Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for December 1987. Pages 449-530
	ML20151B744
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1988
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V26-N06, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V26-N6, NUDOCS 8804110197
	Download: ML20151B744 (89)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:__ NUREG 0750 Vol. 26, No. 6 Pages 449 530 3 sm-g -> v w yW M %s.s%gp:ypq N 4 -; w u -. j,,,M.m .,4., p;; z ~ s

e /_1 ~ ;+ ~..W.pa,j s g,,: ..

s. .n.5 ( f, b, l'$ a.4..v p .s.. v.,;mco n !jh. 'h@ 5.N, p&c rs%mu/~M A9:'byl$: c- 's E< m W,9 $y:.Q 'p,, M w ww;< x;pylayw(1 is i & 1.?IbN%T2: , ' ^h } E 3,0 &'ZE; j ? *::..M [< ;?]. L Q fc..jj';d;l.h:~,T4. <. t. . rt.:;d i::. $ WWMEA m:s a n, s e. WQ '" F, j '.'?.Y,, s; :,' %. l 4 _ g ny, 3- ..s mc e_ e M f 9's9.y 7 } ^ $ 0 %pp :g:., ~..:p' ~, {,'$

hf,%h

.c u v.m..wg%a, p s., w a. -. ~. :g,,,.:q Y s.. fT 'h '.'.._. E) jn/ D['N gh. . f [ . ' b )' ),> ' 'M, cy-L g{. l%q;q' ~. +;4- -(r: ( .,g _._- " ').. ,;G : ,9 Q i f ;., g j ,., f.. e ,4 I fL v q ' f' i, , R; '- ~ e7 4 f':' fL > ~, .y ..,' %y ):4 f :j jf: p ') a 3.., y ;y e gm , y;, ~, ; *.;U z .n. _;-i+; '

v, t z;- Q *% 4, y; g.j r

.,, ;9r i.,<9, + t ,9,,\\,...'y, q. ; d; n \\ i % s c,. .g . If I;.t <Nf C 1 mi A.'.. -; 1, -_ ag e C w ;e g . i,. .y- ,b f6>Q, + ; z y.-( Iqc* '..6.T,f.1 V +: ,l ' . M h l';~ 7 ' \\tti. s s d-r 7 'Q 'I ' y.' ' "a pff.. i h' 'f. U.- "S.j s.L I ??, f-( / j, ^ ( ifC' ' ' yg-V,5 i r4 o n.x,,3. ul2, G - n Q3,r s.'s, Q. hf '7"fp,78.$yI.,b. rn W g% eg. tq,Q ';\\ ' QSfjf '.;Q'. 7

w 4W I

G804110197 080331 PDR NUREQ 0750 R PDR

i l i 1 1 Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication. Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 i Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) 1

. -m. O. - ' & *" '. ',. - -,,c.,s 4 < -, - .rs..,' ~e -'< - - - *...,' ,. -, V. ~,

%, ' 4.~. ~. e,

.*c,. . - -..,, v.s s s =, ' ?: ~.,.. < ' < ,' L, ~ r

,- Q.19: * !,...t:

x~.,. '. ~ ~ i., s'. '..~.. 1 ~'~, e .?.. n. -n.. ..s s ..-y !.,' ~...,', - i [g,.,W, p - - ' 90'-;. T,. '.T' '. ' 3. 4 4 .s 4 s v.c -,- - ~., z. ., - a,g. - 1 7.c ,g- "I.* ;' t y;. ~,,.., ~, - sA - s r, A ~* l,., '.f, s ll, ' :Q - ,,"* <, [ {., ';,._,.., -: ~ ~ ~ < .L. < - ~ ~ ' - - " 5

s. x.

. L:, - . $..3., :.y r: -. ' ;.

N

r. :

,..g ,s< '. N'. m b\\ i.Q' j.% *r " l9. p[ [ Y ',,'..'..- ,t y.,.... 'r p .., -m j _q-NU REG-0750 T ~, O '. y: Vol. 26, No. 6 ' v',Q J ,.rt l ..NMJ Pages 449-530 N.. s,N. p..,.... b. Y 27; $; D M,. m, x:..m.%.,. 4_. m.,. _#. , m. ' Q.' ~ ' f~,~,.% ' R.,,~ ). ' O .Q ll..h'.' s,s ;f,,,, ' y' \\ ', ; Q .*,.:s, ^ l:' eM : y '~C,'Y' ll:'k j ) y \\ . f }..'; 7 ,4 q :7.-: n.; .:e _<.,

~;.m>

' b -x ,. s.- -. 3 , o -,; s 1 g. s e..e.3. 7 9 i. NUCLEAR REGULATORY s ~ 1.: M... N R ?. COVIMISSIO \\ ISSUANCES n...

w. c..

.'.s. g .t. t. c 4. L1 December 1987 z s ~ ~ .. s;

c.. s

?.,. - -~ ? .t. y. e, y.< This report includes the issuances received during the specified period . b e, T,< from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal N. ?:/,; .q. Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the ~ v, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and i ~ the Denials of Petitions for RWemaking (DPRM). t ' [ The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein ~, are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-5.. j< dent legal significance. i ~ ~, :.. _.v .c ., ~ '".w,' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N v

8-

..s ... ~,... (, '.i.' ~- .J .o.,.. s .V Prepared by the Division of Publications Services m, Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492 8925) '.e,, . i. I e, (', y r, L i t 4 0 0 e 's v 3 5 4

g 6,

.s 4 1 -A '."i*. .s.. n' (

^ ',

4 4 q i

g

$g'8 J3 ._-..-__._..,..--,.-_,--.-_---._.-_-,.:-4--.--,

.MW.y.4..,.. sww';.'> W&l..f v.* di.::~ b .h h @N.D.U.M8% - t .qq.:: n. a& @ %m y,k: W,:.d [;#[?'8-N f'.. i.fA *i'

- 3 S*D.- U

$xn,a%MWih%;n.Qh': .G ' M> 7 u n.. W

y ~h ;yM. ' w...- s:a

. e n. :..*v. n.n.Lnf.W;', W, W'Q.~- ' m%,; p ~ r.v ~ ;N Q'w:,*%y,w , '&w x lD " ^ e ;. W' h,g.V.>. M/~*- (., '." V.7. ' * %= q.9 . [.Sj* --(**". ~ 4[.n; w,.'_y[q:,l'~? q c[c]r. w.. %...' < ; p. ",,. . l,;f. Qy, 5. N. se, (9;,, ? '.3 agj . q m..., ~ g. a... : 1 ',.Y r J,y'. ~ [ 'jC.M. ..p ik m.' p[s^".glf. +f.,..^. N.,y's mu ;.; + y.3 3 .. u.,. f..',. ~;V, '.,,p'.$. _ w q* 7 Q 9 R '.

} 'Y.k [ Q.* r.},.q. n :,d..f. ';.

u~ ~ ,? l "- l .c. ; ; P y. ',.. + %.,;.. a......M.,., '.:.~. a*., *.. t ~s s,.* * ,.3. ~.. : \\.;;Q.., [ m R~..

p e

,L -..'.,y% r ..t,,,fp * *. - o..+ g a... t y;;t.. -.. ;w,. ; -

g.,..'.4

1... a.. ?

s.... % o, , g p.

g.. g i -

t .c -g r. . p

.y

, a,.,, A 7 .,..: t. 4 ,,,,6,-. r ...,...t.=s.3..s'.~. ~s ), ' t., r. - * .s.. u.r.. u r.

p., m y-,

s r u 2> e .. -

n.. %.4 ; f. '. f.

r* f.- . r. b..".>s lJ,' '%

h.~ ~= ~a N. s : 4.e ;.

f,,*. ;*.,,,?",,,4 ,. y. f*,M..,a g, t p 4,. 4.. &,A ;. -{- ,~c :.? .fs, +. ' T i' >; w .. n sr ;. ..x 1 .*c. '.f.. 1. ! w w ;' n.. 7..J..c ',i - .c!..,c 1. u g. : ....t C,.2;-q m. v p w ~~ ",.~, "... '.. u; (. 5 =.*. .,o r s. ' "_s'*"~ -- ^ ~-~"

4. %...-

... ~ 5 9 -e-y-.. t. -q ..r-

g.,..,,. '., m: w%.S.;. a.

.n- +s. 73 1 .p g, o;,.w, .x W m.h, m l.y' A ?. V....: ' J, ..,,h ~... ._s,. ....g ia s x.s:.g 7. w. a..,. a n. ~.s..'.- 7.s w .n m ~ * - + p +...,. p, .m..' 6 c.. yt, c t.. <.: '.,.. 3 ;* ..s.,..s.. O. *, ~.. y, -. t. ...~.; s. ....e i., x; :,s. w.:ga. v..,p'~:.,, .. v n.. ':m%. a.. p g u.c W t w <, p... +,.. .a u - W %,. m n :o w.c.,e... Q.. W. 3 . y.Q: L ;; ? 9,] .~ r .,w. o .;w.,.... r......n. ::. t e#.~ep#e*m...s< u.. , y ar-r.. .o ,t s. 1 .s --c:

m...

v.- .m .ww,., Q *.. ' + g. ' ~. ;. ~ syg. w..g f....,.. r...n,;g. r. . ~ . q .y'..

n. :

h*

,-f n-f',.'* a-t,

)... w 4 - ,.y 15. s,,y

m. Of.W:~.x.,. ~., ; C -

9 *:. ; W: 4 ~.

G 's c ?,. .,.'m. COMMISSIONERS .. ~. f.. ,4,. 7 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman ... e %,s

3.. s.,.

...3 Thomas M. Roberts

+o..f.g..

, g.,3, ,T. M.. 1 t.. Frederick M. Bernthat +. e. 2..,,

.c

~a ' Kenneth M. Carr

n. j

~, i Kenneth C. Rogers + ~ ~ r 7( - u. ', i . ~.., - 5 o. ..r o.,. s.> _ m, 4..... s.. ..., 3 .sg.-.,. s v-i 4 ,,. i... i .I i s l 8 ~ ^ Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appeal Panel l O, B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel f,s. 4 . i L 1 4 4, cg I i( r,+ l .a m" N

4 9

,r j I + : 1 d.' s-e. p. w,L 'a ,a. 1 a 'v .*,..) i

z

- s ,.1 w,, J e 4 .g? .s q 8 g .T.. s. r e 4 e O e M., I. S '\\** g yy\\ I e h b e s I

79 " ';j % ' ;*j '/.

8' *." Q'
9 ' y

/, v

y.

" "'4A** a ',.

p.dr}<.
g.

t . s #. A '.,0..jk*( q rg $,;, 4 ' i. ,.5; - 7, *g% 'y.

e. g..

.s my, .. ~, 1 'Q..i s (4.?; c. u' k. 4.. ,.g'* g . l'.

f g'

4, e J, s,. -.

4 e

,.c s

y

-* r.

A,

/,- - .t-r ~ . *4-e.C'. <. 4 .' i '((**,'.' .- -' A'. ' ' A * ^. 4'- ..,'t. , -j "'1 '.. 16..en ___*.,.t 3 ...9 ; J rr s 4 S, l> + 'ff g'.' % .- 5 s %,., 1....,. *.- _. t o.., #. 3,* -,. g s - / 4 g i a. A j,

_,.. 3 '.

,m-

'W.." % &...y:.. L';&.y b t:y c.;p.p:, q:n: g W l'. rm a,;:.;y qp' 6.x,. Q.. ::.. ':.);.. g: y e,x s..y-a -.. %..~. q ; e.. r W.,i w

r..

d. . ~, R. eA:,~';g p, p. ;G;..., p 1.. '%v ......... a :: - . e,sy..' >,_ t,,;.y

~,,

+s .J ...;:L ,.<.; ~-.. m o,s, O, ..c - ,..,.2. o

c. x :: ;. y, ~.s ' s.m y..c.

,. n. a a-.., -. . p. y%. ;%. y.w : 4"s., 4.y; ~. v a..p. -;w ...., - ;. c:., w..,., ;. a.. i. .. ~ m.,, f < e... -s

~. 4: g:;,. y,9m w.. r.
m 4. ' a ;. c p.

u.. m ;. .D: UW ri:Nat 'i M. / 7

w.. r.

x;;..c i. 4.:. M.. '.. %.c.,:u,;

.... / m.: L

, :. :n. l. %. ' ;. ) . k ?ly.y', g,-;p;s fe'; 'f.,V h.., ,, ; }<.;c,) l,M 'l ';.'.'; W.M ;;.;,*d,'%. M. ~ s ;. L y.s. r :. g.'m.%.r,_.,.. 'm; ;:y;.y.- .~y . ~, q,,.,,. Q. m. .r ~. : ..., v. .. w., :M',. a, e,,. o, . v. -..,

.: ;p:,e%: :w%; '... *:e.w.r.:.. e$'55!.: %' M 1

D.m ay.7 1.p.6 %26$:, e SU }lQ:

E-3:l% M y:U'-

CONTENTS e.. :. gr.q.t. t.rn'd, ' '.+.w,, i / y; s j Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards m6?%, g,:4 *..'. y ~; m ~:> \\ ! .%..W:ge.6.p:yd. l:%'.-wf W @.h '1: it A y G!!b.f.>mt N,:S~ GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION J A,:,p,e.,. e..,:... t%.. ' m...u., p. e. 2. Q / M. ~. * ;yF< Docket 50-289-CH c R ;'w4.. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) ~ .g..Ng; w:. 4, 4 4,',K ' y ' .w, s i.y~.a.p..p;,o. 'Jk,..... 7 , A;.;W g '.A.- f. ',

a g.
.6.. W hfEMORANDUhi AND ORDER, ALAB.881, December 31, 1987.. 465

.. rw... e ..el c t ;g..y e..s.~ W.g.m, g,4 PACIFIC OAS AND ELECTRIC COhtPANY .~...,

M e$4x'.$sf'3y ' f_., ' - ",

[ (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) .n c 1 i 5-3 ' + WA,.H. g..' F '. J .lr3 Dockets 50-275-OLA,50-323-OLA ',W.... 7... 6 J :,R,.,,.. x. ~ %.l:W,a.M.M. ? DECISION, ALAB-880, December 21, 19 8 7.................... 44 9 c f _'y:

2: a g y 9,; ;.,'. ( ', ',

y, a.; J ^ Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Lkensing Board ,9.. .v. 1 .c ' ? ?. ^ ~ - 4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COhtPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l Docket 50-322-OL-5 n, ..m .,e ~.. p.,. .;.y.u 'J. ......s,....,,. F. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-87-32, December 7,198.... 479 v .1

4. ~.,.,

,.s q. r:,.... +. .a. wo ;..y,y., s mi 3... X..s. N.~...,f,. '*,'. &.... w..u -s.k..y..b@,('r g A.Issuances of Directors' Decisions . s e..:.. _, m.. f. c m,.... :..f. .v:, . ' $'u... p3q' Xd.. D* %j T" ; ., m. r m M" DETROIT EDISON COhiPANY, et al. N f ,. y ( ll 7; 7., p.- (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2) '0 y,

n. -

T Docket 50-341 , [.T, f Y.,.h,( 4, ' DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, 's 4 DD-8719, December 8.1987 507 ..,; m> ;. -... o ... e.7

,.. =,l Q..

,,w-'L? .e i . s,. g

s

..M.,'

3, c g; /s HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COhiPANY, et al. -.p...,. m

g..

^. pt '. G..<. 7 W.., N..' (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2) . T: .K,,<.. .,... w....,., ~ F ' Dockets 50-498-OL,50-499-OL m 3e:C...M.:;'.+

's DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, s

.s .. S

- M t a

.c. 3,...,: nq.. - - T. .a DD-87 20, December 13,1987 513 i 2 s. a. .c :,, s. .+ v. y. fj '..,,p.w.. n ; nT.' hi.?h g:.] i' ; : POTENTIAL lhiPLICATIONS OF CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT FOR ALL W.. l 6.-f.,J. _. gig.f.,' : +.'TQf}DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, -.); A '; 7%M NRC LICENSED FACILITIES ',u, .. c. J., S4%..,,,t. '3,J.: l '..,. ..,1.,,... : !.,. c,.. m. _. ,Q DD-87 21, December 15,1987 ............................ 520 l w

3...,

t. c.

s.r... ,.r.. d'

c.

,,3. : :, s. ' e " - gl. e .t-

s. >.

? . p. ,C - .O. .s a.. e

w,1 <.,,3 j.:.*

.g g ,.S .s, s k g, ., #. Q.,,.'., 4 Jf. ajg I =#'., p e ,h *. d g . '. h 'h.. *, \\si .e'

'.. e,W n'3, m- ;r' k ~) b 4".

,.l"., '. Q.,C. a: .4 y y ,a y'i:",.u.w 4, a m.v.....,, . 4 .. a :. 9 ,. "..,,... '....n . s..;.-* 4a',.-.4 A.-.,,. /.t 'E .q.J, '3 7, c g9-

m mz g

4[*.- -,,.. ~ -,'4 6F .,g ,g . L. 4, ;.. "( ..r = o,. ,,...j j "-,., . c .s' ( f. ^ ' ?*..s., p ,','e$.85 1.,g s f i '., - '. ' [4 ,e , f. g,8 f.y. 8 t 4 p :, _ m s 3'.- 4 8 4 =. e 7. g 4 y I h gj k*. s'.k, '..[ .4'. ..g g

s.,,

s. p ..s. ' '. + 'A.* i:,...r... t,

4

..".#4 _.

1... @.* (.
g

, ; g [ '(

8 I

st ).;(*,'.N c] f,'. 4 y..' ,.?r. - a 5 g - [..'#.'i*'*,.,;,, ,gj.,, ,8,, ts,. 's.. t. t. ? .g i.t,'....,,, ;.* 4. ._8 s y _,m..g ;,s J .. e e.n.

..,....,. -c,:f, ' A. +.c'.1, e',,( e, ? *.N. w,. .,7

s. -.

.-e,. , e- -- - r. s r. s-v,.>.,= -.- s.- m.. %,,., s. 3 .r., ;, -/, e * ;- -_.. '.,. ;- V - . c, p.. ~ u m-cc. '.i, ',.,. - , 5.. + '. . < <. s. w..,e'.--*,. ~ c ^' .'!i ^ ^ ^ r ,s y ,S,, e .e 4 c

4. e s

," r s _~-, ~., -e.,.,..- .. 4 r

- I

. e.

. x,;..,. s> _., 4 s ,h e w' u.- ..c...~,.~ g 5 .O.. 2 o 31 l

c,, '_, ym' s '

,;.:.. v.;...*- _,,...--. :.o .'*s.s ~ s se s 5' ,6 . =. =. ~"- - ? a.e s +. J g [,, '* *, ) #,2,c# . a ; *..,

i _.
...,,,.J..

3 - s,

3 '....s U.4 '?
g.-

l.'..'..- e +.>- .'-,a -nf s* -s T.'t. y. l .e,1 + 4. * '.(a ,L i- ' 't ,-F,

-"c-tS

= *- ,./ . t., p . T.,. . r.';- .,s. "g e ,1 s~..a o. h 4_* :,.'.Y. .M' Y- \\ -.. _.. *v .a. . 3..v~n a '.r,. * >M. J es ' '.;' 1.. ' i. 4 8 4 ( / '# ?? 1.,*v. '* [ ' -Gs. -+,,J A.} f

, f,\\,s

,p g. .;. -e L *.* s. '. t <>r ) ' S.' =.'. r.N ':, P,% ^E C, s;.,' -l a..' .c.. . W 'r4 38"'. f. m.w... m.. < ; Atom.ic Safety anc .*/ r. ' I.' '? si) f *i 4 A tr. , _.,, a f, y.'* v[<,'..S T a .sA. _[,D.,'" ' \\ ^~ f." ~ .cc 1.N.K Licensing Appeal ^ m .. * ',*s. *...'.. Boarcs issuances ~ - c,.,,. caw C.. m C ,.s <. 4 l. w:,,, e o' e a' 3r s. " " -, ',, ' %g., n~ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL ~< 3 1 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman e Dr. W. Reed Johnson g i Thomas S. Moore i s Chnst,ne N. Kohl I Howard A. Wilber s ..r _' J# s U.. a s 3 s. g f 4 s .*?-

e..

g3 r 4 h, 4 -",. R...< r+ s. ,,.o.. g s a 4 e s

g g

-m g s ( ~ 1 0 \\ lJ' g --L. ',6 er, M y_ i ] g e'- l g, ' a-i p ? - s s 4 r g 4 s l q i t 6 -.* . \\ C. F 9

(

a i .s' + i j - ^*) 4-., 1 + 1 - .L r- -a t e. .e' $. *, w 4 s .C. s f s g ./* - d ,'t- ',./ 7., = g. S . g j - t'

'.a. p.

r '.s_ f,.% :. r s e c* e 4. e f f. Ej i 6 .a = " j e., p = s I ,s e A e 1 -f 3 4 A .e 8 O' E, 'a u, N. ,m s. .e A g. 4 4 e ..e , g 3 4' ' 'c ;. g ? m.u p k m t, -g *- - - - = - - - - - -. - - - - ~ - - ~ -

y; w m m ln - $= w$ N $. & n. d ?' &E .:? n y n'..:y. L;. w. w.. M. pv.~. a. v>4n.,f;,7 ..y&.,,.,.. m e n:~ 0 :,.,. m...,r.1 ~,_ a..,. s,. g,. ;.. s . q,- +.. <,. - n >; m.,,y:.<pM' N,.f..g r.. _ f-a v 1, n4.., m _W <:.2 'g n,e,

'4

_ g. p z.p g h,:l.,. .r e y. yy, _ g., s, e, y p..q q a 9 ( e. -. '. ,a ya .. ;;. m.....e >, z. w.,,... .s. -r c y :.y ~; s , a.,a.,. n,.a#, v%.*y:s...~ n..,.c., < s.4: . 7 ;.v

q. :

-r 234

: .4 ;..

~-a> w;y.:m.;., s..,..,..~r a u =-a w

.x,.

...~. -.- m ~ : -... ~ < - .a. ..a nr

...~

;*.v..g

< E %. ;c.A :., &.s a.. ; -:gg- - e. m,..

n. b ii?.p M:,g.w -a..w;,. i.Q. t.v.. e. -

.w ..w.. L:

;.',' ; U M w - :'.% iit ^ s,,..

q:;u. .g. . ;ly?~2.1 ?e .: &Q ,O.,,s.g-].W.l5l:f..&%-.9)..J..1 "O f m, &..,4. o.2.4: g.C., q, . v A C;te as 26 NRC 449 (1987) ALAB.880 m,w !~ll.G.r,.. ' l,E. ' ; **$f,,w. Y fb '.:.w.',.R. s..l:s' m.. h ,z. ,.w. 9 ..,a m@v..;.,vW :,5.,J'/ p p,q.g..,..a a:..g.7 ;;,v., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .u. y ' < 7:

,A.?d'i;,@@MRh.9 3

.NWN. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 64V.0:,:w'f ff'4 ,~.. - <%.w h-4 TZ p%e.f .s. y

^.a,. - ^cV

b ?- d_ y.'.y w.g 4 4.%: @3.c y ;x

^ i y: 'd ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

N, v,.. m$$. x;l$. /i'N. 'ffd.

m 3 . x.:.p p.. q.;. m.:,

. 7?g..... n..m,. s.,..4. m. g ' C'..f Administrative Judges

- - s. .. m... -. -(; y ; g..q .j . ~.- p s e.w. -N. 3[, p,..# e .. J... I.S,.,h o..D. J ;y'.*..M.M.. %'.,'.j. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ' *. [. t ;..'.f. 9 ~ ',. . 4 ,. %. * *.i....' #. * '.... 4 ..4 .1.. - x... /S.'. ... s.

7. ;.<..,., : c ce,,,..' M, Christine N. Kohl

?.. .m. a., -:w. qr. 9:. $.97- '<.r.- Howard A. Wilber .:p. q -;s., .n. ;, + > ... e, ~. _ y,._.,. ~ 'l. e E ',,' i-. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 275 0LA J' 4 ~, N - 50 323 OLA + 1. .. :. x.,..i._,. s*. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC g

.p ;g,,.: .r..

COMPANY a. 7 N.

<,. M % i, Ji

> d@ c,f:%, 9 f.N:$$ bj (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power . p.,., - P :.'.t. A*.,.?p'ct:5 Plant, Units 1 and 2) December 21,1987 4.; . _ yr y e.w, A:. ;.,.::: 4 .v - . o. sc. m y.g.,..,., t m.1 ..<..s. 3.m .m.a v w.. A. , m c. z~, g... n- ~ .(..., 2 r < >>.[ 'i @ ' ' De Appeal Board afdrms a licensing board decision authorizing the issuance ,c /. '{ of operating license amendments permitting the expansion of the spent fuel pool . 2 z ..a, l.i c..% ' :.::, f. *, capacity of each of the facility's two units. y.., ., -.; L y.Q, ;:;,'>.g 3,, q - (. .' SQt y 7;- 1 n g, RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS (SPECIFICITY AND .p :- L ' J 1 '. - ]. BASIS) i - :? : w. ., n. .a ' :, . C'g"l.. v..-.J.;..G. y M,, , ".'; tj To be admitted in a licensing proceeding, a contention must have its bas.s .'d n.. .4 y set forth with reasor.able speci6 city.10 C.F.R. l 2.714(b). De purposes of this

s; s tm

..~ l. ; rule are to assure the proper invocation of the hearing process and to provile .. G ~- 3" g ', (; n;. ;. {'.W'.; C,;I) adequate notice to other parties as to exactly what they will be called upon to ' '.- V.M. 3.%. e. c. 4, <F./. J. d. litigate. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, f ..~ .' s WI.' 9 ' yg .N. p '.. .j Units 2 and 3), ALAB 216,8 AEC 13,20-21, modified on other grounds C.I. . m. g.. ', ',..,. j '.d;.; O.: 'y m. c-. + 74 32,8 AEC 217 (1974). v. .~,.. ..(. , :7

j. g.,-

,w .,,.g 1

4^

~, ~ .x .s, m 4.,.,.., a.. y;,.._,w. a 9.,.;..,,1:,.?*,...., - *.... jn :,'.;., i . l+:: .:n.' 449

r..

.s .a .;.x 'xpy/.:;g.c w.; w n g L:y:. . ~... ,-~t;. ,9. ., * * ;*. %, */. f., ge. 17 ^. /; .g. ',. ' ' <.., E W.. ;q. ~ ~,.,i-.,..... ,1 q, ,...*l G.. ; ; '- t 6, .e c,... ,. g' i y.:.a v.. ; .s, -. r.- ,a,,..,.. z. .a =

? " a R,"

'v'.'

)

.\\ [., . '[ ( '. c..'. pA. .,..- *) ..N N,, * '. E' ,a

.,.c 4,.,.

E [ [ L 9 . n .; y..3qc.q,',g f t

T Qj;y.]Q. f'Q[} Q'..fLT; SQ ' r", , y; :j-QQ~.; -.,,3....,..... 7,._, ., g +.. p y. &;. 9:,.m. p .3,. c. p;p;,.. e.,..g::f.,;,;..); ::n.;,~ < ;....

,.z.

p .m.. .,. w. .. ~ _ ..y.;...,':. 9 n,y. '.,.. /.e:,.,. : 'c: . Y., ' n.,, ej > L,.. v,.v>.. .,:~..

c., o z,.: - a-u.

,i - m r . n w. p,. -. %,.,_-;,";z :'

f]9'-( -.<l.

h.

',, m.,, f '. ~l._.

q.. ,, q ft.. % : g ;.9'.~ y'. ' y Q.h t.- +

s -

f..

.r. l.. l,3.. e..N 1 A . ~(*' , [.- * ~... " ?. - r; , f. *id.. C-y_' - ' !l ?, .2 s,7. q _, __ ;,., ;ab ;u ~.4. ~.a.q,9,, :.x....w,.

~

a n[

.... a. a ~. . N[. ; - 7Q;.' 3( '-. - (.! 3 ^#. ,,,, ~*. i !' c, .4.. w v m we a. 's. s

N g; c.

.J APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW .j .cn m- ~,, ~ 3-Like courts, appeal boards usually do not consider arguments that are raised 5,j for the first time during appellate review. Tennesree Valley Authority (Hartsville m ;" j'.

i Nuclear Plant, Units I A, 2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB.463, 7 NRC 341, 348, e

m.; recorrideration denied, ALAB-467,7 NRC 459 (1978). P RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS (ADMISSIBILITY) 9 y .c f "y~ Under the Commission's requirements, an intervenor is not expected to ~ '.i prove, at the contention admission stage, that a proffered contention is true: .y 'ed the intervenor must, however, allege at least some credible foundation for the ' % <[ "' i contention. Cf. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) CLI.8016,11 NRC 674,675 (1980). 4 .( l NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT o ,I Under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment 42 .,.. g, U.S.C. I4332(2)(C).

a..

~ , 'e NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES (SECTION 102(2)(E)) Under section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, agencies are obliged to study alternatives to proposals that involve "unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. I4332(2)(E). APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW l An appeal board will not consider a party's claims of error that are not developed in the party's brief on appeal. Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric A - q Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB.872,26 NRC 127,13132 (1937). I -s...- J REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION [ ' ~ ' 'l General design criteria (GDC) are broadly stated engineenng an.1 safety 4 goals that "constitute the minimum requirements for the principal design criteria of water. cooled nuclear power plants." "Regulations" set forth more detailed requirements, while less formal staff documents (such as "Regulatory Guides" and "Standard Review Plan" provisions) provide guidance for compliance with g. 450 4 f I .,g s g 4 I '.*1p.*

.g*

-*G

D D
1 O

f*

6*

M' t' y-i i s

L j

h [i,,.'

y i s

], .?, g, '5 P'g,, ;A ( f,,;.y 4 '.,j , s., (, ( s

sp..w y 9,.., S. $.h:n, % ~ g.D.N.@.(>.%.;y,..M: N.. _ ' ' N. N, # DD.T-

k. y.N. NT< a3dM.3,E 2

l e c, c. - y..... .,e. m 9 o.,, _ a ~ .w. ..S.,-,

e N' ': , ?:qc

. :. e 7" ,.n, 4 a ,s ., le., . > Q~ g.' ,.n+ ,:, * ~ '-j't .i ; .-O.- ,,.,~ Ls, ' ' ', ; v. -( _'.,..p..:r.g, q 9: >t .;. s.7. y >.. g <:,s.. -c r: ~v. .a 7,,, f.. + v .s ..,c ,L ~ ./ m ~..c.,. - 2de...WMW..N;c

1.,, w.

s. .;e a. a;. ~ .* '.;.,. p&

,'.h 3.,j. Mm.2.'s.l '

[ t a . -. <,;&. 3,:::.y.. . ' f.;n__;7 y.g.;w.fg:.e ....a, .3h. ';. ~. ;:- vm m.m. ...... s., f " e ,.. -.m a e./ r. T:,1 ;. a ' d ilM v_4 c'(f,QQ(Q;v< GV.f% \\ ..i.. the GDC. Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action. CLI.78 6,7 NRC 400, "1 406 (1978)' cl;M;y:%..J7. 'jgQ.qM.r".ll:s .. ' 3 % *:.v';,-:H.g:jyi. r..Q N. % M, W.t;. ym!..q. ; k NS J'

e

>.N'~. ..f,~ f.$a. ^?'J NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS p.,yg MAM 4

~..

,l, 4{ 'yft$$.-]d].,7 y Accidents that contemplate "sequences of postulated successive failure more E .], c.yg.[- severe than those postulated for the design basis of protective systems and . /MM'i 'l):j %^E .(. engineered safety features" are variotsly termed "beyond design-basis,""Class t . 7.W. s.JM.j%9 9," or "severe" accidents. Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power W '. [O,j : Plants), CLI 79-9,10 NRC 257,258 (1979); interim Policy on "Nuclear Power f.c :, ' G. ?.. $ ;.Y.. W..E.. ' ?. U.., M. 3 Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act 2. ' ,3,Qr. m.OE 4 of 1969," 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101, 40,104 (1980) ["NEPA Policy Statement"). c '. l: nl',;g T.s-J <? P : p., g..' ; See generally "Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future l' a "r.+./,5 " 4 Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (1985). The Commission

D 5

considers such accidents "to be so low in probability as not to require specific y additional provisions in the design of a reactor facility." Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-12,26 NRC 383,393 ,- l x 3 s, n.17 (1987).

a.

NEPA: ENVIRON 51 ENTAL 151 PACT STATE 51ENT

e

- w. Under the "rule of reason," NEPA does not require the consideration of Class i ., i. ~. r ,f l, " "%. 3 i J..f Nine accidents in future EISs, nor dxs it require that fmal EISs be supplemented , ; ; f_' ~.Q;; &[. r to take account of the Class Nine risk. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace [4.... '. ',Of fj

v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287,1301 (D.C. Cir.1984), aff'd en banc, 789 F.2d 26,

.4 "..',';.,,.; - V cert. denied, U.S. 107 S. Ct. 330 (1986). .a s. '..,Q,,. '.. '. ~ ' l]' NEPA: CONSIDERATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS n s'. ' Z. t.[ NEPA does not require agency consideration of highly improbable - i.e., j e , ~,. < }., f '5 C. '., remote and speculative - events. Thus, an EIS need not be prepared to consider s 1

.g. -

such events. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear ~R ve, - 1 Power Station), ALAB 869, 26 NRC 13, 30 (1987), recoraideration denied, .f... */' 4; ALAB 876,26 NRC 277 (1987). c ,o .O ", 6c jG NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051N11SSION: RESPONSIBILITY f p' a UNDER NEPA .n,, .d . y' C

As an independent regulatory agency, the Commission does not consider i

substantive Council on Environmental Quality regulations as legally binding ~ .'i.f.,, 2: / on it. 49 Fed. Reg. 9352, 9356 (1984). See Baltimore Gas and Electrie - m N e. .i gg. E' g, ~ , t , j s ' ' ~ 451 ~.;- c,... .e -,id; ?. -g

l.W n

h

,1 Ik _g 4 +. g * -Q ,9 ..,u. s. 4 ' ~, 7'* ,,. 4 : x 'n. 's, ., >, '... -. ;t e t..

s.'.

~ 's- ,,6,,.. ss r o. e l %,.l }I :< g. q - Q ', '- l v. ' *ic...'J. _ i ..,, _, ~. ~ 'U' . ) .i. .ss m

m.,' y&.;q&sy.. g.j.if,.';g'~s.Qgp'.; c'h;?.ye Eh %:kY HEE ?,,%,. ~n,.. h. s. p..;=;&,, V I. Q q'.'.,1%j !.C.. 'sW,TW... la.. c ',9.. ';. ? . :. = " '. v. w, ,1..?fl.l.l.',(sW l. 6,W,... l$ ;a '. * ': E- ~ ~ ' b 2 :a'l 7,&. <..,' .:. ' -f., " y,. ,s .., ~.,.. - a. g..,. g.c. %. :n.....

g..

.- a e.,;.,.,..;e- .., n a. 'r, s.w,1 e..g r ..4'.. '. q er s . d .....,.;G-'.....,' s':<.3 l-s% s,.. +. -: ~. g,',,_,. t .a... ...'r,y r.. ..'y-.. .t ,f 3 @.

.. -c w

-.e ;, g.. - r s a.

; g ~ ~.~....,. e

-., 3..,.. .g.o c .g ..:........ ~. ,a . f;;.z y, , " y.:.,. 7 ;., .... 9 + e q.C w..'x. ,.. m 9. iw:~y ru:, n?,7m% a. '. ~ ~5 . ;.q' .. ~ ~~ 2 ~-c; W..:, w .s- . ~' a - .'s...- m - + - ^-"ez~ w. 1, k. c.'s c a.h. %. w.. . c ,,J,-?~..p.f- .3

. ) g,}..'

,s. .j,,.,- , C, T... 6 'y' .' l, :'.. ;, u.? Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,462 U.S. 87, 99 n.12 (l983); ~:.- ~~ ' g rF,' Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB- , s, t .- ~ i 819, 22 NRC 681,100 n.21 (1985), a)J'd in part ana review otherwise declined. ._, j. - CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 125 (1986), petitionsfor review pending sub nom. Limerick 'g Ecology Action Inc. v. NRC, No. 85 3431, et al. (3d Cir.).

e...

F -- 1 NEPA: POLICY STATEhlENT ON SEVERE ACCIDENTS s, s. -.

.w 3

~ > S., : / e. 3 In its NEPA Policy Statement, the Commission describes those circumstances ".O ~"'N in which the NRC staff, as a matter of discretion, is to consider the envitonmental . **y:1 impxts of a beyond design-basis accident. "That policy statement, however, does ,:s 1 ~

K.

not apply to license amendment proceedings for the expansion of the capacity e. . J,..?. n. of spent fuel pools by rcracking. Vermont Yankee, ALAB 869,26 NRC at 31. - u m ...f, - a, NEPA: ENVIRONS 1 ENTAL ASSESS 51ENT An environmental assessment is a concise statement usually prepared to aid the Commission's compliance with NEPA when no environmental impxt [ statement is necessary.10 C.F.R. f 51.14(a). See also ALAB-877,26 NRC 287, ' 4' 290 91 (1987). ,.. ~ j; w . 1. - ',. "..i-. APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW ..s s~ Where a party's brief on appeal provides no references to the hearing trar.- I script end underlying record and no specifics to support its generalized com. plaints, its appeal is subject to summary rejection. See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.762(d)(1); n Pogtle,26 NRC at 13132. APPEAL BOARD: SUA SPONTE REVIEW It is appeal boesd practice to review on its own initiative licensing board s decitions, or portions thereof, that have not been appealed, as well as the underlying record. See Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. y. j Units I and 2), ALAB 859,25 NRC 23,27 (1987). I . v,, ~ ~ ' TECilNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED -.J ~ High Density Spent Fuel Racks Spent Fuel Pool Loss of Coolant Accidents Zircaloy Cladding Fire Beyond Design Basis Acc: dents 1 I &e a + 452 w-go -M' ep 5 I g e . -.c.,.,, g. e.. e.,;ew - ,t_ 3 -....f e, ;.. :,./.. - ., [. y 9 , g

u..," - f a
e if
- c f

. y f, .e-s* .. f I.I (#/{. IL* 6 g v_

M.$. $.D N.c < M..>, N W F Ur W.'.,*h M. 4 ~. W.. W,,v; T. M. 'i Q'.I> @m. %sUQ M . a. n...,..ywu.. n+, t w; .. : a. v.,.- v s,. ~ .,,c .... v. x.. c -.. ~ 7- . s ~ . 3....

.r.

,s : ,...,. - :p,, y:... < a.. v : ~. -.. A. .!... -?. m. ....v - a,..c; s-a.. x;.;.....,,.. .~ a, s i .s .,3; o _.e.,j - - . ;,c.,. c, >..,.., x. -o ..,..,...-.,c.,.. ... o., p g.;. v. ., c..,, s, 3. <,. <; s w. g ..c, ,2. 8,. m.. :... <.c. n.. f ;. .. v.:.. .. g

. ~.., o m

.w. c... ...c, .- p. m.c. < s. . mm ;.c, n. &. '* s :: ._.{,1. ~ w.. w;_ K. :,.,. { e'}.' W,... e -,.;m.r at s'

.o...

. y ;. u.\\;y u .... :a..s:: .. -. y ;, -..,?v,a .,.... s ~.- W%c_ .y;,

...mi. a.

c . m. a,. ;..c_~,. 4.,f..,.. w. ~ g, ti. P ' #Q ,s,. t .sw ,...4'.

c. ;:r. -

m.., .:,. 79 9 3.

p.,,.,...

p; .g h'.[k,r3.h:iM.h',y,N.[;;M Considera. a c. Alternative Onsite Spent Fuel Pool Storage Facilities p;. 6 Desi *n Base

. t. ?

Q:. m.~.. J;p. n< ~ w@mp.%w :.w.9 L 'f. @. - ,- n..*3 2,,. yk g Spent Fuel Pool Design Criteria. fj,,K.@e... As c .(. &.x 3

3.. /.;W.w K;~.a..%.:. 7'i'Q.N

.s c q APPEARANCES ~.,,. ; ..,. "... q.- : w ; ex-u>;.; -e ......, c, 5 ",' y ) ) Q 1 Dlan M. Grueneich and Marcia Preston, San Francisco, California, for the 3-n...,...' n.,. , fc - 'z ~ intervenor Sierra Club. .. a w..m ~. .?. .W...... -.'am J.xL.,+.. . , '%s J '.,k. 3 p,.. Q Howard V. Golub, Richard F. Locke, and Bruce Norton, San Francisco, ,..[.,C California, for the applicant Pacific Gas and Electric Company. [. .... v. M. Q }... .y. ..,.m 9.- i B:njamin H. Vogler for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. l ,n d'j, ""v 1 ,x.. n,r ~n, t. .,1 . - -,, r s l-DECISION c ,y i w._" / Dis proceeding involves the application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company , ' a% (PG&E) for amendments to its operating licenses for the tw. unit Diablo Canyon ] g 4,. N r .f, facility. De license amendments are to permit the expansion of the capacity y' ': c..";5.' s of exh unit's spent fuel pool from 270 to 1324 fuel assemblies by replacing

[. /

',k V.4..- l Q, existing storage racks with high density racks. C 4 Initially, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 650.92, the Commission staff found that 3.'.cff7 N' .4 ~...;g d "no significant hazards" were involved in PG&E's request, and it approved the M9 Issuance of the license amendments. Sec 51 Fed. Reg. 19,430 (1986). De Sierra Club and the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pexe, which had already requested a .'4:1 hearing on PG&E's application, asked both the Commission and the U.S. Court 0 ' Q of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay issuance of the license amendments, ne j Corr. mission decided to allow PG&E to continue its installation of the new . f c"'.3i E storage racks, but declined to permit storage therein of more than 270 fuel f3 .', - N. % assemblies, pending completion of a hearing before the Licensing Board. CLI. 4.c * [,, " ' '. ' 8612,24 NRC 1 (1986). De court, however, found that, in denying the Sierra 'a *. 7.: Club and Mothers for Peace a hearing before issuance of the involved license ~ % .o amendments, the Commission's "no tignificant hazards" determination did not .s .;P i '. ' c f,/ comply with 10 C.F.R. I50.92. De court thus ordered PG&E not to place J' .e any spent fuel assemblics in the Unit 1 pool and not to rerack Unit 2 until the

9...

..~ / completion of the administrative hearing; in the alternative, the court permitted ..g, t ,';. (, 4 g 19 PG&E to return the racks to their original configuration. San Luis Obispo Mothersfor Peace v. NRC,799 F.2d 1268,1271 & n.1 (9th Cir.1986). e ^,

s n.,.

, q.. s 0.9 453 y .h : + 7,./ ,y. .. ? I s 4 ,g 9 , ~ll 3 t j r ,e i ,~%y' +.**.%* %,e .e. j s L i- -ff j 1 ' i;

7. ~.

m y . u . a e <a. ..n.1.:c. g.c..,. w y .r. .n. 1 .t c.. e l ./. ly (. *h. 9, f ) ;.. * \\,, ' J, s -s. m,' u q s -m,i. s,.,r. a.- _2

f,~a 3 GQ% e. '%y' :W 5, nNT

m. y, :n,q wll. 3 w@i -,,- M

+l

-s

'.\\ i ' ' ' Ol c' 4:. 2,. ~ s ; - %

.r u

., 3 7:, ,,.f. y.A P. *^. '. y,',._. {4 n,. '] ' f.'s;,-:ym .~ 'L. . ~ v. s* c > + 4,. - @;p,.,,g -

r. ] j,4 m,

.o J V ?y s Or: 1., ~ _q c;. " p.'

,_ _ ?,

, j,.. ,r ~. c3m.- ,x -s ,, i.. y. - y' ,.f 1,, 'f~ f, . s m. p .y ,.f, "t 'x y" ' ir., g ..,p,.. J., a. .:...,.- -.., ; g. ,c- ..,...,1..'. W.+L . a.....ni4.% 'h.. a,. .C ' &*. +<.,,,. .s ,s 1N M 'I.i , _ _.ya. g i s.-P i ~~ w: a S, c'j^'. 3 y' e .;. ; 4 j In connection with that hearing, the Licensing Board admiued four extensive - /ip, l..M contentions proffered by interrenor Sierra Club (contentions I(A), I(B), II(A), '. 'W $ and !!(B)),8 Most of exh of those contentions concerned the effects of an

{-

earthquake on various aspects of the proposed reracked pools; a portion of 1 one, however - contention !(B)(7) - alleged that PG&E had not considered 'o two specified alternative types of onsite storage facilities. See LBP 86-21, 23 NRC 849, 860-65, 87 ' (1986). Just as the three-day hearing on these matters 4:1,' 1 j was to begin, the Sierra Club proffered yet another contention, raising concerns P > ~ ;,K, .i about the consequences of a spent fuel pool loss of coolant accident (LOCA) / ' N* } and possible resulting spontaneous burning of the zircaloy cladding surrounding ,.. j the spent fuel elements in high density storage. The Sierra Club also sought the ~ ( - preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Licensing Board 'e - e ] took those new matters under advisement and prcreeded with the hearing on the other already admitted cor.tentions. ^ ,n f -} The Licensing Board subsequently issued a memorandum and order in w hich it concluded that the Sierra Club's late filed LOCA f,ontention did not meet the Commission's standards for admission, and that an EIS was not requked. .J LBP-87-24, 26 NRC 159 (1987). About a week later, the Board issued its j initial decision on the contentions litigated at the hearing, resolving all issues in ^;. PG&E's favor and authorizing the issuance of the license amendments. LBP-

~

87 25,26 NRC 168 (1987). ~ _J- " ' l -! The Sierra Club now appeals the Licensing Board's decisio, rejecting its late. filed contention and the initial decision insofar as it concerns the disposition of 1 contention 1(B)(7). PG&E and the NRC staff oppose '.he appeal. As explained below, we find the Sierra Club's arguments unconvincing, and we therefore j affirm the two Licensing Board decisions in question? L Tile LOCA CONTENTION The new contention proposed by the Sierra Club at the beginning of the hearing on its other already admitted contentions states: .j lhe prwosed action sigruncantly increases the consequences ciloss of ccoling accidenu in l that a loss of water in the spmt fuel pwls could lead to spcrtanews igrutim of tirdley I 'i \\, l ,} I N Ibard adrnanad severtl csher conurccris cd $s Mathers fcr Peace and a eard intersenor as area but $i q partes sheequency wisdrew frtru $e p.mceeding and are not pert;wspents here before i,a 1 2 N sierrs Cub e46er assed us to suy the e(fa.:taveness of $4 ticerweg Board's desmans. In ALAB-J 577. *s NRC 287 094'0, og der ed tat rnacon. N NRC su'r us e4 Se bearse amend:ner.ts to PGAE on NoWr 20.1987, and se Cession sWagency derW *e ses CWs reqmt to deriy te amerdmer:a' affectaveness Ci.r r.ssaan otts c( Oesober 26.1987 (.rpWashed). N Nes Cha also derd a suy on Neember13.1987,and has defered jud.sa; rensw p:r4.t3 a.rapict e of te s&,.rus. reave renee ;ewess. see sneae CL4 v..VC, No. 87 7481 (92 Ce Nmember 2s,198'). 454 9 I 3 g ;3 4 =

h, p.

