ML20149D819
| ML20149D819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V26-N02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V26-N2, NUDOCS 8802100027 | |
| Download: ML20149D819 (44) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:._ NUREG-0750 Vol. 26, No. 2 Pages 71-107 m v- n . = -- - f ? ; d f hih* u gen *pg - :?-.- jy 1 ? 1 A} +. ' * *'.,q,'.-.., e
'g.J ,t m ., . . n-s e,..r I _
.* k. g' )[,' * , , 1 ~.,*,(,-
s
, wp! ,. g ; - p s
>h
* ; ;-' s< s -o . . ' . ' . -.'.4.!
7 3 ~%r * 'i m * ' sM M a
- S . - ,g
- .a t _ ..fi .
.f .
; /p, ey e #j t '. rv 1.7,RNUCLEAR$REGULATO . O VZCOMMISSION71SSO4,N egwyawwm dn wh$%Q. ' $hyQQ'>a.7 -
1,???lf ; .. n 3 4 3, f, w(,r . o #r,v,
# 3
$(([g ?,' '
,,( .,. - h;*k,f I --
, . s v. ._
W J ? . n y-'
. , ,n y . ....
~ .g p , *y,'rh t'$
+' ,g a .
ygt, A
.:& ,' s *: f i,R. , h*j' Z-1f *:4\ . **
s f;y.y sh'}' '
* ;,;g4
.V
%+ ,.:, . - 3 +g eg 7,, .. _ , , -
r *e, e' -, . i f ,.t *: ia ['$.,U; .:,. .. U" a-3 ' g* l.}[Q "I'. l'( 0. ,,1;.7 . ' ,' ', Q { l i't i '
. %w+f, e ~4 'Si w N. ,-_ s;.y{ .,y s
>.?.,D'f
. - uN b(' ** '-
]. I
[h .' ; ma
+Qw?gs ; . :'::(- %.i,iY , ' v-y ; t, .z: >
hh(;.h h : n;c :a r c
~ f D ". k.'sl k0,_.
, y .3 . :y 7~ '. . ; gv 3 n ;,q-y g.4, x g..
-n- = " f, , - @g (
o'" ( ),y -' -4.N.') .. , -4. t -', ^ \.. - eg _ 8902100027 esoj tj PDR NUREC I 0750 R PDR
=mpnw;y9mm.umns.. EMMMsemE&:.2%m.w$inngshem . .
+: m mC$n@/M@MidEm&HD.i. ?gsa:s d m?
R.
+ e e. a ., .s Lw.w. M N !.b h i p i qe u m s M.nfMS
,-i 6_4 v .a ,- . ,
.w .m 4. .*.V.n. .
%x . +s .
- s,;[.m , ;gY.~.m- . ,. v, --4 f:O lv<e- r.%~ m ., MQ.7.s,
_4.. a.r . .m.ase:-}. +., , o+m .pp. . +a, w. N4.. s~d.2.l.% :
+:
w~ : wA, m qw
,,,3.. .s 2 a w,w%.,
. g.7
.e
,,g
,; u3.s,. w 9 e. .g .
M, rgn,o - + ;w. ' a .e* .,o.w,y, . .,- 3 s.n.m . ~-
. . g .; 4;s~- .i- ,. gs ,.7v .% .
e , .
.: .s. m.w. , . ,. ,.ww m a. w ,
s gw.&s 4 y ,. . ,p p m p m . N.w&. t , c,. s .- 1' i
,-..,p ,. y, .6,e. . lp ., ?-,o-y,%.,4.y m %, . p .
. ng
.aye h. .W+
~ ? ,.,. +n.<,%.iy %., n,..n. , . .4.,w ;y
~ c
,' m,
~- , . -
.n
- ...a < n..m. .sw-3 4 -
7.m. e-et.w , .
. .,nt m.. .; - .. m,;
- r
.~
..M .
- n . m_w. ..
- 9. + a . . a
] , l^ ** 3 } -) r \ %
3-
. .c~t. .,xv.r . . -. 9 ,i.s m . c.-h n.. \ .S Q.:.*' h} , .& *$ . AI. e
. . . .Q. s . . a e-hee o
.s n. . +
.n. 6s. .e. .gsw s . . ~gJ . ~+,,.* *m .
.~m *m=s..s.y_.
.6. 6 9 . . . %.
- p. O s . .
- mb. f . .
v
,. ~...
@ COMMISSIONERS M%p@mw%.MMBd6M.
y% h N. s'QM. ..m.,.+.u s @t e Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman M7Dh@W.hMh@@$.y.ddC#.tM. M Thomas M. Roberts
.o ~ . F, .,M..... %
J, W. 4 Frederick M. Bemthal i
. .s
,, s . a. . . . m s . ... . .w
- y. . e. % Kenneth M. Carr
.jYJhdj$w ,,'*c- Kenneth C. liogers .D f^ W.. . \.h- %h , Q* '.g"' ?@$h3 -l ~.g,,.u . . r. ,g@
- s j.3:2. g .
r , a<- .. f.r 3.T.,h . . 'is f. . . C'.*.QQ. n .-}(~ ' . ~L,' s }a r ,C.
.v . .. ..
n,+.: * ,, mQ p m v.. .m ,y: .% 7 c at.,,.. ;- N
*. * - >ur . t v .~3, , .p #.y ', :4 Wp; ;ry.u,.6s 3 ,,
'.)L) 1 , , , , , . * ;Y A' c r - -* a.g4 ;ty
, , . o
--',,.e..>.
.a. .y: .
s a s.,,,- .
,y. -~ , , ;a. p r ~ .n, -.u .s.y. g-
. .a. w
..s
$6 vM..e. .p,,
- y . ,4
. 5. , , m, e.m . , 2 4@ <
.%m' -W.' . ' .
~xs (-- n~ , ' ,1 m ',.4. 3 i
~.3'; j . Q , , +3-7
. . ., , . ,._.s... .
s s. ,. . . (. . . .
,. ,r_. . 4 .m*
- ~; ;q;g:gy-
,s %'.
- n. .. t 1 n
'I -
- m. y.tv fgn y* w . . .
,- .'4. s ',.i.#' .. g f., e%",. m . 3
) %
s
. . ' .t 3. .e_'.,s
. y ., ' g.L L.5 .,
4
., _ a y . .- y
, .3 .e
- 1..- 7r
- p. c e-w. .e j 4 aq 4-n, d.m w? , .*, ,
o , s. .~ p w.w; :%.p.:s.m .w-
..x , ,
.s.v%
cs . 4
+2 :,,. ,m., . , s.& = .a.,
.wLye% r*m; d., 7, . 7.s.w .j . ~.2,
. .- .. , , .,- ._ . , . . ,...n.. .m.-s .
s
..y,a.. 3.4
.**1.
x
,'t ,
. . '.,$s,.,- t-t J ,, W Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel 3:m.fV.hijd,3 .: + .;.,sc r!C.
2,(,Jyk,',7
, Q.w." R : 8. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel l
;e 9
- a,. , m. q. .. '
.1 .%,-
,\ 1 .. ** . - N (, e.
.n WW.k..... n . c o' ; . p. L *.. .-
... [ }%.,;
M,a-a g' ,.w+ w W-q.s . f -; .* . s ; .a. + s -v r% u.,.s'. 3,- },a.' r%g,.,4**4+ 'as'ws,.
. - . M = $. W ,
.e ..s
- 4. *.,P^(. , q+.a s s
-1 ** 9
',..<4, .. 3 ~3 ~T. j s.: #
3 4.=.,g '*p , y. t. A c .
* . q 4 +> ; a* g 7, "- l-'% g ' ,74' * '
..4 -M'f- 1-v <yQ W,/.u'd"g M. . . r% * *[w.,^. . -11' i*%~..*,s(A*,..
7 '.N **. -
,f .d..'t*.* -sfh. N, '4'p.
- e. g V, . s.a . . Y. .;#
3 .p; .M.1
.t-g%W~. ', ,*8.w 9
..b' %,J,7 .i.? wwNor ;. %n w
- 4. %. . .
n.,
^p(,* 4 ) kf . * *. e & h l - -'# c, .. m, w.I$ .; v,'e p A.gp . ..o w M. %;M y,4.(u. w, A<. - .
[(. '6. k . ~'ete
- 3
# ' 14
'*> 9 ' . s .. 4 =$' M, spy Tg + 8
, %. ,s*
4 . ,c 8'.'. . -,m.* -,.*.' '. i ~ m. . g 4'S 9c .. g
.,. f.4.e s.t .t
;; ee "g ,%. l
;X~. o, a
- c. . > t s-h: .c...
9 't..
,w,,. %s...
t n
.s .w.m. ps.,
ig - . -g e.\ g , hs . @w.
.w- . w;tNyn, .w n
A ,w.< , . .s - ! i
,'y . 3 ,e, . +:'s 'y! uf ' y . q , ,. %
*.,, r
..,Q ,,* .,yA'.,,. wwi%c' ' i l
3 yc. p , . .; s.z"} -1' Q, T , Q c-s,'.,','4.~s..-..t,.,;*W',Ga+.#,',:.~.-4 , . . .v,a. - Y . $;% - "
, 4 w
, ; s.g 5, ,
. ' . ...,s-g* -
,-o -t v,r
>+,..,%4 ,
.' ok e ,p, y *>g .p*?.),s,f':';Rr t(' %
l
.- ' v. * . ,,
- q, a u.n .: u .r v m.
- u...f, ~,'t, , .
' l
# %1 "$.
/j
,w.
1
* * ...p @ f
.4..
.a e '2*
- s g ** , . . . I
."f k , , , s' '. . ,i l l ~%
" +
, . 4*p , s
- y
, . , . s ,.f'
~
?A y e .e*
'},9'.<~
s- y b (u...? er % ; 4,;' l .7 <p,.A, .
< g,', ) . * .,, ..,
+ ]c *A A t, (g ; n _'c'e g.'
.,m
-,,., , - , ,
- 34pM,*u'a gdup ** e--sur9am {wega.p.yg am, mw ,, . p. q - . , , , ,,
g , , , , , , , ,,,)
, .. . g c. s ,' . *o&.s .-t,
*. '3,
.t r- r . ,, , <
.s.x, . .<..n.+
-e- =__
./ %.4./
.> - ~
. gy, .7..;,n4r .i.",w'.1..e o,
. e ,. .
g' P
} '.g 3 . . , , . . ' .
._g C .J.,..- g,,.,. ,
. /' g, . , *. ;
,/,4'..a ,,
,,.J'
. . o'4 .A .,
s -x : -
~
4 . , r- ;
,.. < - s
< .. . -. . 4,.- ,
..,..,e
, - fr . -
._.. s ..
+
7, s ...
%- ' . I'. 1 w .
**'*?",."'
*Yg '- .a a,?
-(
.g,
^
g ,, . P. - g ,,a*,,9 o .# 0
, , g 4 ,y.,' g , * - 4 #
. . . w... # ., - .,(-, - m .
*s - -
' ]+ 3, ,
4 . ",y.*',+~[g,)+ ,
. ~. , A . ]4, D ' v.' ,,
. , < ,m.
8, g=
. I.. %
[.
,s . ,,
g, i
;jg [*
n f' 9 p . k p,. 4 4 @ MP j g,_ M 4' O- 1. s V _ DIsr ,.*-.w..: -'3's ....,,
&. . m g .n n ,' .v, . g<w ' , ~ . ,
-%u; *- -.'
r.h.
, * . .' .i ,, ,
- euy
- 3 ,1 ;n.
.a.%'- . ' . a,*
;[.- .... ?m .a - " 4.- . ) V,., - . ,ien
=
a
.4e. - s "c' , c ;- ---
si - ; t**
. .w " s y , ,, .-
.gi cM . b ,,, ** .T $ b
.g. .f {. w w . n. . ... r )_ ., u ,.u , n . - .
q^ Y $ g
- . .q. ,.
, g #
- g3 . ,
4
.h.
g ,, ( 8' gg [ *r
>e *.. ~ ... , , , ; ,, .
,- s , q. . ,, . u .,
- w v. .
-=
.. , ' . d ,,-- . , : a. , ,' *. ,:. e'.* ' . g % ., : r'e. a.. --' r.g -. ,, w s
- 4. '***
..,~v s..',,f.P..,,q
,. I ; *- ge .g ' . *s.k ,,4. )*v@. . %* *g ., \ ?#* .g , %* a.
- s 4s ? al
' ,e / J ., . .),.. . g
,,. ,,,,w J*
i g e r :. a. ; . r, * ~4
* ~
< ;- ,- ,, g , e q ; wO
.g.g,.,,... , .. , , ' . - , . . . ' . , g,,
v..s s qg.w.. g . , -= , ..
.,s,. w, (.+. x. ? S h.*c,. ..* K",. ;J me.g 0.f. y. ., ,.o. , ; s. o . * , c. ,.
~
, e s , 4. ' . ; ( . -e. ,, e. ,s .
L . g. . ' i. _m
. a ar ,.,,.4 ,, , , .
y -
,. ,.s . . . - - - - -
,,.>%. -a - s
- jg > s ....,,;',J..,
, .. ,3w.:y . . . tan.j . . .y . .;. , .m.,. , ,:.g.: s' . . .s,
%; q n+,.,~,,4 m .
[.:J .,.. ' 1 m'. y..- ,9+ $.. m . s.f.g' M M. e ., / . v, w - M, . ,~.m. / a. .:. <. n, .1, .%m. e; ,. ... .<... , . l ,. W,s . a mg. . .~..x e. .. E. c NUREG-0750
'n.g.e, e. ,,-e. * . .%.; 6"*a.
kJ .M,'
'.'..,b. y W,?, .f9 1 ,.-
G, Vol. 26, No. 2 t l m. c p'g.m. ..w. :. .y + .... ., i ,.y :. ,1 . Pages 71 107 p.'- [,a t ' < et. s N (;1 L' .i[, 3 (.
, /. , ,;.]f '. [k i ' . 4 y *
* ?* '
o:'.,...n, l , ,- -
'e 4',.+, iiu *
; f p.H 4y vi * *.= f .3',,
- a!*Q";.','al; ,' ' *
, , n,,' #
27
, s .] ,
, . c. ; .wl. . 1.,'. .. ? % , D 1' : .E. , ,',? , * *
. ..s . p . .
> v . . s, ..
s
. WsG. . _ .
._ NUCLEAR REGULATORY R.t..c.MQ@_$w'&,.4:4%.Q'w' m: y h+Q.~.p'Q,%.
- s. < >J. .
n :: Ap~. 3- w W . . W.h_h s - M COMMISSION ISSUANCES .~.u.r,. u.
.c . wmm .m...+ . ec w.m. w. ., d J
%,* >n,.;t.J
~, .4 3., -
M.,.p.M.S.E. n . . . c ,;. g .4r.+s... t' * -
- a.
m,AMM. M,h%m..?.August 1987
.w, u , . .q p tp r.' 3",.
* .f i '.? $- Y _f t. .' l, f h+
vD i
. .fc. ..a. -.n . .n..v. m. g: ,.c D. e m M, e w..., .-
3.r; 3 W,;:3..r%m..c.y r M,.; r'.
. .1m : . 7, .,, 'ej n, .:,,
,f.,:3 s
. ^~,
' ,O ;%g.; , ,
vi -
., , . ,.,s v t<. , :
; 3. n -:.~ a
', -' . ,. .. ;m. d-:W p. ;A.. . y. - . . r
- et j , . , M/ A" ' This report includes the issuances received during the specified period
' ~
'r- -
, , M.f , from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal j
;c- ,.g.( ; Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the i
' U ; < 7]J. .W, ;..
1 ,'. q; Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Cirectors' Decisions (DD), and yyM.4D, ,G: 7 the 4. Denials P. of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM), C, - v - v
.. . , ya. .. s., m. .A :v;,-.. ,
l
- s. 3e.i W pmw . W.W. ea . The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein q ; gj.1 - A. . .,:-
.n
"~ are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-
, e" <
,.c T . . f. t, .d "; dont legal significance. '
j
.q-s:. 1
.s.
i 3.s, , m - . a j s ,6
. .v. r. . w# .$
- i. ,c,., ~ . ., e , g
- v. ..: ,
i - / , f. i; - MWc ' l>-7. ,' .-t .. ..s. l
.;a.: ,. -. .
. a
_;e . , Jg...,4.M.'
. w.6 , , ~ . , ... r, ... s.s,.,.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _ , .t. a:s;r
,4 . q. a. . - . e. m. .4.. . . un.. e. v c.. ;. ;
3 9.:h.Od. u .'iM[dh. p%mt.g . b ..fl.,M:. p... . e Prepared by the Division of Publications Services ?f, v/&M.mrst f.M W. Vei M Q. gg .n'. 9 W M e @.". M .3 M y @d, @9 @9 Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-d;. .-t@:Iy . *4,%@s%, g.' N y . @., y. , w.2 M; M g
$'pW y Washington, DC 20555
,l... j in ' .
, .e. , ..
- 3, . . ; N f t y :jgt'y;3. ..,
. s. ,
- 4 e (w,, g., ..ar. ._% -
(301/492-8925)
"*.A.**,e_' .
A?,...,,,**',? _jQ'} ? '. '1' s,. S._.- . c. a=' ?
- - qj ;., . %.,
- n. m,..
ag'
..T.t'
. lr , ~ -Trs .>. m ,d--
~ .
a . J %
- T d* ' ' ;. -
1 -,$ ' _c u- .- r- e . r- - & - ~ 7 . 7 . , 7 N * **
; , 3 , . ,
,(*, ,j. s i
~_.t-
. .ea ' ,
* , *. e
. ia.'y '
s . g , =4 ., *' %
.k g 4 * - 4 9 . .. h . . .
il
'b Ng -v,-
- 4
. g.
..I
' * , * , g * .
b .g e '
- ,- ;(. .,.- h7 L j.,
' ' ' ' ~ i *;f ,
l_ .p ; -
, i
, ' l ', > 1, q: , ., y .
,-s,,- .,
t.
-" . .s ,-
; i' . ,s " - '1 , c -3. - 2. s l
.7 4 .. .,*a , *- . " ,
... ( , -
,, ., I
,,.*e,3..,',..
y ,.s.;,y. a
;y . =
y-
- s. , ' . , , . .
s , s
+ .., .
.4
,.g 1-i
+ s t....s .-
. s . - ,,,
. l
. . ',; _. '* \ g .h g Y #
1, , ef g g
, ,e. . . _ w.. , - +: t.. . , .. . , *, - .--.,"w--i e y 4e , .- - ,-. - E- ,, , - +2 -. . - . ~ . - ~ ~ , - . . - - - . - a.-~
. as. ..
m p %. m %n:.cw eg :wM- :x w & m......s: w
~~
s/.%.;,::ym.,p' T . e-Wsx..q W: ,s.6c-- y4,*1. r w.u y
,u.-@;
.h .<)
a .- y@s, W l.a 1
.u (,
, )
1.; ~, . : , .
. n ,
.s, , t 3 - (I , .
v r ed w. m..www* . b -V * . 1
- m. eg'* # M y _s .y .wt',nge : . o .
' m..M; M -^m3, y , CONTENTS <
' .y . . ,wiLt: . 4.:t g W 4 .r p m.g.T.
. . .a
- ^ .. . ..W. 4 %.U % -%.% a ,.r. +,a.
i 1 kh. 'hy@lN-se~--s
. . , . . %[ $. .1uoq-Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards !
1 6',.. .* '
'Yfs % ,, $'W,'j3;M 4'.f ;:j. yp;s J c COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
';aW... d~.Nt.. m m y,3/.?l .+. A .N,R@y@:.4 yM, . . ..
.t., m 1
s . (Braldwod Nuclear Power Station. Units 1 and 2) l
.~ W.4fjM a .-%.iN Dockets 50-456 OL,50-457 OL (Emergency Planning) l MM..m wF g. '", M...y,7,4 M. ' DECISION, ALAB.871, August 28.1987 ......................73
.'g m: ( *. w' t %..a *.
.n. a <**d;- .c. I .,
4
, ; W.p: J.OC W :,w'- h O'm" *:. p*.; f 1 TEXAS URLITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
W @'?MWW.WAMQWP h$%hM. '4:h .d (Comaache ?eak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) M Dockets 50-445 OL,50-446-OL
,% M(..
r= N.mM~@TN9.6.M@:;y<. M+
... ., r a& .
?.,. .
M,o W,# s W MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 870, August 27,1987 . .. . . 71
.'M. ]sw:_. ;m:y ..,d a. m;@w%qg. -. M Q.. - u.'
., .~
y@a : ,y Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c.ty..> M D.c
~
v.p ng c g , , . , . T,4.D,m,..f5'.h%.EN;~@hp.lQ, h: M . P a %.g y'f. $p $g., ALFRED L MORABITO ye 7.];3M kMhl@ .@y ; .,. - w (Senior Operator License for Beaver VaHey Power Station. Unit 1) Docket 55 60755 (ASLBP No. 87 55102 SP)
. cl .y. ~y.y. . .dk.,;,%
j ' .gg NF. Urd.F. - n. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-87 23, August 25.1987 ..... . 81
...i.,, ,,... .. . .- ., ... .
.,..r.:,.-.>-
.....s..
w c.
<m,w~.m..
.. ; a w.
1g
~,,y>, ..
M..- ~.+W 1
- m .y W.M. .W- .-@. .. e 3. W. , Issuar.ce of Director's Decision
- . .. ,,,. ..m
+
s.,
' , .v.<...~ ...a
~p.FT
. , e'.. ..
4 BOS' ION EDISON COMPANY
.QW;
/ -
.. ,. V, . .m .
., . . s.- (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station)
- g. .;: W . m,'.s %, oNa.c .
, Docket 50-293 v'. .n;t,, y9, . ~ s , . . * -Q r M,,f.N. INTERIM ~;g..Mf. DIRECTOR'S 5< DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, DD-8714, August 21, 19 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.- ,
~
s , ,, u M:-{s: G.gs , 7*4 Je..-i ;a < . t . .
. , p1*c,- ..r'... e y,.i",'
~
..,7p'- , >
.*4~-
),. ' e s h -
s;n> i,~,c,% 6 ~s' ,.- : -
', , ?A 1 b ,9: *',*,.mt- .- g .,', Q '*e ( * .
.<<e, - ,s* ca
. u r ,
.. *.,- vM: -
i ,, s
.* -1 e. . 7
<s: ...'%.- .+'*..y
' ' . . W.- @N.- -
,+s-.. Of a_ l?
,( ;-. . .g'yA.1,-. . - - t .m .h. yu
.f,-
s-}... -. 9 * ' s. ;,. , ' s .,1 '. p . ,s,. ta p.h.%.?
.
- c s s -.-sI
- ..n.*,'w f =5'.4...y
*; +. < -f N,. '
- .\ . . . . =. ; ~ ../.$,,1 1 .
s .. qm'y' 4 =g G ~'. q, ;:s.i::p
'. .y w a [~,-1.
,K , D :, -: W. : ' ,i '
N
,' a"'17%.
.L c d j.4 %I'c 3 .wzv;*<:i* s. .... v- y !. q"';. .,. Y .y>Y 'i . .; k. [ '
\s ;' sis 'p=s%.m ,.g !-*g .y . r s ;. r t , -. ~.e7 7.:.M y
,Q_
- v ,Am^*/.t,.qq ?g.,pp.Q.. f. Q Q ,Mm +_ ;y.;'A :. . Q
^
w~W> . p;,,#8
/
r e s, .*%%s . s- NW :. a f .e* ' a26f2 v b ' J . . .- m% a
&,'%%. :.R&v].k.i?.?.;r.!$ln.2,$+Cy'w$w.dh""w.Y
,a
>p.. ? a .:.d . .
{'. w i , g . % '.,*f
- Q;'.f G~ (;J M - .J sr
*O N, %m,W.%
.C.2 p h[ f W 'y IfW apV1 *,MYM pa "Nb i@WMT k Q 4
$g..5 ,*n4 [;fo -'
>* - a r A,Q .p d**e"*-7 A ;<.M l4i
. M(5 y et y x, ,3.'.N W G., Ms- m.Wl4 %4*9e>$.g"M k -
< s
=
, ;f..% , . ,-y r ,,' h%...
q'-;. &iE: ,W 'p. c * .g,p . sgy S. M.+ ~"
' &g ^ , , .
i
,;,J L. m ;. Q'.U.s+ .*
Q ' 2'e'..v
-g3, : ., . e .t. v.
~
e X Qlbmn u a 3 . , g g- e-W 4 , . Y:
."fw a v.*^ t p i , , , .>5 > A.s >%
* "' <* 4 = S. -
~
. q, ,, .. w. . y* s> ,, v. .', ?,'
e ..< -
-f
* + ',,s"9 ; ., , ,l+g . -,6-
. ?.
+ g, -
.,p*.t._..l.,,.,*
3 . -n .
*m' *4 C '
,# .,,",pp, ;go av,.. _ _ _ _
-- 4 _ rs* *. 7,
- ' w- yeeso mr.p- e e a -* . .m.- . ..,.-*.**;**
'. n%.
- , . . s1 --
. .~ . . . ,. . i 8 ' *
- 1
...e
.g. ,
%'? . .%
.s.
. . ng , . ,
,g e' d.
4 ,
% .6 , p 4 -
g'-
- b- ., g (. 1'
's' '
~,
s* *
*2 s
., 9-h -. j [ - *
,.,2 t
y
*w
,}. * *
- 4 4 , )
( 4 x
,Yl
.. 1*
- 4 .
N.
. k _E
% g ) q . .
V., - - rf- t w' g-
-m -
, .s s v.s=
i 3, . m e , % '. , 4- ,5 g & , 8*., j 4 *,
,g, *g- [ r.,. , ,, g
- s g 4 9 ,}
I', *e \
.s ..-2.*l. -**,. s n. >
8..kpp. .,' ._;. * , .' : 9 #
#'. A' r
g* , .%, ',,,_ &
,- L:.
N . g \# s
. .'s ';c.,', s' g , . .*.
, (~... s,., &* -..w. . ;;..
.* * ' . ' _ ' \ a %". *:j : ,' v. . .. . . _ . . . '
- g. **;v9e,q-;*<.- h. *~e , , . . ,.
3 k, *
*- s
, 5.'..,.,.(4 s -5~
.=
.y-
^
- w
.y >
- v. e .
;- e : ?.9n 4 .
.'*. * .. .. *:. .K,q **"; $;.
& ,s. ; +
m'o ' n, * 't e* . . ' ' . .*
- p.) f
+ < *4 '
- y. W :c. Q p; y'r4.. s e . e*< . ' A.
T . . * - '. a,' , s, . . ;}Q.y;
,. P. 'n % .. ..
s
.'.r.-.'
" ~ .- e r m --;~ .. .
h,: 2 ?,,.m%.y r.-N %c'% M rs"._rCN _.r .ys* %.'.,,f 1 *a ' J.. % *
- p .hii i .,
.^ ._ .m_1 ...,",.- *-. @. s - .'. w. .7.. .M. . ,.. .-
". '+_s.:sa-'.
.: v. - 6.. -#
_ i., g'.3 , .6* . 3
s wo .# u m . ..- _.mmm
- m.= m .--.-- ,
QW.4' W'.H.
..,.'y'
- s. , . -
% Mw.CiN. . y.e s. . U.:,,n eu,; W, ~np Q ..
ap,t.::)t.t'.s
; }.
l
- a. -s ,
3.e..-. n a: ,.
. , r :._ \g .. 9.~so-
- . .. . 0 + ,,
* - > . . , _ -. .m s . n*. r' . *; y,, J,.~., z.s..,.<
0 , 3 l,' -15
--.I i
p+ c.V.g , . c .c. ..yg x t. . . - J. -ys . c I
> - -t '
l.* m.. i
. .. p. 4.?.: -,N.3i . M. v ., , .g.,-.,.S.... - s. ...t .
s \y= . - :
. :.,y. - .% . , , t l
.e.i.~ .
.. ( - ,.
*a t
r
. .* .i?a3 g ; >* # . %
- t. s3 *.
. .\: 'eg 's , .,< ll'
- s p ,~
, , s , ,, .. ._ ,
l
.-y.
,- t
%.i ? ' ,' f , -
- J
.,.4s.. 1 r ?- . - -
.,,,,3',.,
_s * -
. g
. ' '_m' ^
4 gy .p'_L,%g .c ' s . . ,, n g.n . T . . Atom'c Safety and . i
,. . . a.4,es.c - ..7 L.icensing Appeal L . m,% gm.-..v.,, -- .v~
+ m w= ne _ Boards issuances
- . o,. .e.:
, w. .,#e.f .vo m .n.~ 44:. w Ws,;n.%m?
, .m g<.>r . "b + 9pN0m.m., s ,w.my:".,ge m* , . ,e.;D < l e " m . c.y, ,w!eisW ', g y . ~p'. M. . (4.nm,. ; U.w:. ,,, , . . . ,
. s :;g '., W'.,b.. W Wy.~a.; ,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
. .- u
-.~.:. - m. . .,
, ,u .w ar,. . . ,%j#. , . . o j ..3..r ,... a q w. .e
- 9. :. . . . ~ . . . . . .. ,n. ,
l ',". f.).f,y-3 /t . s 4 ' ' 'feQM:p.'j,n.
. - , f. . . - v .
i $r ,N.'l ..
*/ 3 v 5 1
- ..fj. giiT .p. ' " . . p . w
,y' ,
Dr.
..4; Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman W. Reed Johnson
' ' I '%c. . , '"i.d4.MM .. ,
J , , %. .Q. :T. ~. ' / 4,s .1 T^ Thomes S. Moore Chnstine N. Kohl b
.v . ', , 7 . .<--
. y. , . . . , - . .;a .
Gary J. Edes
;w-
~a :n Q.b Mgrg g, gqq
.,r:
... g:.. . g' 4. .; , =
;r1, ~~
, > . , ,r
. .... .-. g _' r y ,
s ze >~r
)--
g
+
4.-
.-~
...y,.2 g,.. .
, .t t.. .O +
6 5
- t ., , lj i' '
P- '
, ,
- f;s q ~ W -Y e t
mo 1
- s. . s , *,., 6 %n~ .
, 2 % ; ; 't :. , ' ',,
t . i
.-.').
J.. 7, . .~. ~',-, t.- .-
= < 7, L W;r% ;< ', ' t
;fy..
*\
..:, . . . '
- g r
.e. ,
., g 7 ;. g'
* .+. p. ;O. .
1 t g*
- .~ , .. g s .#.wN" , * ' *
~.
...% : p t' . ; g ? . **. '
+.- .
-s 2
.e... s .
s ,- v -\
, 1.. 4 s ir.s gy, k
l ' s..,. .
,E -
,,.,,....q',....
, a 4 t . ' ~ ., ^.
- .1
.+\,"-*. - >
v1.:
'- j
~
. c.y- ,
y m . . . . s- ., i ,[n a p 4. ,
. p
,t,,.'.>;' 7 6
, i. ,
/:.9., f ,
g - .,, , y "- 4-
. ,s ,.., .. ".,.
