Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for July 1987.Pages 1-70
	ML20149D839
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/31/1988
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V26-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V26-N1, NUDOCS 8802100037
	Download: ML20149D839 (78)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NUREG-0750 Vol. 26, No.1 Pages 1-70

g ;, y;;~f g'7y;, A;

' 3 :;;r;;.- myQ. .{Q?nw gll. < - 9 ; ;.;.;;~ pygy }. ,J

. ;M n; ',,: .1.1,9 : ~syg a.Wl ipj7 7,.g.. ; j.fg

/ R ';,q g ;+y t, v-t d ' > l_Qg%, l ,9 , 2.,, * :g. 4n .-..; m ; w e,:.. ~ a n e v r; a, " W., r,

MMNUCLEARJREGOLATd~

M am.w wlww'iTISSDAML i MCDNiklisS m& w w(e!)p o=.A~m ! & 5 n *.;,p;.;;;;g;;,i: _G.y,;lplg' % ;;f;. f ~.h; a g

pq f y g,.

.y } ?glL,y'+.y ~ i,b] Qy;t.g _.Y,r ( j;j ni ll';E U r j [y.. k' '

"l

%h h k h; Y b o m. s m'.I

Q 'a

y 4*? . y, ; <m ,e g J- .c . - 1 r. }

[*J -

I h;-: 1; [ LfjQfR{lQQy . Qy;p 1.p;su w;b. t. .. rey e e.- .gr. N ). ,N t.g. [;'.l', ~,.h 4i) 19 {v ea

M%v

+ m w-W,:23'A m. ~.1,' Ml% D' C)y< % i. y ;; 3 y y ~ ~:1 z: ..w .hDL k-^h'i.ci.$, i;? ^ %(m _., g ?:> yg n -w 2 . c w; t o, p.,,; - ., h % y j, ' g. .o fg,' , -+,, 9. v. %iy (,- s 5 Yb k. F4-hY$ ; 4'i ~ ( s '-k 1 s,- hih )hf/.h,lhkN#V i b}& hbN b hhh ~ h n; wemwa w',' '

g 1,

> d. - ~ *,,[hb.4 ) 'r, 4-N'; ' J,.C C +- .Up. :'W1}'gi, '.QLQ t{jyd yfg' +;fs,.q; g.Jy*s.[.., ; 4; f M.% . c.. .. W.., ;3)pf @, A;;4 . ? s v. m -: A CQ:

- *' i L/c -;.p;; f + tpg W-w..J:ip ;

a Q,. U.S. NUCLEAR REG ~ULATORY CO 8802100037 000131 PDR NUREG ppg 0750 R l

} .'s,f Q. _,. ~, ?- m

.=

z

n

,b';','I. ~.. c N'.'~}j 4

7..

t . 3-q ~ N NUREG 0750 ', ; - ::;n:- _, .~ Vol. 26, No.1 ( 1 Pages 170 ',,s .,"

Vj' f.*d..,'.'{

3 . - ~ .g G'

.J - -

y. 4 + ./.:u ? I . *7s, (4 1 : p. 6 ? J.; NUCLEAR REGULATORY m.>4 ; - >~e COMMISSION ISSUANCES + .v . w. , q.. Q.,' "v,.Jy ? "-. u. u p's 6:; ?g ,.,, 4 0.;s a # J,',,' ..g. %.. g -,T_y; ;, e. s .73. July 1987 4%RM .,. x, .: 8 - ' 3;- .g.y;. ~ ,.,o.-.. r, c. ..: n.- + 4 F g ~ t l j ..c, l. 1 This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the -v Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and J the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). \\ 3 The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein J.L: ' ~ '. ? c >{ are no',to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen- { dent legal significance. t i ..n 5 c. ~: . -..q o ,.' 'N '. s U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ y 4 ,m .x.. ,10. /)' f.h' ;.' d.V. ydN _ ~ -1 , gp/ o < _:., Prepared by the 4 1 + e*.'; ... ' ; W '4C ,1, Division of Publications Services ~,fl.., -cly.]' t.-L; gfjplpr/ - ' Office of Administration and Resources Management f 1l ' > W ??'i, -. ~l Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica - "'.4.E; , ','~ ~ (301/492-8925) ) . - S,. s ^ l 's A..._--,-,.......,--..---.,--.,,. I r-l 'I ~ e I s p . 1 4Jr 5 k e 't e a --h...,-..,-,.,-., --,,.n_.. ,..,,.,.,----l,,,,..,,-. -,v,. s .--.----,w----,---n- ~, -

s t '). -p

f.. i,. j', [f,y._! J.... m.. g. ',',h, 7, "fl S"y,Q.' h.%

,() j e r..g. .-.'......w'y*4p+pa s ^", I .,G , m 4

j

,,4 , >,'. i ~ v .~. s. .,3,. .se, l .. _....*m. 1 >...,, ~ '

g b,

[* [, [ ( ' '. +r,)

y. > =

'f ' ^ j l*_...n i c,I.r.'. m-i. s ? W *.c I5 ' ( - '.: , u ,.,.,,.1 ? ? ds ..,.-.r's.,w. '_e,,... c...~.n.,.,- ) m - c.. + s -n,.y~.... .,. a. .x,. ..y.c. ...s.,, u ( ~, g..* '. '. 3 + ~,,, n. :. s

m.. y~....._

r , w.

n.. n........, n.. n_.,s.,........c....,,...o...... c. s..m,..,.. ~

m w. s ...o w. m-m-.. p ; a.,, n.,,~.. _.g.. _ - w .. n n,,,. e..,.,. . + . p,.+* ..c a e, 3'? =, * . c.. n... "... f 9 g,, .s.. .t>, %..,, u.9; >4 . s,,.-

m..tt z.'A. JA. /..,,Me6, TC.e9 Wl N

COMMISSIONERS

n. v2....,

w,...

. x:... . _(m~ v -[!P'gj?.... ;.vMc%:.M.M.my..-t.EC,.. e a, Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman

f4 p. -

y We.c><M Y,1.. g.MJM M O Thomas M. Roberts - W Q g: w r e-w o..- i. n ; wp., A. 'W,L.y;rg'Nd,6.. g - T M e.:1 Frederick M. Bemthal qm.#,ri A,Pl i t. Kenneth M. Carr .. m... e..-., m y, u,. b f y.,, ',, 3. m.. r #. 3.., w .-. g. .v. m.'h.,. , m. d,. v. % d,. . Q*p.! f..,. u..~ e.. p : s. w. A.s,. -.. -.' % ~, ; m~ ,.,. f..;e :s. m., e. .,:~,g. ,o.,. .4. f. .. <..... :.,. n, s,, s. .r s. ~,u a...,s. n. t -. m, -., s os

n..,. m. -

,..x... .- ~ s,'.._.. .. v. .+ ,.:.......,:.,..~... 3 , ~, ..c..,. ~., _.. u.,. =a.... - .s.

m. m...,,

s .;. -...n .? r ne e<..,.. t..

m..

yv. .x

}' -

+ -_,m._ -. f. : < ..e n. ...y.. .-,.$ h ,sa s ,4 ..m ;,. w. ,~ .a,.e 'y% Q ' 4 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appool Panel @J B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel + w' t i.i t \\ g p ,,.(**-.

J.

^k, s m.4,=% _. ,} ,,$,, I %.. A ,s '. A, so ~ ' I.,r n '.% ' '; .",'a' c .= 'y* 'V ..?.. .i< , ' '.~ '. 3 s 4,'%.N v. '

4
J M'*

ni s -k* Q

. t

'wl ,+yy ~ > a f- , i '.1' 'wh. j %d'. '.,,N N; .s,, u .v.4 ct .J .ro- .t,. p. - 4 - s I

I

.i.%- .f f.# .A.. W...p' (,. ,. r V.'1.. v.,P. u3.' -y, g -- *y%q,. . ; y.h...'..,.,*b,,A.P, f j n.- W.w /.X;.'. - :s. 4, r.- .s , *.;;..'fm.y y:e:~.? J ty..- { ^k. ' L ~* 1, ? t }.,' 2.' * $ yk..,9' t ~ ' '} [l,3 :, *,..e., -;r....i'1.y> ' N.f. #., a'k^,g,se d.. * .,., e + ,5, ..,.[.' n -.'rl>- . f r*% %u. y -?', e T*? Q d y,$**a.N;s ', 5 57 4:e ' a",4 ~ f.s > 7..' 0 'A.=,O.<**.. ,r-%. ~s* g u,+,s ,n., .o 3.V.- .L..'. t .i 'c; :' z [,3J'f-6.,-s . s s.. n. -

e e

~ g 5 W.. .s ..- o, ,. 4, gr.'"..*, ,(, E'*- .*,/,t-(6 P, b s s .s L./.,,,'^, .. ~ s s k' .,+ * * =N %,k.. P .g Sg

*p f ' k [

,y ,p* -.-C, s8 ,e -3 q Ji ,F g'*

~,

?* ^ 4 n s r .w., -.,ne-ws-w m, ~,. - e. -~ .e.~ ew -y - s ~-nm e - -. v.. ~. ~+ c Ms +r .f., j 5 ) g 4 e .a = L,. i i 4s g t g i A s' g 9_~ ,l h.b*O e J 0 a 4 (* 4 9- . 1 a. _., g.- Q - I .;'L;. , i-- t n. (- e. , v.. + s. c.i.,.. j 4.,, s 4 .j -P a "j -4* ,9 -. ' $,( )' [,. 9 s9 k e f .g-t" ,t , e. ia * <. 1 . g. A ( . {., - e t q., 3

M a ' u.m. f. J..we,w(:....m. .j ~< ;

. '., s. ; G * ?.

~!:rs s - - g..a. x' e n '.~., 2 s.l...., ~ ' '. 5 7, : - C..'.'I f. s' , g ,v,'..,, . g '..'.i.

i 4 ~. J. e;c

' O ;3 J s, + a

01..;.,,..,,

Mc- - A CONTENTS s, a -.c~, :s, 3.; .s ..,s. w...s. 9.. 4. o .s. 4 JU: f-. ~. . ; u.

v.. -

Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .x.. - o i .,,4.2.w .. ~ ~Qi j k. _ f:@ / ' (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) yfy !... COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY m,. r : ",.7: g. ;.~;,. .n. .m.. /s., -,J s c.f

v....v ',....c. _ '.~.s
p. M c.. _

. sQ Dockets 50-456-OL,50-457-OL i ORDER, CLI 87-7, June 30,1987............................... 1

. t. + s,. :* w:-.. :.,, n,.

.f*^ Q,.* . *p**

l

.y .rs i l,,5 .-t. ,gPQQ,, ".jfA,. @;g/f : : HOUSTON LIGHTINO AND POWER COMPANY, et al. .,j , mie.n

9. -~

(South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2) - ;,v.u. r<4Eit.Bh.M~,... -. e., # Jh@w, / f Dockets 50-498-OL,50-499-OL N M f8 M N} . rg ',, Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j -m .q.. ,,.,~p . J '.. t. v s. - a J: ..,[V;.l.i.' (Braidwood Nuclesr Power Station, Units 1 and 2) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY '.'D. i. 4; q q.. >: t.<f.y;; ;.. ;. ). Dockets 50-456-OL,50-457 OL (ASLBP N9. 79-410-03-OL) f f . \\.:.,. a' ;.".qp,. ;;,- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-87 22, July 6,1987......... 41 (, u:~ 8.t _. i '.p.

y,,
, ei 'M ?.fr Issuances of Directors' Decisions ,Q# CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK. INC. (Indian Point. Unit 2) L,; J d S,M '. Docket 50 247 1
. /1 i7
..' ? O. ,e -v. ,. m..,. J'p. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, DD-8713, July 20,1987.................................. 53 ...s. .s '*,,w -im-7*i', 'f-h. g a. v. .' 4 e
j m g v.'. ' g,GM _*J. -j
g 4.s 9.
,( '. e 4 v'. 'u. s. .. q,;. ~, h).'[,)ch.; (./) ffj? - N c c. : n. ?. m o. a..,,<Q(; y n-- w-4. %,.~ -l; c o+,; .a..- ...f w 4 lN.;. "
T 4

Y. s(Es f..l r;.
"d',[..' G N '** I.d i 'e.. 'U F h ' " ; .. : D Y,f...= m* 'w'. '.,. t-). m. ' T;' $'.% -: '.h, 'y. : %.,- l - l-t iu w. .h, .*- s '. [,,].,,7. vi f. .?" e $(.. u .. 4 4.r ..'vfr -g 'a; 't y p,i ,4 N 9 l+.. p 'u ' *l** T rl.' _n y 8... 1 ,1, 1.*. * ' w e.m e, s.e. e.. e. -e. e,.., mm ee r e.= e g < e. -. e e,e. e~ -~*,~.v. ~- -, m
e -:
.a -{ w = - pr a a > e .~i,~ . r s
. s
,p y .ru~. +... ,' if
t+,
4" ,a d '3
A

?;.t,
i C ? l.v : . y p' +. s'.t y j
p.y.9.t,w n%.~,%:nn c:,.. w.~ q. s p,4 % y;g m c,a. 3 r cp. q. u~.. L.'., .gir~; & : !.s.,a:g &_n. e . g
1, e o v.+..an< s,., n.. z *.v. e w, A
s j
v. %... -. c.f '
vy tr l [*'n....'. C. y%. <s r.
f'

: ff r. v ". '.,. n.n, m.a ;), "'

^
u_ J M. M-l.,.M S,(. M % M..e<>.f..y GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY n i as* w;.: n :.m sw.. w t< .... ~. - M.Nm S5 (Puncture Analysis of Model GE-700 Shipping Cask) N : M @S: [.;.B@m : M. & @?,' 4, . P: y %... Docket 715942 . V : M.. : p n w e ,M.~. WA'3ypig.-( DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER IC C.F.R. 6 2.206, 7 ..w 3 .w.: ec.w w w., e 4,... DD.87,12. July 6,1987 45 u u..m,~~ m.,.#, y. u. w. ~m,y m w. m..v.. s,w ,a. .,, a. ~ .. _ ~.
a. :c..u.... :
a-c ;.n,e. e. %w,.~n.. n. m 3p., 3 g.e y,mqa POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STAE OF NEW YORK Y n,%.y.g,[Wi..?, ~ e.- (Indian Point, Unit 3) UMMljb.%NENDbbM.. ..g rA. %.. ff.1. _.usOS. Docket 50 286 i DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206, e v j DD.8713, July 20,1987 53 J .p.w..u. a. v.n e. r ~.,; yo,.ys v% W r;;,.w m.. ~,;dy,5,s. : o. -4 U W: 5, yn
4., s j
O;'{*Q.~l}W(&'&.:y*, r.&y m s q r ~ ': ; Cr i r %.3 [r.h qw....:.,.,,.M,..M, _. &@y*;[y:Q"g l ~ f R p.y. n.. ,J. -- l..,l* ]*q l j
6. s.. W J s. >.
%.A M Kh 1
- c6
- N.9.,(1.@p %:.. m .,.h.. g,'..a .],. p y ,, 7 W<-W**
44v t
g,.,. J.,. g,~. 4, y f3. u, s w +
c. - ~
,.
v,p >,3.. s.J y, y. t. jg.
.v . 3 M., '.L* / E n,w A. g, '.j,., my. e. o. .A 4.-M.',i p
p. s.f.Q g g _,-f..i
,,v w. A.. - - -J -4; c ),.l-
. i.
.c . S. g .m c. i;m CG':r';E*. ).. r ~. '.G*h" t:r ~. * * - A1. e. ,n y p .({*/K &y;q* Q'& --t'*.- $.p*I'} j, j ' ,'t-y . Jan ; 'p v y.,.., .,n. ~ 4.. q ~. g,'. ..a 1 r +, *'g6 ,,,493 (' - A-j ,,.5,,.' *:".'.,y* N. . V s 1*n :.f., s $ y* .3 ...,,,.,.D,.,,.. 4 ..w .l v; -? : ='[ t * .,.,' c..?. y. c. s.- +.u ;e ov. s:.r ,m.p.,*s '.s4,,.-.* +4 e , r1e
1.-' *., j.O,t4y.'
e 4 W s,, 4a. T = }.* f me ,, s ' *..jp' *.; [. j sn-j N ?..,.:., p, l ..n., 4 se, g - -.. s *u t if ' g y: p yo g. O, 1 .4. . c.. 's.... t, g -. %...- 6 e. - u
y..
I..#.". - .(; ..., ?,; ) , O3 i,, 9
j. 8 '.,_
T -.t, y w t. c,..*' y. . " > m [4., -:, b e ...,e ( q ~ s, y 7.. '..I. t ~ n, ,,.J*'*.h.,.'c-
p.-
a ;,Ak
5

D 9
,.s,. ,',, n$ r..'nh,,-'a.
j..,
1 h.. 8 $'p,*,'6. y* , e( - FT - -.e, .,s.%,- gg w '.g'."y', t a .4_, . g ..6 % *m: + y ~ , a e.::: W ~ s ,* g..g-t.- ,- e 6 m z, '., - s. j p,",. u. p:, : '
g. 4 4
^,, O. e / ^ t. ,, C.. v 4
4 l
+ .~ '.Q:t . ~ >v, ,aA, 6is.*' w.;... -.' l ,,gb i aff ;.M',. ' i. A - va
,t~te.,
l hS wI g
t.
i 4 . v. 7 3. 3, 4 7 p;y 9 ',N ( m8Q* "6, 2c.. . *. r :.,. ?. 2. .r.. u. [4 - 6 t .,~.1 .e, e s...ed.* (' - a*ts ?, A. l> *
s c
-.*t .p,
'4.y#
g', ' - [ ).,, .g 1, s
I

g "( %=, i.....f ',,
P ! 1 ". 3. m-#.,,g.* 7 - "h.4 i,- i .o
4. *
m,
.3.;* ~, z ~. W,'" g Y. 3, j s, -;t s-7 i a- -* 5., mfi g* A m'e-m + ". MM %.' , & } SO C>w~,W-(BMl&T,CL '. %l. Q k ~w=. ' ? . ;O w 'p<.h,.g y,r.> W a &w h v t t
pF 1...w 2
4 . ds , o. u A '.,.,I \\ '4T kN j M .,^[T - ?".e T
]! j

p?"; yk.g' h s q '[, @e.,y_'.
f - J.g <t = i :.
s,o..m A., 4, h, 2
.*s c * ~-,,v s *, 4 *n. w .4~' 4,. j q':f.
"? Y S * *q* f.
'l*;h,, s,. Q,. q %s &.;,q; g y.,;c,, o,. wa.: < w. ~. ~>
l
< w., G .,,y 9. -. t .y., - :,t u. s...~-. -.m...
/ [4 s
, w,n,
s..
f W. W.
%.W.,* ? '.#,,.
va+ s T 't [ %'g @; 4 =**4 N> r i hE; ',P ) * ? [6 1."' ""\\" = N ^[ ' s w 'l. . /,,, ' n ,.-s,~ .,e. :.YA..r. e. A..,.a :- P ,,9 [ !y-# (... ~ g [, ,4a*, r. 4. . y[ < 4 - I
I"

d 7.s'#
a. . ep ,.y.,..* 4 '.*4 .J'.'a l+,y4 ,,g~~
' I g 4..
5 ,.-.e-.=- 7-7 3 u,, . _.. mm,,,, r. S$ g Z %9 g 8 g - k..,, w 3 q,. i '. i., = - '+-' +4 ~ ~ a- ~- g s ~
. 'l,
s g 4 .a_. 2 4 4 4 p
]
a' ( ~ 4 4 5 '.t. ! + ,s 5 .. 1 p+g ~. e ,i 1.. s'g n 4 ~ .t,> j 4 a i ,.4 n_. i i
t..e.
m .i .5 ,. - =, - - m' g:. +,j' e.
.s $v$

y ',, ?, -
,Q. ' y y ;.' 3. '
n
- L7 n. 1 ~ -,( 1., a J'"s+ h* y -.c;*. % T l s %., '... - 1 - v,,.. n r o.,,, e> i ~....a .,.. a..,.. . i 4,6. 3 e..,.,. i, p m .rs -7 g 3sc +,
k 8 y 4 .... y : -x ;a.3 ,.. + - < -s <. ) {c.r - t- , x r s e -, a. s a
3. -.
a rs.., .,4 c g c., s, P g_ = = a j .v .,= -l 7 i a a2 (, t
2. -. -... - -
. 1 COmmlSSIOn 4,
*/
,q m 3 lSSuanCOS ~ s n, .y s-s-. t. ,.e. i. s. 4 s- .< r,.- ', ...3. 44 e.. -2 g o. m 5 p g y' (, }7*.. 5.#- ..\\ k4 I b,
a,N,,
b. , ^^ 6 ay4 -- c ~s a h* 3 L .Y..**>* t, 's . * *, 2{ ;: <.. z.~,, ? i,.a sg.- i. r";,..' % m--,e "P E ,PM ge
a,e e g,s hp',,
,.y b, f ,br ,,*,,pgq w' p5.a(,%,?
g g
4 s T y t,,, ..(...s., F a 4-., f.', E.,f". ,a-i 'e 4, s', 9,, - [y,- 8_. - e I kk*,
=-'e, g
a ,*g, ** 4 ._} .Of, + t"- 5 .a o ( a m 6 4 u' s,.l -+ b ~ ' a t b -I) ' ..{. ,' k f e f s j -i i c I i m W 9 2 9 A g f a, . *-*g,4-4 4 s 1 .e 1 I e 4 ev s 0 e a m.M s t g f d g - 'e 4 a 4 o e e g, g @4 '..,-.**s,,,. bo.'. m. ::,.* e s --.
c. i. +; $; ;.
1 * ,.m i, ; - - ;i - s .*-.,y, .g _ i * -,.' =*'
rs,
,a dy. Q
?**
-y' .-;s.. ~ rM 'i.; ) g '.. -es,- s a,s s. 4, e a ' ar -. .g,.. U," ;,I
O,
.'4.',\\f.%D,,.. - 1 e
e 4
4g Iw-'% ,,*+ s P 4 ._,.n. .<se-o w --.--e n -, -~~. -. -.-=s - ~~~z,. n e w ~-~. - * -*_ 4 e-a e w 4 o I 9 r 4 >f. 6 a )) .a
d,. c.i,.,
m.,,.
6 . ~... 4.w;m.8,, E.J w's. p;, r. pm.m, pl1e, f,. Y., r '~ 9 f(p ,1 t*
; Z,M v, &y,,,.;.V,?_ ; ' L' 'c -.

. g.;.
.44; 7 s L.n-sv
f. r*..s.
s, o f ,s s - s ',j... ... t. a o,,.: .w7 :.y. : y.c 3., .N. cQE,.% n,~p,. .y'. s
a..v:j.
,rf, .a, . ;r * +. 3 y 7,s.- i Cite as 26 NRC 1 (1987) CLl 87 7 , ;;.3., +, v,' $.1 a.y c, g.x,r m, n a, 1 m, m (* r'/ N f',O- 'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION . J. ;6 n, ' ; g.. c. t. J... ~T,.;,,tp; ;y f.-.L...; t-
m. 3.
y;fa..,. f. d',[ p g.g y
ve COMMISSIONERS:
. 7,,, a s e,
4. ; s,.. e
~ :... e' W, - d: 1,;3 m o.p :.'. hffy O,', rKW i,f Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman - A'g!,1/D. b.,.J.W F,.1. i..v.. Thomas M. Roberts t . s ..7.,..., James K..Asselstine . q-m. u. 3 m... s. - m., 1 g. t Tid:AM'Esgs/ M,J3'O'W' f Frederlek M. Bernthal .' dim'iWk Kenneth M. Carr 5'd;$m,,*h.9 ~%.p 2.
,

q t....: y,
w g%:y, 5 %./y,,g,;u.)b unG,g,;J.=.2 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL m. _.. ;y... s. , 'c9.'3.e.q;, V'A.. .o^ -r 3ev u&M y,, ,.. s m,-; W = m. w h -'.y, ;,,ig y,', .y 50 457 OL .,. e. - e. - s l b ;%. c hh c %.., ' ,' ;V,....', - , ~,. . i, COMMONWEALTH EDISON zg .d COMPANY 'Ji - P. J , ~ g; (Braldwood Nuclear Power Station,
1 s
~ ~ ^ M '. n,;. . ? Units 1 and 2) June 30,1987 .9 c. f p 6 ~ 1 4 The Commission conducts a review under 10 C.F.R. 62.761(f) to determine 5 C,$! ' 4 if the effectiveness of two Licensing Board decisions that resolved all contested c . ~, ' ' '.W.' + :. issues in the proceeding in favor of Applicant and that authorized the issuance of '. c * ."o' full power operating licenses should be stayed. The Commission concludes that no safety reasons exist for staying the effectiveness of the Board's decisions, and - ] \\,.;k.. that the decisioa authorizing issuance of full pover operating licenses should '- u .u + ' 'jf.,, become effective, pending completion of the agency's adjudica'.ary appellate i ~ process. -l -n,. $ ;.1 l CIVIL PENALTIES: ASSESSMENT (AUTHORITY) ,e - ' q,. ' m. n. . E Unicss assigned by the Commission to hear cases under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.205,11 l' ~ c ' ~ d [_. j censing boards have no authority independently to impose civil penalties. Metro. ^ ".' politan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-82 31,16 .., [',' NRC 1236,1238 39 (1982). a2 %* _4u,. l -, a.
n....
M' - .~4 n., '
1 ! ' (-h ~'.7 g,,.'
,f'"%y; N.. ) . !f O v ,'l,W[ '6 ,_J h ' ', ' ^ Y:'J ? s [ - v,',' G.M>. p= *2 h, 4 N',$e% >' s.t s_ j Ifi ' ' ' i \\ p,. p. s s-
'g-f.
)~,,"'
g,] v _. % *[..y., q 1.,.,,; ut. i 7, ',1. E # g i.. s,' 'i.i'R'. l j .Wa r.,... h w { j.s s j a 1._. j',_, - _ _. r.,-.,.~...-y-~
f.
4 ', I *. s w g a. ,q g, g J 1 4 .,.i y 3 ' -.,,5' e y ~ "4 e.c, - 7,,. .W 's, w-.. s ',,..'~,}'- Mj. pd_
a.. a %we - u. m. i
. 'i'd. '; J **, S. y t g;<~ n,..w.. a 'w' J h [
ji N d j e v , s.
1.x
.. v. c. : n . ~ s-c , v>.. ~. p., 2.g.,. ~,. y.c 'O.;.ggg y! ; 1 ' /, f d @ %n.?~~ g' 3 NRC: HEALTl! AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES .y tp g '.TEP, '. i In its immediate effectiveness review of a board decision, the Commission. l c - (:[^,J D.( ?. * [c . N having responsibility for public health and safety, will consider a safety issue ) / . I ,,, p< ; y. 9 discussed by the board, even though the issue was not properly before the board. i P. g,6$w, v# 1,s., e x. v n -- n ~ y>, 3~..J Y '. T ORDER 9.- ';,,- g ~ e.- .y.. . ',. Z i'1,"':& ms .s; , X.] ~ ne Licensing Board in the Braidwood proceeding has issued two partial o
m... a q -.
initial decisions (PIDs)1 which, taken together, resolve all the contested issues in - p a g,.- ' O p.g,., that proceeding in favor of the Applicant, Commonwealth Edison. In concluding I \\ ' ^ A; dU ",, 3, 4 i p 9.% > x -f ap the second of the decisions, the Licensing Board declared that the Director of a & y'Q-$ '.- [,g'Q$f Jy ? Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") was authorized, upon making the findings TCs...' 72 6 :c ? (a jf:$r . ;7 required under 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(a), to issue full. power operating licenses to the J s' F-W%[' ND.S. k Q ' decision has been appealed, but neither decision has become final under the Applicant. LBP.8714, 25 NRC 461, 504 Only this second, and authorizing, + + M [: '.C,i2 _ 2. Qp : ' agency's adjudicatory appellate process.2 Rus, pending the completion of that n,s., ( J.?. ' %.: process, and consistent with 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f), the Commission has conducted ..A.s', 7,,., a review of the Board's decisions to determine whether there are s fety reasons 1 .? for delaying the effectiveness of the Doard's concluding PID.8 The Commission a f? }j.; f has determined that no such reasons exist, and that the Licensing Board's concluding decision should become effective.' i ^- - 3 ne first PID dealt with two e'mergency planning issues: public information i j programs, and evacuation of institutions such as nursing homes. In a unanimous -C - g opinion, the Board ruled in the Applicant's favor on the first issue, subject to the 3 5, Applicant's making cenain changes in the public information booklets, and the ^G' Board declared the Intervenor in default on the second issue for having failed l d 1 to file, as directed, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.754(b). No party has appealed this PID, although the Appeal Board ^ ' ~ y-will be reviewing it sua sponte, as is customary with licensing board decisions en .y l +. , 9; e
[
7be 1st P!D. on energency p.aroung, was ismaad on May is.1M7.12P 871s. 2s NRC 449. The seced, en I u-fy asmarance was issued an May 19.1967. IAP.4714. 2s NRC 461. - 1* The Appeallard win be undesabng ass spoase senew of me $st PtD. 3 Under i 2.764(fX2Xi0, pardes are per-mad to Ele effeconnses commens far the Caminismon's emndention ya Jwms he renew. ordy the Applicars Eled esach emameras. J,b 'stin before lhe licensing Beard is e motism to suopen se secord to bear a screarnian $at a new ermity that 1 2e Applicass has propaeed espantely to be aDeoed to opasses the fashry is ad an "slectne stairy" under the
I,. A ', %,? 3;h'lc ?
. M qq. Camrmsman's Aaaeial q.4a,-" runs,10 C.F.R. I2.104(eX4), and is not anancuny quahtied to operate the faccity, sance the new ersny is an ihe sguesa fus the Scemes whose ismiance wie enhened by es Board, we - [,,.r'
b d b b N '.q. e.
4 have acs omadered this new essasian dwing our stfactiveness review. The appucation to have the new artity t w yg (h '.,i'.fY.5%... eps.= *e fasay win be *..ubra of. e.pana proceeding.
t.. ~15 y;.... r
?,.
t?
',~'#.,.~$ +, f [, g, %'F W E7 f 2 m-&, t[$ [. .l .g%,' y,. s.7.," '- ' - 2 ,..f 1 .k. g&,. y ., k E y a w. :w-D ._( _ -.. -..., ~.. - 7.e- -..- ~.-- C 7 g = k g g \\ f e
g I
I V. t N g ,c ..1 .}. ~ i
....=....

. ~... -..
...-...-.:w- . n.x,..... ~... . %f.,f,Q.;pf-Q;Q w G . 4:. t-p, u
n. n
= l% ( +..,'{- 2 0:; r .t f". 7?P qt v7 ' l] ~ f. M cl %, ".j-;,.q# ' -[ that are not appealed. We have reviewed the decision and fmd nothing in it that n:.d : s.J warrants delaying the effectiveness of the concluding PID.s l' c ?,. E y . nj The second and concluding PID was concentrated on a single contention, K M [q which alleged that certain specified instances of harassment of quality assurance l$ [ r.; g h '
d) inspectors who inspected electrical system welding had taken place in the g
4 7.],7g7,ygr{ .i last few years at Braidwood. The Board's two technical judges, with the lawyer-chairman in dissent, concluded that although the efforts of certain Q 7'.
s
~ ,. c 3 -- 3e ;>' .g 3 managers to climinate a large backlog
of needed inspections had not been
! M 7,; G8 J., above reproach, nothing had taken plxe that called for "the precipitous action w. c.W'M.g'L, N,. of license denial." LBP-8714, 24 NRC at 502. Although the Chairman in M M C-ME ; M his dissent recommends imposition of civil penalties on the Applicant,' he e.'J", 9. [. Wt--, W* y ;...,.m.w also concluded that "the weight of the evidence is that management made no 'l Q 7tfy i .g ~'A y.y M 4.;L. p [p attempt to discourage inspectors from documenting ordinary discrepancies," and '3 that the inspectors who suffered the alleged intimidation "performed their field V; M D J7;@g%' % - a ..y p - inspections competently and successfully resisted any attempts that may have 77 ;y "f 'QQ%;jhk? been made by managament to sacrifice quality for quantity" Id., Dissenting u , y,.7y f.y%-f, Opinion,24 NRC at 668 69.The Board was unanimous in concluding that there .S yu~'? is reasonable assurance that the part of the electrical system that was installed >'O g ' j' ouring the period at issue under the contention could be operated without adverse s '<7 5 . T - Mj impact on the public health and safety. Dissenting Opinion at 560; Majority 2 ., ~ .. %,s J-5j Opirdon at 504. As a result of our review of the concluding PID, we find in .-Y s ~ 7.?l.~i, J the contested issues in the proceeding no reason to stay the effectiveness of the q, 'J'? 'j Board's decision pending completion of the appellate process. j However, the disr.ent also calls into question the adequacy of the electrical system welding performed before the period of time at issue under the con-j; tention. See Dissendng Opinion,24 NRC 538,560. Though granting that the .:p 4., j safety of the earlier welding was not at issue in the adjudication,14. at 554 55, 669, the dissent nonetheless argues that the weld inspection program in place ,te l f;; i before October 1983 was not adequate to ensure the safety of the electrical sys- ~ tem installed before the date, and that the principal later reinspection program mi s M N which covered that period, though it found no safety signi6 cant welding discrep-ancies, cannot vouch for the safety of the welding on that system. The dissent's principal reason for discounting the later reinspection program was that under that program, Sargent & Lundy, the architect / engineer for Braidwood, was the jp organization responsible for judging the safety significance of any welding dis-1 ,3 - we \\ + n t
s 1
's 'I ,,. $.V,, 8 (, Nodiins in er conclamaru en aiour of the P!De is to be taken to peeprice the inmass b.fcss the Appeal Board <:. g %- - in dus proceedans. su 10 C.FA I 2.764(a). ) n.b.a an.s w.-s..r u x,pu.a.sd. _,t. n s t .a, m, s J is W. fa the inspectums to perfwin mare of then su L3P.s714,24 NRC at 470. 500 n.ls. F~ 1 N' 5 3I ' ~ ~ Unless assiped by ibe Comasean to hear cases under 10 C.F A 1120s. lionsmes beants how no aushanty 4'.N, [' T : I f ,..t m g..h eCC, ( y. '1 1.,. T, Y/'?:JQ '-'y to Lupese civil punakiss. Meerepokee E4see Co. (Thus Mae Island Nucisar stacan. Unit 1). J.d.' <f ',., ~ ~ tin C11s2-s1,16 NRC 1236.1238.s9 09:2). m;i. y y, "l lh*f.*;.'. m{.h &m % Q '. ' ~- . 3 3 ,t.gur .3, cy r- ',\\ ?, s .. - L ',ka/ s m J .r l' } ' 1 y n a ._y. 't ~ 1 e, e. ~ 4 - [. ~ ^ * ' ", C 1 '\\ - '. 4 * .. r ; i y., +. w ~
.. _ w r w<... c s a' W &, M,'e.- 1.) L.C m,, ': ::\\ < (4.-yI, p' S - ' p, ;. i t f.D 'e_M C. '. l 'C-d - ? r_ o k, +g
w. p ;
O [.. h e^ 3,;.: &; ;,:n i , w -.; - n W & *. Y W* ? E i,TQN'd ~ = $d.ppWM. T,' 4) D ?^ crepancies found during reinspection, and that as architect / engineer, Sargent & t Lundy was too interested in getting the plant licensed, and too given to believ-1 i'N T S, ing that it had designed adequate margins of safety into the electrical system, ,g %,L :.A. ,6 to give sound judgment in its evaluations of the discrepancies. De Board's ' @ D.. ?).R A p rg,,y,,Gc'gl9,9,@9' 92. majority disagreed. g;., Although the adequacy of the electrical system wlding was not one of the s.
q f. ; W.hr
<j contested issues in the proceeding, the Commission, having responsibility for l.' g f '..il q3 public health and safety, will not ignore a safety issue discussed by the Board . : $ i&.,..6Pdl;.:_3'.N merely because the issue was not properly before it.' Having reviewed these, s, 42 ? ,},M,,, $ # M f C4.;% and the other less important but pertinent argumenu in the majority and minority M 'a%f Q,.v'f%. opinions on the safety of the wlding on the elecwical system installed before y h~MS##$i.MU fp': TNdI 5 October 1983, we conclude that there is reasonable assurance of the safety of Q~ Q$hMM3$W.:.Q#Jg?- that system. As the majority poinu o It, the architect / engineer for a project is the 'N: entity best qualified to judge whether its designs have been adequately realized ? W ',', M N V,4 M M ; h n ] '. In the construction, and most anxious to ensure that they have been. Majority 3N@,h;dy.'d,%p? '*M, i JC'DMQ Opinion at 493. Moreover, w find that the Board majority's account of the very i"d 67^3 % considerable safety margins designed into the welded structures in the electrical 9 ' ' ' ~".Wl 2,ys. ?H @M. Q'j!?fl 5 system is well supported.' nus u find in the Board's discussion of the safety i 'T c T-f c: 7 J W4.L..m - W. %... ' of the electrical system welding done before October 1983 no cause to stay the effectiveness of the concluding PID. ~ ' y:. ,j,a. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f)(2), ,,J:Ac;f j the Commission finds that the Licensing Board's decision resolving all contested 9:: / l' f; rized, upon making the findings required under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a), to issue t M.[g',p;M.. issues should become immediately effective and the Director, NRR, is autho. . c C'- the full power licenses for the Braidwood facility. .g, Commissioner Asselstine disapproved the order; his separate views are 0 s. m._.,. - attached. N.' T Cf.S.C lt is so ORDERED. ,.y ~ t,, o. .et s- ..v.3 c,'
7 gg w
. s,.., 9.- r.. : ' -y SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission 'w .c e ,;. " " q.. A..,X. Dated at Washington, D.C., g =E,s, 4 J this 30th day of June 1987. ', y ~& m M. [ 4[ 3 i .. - +.- , ; s. 7. - j.~i , ' ( g.,'. * ? d ',, is Bosad learned of die pre ociche 19s3 inspectaca psegrarn in dis coines of tastmiumy oww the results of },," '. " s.,, ',,, dm , - pograrn, wtuch wese bems effered as evannes d the emcacy of dw inspection program desrus O a= 5 6 .g~ [n ;. ? * .M CN whae=w hareenners the inspeciare niight have sufreed. MM;U.MU36:.' s._ 'We nois, auseover, that die sseener pan of tbs welding in die elecuical sysian wGl ownaan access 3de far any .Mb Ji ./ ' %..,M,. gn. -. N.'. %.; Q* fy,py[f.,.,, s' ' % needed inspecuce or repaar arter Epoew opennan begins. -?';,. ' &yL, ";[.fi *. 6;; - '. y Q' I .e'*4. d 7 $2 *-^ t.;/.*.} :* i, p? .%Y +E M *? ~ l. y%. ' '*Q .d. %
5...
5 .. c
7. -1.4 s
t, [. > - - f s W.. ". ~.. .? %,, .< 5.'It.,.wd.fb '[ -i Cr i G = E l' ' ** ' \\ ' Ir. T j g*{, (* 4 'f',, %g.jp,%..s.%y. i-Y', J;, ;. ' r - - 1,3 - 3.; e,g.,,,.,*-- t a g. ,.3 t s ,.',._,..)- o,
*,.. +
n
'.sa 5' 'l'sa
f. \\ r n.-, _...~ne..-~.-m.., -.~.y-~, - ~~ j . '3 -. j 1 's i ~ s m-1, S[ e ,. ~ ll 4,. 1 ~ s. 4 [ /', r t E, f .m ,~' . *l ).- s, i s -\\ E- ' " ", ,, s' ...s* 6.,,
e
-9.,'-*'.' c#.. g', ;, . ~ -la. 1 O 4"
y 4
i. ;y 7
J g e.
~m W.we. e m...,.. g
t n h th* ?:,m...w.u;yW
.M W . m.i,. W; v.. :n .Q-
. : y %.,.-.
S. w. 2 o s.,.'. u w. ... ~,.. o _ w g,.,. a 9, ; .fg p ,e
e.. :.,

m....
n.,~er.a.;,.n,.,. ; i *<.. ~ ~,,, ~. ~,.,: -..a m.... N)p@.c i.Mt. ."n f 9,. ' - 9.. 4 v SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSEL5 TINE a ,y t wp.c., w .x,,- > ;. 3., . g.. .- - s fW P:;pp... %..,,. N. N M$.NUMC[M[.. _ ;4 The Commission decides today to permit the final Licensing Board decision .g - 1 to become effective and thus to permit the Director of the Office of Nuclear 4 NOM'M @J'Ifk j\\. J. Reactor Regulation to issue an operating license for the %raidwood facility. In Mf.3hQ:T,7.N.., _ J; effect. the Commission finds that there is no issue that exmot await the outcome 2 o 3 w.y ;.' 3 p.. ~ r of the appellate review process. I cannot agree.
j. % fyy
.c,...7 In a series of decisions in late 1985 and early 1936, th: Commission prevchted < Ce $%f'Q.g.,[ ' " the Licensing Board from hearing contentions on the qJality assurance program .O : " d. at the Braidwood facility that the Licensing Board had decided to admit for ih.. MOv We 'D,NON$;Yh. - litigation. Commonweahh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units g?DSMs4 .WiMM ' I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456, 50457 (December 1,1985); Commonweahh V5N.$D,b[0@$.N$N. F8. Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 K:_.d'3 %[P N.M M.%/. 456,50-457 (March 20,1986); Commonweahh Edisoi Co. (Braidwood Nuclear . NW: g,:.!,Cf.i.$C/iW Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI.86 8, 23 NRC 241 (1986). Because the T P@M@@g wMMh2%:pp; 2,1h. ' ] sought to raise, I cannot support allowing the decisicn to become effective. lQE@fDM, Licensing Board was not permitted to hear those s (ety issues the Intervenor d b5:)%. D 2 m .,.. f.n .*? s s c. _ f,M Y:' f.,f.*w, 's ', N,s*,M f.t W g 1 M M.*N .**++ j"
n *.g
__ ' g' _ -. <,w. . 2 ..- * ';i s < s e.'.'j. -f - r %,., - s .e. v;. - '.y f.,. 3.;g. s,e.1;. g..vu. ; y. - j- ?t : / c m - ; ,.f.. sa * ,4,, 3.. l.. - 6 s 4.. - n.,,.
y -: ;
M.
.-e b M,; -N
7.,q s,,
s- .. m .u vb ,.r ( t. s . t "-
g.,
t
(. ci-d n. s - ..... ' y.w. N. m ._,, yf.W.',Q . 'n. s; i., y~ . ~*. . --... y 'u-s'y e w c.,V Y.
6

\\;.-
i, ,baa-
4
+ .6 ._.t.
j. ;
\\,_. f .,* a *. y :.., .. y _ t... s. ?$ 0 u,. v ' .cf ~.~ t-( 4 .3g . r -;:..p- ., j- , u4,,; s s-+ ,. ' s 2 ;* J - a.,. ., sgvm o.. x,,
. 7 e
.. ;()y,. ,.,a ..g _y. e. m. .,,... ; :, 2. 6.. ; *. .f....c a 1,.t : -<s , v (A c . r ; j 4, l 7' ..< a g se r- .~,8.:, y u ..y,. x. : v. N:,,. ,2 y... .......a..f. m.. . y,, %., '. c-s r ,;.. y A, v, g *5 1. -..- -.,. <, f .s t r N n' q.,x,.~ gs' p <3 c s^. w+-m.P.., ,../ e 'N'7-J t-.$2p.P k ; s ,D WiCfJ- [ ' m%.v:ec.mL.&p-[&::$jN.w..:^- .. ? %)W.' C M n qs@.%.
u % s-
..c f.> ? 6..~.',W c. A, g., p T.a&. ;.;t ~ - vp - r.N.w. an M 6 .s '.9' w'$' =, '. f i.9 t0JN.[v...e, J,,- '.M...u M.,), ',; G ' ~ j a wo .,p,....,Xg.. ;:q:. n -n p;~. % 5 yn :;'.Q(f. ':y l?}}jQ.R.>.'. ~. ? i ?' a,p.n,m,. (e s., u \\ ,s ~ w. c,. w.,:o... :. ~, '.-,;. -., '., v. n s c.. c,,* r 5. y. g Mn,.,._.-- .. n. .,..~.n.w.... , ne +-. u, 'n t c 7 ,r. i s .s: s [. \\ s u s 3 ,3 ....e. ,,,, n., ,n '.:, *v e .s..., g., y .I.-s n%. . ;,.b..v. :V j % T4.,. S <;p
'k (,.
e r, s 2$\\,., N l',8; G,.
[
a. %.s s
a ,?,a g s _. kb f' e [_
, g* [
8 4
.) v..z.. g ? Mi u,;;4,t.,s ,.. w <w N w t. s.,j; y v y .s m. ..u,y ,m. ; - ,. n,..}' u 4 -f'i s Jt,.;,. J. e,, f. [w" ' e q e 94.sf,':g ; m~ ~,, 7. ' / ; e, ..s. ~ n .,.. v Cite as 26 NRC 6 (1987) CU878 . u 4px. ;3.,, -3 .j , c. : c x. ...n a .c.,.. .'2 n67. M. e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m; A ..b.; n.:.. n.-,., w:...p*,j.,,..,__ ,g s e, 1. <-c.<- ,~ r d V.s i '.g,..,,..h ..e,-'. s [ a .. a,,? m s 1 COMMISSIONERS: 3:.3; a. c;.
\\
u .g 3 +m, J.. - W ..u ' c., %.. < V:J> ., av Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman r..e,
.q p.
Thomas M. Roberts ..c,... ..,f.i;:47. n.!. 4. c.. is..+~:.C(., Frederick M. Bernthal .a .; or:.. n (,. c m.,.g +.qC y;y v,.. Kenneth M. Carr
yrcn,..m

x

. c..
..g. ... b, w. y,,r:W, y.,y +a w.V.'.,'3s.. ~ ~ mm. e.c.- r - p ,. m nm . W. J. -'._'.u ' a l, E s?. '. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-498 OL ~ > w.,s ,.x b..->. m x u... c,W:f m N:. '. g.o;,* y cy. s., s 7.g C.1.,- 50-499-OL ~.'f 'yw .c. c.,, f.. c.',,, %" ~.;, . Q jf .c. 3 . c.;- ..n , m.% ' ~ HOUSTON LIGHTING AND i .....y > *, A s y% -, g - POWER COMPANY, et al. ,.3 ,.s 5 ; O.. '. - ;. c (South Texas Project. Units 1 .a , ~, ~ ' E '.,J , J'. *. and 2) July 15,1987 ,y. _. ~ _n s ,s., De Commission denies Billie Garde's modon to quash a subpoena that re- ..; ;,. W j. quires her appearance regarding a Government Accountability Project-initiated M,- investigation into allegations concerning safety at the South Texas plant, and -Q, funhet denies Garde's request for oral argument on that motion. De Commis- , ', "In.. - sion determines that Garde's arguments that the EDO lacks authority to issue A' y. ~ subpoenas and that her compliance with the subpoena would compromise the e ' i-. .. J, '.,s public health and safety are without merit. De Commission does not reach the s '4 issue of the applicability of the attorney-client and work product privileges as- %j.. '-W, 3 ' 4~l 3-setted by Garde because it lacks suf6cient information at this time to make such _; }f a determination. De Commission concludes that Garde is required to testify and produce documents bearing on plant safety and therefore resets an appearance _ K,', date for the subpoena. i s .m, - m. .g. ?^.. .,.: Q: NRC: ilEALT11 AND SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES 1 j , ! _., ~.? e ~ ' ?,: -T' He fact that an outside organization lacks confidence in cenain NRC Staff to il l5 vi n. ;.. g ', in%. competently investigate safety allegations obtained by that organization's own [ n-? n @&. F;;C s V. MW e, investigation of plant safety does not result in the conclusion that divulgement . 5.g&,:;}t : ci.Wl.y :3,t., '~ N g.. :' : O'
o.h,.;[. :V'<, &. e:
W i.'= Q ; \\ ,omA
.c c. -
Q [ f l.I * [ [ &;E M T Y-K u
v.. ~..a ),
.oem.- 6 x +. ~ ; a.;: y y,, s ,; w;t.\\m.~,- .. n <,; - -1p' .[. .., * ~ ~ e., b ,.g ag ~9 g grew Mge.pg.ef g.pgg gy m. .m g ew. g>~ging 9 9 e,rg puber g, + *e-e* mpa -- g -m .s 7 - ; 7 m l e e e 4 4 b o q 4 w a h' ~ ~ ^
,Q
9.' '[ s )s J* . ' ' - ^ .,w ,.f 3, 3 2,* 'l ,s. I m g, t .a s m.C . _ i:-
.~,ni' j ._....as..~.,
a vu a,e,r:<y;.g. s:>:+s.
~ .3
. %. c.g. y.,, s-s,%

w
?; ,; W s' z,. c+ x.., ;.,., . x - - q, s 4.. .N.@.%, Z % l**. >L. ..A'3' of the informatfori would compromise the public health and safety, in fact, ' :. y,,. c.c' M 7 " j likely compromise the public health and safety, particularly if the allegations are the converse is true. Failure of the NRC to ottain the allegatfor.3 would more .y.j '. a m7. 1..,. c, .1 substantiated, o .n,, c. +;l.p. 4;,c_.,.. q ,s, .g r- ~ l NRC: AIJillORITY TO INVESTIGATE (SUBPOENA) 7s 'q~ ~ The Commission is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to i 161c of the ,. i., ,.i C A 's - Atomic Energy Act, and it further has the power to delegate this authority to '..t s. ' y ;.. -;. -,.x'C'.. - i the Executive Director for Operations consistent with (209(b) of the Energy ,.,,M.,.1 3 ; 7 >., 'E.. Reorganizadon Act and 10 C.F.R. I 1.40. This delegated responsibility has been ' R j'i..' M.~3'ET'il,2.W;;g;;'?L 1.; :.y yf,.c) -,i incorporated in NRC Manual Chapter 103-0214. ..y29 . ~u e,, ;we.,c,
,m