) . 9 " e e h' g s s c

%. % % %. 4 % ; W'. a" '77,,. %,7, M^T 7 c.

d. C '-

, ;._.x ^. mF: *,. f.. . '. ' ~' ' r e. ' s ' E s...,, w .4 .-.4 i e , t, ? ,.,, }" M._. ~,, y' I'I s. .s .[ L,.. l.Y f '. CX.. ? j i,..,.,;_",,, ',, _ ; l ', ~,,3, ;. % ] t .;/ 4 .c 3. f c,, f.f. 1-'- (sic] c! adding of the fael ekmenu in the high censity em6guratim with signi6 cant releases i.,' . :., s: 3 < s. c ;,'; yi... '} of rmliatim. 5. '. ' ( ' \\:.., '.n,. -s .::) ,s 7 The Sierra Club alleged no violation cf any existing s:.fety standard or reg-l' N ' ;l ulation. It based the contet.Jon, howevu, on the findings of t!'e Brookhaven J." - ).: National Laboratory in a draft report titled "Beyond Design. Basis Accidents m Spent Fuel Pools (Genwic 1: sue 82)" (Janu,ry 1987) (hereinafter "BNL Re-port").8 Accced.g to the intervenor, the 3NL '. port clearly iden Jies Qe :ctsge of recent'/ disd arged nuclear fuel in high density spent fuel storage racks as posing signi6 cant dangers to the gubbe heahh and safety. The prgosed Y

f,.,

' ^ ~ ~1 spera fuel storise facibties at [5ablo Canyo> would rtore freshJy disdiargri fuel in high T' density rads like those ideritined in the Brookhavu reprt as hazardcras. Two d the authors i *( speci5cally recomrnend. gainst the norage of spent fuel in the mant,4r proposed for Diablo .2 canym.

r. '

' ' ~ Sierra Club Motion to include issues Raised in Generic issue 82 as Contentions (June 29,1987) [ hereinafter "Sierra Club Motion"] at 12 (citadons omitted). In light of the BNL Report, the Sierra Club also requested the Licensirig Board to order the st-/f a) prepare an EIS on the modification of the Diabio Canyon spent fuel fac '.ea. ! f. at 6 7, The Licensing Board, however, concicded that there wa; no "nexus" showa - + 4 between the BNL keport and 'he Diable Cruyon snent fuel pools and thus - ^- J' '/ that the contention was inadmissible for lxk of.: basis. In panicular, the Board..ressed that the contention "assumes a total loss cf coolant in the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools without specifying any accident scenano that " t would cause that ioss." LBP 87 23,26 NRC at 164. It stated that the Sier a i Club had made no attempt to suggest relevam similarities between Diablo Can,on and the surrogate pressurized water reactor (PW ) used for the BNL stud". the Ginna facility in upstate Ncw York. Id. at 165. 'De Board further f.)u's that the newly proposed contration was not included in any already admitted contendon. Lastly, the Board determined that the contention was based on a hypothesized 'bcjond desfn basis" accident, for which an EIS is not required under the Nadonal Environmeatal Policy Act of 1969,42 U.S.C. I 4321 [ hereinafter NEPA"J, or authorized as a mauer of Commission ducretion under its Interim Policy on "Nuclear Power Punt Accident Considerations Under the National Envirorsmental Policy act of 1%9," 45 Fed. Reg. 40,0 1 (1980) [ hereinafter "NEPA Policy Statement"). LBP 87 24,26 NRC at 166-67 (citing , ' s Vermont Yanker Nucitar Power Ccrp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pw er Station), ~, ALAB 869, 26 NRC 13, recor.fideration denied. ALAB 876, 26 NRC ;77 .c (1987)). In view of these determinatiorts, the Board found it urnecessary to e % sutt r.ra ret.r id w tha ripen sms wr.uw w. 7.os (v.o :t tum 455 .A' e 4 e g g,' 4 8 4 / ~ e Y 1 'g s e 2 / b ,e o s 5 e,

h ffb . y /'; s ~,..? O;w;.,, ; ; kh ? ~; ~3y: %j.y : : p ;'e, s t d.e ' y.'. s.cn.. ',.;c., ~., , f.% ' ' ', :..,.-p.;- 3' 2- = .r_ y-i p -.a. s. N, ' <'.'.Q,. a v ;[y., 's.; K , 'y y.f ( s ,-.c.

m. :

>, g,.,~ a 4, c 3, x ,,., D>.s. ~- V 7.'.o '7 ,. + - y.. . p \\,,D,' ' p ;. CE SEW 2 2 i 1 i'**' 4 ~ m. ,.. ' ' y p-j - v' ,e.g , r.,, ,. ' r.... f.y # - .,a cf ', * ' ' ' ?X',;Qg' hg :) N ye. ce balance the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1) against which late ~

j contentions are measured. LBP 87 24,26 NRC at 167.

-r J, C '~. j On appeal, the Sierra Club argues that it has demonstrated a nexus between .W; ~ l the BNL Report and Diablo Canyon and thus its contention has a sufficiently '. c : w.i specific basis warranting admission. It also asserts that the requirements for ~. 'o - (<, admission of a late filed contention have been met. In addition, it presses its W "~ view that an EIS is required for utis license amendment because of the findings

6 of the BNL Report. We address these arguments seriatim.

,,M,, c 1 A. 'Ihe Commission's Rules of Practice require "the bases for each con ~ g; c. , pg - -,? tention [to be] set fofth with reasonable specificity " 10 C.F.R.12.714(b). The a S purposes of this rule are to assure the proper invocation of the hearing process .)'- '['. W ',l and to provide adequate notice to other parties as to exxtly what they will be called upon to litigate. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic s ~ ' }[ ~ ~ 'u Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 216,8 AEC 13,20-21, modified on other grounds, CLI 74 32,8 AEC 217 (1974). The Sierra Club's proffer of its LOCA contention does not satisfy these re-t 1 quirements. Its pleading before the Licensing Board alleges no lack of compli-ance with any existing safety standard. It notes, however, the proposed use of high density racks for storage of spent fuel at Diablo Canyon and refers gener-ally to the BNL Report's findings with regard to such racks and the possibility - i '4 of a zircaloy cladding fire in the event of a substantial loss of pool cooling. But, + 1 as the s.icensing Board pointed out, the Sierra Club's filing does not mention, let alone discuss, a single mechanism or scenario that might cause such a LOCA at Diablo Canyon. LBP 87 24,26 NRC at 165,' Indeed, it does not even refer to O < ]1; .a the five initiating events hypothesized by BNL for purpues of the study.8 See (' f' Sierra Club Motion pcusim.' Without such a triggering event, there is no con. nection between the spent fuel pools at Diablo Canyon and the BNL Report's ultimate conclusions concerning high density racks - and, thus, no basis for the contention.? 'Earber in thas paceedma, se licenseg Board rejected. for lad d a cred.ble accWais scensno, loss a st'ers fue.1 coolms cormanuens fusd by bah the sierre Club and anaher maarsenor.13P 1621,23 NRC at 856. 857 862, 865. ha. ihe sierre Club e-as a nouce concernang the regarements for adrrassion d sud a cmianuon ~, 5 As we noted in cur stay decision, se BNI. Repcss pcstulated the fotoev.g sessanca leadir.g to a s smAcant dep; econ of pool es'.or-s.~ Y( (!) a fadure of se systen that serves to rernove heat frrrn se pord water, resulurg m boil aff of es s (sach as a turtane trusade); (4) a fa. lure of a seal protactmg to iruegnty of the pool's water-t25tness, ester. (2) a seumic event, 0) a sinkmg of se pool eaus by sane esterna!!y-generated 8)v3 obact s 7* g '+- ~ and (s) a druppvig orno es edge of the pool of a cask utized to trarsfer spans fuel from se pool ALAB-377. 26 NRC at 293. 'N word "sanhquake" appeari e pse s of te stava Club's moum, but in a esferece to ancaher .c casamcss. Wet d the moum is, m fact. devoted to se 10 CJ R 6 2714(a)(1) entena Ice admus.on of a ~ !ste (but othermee surficterujy based) cananuort I Because ne as ee nth the licensms Board est ce carnanuon lacks a basis, we need not decde =hemer the Board correctly fcnnd a lack d "nesus' between the BNI. Report and se Diablo Canym facety, as we used that term m C (f sasass Caht.as Co. (Raer Bend staum, l' ruts 1 and 2). A1AB-444. 6 NRC $60,77s 0 977). (Cearsead) => i 456 s . + 5.- ~ L +- g. ,a-t +3'-1*./ " I 1 s s 3

w'.

n 7,. - ~ .g. s s. i* 9 o 'k' ,y

.. > $,:w; *.p[ ~ - .., T K..L. G,W.WM.. 9l *: W W.%W' ' l'>.}; W

~

.s. :m. u ar'..~ ~ . c O . 7,4' , *p, ,;y , s .T n g '.' Y '.~. 7 ' .?. .~ 's 'l .x %T f,:~ s c c. ? ..... m.t... f.. l. 's m,' 2_.l ],,, .c 4 s .p..,.,7 . ~,. ~. :, s On appeal, the Sierra Club now argues that all of the events identified by ,y ,f- ~ w. BNL as initiators of a LOCA "are clearly potential scenarios for (spent fuel . n -} Y %'. g^ pool) failure at Diablo Canyon," Sierra Club's Brief, supra note 7, at 12. It also ci suggests that a spent fuel cask drop and seismic event are particularly likely events. Id. at 8,9. Like courts, we usually do not consider arguments, such as .m,. these, that are raised for the first time during appellate review. Tennessee ',* alley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A,2A,1B, and 2B), ALAB-463,7 NRC 341, 348, reconsideration denied ALAB-467, 7 NRC 459 (1978). But even if the Sierra L. 'b's arguments were otherwise permissible, they would still ~ 'C c fail. The Sierra Club n.1kes no allegation that the Diablo Can';on spent fuel pools .... #r & [ the maximum anticipated ca.'hquake M that site. Nor is there any basis evident are not designed and buth. in accordance with regulatory standards, to withstand 1 f for the Sierra Club's implicit assumption that spent fuel casks are likely to be ? transferred at Diablo Canyon in the manner postulated in the BNL Report's cask i 3 . \\ drop scenario. See BNL Report at 216. Under the Commission's requirements, ( [ r, the Sierra Club is not expected to prow, at the contention admission stage, that a seismic event or cask drop serious enough to cause a major loss of pool coolant i might occur; it must, however, allege at least some credible foundation for such I a scenario,' Cf. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI 80-16,1I NRC 674,675 (1980)(where there is no allegation ) of lack of compliance with existing safety regulations, credible reactor LOCA ".J f j scenario is prerequisite for admission of contention concerning accident control t measures). We therefore agree with the Licensing Board that, because the Sierra 1 Club has not even suggested a credible accident initiator, its contention lacks 4 the requisite basis for admission. See LBP 87 24,26 NRC at 165.' B.I. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. I4332(2)(C). requires an environmental impact statement for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Claiming that the BNL Report provides We secur, homer, sn to sarra Cub's mucum of the poruon of es Lacensses Board's densa suggesus

st h siens Cub should have suppbed, enh us consermon. *compensans or data" s5ners greater sirrularuy between Diabao Canvan and omna than Se fact est they are bah PwRa. see s.arrs Cwb's Braf (Oetober 26, i

1987) at 14 LAP.t7 24. 26 NRC at 16s. Had me s.erra Cab's contanaon and basta set fonh a cred As cusauve occWers scenano, h typ d data to e'sch me tacenswg Bcerd refermd mudd be mas propedy requed for a ments d.spossuat see gearre#y Masn. sapp, re=p and Lage Co. (orand odf % clear staum. L; ruta 1 and 2). s AL.AB.130,6 Aff 4:3, 426 (1973). i 8 in this crmnacton e is wore nourg est ce cecras n'la sad foundauan of ead pool are at least Sve feet Gud and lined eth steel plaut Ea4 poal ts roughly 35 fees wus,37 feet lar.g. and 40 feet deep. la e norma: ,- g s opersara condinan, mere is a trurumum d 23 fees of mater above me i, of me stored fast L3P.87.:s,26 Mtc et 1s0. Ths. before even the top of Se spels fuel assenbLes madd be espceed, ahm. 30.40 cubic feet of nier (approumstaly a24.a0 ga' ons) wedd have to asce;w fran h pad (mthmt corwove saan) m see J arudent.Aed metam ' As naed suces pp ass.56,.he Lacmstes Bcerd did not address te factas to be meshed fa admaaion of a '. ate corserman in 10 C.F R.12.714(aXI). Ths. ht rnaner is not apartly befors us for reme. Moreover. m hgM of mr agreernant euh te Beard's smelusam shnut the em'.enum's lad of bas:a. es need not tala up thaa legal issue on mar own-4 e 457 .= 4 s ~ O a e

'.g*'

4 g r g g t . l .e e

-) f,NU ,) h k ' (,) yg., h, '5( 's yon . y w .r-

, g < ; s.w., ', - 'e f a ;...wy,,

y ~ v - j* x,.. .p. ;; ~. r s s <.j-r,, .-e, .w t (- 9; '.,, w ? n ~. s.. a - ,s -, . v. w a. s.: ...,;r K Q Q.Q 3 ' h.., w m. .a '4. y t r i..y; ^,.',1 y.. Ne t. z,M ',.c r. w-

,.y, _,.: 2 x.2'y,J

.' s -w _ ~ r, .v,.yi1 , c ,.s.,.;- y9, ,e

b ' ' *,

J; } f

f. 'r;g..[^..N h.f' d M hi evidence of "significant impacts on the human environment," the Sierra Club J.'*f:, @-;',4f @d argues that an EIS is required here "concerning the possibility of and impxt f q p.

g v.,p.g.K-

of Zircaloy cladding 6tes" at Diablo Canyon. Sierra Club's Brief at 18,17." , 9..v/ Q; ' 0gg;1'! Intervenor also asserts that the Licensing Board misapplied our ruling in Vermont .y-Yankee, ALAB 869, 26 NRC 13. ne Sierra Club argues that that decision

qVid, simply determined that the specinc accident scenario involved there was too s

remote and speculative to trigger the EIS requirement, "reconfirmling] the n ,) ~ .' j agency's long. standing policy of considering the need to prepare an EIS on a el case by-case basis." Sierra Club's Brief at 19. In the Sierra Club's view, it has . _., vg.. s' ,..M linked the BNL Report to Diablo Canyon and thus demonstrated that a zircaloy '8 l ', ; Y l ej cladding 6te is not remote and speculative; Vermont Yankee therefore does not .O J t, g pertain here, so as to bar its request for an EIS De Sierra Club also argues that, N f ".1. r even if the Licensing Board applied Vermont Yankee correctly, NEPA does not o . "s. ? - . / Prmit the exclusion from its EIS requirement of all accidents labelled "be)ond ^ ~~ e design-basis" on the ground that they are remote and speculative. Ibid. + 1 The Commission's minimum, principal design criteria for spent fuel pools ~ ac ' require, among ether things, the prevention of a "signi6 cant reduction in fuel storage cociant inventory under accident conditions" and the provision of j monitoring systems "to detect conditions that may result in loss of residual heat removal capability (i.e., cooling water and its associated systems) and excessive y y radiatior. levels." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A General Design Criteria 61 '/ -" 9, and 63." Accidents that contemplate "sequences of postulated successive failure yf more severe than those postuleted for the design basis of protective systems - 1 and engineered safety features" are variously termed "beyond design basis," t c. S&. i1 "Class 9," or "severe" accidents. Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear 4 Power Plants), CLI.79 9,10 NRC 257, 258 (1979); NEPA Policy Statement. 45 Fed. Reg. st 40,104. See generally "Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Puture Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 1 1 (1985). The Commission considers such accidents "to be so low in probability as not to require speci6c additional provisions in the design of a reactor fxility." l.ong Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 87- ]. 12, 26 NRC 383, 393 n.17 (1987). Thus, because spent fuel pools must be s 'i 3 /.. -5 .'. I g d + ,.f The s arra CLb s'ao 'snaay refers to secuan 10X2XE) or NEPA,42 U.s C. l 433 X2XE). thwh okses agenews ,e ; to study ahernauves to proposa:s mat mvolve "unresolved cerks concerrur g shernauve uses of avadaW q. resarces.* We have faand no andxeuan that me Sierra Chb rand mas soprais NEPA issue before me Board

.1 7

below so as to p,userw it for appeal, see m pre p. 457. Moreover,its beef en appeal fads to develop uus para ",j and mus we do not consuer it. oeergw pai.er Co. (Vogue Elenne Gar.ereurg P' ant, t.'nns I and 2). A1 AB. i 'j 872,26 NRC 127,13132 0987). We acas, however, mat the maft's Enviremersal Assessmers fcr mis 1. cense q amedmars appbcasion canaders sta abernauves. see NRC staff Eakbit 2 et 2 s see she @s pp 461a ,s (* " Geeral design snwna (GDC) are brosSy emed engineereg and safery gnals mat "consunas me rnitumurn requatrneras f<r the pnrepal des;gn cruena af etter<ooled nuclear power piants." RegWaucrsa* set fcri.h more I detaued requiremersa. minde less formal maff documams (such as "Res aiory oundes' and 'sundard Ame. s Ran* povssions) provide guidance for cepLance enh me GDC. Penaea for Ewgwy and Asai,4ef Acmos. c C11714,7 NRC 4rm. 406 (1978) Y, i ~ .r, ".1 458 + x s p 9 4 Y s 9 .N,- O ,g g w e.,, - =

9

,a g. I s ~ k. m

. r:~. rya.w k.a p 'm;Q; y.n! a tw,:e. 4. w a. - K~.,'t qw: .y. w ;, G m2.;; &. W.. m.. p n;5 tiv.6 % m/. m..;g. m :,., w c, m, y _ 4 W nw

3. ~,.., s.

. ;r r D ::q,-v e%,' W./.tg.p:..n. ~.,*w,

m... ?..

.oc W .m e e.:r c. . :n .s.- z.. s 4 ;e..v. 3 1 .f +. n.~: p ;. g yg g ; y.f,ct.; '

. -);;,;;,.. y: .m y,y mjW. ' %. p. q:; u g

, + , t: a _wc t g ~ %.c.,_.c;g,.; c,3,,:; y, m -

,..,.

g;, f n.:m. 3 q..,..;..u...,c y 1

.y n :,. ., fg. +.. q.. c. , j < e y. a. .~..s. m. .;,r~.. . ;p. uv.,s -.. . s. ec( ;, ;. .t.;... ... ".n.,, -(, x,.- 4,. c ,+4. <.. ... e t;m. :.. c,.: m

n. n

.s. .. 4

c..

. ~.. ~ .+. . m,

* ' ' -* ' ' " ' -' *
W";'
_ * %% ' ",'- ; < h *
p. g,... m; y.

a- ... n. + . a v.. x.;. v ,.c x ; ' .. g.gw...,.. :,,.... ~ ,.s m,., f'.3

q:

,s c

y l *..,

.:V ; > t' ,,'f..( '" ? * ^ ^ ' Mr.' ~ P v'a % < - --) f. T,,;.

... s r :

. 7,

w;.;3 - L3

~,n m -- -. t c %. 3 n, qe " . e...c., J

eeG-

.ye. s p ,.J,, .z f;.2.,,,.. U designed to prevent a significant loss of coolant inventory, an accident scenario /. , %... i j that assumes such an event -like the zircaloy cladding fire hypothesized by .LM the Sierra Club and the BNL Report -is necessarily a beyond design basis

b.

c,.. t. 3' .d ' f'M i xcident, considered to be of very low probability.18 Ia San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1300-01 o

. ",; 4 (D.C. Cir,1984), qff'd en bane,789 F.2d 26, cert denied U.S.

107 S. Ct. 330 (1986), the court addressed the requirements of NEPA vis-a vis 3 Q4 suc'i events of assertedly high improbability. It held that, under the "rule of p p. g..:4. i reason,""NEPA... does not require the consideration of Class Nine accidents

s. 7 '.. c -:g in future EISs, nor does it require that final EISs be supplemented to take c'~

W 't xcount of the Class Nine risk." Id. at 1301. The Commission, of course,

~ .,,'; 3 1 car.not engage in definitional sleight-of hand so as to avoid NEPA's demands; , l$,, 4.!.f', the Commission's belief that certain types of accidents are highly unlikely to t occur must be reasonably well founded. See ibid. i '. j ' }., f ; ..i,' The Sierra Club is thus incorrect in its view that NEPA does not permit the u 3-N ex:lusion of beyond design basis xcidents from the EIS requirement. Further, p". its reliance on the BNL Repoft to support its challenge to the characterization s of a significant loss of pool coolant (followed by a zircaloy cladding fire) as s a highly improbable, beyond design basis event is unavailing. The District of [. Columbia Circuit in San Luis Obispo noted that the existence of ongoing research .U c Irw beyond design basis xcidents -like the BNL Report (see LBP 87 24,26 N3C at 163)-does not undercut the reasonableness of the Commission's view .y 9.; that such xcidents nonetheless remain highly improbable and therefore beyond j ( NEPA's mandate. 751 F.2d at 1301. Moreover, the BNL Report itself describes i if ~ . 4: tre initiating events that would lead to a structural failure of a spent fuel pool i as "extremely unlikely." BNL Report at 2 2. It also xknowledges the substantial e e he s+erra Chb quesuons the use of es phrase "design-basis"in ihas paceedar.g. It rossans eat. because the a DisMc Canym spans fusi poo's were onsinaDy ess gned to hold 270 asse Esa ud. ihe popsed amendment is ivrease morige capacity to 1324 assernes is caelf beyed se des:sn basis of the p:ars. s.erra Q.it's Bnct at 2 23. As PGAE nossa, bo='ever. Se sierra Cub misundermands me emainmenna cecep of "des.gn bases"

sede Gas and Cactns Canpany's Bnef (November 25.19s7) [heranaher "PGAE's B ast") at 2421. no toms af this ancept is a funcumal goals, as is evsden fern es Cammisman's general dentune of demsn bases m t0 C.FA i 50.2:
st informene shid identinee se speias funaams to be performed by a sinactura, synern, or canpaners of a facshry, and me spactne values or ranges et valass chanan fa conuothng parameters e.
s, 3'

as sofarece bounds for design. hose vahams may be o) restrauss denved fmen ganarsay ecceped "asta d be art" procuces for adumrig f6ascumal goals, or (2) regurunsus denved frun analysis (based on calculamon and/or sapenmensa) of me effects d a pastulassi secsdes for shad a smasture, system e 4. canpears unast meet its funaamal goals. As we have seen. one des.gn-basis funcuan d a spes fuel pool is to prende coolang for the spent fuel stored $erein and to powers seIces of a sierd. cars amount of cochng e etw. see 10 C.FA Pan 50, App.andta A.GDC

61. Ahhosgh the demgn d tne storage racer and se capacery of the loo!s at Dtahdo Canym ws3 te thered by the pmpceed beanse amoidment, the detsn bas /macteast of the pool are et to be changed and thus ws3 remain in compi.ance eith the fLndamersal regulatory entana.

~l 459 W ~' s s (, 4 - s*

w D

I] g, 8' ,.9 9"m 77 'Mr .T g g a a., .,se _ l 5,* y. 4 lr ~ ,,*',h ' ' f.. ' n ' <. 1 v ~ f .. w .c ,, s 7'c,.( y.. y *

j nn

[?. ./,$.;(.,

[ '" g ' ~* '

g ~ v _=

L " l f,*.' D .l ? l 7Qp %.C;7, y. p,., - m.w v -.. ' ' m L .,..u.- '.e, _. y ~ =. m. ~ { 4:n .' K-. ?, 4, c,-. ,, C p ,<c 1 ~ g ,~. - u. .~ ..n .s e 7, w, . ~. ~;. s i - w. l '... 7', ' %,,, idf.n y..., O : ' r y. e ~' ' ' r O,, U ~ ~." -

G'

., m.9. ;nm, - s y ,";-l?. ; ~a l,o <z 1 y... 3 v-(. -- ;,:,..,,37; ~ fM.q uncertainties in the probability estimates of these events. Id. at S-4,119.o .f Q(i *5% 6 j 4.; ,f y ;er. p.,'e p [g,Ty@. M @ 'i ) Dere is nothing. therefore, to suggest that the loss of pool coolant and zircaloy

.,. $,'Y -

cladding fire scenario the Sierra Club postulates is anything but a remote and W ;- N,,N C@ speculative, beyond design basis accident. As we concluded in Vermont Yankee, ~ 1*.Q;"J. $. ' 'y ALAB 869,26 NRC at 30 31, with regard to a somewhat different hypothetical i '._. -] ' j,', ' ' accident scenario, NEPA does not require the consideration of such an event _s ^ / y.,f. i.. and an EIS need not be prepared. 3( 2. The Sierra Club next argues that, according to "governing" regulations . M[;,. 2 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and relevant case law,"an event 7 1,,,' ..' j 'M I a 3 is not remote and speculative merely because there is a low probability that it s. , f 5, % will occur." In this connection, it cites 40 C.F.R. i 1502.22 (1986) and asserts ~ y that this CEQ regulation requires consideration, presumably in an EIS, of all ' -f.~ ~ significant, reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, "*even if their probability r ~" y.' of occurrence is low.'" Sierra Club's Brief at 20. De Sierra Club also claims E that the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in San Luis Obispo,751 F.2d t at 1303, as well as other decisions, supports its view. Sierra Club's Brief at .0 21." We disagree with the Sierra Club's reading and application of 40 C.F.R. i 1502.22. In the first pixe, this CEQ regulation is not concerned with whether or when an EIS should be prepared. Rather, as we noted in Vermonf Yanice, aj ALAB.876,26 NRC at 284 n.5, section 1502.22 b jd ,y. is directed to those snuadons in which an agency has already decided to prepare an US, r- -: n tut relevant irtformadon is "incomplete or unavailable" due to exorbitant costs or inadequate .c 3 o state-ofahe art methodologies. The regulatkn is concerned =ith full disclosure, requinng an 5 '../ agency to "make clear that such informance is lacking " - n o 1 ~ See $1 Fed. Reg. 15,618, 15,620 (1986). Other CEQ regulations, e.g., 40 C.F.R. t i l508.18,1508.27, are Clevant to the de',ermination of whether NEPA requires an EIS. See 40 C.F.R. I 1502.3. 'b Re Sierra Club has also omitted a significant proviso from its excerpt from section 1502.22. ne complete definition of"reasonably foreseeable" t' s s, ,,'i L s )

s r ' ;,.,,

U ~~f We nota that the f4nal verne of es BNt. Repon (tromu:ted to the tacasseg Board and parues vu Board Note.kaum Na t713 m August 23,19t7) shows an ewm greater range of uncerumty wuh regard to sesserucany. ,e g.,, y mJuced structural fadars of a pool h also sJetarata:1y to.ern te asumated probe %bty 4 pool failure due to t-a cask drnp to besween two tn 100 mt:1um and two e one trdhan, no as to take account of recomrnended imprmemanu in fael cask handhes pocedures. NIN.OCR-4952. "severs AcMenu in spent Fuel Preis tri so;ron of Genene safety Issue 82"(My 1987) at 23. 27 28,38 l'Neaher PGAE na the NRC staff addranad te siens CLb's "CEQ" argumert Althmth we f6nd no ment c to to argnent, n rames a nonfnvokus assue concerrarg what deferer ce sha,14 be accordej another federal e agency's regu'stmns In the etreurnstances, we f.nd the stats fa. lure to bnef the matter paruedarly trm.barg y i _',i, /, 5 N : /,.. 160 s,

(

4 t 5 6,. e e - ee g 4.P s ? A .,.9' E* ^

i g*,

\\

\\,

'y*,,. w e i L.

j,

g 1 )( = 8

f,_ ( 3.. i [ b ' hh p, I,h dc'g. f, W,.. 9.W 3.;;gg ',sy: '. R ; M -

r:.'

' % '. + { , ' g '*,,c, - ;-7'{%. QM;s .: j..: ;,. < a '% ; - ',Q;. '., y _ ';,,

Q ;.,.,

, 7 ;,1

1. v 3 6,j - } ;g,'.,:;, L t. f: *, " ;QQ y.7. J :,N.

y J. -

c;- f.s ;, - 3,.;.. , y:. ,L M, g ',y ..n. d- ,'y . Ls. 3,,;, ev; s g . G.u.lA,; > - y , e,y, ..s.,,' .o ...'.T-

s... wn m

a, _ e. p.4 .1 .c j .ne*.- +2

., < s

. a: - < a,., '; f. - n "y t a,,',. - a,< N ;-, t 7*.n. = 0 ;* .c y }. '. & ' E.l. ' !l ~ -, - U.' W A' ' '' ' ' ' ' **"'"''AUA"*'^**',''A,';' '2* %~

.;.. ^
n.;,l ~... v.ff.-

z.x. i _;, : .x-Vy Q. y 7.,. , s-d., #;r J;f s ;. ch, .s... e . s_ u2 s. u .g. ' j ' p., s. ',.. includes impacts which have cautrwhic ccmequences, even if their probabdity of occur. ,m p. rence is low, provUed ekst the an,alysu of the byacts u upported by cre&ble scient/c s' V * ', ' !., ),1 .,j evUence, U not bued on pee conjectwe. and & within the rule of re.uos. .. 'g, ,, l ', c _(2 j 40 C.F.R I1502.22(b) (emphasis added). '17 tis proviso was added to the regu. - t >1 lation in 1986, in conjunction with CEQ's climination of the requirement for a ..^ " f "worst case" analysis, in CEQ's view, the worst case analysis was "unproductive and ineffective," capable of leading to "endless hypothesis and speculation." 51 . "l Fed. Reg. at 15,620. The new proviso is intended to impose some common sense ,1 c,( N limits on the inquiry into events of very low probability. Id. at 15,621. Section ' e /;m*. 1502.22 does not therefore automatically require analysis of all catastrophic but c- .y Q .q',F. highly improbable events, as the Sierra Club suggests. c . i? h In any event, the Commission does not consider substantive CEQ regulations ^ '. eI as legally binding on it because the NRC is an independent regulatory agency. 49 ,y l_ ' ,;p 'f. / Fed. Reg. 9352,9356 (1984)is instead, the Commission views its NEPA Policy fr, i ' g Statement as its counterpart to CEQ's section 1502.22. Id. at 9356-58. In the ~ NEPA Policy Statement, the Commission describes those circumstances in which s 4 I the NRC staff, as a matter of discretion, is to consider the environmental impacts + of a beyond design basis accident.t' As we have previously determined, however, that policy statement does not apply to license amendment proceedings such as ~ ',, this. Vermont Yanice, ALAB.869,26 NRC at 31. =. i.g. p r In sum, the CEQ regulation on which the Sierra Club bases its claimed "J7 requirement of an EIS is neither applicable to this proceeding, nor,in any case, ( c '! c ? binding on the agency. 4 3. l astly, the Sierra Club argues that an EIS is needed to correct asserted shortcomings in the NRC staff's existing environmental documents, namely .y its May 21, 1986, Environmental Assessment (EA) and October 15, 1987, Supplement to the EA," It complains that, in light of the BNL Report, these 18 As we acmed in 144a.ielp4.a flecme Co. (Limenct Genereur g staum l'nns 1 and 2k ALAB-s19,22 NRC 681,700 a.21 (1985). g7'd sa part ead renew eaAer*we dact.and. CtJ.865,23 NRC 125 (1986h peas.onsfor review pe=f.ag si.6 neat lianeract Ecelegy Acr.ee. Inc. v. MC. No. 35 3431.et al. (sd Ciri ihn sapene Coun ( '. has espeesty left open the issue cc es tan &ng effect of CEQ sgulauens an inderenders agescies. See Ash.miore Car and Elecme Co. v. Naa.ref Assowcu Dqfense Ceanacal. lac.,462 L'.s. 87. 99 a.12 (1983). i Despus the sarra Club's masseeuan (sarre Club's Beef a 20% the Detrics of Calamha Cucun's decisim in s l j see la # 06upe does not hold that the C P.eguisoon in qwous is hadar g en the MtC. Rather. Se ca.st noud s '4-the Comnuaman's p<stum erid the supone Can's nearvaam djudgment an *e maner. h men on;y assumed ".} argheede that sechon 150122 appbed to se agency, betes sans an to and $2s regalaum inappLcable to te 3^,, .y perucular cuwmstances at hand. 751 F.2d st 1302 03 & n.73. see Ow Ecor>rieau e. Clart.147 F.241240 s (9m Cir.1964h and 5.arre Che6 v. Sigler. 695 F.2d 957 (52 Cir.19t3h also ened by $. seem Club. involved 4 u.i sascuuve (rether saa independes regulatory) seencies, u==a as me es6er "worst case ana5is' versim of e sectaas 1501 22.Ns. nauhar came advances the S,erra Owb's argumers. l'la Jae L a 06upe.151 F.24 u 1301. os Datoct el Colwnha Cucuit resgszed $s SIPA Pobey statamus u an esercise d me Centmsman's esexuan. U Aa envummernal assessmers is a cancise sutement usuary prepaind to "talid the Ccrntrusmen's ceplaamce usth NEPA when no envirernantal impact suienes is necessary." 10 C.F R.151.14(at See she AIAB.877 26 NRC et 29491.

%s t..-

461 e e \\. ' ,f. .A 9 ,a b d 8 g 'O ~L ~ ' y . m' x e s o g 3,- w ,..,....n'".- i -4

'g *,a s+>

s t i .3 - 1 + i ' ' 4 .A '. {o 'n th'.h.K.', q' - *-. e

4.,

s n,, ,.s..y s,. 1-e b _f 'S

(

c.

..,.s m e _

( L 7 6 .*i. g. m. v.f>. M.,g,,,u.o; M.. N.... A ;%w. ,N ,e.. A. .a94 . y p .,.c..s- . e.c

e.. ~ c 4 -

0 ., G ' '. (&,y e ",. g...,',,;, t .,, f. - n. .~ V :v.,. b; v ,t y,. ig.,,. W.,.* y,,; a,.ti;.'.Q.. d..c. e ),;h. ' 7 . z v,. ~. c Or 3... - , yq,

y e m j

s.f., y. A ; \\. ~.

,.. y r,M.,. :.n Mv.,. b n -

n. . ;:,..p:. ~.,~,h..y 2.,w' to b,s; &. m ;.a, .:,, ; <.. n.,

e.x;

. m' a.,. s,,.,. ~.w t....s s.y.. Q.. <.4s .,.a. s. x.. ' s. .o .t.. w . a. f. w.;. n>, ;. m, s..:w. n v..s. a ~ w 2 ~4 z

n.,,:n,.

s..,.,- y.,. v >..v.7 ;.. xs.,n .: s .>, s.. a, ,. r <y,..;. s..,.> :n., 9 sh;;iM.u.: o..... , G' .. g W.W.w. v. n n. 1 u. '.;:R1:dw.a ' m. M.. v- -a-- ~ 9~, S.,.f e T :., &.s.s.y. Q : A.t'lr+c.... M, y sa. a OyM j %; 4~l;, .3.., %... ! ..:.n.~ N ...e ~ w.., w %v.4({-f N.:m,'. T lM, di J 1 '.^ r.V.y ~ L: v

.p. :. a..

y- . g.~ r. ~fb h f.h h~5 h documents give inadequate consideration to alternative means of spent fue! a ?M$g;D@,U$@M.2p%$@[f?D] stcrage and fail to disclose fully to the public all the consequences of the P.'M& A%97 reracking proposal. The Sierra Club also points to dictum in the Ninth Ci.rcuit's ',N.$h.'NM.k% M[ y decision earlier in this proceeding, San Luif ONspo,799 F.2d at 1271, w here the N ; v. @i,. eg :J.~.; D ij @ d d. N ; W

A court "strongly suggest(ed] that any doubt concerning the need to supplement f

T.;r %, 0 g.x -Q..x.g.d p t p g 4.f a y' the NEPA documents be resolved in favor of additional documentation." Sierra . MhY s y .D.'. m.."qF.h, 4 + Club's Brief at 23 24 v u . ;.,. y., &m. n.,.1 P,., c e. ~ ~ ~e'. The Sierra Club's arguments are not entirely clear. If its po. t is that the in J.O I.Q % '%y $QM:$ '., type of accident studied in the BNL Report must be given consideration in ? ;%;f D.Mty,WG,y.:.N O#t ..j some environmental document (either an EIS or more extensive EA), we have

. g., Q ' 4 ;q Q ?.j already disposed of that argument: NEPA requires no consideration of such Q. :.o g.'

. N M @.] accidents. If, on the other hand. lu argument is that an EIS is required, or 6 h.:'.@d@[W ii9,M 4 / 1 the EA is deficient, for some reason other than the BNL Report (e.g., reliance 'il f.<c M.fh '"*i ~'f. y on a 1979 generic EIS for spent fuel pool expansion proceedings), there is nc , r.. y..,. ',,J j indication that the Sierra Club properly presented such an issue to the Licensing -. e 1 ', Board in the first instance, so as to preserve its right to appeal the matter." In T. ;, u, - + ':0 the circumstances, the Sierra Club is therefore precluded from raising for LM s- - y.

. /

first time on appeal any challenge to the staff's EA that is founded on something 4 f,.?, d . i .,J other than the BNL Report. See supra p. 457." Js,, .T,,. fe..', :) 9 y ,... u. : ~ g, J.,.. a *-,,y y . g . v,. e, s s < p.;a. <,a>..'.,x.... ,s. 2:v .... i. e.g.

s '.+, w; '

4 s-c iv;3 v. c r. . a. ; c . Y. r.v.h *g q*s.a % n.f,q A m H :.4lc- .,A., .e - / ,, j f, ;;c {.. 7 .L.. '. '. g " 'y j 3.n' .

Mi e

. y.,j 4 qf...,, s j. ,y, %y, +.: 18 Nmos d 6e issuance of me sta.Ts EA was puWhed on May 29.19A 51 Fed. Res 19.e30. he sarra Chb 'C . },'.7 M fans ne duect ew sueruxm to dare cr when a subesqsandy emphs no dsauerie se tunged deacanass m me q j,$ *s-EA We have discovered two irwtances m whd the suervenor refstred to the adequacy =ef nee d the EA, but ,j,,. ',, -]- 3..9' ,.M nother evehod a bas 6de anespa to placo es ismae a eaitroversy as a carueraxsi before me 1)censeg B<ard. + u.. Y,' . y ' 'q g r :/., n s.' 4,; 'J i "., N;1 The arsi muh meiance woe a passes saference to the EA in a footnote m $e ses Cub's irunal rapse is s se Comsmen far a siey of $e ma.Ts issuance of me Ucenas amendmeras y se $e hearmg Interverors' ,A,7;;j21 ' an. 7.' ,.( .s +. f? sPeciAcuy la the searre Chb's comelaus. QJ.8&l2. 24 NRC et 12. The sacers Che rrushi =m3 have sane.m ie 5+ Appbcauan for a su, Qune 16.1986) et 7 sL5. la ans eder denymg $e may, me Ccrnrn. ssma noted $e lack of ? I ' i 'g.

.'i,.;,

daft a awre specde chaLense no se EA and to suhrrut this issue to me licenseg Board in accordance wun the s .-r3 'w' --

J
,.5 ].e,C T*

) Camtrasaan's Raues er Pracues bis is did not l'.l(E N he only osher mersion d ee adequacy of the EA==s sta snare.s last in a awaaan for amenary dispaauan s , Q' s ,," f - 1... > g s.f .*,3 3'> W; befcre se licensms Boart In en awaaan, the satre Cbb seg>s darual of $s licerns amendmarus fu the .,. '. *{, M y., - 3 t c',.. 'l

7. N ancoces bowever, sapress!y dactanned any enempt is saine stus maner w a senses.u in the paceekt

ej'<

I aneged faame of me EA to scenply wuh NEPA. Mnan far senmary Dispcnnum (Decerr*er 15.1946) at 3 - l( x

j.. '~ 3 )f,. f -

N '- /' y (pambly because the uma for subriazung ad issues had les emco pn614 m 12. N ticenseg Board ,,',; *e?d N .y daued the neocan for faDure to satisfy me Currrrussicea's cruses for surrvoary dispm Manwandura and

c. p,, '},fy',,,

4 g,e.

'. V. ;q .e., ~ w

Order of Jassary 28.1997 (wipubhahed) m 2-4 See 10 C.F.R. I2.749. N sierre Cbb does not enersues. let m

c.... , ',. Ng alans appeal. mat Board ruung. j .,L *. : tg y .'[. y.* 18 .y.W;.q We ama is peeses. hoevver, $a, in saphc a response to the Nash Cheua's suggesuan it. Jan Less Chsw. ., ;C...,. y g t

- -f' g g.;*3 799 F.24 at 1271,ihe stat sypiamerned his ee6er EA - bercre insang me bcense amendments here u insa but 9

, %} J. ?j ee3 after me cices of the haarms belee. See 52 Fed. Ret 38.9R 38.978 (1987). We aino sicu em se Octo O

i;.. '

15. 1987,

-l suwlarnera scesame e escuan cm "severe Accidera Considersuens? Becauss est documera eas n<a ,.C. . ', 7'.,.(*, part af the reecrd belos,== aapress ne view cri its eormers; because the sierre Cle has run preserved as eg6 9 it is spel $a general adequacy of the EA s.nd has made ne che3erge no the taneg of $a supplement to the F.A. , d ,# s. we espress no view cri est scare mihar. 4, ies s 't) ".,k,, s, l,, ~ s, p e .y .s e, ..e, 1 i.j,o [, k 6 s s -2 ,i ' e_t,. ., s. f.. '. + 44 a i ,, e..;y.,t. w, 7 L; 463 .s .

W, ** '.:,4..,3 3,.

~. s. " ; . y. - m. 3...

c.4 n

'b ', G," A 31.,s..* g l.f4.. * ' [ s,' (,, e u. ,[ 1 c, s,., ~,, i.-. i ?. r E . g g 1 qy,,. f h.g q ,y 4 :, y.i .d [ ). , I C i m,," F.i.- 7 4, .v s . a 3 . j o, ,'y

- 4 k.

.( y 4 .f'. 4 '. ', % *',..e'Y,k. n + * - ,g, Y' e.' '. . g 3 ~ f; \\s. s - lf ' '. tlf. ?, .s,,-. p s a s.# w_,

]' ] ' - i. [.[3 ' j.).I.$ $ ~{k [, .v;. w t'

. R *,',, l~g,, u -

. ?y., & l, ' . 7 ?. A.

..r

, >'. g.- M~ .; ' m :, .y .c,

3..; -

9 "(' ,, ' ' [ g: ..1- ..... >,, -.'7,'-,., w; i 4 a- -s, r. m ..1 ,..c.,,-.o... m' ~. ,. y 1. :

f...

e, sv. , ~.. - w, .s.. e',

5 i

II, CONTENTION I(B)(7) ,. o '(., He Sierra Club objects to the Licensing Board's initial decision in this ., ~. ** proceeding (LBP 87 25) only insofar as the disposition of contention !(B)(7) is ., l ',... ' ' '[ concerned This contention states that: the (gpicant's! Reporu faa to include consideradm ci certain relevant emdeans, pherxin-ena and thema6ws necessary for indegndent venfica6cm of clauns made in the Reports ' (.. regardmg cmsistency of the prcposed reracting with pubhc heahh and safety, and the en i. rcernera, and with federal law. In par 6cular, the Repons fail to consider: s ~

7) ahemadw on site sacrage facilides including:

0) cmstruc6on of new cv addiuonal stcrage facilides and,'or, Gi) acquisium of rnodular ce mobde spent nuclear fuel storage equirenent, including spent nuclear fuel storsse casksi.]

LBP-87 25,26 NRC at 184." The Licensing Board's decision discusses PG&E's + .'~ consideration of the two specified alternative onsite storage facilities. The Board notes that, although the evaluation was brief, PG&E explained that neither of the alleged alternatives offered an increase in safety over the high density racks, and that both proposed alternatives involved ceruin technical, regulatory, and other disadvantages. See (d. at 185 86. The only evidence presented by the Sierra Club was its witness's testimony that, in his opinion, PG&E had not considered s the alternatives seriously. See Tr. 443-45. The Licensing Board concluded that PG&E's consideration of alternatives was adequate and complied fully with the NRC's requirements. It therefore denied contention !(B)(7) on the merits. LBP. 87 25,26 NRC at 174,198. Tne Sierra Club argues that it "presented expert testimony showing that the consideration given these alternatives by the applicant was not adequate to i protect the public health and safety." Sierra Club's Brief at 25. It contends that PG1E's assertion that the two alternatives would not provide added safety is not supported by fact. It claims further that the record provides no adequate basis for comparison of the alternatives with the high density reracking proposal. Ibid.28

The saarra CWb's Banf at 26:s makes clear est the "Itapma" at innae in stus corumuon are three fded wie the MtC by IC&E m eamost of its lacer.as unendrnet oppiacenart la view or sa decssnm an cauerwei

!(BX7). we have ne need to decide whether the cesanum shened have facased an to A#C ssafs, romer man se applacent's. ecrandersum d thernatives see Ve =noer Yedes. ALAB-469. 26 Mtc as ss. 21 The serre Cub a:ao crrnplaan that me ahernseve of stonra newly daadarged fwel in low density recka. as recantnended by rwe ccranhaors to to BNL Repon. ess nos otrsadered. We have already addressed the sierra Oub's argarnenu in emne: son wie me BN1 Report Jee espec6eth s. pre m 454-6a We a'no ncne tai. hasa.no ceLeturi 1(BX7) monums too acer pertandar ahernauves. it a not sar;r.s. rig that the hgtuon of th.s issus t!ws focianed on ihcss ehernauves, reser than m te new thernative the serve CLb now s*gsesta i

e g

9 + P -g,* 9 8"O 9 g s O 4 A 9 J 'ig ""Ee,' I gp. (' [ ^ ~ 3. s s =,,

,,q.yy~mm;;;i.,. y. i }.; g q /3 .c .s.,m9,c. w.%.. :. a 3..s ,y - y

i.

'g em. c., ..c.; s a,.,. 1 . '. 9.,'. 8. %.. A o,.:c.~ ' - : n... "., n.~ . c.:u. c ~ .,1 ,v- ,.es. 2 -?- -. ;,,., /,... .e. ',,. c.,,.. N. *, a.

S c..
+

..a ....f, ...w.. ,s 1 ,no .4 a. s ,, u _s...., ,t . 7, - r:.

a.~

t

p.y,..

,a. . L. @a.: -a~ ;;. ?. :x.,. 1 - a ~ .m ,< ~., .u i ;.-/,. t .w ,' r.

).*,f.j t..y,,.,A.

fe, -g. ..... ' t e ;.,,.e,._,, ., @t < s 4 e i, p. g.7 3,,.., .g. n. m...., ....o. .,.,.u. . p,...;.I r.v. ~. u.. y. . s s.. ,w 3* t

' e/,:2. y,.,- s.,c. e..

1 n w. c. 3.. 4 m ,%: u,, . c.. ? : 1 . v., c. r 1.