J.4 ~ ' . 2+ ! s~ s9 . , ,.,~ ' w. - >
, . a. ,*
- v*./~. s. +
,.*,-. o.,.g. g.,7 e , ,
- s s,/O, . 2
, ,,o 3: )
o ss
,^
" f f f f ( (M*/ ', * .',y . , . M & p, 4 e .A i* 4 i.
q, . . - k _l <
, L S.q.n..r
%g *>,3,r . *m . .,;fr , e .s n ' .;',e.v ., p. . . *; ..s . .
t n,. .Q
; h *.f4 #
3 f G h G. ,.. '%'k -'
..h % Jg. '
- v g.. ' i. a , Y .(,a> *f,L'l;:4l'.*j"',.N
. s.
j*'y Mt: % n . . u ,.;, .- 1 ] , s.
; : :- +-
R=. s,, . e. .. /.s , . .
; .c .
I M.4 3 ' M .i.id vN!s & 'fD'LA."<l*Q &y f. ' lt:,
- pS syi.. ',.;J'},t,%; ,.- ~ ;] p',M.t i. N.f hQ* eh d * ,
- r v. >.c. '2 -s 4 -p ,' % w .e .s73, %. g v: ~.,. L
,:y s ,-.n .
*ud
! .. . . - 4. , ,,nq. ,,.,:y - %g< . gw
,,-:-.~, & a ';}t.'-.'
% i-7:.g3:,..s.. gr.d. ' i
,,(kr',
,, *.. - r N g'n p . . '
l , , ,. . s i(,?.
'
- r**l' s , .M*.
4 - -- ,l _
- - _ ,. < -.^ , . ,
..- < ,- ea ,
- . ,e 3, . . o , . 3 . g <
-v -
.t , .
4 5 ..*.3 q. 4A. . y p ,d -..
, - w ', ,
, a i
*e., ,c, s.v ,, ..; .- -j j
.4 ,.a -
j g' . ag . I
*k ' . .- g .
3.' 3 _ _ 1 % '* i{,
. L
-* t t4 , 4 6 .e 1 -
)
q P i y~ ;, - _ i ' 4 e s 6
,;* ~
.i.
9 m *
,.g q e
$ v
_"*.. T* A J # I *- e .'
.U L 4 4
,,,3
'4
~,' e '* , *
*.k' g }
, . s , 'e
'h<. r.s .. (q* , .s*..*.'.j..i $ /*
. . - ls : , .
s .*
- I? * *
+ ,
y,* r ,- ..,s ' , , . , e- .e -;,,w s .4 ;. .a
, a, ,
< sy ..sg.,'.N,. .. s l ., P. 1 S ; r* : '. .
- C.'~
{.7i {u -.. e.4 s * , .
, m
,l * ;< ' h s, v. ~ :: ?. '... s - s. w
- f. .
,t, , * $ s . g-
, . 4, , . ,
. .4.? :* . . . h "*y. .c)k{ /[ - . . ,g
,~LG;&M M {Mm' (f.i% p , '5,,-Q NJ % .y ? M M- e Ls ".,7 :rV!M.w .; W, t..Nry:&am'bpd n
.z . 4 M.
.m_..yy~n. .
...s.. .p:~, .gv. s.w.m;e
. .t. u . y..gw
_%:y'*,.i W r6. <h s W. s ny-p::y:c w,%.(r* .. .w Q v.: fu%.*A'n. .n
.'lQ q,. , .,
Z. ,e m. e@. W . M.e:fgA.W.
. ;4. . .%.,&s%
.. .y
.s.m
.4.
s o '%v. q, ,.y. .M9.}s Cite as 26 NRC 7t (1987) ALA8 470 - % )v y, - a' N .s.
. % ~ .
w.
,,y
_ x. .
~3r m.,
/M, . . . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M.S. .h,(lif$s.3 ~ <<
he'M . ,h C, c CN .3 7[. . a W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
49 i .g .7 i l O ey.qs *'
.I$
*=,%. -MIG.[%.g .m. m,
- v. p,.y,,,Edt' a ~s. s n:f. %f. ; .
x; 4 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING, APPEAL BOARD ,. ,. .2 M.. :.;lsy- -. ~W_,.M. . ,~,r.r.<
, m.
. ., W.m,.g.. (c.. .y %. c, n,&,
... 3 g .wg . g. . .>'
lT:m.M[ .~ .
;,;pmm%[s.yp m,y@.Qs:.u 6M N:w. p.yS 3 .,
. [ u$ , Administrative Judgn:
KjA 3vm;.g o: .mp:a...h QQ:$t ..1 9 QQ e.w ~p,W-+;q%m' W
;- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman .
%$[w.m@p$$M[4M.6dMkN@9W M.w WM $ 6 M MMDB he S. Moore Howard A.Wilber .Q .z .c m. v y.m-. .s .. w p m s w .e . y .m. 7 nv y c,@y.w.... .p m .9A.p w .y +M.sw sw.,p q _ y Eh p[ h Docket Nos. 50-445 OL W@.yW'.d h'N.h.h Mel'@h yM in the Matter of 50-446 OL W
- .r,y&.m.q;q?mW~tyW e n,y ,t 3 p q.g%4p g
- g. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
-,.e .
o l;.j(.y.n u.. p , qqp g.W. , , .t . s .
. p -u. p. . .@ ..u
.m COMPANY, et al.
.c: m :D.
- ..mi . a. t a. %y,w. .y J. . . , # ~ (Comanche Peak Steam Electric M* Station, Units 1 and 2) August 27,1987
? T' .9, W 4 GM.y.y^%, 3;. . ,
y p. . . .
; ;q%s' :.>s. 4. . -
., ;. > .. ;. s 7
r .1 : me- .' us .. . ., - [_ N d h '
;M"M.M The Appeal Board denies a request by Texas Utilities Electric Company J
->MQ 'ShQ%$[f;Wy , (TU), lead applicant and majority owner of the Comanche Peak nuclear facility, it p.g?M,C Gj %%
U$ for interlocutory review of a Licensing Board ,liscovery order. The protective giR@A, p( e ,y 74 'WM@$Q , . nWQ hq , order restricu access to certain documents sought by an intervenor from Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., a minority owner and co-applicant
. ; fC of the plant, to TU's licensing counsel and precludes licensing counsel from
.( ' ? J 'l a Q ~ gi7Q M Ji W D.g %"* disclosing the coments of the documents to any principals of TU or other counsel
-. .c, -
yg ,. _ .eA .m f.g3.,_., representing TU in litigation against Tex.La. 1:
. g(. ' '.>x ,w;3,.7;<.
, x ..
, .<. . n ..u ;?n.g y c, ., '
* ' 'p; 26.y . v, ; .-
;$ RULES OF PRACTTCE: DIRECTED CERTIFICATION esy n ,f.Q . .eMQ. vo v w. pf,1
%.%_1dMQ.m .y gT An appeal board will exercise its discretionary authority to direct certification QQ di ?' of an interlocutory order of a licensing board "only where the ruling below M[IN(
N[MkMINM,%$g$D'.O AE!Q . QQ N % ,O p C@ % M N either (1) threaten (s) the party adversely affected by it with immediate and Mh serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, (can]not be alleviated by
.. j p.
.M. a %.'..,..+e..j.m%m,,Mg; c yy N, , Q,t.. 4l . A- , ye % . 4,
%m!n a latet appeal or (2) affect (s) the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive g%~dM%' ..hQ+4
- m. . . m= %w. M~ ' y .
L c a' \g % s Q. m.y ., m. f g a. .w,+, t t g:: o,gyQ g
'*m. A s,a 5 %
- s,%w$'*.h.w 3 <%wyN3 M.,if.* . \
9_ .1 .y
,'% . d - Q Q' G O W d~: 1 1 4 N'4. -e# 7..(; x.'a9gfau\e'%me g.y=e = N..%.; Q , iQ. ht .d,~x. ,,% h%)W t . W eA A M r" ' @,, 'th. I,' .h [*h . -Qg[',l/ ,
s afn
;$ 1 a .'" nM,,.'-
- y...mE ra A ~v. L '/#
%n (* ,eW, m.,_9.).~ Q-Q7l.92;y?'d._ j.*s
.M
. ?-g-M. h.f
,4 e.
. .r.
wg ,e' e ,[ ,
- - S s
j
' ' 4 -**'*'.I .# ** s ,( -
,_.,_,,.p ,,
.y p., pp -,.%. . ,w. esp pee .usy . . , ..p y ev ,, - , . ...,g.
, ' , . I O s
-.g O
#-ss8 g
4- ( 3
#.'*e a,
, g, y
g 9 J'.,b..* (, * % [( , sg#b .> -'[O-
*O# * ~
f+ " . *- e ,* .b~ , . b . # s - w., . , j g %
, y .Y ' .*
g#
,'q I * *3
e r., y. g *, . .g.. g q
,-y. .,y) (-. j.
,..d.- -
fa' * ' h 4& i ',p[4,7.,' 6 ,. ,> '. t e ,, .' g -t'* -, - -
- .e as '
, i I .V . . \ ,,r f f ,- 4, se x *
..ei s
i J; * ', .
' . #'ty* g[
- s 4 e 4
,, , s s . et as -
u- ~ , * .. - , * - - . - I . g g I I # # [.'" O ' j e g P ( s,
. d , ,* j ' . "h gy 4 ,'. e g
..,'. y,', [ . . ~
e
.a 4 - 9, , . .
# .s g; ,p' '
/ ; .,f--^
j ja
. . . '. , , Q ,
2% 4.*' * , '
+ 7, f al1 L. g w . ,
s. % e- O D. jt.,= ...y eat4 f . ,c 2'.g[g o h J'*'.f.7,.f..-* 4.-
,/-
A
,fi -'-
>d - n .* ,
.< , . - ~1
, - Q' , .f ..? ?e m,# , 's. ~
r .A.., J4g - . ,e,,46 g qJ 5 s..- NP- +7 y +t-* 8' a .'*b.-.n. ,g
, a
.. 1 ,4 ,
- S'e , , $
,A 9 % ,,,.g A 4
^d ,\
N f f as 'h.'?' ' .' .l<.
}. (',Si;:'. w.Ts. $ , ' [c'." y'T% '. ls* . t, 't'.s' f.' W'
- U. - .'.?*.' , ' ' ..U 'e
~ *.
%.sL.&...k l & f.
~
~N' .
. m ~ -ib .i.'*
C*
., h. . s "q*4*Anp.-'*
d
- f ( 'at #
- 4 * -J'~*.'.
- a ~#,
$ 5h. ., ~ ,f.s'~
r# -
<A-i*5*yp .' s? u,.'u. - .+ "'.# .r- - . . ..;, ,s.. , , ? e . - 9,Y." w. ..' . . ; . f* y'.,,.'.m +
e' , s < < i
'I., + i w ,
.s + - ,
^ >, .. ,*[j . ,D.0 h*;~l f..i'
. . .$ r .- .%4 y
,' e ' I .* A l 0%
', lt ' -- ^ % ' ~.-
s A. "
.~ .o _m. . r.
s
'~
; m. .y. q., y ; e ' . h > .p' *:e .c e, z ;s
.; ~ y . -> . s-tm:s . . c<
, . ,,;a j
. i.:. w.mw>,mw. .u.W.,m s.. ;w:a s.w :e s.
- u. . .
w;m:6..u.
,41 m.;em.wwx:?;4 , h ' N-n.:).. .y~ .w.um, ag%.+ .9 c
lt- %. . . . r e .*4s ,.- a d
- v;;c.v %. .m . M;a .
s e 2 w. M t, 4
.. y, f ..* , . y ".' q'.h,? .y - e p't' r.
SM-W, W or an unusual manner." Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hlli Nuclear M -t'N.F;L gx m,U 4 4o c.M$ ' N,. ' Y;
.: p w $ $ y & W -
> c s ~. - <
. Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 405,5 NRC 1190,1192 (1977).
g, 7 +a.v;w- . , . .
. , : n. r
^ QP>}:i(.- D - RULES OF PRACTICE: DIRECTED CERTIFICATION
( T h,.!k.$ m-; n.. .#..,.l. Q Q %.. Appeal w'. yboards U.have repeatedly pointed out that"discovery rulings oflicensing
, . n. ,
-h % /S , D 3 " S '~
k[u[.d...n[ boards are not promising candidates for the exercise of our discretionary
,%jf%i 9? ,@Gli .L authority to review interlocutory orders." Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-608,12 NRC 168,170 (1980). See
..* j$di..).'Q@@!c;,
..fi M 7'1% Mc QMMb long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB.
s%;w[w,.3[Qr@w MM~ C./$% 780. 20 NRC 378, 381 (1934). w :.r. e..~nc M d: dm.n MM.y47 w+. c b n:. , nx@;p:9.nwy W ;; v.w; n: ..., m. m
- m. M... ~ M. e, c . ..Wr gm a e- .T, M ?. W W( ~ ;RULES OF PRACTICE: DIRECTED CERTIFICATION
' D:'$.b, :Q :e,:qM.M,.g.n.m .
.Y . Like a referral by a licensing board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.730(f), a petition
]'?? P .Y[$/MS $ @$p'$ $. requesting the invocation of an appeal board's discretionary directed certification J.7:f,3. S .Mh7'EjggsgM authority must also be filed promptly after the interlocutory ruling at issue is
.k V. . S,t _. ce. A, ; 'i.(.N. b y " , handed down.
\.W
,lM':p w '
n.#%.m % c'#g M. .
.f. -[. ;pn.y n :.yn. ,(. .:';- . .~ Qa~:q . . , . .
-a .qq.wq.
3g _. 3.
- .,r.;y . . .,t :<;i,vy :..n.a
..m.
- .,w.. .p. . ..
APPEARANCES 4 %. . , ' , s - .,'.)t. - ,
..%. , U P, ,. .
- ._N. ,
.e$b;.3. . ;. R.K. Gad III, William S. Eggeling, John P. Dennis and Deborah A. Steen.
.' ^. ,. ,
. M :s..s ; W~O..@ '
... land, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicant Texas Utilities Electric j
- n, - .,.
" y ;' .
Company.
. _ -., ..y .n, - a .
s c x. ., : e.. om.
. . e
.- -G Nu 3-. William H. Burchette Foser De Reitzes and Michael N. McCarty, Wash.
.. Z:. . , ,.. . ~
M~W'y ,J 1. 1 f. J T W,#fe, jl"?r.'. . Ington, D.C., for the applicaat Tex La Electric Cooperative of Texas,
.y,: b., ; ; .S: .; : c:-v.4 J . Inc.
r. i
- t <
- -s ;
; *v. e *. S' .p
.3 S . ?. .c [
N s 3e . ..
., 4 y . . ... Acie ,Q. . f ~ Anthony Z. Rolsman, Washington, D.C., for the intervenor Citizens Associa-4 s-t #J . . 8. c 9e~. , tion for Sound Energy,
, a . . ,- : :. .
~ , ,y ; ,? , s -. *, ;,
A. i Geary S. Mizuno for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
,1, j. . 3s,,..3../. - p s q Ks 1.l. sf-M...- ..
,n s
, ~1
*3
?
~.yk%*..w
.. m .,v..m
,.,!s,,...,
.'.e., ,. . s .
,, % s .'.'.g
' ., s ,
N e. ;;.S.,.:
. s,,os . .a , -zw. ft.; e. s,.%m MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v, me .M.: ,.
..w u; c
s
,.'. . 4 '
p x ... ~n' w,m,' s* ,s . ,y, w. o p- m .q . - s
. g;V ['." A. On November 28,1986, the Licensing Board in this operating license YRQ.M@g'#@l D;.W ;
4.@,f. proceeding issued a discovery order in response to the modon of the intervenor, u$s~1NEM. dP m SMkJ[$.,}y,,1 . Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), to con fel the production of n+n'N $Y' x
- ffhh d
?%'4.. . .d. ey. ~frr. w.w'e J,f.m' ?m. . w.~.m. . oa. w.
s L.t.; - g,,@s
. s 3 i h*ly.77. ;jQ. 72 M. . WM:QQ.)DT.shk'f,ke , (** 'I.. . m 1 m,.".M.. $Y..m. . . .
s,. . b .# ms ,#
.~ ,
s .em t d G g ;,l, I ' .
<Q p*.*,' ' . .c;y', )w. Y < - . s . . . "lgl.,[ , , ; 9. ye 'o. . . g .
-s*s..
5 , y ,, e"*.g .Y
,. - r=.-.
$ d, 3.*~.f.
P.' g . . m'Q .* s -~sI,f. g.,
,g ~z.: - ' ' ' -I g,'"
...'J.(
#[ . $ *g og f '
E ,
, . 1 - .$ ..
, E *'% ,'4 ..7
.- *'. .~, 9 - ' ,
g g 9%. _ M ang.p.e .. g , . -_
. . _ _ eep. ; - p e..+ *.e.%gp ~ - - sa-, .
.s. ,
a
' ' ' . r
- J . - '
, *'y.
,_ > .;, 4 s , , ,
n s p
).
n
. $ 3I
, , 5 .
.* , .p.
I ( .w- 8
^ ', , ., a
,'t - 4 e S'- ,
*'s f, g, s -
g
, ( 1 '. ..- , ,
4 i '. t ,
, ., ( >, .
-' '- , , ~
. ^* ,
s s .
..:. : , s ,
- s. , , . .
.:i ' , m .. s-t - . - > . -
. s
.g-. . ., , -* 4- .
i - - i _..
.G' # '
,ar -a.-.', ' i *
, 3 +
C ,-g. . ' a
""4
< 1, , .'J4 o .;s. 9.
3 g'.,^,,, 4 '> - l4 U . '.. ,*Y,, t - ,
. t;y; . , ,q. , -.; . + .
. .- s, .. s
-g ,
w 3, yf. a . n a...
...3
- ,* b . . 6,
.rM-.
4 .,.% f '
., ' I
- N .; h. F ,['", e
. ,. '\'{.* , . - . g
.@ s
- t. ' i ? - s c , . s/'f'. .'.'
-r ... .* a i . M' . 5LI -<
> . ,., y
- 2 '
t : . s .
%.9 -
>z,..;: ;-
- _.- * - L. *
. . ' '.s d. , . w'* s4, ye,* n c
. n ?.st .w., ..r. w. . , .+ ,.
.u
,A, a t N,,. ? s s ** 1 .
- -, . J . - T+ ..%-
(* *
- ,1 E. '[) i
"'s _ , ,
.., / :. . : y u.. ., . _ . p . ., a y ,
3 1+W.T.h-y, w y,.;rme.~>@@W.y)M,d w . . w .: a .
~trs.. w' n.%.#;+... v_~xt .y g.m
- c m.1. m. y.
..t .~ -.. e m . c. ,.c...V.,.p-.c 9 i
- t::. ~.
*., n.. *~ 1 '
n .v 4 ,,- 6 1..
. . ~
c I
#WR G
. W.~?? .%f WGM .f le .
-%r?:W. tG7.]
certain documents from Tex.l.a Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Tex La) - d*y? " $d ". ') MMD@$ %;f;V '
'aone of the facility. Before co. applicants and minority owners of the Comanche Peak nuclear the Licensing Board, Tex.l.a asserted that the documents were
, .-ll.MEy.fbM/2 , covered by the work product privilege because they were prepared by Tex.
RTOM@ *
"a La's engineering ionsultants in anticipation of state court lidgation against ;
)O ; ga;f Q M(?,4@2fs@fp.&y.+ / ,% %cy ': W b'D i the majority owner and lead applicant of the project. Texas Utilities Electric Company (W). The Licensing Board found that the documenu in issue were
- j
/ ^ MDhkdf .yMe d
'd.ddb%[ discoverable and that the asserted privilege was impplicable with respect to CASE's document request. It indicated, however, that Tex.La could shield the
" . n M .4 information from ~111 and any legal counsel representing W in litigation against 1 9 N /Y: % s M d .h.Q'[
d 8 7;;r., Tex La. 'Ihe Board then instructed CAS.E to draft and to execute a protective M,mDh@l%.D[@Ep. m kI AfNUhMh?d agreement which, "[Ilf Tex La approves . . . shall constitute an Order of this 1
- x. v goggg,-s v <
- b y @cf. $ +3,f nm o. y ejp;T 7 mD
- % g . < Thereafter, CASE and Tex La reached an accord on the terms of a protective ITi,1
%9.4.@:fl'D:ip.p$'/;.WR.if:. # agreement that they executed and submitted to the Licensing Board in the form of a protective order. 'Ihe Chairman of the Board approved the order on March ~
(DMh'MQQ@!?@C@4
- .N: .M ^MC:i:;M.W[h ,
12, 1987. In essence, the order provides that Tex.La turn over the requested
,f nM( hp,Ip ,4 documents to certain employees or representatives of CASE and, upon request,10
.(;@ sNi, r %.Wi 7 .#,Q . % . the NRC staff and licensing counsel for TU. But the order prohibits any recipient
' ~ ' .y , QJ. [A NN Tk i; of the protected docurnents from disclosing the material to any principal of W ;
Q ', , f.hli fTy or any counsel representing TU in litigation against Tex-La.8 t,' W i 'd J.,... @hr?J
. 'N 'l & M]j On June 19, 1987, W filed a petition for directed certification of the Licensing Board's March 12 protective order.8 In its petition,'111 asserts that the
. ;-.u ~
7 7 4.{7. , -rhf protective order violates its right to due process, contravenes settled discovery [ M" principles and prevents the NRC staff from fulfilling its licensing responsibilities, i g(: ,l
'.. 7, , ,
, After obtaming extensions of time in which to respond, Tex.La, CASE and the
; f/ ^ . ,; 3.. staff all urge that we deny the petition.
B. Our cases make clear that we will exercise our discretionary authority
*.GFe,q, Q n p yy, ' ; ' to direct certification of an interlocutory order of a licensing board "only 1
; C ;.:. g .eJ:.yMM: /
where the ruling below either (1) threaten (s) the party adversely affected by +
.@ %- it with immediale and serious im.m..ble impact which, as a practical matter,
, , # j @- - (can]not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affect (s) the basic structure of the ;
, ,l proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner,"' We also have repeatedly pointed
~. :.
i
*. . .- ~
.5i+*. ,. e.
#. [f ,, , 7 'Q'%. .
.. ', s . . s * .,
3 Mens enean and order (Novenbar 28.1986) a 4.
. t.. . ; , +, y ' ; jy,
- j. I Psenestrw order Odush 12.1987) at 2 3.
. ? _ '- JASJ . , . ,
. ; . M .' . - 3 See 10 CJ.a. I171s(0; PaHe Jose Co. s/New Nampe4.re (Sambreak sienen. Unies I and 2). ALAa.271, si' ' !,' d ' , ' ; ,l. W:',". [ . I NaC 47s,482.s3 097f1 i s' ,, . , * ,l' i.?.M., '#sMe 3endre Co. e/ lasses (Mastle IGI Nesnest . : sienee. Unho 1 and 2). A1Aa-405, s NRC '
4 ? '
;t a 6, ,,
1190,1192 0977) Usessaes endued). Acceed Lees ledend Ugenee Co. (shmeuse Nuclear Power stamm. Unit
.' ', 11 AIAa.461,25 NRC 129.1s4 0987); Poblar Jonese Co. e/New Naapehere (sestoodt Sinaien, Usene I and m(,.J',' .;*' ' c 7n J. 4::rg., .
4 21 AIAa-839,24 NRC 45 <el 50 0944). Ceaseen.selsh Edme Co. (asandweed Nuenser Peeer siseen, Ueks q W &J?- I sad 2). AI.Aa 417,22 Nhc 470. 473 0985) Canelsed Kisceir nhamenomas Co. (Puery Nuclear Peeer Flama. 34 'f9@h;$ t
,s+. u. ..w, w? ,,
.. . .r .. , p.
. .*. w U.*T .b.9,t , ,, ,* s .D 7'['N
'*'n ' %y. i.*9*
.m.
Lm. ,', .% f bng..';w. y;t .,Q;4
*f w:.i= 4\ X.yl . * *
,'[l,,3..':q
[4J - ? N ' 7)
. y..M..Q)fi -
- , U,J
..>: +
% 'n,",y .y. A.r ,+ & m;; g s
- j. =x q; " j '* -
- J, } $g p, . _
- q
.y ; .
7 * , N ,. , [Q .tk$ a
* . * '. 'N ]**{.
.iq. g',i % U .k { L[.v .,
.,,. , q ..
'*8 2
. ,* ~ .;-
- - ;(,.(* -
~-
, , +
~ '
. ny., ,-s - - ym . - ,, rr >-
\
i
. ., r~
' ' es n c%.e. y~ n ~ - :-? . y - .- * ~ ~ -
~ '
4 i fl* _.
. . n, . .
.-s~ ,
4 & g. 1. y 4 , k ' 1e /* f L. ., - . g,
, ,a . f ,
- . ** w. k
. s
. p .$ *
?% g $ v ..'k W "
*a '
. e
, . l"'
g R !" - f* ,
..s.,-
.,- , ,. u.
- # * ; .. , s s ~,< *. t '
, = , L. i
.m 1'*.*,- ,. 1%, e ..;
,O ,
( C-
- f. ,
. Y., '3'- , ,
* ~
. ' . .,s , ,3
- 3. . s, 4 y L.,. . _ - .
. ,q
, 5. /
-s. - -.y, . .*:.
3 4
, 's-i Y.* .$t *
-. q k d. g.
- y
,.', J f
+ s I
, }
- yo-M .y&,.,.r **.,
-b7 .. ,
t.a 3, : .. ,?. > -
;.. 'k'.. .
,\-
1
. *:*py-***\ ,. * * '-=,.
.,Q' 4' 'g' ,#
1 . ,#,4 , ,,,6 **';* ^* g $ ~ ca .h, 4 .
, . , , ,,,**j
, i -f ~[ '~ 3 - ([ e,' ' . E s
'#. ,9i
- Y" g ea.
s '~ ~ -'
'l g r , } w .h[ ^ ? ..
, '-, t, , ,,
a - ,,".h- - **.a'A ._ J
- ep y.._,..s
-. - .. ~ . , - , - - - .- - - - . - - - - - - -
; . nu e.~ :, ,
g@y.p e enq%w,". lGW P W 1 q q,: w p+ a <ce e ;;j. %m.V.R*>,4,mp. yn 1 7 ! een.3. n. -. -pg.rm.m.r c p . w .a
<m m ym. ..;- ,
. %v,M, . Q9N' l,
'MM. ,, dim.4gy@u 'yMc Q. ?.out on,'
c m W 4 hf-[$ MMc. that "discovery rulings of licensing boards are not promising candidates for the exercise of our discretionary authority to review interlocutory ordersys This l fQ j , ; 2J- ~ MMMMNM@N@AM9c ..f $ Q.'. Licensing Board order is no exception. In spite of the overblown rhetonc in W's j _; $ d. P." Nif W [ E d . petition, the March 12,1987 discovery order neither threatens W with imminent . I f.J and senous irremediabic harm nor peit vasively affecu the very foundation of the '.[/py M'$M H M U A i M,
%[e S. ,-g$ x W & .& q p operating license proceeding. Indeed, stated most charitably. TU's petition is
- q@i .a
$Rd; W, N
so devoid of merit that it gives credence to Tex La's assertion that TU seeks to - l s, , Q . . .r@@.;. .. @ 7 Jg c. use this licensing proceeding to advance its interests in ;he pending state court l
% @,m c W yc; @ M W -~ ; litigation with the minority owners.' l
! $. la the ext of its petition, W Arst asserts that the prometive order prohibits 2~%yN 4QN M.E N kMMN yUD b:$ Q O' Q N- lt access to allegedly relevant discovery material and therefore denies TU its li due process right to know what it must establish in order to succeed in the WMijM*4fMEMMp.W[. hNb M.M Operating license proceeding.' W follows its constimbnal argument with a ; ikf $'1W + w h p fed M[W@ E; W M 4; footiote asserting that the provision of the protective order allowing TU's 7 u
. . i., . . M N O V T .r licensing counsel access to the Tex La documents "is simply unworkable; and i W f W:M. , , ...;Qd!Wy A .. ., . m W.. -
W~.p% I . sy h b$$ M M ~' its attempted implementadon would contravene the essential premises of the system of .w.e.iive advocacy employed before the NRC (as well as in j Anglo American jurisprudence in general)."' As is evident from the structure " 3/ 6% g; n#j % $y N.y Gi Mgpg- DJW V M4 h;# 3 .f2 l CM
~ ' X; $ an?inucurau fztual Wu. 'Ihe Licensing Board's prouctive order hes of its argument, W is well aware that its claim of constitutional error contains t 1: e", *
, MW W ; if3;' not deprive TU of any discovery material because it speci6cally permiu TU's ;
F Se" / f MM nj!,$. licensing counsel access to the Tex La documents. Thus, even assuming we were to accept TU's highly questionable claim of a due process right to the j p.9,.' - ; . ,r M N-G ;J7"U, 3.. ; >
~ c Tex La documents at this stage of the proceeding, such a right is not infringed t
' - .c 3 '. ys ,
here, i
,d: , m M, . W's other claim is similarly without merit. Merely asserting, without more, !
a 'c i
- . N that the Licensing Board's limitation is unworkable does not advance W's
;e' ,
/ ,yt .; ,E, M s j t,, % ,' s/p. position any more than its amorphous claims of violations of the norms of Anglo-e p.?; QM.7 f' , t Amencan jurisprudence. From all that appears in its petition *1Vs licensing !
MQpp
~
j counsel has yet even to request the documents in question. In any event,
.c- ;3MQ$D j . counsel certainly has not demonstrated how the Board's order is impractical i
('_ - MMQ - 1';.; / f.Q or explained what specioc prejudicial matettal in the Tex La documents must he revealed to the principals of TU. Nor is it likely licensing counsel can do
- n. :c - ncn.:,- w s.:
* . c :.- - y~e e
*-=..
; ". ' 4 y u..
a,,, '., 6. # .. ~q ... r u; z
,,iA'e % g , : ,,i . .v . j/' -
s e t , ,, .
- N' Uma tk AIAa.791. 20 NaC 1$79.1s42 0964h AMr sesus Co. e/New fasupelwe 8 (seelseek sinaist. Unas
.r
, ' p q d .
, . + , - , ., 3 -J -a - , - #pg;- 4- ' ~
I and 2). AIAa-762,19 NaC $6s. 568 0964h Ansees Amr sense ce. (Pale Vads Nusneer t'-- swasm, y,iins 2 and 3), A!Aa-742,18 NBC 300,383 0983K r
,_ n ';,ck; '
, ' ^ i ,. f f.g 7 ,
8gemsn Qw , d p, , c,. (Same Tuae W Unas I and 21, AIAa 408.12 MC 144,170 nDeo). l
.J.'C - *j W [-.y' see Long leased Qung ce. (hw Nesteer p ar semen, Ung 3), AgAa.7so,20 NaC 378. 3810964h " r, , ' . t ,jJ+ %-
( : .-3; 4 Leet edand l Quas e cQamespost Nuclear Power sueism,the 1 and 2), ALAa 318. 3 Nhc 186, t87 0976) i
.,'.. ~2 .;' 34- g '. 'see empenas er Appt eass Te 14 Desene Compmeeve er Teams, Inc. Only 22,1987) et Is-16.
