!1.,1.Q.,. i$2 CMl&.f:a.;f.Q ;9;yM..Y& D' r:.y;&p% i,,&c%;&'.:m.?y;G,-% 5;v.f::S ::fC,w,y'.;,';f.g. r. .- p r.w x gq

n

..w. p -.~ -:. " w y t, v s.i d; x , ; V: A. R. ' M N D;[ M ;a o. .??: :.m:M +

g

?... m2, m.%p:,:, p::., w:.:., wn,.; f,, %;, a y;y;f .m.., %..; M . ; ?;., l, .pm.sww;Yv.y. 5;b'$$.5Er?.N N t2b O O W;y.k w.m'.~v /:..;.a ;;i:* m.m a,:-

.g % n. p y 4.: n y p :.c: Q n '!s:a.

5'Eb'.;. ;.;;.:. ;. A E~NY:s.:.N'*Y;Y,- wr. 4y g J, ...f?kN y&,w. . M " % 'Y : w-mm. n .h. ;c y,f.,y.g,.. g '.., : m./.,w.,. y M. m~.:: m is -; ; p.. :: 41. M s . : ? ..o. . a! :s. - m..c, m ~...s..s. +..e%,(. - f... v, p. t.i, i.,..i.3.. 3 .s.z

t.,,c ;.,

f.. ':F.p%,e f X, e. , e.c..j: m S, g '. W.# @jn p q.n : s .: m.s b . o )t

, "Q JX, N;rV.Fh y T.'$.t: A Cite as 26 NRC t07 (1987)

ALAB 878 4s,G.g. sit e. - .f,.,. v*, .y

c.. m w M %. s n

e. -'p y;,.x> m m.c@94. re,.;';#.s-:::

e
.u a e

.v d' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -1.,. M $..qm.: d e @lw.',; M.f'MJ,... a g n~ -~ s,.,v..,.. 4:,q > nO. ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM.SSION . '. e<. u. p 7p%;, s.. %r._. ,x,,c s. .s. ,pg.,,w y,.a.. . o.m ~.. a. j.. ; 4:, ...a 'M;..., ..,ipl.@ &.,Q.@L..,hw~ .?:J lfi; ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD n s. - o. Q,y Q. n ag,e.:;c g: . m. 4. s.. w. m., W,; n/. te y O; y'e.a.,. o. :,./

F:.ps4. x y<, ::., -

u

s.

y e s, ev m. c....r. pf,.w. %.A. s,c ;._,;. :s ....,p',.n a; s. :g.,ew,,q.- m Administrative Judges: ... c, _ g., 3a.n v ,.a + . w, s, . : %.;n:.;..., i.. ~ + c..y%. A. :. . 3..

3..

, N?, Y'd'O V:e <x ?,@d.a ?. 1;[s); 6. N. Q :I 5 j $, 5 N. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman l Dr. W. Reed Johnson ,/. m....... %,. y #. v,.,....,.,Q. Howard A. Wilber ..... eW,.mc$p..v.;1 ,c

s.. ;.-

.-a.

v n.c 7

[. $ @ %.. 1 ( x v. m. 4a. #y 4.. . >,...sn.g.f.%..7-e.m.~. 0 ', u , -c

d. C. N,,i2.-:f. %,h@[M.:.Nm:,Y.c,.yM.

@ ;.f .t$. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 250-OLA 1 M E s. fu e M.. \\ ~ < 50-2510LA 1 'G-1>%, g& z;. 4*;7N.M.% n M' (Vessel Flux Reduellon) g. .,.,.2,#..,.,..

. w, p@.,.3% ; ? 1

'. m.m,c. r.:Q.,. m. ;J4.f,7o.y1 ....3 . ;r : W

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT

.W s'd.:s.,sW, &&##;< ;. _ COMPANY .s 4 2, ,, ' g a f d ' K..l7. k 3', b. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating . g.. , 4: M. 4 Q>,e,e'?7

Q'(

l, Plant, Unita 3 and 4) November 4,1987 .f

, ' 0'

,,.,e v

v....,...,

n ,,.... j m . n 'h ;/.' ', ' . ' : i. '. J !.Q2. j The Appeal Board in this operstmg license amendment proceeding affirms, 7j ,y, .. l., y,,. V -,; ,-] on sua sponte review, the licensing board's order (LBP 87 21, 25 NRC 958 ..y ; ,t (1987)) granting the applicant's motion to relinquish jurisdiction and terminate .g .,, e g W,. the proceedmg. ,... n. ... w, .6.. %.,..;. w r,,, ~ .m. q;J.tc #..., t,w : ~ .'s. , v,. TECilNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED x.w... yy. s y W., J [, ' -

- l~c; Acceptance criteria for the capability of the emergency core cooling system c4..y,y.

. ' ~ in response to a loss-of coolant accident. z - r.:y..,% 3 ,.g. s 3i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 3 n 'c - 1. This is a proceeding on the application of the Florida Power & Light .J' ' [, * ' ' '? ',~ Company for amendments to the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4 of its i

h... *.

s.. n' ,.t ,k - *

3.',...

.t. -.r' 407 1 , n.. t '. ;;p-. - r/. n -/ . 5.<.$ e. s i .5 '. *k,' [ t8. ;, f} .'"(' '*,I 5 v e g f.., y,. s. ; f. '. : n +., ', v.1 ^f, d5

.s'

...s-C SR p . ~. s (. p%

s a.-

.< ?[/.'. e. I.. .g-e gg 4, M, i g g .s. f.- %T. 1

~ ' ~ ~ " ' * *

'^*-.^~^~;f ,~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 4 . T ';. '. \\.. ' 4 .t.-, ~.. 3 f', s d. = w a-%4 g. gT.. g .la

h d'

0 s 4 g 4 9, s. S g /A ', a. ; - e , h. .M,p.' *^ 1 l _ 's , N

f. NWMhMMih..:ds?$M.m$.OMMNNC.k. 34b.' 3'.I Mj75ff:p.S."72[MMM.:.3 %g%g.ywe$$h.$ $bb;WYNbN.; wavgc .:.,xm;r &, pre, . m.au -p. v.u ~ g&.e&.a. ooc.: m$f..w..fk h' k$hkb?l$ hEhh. n% $m k m.,$hv.,@...$ m:S,$ m;,.s aM7.~r a.m. m 5y$

sm w..M.W n

n pw.g: p.%.yy...,%... NN$MMhhMh Nh.MM%h hrkey Point nxicar power facility. In ALAB 846,3 we affirmed on sua sponte y M yp$ N $$PNE$m.h$p$$$g% review the ucensing Board's resolution in the applicant's favor of Cont ntion lA # if %'d % h%@dffS NM& (d), submitted by joint intervenors Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette 7Ed$ Lorion.2 We did not pass upon, however, the Board's earlier grant of the M,7.$h,Mc,6$.MY'd ph applicant's modon for summary disposition of Contention (b),5 the only other 9f.; MON. $hM t contention of the joint intervenors that was adtnitted for litigation. As we %d!,A V, 32y%YM. nim.Yp@h k',W;,Mji@ Q:gf>Pp M W ;p explained, in the same decision in which it acted upon Contention (d) the Board announced its intention to retain jurisdiction over Contention (b) pending the yy: (m.s...f/.N@&@y, w.we 6,b.Q, f.W WS. D M M N D-receipt of further information from the NRC staff.' In that circumstance, it e Q Q i. % @ Q.iM.pf. S itdMUr,Ndk (b) to abide the event of the final action taken on it below! M

f.

appeared appropriate to withhold appellate review in connection with Contention A. Q',q,7t?f'y %. Q Q )3: Ess

,in.

3y.% On June 23,1987, having received the desired information from the staff and WppE'Np

M !?'.9.M $

concluded that there was no reason to withdraw the prior summary disposition of N k.J d Contention (b), the Licensing Board granted the applicant's motion to relinquish Wje. 7.,g.Mr.,b'I[f.e. ;MQ' sjjg .M.J.. B cQ, -;. jurisdiction and to terminate the proceeding.s No appeal having been taken from NN. R.L.5,h........ m..1.u..M.. !,,. r.i.. that action, it now is before us for sua sponte review.

n. +.. e. v,.;; p m

q A,.- m..g;,~@.@) 7 : %..%..k. Z c, 2. The requested license amendments were directed to the fxility's techni- ... kM' cal specifications concerned with the limits on the temperature of the fuel as- $,W. s.r.W.M.M%hhhh ' hv u ... -/j me'.W,M,,. V,d semblics in the reactor core. The applicant desired the revision of those technical .,...n. 2& dgl'd.M*p'/,.o."j/.' c lQ M.. M M C l Specifications to accomplish two objectives: (1) the reduction of the neutron ' ' n f ?c

4...

flux at the reactor pressure vessel wall, which in turn would mitigate vessel N. $ $,Aj@ hG -Q,. gdQ$ ,.' e. embrittlernent and therefore the consequences of pressurized thermal shoch and j. "l l ' 'h C c. @y,fy ' < -M.. (2) the rernoval of restrictions on facility operation that had been imposed prior '.'(, >

t'.[i'd.d) 4' to the time at which the applicant replaced the facility's steam generators, which 7,

-.g '"lJ. had a significant number of plugged tubes? e (.-Y j ; 4c j One of the acceptance criteria for fxility emergency core cooling systems 3 s,..;. y,n,., W ; ' T,1 stipulates that, in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, the "calculated maxi-n. s <m UN..y - M..q mum fuel element cladding temperature shall not exceed 2200*F."' To establish ' ~,..s. \\. < M i that the proposed amendments were consistent with the observance of that crite- <3 0 l ; M. z'. '. rion, the applicant employed a computer model for the purpose of predicting the

,j, j. '. jf pc.ak cladding temperature on the fuel rods? In Contention (b), the intervenors

[ 'e ..n

7*g j...

, o. gu,d s z i . *' A ' % Ni4C eia.4 (19M1 4 /g n i 1, .e asse UP.WD. 34 NRC 106 09M1 c y g,i..g*je g.p'S,'Q fp,,..jg,e. g c 4see LAP E23. 24 NRC st 129M Inamen e as me grata d summary espontaan m Corumman (b) hd been 3 tap.ss.29 *2 NRC 500. 31420 (19451 3 c, 3,. 7:. ,.., a. > p '; y-; s ,- +' .I.' usernomsory. $s tuurmns Board remuned enromered a raw pnwne am be emnarsaan si se ame a g %'/... ', g'D( f. J ',.3 .- U 'i { "'e,,, answad L2P.423. 8ses AtAB446,24 NRC at 411 a 6 sg. C,, f* /f 3., 'see L3P.87 21,25 NRC 9st. a se - / qrw c w pr.nra by me,.m+. go a m ee r go .e,mrom..n..cy V. ,4 4 more run narnabsdy Idad when $ase ganariums were repisced. s - [ ';.eg, g,.. = g 9,a , ','2 ',7., j. @g be renom e.s. /* g *** -.'j 8 10 CIR Me&bm l '.,,;' ~f~.( h.','.b[ (i d k[!1 %y L.3 g 6 ',[... b 'Th8 Peak claddag immperature is se kehrst samrersare w be fasid a me surface or any d ce twel rods in 'y v .., 'd;'. 5.

., -. -.] ',. y,Q: ,

4cg . *e

',f

y, y-4, c; y f e

y .,n. ..w ...*',e

f

,+.,c. .. % 9 ' f j .,3 'N i s,, u., 4&. 7

g

.6 g 4-

1. i. ?'

m, ..,. m,s, j.; J.....,.. 's

q. i

. ;y,.+..,...,.._.)_..,,..._r..-..,_ ,..~..--..c ,is , %y

,,'*...,,A**

'.. o ' ..,.... - e.. -*~

m s.

'~s.

}

. ~, s ? *.v, c,- s'*- .K,L,^ l; s- . ~ [ s r .t . c. a.s ;,, 3, :. : s ..s. y k '. (

g n w.y. "..,

i hh)

-,0 I p w .c ~ ,y m., :.a. a ;. ',l 'd'<t ' j t' - Ts.,.

9g I -

_. M 1,1_8 - e. ' [,,g '.j '< t g.'.k..J. /;,s ' \\t J. *m," L i. d-WN .g i -, g 4, .. g.N. y pM 'g *' J 4 .g 4 ^p 6 4

- ' 1

kh.b QWrk;:K.f;$ M.R ;@ @ @3% :jn*: $g.::; t,,%.r.$,x @h.QRg h .5. / W ::. f C p..A.c.'m. ;' w n 8 n.* ',, :^k ;:..y,y,e.w r. w:.g..p%:y.q;cf:.qpyQV M & J;:c v&'p;p..e%ml ?,gg.& . m: uj . L ;, 9:\\ p+: .g: n,j;,4 n. W : $. hGl.&.c y.l:p?.;a.R.(:l$p&.&,..u.:,&y 'S.yp;4h,9.w$q$z:: .:a n. n M$,.d;; qu.. ?.g. e.W: W..,Q.;;%;0,:. w:;m

.. y, f.

.;c OVEC.bN.yg;5.EiWINiiW.Q.SM]$; O. 9:.y u.Md.:w w y.?.-: 2 .h. f p:'-g : : y, . -@m_. m,. ,c.,...., t.,q5W.7.,g>y .. ' *, Z.,sy > v.

n, m....w s w. _ a e.w.a

.v e. .m w v GE., m. o,. 2...m.-nQ3 W.W, <. .w.w ...., z v.,.m, -1.. + a

4. : u..

s, c, n ..m.. m c~ p e:.w ( y a m@,f6 V t M M W M b.@$?8MINl.M:.:.x.e ;..wwg;('; Y NiMM.i questioned whether the chosen computer model would provide a sufficiently d N M' h:$ F M.Vf CIN:d W N @.-%id8 Precise prediction to ensure that the 22007 limit would not be exceeded. hh.Y;'MMN In granting the applicant's motion for summary disposition of the contention, d/79l.eb~ >., %.we",.1,a the Licensing Board determined that the intervenors had not raised a genuine is- . 4.M i.%.;.,W M. S: M. m%. f w.pMy /6AfQ(J'j(:w.MkM'd, sue of material fact respecting the adequacy of the computer model.50 Hereafter, m Mi $ $(t h y N /:@ @d ' M M M %@ Q l however, the staff informed the Board that that model required additions and CMWN[N. M7YSM corrections.n De staff went on to state that it expected that, after the necessary O W.h'k/.j;M F X Q,i g ' g l,0 adjustments were made, the computer model would still support the conclusion ?..p. y.N,,.,h..b.,n". -W..D.WG. M. e. A. @,+M'QW.6$ ( Q.$r$$.$.MIJ that the 2200T limit would not be exceeded." Nevenheless, the staff felt it dM Y.. - j:; necessary to consider taking some unspecified action with respect to the interim g ';; / F M N C.'$:d{ .qq. and continued operation of facilities such as Wrkey Point." "Y.,; 6MW /[$,%i.[M. E. As above noted, this development induced the Licensing Board to retain i yjifj W%}j[g, Q jurisdicMon over Contention (b) to await further word from the staff. That word i W. T *..d 6 @ @ '3MM.7 $9Mhh@h came in the form of a Board Notification issued on October 23,1986.2* Re Board was told that the required changes in the computer model had not rest Ited 1 "... WW GMC Mj :M in a calculated cladding temperature in excess of the 2200T limit.n W ' ;.y; 9. $. N. p g e? @.., y. M. # ,U. We have examined the explanation given by the Board for its acceptance s e r .. M,, #.. '.- 1pg$..fif;y of the staff's present conclusion on the matter.t' nat examination satisfies us 8,9,My @$,MWMW.M@ that the explanation is not flawed and provides a sufficient basis for the Board's l , e,v.h~.. .. hm

O; v. hk adherence to its previous grant of summary disposition of Contention (b).

~ n.:. I . ?.,, ;, ;.. ~..~..v. m,..<w. t.a ~-- ,n. - 4 ~. J. .E/;Q$ @',g,. %.@..pMiQ,.)p,y ,=s e } a i Re Licensing Board's June 23, 1987 memorandum and order terminating -? ,p,x;;%_..R[. this proceeding is affirmed. ~.; v p, j,,.. : G..,.:. ',2 It is so ORDERED. n... . W l ;.2,..,:,, .1 '. ' D.. : 2:' .N.,.,

i FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 1

.. o. 3 ,.m s

- - f

. &. f ' 5' v,. J _' h N-3 -N a

3...,3.., f_.. s;z':,l, L: 5 Wl C. Jean Shoemaker

. m... e, s. 3 m,..:. w. a.s. 2] 1 r-secretary to the U;.O,..A, '9,. r ; \\.3 --w 4.. :, yDE ';' i#NMt k.<.T.c.' Appeal Board M.:

g,-l?/ -

n

1.,,. :. AM.L gft Q S.-QJ. Q: 7.W 3

~. 1 ;

4,,r;n:.%a r-e : ! x.

..s. m 2 . w -!:.u ...~q. >- ~', ., g r.m;< r.:-:; : :.. A:

,,.~c:.y'.

W s :a~~ .n w s-p, e f. .n , y%. ;s.g,&;P;M::.< +q% i~ 3m ..f, -. 9 ,;. >.. ;:z ;c:M.y^ ;:, \\. _,, ; r... .~v y . ~..,. ~. +, / '; %.'...: c.... ?. 3. .... q, -, lo ., :.t -., w

- W.

r s

- q,m.

fN' Q w. s , J D,.@f., ses GP.ts.29,22 b'RC at 316. J.,

,, x..f Q....:-;'.1 '?-.

. (. 7.,; p' n/M H,, GP 86 23, N b'RC at M c 3 s.- v 'j p-' 3- ,Y

d' ' ' l._ ph _'

OJg '.,(,. 'f b. - '] 14se, up.g7 21,25 b'RC at 959. , N.. f f, ?.>.c....,., ' ~ I,. G. 4 D ~'<l .N U /4 at 961. I8 ! 's. -- r.,,,., ' ,r,. .~.... /d at 96464. I _ Ms -, f.; g.M... 1 g ',,, .W. 2. ../ l s *. ., ' 7 3, ">, '. y

42.

?..4 ,a .: 3 ',. })# .E-, .1.;*.~1 l r '?,.[U.f' ' 3 ;(7 9. N{ *' (. )h:; v. /[.h._, h({;'p..;'- ]i j 409

...;,o*.1. [ ^, *
7 >,;;

,e*=> -'1 :.,,'a., .* ~., . W ,., r : v. :. a e..~.',',.'. ;,aQ[.',) C. Q * $,,y,j '.',.*? l '.n.w j >s

m. <m.

2*.,. .. ;~ V .a. '[ ? [ d. f ~ r,.g;.,. p.g%...::; @ :l ej m,. /c-q, .aA..I ,g,, g . f*b .,,g 's.[ t N X "*P M. ~~' ' '

F M *~ * ' - f i

J =.. b****'**' ""*'/**'"'"*,[I'*y*."[t', ',3. 7 ' ?,', P ' r g. ,o..'.., s *, " - . < * -lq c m,._ _..>.-.w. ' :1.~ . V.;

r *

, :D,. ? y. .J"* S ' * ' ' ', < g (, =; s ~,~g'*- jw .y, 9 ;0* * -

-il, "N",,

,s .( g.* ~ 6 9 A

l,.

t. S - ;p, - - .t 3.

c s r

e a .o . r]..,..,. :A,,fe, ],. ".,...,.<.g b. s ; i'l ra * ' '. ,s x, A; i i ..,,..,, =.'. n-":'. ~/.(,.3. '.,!).'-j,'s...,,.*' -~. t- --. s. 7 . - ~ - s i .t o .s ;. f .+ .e_ ,c.m

~ % M M W iW}k h. d@ h hi kh $h.h$h b k hd khbhl U k'N kIh h Md h@ WW.?!%ws;:;pwigNe n$q&@h@, AhMdMd2MMAb. f. Qm wq M wpi F4,,nr.g x M -q.$+hh?h...cM.#m~9#mpm.a'ff m;E) W, MW4P f 4W M%.: w w$ h .W y Y .... ~ N...g>f.)hl k,.;. .,. e . ~ m.,n. n Cite as 26 NRC 410 (1987) ALAB-879 lhM.d[hfMbyh. e'- 2 f k. \\ MG g Wi/FJk G g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 SM% W WWW[w.yh.,,h, h...w...g:r h [,h,. .f.d. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD s, _ v,,,1 n %M W?,'i nM N Q/m.wa4.;%w:n' M, 2 W.g#Uh.M,@W' Q'pMg'G.J.;n%gi.)q n k a- -rg c s'!'d3 f, NR.MM h. Administrvtlye Judges: w* n. ' $ ~H::w+eM~ n',>.. e.n. ma.u..bOs jai.e I,'NMh. hx.,h;.w.m1.- kn Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman gyb6MNNNh. w-s. v:,:. w e w x Howerd A. Wilber ,wa ;. v.9.. qX.m.v.w w&..c~.w&.y,um.: t m

.g

.u>

a. u,.y,:

. w. ymem e.WT.a.w'L ?;r.,; ryT. C .M m.,4. %.- e. M l f _- k in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 0L.1 ..$g:MNMkdh. s s - b % y M.;U.N.N. D &. g. 2 :,. G ; L @m ;.c,b 50-444 OL.1 P>i.W@,dNW/h.rp; %r.* V~.w. V-M;.lqMIM&w &.,- .o a:

WMn W

?,..'v,%n. u.,'.* p. m%p& c U :. lg '.,..[ c.,@M~ 'Eh< < hb. :d \\ $,$1M (Onsite Emergency Planning l k M ': "., ~.. and Safety issues) h $ f b h b:VI*hb' '!.%.i

MC PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

-$ N M k' M M.t- % %:kNNNM.h'dW.h. W. $ / NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ".7 E J f. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 h M snd 2) November 20,1987 ~Nk2M h%:::Q;-- w %

n c:';.

. g w c; m.t .c ::3.- s. .:r.c w : y c..r.: n m ;a;4 .,r, y u. m. p.; r. p [cEI M h The Appeal Board in the onsite emergency planning and safety phase of ' [ :.['(h. N;[St%Q'$;'%h,M 4 p,"' j' j this operating license proceeding affirms the Licensing Board's rejection of the . O 4.IN 6 "J.9Wi%99 intervenors' motions to reopen the record and to admit two late. filed contentions

i ']N'f f.%(.W$NMIh.d concerning the adequacy of two siren systems designed to provide offsite public

ky,: 1,'i # j Q.'{'.M.$hs N notification of a radiological emergency at the Seabrook site.; o%: w.. A.,&..m.s.

v ~.. m.,. u. a. %,,..~: s. +~. 4m s.

n

... u; % : . M. .a,ge aw, Y,. s... c. s,;.y 'M>D e,x,v.s . s< 6 /4: EMERGENCY PLAN: NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS M.,',?'m.: ..1 Y.ME: . : w.. w:w.~ :: d(L;W:. M ;./ci S~f;S M.T.~ ..J.c jeMVf'v..,.. ..yW Inter alla, a means to provide early notification and clear instructions to the ~.,...

3. m..

M' 'lh,$@.jnAq ~f The Commission's regulations require emergency response plans to m.clude, dy 7 c.3

'M.U,.S$[khki Populace within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone.10

r. t.a..h.,;<.J.%..'.M..

C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5). .p: ... s.. .n : w. + ~

. m$'

, n a'./.*., a? -

N: :w- - a, ca c

/ .s ' ..."6 '. n' tc.i gr%..Wl.h.. Vg.v uf '; G '.':'.D i'

F:- Q y., y:. :.
% h.

?

~~?.s % +l.ggq.4. +~~
~~mr.. s m.: ^~~
~~n.,~~
~~. v._f ;l1.:f Q:?.* <;;lr'C,y.q, Q.13pf Q., e ~.',sa.?..e,Q.,,y.,,c.6. &. y.??s%. v*m? } Q. _q&y../1 ..'.g.;'.,. y . r.~~
T.
~~.\\s.~~
~~f,<~~
q J ' ?,. 3..c.. 3."% vg, *
~~f,(,o,., g.~~
jt, 4 ,3, s.4.s..., s. y.7, g*g.y 2 4 A .4 l,Q *.**' 6.,, j a ,V+. ..s ' W 4, ..;S6y -l ll Q,,., ',k $. q'Q.!n W. 1 py..... ,k. i ' T b.. * & C nl . 1 l' '. V { }A, L '. '4' ',. Oz.V,, g's. f Q *s:s ;,.. ; y g r.., g *.$ c :(.' b,..<!J. .u \\,L. l*s[. .- up' $. s *.,*.. Q(f >.A . J 410 .. A I. ..Qi..,.g,; E Q,,'/ o e,,,hb;,,djM.m.@.-).h,o.. 44,.4 ',., A.. <,c 5" N ...'.c, . y; : p.
~~4, -...~~
~~cz - fh4,; = y' s C'i,. gl-l' 4 %g.,w,. - a , ' >. p;' ~p,, %(:;;l~~
s
~~,',,'; ? L' l"~~
~~y-'~~
~~.r.~~
~~3. -~~
~~. s.,.'.,,., t.,...o,.,,(O f. 4 *. $ *;' ' i '; [J 1# d,.Y, '/ '4".[,*.h. v.,e.%..,..ge..j yj.,,,, ,.q.,+..,.ag. r, ...>/'. t {t 1 ,.e... m..,y-,;* y :-); Q.. o,,. 4 v;/.'gj.~~
~~M.T;;-@.s* ",y*.., W,, !,gi9 '/,..c;~~
~~^.e..,.,.,.r,-,,., .,f.... c4 .,* m7.7.>. ;**7. e; ~% W. f,(( * ',r 'Q/ b '""'^ d..y[. r, D*y.; M. 4,.M E.),/4 p 'y,.j.;g$*,,t > <..*, m:.~a .. r. . r q..... 4 ,. s 'c, g' 1~~
~~s. e s.~~
~~s y is s ~~~
g
~~,.3 3 / x*vi., ..;i', % .' r 2. n k a!d D,s 3,Nd;6 dj ',,,.s,,g a]'p. -[cM MYhD;J.'? t*,b'y,dY ' M: k:~~
~~,*.5~~
~~('; 'p * ,., j; ,/J,~'f, *s,.;li,.:l : 'la;g'h.. g.g*,,5,.. W -' ' J' , -; '.;, v.,: ., ' f 2 i~~
~~>, s.~~
~~g.: f , y(, l g 1,7. y ', ,b *a "el. ' f,.' ' p.';.J C.'f~~
~~,;'NM.MM~~
~~'g r. :f aJ,,, 7,,. / ', i 'b 2 A. ~d.D '. .p.pyl.}: O.hlwl.f Q.&n.i'h.xg:@n..W:4.%[e:s.mq}. ;: m..j. ; y I..j N J 1, - 55 Q. L T .Q'Q.E. '.r -~~
v. :M

1.:
~~-n r (',j:{ -:qJf;'d ;~~
~~?;Q' Q %.QM y % w.~~
~~. y v,..,. ~~ ~ : w(.: ',...~~
~~m. gym wme~~
~~Mdh h DS.7 NibNMh Qg r 3:pfy.y QQ9.;.Q;Q,m.%m:w :.Q;Q. Tu,M.Q~ QQQS:;gy~ +,& Q%..<;:a.ppy: -. m.- u. . of. Q'y;yd... y. - W.l'p.)v.',f,,7. n : a. w., Qj'g;;..g;,lp@p.s,a' f:s(. .w.w.' m: .n h.~~
~~f.,.~n.,..+;,..W. *v. b; i,_~~
~~.f. y. v... y j Q.s .. n. ._ w,. w~.; c.B.. r. W, : u..nw%w#Wa.w... v%,.. ~ k>..',a..r.,2 . y. n.. m.o.. w ?d '?. i.s, c J.; u. N. yw.Ws.;,.e ' ~, y.a.h~~
~~4..~~
~~s.. . n.%. c.. .,'.;..n,, %..,2 '. >. "...s~~
g a *.:., s

?
~~2. w . ~.s.n, -.. ..n.a<, w.c c. u.w. w. .s~~
~~2. c.~~
~~a,... x,, n m ~. c .n a. n w a .nv .. a~~
~~r..+~~
~~n ,h.n..%.,,;o..y y.~~
~~;t:~~
~~. a ?.s.. v ;.em:.,~.:.., - n., 4. ~., w,: $y %.. Q lie,Y 9 ^ W. l* i~~
' '.w.

u...
a
~~.s.. 5 s..t; e~~
% n. ,..,,., 4. a. .e a a. . e,.. .b o*w.', ",.YW , g %,-.<...m.: '. . -@hM;&.+,; *z..;. -L N - :,~. <. s 9. . en c m;p. f.459'l.I W,. (.,.3.n&. n.h.... A4 $ 4 f M N,N. N. @;b.E j Q, % S $'% y 2 RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD (SIGNIFICANT O.93dd.sQ' SAFETY ISSUE) f To prevail on a motion to reopen a record, a movant must show, inter alia, . fr %. p %.. '.:M. L. Ty(.W/. 2. p r.p.:, that a significant safety issue is involved.10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(2). A contention 4 ip Q DfG N M W. @;4.Q.s..~. hMIMp\\'?J.AM.a.... 1tiQ that raises an entirely new issue and is filed after the record has been closed -3 .p 7:iv:n$t' can be accepted for litigation only if it both (1) meets the reopening criteria . Q a'4 W,.1. N Fe @eAl f : M h d { $ %dS$,h%l set forth in 10 C.FR,2.734(a) and (2) survives a balancing of the five factors t..9.. A.N. mr1PJ that, by virtue of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1), control the admission of any late filed .s M 4,9.. MfM.,... 3 I',. :7pg....r m,,.,. ; '. %4 ? LA.S.,ce. p contention.
~~b. 3,~~
~~~m...9 g.! m; 'qa.. p~ : z. v~~
'sAs..,,...-

~g,.
~~.j+. ? lf -4.., v ' L ,.( ( .. c.~~
. m., ;.

4. f i~".... (10.]'Q..i~.:. '.V.. : R....M,,
.e 17. ~.P4.V , ".~ ;.f n1.0 RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD (SATISFACTION OF REQUIREMENTS; BURDEN ON MOVANT) .,-. r.a , v. :. j . w. y,.~-;-- %* Ei[;.:u., u..w.:::-.NM 'isp The movant has the burden to establish, prior to reopening the record, that i' k. d,,., 7,. r ' yf '. . f -!?f g Q q @,l'f the standards for reopening are met The movant is not entitled to engage ' f( - fx ip ' ' m r.p-% :.'. in discovery in an effort to produce evidence that will support a motion to ,,1 M.f ~ 9;. ., ;@:'.1^Q reopen. Rather, the issue in each case is whether the available information meets i:'%M., " A.:.7 fM-2:5.'#.c... v F- @ Q ' the standards for reopening, i.e., timely raises a significant safety issue which .f.,.. Q,',,r,:%.E k d ' -S[p FW. C W.,,- might have affected a licensing board's decision, such that the record should be Y:. reopened and discovery initiated. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island [R. *).? [?[f. f5 lfy.g Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI 85 7,21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985). , ~Kl.gg M ag - * - ' ~ - .,,. ~. ..s
~~w. !~~
~~.w. .'i. 7 ' f :: > ~ ".: n TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED~~
~~w. v~,.~~
~~- i. .o,. l Emergency notification sirens; i~~
~~f 1',;~~
,s 1 ,3 , ^; ., d. S.tren testmg; I o.. ' ). .....1 M;'.. s ....p -( ; .,yce. .J p ;'r, :q Siren sound pressure level criteria; ' 1. ',ca. , MM..,,, .a. 9 ~ c n.1 J f'7:.? 3 Ambient background sound pressure level measurements e
~~1 Octave band.~~
~~F. - 4., 4 y;~, < : .u. g. y,..,,. l . 6;.:. :..,%1: 4;: n', , Q'1~,. ~;**,' ;y \\cM,.' - ~. :,,,. f:, ?.W 6....,. '~~
c.
~~'r, 3 7,., ' T. di%g.. w.. M C.. G. +><v J @, s. 7., APPEARANCES ,?: ~- ..:_.. y, :. e,-, m...w$ &,i.:j f M.- Allan R. Fierce, Boston, Massachusetts, for the intervenor James M. Shannon, ?~~
~~u...~~
..c 7.,,7 9.. l.. . O,&, M. 6.. . :.,.,.&. s_- w: ..y 3,... 4.,,g...' c.gr.. Attorney General of Massachusetts. .~c .y n,s ; s :m, j,. x. w, .m r, ..... ~.... ~n.. a ~. .v,9.mW vs. ?;. y M R..' ..'l Robert A. Backus, Manchester, New Hampshire, for the intervenor Seacoast .-l. %;;. G M. h,;,'],',.?: s Anti Pollution League. n.,s 7 _ ~ ~ '.~.i _. .'~ s - y,, c. wf. s c : <;=. j u n '** 'n:.;.--'r. _ Ra .,..v.~. w.:. y,~..; , '; s. L ' 4,- .. L '.;
~~;n..j' 4II~~
'g* ..,. - - ~ 0.,:u..,P. .w..,.. a a 2. g...... m;. : ;... n 3 .[t y 3. %, ; ; .f.,*h. m.s ; ,$.a. [ ' $.,MM,,.' $ ' IVC NN'[*, h i.$]' s c,.... j f y I c g' :...., -, f ,,y*$ ' % h. ' ' k,, (, 17g.q....~~ ,.......s,.. , 5, c. -y.w c ? .u..- + v.., ,. 3' j 1,... e .s c- , '.. ' ^ . 1 e, ,y.. n .s-r r s ,,.,.e .,w -. ,E %k. s;.. h.g- %g . r -a s :..~. ' ' - s e w e e .4. s r 1.. s t =, 7
A
~~.. f ..s'% 9 l,l ;% ', 1 2 2. .e. .... n:s :,. s~ ,. 2.t a a~~
n
Sg'f,$$YW$$ Y$$h' i .~ y'b%'& . ipWQ ;M.Q' N.iG5.W4% * $P 'JG w & '; h,k$;${ib hk ? $ $'f'h..' ? Y & q.pT,o;.2';..h'2O:;9.t'm ?,t u.WRQM.%,dNR.*t,-4.$<&n%% 96.r@Md;W A.%.,%. r.W @:. V n. h', ;.; %w..g; %:V,p&.!GgeO%,v (%.,O', tyl.,f.J W ! ., W. 2 T. M r % m;; p..'ew.-2 )?: v v '.n . a: 12 Ma:m. s)..;g i. v n y) k$%M. hDIE vum#- pu y , n:. if'h,.1 e.].Q:p.. M.. ~k< g.vv.h Q%,w,
~~r %.$. N.j n._ &m,-/g:,lt.,~~
~~x,%% 1.f&.,.e...,,n, h s .n.e s.4 3is M mA i "i W N P % .,iy 5%:.. M . 4::~,. k'.q.%:h 'Q.y,.h~~
~~k..I, h~~
% :. % f. %'f Q'. 4 s( g ~k.,, 5 rir.g wr i ~.;uy f^ i Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., George H. Lewald, Kathryn A. Selleck and ~ Dd(3*. .Nhh.%'Nff-t Deborah S. Steenland, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants Public k. N $b b.hShih f)h[ Edwin J. Reis and Gregory Alan Berry for the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-N Nf k W ?Mr.-c.s y d$ N U.* D )s%
~~'f. Q is.% Q v. %m >, &p 9 :&g.~~
sion staff. t;;h4 f .om n ~ M i N g M Q $$ hi 9.D.N.-%w.W f@.w @b s-r4s Wm&g;4.y Mt c w %s..O. M'hp gf d De Commission's regulations require radiological emergency response plan. MN.M$$,N$'Nkh.I(:$y C5 6'5bE.h 'h NO. ning to include, inter aha, means "to provide early notification and clear instruc-SM f tion to the populace within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning ,@l9.,$MM.CQ@Wr'8,3$'t#;. N..yrD.r? 3y.M E zone [EPZ]."1 In the case of the Seabrook nuclear pour facility, this require-i*;' M Q Q @- M..w.R'Nj @i Wg[IN.y 4,g d*G M,.pJ e. hM . yp.s ment is being met in large measure by the installation of sirens in both the New 1 1
Nr
..h @ M Hampshire and the Massachusetts portions of the EPZ. . 'Ni,3UkM3$.)$k'I;A,$.M,*. In ALAB 875,2 we determined all but two of the questions that were raised Y.kh.Qr'h.[.N M on the intervenors' appeals from the Licensing Board's March 25,1987 partial 3 8 M..e,8 M N,. U... N, h' d W., M j / . q. e.., W d M. w.m.. ,,n.. a J1 initial decision in the onsite emergency planning and safety issues phase of
~~, n g.-~~
C 3 Sff @ M ;.t;. @@ @ N /:7ff; h, d the proceeding on the Seabrook operating license application.2 ne questions M$yih&M retained for later disposition concerned the correctness of the Board's rejecticn @M[N$MN[:W.c[NM,$31Mkk7hj evidentiary record had closed, that focused upon the adequacy of the sound @g in separate interlocutory orders of two contentions, filed after that phase of t!:4 i .. O' - 7.,., @jg.g,. A'g,M2W; levels of the sirens installed in East Kingston, New Hampshire, and Merrimae, f.';nt W
~~s. M. 7 P~~
. g,.g.giQ,'l Massachusetts.' In each instance, one assigned basis for the rejection was the 7 yyg ,, f.A fy, t[g[% ,3j$ accompanying motion to reopen the record, as required by the Commission's Board's belief that the proponent of the contention had failed to show in the ' *.... ['. Q. M N,3.c;U. h. Q. M S. W.. M l Rules of Practice, that a significant safety issue was involved.5 s a w
~~,. m i ' y S'M l~~
, W.cg*-jy Q y,6:p g a For reasons alluded to in ALAB 875,5 we thought it might prove possible to j @': 2:Q$ resolve the crucial differences among the parties on the siren matters without j ~ v w. a.., y.z.:. 4 : e.,. c..d: s,e. e. c;..:. g.o.t.*:.,; y:..a y a. b e- -v s.- Y, ),EkS a.- a.. 7.a, 4 ?,<> ;-y' p f g. *-. mc..,.* . -[wp.s4 3 10 CFA so.47(b)(3) .g. c. 2 26 NRC 251 (1987) i, ,p,.g 3,,[3p.g710,25 NRC 177. c+ 7; 3 i s. ,i fpf 5,4 t;censms Board MemoraMa and order ' Mars 23 and 25.1987) (unpubbshdy % Eam K.ingstm ,'j p,.4,-[J.fM6 %b;2cm;g.fi.:1;;}.f 4
~~ct M ' 73 h, ".,/Q T-~~
.p. contenom was spmsored by the irmermcr sencer a Arsi.Ponuoan t.eague and ths Mernmac emenoon by the v.g. Q.'.:.g.n..'6%.' :g t,.9:(%g M..- A.M< .DMj. %'. 'W,.ihd). ha u no d= pose amms ** pama ihn th<** c= moms hd to be dvanced in the maw emersmer irsarvmor Ancrney omers! of Mamachusats. i ., < y.;.; h'G.% Wj.c,b,'; (%@..yy, .ri '.y. ? "
~~7. Q.Q ;c " N i.~~
.p planrung phase a the proceedmg. Eve thagh the sums are designed to prende o(Isne pubbc acsacine c( a imhological emergency. the Cmmusman deems the arrangemenu for sad nordcaum to be mthm the amb. of Q.,,.;.6 3.8;. ,af' '; O
~~M ensas emergency plannmg see smermrs of Cmodersoon uccrnpanymg 10 C.FA 50 47(d), 47 red. Reg. 30.232.~~
.' ", ' <. y p, M Q, l 2,[. 9,E,9 7l ~ ( y., ;Dy 30.234 (1982). e g:'. 'A. vy$% g.f. 23G 3M MN.G;;g7 8 sum i ihoeng (amms eihm) is an adscauw condaco poca<rs to me reperur. a a cie.a record. s,,10 7. .;;.>,j
~~. ' d'. 'f:1W. h J~~
~~CFA 2.734(aX21 i., -~ " g. ., - M ;,G.4,c q,y".,j, W. c,g./. y M y : i~~
~~see 26 NRC u 273 75.~~
4 g;

f....
~~g w =.c. ,A t 573e~~
~~;;. '. *, %m.6.((. f, e f:h,. g y@M; gu f 3 w.g, - T.~~
s
~~,qq p 'sc~~
.-3 e .e. <, g, gm A v <.. y. }- ~ 's , ~,;. ; p' f,:r y ol.,,; wpy s Qi.. V.; rl. ': s '; i., J. ', n *J,p;W' e~ M5 y 412 .7*<\\ W.y y.f: y y-w-;n. -Q .'N 7 + y)b'R'. r if s. ', **',7 ,gr, .p 'p.d; 9, 'e 7,1; q ~ .3
r.
~~1..,~~
~~.~, v%n( g.7 4f,.i, Q,( .e > ..t n 's* I . '.,,. y.f .ff. : v,) i t' '~~
~~\\., 'y,". +l~~
~~,!;r ~ ,n t _.l. e .., t ;..; q.j r,f! b;i.f..,'.y ;.'.{.,J g,,c,., . y y, g.~~
~~7.,,.7 y.,, a n.m+.,. y.~~
',l 3 . ;.g ve ,.~ - - ? :.y v - r - - ~ ' ~~ y ,.., ;.c -<. 4.y.., c.*4,o 4.g ':,? ..s 's. ,p .k-D h,[ *., ['z h,M,h ** 'M m(,.. g ~';,,. i'.. .? E c '.,.g* I* . "bc..,'p/...... A '.,e, y(,p.j, (-L,M'B'd ir%)c
~~m*'~~
~~cv ','fjW~~
~~.Y,A. 3rY a;.s(':,g:w'%pw& ?;ui,'l'm' UA.- ;'. M?~ n i '. y h . j C'Jf4 s -W.'. ? ' G (.. ,.,?- T ..,/-~~
~~9k;QJd % h-N s~~
',.. "'.c . N,. 2 1 c'(* O, y 9 A. - d- ~6 x. L. 2 4 '. ~. . f.; n ;v: ? ?+, ma m s - $$y... hD .;;ii, ' ' x.ms; 'm' $5.a.yp( y l$, sa'-l*1Y N% '-i :' " M V ... ~.,,. h ; Q'.., . e.'.. : -. ~.. .~ .vyvLm' e.- 3 x ,... - - :s
~~? LiWf2 lKW w ~.~~
= ' * - w
'r .\\
~~X e~~
~~~. A ,ds . > P Wa - ',p ,. h..',, ? 6 '[ 1,.g a (g-D e-g i }l.[er. 1 A-[.~~
~~g.,~~
~~7 ,..j... A.* b ~ "4 %e a l.. - g-s.. f. ". s # ", d ,a s w, w _.m.u w.-]~~
~~w.?~~
~~e m&.A;:~;;w. m::. x.e L.w m w. u w.m m,~~
~~R :n y w~~
Q Y < Q* D*2..f "'Q:sM~ % $'.D.. i G'3. *; $d ?.* t. ~ $.E ^W. g.j'p'h. -V%*'',s' ..r.*
~~3. ;%,.y? ** ;,.? ;. F '~~
~~d' 1 . *., r,',.. ",e ',%y ; g.,,.r e m ?' ',.j&, .g h.aI,,iso-:*pisol y. .-,.. ',~~
~~m,VL %~~
~~. *L s -*; * ~ "g .~~
p.t '*
~~ag l~~
}w
~~'Ji& W'*. -(~~
~~W *[. g ' '..?-~~
r .J l .,,y J:- fn;t fr[.;q'. p? %. %9, t [ lh ~\\ h i W.V.$." W)l.?.! i-S..A - tQW E-k'. i G ) H 1 @M.dM..;M-A,3 j.'.M..M. M.2iMN..Q.-^ l $khDMN.'Oi-D @? the necessity of deciding whether, as a matter oflaw, the contentions in question 5.N1m 5d @?lp; W.z'h G' %sgb.I.difuN. + Y. were improperly rejected at the threshold? Because the exploration of that MhW..e%,fg+ra,M.m,r.?$dM M-d Possibility was still in progress at the time our review of all of the other appellate $,rtpw.P4 vc.M pet: p.S t.. M# issues had reached fruition, we concluded that the appropriate course was to wr W4' hM'dNshN$ M&4j. render our decision on those issues without additional delay and to reserve
~~ya jurisdiction over the siren questions pending our further order.'~~
MhM.hSM5%${MS As will be seen, our endeavor to obtain a settlement of the siren questions NMi5M N % @Q.9dd M 3(.y\\'.o sM.i was not entirely successful. We thus have had to confront the challenges to MU%,0 @ v$M.., F. q:.M r.,.>L W yj.l? the rejection of the East Kingston and Merrimac contendons. Ibr the reasons 4.$.MMF%.7 e, $$P2 57-S. set forth below, we conclude that they are without merit. More specifically, T yh P V.? irrespective of whether consideration is given to information presented to us .~.'Wlfd.W.M.Dd?Q'C.@....;ess!.M..C. W ;,L.q q.. ?Q W G., that was not before the Licensing Board, we are satisfied that the contentions
~~m. m. -.~~
. ~f4M Q..El do not raise safety questions of sufficient gravity to justify the reopening of a F6%..m, . @ $ p~ @.2-MM $MYMg;$. Wi D ;- closed record to accommodate them. .,..:% >,,c ; 7 n n 4 : % w.y.,q ~,,.. .s..s v. y,... m,fs y. :;._q, ow.. _ ~.3.e
~~. 4 r.-.~~
~~. p a.;.. w.-.. .w .m v.. c $.. w@.g.ld,C?B.w.f. iWP,. E.fS.;...e.v. ~.s ......;w.. vs... .,m ~, s O '- T E' A. East Kingston w:@.. W=N b,. n. .T m~~
c.. p - *
. w; MNM '!N,k.N.%h.W3 4.t- ..},.. 2 /.. NwM As observed in ALAB.875, the controversy involving the adequacy of the four East Kingston sirens had its genesis in a test of those sirens performed 4,M.m -Qht S>;.f. t d p'.L.W...w.e. 7.5,ddp.O. f last January? According to an affidavit supplied by the Swnatt Anti. Pollution n n. .c. v 'j =D, Mng'g League (SAPL) in support of its motion to reopen the record to permit the @p l W :$ ' b k j Q f ' 3j) a y t,, t,...n Vp Q.f;$:. admission of a contention directed to the applicants' siren system, the test 3),1.W(, ' 7.; ..V f f FPr ',Q brought to light a number of deficiencies? Specifically, one or more of the qR3'( T sirens did not function at all during some phases of the test And the functioning '.Sc) [ Y.%d sirens assenedly did not uniformly fulfill their intended objective. c }.;g:g. lJ, In addition to pointing to this development as demonstrating the shortcomings 9,, @ ;L ['-.,9 !. i 9.Miif of the si en system, SAPL called attention to a January 1987 decision of the W.M g% ' @%.* Rockingham County, New Hampshire Superior Coun in a suit instituted by .c .g, g.. m. ..mu;.. pp.j.O 4. * ~ ' ; the Town of Rye, New Hampshire, against the lead applicant Public Service l ..r. Q.., Q t ;;
~~s.,y~~
~~. A s? ; 5* : .:u. D .L.,~~
~~r ?, %.~~
~,..; : yH W .., *.. '. 4 0. ~. ;..X.< :. w w., ' %...< 4. ; a.,-- Q:<. . 4.'k b. Q. A n x. D +; .OkM Q [(n'. m.w:ps)iy .? M.3-Q.[..,.g.%[,$[c.m' O ' y,b T in & connecom, a omtanum that raises an entuuly new issus and is Aled aAar the recad has been closed J.' i : V3 i V g;.c e % g. n.gy g g..' ; - @ can be -W for hugeuan only it it 6ed (1) mesis the reopem'ns entana set fonh in 10 C.FA 1734a) and [ f5'Aj-[ 6 y..g ' Q p % g..n!. W. t-.i 4 "' ] any lata.6 led coraanm. Whh regard to the East IGneston consannm, the tacenang Boasd hw the section y. p 3.n ^. (2) atrvives a balancing d tbs 6ve factors that, by wnue of 10 C.F.R.1714(aX1), conuni the admismon of 4 f,y.; J;m r;s M-A,..M **, y,J; W @.p..a.. y_dB. 1714(aX1) factas be, given he conchision that rm an of the reopenmg cruma were met. did ad undertake g M.W ',. ; 14 q L to balance those factos. See March 23,19t7 Memornadurn and order. De Mammsc consanom was rejected. V. dig $j'mQ@.1 c.'"W b Fe;' M'? however, m the baas of both the reysung erms and a balancing of ths=== 1714(aXI) factors. 544 Manh "'S"3 g - [W~J J S NE().#.D ? )f J 'y X.e W ~ Je# 25,1987 Marnorandurn and order. C-VV.Q'..., l, sSee ALAB.875,26 NRC at 275. j 1 I 'M. at 274. f e G c.O j, .,4 e.%s g m ',, N. .- J'.' ..ty on Appbcarss' Canpiiance wuh 10 C.FA $ 50.47(bX5)(February 6,1987) [hereindter sAPL/s Corsennen and f go8se seucast Arsi PoDution IAsgue's Corsennon and Mauen to Adma late @ed Corsencon, Reope the l W 3 ;. li - Racord a on.sha Ernergency Planrung, and Condthan the tasuance d a ljcese Up to 5% of Rated Power '.. %[.. y[M,, - f; ,*'.AC.. .-7 Motim], Arndsvu d Frederid H. Anderson, Jr. ~g J,.. .v.,. Y .'~.5*h.. E 1'" g4 u.*c *,J. *y '^
~~J,1, y.~~
~~$s "g D tb,'y.'.~~
N'
~~.? ..c pr. :- s - s 9.,yy '_, ;, ..;s ~r. y %~~ g,6 7 u 413 .g. u,..,,. 3<. J. wr s.. s. ':*C.s%,: .v -..Q.~ O ' A L. : q.. ~ N.-~~
W

