ML20151M976
| ML20151M976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/31/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V27-N05, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V27-N5, NUDOCS 8808080055 | |
| Download: ML20151M976 (151) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:o ~, ...... - -.. ~.. a NUR EG-0750 '/ol. 27, No. 5 Pages 485-626 eg g.e.= e t,e f g=.ag8 38Q**A.*pt y 7 (' v.y g. y. y a. y y y ; g.p,,,?q;,,h 4 ,? .my ew +.... .f- ,.7,.gn,- y l\\ U C LEARiR EG U(yeg$%p+ d, ,4,rd.ad,w.gy.3 aC O VI V ,.yy.v; qp,xp;,p..a s. mn..n4,. %y 1g g*. a.- y-..y...*, a.;;o.3 4 t;,,. ,s/i. g 4 g u;,t. ,s y,,es.,4,p,y; w .7 y. ,c ..r,. .. ; s.- w.m, y. w .z.4 g@a
- w
@g33 4:.ypg;y %b sp
- a. ;',/g@.yglypytA Cg 7.e.
EMOB d i 2 are m,5m QQww 3 + w:;c,m p m a.w:.m q q,,w a,,v9 %w g, u.., gem #g@gggg.p@,,.ggggljgg w w gg s sp c '3. y y n. l3.y. m u s e. w a. u p y ~. n e. %e c e,.a.a. a n. we mw w.afer.m m p.~.4.;&.2@w.;y.gk M MMyagspyk 1gM p gaph;; Wy:::a;w;;mf.otng.cga ?gioht h e;.e , w: w..w.m,.;
- .. ; s.s;,g,fh v.. V,.c;Q 'N v.g,-d.cfjg%.+}.9w n
n '.4l,..(p n.:. 2, mj te ? fg 4gg,.,l;#yynTc.;'.-t M,-[. ga,REGu%m$$q.,Ac%wm e m,*n=4. m mm.wsyxmz .. m i y m 4fM. h.. .w.. & N, $ v,& % q$ : W P. %gJ p3 ',. ! m}{$ h k k h.:h.94 jit S h ?
- 2. ~ AMpr
~ y,ggpg 4pcN$r, . s ,,, 4;.. h,!.nm., y.w nu @9.y%;&y:h. m %g d, g &. pYbl h,. .p/. d Jh;4 o. Tki .y ~ e p $s 4;g . gg M,ge.:p gg . u.% ywayp%g,;@y;g@g;g;,w&; % t +.g a n g g g a aw. ...e %My - W:_ a p.v, %.,wcqu e4;v.,p$e sw.a w . 6;,
- g;te4SW';hhhhfh)p'hw
-43 4 g O r. .., ; 1: i a. h hbb HU.S. NUCLEAR.BEGULATORY COMMISSION * . c;, ~ ' C a g ng; e. g. g g,q q m,. @.,v M,,g& g @m.g.t. p.f G ( W;Uf
- (.n n.6,.n p Q j),tgQpf y n. g. Q twq. Q :,1 %g,p $.h.
e. w e 7 a
- g g,. gn
, M ',r') 1:.9.h; Qr,r ;a b @ w,.:m& r.i..t h,y M kyy',. w.tcy m,7 Q c!. 6 ',.-',.]:y;,d ~,,T'ah; w[%, '/..' j: { s.*.. (.,.,yp, g.yy ;,M. py,y Iv 1, p, ?;ai*;ys y g y.
- q 1
- a t
.~. : m s. w. ...,4s ...,..,.1 .~ ...t i'N. '.,.,,5 ;, ; . - 1 V r. *{ '. * ' ;l' F, ,g,", ) l s ..,1
- g m ;. 2],,. w n ;,~.,
'n, f t ;n,,. st X. / M,. u:. Q. ;- i s '~d,'c. e s i' *r,: y a
- c -
..w .w c,; .,j ;
- p. y.. z '. lll g'.,'i y s i
..'s.' -'u- , ' ~ > >u.r t' SL. i , # 4\\ .4.7. -t ,s m..L.e4~,, - N% *- -
- A.,C A
,s.4.,. wha .d J. i.t M.,, a 8800000055 080731 PDR NURIIG l 0750 R PDR t w
==--==s---.e w m - n w ussse uru m umin ususam m m um urum f- 'Y : . ?. f. p g 4.z.f.,y,..,.A..k'. . l '., ' l N' \\ I' ' .7.,,1 r ,'m '.3 W -g r - s..... y. - m. ~~ .y
- , j..,
- .p
_w, M. g.. pglv.*.. s ,- ct
- e..
-1 w, w,.g,
- i. -
9 t y p ,c ,,WQ , a$. \\ '. ,,,. :,. rQ,. . ~,., w h c.'.,. e' ..s g:. .c-
- s. _ '. ' y w; y ;.;;-
- ' P- .n, c _w. ' /v w ?.l? f ? h...,f f; p 3 4. %.:". g ir...y T. ', j :f,. $p.:.-?l. h : f; z ? ' & .- Y '.f*' f.. . g&; < s ::a 3 .' ~ n::.. m :p.y w. t &f]l; Q j' _ n. .^;. _s ..W,
- lg.WW@h ',,o ^
L'
- l f:b \\'?:b ;/ $:$ > V U, g
-f ' 1, ; '.. - .,e> J. ', .y i;S. ;gy>. i e,; -, y:y 9. u t. ..e.a , n :. s..... a.',. u:,,M y. %p.:, lp %g:.1.- . c:f. %.':...k ,, d: r .y y c W. d. T'
- ~Q
- .9 p..e; ;.
9 :;4, m, 'e.' y' .g ; .,; uu. -
- x.y!;< ;..n.
- y-y ' ;.;,.
.%,W y >"' f.. 'y.y ',p.,5..d "..;.,,: , ' '.,', : '.7 .,.,. c;...r:c : s ', g 9.,y N l, , j' j.Q. %e_. i' '
- G. A R ' ';;
c 'Q_' 3 Q;y.' low '>Q}; ? K; '. y
- q < ; y /..
y .c j f.1.. l =
- y
',~ ',:, ;.Jl.M ;}.z ' \\ x.s m .-e n .2 4. .- i ) r.,. ', _ f. ';h.,' l.,, f Q, $]. Q z v .a. 3 g.p, m. . ~ n, ?- ., e e...,.. , c .::,7,?,
- y(1
. t. . ;,,y.
- n.,,,..,i
- .
y i-e y w .<t.
- x. wg
- u. [; :
,m
- y
- v. ;
s ' N.p. j.Q y %;.,: y,f.*N i W t'. 'J yJ..l, Yk* ~ '.. A !Q % i Qy j 7, ?i,r Q Mg.: ,1 ..,.}. ;.; L:/. o e:(. cf .,Q ;.)n'M ~' + . ;;s .s. a,. 2. p ' gg kf W. y ' 3 j y 4 ,, ct.1 ~. - . c. 3... "l'- 3 w ,..,/,>.... r-is s , m.,. } ( x >: F t.,- i 4 g, y>,l .. e @g.);.. j, g g". ' s. i ,'.l h. _ f. ', g *, 'c n @p.fQ f . y $a.y,idq ' 4.A N ny g_,53 ',L, yne - copies of,g: Qe L, , p,;, mg,g g%.g5Q. g- @a' p; M iS [ f 'u.. t is pub ication cS - .,f.f-y. gg gg,.. ! U M '. ,~ s 's
- f MtforiaT ** i 8
g2 . f.s Q" ~( ; g (i' g n y ip, g m ~+ ?.;. N_, .. w n g ,g g %g n .f@p; hy7%qj'g8vy'. Y.. % m. - 9._ , ) ". ' g
- ,( W ug,q -
fpf ;. h,b sa h . l ( ' h -} ;. j ' ~ ~ -; up. f1 a-y.X.. N r.e
- M-r.
ip t ~ D #: A p,.pggt;g.. {e{* g..?.g g g. gx $.. g g, s '. 4n F., L :: _., p 7. t,,p., . < g <.;ph.b ~ y ., p l, g,,.j.p gy g...y.y.,3 3 4 ^ ~ , f. . ; l '< 'i.[,}:: l y J f _y ~ o J . p q.p f.. .Jp.Q a 3 o .. ;. 4, ",s., . w.. ;.,. < ;/ +,4 y r _p.;,. ....:,.~. r ... 4 4, i.y .g. 7 ,3, 4, ag .,. A ..e 7 ~ ' ; w: y. _.de y...
- ,3, s -
.s , 7 a s. ,..,c,^ s;.
- e. P -h,to e3 t 4.V -
"G,r-sr t O l e.q.i tio g$n'~d P6bhcTtions Sdrvice&sj u- ~ ~ i '7, i.,; ' _ C, ph'Es[%., ' Di. . I, o' - 6,Q.i.i.f.'oTma.t. ic.fles ou rce.., IIda na ge rn 'd.f M eed o.ww f A 3 '1 :: n.w-t" .. w .n ne p tration and s 4 ice o g,y 9."SMu*cle'aMegsfai6YCoyQfi & f.r. ;ypjso)gtoEticiosss&p;dnM@ fyy v " awn T - pt, x. - Q:fn-m.mspn r c r r $ pQ'Ag p ~.f %.h.N ..pq:. h 2 nd s' E M% , ~ " ' ' ~> c4 ~. U I g 5 I l s. s'- * - _ '_ _ _.,,.,,..
d i l s i NUR EG-0750 Vol. 27. No. 5 Pages 485 626 r I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOl\\ ISSUANCES May 1988 This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ^ Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rutemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported here^n are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significance. U.S. NbCLEAR REG [ATORY COMMISSION s. ,,1 Prepared by the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services ~ Office of Administration and Resources Management U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 (301 /492 8925) 3 . N = 0 6 3 - g 9.. 2.' 4 f ,t.,_...., ---*e--#' u * - - ' ' - * - - ' - ' " ~ ' - ' ' ' ' " ' " * * ' ' ' ' ' " j<
-- e v a 0, t 4
- p I
t ..s- -,, s 0 0 4 ~ + s COMMISSIONERS Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers 2 s 4 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensir.g Appeal Panel B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Bc3rd Panel t 4 t f a
' t - ~. p t s s s a r u, .c 't CONTENTS i Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board PUBLIC SERVICE COhfPANY OF NEW hah 1PSHIRE, et al. O (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) ~ Dockets 50-443 OL 1,50 444-OL 1 (Onsite Emergency Planning l and Safety Issues) DECISION, AL AB 892, hiay 24,1988......................... 485 i h Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards t ALFRED J. h10RABITO f (Senior Operator License for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1) Docket $5-60755 (ASLBP No. 87-551-02-SP) h1EN10RANDUh1 AND ORDER, LBP 8816, hiay 18,1988.... 583 ~. s -t DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE 4 (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor) Docket 50-409 OL (ASLBP No. 78-368-05-OL) (FTOL Proceeding) i h1Eh10RANDUhi AND ORDER, LBP-8815, hiay 13,1988...... 576 FINLAY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. ws, l Dockets 30-13435-SC 1,3013435 SC-2 (ASLBP Nos. 88 559-01-SC, /' i 88 572 02 SC) ~E / ORDER APPROVING SE'ITLEhiENT AGREEh1ENT AND s i o TERh11NATING PROCEEDING, LBP-8817, hiay 23,1988.... 586 =. ' s LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COh1PANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-322 OL-3 (Emergency Planning) PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-88-13, hiay 9,1988...... 509 - s -1, .J ' 1. o, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COh1PANY t i (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) .'t y., - ' _, ~, Docket 50 352 OLA (ASLBP No. 87 550 03 LA)(TS Iodine) h1Eh10RANDUh! AND ORDER, LBP-8812, hiay 5,1988 495 q !l ...,,.V ;, a l , v,. ..,, -, d. -.b.,Q:.... ' ' ', } k.. . ll. : '. * * '..
- ;.:n ' '... j
'Y' j- ,' i ' ' },;',' y '.p : ' %, ~. s' - p<.*y " .,s .~.s ,',.l- ), ..A. [j[ ,. E ;., h J ' , i j'L' :l ~ -'.f -t
- ,r,
- 1. '.+ q..i g
"., g'..,
- r
. :,:e - 7 b .e 9 5 ff. ,,7 ) 9 9 ~. Y. ' Y .s e' . j', ',y-t .9 ',.. .v - + ..c -,. p. e. v.~ .s-.-
y, .- ', ~ ,e...-'./ - s; ~ g ~,, 3 m. ~ ij- '. Q 6 .? ~.. ..a z- ~ f;,. .y ... ~ .J'.- j.0, : - ,.i. ' .i ..i'. L - 'i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COh1PANY, et al. , P .s y,'. 4, 3: (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) N'.$;',' %. ',q re, Dockets 50 361-OL,50 362 OL (ASLBP No. 87-538-06-OLR) e, . 3,y ORDER, LBP-88-14, hiay 9,1988.......................... 569 . '... i; i Issuances of Directors' Decisions BOSTON EDISON COhiPANY (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) Docket 50 293 INTERIhi DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, DD 88-7, hiay 27,1988....... 601 ~- KANSAS OAS AND ELECTRIC COh1PANY, et al. (Wolf Creek Ocr. crating Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-482 u DIRE'CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. D D 88 6. M ay 2 6, 19 8 8............................... 591 I f Issuances of Denials of Petitions for Rulernaking s PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER OF Tile 12AAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AhiERICA, et al. Docket PRht 50-25a DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEh1AKINO, DPR ht 88 1, April 1,19T,8.......................... 613 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION Docket PRht 40-24 DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEh!AKINO, DPRM 88-2, April 11,1988.......................... 619 s 8 9 5 e s + t 't a. Y 4 y ? 9 = 6 E m ,J_.., ... = ., _,,.,,,, _ _.....,,,. - ~., ,,m..., 1.1,, h.-,,. ..,y,, ...,-m.--, -m,,
s w. n 3 o 9 4 I l 'e I I l u l c Atomic Safety anc Licensing Appea 5
- c. -
c 4 %E.4. .e Boarcs issuances .e- ~ ..J ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL o .::l '. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman W .1
- js
.ir. //'.,"' Dr. W. Reea Johnson Thomas S. Moore - t-Christine N. Kohl [ +' ',~ Howard A. Wilber -1 i j O- , c * . 3 . s.'
- 8c.
u , r s. s l = ,.s s. s - =>;,- _\\ .. 's a -o v j :. - .i . s ,_,o lh .',r='+-j 1= 4.6, + > .s' [J ' b :..-.. ,3 e 2 -3> i,- .g.i n-s .Pe o s. s, ,.'1 s ,.5 - <.. ~. 3 ..v. .. 2.'
- l
.s., .i
- s. %i..
- o c .i f.,,.. : w d ..,_ls..,.', x- -l *. Q. l . s...',
- ,s o.
4 -.g, ...,..s t .,. y,s -x, ,., Q,z. >.:. eu.S,,,~,. .e..' s. s ~,.., g, v, -s w; 1 J.. {,.'?. 4*4.n..e..~.,.,^: . 0, an. s
- e. : ' *-
a e.- ,c ~* .s '.y,,.*.s,.. 4
- .,,,r.-
d,'s ' i .. '.y. a y ,'h', *,,'.'(:f..* l' @.,, r;p t M ?)<.h'b';. (N t L 7 . z.,% c a;); %? )f.a, s.? ~.. -1,-g%,;.g. '.; :4. ;;, 7.
- l.. ~,,
- M; sd ~ - ':sr l, e- '^ i, v. v. ;.,.q..; 4 g- .,g p.,G ;n' .a* .o... ,,o .e O ..n*- . - A.i ,,., '; y '* ' x W> a( !. Y,,'f'. . :'?.ij [ -b.*
- * ?,..5 '~^*: '.
, w,' f,.1 l.. . 'y., ; e, ,>,. :.., y t f o ?, ..A,.,.$-fi. -.,,g. s.,. rp,.,- ...r_4, y-...
- 4. s., s..s...
. g._,,. , 'i o,. t q *; ~,. s ..D.. r.. *.. ~ r .*':'.,,,'s'
- * '- l l* s j n,
) 4 ,,s . ~.,., s., o ye.
- e,L,. ;, e' 3 _,s'. ; s ~.ts q,'
Yp. ,, = ,? :.
- s* k, re f !*'
eg }*.'.'
- = '1'fs
' f ,.,o
- ,=,\\,' * ~. q ; y,j.
r.o, j,
- s -
th, s,. ' 4 t or t r 3
- ,.7
~. 46 ,;+,,.-* a %,' '$, ' j . l 1,~.k.. ) g .,i,*,.. ' g " J, j ,9 . g f ,. ) ,.,1. =. g .*I,<i.,.r = A g sk. J,l e. l, 8 3 4 4 7, ..g g. -\\.a , l %,., ',9., a . =. + '.e-6.j 1 e = ' + +.. ,q* t s ~4
- ,g'*
[.. 1. ' j * , b (,, -p g -,w,,4'. g +. }'g-g -.y a b h' ., a ,g e ,1 .1 - ? yn
- .,."j
- r. 0 7;
t .*.e'* , ~ s-p,,< , s r-m.< ~~ '..K. /.... . ~ ;., '/ *. ,jc.p. -l- - l 'c,."s ,,'),,..y ['_,u,, ,; t. C. na -t, y- .t e o e,* ..,n,.
- 4.p,
s' 1. s.y ; ?,., g , s; s .,, ' -,_, tv..g;, _,>~.r ..p. y *g r' M.y,;s.,s \\.,, ',4
- }
, j.G,. ' - t;* j ,,t,' s '. S. y q.-,,-' '~ t -.i a} %(a, f --, x...,, 1 s-m u-2 e s 1 - f..y i s ~ s q', si. .\\ L u ; q,: a,*s,,4 -wa g,,', if..u.-..~.'n f ...~
f,
- u. t.
tr- ^? y' e t s s .m. 3.:. ',,.,. . r;..,. *m.1.. ug, 5. s , +; Ve m r, - ..,7 o,. ^ r ~ ,, : - ~ i , %,. f s + s .n.y . : /. m a r ~1 Cite as 27 NRC 485 (1988) ALAB 892 ~ .~.
- 4 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y i 9; s 4 v , [',j. i _6 o ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 'i...;.c., k. ;. <... / ,, L. . ;;. v., _ .-,4 47 s. 3 c ~ .b,., M D-.' r e 1: .y., Administrative Judges: ". >x 4-i; 7: x ;:% , %...p..-. v., ;..:.- ',,g. , ns n. >L' .- og* s :. g .m, Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairrnan . f.E : ya-> 'V;. Howard A.Wilber .*c. .'.3. 7"c, - 3 m.. ....a... c ..a g- . (.. c,;, ;. v.; - ~ a ~ . ~, t. V.y J e In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 1 's 4..e ~9, r ' 9 '..'J..' ti.O, 50-444-OL 1 c' 1c 77 (Onsite Emergency Planning e and Safety issues) W PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF u NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. i M ~l (Seabrook Station, Units 1
- k.. e t
e and 2) May 24,1988 v.,p c.. L vj, ktm.,4.. The Appeal Board affirms a Licensing Board memorandum and order, LBP-pe v.% . l.. >. 4 -,-. c.. h.s,Ti$'f j*. 4,, (C,. CC-6,27 NRC 245 (1988), that authorized the issuance of a low-power license w. '/, .~ for operation of the Seabrook facility at levels up to five percent of rated power Q 7 f',.1. ?.c.,{,3 M' e notwithstanding the pendency of two safety issues remanded to it earlier by the
- .s V..., n; t
Appeal Board. o [ g/, i ' ',,."- ....,2..,. v..., y e -. m ^. ", yQQ%'fw..o1;@. 6 APPEAL BOARDS: ADVISORY OPINIONS ,'f; G; g. j., O f w g ' y. y,gj<f p[; @, g J.1,.S Q. u.v Although an Appeal Board does r.ot normally render adviso y opinions, there Q y';l.% yk( Q-7l',7 is no legal bar to its doing so in appropriate circumstances. See Tennessee Valley fQ),.Q"&Q19.p g.T;Q.. Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A,2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB-467,7 g.N?p .G EMyd%W M,CM'<p r NRC 459, 463 (1978). W '.~ M W M,m? , W~ h.X ?,y. e r ,,e ~.w.e*.w' b'fT '. D, f.,e,' e . ^ ~ a ;. -m.4.4 yS.- ,-a Ne v.yg. - *,a - 4 / -.;,. n 3 y, c.y%w. A e"om.*2 v.:+
- 3 f
s 1 wy-r.m'e'3 TAO. W h[ m,,% w y[M. m @. y '"' N.0, r@.w:M. 1 M .My ', A r.v, c. Q..?y. m... L.g h.am,M.w 6
- f. r ? A ;.
64 j.h 7 a..fm w x.u.y n &. c.'L ;f, M..;M ;G..E.:i
- Mm.
s a ..VY 485 e %..:4.3 y, :. w. p :z ?. u. ;, s..- .f '._Q.,x.*., K 3.,.'ve(,3,,f,.,r'
- w.w..,
3.. .., g -l. w.~ kr %;, ~.,1.1. p. .'. '.. '.. v ~ f. 74,gv,.%..,_ nJ...,:#
- y. s, e
,4 * ', + '7 s.5 y f,;.? e. 's;,.*.O w, y R - ? '^.. ', '; R.'.W fr ';Y,4 i
.,a,
h, Q*?. e Gt l ) *.., t .,..',.. G ' . Q!f... :: n .C C.. .. ~.., s,., fgi"' ,g g y,, r *;, ; c'-
- J
- *
- N, *;..
,.',"c ,..e .'a t : . s. }(* +, 9 ;.. g.e w. -, g i; f s ; ".,yt.,..sg.V. * ', w*.N.. ,, ' 3 -- f.'r: %.:k : p' ' .r*p,. . ~. ;4' "X a h.. . m: @ fi I '....' *, ,6 ' 's; Y 'Y.. ',3 i ,.; Q [7 ". 2 '.
- ,./..
.p ' 6l'~
- .1
- .... y',. ;
J, j !,) {.;.y :, p(.%. )2,L,.:.3. p.Q.. a&a. & W.-
-).f;hli *lf-k 'y, Q.%'. > *
g f ;.y,,,
p y y e u
...t.
_.~_,
~,,
. a x (..
.?'
,4, L '..,, * %.y 1
.[
.... N,,.;;.'..
x,~
- ';.;, +
,m
- s. y :.-y~
~;
- x e W
S'.N '. r.,~.@ f.l r.w. -..x, :.'... a,'..:.. : / :
..a.
,' g
.' ~
. ~
j
..r~..
'y y.
,l a' -
3 p..
~
g:
o -
. C, I.' _
l t -.
~..
a..
- 3.,
., c ;f.
, ' tc m ~
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: AUTIIORITY v. ;,,,A -
.,a.4,. p...q
_. ~
~
~
, Q : p ~ ', ' Q.g In light of 10 C.F.R 2.758(a), adjudicatory boards lack the power to entertain l
<. 's, J 42. ~ 5 ';. '. y a claim that a Commission regulation should be disregarded as inconsistent with V'
~
M.
a statutory command. See, e.g., Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris
.~
g E j (.. i' Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB 837,23 NRC 525,544 (1986); Kansas Gas and
[
. ;- t i
- [.
' {5 '-
Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-784,20 NRC 845, s
846 (1984); Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating
' ' ~,. :.
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 218,3 AEC 79,89 (1974).
3 --
.m y
ga ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: AUTilORITY
~ ;-
Any insistence that the Commission's regulations themselves violate the
, j Atomic Energy Act must be raised with the Commission; the regulations are
- j not subject to challenge before adjudicatory boards. Public Service Co. of New J 'A. 2 Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865,25 NRC 430,439 fi.4. '.q (1987).
~.
~
s REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. 50.57)
Under 10 C.F.R. 50.57, it is not every contention that need be heard or decided prict to the authorization of a low-power license. Rather, the section requires W
a hearing only on those contentions relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Further, the section mandates findings only on matters in controversy with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
e ADJUDICATORY BOARDS: AUTIIORITY Just as adjudicatory boards are not empowered to hold Commission regula-tions invalid, so too they must accept the interpretation and effect accorded to those regulations by the body that promulgated them.
s '
l APPEARANCES j
~
Diane Curran and Andrea Ferster, Washington. D.C., for the intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., and Deborah S. Steenland, Boston, Massachusetts, for the applicants, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
Gregory Alan Berry for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
486 W
9 i
9 f
g 1 -
.s.
N--
1 a
m-w w.,.
o
- x. % ',-
s
.y e
m i-i V
DECISION
-l We have before us the appeal of the intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Coalition) from a February 17,1988 memorandum and order 1'
i issued by the Licensing Board in the onsite emergency planning and safety 1.,
m Issues phase of this operating license proceeding.t In that memorandum and
'..: f
,J' order, the Board concluded, contrary to the position of the Coalition, that the f,7,1
~,
C,
,,a then pendency of two safety issues remanded by us in ALAB 879 did not stand
-\\
p
' Q.. [,
7W
, 1 N/ ;, l in the way of the authorization of Seabrook operation at low power (i.e., at l'
levels up to five percent of rated power).8 These issues had their genesis in i y.. ' {' }, ;
3b~
i.,;, ( A q
contentions that had been submitted by the Coalition several years ago and,
},'
lT,*-
i f. g..' n ;
' f~'
as we concluded in ALAB-875, were erroneously rejected by the Licensing f,7 e
.i e 'll
[,. C t
Board at the threshold. One of the contentions concerned the adequacy of the
$j
. e y, ' ;'; }
applicants' proposal for the inservice inspection of the Seabrook facility's steam "O-
.Y ^, A, 4..,,
generator tubes. The other focused upon the accumulation of aquatic organisms
'.. y, <
'.,,,, P ;L.H '. sJ,;1.0 # '~ 6 and other foreign matter in the facility's cooling systems.
J
(.f...
- ,[1 Under. lying the conclusion reached in the February 17 memorandum and
~
}. / ' y '" "
]'
order was the Licensing Board's factual determination that neither the asserted
'T 1
~
inadequacy of the proposed steam generator tube inservice inspection procedure v,<
nor the possibility of the hypothesized blockage in cooling systems had a bearing
- r. i.
L w
i upon safe facility operation at low powcr. In its appellate brief, the Coalition i,
,i does not contest that determination.' Rather, the appeal rests entirely upon a legal proposition. According to the Coalition, the issuance of a low. power I
.i
^
license prior to the resolution of all contested issues pertaining to the safety of i -,
y-
^
plant operation would deprive it of hearing rights guaranteed by section 189a. of
[h... ',
qM r
s the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 8 This is said to be so irrespective
, 'Wf
/
s of whether the issues relate to low. power, or solely to full. power, operation.
l
',, ' '., {
.c p
l ; *,
- v.,. '.
,s 5.1 y.s:
s
- xW < " s. ;, [
,'.,m; s
..2'"
- - (.
w ;,,
e,*
q.
r
";..y'n,.
.:h;.
V i '.,
N }l 3
^ ~.n. s w,
' s See 1.BP.88 6. 27 NRC 245.
i[: -
.b 2 26 NRC 251 (1987).
U $ lY / k ~ 7...
- El "., '
D:.
3 At present. Iow. power seabrook cperation is in au events precluded by reason c( another d2scrose issue sdD
- U.
IDp"..1.d4[e,.
, # j_h,J
/,,. f.; I bl 6
bercx the beensirs Boad. That issue involves the provtsim made for supplying notificada cf a radiological 3
O '."-9 1,
p'.c,yi T @?' $ n; I E j %,m f,b emergency at the scabrook facility to members of the public loca*.e4 within the facQty's phrne exposure pactway g
emergency plaming sme. 544 A1AB 883, 27 NRC 43 (1988), a;plicants' February 18, 1988 pecidon for
- . c d Y.-
Jyp) -,.y f,"j q.
Ccenmission review pendmg. In nonetheless considering whether resolude of the stum generator tube integrity D D }g<. Ni *f.N.H.' P 3 Q y (v. A f p
and coolir.g sptmiissues were likewise a cmd tien preceders to such operador., the Board foUoned the suggesdon Y
,lh*
.W.. ig f D' ;: e f j
t '-;q A /. 1 i.'. '!:
in cur February 10.1988 Memorandum (unpubbshed) at 7 8.
- h. T;.. ;Q,f'7.. g ) d D.C' %.y;//^
in addidon, the Ucensing Board has before it a remanded issue concerned with the ermronmertal qualification s.
,2b:
i f '- ' M C C M'.f.p of cGrtain coaxial cable used for da'a transnussion in the facility's compter syrart See AIAB.891,27 NRC d
.% v M W %.m eW.* [5 141 (19h8). It may or may not prove necesary for the Board to determine whether the pedecy of that issue ISpq gM[$y'R(gffs l'a M*iQ, stands in the way of low-power cperation. See id at 353 n.66.
, d.b*3';. 'C *y*/g
'See New & gland Coalidon on Nuclear Pouudm's Brief in support of Appeal of Mernorandum and Oder 98,5,q.h..
- b R,enewing Authertzation to operate at tow lbwer (April 7,1988) [heretnafter, Coalitim's Brief).
- Q ~ gly.~ yggr agy,gk.fgp/,[
.}l 42 U.s.C. 2239(a).
2
~ sg~.g,
2, 3
- , n.
&w,:W.,'.Q)p.M.n.g';)t
..m c.-:,w 4 w p-+* w.
.. u n *.
2
- m t. v.
,. gr f g.. '<,w,.- +c.Q t., yy.Q;;;a.. ; <*. ;., (.
S:l.,.
- {
..~,,fa. O yy $5'k,. i. V.:r 2. Q 4 ~;.a. 'O;.:k:
- .~
. ~,,. --
T
'h. h,).[ *
.....w
,.e.,;}';n;.. AM.. m'(f;
- s
. 's* **y., i :, ]
& ';O,Q'q'I.p. *}.
? 'MQ
- b. '; D.
e-fc(l s,
<s r * :,. ~,, 3
?. A c n. 'm'
,, W.L
- ,y.% ?'5}, { T.',},) f;.,5,j w.
,. j <( f
, g, a
s W - sq i s e+ - + - y.7. ;..
7
- y.*p -* ",,7
- 1 * *".y.W
.4*
J e
.s.
m.:..
-w-
,f,. S W / u '
. ?., '~
,e, s. ;
I.2. ".,'D,
',. I ~/..7, [,,;.y
,. - [,
" if a d g. "[ e.*
7 't :
s.J
+
-wj.)S.N.' tD,,' 5.'f.
r
/*
s,,.f."..T ;
I,M;,, 4'. r'
[>r...
~...
4,,
,.;,, % *., ' s..
.s ?p ) 'y j... As s, y
, -, *J
' w, ty.
.,. I M... $ ',.... r[.2 p,.. * (1.( [,.{
i m
. \\a
- }t
./ *,
na a
u,.
y.
.v-n s
3,.
,e,**,
a %
.t s
g g
- ,,'4 gi E
I 8
I
(-
,9*M, O
j g
p.
s.3 q*,.
,,t..
Y[.
C a '- a f.M' i % a
- .,x s., l'u n.,., r 'g.., t ; #,V y g
..2e.
. 1; i.). - s,(, w,. ?,r.7e -
'.+3,.1 o t
.;p g
.- 4. W s,,
i
.,f.x_.
s 3..*
y c..
' 6 4..-. -'t', g.,, - ' * -
n e *~Q.,,#. '. s..,....,< N:,.. 'f o
,4
. d'.
s
.y n
.,,c
.n.4.,,,?.
p
.o p w.
s o s:
v a.y k
^$ '.
i 74 o.. :. -3 8 m m o g..
g y yl M,6 M &.:..?. R.<. 2; p &, y.,:~ M,n-8
'b;h; M..+. 4 4;;:.~ y ~y$ M. W W m 2 B &
w w.
e.w.
.y., r,c.,;y 3.,
5%:w.e.g.,;
g.....4.5a,....,..g.p.pl;.
. e,.g:j$gl4,.;. g,j
,. cw,y 07, :u,_
- 7. ; ~g,,:
._w w
3..
n v:7 ;
, - l.7..,
.,.7
,,,xtn.. _k= :,o...:,v m..
.- a ':;-
.a 3
...c.
.u s,;
. m;;..,,. x.,::n,,
,g n
q 8.m,...
x e ;y, :
r..
Q < ; g. ', f; g.1 g.y.;; y;; $ y :. c p.- t., y
~,
,,,Q,,s
,..a -
_y. +...
qc.
. l.
....~.Y.. m.. '.?,..W,.;.xp :;g::yo,~,..u c.:s.s. %
.y,.w
.c
- ~ l'il, : &g, a z
, j. 29,
- r
-T, ,..L
- L.,8;, ;,..
y^
3
.H.9:i! L -
?
a,.
u
.v y,.s e
- o' 9:.7.. -
y.,
v'. r ? !.......a.. - -
4 -
e 3 y;. n -. ;...,,
.* ;c
'. :i s..
t, J'
r )". -
l { '1
^~.*,.
s'
( '. j 99flld'J-[ ",
- ,. f K,rj A.
Before coming to grips with the merits of the appeal, we must consider M,M,.Mk,5 ; D
~ '. ~ ;:s '.p Ei the applicants' insistence, endorsed by the NRC staff, that the appeal has become M @, 4 c:e moot by reason of developments occurring subsequent to the April 7 filing of
. %';~.,Np!..h;
'Q
'j,. ;,:
the Coalition's brief.
2
. g!p.j,.?, <, ' ' ( se.'
f: /, ( y > ~. ".' g On April 22, the Coalition advised the Licensing Board in writing that it had
,.. a_..=
g, decided not to litigate funher either the steam generator tube integrity contention
- W y,
'l,:
or, to the extent that it related to the applicants' monitoring program for the 3.t ey:
detection of coolant flow blockage resulting from the buildup of macrobiological 7
1p
.t
,7. '; V, Je,.
1 organisms, the cooling systems contention.' As further explained in a subsequent filing with the Board below,' the decision not to oppose any summary disposition
+
. / %,.
i motions on the latter contention stemmed from the Board's hfarch 18, 1988 hiemorandum and Order (unpublished). In that issuance, the Board adhered
.' l "'
O'l, '
1 to an earlier ruling that the cooling systems contention could not be read N
as encompassing microbiologically. induced corrosion.' The Coalition does not M. " #.
accept that ruling and intends to appeal it "at the appropriate time."' hforeover, it j-1 continues to believe that the applicants' "program for detecting and controlliag s Tg t.
j microbiologically induced corrosion is not adequate."10 For these reasons, it
.,7 3-
]
asked the Licensing Board to make c! car in granting summary disposition to y
the applicants that that action was "limited to the issue of blockage of cooling w.
systems by macro-organisms.""
~
d*
7j In a hfay 12 hiemorandum and Order (unpublished), the Licensing Board
,n k,
that the letter constituted an abandonment of both contentions and that, therefore, took note of the Coalition's April 22 Letter and subsequent filing. It concluded l
'3 l2 there was no need to issue a decision on the applicants' pending motions for summary disposition of them. The contentions were dismissed and, on the ground that summary disposition had not been granted, the Coalition's request ff in its hiay 6 Response was denied as moot.
Given then developments, we called upon the Coalition to respond to the
~
suggestion that the appeal c.t hand is moot. In its response, the Coalition points o
3 s.
'See tener fmm Andrea Ferster to the mcrnbers of the Ucensing Board (Aprd 22.1988)(hereir.after, Coalitiin's Apul 22 Lener). Inasmuch as that lener had an obvious possMe relevance to the proper disposation of a maser 4
pending before us the Coalition should have specifkally directed our attauien to its content. Merely includicg this Board on the service list was not enough. Mamfestly we cannot be expected to examine routinely the copies served upon us of the large number of docurrants that are f. led with the licesing boards in the various proceedings M.
pendieg berors those boards. If such a documes warrants our review in ccrinection with an outstanding appeuste maner. it should be supplied to us with an amrtpriate coverir.g memorandum or lecer.
7 34, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pbuudon's Response to Aplicants' Motion for summary Disposition on NECNP Corrention IV (May 6.1988) [heremater. Comunon's May 6 Respcr.se).
8 We understand the phrase "microbiologica3y. induced conosion" to have reference to conosion in cooling systems brought about by the attadt of extremely sma3 manne organisms that pass through protective screens.
ta contrast to larger "macr & organisms." by reasce of the;r size these organisms do not directly pose a blockage threat (a though any corrosion f.ey nig'it induce could possMy ultimately have that effect).
' Coalition's Apnl 22 Letter at 2; Coahtion's May 6 Response at 3-4.
l' Coalition's May 6 Response at 3. fas also Coalition's Apn2 22 Letter at 12.
" Coalition's May 6 Response at 4 488 4
I g
.)
i C
.-3 o,'
3 1
h_ -
I
s
.v o..
.~
h 4
4 J
y, s
a 1
?
~
P out anew that it intends to challenge the Licensing Board's determination that i
its cooling systems contention did not encompass the issue of microbiologically-
- i.
induced corrosion. This being so, we are told, the contention remains unresolved and, accordingly, the question raised by the appeal has not become purely
- ; 7
].<
academic."
^.E P For present purposes, we accept this analysis, in addition,it occurs to us that a decision on the merits of the appeal might also prove useful in connection
, ( ', _., _ c,
,t with another issue pending below. As previously noted, we recently remanded
' P l."... g,
, 3; - ' (
7',
to the Licensing Board the issue of the environmental qualification of certain
- W D }. W -
' f.n y ;7 coaxial cable, and the Board may find it necessary to decide whether that issue
'.f Y must be resolved in advance of low power operation." Should that contingency b i '. %.. ; '.
"g.,
?
arise, the Board undoubtedly would be advantaged by a definitive appellate i;(,'A qf 'f:.R (.
if 3 M
c ruling on the Coalition's claim that, irrespective of whether the cable fulfilled 4,( 4'].'[, fi: < a T
a safety function during low-power operation, such operation would be legally Vc it i J
'a y
barred unless and until the cable was found to meet all applicable environmental
';gy M f.',.j ; ~
qualification requirements.5*
' y 't.S, i #
- i B.1.
We now move forward to consider the merits of the Coalition's appeal, p, c ' 'h j >. '.,
c' Of necessity, the Coalition maintains that there is no conflict between its interpretation of the scope of the hearing rights provided it in section 189a. of E',
Q the Atomic Energy Act and tne terms of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c)- the principal (and y
s.
the only one here relevant) provision in the Commission's regulations concerned
~ y',
y with the authorization of low power facility operation. Rar we have long recognized that, in light of 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a), we lack the power to entertain a l',
,,- lg '.'f W qf.l
., [FNWlJ s
claim that a Commission regulation should be disregarded as inconsistent with a
... '.%.. < xb statutory command." And, as the Coalition itself acknowledges,just a year ago i
- <, O. f ;M, g,n.y in this proceeding we had occasion to reiterate, in the context of section 50.57(c),
, j, Sq.
'.,,c-$.j: $g s, y p ?
that an intervenor's insistence that "the Commission's regulations themselves IN..;[wp
- f. ;
violate the hearing requirements of the Atomic Energy Act" rnust be raised
'e i ', 1 4 2,-
't #
"with the Commission; the regulations are not subject to challenge before us.'"t*
.. A.. 'h. D.
/, '[,
.9,.[M I
9.
c W
,v. ;,. '... o. % ' %,, ~: ~ '. Mn
$,'k
% y.h.
@. ' b U
The Co litim repeats the staternent in iu papers below that i s appeal will be f.!cd "at the apropriate time "
.CJ Je,. ' '
3
,, p.c. 9., '. ' ? 's h '...,,,
- em[J New Ecgland Coahden cn Nucleas Po'!ution's Response to the suggesdon of Mootness Contained in Applicanu'
. i Briefin Response to NECNP's Ameal of Renewal of1.ow Power Authorizaden (May 19.1988) at 16. We have
.v.,
, J /, i y - - ) k;;
,e aM.l not been asked for gmdance, and do na here provide it, with respect to whethe aa appeal must have bem taken
. J.W s.;. [
'. f,5
.' A e F' from the Board's March 18 Mernorande and order, or must be taken from the May 12 Memorandum and order.
a or can await subsequent ennts. os thi.s score, the ume for the falarg of a notice of appeal from the May 12 order
!. $ @.4 W, n p, ' 'a
+'.e
' f.
t,
2.
'. '- ! t
'4 as not as yet expired (see 10 CF.R. 2.762) and, thus, an amcal from that order is sti:1 possible as of this *Tidr.g.
Q - J.%y I..W@J2 > <,{i,' t;
..L'
- P.,,
.R Sse supra note 3.
', ;c.
ad N Ahhough we do na normally render advisory opuuons there is no legal bar to our doing so in a
' ate
@F:.. A @;f@.W. j'P;*(Q d*. Nf M.,,.'.
.;),J'
,f etreumstances. See Tenaeues Val:ty Adorsry 0{a.tsvilh Nuclear P anu. Uniu 1 A,2A.18, and 2B),
- 467,
.. u ',
Q.C
.%,O'f 7 NRC 459,463 (1978).
d
/k.a,.4,L es uSea, a g., Carol,aa Power and f.ig4r Co. (shearon Harris Nuclear Po.er Piant), At.AB.837,23 NRC 525,544
.@ /.?DL'k*[hg.;b., h JC QfW
? ".$
-Y (1986); Kansas oar and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek oenerating station. Unit 1). A!AB.784,20 NRC 845, 846
'h
?8,
(19M); Potomx Electric power Co. (Daglas Point Nuclear Generating station Uniu I and 2), AI.AB 218. 8 f['r@W~jd k.r+ Q & Q,M,h@f,.'.
4f A
'J ? %b * -
'p'/ G' { # ;!
's.
AEC 79,89 (1974).
M AIAB-865. 25 FRC 430,439 (1987).
f' f'j..
- i j
grp4;.Gf p@W n. ',
kM'Mg < Q:GQ.M@
l ? #,%
7 MME D
489 M. ; a.n,.
- B k.n w. c$ hts *:','f 'Ntfr',l. p*l...- ?. V r*, 5 %,:
f,; M '-
r -u.*,M.m e.:/,p.', b ]h, h..M,..n. M, q
. 4,y.m. n y a v !. 'p h N
y 4.-
7 964
'e4-ej gi
- ,. 4#
.5 "a
% V, f a, **%}'Si L y., $ ' A'* ?,*fa e, e "a
- gl:f, ? 't, '.z
.,,n.f.. * '.},'.;b' &n; y Jpi4 C. V h'
~ * [.',(Mt t. l f !J
.s
- C..-
.., s.1 i
o y.rp, & ~ 7 ) x gg..s, s y.
.y, f.8 w
c.. n y g,
.* P.3
- g:..,, 7:;.,7,'..
q' *. r.
. ; g 7. '
,--,'** ~ v Ty -
- , ~ '. A m-q 'ry'v j,'g
.-6
.a*
,.1 g.
! y.%
.'(.
.**u.,"
',,, N, = * 7 5 h.'i a' ! s p *y9,
?
.,,..(,#=~,-or 1
M...
t
..~.i, 3
'*k
,,s.
.+
4
..t
/.s.",..
s t
,.g s
.w.O, '. ; U.8,
~.~.'* ' ~ s'.f M f,.,
' Q ' L,),
? // ' O.'. '
% [g[ l'].', Y E A %,8[;,"' *1//
.3.
.s4,(.
&.D t i j:g)
- o. j......
. o.
.. w. g.. <
?,
, e.vu n.e. x,~.._ n./ r:.~w w.e2... * /:y.m
.a, r.
f
- x..,
a
- '.. \\^
v 'j'.
3,hr.;,
h,K YU.f'
'.. O
,,r.
. py, {3,6;M,. y r'{',. '. ;h * '
.s. ~. :',* )l0.
- :'.g.W..mc *., l,$ f, $.hh ((.
bht [e
$N s
- n. ^'O i ^i
- y ;
- y:;o,,.y" (n. '. l.Q:g y,.. U N
', L ' O.,,n.:v Q.. f g.1:Qp?.r.-l;a.., M, y+i ; 1 +.
e.
- 3.c A,.:M,.
- l =,X i. m.y,.,,'.) g,; M r y.
7
. iE 'r';Z ^ % %.
- Figg @
y';.h.Qg.[?
' _ Y,, 4:s.t.
c.
'& g'iW. g' &
....,O o.
%WP ".,, c..,? ??.f $ :'t. M.
,r y-as r,.
M ' Ly, f*;,,m
,Rn.
.,,0.? D d
'L L
"'MI Lui
- _ m m n. p. m w,-
.,, e',,,.
v..,..,
- n.n,. m m.
'I l~
.';.y 4 4.,.L.'$*.
,'fr f *!s
1 s '.
f..
.'..)fo
?'.1 T*.
$f..Y h}.l, y y.; 31,.n,:? p q
^
q:::y$$..f
'lt, g
4;g:,,
e:, s:.WQ. v.;g;'y- ~_.;;; q;@:,'. :~g,.; :;m.g c;,;;,-(,
w:;,.3 l
-,~ y 'z.;l..;
,.q m : ;
,,:. y.
,:.c. e t';'y.,;. p & yq g.x;:.7y y;c
'*4m
[:'n.: p'k, w;,M w
c>, % p :il G. f... > -f.Q%.' :
,..,' ! ;n. '
L',
sy W
7:'.
%y,,:
- l K.) n w,; s
.a;
,cs w s
' n.Q~.:, jyjR'.Qf'.(gQ.fQh Q'i'll.
m.
. A %:i,
- n..
j f
wx.z.c.:n. :, x p n.z's;m.e m, g:w;>,. b<.s.-:lu, :v:,:.p;s< r,(,;.,c.n -a,.w
.j -
, ; :,m.
e L
, w.
r
,= kw.w..
s..
.a.
.x
.3
..j 1:
~
~.,,
.n s..
.., ;>.m +.
+;, [ ' a ',.
-' '" C 'r s*
.k Our initial task, then, is to address the Coalition's insistence that section
'fim.y,;v.,//jkY fk J
- i. M :.,' M n 50.57(c) is not to be taken as affirmatively authorizing the issuance of a low-l
' ' fl.h d.wp i,
i////d$7 power license prior to the resolution of all contested issues relevant to full-power E.. '.,. $ /. 2,'q',$'{ ~
2 O ~[j'
, f..
operation. If we conclude that the section does contain such an authorization, y c. +,.E ' y'g.. M 'M @b it will be for the Commission to pass judgment upon the Coalition's belief that
.~.y
- j, - 3 the consequence is the denial of statutory hearing rights.
[.'. L
.. 7Q,f '..d 2.
Subsection (a) of 10 C.F.R. 50.57 sets forth the findings that must be
- u, T ' c.. > '
o..
- q. i made as a precondition to the issuance of a full power license." In subsection
., ^.
. "' y (c), the regulation focuses upon the requirements for "an operating license f
authorizing low power testing (operation at not more than 1 percent of full
~
4 ~ j.}
r 1
power for the purpose of testing the facility), and further operations short of
^
Q.j full power operation." Action by the Licensing Board on an applicant's motion v,_., -.
.1 seeking such a license c
,,..,.1, q..;. 4
,a
-.I
,,i,
.a [ W ]
shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the 4 *, 'S {
right of any party to be heard to the extent that his contentiewtr are relewant to the activity N ; 9
to be authorized. Prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party cyposes,
- V 3--:: c; the presiding ofncer shall make nndings cm the matters specined in persgraph (a) of this
.,' y. T j? )
l section as to which there is a contrcwersy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to
'~
.a*,
the contested activity sought to be authorized. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make nnuings on all other matters specined in paragraph (a) of this section. iEmphasis
~-
,'.., d.
supplied.]
.m%
/j As the emphasized portions of the section make clear, it is not every j
contention that need be hexd or decided prior to the authorization of a low power j
license. Rather, in so many words, the section requires a hearing only on those contentions "relevant to the activity to be authorized"- here, operation at levels f
N, up ta five percent of rated power. With equal specificity, the section mandates findings only on matters in controversy "with respect to the contested activity q
sought to be authorized" - which, once again, in this instance is operation at levels not to exceed five percent of rated power. 8
- P
.i "In se instance of a facility such as seabrook, those Endings include:
- 0) Castrucuan of the facility has been subrand Uy completed, in ceformity with the construction s.
permit and the applicatim as amended, the provisions of $s Act, and the rules and regulations of the Comm.ssmn; and (2) The facility will opente in conformity with the appucation as amended, the prodsions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Corr 6ssion; and
~l Q) There is ressanable assurance (i) that the acuvities authorized by the operatir.g license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) tha6 rach activities m'.! be cmducted in compliance with the regula'.icns in this chrper, and (4) The applicant is technicaUy... qualified to engage in the actidues authorized by the operating license in accordance with the regulations in this chapter..
I
" For its part, the Coahtion seermngly attaches no particular signiricance to the phrases Scievant to the activity to be aathonzed" and "wnh respect to the center.ed activity sought to be authorized." Rather,it wchld have us take
. (Conrnmed) l v
i j
490 l i 8
,'I J.
N..
- -i,.
,M F
7
~
g e
p N
s
~
I t
,,/
~-
f3.
e 4
i
( -
~,
o
.m
+
g s
i 4
. 2 In short, we find the terms of section 50.57(c) to provide adequate support by
,1 themselves for the Licensing Board's conclusion that the decisive question was
/
whether the remanded contentions presented issues germane to low-power, as distinguished from full power, operation." It need be added only that, although the Commission may not have been previously called upon to confront squarely
p
,.7
..g the precise question that is raised by this appeal, a 1984 decision in the Sho rMm
~
.r proceeding makes plain its view that neither section 50.57(c) nor cortmon sense s
[~
g,/,
mandates that the authorization of low power operation be preceded by the
[
/,,J 3,'Q,.
resolution of safety issues hving nothing whatever to do with such operation."
j...
Before the Commission at the time was the request of the Shoreham applicant,
- .j
@l L 5 - ;
pursuant to section 50.57(c), for a license authorizing it to engage in fuel y
l J < } k,.
loading and low-power testing. The request came to the Commission against i,
- E -,,.
. l N ':$
,' A. y .s,',
y I, l S
the background of the grant by a licensing board of the applicant's motion for i'-..
summary disposition on the safety issues related to so-called "Phases I and p<f II" (which covered fuel loading and precriticality and cold critical testing)."
p' w.,,
- W 4 'rf.e -
In connection with that grant, the Board noted that the facility lacked a
[.j g 4'-
fully qualified onsite source of emergency alternating current (AC) power, as 1,,
required by General Design Criterion (GDC) 17 contained in Appendix A to
- ~'
f' gy?,
10 C.F.R. Part 50. Relying upon its interpretation of an earlier. Commission 4'
y order, however, the Board determined that, because neither onsite nor offsite s'
4 s
u AC power would be required for the protection of the public health and safety
}'
Q.
.-n l>
,R e.,c, b
?.
^
'n: :.
wfMll. k l
- 'a'
?
_ i,:;.,
[ L.
,9: s
<w n.*
sq,,
- -c..,,-
- y
- j,' f f!.[8J,N
, Jg "p..[ ',
N.N - [g(f.f,f-y,3,j;f4?
the last two sentenc<s in the ponim of secnon 50.57(c) quoted in the text above as indicating that the purpose of the secum "was simply to reLeve the Licensing Board of the obhgsde to make posidvs fndings on wonusrsd s
-..S b ;J,,
.).
issues prior to low power operadon, by delegating this funedon to the Duector of Nuclear Reactar Reguladon (NRR)." Coabdon's Bnet at 16 (emphasis in original).
f,sp..
,f,.
y-4g 3 9;A s", M.
7'y[y[f:C, 7 ', ',.?
a
- 7..
Thre are at least two crucial flaws in that thesis. First,it does na explain what 6e Comnussicm might have N
f 1,'Q. i e.$
, ' 7 had in mind when it hmited the required heanns and initial decasum to the activity "to be authonzed." sureJy, that expbeit limitanen cannca be dismissed as mere window dressms and thereby igrered. second, the Coalidon
...L
'f M;!*y -ep:
.i{'
' W %;,
1 overnorAs the fact that there was no occasion in enacting secum 50.57(c) for freems bcensing boards of the
- M, g.p. f.
4* W.V %;, ',.,,,.3 obbgsdm to ma): findegs on wicmtested issues. For, at the same urne section 50.57(c) assumed its presern
{ 'j#, p. ~
3,7 ', Q ($[T. C
-, $! c,
I, rc form in 1972 as part of a general restructurrg of facihty hcmse appbcadm reMew and hearing prmses, the r.
'i
'y,4 j ';
-W c
. E
- Jr.; ;;g'i.:f L.
- h.,
Commission added seedm 2.760s. Ses 37 Fed. Reg. 15.127,15,137,15,142-43 (1972). As promulgated, secdon M ' TJ Q..,* . M d.[q *
,,[
1 M. L ?.. 'c 7 2.760a guerically probbdsd beensing boards in operating bcense proceedess from makmg findings of fact and R...:
cmelusies of law on any uncontested maner. (In 1979, that secdon was amended to atow (a! ben not to require)
'y~ ' }, s.a,. {.
' ,%%^.
[
the boards in certain specubd circumstances to raise and decide sua epoca matters that had not been pt in
. i b.u '" 5 7I,b' a
~G
- k;.".',.i' h?' . Q., ' * $.... m cmtroversy by use pardes. See 44 Fed. Reg. 67,088 (1979).) Cnven section 2.760s, seedm 50.57(c) must be fr J' ' Y.
taken as si:vly a reinforcerners of the Director's obligaden to pass upon au wecuted maners peninent to the L,4 Y: 7
'4' y "M ': '
sought low. power authorizadm.
.f T. 9 - : J., '
- f~ .@ ilM
" As just noted, seedm 50 57(c) assumed its preses form in 1972 u pan of a general restructunna of facihty
[,O
m
' &/f
. M 4,-
Ecense appbcaum review and heanng processes. Ahhagh the accanpanying statenent of cmsiderstim has
! N' -
4 [s, ' ' ' f ?, j,f,
- t ' t; MC' y.' g [* // + '
,l ' 3 '. ",,;UJ-
}i.7 nothing illuminating to say about the secuan spectfscally, it does re".ect that a major prpcss underlying the q '-
a enure restructunns effcst was the capediden of the decisional pocess. See 37 Fed. Reg.15,127. Cenainly, 7.
the accanphshment of that objectat is furthered, not retarded, if the secdon is read as authorizing low power tj'[yt[- (NM < O sQ 'c
. 5 m.a.g f.
operidon on the strength of a determinadon that the requisite assurance caists that such low power operadon wiU
,. U, p,d.
,k, na endanger the pubhc heahh and safety.
M p2 ~ #' ~c, t... ' L j./
- ong Island Us Aug Co. (Shortham Nuclear Power Sution, Unit 1), CU44 21,20 NRC 1437.
KC M L
-e See LEP.54 35A,20 NRC 920(1954).
'- h W.*~, M '{d ** N 7 U
r-
,$? ?ll' N 0 5 ':.(4..+..c~
?.
- l ~
w.
.m m Vr'r*' %,;*,*.;U.h,, w;i; r..:
i T
-s a
n., s w
?'
lli v [*j.
-[ N.{c T hj, * *
~.
'l
&}
tdMQM'. Q fl$f;G O..t;M p./,
S 6
o t
t.,p:::G.n%- M,1 M:%w.;nk... n. e....r
'..R.c t
n- '.: y.
y y t t y m,; 2,c',$, k+N. +
I~
r f.@N ',h i s v.*?.
N ~* j.^vl'.. h s.
M.
A L f t
...,t>
e,<
si a
r.~,f.f v.; N.W v e g;
. a q A_N R
, y :s.
4
.9
';c.L -.,~,~,.?.
.c
..g p.,
. W 's ). 4. ;
QQ/y} ~,j s~'f.,.h,i,
'y
.,e g,
f**
-.7p r,p-.
- w pr
.; (,..
e, r ~ = -r m. s s-
- r y.,~ y - y n =-og g-s,-
w :. w.
a g'
m.N.
yug
% ;h
[(}.:.w' [.l.g* '
- g'
]
u'
',a.g ',,'., S.Q :% -p g.* -( y y, 4{,
- 'a nn n. v:l% s =,
i
- { i* '
My. i
,, '. (
i s, g
, y*, *w n. 9.,-
p.b
~.;
,z
,. e, '. p. '.W~. C%, To t;-..
- ?
V.<. f'..
s,. - L.
. g m n." h'f. d y '[.
s_,...
Q..
_
- y $;.,;,',r
,ye J rv a
.s
.n. q '
7
.g j-[-[fe/,%,W.
." : D i } l ',s
.N
';. 2 s ; j,p8 w; y [", [:
v.m; M',y c,, j,., y Gy :,,s
- . [
.3
, y y f.,.
- '.. t,'
.,,', r. 9. d...' N7
, n;, s... a y,/'/g.,;
T ',' Q YkW '$v 4 D
'['
p n,.
- . m, w..;y ux
,..n :I J., t '
., 2
-v'. l: W 9
.r'h-% q"Y j;ty,' M G
- ,6 w_.,*;w;wm, l%' *,,Y W:7.%' ',. y :+ w ' Q, p.
n( O W, Q'.? f.,..sf"U, J Mn _ a C,p,(.%.. 'lh f 4 E + 4,_MjM ; w s,~
2M..- h
- 7
'u.
- .Y. b.
u..,1/
. '. ri! ;. u.
v y ~ mpp d d h *.sGra}.b.,ux * ::k, *.
.v e'
- ,Y ', l a:. %g. w;,~;h.;.,, y,^.~.s. w
.s. m.y,w:2 x A"w. & 4. Ti %
7,,='. U :MyJ, UT~'%.b.
5rlG,..?,l.'.2, Y qg. G%,'fm q...n 3..:,.x,
<* '. :q:p.},-Q.q,j;:,f:(..Q,.v,,n.,, ).i..j.;Q i
).,
s
.f'~.,'y,,,,(%q.r.q.y?s,*,%o!
u
~
pf..
t.
},M Q,., Q 2 2:Q:fM n
7 ^ 7, m...,
3.y. x n.,9
- 77 T,,.,
a
& < % m./ 2
..< a p ' 7..
in
- [. '
~
, -n L. ?
,1-a;.,; a,,; ? m. -
e
- g. ~,, ',, s...V;, b ;,,y y
- m r. n.
. M,f:g.~g' q*? '. 9m 3.;%W.. '. j-w ?.., s% 'R,1.j*, :,.,.4 9.,y: >:. -
. / w,.,
.v-,
~
<w,,
c%
p.
... u, '
a..'
- n' L.
\\'
~
v.
N 5'[h. CUM $$$Nl,:3.dh,[$bc,,1 >k
. [ ' !,[. ?!f.[ l
~
'. a'* 'l.y,e
_ y;.m
. '..,,c-j
.y.-
- a..
W
.1 i
-c;
.y.,.,
2
%j 1
j
,n.o
.., g.7
.... ; f.j.1..,d during Phases I and II, a license authorizing those phases could issue in advance j
q,'M f -g( W;f.fi.Q7.)
of compliance with GDC 17.8 l
- 4.,,/ 3. f.y M O,:U.: Mf The Commission's role was to determine whether to allow the Licensing W./
.s'>
4 Board's order to become immediately effective, with the consequence that the
.... v.
m.
Jc e, rx.-
'i NRC staff could issue a license for Phases I and II after resolving "any remaining y.
f c.
2, 9
relemnt uncon ested issues."" Carrying out that function, the Commission found
' - );,2j '
g i;Ql. !,
one impediment to the order receiving such treatment. But that impediment was
..,.9"'
>;.w W not the GDC 17 matter, Rather, the potential sturnbling block to the inception of s
n
.e
'C 4:f[ V]j
'y 9. 2, those phases of operation was one of our decisions - handed down subsequent
- ~ i ~ 2?l to the entry of the Licensing Board order - that had remanded certain "minor"
' O.
' D.i issues to the different Licensing Board that had reponsibility for the basic p p,['.
operating license proceeding. As the Commission saw it, Phases I and II could i.
D. D,.
not commence until that Board either resolved the remanded issues in favor r'.
' ' 7 4., ',. c ~f.. '
of the applicant or determined them to be "not material to (those phases] cf
$:} '4. N 4 ;. yt,'
low. power operation."24
.(
I V,j.~.ed ]
Insofar as the GDC 17 matter was concerned, the Commission explicitly 1;;
! ' ',.,,"ih,d';.L..}
agreed with the analysis that led the Licensing Board to decide that Phases I and -
's ' 7,2 '.. '.Q d.g II of low Power operation could be authorized notwithstanding the continuing M@
lack of compliance with that criterion.23 It acknowledged that, in a prior order,
- J !:. y," " 4,'c ' l
, in.
it had held that section 50.57(c) should not be read to make the criterion wy.;,; j : 4
.]
inapplicable to low. power operation.28 But the Commission went on to evplain y, '
,c that a.
W ' ?!
[bly this we meant only that 150.57(c) does not, by itself, carve out an excepdon from y,
- j all health and safety regulations that would otherwise be applicable to a low. power license.
j We did not mean to say, however, that every health and safety regt.lation, regardless of its 4
pirpose or terms, must be deemed fully applicable to fuel loading and to every phase of
^
low. power operation, or that the pressures, temperatures, and other stresses associated with full power must be postulated in evaluating applicability of, or compliance w.th, regolations
_g '[{
for low power. Each regulation must be examined to determine its app'ication and effect for iel loading and for each pnase of low. power cperation. Simple logic and common q
~
sense indicate that some regulations should, by their own terrar, have no application tofuel loading or some phases oflow. power operation.D
,w The Coalition makes no endeavor to distinguish the Shoreham result or the reasoning underlying it. Rather, we are told merely that the Commission indulged in a "novel" reading of section 50.57(c), totally devoid "of regulatory
,~
22g,g93 f
U 20 b"RC at 1438 (crephas s suglied).
24 /4 at 1439 (ernphans supplied).
lbid.
M /bsd. (ciring Q.184 8,19 S"RC 1154. I155 (1984)).
U ld, at 1439-40 (ernphans supplied).
492 s
9 1
F t
I s
e t
4*-
,s
- w
.w n'.
s.
w 4
.(..
8 I
s s
e.
.m.
4 2
or case authority."" We leave it to the Commission to evaluate that criticism.
Just as we are not empowered to hold Commission regulations invalid, so too y
we must accept the interpretation and effect accorded to those regulations by.
the body that promulgated them."
In sum, in terms and as interpreted by the Commission,10 C.F.R. 50.57(c)
' - r allows the authorization of low-power operation so long as no safety issues 1
pertaining to such operation remain unresolved. Given the unchallenged finding t[1 ]' ' -
therein that neither of the issues here in question bears upon low power
.A.
operation, it necessarily follows that the Licensing Board's February 17,1988,
- .A"
_2 4.
memorandum and order, LBP-88-6,27 NRC 245, must be afftrmed.
- r..~, R;,.
.. e
[,,
',A It is so ORDERED.
p, g-FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
,' W,.J.... 'i.
N n
s
., s.
.: e J
C. Jean Shoemaker i
.V '
' J,~. ^
Secretary to the
'. -f ~ <...., :.
m
<. ' J. !.., '.
J,.q s
Appeal Board I
- y.
e:
s.
r T.,
. ;.*. *5'
. ?i l
A
'~
n*'
et. '. -
. >. - - cM.'
"s,
(** a [.;'.c..'. '.:Q.
t s
Q
'b Q'Cy:,.[ ',,. ' <,;g
.4~,.,
s.
~
. m.- : : r. u.
~
y.
3,...x. :. y.r., ~
h ' f 4.A; mm.. >;.- w....
-p'y..
+ w a.
.e e,>
,,y, n-u
.4 ay
- :g ; b"c.. i.'ta,[ <Y. '.<.' m
..?.
N N >f,t;,. a fir s t,@.: :q:.
c.-
. ' ^*.'. r<s y c.a 3. m.~y,.w. s c. &.
..m
{,t,4,f,,9 9,a.(':,g, 7 lN s A.v. y..
- ( p: y 3 y.V,
.y^
w,.% q wi,<~*
M.s.
=.
.3 : ?.
.r. ~
7:.c.,:h.
4 c.~. m,-h, y ?; w.
s
. 1. x n,.
y,..
a.
'.. c?., _ ; -
.~
.;.k r
e,,,
.y...
3 f,x. - Q, a.,.e
.,e.,v..
t ;u.
d y, a r.
,--):
- .n ~-m
?l,
- .,.), 7,%.,.v,'
.. 'g;s %
-J, a;,
.s
,.,,,,i.,
s.
- , ~...
.% r
.. rf*.,3 @ @, i N9. w40,
,. s,,. y,.
s,. s,, 3. w.Yl.,.. i....
,o -., ph,
+
....,.;. W., +
gl - -
s 4, ;,.,.,
j', ~s.. F.x /*f a,s,
4y-1 s..
We. n.,i' EdO'
- e. 3,.%
L M c.Nd 7 Coahtion's Brief at 21.
N'
-[ k'[%'M ' ','k[; * *. ?
U
. s.t s 4[;.
lt W thus be for the Commissim to pass uldmate judgment opm the Coalism's further claim that the lT'
- P 34reum interpres.ation of secdon 50.57(c) cannot be squared with the prcrnulgatim two pars earlier of 10 fth '
(
, cs P
- 1,:,p ;
CF.R. 50.47(d). We note in passing, howver, our belief that the claim lacks merit V ?.,, N. '.. ' W S'
section 50.47(d) povides that a Lemse authorizing o iendens up to 6ve prces of rated power can isne
- .5 /.,
,' "n-
~ f <',! 9, /.. # i,-
f.,* 4 in advance of the renew by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Managernent Aga.cy of crfnte emersmey
- f. ; G' '+
' t-d.N :
d e e.,g j ? '* '
pepandness rianning. The Coaliticsi reasons that, if section 50.57(c) had bem intended to have the effect
- 4.-
J '. s ; N. ? '
attributed to it by the Ccrnmission in Sursum, section 50.47(d) would have been thought unnecessary We
.,f?yC
- d -
disagra Section 50.57(c) does not address the quesdon of the ettet to which o5 sits ernergency preparedness is y !:
- I,
f.v, rele7 ant to low pour operation and, thus, must be ccr.sidered before sud operatim is commenced. That question j g < p,.. ~ -(..
- i,y '. / $ - ',, '
,,e.,
is, instead, cmfmnted and answered in section 50.47(d).
M K V. 4
\\
4 ;@. e.# - < g
. ; e. c4 y r J,,(.,.,..
t:
,Jn:f..v vg% ' :e., Q,g,,. ? 'y; ~.
- s...,
.s
' i.
,.. ? %..., y
-
- M'.Q.. -
..~.-%',
qh?sw'h: ?..
',ln.,
.,Ly :g :y, v^
493
=
L.. d,.c, te o gN
.2
, +.
,..s e. V..,...
.,g y
- e. wJ
,%. [
O
... se rN ; ; 4.:,' p '
i n, -
Y.':x.ghlb..s.f.-\\ :',.$. ',_, h,, ~ Y..'q"'.
- N
..2
,.g-f.
f t,, /, y r,,
'. i
.,r
- .&,.,.y A l Y..*.,..,Q,
'.Y w.
- !. 4 s, ~n's-
.m
..~.qy*,,,5. a tyg.;,.
,.' ;.1
- ;1
,.j a.
f e *
..A.L a v.,sn '. s.
?
,2. p g-e.
.,.7 s.w..
l e
W e
- 4
.... >.T sr,.,
-- -- *m
.T m.,
.T., M.'%
-y W /,;,.,'> /, >* 5 ",., '.,t ' v.,: 4 N "* e; ;
.v,,.-~. 3
- t. t.P *r "/..r. W "f";r./. W-Y e
v-34,
-/,..,
a a
5,'
f.:
i,.
.. { ' g,3.D, s'
< < ll. ~ k ;'
l* L,'
,. y y '..y.,., Q m, W;.!ql7.'{:. - Q * * ' h, )[G y,it,sy!r, f,kb'$.Y;gy ; V:,'Q Q
,'Q
--4 y
f,N' f-f[
A' ? 4 '{,, '.~ b s~
)
2=
- U,' '
- l.
'n; 7 b :/Q ; O.; ~ y....y. c
- 4., n. m.D g c. h pdQ
- .:
?gn ;.:p. n y...:__.3 [y;.h:s,. 2,.g B Q K ak
.A.
y s-
...'.w e y
.. ; y.y t.-
4l m.z:, y.; w. y 3
- _ av
~
f= m.
,'g.. mh h.
. 'k.
- h. f f-h. Y
,f...f$.Y'h>n<'w~.9f
.h$. :.
b
~.
~
.e.,...e&x p$C$ SLO.4?.51. - +,+: n
.w. y
.a
- { '}. :.
,W t~';&,in &,
p:
.w Oj"d,*&!NI$ Nf._ &.+.. m.M*' V ' '.
.p l '. h.h..
h
'h r
e o
J r
Atomic Safety C-and L.icensing Boarcs issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman
- n S-Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive)
N' Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical)
. o Members g
a s
Dr. George C. Anderson Dr. Ccdet H. Hand, Jr.
Dr. Ernmeth A. Luebke i
Charles Bechhoefer*
Jerry Harbour
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCcalorr.
Peter B. Bloch' Dr. David L. Hetrick Morton 8. Margulies*
, g
' V.-
,,..(
c...
, i ' ' Q,'..
Glenn O. Bright
- Ernest E. Hill Gary L. Milhollin
,.l,.'-['q j, g/.j _,...,. '
l
.y Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Frank F. Hooper Marshall E. Miner
..',' A,
James H. Carpenter
- Helen F. Hoyt' Dr. Oscar H. Paris' N;3.e C %."~ ', W Hugh K. Clark Ehzabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink
%.' f, C ' T.[.'lY' ~b'.,,, :,Y
~1,
h-
.j ',
Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith' Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Michael A. Kirk.Duggan Dr. Martin J. Steindler M,,
Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Seymour Wenner
- s
~
- ] 1, " "
John H Frye lil' Gustave A. Linenberger'
" Q D,.f..'*',j '),M !,
y y
Richard F. Foster Fr. James C. Lamb Ill Sheldon J. Wolfe*
,.5N:
'l, James P. Gleast'n Dr. Linda W. Little j
jl. [.., [.s,
9
,.,f3
.,c
-<a s
's e.fq, ' *
. q' e
.,W.
- g.'
- y',
s 4
<?.
e4
?~,
,;..,*
- Y&,... ;ir
,.n..
s.
U J ;s's's
- .,Y [^,a e
I g,
. e.'f :
... i e--
. 'l r ;,
, ** 's
,g', *y,
$ [ ",. ;
f..
?I
,5.
J-l f,
(,<
'e'.,
~
's i,
~
t.ct l
s r
o l
",,*: Q,, _
'.s,*
- Permanent panel members s
<m.
.'.i,'*. '
%
- l %ll.' -
i.y
^
= -
f:^.'.'.'.:.._. '
,f
/. '.' 5'e' 5,
- l ' t -
1
- g
'.l 34 b-s.
...,.....,..b..,,,s...
.A
'84.'
,, -S..-
3..,,,p.,.
..,.-. y ;,, g. vs.
.,i.,i.
..,.._.s.
_ _.. -...,.. ~.,...
p.,, ;,.
s
?,
s
..s 4
-3.,
i 4
,'e.o,.'s,. *((; y t '- \\..,
.. 'Q.i + -
- g
. s.
- s. ': q.,.'.' '!. *< > l'. s
,c,,-
_ \\ '
t e
n s
,.47 j". ' *, * *
'6-
.e
+
se
- g
- y 4 g, s ' t, ' t.' b 't. ' f ' ' ^~ ', _
g..
.t
,9 s
.'p.,
a v (',
.*}'.-"
...c.._
s s
,. [,.. ). e,
r. -
)
.n-.
,, Q'g A.ty,,?
g '.* 6 j,,[ C,'
Ih,,
' { ' ',,, '{.:e['
I..'.l g h*h,' '. '.I 3 ;,..,,,
' ', ', (*' (e-
Z 4
-,g, e,.
8
",'.3
+ 3.f..r' g.ma. a.,,, _,.,f. -
,s m_ m_ m{* ?, 9,,
.. p, g%.. -
.s c.y
.a
+.
c;.
';+
3 e,
,. ;.. p_ ( e,,y {,.
g
,y -
g < t,,
y f
t w.-
.m
+
'4 o
c m
- L' Cite as 27 NRC 495 (1988)
LBP-5812 E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e
Before Administrative Judges:
,e e.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman f
Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. George A. Ferguson N
x t.
In the Matter of Docket No. 50 352 OLA
. )
c#
(ASLBP No. 87 550-03 LA) 9 1-~
(TS lod!ne) q.,
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC l ~
COMPANY i.. er...', ~ L (Limerick Generating Station, Ur)lt 1)
May 5,1988
(@'n %,
,N..
f m.a.
w, z :
~
i s cNlO y The Licensing Board grants the Licensee's motion for summary disposition h' ':l[;p R..
f ?,] Cl;8 '.l,(
' 3:c of the sole contention that questioned whether the proposed amendment to the.
Licensee's Technical Specifications would downgrade reporting requirements for
{
^
iodine spikes which would have an adverse effect on public health and safety.
,: A y.
- 7.c u, e ~.. ;a m -.. y pp...,..
.:c.
n ;.:..
- y. ~;,..
RULES OF PRACTICE:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION 7.3,,. "? N... : The summary disposition procedure should be utilized on issues where there .d. i, .v. m is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard so that evidentiary hearing time f.g.j 'I '
- .D.
N' h. is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI 81-8,13 NRC 452,457 (1981); Wisconsin Electric S .h * ~ Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696,16 NRC 1245,1263 '..' U T l3.%-}. ' ' ',..i 2
- a (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
.. ; s '9 :, 1.' '-.., ~ C.c b,..j i ', ' t'# 3, Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542,550 (1980). .g '.,4 b-4 ~ g g
- {#,
t 'g g + e, 5.' '., $) ~ _ l:e ~ h*. : i j&.yg, , 'q.. .cs p,.,, p.L ~ ~ <.. -
- a e
..c.,,. n .s ~, . u p t., ~4, E i' ',f.
- ; [f _ y ? '
.'['. *,%.,.'p: '6: q.y Q f;'e ~
- fQ$
- c. ~
.. -. $y ,f b: /. .,"4. ;, ^
- j. A.,
-r g *. ', ,.f ?g ?,,"* ^, '.., ', g l $ s.4 +. .**"t ..,7 ( : +*f f
- g-7 9y "' "'
- c 'f *# {. " 4; f.*,\\,-
8,*-.* '.*1#4j l p ~,... e * '?" Y 8 'j ?,g &, ,lkQ.Ky&[e' i& W Y.h?f ',l*,l x , l;,. , c-. ~" . (_.:, .s,.:; w. . q' y g+..q.y (,9el n,.,.,3.s,.~..g." %,; y :;.; - l6 ,r, ... m., / ~ 4 4 y ,f'
- y ' #a..
, '..N- .y q ,,g s, .. 7 -S 4- ,.*j,, r lh.},'h'g \\- 4 a < *[.e f, .h..
- j f ' (t
,.f, ) ' '.. t.;,,:-Q , ') f ,7 a . ';. '.' h,p.. g,i9,,- 3' b 3' n 3.,.y.,..' ;.,.Q;z, Nn; - }",. 9 q., +. , ' T, :, /. '.'M..J/, - a~,'.,.J,,;.Q.,p: 4.,? ex w q U.p*i N..c,,,.. ,1. i,,....,,. 2 ., h v f.; t
- U.,,.
- ',
.s. y Ns 3 9;t.., n s. v., i.,. ~.7. w j'] f,3 - *.a: 7.. .,. 4 t.e, , i s ;?, a...nA.. ..w... s ..4 ,.y. u "V,s
- .x
- .t.s
..sv y,, ; A,4, * ,,m ,; h i f Q_,.. ( - o,.,. o ..,f,i 1.*,
- ..' t'. y
'4 4. 2 , l' f. s'.- _ e,4 9 a_4 4 '., m 14 :. -
v,p.z&j..y,&,.>,.,m 4.Qv :.D.. m~.Q. 8., M.E..}:m.q$!,M. m:$. s..wn.;.ser:.,z$: c y, u:..h R. ,m, g.wm 3ws yi rr.e., ~..r m. e s.... W sc,, Q*Q "'.'T T
- D.y,+::'m;.?%y,,t D
.;:. :. % z a;.n".~.~.x&. Alb8[W?,.Q.V.. vg ~ -v na ; m.. J. ;cW,'b.. .. 'lyy .,%,.C.l'; I Wl:,,5.. O.'4f:. 9'U '.Q...QW: W M..&n W 'J,,G. : T.?..,&. x. -r' f.., '. +, y.Ol.:i" M,:~4. @ x.. u.... ~ .c..... .... V,, :'{: .,.m. w..... l'. , O.. s. m-
- new. m.
mr.etz 'c y. ~%.. 's o - b',+ m,y ,:w %.y;p,n. w 3 x. m,., x.,.3 .t .. ( '. _, .o . W. .v. -,. i p,.... s! <;;..u. ~. w. y, - *,.. x.y, m.~ y.'n. u.:. e di 7. .:..;m:~.. *-
- ..w, '
~ v.vi. s .r.,...... %~.7'W:n, y :. % ',';. g: & :..s. v v..u.. f i&.L. a.G : >p.an;3 a.a, m. w%. k D;.L M M.N. . :v .y;,.6., - w. . m..,., x. m~x. e..r.... r.,v:e.g~
- ,,1,t.;. %. * * ; q : ~..,,,. x..~,,.
? ,,w >e.% ..a M,-,e y. g;'. e s n' . w.,... J...; W _=S,d,.'c?. bye s.a. sg...'.t- ^ r
- .w i
5 -w %.,. w<,v 2;.,y o : s 9 -:.: '.:. ...n. ...e.I , 4 Qc:-. ~ a:: g.%.'*s !, '.p;;~.;%y& t i T ' J..,1 :.q k.;. i:t m!* V , m;,,:
- a
. w n.. c q s.a. M%.@.f:;mN. w.;cWM RULES OF PRACTICE:
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ..,n 9..- \\ S '.J 6.c.; e .n s.. : > f.h 'f4.pfpiq q..MC,My.. s. - .n n~ .n .-..a . M@E $ @@s M@. @W cm. iW4~ O.3:@. M h[iS It is the movant, not the opposing party, which has the burden of showing J i the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Cleveland Electric '... z.3,6.,.,.M. iM Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC ,.g. -,.. ;. a j,Jl.'Q.[M,//tW:@%p%lM.th.h ,W P 741, 753 (1977). However, if the motion for summary disposition is properly J'y ' ;,) }g%,,
- 1. }'
hd6M supported, the opposition may not rest upon "mere allegations or denials"; rather, W. G'9?? the answer must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of ('.,~ 7 ' 9r,). W S.' ; d i f f. j fact. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and , ;-( y r . ry.',, - 7 .~...., c Q'M 2), ALAB-584,11 NRC 451,453 (1980). ~, ..,. -.a y 7 w
- 3y ;
K.. W. '-.. f ',
- 3. d.r.
. M. TECIINICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED t js '[
- ,7 cj Iodine Spikes.