J T Appheus Teams Utanies Besuis Campany's Pension for Disscend Casessenen et taesmans aansd onder er { 9?& W g . T.. ,. . ' M,. b;i * "; M.xb, ,'% D e&'&. a&'d g,p M.Ei$w.$' Y$@$
+ naaseli 12,1987 puse 19,1987) et s 6 (hummener TU Peinsk
- 4 -J ~ , ' .! -
i k ' Ed 6 S-n&.. SO % d,Q: n m
!.dW. <
- ~,o /a*p<f. . F. .%.
.i s . , ,
w C "g 33 .
. .. w ~ . n 'P[ %. .*,
g/ gw. 4 . ,n 4 i. , ',4w 9. g . W.A - $> t.m19 y ;t p ~.s W av 3 1. j , ., eseg C
,, o
-a
,; w q.p. -
N;g
~ . 3 , . --s ',A .s cK,j y m y.7:g,. - r.. s*
>. s '. s -
. , 9, . 4.
.. ' *d g .j.:y, '
.y .
l [*a- T ' 4 , . - (* } ii r - s' f ;;; $ k#.,.f.W e ;-. . n * .,' % f b g
*' k ,,,4,
- Ir *
#d eb J * ,,d* 8 l q , 3 *[- ;
.yd*
g, . e.- d.t 4 - j, *"' I
- i-Mk'. ,y,
+ ~ "; *
. 5
___.,-,...,,7,.m.~.g y.a --
- c: .
s.
'W. -
is 5
} "[ * ' .,
.n . r, r '
. < .. , .p - , ;
. =
1 w t .4
- g,
=
d , [ g g . g w - s ^ - 3 .[ . 4, , , i o,.. q t yy 34
, y o
t 5 g 1f .h % ., F
.' ., i j *e 4
.- .., "* n
.', . . ' ' M
.l.
.d ' , y .. . , . - > - 1t- 7 . -
.- .. .s,, .
y; 3. m. . ,4;.x'h. ;. - .
, ~'
' - ' . N.ig,'a
'. g . k s.
g
- !' . 'k-j - NA . , ') . . .
g 4 y [. s . O 0 5,') J =
#5 O , i , *. ' / * -
, 4.1 -
q s. . N
.;'J M y.
J. *. -.y
+ " ., s Ov ~ yy
;t . , :. h*%
, y { n g s ,,*a
- n. . <
..*ts;
. . . . ; ~ r
- < y. . 1
,,,',...J.d. l e
.t ,~,, , ,
, v4,4. *.N. l e.G,4,2 -- g
.p- t $., .. s p .,'_..
L
, ' " .e. . ' * , .A ' * ' .l ^,-
_.".--~.-...-.,
, .. . . , - , ..g . .. .
.- -. ,r . % , . c. . ,
ptr ' < O. w." e,, h.&u,'n (.<., t-m . .o p . n. ' ; M. .W.m -
.s .q;e. ,.w.h,p m.w:- . , o<*w' .n. Qw* := ' r
*.(. . . .
.,.a ,a e. g'e,,
,.,w .a r~- r
. -- .g o , , ,. m f WW; ,. .
this because any possible prejudice to TU does not arise until CASE seeks
. x . M ';fQ-l3?,. 9 . . 7'."i"M v 5 ,N- " to use the documents in question against 'IU at the licensing hearing. Only M.p, 'M'M t cc , ,y at that time could licensing counsel be disadvantaged by not being able to p,-:'y$ f ? %{
2 ,, disclose the contents of the documenu to appropriate employees of TU. But any wy ? , .,9',*.p/S @. ./TZ,?.h;.
,.R.c,Q- .3 mQe' @..m such claim is entirely premature because there is no indication such documenu
~ '
will ever be used at trial and the protective order precludes the introducdon of m QN . s S
. , .M ' i, , ' , such materials at the hearing without a further order of the Board.' Thus, TV's
-,:. o f a, f. . 0, d argument establishes neither that the Licensing Board's order threatens it with
; d TA ,. ., %.. ::.g ..
T :... . s-gfag .. ' immediate and irreparable harm nor that the order pervasively alters the basic
'.'J%.9.@if,_.'j@
structure of the proceeding.
,M NE4!;fM'N'@, M,- ,.
The same is true of TU's remaining two argumenu. TU claims that "there p y;>^ @'LivNE -.
. M r' is no provision in the Rules of Praedce which would permit discovery by
-Q,"- cQMM.7.'- q ry%$.yc. k some parties and not others of informadon such as CASE claims may exist in the Tex La documents."l' TU then concludes that "[i]t is thus presumptively '
N p,Q',@3f,$jf.'Qj h,'h.h[Q M M-MNd@y, impermissibic to enforce a work product privilege against only one of the
. Q % ;W.O.M W parties."" Contrary to TU's assertion, houver, the Commission's discovery flq .-[W' WM,Y,J%ecqp. gd[ e regulations expressly provide that the Licensing Board
- m. c,* .? :m Ty . . *
>..A w .; 4 >; % ..
/- M,4 y #' c? ' . :. ; <Q', 4 any ordet which justice requires to praect a party or perse fran annoyance, era.
c.3, -l ~, may make 7 . J E ';W. J . c.M - barruament, oppression, or undue burden or expense includ ng one or more d the foDoming:
; . - ' ', e.J3'.: s; . . . G) that the disconry rrsy be had mly on speci$ed terms and condities . . . ; (4)
<r '- y "4 (/ {D
,j that certain matters na be Irwiuired into . . . ; (5) that disconry be caducted with no orse
- ,, ,.'e. j; -r )g fc i
present eteept perscos designated by the presiing c(6cer . . . .n
. . ,- " m n. . . .? <.w:.
, '. QW ,' Here, the Licensing Board's protective order limiting access of the Tex.La
- ' 4 .
E. r3 7 documents to TV's licensing counsel is wc!! within the broad reach of these
- ' provisions. Indeed, in analogous circu:astances, we have sancdoned similar
~
,jn ,
~
limiting provisions."
, '. '.jg.,
i '
. ,. .o ,#p'f ; TV also claims that the "most egregious" fault of the Licensing Board's order
.'.,' - / M' is that it prevents the staff from fulfiliing the staff's licensing responsibilities.l'
,, y' According to *IV, if the Tex La documents reveal instances where TU has
.- < Lc failed to comply with licensing commitments or agency regulations, the staff
',x -(j k l e is precluded by the protective order from disclosir.g the de6ciencies to the appropriate TU officials so they may be corrected." TV's objection is once again premature for the siaff has indicated he:iher that the Tex La doeunents reical
. . e ,.- m:
- 2,.
.v.,
.. e m
} '
* ?, % 4 ")'3' J l
- . , .. . E ) '. 'see Pramenve order (Mard 12,1987) at 4.
l'nf p,5, a g,
,g ..~ y . ,
's J ' G. j- 1 !!M u 3 9.
- . .'1 , a , 'd op u lo CJJt. I2.740(c)
*.'..t Usse, e g. Pac @c Gee med Elecois Co. (Diable Canyon Sclear Poww Nes. Unus 1 and 2) A1Aa-s92. I1 y -
1,
- w 3.M N NRC 744.7s7 Ottok
, . . .. , . . $[ '
l'TU Penn a 1111 2.. 3,' k h. wa w. M$ uu ,it v s c , ,,y
;%.V.': f. ' p' *-v e
,~ ;:,..J'if f y n
. % n': v. *u. o &,, n? <*'
..;f :L y:ff m. Q % ,
A-.,'.[* fM,b
,::a,~< w..
*Qh K' _ a' g.~ *
%' ' Q' ?' m d.'h fv q( : g .* */J. } g I~ b; . M;Mb.u,h. < sm. '. ,
v, - [' N, *}
-.'"..- . . , ', A* ja h(
._.'s t
'.g- ,a n s . 3) >. j . ,r s,,
'^ , r" y s m 5 '.i '
g,"' ' * -k,,.%r-, <o-ar -is sio o + =w.t-.-****e--.~**** . . N l44 N **U***u'y " '"* * * "y ? 7 % - '- *
- , i, ge ' .- ' '
. 5 y
, ) .'.
' - ~ \
5 4 . , a % g
, 'r
~
k {. ,. f4
' f y~ 4 s 't,' ',
- p n ,. , - , t , .
. , e ' .,lJ ,- '
'u;.. .
, s * .
-Jc,sm. ', ., , '*;, t . '
- r .
r ' 4;* ;'i ,, s * (. _* _
- We -
m g1: w- a.:u
..w w w p %,yuw %; w ; w.x p. w. , c. x w m,
..f wm t
na. m. .. n ~. m. 7
,s7-m, em r* Tv.m:Am.-g%,a1.
c%v @ f p ..A
. Sy p.> s x;:. n 2
" p.:dGGU s : ' ;O d.:.2.-A r, wN, bhh.NhhN M @ g y g g j M W B -f gfM i any such de6ciencies nor that the staff is permanently precluded by the order from fulalling its sesponsibilities. Rather, in its opposition to 1U's petition for J , ;:: Mi m directed certi6 cation, the staff states that "the Protective Order does not pose any M 'f Q N MQNjif@%
,d.f-lMt .i[. V and immediate and substantist threat to the Staff's ability to conduct its regulatory licensing activities."5'In any event, as hardly should need be mentioned,'IU y
di %sh:kh. + @h D d N h b i !~ has no standing to complain on behalf of the staff. TV's petition is, therefore, J. Q 4. Z, C w@ f~M 5 %. j .6y, denied w%.@ %-'df ,, . M., for " falling to meet either of the two standards for the grant of directed .
- m. ,., mw.3 4 m..s._ .N.mw'4 .
cerufication.
%$ .s9 % f.N] M....,.~.mdM,y -
Finally, the petition is subject to denial on yet another ground. Although 9;f-W @M i.h the Rules of Practice do not specify any time limit for motions requesting M.M. & $g @df. Mb the exercise of our discretionary authority under 10 C.P.R.12,718(i) to direct WMMMQ.$%T@Q 9W$N.NUMNdpfQ! MbME . certi6 cation of 2n interlocutory ruling, we have indicated that parties should act with dispatch in seeldng such relief." That suggestion is in accord with the
%h D.$1MNdM@$$.jhOf Q8/A@yjMD analogous referral provision of 10 C.F.R. 62.730(f) specifying that referrals of interlocutory rulings by the licensing boards must be made "promptly." Even LN '9 d M I i M h'g % though the Commission's regulations generally prohibit interlocutory appeals,"
s3'%[Q%jk n [i:e s s %; ww@; m p% e @ w$ $j}: ; each exception to that proscription, such as that for referrals, requires that the interlocutory appeals be taken expeditiously in order to pevent undue delay and ty$7h'O.E.*: Qj$g' to avoid diverting attention from the progress of the licensing hearing." Thus, isMMjMO@N'y$.;t f[ g f3$g $ $ %
- _% like a referral, a petition requesting the invocation of our discretionary directed certi6 cation authority must also be $ led promptly after the interlocutory ruling ni.. M W ic at issue is handed down. To hold otherwise would sanction the possibility of Q+N. n. . , rlgs:1 c
-7.$. W@C.Wl.4.
+
Aa .. i M. a.@. . needless delay in licensing proceedings in contravention of the Commission's policy "that the process moveu along at an expeditious pace, consistent with the
. .;[.'.%w, % f. NQ@4.ys *%p :g demands of fairness.""It also would create the unnecessary incongruity in the 4 ';. s'p.2..
. : . Ut Idb ' Rules of Practice of requiring licensing boards to act immediately in requesting
% ?&Y.Y;W our review of interlocutory rulings while not imposing a similar requirement on m, ~. . , ,
v ,7,. m.<
.a 4M..
r . e. ,, (n ,9*< ,f ~.. ,+ n 6.>. the ~ paru.es . themselves.88 Wg'
'F 'm.. :WJ SJ @..) .
The limits of what constitutes a prompt request for relief depend upon the f/T E ~Jf'!$pf ih.i;f l circumstances of ew;h case. But here, no matter where the reasonable outer line
*' {,+ . a.f y~m:g j %vus gQ
. is drawn, TV's petition falls far beyond that boundary 1he 1.icensing Board's
.- q. ': ' ') . * ,G,,y.gn; z, n -
s ' . gs@. M
.- w NaC sier amperse to Tease UtQiams s3enne Campany's Puuman fe Dummed Camacemen (July 27,19s7)
, , . ~-- [.g.
'; A ' g M y j.% : ' .s a 12.
"see Mrgiens Elserne and Power Co. c4est Anna Peeer sisinai. Unus I and 2). ALAa 741, is NRC 371,
*-:. y~,..; , J . ! *Cb:j
{, ",,,i,12. ' y2.G% V.M5 *. - '
,.n 3,73 a 2 (19s3).
; ge. . . .a.p r7, , M.g >.cc, !
- t. ; , see 10 Cix inon sama.m. 2s NaC a 134.
/?,' .' M - . , , . 3%7 '
- ( "see 10 CJA lllM0(f),2.714(a); Pole Ferde. Is NaC a 3s4.
-1 .. M.N . "sassommer a/Pelity ee Conwr af ficeener Proceedsee. C1J-s! s.13 NaC 452,4$3 (19s t).
i^' :-[; ~, W@N?N g*>i3 -j ' .,A 2nledead. 6e neederds we apply in daarenans ebaker is emmene aw escsonas in dueang omssacanae
- . q. ./.l j *
- y%,@ ~ '. E eran*_
7 shng peesuppens a tunely capan by a pony for notaar. Dam, the shag smet,isser e e. 3,Wl-- ' 5 SM ~' duesimi the advanely aSened peny wuh imunedime harm unet sannes a ait 6e reader appent rame sar conwaan Q d 7,f*6N t . A *M.dQ%', ; Ahrneaively he maling aest affect the besse uructue d the precondusg. Due standasd knpiiss that es saw is se
, #;-dlif y.@
.h. ~ --Q7 .1 .l*4f 'r 4 . g .. - ' $h.d '* v.E,7 %*r@Q,M,c.wQ;&%s g,2i
'py yQL/ .
Wal and essuptive that t mesa be eersoned by prompt issadecutary senew to sense &a the psucemeng een be of5dedy casapland. [sb[2. *?5 .x.I.Eqt@dj
%g
~ # M 'ed ~ ,
$ U
SW'*.W.;.M[Nfw.m%g
.2 w v. e .
.. , q m.4' w A. wfM.h.WWG:
- 76 D: - ./
. Qft
/E
- h; .' 7 s.~y+;,h.c , .p~h.w>w,%"p. g - .
, s %. i , '. < W G f,.c ,
sw W ', .,y; 4.W<.7. . . u-
. .e"*-*.c>ja , -
.L c g v@ma,,;ff6*:' ;. n m :. y n . w '?. w:*.%' Q M
.'*((. . ' .
, , ,. e,. J rA- /*
[r * [ * ., k , a ~~'4 [.
);.sJ Q.g*,;*',, u ..
+ n,.-. m,
,1
.Q '
_ . . n .e , -. . , a
, . ' = = b 3,
. i p . e- . ..,
, ... , y g:
g
~
5
... .l ....
-- T .
'.. * -m,
....r
. ,-. - . ,w.,y 6-
, ,3 s
. .,A
- 4*
g 3 -" ># ,
. , , i * '. ,
e
, me
~ -
. , , w,s - .- ; . -
4 s. , 6 . .
= *
. h '.c ,1. * * .
- p ,, i
. . . , : -;tp _ ' : .c ' _ - . .2 :.. '. .' '. ? L%
,4 .y
..n-
, g-
**-*y .. p%4 . --,
y
-.t
(', ,g-4 y ,
"#., J t -
. ,g.,
s
# .. .p.
.t' 3
h "I ; ,- D'- d.' Y N s . p .'
; .y,",
,... .r,
[. ..
; eg ,
, . -w <
} ;.,{. f .7 p', ,1 t y -. .a y.
il , ,
+-
r i M- '. A ,4 ;* M ' *.'s a..;%"./
- 5
- Q '. M.- - * *
. y -U f'.
m a ,.'.,. _ - -e - - -E**- , s ** v, .
- 5. g -m . 4- st,.d J,' [.' ' ' i'. N.h 'U)p <M "7Ih
. e- , . % .a .
5 -s
.g-
.y .
..m.* '
* .
- I:
' ^-
-4
< /' * .* , , -
N a 'E *. _ _* -]
'I * , '
,. .. . + 2 = -
' .9 e **f, $ ! - y 'r
$ o.*Q,5, k,'(gt,,f.
3 y #e fy). , ,, e
,<re {8.[ --
.M yp ,. .~ . 9 (..u._ ,C,
.c e
,,[h *j,% *...p...
e( u.S'
@'F e.M. - 4 ?
1 4 F t+......
- e ,g ?- "g*
~4'",,, d .' 73. ( J
*,y,a n ), e , - ,
1 ,s..- ,
.-Y >
Y . k l . . '..
.g.
e 9 , G :.
- 4. . .
*?n
- p. g N. *~ ' t -
, 3_; Es c4< .,a h. r .~ 7.s ' lm. .. Y order was issued March 12,1987: yet W's petition was not Sled until June 19 !
.o L ?f f .- - - over three months later. Moreover, W had been aware of the substance of '
S,y "DO ] gj,2h, )4 @ ul -
; . j'. l .f G' W -
the protective order since November 28,1986, when the Licensing Board issued L v its initial order in response to CASE's medon to compel the production of the i
, . :M ;: f; Tex La documents. 'lVs only mention of the citreme tardiness of its 61ing, ;
s y wi@.e .v@. .4 W,?'.h v Ca ]. '
? ' y-a , ' ' '
however, is buried in a footnote on page 16 of its 18 page peti'. ion where it l r; y&q'g yi%: ,..;;.d.. 3 states that (ulpon the entry of the Board's unprecedented Order, W Electric . t, .c jgtm AQ., attempted to determine whether it could somehow be accepted as tolerable if l cM M V 1 M .. j O ' nonetheless erron:ous. 'Ihe hopeful evaluation of that possibility took some l U ~M%Ed. ' Pg'^ ' time."# Contrary to W's evident belief, it is not free to take over three months
- c. ~yd. in determining whether the Licensing Board's order is "tolerable," after already ,
46@P Q %~-ff A.NcMh.m @, J ~ P.' having $$ had ' over three additiona! months notice of the substance of the order, ' 9[ N E ,,g '.'* W M % . If it expects to persuade us to invoke our discretionary directed certification i M R~~ ,NONN.g+4Q h}yMO authority. Rather, it must act promptly in seeking such interlocutory relief. Thus, W's lack of diligence in 61ing its request also compels the denial of its A. y. $. G. 9%i,W ./,Ng,%. s
- a.u, m 'i. n.e..- : .
K.. .f. . . 6..,w,w.,s. ,sm.r . . ,o. .,.,.~w pctition. t
. r . g. ,3.m .
,m.q g W. , . 4 It is so ORDERED.
Q j %y%,;m%g;n y, ~ y .
'.Q) f ;.%p ,
/ .
FOR WE APPEAL' BOARD .f-
* [.' #..
7- Q hh, 4 t ,. , - , M. . (.J.
,'*[v e
,' , ~h,.*
. .'y y.;.
v . <. ,
- 4. .}f.;
[
,T ,l *. r Q 3 'j t .
,' t s , . ; j ': . [,* p + % ,[ ,' * ^ C. Jean Doemaker
. ,,c' 19
,9 ' % Tyy . . Secretary to the
,W i ' -.,! 2. A~ '3w.'_@ .- #
Appeal Board : g g ee 4 s- ,, %
)
~
,t , ,"e 36 E.e-
-s
~
j
.' .-y- ,.:h
'.t' t ,
*VLer<,y.
n
' ~* av . .,
t
. y 8 ', * * *
- 5. ; ,r '
=% 's .
,7,.=; ,. O 'r-ff7 j, g r %r w..,
+ ,_
. l \ ),s. ; Q 0;, ?
.<a.
. % .;y .
s ,, -
. s.%.c .-
m, .
' ,O *
- , w. '_.8T r I
;g- ~
, t
> *
- j l s
.. .m' '
, e %
i *%..=5>.< ; 4 4 , s es ' , *. ' .? ~
. , e.,, A .$s>' *
,,N J ti '
l .[ G ',,
+
,,5.
'r, .a. , .' ' 4 ',nu g- , s w
'1 ,...v. 4T1
.s y- y. :
s' ' si ,
. .6 r, . ...~l*4,
, ." ( .
. I . 's % *-
*Wb*, ~ ls AU Ik ..
'fy *;.Q' L .7 y Q:' G' .,%:~a.' -
3UMO. M I Ofb D * " 18 "M
. . . ..Jg ./a.
Y f m
, .,; .g3.p y,.m e _ .pgs@c q,,a+, .N.I ,.
e
%,3,9.; ..>.h.*d,'X adW'.
N,6.M;
< . %.m : > .
mh1x .h ,g
-w ..-4 j -( p! .
m.; . w.
< ,.e,
, .f *re ue. ~
, eil*** , ,' .,*=,'d','"g'g . g f ,", 1. ~ j~; { Q. y, . y. , . , {4
, g,w w r "
,g * . % p r' . 4 0'h',
, e,, * * ' I
,'46="l_ %' km.*
g h 1 a " .E* *,J. ) h ., *e r, .c s; , 1. % '., / < n7. s . > q - i
'. y 2 ,, - , . , , ' . ' 'F d
).~, .
I i S
,y.,,,_,' MNY W * ." * *
. '* , {p . e-bgM --N'M--
. ,_.N ,-
*~
, s ,
1 k , , , ,
- t 9
1 '
< i. = s j ,
s4 4m' *' l 4 ,
- ' I +
' ^*
. I 4.., a a g.- '
(- , t ' g
~ ' '
' ,Y,
\
y
,*.w M q 'I =
- N 6
, .3 [' "3
, e M - r T
- 1. s - '- . j, .
3
,t.
- 2
~4 E , .k***g' g y.,
..
- e s
* ' * ,6 3, ., ~'
- t '
.' r. .
' 'cx ,
. . ,.s
- 2 .m '
h
- s. y , 4, - - ;,,-,e..
w* wsc m *i.rf cpw'.
^,.,.' -. #. .. <.
,,.?*< d* ; O : /, * + m, p' S. - ".3;,4 s- , e : .. 4,; - 1 .
.;u' 4- *'*
y=
'. N " g ' ~ ' yl' J, e . ~, :% ', s .;e' .
,,,,'.,.-s.,..,.c.....
,- i. .
a,.t..~- y, tb A,s .
- . x ..s 'a.,t y M.y.A... S , t ,
9' ' M, , Che as 26 NRC 78 (1987) ALAB 871 1 s Q,d. .s. ;;d * , . -c '
. L.g . . ,
l d T ,e *4 I 8y'- e
, Wy" I p' ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, g, . ,. '..'g> . '.z . , 1 .', u.. . . ,m. ., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- n. ....,e... s. . . . . . - ,
, .. . . , , . ;s ;;. . r. e. a...f3.e
,c ;t 1 '
w . . .. ., 7 :.. ~f,,. .q . ..-!, . ,n.' ';, ;. .*: J. . " , ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
, s
.:3
. - m ..s.: -
s 1 , ' - , _ s
..: e gp e;y. ., f M. Administrative Judges: ,
. ja.9- ..t .... . , . -
- 4. ;;v._,. ~ :
.g --
.-m,..,,,.
e g
.s s<. a. ;. - .
uu ...
. w
., .; c ;i, b..~ i:. s.
- W: m .
.c La Gary J. Edles, Chairman ,
v..k, g( Q,,. : 9 _'.ds .*..g,.2y, 3 a. o r.m!.,o' n.W~ . . w _ Y
- h C. Dr. W. Reed Johnson
.e:g ,
Christine N. Kohl &c. a.M &: ..:1, . e.,'. . .j E }.a . .
.i' ..; e ,3 <;~.g , .
~.m. *
* ^ Q. s': ,
d .g n r n)_ :5. 4 e.j
, . , ,,, q.r*l[t*
.; 3,&ll , ,.
- u ,s a,e p 3 , , . ,
m5. ,. r.y ,- , ~, ,,, N .; ws M. tse.. 4 -,. - cWy.lppfyo:qM, s.T
.. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50456 OL s., ..
~
- m. st
- . i. . . m. -p. -t.
j.w ' so.4sy.og
+ .+ u
' ,4 '- jp 'm_ u c3.yw Q; ,,-- (Emergency Planning)
. - i s , c w. c
'.y ; P-P ' A , * .;'..y
- q. y
, 1 1
.7,f - '
COMMONWEALTH EDISON J. , , COMPANY
;, y..y . . .' T,c'. .--
;'i . , (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, '
M - ' f ,7 1 Units 1 and 2) August 28,1987 7~...-:
.,.s
. .c .
. c ..
,'. - . , >: :J-
,' , %. On sua sponte review of a Licensing Board partial initial decision in this operating license proceeding (LBP 8713, 25 NRC 449 (1987)), the Appeal
' Z %^ + .
4
," . c . . , ..-
Board finds no error necessitating corrective action and afarms the result reached , e v q, by the Licensing Board, !
~ .
.,f t 1.s -
- -. .. . . ~
' ' o DECISION t
~
; -c ,
5, The Licensing Board has issued two partial initial decisions in this operating M a.y , . 4 " , ' license proceeding.8 In addidon, it issued a memorandum and order denying i t.
. s, .l . .
! e e ,, S, K -
both a motion for reconsideration and a motion to admit a late filed contention.8 l 7w g.r-- -
~
, , .1 . ; + J !
. . . ' f. , 4. - ,
r - . % .y +
)
' s, r. . ~ -
; r.
.,9 s
. [* 5 W. %,; LR', _ ' ,
d. 3 12P 87-Is. 25 NRC 449 (1987) and 12P.8714,25 h1tC 461 (IM7), e a==W,12P-8714A (May 22.
, . , . : ". s . , 1967).
Jr ,N !".- %n; ..[J. ,h... '.7,.E M. @/ E c.6 - 3 c : 3ee 12P.87 22. 26 h1tC 41 (1987). l '$. k. ph.*,.3,a+,,4*., ;h.r.,,r#M. A'.'.~ ~,e kP_ s ,
..,,* ? ',, ' 4 '. ,.m'wn.s ; r , tr 6. - PJ4~.s #
.,
- y $ * - i.g5% =.c9,.,=
*f-,, f. b
,..,.,h
*N
. ..? f. 3"'q *.x . . es,s m
y g- r. = *
- s...
* ?
. .. . s s y- . . . c,{ y -, 48 *
. 6
.:.:.4 g g.
o, ,:g?;q,
^
- g. .
", . cy'.+ 1 ) { ,s L.'*'*
,i.
*g.g / y ann,e * ~~
I
',,' t ; ,_ #
.?
g r., . I y ,
, + ; n .__ _ _ .__es4.v.....e,..-.-....,m., n,.. ., , .e .
v ,, 1 s ,
, A
- 4 r Y -
- M e 9
1 p a S
.,,*F g
+ 4 s
. t
. . 4 ,,
4
,ie' g gY e T.
g 4 t ", - , s , y N . 9= ,,.h.' g .j.,* e
.. ^. \ }' s e 3
,,::v .s + . , 3 v. .cr .. a m-
,r et p.cw w. :w,.a ,,a, w J:s.q. e .. 6q ~~ ; >
z.. >:;aw n. . , ;.y... g, ~ w. r
. .... <wgy q. .
. ...-y , ,y.vc,8; z. e. .
- . p:
, .. .y
.. : . . .W. w...ya ,
. . .v: : :
ytl.cyj. g.. m; ;~ 1.f. R
, Appeals from the second of the putial initial decisions and the Board's memo-
? '. ' H randum and order are pending before us. No appeal from the Arst of the partial i
. 74, . "W'.ii .
%,,,, .'JJ.C . ' l' .,
; initial decisions was 6 led, however, and, as a consequence, we announced our .
t 9 h 3.: J5% , ., .,, intent to review that decision sua spoiWe in accordance with our standard prac. ,
- f. t q'. 5,M g,9 e 7s tice
- l
,' 7,4.; L.'g7 [ j ,, Our review of the Licensing Board's decision and pertment portions of the j
,(.. 3;. - f : . ' 0:
- underlying record reveals no error nec6sitating corrective, action / Accordingly,
% 'n
..". .'. ".' ;,.'. w afarm the result reached by the Lkensing Board, O, . . :lg , ? One matter is nonetheless worthy of note, The development of plans for ;
.' ' ' d [g:P' W*c,--' .. *. t 'M,. .
disseminating emergersy information, including the production of accurate and cl; ' l'pj? meaningful emergency information brochures or pamphlets, is generally an w:y,7 J'3,3mJ ph. 'M N evolving process in which members of the public have at times played a useful MfdNM gj?MGy@$M[;;;,f.h'A, y a g .a.+ e,. m 7 s:;.y f vew; w .u - . j g' ' role.' In the instant case, certain of the intervenors' concerns were endorsed by the Licensing Board and the applicant voluntarily committed itself to im e i
. , . ~ .pf . M .p .ff.?,Df d'JW 1
~
Its emergency informadon booidet in its next revision.: As we see it, this , /; ,'y1 g& g,'J
",g.yg:lJ NN cooperative appoach contributed sign 16cantly to a bettet public information f- .M.M:lW@ hit 9 program while avoiding the need for additional 14 tion. ;
%s' .a\ , -.,' +
- f[ ;., 7 Q ' @3 :v:; 1,.
s
- g. . ,'g.m..] g: " 1 a
. . tu . % . N. ' . ,
LBP 8713 is 40lrmed. ,
'*3....; f. 'b ,j.;....,f;. It is so ORDERED. ;
- .. ' . . : w$ + ,q.
y
. y. q g . o
_..,- ; - y, FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
}
.L -
- , wpy . , -
y- ,
, .,' .v... ' '
"1 .#
C. Jean Shoemaker
. .a.
.. , a ,, Secretary to the
?,. +
Appeal Board
, c,
-. . 4,y ' ' 3.; f M. ~. 5. . . >
t- ; j .. 3. < ,- Ms. Kohl did not participate in this decist >n,
- f.
a s- p' , ~
.,1 , . .
'* ,, p f. lYs l
- 4
\
. , Y-,, .. , . _ '
i, \ 1. 1
.,t - N-L ,
,e
.y.,-> . , . ..
.! 4. ._ v .,,c .s v ,t. -.e-, , ,
4 . a
~ /!..1, ; . 4, - ,..
,s -
,2,
, r , ,
- l. J 3 Appeal acad hne 9,1987 onder (uayubhabe4 see geeseepy Cenamese, pena, Co. (aig Rask Paus Plas).
..y ' 7 '; 4 -
s
" Q' y'N - .,
n .. AIAa 795. 21 NRC 10945%
*ses.,e # Isennens pe , a 14th Co. (Wmerford sesens I2enne s6snan. Una 3) AIAa 753. Il NRC 1321
,' -Yr
- , i m p: '. :j,1 ',. j.g*S,- .
- 13310983). d's sais spons. LAP 83 7F. If NRC 949 0983), and Warepoken Edere Co. mese h idand W p"' ??, ; */., y .n. ' . .