2,.. n.

p...; c. 4... :< m". 7, <. n..~ ,. m :u. .,? k;? sed.M.h..'>.:... \\@q,.. ;'

..n.

.G... w w.t.y:n.. l. u/'n Intervenor's challenge to the Licensing Board's disposition of contention ff.'b.M, .i hbk Uh[.?).] I(B)G) is wholly without merit. The Sierra Club provides no references to the N' h

b

, l s. . j, p,5; g ;../.i.c:-9.g,'-.i h. ] c'b;j;@%Y M l33.M. hearing transcript and underlying record - indeed, no specifics whatsoever to g ~, F. 4 mpport its generalized complaints. See INd. Because the Sierra Club's brief y-- .Q....y*.)'c.m...f.;*.,R....,%; thus fails to comply with our Rules of Practice (see 10 C.F.R.12.762(d)(1)) . ' ef./

A ', - ;, l and leaves us with no meaningful arguments to consider, we reject its appeal

,.., q. -[J. Q" " ;, '/- yl j in connection with contention I(B)G) summarily. See l'ogtle, supra note 10, 26 J >'c.,*, - C NRC at 13132. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record (including the hearing v. 1 ",.,,,' q.,';'.y. M J V ',; transcript) and find no cause to ovenurn the Licensing Board's disposition of , - e. mj., / - a '. a contention !(B)p). See, e.g., Shiffer, et al., fol. Tr.179, at 28 30; Ferguson. .,. 'jf' W * }

l fol. Tr. 442, at 2 3, 39-41; Cleary, fol. Tr. 604 at 2 9; Tr. 364 89, 393 98,

., 3. ;<.Y. ' .e. s 443 4g,n .,1 3 e ~ s .C '. i e :. s l ~ LBP 87 24,26 NRC 159, and LBP-87 25,26 NRC 168, are affirmed. 1 It is so ORDERED. -u FOR TiiE APPEAL BOARD

p
a.

,j ... ' < g ;....,:'3,, a..;.4 Eleanor E.11agins x ...., f:', r, 'n i, "i..f l.. ~ 7 Secretary to the e ,;;,..;-{,, g'. j Appeal Board +.. : s. -,' i R..,l,+:1. ' ~ f; y.. 4 c, r. .R=', 'q. .c .}, n 3 - s,,.'

~-

,t-s.,, ..5 'g F-3.; 6. -.? . ~ .s 3, s '...l 1 ,3 s, .s.. ...] 1 y ~ .r.

4..

~ sJ y

s x

. '.!j 4

y.

7,:n

s..,

r. <. . ~, - e. a '.s UAa is our procuce. og have also smees4 on out own those ronves of me txeses Board's inn.al danmon that have nca been a;tes:mi. as og.:: as the undsdynns record. see Georg.a fe.se Co. (Vogte Lo:*nc Ger.arsvg ,g. P'. ara, l'nas 1 and 2). AL.AB-859. 25 *iRC 23,27 (1987). %s f.r:d no errors mirrawg correcuve acum. t..,. 4 4 .g

.,,m d

n ( .'. ~ *., a - ly.., .,, c a g 464 a..

e. -

, j s -

A ~

it .g- ~, g 4 s 7 5,* 'Ig* ^

g e

-t. /, ,4 b. ,*}' I ~t: i .u+ n

g~.,,;,fe; 2. , f,, m. ,3 -. .y .w m m- , s... n. ;:., g ; y ly.7 1.s %.y.; p r m 4 p p v,.?. g.q:, ',.ne-.uT:: . ~,3, q 7p:: v.h q:.;r;.,m.3-b N, 3.g,~y& L 9, : ' W i y 'i;3 ,P " g.g 4 W ; 9;,+' M p.. m, ..s,.m .~ g 3.. c. . q.

u..-n.:.,+'* Q,....a

,,,. m,, g,/ *.,e: - '. .. y ge .u. .f+... . ;/,',z.. e.-.. N...; m...- . N

c.,

.g -

as

.,. =, ./ '. v ,/g,. o. Y,, 'y

',.

f c,,,, 7, ~.., '.tg. *.; N;.
o,

w, .. a'R. s;c.s..f, m.C s.,o..., ', f,- -w ;, -

a.-

/; +a- . ' 7.., '.- .g;g p,'

3..gs -

s..-, .4 ,y- ,. q - ;. g-c;. l_ , (;, _,,. ' 7 - e,.,;,, - ( : .-r. - r- ....,c., 3,.. ;.. g-sc 4 s ;. 3,. - ?. *,,, r.., t, - e.p;r y. +

s: ' y-e > * :.\\

,,; *.. m s

s y,;,=,.,.n' ,,.; i i t y ;.r. -,,a~

j;~

,-<r- ,.q,< .s y A.. . s:- f,. ... w. w, ; - -, ;~ _t n. w.. - e.. ~..,...- ..s s ..:.... s.~... .o.,..- .5 ,,q <.e.':i 9 wc;;,._ y..', ;n. 1 ,e . i. y. # .,-i.. .. cs - a..'. 3..: g,. r. - , '. ;e. ! ..t s g .y. s:... s,s.. .,;n s .m (. ..r. '. ". 2W;.. ;'a <, c,.- J. G '. + Cite as 26 NRC 465 (1987) ALAB 8(1 f..,z.;;p. -;< v c x .v .et ~s~ J 4.,,:3 r 3.1-. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .Q. :42;. ?Ws -t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.,.,: ..~..-

.s... ~...s.. i r,. s, .e ,.n.. '.,.,N ' - y ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD + r a ~ a c s-, .c;- u,. s,' Administrative Judges: a. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ? .x..f.. Thomas S. Moore 1 Howard A. Wilber ~ In the Matter of Docket No. 50 289 CH ,- ~< 9 b GENERAL PUBUC UTILITIES v2' NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mlle Island Nuclear ^' c ,j Station, Unit No.1) December *11,1987 .a In this discretionary hearing ordered by the Commission, the Appeal Board certifies to the Commission a question concerning the subject matter jurisdiction of the proceeding. APPEARANCES Michael W. Maupin, Richmond, Virginia, for Charles Husted. Deborah B. Bauser, Washington, D.C., for intervenor General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation. .s, ~j Louise Bradford, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for intervenor Three Mile Island Alert. Ianice E. Moore for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. '\\- 463

b g

e \\ ~ ' ' ' '4

*
r g e.r - <.

4

+=

.s. ,s* j =0, i I 3 4 g s ,~ l m s .A .g 8 .. T g ...- e.,4 '.e,.- s g .f g -. s ,,\\. .,g .r.'/',..,,.. '.k. 3 '.

t 4

,F "4

g-p.

. < t, -l **. ~ g s i. '.,,_,1

l.

n.. wm

.... yW.M+. +,, r...u. 4 W. ~ L' . m x :.,,, 3... w,, w:v... e.

m. :n,z. y n,.c.... :. wv.. ~

. 1 .c.~ .t u-w. +, - n v ~..; c.. : ~ w. .n..~

.,c

? y.,'x*.. :...c. J. ' *-}. ... u....

s.. :

.-.v. .,G,U ', (* - l*Q,. '.L.g c

i.

p' g, l; ,s-

s. ? ? 's.

\\.. . ;,, - c,..

c. :;, % ?S c m, [ $ [? "..I *7

. N \\.,j....% ,.-:;.. u." [ V, s.i

- u' n c.w. a n ;.., :

' L.,' '; L A ;) g.. .;*,, ; Q;.: y y :.g, 7,' '..}(y.. y;% .'s. .:e s.e. - q::. w t;,. i., : s..

g y;

~ ~. . a;, . a: _ ... o x.$,,.. v, t.. '. o 3 s '.. ' n'd:,. :.'.~:. ' f.c.f'. 4- -

i..t:w.,.l.

m. a m^ e

c. 3 ; g %..: y,. s a,..r*:

t.: .~. ;.;

.u w ,~. y :: := ,y [ M,.r <3 @m y.*,.clW '.o..., *%..,y 4&.YE.., MEMORANDUM AND ORDER .g.- -1 .r. w. ~ ..x m.,..c w < v.w.wc.>.,p,fl+lm.yl..a k 'l y Although the caption nf this case reads General Public Utilities Nuclear w%..c.:.x, .a.. 0;. w,. ' p?.] ~. c L,;;;ii% M; D .,y.i, $. VC..;v.???..;,. ;; / 2 " ' ,4 Corporation and evriN 7.: docket number of Three hiile Island Nuclear Station, v., n Unit 1 a mon appnpriate case name is in the.tfatter of Charles Husted. V

n. ;.

-e . j yr. j '- L' - k.s f;.

Mr, Hused is en employee of General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) who f

is bdr/c us on appc4 seeking to 7eturn to his previously held position as e _,'? E e f ' #c T i supervisor of ud. licensed operator training. He was earlier barred from that post y h',$, { ' ' y.h.,,.,e ei by a condition imposed urx>n GilLW in the proceeding involving the restart of

9.,^

f f TMI Unit I h another Board of the Appeal Panel. Bccause the condition placed

T 1.D/: .M['. '.

upon.M licensev direcuy impxted Mr. Husted even though he neither was a 's.,'f- 'M - ~jf., "J i party to the restart proceeding nor had notice of the condition or a chance to '1<* d 'i challent it, the Commission, vpon review of that Appeal Board action, offered _ ~ ~ Mr liusted an opponually to sontest it. In its hearing notice, the Commission ?onfned the hearing to several specific issue + precipitatg the imposition of the testart condidon, i.e., the agency's investigaGon into chef ting on NRC operator s lictnli'y, examinati;>m. To those issues, th (icsignated Administrative Law Judge a$ied inother concerning Mr. Hust d't pb performance at GPUN. After J, 3 7,' t,y } con 4ition Thould not be vaJed. taking evidera on all the issues, the judge below concluded that the restart t a-' - ).. M..., p.3,9 "'..c; - ' ', '.yf ..c!L ; '. ' g' '., As V explain more iully below, a jurisdictional deficiency in the proceeding .) leads us to cerufy a @ cation in the Comrnissior We take this step because e y . ' ",j w< ind, unl;r.c the AWr!.strauw-Law Judge, Qat the record evidence on the ' g o.V , lc{ t 'i itsue 4 M-Lst Es job performa:.ce is pivotal to the outcome. Yet that issue.

s inse.ted by the trW judie, is cle;rly beyond the scope of the hearing ordered by n' ' ), -

. y thy Com mission, in es neuce of hearing - the document delineating the hearing of.'cer's subject trever Mh dicton. The strwture and language of that notice is .?: 4 OK g73 sud thai we canot reconably read it to encompass the issue of Mr. Husted's

f.

job pern.*nnance at 7PUF tithout winling at reality. In this circumstance, we L'

'3-thini the t<tt Gr.4 is tc ccmfy to the Commission the question whether it , ~.. ['I, J, Q; wBes to expbit ruro.ctiseN he i trisdiction of the proceeding to encompass t ';.4.'f the issue introdued by ec trial jydge The evidence in question is already in l L. J the record so thera i<t no bc.r.i'.t to retrottive expansion of the subject matter i ,s 7 3 . [t-h,".:,'%.j jurisdiction and it vtt! migitt oc &at the Commissiol would have broadened the ."p trial judge's charter hatially had W questip been anticipated. 7'. g l i f .y .l.O d g, .O ' ~ E (/ly r. '.c a I .s A. After the ceider.t at TMI.Ur.it 2, Sv: CcmminioO ordered that Unit I of the frihty shoylc ternain in a cold shuttwn condition until a hearing determined whether it codd be operated without endangering the peblic health t <~. ~ e .e .e, g ./ ,~ '

l. 3l'.: ;q :

<166 o. q ^ ts,, ~. _ ~ 'a [ ' 't O y L

'4 0(

[ .k .) - '.: ~ i*,, , 4 's -s f . [ 6 +. = ( g ( s 3

k. s ', ', "

Yl ** g , k5 I s a . ~ 9

IM@9MNdDY.M k - n.,h. f,'[ hh h h' hh '[ U '. l.Mk ' l

t.,, ;;,,.,,j...,. Aq. q aq y c..,

..,,... ; n. y.;..;. y,..; 4... y. c. e. ra 4 : ..,~,.c.,._.,..1 _;y .a m. .r- .,,,.,m.,. .w. r, m.. ;s ;,.~., x. a, 4. w. .e - 2 s: ..v . m c.,. ..... e y. +,. c h. '.- :, ~ - ..,.._; ;.,,.~ s...,. y ;s.- 9.c .,n ? c, t : '.m 2,

, y.

s m 4,' %m k': w, ~, p.

in 7::

. M 3. :e.. *. . :. :.a.a U.: ;l:%m,y %.D.W :9a,. w...M,; .. v.. n- .y,+.. . a. u- .. G,:p: ) c '. , 3 -b.., . ".:h,,., M;;, q : . 7x o.; a,'.n. 4.. ,..;f. 1 ,p t .... ? ,.s .s3.g 3 ...e .:y , N, ~ . 7,

e -

k,h$d.)Y $,:iN [L ' ] I ' ', and safety,I In the spring of 1981 while the restart proceeding for Unit I was { e Q pg...d ' O L'. f ' ' - ongoing, Mr. Husted, who was then an instructor of licensed operators at the

1. ' '

c,A Ng plant, and a number of his fellow employees took NRC. administered reactor Q'$ 4 n'.5 % d[.Q@,M,$ cl operator and senior reactor operator examinations, Allegations of cheating on 6Wf g, ...,'..X those examinations surfaced and the agency conducted an investigation. As OMflM@.7M subsequent events would reveal, that investigation marked the beginning of 1 @ T3f !-i;,' Mr. Husted's prolonged difficulties with the NRC. ' ' Q y[.,., s, j. : y. ; 'l.;.. / ;, 7 '. 'Ihe agency's initial investigation resulted in a series of Board Notifications to r the Licensing Board presiding over the restart proceeding that cheating on the

g.. s r.

examinations had occurred. When it received this information, the Licensing '2 p a ' -.~, Y Board had already concluded the evidentiary hearing so it went ahead and j, .-[s' l';. , 7 issued iu first partial initial decision. At the same time, the Board retained Jurisdiction and reopened the record on the effect of the cheating incidents on p_ 7.- + <. the management issues in the case. It then appointed a Special Master to take ~ " N evidence with respect to the cheating and instructed him to issue a recommended 1 1 decision.* ~~ During the NRC staff investigation of the test irregularities, Mr. Husted .g was interviewed twice by investigators from the former Office of Inspection and Enforcement. In prehearing discovery before the Special Master, he was 4 '.} - also deposed by one of the intervenors in the proceeding. Although the staff ,;.~ investigation uncovered a number of individuals involved in cheating on the ^ ' f

.0 3

operator examinations, neither the staff investigation reports nor the pretrial .: s.?j discovery implicated Mr. Husted in such activity. Before the Special Master, however, an NRC investigator testified that another operator had alleged that i. Mr. Husted solicited an answer to a question on the senior reactor operator examination. Thereafter, Mr. Husted was called as a witness and he was questioned extensively in the hearing.3 In his report to the Licensing Board, the Special Master concluded that during the NRC examination Mr. Husted had solicited an answer from the other individual in the unproctored testing room and that he refused to cooperate [ with the subsequent NRC investigation. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master also found that Mr. Husted lacked credibility as a witness, had a flippant demeanor, and displayed an unacceptable attlude toward the hearing on the s cheating incidents. Because he could find no reliable standard for judging the seriousness of Mr. Husted's poor attitude and lack of cooperation with NRC l investigators, the Special Master recommended that Mr. Husted not be removed l ~* ., f g m ~ '~ 3 CtJ 79 8,10 NRC 1410979) 4 Isee L3P 32.s6,1 Mtc 281,287 88 09:2). 3.BP-82 s48. Is NRC 918. 9s7 58,960-610912). t ~. s. y a p

lic e

g** ....r-- 1*[

s s

.t ,+.

i p[ g, d. ; p, j-4,y) "r~.

4 /*1 - (- g 4 p+6 - e,., g g.,. w s m l g m - il"*f/;i,_ ' k ' ",g'.s*' k.. s.,'y \\ *, ';, 3 -, . e a. ~' &,IYY ^= Ew?- -- 2 m-, \\ a-

[ ys. o ., g. m ..e., ,.,,.~m.m.-.. s ...s ,: e f a..,. n,f ; %y. m,,..,. M..t g n ... r u.,.,,;,.- ;7 x,. . y, m a. -g l %.c, y v., ( ty "e.4. d, 4 "7- ,j*.... a. sC..f'; s ..o . y' . V*. u y,y ;q..,,. 7 T. 'v.. D.y f G-y y.M,.. c.% - N, v *r : f... - s,. ..~ ], vv' "

4 t

s i $3 .2 ,y c- 'n ,,s ,s4 L,,e..n; p?;;W. nc. 4 n r. !,&,v &.w. - ' &&y. < 4M. 1'.Y. 7 e a,

~

a. L W ^N " ^

B MA m. c

,. s. n....., c:l%,t ' h, e.;,.".. s ; s :;...'L ?,6-? 3.,..,,1."=.. '. L -'- a. 4q{e-.. et

f. s...

. %,q. W j,. 5

f

. T.. m. N. c..r..

c.f.fm. N.f.y....n

...~ (% g..g v from licensed duties but instead suggested to the Licensing Board that some 7

.,8.

. 3 7.,,M N'!!.NG.,.7/,@. unspecified lesser sanction might be appropriate.* g [$.h0 M.%'.'MM; 9..R 'N TS:1 .c

w. r o,y%4.w:S X 'w

, m Finding insufficient reliable evidence to support the Special hiaster's con-hD M h $h N,$MYd / M'Y clusion, the Licensing Board rejected the determination that hit. Husted had Sk.$' solicited an answer to an examination question. The Board agreed with the Spc-

N. s,,.

n s (;.v.7 ?.c,-i..f M. m 3 cial hiaster, however, that hit. Husted refused to cooperate with the NRC inves-o " j..-; '3..f. 9f.. .:q. ..f @lg

,% ^y(( s'i

,f T tigators. It also generally concurred in the Special hiaster's determination that hit. Husted's testimony was not credible and conveyed the sense that hit. Husted s'f]g..y v A.f el. [.. ' f, '.,9. 'Q;. ', 'M;: was unconcerned whether or not he was believed. Although the Board ques-7,, J .h' 1 tioned whether, as a training instructor, hir. Husted wr"Id impart a sense of gi [ j. ; Q Md';! seriousness and responsibility to Tht! Unit I operators, It found no evidence D. P ' ve. < 'r(.1,',. 3,-f /,,f ; '- D '. <j that his testimony and conduct during the investigation were unrelated to his .d. 7' T that hit. Husted's attitude affected his performance as a teacher and concluded . u. .p' j' status as a licensed operator. The Board therefore found that any action against -s C lm; his license would be inappropriate; rather, it required GPUN to establish qual-ifications for its training instructors and to audit its training program, paying 3 particular attention to hit. Husted's performance.8 A number of intervenors and the Commonwealth of Pennsyl% as an . ? j interested State,' appealed the Licensing Board's decision. While the appeals i,C, ,W were pending, the Commonwealth and GPUN entered into a stipulation to the y Y..) - @. ( ;,y '- effect that the Commonwealth would withdraw its appeal on the condition that .. i, .,1., e, 'q.v ' i' M 'O W "'.y the licensee would not permit hit. Husted either to operate Thil Unit 1 or to

r. f, l.3 ~ <; r:. 3, - a. !

train operating license holders or trainees. Even before GPUN entered into the "!A' Mi J' ' (( [. y C{ N stipulation, the licensee already had moved hit. Husted from his job as an , j :., f, 33~' f,';{'.*. ,. {1 instructor of licensed operators at Thi! Unit I to the position of supervisor of . r. '. - % f.T non licensed operator training. While the Commonwealth's action in dropping 'Y its spreal removed the specific issues before the Appeal Board with respect to 7, ~.. - - N ^~- hir. Husted and his licensed duties, the Board, on its own motion, questioned -[p (.i H[,. {. } N I GPUN's judgment in promoting hit. Husted in the face of his documented past y ,a 4 failure to cooperate with the NRC's cheating investigation. Accordingly, the ) 7: -l - d, -.T.- ,;t have any supervisory responsibilities in the training of non licensed personnel- ,-c',..., Board, as a condition of restart, barred GPUN from allowing hit. Husted to i ms U. ;.t a ', M,,L '.. y ]3 employees w ho normally were on a career path to becoming licensed operators.' j.y'[, h[r y ;g.,.4 O d the record supported the conclusions of the Special Staster and the Licensing ..'.i In placing this condition upon GPUN, the Appeal Board first determined that s s . y 3. N.', 4 ['" g.,]'j Board regarding hit. Husted's poor attitude toward his responsibilities due to q 3,. , y* '. * " ;. ;; M v.;M(<. Bj.. : d' C' his failure to cooperate with the NRC investigation of the cheating incidents. It 9,.9 ',

j

$: ' *, J.[*y (. &I.f:y$;*,_ sc ' e '.. ~, O.[ {;. J...] 4$ 5

14 at 104s.46.

7 (, t.,-. ' 816 NRC at s18 20. 'su 10 CJ R. l 2.71s(c1 (. 'e T .j AtAB 772.19 NRC 119s.122124 0964k .g a b, I,.( .m

i. [,

f ,.L ,g' '...,.,2 ~ '. a,. 3. 9. ~.,.. " 468 .,.n -c ',d ** S S,L. y; * :+ .f ,s. , ~,. - S- -('.:j. n - '%f*r( ,i { ,?,, .. ~ - ~, N a 6 i,. [ .g g ~ _ + ,4

.s..

.',.,.,6 ,,,*g i, O 6 g. ,%b

y.. 7.. :n,.

3 .c .t,.,, i = ,,y, -. m l k l. A _ ., ~ 1 fty,, q =-

f!:, .'f<~ f, t?,+ ~;q%,yr;j ' '[ ab w; '. G.., v;,..'....,s

c. g; ~,.. w p.. p., ; 7.; y -

. > ss M, - ,) i - s' a E. -/..,. s c

t. -

"c. a

f..w '

.s . 7. n t.. 'g ' t, 77,- 7 p y

.'y :3 - 3,,3 g.

n,.;. 4.- -c. c m n. g. , j;.....,,. .. jg., ,,7 3 ~ . u,., ~. g ., g,( y g, p <,.y ;. s '.,g:,.7,' q l...' '.

7, ':.

.m,. ... a; ..y v.- t ei* .[ then stated that, in a field where so much of the material conveyed to trainees .,6 U; ~, a, 7 ' ' [. 3 Ji' ; ,e 3' (.,,a by instructors concerns the need to comply with procedures, the ability to , j g, W,,) G,m.,. %.1 g -N jn,.g.y.y Q,$;, '" '1 communicate a sense of responsibility is an important and integral part of the 7 77 r."; ability to texh. Noting that the record contained no direct evidence on whether s,5jf.'7 Ji Mr. Husted's bad attitude affected his teaching performance, the Appeal Board

@2 ', E.j ?p.c, Y',7 c m,-

drew that inference and placed the sanction on GPUN because Mr. Husted's new Y'~":- job as supervisor of non licensed operator training would place him in a position gji,'mn')W.g. ag-7. P. 1-to instruct personnel in areas affecting the public health and safety, it also j; J.i < [' 6, J *, imposed the restart condition upon GPUN for a second reason. The Board stated F -M '/ it was inappropriate for GPUN to elevate Mr. Husted to a supervisory position ,7K l ' where he likely would have a voice in establishing the criteria for training .E ',.c.. instructors and in auditing the training program when the license condition ~'7, .i regarding GPUN's training had been ordered, in part, by the Licensing Board ' ~~ i 72 as a remedy for Mr. Husted's failure to cooperate with the NRC.8 In responding to GPUN's petition for review of the Appeal Board's decision, the Co nmission announced that, in addition to the several issues urged upon it by the licensee, the Commission would review, on its own motion, the restart condition imposed upon GPUN by the Appeal Board. The Commission noted, however, that it was not concerned with the underlying justification for the condition but rather with the question whether an adjudicatory board may impose a condition on a licensee that, in effect, operates as a sanction against an j individual w here the impacted employee is not a party to the procee< !ng and has f; no notice of the sanction or any opportunity ;o request a hearing.' Afar briefing, i the Commission then decided against resolving the issue it had pose.t. Instead, it exercised its discretion and offered Mr. Husted an opportunity to request a hearing on whether the condition imposed upon GPUN by the Appeal Board should be vacated. Mr. Husted subsequently requested a hearing, which stayed the effect of the restart condition pursuant to the terms of the Ccmmission hearing offer.5' At the same time he requested a hearing, Mr. Husted also asked the Com-mission to expand its scope to include the question whether concerns about his integrity or atutude should exclude him from serving as a licensed operator, an m instructor of licensed operators, or a training supervisor - the positions closed to him by GPUN's stipulation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commission granted Mr. Husted's request in its hearing notice, observing that the expanded scope would not require any additional agency resources. It also pointed out to Mr. Husted that the Commission was powerless to undo the stipu-lation between GPUN and the Commonwealth barring him from certain licensed ~ 8 /d at 12:3G. 8 C1.J 841s,20 NRC 408. 81411 (1984). 18C1J ss 2,21 MtC 52,317 09ts). 469

L' 1.,

4,' % " - * %., - sse [ '.., ~ e b y-t I 4 ( ( g g - s-

M.. M, } d.,W.-?; , S,j,,3qi@M@. 4,D'*TdlN~* *I.

5 $.Nb

' i,. '... 'N \\ ,4 ; ..2 4 ..~, . u 4 w. a..+w4. >...W. s., s e,;._ a, ,.~* '.4 e, g i. w,,.s,.. . f. s ..s f, + ; f. f:. . c. ,~

,,; o

,e , ;. e -. + t.y ;',;., #, -,'.w.,,

.r.

','f,.. \\ '. g9 ' . ;f - t- 'N8 kl s., (, .v.*

^

} l : f. ? i.;n %'Q}.... -,"h{;.(.**'

, Gh. 'n24 L-L

... s t e'

. s u s

'-..t.'.'* ' / c. o*, - *.. i ~ -~

a..

v s. . y f...c o. , e #~...< ..n..s .. _1 ,f.s i <v. a,.,..- . ~.y.. e o..-,. .,4 .~,c..>

s. s.g. e...,...

.a

s. o.

gD? c4 r 'a,i. f.v.,'.ily. 2 .g , jf ' i acdvities and that. for reinstatement, he would have to seek direct relief from .t,R n. A.iJ 1[.3,,.,, ??' > s,J M those prties if the hearing evidence warranted. It next directed that the hearing I n 2 s. q a.n. ymwm. m: ; u, R'Tr-M M.'. y: c C;':.1.. e ; $ 'p; focus cc whether me follains four cmcerns resirdins Mr. Ikned m true. and, if so. ,W Sv$+f $g,.Y... - .h J y j p. M N.M.d " h'**' **Y ' * " *** h* * * "" * * * * '" " " " '.4 ,M (1) h allesed noticitmo d an aniser to an enarn puim fr<en anaher onrmer o M.g. *,, * ) *j 4 s. -%S,y,; N. r, = .,y during the April 1,1981 NRC unuen saarninatim; ,'),..,. J.,[ ['.' N t 4 ,i.: .,.. ?z (2) h tack of foethrightness of his tenunmy twfore the Special Master; g,-).' ? g < J l J.. a,fu y (3) itis poor auwe io.ird me heanns on me cheauns incidenu: and g. ,y t ~'t.

y*'

3, l P. (4) }lis tack of cooperatiori unh NRC innstigators."

r..L !

J.. ::. ,7. ~ ' >. mvt F nally, the Commission ordered that the hearing be held before an Administra-w. ,.t ' - * / g,7 e I tive Law Judge and that "[t]he NRC staff... prticipate as a full party... to l ensure that the record is fully developed."" f 3,. ~ '~ B. In a number of prehearing orders, the Administrative Law Judge granted i the intervention petidons of Three Stile Island Alen (Tht!A) and GPUN and admitted their proffered contentions. Tht!A's contentions enveloped the issues identified by the Commission in the hearing notice and alleged that hit. Husted's j, bad attitude and lxk ofintegrity precluded him from supersisory responsibilities J. for the training of non licensed operators as well as serving as a licensed operator f, l {'.v,y- ,'ll or instructor or supervisor of such operators. GPUN's contendon was to the s ~a m N ,,( -%'.3 Q :'.f,,,, y opposite effect." To the issues identifed by the Commission as forming the ' :g # ~ '. ' ~% ,.4 scope of the proceeding, the trial judge added the question of w hat hit. Husted's

g,.o

.,., 'i, - j, .,. J-M job performance at GPUN reflected about his attitude and integnty 8* Next, . g 5 'a y, /. 4' ' Jj the judge below ruled that hit. Husted was entitled to a de amo hearing on u the factual issues and that the proceeding was tantamount to a hearirq on an agency enforcement action where the staff fulfills the role of the proponent of J.,.,. the sanction and has the burden of going forward and the uldmate burden of - y proof.13 ~ w

c

W;

" 50 Fed. Reg s1.098 (1985). L.; u14 as 37,099. f]; UMn ^ - and order (Decenbar 6,1985) u 4 6 - i

- j, y?-.,

34 Rapa and order en lainal Psehaanng C.mfereue (Tebary 27.1966) u s. M Alemsh me Adnunarstvo 14e kge's pahaaneg conferexe order 1med tee farest ermtsn u usse onn. f-s, j cerams wher.her any remed.al acts agasun Mr. H. mad was sapred and sta remedal octe nas syften- .,.c-**,,,, me. *cse <ms snarely paructuartaed me Carurussum's pseum frorn the haancs nauce aikuig whamer 'i Mr. H med sh< mad be peecluded frwa bcensed or me-hssised aperinar travung er s iprnaary pu aana. It at .a t . ' ', 5f. . 's'1',41

11. Jee 50 Fed. Reg. at 37.098.

.c, jq* ' Q*s [.j u Rapet and order en tamal Prehsanns Cmfarunce (Ferraary 27, I986) u 7-4. s

s. a~ gu -a m.

e t.. w e,-.4s. ,.r~ ra s.-g m * f ;],.. ' - .j aT '.' * :.-! or he beene3 ersace made a dir$ cult to decy+er the type of proceede3 ee Carernaam useMed. Neverte.asa. -.'c,. q'.. - 1; < t he naam.d am -ce e w noad.e. r. pn, io m. v = pmceedes. ee C,n,s m ed.nrs. n.. l. haanng fcmand. se effect. Wat me vocord helme me Ayeel Bastd.3s uwwffcws and est mere was te pea.hsty of irrposing en & Nsted Sa sarna sanam as me Appel Board orges'2y $ced spm GPL'N Tha. the trtal t+ . e. (Co enm.ed) .g I ,t-u ; g jj ,y 470 M ' 4.], },,, t. g a 99 ~ e ~*g, .e t-g5 [ .[*;, ..r* .,i, g I 4 g m ,_~

py;~j p k c.. c,.,.. < K.... l l.*. Q. m. X./....c SQQ'iQ QV;qf.~p.:. p.',.q-Q', y.i.Ql.2 @g,gg.,

4 Q

u e. Qm a. . - : J.; g. - ,j - y .9, R ;.,y.., fg.... %, ;.w

e.,,.

- r ,gg,g.g y g. .y s. 3..g e y 1; n i. v.. ? ;p :.q.. a.. 3:n . s su.. ' y~ ;.. w. i.. s, - ..,. n' . 4..

y. : s..z a,'

~ < ~ =.. ..v. u.. + a,,.. ,m. ) . n ~ : i,"3'

".,.e. k.,.,g t N.

1, . f.y i > n. e n, .g.,,, 4 _ l ..,.f,,,,t J ,g . sc. ep = ( u. r s. ..se e.,L ~

n,..

.e ..m* s r i e et - i ..s = r. e.. ,j s..t ' - :. .r t. y, o' - A'.w v., q - ,,p,, Lig.- .- y e 4, 2.:n,;.. x,, ag '. *. .u....~ . w w, y ' n + ',. _.'; :-- m :;;,, a ' v.; t. 1 y y' *,- C. ;ts s n . '. k' ,l:.la '( t ; g '.. F 4 l. Q L'"

,*.. ~ ',

? s p ,Q 4 hf. '? [. was in the nature of an enforcement proceeding, the staff subsequently objected . g 4:,@rc $.. "]$. [.-W Even though the staff initially agreed with the trial judge that the proceeding ic: i y,M

h. W.9;,m/,'1.5

@ 29%; C to the prehearing order claiming that it should not be considered the proponent

c..:',. :W i.p :;. -,

g.. v.u.. s..

of the agency sanction with the concomitant ultimate burden of proof. In m @N;n,J/N%,~uD.dD ?INd'i ' " not fall properly upon hit. Husted. But he accepted the staff's argument that it am .0.. .:,c p. e t reconsidering his earlier order, the judge below reiterated that the burden could bYC[O'.:'7fMY[N4",'di,.- should not be directed to be an advocate for the sanction against hit. Husted and hS .k.M,i [p*h i to have the ultimate burden of persuasion on the propriety of the sanction. His p c a i..q. j g.-, 7 4 c, p c. ruling was silent, however, as to what party had the ultimate burden although e (7. j; 2.*[ ? ';fla p :,^..- C' ' ' he instructed the staff to declare prior to the hearing whether it supported or ,t opposed the sanction." Thereafter, the staff announced it advocated vacating the As.g; N e.. sanction affecting hir Husted." g,j [f,(l1..f .. t.l 7. ' -~ f .1 The Administrative Law Judge heard the testimony of five staff witnesses, six f. C witnesses on htr. Husted's behalf (including hit. Husted), and one witness sub-N.{ v i ? t s. 4- . :J ~~ poensed by Th11A. Like the Licensing Board in the TM/ restart proceeding, the t trial judge found, first, that there was no convincing evidence that hit. Husted i cheated on the 1981 senior reactor operator licensing test by soliciting an exam. j ination answer." Second, the judge below f0und that hit. Husted failed to coop. erste with the agency investigators probing the cheating incidents by providing unreliable and misleading information. In this regard, he determined that, al-though the agency investigators' first interview with htr. Husted was marked by ') hit. Husic4's resistance to answering questions and other deficiencies, it should ' '~ j not be viewed as an overall failure to cooperate with the investigation. But w hen the deficiencies of the first interview were added to Mr. Husted's conduct in the second (where he concluded Mr. Husted rnisled the interviewer), the hearing judge found the record convincing that Mr. Husted failed to cooperate with the NRC investigators." l Third, the trial judge found that Mr. Husted's testimony before the Special Master was not forthright (i.e., lxking ambiguity, straightforward) and that the 1 internal inconsistencies in Mr. Husted's testimony resulted in testimony that ,j lxked credibility and obfuscated what occurred. The judge also found that Mr. Husted's explanations for the various inconsistencies, contradictione and c. r.. s- ).dge emchaded eet $e hearms best 8t te mold er sa enforcemers ocum. Ils tmaamssed stus emclume by acts g e ,g man who the Conra. aman ordend se hasarg far Mr. Nsted and Instructed me matt is paacyeis as a r H pony ees were est two pnaes se, et *u ume, se besarg m1y se.14 te viewed as an enforcement paaedes He e fcmand, $ererwe, $st me e,abeepers raarverste or TM1A cou:4 not chares $e natum er es pmeedeg ersd $at TMtA emate aca be saddled wuh $e tnarden d pmnt. samuarly, be savh dad en saruushancesal scrJiraisms or .J 34 . * ' '- e' ' due paecene perluded Mr Nsied es target er me pcasibie noncuse, fram beareg me hurden d pmar.14 m 7.g. "hhrg im Staff 06.acums na Preheareg Carerence Order (Masde 26,1964). "taner fara Geo se E Jahree, Counsel for SIC 56 aft. to Judge Mar Waas Qune is, t 966L " A1) s1.s. 2s SIC $4s. sss s109:4 "f4 e ss1s l 1 i h, 471 .s. I l q s g O

W

,' i Q q.* '1 4

~

ee ' 9'o 9

N '.., i G l

.f' 5-l ~ l 0 .e h ~l s. *1 ~ a .6-ip e, ' ',g j, 4 1., i

j. 6 3,,

i

',i y..,* g - 4 . 3 ,\\, L, _-.s.L.\\ t: s,Q n

4 ' L. Y.1 ~.y "' ' f .R l. },U " ' ~ " M..M ! M.-., W.- '., 9. % ' ). w ;!, W ' ~ a ~ . ~ s *. m 7... x e.,.: .x -(' +

p;., - ;,; s x.

.a 9~gy c -m 3 ,:(.e Q n c;p ? a, y,, ; v, x J., v.u x.,,. >.,... : -. - e,, / - w. _ ; v t. <.. . ~ c 7 , y,. v. q.n - w, g.; a . ? ' [ w,j.,-v n ',. -,.6',.,.w n .. 4.,,,.,, c.) v.. c m_ . r,,,.e .n. c. 'x .,, 3 lj?! 71., g } q..

1 lxk of seriousness in pans of his testimony were unsatisfactory and evidenced 4

h [E. M i M[ N ll h.'7,I- [ M [,ari$r.;. h j ),". :, j J'.,.i a disregard for the regulatory process.8' Fourth, the judge below found that M.eM the evidence establishing that hir. Husted had failed to cooperate with NRC JS investigators, and had been neither completely forthright nor serious in some of 7 r W..,'. ',.M"M. fg.,. G his testimony, also demonstrated that hir. Husted had a poor attitude toward the g heanng on the cheating incidents. The judge could find no basis for excusing or .c4'..w,7,, y

'4,,"'Ni 4. ;. c ?,)

overlooking hir. Husted's poor attitude and found that, in the current hearing, t - ') v4 .? hit. Husted continued to display some of the same traits that led to the initial fA conclusion about his bad attitude.81 y 7 -p ? ) With regard to the issue that he added to the proceeding, the judge found g ('; :.f .w, c... ', 1.i that Afr Husted's job performance in a variety of positions over all his years k, %. o.y at GPUN was satisfactory and that the uncontroverted evidence established that 7

<' :,p,

,2. - 'l hit. Husted's attitude toward his job. nuclear safety, the NRC, and regulatory requirements always had been professional and appropriate to his responsibili- '-6 .~, ~ ~ ties. Funhet, the Administrative Law Judge found that hir. Husted's classroom ~ evaluations from his time as an instructor showed that he was a generally com-petent instructor w ho had never reve11cd any demeanor or attitudinal problems.n Nevertheless, in deciding the last issue (i.e., whether the "punishment" fit the "crime"), the trial judge concluded that the original license condition should not be vacated and that Mr. Husted also should be disqualified from serving as a ,g 4 ,,j licensed operator or an instructor or supervisor of such operators. In short, the .C f> N...,_,3-

,1 (,,]

judge found from Mr. Husted's failure to cooperate with the NRC investigators, , ',,7}g. f ; ',, j', ,nJ-.Q his lack of forthrightness before the Special Master, and his continuing disregard ( . - ' ! git. ' c; in the current hearing for the regulatory process that "[t}he potential continues (, ii. ( ] b f 'C to exist that this unacceptable attitude toward the NRC regulatory process can J -{, 7 adversely affect his teaching performance or the exercise of his management x ~, ,c' responsibilities contrary to public health and safety."" i y, C,. II. 7 i e,. i j, f 'f e. In his appeal from the trial judge's decision, Mr. Husted claims the judge t ~lt j.- erred in refusing to vacate the condition barring him from his former position as -, s supervisor of non licensed operator training. He argues that the judge below l y

',, p..,.

,'l applied an erroneous legal standard that permitted the judge to ignore the , ' i'J V: 4.'. favorable evidence regarding Mr. Husted's job performance and attitude as an ,f 7 employee of GPUN.8' Next, Mr. Husted asserts that the hearing judge erred in

. r;.

- : j.y,., j a. c K.:. r. ~. z . ~... .

m..

.r L ' 'm e 30 yg, y .Y* .2 l. 11 g u 37s.% I ,.?

3

( l g" 't afg a 333g, s. .e -** f ' 23 g g 39 ,y f 24 Sner c( Chadas lis.at (May Is.19s7) a 163s s. .S p ,O ^%, e.- e, ,6. A .t' 8.~ m h, 3 i ], j l c', ,,, 5 .,.',A .= 3 4 g s.= k,, g 4. e 4

- ..V',,

.+.

' 2

~ LI 1

aa,,,n,,g,

- _w c-.,

,v -., y ;.c. 'y ,g., w w. s.$ i; %, f. e,. c, ,4. .. g /: 1 g. Q;,c ,f, 4 m e,s -). u: o y.: o-1 i, .z.s 2 g ',. s ,..t.. .y ,. 3 .$,o e .m ..t : ...e p2 j,.- .e q- .':s.. ? ' :4- _L _ Y, >1 'O 6nding that he (1) failed to cooperate with the NRC investigators, G) was not forthright in his testimony before the Special hlaster, and (3) had a poor attitude A ls<. af g h,'. ~f.' .[,(' f ';.7 p ;;. MK ';@:, - c V ", l3 j .l~,, i toward the hearing on the cheating incidents - the factual 6ndings supporting . ;. :. L ' J .N - the trial judge's determination not to vxate the license condition? De NRC , _. e.. .f, ' ' c i. " (.: staff supports hir, Husted's appeal and essentially mirrors his arguments.2* , f(.dr,.f p.gfg'T s. yH, a, ,f ,J Similarly, OPUN supports Str. Hasted's appeal but it focuses its argument almost s;. m entirely on the legal standard it perceives the trial judge applied in continuing 2, 1 <.' > .\\ the disqualification of hir, ilusted from his former position? On the other side '<7 :

j'9 }., '

,.r [ of the coin, Tht!A urges affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, + , ;1l. arguing generally that the trial judge's fXtual 6ndings are all supported by the reccrd? ' ' by.b'.. ' '. the trial judge's factual findings, We then turn to the other arguments of the We initially address the second argument of hit. Husted and the staff attacking s.,, l - .L.f ~- parties. A. As the briefs of hit. Husted and the staff recognize, we clearly have b the power in reviewing the factual 6ndings of an administrative law judge or a licensing board to substitute our judgment for that of the fact 6nder if the record fairly sustains a different result? That is not to say, however, that in conducting our appellate review we may ignore the trialjudge's findings and simply find the facts anew for "we are not free to disregard the fxt that the Licensirig Boards [and Administrative Law Judges) are the Commission's primary fxt find [ers)."" Rather, when we review findings of fact we will reject or modify 6ndings of I the [ trial judge) if, after giving [his) decision the probative force it intrinsically commands, we are convinced that the record compels a different result.")2 Rus, l we must be persuaded that the record evidence as a whole compels a different conclusion and we will not overturn the hearing judge's findings simply because we might have reached a different result had we been the initial fact 6nder? l Before us, htr. Husted complains that the trial judge erred in 6nding that he failed to cooperate with NRC investigators, was not forthright in his testimony l before the Special blaster, and had a poor attitude toward the hearing on the I? cheating incidents. He p!xes these three 6ndings under a microscope, arguing as to exh that the judge below should have texhed an opposite conclusion and I

14 at s8 54.

l

Bner of NRC suft des so,1987).

J U ~ Bnst of oM;N Qane 30, 1987). i t

Bnaf of TMM (A*gua 3,19871 I

l

Date Pe ee Ce (Cauete Nalant suam t ma i and 2, ALAB-3s5,4 NRC 397,4(O (1976k l

MNeerAere Ideas P,ehe Jeevece C# (Ba4 Genersars m Nalear ik AIAB 303,2 NRC 538,167 s {l973K 3 N egere WeAs 4 Pe=en Ce*P- (Nee M.le Pnes Na'. ear suaan. L' rut 2h ALAB.264,1 MtC 547,1s7 I (19?5). See Cerease Pa=ve and (4:4r Ce (sheartwi flama Nulaar Power Ra.s), ALAS 837. 23 NtC 525, 531 (1916). j $2 g,, w,,,,,,,, p,,,,,, p,,,, c, (pay, g,,, 3,,,, g,,s. llnd 2h ALAB 78 s Af C 319. 3 22 n 9'?). 3 l t l 473 f 4, e l g ^ l l .~ : l l ,,.i. l s t.

-l'.?,7'. W:y..to' %,E. 7 '",.g' E '% ~ l S' "O w: [Vy;,: ~ ~. :: ~ ,.L /-": a . + ' ~ Y -) ;.' 3 .K, * *,,. 4 i*., .e -. g.,.,,;.q. %c w,.. .c..

r.,,..

a ,7 7.- 7 s + ,s - V...

v: -.

,3 +. r 7 1., ,, - y . b v. .-'.r*,. <.+. p .a. 3 + ~,

.';, y '(,-

..s,. 3 3 .c ",, ;. : ; ; ..w & .a.; n t. ..a. ', JX - ' ( *. f, ' * '. yo .,m., .,.,, j ,e,W y, .c, e .l%, . f> : n . Ge,.; ->..- ) .- n .s,q. N. : ':r,.; f ^.i.., '. 'a thus that none of these findings can support the further 6nding that the license f. t. .s4 c. L ;. 7 '. ' '. i

fv.' - ]

condition should not be vxated. We disagree. When we apply the test under W.h;'[W.[;!s:.., I. which we review factual findings, we can find no convincing bases upon w hich , W ]' * > ?y,,',,;y. 9f Q 2':, y'" ;,[? g, V"d (.c /J (,]: g..,Q'

g $

Q. 4 to dispute the Administrative Law Judge's findings." OC The trial judge's findings on exh issue and the support for them are set forth p 1 at length in his dxision and no purpose is served by reiterating them here.5* M. O C', '* ', f [ ',{..rf

k..i Suffice it to note that we have reviewed the evidentiary record and closely

,. :c ^ - :: X 9: 1, /.! examined the findings on each issue and conclude that they are supported by 9 .. t record evidence or valid inferences drawn from such evidence. Likewise, we ly M.J i- 'q]'.] T have scrutinized each of Mr. liusted's numerous arguments. Although his brief 1 1,- H- .s. offers a rnultitude of interpretations, rationalizations, explanations and excuses ,(. r, f. y.fq for the critical evidence relied upon by the trial judge, hit. Husted's arguments lP. 4s - *1 are no more credible for texhing his result than the explication presented by 3 the Administrative Law Judge. Further, in reviewing these fxtual findings, we [y p3 ~ lt' 1 ^ must bear in mind that it was the trial judge, not us, that observed Mr. Husted u !~, as he testified and from that observation and testimony concluded that part of l hit. Husted's testimony "lxked credibility" and that the witness had a '"selective" memory that left a "negative impression."" We simply are not convinced, as l we must be to overturn the trial judge's findings, that the record compels i, ' l,4. - 'r"* the conclusion that Mr. Husted cooperated with the NRC investigators, was ( forthright in his testimony before the Special Master, and had a satisfactory i f'

' V.

