ML20151E151

Discusses ASLB Findings & Comments Re Licensee Reception Ctrs.In 880509 Partial Initial Decision,Aslb Found Subj Ctrs Adequate to Satisfy NRC Regulatory Stds for Use in Event of Radiological Emergency

ML20151E151
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/18/1988
From:	Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20151E085	List: ML20151E082 ML20151E106 ML20151E151 ML20151E177 ML20151E274
References
FOIA-88-280, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 NUDOCS 8807250389
Download: ML20151E151 (2)

Text

.

I N' {' p m M

','o UNITED STATES I ')

'.2"t,  %

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

i '

WASHWGTON C C. 20555

• t i / ,/

%,  ; GLW'LA y

May 18,  :-38 MLvC:ANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director - <:- '

T_. s -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FPf.M: Joseph F. Scinto Acting Assistant Ge eral Counsel, Hearings St3CECT:

SHDPEHAP DID FINDIM LILICO RECEPTION CENTERS ADE-QUATE UNDER APPENDI) E TO PART 50 AND NUREG-0654 Ir a 109 page Partial Initial Decisict (FID) issued May 9, 1988, the Attmic Safety and Licensing Boaro found that three LILCO owned reception cer.ters for use in the event of a radiolegical emergency were adequate and satisfied NRC's regulatory standards. Ir. reaching this conclusion the Boarc found that the proposed relocatico could provide for monitoring of 20% of th:se in the EPZ. centers were adequate if they It further ruled that transportation and traffic problems because of the centers' locations and distance from the EPZ, and problems caused by the evacuation shadow phenomenon centers , were not so substantial as to prevent the use of the relocation i

The Board declined to deal with an issue of whether relocation centers could be used for that purpcse under local zoning laws, stating that issue had not been properly raised at this time and should be dealt with first in State courts.

In the course of its decision the Board also made thre following conrnents:

The Board "gives no crede.nce to the possibility that Nassau County Police will not provide assistance to the public in an actual emergency because the 'best efforts' assumption of the Coninission and the regulations prohibit such consideration."

The Board noted that the record did not reflect whether the police were familiar with the plan for

, the centers, and therefore directed LILC0 to provide cop.es of the plan and to consult with the police. Confirmation of these actions was delegated to the Staff. The Board also stated that "refusal of local government agcacies to participate in planning will not in itself prevent the issuance of an operating license if the NRC requirements for emergency planning are otherwise adequately met."

In deciding that the existing road system has sufficient capacity the Board stated that the goal was not to "predictively resolve all uncertainties about traffic flow ir, an emergency. .

. A fair cemonstration of capability based on existing highway ca;;acity and adequate prior 8807250339 880713 PDR FOIA DEL AIR 88-280 PDR

' ^

, a j

.p. '

allocation c' resources is all that can reatcrably be demanded i' assessing LILCO's plan because this is all the regulation: -equire and all that we can scrutini:e without

> resorting .: specblation."

In connect':e with the reasonable assurance sta9dard, the j Board state: 'The standard of public health prctection is  ;

that the p'ar be adequate to achieve an unquantffied dose 1 reduction :: the public in an emergency. Those standards ,

do not reo;i-e the submission of a theoretical!y optimal I plan nor :c they require resolution of all :redictive uncertainty a bout how future emergencies wil' t.nfold." i i

The Board rejected a claim that a dose increment is i "s i g n i fi c a r*." if it causes a few percent increase in the probability c# cancer. The Board could not "be'ieve that the Comissicr's standard of 'no undue hazard to the health and safety o' the public' could be meant to establish a requirement that there be no increment wha tever in projected tancer probabilities for conceivable accidents whatever ttef r size. Such a standard could not be met for a ny pl a nt .

)

The Board rcted that. "[p]lanning standards and criteria are developed :n the basis of selecting reasonable, but effective, arctective response actions and the requirement in monitoring is simply a capability to monite- all EPZ residents and transients arriving at receptics centers within a 12-hcor period. No requirement exists trat we are aware of trat dictates a different. even if better, method I

of detecticn must be installed even if aiatlable."

/'

y ose F. Scint Acting Assistant General Counsel cc: J. Murray Victor Stello, EIO William T. Russel, Regional Administrater, Peg. I

- -