4 M.y - ,a Nudaar stenen. Uns Na 1k AIAa-487.16 Nhc 13h5.12N 09821 J, ? ] g, N eg.*' y[ h,.,Jq q . 8ne aand suped en pan m . : ,, , w %
$ 5 z.p: s." .. i v.G. A n : .i
.sib m.a;J 7.f., w, if ' - r-,:.;c , a'j.: $:-.vge;&.[ N@.;&. W -
.,q mf- fug n'.sp.,;(.J > r. qz. ,:.=:j,3. q;Q,.4 t'. ,' w ,pt
~
*f9 4
'.,%. ,a . . y e ,e-
- m. . -
' .,; % 6 y*,.' s
,: c'y .,. ,* .-,
, , '}, r. -
. ' ' *~~6Q;4- pwC.;;r. . ,,
, . . <-Ae..a~
K , , *, 4 I g . g 7 (. - J -. . . .
. p . v._t ;
-}
j
'M'4 N '$ N*,h*@#,*- MG W FTP FT'.*."'*F**J'"- -4 .et N6 ==em er' ** r 4'".-Th ..*WS * * *.*a'.
Od% M 9 9 [ #' { v s s -
-e f +
k w 4 9 i *g , 8 #e.
, l ~ _,- * ,e_ , .
6 s _ . - ' ". d N 9
%" $ 4 , y
, <= ,
.4 .s , <
- s. k} 3 -. , , ,. ,. ,
- 4
.g., < a.. -
-.; 3;
- i . . . , .
..s. , 1
a m n. m . 7-
;.;;a e 3
. ;. . \g .
s - -
*4 g 4 \ #
.4 1 W:l .
n4 . Atomic Safety . and L.icensing e. T J... t '
.r~ ,'.;. .
s Boards issuances
'. ;.f' 'l, , l- 'l J:__};Jh.. . .:a ::
' , af-W s.
? o. ~ " .: G ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANT!L
...~. ,. .
--:'~' .r; - . s. -;
- B. Peul cotter, ' Chairman l, ,
O' '. ,1 i Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) Frecetick J. Shon, *Vice Chairman (Technical) L- ,
'(3M ,
'*r . , .
y a
- , Members a
Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grossman* Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke' Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Chartes Bechhoefor' Dr. Cadet H. Hand. Jr. Peter 8. Bloch' Jerry Harbour' Morton B. Margu4s' Glenn D. Bright' Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Mdhollin Dr. A. Dixon CaHihan Emest E. H4 Marshall E. Miller
'. James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Moms'
< Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Oscar H. Pans' t ,- Dr. Richard F. Cole' Citabeth B. Johnson Dr. David P.. Schirsk
= .s Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. WeMer H. Jordan Non W. Smah'
, , .q- ,
4 Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. KWiey' Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr James C. Lamb ill Seymour Wenner s' t John H Frye til' Gustave A. Linenberger' ShWoon J. Wolfe' li James P. Gleason Dr. Unda W. Utile v; M
~ '
. b, s 6 - a
,e*_. . , ' . 's sf'.
s *
$3 ,* ',
s
..g . [
9
- 7. . . .. .. r .. : ,
-f3 , ' * ., [,
~,'.'e , f. ' h } ,
er
;< - .. - c.:.
n';-- y~.,;.
, ~ f *i
,- ,=s',~, ,'q-y ' w ~ .
- Permanent panel rinmbers
.'- -r [ (,3 : ,
~--. . , -
.. . . 1-- ,
s man. - e.g.syse . * + e w -e. ..3-a,-e= ,-.w. m . . w.e-ee. ,. ,o ge...im , e p. , e sw e , e m . ., e ,. e T
- a
= "
e
's
, . , a ,
u . "A,. . ,arcp.
.e . sw, . mm. ,,- 9 . . . -
rs .4, A g . s 2 - ; ;;.: . s~
- 1 s. .y ,,,. s)
. ...g J- [; '
. , . O ' .V;^'4 f;i
- 4. . . ,
3.. ,4
. m;
.' j
.y ,,; .,y j,Jg,J, '. / " * . g. ".7 _ -'. j .
Cite as 26 NRC 81 (1987) LBP.47 23
-r +,. .:n?--
- e' j. ,-, % 2,, ,3, .
.'/- -. .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m > J, .
. il NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
> M. ~,9. .
.,f p u,'w . 5 . .
% e p
,4 '.s.;. h ,. ' .,, "% ,
'; 52 #, , , . Jc V. E, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL i
s_: - s -
.u. ., .. .v . .- .
.)
' ./ w .9.. w,(;,., -
f q j , ' C. . Before Administrative Judge: y<
. ~<.. .-1.. . , a o . so.~. .>
u. g'
. g.tg.... , '9,.. ; ,2),g , Charles Bechhoefet M. - V:' , .. . . W # - ;._ 1 y .-ep S i,.f.';a y,.y.wp M ff L.
i l
.g 3.x u < y . .m o...
i ; @y , .; O . rg y! ??E,,.,
~'
In the Matter of Docket No. 55 60755
'.y* p : 4 ,,.." $";;-Q, g .Q , . .f (ASLBP No. 87 551-02.SP)
. ' . , . . ~: , m. w' ,; y .t ,,:~ G'; ,
'" - U ,.,p %i ALFRED J. MORABITO l
- ,p J.C[U: ' .
, V s. ' 2 (Senior Operator License for
< . :. c. . .i. ;;u ,
Beaver Valley Power Station,
'q-
.uf"
- Unh 1) August 25,1987 4e #
a . A .. a t;. ' p . f ' ,3 , In a proceeding involving an Applicant's appeal c' the dental of his senior operator's license, the Presiding Of6cer ru:es on motions concerning (1) burden
- V ofFoof. (2) revision of operator license examination process, and (3) timing of
,,'y , proceeding in relation to the resolution of certain charges made by the Applicant T,' n yl> - to the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor.
, ..~ ,
., , i i
' ". , %,4
, . 7c1
- e. ,
RULES OF PRACTICE: BURDEN OF PROOF j 1 q.,'g
, . 4
~
', . - .j _ _.
In a proceeding challenging the denial by the NRC Staff of a senior operator j license, the burden of proof is on the license applicant to show that the examination has been incorrectly graded or administered.
.ve , i
- s- l
. . c. ,...,..,,
..- +
~)- '
SENIOR OPERATOR LICENSE: SCOPE OF INFORMATION o, N
~' ' . .'c# ~ ' -
. .,.' , A .c, REQUESTED FOR LICENSING
.. y~; .
. ;* 7 i .. ,. . . ; Under 10 C.F.R. I 55.10(a)(6) (1987), one of the items needed for licensing is m./j/?e.
- . S, '
, [e]vidence that the applicant has learned to operate the controls in a competent
- g. . a. orm;
. ' . ,, c. y; . .
- .c4u .;; _. .. p . .
and safe manner." This requirement may be fulf111ed by the certi6 cation of the
.3
~.p.: .y,. . .. .y;. ,'ylt;.' f z u.y. ;, ijyyk. ; vc: * , ,
Ij.M, Idl .I.
. .s .
7Y.f.; 6- .-,'7;;y,[. s
- e. s, f
,; i !
.I . .s.
- y, gg
, . . , ', r / * .c...>m... ., ai , .
', ; * ',-:: # s=,=>y-.~
:. , .. . ); . ,s
.t .
,e
.m&
.l
. .r.
$f .:.. .
2' ,
'O h
,) ll .
ss. .
!. -f h,-[r}'., s
% I. (,k9 %
~
*s * .* , + 6 .'# . , . 4 y _. .,
3
..- , o ,z -
,..ym*. .g
~.- , ', % - . , n n -.-. ~ ~ e. m . . , -.-,..-... .-..-~ .- m r-..r.,~.
4 , q - .id 4 { 4 4
\ T s.
o
.P W
. 6 Y .,
,- ; m. t 3
,r .g *.
- j
, 3 s . s , , , . .
.{.,* - , ..
< . s ,. .
m A'.. .,r
*L s .
t_ '.- ' . ' s m
,, . 4
......- s.
m ~ Pyg,e.y p@gg: . um
. :.. .P. j n ,. 'h , W. ;f
- s yy j <- .+ . . facility licensee. Such certification, however, has no bearing on whether an
' ,sN,Q,,y; ' 9 , applicant has passed the examination required by 10 C.F.R.155.Il(b) (1987).
.s ,y, . ,,
RULES OF PRACTICE: BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD T-n.v. '. ' ; _ ls. .'O' . 3 . ; f ~ *y '
- c
. In a proceeding challenging the denial of a senior operator license, once the
' '_ ^ q # ; applicant establishes s primafacie case that the Staff's grading or administration
^^ m. *
~;-
. of the SRO examination was incorrect, the burden of going forward wim s ,
evidence shifts to the Staff. t.s ;<~ ,
, . d, .' - y ..: .
.. X 1r RULES OF PRACTICEt JURISDICTION OF PRESIDING OFFICER
< v.c w
. ;. ;, _7.;w.7 u fy ce 3 'g; e m' 1.W. - In a proceeding challenging the NRC Staff's denial of a senior operator N (,Tin', J]?
_
- v W ; . yyy.['-
fd! [Qd 1
. . , license, the jurisdiction of the presiding officer is limited to determining whether the applicant should have been granted the license. If the applicant wishes to y, Ep 'y)b ' f(((lP,,d C change the methods and procedures for examining and licensing nuclear power q, g ,. q u % 3.f y plant operators or senior operators, he can petition for such a change under the 4
-~,F. .. J x c r.! 7.7 c.
~M i Procedures of 10 C.F.R. I 2.800 et seg.
q' -
., )
Wy
~ .. . ',c s-RULES OF PRACTICE: SCHEDULING
. , , ~y ,.
The schedule of a licensing proceeding should not be governed by the
.rf'
~'
resolution by the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) of charges made to it and having some relationship to a licens.: application. O!A reports directly
. : . to the Commission and is not technically involved in the licensing proceedings.
p
.y..* I O( .
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
..,', D' (Ruling on Various Motions)
. , a.~.
.. .,' . .c - .c .
"@ Pending before me are three motions, exh dated July 20,1987, submitted by a--' Mr. Alfred J. Morabito, the Applicant in this poceeding. On August 10,1987,
- g. . the NRC Staff submitted a combined response to all three motions. Ibr reasons
~
c,3 set forth below, I must deny each of the motions. 5;g, , 1. In his first motion (supplemented by a July 21, 1987 filing, which !
-- . . , u, - -
have taken into account), Mr. Morabito seeks a ruling that he has satis 6ed his
.,, M ,. - ).7 burden of proof in seeking reversal of the NRC Staff's denial of his senior cg.: operator license. He reasons that he received a certification from Duquesne Light
'wrf. Company, his employer, to the effect that he had met the license requi4ements of 1-- ,.
. M x :fu. ,
10 C.F.R. Part 55 and that, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 55.10(a)(6), this certification H.c".- *-3 Q9;F c.lg' y : $[0/$p:. ,~Pg ' should be accepted by the Commission as "proof that "he has learned to operate u,"<1;
- 1. ~ i.h
'I w ] M {y v ,. . .i i I
.f 82 I r.
, _7 . of.;, . . , > c. m::. a -
. %,y2. ~ .; fi,~ 7g. g t
. . - ,
- y .pfy , -
r . , , , _ h. . . .
.x.
s d t - .J ; 1 . l .. 1 _ ._ _ ,.nm.;y.,,....-,,,n,. ...,....-.-m,..... . l
~. - !
Y g l ., . 1 y .
. 4
. t "h
? l,- s s '
> - s .
i
+
~
l . l
'A ' '
- F
- i 3 ,
._ . . . _ _ _ __ _ . - - - - - - = _ -_ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -
.J,3;3~ .. w ,uxyp.w.m..;w m w,
- s. wfc :. ...y .. . o, m.
.r .
. q v.x.vs,a w...g. y ~.q nl. 4. ,.
,n . w, . .- . .. n y . u' * , ;s, o *s
, 1 3t' ap
, m . eRe-.. J .< ; x;r ~;n'. y. :v{ , p3 e ~. ta al{y.-eWx PA,.g %g .y:(',y.e, wm,33Q,g?s.m,,p-1] - the controls in a competent and safe manner." Mr. Morabito believes that the ,( NRC Staff should have the burden to prove that the candidats,'s "actions and e 2. 4 g$'s ;. ' w/2ff, O 7. n ' , a ' . .WGiV . answers are incorrect." l Q,,Wl.GWlffycf@f;O '~ In my opinion, Mr. Morabito is misreading the provisions of 155.10(a)(6).8 WW ? e. Under 155.10, the Commission sets forth a number of discrete items that must . @]d cl. .@. . . _.
- h'QlWp.N;'s
.p r V .Wfi[, 'c be submitted as part of an application for an operator or senior operator license, One of those items is "[e]vidence that the applicant has learned to operate the
- I M$j:, ?.k controls in a competent and safe manner" To fulfill this requirement of the
#.ff s. N - Q . M$d M;' /.W % i b ga'M /g application, the Commission may accept the certi6 cation of the facility licensee as pmof. As far as I can determine, the Commission followtd this practice in pW.Q*.Q Q $ ; M Q) M/$ G mmh % fi n1W this proceeding. De rules furece reautre, as a condition for a license, that the applicant pass a test (10 Cf.R. I SS ll(b)). Thus, the successful ful60 ment of the application 8 h$ 3 .MMI@MM$2 '(y S[Q$?Gdd ,
- i k @* N ' M 'l e % J 7 requirements set fosth in 155.10 only permiu the applicant to take the test Ml N% 4l,f;d!",9f@. MNc .
F5.Q.'. l" . required by I $5.11(b). His sequence is made clear by another of the application requirements, a written request by the facility licensee "that the operating test 3?.g J,' be administered"(10 CE.R.155.10(a)(5)). Thus, as part of the application, the M'O -$ A:7Q(.y-% Q $ $' Q@ Q y y;W f written request of and the certincation by the facility licensee are comparable: W <;flyMl'f M 4 A M they both are requisites for taking the test and have no beanng on whether the ,q' s a v q. .jg/ applicant has passed or failed me test. ~. b . d1( Q. . pg, . .a, . , ,i. in these circumstances, no basis has been supplied for altering the normal / '2 . . g ($ '..] J; V<- burden-of-proof rule for licensing proceedings. In proceedings subject to .- - s n J , 10 CE.R. Part 2, Subpart 0, the burden is placed on a license applicant ^t -(" ,f unless othetwise ordered by the presiding of6cer.10 Cf.R. 5 2.732t see also ig Consumers power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,
- c. ~ . - J. . , T,4V"'
345 (1973). No explicit allocation of burden of proof is set forth in Part 55, 1 . , ; 4. ; l'y: lg.h;y, or in the Commission's proposed rules in 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Subpast L. which 1 J '. p.- ' . ., J, . l, y,.s - 6tn following for guidance. But in show-cause proceedings, where the Staff is l% , y f.(w: seeking to impose conditions on a con 6truction permit, the licensee (who will [ . , ,f S f ; F$y ;Q'4 .,' eventually become an operating license applicant) still has the burden of proof. Consumers rowr Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), Al.AB 283,2 NRC 11 ^ ' W~ 17 18 (1975), clarified and ('d on reconsideration. ALAB 315,3 NRC 101 c J'- (1976). This allocation of burden of proof rests on the Atomic Energy Act as
- m. .. J 3;lb,y. < -
.c . - . a.d@i ' interpreted by the Commission. Midland, ALAB.315, syra,3 NRC at 103. I- f .41?l 7 Although undet 10 Cf.R. (2.732 the presiding of6cer may determine that l [+y ,c,' VjY' Q j , # hc[$ ' ; w s. . . . g > *a. . %. s: . i p.: a party other than the applicant has the burden of proof, I have been presented no persuasive reason for changing the normal burden of proof in this case. As ,m .. ....*w > : i . < ~ , m. .g y. f ' d ',, . y, , 3Eriscove May M,19:7.i.he Camusman amended to premisses er Pan 55. De sepuuses rarmody sa te,$ f **,d / ; 1,B. -f.1 y m,iv T@f.gf.:4, ^ a l $$.10(aX6) ase appenn (enk mome) in now 10 C.FA l $s31(sX41 smee Mr. Merews's eaarmanenen i ! M W tW g W,N.MMp,Q ,
- g.M%L ses essessed ender to eW Mas, and anse lien appeal ses sled oder ese Men. I edt apply esas Men in
#88 P'emm4sg. De oudoemen in es now Me appass te have e omspeseWe effen le est nder the eW MesL f N'm *.T r x-i M Q:.% .4. m . ftW,2 - ,, meteos.,s . ,.a ss m w s.e.Aa. d orear war is es eu was. e.las ber .pam l j*Ffi'.?~:..;u',N.s'i, c " V. l4 f A W;.ec.w.% 4 r r.. ;6 r, , o v. .v, . .e.*.
- y. ,. y . h ,sr n h y.c l * .
p . 'K"*r .t . fs , 'b.%gq .. i ;f,s.'.9... ;74 i 7, -QW[ e. g i .Qd,y ]Q 6 +p< 'g y
- J.] 63
.~. , g .~. . sq.1. m pruer pge 7. . a - .y- , , i \ 'n - , . r ~ ' .p ;,.2. 4. . ,. ? t r .s . ~~ s .. < s . J ~ = %, '. t!. ,* m . (*,s .,v ,D,'* '. 3 'i gm i 4 . I a.sr.unem , N 4 M * -WW"**.**"*'I*-*"]*******'**M""#*P'", " $ * " * * '"I 4: * ' ' i . ,e , 1 '
- I
- , .i . - * * ; l . C. , - 4. - , ) g w W s 4 in . 9 y { , q , e ' /.._,' . ;; ' i- * , k . 4 s gt . ,D , . 's - ' " s, . s.'S 3 g g , ..Y -. -. * ,- , , , , ,. ,,.., ^ x . 9 . - *h l[* {'* ? .r ' . 'p..,tj, .I s j s ay*, ,. _f y .' . g y 4 . ; . {l ,( . E , f c i, s - . '*
- _] +
i.] O 7, ,.'g.', yf M Y *:C y, qa ; ,9 , ., ', , ,4 , g*.. ., y. . 3J 'g.y.%% y7,4 .6' - ' w .- g-. .,. ,_. _ . - -- - . _ -- . _ __ _ l.g *jf g 4 p.nty h g i s . N ..T. 4, , 3 ji*.1. N V f..'.$,D...'. W f.A 3& n'z.,$a?1 , . , - f../n " n.v~ m . .-_w-e 3( ,., r 9 -.' /,,y ,; .w y- <r&npwi.m* -Wm ~ ~ , e ,s wm.. 3%1 y r.s. <5,. m . .. c s7v.a u._ v< t gp . 4m 8. .Ng D M R.v.: g w ;. y ,.d 6 3, 7 1explained :. g X'fabove, L the provisions of 8 55.10(aX6) cised by Mr. Morabito do not i constitute an adequate reason for shifting the burden, and Mr. Morabito has l 4 tlMc-GM Uj. Q M .p' p p %y< )j . Lg advanced no other reasons for my doing so. Accordingly, the burden of proof ! 4dcWN m q ., that the examination has been incorrectly graded or administered in this case, i and that he is entitled to a license, must fall on Mr. Morabito, and his motion f;T [Wy $ >h $^@19 0 8 yh g. $; g N .W M ,[c . requesting a ruling to the contrary must be denied. i W VwW m in As the Staff observes, however, the burden of proof must be diflerentiated i M.3 Ni? from the burden of going forward with evidence. Once Mr. Morabito has estab-f , W %.ie $< /y;M@p;<,h,..'k.C n h.M.k;h .g o m lished a primafacie case that the Staff's grading or administration of the FRO examination was incorrect, the burden of going forward with evklence shifts N c. %.: / s m. %.W $. 39sf .ME M (.123, lc ?gcg, MP sM~ 4-($ to the Staff. Midland, ALAB 315, apra,3 NRC at 11012: Midkad. ALAB. f <mpra; cf. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, W[yfj%% MhifMiMD.M9 MNp'Q Unit 1), ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193,1245 (1984). Since the certiacation under , Y.{ d 'I' b f M 5 D # % ,g s $ 55.10(aX6), referenced by Mr. Morable, has no beanng on the examination. it would not shift the burden of going forward with evidence with respect to the l 5 S v e M M .;;, h EeN ih@ .iNA d examination. However, Mr. Morabito, through his Speci6 cation of Claims, has i M.TMD"$W9$@M;,Q' ' set forth substantial reasons why the Staff's examination process may have been !M?6N&N M6Qih@A$0M . ., deacient in cenain respects. The Staff must now go forward with responding to Mr. Morabito's claims, and it is in the process of doing so. See my Memo. s.c l'W M;E l " ( V W' MM,f.Q.w M 9 %$$dif M % l;,< randum MandbOrder (Extension of Time), dated August 19,1987 (unpublished), , ,;~[' Q QQ; granting the Staff an extension of time for 2 purpose. l ! ~ i, - ,, ~ f. . yMny%V M My decision will consider all of the 61ings, together with any other in- ? 'Oy MM.QD;:9 ' formation ! And necessary and ask the parties to provide. Althenagh the ultimate ! # (W ;1~ q ' "'~
- 4. p'[b , "' burden of proof rests on Mr. Morabito, that allocation becomes pertinent "only l
. 4v 'y' where the evidence on an issue is evenly balanced or if the trier is in doubt about the facts." Midland, ALAB 315, apra,3 NRC at 107. Please be assured N . ~ .i J.h . , h ~ that, in reaching my decision, I will give due consideration to all the pertinent f.'H Cs }ll"c.4 y. % s4 % G information advanced by Mr. Morabito and the Staff so that my decision will i
- 93. s.- A y ,,Q..,y/ g. , re6ect a full and fair resolution of the issues that Mr. MoraHio is raising.
- 2. Mr. Morabito's second motion seeks revision of the operator license l
l' ~ f 'MM 4 . l < % : ".u.g'.$.( ' process with Ave speciaod measures. However, I do not have authority to put ) c - ' ' - , i .My C such measures into effect. My jurtsdiction is limited by the Commission's July 1, 1 b ,7:9 y. 1967 Order granting Mr. Morabito a hearing, as well as by 10 Cf.R. I 2.103(b), 9 .,.' s C E X, 6 ; to determining whether Mr. Morabito should have been granted the license for '.',., ? - t 4. ,1.d, 'ii@ 5 ;j . which he applied. As the Staff points out, if Mr. Morabito wishes to change ..m. ,n . hm ; 6-the methods and procedures for examining and licensing nuclear power plant 9.yf,,4.f:./H . ,f y.C y w ; ,. Vf ' - - operators, or senior opencrs, he can petition for such a change under the i l .@M Z b- 4 i ? Q,9 procedures of 10 Cf.R. 52.900 el seg. . pj j;i,;7 W;'.ysy; Q. I note, however, Mr. Morabito's argument that, if 2 proceeding were to 0 t A:; d lead to a ruling that he passed either the written or the simulator examination, IN. d.~y,Y.hw.Wg n;gM M h.. ?e( .g .f;g,3gdgy,iG :t, c then suf$cient proof would have been given that the license examination process is fauhy and in need of revision. In determining whether Mr. Marabito passed L w ". .m Wr < ,, % 2 ty. *2 . -wq .*,.O..e- *?ef~'% .y b'.,$,,ly.. . r, Q b.* &o W? %$, ;. ti +W 2 3 r t ;y -e'e 'q . gg,Z,b, s& 'g - q p'i., gg v@,.) g..'4Es..g,.sy,~,[v. m 'fu , , , .W[ 1.y 'p 4 , Q ;;;hw.y~:l; . Q';.
- s. w Mi y ; ~,U; Q - ..- Q s*
c- w. . . . . E t; 4 Q i Q-g g 'I ;s .- .;. QT . , '(**/ *[w, 'k # f, - c; . '. . ' 4 ,,;y ,,. W <] ,'h , c :. - , *{, , ,, -* s - ' ' ' , * * * * * * * " . - -**weene.aw - - - -_ __p,,,si.%,,,,,ww.%.,,,,,,,,.,, , , 4 ,., . , t- , ~ W,r .v * . .. s' . - s . . ,- + e= . . ; 3- - 1,, . *i I ,' * . ,\. , 1 )-
- s % ' ' f& s, ., ,
,k ' b-B -,- + . . . . 's , +:. ' ': 2 ,' n s . ' a - ** - " " 3 l " ' 'g3 'y { ' , 'g j ij % - ' 1 . vMar y ,7J! c . , _ ,, , , . . > _ ' ' E *.,s r ^ ; . ; f i ; f . ,f' ' p. ,' . T .N 4, ' 4,q' ' ' . .. %.r .- - +.- --p -*f' 4[')qJ- -- 3. -Ji p 3 ., . . d..'. - -t ; ,. f ** : * [ gi; ,
- y. .
', p N
- d*
* # f , ,- ,"* [ [ * -/ ,.e ,.,f . ,. . %t..,,1o.,
- lNn
%, .[)m.c . n i. , . _e_p . -v +3 , e 1- t ; 1 *. s , ,i u * - v= ; - ... - .- -. - - _ . .- - - _ ~ ~ . ..m N H www.:. ! 4w.cmm ,n.=m.w,-. ,vm@4. wx;q:-- m n :;d > n..mL w:.y &n:w m ff: 4 ;?. cwQyQ W.n%) d 6:Le. q nw. u&m m, . g,,m_ K . .. l d, .ns,FWOMM.@N.d . Np ' ',WR
- n Q f S jf, %m m~ n . x,. y those examinations, I.will of course take into account all arguments presented to me on that subject. Mr. Morabito then may use my decision in any way he l
l J. R py. , i 4 . ands useful if he should determine that general rule changes are still w,id ) i Y % . 6 @ i . (/;c g . w,' 3. Mr Morabito's third motion ats me to issue my Snal ruling in this { proceeding only after charges of Imptoper conduct by NRC of6cials, which ?. W'.$ 5*6'q,f[ gC. ' M ;. M Mr. Morabito aled on April 16, 1987, with the NRC O(6ce of Inspector and l AM;.@fi.Gi[. 0 '/ . Nc' TM f: yM' Auditor (O!A), are resolved. Mr. Morabito asserts that his letter of April 16, .f. ;( :i 1987, to OIA (of whkh I have not received a copy or otherwise had access) ! w q q(.:gy . t ,Sy] , l W Q A"? ? Qy.' stated est actkms of NRC of6cials on March 20,1987, in holding a selephone l G ./ Q ; 7 # @ .MM, . conference with of$cials of Duquesne Ught Company violated 10 CE.R. I 2.780
- 3 & and/or various sections of 10 Cf.R. Part 0, especially 10.735 20(a). He adds l i
M*? J,WQ h.x?y. ,N frgh(;NMM;iO%.h. Wqq;gg.g CbMh M W: @H $[Kp %g' { M . N.G'c J. thr.t. until those charges are resolved, he has no con 6dence that the NRC can render an impartial decision on his appeal. Resolution by OIA of the charges with respect to the March 20, 1987 I ,'j;DM@$2$p.pOWE%[ G.TM .91 :Mp.pg;b% telephone conversation can have no bearing upon this proceeding. As the Staff points out, OIA repons directly to the Commission and is not technkally i [ W WT4f,M:h6@4h7 4% g%~ , involved in licensing proceedings of the type before me. Set #ourton UgMag j .$.M MMY and Powr Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), l.BP.8413,19 NRC 659, fw 'y.ggg .4;% : . .'r; A . M M M y w g - s. 717 (1984), q7'd on other groundt, ALAB.799,21 NRC 360,381 (1985). My review of Mr. Morabito's claims is completely la+padam of both OIA and . v,c 7 , the NRC Staff. The timing of my completion of this proceeding, and of the I o '. - , ; V ; ;. .c' i (4..Ec.yl$ Wcui f ' resolution of the matter before O!A is thus entirely fortumous. ! .c. % p \ ' s q2 *c. j.f , . My only knowledge of a telephone conversation of March 20,1987, between i e-G' ^ i' K ??f. i.h
- representatives of the NRC Staff and Duquesne Ught Company comes from q' the assettions (1) in Mr. Morabito's motion and (2) in the response of the NRC ;
.f1 -f, ( pg Staff, which attached a copy of a letter dated April 8,1987, from a ky..a,;.tive !
- t. ;i. of the NRC Of6ce of the General Counsel to Mr. Morabito. The April 8 letter
_t .. 0 f ' u.YC ^' Q _ Wy ' ,. advised Mr. Morabito of the subject of the conversation (i.e., that Duquesne ( 'rl l 3 .f.N M J.V.y f, Ught was advised that Mr. Morabito was contesting the resuhs of his senior l . .y y ., / O'SNy & operator ikense examination and that it should preserve any memoranda or ~i * , ,' ' -l : w,fdg. notes it may have concerning the examination) and also that Duquesne would y- [ ,' A .4 y y a - probably participate at the hearing and est conversations between Duquesne and { V ~ .s O% the NRC Staff on various matters were, in effect, normal practice and routine. ! . ,-;.7A.[ ! take no position with respect to the accuracy or propnesy of any of these l 4-J. ,' a ;
- XXQ.' - communications, j i d ; ' c.y,4f,, i MW'l.O c I might add that any substantive communications that I may make to any j
- 4. .l . 7.Q , . .. y p , ,
party will be a matter of public record. See Commission Order (unpublished), ! b ,1.. ., m '. w. ' ~ ~S dated July 1,1987, at 2 3; 10 Cf.R. 4 2.719; and my Memorandum and Order l J.. < <m ,J.,, @, g y - (Requesting Speciacation of Claims), dated July 15,1987 (unpublished), at 2. Q. f. " . * . ! ' ' ,i*"; &., 4 . Vg ;Q,N' 'pf. ,[ o ,c ('S_x . Z d.y*&p.., 9 t; . w[i. N* , ; i ?. 's C,J p'I).;*P es* n. ; L,.w?p Q-gg y r...?.&. M,)%?.W.3 yj eab . , WS.4 v u ;t*y n'.~'v.~,gm,s
- L %'+G
[h$ .Y* G M [k'(y& Wlf.
- l& h ;k/ ,
I 4 ; %, e?'. * & . W '., s?~v i<,5 gqMy*d. 7. v 4 5 i d.**'g'j'p.*C- .. N' f . y? i S.U #. " 3[Ny 5M. ', ;y.,at.dh.W4. ,u- hH -= g$ i l ,., g*b;. , n. @* t * ! fy . hd ? 7, .gw; .#. + - 1 l c., ^ ,,, y+ .e . . . .j '*.,?r m' .A ' , .. @ ! m& W' 414.M i .* ' .s . 2 , e, . L [.*(E . t '4- [A E Y}.')( j s t ' . ' *l'asy.. - ,-2<,.--.,,=..~,.. . ..-----. -- --=- +-*= vm e >? t *ee e W , .; g r. ' .-i, 3 i, , , ,7 . - L ss' s $. . ,' , . *i..' s ' = J; ,. . ' . ' . <L
- u. ,
s
- s e f.