. y .,. ~, attitude toward the hearing on the cheating incidents. Indeed, after reviewing , y... i the entire record on these three issues, we cannot state with conviction that we .m ). i 'c' fr., ' 'c. y, > 'i - eq would not have made similar findings had we been the initial fxt finder. (We f.' y.. '. 1> ~f ' % ]j might, however, have explained some of our findings differently.) Moreover, W l '^, -*j

.j although it has played no part in our decision, we note that the Special Master, li 1

the Licensing Board and another Appeal Board in the TM/ resfart proceeding l reached essentially the same conclusions on nearly the same evidence. l r. + L o', a e i {(

J'

.\\ g \\ u 1 'NJ. - ; *j - affened by the musual cucumstase m se heansts halow ht no pany ees ans;gned me dumsie burden of d 2 Alemah a the6r bneft t.he parues ignore the m ena review d the trLal judge's racwal Andess is ns F [ j puoaf. Joe are p. 470 A nots 1s. In apua of met, me parues pnserved evidence e ese of me issues and me '.,.g m.'? .f * ; inaj pas made bs Endags esthout turnes be duasum en me burden quesuen Becai.no me quesuan or =wi .., ',,/',{ party bears $e burdet as agmacans ady where me endaico as everJy bCanced and here to tral Mae ed na , y e. and me end nce m equrpm, $e turden q usuca sure u tarply sevnaweg. e l e 1 "j le uns *6 ant. we noia est at est argument ead petty was qw A to diss' ass em me burden rea on a er l

' c -

y. ~. ,m j bra bis mane conj 4 tea us when the burdam paperty 1sy At tbs pars me puceedmg sunpiy can te vwood as g .. > ' -f, J are ehere $e burdem fs0 cm se peopansra d the crraennane encompasseg ee issues ideru. fed a se heareg -l arsaceL Bia se hs* -he far beur new is the aw uut dy espessed by me tnal pdp $m h Comfrus,cm

7. o p '3 0 j

- O -/s 'e ~f smedad on hurre artem a rypical antcyc.m.s praemos where me ta van maad ran urm a se. Ju o i, c't ri, .-[, ?. l,]

W'e nose 1s. la e citarnaance, if the ed rea. for whawver reea<m ea a emad not pneense me cue k

.'.s*<, %c -Q<- ,'*.,..j pureu,e a h cc,ren.. s instrue., e. 5.nar e, me mned have b., for a i raurn a es ccen,n2.a:an l 'Ne. (j and esea ne keve me hcarue ermente vacued er ce brden quesoon daaled. >^ :l5 NRC as 35s4s. s l. "It at sh G O g ( 1* ~

, e

~c 474 1 '; e l~, [ 'i, ,, ~ ?' l., eu-p.'. c. 6 g* .g g , t\\ 3 6 [. : ~.,.y,.. a., l 'n j} * ..m . ~

'.c,-u w w.c,,. ; m. m e. W r',:"., m.,,, gy 7- --., m ..m ... ~

. 4

..x e,, 4 +, ,4 y 's - g,. ~ s s / . 3, t , i. m,,. i a .a. o, s. .f. c' ,, p G ,R Similarly, we cannot find from the evidentiary bases of those three fmdings 'U ty, . ^r,;. g. : {f1,,'g y,, e U that the trial judge's determination that the license condition should not be lifted "4 q u, 7 3 is in error. In reaching that conclusion, the judge below :hjded to the equation N.N.j;:.' jf$7 3 j[/ ~ V ,m. his belief that Mr. Husted's conduct in the current hearing evidenced some of q the same traits that led to the judge's other findings: "Mr. Husted has been 2, r; } ;- unable or unwilling to change his attitude toward the NRC's regulatory process ~ '6 ' '.i...' sufficiently for it to be found acceptable."" But esen without this added factor, s s ; s^ ". ~ f. and putting aside the evidence on the issue added to the proceeding by the s ' y .i - hearing judge 'oncerning Mr. Husted's job performance at GPUN (a subject we 4 ~, deal with in F srt !!.B), the trial judge's determination that Jte license condition s' - should not be vacated is fully supported by a valid inference drawn from the 'f 7. evidence underlying his other findings.Thus, the judge found that "[t]he potential ' p,.

f ~ *,_

~ continues to exist that this unacceptable attitude toward the NRC reigulatory process can adversely affect his teaching performance or the exercise of his ,e maragement responsibilities contrary to public health and safety" and that the license condition should not be lifted." But that inference is valid only if the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Husted's job performance at GPUN cannot be considered. We now turn to that issue. B. We agree with Mr. Husted, staff and GPUN to the extent they contend that the license condition barring Mr. Husted from his prior position as super-visor of non licensed operator training cannot stand in the face of the substan-tial, uncontroverted, direct evidence that Mr. Husted's actual job performance at GPUN was satisfactory and his attitude at work toward safety, the NRC, and reg-ulatory requirements was professional and appropriate to his responsibilities As previously indicated, the trial judge found Mr. Husted fulfilled his job respon-sibilities without showing any signs of a negative attitude toward the licensing "l4 et 364 Y '~ 14 Raser man sunply readsg the tr.al p4ge's Andep as drieing an in/wence frten te eudentiary facts thai Mr H.stad's bad sittues to.ard the requieury pacens nas qate 1.keJy to carry over true bs work if he man s'.'.coes to rewrn to bs former pasahan Mr ll.a6ad (panad by La sappmars) trna Ans fadeg as a legal siandard i .a, by obch $e Mge assess-.1 Mr. Hasied's emd.cs spectkany, he ars in the harva pdge esta%shed a lea 4 siandard to to effect est the mere esastance or the pcars.ahry tan a bad smnade wt3 advaria!y affea p* i performance is saff.csera bas.s fcw pb d.squahncaum. As Mr. Hussed recogn.res, the snal judge's dec.sicri on

is sc<ne is e.ibect to varime imarpreuucr.a. We the.k the benar new, however. a to read me pona of the henreg pdge's sunal decism lamed Findep af Faa* as facsal f.ndess, nce as esta%shes a lead siandard we nas est our reades also crrnpna w th AIAB-772,19 MtC at 1223-24 There the Appeal Beard. nerc.se g its sees spean renew e.shery and as sommiy to make surydemernal factisa! Andey based css the saasurg rec <rd

.s ~, (see he,'.c Jevice Ce of he NaaenAre (seabmc4 stauan,l' ruts 1 and 2k AIAS422,6 MtC 33,42 (1977), ~ ad"d. CtL7s 1. 7 MtC 1 (1978)), utterred frorn *e endence econars em Licenses B.ard's facraal and.rp est Mr Hasiad's bed stutude 1.AaJy woud adverseiy affect Na ph perfcrman (Jes syre pp. 468 69 ) our irmerreuuan of to test pdge's dec;sian se a:so cmsur. ara eti.h me Comm.ssWs view. cited by the tr.a1 judge ta La Andets (23 MtC et 381 n.llk $at "It]he fows of G a hearma ne ad a legal nns, he re$er a rect.al daarfransuce of thesher me AITeal Scard's condiuan shodd rema.n in ;sace." Comtrusi<wi order (Marr.a 20 1986) at 2. 475 l j j .< ~

e m'7.W;'

3..,N-#. n. ;. -P >

3a.. a '13 / ' - W rem *nwp p 7Tm -n ~ ,s .G '.(' / ,.., n. <. ; e.. f w.,y~ .vvs r 3.- q, m - n.?.. .-s s, m. o - a: 4 .i,- .,.,.7 m '.. k,~

s. ': 7 -

..Q,S ' ',. s u ,.~ . i. % y',l 3 ;(+'.

,s f,. c. ?, c.

3-. f s,- ;,.. s .'<s g ;,. (g,. y ..,.,., 1l l . p:'

q. ~ 3, -

.s ['.3, .,.s. u ^

r;1n ';; y. v

~ s c b -q c.. ,. y .a. %,f,.g: .. ] ** 9.y * .-ti. 37 y. 2, .: g

... c : '

y.*y ., x., :... ' ~; q.,.: 9, 3J, 3:, N. {..f ) process or GPUN's training program." But instead of xcepung this evidence as , e Y'MDb.M)h"j l N, } controlling, the trial judge inferred from Mr. Husted's past conduct during the N. :;a. 4f 1.', %'?y 9 t,.s:aj j ngency's investigation and hearing on the cheating episodes and from his ac-7' ' }, Q, j$ @q. yg

. f. '

tions in the current hearing, that Mr. Husted's past and present bad attitude likely &g ./Q u, would infect Mr. Husted's teaching performance or management responsibili. 4 i'%lJ# -l $ &. H ' , n' ties to the detrirr.ent of the public health and safety if he were allowed to return 3 n,. '.C, 3 ' c, to his prior positions." In the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, va2 - <c . ] .g '} this inference is not unreasonable and is sustainable from the fxts found by 2.M l the hearing judge. Balt that inference can no longer be drawn reasonably in the .y

j h V'e-J ( '.
I fxe of overwhelming uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Husted always demon-

? : J.

[ E N-l^f ]

strated a proper attitude in his job performance toward safety and the regulatory . - = - . G-J-D M'f...U process. Nor is there any question that the evidence convincingly establishes j the correctness of the trial judge's 6ndings regarding Mr. Husted's on the job '/- ,; 7 "4; W performance and attitude." Thus, the inference the trial judge drew from the 1 evidence underlying his other findings that Mr. Husted's bad atthude toward the hearings on the cheating incidents would corrupt Mr. Husted's job performance cannot stand if the direct evidence of Mr. Husted's job performance is properly part of the record. Likewise, the license condition supported by that inference must fall. But the issue of Mr. Husted's job performance, and the corresponding i ,'i evidence on that point, is beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Admin. ,f istrative Law Judge set by the Commission in its hearing notice. Consequently, l .a',- -.~ that evidence cannot be considered as the case now stands, g i.V .i ' It is well settled that NRC licensing boards and administrative law judges do 'h ',,'v not have plenary subject matter jurisdiction in adjudicatory proceedings. Agency 4 q' "'^H fxt 6nders are delegates of the Commission who may exercise jurisdiction only

('

over those matters the Commission specifically commits to them in the various j ,e hearing notices that initiate the proceedings." Thus, the scope of the proceeding 7 spelted out in the notice of hearing identi6es the subject matter of the hearing and the hearing judge "can neither enlarge nor contrxt the jurisdiction conferred by 1

/[

the Commission."" Here, the Commission's hearing nouce is clear and explicit regarding 'he scope of the proceeding. It states that the hearing shall"focus on 4 whether the following four concerns regarding Mr. Husted are true, and, if so, / , f :- ~, whether they require that he not be employed in the jobs in question."*8 The i.'. ; s rm-M notice then lists the four factual issues of whether Mr. Husted (1) cheated on V j 4, j.' the NRC licensing examination. (2) was forthright in his testimony before the ]- ,.s.t - 34 4, .s 'e -,*,'.i-r w :s wC. m "It et 3n

,J

+,

s D'
ld si s481.

. N r: s ',I, ,e . q: #. al p.g, Pe.we Ce (Case =W N4sar sam, tbs 1 and E A1.AB-4:s 22 NRC 785. 790 (19851 '? [<~ 42 c,,,,,,,, p,,,, Ce, (Miand Mam. L'ruas I sad h At.AB-23s 8 AEC Ms. W7 (1974k '3 50 Fed Reg si s7098 ~ j + .. t ' 476 i j ~

r i

\\ w x i v.- i) .4

7 v g r,)p e w,y m... g S 7* .- 7 m.;$ *.N.y. .-.m=-. q w. 7. ;,m

~.c y,y f,

J.%:N '.f '$. '*?WC;f yW*' &' 2 l[:m,. s v. ;?.W' ' J'j.'ld h. :[:y,. : dt[ g 'O

M

&y NYWe'5* N ~ s LU Q-y f~: . [f

f y?

..,1 % y w,, _ ; .>y .p, y-v ~ c.> ,, - ' s-

j..., (

u, 1, - .L ?- r ..s o- + u i. ',}.;j l e.. y,; '..

.# c

, -

e. s .e M..r. r; - Wn c .w.' s '.. e.. -. + .. :.w u -. m...-.. , yx.! e.w:%..,, yg. f<t w ,x,c ? w ~... f.. s ...m s. ~ v. ,,;~.

.~-

J g; m

../.i,m e u,: -. o m s N ..Q. Q,. -. a'6 % 'n.f,;'%, w. Q a ...a .w. j;.. x ! r,ts ; s]e w...+'~. ; : % M s !

. 4 - w.

, c' 9 = .. p.., s, d.. .e-3.,fA ' f;, M . g,.. Special Master, (3) exhibited a poor attitude toward the hearing on the cheating nga 3 Y('" pg,f.dd:$4NWNJp a Mj t y incidents, and (4) failed to cooperate with NRC investigators." , /. ,,9/'MSC[Afg fA%$) ?!..f M ;1 @,3.I( C. @M h,.M Q The hearing notice limits the inquiry to the period of the NRC investigation '.W: into the cheating incidents and the subsequent hearing before the Special Master. , A.j9;'.$.,2. M.., 4 g 'h,:p g 7.'.T> G l?. D.. t e,, ;. M, %; and nothing in the notice authorizes a general inqu'sy into Mr. }{usted's past 4j. .3,,,mg or present job performance at GPUN. Nor can such an inquiry be justified as , ' f\\'U.?..w.;7 n 3' ; M( Q,y' @j '?'M 5 6 ];;:g Y part of the question whether Mr. liusted should be barred from his former positions because the Commission expressly limited this inquiry to whether the '~' ' i'.[ 1..M;i;. 4 four particularized factual issues should preclude Mr.14usted from his prior [ ' 1 jobs The trial judge however added the issue of Mr. liusted's job performance l .7, 9i$,..t ; h'y :[ i i ').. .' :..b, ( ~ at GPUN to the hearing, declaring that "(a] full and fair hearing" requires it'8 ' A. -.'

m. W..ey. 'G ;

and that such an issue is a "logical extension [ J of (the other] factual issues."" - '~

;j g, q..

But that ruling is simply contrary to the plain language of the hearing notice cg

f.

V"'", and such an issue cannot be fairly found within its four corners. }', ' ' ,, 'a,, Although the considerable passage of time since the original hearing before <^ the Special Master makes the evidence of Mr. liusted's job performance at

(

OPUN useful in assessing whether the public health and safety require the continuation of the license condition, only the Commission can expand the subject matter of a hearing. That principle is so fundamental to the agency's adjudicatory process that we simply cannot gloss over the addition of this issue to the proceeding by the trial judge even though such a step admittedly would be f s N, W - 3 an easy and practical way to resolve the case. Indeed, because maintenance of the public health and safety, not punishment, is the purpose behind every license ~.- A " It t '8 Reput and oveer e ina.a! Preheaang Ceference 7etwary 27. lH6) a S.

- ll st 1s.

} The taa! > des the >xgid to bauty me eddamm of N maae by en:yva sem *e Corrurmssaan's buwg , ~ ,+ ance. lie ared est h nouce "sar.s la ehet u e de woe besar4 to ponds Mr Waad wh am cgipartarsty to darnerousia ha Amens fa to pomon et assae '" Rapon and orear a trai,al Prehesnrg Cmferense Jee%ery r .;*~ ' .e 27.19M) u 3 By wang me qwned luguge frmt to hearms amco muualy aws of ewmaan, however. $e >dge 4-

-+*

neien nuas,yeheded $a murar.g of *e Coun sman's nauca, i 's ;,, ,,t - rj As se paused ma pseviaasly Oupre p. 469h at es same tams he repered 4 huru's. Mr H+med anaed

.s 3

to Canemasian to sapend its acqe to include $s apesuas d shahar Mr ikmed ehend be enskded frown , 4 - e m i "D the peihare sowered by M aupalaman terveen the Couneeuhh d Penmybena and GPt.% Mr Nmed's j repas ses prensand spa the faa est an espanded hues "wodd wree've omsaderenan of en same facmal 'l, -4., isa,sse es amad me peattered hunt g" so Fed. Reg et s?.C*t ta grantans. ks sequest in es haaru's asce. Se k* . ; J *1, Camm.seum rehed upcsi $s fact *at the facmal asues wMd vernain the s sue se no adda.xmal agency resources . G N anJ4 he respared. k een mated: + fE t,*. i The Counaase regnams se eghna er se penas to h sup'.atxut Nanseeless. 6e surdance M. g, '* .,'s fa4rname to Mr. Need $e Carmunaum hu decided to grars Mr. Na ed's request for an sapaded scop resahed. et neem in part, fran an NRC pnwendeg to whah Mr. Named was na e pony Therefma, ut r. d haannt Tka t31 rovide Mr Need esh an cgyaemeury to esmimarsie be f, mens far es pnsaure P et nam e. and, ir resuhs of the hearms see favorshie to Mr ik.sied, he can een take up the sup4suon a uh GN Nciser and Se Canmewu:2. so Fed. Rag et 37.009 As as eviders frorn *e P.: test. Se ingasse gamed by se tr.al#4ge dass not eumae La esponswo reades of me Canmies.an's heanta mmce 477 a-6 - Sw N 4. 9 0 g t

~-

t s g = g jk ^ a m[ t -.-r-y --g -w--- +or v. y-v--

f-+-,--

r---,--M--n e-.-++ 4 r v -)

,.:r.- m a. m :y;..a,;w,~.. ,.v.m.. -w, f:..,. 3.f. w - ,,,y ...u,.q..'. .y w.r.y :.,, u, .r, .c, - -m. >c .. c.p. +,.p.y y. .? n-at u e ~ .r . u..,. ~ a

a. v.n. : s.,

1 .m a' .. j... 4 . c.

a..'- I. a3 ; '.,' v, s,

#..#3; y.3,.' 3 '.'a ' r, s ~,' 0.,

s 'N,.{ Y 6 e 3. 3 ~ ~ < . i.,.>. n n ~-. ...*,'..4.n c......

3. ;*..,

.. m, '3 o. f,.,'. ' i %n . ; y.. u ; -,3, ls > ;:.y~ ';y J f'A,. n s.g ; _., ' ^'[:l$[* Ip :: e . c 's;. .3 . n... w w,. ' c. .s. . V' condition, it is not unlikely that the Commission would have included this issue M> v/.'. : y.. X.., /.,.l;..w. ;'..',,, ,'?' - 5 in the original hearing notice had the matter been brought to its attention. / ;;'. T.'.,,1.%,/p lr y + J Q p.',$. [.... 3 [?>5' Accordingly, we certify to the Commission the question whether it wishes to p;J, ~,V c' ';c'] expand retroxtively the subject matter jurisdiction of the proceeding to include .. ' ydi.n 3d ; 3,if M,.. % gW the issue of Mr. Husted's job performance at GPUN. Because that evidence is ', 1 ',[ ]'%'- %'d T ',.,- O '?{ already in the record no further hearing is necessary. When the Commission ';,,; e M, y M.g. '.;,,, j responds to the cert Ged question, we will then decide the appeal. As we have E, d ' ; ~ explained, the evidence of Mr. Husted's job performance requires that the license . :, '.t r~ ..M,,9 ' yj, * ,i condition barring Mr. Husted from his former position be vrated. On the other -r,,- ( s.. a 7, l5 ',4 s hand, if that evidence is excluded from the record, we must affirm the trial e a -..5!."J._' ~,.,

1. y j.

j jo.1ge's result. ( %..;.. >..:. , s l ' ;.,1 It is so ORDERED. .7 s, , :ii c "- FOR THE APPEAL BOARD t (' .i *j C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board ) s , )

-s

-o.. .x l ~1 ' . s- .e S 2,,. 6.-,. .] 1 4 r ,ei 3, e m3 t g. '; s= s s g O t* ,.e . s,, ' ~,,,. ,\\ '?.* .y,

e. 4 3) g 4'...'..,;'

\\s g

t. s
g e

a Y a 9 3. .'g

g

~.. 6 T ,t., 1 .a. -4 *. 3,' } [ ' y. i ..C 5 g a' i . ;-f C =, .*,Q ',,, -[, 44

g r

a o D 9; 1..' /

4.

". q e _ t, 1 g s g.,, .[ 4 .s.%.-, 8.s a .:q '., e

'w'.

e a j n I '..f4.*,., ' s, ,.[ $, s , l ,J + \\., I I b, ,' s .j .,L.., e r .s s k*

A o

e O ,e e., 478 .k e a 9 y T q ' i W i e e g f p - ~ ' g S I g= 6 I 4

7. ' 4

.,7,y. ..-.7 - g..-. ; .s.. y,_,... -__r,,,. y,e

~.

,s ,3, .y r,(, i 2. 4 e *,, 2,, ', l. .f,. J. v n i , e. n r + .y y u ~ ', l., '.,f * ; v .y , '3: ,..... ~ ~. -pg, 4,- r

.u -

1 r-.. - ~ .z, n s 6.,s. _ -n. .,s q t

s.

.,. y., zi; ~, : q '., * - c:. y,, S. i c. ; .y Q:.i ?:', M] .'#.f,f..YF Atomic Safety . G.. ..;;E anc L.icensing Boarcs Issuances 3 1 l ~ 1. ~ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL t ] d O b B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman i Robert M. Lato, 'Vice Chairman (Executive) a Frederick J. Shon, *Vice Chairman (Technical) 4 Members ae J-Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grossman* Dr. Emmeth A. Lwebbe' Chartes Be:hhoefer* Dr. Caoet H. Hand. Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCohm Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour' Morton B. Margvhes' 1 G;enn O. Bnght' Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Maholkn I-Dr. A Daon Ca!hhan Ernest E. Hdi Marshak E. Maler j James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morns' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hog' Dr. Oscar H. Pens' Dr. Richara f. Coie' Ehrsbeth B. Johnson Dr. Daud R. Schink i Dr. M,chael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jorcan Nan W. Smrth' j J Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Ko! ey' Dr. Marte J. Steinder Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Klee' Dr. Quentin J. Stober ^ RK;hard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb 111 Seymour Wenner John H Frye lil' Gustave A. Linenberger* Sheldon J. Woife' l .s James P. Gtesson Dr. Linda W. Lrtt'e I j e j ~ 4 r .. c-I 4' I i 4 i I i i ? ' Permanent panel members i J. I t k i. i 3 g I l' 1 \\ t

M {N D.*,'.f.. M.S.le M. Y.3./. Yd@ CMb, r'.- ,\\ ~n. ' '[:. NN h ', , 'e.) - ' u a *. 7 $ y K. n;:.,.I l u @ c... v p a o d -A c3 q - + T,m - ~ W., '".c e.. W j; ',', y./2'tD.,.,.'. J, r. ' il

< ^ ~ ", * * -

' T:,, - - " f. '... ~. } N.., X ;.'N s..,,. .t m u s- ?. .y . ;. e 3:e. :.s,~.s.., fx v'

t..,.4. z.,:;..;n..

q <.,. r,. - '~. ,. r r.,:.... ,. ~. %e. ;,.:. s %.,k.,9,ll. ~.,. %.,9,..,,... d., :. ~. z.c.. -%.. ' k,s. f .s ; ' a . F.,w. W.. f::f, 2 :( ', \\

e.,,, p.

.y.y . < 2 .c... z -~ ~' -. ~ .u- . 1s. y cr'. .o . s. w~~~ / -,y.p;.t. : *. i..;,,y, s ..a v,:Q.,..s

f.., q.<.'.ve. <.. c3 n..y M.

.c;;.;. . ~ e ..c n. r.. m... u,, %;w, ".j >...g..,..., g i e q p,p.., =.n-.y,. 3 un.,, s... t. v ,. n y/, p,l l,. N. - r ,,. l.,7, y g S,,.'A M... >,. Cite as 26 NRC 479 (1987) LBP 47 32 t 1 l ... s. o i

h. h,w;: s i:,
.; w.y &,: :; 1. v.

l,3. D.v.r b M; d "< N@*~ p;' d 'n y W t

5: J :'

.-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ),~i ~ ; f.?.'[". :, j. '., Cli +rx"._; p g..,M.. -} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..,..m o ,.,1 m.L :n MO,-m,:y;?;4,- 3 u.,* : *.. 2, y << s {

9 y, m..,

1 , -..... ;,,E '.? @,W' f. r ':/, ; i ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD t..., .,m, i. . ; y..r, a:M..,. - .~ l.... /.i....., : ; l .y ~ x. 7% M Sofore Administrative Judges: .c ..h t .,c..3,,',; 9, - 3 r - 3 r.., ;. .cc.,e./ ,s. .y.7 - './i John H Frye,Ill, Chairman , C .,c. ^:. 4 p,.,.. Dr. Oscar H. Paris r.c.-.. s :.. - s e-Y'* ~. Frederick J. Shon ( - i .,.m

r

(.,... I l 3 In the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 0L.5 t .s [ '!J (ASLBP No. 36 534 010L) (EP Exercise) l -r s .c, ...s ...u. .n 7 'i : 't

s.. v '.

LONG ISLAND UGHTING l ~.A7T -.. '4 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sistion, i .. Y. -.. COMPANY a '.. - @ 7 g #1 . &;,.. 4;'

b 9

Unit 1) December 7,1987 t w 3.:, '.

. '.~

s, t-f l Board concludes that the February 13, 1986 Exercise of L!LCO's offsite l ^ ^ ' emergency rian for the Shoreham Station did not comply with {lV.F.! of t Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 in that the following portions of the plan I .(,...p were not tested: transmission of an EBS message to and authentication of that r, s ,- e.,.,. *% M message by the EBS radio station; school emergency plans; ingestion exposure l ... *r,,. :, 'n.. :, pathway emergency plans; and coordination and communication between LERO l r and special facilm..es. I 7 5..,;.,, -. .'y.,. :-3 :) , y ~ ~.. .,i i s ..6 s

t.. g,.

'., f 3 EMERGENCY PLANS: SCOPE OF INITIAL EXERCISE .t s t e.i ,n 'g] Paragraph IV.F.1 of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 requires that the initial 4 , ";F',, +..T! full. participation exercise, which is required prior to operation in excess of 5% l e ~ ..,, 7 'l of power, must test as much of the plan as is reasonably achievable and must JO ~ C include participation by all response organizations within both the plume and ingestion exposure EPZs. ~ t f e 479 ,.) ~'~ T" g 4 e l 4 s \\ L-- .l~ s. w a -~--y,.w

9~WRC.?u: ~. 3;i.. 6 r3,NUW,J.', w s.% T,v t iu..i Vd.s ' N. N ' ^2.. J ' ~7 n, '.'[' U: 4 'Ni.W G N C y s.a,.. ;..,; . ~...-. - ~.. y : ^ +- . ~ ,% v. < , :s 1 - c ,.. ~ -

c..,..m

..,. ;... o.. ,i.a,.. c.w. .p. v. .e- .. ~., . :- if.v..,w.m g v;. c;. ',,. y, ',?..,m. v3

.., -..x... c,

.., -e , s,,m, g. -y S. .,. c. ,W e a, ,s. a. e..n w%... J ,~.., . ~,. . s,...,u s. a.:.l 6 2 i . w :g. p.,. J.. '.. ^, RM....,. *. v. .. _..,/.x.e; w +. i . u.,.,,..,,..'. a 4.., /,. ;. ;.., s.., a .-uc .. u._ _u: c

o.,'.y -; y :..,,7 jt ENTERGENCY PLANS: fCOPE OF INITI AL EXERCISE

<4.,.c. g ...g..a,',. a .,s .e f .N,'c.jc%K'g,. ' '1.?l} M b,' g Where local government xtion or the lxk of federal stand.vds prevents the .J+pl/.M.,M4*P '-(s' X.< 16 L / ji u;,",'. (:,- testing or evaluation of a ponion of an emergency plan, testing of that portion vw .u .t m. @r? w.u.x.m.sgJ ~,M,,.;' % iv.. is deemed to be not reasonably achievaNe. .c-w. v ...y w

i.,,..

+ 1 .e.. ,.7r';..,x.c";','y,'y,f P.: ", ^ ;;'ta, -.. gy, 4 p, h TECilNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED e 1

g..

m: 'r. - <,... q.c.cg.3,.' '; Statistical validity of FEh!A's sampling technique. { .g s ,. : - c. y '. ar..'cw1 .,,g t ~u. - .g f. W.C N.....A: J, ',. '., i 4 - ,? APPEARANCES l s. t. p. e ,, a,,.,; 4 . s ,o .' 'F~, s Donald P. Irwin, Lee B. Zeugin, Kathy E.B. SfcCledey, and Jeulne ~ A. Stonaghan, ilunton & Williams, Rkhmond, Virginia, for the Long

,; e

.'I Island Lighting Company. j i- +......c Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Karla J. Letsche, and Stkhael S. Sillier, Kirkpatrick 1.

,(

& Lockhart, Washington, D.C., for Suffolk County, New York. i l " [ O,. '3 Rkhard J. Lahnleuter, Albany, New York, for htario ht. Cuorno, Governor ,... " *,-. s. c, e 1 of the State of New York. c, cf.., ; m ..a, s cq f 'c., '- C.'g 2 :. s )ef - i p4 g ~g. ; Oreste R. Pirfo, Charles A. Barth, and George E. Johnson, Bethesda, l .i . E-?. [%f.EO, c.11 htaryland, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, y.-

r..;,1 a

(.

. < f._,: g 3 -lj William R. Cumming, Washington, D.C., for the Federal Emergency hianage-f

, m: s' [' l-S ment Agency. .s

a. ;..,., *.

A -( ~, p. f .,g T. 'i.,. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION 3 4 m \\ u. - ? e m. Introduction i .,g .....,,':.. m. 1,- l t 3,. 3.. ..f e. 4.w', f ;..',..N, In this Partial Initial Decision, wt Mdress the question w hether the February .e. I , f, q %. ..f.c' - %/. 13,1986 Etercise of the offsite emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power y ,.7., p, ' d ;, ^y* g / l,. (' M Station satis 6ed the terms of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendit E 11V.F.1. That Q'.g e.j; c. 7, -,.1 provisico states the requirements for initial exercises of offsite emergency plans n. J.J.' $'f. t ;f ':.s for power reactors that must occur pnot to commercial operation. This question Qf.t was presented by Contentions EX 15 and EX 16, which assert that the Exercise ] p?,, ' *. 'q, p,hF " ^ * ' y. f'..,., was too limited in scope, and by Contention EX 21, which assens that the s .y ' [ b

s. wie sizes uW h rEAtA were too small to support its conclusions. We hase

.; p e ^'I ~ ( 480 4 I ,e 6 f t 0 g 3 A g g# e 4 sg .a. 9 4 4 P e s k ~ k .k 9 .g

x, -c---~-- , f,y f s py ;-

m. -.m u-

, y. 3-

. ', -;9. y <{./.+ :f',

<,. ;.<* w, ~. g.o ;, y. \\ _ ;,g, + p ~ .t. ~ y<y ~ ,7 o -A-L ' j.," + c a 'I ..,, [-~ ,'q ;, '. _ f n' ! ~ ~ ' ' 8' .'.. s ..? n < -. a..,..n. ~. ;,,. = ,l c- > ',,t ~ ,....t'. concluded that, because of the failure to test certain functions, the Esercise did j' j t, ,T ,,fp;,.4-.,.s not meet the requirements of j IV.F.1. ,',,,; L./ p..,, j' The issues raised by these contentions present quesuom not previously W.. resolved in an adjudication. Our conclusions on those questions may hase a l-

j. g,; 3

j,.),

? e 'p: - substantial impuet on the posture of this proceeding. Thus, while we are still s, considering the parties' posidons with respect to LERO's performance during 5'

he Exercise, we have decided to issue this Partial Initial Deenion detailing the

's reasons for our conclusion in advance of our decision on the remainder of the contentions. We believe this to be consistent with the Commission's direcuon to expedite this proceeding to the masimum extent consistent wit fundamental ,s fairness. 1 This case represents the first time that, because of state and local government .c opposition to its application, a power textor operating licer:sc applicant has s

6 i taken on the entire responsibility for offsite cr- *ncy preparedness. Long

~ Island Lighung Company ("LILCO") has done Wn by preparing an offsite emergency response plan, known at the "SNPS Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan"(LILCO Plan"), and by setting up an organitation that would implement the Plan in an emergency, known as "LERO" (Local Er.ergency Response Organization). LERO is composed pomarily of LILCO employees and contractors, working with support organizadons such as the -.i Araerican Red Cross, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Energy, f and various bus, ambulance, and service companies. See LILCO Plan, Chap. 2. J The adequxy of offsite preparedness was extensively considered by the Li-y,, f censing Board h proceedings spanning 1983 through 1985. Intervenors Suf-folk Lounty, the Shoreham Opponents Coalidon, the Town of te sthampton, the North Shore Cmlition, and New York State raised issues regardmg the planning aspects of the LILCO Plan. After hearing, the Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision ("PID") on offsite emergency planning. See LBP.85 12, 21 NRC 644 (1985). The PID included findings of fact and conclusions of law on issues of human behavior, credibility, conflict of interest, FPZ boundary, LERO work. ) ers, training, noufication, information to the public, sheltering, protectise xuon i ..j recommendauons, evacuation, special fxilities, schools, ingesdon pathway, loss of offsite power, stnke by LILCO employees, and legal authonty issues. After further heanngs on the issue of relocation centers, the Liceming Board issued a concluding Partial Initial Decision on emergency planning, ruling on the relocadon center issues and on whether the LILCO Plan provides reasonable i assurance that adequate protecuve measures can and will be taken in the esent r I of a radiological emergency at Shoreharn. LBP 85 31,22 NRC 410 (1985). The Board found that it did not. The Bmrd found that there is not "anything unique e about the demography, topography, xcess routes, or jurisdicuonal boundanes in the area in w hich Shoreha'n is located. To the contrary, the record fails to reveal any basis to conclude that it would h impossible to fashion and implement 431 l i \\

m ;i, , h O3'.N M% d.C (;.W,%{', N :) 'W; b ?. ' ~ 'r ~ ' ? V. ~

.t3 - f :*: c;s s

. x:.. nc :

.. y , ~,?. Q. ;. ' )..Q.' U L* J, ' ' ' y..... c. y - s,',.r ~ ..,a >\\. ~ ' ~ g a.. ,r. ~, a e'. b i N' s'.{ { ?

y.'h

,. i - *.+ s. . ;p - f.. ;.". ; n

[ ; ' '<,7

.... u.. e J -7. x s effective offsite emergency plan f.c the Shoreham plant." Honver, the u 'm. ~)s -f?., T; k p,' 't .6. % / ",y '.-' J' Iscard wed that its inabditv to find cea onable assurance stemmed in large part G 'e' '. f,..' @ ;,. ~ > ' i... j,. J-45 ; '2 from Suffolk County's and New YoQ State's opposition u., the plant. Id. at ~> @, ~. .. '..~f, R,'e , e ',. 427. Nrtions of these decisk>ns on offsite emergency planning were appealed; s . Q.,d Q~,.)lG, U ': K.; f ' Q 'I certain aspects were reman &d for further consideraten betore another Licensing ' T.f Board, and srxne are still pending appe.tl.1 e. On Jume 20,1985, the NRC, at LILCO's request. asked FEMA to conduct -' \\, f.... . '? an Exercise to test offsite crocrgenc) preperednen at Shoreham based upon t!,e oc LILCO Pb. In "e one-day Exercise held between 05:30 arid 16:00 on February 5 % :7 ' - 13,1986, a team of thirtr.cight federal evalvte t obser,ed.ind gra&d LERO's ~,. :[ Q,. N ~,7 performance pursuant to that Plan. The results of the Exercise are set forth e +2 ' f ,3. in a Post. Exercise Assesur.cnt issui4 oy the Federal Emergency Management 3', Agency on April 17,1986 ("FEMA Report"), which was 9dmitted into evidence ~

f 0 : c. _

as FEMA hhibit 1. F. fri a m0 tion dawd March 7, DS/,, Suffolk County, New York State, and r ,~ the Town of ScuJiarnpte: ("Interveoors") revuested that the Commission advisc i the p2 sties to this proceedi. 4 of their procedural respor'sibilities concerning any heanngs on the February 13, 1985 Exercise. LlLCO and the NRC Staff responded later that mornh; LILCO requested the appointment of a board to f hear exercise related ma;ters and the conduct of expedited hearings. On June 6. ,h '.., '. + ,j' 1986, the Commission o.dere.1"immedi.w. initiation of the exercise haring to s. consider evidence which ?ntervenors enight wish to offer to show that there is , 3g a fundament.tl flaw in the LfLCO emer;er y plan." CL!.861),23 NRC $77, f

)

4 s 2's x 579 (1986)..t directed the Chairman of the Atc nic Safety and Licensing Board

7. _ 7. 'j a d

Panel to appaint a Board consisting of the members of the Board that issued .s . 7, '?- ..? -e7 V the PE), ;f they we.t avai able. It directed that Board "to expedite.he hearing . 12 to the rr w.aum extent consi' tent with fairness to $c parties, and to issue its decisior ti:. the complet'on of tbe prcreeding." /J. at 582 y s p [* I Lllf 0 tot apenals e enres um.es trin $e MD Gegal a.manry, r.mte er ruven, and led d v4.s pian) and ' *, ~ e ane um.e frmi m annd tag MD 'cancernes es m.nter a persans ehe nevs sans m.suant-g). truerverus ] artesied a mam d smas firwn Dr., MDs he r4,= Boas ervered t"IO's legal eaAmuy a yes:s trinn es .,-. x .'xra.a1 ageus, and aritmnJ me Lums Boare f.nt,as as LJtf0's peeg an. se6 Lam, and sewrwanship argwnerus. ALAB lis, 22 SIC 6s10945L (b serww h Camerussica averend, cN.ornra ears.4ers an or y4 i M*,P '( , 3 '.: ' .,,s te prem.pum g esuca =*1'.e romandig a se seaham an4 warew.arahiy orgsmerna CaJ 64,13,24 SIC 22 .l 0 966). We tums.rg Board W me yes irasaned psesugs an 24 seal.sra terrand. 't i i- -t he Ague r est uuudy we up enly Lsirrenors' fact.al amea:s a arformed *e teemrg Board en awa. ..a- . ;. w.- r.t.r gs i==.. nd. %.s es O) is7 ase; c2>,ois essess, ai is 4,,,,s. c) hc.ruai e..eu.i. i \\ p;ars, and (e. saaJ or dacerary easd e,idasary rdags relats to recep.an corner umaes. AtAB-E32,23 SIC ) e '/- (.,',, + Iss n 946). on p sums for revise, $e Carren.asum easpied revice et past raus, mass. two emes mir4 W sze and the sasd e<rwere. 4. heeptal ev nsism plare. order er sepswer !9. Itla La CtJ 8712,26 SIC 313 0957k ics (nunsam af6rmed se versand er *e b<spta) evsa uan nm.e and seversed me rareer a d me ,1 - - i, too E7Z mae wa.es. L';ve me Carrenass.m's e.ggesum a C1J-SSls, es Angst paard oms,4cred Illt'O s 4* ameals n.Lre a LILfo's fever en emoct d armerum and romanes em *e shensce er a mau part Atan447 - ' s [' 24 STC 412 0914). De us.m er te sisiatabiy d M rerous a waars was hesed runrun heroes 6e oL3 I %ard. mat Bard t.as racercly reedved the nam p;an med h sirimar 4.sps.ua lap 87 30,26 NRC 42s I (19 8'). s, e 482 E D 9 d ' P 9 s 4 s g g. 4

7~: 4 sy. .... m..n...:.r Tt m. :.;.,e.:g,.-.:..: w;r,p m b 3., ,e=.,,#" n.v;>. .,m. y,n, g;m 1.m, !.c m;.m,. ~ v u. ^

a-

. n a,a.. 9, " <d 'd.?p p'.* 9.,,. : " % n -e , e.' ' ; !:.: :;Hg\\;.3 r - -w;%}97 [i' 'g. p . 9 )J.:;j.g[I.,'." " '[ l',; ' y 9 % ', T, 'b ' \\ ' '

iT M S,.[$q.g sy

.(.M

r

. *y' .,O w V:, - v p. Vy& - ,1, = n' ~ n-W.a jMc:t;:A ? y .',l .N c.v, .c

D My::w.p!.g.f.. x...& lui:

ff. ;.;e. r L. t . ; x.% ~..GM. w n., s.m. ?. ;,...,. s.M '..,.n 3,.c.,.. u. ., g -; r...;; s.p.. . v,.. 3 . p .1 ..p.. - s

. 9 y

: p :, v.

. y, t. v. g %p.,. .w,. - c -,: . e 3: J[ < g..} 'f?,C ',G;p The litigation of the Exercise issues proceeded. De Intervenors in this phase <. a 's iQ. M / d.ii of the emergen:y planning litigation are Suffolk County, New York State, 4; y.')p;[ff[I"..d@M l d,

b..?

y and the Town of Southampton, although the Town of Southampton did not ..F h . '; YM participate in the prehearing conferences or the hearing. On August 1,1986, ' V.; ;. f @s: j...;,,' f. M g Intervenors submitted 162 pages of contentions which were ruled on by the V. .u.g,s.gte:d 'd.! Board in an unpublished Prehearing Conference Order of October 3,1986, nat " QQ',j :5,j0j Order prompted a motion for reconsideration from FEhfA and objections M'"y from Intervenors. In an unpublished hiemorandum and Ordc. of December N. 3 ~ f, 73 ' 11, 1986, we clarified and largely reaffirmed the October 3 Order. FEh1A .c sought interlocutory review of that portion of the latter Order that reaffirmed /, the admission of Contentions EX-15 and EX-16 which are decided herein. Its

p. s [. :y,' f '

,4. vc. ? The hearings on Contentions EX 15 and EX-16 began on hiay 13,1987, with p ~, i.', J petition was denied in ALAB 861,25 NRC 129 (1987). ~ ., p. y. > LILCO's witnesses and continued through hiay 15.2 Tr. 5961-6247. LILCO's , _ - 9. c, v n,.T ' 's d panel resumed the stand and completed their testimony on hiay 20. Tr. 6801-s ~, ' . ' i 978. LILCO's witness on Contention EX 21 testified on hiay 26.2 Tr. 7255-y '- 354. New York State and Suffolk County presented testimony on Contentions ';5-i EX 15 and EX 16 beginning on hiay 20 and concluding on hiay 21.' Tr. 6918-u.. ., ?, , " 'f 7250. Suffolk's witness on Contention EX 21 testified on hiay 26 and June 18.8 Tr. 7354-411,8876 915, respectively. FEhiA presented its entire testimony June jo. ..:$ [, 9 through 12,16 and 17.6 Tr. 7446-8750. Staff presented testimony on June 18.' .q j ,',m.. v. c g Tr. 8764 876. 1 q. ~ All of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by , q,- t O g g [4 $.f u.; ', ' the parties on Contentions EX 15, EX-16, and EX 21 have been considered in .~ ,;f formulating this Decision. Those not incorporated directly or inferentially in > 1.b ^; K'. ' ' this Decision are rejected as unsupported in fact or law or as unnecessary to the q rendering of this Decision. .c; s = - : ' ', .rl ,.v e. c .p.'..'. t, p 2 aco.s EX.15 and EX 16 tesumony was preseted by Charles A. Daverso and Dentus St Behr. It o ss adtruned t ,.g ,q as LECo EINbit 12. Tr. 596s. s' 8 .g, ,,( .v y,.5. ] tlLCo's tesumony m EX.21 was pesased by Oades A. Dawoo. h was admtued as ULCO Eskba s, '-t. :. ' '.. '4

21. Tr. 7267. 7359.

.,. i j 'nts tesummy was pasetal by James C. Baranski, Wtuiam t.ee Colmea tawrence B. Czech. oregory q.4 C. %nor. James D. Papde. Oades B. Perrow, Frar* R. Petree, and Harold Rachard Zook. h was adm.tued as . :, "n cd New Ycrt state Ethhts 1. 2, and 3. Tr. 7060. Mr. Zod wahdree for personal :sases. Tr. 7054. s- 'd- 'e' t U 3 susoik's prefded tesummy was sponsored by Gary A. simon and stephen Cole. De lauer was unasadable to '. J. *.[' :'., .T.i tesufy and the tesumany was corrected appegnately. h was admined as suffo;k County EaNht 99. Tr. 7354 59. 'FEhtA's tesumony was peserned by Roscr B. Kowieski. Joseph Il Keter, and Thomas E. Baldew It =as e,* .i admued u RNLA Ethbst 5. Tr. 7453. In general, we found RMNs tesumony to be fonhnght, candid, and un6tased. It has been mcst vabable to us in the peparauon of our decmon on these and the rernauur:g tssaes. I sta#'s tesumony mu preseted by sheldan schwartz and Bernard IL Weuc. It was adtru:ted as sta5 Ethbit

1. Tr. s765.

483 ~ l 6 f 4 \\ l ~,i w q

e, f

y 7 m s F E

i . +..:w g; 'a w; ij a j'. m,.p.

p,.r,,m.,.'...,;g,?, t,j$;;,,..,

.. n z. +,.. y s. c -.. a.

. 3,,

.e-n.,',, 3 0.g. t. 4. q. ,s,.4 i., p. +. , i.,, s. 4s t- ... ~, j , QWm p ', c g,4... m..y s.. v,i,..,r, h.,y. , = w: . p n..p :.s.1r,' e ' s..

s 1

s 9.. a n s.:.,.,., C_ L,..- - - " - ' -f- -- ' - ~ ,. g..r..,,..;..,.. P i&s. 2,. J ^ 1 ,s m .,r?.'. 4' 3

Pg%.15.h. p d,.*f., ap ;d,W ':l

,s 2.2 s r >d. n' %y;&e.,\\ %. 6Q,;'m., >,,.%.' f, a q j Y '"Q .,e. v ,? . v;... ' :. U. d.

.cp%s h...;;.

O. ' < ?.c:p; lf..>ygi n. '.t. s 4 1. Dn,SctsSslot1 - e&,.u. e. z, <,s :..,..,.'w-o. ', %Wo:,, A N::mh.h$NN.N.m., ~;N, h M.i d .w.i u .> s., I. CONTENTIONS EX 15 AND EX 16 Y&;x;W.%.e@r w$Ibhb.$N. !' ? k$hkk

r y.

q. q,,a n. y x - ;i t A.