,p,o3
. c W ,;'.,ysm ',,s' m ~u.. W '. RULES OF PRACTICE: PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY CLIENT, WORK .y'7-w.y.;,g;p g <. PRODUCT) ~,
c.,..e.
If' The Commission's view is that assertion of the attorney-client privilege ,3'/,fS: E,; '-) and work product doctrine by a subpoenaed witness prior to that individual's -.s. $. '., j 2 1 testimony is premature. The more appropriate time for a wimess to invoke 4 - -) privileges is when testmony is obtained regerdng specific questions posed i f4 and where the individud can explain the relat:onship of the privileges to the w: s,le ' ~ information sought. . :. s. s N MEMORANDUM AND ORDER w -, M,. ~ On May 20,1987, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO) ~ - ~ subpoenaed Billie P. Garde, Esq., of the Government Accountability Project . ?,g (OAP) to testify before NRC personnel concerning safety allegations of current -? and former employees of the South Texas Project a, d any other safety allegations y J regarding the South Texas Project. The subpoena further requ3sted Ms. Garde to provide any records or documents regarding the allegadons. '. ' ]f. 7, Ms. Garde now moves to quash the subpoena, arguing that compliance with I the subpoena would compuxnise the public health and safety, the EDO has j . -.^-,, ,4 f.- no authority ta l'. sue the sutpoent, and the i torney<lient privilege and work e :
1. /.
product do' trine preclude divulgement of ths information requested. Movant v . ', ^, 'b .if., g. also requests oral argument on the motion. 14f. p-
~6.' -
r .,.w - g 4k,* .. a g c. q-4C- ' Ag@,.' $,.g 4 3 v., > g ;., 'r,< m < :gg g. a q... c p; M,,'i'. - j st-j _;.m .: s, > 1
M.' ;
1
~,
.t :. ei - ';-l' 9QQ-l ~a- . c ;,e.. 7 .s,, .:.: p.; - } ,s. , -W Q.4,c - g '
v...
,4 1 , a 4 + a _m e mw ~..-- n e.g.. - - mo ns gree e.: sv..~,, se 4 e t i=*.. . l *: Lgfa +. ~.
.. u. ... :. a.=. ~ . a.- ~,w e .v ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - :m g w.w ;..b. w, % gi n h w pn % m,4. us, w.g.f m .p W M u A I
g..,
ww - m. wmm' S. My~W M., y..W. @ r 63 3 i ~ %; #.. ..w &:m'...
a...

e m i
M M $j. %., w, m;,,3> w :: .,pn-~* = &.'.>>je f t1.4.M.c s 1 \\ ,S%' y. 3:.h'.. ~ N Q.F M j.f./;M; g l TQf j Houston Lighting and Power Company
and the NRC Staff 61cd responses to the motion on June 11,1987. Ms. Garde also 6 led a reply to the NRC Staff's
',y 39 mor _ y-response on June 25,1987 . s. y..% e.,w,,.s,.' z :...,. n . y ,x n. ;..p 4... s. -.;..n;. w :.,,s *,%. q. s . A. m. m,.. .sL h. a f.;u2.i:.y; w w. .s .t j ~.;c.p m n :s 1. BACKGROUND p:'.v ,,y s.v..%g,ei h n,.. s a n.,. l .r. y,: ;.m.g.g Beginning in January 1987, Ms. Garde informed the NRC that GAP had . NCZ. 9;fi$,$(N .,M K*, A tgjjp % commenced an investigation into allegadons concerning the safety of the South lM.A%' Wl.j'.YE[yW MA :.g Texas nuclear pmject. According to Ms. Garde, GAP received these safety W.@ iqs. DSS:fd >hM allegations from approximately thirty six current and former employees of the M Q g. h,. $ y $ U i South Texas Project. GAP informed the NRC that upon completion of the My! (.?W.M [MAM (Nh Investigation it would issue a public report, but in the interim it would not w. @d.N&Nd5b. y advise its clients to provide the allegations m the NRC Region IV office 3.l[TdN@ij$7PWMME.1 because ofits lack of con 6dence in the of6ce's ;.:y to comply with regulatory ffcd5l3MC requirements. Thus GAP advised the NRC that unless it was willing to pmvide D' 0%i v"' "Q%3MT509$$p!hkMe%'.MS$. ,%g independent inspectors to process the allegadons, OAP would turn over the C allegations to the State Attorney General's of6ce, congressional committces, and M ;.'f 3 ' h M h other regulatory and municipal bodies interested in ensuring the public safety at 7.Q./C-V'g %.r,s p;5 h ' r ., d M r the South Texas plant. j - ^F ' Q;% '.g,1M Correspondence followed between the NRC Executive Director of Operations _ j~) j.E %.' M M b ^ (EDO) and OAP regarding allegations management. Essentially GAP desires an A.-$c ?G.5 7 l6ff. Investigation of the allegations by an NRC employee or task force independent
% M.7{

j g i of Region IV. The EDO is of the position that the South Texas Projes.t is located
.. ', s G. 'p~, C 'j *, in Region IV, and the personnel in that region can adequately investigate the ~ ~~..Je allegations; and in any event, GAP should turn over the allegations to the agency ".[ J.l~ ',,- jf/ so that the agency can determine the proper handling of them. After repeated -.,7
Q;M 6 l %g' c@y'E?.; -

O.')i pT;;.
requests for the information, the EDO issued a subpoena requesting Ms. Garde to testify and produce documents regarding the South Texas allegations on May i ...s.. ..w.. ? 26,1987, at 9:00 3.m. at the NRC, Room 6507, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, f 7 3 ],, Bethesda, Maryland. On May 22,1987, anorneys for Ms. Garde and the NRC 'f y -... l-i '? ',s ; f,.g.; r 3, entered into an agreement. Ms. Garde agreed to move to quash the subpoena by Friday, May 29,1987, and the NRC agreed to conunue the appearance date for ( s W'- the subpoena from May 26,1987, until 14 days after the decision oti the motion ml.g s. J 'j% f to quash, unless the parties agreed on an earlier date. S f t s.%u... w. m,.._,.. s...,- i .~ -, :.v s
q. y,,v 1,; '
d \\'.1 g, u @. i. ~ ~ ;
f L

4
, q ;.'? A[u *~< ' } , ' '.,u,,,, M 3 s ,m -c ;.,.. s ). 'D8-
j..;;.i." { }(: C l
. \\. s_ .N ' 9 7 3,;33 m/ 7 4.'// - L,:, h.. _. %.. - m, yp. -', 4 ,".4
The aiW was immed in a ppon of the siaft's responsamlay as pussus and remalve aDesences beenns on
-s M Z d-M~ NRC.hosroad eetMains. bis was nos ;ssued in -- wuh a pedans hammans or aferoenet edp& canon M Mg@Q W MM;.W' j 4.']. 1. M@[N TM; k,/M 1 on the seish Tsaas Project. Ths, the Houman IJslamsa Powe Ccuryany is ans, ansdy speaking. a pony io the gW' *' h bd... h. 48 Pas over the subpeau and has ne legauy eagemanble bassuet in ks aufasonneuL Neathalass, the Cernnseman f-; ).M Dp%T..h[ has omsdeed the utuisy's views insdar as they may aid the Commusann's remohame of the issues, 1"n.2.,m..., <.3..,t.
.,s.R y m7 '.h

t..V.-
,.A., g, %@ : f y <- Me8 c ,..a 4 a
2 '.,,'* wns.V,2,%$ & x p.q?',.9s&.%.
I ,\\'.. O..:6 s." X~;,,v *s k. g r-.. .-w? w. s y e u n.',. ~Y G,.n y &,.. y. e*l-s ' ? = < :.;S ) al [,.... Q.*q a *.w f F ( L !.?r. ?..- :' ?,.' ) [. *' Z ..i.A,@y z... y . r d 's' a m.=>
t. *4 c.
( 1..- %.ye.'. ... < 3 r 2.,,,o,,,_ rr - % g,g, -
y, "y*
.t b ' ..., e r.. y $,.. 6, llQ '$L- * ~ 'l,, a -n 9'~. 6 w,y .x 4 .. _ - ~ ~. -. -. .., w - ; - ~ ~7 s s-A s yr, .~ ta ) .r s 3 2'., 6 a s 'g ' ~ s 2 d % %.s.w*2 h- ~'."% n' y i gt
U 8.

4
'm W Y N ^ . j.'.q. .a ry. 3 m-- q R \\ 2 s
h 1
I
l( ' d,
y. '... m[-1 Y," e l ( k* h.., *<J ;.M, '$
f h* I I s .[*[,. g .y 7.ir, ,s v .Y
O [.g.
W _'v c ,, [ [.. c. V.' tv- ~
. ~ ~ up w;qm a. w .wM ~WAgw.; wa .%n M. a.M gm ..sp n i
&p:UD.?wglW'y ;f :g's ma f.
r - m v. .>.: ;w.x ;
s..e xs
$p@n@,@w* y mm,C.a:.Nf N im 3 a t f .fM an II. ANALYSIS i w cu: .:*.k.*
..a
..hs s '.W - M %q' M ' N f 1 gh '. [k', ' .y * '*;.,...$,(- f A. Compliance with the Subpoena Would Compromise the Public I M y-P d' N. e '"g i i ~ 3 Health and Safety ' @pM.'s, 'WC..s -(;: c; .m 7 v./ d , F,.M. f, ?.. ',K,.e.ur wr;p#'?d @ ?:l $ 3 .s... c-i Ms. Garde cites no authority for her first argument which is based on s. . 'y ' M,C...,Y.#...? % E ?;s her belief that Region IV and the EDO could not competently investigate 4 ll MQ ?/M < the allegations. Compliance with the subpoena would not compromise the 4 ej d e k ' h; d. ' % public health and safety. In fact, the converse is true. Failure of the NRC to i @ %y % {C R [M g obtain the allegauons would more likely compromise the public heahh and S df gym safety, particularly if the allegations are substantiated. Moreover, the agency has d d M M N h h 1 tj demonstrated its commitment to protect health and safety through the rigorous M@kh:am;Mr.MMNikMM.W J and repealed efforts of the EDO to obtain the allegations, which culminated in . 9 issuance of the subpoena. ' .p&,,h.su. %:g:5y s ,m v t. n Mhd . wns .m P.i N,. 9 M+ h.. m a r %y M % 1 M,.Y Y B. EDO's Authority to Issue the Subpoena y c ~ ~~ N.DQ$ Mh Contrary to Garde's assertions, the EDO clearly had the authority to issue S.;'Q L:,'y g: L J,.;. ; iW($ the subpoena. The Commission is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to l 4 M.;; -G:;9
g..M.5 42 U.S.C. 62201(c) (ll61c of the Atomic Energy Act). It further has the y..
y gc' p. g.f power to delegate this authority consistent with 42 U.S.C. 65849 (l?09(b) ",. P ;. f W O : A l* j ' of the Energy Reorganization Act) and 10 C.F.R. f l.40, which provide that o. C.1 / T %./%M.Wf A the EDO shall perform such functions as the Commission may direct. See also l >W ~, Atomic Energy Act, i 161n,42 U.S.C. I 2201(n). The Commission delegated the u' % T' C ' t ' ' i] authority to issue subpoenas to the EDO in 1982. This delegated responsibility c j? ?. -c@U has been incorporated in the NRC Manual Chapter 103-0214 which provides: - /dc. 1.: ,(.
' Ny J f $ 1.'y@/@';... _
H Y The (EDO)... is specifically responsible for: . Issuing subpoenas under Section 161c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, where necessary ., ' - 99
ye K 3
or appropnate for the conduct of inspections or investigations." '!hus, Garde's I ( l' 7 %> & '. f.} argument that the EDO lacked authority to issue the subpoena is without merit. .3,o. +:cw n + > A d. % r.. % n ~ ?.s,, :, s #,. + r g + ' Je .W, C. Attorney Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine ~ t .? 1.4 ' ; Ms. Garde claims that she cannot comply with the subpoena because the with-
.[.., ~r
, 24_.~~, 2. t. jQ l ' ' held information is protected by the anorney client privilege and the work prod-1 4..y p. uct doctrine. The Commission does not reach these issues because Ms. Garde 1 ?.h4 6 f,;.,, :W+. 1. has not provided sufficient factual information in her af6 davit, retainer agree-y[13.,.. $ ~; ( 7 9$ ' d ., y'Q J. $ ment or other supplemental documents upon which the Commission can make - ~. C " i*, A,. ..gb. J the determination that all the relevant informauon that the subpoena requests is q g A u_ protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. See NLRB <<WM% L;4gN,3@..
v. Harwy,349 F.2d 900 (4th Cir.1963).
(' l%'.w#*.Wr.&&. +M A g@w, ;< 4
Pf.g*:
=* hy, e*M M& s;asv.:9sg k I. .n C- ,..cg . u.,, _.m. %.. w%ry.,m.}n'd ?fj Q. g e..: z%.4,, w wi c, g : <.. n m, ~~.2.w.w[: 4 ;yc:~ 9 U'U n: n .m. V. [. l,!.5 ' a. Q i '.}%* W. 5'g; ' '. LDy . m,'
yMQ ;.f.,[;, :... ' ~ <
.. t a. c, 4 ,.3 0, *_...,4 i. .._-d f.w .s " eg i(,
p ' - -. i j u,
- c y,. '
shtY 43 e'
J n..x ' < ';, A .)'. 1 *
4
.,s s. b n ' ,..-*. eve v.m.n r,n e* m u ~;, '*.. ~ - - ~ ~ ' s r .M e. roe ow es.,. -~.. --., -w,-
_W b
s } j s u - ~ Q:' 1 ~.-....%.-,, l ~ - e 1 'o - '.a ,*,; ' E 3 1 .e J f*
A-g
-*g es y'. 1, s .sr A 4 4 4 N.,. ' # y. m -",\\,2 +;.GY k,,..', O .,~,'s .J. '.h*, ~ 1
g
.[ y 'N 1 3 s c > a.3 s '9, +,
r. v -,. s 't ;,
s s
, h -' '.

4 t.
u;,3 - ' .'~~; m * ;* ' 3~~
~~.u m..&.4. m.g, L.s'.,:M.)4 .y.p +. s.1 1w. ~i.s,s. g,9.,d, y: x w n % '[.M,<'3 [. 5 t,q. t r t e., c n - nm j, r ! f; of M) .,if..',-~~
p.s 7 x;.g T*M

E u. R :. k.- F g 6 p m : M
.m ~ Q, 7:.:d'QTg?MM@'M.. Q 'lhe Commission notes, howerer, ttnat based on a review of the information M.9-Vp,vc '.6%P. . 4}j that Ms. Garde has provided, on its face, it appears that she possesses at least D$YQNM ' 3. '3 some information that is rW withholdable under the attorney client privilege or
~~c. h D.y g ; n. /. m.~ so f..~~
~~M i,/ "h E -..' A shielded by the work product doct ine. The auorney client privilege applies if: v: m, y[%n 4 .ona n...~~
.70

$$%
~~(1) the essened holder of the pivilese is t cliens; (2) the person to whern the conununication ?. y @ -fl < f y - f;', 1 '~~
7 C Y' was inade (a) is a nnember d the bar d a onut, and (b)in connection with this consnunication iW'.j Z W Nj'R is acting as a lawyer; (3) the conunmicaion relases to e fact of whidi the suorney was
~~,7 q>( W fj W 4 'jNJ N inferined (a) by his client (b) without the pseence a strenseri (c) for the purpose d securins~~
t!Q2

h. [ ! ',.fg,N M j.h pinnarily either (i) an opinica on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assiaance in sonw lesal
-.;c$$N.gg,k,N. c'g 4s,.k. ~ poceedins. and not (d) for the purpose d cornsniains a crune or tors; and (4) the pnvilese N M f .,yp has been (a) claisned and (b) om waived by he clienL W5 a... cnt,n +.~. q v.t; v.# 3 ' 4 k?$.(.,15$kkh,b$&k - Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States. I1 Ct. C1. 452 (1981). *Ihe work v ; ?/ D(%g. n, %~ q .v 9. d: h :; W :M. M :'. d iE N " p ; f % y.O ? u-. R rf QT h product' doctrine is a quali6ed privilege that protects documents,and tangible .M g items prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial.14.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); y p&nJf5.g.c,w@tz.%M%MM substantial need and inability without undt;c hardship to ob th the substantial 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(bX2). Fact work prodirt is discoverable upon showings of RPQ[MM{WMpf,C.hh '.M(,7g $p. equivalent of the matenals by other means. Id.; see Nickman v. Taylor, 329
~~4. QM%f@$.9'$C 'J U.S. 495, 510 12 (1947); In re Murphy,560 F.2d 326, 334 (8th Cir.1977). Opin-g 'l ?'Q Q d f $ M [b.i;;q~~
-4 M% lon work product (mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories) ' 7. '...3.Qnis;- ; may be discoverable upon extraordmary justification. See Hickman. 329 U.S. at w. 2 J j%a.f,.N?' 513; Murphy,560 F.2d at 336. A. e,.y As the utility points out Ms. Garde indicated in her January 20, 1987 i ' g f f. s". ' ~,.s. g..m EL,: leuer to the EDO and the Attorney General for the State of Texas that GAP r f ~ ' ' je. ~ 6'- either represents or "is working with" approximately thirty six current or former a '" ' Q: - employees of the South Texas plant. Attachmem 2 to Garde's Motion to r ]-j.rf. A.g. n Quash. Obviously, the attorney-client privilege car;not attach if there is no Mm; client. Thus, the presumption is that communications with the employees that f [- - '2 - ~ W.. : y.', y @J. GAP "is working with," as opposed to representing, are not a part of or protected y q,pgg.y ' by tM attorney client privilege. L wQw.s.... - Purtherr ore, it is unclear from the facts before the Commission whether n,'~ . ' f f, M E. Ms. Garde was acting in a legal capacity when she gatheird allegations from r ^ 7. y p ' employees for the purpose of having them reviewed by (M NRC, if she was ^ not acting in such a capacity, it would be questionable as to whether the com- '. Z Sc M; %[~ munications made at that juncture would be protected by the anorney-client .9 M Privilege. Also, Ms. Garde seeks to withhold the identities of her clients. As. ,:..s.. f];:#j' ~ .pe n. yg. ~ ~ suming arguendo that the attorney-client privilege applies, generally the iden-1 A * / ~g%,_ d j{gjf 'n tity of an anorney's client is not considered privileged. NIJi'8, 349 F.2d at ' i.% 904. Moreover, it is dif6 cult to determine from the information thus far pro-m,. t. J~ 0- ,MQQ,. thereby terminating the privilege. See Artesian ladustries, fac, v. Department yp vided whether the privileged nature of ths i, formation, if any, has been waived, 4 A:;N.Q p,.{ ;MW.6%V '": ~. ..F NEQ
~~m. :.m%.m myg/W.~~
0/#ealth and Human Services,646 F. Supp.1004,1008 (D.D.C.1996), citing .g.QMNwm,p O,: %. ; s W @,..... m.. y..d.' m:f m d b Y %l.,W ?i;y :Z% ., +...x_,,, f 32ANw... 10 S v.. n b...,: s...'.',. n: e.sw.>o. AM m. 4 ~:v '-f, v'?ml. l p..Q: g%m lf' A r. .b .yf n.p .j .a. ya --,,1. :.1, n m Q. v.7r, 8g.p t.)
~~4. s.e - -,~~
~~.. 3, p.._.a~~
' y A...E ,a,[.$g
.. u.f e. 9,,4 1 g** .J.- 4.. y*Y'.4*# Wf, dee, ".g 40 g.U F g g,.', ; i, r % i [s.'i, w p e (' ~ ^' 9 = M,--, ff' @h#WP. 4_.-W-.W-- 'W'"# 8' PT'-4*- Or.'"* g +s. %e ,s y y . a r /.., g s if - _.4 ] s g i I
~~i 4~~
~~g I~~
(-
~~.'l .*~ 1 9 4 .s. t v t ..n< . u.. m sc, 5 11, 1 ,t', s , 7, i +,g -w u ,g% .g ,J..- ..O.~~
~~- -~ ',*[. h*--j,g' 's ', !.* '~~
~~i, '. l $ [. '. N .n .], [h -[;.'.., t. r 1 p, \\.'r. n :1 ; '., / .i n ^: 'r / e' 6 Y *-d~~
~.
~~~..,.. .y ~ i .... s s,',, z. +. [. tw 4.. r g f, j[~~
~~,'7 4.-~~
- i N. .Qh &. ' h.* -b' ~ s ' U I*i ~
,.... ~ ~. -. ~.. ~.... -. -. ~. . a.w. >n;7., 4. j-s u s,.. ..y
~~,mn.~~
~~r r, . w. qu , a f. vc y: g , f, ,u,,, m O a, ~.. e in re Grand Jury investi. atio s of Ocean Trdr.sportaticn, 604 F.2d 672, 675 ~~~
~~,3 n.'.~~~
d, (D.C. Cir.1979), cert. denied s sb nom. Sea. Land Service, Inc. v. United States, .:j 444 U.S. 915 (1979). It appears that GAP intends to reveal at least some of the i ~ 64 information when it releaies its public report. -^ b, />.. _ ~ .y) De Com. mission also lacks sufficient date to determine whether the work 3.. ' ^ 7 - j product doctrine applies to all documents requested under the subpoena. De s,. f; Commission would need more information t.'garding the circumstances sur. s ,n l rounding the creation of mch document in ord:r to make that determination. '.V' -l Also, since it is unclear whethtr the attorney-client privilege is applicable, it is g ' j... !g, j. y j equally unclear whether logically any of the documenu could be attorney work , r.,;.. c, ' ",. 7 1 7 j. j:,, ^ r;r. in anticipation of litigation and whether work product documents, if any, are /L product. Other questions include whether Ms. Garde prepared the documents W ' x,6.( ' y {$,,'..
i
~~' f $' f: Ag. [ W discoverab!c under the substantial need exception. See 10 C.F.R.12.740(b)(2); , '.u;;' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(). w~~
.+

cr t-

4 g-De Commission's view is that the more appropriate time for Ms. Garde to i g"QL D(C
~~' {;s assert the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine is when Ms. Garde ~'..' /U 7.f: testifies regarding specific questions posed, in response to the subpoena. At that M,~~
~~G f' time she may invoke privileges that she believes are applicable and explain their s~~
f .',, D ' f 1 relationship to the information sought by the Corr. mission. Her assertion of them at this time is premature. ~ .. -.v s '~ Derefore, the motion to quash the subpoena and the request for oral argument ~# ? 9 are denied. Unless the parties agree otherwise, Ms. Garde shall appear 14 days ~ after the date of this decision at Room 650'1, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland, at 9:00 a.m. to testify and produce documents concerning .c - allegations bearing on safety at the South Texas plant, pursuant to the May 22, 1987 agreement between Ms. Garde and the NRC. s. .2 It is so ORDERED. w-m [ ) Ibr the Commission * ~ ..c. m ~. . SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission y Dated at Washington, D.C., this 15th day of July 1987. g: .,(- g-g [ 6 g ,l# f c...,.c
~~..- m.;~~
~~.r.,~~
i,, J ty;);f',N-['., ' ',$, -$-[P.4 *c jg;

lg;4As.-
] 'Camsamr Carr oss riot Pfwas fw the thanas of Oss Order. If he had tiens presara he would haw sw y q.f. hi "[* *$b..j ~. w{:.D l;W ?;&g-l;.. .9. - u A.y 11 ~ . -s ,.:.~,3,ysj;,' _G * ;y.- e ',l :..~ , T f I ~. Twm y j 8.. J,. -,, ~. _. 4
~~l' 1~~
~~s-O ~ s~~
~~g,..~~
q f A i1
4.l } l, .y_ < <..,.. n .i ..s,,.,4
~~, i y s~~
~~i ,s." 1 [, i c l -{ 't .s s-t t -.~. .~ ',l I ' */ g a 3 y + 4 4~~
~~J.13:.f!~~
~~1 Atomic Safety and j'n ' f Licensing Appeal >g gya m Boards issuances , t v'Q. 4 -s 1%~~
A s

'.)_..
~~tA rN =~~
s. 3-..,,:,. < *
~~}b:- ~ c.~~
~~7..~~~
~~44., ; .,..v~,.,. ..1 . s,. ,...L - - .s , ~. .,.m%,. a ?[,,,6"? i f3AS' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL <4-4 j q.,., .. t. c-.. .,%'vY ...r,. ;g 3 ; 3..,. s ' *... r..';~~
~~3.,.:,. @/i.J :~~
Alan S. Rosentna', Chairman m ; ~. ' - _ Dr. W. Reed Johnson t a, . - a. ~. - ' s -.3 Thomas S. Moore s Christine N. Kohl -"J .i Gary J. Edtes s s, s ' p., - 1 Howard A. Wdber O' -'m - g. .. g... g' 7 4 t i ',, y 9 s ~, ..y ( .*\\ 4 ~ ~- ' ' } x-4* sa f; s 5 "4 .['98 1 ,... ~, ' fI 4 e 3g s A v i t .s z. J.,N%. w w 1l.. '4 a .,.J*,
.s. - 4,,. c,',.

:. -
~~s . ~ e .s.,',.. >~, *' s* - ni 1 -*,c.;). ~. 'J.:.,. y - ) r,...r ;M '.4.',.Q. I. ..e .. A. 4 , a.,' [ (t '4~~
~~e. [~~
.. s. :q.,..,w.,...- 'v f - N.e,., d (. .M ,. J 97,. ..,... r, f.e,,,,i r., n.s 4 4 ..f ,%,..,_ g. ' N.i ,',t" '.* %,i.'d. ' .y. u:, ~, ,* ~ ',,',',f.' . } \\, s....,' } a .','.s.. .. -.. r i 1 1 c.- '-...~, s a g , *' 5 L ] { ~ - -.~ ~.-- -..~. p..,,,, .~,,,,... s a 'l i e 'f s d$ d 1 r -w -- = +- g,. _y
.n p n .,. m . V; s ,.3A. c' a w -y 7. L h;r.:. w ,,3.. n,.-v.. l i y# . w'l_ g y.gsL l j <y i 's ,3 d s .,. ' +..: w .".' ; 31;7, l . s t ( u, ,.y g q.: >: e m %.. a;~.~ ?, n: Cite as 26 NRC 13 (1987) ALAB 869 +-. :;p.c,v.., e J <, ' j.4 i gg 4 yyy't't c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a ilD L.l... en,, .,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n v .?....,.: - m 4,8.. m m . ?.... x, .N
3; p u,.

m,;..;. y
- z1 _4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD "..J ' L s f.., -.} \\ .~ ; : v.:~ ;;r x a .I n.y.. z . v: z. c.., g~ ~, ?. q. I..: q:3 ~ ' Jc.,?.. } Administrative Judges: c n .s Q l ~~ C ' l....*M' ' %, l: '.'.c'..,. .I
~~i. ]~~
~~U.'. ? e -- n w-o,..~~
~~n. c.-. Y / : U.;$)' Y m'[p'~~
~~3 w. ;.d-4c.;M:.*? a.~~
~~,9'. R -j,'::: :17's% q ;w',,,]4 t s Cheistine N. Kohn, Chairman W@g.y.&,- ey ): Gary J. Edles~~
~~m ::) 7 7 :!- @ I. M :~~
~~Df S. eN4, - w:.W-Howerd A.Wilber , ;..w'*. ..... a#. M s'.. ,.-s ..s w r s 6 *, It % g.~~
~~,. y '.,, }a;pl',%mg..-+f 6..~~
~~W @6 7 .e~~
~. p.~ W g f
e.r/,"l M g y 'e
~ in the Matter of Docket No. 50 271 OLA y. yQ.'@ c.. p. 4 7: (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment) w. e e u :.. .'f, 7:e ..h ! [- .{, - 4:-AJl "p,g'ysf. ] VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR l J POWER CORPORATION ,.5._.e j 2 e. 7. ' ' T. J. y~ - /. (Vermont Yankee Nucleer Power l, P' Station) July 21,1987 ,. :. y .t ,g -, 7.. a. +, 1 ~s ) TS In an appeal brought by an appucant under 10 C.F.R.12.714a(c), the Appeal t"' % Board affirms the Licensing Board's admission of most of one contention but , 'F,,.. i ; e J W. ' - reverses the Board insofar as it admitted two other contentions. 1 i 7, . t 1, c ^ G %... .~) 1 ~ -c w..:. l .. v e: A RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW (ISTERVENTION l . N g '. '- 'l a, R$.';. : a RULINGS) r ) m f 7' Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714a(c), an applicant may appeal a licensing board order , J. ',.Qt. ' d on the question of whether a petitivn for intervention and/or request for a hearing -u ,~ " ',W w.., should have been wholly denied. , u '_-f-wn y -1,0 ,.J
~~f. '.,S..~~
HEGULATIONS: DEFINITIONS (SINGLE FAILURE) v r ,.e. ,a, w. y'W A single failure is defmed in the Commission's reguhtlons as an occunence - ? \\. % J E. p @jy $ i,$,-,.. d ', s:n which results in the loss of capability of a component to perform its intended , w. y<; : a,., k. u.:: E..'. I ;W 6 i safety functions.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A "Definitions and Explanations." w. _A j ,;/, y p e ?",..,, ' *; j 2. ,. v.?,* .-f r. _ g ' ', y '+T.lq. N' lL : " i- '. e ..'%* Qs +.' ~,'.'j N Qe~ j I s.'
~~as<~~
~~.u t..d+1 ,1(. l N+ ,f' fe. *:*}A,y;ln ';E ' ' : .Q'gi ',,y,. 'u ur,* n :. . ~ ~. *, y* Q W [ , J,y: ; <% m s.. c.s. n., 4 d(a~~
~~[ d.'.~~
~~. [ [eg( - "e..~~
~~r- 'f '~~
y' ..'s*,; /;. ~.. f. }. r...~'4 .G., 'y' s -h ' ' ag ~*c b [ 3 -() 'e e g..' ( , _ s. 9 g w.....-e.g-.-.--- .v.3---,;-~~------- ' ?e a r A , g e 9 4 e' ) h p 5 T 4 g. I 3 ,,. 7 . i. .r s J 4 u.* ) J' [,. f,-*\\ I V '. l.= [ .N' -71 ,c ,e; s.- -. 7 s ..e; bi, )
6
\\ s. ' q..., t s V x 3 ..n .y. ~ V
x.., + :;. . z,n ? ~ 1 v u:a, ..p;, ,. 3 g,p,, 9<. .J.,). f ; 2 % w ,..- e:* ; 1: fji y:, p. :,. ,+~
~~q, O,; c.,..~~
~~.J. - u y., - 9 M.., w~. ; s g' ny. ~~~
~~s. g - 1,, ?~~
RULES OF PRACTICE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF i 2". @,U, i When the staff's review of a matter is not complete, it should say so and i c,- advise the licensing board and panies of when it reasonably expects to complete .#gp > i s. , ! D. Sc. ' < -b; %q ~ that review. 7..., ; u 7.. -wn.~ my
~~. - y 3~~
/) .-f,p '. :.' n' a. '. ' : ' RULES OF PRACTICE: DOCTRINES OF REPOSE 'l .' i . (., "._,f y lbr the doctrines of repose (res judicata and collateral estoppel) to apply so .O 7, '~ q. %: J p.1;g 1 as to bar litigation of an issue, the issue to be precluded must be the same as that j M&$ ' W (y.".kiM.(Qy involved in the prior proceeding and must have been actually raised, litigated, M g-: ., g%. TR 'f,y%M [,\\. - and adjudged. Additionally, the issue must have been material and relevant to i ';'OUdj.Olhhl.'ed the disposition of the first action, so that its resolution was necessary to the j j.T~.yW',y- @,G':+'ffd;f <: outcome of the earlier proceeding. Carolina Powr and ught Co. (Shearon 43 %. n.m :.4..n.. y ig,pfs Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837,23 NRC 525,536 37 (1986). .n ..v. n n;,1. ,?'
~~i., ', ?;f kW~~
( y M ;f g W y, q g,N c REGULATIONS: DEFINITIONS (ACTIVE / PASSIVE COMPONENT) ..9L. ..qy :.Llp ,1 "', ',, f % i; Q f. d .5 r.. An active component requires mechanical movement to perform its safety ) 'M function, whereas a passive component does not. l.ong Island ughting Co. - ' y~7; 7 - t, g ' c ' = (Shercham Nuclear Pour Station, Unit 1), ALAB 788,20 NRC 1102,1164 q. :M nJ55 (1984). s.-:; _ ' : : n c.~. v p-Yu LICENSING BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (CONTENTIONS) s ~ ~ ~ ~ - g contention has basis and speci6 city, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b), and At the contention admission stage, boarcs should determinc only if the , ','M~ f i %;4, should not reach the merits flouston Ughting and Power Co. (Allens Creek . (, ' 7,fj,.N Q. Nuclear Oenerating Station, Umt 1), ALAB 590,11 NRC 542,547-49 (1980). _ :e s.. .M c i ,~~..s-2.y, REGULATIONS: COMPLIANCE METHODS General Desi m Criteria and other regulations embody minimum require-t -l ,4
~~1.,. '~~
ments. Standard Review Plan provisions, "regulatory guides," and the like offer ,. N staff guidance on how regulatory requirements can be met. Applicants, however, '/;, -' n; may demonstrate that other means not speci6cd in the staff guidance will ac-t ,y~ complish the same goals. Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), "4 ~ ALAB 725,17 NRC 562,567 n.7,568 n.10 (1983). /.. 0 ._f .-.4 d,. 'J I f *;. 4
~~x.., ~.~~
i
k
~~', 1.: s. 1I.. m v w ( o.:,d g./. y,. > ; :.-y :y::q~.% mm'.- ~ ,qpgs::.. l :t,:'Y&. )y.,f ;jbfyQ*: *. f t y.': y. .y c.g y, u -L:p, \\[.).Q: m'Q -~~
3.
~~b;., \\ ; g.~~
~~3 b ,n... M .g. . y, s,.*' g r,.. < 8-4'~~
~~.m.-,ei~~
-,i ' ". ....,<-,,.m,...,, j 9 ' f 4 a 7 1 . 1 8 b 4 M 'f;, g .+ '3 4 s e '1* .;y e g y ~*c. s t t 3 --. -
% v., i -; ;.ac w s;.,t%,< :. e ;.,..:..c.e,,,; ns ..r m._ ,, p'; 3: ,m w '... v. 3 _
~~n. c s e.m~~
~~. w:, - n ', - f t L~~
~~es v:~~
f; 1 j~ M i.,s.M g # ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (SUA s o s SPONTE ISSUES) ~.< i $,# ;. c, ~= 1 'Ihe Commission's regulations permit boards in operating license proceedings . l T *,' l l,, ~ to examine and decide "(mlatters not put into controversy by the parties," but fs W /. % 4.
~~e c p.,~~
. C .l.s ,ff7 only after a determination that "a serious safety, environmental, or common '.f 3., ]Sq 9 defense and security matter exists," 10 CE.R. 4 2.760a. ..j, i \\ '. - .a "[ } ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: SCOPE OF REVIEW (SUA 7 g ', $ ' a - .. ( ' s W, SPONTE ISSUES)
~~t. p, 3~~
~~~.:y ;.;p~~
~~n -~~
~~~ t c; - y 7.yK. % r.[M $ d,, - 0 A licensing board involdng its section 2.760a sua sponte authority must set i c2 s'~~
~~tMr:Q ~ ' u -%i'!'~~
forth such a determination "in a separate order w hich makes the requisite findings m .,0. N,$ q l j' P di. M " M. and briefly states the reasons for raising the issue." Texas Utilities Generating l% y.F { p -{'% ', Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-8124,14 NRC 614,615 (1981). The Commission itself then reviews the determination . g 3 v. g$ ~ and decides if the sua sponte issue should remain in the proceeding. See id., CLI-p',- s b.jQ'J ' p. . ) %f: ., 7 p ',
~~4.. T)..~~
~~8136,14 NRC 1111 (1981). See also Houston Ugking an,f Power Co. (South %-fL Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LBP-8154,14 NRC 918,922 23 & n.4 (1981). 15,~~
~~7. ;~~
y v. 30;.1 w RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 3 p m. z' %. ;. 10 CE.R. 5 2.714a contains a limited exception to the general rule prohibiting ~ ? interlocutory appeals. A petitioner may appeal a board ruling that denies the ^ i entirety of its petition to intervene or for a hearing.10 CE.R. 6 2.714a(b). So ch q too, a party other than such petitioner (usually an applicant) may appeal a board .,] miing granting intervention or a hearing, on the issue of whether such request 4 ,T '. "should have been wholly denied." 10 CE.R. ( 2.714a(c). ,s 1 f. , j 4 V J RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW (INTERVENTION v W,, J RULINGS) 'g..- The terms and spirit of 10 CE.R. I 2.714a(c) allow appeal boards to exercise '~ . 1l1 t- '. discretion concerning the need and desirability of reviewing other contentions, L '. ;,, once one admissible contention is found. Compare Mississippi Power and Ugk c& Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 130,6 AEC 423,424, y7 426 n.9 (1973) (once board found that petitioner had at least one admistible ' f, y. 3 f D'-- contention, there was no "need" to examine any others) with Duquesne Ugk '4 Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB 109,6 AEC 243,244 ."+ . i g g
~~4. ") L '~~
contentions, appeal board found two contentions admissible and expressed no ) _ g [. & n.3 (1973) (in applicant's appeal from licensing board admission of three j . y.t .%.j g JQ 'Sj:$qg:f.,.,], G i view as to the third). Cf. Louisiana Power & Ugk Co. (Waterford Steam Electric .y :y 3.w gg ~": 2lW.,:. Wyig%g i ' QiM.g,w.n Q
)
~~15 '7 jf. '- ' l e,, t N, ; *.g 7. j ",M f. 4 ;: W. -, <f - p '.s sSj ;.- 3 1 .'s. ' ~. Q s~~
~~t.,,,~~
~~s 2- ~ 3, -e W . _ _ egum gur r*r,em.=ya-~~
am e.e =ev e, meiog -, -. - *
~~-94 -+.-e..pg. .--~,. ' ~ r I g' 4 4 o I . ^- y I P .g g = -~~
~~f s~~
~~g ,([,~~
[
?.Tuq:,dp.wt.V. M $$. '.{n.dM,.., J we,, - - a .m ;y;.+ _c - Q.:~l[: e., *.h p '.].. (.{ i j c. 4 ,u.. x,..,.....- . x) [. ?,. (. jj. ':'c:. /E E 'V,. ' Station, Unit 3), ALAB 125,6 AEC 371,373 (1973) (in intervenor's section 1 i
M^

t ;[" ' 2.714a(b) appeal from a licensing board rejection of his Sve con;entions, appeal 'c w ;p,g board examined and found admissible all five contentions). p. f.T.,. r:: .3:. c. .....;e sx, g - yrj.t _. p3. a. RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS m + .i,,. a<, & q' One purpose of the basis and specificity requirements for contentions is to
~~. c assure the hearing process is not improperly invoked and issues raised are m '~~
f N'. <.,M jf, ff, Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB.216,8 AEC y appropriate for litigation in the inrticular proceeding. Philadelphia Electric V.g V.i ,K, Q 'c s " l ';.' % ','y F _ 13,20-21, modified on other grounds. CLI 74 32,8 AEC 217 (1974). m ' .g. w,. g.M.- : C f9 y '.' .O ~ .p.w.:.;Tv0 WSBc ~ 1. gwgn. - ,.' W. NEPA: HEARINGS .. v.;. ,9p y 2 w: ..M,dC3.- 7,'.M IM."% 10 C.F.R. 651.lN provides generally that matters within the scope of the @', P 1. s.,c w. V;. 7 > 9w 3 -:,N@N1 ~' "NEPA"), may be raised in NRC hearings. - i;b ' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.14321 (hereinafter j. n 2 k
~~3.,h}y cO-y-~f. O NEPAt ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPENT (t.'s s.,~~
,..c. -r c:.; 4;.. -,s JL FUEL POOL) f' The need for an environmental impact statement in a spent fuel pool pro- ..C .i; ceeding must be determined on a case by-case basis. Pact)lc Gas and Electric , ~ 1 Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI.8612,24 NRC 1,12, rev'd on other grounds sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace [
~~v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986).~~
m. ( i 'j NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT c- .'f 3, An environmental assessment is a concise statement usually prepared to a. "(alid the Commission's compliance with NEPA when no environm ntal impact e - ".4 statement is necessary." 10 C.F.R. I 51.14(a). 1 . ff NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (NEED) ..e, s t7 ml, 7$.2 V-Only when the Commission makes a "no significant hazards" determination v; -q % ? f. does the categorical exclusion in 10 C.F.R. I 51.22(c)(9) apply so as to preclude ', ". L . ;3, \\ jW ~ an environmental impact statement. .,.N ' ', ) {. .v,. $M...f (' ..,.. *.aw 7. %,.c. ;. f..,.: ~.{2 6 .y - ... e..,, -~'Ws i . *. P'. ', s. g I". q , t w. E d 4 * ..x c <;: '( * ;. N ..[ f d c,.(N. ) , y m'y -. ~ ; -l7 mW,' 16 's /.s . S*Q r.. ' H-f.,.,,' ', % ", A ' _, g _s.e, l,. /,, 3 '. .',***(.' . ',+. } J. ; y, e ~ - S *,. V T, ~ , ?,. :. --,a,f,- -.~:_ '.J. N [ 5 _ t. i go ; - d g 9 gm q.y. .e O..y 8P '*.8'-"" -8"-NWO" 'l .p a 9 d y ?, 4 A. s OW ;'.' l e m ?".. t +**e
aw
,,;, c w,.. g +9, he g.

g.y: w. i, '.;.-l,,n*1 45a
. m.; - i n,,. ~ -. _. _.,,. . f J,:' " .o, n. ~! s. gj. t$ . a.. g, 4,,, .i ',j qae m, ' 3. f..M., '. [ ' ' 1 ?,; 'f NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS X .. s <i .y;. ;., : :. accidents because they are, by definition, highly improbable - i.e., remote and NEPA does not require NRC consideration of severe, beyond design basis 4.I:l ~:g(C,5 Ly:['[ l , ]J[ '. .?Q,,10-1.7,f,fI'Rl.- _.1 speculative - events. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,751 Y.2d 0 V 1287,1301 (D.C. Cir.1984), af'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26, cert. denied. - j y c- .~3 4 U.S. 107 S. Ct. 330 (1986). ,. o y '<. w - 3; ,1.gy y,g f. 7 g ;s;: Je NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS (COh1511SSION v., .s. , & c t,Y. n ~/ w ;;; g,. ?OLICY STATEh1ENT) m,.y4 .e:..z m u m. 7,ln 'J g g g y M
~~M ~.i E <~~
To the extent that the Commission ever considus the environmental impact J. Q S v', 6.~. &.,f.O-/.. M n and risks of a beyond design-basis accident,it does so as an exercise of discretion L xw .n - 3,'agsc.f, M(;yd3'.T29.. d,
~~i7 p.R-Q'jy under l'.s Interim Policy on "Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under jW ;,c. A 4~~
~~the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9," 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980)~~
m. W Q f.);.y y ~ Q3.;? m :,Q.g.U

f. hereinafter "NEPA folicy Statement"). San Luis Obispo 751 F.2d at 1301.
~~.~ p n. o; p q.y.., c \\. x k. y '.< c.;:. r ;c.,?. g y.....m (( 2~~
e
..,f - " Q.: NEPA: LICEN5E Ah1ENDh1ENT PR9CEEDING (COhth11SSION 5, ', - 7. C : "f 4; + POLICY STATEN1ENT) i.:., ~ :..;n yF-Nothing in 'he language of the NEPA Policy Statement. 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101, N / '. r, g@w ;., g- '.Y indicates that it was intended to apply to a license amendment proceeding. . e,.
~~w:_~~
. p y ~ y. w,. ~ t NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS (COh1511SSION < 'T J. e, POLICY STATEhtENT) ..N.. E [N *% ':. for requiring an EIS other than a claim of increased risk from a beyond &ign. ~ Before the NEPA Policy Statement is even invoked, there rnust '>e some bash i -1, ; } [.- 6.- basis accident scenario. s.- "* v.yn ~ .. :V C NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTENTIONS 'r . [~ Contentions that assert an EIS is required because of claims of increased risk a.. from beyond design. basis accident scenarios are not litigable - as a matter of ', W I,f ' law under NEPA, and as a matter of discretion under the NRC's NEPA Policy ,.: m. ,s.. 4
~~a..~~
Statement. 3,,3 ' - g :a ..~-. ..,. f.. - ... f'# NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTERIONS n. . ~, .. y.d.; In general, environmental contentions should be directed to whether the NRC t 2 ~ M O l W lQ :f.' 5 8 @ Q,, staff (not an applicant) has fulfilled its obligations ander NEPA. See Boston 'p-M '. iMSill 'u . *.. m..y, p.; m.,..%^w..O.y*' ~. -. e....; nv...kp 1 I
~~'_J'.~~
~~W ^ .T 9 Upf; g[; .'. h. p,'.d5[. S 1, e,, 17 ' j. [# 3 m~~
~~wyLfm,.,~~
.,s.. .v , f, r. ",<nb,.'. 's ~ C S i s ;v.j. - m g y ', -,;., " ~ t. e /,s s' ".. * ' t ".-w,,-.,,,w..,.--...~.,. ...v.,--e----.-+-.,+.-. n g a .i... j 8h t al t s lw ~ .. ! i. ~ E' e. e s t y 1-4' ,, M;[.; { - , I, a .(y4 9F,
'4E'?;4lM,$yyk..hlcQ:,[.j-- ,,\\. ..x.u- ,-( 1% - Q s .:. g .y y ; c. -:
~~-:-.+~~
~~-1 .v .2.~~
~~] a,, -:~~
~~Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Oenerating Station, Urdt 2), ALAB 479,7 NRC c. '+.Wc 'I 774, 793 94 (1978).~~
,x
~~.P. X., y ,j ,y.., .,t Q'4'.uN,E 49.g - N . j REES OF PRANE: CONTENTIONS (CONMTIONAL) f.~~
~~g. f. ' > '~~
Conditional contentions are prohibited. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear 3 { Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,466-67 (1982), rev'd In part, I' * .{ CLI 8319,17 NRC INI (1983). -:o. 2 %.:v. g.'.;. ?. j.. s s. r, ; s x. :: ~ NEPA: SUFFICIENCY OF CONTENTIONS J. ? E. 6. '. ' O. p r- .e.,...... y.'!, .a.- .w- ~. r - w/ [; -l 'i;,i'3, Some environmental contentions can be formulated and admitted before ", i G'fJ ' l '!;.l(f-issuance of the relevant staff document - namely, those unlikely to be affected ,y. f /W T. iM rld..'. 3%[h - be provided in an applicant's envitccmental report"(ER). Catawba. CLI 83 19, y Tj' - by the staff's forthcoming analysis, and those based on information required to s ...b d 2 w y a.. . u.>, M. e.+. ; N.M.. 17 NRC at IN9. ~. ,. +. w-w. -C, ~ N,$j,' *
~~1; i~~
~~' j RULES OF PRACTICE: STANDARD OF REVIEW 2-~~
c
- U _ ~,- Unreviewed licensing board decisions do not have precedential effect as to ^ ' ' issues of law. Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), y.,. N. 2 -7c.n. ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,981 n.4 (1978). NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N,y., J Licensing boards should await the issuance of a staff environmental assess- .a 3, mer.1 before determining that it is inadequate. Consumers Powr Co. (Big Rock ipE Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB 636,13 NRC 312,330-31 (1981). .c.,; .;-. ~ O., ;,., NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ct.
~~i. -~~
An EP. is required for a construction permit anj operating license, but not for a license amendment application.10 C.F.R. 55 51.50, 51.53. The information c, that must be included in an ER is described in 10 C.F.R. ll 51.45,51.51,51.52. ..f,. ..n. .s.. ,y cy,.. , 3, .q TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED ..i. .,r 7. ~ Single failure criterion ~, J ' u ~. - Residual heat removal system , : a &,,,' . f ['QJN., ' Spent fuel pool cooling A- - S :- r.N
~~3. '.g. ?~~
~~'. ; ' y- {&y* * 'f..;.pgy L.#.G.5; %, _. General Design Criterion 61 i g %,'n :3 ':'f.,. 34.;}.Q - - ~ - J -[ '. ~ *,. q[MMQn gg .,. 1 f.% *. ,Vf~~
.M}

s')
~~FJ-4 1 4 -}.,,. >c.". 4 .v N.. .._,'X. } 1~~
~~:g.. s % :~~
~~p' i.~. w. k 1 s I ~ k g e,. t 9 t~~
e
a; y a '- E@q, y.:j;,q.) g;3.; ;,g',s sd ,.c .s v.; s. + + n on.-, .-,.,;,o. ee.. .ag. ', %,, a .., J.. ;i.j;:,., . a (, 3.,. )! s g, 2 ~ v,, s. u a5. 4; ' s o g.f ~ ,. :e' M..c. ,f', . t >;. General Design Criterion 44 W /g Active and passive components, i 1.:pq ;-
~~f',: 5 m, = ?.~~
~~s o 1 n. ..n ,9 9 \\ .~.,, 3 : *......f.g -);'M *_ 2 APPEARANCES .4, -c.. :, S,.-~~
~~,.J j~~
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and Kathrp A. Selleck, Boston, Massxhusetts, for 9 . c<r. c... .{ applicant Vermont Yankee Nuc! car Power Corporation. i ,./. ;q. . P, ' ' t 3.;,y,, 3*. P( d Ellyn R. Weiss, Washington, D.C., for intervenor New England Coalition on l l-J . l.c, .y, TJ ', 1 Nuclear Pollution, j ' '.. M : # :'. 9 % J- 'Nr A %. y ; p.3.,p.:: W -' A f.g,, a7 *N.1 ;.s...: m. m / rc: F James M. Shannon and George B. Dean, Boston, Massachusetts, for intervenor
~~q. ; c~~
~~.... ~ a , or}(;/,. 7,,' p g;9 O g g 'b h fr ' Cnmmonwealth of Massachusetts.~~
~~; W ?,y 7... '. W,Q'ggy.z,v.,,~~
~~3. s,6 c.. w.y m.. l. ; t.x 4'.ql.p. s7 David J. Mullett, Montpelier, Vermont, for the State of Vermont. ~.s . : u.,... r m v,n ?, Q.}' ;J,'. Q,. ;~~
~~, c..~~
~~. n c.. N, 3, f.' Ann P. Hodadon and Robert M. Welsman for the Nuclear Regulatory q, n.;;; p; L~~
?'
J Commission staff. l ~ y -. s w,; .. ~ ' t# DECISION ,7-.- .a 1, l; ...p Applicant Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation has appealed, pur-l t l i suant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714a(c), the Licensing Board's recent preheanng confer. l 'q. d ence order granting the reqtiests for hearing and petitions to intervene of the 'W-New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth l l . N of Massachusetts, and admitting three contentions in this spent fuel pool expan. .. ] sion proceeding. See LBP 8%17,25 NRC 838 (1987).* Contention I concerns l~ j.' ~i ) spent fuel pool cooling and <. )ntentions 2 and 3 raise environmental issues. 'Ite l- - tr _ Commonwealth. NECNP, and Vermont (participating as an "interested State" t under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715(c)) each oppose applicant's appeal and argue that the l ^ contenuons are admissible. The NRC staff, which opposed the admission of all ',[ ' ' three contentions before the Licensing Board, now opposes applicant's appeal with regard to the spent fuel pool cooling contention (see Wra note 7), but sup-
~~-O.<~~
~~ports applicant insofar as it seeks the rejection of the environmental contentions, i l, . y ' ?[ - l g r.~~
~~Q.+ J l~~
~~. p. N %. '3;v s ,) ,..yg.~~
~~7. 'e-y.~~
,s -, y .-.s. h N j ]" i 4 ,,y p.).w.p.tnr,. m sa w m, w y,. , ::.% y, ; :',,,';,p;'. m.;t. 9, [ I,W j l 7,. y r +,, J., t. : y ) q _',,,,, g-y(*= c.,*4. q y : i l -f- .' n. f - m 1 j f.., y ..f i,l. 'a,.j I '. $] %,e -y 7 m 1 ~*?, 19 f-;. ', %f ' i / s ',[ . j.~u ..,'4 ,, },. 2 g, s j / w y -., s .% i ;, ~'* l '.\\ ;,i *' '.. o [. s
~
' a v; t ~.- - - m.. _ _. m. ' - ; v 1 g k 4 j 1' N ( me i ya 4 t d l 3 J ..[ ? s
, g. w,.,.v.u,y
!- Q

e.i' K' r.,.
~~, e 3 gQt* 3 t.Q ! ' ' ' M # m -y,y',c.1 W @:.@mg 1 ) s ...' ?.~~
~~n w ' o.,,.%,.<~~; : y &..n :~, '.'~~
~~c ~ %'i' ._ r J a n ' ' n , f,. Fbr the reasons explained below, we affirm the Licensing Board's decision~~
~~s., N N : "-~~
t j; y mm.j, S.,.S with respect to most of contention 1, but reverse its admission of contentions 2 ,n. --w.,cgy m, o and 3. 4 - l ' :.. +. " 9.p % A,', c. %,. L SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING (C0 STENT 10N 1) ,p ~" %_. i. -. '. <w ;-( A,,. e + N' 'El f NECNP's proposed contention 3 stated that applicant's proposed operating 'M i - g, license amendment authorizing spent fuel pool expansion should be denied e5 .4 J.; because it violates the single failure criterion.3 The basis for the contention ,m .t '... X..-vl7- . p~, was NECNP's concern that, due to the added heat load to the pool following ..,Z :. : r '.,.. n. 1,.. -9.: M t. a normal spent fuel discharge, one train of the reactor's residual hea; removal [i M I N. @[ (fed S 3 % ( $8.SFS! (RHR) system is to be used to supplement the spent fuel pool cooling system and . i.4I}l$ih to keep the pool water temperature within the design limit of 150aF. According 4. B,... h.. Q,. W,W 1.. 3. %,., : to NECNP, applicant has not established that this method of pool cooling ensures s o v.m. p.,qc.., wy.. We W that both the pool cooling system and the RHR system are single failure proof. In , q > c. i T* N M," admitting this contention, the Lkensing Board renumbered it "contention 1" and .X. i' -. k 3: d. :s r ',, a-s.s ..y 4 rga. Mtm recast it as follows: w. m m,.s u' n. s;r s.? - ', j* ; < ,s ". pi '.p;;; e y_ O The spert fuel pool expension amerdment should be denied because, thrce:gh the p>N.f2 [ ^ N necessary to use one train of the reactor's residual heat remon! systen (R10t) in addith ~' '. [.6 7 1 to the spera fuel cooling system in order to maintain the pool waaer within the regulatory l i ,s . o.Z '. @ ;; limits or 140'F, the single. failure criteri<m as set fonh in the General Design Criteria, armt . l%
~~4. < y,,. '~~
3, - f @ y,..; po,ucularly criurion 44, win be v w The Amticant h.s not estahtished that its poposed 'i .g -y mahod of spera fuel pod cooling snsures that bah the fuel pool cooling synarn and the rucsor coouns systern are sinsle-f* Dure proof. A .o .W LEP 8717,25 NRC at 864.3 See generally id, at 847 51. ' J. ~,cn, Applicant raises three objections to the Board's admission of contention -u; J
~~1. First, it argues that the doctrines of repose (res judicata and collateral estoppd)~~
- y ' ',,..Q - bar the litigation of this issue. Applicant notes that NECNP was a party to o L-T. N an earlier (1977) spent fuel pool expansion proceeding involving the Vermont '?i 7, Yankee facility. See LBP 77 54,6 NRC 436 (1977), af'd sub nom. Northern 2 J y.e~- States Power Co. (Prmrie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), - c k ; 't
~~~.~~~
~~r - r .--l[ brhs Carumasien's regulations denne *magle fa3ust* as f 's*' ~ ', .y ...; tS en oomsvese didi rumahs k ths kas d +=p ha=y of a omnpanars w perfann he intanded safay I s y 6? y, s - -~~
s.
t, - s functient Whiple faunis resulung frae a mat s escurrence are screidsred to to a segle facurs Phd i - f~. 3, and electric synens are canadered to be der.gned against as namened seele fading if mather (1) a segla .?. .i imahus of any active canpeners (ass unmg peasrve omeponens haisten prayerty) nor (2) a sogle fa0ure p (.M f d a pesave , ------ (maaning acuve eenycneus funciaan propertyk resuhs in a kas of the capatmLay u , j h. ' d the syman to perfonn ha safay f.anctacsit (
~~n' 10 CAR. Paa so, ApperAn A,'Duf.aitions and Esplanaumss"(footnois waned). For a dancuamen d scave and l~~
O.N.' D,' - pesave omnpanana, see @e acne 12. . '. 1.,. u N ' :. M /,@ N... ',", ; Da 8'" saa==aas.a *d'rusad sad sownnan ty ihe uc.nseg so.d, aia in App.4 A, along mm a 4.'y $.i.. '.f.7... 'j%.. the.; - - tien didt disy are derrved see #w pp. ss 40. ,t h [ ' j M6 "'4, %p[*g, ' i,, 6
~~' _g '.., c.~~
~~U g*.g 7, t. %' 1~~