* ~' *; , , v . \
- t. o ,
'l . I' . *
- 4 -
,) o ' ~ s ~ ' 's; V- . v, a + , d e' a ',l'. A ?l J ,n , : . s [1 . ^ % . .J,., y . ; ; ',, ? ' J, ^) s,' . . , . }' s , i g .";,
- l <
t . . , ,. y O g ,.c'6 , 3 ' _s . b4* .i,, ; . . r, 3 _, y _ -
- h. i
'D^ g e4 4. . g 4g ~ O.E$ 't ,'E 't - * * \ ,. d ~% , ," t r T ' i } .; c'y [ 5p .f. * .A >*r, ' ,. .;* * * *. .i N;,e*u_ . , , . ' ' ,4 ','~ Qd - i .' , j um
- s. - -
.s .y . #.: , 'sd,,,M,., d *- g~. ." "^* k ?c ,, .v ;g n g u o . . _ . , p , , ^Q, . - .? ['Q .v.i 'k" l9..y n'.- a r k i ?, . . Q -. .p * . (5 ; ,*, , . ' , .t ,u. ' , '. <M g\ rn.,..'.'. i ,,,< , ,, ,+... .
- s. tc,-
m..w. ... .s , e. - , . , g~. g.....- ,., .. . . . . *.f4 . ~'6 ..4 , .o , R.M.m .:!g(4 a -M.s.* -i. , . < Based on the foregoing, it is, this 25th day of Augun 1987. ORDERED $ yd.Mc'sW- 'f- .e Tnat the three rnodons submitted by Mr. Morabito on July 20,1987. be l '1v ?. , .'pt9, . %, ,y- .,, O ,> lh' , Odenled. , I L ,-, ..u,.,..
- x. w_ .. a, r
~o.,w...sy . s' . , ..a., , ;4. , , , .. v - y e n. Nre.._,,.,.<-.. ,q.,, y>.M , s,c q PRES! DING OFFICER ! ..+t.. y .%.~w . , ,,,. . .:w . ,.. ,u .. ., . t m,3 ,.. m. m, m ..c .r .,. - .. Q . g.1 1,. ;w W Charles Bechhoefer i j7: ' (1. ... ,. . . ~. Ns,' @.& ,.. .. . . f[4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE n.. . . .+ - ,. i '4t (.'M.3 . ( ,, . h b , . - .d.~. , s , _ j y)#.b #[ , .* D$ted $t Sethesd8, l&nd, i [.g G H.e.,.?,M..v,r,.O.5Q, . ft. . f f-.' &. m ,.. . Mc %. #y this 2!th day of August 1987. ,.* : s a + .n 4.+ . - u se . . . . s . u' a, . v. e4
- s.
.g *fyh, . ' 1. n.Mg,g@.n .k11' .s T d4'Q , r
- >'*%n wy%s' ff.fl . ayv%.'. x.,Lsvn s; &p&m. y n,.; 7 +.
. . i , e- p , .; . *Wk. Q + * ] . ] geZ.-J-(*3*[f; , . ,.us, v 3.2,w. q. .,,c,*.s., , u,...,- ~4,.,s,c,r o,o. sw ... w, . , ,, . .J..,3-. ' , , _ i rg.... + a
- 4, eg .
. .s . , ' ' . *,44, da. ,. , . 7 ='5 cg'q,p
- I '-' *i. E j
&4 ** i P , a*g*,-N g. q. I ,= ; g. ..,.'.a*<T. .. -. ,. f
- j. - 3,9 4 s g g t v, su,,.s g, ;, i t '
.i r , , s.4 s t- ., .' t ...a. . -Ve e, t, , ., .m. . . . 9; - . e.t , ,, :. 'ic .-. + , ,.,.,t,,,c.ys..e,..,f.' < , - . .. . ,s , * * , s 2, l ' -e sg, *,cc. n- ..',,~,,.'.5,, s ;a s - g, : y 9, , u, ,u ,.,...v. .- - . . .. . ._. ,r . y ,. .. , . - ..< - <. 3 y. ;, , ..r , - f( - , + .s s - e' *',M-v .. i i d. ..- . . . e ;l. co ,*, , i l NE- '. -- ;* ,. !?. , ; ?. s- .,~ q.. . j, ss: . , l 1 _ I ,4 e b . . , , ,.s, ' , # + l- . , - - . . , -q .a~4-+- , , . ,g ; 1 , - , e e l' . . 4 + , - ,',, .;.,. .m.,V.' t [ a *,,s> 'N as .,'.kB,' l i * . . . ,b , , v; ; { , y;- .a. 's 19 :9 a ! - , , i . . v - < v, ' pp.t- t (,3 y - u. 4 > , [ .; p I . s t , .,s , g i 4 , . . _ ~ s ,, t . *4
- i ,
i . ._=.s,- . 1 h - .s'- ; f . ,,. . J ,.- *
- w. ,
> 6 I l ,at + . t ? - .' b' _y,, , 4 , s f,sy'r , . .r ; , l *, , s , s. .f , . -, i ,t. ( * -
- s. ]a ..af s ,
3 ,, *s.,. - . , I .,.6 ,N , ,ty' i , .p. .y-t ~ .h +%; . t u', , . C '/' : .'sf, .y ' :'n, : J. ' s st , , } . % L ity '"..,3,
- d :/ \ .=%. <
( *s s s. 6 -po< . l ., 4 4s . et,<.. . .* ir .m3 . *,- 1 % , .m fi 'ev.g . . .g. s ; * .' s c . -ss L u ' ' ?f,a Ln * ;qfN s * -. j+y--* , M,. p L. c-m.*g'M fyg # vs.. g ~ <. . ,., . . ,,<,,, * '.h , . '. ,
- m.* .' ,', .r.c.. f,,j f,f .'.-i.dc .'Qs,., M. , fc(. .:j . ,
.,.. _ ' t ues*) . nm.w$4 .~4 6 lns a,..,.% ys e e'..,.t. ? ";** ' { .. . , ' , c.-~,',Q, r , s A *. ,'w, ; [ , p . ?.?-)Q-T. w. ;" ; ('y = , asy. - -s.. H' . *, , 4 .[ , * ( g'l ,, d,s. . g ,m.. c.q. . p'f , v -f * *1 7 < . .-m ,I 4 '9 g .U , 9 _'A "30- - s e e, J , ,4.,., ig e % Y.* $ ig , * , = - . , ,4 .o g . - - k..',.3,. +. i *.n, . et .,y '9 ,= ~ , ( ,p 7 r , - ,*p. ' d' , ' e e , ,A. ./. *t
- 1
- w,- - + ,*, L
- b. . i w..w.,%. ..-_ w % m.,._y_,,. ,y.m._,., ,
0 - , . c . < p or - C'
- 2 E '
e- ,,, < - ,(. + ..
- e. T-
. . I ._g , 4
- l g e ' 4#
4 ' f *
- b 4 4-
$ - a f + , . .k* 4 _ q i .1 , , I -- , g 4 1 . .. a 1 5,. .= $ 'I s / . J i . , e -.a. '*._#- -* 6 - , a .t. # s i ','s.r , . s p t -g s . e * ** l , " f ' ,, g , , . , "4' a ,p +r4 - .* . . e e s % .a , , i e ** s *3- , , ,i a 4 ,"4 .g . s g .
- 4 ,e *
. j '- * ,A , y g t "-9 _- l'*,. 8,* *t 1' Y ' '_ .** ,- , , %O J. , . N, y '., fg- L ' . -' y , , j j ', . '.Q. , ' ."*.'M,M .f.-%.,. ' K *, ' .,;Y ,*/,,. ._ dq y , t <,. _ .- s- ..$..>,*4.b- .e5 < * , .* 4- ..,3 l g . l. *'a ., .* , I(* o- , , ,, n. . W & Mb . . . 98....I. - , . . ~.: . "',n .,1=-. , ; , * ,. , . .a e 4 s .e '. ' ,.4 %.p . / J 'b*1 , *--4%e*. .a;a::m:2 T:. lr6CtoTS, . ..~. q. - - ~ .'.z. ".. . . , ..,,.s. . , s e,ef ..x .' ,1 . .- .Y. w_ _. ' J 6 -- OCISIO nS - I i'>.,,.2-g =-, .. , ., s - . as 1 .g , 3 -g g . c. y , . - * ' .. g'**m . .,, p I' (,,- ., q M, <5.-A's.,-%-a: - ., WM'3 7-10 CFR 2.206 %@~ '. - m.; ,.f y,a "; 4,c.,.<; a .. , s p p p p ;A :,.,: W.,,~ e g, # (.'* _.6 .?* g'. b5 f I (. d. [* , i] [:- y.,- D '4 ~]d *
- h* y "; f
- ' 8 ,
? y' ' e ,J *sre9 N%Q h '. W _. m = ; . . ,
- v
~ .. ,,j- - ~g N !i pe~- . ,.: r~' & . [s- -sr . , . a #
- s V ". , , '. ; .
,! u mun_ *. a4 * 'v.1%. ,* { *
- f, . ' ,> ,. , ;',(*Q::+;
..e_ d 4; s *a v s '.,i.,.-. ~- ,1 < w.p , ,. g 4 '.e, 'y; +* 1* 6* ' 'g-7,.jg *, j ,.. E , i _,3 4 . ....
- Y 'A . p._
'*.g- , . gE, .[g , .s ' g *=,, . ~ -- = g 4 5 , **fa Q
- r , ,
,2.,. ): - f t,*- * * (' ."'. e g , ~. g * ', ( ,
- g .
n su s r_ e ) *
- m. _
i. - 3 , ~. - - s. . e- l .# 4 = q , . 4 8 4 % ') ,~ '.)'._ "- 4 ,a,s. a* O' 8 w - g EO *4 ** p' w. # --4 F N --( '~ g{ . ,- .+ O a ,q. v" , . 4 - - =_ e ','l . .I '1 5 t 9 w..' !s.=_%,- s' g .,
- s.t
%
- l -s ._~ +
*h .e y' *%,A . 3 . g s'+ % r F. g h w 4 * .f s s j- p, 'f. , e t ,a% *% ,e ~. ." t . . , h. 7,, ,"' .?. O..y;, - s _, . .- ,, s,, I 9 .. ri o ' . , , . .- . . '.8 h 7 , t g, ,:'p" 7 . .mI < s,.,, *'.h,4*'.6,.- p. . o 'R .y.s . s , -s .e %., ,g.- , . ,f. % ,o. , s., ' , , ; - g, , c. . :. . . . . c. r. J . .. . L , ., .. , . 3 . a i ,c .: : : . . . , -rt :.:k. v.'. . .t c, : g,. ,e~ < ~1,;p..~r , ~ ... .., g. s 4 ' 'W'-r5. 54 PO* , =ge k4gg- "y g- t ,,, h g s .[g i ".'a .- **db.*gg5 p- ,',,.%-.'.><c-(-~',8'.. f *. t;m,e * * =+ **a4s'Wh !. : <>s.f- ,,so . **. (.[, , , -,, '* %,'*. y. /' *q '=L 5 g'e' 3,9.M) W .5 _ .g? 4 C",T. s.. -.y' - * .*y ~ < > - *, *,',,,y'y.,,- , s r s
- c^*';e..- .- : .i.'s l
e- , , W ,p-... .~- .-
- 6s . >
.I s ( ( g ( ,4 . ' .iI =*.*,a_.- g5 I - d e # 2.- = ".-' N . , /- 9.b q * ^ %,' Q9 I6p* Wee' rem to ,,*-**WDfp 'MM M p 4IP.-dh i4 W GNa4 ager W 9%%gp - g
- 4W'apf ap g pg on. , y q eup y , e e y-s
..- x a * - . A 5 . . ;- t s, 4# . ' - ., dem 5 A *u en g 5* .* . g
- s E %'.s.
#g N. .os .at . "h.* '%^" .'"',g ' y j ,-n a f
- 1 l F
* , 8- # g 4 y p ' :- ,_,i , 3 ,, L. - . - ; s - s+42 - *,',c - . . . _ , , , .- , , ,'.;, ._.__ _ ' _ _ _ , . _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ' Ll L__-' , -~~--- ---- y- -c:s. .w ha. s . . u .u .. m; *. . 4 A.v u g~ q~ M::
- - :: i Wm! u ,3;i x
- u. . , w 4. .w:,. % .1..
c .~. ~;
- m.c. . ,,.. u. v,.. w.m: S, y%o ~. .
..s. .r...y.e g . , :: . , :m, . .,,.x. , ,- ~ M: , > ,. tv. ' ~w f.,:9, M M.m,: 1,,%:. x, xh
- w. p ;s . . . .
- m. t. ,. c-W. h, . v, V'.D1... .W W VM,+ ' / Cite as 26 NRC 87 (1987) DD.8714 , . . ym . g, ,n . s ,.3 , y,. , ,.. -: , - ,. . , . < '< , a .- < c ..*c. Mn,s ,. a,, : .c m. .. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j,. ,p .y..;* . aJrT. - M.2 4. g.p.. .M..m. M ,M,~,%u . .%.hv." NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ nm . o ~, / ss.:. . . . _ s .,. .. {:., .,%, . c. , c; ',. : 1 ,, g ] . .m- _ W. M. ',' ?m . OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION . . ;.a C @+.. * < +.~ ; - .., m m
- 3 . n. '
- c. @ Mp . , : m,, -
< . ,. t .- , ; Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director f.$,5%y.- s :Q ;.t;s: y.. u ,M T.::w, ' ~ @&.".M nk. . w CM:. . -i( , Yi'M;IE5MiiD[JN..M..u.w.E A;wg w.qm: ?.m:%,; 5 e- - In the Matter of Docket No. 50-293 D.1 , c[t. e7 4.7
- u. e.w. c. r36DM4F 3 a
- n. :; y r e. f:fM.M
. .a . - e. ,4 pM.q. ..w..u. e w:r. , . . .aN
- . . 9. :-w - ,Ar.5a .%v. #.y s ,... BOSTON EDISON COMPANY .
.gf ; j 4 ,,p e m ,9,,c,l.w f .M. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station) August 21,1987
- y. m - -
.....7,,,.. _ ,m .t h . % A. w% m-c Q.:~ ,- - . mm* '.qa%y;[q{-7jj.Ff.=3;.m > u. - t .. f .7e s-7 ". s 7g.g -. 4% .N ' 'gA N , Cc. d; =... ~ Massachusetts State Senator William B. Golden and others (Petitioners) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Petition requesting that Boston . 3C .~ t% W ' Tf 'M _ (;7.a .. ,J" - . . : .s . Edison Company be ordered to show cause why the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating f', ' M;.cd cMM? Station should not remain closed or have its operating license suspended by ,. .f"y ~ ' d's:? [ NRC until the Licensee demonstrates that the issues raised by the Petitioners ' ' W+M ~ have been resolved. The Petitioners asserted as grounds for their request (1) 7 Y' I,[ numerous deficiencies in the Licensee's management, (2) madequacies in the Wdf. ~ E , ;J w , existing radiological emergency response plan, and (3) inherent dc6ciencies ;. ~ M.:; ' 5 j%M; .. in the fxility's containment structure. Insofar as it relates to the emergency . < % ' f . 4 T- ' jy; . t prepwedness and containment issues, the Petition is denied. A final decision c , y Q; y : with respect to the management issues is deferred. . i- .s . . e. ,
- e. ;
> ..:. - i , u ::.r. . . , '. c ," t - , ' ,9fN... TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED: CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE 4 . nu ' ~ The Director discusses (1) contamment design philosophy and hcensing 'r .E.,w ..f...3 ; $s~- ' requirements, (2) containment design issues raised by Dr. S.H. Hanauer in the m early 1970s, (3) the Chernobyl accident, and (4) the capability of the Pilgrim ,ma'c . , ex . M;;@., ~ @- containment to withstand a severe accident. , ")
- a. , ' ...-["s. -.
', . ,,3-s , , N.* ; I
- f. ..,-t
- %. ,, , ;-]= ' g *A.- ~ \. l- 5 V ' , f. ;.~ ~ , .....t ,alY 9*k D,' b' ,,r:- 4 ,, 4 J8
- s. ;. , c fr ,V e x. L. 4,.?
- w.,. Q > - Q f..;. i&- e,.,::f p. b..y( h';.
.1.'jN'7&&, . ;Eq ' :. n; v f C ~ ' ' ^& .X tM&&y.9. Q , l'.* . .3 .. . W . : ~ &..-.g :l.f:.o . s'e #.v. 44 ?'U .V' . . .. ; w. n q.g.- m.-, ~ -I . M [*'*A -I i ?,' Ay [ ', -?ll_ & c o=% %$f%i *' s.T,' 1g &.gl,_,i % j.? y ..'% , '.,- m ? u.f,:&.DAw D
- I.,.*
*y .7.- e4 .. L ,a *;:, %';.%
- i: Q2 ,y; QQ.).vu&w
- Q. ~'" .'s
,Q ,_.y. y.L ~ .. . . fy
- y .~
v: -M[y' - 81 i m(*/ i. .,,,1.*s, =gy:p, ; z .. <. v. . y ' Csyp .s ' h y.m, -3.m .~m Z:.;-- i , n- - .s .. ,. 'S .- l , 2 -'[ <v - . ., :. : n . . . ..+x 4 e i , m 3-4pgW=.4 9mm. e - 4M v,M .M.% 4 94 N egell. .F.*g.'%**-eat .% W M WD* W 49 - @ ** f 4 -f'*- 9f-44 J 6 g,
- y , r N - ,
" + .... 3- , r_* , , 1 4 't 4 .s , . I
- a. - .. ,
4 4 ' ~,- , [ .
- Er ,*,
i t. ' ,e ,w $\Y,, , ,3- , t 4 . .. -4 , s [ ". . ' .. s . # ' ~ 1 . > 'b * * . 'I d. ( 4 :y . .. . ,. , s-- . . . .....,;,, sw , ' w- ., g . , , . . '.. Q R ::q ' ', . s . ;, %. ,+ . ., . . , . . m . .z. m g.~. .: . . .. s;mCr., w . y ,n:. W w w- ,J, e.Lh.. n. Au..f. , . - , ,, 4. m . ;pc . we .: ?c... n.; &z#u...r' . :).c:e ,. ~ h ; ;w <s ' 97 . - . d i. . ,vm, ' n-v ' . -,,w ,. + PM+ . o.g.e u m;M '.F ". INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER h; :u,fmy .c ;, t. ~. .y~ tMW i ~. . , '. ,, , ./ ' - m 10 C.F.R. Q 2,206
- e. ww.+.. ,.<=o e . . ~. . e,, i .e . - .
.:H n ., 2;.J.;s N:.u .!'y!5.ch; ~..~a s:.b.' 4: .NO nw INTRODUCTION
- w. _ .-.. m.r...
. :. -.p..z.e. -m, , m >.- E G' ;';O ,. , 's (eVW On July 15,1986, Massachusetts State Senator William B. Golden and others - 5 y. 9 %f d , q.j k@.P.; . ' (Petitioners) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Petition requesting ; ;; [ W'+'r 7 that the Director require Boston Edison Company (BECo, the Licensee) to show jg cause why the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station should not remain closed or - : ']:IZ?fi.;$2h'l~yw have its operating license suspended by NRC until the Licensee demonstrates
- :M . 5. -M MlF . .*bMU N@kO$d.. NNN.1 . r. that the issues raised by the Petitioners have been resolved. The Petitioners also
.sg@dj?f_M: requested that NRC require the Licensee to submit a feasibility study related to M: ME5W@gMN'9%s ..??t N F S.i'w.4.m# q.l.e. ; 'J.W;s/Wva m@s certain structural modifications and that the NRC schedule a public hearing to My rW. g address the issues raised by the Petitioners. A : n ?. ;;i n c .w . " M i.w.Q .w ~..-@.,, %/M2;s,!. . The Petitioners assert as grounds for their request (1) numerous deficien. y v. . n . . . 0 . ,/ ' t 1. y y. .9..cyg cies in the Licensee's management, (2) inadequacies in the existing radiological M ;}$' ] M M g $(ik [g. g V;iMd[ emergency response plan, and (3) inherent de6ciencies in the facility's contain- ,oN:' d ;.9 ' f;ig.; p%phQ[ ment structure. The Petitioners assert that "the deficiencies cut a broad swath across the spectrum of safety requirements" and that, in the aggregate, these , g. f ,,,'f+i. g < . g. ' g.g l37y. M/3 deficiencies compromise the reliability of the most important safety systems in , , , 1.e , g 75g .tiV the plant. Further, the Petitioners assert that the Licensee and the NRC have v gl< .<j . c7/.( . j g C e -t.s failed to resolve these safety issues. _2. A h W: ' . $ . .S . .d On August 12, 1986, James M. Taylor, then Director of the Office of 3 ' ' g y: A Inspection and Enforcement, acknowle'!ged receipt of the Petition. He informed , - A- .o g., c.. the Petitioners that the Petition would be treated under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 of the - . y ,; . . nl g.;f t. %w.F-Commission's regulations and that a formal decision would be issued within a 'Mbj f > M 'Oyng . . , . , reasonable time. Notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal . .D. 2. . -M.E..W .n D.' M,, "< - Register (51 Fed. Reg. 29,728 (1986)). 's 1 P ,'- . ;ws .y f . ??.!!, . F G> On December 19,1986, Mr. Taylor provided further response to the Petition-ers m a letter to Senator Golden. He stated that it would be more meaningful to . .w x.s ... A + c $ .:gy - formally respond to the Petition after (1) the Licensee has had an opportunity to ';' 3 - address the issues outlined in the Petition and (2) the NRC has had an opportu- _F 3 ' nity to review the Licensee's actions. He also stated (1) that the Pilgrim Station ;f will not be permitted to restart until the NRC determines that there is reason-ja ' ? , ;;.- N.'._,,.d;;;f& . Q, able assurance that the public health and safety will be protected and (2) that ,t [ ,',' S J ,.; y G, .9n. ,p.' .E' ._- 4 - ; 5 the Staff will consider the management, emergency planning, and containment issues raised by the Petition. M.xm ~ y .3. p;;f.
- 6.,
W. ' e'. j,,. ; ,jy;g
- d. g, ',
Dr. Thomas E. Murley, then Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, C i '.l- l ]4,. ",. sent additio1al letters regarding the Petition to Senator Golden on February SUMJ ;.wA g,,M.fM : 2, 20 and April 1,1987. The February. 20 letter acknowledged that a meeting with the Peritioners had been delayed because the NRC first wanted to have { f J ; n%.w(({ 7 3,
- .w
.,g.; vu.mti en .w y,. ..p ' . m.y_.y .. v.;. - 1 & h,'ls. ~Wr- .- s o... i. ~ Ni . v .e w. Qgy .l e. * % Q-$.'*&=N,*h f.g,y *r.o xn&p.;g% b NQ r.;Q .,'. ;m. ..M fQN3R - sg c.: . ; w .: , f:C'g% yN. ,: ~ Q, ;m' w : ,~ N N, h,YN ,[ i. ' - , {.[. .-w.. - . . ;;, w pqw~ .,a - s, .e. y s + r .7. w. .wy ,""y ]. % .,,s . * ] ',. * *l.]j {y . p.Sy..T,m;.m - . J'.,w .q; . - r~,i # . m--.-..,.y --~,v.~. -.- - - . - - . , - - - - e m w. . ----- - 7 ' ' _i, . 6 %9 4 1 ,.c. , , ..o 7, "~, . ,, . ~ . .a y h ., ..* ., (- ~ -c' _ - - . ,.'3.. i. -9< , , < -f . 4 Tf- N _. g i. < w'. .. + . e'b < 1 ,, 1 ' ;.% ,1-).: mI. . .c. .y,. .: * ' ~ , ~ : ;. 4 - - -l
- s. ,.f,~(;
H ; ,-g '% 4 7, i f. ,, ,. * : p* ~ *^, , s , 9 - , . V $7 .: ' , 6, '. f .
- 1 ** *j , _ u- s ; .: . * { + ,..-s ; +
s, < ' ']y> - j ' " .l y>... ' p ;. p ,'~?"., % '. L .; .? s ,9**.'a - ', + ,* , " -} e b s - -l-
- h % .. j ' - - - " ' ~ " -'" " " " '" " "' ~ " - ~
. t4 ; myS:Nu e..q w . ^ >;x ~ r- ,d ',m & .t./,; % ,.v%~m; ;;,.W;WgM ' . . :' ;
- ..x ,.;.e . . ...a p .s.m.m . g-;p.<..;.s~ m. Wy, 2.:
.r. .,w,. f .1 .? ,( . [ .. 'J g .[ %.*' , j% ?;.jJ'n:.. ' ns f M K-M S,7 jc[ ] , available the Licensee's report documenting why the Licensee believes that . J g,p S.W: . g;- . , . the Pilgrim Station can be restarted. The April 1 letter was in response to the
- t. . .'[lbb . .. , j '
- Petitioners' letter of February 25,1987, regarding a meeting between NRC and ; d.%.s M. ' V' j '.. the Petitioners. Dr. Murley's April 1 letter provided clarification regarding the MpJO.R . . . proposed meeting with Petitioners; it also noted that the plant has remained shut , i,*y.h.y @.% Md@4@;f d. .J . MN t down and that considerable changes have occurred, and continue to occur, in Sp g3- ,jN ' " . the substantive areas outlined in the Petition. M % [ 2 7 ), l[ j' m; MR. On August 5, 1987, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group D (MASSPIRG) submitted "Health Surveillance of the Pilgrim Area" as an ad- .j MM J M:. j g;g;yj;g. g s. Q. .W." 3y.a. $ c "to the Petition. This report provides results of the Massachusetts De- ~ .f., dendum -....m. yl .Mf . ob . ,M Q/h r partment of Public Health (MDPH) study to determine whether there is excess R. m $}c3 W hl $z../Q .w w . ,; fg~EMl,. .e
- v. , , . - - m..
'4: r:m ME..D,. .~ r v. risk of certain adverse health outcomes among residents in the communities sur. rounding the Pilgrim Station. The data revealed no disturbing trends in either y69 $[ [yW.yf.t.g , ! the patterns of cancer mortality or in the expression of low birthrate and infant l WSN jd:y" 7 t~;:g;ly.$@$$'Mb Cy.je,:d$h$ MN5 mortality, but indicated higher than-expected incidence of leukemia. As stated , in the MDPH study, radiation monitoring records did not suggest any signifi. l ,a% . .J q.&.C ca JS. ~ " QAR;F. cant levels of radiation that could have potentially exposed the residents in the 7 y +fp ~J m... L communities surrounding the Pilgrim Station. The report was the result of a
- y. 3 m
j .z;; f ( * ; r~ ] ' % descriptive, first step epidemiological study which acknowledged major gaps in ~ N.;: ~ J 'Qc understanding the relationship, if.any, between the occurrence of leukemia and $; the Pilgrim Station. Consequently, no further consideration of this report by the ;1. > p; e : 5 f.. NRC is merited at this time. $~ ^ ^
- 6. ,@ " For the reasons discussed below, Petitioners' request insofar as it relates to 1
'" ' "$ '). - the emergency preparedness and containment issues is denied. A final decision Q' with respect to the management issues is deferred. However, to the extent ,_ MJ Petitioners are requesting that Pilgrim remain shut down until the NRC is j ~ satisfied that management and emergency preparedness issues are dealt with i ~: I, . . .m M' O [ - ..- to the Commission's satisfaction, the Petition is granted. l ' i 's ?:.c . i l i ,. Petitioners also request that "the NRC, prior to making a decision pursuant I . . , ,T'l-j P , to issuing an operating license suspensica, schedule a comprehensive public W ., '.. . <W -l\ .,;. hearing to address the issues raised by the Petitioners herein"(Petition at 39). In , g. wg . response to that request, the NRC Staff has agreed to meet with Senator Golden ~, .. and other petitioners to discuss the issues raised in the Petition as wil as the y,q -[. overall status of NRC regulatory activities at Pilgrim when the Licensee has
- s e- ' ' "--APC completed those actions necessary for restart of the plant. .
V 7$3 ',. In addition, the Commission intends to hold a public meeting to be briefed I ,;4-f<,0[,, N, ;j..: j [.gg by the Staff on the readiness of Pilgrim to resume operauons before allowing ', %,f,, ~ N .Q y.$ , ' restart. The filing of a 2.206 petition, however, does not require the NRC to hold s ,n ,,.y j 1 ' ~ ..f.g . formal evidentiary hearings with respect to issues raised by the Petition. Illinois
- v. NRC,591 F.2d 12,14 (7th Cir.1979); Porter County Chapter of the Izaak w;
3 , barf, - .X'$ ,u ' Sk. . ' Walton League of America. Inc. v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979); N: %.Q, . CD.;.9.M'.7^f:g. . . .' AE... a.w 6.g.Q:e Q,cys s .s Eddleman v. NRC,825 F.2d 46,48 (4th Cir.1987); Lorlon v. NRC,785 F.2d .. . 4,g.; 2 y ,Q;.q ~. p . . y +sjRQ ; ' p q) . % - Q,g .j a. :%l.'f ' ' ll *C ~. : yx 2 & .; pl. f&" . ,"Qy,Q$gl;'w- ~ T*s.- p.,4y a .- , q.. ptby$ - .. 89 ..f N Q , ls " ? 'm 'hk; ' w3M -;h!. ' ,' ; q .a . n; c. , + w., fj :., x . ,.. *l %, . . .! e, f ? - '.'k-.' fr. 9 s , .h: N s '; , . e , 9 fen.e;*..,NW w '. a s . *s- -. ,,.-.m. - - - - - . _ . . -m . 4 .- .4 + , t . - s 4 . . j . * , . , f , /- - , . . , ~ O . *' ' . _ , S. l ,; *, " n !. , r 4- 4 'g' ..s,. ' s % + h'~ ? ^ .Q , s _ . o; ~ . ;_. _ e f t i ,. - l J" . . N ' * ^ ' + 1. %.) R ,: ' $ - 2l- ,~ l -;' _ '.g . 14, L> L ' " }' s. ' f N .' ' ' ~ .+t. V.NJ.t.b, . ~ . O us_ ;M. . s we4 w U.;t.? , J;'..:.o . . ;p<. <
- n.