o a.d. ; e N.'; :3.e..., J-m'" g.W U Dl..7.'-
~~a ,~V e, u.. n '. t.. (~~
~~s *.. '. r. v. P'~~
~~...a,E k' *, '.. ' 7 .j [ Jy nQ T 'a'*9 f ,,,3 M q~~
~~r J r. ] %~~
' ( ; t._,. < -- .,] '.vi, 4,e f -(, 3 $ " ?W-k Q' p.l{ .%, 'f] e, . ~. 'f.7 + - , : 1. + o ?; Ql%* c .?... ... s., y' ; f. MG.} - M;.~';?'~~ W~%'~ 7 * = ~ ~7,~P*' ' ' ~ ' W"' ~ ' % '7 7. ' ' ,O.: n u.
~~w. y. u,~~
~~~ e W* *f-W -,~ T 'J * - (4-. g g, ' ;. i * ,g. '~~
~~i#w.g; h f f '~~
~~hyC a N 0 7.r. t s ,y~~
~~!.' f,.0, i'l. ', ; V,.~~
a: ; Y . c,.. s ;,. a t '4 E ,9 "..g g Aa 6* e 9- [.g i' 'f4 f' 6' 5 x:q. % - u, .g w w.v_.s m.; 3. y., y<,. g.. 2%. _..- .-.s.. ma,. _w m , a r m.
k * $ ' w. R,M ,+ \\Q,;s W % 1-A v'Q .f%%'b*.;f ke&y i.%
~~t qhy_d~~
, C4'e.. 2 a g h W:. M ,). R.f. V e) v, b ' * ~ d.* * &. v. { '. {U a. s $ $ (N. W. Y bli$ W[ M,'N M M Q f}W ~ j 5,','"$ 1 a @.(E Q. W M 4 4.'ka g y; e .%Q;W)q$;$,& ?&Wh$k.$w&;,Q[${bll rW.: P. b Y Y$$$.8i,$ $ $ $ $ .N E~b'.,, e'r 0, f *.,)4 M,3:. t,,ou..- N ,,g' ..u. $,,,.m m y&.%.. p., i c,s..r..e v ,y. ~,.%. m:.w.cy m u s -- m~ N.'. -, n ** w'*jskU..: wm.w.m W^.: v-. q.m :: s a n p*/< w'Q.' v',d pn c '; 4's + V. v. e1 L. :'
~~t gW Sh',.r,swY+P s~~
pr/p&g;.. d'+ Wi 7 m.%r.e W e.w;k'w :s Q;.2 w.d.d f [ijM;#ddh;p%.%..s .y 9 4 dhgf;j Company of New Hampshire." In that decision, the court concluded that New g A,n.1 N' M. .hfF%fy{'lR ' %g$g, Hampshire statutory law precluded the grant of licenses to the applicants to erect $$h@M'8. hN;M.?.W $g $ ; ,a %o g $ M.i[, yd Poles on state or town. maintained highways for purposes related solely to the NN: gl M siren system. On the strength of that conclusion, the court declared "null and l'Q GM void" all such licenses issued by either Rye or a New Hampshire state agency Mkb/hh k h .m'j in connection with highways located in that municipality and nearby Hampton er. A:w.gMic$.y..p.cy.s.%'K.O,h g .h Falls (which had intervened in the litigation)." This declaration in turn led to e n; h5[.p@yk h. N W .S j an order directing the applicants to remove the poles erected under the aegis of q. N M M M $.IMM,b,Mny,'ph., D[G 6%i'R$k ,m:.W. those licenses." NM$.fh'. N M % $ M i9 $,d @I h g@W /$ f K$ In its March 23 memorandum and order, the Licensing Board determined that
~~d neither the siren test nor the judicial decision gave rise to a significant safety~~
.@ :D.k@%kN'f6$ f M W. h was because (1) the proper procedures were not followed by the East Kingston , M b'Udd.% dg issue.H With respect to the test, the Bcttd relied on an NRC staff affidavit to the 7.N@$@M012y $M@d@M@@y.D,M'Q h1 eye.ig M effect that it was not a reliable indicator cf the capabilities of the sirens.H This M9 5;h ..hM officials in conducting the test, and (2) a buildup of ice and snow had adversely W.b'MM,Wic'IT ?MMW.V'M affected the operation of the sirens " On the latter score, the affidavit noted ef.M:M M WROh5M,dO% b that measures would be taken to avoid a repetition of such a buildup: e.g., an N 'h hbhhhh. K.gjM anti. icing agent would be applied to the sirens, which also would be reoriented M!i to point in a southerly direction." @.f N:N @s9 M f @ N Ml@'5%jR1 $$$M@p:Nf@ fMO. d Turning to the judicial decision, the Board observed that it had been ap-8 4.8[$ ,W f Pealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Coun and, accordingly, had not taken 969 ,b.6. W E.d[;..'M.$@WTlM@ifj:s.$dy% QSj effect." Consequently, the Board reasoned, the decision lacked current safety Mfd significance. The Board added that, were the sirens to be subsequently removed D C 3.M 'h ;$l:k h h fN:M a '$h. on the strength of an affirmance of'the decision, the Commission's regulations
~~.J.9 /;R $;fp@V;%~~
~~would bar reactor operation in the absence of alternative measures to provide ?9 13 the requisite reasonable assurance that the public health and safety would be~~
t. p.f,',f:$ '?...&C E;>JJ. g

v..,. m,.wg Q.M protected in the event of an accident."
g.! ~ ; ' QP.I.h'5 ffWQ.n e.. w.;. In coming to grips with S APL's challenge to the denial ofits motion to reopen MQ:Vy i. .ji W< ?W' 3 VW, y the record, we encounter no difficulty in agreeing with the Licensing Board
~~q. -~~
M d5M,,,1i.{kM that the concern engendered by the Superior Court's ruling is premature. S APL ~ ! $ 'N l MMC 'c ~URTf QDM does not dispute that the siren poles have not been removed and will continue ), N'i'[ N d:@ M :MQ to remain in place at least until the outcome of the pending appeal to the state , d.o~.' ". 3. W.c c. v:lc y,%.u.w. ew .e Q. o.::1 '.' ',-;y s,c r.\\..: %.,,, - + p ,~ . -,..r v.p .a . Y,' ^}% @!.,g. -..S.'4.j. ;f f g. H H s, re opy, v. m s,na, co. of.vH., No. S&E s4 (NJL s.iper. CL, Rochngham County, Jan. 22, NA t[;.A T';if,a:A a f^g:.Uru.f lyN.; 19sD, mached to sAPt.'s Contanace and Wuos ll 9 ', _%.Y . 4%' n 014 si 4. ~...,.. c...,. m,. y',y,.,;... e. y Q.:) [. )? *'.%.c..~ w.
~~a/d at 67.~~
,. c.s - ;. ) 'y[l-N &,. ._s y%.s. 3 .-,A. .. v t 1 g* 3,,. ',;.j (.. rg 1.tlJcg /- y s,, Emor ndam and order at 7 9. ? & Q(;Q-(aly; *j..,..;. (@',-[,;M@8 / $.7, .I u,, NRC statt Respanas to sAPL's tmFUed Ccramuan and Wuan to Repen the Reard (Febmary 26 s , '.= jr 1 l&lM. 2.'.p.,A('y , p.g, _ n 3,, -W 19 D, Ar54m of Wuham J. Lams. Q. y, M
~~e. q.r.~~
~~Id, Ar$dm a N E i M:O'j D/4, Ars4m a 4 5. ^ d; '.?pg'Q:.p^~~
~~y c;;~~
~~.g;.y.g is, Wich 2s, t987 mmor narn and ord.,.i 9. s '3 b,. &c..J' % y,'x? Wl,'. l',; W ug f r,.m'i ; q'.G")m a;<...:ep f x~~
~~q; i.%~~
~~...s %.,;.N +: 4 XWft a.E s? > j '.'*4 .N.V~~
[
~~hY;. s ,, - f '~~
~~g.. A,.. {.'" '> &} [%~~
~~4 , \\, w.';~~
~~4' 9A' 84~~
~~= ;,r. r c.,.g'q. =?..Q.g. %.m <%.;a;,~~
~~.7 c 4. ,..~,',o.',.-5 a.. '. y .M '. L% m.. j h;. . g.@., g,..,'<JqM' 4{4 y~~
~~7.,. : r, f...f.,T {rpif "6$i.. '<.~~
~~...., r. r~~
~~+ ...4x . m.~~
w*
~~e. 5+ w* .. g '.y c. ' gM 1~~
.k Q. v f*R. :' *
,r,j'.. c '.:.s'.3','si, i, ' g[', ed d. '..0'. n {')f.'g; j$ 6' ,'W <,.Q v a . i'" -S, 3 r +; .. %. * ' a - '.s. ; * *p* D (,h }c. '.3 : 4i r .y- .,.n 'y.. ?,d'q.e*.* O. Y %.*.',&.. w,>.v,cyrc ~ y m,=,,rmc 5 m ;'r v.'v*~~~ ~.,.r..m T' Q'.% ,s '\\ o r.-,*,..,. y, e- .,. > + 3 : t. G * *:'; '4. ' s. ' A. -y*,3.*.,"s., g (. 4$ Q. As ',';,..y.s ' ?.. m,.E :..- 1... ; t.. ,-,l, ..ss r.,. ~.v W, ?m,' y . e u.,. .7 w s .s .s.'.'" i + 7J's 2*N; L,Q.i; j 'l ' y.
.[
~~." g .n.. >, ;.. g. m.w,. : m. .-n. s~~
)
~~j 'y~~
(.
~~j$ ' '.. [.7. .n,. .... L- + y. = * *, \\ :'. ~ ~; . ~...,, .c. n\\. r.-, .s . ' 8.,a5 h hh,e Gh,Q[,h[c; t a sb. h .. ( .' y [.J. 'f Y.((, x; .3~~
~~.u....a e~~
a i[',$. N V. " * * 's.. . s nw. m.?.%.,;'.w <. Me i. ?. %..I h,." .'w.q-k k,.. m '? sa- .o .& ' a i C tia 2n .: '? ~ ~e... ..s
n.. h $:n 1,f,i$. 1.$h O.N(b c. k h$,. k. +L:..gq:.d. y..n L,..,' Q:.h.. a.6:g:W2 4, ..J..- n., y.ms...,;.,d '%kfY.,,. .y, \\y g, x 3.,7. n m.~.,. : ..... y.y., - w... - =.o.w.. m. ~. v, u W.,.,Q 0 9. Q.,,. g ;,.i.., Q :7 ?,, g . W .;y
Q

:

\\
~~h, u ;g.,.g. z.. A..yM.yj:y ag. h,J n~~
~~NS j~~
~~.U" "[F. . m. h.p p ... n.. - ,,3... ..s. 2tw.44iQ[M )d.M.N[h'O.$Mt;,;.;uifu;4.s h.. N~~
~~9.. ud, m ! g ~w:,geh w.'t.. 'a:.:z.s.wa.-~~
~~w.17hu.x,Dk[iMMM(bNt U. k 'l r .k /., g.1 y,,m> ;;#.,v:m,.y;i. W. 4 x.cp?m.v-W 3 .w p..n m 3.,m.;;.:~~Q ".2.: 7~~
~~s. 4-wk, N.a,~~
- y,.y.~. w;. a; u... .:w[*", :,.., U.,..n,.. z.s.w, a.<,'g.2.h* , >..:. >v.g.'.m.;c. m.g +> ..4 M.v w~.;.co.. A. y p ~:..9 mi v... f.. .u.- a.; 3 > a.'.f r*
v-
~~$7' S b k hiN.%@ M M M $;$.'$q -r~~
~~v.AF~~
>.' v , : ' Ur. N .:[ d Supreme Court. That appeal was argued on October 7 and will be decided at Nkp.$ M61M M.F @k $$'h / M N S h h@M@NM some currently uncertain date." We need not speculate on what the state Supreme kNE Court is likely to determine on the pivotal issue of New Hampshire law - a ) h,3'$ % E@F;, $ ;h [ ((N O.U' M@ $ 5 N M %3
~~M df course fraught with considerable peril in any event. If the court overturns the D #>@Q %~~
M.7 d i result below, that will likely be the end of the matter. On the other hand, if the D directive to remove the poles in question is affirmed, the applicants obviously h3,. Md.hjM will have to substitute for the sirens son e other mechanism that will satisfy the T-O?jN[thh.fDM.y.RT.Rk dibN M k N fd d M.$ D E 8.75 regulatcry requirement regarding "early notification and clear instruction to the Populace within the" EPZ." If SAPL believes that the subsdtute proposed by h$9dddWNO:fS.D.@ dis $M ' the applicants is insufficient to meet that requirement, it will have means at its Etyig.hJMMM/d]MTM$ ' disposal to put that belief before the Commission? MMrkf',j [3 Q, On the matter of SAPL's concems stemming from the January test of the ~N]e: M. 6,w.4.. u v.m f.dd:r+37,.. p 3.5. h East Kingston sirens, none of the interested parties disagreed with our suggestion i. M w ge i-V.5.T) M M.J.7 Q f $ y:.dcgQr,t ~??6 7%.%# 1{.' at oral argument that the sensible course was to undertake another test during M the coming winter? Accordingly, as noted in ALAB-875, in a July 30, 1987
~~MN MON.iNY$$[~~
~~memorandum and order (unpublished) we directed those parties to endeavor to~~
~~o. ts. 4: 7 p?.N N.... M.,..,. V {J %..~ _',.~~
come to an agreement among themselves with regard to the "test procedures that J, SWe'. %... % - '.%. e.. 3.v e should be utilized and the appropriate climatic conditions for the conduct of the Nh M test "2' That endeavor proved only partially fruitful. In the staff's report on the M.hM.N$Nf5.f.h,7MI@d l.p Mh[ Ud ot.tcome of the discussions in which it, S APL, and the applicants took part, the My%.g,ygf@j"M f yMQQg$ staff advised us that agreement had been reached on all but three subjects? y p,,. A-MM.Y._.? .#:i, cM.~ S., ' ?m.,
~~e....~~
In SAPL's view, contrary to that of the applicants and staff, the test should ^.. A + cy.g;g ~ h M f M.:. b ;. ~ 'I' $., ~F ' (1) include all sirens in the New Hampshire EPZ, rather than just those in East Kingston; (2) embrace the public address (and not merely the tone alert) function n. :f W"Z.. f of those sirens located in the beach areas; and (3) be scheduled not more than l m- ' '.Z l /,. -? five days in advance? s' "c ,. [ '. N 4.. - .o.." *,.. :s f b.w. It is manifest from the text of our July 30 memorandum and order that s ', 4 A p{t.% e-Z 'g' 7.X'.,y.j>.J, pgQ).y'D; we had in mind a new test of the East Kingston sirens alone. The reason is
. g ; A... ; ^, e

4..,.,.,, g;gy;;..,.j readily apparent Once again, the sole basis assigned for the claim of siren
..c., ... fi,% -, M / 'gM y. system inadequacy advanced in the SAPL contention was the outcome of the C ,' J. ff.".,M;,,.,., Mjf.. .'% :. . m .e m m.. .n test of those sirens. And at no time during the course of the consideration of s W.W.E. g:,34.g.,:$@f.Q@$2d hfg'Q: information that might suggest an infirmity in the strens located elsewhere in the q, the contention either by the Licensing Board or by us has SAPL provided any 4 [c?.'QJ] s y q.g E'h a Q.. ;:~ ':;.:? L. Qs.,.. qs.g.QW ' !-[ 30.1987L see Awlan's Response to Ameal Board order or october 13,19s7: supp;emersal Memorandum (october - ic.: ;g' Ay@y.n'.5':.n,3 V. "4. %;,'<c: S' Sea supra p. 41a c. '
gnu,a ':

' 3. ^!']l ;M ? '#; Q;- y J.j [p, 1,
M. C. .: r F D See, e g.,10 c.FA 1206. - 4, [ 1.L']'.: ;- p*f.h, U c :.U.fff!.@:' ?'..,fJ 1 3ee, e s., App. Tr. 6s-64,116-18. M . Q: y 'd; 5 p' ,,;3 26 NRC at 274. r. ;)M h]}f.3 M t 34e tener trcm Edwui L Rets to the members d dus Board (sepanber 11,1987). .,,.. r* 1;.?[%~ ',, d ' 'i. ' M "/d at 2. See also b-4 Arsi.Pouutum League's Memorandum Retardmg Test or East Kingston sirais C
?

W
'g.,j.. -. *f..';{ * - (october 1,1987). N..... ,. L. - lt,, h y' ,,,l s-TQ s;,, R. ~ {;;.' x,, .t ~;o. , ;, f, ;. Q*...~,.. :. V.*.:%M b a x ;; v'. ~ * ;',..,, ' r e c .y , ~ - ' .y.. 4 4 y ~,.m, _.'.'. [. > -y,.:lyf. Q.. f.y,.;;; 9,3 4{g r _i. 1 -l.e'rl?),.: -e. w. y', w ? -) ,, ;,.d..'.j i i.f. ;'f.. '.* g. .}' .tV e. ..*-s_f.< g .. wwNi ,, f:y> ' ?Wy,0.. c',q. <, . ;.r:d ~.C'i.
~~. S.~~
~~u.: n = ~. h * *. y *, 'd e~~
~~f s -;.~~
o,
x.
~~{ a,2 ' lls $ 'L. z. l's? Y~~
~~., e' y'.~~
' (L,,,.:, ?,:e %. ;s. f . m.-. p.- . ~. ,,. ( m., M*. we e ,s .'e 9.;. Q 1 i ' M..l, h..:. ?. mp m.. h.., ',. '., 't. .c m ' ; ~ s . c; /,.[.. f. ' ~; 1(.;., t - s ,e .C s .,,...s- .~ ;., x.~- .r; -v ' E h".y " r \\ e ... I .. ( ', Q :n. [', l[ < ry. < '. i ,C ls . l .,\\ ," T . ~., s ~ . ' e.h t l; ', - , U ~s - *(I 1.- -. C N.,,...,1 '., %.,a%e- ?, .j i.;* a r u::4...W]y, '.. ;.:\\ l.# 1..;; N.., 3, " s l,.,l.,%. }, , l ". ? s
~~s.,~~
f v?, Q 3 s a. +;. A y". e ~ _ ...:e .,~._ t s
g g gh.. p - s - - - - mp M,.. p W W h & 5G h ". W.s. y.,.
~~u. b Peh.hg4%*W" W(p&~~
q $.W! y 4 .. W setdement of the controversy surrounding the rejection of the SAPL contention, h,N V the test be extended to sirens beyond East Kingston. The same is true with d# $^'y$g. p;, ~, // respect to SAPL's argument that the test should encompass the public address , l; Mh'*,; i..!" s'. function of the sirens in beach areas. East Kingston does not include beach areas C@p!%p!- Y J and, therefore, its sirens will not be relied upon during a Seabrook emergency 1 !.$b@fy Wfr-j $$ for public address functions." ,MMylkp$ Thus, the first two points of disagreement must be resolved in favor of the ap-
~~[h h 6[~~
kthh k M5k:-[ M[ h rg n ggg% h ' M li P cants and staff. This does not mean, of course, that the sirens in other portions EMld'E ERMhM6 of the EPZ (both in New Hampshire and Massachusetts) will go untested. As the i WNQljg h.h staff has informed us without contradiction, the Ibderal Emergency Management l NN,h>$$ ink,T y the adequacy of the applicants' siren system as pan of its review of the overall ..M l$di Agency (FEMA) has assumed by regulation the responsibility of determining Mf;gQwgrYhh' Mk{}%,gg;{) Mfbh offsite emergency preparedness program for the facility." It is inconceivable Q%8hh. MOM %tg that FEMA would undertake to make a determination in that regard without an D[$. ( h $ M @, M Y[@hh ' M %. h h i p'%.M lb E.N appropriate test of the strens mat are to sene as pan of me emer.'ency response N 'jiW n xqw effort. sthMMMMN[NY,hM fN M 1 hat leaves for consideration SAPL's objection to the applicants' proposal ) M'y that a specific date for the East Kingston siren test be set well in advance - MNGWp%QQ:W;MM[,$@pM.4h. We think that there is substance to the objection..There is obviously no way of indeed, in September the applicants and the staff settled upon January 30,1988." j s, dM@IkhNb h-]K W P:.sg(iM @M % $ h R g' dO. 3i M Q % ; %.y now forecasting with any degree of confidence the weather conditions that are likely to prevail several months hence. For all that was known when January 30 $ { N.,:. M. y @k, w$ v. %@w. p g, % y 9t h M % y was selected, or is now known, on that date New Harnpshire might be enjoying 0..C. a.q
~~+ M a spell of unseasonably temperate weather. If so, the test would scarcely serve~~
$NQ: WGM its intended purpose (among others) of ascertaining how the sirens function in W G.S'MM f.p[$$C.MfM;$@RWW*h M%h the more severe climatic conditions that customarily attend upon Northern New ' cj'E;s.U$c,gpq, England winters. ._;,7.%?'d.,EQNM3G%hi in this connection, we are unpersuaded that, as the applicants maintain, it YU1'J9 M M.,f W h @l-./.pd would not be possible to mobilize in the space of several days the personnel E 'N'M %. 3M.M@WD,.~h,MI CiQ.,,.d42,R. k? - involved in the siren test and to provide adequate prior notice to the public." ~..?M. ;.T, J ,;D. 7,q.u-After all, there are only four sirens to be tested in a relatively small community, L ; 2;d..,~.J.r.n nc ov ~ ..J ,.......+ We. s. with the consequence that a very limited number of observers and other N $..c. <o .. ~. .y.; @ds.p ';MN. ; 6f.' Participants will be required.33 And while it may be true that, as both the -.. f.,%,Q,z..M ds 3.l.W;'y@x'_'i," hs. M applicants and stafY stress, one cannot predict weather conditions with absolute a
~~m. t.~~
~~M m [-hy s* d . :~~~
~~.s4. [. kIj $ Y';~~
~~t r. '.~~
~~,$s[h,,.,(#'N N*1~.[/Nk. g' h,4% +,y,.; ~. ' ha .M70f.h "See NRC stars Repones to Appeal Bosal order of septanbar 17,1987 (sepernbar 25.1987) et 2 3; i@. <d[! c. w..<ye, :Q@p.,. gag'3,:g*.l~~
~~.py r"-~~
A -. -" Regarduis Tat of Eam Kingste suuns /sepenbar 30,1987) a 2. p's'taf Suplanental Response to Ameal Board order or sepernbar 17.1987 ..42;f w d.7.';-MEdN4Irhl6'.$qv. 4.;.^. i'yp ?q'h.W[ sireis (ocu4r 6.1987) a 3 a.3; 44 C.F.R. 350.3(a). See elao Leemmene famer & Ught Ce. (Wetadord Stearn see NRC .1 .,,y g 3'hk: s y[M.W. E. J# Elecinc stauon,(Jas 3), AIAB-732,17 TRC 1(T16,1104-M a a45 (1983). j '4*5g h,.,18U [ h;j k.$.M.N2F$ 1 8 3ee NRC stafr's Response to Appeal Board order d sepanber 17,19s7, et 3-4 Ambcarsa' Memoranden ) . p.",; n(. M ;ke? l @,. r. gl M fd}v.,p;Ree199l"See Ambeants' Mancran&aro Regardag Test of East Kinsam suuns at 2 3. 1;o, ti Regarding Tem or Ean Kingman sans a 12. 7s M. s ', w. q.v::h,.P,.'&.t.** ",7ff <}M. d,.f/ g'ld-%; .^ 7pp.f.~ 31 6: Nf.c 3ee lauer of Edmn J. Ras, Ansctrners (sben Acovatan Test Prr.rabe - East Kmasten) a 4. & c$g.'.OT.' q, p. y ;&@$. Sy.h'Otd.M.Q<dn.,r& q A.M.v%p ay'L.*'.*D.t'y w:. m- .M , j,'. ps.Cg;.:.k,.w g
~~sg','f,&g, %s W;.m.Q~~
~~$^Q:fi Q,. u,.c.,' '..Q. : ~...,.b L., f '.7, x %.. m. 2 416~~
~~h' &;.O,,@$.r.. W. t,s py 9, s'; e y6a~~
~~. 1;*. r11es..,,, s~~
~~e. t f~~
yp ~, t,qp..,, hh ?J r & y'-R lV .c. rwh-C .:3 w.. w.- e.ema .'[ $ ',...-$..'%.-*, %, f. '. i f- * ' Y* y;pMy!,%.k+ R'g + $. '.m' ;. ;, q~ ~y; ;g:4 -U ..y.'.G.; A.:j;c,, h, u @ h. w.n%,,,,., m.. n r y
~~q. A kw~~
~~, ;r... 1-~~
~~...; ;s~~
p-
~~....~~: e s.,qrn,...,6 x ,e, .,y s w--~s-T,. ~, e ~ ~. ~,, w : 7, =. * ~ > -3n~t ~ *, ....~.'h.... t t r a,.g . e j.V.~~
~~l..~~
~~.s t.i e. w s 4.,,,.. n,j. V Q.cQ,Q;*;, %g' ??.s.;%s u,.,p .m ,a. r.*.. ,\\ t 1 .c. 5', f 'q..My; e a e x . :P ? ' P i :, >l. c~~
~~J,J.,~~
.-L .;e, p g,y;;n y m g mu.9;;k?hk$ m, wl' pf;-Q,,..%y.,f'%'.{ g*n @gegg, Ml'..;%.' s e: j,9 .4;/ nv ,,,, p. ' '; ? g: s, e,.g-kf.,Yh ,l%' 9 5 c... y n,- s- .v ~ .~ k :n g ?m q.*.'w: p?,h h h.Y hhkY v.. 5f h 0.f:...j ' 'l '~ >. ' ^. - ~ ' *2
~~y. 1.n' rm:,w x:- u.~~
. g.c c =. . _,T ?iyi,;." O,'%'.y? 4*Of%..,,*4. w w w o..ff. t...n.- w ~i ^ u. ' ' "Y.'.%y ,,g,9.c, e 7.JgEi'g t(( Jni4,r, e... <g s..,, fJrw 4. w w -.a.. f-- .O w^',,..v g r. .s.,,. w,,., u .- + 3 .2 .t
' ?

u.l. g 4 '>..'.' 1 l[;" N, ~ ;*[ ' e g*.
~~R? c:'.p; LO~!:'; M. ' '.v#~.'* Y' 'i I ~ '~~
~~s r~~
. :.M
s g.x. i %.y,%, r. g ;.N...,...,,-. 4 4.: V g e,.
~~A #. o 9.~~
c.
~~M.<<... t ag.,, f. -~~
~~...., 4 4, 6. m.. % _. a 6,,. p $ p.w.v o.. - - r_ * : * .s ,+ u, - +~~
~~e>- >, -~~
~ m-et M ' s. m I bh ( 45 Ik[ hh b.IIe #. i 5 iNUIL-D 'uI OUb5O bbbN*1M b5N N M 1w w' wg w sv w w. U w;f.g d,(e A w, ;:h..a ,:.,.,.r~..,.g.r w.;#. g~.w : c ~. 4 i w.,'e m. s w ~ t c ~. ,J. ; ',,p p:.t'. g ( e. @..cc. p.a h. +v..w.r ~,,~. J",. e,.. - re. f,,. ,.y d
~~A --a e *.l.Q,Q. 9.g%. vff-.cN. l?-$. ".. h.,~~
~~. &Gih,f~~
~~> 6.s-Q.,q.~~
~~w,.; i.? ,w. c A x:. g;y Ln. g!;r -%f:gW~. F~~
~~d..p: " e 2~~
a , $. d .we ,. y:"_.;y. ' Qm p. g, e ?. e h. n, t ay :.v 11 n,,h ., y.'y.;. o f3 T;5. N M S M.. p @f M. M 7 D.$;Q accuracy even four or five days in advance, it cannot be gainsaid that a prediction i4%CDM.0 M in that time frame is likely to be much closer to the mark than a conjecture in e.:s.hEh'k dh September regarding what the weather will be like on a particular day in late hQgh%M.Nd?,Nr)y/Me[.; .(W tw%gwAN N 's9tY t 0 AOUOI[. d" 3 ~ 8tj$I,,yf Notwithstanding these considerations, we cannot conclude that the action of d n higfc;.>'4 b MM M W. the applicants and staff in already determining the date for the test gives rise to kk@, hNk. DN)hk";, a significant safety issue requiring the reopening of the record to entertam the A M. pl Y's h M M Q @.' M W.bd:>f sf.h'75$QjhMfD@~.$.. f2$.jp$ W SAPL contention. This being so, we lack the legal predicate for ordering the
~~v$ h+.2Fj$p iQ~~~
applicants and the staff to reconsider what appears to us to have been a premature .g n 9- .f? %.T U.j ^ selection of a test date. The most that we can do is to urge such reconsideration W $ M.M. in the interest of increasing the likelihood (albeit not providing any assurance) h,j.$$h%g$21,M'pyf Q#$1pM that the test will prove to be a reliable indicator of the ability of the sirens to mmh $di.. OME Operate in inclement weather. In this regard, we think there is much to be said @$$$$.@d/M$5.I.RMW for the counterproposal that SAPL placed on the table during the settlement ' 7c73M GMEdQ@g discussions mandated by our July 30 order. Underlying that proposal are the .#.lI'ds.kMk#:y $ 7i9 0 y g>. g M M dual considerations that the test should take place in January or early Rbruary G. I[dMNb;Mf s@..Y. $ i. V'-% and, in accordance with East Kingston's desire, on a Saturday. SAPL would 2 have it that, if on a particular Monday during that period the five-day weather M'N.hh h'MN[M.' 9 ' M forecast called for the appropriate inclement conditions at the end of the week, kN.@b.Mh'[,M((sf f h2 %.'.3
~~MS the test be then scheduled for the following Saturday. Should this procedure not y.4,f.WnW N.n w[2.hhk, y b. N D~~
~~would be set for that date irrespective of predicted weather cenditions." Ih .M. lead to the scheduling of a test for some Saturday prior to Rbruary 13, the test .T wex.y;y.rb.e~;:b.m.~. w e .c' %. m~~
d.mr.mT. R ' ~. ',i
~~.n N-p B. Merrimac 4 %:,m; s...., ' ..'g g 7 : l., V,~~
~~1 1 The Attorney General's concerns respecting the adequacy of the sirens y~~
l ;A[M } serving the Town of Mernmac rest on a quite different footing. Specifically, ' D.' p % @ ' ~ @ f .,4. s. :,.,.J :.. - e., t..:N,44.y M; through his late contention, the Attorney General seeks to litigate whether the M O g N %.- J. y _M.7. q sound pressure produced by those sirens will satisfy the acceptability standard j ^4 . ? ;..Y gi.' - ? lDi x x w ]; established by the NRC and FEMA jointly." Rr lightly populated areas such as 3-eM. <.e.
.". m

M P i;,',.:i,. m 3 s > W.g.',4.v
,, ; 3. N '. y 5 2' g*}W'y.,'; Q V c. dirl "see tener of Edwm J. Ras a 2. j-y(f 'k " JM N.7;'O[M/NDESPs. [ '.e tgr c.w[$d'. Having advised the aaff that lus clias would abids by any agreemers muered inso by sAPt. on the sabject,
~~c. f.. y. T c :f.~~
w canesi fa ihe Anorney o.=1 did na pamense in ih. uniones asc=== p.teuan to the iam of the Em . -/ .. M" /l,Q 4.i.?.. c'a A( JD/S}4-Kinyum usens see AIAB-47s 26 NRC a 27s a.100..%maheless, thrash new counsel, the Anorney General '. a.
w
_.n N, h ' - : :.' *, Y".,n. - J 'J ; +.C.,:! - @ '.-(( 9: WMM i oct reqmrod to do so in the cmurnmances, we have saannaed thoes objections (as wou as the Anorney Gener 1's taierirserposed objections to the pry =ad est procedmes that had not been advanced by sAPt N Even though t _ y f: N f L-.Q. J. Q conunaru on sAPt.'s cmcere only one c( the Anorney General's paras spears to have sorne subaance: i @ n W p '.,;G.f.y.g ( 3 [$.; y @% g 1 ; _N ihere may wen be >anscatum for unamns addacasi observers to certam aries wher the siria coverige rnish ,I
~~D..N@ M. ) ".. M~~
~~-i. n elir./d 4 W. be inatf5ciers. But tha ccmaderation smalady does not wanars a reopmung of the reccrd to accep the sAPL~~
i
~~p @;.{.+.s' 4 Af,, {,#7~ V '.t'g.N.. q, '. e. ;~~
J. ccrsantum. Moreoww. we see no reason why the Attorney Gem! hiandf could na arrense for the addnional W observers thousta to be aamry "see NUREG-0654PEMA. REP.1 (Revison 1). "Catena for Prepratum and Evaluation of Radiolosical Erner-3. _ N,'c..A'. g: : Wi;.'] 3'*(, d : 9g ~ .+%j.;- N, NT -' senc7 Reaperse Plaim and P.wh in sumas of Nuclear Poww Piarss" (Nowrnber 1980) (heresnanar . f j ] [ M.;[ b M :'..'"' 4~-9,'-
~~y. *1~~
' ( 7.g '. NUREG454]. Appedia s at 310 to s 11; HiMA RI.P 10,"Outde for the Evakanon of Alers and Ncadcatica symans for Nuclear Power Plants"(Nowinber 198s) (hereinatter HiMA REP.10) as E 4. .;, f..- . g :,u. u: - .y .~ n_. v o y _
..,r.",.*
~~s -, f." a. tJ'- ) .lf ,s .y (.... lg. se' ' q' 's f,a~~
r
~~. ' j. kq5 7; .,z.? f. i ~ ;'K:.., n, a y,t* J.~~
~~%.,.?~~
~~s.Q J i e. 4 ; o. a. l : ' '". .,,. c y s d,.. ns. r y, a < ;~~
~~~ ~..,'e~~
~~,.,"*="..f,*,,s.f, Vf. :, * (. ; ' g~~
A
~~& ". 4 i',t ( ,y '>5.f. g s. i~~
e-W l y e q' e. g : 4 '*
. J] s 5% .T. ? - ? f {a.bd.' ' f. '.K;.!? h. .Q:. n -l, _ p,. .e-. ,,. - -. +., -~-.7,,.-. ,e. , jy i. .e - r 3 (. is s 5 J', s - e, ,,, f .?>. "t s a g J '.J;. i. -q s r O;; - [ Q.' s 9 = %.?t, N s ,i q - 1 E \\ 4 q a s s t [ .e g 'l \\ i h j.,,. .._' 4{.- - - ye 'f W; >,s, ' -( g g",
I $$ W $ 6h &.h$@ W@%~.p,h W i g M -h W %.M Q '# d $ n '. !:Q l24N %8i0WW%'t! "B & Y&& WW& OW Nkk h.?: ?MM.4 2MQ%%97B&.ALb..a$hfAWd$.MN&M,ww MiM.&2[$.T.&:["..d;t NS'./ ' E'EM h $.KL2,'dx M pb%M M .f . I ' 4&.p;., Qt.;q.!?.N.4.&s,y v- - Q,J -' u v.M NQQt.M w.0 ,bM t f .~.J. &.C. ;g-t 9. - .s
~~k. s.$~~
hihW&,*b7. y $5h "tM:,#em. u..h. W h(h b 4 .w.w.. 4 M W, s p W sw . s.&$N.WS$ yl q.' $ib y%w.N M Merrimac, that standard can be met in one of two ways. The utility may show yg.td %y n -ME. IIk c$Y g 5 >h hp;d$)h that, throughout the area they are called upon to cover, the sirens will provide I Myk .t (either individually or collectively) a sound pressure level of at least 60 decibels l b,$ h - htdg ;.M y C (dBC).8' Alternatively, the utility may demonstrate that, even though less than I h h D;fg.g g/s.%f@'kkrAy $2 J 60 dBC, the expected sound pressure level will exceed the average measurcd I hfh' g.4 Wi ip daytime ambient (background) sound pressure levels by, preferably, at least 10 7,i p M i@@Nh??[hh M D N b[j h[$$, b e MI. dh decibels (dB).88 5 [ ptd.Y ffi It is not disputed that, in certain portions of the territory covered by them, the I.ENk&$f5.hkb a 8 MMM, h. l.M.Qh [.h / M Merrimac sirens fall short of meeting the 60 dBC coverage criterion.S* Therefore, 3dfdildQM.h5TMyM[SU@M[ to comply with the NRC/IEMA standard, in those areas the sirens must meet the alternative criterien. $%@M Qd%f In determining that the Attorney General had not established that a significant d k y W s N D V ;44 M 'l N'RNk[,5?M.NTi$h:tdM.":.D]h %3 safety 1: sue existed regarding the adequacy of the Merrimac sirens, the Licensing E:lN Board relied on the results of a March 10, 1987 set of measurements of the T .-7, % U.D E-ambient sound pressure levels, which the applicants had commissioned? Taken pp%Q.p6/y.@@.%(;;%,% J,$.I., in conjunction with the assu:nption (not challenged by the Attorney General) V" f'W M.o:j ...N.g n 'c;O.:.9Ci that the siren coverage was at least 50 dBC, those results reflected the existence $q%O-4.tT9M~G,iv.m W@khhk:({$h.%q q..r .w, p w-JWF'#$.@TP,$ ' g., of the 10 dB differential." ~iMM In performing these measurements, the applicants' consultant had utilized a 3-( [h' M k @M Q u Q W M one. third octave band; i.e., it had collected scund coming within that frequency 7Rjd $Niughpg] range." For his part, the Attorney General was of the opinion that a full octave MOpOW band should have been employed by the applicants' consultant. Acting on that 5. n M C M@ h @4 6,.r:q h Opinion, the Attorney General had provided the Board with the results of mea-khihkbIh Dh.$g[n I surements taken by his consultant that took account of the sound falling within 6:/?;y%fy @M%ff$[@pl that broader range." Those results suggested that, assuming siren coverage of ' 3.y T'8.. W 'Q W [~- exactly 50 dBC, in some areas the differential between ambient and siren sound ,M.( ;D.W~., k@,'EN.V pressure levels was less than 10 dB.'! The Licensing Board declined, however, e[';..w.e, w,;.v %y W"w.s. .m ,u-p r. A.? n , T :..:e.w
r:
., c.w,OxA. c. o<...,;U. n c .s.4., w } ef - . a w,, w.it. N @i.*n j,.;.' T, %p.M/([ $y. - dambets (dBX These measuremerus can be weghted by afferet Eher cuants in the rrmes equgenas. one s. ..? .j 'The pressure level V somd is measured relaats e a small refermee presure and is reported in unns caDed 7
2. ; g.W.',,