The Allegations .m. .m..c:w... :y'. --3 ...;p,M, a'.g d.*6,9 Ef s n. e i%v [T#.69M.'l N9@b 7sM of the LILCO Plan was not a "full participation" exercise as defined in NRC j... O?i Contentions EX 15 and EX-16 allege that the February 13, 1986 Exercise M',h'l.QM.,.2 [ : L ' $ P. regulations, Intervenors allege that the Exercise did not yield meaningful results g'kg.y.t 9,.y, , q%.. on implementation capability as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47 in that it did not Ohk@?? 'jf.y.%y 4W.]' ' , Q include demonstrations or evaluations of (1) major ponions of the LILCO Plan i.4 'f -... '. ". l V or (2) the emergency response capability of many persons and entities relied '. f.^ .P,};;,<,.Q =, M.+;..g -,. f, '.. upon for Plan implementation. , e,,,.. r.> m, ;:.; s,. .ac ..,z s. .,, - u ,7;;;.. 2 y, s .m _.g..,v.

ll.,, rf @:..... - -'l J ' f

.,',I B. The Regulatory Scheme " 1,.. '. ! 9,. . r..s .c j;4 The Commission's regulations bearing on the?e contentions state: '%~ f : a. ;'f. ;. 3 -.4..,, y 7. A full.pardcipadon' exercise whid tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency t 'I( i plans as is reasoubly achievable without mandatory p2blic pardcipadon shall be ccriducted ' i ~^' - X for each site at, hich a power reactor is located for which the first operadng license for that " LM. [ site is issued after July 13, 1982. This caercise shall be conducted within two years befor2 . D.# .j ' h.ip,. '1,f .'y. the issuance of the 6rst operadng license for full power (one authorir.ing operadon above l y ><p[, f ',, %,M'. ;*

k'i.yh. ;4'.. 'i.',,-j r. ;-

~ Oc Y/ M of rated power) of the 6rst reactor and shall Wlude participancri by each State and local I 'a-M ' [L, ; ,- n -d;.1 government withLa the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingesdon l,J s.?,1.y.t 4., ..'t.. exposure paQway EPZ.. f - *.v v ; g.,k...;. y' 5 a -, $.g,W,%.~h '.".,, m.. w V........w ,<.,a.,.-.a Nb .~ t c .R.Q.,i.'5)q@.;.jMi.. .. W $; l' ' W arue,wuon" who used in conjuncum wuh emergency preparednesa caernnes for a parucular sua / P j. s-y[. - Q e P.'.,[f.*[ m,an,,pp,ogm omaa ioc,i,na st,,,ots o,.na 3,,n,,, p,,onn,2 psy,,cacy and scuvely take 3.;.,; part a teaung thou imegrated capabthty to adequatsjy assess and respond to an accident at a c<rnmernal l.,

,, G /;'.;

{ ' ft.. t. ~" ? 'N' nuclear power plarit. W partepation" includes tesung the major observable portens of the onsns and n .P , 4 c, - T ;gl '. g - 4 offsus amargency plans and mobd.rxim c( state, local and hceses personnel and osher resources in j 3 ,.1- >[ ':b (

4 sufHcient munbers to venly the capabshry to respond to the accidet semano.

l i y w..,4. a,. i,+. .Wu wf .,y u .s / t. 7, b t,)%., x.. 5 - .-9..? I ,. ' %.,, ei N. ; g' clM 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,11V.F.1; $2 Fed. Reg. 16,823,16,829 (May 6, o..-

1. s. a.

.,v . w... "m b... 1987). I .~ v l M N $.$,.M @E'k k $l.M.% L L, M'. While the [ntties have focused principally on the terms of the quoted h,

' //,[%.(N N @.

yQ paragraph of the regulation, it is necessary to understand how that paragraph fits i l 97,', y 9; J-p;%'? into the scheme of the provision dealing with exercises in order to understand A.. e;%i. T,14. > ?,, Q /Z,. ' the Commission's intent with regard to the scope of the exercise required prior y ' n ?y q p : ' (.y'f;',.';4 '.(c,. w. m to reactor operations in excess of 5'E of rated power at a particular site (hereafter Jq;; referred to as LM "initial exercise"). The structure of f lV.F, which contains the j y f.:m. -: '. jd[bi, *p - 4., ' f l j quoted paragraph as well as four others dealing with exercises, makes it clear

L.3y;6Tgm,r. t o., N. @, '.'- ~

l

._ag that the initial exercise is to meet certain requirernents that do not apply to
y

- + > a ,s ./ .gl' a l .,o

t '.

3 i 7,,A '[ i f i 484 n-0' 4'.'. <r it.-

\\

i = - - [ - L*'s j l ,4 -. . 3 e g g q s g$ ,[.. +. t E i, "t - '.4" n 6 'I ?' b, i o. ,5 Y '; t f g - ' + = *.. 4 _t g_- ,,*.4

1..

,, +. 1 i 'e 4 9 4 y G' *., ; m, = r, e e' s, ",i.,.,', i sy ; 'l

? 4 4'

N,* l w 'g.. e t

O 'y(&Q.Q.h,4pifp.;;;g.;;,y y y v.- y,:p!

y., N @,. Q.p W.w ^ pj.:,'/j A.. g. @ c,d g 4...f.<.@?d. g y; e,s_ 9

..;,., ~ c. s< M '; e.. > ' ...w.,,A. 6

+

3 -: ', s... ~ - ,, n. ;... s, y; h;.. - ;p..e ->, y. ,,y. y y,. t. 4..2. m, -. - y., n.;. s, ... e .<.'i,.'/.' '~ m:,.,cq y ~ ./.. y*'4 *, -.,n o, .I w J,Q,g.,. s<. ,4 .......,,.s a,. r "mg Q..,, -..a .m n :y.:n x ww. 7~- .. q'. -' 'g 'x e ~ ~ '3 ;y, ;, n, m l

n..w/g y;gg3'W

.. 5,, c,. 43 m.- i c'e,,n. ...-h 3. f;..:40g. 11 ML: ::.'aw.c....: J...: x ^ ? ': u, . : ^ m .l y :4..~, y u.'g e fr i:;&.'. r,!). n* p,z e c w's.' *tl N. w^ pl..r, -i m

c. f.

.a qm . t y:. " g-x.:?,j ~. m,n s 7 o c 3:n.g, f, g.,;. ' subsequent exercises. After providing that exercises are to be conducted, that %I;yt;!p$ :.Q provision lays down requirements applicable to initial exercises in 11, requires ..d M'b.'In M annual licensee exercises in 12, requires that state and local government plans for each operating reactor tite be exercised biennially with either full or partial ' ? f [; %9;.f.1.' d '%participation (hereafter referred to as "biennial exercises"), and seu standards [,# ' ' ~, i '.y . iN* q

'c'}g(y,y governing the frequency of both full and partial state and local government

(, participation in 13, provides for remedial exercises in 14, and requires critiques 'g L-of exercises in 15. J J p; o, The quoted paragraph is unique ir this scheme in that it requires full V ~' . s. participation in the initial exercise for a site by each state and local government ~ ' ~ ' ' ,4 i k;.[. -;1;., N'M '.,t. ;F within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each state within the ingestion

o.t -T C.

A exposure pathway EPZ. In mntrast,13, while requiring full participation in at ,.., #..g: 'c. [ ;.. least one exercise at least biennially by each state and local government, permits c. i ,w '.,. } partial participation with res pect to any given site if the state or local government -(' has fully participated at ancther site. Further,13 allows a state that is included

f. - '

T... f in any ingestion exposure p.ithway EPZ to exercise its related emergency plans 7 . f s. # only every 5 years. t .Q. ac. .w. Moreover,11 states that the initial exercise is to "[ test) as much of the h-y;. g censee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without e 34k l[ mandatory public participatim...." No similar requirement is placed on sub-m '[ *4.o k4l::j.q. 'fr??iJ'" ] sequent exercises. Clearly,11 states requirements for state and local participa. -4o a'- +.. W.d T ',.j tion in initial exercises, whi;h are unique to those exercises, 3 '.c f. ' T N Mi!ii p.j iT 'Thus it appears that the definition of "full participation" found in footnote T c - < fj;;;. 4 applies to both initial and biennial exercises, and that j lV.F.1 places certai,1 ,n, ~f.,.. - s J;. ~..Mq,, t, ..-..L requirements on initial full participation exercises that do not apply to biennial n: s

s..

y full participation exercises.

~.

l C. LILCO's and Staff's Positions o LILCO nonetheless takes the position that there are no additional require-4 4. s. 1 ments placed on initial full.panicipation exercises. Staff agrees. LILCO notes that the Commission's regulations, as originally adopted in 1980, contained a ~: ' 'M '.M y, ' fj requirement that offsite exen:ises for all plants - wncther achieving their full-n power licenses for the first time or already licensed - must test "as much of the . y; {,i c<. V/ i licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without j mandatory public participation." This condition applied to all offsite exercises _ ? ? g, %i until the paragraph was amended in July 1984. LILCO states that during this '.' ' TW;,.

r..j period, exercises deemed "full seaie" omitted variou elements such as ingestion O4 Pathway and recovery / reentry, citing Tr. 720812 (Papile, Baranski).

... e ^ 485 i n t 4 ( s. r.

n s

'? 4 9 r w ? t b L.,

ff_Y., -....,. hc.-.,, m4. >.:c.f"'h: E, l ? '. '.;;; c.,.,.. ..e '. n : ~.,

' h. h ?

i 'Y T. W T..A. W,@,N3.i? E ...? ~ X-XJf. M - i [iM, A.... w. m&.,, D: 1 g ';p.,'; ?i,? )s,i.N'e5:2 q' h M,*. ~.. W: ', L +. \\ U t. r s.. a..;. . ? ::y.. -; ' g'vc + p- ' 7-W' u ,'%1 /,. ? gl;, c,s,e :.... m Av.-..~,, p. e,p. '$.1,.f, p,3; .',i,,. ',. l % e. - A 'V 'I? UN

s

. m.,

..g
-,.y q y. ; ~

, e.;;. m ; w._.;s q t . w., %-..,1., w,.. m.';:r t y;p d~;.

y m,.f., a s 7,, -

..i ww

v g,.

j g,a

f.,

' '

W; l, s -

il,1[7a,.,w.., pt.D[I.?rh[ j ; f.

5. c" d -

LILCO notes that the July 1984 amendment relaxed the frequency of full.

)

participation exercises for sites with operating licenses.8 See 49 Fed. Reg. hNN(M[..M$.P.Q., Q[T.. 7 i g }&cM;M 27,733-35 (July 6,1984). In so doing the Commission revised the language LK-VZ cM:W,9t 1 %M U4i of jlV.F.1 to read essentially as it appears today, aside from a few unrelated Mi.Q[(, $N l'id[.5 d [ .S M.QI$ differences. LILCO maintains that this amendment addressed only the frequency

kNi$. M, MlU M. [Nr.i c.I of exercises and was not intended by the Commission to make substantive IM.;

- t$..[h[ changes in the scope of initial and biennial full participation exercises. Tr. 6219 ?. -.. r.,7 ;.7.s v ,, 7., 5 6 20 (Behr); Tr. 6191,6853 (Daverio). c c,b,......

i.p,<; r 7.

a LILCO correctly notes that the sentence structure: ,s... e y... .~ .t . U., S : ~. . M-c, fs.[, 'f'., ". t c .], ac['. G'_ , k* y??.',} A full participation exercise which tesu as much of the licensee, State and local emer-i 1, < ',.,.' < # gency plans as is reascnably achievable without.nandatory public participation shall be l A M $}.;/ I a :." Cij)

o

? ;, , g,,

cceducted.

1*1 [. ~.y s 3-g.p.g,. g'. 0 [:.p ;< ; f.; g. j A ' 3 ' g.t. ',q a4 f a. m. ).9...3 s ambiguous because it confuses the grammatical rules concerning restrictive - n. A, ' J ,.- . '. 1 n., 4 o and nonrestrictive clauses. However, LILCO believes that the grammatical 2 s' 'f., ., 'O. W o, i e. ~'[^ji confusion is largely cleared up by the deriva'. ion of the sentence which shows = that (1) the phrase "full-participation" exerciss (and its apparently synonymous . f: S l,, predecessor "full scale" exercise) applied to b(th initial exercises and plants that 7 c.#.? already held full-power licenses, (2) exercise 1 run during that period omitted

i-

.M. ' " various plan clernents, yet were still found to comply with the Commission's . f '3. c.;. t.. Pc.q regulations, and (3) there was no intent on the part of the Commission, evident v.! (. MJM,. / M. 1 31 from the Statement of Consideration in the 19M amendment to the rule, to alter E'g: yg j;M 7, ; 7g[ (q the general applicability or meaning of the phmsc. TVy. A.,..Q~;M. '.I b;.;f, c. a.*d; WN LILCO finds support for its position in the preface to the Commission's latest ~n < -) f.h'Ng%,., w.p ; ... M. %. w.J.r.:. : 9, p.j revision to these rules. See 52 Fed. Reg. 16,823 29 (May 6,1987). It notes that 1 N%. .g!W6 cy when the Commission revised its rules in 1984, it did not make a similar change

y. ( f j')${y' '\\.,[Y,W 71[

regarding the required frequency ofinitial full participation exercises. However, y, concerned about scheduling burdens as a result of a judicially imposed require- . l 'w g9. ;,, _ 3 ;'.r,y.g. ;.,,,' 3-A ment to subject exercise results to the hearing process as well as the resource .il burden placed on state and local governments by the requirements for annual .x., . c.n ..w. 3,w " j' a,-JW,W u . 7 z.. i d full participation exercises, on May 6,1987, the Commission revised its rules @cl A/g l N,... ', 4 3 %.,. y,- to require a full-participation exercise withm. ?. years prior to the full power ? "S. ',.CXyN. . - M' 7 q licensing of a power plant - the same scheduling requirement mandated for )(N.6 Q,,. F '.i Mj s "A t full participation exercises after licensing. 52 Fed. Reg. at 16,824 ,2i%/@t.1 c,%n6 J $ #f/Q.d.2 M in response to comments filed by citizen grotps that opposed this latest rule .af. p 4 B.y;.Qw y;1l l change on the basis, inter alla, that it ignored a previously drawn distinction y ~ - n ..r p . !..'. f %.. :. 7 ', Q,,.,y y ;4: f W;GD Q l yll *f:s * ? *., 3,. 8.,. \\ g . i - p . - y.. u g ,9 i..t. .j 1 QNC.' ' -O... s h i.* irmuung to nos dat the My 1984 amendment transformed r. statenent that ce imtial neretse ror a sas j , @ 77 f./ Q M i j, 7.' Aculd pnmt each stan and local gonrnment wuhm he plume expomue ptheiy EPZ and each state wuhm de 4 g)[:[ 'A' . y J' ,,;r. ,nj 8isc8 tim "Posure pathway to perucipate mio a reqwrement that they partsetpate, whde dromeg se requaremmt ' M/M i .k,3 * < ,;p,, <(. s [,. ;, 'l','v. } hat bentual esercises test "as much or the.. plans as is ressmaWy achmaWe. S, t 5 9 ,,s^"'....,y, F s 4.- '. E. s 486 ,e c .d, 'a f.3,'e4 ,e..g j* 's,'., ,u o. 3 s 4 } 4 I q

f,,a d

I Q "r_ -9 i sL ,,p s 2, .-2 ,.s ,I 9' s 4 g * ,.1 ,s [ [ e g .,b1 f e 'J - ^ = ^

y p("EFy'],%%p'g pgVUTJMaj. , ~ t.3.. Q-:.h.Ng'.:.].. (/;;',9 :f.WY].77)~Q%i g ip F p ' '(S - pL' 3 Q ?/ d ? p ;s. .4 ' y:,,::f D. g *. . s , -Q ~ 33 T ':s c:,. .. W.., 7..w. ,c- -.,;.,. y. ..~ ~.. ,s 4.

s. '. n,.' '.,

^ .2&;; ' ' u..

a - m,m o, p',,. y.

....ew ~ . :.~ .e .c u :<. .., ~. u a..

m. :,+....,. a ; _r. -

. ~.

g. e.

. ;.;.m e ;:. > ;c. h.. c,. wfif ,.;.. + p ,,.7 w .e d 1 x w a f,1.t [... .d.saVsY"m,5 %<*U~L' A = 1 +w O l ~ i.u N o -

S

~ ,L*' ? h ?il.;)% ., ~. '.. w. %m c,D r Q

g

.~~s s . ~ s.Q A 'c ,c rx.,, g. %.3;. u g.;wn.. .,.4m 2 o s, .. y., m. g. f,, 'p. i,,~ 7.;gi..3,y,f.. ;y between pre and post-operational exercises, the Commission said there was no gjgjQ..Q reason to treat NTOLs and operating plants differently: p,. ,e .3.. . h:.~.f };' e*;J $ '. s g , 'p'. ' s y[, $Q..% lhe Commission has... been left with a regulatory scheme for frequency of futt participa. , Q.h $ don ernergency preparedness exercises that treats sites with an creranng license differendy L Q,, With..S than sites without an cperanng license. The Commission does not believe this disparity in '. /-, S.G, f %, treatmr.nt is warranted.. s,, .i

e. "

52 Fed. Reg. at 16,826. r

3 J,.

f,, ' W j As in the 1984 rulemaking, there is no discussion in the Statement of Consid. ~' cration ofimposing any special additioral substantive requirements regarding the ,i ' 5e 'j., ', ' < (} T(., 7 5 scope of initial exercises. LILCO believes that such additional requirements are .5 n t a concept the Commission almost surely would have mentioned in the context t $ J j.'. '... k. f. ;', ] 3 ~.. ' N;b ( c'. { of its remarks had it intended a substantive scope change for NTOLs, especially in light of the fact that in practice, no distinction had historically been made d f. -i [p':.,'. q between operating sites and NTOLs.'

1 s

y., '.,

.t , J 4. u D. Interrenors' Position . e.' 'n' Intervenors do not sharc LILCO's siew. They begin with the proposition ,j ,..f.f.[ N: .t j,, ; that, in jlV.F.1 of Appendix E, the Commission addresses the scope of the E,'; d Y % f d initial full participation exercise prior to reactor operations in excess of 5% f:W,C,? of power. Their testimony, Intervenors maintain, demonstrated that, prior to '" J,.., i.'.!f ' the initial full participation exercise, there is no "track record" regarding the

f. - [.V.p/(#M$:; M l i.T

a..

capabilities or preparedness related to that particular site. Accordingly, it makes s -,s.. V ' /.[,/ QRQ sense that the initial full participation exercise be comprehensive. NYS Exh.1 .( ,-.f, S 'i at 25. Intervenors believe that this is an especially important consideration for i Shoreham because implementation of the Flan is largely dependent upon LILCO , [" . -s; personnel whose everyday work does not include emergency response. H-Intervenors find support for this interpre'.ation in the regulatory history. They ^ 6 q believe that the original requirement of Appendix E that all sites, regardless t. of their previous operating history, "test () as much of the licensee, State, and .l local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public y-f, ;. participation..." (45 Fed. Reg. 55,413, col.1 (1980); see Tr. 7102 (Petrone)) 3 , G: ',. } made sense because, at that time, there was no track record of performance at 7, v 7' A, ;: any site. c4 ,', [, ]! Intervenors believe that, in dropping the requirement that operating plants T,., "test () as much of the... plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory .. y Ah

]

l S.y - i 'starf also males this argument. Ad&ucca3y. staff states that the nount that se uuual eneretse may Icad to 'j major dsarges is probably an LDusion. ciung the rect that noter IWA not starr has round $1s to be the case. ,s starr urges us not to "read mto"11V.F.1 any ad&ucmal requtremaus for vuual eternses. see stafr's Prcponed l'mdmas at s431. lionever. Scse adiuonal requi.ements are clearty stated in that paragra;4t. s ~ 487 n 1 i

4. * /

9 * ~ 4

e j

'h 6 4 / f

w k.a$ M W-/ T $. M 5 D M @ 5 ' U. %.c)ch N T'; i %. M 5. M. # '- ' i' N M~. f.<.w r;: p,..e.&.;f, ~ w w- ~' ::. a -.

e%

v. m, e.-g -., s -ta i p..,.. s. 4 r .s. . -. v. z ~, ' '. ..~~ . ~ m;,. n -... v, \\, ~ ; A q. s s

';. rj L~~.., n. {

e C- ~ z~.,. . ~ n . u, A z..w.c.. u. n * -u. ~v ,~ x. ~ ..y - q:. ~ ~. 2 u u.+:.,..:..

g. ~.

_, :. x. . u.....-

u. -.. ~

e .a y:q ; @g;.., *<f.'c y...t]. A.;..y; % c.e > q +....

y ;..r y;

A,, R.,.. oi. 3.. % ~ u,.. '. 7,m..- m - -r ~ ~.o,.,a public participation..." in 1984, the Commission indicated its intent that ini-7.,,l,.' . M, %.![Ml:,15.jh.f;. ;.z.7; ((M r ,' [';. j. tial full. participation exercises should be more complete than full. participation A @9 exercises at operating sites. Indeed, in relaxing the exercise frequency require- ..;yQ C:S TC.' ' W. ment from 1 to 2 years, the Commission noted that by 1984, it had gained ex. Q;/,'7hg iW f.M 3 perience at about 150 exercises. Sec 49 Fed. Reg. 27,735, col.1 (1984). While gy@p? n(s'p '.N, i .C '

'i b'.*, ' A' y" S).j the Commission did not expressly link this experience to its removal of the: .k p,Q:j c

"as much as reasonably achievable" language, the rationale for the change in f., ;,, n N, exercise frequency applies to that change as well. 4 .s; x ~, . / ;.p . ?. ~. .?. ~ p s. . 3 : [ ", S. ' ".. E. Legal Conclusion .,f~ &. o.,w.

e

!n. Intervenors read the regulation correctly. It is clear that the July 1984 ,s s b l'.. p ( f.,v. f.- ..r ,y,,. s. amendment did make substantive changes in the required scope of initial and r 7 ' yM.y .y :, a. biennial exercises.M Despite the ambiguity in footnote 4, LILCO's arguments ' 6} e 7,,,.h a <. ; find it necessary to address Intervenors' arguments in support of their reading. simply do not overcome the clear language of11V.F.1. Consequently, we do not . t .~a

xv.6

.. t e Suffice it to say that although the Commisrion has found it necessary to amend ~ .~. (, ", 'x x .I j,*- the regulation twice, it did not see fit to change these clear requirements or, 3 '"3 1 for that matter, to specifically address them in a statement of consideration .f ,'i f [" accompanying either a proposed or final rule." -g'7'J.[. . [. Our conclusion concerning 11V.F.1 makes it unnecessary for us to consider ,' A (g'.S, 7,' 1 the parties' positions regarding the interpretation of the definition of full partic-1...e. stye

.g.g.'.;, * !

ipation found in footnote 4 of that aaracraYah. Because the initial exercise must r. y'

- .n V

O p' s a.

- n

. ; ): s U'i .W,v , ' '% >, '. 4

c:,,

,,h-a, s',,x- . i '-)s.... ...'6*J'. 9 .. = v,f. y m. ,lk. ; j \\,. r ~

C~s

,*g., ' A. =,.y g. j, k ' .y. i *.. /."..' y,A.* 2

, ~ <

91g;

c., w.-

g 84# fMXe I. Japre. ..,, c., f,. J : !.i l. u.. -. ' ~.. > 3 n The lampage quoted bv tRCo from the sutemmt of Casideraum suportma the ra's permatmg irunal .9 s, ,xt.

,s j y l j.

[ +'.ic . ',." '?f f eternses to be emducted wahm 2 years, riiher than 1 year, of camermal operanon does not dictate a contrary .a7E~ emclusam. That lanpage, when placed in coment, was directed to the problem pused by the necessuy to emplete .{ ' .5 % '. y'. ,. c

'.X c) ~,,

both an exercise aM any related hugaum wuhan a 1 year tame pened and simply pouns to se fact that there is no reason why $e irutial exercue should occur within a shorter tame pened than sesequmt eacrcues. It does not

,.3 5

a

g/,; j cetradict the clear language of 11V.F.1. Indeed, logic would suggest that, havtr g mandated the more complete

. -,. ~,,,%

3. O,

,?

Ji;*-

,..pf , 3 -.. /,, m-/, ' iruual exernse poor to licertsmg. @e Canmusion could well rely on its results for at least as lang a pmod as W ' s 9 A. s 14 that which would apply to tne less cm.picts tnannal eternses. rp;

4 y

~.6 ' A. f; g. IJLCo also rebes on Piannma standard N of NUREo 0654EMA REP 1 (IJLCO Eth.12. Attach. C), eta ',,'.;.' sS V V W ouidance Memorandum (GM) PR 1 (id Anach. E), and dr P oM EX 3 64. Anach. o). tJLCo's witnesses arped [,7*(,w,g,h..M c,y.fi Q,.;* ? 1<y$'t that this guidance is directly ambcabis. They anernpted to pomt (1) to captiot references in EM ouadance

f Mernorands to the NRC*a Appenda E regulatams (tr.6199 200,6222,6235 31,6242,6845-05 (Daveno, Behr));

ae y 3 j^ ! 1.Q c Q. J..: -i. f],. ( 'y ' (2) to lanpage ameanns in Amenda E ht is echoed by tanpage in EMA oundance Mernoranda (Tr. 6822 23 4.4

g,*.f/ <.t (Behr)), and m NUREo-06s4 Piarrung standard N (Tr. 6184-85 (Daveno)); and (3) to seir understandmg c( h

, y d ','. e, V ,', f real-world iruarelanonship between FEMA and NRC as a resuh c( their gesetacal expmence in the emergency .. pg s = g,.l. l,,.p.,,j e pla: sung area (Tr. 6184-85,619492,623133,6242-44,6815 23 (Daveno. Behr)). tJLCO believes that mu

p,J ' $^f;;' M "i),,'

M) and MtC staff wunesses agreed that h FEMA pidance docurnents and Nt:REo-C654 are ambcable. See su [c e ' !...

t, s'

- u j -6 m Exh. 5 at 89 90; Mtc Ea)L 1 at 5 Tr. 7492 (Keuer); Tr. 762421 (KeZer, Kowieski). g. '. - A-l While this guidance may accurately redect h practace that staff and FEMA havs foCowed in conductmg

'd,9L f.'

... a eternses, a curney pentsal of it reve4l.s that it euher ignores the distmcucn besmeen matial and bsenntal escreises f. .e 7(3 g A q or was irnerWed to te hmited to bierintal exercues. Ns, it is of no value in understandeg me additional %;7 S.2 ; O. .- ~.3.; /',,a rquvemerns for trutial fulbparticipation eternses. Marcoser. because a is pidance ortly and does not rise to the r W status of a regu:ation,it does not curride the clear language of11V.F.1. y, c '~

3,,

,= 488 a g g ,.* N A0 e y a ' j. E s. r .d' 4 s e s 1 f 5 A 9 f,, g%. e. t ~, .a 4'2-e g ll 4 s' s

.,... "%... Dr. . '...Le. : y i.r..G ;. ! k a; s :., >:. ! ,".,[. Q;. ,G e 7..,.,O.. ,.N I <

Vf

.L .n gs,g. g).. r.,.[*) j f(....h uz...,Y g[ M ,. Y,.' g a u.., v .c, .v 'ghO

[

[ ,D .j' [ %,.' y.

),,: v.;3,y.;k.s '-.s' p, gg',2 ~

,;.ey ,1.,.. s'V** ~, ~s s'- ',b. ve s . ~' r. ;.~ t., e ' a. o* ~ ^ y s + .i u :.... m 2,: , / : '* ~,, va ;.C u. 1.~.;;.. 5 '.? %.. :,.. '.. ' ^J' .. ~ ' 7 . ~ ' ;' 3 . n.. : r.Pr a v 'W;n.y...'%. V~ r. ::?.~,,... %'~ ' %~ .\\ .c. ? . E ' f(:.1 '.y M w. %.:i.m y- ] s ~ . a. \\

'.y 1 - s.M.* @wV.f.[3a.. M Ai'G.n..'.,,: . u..... K. h.... a.s.. I.,

4 t. s D*... 'C . L n. s:

.3

,a .~ ...,,v.,.. n %...~. : :1 : n : s) .i s .e, .,c..,:

m. _,.

- n M ' .,g @ M.c. : - l ..q. m

mcz,

= . 's y '..y : g,) .o , Per.if, ',ffi be more comprehensive than the biennial exert 's, a fortiori an exercise that ~ ..g.: MF '(,- .,Fj@d meets that requirement will qualify as a full.part stion exercise.

,.., Q. m..g'cM

~, l ; ,' ;,.'. G *' ' i: i .a .. s , ' '. 5 . l @ F.' ;]',(,f..Gl The Alleged Omissions from the Exercise F. '..]{, T'M'G We now consider whether the facts alleged in these contentions demonstrate a .. 1[., OMl fundamental flaw. Intervenors point to certain specifi omissions and inadequa- _['],j cies in the Exercise in support of their views. For purposes of this discussion, 's'.9: these have been grouped under the standard exercise objective to which they

31;

.s. .c ~V i relate. I j;..,.....', 3._ < j, c ;,,.,. ( ~ 'l r- . r.-, W,. r 5., e ~3 'y.'3.: I I 1. Alert and Not@ cation 4-

.. c.1

, w., ...;y .r.r4;., '. ! Standard exercise objective 13 governs this topic. It provides: D:monstrate . lM 'x f "- " G '.., 7. -

., " l the ability to alert the public within the 10 mile EPZ, and disseminate an initial r

'~ ', t instructional message, within 15 minutes. This objective was evaluated under 1 / 4',- the following Emergency Operations Center (EOC) objecuves: . i 3 i> '[ 7'l

13. Demonstrate the ability to provide advance coordination of public

'A' T' .'i alerting and instructional messages with the State and county (State i <l,' ..f T ~,. 'S and county participation simulated); 4 i e ,'..p . F @p.@'[.3 14 Demonstrate the ability to activate the prompt notification siren e m /, <d.f '6 -v...y, v' '. 1 systern in coordination with the State and county (State and county w. ..m., l y.,,.-p4..,y 1 participation simulated); v. 1. 0 . %.,2p;;.v., ,O

15. Demonstrate the capability for providing both an alert signal and an

, fg; J,) informational or instructional message to the population on an area-s. .c {. 't } ., wide basis throughout the 10-mile EPZ within 15 minutes (to be ~' - { simulated); and A ' + ]+ .l

21. Demonstrate the ability to prepare and implement EBS ir, a timely l

~, manner (to be simulated within 15 minutes after command and control -Qe' 1 decision for implementation of protective action recommendations). ' i, FEMA Exh. 5 at 97; FEMA Exh. I at 10. FEMA concluded that objectives EOC 13,15, and 21 were met, while EOC o 7 h f.f 14 was partly met See FEMA Exh. I at 33-34, 38. Intervenors assert that . Q.J.; ', j. j the scope of the Exercise and the participation of response organizations was ... e V,' / j too limited with respect to these objectives. Specifically, Intervenors assert that ' Q.'

r. ]

"[p]rocedures for the actual notification of the public and actual issuance of l emergency information and protective action recommendations to the public -E,, ;l ... were excluded from the exercise, in that sirens, the LILCO EBS system, W ac ', y.;C. * ?. - l '~ J and WALK Radio were not tested, used, demonstrated, or involved in the exer- ) .-q i, 4 489 4 1.

c 4

e T -T k a T ~ ~ ) 4 e g g j e e Y. .'k, g u.

h.-,,,w:N f l <-, ?.- - .,-c a., .=-.. r~;m v, hhh. -. .!.IiY hhn.-hh;$A a

~

~ N i a.Q,t <. c.c,.w f .. 'f.n, y i*'...~,, .w bw , :.m c..a., -.4.._,, r. g~ a-a s , m., g@.,-[g'. g[,%. ;-s,s ' ? y -3 '- ,g;$. (;,, , t,s -*q. E > ,Q. s g s q 9 p s .s . f, n. ' ;; - e; w .. c ;.. .o m' . w;C.,.%.c.,;;. "." X ..:.....:n T += 3 u.w. - 3 'n - L=< i A 3, g ;nq... .n .cy,'. y, -r d.. j a 3.y,, O ; i .>,r,. w.',*.j y.

Jv

.w A:.. . m i _ y ~,.p, ~ 1, .v ..S, 4.. g,,.7- ..,,.p !. O n:A':', . 57.g .., y, 1 cise.u Thus neither the notification capabilities of LILCO or WALK Radio Q@kh f.f..'L8YM,[:[.."[,i,} evaluated during the exercise." Contention EX-15A. See also Contentions EX. '.si'-5 %;% ? 2 s,- personnel, nor the notification capabilities of LILCO's EBS system, were N . hdWA:yj.96?/.* 6::'h. M? 16C, EX-16D, and EX 24 ' jrM E'f WO'eg' Q[$-:;+.g ' $; Additionally, although Intervenors asserted in Contentions EX 15B and EX-MC 3r 1 :r;.mc, k.o N' 'M ' 18C(iv) that procedures for notifying and issuing protective xtion recommen-p.- Qp!)p f; y' 7, ~.!Q:;[{ ]u dations to the public in the water portion of the EPZ were excluded in that the

g.

7f, U.S. Coast Guard did not participate, in their prefiled testimony (NYS Exh.1 T...,, 11.f,?.. 't U ~l at 119), they state that they have no basis on which to dispute LILCO's and }.(',.1 ;,. = 1; 'iy-N (' j FEhfA's accounts of the Coast Guard's participation. See LILCO Exh.12 at 4 ' f. -f,.1 f * , N ' ~...i.; 7 y' 33 34; FEhfA Exh. 5 at 108-09. Consequently, we have not further considered .i ..,.A.dsx... '. - these contentions. However, in our discussion of EOC 16, we address Inter. t, y... ,.- Q c..., i lg ? A J f. '. ( 9 venors' position stated in Contention EX 16B that the testing of the implemen- ' c: a.g. 3 } g.7. J.' ;.i.- tation of protective xtion recommendations in the water portion of the EPZ was 'c' - g'/. ' ' v.: / '(, '. ; l-J inadequate. .f ;, ' '"y 1 There is no dispute concerning the sirens, EBS system, and WALK Radio. All t' parties acknowledge that the sirens were not sounded, no EBS messages were A*~ '[ ~ c.j broadcast, and WALK Radio dM not participate. FEhlA concluded that the r-a sirens should be sounded in the future (FEh1A Exh. I at 34; FEhtA Exh. 5 at pf _ f.., t.F - / 106, 123), and the FEhfA witnesses voiced their opinion that this test should .u. W. O occur prior to operation at more than 5% of power, although they were uncertain 1 y y> j [,, l.. ;,. M. .a..//

A '.J'.3 6;.j whether such a regulatory requirement exists. Tr. 8383 87. Such a test would e

w-9?Ma 'N necessarily involve the broadcast of a test EBS message to inform the public Jd.y :24 f4 /E.. <,., Q " Q; of the reason the sirens were sounded. Tr. 7553 54, hiore importantly, FEhiA .b.m..".? e ' o J.A n.h.~: O agreed with Intervenors that the test of the alert and notification system was not 4.;' % 7 % ' f '; /. g,, g y " [ N N l as complete as FEhiA normally expects (Tr. 7563-65), and that there was no 9's '4 li @,y ' fl, h-g.g e], evaluation of WALK Radio's capability to carry out its responsibilities under 1,,',' 1 j; E the Plan (Tr. 7579). $.{q;' - i. 7, ,. i j'- LILCO notes that certain legal developments prevented the testing of the x. ?.",3 ?, alert and notification system. Specifica:ly, a February 1985 decision of the New o .s Q,~..i 'W - 'Q1 3[. fr. j,- R, #m;. 3 York Supreme Court its Cuomo v. ULCO (Consol. Index 84-4615) raised the ? /9 1 possibility that any sounding of sirens or broadcast of EBS messages might be . c:/ [ 'd.C' ... G M Q;. deemed to be an unlawful exercise of police power. In January 1986, the Suffolk s1.M* 9 h'G T..,;;h ph;(f., County legislature adopted Local Law 2 86 which imposed civil and criminal ,' J.). ?f f 1 9 {M' : A sanctions on anyone participating in an exercise activity that could affect the W.$ .,- M....L m; @y / - -.c " r J >fM,; *, ' N '. general public. Although that law was enjoined as unconstitutional in ULCO W V, s.

v. County of Suffolk, 628 F. Supp. 654, 666 (E.D.N.Y.1986), that decision, W

m s :T.f ;3 i ,.. :, Yr , m,9. s.- <,'. d '.p g,' q , s ) 3 [,N'3q-( p Contmum EX 16E assens dat Madeung Enluaums. Inc, whxh has respesMty to venty sum orernuon < c. j and to assess the progress or any encuation. 6d not perue:pate in me Exercue. Becaae the stres =m not ,. -7c;,'7 1- ,f. 1 >g sounded and no actual evacuauon was dernonstra ed. we and est sets mas no need for Ma& cur g Evakauons to i _ p'. '. parucipate. Ses Intenenors' Proposed Fin &cas at 43 n.51. i

~.

t ;, i 4 g-c u ~.'.. . a '. 490 .x * ? 6 m 1-..,.

m..

^/ e s e

b.,

4 g ( 4. b y '. h p .g (. i<,,' e.- h v I k '4, .4 s.* r a r s e g}. 4 9 8e l s, 4 ~ .f ,o ;r,, =: r., + -

Q .n,mrvnWm...:=. T,;pp m.g[.., v..

7. m='Twg:D M.a, %...%.:,?-

. r m,.. nf .....r.. km,.. 1 ~;r .:..," v . :..~..a. g.- e~ p x, a ; y. - u, p &lan a ,w u. e

Q. &y K.,[.

;

w:V.[. 4.A...p,g..,f-] }46h .y ggb n.. n,. M. :M,~;;m..y.. M:&p:,.. ;..~. z,,.:.. , n.;.. ~,. v ~.. ..m .,. u,. x - ..~ ~

w m.

^ . ~. o;.< -s 3.T

a.

, q, 'w q: q:. n ; y. # ; i ::l ; r.:. . 3,

x.s.

i:.y : ' @; ~.u...'c'...'f.,c.Myp n ..'. G.x .n.:.~..fh M dd.tr& M M. 9;.. E.:, % a O. h ;. - i.l b. .u. . c .3 ..q ~. . o -s %- .. y w;x;) .n ~

n.,,.,

x .i;.-- .,y 9:p ~ q

g.,3..

,4./:.} M;;.,j ,3 .;u. .Q coming only 3 days prior to the Exercise, was too late to permit a test of the c, ~,.m

n.;,,,,

f.' , 2 :.l.jMi alert and notification system to be inserted into the Exercise. LILCO maintains -, p..a . p.9 ^ that the system was tested to the fullest extent possible. See LILCO Exh.12 at . wa, +,

g.

..g.

.. ~ g .7 s '% L c Intervenors do not agree. ney believe that the failure to activate the sirens j d and EBS system and to interact with WALK Radio is significant in determining 7-ql whether the Exercise met the standards for full participation exercises. Rey .j <f testified that it was standard practice in FEMA Region 2 to sound the sirens

(,

) and air a test EBS message. Tr. 7149. ney believe that the sounding of the i .s.. i sirens and accompanying radio broadcasts are a "major observable portion" of ... m,.; - Q c.., ! ..,, '..= c.- l c; :1 the Plan as that term is used in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,11V.F. ney - ~. ,c. c ( ';. ' u, _ . [ {.M also believe that the failure to activate also necessarily precluded observation and T ,;...p* g y-evaluation of critical mechanical and human interactions. Tr. 7183. Specifically, . $...,., Q: / they believe that the following elements were omitted: p. ~ _ ,q : ( */ 1. swndirig of the sirens; ,i. .m i .-f ~,. f 2. broadcast of an EBS rnessage; ('t, d.j 4 N.. ;':1h 3. activaticn of tone alen radios; ~ .a

s.L y,

4. contact with WALK Radio; and '. W :. % ^.f A u',- a e,t --~,e.;%., A.e.-d.. 5. authentication of the EBS message by WALK. v.. "- n... 1 .. q' +y r* c..,... i'dz-Tr. 7182 84. ~ ,f2W LILCO maintains that what was done at the Exercise was sufficient to .,, rl c constitute full participation and that the untested mechanical aspects of the .m i system will be demonstrated during a so-called FEMA REP 10 test (LILCO J ~3 Exh.12 at 32). Given the County's efforts to preclude any testing of the alert and ,. s.' j notification system at the Exercise, it ill behooves the Intervenors to complain

x.,1 / ;i that steps one through three above were not carried out at the Exercise. Moreover,

~ those efforts clearly dictate the conclusion that testing of these portions of the Plan was not reasonably achievable. Consequently, we do not consider their ~ 'M'b omission in determining whether the requirements of 11V.F.1 were met.t3 _9:j De last two items, which concern the lack of communication with WALK ,c , N... N Radio, present a different question. The record does not reflect whether the f(q l County prevented their inclusion in the Exexise, and LILCO concedes that j their inclusion would not have involved mandatory public participation. See s n Tr. 6828 33 (Daverio). However LILCO maintains that the interaction with -.Y 13 Dus conclusion s'.so applies to intervenors' Contenuan EX.15C. witich asserts that eers was no evaluation er se ~~ adequacy of LERo's pablac irtformauon matena's The localla w enacted by me suffo3 Canty les:s:aners sunalarly preven:ed any distribuuan er dose rnatenals and thus preverr.ed any evaluauon of meir adequacy as a part of the Eaeretse, we a:so note mat there is no standard ob;ecove sat cours the public informaam ma'.ena'.s. Tr. s424-2s. ,4 1 I E 491 3. e '6 9 .p i. 8 .j a 4 , g' 3 4 6 g 'E 3 s r s. -,...Y. T .., i 'W.a ~.. -*e

T,F7. P 'y@.,.$...ff%c.:..M., wl'h,Wy(,.@..s,@f1.@S.5,$..;K*-@4$ U M.., h <. S k '.' ~ ~.' * '. 7 ' ", 6 + M.s.@tQ y:n:Wq :..:.p m{ s c ?.' * *.c '.,',.~.e= f.', Q} ' ".K3 A,, .x.. :<M *:,y !/ . 9,.. f,.y. %,;. c. ~ V i, '. ' ~ -r* ? .g

c

~ .p y 5 e..y - a.z _.. y, e. ~ s

& 3 p.

: . n;

. x. y x Qgh^, O..f' ~ ~ v.a.' .h W 2 a a- ~ .c. ., g

p.

,.,- e ~. ' i. ;.l p#.y *

9 l' j o : 4 e * ',. J.. s 3;n gq:

l~ ) ~ Q'. ... ? 1 , WU,. '. M'Se. ? V.w .] yM: '.. N.'?, % [ -Ij the EBS station is much more mechanical than Intervenors portray and that i$ ' 7i./M ; f.E M ';fs v W l' y:$ ". g,p; Y,, g, f Aj FEMA was satisfied with LERO's performance in this regard. See LILCO's f j. M M.*1 yf'j.N N'On d Reply Findings, Vol. II, at 3 (comment on Intervenors' Proposed Finding .+. c.'"'T. h4 R. N ~,~.w, .w.:.y., J. m.%.$%c. 4, u, f_ 59). This may well be so. Nonetheless, FEMA found that LERO exhibited Q../..,4. -"' ~j d M,i Y,.7:", j'qff; '.1 text of EBS messages to the radio station which is to broadcast them is of .N., ' weaknesses in communications skills." Clearly, accurate communication of the j z p ',N Q' wf.N paramount importance. It is not a mechanical activity that appropriately can bc . l 5; J covered in a FEMA REP 10 test. Consequently, we conclude that the testing .fl.' :.N". ~.-! GT,.. %.M...,/. ~- i, of communications with WALK Radio was reasonably achievable and should v,. ~.,. / .J have been included in the Exercise. We conclude that the alert and notification

p.., f ~

W... w. ' '. ^ . " S.. 2'l,,. / j;.- V.s.~,a system was partially tested at the Exercise. n.,,,......

y: m

.y ~.

e.. -...p y;;.. ~ u,. -

.. w

p: -. v.

..t,- .a . n. c A 2. Emeuation of the EPZ g -.y a 'fa ' "..~'l'.,,4'.h V... '.s Intervenors assert that the Exercise failed to test various functions related c J . cj to this topic, which is governed by standard objective 15: Demonstrate the 1 ' g' organizational ability and resources necessary to manage an orderly evacuation s i ti 'J of all or part of the plume EPZ. This objective was evaluated under the specific

,4

,.cf d objectives EOC 16 and Field 9. Intervenors assert in Contentions EX 15H and EX-16B that imp ementation l -h,, ' ~. :. -. 9,' c, of protective action recommendations in the water portion of the EPZ and by e '[ is' [....Gi.scy/';yh,ag '.] transients on beaches and in parks was not adequately tested. In Cententions . f.... A ' Tg.., ;'.? . 'h.) ' ~ ] EX 16K and EX-18C(i), Intervenors assert that the participation of certain 2$.b ; K, 7. M..[ M. Q commercial bus companies, which are relied upon to furnish buses in the event of an evacuation, was too limited. In Contentions EX 18C(iii) and EX.18C(vi), ,. Q

c l 7 I N W r ' V, ? ~i,i.l i. 7 $ h % : h j intervenors also assert that the participation of the Nassau County Red Cross, M' Me f.

2. n f '( 4 3 / g,.; g y g % ~ y which is relied upon in connection with congregate care centers, and Nassau .n.,. [h.. >.., . ici EX 16H,Intervenors note that procedures related to evacuation of EPZ hospitals

?".^

Q County itself, which is relied upon to perform police functions in connection ~. f. with the coliseum, were both too limited. Finally, in Contentions EX 15D and s,., .,_y ,y>,2 (. 'k - @A e';/ Mc M' ' di were not demonstrated and hospital officials did not participate in the Exercise. . If. J, N.c, 7% ( (..? M.3.j.Q :. , " l. i Under EOC 16, FEMA evaluated LERO's organizational ability to manage ' *;.t, c, ' p f L an orderly evacuation. FEMA observed LERO's ability to coordinate notification cl # ,j of the public and access control on the waters of the EPZ with the Coast Guard. .j FEMA Exh. 5 at 110; FEMA Exh. I at 34. FEMA also verified that the Coast t. 'j [; ~~ (*J ' ~,'./ ;W, '.,. bk;.,' db f1.,.f.bN, %'. ' J.! radio broadcasts to all shipping on the distress frequencies, as well as xtually 7,A , y 'c sj Guard simulated establishing a Maritime Safety Zone and simulated emergency af

j. 1g,

y:J dispatching a boat for access control, although there was no objective to evaluate '.c N, 2 ';ni e .a y ~ ', ' ! ) 1 , j. f., H FEM usW e d&W w h m m m @ 6e W W u M W m d h ed g s sw.a d EBs mes ages furmshed to the pas at me ENC. In our forecamr:g deem en me comanuens rek.ed .,e, to LIRo's performance, we esa address mese masars in detad. 4 , 'l l 4 -g \\ 9, '. i -.' y 492 . 4 i \\ g 5 9 . E

b V '

r .e -r a j E k +, D s y d'*3 ~ e

i..

4 N.*. 2*

h.Q.Q...f?'yf.[ff'[:: }.i,9f??&l' f W{f'

.% '9.; (: n g f*fj>m ~J l F'.W. W W W

.GNh!2;,g;Q.?p ' N.f.3.;g g g. k ';% i :.y - &,',t y .Q m. gy +,,> %.:q -'. x ' w :.n [..nMr.;> 6).g,.fe .. m,, J,. ,.r .m. . o t., c. M: % ; G,::;,,s -&.,9. me^\\ r W.:a.a\\, p%(':r;g.jQI,;h;W _ C;::ry.p,?;.p.;.m.

, qd.

c , '.. - n..", - : 4.y. ~.y m"; y:y <<Ww;. ;x,~ c. m..: n: L c ,, w', 9 -. ..e,, o.. .m y ;.. .n ,( ,y-. . ;- - 5 ~~c ?. L n. fy \\' 1 j.,j;,.f, 'Q, f.i W':g;' %,;;.t.:dM3M.h:.Ld$EWOM.ls;.;d L.,..W.i

.. u... %..