~w .m u. .. ~ . s e.., ~:.:. us .n s,::,, ' '., 7r h1Eh!ORANDUh1 AND ORDER 4.i.e N... : - ' '..- l (Granting Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition) 2 . q,..g. a,..,- .tl r r. g. l g,t. - s.. .l hiemoraridum 6.? ' J. 'A e q -+., -- l.: - .y, I. BACKGROUND m,- 1 ,~ .t ar ? On September 27, 1985, the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Commis- ~,~ l sion" or "NRC") Staff issued Generic Letter 8519 regarding the requirements j for reporting iodine spikest during normal plant operation. That letter requested s s '[ T, licensees to file a request for amendment to their operating licenses to incor- ,.j pora'e the NRC model Technical Specifications relating to iodine spikes. On f a..]g yj August 19, 1986, in response to that request, Licensee filed an application for an amendment with the NRC requesting changes to the Technical Specifications re contained in Appendix A of Facility Operating License NPF.39 for Limerick ...i .. ~.. s ..ty. s .l <, ' )3 , An iodine spds is a., inenase and subsequera decnase in iodine dose opinlent in $e pimary reactor coo ' "g
- s.
.e. foUowir g a change in reactor poetr er pressure. In $e proposed amendnwnt, ticensee dennes iodine spdo as an inemase in iodine d<se opivalent to a level greater than 0.2 microcune per grarn (pCi/g). (Aff. of John s. Wiley 7, '.., ; submined in response to Bosrd Order of Marcfi 17,1988. requestics clanfring infctmation.) The detWtion of iodme spuing as it amears in NRC's armual reports cm nuclear feel pederrr.ance is as foto*r lodine sphing 6.a. a.arnporary inenase in coolant iodme concertration) is frapern'y c6 served at reactors where leaking fuel rods are present These tarnporary inenases in iodine concentranons havs teen observed to occur fouoming shutdowns, start.up, rapid power changes, and coolant depressurustims. l i An iodine spde is daracterued by a rapsd inenase in the mdtne cacentrau<n in the coolant by as much + as three or&rs of magrtitude, fouowed by a return to prespde concentrauon. The latter charactensue j distinguishes the spding phen <rnenen frcan a step. mise perrnanest G e., urci the failed fuel is removed i frorn the core) increase in coolant acuvity level caused by the radden failure of one or more fuel rods. (NL: REG,CR.3602. I 413 (1984).) 496 4 A 3 f 1. a, s g 4 I F b g q' I l'
s. e _~ 4 ,1, 6 w. g, _ t e s I p 1 j Generating Station, Unit 1. The NRC Staff published in the Federal Register 1 a notice of the proposed issuance of the requested amendment and opportunity for a hearing and made a proposed determination that the requested amendment involved a no significant hazards consideration. 52 Fed. Reg. 7675 (Mar.12, 1987). Ultimately, after a special prehearing conference had been held on September 29,1987, in a Memorandum and Order dated October 9,1987 (unpublished), s the Board admitted as parties Mr. Robert Anthony, pro se, and Air and Water l ', Pollution Patrol (AWPP), represented by Mr. Frank Romano. The Board found that the submissions of and the oral presentations by Mr. Anthony and AWPP f# were unfocused. For that reason, among others, we concluded that, except for 1- -4' two somewhat similar contentions asserted by the intervening parties, none of l-the proposed contentions were admissible. These somewhat similar contentions were consolidated and, as reworded, the following contention was admitted as
- u an issue in controversy:
- p t
Confoll. fated Contention. The pr posed amendment to the Livmsee's technical spec. ificaticns wculd downgrade reporting requirtsnents for iodine spikes which would have an ' V adverse effect on public heahh and safety. Ba.re.t. The change in the reporting requirements wou'd stiminaw et dec+ ease Srectal Reports and t.icensee Event Reports on iodine spiking. and thus would decrease the regulatory ecntrol exercised by the NRC, would permit a situation where Licensee could 5: release radioactive iodine in excess of the one-time release limits, end, in not requiring the reporting of such releases, except on an annual basis, would endanger the health and safety o of the uninformed pubbc. On Novernber 23,1987, the Licensee filed a motion for summary disposition.
- j After extensiorn of time had been granted, on February 9,1988, the two
[,,.. intervenors st.bmitted responses opposing the motion for summary disposition. Q C. 4 M 2;,. On February 18, 1988, the NRC Staff filed its response in support of the k. ;' V Licensec's morion for surnmary disposition. In an Order of March 17, 1988 C, " ,~ (unpublished), the Licensee and/or the Staff were requested to respond in I. '.
- F ',7
( /l /. affidavit form to certain questions presented by the Board. On March 31 and e April 4, the Licensec and the Staff, respectively, submitted responses. On April { : ' ' '" - f 25, Mr. Anthony submitted a respome. ' /,. ~ n.;. l,> ,.e s =
- s..
i; II. DISCUSSION c, ' 7,, i. I.. '. P... , '.e j A. Regulations and Case Law ~ Section 2.749(a) of 10 C.F.R. provides that once a motion for summary h, ^., 3.,J ;[ ; '. .)' - disposition has been filed, the opposing party, with or without affidavits, may '"J. _ -O K.<..;f... 'l ,,;. ~ " 7,., file an answer. Paragraph (3) further provides in pertinent part that: f
- t. y-
- d. o
,g ~ 7 tM s f ,s, f. O.].@ ,
- q e',.6 y W 497
. & :'.? . e s ;; .>$D [, f : N ', g :. 10,j9.,,W s' 7.,3.q p 't- ,.?, - o :,.M t k %. '~ 7.;. nty;r:q:.W'.rqlqq;r X-q:m:nLi m.pg ry ? v.
- 2 '
5. v.,u, .3..',.;q 7, c.. , ', g :;.m.7,. [. ;'.',,, p*g ;% w(* ./ w 3,.g ~, :.., - v s 3, .O' ./. s.,.. (, j Q :,. y' ,.l,<.. . 4 r, qf r,, ? y >. ' q *., :.? <'. r9 r 4 ...s> F-i n s \\. d $*k ' 'o lt i.\\i;,'..y' '.', a s ~.,. ~,,, i5. * * ^"Y. N. 'e' ,}?lh s, - t .\\ . _ f;,. " ~J ', ';_
- 4,y, y N ^
. gr; [, '. ; ;,. p ~. ? ., l}.a ..\\.o U.1* Q.\\, A f,.. 1:,b.?za$gf
- ';; 3 *:7. ; N - Q _,:
W.. (.%, %'.:.:i h;Ml,.m 1;&y;s:w,.m,. Wy : 6 N:y.n.p'g '$1Q: b,,.. G. Q.W yya-Q.f: ? g;~ <~.k W W,f;.y.[ f ., g,: i he l, c + ~ :r
- M j;g w
,9,b.y,,,_ tyg .c.yf.a 3 x
W7.'WT'~Q;:iV : . Q.W:gN1:n)7.%,:.,;%' W' 'n.MWT; M' G'V.?.* 5 M. W.U.y.n,%nG:Q.PY:d:7WWG: %M~ M.: ?:.% 9 M'?:Mn :.W;. c l W: s /.T v, g y ? $'}' $ 'f $ *' 0!h h $ fy .&$..b.f.,,.,h0.,,T@l.Q.i.k:{h.,I).f.,Y, ff,.Q'8'?,? ',l:.. & xi 'r- \\. % t &.&.. +...m.'Yf_.8. ~,'h.. e ,5 ~ r. ._...u 3 ~ o. f. ; pl u s. ?, m, M -, 4 v ; . > u. a. ,c.. m..,, W,, a) ".:.,., :. c. v.. y,. x. s... . m. :t.., 3.- W s . ~,1. , ^ ;, .^.s.s.; ~.
- g. ~ e., q;c. ;.,
e. s. ,. Q.p,M;.s',.:..W :p 3,,. '; p. 7,...~,: f y. ;'k 'c' i
- n'y. sf,q;,.
. ;g*. q. ; ' f.. %+ , y:. ,} 7,. K... ' y.::p 9). s-~ ,,a. ,) ~ m.:," ".. ~ ...r
- r.
f gn,t gn.;, s.,. : n..
- x a ti J
s.
- ~.-
...a ar :y;.. s . s.. --.- r u y .../--
- .s
- -.. M. .,u.,- -.r4 - ,... 1 ~- ' a. ? e - a rar: ,. :-D. n.1 ';mf.y ;E ; ,,,-@,,,~.... s. -t o .,4.e.., c,9., w, 3 ci a. --'~--*-=-~""n 5 +'u "'3. - " * - - - -" m" q. e ,,,....,.3 ,.).q.. e..... h,, u r,. ..n f e,, y r.~ r.,,p a % y,(. &. 9,..... m:: 4.r 9.W ~.,. g^ : .. w .. 3.- 'yls.'lId T e :':pm.k
- h-7[.VG a.-w.
- g..NYhTl;%:
.! r u c.x, w .; - v:,. 6 e MA. .1 w..k. 3 h;0.,n'.ps'I,.,iC, [M.#rM hJ'"".<! ;,%.,,-).;.[ 9.T"*c,.d,c; ;I.%,p ' here shall be annexed to any answer oppesing the motion a separate, short and emcise l'y2E.,%r'w* AIJ fip. V... .,K staiemerd. of the material facts as to whidt it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to L/. o 3 q % 47.f.fi i be heard. All material facts set forth in le statement requird to be served by the movmg M bh'F. $b j Farty will be dect,ed to be admined unless coatroverted by the statement req sired to be M.:.,@..w..Mh@DM.I[h.W:kNMM 7'pp r.7 '.$. served by the opposing pany. s'{. M*h h h bN Md....7.f M d.:.% Sution 2.749(b) provides in pertinent part that .fl.:. m. .v, 2p,+ ' f %.,...,l,{,. ;;,.. n..., f,c. , t.'f.y/> y,..,...m,.,.a. . pp,[ J.N Af6 davits shall set forth such facta as would be admissible in evidence and shall show 7 ;.g ' f;gl.f; g, y'.'e d4?. 5.r.w,;g "'.N ;9 ,ff. *. ] af6tmatively that the af6 ant is competent to testify to the matters mated therein... When 'f,, y j. s motion for summary decisicn is made and supported as provided in this section, a party ,.. 2.,,...NN. opposing the moticn may not rest upcn the mere allegations or decials of his answer; his ,.f.' y, ,[. @',[ f M j [,e ." n;; V'; ansstr by af6 davits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth speci6c facts ' S y +;.V i. showing that there is a geneine issue of fact. If no such answer is 61cd, the decision sought, c d _l C4 . y. [ ','., ' ' ', if appropriate, shall be rendered. . <. m.. ~,. 3... Section 2.749(d) provides in pertinent part that .~ .y
- 'G.A
.j .y r .g.- g g .G he presidir's of6cer shall render the decision sought if ti,e Sli.ngs in the proceeding, ./ ,i,- .i., j depositims, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on 61e, together with the statements of the parties and the af6 davits, if sny, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a dtcision aa a matter of law.. s 1 The summary disposition procedure should be utilized on issues v. tere therc ~ is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard so that evidentiary hearing time '4, is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues. Statement of Policy on Conduct of f ,'e Licensing Proceedings, CLI 81-8,13 NRC 452,457 (1981); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB 696,16 NRC 1245,1263 x 3 J.. s .,s (1982); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating g Station, Unit 1), ALAB 590,11 NRC 542,550 (1980). It is the movant, not - t ' -[ 3@ /) .,l-r- the opposing party, which has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine ^ ' N ' o; '; , \\ b'.a. issue as to any material fact. Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear j .: j {,. Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,753 (1977). However, if S ' ? the motion for summary disposition is properly supported, the opposition may 7-? 3, not rest upon "mere allegations or denials"; rather, the answer must set forth " l' J"- specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact. Virginia Electric and -7. 9f, Power Co. (North Arma Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 584,11 NRC 451, 453 (1980). ,? (
- .~
J \\ B. The Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition and the StalPs Support Thereof [; Licensee moves that the consolidated contention be dismissed and that, since only a single contention was admitted, the proceeding also be dismissed. In s t. 498 i r I s i I i ~ n 4.. g- ,~ y.. a .V' s ss j. i,' ' Yh ( Q. s t 1
~. .w-.... n ..a ,.t m, 4 n v.fo.. s .,i. w W/ ) a-y. ^
- 2
,4 ' y '.., f 3:;.:l_. i support of its Motion for Summary Disposition, the Licensee appended the Joint ?^ u. affidavit of John Doering and John S. Wiley, Mr. Doering, an employee of -~f ~ Philadelphia Electric Company,is responsible for management and oversight of ~ ~~ ~ plant operations, engineering and chemistry support at the Limerick Generating Station. Dr. John S. Wiley, also an employee of Licensee. is Director of the y.. Nuclear Plant Chemistry Section and is responsible for the technical direction of chemistry programs at Licensee's nuclear facilities. The Licensing Board is x. satisfied that Mr. Doering and Dr. Wiley are qualified to attest to the matters in their joint affidaviL J S The following material facts as to which Licensec asserts there is no genuine .c, issue to be heard are based on the Doering/Wiley affidavit (Licensee's Jt. Aff.), ',f ,-,'7 Licensee's Statement of Material Facts as to which There Is No Genuine issue ? ~ to Be Heard (Statement), and the Wiley affidavit (Wiley Aff.) submitted on March 31,1988, in response to the Bo:rd's March 17, 1988 Order requesting ?' clarifying information. l+ .m 1. The amendment proposes no modification to the Limerick Generating s'. ,,'$c'*" j ,2 Station radioactive release limits. (Licensce's JL Aff.,118,11, tand r 4" Attachs. 3,4, and 5; Statemens { l.) ,7 .z 2. The amendment proposes no modi 6 cation to the Station reporting re- ,,j quirements related to plant radioactive effluents. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,
- 9.
118,10 and II: Sta:ement,12.) N-3. High levels of iodine in the reactor coolant encountered by reactors m,.;,Nr.; operating in the early 1970s resulted from moisture trapped inside ,,T-L,q J.[ ' [ the fuel rod, pellet-clad interactions, and crud. induced corrosion. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,112; Statement,13.) r.
- n.,,. ' Y>.-
- o .~ .....v.- ,, l; M L,'. % 4 Improvements ia the design of the nuclear fuel, improved fuel man. s,m agement practices, and the replacement of the older fuel assemblics ls, y -7 /:.', f
- Cj".j!
.. O,. [, gradually eliminated the failed fuel and the resulting higher levels T,'!. 1 .g of ladine in operati:.g reactors. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,112: Statement, ,s 14.) ',,, [$' . '., c. a ' '. Ql. J 5. Since startup/ ior the first operating cycle, Limerick has averaged [,',< f M-VV % only 8 x 1(r5 Ci/g of iodine in the coolant. (Licensec's Jt. Aff., T.~, -1., .( b
- ' ;W"~ i 4'M[ '
'. T,'.; g. 113; Statement,15). c.' 6. The average measured value of iodine in the coolant at Limerick is ~ C u'- s 1 Obl% of the threshold value of 0.2 pCi/g contained in the Techaical [c. ' ~, l 4 d * [(, k Specifications. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,113; Statement,16.) i: '. "< Q'!. f.' W G ' i.f N, _'. -; e '.'.i A. G., 7. The peak value for iodine cor. centration in the primary reactor coolant 'l y1M < for the first cycle of operation was 1.2 x 10d pCi/g. As of March ,.s,.< 1.,. 4 @ '..?,^'c, C 'c6 '.;:..p**w'w,J .a ,) s. s v. .,.. d :} % s y ;. ' N;:.A ,o ->L- ~ n ,*' 4.3 ' q:, p.rh
- c,, j ' ;,',.t l.. ? g Q 7
s e s 4 l l 'T:lj ^ ;},T.,, 3 y t '.l?.']- )* '& N;,;;*;.,., y ,= .Q ?, i ,, ' r. ' -, m' ' y., N, ' %;, 4);: ' .,n - v: 3 > ? :. f. A ?!. t ', >\\,..%.*f*;; ,'rl,s. ; ' ' ',. 'l'N, r ;.p '., g; lc :., j.' I '.d* s '.. 's.,-M # r D n'L W 4:':a. W .',n .N N g.(]. fg'Q;-Qp'].~y? i f:m 499 l
- a,r
- s.
i.w ~3. og... .,N ' A ;* - r .y s r. +., :,;,h
- ..~..,*,*.7,f., [..d. j o 0 y A.1.r.;(
- 2 g
.,~l il ??Tlkl L i i: ' -j-a j.eg.w..
- h., y..
-,.e '*'T ~ * )'- 9.. ...... '.. a .e I' $ N,[b 7 ! ".* y *b
- 9'G. 'h.. *,, b, ~ ~ 1,~ '.'* *. 'M
- X,3',* * -r * ]* ;' *
'"*M Th7c-7*^T *.'**'.d'M 6 4 g. %', 5-m y '.g l. 3;, '#. y.-4~ '.;0 u,. k + y .v; ~ >+ , : f i l +,",>>l4,'.,; l 'y!,' J. {.M..t -* O '
- p?
- ' ' T. i;, l . ). l *$l; Q~ v..+.n :.,',', .y. ..s e u- ~, :,;. L j,s. m: 9y , ~ ,.. y. :,. $ [.
- Vi II *
.,, f
- 4 4
'$. {..] ' ' i . p ,4 .g
- a- ' ' * * *
- f Q f v
- p..
e. 7
- s.,.
... m.,t ..s ,g,, .+.
- 1
, ei s 4, = A',.
- A \\.y, i., y
- ..'^'.' {3; q f ' '..i*') j'4 ) ?.
. a. '); jd* 'f lp. ' ' _.*!u - p' ,.,?.'. a.e : 1.A .4 E.' h: 4 N. q!;.. ys;w~,.;y'... y L .,y 3, v. .z c.gt:..;.c y,. %.w. ;O. N,T, q,.mc %._, w, t.W.m,.; v.,p n.,,,. 3',,y,2 y n: g g sfsh f. 4'."J r, y. f, 1..l,N, y g,,;;u,ets,. 3., r' e..p. r l -o.4 ~ ? ~ 9 , 9... y
- s 5.m
< 'cs.w 5 ' 9.+ wM..... me c+t c M-s.o' %%ywe -p. .,,cp.4.. est .n re y N.. g ..x
- 3 g
- th..m f
0; h h,$ ?.t,.r ~bbk hh hh* hf~f*.,h . f... h,s..n.,. S. %y y $'1 -f.,_c,,,y -;.<.*. ]. i. c, (* q. w. w. t.e\\a gw y y...J. ;.A >..,1.:'s::. c. :~ ygw.,5: a: %;b.* < . '.;.o ;9L:.;&. p:g. S. :. t n. ..,v .... ~ ;.. r., y ,r F ., :;*',' ?. n. p. w. ng,.-c F - .', s*M,,. a-s c..,. u ss s a 6 n'... * '.,.... . x,,v, ~, .r,,.s/., e. e. s-M .,..,s... . Os.my e t ..;r s ? ?e,,p. o. \\ g s i-y ~ w '. >+r y, ff., b -f , : :Q ;p-rw;, ~
- l'.,; q g J.
. g. ;,.Svg.. ? :MsW = '~ y, :,p. y.J; '..e,'. ;. + 7 ip m::. - , yc.;Xy. h,y.. n ~.; ,'.3, i m &.,,....'.%.~...,:..;,c 2..wh..s.u A,. W...;2,..:..&. L.M;W.v::./. a.,., :. - :a. :: w. w : 3.. s 1,. i. : ,,.g :, ,.,,,.'=.t_,. e p,.Q., ..y..,.~,..., .c... ~ J S Q'. 6. g f.3 M.D a,r. 4 R. ~...,, "M. '.7 t . Mw..nM.&.~ hy1 .. - :.Wo9 ' y;d;.x,.s y.,m y? w r+p '.m$,y ;#] ~;vWn; 1 . w 4;,.;y,qp.wc W.
- 3 p,9 c
t m. ,M['M.W(Ipf.rgIT.jD[g;2 1 29, 1988, the pcar value for the second (present) fuel cycle is 2 2 .D$N[3.Qgqh x 10-d Cl/g, which occurred on March 25,1988.2 (Wiley Aff at 4.)
- d. &g g: d $.h.
nM G
- 8. The boiling water reac^or 1986 mediaa value for iodine co]lant
- c. i gcs.t.J@. ~MMM~-@c,
w g,m...c.:, r ag..$n..%, M. ;o.gyh:2$n,:s..p. gy.. activity was 1.5 x 10~3 Ci/g. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,113; Statement, e;w p,< 1 8.) .S _ - %.. c.y. W.%'69k%:R9%4 v p,.p &. c.,, ..~.- v . r.. Yhd M:$ $5 @G9M@D M W M. 9. Sampling for iodine cooling activity is conducted at the SL". ion in M accordance with Technical Specification 4.4.5. (Licensee's Jt. Mf., i.,Q.7.%l!!%MBQ2i% d 114; Statement,19.) J.,0f? N i
- 10. During operation at Limerick, the frequency of iodine sampling is
% pr['p 9. !% * '..a V QE.N.,y. ' ' daily. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,114; Statement,110.) , W J; flf:,. N ; s. M / ; lJ;;j
- 11. The Station has established an administrative limit of 0.002 pC!/g
{" ' ' y.@.' M c [ ',[ ' ~] r 'l which is 1% of the Technical Specification limit (Licensee's Jt. Alf., iu. gc -6 1 114; Statement,111.) j
- 12. If the administrative lirait for iodine levels in the reactor coolant
. G ;. 4 o , $ ' ', ',. g.L Ed were exceeded, this information would be discussed at the daily ' 1 fJ ,J ~,.'/] chemistry meeting held at the Station, manageme.it notified, and 9 avai.lable courses of action considered. (Iit.ensee's Jt. Aff.,114 i e 4 MT'.~.} Statement,112.) .,=.,*,c~ ~
- 13. The Director, Nuclest Plant Chemistry, reviews reactor coolant iodine
-e., d monitoring data monthly for trend:, (Licensee's Jr. Aff.,114; .S 1 Staternent,113.) i 'n '1
- 14. The NRC has assigned Resident Inspectors to monitor operation of s
- r
- Limerick U'A 1. (Licen%e's Jt. Aff.,115; Statement,114.)
j
- 15. Periodic inspection reports by the Resident Inspectors and by Re.
gional Specialists which include consHeration of reactor chemistry s are forwarded to Region I and headquarters and are made pub!;c. (Licensee's JL Aff.,115; Statement,115.)
- 16. Section 50.7.1(a)(2)(i) of 10 C.F.R. requires that a Licensee Event
- UP Report ("LER") be filed should the iodine coolant r.ctivity exceed 4 y
, e /c a pCi/g, or 0.2 Ci/s for 48 hours. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,116; Statement, 3- - ?. i 16.) W 17, Section 50.73(b) of 10 C.F.R. requires that any LER submitted must include the details surrounding the event, its cause and corrective ac. ~' .g., '."? ~, j N, 7, f I, ( tiens, and provide a reference to previous similar events. (Licensce's ~' d Jt. Aff.,116; State:nent,117.)
- s, c
- 1 I ln a leuer of Apal 8.1988, ticensee's counsel ner.dicd se Board and me perdes est an iodir.e concentradon nlue of 1.26 x 192 Ci/g occurred on Apel 1.191s. W noud eat this value aas less by a factor nr 16 &an se O.2. Ci/g.ilus senuined in Technical specdcauen 3/4.43 (a ecpy of which was stuched to the wt'ay ofMavta) and est. as er Apr.18. 8e iodir.e concentradon was 3.9 x 103 pCug. As ticensee's counsel pon.s out, the t. iodine conccrstrade.s measured on Aprtl 1 and Apal 8,1988 were we3 below the tnggenng comentradons ror ~ plara shutdown. the Board notes that these two ccamentrauces exceed the tirnenck Sudon admininretoe linut ,i of 2 x IN Ci/s, and thus required discusnon at se ddy chcrmstry rnecting held at the survvt. notdceuon of ~ ~. ~ management. and ccrmderadon of courses of acuort. (licensee's A Aff.,114; sta'.emers.112 ) g i 500 y G ..... ~. s
- z -~
q '.,y ~. c. ,. Ma ^ .,**7.,[, d p ..e. ,r ,.3_. *
- f.,
,.f b
- I d) s
,w W,.c ~ w '., ; ';
- /-L
- ,.Ry< t.; *
..,. y
- c a
'.V.
- 18. LER's related to Limerick Generating Station arS placed in the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C., and the Local Public Document Room in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. (Licensce's Jt. Aff.,
116; Statem nt,118.) -l
- 19. Section 50.72(b)(1)(i) of 10 C.F.R. requires a 1 hour notification of 1.' ' ql the NRC Operations Center via dedicated telephone should the lodira
.J coolant activity exceed 4 pCi/g or 0.2 pCi/g for 48 hours. (Licensee's ? ' ]~ Jt. Aff., i 17; Statement,119.) ,~j
- 20. The Station Emergency Plan requires the declaration of an Unusus!
}; , q[,1; Event if the level of iodine in the reactor coolant exceeds 0.2 pCilg. i. ~" ,~J J.4 (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,118; Statement,120.)
- 3., '
,V
- 21. The declaration of an Unusual Event would require state and local
- ,. y officials to be notified within 15 minutes and tne NRC Operatioris
,1 Center to be notified immediately thereafter. (Licensee's Jt. Aff., 1' j (( 18, 22; Statement,121.) 0
- 22. The amendment reques! does not se(k to eliminate any Licensee Event
[p Reports required by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.73. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,120; J -( Statement,122.) _ .y 3. -
- 23. The amendment coes not seek any change to Techncal Specification
' 3 limits related to offsite release limits or the requirements for mon-o.J - itoring, sampling, or reporung of radioactive effluents. (Licensee's 7 Jt. Aff.,121; Statement,123.) l
- 24. Any radiological release above regulatory or Technical Specification
..f -['.,'.R 3. .J:: T s. limits would require the implementation of the Station Emergency e ".g
- d q "
~ Plan. (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,118; Sutement,124.) 4.',,';; ;A CI',-i ' 6 'j-Q -
- 25. The dose calculations for the design basis accident that is controlled j.'
1. l 'y,' y by the iodine level in the coolant, the main-steamline-break accident, f -.;. f, " ' " .f [. are unaffected by the propcsed change to the Technical e,pecifications. 'l*'s$,1' , g.;,. / T _ (Licensee's Jt. Aff.,123; Statement,125.) 'f S C':7
- 26. As of March 29,1988, there have not been any iodine spiking events lUc.. 7T 5, 4. f f'3 at the Limerid Plan:. (Wiley Aff. at 3.)
h '. f , f ; II The NHC Staff's response supporting the Licensee's motion relies upon the p',# ~ ' C - ,'f ' ~ (,,D/ ', [ affidavit of Richard J. Clark, an efaployee of the Office of Nuclear Reactor . [l f; - g y.g y, ;,. j:;. f?, 7. Regulation (NRR) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Staff also responded 4. + to the Board Order of March 17 with an affidavit by Mr. Clark (Clark Supp.). lb[. . :L,7-s.,7 Mr. Clark, a graduate engineer with postgraduate training in chemical and f 'q '. J ' ',-'9, O h M,. _ ,. f nuclear engineerbg has over 30 years' experience in the nuclear power field and [' f1[ currently serves as NRC Licensing Project Manager for the Limerick Generating { - ' gl2%;,. ;,,, *j p g .T.,, Station. The Board finds Mr. Clark qualified to comment on the Liccasee's [.: 6N' b'.c. 4 4 motion and the consolidated contention in issue. C ' j.;/g j'. ",,W..c,$ v. 4 h.^ The NRC Staff maintains that the consolidated contention is factually in-f.Hg ' j.. " 7 # 'g.{ l '-;. correct, and consequently its allegations, bases, and conclusions are erroneous. ! M fN.a, v.7 P.:
- .cci ", m ; # ?.:.w, u ' %+W*r
{ l *W',. -i V 4. ' t,*...;r !. # ' :.*<.# ,'",;_.l ", ( *. ;'. p , m V,.;L W*.W:','.- .m y!' Q'(A .. x. c;,,.,[ y .n e 501 % "R +.W. '- i "9, ..,A...i".) ~ = ~9'$l { :.. ' y', ' - ,1 ( - ' e '- [,. g;.
- ('..QT y. *f: y %~..,...'
+ /l,- y~ L f.; ..-t,; <c< gj g.,- V 5#
- p fe
,~.'r..- s .. + a, g' . e,, %'.*/ s. .3 e*-.'e e-c -p N, [ ,5 + ,~ ,'j % , [k. g" ? .M.. T :..p$.,'.' 7 s,,.;.n i N.[, 7 -[,., 3a, s }",,;h,'U h. ? ~ n . 9 g. y. . ' l;v..>. - t'.h, .c 'l .,. ~ ~ ~ .Y ,h v,.nn.{f '.l ,..;S,' ', y >' Q,*?*lk,a.,.. a~. m .. ~ 4 w >.. g;., w,-.x#^^p....c ,n n~.:,. n-. n ~y ;,, + ..s ,e .. n. r.- - f. oa, o c +.,
- e. w OS
~,... "'^ j '? A ' *} V, a l.,
- *~G***
9 ? ' '- 'b " ? 2 N,s ' ~ S*
@,,:~d.~ @,.% D M M k % N T h k h h@.h,.:n ~ E. m.c: u C.. 6. w 5~,,.,y.:n, p' a N&,,..c-WWM 'Sh. M.:. M m e 0 F.x,,. s w.n.
- ~
- c. 3,-
a%.. y;.y.y. J.n.m y.w *., y e. m .t . p. q.,~,f e.,x;x.., w,,. n.. ~. + .3, .w x w y. w m{ y ; my },;. ~%.q., q,>5 :. v..*?.e.,; ;.pn.~.,%.;1wu:. ;. &[' ..,e.>n...v,,. ,, m. s.. ~..ee.i pv.. .e....-; s. ,_y. 4:M::,.:: ;g. g W :.p'; ff.; g.H: q .m y f,S'q
- n
.W.,.. .59wX%g~ .. d
- ,; s?.
, 2., .e; ~ ~
- .
- h m;.y% ~.
a.. ",, . + m.E p. y; s,e m. ;,~ r. M.y~. ~.z4 c.,; .. u :. 4. y. m, m,, % y : c :- n u..- s ~ w - - 'y"- .. - v
- u.
7 y f ?"',$ &.;.., f'+s y '.G.,. . k. %.,.9.j lJ ' "~ ~ A .m. t
- v.,.,..
.3,,',.. 1 h.
- i,. m r3%
%7- , a. Mg w. j v. m.. '.., 1 , % : m*:,p. N.f. U Q 's *.$v. ph.a,, ;%. r.- ,. x. Y;. 3. ~W. s.,& l,,.. m ,.:.&: ~y..k,.., p.,i,y . *: N s...m:. :. :-9: cq w : s:.:.,.a .f., m..., n. + 3.. .-.m. 7. V. .' :.n..*. w. u. . =.e.... i v s g
- < :;2.as p *:.,
[b'.7% MM[3[%[d$@ k(i'.;:] , Y.N Therefore, it supports the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition as filed M3.I.Q $N dl, [ and, because the consolida!cd contention is the only admitted issue, supports dis-y;';.NN.kMM:QM7:Md.MMd.T presentation of ma;erial facts as to which there is no genuine issue to ise heard WNd./i. missa' of the procer: Jing as well. The following briefly sumenarizes the Staff's Dh5M which augments the Licensee's motion for summary disposition: MN: h.hWW.h@k@sMG[.ll[' *[jj @~.W :4 N, MQ.E - @ L Th basis for model Technical SpeciSca' ions in Generic Letter 85
- 74. $ M. 1?T.[.'.? ".i '.,.'.'
..n 19 was the significant improvement in the design of BWR fuel over U$'N ~ 3 the past decade that greatly reduced the potential for stress corrosion
- g.,a j y w ;.3. ;. a J..,,..
crading of the fuel cbdding and, thus, the release of iodine in the JJ, 'y ,' w, ; coolant. (Clark Aff.,16.) WQ,C '.( i :.:
- .1 0
M; 7 " '/ ' 2. Improved fuel management by Licensee, such as resuicti ns on ' F h. _ y. power changes and preconditioning, has also significantly reduced ~c ?w" .'s ' a ?,. .S..i ?.' the stresses that cculd cause a crack in the cladding with the resulta -t A'<^.. + 3.- :, ;.: ~ release of iodine into the coolant. (/d.) E ?. h y,, 3. Staff Generic Letter 8519 stated that because the quality of nuclear i M'3 J Ori-f % gq fuel has greatly improved over the pas: decade, with the result that 9 .d X.7 N 5. n normal coolant iodine a.:tivity is wel! below the spiring limit, some .. ~...,4 ",'n l a',.d of the current Technical Specifications on ceporting requirements for m.U V - ' ' 7i ".] iodine activity limits in the reac'.or coolant could be eliminated. (Id., .Q .1 516,8; Attach. 3 to Licensee's Motion.)
- ' -f.J
"",4 ~ 5' 4 q f 4. The proposed amendment would not change the reporting require-i N ments on iodine spiking in any manner that would reduce the timeli- ' :. r - ness of information available to the NRC and the public. (Clark Aff., 18) 5. The only reporting requirements that would be changed by the pro-j posed amendment are the requirement to subm:t special 30- and 90-day reports if the coolant iodine activity exceeds the Technical Spec. i ification limit of 0.2 pCi/g or if it exceeds the limit for 500 hours in ~'... i any consecutive 6 month period. In Generic Letter 8519, the NRC i Staff recommended that these special reports on iodine sedvity be g. deleted from Technical Specifications since they serve no useful pur. .x, pose er,d were duplicative of other reports - specifically, the report-y ing requirements of 10 C.F.R. (( 50.72 and 50.73. With the current reporting requirements of (( $0.72 and 50.73, the NRC determined ( ~ t ~' that it would serve no useful purpose either to th? Licensee or the ,3; -( NRC to also require a separate, special report. (/d) or any reports related to of' site releases. Reports related to off.ite .. ~, Tlw proposed amendment would not change any offsite release limits 6. ~g releases and the release limits are governed by other Technical s Specification requirements and NRC repulettions which are totally unaffected by the requested changes. (/d.,19.) i 4 3. i ~ .g + 502 i 4 4 a r 4 ,. g s \\
- e*<
?* ll~..... - I' ' ', l 3 .... w e,c.
- t. 5. 3,."?,..,
s
- s >
c 'S y 4, ^- f{ 6 '*
- 4A. '
s,' c '.,. t- = 3.,. A... 's, llX ~ ; t h;Q' "'. m,, . t.,,
- .+. c ;
.g
- . v -. *
.r,V ?C\\. ~- s c3 ~! O 1 --p } ec ,e,',' x. ' ~/i... ' 'C
~ .r J ~ q 'm , ~.. g g 1 i n 7. There have been no reportable incidents of iodine spiking in any BWR in 1986 or 1987, and there have been no reportable events at s "i the Limerick plant. (Clark Supp. Aff, at 4,5.) 1 The NRC Staff's filing in support of Licensee's motion concludes that the proposed amendmeat would not downgrade reporting requirements for lodite spikes, nor would it in any wsy affect the regulatory control exercised by
- c
- '
- ^ ' . c j.' NRC, and also concludes that the bases for the consolidated contention rest .m.. on erroneous assumntions that are fundamentally flawed and provide no support 2, ^ 'g, { ' g;;;c g - for the contention. (Clark Aff.,118,9,13.) r c Q., a. R.9 1 a - ,. ~.. _ '.r.f 4. *., ., x _.,.,.', F ' E. " [, C. The Interrenors' Opposing Responses ~ .A y s a 1. AWPP L .s.. ~, 4 Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.749 for re ponses to motions .; 4, -. k for suramary dispodon, AWPP does not dispute or even address the specific l', . g. y, 't j ^ material facts presentec' by Licensee. Instc.ol, AWPP caose to discuss other ~ 4 Q.* matters such as discovery dispUes, newspaper articles, boric acid corrosion . h'- "CU-J (PWR related), other power plants. welding infrsctions, etc., all of which are '. 7 _, q ' 4l, '. '. not germane to the instant mot'on.) AWPP weil have been better served had ~ '..,1 it addressed the issue before it. t 1 o .m however, AWPP does allege that Generic Letter 85-19 lacked a statistically I. '$ id,# 0 W P.P. D., M. Y.x m .m researched basis. According to the NRC Staff, its basis is contained h the p...- (g'gG %y. %p. y j g. gg.. @. annual reports designated a NUREG/CR-3950, which discuss all aspects of U 'j,.f fitel performance including iodine spiking. Reports similar to these have been p iw ' y Mr,.. %f ( o.., published since 1979. A review of all volumes of NUREGRR 3950 (four ih .Jj $ 'i,$Q's volumes, one volume for each of the years 1983,1984,1985, and 1986, %,.v.,f,,7+, J ',.4: i7y , m, .m '3 .a,. . L. W., U, v';,.r Q: .i v +. % %, r ' .w-p 3 AWPP refers to cena2n L.icmsee Event Reports. NRC Informane Noices, and tnspeedm Repons. The Board '.. -l. 2' c. :.. b * [;' ' has redewed thews documents and 6 ads that none emunows any of the informanon ecwined in the Ucensee or . 1 f. 'h ; s. -e NRC staf af64svits, wponing the modon for swresiy dispcsiticrt. NRC InfortMan Notice 8M06 (AwPP ./' ' i b' \\ Oppcsing Response at =) pertains to degradston of the reacter coolara sysurn pressure boundary resuhing from - ;' 'd - E',, ', 3,,' 3 ' t'.n' ' bone acid corrcaicrt l'is nodce was addressed to pressunzed ester reactor licar. sees and simply does not apply -/c i.. .-M ',*y's b, e, to Lirn ck, a bouing e ster reactor stadon simuarly, NRC 'aformation Neuce 884C (M) penained to fatigue a i cracks in steam generstcr tubes and ou directed to Wesunghouse Pwk owners. Limerick has no steam gewraur .y - ^ w ,i 1- . C. 4, .... ' g T.T/.... cae ; A..." Y ' ~ y ?. tubes. NRC Inspectim Repor 50 352&02 (a at 5) clearly states that no vioianons wers Hentined. ne ' a M, L 'z .@ f..',, i i trunor and unexpected release of gaseaus efPuent was compared eith the apropriate enteria and "[t}he te&nical speci$caden linuts for the rdeane were nca exceedrd.' NRC Inspeaion Repces 50 35: d2 at u The release 't. ' d cW
- 1 ** W A p/,-
brnits for gueous eff.uents srir. be unafected by the propoM amendment. (Ucen AE 121J la ha ,k *N ".-c."i.Q~J,* ?. - W ' '.J - respcrue at page 5. AWPP rerers e I.ER 87-017, stating that h indicates unn.ee dc..
- ve menitus under
' ;. ' - ~ ' h i ^.," ' J. ? ( conuel, thereby makirig lodus ccrmd more irnportant A reading of I.ER 87 017 indicates *st the systern J ' ye .?.:; - operated in the presenbed ma..ner upon reemving a enamentary higbridiation signal There were no adverse ,}, ;;3.g 3 ,3.V,. # : '. j consequences as a rurah of te evert No radiador was releaaed. while no denits cause cf h spurious signal
- ~
- M. / '. '. 4,. '6. ", N. M V.
',. O was idenuned, h was suspected that maintenance was cri a nearby panel generated a mcznercary electrical signal ...jff 'A'# ' ~.7 ' +
- ' & M ; f. O f.
p sple which simulated a higbrad:aden signal to the ruclear steam supply shutoff syr.arn and resuhed in the systern ' J g h,. h. 2 H1 .6 r t ; e 4 et.a are not aid mill not be afected by the Technical specincetion changes propcsei (Ucrnsee's Jt Aff., m.. .\\.M N Y, ;,C p" ef...,.
- %'d Q, isolmion. 'LBt 87 017 at 2,3.) la any evern, licertsee repons of this type whis describe the functions of safety
. M,,' >. A k AE. ' S.) '.M<. p Q' ~ ' " ' ' ~.$ 0:j,".& s' @l{,$ hl.lFf) Q.*' } Wljf : g i. ' th.4 r ' ". i 4
- . 2,
. :%a f. '3l g,* w M*; ) ll Q. W,1f' !.'.[l,.'.;T.l M@ < yI; sN ,' h ,.f- % : 7; W 503 . c *.:. v.s m. :n= 0 ?.
- ~,.
y .(.k; 7i i cp... + 3. .; g.s, gs~
- C 'W ;,,,, y
- e.. ',1 *.f N "5 ) 6,.
%. +?o [b-le +
- j-A-
, =. -. 9 3 j x
- f,.,.
.?
- ". N
- l j
e. g If y e' 'e-d,4 e. .j .f ', \\ 83 7 ,,g. d., ,,m < = .m. -a.' ~
- s,t ge**e fpl, 2-) ;
- } y ; *,., ' ' ' ',. '.. ,l s, ,v e,... ,h 8,. 3 - Y a-
- g.
3$.. s j ' 2O .=I g ., 'j O O '4' D g e J^ ' rh ,q'1 I A, f. j m.;,' y_ g T e a. ;* ' ~ ~ a -. 3. A',, g 4,g
- , ',% ^, > (M.,
- y,
. g. ' ' +. W' 1".,. - u F.N. W. (.,, ps,, &, ,.t .,a. . 3.i,'..> 7 ' .'? 4 ,;-W} $/. 0, ^ s.
- * ', *9 w
^.y v:,., q /.U. Q'7. f, &.W dt' , P,.ff.
- ^
ry,, - s-ip/4 3 N ;,-g % '.q.. 35.:q q;N, ;,j c.x N 4
- m.
%, >w .y _h" 2 !'*? y. s' .s. E I -* * ?( ~ ^ h ' ^ '
5,;..,,< :^ g gl;pd ~':p?y,'%+.t.yM..y s&,.:. n..
- % u ;..
- g..
. M., ...... n%: s ~4g(:@h,.i ~ 4,,.%%,.c,. .x. QQ v.-- .,n. .m. $ 6y;W.m? RMB
- 1Q W ',
.. :.. b*f..d;
- u. g%c.pp,%n,j.:.pM. Q+lM>,
.t.f.Q.g:h zty
- n. %:, ?~;2.
~ _ i .. y w, .w. L3 W.%; ":c + i... mp nQ ..e.,;u %,,.p , :. u.. %.. s.. y.: c. m-W ;.. Q. .. S. b- ~ a.,; a,.: s _ #., w a n.n Am..a: ^ c. ~ .2 ,.y. ... -n.,,. m. z.u.... 3 O ;w - x, .w: w-u ......w e i.wm;, y t...., 2-li',,;h M..-%y,' >Q; g&'.. 3.. - :... g.... t. ' Y,'. s.,
- l,. *.
3. ...A y y ..4','.s
- f. 4'%.
y ': v.Q&%Wn m,.. p.. w's.a+.. x.=. 7:.D.,. <p. ;p,s.p 9. 7 <v,'y g..m.. n,.: .c... 4.,.y ;p u w n,... v -Q.m.. y: - =. ..t. v n s,... u >::. 3,&;::M ; w.;;c* T.,, i, p . ms o.
- v. m
@ 3.h % N ~ Q. ' t.'d i&. respectively) establishes that there has been only one incident of iodine spiking QWQ.W 8;N:.1' %. 6 - c.d}Q .h6 ~ g in a BWR in the 4 year period covered by NUREG/CR 3950. That incident E b;S,.hcf4Y 7 N..j occurred at Big Rock Point (Clark Aff.,112.) l N. ':, c.w-g..f n:.., ;.
- :. y r W h % M .':.n..; O.; % %...
- M 2.
Mr. Anthony u n' -W., c p 9 4 e%, 'y', - ~ ; /.{.Q. *3. f' { In the "rebuttal" settion of his two-page opposing response, Mr. Anthony 9 y n - C has grouped into six categories the material facts in "Licensee's Statemer.t .e - jm of Material Facts a;. to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard" and . 4: A/~ " ~.i proceeded to write a one-sentence comment on each group. We discuss each .,s. ,^
- t. v..
.-e' ..... n group below: . o 2 ;c g. yy.. y,.c J Group 1. With respect to the Licensee's Stateraent of Material Facts 1 = s .. w,,,,. ~. e, #c. 1 snd 2, supra, Mr. Anthony asserts that "Limerick release limits do not protect a.~ r s ...A. ' /.. '.+ ~3 . M ci the public properly because they are based on boundaries beyond the railroad, ' F V ", f ;$g~Q J,. so limits and effluent reporu are skewed." (See also 11 of his April 25 y. c.1.dyS response.) Clearly, Mr. Anthony's assertion relates to releases of radioactive 4* ,.y y ' e,;. , u;13 effluents from the Limerick Station which are not rdevant to the subject matter - 9 g.7,.;.Q' ;f l ; i '.,,q F.m of the consolidated contention - viz., whether the proposed amendment to the M' Q', Q.@ ' ' A M.y Technhal Specifications would downgrade reporting requirements for iodine .o. j spikes which would have an adverse effect on public health and safvty. Thus, f.. u
- gcq,
,s4 y c..e,, hir. Anthony has not set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue of N. q 2,,. i. - fact. Moreover, such an argument is precluded bv the doctrine of res judicata. - ' y In ALAB-81S,13 NRC 13 (1986), the Appeal isoard afftrmed the Licensing ,3 Board's refusal to reopen the record to hear Mr. Anthony's complaint about the supposedly improper use of the plant site boundaries by PECo in determining the public's exposure to gaseous and liquid effluent releases during routine plant operation. Mr. Ar.thony coratended then, as now, that the bsages should be calculated at the closeat, publicly accessible approaches to the plant (a railroad right-of way and the Schuylkill River), rather than at the more distant site 4 boundaries. The Appeal Board found no basis for overturning the Licensing Board's conclusion that nothing in Mr. Anthony's presentation raised a genuinely , ~ ls. significant safety issue. l Group 2. With respect to the Licensee's Statement of Material Fsets 3 and l P, 4, Mr. Anthony asserts that "[w]e %. ave seen no evidence from NRC to bxk O up these assertions." However, tM Staff's Mr. Clark attested in 112 of his '.t 1 affidavit that the NRC publishes fuel performance annual reports (NUREG/CR-3950) containing the statisticia basis of Generic Letter 8519 which states, inter alia, that "the quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly improved oser the past decade with the result that normal cochnt iodine activity (i.e., in the absence 7, of iodine, sp. king) is well buow the (acceptable] limit." Since Mr. Clark attests that these reports are available for copying at the NRC public document room and are also available ihr sale from the NRC, Mr. Anthony's mere assertion that a s... 504 ~ + g. = ,3 6 >.a. .~ r ..,. ~. as., go,, j
- f.. v *,- }. f, 3, /* - Q, ~ ;[,y-..,...).,,
,e + j' .i 4. ....[I ps.'.} } * (=4 (',[ t, ,',^'. ~. .g,, ', e e
- '.y,,
y,.. 7.t 'g s n b
- A Ji"
'k q 'jf .7,. G' E = *,', : 'n'( ' d, > '#~ ,Y (,> f.;5; sb-c +g;,' k $;.. ,.., c 4-J. ..e s l. p. .T - 1
- 4a
_t1 ~%*
e@,,.gy. g w. ,,2 o. %m i L.,;.mf,.,.
- , r.-
j .,-a,.,....m c., : .o m.:. .y .s ' y,., .g" +.g'. p ....:',~
- 1 s
L e., i 3 ..,- g ~ m o . pag;3.;. - l a: o p C. w L s,. r - ~ o, '. s .s ', m *,. c- + .l. a .....; c + mw ? a.. wc v. n. .. a .a n r. .n g -.~. ~,.. s k 2~ S-r he has not seen such evidence does not serve to show there is a genuine issue i ,.q, y of material fact to be heard. ! y,3. ' Group 3 With respect to the Licensec's Statement of Material Facts 5 ci.y,p] 0 a' through 8, Mr. Anthony asserts that "[w]e have seen no figures from PECo or
- p. _ : Y NRC to support these figures, but in any event they do not resp nd to the issue,
- i.. y,' s a,.', ' ' - d p a{i;g,. ; ' Q '. '. ltl; which is iodine spikes, not averaget." Mr. Anthony's mere assertion in effect y [.?
that he has not seen the documentation does not not serve tv show there is an w, M... c' 4 % 3(', 5 ~ ~ .{ / 6 by outstanding, unresolved genuine i sue of material fact since w'c are unaware that ..v!," N ~. \\.." ' ' p l. 7l - he made any effort to seek production of these operating license documents from
- 76. ~.F VR..,,/, $ ;[.' ', d S..
the Licensee and/or the Staff and was informed by them that there was no such Vo.'.*,M, V: ;,, g.', 7.. g.. 4,.. y M Q.',*/.n., 7'Wl',) l documentation. Further, while many of the values addressed in the Licensee's Joint af6davi' at 113 are averages, the Liceret.e's affiants assert that there was .3 a maximum value of only 1.2 x 104 pCi/g during the first cycle of operation it. ; ' f.,3. W @; :? W;3 %., and a peak value for the second (present) fuel cycle of 2.2 x 104 pCi/g as of . 8. ' ~ 1 A > s W ' y,. [.if,' c F '.:.c',, 4i$fwf' y.M,. %Qt'.1 M ',,,'e n/ /f:2', Mj J' March 29,1988. The Staff's affiant, Mr. Clark, at 112 of his alSdavit avers that since 1982 there has been only one incident of fodine spiking in a BWP. %.T f '@f Vt U 'y',3 Group 4 With respect to the Licensee's Stater.'ent of Material Facts 10 ...,;. ; 0 af., V'.. through 15, Mr. Anthony as7erts that "[w]e do not necessarily dispute these i;, $". Items but they are also not relevant to th) hazards to the public from iodine ',N.. 4. ..t- '.,s- '/ 'ff.. spikes which might cause surges of releases of radioactivity to the public without ^. a j g'(. s., staff action or immediate registration or alarm due to inadequate monitoring or 7,' ' ' ' x,? ' h ',U ; limits based on erroneous site baundaries." Here the Intervenor first alleges "I ~f;q l' that iodine spikes might be undetected due to inadequv.e monitoring, but this b[ f[ N '.. ;. %',:Y'.k!" F allegation is not relevant to the issue presented in the consolidated contention ' j..;, ;* v " d'; ~ I J '. h : \\ l - i,, ' ..c -- viz., in short, whether the proposed amendment would downgrade reperting p[S )' "[ \\ n 1~ ( '.. Q'e@, ' 7.. I' requirements.' Second, he r: peats the complaint advanced in Group 1, supra, W; U about dosages being improperly determined at th: site boundary, which cannot p: J f. .Hdi M J.;' be heard because of res judicata. y.[,M[.. O. e,s W. C. 5 ' E i " 2. A Group S. With respect to the Licensee's Statemer*. of Material Facts 16 o ' [/M.j,.s. .s. through 21, Mr. Anthony asserts that "[w]e do not question that the reporting M'@ 'f.~.W N.+ F'j.,'. procedures exist but they are base.1 on criteria which do not provide an '
- l.3..
.. g. C.. t.,a.'D W,,, m. Ts s.,.,.h+ c., d.). immediate response, presumably plan' shutdown, to 'evels of radioactive iodine p ~..n!/ 6 W.,M 4, n n o which could cause severe damage to children walking along the railroad right A.4,"W,.M-W s M U a s y. Jgin /,.x g of way or wakers there." Once again, as he attempted to do in Groups 1 sind E.UZ M.%y @y 'y}.g '.d ~ h,y 4, supra, Mr. Anthony resurrects hM allegation about dosages being improperly 5g.i.$,b.0 v; d. ? ' m?'? S h, k n, s.. n. t..,>,s.t.. rm.m.;f. m 3 .v .s hgih?.3D, J]. $m/.[s t. Mr. Anthoviy stischad tws' usar ers,s to his rupese. stating that aie "ca.ts douk m PECo's abuity to pregialy 'a W.v-jv'. 3;;.c -Q pfg mess., uwe r.a.uon doses fue t,n.r,ck rauune rete.se d rasosciive ernueni and mai the oe., c:lw.N.h fgc.gkeG*.D.e..Q; ,*b; p-Q.y@:h,gh.gl.gf.w'y.,.c document questies se abdity of mc'. ear power plains, including Lirnenck. to rnonaar er react to rs&osaive [ retus.e enhee inside or outside che pt sr tv.n ssu, runs e.se docion,,ts reec. ih.i which he.Deses mey reGect, these documents. like his auegatims, are not relevant to the issue raised in se cortso'.Jated conianum. {, 4.t.m % fr %e > p,, Q ; b p g-M - s Uu e 11 s. 4. =d s d his asr= a of April 25. where, in quatimins me tmnsee's.baar to cprne iho fc.w ci. g '}.{-{,f plant safs!y, Mr. Anthony ratseg an issue irrelevant t.> *e issue in the censobdauen cetentson.) t ,s, p.m't. m v$ tjc J, /q./t \\ W e.d w 1 esw.ww wr y ea.p ~f - v*h r fl'. g.y h,: Q %' s u Wki*.ph-Q(*iQf::f .. S, n .n Q .y '**o t s 505 ..hh w.hhSI h MiM.%; Nh' c.a t.;.n,Sn....; me.vm m. 7 .y My/d W.M M : q... -,s c r. 7. g, m.7 m g$g.;. g [ M;;p;:p $5;. &,N$k': l 7 p.. 9.g g .enn,g.7;p p , y7,. .,.!,. i.: n. 1.:.. Q. E J W a p y M.k.8Ttl: J.M.M.'. iddSWfQQS'.j M.;.gqqgvQ@.q;.Q,# Mmy g :y: V;,' 6
- .y '% g :p g c p.m % g,..
v-n ' M. .lu::h >.%..;W un. w.:!s::%:~d,:.?Y - ~^'.u s.:i;.v' ~J n% &::. L.;c..:. ;Q, b'. + f< Q'.c-[.A. '.% ' U:.. : e.? :.. ;, \\ - M... 2 - m n +.. a M m a. %..L...WM W r*. o .' g n. qs r , f ' f~. r 2 .;.. n .. t.. ': (. r... u %' 7.u.:q:&.e,g, %.e c. %..~.y'. ; '& '. e '".2e;.- A ;1 :- ,..,, v. O~. /s..., 4.p,p r e. .nt:M,>t s.o.a.. -L~.,.8., s. . 4. ly;.m; "
- ': w
-..m ~ L N. q .. ; w. %.,:.H,6,, ;M,3 */ i 4 ..s. .s .-..n .. \\ ; ,C#' s *
- c ;
. :.. c, ..,. "*.. e...m. g...,.p.* ~ '.,.. i, s.m 'M .*,y:.. ....f.r. .s 3 ,e-r. s. ..c .'~.n- ..--.e." ~n.?l 5 ~ .4* ,S p. ~ ~3 w';, d...G * (@y * !W-a. [.3,.-3 p.. > ~. 'y e e'- -~ n:... _e ~ m e e.. n. n.. m. q ~. >. > ../ w< ~ - m , t,9; w. :, sy g ?q: d w nppxw.. hd,.ac..d.Th..+kN;:7. v4.4, -;i..,Y *- f..&.~. DM. u%n@. ::< M P a s .i. ~ y p y m.. s. ? >m;;&....P'.*: 4 k... s Nk,oh-.N calculated at the site boundaries rather than at the railroad right-of way. Such h.p% A.Q. p$m.b.c%g b
- p
.o y gm.n..Lc. an allegation is barred by res judicata. ..W, h), _f.y0. w w Group 6. With respect to the Licensee's Statement of Material Facts 22 , g 4(g 0/@ {gg'MM?M20$hb,.b'-@.w@h?-0?S through 25, Mr. Anthony asserts that "{l]t may be true that the design basis for y O,f. M[% d' % Q,M hh iodine levels in the coolant would be effective in shutting the plant in case of [MihM3.3 a stea n 1i00 bret.k and implementation of the emergency plan, but we assert hg ME :fM'$. Q.%p?. YM,d to stack release levels but should alarm the station staff via continuous moni that monitoring of releases should te continuous and should not only be tied M.dl,'. % S h.C / Q;f >h @;f0 % lj 'O WP. registration of on. site and off-site instruments which could alert the operators ' g.%~2%.t%/p h,'f.y to darigerous levels of radioactivity from an accident like Chernobyl or TMI, or ,_. We W*.6 Eh.p;Vsy, h a nuclear bomb accident, to which Limerick could add a lethal leverage." Once g,/'g.y.g.g'g'glQ y,M QC@ Cc.5 ". ' 2 the allegation that the monitoring of releases is inadequate or ineffective. The .C g I again, as he attempted to do with respect to Group 4, Mr. Anthony resurrects = Q.M../.. e{,. i.e.. '. s. :.~.. allegation is simply not relevant to the !sstic raised in the consolidated contendon. 'n
- .cf.*;'?
At page 3 of his affidavit (Wiley Aff.), Mr. Wiley deposed that, pursuant
- p. %. J
, o g -.. ' .:c w. f v.. . p, 7c n.) to the present Technical Specifications, which would not be changed by the y ar proposed amendment,8.he plant would be required to shut down if the primary _'-.A /*
- g coolant iodine activity exceeds 4 pCi/g or if the iodine activity exceeds 0.2
.X.'. \\ u4'- .R ; 4 Ci/g for 48 hours. At 16 of his April 25 response, Mr. Anthony is concerned d that, while the Technical Specifications require a shutdown if the iodine activity ( exceeds 4 Ci/g, they do not specify how soon thercafter a shutdown is 1 j mandated. However, his concern is misplaced because f 3.4.5 of both the v V current and proposed Limerick plant Technical SpecificLtions require the plant to be in "at least hot shutdown with the main steam isolation valves closed ~ withm 12 hours." (See Clark Supp. Aff. at 3, 4, and Attach. B thereto.) r. Mr. Anthony's other comments in 16 of his response express his dissatisfaction -.~." with the continued operation of the plant for up to 48 hours prior to shutdown ' E m., ,2 initiation when the iodine concentration in the coolant is in the range of 0.2 4 '. l..n l.
- .g ~
to 4 pCi/g. However, the fast of the mattrr is that this requirement was in the original Technical Specifications, it was not contested in the consolidated
- m
.A.,- contention, and remains unchanged in the proposed amendment, ~ 3 ..;;.,f; j., .e-
- .'h
'1. c .a
- c...
g ?. q.. IU. CONCLUSION ) 9, w.. ,. cf I.,, c. We conclude that the Licensee, as supported by the Staff, has sustained its f burden of showing inat there is rio genuine issue as to any material fact, that the 4 ~E 6 ,; ' y Intervenors have faaled to show that there is L t;enuine issue of material fact that r 7 q requires a hearing, and that the Licensee is entitled to a decision as a matter of l law, 'Ihe only reporting tequirements eliminated by the proposed amendment i,[' are the requirements for 30-day and 90-day Special Reporn which are already duplicative. No Licensee Event Reports are climinated. The elimination of j ) 5 n W 506 k, J r a a 4 i I '4 8' ? g,g ,e. .s-4 j
- ,, y
~
- .a a
p -s' s , }~ - i-i ' s,.,. s - L q_ Is
. a4.. s s no.. - n 1 s - s.
- .c, z:$.'. e w...,
,,..e,,, .":.X J '?.c. s H
- v. ; -
8 e the Special Repons would not decrease the regulatory control exercised by the NRC because whatever information that would be sent to NRC via the Special Reports would be contained in one or more other repons submitted to NRC, ~., i.e., the iodine concentrations that would trigger the 30-day and 90 day Special
- e y 1
Report requirement would also require plant shutdown and the preparation of a .r,. .; ?v. Licensec Event Report. The proposed amendment would not change any release ', (, i'
- .i i
limits or the reponing requirements for releases. The proposed amendment does not involve currer.t limits for radioactive gaseous releases, and the allegation that ,, A H ~. r+ ;. the amendment would permit excessive one. time releases is without merit. -l,'
- a..
N, f < q ' R3 Order 3 w - '. w;;,L ' --1 ar - e - c.4 1. The Licensec's mo'. ion for summary disposition, as supported by the Q' Q j f.,.
- '.. q
- .,[..
. "; yl Staff, is granted. Accordingly, the Joint Contention is dismissed, the Intervenors 1 ' ..a. J.: e t ' @' M are distnissed as pxties, and this proceeding is terminated. '.rO.';.3.,:!.E. '2 .A ~ 2. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized . L ~,. '., 2 'y. Q; Z 3 #' to issue the requested amendment ') ., ! f T 3. Our action is final for appellate purposes. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ( 2.762, any pany may take an appeal from this Memorandum and Order . i,c. ~ ~ ',c by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after service of this Mem. 4' Y 'G orandum and Order. A brief in support of such appeal shall be filed within thiny (30) days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal (fony (40) days if the ,,.'.[ appellant is the Staff). Within thiny (30) days after the period has expired for t j the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) days in the case n .b ' v ';: 7,, of the Staff), any party who is not an appellant may file a brief in stippon of, f.;,.,.} .,('$ A '.,. p..,3 g., r. g ;. .c... s d..,15 ';y. ( .f.. .ao s
- ;[.;.i.:; y, u. ' s ;
- F.v
.%. m. V. .... ~. v,;; v,. m ,.r s,.s.w.,. y.. e ..s.. 3.c c p. ,.,o -,...fy?? ^ w
- ;L*,,
,3 n .,. m.u... - @v.u. m_..,, ,. ? .s ~..., e
- m. o..,.. o..n, s
. :. t p n/ ~.
- ...,O; p. m;.T '. v::.3s ;..%, c.v:i.. :.w e..~;<,
- .
- , m..;r,.;.
.f. .. n. .m. 2. g;... .v ?. b e[. . ~ m w a,.e ;f.n'm.,,..:.s..~,.s.n ss, y < ;.. .m .s. s ?..., '.;.'. y. ,#-,.:e.. u .r w .m.- &&.. J:WM,.3 4n.%..;!vyyp;&...
- k
.t. 1. .g..
- e-
,K.p,59.G% Ny p, a.o. Q,. J;. W. G q.M _0 .,s s W.y '$.w..,.;+*,$';.b. m
- m. M.
M,o.t:!w.t.;w.mW. -
- c..C'?.;..M;
, c;.. + A g .+.v.- &.dm 2W+;y:>w.y. :c.sq,..y.r.n. 7 + .p s p k n.J. W W W.. EjMi&q 'n&c,,.:.# Y: L e ~ ~e % g.w w mp > m.,,, ;.4,w+ w ~., m aq. 9,.:, .r...v r .e,.. S, p e b,.. v..,:.l l,a. *.r.., 'M 't l.,'I* '.,h. #, k.V'f[./2 /,[.l, gJ b:v.M..W:4 m 507 i.d,.> ". .....s . v '. M , v,.t.h' .,.d*s .,.,.J3. 3,.g.'..s:r..h....w.2,. v. 1 v q.
- u. ~ n l..
e ... >+ - e .f,..i v.: g-
- J'
,4. '.,..., ' ' *. I,i.y. t,A ' E ?.
- e m...
,;1 e ,'4,*.s ' i ('M d c y '![M'i**, y .y t, j'. '. k' ?,.. r [4
- M.,g t f [k *)$.$
..'u'., ,w, '.p,,.. ;m, ;tp, ,, p.. 7,,g,.. .;: y,n.s.;f;g,--. .p, ...v.; , Q , *? ;. ......, :..* y *. c + v y *, w s g. ..*g; y <, y ,. ;4 ', K. .. W)) ',r y h '.;*j,;;ill'y;; l.* f, ;,;ls4,&g.,Ql.;y s ..'t .., 3 ', *. :c:,, y.L. p'. ;... fs,'.'y. e ?. '.u., s l }[ i n L ; f' Y,'. ] :: N,s '., ; ;sk ; s.~' .G*{ . '._,. d. 7. n. : ;r 'y,. + a.v... w.. r. ..,u 4,.. m. s. :w ;../.. :.- n, %.a. :g< z b. :.,m .t k';&[ L f,@. ~.. @.,..?N'$j. s
- " '..w, my :..
s. xm .,[' '[, *
- '3', ' * * !'
.[' .'V[W:$$G'.Wi.'5,-wD'AQ*ji;c,f'7.,."/lJg*,}i ' g +,. p Ihy. e.%.3...w.mlN.$ y)M U +l. g .[,,,,. r.T k). lu d-Q, /6 .( i i 2 8f. +.d.N -1:5..TS .s ...' &.<.. lm,',y,,.,;\\ ' N,, 'l:{h ;5,r$. m s s. Y) i.D. 'S $'S?&,. _. ;]Y.. m w$ $. N ly.$ $d'_*b,EN'? w$$ h.;.&wl $.m: .c .... q v % - 2.. p., .s. s pm Y '.
e ?k ' k'j'.) Y b (. (,'. f, $* h* ]?S?$ k.S.!h~Dk.b$' U. lS&?V.:$ $&D(~{-?,~ 50$.' hN.. Mj 3 C
- [k'. ',
'h .Y Nh[- \\ f *a. ~ '*w h yh 5 y$ x,.N.k '.V.?) $N.Y' N.Wh?' 01&m['[,3:7.%:.e:.m.M,. y'q::,.gw: n .+c.ww%g*M.s..n...u. w. C;^u a.w w gw:q;w%.%.~. ? L nf. W..,. ~;. m 4:. .W. R V M. ;T; ;F.e ',.k .. -Q.p, i'.,bQ.4,,:@.;, : .... 4y4;..';.m;,r-U, %. wM. ~.n;;r.#;.T+ Q :g e m.A. ~.. u . ?: q av. m. t.. yy &w* -4...,,e; s.:..,}., s r ~ .n. .~ 1...., a n..d J,.,. Q;, 3..w- '. S..
- '..q.
- w. m @1.}<.Q.<?.L{/- u ;% c m,a..
p.:.'.{.a f. .e* a.- -L. c '*.C.; w... ',. t s.*
- et
- ,x..'.*
- C.' s u f f M/.g
- 5, y;b.,.W P3.N....., (.%..*:,.j,,...., /.c,<,W. ; '.._.. ' ~...,.T. :,.Q
- t
.'*m.- * - * ., f 4 p
- q -- -w-e
- t r
...n .'.4q.,s, oirs j-*,g. -s v., Q _.,,, ',A,A7 ",. l ' %. ;,:. J'r*j - % s b ' *,
- .g.
e% 4 t. ^*, ^ L~j,. s r.i.,Tj; *, :p *,, ;. ? 's 'q{6 g *l l.*, q,<yg.y t ' n~ -, v} s ~ y.* g'. Q.
- 4 f "61.
7, t..s. <'.,- - :.. _ ,? s % i e. *.,j g.
- M /r'b. ~. a As b^
e.=, .s s p ( s, #;y*g# I a ",c,4,M S A / W Q~9 f Qfi. M:..#;. d.. 4 F. P-g' 43 1.:.4.%.,p:t.W.,r,W,.:: N.y N.9.W,,,- ., -. :r. m ~ +- or in opposition to, any such appeal (s). A responding party shall file a single Nf-3y'd%.[... y'W.$bNh.,.R,b. q k N$b.., responsive brief, regardless of the number of appellants' briefs filed. h.,..;. h.,.sf M..J.. h,..I,_..,;T %e,.} d 1 +, /,q.
- g.,ph'%.- 9.N 'bh k Q h.
m - 3.s- .?q k h.hh THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND k; 9 y, a;, c$;<; pp, * ,~,r lb, y of.,n.p~*a.,w:n.M.u.d.P.l. ".w'Kod;pbp M.N pmW i LICENSING BOARD u.,,x,,6.,p.
- ..,y.M ':&. p. M.
w*... ... s i .: y s .w. p.. g . m,. N N, G e y %m.. q._ <... g /r, w.N" e-d ,2MkM.h Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman ..n,y 's. y.0,wgg:,yt;;m.MEdl ADMINIS'IRATIVE JUDGE 4. 2., n m W. /. v.c.n%w.n%..~;.y.%;<;4.M.'he,.: 4 e4 M f . g. a. ,c .c NT;$ ;:m!. s;?,s,y *~g.:a,.%,.. c :. - >.*; ... :. s. r ?y . @.y(.R.C fj George A. Ferguson , e,. y-7;,+.;;y<3 m eg.r,7, ;,,.i ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ...... n m- -,.....c w s.
- .w
- n.... ;,... m. :.,,y. O a ;.~.s,
- m...
- a..
n... ,.. e.. m, . ~. m. t. . y-.O.~ .. y,w. ,j. n,. Richard F. Cole q.;, - -... ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
- 1. m q',g,"; a '
..W.. . y 4 , c. c., e n.... ,2 2. c,4 J. ' A n. Q.' .2 r.. r,.( A ' ',f i W */ Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, .tM..*'3 ~ ; '? ' this 5th day of May 1988. .2. m., i ~ ... ~ t $ s.. '.i. t.$ n.1+ n.,1 ~ h .? e s e 6 e .'.
- g
,,.6 ',s . M g, ,Y i, Ia.. e g* t 4 e 5 5 . Fs ,8 p 6 .(. -w r 4, g i 8 r .' $ *+. y 5'%_ ',, '. 3,4
- i
,.,,,-'./C',,#,
- 8 :*,, " $. e
s.
- g
/ ~', ). .l*
- , +.-.
v. . s-v4._ y*. .,, e.r ~
- % s. y..
e. q.. t,' 4 g ,s' .p '. - e,,, % .s " ' %s y, 'G a a 6 4 e, ,J-e, ,Rw f, 's'[ $, 4 w s t 'Q.=*..y*_.,., '....,; .,.f e < .,N 4, ' t - '/,f .(' S g - s f..
- s... a
.s '., y G',3 .. ; e L, 4, g , *,M
- .v v.;,.
1 ;, e cs e a
- .g
.r, .e, w .c,,, t - e g- -,.. g ..} ,n.. , 4 s . O g =. . v. . 7_'- ;,,. ' s e i ' ,,,s - d., t s >r. , 3 e. v '.\\
- h t
5., '.,8 6 ",b ? ) h s o e b A8 5 r e P
- g 4e p
e e y ~ ! O ,9
- .4%*
9 e ~ 'h '% 7' ' ~ y 3
- e e
.8* man. p,,' . f. ,.,,,,,,p, ,p .s ,.a #, .g-s [, ,'3.*
- 4. -
s' t' s s .p e-
- ,,1 <. a L
9 4 3 s. 'Y 'k, ,b,'% g g g .{w [g
- b 9
'Is 8 .,. ~, ' s s-. t
- .. J 4..
. e.
- s
. g. y O,; e s y ,la ,, ) T- _s_
...m.,, g- -m,, /, si .s ,s a,. t 3 3..;.., '-.,,,.,, s g g --u p;*. ,.j,,# ( g ~ vt_ l s e 'Q - a e
- ' ?., q; <
' e ? ' j,,,,' i ' ..s' s -3, 4 g Cite as 27 NRC 509 (1988) LBP-8813 ~.. c, R 9" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .1 ~, ,l. .c. - ,o, a .+.o ' k *, e g g ...g ,. { ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- y...
' ', + ^ .p- -.? 2 3 ' f '.
- -
- ll..
- X,.
+s t. Before Admin!:trative Judges: f P. D.C~. - a <<,v-:. y s l. c r ,.s V ;, m.. .:;F-;. 3~:, . g--:. %y u.c, r< ., y.
- n James P. Gleason, Chairman L, C s y...
..2
- 9..,. Q :W-
, M f9...'- Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- 1.,...
~ v. N A # C < '..'a.b.% .s Mr. Frederick J. Ghon c_ ? ',' N. f 2..Y. ,,s. sa.. . ;,n: ~ v .."mm a., %p. ' s. v~..... ; v, .~ .g* y,n- . C.. ~. In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL 3 0.. ' @ i'.i',-,.t ~.. 3_ (Emergency Planning) '. c., ! Y., ~C ' y. i, s :. .t t LONG ISLAND LIGHTING .s' . J ' '. # .,J COMPANY ~ s ,;, _' e (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) May 9,1988 . 3, ^-
- n. -
'. ' ' ' ' 'X ( s r a. u. s n'l l .,.3;- y In this Partial Initial Deci> ion, the Board rules on the adequacy of Applicant's reception centers for public use in the event of a radiological emergency at (.; ; h ~ *
- ',v',F Q..
v* q r.a. s. i. + f. y; r,.".,... j.4. y 7,- o.
- Shoreham, r
,J i '.y.'.; a..,. e b5 + a. .x c.
- a. ; u.
i M [, -s,..@4 Q ; l '+i' C ;.., ~ EMERGENCY PLANS: PLANNING BASIS ,.w .w On the assumption that amergency broadcast communications to the public p9,,. @lfd...,y "... ' T. ".. " F.. ' are not confusing or conflicting, a radiation monitoring capacity for 20% or .v ..is
- w. s
- c. i' g. t.m. :.
. p... 6y< f,', , d. p . V.e. &..?. M ' ' N q,%, l.W.,gg,{, P,b more of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) populations within 12 hours will 5j gQj satisfy regulatory criteria of NUREG-0654, .Q - ~ ,..Jt,W M FA. :fM. W..,. - W,,$a..,d',<W,..[%1,i. M;,0 WW.
- Q-s.Y
.gpygfjg(a,... .m..S. .M'- y .v in. y.f w.:* ww m> m,:u EMERGENCY PLANS: MONITORING CAPACITY ajg,f.g,gy [ [d M k h! POM$dW. Ij,hh.)k.Shi ne ultimate monitoring capacity depends on the rate at which reception centers can monitor evacuees and not the capacity of the road system to deliver p:mn ym.,g.gyS; '.V,$s evacuees to the centers, m.w.m vr n gg p.nA. e%. vp,v.,~.n
- v f mg; 4.
a. s ]O K.s. M;, A ~
- f p/ @i.p.it( W' 3i44. L.V.N$
e b ..m;, m. eet @. f..s,b..- A. h.CMt T Ve%? U A q $E %.4. y,.,. %l:D.'[.?MO. EU,W P...M. Y*MU.@s'@- Y 4Ms1 < E SO9 a p'%.; v o-4/ y% y: . N % 3.. tg:'Y..". '- a- - M 5 *,.u a r vs . '. ~ .a..,.,. &.s :.:.' oy. &
- ?. 4 zl i,.'h.:
< s N. ~f %' . D e,/w:n. e . n.' ~ g. ~ m..r y. ~. 4.. Ye %x
- q..:. :w.-
s
- a.
- a.
- _ 4,,.. a
. *. t.,;. r. - 2 . a. a
- Ay-
..r.. g. .. [. *[. M ,.e-t s .y.. g., ', n. v..- -u. : ? g.'. . 4,. n,- .' 'g -. ~ n: n.: 7.,.7...-,> L s:: ., ~ ~ -
- n#
,e,..e v..*.; ,.ty.*...' 3- . y.", ? ..,,4: i,,,.,.,7,.,p.2 ? l > <, i g. y.,,a wa' .s. w.,,.,- ... / * .j.* ",d d.. :. [; s
- s
...c,.-.
- e
. 3 ;,.,ed' u,.,g >.. a
- t $.,..
.,,a t.c ... C,.. e. p. .,y, ....*'.4 . : f ;=..... :...%..W %.. e g: ' O M...* Aff ., s ,e o. l. , t s,,. ' yo %w 'Y V. - ].).h..[a(..f@,.,. : ' q r v.3 , < '.,. f. j ;~' ' p /..,1 - A,bl. ; D (* 6 "'d. 4. I { ;vi~,. f,i j' f.M..,' P m ,4 ' ' j,' i. ;. ~ f:; 3Q 'f. w' m. y 's v ,s.,. ...g.' s,ss. c
- .s c
.s a .s ~.. ~.. [ h. - .1- ., t-z... '( f[...,. ' p a* - [ v,., ' . g( ' d. IJ[ *.
- i...,D l($ '3 r#. J %,(*
[ ' Q[t , p,.y ]#) {
- i
./ .. n. m.. % s w : n.m . e n. .v...aen,,.m., ;. a, e...,i,z1:a.u.,w,.. w,,..s..:;.:,. x.n a.a.. m. pm
- m..
.. s ,. ~ w. ... w o
- w..y. a c.
.a e Yk '.] 5
f. f f
- YA,,,
N r4 y %, ' ?' %' 'r,'.,<,"';. 2l.y.;..f(_Y. % %[t..'M. ~. f T.,;Myx.M'- CW E' nl v*l pc N m = - 3.,., Q-.",q 4.. - G..,. A, *;;& , R Kj, b.t i '.oL. ... <. q.E. .4. eh 2 s A-s *, ~. p a r. .s .a:. sa> u.... .t. r ~ .W 3 H;. y Q'.M.W r p/ ;*,f vs ' i,i - ,e y,q,. 3, <; ' .M.. s O , m;.,g;n : p
- y..,7,...,r.y cep., '..:.
... :.,.p ,.,y i.,, p .,..,: :~w. .. u.. W:'&. Q:. f m.s, m .y;*,,.... n.- m av 1.!.1 C.. w* ),,.. ;,m,%.Q,. N. y: ~~+1 y f y.fc. %w,. n C.:_;q, '1 Mij [g n. - "m u),/y@, q +'.33.,q '.. epw n .-l ' t r.h. 7,iO EMERGENCY PLANS: TRAINING @,:y@.a,,.N. +.%..,2m..,.n t 4x
- p.o.
y.'.$b M..Mce,.;..v -..;e.. - %.y 0 ym m,? ' W/F Prior familiarization or training of police, though desirable, is not crucial to %.p m.?.ix.1y!y,,%m..w%,4g v.p. i Ng q;w +.,t.p m.. g @: g t v b .nc 7,uq implementation of traffic control. s: i. y.n 1cn %n.m..U.1.,:w.,.,.w. =;%- - ',W,g.y%* :s.2 s y' h:'r.y yp:M..;.W.hg,dW:%w@@h 3.w s.J i f,*. i **
- W.* j '.*
&Qy'QQ.V.~n %% d.4 Z EMERGENCY PLANS: FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTII dW7.M'59).$5,Qh The guidance in NUREG-0654, calling for an annual review of emergency e.s. v w. e, f,1;./',.;P;; 6.',(.;.% ~.J ~ ' Nff.A " 7$7,(.* plans,is adequate to provide for future traffic growth in the absence of barriers e p2 ; Alo. ' ',.s. that cannot be corrected prior to license issuance. e. w ~ v. y< . : nv:w@...'.,N.q; v-a...~..