~~Q'*';'} )*jf\\ hej k'hy y ae' s;^sf ;i~f ~. Q Q~ r z;*y?Q ;y., '~~
~~20 n,. - rw:,l*.wA.~~
~~1..,~~
~~,r p,~~
~~l a, f,., s ' r ';,, 5 '[.. ,E ?' q. ~,~~
/
~~I t 1 ---..~.,-.-r-.. . m.- --- :- E a 8 e s., \\ I t~~
~~e i~~
l w ,~.4 l ",q_ s i q . i < s.7 +~ '~ '
4 - .._ _... ~ a. a.; ' _ ; . a.;. _ F f & &.% f,Q.Q.Q i yi t.. : V.'gf 9;., -, \\< ,y4 x !. (.. : ~. g. , a..,. ',, q m. - g..- v p.-( s J' r
~~c. y,,~~
~~o s ~ l l, s ....%,c $ 'd %. f ALAB 455,7 NRC 41 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota cr;,g q ce #~~
~~v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.1979). Applicant argnes that the issue of the L'~~
use of the RilR system to augment spent fuel pool cooling was "available for C'# R;.. litigadon" at that dme. Brief of Applicant Gune 10,1987) at 14. Citing the s D Y M f'((i r 7 staff's 1977 safety evaluauon, applicant asserts that everyone had notice of the i T'. ;; e c, cooling augmentation and that no limit was placed on the frequency will} which s. the RHR system could be used for this purpose. Id. at 1518. As applicant sees YJ it, e '; t. - a . %. P,E.s.9.L Q ~ s I
~~,./,[D e (t]he terrower questian of how many times (it) should be allowed to call on the RitR System n*y ' l. ;-~~
~~l$ g X to augment spers fuel pool cooling h destly encompassed in the issue of whosher lit) should + g,1..,3'W -%c %.~~
~~7?j,i.~~
~~e n m m ;;e - ' ;L - '% l be allowed to do so at all. His being the case. the doctrines of repose apply. 4 %.MXN ;,.4 ?.:9.,, y v.%. c.3m O -. 4 f~~
~~j; & 'n W Q..Vj,1' N f$~~
We disagree. As the Licensing Board points out, the record of the 1977 id. at 18. rw ; 7,7. g;pgfi. N proceeding clearly shows that, at that tirne, the RHR system was to be used 9 # y3..p.S,Q, only in an emergency as a backup or following a full core offload - an event q + c D, : ye li! " ", that may happen only a few times during the life of a plant. LBP 8717,25 p: c ' 3,.. : T NRC at 848. 'There is no mention of any more routine use of the RMR system , c,. fit;;f +N 'A '_ - ' to augment cooling of the spent fuel pool. See Letter from D.E. Vandenburgh i (Vermont Yankee Vice President) to NRC (November 5,1976), Enclosuro 2 f' W at 3,6; NRC Safety Evaluation (June 10,1977) at 4; NRC Safety Evaluation, A.; i !. Supplement No.1 Gune 20,1977), at 12' L. In contrast, the instant application contemplates more frequent, non-emer-gency usa of the RHR system for pool cooling during every fuel offload (i.e., _g i 7. the one th,'rd of the fuel routinely removed every 12 to 18 months). Sc6 letter CJ from R.W. Capstick (Vermont Yankee Licensing Engineer) to NRC (November . T . w q'$7 ',; 24, 1986). Enclosure 1 [hcreinafter "November 1986 Letter"), Responses to .-o
~~)-.','~~
Questions 13,17,18.4 As the sts/f explains, a normal one third core discharge, 1 f ', 5 l J l where the poot is filled, is the worst case for removing the heat load in the M Q,: pool.s According to the staff's, calculations, using both trains of the spent fuel , cc - pool cooling system is inadequate to perform this function at the initial decay .,f heat generation rate. As a result, one train of the RHR system (which has i a much greater heat removal capability) would be necessary for at least 68 .g ,6 J' days. At that time, the de'ay heat rate will have dissipated such that one train 3.f. l v. o s 1, L . 6- ' Agylasess does act disp.no m 1=daad is appesos.ly has base selyvsg en RRR swnerMan d spes fuel ~ ' +' ~. $' T r f pool emahng for namme dRoeds for emme suns 6 see To ss. 59. 41. we how na ihn avff to decide whsiher appl. case has theseby violata/ the isras d ha enkne Eemise er eey Ccsanuss as seq daeans. The saff has u. - siready requemed and apparwaly otsamed a ps't=ad d6ange in appbcers's induacal spec.Scatume to a4beas this ~ -:3y,. n summa ansaiast see Laner fran wanen P. Wrphy (verinen Yankee Vice Prendes and Manager et operskrs) i r.- q.y v.y c,
~~x L~~
l4 to NRC Quns 11.19s7h FRC Staft's Best Gune 2s.19s7) at s. 9. " a W4.A'I ;;.g;9 fre -.i thmins e fuD esse etstad, ahhaugh ihe pool hans had wedd be premer, en fuel woud runne ne se rescice .$ w. 8 fg i. .Q.' ' 77, ;*d ' pp q '." ggg'fMr9 ' vened awi omas the RHR syman sould be enese nedJy sw3able to emai 6e peat rilM,[.( U,I ,,;,.'; %. p:)a,
~~e i eq.*p'Q -?> y ..~~
~~s.:,~~
~~vf r.~~
~~.:o e. ^ '.,N '*f~~
n.
.rs ? 9t, e,w : 1 7.i. ' p,.i n, ' j l .*.V,.,i.*(.o '.* (u n c h l . ~. .w i. 'N . I ,.7 7 .I g I a " T g 4 4 -4* w ( T ,N, D, p t $N r ("..,"$ .. g U i" r ( s 'e j 6
. ~...;....~-- a -. -.-.~. B~-.- v -
~~:-~.. -- ~~~
Wy.......s,.t e,.~.,... ~-., ~. m.:m.c-. m,g >x.U'w. :,w, ; M 4m'm,y.9 .w. .e z M .. m'p. a s,w\\.:. > w .y 3 (,r -n, A:nxo ., i. ? ; a - - a.... m. cr. [,t *. - M ; ?.O,. $ - e g;l *.. m. \\ 4 YMWlp.gj.y{. of the sp(nt fuel pool cooling system would be sufficient, with the remaining i l'- . RY-' 4"'. 'y spent fuel pool train kept in reserve. During the 68. day period, houver, the
~~'? E ~~~
..,j' A ~~, i remaining RHR train v.Vuld be needed to remove decay heat from the shutdown Mg..,[, f,7 f ', '. ~ '. ~ d '.YiWD-j.'f 'JjR d'N reactor. Although the staff acknowledges that limited use of the RHR system is currently authorized, the increased heat load associated with the requested
~~.g ;X xy, ~.~~
~~v. amendment (approximately 10 to 15 percent)' exacerbates the situation and has s>,~~
~~C e ;~~
q "focused the Staff's attention on the need to explicitly assure the availability , 'l. G f,- [ ' ' * - ' of supplemental cooling capacity for the spent fuel pool." NRC Staff's Brief, 7fMV ^ %v f.y;7 mpra no;2 4, Appendix C (Affidavit of John N. Ridgely) [ hereinafter "Ridgely k).g Affidavil") at 13.' Thus, not only does NECNP believe that a grant of the u v.y g g-o-)N M '[ "$ M'; W W,? ' 4. 1 requested amendment will mean a different and greater use of the RRR system a..> y. w .q.c_. e..;m.eg.u foe fuel pool cooling than was contemplated and authorized by the 1977 license . c. x. .cfN q;QGW M D:jg!'M,*0. g,@p, Q p.g., _g db-I JJ circumstance in which the RHR system will be used - not just the frequency g amendment, but the NRC staff does as well. Moreover, it is the additional W j.g 9 J. M ^ 3 l 0; g g ; @ ;' (: of its use - that is pertinent here to the increased heat load attributab!c to 7 the proposed expanded pool capacity. See NRC Saff's Brief at 11. Applicant is , b ' 'E QSM.Q{M therefore incorrxt in its view that there was a fair opportunity in 1977 to litigate ,.N-34, P. .f - the issue of RHR augmentation of pool cooling for other than an emergency or A S. full core offload condition and that this issue was subsumed in those addressed - S.f;' ~"6-previously.' Consequently, the doctrtnes of repose simply do not apply. See C Carolina Power and Upht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) Al.AB. 837,23 NRC 525,536 37 (1986) C(t]he issue to be precluded... must be ~ %. J 'S...9: - the same as that involved in the prior proceeding and... must have been ~ actually raised, litigated, and adjudged. Additionally, the issue must have been ' ~- " material and relevant to the disposition of the first action, so that its resolution 7 .y:; was necessary to the outcome of the earher proceeding."). E'u .p, Applicant next argues that the single failure critenon, on which contention 1 f, is premised, does not apply to spent fuel pools. According to applicant, General i ir M Design Criterion (ODC) 61 is the only GDC c!cariy applicable to spent fuel pools ~ ' 'y V ^. e ' and relevant to NECNP's contention, and it does not impose the single failure .. f
~~: K, y~~
.. Q LT " 'ne opphses seeks per-to increans Vermars Yankee's spas fuel pool cap cuy trarn 2mo is 2s70 fuel e l 3p-amenhtee by rereding - Lt. replacmg the presars spes fuel mes wuh new rods $at a3ow sloser spaang at iL me fust assenhhes. ( :7. ~ ' (' S ' ' 7 The matr asemaene fe he diengs in possunn en earnemmet I teee apes p 19) by sapt.aa:ng man its *rvyww j 0 ;. et es amendenes opphsetice wee met earre ew* et ee arne er de tuenems aast's senahretie of on n m i ^ c 1 commaa. Rmagely Afr.devis et s. when me matr's renes of a mener is nos eenrelene, a ehmand say no and adwse , f: 7" es bened and panaes se eham a ressembly especes se eenpiene est senee. Takes na trume3y uneg.avocal p~,d>g.'.y - fe== m a largely enevnewed maner - es the staff did here (see NRC staff Repees to Ccesernans (Agni ~ Is.1967) et 15-19; Tr. 67 71. 7s-76) - is unfas is a hcmans besse and she aiher partaes and is surely ~ j ', ._m_ yf;.y' e' O t. ': y i ;f,&Q{gf'g ^ _ '. (tr. 78) then. had k emenpied in 1977 is tingste the use of the a1Ut systen far spes fuel comung in asher tan .. W n "m, >NJ. ,g aJ -f.R ~;g m q-p':q as energewy er futt sure ed8ose suustie. the agylacasa omad have vtges,aly and escoassfuny apreseJ sach a ",s 3 a cemenen as beyond on ocepe er un ticarse emmenes esa si tema g - *
~~g. p. ; <. g. 1 n w 1~~
~~',.l '.:n*., ' C ;[Q' ' U.d -- E e." ' h,~~
~~e '~~
~~y. " ' ;, A.i S+;? *y MWi;\\; . m - )i .--a m.s L. 1 j .m m.m.n 22 e q. u y.,. 4. v e g', I' .T n jqr.m : \\ ~~~
~~1a '-~~
~~Gl u.-, g.. eg Ag. 'A-[ ) 4. s~~
~~,.9*_~~
~~~ 4 .I\\ 4 r. 3 _ - -- \\ 1 m } t 4. D J. -4*, s 9*, T g~~
~~/...~~
< ~, '. ~., s aw-a m 1
.m s.,. w.x '.<*. j Q G'M i.' "gN./
~~t. 2y :(~~
. J'. 7 v m <- ?'. f 3 F.* -- t ,y 2 ' X; a s-(l v i ,u m. pw ,9 ,3 - 3 > ~ h f.,...,:,c s s, : 7; . ~t u ,...%..i/ C. \\ ~V criterion.' Applicant acknowledges that, under the current Standard Review Plan N:xj[y;jlW. ' b p.. ( for spent fuel pool cooling, the staff applies ODC 44 as well.See NUREG 0800, ^
l~
3). M .A "Standard Review Plan," 19,13 (Rev.1. July 1981) [ hereinafter "SRP"]. at ' ]'i s i, y.Ng%,f L ".6 ~ contends that, because ODC 61 specifically applies to spent fuel pools and ODC 9.13 4 to 9.13 5,9.1.310.8 ODC 44 requires the safety function of a cooling 1 ,OSS... f.s water system to be accomplished assuming a single failure." Applicant, however, ' f '%1' N: 7,' QJ'g. l ].; C '.h 44 only penalns generally to "I'luid Systems," the former governs here, to the ?~ 'm's .c ? exclusion of the latter. But even if ODC 44 does apply to spcnt fuel pools, I r M Q N'1,. -l applicut continues, NECNP's contention concerns only the failure of "passive .Q., %.f. f: T'( ' ;;f j components," and the Commission's regulations do not now apply GDC 44 to r ff y 'M W 5 e ' Tj/ - ' Observing that a spent fuel gool cooling system is a "Fluid System," the staff 'U,Dv .j fiF.O M. such components. Brief of Applicant at 19 20 n @M N'@t M p W M'D sigues that both ODC 61 and 44 apply here, and that the latter just "places more Qd }'s.( $'7 stringent design criteria on the spent fuel pool cooling system." NRC Sta(f's ]'g N c.s @M [ D T ..r,qyg, ' Brief at 12. 'Ihe staff believes these two criteria are therefore consistent, rather n yM/G. (..((kM diJ than mutually exclusive, as applicant contends. INd. NECNP similarly argues a % 0. G p,y,.Q that more than one criterion may apply. Brief of the New England Coalition on '4. ;, y, N'y* V ]M cp: Nuclear Pollution (July 1,1987) (hereinafter "NECNP Brief"] at 5. l ',. 's. 2 e 'Ihe I icensing Board took note of "the differences in opinion as t, whether / ~ (.h<'c.) N;S'y the single failure criterion is or should be applicable, either through. gulatory c o requirement or Staff guidance" and determined that it could therefon not rule
~~1 out NECNP's contention on legal grounds. LBP 8717,25 NRC at 850. In our a~~
~ :c ','. y ^,] view, the Board took the proper course. We agree with NECNP that, in the s . j ~ E M 'oDC 61 meses, se gerunes. , ~ -f ') rolasersee and henaes and redesen.wy eenemt be fuel surice and handles riecocaw woma, and aber eyes =e which may oornam reaanetvay sha:1 be denened is assa s adepone safmy unde samal '. .? s 1 .,s and peandaiad acenJers erywhuena. Does sysene shs3 be deegned.. wuh a meAal best remon) .4 W,_ sapetnhay having reLabdity and iseubday ibat moests the unpersance se ufay of decay heat and enhw ~ 3. nsAal host surnows!.... Qr ] 10 C.FA Paa so, Appewha A.Catenaa 41. aA IIo% e.er. sars a,e nes res,asome a.< u,,uer. ai a s.e #e.me n. 2*- s _ h 'j DC 44 maiss: ) coe&ag i,eser. A synern ne transfer heet (nun arwaures, symems, and carnpaneras irrgertare to ufety. to en alurans heat ank As3 be primdsA De symen enfay funcean shs3 be is trarsfer te emnb6ned hast kind d thens structures, eyame.s. and tempmene under essmal opersteg and occiders emeucr* satable reAmdancy la corrge.orse and feannes, and sainble traerconneraans, less h-i. and 4 lecteumi capet6sies chan he granded is sasse est fe ersas e&actris power eye me garsman (ass.rrura stfene poos le mis avsCabie) and te efaio elessne pweer rymme openWa (assenmg ensue power is f' .9i 'ff, mes aveJable) the ayswa safsy fLecuca sea be accom,Lesud, asemang e ant e faihueL 7i" l i j C.FA Paa 50, Argentis A. Casanan 44. l e ~^
~~As acon campeers requine nieAerocal movenes is perform iis estoy funcoen, wheses a poemw ecevganes~~
.J ?" g. j dcas em. Laeksee bue a w.ve sien is as stampde of a peserve eengesse faQure. Idag Jaimed Ughang 3' Co. (Shareharn Nucht Power stawa, Uma 1). ALAB.788,20 NRC 1102,1864 nJss 0964). ns Conveninsumes I regulaticms mais: ) ', [ . p $d. J.e T ' E... ;.,. 10 C.FA Pan so. Appendia A a.a j he emieuens under whxh a e*6 e fe0Lse d a poems sampcmest in s Ridd synen ahmad be seneidered 1 t, L. T s.. w.' <>',s ? in despeg to synera a6ames e omsle f s%re ase ander develeguesa. $ M,, ' %.3 E b-J} h,,'(7 W . rw. m. S.e ?:w:M n .y w. m. 1 1 .::. o.% ;.:.,.,. u v .m L * . f. 1 ; i,.<; s. J Q (,'C h, .m n. .s m ' D,4 !:f ):'[, gf.y(E,. ~ 9 23 ^ .,h. 9 -'E .'.'1, j
~~:.9[, %. f..~~
~~j ,s.. -1 '.,,S. ,fy.. .';g I i e i $w en *egewin.wmpur p +gr um=w es -,-**-***A***~ "**-*.*-.'"-*"ma"*****"'* *f*** "/ *. ' " "~~
v
~~.'y, I f~~
/
A A ., a y' P' (,, . a..tJs ;; a i ,.y. ~ 19'.
i c-y+, MQ,.., .,pty 49 Qhf'{y' - n,,.,.., w - . >. ~,,.... n ' s...%-..n y.y x.- c ~ w,c ;. 3,, d * 's c'm ,n> y. ; a. n.p. v4 a 4 'x y,,, h !(, A, n ',',,.4 circumstances here, the applicability of the single failure criterion is a "merits, o "U-9 "<c W not a threshold, issue." NECNP Brief at 6. See Houston Lighting and Power 5 J-Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Oenerating Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB.590,11 NRC 542, W c ', . m )',/C{M,v.: : the contendon has basis and spectScity, as required by 10 C.F.R.12.714(b), L d f,. 547 49 (1980) (at contention admission stage, boards should determine only if s y:A _ n,,-, 25,1987) at 4. The merits nature of the dispute at this stage is evident in the U e-w..e, y ,. 1,[ ]. f6 'q.S ~ ~ and should not reach the merits). See also Brief of the Commonwealth (Junc 'Lr disagreement between applicant, on the one hand, and the staff and NECNP, e ' ' + %~jfgfF as guidance, rather than a regulatory requirement,58 and the staff's developing 7m' on the other, as to which ODCO) may apply. Mofeover, the status of the SRP - a
~~4.. A %.;N.l ^~~
position o, the ap6fcability of the single failure criterion to passive components . ;hF of a fluid system (see sdpra note 12) provide added support for the admission 1, @.We'O.d'. g,y p 1 g, - l,d.y @.~ 'M'hy'! s of the contentloti now and the resolution of its meriu later, following at least s . x nf f ; R: discovery and possibly hearing.t* _ Xs7;W'. Q'".% l^i y/ Applicant's anal argument with regard to contention 1 is that the Licensing 9 W -;91 n :.ed dy? 4 w Board has sua sponte injected a new issue into the contention (a temperature i m.EstT., M'/c' limit of 140*F), without complying with the appropriate Commission rules. Brief ~ s 70 7., ^ W.,j of Applicant at 20 21. On this score, we agree with applicant. 4, ' i.;,1. ~ :, w, W NECNP's original contention 3 referred to Vermont Yankee's existing design
~~?),~~
ei, limits for pool water of 150'F.See Appendix A, infra p. 35. The Licensing Board 4 ^ ' noted that, although that temperature (1507) was used in the 1977 evaluation of the pool, the current SRP, "which was adopted in 1981, provides that pool .r water temperature be kept to 140*F, except in the event of ' abnormal heat ~ load.'" LBP.8717, 25 NRC at 850 51. The Board thus decided that 140*F is
~~e the applicabic temperature,"unless the Applicant can demonstrate why some A'i othee temperature should be controlling." /d. st 851,~~
~~~ What the proper temperature limit for the pool should be is an issue unto 1,~~
~~fa.~~
itself.is NECNP or another intervenor might well have attempted to raise this .o t. .v 58 oDCs and enhar seguledme ernhedy muumma recurwesses. sRP prevunans. *segulmery guess," and $e the s e8'er aetf gedense en how replewy repuunans ces be me. Apphsmus.however, may desi.mseeas that asher ',Q.*- encens na spesa6ed la the maff guidense wdl essenphab due sesas genia. Ceaseensee Pener Co. (sig Red Poess Neder Plas). AtAa.72s.17 bltC S42, s47 n?. He slo (IMn l'la edanan, summmen 1 esserts that because ens nun of the Mut wd1 to needed is osynes the spurs fuel ^' pool cadmg syneun, applisms has she faded to dummante samphanse wah the segne faaure asuenan es it apphes to the une d the lutR for senas cose oeulant The LJcesanas naasd una sapecu the parass is emplose the pend fe a sedundam E!Dt syneen for decay heat removal puyanas &aneg penede d ceLd abidown... as pen d @ms : -1"1AP.s117,2s hE et ss0. Apen free the more ganarsi arpment eat kngstum of $a ~. -t ' use of the RHR synssa is tarved by the decianas er repee - en arpunes we have npaad - asyhces dass 'v am nowm'lange des aspea.of emmennse 1. 15 ..,a 2 The staf arpen that $e *tadiperesse differuse... dass ne go to the adunance d {the eaamaan), but affects .J how that emmessaan ahead be esahiaies" h11C staft's anaf et 7. k thus beheves $st the : _ es rewanen t '~ i _ v'. by ihe aoard fauty enrectanaes NEch7s Cassersaan s."14 at s. The focus of the arssmal earmenan, hoevve. g .'- ] ', .] was on wheiher es svigle fashue catenas is violated; that verman araply aseened that me inngernaue knut for , c w - Q.x,,'s @ms paat.es 150'. and it did nos semeed aar is ab dd 6e b
~~a. su Appenda A. see p. ss. We emofon i~~
's... t f,. ' :. despos esh es safr that the neard ad aan add any9ang of sabaiance is me earnesamt We aise daagree wuh ~ se stafr's nataan eat the aunhed of evshaneng e emusuma and to issus k mass - to, iba daarinaneman of i' ,-U. ;.t 'f{Q- 'f : e. Y. ly 'Q., %, ' [.'lp (C*ene=*4 .1 T# .14.,,h, i , / 'i $.,j, b% ) }f, f M l'.. ' MW l. .^ 1 4, g;T m, $ '-) O..,*,.. r* l.*. ff ~. m
12
~~' 7.. nx. s.,*,y i - 4 ,,sn;=. 1~~
~~+*,i.,~~
~~b=('e' '. 4 ] 4.. - i~~
\\
+ f =. j i t.,.-_.._ 1 - r .l-l t s. i 4 g-J. ~; -, *" i ,v [ p." g \\ A t t e
p.a; %.c.,A.,0 4 ..c~;,. m.
~~, r pq.,-~~
~~y u V ,e :;..N.a .s, .%~ ..c: .m .(.~~
~~},'~~
~~yf. s- ?.l .r~~
~~.u p., l. u, a....~~
<a ,,-m,, f ~s' . h, as an issue but did not. The Licensing Board has thus sua sponte added this '9' C. ' db E 9.;. ' ,w- . 1 otherwise uncontested issue to the proceeding. The Commission's regulations 's~.. df. - i t j permit boards in operating license proceedings to examine and decide "[m]atters ls T, % 'j + .k ) not put into controversy by the parties " but only after a determinadon that "a .l serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists." 10 ,., 7. : y. ' 9 t, 1 C.F.R. l.2.760s. Whether this regulation authorizes a board to raise such an 'vy y p. 7 j 2 .j issue sua sponte in an operating license amendment proceeding is r x clear. See, '4 e.g.,44 Fed. Reg. 67,088 (1979); Consolidated Edison Co. of N w York (Indian q ,bi;'~9/- .j Point Nuclear Oenerating Unit 3), CLI.74 28,8 AEC 7 (1974)." In any event, .q, p a board invoking its section 2.760s sua sponte authority must set forth such M: ; 3 ;. M 8 a determination "in a separate order which makes the requisite findings and ' J..," 9, f /.. l. J,,,j, gj F.., 4Pc..j g h y; - brief./ states the reasons for raising the issue." Tc. ras Utilities Generating .g Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elcetric Station, Units I and 2), CLI 8124,14 d?' 7.gj.
~~9;-,~~
- e ft @ 'w..a$ N S [ % :'1 i. NRC 614,615 (1981). The Commission itself then reviews the determination , h. 7,. and decides if the sua sponte issue should remain in the proceeding. See Id., CLI-v.Ili) 7 ' ' i,.l K.. QT y?(;L 8136,14 NRC 1111 (l981). See also Houston Llghting and Power Co. (South y#. yg Texas Project, Unhs I and 2), LBP 8154,14 NRC 918,922 23 & n,4 (1981). s j
~~W The Liceming Board here has failed to comply with these Commission~~
~~' 3 (R 1 requirements." We therefore strike the Board's reference in contention I to s~~
/
X the "regulatory limits of 140'F" and substitute "design limits of ISO'F' from .j NECNP's original contention 3." Otherwise, we af6tm the Board's admission z. . }l l of the contention, as rewritten. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (CONTENTIONS 2 AND 3) i j ,M " .I e ~ ~ i, { Before addressing the part es' substantive arguments concerning the Licens. i .Q, j ing Board's admission of contentions 2 and 3, a procedural quesdon commands 4 4 1 7, 1 i A sta regulaiary mandard should only -is nce a maner of autmance. Indeed, esperois estarums $a chatees
,Jj' ihe aphcanon d a perucular regulainy mandard er guado are efien adenamed is e penr== Ant and ceas swsus be sad to be lad.eg is edstanca M Aphcara doe nas argue, however. $at neards es not have sus spese aushanty in smedmera psoceradess. see fg; Bnef of Apydacers et J)21.
U We thus rejeca SICN'P's bnet argwners sei is was "onely wen wuhan es Board's d.acusaan to make $e 'a inmass (tenparature) changs? h1CNP Bnet ai 6. v 'n d ow daarounsiaan la ihas regard, benever is wuhcnas pojitase is any effen ihe tJeanses B<mrd musha undertake i
~~A J':[,d,~~
^ -e la caripy wuh the l' ~'s sua spene rulet J We nosa, homever. that the Boasd semamed inconectly that ibe maff's sRP d.d acs adgt 140'F as she isTersnue r.,,a hms fce spera fuel pools urna $e 1981 smsian of 5 9.1.s. see 13P-8717. :s h1tC at ss4st; Tr. 7s-M. la
~~t. tf fact. $s sRr in efect at the tuns d the 1977 peal espannon piocamerts also pronded fe a pend ternperonare~~
.- ? <, of 140*F. Jee h11 leo-75/087, sRP,6 9.1J, at 9.1.s s. It is therefoes aca eviders is us why er when Verman t ' - s , g ;,. R. e C. " Yankes's na*.nacal speenAcataca of Is0'F =as oppwred. Indeed, the contwaan messuaes. See. e 34 hover *er L ~.; c 1964 taaer. Quesna 17 and Resporos We emefase espect that triespectie d sheer se ticenseg Based l W,, * '. > 9 ? > 7. A y Q ~ ' *' staan anerngas is rease dLs issue sua sparna. the r.afr osu fa!5D as neposamhry and nordvs this 4.aczepancy. see _ / ;f/f. ssq - wpm;g .1 7,, y, ft},' /,,tiW O E ~',' (.' ~l%.'i. ;Y ', '-! ":.9 Q% i s

~~d.j. : wg; e.y^^~~
~~c .'h'.. g a s~~
~~. M E '.~~
~~Q*; e.y 3 ^~~
~~L ;h [';~~
~~\\ ~~~
~~l..~~
a
~~n e r. ;~~
~~a-a' j L--.-....~- . -... ~., .. -, ~,. -.,, _ .r; i s l l -f+ r I l...m l~~
~~r"s.~~
T s C I 12 1
~ m yr,4 u 1. am,, m u.c. u %..,.e.am sv.W. 2.%&....A, i y w i ^
% '. q %, f,

.x;

.c w y y; 7
~~. n. : v s ~,,. 3. '~~
~~I,,, -~~
~~+ [ f. 32 /,~~
~~f. p m.'#,e 66.,&@g.:~~
,g %c. 6 our anention. 'the stafi suggests that, once we have fourid one contention admis- ] 'jy i. W ' V. j sible, consideration of the others is "not contemplated by 10 CSA 12.714a."It ) A s d nonetheless urges us, "(1]n the interest of judicial economy," to consider and i ' ' G.. '.' / - reverse the Board's admission of contendons 2 and L NRC Staff's Brief at y: 'l ',j p i c '
19. Neithee the applicant nor the intervenors express any views on this matter.

4.,, D fN. p We agree with the staff that the situation presented here is not explicidy
~~-.s.- 4 3/~~
~~L '- ' '~~
contemplated by rection 2.714a. That provision contains a limited excep00n q .A cyj L ' '. to the general rule prohibiting interlocutory appeals. A petitioner may appeal C.:.'m s W J, T a board ruling that denies the entirety of its petidon to intervene or for a d hearing.10 CEA { 2.714a(b). So too, a party other than such petidoner (usually ' ' Kpf MM m - 3 N MI Zgy*ig.:y& an applicant) may appeal a board ruling granting imervention or a hearing. r.f N
~~l. 3 on the issue of whether such request "should have been wholly denied," 10 F.:i$.0,@ Q;f$ [f' G YJ,'m.~~
m'i$ 1! Cf.R. 9 2.714a(c) (emphasis added) 'thus, an argument could be made slut, a J. M s @;M N y h"i /,'nti y in a section 2.714a(c) a@ cal, once one admissible contendon of a paticular D NgP;. " petitioner is found, the remainder of the appeal can be dismissed.
~~-- k_ '~~
y],,.y ; p.% W 40@ W?;g ',T. j.6 contentions, we might well conclude our review now, having faund most of in this case, at least as to applicant's objections to the admission of NECNP's '~ t j- - NA @,0 contention 1 admissible. Applicant's complaints, however, are s!so directed to the o.j lc n ,f,, - . p,, 77 m admission of the Cornmonwealth's contentions I and II. Although in admitting
~~.,, f.C C O,~~
these contentioris the 1.1 censing Board combined both of them with portions of w -- ' %w.. that applicant is nonetheless entitled to our,further consideration of its claim c .-s NECNP contendon 5 and renumbered them as contentions 2 and 3, we believe l 7 ; g l ^ , y, .,a J' d,at the Commonwealth's petidon "should have been wholly denied." We will j. . J 'D therefore also review the Licensing Board's decision insofar as it concerns the l admission of contendons 2 and 3. l. _.y# p Even if the unusual procedural posture of this case did not dictate our review l ,.. y.. ~ of the other contendons, however, the terms and spirit of secdon 2.714a as i jf interpreted by our cases over the years, are flexible enough to allow appen! lf
~~board 6 discretion in this regard." 7hc focus of 10 CSA $ 2.714a(c) is on~~
[G when and whether an order is "appealable" - an inquiry that takes pla:e ,5 at the dme the appeal is filed. Hence, our cases refer to the appellant's o m C "claim" or "complaint." Jee, e.g.. Long hland Lighting Co. (Shoreham NLs: lear ~ Power Station, Unit 1), A1.AB 861, 25 NRC 129,136 (1937); Duke Power f Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), A1.AB.687,16 NRC 460, j
~~p 1, 464(1982), rev'd in part, CL18319,17 NRC 1041 (1983). Nor does the~~
, g language of section 2.714a suggest that an order that is appealable at the _,a time an appeal is filed necessarily loses iu appealability once an admissible ,, ~. '!',*[' w' ' i' I ) . ts [ .V.*.T _y2[< 9 }', 1%' lays.aew hawy" of es sesqueA h. sheds no Qm a mis waar. k 17 Fed Ras. :s.710 0s72% ! ' ' '. ~t MF M .) 4'.f: ,s .'AQQ,y .q ^9 );;. s t;;y es Fed. aes.17.7ts 097:1 b k.'a._,f N w'- n - :
~~b. o. -~~
)b
~~..t~~
~~. N N d ' p-l E' l, -Y' s j I ,. +cy - 7', f ~ ) %. t. s.4' r", E(-yr 1. i s. m t a x; J 7' l~~
e
~~. / s '~ e l .n ... ~ 9 I d e I l e s .t b l 4 F = t" i g 3 } t *, [ g-e_~~
s
-1
1., g. r.,... w ;n.. v.. s..,, ;, l = w.. .a w.;.2- ,..r t.a ;:. _..u ....a u.a.a =.... cc ~ m.n. d6$he..dhh;$p.GhM,..x j !sf ...w...m., a wy wc w
~~mps.~~
~~w geo~~
~~s. s y~~
~~n .s ' '...,,.j S h:m %g. w 9@.T+n.1 q,~~
~~st ',*.. \\m8-~~
~~.. ~~~
e' i 4 d4.1 tr # .v. M'. v $.?; 'e i;[,i,d]i contendon is found,88 lastead, past cases simply renect appeal boards' exercise l .m,. W M%fh[t.DE y 1 ] of discretion concerning the need and desirability of revnewing other contentions, [ .MiWWR V.y J1? i G' once one admissible contendon is found. Compare Missinippi fewr dad Utk I vv7'd@ %O W. n N. afp.M gi-~.L;, Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Uniu 1 and 2), A1.AB 130,6 AEC 423,424, G cff[M@.., g. n.w WS '. 426 n.9 (1973) (once board found that petitionee had at least one admissible ' y'd,% @ [N W [ M i % contention, there was no "need" to examine any othees) with Duquesne Ugk l id ., f.h m Co. (Beavce Valley Power Station, Unit No,1), ALAB.109,6 AEC 243,244, j ../M iRM. it $'i & n 3 (1973) (in appikant's appeal from licensing board admission of threc l 3 contentions, appeal board found two contentions admissible and expressed no l f M y N n
.