~ = - ~ w ; +4; ; p .' - w n: ~ ' N ' ' ,... , @y,. , 's'.W S g. # . }jf mQ>. ' i 1038 (D.C. Cir.1986). See also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 740 U.S. 729 (1985). ;c
- . m
; .,. :, x ., c . R QC$$. w . v.. y :. _p(m ; BACKGROUND -.% C-aos3,J .: p . ;. 1' 3,: k %;<f. f. %m cW S . N _ The NRC Staff found the overall performance at the Pilgrim Station ac-yM. S..a% ' d #,i . ' _ . mf .,g" ~ - "- . s ceptable during the assessment period covered by the Systematic Assessment
- p
,. .c ,;.1 of Licensee Perforihance (SALP No. 85 99).' There was sufficient concern, ' d- 4E.4 W6 l ' N N however, about the facility's performance that Region I conducted a special ,( S @ ?.'.C M ' M 'l?.[;
- in-depth Diagnostic Team inspection from February 18 to March 7,1986 (In-
- f spection Report No. 50-293/86-06, issued April 2,1986). The team found that JT.W.gWM M .y;! s ' MEb'f&. improvements were inhibited by (1) incomplete staffing, particularly operators
$;hN[li)%h.f.W.Q T5,y d .RD$Mhet 3 ., , and key mid level supervisory personnel; (2) a prevailinig (but incorrect) view Jig: in the organization that the improvements made to date had corrected the prob-S: wMI,%.73:g[.y._;%pMdc p;a Q ', '[; Q.fj ._ ((3) reluctance, on the part of the Licensee's management, to acknowledge lems; . . gg. Ac: some problems identified by the NRC; and (4) the Licensee's dependence on JWS ~ M , ..2f)MQD2d '..' 'j c, third parties to identify problems rather than implementing an effective program ~ r M.D for self identification of weaknesses. Nonetheless, in a letter from Region I to , .E i ' yy, - 24,. N the Licensee, dated May 23,1986, the Diagnostic Team inspection results con. v -.. f ,(odc.il.- N.. . : .. firmed the SALP Board conclusions for SALP No. 85-99. In that letter, Region o 3 sW' I restated its belief that "performance in the operation of the facility was found 7,' ' ' , 'N . W. acceptable although some areas were only minimally acceptable." ~Ci' E- ;@ Q'. . ,. .g :M On April 12, 1986, the Licensee shut,down the Pilgrim Station because of , M , .' g equipment problems and operational difficulties. The NRC Regional Adminis. trator acknowledged this shutdown in Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 86-10, j;' which was issued that same date. On July 25, 1986, the Licensee stated that _Mf. the facility would remam shut down for the completion of various modifica-c' ,379- tions and for refueling. In an August 27,1986 letter to Mr. J. Lydon of BECo,
- c. ,
~ ., ; * .,s, , -;f Dr. Murley stated that, although the Licensee's actions in response to CAL 86- ,pf x 10 appeared to be thorough, additional issues had been identified that had to j M < ' g.. ]f . be resolved before restart of the facility. These issues included certain technical i - , ,M. Issues (overdue surveillances, malfunction of recirculation pump motor genera- 'W ~ tar field breakers, seismic qualification of emergency diesel operator differential ' ,f . , , relays, and completion of Appendix R modifications) and programmatic matters ' ,.. s .a .M v ..Q, .'.4. (the Licensee's action plan for improvements, the role of the Licensee's safety . 4 *. j /. s ,4,', - -.3 . ...., ,' /**- 'M.:, ; 7, .F m.. f 3 s .'&' ..i 9r .* U. 5 .M 1 I 1 *','ry; ' ~ This Decem refers to two sALPs. N ibt is identded as sAtf No.1s.99 and relstes to the tJeesee's -- , N'.. performance dunas the period October 1,1964-October 31.1915. N report of this sAtf was inaiaDy issued , _f@ ' by Region ! ca February it,1986 h was the subject c(fmher emespedece dated May 23, 1986 betweca w .yJ.g. g Reg >m I and BECo. The second sAtf is identd.ed as sAtf No. 84 99 and rela:aa to the licenses's performance ,,,f,,., , dunr:g the pened henber 1,198s-Jarmary 31. 1987. The rupcst or ilus sAtp was initially lasued Apr0 8
- .c... W *; # ' ' ~
19s7. h was issued as a f.nal sport m June 17,1987. q.,- < , . Q;. - ..x.f. .. '~ok.5&&RfG C. c. W; 5..F. ,tgY #lkhlf&s >
- y,em g.gyEggs, m.ww&g po
. .. n' , y;; ' yQ , y. ,s p ., 7,s 3 g( y .e( . g^ ,.,f'q , < -i . + q'rv;gy , l*m ' C. .n + L, b: - % 5,7. 3&.~ ": y ., . -> ., ' a p _ _a -t' ._-e-r,, g 3 ',- - - - .~.--~p+rv,,.,75,,.~,...7-. * , , *f. e '. * ' e* 4 ~{ A e 7 / .
- f. .
s + * . , j , , , _P i,,
- s. ,.
, .d s- .3' . , y *f% , r ;s -) - e* .s . . - , k.,3 YJ ' ' a.c u . . i- - ~ ;i ._i. / + , rh- ~~:
- .,. : , ,, .6 w .a w
.M 9. :, p? : w :.p;e m n. ,M A . > . :, . o.; ~.' V O is . . E s.p,:. e , -. ~ f, bS";;p ., - .. M' review committecs, and the readiness of the plant and corporate staffs to support j.6 Q;A > y 4 7',,s ;. ' restart). Further, Dr. Murley stated in the same letter,"[i]n light of the number 'y q % T ' ' ', - and scope of the outstanding issues, I am not prepared to approve restart of ,e. .;.gdpNJ;_f
- the Pilgrim facility until you provide a written report that documents BECo's formal assessment of the readiness for restart operation."
' {, , ~j. 415, G N. @ & : [ .w'My 1 ' , At this time, the Pilgrim Station remains shut down. De Staff recently 1 MS c.;'. > 4 , issued SALP Report No. 86-99 (April 8,1987). Although this report identifies W' N'. 7S; s T , a number of performance problems (as did the previous SALP repc.1), the Staff i,'
- ,' fc believes that the Licensee is beginning to deal effectively with these problems
',R)N N MU~J
- a. and is making progress toward improving their performance. For example, U N[SM
. D ,M. changes have been made to the radiological controls program; decontamination , dhh is in progress; fire protection modifications are being completed; and various -pg 6.y.fgN;%9/$ y . :-:i:#W ~ sitrveillance, maintenance, and modification issues are being resolved. Offsite [h?$M Dg,7;A.y.@4J ' $ M;Y;$$$;@ MM M9;# emergency planning issues have been evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Dese are reported in a FEMA report entitled M! U y "Self Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power M M y. h7M'J.$ .,$.;. . 2 d j % @g expectedc4.hf I- Station," dated August 4,1987. De Licensee has stated that the facility is not aM W2.02 , to be ready for restart before the end of September 1987. I NRC has asked the Licensee to submit a readiness assessment report at 6 " ]JM, '. m C ki' : lf,[;[ . Q.l . .. least 45 days before the planned restart of the plant. On July 30,1987, the ,, , w v .HlM , ~ 9;'aff 3 . Licensee submitted a report entitled "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Restart - ';.7# - Plan." This plan describes a portion of the programs, plans, and actions con- j l" g '1 ; sidered necessary by BECo management for safe and reliable restart and oper- , *- ation of Pilgrim. Portions of the plan will be updated 6 weeks before BECo's c, y. ] "C proposed restart, and final results will be submitted 3 weeks before the proposed ^',~ , ;i restart. The plan is currently under Staff review. l .: - V. A speci6c discussion of each of the three areas addressed in the Petition l s u dg . follows. l . . . ..'m ' , ' - M . '- ' l . , ':: ? . .: . DISCUSSION , ...c,. l r - , , jm -.. A. Management 7 ; De Petitioners allege numerous deficiencies in the Licensee's manage- ' x ,NN.g %{ ment. De Petition essentially states that (1) competent management is critical to ensure the safe operation of any nuclear power facility, (2) the Licensee's man-W -Q , agement of the Pilgrim Station is deficient, and (3) long.standmg management , ' J. - . M q ., f - deficiencies at Pilgrim Station have not been corrected. 3,, <P ,+f As a basis for their Petition, the Petitioners have provided an extensive list s , , W, Q, J of management deficiencies that have been documented in NRC inspection and . i.. " g . ,, ' ' .& S ALP reports. De areas of concern include: plant operations, radiological con-r nsite emergency preparedness, maintenance and modifications, suveil. g ', , ; Nh' i y:y& QQQpy(g' ' ,, 3 t{l : - ** Aggg}, g 9 t -! N :DmJ @nQ. q@e , y, ,^' ; s3';y7 - . . .. . r ;:f.. .p;. . N )' .[( ~sl Y g'Q --
- b *_' L.y.. , { , ,~
~ .- .- ,*.nM' a fl. .h ._ . * ((, a g' ' e - .e ,. $9$ 6N MM N*MYF 8 UF, [OOY y- S #. #
- l. #.'- -
y,- , l- , ' . e ;p y M , s % 6. g Y , (( , _. * / . ,,..4 ~ L j , ' =- { . 3u [.. .. '_ . * ~": ) a ,:. -f., ga 1 1 p .y v .~xw w e%y;v ,a , .. qw p. -.y y & ;;.y ,;t;y... l .e . .q w a ; - . r'. j
- i. .$.pL,@ ct .. ,,
- , ?%
n %;.__ , lance testing, security and safeguards, refueling and outage management,11-q.M +4e " g , V',' .;$ -' Vi W censing activities, and fire protection. The basic documents relied on by the i y p g. p x,,- ,s, Petitioners were SALP Report No. 85-99, issued February 18, 1986, and the i , ,, y ef 1,(') , 2 -k ~ Special NRC Diagnostic Team Inspection Report, issued on April 2,1986. In ^ , ,[.hI ,,'$ n ,,i_ addition, the Petitioners referred to the 1982 Civil Penalty and Order modifying .:Gd bN N- 'yM the Pilgrim license and to news accounts of statements by Commissioner James , 447., 5fG.? ,.g . .t, . , Asselstirje to the effect that Pilgrim is one of the worst-run and least-safe plants ? ~7 O 9. y , ~f in the nation. ! u,.c . - - P i. - At the time the Petition was filed, the NRC felt that the Licensee had not . , . , N+; ; ;W.. %"9N M,:, Q M.s d wr:2 successfully dealt with the problems that were identified in (1) the enforce-Mi ment actions taken in 1982, as evidenced by SALP No. 85-99; and (2) the < r;.y McM." qI x:. 9. y .&s n.=; i . M.'E!: m- : - Diagnostic Team inspection findings. Although the Licensee had instituted pro- I grams intended to improve management and had made progress at certain times p$6.M y t h PM S @,.?@fgMf'4 WQhU and in specific areas (such as in ent,ineering and technical support), the letter 4?$fMgy $hhy@f transmitting SALP No. 85 99 expre, sed NRC's concern about the Licensee's 4d'JN.$'. - 'd e, Qd.lS .R.MM " .V Q f,; M i:.- apparent "inability to improve performance, or sustain improved performance once achieved." n 9 % g.JM ' yM{'h f Several management changes have taken place in the Licensee's organization .4 g , .p ,u.w.u ..7v; .a , -. gp; , since early 1986. The station manager was replaced on hiay 1,1986, and was W.# .- ca:e 0 3.y _ z.: 6; "- replaced again on February 1,1987. On July 1,1986, the Senior Vice President- ~ .y , A.A . Q. im Nuclear was transferred. At that time, the Chief Operating Officer assumed ' - - v. ,. ' j/2 the responsibilities of the Senior Vice President-Nuclear, which he held until - ,~W .l- ,,0 February 20, 1987, when the current Senior Vice Presioent-Nuclear (Ralph f _ . Nx ' < G. Bird) assumed the responsibilities of this position. On hfarch 26, 1987, 3 - ' '$ , the Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Vice President / Chief Financial ~ Jf' , , Officer announced their intent to retire within the next year. On April 10,1987, , 7.)? the Vice President for Nuclear Operations resigned; his responsibilities are being + jg, reanaged by the Senior Vice President-Nuclear, and a replacement has not been ' T ;: ' %.- hi.ed at this date, 5 x; .,- ' ;~ - The NRC has monitored management issues at Pilgrim Station since SALP >f 's' ' No. 85-99 and the Diagnostic Team inspection. The most recent SALP eval- . . %, uation, SALP No. 86-99, issued April 8,1987, states: "The lack of a clear (-g' organizational structure, recurring management changes, and chronic staffing .; vacancies delayed the establishment of a stable licensee management team at e . [ , . _ Iai.# f. ! the plant and inhibited progress during the assessment period." " .g .J lhr Starting with CAL 86-10, issued April 12,1986, the NRC has taken steps to ' , )% , , 's ensure that the Pilgrim Station will not restart until adequate corrective actions qv qy, M, ' , _ .g , ' have been taken. On July 30,1986, Dr. hiurley, at a meeting with the Licensee, ; informed the Licensee that, even when the technical issues set forth in CAL ~,,'.,M'._ e ' Af Q-;? 86-10 had been resolved, he would not approve restart of the plant until the _ s fesm, . - management issues discussed in SALP No. 85-99 also had been resolved. Tn , . m. . '; W, 4 ; . . .a ; .j@f.-f'~&d, ' W! ? .T Y j & ' *u,...'. M(I &s ,@c. * ,. >%, ,s . ., ; . addition, on August 27,1986, in a lett:r to the Licensee, Dr. hiurley stated that - . c m.t W.. J' ' q.; ' L _ l Q '-~p'/;.' ..~ g;.w; , ; * ? l l ll d.~ ? ,h. & k &;'kh., .'* , A: %, 4; yp: y/ * .. . G;w& m. . . y. .x ,L. . m*; ?y, .c. f;.,u. y , s s ce . .v .v ( - % . ;.- ,e .- .g s - . c., s-5 ,j '. , , 2k-g g.;w c , + ?* n ., . ' { ^~ e .s ' _N . s ~+y Qi ! >y; -' , ; w. zz,- 7 v'f ?'_.' "- .. , _. .,m- ,. y_.,..,.._.-- , _ _ _, , _ .. . _ . . - . . . , . . 3
- 5 s ,
N
- s. .
' -u 4 .* / -' k , ,I /= , a . O s ';s S {? e . " - 5h, a a 4 ? ,. [ ' i .. > - , ,, .- . .~ O , * ' + s>4y ., _ ,g. ' . ^ s >-- / . - - _.l 3 @.M:.J2 ,M., w m g :,, .; _- - ,, -:.mmn* .N* m':?ls sm; ;- --y ,w4m J -a .
- ;t' usx w , ' v, ..T,, m
' s. : ,, ..+ -w.. a 4 . . . . w... .. . restart of the Pilgrim Station would not be approved until the Licensee formally
- 7. M N ..J -
9T..
- documented and NRC reviewed (1) an assessment of the Licensee's readiness f 1.; g % y Ly '~~ f1 ~ 'l
['p ~ . for plant restart and (2) a restart program and schedule including well-defined 'L L% ' .. hold points at discrete milestones. l " :. ; .;f d .N: ' & c[ NN. ' De NRC agrees with the Petitioners that significant management deficiencies < - we cpg.y ' .'g .. .j - have existed at Pilgrim Station. The NRC is continuing to observe and evaluate 1 6 q., ' <W ' PJ the Licensee's performance through ongoing inspections, bimonthly manage- - l E- ment meetings with the Licensee, and the SALP process. The NRC will conduct y M, C X J ' E an independent team review of the Licensee's xtions in response to the SALP # - , 'p.i.:wW-;q .W :T: k 2W findings and the findings of the Diagnostic Team inspection of February March , T. I. U O[.g 74f - W N .( .; :. s : p.1 / . E 1986. He NRC will evaluate the Pilgrim Restart Plan and other information to determine whether the issues raised by the Petitioners, including management .M. hkMNh$[hh7 fMy r.;t.'p yM,$ $$'/gi$2 9.' %: issues, have been adequately resolved. Because the Pilgrim Station is currently shut down and will not be allowed to restart until authorized to do so by the NRC, there is no additional safety .gly.KrQ2.y ~ gy T@, . gg:- ';9 ih. assurance to be gained by granting Petitioners' request. Thus, the management , , 7:w ;j : d.a.6,- < i% i. M, O deficiencies at the Pilgrim Station do not warrant a Show-Cause Order for the ;.g. A,a- , y g y g,,, m - s facility to remain closed or have its operatmg license suspended. N - 9%.T A final Director's Decision regarding management issues cannot be rendered . 91.$' N ' *&(, ' 9 until the management deficiencies have been suitably addressed by the Licensee and the Staff completes its assessment. That portion of the Petition will therefore . . ,; 'C, _. ~ T<> a: ? ;.- be addressed in a subsequent final decision. i ^ ..gV:~. J: y' ,w._ ' , ' B, Radiological Emergency Response Plan ~. . g . > +: _ ., ;. - The Petitioners allege inadequacies in the existing Radiological Emergency .- < < K ,J -L Response Plan (RERP) for the Pilgrim Station. The Petitioners essentially state that there are dc6ciencies in (1) the RERP, (2) the procedures for p*oviding advance information to the public, (3) the systems for noti 6 cation of the public QW ,5 /.~ / - .< during an accident, (4) the evacuation plans, (5) available medical facilitics, .M Y _ w (6) the size of the emergency planning zone, and (7) the coordination and 'W~ prioritization of the RERP. , 3. . The emergency response plans for Pilgrim Station were submitted in response ,-^ pg ;3 to the NRC requirements that resulted from the issuance of a revised emergency w Preparedness rule on August 19, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 55,402). After the , 4. . o. y j.. t.~:M.n e.;. J, - revised rule was issued, FEMA reviewed the state and local response plans ) 1 ,9 " for the Pilgrim site and evaluated the March 3,1982 joint full participation T - r f. y- m;*,. ' .. y ?Ms p.4 o._ - exercise. On the basis of this review and evaluation, FEMA's Region I office - .- <t- e.. , J: %. Issued interim findings in a report entitled "Joint State and Local Radiological , .+ - .< . n M;. .. Emergency Response Capabilities for the Pilgrim Power Station, Plymouth,
- 2. g Mp-- WM : Massachusetts," dated September 29, 1982. In this report, FEMA concluded
'. m.s . ym,fy. j/kh? U N Q f .$ - , mm :2.@[h? ' that the Massachusetts state and local emergency plans and preparedness for 7n ., M g O. g' _ j s "fy ww*MQQ~(.-Q 3 . -f,w',,'tu.m.P.[. . ;3 N(F.Q-g. W .x- ' ,W ~_ C' h ' af~ r y%;qw.j . . .';yh.[- N 93 . ~, *.f -a p. ' , - ..4 ' T' m.. + y }.,~'-.;- ~ p:'.*:\p - "~ . I- ; ,, e s . : Yl ._~^ -a . yy . - .- ,._,: - ~ ._ . - _ ens.gympoem.ge , sweg > f_Pp. esmars ee pag.*m e a a ey Np y. se - . e , g,. -% . ^
- _ . l
. t j i - e 5 l l A ] t' '- " 1; - - ,2 , , , , , . ,.W $ 9 y . b' N. , ,'d; ~l ~ Q ,' . s.. ..u.- t -* 6 'T 4s. . s- ; ' -- - - -e e' . - . - . . - . . - . . - - - -- . . ~ - - - - - s M1 N!.W t * . m - l @WiM[Ngg J. y 3.e. h%QM.w. ' ,M9.f3;3 . y fGm3 % ,<w.*y.,,. , .y y,n.;g. G ; a. . W .n.;j - +~LL .<-* ..v. .n. . M O,~*7, w n, W Q.'5 < ' M.mk[M.;.w J . V @[, ..f .- d C _ /P coping with the offsite effects of radiological emergencies that may occur at the Pilgrim Station were adequate to protect the public. With regard to the onsite ~1 L portion of the March 3,1982 exercise, the NRC determined that the emergency N .GhWE+ , gcx[.QS&, Q,Gi. ~. ;? , response actions taken by the Licensee were adequate to protect the health and MMMMn%e.QQ f. ' safety of the public. Since that time, the Licensee has participated in additional j MAEMdM".{.Of yhy'f((% [ W[ ' emergency preparedness exercises where onsite and offsite response capabilities were demonstrated and evaluated by the NRC and FEMA. De most recent 3 . K a' 1 f full participation exercise was conducted on September 5,1985. A remedial D;6l,5)qc . 3@p;9 exercise, held on October 29,1985, demonstrated that four deficiencies idendfied ) -c.M g- &u[l, g,.p._/?S . . i%. . during the September exercise had been corrected. As a result, FEMA Region - O%ifiM%d'D: jig .. I concluded that there was reasonable assurance that appropriate offsite action ym.Q4KG,C bh can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency to adequately pro'ect the -W@. N{.(5g#p www f vM M.,, p w@M B:,, Wpublic health and safety. l 1 3; k . .'J*M i yQWw He relevant port ons of the Petition relating to emergency preparedness were 1 b 'y,. 5.ggpg3% $"ymW9GM/ Vf; % Q F A G.h'MMgM g to the FEMA staff on August 4,1986, and the NRC requested on transmitted August 11,1986, that FEMA review offsite emergency planning and prepared-5.
- U.ib
,' if Q' / T.M.)ML.E.RgMU$p$ '. ness issues raised in the Petition. On December 22,1986, the Secretary of Public Safety of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sent FEMA a copy of the Office "1 ; *. - .-TY , M:s. 2f9 2 @ g of Public Safety report entitled "Report to the Governor on Emergency Prepared-2:^,ck
- D. . ness for an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," dated December iA ~ ~ ' E-; 7@ 9 V W S i.. 1986. The Secretary of Public Safety also asked FEMA Region I to review a
, ' , , " -,[:D {l;jQ' report entitled "Evaluation of Offsite Emergency Preparedness in the Area Sur- - a. T rounding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," dated January 1987, which was
- ' s,@.M (fy @;
~ 3 ~ prepared for the Licensee by the Impell Corporauon ' ' N ' .
- On January 14,1987. FEMA informed the NRC that the requests for a review of these reports might delay the completion of the FEMA evaluauon of the
'~< r 5 s M.d - ' issues raised in the Petition. In a n,.snorandum to NRC, dated March 31,1987, - g ,. ,y ,.- Wp .t.=e..?
- a. .. , FEMA stated that it was also conducting a self-initiated review of the overall
, . _l/4 7..;7 ' ' =l state of emergency preparedness at. Pilgrim Station. FEMA said that it would ' '.. a' prepare a consolidated evaluation that would address the Petition issues, the f( : 4i ,[ $@. , - ' l ., report submitted by the Office of Public Safety, the Impell Report, FEMA's self. initiated review, and other relevant available information. FEMA committed to 'C - '# make the production of their evaluation report a priority task. By memorandum .f, ,s .] , J
- dated April 29,1987, the NRC provided FEMA with a copy of a report prepared D' by the Town of Plymouth Nuclear Committee entitled "Report to the Selectmen L'-
W$ a ~4:'hyg , . jf_ y x on the Plymouth Radiological Emergency Response Plan," dated March 1987, . v .t. ' . J. u I , and asked FEMA to include this report in the ongoing review. jd %f > M.f, . Q On June 4,1987, BECo prepared reports regarding evacuation time estimates v., l } , l% . #f r'f<r: @ S and beach population sheltering, mobility impaired, and special facilities. On ' O .; W '. .. ; M D " GM tl 4 ;,@C,fQq ; June 12,1987 BECo prepared a report regarding a northem reception cen-v PWw q .c. M;@M 4.'t.. g a ter. NRC forwarded these reports to FEMA on July 1,1987. D M,W 7:3.%NW;?.N. wen y.r c ."l $,Y f. fk h i w 7 .';g e.*y'*%t!!s:.Ns*'gll-u .v;w mp ~ff.hA&. - l ,~ s m . e.g . % e.. l I. +; . \ .f; y L .f , ~ - Q,y -g;. N?-3 . , ) h.k 5 t 3 l l
- E {, ' } y,;f (
?y; ~ ~' ' c. *.i c, - . n.~ Q y; & - 3 -; ,., . , . };r " p_. * ^ s , ;yy, -g.. q.* r. -c p .u , , Ta., a .; LL.rQ f *Q > } '
- a . -
+- .' 3 ,, 1 i; *
- t , ;c,_ .,-. m ..,,7 ,_.,
,,,~;.,- , . _ . , p . N f ', - a s . * ,+ t s' g a J I = g g 1 ' ' ' ., p l ,r *- 5-n . j. ,, , E 5 s, ,Q l -h7, ' [ ' " ,71,1.,, [( (" . < < : .yqqq '.' ; 1 A.;. w _^ - ;, ~ * .c t; 3 -9.e t ,
- v , " ..q-
- f h,'? ' ' * , f
- ! :' .. . * , + A
- t
, .. .c .. . , .m. # n f 3" , .. , , - , w /,;' ..-. , y , , , . r $ . 3 .1. p, 7 s , ,. e ..
- - ja; ? n; r ~,.:: lm , ~G L R ^ti s;,,M s .-:y ,
r.' g :: ; :W ' .-. . o %v _ - c ;..e -,: uf ; ' a, . .-p v..= . . : r. ' W4 . - 4,. - On August 6,1987. FEMA forwarded their August report entitled "Self- ;W ; :,.:..M" ; -; {g , - e; - Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Pour Station, .g ~ . . . . . ' Plymouth, MA," to the NRC. This report included FEMA's July 29,1987 anal-1 'R9%'.. if I ~ ' ysis of the issues raised in the subject petition entitled "Analysis of Emergency , 'nN.:Q,':M^ , Mc T. glW l;fh , '.'u~ 7 Preparedness Issues at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Raised in a Petition to the NRC Dated July 15, 1986." in its analysis, FEMA individually addressed each f' k:f'j . p $ _ @ *$ 3'a . '.6 ;.@, .y [ -; '~ ' e of the seven issues in offsite emergency planning raised in the subject Petition .' m. w^.. , i and, one by one, found that the information in the Petition did not sustain the ~ R i$p. -.. .% ~ ./ _ Petitioners' contentions when compared to the record at the time the Petition 0 . .l ffdC @@Y{ ". g was reviewed. For convenience, FEMA's detailed analysis is provided as Attach- , t.M .c 7 ,'- ' M . M 'f g . ment A (not published) to this Director's Decision. On the basis that FEMA's Q!$725W ' analysis of the Petition's specific issues did not sustain the contentions, this Portion of Petitimers' request is denied. This denial notwithstanding, the Com- [ 2M,h, hhN!h(NM.'. ?. 1 - by, :s.y 6. M,W.,., ,' % y- W M -r. 4SnE , % mission acknowledges that FEMA agrees with the general thrust of some of the conclusions of the Petition for reasons cited in FEMA's Self. Initiated Review _ p r..q p.":.g.Q~-P~jy 73. @c . - c . and Interim Finding, dated August 4,1987. Based on this latter report, FEMA U S; ~.?;g, ENC:e f ,. has concluded that offsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness for ~ ..% 4 . _ .n.- .' s. N ;., ?KgJMG 3.04 : U .p$. 2 n Massachusetts are inadequate to protect the public health and safety in the event of an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. De issues that FEMA ,' 4
- .7.W C ' ' %, . Identified as a basis for this conclusion were:
-- .m . ;E M - 1. 1.ack of evacuation plans for public and private schools and day-care 2 ,. K'- ,_,g' ' centers. m:c 1 - ?, _ ^ . .. Q 2. Lack of a reception center for people evacuating to the north. Lack of identifiable public stelters for the beach population. ,. I.it'- 3.
- 4. Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs popula-
,. j tion. q 7., .,g ~
- 5. Inadequate planning for the svacuation of the transportation-depend-
,y: ; . , ps; e ent population. ~ . ." .X,e' V' 6. Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent diminution in , , :p 3 e emergency preparedness. j '- ,.,, c.- 34., ? . In summary, while this portion of Petitioners' request is denied, the emergency l ^ - f.M planning issues identified by FEMA are a matter of senous concern. He '" '1 '. ~ determination whether to restart the Pilgrim plant will involve, in necessary 3- / , ., part, consideration of the resolution of emergency planning issues identified by ,,_a..
- FEMA. *
' ,: ' * -, , ' , <*17* i% .. , . ( s.. 7 s' . im - , . .s .','
- p. p .J.?
' '.r.. , M,a C. Containment Structure l 4* '1 ' :; ,2 5 f '.' f .c.- g g.; De Petitioners allege that there are numerous deficiencies in the General ;;. , f3p2 ,'
- s. h ,,h
.6 h :y.5 Electric (GE) Company Mark I ccatainment structure. De Petitioners assert < 5 -dj_ 2:e, ;'['@,-Q cj F that the GE Mark I pressure suporession system employed by the Pilgrim reactor contains inherent design flaws that raise questions about its ability to i A. Y@5'!{, m. m,M,nffg: 4 ,- .- . .< w:-xn . M O2, ) EM.; % a..' av M .d, 9M A;[,9.:-&j'N &,@w. 5 . * ,l,'? >. ',% yl @ y.c j;G* W $ [ . c. , . : 9g }, Vc. lW Qs ..; W . .% - . w',@ $ .e. . g. s - -.; ..e \ . m. - h ,~s..' ,,4, [
- J r~ > \
,,.y . ., , '! K ' , . > ':' ? _J, % 4 N ON
- 9-NO kf ,* N 4* 8 W 'i 1 *' M M-S. *-- PM.P 4 kW GMp 4.W -.el pi yemae. 4 ., 4 g,g
- y. h
_ , .x ,L*. 0 I-_, g -- \ , g . j[* . -A , ,, t. , 7 4
- 6 - ,
" * ,=
- d
. . e
- ' j?' .
[* t,, s- ., ' I ' / '; ,. , . , , . ,. a E!ll .p;. . . . . , . 1 . *@;,.9- ; e,. . \ ;' . _ JL - - -f
- e , _- _,
.-4-, - .-- ,. . ,.,, . +- ,.p,%u %s.d. 9h> W~, D ys p.c. i w n~ , et.w. w@n. pg6,. a ,y ,. n , , ., a . ,,;:. s 7,. . a : o. ,p r y s j 3 .. u, :.
- n. s ,f, N, ;Mh : , .
@ W,,} ? m [.; CrQg[%&y'S. .k. . .s'-M % N;% 3 s d W.# MQ$N$ y . withstand accidents. Generally, the concerns relate to (1) design issues raised by Dr. S.H. Hanauer in the early 1970s, (2) the Chernobyl accident, and (3) 4(0.tD 9 Q'N/9 M p g Z'l7 M (~J M 2 "' '{ 1 s the capability of the Pilgrim containment to withstand severe accidents. These 3:'O g . are addressed below. However, before discussing the adequacy of the Pilgrim containment, it would be useful to describe the design philosophy and licensing bS .didr Q.M F. ESU Mf A c.D; @9?requirements j N[f % E#11 W ~_that are the basis for reactor containments in the United States, -u> - ,y. ; m . _;- . , m. - ,T;*L Q .' C ' , ? L. 1, Background w s %,W:: 2 8 p :. > : R ~ M F-Q,s.P W W N Containment structures are an integral part of the U.S. reactor designs in that e ShMEdhDMQhj. N N M N 5 1 h b h. . th:y form one part of a structured, tiered approach to public safety known as defense in depth. Concisely put, defense in depth is the process implemented ///$2 M 'S; j d 6' fM/M M d p.M $MR $ .7. . by the AEC (later NRC) to ensure that multiple levels of assurance and safety exist to minimize risk to the public from nuclear plant operation. N.7M,R.M@. h.3 m*-d M T @ w % M S.6 4 3 W4m c ~ , A primary level of assurance are those activities to ensure that the plant is pOc : designed and constructed to high-quality standards. Guidance on plant design @Whp%;E.MOhfQ $ M.?s7.- is provided in the Code of Federal Regulations and specified in the General WQ;.fi,0f,jl$(.M,% Design Criteria (GDC). Specific information is provided in the NRC's Standard c W.? , g.y.y ' Wet.R..rg.%x& /g .f . Sjf .* Review Plan (SRP) which details acceptable methods for complying with the requirements established in the GDC. , g, .. 'd t 'qy ]' ' Early in the development of commercial nuclear power, it was recognized JC f(' Q, that these complex systems could not be expected to be immune from various , y .q,;.", . , , , M failures and malfunctions, regardless of the quality of design, construction, , ' ' . i; - T : .1 '.^ i and operation. Therefore, a further level of defense was established in that 4 , ;ic the plants were required to be designed for successfully coping with various + y - , 3 . equipment failures, transients, and postulated accidents. The scenarios for '4 .C ' . v '..._ "E ^ postulated accidents, to which all plants are designed to respond adequately, / are Imov,n as design-basis accidents and are detailed in the NRC's Standard - , : ,% ,. 3 ' Q .% '.' ,-f'f'A'l s. ., Qh O [f. Review Plan, which is used to evaluate the design of each nuclear power plant prior to the granting of a construction permit or operating license, g ' ,K 'o }f(.,,; Design-basis accidents were chosen to represent a wide spectrum of plant , , 'l . 'y j problems, some of which were expected to be experienced in the plant lifetime (such as failure of power systems), as well as events considered to be quite - : n _ infrequent (such as major ruptures of piping systems). M, l.' }t , .Ja Details of these design-basis accidents are found in Chapter 15 of the NRC .', @%:' Standard Review Plan, which also identi6cs acceptable plant protection stan-I , , g. [ ' F ' ',, 'y ' 'l ? - ?o V[M, . t - s f- y ' dards for each postulated plant accident. The requiremenu and capabilities of plant safety systems necessary to prevent these design-basis accidents from lead-y, ,, ing to unacceptable radiologicc! releases are specifically identified. Guidelines .s.: -{$gp j y 7. ' , s ./ ,s yC for judging the acceptability ci the analytical results in response to these hypo. @ ? % 3 6 ,, ; thetical scenarios are specified in NRC regulations. The plant design guidance N '.@-_(W3 ~ ,. s - % . gy.d ; wm: @M g gy@y @g required as a result of this approach results in the incorporation of multiple 1 fY:N. qu ,;<,ffh w.%.9'pn:h&f$w. k h. I 7: , n j.hTf f { Q q- Q;.M.,y Q .n .1. .,r.a ; . ,r S,4 ..;4 .,pm.. , ,, Q.: . . . 96 , O q 4 _ ,s e 9 *$ d \ . @4'.' - a, ,, e.s- - -' ,7 % 5 . ;['
- x. ,.