- a. -
,?l.fi;.'y.i'.U U W.s'A:, J EMERGENCY PLANS: PUBLIC liEALTil AND SAFETY A..c.. b..,.x. ;'c.,,. Standards for public health protection do not require the submission of .?.~ o' 4 ,' W: k g..g.'i@4. ' ', theoretically optimal plans or resolution of all predictive uncenainty about how ( " 4 lg";,. (, ;. . 1. l.l e..- %f ' i future emergencies will unfold: Such standards can be met by a practical 't 4 ' j demonstration of existing capability if the underlying analysis is reasonable and q .,C - r: ;. does not ddpend on flawed or distorted data or assumptions. O, .y. <,'e y. s., .i, " y** c,. J a-i S l ? PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION "^ f' l ON SUITABILITY OF RECEPTION CENTERS _s y e i INTRODUCTION This is a Partial Initial Decislan on offsite emergency planning issues x pertaining to the application of the Long Island Lighting Company (LlLCO) - e _.. for an operating license at Unit 1 of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station . e, (Shoreham). The Decision addresses the adequxy of three reception centers /, '< '.14 yl,, '.... _ ~,.. 4 proposed by LILCO for public use in the event of a radiological emergency , ', 7. at Shoreham. The adequacy of tne centers is evaluated for compliance with ' ? NRC regulatory standards on emergency planning, codified in 10 C.F.R. I 50.47, l.; V. .J - . ;.. _ g l-
- ~
~ Appendix E, and the criteria of NUREG 0654, FEMA REP-1, Rev.1. Also, the .r a dictates of the Appeal Board in ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986), and ALAB-m.
- y.
- e-
- c;,',.. 855, 24 NRC 792 (1986), are required to be considered. Proposed findings yc of fact and conclusions of law were submitted by LILCO, New York State, + .g, Suffolk County, and tne Town'of Southampton (Governments or Intervenors) ' " ~ and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff). All of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw have been considered. Any such finding or conclusion not incorporated directly or inferentially in this Partial Initial l ' g i A h s 510 t P. k 4 o e 8 I'' ? ' t' 1.. . b'. ,l f4-.. t 3.. ..e r,4. C l a L ,,,f' .'N e I E 4 .k'. ( 4 k 'g, y a .i, 4 6
, j ~ e r.1 L ,- ^ 'y' ' ?..i G'. M' .~ . / I r". 4 a S v'y ,m .a ~. - u n. s' ' ~ .1 o ~ Decision is rejected as unsupported in fact or law or unnecessary to the rendering .R of this decision. ~. 1; e.
- t..;
. o..-- ~ HISTORY .s .W. 1'4 Ei'& N, ..TvT, Reception center issues have plowed a lengthy and complicated furrow in )~J.[ . l';.. p. / '%,.' 1 this proceeding over the past 4 years. In its initial emergency scheme, LILCO w,,.4 3. ' {, ,f. ~ (,; s ', designated five primary and backup facilities in Suffolk County as relocation - ' j.S (, " y {,.,. 'G, > j J, 7..,g, n i 7, 6 centers. These were to serve as reception centers for iegistering, monitoring, (.4 and decontaminating evacuees and as temporary shelters for housing, feeding, . 9 ; ;Q, ;,,g.; and sanitary facility purposes.8 Subsequently, and allegedly due to opposition 3'- .;. Q,f, Q to LILCO's emergency plan by the Governor of New York and Suffolk County F' M y%3:c,4 m '. $:($ N;;$fl,[P ,,F officials, several re!ocation centers became unavailable.2 LILCO thereupon .b ' ' revised its plan to provide for separate reception centers and temporary shelter }y,.]. S;:{.lf:Q'il Nt.y ~ facilities (congregate care centers) to accommod te evacuees. Hcarings were g". H i,, 7f .6;pf.%,:3.@',.g g).L, 1. held, but as LILCO declined to identify the reception centers until after it @] completed negotiations, a void in the record was noted by the Board en the T ~ c:4v A '.> %sc.f. 4....f,...e i y.. matter.5 Subsequently, the record was reopened after the Veteran's Coliseum ",:s, 6 ' -g. ?:, ;, j. 'J'c *. in Nassau County was identified by LILCO as its designated center. After a Lcd,;;.23;,g;,W:.'ts, %$. p,, G. hearing and a Licensing Board decision approving the functional adequacy of ' ; D.* the Coliseum, the Appeal Board remanded the issue with directions to broaden W?p%,.C.,5, 4:1-N. 'b.2... ' ' ' '. ~ ;. C,.,,.. ; W '..., q
- f.. -,
m h A the scope to determine whether there were any factors, including location. r.9.... A.. M, '.d.- that might make the Coliseum unsuitable to :erve as a sole reception center ..... o W W '/;,4,% ', 1 .f,. $'qj$h ']Qhk c for emergency planning zone (EPZ) evacuees.' Prior to the remanded hearing, however, the Nassau County government adopted a resolution resu! Ling in the ph -7 Coliseum also becoming unavailable to LILCO. Applicant then moved again to Q'Mlq ^;3{%'t '-,) reopen the record after substituting three LILCO operating facilities in place of W.,.@.s w '... r v.,.W. (e.k .g .cg 7.'.9Q ',g-7 the Coliseum. Granted by the Board, the motion was aimed at the presentation Wr(..., of evidence in support of thest ucilities, all in Nassau County, to be utilized as . a. W,..'.. 'N... ~ 6 m... a.; r '.,#. y. 3. .c... e. W l:.1
- c. 2
. rd:a.,.i d '-.'.. o reception centers. Bellmore, Hicksville, and Roslyn in the Towns of Hampstead, T '~ E Oyster Bay, and North Hampstead, respectively, are the designated facilities. ..., ".,9, c ' ; + F. ? '....g.,L '. T' '.X. w..*,.,f., ; M in convening a hearing.on the new reception centers, the Licensing Board 'N, included for littgation those issues remanded by the Appeal Board in ALAB 832, '.fj, t,y issues raised by Intervenors that were considered relevant to the proceedings fy 6i2* , D WW &. 9..';. . M..Y ' '.. t. .u, and an issue concerning the proper population planning basis for monitoring "V A a^d'/().
- f 1^. *.f.#
evacuees, which was afntmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-855, supra,24 't., ' 15.
- e..':g('.C'.%..^ 4.(
.l NRC at 801. Also see Board Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO //? ~
- Q V
.,9 t. go > 'y
- g ; s:a T).
LS :.5; ';!l.' *= % e. f.h Yr6M,,y,'g.Q.g ;;f gzj. ;.c K }$ ', I s. tLCo Ed EP.! at4.21,423. W /f .3..- Q' %.k p'),r p l;[ U; r 1 Cerdaro, et al.. fr. Tr.14,707, at 1314. Q. fM'. /f d:,.' p.9M 47.c 0 ',' 8 Tr.1s.713. y, J ' AtAB.s32, syre. 23 NRC at 162. .W; <,
- f...r,.g;;' M*g
- d "f, 'p p,.
4
- n..,. c
- g i
- l.o., ;l.'
vv, }. w lia,f.,f'- @f.*;a:.s g:
- s.y.j,j;*. y*..* MlQ W.
' 4.'f: %,% s n..; .,' m rrj f ' r 'y. y :..; :. t. n ,m w t .r.>... ; f-; s.y..sg e n,; ,. u..,zy,,. w t.: /.,... c-Q... c
- ,' ~ g 9, e,. g.
k . ~.. m. 3,. ~
- n.,
g ,.d.',4.',,,'.*,y..* '. [ 4'j,,. .y CI, ,.7 .s. 4 . ( f ~ ~ ' ' ' &, ? =$ 'it. * * ?. ,5E ' L.,- .1 s
- i.,.(
,A,> l* 2.
- C.', '.c e,. ' * * *
~..g,
- h '. 'U
'a ~h,;' ?. .'tl .s , 3,. y ~.; r,.~ ~.w .;(- . _ t.y - *';'.r; . 's c...., m .+ i.'. ; ',*'*q ,e. 9 ;( ;
- 3. 4, k, i1
)'
- "7 3,y!
- s~~
i, '.' t ..-f LJ ,.. ', %. ls ".*r.'c.' N. *.. % f. .'.'.t i ^ ' ' s >A..: =
- ~' t J,,,,,s*
^q > a.l.+t, ;,. ,,f ' s.c . u. ...a .v,. ~ s '*A...w. .,y,*, ' d :. '. ~ * ' .
- f,s; s'.
, ; ;{ %? .v~ ., - M. ;..k, s ,4..
- s, l. 4 M
') ( -,s. s ,.,'. ( '..
- g.-4 4 M e.,r R [..' M,j-6 ti @ p :M,',u,
.l.% ;. *e 'E 5 ,,. ~ f ' '.'= ' 9 g ,[K *- ' 2 L.,. ; ',s sf.% < .s '7 b 1.' / : .Oa, -. & a O 6,,2 b,; /.:,fj A
- z.;c',(3, # i,*
- .a *.'d.:
.M.. ih'dh2:, m's,,w; ?- j' M;',% wm,c ' [r.,. ., -,. w n' y v.'- . -., a y c:..,. . c. _1 1(& ' ' 6.),,d b a.' 1.. ,7 , ' [,-.. . h." c' y, p'. e %g,. =. 'j % c h2-y: 4,1
- S ' i".Y T,' *
'e N Q h '_ _l, ~ ' ~ '
&fMW K-.f.n@.W.W'i$NTM4Tf77M' NdN'M;a..N.,Nd;Q$:*$.s.,!dD):w).'?m..:w.w 1:e M i TE iG%MW h Ma.. a V.'?}i@%n:: r w. . m WWi% O. U,MW D$mm 5%5 D( @ N C M;iOQE5$MN$3$;:dS5MMq.W d&.ff .'? Y3rS$ - wyv%.,f..%,y.yy:1,1:n..~y c. c m;;w,: s.:y 4)w p ;,g.U. i.
- 56
.sh% u;a;.,y m.n.g q.;;.W+x, u.;4 n.. c,..,,h..n..g.g. m ~. 7.a.:>.. ' 2.: y m <. g sz ce,v::,, q..m a r. .;.4 m. a u.w ,n m. &..nn ;.w.:,,.s:,d Y..l;&s s%. m:.y g
- 9 y'. W
- .. x w,g.,-x.~ w. w;.1 w e :.._. M...x ;,. ?...w:.N..t. w:
p. 4.M,. W.p .c c,..
- 2. D.
.2:w~ ~ n u ;a..:. w; m..n. ' ; :.&q.:m n. w.;RL.Q.. e %.p 2,; u.7 v ..y - a o u:. -a .:. u.-. .u .e :.. .~.
- a.:
m.. ...?(g. M n; ,;n. g.. q Q', ".D. Y.W..,,... .x.. -.. ~,
- m. 4,c...n.
e ,.,a c4 . v*....,. e c* .c .=s .. C'%.:;-[..y;g'.;vQ~'.ya . e./.c....... n.,.v x.<.:..m;g.. yam.wi sA ,..n. ,x v p w.y , ~s g.g ,..L V.c9e,,- @$ Per pg N. & A
- f. 'Mlp s.: u.~ n.2:,..
Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliscum Issue), December 11,1986 +,- . :f. : .W f,'7.1.V..S.M (unpublished). Testimony was received on the following issues: @ plM / M.M % L The adequacy ot LILCO's platining basis - the number of people - .R., ';g f.l ', ..y ,,. W.... e.P, gig 7.%.v %w.e .E.ljf M. i expected to seek monitoring at LILCO's new reception centers;
- l. i'.
t ..~m ,.W.M Li 2. Whether transportation and traffic problems might develop as a result - ...y',1y/ g/;.g.I of the reception centers' locations and their distance from the EPZ;
- 5. 5 '.,. h ;' M, g. y.;. g '; 8 s %.Q dh[hdN 3.
Whether the reception centers' locations might create problems in . c, :3>a.yQ,c.W' '.5.m. .D. ,p.a : w,,e regard to the evacuation shadow phenomenon; ,.. > s.. ..,( .gj 4. Whether the distance of the reception centers from the plume EPZ i.yN '/. L would increase exposure to radiation, causing an additional problem;
- 7 ' :.[i _ M, 2% yWH i.'*C.,j;';2 7;....f.[M D K Nd k[.'
5. Whether LILCO's proposed monitoring procedures were adequate; . J. UM.' , Ef. 4h j 6. The staffing requirements given the new scheme; 7-Q".A.M.6 @p g9Q 99p 7. The adequacy of evacuation routes to the three LILCO reception f.U Q," *.'..h; [I V.; 5 M ; C ?. centers including the effects of traffic congestion on the way to and G. dM.3 in the vicinity of the facilities, and LILCO's Revision 8 proposal to sf.;;'y M i',
- g. x,k.W.s. n"p U.Q
.;.UP: employ traffic guides on Nassau County roadways a
- 8. s.!.i 8.
LILCO's proposal to transport all evacuees traveling on buses to the _ l.i/E N.t...7.,. .u .w v..,v.,; w. }[, $g 4.js g,g; ?,1[y8TQ is also proposed by LILCO to be the local emergency response . q,.. 1 parking lot next to the Hicksville fxility, when that facility itself 4,, M M. ).'e Q.?'. d.d l organization (LERO) relocation center; 4;, ,g ; ' ; .r 4 "y, 9. Whether the proposal to send evacuees to LILCO parking lots could s,, or would ever be implemented in a way to protect the public health ,, '7~. c,.7,,, ' y,'))
- c l
~ W. and safety. w.3 .M..,. o 9 N, We combine, in our Decision below, the issues litigated in the following l* _..x manner: planning basis issues (1); traffic.related issues (2 and 7); distance of ~c q n', &. ;.1 reception centers from EPZ issues (3 and 4); monitoring related issues (5,6,8, - 4.:. j and 9); and a zoning isstic referenced by Applicant and Intervenors in proposed findings. 4 2 f j .g;,. ..q + .. ~:.e : 1. Planning Basis 1ssues m g Introduction ~ ~~ m.,. .<.;y e - _, cfc,l; q At the outset, we agree with Staff and Governments that this issue, the ' c ;[' ' number of evacuees for whom monitoring must be provided, is fundamental to P,d " c. )l the question of the suitabihty of the reception centers. Staff Proposed Findings s.
- 3. i -l at 6; Governments' Proposed Findings at 19. It is clear that many other matters 4
.,b - for exam 6e, staffing requirements, space requirements, and traffic flow - -T all hinge to a considerable extent upon the number of people and vehicles that
- j can be exp=ted to come to the reception centers.
smv ^ ag.g I
- ,1
.s,f. g = .3 l ? ) l u 512 . l. 1 ( E .[* I 1. n ) . ;3;_ : e g i, a l 1 .v S
- , -* " s%, z '.,,
e.. q.. b. ' c.^. c, - y' .%C*' .* w w. g ,ex e,,ge%_ pp-. ewgp i,e ,-n. g , i - w, ",1 .C
- i,
,,g .t, . m, ;. 4. .g ., $' p. y. .. ' ?.s
- 4.,..s.,,
A. .m. c [ O s =0 m. k, > i [- -@).^ .t' .'*r y bhs O , l s Q "? ; g e k';.'v$; 4g 4 A* 3 [. a
- = '
.F". l w* (.,;., , ', C.J ,.,, h.J[, i 4 (d N.,. M Y..',, -. 9 d- + g g e n. iw.. .'",b 3, ~ .2,h 5. - l ' ' c. I,D.. 's. % l -a \\ c es ,.4 +e - e -1 ~ e ..r+-+-e ')< 2 e w< .sen t er. 4f. ,d. i,* v4 - a- , $"\\ i l-
. m. .n... ,a. 2-
- L.
t o ~ .a. v s s .m I t ~
- .e w
.s- ~ g.. o t a s A brief procedural history of the matter may be useful here. In our [ , ' ' I Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning (CPID), LBP 85 a g ^: 31,22 NRC 410,417 (1985), we stated: ". ; 3 . E.x na> .y 's m W ' g.,v'f% T i f'y, ' v. \\ We accept ULCO's plarning basis for the number of evacuees who might seek shelter, .g,, be processed through the relocatim center and, acmrding to NUREG 0654 IIU.12, must ' ' 5..e. b; 'c
- t. 3.
4 W ;# Q" ' I,h %' E thus be monitored. [The estimate was 32,000 or 20% of the EPZ pophdon.) The record is unclear as to how the Coliseum could accommodate the evacuees of the general populadon ., f ' ' U ' ' ' ' l ? %,.,.}%.x. %,# g ' c w ho will seek mmitoring and processing, aside from those seeking shelter. We therefore find that ULCO's failure to plan for those of the general pcpulation who seek only monitonng 7.:, A.> ' (. R.. .? '_.~ and processing consUtutes a defect in the Plan. 'i d _, w.I i
- G'
"., i.: m-r. u. ~ a:, ~ , 1,<Q.. ta,,' i.0.g< f... W L t. _ Before the Appeal Board, LILCO claimed that this matter had not been
- ~ :
r C, W p J.7,..i..n SQ. . :c r.. x. properly raised in the original contentions, and the Appeal Board remanded the [i [M..G.K:p]~.;' y. 4 issue for a determination by this Board as to whether the issue was "reasonably '.T. ( (fby f.; ,,l' M b y'W.7,{ embraced within the concerns" that had been originally presented to us for litigation. 24 NRC at 421. C,4...'?. f.S.w. / /b...s'.. t. ( ".',l,, W W, 1.h.i s,'.. - m We then issued our Clarifying Decision on Remand (Monitoring of Evacuees),
- m. i.
- 9...
.s J ' i.,sm...,. 7. '. 2 ' LBP 86-36,24 NRC 561,571 (1986), wherein we stated: W a,'i.;.e ', c .e-s r c. l' c 1A - w. w. .e ( M. W ) M g f;;'.'P.
- After analysis of the issue m remand, the Board adheres to its findings as stated in its
{-.. L cmcluding panialinitial decision. We emelude that Contendons 24.0 and 75 taken together A* ..'W 7: r
- 2..M p]. '.. [.,,','Q py,b } flyy[
properly raised the issue of poplatim planning basis for evacuees arriving at a recepdon center, that Utf0 had a fair cpportunity to lingate the maner, and that when the smoke e ] had cleared it hd simply failed to carry its burden of proof on that point. In reaching this %'>.<.3. %. 'w..M...P.-ay,. M,a c w f;[ '[.\\.f.. i %,T;.Q.,,p 'N ' - ~; p cmclusim, the Board never found it possible to adcpt any perdes' views as to what the @[g.y, - ..i correct number should be in the planning basis foi radiological monitoring. This remains % 'M true to this day; there is simply no basis to decide it in the record. y.-g i p. y.l.p },
- f
%. a. 7 ;y~m..,,; W.:",v(;. qq.: pv w, [Wg k. $ D'3,4 '.d %f.7.: .gr
- 6 =-
.n, a - M. v.W 'The Appeal Board then issued ALAB.855, affirming our position and saying: i.,. w,, y.,
- s...s
- g.
3-(s [ e
- y..
.r.., I @,e M., f.:.V9@': t/, p, jr/ ; 'yg :j. *4.'.< .f.l .sq. Surely, the nc d of evacuees for monitoring and decontamination services does not h'ese. to any catent upm whether they have been able to make their m shchering arrangements. h,"'Y. 1 '"V % > ~ r: 4 Y.. 'Ihis being so, it seems beyond serious dispute that monitoring and decontaminadon services l' Y N ?! must be regarded as within the "range of protective ac6ons" that 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) .O4u.[' ' ' 1 E [ $' l? ' rapires be developed for all members of the public within the EPl. E C,. 3.' ' L 7. t..g, * /,j'.. "W e s ;;.., 'q
- a+,
24 NRC at 800 (footnote omitted, emphasis in original), it...,.S..,.r. 78 M, o. p;,.O... '.;s '.- b pi / ', M.. S.. The Appeal Board directed us to proceed to consider the motion to reopen the .)s..'~ d.. e TlM ,. M. :y- . D'. f,f:S uf,'%.1 s ~ record for the purpose of considering the substitution of other facilities for the ui Nassau Coliseum. While the Appeal Board regarded the Applicant's estimate of M '.g >f % [. $ Q i h p W j C ".,p the number of persons who will need monitoring and decontamination as well d '. W 9f.:D $ g*:d % Nj. @ as shelter (20% of the total of 160,000 or 32,000) as being "of dubious validity," .Q. i,$ the Board noted that "LILCO may reassert the claira before the Licensing Board. Q,QQf :...y.y:hjVp. p. Alta.rnatively, it may proffer a new estimate." Id. at 801. r 3. c.H f, r n..
- m D tj.p.:ytr.q c;> g
- c,.. W
- y s v. y c.m..
<w,' r,. .-y,w m, n 2,.n. ~ g... r., n., . c . t >; a.Q )'- S'.n'
- p
~l.,n.. u+ W. >.:.Ws g'1.$,C.',cf; g. p 7.N 513
- r. Ra hm M
.. ; tr. l ;k,y' ?...f - e g.... Y,,.Q j.,.. - e.
- .
- . p.A..%. g.n pu *
>r Q ^, Y,,c..., o a.e.h.<1 e $, e g,.. x.. : b=,; s.k., ww. f. -)'f., Y. ' ** n n., Ib. . w.; e. I. 'o, .[j '... t 8 u... .c. cy,,.
- S,*
- I.
. j,12 ' [. _ g 6-Q(' (fu' 'j,' r ) 5'g;k. ~ ~'...g .S
- I x
, Jy,,7 W m ... c. -7. .c -.. ;, ,m -. m m, g*w. ... N,,. g,.., ;. ~. y... e. .,,j., t ; + s 3:,2. y ; - G _, n.ts,.,@sQ;;g's q k.. .m ,V .v r ,.{.
- c.
. y. f,.1 v e t m + ...h , ;-,.. ~,., ,., m.. p: y.,.1. s g,.y,c.w w. o. v. ;., e _ m n.. r._ e .x.,.., . '., N', -L y d ,\\, ^t. .j. ,If,.. ,4 . - -. T 4, . 4-,A
- f f C' _
'J Jo s.,' r 91,. y .g '.% y... * ;,.( . v s l f ',.'; V.., ,p;t.g*f.j g, t. P r G;y.y.U 6, u '... 4 (, P. r ~ a G.,,.,,
- 3 k., '.(y,,
g'. ~. *
- t R qn:.
3 + *.. ,b g~ y : ,.f ? W' % t k,w s ps. , e, -. M, t,.. Y h' _w* b,A'Wkb, y %O $ r Y... .. f*.7. W'e.'&'. h ; o a' 2 s ab
- p..
? s ; ,?';' y _
- l: h mb Y'.
N 'SO A
%%W& NEN.?; & l' $ Ah. W N R;@+hWSW:,w$M.v.'l. %. S,,$ Li4., Qm.Wh.j..;,&,.!.((Qi.:@.$.,,.h.. ..,.3,.;'.';h..w$
- 3.,... -
f .R. N. W ' <M' . uw c. w 4. M :/s M.. % y.r., m Ac.;<;;; m.b;;.R,f.v...2 :w,...;:S > W;;w
- n
./C A W.., vb.- 1 9 , W,M.g.v.,. i.y~ v. a~c; a Q:.y&w.wA: eM:Wh.. n. m s. wy y .s p.iw.,T-q.
- s,...~.....a-w.e, 9 u.s.a,:;.h.. i..p;,. m., m. o..,~..
., p. m:.. >,..v.,;:.we,,.14 2.: :m. -:. m,
- m. a:.u
- x. - '. ~..:;.. f, :ev... - -.
~ = - .. ~, 3 c. i - -.~..-..en.. .. v .. e.t.qq .. p. ;....;. n.,'p&v r., 4 s c ', :4. :,. y + ' ' :,6 :- e g p, y
- . J e
- z. ~.. :
... m, .,on....w. p p?. ~...,..,;a.:n.Q'd.Q.4.j'Q;,Mif.{f >W
- e.
^ - w
- O j @ g,eM,{.$$$,5
.s, v., s. #. ep%h. N Accordingly, we accepted evidence on the number of evacuees that each of 'hi.N/ ;A r MI.$2 the parties believed LILCO must be prepared to accommodate. M.'i.R. N(k. i W, M.,f'"; ' < F. N ,'s be qg h - l.:5 :.'l? W.%'..;h:! ? O.7w p 3. h&w. :<.cq.
- 5.. m..o c ra:,,
. k.& Identification of Witnesses M.g?;p;.ua,w,WW:.s'.wsd.t
- e.
.f $.. W r .:. g NQ LILCO presented the testimony of Douglas hi. Crocker, Dale F. Donaldson,
- f.g.9.f.'.{lf.gpil d t Diane P. Dreikorn, Edward B. Lieberman, Dr. Roger E. Linnemann, Dr. hiichact 4N
, :.g.t ; jg?c;g.ygg;Q K. L ndell, Dr. Dennis S. hiileti, and Richard J. Watts (LILCO Exh.1), and the ^'y,. J, f.; ' $ ' y'<.$. hp rebuttal testimony of Dr. hiichael K. Lindell (LILCO Exh. 50). Suffolk County 1 7 .T : ':D, %j d.y.hC.l. .] presented the testimony of Dr. Stephen Cole, Dr. Susan C. Saegert, Dr. James E.G.N H. Johnson, Jr., Dr. David Harris, Dr. hiartin hiayer, Gregory C. hiinor, and I [; j j.c -[J,O' < p 9.h Steven C. Sholly (SC Exh.13); rebuttal testimony of Gregory C. hiinor and /; ['
- j' 3
f N,.l :, V.v.gS?.0 Steven C. Sholl- (SC Exh.14); testimony of Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., and
- W p.].[
- c;.
- 4. ;,u.y..M;';
Dr. Susan C. S.cgert (SC Exh.15); and New York State presented the testimony '. N ~ Q,, ',M * ~ 9:. ;'? ja of James D. Papile, James C. Baranski, and Lawrence B. Czech (NY Exh.1). ' h..N' W h -;. My,_. j.g;Jj FEhfA presented the testimony of Dr. nomas E. Baldwin, Pior W. Husar, and . % ~. e.ill : G E > 'N J i:?j Joseph H. Keller (FEhfA Exh. 2). De NRC Staff presented the testimony of . 1 - 3 4u.q. m;. 7
- c.,
<.g,2. a Falk Kantor and Lewis G. Hulman (Staff Exh. 5). ... :o.. .m n f, p- - ** c. ' a. ,,,,, y i Y, L:. e 3 M. ....2, 0+'..,r's,, '4 .,b e -i,
- .~ - _
.vc y;.,.'q p; < Q LiLCO's Position .y4 g., ; ,3 " - 'd y, Q ' y LILCO relies upon a FEhfA internal memorandum (the so-called "Krimm
- r.,.
s , ' 'y hiemorandum," FEhiA Exh.1) for its position that Criterion J.12 of NUREG. (., '3, ' ./ .), ,'i @ ?c,,,. ;,);7 0654 requires sufficient resources to monitor about 20% of the total population ? 'J of the EFZ in 12 hours.s ne criterion itself actually says only: ,.c s + .9 ,.;.;t '1 ; Each orgt.niution shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of encuees at
- s i{,.; j relocadon centers in host areas. 'Ihe personnel and equipment available should be capable of
,.,s f ' l'S mmitoring within about a 12. hour period all residerts and transienu in the plurne exposure ' l,' r, c. .i EPZ :rriving at relocatim centers. ~ + lu., s :.2 r : u.o ~ .'T. f, 09% NUREG C654 at 65. 3 '*r.. '.: f 'j LILCO, the NRC Staff, and FEhfA all believe that an appropriate planning ~, ',c...,J.'i basis for the purpose of determining the resources in people and instruments .v. ,..a 'd s t. .v,. 3 s. s, r .O ,)) . i, 8 L; rnemarandum says: c .u "j The state and lual radiok gical emergency preparedness plans should include prcwisions at relocanon a
- Pg, g center 4) in the for:n uf trained personnel and eqmpmera to rnomsor a trummum of 20 perters of the
' t r,... ? ^ esnmated populaticr. to be evacwed. I ,y , o 3 For nighly ir probable radiolc.gical re' eases invoinng high !ew3 c(radicion encentestang a relauvely s i..
- d.
large sm, it may te neceasary to monitor a greater number of evacuees beyond 20 penent of the l i. ',. pTulanan. ta such a situanon. State and local governments would be expected to develop and implement j 'i ad hoc response measures sepplemented if needed, by Federal and pome secta resounes. st '.l1 - FEMA Eth. I at t L,.c. a (. ' y C (j,s! lie ',, : {. 3 i
- j.,
- 4.
',8G h ",a f f =h <J .g i 't 4.' ^' J'. x,c : A ) i '.M. - f *.: */ ) 1 4 2 k* e 1 s ( c l < q...; .c g j. y. < gm,;.. 7 7,,7,, - tM'( *(. ' g,, 4" 8 .h W, s,
- j.
O ' ^r + I g
- n. 1 g ;<
s 4 3'd [
- m' t,,
l e
- * / I,*
l ,
- I g',. ;,.,
Ee' .u (f"\\ t j
- b.. c... y
- s.. k s. v,..V,
' = .S e 6 -
- A
- (/. ./>- .a., m,,. a t ,.Y?, '-n % f - i 1 1*
s y m. 1 7 u,- s. ,,e. 2 'g
- j..
v y .y > > ', s t. -s - y t; 9:, * - .l,.. m.c. N 1,,9 ...o s ?*
- n..
s. a.,3 that should be committed to monitoring is that one should plan on monitoring 20% of the EPZ population in about 12 hours. LILCO Exh. I at 10 (Crocker, et ,, ; 4, 5 ; ' ' ,,' ( i.. J.. al.); FEh1A Exh. 2 at 7 (Baldwin, et al.): Tr.19,221 (Kantor). One of LILCO's 4' fz.f, E [ y witnesse;, Mr. Donaldron, a former NRC employee, had been a member of Rn, _.y,. c2 ; :a a team that developed a "precursor" document to NUREG-0654. He recalled
- F if '. '"? W
bO Cf,* ' ' y !' g [D,', "j[ y,S.ly f [{, $yp that, although the group did not have a particulst number in mind when that j document was written, it was their belief that "only a small percentage" of the p.;, / ;
- E fg ".
Q EPZ would require monitoring. LILCO Exh. I at 8. p' 1, g' i-l 9 '..y -' ; ."s 74, (b Q,Q }y." jr The Applicant points out (LILCO Proposed Findings at 1516) that tre regulations do not require dedication of enough resources to handle allpossible .M',; ;M ,.gd accidents, the emphasis being on prudent risk reduction measures. Citing j f,v,g.u/. g. % 7 " 1. Southern Ca#fornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generrting Station, Units D -f Wh! P '; Q. i. e.'.'. M #,. s'J 2 and 3), CLI 8310,17 NRC 528, 533 (1983). And LILCO also offers the r h, ~ W~.. v. U, %f YMi. ;.Q.,.T limited size of the EPZ ltself as compelling the notion that something less than W.. q:f,f G .s. a "worst case" is a suitable basis for compliance with the regulations (LILCO Proposed Findings at 15). ' %- V (]' %'%i' I.,;.,, y M ~~ LILCO notes that the "Krimm hiemorandum," introduced both by FEhiA (as 'a h. 9. < Je r. t FEhtA Exh.1) and by LILCO (as Attach. L to LILCO Exh.1), was prepared by FEhtA's Policy Development Branch and is FEhiA's national policy. Tr.18,314 $c*. ? M s' J " [ c- !?."ilWN,N.6[s 7.'2 (Keller); Tr.18,440 (Husar); Tr,18,346,18,465 (Keller). That memorandum was b %. ; [f,(.l.
- J.[ -
based upon FEhfA's review of "[p]revious experience gathered on evacuating pj.l ?.4.ycY.Y.i. t.c.@,, s p.;' c responses to a variety of natural and technological emergencies." LILCO Proposed Findings at 16, citing FEhfA Exh.1. t."h f, f 39 T 'mLW:39.. %.!,M,U.[ G7,6 j[T. ' LILCO does not dispute that there may be circumstances under which more than 20% of the EPZ population may require monitoring, but characterizes tif A C:,%@,WM (;.% ', m such circumstancer as highly improbable, again citing the Krimm hiemorandum b;g,Q {h.M 3::;]..:,,.;.N l 67 jjgt (LILCO Proposed Findings at 17). But LILCO believes that planning for M A, Q % Q,,y q monitoring 20% of the EPZ population, like planning for the evacuation of g M,f,% ' Q%;f. ;l ' W,' ' a 10-mile radius, la the resource commitment required by the regulations. j t4,7/(0 l > 4 7./c *.7 ' S'",., 1 J. 1.Y. ! LILCO also points out the result of a calculation by the S:aff's witness, Lewis f 'Q 1,.l, ' q _H G. Hulman (Staff Exh. 5). LILCO Proposed Findings.at 1718. hir. Hulman '..3MK gr 'N-U %.NN"Y- " g.;y: attempted to calculate the fraction of the population that could be expected
- t.:
.X ,[ ./, to be contaminated in a severe accideat. That is, he tried to determine how TJ , d'DY. '. d.9 7. ',. many peop!: would be likely to need monitoring, rather than how many would 5b s. - / /- ~ ,. ' E [?..W<.Y... W ->I. ' ',w" 1.V' "J,Le' b 2,.J.!<ff seek it He performed what he termed a "footprint assessment," calculating the ~ y
- n...
conditional probability of the number of people within the 10-mile EPZ who could be within the plume. Staff Exh. 5 at 1 (Hulman). He used three different k.?' ( *',;;. * (,.13 M 'y.[. M [4-L scenarios, Cases 1, 2, and 3. /d. at 6 ff. The first case calculated the number [S dMN[.6 *.h. / . r :'~ ~ F of people covered *.y a plume of width twice the Gaussian diffusion parameter M., 0@.,i t' M. .; z f M q,;rg$;5 centered in each of sixteen 22.5-degree sectors, adding to that the population in $... 4...,. the sector within 2 miles of the plant, and used meteorological data to compute 1 a ..s,.. ';.W. p'MPO;'cfWQM]a ..v weighted fraction of the tir.;e that various numbers of people would be exposed. %, N..y).s 4WW.. g.fC W.h:. W' f {x. ~
- ,.;..Q..',%s.{; k.l: s,s,l.s.n.;...
M q i.1.v,, s,.s... ~.c. . r ' y:. r,e % p w.~,l k '.f. g: * .o r c... 8 ~;; p.< .s. 515 a ....y : 9..% m;. e qc. m ~ N.&.. *.. '.. d,4.N..*W (.
- .b n,
.. V"u.. I h b t s n: f.,.,9; w2- - .c r.y r:
- 4. w:.g3 -. '
. 7.. ' g.x y g:.;'&a. y. +, pG M' "..'. ' h".1,i"#fl D.;s {;[%[6 O l'.*L-Y. Y. *
- 'i.,.
,g f'. c..:..g' <,,.,, ~.m'..M... ,C".,. h$ k. t. a& l ..,m,., ~ ,cc.M. v. ,. *y d(( *,..r * -*,
- 7 *.
- e f* {
-'ri, a e a+ m .,sa-sbA *
- =..
.;-*,.** 7 3.. u:. ~ .c .,.:. r..v.m, s: r. :o. i,,,~.# l._.,a,w;t.,, ;;.y e s.r. s.. + s.. .i ..i a.3 4 _, ' ' R ?r ;* i . [ "a gl '}
- ;n '.lg ef,,\\
- f_,
- y, U
"),' ' 4 g' { a i %. -* e y %.f.,d. 3 3.. .g. w.,Q, f f, R..... e 3 ,0 c m> .?- 3(, t., -,. g. Q, q.q . c,, n , f> ;7 m.+ f, ' kc j.((d4..h: c,v.
- ,'h;'7 d..N's[iO.h 4
,...,,*.%..=- V v,. ;..,? 4:. c.; n ,,,1 . g,: .:..~ < a ..o ~ 2; e-n. ([ c d J i. ~ N 's h... e. y 3[ h., N C y' v:.,G : y;&g,,.y ' # .,- 3 m f.t,.;W! p, s. y a. s$ s 't y : n w % l h.
- )
'yM;y*shbW h -% M.6% ~ %,M.: X:!;hlpg4M@idD'L'Q:,2i.M_y. K. .my Gh:;dM: L. n
[ e* na y*.. u". m m e ; x w ..: 1 I'r.,. ' i.. .. M ,.. q,.7, pi -;c': .m ,( ,-[ 'a' ;, _,', ; e > .e' x t,4 I *j ' d ',) ? .y C 3, -.- %. i_ '%s .,.l; f a .?
- -7 ^
- N "y * ;e '..
.y n-a.._ , A. a : m:.::u.w L. *. L., .a; '.L. m. A, ; '. ; w :: . t y u... c u -..,c .,. g ;._q.. m,q\\. .. : :.w ? . :s : ,.'n. - 31 %,. - d ?: c'(. W :;,.@:p, d, ' 3 ',r:
- 4.,.
< ;. 3.,M : " 3 a : .% ' V :'. " l o Q. 3 : I, /d at 5 6. In Case 2 it was assumed the plume would expand without the .% b ; *f,.'jfQ'$c.p.7 j
- g
- ,f e dV.
restrictions of Case 1, and in Case 3 the exposed population included all the ,1 & '. [, jd{hdgf.3?[ $.]%.[l'M.j 6;. $Nj Wj people from 2 to 10 miles in each sector plus all those within 2 miles to be DU ' considered at risk, and weighted the probabilities according to the time the wind r: ?? 1 % v-G.h/4.. 3 blows in each direction. /d. at 7. His ultimate conclusion was thal "[e]un in
- ; g4,'.gyr,..'(J
- s the most conservative of the three cases, the planning basis of 20% would be a
, q ? k.gc.y,g..& conservative estimate of the number of people who might be within the plume." '. p 7.;.f {.7 f [e ; J 3'Q%.. As we discuss infra, Suffolk County witnesses Gregory Minor and Steven /d. at 9. t , -. p.. g., ,JTC Sholly criticized Mr. Hulman's analysis on the ground that he had ignored [ d' ' the effects of shifting wind and precipitation. SC Exh.14 LILCO would . 4 ,T,, ',,, ' ej-have us accept Mr. Huln.an's work as tending support to the 20% requirement w.3, /, ' 4 v nonetheless, since Mr. Hulman himself acknowledged these omissions and 7 X.. " "r .D, opined that his other conservatisms more than offset them. LILCO Proposed Findings at 1819, citing Staff Exh. 5 at 8 and Te.19,211,19,223, and 19,228. n x / LILCO would also have us discount the position of New York State (discussed ~'~ ,j! N. in some detail below) to the effect that emergency plans should be able to accommodate 100% of the population of the EPZ. LILCO Proposed Findings at y. 1 23 24. LILCO points out that FEMA witnesses testified that other local plans in / l 9 Ej New York do not achieve that goal. See Tr.18,381 (Keller, Husar); Tr.18,371, m. { '] 1P,379,18,472,18,48183 (Keller). And LILCO points out that at least one b exchange in the :ranscript between one of the Licensing Board judges and a New 'tj York witness cculd oc taken tc *ncan that New York policy anticipates only that
- )
some sort of reserve monitoring capacity, not the capacity available early in an .s ? j cmerger.cy, would perniit 100% monitoring. LILCO Proposed Findings at 24, j citing Tr. 18,238-39. .2 Finally, LILCO discounts the "monitoring shadow" theory of Suffolk County, a theory described in some detail below, saying that because the Board has 7 already concluded that, in the case of the "evacuation shadow" the results of ~~ polls have "no literal predictive validity," we must reach the same result here. ) i; Y LILCO Proposed Findings at 25-28, citing LBP-8512,21 NRC 644,667,655-71 (1985). LILCO believes that the present polling data, even supplemented by the "focus group" study discussed below, cannot be used to predict the f behavior of large groups of peop*e in an emergency. And LILCO suggests that the "inonitoring shadow" and "evacuation shadow" phenomena that were 3-, r exhibited at TM12, point in very divergent directions since only a tiny fraction C of those in the surrounding area availed themselves of monitoring, while those V who evacuated constituted a substantial fraction. LILCO Proposed Findings at 28-27, citing LILCO Exh. I at 15: Tr.17,499 (Mileti); Tr.19,195 (Kantor). s J, c ., IC ,~ v
- I.
s g. -(. x 516 T' b.- 2 g t., '* ~ - 7.g = .S
- m f
T \\. , { *>. I e' 3 i -t. ' *+ i 4 \\ w,
.g ;.g. .u. 3., ..m
- l,.
.e .q '.'. ' s .i..- n ec., i. s
- a.;f
- I r
,a y,,, -.+ g, ;;s,. v , c. 4 -y- < :.a s. ._,F ww ~s .e. a .s s-a wn'. . }; g e
- x
.Q +- '#j? - _. : , '.,t H 3;~,; &y, a... M A - : s., <t. 4 i.., , v 's. Governments' Position ,? ?. - - c '? he Governments start by pointing out a phrase from a Commission decision, ~ ' '. ? 'J ' c., San Onofre, CLI 83-10, supra,17 NRC at 536 n.12, wherein the Commission .?. s Q,77'@9 4 i..,,,7@h.:g.q said that NUREG 0554 611J.12:
- Qf {r.
..y s ph N s' 1,,.., s., y e
- 3..: >.uy m...
r.. gg; y.'g'* g.;.g.. - requires relocation centecs espable of reg stering and enonitoring all resident.: and transients y,,; - .J.."i ~;.q in the plume exposure Er'Z.... .
- g.Q M T f J.
y. 0 ; f" 7 (c.\\f.g.qc, - @ (g h.,: N..ic.'., ',". g r k. ?.s b o c ~~ J' "a While they admit that the statement "arguably constitutes dicta," the Govern-a.Ny >.4 (.., M NG ' g 3;: g. n. ' 7 w p.~. ments urge us to give it weight in our decision (Governmente Proposed Findings at 27 28). That we decline to do.' We do indeed regard the statement as obiter p t," ': 17 q}':.g"Q M ;j *
- y "('i.
,1. f (,f.i. dicta. We believe that the Commission was merely restating in abridged form the ,7 i guidance offered in the NUREG document and that the words of the document [f/ 7 3'M%; Q.i M.C C(a;N. p.'*.C 1.<l A'p f'W itself, "all residents aid transients in the EPZ arriving at relocation centers," f, glc, <,lL'.,[g g g p& ~. nw, properly govern. ~ r;. c, .,.,,,. e, y; .;<.w; 71 ..j F." ~ x The Governments attack the applicab!!ity of the Krimm Memorandum on five .C W-@ 4:,.- ather overlapping grounds. First, they note that the memomndum derived its it.'... T i~ " f. O. 9......., 4 figure 20%, from previous experience in which "from 3 to 20% of the evacuees W ~9 ~ .C. n;. ..i.. l arrived at relocation centers or shelters" (Governments' Proposed Findings at (eir. y.,.[- . ;p, 4,p.. e., ' l, o 28 29, citing FEMA Exh I at 1). This, the Governments believe, forms little
- t. :. 6
- r.
'. g 47 basis for the memorandum's conclusion that the upper limit of that range is an WF.;: $m' (h y(i..e. -i ff: appropriate value for accommodating those w ho would seek monitoring, indeed, ($,;.MJ. ACME -lC C'? ' - b..C, e.)g. the Governments say, the use of sheltering data to estimate the monitoring D )@ rj.W j$N@,a W '.W t t. requirement is precisely the practice that this Board and the Appec.1 Board dg, '* i. ? 'p,s;, k W'i'.7. M Q.6,;h found unsatisfactory. Governments' Proposed Findings at 29 30. And they . W.'E :.',', y,/ cite testimony that indicates that it is in fact upon the number of people who .r .L have sought shelter in emergcncies that tha Krimm figure is based. Id., citing NM ',!$,; 3:C ' 7 ' ;jp - Tr.18,32123 (Keller); Tr. 18,356 61 (Husar). 3 Ur'Q '. ;..d Second, they assert that by relying on shelter-seeking data, the Krimm I.~'i Q G!.Y - c.' s. Memorandurn neglects the fact that more than 20% of the EPZ population may M.f.....!!. S > 5 '.' l'.D..s i s, ,+ be advised to seek monitoring by emergency broadcast system (EBS) messages. [ y T.. ' ,y,'^,* J.- s /d.. citing OFIP 3.6.1 at 2; h"' Exh.1 (Papile) at 8). The Governments point out M. 3 Al. ~. ( 6. U.;. ?,,,..,,t. b. that in t'e exercise of the LILCO Plan held on February 13,1986, the scenario e* v ' 3' .e
- .s.
called foi instructing approxirr.ately 60% of the summertime population to report '[.g' a...p A A :.;. j;.p y,,Q, ;,'.,,{:,. 4 M[ s, Tl [Jr ;m/e., ; 4,,.,.3: o y
- .c.
.N
- h..v [,.
- 2 -h.N,..y J. > i.
- .,.,.5 ' w*9,,1*
- l. ;f i, -
( vee-a.. . *'..3 7.,, I\\. 7p..[,E J*; ? h.,f .q '),-(* t F sn D '.N O. b
- 4. %.
TU - y
- We decline, but not for the reason eat LACO offers us. LACo cites AIAB.tss, are. 24 NRC at 799, where
- e p.e.JN ?. 8 M
".: ",[@/-j;;f %;4[h[h J
.? t the App-al Board,in destes with the Comrniss on's statemer.1. find "no occasion to arpiere... ihe bounds or 2
lUJ WiiV:
.. j 'rf g' Q O'.y'@
our obhassion to ::ve effect to a Comrmasion pecunce.sers that a: ben clear. cut. might n...- a m b W h :.
,t C:; C: s=5%,M;.. p~.Ur.c.J, W'%' WM u e t-Q. ':r.'Ei t..
i O Q.?.. %
A..T. * ; '%-M :fp),y.n;sq,.1
&;Q.
r;.-?. f.7 s.:
k' ? t. v. J s.hy %,i$/, e.y M, *i.b. g
. s.
L-1 ' A. i?
- c. A,v.e y S :
L U i.Y % q:X.. K i M @ b M ';*;p'.l Q !, 3 ,-r. 4 ;7*. r* *. - ; ';' ;
- "O.
] ' ' . ** t. s
- m. p. k.,, *.
, e ~ 5 * *{.,^~ ,"",'.'7 j 1 2. r.. ,x s, -.m,.,m. 2 e f 4.<.G.~,J y,.fr.; f,y. y (c.M.W,.Et+.s,<,n v: s.. .... a p.'. r ..t s,, ",, . i t ~e. ..f s .?.,.yy..r dg 3 . g3 ,w.y....a r *G. yrg.g,, f;g. g, .p. n,. ,J Q- ..d' (. o
- T ' - N*. L.,..,..
g . a,w[/ "y [c# . \\.I !,.b* * .a x ( p. 3 , ' w. '.
- J'.l. *{*}.'."sI O
.a Q '
- e-d ' ' L,f s
- p'N,. e' y s.
5 4 l).l t's % ) s, ?hl, *v.+.R *Q.d,j:v.' . ^... o y f f ",. 3 s' ' ? 1 g. n. td 9, q%' *,.g. x..Qi f... ' :'/ s 'p,., ' ? _ y, l T. g 3.. y' ? "., ;Y 3 9 a-3-
- - ; i J
Nk.'N.hs'q,.l ' Y.' kN,w.. C y;a*gyd'.7;;.q,,"b Y W b ? Y)* Y. s
- c. m = '? ' '.
f , f h: :h. T5t N'ON b
@ n.'u,.';* f %. w @..,%.~.'.\\ M k. l ;'f, M. 3 e f.Q '. g.Q M... [" ',,:. ;,.
- W ' ?].;. %... ' '
I'f
- ^ [k?
,f. ' > ~ i m .e ... 1. e.,.-. .,m.. - ~ p .:.e. y g,. :g... s
- v.
s. ~ gw;.. w7 n..:. g m u ..~,. . ~ : W: +n,1:qq 4 (,N u r y-p> ve W 2. - y s w w x .q,.. m m .~ -:nWW ::;:<;: n w ;...
- 7.. ;. %.;y.,
- y;; j.n. u ;. L. -;Gra @.N : L.'n?b.m /u M %. /x.. ' ' a J: p (, . -1),2 ',.g <A. hl : N u,,!W i,.
- y. -
%,,..y....w: n..>..;;+. ,,.., ; ;N. 3 ea.. ...v.% w;-y -v;.;. .n.
- v..
a: e,. .v + m; w c e.~.. .Y, >k.,w $ (7 QA/n;R WM @ llfy..m. et - c b . [' M. M... M.. d.Ic.,ex$@.h[s/:yNM'd. $ 3@.Ih,....9fi to a reception center for monitoring. Governments' Proposed Findings at 32, .c y w
- 5%$,&. !C{fP..%;Q:
citing NY Exh.1 at 9. '.'d b iWQ$:)N:W fin., G Third, the Governments note that the Krimm hiemorandum does not address Q WMgMMM.,8.y.d87!Nin ; the "monitoring shadow" phenomenon, a concept the Governments and their $.$ $ N. [p[. M.l'. M@D %.S $ $M. f$. ' witnesses believe very important. Governments' Proposed Findings at 32. ney URQ4.Q A cite FEMA witness Keller at Tr.18,324 for the notion that the memorandum . T2chsf MQ,P M does not in fact addtcss this concept, but they omit the statement by hit. Keller $.?M h.[W[: ' ' Qi. p.. p .,yr,;y"s,'1 N 1,,d n:\\ on the next page of the transcript (Tr.18,325) where he states that the upper end of the experiential range was selected because "some people may go to y.. yp p,,.v.
- , ~.
the reception center to allay their fears," an idea that, in our view, is vinually 1., m. ',[ 7,%. _. indistinguishable from that of the monitoring shadow. '. 'q, '.'.+'..,.; J > /,,,1 '; j,1. Fourth, they allege that the Krimm Memorandum fails to suppon a 20"c ' f;.^ c y planning basis because it ignores the fact that the reception centers will be Vs '
- d.g A 3,,_-
performing a dual function, both sheltering and monitoring. They cite LILCO's f m T ."'..i own witnesses (LILCO Exh,1 Attach. P, OPIP 4.2.3 at 3, 7: Tr. 17,438 .t .m. / J d ' ?.: ' N (Crocker); LILCO Exh. I at 3) for the fact that the reception centers will serve .. c.t.; ,c- .w f. D * ,l both needs. FEMA's witness, Mr. Keller, agrecs. Tr. 18,328 29. Dus the ' y (,., ~ '.(.[ b. f '" A Governments would have us find that the total of people seeking both shelter r A. ;n l'," 3,4 and monitoring could be larger than the planning basis. .. ! k \\ $ $ 'c."f m /C N Finally, the Governments would question the origins of the Krimm Memo- '*4,y9.i.C]J: ,ly ; 4 randum. The memorandum was written in response to an inquiry by one of ,' _ 'h h,.I #G fi y FEMA's witnesses, t it. Keller. FEMA Exh.1. Keller Letter. Mr. Keller sought ' ' ;., A p R,- ' j qy.?r.n.' ? ?] guidance since, inter alia, he expected the issue of the planning basis to sur. face in this hearing. He wrote to Mr. Stewan Glass, then Regional Counsel for ,; f !s-f.y. ^ 1..? l FEMA Region II, and Mr. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director for Natural and Technological Hazards in the Office of State and Local Programs and Support, .,O 1 :,b ( FEMA Headquarters, issued the memorandum addressed to Division Chiefs of ' C ';,. ,,^f '-... the corresponding Divisions in the FEMA Regional Offices. FEMA Exh 1; ~ ' c J' Tr.18,313 (Husar), ne Governments point out that FEMA Guidance Mem. i- ?,'. ' j orandum IT 1, which is official guidance, establishes a hierarthy for FEMA f 4 y [;. l 'j guidance documents and sets forth a procedure by which such documents are S \\ ' to be developed and promulgated. Governments' Propcsed Findings at 34-35, citing Tr.18,162 (Papile); Tr. 18,193-96 (Baranski); SC Exh.18. Because a s - _,[ ' "j memorandum trom an Assistant Associate Division Director does not fit into y .t
- '~
the official FEMA guidance schema and is not generated according to FEMA's / 'y official method for developing guidance, the Governments would not have us e ,C give the Krimm Memorandum substantial weight. Governments' Proposed Find-j,., 1 4- .K'+,, ings at 37.
- ., c e,
,e. De Governments see the testimony of Mr. Donaldson, autner of a "precursor -flN ;'[ l.I document" to NUREG-0654, as offering scant suppen for LILCO's view. They ' c-f'< i f' i }, ~~,, -. point out that Mr. Donaldson's draft did not include the language in iL12 (LILCO Exh I at 8 (Donaldson)), that he did not have a specific number of ),. J ' [,. l g y 0 ." ;.d ", ,.9,- ,.,,a I ^ *
- 518 y.
, s , j. n's' 'c g. ~ g^ ,s. ..,'
- g
}{ 6 i ' '(.m g 6 O' 1 6 g t s' g ~ y a ,',I. ~ I
- g,,
g . / 1,%t.$ .II ~ 3 ,(' V . ps t ~' b. e ',(, -.'n<
_'s. ,,;-.,. 1 .y ?1 d+
- .f.
-s y
- 9. ~ _-
n .u s o ,,+ .s n x. i " a.: n, i people in mind when he wrote the draft (id.; Tr.17,449), and that the Steering s - ',o, i.; Committee that worked on the document after him used it in ways urtknown to him and did not consult him on the number of p:ople who might be expected to arrive et reception centers. Id. They would have us give the Donaldson ^ testimony no weight. Governments' Proposed Findings at 40. Q., ' f ' i ~ '; f ,', j > .J e., ' ' ' "{.f 3.l The Governments also discount Mr. Hulman's testimony. Beir primary ob-A-J T
- r. ;.
jection to it is that it speaks only of the number of people who might be con. Ii-g.- . U-C7 taminated, not to the number who might seek monitoring for reasons associated j3;.-; with their own fean or worries, "behavioral" reasons in the Governments' argot. { g.- 'y -( 9_:1 -c ,'f Id. at 53, citing Tr. 19,198-99 (Hulman, Kantor). (: ', f. . 7....,. Further, the Governments would fault Mr. Hulman's analysis because it does not account for either wind shifts or precipitation. Again, Mr. Hulman admits . w- ~. T " }.. .C , P ' - 4 this (Staff Exh. 5 at 8 (Hulman); Tr.19,200 (Hulman)), but believes he has "more y. [ than offset these limitations." Staff Exh. 5 at 8 (Hulman). The Governments' if 'd ,t witnesses, however, regard the omissions as serious. SC Exh.14 at 5 (Minor [.'7,\\_ 7 '^ and Sholly). They point out the "substantial chance" (about 86%) that sorae 4: wind shift will occur in a 6-hour period. Tr.17,941 (Minor). And they criticize Le. ~' Mr. Hulman for having failed to use computer codes, despite their existence, ',N. v j, j,.g that would account for wind shift (Governments' Proposed Findings at 54 n.36, t citing Tr, 19,200,19,226-27 (Hulman). '.,,f } ,o., The Governments would also have us believe that the failure of Mr. Hulman's i 4 A 4.('- analysis to allow for the fact that evacuation itself could increase the number [, y [ J', .c ',, M,' ;, of people exposed during a wind sh;ft is a serious flaw and that Mr. Hulman 1z admitted as much ur. der cross-examination. Governments' Proposed Findings . f:'..' at 54 55, citing Tr. 19,228 29 (Hulnnn); SC Exh.14 at 5 6 (Minor, Sholly). 5, ~
- ., y s.. ;
?,. -s. Actually, at the point cited in the transcript, Mr. Hulman spent most of his time s 9.' D,g 9 Q < "(, 'f c protesting that an increase in exposure due to wind shift during an evacuation is very unlikely.
- ^-
+< - h Finally, the Governments would have us reject Mr. Hulman's ultimate conclusion, based on his graphs, cf persons exposed as a function of time f ', ' : 'i. . h fraction (conditional probability). He pointed out that his results support a 1;: C f s s conclusion that the 20% planning basis is conservative (overestimates the number contaminated) 90% of the tin:e. The Governments would use these same curves .w w .s to point out that if one wished to cover the situation 95 98% of the time, the number of people could more than double. Governments' Proposed Findings at '. WR ~. 7~ 55, citing SC Exh.14 at 6 (Minor and Sholly); Staff Exh. 5 (Hulman), Fig. 2. While the State and County agree that the 20% planning ngure is too small, T -{ /,, ; q "},, C., ..m. % . y c,- they appear *.o differ on the question of what a proper figure would be. The State C,, W W 37 ' ~ &j)ENM 7[y ' 5 M witnesses testined that a prudent plan would permit monitoring of at least 100% 4'.b': b j. ; .c gg.f,.m. a 3,.; - < - c :r.3 s... 7.v t. .. n p.. y ",*
- C; g -
p.N*fca^c,W m AL.".3 Y dQ*,.p. '0 ,, '.,, 4.j J:. .. 'q-2 ,,c r c. u., .x E;.rf. $[% h ~- ,a'., ' ED $, f c.[u,,h.,' [./[. %,'i % w. ... w t -$ I N (,h. m. M.nhh 519 p=. w-:.1y _. y, c. fr.; ca >h.m, x; -.m.. cn>.- n a . e ry r, " .; ',a.'* . e'.) ';;- k.
- - n.g
. s. )- ,V'.s..; {;. %,3 . M,.y; ' [;:_ >.,.a::'{, .) M l.. , ; ;g.: , 7 ,e . ; c.. s. r - ~ ~ ~ z z, e. .. y. 'lg. D 9, *13 ' ^ ~y,, ~ .,, c.6,.,,,. . +.. ,c a: P e. ,,c,, ,T -. 1 4- ,.,s..; ,*,,,.~ g'*,
- t.
.s
- .?0,, ;
s .<n,.. l h .t ' 'J .] ,,o. .f,, s,.,, ~, ~ ~
h &h$ ? hY"Y$ [.N$ d,c$f@h.NhhiW:L.M'WE'J M Y '.. M1,? d. c s ['V.ju.,.. W M d.- l~J M &. u. n: %.. n.e & g. m.:,.; w@ NM W.W, Y. w .~ %. Y
- 7. 5
.. y g x. .o F,, i.$4? ; M .m A' i E .y
- .Y W g,s - q...m,f. eq :44--.m ~,g ' m
+.y qk., ;n M w &,,,: r.@,.g M..y, y d6N S!M:,b[L:.&l$ '.^c r~. '. + e c. rm ........, < + Qr <&p.v..,:&.s*,,..'A.h{;M@.3NM@.A9@.m m,k..lwl YS,N M.w'$." 9 G%%'MM J nE h,.'. d a.C,.C. '? t :a i T ~ ..' QD,.,mg.-J- !wflW.m $ g.n + - =,u3v.:& g.n .ns.q,p. c ,s i.., S.*,T 9.YhMQ QM$.; ( m:.{A.:y.,;.a.qu. 9.- Q ;.M.$ p %d d .j g. M,9 3. m. q p.; e 4,;;ce:,c,,,n, W..c.:c. 7j y,p. /.. nu .n t.. N...p f? M..6 M M ;.i..?.,i.d cf the population in the EPZ, NY Exh. I at 710.' ne County witnesses, on the ,4 h h. M k [ $. Ns. 1 W B'. d3 igWIF@A'@i.:. ? @.'Wr ' y.., e . m..... other hand, espouse a complex theory, similar to the one we dealt w.th under i % M d.)'.j d.' .M.fi.; the rubric "Shadow Phenomenon" in our PID. LBP-8512, spra,21 NRC at
- n. g ;,S k' W,. h. M Q' g s.y f
655. There the matter involved the "evacuation shadow," a hypothesized large W Sh number of people who might evacuate from arets where no evacuation was 4 f.D'i 1 l. W.;3 (,y f r,. g y, h g mig h hN M ordered. Here the County witnesses hypothesize that a large number of people g would appear and request monitoring, even though they came from areas where M.S monitoring had not tan advised ney call this the "monitor'.ag shadow" and [ik@y., gc cel5.Q;. ;fMM , M 7,[, y ' % /?..' M.* J4 distinguish it from the evacuation shadow, sithough they assert that the two ,? 5 1g-scg have similar roots. Governments' Proposed Findings at $6, citing SC Exh.13 m W i. ;.7 p;; q at 1318,27; Tr.17,933 (Cole, Johnson, Saegert). 3,S j.",.g %; f / .y ?! De Governments point out that witnesses for FEMA and the Staff agree ? . l.. k.h;. 6 :l.-/. that people might seek monitoring even though they did not come from an area @ f. where occupants had been advised to seek it. Tr.19,198 (Kantor); 18,330- _'l ,s f,, J.: u ".y,....[ "I such a monitoring shadow can be controlled by proper dissemination of good [ 'c',;$.i@,< 31 (Keller, Baldwin, Husar). While LILCO's witnesses took the position that 'y.... ,' }.7 ,y emergency information,'. the Governments believe that the only reliable way to ,j ? ~j estimate the extxt of the monitoring shadow is by surveying the population in Af.i.' ; 9.(.l. f. g y. ;..,:1.l advance. Governments' Proposed Findings at 55-59, 67-69. To this er.d the ' e, g." E 1. o'.-Qf. N.h.;' ? M '. ; ^ ^. ; ' l County presented the results of a sursey conducted by the County's witness ^ 'l'D-p[;J j Dr. Stephen Cole. SC Exh.13 at 1316 (Cole, et al.) and Exh. 8 thereto at 8. Q(@R'?!'?pW? *, 6 ~'
- 1. -@)7
. '21 y 0 De survey asked 1500 respondents by telephone how they would respond to a //.@-[.",' ' i n J series of the EBS messages that were actually used in the February 13, 1986 N 7l;.,,j exercise of the plan.' Dr. Cole's results indicated that 50% of "all Long Island
- yY
.., f.'.. '
- , R s
'W ,O f households" would go to the specific center mentioned in the EBS messages. 1, . - ( t.,:
- .M 'c nat would represent more than 1.3 million people. Governments' Proposed
' ~, ' 17 'ql, ] ' l Findings at 59, citing SC Exh.13 at 1617 (Cole, et al.). While the Governments 7'-3;., . p point out that they do not take the position that a full 1.3 million people would , :.E ^, - 1 report for monitoring to the reception centers, they do believe that far more than i.t..'.f Yi [. 3, ,[4 the 20% of the EPZ population thould be the planning basis. Id. l De Governments would thus have us find that Dr. Cole's survey has 7.... g ; ,4 e 4 f 'G] ' k 1, t D;, f. established that a large monitoring shadow would result from a radiolo3 cal i emergency. They would also have us delve into the reason for the "shadow." "q - 2 4 ' n ;_,, .; y '<, t c :,a c.:. f. z.,
- m... t
.'.g'q N} , As we noted above. Iltro wedd imerpret ccetain of Se New York wimesses' respmses as evidece Sat the N', m s s ',- 1 -!. b .?g
- v. i._
state reAUy ordy expects e capahlity for espansion to 100% mormdemg. Nou, he vver. mat se Gova:nments, in .a cf,a.. 7 1., a, .s. 'e,1 4, ; d,1 meir Proposed Findess, spectncany annbute a 100% reqmromern to me state (oovemments' Proposed Findess ( at 2s). alsough state plans do n<a necessarey fu1Au $at rapirumars at other plants in the state. Tr. 18.381 82 , j.V 68 e .] , W ', q,. g. . 3 f'.,M jeDer. Husar): Tr. t 3.23139 (Pep's). '.,., <, a..g' ' ',. J ~,1. (' 'N - *. 3 -
- T ' i,;q :, -
Tha to a restucri not inconsistent wim that adcried by ihis Board in reference to the "evacuation shadow," i, which an agree is an analogous phenomenon. Cf. LSP.8s.12. sucre. 21 NRC si 670. y'u .ejg-r.g There is some discute between the County and tilfo as to how accurately $e messages used in *e survey 9 + ',' represented those used in ce escre.sc tilf0 Proposed Findets at 28. cot Tr.17.819 (Cols); Cordaro, et al. 2 ff. Tr.1470, at 27; Tr.10.498 (wetsmance). t*w . t (,s... x r "o t, [..( J _-j';;,, L: _ 520 L: ,l a N' . 1 f(; % < 'f \\ _ *,( ,..t -w,, ,e ee a g 4 g 4 9h ' 4w. g 8.,, '.4 g r 'y
- ~
, f
- i' -
.,'6, it.. *;,- si s,. y D(' \\: ' e %.,. ', ,,-g'",,.'.,-f'.;..\\M, e s- ,.. i s t gk
- ~,ge u
y [ 'S r, m. ;;- ...y.. ss t_ 1 s
, a. .,y- --c.- ~- ~ b - ~.. ,) ,y g I s,. , - w,,,,,y, m, . -,., ' }} Rey note that it is well established in the record of this case that people fear ' r ,w radiation. Governments' Proposed Findings at 65, citing Tr.17,983 (Kline); a SC Exh.13 at 26 27; LILCO Exh. 6 at 464; Tr.17,849 (Saegen). And they i: m,.. 1 .': confirmation of their theories in other work by Dr. Cole. In addition to j, the survey, Dr. Cole conducted group interviews of the type known as "focus f ( -1 l 7 groups," wherem he examined "the monitoring shadow and the fear which i;.f [" ,./ - orives it." Governmenu' Proposed Findings at 66, citing SC Exh.13 at 31- ' *7 X - ' ~ y.- 33; Tr.17,824-25 (Cole). During these group sessions, rec.-dings of the ~.. EB5 messages from the February 13, 1987 exercise were played to the group, ,. / .,lO,,. and the group then discussed the individual participants' perceptions of and pO, J - ' f g, .,1
- f~~.
attitudes toward a Shoreham accident and how they would react. SC Exh.13 at
- y
{. - y '. t 1
- 32. Analysis of the transcripts of these group interviews by Suffolk County's L'
v witnesses, Drs. Cole, Saegert, and Johnson, led these witnesses to conclude s. that there is a deep-seated fear of radiation on Long Island, that some Long y 7 . +., . '..'s
- c Islanders believe that if there is any accident at Shoreham they will be exposed N
4 to radiation, that the fear would not be based upon objective or gaantitative notions of the amount of radiation involved (any amount is dangerous), and C. that in the event of an accident many people will be'ieve that their lives are in g a grave danger. SC Exh.13 at 33 35. Thus many will seek momtoring (id at ~ f, 36). In short, it is the Covernments' position that the primary motivator m an ' %, ' '.g emergency is preexisting fear.
- q l,
' p. J.. As to the effect upon people's behavior of messages that may be broadcast p at the time of the emergency, the Governments believe that will be minimal. i: ,+ i They particularly discount the notion that members of the public not advised i 'c to seek monitoring will not do so. LILCO's messages, they believe, will not t?' C_$ 1 overcome the strong fear of radiation. Th.: County's experts have examined the [ ,.fc.;.' ' 1 ; d ',",*. n EBS messages in LILCO's Plan and the messages broadcast during the February j' ^'y '/ ,.1 f s , ' L '.. 13 exercise, and those expeus conclude that the messages do nothing to calm l s the fear or to explain why only some people might have become contaminatM i el 3 Ny ' - 'p-Gnvernments' Proposed Findings at 70, caing SC Exh.13 at 42. The EBS i* ? .s messages tell thore outside the 10 mile zone that they are safe, but because ._ [, -' ' ' ?..% r-many members of the public are predisposed to believe differently, they are r' likely to seek monitoring at the reception centers. Tr.17,972 (Johnson). The m. . eg ' 2;; / Governments find Unher support for their theory that predisposition dominates O ,, ' t./ ..$ f.3: emergency information in an article from the magazine Nuclear Safety, written t., f..y, - 9.- ','"?.[ e ', C.6,[ < t; LILCO's witness Dr. Lindell. There, Dr. Lindell opined that the evacuation i
- U.
overresponse at TMI resulted "as much from prior public perception of the risks h '..' g; ';.i ;...M 4 .' [ ' 1 L (~'. Q 0, of nuclear power" as from conflicting information, and he said that ensuring K 3.K consistency of information solved "only part of the problem."I' Governments' N.y.:af.. :
- it,,
[ b#
- k' -
f,. M '. W Dr. tandeu.u penmund to rment re'unal tesumony to anm. tne omemmema' impucauon danns tM l/..j?. e +h ~ _ l.j'; Q,i. '8 .d heanns that his presented swmmy was inconsmert.nh h. het,ar sq'ery aracle. He esp'amed that to the
- l, l ' Q.3.y (Co m,,e4)
,t. f... '. \\- 4y,e a .. ' &. :. >;'Mm.,3 ; ,,.a .',s.y;, . \\,, I y, , wo .8u.., 521
- I'[.,7?l,Q. d],
.h .......; p.. j ;bN,jf'c.?b?! (9,. 'm [..., .s ;g N ...P.@ l, ~. L..,w:s.,.m::a r. n, .m.. 'O$ :,. I.M #h ;'[. ', y. 2 n. ' _u m ~. ; u ~+ l. .u. ;.l,. . v.., - -. /., p. o.. - i.,.,,y,u* , y, v.. v... u. q,. g
- 7. - 3 q,..
..v, e,1. ' ' ' n ' ('.f
- M;'.'s.,
- s.
p r y.%
- :'.',.,y.
- 4. r.
.. 'l ,,r .a 3 :a m:e. u.~ g $ * ', ( * - ,[. ~,t.# \\ .,. b b I,- p
- g g*u t.
.y., m.,e t q
- ay,,
- n.
. r ;. s '9 ; ', % ; *.. m , y ' ?y <. au. ' ' i.- d ~.
- 'Y&
.L
- ?d r.*
%;.w %.:\\: y Quu ~.gw,khMM.u,r:x.NbY;!!kk/h N.w_ h..s.v.i.__N_- g DkNNM*d M [ h4, $ ' s p,.. g. ...w .m. m .,m-- .bh.h N .. % c ~> O A.u-f y,.,.AW:b mwa., s., n ;. ::.pp y - n ' v . a m%.,9L ? V.,.:.w. - N v v - wp m.. w &:....Ven xQr%w.os gp]n. .e. p%.4 n;.. Y! W=. 4,,%pp
- '*,2 s..w.,, f l. -
L - w,.% e.,,.. p,...: v s %, e }* t. ' y m v%o.%W. t c.4 3 y< a~mn:M's.."' 3 3 p.p:. i :sN4's 3 s . v nm m n; m. w +,g e s ~dm. ;. v.~:t,!;.?. m.Mq> a m.;.g. ;;w: -;.:... d.:. W.v C.."k n : q: ;. : </. r.,. '.. ..,&.,7. ~ > ../,v ~ ~ .. m - u "4,e ~- s 7,' c
- ~.; ~a;.4,..mw;.. %: W.t-
.;r.!.-.a.;:W 6,.e_o..m.n.., m m. x
- . m:
- u.. m.1
.r. w ;.: e. .y -..w-x- .. +. v tu m a m. ?; . ; W z : :. r.., r < /;'. ;71 .Q ' e. .4 ..., ?. 9 W_ -.. J+.
- f. g.
.5 ( g _w*.- 4 (hJ u,.::_.n-c.,.; p.p { 1;.,g,,. y.v s.. ,.1* -/ q. q s;l % h f ['y M, r . +. a. a f.T, W;Wh.f..A. 5. M.9@< 2.% ;$z 1 9.:.~ M. .fl).[(ik'[,'j .m p I y. ad.,c % WeW;%, w r.m n$g$19. W~.~ m m,. M..8 i Proposed Mndings at 71, citing LILCO Exh. 6 at 466; see also Governments' I d p.@y..m.c.@f.@J. $.M.d*. r. v, y n.'%f. :.F Proposed Findings at 66 n.44, \\ wa-ydq&%j Nh;wsw. ~,;.ng%g @h h,..d.,.d f 7 gG.: L4yk &g.4,wM M GPW NRC Staf's Position %w -
- n o 4 M[N!b;Mk.%0[3!
The Staff's position (and apparently that of FEhfA) is very close to that ]M @4 M,M'IcWD.p of LILCO. To begin with, the Staff would accept the Krimm hiemorandum W g. ;cl.f y:.'#PP MMg;@{;,2d M y'y.!g g g J.j as reliable guidance. Staff Proposed Findings at 912. The Staff particularly regards the 20% figure as reasonable in view of the calculation by its witnesses _. 9 ' Z N Q.1 M..' of the number of people who could potentially be affected by a release. Id. at %.94 'j c4 . 61 % ;j D 12, citing Staff Exh. 5 at I (Hulman), and 7 (Kantor); Staff Proposed Findings 4 y. A E-7 ~ 18 ' at 18-19. The Staff even parses the Krimm hiemorandum closely, noting that NS, (7.w; p / ' h the memorandum speaks of"20 percent of the population to be evacuated," and E,; - %y1 Jr.y
- ,w observing that, since LILCO's plan calls for evacuating only part of the EPZ
/.O m under soma circumstances, providing for 20% of the total EPZ population could, ). .f. y-4* in some cases, more than satisfy the requirement Staff Proposed Findings at s
- g; N'.".,..' ' *' p '
. '[- J
- 11. We agree, but we cannot see why having too great a capability under some M.r;c special circumstances could lead to any problem.
.s.. ,a
- k. f.C..'...VJ/ O< v'a M. C7 O' d the "evacuation shadow" and the "monitoring shadow" phenomena. On the
- ., J.;
- C M
Like LILCO, the Staff would have us note the fundamental similarity of X.'y$,[f 7X.,,. ,m .-?f 'W Jh#I'f.. E. basis of that similarity, the Staff would have us hark back to the decision m' U M [i h. U. d h [..'.. U '. W we previously rendered (LBP.8512, supra,21 NRC at 655 71), in which we g discounted predictions of such a shadow by polling techniques similar to those of Ngy /;7 c M 'N[. C*; 3 Dr. Cole in the present case. Staff Proposed Findings at 1416. The Staff notes
- Q"N 4M
['. ,,. ;,, k : - -{$.} that, in ordering a hearing held on the present question, we had distinguished 11 9 ',. between the two phenomena in qu,estion, but, with the evidence now in place, O 'M ' .j the Staff would have us find that the predictive value of public opinion polls . i 3,. '. [ , 'q should be given little weight and the number of people to be provided for should .d be assumed to be "a function of" those advised to evacuate. Id. at 16. The Staff . ci, T[. g.;.,b' . l [. would have us find that 20% is a reasonable upper bound for that function.
- i.,.
~ J.z./.... T O /d. at 1617. The Staff cites its own witness, hfr. Kantor, for the notion that 'g ,j.; b,. :'^ ] offsite response organizations need not be capable of monitoring 100% of the g, - '.,.'y-r
- e-
. J. ..fc/ EPZ population. Id. at 17, citing Staff Exh. 5 at 4 (Kantor), t.~. - :'I .7 '..)d!C '..,, 'i It is also the Staff's position that a 20% base, expandable for the worst ,'2 l
- r., ?.] ~ ' '1.': s.
- a
' '.O possible accidents, is a capability consistent with the general thinking embodied .X' in NUREG-0654, and that the 12. hour period for monitoring mentioned in 3 3. ).'[.g.E..,'
- /3. ',,
~ q, s,,
- 5 ~y%;..,
3....P. O.12 thereof is based not on radiological health and safety considerations but m,. is intended "to provide a recommended objective for planning purposes." Id. . '3 . s .'.W,K.5 .t.- W s, y. p..g,..y',,,,.' s ;.r,'.i.' [!t[,. 'O ;' ;, f.y.,* : A f,.,.,S f s ' 'i k,,' '.;'l% '~ ~...t.*, estant est Ns magar.se amele studied behmoralittentes and risk percepacris it did so to ha'p planners to p. - i..> ./. 3; unders:and what types of cues a charnesensuca or me hazard would be most sa' ent to local residents; it was not o;, a .-t be inters to preest fanare behmor frorn such surveys. tilfo E.A 50 at 2, Tr.17,77173 (lindeu). s <y,,. :w
- . c ;w.
q..... -l.):TG.,.' _. 522 ^ .v' E y .'. : c'.. 4; ' (, , f.; c. .'j
- s h) g3 g
k g .l l-*.'.i, ,,.,I
- g e.
' e -9 D O v,,** 8 y 4 9 i A,,.';f...'n. s.- <. - \\ ,g .~; '4 ..,s. f. e 't ,**g n ') . b e 9 4.' q,q' ~..,, z. ei.* r s + e- ,, '. h'.s j ', ,4 . a, $Ali.",.,,,..',. a g. .\\ - .' n m g, { ~ - - - - - - ^ - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ^ ~
.~ y .gy, y (,q u.
- c,y.x L
. n, m...> + ay mm:, w:.n ~ n...a;.m.,,(c:.\\l: Q i %, m.;.? ~.;;
- r n
y 3:9 ~. l l 2. ',..%' 4 ~ ~ ,. ~.. a s.w ,,v = .s .;,, n,. ,; ;.,..,.m.,,. 9..v e,- g . a 3,;' o .. ~.. 11 y V,p p,'U..f.j, m; /^4' g ... r. ,tw. .., ( ?.N." - 4..,.. c. .'t-.. ,...s'. p e .z. ,a ..,.:...,.p= ~,., s, w m., e, v. 4..., m'Q .,..f:^;,,t _ }. m..al"'y# ' w 'a.f %) % .f $ : ~^ V c.
- w. t d.
n,;- ( a.,m., y m,_N g:.P', A.' + , ;a,.. . ;..;,. :,;...n.,,..
- n. eu
. ;.. e z.x .e y,,. c, o .s :::;;;; 9. ;m;;f,g cy., ;V. x O 2. ;:(. ". R. lb:fi, d'N.... 4 Board Decisicn 3 .m .. c. f. (n... f. <.M._e.:a,r x. +; :9,/T.1.?-pv.. N W,j.;,M We have given the positions of the parties and the portions of the record ,e%.' . e..w that support them careful consideration. After having duly accepted evidence f Q 4.p.,pl y f' y g,T g, Q..: [ ; c,. j.p;p gyj. on the matter of the monitor'ng shadow, we are convinced that the matter 4 of that shadow's size is governed by factors not substantially different from $yygf p y j. O.p h /, ',.,f ; i: %.. p.gQ"g{"QF [,[.[ ..y.c those that govern the evacuation shadow. That is, the tendency of people to .i seek monitoring when not advised to be monitored is, for practical purposes, fj g,.(,. lg.:,.b,; yfgl ',p influenced by considerations very like those that influence a decision to evacuate ,g, .f;jg., i j, Q when not so instructed. The chief among these facton are predisposition due by-f;?. C..R c to f(at of the hazard involved, tr.d the information supplied at the time of the ,.c.g.g: N;.4,, Q. . s. W..,,. U ' '.. . D.. incident. "Information" in thb dense includes both the official offerings and the i. 0 c $.... .m g W.V.'., rumors currently flying. We see, at this juncture, no immediate way to predict 1.b. - . ', b.N i'cg.J. 6:l i.w..s.g. - s
- . A..
~ the behavior, and we are still convinced, as we were in our earlier PID, that d(, ', p? Kb,.V.GN n/Q{l3 ;g.ijp Dr. Cole's polling techniqus tell only what the situation is now, not what it /
- . y. y. J. -? E, :7.w..I;WJ.y..
-2.#;. will be at some undetermined future date, See LBP.8512, supra,21 NRC at t,.. o a. ?.7,. n.a ,y 3 ,s... 667. ,~...;~. s : :,1:. ...c a..,9 a. . ". - iM.! ' ?l.