@. M.1 a, i 'i r
t.t. M., w s w g p M.N,W x view as to the third) Cf. l.oulslana power & Ug4 Co,(Waterford Steam Electric i[7G 9:f,a,e j;:L.V+' E r Station, Unit 3), ALAB.125,6 AEC 371, 373 (1973) (in lidervenor's section f .t8hhK'N 2.714a(b) appeal from a Ikensing board rejection of his ave contendons, appeal jim M W.@ k@M h @k,% IQ Q @w: d y. board examined and found admissible all Sve contendons),28 l TiMAM65? As we show below, this proceeding provides a particularly appropriate l k;DNNd,Nd[,UhfN opportunity for the exercise of our discretion to examine both of the remaining MN. contenuons admitted by the Licensing Board and challenged by appilcant b A.W:% M. W@i,p@:1 d: h Nj.f.:gl_ e.My on appeal, nat is, each ma**a'taa is inherently inadmissible. See generally i !d-M W@.% p+y. ra PAlladelpW4 Electric Co, (Peach Bottom Atomic Powce Siation, Units 2 and 3), @D 1y :u.v. l.D2.Y'g' kp. UN M ALAB 216,3 AEC 13,20 21. modVlad on o#Aer grounds CLI.74 32,8 AEC l 4
~~l. f y z.g g.q, gg7 (gg74) (one purpose of basis and speci8 city requirements for contentions m~~
3,... ' 3KplF:' A is to assure hearing process is not improperly invoked and issues raised are l $ ' ' y, U/v.. $'/g'Y Q C.,o appropriate for litigation in the particular proceeding). w n: n7 . s :,.. g....,w,m; f x a .= u .n ,..,. 4,, '. i ' p.< }t./ i A. Contention 2 i i , P ' 3.7 a4 Ng:. ',;l In its contention 5, NECNP complained broadly that me NRC has not ' s ;. : W. 2 p. 0:MdAJ ' ' complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9 (NEPA),42 , Q d ( x. S.(,Q, W. t U.S.C. I 4321, and the Commission's own environmental regulations,10 C.F.R. j c .,y
~~- g.~~
, s , - i Y, 4 \\N. t J.' f 'l '.,u',, ' x s, h?"*
g;

t j
~~s' u., $.(., c'* * !%.. y' y.* t s s sj 1 ',*<^3,* a ,. + s, [ 2 #, [= esameos hung shausent p . ; N', ',, y~~
~~gg ' ^-~~
si ?, c,' g la runs t/annse elessew Co. (Comanche peak suun s3esuu stamm,t!na l), A1.Aa-6dt 2$ NRC lis,91417 l 09t?), the bened saapuur eftremad es tassamme Beesd's etusam af a examesa e amadad funn De mapeur P -~"*\\ f,JJ.$> b, '-e' nr>>d,*. t else fened she, e e enamquaise of imaresise* eus hering me edumamble -.en easisar ens d appeals I s: l' ',4 t ' ff / f famn the adsnismen af to emarene as engineDy pueSmed "as Insgar Day) under 10 C.FA 61714e(c)? Det +
W

r A, V

$ '
e essa, howe =er, involved se pennbar Of nsa useque).- of 0) appenas (by appiness and me maff) [ ..c - _.i - 7 9%. t - ),? % F f== *e eensmam of a *=====. Inne=ed seme== by G)indse== defeat af eums appenas panamesega
~~e.R<J,,~~
of C - padames e en psuper eespe of such esammen,0) has=usse' esamenna of as ensnal ,,, [, ' 4, ' ' *., a t . h. '. sensen 2 en effest to essapiy widt he unemquess t*- padense, (4) I ta=='mg ausd edsnamnen of i h i.- M ' $,- : 1 to ameded a-and Q) e amend as of appenis abaBengas es eenassen et te samadad seemsust De ',, b .?'. a dasmus else assed that the enamel esmaman was assimed widna the ameded waan, Jd. et 939 a l. la se
~~%,.${.QJ[' '<lj?., JM s, WM* ALM? @;3 g;47.p~~
'.>,.) .%y;,...Q. ,y we emis believe est the mejsery eynes in Cameeres Fest een be viewed as yet esseher saample a'--===== y. .MfN %:c ',v, i et u appent tensd e enmass et emmena widi agesd ie to sesyn et he eennessman er e eenien 17:4e(c) ? . 6 ' f *' appenL . P e-9, f d ) *xh. Q l,Q^%d***,'4 .N * ' ; ; J pq: Q l n.it;t '"'gS3 y' +;O': .v,v, y; ?.. 421s?g ;-c ~ l t l 2, /,i(t.L * '% ,3 ' d o. ~..* a 7 VWsT'W % 's , nf //,=s%'4; ; *.; o g V d M.C, p;l'. }.n,u p. 7 W, $q-- ? G. 5,' , 4. t.C;m'@y,, e; c. -. l + -%I 3[ 27 l p W: .~ . ~ p;., l l,z y . i .m, g **-, is

~~4} g. m.~~
~~c...,%e,'*, '. ' +,,, s, i ja v ,g. .g*+ -*yy,4,- e d e,L o~~
~~> + f *r r&,, % -~~
~~ey 4 r ' es '.. ',s-- ' s,e, '.v . -v s W W g r a~~
n

g, g,', ? v e '..
~~.A ig, j 4< . s~~
+.

I s' '
gurukwegg.-en. eeepge s e M.- , erg,%eepsut amor g qp,*-p ager m qt -erea re * ** *e=**t'..* .e.s* 4e -5 e 4 4e p -. ~ .s i i 8 i*3.. 6 ,6 f, + I~_ s g. 4 -,h .s y D 2 P -am s, - + .,I + f'[ O.,*t^ , - w,, s e6 _(, [ 3 e,, - g, ,I s s ,1WF.A Q.M '. g,..~i ._ 7,;y a b I w a s' c. , ~ * ' j ' ? q m.,n. e ,;,w g p,...,, by ' 4/ 7 a f ; e '4*.'[..,.' '. 3*
7
~~9. ~ 5 e~~
'v' T-

3..
~~T+ )'~~
~~4f 4~~
~~.,.,a,', '~~
j (3 . *,,C 5.'k,.

h 3'A
~~~ E ',I ^ ' ' - (~~
~~$ <..g [ \\ E '~~
$ ', 4-N 1 ' *' 2# " W i l x::. M *: L Y
..;. -.. a & s--"~ ^*- - .*; L +s 1 '.k ; ...__-....o ....4-. 3 i sc .hh5[d, h..,<.j, ~Nn h*h h ,s ;. v r 4 ot.. e'. ,s' w, al < s, g ', y, j s $ *^ j d a,/ i., ,.'( ,,U ,c y.: e< .,m., p 4 W9qL ? Part St. De basis for the contendon essentially had two parts.28 As pertinent
~~f 'Gdd.f.'.:.~~
.C 't here, the first part referred to an accident scenario set forth primarily in NECNP y,J , - f~ ' Q-(, y% [L A contention 1 and supported by refrrences to several NRC staff studies. See New c 1, England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Board Order of February 4,{'. @ h c h;;.'[. [..,.d, 27, 1987: Statement of Cont'entions and Standing (March 30,1987) at 8 9,
~~.' l M~~
,,,x. a.. 2 4.u De Licensin Board summarized the accident as a combinatim of the ..c. ,:f;, y.4 y r following circumstances: c g>. . y , q." (t) tha sneer tikdihood of recure in the swm of an axidem of a os hterk I awx
~~. &~~~
.C_?N,,.c O[' 'g[. ccrealsenes (as is used a Venamt Yareee) as ecuarasted eith other duisns; G) the kretion t C Q f.Ct.Jci( N, p Z. d the pal in the renace building whidi is not designed u take severe scridem k.sds; --y ay:4,r f3,, M,c...:q o> ise f.a., a the pod or iu omles synan's to to duisn=1 u accomnwonie =h s []g.khMNM [Olh;.,3l 1h( *: c[h; severe accidcat loeds; (4) the pcesibuiry d hydrogen tenhage to the nector buddang in 2 /WZj 3 such an accideas, neuhang in hydrogen ddagratim and dam==w and (5) en inenue in Q M W. e{X;Tdy M Q f, J poiemial consequences d =ch an occideas by ** doucaea in de enount et fuel sered. yamc sN.M t p,ticut.rty hec or se inenued inwmory or cuiuin and uromaan. ..W.s ~,,g.gg,.y : m wn w s w m. gg. LBP 8717, 25 NRC at 845. The Board also noted that such a scenario is '. cm WW.pc.a;g u, g gjcM @p '
~~f~f. \\'p:/P M @'. 3?g' :~~
5* considered "clearly a 'beyond design basis accident.'" /d. at 846. In the first part pf; "J g.'i, (.C,;3'W" SiO;Ua. - proposed license amendment is a major federal action significantly affecting ci. of its basis for contention 5, NECNP claimed that, because of the substantially .g increased risk to the public health arid safety attributable to this scenario, the L "lr. -
7
~~, 'i ; - ;b,.-O, the quality of the environment, for which NEPA and 10 C.F.R. l 51.20 require ' " ' ', /i-an environmental impact statement (EIS). Commonwealth contention I did not .-M,f'Ma [-(.~~
s

N , W specifically refer to NEPA or the need for an EIS, but it set forth a similar y M 2 '7, accMent scenario. See Appendix A, i@a pp. 36-38. 7 . 1 4. ' he Licensing Board combined the EIS portion of NECNP contention 5 with 47 ..., s . '.N ~ Commonwealth contention I and redrafted and adri.itted them as contention 2: l- , q% c ;.e :. 7: m. '_t a - 9:4 -
~~N ^g - [~~
~~ne proposed anwnd would caere. shamion in,hkh em quences and risks l. i d a hypoiheslaed accadera (hydrogen drionetion in the resw building) would be gresiet l .s M~~
~~an those pnviously evalmand in connecia mis the Wrmcma Yanku namor, nis risk V~~
~~9.e is ruracias to constitme the prg.o.e4 amendmem u e en jee fed =*1 *ction sisniaiantly u' S. -~~
~~affeains the quality at the human envirwunent and =guiring pnpr tion and inn. nee at / ' *a an EnvirementalImpact $smomers prior to appovel of de amendmns. s~~
~~met LBP-8717, 25 NRC at SM. De Board initially determined that litigation of f~~
~~l ? p' l - U $,y 7{ this type of contention is permitted under the Commission's regulations (see j-3.. y J ,... ~ y 10 C.F.R. l51.104), ahhough it also noted that there have been no spent w ..4~~
p:
-4 i ' l ;g. '. A i , u y,*, 22 g g-, gg,,,,,g,g, gg,g pgygp,,,,,,,== s um use esposa, em er ob& ses M i y. 1 j,.;' .. N. ,..g as "- - - 2" and the seher as "emasonen s.* N peans er hTOiP emmenman s ihai is new emnersam s iM':J. ;X w h==-d see pp 32.s4. l p,. h C. hTOiP enGetsen t, obs he [dems:rg seerd pejened,if het hBWehed ip $ms appeak set t.aP-47+I7, ss w .. [ p, C *.
~~y;*.yv~~
~~%,-p./ p M. M y Q NRC si s44 e7. ' p.v / , g g, %w. q s.gs. g:MQ; '.. \\ K.,...;., i Q ;?Q y+,lg % _.. %,...,.s. \\es~~
~~e f~~
~~, y,p.,.~~
.v

,b., a.,
~~_.g~~
~~' [w.h t',,8',. ~.1 m. N l* 0, .'.'. n ;. f.$ &, a'..Y ~ - s . + - a 6, - 3 - i l,;. > v 1 . ' y l :. .; ;... z.~~
~~y.t,~~
~~w.,....-. ~ ,-e. -.-,*e.. e 9 F y l l -1 1 s l s. s - 9 i~~
~~y..~~
I ,,t,. +, _ , 4,o, s,, yx ,? y ..-;*e .,, L' 3..,, =J t w, i. ' *, s j ,. ', d 'm. = e
a %, a. 4, W..%@,W E..Ln.3.,e.. n.. y~ w y
~~.M@MrW,Q.*. -n%,11.p4 '.,c; w.;WCyd%y~~
.W M.,m . ( N. J0 ; 1 1 ...r.f,i.c.;w. m s" N 3.i ,a cc.,#..s.;,~.i..t,: .,W, u ..r s. o... ~ s :e .,m.., w < %. s a r ~. ~ D,.M@$'M i, #.?. i (Q[M., fm fuel pool expansion cases for which an EIS has been required. Id. at 853." M f
~~c,r. ~~~
~~.g. m .W-"' he Board cited Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuc! car Power A, s, M.$,,MO* l$< ['A : G.d~~
~~s,;~~
G Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 86-12, 24 NRC 1,12, rev'd on other grounds , c.~:.- sub nnm. &an Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th 3 ::,. : W: .MNM.n. 4 ; ..-i .m, m m e. 2 Cit.1986), in which the Commission stated that the need for an EIS in a M' Q gfygD.MM[5M. / ,2
~~.kNJRTsM Aqp.y 4 ;" : y spent fuel pool proceeding must be determined on a case by-case basis. He~~
/N Board also stressed the Commission's requirement that a petitioner who seeks <[M,%..l.7.My;w;?, ~ ~%~ l an EIS must allege some specific deficiency in the environmental evaluation W AMWM.C Q: or demonstrate sufficient knpacts to warrant an EIS. LBP-8717,25 NRC at
~~a. Vf M C;MW~~
. Mig - 853. The Board then ccaeluded that the accident scenarin described by NECNP s q,??[G..,h...MQO%W~DM ' ~95 5MNN:N and the Commonwealth provided the requisite specificity for an EIS contention ^? ?,: e 94. y demanded by Diablo Canyon. id. at 854. ,jMd hg.3 4 In addition, the Licensirg Board rejected the staff's argument that the ' %w t W h :. Q M i @@h N M b h 4M hMC Commission's "Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future N h. ": 'N,4FThet Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138, 32,144-45 (1985), bars litigation of this contention. De Board construed that policy as prohibiting only 1,P.Q'W>.,.M,'y.N,4.wd.. t J k s w :.. : ~ n<.ss s-. ..L :.. @, M. %pr the consideration of Control or mitigallon measures to Counter the effects of a . ~ X )I dj.h S N y @$ T V *)JM@Q severe (i.e., beyond design-basis) accident In the Board's view, this prohibition 2 Al "does not extend to the NEPA mandated consideration of the risks of such an <.%. Sl&v'J.MhW. *gg';M ' d.t yg l,gg.;. i accident." LBP 8717, 25 NRC at 854 55 (emphasis in original). The Board j q y,,g,,.. m.m,.Vg.; %.. y..,. .~.. .a, thus admitted the contention insofar as "it asserts that the particular accident .u: s .4 -, 3.y.... - M~T scenario set forth... represents an impact serious enough to warrant an EIS d, ;,,,..% j p. ' ' E d;i to discuss its risk."Id. at 855. According to the Board, that discussion of risk ge v. 3;g. would be pursuant to the Commission's Interim Policy on "Nuclear Power Plant ,p . a "- - Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9," e s ' M.m~ 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980) [ hereinafter "NEPA Policy Statement"). LBP-87 17, s 'E .M..... 25 NRC at 855. -G Applicant presents three basic arguments why the Licensing Board erred .. ' 2 3. C ', 9. M.,M % %,9 1 S 3: s
~~f. ' -~~
in admitting contention 2. First, it asserts that an "environmental assessment" ~ ' '(;.? $$'hl);.C M is essentially a jurisdictional prerequisite for a contention that claims an EIS ~ @Q ' is required." Because the staff has not yet issued its assessment, applicant ~ 'q, w argues that the contention is premature, and the Board's admission of it is thus . 1 conditional - a practice prohibited by Catawba, ALAB 687,16 NRC at 466- -A-- it
~~67. Second, applicant argues that the Commission's environmental regulations~~
..( J.( s 3 f ;;+ n.;g.;p'ig.f exclude the license amendment here at issue from those actions requiring the 7,'4 / :,,,, 4, .m ' " / Pg? - j.. preparation of an EIS. Applicant asserts that this amendment "involves no significant hazards consideration" and therefore falls within the categorical I M;,'- . CC . -c ; - y i r d[N,..,. i 9d-9;is _ / exclusion provided in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.22(c)(9). Bird, applicant argues that i y*, y.- s .,
~~y;,3,.~~
j .w - m, i _- q q ., a ., y, $. 8 socim 51.104 prindes sin.ral*/ that manaus wi6in the scope of bT.PA may be raised in NRC heannss. .N .W, "An- " s maiis a c-mu-m=.uy p r. d ear.d m. c w s a=npu = M _'O 'g ;s/ ch@.Q,4 @iGN ' T[9.7
~~New cUA i i~~
wsh hT.PA when no :.i.-- ' irr9ect statement is -=ary " 10 CJ.R, 5 51.14(a). i hj ;.W g. 4 l'f.,+C..,4;e#.C.Mj.'W.y.-.[Q. A.f4,d(m.%: [. M 10 $ p,M:,f c[.3,y u h f .4U ..I s gg,wt;wp#.:@e.p.n[gn 4.- (%< (_ i,7 nam. c-sv .w . v.w. 2 -. y3:.yyyy, o 'M,.,, 0 t gg 9 > 's u..,. y t.c. y%p.9.n. n. f 3..- .:y *: d ',3 - Tl,; >lb. - WJ,,,,;* L *, & :h'p. 2 s.e,- Q Q. c' ', 2h" " -N, '! q ,, a a. a. %. 'f, ' ', L,1 P; t 1 a,. N=
. r-6

., y,
~~) s. / > a.-*~-.w.-~e,.,-m-.-- . e.n.. r --e .~, .h, (( .i s .,Q ,.'[, .. z -. -~. m.-e7;~ .-y g.- 3 e- ~> c \\ .i e s I 3 ' - L,',~~
~~Q,' a~~
~ e = s f.. .* 4 '; I. p a 8 ., / b ', s g p I. I I 9 s -s t [- .7 ' *-.;, ~ s.* r 4 - mu M. i l 5._}n,ll~'.A W. l. N ) }m..~ i ' E. U ~ s ] '.,* 2, * ). 's.,", ~c a... 1 h.t lQ. ~ $.. A.;.,; 7 a' . u. m< '. s - ~. s
~~s..~~
~~i i n; s., s ' !['n ' K~~
~~Y I a 4;~~
{
~~[g.., ' '..~~
ss. cm ' x e .a [ .s M e sai,*. J e i.'. 2 J)',./( 'y S ' (.~. h. '., g i s
e,. 3. 1; 2.. f... _. m.. .m. r - y ,y w, mcpe.Jc.C;h w,' .sJm %e >.. (.& % n ' p v /. 4 ,mv ,Y * ~;'[s'd h*l%Ti'f.' % K Q;[F, ' s[f; j Jj . ' M:#."W 4, %%F f.W.g&, Q f % ' JR E 'p@ mms, f Mv%lf. n: ;- ^ ' there is no nexus between the contention and the proposed amendment. De y W' ';,; M M. ?g.fc,'4 4' f.y..OflCgWj.. t expansion of the spent fuel pool will effect no alteration in the containment or f?- the pool cooling system; the only change will be an increase in the fuel assembly .11 inventory. To the extent that that increases the potential consequences (and thus l Q.fs'.ylWKN.7 the risk) of an accident, that is true in every spent fuel pool expansion case. De e;.Y[W5M@%f.9('2;, ~ (see 10 C.F.R. 5 51.20). According to applicant, this indicates that the potential ) ' QMV 2 Commission, however, has not placed such cases in the "EIS required" category j,W..j L.;. f ', Z,l0.f %..h. of increased risk from increased fuel inventory is not in appropriate basis for ' @Wy :%:'.N[$h M.F.Y%.d4. e M $.7'. finding a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human i, @a.. environment, so as to require the preparation of an EIS. Brief of Applicant at 6.SGM:.3% 21 26.
~~$ w, @ M,0 k ;; h. s,p.~~
.~ S? MW.. s.N* We are not persuaded by any of applicant's arguments. First, although some m x. Q939.Mlm,. e#&(vd 4M $1'$f h([$ Ul'. environmental contentions must abide the issuance of the staff's environmental l assessment (see infra pp. 33-34), that U not always the case. Catawba, CLI [d,,h.') L4?x.Pf00 hNh MfN@ 19,17 NRC at 1049. Here, the staff has already indicated that it is preparing ] P.u,M /,c ,f;:M.. +.m Jw an environmental assessment, not an EIS. 'lY. 91. INrther, the risk scenario that - 'y M, -s { g'{J:!)}y s,h Q (f j lT.d -W W. W, provides the basis for contention 2 is unlikely to be affected by anything in that %e R h3 assessment, given the latter's brevity and purpose. See supra note 25. Bus, in ( , Jy?, p r.P:7SQu these circumstances, there would have been no cause for intervenors to await the 7 J-O. @.'E W 'd!.M.w.a M issuance of the environmental assessment befo'e proffering this particular EIS ' W. 4:. . w.f. y ' .C contention. It is therefore neither premature nor conditional. The short answer 2 ,.. r _.. / V g;.;>J t n._1p, to applicant's second argument is that the Commission has not yet made a "no j ,, g~" f W f p > ' significant hazards" determinatior. in this case. Only if and when it does so, j m t.. -n. would the categorical exclusion in 10 C.F.R. f 51.22(c)(4) apply here so as M'
h. ^

q with the case by case deterniinatbn of the need for an EIS required by the j
to preclude an EIS. Lastly, applican*'s syllogistic nexus argument is at odds , ;sgy . G ',,\\ - t;9 ,~ Commis ion's Plablo Canyon decision,24 NRC at 12. 1.Q_( p(R~% 's f ; L. The staff's argument, however, comes closer to the reason contention 2 ]; must be rejected as a matter of law. De staff complains that the contention QQ'yf is premised on "a comparative assessment of risks involving spent fuel pools s 7. M for a chain of unlikely events." NRC Staff's Brief at 14. De staff points out that ' c 7,1f '. y the environmental consequences of the accident scenario in the contention have l y never been evaluated, nor were they required to be, for the Vermont Yankee .6 r facility. Id. at 1415 (eiting the Commission's NEPA Policy Statemem and San y; ..):? Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC,75l F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), af'd .,p,,;Q,<Q, It,, y ..,. i *. M.. f~ en bane,789 F.2d 26, cert, denied. U.S. 107 S. Ct. 330 (1986)). The staff asser9 that it thus would be anomalous to require for a license amendment (,:3 'g'3,4; > an EIS addressing remote and highly improbable consequences, when there was l", y ? yM no such requirement for the operating license itself. Id. at 15. J',d.V % Q G Wm$- De staff could have taken its point one step farther. As the D.C. Circuit held l m.I. 4 o. .gs in San Luis Obispo. 751 F.2d at 1301, NEPA does not require NRC consideration /' flff of severe, beyond design basis accidents because they are, by definition, highly ,.... N,T. E g (m....n~ o.. A...,. n ,,,.a. ,. ". **=' i.6.* N M \\' f ~~ ^ ',h, / r :?,I.;k U.+ :ys*d'vy,'y;.' ' ' 30 2 ~ - '% (: - s
i-
~~. L.,..a ; 6 r r y p.3 . q 'i ~;.', 's* ',. l,l._~~
~~' ll 3~~
~~[y.,',.'-~i 'O i ,l ],, f [ Ga w..<. [t,, .Nh -![ Y^~~
~~.v.9 7 p q a~~
9 [ _ esm emer ee **eyegpg=#e4P9*"* ****' 3 *"t%*.89 r p e r****'pefo e,emer ee sw*** *= P L 1er p-p .m.e. -s*-m as.,P ev g w..org.,+ ev
==.m. .a g*.. a Y e u ) i a D ",1, + x e j .s s a .a I s 1.' g b a r h i y ~, ' H;[ * -. 4(. < ',9 3 - 'g ..'," ' g,' e }s _ 3. . j s v.s* e e- ?., . f *, i' *
~~s;)" f t~~
' ~.. l, s ) ~ .e i N, # % 13 - v.,0 o J. h. '. Y," W '
.;. _.~... ..m _ m <..,m . A r,. }Q . ' p) y> + W :.;.., g,%. y.y., w; > pl W. -Q.8p', s m, s ..e ?
?.
b .;'.,.. r, v? c. m [?' jM. j,; } + i, 9;.,-N [cf ~f improbable - 1.c., remote and speculative - events." See also Philadelphia 1 N, Sff. 'y'. ] Electric Co. (Limerick Generating S' Hon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,697,698 (1985), ag'd in part ana. eview declined, CL186 5,23 NRC 125 G:lJ :.G i 1 M,o. P t:F.G g....,n, (1986); Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, u.y V j.~.N$@;5 @. Unit 1), ALAB 650,14 NRC 43,62-63 n.29 (1981), ag'd sub nom. Township " %.QVf f.W.g' M of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 687 F.2d ^ ' W., 9; 732 (3d Cir.1982). The scenario that provides the basis for intervenors' claims g l M. '1 r b of increased risk in contention 2 is just such an accident. See LBP-87-17, 25 ..y NRC at 845,846,854. Thus, the Licensing Board erred in its belief that NEPA 9 A.pc yf ; - n,
~~v. w~~
~~.~ 1... J -j.c { "mandate (s]" consideration of the risks of the accident hypothesized here. Id. at .. /,3 u; ? N r.- m ;.. q,JS_.M. r 854 55. e 5 .s~~
~~1. ' mk.W.>.6g% c To the extent that the Commission ever considers the environmental impact 4~~
~~mo n. . 2 Wi!Qp,. and risks of a beyond design basis accident, it does so as an exercise of ,4-;W tNg.~~
~~d..F. c,. r. pp;dy.~~
discretion under its 1980 NEPA Policy Statement. San Luis Obispo,751 F.2d Q w. f ~. - a.. dim,y,s/ s. d' '! at 1301. De Licensing Board, however, erred in assummg that that policy Ti$y.f.L, /n n.@D.';.t ?Q.. r, statement applies to this proceeding. See LBP-8717,25 NRC at 855. Nothing Wii. 4'
~~,c in the language of the statement indicates that it was intended to apply to a w.. y f e] M}.f p fi g.~~
~~3.x" f,~~
I cense amendment proceeding. More impetant, by its terms, the policy applies s ' ' f Q[. K['6 :- to those cases where there has already been a determination that a major federal ~ 'r9 3 9, j,. action significantly affecting the environment is involved and hence an EIS is necessary; it therefore directs what should be included in the EIS (i.e., ~ U, u.l. 4 6 d consideration of the environmental impacts of a severe accident), not whether l g-7 the EIS is required in the first place. See 45 Fed. Reg, at 40,101-M.27 Rus, g l '.." before the NEPA Policy Statement is even invoked, there must be some basis 3"- 9 f' .j for requiring an EIS other than a claim of increased risk from a beyond design-basis accident scenario. In contrast, intervenors' claim here is just that: 1.e.,
~~4. -..~~
~~E the proposed action (expansion of the spent fuel pool) will significantly affect --@y ,c-the environment, thereby requiring an EIS, because of the risks of the beyond l s ' + . 1 ' '~~
~~i...~~
g... design-basis accident scenario they have described. K-In sum, intervenors cannot use a beyond design-basis accident scenario ' v~j to "bootstrap" their way to an admissible contention that asserts an EIS is 5 required to examine the environmental risks of such an accident. Neither the l Commission's NEPA Policy Statement nor the statute itself provides a legally cognizable basis for contention 2.28 We therefore reject it. ,y ~ :; s e q J "De court rufen to such seddess as "Class Nine" - the isenunology previously used by the Commissim 0-to doenbe severe accidsrss d very low probability, involving signiacant datancretion of the fuel and breach or ccusairanent %s Ceaunceweahh recognnas this disanctaan between the adequey or the contaras d an Els and the need 21 O to prepam one. see Brid d the Coranonweahh at 1411. , ;, M..f m Ef$2h 2s We stress that we are not ruling cut a:1 ecusantions in spes fuel pool proceedings that claim an Els ss 'N required only cetanticms that are promised en claims d inciensed risk frern beyond design bseis acciders G-ir. ? M,p'j g i scenanos are act litigable - as a maner of law under NEPA, and as a manar or dim under the NRC's q 6 f <.'J.A'.,-?/:.,'- M.WdW > ~ NEPA Policy staiemers.
~~' p-s.g.14 OltymE'.~~
~~s9 f'f.W~~
~~4-M ' i-; 5,6.h 'd:%' L k~~
~~,Q-.. .'t!~~
-s y

g
~~,. %y- ~, 9~ m. p<>,~~
~~.:9~~
~~,.~ m ? [iif gJ-3{ a C ?Nw' 4 3 'O v .yo .s ? f' Q.ve. h[ I d,[.h I:.- ] s _s k-g ,I ] _i...__..--.n.._.,s,,,s. a s~~
r.
~~g b g j 4 g 9 ..E + ~~ b g 'n-b, ? O F e~~
~~p g~~
I s y ~
...m...n..g.; w.eg..
.y D M;; w @ h i U. M.

5,'MN[a s.d,c e
w j I;].. ' L ny. w.7@.dM W,.9 J. m%* '.;'.wij ~# Q. .r. h. ' N.. : m' ; [ .:7 M *; .f B. Contention 3 ' w. h. E... yD,, ' ;W ' y. - ' . (,- M d @%.' [; y.% As previously discussed, NECNP contention 5 stated generally that the NRC t' had not complied with NEPA and its own environmental regulations. See supra . E - ),,, _, ' W p,i.,,.j.' W '$NMMNS%q f pp. 27 28. The second part of the basis for that contention asserted that, at a minimum, the staff must prepare an environmental assessment (see supra note 43 gygg$ y.py' j. W
~~25) and must consider alternatives to the proposed spent fuel pool expansion c.V:/ %.(Q.~~
' F - specifically, dry cask storage and independent pool storage. NECNP also '.Q $!j Q,7'?(# %:21.M ? ' l noted that it "expects to change this contention at such time that NEPA related $gj d. documents are issued by NRC." Appendix A, Ida p. 39. Commonwealth Gd,.Dus.G,.u.M) J.'.@fs, contention II likewise complained about the lack of an environmental assessment ww c., O,, g t. s g,I C '"" $ Q; - s q p a s. 4:3 49 M?d.AM ' $1 and the NRC's failure to consider the alterna'.tves of dry spent fuel storage and M k h,@,C.' h D d h [f,0 ' "an in-ground spent fuel pool" (i.e., an independent storage facility). Appendix A, ida pp. 39-40. MW .,.31E.@Mj$.h : 9 $9g/gf4; t The Licensing Board struggled with these contentions. It noted applicant's qAC,Mi,l MW and the staff's arguments that the contentions are premature and would have to N T'.P1,$/CQ!?j.9%QM@MP. await the issuance of the staff's environmental assessment; admission now would .cm. i$ [yfEM@y!,s].' '. <c be conditional and thus barred by Catawba, ALAB-687. The Board recognized p j Qf? ',. that NEPA obliges the agency, rather than applicant, to analyze alternatives ' @%.z.y. 2 ^ a-to the proposed action, and that the adequacy of the staff's review is subject c , ( ' ; hyf.. - la litigation. But the Board worried.that delay in the issuance of the staff's ~ e j - environmental assessment could effectively deprive petitioners (NECNP and the .'.. f.... ~ Commonwealth) of their hearing rights. In this regard, the Board observed that, s f. 19., 8 if it rejected all of the petitioners' contentions now, it would have to dismiss " 1 A petidoners and terminate the proceeding." Petitioners' only recourse once the environmental assessment was issued would be to seek, in essence, a reopening ~ y M, jy of the proceeding - a task more difficult than filing a late contention. The Board g y g. went on to note that, although the Commission's regulations do not require - } p. ,c p applicant to submit environmental documents in connection with its license . 'c A-amendment application, applicant nevertheless provided some such information m 1 ' ' ' g.,.DM;$'. in response to the staff's informal requests and guidance. Thus, after scrutinizing . d ~4.m'o the decisions of both the Commission and us in Catawba, CLI 8319 and '^ - T.o ' M ; ALAB-687, the Licensing Board decided to admit the environmental assessment . y.., contentions now - changing their focus, however, from the staff's to the o m F.df applicant's coi.tideration of atternatives. LBP 8717,25 NRC at 855-60. They .,. ' -, 72%on.,5. > were combined into contentica 3, which states: n.. p m,. 'M - - ,,,.y . j] [ i' The Appticant has failed to submit an adequate analysis of ahernatives to the prgosed 'tl' g,;;.q assim, as required by (( 102(2XC) ami 102(2XE) of the National Esim....u..at Policy
~~y.. r*34, Act. 42 U.S.C. Il 4332(2XC) and 4332(2XE). and implemereg NRC regulations or guide.~~
~ # Mg lines. Speci6catly, the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the ahernatives of (1) dry " \\< - ',. l ~ y i t 73,ps g ' '. + b.hwc,M"T.,h.., h. The Boa #s abesrution is curious,insanuch as it had almedy adnused certantions t and 1 %..,[S. r[a.n. 4 g 8 h ..., s -.3. C-hk M:'[ N,4 h.Tf.k.1F hG M .,y;);Q;f f.')/:,Q g Q V. b , f. y og.. <. ;gJ.M., ;, 32 ~.y. , '.. O,.% < b. ;. (.h, n@~,. u....W-
~~t 2~~
.'{.,7 i sf, '5 's; 9';..,. - QT-h) g W, ' (, r. A Q ?"N p 1 .t s _..p.,,%+<s,,,.... . w,- , +. ey-.. ~ ~,-= - 4 v-a.y wo---3 v s.-w- -. + -. -pq m. 4 ~ q. ] g.t j t r p 4 s' ~ s x 1-e -.e 1 f .y' C' }+ -tl'..* y -e,"s, i Q, ~
~~s, A~~
%? e N. w' *
~~C,,, # E, ;..= ' f..;. ~,M.$:~~
~~.:,i., / V. .s;. - .3 - w:. _ u. aX. sp W. cf '>->.3l .,r s,*: .. f.M 'm,. _ rl,, (.s W.* ^ s. 8 . 8 7s.~~
u.
~~f.. c. a w m.v.. - m.y.., pg~~
~~p. u, m,3.3xn _...,, e v;,~~
~~4J. .W r ' 1.-Q;. s v '~ Q :.,Q f. y 4 e ~,, .usy g'}v. -y ,, ::..' f:~~
~~~. : v z 1, w w-w,.~~
~~ns 3 s.~.~~
~~7 m Ngy q g~~
~~- ;y % [..s w. '. n A ;;;;. I ', cask storage and (2) h *f '~ pool storage. Both d these ahernatives are available op. .2~~
~~W(h$.l.N'D@1 daf '~~
~i5 .d!?f, ', N.i a,'.ig;. ,?. tion s and provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal s .; q. .l.L,;5?$,$r.bs..'.h Y,: L.; & l Y Id. at 864. o ~ ' 78QNN.M/P;s.P De applicant's objection to contention 3 is brief and to the point: the focus $ 77 of envimnmental contentions should be the adequacy of the staff's analysis, not @G 7, y%M%, the applicant's. De contention, as rewritten by the Board, is thus inadmissible Eg$dhd'(( 'C:lS : ,y M on its face and must be rejected. Brief of Applicant at 27 (citing Boston Edison N Whd' ' *dy. Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), ALAB.479,7 NRC 774,793 f@ygfB?:b. fW.i.fN'C O M M E. - should be directed to whether the NRC staff has fulfilled its obligations under M dh. 94 (1978)). We agree generally with applicant that environmental contentions @k h O' h.< [> NEPA. But as explained below, some admissible environmental contentions may ~., Y S @W.M 4 @'.. [ @. C@$ F<. M Jh @.. h i. 8JACT;' 4^ properly focus on an applicant's environmental analysis. De contentian at issue Q M Q Jic;.L $ here, however, is not one of them and therefore we agree that it must be rejected. c Yk9Yb$blig.gby nr.,.<QZ[c : [ Contention 3, as originally proposed by NECNP and the Commonwealth, N. correctly related to the stag's environmental assessment and consideration of '7 gy g.fQgGRW;W: alternatives. Dat assessment, however, has not yet been issued. NECNP itself
2% ':N MOD M, Y noted the "preliminar{y)" nature of its contention and stated that it expects
' f,, W, 4, f :M ~ to change it when the staff's NEPA evaluation is issued (see Appendix A, r.j V M Q O Nl* [ Infra p. 39) - making it precisely the type of baseless, conditional contention q l y '.[W'u '. prohibited by Catawba, ALAB-687,16 NRC at 466-67. W '..E,7/;p n u. e. In an effort to rehabilitate the contention or to cure this infirmity, the
~~..g,.g ;~~
Licensing Board shifted the focus to appIlcant s envircnmental analysis. De s L @;i ^ Board reasoned that the environmental information alreMy provided to the staff by applicant - albeit not required by the regulations - was enough to justify '2 N-this change in focus and to avoid deferral of the contention pending issuance ,, m W~.. U: of the staff's environmental document." To be ses, as the Commission held X,$WW in Catawba, CLI.8319,17 NRC at 1049, and we recognize suya p. 30, some ..g,NJd,-, environmerval contentions can lie formulated and admitted before issuance of the a: ', ' ' ~ .R relevant staff document - namely, those unlikely to be affected by the staff's s-m,e.. ,.T~h forthcoming analysis (like contention 2), and those based on information required %~ to be provided in an applicant's "environmental report" (ER). Contention 3 fits ,b' into neither category. ne heart of the contention (at least as intervenors initially J 1 .-(, .' _ - fP.S. t intended) goes to the adequacy of the staff's consideration of alternatives. See ? f : 'M', v. ', 'It 100,107. As for the information already su; plied by applicant, it in no way tw ,' ;g g. ~: i 'S - r ~..; h*W ' - l., G ) '. ! ?. g y. I / M'y. "The Board also noted that cansamms recusing m en oppEcan.*s candersden of abernauws haw been ' ;f l8S q. f. 'h: senined in asher spent fuel pool wzpansim p wa-hnss, cinns Po,-@c Get and Electic Co. (Diablo Canyon ) .4.. N."W Nuclear Power Plant. L' nits I and 2), t2P.86 21,23 NRC 849,869 0986). see slee Brist d the Conwnon=eahh i .p.h[r{yj " y; x?N'i G ^' 4.. at 15. In that case, however, the staff had almady issued hs envuonar ental -- - abona ens monsh be(cre the ] %,L h.d;'7 S /t Qjl'$ h e ~ b-3 J7 ( Ilcensing Board's ceder (res 51 Foi Res. 19.430 (1986)). and,in aJdman, no pany objected to the a&nission of
~~y M i ;_.~~
7 Y., the cartersim. LBP.86 21,23 NRC at 869. In any evers, that Ilcanmas Board Miaa has not tienn reviewed on 8F'.' 'NF'N([Q[Uhl:h[hk/d . N I i).yycF: 0'.M m N: t' f, appeel sad thus does not how precedential effect as to issues of law. Does fe.er Co. (Qiesakes Nuclear Statim. l'aits 1. 2. and 3), ALAB 442,7 NRC 979. 981 n.4 0978).
~~y. % n;b,y:a, M <M ':::n.wV '*,~~
~~y.' l 't N g[dir % . :. l. --m @d (. h _.j k.h p.e.O + - S j", M 'ggyl }u..:w.t.ygh'Mgy KF 33 ,,'[, 0. e.... m .w-~~
~~7. M,v.?f; m.W.'. '~~
,l i ~, ,l,M.;l,y. Q $l *
~~l ~~~
~~~ g -.m.-~.,...-., 7,..._.. .,7..., t 'tr' .~ t f_ ,a. ,c. J 4 w 1 4 e f a 9 g ,,N" ' D g~~
~~[,) 4 i,~~
~~^ ~' 3 P*'~~
g*
~~r "*gl ,, CD ~3.i_.,' s r s [ -,, ' i? -.m., ' ' ; w; y~~
>;t*
5 9.h. ' e y W,::q';@,, . y . w.. mm ~
J. 7; Ra. . m - -- " --"-h M "- - ta~ " - - " "-- """ " " ~ - - i.w".: w w,.u.. ',z. w a: g - r w.. \\ vw.
~~m. r. r: e,,.. /.z.?, g i. v. -~~
~~n.., m.., e g g- .j -x p llv[ ':. x;(. - ? -_u 1' , s t. *- ? r*. ?x us y u . :w .,-a' ::,. ~ v., M 't i ~<5 . 1 .c .se s~~
~~v;s p,~~
- a W,. y g.. w m, .s.. s-. - f, m" resembles the substantial data and analyses required in an ER and to which the ,j w M."M'a.\\ i. f.; Commission referred in its Catawba decision. See Letter from Warren P. Murphy y Q,,?h h f,; .. ;x (Vermont Yankee Vice President and Manager of Operations) to NRC (April ,, E ^ [ N.' l3fM J l $Q., 25,1986) at 2-3, Enclosure (Replxement Report) at 4-6.M -.', q ,d A '! 4. b W.0 Thus, the Board's attempt to transform an otherwise baseless, premature con- ' l 'o G_ %.,. f....?., tention into one that is admissible has failed. As NECNP's own contention 5
~~. W % '~~
~~l{ T~~
C:
contemplated, intervenors must await the issuance of the staff's environmen- - 7,c. #.' J %7 '$!3 tal assessment and, then if disestisfied with its consideration of alternatives, My "y;WW.; ^ iD formulate promptly an appropriate contention in accordance with the Commis- ^MM.@g[.@y.N... M / ~ a u :sN.@[- sion's regulations for late-filed contentions,10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1).82 Cf. Con- ?.v;N 'n sumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-636,13 NRC 312, .A d.S....i. dhfi9 M~ w @ $, JM. P l,. 330-31 (1981) (Licensing Board should have awaited issuance of staff environ-vv s. . Q Q",w 85 @ i Q Ml, n, J.; mental assessment of spent fuel pool expansion proposal before determining , jf.m.s.. v-c ;,. /M...o {=[f s . r f' that it was inadequate). a.l.Q.; %,, a.,M tV 1: u m., M. %,./. s. p'p!fl%gp% 6 2q.w w~ fio; E. Insofar as the Licensing Board's decision (LBP 87-17,25 NRC 838) admits % ^ ^. 3 ", Q '-; l. @. J contention 1, it is affirmed, subject to the substitution of the phrase "design l* y jh. 2 -i.b.n ^ - limits of 150*F" for "regulatory limits of 14C'F"; otherwise the decision is W]; h,~-] j, reversed, with respect to contentions 2 and 3. Because the Commonwealth of ~. '.-c -. u. e.. - Massachusetts has failed to submit at least one admissible contention, it is ^ y.', ff /.7 '. W< dismissed as an intervenor in this proceeding (see 10 C.F.R.12.714't,)); the j "^f ' N
~~v. '~~
~~Commonwealth, however, is already authorized to participate as an interested V' 'c2 State pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c). See LBP-87 7,25 NRC 116,118 (1987). . 6 ', It is so ORDERED.~~
~~p.,~~
~~l FOR THE APPEAL BOARD S.Wl i - m. - '..g t ':. ..w n. . L wN e C. Jean Shoemaker / ~~ 'y f (* g g ) ~ .y ' Appeal Board e : - . - T 1 ".' a r~~
N
~~=4 s ..(..* *'4', ,,i,~~
ge
,y . '[ *., = l ,#4 ([ $ i ? 's r s ."Q i,?f En , 'Q*h',-[o *, ,F 2. ,.'y .g. ^ . ',/ .(.. ).. m .;/ v%Oi +.1.. e (,.,.. ,.,. -M. :.1' EM. \\ mu y Mfe.6*,4((. hfl( '. AA ER is rnised fw a estruction permit and operating lianas, but in fa a license uneneurit sylica.
y c[ < W f. M JQ,.,,

...
~~g', ticut 10 CJA H 51.50,51.5s. N information that must be induded in an ER is described in 10 CfA H 5145. . r ','[y p,h : -- jy(y ; f,.;s.e,,c. m.,',_c w,.,,,1. %[g.,%;p %y ;-c;.7h- $(3 g, $g,$1,~~
.fG'

g fg, 32 is expected soors Tr. 91.
~~.... o.m . %~~
~~7%$*'M.* s.~~
~~'.... *6f,M,... ' ' is, [~~
' m b. =

s'
~~, q.. %u m,~~
~~.~s ' f' gy. r e s.m ' '.p "-[ * ..% } #. [ V' ,'g q, % 'It 'E 4 l,'.', ', ' ' N,';, 'I[ f .m.2. .'s i m . ~.. 1 ,i., % 6 g,8.,N 4 f' .} * - -f.~~
/
~~. ff s >. ^~~
'i
~~,.r.* t;ss ~ -a..v - _ n, m n g m e ~. f~~
D
~~[ g 4 l %a. d i O ,,, y a 4 .'T ..,n. 1, *. %. g,,, B 5, S j _g !%~~
~~d */.~~
~~i. ~3, .7 >J '.l t' ,Q . * /j,, ~ i - s 6~~
~~. ~,.~~
~~,m. ,m s,v.Lc.. -. ..n f.~~
~~..;,ac;~~
.,. u. a y; t ,.z y -4 y ;..,: ti.y Q.. M, sy ;;.a 9..; 2.e-e + e *. Y.. -s c,..,.,.. c v M:... -M wg: .,s..<". .,f;.9::w. 4 :M y M.., s, ~. i~ uw;y, ' a ~ N' y :' r ~ a v =.\\. w -t s. ~ ~...Qp& ;.. ;z.",, gn c.:': %. 'y; y,, yn 7.. >.vrg;s~,,;p,jg g.m..x .(. :. c. ?;1,.! v~. .., J... w; 7, * ~,_. v;. ',c. 1, q a s ~ ;u:,,, y.. a t e ?- .p: g;.y.m s. p.7, W% ~ %.?y: ,....9
~~e,, ;.,.~~
.,.5 u %,'.'c M m.: ,;./ 6::q ' p ~ , e.a ;. ? w.:kn.Mi;9M;h. v S. r, ;%, : 7y. :n ;. M rt >. ;;' ~ o;;;..2.i W '.i+W p.;;y. m> . s '. :q ' :,.. n;.m \\! e c p, %r... M,,, y',,..;. W.;?:;: r ;;[ftp~g,.p:,.yc.g q;;ja.4.:gG g,qv..,e m w., y +. . p..QQ,y,gg.g p,; ,,.c +i. w ...y<,, 2 p..,..W e .. ;7., y;Qg,n;jg.g..n.1.,, <; ;..%~, v. _ge.~... ~.. ~ w :np, >[. q'grfp > y;y.. o .... n.,
~~9... y =~~
~~..m.w;s. .~ p,7.w%., M..e.,.p:.,,<m. cy;,.,.. .w~ c %, a r % o.1.:m.u.,~....s;.:;~ .e, - p . p.. : g~~
~~c. v.., O..-~~
~~a a,n, ;.., , b,&, %,bl'.y,;.,?.QQ fQQ'Q;e r. .n w,... ..o..... p .4.- g ,a t og .<. 7 ', Q,y. s^ .& '-Q~,, -~,zQ.}Qg',R;,:q<,, ;i. _'i);:; jg:'.. ';;, 'j. *g...n~~
~~9. j,f;,,.pg 'y;.f. Q [n. ;y;QQ)[p.';f.y&.,.~~
~~J ^ ~.;W;'f,,,a.,m. ,y.y, :,s m, ; R,. 4,M.s,,.v%,. m.,, -~ v~~
~~.,4., g.~~
~~i,,. r.. ; e.,. g-y.e c.,, a s .t ,c.c. m%.,rp; 5 n(..,g,, v Q.,.;., c,.j < p.y. m..-.,N,;r 3 ,2.,,p ,,,y u 'g t hgsy,... W; y..~~
b Y

...t ; p !l f %,... 4-n.%e,.,
~~, a %.. t.,. c. 3 . x,. 6 _, '.. .,r ., 7. y;;'W i~~
~~n., w%a. Mq.;~~
~~,C,7 Q,.,s:a.v.g'j i ;.,,,,,.~~
~~.pg' e%w~.A',Q: 'ps,v i..,'~~
4. /. e ..e n..
~~,.,.3,, j.1 m. e4 ?s. v p r~~
~~.T,, ep gg. y,,.,o E em ,m l. M> f 'sH,..- ,3- . (,-,.,,,,e ; '{ . p., ., 7 p,,,$g.4.. *ge.r.; *. h~~
~~1 $WW:g:.r c 4.,,T Qu, y..Q * ** * )~~
~~< :i '?:- ,3, v. ;. e,. .s. . h, n '*..,ti ; r,s ,M e. 2~~
j.
~~,e. -... - , + y m, ;. t.y , h. g,. *'f.,.:.'y,s~~
~~o. p.~~
~~r ,7~~
m.
~~.s 9.S..+ .,n.' .q. c-%~~
Q

g. U:

pp%r. ly.n -y,W 9
~~. y.. m.,.;. /[ ..,.Mp.n./ '.9 %.,+,Q.,. *. '. '. 'a,,.'.:g 4.#,. T 'T}P. iQ, ,Mp.) , y ' ? k,f, c,.! G...,.%..;<.;j_.Q4>.. : ?.j.~ ' -[ Q p i,.;T, *,f.. W y-QM.z..: -..3 _. ,.c g~~
~~q. -.~~
v
~~v..,.~~
~~.. c;.., .s.., ~.. ~.,.,n..u. ;,.. p.n.,...,.e .u. . v <s<. s.,, -a. m, 4 .~a .n, w.. m.s;w. 7 g. ;.., c ; e. .>..~e ,. 4.,; .p t. {- p.. ,a 1: r, ~ .r j I Ry t. s.. i y 4 e '3' APPENDIX A - a. t.~~
~~i,,..~~
~~,c .,m.. 'Mi?:. ./ Contentions as Admitted Derivation~~
I~
g, p lJ,.t - ' ..a Contention i NECNP Contention 3 V N,. J He spent fuct pool expansion amendment should be denied De spent fuel pool expansion amendment should be denied because, through the necessity to use one train of the stac-because it violates the single failu c criterion. [ s 13 tor's residual heat removal system (RIIR) in addition to the ( '
~~r F~~
) ~f spent fuel cooling system in order to maintain the pool wa-Basis: Should this amendment be approved, it would bc [ a 1. @;.h[,! H~' . [ ter within the regulatory limits of 140 F, the single-failure necessary under certain conditions to use one train of the (. ,j f ' .3% criterion as set forth in the General Design Criteria, and reactor's residual heat removal system (RIIR) in addition -(- f.-Q@a. g '.'" ..... q has not established that its proposed method of spent fuel the pool water within the design limits.of 150*F. (See t, ' j particularly Critelion 44, will be violated. %c Applicam to the spent fuel pool cooling system in order to maintain { Jl6 1 v.., <.L,, Y '%. u,, pool cooling ensures that both the fuel pool cooling system Vermont Yankee Spent Ibcl Storage Rack Replacement t j.g. - (, ' n g,ofj n 'f., and the reactor cooling system are singic-failure proof. Report, April,1986, at 56-59 and Response to Request e. f' [ [p k h.,[~ j l. j. for Additional Information-Proposed Change No.133, q;; ' A.' 1 Spent Ibel Pool Expansion, November 24,1986, responses ,.7 s -;W7ay to questions 16 and 17). The heat load in the pool after jL [," b a normal fuct discharge is roughly 50% greater than the f ] design capacity of both trains of the spent fuel cooling [ ? system. While Applicants assert that the two pumps in one 0 j; RilR train are single active failure proof, they have not demenstrated that there is no single failure in the RIlR r Qf system components and power supplies that would not [ / i. disabic the single train of RHR. [ ~., U g, s! i
~~Ne-Ligland Castidun an % clear PWlutina's Response to Boent order of Fetwuary 27, 1987: stasanas of Corsasions and standing (March 30.1987) at M,81&.~~
Consensions of the Cansmanweahh of Massad==<= (Enh 30,1987) at 13. 2 c - _. = _.
c. t ~ . W U ?fe..;' &. %. %..o.,,.,, ~ M,m%..? $.. l .,V. ~ .s l. ., 'a,,&: ).D. < ~.. s. S 'i ~ '.y } ,s. ,a x Q,,,~. n:sc u... p.. u L n,.
~~s1.. <.;v.g,r.s,.< ;\\,e~~
~~.O......~~
~~m..,~~
~~,v--,.,> .r4.. y Q.3,~~
~~e..u v~~
~~. ' p&,. M... n.. M., .o. s 3g -.. %y .m u, .7 +. ' . ',.* i,.w ' . f. w 9.~,. y.:., rv. %.v,,.'*s _.e,. .c ...... cc n - . o. .y. m s~~
~~3..~~
~~p, '.. M. a y, e ,-t y;; w,u. ~,. .c.,,,,....L....;, . 4 ;,,.... c u: e s t- + <4 *.'.,.,;e'(,; a % m,.. ;, y' e c e.N z p..M..J.- e w., i. ,+ ,s. - ;. s a< u..,, z.p - -.,,.,.~~
~~w.ar C,c.4 a.,m4~~

u u*
~~n... 3. P'<;~~
~~i s. ; f e. s.% .s;r f ,.,..-.,.?. w; ..i ,.'1.. ~ s o y. ..t p*, ,.. c uo.., ~ '.n ym j% c s. c.,'.,. y- ".*,1:.p.L(. - y o ql..~~
~~...,,.,4~~
~~, 4 s'.. v,. i, k 1.! 4..e./ y,'I.. u.t -. 3,. n g', ym..y.9. r, e.19",.z& *y,g 3 ', Xpf w\\.,. %',f, T g~~
~~,.. 9~~
~~,1. , q..,.v. - s 1 *.. I q 4 s .y- . %..s 5' ,,6 e N p.g~. y ;6.,,}' & y; ~ , ~ ,, t,, 6 W,. . i *. - "s. e y: <, ' lY :w'g %=y; w. 4.-.a.,;:a m g< - 4.i.; ;ng ;.~~
~~$c.. p% @.e~~
.;>n, 'v.y w.m. .t.. n .s'gc n. .o. 3.'.. n, e L , ' r a;Q +' n b.V ., w a - .. ss ~? u. - y :p ;"f;*w's * * :.9 j.,5 n . >. J. g;y.,%.*!.%1 a ;>%v^.y,,.. n, _N- .r : s f.,'fv..P P n f ~ , n .a.r,, - r.
~~e., e.. t.,.~~
py u y w r~ ?~ a. .r. e. 4..,.,e., .,,n, a. %q -.4 m.. p, z.m yy ,r.' u.m ,,. 7. y. g~....., i. v.,%m. m..... s r.,4 3 ..w.- y.y c,. p, c. m, p3..;,y g ~ -am r,..,.. u, . c.. : ,r n. p, ;; ('.s,:.. a r r w 2 5.. m:..f. t y :.s. y @mA,. ;p;m.w;w&y,,%;;, g, a.
f
. ss.n .9 c. 2 -;j p, v,y.;. a s . !f.;., e, s. g... u. 9.j ;w.,,,. o. y.,,. r. a n. n l,.u.y_. . n.>. o 1, .~,,~,.p wn'a 2 c a s( r, ,,r. j.p 1 (, i g p. .R. s.uv . y ..f'.;.py g ~ /' hi hhj .N, {f[f.4, ' f.N[f5 [; M ON h, ~, $ }} fh. [ h ,.h ?. \\ f. [ N*$ .N g. h!. [- [ g.c,h N' [ 1; 7 ., -. f; a - ; e m.a m a 7, .y. sp3.g* p;.u g.c ,.8 s c, y,3 - a v> ? %w, ..n - 'e .& v v< r T.o.:.. y~ ,,.,; vJ.,..'. ~. m.
~~c. ; - - 2~~
,.. ;.,.... e,. e ..~.m. z f ,.f. c; '. h...,<g,,e",p,. .r n 6 ,s.,... _4, f *.. v e - +... ' J h, f y r . ( r o ,,r y s 4 I\\ '.l e t-Contentions as Admitted Derivation y e n d, Moreover, under conditions where one RIIR train is needed for spent fuel pool cooling, there is only one train availabic p Nu .) for decay heat removal from the core. Applicants have not [ j cstablished that this leaves a single failure proof method of [ , 1 cooling the core. j (, .i e ] In summary, Applicants have not established that their ( f].. proposed method of spent fuel pool cooling ensures that [ b both the fuel pool cooling system and the rextor cooling ~ f.%. [ 3 - system are single failure proof. ~ .c y Y ~, ' ~ Contention 2 NECNP Contention S u , h ',,' i p, 5 j ~ os t .) The proposed amendment would creatc a situation in which 'the NRC has not complied with the provisions of the I I U.., f ',, f - ] consequences and risks of a hypothesized accident (hydro-National Environmental Policy Act nor of its own rules in h - 1 r ],j gen detonation in the reactor building) would be greater 10 C.F.R. Ibrt 51. 'r c), 'd than those previously evaluated in connection with the Vermont Yankee reactor. ~Ihis risk is sufficient to constitute Basis (in pertinent part): The bases for Contentions 1-4 D I the pmposed amendment as a "major federal action signifi-are reasserted herein. The National Environmental Policy ,'l cantly affecting the quality of the human environment'* and Act requires the preparation of an environmental impact .] requiring preparation and issuance of an Environmental Im. pact Statement prior to approval of the amendment. statement detailing, inter alia, the environmental impact s of m.e proposal and considering alternatives. for any ma-jor federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment " 42 U.S.C. $ 4332(C). The proposed amenA= as. which would substantially increase the risk to 9
$. '.?.i.M~h,C i,n. ~ "jQf W W..,,n
y.,S

,
~~/ h '. :. ' '. ?p?t %%: P., ' ~ a.F m ,9. :' s q.}.. N-, z. y :?....,.. . 99,. ,,n. ,.. u,,.,,m ~.g w / s-.. m n..~~
~~.u. a. w. a.a-~~
~~-p.. x..; c. ~ ~~~
~~q...~~
~~,,,;. c. z, e .m .w:nb..s w.., 4.. n, .? ~~~
l\\g< ;t.W,%n.ny...s

pN, c.

~~..p ..a. .: y,~~
~~s..~~
~~a y. ^.' lW'yN Q(G Q. %,, w p L. ; c. ~.,"* j, h ! $ Q f $ 4;S.'.':.',g. G ,r. n*;9.Q,, gglf..*,w;7.: ' L.. ax ~ P.~~
~~p.. r T,'M...i,'n....,a.,, 2 - a,, ",;~G.~~
~~4 K w&,.. s.:.Vy f t~.n~~
~~a.,~~
~~.-...-V .a mu.E e r, ..m.%....:g&,in.. 9 f. S. f.y,..n..,.. s,..n < p b .? .e '. :.-.a.~~
~~.y.~~
~~!>'7-a; r . y. 3.,, c a. o.2.~,. w r. . l Wc, d,.; .*=' -. ) *.l~~
~~j..~~
~~p e k. - J' #- , p*,~r" ' .- j*.sy ; :,3 p.y. J s,*.ps+' , ' :.,'j+ g. :s,,%.. { P- ?,, :% 4 g*y <ryg- ~;, ( , -.~m.,,,,,. s',.4; r ~g y s m..?.;<.N.,,7 . n; w Ov~~
~~. ". ~..~~
~~.. 7., : ~. i. , j; ,.s.h !: *g.'*x, f, \\ Q Q. < :. .gr~~
~~Q.,e~~
~~~ g*y c f ,.m ; ,J :~,,G,, pll;r * ;,W .'.y','+~~
~~X Q '~~
~~...- ll,-. n Qp.,.) *,~~
~~". p.?~~
~~,.. '. ;., <, ' s...~~
~~,~ 7 g,,, y".,, 4 : ..% ;.l.~~
f. e %,,