ft-
'I [.t ^y'A g, E }, f^ M,Q;; "'s;g.. 3 4 p gd W:. QM. y;M-di mach measurerners is washsed by so caDed "sher C" and is nierred w u denbels C, or dBC. k MecAsaical '? s IJ , yfn.d.f' Engianer's Aafernace seek, at 1519 to Is.21 (A. Parnsh, lith ed.1973). r. W,$ Mh E,g ip@iyQ As wd! be seen, the reemd in dus case ref.eas ht the pressuse twel of ambiers somd was expressed in terms '. % % e%l:.hr.INIC,N;t.s.s @. m p y
~~w. M*A M~~
. r e.t., a dB = tale the send pramm Iswl of anns wu upnued in tams d *dBC." No pany hu sussatd ht m M.g @;n'M: M Mh "N NRCTT.MA guidance rders a ihe 10 dB differersial u a "targa" in the deman d the aren systen. M
~~. - :. c e difr ence in eue. is maruscant has, f:H.MQ O~~
[ ~' ' !.j.c '. ' ,$:.;f'cl@"M.f@fC '-Yl'.[, b[N'y,%$.['NM N1.' REG.0fi54, Apparidia 3 at s.8. c,5.g.l;/p h?.0;' .7 '.4Q.* ' Msu, s#. Appl 2carss' Raspcrise to "Centennon of Anorney oeneral Francis X. BcDotti and Mouan to Adrrut '*Q j M,f-w.'e'U.h.J'/N @g,.g' n'.M {e[yp g
M; g

tea riled Caserm
~~." and Ahunatin h for summuy Dupomnon Ganuary 22, 1987), AfEdavit of g,t; 2 W James A. MacDonald, Anaduners Osna d Roben s. Berms to James A. Macfwald Quly 7,1986)).~~
~~D. q,[Q'$MsM. m.; Me,-~~
~~"su Applimru' Answw w Moum of Anamy onwral Jama R shamon w Raconsida Ima Fud Canarmon~~
~~S.,,.~~
py Fsu Masch 25,1987 Marnorandtan and orde at s.6,14. ., <.fg t. .y l .g <;C ..:.x y:c39.W. A ~'%g@p$sdw:.;f%K, WfJ wah Revised Bam, and io Recpen th R.:md (Mare Is.19 7), Af5dsvit of Anthony M. Canedrena .... j f y y~.w;qs '., um ny l
~~y y-.~~
.M' .,I, {.-['j see Matimi d Anorney ourseral James M shanne w Receside La:a F0ed Casermon wuh Rev sed Bas;s ,~hg y..s w".:JMw&pp.m,.7fgeis.W;]45I.MIc.QAll ' and to Raope the Reced (March s,1987), AfSdsvu of Snm Kertir.s. 'Qy c..f Q : .w.wpp m a 4t ra, Afsd.vu a 3. v.:.fr.n: w..a9 M..%v.* u.m.e y. %n .,y.mc v v'hm.L.3 w a . M;;,h..,f4n.smM A M,c 'l
~~e: / by.! ToQ :.lk;u ?.Rgk'l*.;}%..;c ~p~~~
~~,- M M.% e>lQ:- 9.dj'o'h.. 418 e-c.<:.:n.O.pl$ $ h L,n. %y[ $ W $g i. z,f g, M k W;. l;m,f M R,a:y ?: f 4 gmy. w >m,. >,(4.hi 5Q.Qgig$;.;n <y 2: 2~~
r. w..~ m. w m.~

. a,.. y:w on
~~.y'_'.f:[&y '$ h~~
't*
~~D.*U '.I [ W.~~
~~N i * *, 4,.y:a,..@.,...,.; g,,t,w.ygg e:: ; r.:, m. m. + g:,- ~, nw v *.p; y 7. 7. = -- n q.~~
~~o,n .s. w. .. v 4 5 k'Y. v.*bY, M. ry."~.~~
~~-N[ e.'3*[;'. [ ' # [.~~
.+ s,., s.d, * ** q [ *,. R.. L q,, n:.g: ;[y[1 .s ..IC t t i ,, ~ ] n .y,9 !y/. u;. <. y>:,, K,. '.,.3 y-O S:' N, :MfOk. ; %y@,@gN'h,' .. ~.. , 9,;i g d m#,n.:95..s.y.L,g,[;,Q M'. s ' D ; @;f J[l J,I s,'.' e' c. I,A' P N - e. y y:c m., m. sl%, w&.., ;;e, Q, ;,4tG. m*.A;&..X,,'ls m,n., o r.. x > ; c,. V, ',e,,.,;. 6.:t c
~~,u.~~
~~O. -,. q.. ~ .-s .s~~
~~, k 'l~~
.. u j.Q. s. ..g 1 '? .s 4. ' i #-
.rqcgeg Aq5MGrpmcr.r: TNT?r9"Aqp'rWf, q:4f'~W"ES'Wr.M4W~, TMU Nfg f. 75gw$Y $f5knh$0hYf ?5$hNbW$b? NkhW$h@Yff@h:igt* l k@Rm & m.s.s,: w w. w. i hhl s x. mwkwws,4w
~~.;m. m.. ~..n, m $h f;;a$h:f h?~~
~~$,M.,.m. N... h,8. h b hi n.l l > ';D. .fh .Y,fh.h0.h Y . f h h ['. H, W, W *%:.V\\l .k'Y. I ACE'h~N.<N; ~.%,.f., [4>: tb .. $: L%.W af'^,G r.>")o%.e.g.%a~~
~~Ws.~~
~~.J ' [r' W. - '%, ).p-l c. e> . u-. s M. N.. N.. u - Mh EN. 'NyME-dbE ' r-w. ' inh.,.2a.M. EN.,ep';S.n.. w~~
~~a.. p,, p. w ~ m.~~
p$!$U:d'.i&l' nN...~l:., ...m. .=. ~.n,.m.mL..$k'%.,e.y,dk.a'-e*yI.N'.h..,Q.c...d..[ ll&,; &.x% ,,.,a,. n. - .y. m. < n...i,- m u e. .7 m - c.w ~. - ..uc Q:.,.j.,Vy'.0*P h, p$ h N k ' h b ~ h' _ re 4 .w r. a v,...j\\$ wlM. .%,p,$ $,G~ ,... ~,. ;. fM,$3.m&D.v -4 y M+ w M y @Q.T5M,p.:MhMm.fW 'h.UMf.g:$a. to attach any weight to this consideration." As it understood the FEMA guid- ..... ~.. N)I?h S M M. W '. $e ['$ $ $y M Y R. 9 ance on the methodology for taldng measurements of ambient sound pressure
~~j. % M TWW levels, the use of a one third octave band is acceptable."~~
@W idO On his appeal to us from the disposition below of the Merrimac siren W.N@w @N MN h. M Id.N,h h .N issue, the Attorney General insisted that, given the fact that demonstrated D.U $TA.li h M M y k f.f f s compliance with the NRC/IIMA acceptability standard appeared to hinge upon T 2 &w dPM # A what frequency range was selected for measurement purposes, the record should .qV <p@.#.,;N.G,M, %@v.e n A,'e 9 p;G. GM., W. 4 have been reopened to explore further that matter At oral argument, howeve.. ep@. w%..pv. wpm.d.. f&u.a %m s s +p ? wh.,..-syp%.N.M.g.eW K dlg,,.h.,.p,r, % m. v4 M N; W.,.F acceptable." Given that concession, we might well have brought our inquiry .v .y.; Gk he expressly conceded that the use of either a one. third or full octave band is -r MS.. g. to an end. Ibr it amounts to an acknowledgement that the use of the one third w gE'M;l'mW M h D dW D C'l $1l W;'M.,. 8):N&W%M @.QE octave band was sufficiently conservative for the purpose of ascertaining whether f SN ' Y.DT@.N. there was the necessary differential between ambient and siren sound pressure MNdskhs$hhhIE.[ levels. And there is an at least tacit further acknowledgement by the Attorney s.WM.; MRcW.dif ' '.'M RIA' ' General that, as the Licensing Board found, the existence of the differential OMYE.NiMN((.Y' i was established by the results obtained from the measurement of ambient sound 8N.S 1 Nr.78N.D'hbi[M.,,',M,$ 3.S pressure levels in the one third octave band. ,.ld M 0.' 6. W M..f a. another set of measurements for later in the summer." In that circumstance, it 'c @.. y dp #@ m,S..n M, W A. :&.0-> i e.. E. But we were also informed at oral argument that the applicants had scheduled e w W M N. = y MEWI{8 /O,M '/ ; T, W,,', M y g l9 Q i% seemed prudent to await the outcome of those measurements before closing the %Ap c. door on this subject. Among other things, we thought it of possible significance 'MfkD @T[:%@M2;E A,1jV% K ' lt. ] Pressure levels are at their peak." Accordingly, we instructed the applicants 5 -l.d.] that they would be taken in the summer, when presumably the ambient sound n-L,.w Pyg ,t ' r ',., '~ f y description of the methodology employed." to furnish the results of the measurements when available, together with a 1 'JJ.J;M+ Q(,,i. . y - % C @ d f'. - f :p ne measurements were taken on two days in late August in a total of nine v.a : .9Y :F/,'y f J, Pj Merrimac locations. At each location, the applicants' current consultant, Wyle ,. 7 V. f ?/[e.. .~. X p to mid afternoon over a one. third octave band. According to the applicants' M,. S.N 3M N,.. g,; g,l'. h.y, J.Q. -q report, with a single exception the measured sound pressure levels were below [Q Laboratories, collected the ambient sound for a fifteen. minute period in early .c.." .s '..(, .e c Jy. p(4.p.p. 7,. g, T kv7%;7.; 40 dB and, thus, at least 10 dB below the assumed siren sound coverage of 50 J, g. j py;p ,'ns. f. pg4,gl -g cf: , u,$ ,4.... ..y-9. p,._ ?- dBC. He exception was a location at wnich the measured sound pressure level x I ~y .s %,% /, ,,-Q~. G..g f. pl %..-L '*. h ?*'[+ V
~~j. 2 n?~~
~~5 s s a,~~
~~,.e.,~~
~~v .t ~' J~~
~~A W1 6 Mjf n s. P.l., '...~~
~~. ". :. x.:y, ,c. -.. p., p a,n. . Q.,. -@, D,~~
~~f... 3.g,; :..~~
r y - -' 4'- + s ...=,.,,.p ..-(. ; -3.', ;. ; fy../ c'.t;.".C.:;.'V .;r 1 A_3 I.O #[.l..I.k.% $;.k,DM$bN...o,. - ,.. c. cw see Wach 25,19s7 Manorande aM order et 1s.16 ..,: n w...%. J.,w..,y, , W-J k...'1 M st141s. y:e. c., g ?.'Mr,;, '.W ,. -. n ? ,s u n
~~3, v.~~
g.c,..- 1, o Am. Tr. 79. 3 c; 2 y, Am. Tr. 76. i%. ('.Q ., '-.i[z 7, " Althmsh sparernly not a recparemet. EMA recommends ha arriset sound prmsm leve2 % measured dunns the surnmer. sm EMA. REP.10 at E.8; NRC stan Raspem to Wssadmeus Anorney rm 31's Modm ,y?M + 7,.*.,.,i" Flf 3 G - [..., .,... ! -;j -* 'r , '. r. i lj,',,. y- ] c y, " 3,.- -. c 6 r y "s,# A1AB.s7s. 26 NRC at 274. to Repen Record and ConsWar tes. Filed Casarem wuh Revued Basis (March 20.1987) at ?.2 s.. 13 .m m f ;.,., ,p-. ~.. 3.;. ,,j', t. 2. s 419 .. c,.w.,,
~~7(.~~
~~,J,~~
~~r;n,~~
~~_.,.c. s 'y s s .}) y g, "i " ,.,[.(. sdM** y .,...'y. .. q,.., 4 *s.', .n .4 %. ,i ,r ' 4, j: 2 ,.~~
~~q' -~~
~~,N.; M I.. * * *. n 'g~,. y mp N ' . ;3 *. a ,.. ". h. "7 m ~ ~ m.7. ~m - --? ~.~~
e~
~~. ~t~~
~~1.. c~~
~~'G . sa m ,.. ~.. ..-t a .cg 'r', e. ( .? s "-1". s ,;i**' ';..- ,..v .,n O. s J, ' .; 5 - - Ni , ' 1,$'.; e 4 j i~~
~~f. ).~~
r
O
, 'j y. g. r %.?' i,b' N s...,.-b- - - . -,i' ' ' ' u o. t , _f.V 'A-u.
-:%'n.s;'.k.h,~.n$p.@hWM.,.n;w;;f3tt%p.:@.m'&w.:n@:lwy:;'cknM.,w*)i::lm. .'.nO y. 54 s X N V. M. e.7. y \\ y.
~~y:';,;..;Q. - ',n". <~~
~~'J ,:a,%y, %m j M sc~~
~~y.,.4 n m w.~~
g. . %. ;..a y .e rG Mw% a,,;)g;.4gyed mr.w.,~.;p.,,.pp:;;.?. w,jp: w,y;Q~..s 4a qn. d o %.g. <* g:. a 2.y%.p y 6 %k;h. k.;.4r.y & D1%Et%'.W.fnhhb'Mh359.$ a $[$-N@$$2nh&&s.pi&@W i f5.D p.gdi.fC;#g@e.. p my,.# m,y,4 [...M'd.( was 41 dB. An analysis by Wyle indicated, however, that the actual siren sound W.gg .g ~ P. ' 6 WSW 4 .x.t T' fb., N M d '%44% '.M, v : M p.y both a single thirty-minute period at each location and the same 19o reference M.hMNh:bNh@.%.~&..;4 g w ~ g;..WMMN G,udf.. f.?Mft.; standard selected by the applicants' consultanL88 Even though the Attorney brY.igf General may prefer essentially continuous measurement taking and the different ( [ 4 -., ' E.,J,' c.... <D $ j.M;/. [Q;* h,c,y.M '. D, - b 1
~~u. y %.. h v,-7 3 as 4~~
~~'L,,. m. m.f " W, K.g, *A p 1 i~~
~~s.;.~~
[ sW Idnar IKrn The.as o. Dignan,it, to the members of b Board (sepamber 17,1987), Anachments Gener ? h d,:r. g.L.p:13 M f a' 9 4. t=rn ich. R. s=rn. wyt. udo mn s. = m. i.a.ppuc.r. (sen.ms. 4. i,:7) and Rs, ort > v:'a n;'. %&.4 w'y.E M. N 7 f M D: M id /d, Rapcss at 3. yb}y. m.p p$
~~sm lanar fmn AEan R. Fiarce to the marnbars of M Board (odotar 2,1987).~~
~~pl% I M.f ' } l i~~
~~. f.. Q'l l g3 Sism id, AfEdsvu d Gregory C. Tocd. su dso latar fxrn AEan R. Fwrce to the m<rnbers of h Board f~~
q yi r($r + @Y.fg:,;.Q.913@wr..x.g , p esgf.;g (oceer 23,19:7), Endoswo ("Ambums sound tevel scady (cr) Marnmac, h' -">s (september 1987) Q'."]eggy cmnsash Toed Final RapostD. .(J. f; r,.. 3.v u p. g,:w m/g p s oce. 2 isn.r d Anm R. Race a 2 3. Euedance IMs sie apessW in terms of $e louer "t." and sM ' %*,, M;,.f-.y 9. i. $g.y. T h N.J g/i Q. p 9 4 * "' @ a a subscrip meer redecung the percarnage of the measiuemers inurval dunns wtuch the sound presaus was !M p above the repaned levet sw A. fessrros, Nedod c/Ndse Afsamermaar, at s7 (9th ed 1980). [h7rh. (h.*g [/h,.;-;. 4 d <,.ef
x..:?.: :. #. W.% %.,%m y'%w*y.N*'w$*Q&. 'Kv b.,$'[em^hT;[
n see gensre#y NtlREO.0654; FEMA. REP.10, and FEMA-43,"standard Guads for the Evaluancri of Alert and 3 Nousc.um systems ter Nude, Fwer aaru-(s<pcmber 19 3). t. -% ^&,e& *C s '.,;Q, s d;.;h F e Sa 'P. see sWre P. 41L . X ?!J t. eM.u-$y,"i3M&c.:qu.'v'o "s<< Kmans Arsdavu at 2. We do not understand the Ancrney Geieral to m:2rusn that the ddference between
~~c. ;.w. ta.%/DW.6J.itA.#44j;,~~
a is. and a so marize pened is of sismAcance. Rather, to rupest has pous is that measuremeras should be taken MJ f.'yf G? d 'f'M % FI.U'.pf'> n,o thsoughout the day. 'The sepurnber measuruneras taken by his consuhars generaDy adepad that approedt. see 3.<.'4.".c}.f-:i M~~. y o..[.;,."h: @ y f&j !', f *.)d%{... y GN:~~ 3 . p,.y,Q.- :( $ g,y. 4,. -:yy .,s. 4' */wr :;,T:.e,....w i. e. y;. +<w r .? ,,g.*
~~~~. %,9 y2. 7.,..~~~~
~~l -,. f [s, *.. c.L* ~ :- t p.s'., r o* l wq. ) ' [. ? . M %h ' ~Qd. '.,r-s%p~-4 y,3.g,' ;M -/, e* , 6 4 ; -e. 5. y== s* v% *~.' ww.vy.~e y yy.m'.7.~. ; A ** ' ~ * - e'q*'.*;-*~'74*'^.*~~.v*-~~
3
~~~~%~~ ~ ~ " "~~~~
~~~~. ' ' ^~~~~
~~~~~, 4 .a e' , y. e'. s > k,~ 1,.. h T. r. ..s T. t ,./ 'e'.~~~~
A..

1 '- *., t '4/
5 . f * *i 'l 7 ,b $ A* N' ,z... )...r.c_ > s s p'; ; y.~[. ~ :. n [ ,.,j'. ~ .r 9*.. 4 .c r. n;.. , j . k f? S. V. m. l w,%....:wq., mm,.m'. s ;:::. a' {~.,;. v, 5,A ~ Y~ .~ c< .es.. s g:;c,;4,-... 7,v,..e ..w . n. .4 ,..s .~ .;lW 4 6";;'.; p..,.S,..,.NL %i. :. ' ,. h. 3 ,.v ,....a..., M. ~. - ~ . ~.
~~~~s. s~~~~
~~~~-e. .... ~ = . ~, h2 s. 5'.~~~~
~~~~: ~ E >~ L Y-~~~~
~~g.r m-r:::mwJps.;sNW $~.tMGCyCW y$$$.fsY'ff$:$$. &+r%.g. & M.:... u,YY $W &.,.. %, ?, W '"~ b f t Y. W1 A E ;h. -Y * $NNb EE b: ..+ a :. - YI' ?,2~?O.Nv, W M4:%..$.. S 'Y O' .3 .n. ( 3 k~~
~~~~i h Y.~~~~
~~~~9n e,.~~~~
~~~~r..~~~~
l l, N 0l,j .ll% f9- .- p g MiQ:. : h % :+ - '(. .Y ' ' ~ MiM::g,,, p,a dy"sEcM ' S,n y w.4 dhym. l 3Mhn.WoM WHAM *MMI'MM.-M$h55Ms. 3i%w..~.ep( c... x.&w p:&. 1< .u Cm C s. i M' ? A : ~. t ',N :e f G : %n kg p p@n.:e,e. r a e g h c~d ^ ..v - w d n.MW . m.y, %y n.v. y ;o ~.s,% w g. % - 4 M l W e.v
~~~~k..~ 4. n na n... -%..m: n M.~~~~
.n'v.. J.-t y;q;r.'.w :g.3.e ~ ~<; p.'n t.1..n, u** y m & v % mw . e .m u.; w cc-x ia&.f%L.SW&.i WW'..\\h.. p,rN'Gr O e'2cy. yMY .% f.t'aAWQ.S$Y. &:.. m.,f@.?,' HWY.SWW m u.m ~ l4 %./@$ 2I @.S'7)U@M O NY[$M M@,n e WQ. W# reference standard used by hi; consultant in its September measurements (the L o 3 475 # dn exceedance level), it does not follow that the Wyle methodology is unacceptable <!.9D M,fi,'9N,8bSMMP or unreliable." b5bWir hI The singic remaining question then is whether tlw Attorney Gencral's Sep-h@N55kM?s! M.b. SW )3k@phhIb@@INMSkf8Mb 9?0T FN tember measurements themselves cast doubt on tae SPP cants' conclusion that li Ib>'Nh. $jhhiEP the Merriniac sirens are adequate. Those measurements were taken by his 5 R kb.;WWQ? cor.sultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, at fmtr locations chosen because of M@%WD%,W-the possibility of inadequale siren coverage? As reflected by the data for the hkhhh N L50 measureinents included in the consultant's tiral repon, in three of those -+ % : h' N I M.' M N M M@ 4.., M9 E M P &re$. M.4,%;-g~ s M. c,,m 4 M Iccatiens" the average daytime ambient sound presme level exceeded 40 dB; v hpxR$ in the remaining location," the da!a established, the average level was below 40 N' h MO dB." On the basis of the preliminary report presaging these results," we called F NkkdffhIAYlM.'!df upon the appUcants to pmvide us with any avaibble information regarding the 5fi.I.kb%M'$D.#Rd.k.hh8M 7-Q Wh.@kU.M;@ SQ5 MM siren sound pnssure :evels at all four locations.c In response, the applicants ? 2 supplied an anaiysis by their consultant, Wyle, that assigned a siren sound $.N $$M:4fI Pressure level to each location." - g % % M $$$$ $ w A simple mathematical computation utilizing both the Wyle analysis and the M, evp ~W r% wwG;,WCgM_h'hhh$5NdD$hM['f UN5kk data supplied by the Attorney General discloses that at three of the locations *' a
'S..M#NM's.MQMFiy;en

i M
g ws.w f. differential of at least 10 dB manifestly exists between the siren sound pressure % y.1 %w. w-W..W. @ g.a. G. n$,f,- which reference standard is invoked). But at the founh location - South gf level and the average daytime ambient sound pressure level (irrespective of
~~~~e..$~~~~
~~~~W - Q. W %h~~~~
~~~~d. M[/ M h;/iQ@y %g y g @g S Q ;% i ' ' dM %@~~~~
hy3 S Pleasant Street-compliance with that acceptability criterion hinges upon which f q reference standard is utilized in determining what ambient sound should be M.' @M%Mp reported, Using the L o tandard invoked by the applicants' and the Attorney 9 s 9.-.r i (..W.cw Q.W ' ' ',. .,?,..@. 6. N.m&y gF.. <: r:x%,.. w.. General's consultants in their measurements early in the year, it turns out that I 1,- s . ~..v. u. \\ SM:.DdsW.M'M,'J%. [~, ! ~,. ]~ adopted by the Attorney General's consultant (but not by that of the applicants) the 10 dB differential is satisfied. On the other hand, the L50 standard now o rp s.. v.a -? 9;A. , 'c.. ' % ;: 3. $ m: 5. produces a differential at South Pleasant Street of approximately 7 dB," 5.;x;.w.p :'e.g:w;sw,.- y M* (.. y,, r .g .y -w g.k rn 9;,.n:,' -.q:%. 7: .,:- i,.g ;,.N,; ks:~ J -y-~ .,,,h 7,. '. ! bhs applacants' Mardi 10 ca ...rs had surulady beni taka.s ont a single 1s-mmute pa.od with the san, s g$'e$'iWl.h[l:-['. ~ 's-2.=7. e'. unhzad enahodology missed to b choice of a on+thard, rather them a M1. octan band. Su syre pp 91819. At " :dh ;,', M f .x C 4.,,c ' ..cQ. reference aandard used fcr the August a.a ...=. Su CauendreDo Arndavu, Anadunent Gener of Robert .c. , 4 yt pc. i *
W.-)'ry?'*
2'
~~~~s. Basms to the lead applicars (March 11,1987) at 2). Ya h Aumney oeneral's sole vcaced objecticm to ths F'M.$l3['9,7! # W f. f.' g.; * ;j.6~~~~
'-f * 'M* %, ', d#f, j,.w;,.'.p,y;j .: *' A'-M. M.@ t.' g ;, .Mf NlW ov the tune of the August measuremerus, the appbeants had this additumal resecn to samuns that h Anorney Gescral ig regarded the 15<ninute a e a pened and the WW refawice standard io be accessable, '.,s ag,i'd'.1.. ,,+y o 1 "su ociobe 2 lena of AHan R. Eerce at s. Su dro Cannaugh Tocci Final Rgort at 1, U.12.
~~~~m...w msp.~f w,,.~~~~
~~~~,s. 1 ..r : .'? R .*J-J ' O m~~~~
~~~~.M v y Raver Road, south P'canant street and Rah street~~~~
~~~~%%-1;.~~~~
~~~~4%.[d:1 7. M ~ y'id,~ 3 ?,..-.1. i O.') f.$p.d?[WJ M Bear Ell Roed. M~~~~
/. " " O

y. C :.2.M*J6]' '!) e.@
"Ju senere#y Cavanaugh Tocci Final Repon. N.... c c. "Su Tocci Af5devis at it, 4 -; *. N "Su order (october 13,1917). d.h,ilp'?,0.J h.C ].. ?@p*,M7:
~~~~c. _ gf.:.~~~~
.-.,J 7' g.?. ? "3u Ambcaras'itesponse to Ameal Board order of october 13,1987: samlemertal Wrnorandam, Arndmt , '- 's ,. N ;. X ;., . 6, . J' i v ' M of touis C. suthaland e 6'Rrver Road, Egh strees and Bear R3 Road. [(T - ' J , ', "; d l M / r p' ' "Cavanaugh Tocci Associates presased the resuhs d its sagtember measurerneras in terms d both the te n a l, t w. , 4.l'l e.. tg standaMs. r.;.. :. y .y:. ..,, 9,g, ' ', t; ~. r .s.., 6,. N s > ~ ..?. e r.q,, - ei r,yl
~~~~. ' j.-~~~~
~~~~n 421 ' 7'-M. ,..g. ; r <, ;.).w; 7.. 3 :....:; 5.f $. - ~ ~. I r-r;.,: ay .d ,*y[ . g f * * ! 'm --,* *- *p ve. ~. y~~~~
~~~~e %(-+, *. - -, + 17-m -. = - - - + - --- ', - - - -~~~~
~~~~v-rp '5) N~~~~
~~~~, ' l,Y ', ?~~~~
~~~~'e. ;, _ , t, M, s* t 71's, . ',., y.';,- g,, .g- .e e f -e 5,, s . ar, -~~~~
~~~~,g o~~~~
~~~~4. M I~~~~
~~~~, 8'..~~~~
~~~~s [" ? ,f 5~~~~
~~~~N 'p 5~~~~
g .'%b g/e, ,e*,n g ,,L ,,~ -h n ,,o Oe y ~ ~ ' g. ..:s = ') ~ .4^ , s,,;;, j. s - .. ~ .='s e .e u. ., N .a t si ;. r, - 1 o ,),,-. y
,g &wmm%.yk..rh3%W ib.h MQ%gfry kM@k 9&?W "O %'% Wl.And$b:W*}$1M $ W M 8 %.fA ilAf:" W MQMW skKwM
~~~~h:W:2.i *9%.~~~~
f f?. HOGYf MQ M P W un d. g M bY$ dad 'h W f f E f 8.. Nf* k W q$g g$6'f$ $e wa W A >U $ $ w!D W'$ m$ C$5 $ ?!5 R W O w d @ w. % e n m...w.m. : 1 e l$Y'h* s..w.Si$$$$, %@.h]' kM3,$%.q.,! d $VN ~ 4'w n; M.'.4,hQ. h&m$ M O 4% eh e g. h.$ 4 Ty m hp.M There is nothing before us to support a FEMA preference for one standxd ]C J si over the other. Moreover, inasmuch as at one time or another, the consultants 'y . 3df ,Q for both the Attorney General and the applicants used the L90 standard, it is [ .d e, Y.A 3.g; f)tg 5. p beyond cavil that acoustic professionals on occasion resort to that standard. In this circumstance, we cannot conclude that the Attorney General's September M % p/ p 'gf % M4M
~~~~h. TWhb.%' Mg/,.si h. @ s. y such safety significance that a reopening of the record on the adequacy of the~~~~
./ ePr measurements at the South Pleasant Street location give rise to an issue of c? dh 4~{ g %y,h.d, % % $. t h%9$ksf.l@Ig,gM2.hS .. f tsy MM MS W Merrimac sirens is mandated." Q GyQM In responding to the Wyle analysis, the Attorney General did not confine E Y@N.kd@NWI$5$$$pM 5i h 4 dUt $ h himself, however, to calling attention to the South Pleasant Street situation." In addition, he asked leave to conduct discovery to determine whether infirmities d.$ /I'hhN.NNhbM $$4 existed in the Wyle analysis that led to the values assigned to the siren sound @@. $ye$565iFOM6NM. [.M59,] Pressure levels at the four locations." Controlling precedent stands in the way ,,-hD,.s.M.$g <.y.'j. M.., $. M[rM.: of granting that request In advising an intervenor that it had "misconstrued W -a t ,w. x g 'Sf'Eihhs2M;E/.M the standards for reopening" a closed record in the Three Mile Island Restart N.S.2ds$NE@&rp,5 TM?M ] 'bfMM M Proceeding, the Commission had this to say: mm.M
2.n a 8

s~'

y.hih M N [h'S h bi N '( M ;M M -[.h "Ihe burden is on the movent to estabtish prior to reoperung that the standards for reoperung f)dlNQ'IMhML@h'kM
~~~~.h kkI are met. "Ihc movant is not entitled to engage in discovery in order to support a motion M.~~~~
ir[M to ItoPen. Rather, the issue in each case is whether the available information meeu the h ' M,4[YYj'M@r$ N [/y

fEj,D @Q.M @,E'Q H p
standards for reopening,i.e., timely raises a signincant safety issue which might have affected Y.!s:.9g,f,M.m.@ %]g-: ff the ticensing Board's decision, such that the record should be reopened and discovery M.. m a: g.gce.,w..c.ng m. w. M..w initiaied."
~~~~a rx c~~~~
n vs~e n o% .US'$kh b.@:.w.e&fm%y > :y:qu ..p y w f- ^ @$i$7@hgg. % h Re foHowirig year, in the Perry proceeding, the Commission reiterated the EG.#1g% "available information" requirement in the course of overturning our determi. .M. W M T$ % @W Mi'4 W@ K @g.g A nation to conduct a brief evidentiary hearing to probe funher the safety signifi- .w [; w $..; $ $,[ M, N4 l; cance of an issue on which the reopening of the record was being sought. kb@_ s4 r:...e m. e..;~% p.. ~, n$;;$ .+.m. a 4.: ; y-qq A Q e. wt. .V y. 4.s. w a + w e y w '...: D M ;W; w @b; @b h $. ;p k d.Es The Licensing Board's March 23 and 25,1987, denials of the motions to ~hh:Nh@h N l reopen the record to albw the admission of late contentions on the adequacy .a.yGM-. L MM. M, of the East Kingston and Merrimac emergency notification sirens are affirmed. %,% % g g:. M p'.,T My W. G),M. "d,
~~~~y. N 4:a Q. 5-4 Vje% @ya y m @ i n~~~~
9 F .fi This Board still has before it, however, a recently diled motion of the Attorney .W bi w :f; g. w. n. -~,. wp: eg@A.,ge.my .g h m. p :,;d(;7'We664r..ngq b;; J C.? q' MWtf,$.T@NK '*Rf.'MM .m y "ow dmnchnacion an uns reemd to ch-beroemi the 1 o nd I.so re(susce aandards does ncs. of course, N J. 4 a
~~~~Qf ' '/ylis.DTO'$.~~~~