.. :,.:. i s z c 7 t,. . ? m. .g g....,,,,y.'. O m q %..<. ,v y ' ;. c y, c;,, j:

c. 'M.

r Coast Guard performance. See FEMA Exh. 5 at 109; Tr. 7661. FENIA pid not ,, c ;J j'. ? - '"#7:p'f~ observe any other elements relevant to Contentions EX 15H and ell 6B unoer ,. O N q p.,'.. ', {w(J - either this objective or Field 9. FEMA believes that, in light of the Act that the R q.Q. s. ',). Exercise occurred in February, further evaluation cf the challenged portiws of l 's A .'f'L 'S j. these objectives should await a summer exercise. See FEMA Exh. 5 at 111 ,//,,. LILCO believes that there was an adequate demonstrat on of the imphnen-i ~. l tation of protective action recommendations. Sec LILCO Exh.12 at 34. Inter-d,..,'" .r j venors take tly position that FEMA should have evaluated the Coast Guard's Vi '-j ability to :'ormulate a message and get that message to boaters within 45 min-c t.. 'fl. ; utes. They point out that the water portion of the EPZ constitutes approximately .. r, j( 7 jf $.- ( AM] ',k 50% of the EPZ which, during certain months of the year, might contain large , ' M%,1 7,.l 4; N. numbers of boaters. NYS Exh.1.at 121. '- 3A.' f:,/,,, t.O fi 'Ihe record indicates that the organizational ability and resources necessary to ,A}.. ~ d ., Qg S 7J manage an orderly evacuation in the water portion of the EPZ were adequately 4 ' '..-:, d tested. FEMA either observed or verified the actions that were taken in this a-. V. ..--, f.3 1j regard. a " f 1.), N Contentions EX 16K and EX 18C(i) basically concern the participation of bus 1

7.,

f.hi(, companies that have agreed to provide buses in the event of an evacuation in its s Q. * ' W direct testimony, FEMA notes that it is standard prxtice in Region Il to evaluate ',, ? k. 'ql a sample of bus companies at each exercise, taking care not to evaluate the t f.:r'y%s ;"b ; y,;j; y q same sample at each exercise. In order to evaluate LERO's integrated capability t 4 .d to provide buses, FEMA independently selected eight out of a total of forty-My,'? = Ml three transit-dependent general population bus routes to be run and "randomly" > N. ",.g,s _ J,

.; p t ^-.

r " y/ p cked the drivers to run them. FEMA Exh. 5 at 130-31. Each FEMA evaluator c

4. @

who picked a driver accompanied that driver to the bus yard and along the

7'. 1, p.

y route. FEMA's records do not indicate whether these c',aluators may have spoken i to bus company officials concerning the availability of buses. However, FEMA JV J did not, as it had indicated it would on page 73 of its testimony filed in this 1j proceeding on Apdl 17,1984, verify with' the bus companies the actual number 3,, q of buses that were available. Tr. 7680-86. i Intervenors take the position that, first, FEMA's actions provide an inadequate .s- ..i basis on which to conclude that an adequate number of buses would be available 'i g and, second, those actions did not comport with its actions in other exercises t.., f,. , [ l '~ where it generally requires that all bus companies affected by the scenario -3M be contacted and verifies with those companies the number of buses that are N a available. NYS Exh. I at 138 39. LILCO hlieves that there is no reason to ~,']~' dutbt that the bus companies would provide the number of buses to which they ,i-have agreed, noting that the provision of buses is their only function, and thus there is no reason why the bus companies should have had a greater role in the ci, Exercise. LILCO Exh.12 at 41-42. We agree with LILCO, Clearly, what is involved is counting buses. Inter-venors advance no concrete reason why this should be accomplished in con- _1 .i 493 s. , : +. ? .] ,? ,tw- -r i l .u. - G"

,(

E 9 e 6 g 4w , f- ','g.- t '/ w I g 4 o 4 4 'l. k 6 y '~

1.,

o

T ~'iM:*D tT QhW%:W' ' '.4:.). '. a ? 2%' % " J ' ' hMw Y' s d ' T<, s.

5' ' ' "':

. ' Y> M ~, ?' e ym.. .4 W. "',. :\\,., @vY :. Ns ['s t,"T. %,y.u..

,7 f.n.: ; ; g,' y,w.; c

" $z.

" e b.q,v' + ._ r. 4 '. .};i i. l ;' i m.*.n' ;. q T..- e + c. ~

s. -

.s ,, -.,..,s 1, O +m ..;. eg 2. '.,.g. ,x c. ~ n 1 .,4 t,

if-l >; _...

. Wl. t..' -:' Ai e '. - --'

~ * '

, w' 6, 3... vu ' u. ;; { ~ l i;s " /. ".. - ~ c 7j.. v ; [.' nection with an exercise other than the fxt that FEhtA testified in 1984 that it ', 'j. L ;, r,' ., " ' y( would do so. There does not appear to be any reason to doubt the bus compa- ,,1 g % q dcr,}wk. dd.. %@M /j .,/4 nies' ability to provide buses and thus no reason to insist on a greater role in . v.,. lF, '2W,(';/.W-the exercise for them. 8 'Y

% M j ; [:'G F. ' rJ Contentfans EX-18C(iii) and EX 18C(vi) assert that the participation by the

& M '.,'>,M(. '.'.$ p;p 6.i d Nassau County Red Cross and Nassau County was too limited. Intervenors t d,, $ yfj.((:y.~ i. b.% offered no direct testimony or proposed findings on these contentions, and we s ,, y 4 7 f. (.

see no need to further consider them.l*

3 c. "'. l. 9.r. ?.Q '-. .z Contentions EX 15D and EX-16H assert that procedures related to the ~ ]- 3 f3; astf.yy evxuation of EPZ hospitals should have been demonstrated and hospital officials . w jxy. k,i '.. [l 1 y should have participated in the Exercise. Intervenors filed extensive direct .s; n.a

t

.g.' b,.:s. , '; #f.',7c.. testimony on these contentions NYS Exh. I at 92, et seq. FEhfA points , y f,,,, m

7.. g, out that sheltering is the primary protective action to be undertaken by EPZ

,e{ g'y.M hospitals. Therefore, no objective was included concerning the hospitals and . w.v;c-Q.['f. u ' "'y there was no need for them to participate. FEh1A Exh. 5 at 114-15. This is y.*. u.. .t e in accord with the Licensing Board's holding that it was not necessary to plan 0 '..; '. for the evacuation of hospitals. See LBP 8512, supra, 21 NRC at 844. This 67' .c. holding was, subsequent to the Exercise, remanderi to the Licensing Board with w' ~ g, directions to require "the applicant to fulfill the same planning obligations with ~ a regard to possible hospital evacuation as the Board imposed in connection with ji the nursing / adult homes." The Board was directed by the Appeal Board to hold ? T ' r c,.9 "., e.,i' the remand in abeyance pending instructions from the Commission. ALAB-832, / Wp @".,~W4.j[. 9 9, supra,23 NRC at 154 57,163. In CLI 8712, supra, the Commission affirmed ! g.,. . 4 F.. vGe. P the remand, but indicated that the Licensing Board might again conclude that c e .c i ; F R.S.'W;';,j / 7 g. w ag; hospital evacuation need not be considered. In light of this, we conclude that 1 " 7,(', I, y j a.f,' y < f g '- Q FEh1A correctly excluded any objectives concerning hospitals from the exercise . 1 ',,j ; 9: ,p -. '.. j scenario, hforeover, the fact that the Appeal Board directed that the remand be W.:,7 - held in abeyance, coupled with the Commission's decision to take review of .f. ', ; ? ' the Appeal Board's decision, dictates that FEhfA's conclusion should remain (; m.

e. '..,

undisturbed. .s; c., n. . J ', e.;'~g-We conclude that the exercise of the elements of LERO's organizational A, (W 1 ~ , ;.1 i ' .. f S. ability and resources necessary to manage an orderly evacuation called into s N question by these contentions complied with f IV.F.1. W,f J.5 2 , kE ,[ 7

.,~'

. n, ,,.a ,s q,- qj f,,, ; t.' . y /.g. t, s

4. vp d' n4 1 u

iv... . h. -- ' e , ; f;, Q ' - 'a.) .A,, ,2, g3 i- ' yy ,J otr emclusun is based cm me fact $at se tus emparues' role is htmtad to prendrg buses. Was sey also 4 q respmstble for bnet.ng, egmppuig. and dispatchng dnvers. our conclusion would be ddferent.

r..

4 ei l'mM notes sat me Red Cross represeruuve parnetrated in h Eoc eroughcut h Exemse and sat sever:1 W,- d parucips.ed at me Nassao County Cohseum and congress:s care cerners. FEMA Esh. s at 139. Utro notes cat .b*. bos te Red Cross and Nassau County paructre:ed. ULCo Exh.12 at 42 43. .,. ~ \\ e. 494 ~ j 9 L e q% g ,e' 's ~ 9 4 / s 5

g T &a. & f:Qf 'kM-M.Q.W,W?. '.. Q.m Y W W.R.M, y f., % K M M " f U?g?U W-m., xq:; h, g.7,;4,y>g /,,,* 4 g,.// m. b. 4 ,.jb p l.5.q. - .;,... n W.E g7c

,~3 g.

y w_ a 7-3fp- '. b s,., p, j e (# t;,;c., J*.%ygjfp.'*%.,yw.>; ~ d,.yg.:M,.m..n, l?,;.3,: 9 ; 4;~W.._n'(- n-y Q^' Q ., r ~?. g., s-f.. . e,. ~,: %y 5 v. " Q... ^&

i<

l< u-n* .,q w. .g,, ;.. y c. ..- g . c.a,, ,m. .. Q ;:.:l f.Y'#{y;,a. W S: a~d, n f. %gC 5 W R M.r; w.#.. 'p.' M L'.a a ;l p ... u.., u

m..

c..g 3,.' yL;2. Rn +

,p .l '3 9..y 4, ~.:*; ~ ,, s-3. Protective Actions for Schools .- Q 91 4.6 {'e-J< Intervenors raise a number of issues under this heading which cut across sev-(,Mff 3.l] q'~ eral exercise objectives. First, standard exercise objective 19 provides: Demon-1 ',^ ,y.L P, A%~ y strate the organizational ability and resources necessary to effect an orderly evac- 'J j uation of the schools within the plume EPZ. This objective was evaluated under specific objectives EOC 20 and Field 16. Second, FEhtA added specific objec- .M j tive EOC 18 which provides: Demonstrate the organizational ability necessary ~.i D (,v / ~ O to effect an early dismissal of schools within the 10-mile EPZ: and a corre. aJ. -S-3 sponding specific objective, Field 15, which provides: Demonstrate a sample ,? y ??;f. y :e ; d of resources necessary to effect an early dismissal of schools within the 10-mile a % yr.,,y. ~ 5 ]/ '-h..j EPZ. The specific objectives added by FEMA are not covered by a standard .,,t .(.. s 4.. objective. r. , y. >, g M l' j In their contentions, Intervenors assert that a demonstration of sheltering T,l _ ; - .' M of schoolchildren should have been included as an objective (EX 15E), that there was no observation of the organizational ability necessary to effect an ,e early dismissal of schools (EX 15F), that evacuation procedures for schools 'G. 5;. 1 were omitted from the Exercise (EX 15G), and that the participation of school s yu, i' officials and personnel, as well as school bus drivers, was too limited (EX 16F, .f EX 160, EX 26, and EX 18C(v)). r, R ' D?- .t, e .s n. '.i,,. FEMA testified that, pursuant to the Board's conclusion in LBP 8512, supra, , [l'. e ';. y ' f f$.[q' 21 NRC at 858, that "the written emergency plans required by New York State N g ' e. are adequate to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures e t .,, W '9;3.c : ' 3 [at schools] can and will be implemented in the event of an emergency...." it 7,' '. y did not adopt an objective that would have required a demonstration of the ability 1 to shelter schoolchildren. At the time he was preparing for the Exercise, FEMA's j Region !! RAC Chairman, Roger Kowieski, was not aware of an evolving FEMA j v s J policy that would have dictated tnat such an objective be included. Further, the FEMA witnesses were of the opinion that school emergency plans are required I by the State Board of Education as a part of the school certification process. See FEMA Exh. 5 at 116; Tr. 8394 421,8596-99. in its direct testimony, FEMA noted, in response to the allegation that '... j it did not observe any demonstration of the organizational ability to effect 4 an early dismissal of schools, that such an observation could not be made s t ', ~,j because simulated telephonic advice not to open schools was given to school a 3 - officials by LERO officials from the latter's homes prior to reporting to the ~.. .'5 EOC. FEMA Exh. 5 at 117. On cross examination, the FEMA witnesses equated 1 ) early dismissal and not opening for the day. Tr. 7595,7601. They testified that T the organizational ability necessary to effect either was demonstrated by the act of telephoning the schools (Tr. 7599 601), and that while the telephone calls c. were not observed by a FEMA evaluator, they were verified by interviewing the individual who made the calls (Tr. 7595). Thus it appears that, although the s e 495 .A

9 h

g, en 'n

g l,

'4 ~

8 e

e t ( q s i I } s 'z.' .,t-., = s a s '2( s g L, i

Y c' ?. Q @' 'f'6 W?!N0f & Y h ! $'U,?[& &n., e t &.,n.. ;,,?$N.b[% * - " %,,.% ". $Y:%..$$ Y .**W*V ?. b L" ', Y; h

D'. r l~

. r )l;h. *W' GMO$.&. ~ ~ L$

n..n.n ; ; t..

....i.y. .w*' a m - p. .. g. ~,t c. s'. s. ? * ,s % c .r,s.,, w..

p.., o,'.

a 1..g.. y. ,..,.,r.. v :.. v; .. x.... .. n .y - 1 v. ni m w- .,, t.c, sy, 7c... a ,7. M,,'.y.~ .~.$l??.k1'.h,."$'O.%..h..__k[.- '.6- - i; - "- ' '~ "' +

y. *, f.

m y . m s . 3* .c. , g ;, s

I

! j.4,'71 - p[. "c, [.. ":g+, j [i f ap.m'y% 3y q. f - g ; :m a....;..:. ; 3 W' ... ;p - - l c 1,... e :m. 3.,, w.: n.,.~ /.., x y;.n..V e, $, .. d[ " '. $ - [ o. ~d.,:,,7*. ..~M..-- .1 t. a [:y{ ?' ; telephone calls were not observed FEMA nonetheless regards objective EOC .Nl Nb.: / *~..G:?' '/J'h C;[cA@d % ;,{t ' $j .l 18 as having been met c iDMQBdOM@MNf:M'A .C.WN%iMG ?'N.C; Only the Shoreham Wading River School District participated in the Exercise. ,4@Q*.%JyM@Yd@YhlD[MQ ~ Tr. 6848,6932. nerefore, FEMA based its conclusions with regard to objectives 3 V. f Field 15 and 16 on interviews of those school officials and school bus personnel VGi 6'b.. M m ij and on actual observation of the completion of one school bus route using LERO .M'j~f'f-yW,X 'E d resources. FEMA Exh. 5 at 119. FEMA concluded that the simulated dispatch 'j5/ M t..M;i'E M 1 of seventeen school buses to the Shoreham Wading River High School" and Uch".Y 'I..L;2McM. 8 [. the release of students for transportation to their homes demonstrated these 6. 1 ,y y' M.D},'j. Q. Tot. g.1.,:ta ? a;;.;I'T,.\\'g-%.(;E. d met by the Patchogue Staging Area with respect to the bus route run by a 2 objectives (FEMA Exh. I at 43), and that objective Field 16 was only partly y;; [h[..k,'.p$M.h @O:.W. ".j M.6f%:?,$.M LERO bus because of a 40-minute delay in dispatching the bus (FEMA Exh.1 i .QQM at 66). De FEMA witnesses believe that a greater degree of participation on I .l. h. n.T Ec the part of the schools is necessary "in order to reach any kind of a conclusion j S., : / ' wygGV g: 6S [concerning] the capability of school districts more generally to respond to '(. Q', ". ;.f o l.. ,f '.f f, ' o a Shoreham emergency" (Th 7603), and assigned an ARCA recommending ., ' i. - that, in the future, all schools must be included in federally evaluated exercises

;;. : ?

J W l; 3Y a *. 1 and drills (FEMA Exh. I at 41). FEMA had requested such participation prior (,. 7s ?. .. le. s ',- Q, :,i to the Exercise, but LILCO determined not to invite other school districts to g e; y J ;- (.,, y J. ',0.. - i. participate. Tr. 7605-09. f.Sl: y,N, S.N ,;j In its direct testimony, LILCO offered no explanation of its determination not n

O g%a.% % J@Q A g '?

MR.gli.g i to invite more school districts to participate. On examination by Staff counsel, %,.. Q,% 7;. R>.;,E.-l !@. 9 LILCO's witness Daverio testified that he was aware of various resolutions NCy- + .%$.Q:$h,. 9l1Q@~y@@Mj s .' 31 and other expressions of opinion concerning emergency preparedness attributed r 1/ 3,,' % p.?r. Q' g y, p 'f Q :{J-f / d to school districts and related organizations. See NYS Exh. 2, Attach. 7. He ,' 'y

r. s -

following colloquy then took place: ,,.. 4 - .e, c .c. s ..s,

g' Q Given the apparent posidon of these resoludons and peddons, would perdcipation by the I

s< 3 q -- 'c grc. c.: sdools have been a reasonably achievable objecdve,in your view, for the February thh .s.- vf.D <.y v

f., A.,;'y..

v1 '. Q.: f. y Q, *

- N...y f,

exercise?

f,y.

~ a'

; oc.,

.y,- ys A Given the resoludons as I think I said before, I didn't have direct knowledge that they 4, CQ g,.' i'i N [gi MN.X 'i moul&t perncipate but I would have a hard time believing they would have. - e.. %c. t

p 3.;

E XN ic!

,.n.j n,

'.,j # - Q.. wu h same view expressed to you by 1Aco manageman? s m 1 i s.- y,,

8,

~ ~ [$;

[

A $'4 , @/ <>,,: ,3g ; y %

,{

l'j 'Ihey expressed th4 vicW that they did not want to write the lener. And. I assume that c.m;,;, 6! ; i o '4C'QD@r ' ', "; was the reason but I dm't know, . 2. M $ $;jI~ N [;l O 3,h ] ] Tr. 6973-75; see also.'It 6848. This is the only explanation in the record of ', 4(,. ',;g %. ; ~. Q.y LILCO's decision not to seek participation by the school districts, although 77 A x f,'.,..,+ ' ~ ";.. A q even Intervenors acknowledge that it is unlikely that the schools would have r u .w.,q ..a. s, , ])., ; ', ; < ?,7 ',( 17 'nder the P'.an, the adools utdize that osi resources to unplemens praective actxms wuh LERo t . s. e. backup resources if necessary. LACo Exh.12 at 37; Tr. 6M0-41. f 4 -h T , I.- 'O - 3, 496 { + -a i l u 'k g ?. p q n! 4 I 1_ t i-9 ,-i 6 5 ,~.'h.' _3 e p 4 1* yr--*" ga

- 9,'
Y*

8 ' NN ' * * ' ' '4 t. i ,n - \\,_ ,4 .4 7 f s i .'r." 's u, ~ 9 o q, .4 g 4 1 ) l'f f-

_yq.y ~.7,..g.g q ;p.l\\.g(,;g..g y 4..) % g.,. 9, w q,7 [. f i c. .y,m,,; u, ~,..g ;

z..

m..y g, g y..

q,w . -g .p h . _, y, .,.,.n 7 e a ,s a -,,, s ,s", ,,,@zyc -g. m s UM.,g., T ' J'.I s a i= 3,; W 1 ., 7. s :. s. yn 7 ,d.' 9,, 1. ~

~,.; ;

.m o:. y N j '~.;. E. :;.'p,. p & n y.j..::,;f.@ % b,,b.,.5,l2 3j g, lcid; J, .,s q K,. 's. -- 5.' 4 e participated if invited. Intervenors' Proposed Findings at 135. LILCO has w' G :,. .,,,. 1 committed to seek broader panicipation by school districts in the future. Tr. 6953. 3 ,g a' c ~ *' (,-: 3,e .i LILCO maintains that sheltering, early dismissal, and evacuation are activities i, ,./ j that are frequently carried out by schools under their existing emergency plans. r ? ' t ". and consequendy, they need not be exercised. Ibrther, LILCO asserts that the means to effect early dismissal were demonstrated, as well as LERO's ability to assist in evacuation. See LILCO Exh.12 at 36 38. On cross-examination. LILCO's witnesses conceded that more schools should have been involved in .. c.

p.

. s.' .? the Exercise. They adhered to their position, however, that one could infer from . 3j the participation that in fact occurred and from the existence of emergency plans ^ ~ y ~ t ". - c.,. '

'l in the schools that the affected schools could implement protective actions in d

the event of a Shoreham emergency. Tr. 6951 53. 1.( ,i e j intervenors have no substantial disagreement with the facts set forth above. . f-q They argue that these facts show that FEh1A did not conform to its normal -f .j practices in the Shoreham Exercise insofar as its evaluation of school prepared-ness is concerned and that the Exercise did not conform to regulatory require-g. N'.. I ments. NYS Exh. I at 68 84 All parties recognize that there must be more extensive school participation. Z} j 1 We agree that school participation is of great importance. The issue that we must decide is whether the participation that did in fact take place was all that was '..? '[y [r '.. e t.! reasonably achievab!c 'Ihere is nothing in the record that indicates whether the E^ schools would have participated if asked. Indeed, we have only hir. Daverio's i , O,,, ^ ^ speculation, elicited by Staff counsel, on the reason LILCO management decided ~ j' l',, -.' j not to issue the invitation when asked to do so by FEhtA, and the probable response of the schools had an invitation been issued. LILCO bears the burden of l proof. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.732. It has not established that the school participation that did take place was all that was reasonably achievable. Consequently, we must conclude that greater participation was reasonably achievable." Certain subsidiary issues concerning the scope of school participation are I raised by this record. We decline to decide them. It appears that at the time of } the Exercise, guidance on these issues was developing. Ghi EV.2, the purpose i of which is to provide guidance to federal, state, and local government officials 3', with respect to emergency preparedness for schools, came into existence in draft form shonly before the February 13 exercise and was issued on November 13. j a

l 1986. As a result, the present policy with respect to participation by schools in exercises differs from that which existed when the Exercise was planned and executed. See NYS Exh. 2, Attach. 6; Tr. 8394 96, 8406-08. Given our

] M Wem to burden c( proof on Interveners, we wadd be forced to corickde Gat esy had ru demcnstra.e4 tot gnater adsoal parucipauon was reasonaWy eduenWe, and cceseqaendy decide c.s issue m Llifo's favor. 'Dus is a rats instarice when, endence est.abhsharig one condiuon cr the acer lachr g. se issw trws be decided assinst the party bearsng the turden of proa(. ,.i 497 \\ ~ i 4 g .p g s 1 g t ~ q r ~ y \\ ,'e 1 s

QS M 1.'i M.]; W l4 r - L ' ' O l -Q,ly%'N '. ?:,' WFl-t 1.h:. yb'N s. QfN,Y%:5&.&7\\lY.L.W $f c ' - ' , Y_ _ ' fW ' $ ". N l? ',. O..H.a w. h hW w ~, t,0.y Qp: iu .N

, Q.

.v ~ u., y n.:

n,

-~.., ;; t. ., %. 3.y.; 3.. c. .~a* ** 4 l%. ~g ' .,r., c'

c ' f'y. ~. f.. L'.h. % v - l ?. :.' W, W-: =',.'.

' f S.,;...: o. '8

' ~ ~ y', ~a:... ? ?. y> 8.. y : :,_, .e n w......< r.. ) e ~. ..v.w.,

.y.~ u ;

t -L w.9 :i:...~, a.. m,M f.M.v.x

s 1,:/'3), 6 :'Q.E.$ $ M ':' Z U E 1 J

~ fe conclusion that greater school participation was reasonably achievable, it makes h.( little sense to consider whether the policy with respect to schools in effect at ': q Jg : &...m.ps w M... the time of the Exercise was both appropriate under the regulation and satisfied . O : W.; % -s c ni. 7' - M '; %,7.j by what transpired. ..d4W.1 ,a, .p,. P., *.[. 8., M;.N w : : r.p-cy., s., > Y "g. - T;\\. 'm:'s s g... , w.g.y.

, r.~.: ..

4, jngq3gggy pgggggy ......<..~. .g .w y ~ f.. Q ?.' M.. - '4 9. Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for collection. C

~'.mT.

'Ihis topic is covered by the following standard exercise objectives: ].;. +, g..g:. -. ',: [ E U.. i;~.3{. V,;j.c..[.)y'. transport, and analysis of samples of soil, vegetation' snow, water, . ;;,,gr ," -Q' ",.p,{.g 4.%P

11. Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public via ingestion p

and milkt L ',y }.- f " ] Q g g j j pathway exposure, based on field data, and to determine appropriate c ' t.% protective measures, based on PAGs and other relevant factors; and ', f, j,

12. Demonstrate the ability to implement protective actions for ingestion pathway hazards. Contentions EX-15I, EX 16A, EX 37A, EX 37B,

, y..,: f ' e.i. EX 37C, and EX-37D raise matters concerning the ingestion exposure pathway. 'i, 'E 7 None of these objectives were evaluated during the Exercise. FEhfA takes 1 c.' ' ' .~. lv 1. p..i.4 ', the position that not "all major planning and preparedness elements incorpo-rated in the 35 exercise objectives..." need to be included in every full scale y ff Q j@6-[ih2N5p C exercise. It notes that the NRC requested an exercise that emphasized a demon. O i [.W

.gdg, ' @

stration of response capabilities within the plume exposure EPZ and did not ob- . _ -. M.,.. uf, 9..W:. d..~.:;M.. 6,,,. ;n. 'W 3r, ject when ingestion pathway objectives were not included. Tr. 7529 30. FEMA . pl. Q ' ' s, -y p(M M.,... also notes that there has not been a full. scale exercise of the ingestion exposure j vi o ;; pathway at any of the three operating nuclear sites in New York. Tr. 7526-

28. Consequently, FEhfA agreed with LILCO that ingest on pathway objectives r -

8 'g ? '. 4 4 would not be included in the Exercise." FEMA Exh. 5 at 125 26. .4,.,,. [g<. ; .. j LILCO's position is'that ingestion exposure pathway objectives need not 'f g. be tested in order to qualify as a full. participation exercise. LILCO Exh.12 , ' ~,. a t s.. ,;.t

C d

at 39. Intervenors' position is contrary, although they concede that ingestion c . ;, i.f. > pathway objectives are not currently included in exercises at other New York nuclear sites. NYS Exh. I at 148-49. State officials testified that they have U,(.' j refused to include such objectives until guidance concerning them is forthcoming

s 3

' f. f ', ' ', from FEMA. Tr. 720810,7232 33. While FEMA apparently has accepted this y' 9 y '.yj $g;~. p Wg. position on the part of New York State, it acknowledges that ingestion pathway c objectives could have been tested and that the major factor dictating that they ~~2u?.M 1. s -- f be excluded was the guidance emanating from Staff that "FEMA emphasize V, ,;,. y evaluation of the functional areas of emergency preparedness related to the 9 ^ f', 3 't ,'.t U taco tdes the Psitum eat at emed saam re**n cheams tested at ths Exercus. Tr. 6s37. g 0 ' ~ 498 s-s - t 1 ~. S e i. + 1 ~ a J' ~ D.

4 3

n. -+.

j.!.Q.lW& R.:Q,)s{;l?.f[.Qll n :

}WK;?."N&g{.jk.2%wV y' L'.J 9A. K jG >;i-4.Q-: :Y ;-a f' }?

\\ y' -Mt.jp 'A y .e : n.ggcc. 1p 3 3'_ ^

9 :.y :.,

K: ,q .. ps. =_ , w.',..., ,3.' 'o m 'O..C al . C 3: u ~ p .:.J.%.c.. >v. N s.. - l '. f, '. 4 ' is e .. r..M y ;; W. 1

&,.'#&p v: a'

,. c.

.. ' :;m..;q -

..W Q {.:.f M.q'.V,'. %,

....,. ;.yl.., ,. L..,.'.'; irf L. :. '..:,:L A :.U S $1'N:s T.. &,li k %.n,.W .q;L L ) . p, y. 2.. ? .N.i l J .1 a'- .A demonstration of response capabilities withm the plume exposure (10-mile) .?

w. 5 - ' ' 7. ?l Emergency Planning Zone." Tr. 7239; June 20,1985 Memorandum for Richard i

z., t . cy 'l W. Krimm of FEhlA from Edward L Jordan of NRC. ' }'! Paragraph IV.F.1 clearly requires. in addition to testing as much of a plan as is C ' 9] reasonably achievable, that each state within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ .f 14 participate in the initial full participation exercise. Thus both Connecticut and LERO, substituting for New York, should have been included and the exercise -;g..j scenario should have included ingestion pathway objectives." It is unfortunate 3.' 9 that these objectives were excluded on the suggestien of the Staff. Nonetheless, a: . '.. I that circumstance cannot alter the fact that this Exercise did not meet the ,['

8. ; r.., / 'l requirements of 11V.F.1 in this respect.

.= d S. Recovery and Reentry w! Like the ingestion exposure pathway, this topic was not included in the 3 Exercise. It is covered by the following standard objectives: .j?i 34 Demonstrate the ability to estime.te total population exposure; and

35. Demonstrate the ability to determine and implement appropriate

.,j measures for controlled recovery and reentry. ~j Contention EX 15M asserts that recovery and reentry objectives should have y .y, been included in the Exercise. FEMA excluded these objectives for largely ' {,, fq the same reasons that it excluded ingestion pathway objectives, plus the fact ,, p@, [ 0 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had not promulgated final guidance governing these activities. FEMA regards its decision in this regard M as consistent with its pmetice in other full scale Region II exercises. FEMA 1 Exh. 5 at 128. On cross-examination, the FEM A witnesses indicated that, while - y recovery and reentry is a major obsersable portion of the Plan, the lxk of ,, l final guidance from EPA concerning doses that would be considered acceptable on reentry meant that there was no standard against which to measure Exercise j performance. This situat;on led Region 11 to agree with New York State officials ,{ that it was appropriate to exclude recovery and reentry objectives from New York ] exercises. These objectives had been included until August 1983. Tr. 7673 79. u's .{ LILCO concedes that recovery and reentry activities were excluded from the ..] Exercise despite LILCO's willingness to include them but does not believe - I that that fact demonstrates a fundamental flaw. LILCO Exh.12 at 40-41; l

}

Tr. 6921. We conclude that the lack of final EPA guidance on acceptable reentry { doses dictates the conclusion that testing these functions was not reasonably . ' )! 'r i

we cannot agros ese tJLCO *at ce requiremais for parucspeuen by irgesuon emprmurs par.he sy sutas enerely rep.res parucipence to $e eners dacts'.ed by $e scer.ano. Tr. 6454s2. sa en mierpreuuan =mid effecuvely read Ous reqsarernera cut of $e reg.dauans.

O 499 - c a g i e ' i e , i N ' Pts 2 k .d" .g j, 4 .e . ( 1 1 ~ .u t

???$'A,f,c # - hfhif's.hYY,.W'. N ' >L >.0' Of. ' '~ 7 l; %* " y;.b r.-L ;,.*.? "' ' >. e..' g - -.: ', Y. ' ' : Q>:" j t '\\. v

{

e .x ,,c.':,.- ~ _ i .c .1 am

" ; p\\: - y.;

y , %., y 4 s l C,. s c ; ' ,j V. t-

4

,.c

. ~: c.:. m : { - 3.. :v 'e i v. Q:

rve.

,[. - ',..N _ y Xh .,'M s i N ]G i 4 ,',N.Q.7 W.j determining whether this Exercise met the requirements of j lV.F.1. v. achievable, herefore, we do not consider the absence of this demonstration in 'A.- f.L. ::.5 yl9. ? %:. [ Y :)ih?lL'W,s 'f' - lN E-E l, m e.v..R, W. ;. 4 - x[3 e y.) }.l,.Q:s. i. '?L '{ ' 1 6. Special Facilities e .b .c 2 > '., x, . gg.

e..

s, '

) vc 7..Q q. ' ]M' Standard objective 18 provides: Demonstrate the organizational ability and l ": h.y resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of mobility impaired in-

c 4,

.c - "[,, *',_l dividuals within the plume EPZ. His objective was evaluated under specific f(L 5 ij: r,,',', ' '. '"/;p objectives Field 13 and Field 14. Intervenors assert in Contention EX 16I that W, ', 1 officials of nine nursing and adult homes located in the EPZ did not participate, ,1. N... y', in Contention EX-16J that officials from facilities outside the EPZ that are relied . ~ ~'j.., . ;j;. q e.- (Q T % f 4,.E '/C ]I on to receive the special facility evacuees did not participate, in Contention EX- . - f. 7,. : c. h. 15K that procedures related to the radiological monitoring and decontamination c-9 :' 4' ,; j of these evacuees w:re excluded, and in Contentions EX 161 and EX-18C(ii) 1 1; ~ that certain ambulance companies did not participate. s During the Exercise, LILCO assessed the seriousness of the accident and . '. ' ( decided to evacuate residents of special facilities. With perhaps two or three exceptions (see Tr. 6833 34, 29N (Daverio)) LILCO's communications with special facilities were simulated. Tr. 7592, 7628 (Baldwin). FEMA evaluated l the performance of one ambulance and one ambulette that were sent to two { - e special facilities within the EPZ and then to locations outside the EPZ. Dere J ', <,, ' "; L' n &,, d was no test of the availability of facilities outside the EPZ to handle special-M. l.... 47 facility evacuees. NYS Exh. I at 87,105,106-07; Tr. 6931 (Daverio). Most i c' M.? $y[MU 4.3 ' ~ special facility reception centers have yet to be arranged. Tr. 2913 (Daverio); .. - '.. ? 2

g.; y ' -:

7? FEMA Exh. 3, Attach.1, at 12; Harris and Mayer, ff. Tr. 2992, at 13. Here ', q',;, -.f '7c

1 was no specific test of LILCO's capability to register, monitor, or decontaminate

/ special facility evacuees. NYS Exh. I at IN65. LILCO takes the position that J T C the techniques are the same as those demonstrated at the Nassau Coliseum for 3 5 9 the general population.22 LILCO Exh.12 at 40; FEMA Exh. 5 at 127. FEMA ~' - f; j w , s,- did not evaluate whether LILCO had enough ambulances and ambulettes or drivers available to handle an evacuation, although it acknowledged that this + d-was tamething that it had committed to evaluate in a Shcreham exercise. NYS

4 Exh. I at 10910; Tr. 7689-92 (Kowieski, Keller). FEMA interviewed no

,. ] ,'j' ambulance company officials and thus did not evaluate whether ambulance t . ;f. company officials were knowledgeable about what was expected under the ,', Q. ;, '. Plan. NYS Exh. I at 10810,112; Tr. 7192 94 (Petrone). FEMA did not evaluate, l .f . ggQ &, even on a spot check basis, the capabilities of the personnel at special facilities ) J ~ _ ' ~ ; f,,,, inside or outside the EPZ to carry out the actions contemplated under the LILCO . - j M Plan. NYS Exh. I at 87, 100, 102, 103, 105. l ,e 4 .N 1 e 1 21 We vd1 consu!.er dus issue m deuJ under Corsense EX-47. 500 0 j , %g r - l t'. ,4 x s j \\ .__--._---__--__.-_----_-------.--_e-----,_.--.--.,-----,.___-__.--_------_.---,.-.-__--,,__---__..e- - - - -. - - - ~ - - -

a s,___---,. - - _

a

1 9,5 ? n :T ~ h j!" i.Q.

*1 y..% @.*I

,t + ~ .e n.,. Q,.. s 4 Mc'~. m m et v.: Q:;c%y.v s '..e t ' ~. ,-l v 3.a - ~, y .,l. .y, FQc .g c. r Q ).!-l, y'.Q. ~. M .7~ % s. ' ....,, u z %,4,f.v u ek i.g- @N g. ',33.ug *,g : a', . ;, j< . r. .~ 7;, -.. m _.q . _~j 1 ..I The FEhf A witnesses indicated that it is not standard practice to evaluate the E-v' .V Ej capabilities of special. facility personnel. FEhiA Exh. 5 at 115. The evidence C. " (v ['y y indicates gereerally that, with respect to special facility residents, the Shoreham ..c test was approximately the same as at most other exercises, with the exception /. '/ ' j that actual phone calls are often made to special facilities at other exercises. NYS Exh. I at 100 n.46; Tr. 8663 (Kowieski). 4 .j in 1984, FEhf A testi6ed that it would evaluate, through a sampling approach l during an exercise, the level of coordination between LILCO and adult and .. i nursing homes. 'I1r. 7662-63 (Keller). In this hearing, the FEhf A witnesses stated 7, Q;.,{l C ~ that this was necessary because such coordination constitutes a major observable portion of the Plan. They took the position, however, that this evaluation did .s .7 not have to occur during the first Shoreham exercise. Tir. 7663 64 (Keller). r ,, ' 'l We agree that the level of coordination between LERO and the special d facilities should be evaluated and add only that such evaluation must include i an evaluation of LERO's ability to communicate with special facilities. Further, we agree that an evaluation of the preparedness of the ambult.nce and ambulette .i companies should have been included. No showing has been made that a test } of these aspects of the Plan was not reasonably achievable. Consequently we conclude that such an evaluation should have been a part of this Exercise in j a

i order to satisfy the requirements of 11V.F.1.

l ~,' We do not agree with Intervenors that we should disapprove FEhiA's practice ' 'i of declining to review the emergency plans of special facilities themselves. See

g. ' j Intervenors' Proposed Findings at 137. No reason is apparent on this record why FEhiA's prxtice should be disapproved. Similarly, we see no reason to

./1 reject LILCO's position that the monitoring and decontamination of special-facility populations requires no showing in addition to that made for the general population. 1 G. Conclusion on Contentions EX 15 and EX 16 -. i In sum, we find that testing of the following portions of the Pian was j reasonably achievable and should have been accomplished: ,: 1, a. transmission of an EBS message to WALK Radio and authentication 'l of that message by WALK Radio; ^ M b, participation by more school districts in the exercise scenario; ,j c. implementation of protective actions in the ingestion exposure path. .j way in both Connecticut and New York; and i .j d. coordination and communication between LERO and special facih- ) ties, including a review of the preparedness of ambulance companies ~ i relied on by LERO. In reaching these conclusions, we do not question the oft.repea'ed testimony of the FEhfA witnesses that the February 13, 1986 Exercise was as compre. 501 'I w I e ,4 ,]. l + s g[ p f I f

' ? '%, f ~ Re %ih&,V MLu :p i.,.hf'.M+.WWQ M. ;.-% W %,%, X;h'.';j*$,Q 5' ;j,~ i eF w

r. v'&%

f,. f p. P.w%- s;;., y

- H

?

c r 'x. p M.. s .e , p..:g.g.g o.. ..., n.) 9,- c A ,v..'.

y. _.

,y * - f. g, '. n ' s .v;m... . -:.}. : 3.;% , % ' Y.e :. J F', l ,g

>. ],,.p'.(,M.

j ...;' c ) > ud.. M. c 5 :I 3.y w - ~,"- _~,..,. .x._.x. ..L.,. '.. ;'p -: ', ' Nk L. %.... * ; % k. :.;;, .

l* 1 A.;

~...,~z a c .3.,(( W. ' hensive as any conducted in FEh!A Region II up to that time. See, e.g., FEh!A 3: - j f.ji. S,,qr i, M. c'.L';(N .f',l[Q bi. N s, that the exercise scenario failed to properly take the Commission's regulatory 1i Exh. 5 at 92,105; Tr. 7633,7645-46, 8476, M91. However, the fact remains .I' y.fl: ' .g 3 .. ff requirements for initial full. participation exercises into account. As a result, the. , E ; *d. 'V'. '.X I! d p },JK -em. 9 F 'J Exercise f.tled to test some parts of the Plan that reasonably could have been

p,.y,

$ p!e -, ~ f,, tested, ar;d therefore failed to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix E, c Y_, a; . x.y. - 11V.F.1. r. 9:- =, ^ c ..~ s- < _ ;,.a, ' s,'y:,.3 -...,.. s .;,. :s.3 ~, - Q ;). II. CONTENTION EX 21 ~. ? ~., c

3..w..

x. c% y, n,,j.....,,._ A. The Allegations n i. y g : * ' f; G J, ' 9

i. [ q Contention EX 21 alleges that FEh!A had insufficient data to support the fW, "

j gf. I conclusion that certain exercise objectives were met. The sample sizes used by m - f FEhfA in making its review, it alleges, were much too small to support FEh!A's [ conclusions concerning these objectives. q While Contention EX-21 was admitted as an independent contention, it is ,N closely related to and was heard with Contentions EX 15 and EX 16. In their (- proposed findings (at 146-47) Intervenors point out that the conceptual difference 7-between the contentions is that Contention EX 21 focuses on whether FEhfA had a valid basis to find that particular Shoreham objectives had been satisfied, .. S." 2.,g M y,' u' while Contentions EX 15 and EX 16 focus on Appendix E. For decisional 1 6.; a j.. ". i - y purposes, they believe Contention EX 21 is best addressed as a further basis r f ti C. ' ~ 7 for the Intervenors' positicn that the Shoreham Exercise was too limi.ed. > %' U.> S,, '..p,~ g: ? ~. '. 1 In Intervenors' view, most of the factual matters raised in Contenti7n EX 21 . - l,j 4, ~ and which are the subject of dispute, namely the sufficiency of school (EX-21C), I bus (EX 21B), and special facility (EX 21D) testing, are covered in Contentions EX 15 and EX 16. In our discussion of those cortentions, we concluded that s, 4 the testing of schools and special facilities had been insufficient to comply with 1i.. ' '7 11V.F.1 of Appendix E, and we do not address these matters again. We did not l .,[ ,j reach the same conclusion with respect to buses, because Intervenors' position j v boiled down to the proposition that available buses should have been counted j ' 'j (,' during the Exercise. The question of the adequxy of the sample of bus drivers 'r 1-tested by FEh!A was raised only by Contention EX 21; that question is discussed . / O ;. J' s below. q.7 L. .e Two subparts of Contention EX 21 - dealing with Traffic Guides and g*,C. c. ' .- a Congregate Care Centers - were not addressed in great detail or at all by 4... M [ < 1 bl.. Intervenors in the context of that contention. Intervenors state that there w?s no t substantial evidence to support the view that the Exercise was too limited with respect to the Traffic Guides (EX 21E). Intervenors' Proposed Findings at 146 n.145; Suffolk Exh. 99 at 62-63; Tr.1393 94 (Simon) (County's witness does not strenuously criticize looking at 32 of 165 Traffic Guides). On the question .B 502 i 4-A ,. - - * - + , g. g ^ g, + .4 1 L'. I i

8. ;

j j q. j

.q.., ;;.2 f. ~GK}.y.f.;TQ. ..; u.. y jr%:.K.f.y]y,i Qg;;;}_.;f,~ ',.}

g....

Q.g.' g.- p.z.;, c r ,, _. v g.v;.y.. , +:;, ;,, q. . ~, 9,... g,, w y,. ,c =,... n n. a,w. 2 4.t... :. - S,. f ,,, c,.< ~ e ..., c. ;,n

n.. ;,~., y.

,.,c c...... m;. h,, r g'.;3.g.s c. g %q., i ..- e.,. v .. +. 7 y.7, t. 7...y.

b. a.7.c.?

e v. 3.c m % tc m a. ; .s a. ;,,,,, y, .g. ;:.+,,, 1 i ~', ,t of Congregate Care Centers, Intervenors offered no testimony in support of the h i allegations in Contertions EX 15L, EX 32, EX 22K, and EX 16N, which were m . c. - f i] not separately admitted, but considered as additional bases for Contention EX-j .s. r c

21. We do not address either of these matters.

.j The alleged failure of FEh1A to include a realistic number of road impedi-ments (EX-21F) will be dealt with in connection with Contention EX-41. The only other Contention EX 21 factual area concerns the testing of LILCO's Route 2 Alert Drivers (EX 21 A), who are to provide nodfication to the public in the event d of siren failures. 'The route alerting situation is discussed below. s ....} fj B. Suffolk County's Testimony o 1 Suffolk's witness on Contention EX 21 was Dr. Gary A. Simon, an Associate j Professor of Statistics at New York University's Graduate School of Business } Administration. Suffolk Exh. 99. Dr. Simon testified that the evaluation of the i Exercise was done without reasonable thought as to sample sizes or random i selection mechanisms. Id. at 5. The FEh1A evaluation was a decisionmaking investigation, designed to de-termine whether Exercise objectives were met, based on the performance of -4 ] particular emergency functions. Dr. Simon believes that, in order for FEhf A to q determine the appropriate size of the samples it reviewed, it should have speci-U 6ed in advance its target value (what proportion of adequate player performances .l constitutes meeting the Exercise objective), its bad value (what proportion of ..{ inadequate performance would constitute unambiguously or definitely not meet-ing the Exercise objective), and the probability with which it wished to be able to make that distinction. A large sample selected without regard to these criteria will nonetheless succeed in revealing blatant aspects of the population. Small samples, on the other hand, will produce results with such large error bounds that they are virtually meaningless. /d. at 16-17; Tr. 7404-05. LILCO and FEh1 A agreed that the use of small samples produces results that are subject to wide statistical variation. Tr. 7300 (Daverio); Tr. 8480 (Kowieski). ~ 1 Dr. Simon testified that, from what he had been able to review, FEhf A '{ essentially made no reasoned sampic size decisions based on what it was trying

j to determine or how accurately it was trying to determine IL A casual, haphazard l

selection process, as opposed to randomization, was used by FEh1A in its ~ 'O evaluation.n He believes that FEh1A's failure to use the principles of random

j sampling, at least in some modified form, greatly diminishes the validity of 3 Tr. 7292 (Daveno). As wurmas Deveno paused =t.

acnnausucal synonym ror "random"is 'taphansd.* In statudes. however,"raMorn se4ecuan" refers to a pecess in vluca every itan or indindvalin se pgulauce has $s same probabusy or beu g sekxtad, a sa:ecucn pecess est depnds a chance but in which pecedures are as taken to ensure equal poba5dity ci selecuan is referred to as %paurd." our use or these terms m3 be centstas es se nausucal deflaaiens. 503 4 s .a s s ~ s s, = 4 s b _a-__

.[,-v / 'u ~ ~

,f

~ '.'y Ghl + 4 ,-) c. ,y ,c... a, p,p. e ,'Q ' Q - . L ' u.

> = d* w n Y

i n 9 4. FEMA's conclusions. Suffolk Exh. 99 at 18; Tr. 7367-68. FEMA acknowledged y N that its method of selection was haphazard. Tr. 8582 83 (Baldwin, Keller, 4 'a.' ..f l.i c ^ Kowieski). f " 5, - ' n J Subcontention EX-21 A alleges that on./ three Route Alert Drivers, one from ' [ f.]. ' ' j. Q. ' ' ~ w each Staging Area, were dispatched by LERO during the Exercise in response ,?, to simulated siren failures, and that this small sample of Route Alert Drivers observed ir validates FEMA's conclusion with respect to objectives Field 5, SA ~ - r 9, and EOC 15. Suffolk Exh. 99 at 27 28.