a.-'
~~r .b .-5 .. ~.( \\.a, .m . - 7 y r'.,c 'a..j ;,, s ; . c s,. ,o . n.. -c.,'". g.p.r... y g a. u~~
~~s. w' ;n p,~~
~~e. .-*4,..rJ*~,,,,., 4. u .C ......,,,7 4,, a? l,;, e..+, . 1.1 * ,,,s .e~~
~~n. n., a,.,.,.%~~
~~..6..,-, ,t..>.,.; ,,.,.,~s p .y.o~~
~~9. ~,< m.~~
~~w. s ;.m.. ; :.J; ,, y,,.,,. g y ~ e~~
~~7.,A \\., f',J~~
L;,w, 7g,s.,

s. po
,,Pt, ' J > ,ute. r a ..'. am, r p, ..?-- ,j.:w:. Q..,. n 4,.,.,.,... , u. <w- ~ s -,-.v..,-.,..,:w. ..f,.. g. i c.#..y c s...,r.v. ~ s o .e+. 5 m s.g.a4 W-w*. .w -%,r , s.a.g.; v. g.. 1 y ,.-.;.. m r ., - ~ , v. .. e. se., s.,.. e __ ( f..a,.Ks,.,r.g<.m.. s.. ~....g., ,c. s, .,m,. ..._.4 q p,.gv.%,,., .n. x. - <y, 1 6 ,.,s s c q , 7 y.;, ; + . c,. y% ~..... r.. s., ,. w,' m -c yh w % m,n..,x... ..m:L-
~~.,to.y. r. n.9 e.~~
~~s c:, w. .c e .v~~
e

w w :;S, *4. :t'^ h. M ...
a-N $ ' M,. m w y m+d M 4. W:,aMY., a &, N lI:O u .. :.V. .~:,3 n... ~s m yg..,. u y 79['y. y ~ P ' "9,. 6 M.,x'4.$gw.3M.y. .e .,a. r ..y a. ,s 7 3,i NfMd.3 s J n 1> , -....,. : u .. w, y. -y e,..;;.g, . Am.,, n.. y y 7
~~s. +.. j,.~~
~~s .v _ ..-c .. ~... ',s,....y. ..i-- ,.3 ,1 -" s ,4.-,,t. ' g' ,.o< ..e, i~~
~~sv m~~
s Contentions as Admitted Derivation 1 public health and safety associated with operation of the 1 c4 Vermont Yankee plant, is such an action. NRC has not pre- .s. , 4 pared an environmental statement, as required by law and l by 10 C.F.R. 51.20. 4 ab r Commonwealth Contention i ~ I The Commonwealth contends that the license amendment ,]. ., l proposed by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation V. - r e, j ("Licensce") is inconsistent with the protection of the put,lic O6, health and safety and the environment. ~- e, -a Basis: A [.. y 1. Probalistic [ sic] risk studies of boiling water reactors indicate that the expected frequency of severe acci-W a ... 9(; dents at such reactors is non-negligible. . 3 <.1 2. In the event of a severe accident, a significant quantity 1 of hydrogen gas could be generated and such gas could. through containment leakage or failure, be released q into the reactor building. 3. "Ihe hydrogen gas which could be released into the , L! reactor building as a result of a severe xcident would likely burn or detonaic and would thereby generate 1 . pressure which would threaten the structural integrity i of the containment building. f
< ~.
~~9, I. N:.i~~
~~... w u:- : ~r-~~
/~ t > (%

'W.*" '. ~M..;.,'c 7.[;t....
~~->.:.v:,%.,. r.Ay e, Q;;<' A, w ,,c q',J :: .h 2]v; >.,$a,~ s~ . : :, :' v~- m@ff... N ' *,. c, ..M~ ' S } g:~~
~~..]~:n.~~
~~0.gg,fv. ,, v7,~~
. m..

. n > l
. s.~.,.,, + ...r.. + s. w w s. m.4 - ~,.::1.. Qs. %.a, y ya,. .w .~ ~ ,~.; ..z. w .,n,.. w:of 3:n c?.+.w:,.. *. ~ ? ,1; : s.: ~r 9,?.S.y.,. .o..s, n. a %:f. a.:,,,.,,,. a wr a 4 a. +c - fm, u,, I;,,. z w;. n. ;,s.; g,. 2: g ./ v
s e

p.,. x, e. u, y:,.,,
~~v e.rs. ;.,i., +.;.yr p q 3. J<g. A w:.. ,g_..:, r n,4 y 2;:.,. .?'%m,., n ...m. <: ,. m.n. o _. s. v~. v c p - l %,.m. ? e o..r. f m. , ~ -.~~
~~' f s,n.:W.. ::g. ' la::i.i.<:.V % v.h ',u i:::-p.y%.n. m ' y,r.~~
~~3 ....a. . -p,~~
~~> \\~~
~~p.~.% t, '.%s ' s. T.:. l, l- ) d.g., ;.... a 6.. g n. . q% -y +:w. .Q qy,p:r ; - c t~~
~~,q v o~~
~~1 e m.. . ; 4:g..n, ~ $.1.'.f;{,:l, ?. 7...K.k&.&. s j..- .y.g ry,.s. m m 3;N n;. u. 4 %_ i;n9 /y~~
~~3... w, :n.,e.~~
~~4:;p'..,f _~ k gl y, ), y.$ % - ( N.,mlQ,; G. . M,, > &r..c - .,, -m.3,. - c ;.. J p i;e,% 4-,,a ; - ...z.,, &&:l.%Q ~.f.. p n.,v.9,.~ n.3..G r ,w ; n n}. f::.g r~~
~~m. 7. " w. # Q \\,.'.~~
~~[j$&J.,' '~ . - 7.'s.'.y;V m t;\\ p~,:.,. :,M.\\ c.,.=;0m.L. w.<hs, p ptl h,:yly _ %.., ...e Q:~~
y
/ Q: tc ,.,,. 7 .e-p. s.% - i,n % . 4, ;,.:, m ::',o, '- .s . y yy - 9~ 2tt &s' % a. v a y,., T R. m. g,e,, s ~ 1. v. t < ? o >.. ^ .. e Q 'h W_. a., n. y, y..?y.3 ;,.,y n;,,.. y' ;( a,.. A ..c , ~,,, c .s , x. af,.s W., ~ *, .u ~., ~,...,,, .3 s,,., . g n. .. q., s, y.. y, ^ . sg o- . g .'.h., u.:,. e y., a Q,.;l,.. sW% '.&. j v.W* i.-Q % '
~~."9 '- w. l,T::~~
~~~ f,, &y 9 v @.:n:? c.,h M. N,J ** W M.,,, W.p _#.A *: -5.Kr,~.n'.,,f. < q w.i. 3 :~~
~~/. s'.~~
' J L & ' l.. A"., ' 's, .-., ~ ~ v -4 YL.M '. ' M..Q..'W n r-M: C .:.s-s m. o &c .. = ' -. s 4.M <.&w. . T.y'?.;.:-j<;.:;;.%,f D t-y.W L q18 .i.p fiM Q: .Mrs &(..%y..Q'Q..Q.Q. w*,,s,A.b 4 '~~ @ ; W )o!.C, W.P'.".*, . "4 f.. ^ ~r A , M.:6:3 a 6 W W'?. t. ,6' q / 9... v.v -
~~O. Q u. z,rd, ",. ;.y.G(u.r'.&!ay,lf:.R.;..a;;Q,,g@yqh.. /.w%,, Q,7,M; V., p~~
.%,.. W.. p %, . G. N i. lk.., s>.;, p.> s.. (.;n,rp~g ..t u- . c..n. < n ,. a .a. m. Me. .. p,..y e.c. $.n..y " e' y :. n ;m... c. n. N,.. s.u.. i,<. e nm . ~., ..~ v >i., pn d . b....s. r ^ a 6, f'v4 _.. 7:). w..,,3*: k,..ut. 1. /.y. yQ 4. *,r;yp. - g; Y.v.OU, w,.i f, v z, p,c.- y* h.. y. A V. e:c b u -v s a 3. ?. -, .. c-v .. y. - o;L ,a N f. w w.;/y:s b.s- . NuL hp,;.ca+T:pyrs.;tn.y, M. 4.' Y.4a. p;q..y. 9.%. y
q

6..
~~j . :s. v<r ge.. p .e 4 m. ? vn )g ':i; p.y f.. s .; g.. ev . p.. :. v g .f .p m D..- n ,. nc s,.,%q,y%..wr. v :p: q2, s w.v: w Y '. x, u y,me.gg .. g;:. ' !/.yg o~~
4. %,% gyn

p u

c y:,-
yy
s m

..
~~,w, 9 M y r a ~ -,. - s M. p%% * ;,u, v-c.,.:.~~
~~y y?,.y~~
~~-. 8, y z~~
7%
~~m,p. wg.M:: ;s 4 ,.' l,,Q: Y;5.,, - 77 . w: 4, . s, :.'.m + y. w.-~~
~
~~. v ;f ~ ; n 'k \\ ) - '? f I',' Q:~,., ', o ,,Y .nu -' {' ? N ), A.y: T ?i '~~
~~-W.~~
W,< s .t _ < p. m ,,y -y ,s .i, m. 4 P ~ Contentions as Admitted Derivation s ?. 4. %c spent fuel pool of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 1 Power Station is so located that in the event of a se-vere accident resulting in hydrogen gas being released ' t into the reactor btd! ding, it is possible that either: (a) 3i spent fuel cooling systems will be damaged and ren-dered inoperable with restricted access to the building (v. ? preventing their repair; or (b) the structural integrity of N / the spent fuel pool will be breached. i u t, s l ']' Z ({, ~. 3 5. Inadequate cooling of fuel in the spent fuel pool or a { ? ~ y ,y breach in the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool i M, ~ y ',. + M can result in a radiological release. i, y 6. Allowance of the proposed license amendment would
~~C.< y. j.~~
~~u 4( s oo , O, ' ' increase the amount of spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool and, thereby, increase the magnitude of the M~~
~~.,, e,~~
,j possible radiological release that could occur in the .C '..rr ' ~ 9 1 event of a severe accident ... ~ d 4..- i l Contention 3 NECNP Contention 5 o %c NRC has not complied with the provisions of the %c Applicant has failed to submit an adequate analy- ? sis of alternatives to the proposed action, as required by National Environmental Policy Act nor of its own rules in ~ 60102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E) of the National Environmen-10 C.F.R. Part 51. tal Iblicy Act. 42 U.S.C. 654332(2)(C) and 4332(2)(E), e and implementing NRC regulations or guidelines. Specifi. Basis in pertinent part NRC rules (10 C.F.R. 51.21) re-cally, the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the al-quire the preparation of an environmental assessment for ternatives of (1) dry cask storage and (2) independent pool all licensing and regulatory actions except those identi-t './
<.T:' *Q;y W.;,5 m., ,.,... v n. i.Q +. m,:m 'f .. : q c. I ,,k L*..';,, M ;A,, M. J.;.. W y M. G
..,

.MG.; yp; :;
t
~~,,.,. c. % 7.~~
ec
~~.,.:. n ~~~
~~y;, . g n.. p!f. &. ~:.I: lL. ..x9 e .klx$$:l$lb. .~ hQ.w'. % f: h.h.lf.mlQ,,y' '.~l, ld h,$f.i ,a.,p v &j.f l [n.' l-N '.h, z,53 m y,Ly W. p 3,..., _ k, 5.1.. 4g vp ..y, ..-m .x'~~
~~9. a,~~
~~,,4* m',, 8 I... n ,. y. p.g.-.,s i, e;.~~
~~i.;.. %,x...<fg g< ! ;~~
e ^.. , s i; ' G;cR.M,$. ;;14. ;%...,.. rj..:jt; ', :[3 ',y. g. >. n.. -%.o%._.,... mr W.P '.. ' . r, ,Mi39;.%g;W, P.,. e.V w,:!g s z. e..r. .s -.. L: ;f. -. .= * %. Az g:y.r g.qnq{. ': yr y .4 3 J...,.. y...b.%2c;;;.unW,;. ;:V.f, r ~, -.m f 7%
~~A.%,'~~
~~x cW~~
~~g. ;.3 9.. 3.;wx..,, A;.m;r. -~~
~~y- ? oA4- ~p,, %.. < 6+, . s.. ns.w a: n g w ~u v r.n m~~
~~.y w,..e.~~
~~~ ~.% e .c..,*3,.,n.,.... ~. .r ~<.,x.,. . + o, s. ~e&.2 9r5..,.,: y~~
~~0 +;. ;, s %~ ~. c;m,, Q,.,~~
~~r r;.y: g.,w.; ?r. n x,. m.y~~
~~y...,v.., b ;e,.,. g r, p. q~~
~~..,.,i.t>..tr -p v. y. '.>,,.c.. so~~
~~,~4 y~~
~~J. d~~
~~r...~~
~~t ..i <* r 9. ya - v: ,.,.~w,.. .. m,. :.. u... g,.~~
~~n. -~~
~~2.:. .., cv w..:.. .., 9 i .,,,m.. e o ~ a. .s -3, q r w,.- .~- w..y., 4.m, 3..m,,m.,,.:., og.x.v. - nh..a, g..., ,., u.cw ~, ,s, 7<;. e .r- ' ;J c , <,....p,..,.p~. ;. y;v ...O,Y ,. a..~ w w - w.~~
~~a. - e,a.p<~~
~~,j... a . m...,g y. m...,.,.^ g-~~
~~i...,, -~~
a r. _.p...m%n y,, p.-.%,.,.., n,.., s n. s 1 3p3v.v. ...,..g .m6 ,.7,., ,.m. ...m. 3 ..u, .. ; :. e., s .i,,-,,..r ,,,3.f.; Y. s ff*} f",Yk,h z ', 'fL Uf h'f &Y'fs h ff',.! ll i.A, '. Y:gj.ll. h - lf.
~~f ' J,{~~
~~j c,y ^ [ [ .k [ , ". ! i! 3. 'i n yk.D,: w:: %. ' '2 c. e,.;>r:::'.;w &,,th e.4;;>[Ywa.',.,5 ; :,, 3 ' p.~~
~~3. C %~~
~~~, y %,:a;7,, m,: / .w k wy.*g-q.a.o. n s g'y - >:. o.8 ~ m . ag - ,x.,.el Lg... qm .V p, .a..,~~
~~.. b.,. 4..,+3,.q,. ; W.; ' M,< y *- '~~
~~.8 r r* I s w ,yp,. ..u~~
~~... * - *i~~
~~".,yp ,; 5, p M'~~
~~N ' ' #, s p^~~
~~f 'M 'h' P' h T* s. r [.y f.,(.(:,,~~
~~,',. p. c ;~~
.t,! ,s , k #- ,.O.' s h-J I*
[
~~g, t y: n,,',,s,,,..d',']j v. '[", ,h.',' ... '..,, ' ' ll, g j >.. ;4., - d ,.s '.~~
~~5 g~~
vw
~~e. -~~
~~,34 1 l g%. r .i 9 + w.c. + s,, v3 .m. c. s'.. c 1 u. 9 ,?: wn .r r .) l~~
~~o 1-I l~~
i e, a t. ,? Contentions as Admitted Derivation storagc. Both of these alternatives are availabic options and ficd as requiring an impact statement (Listed in 10 C.F.R. j. 3 /' 3,. provide obvious safety advantages over the instant proposal 51.20(b) or categorically excluded in 5 51.22(c)).This pro-posed amendment is listed in neither section and thus re- /' quires at a minimum the preparation of an environmental d e e assessment. "Ihat docunwnt has not been prepared. "I. {. J While NECNP expects to change this contention at such i time that NEPA-related documents are issued by NRC, it f; . ~ i Ol can state preliminarily that two areas of specific concern to [i 4 WI. t W it are the consideration of alternatives to the proposed ac-I , ~ < tion and consideration of the increased risic to public health p
~~~,-~~
f ..3 and safety. In particular, serious consideration should be [ G u given to the alternatives of dry cask storage and indepen- 'C. . I. ;a m ','. , j,. dent pool storage, both of which provide obvious safety [V 'o advantages over the instant proposal. On July 2,1986, the l.
~~j'y,'~~
i j t -Yl NRC licensed an independent spent fuct storage installation [ o. - J.ja using dry casks for the two Surry plants in Virginia. I, ; 1: 5 Commonwealth Contention il V' d l "Ihc Commonwealth contends that the NRC has failed to I. comply with its own rules and, as a result, has failed to. consider alternatives to the proposed action such as the - l' m construction of a dry spent fuel storage facility or an in-ground spent fuel pool. f, (' s r Y s-4=
^ r ~..P-0,.. u- 't e - - - Y l "' .,.). I* ( * '". .d.,
^,
~~- ~ 8 "n...dJ8d,. (.. v ,,'L, y : J,' r m,, s<h. s..;,'sy,,...e -* 5 ' ',,t' . ; f ' Z.h. t#* ' i.#.' J~~
~~1 m."y*O,'k:r..~~
~~g3, A., q'. r M. Y L '.J>. '.J N '%.'.ff.. ' 'w,*'.*\\. e .t-e v ~ .n e<3.. f. yy; .t.y. ~v hQ ',,,t f.,.$ 3 '.' ? !s l. <1h k..., l?.. . ?., % A~~
~~m. f., I, u,~~
-t. m'., v,.,. Vf*. *
.o v,y Q

' n,{ h. l'l f

,..,,1 p).g.'j*.p. s..' v ek
~~.* f. y'* n.',. m*.e. v... e. m + .I.,.3 sy$,&;N = 8'v'K;','{Q. ,,f..'.*[*'. ? *,.:.,G L. %'*, #,,';,p,?~~
~~m.m;'~~
T' # kp.. ..' - ;. ; g ( 'hlQ,,. 8 -,. f +,. f 1; * '4-lp. ^* ,. 4 r,,;'(,, y
~~n "L..y;, 4,-4,,.};l~~
~~,.. }"&' *,g l:i y.,em'./.1 y ;. ". J f,',.s~~
y, ev d

*z. 4 c' r.
~., - .22 .s...* <. 9. r <....,.. ~ lgc. - e e t 9~* < '3;- s .(,'" .* j'.** y ,. : y: t sn p 3.. a in i#- / c -f. 6-. * . ' % &,,.-. 'Q's*3,,;;f.,. n, h -:,. %; 'yQ.'. A 'F *, 'o ' ' ' W'.A. e '.*3 s ?, k' :V C 1', l *,' h ' $ '
~~fQQ 4~~
~~'.',s~~
~~f;,%~~
~~s -'.(ff a 8 '?." ,a p. +y 4~~
~~, 5 i 9 c '.~~
~~x ,) c. 9.Q v ..m- %, D.., ..,,, 9 ; . :;., n.w., %;K. R,, ,.u.\\,., '~,~~
~~.y..~~
~~a ~ s ~ s e.f );, % y,,4;....' 6 '," fs, ' '.q p a c-~~
~~s t v~~
~~y * ). - a., hV YN I '",*f ',, ' 4, ; f~~
~~,b..~~
~~4*,,, '$$.(4 Q.[kE l ". Y g. \\* .. s 1 l., ' I ,, ?A ' ' \\ b *' e I '{ A'1 r( _ ..T~~
,f *
.s ,. g ' f,"*
~~H Q "2~~
~~' =, " p . g['., ".., b',[ *'s.* 3.'? ,;,'*'(,'~~
~~c. dr',g^) l( 7.t. ',, -C~It[. j.F 7j f +~~
~~.,.1 ...r-], p 7 7 ' e y !" s' . + 'e,d ' i,,y *: N' f,;', h e.~~
~~4 '~~
~~, 2 a, <,,. ',* h. ; ,.T,,,,, t J =.,.f,*t w-e , {.,f -S. ," e e ~ J~~
~~f,..o Q., 7, #, 'f. ;)~~
~~s jg. s r. v' ', p',. f f,* J e'" M fQ % -( p- 't ej - 'd,p. 4.*,,dy., s~~
a.,.,e sr'. l 4. b..s.# #.
~~r. - = t a .. J. 's.f,er. g .a p* t o, .7, L /, V 4/ %? g.s %,.es. s .,;.9 .p p, /, 'r ~ s- -r = 7 N,.. t (' P. d.,~~
~~n '3...a','~~
~~.%,\\, ' '.a~~
4.
~~b,;.~~
~~e >..A, .'i- :, f~~
i*.b

r
~~[ , ' ' j 2, .,y a Q.- ir-., l y; *,,'b.N a a .s - t, . ? ,e.,4,..,.. o.. m'a~~
4, v..,,.:. "g,'.',e,;83,. ;. %e.w,'t. b -,' e ' i.g

4 'm*
.,,A. ;f q e';,.8 ;,, ,, / m. vm. e a m ..,v, a - p;, u .,/. 9.. A j a,3. - .~. -; ef.,..3. U s. s,.); etw %e ^ m .Y.- ap,.' ,.,. %.. s,..s.,'> .Cn'-'.= ,3, z x, w, i, %,,- 's, s t, . v e %s, a s. g -% d:L,&.%,,. W.k:p;".>V . %;: g<. h 3*>' O' ' t. )'d *' l.} s , s..g *2 n, -..i .g/ >, , ~;p', Q n .3 ' y.i_.. . ' !%r., ltr w ms i p ^. ' s a .".'G Q.-{3g,?y'* 6"J = ta q
~~'\\l Q..l > '~~
~~.;p '... ~~ n, Ji@,f,';."' c (: Q., E 7 I g, y @,Q: p. w ~m. e. gg g:pm, g:.0 'eJ G,g,.4%g.y 4 w u.m;;v. g g g'. 'e x* ws@em, c., g' ~ g%.. c> k ,. ;,:..gg. Q s, w~.g UQ u, ,;w ww~. J,. .s.w w;'r u-~~
~~...,. t.~,m, ny-s.,~~
~~99- ~ : t. ~ w. -o ;4 -nr. .u.. .c;,y m. m.a. ,1.,, s _ r, w,. e, ,-, y.-%' -,<;$u. s ,e -,,5 ,y-p. 3,,.,. -I.: 3 ,5 s t* v' ,s ..,y~~

~~3., ',. y,,~~
~~.,.r. , i_ .. v.e w s .4 . >a*,... w - 3 i~~
e.
~~. r _. m ;. +.. .,4. a.. m;y, s, ,.s ~.e .. y v- +.., n . ;, g?..,,,s N7, + - x s = -act ,,. n, :n;. ~g. y.,y s c ..c.q p.. n ~ :.. s4,. , y : w,>;.- s 7. .y .,.A, . c.,~, _3.s- ~ e. l 4 +~~
.,g y.,.,.,.

y n
~~e .s y - 'h ..m,7 e, ,;,,-,.s,~.., a.. c, l 7 ., 4 y Comentions 4 Admitted 3 . n.. s Derivation .. -.d Basis: af l - .j 1. The basis for Cont - e 2. NRC regulations (10 CE.R orated herein.~~
~
q iSI 2 ] an cnm, onmental assessment be Fe ed I u, j ing and regulatory actions execM those which rc "} b F.R. g 5 ement pirsuant to 10 L,- .' l o m 651.22(c). e les rically excluded 1,b - 3. en on g ',*G' S' ^ ..l cither 10 CE.R. f 51.20(b) or } 5 identified in ) ^ >1 .,. 4 e .'t ,I l' a *\\ r 't 4 i ? e s t-F 4 e 9 4 k N P A a t
= .2,. m. 3 ,g.[, t, A' ]; ' 3. (* '. -,.i ' 'p '
3
~~' e .s, e , - ~ . _1- ,: v, y. .~ ...g ~ .v.. l I 4~~
~
~~. ~_.,, 1 ,<s. 5 e, (. /~ * * %)g ' - J. q:,4'a . :x F i, 4 ~~.. Atomic Safety p-g 3. ~ mz and L. censing m i~~
~~.% M, w R-ee.~~
Boards issuances . s. 'n' ' my 2:.y; M.. a; ~;pg, .. y.. .m. a. . : : p. ..c ?, ~.: z,-f k
~~W ;;..-~~
~~n, : %.':~ ; ,,, ~.., N, g. '. r q-a :, ".m s .y;.g.,.3g. ; i... ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4 u 2 :y. ~ g~~
.,

e.

. -
~~.m y.::. 9 n.~~
~~.f.:n;:.~~
~~B. Paul Cotter,~~
~~Chairman r~~
~~.%./->t; r~~
~~cg f~~
~~/ ;.Y.- -W,j.&~.-. Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) ea ..;;?. ' ($t.. Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) _.%,i = w o g k ca. ' ~ s .,s-y,;;, Members at . a.~~
~~..m~~
~~.e Dr. George C. Andersor: Hertmt Grossman* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' Charies Bechhoefer' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour~~
Morton B. Margulies' Glenn O. Bright

Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L Milhollin
-[. Dr. A. Dixon Caliihan Emest E. Hal Marshall E. Maler James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' 'M. - [, a/ e s}; ~;, Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Oscar H. Paris' ,K 1, Dr. Richard F. Cole
~~Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink~~
'e --l.: ' Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan tysn W. Smith' ~ ' ' U., Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley' Dr. Martin J. Steindler , s u Dr. Har.y Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober .9
~~7 '~~
Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb lil Seymour Wenner John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Linenberger' Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little .. -,_ -. y t+ q, .:. s '. ' 'i*. , f. s , ',.p. -- a
~~',, j i,~~
~~.e r }, ' ' ~~~
p'
' + ,, -- - ' a '* :, l .,.1*
~~7).'~~
.A~j'. ,.i. .Mf" ~ ex. ; ;. - . c.- : .r o.m?j-1.E ' ' ^ R'. 4 T 7 a' ; i I'. J}4. G z ".., -.i, b; + v.%! k,:,.h'%';" J f ,;,s . ',.3 I[ 4. 'Q [ " ',,.,, s'.' ' A., t ' 13 i;'.' ' ^, f.I s ..% ;:p' 'n ... a - ~..-s***- h.:.%'y 2, 8 4 Py I g.g.M, * .t 3. /.. e r.-,, - . 3'_. y., Np*4.., w,,
~~3 f,.~~
~~s -,sq i~~
f' [

l f ~,
~~Pemunani panelmembers r.pgg;.--;. [~~
~~,X a y n',, ,m ."g.,, s,, (." ' s L. 'j.., d . = * * =,. -.wa m.*h~~
~~==s g~~
....eq,. ..w,,,,,9 ,m, .,g u r. a l L O g s ; i s [ e eh ~ .q + \\ b jen ~ s + w .= ..ww w-- ,.w,-,.-,-,,,,_4,. m--, ,.ne-_, ,.,g. g. -.yU,y ,,.L--, ,,, _ - - _.,,4--
,.",f.r.,e. t., x,. a. .2 v. s.c .r w e:l, u..w m#s.m .w ... f. w. N. m,' ;.. .. v. ~, c... - %,. g- .... w ~ \\ ' ~ -:. :
n.
s z, : .t : ' ' ~.. w; y - :,;g, ~ [ Cite as 26 NRC 41 (1987) LBP-87 22 c ',/Skg.X.. ;, < ~ r - ', o ,w ....p .,, m s x, , s. 2 ,J ~,' ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s 3, s ~ ~. !. ,e. . z,;. - e .,; p. 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A j.M D m+'.;f.J i.g;-?[...,,p,- . ~ - j + m -
w
..;x s ...~.6 1.. ~ q; -t. , ;m._, ,. w. c,.. ;, e + s. :..- w. - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -, a -. ..,.w r .6 5 - W. 9 -- - 9. t ..s.. - - 1. ; - 4..,, m.,.... to-a,.* ..t Before Administrative Judges: z.s.q' r +,. m..g M N f;6 ,.,4 , b 4... -..,
~~1. v.~~
1 ' 'y:... ;.M : '... : ',J,.W,.Y..s G :s... ? c g - Ivan W. Smith, Chairman n.m. .=,'a.m-w +,.., {gy.y,, c 4n .-;.., m.op s @.,.a. _y..g,c, e.1..9, W' Q &. r@CD a9 W g g-* c v-[g,' _ r. Dr. A. Dixon Callihan u%L.M. J c,. on x./ s '~ : U. ;.. Dr. Richard F. Cole s n.q - m
~~v. 3, n.9 m*..~~
,, ;..,.j i *
~~.'.,[*.,7...<.,*jI'.g.. _c g &.s.., 9..~~
.% j w Ay. %. -, v; y p ,.g,9;s.su y.a)v. m.; v. u w .5 w M.. uQ..,. $_,N-:. '.. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-456-OL [ W.$_ ht _,1 T, s 4 ( v. G $,3. n.,. 50-457 0L ~4;' ',f j. y. j %,..; - Q.r. E ' ', s .s. (ASLBP No. 79 410-03-OL) 's y n.,g ,s m v
.y
~~. :.aye.. r. ,.+. U <,1.g y;t. . COMMONWEALTH EDISON . 3 ,.'m. -?9,'?. -"d ; 9 (Braldwood Nuclear Power Station, c..'~~
~~.1F COMPANY 1,;.~~
~~qi~ r '. Units 1 and 2) July 6,1987 ^ 'N' m. c4,~~
~~m. s a.~~
n.. 7,., u. . -,,.y. .4 %..* ';,. .u ~.!,.')j7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER = ~ ~ ...v.. (Denying Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration and . 7 - ;; v ' i". ' M, 7 1" Denying Interrenors' Refiled Motion to Reopen the Record) j ..y . ~. ~ c i . ~g~- I. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1'... h. : ' .x. v w- ..o, . r+' W ;.' In our Memorandum and Order of June 10,1987, we denied the motion of .,m. j '.] Intervenors, Rorem et al., to 61e a late 61ed contention on financial qualinca- ';t. . ;W w' +, g.,..+, '.N. tions. LBP-8719, 25 NRC 950. 'Ihe proffered contention was based upon a s , " t'; 1 proposed change in the ownership and 6nancing arrangements for the Braid. m s wood Station. We rejected the contention for want of jurisdiction because, as f.a Q C..,.fh,o, e, ' %,..#. E 1.6, *,.r. m. t s,. s un-s
~~.. h h +\\w 7.* g p.y--~~
~~. /Na~~
.,g f .hy, ,D). ' (,...Z.)s, 4, T.,',s' ' ~.. :. ~ p. -, [ (*
~~,5 l.,~i,.,~~
'a y. 3,., m...s;,<, A c...n., >r[Q' [ a-a, ** O['.t )h -s * <*k. 'N' ..r. , E.).[.h"*[ *'. *' I ['.;Ml t s* .,k, s, w... ~ - s. ~-, .g1 .N:,* s,, : g.. ?1 .,.v.* _(,- s' .;.Uig {#< *4 8()g,ft'. 2 b e,y ff ',' i I,' ? v. ,s - m %s 2 s -c: !l 'Y U-' ,j .y- .q.c ; ,. + ~ ~-
~~I.M'-~~
~~M M*MA.qPeum= 9 -e.we-*e vete..e t*sy-ge.= ere. eee,,.,.. _ e I bf I = g e f e s b s 4 4 4 2 s "4 e~~
~~l 1~~
~~s 1 6 a 4 ) 'v 8 4 g n - i.,, '. g ^ y j A .:'o. i .q Y-y .e,*.,, c.-,* 1 n r q . 9 << ..d-9# + ,c y y 'Og~~
~~-D4~~
~. r. b s 4 -__m f*_
e w,w%.. ' ~ ^ -.- -.. a -- - " - " - - w ~ ~ " ' l w.b.. 9,.:,.a . o a... u,..- s2 m. 4 .m,w s,'y. w n.x. .u, "
~~a.,~~
~~mm ,,.r~~
~~'**.g.~~
~~j,4; g c.':, g 1 2~~
~~3. 4( f 'i ;;.a.9, y %';Z: L '.j, R~~
~~'a* %y ' < ' j gs' J~~
. e a