Ql M f EMA fmu making such a chcnce in its own evalusom of the acceptabday of the Mernmac strens. .d M...MN.h N-M% '^4b jg see Anorney ouneral James M. Shannan's Repy to Applicants' October 30.19r7 Suppernernal Menorandum m:Q-p,yM'y8gge< K'G'rW[~ %(f[' Y y,{Qy in Rampanse in Appeal Board Order er ocicher 13,19t7 (Novenbar 13, 1987). 3 C%.d f(Q $ "see Moom of Ancrney Geeral James M. shannon to Corduca Ducovay Resudr.g How siren somd tevels C. fh R % -dsyp %,.c.ym-was Calculated for Marnmac by taas C. Sutherland (November 13, 1987). . ![* ( 9g b hfh h.I-N kdks' *h Clawimd Elecric /&cu'astiat Co. (Perry Nuclear Pour P.arn, Unas I and 2), CU46 7,23 NRC 233,235-36 wppW. spa 0.h.$l44i.d.&r;;MQ c. W:W (1986) (c=e. in.ddem io ru., ua, iAa, t w, 4 u e C,. (w.ierford sw.m a ctne suuon. s n,. ; c 1.L! c
~~~~q..:.Du.s.s. 4, % /.M'e g.h L., #W-L N~^%.,, W.x. 3.hcay,w c.,w,t.~~~~
~~~~n.&.r; - S >< > t Unit 3), CU 861,23 NRC 1 (1986)). V h f 9 r; T.JJ 'V: s b .y . m. M.w $r% e..a .s4. oy Q-t &, w.'"~~~~
~~~~m;sa f, -~n y =.* s.g;>\\,QL. i '.~~~~
eA. c Y<w?.,%,%y;w^g8'W. ti,P.'s *9c ' @+c @n.h". hM, .k b .h, [k. ;*Nhhk.g.n. $,.h. N ,gg2 e n St.,. w .y %,. u < ,. e c s ' 4 *.9 9- .w'M;. e5 %'M&a "' Qip_.d, h,j : W ',] ir,.'Ac.a -% h*:t;;-: '.*i ' f L. 9 %* /C,b,'/G..Uj ?[Q'[rb. /, f? %ii.(e,b..W-yave ga-'~n. ; r.. V 7N, =., ? m*z,77,. e ,,q--* ;s& T - ,a v.M ,b ., m. e .M n --"*.UW* W
~~~~e.,%,'v,p c, pM.e, t. u, a,p.c W,w.y%,.f. 'r c~~~~
~~~~y .: e. s m.- >Jy W- .-r ...c ~ v..,..,. % v.y.t,.. ' L.,', N, N [A;;-., ' x - p < p, / F. * ? t- ~.. . e a w a 4.~~~~
i
[. P.e. C.;, V,M\\.u 'e'.c,%.. in.'.w.,&., cM. A. f .W', y W 4.#,.. A s e. ;s 'f g ,u. t, ...s e ,.)n, m...W. d AJ,.. 7, Q,,,,,. &, s, Y e, 2 o h'*. *4; b.w,,~ '$e'.' m'3,v y',],% p~;:. e,A,y V. e^- a en 4y ..w' QQ. yR. w;18,,.p,Y;W: r %i
~~~~., u,',,,-n.,s.,.~~~~
~~~~..a e ss.~~~~
~~~~w. -~~~~
c -$h.' W<. W 's f' N. b-nn'u M'-[!*-. r *. '%.M w g q; 3* = [ ,\\ * ) e H. :p M...d y. 'js-8 , "..,,. d: _g ~ t o f' s ;c a...: ~ ,3-d 9 s _. a __.gs. ;7,g k ' _ ,,_-.g yy..
5 /5 Y% wy g;.y...ph.:.n%xm;w. h..m.:w: u. c .%, ;; 'r ask % # q,T W,e:. m.w %'D:;? <s;.n.~Y %< W m..bW.W. W MMM,W? $ % M ! g M. % ^ 't * - % : @n. y M > . ; :,,,., m. s ;.c...., n:: ~.r. ( s..v. 4 :, M s'. '.' % w. + ..h
x
~~~~. h m:x., . M mm. o . u. y w. ';, c c:. y..... z. ^ M< ' hq ; W: w n- @.p h;.. W c. a % f,T /- V W %i.: =. WWWA'pMid.W.vp. u,eW. 2. .m w.4.W ;j'h.s.W:./v"!myg h W;.m x # W G~~~~
~~~~&.m.J 4,D M,, %w e-t.~~~~
~~~~r p~~~~
~~~~m Ar-a v~~~~
~~~~%. m.~%' g~.M..h.q-2E.t'C. 'i.&. r 'M.g?..Ow.y,.cn iUQ. A,.. ;e u<.- n w. v~~~~
~~~~p.. wyyc.. n m;u,e.~~~~
h General sechng a reopening of the record to permit a late contention addressed k [ M'.kk h k M @k ih ['%. M W )*& N. 4M Ms to the alleged removal of sirens in the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts." 4.J..p.g., /-4%D. Action on that motion is deferred to await the receipt of the responses to it, g Q h @/ %<s W D.p..n..g g& WU_Ny I5b@.M-WQ%'p%lQh'Mj8d.$.h7W$i It is so ORDERED. %r k9 O'M d FOR THE APPEAL BOARD h'.d@hhw..;955h[d%M.y.,DT; + v.p$Nkd;;'y., N...p.x'EhM.~n$ h, hy 5 s4 W M'#%5.g)h FM.,pm-N. n...sd.,M.%c Y Eleanor E. Hagins 7 c%<r 5 M r G secretary to the A% g
a:
..6M/ W Appeal Board A. h.ve* upW79,M@u.N.,!,%pg.4&.iW@- M m;:y. m p.c.,. c i.,%....M. >. i.:rM.. m.c.;P.h..A:,[s.."@! W %._p.: *?.U..+ .e i, q:. .g .w v.w%m.... t.g &u' h'g e w p.d > p W M %.t .w.,q.,4. 6. :6 F,,@y; f..$.hw%f;c.YW 4.nM..Q'. : '.WQ: 3 4 ili'qp e N-i +. w f s,., ... n.. r,
~~~~; m.. ] g"v.tr. %.~~~~
~ 4 .s g.i. & %.. c.,,., %...e u. ;.9.f %,*- y : y". v Q ' g,.. q.,,..,. .,. a.. ,t ~:e. g>. m .,3 .s. .a f.t s e f j'g w*..'. v.i. f,.:h M...y, ld!f,,A %. %.,PA*1 &;P '. w, @. } l f.R.. ;W.,M M..*
~~~~5. ~< >2Ys~~~~
~~~~,'.r-~'.'/ N b:g>g v.1'; + c:%';M -WA*Yg~~~~
~~~~9,M. I*,WC 7.,7 f%?nt*&;h Y~~~~
~~~~.& 1.y Q : %.~.w..s.,. w e. g..,,n,e -s g. . ~.; v ;w %r v 4 e. < ty,p$ "?*f .n y h,E&h M ,.y':k. . k l.N ? ' ei.~~~~
~~~~inaf/.8g;.4. "./ *Y,'$.J a~~~~
?b h e:,p.f.". 4. c_. 6 q.p. ..I. A x. .;w.. t. ~ . y.. I <. %r&'s;f$ ;n'?% g @#M.M&. :n3M: W *q $ % ~ &+ g 5 N..'.e q Ti n j b @ p'o t-I W %#w@-Z.&+ &r.YdG3W'?.. v I, i (.. .r:* d., a.d. ' ;D hg;d'"D 'Y ' O." U* i. .MAM V. #..?g '-* 'g g \\f,* f$.4!>% ':f . % &.0, '.$$. ' ( -. _.$. (?,'.... L /* rf,".C. n... '- t..J ' *c ....'n,*'i'=.0._ .'.s 4'"5."- 1
~~~~^ e'sJ -1;~~~~
~~~~.by,: e ' 4 j. ~ t ..-. e -e. g;,% :% ,.4 s %. 3,'*N e a s X, }W % ;, * 'M::'l>,./ 6,~~~~
~~~~^.G f.:~~~~
~~~~r . x=. 3..~~~~
~~~~3. ;m.W. +$. - *q r # st.s~~~~
-? H.t!-{^f!ls* N f :,yY ' '. hg '.l' d.% l - .E. y., yb.', N) s As. ll} t ~ ~ *. % >!*~.'. j.x ml. l N ' *
~~~~o ', _ 1.1.;~~~~
"s, :W:.:.', Q~y', g7's&p ,X, lN.'. ',.,g ^ y sy at e:79 *pil 7'. y.%lg *. ..v-.- "yl?Whs. :h. f.?.?. c. .k i 4' 4f Q 1'y ';.<. W ' * :.,+ s W ; c'n,.ty') l '..',. ?f ,3 - ol* A v r.< .,++ ;.%,,h, WA:,'. $., *, Nu.\\;; - c w.
~~~~.V w...'~~~~
- (, s a c.n, > , N. m, v.:;..,.s,. . t e. s. u> , >&pl ?@. w..r. . ? c::...,C.Q, '.%.%;a,a $ k, .TfM. <, z.-4. n "- c.:r ;3.3,. : - .w'o.. p,.,, ;.; Y,p,4 p... i.,g$ki hys..s, y:W".. :.$.??[ < ?, '.$.1. k.'h.Y~'Y w .c
~~~~.<. W a.~~~~
~~~~..n ,',;u a'~~~~
~~~~s. y: w~~~~
~~~~,,z.s.. :". x... r u e s.m.-~~~~
y..e.,..

4. y-a". 5.,; >
~~~~c. e> , ;hn e. a,Ja~~~~
~~~~...P.s w. s s.~~~~
~~~~_ r.d..+, * ~m*.* f M..~;}.M..p. s ..p e,, k;9* .> 6 Y, ^.5 f. ye e.~...y~.v" a....;. x..e. .3, C w g a. % - 4 s~~~~
~~~~.s 8f i l~~~~
~~~~8 .E,^1.', J'T ,,, J ' g s'. D.. W. .g 4 D[ [Q' 4, T.-j )(.i ( .,i. fi [qj-; [d,, [. ?. P~~~~
~~~~1. - "~~~~
~~~~~;;.h ;p' '..'D. ',. : g,.% d - c, o, y.,. 7;:J'.., a,',m,. :-.' 2: w.-..., 4 m -.si V; %;.y,.-~~~~
~~~~l. m..~~~~
s . r .. ~.;,, s,,* , ' 4. *m' , g .'v. .-7.--f ,**%g ,..;.,m Y ~ ',% - h f *5} ,3 ~ 7 ,4 - l 71 sed Cornar10G1 d AILotDey Oimeral James M. Shamon and Moconi to Admit Lme Fued Ccranuen and Reopas .-t,'. G,3.m. - r g >.. 't -',Z.m. m' ' ! ' M..,g.'?.z. the Record Wmmber 13,1987). & % ).. e. r.m .,sq y' ~' s .*,s., '.,.,...'..;-* -
->;.,g,

oy' J* w,
~~~~.I.,. g, 3 p. s .1,n ~~~~~
~~~~. i #~~~~
~~~~-A* '...p $:?.r.v s.. ;,; & .,a .ws..- ~. ^%.~~~~
~~~~3..~~~~
~~~~..M.,~~~~
~~~~a'5 y '..~~~~
~~~~'?. \\ " ?g. s -j : t. ?' S.Q u -. 3. A., -p : 9 v, ;.g,.y yy*:s.v..?.t :k ,, 2.? ' .,. ( . s.a -~~~~
t
~~~~. ~ e....n .t.- -~~~~
~~~~y;6 g qj s~~~~
~~~~5 .,,, T. g ',a**. C#'.~*..,.,,,- ***'a,}~~~~
~~~~a. g s 's,,,.;~~~~
~~~~r;-.s. 4 p s~~~~
>3

'j
~~~~,9 ., f ,e a,,. ',;; g, i y E 7F -#~~~~
7[ *
~"~5l
'.s. ,y .e ,y -p.y. :..tygf.,.,* Q, e4 '*s j e* 1% *
~~~~a c~~~~
~~~~.e J'A.uw .*.7).,,, i ^ J. :.., '-si.f.. Q. - s 4 s. 'w* ge w.s "" ^%' ,Q ;,,~~~~
~~~~l.' ], v' y. 5 : \\g sj.,.. y[y..~~~~
5.
~~~~,. j T j, p. i is a a.y a ... a. 3. u ,.~..e. .~ s m.. 'i ,{4~~~~
g *
~~~~,g.--* g I\\ I 9 4,.'_ j ., t UN r s +, ; i, *) ;.i.?.r. /.-. s ,.. =, -.e g '. /* h '* 'g '.. N,j [*,;g., e '%.,".' N [.1 ' f~~~~
~~~~o e~~~~
e' '../.;.....y"* .. _I_N-t y , t 6 f ga f .-.2--~5 ".**.( g 6 '%',f A. fm 3 f,,7,'t.*, g. c
l l 1 I Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 1 B. Paul Cotter,
~~~~Chairman Robert M, Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive)~~~~
Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) Members Dr. George C. Anderson. Herbert Grossman* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' Charies Bechhoefer* Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour' Morton B. Margulies* Glenn O. Bright
Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Mdhodin Dr. A. Dimon Callihan Ernest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt' Or. Oscar H. Paris' Dr. Richard F. Cole

Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Srnrth' Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley' Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr, Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb Ill Seymour Wenner John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Linenberger' Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little
' Permanent panel members i
k Ni h 1 w& WK...gh h N h.%.+,7.i.a lN N N $ b N.l E M N b d d b N.b.I.l.. M.bbNbh2bb ic.; m.,,. w;, + w,9.. a,# 3.0,%,.w.ye%s.tpd:w Wf W w 1 174 5 a op.3<f. Q. +,,-wm ss s 1 4 of. N c,.om w e.u g v.. m/:..w.,,.,.., w .a. o. &- f., y.
~~~~M W,m % s w M G % n.y. w...y -. A.3 V,U v 1 #., e s~~~~
~~~~.y. g s; m o.. -.s qw% g.e > m, ,,,q.; y wa r~~~~
~~~~n. w - L w ~ m" d...t.. w# w *n *v ry W..c~~~~
~~.n v. b I Cite as 26 NRC 425 (1987) LBP 87 30 w. J. m .. a_.y %.f, &,.,' %s. -,w. .s a 3c .w we w.. s.e.,. p.. yew 3.-r a yid ~n[M e ..a M @ b,.D MffhgJ9p/7 Ny c.dy h'M81g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5~~
~~~~T;:df@Nlss;k I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION~~~~
~~~~Yn$N5MMI M@MMA'. hv.,1,4.M,e <h.:m"s..M m~~~~
a .r -W' .W w wg b c mMM Fe:nW ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . IfM.y sin,a. NMkMM[$@'NDM$fp?W-jibMIYd@%::M$Qp.Q ADTQ ~-gm.%g.%%.: Before Administrative Judges: ,M p. y [ Mg h*'J v @T 4,p,;e M A q. 3 [k G JA AWqi. c,%. n . pW(ww. k Morton B. Margulies, Chairman $4f59M.:i$W 4$. M3% Dr. Jerry R. Kilne o m. ;.g:c:f.w.$h. nn[.$h .fM.5.h.h. o.%%e$ N I b Mr. Froderick J. Shon -w& :
~~~~4. c.~~~~
e e,s%. -e a q-4 m,,. o., g. m,d. A:,:.u,n. s,. u f.g%.4 app.Md. $c...:.4 m W ' W e W, 4 2gm.m.J%r, ~w %m - 3 y :i .c m..s A.%. f 7; m v.: lf N 9 f b i k: M,- @n @ + d W tf in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 OL 3 M@p.<, pv 1 (ASLBP No. 86 539-07 0L) y$a$m$mgNm.w%.w-w%pgl nin ra m. m y/, M M, (Emergency Planning) o W @ h m.,y M.v.x$ y %@.p % m $ W R;w h @.:.%@, i M LONG ISLAND UGHTING w COMPANY M.MMA M.$% W8fMNGS (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 7 4 'k% N W @M.D N h ;3 Q W - h s D $ c h 'E Unit 1) November 6,1987 ";:4&.9 p.& +.MrW., :.x.: x 2, m.p:'. y.p; 'm; x..,.M:;g$.AM.-$;.9 - -,. M.,M K W W i . u.m
r v -

x m y::c,.-
Og.gn;c;fMv4 'Ihe Licensing Board grants Applicant's motion for summary disposition of c x. . O.y p. .r. W M - .J:m;.;,m;.w.. . w 9 c y ' @n..g; ~ y. m.;; m. < <.. Contention 92, which alleges, in part that there is no New York State emergency .m.,A;Q ;g.My. .. S. c, :::. ; .m #; 8, e$ M, ? dy.M, 82@<. s s - 'C@.'M@.Pk@k@ $.Q989%@y-lP an to deal with an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and that Applicant's plan fails to provide for coordination of Applicant's emergency kd N response with New York State, assuming such a response would occur. The 5M @0%[EIS [ Mi'Nl$hQ .k.@'.M/ ANM.* Licensing Board finds that the contention, as written, is clearly true and does 71% @h'h M t'd @t M G.y.jp 7 2 not raise any other unresolved health and safety issue. Therefore, the motion for Y!$V d8 d!'me summary disposition should be granted, under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749, because there N.khh@&:kh[ 1: hh. is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Applicant is entitled to a decision W~;.m. as a matter of law.
~~~~4.,.;.W.$$v&J0.u <a l*h,.. ~ w E c N., &. m &, O.~;.a.c } <~~~~
7 -~ 4.',,:l.%p.y,%.=. ;r: ?. ? %.,s.@;; y@.f ll L W : '. \\;;-t4M ='.N:(q v. p v.y. 'y. f-Q .?,e-:3.;f;,l& y'..y ~.J,.q-M,v.i.n.n -s.. 'a;., h.t; g. 4.{:)f.,s;f. 2.n-l V y & ; f: (* :'e,'l'..a. b, ' ~. n s ',7%- e '..".,-~,*C*e';.. 4,*.* s. 1 9 m.yn,.: 5,r ; ? ,L4._ s o
~~~~';;..,. f. $,' s, * '.. k. &.~~~~
~~~~%gg.;j..:. a.::.U v. y, a 2 y. yg. o .ww~~~~
~~~~.-:...;....v;. ~.g-V 3.,. s~~~~
C

%"-. $ *f ' '( ; .,/
~~~~f a y . '.q,. y,,g,....-,o.~~~~
~~~~9fy(a..y. y.~~~~
~~~~'f Wli. x,,, .,em.;.. + s. M, - 'n. r,, ....-n.. s;. a.. ?,. 4y .es. 1 :.l f,'w,~~~~
~~~~c. ::. _%,.<j:*kl.*;'~~J"l*.'l%.,~~~~
t nq .\\ '; 4ly',g'; i y -l,l' s'a : t. u,', . / O. 4 *N6,'.:d ; f f I Ty t I m;. y s.j.,.. ' -.'. p. I 7[ ~. I.95 i i', i. 3 ,,0# W$. <".>",,-(C**'"'"*"**'"'.9"'*'9'*!#'l*7M.**'."'"'T.**".*W**7*"./,"*/M79*W~.'"' )
r
~~~~"'S -t .c . ~. -... --, ,(.- ,,.~-,s ,r,',f T s g-7v e ,e~~~~
~~~~c.. ;~~~~
~~~~.,.3< .*,q s s s - 1 ; j j e .m 4;... ...;=.'< ,-v. .,,e 4~~~~
~~~~. + '~~~~
~~~~i i. , f g[. * ' ' - E ) 1*.. [ ',t, 4< a4 j' s- ' /.., 9 y ..**y'. = s 3 -.3 j s ,M ,J , N b,sM -- r ,..'.7..v.. . ' '. +.. - **. ;. ,i' .;. '? ,? s ' ' ~ ' . *~ 2.' ~. n.m.. M ' L h;.... ~~~~~
~~~~:i ' '~~~~
t '.,. W ~ ~. n
Tlbb &,% @v,@%q.w. y& n@M M.. M S N 3 M S M.5 E R N M W i!%I N % N U W WMTFO W M MRW YNd,7s%.';,M!b9W.m%. u.i ;%W&%'i&MD.? W#w%W:aX.W., .e s a o u,. ' '. h f-% UP'W M, 4'p!A %5fD'Q Ub?.k'n w.W. m m.a.,. D T( L d. e '2'MN; ; ':'NS.i ,, w : h@9%.'[M.&;.c.m MC=' %. E rM.M'. M Ys $ M.di @M & 4.N d$M 87Md $$U'.dM41 1 4 '..:. ? - V
~~~~W p.6$3%luT%gfdy;@WWMQ%%GE:%N.RW.LQN.WQ*A@..xx, d:.:::Ew.dr l n&.MM'c;.^tY, ; '~~~~
~~~~rWWN ht%kK&.Ldabwi.n wt.;awLt.A %%uk%m'W Lm%yAeQW @W wnM~~~~
~~~~a.Ym@$t@9a?@M(JMM9~~~~
~~~~.o.gG W-Qa -n W r w s @r. y L ; u. s. ..w,q.. A y 3-w.ya.~,, ., qos. 7s gi.. g . e ,q.% 'v.'.--!P*m"M.C@e;,W - Q s.[i A. A'W e yc u~~~~
~~~~,c V:p.;, t i~~~~
QM hen $ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IO[W!Md b [hW'M@p M M (Ruling on Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition ma e..M Q Qwwd:d w%t& -N M h.$hN[h'I'dN'NNNMtQ%$ On September 11,1987, LILCO filed a motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749 M g 3 N F S Q A b i W h Y Q M M S@ for summary disposition of Contention 92, which alleges in part that there is no i @Ml;p@M..#,f. N. %. M.,t.h, u..#pMh g M.9 :t 'W 4EPTMD New York State emergency plan to deal with an emergency at Shoreham and s ww Tr;%.h.4W:,b,Fc: Q that the LILCO plan fails to provide for coordination of Applicant's emergency g !, ' TM.M.@jdff.W.. response with New York State, assuming such a response would occur. The , @ A3 M.... f.. M..~.6 %m. Licensing Board's prior disposition of Contention 92 in favor ofIntervenors had d$:R /8..., s.' O.hs iM.gf m been reversed and remanded by the Appeal Board.1 In support of its motion, p. f%. $Q.:'V MQ"(.jM;y, claiming that there is no genuine issue as to any material fxt and that it is 1.*d. i M. M -$,ff . WJ; la. entitled to a decision as a matter of law, Applicant relies upon the existing 'M g
~~~~Q, M.y..W.,.' h,.'. a,d n. s.g.jp & :,7,~~~~
,b.... 3.m.e y.4) In an answer submit'.ed October 5,1987, Intervenors request that the motion evidentiary record and the law of the case. W.d.4 At .v 3 ;. be denied. They assert that there are unresolved issues of material fact and that . M. N.;. o. l-MDb'Mhm.a,.a'g..m;pyog-(M]o v. .m w mm e n .. O ?.y.SW.t.QEp the requirements of 5 2.749 are not met to grant LILCO's motion for summary t.T S. M f h 5 N I N M ; M M M disposition. They too believe that the subject issues can be decided based upon i%i.95>Nd:'$y,j.MW:MMMM the law of the case and the existing evidentiary record. .MQM tS$$GNMhE? The Staff, in a response dated October 5,1987, agrees with Applicant that it . M @ ? ? 57 @s.l'. 3....,W.e.. Qn. O- @.. D h L M is entitled to a decision as a matter of law and that LILCO's motion for summary .r.a . GW'?e.W1.'t... 'g^. ;&e;;5 yP{,;y W.t cjg disposition should be granted. % @p ' M y M:f ]y.2M'. y 7v On October 20, 1987, Intervenors filed a response to the Staff response in N, 7.M.O support of the LILCO motion for summary disposition of Contention 92. They .T;".';'.' ph. lN '..- $m1a%.,.i, argue that, contrary to Staff's assertion, there are material facts in dispute with 5.'i ..s yy L w c b '.iin k; $ $ $ @M 44i. respect to Contention 92. /N5I.b In this Memorandum and Order, the Licensina Board finds that the motion .S.NMfd$'i/dhMhhN:% for summary disposition of Contention 92 should be granted because there is iq,:,n...n.n..w:4<.s.Gw;MS,f.JsyN.....f. i c. u > Q;,, c.h. ;.4.o
~~~~~,,. -~~~~
~~~~no genume issue as to any material fact and Applicant is entitled to a decision .c .c ' D4..hN3$N}g@e. *WI".c 4f as a matter of law. .x.q.' g J.~. S d,:'. ; . n. <x 8~~~~
~~~~> w r.~~~~
~~~~.n. m,.c...w.v.3.2*/,p,/,+7.. $.;c ek~~~~
~~~~3 L f,..s e~~~~
~~~~. y 7 .r c.g m> &u :: p w w. w. p,.: m ; x. a +:M WeM! MbwS BACKGROUND~~~~
~~~~f..y.:~~~~
~~~~wqypM.2.u'. %s.dW7s. :lww.p cl M.,N[g!' f G:y:.C.;:hr <;r g d'~~~~
~~~~e. -~~~~
J. h2NSS58$d NhG The Licensing Board considered and decided Contention 92 as part of a m .M cM.A,.&...e y @s. mM h,ic.,y#.? grouping of contentions dealing with the ingestion pathway.2 It found that no M MMM,, em,0. h.. O M,,. h. f
~~~~h:., N ' N, 1,4*;~~~~
~~~~s. site specific plans for Shoreham exist in the New York State plan. We further . w w~~~~
~~~~e.r m~~~~
~~~~. &.E ~.k'... 'l N:.*b., ' e:.' ','& f 1,* . f.Q..%. S*Y... 3N. 3.$$. d.,'t.4.e!O.<A,,, ~h.**;'. > I' *,"j' "l&. t~~~~
~~~~4. t.b. m l. / i-Yh~~~~
~~~~,.Q AIAB 847,24 NRC 412. 429 33 09s6). p. m 2 ., y r.c n ?$ z ,. t.8/M. W. 'j..%", LBP 4512,21 NRC 644. 647. 875 0 985). 2 .'g).y' : - M.m. Lj~~~~
~~~~_ -..,M 'v,.3,~~~~
~~~~~._ .e~~~~
i.' J* *