~;.

s Dr. Simon testified that a sample size of three out of a total of sixty was not S ~ ' ? l enough to rexh a valid conclusion about the entire population of Route Alert Drivers. /d. at 28. Nor was a sample of one driver out of a total of twenty in f,,.,;, ' " ' %, J each staging area sufficient to justify conclusions about the entire population [ m 1 of drivers in each staging area. Because of the small sample sizes, Dr. Simon believes that there was to basis for FEMA to conclude that exercise objective Field 5 was "partly met" at each Staging Area? Subcontention EX-21B alleges that FEMA observed only two bus drivers from each of the Riverhead and Port Jefferson Staging Areas, whereas 100 bus drivers are required to make 139 trips out of the Riverhead Staging Area, and 108 bus drivers are required to make 169 trips out of the Port Jefferson Staging Area. Suffolk alleges that FEMA's conclusions that objective Field 9 was met at the Riverhead and Port Jefferson Staging Areas are without basis [~. ., ~. ~ ' ': and invalid. At the Patchogue Staging Area, FEMA observed four bus drivers, and on the basis of their inadeqaate performance concluded that objective Field 5 Y^ 9 was not met. Based on its observations of these eight drivers making a total J f of eight runs, of which three were judged unsatisfactory, FEMA concluded that objective EOC 16 was met Suffolk alleges that the small sample size invalidates this conclusion. Suffolk Exh. 99 at 36 37. Dr. Simon testified that observing 8 out of a total of 333 bus drivers is in- ~ adequate to determine whether there are significani departures from the desired performance targets or to determine the actual probability of good performance from the population as a whole. Moreover, since at least three of the eight drivers in the sample performed inadequately, a positive conclusion concerning 1 s e U sw*rch Ed. 99 at 29. Dr. swnan preseraad same hypcecucal statuuce based e a sarnple sas d thre fran a ypsaum er saty, to show what to 95% corddece lirruts eeuw be m aero to cres sucasses in ths three samples. For e.ly me success cast of three, me resu:t would be: it is 95% certam tat anywhere frorn ) me to 6.fty-me of suty Routs Alers Dnvers 3o44 perfcrm popriy. For three csat of three, se resuh eeuw s I be: it is 954 certaan eat any=hers fmn toesy thris to saiv mt of suty Routs Alert Dnvers would pefam propriy. Dr. sunca characterued ease cmMece irnerWs as "ternWy enda." Id at 35.s4. If a sample saa or urt met used mth a targes vslue of 754 promr performance and a rirge er "bsd" M es from 0% to 354, me cmW make dat.ncuans me a cmMmca c( 704 Faner distancuans owW repre stJ1!arger sample sues Id at 35. 504 e P. 4 s e b

ny,>.. y,.. '. -., ; ~., n..3 m-y+, y 7;,:y ,.' -.~.;.,, ..-... w m e.a ~ , ;y+ +. p- :,g. m. 3.;;g..v :y.. x. p. 9 t.g g);, ;o gy,3 a,2 m gg.t.g,. 2.. 7., f.p .1 p .; g j.; 1 .p c 9 + ^ g, g. ,:, q;3. p ;, >.. 4 v.. > a g.. c< y;.y . ' J , . w,

-7, W ' 4.,

'J fV t .1.., c a.,',:., ;, f ( ;. l ~.. a,,. Y Q;1, Ts z,_ ; ~ , %.4u nr.A;,.%.2., &.W 4:q,;3.,;.: < i ;y l ~ 8 -y : 2 .-.. p _ [ %" t i .-... :. w ~ n i l the performance capabilities of the entire population would be particularly f improper.24 5 7y. ~ +.;.- ~ ibJ q C. Discussion and Conclusion I Dr. Simon's testimony was essentially unchallenged, and appears to accu-rately reflect, from a statistical standpoint, the nature of FEhiA's observations 1 on these points. LILCO took the position in 'ts proposed findings (at 56-58) that g it was not necessary to employ the statistical techniques advocated by Dr. Simon J G',(. I for purposes of evaluating emergency planning exercises. Staff views Dr. Si-4 j mon's testimony as failing to allege or prove: first, that a fundamental flaw 3 exists in the Plan, and, second, that FEhiA's method of observation is unre. a; } liable. Staff also views the testimony as a challenge to the regulations.25 Staff Proposed Findings at 32 39. In their proposed findings (at 149 51), Intervenors note that the definition of .s "Full participation" contained in footnote 4 to j IV.F.1 requires "mobilization of .., personnel and other resources in sufficient numbers to verify the capability j to respond to the accident scenario." They raise the question whether FEhf A's sampling technique permits any valid conclusions with regard to response 3 capability, given its statistical infirmities. However, they also note that LILCO and FEhi A correctly point out that the regulations do not call for any statistically y n valid technique, and that FEhfA's expertness and experience enable it to reach j a judgment with regard to performance. 'Ihey urge that neither position be j accepted in full. 'Ihey also urge us not to decide the issue. Based on this, in its reply findings (at 25 26), LILCO urges that this contention be dismissed. l 24 suffolk Enh. 99 at 40; Tr. 7377. Again Dr. sunon preserued a taWe of hypo $eucal suusucs to show what resu2u emld be espected frcen a sarnple of 8 cas of a pgulaum of 333. /d at 41. With 6ve out of aght bus dnvers performing soaquaisjy, as FEMA fand durra ce Eternas, the canadence guerssi ranges from 29% to j l 89%: $st is, it is 95% censin that benveen 29% and 89% of the LIRo bus dnvers cou!J adequately perform their jots a e shor hara acodent. In Dr. sam's gnon, this resuh does not sumort the concksiun sat there is reaamaNa assurance $st se buams plan can and udl be implanen.ed effecuvely. la ad&uon. Dr. sacn enucues ~ ] FEMA's haphazard select.on d the bus dnvers to be observed, as gpsed to randarn se.ecuen. He beheves s l y haphazard selecum process cmld be a good subsutute for a scununcauy random process, tut s,ates that we have i no way d knowwg what kind of b6ases mere introibced uso the pacess. For example, he suggests the selecuans enight haw been based upa ce ease of FEMA esskaters 'a observe pascular tus soutes. *bch may have = reseed m selecuan d stutes $at wart parumlarly easy, or parucularly &f5cuh. etc. But enn if the selecturn had been propedy randarrnzed. the sma3 samp;e sizes would su3 have peckded ressmaWe Andess. /4 at 42-43; Tr. 7377 78,739697. l 23 staff, estes Tr. 7609. clans $at Dr. sunen stated. in cecbdes bs tesummy, that ce NRC reg.dations shald requis ran&sn suusucal samples. We and no statene,s by Dr. simon on me esied transmpt paget At Tt. 7408 0), howowr, staff counsel Bar h asked Dr. sunm. "!s a your view met the NRC should nquus stausucal i . 4 samples in these sacrases?" Dr. sarnon reped. "Wea. you know,it is hke askmg a Rruster if he believes un I God. I suppme. It is a stausucal Arucle of Faith $st samples randomly selec*,ed haw many features cat make thern desenWe and appoputs. so. the anseer is "yes." With that cour.sel Bare cecbded ks quesuons. If staff irsanded to me tbs excharge to sumus $a posme est Dr. sam's tesumony eas a cha'Jenge to the regiatims. og strorgly Asagree -it looks m<re hke se e,tness oss bars set up. Dr. simm's rispaus eas an hmest. if e-hamaical, answer to a devious quesuon. ce subt;ety of which og beben he 6d not amrectate. d .s. 505 i . w s Met a g. t. T d,' s s 4 I4 I y s 'f q ~* '

}fYff,$ 'f'f " \\ k: l ,.,,,,,;,[.p; >....,.. # g x;. 4. o ;, 2:, L-.j; :.;s,. r ', ,,.,.. <.. 1 .m. i-f -f u-e,q %.. c. ~.;;,v,. e.,,. ',.e s.

.,,,{,. !;,,,, c, ',a..

~ ?. s; w v . ' T,

n. ".:,. s.,-;;.,.,,,.,

n., v, : 'm. ;.;w:. m' Y ._, .,-;;f *.~'..?l Y {. .s. ._. m.., s .. ~ -.

~.<

r. ,. 3.? -[.,',_*^s 'k',_ .;_,, _. ;, l :,,.. ...~.w..'.*.:. .e .ss-~u-*****~*'--%,-*W*~.* s t,?;, 4. '4. " q,..:er < c.L ** x - t ^ u. .. p r s.. gy. *., ;'.. -l. /O( y. ~., - .:t - .- s ~, .'s,.;. ',,. < o c,. ',, We are happy to accept Intervenors' invitation to refrain from deciding what ' f.: c,r. .V...,e.,fL ;

i appears to us to be a complicated issue. While Dr. Simon's conclusions regarding e

%h,. 'T M Q)..., i ',, ;,[<5. ; , ' 7, { { appear to be beyond question, the issue of whether statistically valid sampling the statistical validity of FEhfA's observations of route alert and bus drivers I'2,$'{. . W F,{ t c -V,101 techniques are required involves considerations far beyond those dealt with at ' {<f'l "-l,,.f? '. Q E C-Q d this hearir.3. Consequently we reach no conclusion as to the requirements of .,1 - e.q

j..

footnote 4 to 1IV.F.1, and have included a discussion of Dr. Simon's testimony '3 N' so as to bring this issue to the attention of the Commission. e + n-1 .~.*Y' 1 .a.

? -,

,- i III. CONCLUSION , m f ',.

g..%,H, 3 n,

. c' .+i We have concluded, for the reasons indicated in the foregoing, that the w - i. , - }.E "' V 4 , i.'f February 13, 1986 Exercise of the offsite emergency plan for the Shoreham f, j ",,,i. Nuclear Power Station did not comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part , c.- 50, Appendix E,11V.F.1. ~ In accord with 10 C.F.R. I 2.760(a), this Panial Initial Decision will constitute q<. the final action of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission thirty (30) days after its i' date unless an appeal is taken. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.762(a), any party may take an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Partial Initial Decision. - e. t x ,;,7 ' /,M, y-THE ATOhilC SAFETY AND _. c. e.g-.. 7. -.f.- LICENSING BOARD + ,, y.%p - !.h g s. d, ' ' a, ' 'h,.l Oscar H. Paris 1 ADh11NISTRATIVE JUDGE Frederick J. Shon 4 - q 4 ADh11NISTRATIVE JUDGE j e . a John H Frye,!!! } ADhilNISTRATIVE JUDGE s. .c 3 J Bethesda, hf aryland N - December 7,1987 .] o s., ~ s', t ' l[ s a 506 1 g -? 4 e ,a - i ~ j '. j J? fM J n -,.m - */ - ~ j g f 4

e..

o

5..

g p A g ( a # s 4 'A, e

=.e..,....-.,,.-,...- ( f.., ,,a

",N, 1

-, Z, ' we ,.t ',. ,4 ~u.. e s r . g ',, %'3 a~' .4*e- ..;,v;.y.. n, I.' *+. = n:....w.. ~ . -.~. .e,...a..... .... ~ c r, j . A l r. Directors' Dec..isions UnCer 10 CFR 2.206 e e. 'l = m-e l 8.- O b j a S e s e O q 4 I ii i a e i e h 9 s 4 e 'I 4 i -E--,.-,.----------,------- L----e.-. n-----...r..-ww., v-re.---*.e

'/ s 4..

........ ~..;;.

..e,.,4 c. t..,, + 0 ~,. "..., 4.,.0.

, J.,

g. d,. .;.., 19,, ^. ',,, f... ' th3 s. "(: 3 ~llsh '.l,b' n. g R..;, - s i ... / .,. u,,, : a c., 2, - q, n 7-e ... s. .s. .m i. - t -.a., ~ j Cite as 26 NRC 507 (1987) DD-8719 -'s g%. M..*. e.,,..

q. <,.

'2 '"..; ". ~ R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f. 7 ' ~~ N e: -i t.' i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1, . [ ;. ] Thomas E. Murley, Director .,,,v. 3 _ 4-4 3 '4- { , ;f, ' ~ In the Matter of Docket No. 50 341 1 l DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Enrico Forml Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2) December 8,1987 De Director of the Office of Nuclear Rextor Regulation denies the petition + filed by the Government Accountability Project pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I2.206, requesting the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take certain actions with g. l regard to Detroit Edison Company's "employee concern" program at Fermi 2 'I Plant entitled S AFETEAM, due to the absence of a substantial health and safety issue that could cause the Staff to initiate show-cause proceedings. t DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 i 1. Introduction De Government Accountability Project (OAP or the Petitioner) st.bmitted a Petition dated hiay 7,1987, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, on behalf of the Safe 4 1j Energy Coalition of hiichigan and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart s of hlary Congregation, requesting that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) take certain actions with regard to Detroit Edison Company's - l (Licensee)"employee concern" program entitled S AFETEAh! at Fermi 2 Plant l and, as necessary, modify, suspend, or revoke the facility's operating license. The actions GAP has requested the NRC to take with regard to SAFETEAh! include (1) taking possession of all the SAFETEAhi files, reviewing the safety related 2 allegations, and making these concerns public; (2) requiring that all S AFETEAhi allegations be processed by the Licensee in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B; and (3) requiring the Licensee to inform all its employees about ~ e s 507 4 r. s 9 0. i ,e I 6 i f 2

AW.N)f;g. ?yP.YK' - 'N.h ! ? ' F" ' ?%5{~N Y M J P M Y Q W U' $9 Q.*Q,[p[-

m.. ~

k. ' -

l ~. ', / *Qf 7.% . n ,. g + ,. -.a w

v. s :

,j .,7 ~ " q,3.,, F . o .:67'.'. .s - c., 5- .l,,v* v ;, s p, ..y_< s.. Q;. .;,z + ~ ' ~;- A " ' ',*'" ", 3.v.9,4,,j.':;..- /.;,, 8 .a< ... - - w. .. g.

R.: ;;'[

.ly.l' ~ " " " " ~ " * " ~ I: . yp:..j., a; /^ the SAFETEAM program before the employees choose to submit information is g' M t.. J'. s q to the program rather than submitting information to the NRC. p, f :1'o,' As bases for these requests, GAP asserts that (a) allegations of wrongdoing ? 'i vc were identified; that is, workers who turned over aHegations to the SAFETEAM <]), W,, 3

c. '<e. -

~ were harassed, fired, or otherwise discriminated against; (b) the Office of Inves-tigations (OT) did not aralyze the safety >ignificance of the investigative short. comings of the SAFETEAM program; (c) the SAFETEAM prc. am was not j s.- 7 i being properly implemented and was ineffective; (d) SAFETEAM interviewers are inadequately trained; (e) deficiencies reported to the SAFETEAM are not p 4 I v. y ' / l ( recorded on nonconformance reports and are not evaluated by the t,i6e quality 2-N g..]i, ' y assurance / quality control staff; and (O there is no quality check or accountability l; }' 4 for the SAFETEAM program. y }. n. ' ~ 2. Backgrond The SAFETEAM prog;am at the Fermi-2 plant was instituted in 1983 and q implemented voluntarily by the Licensee to assist plant managers in the early identification and investigation of errors or omissions during all phases of plant construction ano operation. The program, in principle, provides an opportunity for site workers to express, in confidence, concerns that may not be recognized or e l effectively responded to through normal channels of communication within the

c -

Licensee's organization. The program is designed to provide early identification 1

[

and correction of problems pertaining to public safety, industrial safety, and other less significant problems. The Licensee considers the program to be a safety net surrounding the project. The SAFETEAM program is not required by current NRC regulations and is separate and independent from the License 4's programs and controls required to comply with NRC regulatory requirerrents, ~ These latter programs are inspected against existing NRC regulations and license l requirements. As a result of allegations received by the NRC in 1085 expressing concern j with the SAFETEAM program, the Licensee agreed to complete i revicw of the SAFETEAM program prior to the Commission's cons:dcraGon of the issuance ~ .j of a full power operp. ting license for Fermi 2. At that time, the SAFETEAM Sies contained approximately 750 concerns.. Bsed on discussions held with i the NRC, the Licensee agreed to sample at icast 50% of the safety.related i concerns on f4le. 'Itc NRC regional inspection staff then reviewed all of the S AFETEAM files with the Licensee it order to appropriately classify concerns t having potential safety significanee, All of the safety related concerns were then d.ivided equally between the Licensee and the NRC inspectors for subsequent review. In additiort, the NRC randoinly reviewed about 20% of the safety related ~ concerns initially reviewed by the Licensee. Further, the O! indep;ndently investigated the SAFETEAM program, at the request of the Region III Regional i + ~,,, I 508 e f ~*; t. I ' i Is ,p .~ h. i j ' 2 - +.

.,v.. 7 77, m. 4 y f','.

yQ

Q,

Y, ',;,, ;. )

Q 2,Q. n, ;.) 1'

' ' h -r **,

?- n Lv 17 ' - +'

f

', f ;;i ^ t 'l T .~,.,; ~, c. v. 4 -.s,t r

.. '., ' e r' ' -

,, ' I - ] '- ~ N o s, 'l.

f '..,'

,u i-,' ~ ,V wu

I

,' 2 r, .,t '} . '. L '] e. .i, 4 Administrator, to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the S. FETEAh! -- 7.1. - j ': ~f progiam and its implementadon in the identification, disposition, and resolution L,, C of both the technical and wTongdoing hsues. '

L, "l.

? '1 As a result of these inspections and the O! investigation, cerain progran'mauc ~ weaknesses wer : identified; however, safety.'skted concerns were found to have been properif addressed by the Licensee. The msults of the NRC inspection

2 findings were documented in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-341/85029 and i

50-341/85037, aa,d were discussed during a subsequent Carnmission meeting .} (see Commission hiceti'ig Transcript, July 10,1985, at 2'i 34). SAFETEAhi 3 1

' ^

(' '. ~ y ?; by the NRC. / issues were delitv rated and no impedimen% to full powe licensing were found /- a i. ~ 3. Discussion l The NRC Fas revi:wed the Petitienet's lequest that u :;receeding be initiated to modify, s:sy:W'. or etcyoke the Ferm: 2 licen,e pursuant to 5 2.20G in light of the assertic% mM in the hiay 7,1987 Petition concerning the Fermi 2 SAFETEAh! program. Thc NRC findings r.nd determinations tekse to each asserted basis follow: . ;-4 f ~ c..' (a) Worker: A J Turned Over Allegations to the SAILTEUf Were s- !! assed, H;ssured, forced to Qs.,*t, Fired, or Otherwise Discriminated .t. . "t I t The Petitieve provides no specific information to support its claim. None of the NRC u r xctLos or the 01 naNatian af the SAFET1.Ahi identified any concern regarding discriminatory act:on against workan because ti.cy had ~

urn,... cver allegations to the SAFETE.W. Notat4y, w Safe En rgy Coalition t

of hiichigan (S"COM) was requested c/ etter dated Starch 30, 1987, before l s the 12.206 Petition was filed, to provide specif2c facte.id information related to any safety issue SECOh! has not reiponded to the NRC request. s j (b) O! Did Not Aulyze the Safety Signi)1ca:ce of the Investigative Shortcorni:.gs of the $AFETE.Uf Program i 'j The Petitiorwr is correct in that 01 did i.ot analyze the tafety significance ) of the discrete inspecticn matter? co.2uned in the SAFE'ITAh! program. This ~ mtion of 01. Th: purpose of th; O! independent review of the is nos. SAFF'Ui Wam was to evaluate the SAFETEAh! process. O! investi-gated tn. 's' ETEAh! program for overall adequacy a'd effectiveness: the j SAFETEAh! pre;, ram was specifica!!v checked to determine how issv:s of po- ) p 509 j l 1 ~ 1s i s 9 l j r

-. w 7 ~ ,95W-KWW Wi. 'd &n. ~,&l,%'y ;hNc u.na -if ' : ',*. ~ - P '. ;. 9.ml.9;v? ,,;<,. > n n pngl' S.m.mmm%QlW( : D % K: Fj L '.y.y[ ' b.. l 'W' ?*$'h 3 u

e. ~;,.<..J. m -...c.

y,: m,iw&.~&.:.,n n. L .e . w. '; Q. c ?.. e..y ~g o...

#: .. g. w.

,.. q;, y c _ ,yr-o y,, 3_ ..w,g,. p " ##^'C' ~ #,2,

.m u,, yy..,

c ys v %ug. d,..M',. i~ L - v, y ~ "' #,w"p~y",:.:. m n....:. p..c.n:.... -~ .;.w.n ~ " ~ ^ ' ' ' ~ c-- y;;;.y g.

p.. t ; ' g_

q ~ ~ ym e p;g. ,s ,. 0.1), ~.,- _ '.'> p, :: ;; ; 2,. g tential safety significance and/or wrongdoing were identified investigated, and Dq/. f.Mip.y if 4 e c '. f ultimately resolved. It is a matter of record that O! identified deficiencies in the 2 ';.?!'i. " 7 *; program. In a letter to James O. Keppler from Ben B. Hayes, dated October 4, .' $.], y'. 3. ',' ' .4. < D 1985, O! determined that: .n. ~u ..,- p " %w e.. ' p 'i ~ (2,~ M : ~ 1: ihe Fwmi Safeteam Program was not staffed or supervind by experienced irvesdgadw personnel. h was aho discovered that interview s, in many cases, lacked suf6cient informadon +,,~ 1 because of ihis apparent inesperience. O! bases this conclusion en the fact that the interview: .'b j-which were reviewed in the investigatin Ales could not provide information concerning basic e , ".l ' 9, _ i que. dons such as who, what, when,' where. how or why. he Fami Safeteam Prosrarn. s.'. theretore, did not exhibit the characterisdes normany attnbuted to an invesdgativt activity. ( ,s.se '3,l c; n j.' y . 6 i* 4 Notwithstanding this finding and a similar conclusion reached by the regional W., ~ l inspection staff, the NRC concluded that the technical issues identified-in n,y ',,E SAFETEAM file cases were satisfactorily resolved and they did not impact ":] public health and safety. This review is documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/85037 (14.b at 7 and 112.e at 1415). q - (c) The SAFETEAM Program Was Not Being Properly implemer,ted and Was ineffective The Petitioner reiterates findings connined in NRC Inspection Report No. 50< J _. 341/85037 and those resulting from OAP's own interview of site workers WT,7.' i who have expressed dissatisfaction with the SAFETEAM process. However, s./,, o stated above, the Licensee was informed of the programmatic weaknesses DJ. ; aa of the SAFETEAM program and has since improved the effectiveness of its N% a voluntary program. The programmatic weaknesses cited by the Petitioner (at 4 5 of the Petition) are taken from NRC Inspection Report No. 50 341/85037 (at 1', 15). Although the Petitioner highlights the weaknesses, it fails to acknowledge i the follow on conclusion which states: Y - a Ahhough some Raws were identined... an overau good effort went into the SAFEHAM ,s project.... Owrall ibe inspecsors belisve the packages were complete and well kcu. mented and the cecerns were adequately addressed. ,b _.] Because the SAFETEAM program is a voluntary program and the special in-spections and O! evaluation identified no safety related concerns that wre not + /- '. y j properly addressed, the NRC considers this issue resobed. No additional inspec. 'i tion of the SAFE'IEAM program has been conducted nor is one contemplated.

e.,

'f 1 r* e ?,- s I 510 e I s j a 5 ..,1 j 7 3 ',.': 6~ i } }.',a [ [

y.

2 ' ' l n' j ? 1,. ', r.. . 7,, a.

x..

)., ",_ f' 9-y. i si u.,.'.,$.} '( ,~, m v 1 J' = i, 1 g-y ~ = e ,a. g, _,,g_

g, s-t w - -.

s 6~ .g.

?".*%' o; A,* E V W ' ".,I.[*.3n.W'y Me'a'V ~'ii.O*.? W.O f;.. m. & .v 1].C M'R'D.*'*?'W ;* * ?.V t qc;, ; Q.3 S T a~. nw

!g%.a.,&'o.r MW t?

n . W.,,,3.g t 5 p ' y. f w. : - y.~. .~ n . Md. ~. i ~' g:- ~ v... 7 , - (#...}. '.h*Tv Q 'i,) o j * **

V. ' s
l

.[p.h?';,.' 'g [. ,,e

p.,a 4

s.2 .. 3,.{ 3n 'y ~.', ' C,. s, '...:,. A / '.7 l " i.....7,. g %. ' f,, [ .. e.. '.'s 3- .-.c. i

r a;p.,v.

f.v,.e. c ~. 2.,e., ,,.,..s. ..e.=, v:

. v.,,

--,u ;

~.v. m.

3.';

. ' a :, ^. ',

~ ~c ap

q..a

.2 ,q.f.....'. =

i.. ma
m.,,, ; c., e,.;,

.. s e,.. . ->a--,~.., . g.g, . - a..m .t.. ..) 4 w. 'I (

a
b\\...'

l 8 'b. w . r., .n. s.

' ', ;, q

... v.s :, - .. r.. -. 4 w,. %y u L.o,..e..A.. ;:L. %:+,,,. '" . S.Qp (d) SAFETEMIinterviewers Are inadequately Trained ,.,. j- .. L M.W<..,... s,, ;. s. 5..,. 4.. ;7..... n-a 7 'dt n .n ne Petitioners state (at 6 of the Petition): .e il. 4 g

k n. d' [

,{*. ,AA- 'b. ' ; %j],. - X - 5, f. - t Another basic problem with the SAFETEAM system results frcen the inadeqs ne training 4 J SAFETEAM interviewers receiw in the asus of allegance invesdgade.n. and nuclear power i ? '. s Y l .j plant teguladon.

w..

i. y-at i

n. .,s. , m , ).y.,. . g,j m. ., e n s shortcoming was identified by both the independent O! and the regional in- ' D ". n, ' V. s i~ spection staffs from their teviews of the SAFETEAM process. De O! evaluation +;;'D'r'f... ?.$ report was especially critical of this shortcoming. Notwithstanding this short-( ' y %.; M - N ;$.? *Q,.7,Y ' ", "a t 'y. coming. the NRC found no impact on public health and safety, ne Licensee - 7,%.4. g;g * %, y * ' ' ; c/ : has improved the overall effectiveness of the SAFETEAM program processes. . ' (. S,.~..... ; .l /- '.C 3 (e) Deficiencies Reported to the SAFETEMt Are Not Recorded on Noncor{ormance Reports and Are Not Evaluated by the Site Quality s. ^ ' q. AssuranceIQuality Control e af ne Petitioner asserts (at 8 of the Petition) that because of deficiencies ' 3 c. that exist in the documentation of SAFETEAM reviews, a large number of 3 h h ].dif6 '.[. ', M requiring compliance with federal regulations. Existing federal regulations (i.e., a' sl safety related deficiencies are allowed to exist in the SAFETEAM files without '.c y @ y.T 95;' "- y;,' -j related deficiencies. Furthermore, none of the special inspections or the O! (.,,$ l. 'i 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B) address the handling and disposition of safety-3 C.U i7..; '[,y.I.M t Q. [' :.l'4 j, :1 s ij evaluation identifie4 deficiencies in the Licensee's treatment of safety related issues with respect to the requirements of Part 50, Appendix B. The NRC 4 I ...c ~ inspectors have found (as documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-l ~' N -?- 4 341/85037 at 15) that appropriate action is being taken to resolve safety related ',... S ' i matters brought to the attention of the SAFE 7EAM by site workers. 3.' t. s (f) There is No Quality Check or Accountabilityfor the SAFETEAAf Program .y 1 4.* ne Petitioner states (at 8 of the Petition): f \\s F.'. N NRC has provided tha SATETEAM with a mechardsm to avoid tegulatory accountability ' M;cc for violaticms of federal requirerr Mts. N prosram ees not even a sempt to comply with y; .. '. f f s,". .j 10 C.F.R. Part So. Appendia B enteria. i n 1

. s

L..,.

2,, j While the NRC encourages programs like SAFriTEAM, such programs are r ^ voluntary and are not required by NRC regulations. De requirements of Part t g e W .R 511 ~... P W e T gib 4 ..m 3

~

9 1 t $c r o 1 e 9 g i 4 q N j

?)N Y f* ';.

l ?l

?W ]? .{, h {$ f ' J;' ..;..,.,. -w=,. r.,... a ..s .i. w y..,. .. ~,,x..., m..\\.pt;,

.... :,,,. ~ q c.a

.:n ~

3..U.Odiz zMs,D E@.... r...d'u I...

,,.,~; w. ,.c..,.~ c . ~. ; . i.;I M :GA"5 ?. 5.. + .m 4 s n- > o a + i a % Appendix B, have been and are currently adequately irnplemented by the Fermi.2 quality assurance program.' .c, ~. a,- ~ .c ++ 4 g 4. Conclusion ..s e., 1. In summary, the asserted concerns regarding th3 SAFETEAh! program have i s been reviewed by the Licensee and the NRC, including a review by NRC

01. These reviews indicate that there is no support for the relief requested in the t

/4 Petition and that there is an absence of a substantial health and safety issue that 1_ would cause the Staff to initiate show cause proceedings. See Northern ladiana .m Public Service Co. (Bailly Oenerating Station, Nuclear 1), CLI 78 7, 7 NRC 429,433 34 (1978), af'd sub nom. Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton v League, Inc. v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979)). Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to i 2.206 is denied. .s. r FOR THE NUCLEAR REOULATORY COhlht!SSION f 1 Thomas E. hiurley, Director t Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation + i j Dated at Bethesda. hiaryland, 4 this 8th day of December 1987. 1 I t 4 1 1 t I The Peuuoner also arguen cet stegauens recayed by sAFT "."AM must be processed in accordance wie 57C Marmal Osaper 0517 (Peuuan at 1417) The arpeners is nusplaced Mamal Chaper 0517 makes steer est me pohcies and procedures ses forut eerein apply ordy to aUegauens "receved for resolucon by MtC oMcas." see Chapers 0517 01 and 0517-022. The poLeies ana proced res of tese Manual Chapers m mternal Ntc procedures which are not appbcable to stesauons reesised by a bcenses inraugh me sAFETEAM program ~ 512 ) .s- ) i t' { S* l < ~ 1 L ~3 e ~ - ~ -+ ,' l , -.. es ,' r. g, s 4 .-l 4 s 2. ~

M {-;ti'!yfT.7'..:f->;'G.,. ' W ' Y ~ - % '- "" - ,; W Wl@:up:(: '5 ' MC'ti F ?I h 'cM, ':i.%: % ?$p!";v., g'?s @ ';, dl ? ~. HY. ^ ' " ". ?

?Q'MW

.N, L' s -:Jo' c $. ' 1. W @ ..:,,.;;// ' c c, + +. '. u, v. c. ;y,' ; y e..,; e . r.. % %r,,1f, i..y' 4'. .J..x <,a...- .. m..,. + ,.i.-. ..., c.a.,m .t .,a ..n. ~. g,> n, . 3 ;,s, t._ .q,% 12 -, ec

7. :

n. ...s. a.. c......, :, ; .s .,. c -

e. y..-

n.. e n; . 9 e., s,., L m ' ', t..t.., ; 5 't.J. ,. ~;.a m >w,4 ~r v.- - m .,.,,...; i, .t. _'. l }. .,N 'r i m :,. g.; '.e . ? j , D. ',,. t,,, %;g o : Yl v.. r.. f. c. :j Cite as 26 NRC 513 (1087) DD 87 20 y. 3.,.:.yg,,N. -- i. :; ;y :.',y.,.;c~.

y

.s-s- W 0,m y cgr.s >l ', :. n. ; <...f C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA { fc'- O;;. h. 7 cM...E,o ' '%.D C; M. 's a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e ..-. >;,. ;y - HU4. e'.x. ' J OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ^

-a(

,;,. e , 7, .t ~.. e , r,, .1. 7. p9q Thomas E. Murleye Director -;w, :g. V;,.,- 1s,. -...w . a, -.*y.s .j + ..y.-,,, N,. w . j y-.,,.. y!,.c.. a. 7,, g< g

v... q.: 4

. -/a., ! In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-498-OL m -'. - c.

l

- 7.. 50 499 OL s I x,* i g .p - a 2 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 s'. s and 2) December 13,1987 '. :.,t s ' y gt* f s n.- r -y . c,, : r. w,,- A <..,,. 7 +,- ' 4, The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a peti- ..._x ,c. . ; > q., s;a.% 3,;- Y";. J f, '[' D tion filed by Lanny Sinkin on behalf of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear J.f.'<,r..(y % ;, Y J ~ 7l#., Power, Inc. (CCANP) requesting that the record in the South Texas Nuclear '.q;,;O t ? '...' ' w: 4 Project (STNP) licensing hearings be reopened and that fuel loading be sus-l pended. CCANP based its request on testimony of intimidation and harassment P' by NRC personnel before a Senste Committee, which CCANP claims sheds doubt on the credibility of NRC wimesses at the STNP licensing hearing. N t' RULES OF PRACTICE: PETITIONS UNDER 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206 .c ...-s j ;',. '.N The Nuclear Regulato y Commission, havir g already considered and resolved n-J [.' ' s,, j in a licensing proceeding the issues that a petitioner raises, need not reconsider ,79, + ), those issues if the petitioner provides no information relating the testimony be-fore Congress with the specific facility and petitioner already had an opportunity t,,. .s.... m. .B...T. to examine NRC witnesses to deterraine credibility at the prior hearing. Con- . ', ".. Wf... $,. ) -(. ' i j jecture by petitioners is not enough. .,b ,."g -^ I c. b 4 4 9 4 9 g g g g 4 4 i e 513 1 1 .w k f " 0 4 2 *. ~ 8 + .k g 3 4 i I 9 ~ 's t p

.G. C 5

x.

,;Q J _ ~ : ; gc:, ey ~ ^ <. ~ cn.c. ,- ^:g,; s f / y 7),9/i".,'/ ~ 5;I. ~ -r .SiJ: ~ 1.:;[$;gj Q.;f h,G' ' L.:.MOr%. L

a lm V

^ v ~ 3 ~f ? Q s a

q.,
i.. ;3
u s: u. f" Eil.ui.n.:

M &. - i M-- '- = p Tile STANDARDS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDING UNDER g 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 y s ,y~:.. ~ ~ ' ;] 7he standards for initiating a proceeding under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 based on 6,, ( alleged defects in the earlier licensing hearing record is the same as that for a '5 motion to reopen under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734 (i.e., requiring a demonstration that a different result would be reached). ,.,. t ; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 ,;j INTRODUCTION ~ cl ~ On May 29,1987, Lanny Sinkin, on behalf of Citizens Concerned About Nu- .i c! car Power, Inc. (CCANP or Petitioner), filed a motion before the Commission ..] requesting that the record in the South Texas Nuclear Project (SThT) licensing hearings be reopened and that fuel loading, then scheduled for June 1987, bc suspended pending resolution of the matters described in the motion. By Mem. orandum and Order dated July 24,1987, the t'ommission denied the request for .,d a stay of fuel loading and referred the remai.,uct of the motion to the Staff for consideration under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206.8 'i In its motion, entitled "Intervenor Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, j]j Inc. Motion to Reopen the Record," the Petitioner asserted that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB or Licensing Board) decisions with regard to i S'INP should be altered. The Petitioner asserted as grounds for this request that, based upon testimony given by NRC witnesses during hearings ;ommencing on April 9,1987, before the Senate Committee on Covernmental Affairs, there is evidence of intimidation and harassment of NRC personnel in Region IV which sheds doubt on the credibility, accuracy, and objectivity of the testimony presented by NRC personnel in the operating license proceeding on which the Licensing Board relied in reaching its decisions. ^ By letter dated August 27,1987, the Petitioner was informed that its petition would be treated under l2.206 of the Commission's regulations and that a j decision would be issued within a reasonable amount of time. ' )I The evaluation of matten raised by the Petitioner have now been completed, } and for the reasons stated in this Decision, the Petitioner's request is denied. I The of$ce of Nudear Reseur Regdataan authonzed a hpower Lcense for sTNP t'na 1 m Augat 21,1987. 514 A i 1 8 ,e = j J 7l g g. e e % Y e N s t

~NR> :r K,epW&M.w:sQ..,Q.%. 3. f.Q.M'.. u-l Vh. f % '.' 5.T, ". ' ' ',2:b:' R ; {. 'y s..fhQ:mWj, 5r"f i ow 9 A. .g r. ".j,. u - .L l4 . v,. J' .m s; q',.,t.~). _. ' .,{'.

l s

^ u ,y f.. l. ~"yj, ~.s c., A 0.. ..t r. , j. .~ ,, v. . a . ;p ; ;.Z '* d s2 3., y .1, '.i-fr.3 "..y, 3 y ,., "lo

,. P 1 ' 4

, wf.4. 3, -,'- 9 v y, c.f c 2 ,.y s ,1 a : n.pyf,4y,. :y y, -x. 2.s: a- ,.a 9 _..J 9

..n.'

.R ...':.u...~ n.. y,f...\\ l,....,.s l-3.:,. y 1 r , r w. 3,.,p:. " M.; '. g.3. e, c. c..,..-+.; DISCUSSION .n ~ r '-] y w e ,Q :. ['n f I..:D '.,< [ F f/ A brief historical review is helpful at this point in order to respond to the W i p e. W % y e % :f M.q Petitioner's concerns, ', '. :. 7 U.guf .9 ' T ' ! An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducted hearings involving the 77, g application for operating licenses for the South Texas Nuclear Project, Units Ni, ' O J(f y.,; y,., ;f

j 1 and 2, by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), the City Public N

%y > f.. '. 'j Service Board of San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, and the City of Austin, Texas (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicants). HL&P ? ci.. F ^ 1, f (.i. M p C ;,- N ) % E,.c. y j was the Lead Applicant and was designated the responsibility for constructing y ].'( y.f.g,,.$.3,"l.i 9l and operating the plant. His proceeding was divided into three phases, ne .z. ,3 e f, ; y - . g first phase included various contentions that bear on the managerial character ..c og.. 7 and competence of HLAP to operate nuclear facilities. The intervenors in that 3 g7 c S f %y proceeding included the Petitioner here, CCANP.2 As a result of information w i 9, that was revealed during the course of the Phase I hearings - particularly (1) 1-l ~~ the issuance of the Quadrex Report, a consultant's study that was extremely e 'J b critical of the design-engineering efforts of HL&P's contractor, Brown & Root, g Inc. (B&R), and (2) the subsequent replacement of B&R by new contractors - ~ ~ g ' 7-y

^

the ASLB was not able to complete the record on the character and competence issues. De ASLB deferred to Phase !! those issues that were not resolved in + ,J:- -r , y' c.,.i s., f) 6 ".fyt.] Q Q:f U;.g Phase 1.3 p.- g J' :. 3 '; In Phase H, the ASLB considered five additional issues related to character F.f.9 6 J T t. Q lp,fe $'f k e;.., m j. n and competence, one issue related to the Applicants' quality assurance program ib _ y, %.' h. j 2, b,< for operation, and a contention dealing with the design and construction of 4 -x.,; 9.w.;.f. 4, .. l the S'INP to withstand hurricanes' He ASLB found that, subject to certain .a ' ~ f ', ' s. caveats, HL&P possessed adequate managerial character and competence for ,,' q > "l s the Applicants to be granted operating licenses for STNP Units 1 and 2. ),', -d in Phase Ill, two aspects were considered related to the contention dealing i " 77 ~ with the adequacy of the design and construction of STNP to withstand hur. ricanes and hurricane missiles 8 In its Partial Initial Decision for Phase !!I, the I s '.s . e ASLB authorized the Staff to issue licenses permitting fuel loading and low-V ~, '. c .). .s. power operations upon completion of its technical review.' .? '1 On October 8,1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, i o I . 6-sua sponte, reviewed and affirmed the last tw of the Licensing Board's Mg. 3 decisions. ALAB 849,24 NRC 523 (1986). De Commission did not review the ' q.:;y. ~, x l._,.: ,[" ,e-i 8,' [t-s,' '[,, _ _ i The artly caher irserverme besides CCANP was Citizes fcr Eqmtable Utiliues. Inc. (CTU). QU withdrew frtan 7 the peoceeding pnot to 4.he Phase I hearw&s. v. s [, 1 I 3 t2P-sel3.19 NRC 659 (1984). qff*4 se part. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985). noisw deckard by tAs Cemi=araon. Later dated My 30,1985. 't.BP 861s 23 NRC 595 (1986). 8 t3P-8629. 24 NRC 295 (1986). 'It at 31B. b t -4 e' T . 7 i 515 i i 1 ,g s l . =, 4 ,T, ,( w 5 4 ' '.. ~.. i 4 l' e l e I

-.. '.; } j,.< ~ f : f.-5] } ,w. . ~

j,lf ? ~l'.? l

.. z y[ '... p :. m.. e a ,vt ,t q,, o f e 3, ..m.,.' ,. J, ' a,. p<;, y c.. ...k s n. -.-+-.~w. ^- ' "- ~ ',,7 ' 'q 3 Appeal Board's decision, and it became a final agency decision in December 1986. On April 9,1987 Senator John Glenn, Chairman of the Senate Committec Y on Governmental Affairs, held hearings to examine, among other matters, the ~ conduct of certain NRC actions, none of which is directly related to the South j Texas Nuclear Project. The thrust of the petition is that, based on the statements made by a number of individuals before this Committee of Congress, the validity of the testimony heard and certain other information considered by the ASLB in the South Texas > ~ hearing is brought into question, The Petitioner suggests that both the Staff's testimony and a response filed by the Staff (treated by the ASLB as a response to ,d ' ' a motion for summary disposition) may be biased as a result of undue induence 'rj + by NRC management at Region IV and/or Headquarters. For this reason, the Petitioner requests that further hearings be held to permit examination of all NRC witnesses testifying in the Sowh Texas proceeding as well as of other witnesses who provided information to the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA Investigator, hir. George hiulley.' For the following reasons, the relief requested is denied. l ,i The only testimony referenced by the Petitioner that was given before the i Senat', Committee on Governmental Affairs which is arguably pertinent to the } rel! ( sought by the Petitioner is that given by hiessrs. H. Shannon Phillips and George hiulley.' However, their testimony, as well as the OIA investigation l~ cj that was the subject of their testimony, both pertain to circumstances arising ' s t. 9 in connection with the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, another facility 'N' located in the State of Texas but being constructed by w holly different applicants than the South Texas Nuclear Project. hiessrs, hiulley and Phillips have been consulted by NRC Staff, and it has been determined that their testimony before Congress on April 9,1987, was not intended by either to raise concerns about the South Texas Nuclear Project review performed by the Staff, hit, Phillips also confirms that neither the testimony that he gave in the South Texas proceeding as a member of the NRC Staff panel nor his inspection efforts at the South Texas facility were biased as 1 I lo March 1986 OIA autisted an mvetsaum concernes a::egauons by an NRC inspector. Mr. Il shannon I%Lpe. Mr. Plumpe nad alleged man he had been munndr.ed and harassed by his supenors m te SRC's Region IV fu reporung safay problems. Mr. Maney and Mr. Pha:hpe sesapet:y tesufled bdon $e sensa Ccantrunee on Governmental Affairs regardmg this mvesugauen at the Ap119 hearu g. 8 The Penanoner s'.so reendes encerpa of natements by senator G:ena, Juhan oreenspin, who, ta Deputy Quet of titsaum in the oeneral Latiginan secum of the Crmunal Divisim of the Depanmera of Juscce, had suremsed 1 the prcsecuuca of cninmal wolanons of NRC regulauens, and Ben Hayes. Se Duector of the NRC's Of5ce of Inymuseums (on. These encerns are general statemersa $at do not raise issues anneerning me credibshty e of se endence rehed upon by the Lacenseg Board m readung its decisari m the soeuA Teser proceedmg, w has the Ptsauoner acamped to show how these staiamerts relate to the soeuA Tsa.sr pencordeg Abset exh a showeg, fur $er acum wnh regard to this tesummy is not warranted. see, e g., PbleJalpA,e f facme Ca. (lamerxt Generaung stauen,l' ruts I and 2), DDws5 ll,22 NRC 149,154 n9ts). 516 .'m, e O 4 I' r 4 6

M,j u.c - g.,g@. g.,. yeM,e. f r". z .f' m e .. - m a o. 4 e'

n.