- n. -
y:: ..m.cg *; , ~ . i m si.;< . . *V( +.v+= emus =* a.ees-ey-eiv t w a -eeaveau =see -Ce e s* >=* T* es; += ma .w pyeew-*-w see. . -g**= . - - vu..-+ww=+,.>-4 e;e - g b p b g $ 4 - e % f 's .g+ 9 1- ,t al - s i g , \ .\ ' ] ,' . 2 % . m _ ".a b , % /? w - ; ? \.l ' ?% sc % ~ ~ . -s h. ;.,;- f(_s:g. <. _; ?^ ,. '<l.i . ; ,;; , . ) .;_ - 3- . F a t[a
- s. .
p' ? s v $ l s ,_ , < N,.y. 7- s y - . a, * . , r. t - - . . -.,3 u %~W. NM N + b:-rjd;nW t v:ND :. .:.. . ,7,$ .
- v h.,:.,.ai n y Wp.:.g;E*:-l.M 4t !
~ ~m $5."Q 4.TpQMr. F wy GM[.&r[4 . h *...M'd ; .p W;'p. h, pW -.s m , ~. , %.:2.W :,L-m. % 9....kyg?g:9.P; . .n. m . ~ < :w n. ,; . and backup safety systems which will protect the reactor during the postulated J'i ' MQ,@y@ :.# M @,.y:pcy.:. M' '_ sfig~Q ] of these various protection devices. % % , failures yfWOq.& w;q J. ^ . Notwithstanding the above, additional margins are required in the plant design MyhN[T!. to Protect the public even in the event of very unlikely accidents. De reactor Wh.4i:T.[kbS,3MMi.5 hMNjS$$#f i containment provides an additional level of safety. Design-basis accidents for TM.W,$!$PE;W M , ' containment reflect a number of arbitrary accident sequences developed from m postulated events. For example, the containment structural design is based upon [1;yk%%'T n//NN?$M.%yR; f.0%WWE,W M% 62I-@@N ' the effects of a concurrent earthquake and a rupture of major reactor coolant system piping. Concurrently, in order to assess the efrectiveness of leaktightness, j-%;fdd$.E%$$m . the safety systems are presumed to be not effective in cooling the reactor core, resulting in the release of fission products from the reactor core. Although the ga% h.C :w::M. U. +n qf.pg.st. - F i 2, Q,., o. g4g,pap.y sggig.Z i, design-basis accidents discussed above are allowed to result in some failed 29 h9jdygf fuel (less than 1%), they do not result in core damage. Ibr the containment ; $.Nh: h$D $ N$ N MD p/ % h . g*Mg g e design, some independent failures of the protection systems are assumed to occur simultaneously with the occurrence of the accident they are intended to , o.p.ec.m x.M .gg.y , g.. :.;p?m .s.m wi i control. While the purpose of other safety systems is to shut down the reactor a.O5.n li.M "l My ij%q 'jpg%y%.s. .hg g1p. - w Tw l..d@g fission process and provide emergency cooling water to the reactor core, the i
- 4. l.1 :.f;; v3X containment has a required function of providing an essentially leaktight barrier )
&, Q M to "bottle up" any radioactive material released to the containment through -QP;- : .c[;.g[M> _- c. HQ N]M 15 2;7.: c. any rupture or break in the reactor coolant system. Given the release of the i , - %:s w M fQJ ' radioactive taaterial and cooling water, the containment is required to retain ) N - .' ' ' [,f.[' yg[M. M this material and prevent significant releases to the environment. Consequently, ;
- 5. y ,- 3 the assessment of containment design adequacy assumes the postulated release i
.' ~q. ' ~ ~ af. F , of fission products to the containment irrespective of the performance of the l 'W # - core-cooling safety systems. l ' C'~1 1 MM While design basis accidents are used to determine the adequacy of plant l ~.J : Jj M.n i i,t;?7 t9 9 Q. :y , systema' esign and performance, a set of additional assumptions is imposed to l iM. .' further presume that these systems will not work as designed. De containment l Nj ' , j ]lg,7;;yf design basit reflects a combination of parameters incorporating several design- l . . . W %, .9 ., .e basis accidents for structural considerations, coupled with an assumed release : 7- gf of radioactive material to containment for assessing leaktightness. ) ,, .'y- J M.7 '- In summary, the original design purpose of the reactor containment was I
- c e - , %: 3 i to protect against postulated radioactive releases from hypothetical reactor l
~ , 9L 7 .i s. - 7;M accidents up to and including major ruptures of reactor coolant piping, where ' J ' JM c, E.J .-d. , - jMQq such events resulted in some degree of core damage. Dese hypothetical events 7.. A e f 996 e postulated a release of fission products from the reactor core to the reactor 2Q. ,3 ,. coolant system and sabsequently into the containment through the pipe break. ' j <y06? . '.-y TM 7/O M.d 1g:Jg. .' <,. g .- His was considered cne of the less likely, but possible, a:cidents and provided 3 gy y t + ; g . -: a straightforward means of providing additional margins for containment design. ..+ 6:+as%g .j\. ; Q f'yly.Q J:::,% j3';ffQQr;'a s ,,s . .w.
- W Q~ sA Q i Q M.. ,
y.l . f M, v/ ; %. 4 5.~ M c Q ,'p. [ '. . (: %u*-[@# -: f.. M-by.ypq .e.. %. ._ % % %b Q.':WCQ u '.. N.N Y1,Q l M - kh Mh . .**. . . .u .~. .v , s..p- ;,,:m'!, . . qM.e1Mp.* w.e .. . p u* f% 97 . i .% , <g1 k . ^ ghed.' - @'[~L'.' h , G ,*f*' ~ G sdL4 ', :+ . u . - , ~
- n. ~
4- ~ e.,, \ , ?,Ib '*5 * .' u,w. m . w . b, =,,;* . . .- r l i ' 6*a #* ""W- 8# N b'F, *'8 I WJ. e , W'99'P 9 - ,. 4 M { 4 " * *8N ,, , ,, ~ ~ - . <: .~ ,
- n. -
w "*e , a* 3 3 E , .~~* , 1 e \ p y l .',T- 4 Y
- 5. s , . , , s s
~ _; p m. ' ;f . ? _ , a - ...e, ,0, v. ,*:e. < *,..c' .> 1 . _' , s , j: ' . %:.q ,- ~*J T . , , .;. + -t , s , j ..uQ. 4 ' (!,z < *'.,,,*.*'>-L' s y *l * ! Y. .- ~ 'A , o> ' */ 4 ,a< =*q:;9 *~. w,* i ; 3 '..? -:T V . ' ~ u-- - ~. ' - .~;" * ' '! i-y' E ;5Y.n. - f. L 'Q?/w& Y ' . X;' % ,. Y ': U C s -m . . .n w.x ,;.. .V :.,. o .y s r , . ,y .;- x - , ~ s ,4 a .. n. nA_- +a-sm ,. , . . < ,, l% , M w ,-a s.y - . : , ~1 = q. 4;u 7. . ,s ~ <<- . c;iw. n.,.y . m r ,a,p. c.x'e;.+ ,2 n.g.. w;. 1 \ y.,- ' > w %: ' . ' , ' . . . , . ,. .r.M.W, .. . . _, .N,s r , ,a,N, W "x ,~ n.~ + .. --ng? .ShM Sj9;W %.1R:~N F ,'W One must slso consider the concept of severe nn: lear accidenu and how they 9 ,. ,' . ,- , . fit within the framework of protection from design-basis accidents.* Ibr the last , , , ~, w ...g;, q - g. ..~ several years, as part of the NRC's efforts to continually evaluate and increase . z y ,, ,' f M .:j - , ,' f ' power plant safety, we have been studying the likelihood and consequences of extremely low probability incidents with attendant higher estimates of core 1 wR[y[?h.q[.},@N[.@'. M.EQ damage and higher radiological releases from the core. This class of accidents is o-: ' Q -g? 'l jf O ' p, . beyond the existing design basis and is known generally as severe accidents. This 'vJN 1 r. was first done comprehensively by the Reactor Safety Study (WASH 1400), & ' (O Oi;c.?pW ' , which is known as a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The type of accidents N ' ; .bWW.5W,, , M studied in this evaluation are basically those where multiple backup safety ~#N.N M? MN$ dif. systems fail, eventually resulting in damage to the nuclear fuel and considerable EP .;d releases of radioactive material outside of the reactor cooling system. Depending P.d Mg@ .MW d;p@3 . W]M.Q@26M.C.s3MID N. 'MEO on other failures and containment behavior, significant radiological releases into the environment could conceivably occur. Implicit in these scenarios is .Q-ff d [ , the development of a better understanding of containment performance and its [, - jiI.}.D[d[%.@.,.2M@Wh@p-Q!p %j; p , % u ,;,g, g g y@ @' g 7 Q ~ f failure mechanisms. we More detailed PRA studies have been conducted since the publication of '% FjQ G,3 ~ -s WASH 1400 to better understand the probability of these unlikely events and ~ , - g ! , ' W. . W also to better predict the magnitude of potential radiological releases into the .'.. ; M C 4 @. , ~C. environment, given a containment failure and attendant consequences. Consid- . ~ C N. ..?, ' W "' etable work has also focused on the behavior of reactor containments following ,J . ' ~ ,. ;' - C ~ l &C a severe accident where molten reactor fuel could potentially melt through the m . g"' . reactor vessel. Results of such studies have generally confirmed the very low j % ' '. [ ' , likelihood of such accidents and relatively low risk to the public even if such ~ , L i very-low. probability accidents were to occur. While not originally designed to
- g. protect against some of the severe accidents, reactor contamments provide con-
~ . o g%F siderable benefit from their ability to reduce radiological releases to the public . ." ' M@" ( , ' from such accidents. Ibr example, the results of research work indicate that -s' i the actual pressure-retaining capability of most containments is well above their ~. ' ?. :'t 's.,.. . original design pressures. Studies also indicate that the massive containment structures may provide considerable retention of radioactive material even if f., [$. :-9, '~ 4, . .x- they were to fail following a core-melt event. As discussed in IC.4, there ex-ists considerable uncertainty regarding a Mark I containment's behavior during ',' ; ,. a core melt accident. A recent study judged the probability of some form of , ;.- - :iu 1, '; z:. j *@Q , . f 1 containment failure, assuming a core melt had occurred, to be between 10 and 90(6*8 , , - PJ -M .- W ',' m -s ..
- NI ,' ~ r ye ,
,; jh ~ , I c .'.,_-: ,. . . ,. S ..a.. w * ~ 't * 's $g ggg gg gg g g g gg g %g . c ma. m serm <cau emseences? nis h is uuscud rm N "Pobey sumnas an score Reacw i ..? c. C.' . ( sU M. 'y ..xc;in ;k-hi t .] . Accideras Regarding P,.nurs Desips and Exisung Nnu." so Foi Rag. 32.138 (Aug. 8.198s) !
- 7 yy, yde 3 NtlREo tiso,"rhe Reacter Risk %erermee Docuners"(Dr:A) )
f:' 1Fs%;g!.y.?;q$g@'gy*[.7 'M Q Nl y '.s . 3 ' l Y h "-[ r , %Nh,h[h$[kNhd *WWW- 1 3= i 4 3.. . c' ; 4 i(3 < p..s. v . i s . . 98 , .p. 's' , &y#-*.s OtM w; -7 - " , ,. 'f &R s,- . .v. ..c. p2%. a,
- j. J.', *. $hi*k.y r s- #'
i ? # "N li'^- *' -- mee . . +a- es-- e ,m e ai a - ere s**=
- ma* & - - -- - ,- c -ee me , y= g eso a .= & , v as-.. + n, e y e a .
1 . .. I q Ip_ a: ~ ' l . ,' u- , ~ , 5 . j 4 . r a # q \ ,y A 5 # , ,. 4 * * " ; ' y , ,
- 4
,',. j *),~. e , , , . y x ;., - *^ s .#'1 ' i .f ~k [ t. s # 4 ' ff . . m v. u; ,.' ' ' ' ~ ,' ,' RlU'* ' am ? h * . m.' _ , . , s . ~ . o , , ,, . - - -..~. - - -. . .. - - 4 .. . ' W/ 1
- y0.
o,#
- Ua 9W +ghGG2&c%@%f y; . %.
p' se an m*n.- ;
t 7..- wwt3. .:.g .s ..z.t ,: . - s& . o ,. .:.w. .p 4%.a. c. .v v. I W.f - Due to the very complex processes involved in a severe reactor accident, l E 39$:$2N'.% - Kr h,dN@W.M3:e%pl y;?]R "f G m<m y^ exact predictions of accident consequences are dif6 cult. Considerable research is under way to give us additional information in this area. Results from such M%yMW ~;, .s . r.: ; studies allow us to focus our attention in areas where improvements can be made hcMl[K$NS .2 %[;c' 3MMN5ffNDM.$y. , nim [$Mf to provide increased levels of safety from these very unlikely events. 'Ihe purpose of these pro lccts is to conduct hypothetical "what if studies to understand ways 1 MW yhd5W4; public risk from nuclear operations can be justi6 ably reduced. Even though we W%: ' strive to reduce public risk further, results of our studies indicate that risk from M. . .a4 M> t @% '. S M, 3] U.m M- . .i Nm these .I.lsevere0.accidents h , is very low and does not warrant immediate actions. More ML MM. . Information on the adequacy of the Pilgrim containment and its adequacy with gggfg 6 M M N@Y @@d6Kipg@Qh h respect to severe reactor accidents is provided in IC.4. @g1MMhff For background information purposes, a brief description of the Pilgrim Mark N. NY5h I Containment Design is provided in Attachment B (not published). A discussion ! mmh.k:ty$@5fdN[@@.hky VQth.h& N$.NkNkO) $ 4ND of the historical problems and the speci6c three assertions regarding de6ciencies in the Mark I design is provided below. Section C.2 addresses the Hanauer issues, MAWMW . w.W,m*./GWWMa .s n I C.3 addresses the Chernobyl issues, and I C.4 provides additional information jQ a m. m.y. S4.O . . on the Pilgrim containment's acceptability from a perspective of severe accident , o ! .e p .- I Q.n a m.u. ;p;:s.w.M <.:w'm:ww:.a: m. . e_ of .w AsW &:,W. . gM.r -g,o nL:j@v. orQW. risk. .y,%c . r;. ;:. . ~ f:."N 'Y ~ n-Wq ~.L HM.: .t .4. ^' -, .d: w.- x 2:~Q. lr.c"vs.y.
- 2. Hanauer issues l
m2 . . . . .WQM: .~ x. s.3 I ,f,_C .~ ..e. ..,sa2, ,yj.gM-d y; w B The Petitioners have expressed concerns that are based on memoranda written l b:/9 ', before 1978 by the staff of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the ;). ' f.N]..N 7ll:.+.g SgMMif.% , NRC (which succeeded the AEC in 1975). These concerns relate to the ability l . . , a;. v.%g;$2f[ : , of the Mark I containment to respond adequately to its original design function i W3. ... m ~ N.?e, c . N % ., n .% (i.e., deal with a large loss-of-coolant accident). 'Ihe key document cited is ~ac.j'sY a memorandum written by Dr. S.H. Hanauer on September 20,1972. This ' 01(.. M ^ ,S.Q , v. ;3;OUW.- C ) y .,f document raised seven concerns, all of which centered on the viability of the ! ,' , m , y.T 'h < @ 'ff$qpp ' pressure-suppression containment concept. Portions of four of those concerns l .+ M have been either directly or indirectly quoted in the Petition; they relate to steam-ij ' z ._ W,Ve.S. i. M. .f, . @s M., W. $ ' y bypass susceptibility, valve reliability, lack of adequate testing, and volume - , ;- : . e,a - s.
- n. .,
limitations causing overcrowding. , ,( . . . .: S,. . When Dr. Hanauer's seven concerns were raised, the Staff evaluated each y- > ' .R::f1.s M #y.. 6.' ... . of them to determine whether adequate safety margins were being maintained on existing plants. Subsequently, the NRC Staff concluded that Dr. Hanauer's M R'-4 ['1,:. 6 , N7,:, Q;N.MQJ{$ concerns had been properly considered, and documented its fmdings in NUREG- ;;' ff ; f 3.,@ ufn.'./ qZ 2 2' ~ 0474, "A Technical Update on Pressute Suppression Type Containments in Use 45 fl ~ i~ c W.O , 4 " U . y . @$g>j : in U.S. I.ight Water Nuclear Power Plants," issued in July 1978. Enclosure A to NUREG 0474 summarizes NRC Staff actions related to each ...td. 'O ; f,s'. l.W@y% - " Ed s of the seven concerns identified in Dr. Hanauer's memorandum of September si$Ii Sg.gm. sy 20,1972. For convenience, a copy of that enclosure is provided as Attachment N%.h. M249WhM s - e .-N.sdd$.M, bhy . . C (not published) to this response. Each statement of concern was followed by YW.?h.s.jW$s&gicfj:'Mjp_y - e. u ' 6 - . wa O eM m&&.Y # -d*/' m'n y s' M. A , l .. .t , :q, r.W:m.m.y.! x*f. 4@* d . ? q. <.m v -y:s'e gi w,; mW 99 Ml%.m.% Q)',h.u &, .wn .,_
- s. ,<
y 6,.Q g .ys%W .y .#
- Jm*' -: ,.,,. y, j ._.f ; .,
~..'.3.y 4 . ,.d.. ,3 .n ...( 4 . p . ..
...?
- \
- u. J.'
-* ,rE * % I. .' .. 5 . , . . g g p.,..e 9,, ,e - ,.ep emppae, e g e we e. p .+ p y e g a .= -
- K
, , '-t s,. m. , ' N . e; y. , t ,, . ~ , - ,;m,. gl ., . . % .y . c - L- E " '(., e - , s ,- I . *( In . - * , s , ,,3 . 1.s ;7 a , ,#I ~. , , n. I' 2 * , 4 S . * .a - ' ;:, . 9 . '.c ', e+ 1' ...b, -. W.. ., ,' , < 4 . ?. ' , , , , 5 > Y i ,&q . j. - ~, .f. .b. . >. . L,V q . tp . :,yq . ', .. : , . i -1 , V.
- o s - . t.:l ;r ?L.
e s .. ,', ~ ! } } M.w; ,.Jr, y . .. . . 4 J. <' ,,, 1 9 . '*;w : * , g . ' ' > 'mth ' .' 3 ? ,v.: ?. . m , ~: g,v .
- y.
i % . 4:;9: .; - .~ m. i t. *
- y. - <~ , < :n s r . -
#*p %' M' .;2, .s . L .M 1*M. -!. ' i.-- p ' " i.' .Y*. [, .. ' . ;/ p ,;.' , [ ' e.. ' ~' ?' - 5 ];
- y_
Mgj. . .;,_ y., . ,,._--,__n a yy-.:w .;ms.m., .4.;:vv, .Tw.m' .- g r, :. . m . a p .v., w..;n~.x.x, + !w ' * ,,N ;~ ,f,= , .T;pc .?.. t-. M 4 /i"'i n. ,I; ,; _ x ,.. .? . N, ; ,.,._.' .-T,. W b . A,xi-U , ', , , , m :am- :y . .> , ' qf y,. - 4:G.S' c' Q:e,;4 e;h.J P ' m - fQ .g ; , a response that reflected the NRC evaluation. In each case, the response showed that the NRC no longer considered the concern an unresolved safety issue. a.. -. m I yj M ',W~g . It should be noted that while the concern reflected the views of Dr. Hanauer I 4 % 3 j, ; N^j', ; in September 1972, the NRC response reflected the status of the issue in July y, . : ... ' M c ...n y .: ; Q,..r. w?ah . 1.. 1978. Moreover, by June 1978, Dr. Hanauer had changed his opinion regarding , , s, .m..g;, .2 w his 1972 concerns, as reflected in a memorandum dated June 20,1978, in G- '.,t ' ' R .;w'% " . [.V J' $ . which he stated: "Thus while we may yearn for the greater simplicity of ' dry' ' ' f . 41 containments, the problems of both ' dry' and pressure suppression containments , j]M.\(' ,[.j.9d;I . . - , , Q are solvable, in my opinion, and the design safe, therefore licensable" (NUREG- . , ' n:.. .
- q,c.yg.3pc g.n.,g,;- 0474),
; 1%,. . Our review of the Petition issues that are based on correspondence dated 1978 - . , . ,.?. .$:.w.jp s Jy2 : + _.. r 1 '.;; .,i> L g ?$R indicates or earlier . , , that all of these issues have been addressed in NUREG- l b../. S.Q~h. dN ~ N ,,fE -; q$[ b c i." N k. h ,4'i N74. Although various changes have occurred since then, the fundamental safety conclusions stated in NUREO@74 are essentially tinchanged. The most @ ip.; ,: .fn c%.@ g M. n,yS 2Q nm ,w.;.[g S.eNE. .. notable of the changes has been the NRC position related to inerting the .y o, , . .w s .ggg, .y.. ;y,.. containment.' Since NUREG-N74 was issued, the regulations relating to this ..i ; ; " M~ ,T!t WM,, -. .ifR issue (10 C.F.R. I50.44, "Stan(ards for combustible gas control system in ' g yu ; ? %- @MM light water-cooled power reactors") have been revised to require all Mark I ,' ; -r M , ,4 gg and 11 containments to be inerted. De response to Dr. Hanauer's concern 4 .$ ij c.'Z y@f . (see Item B of Attachment C to this response) indicates that most Mark I c W ^4 containments were already inerted. Pilgrim was inerted at the time NUREG- .' - ' ..xt; R)i - ' M74 was published; however, the reason for inerting was restricted to design- , Jf g .i % . . basis accident (DBA) considerations. With the issuance of the revised $ 50.44, ^^ s / m, , the Commission required all Mark I and 11 containments to be inerted to N y, accommodate the degraded-core accidenL nerefore, although the revision did S. :. not cause any immediate change to the Pilgrim plant operation, the change did alter the basic NRC requirements in this area. A review of this and other , i:s . X ,N'" '.$.M.~L.f f. i changes made since NUREG@74 was issued indicates that in no case have the changes altered the fundamental Staff conclusions.concerning safety contained . ., ~w ?';", .N , ~L ' .- in NUREG-0474 .m.: The Petition references statemenu from NUREG@74 that relate to differ- .s . S @3 . .- ences between expected experimental results and actual test resubs. De Peti-7 ,, tioners state that surpri es repeatedly occurred during the course of the various, _ 'y - then ongoing, test programs. The statements extracted from NUREG&74 were . g. - 7 y.Q made during 1978 when many of these test programs were in their early stages. ', g.g.g % ^ asyL . Dese test programs were initiated by utilities owning Mark I plants as part of 1 ,7 . .5 . - .f;c '; g I a program in response to NRC letters that were transmitted irt February and April I s p -N c 'f ,, ;r 1975 to all utilities owning BWR facilities with Mark I-design containments 4 5 7;', y y ;7 '.m Z %n (including the 1.icensee). The letters requested that the owners quantify the .v - u4 - 'N j 'l,, , .. y . ?. Eh~ - . ' " -W::- - M; ' sW y WnW : g. %:W&y: .gn qli e . M y M 5 hmm;Y;W.. . %a - m m -n u +.m e w. ~ m3I c,d@M.f,Q[49$$i'$f8k - 100 pe M % :;K 9Q. 2W n ~ 3 W Wja. ?; G >P - %' ,. ,3 sp.a vg . . sp 3.fy g@htl- i
- 's_ .
q :. c c _. T l , q ,, ' , ' 3 *x ,;, y .; W ' I g T NM* ' . .'O** *8gW9-h-@4**"d'N%M4 M $ $WN E'-E$'9 4 M WB, - *@.**7dut-'9 W - - > e * , a t , " 'y a - _ r- , -\ ., . = , y '. , , , . 8 ., V y ,,4 ,' , .,.N'* .4. . , , ,'" dI- , s*. e ..% . 1 l.. > e f,^ . ~ q', "' L*+,.. '/' l ,=ey[ k,f'[,' Y , 3 '. ' . v *g. . Ij j ' . { * -] ,:q ? 7'. . f .1 m . , . h .s .. e e., ' n jt yf.. . ~ N. q .W. - y . ,F . -\w;: - K' 1 -)~v~Q G 'l - . 5 {; hydrodynamic and safety relief valve (SRV) discharge loads and assess the effect j ." . < ; of these loads on the containment. (nese loads had not been considered during ' 5. 3: +- the licensing of the individual plants because these loads (including pool swell) gf ' were identi6ed in the period 1972 through 1974 as part of the review of the (~g., .; - ,? J- large-scale testing of the Mark III containment system design.) V' LN.eJI:f.in / @g" As a result of these letters from tb NRC and recognizing that the evaluation ~ .j.;il . 'S+ effort would be very similar for all Mark I BWR plants, the utilities (including . w;.W, .1 g - - the Licensee) formed an ad hoc Mark I Owners Group. He objectives of ee ..j i~ ' /1 :. L' 3,._ this Owners Group were to determine the magnitude and significance of these W ;fl ..$ . ;p dynamic loads as quickly as possible and to identify actions to resolve any
- s., f . j ,
..;,M. ' j' R . Mg . . outstanding safety concerns. A series of generic test programs was created to ;:d.:'g[(My accomplish these objectives. @ g. W SC7;m. ; .,; Dl' '1.:Mf g .J & ' Q ."' f @ 4 to the Mark I containment design and the NRC assessment of the Since NUREG-0474 was issued in July 1978, the generic test programs related e' 1,f,{y - j y g., ; e )g.A 1 , ., tests have been completed. The Staff evaluation of the generic test programs .W vW- ' ' J. ,- ,,' g&;9d':;f..;fQ' ,Q9 g g' gklSafety Evaluation Report," issued in July 1980. NUREG 0661 describes and was reported in NUREG-0661, "Mark I Containment Long Term Program w '1:J .;gy-p% presents Staff conclusions regarding the generic techniques for the definition n,; . ,. ' g, . of suppression pool hydrodynamic loads in a Mark I system and the related ~ ' 4 ~y , 'L.i ^ ' structural acceptance criteria. As part of the a:ceptance criteria, the Staff required a plant specific analysis. s 4 - f , - gg De Licensee performed a plant specific analysis on the Pilgrim Station. nc Licensee submitted the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) of the Suppres-T. sion Chamber-Mark I Containment Long-Term Program (TR 53101) on Octo- .a . ber 27,1982, and the PUAR of the Torus Attached Piping-Mad I Containment [. Long Term Program (TR 5310-2) on October 26, 1983. On the basis of this analysis, the Licensee proposed design changes to restore the intended safety L;.- margins (The intended margin in this context simply means that the structural , ! ]f;V margin that was computed without consideration of the hydrodynamic and SRV , ,,y.- loads would remain unchanged when the loads are included and the modifica- 1 ? '.' ;[.:. . Lions completed.) The Staff reviewed these changes and approved them in a 'j Safety Evaluation Report issued January 30,1985. The modifications have been implemented, and the Licensee has demonstrated that the Pilgrim containment X is capable of accommodating design-basis accidents with adequate margin. 6 The Petition refers to another concern that can be considered as related to .c , !UM, Dr. Hanauer's concerns. The concern focused on the safety disadvantages of ~ , _ & pressure-suppression containments. His issue is related to the possibility of i ' ~ 2 steam bypassing the suppression pool in BWR pressure suppression contain- ; > . . g 7, . ments and was designated as Generic Issue 61, "SRV Line Break Inside the ' N Wet Well Airspace of Mark I and 11 Containments." An evaluauon of this issue , .M. p was recently completed, and the results were presented in NUREGNR-4594, i I .p I ' "'- 9 9;{ M,9.y@Q g - -n q. "'u 7 Was0, y%yyy .w.- ' . '*,.tn. .l ,y7 y:n!:f * ' .,* %Q. .?..- $ e,^ ( - 1 ' ~ .s A w' 101
- . - : ~; p <q,
'. A( .mym-' ) . - - < . ; q::.s.7: . - O f 5.c %. . , . 2 ,",'.'m*e~ .' { r s .a + '.. g ,'e W $= se 9 ese N N * *MT F_W # * *%y'rt--_ _ - ##-* 5%m == ge 'W 9 #T p % %99T -- *'em. --p * ..P*T9D" ** * + est -p-- h 7 ~ ' t s 'r" , r ' > > s , t e i .s + . a. ~ y 4 W' s ',' . ~. q , ,,, ,j 4 . Y% # 4 y y U i '( - . g b r . np . w. .r/. :;w.p. r 1a;a. . .v n . ., , . a ._. _. a .,u. a .u...u w.... a .:. _ ...w =. w m (. :h le 5.h!. D ** % q \ ]. ' *k'. r . ! (;.w . .' Q : , ; .D' .....~..y.;
- m.'; "f-M, '#.
j WNt3,g"= e y ,. 7f .y}$. ~; ..q+ ~ k. . ,s,. p, ;.c ' -.' -y'ew.!t2 .~ g r .h/,w'. .0 N 4 N 'c,j ] t , l , m-n<y. 1:3 9 - p.,.:ny ur . G g:. m..> z. .,u ry - : : n ~ p.f3q%. g ,, h{M : g', J-@ m "Estimated Safety Signi6cance of Generic Issue 61," which was issued in June _ , ,cC,, 1986. %. W T.y .g.. .( . $pz,. z-.., n~ @r;.1 . . i t';. . i ~ On the basis of these results, the Staff concluded that no new requirements , lC,.'M'Sf;g33%QQP were justified ard, on the basis of an overall risk assessment, no funher study < we'.3. W;iN'0-:DM " ' of this safety issue was warranted. I. N.Y N In summary, the Petitioners have assened that the pressure-suppression MNY.MM;YkUM@'s "i, ~ .Z ..3.Q . . .3 . containment design is Rawed from the perspective of its original design function, 1 .h[:M M j/f'511 - and they have questioned the viability of this containment type. We have shown ~;cW%k)M; that many of their specific concerns, and in panicular those issues raised by '[g,10;AQ.4,;cQ.,pflpM, . A Dr. Hanauer, were previously and satisfactorily addressed in NUREO-0474 h ( Q p $ $ ; @ Ql g, Q ., .,_ and in varioas generic issues programs. For those concerns identified since 6, t TMgp WM$f . NUREG-0474 was issued, generic programs were conducted to determine the magnitude of the design loads under investigation, and the 1.icensee, based %-[N.M'Q$dyF%beGt-i D E R.'..I d d d h y p on the program results, implemented design changes at Pilgdm to reestablish M,, .M,7. -jo'hWMdhj.2 .o, acceptable structural design margins. Consequently, these concerns are resolved. - .r...D..W .s . . . p .y; m.u.gg:;a G w% j. 5QW: .s . c
- m. 4w[.glg,M s,:.w. . .:y<gy W. wwww g
3, Chernobyl Accident ,mm^y; -a, : m y.,- - o 3. .C - MN The Petitioners express concern regarding the threat of a Chernobyl-type f.' . Se myp3rg gg:f. . event at the Pilgrim Station as part of an overall reference to severe accidents. 7 2 > '.. -i h.e y ' Immediately upon learning of the event at the Chernobyl plant in the Soviet .J t. El.f - ;a / M M y '~ Union, the NRC formed a task force to thwoughly evaluate the accident to learn ~I," ,L' as much as possible about its causes, course, and consequences. The results of s (75'i 7'J N. [ this effort were published in NUREG-1250, "Repon on the Accident at the ,' J. . . Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station." NUREG 1250 was prepsed collaboratively
- .p , .%.2t T((i ; by the NRC, other U.S. government agencies, and other groups. ,
1.; - 61 M9II'J , Within the next few weeks, the NRC plans to issue for public comment a l ..~ 'i ..j::. .; M. % .- report entitled "Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation I ', f{ '. .,?, of Commercial Nuclear Pour Plants in the United States," NUREG-1251
- . .. l
- (August 1987). The facts of the Chernobyl accident relied on for this report y '," 7 ' ;?r. .j L.-
W['J are drawn from NUREG 1250 and its sources. NUREG 1251 presents an ? ' assessment of the implications with respect to a number of U.S. reactor safety y' ~ regulatory issues. 'Ihe issues selected for evaluation were those associated . _l , rJ. - s, ". ,W x - with significant factors that led to or exacerbated the consequences of the . m. C Je' #Gfi , , Chernobyl accident. Issues covered are in the areas of administrative controls , y, and operational practice, design, containment, emergency planning, and severe. ' J N " ' , . _ , ' $ ", ;~ M - accident phenomena. i.,,' ,97, ^ cl . ,g[. 4 7: . Nothwithstanding important design differences between the Chernobyl reac. m ; yz :" ? - #c; , ter and U.S. commestial reactors, the findings fmm these repons add to our . .sypb understanding of some of the phenomena that may be involved in a severe nu-c car acc ent and @ some amonal insights usW in guWng oumere-h,h.MD'j;....@;Q.mdM' kh,.. . .u. ..mcx an. u.y w:. .:.4 ? . . m.. 1,Ay T c. 1, > v. ;'.h(kihk ; iry . "* % *f*$$ YL : . l * ,r[-K;s m.b s'yh -.z.m. y g . ,; .p . .~. p "s%<x e ' 1 , -* .., . ;m.- %, ,n v, . . 7 4 ..se ) a a, .w,x, c, *< % a- - . . r 1 ., .: -L m Q., - e.pg , ,.~p . p ... '. 102 i i fi ;*G-. .-. n7,3. s.y@:n e .-^~ .m- .,,.3f ; - i, . . a, .*g y , t [. _..( Y, .. ~.c b- . ,' p , 3 s a w# ,.I .~~. n ,- , ,* y r.r y .~~ e* ~ ~~~w-- , % 7-es w - ~~ ~ y.n. p ,,-e .vys n -,w y.., n , e .m ,. ,,. . c*
- _
,*s 1 w 1- . * , ."'s.- jp. - . 4 ,- s 7- 5 - -l _ ^ .'d'. ; 3 ~- ~,
- . 3~.