y' -Q \\ '.. $ pbt,,'
~~~~.%f"'I$l'j'c.: ~.s:(.e? &.* W - D,2l. -~~~~
~~~~V* ?&..~~~~
~~~~7.iQ> s.T.%,': f. N.: k.. W.N.. S. !. "~~~~
~~~~g w~~~~
~~~~4 s ..f,,.., g x, y Q 4, ;. Y,b~ c..; ?. -... m f.'. p' .M { c,' ,e .U~~~~
~~~~ht 5 $~~~~
~~~~ry 4 'w\\' ' E' W Q.'p.':,er ?,lN..'.>:&.Q.. q Lir & s ,. y.. m.. .< h. t ~ J\\ 'e l,. l **{ ^~~~~
~~~~, l-). ' '. t~~~~
~~~~'m L p ,,...c-.? ?*>a.N c.1; .- y,;.: ; e s -.c.. Y.,s.. -N.Q .....q.,..s..5....<., , ' W,,' % '--..,.. " * * ", ' ~~~~~
~~~~49/'*"^'~~~**~'.'NW'*"~?'s^.'~~~~
^^*
~~~~^, ' ". ~~~~~
~~~~e +~~~~
N '.'. g.& ' '... 3.% ?.*
~~~~v's i.r. C3 *,' mg* @,i.t;. .%C 5 4 .e q g ,g g E .E k'* h N h* ,h n.. y a- ,-( / J~~~~
~~~~u.+f.q.a 'q w>e.. r...'~~~~
s. ~ a ge,.. ~a .r 3 L y ;'N :c %. J.,.' *,y' .,s-r "*l')l' :,.. '.J.l..*f^;,.{ % -l";,L ' ~ " ;~L ' ~?. t is ' ~ ' ,8Q
hiQ!lhel@,V$@6MW.@@?b qwr%@Nhh: h W M K.D. MW.&. <%L ' ^- .: ?.G S A 9c%: $ M[V;&2% l @d h h bf0,k-hh N h h2k'fh "3@ "N b "n.W.Nf M S'.. A N i N wsajWGy w .J ~: '8 " " ~ [~[ h =M M "k 'b ' - ' 'I w &c G 4 ;fk-m. W ;.p W bsiNMMMMMMS 9 D. %w.ww
~~~~4. t?:,~~~~
W..a Q Wp:::wlM:MG.W;w?.MW' n .4 Q qcpnrmak.M.Mw ypw&rs.w. i.m y.;:b.p.1p,,,,z.%.My.,%. s M % 2; y,3s m.m; .w.M., r; 9 .w*c 3. a. v k.$f.$yM wm. .;;sr. .~ ty .s. s % W.* f &.p .l.. ng.p;.U sg p -A*w . kM 'j$I.M3OD'kd[WY.Qg[fM s, s Q!, found that LILCO has the capability to perform the four specific tasks' that kM*(.S i have been identified as State functions, although we did not expect that that is 'MM% %@;bl)7h$7f6Y[MMMS k M all that a state might do in a genuine emergency. We decided that the absence 2f$ .. WM2)I of commitment, resources, and decisionmaking capability and authority of the PNMA+"f.,](>;h'Mf$$ D $ M State, together with similar absences on the part of the County, constitutes a M@h [ N'hEkhp serious deficiency in the LILCO plan and concluded that public health and j p, 4. df '!.W K %.. w Q.,.S gM.-d. W ?;)/ w.6 M %., R safety could not be protected as well by LILCO acting alone as it could if y% M.'@i@y-@W-ih.Jn$canM.g@.D 8 eWAOISt. LILCO were acting in concert with the State of New York and the County. The M~nJ-N WN-EM Board decided that the' State and County prevailed on Contention 92; the lack ,. %.kM Nl V M $. h of State participation constituted a serious substantive deficiency in emergency e $j%, gM,.d*d. MfjMR r. e.tMWN., n.N.N..wM-preparedness at Shoreham. MT$yN.7MieQWM,; Mi% The Licensing Board also heard as part of the grouping of ingestion pathway -p u ~., 'k W M' W...y @. v @> W....,P. D.m.Y. h. k d6, MN contentions, Contention 81, which alleges that the utility's plan contains insuf- 'OM: M. o:.c, M B, @f M 5 M ; M@ P. $. h @,.: f,. %.'.t,.C .W ficient procedures or means for implementing protective actions for the 50-mile ,5 -;>.Q M7 ' M . gg.y ingestion exposure pathway. c e QM,.. QG@q.a /c.M.i3 N i i% $r..... &. Q The Board ruled in LILCO's favor on Contention 81. It found that LILCO's i $d@$Nf,f8M.iNhg@$..M. n.d$ M'4y $K-}$$$ \\ P ans are adequate for management, monitoring, issuance of warnings, and l means for implementation, through notification of producers and through pur-ih h bh chase of possible contaminated food in the ingestion pathway EPZ.' The Li-M. w %g. %w. 4 ; #,E T N d<!N h 'kS$ j fi.T $8.;p.y/. ~.&',6 censing Board finding on Contention 81 remains intact. It was not disturbed on ) MF W.ey: r,7.$ $ ~3 M'fyj @%;iM.MM.Wri.fi.EM.@a v.-i .r. appeat M $%$g Also relevant, as part of the legal authority issue, we heard and decided $M M.hh.cf$h Contention 7, which alleges that the LILCO plan provides that various LILCO NM?hM.hMkh!$$$j employees and contractors will be responsible fer determining, makmg available Y N M D.M,,%*< g.3 .;...L..ic WM Y%EMhM to the public, and implementing protective action recommendations for the 50-mile ingestion exposure pathways, which activities under State and County law . a p'* v. -:y'Mn;$. N
~~~~y. hMfMM..:.M 5 Y :;p.e V.n w are unlawful for LILCO's employees and contractors to perform.~~~~
~~~~w so m t Y.,a EY 'd~~~~
~~~~s M.yy;h.'4% y.M. n...Q... q~ i 4~~~~
~~W,.. a.yv.. G.w..: ..m,%%... ~:4.;. We found that the activities described in Contention 7 were prohibited W r y.;.M..,.M, by State law and that this defect in the LILCO plan was not eliminated by~~
~~~~#.. N.;,M ~8,'.'h M d.s. 3 h.[~[W.9.4/M8@u@.,...;M.3.M..$~~~~
~~~~a m~~~~
~~~~. g.~~~~
IM %MgPT NgV'.M. J ..sW. preemption or through Applicant's realism argument.s Although the Licensing i Board's rulings on the legal authority issue were upheld by the Appeal Board,' M. ,, m o r.- j .$'ff they were reversed and remanded for further evidentiary hearing based on l $$fJef LILCO's realism argument.' The process has started for holding the hearing
.s,,, m,A sp @+t. Q..m.a,?

? y *'* S M w: +. n;.V..? a3, g gj
~~~~\\g .QWQ.* called for in CLI-86-13. ,u. .a .. c,.s..i..4. *...N.- s .~ z. ..i '2,C.,;,;. ,~~~~
~~~~g'u %g,Yg' ft,a '*p,.g. a.. a. p a~~~~
~~~~- ~.,, < m. w + p :.. u,b. h' 4 ~-~~~~
~~~~~.,,~~~~
~~~~.h", y .- hdkh. 8.s. +g .. - <M> ' n :n; - kMC'.rf&., ;~~~~
~~~~2. @;./.;--5 ',(N.i} p,.~~~~
~~~~(1) Dose pojecum te. sed on release data caramrucac4 to sms offmals; (2) ingesuon pt}mey sarnphng in the M/ ':' .J V ?L N F, ' S,~~~~
~~~~ll an $77.~~~~
~~~~s4 mile EPZ: 0)irurdictim er contanuns:ed foods; and (4) pacetive actim recomenda6ons. /d at 883. % .WY.M[a h;~,i ' 7 @.'.~ l( sfg, g9s 912. 919. ! d'['.N Y \\..~ ,,g. 7. h..~~~~
~~~~At.AB.418. 22 NRC 6sI,673 76 (19ts).~~~~
~~~~....J7..,,a.cf W. * .g ~/.> w ,..f... ' ?. n.t ' U.~~~~
1
~~~~,C118613. 24 NRC 22 (1986). .- @y, ;,W; s./. C.,: (. % ".c,. - l-j ,a . T.Q,* 7., p. - t o 7 1~~~~
.l,*
en
~~~~.p ,4.,,; - e -,, ... ' *, %.~~~~
~~~~6o. + ) ' '",. *:.? p *; 4.~~~~
~~~~'o y ,~ui(.,,.j f}7 v f ty g 5 g. 4.. ',9 - - + v.- .c *.e '. .*5 ,.,9 a a~~~~
~~~~[,, \\, - [ f#,.,~~~~
~~~~,. I f.. j f, q s.;. +. 7 z,% ~,s,. ...I,.;.a .. =,,: 4 .<s s~~~~
~~~~9 I.;~~~~
~~~~fj 6 -(*V., .,d i j ',,8 .g. e i 'A };,- b E. < 1 - .,i x'5 8 .y:>. v.;~~~~
~~~~. ~, __~~~~
~~~~m r. r.;.,. . v. .-~.m ;--,~ m..., ,,m. y.-.:.-,. m 3< 9,, a M* : ..r. s s y, s -,. ,4 s s., ~ s s 5~~~~
~~~~s e~~~~
g O W S a - i S... F m E a g.
gQ.jM@.--n ?!kr,AaN%@fJWd"'h9$2;O,dMMS'ON3$$'I'hW O M, 5Ec %. .s < t eky ~3,au &,,v:@+.M... fWiW&&M. .-r-n ., W+; n ;&.h W WiM. y Q.) h.;a.4%&% ??. M Y 5W: ,%, c.m.Qd,'.h[,, $..N.. l3.&.. 6yn..&.w y%,.Qlf'.?? W.,.,.9 l$...,.. ~. ~uM,g;.. km,&. a.s.. . ' ',, ;~:v 2. 5 a.'.J.., f.;.. a: ,c a:n.-r: .m}: m% W.Wp.m%py,c.,*.y 0 s n-. s:. %n ) m.,,; %,. M. - * 'w' ,rh;+a n n. , % '~ 4
~~~~c.. "c.~~~~
~~~~m ? f*' r.v 9- ~. . ~ - . m., w. 5, ' x - n i~~~~
~~~~n...Q... :~~~~
~~~~'~ ,,.'. w wgA W.-%yg &.wq.h.s. . W&;p. W q'gA Q%g.u.w.. t... 5dM M J',,<~~~~
~~~~M u..~~~~~
~~~~a-y nttw-W M y@ N $$ $:.3E$ N3 % e. M,+:'w.~.';U.'O S U d 5:.:.m,: w'hkh.n,Nkk1hM(g$'k.ml%X t n@a~.,Q,$w ' s.v Qy.3'i.a: c.J V,s.a..5 9 m 40 7:.4:.n W. :..%.~~~~
~~~~W.?. y c -,~~~~
~~~~p v~~~~
r

bOldN::.U bdMN3L 2 N O'.
dN x.~ y y ; % w. s. 4, w.., a m+. w: w: m w w q g -g. i )J W Q W bh k,;fk N.-y M 4. 4 y%@b A0IN.&M.. &p$} %%-Mg d-W f,% E A h $ :5 h b # % '$ $ POSITION OF Tile PAlmES $ $fE b: M. @ b' Fu kkh '.h $h Contention 92 on which LILCO requests summary disposition reads as rY{'$h WPB.jd. follows: W.e*@h f NN.kf4[8[ j'gg.jY@kyp%ES[50 blgeh dd h Q hre is no New York State emergmcy pan to deal with an mugmcy at the Marn d %pj3f plant before this Board. (See, Anach.1.4.2). In addition the t.ILCO Ptan fails to provide for 3 % M.?.C k %i W %l k h*y% f M '$N 8 $ D,f N.dth7.M$$i'c coordiution of tllIO's ernergency response with that of the State of New York (assuming apeMo, such a rerponse mould be fonhcoming). (See FEMA Report at 1). In the absence 'h.S.k.W/MMMM'MN8%e.~6,$'fi. ci a State emergency plan for Shoreharn, there can be no finding of cornpliance with 10 2 ci@, ".1 x.3 6 'Ay<. t M;M; rv. r.g% Cf.R. (( 50.47(a)(2),50.47(b), or NUREG 0654 il LE,I.F, LH or IL
~~~~J AA x.~~~~
~~~~3 w.,,.;>~n ~ :;'s W g. p v.? w:."o 0:!, b,, 4'. r i,. 4 %w' 4 Q : e.v 4.. s..s e w..,.=. ;,,.s.-,.,.,..g,.4.. ; N. >. =, (footnote omitted).~~~~
~~~~c.c....~~~~

~~~~s 4,Y; 5.j ; $ ', c.' ~., v " f. y;' .e T.JC N_ gf.W ?. In support of its motion for summary disposition, LILCO argues that the~~~~
[y.7,& 'N,,.

Q, 6 y @.>.,[ ' Q y Q Initial Decision have been specifically rejected by the Commission or the Appeal
.N.J S:% Board's bases for ruling in favor of Intervenors on Contention 92 in its Partial 'N. 4 'r.N., v, g q 9 4;:q q. g Board and that since the Board had resolved all disputed factual issues in E h h;' k,ys.. ( f. d.1 hhh.'? M.I[Uh;dd.3 6.WJ./y LILCO's favor in its previous decision there is now no material fact in dispute on Contention 92 and LILCO is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of j .v: W,x.c.. W.v. !v. n.o.i,.: &, y/} law. M,:. w ;m, 9 4Q,M$ 2 s s... v W y.SM..M.t @lM '- N., M,... M BN.d, Q d % f.' 'N,D@ The elements of LILCO's argument are complex and they require further %d. t.,. e$. W..M..'.G elaboration. According to LILCO, the Board in 'ils Partial Initial Decision ,h y. refused to accept LILCO's plan for the ingestion pathway as an edequate it.terim MX.%,. Mif'M.e.sM/ %.d g,' g~d j.<NW. hq J compensating measure under the provisions of $ 50.47(c) where there was a m 3,3 % f N~ ' $ p. % total absence of State emergency planning for Shoreham and no assurance Qg I ,.M. f p ~ W lJQ.i r g ; % 6 -/Jy g; existed that any coordinated response to an emergency from the State could be ~ [f W{lD:)C @ L '%. f% %Q,-QT expected. This view of the regulations LILCO argues was reversed and remanded =;,, W:2 7 S:'1 by the Appeal Board, which in turn based its opinion on the Comtr.ission's ruling 6 h % '$ M'Y.MDMNi $ in CLI-86-13 where the Commission determined, in the context of reviewing O( $(i,$g[ W Q:@3 M r:(.F 3 9, LILCO's overall proposal, that a utility plan prepared without any governmental O D d l' +M hl'6.g sj cooperation might pass muster under 10 C.F.R. 0 50.47(c). LILCO next argues
~~~~s/ '~.iP. 6_.,:..f.v :;J%dk trat the Board's second ground for deciding Contention 92 was its belief that~~~~
~~~~.,. w..o. a 'dh',OMD 9S$M$h.,.._. ~[h the public health and safety could not be protected as well by LILCO acting 3~~~~
~~~~2. NP. M WKr.[Aj%...)~~~~
M 5 d.,9;p,,:,2 alone as it could if LILCO acted in concert with governmental authorities and 1 /MM.~. 7 N.4 w.s..M ? fps 7;?,M, that this ground was set aside by the Appeal Board on remand in favor of a r M/ m V, @d.M.M..'BM< y 64. I.Gr.'ci37h,p s. g$,.$,- i-Y,S.WW reexamination of whether there are identifiable deficiencies in LILCO's ability DNNP%yghdMMd(Q,d an pM.dt:{LM O'n'. Ti to fulfill four State functions (which were identified by LILCO in hearing) so as idlyWM.- D to render the plan inadequate. As to that matter, LILCO asserts that the Board A'MdN.'*:M found in its Partial Initial Decision that LILCO could adequately perform the '.NihNOMbbihNN,'ry specified functions and that there are no other issues within the scope of this M.3$l.W: y%. 5 contention specifying other possible deficiencies regarding actions to be taken N k, M $ @,d d l f.M M B.N hM%fj in the ingestion pathway There being no further material issue of fact in dispute f.h.hh.k h.y wey.ew'
~~~~hb h_g m~~~~
g e sum ary sp s m nteMon M. ) Y,. 'w m,.. ~. y,.. s, .o a s. %p,.f.$ -*. s' * % N M* w. ',I 3 n ~2 :- m[*)l'. MiMn%.T L C; ~.r.-.M ...s.w v. m % 6%y<.':bW.:.;iy %p:Y' :,,, n& : ~<.' n.' f %O.. ' %l.m. ~. .c-J q# ; r g., -{ s,. - g {g,.. y N. Wa,Q:W i +
~~~~-f.e e~~~~
~~~~( 4 u .., ". '.~~~~
~~~~d )w*. D:','~~~~
~~~~b ...]i e,. <,.n c.... k . l' %.:.m, ;n.., : n. [t x:'. s - , ' "~ ~ T, i 0 E G,"' 3 T-y,,y:< ~. .n ?. K,,., p, . c, s,. --,.~ c .r .t .c lv 4~~~~
l
~~~~'s + ) .... y.. e...*.. 7 r.. a- .s. ~.w... 2 o:,6 ui .1 .s. e- [. .' t ...b'...$ '6. ~ , 3 ";~~~~
n[
s 6
@khu.. %; g.Qka. % 3 % % F.+4j.6 m d d5 W W : d h W+ ' V.. M~ a:WM4 %.5 WWMQW%W - 3.: % W.y Mw
~~~~. Q5 % M-W W1A @i w %, W.. q= W.~~~~
~~~~e 4.a&pw.em.m&mip;g)s$.-g-, gf. w.W.y~~~~
~~~~. v. y~~~~~
~~~~R s%Q.;u_._w';r i-;g <g' a. e' s :: wm..%r 4..e..... L gb a OX'w p n'. : . &.%. u~~~~
~~~~w w % 2 2.a;.:. a ;;.:..:.~~~~
~J w. s2 a, ?.L . u.a:%w;:o'% t .n e. ~ -Wm -L*n a y ....u t w.:W itT W M g., W WW[3w x 5kWgy&ww.:&4%gg.c.%m., M mml Wwr ma ?n V+,ug'%R n.f G n m y.eW W a. %. n.: 5 %jy,%.,.4. wlw!gw 4< .m.4 w Cm a;A m. m. 2 ;s. w .p. g m 4@%aNgy~f @ @p y.. %@4ls g"9 Qig uLCO appended to its motion a "Statement of the Material Facts as to Which $$@M'Ms " 9 44 h uLCO Contends There is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard on Contention 92 (No M T, '[ cpm [. New York State Emergency Plan)." LILCO's statement consists of five material ,o Pp.gfhiMyj) IA facts which in abbreviated form assert: (1) The State and County would make WhM L W % Es g a best-efforts response using the LILCO plan in an emergency; (2) the four Mgff.hjMbg dk$Ig l;Ip$ h.i specific functions performed by the State in an emergency are dose projection, gh:!NTF.fsp ingestion pathway sampling, interdiction of contaminated foods, and issuance of k.$hrG@hE5pgip%gTh N. k My jf f protective action recommendations; (3) the four State functions have to do with gdur$(h% tah[h'h5Q.MN{' hkfjh,hI$fhhfkh .g., the ingestion pathway and are performed in the aftermath of an accident; (4) the li APP cant will perform the four State functions but will defer to decisions of the Governments if requested; and (5) the Applicant has the caoability to perform N;MijS$. (ky%@-wM[$$$%fh MS the tasks that have been identi6ed as State functions. N M.j @$ij' [dw' 4@d'M 6 & W 7s O[C. m M[ $ h M yy. LILCO further asserts that coordination with the State is not a litigable issue because the Board's original ruling on Contention 92 was based on the absence V,r y.WM!&.. e.q.WQ9,#W M.W; h.w.y of a State response altogether and not on the absence of coordination and because M. M.l. x. o n @. M.,g# h-c 14 V the issue of coordination is part of the realism issue and should not be duplicated %$hM@M@Mg%.sa.n h..Go 'l' m m h :s %g hj l p@ Q Q gj[j es %yg. under Contention 92. g. The Governments filed an answer to LILCO's motion on October 5,1987, in gf. Q$g which they opposed summary disposition of Contention 92. The Governments h h k D Ckp,5$ h[ W $3 % fy %, base their opposition primarily on that portion of Contention 92 which asserts MWNd%shuU&dh dMMM that LILCO's plan fails to provide for coordination of LILCO's emergency $M@MM@% f@h [. i response with that of the State. In the Governments' view the evidentiary record NM Q is completely void of any demonstrated preparedness on the part of the State N$M.K6gg.%(dM h. of New York, and this prohibits a finding that there will be an integrated or @N.Jhp2fgpM4%$j$gp@fgxhhdh}gj% coordinated response or that the response to an emergency will be adequate. yW.f.dMM As to the four State functions in emergency response that were proffered MN: $5%@hfh[Wi@s# N6,M@%) by LILCO in its defense against Contention 92, the Governments claim that M T4WMX .y LILCO cannot seek to prevail on Contention 92 based on its asserted capability to -N9f: N M?f perform them because the New York Supreme Court and the Appellate Division NNk5 hihhbbh thereof ruled in Cuomo v. ULCO that the functions to be performed by LILCO tW d QifM M M.@b @N % M %. @ jfT M A ph under its plan constitute illegal usurpation of the police power. Thus in the MQ.h%@.Q.p.WSW%%,.gs Governments' view, LILCO's capability to perform the specified State functions Mb?.hd M. is irrelevant to the resolution of Contention 92. &nmh m,g 'M M d h % g.M*g.p. %p.Q @V W. .fi..pg.Uf%y E Additionally, the Governments argue that, following the Appeal Board's ndgfg M gi remand in ALAB.847, there remain triable issues of material fact with regard M.D.~MN. fMM':@%$U'84 . M.dMW to the adequacy of the LILCO plan to fulfill the four State functions. In qdS. @..C@L.@.,'/.MFeff.3N.1 -,#.Y./.ShN addition to the asserted legal prohibition cited above, the Governments now pe i W ~-m W)NpMb.s@p-Q..qif,1,fU: M.M. - ns.Q,: assert that the four functions cited by LILCO are merely representative of the ?r l C N N. M M M 4 M. W M.. r. n y.MkNM 4.5 i . V{;; kinds of functions that New York State might perform in an emergency. Taking i .W 3h P' .Y their cue from language used by the Board in its Partial Initial Decision ("we NAQK@h;b;w j,e T ' W,.u n /.* %,3 have a grut deal of trouble accepting that that is all a State might do in j r. ' 4:- n 1 an emergency.") Intervenors assert that Contention 92 raises issues broader .%,3 M.9, '; p* q A *g.g h.: 9.::+'.. s ~. l y*,,&- S,; 2 M..)...;a; k...,. 9 , N i.," ' '.-%. y 429 1 $.l 1-3 X / . M:$ ' 'lG w -.,.'+,_.-i*L' ' *'E, A f; W 9 - , ' ; ;x)s::
~~~~2.,. 'q, "~~~~
~~~~q p;~~~~
~~~~. t.'.5..? % e N ' T i.' '." : e-m, &u y p + . h ' ,h~~~~
h,*
-(
[.
~~~~p@*..' ;. e,.;.s....,,,'a . i.~~~~
W.
~~~~,.. [ ~ '~, g.~, m- <,y.n. yrx.::-~ & e-> rigm gyg.,. p 7 w-- ] 3 c m .y y e,.~ ' ,, y. .4 I ~ ~ I A / cpg y;ayr _. x ~' - Q.; ; y y S. ~ [ t;.go. .:. n ~ ~ n. .r. } , m. .3 ,,.n~~~~
~~~~t. 3 e~~~~
~~~~7 \\ 4, ,,__3., _._1. [ # 'd- .E^ l 'M . **[d-b~~~~
~~~~1 3~~~~
i
k I y9.r ab -i;., - J: gp.. + m5 J c ~ L. M,hg'n$&s. dN((M;d@4,2)diNM'SSPMY.MOtkc. n$.h y: w. .a.@Q :~.8 9n.r..% M N h E" M. y ~[.x[m !w:.y[a 4 4 7. $ ' Q M g,M i'j. g'iih " M. f.}ft U
D.
~~~~V1C ^t.7 NW'i' j t i.M t h W;"Eh ' 9 W'@: tmh.iD;fyggq7$: .& 6"db 7 E N I N, E, W -3.'7JQ p.*(; f f ' ], 'h 'N: W-4% .r- ? Q pgj,N D.[ C -~~~~
~~~~N't M~~~~
$$.h $ M !bI h. h N M.b5E EDNEM h fM f !%U N &n;M Y.tg W.g;p, N.N $$WWWY $ bps 3.& n.w3: % e D. r W p%:l,&.dM A;W~% N.n >hq 5&.E.gG ? $hf-Qy.M 0$ f. &g -sQ ' y W&).ffg;.pQ%f i b i than the four State functions discussed in LILCO's motion. The primary issue i [. jh $d'.Y[2 [.N h @. f. ' h they say concerns whether LILCO's plan provides for coordination of LILCO's l iQ emergency response with that of the State. Without stating specifically what Mi. $ M k Q. h.l Qfy else tne State might do in an emergency, Intervenors rely on instructions from Q,'A%%3 '/-~@ MDp;{ the Appeal Board that the Board should determine on remand whether and how $$b.M h..h'PNW kN M.- the State's participation would make the plan better. Thus, say the Intervenors, M@lW5Ng$f-?@.Q k Q there is an absence of evidence of record that New York State would participate Ndb.h$hkh@N h!NN;DI;dMy q.i in an emergency; that an ad hoc State response would comply with NRC b regulations; or that it would be meaningful, coordinated, or integrated with U-Q M h ? % 'T Q. LILCO's response. Absent evidence of record on the nature of a State response $ [r4:te d:,d,$i@ M $ W'df-$[j.d d in an emergency, Intervenors assert that the Board may not reach a conclusion J i.['.p.%?FJ/$.$;4.Q.W0$%/5Njd.".$emergency response that includes the State would occur. Intervenors support other than that there is no reasonable assurance that an integrated or coordinated j;gfGQ'E $M;.g'.N NANMy[k their position by citation to the Commission's decision in CLI 86-13 in which 7 R ?t_.,. M M.M [M !r, %g e. W s m.7-M the Commission assumed that the Oovernments would respond to an emergency 6 r-with their "best efforts" but was unwilling to assume that such efforts would be @% 7 g,7 M.gy - y. ~.e p: s v, w 2 c/gDh@, adequate without additional evidence. Ibrther support according to Intervenors O.bM'j$5MM@Q$@Wp!.YYW;i(g} .Q fi.dQ456$ g comes from the Board's decision on LILCO's motion for summary disposition h@y' issued September 17,1987 (LBP-87 26,26 NRC 201), wherein the Board found 3.6 's,Wd!W. that the question of adequacy of Government response under the "best-efforts" 7M17'-m:#m,d. g4 ' Wc assumption required further development of evidence before it could be resolved. w D6MMN.NUh.W...g,f@wD([Qkg% y yM Intervencrs acknowledge LILCO's argument that we should not duplicate .?MWMWS'h@+?pgk.p./M our efforts and that the issues raised by Contention 92 are in some ways similar MNN.hbM -$h2 to the realism and legal authority issues for which evidentiary hearings are 'k'MDbM[ inh M'h[5k[3 to be held. Dey continue to oppose summary disposition, however, on the basis that Contention 92 has been at issue since July 26,1983; its admission N Q M@f M W@@@ hu M;, %.2.)I&c;5M@).N sty f 21 t.. - d.k h was not opposed by LILCO; its allegations and issues raised have never G Q Ng g changed. In Intervenors' view, LILCO's assertion of duplication is merely Mk@.,hdiM.[iM.F..g.4 @....0.m%n, 3 'S M backdoor maneuvering seeking to oppose Contention 92's admission.
~~~~4.w...M.m rh.~~~~
4 Interveners cppose LILCO's claim that the four identified State functions c Ndh....MMM4p p gsdiQ apply primarily to the ingestion pathway. Dey cite two - dose projection and .hhh INkN@hMhlD IXM:$.W.h Protective action recommendations - which they claim are primarily related 9ddhdh-MNM%pWM d&WF d to plume exposure EPZ activities. Dus these are not activities to be done G. D'idQ in the aftermath of an accident when there would be little time pressure on $$$$MhC%%R;;?NW their accomplishment, and in any event the Board has ruled that the timing and ' S.wa,. ww.$.c$$.-:w.Rh.,.d;d MUNdNb O pressure under which a response must be made are irrelevant to the requirements q. c.rg. A tmposed by NRC,s regulations. c w a mfy k M N !? M;., s.- c m g w.hKMO5:3In sum, Intervencrs claim that it is the coordination issue of Contention 92 $N %y?..'df' (.M,$hM@c, N hyg that most clearly mandates denial of LILCO's motion. Bis is so, say the In- 'A %D: MSt E .. m. ~V.s..W-{ tervenors, because in its interpretation of CLI 86-13 all four State functicas M,..yfy % $ g ig W.d':f g+W have been found by this Board to involve factual disputes requiring denial of i ?. W, +t.,.u;: ; M. y.h s. W M.E.d d.$, h..\\.b , 9; LILCO's motion for summary disposition of the legal authority issus. Inter-a ; w n. &.;.- $ ;,,7 6..s ..,4, An,w.a ~ n n,.., T..; jT. n*; Y *.&g&. c *M VR,.Vl.' Q.rha,9.,L ~ wu e e..:b n.g. <N W,'.'c.$ S. N [ 4 .pk } [ q a N.A' W '"',,,".,; T g .n. y n 430 y; .. ~ a; $,,,.J. 4:. w,r m,. <>.w...'.; v *:rv,.y..s 4 -
i.
~~~~.,. py s~~~~
~~~~N',..~~~~
9.- it.. - t. w-p:4: 3;. '7 h., a < SS[. ~. 7, g".. o. ...W' 2.. .,J, .s. 7;.-n s, r ' 3.g i r.. f 1 i [ * ', *r.j f.,N. i.&<,. ?{',J..n. ', ' ba;f. * .h.,O."*f f GW?W M W" '.~ *Y,*:'**'~~ " v J '. ' * * ^ * *

m*
~~~~W-v~- .$e~~~~
~~~~;~ '9'~~~~
~~~~[ .s s' ~ d.'[ [r"') [. * : ' ? '.,.E( ., t '.p:~~~~
~~~~~e-~~~~
~~~~%... a.' ',. y> n G. *.%, Y *' ',N,. ' ~ 3 7 - .; T,,&. ' i ?} ~ & b Q. Q' t.';c;[.).&f: 'q',- ~ ^ L';A ',A % ~,~~~~
f., '.f.k

. ?
~~~~,p 'n 9 9.., o.: ~ 1~~~~
~~~~[,*.g ) 6,./ e, 2 j ;W.*, N.'.~~~~
~~~~y,', '-,,h-v e*. , & *q,/.,' * '.t~~~~
~~~~g...~~~~
~~~~d', ' [ -~~~~
"s
~~~~.s sd e 4 's b o a J J.. __ - [~~~~
m

.2 d '
~~~~M.,:.~~~~
s it 5., 4
hI &f. m ~ Yh:.4pm..n mu.x: ::.y:.w. :#.hwym c,.w.> 9 ... ~ -. an~.m. &, %. ~N$.$n.m.p$Y?m.w.&.~.. !i$.n$h.,w&. :5$-x$$.s.,. k.. l. k h. u )
~~~~j, I.~~~~
~~~~~ f W dle %An Q x.a.v% c&af%$.w:n,W W. ". w."p"M.w= "., w..... %w% Mn.nw s.s~~~~
~~~~ec.~~~~
~~~~-m Q """'='":.- +' "Ay;t.7,A,'Q t' & W. . p: 42 p t p n h.tm"'g;JbhMw%gw%AL: ' a pc w ~~ '*. v QCQ.D.~~~~
?.*
~~~~f wgyo~.;w&g:w.wp wn :w.. w : p. n.. n..m.:. 6.~ f M t h.t w~~~~
~~~~M..m<A n, m,< f. ; m~~~~
~~~~m., n.. d GQ~:.dQ - 9@..~M,..w+~~~~
v: . m .s. n vq.., g k.q;p Q: .-M md.MDdyf6 %MM venors assert that renewed scrutiny is required even for conten ions that were t@5$$DfM M M J F previously resolved in ULCO's favor, such as Contention 81, because the sit- !&W;bSS N .n ./A n.c M,. % t.*w h d'n'.:h.y & M+ W. m a. W :f; Q. M.b g; W.. uation confronting the Board was so changed by the Commission's decision in g*y CLI-86-13. M@ p,I. -1..c.w.d i d. 4[2 $.y hMy 1987. In its response the Staff reviews CLI-8613, ALAB.847, and the Partial 1. $., W. !.-. M p The NRC Staff responded in support of LILCO's motion on October 5, J MfgN Initial Decision and concludes that there are no material facu in dispute. Ac-M>.9:qE'N.M.9p$;Jh[F9.!khh,k{'M)gd$$$fhh cordmg to Staff, our determinations under Contenuon 81 and the facts in the / MMM h record provide an ample basis for the Board to find under $50.47(c) that the 6... E.l Wg %.o;;c;m&.. M. q@..p %- @% g-y:%., b..E~.'4 LILCO plan constitutes adequate interim compensating action permitting a rea- 'M w.% y T
c
.;s;.s..p; . %.g sonable assurance finding, notwi'hstanding lack of literal compliance with 10 ....m .<. M ?./!K.,@f..C,~W.~.,m3.W,J Y.Wy...M.g C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-034. Intervenors found it necessary to re- .4 . i l..i. W N. d. + W,, &.. e.., .ai St &.F;MR .. -[-i,' spend to the Staff, but their discussion was unproductive to disposing of the
~~~~s.. x..~~~~
~~~~.L... w; q;~2 esA g, g. ,2& m. y p m;. 3 p::.m._.w<,... nssues. -.. n~ .a r a.. y.g 5,y[r. 7..t:, E ?. g.,, yc9.QW. .N.w-g.Gw. A 4. 7 1.M..,&W A.nN.~~~~
~~~~n pv ehw.;.; nN~~~~
/v m e v MW@v@n:: MMw;% ' dw DISCUSSION N.M2 MiM7%ff s@;s[.w%Mg.4y.%@p .w gg( M 9 M N S E T s?ic. C & M %. @Q J-A literal reading of Contention 92 reveals that it makes two factual assertions 4 and two legal assertions. The Contention alleges as factual matters that no Mhh h.$A@QS y% k.hNh State emergency plan is before this Board and that no planned coordination MM. WQ'#M between LILCO and the State is provided for. It alleges as legal matters that as WMD/h@..hM%*MI6g[W{g[$p N!N N:NNMh%,y j a consequence there can be no compliance with speciSed portions of 6 50.47 and portions of NUREG-0654. The contention has specificity only for the things @ M. W.E. .pb.:N alleged and not for any additional specific defects that Intervenors may wish to
~~~~$'Y9 N.4,.,d-4. R:y;;; -~~~~
. M W,J,h.k W..,$w.M,,,G, v S *litigate by implication. LILCO, in its defense against Contention 92, specified 4, f m. W NW.s. w W3. ?. N M in testimony four issues that it said the State normally perfortas and claimed, M h M Mb[.@]hf% %y;D W.MONMTM7 on the basis that it could perform them, that it was entitled to prevail under $, h -)] the provisions of 9 50.47(c) which, among other things, would permit licensing l i MfdM$[NMN5M.'N/g+. where adequate interim compensating measures were taken for deficiencies $:SOh%%' 4EkjMdN found in an emergency plan. The Board was willing in its Partial Initial Decision i %@M5.M'NId.M,WN.g.d.di h6MINOq.OW to accept LILCO's demonstration, in essence, as a necessary one but could not % -Q find record support of sufficiency under a literal reading of the contention. We pl66$$v,MN($,$;.%:M.yf$}g'H ^ specifically expressed doubt as to whether the four matters raised by LILCO NfNMMMy @dyg were exhaustive of State functions in a planned response to an emergency. (We F[f) j.'f N$$M note here in passing that NUREG-0654 specifies ninety.five elements as State fr,' J 4 W($[N@$yg/WW.M. -,d;3, 4r:f yMP.6 responsibilities in emergency planning). We review this history to make clear M %.py that the four State functions that have become an issue in this contention arise MMNk @_E.h.ki.$$$f.0f.y-Intervenors in their contention nor from anything the Board directed. from LILCO's litigation strategy and not from any specification of issues by the @pI.M..... r.C[p$M. s.-
W P.f

yw +f%. ;J.
~~~~l' N~~~~
~~~~$df Nb Yrj j We initially admitted Contention 92 for litigation simply because it has s %n.2M8.: M~~~~
~~~~@ 5 $s :N. N 4:i4.~~~~
~~~~p 5' 1 the requisite basis and specificity for admission under NRC regulations. The~~~~
~~~~w; Q',.n. ' y.s.. w.~~~~
~~~~.a.w 'q u i.R.s.*g&. ; &[,&,i". N' f,1.. e, L r. i., w.'. ';'..q ~.~~~~
~~~~r.tW 0~~~~
V
a

G;

i s.
~~~~4; . -;' h f-3;.~ y.u.,!,7 431 , L w'..s m ',l r + s,$l;-~~~~
"iQ

L
~~~~,, \\./ Y'.**% ' '.,, ; j.,; * '*. .;'t s~* jd '_,t~~~~
~
~~~~M?*.. '. W : ' ' E,' l 1 &; i, ' ' ' 4.. s.i ? - 9.., *,~~~~
~~~~'G:'h~~~~
~~~~. W >;.Q ', ~, m ; y,, ::; V,;*e.' ..g _ n 7.- m c-~~~~
~~~~~ q, 7.~~ y y ~.~ -- ~w~~~~
~~~~- - - ~ * --" ':-~ > m q q : ~~ . ; t..5 y.g - d,% .? ,e ,, 4 - '+ e d Al$..,$.: l %.)'.;, o._l-- L n~ O c' v. .g. .q.,"..-h*, ..y j 9 (,. ,6 .., ';j J .~- ,s = 3 s . ) ,4,-' ,, i,q, 4..~~~~
1
~~~~f hfh Y $hkh b $ k' $ W$hi $ Y W W515 W bn W f ** ! WlEf$~~~~
~~~~.&e f&u$. &.a.w.c.QM-Q-@Qf?Mh-"W*N% C.LM, Mbh b; W N W N % C M W ; M =.~~~~
f r A g ~ WwmQ.s q_ g%2%n%e w W y wAlhE if~ fw.% w.4.Ym ~&,? .. g c o h$? r:pp}V & y& h(k w &g.q, &y t g~ 5bj$dG d I r:ph W f d W ki W Q $ hpA w,M$h @' p@wt@Tf3? N rJ R 'f %Jhg$ MR$g2Q,h@#4 'N g$h. specificity of the contendon is not diminished because the matters alleged are i i p hadly stated. The contention alleges, as comprehen'ive 8aws, that no State plan (3 . s y,d h .I is before the Board and that LILCO's plan fails to provide for coordination with ~. M ' ~ "Me%o...g ei the State in an emergency. nere is no evidence that Intervenors ever intended to W + s ".x. e M 4' ;# "S litigate possible specific de6ciencies in the LILCO plan under this contention or y r.,$y$.g74Rg T df.M%f to extend its reach beyond the allegations plainly stated. De evidence indeed is M W M W>$ }% % Mg%%@FGMM O akkdk Th to the contrary because Intervenors did not do so in the heanng; they submitted other contentions alleging specisc desciencies in the plan, and their references $ M i&A@h h@ h IE N }@b@s !Q'/M to violations in the contention itself are broadly stated. For example, they allege h $ $. d N @ % h' W 'd,k! W N;f$Y.lk5.t NMZ@fM @Q#4.g $8'jp that the violations they perceive include noncompliance with 550.47(b) in its d f entirety even though that section contains sixteen speci6c requirements on a ? broad range of subjects. Similarly. Intervenors reference perceived violations .pj of fI of NUREG-0654. That sectim, however, contains no specific planning Y N@d9hN:fMQMy .' M W i requirements. Dat section states the underlying rationale and conceptual bases 9 % d M@dg',Q @$N,igQ @M'i W;M'g. for the emergency planning requirements that are stated in detail in ill of fh g NUREG-0654. Thus we are persueded now as we were in our Partial Initial Mcf..lf.W!.M7.mM Decision that Contention 92 was intended to specify a global and conceptual fMq,y,.%. @.nw.h.N... D W W. MN.. gN.g. s ,e d gpg.Yg.' de6ciency in the plan which includes the full collection of State functions N N N([$ y$ %[SN$ h M h}$ h p ,/30M without specifying each of them one by one. The truth of Contention 92 can M 7f h .%hgg therefore be determined by a simple measure of whether a State plan for 0%. Nb8@# GiMMEh Shoreham exisu and whether there is a planned ' coordination between LILCO Q' w '@w n.r.$ T.M S M(:$ m$ p. M WM and the State in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. a4 q By that standard, no party disputes and neither the Board nor the Commission N M $ k n @ @ 'i @g g DJW: AEK9.If 9MS@WO';6 d&SW.q !:M '/ expresses any doubt that the factual allegations of Contention 92 are true. %5%Rf;Ns,$ 1 Moreover, the legal allegations of the contention are also recognized by the i.((Q:.M@w$%.:DSM73IMi.NN@MM Appeal Board as literally tme. The Appeal Board stated in ALAB 847: "We U N .. W M agree with the Licensing Board that, in terms. LILCO cannot satisfy section .TWQJ.MW WN.. ne:. 3.~m yMy ~y. 50.47(b) or conform to the guidance in NUREG-0654." 24 NRC at 431. Dus i t;iQ,'I,ga. .w. .v $ $ d y. M ' M M 'h 9, M 3 Ej there are no matenal facts in dispute on Contention 92, and under the ruling of c[khkMh[d;hjfjM@, CLI 8613, summary disposition is required as a matter of law. N $[i3Mj Y Wbdh8M.dJ.%ggh.g%g ne foregoing conclusion is not at vanance with the Appeal Board decision M?NY fiQ g in ALAB 847 which instructed us on remand to "reexamine whether there are j !.E $ W h / h, h, h g @yj M identifiable de6ciencies... to fulfill the four state functions so as to render the dyt LILCO plan inadequate." Id. at 432. We have conducted such a review ourselves si4?[ h4N@E[N5N.[%TJiDYMOM $[1DMN. h$.Qdig and find no basis in the record or in the parties' responses to this motion for altering our previous conclusion that LILCO has the capability to perform the Vy.Magg-hd5Eh,g'Ii$.Q Mh four State functions that it idenufied in the heariag. No party has argued, and the j emy Mdf; Board does not believe, that any possible insufficiencies in LILCO's plan result Mh df2M'$hi$$!kM3.{ solely from either (i) LILCO's inability to do things not required by regulations, j9 %Nk%d/;g3@ or (ii) the State's capacity to provide a level of safety beyond that considered g,E " G M @5A h ? %y g. % g ;d W q4 hMW adequate. The only insufficiencies alleged by Intervenors are their perceived lack u.w' g;m. m.g of LILCO's legal authority to perform the four functions and their view that a ..;c*W..V..; 6. g., o, a.f' r.M M ,b- , v.r. -h.sw W .J. ;&g;v.'.T %;% W. yg,.* ni 7~. u :.y <'t ; 1 .*?, .v..<< u w ^N * *, ?. [ v.Y YN f,. ?:b kb2 &: w. s.2 p.?l.[Q:;:&e,o' 's lv, ' e&.,, v WM,..c-W,f?-WQ. ;7. :.Mg?O [;;;,X,;%) yf tps ,..;~. n o -n W h %,}), %a.4 g r*.y ' e.. g.. ie.. h,4,..).M -
v-f. 7 'y., Ai:<rl W",,/; n'm 8, g

' ;h..

3 r"* y pl:; Q.n 4-
~~~~%R Q ', ; A.a e *~,..:hq.,)y,.p j;/ n.n C:N~~~~~~
~~~~.Qp 9 G. .. ra~~~~
-)r.., c.n y u y. v,-m em-=~ ~ ~~

s ~ ~~.c-
- w c, - '-- e ~ ~ '+,,.,.y,. ...,,,., w f;. ' ',o',*.,. ,., 4.. u, b .c w s. ,.;t;r. p.,., y. -e .o g-s4 e .e.y , (. = 1* 4.' (.l',' ; Mf'. p g y"i D, " '. '.,/' h.. ( 6 ,4 i 3 e Iy L 'u... o ,,4 e,.~ ,.r. w' i, r' :=%..m g, 4,.;. (.- r n. n ". - O'".q c '.., . v. .c 4 . *' i ' t,, g e *f, g;il, ^ .., f j N, 6 ,.(, g-. s
pm
~~~~,l" .,.4 m. 1.j s ' .n t y.,-.,' -N i~~~~
~~~~,..q if,~~~~
' g;r. ~; w, ~ _. ; %;; e. mnm
.$fhp &d". W wh.5.gi>g.'~;& :2:.'. h *.;r..4 ':n f-7.?",;:' : : a %?-. g&;:%*,A&sctQ:jf:i;;GAfQ.,m::. %*IQQ.'d,-Q'l.f. f;i.d.f.; ' ~ .ca: \\c.. N. fry.C)@sl/:w.;-g. k W;Qb % '%' y: 4 ^ yk
~~~~b.. m %* P 9 sP.% C~~~~
~~~~',. g .a-Ag % .v e. v.e x. 3 x-~~~~
~~~~r s,.~~~~
~~~~D W?W}W.(9M.s. y&".m%...n-p';,q'y:,.;.!s.,;p j.p&*i. w !.9' g.i: w^. a m.%}M 'S< -P Mp@N -9 tQ y % w:r-P; % v" qb w : n: ^;..;B"6 J a ~~ "" -"L i R'W@$$.Q:QfA%>Tv.db N;D%QuM~~~~
h.;.s.-o<.pc 109..$@w.W/.

p c. 'n!4+,v di?O.- W,& y.g-p.t M,.* ? W C W>~
c-w-- HW: ' f W ?).,.?jy:.'G K tf.f.+ D Q.q %lQ &,.y W \\ 4 %: g4:.>j y ~ W.*. %.. broader inquiry into State emergency response function is now required by the .i$.Nkh,Ih M. EN@. Commission's decision in CLI 8613. However, e have provided for adequate
~~~~NIf, N N Yk~~~~
,. y inquiry into the legal authority question in our decision denying LILCO's motion i NN $> N. N $[$7 $@Y? k M h'd! @$ M.-M'.MQ@ h f for summary disposition of the tea legal authority contentions. Intervenors are d $%I D0t Persuasive that a broader inquiry into State function is required since the kpg Aq$k Appeal Board has ruled that review of the four State functions proffered by Y(W $ f;7 hD NEh3((MQTM NNM.h.ge LILCO is adequate. If we were required by ALAB-847 to inquire into how the .5 'hkh S.thh@@jv^0h$h;MdM, Qsy$m ^ participation of the State would make the plan better, we conclude that that Qh.- issue is encompassed within the issues that will be addressed as a result of our I.M Q ff0$ P...,s @. $~.'.S M..;. $ Q; 8 @. ?" decision denying summary disposition of the ten legal authority contentions. ' s'
~~~~Q.'~~~~
M Intervenors argue that our interpretation of CLI 86-13 in our decision denying .M.R. $. n,'M. W;%n? N..w.~ .. M. a$j .S@R2W summary disposition of the ten legal authority contentions requires us to take a h 0 Y.: 2 k i, M [/n w/. M M: d,. '2. W My?M. 7, consisten, position here. In our previous decision, we concluded that summary . M#1" N/,0.0 W: disposition of those contentions must be denied because there existed unresolved N.D[jp g g2 M A M Q Q F Ndkh.M issues of fact related to the nature and adequacy of government response under Q the Commission's best-efforts assumption. We agree that Contention 92 could l fi g @N h.I-N k $NNg be viewed as raising the same issues, particularly regarding the four State h 1 n.5%EWiy2+gg functions. The issue of the adequacy of government response ts, however, new W,W~iMNSM3.gg.#M.h@g MMN 'MMChD to the case because of the Commission's decision in CLI 8613. Our previous V Rtl Mig & m decision provides an adequate mechanism for inquiry into the new issue of
~~~~7..,r ~,U,d.q.~~~~
r t: a b"' adequacy of government response. Subsequent to that decision we afforded N h gh%@.%QM.WM.jp&g?;2 'J M.fi;O. m@ <.- pd the parties the opportunity to advise us on the proper specification of issues yj. %@pgs for trial. Those matters have not yet been decided. We are persuaded by the Jfy;gi gcy?..,. g s. W @f.-$rp2 foregoing considerations of the validity of LILCO's argument that we should J<jtf.s.3, e$n'd.M.py.pr c.@...w#. 2. n; l M? - 4.'.'S .v.. y. not duph.cate our inquines under Contention 92. Intervenors' arguments to the 'LF .'%..;.Y... #.x %., % contrary were generalized and unpersuasive, and they acknowledged that the four ';.75." G.;j % @a w. D..~.S.i o M,. q$ p. w. Mc.3. W.pi.j R.6@YMCW State function issues were also raised within the scope of the ten legal authority 4.'- n:. ' M 5 contentions. We therefore conclude that any issues related to the adequacy of G; o.~%,5@T.gMM.n.% W.w99., S.4N government performance that arguably might be included within the scope of fMQ .G. W. - ~ w2. >'@_ M,. # 9 9 Contention 92 can be consolidated within the scope of issues remaining for % M d ? - n @ @ 9 @.)d O. fg h g. G. l' -t oz M./Q qlf 4y#. idJ.' trial without prejudice to any party. We conclude that summary disposition of
~~~~..M~~~~
-3p ET.dN N N.'.N D M.(@$ @M P Contention 92 would not be inconsistent with our previous action dealing with WNG.WMJ. .M Q the ten legal authority contentions. M M] The essence of the dispute on Contention 92 is legal rather than factual. In s. y p. h M @. M [c', M.If' M h ) IId M our Partial Initial Decision we found that the tnith of Contention 92 had adverse j p... p 3 F-G ,@[hNMhM,$9 4: consequences to the acceptance of LILCO's plan. The Commission, however, I h il k.'d N 3 /ck.N; $ $ % has decided with finality the legal effect of the absence of a State emergency f3-lE lP an for Shoreham. The Commission has ruled that LILCO's plan can serve MG'M $?..M[.! M N M'd,;'.$ as an adequate interim compensating action under 650.47(c) even in the total 4W%MGL 4[M$h M@A7- .M8' *. absence of State planning; that the State and local governments can be expected fM@Widf5.e/; M M.W h to Participate in an emergency response with their best efforts even though that 0:. P Q,3.., .,l response is unplanned; that the standard of equivalent protection employed by -. u.., i,
~~~~1r (I W~~~~
,, - [* c/g t g I . - M f '.' " ',.8 ',, 3 w.,.( "*,a 1 5l s' J. -i ; g,,'.' % 3 , < r p.., ~, u. .c m. ,, ' :b '. S., w Q h[.. b,; w i 433 %gx,-. 9 X ~ @ M9.. C. f 3 ' &y a.;g. y); w' $,0. %' Q g < m P, V; .o ~^ 'D', l '(. l;
~~~~R _~~~~
~~~~r s A; ') L. q' ~ .sp'~~~~
~~~~! w e'-~~~~
~~~~~ M a r . * ['~._.,~~~~
~~~~~ "~~~~
~~~~"'I- -. "'" W ,[.f ', C ', ', ',,, p j ' 4 ); i a s o e t.,.., ~,< ~, .e 1 ) ..g,,.. w. m + o,, .g#[_ I ? us: ,*')~~~~
~~~~p r~~~~
~~~~I 'i , ' p' '., 3~~~~
,_,'...s.'