.e' . f. J. J.'.. _ " j i......n 3 y,- y',,.. ?.. ;; ,,- c. s m .. ~.... 9 e: n,, .4 s. G, e; . ' '.0 -

x.,..

n. %... i. M i. ' ;. C'.

a result of induence by either Region IV or Headquaners management. Like .e,. , C,'.e is .-j' I assurances have been obtained from Mr. Shewmaker and Mr. D.W. Hayes, the , J, + i. f 4 '.Y }. l \\;. p, 1 other members of the Staff's witness panel that testified in the South Texas ,: c.?, ';ll t (;,' ', ]./// 0 jf h proceeding. f,,7., ,iQ 1 With respect to the Staff's testimony relating to the summary disposition ~ ^ ruling discussed by the Petitioner,' no substantive reason is prescrited to question w s q s ,.4 the veracity of the statements made under oath by the Staff witnesses. De .i. t .;. x., y j;_.* essence of Petitioner's assertions regarding this matter is that the Staff"grossly "7,q, ,, j abused the use of 'open items' to avoid writing up violations," so as not to hinder .,~

i.. '

.c..s- ' ?^ n the Applicants from obtaining operating licenses for STNP. However, no specinc h information regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project is given in the petition "gl A to support this assertion, which rests only on the inferences drawn by Petitioner ./ g'. from a reading of the statements made before Congress. As discussed above, ' w. t Mr. Phillips, who was a principal inspector at the South Texas Nuclear Project, i has confirmed that both his testimony and his inspection efforts were unaffected ,3 by pressure from either Region IV or Headquarters management. Thus, there 7 1 is no reason to question the categorization of deficiencies found as either open c items or violations. ~ In addition, the Petitioner's request does not seek to raise any new substantive ~ c 3 s.:. issue but, at most, requests an opportunity to challenge the credibility of the f 'J '? ~.,, 7 ? i "..(p; 3 testimony and a summary disposition granted by the ASLB. This opportunity p _.M, '\\,,"I "z A'f.?,,' [cd 1 'v n was already afforded in the context of the hearing held in the past. The Petitioner, as a party to the proceeding, had full opportunity to cross-examine every Staff l ' ^ s ;.' 7 ',,. '(, '! witness concerning the preparation of his testimony to determine whether there 7,e t z. - 4 was any bias that might affect the weight to w hich it was properly entitled. And while the specific statements and views more recently made known through the (f ~ OIA report and subsequent congressional testimony were not available to the q e Petitioner at the time of the hearing, there is no reason given by the Petitioner to believe that information regarding NRC management induence could not have - a been elicited at that time if it could be shown to be at all relevant to the South 7 ) Texas proceeding, as opposed to Comanche Peak. Indeed, a review of the cross. ,.' '?3* examination of the Staff panel, which notably included one of the individuals who recently testified before Congress (Mr. Phillips), reveals that the panel's n e l credibility was in fact questioned. See Tr. 9872. Consequently, the credibility of 3, the Staff and the weight to be given its evidence was considered by the Licensing t.7 - Board in its decisions. With respect to the summary disposition ruling cited by y f' ],

.-]

the Petitioner, the ASLB had found that the Petitioner had failed to provide any q I 'De rules a quesuon occurved when te AsLB g-amed summary daposinon dunr.g me Base n prweedtr.g ror ihe remairur3 managernerit compaence issues. CCANP had contended mat summary esspostuon =as marpmpage i smco as cien iurns m IE inspecuan repana cmmatuted unresolved racwal quesums beanta m the adequacy of Appbcama* ccurpeurica LEP.861s,23 NRC at 609 36. ] s p, en s 517 e 1 w P p 9 e

. - n.p.; jr - 4W' ".;m.: yp;.. '.t ';.c w - w w - i. . s. ~ ;., - s.- + .s,- .n. + ,~ . ' W.h, ;, ;,,, r .w;m -.. .m., Ei mi, j reasons why any particular open items should have been classified as a violation and had not even attempted to relate particular open items to the NRC criteria for .y violations. 23 NRC at 635 37. De record thus demonstrates that the Petitioner V ',,~ ~ failed to thoroughly pursue the open item issue at the time of the he.ving in the South Texas proceeding. 1 The principle is firmly established that parties must be prevented from 3 using $ 2.206 procedures as a vehicle for reconsideration of issues previously decided. See General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI 85-4,21 ' ~ NRC 561,563 64 (1985) (citing cases). In this regard, the Commission's denial ~ of a petition to review a Director's Decision under $ 2.206 in Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), CLI 78 7, 7 NRC ~, 'l 429,434 (1978), provides significant precedent. There, the Commission stated: ,4 '!he Director properly has discretion to differendste betwten those peddons which, upwi 1 examination, indicate that substandal issues have been raised warrantirig insntu6cn of a s e proceeding, and those which seek to regen issues previously resolved, or those which serve merely to demonstrate that in hindsight, even the most thorough and rea.onable of forecast will pove to fail short of absolute prese ence. Here, nothing presented in the petition rises to more than mere speculation that, i in connection with the South Texar proceeding, there may be some quesdon d as to the weight p.sperly given to the Staff's testimony and the granting of t. a summary disposition; however, no substantial issues" have been raised. ~ (! And, while not minimizing the significant role of the Staff in the NRC's adjudicatory proceedings, even if it were shown with greater conviction that some doubt may be present with respect to the weight accorded the Staff's evidence, the institution of a further proceeding for the purposes described in the petition is not compelled. The unquestionable burden of proof with respect to matters in controversy in any NRC licensing proceeding (indeed, in regard to a the entirety of the application for operating licenses) falls on the applicant.10 i C.F.R. 6 2.732. Dus, under the circumstances described in the petition, to warrant the initiation of yet a further evidentiary proceeding as requested, the Petitioner would have to demonstrate that a different result would have been l { reached by the Licensing Board in spite of the evidence of record adduced by I the Applicants. Stated otherwise, a petitioner wuld have to show that, but for the evidence given by the Staff on those matters in controversy, the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to sustain its burden and thus the application should not be granted. The standard for reopening hearings under 12.206 would thus be the same as that for a motion to reopen under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7M (i.e., requiring a ~ demonstration that a different result would be rexhed). In this instance, the l petition simply speculates as to the applicability of the statements made before l l 518 4 se 4 I g a =

4:,w; q; &s~,4.d,.c v;a. A"p..;'e. 7r.~ x:. mm.;v.m;s.y?.9 up p :c,m., '. -. ..v s, o,.;.. e y. r. ' m-.w . y .,a fy^w..w, b.;... n-w n.

wn m;, s s.;.. ~ ;, *,

2. l 7,hm;'.:- ~ ~ . ~ -, .;R,. L; 4 x: @:.w 'go:, W.'" '"., K v. P. y

m.

i a : ..c:

c. -

..p,. i c o., sc u e.,w.v.g' * - - .-/*.*-A .. ; ~ 7..s,' S 1,.',- - ..m. f.. a ac . _. n.. +, g.. -;.1 ,u. o. 2.vvm. l .,.,.~ - v. a. >,e. .i .n . s. y .,,.i .....3 .. p. ,.s m;.m. a - t. e vi :..., w .s. .P.. r. z.c +.. ps., a g. v....x;,.,o. . r.. t - ~~-. . 'r v..., . +. .,x,.. -. :n.. m ws. e.g 3,. ; : o ~ ~ ~ ~. .c.

W. A.. u'.

.u

. e n g

a:~~

i

' ~ :sw.m ~. s. <s;.,.. :..,., ..e..... ,. y. x.a a p'.'j/,k'[w!oh',' ['.]j(7,[.,<... .r, s 24 ... ".- Q Congress concerning Comanche Peak to the South Texas proceeding and fails $N'lf;ej1 to establish how, even if applicable, these statements might have altered the ) ' WF( 3.. $ ?>,G.' g M outcome of the proceeding. Such conjecture falls far short of the requisite factual specincity that might provide a suf6cient basis for action. See Public Service ',1,y : '7b...a.,( *yw; '.g,.f, N,. N '. qj

yc # 9 2

. c .. 7. p.. ' e Sy> d. Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI. . 7 3 v. -g, go.10,11 NRC 438,443 (1980). .a. V N. s..; ?.; - ~ ~~..y,y ,u

. :n ~.

.q. ' ' m..n..,s.. o m; a,,. y. "..,J, . N. ,i CONCLUSION ,~.m....v.,. .;....m. - N. ;.I'f. ;.,% j.;J.$, f(,. g.. s. ..r, c,..... .d,. a i In sum, the Petitioner has failed to provide any new evidence that would

# [ < 7.h. f C,' }.,, -jl - ('y warrant the relief that it has requested. Consequently, the Petitioner's request is c.

v_2m.4

denied, ac>.p',

m",y.,.. [f[ 3; A copy of this Decision will be Sled with the Secretary for the Commission's ..,4.., s s, -g- .- y . m,.s review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. ,, ~ e. eP* FOR THE NUCLEAR 1 .L,m .G REGULATORY COMMISSION 3' .p: t - Q..y', *

g }' /j p g. 3.; ; !

Thomas E. Murley, Director l..N % $ '. $'j,m%.{[^ 7.]-l, l Of6ce of Nuclear Rextor Q.< r.C- . A..

s. o..,

Regulation ,9 0. -,.r.-.. u.n...,g. v.m. m,.,.. -..,;y. s ~. s. .m ~. , s.. u. .',.M... d y-,,f'f JM-q Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, f. u , y :1. PcRM. %...Q. '-Q.1. C. ,' ?,.,2 this 13th day of December 1987, 1

r..

,\\. m e.*.. y. + i I 7 ;.,. ". g, . 6,; ) .i.. 4-p.

d. &*

E. . P. "' e3 '.(** ,e, % */f s'c+ 8' -{*

y.

F 4

'.*)... ; %, of., '. *

? f 'O.

e, 4 -

c. {us[ C :...., 2,

gl _

d, ,,6 .o +, '.Q 'I g j ;, ". *.. ..s; e, s}, .e g e.,,. a . g g,. g ;, 9: .n . g,' J] . 8p W 'yn~ s, ? J,s t, ,,4 d 2 " I,.* g .','.,,1 -t.. + + s', 3.. i... ,..r,, .,.? e y ,r..,- o ,7 J t. * -9*.. (. *[.., , (

T.n.y,<; o

,,< 4 g} >.- -4 i....' g. 3 y. ,3 - ;g.,, M * :*,. 1, s -'.y,~- ? g. - t ., [ s y'j/,;... j 3s,,.s, -.* Q '.,.. ,,s -,80 -4 p. -rs*. . t =.,, .-g s 8 ) e s p i

Y F

c $19 i P-J

g I

t_ a is ++r 4, ) s- ,s v. s' j g-s T k. 4 8 y 9 4 g

.[

My;-;-;t: phq.Ty'u.c,g.yR',y.h

4: ',Q-Gy'3 .V,v!Sf,c.y Q'W<.

1 e

4 \\ 's %

~.-

D '; ',, ~,a. 3 s .%. t ;... 1'f;,*in';,y'v.0%'< -,,Q, W- 'Q _ 3 (f. w." 'di ~ ;. ; .,. ~.. y-x ;.. h ' ',i, ql, h,, ok,h' N;,N'U " I'5 dC D i" v +: 'r sr. 7 ,s

y,

-t.. - 3 3 Cite as 26 NRC 520 (1987) 00-8721 t .c s. e ' * / J, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' !*} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t -r,, 3 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 'h f r Thomae E. Murley, Director s, #,4.; ' ; e,,. y,, -m .i,.,.. in the Matter of

'c

- '.J. i r., ,.a -., u '. ~, POTENTIAL.!MPLICATIONS OF -6 CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT FOR ALL 7 NRC. LICENSED FACILITIES December 15,1987 3< [ '] The Director of the Office of Nuclear Rextor Regulation acts on a request by 1 .': 4.ft;<C the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and others (together, Petitioners) "'- } that the NRC (1) suspend further licensing of nuclear facilities in the United .'a, y: 1, 9 '</O States pending completion of a study and report on the accident at the Chernobyl .(.. v <j plant, (2) review the findings of the fmal report for their applicability to facilities .',Q licensed by the NRC, and (3) request public comments on whether the record should be reopened to consider new issues raised in the final report that are material to any pending licensing proceeding or current license. To the extent that the Petitioners request that the Staff undertake a study and review, those .,{ requests have, in effect, already been granted. Petitioners' other requests are ~ found to be without merit and are denied. Y DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206

e...

. p. Introduction \\ By letter to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated May 1,1987 (Petition), Thomas Carpenter, on behalf of Government . [] Accountability Project (GAP) and others ( cether, Petitioners), requested that the Commission order immediate implementation of the relief that the Petitioners had requested in a petition filed on May 6,1986, as a result of the April 25, 1986 accident at the Chernobyl power station in the Ukraine, USSR. The action $20 ( { l l s i e L t 9 - e J

m,. - - x .,v. ;3,. n

.._ ~.

m wr, 3 v. .c ,s. ..s .. e,. 'l - v. t. .e(.

k._

( . ~ .,. e ~ c

l l.*

l .f ,p ,.a .a ... c. -s .s -pv. a . -. '7. .o j licensing of nuclear facilities in the United States pending completion of a study N .G requested in the May 6,1986 petition was that the NRC (1) suspend further . y. - ], ' ~ ~ Y .g 'i and report on the accident at the Chernobyl plant, (2) rewew the findings of ~' 'd the final report for their applicability to facilities licensed by the NRC, and (3) t i ' - ' .-[~ request public comments on whether the record should be reopened to consider 7 new issues raised in the final report that are material to any pending licensing proceeding or current license.8 '!he present Petition essentially requests the same s 1 -, 4 relief. This Petidon, which is supported by an enclosure entitled, "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Chernobyl Petition, asserts that there is A j a similarity between the Chernobyl reactor and boiling water plants in the United 'l States. Furthermore, the Petition maintains that the Chernobyl accident provides 1 g." S. - T] important experience that warrants a review of existing industry standards under .i NRC regulations. j By letter dated June 8,1987, the Petitioners were informed that immediate e imp lementation of their requests was not warranted, but that their Petition would be treated under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and that action would be taken on their requests within a reasonable time. I have now completed my evaluation of the matters raised by the Petitioners. i As discussed below, the Staff has completed a study and prepared a final report + of the Chernobyl accident and reviewed the findings of the fmal report for their 1. applicability to currently licensed facilities or facilities under construction. Thus, ./[, d . ',. ',0 ' to the extent that the Petition requests that the Staff undertake such a study and ,, N, l review, those requests have, in effect, already been granted. For the reasons ,. a... . n c. s <f. cq ^ discussed below, the additional relief requested by the Petitioners is denied. .. s g i s .,.m g l / a Discussion a 1. s The Petitioners request that the NRC (1) initiate all currently available legal j options to learn as expeditiously as possible all material facts concerning the -s s j Soviet accident; (2) prepare and make publicly available ongoing anaiyses of the relevance of this information to NRC licensed facilities; (3) prepare a final, h; published report of these findings; (.!) review the findings of the final report to determine the safety consequences with respect to licensed facilities operating t or under construction in the United States; and (5) suspend the granting of ,s ,j operating licenses for facilities under construction in the United States until the final report is completed. 1 I he May 6,1986 peuum oss derued by leuer dated May 27.1986. De derust eas based upm se Peuumers' fa.lars to pmde spectf.c mformauan that =<m.'4 compel a hah to laenseg of facthues m de l'ruted s'aa 521 h 's s

'.9, m.6.f;N.% w!; ;q w' *.p <, 4 ' ;~. f'h,. ? ^ 7,~ - ^ A* W' vv' s.7sr.w -. r 9 '[ % n ;n .. e ,c. n - ; 9,. .,,4 7. ' Pv l;l? - - f ',.".. N.O.b a l x - - - m =-- "'~ .; 7 + r,G,. ,1;_ e .o + A f. q f .h,.

f..

Immediately upon learning of the event at the Chernobyl plant in the Soviet q[.!, Union, the NRC formed a task force to evaluate thorcaghly the accident and % "I U,g] to learn as much as possible about its causes, course, and consequences. The results of this effort, including a detailed account of the accident progression i at Chernobyl, were published in January 1987 in NUREG 1250, "Report on

'9-

the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station," which was prepared collaboratively by the NRC, other U.S. government agencies, and other groups. 2 The NRC also has issued for public comment a draft report entitled, "Implica-Jn tions of the Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States"(NUREG 1251, August 1987). NUREG-1251 ,c assesses the implications of the Chernobyl accident with respect to a number of ?,} reactor safety regulatory issues associated with significant factors that led to or .:. e,' ] exacerbated the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. These issues include 4G the areas of administrative controls and operational practice, design, contain- )" ment, emergency planning, severe accident phenomena, and graphite moderated reactors. ] The causes of the accident at Chernobyl are documented and discussed in detail in NUREG 1250. As set forth therein, although the Chernobyl accident was initiated by serious operator violations of safety procedures, the ensuing reactor damage stemmed from basic design features of the RBhlK 1000 reac. ,C J-tor. The design of reactors in the United States specifically precludes the type 9 l..- of damage that occurred at Chernobyl. The RBhtK rextor design does not E? - l use large steel reactor pressure vessels with water as a moderator, such as are 4-r employed in the designs of textors in the United States. Rather, the RBh1K 'To uses a graphite moderated pressure tube concept, which, in some conditions or 3 modes of operation, has an undesirable characteristic known as a positive void coefficient. A positive void coefficient means that rapid power increases, leading to vaporization of cooling water in the pressure tubes, will produce further power increases. This condition is extremely difficult to control. At Chernobyl, this i condition developed so quickly that the operators and automatic safety systems had no opponunity to respond, and an explosion resulted. In addition, before the event, some safety systems had been deactivated and a number of operating ) procedures were violated. htoreover, the slow acting safety control rod system 7 j of the RBhiK design funher contributed to the event, which was exacerbated still funher by the ensuing graphite fire. In the United States, as commercial nuclear power was being developed, the , 'l importance of control stability and negative void and r.egative power coefficients was explicitly recognized. As documented in NUREG 1251, the nuclear cores .c. of commercial rextors in the United States are designed specifically to prevent the power instability that caused the Chernobyl accident. Unlike the Chernobyl reactor, the cores in reactors in the United States are equipped with fast.xting 522 2 o l ) i

Sy.W M..?%;ltk?',M W &. w.$ @n. W:iN -}.e,:.$ i. W O

Q EQ:.,@

M *..; ; Y } i w.w .n ,.W, o,*,%. y.". * +n +... p L*~k,~..c' ju's V ' ".; ; ~ ;. y '. ? i n. .p - .~ +: ~ ~ ~ m . c. ^~ >r . O s. , u4 g.s, p'.~ w s

,y c....

. ~..,. y p. +.,.s :.. 3.t c. 1 v e r a. ::,,.c

: m :.,,, '. n,.. m_

w.

.; y,: a. -: :~m..

..e 4 y;c. :u ~ ~. ~, ..a v. ..o y s.t - a (:/pm,a,;. : .y>..... s.

3. v.. a. -

1 ; ~, w -.~.. .t .y:;. .....r.:.m s. c,r....2.a c;L.h. 1 z. s., '. n; ,i Aw, p\\ ';c .~ m.,... t ' Q!a / ( x ' ,n C 1 l

w:

..'s..,.. ,: ~ ~ ~. .:.s /- Q'6 4 ~.Q G 7

O.O.. E W

i f d f. d safety control rod systems, Thus, because of the physics inherent in their design, J%*(5-[% *. Q.$ M., N,' f'Qf$

w%,h./J

/d reactors in the United States respond to an increase in voiding by reducing ?.[x, m -: m.. q..y.'df;.f~e ;;.[.fkf,(.)*ff M~

W power.

Notwithstanding important design differences between the Chernobyl reactor 'p (~~r, [ il','.f,. ' qq. jj and commercial textors in the United States, the 6ndings from NUREO.1250 .7D ., n '9 and NUREO.1251 have added to our understanding of some of the phenomena

%... #{;.

s.]K. ", ; #

that may be involved in a severe nuclear accident, and they have prcvided some w t, q ce ; p. j additional insights that are useful in guiding our severe accident programs. The ., q u ; i,.Q, y ] overall conclusion of the Staff regarding the implications of the Chernobyl

t.: R F W -i M ;c, i i.,,

accident for the safety regulation of cornmercial nuclear power plants in the ,..f, /

w.. r ~

United States is stated in NUREO 1251 as follows: . a. ~. n s

4, c3 y.3f..,,;, y (.,,.,..

r c. ,,a ep s ]./,_.f,. /" ~ ~ ~q E [i ^

1 No immediate changes are needed in the NRC's regulations regarding the design or operation 6. ',,,, ;,, - 6. @ O Q, ; 3, d U.S. cornmercial nuclear reactors. Nuclear design, shutdown margin, cmtainment, and l

cperatimal controls at U.S. reactors protect them against a combination of tapses such as '4"+ ].,*,.' 7 t those tapenenced at ChernobS. Althcogh the NRC has always ack.nowledged the possibility

f...

1. '

y of major accidents, iu regulatory requirernents provide adequate protectam against se L risks, subject to cetinuing vigilance for any new informatim that may suggest particular 7 'f), weaknesses, and also subject to taking measures to secure compliance with the requirements. J $ck '. -(' .g Assessmeras in the light of Chernob% have indicated that the causes d the accident have J. f .i

7. ff A,.q,

y N;% i been largely articipated and accommodated for ccenmercial U.S. res" " designs.

~ ,;.. y g g: n. ~ p+; p<1 r .. s w. s M 4 Q3 ' 3.M.b... Thus, the Staff's actions have essentially satis 6ed the requests in the Petition 3:p?j'*.s.QU"5"'.y..'y,g!^;@j)j

c/f..

7

M' that the NRC (1) study and prepare a report of the accident and (2) review fyf p,lQ.y,.Qf:q respect to the Petitioners' request that the NRC suspend the granting of operating y,p'7 '

the 6ndings of the report for applicability to currently licensed fxilities. With .g. , 4 'y' "'q ' ? ',/ g J N *..j licenses for facilities under construction until completion of the final report, this N , j.. ih 'l request is denied. As discussed above, the steam explosion in the reactor core, .h ~ f " . b(.- ',,# 3 /,( W '. . V., a nxicar physics design vulnerability speci6c to the RBMK reactor. On that ~ which ruptured the reactor core and the surrounding building, was caused by ] 1 .'y'.", Q ([d.-) i V' 2 basis and because of other fxtors discussed above, ! 6nd that the contention of I 7.j ? .; ; 3.,, N..,,,.f,'cp[c ff3 .,' " J Ll the Petitioners concerning the suspension of the granting of operating licenses .. j to fxilities under construction is without merit. t ',;. r-x c

y',.y T. u. b f,.,

}; .d 1 y n t 3 p.v. % v.." .. v. L 11. .,,. ; c. n_, %.._....+. ;. v 9.I 7A cs. - t. ..y a y,9,y y p. 1 The Petitioners further request that the NRC request public comments on m. w ( 3 j.4 whether the "record" should be opened to consider "new issues" raised in the

y.1 lM 6nal report on Chernobyl that are material to any pending licensing proceed-2

.t] ing. In general, the Petitioners argue that, following the accident at Three Mile t., 'f f 9 's q.;. ' g:'. . 'j ~ island, the Commission established a precedent that mandates a review of exist-f.lg, y . u e 4 ing industry standards w henever an event within the industry provides "important /. industry experience," The Petitioners assert that the Chernobyl accident meets c s.,, 3, is: 'a n e. a 513 i l -t 1 e \\. s, .b y 9 4 \\g c ?' ..c,. s. ~- ,.,1 q, O 4 4 y b I I g ~ g 4. .g e' '. 1 .g - a i 4,. .= t { N,- O. l

m

z. ;,

m. .j, w a.s n < 7 -> T, p rqw ".E L' n ^'

7. g

-' g. W ;;o; b ; c 3., ~ , r.:

n- -

~c d.' -y v .gv o x o.

e. Y, C,.

..; x..'.

se,

'., f ..v . }. ' 7,:.;f i ~ e. ..-*\\. .s 3 d,. E 4 w_..,;;.=. ,,.m. c,. e. ; s. -,; ; >l 8 Q 7

, [ I

,1 the requirement of "important industry experience" necessary for a review of [ ' r !, ~ >' [.([.C,./.7 o Commission and industry standards. Hence, the Petitioners claim that the Com. . e. E.V mission must take the same initiative in response to the Chernobyl incident that w '\\$ it did in reviewing its regulations following the xcident at Three hiile Island, [P* and that a failure to do 50, absent a full explanation, would constitute "arbitrary 's ' it j. and capricious behavior" prohibited by the Administrative Procedure Act. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the NRC did respond immediately b. to the accident at Chernobyl by forming a task force and coordinating a major Y fxt finding effort. The NRC's commitment to identify the lessons learned from the Chernobyl xcident and determine their relevance to frilities in the United States and existing industry standards is evidenced by the publication of draft c _Q. NUREG 1251,"Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation i of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States." After all comments '. -; l received during the public comment period are duly considered, a final report ?'- f will be issued. The basic design differences between the RBhtK reactor at Chernobyl and ~ reactors in the United States had a direct bearmg on the NRC's response to 5 the accident at Chernobyl. The accident at Chernobyl was a highly energetic reactivity excursion that mechanically disrupted the core. Fragmented fo:1 that m 4 .,,p combustible hydrogen by the chemical textion of core materials and water came into contact with water rapidly vaporized the water. This generated f + J . 'c at the high temperatures reached in the accident. Because of the basic design e ".i' differences between the RBh1K rextor at Chernobyl and reactors in the United q 'o States, the specific accident mechanisms involved at Chernobyl have no exxt W, parallel in reactors in the United States. Within days of the xcident at Chernobyl, it was recognized that the inherent vulnerabilities in the RBhiK design were not present in commercial rextor design in the United States. Therefore, it was l determined that immediate regulatory xtion was not warranted. However, as a precaution, it was deemed that the most prudent course of action was to undertake an intensive effort to understand the accident pheromenology and to assess U.S. power plant design and operational prxtices in light of the fxtors that led to and exacerbated the acchtent at Chernobyl. NUREG 1251 provides this assessment. The Petitioners specifically identify three basic areas that they allege consti-2 tu'.e "industry weaknesses for which they claim consideration and revision of existing standards are warranted. Broadly stated, these areas involve (1) contain-ment structures, (2) operator training, and (3) emergency planning. The Petition- - ' 4,, e ers also state that consideration and revision of standards need not be limited to 3 these areas. 4 With regard to containment, the Petitioners argue that the containment used at Chernobyl was the type commonly employed at many boiling water reactors in the United States, and that the Chernobyl xcident, in light of this 524 9 s s ) m 4 a

c, m.m L'.c,(.p.c,..y,v.%., ., i - "g'c,-

,Y.

. m3f'. - 4 ' r, 'A c a. g- ,-:z' - t m r' ~.., --n 7,.' .hg. ,e x_,. 13. 1 s ..-m.. m. m_. ~.,.. ,,m. , i. s . y.,;.. ^ ~ j:. ' q. ' ~ + a sc.e,

.g'

},l,y ,p 1, f, .t. -j similarity, creates new "industry experience" that must t,e considered by the f ~ Commission. In this connection, the Petitioners call for (1) a complete review of 'e ' d },.x 'M all containment structures at both completed plants and those under construction, E '7 'j in order to provide a uniform, complete standard of adequacy for all plants; and , ? q (2) a public forum on the containment standard proposed by the NRC. '7 Because the accident phenomenology at Chernobyl was unique to the RBMK design, it is impossible to directly compare how reactor containments in the ^ t United States would survive an xcident similar to that at Chernobyl. However, 1 ^ ' ?. 'j the role of the containment building as a vital barrier to the release of fission l M, i products to the environment has been recognized for some time in power plant .t -ie j design and regulation in the United States. The NRC began to give attention h."' j to severe accidents even before the accident at Three Mile Island and has increased its emphasis in this area since that xcident. The Chernobyl xcident .? focused new attention on containments and their performance under severe. .I xcident conditions. Thus, design differences notwithstanding, the implications of the Chernobyl accident were evaluated with respect to containment design and performance. 2 Specifically, the Staff evaluated the implications of the xcident at Chernobyl j with respect to activities already in pixe in the areas of containment integrity .e c., and the ability to prevent the release of large quantities of fission products , ".g -i during severe accidents. In its assessment of the impact of the Chernobyl ex. f , P' - 1 perience on current programs addressing containment adequxy (NUREO 1251,

~

~ M' '...

i Chap. 3), the Staff concludes that ongoing research programs and regulatory

% S,c.g ',j - d initiatives are adequate to identify and implement the design and operational - <>w j improvements needed to provide greater assurance of containment survival in (; '; ; g .1 severe accidents. These programs under way include the systematic search for e plant specific vulnerabilities in containment structures and performance to be xhieved through the implementation of the Commission's Severe Accident Pol-y ,,;y" icy. Section 3.1.1 of NUREO 1251 provides a brief summary of the basis and f-v', purpose of the Commission's Severe Accident Policy: 4 t l n,,l 4 Sewre. accident evaluatims ard research had prosressed to the p>mt that the Comrnission l, Q' ' ' # -.. ' .~{ esisting plants posed no undue risk to the public, liowever, the Commissim pomted wt that issued a Severe Accident Policy Swaners in Ausust 19s$ (50 FR 3:13s) cmcluding that i C,' at each plant there u d! be systems, ccanpmeras, or pocedures that are the most signi6 cant '} cmintmore to risk. t'tihdes should idendfy these ccrarttutors and develm apropriate w, j ccurses d scum, if and as needed to ensure acceptable margins d safety. Funhermcre, ,g s , -.e (j the Ccrnmissicri stated that such examinancrts "mill include specinc scentim to emtainment 3 + j performance in stnking a balance betacen accident prevendm ard cmnequence midgadon." i Implementation of the Severe Accident Policy Statement through the Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs), utilizing emerging research, is expected to indicate whether risk outliers exist at specific plants that justify improvements in contain-t p, 525 i., I T 7 ~ _._.l._....__..

o :w aw..,er,.- a,, m.t. : w... .'- ~? %w . l ~w - C. D Q .tr. 4.. ,7 ,em..,x s 3; f,, -mg.- ~ '> n .f ,7

y

' L,. y, p. n <: ;< q ~ > ,.s : f.. 3,;,;f ). h y - -~' ' ' ~ - c ....c. .s j:, ? ...,.e. m,- ' i-I I } ' # I} ment system performance. This implementation is the principal NRC program C;,, 3, [, ij for identifying plant specific severe accident risk outliers and for implementing v

J.' c, c <. m~ L c',j new requirements. Other ongoing programs and initiatives that address the ade.

9,;*

o quacy of containment designs are desenbed in more detail in i 3.1.2 of NUREG-e ,y'. k'DW 1251. Inasmuch as the implementation of the Commission's Severe Accident y-2i Policy will require the review of containments for all plants, the Petitioners' , -(^ 1 request for review of containment structures has been granted. ' y, i i With regard to operator training, the Petitioners argue that the existing F NRC regulations governing the establishment of training programs as set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendices E and F do not provide for monitoring j operator training or the individuals who will provide such training. Asserting that I f Chernobyl provides important "industry experience"in this area, the Petitioners -J" claim that current regulations must be revised to provide for such monitoring. 4 P Contrary to the Petitioners' assertion,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, I F M' requires initial training, periodic retraining, and exercises to test the adequacy I of training for control room shift personnel to ensure their familiarity with emer-gency response plans and duties. The adequacy of this training is evaluated by g NRC through inspections and exercise evaluations. With regard to training re-ceived by operators in the use of and adherence to operating procedures, Chapter I of NUREO 1251 describes and assesses the adequacy of administrative con. trols and operational practices for reactors in the 1.inited States. Section 1.1.1 .i. X-provides details of NRC requirements and guidance for procedure development i 't q and use, required procedure coverage, standards, and NRC inspection and en. forcement in these areas: ,t 4 - The NRC has a large body d guidance and requiremenLs that includes general and specifle measures for devekymera and use d adtnmistradve procedures and cmtida. These cmtrds govern all ope sting acundes at nuclear power pianu. and are designed to avoid the typs: s - d violations that occurred at Chern4)L Procedures are vidsted in ticensed plants, but only rarely with the knowledge that a vidaucn is bemg ccenmined. In its program to ensure it'try and quality, the NRC has devek ed amt puHished quahry assurance requiremme l 5 for saindes affeains nuclear safety. Cntenon V d 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendit B,Quahry ,i the gmeral requirermnt ice hanng procedures and fce fdlowing them A sectrwi levtl d Assurance Cnteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Nel Reprocessing Piarss? . pesenbes ,.j adrninistraove cmtrols for procedures is ccotained in each plant's Technical Specificadons frS), which are a pan d the license... Bah Technical Specincancme and Cntence V have the force of law. } Technical Specincadces require procedures to be reviestd by the l' rut Review Group when 1 inidally wnnen and before being changed. eacere for temporary changes made on the spa t that do nct alter the intens. The l' rut Review Group is made up of key plata supervisory ~,

persmnej who are krusledgeable about plant safety. The objeaive of this renew is to ensure that experts from the vanous technical disciplines review the procedures for cperstkm a changes that ec-ald affea safety. This renew backs up the technical procedure writer and his.her supervisor's decisicne on safety. There is a funher screening of procedures and changes to procedures to determme whether or nct they may mvdst an unrenewed safety 526 O

I 1 A h

1.p f. W ;;@ @w.*4. m. w@4, 5 WW' A, P+9lBf 2.R,is N N',.?Mi P.? Ja 2.9.MGYS,,.V Q.WW .C. NT I .c..m...fgs e ..n /,;., - < r. A

m..

.,,,....c,s;; 3,,o.1..

e.,;p, : -.

s. rw ..,e o a

x y a:.

a ..es.,q. 3-o c. %.,4<. v. 3- . - o.. sc. .:..o ,4 L 2.C,a, u ; m.d..p.. ~ ,y c.. a .o 3 p _ '- wn a::': 7 'O' L ';; '. m. c y + e. .w- . _ w y.. c: s s. . a. q s. 6,:m.:( w-x ~.x e...%.

. e.m y /*.n %lv m,. l w%.i&.A :...

. ~ *e %'s ; 3;}n;. o

v K

i < < p.A ~,/c.s w.e.~.A.._m ..'? ', + >,, p(1 t .n". .i - m, e wam t

e. t S.

y-

p.C W g..;:[m..

v;V.'*~ m,... W w u.,, -en i. 2 .c. ..;; 3 y,jy. ,.%. g. 1., s,.q . m. ,C,e. f:':g& a. y., n. m., n.y ,. v y ..r ,,i~s;g c + 4,7.M. 7,. Y av.* a:%. ' ^W. y @.sf.l:,. ',.f *;;;,..W.; ' . J. '.g j ,v n g.34t9 quesnon or technical speciAcanon in which cue prior NRC awewal is requimd by 10 CDt IJW1h!NN."[,j W;g '(. /l be periodically eudited, and audit nauhs be peJed to appmpriane managernenu coenaivs $4.1,Q 4,Y;.N (,m,M.'?,; i b)5 r L. 4 50.59. The NRC requins that all d these asdvides,inchkiing compliance Wth poceduns, ) '4 . d saim is required shen denciencies am food. ^ o'A M t p: W 4 6 M. f if; $. a ( '..} Q Q(e.W X....j q s 4.4 q M '.. - e' ;j Additionally, reactor operators must be licensed by the NRC. Because plant W M.. eT.A.gf Z;r..!>?,?..; .l., Z, ~ f operation requires extensive use of procedures, operators are trained in both .. ~.. '. ,:,.y the technical details of procedures and in their implementation. NRC examines s.- 9y ,, ...gm..-.% ;q operators in these areas in accordance with 10 C.F.R Part 55. 'h@M,Q' < J id :.fc a'

m. ' ]'

In view of the fact that the Commission's existing regulations provide b. e' M './. d.' ?$:. f f&.o$ W.I.M ' ",$; h examination of operators themselves, I and the Petitioners' contention that, in for operator training, an assessment of the adequacy of the training, and an y - {, g.; g. y.g., ?. ' ' ' '. light of Chernobyl, regulauons must be revised to provide for monitoring of " "li. jf( / ' - ! ;,4 - .j operator training, to be without merit. '.N; Finally, with regard to emergency planning, the Petitioners argue that reeval. . O r,. x. -- W,, c.. Qj uation of NRC standards for individual emergency plans is necessary to incor. C w - k, porate lessons learned from Chernobyl. De Petitioners claim that at Chernobyl, s y.. a C. q. l. , l j, even with well established emergency and evacuation procedures, coordination .< - s i ..: 4 with local of6cials hindered the effectiveness of emergency efforts. The Peti. .,b '.I N '. [.' .3.h tioners allege that Chernobyl provides important "industry experience" in this f N, c. y. f.v:, ; ;G ;.f [, p,@.N f Jg wi t, Q area and provides the greatest amount of data available against which existing d emergency and evacuation plans can be compared. Thus, the Petitioners argue M :, W ;f M.p!,,i, C S,;,d. . 4 )'. that the Commission must provide a comprehensive plan for review of emer. ".. y, &;ip 93 V., gency procedures currently in place at existing facilities. De Peutioners also f 7:p,yJ. e. . fiM '; M: request that the Commission provide a detailed plan for coordination among CA. fpfQ M .@; 'i 1 owners, the NRC, and the state of6cials during emergency situadons and for the ' y ~.[pp., ' N '. u.,' submitted by the NRC on evacuation, on a state.by state basis, that will provide _ '? I sharing of critical data on plant operadon during the ernergency. The Pedtioners ( - f.4 : ', ( y.f, w also request that the Commission provide a public forum on a detailed plan to be '. i. ,.,.;;'a, y. i ^ ?: Jty ,g. j an overall strategy for evacuation based on individual plant design parameters. A, W ss g' ^3 -Qp Q The Petitioners did not support their claim that coordination with local of6 I r, ,.c t cials hindered the effectiveness of emergency efforts at Chernobyl Purther, the Q ( j t!.6 D,f,s.,. Je t.1 ;q Petitioners did not establish a relationship between Soviet emergency planning 40@;{, pl1.A^d{f.Q :).y y -i ', bp felj and U.S. emergency planning, nor do they establish a relationship between So. . JP. ',g' "y. ;;2 C:.. viet emergency response at Chernobyl and a possible U.S. response during a . M.. ,1 <m , 3 domestic accident, in addition, it should be noted that the NRC has reviewed ' :,' f y KJ', s li, f(..0,$.,, -the Soviet emergency response to the Chernobyl accident for implications for ~,[ " f O,. ' m U.S. emergency planning and did not identify issues that would support the Pe. ..M ,". c '. 7 a, w titioners' recommendations in this regard. Section 7.2 of NUREO.1250 states 7 p 4:.3y that, initially, Soviet emergency response was hindered by a lack of adequate h.W p;'.y. -._ '2' equipment and facilities and an underestimation of the severity of the accident ,f u 3:y ~ 4 it

4 9h 4

4 \\= by plant personnel and local of6cials. However, these did not prevent a massive

b, i

u '* 3 i n a,,a D 34 l t $ 1 e i ?- g. ~ a .f n g* = i e 4-4 + s

g O

a

l. -.

L._ ~ ' m"[-[3'.%'['M'7'T m, '.D _'h i h.j,k.'?.h ' 'O.,7 .fM.p'.' ' ' ' ~ ,~ -[{. 1

[

+ s., n -, - n'[3,

lp.

4 3. o ' y ,s. 1 e s '\\ 3 v. o., ~,, ;,:, ~ .o 3 j

I )'-
b

h;.

., y* t, U. s.,.. n > ;,;., s v. !(l' 'j,.n f * -( ;. I ,,NEN , gr.y.., .n and apparently effective response by the Soviets. NUREG 1250 also indicates - /y ', 4 :. s, f.<.'.y. i ' '. that the delays in evacuation were dictated by local radiological conditions and . s sG .. 3 *, '.,.; j.:. ;.V,,f.;) } logistics: m 1 ,~ .. ~..,. j y.Jf%y. {4 ' he andable informadon irdicates that Sosies potecdve saions danns the Chernchyl I N g-f.- l emergency consisted of sheltering, Wministruim of KI, encuadm, decmaaminadon, and ,'U~;*- y measures to pevent radiadm expsure in the inge:Um pathway. .+ e .e f I he decisicci to theher the residents of Pnnat rather than to cucuate them on the day cf the accident was based m the permissible levels ci radisim measured in Primat, while at 1., j the same time high levels were measured almg potenual evacuasim routes. ~. Evacuadm of Pnn at did nut commence unul abmt 36 hours after the accident u Chernobyl because ci this delayed increase in radision levels at Pnnat ard the need for coordinaung , i the needed legisucal resources, and prepeang encu Uon routes. Ad hoc evacunim plans had to be pepared since na all "eaisting arrangements" cculd be applied (tNSAG,1956,

p. 78).2 Arrangements for transportatim, setnng up relocadon centers, presiding radiaucri mmitonng ard decmtarninstion services for pewie, presiding replacement clothms and ceher necessides, idenufying am augmenting medical facdides, are some of the things that i

had to be done in order to carry out an effecdve encuadm. Dese acuans were planned and put into place dunrig the twghly 36 hcurs from the Ome of the accident to the start of the evacuation (Sanders,1986, pp. 3-4).3 Tirne was also needed to take precauums alms the evaanauon routes that had been contaminated abcue permisutie levels. His was dme

i, by usmg a polpner substance to costr land areas alms the rods used for the evacuauon (Sanders,1966, p. 4).*

- f .' n In comparing the U.S. and Soviet programs, NUREG 1251 cautions that t.f - C-thei'c is a substantial difference in the emergency planning base between the United States and the Soviet Union. Specifically, NUREG 1251 states that after the xcident at Three Mile Island, large resources were expended to improve emergency planning and response capabilities around plants in the United States, The report also states that, in contrast, there is little indication that the Soviets have comparable she-specifle emergency plans for the general public s around their nuclear power plants. The report further cautions that economic and t' e,' N: societal differences play a part. For example, in the United States, most people have xcess to private transportation, and necessary alternative transportation is preplanned around nuclear power plants. 3 C ] 5.,' 2 tntarnaucrsal Nclur safety Advisory Ora,p (INsAGL *swrnmary Rape m $e Ptet-Accidars Renew Meeurg i 1 on Se Chernobyl Accaders," Augum Wsepamber s,1986, Gif (sPL_M, LAE A, % anna. sepsmber 4 24,1946. 3 sandes, Marshaa, Federal Emergency Managemes Agewy, tesumney prwand fce the t'.s senau s.,henmm tes an Ndear Reg 44uan a the contraase m Ermimmental and Pwwe wcris (heanra cance:: 4i, sener+er 29,1986,Washargvwk D C.

/4 at d.

I l 528 4 .I k u

7lT ?.a.ga,, s.Q .. i _~.w, 7A W T l: '., '. t,,, e ';, W C. c " %,. : n 1. '

y..t...u. o.. r.. -

o.. c .4

.o.. ~

- r m. r, s.. w 9 ~.....r a m 1 ,+ .? i'. Wc,'a 5,- o. ,. f. -L 7 S. w.>. ,-~.9.~:.x t % a. W. e ;,. &o. - '....t :

g. -;..
e.

,- u.1- ~ o.<.,- -n \\ d?Q.V # . % G y g.,' u, c., /- 1 .)~ I s , ~. y. 7.. ;g 7.,. v. y. g 3 r. 2 ..,f,.m. ., w. c x v ,en u. p,< t n.. 4 .i ,, 3.,,;,i /,;p W..~ ,. ; s;/.: .G ej., ; r ~ 8 u., :r 1

e, y

.99:...J 3 0-c..-

: y:L., + -

o.h < ' '.k,l:1~ NUREG 1250 notes that the dimensions of the Soviet response and the -(.@P$,-gd.'c?". 7.w. 2 4. m.M. !,Rj 'cn [... ' e..s d. utility of the Sovict planning were dictated by the magnitude of the xcident o M,i.f9@,4..? C,.. p P. !;$.P.,Y a 4-] at Chernobyl: .u. ,;f ac~ c ..e- ,{.fg.m y ' ; - Q. 'j ',.rf p ' U" v s .. W ' A,'? Simalarly, the Russian delegaden aho stated.. that when the respnse team frms Moscow . : 5. ard other locadms amved at Chern@l,it fomd the response plans had mly timited value U and that the team Sad to resort to *ad hoc" planning (Sanders.1966).8 The musive scale of hf5 b' .,, 3; ;. ' -. the accident probably was a major factce in forcing ad hoc planning, as it nu naed to have g,., ,we, overwhelmed to.al resources. This nu because the release of several malian cunes inidally 'g. 9.l 5 g ) ' ),' k '%s,.9,1,), ,.' with similar thmgh smaller releases dauy mas not included in Sones preplanning (INSAG. ...i 19s6, p. 79,8 Warman,1986a, p. 3).' For eatmple, a major dJnculty was that because cl g>., g;g .~ .t.e f c - '^1 the actual simdon... not an esisting urangemenu could be applier (INSAO,1986, l 1 -j p.73)e j j'c ', q.;,,

g-g,

. -a. 4 : n', .I As NUREG.1251 points out, specifics of the Chernobyl release are unique to the s-l RBMK design. The amounts of radioactive material released from plants in the i l United States would, for most accident sequences, be considerably less because, 'e. i among o$er things, plants in the United States have substantial containments. In i addition, although low probability, fast moving accident sequences are possible, .f,. '. :. severe accidents at plants in the United States would, in general, progress more '..)N-J. slowlys resulting in longer warning times before radioactive material would be c m- ....m,.

. y +, ; 1 releastx!.

..u.,,,-.y.

o. g.

7 3 s, ,,,j NUREG 1251 notes that the NRC did not find any apparent deficiency in y. y n.c[,b:. j f.'?.R?. g :. f j. j ' ]j ; ';Q. y. 5 a emergency plans and preparedness in the United States, including the 10-mile c ' g, ll.. .i A plume exposure pathway EPZ (emergency planning zone) size and the 50-mile ' y 4; gi W.J inge. tion exposure pathway EPZ size. NUREG 1251 concludes that these zones ?- '. it o ~. proside an adequate basis to plan and carry out the full range of protective actians for the populations within these zones, as well as beyond them, if the r l7 neej should arise. However, NUREG 1251 does note that the planning bases y ],',','3 for relocation and decontamination and for protective measures for the food .c I~ N. N tV] ingestion pathway are being reexamined in the light of new research information. s - Regarding the Petitioners' recommendations, the Petitioners fail to establish r. 7y ep> a r exus between the alleged weaknesses in the Soviet emergency response to the 7 7, M *: g,7,,1 ac:ident at Chernobyl and U.S. emergency planning and preparedness for nuclear ,,y f- . *"Q. .j pc wer plants. The Petitioners fail to show that their recommendations for review

p. ;

y. ,.i. 3 4 of U.S. planning are warranted by the Soviet experience at Chernobyl. Further, c, ',, y, Y t'. United States' own review of the Soviet response at Chernobyl, and its s.. o 4 3 y. ..f c,.:. - i s w. ( d ' k T.? u. 8s,. ma s. w. 1 ' ^ N.. a t v. s Vaman, hni A., sm CmMws bgmeer, swa a4 We%r Dgmeenrg Carparen. Naa. er Pmew l 3 o uusm we som D. .. i v=na %ra s.v.w s, toi4 ' ;ee ama 1 sh pra i 0 ,g. ~ t, $29 4, s 4 e 4 + g g 4 s g, .d b

.. : e.. u. e ,n .. ~ . wyp....,a <

w..]. : -

7

c ": ' = W W.c m'

. y,. ;. t w.' W' %, c :, e,i" m x.,

1 pg,.yp. a.v. > :X. an

.' m p.a._ - s- ..' s .. iv .. ~.. 's

+.

1 a ..s e s, = i y 4. 9.,, ,3

e. -

.f , n s,: s .y..c ~ ~, , v.,w _,.,.h,.,, '.t..L f. g -.....,

x.,. ; ;;; >

s..- ": ~ = ~ ' -. v. g. 5 r 3.- l% ^ ..~"' '~ - ,. en..,..

* ' ['7. c...

, 4 , r;,., s , ' ' d, './;.I,./ * .d , ;.;.. -., 5 ' '. l ' ~,., -

n.

~ g, w:- a'... ;j a. .c 4 ..s u:., r ,j review of implications for U.S. emergency planning and preparedness, still in '. ::. U C..'I;*/ @ 4 ' '. draft form, do not support the Petitioners' recommendations. i,

3,l%,f m ~. ]. $Q;.. '.s:p,. A.Ns h 3

,'. b. LQ: m. n.%

,',i..n M;-..w: c > 7 9,1 ' ?,@...,

Conclusion s t.m ? ' :y, :.... w M:,;3. ' .c L .r , ;;n.;..; g.

,.y.

As discussed above, the NRC has already extensively studied the xcident s /g'g, e '., q3:( that occurred at the Chernobyl fxility and the implications of the xcident e l: Y .f'.. ' 3 g, j,';'.., on fxilities in the United States. The NRC has completed and published for f.l, -,3. /jj comment a fxtual report (NUREG 1250) on the events of Chernobyl and a I ',.,. L ( /,.1 draft report (NUREG.1251) on the issue of the implications of the Chernobyl ? 7 H-4. l;.l xcident. Therefore, to the extent that the Petition requests that the NRC initiate . ' e, ... M,.. all currently available legal options to learn the material fxts concerning the .d. . ;,.j,' j, Chernobyl accident, prepare analyses of the relevance of this information for .~ f. NRC. licensed fxilities, and prepare a final published report of findings on s this issue and review these findings to determine the safety consequences with respect to facilities operating or under construc*lon, those requests are, in effect, granted. For the reasons stated above, the additional relief requested by the Petitioners is not warranted and is denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R.12.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's

review, FOR THE NUCLEAR y

-~ REGULATORY COMMISS!ON a t Thomas E. Murley, Director

~

Office of Nuclear Rextor r ' Regulation V

j Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,

'? ^ this 15th day of December 1987. ,I. -a s 530 .e.s. 2. u,, g. ;a. ;,,,, m, b p' \\ r e a 9 A q}}

ML20151B744

Text

Navigation menu

Search