'
3 '% :d$1f[NN k we stated, any application for an amendment to the operating license seeking ,{l,N A.Q.'*M \\ .c approval for the proposed change would be the subject of a separate proceeding. J , 7 [,Q We also noted (incorrecdy) that the Licensee had not yet even applied for an N -r
4
'y %q _y + operating license amendment for the ownership changes - an obvious predicate ..' M;,M. 't. J n.67c.W,8'O. - -w f tojurisdiction over the issue that would be raised by the application. We did not
~~v. ;~~
-::p.:,'M:^c.g.4~;,'P enumerate, because it was not necessary to do so, all of the other steps required 6.ld@j ' f before jurisdiction over a proceeding is conferred upon an NRC presiding officer s. g.G,y 1 945G - except to note that, at minimum, the Commission must issue a notice of ,s'QA y j. 'p Q ' ' i. opportunity for hearing on a license amendment application.1 . _ g Y d.,M&. d y:-U.,:. By motion mailed June 23,1987, the Intervenors petitioned for reconsidera-i s ,g ?.~.y vT@L.0,a % f.; "w. L g W r. tion of the Board's June 10 order on the grounds that the Board was mistaken 5.W ME[)Qi$ Q *.TNO[@. hg[$'(' y then been filed. In fact the application had been filed on May 28. Intervenors In its belief that the application for the change of Braidwood ownership had not .M$IO: M$@Q, l.M GW:g6;. 'MN$i M.Mf confer upon this Board jurisdiction over the proposed contention. Apparently, argue that the original notice of hearing in this proceeding was broad enough to @$;N f W* "ld'M.hMTM.9.
~~Q Z~~
~~2 xcording to Intervenors, the application for changed ownership simply makes { . g%.in V, J/I5WW the issue ripe for this Board's consideration under that previously conferred~~
~~' j ^~ D.....~~
$% "g~4,. ,%.'2f' 4 b .f< jurisdiction. Motion at 2. The Board had already considered and rejected the ,W . -2:,l hl $:- possibility that the original notice of hearing would provide the necessary juris- ~M .'.l.,'c.jh f. $.g. ty. gg,1. diction to consider the issue raised by the amendment application. LBP-8719, [ - ' ~ 25 NRC at 95152. Intervenors' motion for reconsideration raises nothing new i
~~, [ ' {.0 9 ' 9'if i' except the fact that the first of several steps essential to the commencement of~~
(." , '~ ',; ;/.E j.D an adjudicatory proceeding has been taken. Intervenors seem to have confused .f>] w (, the NRC's jurisdiction over the application with a licensing board's jurisdiction y' y to preside over any proceeding on the application. j /
~~fM '~~
~~Recent events make it unnecessary to prolong the discussion. On June 30, ~.~~
~~N WWf 1987, the Commission issued its order giving immediate effect to the Board's~~
^;
y;, ( y ', t earlier decisions authorizing operation of the Braidwood units. CLI 87 7, 26 1 .v.s ~1 n4k ., m Q. W., j,'1. NRC 1 (1987). In that order the Commission commented on the pendency of the financial qualification motion before this Board and noted: s .r t ~
~~i% y Since the new entity is not the applicant for the licenses whose issuance was authorized by A,'~~
the Board. ** have not considered this new contendm during our effectiveness review. '!he ' W{ 2 poceeding. awlicadon to have the new er.tity operse the facitity will be the subject of a separate .y:...
(,
yJ ,:Wj%,.. 1E ip: 4 * /d. at 2 n.4. s - e .c; - e c' ,. :<&c It is clear that the Commission, as does the Board, regards the amendment 1 - d's-Ai, application to be beyond the proceeding over which we now exercise jurisdic-s,., n --; e ny 4 r k,. u[' .s W Mi',,.,; 2, d M8.p!!(',Yhk.y %d@[ y (,'g a A. x:M@ % "J. ,,3 I.ciia is9 er the Atanic Energy Act as amaded (42 U.st 12239): 10 C.F.R. 6 2.10s. 3 e al.se 10 s h%h'l C.F.R. 6 2.717, Ccmma,... and terminatim erjunsectam of presdng erf.cer. ~ x g-f h. e u. f..e~ n w; .n. .w > y:-.: N % M',q.;sfs,. N 's*;X' M. Q, W [& w v .. l l I. Q ',b.l.. G QM:'.$y,. p-iv f 1 . n.. n. v,.s, wwaf.w.%s._. j ty 5 =,d. : ' t 44 .,3 >s e ,r s ,' j 'i.y ~.. ,~'..;- p;;.. .W;yg:y. 4 s ,, ;.. ; / ;"G 3,'s 9 5 ~ .Li*a 4 w ,.'],- '.#5.-*****e-G. WW W m q" .De= g geogenpg 9,, 3 A T i .n st. N' e .=i 3 .}. ~- ~; '. 5 ' ). ~ % - s -, +s. ff l'~ 33 i ? f l7 : s ....s.
~~3., s y:,~~
? i i,y ~ ~ ,,U'h 5 I'f. ' " [., - S. "~ e 3 ,5)., ..l b / y Q 3,, 9, _L. .y s-un- ,y ,,, Arc ~
, q.w; w.,W ,s w u.x o.ts.-p 3., w. ; s q 4 6 + ,4 [
i
.g . ' Y" '," h $s,.,. ~.,,. ', % a't. #.-y. ' n, ,. a ,s .u .,. :., c n y. . m9, x.,..w .m. ~. o ps. *,.. c. 7N. ^~ % a -,,. ~ 'Th g[ A,. - '.'r U tion. Derefore, without waiting for answers to Ir.tervenors' motion for recen- .. ; s. W.. C., f.,. U v ' sideration, the Board denies the motion.2 ~ .s., y,. . _.c y., -, e,,. + l,.. ; T. 4.C. , S O;t - - II. INTERVENORS' REFILED MOTION TO REOPEN -fg:(m@ %@if JV THE RECORD - n :3.y w.. n.v.. . ;..; s, n ~~,, ,y~ On July 1,1987, Intervenors served a paper entitled "Motion to Reopen .. ^. c. the Record to Admit Late-Filed Contention on Financial Qualifications." ne % [ F Y h [%gs.#., 4 ;. N.J.. .[t >.{ t.r/; $.j/.)g. in Intervenors' May 6,1987 motion on the same subject. It also incorporates WM Q motion restates the same factual averments and arguments originally set out -' /,7.>W.;,.L..M~ s - O~...s; R.c.,.! %,f the arguments made in Intervenors' motion for reconsideration discussed and ~ @@;? D j,l @ & @;,2 Tc y(_ [ MWh,.M. 4 denied above. De July 1 pleading adds no new information or support for v Intervenors' position. It appears to be designed to cure any defect perceived in D'. MW.iglc )m the May 6 motion based upon the fact that the earlier motion was filed before c W Y R M.).M..g-Y9,,0 W d... N '. ,9( v --c q c. c, the lication for the license amendment on ownership changes. 'O. - -.P,....; V ?; b,A. M,E ? % Our reasons for denying the Intervenors' original motion were explained in ..- t s y,.. . t 17.9. , f % 4; F , 'our respective June 10 Order and expanded upon in the discussion above. De fact that Intervenors' original motion was filed before the application did not j .y'hcy[,/.u:%;;1 $,,' by itself defeat the motion. Refiling the motion after the application does no* .s..-.'-T /W.$, i -m, t. .J ,s k.,, s m-save it. As ex lained, we sim I lack urisdiction to consider it whenever it is f ' ' r. 7'..f,:l i[ filed. He motion to reopen the record is therefore denied. x ; : w-- n e 4, FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY ~- -. . a. AND LICENSING BOARD .:.y-, n. s./
~~r s~~
~~i..Y.e >Wr!, Ivan W. Smith h.a 7y. ;@. ' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE c M ~ * .w.: ,=: y 7; V; M..#.. ' w Bethesda, Maryland .. '3 '..R July 6,1987 a.- e ,.,e S. ,,l* e .?h t' 6 N*. s I,. s.~~
~~p.,~~
~~,....*u 'r 'f ^)~~
~~. l. Y.'~~
~~a T, 1y f_ ..r ]~~
e.5.f s *
~~~ T I ~ r..., ny'.M., r,g.. g ~ , m .n ; 3.. 4 '-Q -, mnL - d.' Ys' Y' ' [ I i.*,f., t 4 g g , p. - '3 ,c. y~~
~~m.. %,,~~
~~,-h, .'-h~~
~~e C0unse of Luenses and b NRC stafr wars inforr.ed that answers to b mt. ion for reconaders&m wars not J~~
~~M".f.M' Q' r,yd&p repahed. Q M,t~~
W:
~~r ,, ;w c.p, n@..m~~
~~3...~~
~~c u, 9,.c .n t a-a'M..k.e%w- ,r , s, a. s y, tt e =$;n -im e. en, ~y U ~, [-Q Q, ),. s f.f.'~~
~~Q %Y' R*,E sl,~~
~~,:v w . h is h ki/ Gli bD ,,[ N ' a m w]9 3.a 7, ~, .y' ;c .7 m?* . m. g y; s ' c.Q;, ; X.;.. . e. ',2 , N.,' p.- h s.hIII'[ ^ ~3' .s .g J., g. *<j. ; ;. i 4 tG.4, y;*^ '* ~ s 1~~
~~j..,~~
~~,r.. 2 .,w....-. .m ry.7- 'N +1- .e - : r.- y a s g e. 5 6 . ~> *r' ~ ._s. b t ' # i' i .:,~,' ..d L~~
~~2 s~~
TM 4 [$ .,s r e .c1. - .,.7 s t-y s
.,m.w : g, .S. ? ?.y.s >., y -' - g. ', wfn r,,-s / <! w-u-.., i <. +. ~ p- ., ~ - ,no ,2, \\ '. s.y:.~.- l s ...~. -. &..w.. %. s. .y, s n ,u [ % ~ .'t! I- *- ,. \\s i, - s., i ,, A ,.e N [. d g f.., .-J,' 4 s 4 4 i ( m g .v. -+1;. D.irectors,
~~1. j~~
~~. is i. a.v.,-.: cg . n~..Jn, ~ m. r. u . ;.< ?~~
~~s.,-~~
Dec..sions I;,y.. i .x bE .N ,'S I m,g' (.+~ Under &. e _.n. gd E 10 CFR 2.206 C %w u.m...,.~w..R.. - cn a..,.. e,. ns n, .M I^'),,, s h., A...;.W >e..,L,,p < p, s;,s.l w. %.,. ;. e </s 4 .j - w I =#.e.,, /.f. s f. e' .c,...** . +.., ,"tv.k.'..g
~~8 (Q* S~~
d

.e
~~==.gh.' 7 d. ' s ,, 's, % t, m' ; t ,.a + ; g, ).: d , f m,.~~
u. p

s.. <, ~ c,..;m...
~~2 p-,,. '., c, ein-u a *... : _ f,,y. r,.~~
~~5..,.u g~~
~~..,m, + +.. ,,-.~.g"-a- , f,, f. t r aa q" s t. 2 l 3. 46 s,- .,[ h... 'i: : :, 'e, s 1 g , ; - (3l [; Q. 4 1 s, .. 't t, .Q ~ ', .. l_ ~ .w y b 5 k g ~ v ':~~
-K
D ' s. .\\, ~, a .o ',, e f v g j t...*
~~. Vw w.~~
~~.t-q_.. r f, f, M l j - s 4 ,2et., -*pW' k. kg / 4 L%' ,[ f,*e g~~
~~\\g e.,~~
~~( -y' ,',' f, 6 4 *," 4, *'. ,.c. Is, - 6 .sv<' X g A g~~
~~s e,,~~
~~E S E^ ,p I . L, d~~
~~4,,~~
~~5 rs Y ,%. r g. 1 ~~%%* O h y'ln ' &*~g$.' j,......Q,,$.Y s ^ , t,' .g *p-: - .4 , - y 'g c;. - , '.*r " -? (;..,ll;;* '~~
~~T *l.,h.. f,J', #~~
r (*f7[t*, q 7'. (*. s. 4 Q' ~ <., ' ' ' -*',,w ;.,x.y w ' '.' ;'a.gie n. ", ~ - *, - .., ~ l9,' 'ad &5m?y % % * "r ss, f % s v'y -W .r_.. ' "~y, sm,.:,* , '.. ;h. '* ;,e 4 s 1 s. 3. c#,,J.'.,. , * ' ; n * $,,'f jW 5J, ~ ca ,.c g.. >. +.
~~~#, gt.h '~~
~~( g~~
~~q.. >~~
t y - 2.s,.5. -- s,.. s- .y .-A,- s, - t t e f.* i s.' V 4 4, "4 .-.-w.4,.,,-,,- .-.y,-.-,.S...,....... ^ e g 4 T 4 ...er* ' a 4 4 y 4 g a %q% R l. I ".4 6 f 9i 2_. _ - _ -...., ,4 f .a. .,3 a -_._.__.__,.__.,,,,y._",,,,,,,.,,_,,,,.,_,,,, s a 3 g
~. . m ;m.; y. &.;.. ,,A ..e, .. m..at -_. g., ^-. ' >r(-
~~_.3.';~~
, u..f'k .;1:dl?Q. - 2: L. d d ~-3:w f.( t.,;7 ; ', ' ' e~' Cile as 26 NRC 45 (1987) DD-87e12 ^ %:, qu ..f: *. ::. ~.. ,Q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 c ', ',,,. f},,.v,..,f j:,.y. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 -,7, i a.:. . e. y./< ~ .,t 4. c., f -. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS m
~~o n.~~
~~.y.s,E' .., s r~~
~~'y, '~~
~~Robert M. Bernero, Acting Director~~
~~9 % g.'.; i [ S J C~~
~~~ / k.?, L,4~~
~~. < g: t...~~
~~'m:' ~~~
h. r%,,: q.ic:., 6.; g gi @..*<

3. e,2...
3>....-r ( :7 $ sc '.. -i .,..... +.;,. In the Matter of Do ket No.715942 N.3;b ;: ..g G.'[gfh.[J M [4.g:.gqM Offj;; ? ' "[ GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY kQ.yi.X:V.[.Qh-gl -.,w ![ (Puncture Analysis of Model GE 700 Shipping Cask) July 6,1987 ..n.p-?..c.p *t..l. : ;, g .,60 c: l8.;;n..f 4. 5.'.- + p. y '; Y .,g s.- n's 1 ' g( c- , 'f,.v a,.... , i-p; "<. ] 7 3: ~.- 'Ihe Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies c , y %.$ M'c ' ~ a Petition filed by Lindsay Audin requesting action with regard to the GE-700 . < _.J' 9> shipping cask. The Petitioner requested that the Safety Analysis Report for the container be reviewed in order to reevaluate its puncture test analysis, and that i ~ ' s . f ',, the cask be used only in its nonextended mode until it can be shown that the A ~. ' ~ extended mode complies with all of the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 71. 4 ~ RULES OF PRACTICE: CilALLENGE TO COMMISSION i e ., V. REGULATIONS I ~ h ~' Generally, the proper forum for challenging a rule is the rulemaking proceed-
~~3, ing. A petition unde 10 C.F.R.12.206 requesting enforcement action is not a~~
~~?i(, vehicle for challenging a Commission rule. ~ 7-~~
~~w..,.(~~
~~RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING .v .g..~. is~~
~~43 Where a petitioner has not provided the factual basis for a request with the~~
~~' e' '4' y ', specificity required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, Etion need not be taken on the request. 7': - 4 n-~~
~~.,~. * "~~
~~s J J;;y TECIINICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED t.~~
. l - 3, q W' 't

.x..pc --
Assessment of Type B package design. ,'e9.. a "d:[i'M.- .~. a s, 3 1 -J * ': ',1 J.4 :'l' f, 7,,,' . ? ~ t '.....,'**,fI,, .t -1.: 'X J. l ..., I ['.&, [rD/~d - *
~~4.. f,~~
.?.s.~2 4 : ',fl ;;w.H_. . - s. s. 'e d, s es'~m - -7 ~ ~-,> 8 % g p-a ,g 4$ . -Q s.c, t, '- ', .;l Q.g.; g c:GD W 3;.. . y:3 ,, <. 5; > u y..: g ,e r ,p k 1,.,,..._m......,~,...,.. _........,._.y., - r g ~ 1 'Is V 4 9-N I ~ 2 4
[
t p i v / f B g t F - e
c-... .....:..= - m m2 &W,.~&m'.a.. Q : p0:s;a. e. K,,...n
~~fi. f1,.,.~~
.a w <.5' s ' W. f.>,, ;r. 4.>,~ 4,,- ' ,) a.:1;.. ~ r; t . z,.w;.. +WW: ^ - . &.< W;,. 1,: & ); w.c . :.. r. c.s 3 .y a- .,.T X Mr: A :s ":s ; L.. f f' DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 ^- ~ esa s .g, ?4 ZW4;[.'~ ic a- ~ l ' NfNh(; _. [. , [ ' INTRODUCTION 7,
.MO@.edi,1

' $d?r ~
i' h M [ : $V'V'k,t[jg,7f By Petition dated January 10,1987,1.indsay Audin (Petitioner) requested .@ Z @.'.h,.S N7. [ ',,,.jf ~ the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to review the Safety 2 '- ? ~ j Analysis Report (SAR) for the GE 700 shipping cask in order to reevaluate its d.-gb. .pN;s,,: nf. 4.P.Q,,. puncture test analysis. Mr. Audin further requested that the cask be used only s Q- >c k,%/MP/M;6[M y% 'W. %&' % 'e M-in its nonextended mode until it can be shown that the extended mode complies . %E$77:." T" with all aspects of 10 C.F.R. Part 71. '/ i.E $7'. A Petitioner states three concerns related to the puncture test analysis that was 'hNbk qg..gg.ehh M. M[,.x s. s. Performed on the GE-700 cask, based upon his review of the SAR for the cask e;.M ,.m - n a u. s as developed in 1980 and the GE.100 cask as developed in 1968. Petitioner's ,, H M;/S i'.? U.?Ji?.'/ +G: E:;L'. ::e first concern is that the puncture test analysis was based on testing of the
~~7. p y y. g. w w ; g.;a. g g g.y.;..-~~
much smaller GE 100 cask, which does not have an extension. According to ..L., 6 ~ a:'f,,. M $,d, M _W Petitioner, the extended version of the GE 700 offers a potentially vulnerable ].. ' W j. y Q. % %. F; 1 ' f. . gwc. m,. y,.;f.. N...._, point (the juncture between the extension and main cask body) not present in A:. t!,e GE 100. The second concern is that use of the GE 100 test takes credit ) j QF ;.J *g. g. for the lead shielding behind the cask's outer wall. Petitioner asserts that . n,; e,.. - puncture evaluations should not take credit for the lead shielding because "recent es. '.V ,' W. findings (i.e., NUREGER-0930,1980)"' *ndicate puncture resistance would be ,F - 71 , <. ;, 7'.f weakened if the lead were softened or melted by a fire that occurred before the puncture stress. Petitioner's third concern is based on NUREG/CR-0930, which, % VW i ! l-j. according to Petitioner, found that the empirical methods used to analyze casks l for puncture were "crude and unreliable" and failed to give accurate results Q,..g@T, ' when tested against real punctures. Petitioner asserts that since the scaling up of m J;. the GE 100 is dependent upon such analyses, a proper puncture analysis should g ^" -gL utilize the NIKE2D or similarly sophisticated computer simulation to be certain . ', - S, M a...: ~r' ofits accuracy, c. , ;gc Receipt of Mr. Audin's Petition was acknowledged by letter dated February J t m. . :10-17,1987. A notice that the Petition was under consideration was Published in the rederal Register on February 23,1987. 52 Fed. Reg. 5511. 1 3 We understand the Petitioner's request for a review of the SAR with regard j 7..t -. to evaluation of its puncture test analysis to constitute a request that the cask ' y '.. y, J; f.%.. C Q J s; be reanalyzed with regard to its ability to withstand puncture. For the reasons .7..gm . 7. 'm 4 ti. set forth below, I have determined that no sufficient reason exists to justify .s .f- -. Jg.c;.1 ' reanalysis of the puncture resistance of the cask, and that the information in
~~w:1.~~
~~,,.s..- .s q, J~~
x.. x 4,

. I ? '
~~....# %. N,. ' M%;.' .t.,"\\ i _.m, NU ,.s : ca. ^~~
~~;h p ;-~~
~~s e p y"e ; s-. i ?y {. h ),)N [ h '~~
1
~~. jN ;y' 'a NL REoKR4930.~~
~~Puncture of sluelded Radioactive Material samng Contair.ars." by R.A. tarder and N..<~~
~~,9 ',,e B '.;.. - a v. ,C ,d D. ANuar, Ap 019sa exa.s.m.;p & ;f;[_v y<W..a; Q g i O Z,. y% M* d;; 15,, ? j + ,..s ~ ?- 3' f el _u +:. :'e,p, L.[v(.(* s..h / lj . v .c ~ 2 4 wret, ,g i~~
~~y'Q Ja~~
~~' J 7 p.,.~~
~~1,,,,~~
~~s.. ' )..h.. ~~~
~~.\\s s o' a k O .~. , s . l 1 ~.3". ~ _.: ] L----,,--,,,,,,-.-._,_.-s-,. s .r A a h 4 r .? - t m 4 m.,,U_ ,c* s.. i . c. i g,N' k. ,e, ~ ,',.f ., s " #" 'f, 'a. .Y a ,.,,Q"l \\ l. '.', % *.~~
y
~~_ gy .d ',. ' s [". g.~~
~~r. ;~~
~~' dQ M:N :\\NMl&.~~
~~n.,@..~~
~~/7 w e, i:w . :; w .. p..e n. m . e..., - ~._ >. w ym .. u .; a.: b g : J, g,g z.. m., ~ 3 vg =~~
~~m. ~ no~~
.:.o., .- %%.L ". Q.n.S @W, G ';d..M if,,,I 6 m Mr. Audin's Petition does not demonstrate that the OE 700 shipping cask fails &cs.g u'.u..e. o.ce4M<'* to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 71. w-a. -..u- - u.- 4
~~0^L~~
~~. "m q. '.\\,, ',.,... } 3 ..e s c, ::. v~~
~~r. n~~
~~'MJi @g%:nQ@(. n ;. DISCUSSION ..,..o,. .. ~,,..... ~#3, q.c,. ~., p.K 6: GEf f fW',..f g~~
~~2, Re regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 71 set forth the requirements for pxkaging~~
. e,.c s f.WRjij&M 2..f M D: and transportation of radioactive material. In additior. to the general packaging requirements for all packages,10 C.F.R. Il 71.51(a),71.71, and 71.73 establish [. $.j$MPdt.9M WMOinW.@$bMN[ $.J.Q.~;/. safety and design standards for packages known as Type B packaging. Rese M, standards require Type B packages to withstand conditions incident to normal M[j$5WJ %$$$W'[ng?s.. M MT 's transport. Pursuant to Part 71, the NRC reviews and specifically approves each F0 2 @@&W '[M' 53k T C' 1NMh Package design, including Type B, to ensure that the design meets applicable i $ 4.Jf requirements. The approvals are issued in the form of a certificate of compliance Lbyh ep! N Q@M;$'N M y-for each package design. My De standards in 671.73 specify certain hypothetical accident conditions l.My ' pl$;~$g'rg';O;y@MSjiM Of:T f'f MM for which a cask must be assessed, nese include a 30-foot drop onto a flat, dflK
~~y Ri; essentially unyielding surface, a 40-inch drop onto a 6 inch-diameter steel pin f,w{vjg/M,g.}.Qk ;.g;lssq %.QlsTh%'E~~
("40-inch puncture test") and an exposure to a 30-minute fire environment of gag.p;C 1475T.2 Rilowing exposure to these accident conditions, the cask must provide _l % y ' gl W W M M F U. adequate containment of its contents, experience only limited loss of shielding, + s ... ~. .. f .E' f ;....., and maintain its contents in a subcritical condition. De regulations in Part ff? .,,, ',j,4'p.A j$ ' ', ' 71 also set forth various procedural, administrative, and technical requirements ~ a ,g]st'.;?.;sg 9,, to be followed for use of Type B packages. Dese standards are designed to g.v.. e . gg, ' ensure adequate containment of the radioactive material, adequate control of the l ". ' 4 radiation emitted by the material, and prevention of nuclear criticality during . ' N f"c, ' m,'.g;4.njy; transport of radioactive materials. In addition,10 C.F.R. 571.101 specifies .n.
~~p ;~~
, - 3,,ggy n. ; quality assurance standards under which packages must be designed, fabricated, shipped, and used, and requires that the quality assurance program be approved N., J$.sy ' by the NRC. ,, '. w. W i. +.:.%<. 3 ..; ; 7&, '. g y. .s, + s , a. m.-.. Y l'. ' P.I Background on the GE.700 Cask Design with Respect to t ;e' ?s Puncture Ewaluation b,, ' T : q,.7.. Re OE 700 cask design was originally approved by the Atomic Energy M
~~li A / 4. - J ' '/Qs N.~~
Commission (AEC) as an amendment to the General Electric Company's license ,.; ;;$ M3;;, SNM 130 on August 24,1961. At that time, the cask design did not include . ' ' -.J N , g d f., ff g[, 'c-either the protective steel jacket or the optional extension discussed in the .& w c. c.. q...,.......w. s .,4' 4g w gg 3 g. ~ a ;?'\\:; ;,$ c d 6 Vd %
~~N $ '~~
f ,, %:? w.. e d%.(/4 s.ctimt 71.41 of 10 CF.R. paid.a. however, that as an accepable ah. mauve to uns d a sarrel. pedage, a &,.PN. e m'm//,y; ~}e ;,.d:; snn p lic=a m.y viiu.s.. c k 4 i n for ix. ec.4am..p. cia.4 in s 7i.73 by.ud,.ciing..c.:.-mo4.i.p.c.m.n ' DQ@.. /6 J - iM y1j io the 1.st or by usmg csh.r m.thods sec.pable to the Commissian. ,. '. r s.p +, ;..x y q&y & 7, + s - L ,,t S $$.4:e m Q.,alh; w'fiKkY, .. y :q y ( @ W ;Q m.e. g>; .. g I
~~4.q y,,l 47 4'%l; :; ? W,~~
~~%c l 'l>w. -.....,v.c ;. $,?.%g.. ' { p.',."K('e fc7 ; ' { . (.h -S 3: - m.: <3 i t 6 ) 0 i p. .-.--m w v. .,r. - w .s ;... y o , i '. *' [ Q ' '., t 7, u;. - .m .l l ~ '. ,e;, i~~
~~'r.~~
P 4 g ~,'.'f..* ,*g'_ - 1 ;..,/+ ...t. z ( e g s .v i s j J% [y 1, },s t 's ' J b 7 '** g i, [ "/4 h M 4,/[ ~ -[ 4 A - a L & } ". ' ~ .?y D t- .: +
., ; e. o.. w:. -..., s. w..----------i""- ..., k b '* b-t ' ' [y[L. - m ",. 'A ' -%W&. ., D,. 5
~~'. c* N t'()e k~~
~~A. i,.-'. a Oa Q ...a ,,,,'/ %'[m/. a .m~..' a.s.(4 '~ 4 - : p-, ~:w.:*:; n.r.o .c ..-.2 ~.. n s-~~
~~z. a. ~~~
' " b, WQ.6 -f,, Petition. The cask design was approved in accordance with the criteria in the .,m: [d,'DU[.J) g.C then proposed regulations in Part 72, which did not require either a 30 foot drop .q bl,,'. T test or a 40-inch puncture test. rq.?;<.. ;d.N.1..[ '. G ' 5' - i On June 26,1964, the General Electric Company requested AEC approval of J J:"q;gMj$7 OIM.? f,M@~ > + an optional extension that could be bolted to the top of the GE-700 cask body - N@P'%'T'3, y ' 1~5 subjected a quarter-scale model of the GE 700, with extension, to two 15 foot y to lengthen the inner cavity. In support of this application, General Electric t,' . M.. M.M.' ~ ) JN.y drops. The scale model specimen was first drop-tested onto a flat, essentially $/d@'p ~ OM ~ ' 7 unyielding surface with the cast impacting at an angle of 45' onto the extension g%fN,-[1:hhg.,'a,.;, at the upper end. In the second test, the same scale-model specimen was d( dropped in a horizontal position onto a rounded steel bar lying on tae essentially _ S/% f@p$N,A@dh ? / ,M
~~.c?;.Qg unyielding surface. The tests were conducted in a manner intended to place~~
~~@@PM.'t,).MDf3h:.$,dg \\ :c, - maximum stress on the joint and its bolted connection between the cask body and i~~
~~4. M -?. g. @.~~
f.,.W@j'.g@g p. i: i the upper extension. The Safety Evaluation prepared by the AEC staff concluded e,.Q.. ?,.,;q:4.g. ~. UJ%,1-6 W that the test results demonstrated satisfactory strength of the GE-700 extension n , ;W, .Is#~'.$po h and its attachment to the cask body.3 The GE 700 extension wr.s subsequently ,.; W ;(. N. w M. l-authorized by the AEC on October 28,1964 (Amendment No. 25 to SNM 130, I '4
h-

~~.. c:S,.$c W M, m.. ' Docket 70-154). t 4. s;. w',;f8 4 '.1 gg; ' On August 22,1566, the AEC revised its packaging regulations (now in Part s y.,.Y-M i $ ' c.'; a~~
~~71) to require, among other things, a 30 foot drop test and a 40-inch puncture~~
~~' ' y [- test. The General Electric Company, by application dated December 23,1%8, m. i ~ j - f' as amended February 4,1%9, requested approval of the GE 700 cask under '~~
~~g. F the new regulations.' Because of the more stringent test conditions in the new m~~
.y ~ ',' @ regulations, the design of the GE-700 cask was revised to include a protective h' jacket constructed of two is inch thick steel shells. The applicant's assessment s , ~ .W1 of the protective jacket was based on extrapolating (scaling up) the results of u. . ' v ' u. '.- e.t tests previously conducted on the GE 100, a similar but smaller cask.s The GE-
~~b..._. -~~
100 cask is equipped with a protective jacket constructed of two % inch thick f. ~ t" ',. ;y steel shells. When 'he GE 100 cask was subjected to the 40-inch puncture test, ~ MX its protective jacket experienced only localized yielding and was not penetrated.8 M sY The applicant used the laws of similitude to scale up the thickness of the GE 100 -W protective jacket to the size that would be needed in order to provide comparable i i: ..l,.( _, j ., t..,.C cp a .,s + i
~~y ~; ;,~~~
_. g. .,,L ,A, ,j. . f. l-J .,q g -: y - sThe scale-modelissts and resuhs are denenbed in GE Report No. APED 4s22. "Desuuctive Dmp Tests of a 1 4 - l-,.. y y ' Model Twel Cask " deied Apr01s 1964. The repat is enached to itw Juce 26,1964 anheata subnumed by the - 4 3 jg osmeral Doctric Company for appwval d the v. ions) ensincut
~~Q-,. qi,~~
~~c. -r -. g~~
~ 3 4 A safety analyas report (sAR) =ss sutrained in cainecuan with tbs December 23,1968 apphcatuut . S.6 ~ ' The use er acahng tas.hniques or arrdlauds to evahusa shiping casks is in accordance with the requuemers: ', ' 1 'aQ [ 1 N, E.[ W of 10 CJJt. 671.41. See nas 2. sipre. ' k.7/.y.)' js y -[g, ',l% MN ' 7 ~ - ~ ' 5 O:' a - 'The inst rmhs are desah.d in the own! Doctric Campany apucaman for the oE.100 can, dated sessember .L' n. d.b.b.,(g@Rn.,, ' g T. Is.1964 (Dodet 747sd). ,v u n.
~~n. ?~~
< :s. s. -n* w. '.,,f-a p '"*,.,M.%.? P.1 Wg;.;p*' 'g;. " ' .. y M ,3 4*. / '@ , y $g,$[ #.' ~ %:.y.Yg j[G. 24s q w ;":, 4g ~ o. O,. ( el '.i 7^ . e, tl. q.7 *:m I 7 . s'., ,s.,, 4S u...-;.j; y :4 . * ' -, u ~ L 8. -N \\ < p ',) ; .f ,a ee w - ---**y%- ew.+.w-+. v.y 4aps..e - 9* g e,%. y.urwie
~~7, g7~~
~~+e= m e~~
~~en.,~~
e. n.- - N '2 p 1 n 7 i s = f I + N' g O ...\\ s 'N i ' u o _ b y e t g e 9 . 'i. ; - s ,i $7 3 , s - r - ]
+n.y n k...m.,,.,.W.e, , n.9 - ;g -. i. ~u.m.. . a : u-..;;. L.; u..a.,a.. i.c.a:a.a2. ... a. C a es .c ' \\ M ll' :,. u-Q. L !. W A,. q.. ' ;:,' ngQ c: 'WS iinM Q_..
~~9 Up~~
~~..t.~~
~~g..~~
~~c 4 '. O, .s 3,, Q,~p... ,f j % l.kf; - '. ;; J-hW 0 ,' 4 . ' 62 .1 e, .,;^. L ?l3,... w.'E. i 4 ~ 3 w.,. - s.~~
~~4.. 5. ?..~~
puncture protection for the heavier GE 700 cask.' The AEC staff agreed with the " y_ :. 7 ;g b ..,12 'e applicant's conclusion that the GE 700 protective jacket provided ample steel u -n * $$... thickness to protect against puncture, see "Safety Analysis by the Irradiated 1 .W@,.O-lG.. t. %,*, f,,.,,. design of the GE-700 cask with protective steel Jacket (Amendment No. 7127 Nels Branch" (with attachment), March 11,1%9, and approved the revised .: ls b m TJ. j.j p M - m, -.T,.C,,@,, ; '. Nc?.., .y to SNM 960, Docket 70-754). The pncture analysis submitted in the 1%8 SAR was incorporated, with _ g-Q W :y 3 ', Q.1. ; b. '9 essentially no changes, into subsequent applications until 1982. On June 22, s fT $&g..N : 1982, the General Electric Company requested an administrative amendment NN95$.'Q ik.' Wl ' j'$N.: to the NRC Certificate of Compliance for the GE 700 cask. On August 10, . / D ' '.1 W ; 1982, following a determination by the licensee that the actual measured weight D M D]M Ti [% @Qj k y $<. Mb ' ' of the package was greater than that presented in previous SARs, the puncture jQ 9.4 evaluation was revised to account for the increased weight. The revised puncture ~ i": M z. M 'd.f ._ r r; W - evt.luation used the same methods and laws of similitude as were used in the .,W. wS., jpN@.M,.N-j$p.:./e. m 3 February 4,1%9 application that requested initial approval of the protective .yl cy,y.wpl; 2, jxket. The results demonstrated that a thickness of 0.525 inch for the two steel "" fj M f f (.[.M M M ; U shells in the protective jacket would provide puncture 1xotection comparable .! 5.1 to the results observed in the GE 100 test (i.e., only localized yie: ding of the J '-Mg.(. f.. protective jacket and no penetration). The design of the GE 700 protective jacket .(g,... J, ' specifies 0.625-inch thick steel shells, which is more than necessary as indicated g. . r r, g4 yE by the revised puncture evaluation. Accordingly, the NRC approved the GE 700
~~.L.P~~
.x, cask with corrected weight on August 25,1982 (NRC Certi6cate of Compliance N g f, F. No. 5942 Revision 5), , -L.: ~ ,..w ~ . f. ' o s '. J ~ u.: p-Puncture Eualuation of the GE 700 Cask c. w ..f.', ',W. M,. Petitioner's Srst concern is that the GE-709 SAR uses the results of testing ,(,~,. ' M-. of the GE 100 cask as the basis for demonstrating the ability of the GE-700 to ~
q:
withstand puncture. Petitioner asserts that this is deficient because the extended M., version of the GE-700 offers a potentially vulnerable point at the juncture .. f M between the extension and the main cask body which is not present in the GE 100.8 ) ~ 'Ihe GE 100 tests to which Petitioner refers were used in the February 4, + . 33 1%9, and June 22, 1982 applications to show that the protective jxket of ' 'Q. ' the GE 700 would not be penetrated. As discussed above, using the laws of m. 7 J;.;;. ~ , -.~b<- , n
t
'J y ' s. s. ,The Isos of simCimde used in scale up the risuhs of the GE.100 tests are desenbod in "sew soadies of ?,3 sinraarn! Respese of Casks to IrrpscL" by H.o. Ciad. 3r., Proceedmss of the seced traernaamal symposium ~ ?i - I S'. m.) ' N f.,; A g *y f'yh.f r/ on Packasms and Transportation of Rasosctive Ma:erials (october 1418,1968). 'uy a Paaimer staw that his concerns are based upon a renew of the sAR for he GE.700 cask as oswlopd in Wf fp ;.. fgp/
~~.'. '. e ';~~
~~1980. Peutimer does not idenofy the spect$c 1980 sAR that constnute, the bssis for his concerns Moreover. Mq' h[y'A : . ; 6, *i. ^~~
~~p. '/[~~
~~, Q. gj'h. 'g?y.g:y'g g/.kC-(~~
~~1 sutrmned in the Decernbar 23,1964 sAR.~~
as staiad abow, the punctmo anal)as subemumd in any 1990 sAR would have been essenually the same as that 'I.- d '.% I 5fQ%.RNin;'pk; ' ,.q w m fyn. u.a.> w.. p:.um.. ;.~.,,,, s 49 .," ys * :g r y: .c n L.
~~' q,~~
~~..), J ~ ' R g@l, ~~~
~~+, "...... -~~
~~,.y;u g:. ,. e;,, t w/ t - y [ \\ ',., w i ,( ^. '. a s ; 1 m , c4 s . J '; ., *f~~
~~n. '.~~
~~,e n ;.,, 1 .4 .L.,,-..._~_..,_.m..__.,.-.,_...,...._.g, A p r t y J: 1 um + g g l ^ e 3,*, < \\Y . r, " e'* , f i if ', [m a l~~
L.
~~,.,.u: ^ . c s-Ili! I. s ^ M[ ';7i ~.,.;.~~
v
~~~ ~ (~~
~~x. :.~~
.1 s, .y.f . s; r y
.. ~.. _, m.. Y6 Y.$. p$,n < MMS.DM M.w:. Nm z w ' v > : 3l*~: xg, w. e ~... x, q r Q> , -l-W f y M,c;,w&. -l) f:;l. , a. m .q<s. J-N gQ.G.; ' 4.1 similitude to account for differences in weigh *, test results from the smaller Sgg@E. 3-n. -W ,.r s l .@Vf % @ t ? ".'j N N but similar GE 100 cask were scaled up to s'ow that the steel shells of the t; 8 .J.
~~f. p protective jacket around the heavier GE 700 cask were sufficiently thick to~~
%*hy[f S,%,M.' d. 'y j ,ylNk Provide comparable protection. De evaluat9n Indicated that the steel shells 1 -$ m 2 M i ti.N.CZ M' Q 3/ are thicker than necessary for the purpose e preventing puncture. Ng'i@@$36/NS- ./ 'Z.' ,s nc GE 700 cask has an optional extenuon which the smaller GE.100 cask ?M does not have. Petiuoner is concerned that the joint between the cask body and @;,M bO.N@ Q.$ M. .p g.;l _.y. 7.;l g. g. the extension could be vulnerable to the puncture test since the joint was not ~ WQysj considered in scaling up the GE-100 test results. However, as discussed above, M.h.? J i. N@ M N.3 $; the strength of the joint was demonstrated in the General Electric Company ) G S application dated June 26, 1964. A scale model of the GE 700 cask, whh /?D5thig$ggQg%y1 extension, was subjected to two 15 foot drop tests without the beneSt of a $ 'irn;W$a.V/SM M Protective Jacket. De tests were conducted in a manner imended to place f::FM... @t sk.R$ l w-maximum stress on the joint and its bolted connection. In the judgment of the %@>,@?~e-t g+ij ,y@WQ.;MNje two 15 foot drop tests were greater than those that would be expected in a 40-c gypq4 NRC Staff, the stresses and forces to which the joint was subjected in thesc [W((Q@2 Ql.Y;N[Mi$g;Qs: h gjFw inch puncture test of the GE 700 cask. Rus, while the joint was not considered 9, ' Y'/M;W$ hhM >g.' in scaling up the GE 100 test results, the strength and adequacy of the joint ] .ff,h.., ". j4g. $. and iu bolted connection were substantiated by another set of tests which were 1, ' ' M.D7 3 M,- w conducted before the tests to which Petitioner refers. Petitioner may not have c -.~ 'm, UN y p.lf;,, gJ ~ been aware of the earlier scale-model tests. De earlier tests, conducted without i _ 3. ' - W' bene 6L of the protective jacket, demonstrate th'e integrity of the joint. Therefore, ' ( pl. ' u$ 9 there is no basis to grant the Petitioner's request based upon the assertion that ~ " .'..- c L M N.-x;T the joint could be vulnerable to puncture. .~ 9 w'; - -, 7.
G
~~.Qh s.s ~ *,.f. @1' . %;'ap : ' - Sequence of Puncture and Fire Tests ,c n" -, s ' %,, f,,.(,.. c-Petitioner next asserts that puncture evaluations should not take credit for .s u. ~~~
~~.y g.~~
,q lead shielding because puncture resistance would be weakened if the lead were J ^ 7, p.. 6tst softened or mehed by a fire. Although 10 C.F.R.171.73 specifies that i n v' - g Q.Yj the puncture test is to be conducted before the 6te test Petitioner asserts that _^ qy (, the sequence of events could easily be reversed in an actual accident. As an example, Petitioner speculates that a rail car collapsing in a fire could tip over (i V,.g ; ~, onto adjacent radroad tracks or reinforced procusions. ,, ~ . - &;" % g/); Petitioner's argument constitutes an impermissible collateral attack upon an c ]N ; L'[, n) NQJ., agency rule. Generally, the proper forum for directly challenging a rule is the
~~.W a A <. g; rulemaking proceedmg. See Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and Q' pr.-+;g'y; oO ".y.jg,,requesting enforcement action is not a vehicle for challenging a Commission~~
,' - u g:1 F - 2), ALAB 352, 4 NRC 371, 374 (1976). A petition under 10 C.F.R. I2.206 i ..r.. l. 7 y,p. rule. Rather, if a member of the public is dissatis6ed with an existing rule, he or W.3di/:r,hyNM sfi;f she may petition the Commission to institute a rulemaking proceeding to change ".f .T:> e{ M.m.v,; $g l1 the rule. Since the GE 700 cask was tested and approved in accordance with the 'y. x. w ;;k..;. A, p*9 p,'j; y b - n g$u. e My .s . ; f. ;.u.r.. $'n..nl Qq l'!* ng ;y .s ., a 4 . me '} ', y,,' n v Qy M $0 -. M if-Q $,. M g. s. h. M p 4 hl h d. .m 'Ms T., 'a p,, ' '. 37 fr - . :.~.. [.g,.u. p[.:.. y.s
~~4 Q~~
~~/ ~ ',,'j k ,.... x w v 3 gs;g n. '4 u]W: 1 .:*y 3% s; 1 . t,. - .m = - pp z c--.- y,-- m m -.m.- - %s' .m t ^ .s e ~ ~ 4 \\ 1 g i g J A 4 s o , c '.?~~
1
~~)., _, '~~
~
~~P; aq W~~
~~- ^ :h., ; .,r s/., .j. t v, ,s* 4 2 a t E^ .,9 ; P,,* ~ ;I [' 4 - k,~~
~~q.. - *. 4 g' g~~
- [. ' * *,, -f r., "? - 4 ; $ >. W ' M 'A ' Y,," i.1 I '*, P - 4 + 52U ^ o- ~ ~
}+ ln,(.4..m a.w; v.e g,.w. 4.'. ) O c.g l * .h: - - = - " - ~"- =- = - - 7 i , 3F W, .f,fy, .,J.t,y 6 c4? yf,, ... [. rq hi ' z.. 'y W. Q i h. c,, ~. V ,L.. w:: ym, v,,. ,. v. * ... w$vp y...,.,#: s - M, ' ',. -.-. ;.,. S q.. .. Q. "n .Q; * ,;., e cq,. . a,. m .,~ af ', Dhf%.',. s. [-- Commission's regulations, it cannot now be found unsatisfactory based merely. a on Petitioner's dissatisfaction with the Commission's ruler themselves. i W l P.<,., . w '. c T.. "J ' With respect to Petitioner's implication that the Commission's rules govern-
~~c. :~~
a> Q'V {' A.l, @ %g g??'d @'h.O X.m ing the approval of shipping casks are inadequate, it should be noted that l. during the past several years, the Commission has reexamined its regulations M g '( M p Y t. D - W' concerning the transportation of radioactive materials' and has concluded that M.G.p g'J f. ' ', _ existing regulations are adequate to protect the public against unreasonablo YQ,F [1[VM7 > Z,
~~' W risk. See 40 Fed. Reg. 23,768 (June 2,1975) and 46 Fed. Reg. 21,619 M.M@i Ni *M O ^~~
deh. h.72 (Apr.13,1981). See also NUREG-0170, "Final Environmental Statement on % E..6 E. the "liansportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes," December dI1 1977. The Commission specifically reaf&rmed the adequacy of Part 71 with N,W.6].M'A:'%:M. ON. 4 M d - .t respect to the safety of radioactive waste transportation in a rulemaking on 1 j@EMNfM.ER.?yMf4M@W.M..; $ advance notification. See 47 Fed. Reg. 5% (Jan. 6,1982). Petitioner has not l i
~~y$.fp presented any information that would indicate that the test sequence in Part 71 g~~
~~of puncture followed by fire is not sufficient to provide adequate assurance of i WMldfd.7yg,glQ* [,' public health and safety, or that the sequence of puncture followed by fire could j -@G %95Q' g',.~~
~~' f y~~
. J::ii Q.??g easily be reversed during an accident. As such, in addition to impermissibly ? .,.'2s.N D.T 7%:;, challenging the Commission's rules. Petitioner has failed to provide the factual 7 ' y g 4 4,4. ~ basis for his request with the specificity required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, and action a.*t C ') J 7 need not be taken on his request for this reason also. See, e.g., Philadelphia u 9f Q,, ' '., g Electric Co. (1.imerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-8511,22 NRC ~ -7;,,.' c/. ~ 149, 154 (1985). r,S :. s~ j - w Method of Analysis i 1 'O " Petitioner assens that NUREG/CR-0930 found that puncture evaluations gf, i - based upon empirical analysis were "crude and unreliable" and failed to give - ^ v$. accurate results 8 He funher asserts that the scaling of the GE 100 test results j ..f ~ ' J. c.c:1, is dependent upon such analysis and that a proper puncture analysis should utilim NIKE2D or a similarly sophisticated computer program to be certain of i Q;. :,.. ' Its accuracy. +: ~ ..r. -Q ; -, qq ;/ a ; 'special aces is made of the fact that cm Auguai 17. 1979, a tesel avision et 10 C.F.R. Phn 71 to make it '. 'M'.i ', l _ ' ' A p; -3 '. mero campeuble wkh Intemenenal Anerree Eaegy Agency GAEA) meulemens was pubhehad for oevunes as a
~~g.../ -~~
4 proposed rule (44 Fet Res. 48,234). Aher consideretum el eenmens the NRC pubbshed avised Pan 71 in $na? ~*" f farm ist August s.1Ms (48 Fed. Regy ss,600). l' Ahbasch NUREOCR-OP30 does sute that egnncel mahods of analyes am
~~crude and unaliable." the~~
~ - '1 . s t ~ reposes ccechasians and recesemendesians are that anpincel mahads are tee oeservative; Ls empinca! equations .'M-casserwdiety endensomens the asesy needed to psoduos puncaue by abma 60%, and ses of a mere sapusocated ,,/ %D,, mahod of analysis would permit thioner jacket thicknesses to be used when puncese eesurals the design see a .. ? c..>....-
~~,,f *;.'. W M NUREGER.0930, at 29. 32. heareewer. the NRC suft is not awam of any lastanes when the anpuical mesheds y~~
'%.ai M V5 8 N/A:W S;.$g' used to awahiete puncease of lead-stenidad sanks have faded to prediet e emnervoove sneak when the cask design of u.j-[ [ u:. g.:L m, u m; w (.._ was subjected to metaal physical tating-hy iN V; .u u .4 +- .-[%,..((?.Q ' [+ Q. f;j.[fg.9 z .g. w :. 51 i y,, %,i-Qf,; / % g; s. ~ +- i,
~~.y.f, ',~~
~~.C,,,.~~
~~7-w..~~
~~, s. d .J t~~
.a
~~?. ' +Y ,.'3.~ j r ~s. 1 ~ 'l, . s~~
~~+w.,.r.,e.,.,,,,,~~
m, %_ .,,,,,,..,g, ., ~ ,.,e, f b a. q s A st. e 4 Y. a. e ,a 3 s Q ',f ' g e 4 ) ~. s .a t g i w (, 8 s aq ~ '+l D j;, ,- - 2;., ~. '., g,.1 /.4 - sj. , p . j. f s 4 + 4 ..... y i ., 1 ~. v.+ j., e - l ,.., = ' - y t
.ns v.q y. nu. . y. % +,:.e.N:. ,v. r W : m*'t V.}"[ g"s w -: ~s.y G;/ % !. M t,1,y,-?y N - q *. 4 2 a p.. g ;.: e, y& mw ;:~ j.,.t .y;p;. .a ..ss .1.x ;, y4 m.c.:,..mu.m.<, ~ g" g -...py - e - x xv. .. e GQdh.I f ~ 1.g Q)G It is not clear why Petitioner believes that the puncture evaluation of the . n'.4gggygg{37 % GE 700 cask is based on empirical design equations. As previously discussed, , pp. 9.: g4
4.
y test results of the smaller but similar GE 100 cask were based on calculations g[hh,.(Y.&.k3 NGj'&.yLMO f$]7 :.O .: g using the laws of similitude, not on empirical equations. The use of similitude to scale behavioral differences between large and small objects of similar design is - #q.g.W.]fiQtN'.pg,7 a well-estab!! sled and accepted engineering practice." As indicated supra note q f.b Q d % g; . A w..,,. g...,..a:. 4 m..: 5, the use of similitude to evaluate shipping casks is in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 471.41. Thus, there is no basis to grant Petitioner's ~ @M;gf@G W w,.-24 7 y - request for a reevaluation of the GE 700 cask based upon this concern. W-w - d, u + . yy., y,, g s - ,,w
~~a.,p.,,._~~
~~...g. m.9fX p.,22 %_.,, u@.? g CONCLUSION 2 w s Wn,-s y7, C g%;gw.~~
~~IN M;.2'5 G M W9g In sum, the Petitioner has failed to set forth sufficient grounds for his request~~
'JS$ fQO$iMM' that the SAR for the GE 700 container be reviewed in order to reevaluate the CM:Ei./-J.[gd;./QQb,M.QQ gjQ puncture test analysis for this cask, or for his request that the cask be used only 1,';MQ.f 7Q f ? % y :$ (y$ Q [' M QMT. j/@764$.-Ql in its nonextended mode until it can be shown that the extended mode complies 'yfj ?.; with all aspects of Par: 71. As explained above, Petitioner has failed to provide c T T: suf6cient information showing that the puncture evaluation that was performed Y / Mgy-.. ~ 1 - ;D$M on the GE.700 cask was inadequate or that the cask in its extended mode fails '@;g %y.: O ' to comply with Part 71. Consequently, I decline to take the action requested by j _.x- . m. r. .f., - ~ the Petitioner. I s. ,5 ' ? ".[3.c; f f M 4.:a A copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's c cy c ' y. {/# review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. 1 - - p i
~~tc O.4~~
-m. Robert M. Bernero, Jr., Acting t. 1Q '.1 Director j w w. y J3 lMD Of6ce of Nuclear Material Safety ' V. m. j ; and Safeguards c .m - ~ .:.x . ~ zW, R., ' -. Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland. ':..Es - this 6th day of July 1987. E r 6 i .h A b .e O-S 4 . g. *[' 1.F. - s-i 9-% 9 ..J' )'. el 4 g,y. f
~~p...-~~
~~t .pn .o. (, ~~ 6 i~ a, sc: " e I a = s y .I,. ' N # a ._e g~~
~~.,(y'.,~~
~~g-t i ;..j 4 s -ai~'4 .y.,,,.J s.*,, 'Y* % *i e g1 h _.d g 1 .g.". f [D 4,,** b ,. 95 *. (... h[k bh.g; U. I*'a 8 I~~
I* Duff'7 3"lins tJws for Puel Capedes subjected to B'.ast laipect and brmal Landing 0971),

d h,9 t. w.
.S - 1., m..w* *,g ,.L.%....'.*W.y., -. * % +;sp {ny l .r- -[,;l'; % y g.p'g7e ;*N:s'.'.;}y?t,,~0 ^ s.' .~ l .Q YC T f;.. B Q?9.%:;. $2 i cd.: + :.W yggce - m a m.co i ,g_* dpq.'s ., t e., m m 6 - s
~~h. g_.~~
~~.. ;. p.a.g.-.~~
~~m 3~~
~~..aq 'ii -. [* y, '; O.. 77. - s~~
~~..*~,x "h~~
~~s J~~
,),.~-*
~~'&j-~ * *. a s, .e 4 y 4 _Gf ar q a,' *,4lD*$ N M AGhG N Ns.p.W M M **G W SGT.,137.@**Weeem 8,~~
je
7Wh**- .4' -*. ene o g9 -' y-N, _ x_ 4
1
~~_n y t s - a ,#k, g p wh ~ -a t, e J. y a. y d b f 4 -e 3, e. 4 b s 1 A g j 4 g 5' 4 b~~
~~w'e~~
~~+ o .g v s*;, ' _. ~ ~ -u .e b-q'4.- .p*.,a's. .ig, ',..ro., M '..~~
~~5 '~~
~~1 -~~
~~[Y s~~
. 6, 3 , :. W m - - + -
'~' ~ * ~ 7,Il N M. 9.,S. 'r.M..,. ; "iff s.Ne c;
y,';+-[,c. t % '.;y:...,;.,, p.f.