x.y

c 1
~,, ~
i &])?NW 2. h W h f M. R *.9 W %';*$Yh'[ 5'.D l.-5 ; W & h @ M & d-A' W: Y. y. z .gk4h&fWW S. *n' .' r - p g lf@g %% W W )%& M.[Mf@@W=QMR W.h Q*lM &.& O V .' * %- N : -f,Wf WQdd & W' JM22%d
~~~~GMML:. 2dLU~~~~
%%yy:1 M h 'Ib k k ) kl &&h:$' 'h? f$ $W ^ d kNh f j the Board in its PartialInitial Decision was too stringent; and that a more flexible ,Mk' $5). !d!ki.%.gd.f.Nh are generally comparable to what could be achieved with State and County 'Mi'* interpretation permitting LILCO to demonstrate that it can achieve results that I }lpgs40,. JM Participauon should be employed. With those interpretations by the Commission, .,g h h EA k gg/' g the Board concludes that the truth of Contention 92 does not require a finding i W 'T[t%[I M M. bytDer/ h::& P -Q N adverse to LILCO. 6M.SfikMk'W5?N,[h@h ./kf dh.hI h The Board has considered the five matenal facts as to which LILCO claims' .g there is no genuine issue and the Intervenors' response. We conclude that h N,bN gy fjg LILCO's facts are supported by the record and that they have not been adequately M M kEh h.% 1 hA % %[Nf.S. M dI M.g g controverted by Intervenors. The Governments argue generfly that LILCO's WJ facts are not matenal to the resolution of Contention 92 and they specifically .'d M : M}ff. challenge LILCO's assertion in its statement of uncontested facts (number three) W 7'$ f).$; Q @M'f %.M/%S'-F M M 'E.WMgq that the four State functions have to do primarily with the ingestion pathway.That ....' R Q, N.$ M N M hhh3' M assertion is contrary to the record, however, because the parties litigated this
-h Sf85 h M h k' M..MMsWMMihYdN.h@jg pq contentim as part of a cluster of ingestion pathway contentions, and the entire record of this case was assembled without dispute among the parties that the Nh$hbkh.%gggfpg%
RW$/Ij$u$ funcuons of State and local government were apportioned in a manner that b@Nh.'Qgg assigns responsibility for the 10-mile EPZ primarily to local government and $ h % I E N ' M g] % g @b $g' h(h hN$M responsibility for the ingestion pathway primarily to the State. Intervenors' D$.2
~~~~y, 3 k i @ h M f;M M ss,1 response therefore does not raise a material issue on Contention 92.~~~~
2 iQk i The Board concludes that Contention 92 has served its purpose of establishing 3Wd Ihe f on the record that no State emergency plan for Shoreham is before this Board .h.'M.M[5%p,[dh@idTWQ.W: gMqg .and that there is no provision for planned coordination between LILCO and. pg$.yi P.yg'j I B the State. The C ntention as written is clearly trte and, according to our iNM$MS G T '?.! Interpretauon of the Commission's decision in CLI 86-13, does not raise any l. M/MMM j$. m$,y..s,i,;pf.] other unresolved health and safety issue, and summany disposition is required. ,. a. '. ~WS. 9, # pjg 3d.. m. 5 s ...a eq 3 3; i '. -:. n~ma N:&&. 4,'?lCl2*@.$%&:,&m+<*;'&,,.Clw
~~~~c. w &m.~~~~
~~~~m% r aw . n. cm ~n< w;f: W;&y;n.~,3 w.p; M.W:. ny:g.w. v-b nst .r.y.; y m s..n YY, bJ $' L, w.Y .Y A~~~~
~~~~, v e ; q' V s.~'.llm'g.M:!.; e^..'lu. Qi.w.%,... mt. '..~~~~
.w ~.n -&.*
~~~~L u.%~~~~
c... > >.., n 4 ;). 5 i ?- .A e$5 m; o m m:' %wn,.. g:.dl. N*
e2
~~~~.W.g n. ;%..e s.M~~~~
~~~~~ :W~~~~
,.t e y. i.., q ;p.s *
m., ;u.,. :. #.,

e., c a
~~~~..,. y~~~~
~~~~4,.*,',..,a.~~~~
~~~~n e n g.,.m.4.s ' %l...l d' " % s.y,.3 % jed* .>.r,@.:.: W.'*m' h ~g.1;y 9.4 A,,,j %*i C'.. W 'c..; '. W,. . 'O e, Ne< sp,q n! * :. N**,'..*s.~~~~
~~~~v. ' \\~~~~
~~~~?... %.3s* %.'s a s.J,.~sa r .Q- %r- ,.i cn,MAVQ'is a r'R,<' g, g. %,$.1 &Ws&. [,.-p$ mY'?ls.lO Yh:1 l - 4 hh~~~~
~~~~R G 'W;q%.a@n%#.G.b:%'W..h *RM.. **Y; W~~~~
n.4%...A?W O..n f ~.Y. &:'*.9 - vg g a. u, 6 w 2.mW.;,,A.n.rtwA..:c -(. M. w.: p x~ .n -w.,M 'I ( DQJ"1 v >? @ h y.w;.,p;s.d* n.%.V *;,: 'J n, .'h"'u, .( M " /, 5*7.M @IU* . W 0 ',L s ~; ', ' W,,z., ,s ; *. Q ?.sj , ;n 'q- ~,
~~~~u %e fR. ft * +N,~2 -? ;0 -w+ :. ?g *J c n~~~~
~~~~r, l '. 2 3 4 s . ?.,'. 1 s..,. a (. P.a.y='a f.c6./.",,U i. ', e y-~~~~
~~~~, ' ' sp,. '.,~~~~
~~~~y, n. .e. p y, E; M.h , 'c' ). r.v m' t ',"s.n, f 4 -r,y e.., '.y;.c'7 .} .h .? 'f'*. e W s y. C'.,,:) qs D'.*,.- .p:t. e,<. W ),.:.~ b. -~~~~
~~~~,..., ~~~~~
~~~~N, '. ' i $ v *..-s .<,.(.. ~. v., i p..,..,y' 4 ~ 4~~~~
~~~~f, m~~~~
~~~~.'. ).t,.s... , y )p 3 ?.y * % *.%,,c *) * 't 4, 5,, ## W C.1 / "v. m e. '~~~~
~~~~lg.~~~~
~~~~a. .s A~., f.,.y,2f7. e;j..,s ' '.Y } zl e',J,'q,..,y..,. ' T,l ?,a v. .~; w yn 4 - e. y - r-- u ,~f y- - ...,m.,._-.,,. .s ,*8 (,,,,'.,...e'.<. ,t','.t.t'~~~~
i-
~~~~,4 g.. g 3 g J. s - 4.g 9, .Y y 7 .,.g 4 * ..f.. s ./~~~~
~~~~" 2' f&. A'~~~~
~~~~.4 i ...r ,w.,)/ @* 4,.g., li J,1 a s * -( a ;a s './ -,.. i,,, f 9 . T'~~~~
Eg
~~~~.-4~~~~
'
~~~~j,.,. 'n 1. " ' e~;- f,., * ',u ( ', Vf,,~~~~
~~~~s / I.";;,[~..;g-[, % e .i e 5~~~~
1
~~~~.A y s~~~~
~~~~,' 4. h ] ;B ', #~~~~
Tjf %'A ,.t-i .c' I' ".'!% g h 1 , ' + m s y.., et= e e .D 'l
h k. .1 Q. MWik h M%M!? F% " C
~~~~L &. ; n...L m& w p w n. p m@ % W : M f.m;.y.% # W W WG..%w..,4,yLvc'O. ~ u, v..,w.,~~~~
,..a. s.y, g,.A.c.?.:.,b.;.;nlq.:..e:.a.O.:plmt.;.A%m.+.2.~p @s,ra.M.;.:,~ 1 sp+1.v. a: .. m" .,,,.., 3 m m.n y $%u?b.ys$.y.y+w,.Q..,h.%.% ;p?.A. 'Q@.a.:x,.Unk,f.s: M5.~_ Y. . s ~~ .g:4. c -w . q, s ;: w 4. ..,.y m: u, a., e,e c - v .p ~. u Gb W.m.3,vw y ?...s ?c.a.p .. e,m 7. J u W' M.., n... r . s,
~~~~w..~~~~
~~~~?,.., y. 1 . m. s y. .4 . w.w w y%. .~.~~~~
~~~~s.,~~~~
..,~. 'w~- "~m y~. a,.. s.. ..o.... s~ y: n s &. w,ln.s.w.q::w$ a. i N );n% Q. m.Q F W ". v..,, ~.a. n v.m .,a,' ~u.. n ,, w n. ~ g f w %.w u>. -M,. v' ".."' ~~ " & " t'y..&v. ~. "*"*"'*'~~-'"---~~.!
~~~~r.. ~ a~~~~
* " " * * ~ ".. -
~~~~~ 7g.p .r:q y .m M G M, y,o.. P.. y @.t.,,, %; m ;k 6, 3.. R;4 +e.ne.. m...,u., mr~~~~
~~~~w. ug N&u.%xR.Mv,yh,V % Q W g..A?yn % 3.~~~~
s. ..t M~. M. $.; N.' N. p[ 4 %: m$p.7 M,., g,gy;. N>:h. m gA.mM yw $ }f. Ih ORDER I'[).1MNh@pe.WW.pyL[wp% e4 w!% k[h h 5* Based upon all of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Applicant's motion q h 2# d 4m for summary disposition of Contention 92 is granted. 1.yydP}? %?,MO72,W-Ci:nA m @h,/J 9'f #. W.AQM8LQ,@u Q'Q 4% j 6c 4W N@M THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND . kh. bh bh &ynN6.iW:.4$.IM@$ LICENSING BOARD W.pK9#@ W 4 ?.t$.,,.Aq;f M::@.M.s.D..6s;i%.:fA M. W.fip M %'QW W. M M Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 3 O 4 u ;. T j;M M:s.~.yM M g ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE W:.W.@. =..wi p/:N M.g h M.?' p &. g mw m T:q..o.;.,,M', a@.. @y&.wo%. y,y. e M.m. e vWp M f4W.$:(,1. i,$RfM%p,@d;?$' %3MQN.W,.j@e.1x.ttr.R.M.Yk&;1'l
~~~~mp i N Jerry R. Kline ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Nhmw-r s.q, ey wup~~~~
.g.p r ;p.c Y $*W .?Y gY&h.N&V.'?f.n M Frederick J. Shon . B r. w$..y W /, ?hMg es Q...,&p. w@...ny@.~$ih< ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I-d W W +v.9. y..'%s Q., M u % m -L ' u;rf? 4 [$. W [,,$- M=s,..t.q g. Q
~~~~m.c, W.% y. vr W *t~~~~
.Y - n 4.. $. -3 M 0 7 's. w i g M.fM#.Y$5/M@M[.% i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, Mc ~a.j%, (.';r.IM.MGWe% f R this 6th day of November 1987. > c '.c?o :4.y j:w,,: ::.af. g,m'.,.. m%.m.v.:;w.;y%,'+a,%, e. &a..^. ,hQ,s :gC %n Y M%~A' .: m + y q m.y r u p ~ n m.g <,> M.. 4..%, o wt.m. :
q.
~~~~?MW 6M.. m.s. g::t!.,:,m ::c.:-o .n... >e.,$- w Ch %Q ,xw.4 - ~ y m. d,.; %m&[:.4...U E.'M@~.. . :. Q.a..9,'... ;w:ca.j *. p}. ~ , ~. -%. n* .s t., J. 'i,,ge* j~~~~
~~~~Q*;., erf..., g.,,..,,:A '(~~~~
M
~~~~7..,*n.-~~~~
~~~~h.e.T,.%r '-.. p* I,. 9 '4 /,' ; e f,., s. h'M., %. A. 4.5, a., x, m.c..',leh *)' /r I' 3 ,og-4 3 51 'a. # "' - .. N M '. J'(* 4 M~~~~
~~~~n. ! g.N w C;*?.y:~A 5.EJ2,'ry g :~~~~
~~~~Wf. b . )* $ ',.~"."m'h E hl C/- .) .' ~.ggs;wmm;m-?' c.q m.v&;n.. : r%d? Mtei? d ' Q'h+.m.. .P W 6,. 4~ ;.,Q.,m.:h.h.4m' fh&. ~: Q$~.' ^ %'n:.pp.~~~~
~~~~p,.-~~~~
~~~~m. y e W 13.fUk'Q &:<,,. m.... $.$mi, . p A -: e w .v.... N' f* 'if~~~~
~~~~%,g.m%.Q~~~~

~~~~tc.S J w...M W K C h.k.f; KW,*.Y &'%.Ol '.?f, ,,N,2. m' N " .'h. .r-.p. m.,b - I In~~~~
~~~~+*.J y ",.A, +.g' m~~~~
~~~~m r.~~~~
~~~~we gw v.*..~~~~
~~~~W 'y%.p. . *w' W 'm.. * \\ * } ' ' ,. I,9.,g'.'.n'. d..:*,~~.%e3',;.,o ;,,, se y..j,,,. L. y %.,;,n.. ; *~ ,C* -'$ Ms. ? f.p y*p t, - ..~'s ,f e ,s.f g?, + apd~~~~
~~~~s.. iw v~~~~
~~~~n - m"q..m.f4. Q '. y..:.% y.,y4...p-C, g, yt,. A.s*(,.y. y [+. . w.s. i +. t- .*%...e* y.. ,m s. w(.;,9.,. 3 g ....~. ,n.mu n r+ a.; ; p,,,.c *. p' 2.,. - O, c.. 1 eo % gm 4~~~~
~~~~e.,.. c.+~~~~
~~~~......... - '*.sn & m,.~~~~
~~~~A.e.s.,..,.9b.,..z~~~~
...r %.v. ' (,..TA N; b... rp i$4,. r('. w 's e m & yh,.y.g. s /.1' *r q;. w,,. s ,4..%j, _4,5 r m .o. .y 'h.W. w 'h 'k',h Yf. n.$Yh.e-lna u'Y Y 2 nW*. o;.v v.~.m+< pn,.,. c .,. '4 y.T..f .,: M,.. V-Q q;A., ;- V. M.:,... P. :s. zh - c .y -..3,.+w.
~~~~s. s d -~~~~
~~~~> c., . 9 l f. ':-s %'"" 1, e*.'.; >' y. %, y.~ l'.~~~~
q, g " o & 5
, g_ .,s.,t.; n% y n ', m,.s.' m.p s 3d* .y e w 6,, -.. w ~ 3 &,j,,s. r.pt.,s e&s,a "7 E6 q.4 n>. p.*..S 1.L.A..- :.*. ,;?,4.t.J: f, p-n fR. w:pl'.y 6%,: w'f* *ah& Vh.p.O ,(n;g'; w'. 0,l * %.m* D:~ n%. a .c' %m.~,%.,i.};:V.:s 6 G .., A .v,.s. y -.p* -i' e
+
~~~~n * %' .at a f ~ f,.,r p. c' 4.. e. c y.p t. A > n i,,. %- A:'. g... a t-s '* j 3 yQ-4 y~~~~
~~~~i -,.S r-y 11 A )*(.~~~~
~~~~3..,.C.- .e ".)L U,4 5 6t '..} u w?..&. ,.; <' m l.,**.~,..'t;a .s 435~~~~
~~~~....)~~~~
~~~~s,* Ay~~~~
~~~~%*. p s~~~~
~~~~r ",. ;~~~~
n-
~~~~,s* .*' v s~~~~
g.*: A p a*
~~~~A., f ' j *,' 4.. f.,lAK' < 1, e,.f_ ' i *+k'3 ;leM'{;l' % '. ".[f = h.f. e -n" "..: \\ ',:G. i L.: .5- .,'m f ;.,,, " i +. >. ' b~~~~
s
~~~~..a..',. L. n q + A, a, e s .e t y. - s.~~~~
~~~~-'[~~~~
f ; c;* , l *a.' *y I hi ). - )
,3
~~~~i g.= y...,, %e;s%j; g ' ; +.,A,,..,'7..~~~~
~~~~^yat,* .;,,,4 Gs y, z' [l.* . { p -'-,~~~~
~~~~l '), '~~~~
~~~~s [,,~~~~
~~~~~ = ~ ~x '.r r~~~~
~~~~~ w n m ~s ~ - ~ ~ -. * - n,.~ ~ s e. e 3' '> < ~ n-~..r,.s w w w v.- f r., y ~ e~~~~
~~~~w..,'.,~~~~
~~~~g' ' '.' ; ;%. <, ,.' ; N ].,. .Q 'l- "j ~, s~~~~
~~~~t W~~~~
r
~~~~.4 i~~~~
~~~~j r .<./-. e p "' "$.r,w ' ,I. g 4 I ~ s.v y. p,;. ~. .c J; ,; i. " ;Q Y.'.. v,, ( J..+ 7 4,, '.,Q: - '. 'r. i s... M, ?). + .t s .c s. 3. =~~~~
~~~~u.,~~~~
~~~~y; 'i .{J' "'t#~~~~
~~~~t.,~~~~
Y.a.w$.$,.'kk,. ~h. h.s. w. ; ':sf. b. -Q.s,kn%w.:!w.. n.:a s;.,hk.. h..,h b.h....k;.h$Y.a ?. ~ i. i. $m' Y.. $. n m v ~<: . m.w .. /. y e. u,.. M. s.w.a .r 9,& mm, .7;g.nq.y'* Aw<<\\. vik * - %g$}s pc;N ;gs',.s...m.. y 4 -; q'...n.4 +c. 9 y, ..y .. ; f;t g:.. y >s,s. x. sr. y, y,g g? sty ,3n...._,,4 :c, p.m. es,tg. _ ~ ~~ w. h.,. 7,*j .. < p g > e b :p..Q:,,t4;f,&m.%v..@ M M &m:b, 6 ;.,-- ~.
~~~~3 w & %. s gy~~~~
~~~~<.Q T... sqq..,%.. ..M r. !: *..u.X:^r.. ae~ u %_. :6: >.; ~ 3 .. + m M~~~~
r
~~~~.=.wa u s%.!.y,W:-: . w --. ~ u m.wi.&-., u :r A. W A@7: <M'M W;c-w'M W.:w? ~i. A uvJ~~:~~~~
~~~~y. ~'~~~~
~~~~. u..w. .. ~. ~ >..= c c t. .w,,y~~~~
p

e C;t.M%..?'-4.3m?.A-:M.
m: n. .a, R'm A. y d @"/.,.w%'. *l . / ' YyYbh..,w,@ma-Y 5+. w-i W W W. y ' L,'. '.".Q C;. ,p M $ $ $ $ M U D M. k.s..,j .x; n.~.. ~ uv S sk 9 % 2 i O G M,t Q. 6 % g%: % g cite as 26 NRC 436 (1987) LBP-87 31 d%...W..Q..eM.. ?..M,y. % W: y ~g h pN.kI b@ n s %f6 h fM M M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA %y..QM.mc.%@5@Mv.y"<M.:.n:yer,%,h MMD NUCLEAR REGRATORY COMMISSION r. WM EW A Qd.%e.. @a ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING OARD PANEL 2 y..% w. m ~ M G 4 : m w w g.<,a.;:.m,m; Q..- .,:, t %.w p: a ~ w n. s q j.,y9".Q*.. n,rd' Q Q q- '.s-t);. b .g:.Y $ W /$fhl% Before Administrative Judge: ,.y-; w W.w %.ls. w. 6= p~4.v;. 6*g;.- ,.. s.. ~,, Q -y y;.:g 3,#.. u,.'.. p;r.:.. :. e. dy ? N. w' v,. g g.. A s v. 3.. %: m.. - Qs <a.,. w: a &NC.e,yg-.:. %..... J. ?.>.w;e...W M..C Chartea Bechhoefer . c \\ . %:n.c..sr.. , c;c v; y. :. a'n: m.:;.0;w.&;. y: ', j,Q;.w;&:...- ? e 1-uv?
~~~~v. c. <~~~~
.t W;o...y.,:7 9 \\ f. W. %~ M.:o r - <:~.. .M .6. h.... tu.w. s. r....,.,. m.. x<. m,. in the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 s e, ;.E @ ' :. m. M3, b,.,.y..i,ct W":.I N. C '.ld (ASLBP No. 87 551-02.SP) ~.w. ,w ..e.p. e
.-.'g,2 -f,' ? K.. g '..b...Q.v(w*.*.4 %

s# 7.es y Q.qt;;,
'h
s
~~~~.... t. v.,... .ig Ff..: q m h,,. m,, W :s#.;Z 4 p? Xi Ny.: ,~ p @~,p m @- @ ALFRED J. MORABITO .u.v . g.e'y@4;-w K..f. w,.. MWacM:....a (Senior Operator License for~~~~
W.
~~~~M,h..k.n,yiey.w,g% c. y.91M. M9' 2m mwm .dgg~~~~
~~~~c;.~~~~
~~~~Beaver Valley Power Station, hNf.Yf,5.bh,....h,?Yh.::.pg.] Unit 1) Nosamber 24,1987 w; m p,,, ..c, :p: ~:.9c a ;y.;;.~~~~
~~~~s vs e ;~~~~
s.v :, n > w,...z.w. w m m. 4.,,Ra,y >c $.. T.:e %.. > c;,.?.%. :m,.,.; g.a. w;f n W. M ~. T,.:.st:~ 2.a.. a p y .n. 'd< D._f,. S,W,.....Mch In an informal proceeding invc ving an Applicant's appeal of the denial of his '3.iA @,j J M N S.ic-N.[W 'D.SNh.pj -MpU senior operator's license, the Presiding Officer authorizes an oral presentation, m." y m.;MX1.';; 7h gwp.j outlines procedures for the presentation, and sets fonh matters for both the QF 'W,fme.fpj.,?. 8M Applicant and the NRC Staff to address at the presentation. 4id.m 0 .. N. y. c. y.. :g: 3<-; i: q:;.yw.) \\; .; eN2 ,.v,.pl M.m.L-n,. M..~. 5.. <;c.:. '.:. a. .' k., n,. w .. W.m.x;;.,((t,y.t.'41-;f.Q:$,"e9, g.e. '.g. :,hk N.pf h,j t Mcy-.;h.~. ^ l' r 2E"i W W ' M,n.. (Need for Further Information and Requirement MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NMq7 m;n.. MMd hsN! T.V.~w:n.o., q sig%n.u^;.%. w: :lW. I for Oral Presentation) j t..* ~ *., a+;v? f. :.,*)p.; ,e +..s]lL.~A 2 f.L. y r o<x p. s yf %, c. m,y* c x n $NiY$f.d[N.'3.}f3$.O@n.'. p y > 4y. r > ~..s ,.. -i,. * %,,.e qw w
s
. w :.. .v...g,.: 'i D i I have rev:ewed the claims set forth in Mr. Morabito's Specification of MMk. M 7$:k g.[ Claims, dated July 31, 1987, including the attached appendices; the response J = tM y%@g,7{ R(ly3(;@Ql, y.< y of the NRC Staff, dated October 9,1987; and Mr. Morabito's reply, dated ${$ @ W [.M O' g M '49' Q;p g ?' /M.Wi f November 7,1987. In response to the Staff's Motion for Opportunity to Respond ff *'5 NWg@y -y to Rebuttal Filed by Mr. Morabito, dated Nove.iber 19, 1987, and in accord z$ V;
~~~~.f.~~~~
with my Order of October 23,1987, the SNi may respond to new information <p.k.)p.is. %p.:.'M,, M M.' } q:. 3...h@,.@. c- ..<. M submitted by Mr. Morabito in his reply, on the schedule set forth herein. 0f y W.-* c,, tw .u,. y. %, j..j [.' G,% 4 p.; yI g, : f. A '.,'{,,.,.'.g,,.A'.,' .wM< .'.c 3 4 ~.< f.Q p.,. 'g.:& a r.. . y v f i /: * /,(,....j, 4s,1
~~~~'.N~~~~
~~~~.y s 'y :,'5.,. N4 JvN.W is.t .p.- - Y ~ ,[.a. v.sj~~~~
~~~~d. v,./ $1f', ' c ',m.,,.',~~~~
~~~~,[ ',, ~ ~ e 436 ...~ y,.. ~..?.. "..8* ',. m+. Q,: s s ^-. * . J ~,-}., .g~~~~
~
~~~~) s...ssa ., ? ? ;~~~~
~~~~f ".c.,..~~~~
~~~~. ~.,. .A e,i,,,,*,- g g. 4 - g c ;; - em- ~r~-- m- .w. .,4., -... ^ .l.g * .'g f .p- ,y . en e .i., ..i.' , y. ~ y _- ~ +d .g*'. e~~~~
~~~~4 w~~~~
9 .N,* 'Q, 1 .g t ..J .4; ..s. +s ,..w' -I, ,.1,v. =. .b 4 T . -. ~_, q .s s
.h' w yJ-s..,.&.g%g.,i ,y:.w+* qm x..e :. w,k h Y Eh ' h b h x q W ry, y. p a g,3 q Y $ N5 h h.umugh:t..%.s.m,k..m.,.gg mh:: . wA .. M c ~l C Y,...;s .a $$ p.ph khh %-9 + c .u-e.- 4 WW.iwf,4,nN.a.v..v,G,.,8.a t$N 'N-np p wa w. w $; &~ %.a. &,.q: i W w M WM ~p.. wy v'.c S: <: M.w: :4..W...nw 4 e xy. w a (Mnr ..~ pr:n. WW4.;,ngs9. e 9m.:pr, n, m...,g: s w.. a a 4._ g s . a.a a u,:.w .w.ua...ns.
~~~~w...~~~~
~~~~,.m. a.:.- s~~~~
~~~~bl n u e w &yi q *L. h.N s p m.+". w M~~~~
s ; e M.q p. & m i_ m..s b.r,,. h. ;;h id h pMC g 9 k.Dfffd'($:hhh kh 5f / I have also ascertsined that there are several areas (set forth in the Attachment k )pi.9% 'M M d h M,M,7. h $ g M 2.E N k. D, h h f 9Q hereto) as to which I will require information beyond that already submitted by the parties, in order to reach a determination whether Mr. Morsbito passed both 1' f[k hN~Mh,hhh.W 4k hd,d the written and the simulator segments of his senior operator license exami-M*er$N.M'h M nr. tion. Because of the already extended length of time that has elapsed since h9hdV%h Mr. Morabito initiated his appeal, and because answers and further informadon \\N.J.MCS$?M MMMM that I have requested will likely provoke followup inquiries, I have also de-f M.$ h @!. p n?.t.& M b.k U @/ h Mhh termined that an oral presentation should be held. As direct testimony for that yt# oral presentation, I will consider (1) both parties' responses to the inquines set N~[d;%"NMM.khM.N 'k forth in the Attachment; (2) the Staff's response to Mr. Morabito's reply; (3) the
~~~~M S~~~~
~~~~N 8 M f( M'h,h5hNN. TM the Staff response thereto, and Mr. Morabito's reply (all previously filed).~~~~
$N'f Specification of Claims (to the extent it relates to Mr. Morabito's examination), T WMNWMi.:9.y/ f T. % M'IQ Mi %yM Z W $j4 i ~'fGh.L.1 nis oral presentation is being scheduled because of my need for further information or clarification of information, not because of Mr. Morabito's M i @W[f:!..?.) M D NId$$ iM&@h@ W request for an oral presentation "as a platform for initiating national debate" on MG, Pd%N' MM-fi the operator license examination ptcess (Specification of Claims at 32). Matters % 29 8 M $$1.$2 considered will be limited to the specific items identified herein, unless otherwise Id M R $ M requested by a party and approved by me. At the oral presentation, I will W~Ma@4.w.:&@;.;y.:?%:n!V.Q W. ty ~ e %,4, n k 9.E p 90se Questions on the matters to be considered. Dr. David L. Hetrick, the . 1. J5Jgyh 3 % 3 'pydwmsw technicalinterrogator, may also question the parties. Although cross.examinau.on hf@fhkdM hhg,p';M gd by the parties will not be permitted as a matter of right (see proposed 10 Y$DihMMfh#dMMh%::t CE.R.12.1235(a)), I will permit parties to pose questions or lu sf quesu,ons M/MMM%TE to the other party, subject to my approval. @IEM[DM.EM:-$OM[M??Nd M.'M f.259.9 As conternplated by proposed 10 CE.R. 62.1235(b), all direc estimony '@ h'$ W M. M % M. W Tj and responses to oral questioning are to be given under oath or afft ' ation. At 5d % MM'N6GfM the oral presentation, I intend to have the parties, to the extent th' have not Q N..G.Q & 'd W8.D..Y. % .j f.'i P.ib... U.%. W.. g. f W ; 9.E. y ?. S.a9 already done so, swear or affirm to the direct testimony referenced otove. Parties 7 A.. -Q r.4 yI.$ should thus be prepared to identify any necessary changes or corrections to ge % ;;O4 8 $. 3 g M M.'f. &.G G,5' %MM-h.5'.N docurnents previously submitted. W M, TMN@rc[!/.Nh%%A@% ~^h ne parties' responses (direct testimony) should be filed (mi. led) by Decem-rj % fh U 2$ W W k ber 21,1987. The oral presentation will be held during January 1988, at a plxe DhM%iy and time to be announced (in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or the I. h,E d n N M $ N M@ i/('U,. D h. D.,4.;.+%w f,4l d.. M.N k k Beaver Valley facility). At the oral presentation, I will entertain oral limited M M $,. Ub? appearance statements, as perrnitrM by proposed 10 Cf.R. 6 2.1211(a) and as
+, ns.w'y *. p* ~.;. - ~ g'.<, %. 'J H;m. x.'.
~~~~- ej:'.?)%,. '4. r q... - -. g m. Q ~ o~~~~
~~~~s%.~~~~
~~~~CD v-w k[Yr-? 7_t^ l'[.Y,.## .D M* f~~~~
~~~~l$,9:#M.2 &'A? *W';.',**' *%%^J id~~~~
~~~~? ..,.gi'9' %., *,.*.;#.g e~~~~
u q';e'*?*
~~~~y ~M 'f 7., '\\.$. G. r.s'v'*..;.'*e. .*if W.,*.=c,) .. e R,'I,'j}* '~~~~
~~~~N.* g' 't *'4~~~~
~~~~'.,..5 - <*% A~~~~
i
^
~~~~.,4~~~~
~~~~.._g 's ;* *: c h; h y l3th. * <.g.N~~~~
3
%.ss.f, as q.. [s :h,h hkh a n,g..w w[k,d-wl, m,aSw ,,m -. y -U. k;%.5. f*.N' tvs,.-$g%. > Q *' U;.'N s , N.,,so g.,* NJ.LW' hj,p. e w @s. ft[h.c* w.,s- @Ws.hg '/. $ '[s? [., p,.. 'Y< ^ c.- ab sD* .h, sN".I cn"ar -y. , w.a.m..,, wA.
~~~~m.,.~~~~
~~~~$,.W" w C. a.,@(f... r;o sI ; h.,.:, A. .t u. N ,. b.D $*M. Ch~~~~
s
~~~~.Nv .t i > :' C /p :~~~~
~~~~m. o. e'"*'. t~~~~
.w
~~~~.y M'.,. a ( [, aO?p'I3[:.- N.~~~~
~~~~y4 i~~~~
O $.y,}iy "'N ;J 1 j 437
~~~~.( p.fd.. t p"'s.i ..,N, ? 9.. st+~~~~
~~~~g..~~~~
~~~~,.,,s A .a e.. I,',[I k C'f[p'.,[p. f [ @ Q,.".,y V. f. y ,'] ,Q!h:, R j \\ .-. q 3 -,c:: a s. m. a,G f - q 3 -' Y.c [.b.s?.~:5..c.< ; e " *. ,2-(*.l:Q :. q.' i, l f'~~~~
fl
~~~~% :.. '.h. ,) M C M, J.h..,,,.'y.... ,**r, --%2 2e- , s etc..* ( y ',',: r,* L / ; U. U., /-. r .V, .t-J. /, .-*'-c-"*E'****"- T-***?*** d k. 5,****"'".',#"N"*7"***"'M~~~~
m ' + r *
~~~~'," [ t;i. ;- J' ~ e .s ~ \\ ,1;; ', . : w.t* "~~~~
s
~~~~.y d - s g:J .t< 3 .%.s !g., 94 .n .,v. '*e< h' e. f g 3 -[e jb - u: l ? ,., \\ x n. ? T- %? '- f.k., }, N' ,e, 's s e l,, it .in l,~~~~
~~~~3... r. y:~~~~
-.. t - c s.. n.s.., INr,. ,re
&R 66%w:if.Q$%@x. MTM.w.$hr ?[T.m&WRh4,i&hYP.i@:$.y:nyE$ih@u':&;m% s. S;e&l' .M1 iM .h MUS$w.cz w..3.. F e- ?.$.&p&l&MQ*b&.m ,n%*W ' SW D. lV< %:, !..',F W 0i MOl&.WW A s- .WW; n,ni f.e.D 4 &n &8c n L U.. w/ di wa.=*3. e. w l n@. n.s M. +4.d4 ?W v. ,f,y:!.,a.s';w,NE Y...Ty)
~~~~$cMm}p[,7-M~~~~
~~~~-*s w a v. ~.i.~~~~
~~~~m. g. A e. Mk 6~M.J h. s.~~~~
~~~~.,.s-.c'.. Ami. 2 a .~.-.-*.a*u.. em ' ' cb h ..-= I .#,,ini, 1 s 9 n ~m~~~~
~~~~3. :.~~~~
~~~~c. n.. 4 .%. h. M 7 ]~~~~
~~~~>.V4~~~~
%.W n.y:v*. yn.:,j. 3, w&w.5 ' te. l .b .m. rey;.k.py@o.m FW 1 .p":: 4 t'-WV,W8.%NQ M'WL.f%p+Q,%i;.jtc: % :)MW.@s&,y% y: b.WW,.R i;! ( f G,, ? e 'f..4 A.:.a q::h M. J y t,..y ?y:.w ~ a .M . 4 .g O;*M g / M @M @Mjey <,y announced in the Notice of Hearing dated July 15,1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 27,485 .gf.!M4:vM.ND.AI $n * (July 21,1987)). M4 cGN'$MM3.%i$h.'@4.hp *.,. p i A M 9.& %$ $. 2Wf _@c$ h,$[,iMM$:NVMdh PRESIDING OFFICER s .Q. _ W. m @ @ b % 9 M i @ % Charles Bechhoefer S M M MIp3 M.?'dt'*M k @kq/d M ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE '.rMN m-9M M5k@k@k@%ap.M&m@&m:$ Wh.Mt.Q h dY Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 9.?!.,.?%NLC..w. :h.Weow C SD: this 24th day of November 1987. ms u a 2 Wri.&f.,sy&.m'@h:i&h$' .V: i w.N. M-A'ITACHMENT N.L '%*p$g$$4M;\\~.PWfMlP. A. 9%.@.,A t %..y ~..M G..., R S e w :%'? L f s .u J. ,.M,@yM.u M ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED M .., n s... c.~. N. & D'h!M N,&pp.;%w..c...w. n.w 3 y,s,.,. %.,L.4 & W G.S.ho W t s.~.q s,.> am... 2 m.c ..n- .. gr r >v M.!. 3 .. y @, A y'. p ' % L To the extent applicable, each party should provide additional information in o i. d :@ j .Qi %ps@/N R $,.p %. n %g..%.1:r q,.J M,. h. ia the followmg areas: W 0_f MG.., w&M'f.< A.tpf'h, g&9. r%m se e%fl5.WW,g9,
~~~~g. w t,o.~~~~
.q CggS W) M.bh W. i .p.g,y A. Written Examination f &< W Y%yEi 1. Question 6.0.1b m 4g .e f)M.Sh@NEMMAIdMEOM) 5.N $%Wg&$?q;:&.Q &QC W.%Cy.:. 'Ihis question asked for three design features of the component cooling a. QNjpgJ@$yj$p?p;g water system that minimize.the effects of a rupture of the RCP thermal WiWM @Nd'ygffg@$ barrier. One of Mr. Morabito's answers that was judged incorrect was "[a]bility M$b!h
~~~~<:W/. Nifd to manually isolate the thermal barriers." "Ihe Staff explains (Affidavit,110)~~~~
$ N 6 h k [ M P ' S M M,]; b .h'.M%MM that "[a] containment entry, which is a lengthy and involved process, would be M required to isolate the component and would not provide immediate reduction IU3/$y$g/M.Nij.h M, M M M;M M d r. h p. M.y 111) that isolation valves are "normally designed to allow maintenance... and ic M id in the severity of the rupture" (emphasis added). "The Staff goes on to state (14.. E. M?$@$hWM2S'$tifW'T4@j..Q'tM] h $ 7 g g g g. mWmize the effects of a component failure"(emphasis added). In view ntt of the fact that the question made no reference to the timing of the minimization M QN,
~~~~S[QP$M%yk.58N.NM.gM of the effects of a napture and no reference to any "normal" design feature to~~~~
$MN.Y accomplish that purpose, is not Mr. Morabito's answer technically correct? In N.YD.$h77hMDM any event, does not the ambiguous scope of the question as described herein MEM.%&M%f.'3gg?;-g W$.M M@e.W-warrant the deletion of question 6.03b? ,R b. In an examination question of this type (requesting a specified number of %Mf.@$M6?N N@YMN@M$@:^N; MMS.Mk.i[,MhM.%k@'dDN%p answers), has the Staff invariably used the method of grading described in 115 of /S:5.QJfCR@pd%fd its affidavit? (Mr. Morabito, in his reply (at 12) claims otherwise. Mr. Morabito / should provide additional speci6 city, if he can do so, with respect to the two M d 6. y& %.. W.. w, E ~C A. m -r. N 9.a%..;.,D.%,hNdFhMN.w. Y.-* w e "J' w.,. %
~~~~g. %.~~~~
~~~~'.. n.p,..~~~~
~~~~J,:y s. $,uqn.,/p,~~~~
~~~~,.g i cM r,. ,.n*.~~~~
~~~~...,. v w.~~~~
..e 9 sc e,". I 4 @. .,6 ;72. ' f f.;3.s ,. - > f, 438 i ..s.;a v. 4,. M '.*,4p 4 sp'es.f,'[, ," ' Q, :' T Q _. 4 1-;} v,. 3 3 [ w. ' E. m y),'.m *,. d ', ', f hh Q[:3M., d,.- f '3" i s s- .t 7~ f*,.7 2 g ' M../.M. [h[! e % k I[i[w b ) \\, e ;,[,~ df $h',{xy:.:g).:.l,w.'.*':.a.~... Q..,j$.t?~. =.'.,,',., l
~~~~g..y.g s.~~~~
~~~~..y:k~~~~
~~~~;.V~~~~
~~~~- t.,; cc. @ a. eg 3 .2~~~~
~~~~. g *u-M.Q.'7^Yu~~~~ % m.~~~~
~~~~"' m ~ ~ ~~ 3s. = x7- :7. .77n~~,m. s*. , g'.( -. . # g i ; 4 '... u w.;~~~~
~~~~, Tl.~~~~
~~~~-i 4 ,t. q c, 'a e g 9 I~~~~
~~~~k g~~~~
~~~~\\-~ p g% '.:. ; h .e.n.. .;k::w +.wl;2 M y yy+r :. v. .c .. ? y~ 7 i f f 1 ' ;7. '.Q M 'M, f ,.,. :l ll . ~. g... a.g s~~~~
~~~~.*.4~~~~
~~~~.Tq' 1 .v. ..a ~.,...; ~ 1*, g .g ,J,y.v, .s .a ;.x;.;;: n -. c.,. 5. +~~~~
., -J

t.
s n _g,,, - - ' '. y-h. e ... u ,s u - t
p,Q%:r.g% %.ty.?%.W.%W.9.p.,ag pa%.,%..M.r;u-c>.c :nw:.w W:;.:x.u.,, w. m.=,w. ww M:~*
~~~~g. w.t~~~~
~~~~.-.. m% O,+n k W ..~.~~~~
9,.ahkt