- h' Faced with a situation where no firm predictions are possible, we choose
((MQ [pi;d[2.;g% 'U W
- i.. '
c, .4 to accept the o@ ions of those who deal professionally with the business g, Sc. N, 0. '.9. of emergency planning. In particular, we give great weight to the policies . gMjf,NM,;5 > ';: of FEhiA and, for that reason, to the guidance expressed in the Krimm -,i WNMdfiM.; l,$
- W,M M pLm N @' $ Y hiemorandum. The fact that the result of that memorandum jibes with the result h '.y@h.(y.M.'yh].
h of the Staff's analysis of the population fraction at risk we regard as fortuitous, but it is comforting to know that the plan provides for monitoring a number q.gggg.; g:,4g a f..j - of people near the maximum that could be expec'ed in at but the most severe y'.,t,M,Q C). lSG.7.. l acciJents if it complies with the FEhiA guidance. .J,m. , ;ig G.nq;i.... p'..f f~Q,]fjyy$y%f'p We recognize the fact that, as the Governments would have it, the Krimm M e.{'.M
- n hiemorandum is based upon figures for those reporting to shelters, but we
[., ,4 %J %%y?.},(. recognize also that those figures were adjusted upward in a manner consistent .hl.y.';i.W-f." h; @y.<. - ( h
- f. ; 1,y,J WP!:Zil.
.j, ; f T. with the best judgment of an emergency planning professional. In short, we conclude that a figure of 20% of the EPZ population, expandable in extreme Y dfM. M,:M.Qg;@l, [.^.Z cases, is a defensible figure for the number of people for which planners must .,,.1.o.. -v,y' As/.yf'J;M*/ ,., ( <j.# provide a 12. hour monitoring capacity. .s ..s Y.'*.it'n.4g.~% We must again caution, as we did in our earlier PID, that confused or -. 'w a conflicting information (or instructions) could cause a monitoring shadow that 1 N W :l Q, t,(id'i.J;[,@$g@ 7 would lead to the swamping of the monitoring capacity, and we note that the 6 1 n.if'lT
- Q49, results of the exercise hearing (1.BP.88 2,27 NRC 85 (1988)) are not such as M g yg.p.g,'
Q!'g,.g-to give great confidence that communication to the public will be clear and . W Q. Q,pff, @. g. g f,) h f d p %n -y 51, g.l, p concise. Nevertheless, if one assumes that proper communication is indeed G :.g. possible and will be required tercre licensmg, we believe that provision of fi.b w t, z*u. a. a....9,~.7.~.,p. r, u...,WJ N.,..~. ,.g w. ; 5.., ,w m.4.p.- v.; e>
- f. 8 @."I't %
- Q I,% z.p W..).,,$d.'.NN
- '4 M.*.
v. .4 17 W f( 761 **. ?.l .,u{. S k ,t . M.(3. a. (m.,. .a.<. &.. .%m. j.a. y% fD.n.... m. . u.. m: .m.g!" .a'f f, Mi @M^ A.. $M$g% .,/i 4ya-82' . 3.!,.T:ji8. 6.M.'t; ? ..... - t:
- q h w 3%
gs .w... o... kp. .o m. - 4......w. M. *. o. 'e:' ', e c% t ;QlC r&w*. i b,p;. q,yn.p f^.t.: p.+As 3,, f -%.s, e- ..'Q i .)* y r y
- g,x,.QW,e e. v
.t. .%..,7.y
- s., !,g.,g 9/
yi..c.;4.p.,9'. r*Q s.y g,; r,W; - iG.y f g 5'w n p r,'. '. t ;, g . ;1 7 .%y[, ['8.'.fy :gl. \\;y.,.; g -. w'q/.fQ.y gyg.,.Q,j. m.;.2.g.,,j,p,,g:g.g.; '[. y 3,g,;g,p.y.g. g g g. g..fy q:, g ..g, _.m w...... c QQ ,ty n ~ y
- .ggp;
~. c.7.m.~.g.g.g g.p. yag g g~s
- jy.
g a s- ' .M. 'k' . sv.-. ....a 9ep.L, .e < ' I,, t,, a er....... . s,ap *M. ., h I i.j I ,,f g g ..-Yg. b.. . A 1 3 ]., .g 4 f g '.,o' F 1 h
&$N$$$Shk Y'h5k.h h'k .f h: kSh'$r.k.~;.m$kY.[,&p+x.%.v.h@.&e.aw'(W~IQ*, hY b M .h. l -N O ' l' Q;.$.~. h? l U.D ? YQ:'.. Y U I,.l i ei S '&.E.Q. $ k,'
- w. y; m v.c:
w.w .. g%.;y;+n..s w. :.w.wx :.m.m..... M,, ~b.a w..,.ntw y '.. u :.c:.s &~w L. t G,..;.ym a;c%..,g.,.?n.s.. c s :. ..-v av - n ,-. w ::x m. -- e.t.*e. g. w.r.: %' 1..a.n's.,';d ;,. -,c dw.2 -...s y w. ru. v, e.w
- ?:n,a.=
- w. a.
m+ w-a:. u.= w-a [+ 0;n-; ku.s."%w.. [,o,,.. - 3: s ;.%.,amn:: n. i*' @. <A'r;-e.] .r ih.W,,
- .*f i Y,f %
@ W,P. A*%u 2, c., e.%w.'.,r.m.c..jv..Q, Qpv.rf= =, 2, s w n.,.:, w,... e-y m!W.'d, L.Q{.Y..$. & m, pl$..:h '!.}Al*.l- ~ ?Ns, MM@hp@,%?c*4 O W,, 'f ) r. .a b. M'j monitoring capacity for 20% or more of the EPZ population within 12 hours $:.y$,.~ 4 '. h g %e:;p. w.s p l % w ;) M//M.n@w; ;@%v',W W will satisfy tbc guidance expressed in NUREO.0654 il!J.12." C n $y.,V.Rps yQ f ,h.sk 2. Traffc.Relafed issues .dm %w s a.... M De traffic issues that arise in this case originate frora the Appeal Board's ('D'l,M1tqsM % gem.y@.dF.k M's %hMN;3 remand on reception center issues wherein it found that evidence on traffic had 66M.@MMhMQT Q) f r l$ k M g $ h 0 E M,I'j been improperly excluded from our consideratica of the functional adequacy of % ?' .} - the Nassau Coliseum to serve as a reception center. In its remand order, the M. 2,M@s M2),?.g:p~.) Appeal Board observed: H. e '. v q.n ', 2.: 6 >., y '.,% Q;;}, y n,. p.. A, .,j ,.w <'W But, manifestly, a recepim center that is beyond the reach of the pusons it is set up to
- 4..
N. W , j f, '.y'.5 '; V ]' serve cannot ful611 its intended purpose, no matter how well the facitity might be de signed
- ., S.
,,,]5 s 4 ~, j. W and equipped. +..,,..u,. ..o .. -., _.n u
- w. G,y s
. JM,4 ALAB' 832, supra,23 NRC at 16162 (1986). u ( . qc 3 o r he issues in the remand hearing that relate directly to traffic problems -,7, ,,. y 41 associated with recepdon centers are: 1 o v. s ,c '4,';. #,.,AI. _,.L' Y'Q;* 'j, f $pr. ,. j ?., J*, Whether transportation and trafGc problerns ridght develop as a resuh of the recepion centers' Q l,p.T, i' .,j 7 :'.5.. _:;,p/,4g;M. : ? )] locations and their distance from the plume EP7. ., se c N.C[!}.'.');.:C s'f';-[q.f,p.3g he adequacy of evacuation routes to the three Ilt,CO facuitie: proposed as reception centers, '; q y M. y,,.y 7,5,,3,4;.".f .,g. - .p W.V inclaks the effects of traf6c congestim on the way to and in the vicinity of the facilities, -,v? . <m 9..,j ]m._,m.y.'"l: $ and Ilt.CO's Revision 8 proposal to employ traf6c guides on Nassau County roadways. r.. ,y ' m a .t..g,' OQrQ. 'j,:h^*'*f,M Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Modon to Reopen Record and s. w. +,j s j, ' .g ' f,'.*.f . 's...., ?_ p; Q. T\\ ,,, ic6%,. 1.1 9 Remand of Coliseum Issue), December i1.19,6, at 7, 'i8 (unpublished), . j~,@ - ] A number of othcr issues raised by the Appeal Board or the Intervenors c ' g, a,: ,7.Y:N potentially impacting the road capacity assessment -including shadow evac. Tr [- >y j M;;([ untion, LILCO's monitoring procedures, and its staffing requirements - are C 5.;s, - / r V M : ;th considered and resolved herein separately. This is necessary due to the inherent s ,. f, }N D,.'f ' :.[.[i$. T. {]i ~ '. f, f "M f complexity of wnat became a muldpararneter problem in litigation. S'l l Sc$h. Although Intervenors expressed numerous detailed concerns about road ca. i V. ' f,, g,,! f r:< ..y w e l.L.( ic,cp J. '. f;p?.. 'l pacity, it was apparent from the outset that a principal element of disagreement m about traffic focused on the planning basis that defined the number of evacuees s. . ? 9 .). that would have to be accommodated at the recepdon centers rather than the m 7 " R, f c ',., 3 f s. [ Y.,,.f ),y:. ' ';'. N/[..'. /.;l J. intrinsic capacity of the highway system to carry traffic. See NY Exh. 5 at 39
- :s.
m.,.oc p .,y .v ,t <, J.
- w,.'
v.,*e - - (- 7* M n)',w+
- gy a
e(l-ig, n[g l
- .y G ' y q,., l ' ' g y,,,., y ;;.s'w
+p; -f.NW ' < K-A *r.. d. ', ' u We note a diversece between the positions of $s starf and tJ!ro as $e maner of %e applicabsty of thi f--(;*? *' d.c.g.'-O g(y,l 7 / W y] N, l. rdhig. The stas would have na 6ad that capacisy forup a 30% m<ntorms wi@ ad hoe measures to espend" the , 1 'g. + 'y p 'l'R y,.*;; * *, *4 espaddity is adeqwe toe a andmg limited saect.ca'Jy a shoreham. sta'i propoced Fmdusan at 20 n.s. Ilt.Co
- y. t. l,* ' l :,,,- '..7,
. b,] woWd have us rule that 204 is adequate thro's Reply a staff Propsed Fedess at s. Since ce tesurreny
- -J+
y j, or me starr and FDtA supports ce 20% fgure, ** see no reason m larn.it our Andmg as the staa requesa ( h *.. 8 t'
- f "
e 6 M.p,, 9
- 2
, s." $24 L d %d e... TI 1, y y' 9..,.'e~. .u l 0 2 a
- n. -
s.....n ~.e a 4 .s
- [
E l ',.,,.i ...s. ., r. c .J .Y
- 3,,,
'.s. s. i. .~.
- . 3 g,.
-.y , * ( y r 3 .f. 4., 4 ~ ' + t ..i- ~ s ,g. .'J. ,u g'. M*. ..t e 4, % 4 Y
3..,
- e...m a.g n.
.,l 'h ' U ' - " }'.
- e.,. -
,.q .7 .n ,; h, *' '" A ' 1. '. N J. 'a $ k. .i ra ,p, ? w. j q 3 ,v w 'y, i c. aJ. w (Hangen and hiillspaugh). Put in simplest terms, the streets and highways to be
- y. Z ' Y'1 9
used to access the reception centers would accommodate the additional traffic R',#-?; W } " '% if the traffic demand ts not too great. If, on the other hand, the traffic demand r,. for service is much higher than L1LCO plans because background traffic wiu y. ,i be higher than normal or shadow evacuation occurs, congestion in streets and
- h.,
4 ~ highways might prevent access of some persons to the reception centers within !.e * > /.E. the time presenbed in NUREG 0654 iL12. }' s 'W,v.- Intervenors presented their case on traffic in a manner that could not be N,M. rigorously compared with LILCO's assessment because their planning basis W 't 4, 3 assurnptions were entwined with their traffic analyses. None of the cases they l 'l,7' '.. 7 > - c '. a, f presented in their prefiled testimony corresponded directly with the case LILCO [' ' ' b";l's presented and we are therefore precluded from making symmetrical comparisons a ,1, l 3, ~ ' of the respective positions. NY Exh. 5 (Hangen, hiillspaugh). Because LILCO carries the burden of proofin this proceeding, we first assess the validity of traf6c p.,.1 f Y' analysis presented under its planning basis, taking into account any controverting g p',7,,, evidence presented by intervenors. We examine separately the validity of the .i . Y,M ;'- planning bases of the parties to determine whether LILCO's planning requires
- ? 6. Q<
- f{ [..n,.
modification, in this decision, we find that LILCO's planning basis is adequate. See supra. There is therefore no need to determine here whether the traffic consequences that result from Intervenors' traffic scenaricc will make LILCO's ~. q', facilities unsuitable as reception centers. E .i ';, s,.. ..*n r( .c g 7:.. s LILCO's Traffic Analysis V.;,., r?.; '.', 4 '7..,. + a v.. LILCO's analysis of traffic was presented by hir. Edward Lieberman, Vice b\\ $ b,'# 4 2 ~ 9 y [' g a.?.' 5 /,NT[ President of KLD Associates, a witness in these proceedings whom the Board h,.l;'f[f p .r. . ]~ Y, ~ found to be well qualified in the field of traffic engineering. LILCO Exh.1,
- U.,
e' Attach. C (Crocker, et al.). The analyses of traffic expected to travel to one of ' ' ',, ;. c - e.
- 'T :..'.1.
f-LILCO's three reception centers after departing the western boundary of the EPZ i'MA ~-,.. was contained in three documents prepared by hit. Lieberman. LILCO Exh.1, [ ?#,' 50e [N 'f E Attachs. hi, S, and T (Crocker, ei al.). KLD TR.192 reported on assigntaent of f.. s evacuees to the road system from the EPZ to the reception centers and provided a F ',, j d *, '. [ ' b. preliminary road. capacity analysis. Subsequently, KLD submitted KLD TR.201 L.J. f R. t l and, shortly thereafter, KLD TR4.91 A, which contained revisions including a { ' 45 4 *. M,.* YT c^ ramp-capacity analysis not in KLD TR 201. Throughout the proceeding, LILCO E'D.:/.$N,;c ,[. ' M. 2 .~ f.'d J. M f [.6.I*'.J', relied primarily on its analysis in KLD TR 201 A, and its findings therein were ' ;e [.((g'Mj '$}.% ' 7 tle principal subjects of dispute on taffic issues. i f,C M
- 4. j., Af if, As noted, supra, LILCO relied on FEhf A guidance contained in the "Krimm
,'? 'Q.fpt M$R ' 1 hiemorandum" for its planning basis for the number of evacuees that would K ] N. $ k t.'ilc [p. %,, y : g, h have to be monitored at the reception centers in an emergency. FEhiA Exh. I M,1j#y g'Q K -}/.;i N i;.g.P ./ (,'[ (Baldwin, Husar, Keller); LILOO Exh. I at 9 (Crocker, et al.). That guidance ',W. 9%
- l asserts that planning to monitor 20% of the EPZ population would be an r m g.h..n. i
,.g,.p : 7. ".4 ) w s: . l..u( Qc;M Q::< t t.w.,. s: n y: O.%. p : j. Y s ,.',.;.. m u....
- y. '..J, n....'s. f 4g:^,.y.. ~..h w.,
Q,.. s.e
- s..g.g. y u.,.. s.c
- K. !..
- w.. i
.q s g: l,h:.c? y&r.lf l.,h. N.Yf3 ; e 6 -"_.c t Q, E ' ~.. s ,:.Q,j'?. d" . a. y va, h :,: .? t D Y:Y' f i,t;#,,, i, .N :g,'. ty.,".M ph.- '; 4 "L s.... n.,u.... R 3 ',' *. ' >
- .d..
r n p i. f. VM. .f'1 v. i, .s v.- 'l.> 3. G :; ' ;.[ ,..t._ n.,-.,;. 9, 3. 7yr. -,., ,.,n..,.3 '1 s.... ~ : , u;.,; - n.,y cg.. 4; < :. y' 6, D #' Q.- 5 ' $ .{ -[ [T< ,,; y, - pll,, l.$,I - ,,'N .Q.
- f.., l
,,c g', '(.} j .}, _ p5. '., T.'
- /
.L ./ .n,..a:m, eg].c p.v,2... glm a,y*. . ; y< >, 'O. ,i',.,. O.7 .A s ,s
- fs,).
, W >y. -'r '. 'f V ' ;,3.,., h. \\ '**",.q..,!. L Q:(.g._. J. ,., :: e.. e, y ,,, ~r; q n 3J L
- j w.h( 7,,; m..,..,1,.y)y 3
o q, , ;,- ; - k,.' .- V &. g; _g a 1... J .s
y w:'i~., 4. $ Y. 9 W L'.~. Q J S' W. m 'Y '.:.'~... .s.y' w to:ma AMP ... w > n n 1 Y W"; ";'P Y 7 C F 7,,.' N...- i.. '; 5 i - . P' '. i ' 1 e s. SSN M.
- W. M. ; y q. G M ; f'f l~. 5 ? ?. T O '
2Y iG L ' A: f l l 1 ' y& - $ ! ~ ll 10.T*'".l' ? .}' ' O U, G,'{('f:f.y* $.,h N. ': y ' !'}-f *. l ~. V. .~ ,Y c.
- 19. Sp -
n~. '*q. $.. h.. c-q y a i:q,.s ;y:q,. 3.3 : x -?;..-y:a p.,', / . c. wm.s.~ . ~. -c -~ r.:tw,7.W..A :: q . -j,y y c q y ~ o s. 3. :.. >' - s: '. Q e y ;f M . ~ "i @ i..; n f,.;r*.)c..' ' C. ~ : ,n.'. n..e,,. - .m. . [ :' s >' % y.N., E,'<: u [y M.d.,. y f,:y.%' y'.h,S ' t ., ~g >..t ,F-adequate basis. However KLD performed sdditional analyses based on an Ml.JWJ[X^,y; ' 3:Mjg.7, Nl[.MM!k [.T.Tyl-M $% to LILCO's plan it would take steps to expand its monitoring capability on an .L. assumption that 30% of the EPZ population would be monitored. According )W YM,# ~l. CQ ad hoe basis if more than 30% of the EPZ population sought rnonitoring in an s; 4 RF.. g'y,M A 'ty: X.9 emergency. Id. at 4,52-55. @ QM,QOQ I ,3.?> M. 41 In performing its analysis, KLD made route assignments from thu EPZ to the W. M. +l]. W f. f ' ~ g.g.c. s.DW.k... '. 9 three centers, considered traffic congestion on the main east wet routes from 4 ,.. o. .i
- ft,7\\
,' % s d the EPZ io the vicinity of the three reception centers, asscJsed traffic problems at / c w.g *... .o,. 4 *.c. intersections on the local streets that would be used to access the three centers, g..,, .g . 3 3,. ;.. 7
- g..m, estimated the time it takes to monitor vehicles, and considered dispersion of s.
.,7e r ;,c..,[ q, '- r traffic exiting from each center. KLD assumed without numerical analysis that ? ' ^ ^ .' A f, at "Level of Service F' (LOS F) which is described in the Highway Capacity traffic on the major routes between the EPZ and the reception centers would flow . 3. / -3 C ', ' l' ', .N Manual (HCM) as a condition where the volume of traffic (V) demanding space
- 3..,, _*';.y,
- 7, on the highway exceeds its capacity (C), and breakdown of flow occurs. That J
. ((,' - % ej condition is determined analytically when the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds V,'? d,., fi I (V/C greater than 1). The effect of LOS F is congested flow characterized by
- ~~
N . } ( /d: .O low average traffic speeds, stop-and-go traffic, and formation of traffic queues. ",g,., 2 3 d Average highway speeds under those conditions are known from experience to ^. be in the range of 17 30 miles per hour (mph). KLD estimated the volume p '. " g. f ' W 7 M,-] {K.ZT7 of evacuating traffic that would actually be serviced under those conditions, 4 >* d '.p gg,. assuming that the entire EPZ population evacuates and either 20% or 30% of the m. , g.f.,~ 7 J, y population goes to the three reception centers. In so doing, KLD first analyzed 7 -s. 7 f.,,.y cg;.,i.} c g j cases where either 50% or 100% cf the measured peak period background traffic 7 y,,. -.. @. - could also be on the roads when an evacuation began but later accepted that c_ ,f*, f, 'd 100% of background should be used in its analysis. [ , ?g - vc "...;l 1 After performing its traffic analysis, KLD reached the conclusion that the , ? ',7 monitoring rates at each of the three reception centers, and not highway capacity, Jy control the rate at which evacuees can be serviced (monitorea, decontaminated 7-],,, i ,h .j ] y.. if r'ecded, and assigned to congregate care centers if requested). They found
- )
further that the hourly ruonitoring capacity was sufficient to process 30% of the . '. A- 'j evacuees in less (nan the 12 hours called for in NUREG-0654 $ J.12 and that, .J.+ s o ' 5., - , }; ., 9. [j in fact, LILCO's ultimate capacity for monitoring would permit it to monitor e ,i.f, q'. [A.7,}fj that time period. An important finding from the analysis is that although traffic about 46% of all of the evacucas from a complete evacuation of the EPZ in ,I' .,f Q 7].; congestion would exist on the roads and highways, congestion would not prevent .. a F.?, "I En the timely monitoring of all evacuees expected to arrive at reception centers under the planning basis even though there would be delaying effects relative [ ' q (,, g - to unimpeded traffic flow. Indeed KLD assumed that traffic will be congested p,..a V.' ] on the major routes from the EPZ, and the analyses show that local streets and }- M: intersections would be congested and that lines of waiting traffic will form at . n. 4.. the entrances to each of the reception centeis. Such lines, however disagreeable .A' ~ m 4 526 i e, g 4 E p 9 a e g 4. e g T ,h 4 __a
. 7., - ,. z{'# .y,,.a a. g :..,..., ~ , ~,
- f J [} {,.
g:, ; [; l j,,.., - c- ,,.
- J.' ;].'
.*e ? ' y...W,:e.,. ,o. " W. X.., c.. s. ~ ~ - ,. -. n?,, .r m- ~ t.j_.. ,_s,.,. - uc4.' ;.w;%.u y. . n 9 u.3 2, , ~; a, r,. ' s,c. - y,- i y y. 4 ,- n .,7# Wr " s f /*'N;.i '.
- g.,
n.~..., . ~. ,q 'i'. ]N-i p. r. <c a.' c.> n. , r .:. g ....m to evacuees, are an advantage to the monitoring process according to KLD since 4 T,' they provide a continuous supply of cars to the reception centers that keeps 1 [' j.1.(. 1 c [.,,y[M:k ., - them working at full capacity until the monitoring task is finished. Th 18,581 e (Lieberman). In LILCO's view, since the reception centers have more than the requisite capacity to mordor its specified planning basis for evacuees, there is 3l2 7 i 4 ~ s no need to expand the capacity of the centers themselves simply because they b ' 'l.1. W: w f N.',. are rate controlling under its plan. LILCO Exh. I at 3 4,30-32 (Crocker, et al.). Although there was some disagreement about decontamination rates, all parties % /. ',.' y .f ' '( 7 ~ came to accept that monito,ing and not the other services of reception centers s'O, D,., [ * , $y > l i f controlled their capacity. J,.,? ' ', P D, ' l' - {* ' KLD performed its traffic analysis by first assigning traffic from sarious entry points within the EPZ to major highways and then assigning routes to . "y M m ,4 the reception centers. Routing assignments were made to maximize available EN x h. reception center capacity and road capacity. According to KLD, the routes were f ' y'J..'.?< .f also chosen for simplicity so that evacuees could successfully follow them in F an evacuation. The State claims, however, that the maximization of capacity I3 s. ~ y, f' utilization that was achieved by this exercise was only a theoretical benefit that U."'.~..t._,. might not be achieved in practice. Individuals might not follow their assigned "dr, g.,, routes in an evacuation, with the result that some routes will be overutilized ,a. . + and scme underutilized, causing congestion and delay not accounted for in the ':.t M d' KLD analysis. KLD believes, however, that route switching by evacuees will be I'. Pf X. - ' ' C 'i - s minimal and, in any event, will tend to balance out with no net adverse impact f.,t'v. ",X y, ;..- on highway congestion. LILCO Exh. 26 at 4 5 (Lieberman). W<.,', K 9',;.j,L.'Wlg ).O W v - m.. p(..ng LILCO's analysis of traffic capacity employed standard procedures speci-a fled in the 1985 HCM, published by the Transportation Research Board. These q..'. t. c b.. !.. e, 9.1.15, t. o,s,.. ;. r ? n.- -. pros 'res were programmed for computer use by the Federal Highway Admin- " "Mf.4;>.'. istration, and this software was used for the studies contained in KLD TR 201 p?C'45 7. W,.'m';S..y N;)b 4, 4 N.N).lS N N ;.'y '.!,1.3 '. [ 'I and 201A. Intervenors did not challenge the use of the HCM software and in lI5 NQ...E.Wa I N,W.9 fact used it themselves in their effort to rebut LILCO'r case. The substance of N.B..M.. c $.. 4..: s N.,'mN.. W,.' Intervenors' case against LILCO was that the analyses done by KLD were im-6 /,,' ,1,~_ f'.? W.,' M.. d proper becaug it had uset unrealistic EPZ population estimates for evacuating C,M. M. i.,,.. [V;. +.\\ 1.,2 traffic, or faulty traffic data bases or assumptions in its analyses. Intervenors 7.g?,3, produced a number of analyses, using their own models and the HCM software, @yJ;c Q' fa.?,.,';.;Wg,. y~E m showing that if different data were used or different assumptions made, the re-J,. ; W _,
- d....,' :,
sults would show a less favorable traffic flow than found by KLD. His, in turn, (gj.,QQi, l.'i '.%,y,.9:. l'. j ,c. would render the reception center plan unworkable. NY Exh. 6 at 16 (Hartgen, P i3;".j.,$.gf/ g;. p,.) t3j'y:.;j' Millspaugh). .U.%;;<-/6 s '~1 f 37." - d, - d The analysis performed by KLD required KLD to obtain field data on traffic E M E.M i %'l' 9(n,,$,. N... before it could run the HCM software. Ficfd data were collected on background
- f..S -
,d P....,7,JU M. b f '3 .I traffic flow during peak periods, using machines to record the flow and on traffic m !.Q S'fyl f-%- . 'q signal timing by direct observation and measurement. KLD also obtained data dMM.;?. ~7;Ed"N,,.T:e ' U W g u. ..a j.w.
- 3. y ~-.%: A.... #,,
.,, q*. a s.. p. 4.'a 4. -... :/ wlg'$.+m:., m'.a'2 4 t?.. a.l fv.;., Q: 1:s v 527 O
- n. m
[ D*;h' :.,4, ; W L a.. " h -5.*c.'hh ",n. m$y.%..'.'.h
- f,*(
. ". ;,, y ;;s.e *s .g 8.;...a. u.;, ? 0;*.':% Q: t * 'y.. c,.. ..a ..., y r s 4 . nr%a,. '4. ','..? ;
- 4
- +.,
J, ;. s by t AM a y,D Y
- l
. > Q.h'm, l.y, : ' 4.! n t. N .;;.,N ',:: * %"':"' *,*>M ;;;~* , ?.'r,U
- .?l.<,.
'. v: *.bfl'hl4,K,, e
- :e. e. - Yf m s:e em. *;", N:7.:c.
9:o g*,,. ;\\.:;s % +,s .,. a ;A ':.: e n, J,1 ~..'c0:j., q.J ',po...s.. m., a 4 ;,' w :.Y..+.M -L"'- ( m. L, . i, n. s;.,..ye. 7 . c; .4 , W,'j.:.;3 ,;d ;. y s. sw.. *, , ;. ? D *' ;p.4 . y y ~,. '. ~ ;... 2-s a. . b., ' !.. T. ~..,. - Y.*, i 6}..p> . 7 m,. e. - ', ;. '* k.. ~. n!- T.. %..eL..w.
- v.. :. ; n..
- lD A... c%.
,'*v-.:pls c;;:: k:y*t mm'Wicd M." ;'e'l.$.G5 'm.i(e .v h..:;:! ;x...'s;4... ; ...x ,3 -
- Q-.,%.,',
s. c
- g ~
.-~i 3 s ..Oc ^; ',.1.,;,,...y e y',.'.., y ?/' S 'c,f. '.,.,o,.4., (f. ; .. ~,. -t (. ;, c d y L.n $ : %'k,.M. p,' W~..**,. 4 _.c r...; v, o.. g..v. 3,...N.. _, , %g,' ,b 4 s J ? (e.Q! * 'f.W.,i!g.m.e. ~, - D : 3 m').'l.V 4 %. '..,.*.p - %..,. cyp.. a't'$ 4- ?g ; m, g,. e,;:.'.4 v w-M ws m.
- e. a f ',2.?U :'
M l u s. u m e. %.6,4$ e.'y.Tf t.*- j 2_ r.
{m*.' a; ?)l.Wf$$f fh J.g f ji? A.Y s E ?? b.f i. ,j N o *k hQ s *.m Cg'.f;c*,p.. h..s& YWW <. - - % 7 %; %Y.:X' i&G^%l:i ' ' 4:,p e '
- a;i:.M?lWf.M,q.Q< r,.g;*%.%.9&.f'd,p.x w:wA v :w. :.il:,M,Q c. f W5M:.3li;:
. v..s N&. i n b: %'Q e.@ k .C'%';, v '.;,c. m .A u.w w%>~.%;~ w m.. e. @n,\\.?..tre ~ 4 "W
- f.
S;.;f %, s. ::a[f. +- -- %s. e f*.s. .mc. - v 7; s i>. s - s g A u. c. .o. ',.,,. m n* o s s*,.. >; ;, * -...s..,. 3 4,. %.p 2 % yi *;*{. ...Y...e.. .,..m. '.L ' n ... ;(, ' :s ',,g.'g s -..
- y s
D %'l> e. .$*, tr.,,; s.
- q* $,,3. '. *
.r ' vg /f g.. }-l %. c'~j m x., '. g.
- y.n. m.1 -' w*..,r}&,, l%.7.a.
J
- J
'.,.,/
- . Q..,%.(;).. _..Q t ~ -
a s, n-m L '*2 t, 7 .b.'. ?. f-: e .w .v .v... . ' #a S- [ ' ' d ' n.,o+jy; ;,;e }T'.,.r k;j'.%,'.,,:. !.Y'. W.. i O % Y::.d(.U # i+ < a. E.
- M
' l' T[ ' -'..d * .. - D ';. " "J'N. "="~3~
- ' *n *
'.b ""*"[-**~* A.- y ' r
- ~*-=**'-*"'~'t*w
^ t y;. g.s,y.Q.; ~.,M. 6, "- -~ '* i,. 4 :. # 9
- n.,
1 y:Mj'.,.*- sy9 (E..p s}* ; ".3 , (,. j<. s$'. % t., * 'd'. 'CQN ? W J. Qjl.,' '..,,.), .%,,'t Q,.;(. ; *
- Q'
- M. s y
s s. 4 ty,.,; $ 'c,s. ~4' *,.:,. w p F,w a.. 4::.q's;.;j ( .W . s.. 1 x % p$;. &q',y 4..,g.,;. w q g. W ; %q > W:3MJWW y W.n$b,$j@.iim[.%.;d'%;
- p?.7.
u..p,, ..Py s y.@
- /.dMhl3Qd on turn movements of existing traffic at key intersections that would be utilized yje.QWghcy. ; 9W'..# 71.Mj d by evacuating traffic to approach the reception centers.
M i$ M D $' E M 5 $ N :Pd Intervenors assert that these efforts resulted in unreliable data that could not MNNMhII5 hNM),Dl be used to plan for monitoring at reception centers. According to Intervenors, I M.WYjh MM.Dj@J.?.ws..%.n{.,}l !3Mc i machine counts of traffic turn movements are more reliable than counts taken ..y.NW Es.~.N..wM//- b observers over short intervals and should have been used to estimate turn Y .30 b.':p?;;\\R.....m:@y..
- . JG. c..+ ?y w#/7. ;
movements. Similarly, it was alleged, KLD could have used actual traffic signal fdf,. EM9,.' s ' - ..qv... M' p " %, %. settings supplied by the State to estimate "green time" for evacuation traffic, but s s* s.. : VM. M, t.v. n',.;,..s$. 3 t 4_ ".J.:2.~ cy. e.b.;.,M,. ya].
- v,N.. f
~ in many cases it ' id not. The field data collected by observers were unreliable, d ~. ..'n
- c..
v ,t y >y. &..-c.M.;.",.. y a..?.; ;.,,e.';, assert Intervenors, because the signals are traffic actuated, and exact estimates of g .m^. ,,. y y q ' %..l1.:. '. ';j '/ assertion of adequacy rests also on monitoring times at reception centers, which ,y,. @.y' J 4 Fi;J > ~ maximum green time cannot be obtained by this method. Additionally, LILCO's V .y' @ "V % f.fcn ... g.! intervenors claim to be seriously understated. NY Exh. 5 at 55-56,6163,67 . y fq.Q.r.'Qk./ g,1Q D.',h i 'd (Hartgen, Millspaugh). ..pp g 'p 3 w 3,..p.~. 1 3 4 , 2:.:? J,%:',; '.ln,y, ? y,.,%,, .s y.,,. ( Q.s..M; Intervenors' Position .c u.. G
- M,, '@J.W' Ng.'.jWe;. E.J f,.
.,A n ~ e, .P. ' - iM..>.: p ' l'. ne State presented testimony of expert witnesses Dr. David Hartgen and .';.3;l./V M. S M J M.C T @p Ec]:.} ..%\\ Mr. Robert C. Millspaugh who conducted their own traffic analysis of the .; Q' 1-n reception center plan using a traffic model termed CARS. NY Exh. 5 at
- f. ', c. ;,* y,. M....s;/MN +,34.t.. M 33, Exhs.1, 2 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). The State assessed eight cases or 1
2,: 3.D.5 %.7;d? E M. y 3.W/x;) scenanos which it said constitute a sensitivity analysis that reveals the impact a s - 3 ej,. i 7,'@, c, M,.l,f.@#.+Y..# ,12,,b..,..,?.._ Qd %l: - M of assumptions on the estimated volume of traffic that would have to be served . i i_.." . NM '. yEM in an emergency. The cases started with a low estimate consisting of 30% of f:@7 m@.f.3 / @i:Q.M 1,J c7 j the EPZ population and background traffic at 50% of nctmal. Traffic volume .i., 3.;,@c.. H.uf e,.1/ 4.,. ::.;p d was increased in successive cases, culminating in three that used projections ..,a s ... v,.. ..,,. <. y. . g,..c ; of 150% of normal background combined with other assumptions such as the n. y Q,. k
- ,1,' V-@.j anticipated volume after 5 years of projected population growth. NY Exh. 5 at
[, I J L p. y / Q [y. g Q. m ., '.i N#.: 33-41 Attachs.1013 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). ?'g;pN ( h,,"~i[f.f ?g..W[d M~a F v t- .. l TNF Results of the analyses were expressed in part as the ratio of volume of traffic y~, @, divided by the capacity of the specific road link being analyzed (V/C ratio). His l P 7 M,. WJ-Q jp.p y -y% @.1 ratio is assertedly important to traffic analyses because its magnitude corresponds 37.- f./,- 7M to the degree of expected traffic congestion. When V/C = 1, traffic congestion h,; g,;-$ p occurs because the demand for capacity is equal to actual road capacity. When '^~ ^ A.. @ [ ' N.y N'i cf. 7,. O ?' *d y/dN ' ' / " N V/C exceeds 1 for a link, forced flow, congestion, and queuing occur (LOS F). .J J 4 i Re State's analyses show that long traffic queues would exist on the roadways - f?J.,-m-f,y~ after 12 hours. NY Exh. 5 at 61,67,70 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). i . Vp, h ii.i; 3, ' $ ne V/C ratio cannot physically exceed one on any real roadway because j I [.S M. $.'O ff.O i I J ',']i that would indicate the impossible situation where more traffic passes along j e, . y.f e.. i ?... c f,yM m@- c.c,1 yj 1.. $ d..,..i a road than it can accommodate. Nevertheless it is reasonable to compute a j .u.# s, 97 9 y ratio greater than 1, and the result is meaningful because the projected demand l
- c.. m c.
3.; l s l.,,,.: : x..g. .i. 5 g.;. -, *'e-l g 528 ..t
- s l
e, , *., ')- %AFi \\%, g 1' ~ .i f e ., ;,.s- ...g s,
- b,.
. u ',,,' h e ), .~,.,, i -c 'f ', ; h w . ~ - qy 4 + "\\, , j'. i ' g g ... -ti.a .-.s.=+..-. ~. --.
.E,,.h Q,i. %:.m@.y @h $ 4 6 O (MyN.y.TSI.I. I '. n,< i F 1 ' j ? "'. f,' i .l. v. s. w:- v ..~ n. 3,
- @,sM. 5h.m ~..
f...... .,n, ,. g '. A: c:.; ~ '..,..,., '..'J. 's s
- 'sw....,s.e.,. c y e s, s...,.,c%.,
m.,..; c.~y...~. - .e. -e s w r ~. 8-i c [ . p. ~< f. h;- c., x, m,. :".., 2.-~;, y.. / - +. %(;w. n.m .e.:'.~:..., .,,;,y ' u ~, e, . n.o e,, m. .a , 6,,,.' .Q f *~ ' ; ',s ,...g, + ..~%- w g 1. )*,. .\\ s,. ,s ((V)olume) in an emergency may well exceed the existing road capacity for ] y- [:. F substantial periods of time. "c The State's results show at least some intersections on routes leading to }" -e reception centers as having projected V/C values near 1 or larger for each eC;,* 1. l of the cases it considered. Not surprisingly, the number of such instances increased with the State's assumption of severity of demand. In the State's 3, case, DOT 4, for example, which assumed 100% background traffic,50% of the 7 EPZ population going to centers, and 50% evacuation shadow, the State found ( yf... f twenty two intersections on routes to the reception centers for which demand
- 6;N' O'.'c%
would exceed their respcctive capacities. Queues of 3 miles would form, taking @2 d. [l ' MN longer than 12 hours to dissipate if this case materialized in an actual evacuation. Y') U, 9 1. y *
- L NY Exh. 5 at 43 (Hartgen, Millspaugh).
L.. l', (,c_ The State analyzed three critical intersections, one near each of the reception v centers, found high V/C ratios for each, and projected that, in an emergency, long , J t.' traffic queues would form and still remain after 12 hours. The State assumed ?
- ' _/
higher and, in its view, more realistic traffic demand than LILCO did in its I analysis of the same intersections. .~ De State's critique of KLD's analyses was based primarily on its view that [.' .y KLD should have used t. larger planning basis to assess the traffic flow in an emergency. The several cases it analyzed differed from one another, and [.c s,.6: ,? ~ h.y.,. - ^ I(C, N ;M.,,, l. /.'. %, l LILCO's, primarily in the tssumptions made initially as to how many vehicles ^ J' would be on the road. De value of the exercise, Intervenors claim, is that it .o c. ,t.. demonstrates the sensitivity of the conclusions to the input assumptions. Rus, 'a
- K.f m
W %l,N g.]' 1 ib. #.y3 [" 5$ M in their view, we cannot accept LILCO's analysis because even though it shows N.Y. that traffic congestion will not be a factor in the Applicant's ability to monitor the number of evacuees in their planning basis, the conclusion is unreliable and >p.i.7e C. G.n.%., $..1. {.',bil,J.N M. u. SO, *. d. : ',. g.,5,:, Q.+ ... S,. would change for the worse if one of the State's more realistic planning bases ht$(~$lN74bl',,3.f)2iyM'j.yp were used instead. While at first glance the dispute between the parties appears TM M.. d d s j to be a war of computer models, in reality it is not. It is instead a conflict over Mhy.yg.f'$.Ql-Q. Q.cy/;S subjective assumptions to be used in computer models. De Intervenors use their analyses to press their views that we should reject FEMA's (and LILCO's) gy-gj,lp,Q 4. d '..*,' ? ly i g l} gg.g.,. ',f... ; if.' y#ij.p[:@' lg,W,'.g, gl,.y
- ". l /]',
planning basis because a large shadow evacuation will take place, or because .i more than 20% or 30% of evacuees from the EPZ will seck monitoring in an j:x.,p:dJx 'N.. ;' y, . ~ ' p. emergency. e. * ' 0, '1 He litigation also produced an array of detailed technical disputes on narrow ' J.?,MP, MW., O'...... q,. - M.ffW);'@w.:.-M J. - v. n .d.N ff},N%.Q :. Qfy..M.' issues related to quantitative traffic assessment through prefiled testimony, cross- . 'J ' " W ' % 3 W "M. ' s,. '6,..g examination of experts, and a flurry of rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony filed $ $ N .O' @ t5 N C:E. [ by LILCO, the Staff, and the State. Rese are all considered in this Decision to sll the extent parties briefed them in their proposed findings.12 I ~3.51*O.f'f,M.W 8. , '/ 4' '/. /:. I ' ;,,. ~ '. ~J, * *) k .;J p.y,.h,.' - A ...e 8 ~,.*4;,,... ~i J. .$.,J. 4. M y p;5M *W. s 12 1ntervenors did not brief several of these issues in dispute and w consider thern abandcried. These include: l .. ' { h.:.4 ('"jj', ':
- M W.: c ','* Q}..
L! effects of read constructacri, gridlock, aversge highway speed. delay times calculated by HCM softu:c. time 3a x. . g +6.@. :. *.4.Q y,W'.
- f,.- r.
(CondmarnQ 3 4rL 3,r*ts%./,~) r. a .a c g .? P.. ' ', v. n-N.. t-Yi a. .e ,13.. ; eN.* :y., v : y'A ? l'T I.h.. W x: M. b 2l *.[ cw t rer.1.y...me /.,
- iW~. 't... i' i -., "
.9. r. JCN 9 S29 J4 A/ u Q:%. : %.m :n. f"t',. *, ..Y a *' & .Q ' V, r4 .s hh'd.I.,"Y,Iy[Y. :l5 i.','. k'? y,f 1
- ,v.M w. 4 D f g.b. ;O., /. 'a.. m. 5 c.) 1y 6,.,[.., M
-M ? ' *, L - y %, $. ?jp/,,b, d, ;',k ".. :', s *
- a.
,, M,;.* I( , ] ? +.f - t
- 4 f.s y"e*
- cj 4
.s "J'c).,m.y ..',.g, f h,...... } '7'*l'".'*-M'.' T.;.: *Q*'].'? lf "*y"- .. m m] '3',. g. 'A.y.j.f.; w- + "r,'. , y ; /'; ] s.w,.[- m - - >.. ~,h" c. M 2%. QN;...e.., y c.. 'a'.; w,.' x,/r.l.*.,,.. g .~/
- .;r
? x ; :.%:. v. cn.x': :f - k. sp , x... ': Ua Wc Y. . 4 s.> ' ]. [i ;, ' ?[... a ;- q,;ce. ... ' 9' .. w t'-l , N s .{c,7 - '.%. [7 -Q w [ {' . g % 'J p r, '[f 'l - - u. :y.yy v. 9.,.M...,{w. "y ,}a NGM9EMM(.g...,AbiinMi$$,, p. s.t.g.ma a -n o s a v ,r ....,; n..s :.v-u.
- y s.s,..
- .
,.~;.+v.0. c. y, y,,.y y;j
- f.6 ; s.-
~ %,: ,..7.. m. 1 op. ,w ?. s n x w w.x..
- m.c
- g.. a -g,y,dd.
e WHl;2 M6;t'h< l 1EddC.'3.7.t'.M;gs~jg ;(a.. .w .. -~ n..u j;3. j ;,,3.,,....;t. A.. . me yy , Dj #M tg ; /y, r.w a:. f la,rgcq, g.s. a .m .]. o '.. ts R DM G
y @3.w..y;w..yW W. :p&::g.._..v..v: % T 7P,~,.G.z:V M, &.,.~-:=y W>. O p.T T X.. T n; e :lf: gl%.&m.,h .q, .yr m]' ['Y, [(.; h['_S'N'M-.,$I$U.$..q'hO. i ..~ q.
- y.w
~.. >y c. mm....,. '. _ : - _' N' kx e/ D, ' 'lk 't A:fr'T, w., .s[ .:n,. .m , '~ #O ? W-??.:.&. v' '.'wl,$ $ $, ' ' '. ' '. O J'..:x.. lf, - '., ' 5 ' ,:wy .4 c.7,. a. %. - .j,4.'.m.;t..-- .. *;p, :.f:,:, n u. t r:.b... .1 s.:..x. :,. 5 '. Q. gly,.!. ? < y,.. s 4 s , ':2. ,? 6, 5 m.u .. s.: a. s.
- 3.. u ;:. :..::C.w. : = --
s: .'as - **f3. l- -?. s.; ~.; u,n.:..n.;n.:p;m :g; 1 /. * : *.. g'. .. pf j.t., ,,. [ j ti-:p. :... ~ ':y:c;; . 7,
- 1..n
.. ; > g q ;,;;, ,a ..rtf,y.;n@ty:;c. .\\.. -.N;(..'4 J.Jh M,. De State claims that KLD erred in its analysis by assuming that vehicles s ' 73h,%;. [if.. i T ? ri..~!'.c .m ~ would make left turns in two lanes instead of one as permitted by lane markings N @'.# % ':,4.:!.',.f. NJNn gjdk and signals at the intersections of Route 107 and Old Country Road serving %;;k.i 'J r ' 3;MV:gyhk{# <lj h / M.J 32.:J:\\ y i the Hicksville center and at the Long Island Expressway (LIE) eastbound 1pN, service road and Willis Avenue serving Roslyn. Such turns are said to be Mt.$.@.$i. ' ' 1 both dangerous and illegal because they conflict with oncoming traffic and 'R ; f/.* ?@.c?@JF...'g:32 G...'1;*drivers have obstructed views. While police control might improve the situation, Q '.y f. 4 s. 'j , s ;,'.6 e ^ F My Intervenors clairned that police control in an emergency would not be available c'.("'.]4,9.if.';. ;.C E f.Wf j/ ! tecause LILCO has no agreement with the Nassau County Police Department
- e
' Ni.27,M M to implement its emergency plan. Oovernments' Proposed Findings at 243-45. j' O '. ' ~Q,' s Additionally, it is stated, the police have not reviewed the plan so that they M,."~ could not make it work even if they do agree to participate. u. ,1 o. f .P d. b.'.;, ne Intervenors also claim error because LILCO did not consider futu c s .n..s. yy y, growth in traffic congestion which is likely to be worse than now. Error is also . c.i. '.w.., g. Sk' ' 4. [N. ' ? ' M-alleged regarding LILCO's assessment of traffic within the reception centers T.N'.Q themselves and of traffic exiting the centers. De interiors of the centers are '. 9-i',. ; 7 f'l E.. o. said to have obstructions and equipment in place which will slow the circulation 5 J N ,.'$:.' N.; e Y x, 3' y,, O :f.^,' . 7 ' p.,.}[."d backup into the centers which will reduce their capacity to monitor. NY Exh. 5 %1 of traffic. Traffic exiting the centers will encounter congestion causing traffic to c., c. .'b.M at 55-58 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). . J f... ' 4,. ',,,? 9, g '.;'? M2 0 j. ne foregoing factors assertedly combine to show that LILCO's reception
- p. p;l. N q 5.? C. O center plan is unacceptably faulty and that traffic congestion will prevent LILCO
%..,)yN. ' ' _ $ D.[;.l,j'g] from monitoring the population it has planned and cer'ainly any larger and more r.. ,d. .C W 1J. ',1, l j. realistic population volume. Derefore, in Intervenors' view, the plan should be
- g.., y y.
-.,.g ,r y..,. O rejected. . u. s. ~ . e,.,, o.,w...s..,~,.. ,n. .3.j u.: , a. t a ; a
- g; 9
? s: j' Staff Position on Traffic issues
- w..
.8 . ;, / :.,. c..,. [...;.1[" ' W[,.. - T-i.; : i c.' Dr. Thomas Urbanik 11 presented testimony on traffic issues on behalf of L.
- ,-f '. J H Q
- , f ' - uj the NRC Staff. Dr. Urbanik is an Associate Traffic Engineer with T*.xas
- s. l ; f " ",i ', f.,, c.' C. A. '... v Vf,6' g'%;.
A&M University who has previously been accepted as a qualified expert in y~
- ?
'j the Shoreham proceedings. Staff Exhs. 3,4 (Urbanik).
J 7,e
,.g w:m
.. ;, e :..
. p,, yt 7
.r
- m. m..
> a. 2: 4 k 's ; f,. ..1 relied on the HCM for calculating the capacities of the roadways. Staff Exh. 3 ^ ' at 4-6. In rebuttal testimony, Dr. Urbanik opined that the CARS model employed by the State experts is a transportation planning model for use in assessing land.use impacts of proposed developments. De CARS model is not a traffic operational tool and cannot be used to predict driver behavior on a link. specific w basis. It was a misuse of the model to use it for detailed traffic analysis in this proceeding although it can be used to identify alternatives on a broad scale. , :/ On the other hand. Dr. Urbanik agrees with New York experts that congestion will be extensive and that delays will be substantial. He finds, however, that p 5.. - the notion of level of service or V/C ratio is largely irrelevant because the i;' ?' N roads retain the capacity to function even under severe loading. De Long Island Expressway, for example, has level of service F (V/C over 1) every day .'./ for substantial periods. Nevertheless, thousands of people use it and make it to work each day. The level-of. service designation is, in reality, a measure y of convenience or quality in negotiating the highways and not an indicator of gridlock or breakdown of function. Staff Exh. 4 at 2 3 (Urbanik). ~y De successful implementation of LILCO's reception center plan depends on the capacity of the proposed reception centers to service the anticipated number of evacuees and on the capacity of the road and highway system between the EPZ and the centers to deliver the evacuecs within the time prescribed by NUREG.0654 6 J.12. De time requirements, however, are not directly related ,, ('. to protection of public health but are a means of ensuring that adequate resources F '," ' 'a. exist to implement the reception center plan. Tr.19,225 26 (Kantor). We resolve 7 }j.;? y N issues related to each component in the follovring sections. I.- ' Eiz.pf O ' s.,, ' E'.W. " J i;. ~ ,~ p.y. ./M. w. -'.c ( \\. y. s-o ,s D,,%en.%. v:.:.';.';me n". m,. Reception Center Capacity n, 9..y , -f. [ f,+A [g{' llc.,Y [' " '. ' ' ' {. [;, LILCO designed its reception center operations to perform monitoring of ' c E'q. (Ij. M f ;, ' $ T y J ' ' ' h., 30% of evacuecs from the EPZ even though FEMA guidance endorses a figure of 20% as being adequate. De three monitor centers - Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn - will provide a total of sixty three monitoring stations, each of M. N I %
- i '/, a,, }.,C.
~ which according to plan can monitor a vehicle and its occupants in 100 seconds. t.%, ',, <!, ,. y. ~.O. E '"..'., ' '..' C! 5{;, i 2.' ', LILCO Exh. I at 4,41 (Crocker, et al.). The total hourly capacity to monito was N W.'.-. A'~W i. calculated to be 1152 vehicles at Hicksville,576 at Roslyn, and 540 at Bellmore. j-Id. at 32. At those rates, 30% of 58,000 vehicles from a full EPZ evacuation {,C.,,.; s. c, '. '. ',.3 t ' > - lH , y f could be monitored in times ranging from about 6W hours at Roslyn to 9% ?. a. i hours at Bellmore. Id. at 33. While these are estimates for clear weather, LILCO / ',e
- y 4, ' ;, '
~. ' '...- K ? V.~. . p,, could also monitor 30% of evacuees under 12 hours in inclement weather. Id. i f %e. 1. 'i ij/ W.7, Q ;y 4 At the indicated monitoring rates, FEMA's planning guidance of 20% of EPZ evacuees could be monitored in somewhat more than 6 hours at all three W.
- 7. g '3,. p ;lf 7,.. g @g
^ ','.7.., c@. c ; Iccations. Id. at 37. If more than 30% of evacuees arrive, LILCO will implement u f, b ['.,g([ ' [* 5 ..,. e. 3.e!;.. a' e..n y^y . s '%" '.F W:r.,. ., d.., ) - t e., s :..,. m..'n
- 1 531
+ .c r,,,.j., ... q a 4D .s y c, g;.m.. t.:;g: ww.. ;. y,%jy ...g g p m ?:..,*.a..M,f f s Y.T. t. 3 a.
- c....
X.. [ : 1 ... {m.. ,,.,.. ;,r m.,, m ',. ..c, * - v. .,...v.,7(','...,], '-, ,, ;.. e.' 3.,,.. ,,,, * [ j., te, ., ' l. f, ,,8..s ,.] - ? t - e.g - s' p, ,[.'.'?'. . 's u.7' q 14 k .1 f.f'. ,,.t .tt. g *.[ ;e],u,t,. ' '.... ' ', '...., s:; -,*n 's, . j
- iS.c.,'"
f,:,, .te
- f.
- o
,.y,. I,,, P . ' f. ,,,,1 ,y j t' ' '-. ,[t.,.* Q ;; 9. '< s . L l .:,, 6 : g.:K 9,f. g. ",,h i.', f.gg:;.:p.V y :.,
- 4...p <ng :
. ; L.,,.f - ; e l: y N e c q. 1.. s.- x. 4...... ....r. b. U
- .'.s:s;,..w.w."
'i n '.6 ~. %... :. q' ' p'.'. ' ( . gm.' m.:c c a~
- b.. i....
' J ' '$ y.., w. g .- '-~: TI b " ? 'R:&^;h.Q.l4.:l9-Qi.EEW5[. 7 ' p[M; &: '.Q P M'.h*&@ ^. Md. ' 'O N0l556 $( y JUN %:O $; Q,/ t ,'.,W'n ...e-i.t L. :. T,". 4 "./;'g Ki l'.'9 'i ..a- 's f +'. v . M.... ',4.., .p
- 7 ' ':24 M:iM
+1i
m ; -m - c : NM $.%; =.z.,.m j m~. c.m.wt n: nye,RW) R MMFt 6 % w WJ 77v.CW.T... - wm - ~ W d%"W.jGH ;H:;;p. W W,m.%gpH.? ( % 4 M[fM, M 9 d f'$E 1 '
- t
.M ..q.6.. h.l%.'q v py.,..jd "WM
- h.D...y ~~ n %m::@ b. @%:..f '.'-' ~
f ? 9,c. ' h. d.'u W . ' L i. ' G ' ? & y .y'. ' n'
- c i
- ?
n a.
- /
?. c .;' p~. ?- w. ... v, ? .t,. Nf s ;. .... ' i ,4,.s.M ^ 5' i.t - t. ;n '.?
- 4.,12:.:: c: ;. l.:,' 3; A'".r'
.. %.-. '. 3.. ff G f.. ls
- 1.]
l ,, ;' g s* - s L:O,.' A'n.. 3 , [ V a. e: t M :_*l,'j,. '.. j,s,. ..x .u t i:. %, ;- n.. ..s,, .Y.l3 :: G'- . a. a. ~ x :.: ~. * % L~ ;L-r.p.., J. l n -a %..:.: .n p: . g.,
- c.. -
- m:q%.,;n *,,
. m. g.: r y, . ;..r. % ", ",q ' N #,, as 's l* . e m" ;; 3,:.>. t. ' 4,.,..y .A. + m., n% w. 7 y'y;4 c. 4 4 ... j/ p backup procedures by calling on INPO (Institute of Nuclear Power Operations) ?-j ip 3 'f
- ..['t,*J lg.. g g.j';d
%g y$.j, 4 F.v, M. [3,@U @.-[L [ i( p;.. ' f ~ ' and Department of Energy for additional assistance. LILCO Exh.1 at 52 E.' U (Crocker, et al.). The centers and roads, however, have the ultimate capacity M. of serving about 46% of the EPZ population in 12 hours. LILCO Exh. 26 at 5 gd,T M N.5 ' @ @ $:,'% $.d.yN$V-CfE',j ::75d[i Sfk;.j. Y,D (Lieberman), $QiM Intervenors raised many detailed issues concerning reception center capacity gg.g 1, e%". y.cf, '.y/ ' g$], g .y - in their prefiled testimony. NY Exh. 5 at 53 73 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). However, 'y t ' j }7,{% y',,A 'A; ;. ; ' c,x. ;! Governments' Proposed Findings at 220-28. ne capacity of the centers to j they briefed only five issues related to capacity in their proposed findings. p - ', u,].;S; j m,. serve evacuees, found by LILCO, is inaccurate, Intervenors claim, because the ' g ";. ;., ;.r, AN T:) 30% planning basis is too smali, monitoring will take longer than 100 seconds ., M i-7 : - ..,f & f.pl C.3-l2j per vehicle, long lines will bxk up into intersections, exiting traffic will back up .t g:l t.', J into the centers themselves, and the centers have obstructions that will interfere ., ; ] ' E " *. f].l.;. i M with internal circulation. W ?4 J 'O,bi?,y ne Board addresses and resolves issues of planning basis, time required for .y ]'iig f{ i. f. M ' p j monitoring, queueing at intersections, and internal obstructions at the centers %;f; ,% a
- l "
D:' a elseshere in this Decision. M'. VQ ' $k;. 1.m: N ['[.u';j Re Board accepts FEMA's and LILCO's planning basis of 20% of the EPZ ^ f l,j G - e. population as appropriate for assessing the capacity of reception centers it [...ll0 ; -l.p. }p,: :,q,j. p y. f @.! <
- 4 M
?, accepts as additional evidence of adequacy the fxt that the centers can monitor " '. [Jf.!p.N s,:M'W. f ' N I,'W S-M. 30% of the EPZ population before assistance is requested and that the ultimate M" D.Q capacity of the centers without assistance would permit rnonitoring of about qQ J,,y;fj % ( ;.g 46% of the EPZ population within 12 hours. See infra, g u.. . Rs " p.j w - + 4 ,.f;1 ne Board finds separately that queueing at intersections or the blockage ,i'jh'i' f: ~, f ' 7 ;"3 of upstream intersections by evacuation traffic streams has no bearing on the -Q ;,.? - ' (.g. L3 ' o. that LILCO has remedied or commits to remedy deficiencies related to internal capacity of the centers to monitor at the planned rate. Finally, we find separately f~~ ofs.]."Nfl-f.h a ' -: '1 obstructions at the centers. See infra. Q,. 'S C .J 4." )"; } Intervenors asserted in prefiled testimony that it is possible that traffic exiting 7 }p^z y G y. reception centers could encounter congestion causing it to back up into the sites .- ] and thus set the rate limiting times for servicing evacaces. No evidence, beyond ,{;l, a general assertion of opinion, was cited. NY Exh. 5 at SS,68,72. LILCO 'yM ~.,,. .a considered exit streets and traffic control strategies and concluded that they i s: .,0, ,, c '. n : .gy would be adequate to service exiting traffic. LILCO Exh. 26 at 37 (Lieberman): y,,,. O Tr.18,659 60,18,706-11 (Lieberman), it is a simple inference from the record + .;~i that street capacity available to service incoming traffic is reasonably similar e g:l - '". i to that available to service outgoing traffic and that departing traffic cannot s o.: / for reason of inherent limited street capacity be the rate limiting step in the ,Z ~ ',0 overall process of serving evacuees. Provisions for active traffic control on s . J ~ ',l outbound routes must be made, however, to avoid conflict between incoming i and outgoing traffic at critical intersections. Tr. 18,976 80, 18,983, 18,985, 19,138 39 (Urbanik). KLD recommends police control of critical intersections
- ~
4 532 ~ \\ 9 6 .4 s 9 e -[- .f-- -,~2 y-
m ", Q :v ' W s n : n..., : 'h e. -. ,..T r + m a ?.. .w >,;, g. ~..':... n '~; ,~ u s. ,i'.b., M-.. @a[ 4'N. '.'- .1, w g g,,. :.. ',r. a,.,,... '.,'.^^ .,m. .s ,y m. . ;. m._. i. w :,,. ..s a ?,
- x a.
~...m. i .s V J 4 i . s s in an emergency although it structured its analysis to demonstrate that 1dequate capacity exists generally without additional control. LILCO Exh.1 Attach. T ', c at 33 (Crocker, et al.). ne Board accepts that, with police control of exiting traffic, no restriction of reception center capacity will occur that is sufficient to ~. disturb LILCO's conclusion that reception centers are the rate-determining step f' in the overall processing of evacuees. We provide.later in this Decision for a requirement that LILCO inform the Nassau County Police Department of the provisions of its reception center plan which we expect will include requirements Q.
- s for control of traffic exiting reception centers.
', f, ne Board accepts LILCO's capacity an'alysis for reception centers as reason-c able and finds no need to alter its estimates of average time to process evacuees. A, T ' f;[ l t 9
- t..
Route Assignments ~., LILCO is said to have erred in its original route planning along maior high-c. S .w ways, which assigned residents of the EPZ to one of the three recepticn centers using predesignated routes. The error arises according to Intervenors because N P l' ~ ~ there is no assurance that evacuees will actually follow their assignments. This is assertedly true because the routes are not simple and people may perceive for themselves a better route to take to one of the centers. This will allegedly cause s additional congestion and delay in reaching the reception centers. NY Exh. 5 at e, 7' 13 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). rn
- L' LILCO asserted that a conscious effort was made in planning to keep the
. j <,, c [ '..y '/ routes as simple as possible and that in any event the routes are not complex. h,;j,} d'.gM;.),, (
- Moreover, there is no reason to conclude that route switching by evacuees will
- ,,, y g M g y,
cause delay because any that occurs will tend to balance out among designated 4M.::.~ 6 Q % J i.^ ,f,,,.,
- h. '.l':M'.@s.. ~ 1. O [ '/
s' routes and traveling on unassigned routes will be a benefit by reducing traffic on L.<. a p. JP.y M '..,,,.'. _, :,. 2 "@$ assigned routes. Finally, LILCO claims, the highways have substantial excess capacity over the planning basis of 20%, which was endorsed by 5'EMA, to be p'f.[ ~ - .G able to accommodate reasonable imbalances caused by some people choosing R:. ;?O ,T f- ^ t different paths. LILCO Exh. 26 at 5 (Lieberman); Tr.19,025 28 (Urbanik); ." #2 J.-I ', Y ' / Tr.17,641-43 (C ocker). n - 1 ' h, (. '. .g ~ 'Q} Litigation of this question degenerated into a subjective dispute over whether 1 ' M..a...e, - } ;..7., f ' n.s.. c tl routes to the reception centers are simple. We did not find it illuminating. ',/. y :.l2 LILCO used prominent routes that actually exist between the EPZ and the .. '...w ".,. t. " " - 14 reception centers in its analysis. Dere is no evidence that it selected nonfeasible y7 p ,~ .... y', ", ,.x., routes for planning. KLD TR 192 at 3 7. Dere is also excess highway capacity .. g,h '.,,3; (30%) beyond LILCO's planning basis and FEMA's to accommodate traffic M,,k: ' - a i,D..... ' 371. X ' C?.'M,m. g imbalances. Its assignment of routes app;ars reasonable because its choices are - C constrained by the existing highway system. It is immsterial to our decision
- N"q.'
J.'-Mi? C: I 4 *((J'm ~28 -%'@df5f ',l p"' Q j.l}6,.I-j.t @ whether or not the routes are simple or whether some other routes might have ~ ? been chosen. We regard the traffic analysis that LILCO pecformed as an , J. :. /c4 h.e
- . :#y '.e@.2,, -y'.g,r.a.1 r ;5 r
.s y.L,.y n
- 3,'P,a
,,. r ) +: yt. m, -r i,( c#fJ. f.,cj VMy[.. M_z.; - ,[ ( )# h g 533 m:y., .. n..:t.s, $. w >n. e.. r,
- g.. ts ', y *% :.- 41. %..
y. .s i .-2 r.
- '.. *,A, Q. r
,;, U ; h,'. :? W.. :. Q e g: .y.U, :2l W,:n V.[ V Q' y g M A?;; ,1g, ' ? *,...%l.... m%..:L:c,% ? .. -., +:.- .\\ s 'f,! f..~. ' ,ay.,y } ). . 3,, *..;. g.. w. +:. Q. w... n. a.. y}$. 'f#.. .7,7 p p 3 w.y.w l y.'"yimyy p ' ^'9 . 'C..P,' m f. [N, v,A . x.. ..r...,. .., v ' m[, .y,, ' % l5,. s '., h,',,,. M. T qq - . c ,., 3, .:- V. cn . ~
- c(Ud e
.o- .e...f ',.d.. 'r, '; X., e J, 7.,,
- O. ' 3
,. p? g. * ;w
- j
.'+.m.,"..*n. s. m I ,.,. },3o+=..g.~.,,..';,. ... h,.. ;, ,M. g,. .. ; -. ' g s, O ,%.,. m..,,. e.;. ,,,s ,a-' y .Ty*y.;5 ' /.; g.. 3.,.,,,..,f,-3...,.-- , f.... g'S 4 .s. 4 e g, '.....,i , d.'D;,(? } Ay,.f,[MW 2R : b,{' W,.E 7. *. * ? Q,, + 'i,h; s,['(,9,I;'.W.g,d d J ih 'ip **f
- + 4.g
..g...,* ..J y 1'N MN'D' Y {,
- 'g
. d-f g:p ; / W - Q. ... - f,,.'i ; I,,,,.g{. g M,,f.s. J '$d'M MMMfM$Y,.yi *; '.';+,';,;$ N M 1Lb,.' D S M n W T d ifd5C;.U N ' M C d R. Q.J.,
- - Q y t, q i U.
- Q 5. y M
N,..y,(<3.{ ..p. i ~%
.iygW.3.Q..;W:.&j..:, IIWMK.W.,*.js )*g.WN. ? %.'}c'MS'.MWrQhR< a.- % : *.,.lM:.y WTRen W W ;. i ) .rW. n. p.>.- o a r n:a. y,;.,. }. Q'&qT %.W;&Q'GJf&.Q((jd * 'i n '.
- 9x g
w a n,. a . Q.' Q V d N ?? -f } GYlh:. - Q ?Q G)M: E..,* ; ;;Q:0.*g ; Q l:' .h i %, o:p. W.: y ?:.- l '; ' %.,.Q,. 3.;., : vu,3. :g,v.c. ;.. ~ % ;; :- W ~, '; X.S"?* i. ' - 'n
- c-
.s.. n..' 3..- n +, 7 -i ? . ". : ' ;..p w .,~e. s.s_mu i: : v..s r> w - .c. .....,,. : y. s,.47p. .x, 3.., #- 1
- a., t c.s.... v.a., sa _-r.. _.,..
c ,4.. u ~. 4 ,n 2:. ' u.,e... r: .n,: s~N: . w:n .g.., y m. :::i..n w. '.. e - = .:.p.v ',.,.,..,.,.,.% ;. :.7. s*, y n e,-.,;-a;};n 4 ' e ~ P,
- x
.g
- ,* by;
..,m y.: .'r
- f. *n ('.*%., y. s t.
t *. .O, -:.,.s \\ a u* M fch'? " vs ry. . :.. '....r.,-; ; y .pt w y a.,
- w
.2T n V Y :-i, ~. .s* . 1, *, -k * +l,r;.:' c.MV.;, p/;:b u_Q>.. 'd;;.Q' :.% q
- h nw
~"-?. 9 h @%.NkN.NS{ 7.((j time required. The analysis was not a prescription of a single acceptable mean; Tr r ; W;E v.; assessment of the capability of evacuees to reach the reception centers'within the c . $hh.hg[lliMfN;iO%: 4.r N., Ned? + M.nj for doing so. Here is no record basis for believing that projected dose reduction
- @$%.1.
N .0 N could be improved by further analysis, and there is therefore no regulatory basis d, 3S.u %liW' r31:2M5M? M>* to inquire further on speculative questions about the future behavior of evacuees %-).$. R.t.4 ;4 N. f.9.A a " ' l%Al g q 1 'd. ' Q, i. 4: $. %,..SD, f..Ql.:.p;;%@3,']'
- b <
?)Q.4.t or to attempt to predict with precision how a future evacuation will play out. . $ g w'6: .fQ Q;'W M f.'< 1. He Board concludes that LILCO's traffic assignment process was reasonable r. and does not raise serious questions regardir.g the overall validity of its traffic ^ u . 4..,. C '.?., d assessment for reception centers. .; y g.., '- rp 4: g a. g: e
- .c. r -
.s v.m 7, g). . ge y; 3 m. y.C B.y 6. :; } ).,%:.. g.;7; 3
- ,.%.y <
, a. :
- &;;
- l Highway Capacity Estimates
- h...,. ?
- z.%. ~, l.
W..i %. y~ m W;e LILCO be an its overall capacity analysis with the assumption that the major .M..,, b,.s.. a ~ s.:,,y ;..',.- :..,, N. highways be. tween the EPZ and the reception centers would flow at Level of ' r.j. ' ' S.c. ;.?.. D, e/ j.E f,' j Service F (forced flow) in an emergency and that average schicle speeds would ] ,3.g.; of;M 4. i y be about 17 20 mph based on experience and technical references. Tr.18,643- .. gy y f-g!';,Q 46 (Lieberman). The NRC Staff agreed that that speed was reasonable for those .2 m Q @.,' @~. 7,f"9.; Y ,;. %.f{,:" N '.9 of traffic that could pass over those routes at those average speeds, although ) $ Q 7@. j! conoitions. Tr.19,123 (Urbanik). KLD calculated the actual hourly volume I .XpM; b s.: f, l ~
- d. " ~ ~
in reality fetced flow traffic can move at speeds of up to 30 mph. LILCO Q,2ly.%.;'i.j" M ?]? 7;1 " 7, Exh.1. Attt ch. T at 2125 (Crocker, et al.); LILCO Exh. 26 at 6-8 (Lieberman); j c f.p.... a e ?. AJW T. R>. LILCO Ex1. 51 at 9-10 (Lieberman); Tr. 18,645-46 (Lieberman). Intervenors w., ..v.. w. / ;. s~. y. .% :.H.v.m.. y.., &:,. 5 were disssdsfied because no analysis of capacity was made for routes between v, i ,sc. s.. n- *:.g: g.c y} v :$ the EPZ aad the reception centers and because KLD had just assumed that these ,W '. p ' J 'g
- 9,
routes wc uld not be the limiting factor. It is claimed that such factors as number 9:i/ 7.cy~: '; g g o ;. c, 1.. ; of lanes, lateral clearance, number of trucks, and others could cause a reduction m.e-: i; >. ? ; ~ ..y e of freeway capacity by 30%. NY Exh. 5 at 13 (Hartgen, Millspaugh); NY Exh. 7 4 c,. - ; f _,J - : f. t at 1819 (Hartgco, Millspaugh). ,', f._ _ -
- , O.. ;., ;
LILCO asserted that it had already assumed worst-case conditions durin8 M,. s. 2 .g 4 4 peak background flow conditions. Tr.18,644-46 (Lieberman). Further, since the .r highways are already assumed to be operating at LOS F, where demand exceeds 7,, ~' '. T "N. capacity and queues form according to the HCM, the question of capacity really f focuses on the capacity of the on-ramps between the EPZ and the reception ,( centers. LILCO Exh. 26 at 7; Tr.18,973 (Urbanik). ne on-ramp caprity will y,.
- cc.c,.; <., _
y.j be severely restrbed in flow for non EPZ travelers because the highways will fC ; } q be congested from evacuation traffic originating further east. LILCO Exh.1, 4-l Attach. T at 13 (Crocker, et al.). l /rM.].",, W.. ' The Board concludes that LILCO's assumption of worst case conditions of I traffic flow along the major routes between the EPZ and the reception centers [,,1
- ).
is acceptable as the assumption of an expert based on experience and technical literature. He assumption was reasonable because a detaikd analysis would not have shown any important additional information that was not already included 4
- 4'
~ 6 534 4 s. t- ,y. s .J. 1, 4 { g gs q 4 D ' g .i c ~y -. -- - - + - -w-J g ) .y 9 --
,, m. v.,m.... y s ., ~ ,~ s ,...,.., ~ > .c ~ ~ <
- ( q,;*O f '
4 ,'s c
- x.,
.n .c ~c, ,a ',4
- g.,
n,f.N 3 .t. : .c s In the assumption. Tr. 18,645-46 (Lieberman). The experts have said repeatedly ~ that LOS F traffic moves, but at lower speeds than normal, that highways retain --\\- capacity to serve vehicles, and that additional demand does not cause failure of function either at intersections or on highways. Tr. 19,12123 (Urbanik). Although Intervenors' experts repeatedly asserted or promoted an inference 3 s that highways t nder those service conditions would break down or become unworkable, they were unable te support that view under cross-examination.
- ,.q,
Tr.18,794 96 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). he main efTect of additional craffic demand on saturated roads is to cause queuing, and that effect will be felt at the ,7- - ~ + ' access routes between the EPZ and the centers and not on the highway itself, which is already assumed to be at capacity. LILCO Exh. 26 at 33 (Lieberman). LILCO assumed LOS F for the LIE which did not require funher capacity reduction, and it found that Intervenors had used a 7.5% reduction factor in 3 i their analysis, which actually would result in highcr estimated capacities for the t' LIE than are used in the Shoreham plan. LILCO Exh. 51 at 17-18 (Lieberman). Intervenors could not quantitatively support a larger reduction, did not use 30% capacity reduction in their own analysis and declined to brief the effects of truck = traffic in their proposed findings because it was a matter of lesser significance. See note 12, supra. 1 The Board concludes that Intervenors' criticism of LILCO's highway assess-c ment was lacking in credibility and that LILCO has adequately explained the Feasons for making the assurnptions that it used in the traffic analysis of ma- ~ jor routes. LILCO's consideration of major routes is adequate to establish that [' they constitute no barrier to evacuees reaching reception centers in the numbers M' LILCO plans for and that the rate of transport on major highways will not limit [p J.. L the overall rate with which they can be served at reception centers. U, ' ' '.?, 5 g, t,. v '.4 V. l' Capacities of Local Streets and Intersections 'T, ' :3 .) LILCO's analytical approach for local traffic was to estimate the existing peak period background traffic on many local streets and intersections, add to . c L' it the projected evacuation traffic volume, and then determine with the HCM s',""' O! ~ traffic model whether the capacity is sufficient, with both components present, p~
- 1 is not disputed. Neither is the validity of the HCM traffic model. Therefore
. - + to deliver the evacuees to the cemers within about 12 hours. That basic approach .f ,,4
- i?
..~. ' S - ~ the validity of LILCO's conclusions depends on whether the input data and ? /'
- p. %
assumptions used for modeling are accurate and whether its interpretations are -.'.. ". - [.. _$ O QM.,,' W,- reasonable. If they are, the results are valid. g After performing the traffic analysis, LILCO found that the streets and pyJ..$QE D.R 4 intersections in the vicinity of each center would be congested, that traffic ..,,,., j&.[*h.,6!M,%%f%, ./[ would move more slowly than normal, that lines of waiting traffic would form ' ', AQ GiM% temporarily at key intersections near each center, and that, nevertheless, the C'. ' ')J'. M NC M';E,a.d;h/ ' s,'Mye. N+ %; - ; 7',g Q.-% W. C.,h y2 , !. (* ( , ?-.': S'l ?.?.:N.V s 535 ...d c.' $c m-c-:s &,.3Yr: f.'i. 3 .T 14S L Ix,lEj.%,hy.;:'y;.y.J.f..,fC'. ,e ,..f.. p s. 4,..~.g.( k,- :)[ .i&- ,,.'P. p,3,,-- <'.s 4 e
- b.
- ;,...H ;.-i '.. _
i y.. - u..e w. 7 _ y ;~. .~: ,, y,(. , VJ :: t :... d.,, s -"I "C_ .f a, # Y v'; _, h;t '.,' : )u g._.,.._ q 0;.: a r ,-,,;. 3 -l .a. e,.... y
- v. y e
..y, ..r- , i u, l- .1 +.': p
- .,m;!.^. ' L jn.
- c. } ~.:'. '
- . ('..'
-,5 .:4 1;. c ',., ,.',,.. n,,. x h. y. ,; m.~.,.. .v.+ - A. e:' s .x v.. - - c 7.-2s n. ,. a v. a,..,,., 1.. 's,.,. -, s
- ].,'.
f4 y ?/i', j _g, p g f'N'7 4,.i '. e u C-*y', P' s,
.hky y.';; s.. ,n. a x ; y L + 's v ' A y [cD ~;. - G '. yl.RQ.:.'.% l-m. ::.? ; -
- s. s ::
., u. n.. ,e % ),L,._ $(u q.fi ;;. e M:y '. n ~- F ' o.., ',c nyngu wryr + y.a - m%. .y. . _ '... Q.%( c,,q.lf',$. ~l:?:L.4 } !, J *,lclQW^, y$ ^ %' ll; ye;; ~ h-N. ,. y%, -. n ',. ; ;p ,c .; wt :.:.x ;-i 3 G, g... .._. v. x; Lw:.n;.:. s x,f u-
- ;;
- .ws:.v.L 1;, : y?..