- l. '
i % l ,' < j s, [, , *7 , f - 6 4 g , h' / - 1 ,,1 '. E ]_ $ e , .J , f ( .# ,. 0 g . c .: .. %'* 1_...y;' . , I [,,-r L f 4 - ' ,(. ' r:y * . = _% y s,'. N' . ', ~ q' ' . . .s t u s. * ,..,,'*.rs + + ;- 1 j .=.,,- - , o .: - g~ ;n s 1 # ' .N , ,! p . .__, i Q s ' ' ** g.'E.. x: .t ~L.'.'.- .,t,.i ' .v , e.. , s o o, - , , . . i ?* $ ,f({ ' . , , *' - * ? ' 'C' $, , . ^.0* _ f, 9'$ l m - . _ . _ _ . _. . -- . ?,f. t . we,. . . .. . " - 1-- "" " " " " " ~ " - " "- a :7 .,.a.t. p:np+w.;,
- y. .x,5;y.q: .
.m. ~, :w.:, yo . W.. , : s .w-, r w .,..ar ... ,:. c . . -e , .v:.p:.x, ;..;m. n,W.. . . .m%~,, w,., ,- u- a ~a. ~. - . .m w~..::. . x . ., .Mw: p6 accident programs. De 6ndings and assessments provide us with conclusions [y.vm.w: . 5- U:C ;,5 Ll M 2' ; @ Q; .,l @ J:,, regardingf' the v vulnerability of plants such as Pilgrim to a Chernobyl type event. ,m. W ft,Q , , , 1- The Chernobyl accident was initiated by jerious operator violations of safety ,. ' / $ M 6 . % - f.' R1, - . Procedures. However, the ensuing reactor damage resulted from basic design l d' M;..,. M M 'f! N :V$@ features of the RMBK 1000 reactor which are speci6cally prohibited in U.S. re- ; P KMgie.M, gg,fie'(:'. . actors. De RMBK reactor design does not use large steel reactor pressure ves- . c'O : '. j]>,; 4;[ J 'Xf . sels with water as a moderator, such as are employed in the U.S. designs. Rather, , 4 j:n$f . ~ 4.A . ? '1 the RMBK utilizes a graphite-moderated pressure tube concept. Ibr some condi- 'M YJ3d:dk ',' ',., Lions or modes of operation this design has an undesirable characteristic known . as a positive void coef6cient. -$g;Wm'p ? - J MW7XhM..jnM'Nhj%A ^;, positive void coef6cient means that, for reactor incidents where rapid $ph P M M [% $/5M@d .MNM'.? QM ' o Power increases vaporize cooling water in the pressure tubes, a further power increase is incited. This is known as negative control stability and occurred so $ Dh: .NW:M. 6 M$pgi :} " , quickly at Chernobyl that the operators or safety systems had no opportunity to ,WA respond, and an explosion resulted. In violation of operating procedures, some d ; 7 .:?c. W v. Cf.el y g. M W .7 safety systems had also been deactivated. %e RMBK design also possesses a .;( w .jp ' '$$:MiOp?prMOh 6: 1, . f.d"M MT slow-acting safety control rod system, which further contributed to the eyent. ',Q E $p~L_ As nuclear power was being developed in the United States, the importance of 4'N '; j ;'/ ' Y , .
- J J :;,I.".<4 3g l control stability and, speci6cally, negative void and negative power coef6cients
(;- ,: 6 M.l.5 y.M . $ ' 3;{ were recognized. De nuclear cores of U.S. reactors are speci6cally designed ~ ' . :.-- 11 , . .. .?m ' to prevent the power instability that caused the Chernobyl accident and also o ) include fast-acting safety control rod systems. Fully complying with these design g.;.- M - ] ^ W,,:e i W criteria, Pilgrim responds to an increase in voiding by a power reduction due f fW to the inherent physics of its design. Additionally, it is worth noting that the , g accident at Chernobyl was exacerbated by the graphite 6te that resulted. Since .e .
- / ' %- Pilgrim does not utilize graphite in iu design, the concerns associated with
'1 , - N 'h.ici; a graphite are are not applicable. Also of note is the fact that the reactor at 1 e N ~- Chernobyl is surrounded by a confinement structure as opposed to a containment, ' ~~ Z , ' , as in Pilgrim. The differences in design relate to the basis of the pressure- . js f - retaining capability of the two structures. De Pilgrim reactor containment wot.ld l be expected to withstand an internal pressure resulting from an energy release T' ,l.Wf '7 F ' many times the energy release that the Chernobyl reactor con 6nement could (by design and in fact) withstand. 7, . ., -; As discussed above, the steam explosion in the reactor core, which ruptured (, . ;Q - , the reactor core and surrounding building, was caused by a nuclear physics 'a. v. - em' g- design vulnerability speci6cally prevented by the Pilgrim design. Due to that ' 0-', - - . tif _ 5- . ' and other factors discussed above, we find that the contentions of the Petitioners - J , ,,, ' ' 'ff $;.~ - regarding Chernobyl are without merit. .g e - QK #. g.. g , A *h-- . . ' , ,'5lf - - >. s< ... .c.,.' x *Ny . N; *,, y s , ;-4' ;- < ' ~_. % L' W C .- r ,, fw ' 'glh593R'.7[g;q;.m@,(,i$lWl,p"Y g w. :* L Lt.g* hfJjf . T ' ;E:n. Q .., .'.c.. - e.ac .v. .s . aiu . , w. ~ - mC y?p,% ew ve h@ A.,.z.;,yno y m .
- g. m^.a w . m. p*Q A p u., ,n Y ;. ) > ; .: A Q . \
. ,- m ,.r'.,2 e. , :g; y mg' p w 103 1 . . . c :'; j 1 . :k.. .nz
- u. % G. . '
-<;>il Q :21~ M ~ ' ",,. .J - 2 .* - .T '- ,v s . 'q;:. . f; ;. 'sj. ". .$plf3, w. , s. i 1 7 , S .' f , p , f G. L e .I\ .. 4 9 1 1 ~... * -. . --_ ,- . ~ , . . - . . . . .. .,- m . . ..n..., , l . .,. i . _ , - ., ..e i g .) , , - r L a k - 1 } . e - (. ; g ,,9 , , . m s . . !, ?", .l r. , ' ~ l l".- .?. ~.f . e * ',., 9 ,L , 4 - , s. p + ' ~L-s / ;. .y p ", .s 5 s, , , : ,, , .; ; *- * .> - ...' e C .j 4 _- ,"s, ., ' . ' '. ,. /4, i l, . , , C ,J , p., . - -. - - . r ; m-+- .nr.,--..
- ..c ... m . , . .e.. ..
WM.g .,. 3 W 'P% . . .: y z. ,-,;%ai : m&%. ~ > }-[f; y _e . . c.- g w.3 . i - , ,n._ , y . . Q:, ; ,. f &m.3 > :' h l:N* ,z% ." - k n..M:~.& 3? ;.-: ,h;.L.4. - Capability of the Pilgrim Containment to Withstand Severe Accidents .q~. ;- 3. 'y y - He Petitioners raised concerns regarding the possibility that the Pilgrim ,j $ J% , # ,. ~ containment might fail in the event of a severe accident. He Petitioners assert D.l .0 b g 97.. / - ,l .4 3 that there is a tendency to underestimate the probability of various types of A:W Q h d;( ?T - accidents; they cite, among other things, the recent accident at Chernobyl (see , J %@'*,$.gi@M'- ' W.J ; previous section). De Petitioners also conclude that there is a high probability D. l.9.-.r;. us?,' 2.5' r. .' VIA .- that Pilgrim's Mark I containment structure will not stand various severe accident . % . m' , , A. . ' .y. , 2 scenarlos. Ji .l'Q@Q.$-J ;.- ' M:W.'.d% .Sh.[R N. Tjf4 As discussed at the initial introduction to this secti e (C.1), the NRC views probabilistic risk assessment as a structured method f. r investigating the %. likelihood and consequences of reactor accidents considered to have a very low 3.". h N] E M ? t y ' D.-hMN frequency of occurrence. The perceived inability of the Pilgrim containment to P/[/>fhj@M;M$ W'M;M,M%dka s $d3.h M,h survive a severe accident was identified by the Petitioners as a design flaw.- De evaluation of severe-accident vulnerability involves three distinct evalu-ations: first, the probability of an accident involving core damage; second, the N ,pp y.-9 ; y;;?. g qy.g;.MDM'YS . f..; .6 C B%"s;' (-:,. likelihood of containment failure; and third, an assessment of the radiological . .f4 eWY ! %!~:9..q.@h/$%'"F [ dp consequences and public doses resulting from the accident. All three issues must S: . R ' be considered in making a determination on the magnitude of severe <ccident .'.g. 6 fW J Ng., /. .; - risk and what actions should prudently be taken to reduce those risks. , 'c:?..pg ' %:- , .j Re studies that have been conducted emphasize that the results inherently ~. 'j ' 'f ,! possen large uncertainties. De draft resulu of NUREG 1150 present the most y u - 3y.3 W' , recent program, whose intent is to accurately reflect the severe accident risk at *- J a number of U.S. nuclear power plants and also to properly reflect the areas of '~ ~ ' ~-- uncertainty. His study included an evaluation for Peach Bottom, a plant quite f similar to Pilgrim in reactor design and containment. De study presented the Q'.. estimated mean frequency of core damage to be approximately 1 chance in L, ~ . . 7.i 100,000 per year of operation. Another comprehensive risk study conducted for ,,< ' N. ' . the Limerick plant estimated a mean core damage probability of 1 in 10,000. , ., 0 :% . ' ? i ' - Dese results are consistent with NRC's belief that core-melt accidents are very unlikely. Draft NUREG-1150 also investigated the probability of early .W..@M -!.~r M ]4 containment failure following a core melt his study concimled that our i-@ . - ability to accurately predict the response of a Mark I containment was limited '1 for situations where it was subjected to the harsh temperature and pressure . jf , . conditions following a core melt accident. As stated earlier, the report indicated - 1,C, ^ :.e . 4 E that containment failure probability (for these extrernely unlikely events) could f ': , . . ". .N. . , ', ; - likely range from 10 to 90% ,./. - e , - . ;P ' nese uncertainties are currently the subject of research efforts to better '. [ M;; y;.. ' t'[ . M y A predict the behavior of containments during severe accidents, so that a more -;~ : . *" m .' " JM' complete risk perspective can be assembled for guiding our regulatory activ. -p> 2: .[ ' ~ . .cg ities. However, it is important that these uncertainties be properly character. y.0 ~9 , .m / A,P.@ - ized. ney are not identified deficiencies in the BWR Mark I containments. . . , . . , ,/p. - '. ,[.b I;pf.bip',$h.M.Cyh~'.% . n..:, -p q.;G. <.y : b gjfp y c r k . . . ; , . m- e <rv
- r. 7,.
.y 4,3 r;s,,.g 6 ** d . ,J.,yp . w* . v-s7,,p ,; ' .g',*W . .h'; ~-y'. m . n-) .;.. cc w'y w. QQ^>.h.' ), . . , $N c ~ ':.E'as
- r t- *
*% . -a . t s -l 2 . -L %;"Q:. - Q $.:.'-p ;' . 4- s t = ).. '.\, *~ 1 . .l'.Ck, ~lyl&*[ Q ' '. ' .:\yq.;Q , C ' t...; ; 3 * . c ( *;; ~ .' - +, , ~.- ~ m-. , - - . - . - - _ _-y--.--<-.-m,. -. - - . <(.
- g. '. ,
k . t .S . '5 % + a , . .'n "e , # ^ ' ' - ' _ g. .- t i r, , ' ,. ~, * . .y. s J,- (' - y,. ..L : . y :% . . . . .A,....c'-?. , e .. , , , N ;#+Q q, lei *- .* k # .5* ' --_1_, ' ? {# [, .) m i N.i. Jh,.? W p. - e ,. . - . . . &. pw u .+...g ~ > a.) , ~ s; 4 _M.J, p .' y ?: 7 . :-a W d., 1 ; w.;l r : :q i ; 4 . c.4 m .v 2. : e 1 3s - l E' , ' d.3 m ;y s ,, j' , ' , v.~g,( ' d which have been demonstrated to satisfy their design pe:rformance requirements l .~ T? d (see Hanauer Issues, i C.2). Rather, these uncertainties are areas that gulds our IA," ' 2[?"' l.' U . research investigations, whose goals are to provide improved understanding of very unlikely risk situations at nuclear power facilides. Results from these stud- ' a "r s ., e 9 E - t A. .=. b .. ; les (including high containment failure probabilities) also allow us to calculate Wie 3, y 2 7 g, !_ ; . public risk estimates assuming that one element of the three that go into a risk we, s3~ - ci s m ' v -s ,. assessment (containment failure).is less favorable. }.. q , .c Even allowing the large uncertainties that result in a high upper value for
- n. .c
~L .n ' my c - - , ;.M . "? l containment failure, the NUREG-IISO study estimated that the probability of a , y b f ;{.g w y . 3., large reactor accident that results in one or more early fatalities ranged from one 3." 4.q W < in one million to one in one billion. Given a severe accident, the probabilities g; 9tw;J '.Q? 7.:'.j;c ;E.%. .V $ - of very high radiation exposure and the distances over which they would occur ,y'" N:yl. d'i ; ? @h:f.? . were also estimated to be reasonably small. The risk levels for Pilgrim would of - . W;%'lB :; .G 'is course depend on its actual core melt probability, contamment behavior, the local 7@:dfl'b/M;c T@c: e, demography, and could vary somewhat from the results presented in NUREG-e y w p'yc s.. y p. .p :4;p;iM C 1150. The results of this and related studies do, however, support our overall ;jfic.w :ff.O ' conclusion of low severe-accident risk at the Pilgrim utility. One contributing , ?[ r factor is the issue mentioned in iC.1, that the massive reactor containment % ! 'k'[ 'J k. M. ; ye ,. g.ga$ structure may retain considerable radioactive material following a core meh even ; , d. { ' .' . ;q if its pressure boundary is failed. In this regard, containment failures include ~- -M cracks or other phenomena that result in loss of pressure integrity that can result in leaks but should not be viewed solely as catastrophic failure of the y ^ . . ' 1c y, containment st:ucture. Platcout and deposition of material within containments, .5: even though there may be leakage, also increase the time available to implement , effective evacuadon activities. QP - While we believe that severe accident risks are low at operating nuclear , % plants, our goal is to pursue addidonal activities to achieve even lower levels .v ; Q- of public risk. To ensure that our risk conclusions are applicable to all oper-ating units, a number of prograrns are going forward to assess severe-accident J g' 9 .-- likelihood and consequences. These programs include plant specific studies to l g determine any severe accident vulnerabilities, both from the perspective of acci- , y- dent frequencies and from containment performance following a core melt. Any problems will be dealt with if identi6ed. This program is known as the individ- . ual plant exarnination (IPE) program, which is expected to commence later this - . 'p - _ ;-Y[g year. These and related programs will be conducted to provide further assess-y,; ments of severe accidents on a plant specific basis, so that appropnately low >- . - ~ N. . risk levels can be maintained ' y c,p;^ ' 1 On July 25,1986, the Licensee announced that it is voluntarily considering .W' . implementation of certain modi 6 cations to enhance the Pilgrim Stadon con. g M., tainment capabilides. In an April 30, 1987 letter from S. Varga to R. Bird, NRC asked the Licensee to provide details of the modi 6 cations and procedural .M .' C ,p..;, Q Q' N e 'Og ;.W.?M changes. We have received the 1.icensee's response dated July 8,1987, and it is x .mga ~ l
- v' < Qp fW:g.g.n -
l , _ ? -: W - ;% iMV % gng *n .,. ...* < x1':?Lh. ;f n-yf, ..Q.Q:q n : , r ' .J. Q. ,9 ... 3 # .'f f. .' # % g - L,.n.,.-.....~, n . p ,..- ~ ,w.._~~~m,-~n.._...,.. n . . . . . . ~ .. . r. , . c ' L : .: . e 4 p # Y ~. ' c.~..., ' [? '. . ~ ^. , - v; t ~, , .* L ' __ . _ . v . _
- p. 3. :u dl4.cv'. ..n p.' w;m. ,p .
3 m y l' - - q; (.::p 3 ncg i . -e. , .m s 4 :.; y.: ae> . , .a . c wp: w. >:. w 9 .+ ;.; > u . - . .j. . .. .s . , 4~g ". M:a. .~ . B: currently under review. De NRC does not view any of these modi 6 cations as .f rv-g 'lM,@tf" . ,:c .~fy: ,g ?' .O 9 necessary before the plant restarts. De NRC Staff will review these modifica-tions to ensure that they do represent overall safety improvements and that they fy.g' 7;L _ ~ . . . have no overall adverse safety impact on existing systems. 6?l.[mcs;-i' . .Q,[.0,M Sc f: , ne Petitioners also requested that the NRC require the Licensee to sub-Q~ & fM 'l,"y.:.. N :' % .',,' ~ G mit a feasibility study on all possible structural modifications before NRC ap-u; , f:J y/.5.f - %. ~~ proves specific modification proposals. At the present time, neither the Licensee, nor the Staff, nor the Petitioners have identi6ed any structural modifications to M 7 d.J Mif.i 3 9 Y - the Pilgrim contamment that would be warranted by severe-accident considera- ; '9 Sn tions. Derefore, this request for a feasibility study is denied. j .? f 4, M.if W. .5 -(' .,,' 7c.( > De Petitioners' assertions with respect to inherent design flaws in the I N:".c.v pressure-suppression system utilized at the Pilgrim plant have been addressed J.i.S: i S.h. $.W;W ' A N M. fy A ._ C/ above. De Licensee has implemented modi 6 cations to reestablish Pilgrim's [TL'd.vf % d M y #fc. M A intended containment design margins (see the discussion on the Pilgrim PUAR). Evaluations of the Mrrk I containraent with respect to severe accidents are p f g -p );9 p.L M '/ h}j. E 'y;c./N.-Mcontmuing Ut through (1) the implementation of the Commission Policy Statement ,J[C.%3; fr- ,lT Jdy &T'fyyfy; on Severe Accidents, (2) the NRC Staff and industry dialogue to improve -#p/c fcyE ' containment severe accident performance for all BWRs, and (3) the Licensee's N'mN \ j, l ", voluntary initiative. Q] .3, C; 7 j:- W -- .vc - . %. As indicated in the discussion on the Mark I containment, the Petitioners have M / ' ;. ' } :y s - not presented sufficient evidence to indicate that the Pilgrim Station should not ,~, . N _ S .' ' :,i g, ~ , operate while risk reduction improvements are being considered. nat is, there , ' ' J@ ,_ is not suf6cient evidence of either design flaws at Pilgrim or high risk to warrant ~ Ye ' 7.c,7 ' . ; ~ a show-cause order for the plant to remain closed or to suspend the operating g ., licer.se. Derefore, this pcrtion of Petitiot.ers' request is denied.
- c. < .
g .1 ; $G. ~ CONCLUSION . a c. m . c :.' . ' ~ ~ . * ' . < J ; - .g - ne NRC has required, and will continue to require, that the Pilgrim facility , ~. < . remain shut down until the managernent and emergency preparedness issues are />f dealt with to the satisfaction of the NRC. ' m.,;f For the reasons discussed above, a decision cannot be made at this time regarding the managementi ssues. His portion of the Petition will be addressed in a subsequent response. ,' ,af For the reasons discussed above, the information identi6ed by the Petition ~ .. n,. - does not warrant the initiation of the requested proceedmgs in regard to the 7 @, , f g ., 7 g, ~ radiological emergency response plan. Based on the FEMA evaluauon of the j
- d ;
- '? ! ' emergency preparedness issues raiscd by the Petitioners, the Petitioners' request 1
- 79.. for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 on this issue is denied. However, in yRw I
, w.; . s.'. of FEMA's interim finding that Massachusetts offsite radiological emergency
- b s . Planning and preparedness are inadequale to protect the public health and safety, g yi M 73ds& .C e; S,,W s '
- v.w g ;Mp.mo
- .<~ . c:, [:R ' $ :- GQ., .(
g' m* ; CfNl . . :. l^l & . 106 ~ [. i N,'? ?na,fa f % j$ d'dl{es.'. 9 ., ' ~ "^ yp R4 9 - - l . a n ,J-:' :,'~ '('
- e N*4 w W.-espg M j
- i ,v = y4 pe . er-y>y e. g pe y w.gmg a..- . M *P4 ,-e e*w w a ,e me w%
.- . .j ,
- 9
, , s
- 4,:,
j g )
- 4.
- 4 '/ ,
s s *q. 6 it % a { g ,* *
- 3m ._
- J ,.:
,;p ,, ,7 .
- g 4
, p. + . , L. - - - - , - -- - c..na, m.wm w p..swcew c>.a.. , : w .,, - n . a .a. ~ w. x , u u w w " w . w.w.--- " 'm ~ - - . . . .. . m.y - ev d t y. x.
- ..w~ ~.7. 9;!
R .y;-.: .;%;. , , ;.G , J a A .,%..7...q ; M.s: ,,c..7-t.c.w, .. f,, ,.j,y't; ,., Q s.sy,j% ; ,.y Q , .3;l o.o .# .c,o ; .y~ ~, o . ~. ..c c .,2 y v,' *r
- t 4'
'. , 3 . . ,.1.. - %,_ . m.. y .. . ._. , ( .p# .~q , {v ~'..,, F- Q]. .,..J, A. ..e/8 9/. , ';-. ,..n.%%fh 9;:' M D M S Q - M Q '. 7% &>] the Commission will consider, among other issues, corrective actions regarding emergency planning issues identined by FEMA before permitting the restart of g ,f4 m.2,rw n.. .n Z.,: , the Pilgrim plant. 4 .. For the reasons discussed above, the information identified by the Petition c'N,,.O.D .C -u .n - ,Q @ly W@.W,..i . # & f.;.V..J W MN,l.d. f ~~ does not warrant the initiation of the requested proceedings in regard to the
- m. e containment issues. Accordingly, the Petitioners' request for action pursuant to A W.c$P..J, - , /. c> 3 .4 , . ,. " M.j%.L?.f.,.?,Wh. > .. 9,s. ..
$ 2.206 on this issue is denied. 7.pp:. ja .y, N /,Ny [4 As provided in 10 C.F.R.12.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed i /! with the Secretary for the Commission's review. ' ,. W.. M. . - ..,,.. . %..},,Q , @ 9'.4.2 . 1 .'?
- W %. 2 U M:..W/ . M :h% m. . C.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR l
- @gMlM@s.M'.6$M6g%WJ
- v. . N . a. daf$ w. . #w %;.;4.W w - REGULA~IVRY COMMISSION l I
%. ; u-.m -n. . .c.:< m.;:y. m.. - , . m ca. - A. .'.gW Wg iw, J.I,6-. s;.;.p. c.u. 9 0 y W 3 . M,...s J . 4V.'$y$m ~ s ,dZ - Thomas E. Murley, Director Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor l ' , ', . . e ' ' W<. M98 w %n 4WAB. . .g. p.;$.,,, D. . . e. Regulation j m g
- n.c..z.
t ~ ,1 ..n m v.s,s...w& r.c - . ,w .6%m. .. ,/. g ,. s i .e J.i! .jnl:~5 Y ,.j . Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, f.- , M ._ -c .{.1, ( this 21st day of August 1987. ,e. r. .y. . m . - , ,. ',: ..T.' l ..i y ' Attachments: l ,y. ' ' f, y , Mr. .gU , A. FEMA Analysis of Petition's Contercions ' O ., Q.. , ;*(- W, B. Mark I Containment Design M C. Summary of Staff Actions Related to Hanauer Issues .. Q. ,..s-r~ 's.' w ,, ,, 51 (The Attachments have been omitted from this publication but can be found in 7 . , . . y., 4 ? @3. ". ~ the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.] s '._. v 3 s
- x s ?=
, .,,' N .%.
- . % .3 . :q;% '. s ;-
- s n s* -r-J r. * *"*.,s'. . ~ *a - ,~ '# ya A - -8. i _ ,, * !Nrs i-. - i - : t - . L , w%;r w: . J ;1 ~ s' ' J^ . g > Ng J i * , 194->* , ~ , v= . -y n.w.'e - .3 4 e #'.(,,,,,. J. e .?* 1 '.a, i g [ 1, # .- ,.~ y I- g **s' ' l 3 r . .,j i i*,,*.., I - ~ - j . I-.3 .- e'y 'e . e .3 g r- ao p' a ',,. c. g ;. .,, .-. - 4 ,. / . ' + ' t 5 ' . '-f*% , .'.:', i > . R-n @ { l m.r-.H .~ - = .b". ,,?>;<?: s se . c u c. . n, < 3. . -.a' y^, : '.a. ; w, , "lD/a.}..' + ; "Wf . . .w m e - . p ' . .c r ' .J. w:..g".iy t .% dQ Yfj .,t P[y '.Y VrM.m%W.h< J C.. '+?& 1 * . , '. .R;z.ys;y n ?:nY,p,@. v . .q:@[ms? G.. <*' - ',' u 4,% W
- < *4... .J_ * %. q s*+;q.y . . , ; . 4f.; ,s.=xp p vc,es %y
; - , .yM -$ j e, '.2,. s ,ph.yq'N.-@: x* C -..u.s. f. .. ... . , p.. . m -,c c.p.o. e-2ca.ru.scou 107 % IT ' - .< .. , ' ^ . .'8 .* .h - ' ' /f,-s"*' +4a.% f.Ip"( , *, , ' .; f. 4). * . W, :,N-.c.N.'. gg *' g . .e, * . . .q. , - . - ;'.~? r v..- e, ./e,,,**'T , t g y- s >s* j .' s
- sg.. k,
-..,' .. i. . . -/ , ...-s,, .y c. .' P - s . ,- g .jg g s 4; , '? e_ , n. , . _ _ - - ee.no .~e---,w.~ . ;.e*,-rw- . * + - - * - c ~ 4 d 7 ~ 3r e 'y s'- ' - e., / . . - J q 4 _- . % e
- j g ,. r _g
% 4 + , . y, . # 4 g g a , ^ a
- 4 . xe ? k
[\ .I - =. . .*4 . . \ a _h . } 4 A ,% E N, $= '.
- 3,9
-1. t*" ,A 's- t ,* - ' . , * . , , ,- i f../ . , r~,L . 6 * .- ! [p, e - , . s. . , , , 1 4p- , ,'=g*". f. q [u. .,.e..g , ,;.g,'. .~[,- * 'r et . '. 3; + ,. , . , . , ' ' ' , .. s g.',.. , .' , j ,, s -..'. s sp . w i,tl* ' \]s, 's' , C = ., % , , .4 , . l . g 's j i . . -}}