h'+UA......&.. n.m.<Q: ~t.wM..k.p.+ W. nQ,d~.'of..y;.a p 9.Q.
n... ~ ,.i.:,... n : q w.a.,.n. c..m.m.Q. +v;m. a a%w;. 4c3: v w .n w ..p m.. s., v m ::.+c,. c +: .~ 4.c .,,:,..,.. w .c...,< ..~ w.. y ~. ~ c,: .u. w .n. -;;j. y. g.v,- y : t.* ,, -.Y t 3.q r . m..e.,c af. -w w,. z.y>e' "n.. m.,+x. u ~: 4 ~r sn. b, ~...; w.a - .,.a n.. s F y M Y.,j/h,7 v.M. m'..c., b%. O~.. ",. m@p.\\,L>W~1.4,w%.W'4'Qf W?.N QMd;M94N.. ,.'x vd,V s. J u, .n 1-c .. o'. m ~,. ~ '. i.' *' pu -.. o g w s c e. m e,.,/,. \\,e;.o.ea -:."..?v' s. %.r v. 4 g. tM;M. s 1 . J. - f." .W % W
~~~~n x G @v ?~~~~
~~~~n w<...p w m'w w.:.:.- th:@%% .M'Ru mch.%q q' M W.c:W "w"m n -.c,aw !Y ^ " ~ # '-*---~~~~
~~~~O... ' ' - M- "-~~~~
~~~~. C.. ~.. -. :. ; '. ' .w?M@. 4.:.1g,f W;, :. O. )n> <. > q.;q.y' O+? :'T~~~~
~~~~ct y.-~~~~
~~~~r.s.m%. ?-L;w~.3.~.,, c w%d~,'...hs: e: ~ +, n s.m.-~~~~
~~~~x < -..~~~~
~~~~m i 2,fN;%y. W.fW [.y..u@Nk:r.<w.L.M y'? j % p:,%q [ M @% ac :q~~~~
~~~~x$ k D N E y~~~~
~~~~' MMO h W6 .k;s~~~~
~~~~wkq%~~~~
iM. k. written examinations he references. For its part, the Staff should explain what wphhg$$Nh@M$$ %[ 9;;Q*plM M Vg @Q.T: pl4 is meant by the word "routinely" set forth in 115, line 9, of its affidavit.) Mb@h(VdMf4[Ml$D..@M 4 c. Were candidates advised not to supply more than the requested number hidF of answers to questions such as question 6.03b? d. Were candidates advised of penalties (either discretionary or mandatory) M M k.{N h h"!h/.NT,N.[ g)'Q M$k 2 'Eh $(. MM for a wrong answer accompanied by a sufficient number of correct answers? i Were they informed, prior to or at the time of the written examination, of the 'gWd$4N'Mb;.'s%.@Qg yMI method of grading that the Staff is now utilizing - i.e., that they would be Q~Q:.WF>M..,e m wm.,. h.c M, e'3 v w Mff.M.~7Mc.a given credit only for the percentage of correct / incorrect answers where more d,diQy@e%,r.p..%, t. p~f.m,., M.h wW y.) y.2:!!, than three answers were supplied (Staff Affidavit,115)? .s y w?;)Tf. s-, i v'Ef',' (i) If so, why was Mr. Morabito initially given 1/3 credit (0.5 point) ! Mi^ k.;g.J.M,Qi'M... ..gf ?:sf .,l'..+..~. ,Y'. W.. , N,:/ when only one of the four answers supplied was considered correct? ? .. s#,c. If the Staff were utilizing the grading method described in 115 of its . e.,. ;;w. M..< p ' y N.:wc ..go.cm.. .M, ~ - W. m.,..
~~~~v...~~~~
s E.c. d affidavit, should not Mr. Morabito initially have been given only 1/4 O ? y Q, M. 8.W. W.[w.m F1 credit (0.375 point)? . %,.. w- ~ -.. r. r.m. SM s... (lY,3.?f;r.V.e'Y '%@4iDW ';1. M 'j (ii) If Mr. Morabito was not informed of the grading system, should he not either be given credit for at least two correct answers out of Q,y ;. M.. .<C..,A.o h,
~~~~4..~~~~
~~~~..n.......,, ., f, Qy...; M. ; ii 9 N ; W.:n, O. Q... three (1.0 point) or, alternatively, should not the question have been~~~~
~~~~.,.M..vd@1. p.~~~~
~~~~...,,f.s m y. n e.W*.,v;,.*g.h.-.w%..' M. : M .;g :,.g o;;y,,.g.9 m e.p;. e,- deleted?~~~~
~~~~W sv~~~~
~~~~.* k t.h.$c w::.Q. %.en..,:,p....: s M.,.=.., %,. e. ... ~ 2. : .! f.Q .u .c '~~~~
~~~~u.. ;,~~~~
f-3 : g.[ j y j g, r.e2. e,e..k.. %,g@., w i. %M jgf.y.. .,4 .n, Wf 2. Question 6.06a .,.c u,. n. u.y c n s. -s w. 2 a. Does the phrase "cold solid plant operations" in examination question Nyy'g~S6MIM@yi A. k.?,M. hi 6.06a refer only to standby conditions, or could it refer to a stage during plant .. c, :4.. '.. p re 9.y9 8 p... f.% .' ?. n s'.artup? q., ...r n c.y N:. y.,i B: 'y, 1 g b. Is the overpressure protection system ever used "during cold solid plant N ' *y . a :;o.a.y,. t :pcc N g fg:.3'2./....p operations"? If so, explain. v.. ...~..s,, 't....
~~~~t.,~~~~
~.. t.. .w. a.- ^. .e... .s c.y. .... L. n, 2 %.Q,%W. ' :p i. 1 . &. -.Eg ).. %.j.., f..D.,,Q .',s " L &,. +?.lV.' &.3'j ). Question 6.06b + _.f -pg . v.w~... :x -. 4; g A,c~... v. v g .[$MMj.MN'.:XK] Assuming that some points should have been deducted for Mr. Morabito's 1 M.~ d'i%5d/ acknowledged listing of an incorrect setpoint, would not a deduction of 0.1 7 N,W. h M /.'.':" [,$ $ $[ N. M T ; p$cM.z:?.' M Q 9 $' point (rather than 0.2 point) have been more appropriate, given the nature and W
~~~~M SWtcdi<~~~~
significance of the mistake? Please explain. v w, M*,M. m.- Y,.. ;,.m,.u_.,. m., :.~ ya m.. ;. c. p v.; *. . 2 3 '....+.u-4yg- .( ? s..* . ~ Q _.='3y_!l*.%s . ~. ,e , L' p* ^ CQ.. ;oM n-'e*,',. ,e c.. ':.y:-r-w ~~ :s. _.,., '...3 '
~~~~Q k* 'ib.o$ ' x{g.y *..'~. % ~e.."h.h ?.f. R. e,h~~~~
'.'c.. 4 Question 6A7a 4,. & cn .b* v..* L' 4 Mr. Morabito stated that the steam generator code safety valves provide V. %. 'N.... gg' M[N. MMN.. v.hN W Mh' MMW.9.M... C. .h.'. the "first" means of protection for Tavg increases. The Staff suggests another 4 . Md, ;,Wm g.. "normal first response." The Staff also indicates that the steam generator safety Q' .$.A ;6 g M.:w:. N $ $ N h )7 N h. g. D,,.. valves provide a "secondary or tertiary protection for T average in a limited 4 n?., q '.; W. ' w' 'Q v, *,c -W.m e ^ '. K g. ', ' g,; 4 I i, '.,, 'lQ Q.'. A 6 m .s h. . p'.. %.. - n.~. .s a 4. ig.., .i . *'... - g g a C,w o.c ' > 4 439 .'...Y.t x.+: .j. v , 'e _.Q:, "4 44 '.4 ?. j .\\. 1 $. 4..t 4 }. ' -l, N
~~~~., lr' c.~~~~
x % _;a ~4 .y. %..J O. u r q% y S,s*. -v ,.. ~.. y, v.' $ .? .a s., ,q. ..c s ,/ I 8 I .%. g .s h = b e u- , a .',,;' t.- 3,.:. ,v/ A.e .~g q s g ~~ ~'d, i y , (gf
I hbkhbh hh hbkbh I .Y [, $ +"[ 'A t.%WM%ygaw.m@yMuhn'*MC(g*h*&W' ~h"W...i . m. ".- hW M: M MO M M p; W. p> FA $ g d yQ % !f% fM:.W Th., C %. m+c..W,wF M M M ' " ~ %a N gr.,t c,a.y.ey&,,(@W.W4: s w.%. W.G.O f. 9 WWW @?i@W,fMQM.;.:g% nap 3pdiW9% $9.%W y kkh)khhI$dh bfdk b %NMh'$h$h:[Nik^f N h 28e of power levels " Because the question asked for the importance of steam Mk fj generator code safety valves, without specifying whether primary, secondary, or QM% %g tertiary protection was sought, should not Mr. Morabito have been given at least %hiQiMTkps@ l 'h partial credit for his answer? f 24@ MMhGA ?l.%py'#2 %w&u 4 Vn $7.WQ g (2 % % w. %.h 6dc f rg N S. Question 6.07b I M S N N i h k W $' g$n 5 :. y t'h.9 '.M in examination question 6.07b? d a. What is the purpose of the parenthetical phrase "(NOT CONDITIONS)" ' sO%%yhM: hfNh/h.f.hN0kkh(dh b. The question asks for two reasons why the MSIVs are required to close fft3E 5.M Tph$4%$$ during a main steam line rupture. Mr. Morabito's references to pages 10.3-2 and % 1' Q. @l % @h E M. b [ M h $) ,T.7W%kC-10.3 5 of the FSAR appear to provide different reasons why the MSIV shuts - M $ @li! j I h.' M M 5. M M 6 1 i.e., as the primary isolator of a leak or as the backup to a nonreturn valve. Was W ffi.? M-not Region I correct in stating that the "facility literature provides many varied 15(Y. M@ N [ N $M.NMfT/Mh?$ reasons for closing the MSIVs" and thus that "there is no definitive answer to ? M,P i 2W/Qd,M 12,1986, to Mr. Morabito, Attachment 1)? $..$.h.i.M.b>@h.h $. 5.M M M the question" and that the question should be deleted (letter dated November 4 W er ! M a; drg&g%g@e- %~, W j 4.-<.H,. ic,@w y fmg.e.,~.qe,.q, w# 9 .. y. B. Simulator Examination m, .n% f.s. MM2?5;.d,9 tt%5y9 %w. k% f. ?gM W M Q$9%ik;&.=%@ 1. General ih b.=.m f.n,;w. M[N h.Q f n-wi. y4 N.dkMk h );O 5 N M. N @$ k [!$ $ @j k.y a. Under NUREG 1021 (Rev. 2), the Operator I.icensing Examiner Stan. hEkb.3g,l hs'f %f!M!1MFM' N' dards in effect at the time of Mr. Morabito's examination, a "rating of U [un-satisfactory) on any one competency may be considered an adequate basis for kn$jQ.k;M%g$g;hdhfdg.'.i?W m h 4 6 :ed:a 3:d 5 failure of the examination." ES 302, F.3 (emphasis supplied). UE MNM g,g (i) Which, if any, of the four ratings of U in this examination would be + s s.~O.13hs. v.y.my,:.4ma't,.4.[S."1 pw considered adequate for failure of the exarnination in the event that s. .W4 .. n W,..s.S. S.N.W4,c,e. r.M. it became the only competency so rated? yo.g,..S.. M... Wg @. a',' M.. w,T,4. r;@p. u&,%.1 4 w-r+ k4
~~~~K..M (ii) May a candidate pass the examination with ratings of U in two of the~~~~
. &, f.f.. :yn.u:;m:M:x.. eight competencies? \\ r 9 JM,@MMM.MkhkO M %'y / M b g j $ D*6 f .b. The Standards further provide that "the assigm..ent of an overall rating .r g h'DTFd$$Np.',Md@M.M mun be based on the specific circumstances of candidate's performance during tf. t?.k3 the examination." ES 302, F.3 (emphasis supplied). How did the Staff develop %Mf% 8 +&. W.k v @t W-z M M9..d the overall rating for Mr. Morabito? A v. Q,:.s.m @ #e. d m. m"Y.w #.mf@. 4nW' ~.$v-c. Was any stempt made at quantitative evaluation of performance? For M's.. m u $N[.M/4MT.hdhjh@hP,D;f.p.g.y.g.:g $g; example, one could count the number of improper decisions, weigh them Q.' according to the degree of undesirable consequences, and compare with the O M M Q M hf 7fd number of correct decisions, fd.'$f69%d', MMC.g'# ';VMP.M.. w ?.W.m. n.. e,.;D. a $w') be used as a basis for a "U" rating in more than one competency? If so, what 4M, M M d. Is it appropriate for a single observation or comment by an examiner to w d 4 N.hw} n'ylw?>NY'. Q Q f @ y 5N ' W'b... W',M& r.y. s... >l. - &2 ,,D ,2.* bh:N ( l M :%*e QNf~.N N.;A I f ,. m. Q.:. ) Y ',' " u'.3 .d ~c. a ,(([p y 'y** * ',',; q *. t '[ 'f;lh h., zl'k"G :.. } l* -1 a 8 . ;,-lu ts 8 Y sj~ TA-vr,<~* 7-K }. r ~.' # y ?.;"W"' j.' ? ~ t % C'*.
'<* m!r ^

p'}
G
, t i.;.q-
y*'.
~~~~~.. g-c. e .1 y.,,g.,=*%. j. v e.,,,h =, e, is i .e t. p ,z~~~~
s
~~~~.q 9 A4.k~~~~
[y. I.

b, Y
~~~~.%[ ..r e I~~~~
~~~~d g',~~~~
.s. "D' q .4" [ g ) ,.e fs,.. ' ,e, 9- 'N ,t-qf. n-c i..,- 5
h .$ w 'i . pr;?. ~., $$.s W.p. ~.n,,:nR %y M..,..w.ffck 6 4M.'W..Q. k k .Q ik' &.+~- L 2~.LWA W U:.vl&y*~ w; V,-'WTW.;' M%i, .... n s ,x. 'd ~..... a. . V4' k ?ftdag;j.%.We%d.%.W,%-l4. A c'i M.?dt @zh V0 - Y19 -.~ M J d W M;- @.'% #s%; h M; W rn $.p @m. N@i+,k'u?* / 4 g M MW b kh'@hN$$e.Yb h h;. A s ~, m.W u%s.. ww-Q. w +. ?.m;, r4.m%<.%*; <?n.-.u:., m w esa l%9 res.Q M
~~~~9'.<. ! !.g;.i.,~~~~
N$bb. ?^ MydWh :%yQ@q@)d3II$ N 'Nkv'i. $AT.9[WWg@$N @#s n .p e .e l pMk$' dim 5 effect would such multiple use of a single observation or comment have on a 3 hyc. candidate's overall rating? 5fdhf[h'fk D%@/'gi @??33@"%gg.jpgjg#d Nkd:jM c. The candidate's Specification of Claims (July 31, 1987) includes eight $f0t ss items (at 1317) that address either ES 301 or ES 305 of the examination c.kdhM%$[/Nh Q report. Only one of these items (5.2.A on page 6 af ES 305) is related MW .'Nd9$, to comments in the simulator examination summary sheet (ES 30211 and 3dNd [MM $hf kb N.$h..S.M}?d claims concerning ES-302-11, including the subject matter of 5.2.A, but does IFj attachments). The Staff response (October 9,1987) addresses the candidate's 3rhk'~%[hfNN h:WOM%N%
~~~~W not address the other seven claims.1 u.5'#sMi?@%xN:~~~~
M..,D .'.f M d. k.. (i) What h the relevance of the eight comments in ES 301 and ES 305 i 5 g - ?.,[M.w M f9M 42iC ?f'd.@ps (other than 5.2.A) to the simulator examination? ' M O g ' ; 9,$ $.G f d@ M Q ' $,@ N.-/;$lM (ii) What is the significance of the circled letters A and E in the column 9 M yh' Q @ 4 headings of ES 305, page 67 N.,j%K.].QTMidg,Q.$V..4..% M...e :;. W. g...n%. M k
~~~~P 5$M;r cykf,^j f.~~~~
Were the procedures of NUREG 1021 (Rev. 2), ES 301, E, followed with M respect to the orientation of the examiners who administered Mr. Morabito's yej 2M .e. simulator examination? Provide details. [.[.i.. '.A / @ A@.. : N..;'1.R' M.e $. n,. 4.- SNN, .<m . : ~ a. 4 .., m..... u,S.: pq.>%e-Wh. IdVM.gh;~g::m@k?,Y,p iQ,c;y t a .?$*1Wlt.,?U if 2. Compilance/Use of Procedures (ES40211 ild) ,U G:4 MDe:n..o ?,,b S M Xy +.:ys.t a. Comment 1 cm.;.,.r<ws.~6 n$hh hkf! ~ .x (($$h$. (i) Why were two power range instruments giving indications different ?y h~. N 'I d.f.c W G. f; M. m,y M.. p) N,w C c 4.y sQM -Q from the othcr two? .. m .m.w v ws g.. M Mh hdyyjg (ii) Is a procedure required for every small power reduction, regardless ?.N' @NE%y.w.f.qe e,.wA. T 9 .+.w. of the reason? 7 Mh,3 k E M h.h (iii) What is a surveillance procedure (Staff Affidavit at 14,141)? .,..,.;\\yQ@m,.@>.Q:.,%, @+.'Ma@.., s,g, M. :: (iv) What is the meaning of the phrase "believe all indications" in Staff mM *5
~~~~da (,.. v.~~~~
~~~~Affidavit at 14,141, in the event of inconsistent indicau.ons? <o 8.,,:,.',.N...Z M.o '.i. N,..,,,",,$'h'h W M y M~~~~
~~~~n (v) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for this compe-~~~~
~~~~. : e.J.W,t.W. o;,ye. >e.. g.. w...,. y., tency)~~~~
~~~~.g.. v. ;. 4 s.~~~~
~~~~... s ' @iM. v., p',.,@s, : d.2' %n :.:. i d W ( ? m; W k :Q W,W.%' ;. ,e : O $s:r y ; w ' M,&.: a: %,; 4..-u.. w~.:., .. u.s. pe.v J...:.:~~~~
~~~~.tm~~~~
~. 7z 0hy ee$fh. s.!.m.n.y,-,y. an.v :s t b. Comment 2 s . b h ['.g. a. M., c.,N.y,,.MS([k.M$: h,hw'.*.N.y.Mb, (i) What is the relevance of the examiner's comment to the "Compli-S fy anceNse of Procedures" competency? j 4 ?p 6.,x s-rl",e ~.% e L ou W. Mww. f M.}},% n..- \\ p 9.y -<Q.x*e.,; qly'.. <by.., :.:;, M.,:u;;.;.. I, x' : c '. k .,y . m- .. G ~':y - f..n3% A*- M': .s u.1g dpi. %.,,a,..Mr.y@'hv Myg.'....r..Y : % 4 'h+,94 ms.-. yhie ; ::%. ~ M% e 1: Wu '<... ic y4A'Qs w iN r' . e D se ug s '.'*W~.M gh 'iu.g'<%L,pf.f@,' 2,*s ?,.f..n c? we., g. NM X ';'Y< b"z ;y '.,y% q.l** :% .o 'S. s, w-c s ' 0). y.i'?!is J ' U:' f D. YIN'h_Ng'$. %f$ >.l h speedcally, the staff faued to s%ess commens 2.sR (Es401 at sh s.t.C (Es.305 et 6h 2.s.E (Es-305 at th 7%;.t[EWsb.U. ?M k'h'o' /.k:l%3d'.M'W 'AftIiF @MO '., ) 7.1 (ES.s05 at th 6A7 (Es.305 at 10ih 8.BA (Es.305 at 10ah and 8C2 (Es 505 at lon).
N Mu'i' R.5~ %.q

;m. ) 4 yff. 9 p ;

(. :W,.,..'&g l?,,'Y
~~~~,yy' N %.. g. 3,....., i. i., x..... i...s9 441 .. j 1.a-~~~~
~~~~;%,n....~~~~
~~~~....~.;. . 3.. y. g. e t ha. jg. c. ..,k b'.k.w,h: 5."Y$$' hN.h,; .n.k. W s .:.,..,. un ::.. n .....'.m.. u...,,,<. y',,i.l' y.W... e. : e r .y.s .p:. .., ; a % s -3.*. e~~~~
~~~~f. Y~~~~
~~~~, !*[.c~~~~
N
~~~~..k. f *. w o. }l,. v*. M - av. Y..*,#~~~~
~~~~[.\\~~~~
~~~~Y t 1 w 2# y.~~~~
~~~~ff i,l~~~~
~~~~D Y l '\\~~~~
~~~~b,' fi, t- . '.*d. f4. ' '~~~~
'**'"**""Y***'**'**"

M***
^ 2 9,,e.. ;;,... %, g'.. M,, w:2 - -*n . t,. ;., m}~'.'"r'% * "** ; .'^"*"l*""'..A? *
~~~~T 3 7~~~~~
~~~~V' a c - ..ws. ~ -v.~~~~
' n.,.

v. v > d. . ['.
~~~~? o' # *',./' .. s .'Y*~~ ' s?I a , ; f,w,c ; *."g n.,. < * - -g~~~~
~~~~i. ;. a~~~~
~~~~,(. w. 'ir * A f. ,,.. q 5 a,.< Q'. 3~~~~
~~~~t y i~~~~
~~~~q, Jis.; 9. ' a*, . :g. j.a - 'g a, i. 4.y, ' f i,',.:-l., t,. &. lg '~...,~~~~
E:
s e -.m ll_ ~ ^ r.pj.$, '1, l ' ' ' ' ~'..
"h .N N Y ' 'k f. L ')h N:.i ' i' b-; : V.: ?.}.f n. l 3 "<1 j;% * ?.:. ' ' ; f a ?bl'd.:Y, f.*.saRhhtlf: ~ ,lQ' " Q "? ?.N. l :W.4 { kM.W.Y&.h'.,,..n.&* $$,f1&??.~.& '*? U N ') Wp-.^."5 f
N, ' s

l.0. ? "
~~~~a 1, ! ( 4. +s.)%',~~~~
~~~~y - ],ey..,. a,,}z. w'E"\\$.. %,..,h)L.%s..:~~~~
~~~~A (lt y;' W..\\'"- ..\\.l.~~~~
\\
~~~~L. Y .l v;-. .m.. d...p,.. - e. ..s.et , r. r. . z,4 r F. .t~~~~
~~~~gv.. ' p. v \\,~~~~
~~~~A p4%. %.- s 4 ,2 3w- ,a ....< c. . -e.'...-..., m. Q..c. g.,.w s.. - e.-., ?i: s. y."; ? !)y~~~~
~~~~W i. O' Yg-p.. p.., o... wlw Q...h:-~~~~
~~~~N,' *t; %.** *. ' -. .g , y y<.... ef..%m. u.-.~~~~
n. 4.,,.*..

c..
W*
~~~~L. ^~~~~
s. e,..5 j;; m?,p;m.,7 %c.- m ul:..%^! .!*.~.?5 Y fs .cl'.. ^ ..A.,.. W .t..o' ?;u..?s[..::s,,s4..,w&.. m ; .,m' %>,..~g,;s &..,.'.% 6s.4: r..:.ptlb. ~.s./g:s. unM. ! e.w 1 A., y c .M .s~ ..c v.. ,,~.4 .*l . s
~~~~i.w%~~~~
~~~~.an~~~~
~~~~v. m m;llC:v:,.y,y c.~~~~
~~~~, n*.:..4 am7 x ~:.x., :.x, :. r.p... h et m. e g --. a . =...... - ..u :.w3u..- n. ~%lw,.,.,0~~~~
ys
~~~~, a3..3 W Q m. s .s p ? '.+<a.? - na. y.;;~~~~
~~~~s..~~~~
~~~~.c llQ:;h,m :: n...,n,y W ht.) *, ;?, W' :.;&_ ' t: +<' W * .2 s:suw%.% .c p.9'4%. .b: . W... s..cWM .s9 .q.$gM. y;9l(iD@WMP.(s. 4.$$.c &;G gM ~r (i, W%w[.Ml@s't.,W~~~~
~~~~.i.y y'&&.. iM:d'fN~~~~
~~~~. c. c. ~. i R.y c. Commen 4~~~~
~~~~n 5p M$h'jghg$y%gmm pg sd:f$h.h9h hd[i6'hh.QgdhiQQ (i) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork?~~~~
h Y e (ii) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency? Wd.v:ye.$PM@4@ph[j@y. %jj g (iii) Was Mr. Morabito informed prior to the examination that he would 8 d;W 2: @%:RM.dMs@pW%'%.n...c@..e c p be responsible for knowing from memory the immediate actions of g 5g; .u. Q ,m im -mm Ws.1.9 emergency procedures? If so, when or how? (See NUREG.1021 v ~dyd%. m#4-g #M,2,'My[2 M MWii (Rev. 2), ES 301, H.) X.. .m. C - Q $$Q$ gk (iv) How would the Staff respond to the four rhetorical questions posed M. M. M.4 j W w g~.th.~e.,g, QrMQG;M@dp. .t?.MfMy by Mr. Morabito in his reply (jj2a.d at 8 9)? Answers should be hM provided for all simulator examinations for Beaver Valley, Unit 1. .E.. M ki.. d.gM,w c t 441 /c. (v) The Staff concedes (Affidavit,150) that "this was the only evaluation - ny -n .qs..;t ~t. g..y, M, y A'AW.'Vs.. ~;.c., - n NW@.. ~dl8MNf.$N."M 'J,h made of the candidate's ability to properly perform the required M,Q.O '[Y.N'i/ M D M $'$py M Q .h2C immediate actions of the emergency procedures as a control board operator." In view of the significance of this single evaluation, did fM W@ 0.N D $@-fN M,GQj the Staff perform followup questioning as suggested by NUREG.1021 M.M'.?>.$y. D (Rev. 2), ES.303, B, to determine whether a rating of "M" or "S" Tl. N.,.M@Q..@%.@-,p..w,y$p.W.3 i yp W d would have been more appropriate? If sc, please provide details, if M.
~~~~4.w.;Pl-,;fo Wpy;w. Mn-y.n]~~~~
rw not, please explain. n.? a N;l*/* Mb;.$x.yEt;$$ NT*LN Gr,.. L nx;M p: $,3.VMf~%dM'h:k h h h +a&w:g.$luV M hl L.#1,* > k,' t WN m:<[.::f.-:k;m...;m .5.yk 3 Control Board Operations (ES.302112/4) Y. M M,c.c.7 e.p$. ;M%m...u$.,,,vg:m.,f.M'S. r., c.4 y 3g m. pc ; m;g ~p*\\,.W*.y.=.n a. Commem 1 y >%.q-w 6 , j..,.,.dl g ..m .%,c.q m..c.c... 3 , ;... o. # qp...% c.. 3. Da, (i) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency? . m .r " i...\\.5 f.%. %. UF.2.M,.., g.i..[. fj' W i Q,,..r,..,..f Q@mf;_.%. w QQhb. Comment 2 i.
~~~~e.n..w ;,.~~~~
.x....y N..N !*8.[gyN p'rj (i) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork? N N'M'M. Q W P <. (ii) Why not delete this comment in view of the examiner's confusion J.:c ; K, M.,. e.@. A..,,,:,J.,k.. ,V :.@ '. gj ~ y e,s:c.. w &@4 ~.<M.. d':M<, %.7,i about indicator lights? n;.rb. W
~~~~f.'/.~~~~
~~~~.v .n. m.v. e+~~~~
~~~~. *;. ~ +.. s.~~~~
~~~~g.w....n.j.g- :2 v.g v.n a -v,y :4.. e. s . s.r w. m &.,... y::T. y 7 9, m: y.. w '(.;.; M.,, .. x.c s a .v.~~~~
~~~~.y.~~~~
c. Commen 3 S .hQQ ijh...s,...M..-:.. p, yn'@.6.g pp.y(i) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork? . p... N s.(: .s. m . M e.C O t $ h.: nw. M. m,;. M..T /[' T d;, (ii) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?
y. pd y;,. m 2 w

Qs,,,.. ' '.. m, ", w&.6. -c.. w,.,
~~~~,y e,-"#d,. J .:.. m s+ g .Q. b. = > sW7 a, Q.y W.~~~~
~~~~d. y, '..~~~~
d. Commen 4 .&c,&.,.,. 2 :r *:} '5 j. d.,.,s,.,Y. ,. *;f O a. x. ' Ef N.f,. ]* (i) W U d th s Comment by itself justify 8 grade of U for the Competency? .c~ m ; m.v.m.n: n = y.a- . v, l'c .w.. -.. - 3.-
~~~~u.,.:~~~~
~~~~~ k &w f;&.. c ' w... ; Q*.~~~~
~~~~g. i.~~~~
~~~~v,,.... t..p. .2 s 1.m. g.~. n. , ;.h. N,.[...,.... h.,,* ',' d *. ..{.>~~~~
. ,$3
', a 74 ... - ~ p_ '"..;,i a, 2 'e: l 4% 0 b e '4 .,) .8 ( s L t- ~N,* S 4 .,,s },r '?,, m,- ,.w-- 2-w .~c~ ~.,. -.. -. g r,y. _y q' w ,n I p e ),. ..,3 ,( I 9 g - g r g 8 W I u %.4.e%- a + s L. g. e y
th q,.r.. n) m.,.; % s 5 k.,,e;,;v,g,%a. m ". m..,g %.w...u. v.,m,.z:.>a. s,,,,. w g + m. m.:m..:v p % w ....:. &. :4 m.w.,> pgm w u m ~ Q..., w... g- <+ a % n.. a,c a,. ~.7 % y $s. W,.s. ~.u. un ~m w w &~X & W %Y hq gy &a uWN&.t% %N$' c ?$ok,H:%$v$+.m.<.n. .s . g. c.m.. -. p . wr?w&0$v$L$ ev. :. a, mQ&: . n a v $11i$$m n x-r- .x M Wyl%.%p... .h 4N~I.. 4% ~ d+ yNMupphp@hmp y.o. %. %. m% y*S
~~~~t. v. w. m w~~~~
<cw e yf.t w .%f~ ~ M 9 M d$d lk v.- w$f,'kTh(2 khhh$iW N'1fd R$%[yg$Mfkfh?)fQ _M$ h 4. Supervisory Ablilty (ES.302113/4) c-'~ ' Q (i) What is the relevance of the examiner's comment to the "Supervisory $M.k i 'M Ability" competency? h h 5 N f M $. @. W M b TM MR b.. i]% (ii) Was an alarm intended to be part of the scenario in question? f.g$$ (iii) Was there a simulator malfunction? MdshM[Mk.6MN.W.) (iv) How do examiners allow for simulator malfunctions in makmg their MI.DFlM@.p4:$hD%n k evaluations? .Oh.'M..+.~L..m'%6.n..$G.n%Q*ph ..Cd6 M D}D (v) Was Mr. Morabito's view of the valve position indicator blocked by M O M M. the balance.of. plant operator? If so, how could Mr. Morabito have .m ; W i M C %a.E Afp.n.. @. Mu, n G
~~~~p perceived the incorrectly posiu.oned valve?~~~~
~~~~n>w.9 ,W. ;n....M: ;;gy s m ~~~~~
~~~~m. ~<. :ayd a.*..~~~~
y
.y
~~~~%:., %. s'C: ;4; &;g.' *' w, n: ~ v+%.* * np:o +'. * : ' m..m,~~~~
~~~~s \\;eg;, %+X.#~~~~
>u
v.
~~~~w-. .c m u a a %2lh; D.xr.e.:n b. Comment 2 A.T?.%;.a e Q W s M@.n U.n M y/;ff$% M ,y~~~~
~~~~M.f %'MQ' (i) Why does the examiner's comment include no speci6c citations?~~~~
85%fd d 2: Ny y x..m.,@u.?.n%. W.NJh={.M.q@g9. b.MMWC MN (U) How does the use of hand signals in the circumstance cited bear on the "Supervisory Ability" competency? (See Staff Affidavit,171.) ...m w 4 +'f%'t~ ~h w q.~,1~M. MM:.f d gy See also 5.b, below. nxm &.: A: n., W. %g Kt2.nm. G.. q,,m* *y a. m )/*.m,1.. .., n . < b;NUhD' lS$M N&W..[@WW .y 9 ~.e.g s S. Communications / Crew interactions (ES.302114/4) h :
~~~~k. m :~ W *. y. $b~~~~
~! h E ls %i M W' Q N @i a. Comment 1 W.x i'F. $Muy:.1% .;QMy'3Q (i) What is the relevance of the examiner's comment to the "Communi-f N f.Q+yE.gt, g,'/. M.. :kl.y.iM : e'.eJ :M p ~ (ii) Would the candidate normally be expected to communicate with the cations / Crew Interactions" competency? % @ W@ 4 ;'.. f N p. V : W ~:.; '- .'. g.// .W.NMM,M@d;.: operator before acting in this situation? yggjk,$Qf (iu) Were the symptoms of the emergency sufficiently understood by the 'i.9 F F $ g $ J M g M M G. 6,Y N candidate? $$NM.hh[k.%w~:,.w.$ I ~ (hhMhh (iv) How much immediate diagnosis is required in this particular situation? ' Y..ow. k? h [M.Ddfh.p.'y'y.:~wopgd,:r.:%% x.... e. s.w m . w z. &. w.,,g e. q s . w; .m .e %n,. b. Comment 2 v m ;..' M S,.VfinjR:.c W.n. N (i) Are there rules or standards that preclude the use of hand signals? 4W % e M M b h yp M.;. s.% a:g m v h, k N I k 3 NA' %j Q g %@y iggg (u) Was Mr. Morabito instructed concerning the inappropriateness of b using hand signals? $MYNSk'M.3p 2s'kg (lu) Is there any way to resolve the controversy about whether the candi-M',E M'V M+ g;s,U $3 @, M.,gd +g,m.< .y date understood this particular hand signal? e.0;M. e .r
~~~~e. g e/ M 'n. g N W; d f.P j-f M(~~~~
~~~~a .. ;Q% (iv) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency .M,',.UM@, n.h.x w. M M... w! (or for the "Supervisory Ability" competency)? A q 'fe?.? . w v.~~~~
~~~~m. ws -~~~~
~~~~c n w g & Mjy,,;c,, M. k '. ..s a & ? M.y'~~~~
~~~~m.,,.~~~~
~~~~. u ~:K...'? W,'b=.c. c,9 l: :Xi:~~~~
.. x.yW... n
n?*r WC?
~~~~,. > v.; f Q . cJ .~ t,s'f.g s? ~.f,.%.'.'. Q.,'?..:.. y; i..*' s.:, A.Q<* %. glJ. w 1.. .-y h '.n a gJ /~~~~
~~~~3 4~~~~
v \\* l*lq a ~ h k 4 " Y. Mjh g.~. W -W';.'. % ;.?'y. *' W.4 # y"...(.yhc,& v..( t lt :.. % M...,:~f.,y ;7..,;. n'M.,. g - \\ x.. 9 . W.W', m i i s -.s. 4* g. a: '<', 'y. n.* ' g,4 mL 7" ? W S Q G:R M *.*'l..(ye.. fi. O &, m..m.,~. l; ','. A
~~~~..n.~~~~
1 ',5mv,'; P.'t.py~"",Ns ~ ~r' ~ **v 7 ~ m 57-- ' " "., ; b 4 (Td; h.- F N ( clfi Q '8's-M *,'$ ?_ % g. %d @; :- ,l lg ' 6 E.'1 s - + ' ep; >h A'i'.\\.5 el.' { N,.'. ' : Yl .' s. .a n,,W ~ '.'. ' _ l.Y &, } :R.l' }". * '., ~ '... ', ~ f6 ? ;;"p(* 1.. .L '~ ,i [C,9 " fy ' h M..,.s v...e,..4gj'. M e*2,".y gtA d
~~~~m...QJ ' p.e.c.., s~~~~
',y,, j'* - i =a - JJ /. 9. ' ' "' '. y. j 5-7'. ...,.h.h, l,. *,., Y. (..~. *r. h.. Y,,s.. i,. '2.. ,. c .s h7 -_ 'a. 2 r_ 'A a
Q,kiW ,, Wp_-. -Q %... g NSCm,9%f# M N W 4 % W.. m.4 N.. ;. A, - lN,c h s. ..~.. 4 s.rw w.th. 9 =..R.%.a M..W, Q;p. n,,.,g
~~~~-u@p_s:~~~~
.9 r. . i.9< t c.. : V. a w..- n ~ '. g ' 3 . ~w: XS,%..ym. 3.?.; s. m, Y.., ~ % ,....v+. , m q c o- ..f, i. ' * *- .dWv.m%?<s W m W-Q:HW.r 4.% % g:' m. s-s. W ' L: H. 3 : <L ^ ' ' .m ~ L ; e ', .. ~. c. -i .., m. M w *. s,; f % x~.. m - m-. 4 w:e F.:ln m. 4W.. 7. t LW-m..sar..m s >g.~,s 2.Q:@o. ~.%. ~. % %p.'o.'m' w&.T %ma.3 mms ;p a ~ q~ m 'g
~~~~a. <, c, c; 4, -~~~~
~~~~g y;.' ., m u.~~~~
. k