~g:i;; ~ m y. 2 :. ;. ...m.. ,a + .w. , d. v n. .t .,H.,. '~6.N f;3;.>-.<f."()i .V:O, !,j k.3,h'N (M,.[,Q.j_ Q l7 '. _ j. ,~ A: n (9 l ' Mo ,..s % x. [b NN ,S [. capacity of the local streets and intersections exceeded the capacity of the reception centers to monitor evacuees. Therefore the capxity of the local roads J.'i;p 3; M b '.c.c.g..w.y.t E<.N'.db / M,'l - CJ'e would not limit LILCO's ability to timely monitor the number of evacuees in .:*;iJ.94"?;j.T,.;E..d p ..A.s e r.s,.. its plan. Tr. 18,585,18,735 38 (Lieberman); LILCO Exh 1. Attach. T at 1213, r 'r y,gf;va." N e .eg.-. w, +m a, 26 (Crocker, et aI.). " 'E %:<q. N:p <' ? V.14: *. :.3 Before the HCM traffic model could be used to assess the capacity of streets M....p.. :....J 3 v.L::.;p.. WF d J ,,g'"y 'lQ in the vicinity of the centers, it was necessary to collect a substantial volume .... f. ': : u 7.2 of traffic data in the field. Measured parameters needed for the analysis were '~...' :.S @ I. :. l.- u .p background traffic volume, geometry of intersections and approach lanes, signal ~ ., Q'c 5,., -!3-timing at key intersectior,s, r.nd frequency of left and right turn movements by 'Y.. . g. g~ f K C.' ' "- A
- 5.d/
%'. f k Ic J background traffic. Data collection was the responsibility of LILCO's consultant, ,g-lt. J %!N e.< KLD Associates. LILCO Exh.1. Attach. T at 16. f.{,. ', s Bere is no dispute concerning the accuracy of the measured volume of peak f, ' b) background traffic although there was speculative testimony that something other 2s':ij. -[ f.j than 100% of the measured background traffic should be used in the analysis
- gy
'., f,. i.;, j. c) of projected evacuation traffic volume. LILCO analsed some examples using 50% of background, and Intervenors analyzed some examples using 150% of iMr 4' ? N,' /. f! background. Neither party had strong empirical reasons for doing so although ,.y, -A both presented arguments that their approach was defensible. NY Exh. 5 at 39, g,1 v ' x'} 44-45 (Hartgen, Millspaugh); Tr.18,838 39 (Hartgen); LILCO Exh.1, Attach. M
- d.,,
y r."l.d [ '.^' ; r m Hg. t ~ ..i at 15, Attach. T at 20 (Crocker, et al.). The Board concludes that the ! cast 'J.,V,' f - 4 speculative analysis is the most reliable and that an acceptable traffic analysis 1. O, y., ': ( 1. should be based on 100% of the actually measured peak background traffr $' f. Tr.19,111 12 (Urbanik). The examples that LILCO relics on in its most recent analyses use that number. LILCO Exh 1. Attach. T at 20,26 (Crocker, et al.;. 5- + ? Intervenors raised a host of objections to LILCO's traffic analysis based on 4 perceived errors in analysis and on its alleged failure to take contingencies for ,'f, . future traffic flow into account: in a future emergency background traffic near the reception centers will be higher than normal (NY Exh. 5 at 17); county traffic p' c: s '~ volumes will grow in the future (id.); shadoiv evacuation will cause more traffic '1 .s.' J, ' 5 \\ than that for which LILCO plans (Id. at 19); a delay analysis was not performed 's and drivers will be frustrated (Id. at 22); traffic signals may malfunction on .f - ,i - q tne day of the emergency (Id. at 23); KLD should have used highest traffic flow expected (fd. at 24); queues and grid!ock may form at intersections (id.);
- Q-there will be future road repairs that could affect future capacity (id, at 26);
J, 3,. KLD employed a meaningless approach to its analysis of capacity and queues u.. in an emergency (id. at 29); KLD used faulty turn movement data (NY Exh. 6 at 4); there was impermissible assumption cf left-turn movements from two j ^ f lanes (id, at 7 8); departure volumes instead of approach volumes were used at intersections (id at 9); improper assumptions about right turn on red were used (ld.); there was use of improper signal timing data (Id. at 10); truck traffic was underestimated (ld.); the number of congested intersect'ons was underestimated 536 .v k g k t J e ,. =. s 4 L 0 6 s s
', :. g. . v a... .,l . s.. " .'f - 1 4 . q.. y.y .+ ;.,- ~. y ,g ,,,W ~ ,u s e w.e, (id. at 13); there were improper conclusions drawn from the ramp-capacity analysis of KLD 'IR 210A (NY Exh. 7 at 10); and there was improper analysis of the consequences of Level of Service F (id. at 12-13). ~ Intervenors specifically abandoned several of these issues in their proposed findings (see note 12, supra) and ignored others without comment. Therefore not all require resolution in this Decision. Intervenors dso challenged LILCO's conclusions with calculations of their s own showing that there would be many instances where intersections would ,E have l'/C ratios equal to 1 or greater, ney produced a total of eight scenarios as inappropriate for the intended purpose. NY Exh. 5 at 33,39-40; Staff Exh. 4 '7, using a model termed "CARS" which was criticized by the Staff and Applicant s ' -J -fg i, at 2 3; LILCO Exh. 26 at 27. Intervenors used the HCM model, utilized by [~ n r*_ ,:g LILCO, for detailed analyses of several intersections. j j Intervenors also performed an analysis of three critical intersections, one / w near each center, the results of which are alleged to be indicative of what is 0 likely to occur at most critical intersections. The locations were identified as: w, (1) Rt 107-Old Country Road (to Hicksville); (2) Rt. 27-Newbridge Road !l -.i' '. 2J ,e s-(to Bellmore); and (3) Long Island Expressway-Willis Avenue (to Roslyn) NY Exh. 5 at 4 50 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). The substance of Intervenort c 7 concern, which was meant to be illustrative of the local road network in general, - s , ~ is that KLD improperly analyzed left turn movements, found l'/C ratios that were too small, and that long queues will form which will take up road space, causing gridlock /d. In rebuttal testimony, Intervenors added the intersection f' of Meadowbrook Parkway southbound exit ramp to eastbound Route 27 (to N Bellmore) and the intersection of Old Country Road and South Oyster Bay Road (to Hicksville) to their list of concerns. The substance of their criticism is that ) [ _' s. these intersections will be well over capacity for a. substantial period of time in ii sf /[ ' an evacuation. NY Exh. 6 at 1415 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). Intervenors declined to brief their concerns.nbout Meadowbrook Parkway ? ramp in their proposed findings, claiming that this was a matter of lesser ) ' ?. o importance. See note 12, supra. As to the other intersections, the Board treats '" T.1. .,' 5.' ; them as illustrative of the alleged problems generally applicable to traffic near t' reception centers. De issues cited for these intersections are that they will be re T over capacity (l'/C greater than 1), they will be congested, long queues will form, ' ((.[.f planned left turns are improper or illegal and that they will in some manner / _ -J ' e,cgy ;.4. + e.(, fail to function as planned. These are the most significant alleged problems Y C M. ' j,9,5.M, -j'. 'i v with LILCO's traffic analysis in general. Our resolution of these problems will X y.WM.i k,lN,.* :c be inclusive of the named intersections cited by Intervenors; however, bacause I N . D/ M @MM d' they are cited as illustrative examples, we see no need to focus undue separate attention on them, k $Y I.'M....n%gg.@N.n@' l a.p.T,M,o % Q .MM.u ,3'# Intervenors relied on the computed I" ' ratio as an indicator of function for 'U' intersections, alleging variously that wlen the ratio approached or exceeded I, m m l 3.q.,C:1 p g, g;,Q.gg.g,; p"i n :J. n. .y:},7 %ly,.:k:~ Q., ; in n. y e n.
- . s. -
- n V~&
- '.l@w'
- ':?l.
.R .f;f. ' l.E S37 !. W-;ip*.;.97 g,g %: " 0.:, ' - ': A P ::%.,l g. {, h' d'* C& N ?Mp? '. j"y fy-C.f d.yf
- . u m
- '. i.
n .-, y;,-i' {.. 'A ' t. s f'./ ;. T. t.6; p: 3 .1- ,yas
- h.., m.
..y 3. .,\\ ,,4, 7. 7, 3 7,,.-- . - - - 7 ~ ~ - d .J m - --7+;e (, '.," s ..s e l <,G ', " ,y ,y f -,.(
- e; 4,
a, ' Q,: ? '., - i, ,,;',y,_W
- }',.
- 1 ) 'o i
4 Q.ly ,'e '_., 9 .3e.,- _. d.. ;. '. e .e ,9 b ", 4 ,J' i*U' k '~ + .{ y s J. '.:, * ~ J. ; : 5 '.. ..l. Q f. ,'} ,) .f.l..,,, \\,.':.( j _ - t:.f.;,6;; O, n " f f.~ {. .. ;< :G \\h + ~,, T
- l,
.Q, hp.w.,...a. y w, w Mu e L
- 8.1.uta-
.~ m w.. a
W y; .am'.-n~mm~, m : :, N' %;:% %W:M ^ Q), v,ll / e m z. M, ~.., ~w n. g%g.W >'l M. f;?> m nv.. --.- m. n.. Q. m W ?YRn.yd; & r : m e 'If dr %' y f',Q@'Q3 %LM M y%.'c 3:Q '.n.
- p;
. ', : - 1; :: .,., ; Q
- g... :.y z
,y .q. ' E, # (y.g'[ #.,f > ' c'w. j Il _ m; y,; 9;,. . ~ - hi, Q.y;%. M.I.;, Lth 4'a
- d. * ('."..%, -
^ _M?. .n
- .LQ ;;.,
- L.,'g.-
- '- ~-~ ~ 3,,.a. ',',; " v;m';W.gg,y, p, g v. n 9 e ;<,. ; V ..y. ; a ;. - + ~. ....;. p_.; c., - ar -- - ' " , W mr ;._.,..- u-- i.. 3; "+o 1 .k $ m,ey.%.4.. t j C y '.6]s.. j - j 3 ;.,,. % :Q",'; ' ;Y (- 'g ?' '.e ~ .,'d the intersections would perform poorly, break down, or cease functioning (NY j... ., y ~~ j '. .4 Exh. 5 at 33,40,47,50,74; NY Exh. 6 at 6,8,12,13,16; NY Exh. 7 at 9,13). N ,f.; y g ' '.. '.%,c.y;M LILCO acknowledged that delays occur when V/C is greater than 1; however, un.oy,,,,.'vE".'gf f.j lt asserted that it has already accounted for that in its analysis which shows that
- i;p '., # W
_f '. ' ' 'i there will be congestion on the highways and streets. ,g-y g. y i, b. N 1 Intervenors effectively ended their quantitative analyses of intersections with yyr.N;Mg
- )i the determination of the V/C ratio. ney relied thereafter on subjective inter-4 p Jr
.., j pretations that invariably took the form of assertions that where the ratios were ~, -n p greater than 1, congestion would be worse than LILCO found or that traffic .sb t, J C, service will break down and the reception center plan will be unworkable. NY c Exh. 6 at 12 (Hartgen, Millspaugh); 'Ir. 18,784-86; 18,793,18,795 (Hartgen). i 2/ Intervenors did not systematically calculate the actual volume of traffic that O h. -' ' ~ could be served under the difficult conditions that both parties agree will pre-f, vail. TY, 18,781800,18,S05,18,820,18,895 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). LILCO, -S " ~ ' ' y however, did compute the amount of traffic that could be served under congested y r" ? conditions for the local road network. LILCO Exh. 51 at 16 (Lieberman). i; 3 We reject Intervenors' assertions of breakdown of intersection function where it is based on subjective interpretation of large V/C ratios because quantitative ~' analyses show thet road capacity exists to serve traffic even when V/C ratios ' L are 1 or more. Even if Intervenors' computa90ns of V/C are correct for critical ~^ j intersections, ratios above 1 are not indicators of total breakdown of the traffic m .j system. Tr. 19,048-49 (Urbanik). De HCM refers to breakdown of flow, not . N's function. NY Exh. 7 at 13 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). What is indicated by high [, '[ ratios is that traffic will be congested, it will move in stop and go fashion at reduced average speed, and queues will form, While possibly inconvenient to motorists this does not imply cessation of service. 4 [ Queue Formation ne main consequence of conditions w here V/C ratios are greater than 1 is that the fraction of trafGc in excess of road capacity forms queues at the bottlenecks which in this analysis will be at highway entrance ramps and apr;oaches to signal-controlled intersections. LILCO Exh.1 Attach. T at 12-% (Crocker, et l al.). Results from the traffic analyses of both LILCO and the State show that traffic queues will form upstream from many local intersections in an emergency. 5 i 'IY.18,581,18,735 38 (Lieberman); Tr. 18,794 97 (Hartgen). De experts differ i in their opinions concerning the likely length of queues and their impact on the workability of the reception center plan. Queues found by Intervenors were l substantially longer than those found by LILCO. However, this resulted from ~ postulated planning bases that anticipate more evacuating vehicles than LILCO does. NY Exh. 5 at 39-45 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). 538 r i 0 ~% s 4 s g A 6 4, .) g.- dr -5 y
~ 'y + f; ; - ~ i m. Q c-e a ,..q s-c. i ,3 t / The Board does not accept Intervenors' queues of extraordinary estimated length for the purpose of assessing LILCO's plan because they are based on an assumption of effectively unlimited population of evacuating vehicles. Intervenors estimated queue lengths by determining the hourly excess of demand, ,, ' ' ['.) assigning the excess to queues, and multiplying the hourly excess by 12 to obtin - ^ a resultant queue after 12 hours. No a'!owance was made for the likelihood that , 1, - the demand will not be constant for that period, because Intervenors assumed [L a very large excess population over that anticipated from the EPZ NY Exh. 5 7; - A '._.F, R,. at 48-49 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). LILCO allowed for a pulse like distribution of
- y. X,
- 1 i 'M.'g.,y... j)h[ [
demand arising from the EPZ over a 6. or 9 hour period. In this model, which ,7 i : i.l T j f," we take to be more realistic, vehicle demand rises to a maximum and then f j, declines as the evacuation of the EPZ is completed and demand for service is '1 C .'. H ':C satisfied. LILCO Exh.1, Attach. T at 26 29 (Crocker, et al.). The queues follow ...~D..Cr ", *. ' 4 ' ' ' '.
- 2 the same pattern, first growing and then dissipating in the 6 hour scenario, while p*
y? O ,, g. none form in the 9 hour scenario, " WN. ~. U.F,... t ". < ;..?,.- i. De Board accepts the findings of both parties that queues #1 form at it '$,. j,.s s ' * 3 intersections near the reception centers but does not accept that queue formation will directly inhibit or interfere with the $2d monitoring operations at the three reception centers. The monitoring operations will draw vehicles from the ~ F
- e head of the queues near the reception centers while later arriving vehicles will join queues at the tail end. Tr.18,577 (Lieberman); Tr. 19,085-86 (Urbanik).
An intersection serves traffic at its capacity from the front end of the queue ~ even though drivers within the queue may perceive that traffic has stopped. ' d. - $ Tr.19,048-49 (Urbanik). The length of queues, therefore, has no generali; ~ applicable bearing on the rate with which the monitoring operation can be '~ condueced or on the further capacity reduction ofintersections already saturated. N 'O,c: I Further, Intervenors' finding that long c'. cues will form is consistent with i '.E ' 'u '. " LILCO's finding that monitoring capacity within the reception centers is the .J J' l," 2.'c [ ' y{ rate-limiting process for serving evacuees. He queues form a ready reservoir ~?? ';; j'. ' " O'_ of vehicles to supply the centers. Pui simply, the centers cannot run out of work '[' '.,. n }., y , W N.', ) to do while vehicles waiting for service are present. Tr.18,581 (Lieberman). ' ' y' f,[;. ' ' t.,,, 1',i< ,.,..?, (, Intervcaors object that queues will back up from the centers to block upstream ' ';?, c - intersections. LILCO found that the queues will not be long enough for that W,9U, W.e ';' Q.I
- j K 3 W e,(.,.. ? rf'k l.
to happen, but, in any event, police control will be present to prevent it if they .... em
- ..y.,,,.,
are wrong in their assessment. Tr. 18,586-88,18,738 (Lieberman). The validity .g:N Wle???.?'e W %'/f. of LILCO's assessment, however, is not dependent on prevention of blockage W 6 d W@f'i ' 7 9 ;[ $ S..'
- y '
in upstream intersections. De only meaningful blockage is that which would RO.Y-q.f - w W.. -M M. ' - [ @,....y. q &y., interfere with another evacuation stream going to another center with sufficient a t.M ' (9; jf(, f - W[M.[W.M[.?%.[y impact that the irdlow rate becomes less than the monitoring rate for that et.ter. PN[,Q' %@,*s% nat is unlikely. Tr. Ifs,536-87 (Lieberman); IILCO Exh.1. Attach. T at 27 .y (Crocker, et al.). Traffic backup affects the total capacity of the htersection, not @j,j '; the capacity for evacuation traffic. If upstream intersections become clogged ....<.,..f Y... M. y h$r M, W[s.p.g Q,W 2 D.M. II'h,N},@.k.b*
- b. N;%.....Q.&.-{ id
.W*- ' w LW & !. ,;3 %,Q FMNC N. d :... 539
- .u. g.' y c./W'.'tw
- . e
- 9 w v% @, s.-.y-d,Wtd v
.* W r.. m,(m4 % W".? Y.4'.s e.. m< -. v. L.m. ~l i< T ..',~~r. ~,9; ..= ' + =, + . ;
- 1. g'j. ~..,
u. g
- g s
- .,,sa
,... Qa,s ,. _ ' t : ~ '. f,' s.- Q.. [f,' w.[. . gf j._,'h[3.i..".',U'jp'.Q;{js .,.-g.., 3 % ~,9 ' ',.?.9.v.f.? : ' .,
- a?, ; WN; '. y :>y
.o y>, m.. .- - - - ~ - ~ y . "+: . v..; ',~' ns, .c +.. : ' ~.f. ~. ...c.m a'w ...c ';a y. 8,( '*U 's 4 [*',*... h ' ** yW '. ' h.. ', g 'p, s . - n.
- L. 's. v
[.2. ' ' .; 4 ' ',, *. )( 'l .1, f, /.. ',,',-".u, ..O ',,',q' [., s s, ( ,.y. QC,6'b. ;l,. P.f;*cf..g %. f'. j '.,
- E ', 1...G<
p.. 'p'. o m., t.
- 3 4
s ...e ., i.., ~. - g < T. '< s.;.~ 'g 7 M.,. p V
- j h :
,...a .,t. *,..,,, g.;,., ',,3 , J;.]
- Y gg 416--,
7 7
- f
[., ,e
- ?*
.,' ].s ' h.}.,f, ',.l y.$.13g, %. '.** ~. ' ' . [ p,j,q ', .,,.. ss'
- 2-.
.#.u .,'Z{ ~,,' 8 ] Y : %." ',&;. e. t -l WA.. g.s.q,*.. ., u...m a. W,' ' L'? '., W Y 'i - + M 'b & a'. '[
- W
~ -"~ x -
,,: n~a, ~ y %M,,.7.,,.g:7 z, q :g },;<, y,.,c,!y j iM,; W U,.m =,D,i.';..
- W ;, m g
137 %, gj.y y, ;,;,. c c o .x'* ,* ',w)? h k ' s w ' .:..c. .w. w.u - ne ~,, s T 3.' g .i* -i L is .g, ..g, . +. < .,a y,.
- Og.
- ., ' &. '
t y g ~ V n ; ;"., ! ' '\\.y, 6 s l~ +: .,,~,.'w.yy.y y ...x e.m ..im, g.... ..n :.p..s ;e... 'v. : m. s ,..e,.s. s ...u.. m. .s.. 4 .' 1 4 E'* ~ I I with evacuation traffic, the impact will be predominantly on the crossing traffic \\, -jj not going to reception centers. Tr.19,013 (Urbanik). ~ j ??.. ] The Board concludes that queuing under emergency conditions is not a se-rious concern for monitoring evacuees, except under speculative circumstances. .' A] Police control will lessen the likelihood that intersecting queues could interfere S 7' Y with evacuation traffic flows among centers, ne testimony of opposing parties ~ c 'I combines to convince us that evacuation traffic will dominate the scene for many hours (6 9 hours in LILCO's scenario) in the vicinity of reception centers. It is l / reasonable to infer that purposes of other travellers might well be temporarily frustrated by the traffic congestion. Even if true, this has no bearing on dose reduction, and we may not deny or condition a nuclear power plant operating license for the purpose of preventing that possibility. The Board concludes from the queue analysis of opposing parties that LILCO correctly found that the ultimate capacity to monitor the number of evacuees in i j its plan depends on the rate with which the reception centers can monitor them, and not the capacity of the road system to deliver evacuees to the centers. J -l ? Signal Timing u De capacity of intersections for evacuation traffic depends on the degree and mode of traffic control that can be relied upon. In LILCO's analysis, that j control will be provided by traffic signals and the Nassau County police. In LILCO's view and the Staff's, the performance or timing of traffic signals + is largely irrelevant to the question of intersection capacity in an emergency because the police will adjust capacity to tske account of the evacuation traffic. Tr.18,738-39 (Lieberman); Tr, 19,096 98 (Urbanik). No party has alleged that key intersections near reception centers lack the intrinsic capacity to serve the evacuation flow, ne litigation addressed the effectiveness of control that can I be relied upon. Intervenors focused this part of their critique on the alleged inadequacy of LILCO's assessment of traffic signal function in an evacuation, since they deny that police have familiarity with the appropriate control strategies or that they will even agree to participate in a radiological emergency. .l The Board is not permitted to consider the possibility that police will not assist the public in a Shoreham emergency. CLI 86-13, supra; 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c). That fact standing alone might be sufficient to resolve eny issue related to capacity of intersections since no party thought that police control would be ineffective except on grounds of unfamiliarity with LILCO's plan which is easily remedied. Nevertheless, LILCO performed an analysis of traffic signals as part of the overall traffic analysis for reception centers, the issue was vigorously litigated, j and the parties submitted proposed findings on the issue. De Board concludes that issues surrounding traffic signal timing should be resolved c1 the merits 540
- F. a I
a ,s. y + i , 7l ~ ,k s,. 4 ~, 4 ~ v,
- n.
t 9 ) because there could be some intersections that would go untended by police for ~ reasons other than recalcitrance (Tr.19,140 (Urbanik)) and because traffic signal 'u demonstration of adequacy of the reception center plan. data formed a pan of the input to the HCM model that LILCO relied on for its e-r in the absence of police, the capacity of signal. controlled intersections -.j,,., depends on the amount of green time that will be available to evacuees who p je ' ~ ~ -J will be traveling in preferred airections toward the reception center.L Maximum g 5 and ininimum green time was measured by KLD observers at the t stersections f .b 3 studied, for the initial analy:,es. Later the State supplied actual signal settings .{ / g.g.' y,:: a which KLD compared with its measured values. LILCO Exh. 26 at 14; - l6 il ~ . c 0 Tr.18,744 (Lieberman) KLD used the State data in a subsequent analysis, - Q, El 1 ', c > ,. f. unless the field data showed that longer green time actually existed than was
- M:
1,. WM s, l shown in the State records. Tr.18,606 (Lieberman). More weight was given to h ;. i ( ] M. Y. ' /'K;' the measured values because signal-dial setting records are not always accurate, j ' iq s.... y.. ',
- - ; 1; j~
Tr.18,607 (Lieberman), t <' ' p,i'. ,t Intervenors claim that actual signal settings should have been used for I, J/W ', [ :i.: 3 signal timing in that the settings would provide more accurate data than field I f'J'a f,? " ~ 1 b i ^f [. J^ ejl measurements. NY Exh. 5 at 22; NY Exh. 6 at 10; NY Exh. 7 at 9 (Han. gen, { ^ '; Millspaugh). The State expens claim this to be so because the signals are traffic wy c- , ? " !.f TJ' actuated, and the green time in any panicular direction varies, between preset (' s limits, as a function of actual traffic flow. Because the signals have.9hle -C'.s. m 3U ,,[.,0 timing, an observer allegedly cannot reliably obtain maximum green times from field measurements. Tr.18,892 (Millspaugh). '?. ,, j e ',. LILCO asuned that, even if true, the error is not large enough to alter
- . 9.;
K.m ^. ~'..
- 0 its conclusion that monitoring rates at reception centers are the rate limiting
...... L P o 2 step in the pr'acess. Th 18,745 (Lieberman). AMitionally, says LILCO, the e.-. 4,
- f.
',Q Q _ Sii.'[ _ ;G,/" signal settings are sometimes changed in the fielo wunout record, and the State records might not be reliable. Tr.18,607 (Lieberman). The NRC Staff agreed. P ,[;MW[di.7,. Tr.19,11516 (Urbanik). The State could not confirm that its signal records (;- s ., W '. M',' /,'i f y, f,. A were accurate. Tr.18,8S8 (Millspaugh). The State experts pointed to several a+ latersections where they thought that KLD had used values that overstate green 2,, M. ACi ;"$ time and thereby inflate the cap 2 city of the intersection. NY Exh. 6 at 10; NY I, a.'q. 9 W. Exh. 7, n.5. , 3C.* 3;;[*7., '*{ {':
- /' iI,;;1.;.a,
.;l The Board concludes that the record is inconclusive regarding the possible !/.. h,@., s [, ', existence of error in the signal timing used to analyze the capacity at some W. f:..,,$3
- / +.. 3.Q..I.
.. f, "J. / - G'.Y i specific locations because there are possible sources of error both in direct > ' '.' ' f. Y ne ...n mearurement and in the State recards. The NRC Staff assened, however, that . !.,y, !!y W.' M,r.. -..e M, ',' (:,,. 'O M@'y}j% ll; field measurements are accurate at actuated signals if queues are present when ,ic' the measurements are made. Tr. 19,11516 (Urbanik). KLD says that it took P;'.% m &'$jG ' W er '- .7f3,./5.yk,'M ',7c(,, f@y;.:3.U Q giQ GJ9 p, measurements while heavy traffic was present so that the signals would be actuated to their maximum phase duration. Tr.18,607 (Lieberman). There is evidence, therefore, that the signal measurements taken by KLD were reasonably b q:M:.G7;'m G.J;W r.NW Ah. > 4.:.. :,,Wh.;s%We *:.m < %.n* g?"9 s::g?? l'i (.f:;. Qz, '.9' * ;y h 5
- ,Yh.
M ..;, :
- q$.T.
... ". :n g. ' a l ef M;.$. p.,.,W-r.a.T's '*l4*,.R[. 3,i-hj d j_. r 541 M I. 'j. IN M(.,n.W'M:j.e,3!;$* (* : s*rf...C %.. I -*r* << :W,v!,y , f p.. p.h. '. a%,, %.M,a 1.. + }% t : < w. .ttv 4 :* v p g g s. - AN r ^;,'sc
- t. ? f d;' /. e ; .f ;i 4
) .g ..el'.; ~, Q f.41.lV , ; 'a'Q:j. R;p;;y.,, ~ ;.s:q.
- ; i; o a'
.) ..W. V,, f*. { L. e... b, '.~f. f.,s. *;g *:y - u:'*;, y' l* G ,. A. -Q... !'? , p e- ,-.. ~.*z s T. I. .1 ,,4 .., - ; ;,*, y *.. ~ *.ys y:' s; ' en.; v'v ; # ' : ~,* t " * : *
- n <
e
- n. ? ?, r(',:'d, p. )t,
.. {* 2 +y,;* A... s .t- , c . *.'y'. ' (? .? e s . ', ' l..: h w ac . ;1/. 'l'.*
- j"*y yh:..- f. l.; j.,. ; f, :
.s. ?*." r '. i ,'s, *. f4 '. ) ' ".N. s '[ '., ". V4 J. , [;NJ g}, y, g t o gin.,. i. 7,. ' ;r.;
- 4. [
.O Q', ... -,' M. J. N b. '.[.m,. '.,), i ",N' ';h,'. + 74 '[d'N.],; 'h n, k. *hhi
- ,q.hh*,
a '6 - m '. ! " . J. :*. ~ -. ' A y N ' O.$,.$h M',:m.tp~:W :,1.. W+q' f:,E f.% vlN / 7
- 6
.;~ s ' W l9:.,..lm? $.? ~.. - .r'? W - t. -l.. m e. h, N h*.W. N .':.y.- O: N -A
- n..' j.cy. n.,. F.% v
' ~ ~ w m. >, w,.'. 2 ' W. :.R,... ~... ; WW. %., e:, - ~.4 -. 3,.... .n.. 4 a mn<, .w .'6... _1 1p [ lY
- 'h>
I -
emm,' n.m. m.kfj(f'i h 5f.) /I.h[m.[ hoi,{h[Y .h hh? fl. [ vm.d.f; g< f :. p.>., w , y .,a." y3 w m.-,, -. mwn, - v &n-
- s. my n
.c~ .,.-s an , Q,,e w.; & ;9 g;":'g ';p ' '. 4..y ';': v . ~.g, f;, :n;n s..a.pn a, q . ~. g; _,-
- ", ~. '.,. ;
,.l.y f%:g;.?;'..;~;.&w.g;,ge.. !4i MJ '.;1,'U.C3.; y,9'. - ~; - A f
- ,l<:,
L-v- n w.c.;),y.yp.pg.q R g: ;g.. ' m: , p;g.%: ' g;..y>'plEnh%
- W $..:.ys 3..,:s 3 v.,97.
~ t m.;.,- .a ..q.., iak.R.W.' Y.l.Yl:Su.h;Wk :$U '- ~ ~.0 ai h D
- .}lll:&_ 2.d
,. d d ) 2,, n. e;:... . o. % y p;' !. s.. h.t .s.w - t 3c 1, u l , A' @'ggI;'G Q...w,,y,y accurate, although uncertainty remains because the measured values do not .q . t a ~N.tWiM always agree with the State signal settings which might themselves be in error. .3....,. f ;M. A0 y~,:,, i The Board concludes, from the fact that the actuated signals have a preset upper ~ "\\,,..C ' *]l 7 f ' 'l limit of green time, that the most probable systematic error, if any at all exists, 3, ...i, y 4,sy is by underestimating rather than overestimating maximum green time. f 4 :. K,;.h i-C /N ip ? ay if measured values have systematic error, it is likely to be by generally y ;..f M '., '>D underestimating maximum green times, since a capable worker could not observe [;,. p ~ '
- 4. e c,
more green time than the actual (as opposed to the nominal) preset upper limit 3 G' E, l -j of the signal would permit. The only uncertainty is whether measurements ~ 1,e y ? T U d... were taken at the signal's preset maximum, if they were not, the measured J.- - O "-cN 2 values would be shorter than the true values. The likelihood of this kind of @CD error is small, however, because measurements taken of traffic actuated signals t ? where queues are present would likely be with the signal ac'tivated to its longest c. [,[. -h;, ' 6%,3'.] phase. Moreover, the error of underestimation is harmless to LILCO's capacity 7 . ',, q cy.M". analysis. KLD was therefore reasonable in favoring measured times where they 3
- .. e 7.j!
exceeded the State's recorded signal settings. 'j The likely direction of possible error in measurement favors LILCO's case -b ' u./ 'f 9,y,Is.9, d ' 7...;; 1 because, if the true maximum green times are in reality longer than LILCO used ./ J W j / G ',y ] ].) in its analysis, the capacity of the respective intersections would be Somewhat A larger than LILCO found. Further, the magnitude of error in the opposite 6cq,.'..q direction, asserted by Intervenors for specific intersections, would not reduce the ' ' ?9.. q..g intersection capacity enough to alter the conclusion that reception centers are the ,.e ', q rate.liraiting step in the overall monitoring r>rocess. Tr. 18,60810 (Lieberrr.an). t j' 'Ihe Board finds no evidence, howevM. that the existing signal phases near 4.T.'; reception centers are optimal for the special case presented by an evacuation. LILC&s analysis is therefore accepted as a general demonstration of capacity ~ j of intersections to cooe with evacuation traffic and not a specific predicdon of future events. Police should be present at key intersections in an actual emergency to ensure that their capxity is fully utilized for moving evacuees tov,wd reception centers. The Board concludes that any possible errors in the .4' signal. timing data used by LILCO are not of such magnitude as to invalidate its ~~i ~ j conclusion, that controlled intersections in ths vicinity of reception centers have the capacity to serve the traffic flow encomptssed within its planning basis. E; i Twn Mowments -~ ~ J' Part of the intersection capacity estimate d: pends on the proportio : of traffic making turn movements rather than passing straight through the intersection. LILCO measured background flow using tr:ffic-counting machines that use a tube placed in the road to detect passing vehicles. At several intersections the tube was placed in a lane that permitted drivers to turn or go straight after the tube was passed. The machines could not record the proportion of turning s 1 5J2 4 4 p p 1 . s'.a 1 6 g. w g 4 4 .)-,
.--,-e,e
.- < 9 [-, _,..5 ,en -,--m.
t vehicles. Tr.18,634-36,18,741 (Lieberman): Tr.19,117 (Urbanik). The missing / information was obtained by observers who recorded the proportion of turning vehicles at intersections. Tr.18,639-40 (Lieberman). Intervenors fault this ~ procedure, arguing that turn movements obtained by machine should have been used because such data are more accurate than data taken by observers for short time periods. Intervenors allege that LILCO's use of observer data resulted in biasing estimated capacities of some critical intersections to make LILCO's j' N. case appear more favorable. NY Exh. 7 at 5 (Hangen, Millspaugh), LILCO M ~ asserted that there were intersections where the machine could not distinguish C 'i. t ' turning movements and that, when it modified its initial estimates with observer ,1 1. data, it found 13 of 28 cases where turn movements were lower than originally estimated and 15 of 28 cases where the turn frequency was higher. When all the data are considered, no bias is evident. LILCO Exh. 51 at 2 (Lieberman). he Board finds no evidence that LILCO's turn movement data were delib. ~ crately biased to make its traffic analysis appear more favorable than warranted. .lQ. LILCO has adequately explained why it was necessary to supplement traffic data obtained by machine with turn movement data obtained by observers. The 'a actions taken by LILCO in revising its estimates of turn movements were efforts h.J 4' to refine a complicated analysis, it was not credible for Intervenors to assert that ,^ ~ machine data are invariably more accurate for turn movements, considering the [ obvious limitations of the counting machines for distinguishing turns in lanes ~ that permit either straight through or left. turn movements. The Board concludes ' Wl that there is nothing in LILCO's assessment of background turning traffic that 'V.' 'f 1, l..M e S. causes doubt concerning the capacity of critical intersections to serve reception b., ',.,.*, g?. / s , centers at the required rates, ,1,"n. 7,- y i. The State argued that the plan is unworkable at some critical intersections because LILCO assumed that left turns required to reach reception centers are e
- 6
- 4
.k fd ' $, ' !) liU <c planned from two lanes instead of one as permitted by lane markings and signals, 4 ,l; ;.. ' ' ' f6 j The critical locations were identified as the intersection of Route 107 and old N. Courtry Road and the intersection of the LIE South Service Road and Willis ', -;.. s. ., a. c M 'l Avenue. NY Exh. 6 at 6-7 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). LILCO asserted that it is l 'I ^ .a. reasonable to assume left turns from two lanes in an emergency even though not < 6...,',,i. Q. "V permitted routinely, and that police will be present to control this movement. . W.d... LILCO Exh. 51 at 3 (Lieberman); Tr. 18,534-41 (Lieberman). However, y ', f - ' f,.,,, ' ; j the adequacy of intersection capacity is not dependent on an assumption of h, 5 '5 t.p the use of two lanes at critical intersections since the left turn capacity of (,( '.) ~ 5,*- one lane is adequate to serve the centers if police traffic control is present.
- d. ' ' -
. N.S i. .d['h ;' TY,19,097-98 (Urbanik). The NRC Staff in fact asserted repeatedly that E j%f g y.f.'-l.', f.,, ~, ' U e control at critical intersections should be provided. Tr. 18,981, 18,986, 19,150 .f'[.. % ' '?,.- '4 (Urbanik). Intervenors do not disagree with the conclusion but assert that police participation in emergency response in Nassau County cannot be ensured $ Q g y:K ' m /."'f.c c. ~ beczuce there are no agreements between the County and LILCO, and the County M: k C., 7. W h,;M.:..'. A c. .m. -.m. p .m, n.,y .:,., % ~ o 'f.( iz *., I:.l# ;'.,.% '*4 y Q.. 2.(:<. % O,: U, sp;,...t..m,--2.w. :[;w E id c [;[T1. . /
- h 543 s.
.1.,. , t; *, i .w-..,
- !, ? C = %,. 3 -
.s .'*,'3,'. h st y c^. ,y f - I. -a .-.....y' > g }J ' ' % A. $.-j; f.? jy,'* ':;\\ ' 1 '<a l ~ ~.... g., 4, f,!?.;.W[(< 2.y. t ~ q. e'., . '. j, ,s,, .'3 h' f-g[. [r E <. ' ' < - ' eV ,)( !. f) [.' , a [., ,I.W ' 1 = .,? _x q. x . c.3m. - .'*]M. -',,M .g (< iYM . 7. ' * '.,c ' J, 0.'- q,.
- i :s <
' < pj y,~* ,', s c,.'. f..v ', %..m. c..>. b .;;] 2-~ t.. , 2,,.... .Nf .e s p .. s, - r .m, . m wuu _ y. ~ g. s
,%Q.N /m.NWbjMQC:h%M &g.j %.M g.u~J' mlwy: m y;mdn#W.+:,?h2E'.W O$ W yR WiY-b}H,l.j]. [j w.& 3 m.. ;.n w,'.:Wp. c.m%nR,pgf.n,m M , W y%.:g.'a n W G 'g,; gg.,q. 2:.yy;'.K.,y&y3'y yq., x
- 2. b
. :y:, ;.n 7 p e;;s.. gqm;y.,.;g
- p.fgyg y.;",
,:9.-. y s; t ,g l ' L : G: 'y,y;y 7;w;.,w,.g..,pp;Q MQf'iQQi? ?.~ ?'L [,M h:.-Ou .,e y.x y..y., U.i' L.L Q :. 7.,.yg,,...p;s w. W;, W h lY, iG? :j,yy&:{,Oi?Wl;Myg.?N: Q . ~M.lr.l Wi-::!ll y..y.., Q.,L;....'l.: }" ~~Q~ElQA ~MDN. _ %..,W y V, - ~~"---~"~:=a-n- r. t..- 3, i.- ~., _ 5.s ,,,m l,i a...y r - ~...; '. 1.. :31. q:, +;. : g :; q., v. : s e 1' :
- y y..,
s u', L*j %' ;Y, ~
- ~,','../*.,,
n.,, gW..,, n,. c '.~,o = _ i g t a .~c ..q a '. < #c v..,@s.. y; ' i. ' A..',.c police have not reviewed the plan. Tr.18,660 (Lieberman); Tr. 19,147 49 1 e t 1.g.,yjg t' e ... e y,7, 'p[,.;;. ' 4 ;, % 0f (Urbanik); SC Exh. 22; Governments' Proposed Findings at 244-46. ~.R ' i. j C ;'. N.4,K p JM. C ; f (.(
- f. fif A flurry of controversy erupted as to whether KLD had conducted its analysis
'.y. of traffic under the assumption that police control would be unnecessary for h,.. 'i 4 9. g, jft a.$ implementation of the reception center plan. It appears that active control - j :. h. '
- @;'q!J. [',9.W ' 2rf was not assumed for the purposes of the analysis although police control was S.., W ; J g
recommended. LILCO Exh.1. Attach. T at 33 (Crocker, et al.). De Staff was s _,,.,j-.;;, 5 % ; j ' M, uncertain on the question cf how the analysis was conducted although ic u.s M Q <,g. K.- Q-. Q censin that police control of, at least, a few intersections would be necessary. ~
- ' W. 4.c t
y Tr.18,980-82,18,986-88,18,99819,001,19,10910,19,129 30 (Urbanik). ' A-[ ] }. M pl -D ['.?' "h In the circumstances of this case, it was reasonab!c for KLD to conduct its a;x .Y -., analysis as it did, even though police control of traffic in an emergency is clearly ,l ,.f preferable to not having it, ne analysis performed by KLD is a worst case g ..g p ..., f,..g,.W-D[ analysis that shows in LILCO's view that the system would work adequately
- . y s
a J :.,. K,.g.y f; 0.. -N.; with traffic signal control alone. Even though that result might be valid, however, c ' Q-W4 "q.n{. '.y e; r.ll experts agree that police control will produce a more satisfactory result. s. U.$' ;;;.N:. jW h t, KLD's analytical approach was consistent with its uncertainty, which was shared .~(hf g]C$b $. by all parties and the Board, as to how the legal authority and government e .i $ ;.g,j 9,]g participation questions in this case would ultimately be resolved.1-lowever, it is %:yy' ) not for technical witnesses to resolve those issues either explicitly or implicitly in g. yr p c. d ;t.. testimony. The witness apparently did the best he could under the circumstances. Vh' [- .E ' nat effort did not result in bias, however, because the analysis presented was 7d less favorable to LILCO's case than one assuming police control would have Z *," ". /, 3 ,s been. De matter of the assumptions used in KLD TR 201A is now immaterial , ' y; .c g j to the resolution of issues because the testimony demonstrated convincingly that ,~ police control of critical intersections should be provided in an emergency. + ne Board concludes that LILCO's estimate of capacity of critical intersec-tions was not dependent on its assumption of left turns from two lanes since, with police control, adequate capacity to serve reception centers exists even ,A if turns from one lane are assumed. The Board agrees with Dr. Urbanik that 1 police presence at key intersections in an emergency renders technical cisputes + 1, f-about left turns from one or two lanes, or about signal timing, inconsequential, f" Tr.18,977,19,007,19.137 (Urbanik). De dispute about the number of left N turn lanes to be utilized reduces to a question of intersection management in an emergency, which is a part of what police do. De evidence shows that intersec-j tions throughout the network have the capacity to deliver traffic to the reception centers at a rate well in excess of that needed to keep them continuously supplied u +i h vehicles during an emergency. LILCO Exh.1, Attach. T at 2125 (Crocker, t et al.). Bis is also true for critical intersections even if the police decide at the time of an emergency to restrict turning movements to one lane, ne Board ? concludes that LILCO's capacity analysis of key intersections in the vicinity of reception centers during an emergency was reasonable, and with police control n -e e c $44 4 4 1* \\ .. ~ \\ .( .1 I e s 3 g =. g ~.. 1
7 . ~ j m . o t
- c..,
'n ~ 'y. 8 ~. at critical intersections, adequate capacity exists to accommodate the number of evacuees in LILCO's plan. Participation of Nassau County Police he Board gives no credence to the possibility that Nassau County Police will not provide assistance to the public in an actual emergency because , W,. 'i i the "best efforts" assumption of the Commission and the regulations prohibit I('V...'r. such consideration. CLI 8613, supra; 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c). See also SC Exh. 22,112, 3; Tr.19,177 78. LILCO plans to request the assistance of %lUn >. ' s the Nassau County Police Department in an emergency. LILCO Exh. I at @ R; A -N-E 'n$ .'g I .? 37 (Crocker, et al.). De record does not reflect whether the Nassau County f(,',N: A.- i Police have reviewed the plan for reception centers or are familiar with its i provisions, nat deficiency can be remedied by providing the police with
- v. - [? f, f ' y,
copies of the most current plan and keeping them infnrmed of changes as they 5 *c.p.:' - 4 occur. However, prior familiarizadon or training of police, though desirable. L,. 1' is not crucial to implementation of traffic control. Tr.18,982 (Urbanik). The ',_,p . Board therefore directs that LILCO provide current copies of its emergency ..l plan as it pertains to reception centers to the Nassau County Police Department. f,, j e 'l,'; t. s LILCO is also directed to constdt directly with the Nassau County Police 7-Depanment to inform them of the provisions of its emergency plan that involve 7 -D 7 I'M ,f '^ police participation. Confirmation of these actions prior to the issuance of hl.j,P, l ~ y v. .V.' el 4 any operating license is delegated to the NRC Staff; however, refusal of local - sl, 4 f., . 44 goveinment agencies to participate in planning will not in itself prevent the i,) [ _ " ',M)[fi{ ]d- ,p, ,c U.jQl,- issuance of an operating license if the NRC requirements for emergency planning f.j >g. w+g.,il-W.@ are otherwise adequately met.10 C.F.R. I50.47(c). ...y Q i g. s,z "n.e, -. :i, g e 4 .,...,.s<.. g.
- if0+,,'Y.]r, s. >.
% l, h &.!.w m':
- n:
t., a sC,.. Future Trq1ie Growth l +:.w y.c.
- i p,q
- G "
,, 9.- M[A.d'y. 6;, * ', N),y The State experts argued that traffic is growing annually both within the EPZ 'l 7... j / " ,7 ".,.f and outside it and that LILCO's traffic analysis should have taken account of the growth projected for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. NY Exh 5 at 17 (Hartgen, t' 'fr'd 7 ;'. b ; '. f,b . P D) Q U Q/@h.9%,>, s-[ ( 7;!, ' ; f', Millspaugh). ft' W~ '{ J LILCO and the NRC Staff claim that it is inappropriate to consider future growth because emergency planning is an ongoing process. Staff Exh. 3 at 6 ".1 M; Q;T f,f. ,g.';. gl ;D :. / ' n(. (Urbanik); LILCO Exh. 26 at 9 (Lieberman). LILCO claims further that, even 9 j/ A ? 'l if we were to consider projected traffic growth, its magnitude is not as large $'f -? as Intervenors claim LILCO and the Staff state that growth in Nassau County U,,iu,f., . ' 0,1 ' n 7,. ?' where the reception centers are located will be only a few percent over the next L. 'C.'A. f., 4.5-- L'.'O.'. ^ h, ( M,. % W., lq J'.. "
- V.: -
Q fj 'Q'..Q..,. ' ~' ( 5 years. LILCO Exh. 26 at 10, Attach. A Tr.18,617 (Lieber. nan); Tr.19,131 (Urbanik).. af 7.. y'M'i d.l ' " * ' ;C ' g,,,.,. '. ) '9Q:f ; J7 }h.c M t;&m e:M., . y i. .v y !.m an r-w 8 U.
- b. c,.w.,*.. 4 y, G w.V - QJ..
c ',. s, c,' ;,q.a........ - o , *,.(. t .J ? : F..1.. . s-, ',.,. r.l.,, . q. ;.,,'s .,,,i,, e g ...e e .*e ,. ;t .g q ,g
- 4. ~ ;9-g *, g s y
- r *=iL%
- 9 Ff,
- % d* *%,* * *
- f *
=j, p. pe e..i.. ,g e-9T >*554
- e e **
9
- 498
.=g ~. - - L '.t. .,.<.<g K. ' ;' y 2, j* g 4 y,:t.>,.. q.g 8 1 g y fy,., 4 ~.,3.; 7.~y:~ s g g y c,y g,.,4;r :., _. * ,,2..;, y : .. p;g . ;,;,,., '..,,:y 7, ~.. $; 'M' ...y '. 7 y y, g e. 4f.ig;,.; g ;.,,. q,., ',,s.g 3.; , l- + . m.,; ::. a :.g *y.;pp ;_.$. (3.-:., ",,, w,.,,. ~ , Q * '3 :. !*g * (4.v y,,. '.,r 3. ~ u. - .7- ,e,..<, ,;q,' . q ..?- .~ .v, _ *.o,,
- e,
. f,- O *3 -... s.], f ;l7 63,*4 .e e "]',,,,..,, m,a,r,,.3 i
- n
,l3 i 4 -' ,. G.s,jt.e,9 '$ g t, g /.;' 3 . / : ' ..' '4,,w l t.+y'. .
- h i cg : ~
- f. vi
,p.. . f ; ', i '. '., .c, '
- n. f,.L*g :1w. ny.,. q. L 3 f,: W '.
y }* D_._p y,,*,si. &..'.',,, C y y ; : ? ,.= n ' \\ b b t ! Wc '~_,;s'L.; '.1. ',. \\. %.,g y.. -. _... - q ,^ Q * ' ',,* + .y: _ ' ..s )
- a
,_ ' g'z ", l 4-D* ~ 4 p a_..
[. iiN%%:i.:q. /;w., wy..,,;.,., p&,. _. wN;..,7.s.yy. y.... - - < n.,, /7 c,.. N, w, s .y-e ,.. p..
- (:q p,
, ;.y ,e 3: ?.:v. _ :,9; %c..q m. ', u jh.qq. _.;,y c ,. %q.,. p c o,g,p p a- .. v- .n c. u. ;' ., s W y.w. :, ,,: c, : .c~ e ,e s .s, a.; . 9x w - x,: 1
- . l;..', -.
y.: n, ;, f.:,'.,.. u
- s =.v.
c, . + ' :u -, c u.;,
- ,;q-n
.i,}l};5l[0g; ,n._
- 3 m :,... 1 e a o..
', m., c ;3 A,, [ :..,TF1 1 Prior to the hearing, the Board admitted Intervenors' testimony on future . ' r.46 90 traffic growth over LILCO's motion to strike because we are obligated to r,. ' ' ', R[d] assure ourselves that there are no barriers to emergency planning that cannot ' 'f.w, ' 9 1. ? be removed prior to license issuance. We observed, however, that LILCO was =, ". ~'lcc] generally correct in its assertion that future developments must be addressed in
- 1.,.
j'g the future. Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the i'O y. '.j Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Rober* C. Millspaugh) at 5, June 22,1987 c, ' '~ d (unpublished). There was speculative testimony in the hearing over likely future <+ growth rates; however, Intervenors assert in their proposed findings only that it C is not imprudent to consider the matter and that significant future growth can be expected. Governments' Proposed Findings at 267. The Governments asserted c + c, 4 ',y that the magnitude of projected grow th in Suffolk County could be about 22% by ~. 'e t the year 2010. NY Exh. 7 at 19 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). Intervenors' testimony implementation of LILCO's emergency plan because LILCO has demonstrated even if accepted as true falls far short of demonstrating a future barrier to <? /;p i a greater excess capacity over its planning basis than the alleged population SS ' ' j (,,' 4 p The Board concludes that LILCO's emergency planning for reception centers -{ growth. E, 7;, { , ; ".j was correctly based on current traffic data because reasonably predictable growth 2 t# ..f' ar;- .c. 3 presents no barrier to future emergency response. NRC guidance provides for _Y -i future developments by requiring that emergency plans be reviewed and updated c T periodically. NUREG 0654 III.P.4 provides: "Each organization shall update its plan and agreements as needed, review and certify it to be current on an ,f ? annual basis." Section II.P.9 provides in pertinent part: "Each licensee shall ( arrange for and conduct independent reviews of the emergency preparedness c, program at least every 12 months." In the absence of ncorrectable barriers, 9 the foregoing guidance applies, and makes clear that the Staff is correct in its assessment that emergency planning is an ongoing process LILCO will be cbligated to periodically review and update its planning for reception cer.ters if an operating license for Shoreham is issued. Intervenors' assertion that projected growth in traffic on Long Island must be considered prior to licensing is correct, but, in the absence of barners, the regulatory scheme for periodically updating the plan is the applicable provision for changing conditions during the term of the license. \\ Board Decision This is the second occasion we have had to probe the intricacies of the Long !sland highway system and its likely function in a radiological emergency. The results we find are similar to those found the first time. As in our Partial Initial Decision, we find that Intervenors have proved again that uncertainty exists in predicting how traffic will flow in an actual emergency. Many different but 5 16 e d
( a 4 plausible scenarios exist that could materialize in an emergency, some worse than others, but they are all in some measure speculative and not subject to rigorous proof. LILCO has proved that the existing highway and road system has the capacity to deliver the number of evacuees within its planning basis to the reception centers within the time limits prescribed by NUREO-0654 (11J.12 and that it has assigned an adequate level of resources to accommodate the number of evacuecs in its plan See inha. Whatever uncertainties still remain, we are now confident that traffic performance in an emctgency has been probed e to bedrock. Experts from both sides resorted to speculative answers to traffic questions as the inquiry increasingly focused on minutiae and departed from the settled knowledge of the engineering professions. We have therefore reached 'f the limits of what expert testimony can reliably contribute, if the goal is to predictively resolve all uncertainties about traffic flow in an emergency. We conclude, however, that that is not the proper goal of our inquiry. A fair demonstration of capability based on existing highway capacity and adeg. ate [ ', prior allocation of resources is all that can reasonably be demanded in assessing LILCO's plan, because this is all that the regulations require and all that we can scrutinize without resorting to speculation. That task is formidable, however, and we are aware that experts are not immune from error in performing it. However, in overview, we find that the State experts lost credibility by their assertion of comprehensive error that found fault with LILCO's analysir at virtually every step. Our findings could not confirm the extsence of wholesale error in LILCO's analysis, and the record is inconclusive even on individual [ computations or observations where error might exist. Even a first reading of the l'- V XLD *.raffic analysis would reveal to a professional that it was at least carefully 5.- O,' [.' done by experts in the field and worthy of being taken seriously even if there
- e, L'
ri ' might be individual points of error or technical disagreement. We expected, but ?. ' ),.. ( ;* 4 did not receive from State experts, a discriminating analysis that would bring i g.' f-to focus significant error or bias if it existed. The State review was not only
- ?.
oC not discriminating but it brought into litigation every arguable fault, whetlur q', ' ! C ',^ ^ significant or not, and in that respect it comported more with the controversial y nature of litigation than with objective standards of technical peer review, c> -O e When stripped of the imperatives for advocacy, however, the findings of "5 the opposing experts regarding technical aspects of traffic movements toward p. N reception centers reasonably coincide. Painted in broad strokes, and with 3 ..s 3 j only insignificant variation, the experts from both sides produce an emergency .M,Y-i traffic picture characterized by congested. slow-moving, stop-and go traffic with f i frequent queues. Both sides find tha6 traffic queues will extend upstream from 'K,. . " ~ 's-x key intersections and that police control and direction of traffic will be needed 1l P ' ';. -;'~ to facilitate turns and to keep intersecuons clear. The disagreement reduced +- -. v to conflicting opinions about planning details and subjective interpretations of i- .) .g severity and consequences of those conditions during an emergency. r y h.., r I' '.i 4 $47 . i',,, 't { 7.y;. ~ e g. I E g ,9 9 g e, e 9 , ~ ',y s 'h4 N ^ , y. * -~g ; _. p-- z. ~ . s. Q k P ,.c., n.- .i f ,'. s'.- m ' I. ' = .h",, 4 g ,g' 1 g- ,j a.s. - V'O .s* ~ f,'dd ',' s ; a', A, T ' ' ..,J'., s. t-t. Q, : k., as '., _, - x.. s 7M, a:
i m m' h f h >' < ?A,i ?
- s. a.. g n,
r~. .,,w. ~.
- p, p..
~,.l' db f,.*,($ Q.? c ' ), l e ' ' 'N I l l~ r ih l,lO 'O n. s a f . 3 .Y l 5 f J. Y, : ' ' a'. ,. ' W?, z ' - n. 2%,. :.. ',ry y
- w. :
'= 6 .,z q ' ~. ". ~ .y ; ~ ~. ,y. ~., c. n> ,;.y...; < v ' x: l;,?-3 ; [:.,. ;;.p;:T f %_, ;,., x... s,. z..;=.l ~. .N.T,; 7e J'w ; E : 9, d 'J l -
- p c,
b.L - l, ? :.? Ct', &a&;.; ). ; - l .,;,,;,ql
- A dl.'.
- , ? ;',k;..
,.s@ ",..Nfu.7, ne subjective opinions ot'Intenenors' experts also lost a measure of cred- .$ *,$ $hhb, d i d ibility, in the Board's view, on the question of the consequences of congestion .,.";1., O G %IN-[7,:.$ ?. G on traffic movement. Their testimony, taken as a whole, invited the Board to a y..$j qlyjM{ddy.1 ' ' .g'[. concluding inference that when traffic demand reaches or exceeds road capacity A. y (V/C = 1), street and intersection function is effectively lost or grossly dimin-f, g', ' l8' [%] t.- l. W .74$ ished so that LILCO's plan would be unworxable. In reality, however, the road l g r l,- network retains capxity to function under those conditions. We expect experts 9 in the Geld to know that. It is the road capacity that exists under congestion j] (as opposed to full unimpeded capacity) that LILCO relies on for iu conclusion l of adequacy of traffic flow in emergency conditions. Intervenors' experts did s j not explicitly acknowledge that reality, but instead emphasized subjectively that 5 ,J : traffic conditions will virtually always be worse than LILCO found. LILCO's .T2 ~ d consultant, however, candidly acknowledged the results of its analytical findings j s s / ~ 'I which showed difficult, congested traf6c conditions in an emergency. De Board concludes that the KLD analysis was not biased to favor LILCO's prospects for ' I gaining regulatory approval of its plan. ..[ ~- 3, De standard of decision we employ is one of reasonable assurance that public health and safety can be protected in an emergency. De standard of 2 ',i. public health protection is that the plan be adequate to achieve an unquantified ' (. doce reduction to the public in an emergency. Rose standards do not require the submission of a theoretically optimal plan nor do they require resolution of all predictive uncertainty about how future emerger cies will unfold. The standards can be met by a practical demonstration of existing capability, without regard to all possible future contingencies, if the underlying analysis is reasonable + and does not depend on flawed or distorted data or assunptions. We conclude l that LILCO's traffic analysis was grounded on reasonable assumptions, data, techniques of analysis, and interpretations, evea though other data and methods might have been used. We have not found gross or disabling error in its analysis. The Board is convinced from LILCO's analysis that sufficient highway and reception center capacity exists so that traffic problems will not frustrate the timely monitoring of the number of evacuees in LILCO's plan. The Board therefore finds reasonable assurance that implementation of LILCO's reception center plan would achieve significant dose reduction for affected populations in j an emergency at $horeham. The concern of the Appeal Board that caused this lssue to be remanded, we believe, has also been resolved. LILCO's reception centers are not beyond the reach of the persons they are set up to serve. The
- 1. -
overall analysis further shows that LILCO's choice of reception centers was not flawed on account of transportation or traffic problems that might arise from their location and distance from the EPZ. We determined separately in this decision that LILCO's planning basis wm adequate and that there is no regulatory reason for requiring that some other planning basis be adopted. There is therefore no need to scrutinize with equal care the traffic consequences,of Intenenors' 548 ? f 4 4
i ~ 1 . ~ 3 s ..s. .s traffic models which were based on larger populations than used by LILCO. i ne Board finds reasonable assurance that the traf0c plan for reception centers LILCO submitted is workable and would help ensure the degree of protection of public health and safety required by NRC regulations. ~~ 3. Distanet of Recepdon Centers from EPZ issues ~ Two additional issues designated for hearing relating to the location of the ^ reception centers were: Whether the (recepico centers'llocadcm[ 1 might create problems in regard to the evamdon shadow phenarienon: and whether the distance of the trecepdon centerst from the plume p ~ EPZ uould increase exposure to radia6on, causing addidonal problems. c,.r We address each of these matters in turn. 4 The Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon The presence or absence of a shadow evacuation has, of course, been the subject of extensive litigadon in this case, and our earlier Partial Initial Decision addressed it. LBP-8512, supra, 21 NkC at 655 71. There, however, we f '- dealt with the phenomenon as it would be met were there no aggravating circumstances. Here, intervenors allege that the placing of the reception centers i' ^ at a considerable distance from the EPZ will increase the chance that a shadow ,'54. evacu.stion will occur ney reason that evacuees secking to escape a disaster '[,,,S [g ;,,, will attempt to find a place of refuge that is far enough from the danger, With the L reception centers located 40 miles from the plant, many p:ople between the plant b' ? i N e and the reception centers will perceive that they are in an unsafe area because
- 5. @ '
C'] (', the designated safe refuge centers are farther from the plant than they are. SC c l. Exh.15 at 10,12 (Johnson, Saegert). De result will be a greater tendency to }"' evacuate, and an expansion of the geographic scope of the evacuation shadow p ' '.: i.. ' ' ' [3 l,. : phenomenon. Id. at 11 12. The County's witnesses believe that w hat they call "spatial factors" are impor- [ ~ tant in determining behavior in a radiological emergency, where environmental sues, su;it as flood waters or noxious gans, do not provide sensory evidence l '. L' defining the zone of risk. /d. at 11. In the absence of such cues, they believe p E%' [. f the location of the reception centers will become a "primary objective factor" '( {[. in denning the zone of risk /d. ,' ? W The County's witnesses also argue that the reception centers will constitute i " f,' # { ~ a "locally unwanted land use"in the view of the people in surrounding towns. h ./ r *' ~ The centers will be perceived as presenting a threat to those in the tomis and, ,],,,,Y in the event of a radiological emergency, people will atterrpt to evacuate from 'H ( ',, 2 3 ~< {ml Ri f, n
- ' ??,:
u y v $49 t, 9 s, 1'., J,.. - J ;,, t x... .g f e 'g j ') ,r :. f i'i ;.: < ~~~
- , _q$ /. -y,
+L w '6- = y 1 [,~j f Ns1 p., f , j,,t' . r,j s 4 s.,.. N- , d e, ' A'., , 'Shi .l f, 3.'*g f, (. i f Q, _ -ll Mc.k NL.y \\ n s k' - ) ; '- l .CL. ' ~
W. 'R"?in % y vi.;;n..Mlc; c.., w'.' '* ;c;. f *' N W i ;Y.m ;;a L \\. 3 3,.c ..,1 . ',,, a... L.;,j:.g.,/,yo p,.& a:".c, q /,, . p;. w. t.-am. m, ;,e:., y.. u. .. /.. .. v.. ~. ~, >g c ; .. -;.. n. A g t." - ' f,, . :p !, _ p ; : $:'. - ~ sa- 'a,.< "3_ q.s q =;. : y,,9 4.y &; v: ? --, i.. . f. , m;..!;.. -. .- c ,s .tu s ~ 5.. 's. ~ ,,. ~ c,; ~. ,, - (&,,, % - .,;,: c._.... y, - " ~
- e's 1
.q. .(, y. ,. c. ,,,y< + .(. ~ .. ~. ~.,, ,w a ~- ~ ~ N; )(.. uU.',l. ', ;;<. 9 f-
- 2.h.. a 5 d.,. k..~.. s *.
. a *. 6..c. p"C 6., % ; - g.c, ~.,,,.y>,x i ~.. . :a ,t . g% .' [ p,..;... k r:, p. ~.. o,,,
- (s
,,. ;gMp;w w. ; 'B,. : >. ., ';,.yp.9 -J ,: q s L, ,+m .w n W'f".C 'e%K[.Q,, W W. the areas surrounding the centers, adding to the congestion and further delaying $-{n%.'llf.R.. a,.,J.hf J.f '.v...',lw.-i* '.;:t,I . M.'. O the arrival of the evacuees from the EPZ. /d. at 1719. NY Exh. 5. Attach. 3 6,
- eh
.u. is cited for the fact that the surrounding area is heavily developed. l461;. Q. n @2lg @ is.p!$3 C,[4r.1I..$ $ 1 @ y .J. .. d d M),.. LILCO's witnesses tell us that the perceived area of risk (and hence the ..( %. M.%eW. q "shadow") is determined by the information the public hears, not by the position ' Yf.(J; @$ J { $.s S dY@'.!. of reception centers or shelters. LILCO Exh.1 (Mileti) at 25. LILCO quld . ;. f.s p s.i y,*,p'y .';, E i! also characterize as "circular" the reasoning of County 'sitness Johnson, who ff.. ' ); f.'!.', ' M believes that the reason the reception center at TMI was little used was that . c, - f. pr.ople saw it as too close (10 miles) to the plant, but who also believes that the
- 1. '
. ( " t. f. -. ' distance of a reception center will help derme the zone of risk. LILCO Proposed Y' SOJ' ' '[ Findings at 37, citing Tr.17,S83,17,885; LILCO Exh. 9. We do not think such -j[4$. ' -, reasoning necessarily circular; the County's witnesses have repeatedly expressed e., '.1 . e. u. '^ the view that people so fear radiation that 10 miles seems close in a nuclear (
- . ', lf.D '
accident. The notion that, for larger distances, the public might view the position
- i
' f,' j of a reception center as a factor in determining "how far is far enough" is not 1 4 illogical. l l LILCO would also have us decide that Intervenors' argument about the i position of reception centers is a challenge to the Commission's rule that the yb }" EPZ should extend "about ten miles." LILCO Proposed Findings at 37. We do not see it such a challenge. We see the dispute as centered around the issue of human behavior and the need to provide for an enhanced degree of voluntary 4 evacuation. As to the theory that this "local unwanted land use" will cause people to evacuate the area around the reception centers, LILCO's witnesses believe that the evidence is "overwhelming" that people do not nee from places simply because those places involve some sort of radiological activity. LILCO Exh.1 s i at 23 (Lindell, Mileti). They note that experience at TM!, Love Canal, and ~ ~ Times Beach showed that people only leave hazardous areas after the hazard l, has been denned by an "authoritative source." Id. j ne NRC Staff treats the "shadow evacuation" phenomenon as simply part of the overall traffic picture. De Staff points out that the traf6c analyses } that LILCO relies upon assume Level of Service F on all roads along the evacuation routes. Staff Proposed Findings at 44-45, citing LILCO Exh. 26 at 11 r (Lieberman). Thus the bulk of any "shadow" traf6c would enter the highways behind vehicles from the EPZ and would have a limited effect on those vehicles' arrival times. Id. The Staff's witness on traffic matters testined that "shadow" traf6c in general has been considered in evacuation time estimates. Id.; Staff Exh. 3 at 5 (Urbanik); Tr. 19,014-15. .s 8 550 I j g t k q
.a m t. ~ ,] e4 '5 r 1, a. .( e a. t 4 Board Decision on Encuation Sh2dow Phenomenon + l We treated the evacuation shadow phenomenon extensively in our earlier Partial Initial Decision (LBP.85 12, supra. 21 NRC at 655 71). There, we found + that "a rational public will behave predominantly in accordance with public l, information that is disseminated at the time an emergency happens." Id. at 670. ] We do not believe that so small (and likely so recondite) a matter as the distance from the EPZ to the reception centers could shake our earlier conviction to any ~ 6 teat degree. We noted then, and we repeat here, that a "shadow" could develop V T-2, if confused or conflicting information is disseminated to the public, but we do not think that distance to the rcception centers will be the straw that breaks the v informational camel's back. ' i- , '^ The Staff's argument we regard as a makeweight. It is hard to set how ( l the minor effect we would expect from an evacuation shadow could strongly influence transit times in the face of a Level of Service F assumption on the 7 j part of the planners. 7 1 1 Here we fmd LILCO has carried the day. p,;, ~ The Increase in Radiation Exposure i Intervenors' witness Dr. Radford notes that the dose an individual receives frofn radioactive contamination is a function not only of the amount of radioac. i. tive material deposited but also of the time that elapses before the contamination is removed. Governments' Exh.16 at 32 (Radford). Thus any delay in decon. tamination will be reflected in an increase in dose for the people who receive [ 4< contamination in the EPZ. If the arrival of contaminated individuals at the re. L u.. ~ ception (and decontamination) centers is delayed because these centers are far ]. + from the EPZ, their dose will be increased. Dr. Radford then calculates, for an p /. y Individual whose dose would have totaled 5 rad afte.t a delay of 10 hours, the i l dose would total 10 rad after a delay of 20 hours. Similarly, lengthening the 's time until decontamination from 10 to 20 hours would turn a 10. rad dose into re %,1 a 20. rad dose. Id. at 34." Dr. Radford then asserts that these increases would l,'; s - t-2 increase the chance that an individual would develop cancer by 3.5"4 and 7"x, respectively. Id. He gives no reason why his assume 4 doses are in the region of 4 ;. c" 0.5 to I rad per hour, nor does he explain what the corresponding doses from /P plume or ground contamination exposure would be. He says only that the doses due to contamination "could be highly significant in comparison to the direct ^,c radiation from the plume." Id., n.85. ,.c- .c he1 2' e a <c q ..J- -..q, m H -',a [,1 J. As t1140 com0y pants out in its prosed rindrgs. M usumpuan or a knen rQuee barnen dou and [', T# Y,. r tune is sa armtensuan, h wuu ardy be ecmet for eersammum composed cf radioisacres er relsove'y kris ,4 < iii,,,,.,,.y j ' ' n*, J.l.. ha'.r4fs that is, he'r4fe lors compared to N umas used in the usmpk For shaser4ved materials h inctuan 0> q.- in ecoe wouW be less tJLCo Proposed Findesi et ss. . n,,. s..
- '..3,
.. g. r 4 .s
- 4 551
- ,'.r4, ti
- , q-
'/.,- ~ '. v 3 3 M A
- 7..:9 9 g
l 1 s.r:m: m[e,,..y y;[' ;. - >n ~ 3' l~. ys L' j 'Q'~, ; y ; W y. r.: r. 3:[rp.r :n rwn. - s ,s, _ i.cg..j g s,', ,. (,, cl ' s r S., j, ,'a.m 7 ':n '. ~ .r' ..>w ~ V&.$x y .s,s i ..,y - , '?. <;,'. y ; O ' l. . it :. ' ' .P +6 . 4 i ....., f /, ;[. c..'.. . y-L, % ?, ' ly:' G. . :l > l,, - .s .-L, ' 4, o,, ~ a ~ ; .%...g p c h '., (.,,, y ;.,... t. 1 m.,e*[,,.... r .v; ..v ,r. . n... i.s..... -, ;.;g.J,;y, '.s% e M Jf 31 f l N O N' W MYb... 9..'M M ' JC } ' S N'S N k #
- s.
' E ' U'? < A ' ' 'i ' D' E ',W N n>
ri24f.M h M N7b(( M b b b Mb NhN.h5 i'I 'Mk')hM%m QF('h M M $ $ h..: h..M 1.MU D $/:M.h.M,7?,.:.;:v.~~ m u M;;m%;y$GMlq(.$M.,3 w.: v: k n. xwy n:: W;h&:n t./ y ;;; n& mm.S.' Q.ig;..%n & m. .. q; p :m p g j:a.n 2 A, J.....c s mm. + mm.t n 9: v.w.. >. n -Q.Q.w::s 0p 3:.49:: ~ i :fU v;M.Q.k.;F, ;;.....)m mM. y a y. , y y:f.M:c..9 :h ; c n.:4p ". v w e.R ; ?g'7,' ,.m. g-n ~w .. w %' g.:+. 9~f y-$'u.;.n y' ':: Mf;;,M ; y; Q ; g:..a N:,
- ?
. v.9 y s. .%y.n ~.f*M.S. W.. .x w;. -jo .n,.. w.1.,M n W C' h h,h;4ea:u-m W.;e.h w.. V. i 1;. 2 cam + " ' m A' a db. * ,,.. ': 6 e w a '- w v,A; -.y. w.. c. c..m.l n. ../ .s e. ,a %a.. y..- v c + ? m.y 1. :r%m. se..,.s, p nd 9. h Aag.l:x?::We}:i S$ : "..-M y.?.nm&;. A ,Q q b m. y. f:Wq:::c m)Dh2$h!.h. ry;2:a.:.q,1 - x M:MM ; Y!' m M@n,.H. UP.,b.,d. W,U.h.D.. e[Qj LILCO's witnesses, Linnemann and Watts, testified that, on the contrary, Q 9,.... "[als a general matter, the dose received from the contamination on a person's 9 d %[.<,:$h'N h h. %e a. @h s.'$ @d.Mh cy, K9 ",. W W,9f~. dy body is small compared to the dose he received from having been in the plume in the first place, even if it is several hours before he or she gets decontaminated." g A+ K @W.... M. %, %,h. J,W,/...v.. ~S4 . a.;,,. J";nd; M MW LILCO Exh. I at 38 (Linnemann, Watts). On the basis of the scenario used in the
- M' W
4Gi?/ M ? February 1986 exercise, these witnesses calculated the dose an individual would receive during a 20-hour delay for decontamination after a 3 hour exposure to C.I;. f?.' Q;%.%W]'/,QM',h@ @F - 9?Q :'de W,5. - ine plume. They used standard health physics formulas. Dose from the plume V 3 #fE,, ! < 6 '. prior to evacuation under these circumstances would be 180 millirem: that from - " E:.'." @-2.n 9, M @.6 " ~~,7" c.] /! the residual contamination prior to its removal would be 9 millirem, about 5% f R ~; .,. gg ' l.b $f.^ >;' '.e Q d] of the plume dose. Id. Dey also calculate the increase in thyroid dose due to . M,% );g! delay in decontamination for the same scenario. They obtain similar results - O. 3, '.C, ( y, e G.. e.s about a 4% increase. Id. at 39. These witnesses stress that the additional doses s g y,Q cf.,, . e. would not result in any "acute, detectable" effects on the whole body or the //.. f[ *'c ,f j thyroid gland. Id. M.y y}. .y Y
- 4. (
g yf While Intervenors' witnesses do not credit the calculations of witnesses t 3.. '. c-L, ~ ~ Linnemann and Watts, they produce no real alternative, ney simply state f 'y. ;, ',J. l Mj that higher doses are "entirely possible" but present no scenario for evaluation. 4 ,.F.M,Q, SC Exh.16 at 35 (Radford). Cross examination of FEMA witnesses clicited ( +. ' N; the fact that the particulate release postulated for the February 1986 exercise i
- 9 was not very high, although the lodine release was substantial. Tr. 18,413 14 I
i l (Keller). During that same cross. examination the FEMA witness opined that the > p.1 incremental exposure incurred by delay in decontamination would "[glenerally i < '. ; speaking,,. not be a medically significant increase," although there might be some scenarios wherein people located especially close to the plant in a y; very severe accident would experience a significant dose increment. Tr.18,415 (Keller). .s ,* 1 g W*
- Board Decision on increased Exposure to Radiation
., c. < . n. ,u.:
- c.,.
We are faced here by a direct conflict in the testimony of expen witnesses, the County's witness saying that the distance to the reception centers could result in W 1 ~ ', '.. significantly increased doses and LILCO's witnesses (and FEMA's) saying that i 3 ~.';- such a result is extremely unlikely, in order to resolve the conflict, we must look i;. quite closely at the basic assumptions involved in the two positions. To begin + J with, all the witnesses assumed delays of 20 hours, a very substantial delay ~ ' s ~ ]' ' ,4 larger releases than did the witnesses for LILCO, releases much larger, indeed, l considering the distances invol.ed. Secondly, the County's witness assumed i' than those hypothesized for the exercise of February 1986. Finally, and perhaps .I most important, the two groups of witnesses applied different standards to the 1 determination of w hat is "significant"; LlLCO(and FEMA) deem an increment i l of exposure "significant" only if it is large enough to cause immediate medical * . :p f 552 n. b 9' ,'d*14.
- y. ;
g'. S ,4 i ., y - Q '.1-_%. ',..g. 'q {'* s } m, - h s+q mhV )I< s ',l ^ I' g .,_a_ . - - _, ~~
r s l [ t 1 1 s2 damage. Tr.18,294 (Keller); LILCO Exh. I at 39 (Linnemann). The Ccunty's witnesses deem a dose increment "significant" if it causes a few percent increase in the probability of cancer. SC Exh.16 at 34 35 (Radford). The County's witnesses also envision far larger releases than 1.!LCO's witnesses, out without l enlightening us as to how those very large releases could come about.* l We cannot believe that the Commission's standard of"no undue hazard to the health and safety of the public" could be meant to establish a requirement that there be no increment whatever in projected cancer probabilities for conceivable accidents whatever their size. Such a standard could not be met for any plant. l Indeed, the Commission's Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operations l of Nuclear Power Plants (51 Fed. Rev 30,028 (1986)) suggests that even the risk l of prompt fatalities would not be excluded for extremely irr. probable accidents. i We accordingly find that the fact that the reception centers at Shoreham I are located some 40 miles from the plant does not, through the mechanism of l delay in decontamination and the resulting possible increase in radiation dose, l disqualify them from their intended use. 4. Monitoring Related iss:tes The issues considered involving LILCO's plan to send evacuees to its newly proposed shelters and the adequacy of staffing allocations raised questions con-cerning the viability of LILCO's monitoring and decontamination procedures. During the hearing, changee to accommodate adverse FEMA RAC comments j were made to Revision 8 of LILCO's emergency plan and admitted into evi-dence without objections. February 1987 Revision, LILCO Exh.1, Attach. P. The basic LILCO monitoring and decontamination scheme is designed to
- ~
operate in the following manner: sixty three monitoring stations for registering, w 'o monitoring, and decontaminating evacuees are to be established at the Roslyn, Bellmore, and Hicksville reception centers, with each station manned by two i m'onitors and a traffic guide. Vehicles are directed by traffic guides to monitoring stations where monitoring of evacuees will be performed while seated in t- ). h automobiles. Monitors located on both sides of cars will scan the head, ' ~ thoulders, haads, and feet of each passenger while the traffic guide takes a -,g. swipe of part of the car's hood and whcci well for signs of contarnination. The y. - W,- traffic guide w ill also record, for registration purposes, each vehicle license plate. f 3 number of passengers and whether clear tags for noncontamination have been issued a car and all its passengers. If an automobile or any passenger shows any s,,. contamination, everyone in the vehicle will be directed to a decontamination ~ i f trailer for additional monitoring. It is planned to monitor all passengers and a ,a vehicle within 100 seconds, the time based on an estimated 2.8 passengers per vehicle. [ ," r. ' 7 [. 3., I# 4, _,1 ' ' ,v
- p
. E ^ l 553 't'
- V
,i. ,a 31,. / '.f<> f. r ,, '(~j*g. 'i ". l 'k[',q W f 'I lEl, ji' [I[e f* I' 1 y,g"d*.f...,,, ].
- ' 17 ' ' L
~ f ' s; e (,"_ .,,, I ' ' ' g -(',. ( ( 5 d* e
- e W
... 'k '*S s 6 ,3, [ 4. - y, o y..n g.m
gWp~~rW, 9, ; ;;. W~~ f %. e ..~;. a g..Q ;;g: ap 4.. m.f. r.,;.
- ,)e,,2". i,. ur
- .a>n!r5 y.,yi ;g,.m, %
. -(.;. p. A,, p..9
- ., ~. 7..
c -&y;,w,.7.Q,.,! e 'm.:
- e..
2,- - n,. ~ g,- n 7..; S.7, 7;, .. 3.p., 3 w o-m, ;F,W ,W. !x.q: ~ %. g~ ~ T. 'n., ~.'\\ m.' '. - ,. :i iv;
- .3,,,
- *.o..d:: u.a,.,.
- t ;-
36* y, ( &,.,yy.m '. .,7 v.
- ,,p,.,.. ;.g.
, n, ..t .v . m,
- g. 3. q;q,,,7 a 3 vwy..g.