. fe =
~~r . c y.! ut. \\ 7-4 4 ; ] g ;..s.,. ', v / - X. -) n. L~~
~~W y m,. -'s, r~~
-_...y- ^, r s. - ".g~;.,,.;;. . z.; .. c,..pa :,,..u; -, p 2 ..- v: -. ;> Cite as 26 NRC 53 (1987) DD-8713 yjy,./-q..yf '.: 4 ^, f.. S/R. - 3 cc, c o ,p r. 1 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORfCOMMISSION W. L, M. ~,,..(.
s.

yu.2..s
.m. c s a: p.:-- c~. ai. ~ - :p . :~ e ;....[' 9 ~,: e, . s..,. s _, '.^.,A OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION c,i {. ' - Q, //. 7 g ...m n.. 1 & m.,....t.. } r 4 ;d.eQ3 ~;.. i Thomas E. Murley, Director i ., v -?, a...;.b t .,; q :-. c.. d'.*3,,.;M.h.U,;*,,'M'%;;. n::. ..w:s ;.;a. : ;.w.....-. d *' G: ' s .X. 1.y,1. 7 M..y .$4...y.*N...s A, J,i < In the Matter of .. '.y... J. m ! C $,d, l:[ r } y - l b. 7.: y y-i .? pff, p.M. ;f.,G; '..w.,e.M./,9m.; f, '.
t-
' >r.p,. -4 v.., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50 247 W/c ~ s ..:.?:l j.:d./...M.n..U. %.3.. P, Jac OF NEW YORK, INC. n. c (Indian Point, Unit 2) . 6 : g y %,1 1 pv u.,:;. s .s... w...,, m a. .c .n .....~. c u:..u: Docket No. 50-286 s.. ]:o.'; 3 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE . :. 7.,. . 1. lh.c ;9 L. dJ?? ' OF NEW YORK i s "m .y.- 1, W (Indian Point, Unit 3) Ju'y 20,1987 , n .., ^
~~L :. ;~~
~~~. p'~~
~~c. t (~~
. f. De Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition - ~ filed by the New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., and seven commu-J. e-nity organizations (Petitioners) requesting the suspension of operations at Indian I s Point Units 2 and 3. Petitioners base this request on an alleged unacceptable risk j ,,~ to the health and safety of schoolchildren in the vicinity of the Indian Point fa- ) ...,.,. N. %. .N. cility in the event there is a radioactive emergency there. 9;: ,2 d e. g <J ,J h,, FEMA'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSITE EMERGENCY . ~.~ PREPAREDNESS i De Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has the responsibility i M >.< ' i for evaluating and advising the NRC with respect to offsite emergency prepared. ' '74 ' s ness issues. gn, i .:,k 1 ./- DEFICIENCIES IN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS o~.
~~ls j~~
r.. 3 w . '7 In practice, radiological emergency response plans are rarely if ever perfect , u... $, T ' and complete, and this is the reason for continuing FEMA and NRC oversight , iN 1 .,.' % :9. of $is are.a. .I "' Y h
~~4.D; y;h:- f;j\\\\ de,h.j[QJQ cf c ;3 v,;~~
~~,' v..$,, ? G.{n'y~:@::q: v.g.3Mri.-..~;, j M i + .: n ,v,; w at, M}. ,. i. ~~~
~~gy.&~~
~~53 j <m/ t.. .-cg,..x v. -1. .s '-w. ..J : - x ', g p;~~
.

';< y
~~' S; '. s~ - ?,i .j.7 f.~ .,, ; a,..~~
~~... ~,~~
~~.y,.. ~ .u a.. g~~
~~v. ~~~
~~s .;.+ v m..-.-, 3.--.m ,e. .-.,,y ' f i .)' E; \\ T e' t k 4 a 9 .'6 [ # I ?~~
~~. ~~~
s, r e ., -d -- I. 1 I 's f- -4 7:~ ^ - e: .c
"' -' ~ " '" ^ .u u, m;.0,t -. .: x u -; _4.: u p.:;g -<~,;. 4 'v:.p, qd ew W ~n gy u
c. n.

e-

..p o.*
W , K i~s=..., sXJ.. .- s s o , i c..g;W' fG,7.. 9 ~ ' s ,. N i..,;, * . 4 Because of the potential impact of deficiencies on emergency preparedness, they are required to be promptly corrected through appropriate remedial actions v j-M.3 %y ~ > g. C inc!siing remedial exercises, drills, or other actions. " M.f t' Q :,' ,f, Even in those instances where the Commission can no longer make a .g V)$ 9: @Z @.y Q<.t.':E. s.,;. reasonable assurance 6nding that adequate protective r.icasures can and will M:n ',+, G N be taken in a radiological emergency, emergency preparedness deficiencies may w.q 7, m M not require facility shutdown. '}_ 4 .y. m j q r %('g, 7,% ~ .;.. w 'h W M..y.c-df,9,M. e.W,..'w' ll.W:,. J. . U; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 .m:. : ? w. .w v.
~~m n W-M: m.,w&x w..~~
e . W,,3/ g&M'7.V W F ;< .u = n @$ = 5/.s I. INTRODUCTION WQw.N. 7. v,.,. pis.%s%, j,. .s. s ' Y M. : M.M D Q g By petition dated April 6,1984, the New York Public Interest Research 1/U.'K. ; hy.' 47,L. n sc.., y,'% Group, Inc. (NYPIRG), joined by seven community organizauons8 (herein 7 M J; fph collectively referred to as Petitioners), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, seek the 7, QM,U.SN@~LMM.:f,,. '9fny institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.202 to immediately suspend .ly[ M.,' g.L f the operating licenses of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. As'a basis for this action, V ' ~ f ;T ! -Q, 5.Df: the Petitioners contend that there will be an unacceptable risk to the public e ['; ;.g' y health and safety of schoolchildren in the vicinity of the nuclear plant located at 3. '.H Indian Point, New York, in the event of a radiological emergency at that facility. .~ 4.-:: .? "q ..?aC In an unpublished order of July 23, 1984, this mattu was referred by the V - i, j Commission to the Director, Office ofInspection and Enforcement, for treatment W pursuant to $ 2.206. On August 28,1984, the Petitioners were advised that the .ql f .j NRC Staff was considering their petition under 62.206 and that immediate enforcement action was not warranted. This matter was subsequently referred to j-6 @}n;. me for a decision. Ibr the reasons discussed below, the petition is denied. w ,,v. W,.. F II. BACKGROUND i f ::.3.. ? .x '. -i:7 On April 6,1984, the Petitioners filed their initial pet 2 tion regarding emer. 2 gency planning for schoolchildren in the vicinity of the Indian Point nuclear ', _ M... I -eV- .J Y, _, -?.$['J N school Task rme of es Abace to C3cee In&an Pars. Croton Parous Cecerned About In&as Pouw. ~ Yorktown Punts Cacuned Abat In6aa Peira. Nore N%d Abace to Qces tn6aa Pars. RecMand ' i? Fanses to C1cse In&an Purs ovester osurung Nashbachoes Acom oraup, and west Branch Canaervation y -A. Associanan. (_ I Most of these Pasationess also had been irrvehid in an endaar ruraened shutdown ellodian Pouis l'ans 2 and 3. la ?,g ht acoon, h Comrrumon had insatad a dancruacmary Atcenic safety and tJeansir4 Board peaceedang designed ar ....-n.'
~~' f to geher informsiian en whether to shut down th$ erats er to take c6sr adescemers acuart h Cmuruss en~~
,.,J y %, p/, by the Atanie safety and lacenang Board and h Carrrniamen had been carreriet see C1J-ss4. 21 NRC 1043 emchdad u.et nether shnadoes por imr='i= of editional reme&al ecoce was servarmed. bis it directed the .m M.3 V <m Yg,.W,0a NRC staff to emfer wuh the Fedess1 Emergency Macasamers A8mey (FEMA) on ehsther ddoenoes idanuned , f.'.. s m. "* *.3 %pcA. 7 3'g,J,"f
~~m.,.w. %..gg,..,~~
~~(19ts). -w., su...,. .-m .m Ek s' g q d [~~
!,fR ' l l ; ;

g.m, P,... l.
~~~,u 4 .s TQ;:, lm l. ll'. n);J' s.] ~ ' $4 ? E: t ta l v .l,) ; yy= '. -~~
~~s qz~~
~~-,, S. >N::; ;. a~~
~~h J 's. L' 4'~~
p=c, f .-4... 4.e .nllh" .lD.8W W 9' W ^- ~ -[W-WN***
~~f EU N N '~~
"'**9* 'W Y ) r p 4 g g g 4 I i s S h r ..g g T ' A 6 l ']', -m 9b y. .~ + s ~ _m., m
o...<.. o...... o o., u: v. :...mu. :.:;:g.. n..~.,,c.ufn. ,o c e.. , =, U /. -., i ' a-a ";.g, 's i s N , i' p;.g-9~,;<y,Q-v.. ',,- . -b t . ;% ;7 m 3 n .c g .>. t ' 3. facility.' This petition was responded to by Consolidated Edison Company of w ^ 3 i )4 ' - - New York, Inc., and Power Authority of the State of New York (Licensecs) M'd,;wf,' ^ because the issues had already been litigated in a special proceeding involving ~ i on May 4,1984,'Ihese Licensees contended that the petition should be denied o 7 '% T p;d[, Mc 5,;. L~SM$ Indian Point' and because the matters raised in the petition were before the Commission as part of its review of the Licensing Board's recommendations f r.W QG,'u..y ti .c { 't - y in that proceeding. On June 9,1984, the Petitioners submitted a "Supplement _. <.. - [ ' #- J'; to New York Public Interest Research Group, et al. Petition for Suspension ,.q/ W '.,. g,,. ',.' of Operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3," in response to the Licensees' . % O,. WW, .A response. In that supplement the Petitioners contended that the information
~~W/.. O g E 2N s c jA.~~
~~in their petition and supplement was new and had not been reviewed by the h~~
~~Myyj.9 $ct %2M.2,A Commission.~~
~~On. December 13, 1984, the Petitioners submitted "Supplement II to New~~
~~IN@/3.II.M[,&[.3hy,'. '~~
, Ja@M dyWW@4." York Public Interest Research Group, et al., Petition for Suspension of Operation j h. u of Indian Point Units 2 and 3." This second supplement further addressed the ,,2 m.v. U... ; \\ 3 7 %., p.g g,.w. + ~.n m,, status of school preparedness near the Indian Point plant, commented on the a.- wmpleteness and depth of a November 28, 1984 emergency exercise, and %. 'A.P$hd. OE.
~~,,_\\ f'.~~
% ]@ Q $ P -[ responded to certain enluations made by FEMA of the issues raised by the c., ,,7 5.g.. J.W: _. Petitioners. Included with this supplement was a suggested list of radiological . ' j.3f.C @.1, emergency exercise obhetives specifically dealing with emergency preparedness J ,J- .S and the implementation of plans for schoolchildren. j On May 25,1984, June 22,1984, August 21,1984, March 1,1985, and - 9,( "-K ;." December 6,1985, the NRC requested that FEMA review the Petitioners' al-j. 5. c 1- ^' l D.f legations and contentions in accordance with a "Memorandum of Understand-ing Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory j l. j Commission," 45 Fed. Reg. 82,713 (Dec.16,1980).s Comments from FEMA's ~ L,M review s of the origint.1 petition were transmitted to the NRC on June 11,1984, j 1;- and July 31, 1984. FEMA's reviews of the Petitioners' Supplements I and II G were transmitted to the NRC on October 23,1984, and May 28,1985, respec-j l-1 5." s ~ tively. N l \\ On November 28.19M, April 10,1985, and June 4,1986, FEMA evaluated i f , y. M' offsite emergt.1cy prepuednest, exercises conducted for the Indian Point facil-l ity, FEMA's evaluations were transmitted to the NRC on March 14,1985, May '~ 1-l 17,1985 October 6,1986, and October 21,1986. s ,ef* p _x c. l ,,5y 3Beanns a the hme ra; sued fa resparse to this peuuom was es fact $at RocMand Carey, New Ycd, 'g;'y, ~ fcymsuy essered irsa the emergency plarvung fce Indian Pas a Jamary 7,1964. hs, at the ame se 4 K I p.g.: Peusioners'suberasacru m ere beeg peepared and developd for ada unal to $a NRC. the cassy was developeg l, ^ *A* s . t' ins plans. Dese changes cumanstances nede final response to $a Potatime,m' cacems unproaxal urail ths ridiological emergency p'ans for Indian Pous had tous ceplaed, evskated, and saament. , ;*,J .,; y tib.';,, - 'See CLI ss-6, see. I ,4 i- ..g(y
~~Oi,V~~
~~? 8TMs ----r'= cl Understandaag between 17.MA sad NRC was Later remed e Apal 1s.19ss. Joe so l,a .. g]/f' 4~~
~~M h.,. M d. _,~~
l 1' '- [4 t : ?.e Fed. Reg.1s,4U (Ap.1 s,19ssk . % : m.f, . j Q:l,1 ' Y - y g ; @; y,f; %yi.,-,,y,: i.- n; e. p [ :.ll. m, w. 'i!,c..;. % y, w.c.;' i ' GM 55 - ' w. ",, y a, v-s L ' ) l?, y,' f,_ - 6 J L. > [
~~s y~~
~~- N 4 k ,ay ee s eg. a ee g.e e opee 'M* Gu8'uGPE8 9 WW 94* etereP.-D&d e. pa'u**** '.*eum.= -.=' Pay &#4% ene~~
~~pe __~~
~~j ,* T. ab s b 6 t i l ~ / + ll a ~~ 1~~
~~\\;~~
i + = I 7Q s 't, 4
..... c.l %.s. x. . :.. - /:- 4 @ N Nf'..% $ @ ' M % y.&,., 1' q .3-p', a & ~ p r ; ". v 3. ac
~~. o~~
.r-m- +f ,mW M;s D D[q$w. vn t 1.. For the November 28,1984 exercise, FEMA identi6ed two exercise de6cien-i . N i' ~ JR.. ' N cies that could have affeced schoolchildren. First, the formulation and issuance hUj , J d ~U of Emergency Broadcast System messages from tbc joint news center took too ). ; l&, much time and, second, decisionmaking for protective actio,i recommendations T.a '- O.. was delayed in Rockland County, A remedial exercise was held on April 10, .. !,s. J m 7.,.; y-M z d F '.",J M-1985, and FEMA subsequently reported on Mty 17,1985, that both deficiencies e y4 M 7 >rJm TC ~ had been corrected. u f ;( ' i'%L T in a related proceeding regarding emergency planning for the Indian Point .t .'g,ds 'i facility, the Commission directed the NRC Staff on May 7,1985, to confer 7 y.f,(.g @ N p ".. ' ,.g with FEMA and report to the Commission on the current status of emergency GN ? < M M.f(h.j@; W 4, [h t Q planning at Indian Point and on whether deficiencies identified by the Atomic ic Safety and Licensing Board and by the Commission in that proceeding had been "$ j, WNP corrected. (CLI 854,21 NRC at 1091. See also note 2, spa.) Some of those f.37' M%g@jApa.z ' . W.t-EN ,.-"s 6,dWM deficiencies were directly related to issues raised in the subject petition and its .~w w;4.y7.jF.Q d.ff, p.M ~ ' mission's questions in CL1-85-6 in a report that noted several unresolved issues supplements. On August 30,1985. FEMA transmitted its responses to the Com-NIN.,[.l D y s[ d[ M relevant to the emergency planning affecting schoolchildren. On December 6, ^- g', M f y y M y,,, s in the Commbsion proceeding. In another memorandum of this same date, the gr.j p .g. 1985, the NRC requested a status report from FEMA on the unresolved issues Ca. ' W @b u i f.E NRC requested that FEMA provide by April 1986 a specific finding and de-Nl-1!.:fc.O %':. y .M.T '[~ ~ termination as to whether the offsite radiological emergency plans for Indian y J' T 7 b; g,0 Point were adequate to protect the health and safety of schoolchildren in the i
~~9 event of a radiological emergency.~~
y p.; - "%'R s.- FEMA notified the NRC on February 5,1986, that planning and preparedness _ y ~ n.. Q for Indian Point was generally adequate but that four items relevant to CLI-85-6 yR~ - (two of which related to schoolchildren) remained unresolved. It further reported s %tJ;. that although work was continuing toward their resolution, it was not possible to s w y d,y; make a firm estimate of the time required for completing the necessary corrective e ~ ', W: xtions. On February 26, 1986, the NRC Staff advised the Petitioners of its i a, gi request that FEMA provide by April 1986 a finding and determination on the { W(,, plans to protect schoolchildren in the vicinity of Indian Point. The NRC Staff f
~~7s 4~~
also advised that on the basis of the 1985 exercise results and FEMA's general ' 'M" finding that plans and preparedness were adequate, no enforcement action was necessary at that time while additional corrective actions were being pursued. - Qf i On September 17,1986, FEMA informed the NRC that because there were y %;p still some staff problems with the local authorities' emergency plans, it was , ; ]Q. /,,' <7 E, M ;, unab'.4 to provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety of schoolchildren in the four-county emergency planning zone at Indian Poiht ' y.q j M My could be protected. On September 19, 1986, NRC Region I staff transmitted ,j- . n :m 4. the September 17,1986 FEMA negative finding to the Licensees and requested J w,.., f.iMN.?f$' c, that they advise the NRC of the status of the unresolved FEMA issues, the - e, g[f U.v Jff plans and schedules for correcting these untenived issues, and their views on ..M!Q & ^ w: ; n. y,(;w&:wgy,.... e k .Vi N.ty Q -:W '3;.m.1 a,, m.y a p c. ,A!- W, D-5l ~, Mf. 7f .;g. -. $s
~~y':.3lhv m };; ;~~
~~m gen '{_y .@a {i ~' r _.--,,n,.--." s. .w-.vn.--,.-~~--~,---- ~ ~~ w .a + 4 I s 5 i g O l y a S 6 41 h r. -l~~
/
~~s 9 ",.M-a [ [. Y~~
w
~~/ / ~ .m ; jf..QbQ W.a ~, A~~
~~n. 7 y l7~~
~~. l .4 t . e .n w _~~
~~m..~~
. - A.c.9 p. M Wlf p}.. t w,f:Wly.g.p g, &, [ ...p,, 4. %., p en s, 4 pu g,e .;f.m y,, ./ .m<m ' M:7,k the signioca' a of the FEMA Sndings. On September 26,1986, NRC Region I .n'~ f.3#f$u,U$y:( * -...+Q...lN, M'2 M,l7
~~1 staff sent tt tetitioners copies of the letters transmitting the FEMA Snding to~~
~~,,.. e g.., the License, s and an advance copy of the FEMA finding, j . $ l g@N. M. J, The Licensees responded to EMA's negative 6nding on September 29, 4:~~
N O. N M

$i.D'M d b. -
~~1986. This respone included schedules for correcting unresolved items and , M.:.)M ',M,y.'.f M.Y.E ".' Proposed corrective actions to include projected multiple training sessior.s and j;,,~~
~~y. 'M Vf*g revisions to the State plan which were scheduled for January 1987.~~
. l g i [, M1/ On October 6,1986, FEMA furnished the NRC a report on the June 4,1986 ] 1 c.ry; f.p. _ %..c.,,... 7 fdi scale exercise at Indian Point that identified six de6ciencies, two of which 1 ~ ..;M. W.. M M ' f; affected the planning for schoolchildren. '!he Srst was that plans and procedures %llg.3 E Q D NUM;f,., 1 Me for two nonpublic schools in Rockland County had not been developed, and j W: m,.%A3 te Mg ; the second was that eninistrators at some schools in Orange County were not . 1
~~NQk%yM@Y;@NYTC aware of radiological response procedures, j~~
M4k. 'the NRC Staff formally transmitted the FEMA negative 6nding to the (.l1 % e Q 7. 6, y ; y $ p g :# 'h Petitioners on October 20,1936, and noti 6ed them that the decision on their j iMCd}A,%) 7a a,,7,., q q q,,.q+. N.. petition had been deferred until FEMA had evaluated additional information s w,,.., .; dlN..E% g@. M,;D that was being submitted. By letter to the Commission on October 27,1986, _ k y ; % % @f.{f,MR: 0 the Petitioners protested the NRC's failure to act and insisted on an immediate ) r, t k'% f 3 N:M' decision. On January 28,1987, the NRC Staff responded to the Petitioners that ..l.,7.'2;' A %. ; de6ciencies in planning do not necessarily require shutdown and that corrective ' Q. g f D,.w actions identified by the Licensees were sufficiently prompt and responsive to . y.;v j.Vn permit continued operation. 'The NRC Staff also informed the Petitioners that .O g.@?Y < the NRC was continuing to closely monitor the resolution of the issues and was ',]:f awaiting the forthcoming supplemental 6nding from FEMA before determining j funhet action. Remedial drills to demonstrate correction of the June 4,1986 [g: ~y;.. de6ciencies were conducted in November and December 1986 and February 1987. Plan revisions to incorporate necessary corrections were completed on 5 ' g '., c < J. g.&b..,7 f 4 March 26,1987. i ' y,7 ,3.]' On February 26, 1987, there were two remaining emergency preparedness nc items that had not been resolved to FEMA's satisfaction. 'These items were N. W:s..~~ ~ the procurement of letters of agreement (1) between Rockland County and the _, - M.) - d,9Qg schools in Rockland County and (2) from the State of New Jersey regarding the establishment of general population reception centers, school reception centers,
~~E',~~
and other resources. A meeting was held on March 4,1987, between the New s '. ',c,, M ',.':, York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group and FEMA regarding y ..2, ,' t.. - ' these items. ~ ' : 'a C c,y[;,,.) ....t,e ; h were conducted through March 26,1987. FEMA noti 6ed the NRC on April 9, On the basis of its evaluation of plan changes and remedial exercises that .i. f ',.j g g 1987, that it was able to provide reasonable assurance that the public health
~~3. c,.~~
~ ifjd.?. and safety of schoolchildren coald be protected in Indian Point's four county ^ -s, w, m emergency planning zone in the event of a nuclear accident. As part of this " %.W,. AQQ 'd e gf.gg@T F.C A M @'}i.i_ M jp. q.- i determination, FEMA committed trs continue to work with New York State to m M g.~ : : n
~~l... -m.. m.@_f.w&,W;fQ..(,W.~~
.e .~Qf t. m.w =< , C' r. * .'sE p = Tf *y ue e.. , !,..((Q,. %, i' y .5' .-]a. '- M( .. t,' W 3 s T Q..O W V 7t;<.,,s, m. %g s %. J - ' y d: Typ~ e ' [ _ )., ss.+ 4 , y*, c, e.,%. - 9 y.g ;f4 u D ' h. ' ',,'
~~p' ". '~~
~~'s ;~~
~~J.K.~~
~~~ ,. j$ -,3. W. U'f ie' 1 i ,f y _.. -g ee. e. <ue wmen. _~~
~~ew ey.,n y... 9 mew =4.i.'--ee. 9 ?-~~
~~.W.7e w -S.b. 4 s / ~ ..u s j 4 c c w O S. / g s { g- ,y 'y l{ .sj ~ i.' '1 ,.x s-'o. . s w .y v i . ]~~
[.WM

~f/
% ', ' 7 l t.e i - s. i . o. ..,,y.
.m., M.N.g.M.M.i'M WihA y.q L O
~~h.Q: ' 'a. u.;vm@ %,m.Z aucwh%~~
~y op a ...p. 3,,%m %W.m -T a?.G \\ v , d97 g] 1[, f@.I j enhance the planning and preparedness of schools in the Indian Point emergency W k..g:pf. y -S., m,.3' planning zone. c f:' 49. L '.r G 3 'W, At the time of this April 9,1987 notification, a FEMA guidance memorandum J c V a f.' J ' for emergency preparedness at nuclear facilities recently had been issued entitled, !.4. J 71f h y.'[ $ Q 'ff.) "Protective Actions for School Children (OM EV 2)." Althodgh its evaluation -Q. 1.( My; A g; X d' 4 for Indian Point did not take into consideration the additional guidance indicated m .. ~ .n - 9j;i y *: Nei SNS. In GM EV 2, FEMA subsequently asked that New York State submit plan revisions to satisfy the criteria in GM EV 2 by January 31,1988. An exercise f ' ... W for demonstrating these revisions is scheduled at Indian Point for March 1988. A'. rs.%.:;'f U A....'.' lE Q -
~~NJfM, A g m M, ' -~~
~~r,- n.., s :& : N": 2%s~~
~~v. y s~~
n +/ j{c p..' q#(, e.. i..:w, ',$ g i: 4 g....,e-f ;'. ; ,N.O.. III. DISCUSSION t. y- '. {7 4..... a w. w _.{ a, q; -{u.. y t- .j 9 l,i* h.g 'MMa r.rpe s The Petitioners seek the immediate suspension of the operatmg licenses %g/$',hd, I,'dM M R: y g y 74,f c q.-i of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 until and unless the Commission can give ., JE S T.' 3.g..Q g pig p..p @yq,yj$ "'.. children in schools and day-care centers during a radiological emergency at assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken to protect ..r... y. {.;y. j, y M /i[. M.o %~ g' $~,'n A Indian Point. They assert that the current state of emergency planning and ";> J; }.g g y. Q preparedness is inadequate because there is an undue risk to the health and y 'W.; lb @g:.p e 'C safety of schoolchildren in the vicinity of the plants, and they cite Evaluation 4 ;- % h.y ) p 2,* Criteria 9 and 10 of Planning Standard J in NUREG-0654/ FEMA. REP 1 (Rev.1 y. ..x 3..As.'
~~November 1980) as authority for their claims.~~
. e. yE q.' " (.);%@," the Indian Point facility. Since these are offsite (as opposed to onsite) issues i "f. ~ The Petitioners' concerns are with offsite emergency preparedness issues and 4 ' ; ~ -F [, involving the planning and preparedness of local and state authoritics, FEMA I has the responsibility for their evaluation and for advising the NRC with respect . J. @g.b to any possible problems. See 10 C.F.R. I50.47(a)(2). See also Memorandum ', - ' s pg, p ' of Understanding Betwen FEMA and the NRC,50 Fed. Reg.15,485 (Apr.18, J.. N f'W. I 4 1985). Under 44 C.F.R. Part 350, FEMA is also charged with assessing offsite '.>> qo, m. - plans submitted by state and local governments. In acco' dance with these - iy r +: g ?. _ designated responsibilities, on May 25,1984, June 22,1984, August 21 ^ fy - % QT 1984, March 1,1985, and December 6,1985, the NRC requested FEMA's .cp > evaluation of the emergency preparedness issues contained in the petition and 1 Its supplements. r, v A + il;n.1,- \\ i . ~, .f ' Y U-S." FEMA's Responses to Petitioners' Contentions A. 1 %.. ; ;., y
4<
?s -T. '; - 't,' 4 In FEMA's June 11,1984 response to the Petitioners' April 6,1984 petition, Rp FEMA identified the following thirteen contentions: w T,~ d 1. '/ E gn.,. ~' Residents in communities surrounding Indian Point lacked confidence > r.,.6.., that schoolchildren will be protected. 3 .s l q: ..m p 7 ' w.-
y %,,/...

y.CffD \\.T,' &, p y,,
s

4 7 *".~
a f" F. <d l i . y' ". ;.., ; n..,;n ) * ?. ' MM;.. @ '..". 2-I f = 1' k *h b *-~ \\ ,ir e. - ys :L., i ,2 A. v' 6- ( w a. 2; w y.N~m,.;D?, p% w ;.. y W.. Q.., 2[ ', yk 9.,, ;;.. [,.e;t,+.s r y).,, w:s.M.'/..y" ',,',. $g .. m - / U[c y[@p,fg6 ..c. t ,', 5 ;_2 ; ' ;4 - yp ,y o - i 'frs /j,%,.. > _.., y ', ;. 3: e A. f. ,~; c -. T y-r_.. c ~.. ,,y....,.,,....---, .m. . --..--+~~-,..=r- -~,**. j. I e i a fu, 4 m I j g g ' ) o r m g [ ~ 4s.m ~'h*
s
"'....C.?%,. '.. + ' .:P ~~ s g S a. s ,;3-y, 7,g. i -ev s
H w w1lg, w+412M Mw,x.n.~--~ - " " " w u " = a.=-.- = .. ~ ,x.r,.w@;.r,.. ?x y g.... m:.MS..M ). n . w - W%V, .' :.~. m -;m: * :QY.w:v.'.)w".%r.. r.uL.. m:.%:... e.~.[ n , ry n-u.r x-x v w ?.y m...e ;m. . ww. .s fy
x
., ~, .n., .; s c e{J .,v.- - D @d h N D N T N ' yl f,-' School protective actions could not be initiated before local Emer- "..,m....- ~ j .r49%,.s,.dd@$;f $.Ci .A 2. YN gency Operations Centers (EOCs) for Indian Point were fully acti- ] n $', #. vated. i C M. /.%BdM . s,
~~3. Early dismissal of schools during a radiological emergency would~~
,j 4 G..Q,M. n.J.a -.g-Q. ' ' adversely affect notification and mobilization of emergency workers a$.w.% !aWW@.sh, s 00 v-g,WM.j [' ? because of strain placed on local phone systems. ?@TWd% M*i f 4. Parents might not follow emergency instructions to stay away from the schools and might attempt to evacuate their children even when ty![/M #c?'.'Y-9f. M 7 'W yh.y Q.fhd6 sheltering is advised. r @a m$ $.7.. M ;.bi,.iG.s. ~ 5. Dere were not enough school buses in the Indian Point area to n. M C' p m. ccecm evacuate schoolchildren.
~~MSM.$@Mh/hf-.mA..% r:-z:dDfh[5 6.~~
Early dismissal (i.e., "go-home") procedures that may be used by NQ%M4 school districts had not been evaluated by FEMA. MlM$'hih hy$ 7. Letters of agreement for transportation resources (i.e., buses and . q E :e D.Jis.ji/JlJr. W i p:V drivers) were lacking. T P.2 g/" $ $ g g '@h@; E 's dMGlM d 8. Governmental guidance to help school districts in radiological emer- _. M:: %r.N - gency planning was limited. E. %%@M6Wh.5@i'.XU%N 9. Schools lacked necessary data for radiological emergency planning. Sf*,
~~10. Public education and information programs for parents were inade.~~
~~W~'.%; c. %,.M.m..? c -. -- m:~~
~~nuggg,~~
~~.. ~,., :.Wi:s.;r>,. n - ? Ex. '...Q'rj'1,N, :.s A,, v~~
~~11. Shchering guidelines for school buildings were not available.~~
~~1;y i f ~ , d,r. < J. ' NSCMM..:: 12, Lists of nonpublic schools, preschools, and day-care centers were not 'e 4 ; y:c~~
~~x M.,.~e maintained.~~
~~,- m., 7.m. .t u ,Q:. '. 'l ~ - 7. 64 ' '. -~~
~~13. Legal and Snancial responsibilities of school districu were not clear.~~
ec . Q's In its June 11, 1984 response, FEMA evaluated these contentions and ^, ^ s' ' m . ~ x- ,'w $M concluded they lacked validity for the following reasons, respectively: s:-r,J Q :x;. G ~. ~ d.;: 1. Residents' lack of confsdence that schoolchildren would be protected. ~ . _ '. ; 3. d ;, ' y.zi:,' ;. f Lq .J. FEMA was not aware of any substantive evidence that residents of the -U communities surrounding the Indian Point site lacked confidence that . C O d E'U: #, Q. E V.,1 their children would be protected in the event of an offsite radiological t. <. c . ;~ ~ .' =..Q/ gmg[ggggy, v. 9.,+. 7.,;; ][..... 1 _ m. ~- g.. 2. School protective actions before EOC actinxtion. FEMA concluded u- .a.,. '. y -. that the corrective action recommendations for schoolchildren could . se .qt ; r be effectively selected and implemented before local EOCs were .s C-4. : f,'.. y ^ y Q % j. - 7'
f. *

4.. t fully activated. De counties' plans provide that the protective action
~~,g g. 4,. v.;;g,. y, recommended for schools will be evaluated by the County Executives A 9 - s %,,~~
~~M1...{. 4 upon notification of an incident by the Licensees Dese of6cials will~~
~~,., '.;:y/., ;f.Q g y.g-1#fm'.j'M?$g', - be notified by tone-alert radios which will allow them to issue the WJ:J first broadcast messages before or when the sirens are sounded. Qg. it':Q:... f~~
~~3. Efect of early dismissal of schools on the notifscation and mobi.~~
& k..' ~; yMQ&fG@y_. lization of emergency workers. FEMA stated that it had rebuued ,lf:i.QQj(MMMW,'EhM}4F.y ~ >G this same contention in its January 30,1984 response to the Atomic 4,% p.MSGM.@yf ' 9: b
~~p, (4W yuw;vQ::c??'.% e Nv~~
~~,.a...- %W -6~~
~~M.;.< s~~
~~,pf..m%Wy,M.t.. y >.y..w*.1 W~~
n '-s s [ J-( J ^%(v;j!p2* % ;C,. g[' * * @e g" t"w..j.., c, p e,. [ 3 :- qst 5.5 ,_*s. * < fa " l N n ..,s , }3,,. e f 4 (. ' '.,. -, 3 ' ',; c,y .,.. c,,Ja x,.0. 1 ~,. .3.~ s e =< i 4 , % j., * 'l k. * ,'l ,(, W* \\q,%:.?* ' r- -y u. .p % y. c.t, 2 'j.)E ,\\ \\ - h,t 'd' [ ee*{******Wr***10.*_ gute r m.Hr e p-.-eg.pge. , y go,.ge-o, g,,, g., g 3 1' y, s ' A' s ..i 9 j' {. 9 , *-: y g. 4 7 e .C i s y, 6 \\ _y t '4 k 2 j m 4 bi g , 4,, g i -[) e d' i +$ = 4 y \\ a L ?.'
~~,!'=,~~
.".'.t g 4 . *. i '{ i.* g,,g,4,.... .,j gi, .3 f. - % 7t m. A r. c ?. Y ^ ' s. , a s v a "a= 4 4 s' 5 4 ('* Qf' ]
~~'j %,~~
~~g g i 5, .A.g; Q '- '(: '., '. +w'l*(. ';z =, ' s~~
,l } }. ' & ^ ;. s.=.l ' l 4

1,* }

57 7.}
~~'.,;.;e t , _ y~~
w,
~~H M z w-nuQmw?a V E %;Mpm.w:m:w. m: -,; .sd W ;yA t g ";[*: ? M.ysy. &. b.4 4n.i', o as'$. %. v". W~~
~~sT'3iff4y,~~
~~-... :. ;3, ,g, g7 3e,jq?g-g.4 --3;,,~~
~~2. 4-;......,.;..-v,y 4.M QyM. %j Safety and Licensing Board in the special NRC lit! gated proceed-~~
. e.:--x.-i w g 3 z p,,,y$.%f,6(4T-M-@r i %' ? &f.QA: - .. A .i ing for Indian Point. During radiological exercises, the noti 6 cation I 7. M8hl$ N ' -3, '. ' and mobilization of all emergency response organizations, especially ,4 3 c.p 3py3 c E ' t. ' "A those assigned to the EOC, would be tested to ensure that they were NbdMN N.[.1 i effective. Notification would be successfully achieved by telephones. .b. @ W,.!& W % l O s 4 M 6; %. radios, the New York State Radiological Emergency Communica-gr S!K ^ jg tions System which will operate on a 24 hour basis, tone alert radios, }, if M. T dedicated hotlines, key personnel equipped with pagers, and a com. .,y . M.., S'ci..E }j;r, s ]%g.q:W. ul,6,0; . t $M mitment that the telephone company will install additional telephones su on short notice in the case of an emergency. 4,.:',%.. yma. a.... y..T <W : W. + .w 3- - 1, 4 Emergency instructions to parents. FEMA,sss not aware of any OTD,. b.~ n...e@M@@.5;g ~ ; Q~C.%. -. ,y, substantive evidence that parents of schoolchildren would disobey an ' S. Q,;:QgpW: RW9 Emergency Brn*ntt System advisory instructing them not to go to 47kkk.h.Y;GMM d,,; ' i:Al. schools to pick up their children. According to FEMA, the weight of u @,,.0d,?,f.a SN. MW:.R the evidence is that the public will comply with emergency plans and S. a w w,"wr w,g.g ~.yg~ggj 7 mstructions. .c - Q 'N @ y.3 9.d $ wit
~~5. School buses. FEMA responded that there were 850 buses and 540 f-D M...p, Z j Q g @g y p ~ 7 MD vans assigned to evacuate schoolchildren. Although transportation j h. m, u >~~
~~studies were only currently under way in Westchester and Rockland f ca,e; e, "~~
~~Counties, there was no indication at the time of the June 11, 1984 ~ Sen 3.w %.,6.- @s, m~~
A
~~. '.OV;7 Sa:O FEMA response that transportatiort would be inadequate. ll,.[:T'~,$5 %g'~p' l 4 6. FEMNs ensluation of early dismissalprocedures. FEMA respond-L bif,~~
~~ed that early dismissal procedures were being formulated by local~~
~~,,. (. ]y,',,, K ; C4.g.;,. ' authorities and that when revised plans were submitted they would~~
~~e-e s e 4,.,~~
be reviewed and evaluated by FEMA. FEMA would continue to work , v. ;c._. M ; with the State to ensure that dismissal procedures were in place and .f; could be effectively implemented. fQ ~ . '. A 'g., pg.. :Q 7. Letters of agreementfor transportation resources. FEMA identified y ./4, . ; - j E M.p the lack of letters of agreement with bus companies and drivers as , ?.c c Y,9.gN a planning deficiency. FEMA pledged to continue working with the
~~4. ~ ja State on this problem.~~
~~v n.f...g 8. Governmental guidance to schools. FEMA stated that it had an. " ?;" 3 swered this issue in response to the Petitioners' issues 5,6,9, and ' M ~ 10. e .. g.,% 29;.~~
~~9. Radiological emergency planntrg data for schools. FEMA dis.~~
~~.. L g. n d ' j f;Z' ' h, L :gj' T y,' Sf "~~
~~1,M f 4~~
agreed that schools lacked basic data to enable them to begin ra- '.y n diological emergency planning. As documented in Argonne National 3. '.a i ; .p ..Q.A Laboratory Report, ANI/JES *I%228 (May 1983), a majority of , i p %,.,. c
~~g.y..~~
~~the school organizations had been contacted concerning their role in ,.h f /. f, emergency plans for the county, and some schools had received train. h.'j'O... :g,gX@.q%,.[g..;~~
~~9 4, ing in evacuation procedures, s,s.w:.,s %. y~~~
~~h..n? +-,y& n,.3 a 2,61lp ay .' SDNh.$hNh.gh "'[, 1 s .wn@ r ? nr.n t w - %.s ...,r,q i h *...# ~.%[. b,*.3, ,.Q.'. )sY P/ 60 ,,^ .m ',. q f.Q.f Y";' %. ',, . pq ~ 8'4. > ', ~.i. '.*,; A, -(~~
O
~~, < * ?: s q -; s '. A .r.~~
~~~. 2, c _. '~~
~~w;G.y"w.; 3 a~~
~~~asv a..-~~
6

9,,A '.* [.'
~~8.,' .u.~.. ' eg..i.,-,A 68 J. sb4 e, ' I.s.~~
~~e 'Q,,. y.,I~~
c. ]

p T,,.*
~~3* -*3,.,' s v ., ~ : - - wry. - -~. m.- ' ~ m 3 c -~~--- ~ c-m- ~~~
y-
~~~. d.' ',^-s, a .i g,.' 4 4"' [ s '5 ,3 g J %e s q' ~'% n Y j s.ya .f s ok. ),. ,s- .7.,','. 3 e s b s, ). '. 9 . ~ e 31 ../ 'p*, n".,., y. 4 y, . % =', . m w s .s .,sw ., p~~
~~- A, v; p.~~
~~o , < y.""N N. ' /, .# { *, d] '*>m a. p.,.. y N g N"*' I~~
~~j !_,~~
s .',3,' ', ' Q_ a
w M.W,.M.c FMux.q,.h+M:p.pWp2W%c 7.,yf a...s e J.. w we cw' 9 &.. Xi.Od w . s.... g.g.,m;. m. c.:;%m..,.. s .4 2, s. .y %"?.'. w:g' ;i ~; { ',}N..G:#y. o # y k (* T [ 4 = ,:.m 's q: r yZ A. n. x.,) M ' N (. F. A G 1 9 m -v ,3.y.. y n:: .u. @$a
10. Iq(ormation programsforparents. FEMA contended that the public t' SM,CM MI'M '.UMM education brochure for Indian Point included information for parents f'$5 C', W, '. 6 regarding the safety of schoolchildren in a radiological emergency
~~~M@,..@59Kf MM@y [ # (e.g., early dismissal and sheltering). FEMA would condnue to work YJ with the State to increase the effectiveness of public education. j&@!RQhEig&.{ g>~~
~~Q KQ~~
' [. I1. Sheltering guidelines for school buildings. FEMA found that the ~ GJ ',e ; ' Cp J.; : g ?g.. sheltering capabilides of school buildings wre adequate and that no .. y; v.S ', M Ni. evidence had been submitted to contradict this judgment. c..z. u . Q..Q Q Q'.
~~12. Lists of nonpublic schools, preschools, and day-care centers. Ac-QQ'y ;. *:~~
. J hDD;WMfv;s;iig cording to FEMA, the existing county plans contained lisdngs of nonpublic schools,,preschools, and day care centers within the Indian QlQ.T.;p@I'.2., rc 4. $h, Point plume exposure emergency planning zone. When updated plans
~~/,f.9.g M j @d M@~~
~~$f3;C.'~~
~~f MgWJ,Wa@bdkd ;~~
~~became available, FEMA would analyze them to ensure that the list. $hMkOf MdMM ing of various facilities including schools had been updated.~~
~~Skh fQQ&WTQ~~
~~13. l.sgal and Jinancial responsibilities of schools. FEMA forwarded the Petitioners' pedtion to New York State for its review and response~~
~~.Q ". 7 Q Q#~.2,f gfMM@gi.!M@@% @Mg? N on the issues related to legal and financial responsibility under state W; y! ? "W,l. c;b.:u:w.y.w,, m e.a.~ w - law. ww ,j, s, Om~~
~~M-g jm~~
),, ? V.@9?T.Oh FEMA subsequently identi6ed additional contentions of the Petitioners, and ^ N "M'i$$'ep[f[O13 on July 31, 1984, it supplemented its June 11, 1984 response. Additional i .6 f ' i GOA .'~W. contentions identi6ed by FEMA included: ..[' i ./.W ~ -
~~14. The scenarios for Indian Point involving sheltering, evacuation, and e G J 6 j$ ;'.p;i, % f". -~~
~~early dismissal had not been made explicit to the school districts. i p.g?; N~~
~~15. The p1blic information brochure on Indian Point emergency prepared-~~
~~? '. 7 ', ' -yC.,.,',, ness appeared to contradict New York State's position on the evacu-A. de-4.-i.'.. ation of schoolchildren. E. J~~
~~a..~~
~~~, - % g. 6 ;g g.,E ' ;~~
~~16. Certain State and coch of6cials had made inaccurate representations~~
( '. q' '. ; V.O'CA";f?f.9 and empty promises regarding planning and preparedness for schools, ) W. 4 J:. ; 'l' f, including inconsistent statements about ectly "dismissal /go-home 0 T' P Wl , n v.<91 f.C plans for schools,
~~
~~.,1.4y. Sib...~~
~~17. FEMA had consistently identi6ed de6ciencies in the public informa-m,~~
~~' c 4.YQQ:,, tion and nod 6 cation program to include a failure by many residents g to know such basic information as the meaning of warning sirens. .. s~~
( f F. g,f,' ', *

18. 'Ihe description in the State's emergency response plan of the Red j E y M. ;v.3;f..A,5 Cross' role at reception centers was not what the Red Cross had
~~.n if th.f b,.f.K,, g-M y.t' 4 y agreed to perform.~~
k..