y" #^ '
~.w... jh h k k hi h k $ & h. n.w. f r?a,h W. ~~ s... J n...... e, o.n, i.,w.n.. v.. a,,.,., :.w:r w.;g.c.c. w. w. p. u..-~.,r. n.... .~.v..,,s,.s. w r vw . w.,, n., y... 3..a.. , c.;.. ~n....,c.;.... s.. ..y ~..., .,. ;.c. s..,.,~.m., na.c.,.y .a + n. u 7,..u.~., c,. :. .. m:s m- .c ..,c.. n, A n,e. w;:w.~ y.n.a. w..m.x..r. 4,,.-<sy3:: w W., v. ;:;:M.: ;,.G a 3 ww.< .y. e ,::,wy..m .e-1 c. Comment 3 m, w. se,r s R. s..,.,. sr ). 4.s 4,,..,:, - 4 w %g:h5Mdd%~r,Tyh.m?M. .i.y = C. r W, Mpq Q,$fiM.;fD (ii) If the candidate's action here were judged as merely "thinking out W (i) Are there rules or standards against "thinking out loud"? QW W.@MM.w.,.s%.y>4ry$rM y1 eg ..w 6&.&MI NTM i loud," would that by itself justify an unfavorable comment in this ?hi. N ' W S N'$ k k?f'h h h. $.4 competency? h. (iii) Is Mr. Morabito's first verbalization properly characterized as an M. M. @ $ 3 6 h,M p@ $ % d 6:k "incorrect analysis"(Staff Affidavit,180)? '?if. f g. h % @A DM.,$$@dg@$ (v) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency? i! (iv) Was anyone misled by Mr. Morabito's initial verbalization? g$ .Qjp@ @W'.NWUMMITM.W$4%r.;.1:u &)q Q R ::tF. 4 ' N. & g q :~ N Mh.wYM.n.c';J M W,.p g;p.Q U,D.c w f'.. W) *.*:. : .~im:q.w:S m y A c. q
~~~~iQT$.~~~~
~~~~N.lgn?r...x$$.k ' ? !yi.;f'.%,l Q '.'3,& M :. +1',. m.~~~~
~~~~s..S">u.~~~~
~~~~1. e y.~~~~
)
~~~~.,vg s,s..~~~~
,r -i n p..,s.. .O y.v. -.m-' p e'=.' n. 4, YV = p y/ ;*
~~~~y,'j.D.k".y,,p~~~~
~~~~. flr.e.s %Y,y'.'J[, %', ! [ s< -. g.* t.-o* A - .9,...;.,; Q,s.y. n., a.., 6.. 1 -n s.-r ..y%i 1, -y w~~~~
~~~~.-4,.~~~~
~~~~.s r. ^ N,..s' .... - i. .e',+ 4. j,.,' 4 s. .r. ; .A 3 u.V..usr'). ",i )- ..; j/ *t,., A... * ;e.s., * ( p ?'.,,,, 6.y eG e 5~~~~
s..,, h e;*
~~~~t, v f ! > ~- -( $ +.1.~~~~
*,,. 3
-l<T c. *6.,,.,.. a O. <a 'p .u se e.,. ,.g. N l.1. v ;l ?. , ' A } [f.. '.'/.,. ;*..'9 -o 7.4 '., $..i,,- , g' s' 'g. y ..j 1.r M 4,..,O,.9 h }?."N* t i-r 3.f24 p g *,5 *%
~~~~s-r,.~~~~
~~~~)((.~~~~
~~~~7. fre%./, @L W'. QYd *, k ? q ' w *h f,p.?*ld'**,) Q-) ;~~~~
~~~~b gM$y'j. A, c: r ;I C.MD.' E -) e 4.v; rfy.* 1 N,,yw M..;m,N.4 * %. vi ',:; %. s&.p%p(g s .-att.* a hM!/ .#>M* T~~~~
~~~~.mm~~~~
~~~~.g,i r g e'*.. ; :.. m.,., 9, G., 4** y e.h +.g - ssxa +.~~~~
~~~~,.,. 4 =%y g.~~~~
~~~~w. . y #r~~~~
~~~~L, e#e w, d~~~~
g-y:*,0y *.wg" .<N., y .,W,.e e.? ..v s., w..... G..c* WiY,. %. NyfS.'.h.4 e,..')9...;;.. .:Q f w c.c..% . o i s q f.i,,,s. e m,... s 4 e<r.,>..> r.w ,y g s - 4.t.,- a.. a g: - - f..- s ..s j s*3 w . a.. 4,
~~~~i,. g.=g.,~~~~
~~~~c.A~~~~
~~~~e. s 4~~~~
~~~~.m p'.v.g.*,% =,.1g.f - j/.,p... ' -;.f,. s.'*'. Va.n u,.9,%.~~~~
~~~~f v A.~~~~
~~~~t- .m.,.s,3 [e ?,v(e,. ?. n'~~~~
~~~~v ty.. 5~~~~
~~~~.c,, i.E '?n ; y.e. -f-i 4'3-7 .. e9 s r.~~~~
r.
~~~~.*r p.*.g/ s.W',. v.h...,e l~~~~
~~~~i U,~..*e %.~~~~
~~~~i.. g. ., *- b. e ., r. a.,y - ' l Q. p'^ 6..' % l v'$', q *'u',:, l A 3~~~~
~~~~h. f., ' [..y.*.. f 3~~~~
~~~~wa ,i, 0 e.: 1** A.h ,'c 'd e O".',I;~.[q;-3,#4 M.I.; N d M., Q5't.75 %' M N~~~~
~~~~L..-M,~~~~
. ; *^ , y, ', 1 -' S, a,.*.. .s o Y... k' ,.d.'.'.,5 , :,('..i@g,. .4,- g ~: ...s. 8 '@ ; 4) .,,.)*{', y... p.y. x. ;>.,.u,,W; l.b.NC ; ~ *. ;'[g...,~.. f;.1 M R e :.. p :.. 1..y. <. ~, e y, o 1 . s ;.,> ., q,..... e < ;.a. ., %sg .y.* e, "- $ ;,[4 -.
4
~~~~'= r g4-N 3*. F. d." a ' k %," %[, y.( il'. f-~~~~
~~~~-*p.,,~~~~
~~~~,*e> , n. '. w* s f ', [,.**y' '.. y s'. - ? y, A*s .%j y .%. ? , g ' \\ *,4:' t,~~~~
~~~~r. ' ' <~~~~
~~~~,g ., f~~~~
~~~~.' %h.*f,. _% '. w ly': n.'q ".% ', ?a's f.i %. s.-s~~~~
~~~~.. ' t~~~~
~~~~g g~~~~
~~~~y' ? s g,3 u.w.., i } { t~~~~
[/
~~~~s -. ~ % Q*; ',.S e'.) '. s '.,.n y' E T.f ?'y. ;llM.Q.r G r'.*y c<;.9 :j. - a '" 5-a.-~~~~
s

e,
~~~~. u~~~~
~~~~.. f. n: *; O w -t- . y,. W 3 u 5. [;.y sy y..; G m. '..q T..'. ; 9., : ;.-~~~~
~~~~~ &s~~~~
~~~~~y.%p?.. ..~.a'A,~., .8 v, s 1 \\.s-t u f. y' *.;sN b l s 9 y . D.+~~~~
~~~~5. cy *.,, *.s,.,* d y.g,.~~~~
~~~~,f. { I s ', s.j h..~~~~
~~~~3., '.'s i % ;~.*#.~~~~
~~~~.c ( gj[s &f[;.U.=U.# 'GD,', M.- '~. , ', k, *. ^. g . A. [ * ) ( [;.c..J o,..k"~~~~
h
~~~~.g .g, s .,_f. .*. s. 4. *.. .4* .s ;,., ~.. '.un. 3- [. h~~~~
~~~~'v g,-.~~~~
~~~~,4 '?,, W" rt.. g g *-.., +4 %. ', 4 '-[,, .. V.t.r p ? ji~. .,., - 7 4 [. ',.~~~~
~~~~r o.-~~~~
~~~~.r. e. eM .,s .4 0 se q, V. -(: y ,g.'. =g g d e a E 9 4.\\ g g J I D e e S 6. . g.] g 3, t.s~~~~
~~~~M-r_..~~~~
~~~~3 .,---...,.c ..p ..e,.s.. ~ '.. ' ~ s t , = *, ,s- .a~~~~
~~~~y 3,~~~~
c - i s* .4 %9 ~ '-9 y 4 + y e 4 y s 1 6
MWM%%%W%WM@.@BW%dWMMWM:5.WW@MMEW%K BN%Wh.%.mMWDf. fd b. % w% '- y MAi W M. &m'h'W, c M,hik'.;m., -% &..s..Na% , A :'._..V;,.@,..e,nd ;% ' M.. ; O,). <i'Q+- 9'M .~.y '. F,.? y m, a.m.,Q,,w.id y. w s 1 v e? & m % ?. P' s* RM
,w

s..,..;.
~~~~m,:.m.,:. n.a. n.n. c. v.. . x(~~~~
~~~~4... -~~~~
~~~~wa'.Lm. y v << w, ..; e. - n-. a y -;~..t.. r, w ~ -. ~ v . ns.i u,M % *,+. w>. n. >.1.~'. ~ ., x. <... c.h J~..,y~~~~
~~~~s. y...=n.c.. r.,,.,.,fn., y%ri/b~.y.e@w?~~~~
~o,..u.% ;. m:w.~p p.:-n.;.w%,',q{i:.c% V'ww.gm;m%.W,.,; w.n. a., y.n - p. .,.,. +..,f. 4. u ;< j;,s. s s-a &.M *.. .._s,.. m /y,.~~ m.,..C @&. ;~& >W...... 7 ~Y.U.q .m ijQ&,,tWWy,2f .,t.. 9.. u~ ~k,2*;'WS...~. :.,,, %+T : W....
~~~~r. 9.u;UP $ y..~~~~
~~~~I? - a w a...~, <. w~n v.- f.. l C. & k ~,y>^ k.? R, bs $, [, ,.n. ~..r.. n m. s e : ~ ~ ~ m,~~~~
~~~~w. m~~~~
~~~~.e. Wm..w.my s u phMSQf.S&m W m. c MtRW WW m&,, i,.u,z&.W:.zwx4Wg%M.y M u &.n Q s mM Q&%,4.m..b.,Qa.:. m s.,,.~~~~
~~~~w*' N m. g; l's a.#~~~~
~~~~ws.u p. %f 'o. ym,y.. 5 % Af , @ m.F*)Au e.sy),. w. g, m o,+.,, W.- ~M v h., 4 y-g $ h N 9 n-4- f '{L?s h h;,~~~~
~~~~-h*O e-h s u. m,+ Ws.n &~n, b,. e.~ w.u-~~~~
~~~~,J n .M,e.a?.w-m. m #s >:V @ M. m w&. p.w hy.w Adm.. trat.ive n.g.,..p..:.n.,.w,,. x.. s. e.,,. se.e.s. mas sus in s . m ...cy-9 g N.byg y~~~~
~~~~7 4,3 f,[.,;-~~~~
~~~~A. %.ri. <.y p . s .m $N['hh *. N O.'*h.,\\. *M. ' (.h [#~~~~
~~~~hSt,~~~~
[
~~~~g,'4.*. (e,,f,~~~~
['M4 % 7 \\: -
~~~~i r%g *g [. '-.~~~~
,,,.. $ ..*. > * ',*' p'**

t ra : 3 tj,
- I %#v.eng b d *#g' ^g'ef ve'. ,t'*- p,[., l 7g'. j) '. [ I(' d = +I 7 m,. n ,1 1 h ['/ ..-- : m %. - t' .r. e r F. *' 'f.!c&.e g' ^ . ~ ;..., b,, m. g < 4,..,*, o g 5.,; p,,,,f, e'- n c . i +.... v..e-,v e % q.,.. -..,. ,s.,~ - 1. P.> i s, j., % .., t., s @ 8,* y.z. ',, (,,. e g. -^('.'. y".4.* } {.
~~~~y a.~~~~
~~~~J h~~~~
~~~~..'= l *"~~~~
~~~~5 ..' ll. ' l-] '.._. 1 s 6 (.;.,.s 4. .m. ,. m.., s .,g..g m. s .,. n --. ,.. ; ;. *.,, ~. e.t,.,re t:' *sp'..a.- ,4- ,1 e. .s ..s ......,.o. ,.u~~~~
~~~~e (f 4,~~~~
~~~~- - hra y l.h :).. 'e' .),-2,. F .o'* e V..s~1-.~~~~
2
.a w. .'. *..,m;.. %u .h*,.: a....M..e.%..~.', ' '$ !. ah -,. ;[I. ' ". 3 [. a k.! ,.,,.*A. j'.c.,. 4 f,g 2 4l*. g -- e 4 y),',N"",. r ;.R.,J Y tor.4 *. y'.., g, p., s Q' W,:~,. y,.,^L !Q. > % 7,,, -% 9;;. . Q o t '-* 2f , - 1, 7, s,** #gl,i
~~~~g.,~~~~
~~~~r y s,e f - - c.,y ~ r :.*;yK qc,, '.Q,.'s. h., e f &o *+... i , e'r ** ^R,.N k y.n y. : k~~~~
~~~~s. w-s.~~~~
~~~~A * *.J..'**r'4 :pa.i )C.,,% i k' ' y.,;; * ^ * 'Jsl. Y r, -% c se.' C;,+ M.y... p .i t ~ 4 L'. f, e... L.,^ r .... s.e.,,../* i%' '. '-".;~~~~
~~~~4 3,.,l A,sr.~~~~
,O ')k h,. sg, s.7,~,hM, s %.* +"AAic % -..; 3 a -r. 6.*,. 4 .a y s .Y. i/- .I $N. 4 '^ 1 +.*%. 4, r. ; ' W. ' '.p ',y , x 'r.'* n.. ,'. '.%,,t. ".,sf C f*. ,.4.., s- .s +? . : b, i' '. i, ;]%. (-. p' ~s 1* N f*g 5,. ,' ry.,' k
~~~~g4 4 i?iy* Q'n'~~~~
~~~~..,,.,.. y., Q,v ;, ~ s~~~~
~~~~s.,~~~~
~~~~s .e -sf ; t 2... s. s ~- r, 4 .-r=-. .w$ f s' i 2,.4 t, '.s. s. rN. a,C, g..* ; p C.O ;;.,'_i d. :q' . 9 ' J p>#. .. ~ l o... ; ,p 4.y.~~~~
s.

g,v,
~~~~t.,< = '-' ' ;h, ~ ,' [ [.... '.' h. k}.~~~~
~~~~?p..-~~~~
~~~~4 r s s,~~~~
~~~~se., *.,.,,,, - Q (,,., 'r. s Z.... e.a s.~~~~
~~~~? e. , s., +.t 3..., ..i.z,, g g-3=.,a. y. g.a s '. _g. s ~c, ,y v. 4.2 / *, ( a '<. i i ...( s s.. r A A M.%,~~~~
~~~~c. f.,,,.)-~~~~
~~~~<..,ze,34., j g.~~~~
,, g,' ++., ; ?,,.A,

;
~~~~a4 s s.s ~ -e re s~~~~
~~~~c..~~~~
~~~~,*s, ..,d..,.% -. c. 4 s,.s.e, %, m,,.,m ',/ s, s .*,m ~. P. ;. %.,5 g. g._ ' y L' y ' if,.,%-_c,j".. e *. L V.'i,#u. e,... *' a. Q m. ~ c : 4~~~~
t
~~~~" W;'-- f, ',..,1~~~~
~~~~T h k 7.v%;4 M '[ ".;s,t y' i.Q*.M' a { [* '/ 'f -....'.$~~~~
~~~~k. .. d .r s., < L' F W (#b L.L',U ., '..'.d.. m. 7 e. e, ; Q ~ 4.g,h :.-f~~~~
p
,(.. y a j* $.p 3 a4..f,f<#..A. v. i,,, 4 ; 4 'Q, 3. g $gA. u". iW, s '.. W. g s %g o. a....e af c,, 4., a.) u J,l* 4.,,'. d....g g' p.v .3.:(c. -.;7 ;. a.
~~~~y :O;.,,.~~~~
~~~~..,4' r W, %,f +*/1g[A.S'sl, b;. &:.:' f.5 ."..,,1.,)y=~~~~
g.. './ ;,eQ V.f y'g yl

.e,l
~~~~. a d , ; s - e. s m 's-n g a A>~~~~
~~~~c.,yg p,.:c\\. W ~.:. T.. G, m, s.'kn~~~~
~~~~^ m.?u. m.n.s .., ~. f.*, q ',,. 'M..D.<;. N,;b,,,.'&. i~~~~
~~~~W; s~~~~
~~~~'.U..Q? ^ ?~~~~
~~~~e. 3,;.~~~~
~~~~n 3 ,.4-: i., % ';; !, '..%,'; _*5l; ,h. '.~.,.%..,~lq 'f's.4)~~~~
Y

', ' f T. y. ~g'.~: Q ? Q :! h y:s.

~,..;,! ) ?
i
~~~~,,. ~ m.,Q .w, .y A'.'.~-',,,' g.**, ?,. } q. 7.R>' k J ' p M 's@' M. ' ' : ',. ;J, * -X& r : ' &..l.o. g g t %.. q 3.',*.J.**-.'..~~~~
~~~~M,,. ';',',,.~~~~
~~~~/M -' p'- ,s e 0,. c-3,, ', '. *.fs., %,. w?* 3 5 s, ..a e ' ,*w. .s r; s y .g(.. e -J,s. 6.g ; 9 > y;*-,,. t *, /, %,- . g~~~~
s
~~~~+* a -i .;*,*'#..,,,a' o .,. %; ' ?.: ~'.,'L.l3.' \\'-. ,..g ( %,'r,% 's.o.,(3,. c. .9y, m,. 3 e x .-.l~ , - i 4 s..e,~~~~
s
~~~~.J.,L-p.. s.3 .s .p . s, < 4, %.,. g $,....'y gh '.,. + ed C -fwQg,, W%,, l? rh,~. r s 1 %,. - f.. g r .u,,w ,..s...,.x. s e, + s g -e s s ,3e 4[ [ ' 's,*' ,9 4~~~~
~~~~g t.s% 9[M.s.,Q9 # e~~~~
~~~~.; ty .~ e-". w -+,.-*,.,, - * .~. .' i ,. },.. '.Q,.s...I ,W.. ,f4. F. ee,. S .s > p, y y .. s'~~~~
i
' Y. ' '.*9',E { lW f~ ' Y,' 51 Y~ r l*, h^.r*n ~~ ' ~ ~ n m '
~~~~n ~~ y r ~ ~ n-~~~~
~~~~- ~ ~s y -. e.. s V.,W '. ? ;v-m. 7. R.7. w, *s,,a.,-s.'%.~~~~
~~~~4.. < ~. * -., V ' ' -~~~~
+ r.,. ?f t/ '..,,e;, .,4, ' n.*" c es n .t e s, d p.5.A,e.s. -~ N \\ < g' 7. .s .r.,. a, ,g + < .4 .s, 3, j A - , E ,I '.e w ?.# ,1 'l, - s a.o. 3 5..J + U,.S ',,' *.A,,*i'y ,*s. - *(. f -s l 5 ' ! a. 4$,f i.. ( N. - g..,. M+:,,.,.y,.,1'.m.,,- ,,5 s .Y. ,1 =.s'-. s,- ,n - u \\++6-,-,w.-,..,.t. 'y-
~~~~Q-4. s%==.~~~~
.,3,.L. -., .p A .-e.. s -1 e s4-w es--. e
._-_-.__;m g .y. i I 'I k* n,Lp%.u:bm. sq. > *;z}. w.x : tp%n.%w&.y* N r.:bn;pm c m >.m.c,nW+. w>:s
~~~~4. 4 q.:.~~~~
~~~~n% ' ?.N....J, p,A: .u. ~ -~~~~
~~~~2..~ -~~~~
~~~~O ..n nw e [$lW$55&WhW.N$0l.W$&.dyma.... MM MNh.wn O "W U.86 1..[A:?d N N,Ef.:b..~. M ..e~~~~
p
~~~~.b Q ' &, M ;'/ d M. N [h W f UU. D. N e y n c[. ' . dk d>~~~~
~~~~$ 'lf * & :* % n;b Y N l NUME::d:h.T k~~~~
~~~~$ry..$.:,.n, e.n >w.an;Wn..~.a.v.&kbNY '5hQF~~~~
~~~~MN G A*WMEM M~~~~
~~~~%..,.n~~~~
m.
~~~~r .m y v.p. xr:7 s.w.uw; w m.s kII: k-e&.&+pv.t+n.y+p?;w&es-A:I.qW :Wwe(( w a, w,.~~~~
~~~~4 g?~~~~
~~m.,.z 4 ms j u#m.%. p%. s AhgM,.e /f:. ,',:a% .o %. y y ,-;g g 2p prp$&@$hWh;ZY.iME 'l Cite as 26 NRC 445 (1987) ALJ474 Nh.d@Qtom;.beMg e( W ~ %-m d. .Tib4 /DtWh& Is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA~~
~~~~/7.be@ N n RF.M M m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f~~~~
~~~~2.pe@f.e ih h h de.waww~~~~
~~~~9 SJ A. W P. %:.:.4 W@T!*:pu. Q ~ m N O.m.W:h W i! @. C ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE e~~~~
~~~~p + f;' f, %g%g.t 3 .? $. 9.. *%.. -lm%. W,$. %}W.c..us . C.~m-p W+~ Ss WQb y. 4' e.P.nW u 9 kl.:,R %'Jg'?.trN;%g,%e.f Ivan W. Smith %.;P,,P.. :3.,g m..%;r;m.. &.,m:s, sq:gw%.u, K;p .n.~~~~
~~~~y.w.~~~~
~~~~p ,.. m,6 .. u. u. ~. i,.._.,....e,. em. [F;.Y.,.'. d., $ d $<1* P c'ld ?.. N E..,. c~~~~
~~~~2/$.~~~~
. ch >i. y N.. In the Matter of Docket No. 50-320 c f /S:a .. i..s. f.%.1,'. '.?'f.L (ASLBP No. 86 534 01 OL) .a,. ;,p, h. s3.. ;f..;?,..M. m%9,J..' N.e c#,;.-: .T., < (Civil Per'dty) s. .a .n> (Llconse No. DPH 73) O s,. Z,:rM. ;@.,f(g T..~~;.r:6, ~&.. ; * *3 7:ica..u... G oM..,.m,W .OM. (EA 84137)
~~~~e. ;M. c,s.wru ~n; lq;tles:.O... w.,. %>,., p.. u ;<.~~~~
~~~~a, @,kd(hMhh.c %..hhM;MO ..q 3;.y~~~~
~~~~p GENERAL PUBUC UTILITIES MMS [,MMSP'OMQ NUCLEAR CORPORATION~~~~
.5fMlMM" d -M (Three Mlle island Nuclear -.i[hhhh.syM Wif.y m W.s?.C m r m o. b..}: h, k~,6..n- ~ bMNh ?. Station, Unit 2) November 12,1987 .s.il .ms ;-: L,Q,3 wrp y w, ; 3, g.,c ':s. n p.-,9, n..A. i, g.M... .,:.,.c.. ;.,,,. 1 w. _
~~~~4. m. y, k~~~~
~~~~sy,;.-~~~~
m oc . ws; : . &y.y. 4,<.; -g w.,K .s c %.,. rw., %.. ~.. :- A..%.:.: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 2 i ...dl; ; ~ .1 (Approving Settlement Agreement and .. t _ m.W,...,. M. f. y v.,n$ W,. C.V M '. b.,li..-. Y.l @, E;<f-. a;q.. a,d y ?.( Terminating Proceeding) },719,.$[}I.'Q p.} N.e. a.,'[.! 6 The NRC Staff and GPU Nuclear have submitted for approval a settlement . s..m.y w
~~~~r. -~~~~
i , n, + m,, tt. y.;/p- ..e..,,,. . ; a....,.~ r.. .c. + ..4.* s s f ' J.4.,f.p 3gf'g/ if' agreement pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.203. The settlement is ai. N.-M M $$@h W @[f %p 2.h p. 'M-Patently in the public interest. The parties have sted responsibly in agreeing to 4' t W..Q+TM.: m j.E'.a4..M,.J@w.gfL settle this matter as set out in the agreement. w ::.
~~~~c.?.* *.'t *': : M C r&-;5.,,^.,. M "%'x;, M ;sB* N ?;V 's.y}~~~~
~~~~t 'X Q'l*j'e'?::y ~,% ;l)h;{ 'P *3y.*g.O'-V C fQlW - sa~~~~
~~~~pj \\;~~~~
fl .m % u &F;'hf,? ?.'i
~~~~h t h.-.Sr~~~~
\\ ../M - ' r: y s., t c.. A g,, .,A e-cEh t ?s,s y.a. V.,;. *,;.- l , ) h. g,y[Yl[jh.., Q, f. f qs; p y hi Q,I* h ,,f,.G~'.V.1. 2,O,M.,, P r.v.7I.s%. 4,hs. e:. ~, c..:. .s; ,A.,.. - 4..#. g Q.y5 N.~ S.. A %!. ;M);,.
~~~~3 e. a, N iv=.~~~~
~~~~-. s .*. 3 $;s :. -,, + gi;.f Q'-Q. b.*.'..-~~~~
~~~~. x3 y~~~~
~~~~.m. *. a) R %.';.,,.f w y";.yQ, '.M.., j u. t -3 x.. *, ,. W.n? % 9.,.f. ^'.:r ..i. m- ~ =. <,,.,,. t = x. :.. i;.e,;a-r. ;~..Y. g y.. Q..,.;;w. - r/,2.. %... %,~~~~
~~~~s..m~~~~
~~~~<.,. 3..,..e\\. ? .a.y. : R,..Q? ~'. *.,.. &.y ?g.c. r- .e n .'.,93 s M. 7*/,%'& *' *y .s. M.,'M.J%. d: %' Q'W ?. I'. -,#4 W, +%"/;h ,a.T, y * :. s~~~~
~~~~~ 'lr~~~~
~~~~.- ;* b 1 C. 'd.mp'a ~.~.$.mc n.M.:.,e:.i N IM '~~~~
J W' f<; @..s $ y,4,,9 *'rf
~~~~... m... h s...a ds ,. n j f~~~~
~~~~n. %c.'W..tg w.. v,., r fs,.,.,4...(. j~~~~
~~~~.. e, J, s.,,.w..... s. e 4, s, .3, i kb ?,9,.n'5: e,'"; v ;&m,,. y w :g;t.:y h;~~~~
~~~~' a.~~~~
~~~~D.,'~~~~
~~~~. ~~~~~
~~~~"A 1 .: y JL.-% yr g ;r,t,,f.. x-e. .go c,..- 1,. ;;:, y. 1 ,.N y-e e. [b,.I..h'Nw. ' y p~.7.[,,Q.]w. e wl'.:n: ;,~~~~
e, w'* T ' e* *,M** ;s' S.* T.*g. * * "***-*/*"'"*Q * **"S * '- ; '" '* "'"' 7'.-*

e 7, [.g *f #.'.
't .'e .a : ' - .gu ~ L'. 2.a.,rd),W;,,a.ipf.Q ', ], r_.,,'.:j v, ' d'.,. ,7-"s g .+ 'f. j 7_Qe,;, #V '54,,, '. + b.((..., -L A Y.n.% : ej g(4;. 0g*'g y,y p^ ?T (,;J k,': WJ e n. c .4- [ **., ' p, g ' Y.s' ',. , 'I ' ', s. t
l g,

4
~~~~. (5 3~~~~
L.
~~~~e ,s.~~~~
~~~~g.,,~~~~
l\\ .q. ~..,l ? '. Y s-J '..~ .u.m'.,4 v, d m....,..;, e .p V + _ %, d.. y -7Mw VQ u 'T
W W F 3.[. 9 5ji % @o.D.5h @M.p. N+% @ ' 7,,:;; W.i # %..,2.(,5%M f' hi M Sh a.,. M. w'S:,.V..M.~ fM. WS 1 W
~~~~,, A.,,. V.,m],c,(y.~~~~
~~~~g$. d,.. M. s f.'#' ., ' - d: m.. ' 1.? : ' c ', 3'./', ' ' ~ W., '.w@,d.f@dd s. &.,.?. w,.,..... c. s. q.. ',. ...g n. v .-~ - 1 - ,.,,. < l Ay,..,n*:.~~~~
~~~~a. p;86 9~~~~
~~~~gW e s c ,.t i = j. . s.c ,,v.,.,_ . + s, - 4.. c.~~~~
~~~~r.,,,x.. <m~~~~
~~~~...,.s. .,g,..,~4..e. w..,c:.> e,s, s. ?... ,,.,6 c. n.%....., . ~. . w. .. ~. a ' , c..,,u d&.).$$..,.nc y g g f,,. 2: $.c.. '..;n., oR~f1hNh:r y, m :. 1 ~, v o~~~~
~~~~g. a?~~~~
~~~~,a y; ux:. ~~~~~
~~~~v. :- e,~~~~
~~~~y ~ 'y >\\ Y $50&~ Ni.2~.L: -. E 2D., s = ~ >A;5 - SUME' br ' L 'J~M,9h p$n y,St.W :d . M.f p. E~~~~
~~~~g. >C.d.N. ^..4. A y ss..~~~~
< m,2,.fQ.$5 ($: g.;t% ~k,%,. ' [.h;.Qld he'.l{L Q - e... m. ,.., c y;y.. m. e..m. % a..t1c.~.,., ! ;.,.;m..W..:c.: n. M.. x...x. a_, d, .M ..n..,s, p, y .%. ~9.w::.it.:m.. m,, a u,, x 9~ E:..C w ',. .-MFjW.:4. 3!.@v.6.;1, pl>W,e - 2. n g .w r s.m .fe;7.3:, ORDER 4;., v,., w A,: :-w,y, - y+ w-. ..c u.. n. 4 3 w.s m.. w;;.. :
~~~~r. c, 3.-~~~~
~~~~NN.% g..s.w.c:2D M N.. m.. w;e,x2Q.9 De settlement agreement is approved and is attached hereto as part of this .v e .7 M ? % % D : $@i: % w %w<,~s N.u@7., w. w p h: w a s+ ;y, %~~~~
~~~~L.-~:3... ?3.Q.;fc' Order, nis proceeding is terminated.~~~~
M.
~~~~. q'y.;!.g sm r~~~~
~~~~,.s .,n. 4c ' ..~W. U.Vgl~.4..,6 t's.$.v. +'9%, >C:b,;%. ?::?,rnr:D d, h.-M h [d $. %r.f. g [ N h* N E[i.#,s. ..m v W~~~~
~~~~f Ivan W. Smith~~~~
. M. c=' M.. /j A m .M%s.'C.. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE $7 -* i v $dNfMM.. n:s, }. .q.,lp.*r.,; Wa MM:'.Rh,;n.p, if'.fj .'.,g,r@..e ; y+.x.g' O,[,. ) ~, kd Bethesda, Maryland w+: rAc.. :).,y.s;,% s:t!u&M/W.g, W. d. F, % W ff November 12,1987 d,R 9
~~~~m..,:r.c.. wy qw:wg e.w$.,,..~~~~
. w. . w: .+ V'y;' W~m S C#[. n< hf_.. m,. m.ts 2;.Mi',t3 g, . w.v.. L w. o j ATTACIIMENT .w.:.e y. hn.w n;,p,,n- :;.x. y A Y['F,p l/Q, ;j>d: ' q * : W e, m w :.. 1 a.W:/ i ' 2.,.-W, .- F SE'ITLEMENT AGREEMENT , en - N, e,?.. 44. a,.,g..:n :. m.,,:. 3.., - ,.~. c . yQ i v,. ...p.h .y 3. m',. v , - v 9 s. ;'if.;.7,J ' y c.. <,. .f ne staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC staff) and m 4.. u m 9 W '.N., Q.W. Q d:R,q Q.y GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) enter into this agreement compromising and g g> og,,..... W>,...n.;',f,f.b. p-r:.Q M,. M.We settling NRC Enforcement Action 84137. Enforcement Action 84137 involves t @s l M'- t ..c v. w..r h,, ym.9. p. 6,.A;,. w;m !.Q.,.;a.We';f<i5,..h..r.1 a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by the NRC staff charging GPUN with w r . s.- c .u. w. -M ms;ry a a violation of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.7 and imposed a $64,000 civil penalty as a 4E' N, Me.. Ep. 9~ ;J.,. w6.' N % 'S . q M M N.%dp h'a,.@[M MI',M'C'j consequence. De NOV was based on charges that Richard D. Parks, a former . ;j Bechtel North American Power Corporation employee who was assigned to /.,',y.vgQ..;.g !.wn; %.,@' 4Wj?ke;JS y , e Dree Mile Island Unit 2, was discriminated against early in 1983 because he ' ? ".. 5 9.\\ {Q' % :] q ','.MQ@. ;:h,,7 l" raised safety concerns. De NRC staff and GPUN hereby agree as follows: 1. GPUN recognizes and views as of the utmost impcrtance its obligation ' m.g.v 4 pp .g g i,y to insure that employees may freely raise safety concerns without fear of @',. t yl. ffQ.4? ' [. 3 reprisal. He NRC staff acknowledges that PUN has emphasized established %.j,$ ' s,Co k - ? # i procedures aimed at preventing harassment or intimidation of its employees '._a..:Mai.' N. N..! who raise safety concerns. Further, the Commissioners and the NRC staff have s. N Sjz;.G: E-. ,.b ,i previously found that the allegations of this enforcement proceeding involve at ' ;y,,;3p9, W,1,,,,_. s, ; sc.? most an isolated instance. M.M.y%f3 'Oj 2. GPUN and its contractor, Bechtel North American Power Corporation, Q'@My D 7 , :(
~~~~7..~~~~
N.f continue to deny that harassment or retaliation against Mr. Parks occurred, C y, f ! '; <..3 .e, d while the staff continues to assert its belief that the Enforcement Action 5 M,Q,'.Q :N '. 7, - y was appropriate as brought De settlement does not resolve the existence of j dyr.:.f.m; ',3 % '. j.9.'; 'J discrimination or the extent, if any, of management involvement in the alleged . E ;f W i - A ' '-[, ' j violations. Nevertheless, both sides agree that, in the present circumstances, '. 3 R J, y*; compromise and settlement of the matter are in the interest of both sides and t -.g . O,_ t. the public. <h- , s.. t- .m - ...4 si a
~~~~4..~~~~
,s
~~~~5.. -.~~~~
~~~~-c i,,, 446 e.~~~~
~~~~p.,~~~~
~~~~.n..~~~~
~~~~; s.W s 3,k '~~~~
~~~~4 g 4 . 44 4 4, y,5 1 s_s a.~~~~
f. *
~~~~. i, [ .+,..,7 --7,.-v-e-~~~~
~~~~~.-== = p.w. y -~~~~
~~~~===-y--.~~~~
vs..way * -. _'..f, y, 3 s 3 '. .i s o =, s 1 ..7 ~. w s g b a .s
.h k &wn.%: m.u .m.srpm.w w %f@%g?W@h@y.cf#p,x;gw.YL QiQWWWWWMQ%w% E GS./ $.u.sc.Mh2%.s.W M N M h m M M:MmME h.pm.n @c km..m.=; a.m ~@Q$ n v .- u w 4gg.M.VM.i % c% Wy m h p NW W.. 44 m. m.c.y%v.y.MM.. u ;@, m,a m,u .n n-A %a. 2v f W.4.,p. y'm . g-% v. $%p@35 $h. s,,.s.t/ - u. s.- 9 0, vp r.,3 a b @" Q p 'hz$Ih k $ g$ M Q g$ M
~~~~3. The NRC staff will reduce the ecverity level of the violation a53erted S~~~~
g in its August 12, 1985 Notice of Violauno and in its March 4,1986 Order Q N d!jpghpyg imposing Civil Monetary Penalty (EA 84137) (mm Level U to 13vei ld. Under 'k48h the NRC's General Statement of Policy and Procedure hr Ef;/cemeat Actions "Isb*h:yy.b sIELN[NOkN@$$.{g@f N' .Ydf. (10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. C), a Level 11 violation amahy is 6ppropriete when vi" g'W.W.Ce #,M the violation alleged involves action agrinst an ca.ployee i.n violatwn of 10 .MM h.N h EdM'N h C.F.R. I 50.7 by plant management above first !cvel sW;;ervisici., while a Le tel f$:'d f$pWmi'%g.CA qW by.'hM.D III violation normally is appropriate when the alleged vhlation involres action M},%$(ikh,MN$lh3h'h.h}M &cWE* 'A.$, 4. GPUN will pay a civil monetary penalty of $40,000, which is the against an employee in violation of 10 C.F.R. I 507 by f'nt lir? sepervisn. M @. d M $'j %n A MyeggMy appmpriate civil penalty for a Severity Level UI viclation if one occurred at ..Mp'b h @'M%y$@ Qi %f the time of the events alleged (1983). OPUN will nake this payment will,1 .6; [M thirty days of the appmval of this settlement avecment t3 :he Presiding Officer $.d.. $ )N W, d ? M i[ M g.Wy N 3,@p ^
~~~~f. '~~~~
M.j;4f in the above-captioned proceeding. .~5C'. $d/@hrr 9.M ' - " 5. This settlement agreement is not 'niended and Bali e at be construed in 1;.p;&v,$d6y QM$d4k:. . y4 - M. any manner as an admission of fault or v mngdoing by G"UN or.U officers, .p.e.WW@...:9... . m a m. employees or contractors, including Rechtel North Amencan Ntr Cogioration. .g 9].?!.7:?/I4Rp[k.'M.y.. 4 (M.WQ: Mif tiqm,, 6. GPUN and the NRC Staff a'so agree to use tidjoi.t press relexe ar f hed 'hk as Exhibit A hereto (not published] o snnounce inis Mment. $ dik.ffh@b,hy N 7; %, h. (f @UM.'D gg 7. GPUN and NRC Starf will joim), rnM Se, Presidict, Of6cer to ap-Qd'YM.[g.,g(dif%%gMMNN.tNDf@D.h,j i F d%,1% prove this settlement agreeme t tf d terminate t!c proceedWg thirty days 6e $ after. The settlement will cmgitute a bar t; any fi.ue NRC pwling or action 4 6 9+6,P R P. 5 ':.u.yg @. m hA. .~; d. involving the same claims and ellegaticat a tised if dT MKf' Staff'A Mg'Ist 12, .f y,-. %. x. wq 'y m ... M. 1, 1985 Notice of Violation. ...r. w.. h,,, r. m.,..-S e.+, m= M., 4 ' a, 4. c,; a..w wco,(., y ~._.v y..v :, M.e: @ f. A J ;d.- FOR THE NUCLE AR $g%y:. '@M'.M'A.@ ~ Q. -M'.]j .M .7 REGULYf0RY COMMis510N t. Qc;o 6.%. v&..&,= E.f M. <.,;.M'd i ,!TAFF r. n' r ,N i.-,; 1 ** I. E, Y'.7 . +
a..[;,. ; ;5;n/ f:; i,m. $,* '..~[N.s;:.; m,..y w i. - y '

. *h
~~~~$:)'.%,, :. <. ::. *w:m @. w.. a;.~ pp ?,bh.m$h.. W:,7 ,w. ~ :, m...~~~~
~~~~s..~~~~
n. ;.. George E. Johnson ~. n,a /. h, h: i.n. . gm Counsel for NRC Statf 'D.N ..,. n. ..._.a .~ j ~...,..,. w.4. ; n.. v s < n.v..n,; a. % ;5 U.c,gbM;,p.c En,. g.n'awly.. 9 g. 3 y - ;.a.: N.: g 1 W,. G W,..Mk@Ji%$A. M f*.'J,pF 1 .WJp; FOR GPU NUCLEAR f, g@ F W ;. M, q CORPORATION M.$9;G M,4'.k,.Q -pe.Q.pT,q,S;g:pvl$9 A . ; :3.' v, mg..
~~~~s. r M,'d;p.., p. + e. s 1..i/g!A-{:$ @.9.s.'d J. Patrick Hickey. P.C.~~~~
~~~~.m / e.h,.~~~~
s. %r.QG.4.*
~~~~t.su. M.LEs SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &~~~~
~~~~}.yfn//..$. S @;. m. M',;,$p%. u.Q. s,'. -[a n~~~~~
n .s .yl:!. +/.,.c. -c./.,f'.. Counsel for GPUN TROWBRIDGE m - g... - c..s< .v .n. t .m.%...m.e.c..? e.,m..g.g. /p.. tN,%,,,...:b _S ' ' $&p.aQ a $.L; 'p'a,,.., A-7). r'l4, i g =$.N."5,.C< s'-lT';'Q', hih9.#8'ih. . l'" ' M
~~~~4. Q;W'%wW;j'@W;.. '\\;.t.~~~~
~~~~?..m.,:m;s'. L m:w .%.a,..x.w* M.if.WrWs.'W9'NO a 447 u n w*g: r.v$w.,p'kawg* - W; *' *, 3 .- :".*v/.M'.j... t' F. s' f,,~~~~
~~~~f. '\\s~~~~
%
~~~~5.r....V.,. s. '~~~~
~~~~as A n. s s* 3 s.r .c .J" Cl:(k~~~~
~~~~7. M7Q M.gQ '. C.,'~~~~
~~~~.J,M. 4.,~~~~
~~~~W. S.CCvt hof H thit h; orrIctriggs.732 296 60016~~~~
. k'h, X...p . r,. ;. W ., t.U. h S ;. -. s,% p.,..... W,,W W, y>e m.(,j j. i. e 3.: " t. 3 u. ..s.e..p Q@yA v.e *.* A,. .,M.*., wA ' o ,e ( . 3.sv %, - p -..c.,y. ' g g "'... 4 s, .s ,.,,'l.' '. ^ ~....y. m 7,-.n,...-
~~~~M* CM..'.~~~~
.M* *J !",..'.:8 V c.D*
~~~~i. '. 2.?l#~~~~
~~~~-m, ~w.,~~~~
~~~~!.,.,..'.('.,.,y d.[ p,.. a.~~~~
~~~~'*[ k '. .? 3 h . %;.. ?:m~.r,.', M.M ^ W g, W.~ f..- .s, . av' iQ j ~- m .s . - Q Vn.+. ;,, g,, V '.,p.. '. A. ?J,s.<L., c' .M .,p-Y, ' y A..a~~~~
~~~~r g e~~~~
~~~~~ vg >;..;g w ~" Y 3, .l ,f>. M, O,; . 4, ~ ;. y d.% " 1.% ;" ..a , 4 d .,v. m. f y ~m .7.- 0 W N:.fa:~l7.. J. ~ 'T ?' lN .}}~~~~

ML20148K624

Contents

Text

Background

Background

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20148K624

Text

Background

Background

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search