~ , p.,
- J. ~ 4.\\ ;( c
. n.,, - c. - L< v ';p *.. . ',j ;[. ', ; .l. '..'.% +
- k, - '^D,,t.
o-i, , '.. m. [ ~.: ;. 'd I '?' I a N'** i n = :- - >..:c,.w 'O.y. ,.4; ;;'.. ;. :. n. t mc, ~n 7 :' ', ', -(, y -iJ.. D y.. , f ,. ' :p ;, g r.:c e <...'nw + .,( ;,...,,., -W 4.7, V lre. > de ' Evacuees without private transportauon will be taken by bus to the Ilicksvi3e i , f y/ Y, c,':6 2'[l1 J [ Cc '(; i reception center for monitoring. Each bus passenger will be scanned front %l.5:.. S M W ';d ? $ 1 ' O ' and back in an "X" pattern while standing, a procedure completed in 60 /Q Y if..G;\\:f '.' U @ Q l.7, w.4.,7M.IN,',,1: 6,L seconds of time. If contamination is found, the individual will be sent to ~,N C;. *:3b.4l 5 7 !, the decontarnination trailer, The program calls for one trailer to be located ,ty. W * ' ' Q ^[ % '1c. at the Bellmore and Roslyn cenurs and two at Hicksville. Trailers are equippcd C,-} w th showers and wash basins for washing exposed skin surfaces, and paper L.Q.. "h t% [ Y clothing for those requiring it. Detailed information on the decontamination h; and procedure used for each individual in trailers is to be compiled. e, n', [ The Applicant contends that 20% of the EPZ population can be monitored 'y a 4 its procedures in 5 to 6 hours and over 46% during a 12 hour period. b:S - .~.-- ~ O presented as witnesses Douglas Crocker, Diane Dreikorn, Dale Don. N' a n Alichael Lindell, Dennis hiileti, Richard Watts, and Roger Linaemann. e ?; umnors' witnesses for Suffolk County were F.dward Radford, Oregory Mi. nor, Susan Saegert, James Johnson, Jr., David Harris, and Martin Mayer; and for New York State, James Baranski, Lawrence Czech, and James Papile. FEMA's [. - witnesses were Thomas Baldwin, thor Husar, and Joseph Keller. The Staff .) i - presented no witnesses. v. '1: Intervenors' witnesses contested he procedures used by LILCO for J]i monitoring and decontamination ans 4 E e period assigned for completing the process. The Intervenors' case raiss.,, s issue whether limited monitoring 1 of evacuees in a tomobiles will miss areas of contamination on the lower bxk, 1 back of legs, abdominal area, and the buttocks and'ilis contended that a scan of the entire body alone will provide assurance that all significant areas of e j contamination are detected. In proposed findir.gs, Intervenors argue that the limited scanning procedure and in vehicle monitoring were designed by LILCO to curtail time in order to meet the regulatory 12 hour standard of IJ.12 in NUREO-0654 and that such an expediency is inconsistent with safety standards and cannot be approved. Governments' Proposed Findings at 88 91, The claim is made that only a whole body scan will ensure contamination detection and that a whole body scan cannot be done correctly in less than 2 to 3 minutes per individual. NY Exh. I at 23 (Papile, et al.); SC Exh.16 at 27 (Radford, et al.). Intervenors also contend that thyroid monitoring. only provided in LILCO's plan for persons where contamination has been detected, should be required for all evacuees. Treatment with potassium iodide (Ki) can be helpful, Intervenors' allege, if radiation iodine is detected within a few hours after j exposure. Tr. 18,040-41 (Radford). The Intervenors also criticize LILCO's automobile monitoring plan, stating that adequate procedures require a scan of most of the outside surface of the vehicle as well as the vehicle'u trunk. Radford SC Exh.16 at 12. LILCO's plan is to monitor inside of trunks only if contamination is found on passengers or the vehicle, e 554 e , y-4 (- s' g. ., if. q.y,. y : ~ ( ;.,, . u ~ ~. w.=.'umt'f'L'
e e ,, 7 4 s i w; f, .c g. n g k. s ~ ' ~ ^ backup monitors to provide relief in cases of stress or fatigue, LILCO claims to have arrangements with INPO and Brookhaven Laboratories to provide ~ ' ', additional personnel monitoring assistance if the number of evacuees reaches 7 ~ ' ' 30E If such additional help is not sufficient, LILCO's fall-back procedure is to monitor only the au> mobile driver, other passengers from different points of origin, and also passengers who request monitoring. Intervenors question H .[ /<' the time required to obtain asristance from INPO and the adequacy of the additional personnel to monitor all evacuees within the required 12-hour period. O, And LILCO's fall back procedure does not provide, in their opinion, reasonable l 3 Wi assurance Wat the public health and safety will be protected. 'D An Intervenors' witness testified that it would take 3 to 5 minutes to adequately rnonitor both a vehicle and its passengers and that traffic obstructions
- . 3 S3 and evacuee delays due to stress and frustration will contribu;e to making
,y .( LILCO's 100-second time estimate too low. NY Exh. 5, Attachs. 3-6; SC 4 4 Exh.16 at 20 (Radford, et al). Also, Intervenors claim as a deficiency the fact that FEM A does not plan to make findings on monitoring time estimates until an -,.:i. D.c " < [;., exercise is held. Intervenors also question LILCO's registration procedures on grounds that it may become necessary to contact uncoataminated individuals to .' ', 7 ~ p.f. verify the use of proper mor.itoring. With regard to decontamination facilities, c ,-r~~ Intervenors argue that estimates of the number of those requiring showers are " {, n i,';;,.i;,.\\ t ~ tco low, would require more time than provided for, and its backup procedures .,.. r.; - J,.; ~'.g, M,. of sending people en private facilities for showering are inadequate. It claims . 'd:W ' W " j ~, that delays in detecting cases of contamination will have a public health 7'U "C C W[ @ t impact particularly in an accident with significant releases of particulates. SC [. Exh.16 at 35 (Radford, et a!.). De absence of trained medical personnel an! /d. . NI.M. 8 I<:,'M T ( ' T / N %' .i first aid facilities in LILCO's plan, a lack of adequate sanitary facilities and .i e '. 1.4 " o NS food or water supplies for evacuees, and inadequate sheltering for inclement [2;p ' 'N 4, - %. ; [,- weather conditions all contribute, in Intervenors' opinion, to neg' ive health c _ f $ 1 ' ' ' f ;,. ' ' ? ;'.M ( consequences. Id. at 36 37; NY Exh. J at 68 (Hartgen, Millspaugh). As a F ~- 9:' C'$ $..,... b.. '.V ' consequence of the deficiencies noted, Intervenors conclude that there is no .y .Jh3-reasonable assurance that adequate measures to protect the public can be or will Vey ,n j w., ^ f 6..., '. be taken at the reception centers. De Staff indicates in proposed findings that the evidence supports LILCO's . '.; ' < '. ',. :. ~.' n staffing procedures and facilities as being adequate and as poviding the required .g' W ' 'i;T,Y, j ;.[. gW d
- o
.r.. :.U, 5.f* N '. t ' <" reasonable assurance. Staff Proposed Findings at 33,34, and 37. With regard s .*J = .., 9 % : E s' ? to time estimates, the Staff points out that LILCO's figures of 100 seconds per F. ~ '.W.;;,%1 k Jij. %.".'[ M ' -:.J',' 'D s vehicle were based on actual test trials and that Intervenors provided no empirical rs < s.I 7 :.:; - ~' basis for their estimate of 3 to 5 minutes. Similarly, allegations concerning <~ evacuecs' behavior were discounted on grounds that no supporting data were
- M
- f:S fj:3j%.Mi{T.
p (';,.]1 supplied. See Staff Proposed Findings at 33, citing Tr.18,029 (Saegert). S:nce
- *."m h
$ W ;c{ ' 4 it concluded that LILCO's time estimates were more reasonable, it found that p1 w. 3 t, g. ,~. .... -T y ; n.::. N;R'..ll;, ? ' ; Q Cf' ,.~.) Q~ ~. E*,-;;,' . 1W " ',;. y s :., '~ ?. ~ -.,;,,;m-,a 't.*.. , f.. :.y N ,t_ a > s. b 7.'w ~1,e.,. ' - I
- j..%.,
I' W 555 t,.g u. a- "g.. .s ?,. 4r,. p s "g r [./
- T '. " :' fy[ 'j......', n,,
c+. . e^ -S ,yr^ .f. [. lra.)' f l** Q : t l sj -~o T, ' Ng.:;. % f.V ' 1; ,w.C + %.z ^f?'l y i.& ; .'.} } G Yi"
- Ef.';
,. ' ' ' ' i,7, ~ '( ^* '
- s'
~ ' ' ' 7';*[& } ,, y ..,.: ].,' . =. 6 A* * "'4@. ' .u 'M, a ' Y: f.<,,.w.3.."..,',.,>- 4 Wr e ' i,x. m,> 0-n v c,.*,..,w;
- t. ' -
4'[g, ' W/ + L ' ', i...# j.' t . ; '. ~. .'-(DS ' o
- g t
$[,N g'z' k , ' JV V ~ . :,.. (kfh.in'[. [ M. * ' -. ; g,i
- F.
D, r. p.o.. r %n. ~ 1.hMNd.Y,'-Dh ',:d';':. h D ~ ....q. y %(n: h.y 3l,..v,,,,',..a.. g .. A x.,' V - e - g ;,. A e,r tj..%.n.g~.,, W z r. ..,. i. w. &.:,ee-r. ,..,m .,.y.r&.' f \\. .io @. . :3 r.. d s':W: 2 ~.
- . v.d.R. ' W.r; ' ' :%
'g.:.,n. > O'i D
@ N,M@ 'h ' f e 5 f f \\-
- b
- k,?
b ,.C/ x..Q: ># c,.,C '3%,.,:y?'1 '.,n,.'.C.1:. - g v.: %< s, ',*.,,.. - 9. c mf.' *. ' ;. ? r,ha 2.. ~ v. ;..,,-Q. t .ea'/ f p * % ; /. T - '.. - rf,_, 'M m 4 aa '**.-: 6 .m <; y p - =
- p
- p. q.;c...a,.g.-~, J :. ' x, :.. [. c,M g..,., : k a.
< s.wp ;, ;; o, ?., s Q;..es.. 4.s,.m..g,%...y; r:p v..: - ~ - e c. . t.y ;.,,;.,., p: u : ?. n. ~.9... m:;. <. n J.p.p;h. . s.\\.n y > r%. v s.. s. ?. u %.. b. y4 ?'*r ' ;.
- m. e
. r...,g,,. :,w., y.
- 7.,,...u. q/.. r:.s. t >.
7;s,.v.s;f-~s. - w ..a t y, o s 4 : :.'. :[,v i Dia, , '. g ' : A, M L a jf,' %: ';,m ;m... r%,. s n v.. * " '
- '4 gln p
{?:.'9.N ;^ y;~- r ' " "'*"-"'*' '.s~.3. M.:,c 1,'WYy iQ ':l* :. ' p;&g?. ll, '&, %$ A X O,'* ~d 'M d' ""' M" m. W....\\ -:, a,'..,':. ,y'
- ey "a :, :. y. +.
-'..' q ' i'D ' .'..? ~ ~~;* ' 'dQQ.lhh[).)QQ'i..;.k... [& h.: h6,O: 'D' / M h] v @ Y h.. f. %. .., Q:. s :@kVQl@pM.:: 7 n T; N.e.'v . :.A t - r
- h. 9pcc:.D ng~-b[.hF w
' q'.. :,yQ.W T ' $3.k N .. b %+M.N.:@,[. [.9[ '. evacuees' behavior were discounted on grounds that no supporting data were d supplied. See Staff Proposed Findings at 33, citing Tr.18,029 (Saegert). Since R Yi - It concluded that LILCO's time estimates were more reasonable, it found that 'Stjk@ysE'M@'t'2" : hd[.h. staffing levels were sufficient to provide monitoring for up to 30% of the EPZ N.c.' m '.J W[, ' ?.$ $TN.$NM@.WE ? 7. I'$", 'M@; la N population within the 12.hout period called for by f J 12 of NUREG.0654 In connection with LILCO's monitoring procedure, the Staff pointed out YOdiM. @ , 'n that Interve, ors were not opposed to monitoring passengers in automobiles, but y:.'.Q '.'..g ; ; 2.n, ['.y ' merely pointed out certain difficulties connected with it. The Staff noted that ,./ -.. .J FEMA had not reviewed LILCO's revised plan for monitoring, bu: the evidence r 9 ;. 2 ' ;"M. p.9j of record was sufficient for a conclusion that, although imperfect, LILCO's E g b .. '] ^ [<.', 'f ',.'j~[Q, ^.. ' ',.({. monitoring method was sufficiently accurate to be acceptable. Staff Proposed
- 7. f.f 3 7 p.
,';A contaminated people re'luiring showering as consistent with the experience of Findings at 30. The Staff cited favorably LILCO's estimate of the number of . es M, yy pg; ". f.$ previous incidents. Id. at 36. The Staff noted that no regulatory requirement ~. J", 121.t 319;j exists that a certain number of people must go through decontamination within 4 q.,
- y. @
a particular period of time. Id. at 34 11 :., n.', It is LILCO's contention that its monitoring method covers those areas where . N j,$ @di/,W.NE ?.@ contamination is most likely to be found. 'Itey contend that their procedure is .[9 - Q ' 9 5. [ ' G ! d " y' T,;[.N f, conservative in sending all persons for decontamination when any contamination . (,i ' ;/,J.. M: has been based on two time trials and a training session. It is also alleged that 't is discovered on any passenger or vehicle and that their 100.second time period '~ y,. K( [ \\ .y k a; ' s.1 thyroid monitoring is not likely to be useful by the time that evacuees are at V' 3 ' 't 7 .i reception centers. Tr.17,763 (Linnemann); Tr. 18,037 38 (Radford); Tr.17,572 (Dreikorn); Tr.17,555 (Watts). V d With respect to conditions for becoming contaminated, LILCO refers to testimony by FEMA witness Keller, and its own witness Watts, to the effect that the most likely place to pick up contamination during evacuation was on ~' the hands and feet, areas of the body covered by LILCO's monitoring method. Tr.18,001 (Keller); Tr. 14,475 76 (Watts). There was testimony that the areas to be surveyed in vehicle passengers were accessible with cooperation from such persons. LILCO's Exh. I at 44 (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony). And, LILCO j a is also providing a separate monitoring lane for vehicles that due to their model i characteristics or t. umber of occupants may be difficult to scan. OPIP 4.2.3, g. $5.4.6 (February 1987 Revision). In connection with thyroid contamination, 's j LILCO points to the evidence that it is too late to take any preventive measures ? .. d when radioactive iodine is in the body and that New York State policy is not to administer potassium iod'de (KI) to the public. Tr. 18.037-38 (Radford); LILCO ',W Exh. I at 58 (Crocker, et al.); Tr. 18,16344 (Papile). The Applicant alleges that traffic guides are to be placed strategically to direct evacuees through the facilitics, an information sheet will be distributed s to evact:ces at the centers, EBS stations will also be broadcasting pertinent l-information, stalled vehicles will be simply pushed out of the way so as to avoid s
- n. -
e i 6 556 ~ j e 5, e' t ,4* B g 7* 9
- .".*'*.*%*e,*
y
- f,",
s ,e 4 , f g a-s ,-) .[, p',.,[' V[. 4,',d; 4.',. w .M ' ' q. et s lf3 'p - a y s s 4 y.&
- 'lf A
-q;', _+,. l: Q W_ f :-{W AT ' yl. l~,' .g.. s ' ! v'- i. ,i . j -g v' t.
s r x t '. . f. 1 jc .1 ~; y \\ -.i 1 obstructions, and these procedures will assist LILCO in meeting its monitoring schedule time. Tr.18,023 28 (Saegert); LILCO Exh. I at 47 (Crocker, et sf..j cl. Direct Testimony); Tr.17,621 (Crocker); Tr.17,718 (Mileti); see LILCO Proposed Findings at 52 54. C T On the question of registration procedures, LILCO claims that its record-C ',.M.. keeping of full details on individuals going to decontamination trailers and .j j. ', 7 limited recordkeeping on noncontaminated passengers in vehicles is adequate and in keeping with FEMA testimony that detailed information for evacuees , c 4, p ', ., j,. Z not contaminated is not needed. Tr. 18,274 76 (Keller). If necessary, LILCO ( ,.<.p,_c.e f'< ; ~ g:Q; ., ~ d testimony states, communication with people in noncontaminated groups can ( be made through license plate numbers or announcements in newspapers and l , a 4 :, y, T,t, ,@, ] {,,, Q,; i Ef.,, y ;. g 7' g, radios. LILCO Exh. I at 47 (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony); Tr.17.715 ~~ . aE (Dreikorn). LILCO also contends its monitoring equipment (Eberline RM 14) is a tested and reliable instrument that has been used by industry and also ij. ' q.y, j. fe y W' .y during adverse weather conditions. Tr.18,435 (Keller); Tr. 17,597-99 (Watts, '.y" %' k.,f hy; J. Dreikorn). LILCO also states that there is no requirement for medical personnel ly;", j;W ;,W.t. to be available at reception centers, that individuals will only be there for a i n.~ - :N,.., . ; f i;'- short - 15. minute - period of time and most of those monitored will not even '.';"~",',,,..:' 5 c'T s.3'.,( d get out of their vehicles. LILCO Exh. I at 54 55, Attach. T at 27 (Crocker, 5 ' M
- g L [' yt - h ( bfd e,, c ;h 7"
et al. Direct Testimony). LILCO's testimony indicates that 20% of the EPZ p. ,,w w population can be monitored in about 6 hours and 46.6% in about 12 hours. LILCO Exh.1, Attach. T at 26-27 (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony); LILCO !.j: JM,. # i@(Q%[f p Exh. 26 at 5 (Lieberman Rebuttal Testimony); Tr.17,728 (Watts); Tr.17,744 p;s ; %p....ig@i.> :?[,$ 'S (Dreikorn). M ..( !! "N.y LILCO contends that it has gone beyond the regulatory requirements of Criterion J 12 in establishing scveral backup procedures in the event that accident if G {. Q p,y M',[ [9 9 *y%[k conditions require them. These include increasing the nu nber of monitoring b s ~. ' l',Z. 'S w " C.w' P. m p ; stations from 63 to 140 and bringing in additional monitors from INPO and E,'., O [$.y.O,M, i t s .Q/( o P'"ij.:: other federsi and private sources. As a secondary backup, as noted, LILCO proposes the alternative of monitoring only the driver or passenpr who comes from a different location and anyone else requesting a scan, and finally, as !;f ~faQg[-
- ,.;.Rg j'y}ig;.
- .N.
- ,
,y, , % M;;. My @h. Jf;l'( T,. Me,> a last alternative, to advise evacuees to proceed to their ultimate destinations F" '. '; 1 '.,. 'M '- to take showers, change clothes, bag old ones and then return for monitoring .. A i'.9 = '.'.i. : p'Q;. 8. at a later time if desired. LILCO Exh. I at 53, 59 (Crocker, et al. Direct . /. 3:;W dV9?2.)$i W j,"lY M Testimony); Tr. 17,664 65 (Dreikorn). This later procedure, it is claimed, is
- 2fD' N N
- M 'I consistent with federal guidance in a draft EPA manual (Ch. 7, June 27,1986).
,i C4. ?> ' :C f E ; 7 1]/ @ - f?.d Y H J;U.,'7..1 Also see Tr.17,739 (Watts). %.. ' # -- ; b, 5 ~W . '.. : e s
- l. n
.+ LILCO indicates that its more extended method for monitoring bus evacuees P M..f.Og. i,~,@% O,.'.. 6'g. d*.y. k : ~.
- b. s c
who are standing is designed to accommodate the fact that they will be coming W from different places, will be bussed to several different transfer points, and will if. . E :' 'WN N.M,7 .*q.
- . p, *J.
.a-y.? ET ',.jkjE.., ;q 'R;f;. y' A
- o..
possibly encounter exposure to cross-contamm, ation while on the buses. This !. g.gj y q:g would, in LILCO's view, increase chances that isolated spots of contamination '- @ i.yc;.y. j q %:e. .. y l...f :Jr - %.) ::c+...
- .n.,
,. w.b ' kgl;i. Q f <!'.: 9 , 'c a @ g. 'f* $lh ,>,. '., W k; :]A; h.Y. 3. '. M y :., Q.:).. .Y ?.h; ?.& 557
- 1 'u,:b. -
w ;,. ::r. %#.;s Q, => y s /... c...... S f. ;../ g:.. :.*,,. g sv * *. ( .u.
- ,. by';y,, ; V W.%,..
- *.i.!.,) - -p'
- N
' M*' V*. -- l ? l s p%
- .' l
~ %~ . 'f j: e s b.:;. ;j lf. V1 t l
- f. :. * ' '.,,. H ' %
-.m....' f 7...'s -)
- /, _ l 2,
t w., ) g... g,. g. . y _ y., y". + ., \\ g . a. g.,... .,g 3 's .3.> -.,. / ~, ; ;f. ,j...y - l 1. y ',,. [.," ' l ..,g .l ?W, .V". ~ ia ' ',, *s f.[y.......;'.y ((i. 1 . h. y. ' T *
- {
.'*t., ',..t.[*. ,.1 s ,, p+
- t
-f, . v; g 1*.q t s. ..... ~ e s ..., e[*.. / ' ' ;#Q ; 7.;, g.i,* 6' 1 e s. .t J l,', [*J..'4 5 ..c. s t p ga ' .gf ~ , c.;gw,yf *, k [. *,. . e.f . CC' ' f ( t,.'.
- e...~."m,. m,'(p.
L.,.' (a l, 3
- T
.,.; m. N ,.a .c n , *$n. f,-%} '.j h } x s . v. <... .') m
- n..
.m, v 'L
- M}[* N...
a :'L% ~ I
- c,h M%4
.I, .[ ' 7 ,Q N . y f.1, f'r. h.f' NJ '. 6 s. 3;.:,- ?+'. i0* a ~ &g2 ; y:n ' G 1u.i ; h % 1 D' W, ', ! 'a'e M[, J.N..p 4 N [$[
- c.,,
m
c,. .m.v. ,, m%,;. w. :.p:Dj;W;q@U o,:hy.:%dMG.yW: c.h.,?.,*+W.n:. '.,@ Q L b, W,v%,M kh D.% W ? W h G. ?. .
- *D. y..
',,. :. w
- a y;.n y 7.
- yyg.g%?Q'%rm.. m y;.m% @ s Qn N... ? g
,;. w:h e.., .y :. M.~ N,. W.\\;:Vq 3,W... s.:V Wg ? Yf.M&.y.,. 2 .W . Y.-;ui '^ M
- Q.c..
- :.p',. W ;. Q;~p1dq, y;:. 3]'b.
- n.,.:a
- 4: - f ',w n : n17 ", y.z:? p %y r.y. Q.,.,. . m*
- .%%,..3H
(: ~ ^ :2. Ms.u& G M 8 "% C
- P : %, $,y:$iN W (&:
- ,_ l j j!,9 %.
W @ i M n ;; 4.e - , ;... ~ T. v. O.g +. w..M80,',Mbb..;:.QNl.. Ok,\\; '..;;G. D;i d.hw ' ~..m
- v. s
.f., . e,
- a y,
..w
- c.. g, w U.,'. L t',;Nl(, R j,'
ml) Q. n.%_.;a.. , ;p u,, n c n.,. _c,
- 1. :..e n
-. 9;.,./ ~ . 1: .,i y ,e o,;:4,.g.... c y:,.,.
- .7.......
. ;,, a. ~ e,y
- s
-.., ~.
- ew ax-w~-
r.. ,t a - y 9, $j 3' p ' ' ',. , M '< '. ',, * $,., ; se .~. - # ,, fj);g might not be detected if monitored in the same way as passengers in private s-
- j'ai
,d, 'j .v W, 4, vehicles. LILCO Exh.1, Addendum (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony); m ..I..df,.. Tr.17,573 (Dreikorn). LILCO contends that having the bus evacuee monitoring b;f :,s.2 c' y"4 7:.,.. . y. A station at the center (Hicksville) which is also the locale for the LERO Family
- 'n
.,6% ( ' %d;j. Relocation Center is not a problem since only a few hundred family members y. ,e' , ; q.f ,,.a.. ij are expected at the center and the two functions are located in different areas n:c,3.' ' , ;cl of the facility. LILCO Exh.1. Attach. J (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony); ._ f}p <:[" .*.,,l-" Tr.18,4M (Keller). s .s/ - It is contended by LILCO that the monitoring procedures for vehicles is 9 adequate since driving through a radioactive plume or picking up contamination 2 ..O - ..l,i,. _\\i:' ' after a plume has passed would result in contaminates being on the hood or ' 1' - w i wheel well of the vehicles. Tr. 17,557-58 (Dreikorn, Watts). Wi1 respect to ~, l- ' '. f.( '., P.# h... monitoring the inside of vehicle trunks, LILCO does plan to accomptish this if ^ ', b. Qq ',. ', j. 2 any contamination is found on the vehicle or its passengers. LILCO Exh. I at &,,4 .,, 3 46 (Crocker, et al. Direct Testimony). ,s ., g:@< % 1O[h In connection with decontamination procedures, LILCO plans to have avail- -lM . q. ,~,q able eight to ten workers at each trailer. Id. at 58. LILCO contends that there is _li e y[,',vp,,{. '..fl,pg. .lg no regulation or guidance requiring any particular capacity for decontamination ][ f.A of the public and that its estimate of 10% has not been challenged by any facts. .lc;;fy ,[S See id, at 57;.Tr.17,683-84 (Watts); Tr. 17,686 88 (Linnemann); LILCO Pro- ,, s-4,. s f ~ ? f c.;' posed Findings at 67-69. LILCO also contends that its centers have adequate ,'j capacity to shelter evacuees, and plans exist for providing additional sanitary .y . ~ i facilities, if required, as well as blanke'.s and supplies. See LILCO Proposed Findings at 69-70. Board Decision Re regulatory standards and criteria applicable to appropriate procedures for the monitonng of contamination in nuclear incidents are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 0 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG 0654 & J.12. Intervenors challenge every phase of Applicant's monitoring plan including 'l the adequacy of its proposed monitoring method for vehicles, their occupants and I bus passengers, staffing requirements and monitoring time, the decontamination process, registration procedures, backup monitoring provisions, utilization of the Hicksville center for dual functions, and the monitoring equipment to be s utilized. We treat below, in turn, the sufficiency of LILCO's undertaking to meet NRC's regulatory prescriptions in these areas. + De controversy over LILCO's monitoring method centers around whether a scan of the selected parts of the, body - head, shoulders, hands, and feet - will miss other areas of possible contamination and whether monitoring of people m vehicles would result in improper scanning and inaccurate results. LILCO's >nl revised provisions for scanning evacuecs was designed to overcome deficiencies ' S ? 3 558 A 1 0 y 2 m,.
- m..
- ,a' s
3 y
- , 'q.kN, ',
',,J' r s .O. ,.c.. ~...,... .e =*
- s. :
,,A-6
- /.,, *, ; 8 p, *~
W.;
- f. -*
s-. + 3, s ,~ <q.. ,...f ..,e.. 5 3 3 + 'v-r /
s c v .s s. q, d B e . w. - c in its previous method that, in monitoring only the hands and areas around vehict: and driver, did not receive a favorable review from FEhiA. Although there is no uniform method required for a monitoring operation, the evidence of ~. t l-record is convincing that medically signi6 cant contamination would be unlikely '[ unless it were picked up by the hands and feet, both of which will be scanned by f, ,,7. , ql. ].[ LILCO's procedures. The probabilities of major contamination going.mdetected ,y[ c, c. 9,., l T,< 7 on parts of the body or vehicles other than those to be monitored are too low a - C;.c ,, / ',,, for us to conclude that LILCO's scanning methods are inadequate. And even g." 1,.. J O' / L >}.; L ~;;; (, 1 Q l O C.. p though FEhfA had not been able to review LILCO's Ferrt.ary 1987 revisio.n
- b./ A prior to providing testimony at the hearing, its witness (Keller) testified that the
' j . V/ {j;.9 l..p. J. j M '. D. $@ - (( . Applicant's monitoring method would most likely detect contamination picked [F;(
- M ' Q,'.',.. '
,0 f.:",.4
- ' %... y..'n-4 up in the most realistic scenarios, that is, people evacualmg through a plume 4
..'y,,9,
- gr-or just after a plume had passed before evacuation. Although the Board would
' 1 ':..Q,. VM have Preferred to have FEMA's review of LILCO's revised procedures in the ' ' ~ G.W ,d "l . O 'yg[,jf M.[jj_.# e. s.s . ~ record, the weight of the evidence indicates that there is nothing unworkable or 8Ja ; -,'?, f fundamentally wrong with its current monitoring proposal. FEhf A's witness did !f,y - [.l 3 lg Q e m Q" p ' 'l Q. 7 testify that any local contamination would probably be picked up from contact y ? j,;;py.hg h,[;Q )4*i' Q; with previously contaminated objects but that such contamination would not likely be medically significant See FEhiA Exh. 2 at 19; Tr.18,395-400 (Keller). >i 3 ' ..+R < M N i E.~~... - Q.Y~.+...ft ',y.y. s c. Although LILCO's method of monitoring occupants in vehicles does pose
- t i..
. m s. 7? 9. ~,..lu.. %. { $ U some physical awkwardness, we cannot conclude that individuals seeking mon-W. !a.' _mel, 3 :i,r.-. !Q.J... itoring assistance would not cooperate with instructions from monitors, nor can [Q,...<. ".. ~ W S, C.* p.j: r., y we conclude that its time estimate of 100 seconds per vehicle is erroneous, k.*W. @,. O I.'g5@ 5.M n
- s A
A-Ag '.@,,y'; M,. % ;. The evidence reflects that the method was tested during two separate trials and training session and the time estimates are based on those tests. ( Y.3is@.V'E d,. 6. '~~' W, .. v y Intervenors' criticism that the time per vehicle must be longer was a general J # (.j W W. Q j' ; 6,, d ;. W '?- J Th. d,N Q@%[':.Q assertion with no supporting evidence that it was based on a realistic trial. SC NUT MMM." #.i Exh.16 at 16; NY Exh. I at 23-26 (Hangen, Millspaugh). Actual monitoring /y:%sl!.j. i M ,t c.. time may vary and is not precisely known; however, FEhfA has graded an l,5 exercise based on 90 seconds per individual albeit without enthusiasm for the i. :,M.,. ' ' Mr..s.,',U::. 'M. c,2...JM E z ma a. accuracy of that number. Tr. 18,420-21 (Keller). According to FEMA, high r f ; W 'i ' :, W.y g*.'N.a y levels of radiation can be found by monitors in less than 90 seconds, while k M 'I'.; M... t~. f.. J ' e,[ E ' J ^ low levels may require 90 seconds or more to detect. Tr. 18,391-92, 18,420 P. ; s6. ,: ri., p ':.e. g. d f. s. < w, .w (Keller). De monitoring time varies inversely with the radiological threat to h;7A. 6 N d j % 7 :f h . k i ' public health and safety. Tr. 18,391-93 (Keller). LILCO's time trials show 6;, ', s:,.'[N
- j;:':h'f.N $;.k,V; H l -
k.f. l,,.'.g l O' that about 100 seconds are required on an average, but when variation from the O u%.3.[.y.;:,.Q%]!. g average is considered, the longest monitoring times are required to detect the least significant doses. A.'@;c fie % p@ ff.8 h;,' h-k h Q M.)[ De Board conclude; that monitoring time is not defined by any general technical consensus. Neither does any law of nature govern monitoring time, and
- ,,:.. M.... P P.
cJ u:p
- s...f..e.c.. %~. ;<~V a.E,' 'p7._1@
it is evident that planning can 6) no more than achieve a rough approximation F..:%_...c r. f Y m J.;F,A.h;c. n,,.. v to the time that might be required in practice. The dispute about monitoring rew ;I'M, m, w..O N.. m. (MN FJ W,c.,N,, : - wah n+ <.. :.:- . c.y:n M.> 'U N..ejh M,.:$,p[N.Y.j.[;,, w; e s .m .,N .,.,..,.:. 3
- 3..;> %e.~,..p;-h.. #.s. r
- y'-
i G s' ' F/ a+ 4 'VM ^,g',.b..s' :[: T. m' h 2 559 s a t ..r,, . m... " :,'n.. ;(, t. *, a :.llt; =;.. @ n..$ Q'l}. ..s >. r.m., i. .e
- f^D
- w
+. . _ ~r s' J .'.*%~- \\;,Q r
- !: Q e..,3,t*
- 1, M%
s M. a. , /'I
- 1 4
' ' , 0,4 I," p 4....c. .,' ; A *. ~,^.'9[-
- ^
.-~r-.;7,- ' v.5 (..g.s ;. ;; :': i ::N"'.d, &gkl v . x.r..... --.: y -o- , ; $,f x ~ E s: 'm a.
- y-L wl'M h ;' ( ~ ; j..<, ', -!
-i,, _,. y t' M S.<. +- 3 ,N . s ,e. se,.. ?.., .. - l'V. ,en ~ + f' l +- ~[.. f h* ,~ '"l.y %, s<[ ^ ".'l f p t . m e., -b
- h ",,
p; ,..;j * ;1.q. ,, '.,, f.. T,. m.- .s . _.g.-,..-;,s, g,; I* -.
- I 4
'.e, c - '*h., (
- f... e
...,y, Jg-a a ...{.4.j.,'",.,,,, "f*,*, r 4, ,, y p... p .. q. , 3,3 s - S .1 . p,.- , M.jng,,.,,. <.J g.,,'J .8,.. 1g 4 -.. g.s n,
- p..,.
..., M, ;, .,e ,..< i. t '.
- a. v. 's h. F,,l?.*
m,, I g, ,.44,- e-
- s.. Ip 7
-;p, ...k., s I, .,...k g,N 8,,* d =\\ ' ,,M a '- [ .wse, 1 eu' " M w o. c c[3, w w'w w]. mWw[* .w, 3 % ri T< e j., m
- h. %. g:. 7. :~n,.n,. iQ -l '.3:gm..y.;:o,.9g.m%l!.&;...y a.f;;.+M., '.q&
. ;.py 7 ?.. 'J! pi 9 5 W:~,\\.&d.. w- ~ ': m:a%g.yq s.s.- g :' y9 w c ~ %R ' e%,&q~ <;,... .f, 4..~ .g p. yn 1 .MMy%p q;. ... '.' m:*a.;;.;a ' d V.1 <!., n u-x
- ra
.n ,, w, u. V 3%Q.lljQl.Q.%f,4y.: .L v ?,c:.. m;. .g.,; N,. g.y. : m a!- w%. x. y .. w, s.,. c ?!,.y, A g., -.,g g,q y
- q.,,. j.u,,
y 1 e.. :..- r. ~., .;;u;;y; &.. -n .r.- a. .,...m v- -.. m. n '~.y,. ?. y '.,;,,~g n: wT,. ...y, : a y. c._.,- , y, ,f m,4,. g
- ., w. 7.g.:
- 4..:g,,
e, y 9 ; y..... .. ;. e o ' 5. wc.. . ', y x L; ,.a. s,, _. y, w.
- s. ;.
v. .w v 2 ya.,, .., 4 Q ;- Q :.,.:; ;, ' j. a,1 2 l % ( M. N. %. 2 '2.i.>. % c i..,l &y. '. '.: '.W -(. L. :.a. .d e, 9.. u -.,. w :. . ~... ,.... u. '/ v : M ;'s:. [ v 9,, L ;~:..:.j.% %.yl]3 ct' g '.., g r..w. s
- n... - 1
% 3 G.. A, * [ QQ? :;..; y[ L:' c C ' M. T M.Q $v % time in this case appears to depend as much on the parties' petreived need ~ < A; ', 9 q c..ph g for meticulous measurement as on any more fundamental consideration. The w-i 'Z.Q, ;M Y..Y :.% initial monitoring to be done at reception centers, however, is a population f M ?," i f screening process. Meticulous measurements will be done for those who are found by the screening process to be contaminated. We infer that, in designing % Mf g' '2 %@g g.c;! " the process, a practical balance must be struck between the need to detect all 1 - '.:
- ;; 5 Y;' i:'. S Pjj low. level radiation on each individual and the need to process large numberr of
~ b.c - . Ni '. ' -4! individuals. In monitoring, however, it is the least doses (those near background) that require the most search time to detect, while larger, more health. threatening -,.W,., _ fit.gf.1 'ft doses can be found quickly. Under those circumstances we conclude that more ,,..J,..h total dose can be saved by a monitoring strategy that favors processing large
- 7. p., i numbers of people than by one that favors meticulous scarches for small amounts
~ p y.. cc j of radiation on each individual in the initial screening. i .i
- ; X y " ].
M 7.j ne Board cannot confidently endorse the precision or accuracy of any par- ..g I ',, C., , g -, y ticular average monitoring time because the record reflects little empirical basis Y.'[g f : j i ^- :p and no technical consensus to support it. There is no basis for thinking, however, .3 ,.q' 99 that LILCO's planning choice of 100 seconds per vehicle and occupants was l'. ,. ".,a ;- 1, S L "j ' i i '. biased or that it struck the balance between individual and population impera- ". f.T. tives improperly. We therefore accept its estimate of 100 seconds as reasonable. f p ;..' c Although uncertainty persists, there is no significant remaining opportunity to ,.. ~ 0.y 0, 9 reduce projected doses to the public by adopting Intervenors' longer monitoring w " ~ times or by requiring further refinement of LILCO's monitoring time estimates. .l De testimony in the record from Intervenors did not erode LILCO's time y estimates in any substantial way, and Intervenors' own estimate of 3 to 5 minutes ,y 4 2i 9 per vehicle is not based on testing procedures, but more on unverified claims that ,t delays will be caused by vehicle breakdown, behavioral problems, and operator fatigue. LILCO's response to the latent potential of these problems is answered satisfactorily in the Board's view, by its answer that any vehicles breaking down .i will be simply moved out of the path, behavioral problems will be minimized by y., supplying adequate public information, and inspector fatigue will be alleviated by having available an excess number of monitors. he State expressed concern that the reception center sites are small and filled with obstructions, which will cause slow traffic circulation within the sites and lengthen the time needed for processing. NY Exh. 5 at 55 (Hartgen, .A 1 Millspaugh). LILCO agreed that irnprovements are needed at the centers and has made or commits to make changes that eliminate the State's concerns. These
- }
include widening of a gate at Bellmore, removal of debris from reception center .t 9 sites, and plans to remove cars and equipment stored on site before evacuees arrive. LILCO Exh. 26 at 35 36 (Lieberman); Tr. 17,646-49 (Crocker). The ] board concludes that LILCO's response is adequate. The adequacy of staff for any monitoring procedure is, of course, dependent on t!w number of people that can be monitored in a given period of time. Based 1 560 0 ) e d a i '.,t' 6 ..s
- sym
' / .y
- i.
r , s,.
- y-n-( w,
,t l $...=., t d," 1 e s
- ", _,Td M. l2n,
S .m .g
a A f& f g .,.g. s s 7 c' e f. - y ', : < f.;.~ P L. on LILCO's time estimates for monitoring, the validity of which we accept here, f LILCO calculates it can monitor, with three personnel at each station,20% of the EPZ population within about 6 hours. We can find no miscalculation in n, 9, m .lly ' LILCO's figures and conclude that both its staffing arrangements and monitoring [ '] gi,., S method meet NRC's regulatory standards and criterion. . > I,,C ' N,M @g .., T.y.gg,../ As a final note on LILCO's monitoring method, it is apparently Intervenors' , {' ~ position that, since a whole body scan is a preferred method for the detection . ;. " :,. j. G:d'. '. gy + t of contamination, NRC's regulations, which look to prudent risk reduction 4 ,1 l}.' * / ' ' N : ',1 a measures, require that method if it can be accomplished. We disagree. Planning 4; ; > '~.f ;. j f ;.3 ;; .t:f standards and criteria are developed on the basis of selecting reasonable, but M; "31 0 .2 e B, h,, ' ' dr., @",Q:[l{!:.;,jy,.vj;'%;.7 effective, protective response actions, and the requirement in monitoring is simply a capability to monitor all EPZ residents and transients arriving at i.y,f.j;j Np y-reception centers within a 12-hour period. No requirement exists, that we are .1' j.y, @ } g M Q '$ aware of, that dictates that a different, even if better, method of detection must [
- v. - y! cqh.g,lf fp,*:;
be installed even if it is available. This would be particularly valid, where, as in
- u. ;
g, '.,4,, g Q 7 Q. ;- g,{ c the present case., no substantial deficiencies are present in the system proposed
- (. b.W,,, M p c.f.+.7 3_A,
' b ; *j Q ' a - j,.2 % lc. 1 and where further detailed monitoring of all passengers occurs if a vehicle cr 4, ~, c. 9 t.K M .c 'y m ? r t 4.
- tj.7y
[.[ p".g Q.m b > y, g p ' '$ M d. 3.t anyone in it is found to require decontamination. } Re Intervenors also challenge the scanning procedure scheduled for bus. ' " '7 'i.. ,e q q,' carried evacuees at the Hicksville Center, stating that a whole body scan was f.,g+ - .y. ; required here too. LILCO plans contemplate a total of twenty-four monitors R@q.M.474Q? b.' i f. Q 'jf.;.l who will scan each bus passenger standing in the same area as those in private vehicles plus doing an X pattern front and back. His is in recognition that such K,7 'GQ. passengers will come from different places of origin and may have been exposed E. D. ~' T. 6., M..<.7 1 @ J llm@i,VT'?:Du s. to cross-contamination while on the buses. He time period estimate is 60 i . N. c. b,i,w n seconds per passenger, and 11,080 people (8% of EPZ winter time population) p;'. k C,p$gM7, M,f;<4Jg.s;,.% : .;c-^2 Mag ; ^ 'f; '~ are expected to be monitored well within the 12-hour-period standard - about .I 7.7 hours - of NUREG-0644 6 J.12. It is apparent to the Board that Intervenors' Y FQ.CM@.T,Wm.' ',($.d WTfp I-7 @ ' M, 5 % a., Y U objection in this area, where it submitted no testimony, must fail as it does in h i,J D,m,yJ - {, ' f;'[, v the area of passengers on private vehicles. He basis of Intervenors' argument again is the limited method of LILCO's scanning procedures as opposed to g. Q,. %~ N C[:t. C'.. {' 3; J - [ 4ft. a full-body scan, as well as the time period allocated for LILCO's preferred f7 7;g method. Fo: substantially the same reasons discussed in connection with M [ $ h,;;I ',[d N : %.,MT' > c /'a J. '..? b$ scanning of p;.ssengers and private vehicles, we find no &ficiencies in LILCO's bus-monitorirg procedures. Nor do we detect any difficulties with assigning bus Q,, ;<,;,. F : ?.L. K /,0.. ~ passengers to the Hicksville Center, the facility programmed to accommodate Fl '.jg fM %%z g.g.C..@b; ' :,QE.'il f I LERO family members. The testimony indicates that several hundred family members will congregate at Hicksville, a small percentage of those who would K ',~h:1.? Sy.'w
- s be requiring monitoring or decontamination, and they would be segregated, W
3.a b ; 3 @, M..,.7,. u.', h k'.@ after monitoring, to a place separated from the monitoring and decontamination - ik,4~[$b'N@.','WYi, KD.2<[ C P J.. facility operations. We are persuaded also by FEMA's testimony that the Y'- Y G M N b S MI h / w adequacy of all reception centers will be evaluated in a future exercise, and w mwem'9MN y,r'geq. g, g ]z./ 4 x.X g n4 g,..- m$ f ;5.3,.chh cy$.k... W 561 g, 'lf;.dO.* h. m ~g g \\.!,~. .:.v i m.:. , N'*. . '.} M.,3.1 l. .C '. ;[: J f. 2,,+.;qyl !:p, W. ./ ..a s., v u v i,S '., E $$( # Ig.,4 W., ','h, . ' 9, $ s.
- . 3 r
.O .f'l'/:Q..'QD r,, } l *;: W S, g ".> p}
- ., r
, 9 M. a. ,..--,,c., 7,y
- .. g....,
g . u,, n. &m ,w <".[,.. 2%- y;. ; .>,(.,;* 13 A l',. * * ' .:.,:.8 0.,h, n. f,, N, s ~. 3 -~ ~ '.. = -- -t .s
- v..
,.u,.. . g,t .n, .f ,3
- s. ]'..y;.
- 1.
a v,4. % ip q..,'g' : i,.9 , {.. ;, c' ,.... m ++ c l},' WQ,'+ 5l,,m: n , c:. . - l.{& E . p ' _1: h . x.... c.~... 3,l,, W. v. "y a,1. 1 f.,.'.,i, W.. w t dlc'.Ty 'ic!-5M~b, M; wM,.{ ,b"- 6 ..;, O,, - f '. c.. - n - V.. ~ Mki E p m u.s.n m d u.s.
- %;K;plM. ly.?:.mm&w.!,,%@m:";W:^ ' 43 G,.q;*p;w.g...Q?.% &.m'dW;M.i;;
w v.. c :.:.: 1 a vw w. ? i m ;;- n.:. m m m ; w.;Nr m Wp n.:.u.4,:,;M:'d:...y,a.
- m m
- e..
..p
- l. '
S - i M '.l ;.)y;W. ', Q.... ~ '.Qs 5.. M;v . Q Q; :@
- ^.
.J.~ ql w.'. b.,.g p:+. n y
- m....... X.,Q.,. m.;.y 7,
.p;
- 4.
,. a...%. e. .. : w. .,;,..,...,q
- a'.3 /. @.-
s m, - s @g :.,g:3.;p; ;w,.m;:n, &... g J.q ~r.:,, p;:. y.;; f.v..y.,, 6.::,;.,s .w._ e.;t.. ry. p m j.-3,. my. 7 ,e .a.~.. . c y : n. :.; u..;.. r L ' w,., t, ",., - -.. y p q 2,s;;z.,::a.",g.c..w..,;. .n .,3..:, y.8 z e .m M. a..$.. 3, f c y,lly. w. ,v ;. ..r < - n
- .
- o..^-
- x.. - ;,s
_t .c . s. i V .h '.*.4 ,r s.l, y
- > N7 L %.yg..,,"M*.=a ;M,.4M
- M'.s
^ ,a.
- L L ' '::, 9,:, :m ~,
... ;.,,A.. <'f.,.. ?., w f,:.%.Y m;.v f'y.
- L y,, g.;y.a -;2
- wn N
..... 4. p,w.. I ay f W j: ".',e
- Mym%g
- e f..f..
r;e. of.., gr. " :v... a. r%g. ~;';;^ .. v. ym.g m -g f... : #m f..j,:M, 5
- ' .,. : b.1 @,A p.
go.,.N,- w,.,p ' g;w';g.f;&g(,w;.P(@&g,0.L ^m: .;,4 a d.g,f ;pl..6.r..y.3 'jMd that the two functions discussed here should,~ot have a negative impact on each ac z .? fMTfhq{ v%e
- other, v.i -
s. 725 ;3. PJ ','M inz:r$$${i7.kd' LILCO's decontamination process calls for reinonitoring and decontamination 7y Q.'d:A..,7_O.)Q~ /. $ME.$$ of all evacuees sent to any of the four trailers located at three reception center g?"f; O' O.{ '. e,.. - 1 l-. sites. Each trailer contains wash basins and showers, separated to accommodate i .%jjj]lf;i ;6'.4-M males and females, and separate dressing areas. Dere are eight to ten LERO ' 3 : f v;.,7.k/l M; m? t
- g.,',q.
workers planned for assisting in the monitoring and decontamination activities '3.v. :s%. C W '.,. e.V at each trailer. Interveno.s' otjection to LILCO's decontamination process u,. W l1'3ly.j {,' }...,.7ly,y' y', M m Np principally concerns the number of people who may require showering. LILCO ,M 1 /y' has provided showers to handle 10% of 32,000 evacuees (planning basis number) , '.. ' ;,l.. %'. ;7,(f..' W.( jkl.:4 (:n ' over the proscribed 12-hour period at a rate of 15 minutes for showering and -.$y?} subsequent monitoring. It appears evident that this number is more than adequate ( j' ~, Q, r?',.~.N y based as it is on 32,000 evacuecs being contaminated, a highly unlikely number. s,.7 ;p. .e - p. . 3 The testimony of LILCO's and FEhfA's witnesses agree and is convincing ['.k. 1.' (' that experienco demonstrates that the vast majority of people contaminated .. [ $. - ]M.T. ;. h.,~,3, % ', i .M do not require a full shower, with simple washing effective to remove most ,d',. ',:.c. g.-7 4 1 J V'9 contamination. .c. r.,. ',W,.. n. ' '.W.. Y. %. c. u With regard to other matters raised as objections to LILCO's decontamination
- p~. S.J O - d '1,,,, ; ;,j r, 0
.J. (,4,: procedures, the record is adequate with respect to arrangements providing ^
- g "f s
g. l solutions to the adequacy of facilities for those waiting to be decontaminated, the g.,. j availability of sanitary facilities and other supplies that may becon e necesstry. N .- The Applicant has provided several backup procedures for monitoring and ~~, a '3 decontamination, to be implemented in the unexpected event that the number c-s s s . +. ^, .ty,3 of evacuecs arriving at reception centers exceeds the planning basis. As noted, a# ,' f f. supra, these range from increasing the number of monitoring stations, to adding j, , ^'y more monitors from government and private agencies, to restricting monitoring ',.j p.l j i c-only to drivers of vehicles and others who come from different places of origin, f or, finally to sending people to private facilities for showering before returning ,s. 3 for monitoring at a subsequent time. We find no requirement that must be met y. g)ffii for backup procedures in emergency planning of reception centers, although we .e ' 'f &gl do not discourage planning for them in the event necessity dictates there use. a .i However, we see no need to consider their adequacy in depth in this Decision O: except to state they appear suffcient to address a larger than. planned evacuee i .y s i population if one should develop. ,i - ~,,, In regard to LILCO's registration procedures, the Applicant's plan to record f,',> full details of only those going through the decontamination process is criticized s by Intervenors as too limited. In their view, registration names of everyone '.'a&#. monitored is necessary to protect public health and safety, arguing that all other ,a
- 4 ~,'9y plans in FEMA's Region II require these data. The FEh!A testimony, which we consider persuasive on this issue, is to the effect that detailed information on those not contaminated is not needed. It is needed only for those going
,i, c. through the decontamination process. It appears to the Board that LILCO's s ,4 .c g '. 4;
- > ', n; 8-t.;
- t. t..
s e e ,. [ ",4...' .a- . g w ..e-. 2...~.-
- } c..'
}, e
- 4
-4 [ y. l ' ', S ".. l 'S m,,9.j;G.. M 4.. w s' c.< . s 'S S fe.',; {*' ",,,
- /.5-
."{ e 0 ,g r s. 4 s s I +, . J "' u n L
- s,.-
2 s c y.. v
- y.' ...
5 s r ,,,.y. ..g ~ . e .c. v - ,n v. sy' 'l' y y:., a s s v c~ a *. ,o y s -.. a a. n plan to contact noncontaminated individuals, if necessary, through license plates
- w. (., (i..i
'Jb ? b or public service announcements, would more than provide for the unusual event where subsequent communication would be required. LILCO's planned 'Em 7 f,. Cf '* ] y registration procedure is adequate in the Board's judgment. , j :.g. y@.[q,cf W. e '- '2, , ;%.E ~.j J;,W, f There are several other areas - lack of medical personnel, thyroid contam-M 7 m : -: a E. ' ig,"'j.'.f.0;.h ination, and monitoring equipment - in LILCO's monitoring procedures that 7 ' ~ A }? ]} {q " ' .2
- X[', i raised Intervenors' skepticism. One centention is that the lack of organized
..p medical personnel at reception centers constitutes a deficiency in LILCO's plan. , l, ..n. t 9 R i' :'e M,...k.. ;L,' ',a.$.f ", ~,.rl- @ v., ' fM/ It is not clear to the Board how medical personnel would be helpful at a re-ception center that basically acts as a screening station to identify those who might require further medical attention. Other regulatory standards and criteria C,, '. !/ -$ h'9;~,)Y.',.p.\\,.J, ~7. A..~ (ch d'..Q..h,}i..Q }f.y 1,'j call for reception hospitals to be available to treat severely contaminated indi- , i"y.l.j:{s;';h, viduals, but for most of those arriving at reception centers, the stay will be brief W ,f.; y ;'.On C. 's/ W ed.: J. and the washing to remove contamination will be adequate. Where it is not, fpM f ' t,Wp..;;p#..":y,. M,([ the reception hospitals with existing radiation treatment equipment will be the place where medically trained personnel will be available and required. R.g..no.,'@.;:{J,Q W ,.I Intervenors' argument that thyroid monitoring for everyone, not just those -F,%: C.N ' M[1:(.{E;; gs'@,'.@/ ' c found contaminated, should be included in LILCO's plan is based on their belief .l.p that thyroid contamination poses a substantial threat to public health and safety f.~. n...,,. 3-9 and can be easily monitored to provide some treatment protection for some of M.T N0 f WP... Vl.1,. ' MM:[.W. f ['@ } 'M., ;.:w%j J i@), O toose contaminated. The fact is that neither federal nor New York State standards fy/.,1 : m. h:' S;$,... require thyroid monitoring, and the use of potassium iodide (KI) for treatment .? ;g... . 7 h.,- M.. U E,,5.s k;.}:.l?,.H. #,8, @2 is centroversial. According to testimony in the record, if radioactive iodine is .s.,. y 'M%d,W #4gg ff,,y j already in the body, it is essentially too late to take protective measures, and if monitoring is done too early, no contamination is likely to be absorbed in the ....f J. 9".h.. 'M t !.'a,.. &- 3 '.d.e'M. g.c. #...MV.C. 4 thyroid. Under those circumstances, which we believe to be probable ones, and W' .A.:. n / W[a with the lack of any regulatoiy requirement. we cannot conclude that LILCO's j.y T.+ N ' ' d.W V "f>J F.,'h<M : n W is e.'.3.] plan is deficient with respect to thyroid monitoring. And finally, Intervenors refer to the potential for monitoring-equipment , $ @W lb b.... 7.,[N.;. 1 6,l ?i m 1.9 ic i G.. ' dif6culties as a reason for discounting LILCO's monitoring time estimate of '(,.,...a.o,%,26 fir',.<MC 100 seconds. 'The record amply demonstrates that the equipment planned for
- .x J
^ M /.s Q, K.cf. [( h i-i!"1 - ^ t'?% f. E . c< monitoring use, the Eberline RM-14, is simple to use and its reliability has proven itself under various conditions in other nuclear plants. There is also !iE ^ ['h:M,. f N., ' S r .;;[' Y.U. S ' '. l..: ' ', 5 ',' " uncontradicted testimony that the alarm on the RM-14 was available and working i d.Td. f satisfactorily during training sessions. The Board finds no deficiency with regard g.i. , lJ3R X'<j.Q.] to LILCO's monitoring equipment. 'Y 'F A*
- 7
!. w.. ;+:.m.. -@",, ~ W .~,vn. 5'. o.i st.G.M, '[~.%.~TE,i In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that LILCO's Plan for .yn.
- t.
w : N. registering, monitoring, and decontamination of evacuees during a radiological N. m. s accident and its facility arrangements are adequate to meet the requirements of P 6;.%h. Wl4,X,., M.Cig, Cp'; $ $. z,N W., i h W..a m, M:.T M M :~ M Sn NRC's regulatorv standards and criteria. e n v.,,.w ~.~.* ? y .:s . ' h:',, y ,M'
- y P.&)& -l.::,r !'-.j&e,lli):if s
~ *e
- j..
WS '.'.3 bl.h. . o:.. m 3. . F.,g ,..a,;;.. , ~._g. $ i,~ak. *
- l.'!O.n..,5$
t., -%y, .f- (~ ~~b .w .....-r 2 nm. A 6:
- d,
':n h' % y:R' f h (M;;;,e%gMM tM 563 l i$T h '. j'h ' f ',,'.V 3 L ..a1 3 f Vs J.;
- s
., p ' o'.O.;4 4'SQ"b, dp. ,,- e V s,. 5.. e s
- p
- L g*,,', N
.% n*;9 sj, 'e.,. 1 q.,,y.; +. y ; NA g < r.. - l., r ..,, ;j " ' J y (( *n : i ,.c.,...;,.._*g. ; - t.' ' v. 6.. >.. g m. Y 9Q; . m. i '.g!+i ca, g' %...5.Q:. >+:. yn :
- e..g.g&s
,e p. m.a. 7.. -,, gm, ; 3,,, ~ j
- f.,. f? ?.. rp,, * %,c:
je
- -~
a,.. ; * ; l' ~, <,..p -, 'o y q,q i 3. .q gY...'.q,, 3,.c y 4j$i 1- ". f-) "D...ti
- k h d
?. * '.9,
- 4',,',
'b . ; f; g,.. ', 9'- --( ~..','. s 1 'i. ,,p'* s e ..<:@ p, p.n..y,3,,1,,,yf..j p ;g, r a, J (% =. "
- *G >::::p, c'.,p-p t,WJy' y& f)7. v % s s '.
.,,,2 - Q 1] '.. _ p ; g c' N' ? '- .W r '#;? ? M
- y.O !X
- .) v s * {:,
- ng;gq: _ q lEr. ) g. frp Q
'(. .., i. f, %. ~j : ^ . ~ *. ,,.g '?'QQ ~-{ y. f(f$N A,YD.?>ffj.&' j?l};hj' %.DL'2
- $ N
- W S,l.O A h.~ & &
ih:}" *Q s': y.;,;; F.;.L
- &g.
.g, Z. ,y t;;-y. p & l.' ' ' , b. ' ? 2:i
.h..e. g. w "~ .. % m.s. 3y ~N.,%.n q,p. m %,Y fs.,f.,9,m,'n,. N.^m- - m. s..u th,@: ., n,ip q3,s,....,.,.s. ),.s ..n,. w. :. ', r ',,-. %. _a,> 7 :n : '~:.-. .m. y;. e* c, t'.. c 2..y. Q., y ' *.Q.' '.:W.g. a.' ><.:.. f. .i. *%'.-.% *w' :Q:m..u. g r v6 4.g. &<. .t .,V
- %,u b
..s...,... f.,.. :. ~e,. 9 y ^, u, v. v '[.'. ;.:;i. ',./:.,>. <.. ,.f.:r: . W %:,..e .. v. ;, ~. S, e,. w.,...p<5...v, ) -,.,. t
- c wn..., n sy.. w ),
x" s =a a 4
- w
.e p.
- g
- t. ~
3 y N t e' % -.. -.. e 3 .,,t- . s ~ a;. ir.,.,:,;.;. .c .:y;.r,), '.. p. g', ;.. .. v ? ". t .' :A : s
- 1. r.gf.c gl*p..,..A...h.,.,.g.. y ; :
s'.,.f(,;a.,.'Rp O,., y ",<.--,2. %., r r,y._-
- +,.
'4 - e L*. o Y . v.o W., s -e ,; <.. : + v > <.
- a. ' y'.,s t.g'^i Q'.W: w* y'&e.. y, r.rg)n;s s 9@,N.c %..'.Q3.<?..:ll*
.,..........s '[, &s;[" q" y,,, '4 s, .S c.. gn p, r t ny?u,3*.f4_u,m.ef. t s.%,. *y[,s ','c 1. . Q > y.:,q'Cf s o c.
- r s., n, j
y +. g,; %l<;..k;; ., +*,, a,
- c p
- m., y
.un..L.q2. .+: * - ~~. st~n.* M:. ;-2, - .e '?n s ;,. : :... w e ~ ' v %,.isg:n; g ::.x,;~*;> c$y : El L;Assa.M';a.k hll2. U:.i' Jca* ' 'nl.h":.:l:L /$.h 3.s: W. :
- a. n
- c. q...g.y.~h: .t.:.';p.if : u.c ylG.N..Q*.c k.,y&:.Q'7 .h. ;.:.O'l.4 '. s M ~i2 E}..).:..'s % 1.* - . Es.. a ; b r s - .y b,.l.*.c..N.3 p o..v p...w - v..q. :*) y,s3.Q.s ~. - h t..,. t4.Ar#-.,w e. <. / c. ~ ? m y':,eciyp.MwG.W.v. m_ s..c. g . g W.hFuff O "'h,$ [?.: w.hyiyM;] /; Nb,f.'m"'>, %. 5. y bh.0.. f :b. n;&:.f E c..n,[. r:hY....,. h,;;ps w6 e' T -ie 1 "A y wh, h'p f,v' h .k g%h. Q:mn.M,I F. %'?jMnG5"..;f%g:q,-n. S. Zoning issues yh .r. s ..di N tW h ' ' 'M 'J.$ I',h.MYh%7d[b.4.Q@%: h.} In proposed findings, LILCO anc. the Governments refer to the applicability M of local zoning ordinances and Town Resolutions on the use of three LILCO O...M-, D, y.flh.,e/hcNQ3M.N.,[s ? @d /b facilities as radiological emergency reception centers. He parties agree that T d N D, N b the Towns of Hampstead, North Hampstead, and Oyster Bay (the centen' situs) $cg MF8Q J;g,f 3.d'J.1., p..h..B P rq adopted resolutions declaring LILCO's proposed use of these facilities to be in MM, &eB.J.':Mu.s a c hti^p ds {";;r. A W y. %..]N-lp( g' W M..f..s? %,#; violation of their respective zoning laws. De Board has been provided with a .49 certified copy of these resolutions by the Governments. The two parties also-f.e,.. y. .~y. y ' :.' p%~ h. ; M.,2.f;.c,, SiM.cW Court of Nassau County requesting injunctive relief against LILCO in using the ,d. attest that the Town of Hampstead has an action pending in the State Supreme M.D.Qf 9.G[fj3Sk.p.gny / Bellmore Center as a reception center, M.j,j. ;.@.n_@h?';k 'j @.Ql a @J %.l 9.t,. f,.A. )w... l ~ -
- a'.-+. N In all, LILCO asks the Board to find that the Town Board's Resolutions 4
,.,,.'c $M:.'L G.. - have no conclusive legal status on grounds that there were irregularities in f @[..;j(M,N.h[M.s N h ;d)i local hearing procedures, that the Towns lack enforcement authority, and finally ~ !,,' 7 'd, %[,f,; that the prospective nature of any zoning violations present no current litigable vg)t; ' gj; ';j;;.9,y% j.j,. 2 i;li e 't ,7 4.g3 . g/d problem. The Applicant also suggests that the Board defer to the State Courts h G...g$yS. .. M. .y'$'h @M$^y] as the proper forum for consituing the applicability of local zoning laws and R;.g 3 W/ asserts that due process would be denied LILCO by Board enforcement of local ,' 7,'. y :", Y y'y p: % :y.'d.:.4..y R.. < s;;;jN...M,f y.... f, 4d, and, that in any event, application of the "realism' principle enumerated in CLI-p government resolutions since no opportunity for a hearing on the issue had been W. A # M,.g}'j. provided. Finally, LILCO alleges that federal law preempts the town resolutions t: 'y. ,9.Q ff.%,.M(fjj 86-13, spra, would ensure that officials would make proper arrangements to 3 ;&,.,e.N. R, '; D. w %fl.e'. M.. m...J.] J overcome any legal zoning obstacles during an emergency. LlLCO requests n.,. - ':.p v...c--] Q y y'r,j,,. Board certification of the preemption issue to the Commission if the Board's j 't. rulings are adverse to its position."
- Q y).,} Of].'.-
,j;. "g' ' j - j 7.. o r The Governments, citing New York State law granting zoning power to 1. ', E 7;'.,W..J' N 0;'U the towns, cities, and villages of New York, urges the Board to take official j M: '.f d * ? K,.4.%g/I. -O-tf.[.t . A.) notice of the Town Resolutions and provide them with the same respect we did t n v. --[ _'uO. f. 7N # wM carh.er m regard to a New York State Supreme Court decision on legal authority O ,t .W p,7. : -.g.;.y y d) issues. See Governments' Proposed Findings at 181 n.40. In the Governments' .f g;s . ?N, u,g(.W view, since town boards have the authority to determine in the first instance L.. / 3 ". 'I the validity of land uses within their borders, and have so determined henc, (.. ' ' . %] there is no necessity for us to await the outcome of a New York State Court s t' .s s f' '., - hlI ; J.O AM.[,T$ decision for interpretation of local zoning laws and their applicability to the 1 ,y , ', Q.j'A '.jp J facts herein. LILCO having failed to apply for a zoning variance with any of ,f '. 3 9, j ", 9 1.],w /,d the three local jurisdictions or not having received a State Court ruling favomble ,Q,, g. g 't m 3 e 'i3;Md.gJ; hy to its proposed use of the property, the Governments conclude that we must find 70': y LILCO's reception centers inadequate to meet NRC regulations. With regard to [ U 1.d,$k[] the preemption issues, the Governments cite judicial authority previously relied y s:. .; 1 > ss ..:a. s.,:v,- 9 O. n ' * *-
- A, c
' '., (4 r-u H M ;.{.y - ' yt,. H IAco Proposed Findings at i1819; Reply to oeerninaus' Fedegs at 67 76. W - ' .a .m..} i s. +_' g. g '*".f,. .4 ?5* \\
- (
',+ ' G p X.<,.4; nj s.q, ! 564 1 o._g a. .r? w..;. s - ;; u,'.., 4. q t....%.'i _. " b. .I l y q I. 7,'.' f., ,,%* .#'.'*,? i 4[
- s. i.'*
<g j ..,., ; >.7 ,, y ; .Q* .g ,,e. 1 n.
- 5. r. -
f .1
- ",'t
- 7.
- bS Y. [
1
- ,e
-f".,
- . J. ' ', " = ~
y~'. y ? $...;y.3
- y.< ;.
~ ~'.* ,~ r ~. < -, s m ' a. e,.y O,h ;,. ,: [ 'h[ r. .t 7
- 3.,, -
+ [t,, [8 b ^ 7 ] f ,t' + . e. :. y ;., e, 4,.9.,.z: y.($g, {. [; *,,. 4 . : w. ~. ;[..,. s 'y .4*. , [j ,o.
- J f
,m- %
- l 4. g c },.
j < g i ..} p ', ?. / .. p...'{' ., '* g r *w .f .y,
-. q b s ap .' ;, r . 4 8, l ,,W... 8 4 2 s. s ~,, l' s, g .s. L*'* .c, E ' r?.
- g.
t. ' x ) ...y.. 7 ,,n,- v s ( . '.) '>s on by the Board, (PID, LBP-85-12, supra, 21 NRC at 9N), and alkge that . [' .,'.,[f neither the agency's organic statute nor NRC regulation preempt local zoning .p laws. See Governments' Proposed Findings at 182-84 On the applicability Rf:l [ of CLI 86-13 to the matter here, the Governments claim that a "best-effort" U qyQ 7 p h...b,;.N g' 4.s%C; ;g"j.)q y response under these circumstances cannot be construed to legalize an activity -d.:7 ; ~ ?;{. illegal under local zoning laws. In our Decision, below, we have not considered, [* d !..' L,'Jr,".5,5 M:cM!.F[Uk'$7' ['E ae as appropriate, Intervenors' request of October 1,1987, to respond to LILCO's M 2.. Q f $ %' Reply Findings. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.754(aX3). ,?# P ' W.
- 4.,:y.,,z.,. p (. ~..v.n?.~,Q..p.
v r. . -p .y, 4.;,,
Background
U;;.
- 7..Y~~.,:.;; '..'~;,,' 7. h.., ;,W,
...w,. -.~
- w.. ;... s.c.
.:.n s b."'f. h,,, g" l M [/ i..,.N f..? [l f. ne issue of possible violations of local zoning ordinances by the proposed '. ;f' ' QMM,.? use of LILCO's facilities as reception centers was first brought to the Board's b '.-f ;, attention in a January 22, 1987 pleading of the Intervenors. in a motion f ' y -( 7 & [ jf, [.j, $ '7.1, N i for reconsideration of a Board Order on a discovery and hearing schedule, ty.MR "}i8A p W ^.
- % ?y'3]" G'y - f.[v[ ?^-i j l
Intervenors suggested ' hat a hearing on the remanded reception center issues .ff f be held in abeyance pending some statement from LILCO on a possible 'M W Q ., N. .s l substitution for its reception center facilities. The abeyance was required, in [ @ ' < vJj [.,.j'f,, {'4.; the Governmer.ts' view, by receipt of notice from two towns that the proposed p D.s f. y,7 ; '# s ' ' M.%c[ Q p $ % K '.37,'[-[.,e i-j t: p ,t use of the Bellmore and Roslyn facilities were in violation of town zoning ,. ;Q y laws. We ruled then that violations of local zoning ordinances are matters to be adjudicated in a State Court and, pending such a ruling, we delayed any decision i %Q.$ly.j.vM.f ' V h S fj $~ g,ly, k 'ffy ' [f y~. on the issue until all other issues were resolved. See Board Memorandum and Order, February 9,1987 (unpublished). In the closing minutes of the hearing rM?:l. if gr.Q p, # i E.1 on the reception center issue, however, the Board and panies were put on notice P.'d.OAV 4:'s-oS-Y[E';'# [,D by Governments' counsel that they intended to file a pleading dealing with the i.6'<l' M #M'.NY-M*'O.3 T %5.? M Y, 0.- legality of the use of LILCO reception centers. After discussion among the P..j. XQ.M... .4! i parties and the Board on whether such a pleading would be considered, the M Board stated that it would be bound by its previous Order, supra, and would U%. ', g, e f... ( 'D s ' I, Y O
- i
.c.- ,y n', -c < 9 evaluate any problems raised by the pleading at the time it was submitted. D.;~;n.W. 7 5 ' ' ', N [* See Tr.19,243. Both the Applicant and Intervenors have now submitted their J.yM GC. ';;/2 contentions on this matter in the context of proposed findings and conclusions [h'l.dt[, i ' ', ;" 43.1 't.W.h,' y M,i:y W..-'(' : of law. n The Staff made no reference to the issue in its proposed findings of fact.
- ,M,.e.. ?l>. K....,.>sJe f,. * ~
~w..r,.
- s..
.57. l},f' L $* f .f. p$e;
- r s. y z.
- 3. a.,,,
c ' 'g. b :. :, f.. 'gfs,t.. x -W~. 'd."
- c.
- T, W. w,
i *,.-m.v....']*+,a.,-. =
- 'R,
- 's 1
Board Decision .D.. : .+ ,. w.,. r w;...,iii., s. . a.: n
- .ms
.y 'Ihe Board experiences difficulty here in evaluating the Governments' ar. I.s. *.J l..y~ p~JO.'AI. W. M-QiM...,.%- - M gtimmts in the context of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (.("dN g/:.M.~GM. m 1 m. iv.m ::g:( Although set forth in form as a legal issue which the Board had previously k],fjh.MG2,Q$nhi['7hE9 deferred, the Governments would have us dispose of LILCO's recepdon center 'M i@'y.f G d F ? ).,G,M...x$$.fy r%g,t e. - ~. c,... .m,e l f..g (;.,;..je..D.: Q,'?..Q"}m 1.: 4, r
- 1*
J* ,.8 , a'<.y 1 ..M,<',. ; N,,<g..g... g, h'.p,5.=.- <4' ', k fpgg.q [,T ([.'*' \\i'[.b,i.;1 r.. ...,, w _ Q, 4.pr ,.,;, ;i , x]; p Q..%<I' %.Y
- ..e.,$, ar..O z.; /;=M*,.
m.<,+.<c. -,n. . :; W .. ' -M u y. y w '&w'pV.W 565 mg ' fn &c.. W.6 W' < r %"y.W*M'%y}'%l5,'l.cne.' y Ue
- i J v.
- -i~;Q,,,g q ~ Q y1,. Q -?
- -@
- x a ?.y *.
..,;. g, :. ps r. C. .e...;s'>:lf ;.:,,.qg. m . d. Q:,.l, &.* x. '.)R.J. q., ...%.r., s t1, y
- q
- s. 3
.-..n . L. -r, e. g, g. /..,..=. .;M....li 3 - 'E. < v s e. l f h',
- ,,4
. * 'd' f'.!: C.,.'(,' ~. ' ' ' e y f p, ,. a ' *4 e j My... r .,e m. .s. = ' "} T*f* [^ . *j;af'-fQ. ;. Q: a <r - ~ ". ~ *:
- v..) m ^ ' *
^ * '. * * '
- .s=w *.4e v., e s
,,,.,. "y .j 2 ~ ~'f y N,,/ s 7.[, f 'y,.S; w I a;pA.v; D'f,, ;5y.,{y,,,;O y, -5_, -{ .U i a, [.} ;* '*
- v. f '
j s '> ~ ,~. g @ 1 ;, r . :), ' ~ _.,W... y i.,. f. !?.m$.,.&w*',. : a :.,.. q. d..M.. .M l-l1.%. M % 1 .,o [^. }., 4
- [,
,' [ ' ,,e*, /... '4 .,. 7 f. M ;.,.. w'.% e- "I 'i e y4} ,'- [ m.' j.*y,.fd '. N. j i*, g.). '. 2(. '.$,., .,6 ~* [ ^ k.y/# #,*Mr;$l.h, - i/g 5 r. - j.[ i 4 ~ >, ..',Q j&..%.., d v. [ %'.Q. %'.i.'[g. ',.$... D.:'i.G, ;Q.%..'M.e'y.,,*" %, S'- ' '..,1 ;~.m s. .r .-,.,.. s,, a Ws '4' _'._np ug.,v.. * '_~ /.h; q ^* s-m1-Y' '--h'#*I**'**--
- .. ' ' < ' Y'e' ' P'I. \\..
.,e. Og.- ./ : s ^ o'- ~ %* '$ " ~ ' ' "~ N9IC' r M-d%- 5
l l U , ~ h:'.p,$$.,.a..h. n... fy,',xd.N. ; %L 'hh 'NT'h. h. Q,.:.c ~,%k~ n.o I. h2beh I. 75Y t. ~. M. ' ' W-c. 'C .g rp f 4. ? '~l, l,[2, s. a '. r e.Y W. :, m. n.'
- V r,m a
r f,.*Q.Q;.,,, Lt;f %., lh,p:t Q;.4: *b'. E'k,.g). *.. w. 1 1 f r.y'W " Cs'* N W *ss ~ ? 'W
- j
.s,
- ,'.*..) ' T
- ' q :.
',. 3; w'~ L.- &,..; y ~ &. &.Q,;h.h.' *,;* * ;'&s. s ' Vf;.:.d'QQ{ ^:h; d. Q ~.lh.y*.?m y*j y ,'; ) ;;,', ',,'? ' ' y ~\\ ':, u ' E \\ ".J . h'.Q,.%$: A N:..% A: >: U~ ~ ' ls ' ' ' '.G ;. L ' ' ' ~
- f.. :r.x.o.w M:.c - w'
- p.'2..;f;, l.^
- ;n % ~. ' f.,
~, my?.ny in<
- A u -
, T.r; W@ i q.. .?.y. s. 1:g
- .e
. ' s%...r 1 ';::.y. -' j* ..n...,..,__ -w v;:t..., [p.,. %m .,,,f.n.. v ~q , c..,,. ;. N. .v . > ~..C.. w, - ? ",:4.. fa. ; w ~.~..J*.. .#s .o...v. 4..- ~. ' j. w;.,.h n $. qy$:Y h.M
- s
- p p!
fu.-I,.f h,W kf.e. Nf- .#;.4.: cs,,lm&::.4
- ..vu..r-
, ;. : v. s.< > ; p. s. . e.. M.. q. MTW W m.5. M. M g w.. w,c.,.,w%. d.: a Mn:cl t.. . 4s-g; h :. m; y g,:..-. p y cq.,p G.g ?$ p 9..mq ar hh h program by taking official notice of the three Town Resolutions and providing N. $.55 i 3MX%'MjhAR$'M them with immunity against :onfrocution by other panies in the proceeding. 'hh3MN Dis we are not permitted to do. Although the Board is authorized to take offi-M.dfEE!Y;'5N.7M'((}I(f,bW'.W.h 2".aljd yM..w,.M.w.M.%. apw. +1 cial notice of facts such as certified acts of government bodieJ, panies obviously
- .ge n
hDNp.%q..M- % y. affected are entitled under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(c) to an opportumty to confront the 9/yG4Q
- y. %@,.i:Mf,3W'@< M @hGp @ME. 6
%T. N facts noticed. That opportunity is not available through the vehicle of proposed . M R k, Q..,.itqgj Following are the dates where relevant events connected with the Town ' 3' findings submitted to the Board. 'p %M..M,[s. a O@; (., r, o r. p./..'.s.N '.g g.., r.% < -:...-/, C.
- # %..,m.
Resolutions occurred: . m q'g. a ..Q.iU . e. w'.. f,, January 14, 1987: Board Order est;blishing discovery and hearing e W,.a,.X schedule on reception center issues. . T~ m g.t,! j.C.$:.oO'2.-
- . [. %D..
January 22,1987: Governments' motion requesting a hearing delay 't, s '.. ' ? on basis of Town actions giving notice that Bellmore and Roslyn
- c. :J. F. 3., ' s.. ;.-.'....,,. ;>. "'....
i e reception centers would violate local zoning laws. if, ".i... > ~w, g....:fO February 4 and 9,1987: Board Orders de ying Governments' mo- ^
- - r'y;- j f.'g h. 's n. ' ' f f
tion and stating it would delay making a riccision to see if a State ..,p .j Coun ruling on the zonir.; matter was obtt.ined. g, 'g'bM ! 'f. :' N. <;rd:;g b l, ' v f A [.' June 30L-July 30,19M: Eleven days of hearing on reception center 17 i, M. issues with no evidence submitted on Town Board resolutions.
- ,,W
- y4 r.Q ?. 3.%,.
ij.i:VW.V.M.,.; 4 4 .o June 9,23, and 30,1987 Town Boards of Hampstead, Oyster Bay, t$.,..? W ?.<y.f.M. O Wl. 6-c:f( e .i M: and North Hampstead :.dopt resolutions finding LILCO's proposed .a 7 ' *P. 6.fg.u,.vg(G. 51W ' N.# :"j+, 11 use of Bellmore, liicksville, and Roslyn properties as violation' of yf
- 3.,.,
-m J Buildin8 Zone Ordinances, ,q y h.k%>.. k ff [ [,d, July 30,1987: Governments indicate on final day of hearing their e ...y q., - 9,. s, -;: y q intenuon to submit motion on zoning matter. " " ~ .ys. p'M August 14, 1987: Town of Hampstead files suit to enjoin LILCO e ,.g - 1. < '. }.N 3 from using Bellmore propeny as a reception center. 'd '.AC b y[ ne Board is not persuaded by the Governments' contentic, that the Town t, Q'.p. y W '.] Government Resolutions can stand procedurally on an equivalent footing with
- h...L
' W y.,r' ;,,J:. E -:M... a New York State judicial decision. That argument has no substance where . J.q, qx ffd the Applicant has not had an opponunity to present its side of the issue. De
- . *.i ', W.1. (. * 's.
Ly, 4:.- ! f, : ~ 'cp - Board is being asked to rule in the Governments' favor on an issue that has N ' x., #$ t.: no foundation in the record and that other panies have had no opportunity to .y -S,
- 2 -
w:s confront. .n e g.,...@ S.-..; f. J <[9;,-9..M. We decline to take official riotice of the Town Resolutions. The facts 7,$.. _.'b',.4q E ' I..;j3'93 concerning the validity of the resolutions are not indisputable, and the issue j %;' j;. % i;@f surfaced h.ere 'on the reception center controversy could have been raised 0::'. @/[/. ',...ce,. g,$ '.' substantively prior to the close of the record. As we have stated, the basic 7/yM j(.7@7.. fy@gs question on zoning use is now before the State Courts, which is the proper 'Y i,;a { , ;. ~ fW. ] ;, q ^! '2: fomm.for the adjudication of local zoning :ontroversies. We see no reason to s a:t contrary to the intent of our Ord.r of February 9 which was to delay any ,i* r,f - decision on the matter to ascertain whether a proceeding were to be undertaken ,. m;g /. 7-s w +, . -..c - .,,,,e .g
- t.,
e e b. q[ g q, v, 3 a 4:. a.- e ~.g. 566 . Q*
- e
'M , U s, gy ,f . J ', j * -.. '7 -.; p. c'
- p
..<...=f,., ~ - o ,s .g g ..g.y.- ~. ,%.g ~. -=- so t._ y 4 s.( z....,,
- .*9, g
m e* ' ; - 7 n. ,g i + x, ..E 8 ' 'q ,Q I'
- '.. m
? ~ i s i s.. . c-A*,.-. ..gf .a
- .' m 4__r.p ;-*
g C l = - - - - -
. ' ^ ... p.$. : m
- ,,.. o..s..... c
, g.. 4 .....). a v... g.... g w.- <,x.. . :;.,. ;.~.... g v. w., ?- ,.l' p"."'. ..s, x.
- 3..,. {y e
s i-y s'.'. 4 .e- .,4 .,. y; ..y.. t p.,. r,.&_,.,...3, ,.c s .s n ,a. ,.c ,s .t...:....o p.....e*..
- s..