19. A survey conducted by Argonne National 1.aboratory for FEMA

76 7 0ci, J s.f. Jh during 1983 revealed that schools lacked training in emergency y
~~'f f : M, ?' Aa f,r '; O d @ @p. 6-procedures in the vicinity of Indian Point, and there was no evidence ,W.., v.f.., 1. _ _. f,' a, N,... e of improvement in training during the following year. l s~~
~~- d.~~
~~.... r.y . s,. . f-.%y,. AQ eS a ?F T..N.',.. Y.* sr n- .-3 9 Dh ) 7.;p l' M@.Y.h 7d M M $[w$', M. % ' ~ 3(:QV.Q o . gev.y.g.gn,y.g~. Mp~. r ..... n w'I. N.o M,.kk. ...h 61 A [ ;-.', N~~
~~3. ' ?., >.~~
~~. y'[.w %,%c..w + q n,'Q;g,g,;., "- G ~ ..m Ye .1 ' 's W. <,' *s,) } * /., i f Nl.y;, '3,f.3 c'% g;% q.GM.K ' i O,. " c -n w c ~ 3,fl' Id'? '. / E~~
~~s_.~~
.I
~~s. [~~
~~U , - y~~
,.,' x_. ;ig..,.. 5., ;,f., v '
~~'f*. \\' ons Sv.. } y ,,s ..-~==-*--w y g-v== e e-.-v,-- 7.. ._e.,,, g 4i,~~
~~s. 4..~~
~~f t g 8 ', peg 4 4 ,y ,. ( - -p*m - s' N m '). NJ. (- 4 ~ ., s s ~ T (t~~
g
~~( 4 = 4 = k. e L ^ \\ r. s." ' 7 D . I~~
~~y _,,.' i. )~~
~~g s y s \\g 'r. D k i j. .o.s s, '.,.s. + ~ - 4, a ~ -,4 'J. s g. .. g. 3 7 <- : = ...** a - y ..m,-%~- R* '(- [j "*,,[' g = ; 7,.,. ~,. ' . j( + ; lq { *~, R -,,,. g 33 ,.7,~~
~~/;w~~

~~. p,.<.,,~~
~~g 'y,~~
~~,Jg.cN{jg y (. t 4 gA j .? r.; ' ' J. 3-r.. W~ ^ 1 N .i, "e '+ .. - h, [. g 4 l q ,,,gk.~~
~~^,.)~~
[
~~Jg'[.~~
s s. .,. t A % 4 ( r.s s .g.- . p,s p,,y.. a
,w#; wL., v. y g., w...w.....w.... - - = - - - a~- ~ ^ .y. w-a Hy....n;4..p % x., n.,;.- m,w hr~.J;'? a '*;x p n ,y,' un'.. s . re 9;. ,a K :: ; y ; y,,~ y 0 - c.,a?,pe:: M 4&_ 3, s v..:- G n;y ^; - ~ '. Q'T }, K.R.k;' ' g.).
~~20. The early dismissal or "go-home" plans for schools in the vicinity of Q:..>t, 7 m o;;.~~
Indian Point did not take into account the special needs of schoolchil- .-1 dren. t$. 's ? EMA's hly 31, 1984 response to these additional contentions may be 3.G ! V';'d'4' :l$n-W' '[%'l .j summarized as follows: s nl.....,.f
~~14. Scenarios for sheltering, enscuation, and early dismissal. FEMA M.N.d..,..~~
~~m.o..i ',99 s?, found that the sheltering, evacuation, and early dismissal plans were .s o~ W.L.. T'~~
a.
sufficient since: if 'fJ C, ($.,.,,[:.3 ~ (a) The New York State Education Department required school dis-gy e m.3 y i (; tricts to review and update their emergency plans and proce-e. .n nr ... o%,.a dures; ,.QU,.;;g.., - n.~, n;WJ?:MMUM %Q, _ ' (b) Instructions concerning the sheltering, evacuation, and early .M aw
~~f. N ? Q,N b,d %y i (.y.;y;y c c c l 1~~
'.$2.h, ~ dismissal of schoolchildren were contamed in the county plans i.2% % t and in the public education brochure for each of the four coun-Mk UJ'R (,'Q:f'.b@ fy ties within the Indian Point plume exposure pathway emergency m y.r.c a];gg., gg& t, planning zone; y.;;.M Ov. n::t;; (c) School administrators had been provided with information re. . g i W j! " / y y,t-Q~., % 7 garding protective response options and their roles in case of ^ 'c, yg ca ~ g ' 9; - . an emergency; and , -J@N ' ', 9 ' (d) The implementation of protective response options for school- ,. ~ ^Q, children wuld be tested during forthcoming exercises. x.y m
i,

15. Apparent contradiction between the public hformation brochure and
~ . l ?' ' the State's position. FEMA believed this claim was refuted by New a. York State officials who had assured FEMA that they did not disagree .n with the public education brochure for the counties. ../.
~~16. Inaccurate representations by officials. New York State demon.~~
- ['.. g strated to FEMA that there was no substantial inconsistency be- - c - 3 -!P ~ f tweca statements made by the officials in question regarding early ^ Y' c 'd "dismissal /go-home" plans. ,1.": [ 'y 17. The public l formation and not@ cation program. WMA acknowl. A d. W9-edged that deficiencies had existed in the past in the public in- ^ -.-i :[K.,; formrion and notification programs at Indian Point. For example, ~ '~ FEMA's April 14,1983 post c. ercise assessment reported that spot ( checks in Westchester, Rockland, and Orange Counties revealed that -,.g y many people neither understood the meaning of the sirens nor knew , 2 ji, Mi.. that they were supposed to listen to Emergency Broadcast System ( messages over the radio. f, .f;;.,, However, FEMA noted that this deficiency could be explained since , ~,f. ' ly public education brochures had not been distributed in Rockland, ,f ,, 'e - Westchester, and Orange Counties prior to the exercises. FEMA also ~- d.g QMNNR ' NM. ;.k{r noted that public awareness would be evaluated again during the Fall E n g.?. r m '.w;,v.d,;M.. g. M f'
~~' O 4 1934 exercise at Indian Point and that FEMA expected the situation P.~~
~~ys e.; 3 - 2, g 4."v '~~
~~b,.~~
~~( f'k Q,* * ' ' 's g *s ,.,4f ef.1; i~~
n-s,

3. <Q.g.,y. f,
~~62 ,p,~~
~~.. Q.' ',,~~
~~,y 'r-~ N ;c;;>;, u. a...~,*~. ,r., r~~
eY
~~,\\ d% ,7e ,, 3~~
~~j e-~~
~~.,o 6~~
~~g 4~~
~~1 f ". '. :.'5 > : e'. ~ > y M .ggy.y Sp - Me@='. Y~~
~~W D' %~~
~~~ MMSWh -.Uma*** W #84bt4 M 9 P~~
~~"""*4EP2~~
V
~~7"*'~~
W s l s' = k ~ g w d j +. .,,f~ <r + 3 a s C '*
~~J g_~~
s .a s. Y A q s ,t t 4 ~i.s Js
% @ b & %c.., 9 y M, '. .:.m... ._..u .o w r,. m.(); ',.w m. d;W+ ; #. s,# o ,.a sl,
~~) y~~
~~. q's_ ~ g; p vp., ;_ r .. g.1 Sc %$.p:, _ n '2. y.c Y.a.[ / to improve. FEMA committed to verify that the information in the ,;e . ; (+ : H, /~~
.d
^(3 Q iy '. Q Q' " [ brochures agreed with the information in the counties' emergency ~' ', ^., U ~ plans and that Indian Point emergency brochures were properly E in. ", T, written to ensure comprehension and infccmation retention by the ,r.,, fiMc$;,?, h, ?D,s public. Qq :.* ' N.Q: With respect to public noti 6 cation, FEMA reported that the Lt. censees had upgraded the siren system by moving existing sirens and MN
~~' h ;,' t, ',,.If providing additional sirens in the Indian Point emergency planning~~
~~~. i S*,'l3~~
~~.V @.. ?~~
zone. Adequate public nod 6 cation would also be ensured by FEMA n h;<.jp.0,YI'MQ; ~ c. Lion systerns. review of the counties' acousucal design for their alett and notl6ca. -4.x .,. e:w 1 jN:'f h k /I-(.; %*h j,
~~18. The Red Cross' role. FEMA concluded that the Red Cross' role at l~~
p p. sheltered facilities was accurately described in the New York State d;y,W:.4 QQ.y,,, ;pp g/,,. :qM i ?y j g ].a Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Indian Point. That role ..... e s.,, p.y.l. .s..~ was veri 6ed by the Red Cross' prior written commitment in the
~~s.. n,...~~
~~. m.t...@.. &, Q. mGW: Statement of Understarxling between the State of New York and the . '. (..N ~ s. National Red Cross. ~~~~
y
~~. Ak, O DBL.c , W. ~~~
~~19. Emergency preparedness trainingfor the schools. FEMA tesponded 4-3WQ 1~~
3'$ ji that adequate training was being furnished to the schools. This train- 't. ing had taken place in many meetings between planners, county and .w. g c-v iC ,' l. _ State of6cials, and school administrators concerning emergency pro- .e ~t' , ?> cedures for schoolchildren. Information sharing between these groups i P '.[' included: the development of the Transportation Safety Planning Oroup's plan in Westchester and Rockland Counties, the develop- .1 ment of the Compensating Measures Plan in Rockland County, and Q[. the presentation of s!!de shows to clubs, schools, and FTAs in the vicinity of Indian Point. School districts and school administrators ..r ,c.a, also had been contacted, and their roles and responsibilities in radio-( " p; / ( logical emergency planning had been discussed. G'. g,
~~20. The "go home" plans. FEMA responded that the special needs of L~~
f T schoolchildren near Indian Point had been considered in emergency ~ tw -c planning. According to FEMA, the success of early dismissal was p. based on the prescribed procedure that children would be where their parents wanted them. Mcreover, the school districts had detailed ' ~ i$g.. Procedures in place for notifying parents in the event of an emergency early dismissal and for securing alternative contacts when parents a L. E '.. could not be reached by phone. /. ' ',9 ' On May 28,1985, FEMA addressed the following additional contentions raised in Petitioners' Supplement II: A F ..,_Q.
~~21. Current school emergency preparedness remamed gravely dc6cient 1,~~
+ e..).F w p ' G ;f in the areas of school evacuation, early dismissal, and parental 7..f.-h.M Q.r.gg g @;5 +, . mz ~ noti 6 cation. ,,v s5# 's J. ' ,,n * : s,.,.%. \\'.'i, A ~ * /.. w%, c, ;f,,a ,wef.c v'f.t-n. ~m* , = & s o '&.O *i c ../ .'.t, 5' I ..>.. ; " f'. y< g 4 :L.' j. .., y,. kW; _ a~' ~ ~ ~; i, ' y,y
~~,, ~.< j 's.~~
D[f - s s.' 9.c A,.q . ~ ~.. p. ...... y.s,, gg* --,.-=~g j- < [f 1 ~ k 1 't 4 A t h M \\ ,q q i,- b [ \\ '}. m ~ y 5 g. e s s I
. w v. 4 ,h fDtlah.'pq m u w @ D,.:.N %, -.a m
~~'MG~~
~~. 'n y,w%..w,y: G 3's.~~
~~p.~ t M~~
~~Wl m ; w, n&.c~Nm.s;gv,.y4. m.:. . m..~~
~~v. w-m. x w s ~.z -W-r ;~~
~~n:.g m.;, y-m x. ,c;4:spM'. jfPp%,*h7 &~~
~~22. Parental informahon and educadon failed to consider that:~~
h [ T h k S Q,h"Yi g (a) Calls to the emergency telephone number for a child may not of MIM M,.u y f, always be answered; .y. T r:s 5 4 -a,. $ (b) All parents will not be nod 6ed by telephone, sirens, and Emer-Ed@i@. fg@M$$k.U'X lMW@nh sency Broadcast System messages; 3$5$ (c) Early dismissal will cause children who walk or ride buses home i pf[.<,M.'?M 4 ; ~ 'i :. ?, 10 pacced without knowing whether an adult awaited them; 7.: F.M: %g{f%y%;M h;g-QQ.y - 3 there is no way of knowing if they will be able to later join t ^ (d) When children are dropped off at their usual release corners. q,% B i'W M f M;(. -l with an adult; 7@+ NMJdNbMM%s ? (c) If school authorities do not notify adults before releasing chil.
~~1.., m. A b ~s' 6 SM y s W $ e;.~~
~~dren, it is unclear how children would and a protective adult; 7 D.Q;,.n..,.w g. ~. e. 3. t.-$ ~' 4? $ $m.c.v - n '%v:.g._~~
~~M. T.~~
~~(f) Access control during worsening accident conditions may pre. y mw e and ~ m d ' %%:I^. d [;. $ $ k g.;'A.! M /i3. k.. G, Q ; W.f d $ p vent working parents from fetching their children, Q $:1~~
~~23. 'IYansportation plans for school or general evacuation were not anal-~~
~~~ j f p l M K b, %@ p @j. y $ ;[g ?;) M g ized, and lists of volunteer drivers have not been compiled. Cp;7/p R~~
~~24. There is an assumption that drivers in training will perform in an M:~~
~~@ '.c,f.{ '.$,f,Q;[@f Y 7 ' -- emergency. However, this assumption is not valid since bus drivers M.% l 0 :p ' %j.gy. g.~~
~~e5 have been assured that attendance at training is not construed to mean jj@t 7 MC[~~
~~commitment to drive, during an accident. '3 ' (lQOG.? 1 'J' . '. g : 7~~
~~25. The November 28,1984 exercise of offsite radiological emergency~~
~~. _. n ~0.Wh.t preparedness for Indian Point failed to provide FEMA with a legit- .' % p, C d f,',3 7 Eb~~
~~7;>.~~
imate basis for ensuring the adequacy of school evacuation proce-y y 'f f, dures. De6ciencies existed in the following areas: i ;g (a) There was inadequate testing in the areas of in-school radio-4 .p<
. 7py logical emergency procedures, school evacuation of children to

,. i % i ! ' f,t "WN.M,,
reception centers, early dismissal of children, bus driver no-V y!.7.,.( M icy & D ti6 cation, bus mobilizauon, the driving of bus routes, revised ' 7,'t [jf gf7 transportation plans, and parental notincadon. "~' (p ' ';!W4.3 ?b (b) Emergency Broadcast System messages issued during the ex. g.h; 7., cecise were inadequate since they failed to include information v. lR;
~~t concerning early school dismissals, instructions to adults who~~
~~.s C +- may be caring for children other than their own, instructions to <c . (~~
~~~c,.9.i " 17 children who may be home alone, and information contained in~~
. pg,gy. y. news releases. Q. < ' y 'p. hN (c) A more realistic exercise of offsite radiological emergency pre. 7, f ' j ',y '., 't c.' R @jl{p ' *' ~ O paredness to protect schoolchildren would involve the testing %Q; %9 and/or timing of: (1) all county to-school district notl6ca- ,e 1 s.M tion and veri 6 cation procedures; (2) na**Ina and verifica-Q 4.,J. Q W h M %g m y.,E} tion procedures (including telephone and tone alen) for schools gy-],3'tN J$8 Q_'$QQ:f:. 'g g~ {.( g Qg, *g;y and similar institutions; (3) parental telephone and Emergency .,fi)*; W cM 6 & f $3eb,~.; ; M 'M.a.*fY,q's :.)~a,y e,w... h O wn. M ,<m: . um x. 'Qii. ". ; ..?W j ',p.cy ..c -s,. g;? N { -. e grs ~, -. ~.. $$.s'. *- o, s,* ' (,.5 :.,.p' Y,li yM,.,.ec ~ ? s' sem R y s 1 ,o .nV, ~;, p s; % 4 ,n ? r., u .4 ,,...;*..ue 4, . ~ .s ) Y. ghN ,6 g& .Q h
~~='W.T~~
~~&',F. ' "~~~
~~e' e~~
~~p t 3 4 4, t. A 4 s 4 6 s-r ';. 4 = '.e ) i 6 e ,8 ry*U,~~
~~f. (~~
~~a. k i5 ) , e ? 4 ^ o g =, .p f,;. '..e /. 5 p-,' 3s,2 + ,v ,. ( f 9~~
9
~~'E ,~~
~~4 g.~~
~~.*=9~~
~~sf+'~~
~~' ? N "'. b. ;, ' {, ,,,. 9,t g ' -}.. - r* N/ Zi. S.I ,1 J ' 5 f ('*. ' ' i N s.'.,- i, i k,, g,, 6 g: a~~
~~O W. n...., y~~
~ y"m,w v+.w $ L u.s.'c%

.;.2
~~@.s m ..u b<_. e< n, ,'v 4,..n,g. w.& W O A <v.~.- a we n~~
~~gm, vf s.. A ;e -~~
~~y - 4: . b ,,;W%;.j, j.6%w'~~
~~IF,d d~~
.y T-e :..,; Broadcast System nodocadon proudurs; (4) in school proce-7,It, "gf:f W 9 5; dures for estly dismissal, evacuation, and sheltering; (5) noti- . V,3,: M b $ ' ./l?? 6 cation and veri 6 cation procedures for but companies; (6) the ability of bus cornpanies to muster buses and drivers from the <7..s 2,jgi. x M s , @,,y,$y.3QM. ).%' ' acid at nonroutine times; (7) school transportation procedures j 9 QW< gg., for caly school dismissal and evacuation; and (8) parental no-j f;'..l ', 9.iD;g ~fC ti6cition procedures for nursery schools, day. care centers, and j after school centers that plan to keep children until parents can d.y,; q.., /. -[D.;p$$ii[7..y.i [';e jfy t4 come for them (rather than dismiss early or evacuate). J.'
~~26. '!he Petitioners' concerns were not adequately addressed by FEMA's~~
~~% %(G $ responses dated June 8,1984, and July 31,1984. ",2.J.:W~~
~~iib N (, h :M M W i @ h @y& &~~
~~NMhdM h'.D FEMA's May 28, 1985 responses to these additional concerns may be f 'WN G summarued as follows: l W & @'$ Q %.h~~
~~21. Current sustus of school preparedness. New York State adyised~~
,D.y$ (@. U..p.9 4 y'&. G V in preparedness activities, although not all schools would participate j cS FEMA that all schools in the Indian Point area were participating hhkM.':N [y[/ 5/$glj$jjMP'f$ l 1 f. .%Mh - in exercises. 'lhe schools were reviewing their plans and wculd i.' c j$' j.M.[(j@ #. continue to participate in and support the involvement of their staffs .g:W$f! by educating them about the radiological emergency preparedness . _ f M.7..; %l .., c. p:.g.. program. .y
~~22. Parental information and education. FEMA tesponded that the gm[:< d.1~~
~~. gy.Np(: - ' counties' emergency plans did not contain procedures for schools to - ~ y;' - notify parents by telephone if a radiological emergency necessitated~~
~~f. ~, g v.R ? y, an early dismissal of schools, if such procedures existed at specific g~~
schools or school districts, the telephone contact systems would be M documented in their early dismissal plans. Early dismissal would c - g.: q. w%,,.',. include radio announcements to the public advising them of this i ,x. s
~~l. @~~
L,'. action. 'r i y;,]F M FEMA believed that existing procedures wre adequate to ensure , ;:4,a the safety of schootchildren. 'Ihe person chosen by the parent to be i ?_ 2- . m.- ', ' M 'ep. responsible for the, child in the event of an emergency would be i W./ h - someone upon whom the parent can depend to be in the vicinity .. 1 ~_ should any emergency arise requiring the activation of early dismissal plans. If an emergency escalates and requires areawide evacuation, i . C, ii..y ' 1. ~,; 28p the predesignated person would be prepared to escort the child. { i-;;,,, - Noti 6 cation of an emergency situation was primarily ensured by the l, N
~~C- %~~
i .. '. J.W { siren system. According to FEMA, all 146 sirens in the emergency "Q f.J. M noti 6 cation system for Indian Point operated for 3 minutes during a e. ". i '; s j j'",. 3. ' ' P.j $ March 9,1983 exercise. The purpose of the sirens was to alert people to turn on their radios and televisions. An independent telephone 3;% f1l .4 h i$. ( ;._ survey of the population within the 10 mile radius determined that @..cga.Q.E"'.leWI'SFf;Y ?Q ..@ @Se.@%W;%%ghf:p%Mddi 7 87.2% of the households in the area were alerted by the stren S s. s ~S.v.~ v. .P
r,.. a r u

.m ;;.s. nO,.. : w,r.
~~..n .. - 4;~~
~~/. /w, v.3 WW y'~~
~~,:y% ~;. g s' ' ! V,> *.. Q y l' sQs f **. ff . y, 4 ;.h.y'.,i t a c,, s. ;-a -g, ,' * ; ; {"t .cc.y*'.1 p JJ~~
m
~~.,,g .. n.; e ' m., - 3 y' c-W -.,- .6,, - 4 ,r. ..e4+-.,M"* 9~~
~~gy ? :, l, M.;.,.(l 3~~
~~~ j. 's~~
(,
t g a.q r. ,a'..,.,,, some - we o.co y gaw.m - te., pre.ya e w, o, wgeree.gp.=ruarg *
~~v. - -.~~
~~-*r*w~~
~~~ ' ~: p. t 6 E 9' .L I N\\ 6 e L~~
~~y I~JI, I~~
..a r. 4' A ' g gy , + ;{af - ~., l! . w e. e A .)[ f*', ft i..... W .)i ?,:, _ y
.4.w....s. -... -..... " a.:.-. " -~ ~ -- ~" " - - ' 1 M.. m, p,rt. y. Q. 4..c. M. M c.. , f ~ P. w
~~,W.,;,,. w~~

~~vg n.. n.- u, . ~ ;,..-m.,,,.,.,.. i.,. l f...;[ $. Q ?i: i l X. ,;s w; M g M '4~4 [J V f W.- '..d ', ? system. A similar formal test by an independent surveyor of the alert~~
~~cc.3..Z..~~
N .t. and nod 6 cation system for the Indian Point site was scheduled to be ~v, s .t . s,.W, - T - A. 9 -.. ;: ? - 1 held on June 27,1985. m 1 0)n..:, %., o. s In addition to fixed sirens, the second part of the Indian Point o > v w,7 ' q?$ f,;'n'.m ',.iM@,f;.' alerting system was single. station tone. alert radios that would provide y. . 7. y,s ?., $;9 e s g g e.?. - J i., were provided to institutional facilities, including schools. During the alerting signals and instructional messages. These tone. alert radios QM.S.- Q. y / y.}' m " ~ u T.:- .D. '[ March 9,1983 exercise, an independent survey revealed that 88% of w ?. the special institutions in the Indian Point area that had those devices D M R iO ef.f '. M K were alerted. $,'; 3 c^'c M ' k % ; M 8 FEMA also responded that it had received assurance from the State ,.Q... gWM, ;O.t.:w%..:4, n7 C.T ' that schoolchildren would go home as reported in the plan (Le., if the ..u.- % :[ g,,f. school plan called for children to walk home, they would in fact do ~6E;@V D y M[;w@A':P V M & / ( 'd '; yc@ that). Similarly, children who ride buses would go home from the . N $ d M, Y } D. h @% D d'f bus stops. FEMA had no evidence that the school authorities would 5'y NM.flM Q Q'd @? ' Iy# - abdicate their responsibilities. c:3 'SQN:. ISM fD ~-1 The care of schoolchildren would also be provided by a system in g j.f % '.j;.y.M.i{f[ M which schoolchildren would be retrieved by their parents following h.M , Y'?! i their early dismissal. Under this system, parents would be allowed G' N7.@EMl.4t A ?:', ',. ' access to their homes upon identifying themselves to the police officer .'m" - c .o . g.. g. c _. ~.c at the eccess control point. _...L'c:: y. >:::. q J.
~~23. Transportation plans. FEMA reported that in depth bus transporta-~~
-U, 7, 37,y. W., ' ' tion plans were in the process of being finalized by a contractor, j:' N ,"m Transportation Study Planning Group, consisting of local bus com. E 2 panics in Westchester and Rockland Counties. Revised bus routes al. %-f'a,qj - M. ready had been tested by this contractor, and the revised county plans iM.. were currently being reviewed by the Regional Assistance Commit-3 0.' .,; 4 g %. tee. FEMA had not yet received a complete set of the revised bus ~ - g + 7, - transportation plans including a complete listing of routes and asso-4 M {@ ciated maps. '.u, -../., Wie%. 24 Bus drivers. According to FEMA, the State as well as the bus i ' '[..J->J. M ' companies did not believe that it was necessary to obtain letters of lj. agreement from bus drivers. Ongoing training and drivt. awareness y'. of the transportation plan would continue to provide a pool of '.s.f % 4.-:gy-drivers large enough to provide necessary transportation. FEMA j -e '.A p.S t. SQ. , O would continue to ensure that letters of agreement with bus companies , u, ' f rQ ; were obtained. FEMA was not aware of any evidence that drivers 2f.Qh;. attending radiological emergency preparedness training sessions were C n :';f
~~f. -~~
~~w. told that they would not be required to drive buses in the event of an , :3 u ".-,,,~~
~~.,. ;, M accident at Indian Point.~~
~~N'.;t$'M % @( Q. m L.. %.. x W l'.;. h ? ; d fngig. . GQ R.~~
~~25. School emergency preparedness. FEMA responded to the Petition.~~
9 Jf,... M.P;$ .5 ers' charge that there was inadequate testing during the Indian Point d Q f. \\'l.%q.RWW@WQiR: i v,l W r.N &: jWWW m.. n; f.. Q, a..: v& :byj,,..- ff ' ). \\,' W. y.. c * ,ot e se ~;j q'W N., Q > n: w & p ' Q-' & ? - ld.?, . 4..
~~p_h. e>~~
~~z ..t'r M .i* . Y~~
~~y 's,, '.t. mRa-~~
~~.*A w e.p.,,, " \\' l .J~ T 'y .g (,_..._. 3. .W-i g k. e ^ a g e ..( i g + I d rYm., ,E b y E '9 .J. ff , fu,y,. J - s (s. 3.,. '. ; f ? c 4. .e~~
.g
~~,,t ,./,','..'.I,g~~
g
.g [ * -* ' [' a 1 g^ f' .P* + d i e.' - i-f) y, s
..a n q& a. a.. ...m x ...a.~ ....w. - x Wb * .-Y W -fll ~ M' WJ M{IT@' '..J &,,]5 *;%. 1"3. ' ~?" 'W ) l 'qMg;D
~~. y y g n. p y y,j* @.~~
- a .-- F c.,=.,., o %.m,nc wc ~ [,. f.:. ' f *[ rC..,'yl*?[ k j a g '. {,M - ~.,,. M, M.w m November 28, 1984 exercise by detailing how FEMA's methods N.[.$[.;; 'W@n. i.e O,. of evaluadon were satisfactory. Offsite emergency preparedness for 9' M v] g l. c..ft. w,.e. w,,'. 1' j. J schools was tested during the November 28,1984 exercise and was f.,OSO.Q: evaluated on the basis of objectives agreed upon by the State, the .~ M $$.M.yM,%..wl.s.6fMWD: A counties, and FEMA. The scenarios and objectives of that exer-Qg 18O cise were based on NUREG 0654/ FEMA. REP.1, Rev.1, and 44 'H W,@D.4Q.hhy@: JN[M C.F.R. Part 350 guidance documents which provide for the testing y. O U f M M.'; 9 / M y - of major elements of emergency preparedness plans and the evalua-C O $,.cQ.% 6 W/ tion of response organizations. x $h-/N"ADe%i lW.Q%g _ school noti 6cadon procedures, the activation and mobilization of The objectives of the November 28,1984 exercise were to test c @; % S4 7 h. 4 M W$M
~~U.i3@g. % M,4QjyJhi%g transportation companies, and the timeliness of overall decisionmak-i M~~
Eh.Q, ing at the county and State level. Samplings of transportation compa. [??QiW @M h %:mfQ?& nics and schools were tested for their ability to evacuate schoolchil. O d g %;$,& g M h & D - h k 3 %. dren to reception centers during that exercise. The evaluation of early $4 dismissal procedures during the exercise was based on evaluations by i7 J M. .. G, q#MM..g.r. p;Ihkt;U$;4 federal observers at two schools in both Westchester and Rockland M WWM Counties. Officials were interviewed regarding the effectiveness of .g e_pfig., mq -. noti 6cadon equipment and their knowledge of plans and the types of j m '3' M M.s d.:wg@yp.14:y
k
..m O training they had received. Evaluation of school evacuation resources Jg, $. d t.c; l '.... M);r,1f... _ ',,., / /J was based on a demonstradon of notl6cadon, vehicle and driver mobi-1 ~. - Nl lization, and drivers' knowledge of routes. Ibur buses were used dur-N - l>... y,jt ^ ing a simulated evacuation to demonstrate procedures that would be WQ.i'Yh X*7, ' used for schoolchildren in a fast. moving incident. Federal observers r i m.e .., ; 5. evaluated noti 6 cation of the bus companies, evaluated mobiliation of 1 1 m'. 1 ' g?.., - -W the drivers and vehicles, and rode on the buses to assess the drivers' s n,. .. ~.. ,.. ': Y.qfyd : knowledge. . E M,.. ~ >. y* / W{., Q. [ ' In 6nding that the exercise testing was satisfactory, FEMA also p* l statal that many of the testing procedures that were requested by Nfygy ^ lfMM ^. the Petitioners were not practical. Although schools were invited
o. ;w - c'M..

:ST' to pardcipate in exercises to the fullest extent they desired, neither i
4 7 p -c the State nor FEMA has the statutory authority to require them to w;.. participate. Moreover, according to FEMA, the Petitioners' criticism ,K^" of the November 28 exercise fails to consider the 6nancial and ,g,G 5 y manpower resources that would be necessary for the Petitioners' ~ ] requested tests. The current county plans specify approximately 250 " / 12. @& 6 5 ..9,'- T,; i?: v ;p,:- schools and 55,000 school. aged children. s.. c .y FEMA also determined that Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) l /-
f%
messages for Indian Point were satisfactory. EBS messages should , ', ~ ,?, ,Ni %, y contain only essential information. The backup information to EBS ^ G-. 4 ; *. - g, g,. y9 7 G Q /,. messages are contained in news releases. At a mudng in March 198S g" T i r'%y#,n-y @E.$a.w M,. D between FEMA and the New York State Emergercy Preparedness a.w t p. 4 5 ,e .It. 5 Oh.} n. rl Y$. 6 .m-n e, ? 4 r.* %, _.,.$'* R v,. ?- gy < N $,. g*ls&...,.'.o,e[ a,,%,, 7, ';(.p gsh' y,,'. ~ a... ~ us g.. Ci + 1,L.( y. ~ _ ggy.p. ; l
~~A i '~~
~~4 ,,.s V M - 1f. .c..' U,-- 4.w " d, 9N ,u<. ..f. r.. g. 6 h,w. --- ey m -**.e.e- -=,y 7 2 ' - e **- * *' -'r' --.** - 7 e - - g - *- - -. * - - + 4 c 6 -y. e 5 t 4 m .A. e q b, 4 s 1 ( w g 4~~
~~e W~~
~~e -'?+ e I .;~~
r
~~- N s ^! s-g, '. - e. { '., , ii~~
~~y c.,y-3~~
~~(,, 4~~
(-
~~,2 i '.y ~ ^~~
~~r-1~~
~~',3 ,s~~
?
~~i.e.. -,. ; a'~~
~~j.. { 1%~~
= i . - ~ 4
,g%n. .yy
~~f.3,',g y,' Y-;l - @i.c;n N~~
~~"....y j 1.l ....*...e.c .g._ ga Y_' hE g] : "~~
~~1. v s;v. ':.:~~
N g;; - a.- 12 ;, M.9 ^,f " % v j Group, it was agreed that EBS messages should contain information Q 'c.;; w q S ' regarding the plan, affected, locadon, governing authority, protecdve ' ' (.L.'.NfD 21. ' ' E, ' actions, affected areas, general FEMA descriptions, and reception ' ' j j f.D ' " ' T' centers. It was further agreed that any additional information would a _ ; ; p" y,'J.....' ' - 19. ~ c be optional, and the decision to include it would be at the discretion .w w.
~~h" N~~
~~of the counties and New York State. During the remedial exercise for " hpt,'y ' f~~
~~g 7.:' %~~
Indian Point on April 10,1985 FEMA found that the EBS messages , % 'O- - x,,.,, p contained all crideal information. i ~.t '. W, .c; ,7 FEMA concluded that most schools demonstrated an ability dur-f f i ;.., 6 9. { 4- ' ing the exercise to effect early dismissal and emergency evacus- '7.j q i T.,7j.XC. %. tion. Those schools that had deSciencies were subject to remedial %~~ pW... :- s. Q<.. 1 actions, and corrections were made. o l '.1 %J.jv51.q.;,N., < :s FEMA will continue to review county radiological emergency
~~W..W. 3..M M~~
,s. Sm,p. p.C. n, fp. &. c c.,. response plans based on the planning standards in NUREG 0654/ 3 .g..... %... :. 3..g,, FEMA REP 1, Rev.1, and will work with New Ycrk State to ensure 9; ~o+ . ;M?y. c O'c "cj W. M ~~ }: jf @l{%j? f]h;%.f~ F.;' g D. -; 7 y %.7 y. - that emergency procedures are in place and can be linplemented in '.a the event of a radiological emergency at Indian Point. l-
~~26. Petitioners~~
~~claim that FEMA had not adequately addressed ear.~~
V', ~ y q ;:, Swg y [ t lier concerns. FEMA contended that the Petitioners' petition and 7 1 ^ g T}:. Q;q: supplement had been carefully analyzed and adequate responses had r,.te-4 y:in C /' been provided. FEMA also pointed out that it was working with New 1 i, '[.? ' York State to provide additional public education for residents living ~ .y ,+ l-j' Qd around Indian Point. FEMA's input was being provided to the New ,1 mf ' '- 4 York State Public Educadon Management Group (PEMO), which is t ,. q _. f," chaired by the State and has representatives from FEMA, all seven counties involved in radiological emergency response planning, New x ^ - i'g..,, ~ ~ York State, and all nuclear utilities in the State. In the opinion of New York State, all public information and education issues in New York State were and would be successfully addressed by PEMO. . ~ c, ~ .,. ~ f,,. For all of the above reasons reported to th: NRC by FEMA, the Petitioners' ,. 1s C1-contentions lacked either validity or suf6cient substance to provide an adequate '~ -{ f ^ basis for discontinuing operadons at the Indian Point nuclear facility. y ~J,' j.' B. Ongoing Emergency Preparedness Efforts For Indian Point t :,. %.^ ' At the same time that FEMA was furnishing the NRC advice on the Petition-hs.. T l[7 . n ;. {- fA ^ ' ers' contentions, the Licensees and local and State authorities were cooperating A to correct any deSciencies in the existing offsite emergency preparedness plans '% f M - s.., 3:c for Indian Point. During the time between the submission of the petition and FEMA's fmdings of September 17,1986, the NRC permitted the continued op-h.0 n ', - f$N eration of the Indian Point facility based on: (1)the continuing cooperation and .,..,$n m' ?.d..,',,5;dcN.fp%m,,.. N .w responsiveness of the Licensees and State and local authorities in the correc. ,c 7 ' f. S IF. e i O'fs d '. 1. s. ' ~ *
c
~~.['k ,5[., b b / 'C a s w w; y 68 ff.I: : %,*M...~~
j
~~- Y.?. 1... 1 r, a a a. ,,~.s'f;i .f [ ) (-I.'*. ' ' ' i 5 ' ' .. u. w c. :c.:,m .c .. g.,~~
~~e s.~~
~~' ~' m .r-- . -~~ j 3, 4 ~ f , ~ .h ~ .r 3 s 9 6 5 <I,. t a ,. ~ '+ g -;1..~~
y.
-_ [ u ~ *.. 4 .I' 8 i g ~ '. * ;, _, R. '. ' [] '- ' ' ' . 1.g ',. ..t e[ d t i 4
s ~,2 : -.w.. v.:. ..o-i&M.,. C *:.x,: v,"6 a. y*:n n 5 m, m. W N ae ~ -m t , p f.D g*y? ...,. n, ;,.. A;.,y r. ; -y r .m ,"vs. L -w 2,- -:\\ J ?c - W.;- f tion of deficiencies
~~and (2) FEMA's previous Andings which included FEMA's i~~
~~4 f, jV} 3:q{. '~ s.. ' evaluation of State and local emergency preparedness exercises at Indian Point~~
~~j, f~~
4 ~ q held on March 3,1982, March 9,1983, November 28,1984, and June 4,1986. -e t lc. a. ? L h Although several de6ciencies were identined during the two exercises that - ;j g ;.{;s y (X,' 'e4 were conducted since the submission of the subject petition (i.e., the November ) .f ,}.K t 28, 1984, and June 4,1986 exercises), they were not signl6 cant enough to j result in a shutdown of the Indian Point facility, in practice, radiological i
~~2. &~~
emergency response plans are rarely if ever perfect and complete, and this , ' a-i .f ~ ~ } is the reason for continuing FEMA and NRC oversight of this area. By their U. 2 -., N.. ] nature, exercises are intended to identify areas of potential weakness so that f . V ',.J $ J periodic improvements can be made to ensure that plans are current and well + w. ~ 7 SSM / 7 understood. Even in those instances where the Commission can no longer make s , s. J5. ' 9 6 W DN. A a reasonable assurance $nding that adequate protective measures can and will .c
~~6',. O p W M j g n;s %~~
be taken in a radiological emergency, emergency preparedness de5ciencies may '..J.:.,. ,j$Cfd. :t ;d M ', ' not require facility shutdown. See 10 C.F.R. I50.54(sX2)(ii). On the basis of ~ c.d J its evaluations of plan changes and remedial exercises, FEMA found that the ' "]Q ' @.7/MgO ; corrective actions for Indian Point were adequate. ,p N.N in its September 17,1986 Andings, FEMA was unable tr. provide reasonable i J S., g c"'..M' assurance that the public health and safety of schoolchildren in the vicinity of s Indian Point could be protected in the event of a radiological emergency. How. , ' 12 ever, corrective actions identiSed by the Licensees were suf5ciently prompt and _ - S
~~v. -~~
,1-responsive to permit continued operation. The NRC and PEMA continued to e~c oversee progress in the correction of those de6ciencies. Thereafter, on April 9 f, - c* 1987. FEMA provided a letter of reasonable assurance that the public health j ~ and safety of schoolchildren in the four county planning zone at Indian Point W' could be protected. Under all of these circumstances, and based upon FEMA's April 9,1987 ~^ 2-reasonable assurance 6nding, no enforcement action is warranted with respect q' .m.f.. to the Petitioners' claims. ..a a-c. IV. CONCLUSION i, l 1he Petitioners seek the institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ,c i . T *q' 12.202 to revoke or suspend the operating licenses for the Indian Point facl!- -'u ity. The institution of proceedings pursuant to i 2.202 is appropriate only w here A 'FY.MA deanes an enerans densamey as a denensweesd end obearved biedequacy est omW eeuse a Andans
~~st otrate energency,,~~
~~was not adapaais to posvide nosmable asumense that oppsopneis pnessuve~~
~~q. +~~
~~rnenswes eeuW be take to presset se haakh and enresy er the publis living in te visuusy or a naher power , W 'yW~~
~~7 roccity in dus evaa at a rednological energmcy. sessene cd he poemeia' knpact or ennemenes en energmey~~
~~.J,c,,x 9 p %, d. q w,d 4' j; 7 e. wp ,s M 'c .oey me sapend in be prom y earmand oweugh appnynew remedal asnams inchens remedial o~~
~~9 s.~~
~~, %.c ' 'gy en rases, drms, or oest acoom. su Feders! Esnares ey " ;- - - Aamey Guadense Menonaden. EX 1 s,. - T. ' ', ' 3, M M[h.., :~~
~~1taneea1 Enarcises* Wy 15.1965E wp~~
~~'*u .a. cf~~
W
~~, l{l, pg6 '.., ..W. :,. 69 ' ' ^ ~ = g $> ; s.- 2 ': ;)',t * ~ qm.; - i 4 l i, ,.I,q.-~.~..w...,.,ou.,-.... 4 ~. 1., h e ~ ,,a t. s -3. s .. + ~. ) O t, ~ e , y ',~~
~~g i~~
k.. T.* u. ,.. ~.. e... m. ..m,._ ..--,=
.--....~,....., -.~... - - O o. M>.>,%.,y,W4, ; s. -, CW 'm.'..c, p.;.. .e N: J
~~_ ay '-~~
~~,,, ) y ;Q: -,. f; \\ ,v .. q',,L -~~
~~p.. '.~~
~~. -:~. ,;. :q, j~~
~~,,.7 c,~~
~~- a. y: ~-~~
~~. m.;r-w~~
.' T, g'y ' ' } substantial health and safety issues have been raised. See Conto!! doted Ediron 1.ii. '. - Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI 75 8,2 NRC 173,176 (1975), and Washington Public Power System (WPPS Nuc! car Project No. 2), g d, 'y _f. n. DD-84 7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984). Th.ls is the standard that I have applied in -_;,.y,, this decision to determine whether enforcement action is warranted reganiing , ;,P. j ~ o> the concerns raised by the Petitioners. 'a .s g For the reasons discussed above, I find no substantial basis for taking the l ,j, j /, e aedons requested by the Petitioners. Rather, based upon the lengthy oversight and review of emergency planning efforts at Indian Point by both the NRC 9 ??.. L;x.*y.t(,ML.", y Q..C... and FEMA, including the consideration of issues raised in the present petition, M. Q E.. ,'{ , [25W 4 ' f' l7' ~, c. M,- I am of the view that emergency preparedness planning for the facility is adequate. The NRC and FEMA will continue to monitor emergency preparedness T'y
~~g. N,'~~
~ Je ; 4 :S( fy _ for the Indian Point facility. Accordingly, the Petidoners' requests pursuant to 10 ,;,jg. s <. M ,~ ').r.v.'. c C.F.R 6 2.206 for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.202 are denied. As provided c,.,'.y./Q.? q g 4( in 10 C.F.R.12.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary , ~.. .4%w am for the Commission's review, , - y,u.,s. ~ .. + ,c' .:c., .t yy _i Thornas E. Murley, Director _ /. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s ^.~ 2 - >y Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 20th day of July 1987. -6 y; } '. g s..,. 4 5 ".'f'. g y 4 o -/ w >.Y. ..c s.' l g fs y.: ~ ~ -.c.-.L c. v,. j.. 8.' (,. ,s 4
s.
~~2.,.., ., m ;y ' -,~~
~~3 ;'n '~~
~~,2[s.. : ^ y~ s Qp. ;! Q~~
~~Q_O g &~~
~~;p.~~
jQ-v'. ., ' '.s ;n,',. :e,. 4: :g'n.: ~.ce . ~. :a.a . g; ', * -..:q.;.sp';g. 1 <.11 ~.W'- ~h. ~ Q.:.. 70 .u.s. ser.o. ms-rer asiseen s?. Q 2*..l. % : r. ...g-w.f,- ^, ~ '. g r, ,.. ~. < d *,, ,>.,s-s> t' s - i r-j \\ m w s 9 l ..f* y s ~ m 'I '.s 5 , s j}}

ML20149D839

Text

Navigation menu

Search