',., e a.c .. "... ~p..,.;. ;',1," ,s. . s, a. ? ~' k.J M,M1.., + ,.y;L p %^.n;.) in a State tribunal. Such an action has now commenced, in the event a Court ..., y..W> y.-:.: _-;N s 4,, .-i %. -' .5- .../ c decision is made that is adverse to LILCO's position, the subject can be brought / C: P %',J.@f; l to the Bostd's attention by any party with the filing of proper motions under the ', "r" f ' ' y' .,p.... I,/ ; Commission's Rules of Practice. 1 m . W..m W.4..Jf.'., V d,...h< N. A.J..- ' G p,.., Although a request to take official notice of a Government action can be i s-raised at any time and we do not view it favorably here, wp possibly might R p :.$.s@ J.,-r-F , $9 $A>.d/@TM'.@. alternatively consider the Governments' contention as a motion for summary .Th. " disposition of the issue. However, even if viewed in that form, such a motion & 58 %dQA/ .g i could not be successfully maintained in view of LILCO's challenge of its validity h>:y%;#pt/.,.$(.QG;7 ~ '.% %'?lM ' and legal conclusiver. css. These are materic.1 issues that would require litigation. ,,' M.,';-;.~ k [M.')Yff See Applicant's Reply to Governments' Proposed Findings at 70-72. pl" Although alleged local zoning violations have not been litigated in this V if..[ 7 <fA s %/@@g.e h,'QO.. ... s prcceeding to date, it is possible that a decision by the New York State Courts m y.. ;y; n,-e g~,..f'q W d. + r;.E,. '.' on the issue may impact the reception center issue. However, the dimensions t .A 7 - e a.. c u, of any such impact are not before us now and we refrain from any speculation i.a. y L.. M.. ?C 4.. '.. Y..r Y.. in that regard. r.L... ' V. J. ;. ++> ",; . (N.. J, > -. <,. cq t sq - <w. en g' e T/h,,, ' i[ y : ' ~..y b;l)[V l*- "W ~ T [ '. '.
- Board Conclusions s.
The foregoing sets forth the Board's findings of fact. Based on these findings, [ i.' [. M.,$4 L,, ' ' ' W Np.,.f and upon consideration of the entire evidentiary rccord ia this pro: ceding, p,( p.p g ),, j,s;,- Q.., '7. fj the Board makes the following conclusions of law: the Applicant's planning t4 t ':f j.Q., ;g. c;.,,. Q d6. '.g c, ?, ' : !;.r. gg basis, traffic plan, reception center beations, rr.:,nitoring, registration, and (W: W/.7,; 9 d M. J.'@;l1.$,yf.ft decontamination procedures, staffing plans, and provisions for handling evacuecs JF i 'H;g.k:$'.g' \\'fyj{fDg.y. are adequate and satisfy the NRC's regulatory standards and criteria of 10 j
- y C.F.R. 0 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654 s IIJ.12.
t S M('i S.s ' lw ' 'Th e. ;WT .r.ca., 2 < :.. tyh '.L v.", '.,,g/a, b ay ;'., %.:.,. n v o 1 del.* M - s ~ - py
- . T.
- ;:: W,W:W OHDER
~^ ^ J. ; y " .,, ? ? ; % z._;. < - v<ys Jk. y' 'e . c. r;,... '.y. ' y : On the basis of the foregoing find ngs of fact, conclusions oflaw and epinion, i. A ?.<. V..tJM. s 9 J f (S. c rA and the cntire record, it is this 9th <1ay of May 1988, ORDERED: '. v.
- M'
- c d. A-J. .. N ' 'l. ( 1,3.% % L The issues remanded by the Appeal Board in ALAB 832, issues raised j. 5 ./. ,,M,,.. v by Intervenors, and a population planning basis issue are resolved in favor of C ? % '.r the Applicant as described in this Decision. . 5 *, J ; ' ""J '. AIl~)H N 6: W 2. In accordance with 10 C F.R. 6i 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786, S.V.',Wi , c,/ l 3k.%%nP's CW as amended, this Partial Initial Decision shall become effective immediately and '* [R. O will constitute, with respect to the matters resolved herein, the final decision of
- d. -
E,jes,r.o..':7.,;73,e y/ e.. di l,.- 1 W;c.m,' the Commission thirty (30) days after issuance hereof, subject to any review m
- M @..
.Qf. E.?,M..T@.6.n 4.@ j g. g. e pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice. Any party may take an appeal 8, s R :.. ?.l from this Partial Initial Dc/.ision by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) u t. @!,7@k' Eh,.M....j%'. Q Ff:Vi h $'Uf days after service of this Decision. Each appellant must file a brief supporting {')!.p r ' D.. yh' J:V:b_$@l% rk:;"G W; z sp.- UWk . g.;$1' r dJ'#D,:.m-::.R N sk. W ?.
- fin NSh:,.+P r
P. Y' 'i6 $ [:: z, *b-r. f.f.'.',3.g.yv-' j. . ".;F. %{#' 4 ~ . #.M.'o(': .Q
- 4 n
i~.- i.l.h.,.. 4.,$. *w a % ;* < o $. W 567 Y% -w..'.d W W. 3M (F,h, ;:d:'..l? . Q' ':..... sp ..,.QW.s L ' 'l Q s- ,.,.a;;,.,',, 'g,. ps P).at r f.s p';w; ew ,*.vJ"?n ,,j .a p 't W a... c..-d. '.* ?..3** ' j3 s.6 4,; 4 s . < < ;u ~; 4.'. s... f,h?dO w+ w.} l! ? '*. e s. c..' '. - /g,,.. _. : 3 l* > e-N. Y*,t ' * ?. A r r.n :;
- r.,
F. e h i,. e,
- w.
.n oe *-
- g t.
h e ..j,'.
- .. y.,::~ ;;
- g m...u nfi a
x ! a t :a:. c.. p., ::rg".,~p.'s.,;v.,.'i',,{lw . :~,.~-. * '. ' ?..*:, w= n.;g a ,s. -.:..,.~.,.y. .. a,.. p.s ?r w m\\ u, 3.m. g ~- .. tra *:. ~. MM..: *w +,. n hw .g. , a, .x S. %..;. s..-... e %.. ml7 a.,, . W ;... ~., ,,. - '_ ~ .. '.!. n,, .;., L b. .w ~. m.,- n: f.a.$ p .sn , s: -..'4..,,,,. a. .= . g;, ' V't, 3 n. g...-^.w...+ '.. '.. .t. - rm % ?
- i,;
M.. 'f'. @a,.:.<?..sl.f$1'. t q.. -Q'.--l?; ':y.'* i ', W L .,.,/
- r.,.
- * *, fe., <* 9, e,;..n
- f.
'<s e . r <.t:p y_ t , Y ",. q.v' '. .v. -s .p, v..fg. : n- .,,e ,. y..r. i.p.;.,(+yef., v c..c ; L, s p . :y...;.., s +- *,g v. e3.A, 4 3 .a,.sg. y.* ,~,..w..-% s..,, i. : .v s .*s ,,e.:".s w .e. ,-, ; ' i)g., =s.i -. t o, ;.,. x ..f4 p . :. s[p;,., m, ' s ;b:w n y% \\,. % m ~,,y.;., J n.%.:'~m. n, ;rq,'L ?s
- .=
'* $e. e ?-
- R *,
}^. 'Y h f,, h p, p'; a .c:YfEED.,.w. y;,p p,% e.92g:a .f ,'.t.N.f, :' "k,f O, T.
- N.
^
- ~
p::WAM; Q..m..~.mwWup.. w%m.mm 1.;. g,..v. r,,9:r,'pf QhT.m =, . M v:.$h;a. w@.in..W, m-m m.2 ;;. W U..},D, r - n r., C.Q,.Q W d.&u % 1W: %c=:%.,.ml%..'4%..C.McF'... to..y'..,k.M.%.' m': .r.~ ? r,;,v: 2 s.r 'a . Kr. V:, s %a .. W. m. %. y x : g,.r:. m. s U.. r Y;, , { ~, a.* ~.: :.,'..,:
- " v% k.L, :sm' -c.
c ^ ,n y'. *. L Y,.... u.a. :.' 3 >.n
- m...,. f.:'
.a .s.. r ...s. c W.,*t.k..a: W'.U fr.Y.:G.W.* .[x. N ~ N.'.? i}". -. 7.RM%. h.b.awg; p h:g:. *., w;. %q w.,:. p >4, w..m...,t" w..t'....,f,;.'a +n. w :7.2 2 g w ? g a;;m.r. y~ f .W m.
- \\t m_;
n .n.. w : ~.g;..a :.tf. ~,.:L y -.y, - ~ .u.- w,w :, .4w,, e ~ 'f -
- .~,..
.s , s. - .f. g x.; <,v .,.... w % ~.,,,::,. a? :. : t;b..i :m. ~. - H=..?a L ..r~+'.t.: ';.,...n V-x i.., - e
- s L
r...; .., s.b. y m r 4 e.n.#e,o - w 4:nM..=w. :,w... 2,.%, %..WW W. u..u,.%M.k s ..p. g, y ,::.1 .:.L s. s. m ;. ,m. +.. - s. n.+. '. T.. y.m.o.V;%u: ;.. ; \\ ' '.L.r', t .* m; o....~ &.... e. w;,.,.:.~...,. (. m: a-w.,t. m.v..t,.a... n, :s s;;,.&. V, y n. Q. sy. .f
- 4.,,
+ Wy .M. :.m..;~.M:49 9. ).e.-a.. s.n:c.w. n : :.:.,. e.% .s.->, g of,s. s w Q M.:?z @.::a. A.. M ;ar w ,v.. m ~:p: n, p? wx. M c:;.wg 6 .?s .DL. %.7.<*ht : e.[e N9?iMJlMMQWE@:p:.l Its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal hNbM(kd.i 'h[M (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty (30) days after the b.%@%W.d[.k'Y3ft:WMUW.M.WW,'p':%IiM, k:. ' i,7 PO period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty NS. M, h.MLN. h (40) days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an appellant may file a !.,:s,..;y.n...c..w.,Y..l.h.M E3Yfh.e..p.i.,3,.UNn1 ..P. We.. ) brief in support of, or in opposition to, any such appeal (s). rg m. s s.m.p.,c?.: ;. : THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND c&n~ e ..,wir,.,.y..i, 0 ;c.m. f:,;: ~+n> ...s.;,
- n.
., w-. si f...~,,L'I, LICENSING BOARD .x..m.,... e W,. t.m.
- 4.,u L 1,
v.v se.; u
- + c
.,....... ;;..w. ; .. r :,.., -, ,.c.,,..7., James P. Gleason, Chairman T. p. ~ '.x -- p,, :, g,/r. 6 c.? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .l
- .
- . w.,.:
~. ~. .x.. w s a S.'.3,E Dr. Jerry R. Kline n, h., '.- s-T., " ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE (,
- .,9::l A.
.a ., :n. % A ^ - - : r %.. . '.... 4:m .,. 4 ..c W.. ~~.:,'!/M.?.7u /l Frederick J. Shon . d, s,,. ;' N.. , ".g,n., c -. r. ,. : n,. cu 3. - 1 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE r y
- v. te..r.n.,. 4 u..
s ~ -.,,. ,.w, ,., ~ .,a. 1 s :,.. n. w. . 4.., j;. . -;j j :..v..( W. ;?..',l, Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, o l m p..,.z,e 7. a. c-.,<,,. e,,s,... j,s,I this 9th day of May 1988. .s s e vl.; s m P,. : ' ? d,..t t
- c. s
.t. ...s,,c ~. -w ,. A,5 *.... < s4 y ..$#[, -g 3 )'* ' 9 '%
- ~~ -,
..,6 'f lw - 4 k s ,.,T.' , {, \\,
- '.'e.u}.
- 4a
- x. I ;
e 'l.__g %. '*4 \\ 9' "g Ut, 1 i: .2. J A s, .c. .. a. - l-f., e
- 5. -
$.l i 3 ?;'.1*:. s 4 s 4 g O 4' ,4 .,.,,s. '. y s i. , i 1,4,,n""-*- I y*.'J- .,...'..n.4 .,t
- ' - ; ?'
-a r 'I'8 i4. r. s 4 ,3 ~. y t \\
- ,- 5 g
-,.e C. g '. ' * - [ '; tJ,, - 7" .**...a; r1 .,1 /*; 7,-
- <, Is.-
. p. o. a. s s >. s > q. p. .p* I . u-Q., c .'I s 'r. . p.- .2,.,, a,n 1 g Y .I e . I, .[I. g y. ^.... ~I w "?,'.,..
- ,,,.h 4 %
..s ,8 .h 8 .p. .q -4,. n. .f .c.... s e ,W, ". ' - + .y st c. = g_ t .g.. g., ' ) ' '. - r. ;.,,< j ['.^.,,. ' ; th 'g
- f~,
.y, ,.) i c -. ~... ~ cy ,;g - +. -) i.I B"., .A -'.I ,, i e 4& 8 9 e 0 99 I f '. ,,8 p ,-'9 /.. '.). n,j - ,g "".=T + e g,* e .v,;. ' 9: '.t' .<c s g O g ~. ' 'y.. r - s.
r-e r., m.: ::
- 1=. m.
v ,s, 2 . y v.., ? .~ e;. g .ev
- u
, a.:2 ;;v:-n, w.1,. :; -
- ..- n'i
. '. ;,,r.',%,:* P '
- . v*
u, s .,,,s.. v s. n y, .;, y; ?, f,.1 :nx,- . m. i. > ( e .w 4 w .r.. ,.y...<... -....u.:n.... c c.a.<...s. x a .3 ~ ... -.y,. ~..,.,....;,; .~ ,;n.<.
- c. y..
w.... w m r.g + i g.2,.. :., x.: %. s.. -~3 .v m ;,. ;;p.?: ' '.~i.:u w.. sm,.,. -. +- .M ...y.. m y,, ..A. 7
- >.. i,...
J.. , w:U Poi,W
- d. :. M...",4 d f,, @ 'c..i,? M,1 Cite as 27 NRC 569 (1988)
LBP-88-14 ",1 T * -. c. .s _. s
- 4. "y.;c r :!:,.."; ;y....
.A. - t v 4! t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J , lw. ' T T ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E '.f..! l. '. c;M T,,.'9, ' '.. _>( ..: m. :. - y,:
- . n., '. -
^ c. ,... ; r.. n. .y y c~..v -., ..'r,,.. c r,d, /s.;'l'... w,:+:.;;4, 9. ~ > ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD v. F4 0, t, G-O.e.n-+ *. q.,.. x ~ ..... f
- y
- e ~..
. n..
- e :s,.,.
.,,..a. .; e. , v..... %. ;r~.. . ~. 4.., 'e.1 Before Administrative Judges: ft
- ,.,~.. !,+<....;>>
^F s .9, y,y, ^ m.; 7,,.3 r 6., :., 3,.,.. -
- . Y.
,l. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman OJ. ":.YX, W~- s '. 4 9_.>' '.,) i, Elizabeth B. Johnson J ", ';, ' l l..l;W.. f ' ' ',.!tn..N.i ~ Cadet H. Hand, Jr. ,.., '..,..r... N. ~ M.,. 3cf ' .., T. ~., L v.
- s. 9 r
re, G ;y. ?? U .'g a. l^s t.. ~ C. '-E,.. y..... h: WJ,', M,,. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 3610L [..,,' J.u.,. s., 50 367 OL i N,.- ' 7 s,m S*.M.,- <..L W. c. r-s.. g (ASLBP No. 87 538-06 OLR) s... -_.... ..,.7., fR..~i.c.. M .s , i.,.a c.,,.'
- a. s
,. n .e.... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON . :f','i ;h..'4 '.M... M,,..<p+ '- s . lC,.,..%. d, W %.. u.w, B.,, .O..'.. ? M. 5 COMPANY, et al. s.s 7
- V
-.. c f. on.%.... (San Onofre Nuclear Generating T v :.c; "r..'.x,.. M,0 ' e WW..V.. "fS.7' W M.$;.,. Station, Units 2 and 3) May 9,1988 5 r.'. W..di9 Lu,2,..::..M, q ;.,; w;v.,% m: ' N,,s y p <,s.-.., '.y;.h,< %. - '[ ..'m;%,,*..*N.....'.*. [, (.. J; <'F
- c ;y w.
- .n e
-4. ,..,.c. ..g.. After considering and approving the stipulation of the parties wherein, among . h q.$;].g'-JJff;'ff.[l other things, the Intervenor declined to request a hearing following a remand by the Commission, and upon consideration of the showing presented by the
- < d. y ' d.f.'p.g r
- 1_., <
t f.ru S..A./.i ' ' % J ' ~;,
- 6. ?..
,.....-,2;f,t y W 2 Licensees and the evaluations of the NRC Staff and FEMA with respect to .., s - .. $,(C " Q@Q@.. emergency medical arrangements,in this Order the Licensing Board concludes
- a ??';;..,y.
,g , j; '.g that there is reasonable assurance that adequate measures to protect the public ' (-] '.
- .M.r g '.
in the event of a radiological emergency at San Onofre 2 and 3 have been taken. '..'.,-[.,[q.-E:::jh,Q.... ;/.:y;; [ [ ; ';c, ? ..'. " /. 7 5 f'...., w[.g*~.,., i.'] Q.,g.j,.'..#.,.;. N ,? s-ORDER W. %,...h. (Resolving Remanded Medical Services Issue) ,[-,',{..yQc$$s... .s .y '.h c.;.w,..=.s.,. wu.gsw .c o .,. s ., s m,s .k,.c... v :.,,((he...,.,< % ,h'j. h [,,,, h w The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim Fhdings issued by f (cgjffy; $g.p..M's.JMg FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Said findings evaluated medical arrangements at San Onofre 2 and 3 in conformance with FEMA guidance 'Q g %'Aggg. %f;:i- ( ~' Vt. a - w.D:.q,. A>G1 4<e >-:;%.. - u.c.'.,4. 6.% i 7d,.y/' *F;r,: m .:c. [ cT...,.n.Q,:.'Ql;.u,.M +. : ?.' ,..h,l.;.%y;Ls,.-s.,1. m%.w,. + +. a.ig y . g;; v . s.,p < e. 9.:n, .b....n,rn.$ :*. :.....v.. .- es .'s fm. y t.,' L'.. :.M".;%. p.2,.' W M.,". y;;.%p. & m% .., s 569
- r. /
7 - E.,. y c. -J.F..>v,..n,;C. ,.y *g? i. ?.. . ~..... e p :.4.: M c,
- q.2.%...j.r.y
. Q. :,:*<.. -
- u *
,%...;q..... r.p c ..n 'q..-4. g. w.aw ; .s-a
- .4.y
,.,s ...;* s i .s. s a s- . 4: (:;,.y..a %; M: .~q.'. m ;.,g ; ?:g.::.g... gpw . 'M.g*:. e.'i f;,.n.p > n w? s. So.rf. n'.. g;.:,... ... q.. ,4 -f m q *..,:..e. ~~.g...n y:. ;e,z w:.u.m..u so ',.:g..?, r.*t.,, ,,..,...-s.-.y.. . a. u. r-r J j,g e 3,. y:;, e1 .. a. f .e:- g .c,,. *g.,, e, v.,r q.. .1 e 3< 1, .s ..,.+n..
- ' ~. -Gg,:..W w
~. s..:%..; i.;,/ . f.. sp..m ?SD. '.'.,v[.:.f.e. .;;p.!:l};v l.,inMa. .. g.
- y.,M.
- 7 N. y
- f::
.e m-g ... 3. m,., i.r. k...g,*y: p. q,.q p ~
- z. 4,,,.
- z. m,* w,[
- e::p..%. r',.:. :
q:,y,m %;4Wh.%. <. G n> u .,r.+G, ;>v a .r~ .,-[. .k ' N.'c v'.,' @. e p .My. y..
- r,
., m.v i:~. '*^ l .: < g.g,; e r 3.h [ I l .) j Q&.,Q '.'f,L, t.:P $,';M, f.,W. y %: q&., ;Wy
- a.,
~ :..;r. w.. ._l'i'q Q *;...y,..y'._Q..;f. _,jn&.; d.: ;9:: .. ~. ..at. n n. ., s : p t L' ' a y .D.n...q ^ ^:V m t;, .. i 6 's ) $QMM2?:l C OL 4 t
v w.. A!+l $I,QW
- W p ::
c mc= o~Y.a w W..;Lh.,y.I?g;.m: y z.- .~ rm wtstv=a:s. av. m%uy..WN.qlD:y a.!c.@B,W8YhM.@;'n&w. mlw Qm':.:i'h.K< s-v --c.v.m n:, Q: %g. ';&. ~;'.., : n k f +. m s '. P li;a #.:'k. i I f.f.?: a.'.. <.M.1 ;p? .m ..' %w - x 7 n Q $,.::;ty.m.2:. w" R: .,<l o.~.. . R..: : M,. :&,'. V: ^.h: l A.Y h., ' ~ h
- 8.;
g + Tyn%a:Qli?.:ay.i.f..&; Q: Y ' W /s. & ' ~ ..). 4' nu .y V.' - ... n. !..hh@[l'?.D wl::n M.k. $ - * *k
- ?
'/ c c.~ m;.;;&:&.y;.y. ':. f:.y;m,l.;;:y.Jg:>/ *.'::.b.,:.6.s ' $' ' Ql
- O
... Ml "', ~ :.P..i 2;s. y.A.. .s. .:9-
- R.y.,,. '
w; r: b, c ',. . r.~ v . 4~- ?;._w:xly m.-s;Q y:: .*,,.y,~
- n..
y2 y .e ,T;.W.; t,h.n;.cnW. v.w,.A... $A a.: *i w,~', .,a-' J %z.,. q _..a .~ x ? ",.!w-
- ' ~ ' -
= e,- 9.. ,..m,2..~. g .. :w w.m y:.. c..;>;l1 c. rm >T@.: ,~ ..ws. X. ~.,w.;p.;y. v.;.. Ar.,M.. ... p. :;. - e,v . y % ?....J * [/ - ; u :,., s. ), , j b. P ,,y,
- 1..A J 5
n. .b 4. ;7y.nyb:;.M,, y9.e.,,r.g. u; ?>r".. .W' .<.n,4.. 9;.m%.i >. -. ~. s ... q p.s.-;c O a. e - s. hf. k.h..N.k$.E u W $ v$WW../,/,d..n.b.v.,? rk...s,.6.MW:h.., I T! set forth in Guidance hiemorandum hts-1, hiedical Services. 'Ihe Board N b 5/SNd[ M M M] k@hlMN has also considered the findings of reasonable assurance of adequate safety hkM$hb set forth in NRC Staff hiemorandum of November 19, 1987, issued by the N >OM, f.ilj,'j M.W$.%ME.H Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office Sh,'['.D@@by/Ch.F.?-45hCD QfW F of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Finally, the Board has considered and approved N3l:c,.h.,[,$h; }.h]i the stipulation (the attached copy excludes the panies' proposed order) of the M g'A
- M.
. T. parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wherein GUARD declines to request a Q 2;,
- t *+ -C Mice.e.'H.7 ' f,' ". ' 3 ::
hearing following the Commission's Remand Order of September 12,1986. , _ i * -. ' a.,.f.*',a.>..' ~ ... ' ;.j ' ', t v,-.,.,;. s' 4. <' 4 ;/ ',y.; A ;.j
- h.c
-t_. 3,.
- ..,e
. ' ht;.f d'.t. [;.;>;'. V~ '., d. . ', ' * * ; 1.] ',.
- g '
FINDINGS OF FACT );
- 3...
,..... y. .. o..., : A,., ,y, (.J';'f A.g N. D %j f;. 'j 4 L, e : p, A.. On the basis of the foregoing, this Board finds that: a (1) The purposes of the Commission's Remand Order have been fulfilled, ~ /Y @,@.7%. [ x.j and further proceedings on the medical services issue are not necessary; and ,.j "s ?A4 y f. y q, p.'.8 E.@,2 (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's submittals and the evalua- .,...f eg... <, ),y. e.'? ' N tions by FEhiA and NRC Staff, the Licensees have satisfied the requirements of + -QS;g.,.; p ' b,$ D i 10 C.F.R. f 50.47(b)(12) and there exists reasonable assurance that, with respect c J.jg.
- O,$.. W...,,7,;f.;?.lc.C;.y,a',d.,j
". y to emergency medical arrangements, adequate measures to protect the public in a. .. ?? V M."., M / W M :.T..'( ucg.; the event of a radiological emergency at San Onoire Units 2 and 3 have been // -~ >. b m > p':..,u:iW p3 L vl,4
- \\
taken. - :;..O .e.. r; ~. e,', n',....f.y.g';:?.&,k + '; rn, a e t j d... ;, s y yj s ", =' J.pbc.f pg...l.Q,",.q,.;,; d, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW u .wi .~ 9 , u. ' v'f.m,.'.:A 2..! X'y.d Upon consideration of the showing presented by Licensees and the evaluations . s ! 8 pr +:
- 14
.j J. y} y ;..g7,-lch;3."q,1;'.S.1M.f..j .: : r,. f i by NRC Staff and FEhiA with respect to emergency medical arrangements, there ., r... - ...O y ./.. y a p Ik h ' I '. . $ g. ' ' [. %$. , y $.y .u,%Q,.,l q;ic.u& a,';.,: : l1 ,.... -~.._-. '.g... q. 0.. is. c... g.'. ;.p*s,. q;
- a
.n g. a s.. '..; f 5 f 5, .* >.,,14. 4 ..r,.. g \\ s ':.,' ..,.e m'^', Y',.. ' g. 4 + e.d - w.e... 1 f,., q
- J l <?
',h V,i ?f'. y, y'(?;,.).l./ * :3,' f ..-v.* s //,Ll- .n_% ,~1,-.1 ..,.. <,.4 n, - c .; ~ ~. ~ 4" #. 4L (
- t.,
8 y-. +y + 7,.,.,.y . a I[ g 3, s ,]., j 9 = .N.. 's 4 s 4 8c .. p).Na 6 - 7l ; ' .d f' \\. 4 m < : - s(l..,x y @.~ .s
- x, x..$.,..,
l '} , + '.. . ~. s, , g,, y ', y.) 4 e'
- s
{.i' i/3 ;, c,.r, r - )'
- ~...,'. /
- .N
..;S,
- '1-
%;. n s '. \\ ~.). ;i, s ? s 570 gp [ f-g S . $}. .~ a. ,s - .. s r - w. .,te.8. ~... + 'L <\\ '._.~g. r-4 'I, I 4 t, g j i a i ' w ,..~.,*,' '-'. ' s. ~
.
- 4
- ,' l '. g
+, ~,, '.,., N. W a o, . /.,. - r ' ..,".g'. ,7 , r e s,.i 4 - o..t. 7.vp.,i, ',\\......f. ;.,,.a..... '4-s - g. - I t ef..' i ,4.- g
- ..N 3 - 1
..e 5; ;-.,.1 r. 3 -., -u -.. -. se 4 ,I., 3 s,, r - p S. ,s. y.., ,,s. g, 4,: '.,, ;1..s*%. s f,g g.1, r . c..- . # m.a.1 ,'9.. ' . g 5e =.. ~.";f - A,,-t.t- -J e.. 6.- r- .r ; a..,%W pe.1 - e .a e *, w. c.w... v,. n. V,. -... s e..v... < s.,,,<. u er .~..- a,- ,.t. . 3 s, g. e s . i,3,. ..s ..e . ( ., m.,s., t. (< ;r. %e w.. g, ;, ~.. .c c ...,v.a,.s.. w. p .u.. .2 ;. :
- a..
,,.t.
- ..,.w.
f y,, ~. l y ;
- y.' yx,
'.,;.; 3.,q, ;). y;. ~.a, ,.,r.,j,.r.. <. s. <s 'D '. ' 'f.:. ' ' 6. &
- Q'. c,..
W s..s c x s.. v. - is reasonable assurance that adequate measures to protect the public in the event M.h, b;W'- T 4U of a radiological emergency at San Onofre Units 2 and 3 have been taken. ', W,.W.v M.n.<. 4. : .i..' ' N..'.' .+ ., VW.v ya t.n. e. $.,...,?,, '..6..,,,y:. r$. - .m..,.' A. 7.. c f.
- P' "
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD pa mio. -s. .,c s i .,,.,..r.' s s.. . :.w n.. 9,,, o,,. 4 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman ! N. M.1.' % X M ' p.N[J S s -d,,^, T ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
- n.
..-r c rp, Q-ya,m,,. >f.q,? , ;Q; , _.i.F . w..r p- ', >,. > y :. ' 'J ~ Elizabeth B. Johnson Dj 's.> : tm. - ~., C.. f.' ' ' ' s. c?7 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE E W. r... < i',.,. w:4. /e bn.;rn.> 8.;,;....;v L., - ps,
- n..1.
e.. e t W M,m, gig. ms Cadet H. Hand, Jr. -f 4 .m ( - e.-- u, N::,h..w c,.. ,4. %,.a.. S... e .C # ~ t O ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .,-7 4 . e. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, ,)'4JM[M..,...... r. - .e g ".W.4' 'U ' ~ R...ca,.s.>a; U ^$.,7. 0 ' Vk , s this 9th day of May 1988. .s g * **, ' ' W,*' M. D,' m.'.,,,.,'d 2 ..,t Q.,ml: '*.' * ,..r.., '_l ,,s
- '..A,
,h;- ~j- ,.p g,,, e v(..r.'..: .>, q '.... Y ' o a.r f < 7..
- . ;y**
1 1* s f : :- ). .'S
- (.;
r p. ./i. ' $., s..y.a ,a
- ; 7. M j,.
j.n V. 5 1 ~ .TM c ,:3 w?a ;;4.:s y . 1.; ; '., * = .sJ ; f.. :*-. t* u < 2.m *, %.,e.. -, ! ~ %.. ,,L : M lw ig. 6, ( f.o.
- ,w*1<';
. f.'.*.3 .g; -:7- ';:, 2 s la.; u,
- v... r. 3., $s,A.l *.
%,->. s. * \\e + a .- Y .r e....,.e.I > m.: w t,..f,r e,ly., f e '9-5..* : *,s. g,.. k . -*t.
- +}
.s,..., -.er*., p'.. e .. + 6
- 3.1 h., e'.)g.'*v.C N '.,.*g;. q " N s..,% '
.c['.y'-,.'.?.h ?s v , c...w. o t a e,-- s ue or yv e . gin Q.. v 5 4.... A,. # - - 35 m.sp. a p.,> q. 4..ag J.,,j l, 3 y gi. q. h*,M
- t *.* *{T. '? [}. '..
o-. - J.,k . ' M * ' ' ':, ' *.f N ' ' E.- ..'.' : i E, e o s . n. t. g? 7.s 'y.'.; ;... ; g '.'.:.4 N., p;.e' ',,,; g W ' h. w. ly E C> e 3_. ... Q. w.- m....pe,s e, s. l ~ ::, y s,. L. g..,.._.. A s 7. ~,9.., 4,2 ,y 4 m... s.. a
- ..n,.-?,,p.
e,.,.. 1 y f..... .,) .,.;.. V}s; ,,, 4, <p p.x, s,,,,,, w%,q.,*s...s .=.,): u ..Sp 0. .e
- :. g:e.1'
. -- J s..,.y V :. t. .v, *.c.. s .4,., 7-y;e.. g:'.,s p+ y.&, . g..h a s, y., v.w; vM, %.,'a m s.s.. m. y : 7.' a %. ^r n. A:,..~; :.v. ;i.6y.+~
- y ny;. 'v;.
t: 8; ' ":4..w. N,: n ; ' '..w. y. y.... w v-t v r u@.
- . se. 7,
,.r.'. m :.. p e' ht,. ~,.. c,. w o. ,y s'\\ M . h. / G,:j,.p... ...s, 4 .?.. ggy-N n;b. * { ; N...'.' : W i '
- ,'i.,y..- Q M.,.,,.,' 0 e ';. -
7 6...,A p - .9 4 -q .;y, $?. 1 %. n \\v. k.c. m n 'w yv.f'.fQ,..;,Q s' r Nn~,,;. wl4.;<L- 's s' ). G* ql,;;p's Y$ !l W;:.,,1.Mp' 'M*: s' m ,e .>-.e.*...s-sw &.. oR n's: p: Sg.;r M.6:,i.'.'s O I U.'.N.* ~ -1 Y'n F Q:.r y:py:N :. 5M? ',4.%. <a.'.n.y.d.,,'f( .g..a..' O yG.s .p<.e h(*' ?x4 @. s a. ~, 9 a &.%:hp.r;Q^R.<f -:.%N M.%p.Q Q ;p$^';lh$ ?p6h.J p.;.!< es 7Ns' b f <\\ ? Qt m y a ?:... f. ' % Ls1 i. Y s V ha ' Q us h,%.4
- :- <* n
. h &. S k. s% ;.u.'. W U'S & u:<?,d. ? g,.v..ey...qd'rp.e 1 4.Z'f.;.- fi. '/SD@w: @,..w .. ;r. M g 1 -m. f, r, i m. n 4 s My f 571 g.p~;a;f.p..M.t ,g.% M~,NJs.O vy. 4: 4,y s & N,
- wg M
u4 . -..#.n..,.o*.~o.. ~e :y* .a.w.y#,t t y..u., %. y.6. f y.. p L,. p.", ,x& I 3...i.g y .4 %a. y v.w rsm Q* e,. ~.n. 1.w# t 4 N:. (.1,s 'z;l Q' +: p .P..y v ..ak.w'. ' ' '. * .a w.. .9 r.a f.-r, ', .v i m,,. s W &.,<:.f.<..;M vg? ..c \\ m .r.r-. m ,<*.. u*-.,g--.cW' M y.v.v.a,.;r.,3. vs. % m,.VpW4.+e> %..?,.. FW.- .r y., f +.,'t ~ 4 f 'A ' s s s 3, ~y%.3, ' .,-......g,,3,.*
- -.g,r. - r,.g e...* en. 3. y.* e. T
,.;.t,...,...e,.,r- ^;,y q ' ', * .-m yt .;t. s-n y A s,p, ; jx +.. g/..$. s*Q, ?.fq: ~ %: Wj.'.Q Cly p.'..i; q fgl.hf:l.,Gj'.g'n.i$j,, -QGW g.' lq'; ' ', " % $ dl. %., .Q*)'9.: I y;r e,";l 1
- f l', }j,. 3'?,; *. 3,s y Ly:;s:;e_; f,;1 eg fy y., : s %}%*
j.}$f y, j. 7_
- ,a i wm; m y
- ,n m.
.. e..s. w, a.: y,. a. ;c. w. Ihs.m!N$hb.r.w.,. n."sY,+;&,..s.~,f.) w. s. ? \\ l.V.;l
- R.0,&. I.b.,
- .. s 1
a
- . x%
,.. c'., .y,z .ai. .. m s .A,... 'e,..) ; lp js,: .p y, V e, ,g,,p, &t$RiyG',fe &
- r.e g g ?~r
,s.,. 'f y% bl.N@Ob.w&h,fy ' y no.:4,[.f*lg;.Q:,x.by ,3 s m m.ww$'k'_w[h,;;l,*f.%.l.'y t _ g.'.f fi' iQ [ *'..'.f y Q D ij
- .Q,
.c y,.
- a..m n, m A. m,
, v, n w .m ked D .mq;;5b5;M y. khh.N [kb
prwrv,',i,Jb,p. ;f.< u
- v p:.m,(
-m. s, y.f..:g.~.s.%A,,.. ;,:y:..;;. t..t, ~. y : y-. m. :.,'": t-
- .. -c a -
- ;- ; a
- o.=2
- p
- c. r.:
-3. n.-.^..z ,, : r: - . m ;.: e / ~r. ~ m ,..a y : c. y.
- m
z .. : ~, p ~.:,...:....,,,/ ..~..e ~
- r v.x-
.y.. 0 /1. -/ v ' 'e,./ t.
- ..y),r
- ..;M,*.'.Spp'j
- /n., s Q \\
6.;i, h... M Q... M. t..
- ;ig
.. ? '.'.. D U .h. %,:.f;l;71 - m.. , 1 . ; m.. : -., n ;:?.......,i G ~ -,... j. 3 ;r 2.c . s. c. mw u,.f., .W, 9, eg;n. - u n p..,,u,.,: S...,-. f.,a: -,.,s.. ...n.. v r. -. ", q,..w ...W .w .+ 3.. .-.. m 4 a ,r, e ; .+ ..m..- .y. s. n'.. y s. w ,, a f..".1 % )/_ c ;.,.. ?. ?..-). ~ r, w ..r ~. -, ., }.g...s - -. e .;4. ;... j a e, ,. - :.e. v...' a.;>,. ye. ... r.:n.. :..y :. v...;,, : s ; m... ..x.
- ..,,.,,,a
-. x,. r. t: ~ s.wy. .w ?g. ~ n ,a u u. ~ ,:n:;.-4:.:::.u,-x:
- v. % y.'
n.. .c, e.:....c.,....:..c..., ; L;; ? ~ d,..~. '..c e.. .e, a. ~ +m.. -n e: G.,: mv .n '~
- z.m..n,, ;- n
. 3 .2 ..:.:u s. -. vw,i,.>
- s. n. :.
..., 'y,. . ~. ;!y .s.,
- .4. :. *
. r,,; .,, ~, - '4 -~ < n.9?z ..:.; - ~.,,_.. : ;w. : .3 . s s,s., r J 2, .%...s > ;,. ~ ,,s n... ;. ' t.t s.
- .~
-,t e t. 9 '.+. M;~:;:;q..'. ; '.. ;;.. Qi; :.,;1 m :,..s . 9. 2p;y. ; W W.O \\!-Q t , s..p ' : D[5: Yd M M'. h'j'd d',b [. Y N:'. O~., U,. M. m.<}.M.l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y-y..,,.. ,,:f ..yN :;,w m.. g,,..p. -. ';s g:ny%.a,, ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- m.:n.m.. y. y,c m.: r...
.s f m e - r m q m.r.e .@.g.. e. w.? N. i,'?'.';/'b '.", ) ,-,w.. gu. e M.,., "A [ E, ..O 'N :. .1 " '.o. <..4V N. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 361 OL - ). i;,"...f. E..A: . : p:,u..v;.y.C..
- e. <y w. Q.w.,,A. y,y) 50-362-0L
...c:.9..].. n[ _.} Q.e .,.:c...;: .?....u.. -l'. -\\', yu.y v. . '.F 3.,. 'C. .,'. M, ' c %... g f'y.:, ,s Lf. .s,. .s s .,.. a. '. M. SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON .d,.p,7. ,g. /) COMPANY, et al. .cn. o, 1 - . ;, 0. .;f"; -;.'~.: ,, w.,; .D.,. a.. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating ,.. 6......3. ; c %. -. s.7., -g .. :'l Station, Units 2 and 3) ,...,... y y. .v..
- n. s.7
. ~. ~ :, e i. ws
- e.,. x.
,.d 4...,v, ci,, - -.,... ] .c s ~. ;.j - ., t,- % b.. ;y lY I.,.. l W~.. Q.h. _'Tg., l% ? ,.,' - ): J 2 M A ?J. i,; M STIPULATION AND-PROPOSED-GRDER RE w/ ' J. 7'3.
- f. iii_:2 $
REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE
- 2.., ' : p...i. :
.~m :.;, u ;r.< g. % i n . a.- ,.1
- c. %.. :.
v.s h.- y:, N, < N,. n,,...[.DhM) 4(*g/[ci;M,(.i:[j.,%(y- ,%.M i DAVID R. PIGOTT j NJ ly.1 p, n] CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL t ). y. 3.l. l ? 1 ' 7,., .'.t; ) f '.M.f d <@,a.l '.',3 c ORRICK, KERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 1 -[+:1. : %... ?, ; 600 Montgomery Screet a
- u. :. ~.N g m y.; '.'
M h,, .;Y[y.), hf h [:".co] .y.. 'M San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 392 1122 .,3. p p;::n. e. .. a.- ,.,r.. u CHARLES R. KOCHER tv7 -,.y.. ...! +,,,. o. : y.., g...,,,' JAMES A. BEOLETTO ?; o. 4 >. ?., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ,.4, ' g,r sw. u.m... n, n-/., q p g,, U
- p.o. Box 800
~ COMPANY ,.:', ey _ : y.3:.: Y,. c., r.. ', {(.. X 7;g,.,- p. la 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue c .. %. t ;:/r, 4, M.. Rosemead, California 91770 7 ..' 7,~ .., ;-'. N * ' .1 Telephone: (818) 302 1212 n. m '4. J & _,. '..: *,1 .,.,.,,.r.,y*** .o. cr
- .:y Attorneys for Licensees
' M,* C. /] Southern California Edison Company, s-San Diego Gas & Electric Company t '.g. ' i. s a City of Anaheim, California and c s. City of Riverside, California + .+ ,a. - '4 m Dated: March 22,1988 c s ,.s. q I g 572 f . =, S O '9 i. s .g*r i. 'k g 4 d 4 g 4 3 g
L 4 ", ' ', l.:yc. 2', 0 54 j.., : : n, c, i ", %,' r, n.;.. :x,f;;. ,c .e ~ .s ..g,.-! y.u.W ~. ~i W
- ^
~ /p 3.. ?? A t a m' '., y s +. g :: ..,.., q y + - ^ v,w i c r, y. + . c. ....s u.s...... g ,. m t c.a . a u..... m: a. v e m s y. +,. ') .s I, BACKGROUND s During the course of the operating license proceeding for the above-captioned l- '.s c power plarit, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 11 and III (San Onofre ^ l 2 & 3) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upon to v< V* interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) relating to arrangements for medical services as applied to individuals, including members of the general public. In CLI.83-10, .,7 ' 17 NRC 528 (1983) the Commission determined that the "arrangements... for L M O medical services" requirement was satisfied by the development of an inventory x.f(^ s of medical facilities available in the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC,753 ': s '.,p - Va,' F.2d 114 i (D.C. Cir.1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of b.2.' ' w the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the issue to the Commission f,,,, g l n for further proceedings, b 'i n The Commission, in turn, issued its Remand Order of September 12,1986, t1 e ~ turning the proceeding to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board). [<- r The Commission directed further proceedings be held once the NRC Staff had u<- developed a detailed generic guidance with respect to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12). Subsequent to the Commission's Remand Order of September 12, 1986, 'M' the Federal Emergency hianagement Agency (FEhfA), in coordination with f' the NRC Staff, issued Guidance hiemorandum h1S 1, hiedical Services (hiS-nJ -i 1). That document provided interpretation and clarification of requirements , Mc.., l e y +. contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and the then-existing associated guidance s ~',. found in NUREG-0654/FEhiA REP 1, Revision 1, relating to medical serviccs "f for members of the general public in the event of an emergency. ] g;p,, " Q.,:..j '4 On January 13,1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its Order 'J.. i...
- 0...u. c e
requiring Licensees to submit their showing of implementation of the upgraded N. S/ C.Q,M'(? ; Q g emergency medical requirements to the Board, panics, and FEhfA by July 1, y'5 ~,Vl f, *:'p%,,fl,'.- W 1987. w y t.Q'.. '1
- y. M M. '7 :
On or about June 29, 1987, there was submitted to the Board and served 5E . T, N... ~ M, N?.9 .,c i f'.1 on all parties "Licensee' Submittal re Emergency hiedical Services (10 C.F.R. J. N W L. c,.M,f,."... ' ;&, . J 50.47(b)(12)." ry>: . s. 7 2 m - %2.D ~ d.;;J;[... (..,L q.' V. .,.,:.y .,......y ~ Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987, FEhfA issued its Interim P.m- .i; s e Finding which reviewed Licensees' implementation of hts 1 at San Onofre 2 & .4 ,s
- 3. The FEhfA conclusion stated P%.. i s,. e. ' /C. m J,
i f, - '-. :n.e
- p: 7.
9 "Ihere is reasmable assurance that the plans for medical services for me&.rs of the general - M '4;.f.,./ rublic who may be cmtaminatedArjured as a resuh of a radiological emergency at the San [O' * ;T)9 7 '.@ 7 Onofre Nuclear Gmerating Station are adequate and can be implemented as demmstrated 5.G[y-' Q# } $', ? - j '
- 7. - N j
(- in the exercise. + 0. ", ? ll6,Q>1 y,... ; ;& v. e-- -O, p;.; n,. w ~ ~.,., ,-, 1 3,' a gj:.<:'.%. u. In a memorandum of November 19 1987, by Frank J. Congel, Director,
- p. j%. isl-jf. y ' ' ]l Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear P
d .M. '. n ?.< s.
- x p
s ~ 9 9,'.6 '];f ~-1, $. ' ,s y V, 7 4.: a . !y [%.k{;,f}.?'/ ji;.'.N,. U * 'l y.y / c.p ' q,g ;.% - T,...'l y..d.s. :d,, j.[:. g'
- h., C. py, :.
573 = ..,1% J.,, a [.p.A.'J 9 ' r,.d' / %<
- ,l,,-, _Q' ;, p;;
,'y E ' p. ~...a y.<*;Vpc.$ ',,x,, r.,-
- ' lr
? .. ~.. J'. ; ',.,:.s,*:. m*..
- l)
- s,
s. -. g.,. a o. ?.' t_,. .'1 i A I4;:rg..,',.,' ,3.-
- 3,',:,,
+ - + ,J ~ E ,,E,.. ]
- n..
, n..'.a . $.m.. ; " p '+ x,...:,, ~ na.: w,, -.. gn n.m ;;x ~ - - -,:,, 4A y :.,., :. l. ' ? u. { e, 6 .,,., 7,: c, >i ->.0 , e v. N. j.,' *,;i ' [ $-T M,..s W i ..y -lt .(. .s q..,;. t * [g." " Yl.. ,E }'1. k Y.. - d ') .,.',o L '.3 ' i, ' s -U ".b' ' '. l '1 - .. o ~'. .' : cl j'l ' ?; f. ' - ,(' ~ ,i.[jG. j [,:, R....l.},., W. .3,;[ ;* _ l- ' y, L '. .E '. %./ 'i[.., r' s [, .f.((. ..~ e '
- ., - *.. b\\
4 ' n- .e..-... k+ N i. .s', (~[':.. ;.7i,f;;/;" c a- - M 7._.';ll.y'. W,
- i!
.'8' - )g ' ' 2. j [*k,. K0,.:Wd.:..,'N,y_:f. ':y ,3 ,j,5 %,n, jMls',b,3;d.~k!;*djQ.m. n 'G.;, aw' :,,. m.t..m-3 -m.g.a;, '? '~';#;.y.un.n ;pwa.; R a .%y' C,:s: O... .v sa .. v. .,u.. w.v R. q o' a s- ~v w- ~w--
-gcm;..V:m'y:p ; f - ga.i. 6lQ:N.lV. ~ : ' '2,'u.;n s ':p:9 g;.=: n 4 3s '~ 3 ' %.v.n 3. _2:K,.%,' fiM n.;.3,y. 2 8,:? a,.i., .: S; A..._..G aq
- i e
~ ~; . ~; .w ~ >, ~ \\ .m y.;. ., y,.g e ; =..
- . g 1 s.
..n. :.L. y- :.P:..,. ;+,- nv. .q.:sw' ',.' l K:9: *- s -y ,.,e: w : .e n. :5... ..:p.
- 1. ;
, ' m. 2..,,,,-%. ,C"*J j y- .Y ..~ 1.J. ; s' c. 3.'
- 7.
- f...
.6 es, 'A', t g p g,.; -t e.',, .a; - y. ..,,.-o s ,.f
- [ 6%
?' I 4 w. i
- 4 7'Cs 1
'~'* - j .,; h.Jf).A:c,0. ? 'l ?. 4
- . hh
- .aJ'.'a'
'.=':Au'Mn.. ... = :. + o .~e o-v. . s,._. ;c. ,,;3*; _. ; %
- L.-
~ ,..: 1 1 -
- 1
- s. =.,g. 5 s..
,. j, 'i. ,a s .a, c. %...,. .s. gc.,.. s. .. :.- ~
- s. e:. ;6 y d
,w,- 2.:.t'. ". s. t. ..i:.'...,... .v., f.. /.. E *. ',' ( ,,,...s ...3.m. M, Q' O @ N. Q g. T,;p,.:..tg: M.. ~. I h<.
- Wr.'.4.[.*
'.s. :.,.,., s# i P,. ~ /{ Reactor Regulation, the NRC Staff issued its finding that "regarding offsite J ,;;W. M 1;p-rS*f.W fl:d) medical services at San Onofre, the Staff finds that there is reasonable assurance D N . N.o.4 M,. m.M...F.g.M..*:.4.,fr# .r ...,/ C.. that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a l i ' M R'9%j'/.N ~. radiological emergency." f;', $ qf. '. N[g'a 5 'u.d y %):hMN.i.,1, ' kJ.1 I The FEhfA and NRC Staff evaluations were distributed to the Board and all .M f.
- Qn
- W 1l ';
parties by letter to the Board of November 23,1987, from Benjamin H. Vogler, . J;.!: T '.g: # (W,Q:'M] Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney within the Commission. ~. ..'... 7 J. On December 12, 1987, the Board conducted a telephone conference with '- q. ...m ..s. .a ' m.i.. A re_ 4 all parties, specifically including the attorney for Intervenor GUARD, Charles ' ' E. 4cj - n ' S 'l{s.L.Dj E hicClung, Jr. p- % /,. p. hir. hicClung advised the Board that based on Licensees' submittal and the ,. ;.'..d-T.. ' d. results of NRC Staff and FEhfA appraisals, Intervenors do not desire to raise any g... L: ~~ 2
- s.. J ' '.
further issues with respect to Licensecs' compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12). y, m ra ',.;3 ,m, .J e .. n:,,, ,e ... n.. c: <1 Je y II. STIPULATION o,
- 3..
-1p/... 2... m u . dt;%t ' l-7/yT-[ Based on the foregoing facts, it is hereby stipulated, by and between the .q. [ % I'.,:f,i@;, %. ^;9,;. f+'g.:..( ,.h Parties hereto, through their respective undersigned attorneys, that: ".q
- .g 4R.
.4 1. The Parties hereto have reviewed the relevant documentation on this .',T - > 1. M # 1. M record concerning Licensecs' compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) includ. ....f;M,d $ $dD[ I./':Qj ing Licensecs' submittal of June 29, 1987, and FEMA's Interim Finding of vi,s R. - U ; v,].".J e,'j November 19,1987. ' (. i.. g g ' g g.3l j; -l. ;1 whether Licensees have met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12). u - y. u 7,;g 2. Intervenors GUARD, et al., do not request a hearing on the issue of - :y:j g fe
- r. '
7 i ;. w 7 ,g i;
- 3. The Board may issue its decision on whether Licensecs have complied
,',,, ; m., f ,2, - (...* i <- submittals of Licensecs and NRC Staffd'Eh!A. with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) based on the existing record, including prior .,a- >c. . G' g^ ' ; ',c,- g ' ' s :. ' y '. p',. "... '.,. 3., - / l Dated: March 23,1988 DAVID R. PIGOTI' + 9, CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL .i, '.I,'. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 600 Montgomery Street .., y. u. 1 m. ,l J.,., s.. San Francisco, California 94111 s_ 4 J.: * .,a CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO f SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY .c.' P.O. Box 800 ~ 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue ( e. g 4 s 574 A ke 3 I a
, i. , =. .,,. m. m > w, so ~. - -. c w.. s.a. m.v :.1, q c.,.....,. -...,.. e., .~ s. .e . g... ...,s.... e. .. n.. - .*r ,(- 4 L.... ', ;,.,j,
- y r'.,:,,.f.,q/. y.if; p,*,,ss...., ~
3' ,4, g.
- g. ;. e. - l
+ <. e.,v..;: 2 . ~.....
- a..-.- ;r. r::.
- 3..... :, ;
o. n : p s : c. n,. r.,c .~.:., m..,., s. 2. p. ms p t r 4
- w.
e .-.p s. e .1 s , :: n... ;.. a. .~, ~...... ..g., m,.,e e.,. ,w s. w,,. 4..,. -.,,. o a ,a...,, .m..>,.. m. .,4, .; a e.., l s, p ..,.a.. . a ~ n... e 3 x. 3, Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302 1212 0 3 .a. L By: David R. Pigott . t 1 b S-Attorney for Licensees .,'7 Y ', f ? ' ~ U V [,, ' Southern California Edison Company, O San Diego Gas & Electric Cempany Q ' ' ' '.
- 6.,.
City of Anaheim, California N, L . 'e.' City of Riverside, California k.. /' 1 x.. .~ .t < s. ..m s u Dated: hiarch 31,19S8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY n,.. COhihilSSION STAFF 8 '1 4 ' .r. c.,...,...,. e. ~ Benjamin H. Vogler ! -c .:p. Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney O, 'f..i. \\. ,3 ; ^ ' V - ( . m,~.,.. y ... ~..g. s. e.
- )..
x-.,.. n.,, '. w, . 2.;. n,.. w
- m. g g.
y e ..;.Lj,. (A N;. -- ~ .d.. a..,. ' fN...Ns 7."Ns, S Dated: hiarch 24,1988 CHARLES E. hicCLUNG, JR. ['u. V s
- b.......%..., W,.a..e,.w[J.
FLEhfING, ANDERSON, hicCLUNG & FINCH E,h. s 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 ,b, '.). F P n"M d J "W.".'. O D W,.N. /. "sG... N.. Laguna Hills, CA 92653 .i. r. Wa..,J., .r.*'9;s. .:7..~.: i
- d<>
1 . - A, :. m. p:, '..,. ~., n. c. w . m... v g
- x. A,.
..u.. r. .g.r.. w ,,; a.y .. N ( f., . +o a"..'.. s Charles E. hicClung, Jr. 9.,..'4 ; A. m ' L..y.J.s.. %,'. u s,, . m.- .t t.. C i..n ;,h s '* Attorney for Intervenors GUARDE, et al. 6,~'.v/. N. ' y;. 5.. m J.. P: c ,:. n :, ... e.. w w...m,+. ..v .1.% g f. b' :n;.e,d ~ J.. j,7,. t.., M N y
- .
- s~. y ~...e < ~.
.'s G. y * ..m... .~, r . 3.: > W,&...% x s. 3 . n '. <.. .G, ?. t '.,*,,c . ; v.,n. Y - a'.a .h,. i ( 0. '.,_, ',, j l,pir, ?....y Eh 4e j.,p, .,.j C A '.4 9 n'- '..."f. .,5*,;..'. 1..'....(,%,,. e t,.. .s. 5 g 't..p;, 5 3.. 5 E I 1, Wf. .s y .r. ,,,.g,4' u-w,s * ... ~ '. ~ .4,.,, ? -t '..<=e.3 s* .*t* , 6. s
- y ', - *.. I' s.
. 9 w -4. e ? ', % [,; -.12,. L '..,.,,.":4-s. j .y s' A
- =.... *iw c w ;
.s p..a .~- 4,. .k.,.6,6..* e 57 - 3
- y 1
. s.,t; p je, g * " t - >f l.. ".'%,* r"l f ';'y Q..<a,; , Q*p,.? n) ';.. \\<
- a.
(;> g N{c.,6J$..**%,,q% Q:$ g % J.
- {
- h 5 .,.y. W. 3 w. n r.m,. ...s ;... .f.9;,f.NN > 4 * - [,: ..v .3. k, * [. S $ '. -'. '". #. 7,. .', T.'.~. I * /, A, s s a, p.,1 9_ 81g .u .M g s.'.
- [.kf 4N**
.y,. .........c, 3, .r....w.c - -. w ;.,.... 7..._,..m.' ...,.3,',. 1,, l. .-......~*.3.m..,.,.,....s,~.Q.4 ..* s b.. s*'. '., f* ~ c [ 3,..q.,
- K.F.
y. s-* m s _r. V... i 7.
- f.
.n a~ t. r .@..~... ql, t..' e ,,w..,.. sy( ., ). ?. f.. ; 'y.I s. Ar J :,.m. ' *. -.<n
- H s
a., -. ',..,. >i..,?.,.c -e e ,, y h.. O; . .s
- 33. %-r
., we. .,\\r....' W\\n '. o*, ': 4 ',N j l,.*'s ;.i .,s.,.c,., r.1.,w., ,m ~. ,,y..- g y..,. e, .g. ,-t .w . ' $ l. ( e. ~.,.. " 'f,_ *. l.,...I"l f l..
- s. *
. ll. f
- y $,,.
5 s, h e...; ? s.Y. d
- ;.x; v. : y.r ;f.;,' l ;y n v. w'h,r,:2., ; -, ;, v:.... '. v :.. a. n ' *: :y:9. m. 9 wm :y: v:x, ;.a.
- l ll
- G f '
y&,s ...s.. lb 4 v. 8.,* h 3 .F a ./ " . k. I I .$E i . f.
- a. x '[..m.
g..r $ _'.*s %.1 ,.s,. - '.. ~,, C.,.t m.-.y., , _. m^ -#. m.'. ... m.m ,..... w. (m. 1 - _ - *. l ey,' g... 4 4 .a. h f
- -'g
.-f h. '
- fd'.h j
' m -. m....: .m. ; "a.fg w (. 7.w . 7; . -9~ u s;....r; e. n, m
- v. g.. g. n' <.:.;.. ? m ;;;.,w.n; T.5,2'
- m. $. n.:.. ;
.w m:v- ._; a r -c., n., _+m;L - o. .y g e-[ m :Y[.. - 9 *>.c',%. ? y;e
- n.
..w- .r.w;.- .~ c n
- n i
. ~.u ,. :i T ' &; Jr
- W e;
.3 Q,' :. *, *: > : p;.,, d', '. "..;._l W.l f.. : ". * *. s ~ s . ~ :: ,' 3. , .4..,s ..T y a. ... n <. e s.-; ~, .w,. .,. r.
- ,n -;;. 9.:., r.-y e..,,..,.
.\\.. '. ; cp - ;,.a.. -q.- q. s. ,n. m,, r-y, e,..,7.,, a. ..f,. 4 .,.. g 1 r- ~.>c. "b . y, s n..
- n, ;
~;....; u.. ~, ~
- . ro_;.,,
y~ ? ~.s: ;.:. m: . 3.,1 ;.a.,. .~a.> a :.. _. u a. .. :... f..'... x:: m .a v, i ) ..?..n . m,.. ); . ". : ::.:,3 -.u.,' n i c ".t. .;. :.s :
- .?
1 c!-,m, :. 2,q v 1 ;e,; J...,....o ;. : y' p- -+ %;. :4. *.Y. lpM. T, *.i. Yl:: 2:..? 7,e /. 9.,.,. .c.,.. .c j,. y ; r.j;:. : q-j.c 4 Cite as 27 NRC 576 (1988) LBP 8815
- v. e..sy, n 7.J. w..,, ;';; n.;)c:;;
.%.s..c :.,. . o.v....w,........,.v., .n n ..6 . g.u.g..; 3 ..,f m .w. - > !;ct. (, p.rg:9 l,.4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ......WZ. + T. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9.p.p::.?.j;!. 9 *. m,~.w..
- p. :,:,. ~.;; y, :,.2..9..3
., %.w..; ;,..,,, y :.v .-. y.n
- 4,,,, s..
. a. ~ ' A,. 'dflg.,..y<*,j..,.';,W. ;.!, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL l a' N' 'Y1 x. } e u' . ~.., :. u ,,4 t t . ; ;,. c.
- ... v.
(^]: ,'.,-.,, j.. ',,'P.. s r u. - p. 3. '. c., y., c,.?.. \\ Before Administrative Judges: .o.. w....,. ;. ,.. s .;... e., n. > : w ..... c.; 1
- sQ-T.O.,<.!.
~v. '. C s .J Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman '7. .f 'g B ~ ', 1 Dr. George C. Anderson .?
- 1. g
, a:.. a > c',..7 ' ~] Frederlek J. Shon 1
- y e
..::: 3>. ,L
- ,, g..
.e ~, .n v. :. ,.;.A) ~ 3: ;~ .3 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-409-OL 4 i.,.'...,. ;,: ..o. s s.. s ], (ASLBP No. 78-368-03 OL) s ,.. $ l, 4 '", J. ' (FTOL Proceeding)
- , f, '.
- 3..
.y .w.;. .c..p. . t r.. 1 ...s,.,~..,.. .a V y " ' i. Q....- M y, DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE N }# '"., pc'.',p' ,' e qM *-f - h (Lacrosse Bolling Water Rosetor) May 13,1988 4 .> 3: c.., ~ .t
- y
,', ~,7 i' ' '. % s , .' l*-[. ,,Q .Y e ,I 2, : m. j 'I l - _T In a proceeding involving an application to convert a provisional operating 4 .f license to a full term operating license, in which the Applicant has shut down ^ J , L ;c-3 H the facility and has submitted a proposed decommissioning plan to the NRC, 5.... '
- J
(..~ the Licensing Board dismisses the remaining unresolved safety contentions, ] ^ l' ' P authorizes conversion of the provisional license to a full. term "possession only" license, and grants the Applicant's motion to terminate the proceeding. 1 ,u RUL.ES OF PRACTICE: MOTIONS m. .. '/f. N. A motion that as not been opposed by any party may be granted on procedural '" ^ grounds.10 C.F.R. 6 2.707.
- 4. '.
- a. ;
s RULES OF PRACTICE: RENEWAL OF LICENSES
- i 2 '
Where a licensee has made timely application for renewal of a license j authorizing activities of a continuing nature, the existing license will not bc i s ) s. 1 4 1 576 Ab j 4 9 e =. .4 = E.. t. 9 } t
. ~,.y .. w. :,.,., 'u .c v.g &, n-.m,. <,.. m -.., -n ..,. -m 4., . 4. ; Q.f fyr.;), '3,;;. ;.y.- 9: v, 9 .r. g, e- ' 3.e.: 7; < V . '/,,.,%:,.[.
- g.~
u. .( -'.g 1 c? 4 . e.,.. v...p. . s.. 3 ...-p, ,ar. y w c. v._1 ;. w x ".. - :s p y ,7 - m. .c.
- 2.. e. m..,.s, ;.
,u...,,., y
- f. A,.
.g. .a e f ... e 2 ....9. w. e m ,.,s .s. s 7 ~ , c ,7 m-u .m .s .r deemed to have expired until the renewal application has been finally determined. .n - r 10 C.F.R. f 2.109. .C, . o RULES OF PRACTICE: JURISDICTION OF BOARDS .s In considering a full. term operating license, a licensing board's authority s with respect to sa cty and environmental issues is limited to resolving those r F [,,. matters put into controversy by a party, unless the board should determine that ,9. -v a serious safety or environmental matter exists.10 C.F.R. 6 2.760a. .t ~.,.. '"....V, 'i '. -.;g_
- w..
c,- NEPA: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE 51ENT fNEED) i... >s' c 7.c. ],. i. l ne decommissioning of a reactor requires the preparation of an environmen. J tal impact statement.10 C.F.R. 6 51.20(b)(5). ^ Is , f. , :r ~ NEPA: LONG TERM STORAGE l He Commission has made a generic determination that the storage of spent fuel for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses will result in no significant environmental impact and, accordingly, no environmental review need be taken of the storage of spent fuel in reactor storage p' after o,"' l t, i,. the cessation of reactor operation.10 C.F.R. 651.23. - V.. -. ' w .3.s.-in q 9 7 j.J,..
- i.,
w.. [2 . h., '..... ;'g . p.. W ; y. '> m.w.,. $ h e' RULES OF PRACTICE: WITilDRAWAL OF LICENSE s APPLICATION h 4 -V (..$' 't..." p y, ' w c..c ~ a..m. -.,,
- g.,-
c,... n .s .ee Withdrawal of a license application after issuance of a notice of hearing may ".... [, y...,.. %- ~fG.[. s, g.. be "on such terms" as the licensing board may prescribe.10 C.F.R. f 2.107(a), l', M r. v,a g / g ~m,,1.w, 6 ..,/ .. n.. t. s ~ (;...E.C,* C, , "e . 7 &% i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER b,V. y,', .,.3. e s 3 g \\; 4.1 y.,, :f,. s (Motion to Terminate Proceeding) p,'g,s, C, ,l . [.',' j.i l C.,y,. .:; - ;;,W w. ~ g M',* I %
- f, 1-
-~ On February 19,19S8, Dairyland Power Cooperative (Applicant or DPC) k y ',. $ [, )..y'.N 'l b ",. -'],,, filed a motion to terminate this proceeding. On March 10, 1988, the NRC ya . y nJs,y. Staff filed an answer in support of this motion, ne Intervenor, Coulee Region ih?/ F ' ... j d., Energy Coalition (CREC), has not responded.1 For the reasons set forth, we are
- j7 '
cd,.h } U . ; [, i ~~ s., a. *..'* y>
- n... ;.,
..:.n. ~~ ./** ~.., J,~,j.<.h.is..* n. >* f *,cb.,.4"~ 3 The Appheant trutisty served its meta on CREC.t an incorrect addrest. The staff served ns response to the " ' Y.<i, ' [, v. ' / I f.',I. Md q, ecmet address 6nsofar as is re eeted by the Board's records). L' pen tele +one ropest frorn the Board Oairman, a e o,., %8 O% :. h.',,. p.N,yY the Appbcant agreed to re serve the Intervenor at the correct address. More than 50 dan has e:a; sed frorn the .'>n.."<,. p.9.A ,'.;,, r - c. : ;: 3. W /. y- .r&:-ci (Con % rd) ,~ y c I.*. 1 , ;'..d. & r . =.e. ~ }. v,. ..a. ,..,' cs
- 1. 3.d *.
. m'. [C. 4 'a.
- e
...m... c.~. t e...;c:.s;., 577 m, >. n.,..>
- m. a <,.. :L:;.2,w g. ;,;.u.J 3.,.~s
.m n - :g *y 'p - g, .Q+ :?. ~ a .(.. :,.p *:q,, ;.[v,f e , e.~ ~, %
- x.u,.x.. s..
. ' */Q ~ *. : y ; )-'
- .>*t.*.
'=.+s. g. a 1 ,-e - 6. -/,., [ ((.: -n'y:- y:c* g y '..
- LU s. 4;p -a ro 7
e s ,t .o .. s; 6.. \\' L.,h *+. >[,*.'e.
- * *,.,-1-.
Q',,,'h ,'3
- .g,'
4 ' 4- ~. .C. ' S. ; ~ I
- '.,.).
, 4's .s...2; } ':' -,r~l:.2: 5 f. i 6.' ll.p. /.,. u. - J, N '~. R d f 9.t; & g;. W , s ' z ;;' ^:. s. *'s : ' ?.}, *-: ; ?,.. k % - r;* ' $ *%':,il. '.>>-g ,1. u- ,. < > lX l t. d- %. [.* W,?:f;h:. yT' 5 /s Q'. m,.,:%'V.(2 Q. > 1.);' .,s; y; k _ ,a 1 % :q . ' t:. V. t s ,.y.
- mz <. ;. ; -
y :... - .1 (:W.. n.;~;.?j
- ...&w. - y w' Q,y lJ1*Hf.. p)
- '., &m. ; y ' C d.,.2. s %.;e.; M5 M.
s* 5.~&.s'.. % '.5 r. '.; r s. .,x '.;l.,r',et , b, p ',. %?,*d.3,,,g Q*[fy.M.%;.','...-l . :.\\,.'.s..n[;. ?.'.,;;, y a %. :,? m;, c. s M s t, 9, n*.y. t vp o. ,G ?'j ;, %1 ',;, ; Q, ' I s[,,= y,s,f ..i.* ; i.M *; +o,,, < C -; N M,*, ir
- We.
/,,^,d f fr
- Y:. ?
5
TV^ f. : e,M. Q :l % z.:' M :: ww w;Jv. Q M B [, ;.:1?.5EQP.G'Q,6??.%w.%~i-;.M 'q;..f,F ' ;~~mL> g%lK.,,w%(- ; -. D. ', t. .n 9.*N9e '
- ;h;,;Mylm.c.% u.rvmF7.s et
- :.y: '. ' ',N q. :,.x.. Q';;.,,cl h.Q% :, ; 4;..
s v'. j I&', NWA: c ,%?? ;. + M g%:.D.:.{ ~ . a. . w.q. O.. - n ~ ;, y. ..,,. r ~;.a,, ~ ~ - 1 a w :,. e. x>: .~> ".. ga......,'l.,
- -w,
/-: 3;&.F., '..n &... O.. &.. n.,.. L ~ : -1 y &e u,,
- a..y.x.c.w,,j
.r s ..).n,. j,my;u ,w.3 g.^ x. N. 2 , ~.t.v.y.gl.;3 [;lq,. ; a L ;, y :,., Yl H K Q ;~ f
- .. y. p :.
..y. 4:y n y c; ,;[< O, :. c.
- 4
- - ~ - " - ~.. - ; lu;. ;. dM,,',. e y-m- 'u. - -~ .y.q Q:...D. wg l,'...y. $. 7 f,f:: M..- ',..q. ;.. +
- G..!cg; 's.; r.,
- d.,.,s,.x n' ',
a: ,6
- 4. :....9 y y ;,.s. %o;
+ ;.3 ,,n }. w . y. \\: ' %.. g; Z Z G ,c ,L p ;. r. g. " " Q:f.' M.. ', W ECM} granting the Applicant's motion, subject to a condition. If any party objects to Q.%:;9.%@lW... s.t... :lf,f@x$;.l:i .,d fy. C.D ,Y this condition, it may file a petition for reconsideration within 10 days of the ,t..f,l date of service of this Memorandum and Order. /jW g,. s~ 7 1. This proceeding involves DPC's apphcation to convert its provisional i ,yc h' !.$ I Ml.'._. ?..,f[.7 " ~j, , I.& c: y;g.,. 7; 4 ? 1 operating license for the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) to a
- j t-M k's. @ [> f g.i [.?N.}
full term operating license. Although DPC's provisional license (No. DPR-45) 'W expired in February 1975 under its own terms, it has remained in effect during ? ; 'g -';!y J. W];g f.S 3.s . fy]"G ] the pendency of this proceeding by virtue of 10 C.F.R. 4 2.109 and DPC's timely application for a full-term license. In 1982, this Board issued a Partial
- , e 4. 'y. '{
Q.y.(y;. q O Nj :/ ; initial Decision on environmental contentions and other questions. LBP-82 58, 7;' y.r.C,.: <Jgi s ~; 16 NRC 512 (1982), aff'd. sua sponte, ALAB-733,18 NRC 9 (1983). The C ,.Q $ M ~'- Q (f.,3. safety questions raised by the app'! cation (except for those encompassed by a
- y
- w.;, -, ;.;,."
show-cause order or by an expansion of the facility's spent fuel pool storage a;,u 1. - capacity, on which we issued other decisions 2) had been deferred pending the ' '. f,j. / 3,,, } ~. Staff's preparation of a Safety Evaluation Report. e f:
- i. '
f On April 29,1987, prior to the Staff's completion of that report. LPC advised (, ,i y7 c, ff, ' '. ; the Commission of its intent to permanently shut down and decommission 4,...
- ,j, Q,'~ ~ '.N.
/,' p. dli LACBWR, DPC advises us that LACBWR was shut down on April 30,1987, M*- ..g ..>f-and that final defueling of the reactor was completed by June 11,1987. In _ ;f response to an amendment request by DFC, dated May 22,1987, the NRC Staff 3 L.N /f <v .'"'.'g.,..ih. h /.. 7 ~,,1{ on August 4,1987, issued Amendment No. 56 to the LACBWR provisional .g f < ?! c' ') operating license, deleting the authority to operate the reactor and converting Q-l-fQ) tG,, ( [,7 * .j the license to a "possession-only" license.1 [.,7.'yg ~ a a: We are further advised that on December 21, 1987, DPC submitted its proposed decommissioning plan to the NRC' and that, on February 10, 1988, c' .e J';
- C DPC amended the application that is currently before us to delete the request to convert the license to a full term operating license and to amend the license 7
to authorize DPC to continue to maintain LACBWR in a possession-only y fr status during the safe storage and decontamination periods specified in the j ~ t.:- " decommissioning plan. (Neither the plan nor the amended application referenced y,"N in this paragraph has been provided to this Board.) 's 4 s-date of that telephone request Arter several attempts, se Qairman et this Board contacted se Intervener's h 'e representadvs by ta'ephone on May 12. 1988, to ascer.ain CREC's intems (if any)in the terminaam modm. j CREC's repmercadvs advised that he had received the modon but had not mponded because of the lack er nme i and mources for far$ct litigatim. He me,doned two pcaential issues that he believed should be liugaied. see i note 7,iVre. 2 LBP 842,11 NRC 44 (1980), gTd. sua spoes, ALAB 617.12 NRC 430 (1980), la parf vacated d.r mot, c ALAB-638.13 NRC 374 (1981); LBP ll.7.13 NRC 257 (1981), LBP.83 23.17 NRC 65s (1983) boa a,74 ,.4 sua spoes, AtAB 733, supra. 3 52 Fed. Reg. 32.215 (Aug. 26.1987). The staff made the "no signiacant haurds" f.ndes of 10 C.F.R. I 50.91 ~'. > in conjuncton eth its approval of the license amendment The prcrosed &. ding was nouced in the Federal A<gurar (52 Fed. Reg. 24.s42,24,546 (My 1,1987)) and no cre objected to. or provided comments cri, that f.ndes. The staff provided us a ecpy of Amendment $6 on Augast 6,1987. ' A Nocce of oppmumty for Heartng on the plan was published on Apel 8.1988 ($3 Fed. Reg.11,718). e 578 4 l b ,c-j ~ I .4 u 9
s < d. ; n... u. s. s ;,a z.. -
- , s,.,.
^ a ? ~ b cp 3 a m. ~ ..-. y- .s .,s. g. u .%.. i f.,gw, p,f, 3... v.
- n
} Y> ,u x ,a n. a.v ..,.c s .o. s y, 2 /,../ g, - m.,s f.. e 3 ;. ~ n ,.~. . :.. ::u:;; ~. < w.e. .s . :. w ; ;u.. .u .,. ~ s x, 1 2 ~.~. l ..+ .] i s 1. DPC's motion has not been opposed by any party. Accordingly, on procedural grounds, we could grant it. 10 C.F.R. { 2.707. However, that action, without more, would leave DPC without a currently effective license. Its provisional license, which was modified by Amendment 56, has expired s by its own terms and only remains in effect through the pendency of this w f. proceeding. Amendment 56 changed the authority granted by the license but did .".[D < not modify its expiration date or its status as a provisional license. To permit .g. a continuation of. licensed storage of spent fuel in the reactor storage pool, as apparently intended by DPC, we would have to authorize a full-term operating s. .;^
- f. s license with operating authority limited as under Amendment 56.5 2.
In considering a full term license, our authority with respect to safety 'n ;..;, fc.. issues is limited to resolving those matters put into controversy by a party, unless '~ we should determine that a serious safety matter exists.10 C.F.R. f 2.760a. We 1.. have examined the remaining proposed safety contentions previously submitted g ,,.a '
- 1 by CREC (Nos. 3,10,13 17, and 25 27). CREC has not attempted to pursue any t;
.' y of these contentions in the context of the proposed onsite storage of spent fuel i.: to be carried out by DPC under the "possession only" license. Moreover, we are ~ ~ .i unable to determine whether, or to what extent, CREC intends these generally n worded contentions to be applicable to activities under the "possession only" license. Given CREC's lack of further interest in pursuing these contentions, q .a and perceiving no "scrious safety matter" as contemplated by i2.760a, we are D..cc .l dismissing these contentions.' Beyond that, no other safety matters regarding 'i '. y ' 'W C the proposed termination or the proposed full term "possession only" license '? 7 have been raised by a party, nor are we aware of any safety matters that would I ( 'd ?'" x ( w 'I J. 4 warrant our attention at this time? l D.,. '- A' - ou. .u..' s. g' 3. With regard to environmental matters, our jurisdiction is similarly de-i s 'Q U. ' w' '. f.. ;, ~'. W ' e. ) fined.10 C.F.R. { 2.760a. In LBP-82 58, supra. we ruled on the environmental 4,~f questions at issue in this proceeding. Although no environmental issues bearing M, - [j'
- s..
"G s e U.. V N f r u "....'m.,..9 t y ,,c: .m ' ;s a. I We express no opiruon uth respect to wheter the applicadon for decantmssioning authwity wa.ld constituts bM an "appheanon fm e renen al or fm a new Eccr.se for the ac0vuy" autherned by the pm'.ssonal Neese, suffunent ',4,, g 3@o. t- ;. ; c .s y' to keep the provisumal license in c5cct pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.109. That quesden becomes rnoa as a result of t ' "(,.....
- 1' S y:
iV ' g.g ./ the order me are now isrms. In parucular. however. me note that ce decomnussxsung activiues sculd conanue l'.,,' M' , g' 11 beyond me pened for mhxh a f4 term beense caild han been issued. and that permssion for decantnissioning 3 as not smght poor to the technical expr:6cn date of Pronssonal ticense DPR-45. Bah of these consider:6ces ' c. V. '.,.\\ 7 'c.,, ( ;1; ' - ', ...a [. i L'; 'f ; raise doubt as to whether $1109 could be used to extend the prmomallicense pdes considersaan by NRC 's '. t J C ,'- ~~ ' ,...,.W's of a decom.nissicrung plan. 1.lh l'-,' y --' 'In dismisses these contendons,31 express no opuuon m their hugsbusty in conjunctim wuh se "pcasession t .,'M ~ -% (4 d' '.M r. s, only" heese, or on thcar enents (excep to the eaters we are deterwunmg that they do not astrars cmsiderosm P, 4' '. (.73,f' b y figf.g/g$ e j ans to i 2.760s) i Dune.g the May 12.1988 teJe@me comrnunicadon bermeen the Board Otairman and CREC's repmarsative J.
- 4. 't. y c ;;h M.g.h4 r/cyff'c icvohed lealage in the spers fuel pool and aneged unsuecasfal attarnpts by the A;plicant to repair such leaks. We
'y,' g ' (see note 1. supre), the represeraanve enendoned two assues that he beheved waranad considerstiert The 6rst . O,; D U ' M,?..& ' f7MMTM.g.d ", M;@fMM/g& Of.fMy S expect that es staff will irrvestgate such leabge to ascerta:n any safety irnphcanons. The emer issue cmccrned . i i > A h.n W 's'") t.p". ' '- P H-MWA'd.'v$ ; e potental storage of spers fuel fran other reactas in es LACBWR pool-a n:uation that caild not occur withoss e a fu ther bcense arnendmers and Neuce of opportunity for Heanrts. Cf. tEP.s0 2 swpra.11 NRC at $3 5s. N ;."y.; 3 e4.g g
- Qg,
. [ ' ';. :. c t .:': pt y 'g,rj W h.,.i
- y,
+ }" '%;G : A' 'M W.1.E ;.;:V:l..Q@7' 579 s r Q...N...W.,* h .W W]g.\\ '.., 3;;w%w', 1&6 t,f. s. ..c. . gyp.2 ; '- ire. e.
- .% -@- p.M..,. g i "*f p7p, ; p
<l 'sy, %x d.,,.. - .e ..O,. sQ: y' c. :.;.M,v. f ",. W /.. p.,,N p I i:'.;f.< > -{= e ' \\ '. o A, ~~ s , w,. 7.ss;.c'3,- -.., j e n., ~, ~ . sg 3,.w. .y,v ~~, * - n, -, n :sz.r..: .%;m. n. s Tr -..b y Q ;~, '. ~. t,',. :.y .,C-= , a.,~;
- g
- .. l.:,.C,,y %
- e.?
a, , o P ;.y, W.! s w .. ' ' N ',. .., 3
- 1. r...
_%.-.,'t' J '. ':M; L. 9; r*.\\ j :. Q.~ b. l..f. N. .2 y -.y y,'s-- %. >.,.)c .._Rl;.,c'. & O :.-l.Q $ j$.a.g...wl &*..&,[ 0( ; g, ' - ~ .t- %: - i !.' 'Q' ' f.,'L;,ia.7.jf% . '.;, -(.,y< . -,%j. ' ' % :T n? '. t.. s.
- m. 3. ;,%.
t ..... r. W,L; O (.'.& ~lh.: r' _' %k ~;,:[$U.Q&-MMf ' ^
,,':l.. .,s,i : j; %. m g. ,. 1-. n. w e w ~.. ; =:.- ~,~ ,;.,~ . M... g e,, n w @. m. m..::hn & , 'W;W.b&;,. ? ' ' s 6 s, m.
- Q, K. W
- W~
? '. g % ':.T N W 'gr.W: . 'f> ;.f >.'&M:,.,, g,g.g.3 q~;.Vy M.', U i. C- .?
- p.
Q; a, ,: a, 5 . J.i m -;. n y, q.,,,, ~ v .;.,a,; J...;.. ,me? g.yg:Q,, gl:.. ' q. _,.f.,,,. f w a
- . _,v;.w l
- s,. - g y t.,... ,,. u, . ~ ,.,.,.y,.,,. 3, e. v.c.,w. ; y.., r.. a. .y. c y..v e].k:$:4;,,W. 4 ;u-O,!)!!: f, -, h,?. M n...'. ' % v. . N.; ? &.,n;. ..w.'. .. a.. m.,.. ..a i,..a.. y.r. -= m. .n ...... a M.13 [ ':. ~ :, T ,o a v ? , r,n y.,, ; < v,, _.,,,,. I~
- f
y'#g,' J r;.W, s v, .a j;%' , 5. y. 'j on termination or a full-term "possession only" license have been raised by a h',,a ;,'.r.i h :,/ i .,1. vkg ' r 9c.f. J;., tential requirement that the Staff prepare an environmental review document for g party, one matter has come to our attention which may need resolution: the po. p' 3 e ~. ., j, ~ - F. C.Z ; g, ', f i, z - the proposed termination and/or proposed full-term "possession only" license. g M.' - xf 4 - De environmental review documents are of two types: an environmental i 'l mpact statement (EIS) for actions set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 51.20, and an
- g j. 3.. n we m
er f.'9 ~ i % ;il must be prepared for all actions other than those for which an EIS is required 1; environmental assessment (EA) for actions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.21. EAs b'i ( 4', b j or which are categorically excluded by 10 C.F.R. 6 51.22. i' c, '- 3 De decommissioning of LACBWR will require the preparation of an EIS. f: ut 10 C.F.R. 6 51.20(b)(5). DPC's proposed decommissioning plan, although
- Qy ~
~ submitted to NRC, is not currently before us for review. The action giving rise
- /
to the request for termination is DPC's withdrawal of its application for a full- . term operating license and the conversion of its provisional operating license to a l q ' ',.' full term "possession only" license. He federal Register notice accompanying i Amendment 56 reflects that the Staff prepared a safety evaluation report but ' g not an environmental review document in connection with that amendment. 52 Fed. Reg. 32,215 (1987). The license amendment itself, however, recites that
- s the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 have been satisfied. We presume (although we have not been formally advised) that the Staff regarded the amendment as f
an "amendment... which changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R.151.22(c)(9) ) -W. - (..,[ and hence subject to a categorical exclusion. Upon granting the Applicant's motion, DPC's application for a full term oper- [- ating license will have been "finally determined" and DPC's provisional license will expire.10 C.F.R.12.109. DPC's "new" possession-only license, the major pumose of which is to authorize DPC to possess spent fuel, would normally require the preparation by the Staff of at least an EA. Under the terms of 10 C.F.R. 6 51.23, however, the Commission has made a generic determination that the storage of spent fuel"for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor i operating licenses" will result in no significant environmental impxt and, ac-cordingly, no environmental review need be taken of the storage of spent fuel 's in reactor storage pools after the cessation of reactor operation. The authorized exemption from environmental review of the storage of spent i fuel in rer
- ctage pools following the termination of reactor ope ation does not appear to be indefinite or to extend for an unlimited pericd of time. Given the finding in 10 C.F.R. 9 51.23, we believe it is limited to onsite storage of no more than 30 years. We assume that DPC's decommissioning plan will j
be acted upon by NRC in less than 30 years. (The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing has already been published.) As indicated earlier, such action by NRC will require preparation of an EIS Nonetheless, to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, as implemented through 1 580 r, a y - , j s 1 4 G j
~'&;): :w.;'%n ' ':?, W.1 :. :n \\q*. ,'l. ~- ? O ~ .,? . ~... :. %,y\\;i.,'- p %... i :. ^ r. i,. .Q,:',. W. u,, ,Y, ~.. ... ~.. i
- r. '..,.,w...
-w az:. .c .. ~ ~ y s NRC's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, we believe that (pending final approval of decommissioning) a technical limit to the period of onsite spent fuel storage should be imposed on the "possession only" license. That limit, from the standpoint of the environmental review, could be as long as 30 years but is subject to the termination date of the full term license heretofore sought by \\g M. DPC. v. Our approval of DPC's motion (which amounts to the withdrawal of the t..- prescribe.10 C.F.R.12.107(a). We will grant DPC's motion, as long as the h4 ~ M.. '. p license application that is before us) may be "on such terms" as we may m C ,.7 $3, f "possession only" license that remains is convened to a full-term license and E .c ' J( f" limited to a period ending either with the approval by NRC of a decommissioning j,.- ]. ? '< ' ~: N. plan and grant of decommissioning authority for LACBWR or the term of the ,'. } g.e full term license previously sought by DPC, whichever comes earlier. The full- . i.. f ,( - J 'c' y term license previously sought by DPC extends until March 29,2003 -i.e.,40 -? ls:- years from the date of issuance of the construction authorization, and less than m. . +.4..
- u.. '.
1, 30 years from the date of this Memorandum and Order.10 C.F.R. 5 50.51; q,... J. ",
- s.,,
43 Fed. Reg.15,021 (Apr.10,1978); LBP 82 58, supra,16 NRC at 515. .. ' p [< ~d f Because none of the parties has addressed this termination condition, we will C permit parties, if they wish to eliminate or modify the license condition we are '4-imposing, to file a petition for reconsideration within 10 days of service of this g Order (cf.10 C.F.R.12.771). I~ 4 t.. h., - N For the reasons stated, it is, this 13th day of May 1988, ORDERED: y{,',7.?.$'.,., ' ~ [ [~ 1. CREC's remaining safety contentions in this proceeding (Nos. 3,10, ,,g 13-17, and 25 27) are dismissed. (. s 2. DPC's motion to terminate this proceeding is granted, and DPC is J N*iN.(. fs'..M.'.j ".. d t. ",., granted permission to withdraw its application for full term operating authority, I WJ. -.' subject to the condition set forth below, .( "_.'. u 3. This termination is conditioned upon the grant by the Director, Office of p V 5 y. Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which grant is hereby authorired, of an amendment . J,- ; ;,,.,b f. f i'. 3' to Provisional Operating License DPR-45, as a' mended, to convert the license H IJ, 1, .,h..w.,...,. 4 :.' '/ 2,1 1 for LACBWR to a full term operating license containing terms and conditions Y w+., :, similar to those governing licenss DPR-45, in panicular those provided under .n" *4.[ ; M'.,$j, J. Q (fE f,' jZ Amendment 56 which limit the license to a "possession only" license. DPC's 5.Q!.E W. .s "possession only" license for LACBWR is to expire on March 29,2003, or upon M.,s ~f:.' r f. J j',Q ?.% M'.T W,M final approval by NRC of a decommissioning plan and grant of decommissioning f;$', / < b>S.'hrM[..W authority for LACBWR, whichever comes earlier. N.... + 4..Wi e%.',<; f,'.%, 1h;1 .'fR' e M i u,N 4 A petition for reconsideration of the above termination condition may be N *yJJT'yM t , ).b Nh,9 filed within 10 days of service of this Memorandum and Order. lff 5. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Il 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786, h7 L{@g 3.w..~M;m t;.$N$ $ @M W} %:.f.} % 'i LQ%T6fw $ this Memorandum and Order becomes effective upon expiration of the period i .A w n w%. (4p% M..e.. .v. 9u .i. a- .Ny w.,iWe..,$ a:. g%' ',w< :.!.*,;q; ';,&y,.,'eW ' 'Q;% ~. h + f~ c.y. s 5g} ,.. A H.,.. g g w.f. z ;.; Q. j' -l. l g' o... - g V > Af., /W:Q i.. W g, D.'d 3',' ?,?. Q y'. Y,h g ; Q m.m - .p; i .c r;- D ^. y.. n. < v, - -.1?,3. p 6 y f. ;
- s..
- n. i> se J.. + ..t $ fl* - lr#Y} e t f, ~,..? '. 4,.- fl.. ,,v
- ..;, mg r u
... ~, -. mm n, n -. m..r.. --.c t. ,,v -,.. t. v. L,,. '.,7 %. y.. a i 3, ,,,....,...,....I ....c... c.. = **. .e. y, 3 e
- g.
,3 gg ..,.a s. .,.. + ,:g:: W, D [I 6 .j, ; (.' '.
- , T., *, 4 g 7 *5 I,.[
.{Q', u,' i((,,; ~ {ij.[,h ,I o f s'.} t'- y., \\. .'4:L .gy K @A; & y:l{.Q':.Q~ q,,:s.?;;>p Q p q y sk'Q. ' S. .:y' L.; .z ..p s g' ~ nu.y t. ..r m a Q;. J. ' ', ' ;- , j,5 . f. d ;.lp;n$,"c&M?'.) *,};;). :.',j ni. .v. r. , %.g_].~W...V l'fe,'.? W L'$ M:WW diSkM M 2 $ s W,p,;;,: N 4'M h
- . c
.s. p,d te. 8.V.f mE M '.v. s,c. 5 51}.. .3 r. -l.fl [$ L $! M .i
- C m
.r p. a g. . m. ~ w.- w.g,. a. g, y,w:,.3.:; V'.l...
- . 7 i. t....!..' x Q.
- ,,:
Q.;'c. .-w ;.zj v. .m.. r.~;.gv.. c. emw - pa;w.u.,. m. c..,:2 - p. o ~ w;,c e, c - v. 4 m. _. f c. w.,p g . A .' ?.:H:. m.p: e.,..* s, fs 7 -[j 3',e :.,';.. .>.n,
- .w{.. ; 3.
': 5 .. :n, ;,y; 3.;,.tc K.,.,t.3n. Q y;?..,a. ,,e,, -..* ;.. ;m?.,y ,.y qlu n. ',;. ..m. . m.q. ,.i, T =;. : v ;.' M.y t y y,..y: : ;y:.:. R ;-.y, n ^ :;;., g ,f - T . '. (.. - Q*~,. 7 s,.:.::,
- 4 ;.~.m< g M,x
. c. %.W; Au~;..t 53 - .<.,7 -: n., v. ? :. y.;-m :r.a.g: ;~;;; %m. -,.; m:;,., a. ; : ~. '.. :. a,,%. q ',; 2... - .;..-.. e -.
- m.. s;;sy;.'.V;-v n.
c. o .~.,,;- .o. ; ,..e n. , ; m:
- r..
- m:
x,' .e- -. n.......
- n... u,.
c,, ........ a e.......u.,.~ .r.a ua.. ....w .~. ~ .~ . u- .a gg 4 / , ~, s. y ,.f g..r. ; e . i...., S p. ;:,y.I
- s, 2.'
.g ;; ',. e .ij within which petitions for rcconsideration may be filed. If a petition is filed, the f.n 1, (. j effectiveness of this hiemorandum and Order is suspended pending resolution of .g f. 4 k... N. the petition for reconsideration. This hiemorandum and Order will constitute the 2'..l,. N / 4; final decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission thirty (30) days following / .s its effective date, subject to any review pursuant to the abo.e-cited Rules of ..] Practice. x g' .}t (' J J.g .,.. i. f. I 6. Any party may take an appeal from this hiemorandum and Order by }, '.;, w .'. ' ". ^j filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after the effective date specified J ~'E '. t ,1 above. Each appellant must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within ..'i thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff 2 '] is the appellant). Within tMrty (30) days after the period has expired for the .r filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of j the Staff), a party who is not an appellant may file a brief in support of, or in i f,..,. ..... I. opposition to, any such appeal (s). See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762. J. '.l THE ATOhi!C SAFETY AND O.., LICENSING BOARD . m,s w
- , _.i Charles Bechhoefer y
ADhilNISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. George C. Anderson t ADh11NISTRATIVE JUDGE 1 Frederick J. Shon ADhilNISTRATIVE JUDGE t ~ Dated at Bethesda, biaryland. i .' l, this 13th day of hiay 1988. 1 1 4 J 9 8 t T I 4 582 t q i .h
- w..
i '..~.. q 1
- 1 M
S b e ~ ~.. - r
- n..., s.., ;,,;., a. 3- : '.,,,
.- ~ u + ~ ~ ..f -v.s,. '.,,. s. s. .s 1 Q :m. v: . ^. a....f Y. .s c 1 r. g*.a .7 c i
- .,.;.. r ;.,.9 s.'
.c .,. n.. r T Cite as 27 NRC 583 (1988) LB P-88-16 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N - r. .'-., ~..o ATOMIC SAFET'r AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL c Before Administrative Judge: QM. e e.- 5 ,'",\\.,.' 9 i ' ' ". '1 '3 ,, ?!'. Charles Bechheefer .,u. <,,. y..,. ,e . s.. '( . ~- ,, g ; In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 f,.. (ASLBP No. 87 55102 SP) 2. ,.. ', '. C '.f,. ,.-. -.~.. .y o ALFRED J. MORABITO '2 s ^ (S:nior Operator License for p.* Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1) May 18,1988 y: i. The Presiding Officer clarifies his Decision of April 20,1988, LBP 8810,27 i;; NRC 417, to indicate that his "direction" to the Staff to issue a license did not I g-preclude the Staff from making findings and determinations on certain matters [. % f ' ' that were not in controversy in the proceeding. (l. j n. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER G. 3 c. (Staff Motion for Clarification) U A .,J. C ' ,?. , x. n. a~ s. ,3..- This proceeding involves the application by hit. Alfred J. Morabito for a 'l 'l ' .',. . :.'i -.' Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license for the Beaver Valley Power Station, ^ ,.): D S M Y.lN ' 't.'f'::,f, Unit 1. The NRC Staff had denied the license because of Mr. Morabito's failure . ~. ' lON..N,'N MP.. *.'v. s to pass both the written and simulator examinations that had been administered .;W., 9; f 4.'. l. Y < f. r< 0.Wi/CJ. '.'46l :'. N' ,o 3.1, m.. to him. In a Decision dated April 20,1988 (and served one day later, on April W :2 iM. 21,1988), LBP 8810,27 NRC 417, I determined that Mr. Morabito had passed .$ff.43 't..*.I I M '. .$,k @h %y:.o 7.YNN'h4,Y?.R.$ilNO.' both the written and simulator examinations and, accordingly, "directed" that $,c$pW.ki ..y'f %j he be issued an SRO license, subject to the standard terms and conditions that 3' govern such licenses. u. '. y 'egi hkbh.g <.y[J kN,'h/.c %.,c. M o w 3 9 ws 7M. / 4.u $.[' ((h:h:Q ti?o% s k:y,:w;.W. ;.rn n.w:; ,m r ..n.. g :,;.;..%.....a.; A.r 9...,-A.*.y< ,j' v. .s m.m
- i,
< *a..,.+ p;c ; ~ w *v.. ' )l- ' [' 3' .. N, [ ** g',af *.
- . g, "g,eg ; ;eW" 'g,,.7, p 583
~' "'
- M.O [f' W
U % N".'.(.' #.,..wa a.y g.QQ:. w.u.,.~ : o p,.r e.s O ,.. ;n. .-,:....... - /., v.: g !.',... - .:- <, ~ u,.... - .t' $p f! * ) _ .'.,.;e n r. ,;. :. >..~.~:..~g}:ua v e..,, p e -l.. ,..;G~.c.. y;; n I ,g 7 ;. & w g, r,%.,..,3. ",,. y.. ; g ,,m y ,.e .g ..,.y ,.-.-i y. .g,,, , q.,. t s e i*. ... l':.,:1i'3. m.,,b s t ,. q.. 4.
- j. f, f,
e i '- - m 't.u,3. p, ' G. '. ' ' ' ' ' - ri ..q .t:. + <..'.,[.',' , /" :., u,v.B* N,? ",, U.'O..., s.,. C '.. J el .'e.. . J. p,U',,, '*. ~.., p ). sy
- j,, k*
.. s;o g. o Jc .f,. s ..- o m,- 4 ...~ ._ 3 '. ' \\,' ! g [., J. .-'g,- . N ,,.i
- s.,g.",.
..g s. g, l : i ; 9 ,i b'.* e 5 a. -J. ,, ' ~, -*?' /,,..'s.. },,' . 7.. 9 3,. ; O M, '...' g W jfq,'.'N.f,y Wi W h-i:"..';y,nN fih ' 0;".% $ re P. N. 4 a #9 a
- {**
4
- ,.e.,'
1, ? *,'..D. S 's - 4- ..f '.9.>sp p-Y W' ~, '. i.l . ::::: '. N ~;'((*p: Q, h.?', ?. 5] ;J l 5, V.., gl., Y l%l? h ;'jl&'-)'.hQ[3.,..l.', y?&yN.f..;,[,'f
- . f.. -my..
_ s t l.Y:{ S.'. f] , lA:.;,w, m, 7.yp.. '3 .'v jhi(;@Qi N.* i ., di[ f&. 6:,G, h y 7 ),f. ^,L~ 9.:($:
- f. h*'t & b. O
0 j h ".? f l l l.;} ? f & -?. h f f h l &. f f ['[-N*;O,y@& f U j:'f f $ &'f.& f: % g 4 ' u *. Q y; }.; & % ; &.'!:f: !..V. h.l e).6 y 9 [ ' ' '@A Q-l 4.Y.. ; '.7 .G &.b 0. '. '- :. S. ., q ' ~_ ....i y-y;y.", A m :Q,+'.;',[.( $n ~;c.Y 7p+? n: ?: q . 7. M J; '. y. w,..'{ l. 6. d.] { %. Q:.. .~ y.QlQ -, ! ;y- - h,W ;m~,. .:.g,. r ; U$;. '-f] 'th': .^2.<',<. = y .. a.w m;. / -.
- yn, Yt wp$ g%
m: 9 R +. h.,. w,,. a. :. V ".,' ' ', - :. ;. :.n +'- 'x ,~.mi ' q:L:
- r. i 3.1
,:,,.. *z . s.q >.. ~ ~
- .l;0l:,p:g lff"y*N" #,
.cg U,
- #-'O'?D '
~ e. -. =. .y .... m., m s t, .x . ".. s p..,. ^3 2.' -(* qq s..,. r_a. ;,_,,'4 ' f,.y; f J. Q' ' f f.d . j.Q .f; j On hiay 4,1988, the NRC Staff filed a motion for clarideation of one aspect %C ;i; J.;,, -g; q, ~ of that Decision. On hiay 11,1988, hit. htorabito filed his response.
- ,a..;,7.x,ugs,;/j 9.[
L'- Specifically, the Staff seeks clarification of my direction to the Director, 7 -...~- , 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), or, as appropriate, the Regional
- v. j Administrator, Region 1, to issue an SRO license to hit. hiorabito. De Staff 1 4~.h
? ? % g - fj acknowledges that the Decision is dispositive of all issues in controversy before e ' 'c .,3 ~ i :1.y me (subject tn Commission review on its own motion). It points out, however, N ' -, =.. '. 1: Cl@. '4's that there are other issues and requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 55 that were not (. .-f in controversy before me and that the Director, NRR, or, as appropriate, the [7 Regional Administrator, Region I, must make the necessary findings on issues . D >,,3 d
- y D not in controversy. He Staff seeks clarification on whether my "direction" could -
e. J ;e., e a be read as precluding the appropriate official from making those findings. ',' i>q~1 For his part, hir. hiorabito suggests that an SRO license should be issued , #.. N '. :,. to him consistent with the date of the licenses for other candidates who ',- O, '..f.J f were examined at the same time. He states that, insofar as he was aware, ' b. @ - all requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 55 were satisfied at the time the license dp examination was administered. He indicates that, if a problem were to arisc " 2 J c. ', :.5
- - ( JN;Y
- . j with respect to matters not related to the examination, the Staff could follow
..; [. i '.f well established procedures for cancelling the license. ,y.$e The Staffis correct in reading my Decision as not precluding the appropriate Q [; M y official from making the requisite findings on issues not related to the exam-A j ination, such as are required under 10 C.F.R. 95 55.11(a) and (c) (1987). hiy 3.s, Decision holds only that hir, hiorabito has fulfilled the examination requirement n [, [ ?,' ' for an SRO license, set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 55.ll(b) (1987). As hir, hforabito suggests, the record before me demonstrated that, prior to taking his exami-nation, the other requirements would have to be, and had been, satisfied; and, accordingly, after passing the examination, he was entitled to a license. See, e.g.,10 C.F.R. 9 55.10(a)(5)-(7) (1987); Decision, LBP 88-10,27 NRC at 447; Id., Conclusion of Law No. 3,27 NRC at 450. hiy "direction" related only to the requirement in $ 55.ll(b) that an applicant pass a prescribed written exam-3 ination and operating test or simulated operating test. In other words, it was e intended to preclude the Staff from any further regrading of the examination, whether or not particular answers may have been contested. But it was not intended to limit the Staff's appropriate exercise of its authority under sections unrelated to the examination requirement, which (to repeat) was the only matter i under consideration in this proceeding. ) Almost 2 years have elapsed since hir. hiorabito took his examination. Various factors bearing upon hir, htoratito's license eligibility, unrelated to the examination, may have changed. hioteover, the term of the SRO license whkh I directed to be issued ran from the date of issuance, rfot from the date of the licenses for others who were examined at the same time. LBP-8810, supra. 27 NRC at 447 n.142. Contrary to hir. Storabito's suggestion in his 'i 6 584 S 4 4 I m. 1 s ~ 4 g g e 4 9 J
n' ,g.
- ~7, s p + x,.r
. ' y' ,a 7,- n...- ,e, ~, t 'A , 4, ' - s '.
- +
s ' '. -e ,,. r....' o s r. s ~, s i.~
- a.
c. r ? J response to the Str.ff's motion, my "direction" was not intended to preclude the m Staff, before issuing an SRO license, from taking into account information on these other matters which may have developed during the period during which b', N Mr. Morabito's appeal was under consideration, to assure itself that all license a' w ' ' ?' requirements as of the date of license issuance have been satisfied. If the Staff [ ? ' 1 e;w. [ . ~ determines that matters unrelated to the examination would preclude its issuance U'. [.i. . ^I of an SRO license, it should, of course, provide Mr. hforabito with a reasonable .'~^ time to satisfy these other requirements, were he to seek to do so. L'.'[':% ^N, To preclude any misconceptions caused by the wording of my Decision, and hc '% f. ? f '% ~l F' ' ' ' N" subject to the understandings set forth above, I am hereby modifying the word H... - 6 "' l;./ ~ .A .o ; "directed" at 27 NRC at 450 to read "directed, subject to the satisfaction by M' '".O .'M O: M M. Mr. Morabito of requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. Il 55.11(a) and (c) (1987)." O.v.[ #N;4 CN-i IT IS SO ORDERED, , 4. ' p+. > ' b ~ M.., '.9, >... i . c. 3 ..,...;, [. r.-
- J
L. u -. ,.. s. PRESIDING OFFICER l t;9. .'!,.s. >b'.. .? ~ p.t., w.;:.- ~. . ~.. ~. ;, 1, Charles Bechhoefer f .l *. 'y ~ ^ I
- ~
- i ' :
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l J '., ' '. -*. , s..., r,- Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 'l 7 this 18th day of May 1988. !l ~ O. 4
- r.,
,,...a : .P ..v... 1 n~ 8 ~. ~ r. ... ~.,*... . g.
- W u
c., :.. .... n ~.,, :.. n.,~. .. v...w w y.. l...ffQ.. ,i.k .rJ e ', ,.t... e,.t
- t..
i :.,,v .,.g. m.,..m y% ,s s
- k. c; c
.g.
- 7). s.
i n + .~ c - .3.. :.,q. : 4 a, p.. G, .. s... w. .^ ' ?. '..i. J s
- k ) 3
- p;.. - : :..m
~... -. ~.v.; .,..,,. r y ~.x l. w :. ~.. ,n ...e y,,;c. x :..q.7.:;1.3, ,;y., (;\\,&.y y yy..., q 'es + .r...,:r . 2: s ,1 s .c,,"...n.. s. ? . ~. m,. . s c + m.,L m.:. e., e,Jf.=.4.. s,W. s t.i..t..
- w a.s...
g.. .e e. o' V, .; s.c3,,!.y m p s. c4 s.;;t. s, y.. p$.'j M *~,,,, # ' r.N's .7 s o I$< M'... e.e S. j&y r.y. > ._.) p ^ 8A 7, *. *. e .....t: e s. .WW..n,y b. -W;DQ W y'. p.s.. ~ 5 g
- Tg %.....
% '.Q ;,,g; ^ *M... ?,4 -gM... + '?' 'W' V dr. V. N,.; M av. e 2 M.M. NIN;f' 66. C
- n 3 [4.w.Wdw.h. Us.;h.:.;.;I
$3S[
- ra yv u.;cc.i.;p i:A*t w t. %.g*n7;.. t.. p; y dm,.
~ v..,.. : s m.,!,y, m. c:.:r.
- v..a.,., v p s.t w,,... c% a.. n, s n*.,,
e .? n*. / juy L s mf :.;. .,p
- nA v
Ly a .4 f;}&. u..-l.r W a MFWl0&n n' .i. ae 4 e .?. v, n. 3 a w&.. n s.Q.
- ?N. W XQ9 L
,. 4..., 85 yA o 'a. .O.Y '%?h.b,'{:,1 [y...%r..
- c..
. {r d' $. I .%.
- 3..?'f.;
..w.. . :.;y.,. N. s a.. 4. </,4.,.4 m, s. *n.1 u..,..c w,. yni..,. m ' w.,w a a. 4.w.s. ...~. %...n >e<.n. A... c .a. y~ >. y.g.. x,n .yis m.. t 7 :) % N.. ol* ?,.f.,' y v.L.it. m%.a. Pr t; < m.+. w 9 w- .'33.6, % ' - n".: M.tys. ..e } .. \\.....
- 1., *. bf L.,.
+. V' ' A*,~. d'... O's'61 ',.4...'%:, T : i> \\ ;~a "c.,,3 **. ,.i. .o i# 4 yW c,p N..,g, t.:, ?, a '. j w... rp n .r. w.vy v w .... o 'r... 1,.4,.. ....,., -. m,.. y.n.n. n., ~s n. ..A .., t.. ;.,.* ; - '.9". .'(.. s..-.,.3... s* *.,- * *. ;.,c,.S.,.. n e'.J... %;.. y.,, S .'O<,.6' ... 'g' , y %, ;y,,. m*y ; _.: g' :b.,,.y. j :t. o., 4. e s '.,e,v.,. +; H. y, >.. ng W 4.,.; 9 ; : *' ,s g -Q ;.,.% ; c; y.:..q i'.s; f. Q ; * ~. n., m .?...uw,' o 3' . 1 6 ..:.1 v y.. - :,,. u..f;. v c ;.,, i,, g s, ..q.9... ..-=..3 y ,,,cs- . '., ~ ., ; ;, n'.t.
- 3
. p.. m,.,.. ?. 2 y.* 4n, .a
- g
- L,
.?p. 7, ,,... -.p,', ...- E,. n %. .s y .......e,..e. ,s, .. - y . g. j ,a ,,g e >p. 3,....s ; J.,.g-- .,,.,t <s s y a .c ei -
- ~
..g;. <,' U ' # ( 5 b w,.., m.-.m, ~.e 'h.h, n'. /. ',, _. m,.. ~ 4 'I m -.q, m.
- s. i
.a. 3.. s. .s ~..:....., f .b
-.(...O ,I*E n.:s.. .u. ~~ .,..e eg, ..y;~. s.....y... .c . / . S (:
- ' % ) f' '.f;");..:V.;.i....'.~..;..~,.,v.
' 4 .r. ?. ..e., . G+C.gi r n d N.c..u. 3,L *.".W',l* *., 4.'.,,.' ' *.., y? !,'.".n' Q; t .. f..... - .A . t. t- ',.'.i*, s. .[.' . b., : p.-,'), .,;e i+ .,, s. F. i N, *iS.," e ..__..,7 c.,. ,.,,;,. '. ', ' " __c (,,..., ; q. : r...".. ( .c
- m...
,gy, _g 7, v: n, -, ;.. y,. .w.l q.. e.u. y;p;< ;....w. 2 '-:: ;.,;.;L....., . c.. w, .~,~..g e n. ..e m.,..... j ;.., e Ib* ' [f,,.,Q,.,
- q ',". ]V N*, y"* { 'c c..
,.. < s L e. i.. a -a.:... :a.n n, i. ' .y-. r 'p,-~ ~., ci, >. ' v. ,.s. .y 'r -r, j e,' . s,, a.,.,.,, M.4',. ; ';, v. t?. s e:. s... u n. :. ~w ^ 's,. n a t ...n..: .n .,..ar;,
- .t,....
m ... - r.,' ' :.v.<-~a ;s g:.., ',a ,u.,- ,~~- P C -Q, ....,, 4,v,:y.,. y p.. ..g. s ...,?y: 42, ~ ' c,. -',.' " w.AI.F%, '.?.. ~<~.t.. >. ' '. 6,,. Cite as 27 NRC 586 (1988) LBP 88-17 ~..~ ",. y,
- j. 'g tg -]*g '[ 6 -
.. :s,. s _r , ;c '< ! ;.:~.g,, g.7 ;, ,c. 'J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .. c. <1,~, -2 , p.u... - s ,k 4 n +y l:.'h ' [.Yi;[{-((. C. '" ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL ...s., y:, c .y'.,:(,.e,,.,'..,.s. .c Before Administrative Judges: ,.y .. c- .s.
- m. -
...'..~ 9.,. %c. % ' Robert M. Lazo Chairman a .g-7' . 4.: ,Q'* 2 -.P. V '; Glenn O. Bright o s ?. m Richard F. Cole s ,_y... m .t.. i. j~. ;. g. , v. a r. ,....~l.<.;p, v.. 's .'l . s, y.< ',,,.g. B /, 3013435 SC 2
- 7.,'.
In the Matter of. Docket Nos. 301::435-SC 1 . r., 9.7.,.. ' ? 4., tl',' b 7 f.Jp; < (ASLBP Nos. 88 5$9-01 SC ..J 'c; r '".(r-88 572 02 SC) 3,
- c,
- . e
- 3.,
y, j m, ' N - FINLAY TESTING LABORATORIES, ..(, - e- ,-V;c 4s INC. May 23,1988 s ~' ,' g. De Licensing Board approves a Settlement Agreement entered into by both parties and terminates the proceeding. Based upon its review, the Board is s sauGed that approval of the Settlement Agreement and termination of the proceding based thereon is in the public interest. ~ ORDER APPROVING SETTLE 51ENT AGREE 31ENT AND TER311NATING PROCEEDING On May 13,1988, the parties to this enforcement proceeding, the NRC Staff and Finlay Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Licensee), filed with the Atomic Safety e and Licensing Board (1) a Settlement Agreement that had been accepted by both parties and was in the pocess of being signed and (2) a joint motion requesting .~ ~ the Board's approval of the Agreement and the entry of an order terminating this proceeding, with a proposed Order. A fully executed copy of the Settlement Agreement was received by the Licensing Board on May 20,1988. De Board s P 586 i. 4 3 9 4 + y t-- S-
< i-, s e a, a 4 1.. s. q s x ..m 8 j. g j .," u ~ 4 '%e i ,t j 'n ,8 t a.: \\ ~. \\ .w .q has reviewed the Agreement under 10 C.F.R. 4 2.203 to determine whether / approval of the Agreement ar.d consequent termination of this proceeding is in the public interest Based upon its raview, the Board is satisfied that approval , 7,. ' ~, of the Settlement Agreement and termination of this proceeding based thereon ~ / 3' "7 - is in the public interest. m,.
- Accordingly, the Board approves the Settlement Agreement attached hereto 3,
.H, and incorporated by reference into this Order. Pursuant to 9981,161(b), ,y 'c,- ~[ " N:., 161(c),161(i) and 161(o) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 .nU q,... 'f U.S.C. ($ 2111 and 2201(b), (c), (i) and (o)) and 10 C.F.R. 6 2.203, the Board <.[ id V'l3.). 52, ' hereby terminates this procteding on the basis of the Settlement Agreement. j T.i.l. z. dl - A ': i J se. - x:
- m,:a ;<.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ,h);..g,.' :c To,.- '", 7:1 M;~ . ?. ..s LICENSING BOARD i ' ". -, ",,, '. ' ' '.., n;;;; '.y. .i i v ..a.n...,q,a,~ ...c. ~ ..~. )y .~ Robert M. Lazo, Chairman N.j.,,. M '3 c A 4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE '..p., '.y V c' v ' C. . cL ' ~ ~ -,. Glenn O. Bright /, . :x : .s: ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 9
- _. 1..l..
+ .t.-. ~< N ."s.,.... .r.. 's
- , af'. 7 c m..
-9 :, 4 Richard F. Cole y w. . v. y ?. W.+ ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .... "i.#.,W.....Ms.w ..m. .n .c. 7,,. a~6 '?.W.g.,1;,,S;k, u;c,.T. ;fp Dated at BethesdA Maryland, 4 this 23d day of May 1988. . V,.>,- d. @4,s' %. U ,,.s,: e.,~.,.. q.:.g.i R & f.~. y c m Mq.,sp vi. rq, f ' ;. d. *6;..}.. .M-g/cg,..,A.j),;q:"gj.k.-,, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3.)..,,. ,.e - On September 21, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff N -l[ : p:.. [ s ff h[ b QN. 'm [% '?". N;N N issued an Order, effective immediately, that suspended the byproduct material ~ ct.1 ' ;, '. 7. ~ 'f C. license of Finlay Testing Laboratories, Inc. (the Licensee) pending further inves- 2 ' ll ' , tigation of the Licensee. The Licensee requested a hearing on that suspension Df.M.g and the matter was referred to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 'Ihe Ur ' :29.. .?.*~c~ .gl- ?. D Jq ' further investigation was conducted and, as a result of that investigstion, on 5 k h.Y.NU . 'Je April 11,1988, the Staff issued an Order Continuirg Suspension of License .,5'. D,,.+.,U Y,. 'O. h.@M W.@.r 2g..E.,., M.
- n (Effective Immediately) and Order to Show Cause Why the License Should Not
,'M
- 3.'f '
- d.M..,.A %,.:W Be Revoked (Revocation Order). Licensee responded with a request for hearing MQ.N.f? M:#-
Y'. d.37E?4./[..' on the Revocation Order. The NRC Staff and Gordon W. Finlay, individually UOr.NEf N ?,$? M .N and as owner and president of the Licensee, hereby agree as follows: ~ .A e.I.Ms,,... ,,...,9. $., N.,. W s ,f. g:;,e --. +m.;; .j'; @;.},~\\',%l y ,2.. .: v' 2% Y."a'. M.P h ~. )4 % G W,.h. *.. s!n. W.a ,,- \\
- h..%0,....% :k.s f.w i.,l. :<{rg/ :.,s 4
't '..f.. ,.i '. a 587 ~ ,c.; (">.'.;,. M...,9 ***3 E f N e. .. n > .o. ,If $* K/?. t.Jc. + w. n,o.. fd.:*, II d b ',1 h.g**.* :,,v. '.. $.s. v. 4. y... M
- . t w
.. -.0,v.
- c. c./ )
N; 3 % A., <..1'*.* "l Q'* * *,, 9.. .. %O..'o ' 4., r as 3 s lY ' .a., y. -O,.. i 4 % ** \\1s". W,*.O V.
- ?....,;^ Q,$ d
- I} 9 7.If]QN.Q.. l "K~}{ '!}e',, ;s.;dhg.3;.[. S.!.h M
W y m; 7; y y..,.. "; ',, ', p,'l,p. Q~;'g '..J Q." }. , Q ~[. [2l.F{'h .'f , 'i,o-7, ; l, . q lf ..s .., x, f.,.,,,.,..c,...'., ' Q,., 9, 6. ', ^ h e, ;. ;
- s...,,., /, f.. [<.
.c.~,ca. ,t.,
- ,.s,,,.
- e. 'y.;..,w m,,,f s.j;, o. g-e -
. r s. s c <a s isf f.*. y. ,. t p ...,7, .. I.d i
- 1.'..'..
,,c..e... ,.M c *. p .'.,,,J.'.*g,. y .,. f f.. " '. '_--j.. e/ ...o;.. 3. i t.7* ,J
- l
,..,.. '.,. f.,9. 4.. .n. ; ?, y s l. 3 i .1 ....;.,,,.s. O
- T
./, A].4 b.s p.;;.s. s.c,,. w. r,q.t.,. e .[ .Ji.
- 4E.
W.a, # n,.);c.;m.w w +. m ; a.;1.; w m,b- , :.. %,.. f _. we a5 .. :4. e. ; e 9,. -o ,,s y a.%, d ,,.c o j y .,0 W ? Y hl..h_$, N:: _'$. _j& ??'.hY N. :; .Y$5 $ Y'N '-l hS
Q'N,' S f f., h % k..s!~%_ M-l., l: Q ff,I. l)f,fg,}F.9.-c.]g...2T..;}w ', '. N.. c
- 3 '.
}llJ- ]:S [.j': i h'.V:& % ; <i.
- ~i.
,.3.f.,.a%. :<m...:: : - ...,5 '. ".. 'u:.. a. " 'm
- a w -~
- t
.~ q. E .n % -:: x,j_ -. M..g-
- v. c,,a s
n n,6 ~:4. c ,.c v ..,.~, c. ...., u. W.n.r, -,.,s.. . r *, ?. 'e'.,.. +,.a ~.>,, t h'~. u., ; ; '. ' _9.A. y; w e, n.:. : . :~. m.. -
- v 3 9 '.r.ey/ 4
'v, r. ' q' q.~.n-4, c
- c..r. c ~,, :
.? - 3 , ' y&,c - . ~. . ; ; ;4..G r a y:y).g,ll;.ff n, ' " " ";.
- = C:'N :.: = :c L,
~' -,:.'. d ' v. . c... ' t,y., T'q .. j mW~~a i V;;w. ' ~. '., ~. y. n, ?,. a.; X q '..,: ~ yy.
- y p '; h, y
- ' )~,o. )
- y
.h ,'. t :,., -!l. '. ^ ~ . ]3;.:.. :w3.;W r 3. g
- y. O, ' f f M[h,.]
,$ ' [h[ 1. In response to the Revocation Order, the Licensee withdraws its ~ g Q'y request for a hearing dated May 2,1988, and agrees to a termination pd,c, 5 M.S.*
- V,'..%
g, of License No. 5317854-01. Termination of this license is subject to. y s m. " /: y.03:y.3 e j compliance with 10 C.F.R. 30.36(d). Licensee agrees to submit all 3s.f W.( int'ormation required by section 30.36(d) and to transfer all licensed '/,. 4 'i' > 7.d material to an authorized recipient within 30 days of this agreement. ., f, ' ' %,. ', '.' ~ 'l.% %; All other activities under License No. 53-17854 01 shall remain W 'r j( ** ] suspended until the license has been terminated. . } ' @' ' 2. The Licensee and Gordon W. Finlay deny the fmdings made in -.,f A, N .,5 the Revocation Order and accompanying Notice of Violation, not -(. ~ otherwise admitted in the answers of October 5,1987, and May 2, y ~ ;,:' : 'r;, r ,' y
- o..
.l s ,- ?. y..);. /, tl 1988. However, both the Licensee and Gordon W. Finlay agree not yw c to deny the findings in the Revocation Order and Notice of Violation t. ' h...u... '. a '.m, _ f.,,4 ', 'E ., l should the findings be used in considering any future application by ~ Y" $ M :j the Licensee or Gordon W. Finlay for an NRC or Agreement State .m .. -, '..7 s. 0 i W j f! materials license or in any other NRC or Agreement State materials ' UM h [2.~. : [ jY jj licensing or c'ivil enforcement, proceeding which may be brought - V/ ., W,. Ma in the future in which the Licensee or Gordon W. Finlay may be .. W ; ' ' ' y > ;'6.,;P d.d adversely affected. These findings may be accepted as evidence in p 4,..'f' (.2 n y,4 w.Q 39 any such future proceeding, provided however, that the Licensee or .'~, n. ;; y:',
- i Gordon W. Finlay shall not be precluded from offering evidence of
.X ,g explanation, mitigation or changed circumstances. h;,, ','. s 3. For a period of three years from September 21,1987 (until September 't ' %. w 20, 1990) the Licensee agrees not to apply to the NRC or to any x' l. . ~, Agreement State for a new license under the present or any assumed 'l corporate name and Gordon W. Finlay agrees not to apply for such a license on his own behalf or on behalf of any entity which he owns or controls during that same period. 4 For a period of 3 years from September 21,1987 (until. September 20, 1990), Gordon W. Finlay agrees that he will not perform the duties of a radiographer or a supervisor of radiographers. For that same period he further agrees that he will provide prior written notice to
- .c..
the NRC or any Agreement State with applicable regulatory authority '" ~ ! before performing any other duties related to licensed activity, for example, serving as a controlling officer of a licensee or as an y,, assistant radiographer. The notice is to be provided in writing ' b' to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 'g.' Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 or the applicable Agre; ment State,10 working days prior to commencement of the activity. s 5. The Licensee and Gordon W. Finlay agree to notice dismissal with prejudice of the action pending in the United States District Cot ct for 588 s 4 l g 4 9 i b g / y 9 e
s s . m, -c L- ~ ' -;.
- e.
s t 4 r .c , j 1 I p.> s .. 1 the District of Hawaii, Finlay Testing Laboratories,Inc. vs. U.S. Nu-clear Regulatory Commission, et al. Civil No. 88-00276 VAC. 6. The NRC Staff agrees that it will not seek civil penalties against the ..y Licensee or Gordon W. Finlay for violations asserted in the Notice I~'*'i ' 'o . Jf of Violation accompanying the Revocation Order. 5 . A 7. The NRC Staff and the Licensee shall jointly move the Atomic J S Safety and Licensing Board for an Order approving this settlement . v' - .1 d" 3 agreement and terminating this proceeding. This agreement shall W.: : S. 7 ~ D., h.>:N ' C become effective upon the Board approval. EIl t..' ..t. ..r- ,,N FOR THE NUCLEAR N %.,,'.. '. g .'M; 6f, ' 3, E REGULATORY COhihilSSION
- 0. ~ v ' - S
....u y.,v.. -x,- _ m. ,+. .. '-P Stephen H. Lewis, Esq. (, $ *. c # Senior Supervisory Trial [ GW ', ' y Attorney p p.: g I. Dated this 13th day of hiay 1988 ?.7 . /.
- {
'I : ,( i",. s:...n m, 5' y d. y.i.. w: FOR GORDON W. FINLAY o' G
- f. f.,';.'
5.
- e,,1 '.
AND FINLAY TESTING ./.' , ' /Z,^ LABORATORIES, INC.:
- e. _
x..v ; c. -.... c.. . x.;. m m -a ;m.i.r y. ; :..,.. <t. .s c ['.. - :i -n. Barry D. Edwards, Esq. F <,.. 7..., '., 6' J%,,.x.f. ' ;' V.. Dated this 16th day of hfay 1988 3 i. A,..,'O ; %.:D.m,M. w'W.,.M, c.D ~ 8 g ;r?.4,k.r, */ [,e-f "* . -i d.4 ..=. y' ). t-.**?
- [q-
,\\'./.D *y C.,..t
- ; s,
. \\..- i
- t..v 4
...J.1 e,*t.j:. s, . J: n,3 ,. ' K*., v, 9 . -, Q.m... - 'b ~ y %. ., n, + , B. ' l; s... - ; o. '. J.I'
- J:'
'E s ?: .J., og m Tas s .f' I ig
- a g..'
e.
- *., *,i,, *
- r,, _;- -.b ;,. e,
r g e, 3 %. E. d*,
- t. ' Y '%
. -i . s L,,;
- i.',-
e g
- .*as..'.
n,. s 1 *f '. M + ^,,. lA*,. y p. : ,b.'"
- ',.**o*
s' w a s g?' .^',:* 's ,t a.* .h. '.,.,,4 4
- s i.
k.s. ".';.-,,.v. P,...,,:.. n. <* #... ~... ',..... w-3 ~. . 4 .*,.,/ 4 *5,..a'7+..t' t - . y, ' "g "s yVe .,9 o+# 5. L.e, s . 2,2 ,s., s yw '...,) g. '*
- n.,,
,s e g: pg- . m u ' /.,;,.,,,.s Q,, i '.;, p.,,,, s. .s V.' ,T' b,J. ^.' : Mp *w^,*..m; =< , o a - <al ) W. cT i n .v -1 ,v,.. e%.,:,c.M..m. m.,,,. a:e., ; u ./ .p w.....
- sn
. l
- 'j'.Q, m.,,%.jzy ? !
- .o n.if. 4+:n
,,.[*.- ,. n. f.I.', 7.4,, A 'D.,, "f f * $s,.,,I %. i ' l'.q .. Y. ,'.,. le %.q ',d * (.a ', f s f,. ' *j
- h. '";,sl},
p ' sem& Sk '. Tit. W )'-; > t. a e n w%y..M -* s'y. ~. ;, 9 m.,j:",, + t.f I , *sh ~ ,.; e '.;,. *, l - s [.w.nw; f w ; ; o: lm..v.x.':u i 9..
- ,.m.
589
- h p.T.sf,w J,'p;.W* % v., ;pM
....r. .~ & e e. ?; a. m ,.,y eW a' ,k.,. 1. C ,h! pg".L cs n,,. a 3:..ed. t.3t,'.J,, ,iyi M. u. 3(.., f, '. ,*,,s.W., s. 3,- 4 .<,.r m ~.,..v1.%. ,.., *,, ;a,,.u e .a., 6 ,.E..,.., ..g t., M *.,,.)' (* g' U.: /. n/..*c'. [W,). ' *., s I.. ~,. :..c. > 4, <,v - *'..I
- , - ' p g/<?y;,j-j m-
.-.s.,,; ' j.m
- p.,,...
. -Q, g.) g..,. g -M a m. h...,, .. f,
- p., 4
- ,..., '.- a'..., ;. 4. ( j;... p,..g.
r -,. .. f.,
- s.. r.,. 4....,
- 7mg., .r....t.,. ..<s. -,,t y - r. u ; t . eg .sy q* ,. 9 ,.s,
- .9 g s
ec )?,
- l. r -M. * >l f^,a
'Q.,;.[.. [,. l[. ') % d ~s.
- - Y, f, Y ',',,.. 1 ;;n....
l.ll'f,'yf'},Q js... V [ e n.:.:...; W n.,.c. y.. ? :::+.g.g g. .a ;;p y 7..,.,r. .*.m v y.. g s. ~.. ~ m '.,' s<..
- ~ ~ :,.m,;,u,#*..
.g.. +, Q.. m. p.v :m~, ;.y;g <u;
- 7. r.(.;, - * ;e,s,y y#,%,. m. ap..%.><..a,....a i
.. y,,; [. . g. y...y g.,,,.,.-e c
- ,,r..n...a.,,.<..
' l'1.* ' g*g *4 *, #. e,6._ p i..a,.,9 h ',p; * * [t.. - *i..*:*'... s ...s... e - s g s.,.c,, c . s,. e, " w*.** '.im . w. 6, ..-$.*-a* st #w-~% b '.. g '.' y gv, L *. s. _#. p * '(' '
- p. *' d 3 '.o 3
I 4...f.\\ ' .5 A..'. j,s4
- a.'l,m
'.'4', \\'4,, a g-e* t 1 . _. = '
- g. g.
,3 f
- ,j 1 Jim s u-
f "k. t
- i
~ 4 - g J I j l' I Directors' DGCISIOnS . <Y d ..-9 Uncer ~ 5. t f A 10 CFR 2.206 M.,,.. 1 I 1 u.
- r. ;,
's .s 9 d g s A..' e .), v n 4a d 0 .g s 9 b m'#Q e V, k i M, l G 1 %. 'i s s.M '\\* l G y a 4
- g
- . +
Nt \\ s: 1 m * %4 y -'k A 9 i g I ,'m#',, k b%. .e, j spk' jy'$,. 8 b' P . '. ~, '.. *, g 4# e .'s at. - ,. '-.~, - '- ' ' t ;w*8 .- c. /.', %,.,'u, ~ -. }' -' ei "s ,,en [,.l f , ji r,, i i'-. .= g e, a =..'s.,* e e-'d",' ")r, 1 s*,, I 8* 9 . J -E a 4 .e,,6 .{', .,.,s 3. e --s' g "',. i ,. 's s,* "*I 2 .g $,' 4 ,i 9, . r. .s I. 44. t ,g* 9 =e ,1 4,. r =,, ' 4 e. A 9 .y/ e 9 +. s g t,= W g,3*'. -.f g d 8 A
== s
- r,._
ar 9 e.. -, - / +e ' em =/,.* ' e
- th -
p
- .4
..c'.n,. s., s I g i ? s.- s. y ;,3., ,s, e.e. g, 9 l _ O , ^ '. " 4 g s. i 'i p*,- a,...'a, -~,..q ,,ys..,r. , 9 *.' .t '.
- I * :.
E. {. ..?- A,. I >, 5,' t g' s', . ]'e s 9 < i. *,,.i::>, ', .8 - i, -
- s.,
.,'/ g* I -C8'a=-a* ,9 L [,ch. gr 4
- g v
,.,g T *: , ;i.. * -- ,e -.s s... y' t,.. v. -.s, e ,c>, +, $,.,; - f.. * ;,,* 5 a.
- i.. *.,
_g E (.- j .e* .,s/e e o o
- . %s '.*.z.e..
\\ . s , j '4,...'s,..s.. s -3... 3
- 4"+,-.
= f, ' 4 ee'#., e y s rr,.
- a., ' '.' a.
6 8
e o g.-
.".}'.
4
/
y). : },, i;r c.'
' % i
,3,--
. t'3 a-
'e s
,s 7 '; ,',' ; **.
s,, s
- =r 1
a 4 ,I,g ag, g.
- - e.-
',*s, ,e a* 4
- e., s
=.** ,4,* . be'. ,I - e..e 3 -q. s 6 p g F g r g. s 4 N "-.J.5-
- . s.i *
.g*, '..*[ 's 4 g - ' ~ ' J, ,1 p' ,,
- w
. 'f, op s 'S ,,,. i, -31.,4
- e s
= ,s t' 1. 7,. \\ i - i i .e, s . s ,+ ,e i ..s .s s.
- 3.,..
s 'r v.S , J f l %..,. , 'g 's %' 7 [ t,"g'(; e ;. ovi< eM'* 'E *,, a-g ."I' ,,I e f ],.,'* a T [~,,' ' Y, i ;,
- k,.,
,d - - - *. P #.,
- f.'. *
'?.'.* ".b,'.6,- s* , c,.d ..,.. j . f.., s ,. g.,-* p y *e ,,9 +-.,6a.h ew-e e e -- 5-m e, ( s .m
- c. (
.-be,*- ,, e. s e d 6+ _.e-,_4 v'_,>a----%A---A e-4.=..hE s .,) e-'w-.e b.-tw -we--. I A,*- e w s-
L.h s
i 3 n. s... s. 2 j s ~,, i ~ e =$ r I v
- . {.
-M 4 s r s' ~ s Cite as 27 NRC 591 (1988) DD 88-6 e - E - ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v '.. N. 1 -i ' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATICN ~ r* e Thomas E. Murley, Director l-:' )- ,s t.; (> In the Matter of Doeitet No. 50-482 i:. s .a - ,. v. .4,, p. N. a -.e y,.. ' KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, N, Unit 1) May 26,1988 i. f,,, s. , o.. . +, .....,'.: ~ - - The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denier a petition
- p..,
, '.,, $ lJ. filed by Ms. Stevi Stephens and Mr. Robert V. Eye, on behalf of 'he Nuclear i, i... 9 ' N.f T '., i l Awareness Network, concerning members of the public trespassing on the Wolf Q. ', y N@. f,.,,%, M,.5...,' "y. j. '/;-J
- rf.f l,.,
b, Creek Generating Station (Wolf Creek) restric;cd areas to fish in the Wolf Creek I i...t. '. O. J' : * %i e cooling lake. ~.. 4:e. M.<r.,. L.*l. W N.'.[:.r [s., y:g,s y ,.l .n .. s .w. g,~. e s.c ..s. w ..2 r....,:* n. ; .&s: y>) . - e. m c ~: RADIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF TRESPASSING AT A NUCLEAR SITE .u,1 .? 0 '. '?. T7a a.F:.'.- O ' 4 ;~.l;;@pk.:./.c .y b.: =, 4., In response to a petitioner's claim that trespassing onto a nuclear site raises [. serious public health questions, the Director of NRR finds that no such health .S ;,f ;Ql7 ' hazard existed since the trespassing had occurred at portions of the owner-d ' L,. '... controlled area of the site outside the restricted area and the radiological releases
- f. y.j,A,y,
? ;;. e4 W. ,Y,. of the reactor had not exceeded the limits specified in 10 C.F.R. I20.105. s F, y... ;m e.. r.....; 1.5.', ', ? e.. . ; ~.,y s
- ; ': Mg..n.
y. ~ =?- u,u. ..x. t.. RADIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF EATING FISil FROM A NUCLEAR !,J Y., M.t. M,g.1 F. . ' V '. O, J u1d. REACTOR'S COOLING LAKE iW y 3 o T'.",, m ' - M-7 e 1 4 f (.;
- 4..; *g,.,'
b;l f~,'.,*.. ' ' df0!d r :'.(.. 1***.' we In response to a petitioner's allegation that eating fish caught in a nuclear f.i ~ i reacter's cooling take may be a health hazard, the Director of NRR finds that no hazard existed based on the plant's technical specifications limiting radioactive . W.' '\\'d,[?"..~.,i ?,/,'1 " ~- L 's. '. % releases into the lake and the acceptably low level of radioactivity in the fish S'. p,'",' . a-h,D...? ... > b j.h O m..i'.: W., sampled at the lake. ,F . g.A
- ~
- \\...;
- 3
- % ~ a')
ks ,r . ; . : '.n n. c1
- t..,,,
y : @ y; ' . f. q. c ~ ;g t
- +-
,. r 591 W... ,s (. ,3..z.-., I c,,..,., 6**. *.. s
- 1
- 74, . < >:2, '. ",. 3.. '.... r.., ,5 ?.< .i 's a e s.., ,r pe.,,d [-!., ' ,.,. d -[ b 6 4 r.: e[. [ * $w,;;w, ;,' 1, n., m v, " ',, 'TI " D, %
- t 6
,1, s , w. c s i-,O g 8 -.*1'{
- (*
"~Th '4* g .f,, .;f,4-k
- g
,., = 4- '\\ Y ', Y. J. 4,; rt
- 4. n..
'B 4 r'.r.,,,i-h *. ' ? ' ',.,,",',,,,"i^* Y, i ,' ?>',== ~*
- n
- t.
Ih r W., 'i. g ll', pi,,,4Y.f.* 4, s.f -t_,s m:'. J. R ' l $ = ', v,s i 3,.. g e,. . v- ,7. y s g,., .g, = Mk. tl M, s' h;',,* g..,l y ,. e~ ..j ' \\,,,,. n. ';. h 7
- *?
sY;. 'O 's ' e'.Y.0,', ' 3' b' - - y - .1- 'N ...'4. 4 h ;- [,j,y,. .i. s5 , f '.., ' v,., . I. 30' 2 - ' .y. ., '. ~[.*cg 1 " 'S '.- - ~
"Y .Y W IWM %-fi M DT ".W ' LWTFJ 49 ::?* P'?.C, f @bW.WS%@Q'E Q,;y:fJryMl.Q.g.p.W[W.:....W,:.;c:.u':.;5W -);J,1^ ,'W. %@m: 7 . w. e.. l'4'}$.W. c R @SY.,%...D. '.'.
- b m c V
- ~v
.W a s' - ?- L, W.s,.:a.u.yE%s,'f, Q f.[. N $. l, M..?' } Q O L? Wf)r:.6 I Q .VE e.':l. 'l - > m.: .m v :h:,2 L ~ n-L. s
- m;,.
. 1 '.. ~',: a q..... - 9 % ~ y E: :L ~ . :o';~w v . ;.', 7;w: 4 . v. y ;,. (. w e *:; -, c ~:.. - : p.,. c,.w.. c...-,,.. w mm a"e: :w.a.,A, n e. ~.,. g(a,, - s.w
- 7. n.,
,.c .n .e. v. .q.;
- 7;,
- . y v,..;w. -
a.,.. .w w. ~.. _., z.
- .y g,n. ;..
,u.\\,..y;;;. -.. :,...h p .n..:. ; _ ,, ~,......m. ..1.. ...o .,.4. r. v. p v.,'u. .,s-P,.p..a. @.m.. r... s w.M, r,-r. q..., t - ..U....f. t r 6 A',.. G-. n w.... ..t..i.... k. ? i d !.@.<.%.p..y.;.g. $..,+. lQMQMj$
- q w :. M.,y,L 'q
.,,M pl 3 BREACIIES IN A PLANT'S PilYSICAL SECURITY g. 4 - m A.y.N a g W.M ?t @ @i %,{.,,Q, In response to a petitioner's allegation that trespassing incidents at a nuc! car le ~r ...,g.. .a./.M.. 9. M site may be indicative of a serious security breakdown, in violation of 10 s rf,Q. 3.?i;yV.@.,~ '_pc%,.%)q,T"^w}%..F,.-:z yy.9..D,d s. ..JL%,,..q. m. e <f. G..,~.y}D f.6. mp,'Q c Zi l? cg. C.F.R. Part 73, the Director of NRR finds that the only locations'at a reactor site g Mi where licensecs are required to exclude unauthorized individuals are protected ..~. h }i Q 3 J areas, materhl access area, and vital areas. No trespassing in these areas had pg '.N..c;h,*.l.g:.f g: s,:,-.r. < m. g.
- . p u,.Q.:,y...c &.v!w:,W, Q. ! cf
. ~, ..:N occurred at this nuclear site. y ... A.,...; c.p g.e. z.,, y y ;. n. 1 a
- r.,4. j.
m ;g;; y. g , J ' ':< v... 'y'?, ;u. .s ~, " ;.yf, ' 7;f,. a ;, , ?' j. .~.' EXCLUSION AND RESTRICTED AREAS
- .s c
'.}.,..,J.. y[;-y;..L 'l The presence of individuals in exclusion or restricted areas would not J y/ b&fg ';,' normally violate the Commission's regulations except if such individuals were in s .f - "J those portions of those areas containing the protected area, the material access <6 s .a T'. ~ l area, and the vital area. There is no violatioa of 10 C.F.R. 6 20.3(14) or 10 F . / M..- ' -.c C.F.R. I 100.3(a)ifindividuals are in other portions of the exclusion or restricted
- 4 -
area so long as the licensee has full authority for removing these individuals if 1 ,r j an emergency occurs. 3 v. 4 l" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (; l There was no violation of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 when only a very small number of trespassers (six in 5 years) had entered V o the owner controlled area of a nuclear site which was posted as private property and which had no recreational or public use within its boundaries. However, because unauthorized persons may, albeit infrequently, trespass into this area, the Staff requested that the Licensees provide assurance that in the future such unauthorized persons are warned or advised of protective actions in accordance H with NUREG-0654 iIIJ,"Protective Response." .E -4 .e. , g. n 7 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 e 'g -eL I. INTRODUCTION By petition dated November 12, 1987, and submitted to the Commission
- ~
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, Ms. Stevi Stephens and Mr, Robert V. Eye, i' on behalf of the Nuc! car Awareness Network (NAN), allege that members of the public are trespassing on the Wolf Creek Generating Station (Wolf Creek) restricted areas to fish in the Wolf Creek cooling lake. NAN claims that these trespassers may be exposed to undue radiation during ncrmal operation of the 592 t 4 I. , " ' ',T"g s n A O 9 4 'l g, 'a 4 t , M .c I y ..m.. t ,t
e c,- m . -~.... J- -- a ,e .,. c v; .. } - .c- ~~ facility end that Wolf Creek emergency plans may not be adequate to ensure that trespassers are notified and evacuated during a radiological emergency. It further claims that this trespassing represents a security breakdown that could be exploited by terrorists and, when included with several other past security problems that have occurred at the site, is symptomatic of an overall security breakdown at Wolf Creek. NAN requests that the NRC investigate whether this trespassing violates any NRC regulations or conditions of its license, and, if so, that appropriate
- t..
enforcement and corrective actions be taken. It specifically suggests that there .f ' may be violations of 10 C.F.R.120.3(14),10 C.F.R. ! 50.47,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,10 C.F.R. Part 73,10 C.F.R. I 100.3(a), and Wolf Creek Technical ['.-' Specifications 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 and Figure 5.1 1. p By letter dated December 16, 1987, I acknowledged receipt of this petition , Sc,, ' '. and informed NAN that appropriate action would be taken within a reasonable G . m 7 .c time. A discussion of the issues involved and my decision in these matters f,.;, ^.. follows. c s II. DISCUSSION (. 3 .;c. He results of the NRC Staff's investigation of each of NAN's requests and . c.,. '.i the determination of compliance with the applicable regulations is provided 1ll9 . s. ",.j. 3 below. f. ' l !.m .h l S.
- '_ y. t I,..m. < j.6 ^; i.f. A
+ A. Trespassing on the Wolf Creek Site t~.S.. .,'.G. " :'.,a f..,. ' .e De Wolf Creek site consists of 9818 acres of owner-controlled property, '.;n,., c.- -.o . t, which contains the 5090-acre cooling lake. De plant's owners include Kansas S.' '.~%@'.M W '. ydm! g, ~ '. f. . f 1.f Gas and Electric Company, Kansas City Power and Light Company, and Kansas g[,'.' E,(, '$T E.. Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Licensees), ne plant is located on a point of 6 ' < ',i..' (' ' - ( i.* 'e T.lf ;'t f (, land that extends into the cooling lake and is surrounded by the lake on three sides. In accordance with 10 C.F.R.120.3(a)(14), the Licensecs have designated ,cy ll,I.: ?, J, l i ,- p a 1200-meter. radius circle around the containment as the restricted area for the 'n y
- My 3 purpose of protecting individuals from radiation and radioactive materials. De N(.f W [Y f
.f restricted area is located entirely within the owner controlled area and contains
- Q' t 'J, N.
1118 acres. Approximately 50% of the restricted area consists of a portion of Z.d?,fg ' '*' @ ',,, the cooling lake. The only access to the restricted area is via the plant access if;~;'@_T 4 road. W %..,sb 7.,' i ~, - NAN contends that individuals are penetrating the Wolf Creek site boundary ..; W,Ja,.W . 'i ' and are routinely eating fish that are caught in the cooling lake. Wolf Creek .' N.' S 'e:,', & 1 [.,c.I,. security personnel periodically inspect the lake area after werk hours. De m,. , J. W. '.1. m,' C-Licensees report that there have been six known incidents of trespassing on j;.g:%'y:..;;'//c$(l,.{. . ~m n::[w: m. ' S.. i,.).V, ~
- u _.. *c.
...r. ' ~. . H. ..;,?., L m 593 ..'.;: *l . W. ...v r ... ~,,, s ?,* .l ~,, I y y.;. :: q
- p. ;,, : - _
...s- =,,., " 't..,.
- ,...'ls'
.1 .id. 7 .Q1 ,s e 1 + y .gi.,
- '(,,
%,, z.,,':P - 4 , ' G. 2. i..
- s..,,
- - a y, i.y.- ~. ~, ',r n.a ' a~ * -' ' p '.J,T?p:*.*@.be ' '
- *' % ' \\ [.I I5, ,3,' k ' '
.~ ..' '.,q
- ',*T',
... s. ~. " '. n',l.N,flM 'h,, e.,.., ' ;q ; +, v .<.v, v. ~ *':*.. --l*,- .-;.:.f., ; b.* ' . 9. x; y.'., y ;,. :.,;, c. ' _~. s. p, -; s - 'l. M .r e; 6 ~ . :.1 8. ;- ,., ;j., 'y.,, c,;;y... j., < a.; . 3.,.;3: 4 .h' f' .,p g, n ~e y, f l{ff. ll:. ). '.W.bl0 y. '\\C /...'n:7,l%.W,,D,, ? . h. k ? i. ~~., ~ \\ s,
- ,yn n,,e ~.3, '.~'.$. ;
- s,.cs. !: ;P * ;.s /;i F ' t 9M..r.t'w,,. M'M s // mf:.'c,. G % x,? N *' f-,
- . N '.i,'; p * +. v
..n : m-r. e ,s E A - y l ' W. .A.$ESNW "*S:Yl'l& ;. NS*Y W?O ' W' .O 'D. ' M *L " D
[9.W:pt.W,ru y gM.L).'.?s x.we.: w' WN?.!. ?.h%;v::9l.5p Y 5l W / M@:mp<: . 7:qm;GQd.D9W;Q W" RWpW:% d$e,@'A. ERR.d . N~ e. R,;.sx ;'P'l MQ JF r p, ir. Mw %;;f.n.4wYQ.f'g;n,).%.K. :.Y & Ws.c. Q:M.Gh;W. lQ .%.}G.p.Qe$j Q'" ': Q*.i: . ~ i n is.W sV:flj.'ly TYf .;f N f.f.9.:p%q;-Q+:p L, 9 q-g;w.c - W:n.f-G:' g.
- r. /..:,.z,. R.9:M w,.
a 1.:n. ~j Q.~. x,..M.: y::; fl: y;;.' Q;O. ..s. m ;.- & Q N %' f: Q L4 '. m, m %,::a :,a e
- . ;; an c, M
.4 .g-4 .3 . M3.,m. 9.h x t p., r5 n; w :: W.... ~-..;a n..y.v o + n < ~ ..s .....<..,.m'.,. .., q,.,. > a o \\ . a;. ev ,. M,3 i., /... .>.s w w,.o ( f..'., - {,y:L'fg 7.] ' .:. m..n,. +
- y s,-d.j
,;r,3',i.';p.,2n C,:s..,', *, ;A.,; i,.g ? ;r, ; j,. .a. c y ]s: 7,., J ./ 6.',- f, g .. m. ... :: 2.f w. gr.vu y e,r.... _,.9 ~1 a u -.- +,.. ;em w. .m..pu..- .g. :tm..; v ..s u : a -- ~ s,. %;.f,. ; m'r..: 7.a.g.n.) .g; - w... q :. m,a .;u;..?g%...w&y. ~m:,, p. ..a .% ::7.,'e:;3 m .a w M ' d,g,.,..: m.; &..Er*h 'h d,3N c ')
- n-l.
.P...-
- .n.
a..... $ h MS $ $ O M.h M 'f-.hll$.r .g the Wolf Creek site over a period of approximately 5 years. Three of these M incidents involved fishermen, two involved hunters, and one involved persons in I M?fy an automobile that became stuck after straying off the paved road surface. None M;Mhs,$,k$dh"!xg.28;*{, G.4ghdc.M of these trespassers were inside the restricted area of the Wolf Creek site. N1; [{d;; d P W Nm$' h N;!fh$$M N':h$k$$ Licensecs' statement is consistent with the experience of NRC personnel. g } h c: Although trespassing on site property is not an event that requires a report to N'v.,;.M;'ef.WYff,fM; [N.@; p.j X.. [. N 0-/. M. hO2hl.N['. .I the NRC unless there is a threat to safety, the NRC resident inspector assigned ' '*C. '] to the site states that he is aware of only two or three occasions of trespassing during the 3 years that he has been assigned to the site. 5 NME f.;; f.E:. ; ( W.$.'.}' H On the basis of the small number of trespassing events det;;cted by Wolf DM.,U, J. [ L. Creek security perrannel, it does not appear that trespassing on the Wolf Creek 'N4.y] -a cooling lake is a frequent occurrence. . '
- j d.. c..; t q ;
3.HW -h., a y ;i, +:.. . e. .% p. ' : A s- -4,
- c
.. G., ;., -O B. Radiologk;al Effect of Trespassing on the Wolf Creek Site a.u .m e r,.I. NAN further claims that failu're to exclude pwple from restricted at:as ', V;+:; J. ' ' ' Z. []9 ./
- ^
where radiation can occur raises serious public health questions. However the Technical Specifications for the Wolf Creek Generating Station include limiting 1.62 7 ~ s. fMg 6.( L.9] conditions for operation to control t x release of liquid and gaseous radioactive ~ j ". ". effluents. Experience with the dengn, construction, and operation of nuclear ' T '_ :7. ' f ; power reactors indicates that complance with these conditions will keep average Q' q annual releases of radioactive materiols in effluents at small percentages of the 4 mi limits specified in 10 C.F.R. 5 20.106. 'Ihe limiting conditions for operation. which are part of the Wolf Creek d operating license, limit the annual dose from liquid and gaseous effluents from the facility tnat membert of the public can receive in unrestricted areas to less x a 1 than the following: .s 1 Fe liquid effluents 3 millirem to the whole body f,.ia '.f c 10 millirem to any organ For gaseous effluents as noble gases 10 millirads for gamma radiation c. ~ 20 millitads for beta radiation 7 For gaseous effluents as iodine-131 15 millirem to any org.a i -s i ~ and 133, tritium, and all I radionuclides in particulate form ,7 with half lives greater than 8 days 4 ,c y ~' These dose limits, which are a small fraction of the maximum permissible l dose of 500 millirem per year for members of the public in unrestricted areas, specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 20, are ecoservatively established using the measured quantities of radioactive efiluents actuaily released. The calculations assume that Ik 3 Y e ~ 594 e "P 3 4 a .i( + e e ,g .,,,..._,p. 9 g ,A .a8 I. 'x^ a A.. ;,.~ 4, s7:- 2 , ~. .;,L
- 5..f.
- ..?.
s j a }} _ T ,,,.,'y. a ,pg* + ~ ;= p.q.*.[.x w wN,.s i,. P.. .i. s ," re ,m s <> w 3 a m
s a r -.c m. .a j y 5 t g the person exposed is located at the 1200-meter restricted area boundary for the ~ entire year and drinks water and eats fish from the cooling lake. Because of the conservative nature of these limiting conditions for operation, the NRC Staff concludes that there would be no health han.rd to trespassers entering any portions of the Wolf Creek owner-controlled area outside the restricted area dt' ring normal plant operation, ne Staff is not aware of any n ~ instances where trespassers have been present inside the restricted area or have t been present on other portions of the site frequendy or for extended periods. C. Radiological Effect of Eating Fish from the Wolf Creek E<. r ,.c 7 Cooling Pond i-9 NAN suggests that exposure to radiation caused by eating fish from the Wolf Creek cooling lake could potentially be seriously damaging to the public i'<< .g health. Dere is no valid basis ("r this claim. The Wolf Creek Technical h e Specifications limit the amount of radioactive materials that can be deposited into the lake. ney also require that the Licensees carry out a sampling program that j- . f s < determines the amount of radioactive material present in various environmental samples collected in the vicinity of the plant. Among the samples collected and analyzed are fish from the cooling lake. l ( The results of the most recently submitted testing reveal that only naturally p, cccurring potassium-40 (K-40) activity in all Ssh samples taken from the Wolf .m Creek cooling lake. No other radionuclides were detected in the samples. Similar { naturally occurring K-40 activity has recently been observed in the control hw s samples taken from the nearby John Redmt'.x! Reservoir and is believed to be 1,i ~ present in all biological samples taken worldwide, f
- m 7
On the basis of the Technical Specifications that limit the release of liquid D,y(' " r cffluents into the Wolf Creek cooling lake and the acceptably low level of V E,~ radioactivity in the fish sampled at this lake, the NRC Staff concludes tbt h 1.[ i,. s eating fish caught from there will not result in a hazard to the public hea.hn. f.,. p[ ** ' ' y -*,y, , c' D. Compliance with 10 C.P.R. Part 73 F.a i., NAN also suggest that the trespassing incidents at Wolf Creek may be in h-violation of Part 73 of the NRC's regulations and C.at they are indicative of a }- o serious security breakdown at the facility which Ntentially could be exploited f,n-by terrorists. In support of this claim, NAN roers to an NRC report entitled .;g , s e (.;.. t ' Trends and Patterns Analysis of the Operaticual Experience of Newly Licensed i J < 5 '....*. C United States Nuclear Power Reactors," At> gust 1986, AEOD/P604, which states Q,' E., ., )g that Wolf Creek had experienced a higner-than-average number of sect'rity [ '. o '
- c..
.,j',,, g [ !; f* { ' f y w 9 q ] .c (1 - e,- 8 y
- .. ~
s 595 t-o' 'y.- g. p. r 2g-
- g
.v. e.q : s y- " ' 7.".+ %' W Y.?
- C- * * ; ' '
.; g'.;m ;-r .v.t'.T* U*e' ~M '[.'s ' J..,. j, ',, / ', '* Y f., ' ] ,6+ q ~ , A ffA!* ., G ' d,'. >?. ..': W. T'. ;..'.f., .,[.,..' .j- ' g,:3 ; l, r ~, .tc
- . ~
, c. ,, y
- J.
i' ? ;' . e +, 4
- f',l
+ C ".o .^...g ",7 a,4. eZ ~,' m 6, , a f,. p .V 1. -l. w 1 Si *.Nh ,.' $"- ~h..Y,[w , n' - 3 ' ' k.k} = .:.+, x : :
- w. enw
.-. ~
[ $lY $.m$ d M.,g.. N.e g W g;%.b'. m.., M *@"' M;... $$.D . i e ??N@$M, Q3;;' J
- W v., A.v.y
- cin
'f, 1.f '.. g -.o < y. ) c-1 P, "; y 27
- -+
e-tr s = ..: q =::. " :,: q,;1.'e.*; <,. s y,b.a%.lp{b..d-; 6 * ..;..a.. , t;4 y,ec.. ?. ~l - 'F V,..)y, ;-l,y _o.s :.. ~ b." &..;.,.. '. Q,..
- ,[Q', m % x.e6 k g f.y.s,
..y:..v .z \\ u ' f.*;.%*hf,-;;T;,;. p :; e y'.~ -. .,.9 ;,+ g,f ;, j.i 7:w.,.: m., ..s. -.., r.. g e 4 ea v Q .l M..? '. ,.,,.a.. 4, u. y]
- l& )'.l:,h.,"$ ' l,*v; :,. % ;;.T.h:,].,,1 h 2,,g c.; a j
(:,_.b';f,'.,$,&;:... $".0 Y , s. s
- 2 ? s.
u.m.w. ' a) }. ';{@ f7 E' i e - i. u : "$ C * ',.TY[ [ i di,k ,1[ N ["
- ; M tW ".*>,,ca.(, :~ %.
1s/ g. .,. ; 7. ;; Nlu a s? r ..r., {.: 'y ,..... v.y/,,Q D ..J p ; , eq. u y ..M.. t t ). Y ~ I ') Nr.eD t o Uh.O ? .?.On ?y' [& Q?h,.4 './ $,l7; A)U2 A :*> :.h' A W f/a ,$.I'.$], J
- M@3.W.,@,, %r tW,-r r..?...:.c.} %. s y s..,W w.-
- yy..,b:,,
v g ...t ..... f.f Si, gl.% M. S violations. NAN also refers to NRC Information Notice 87 27 which discusses . I M. M M,.g, potential attacks by terrorists. M @M e. M b $ $ '.' vJJ a @D N M C. W %. M d.Tl n [ M -1.; '[ fi Contrary to these concerns, the physical plant securit/ at Wolf Creek is .%M.aN-M; M' satisfactory. Facility Operating License NPF-42 for Wolf Creek requires that '~ w.rV M.!; -' W*.; the Licensees fully implement and maintain the Wolf Creek Physical Security H . ' M' Plan and the Security Training and Qualification Plan.1 De NRC Staff has $edgd.ja,,;m.y'J..'..~v' c: M . J5.t. ',' p ' 3g... D Y4 > ' "' '5 reviewed these plans and has concluded that the protection provided against s u%y,N Q Q , ,>'s.T f radiological sabotage meets the requirements of Part 73. In addition, as part of j,g; ' 2 Staff's function to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of physical security f(f- ? ' ; ',' ' ', w' ' plans, Staff has evaluated Wolf Creek security program three times since 1984 in 4-2 its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). For each of these ^ ,7 i: . " ',. ' j..Q assessments, Licensees' security program was rated as Category 2, signifying ..c 4 .f M... / that NRC attention for this program only needs to be maintained at normal 7 n, r,., M levels.2 ~ ,s /s ", y The violations that NAN refers to in the referenced August 1986 NRC report 3 -V ~ ? k./.. ~ y'.%y'1 are not cf present concern at the facility. The report refers to four violations l,Y' ,d that occurred almost 3 years ago during the 6-month period from September 1985 through January 1986, following the issuance of the Wolf Creek operating - - 4 > l,1 Q 'O, ^, license. Three of these violations were rated Severity Level llP (on a scale w...., '.,_ f.. y,,,y '~.'.,,yg:j of I to V where I is the most significant) and one was rated Severity Level s u f f .y ;
- 11. The Severity Level 11 violation was considered to be a breakdown in physical 4
J'.,; i N security and resulted in the imposition of a S40,000 civil penalty. The Licensees (,'E? were required to inform the Staff of the actions that they had taken to correct N ?~ ,l :, these violations and prevent their recurrence. The Staff reviewed these corrective actions and found that they were responsive to the concerns raised in the notices of violatka. Because these violations occurred several years ago and have been fully corrected, we conclude that they do not lend support to NAN regarding its trespassing contention. 'Regarding NRC Information Notice 87 27, this notice was a generic com-munication regarding potential threats reported in the media which was sent by s The der.aus of mese plans are protected agamst pablic disclosure under the pronsims of 10 C.F.R. (73.21; I ^ however. a sumrnary of the su T's rmew and accepance of the plans is Fcmded in 51s of samlement No. s ) in NL* REG-Ottl
- safety Eva snuon Repon Re'ated to the Oper:6cn of Wolf Creek Generating stadon. L* nit No.1."
8 When a licenses quahaas for Category 2. the NRC has concluded d.at licenses managemera asennon and s involvernent are evidert and that management is concerned with nuclear safety. For this category. the NRC has also determined that licenses resources are adequate and ressanably effecuve so eat sansfacwy operanonal safety is being achieved. 1 3 The detaus of sese violatcan are praected from public disclosure under se prmmons of to Cf.R. 6 73.21. However, for a general desenpuan c( the seventy test m violanes.see items 8517-01. 8527 01 and 8527 02 of NRC taspecum Reports 15 34 and 8612 for se Wolf Creek facuiry, dated Mards 6.1976, and My 21.1986 respecuvely. For the seventy Level tl no;ation. see iten 8544-01 of NRC Inspecuan Repon 87 s4 rce the Wolf ) s Creek facthey, dated December 29.1987. ('The sevemy Level tl viotaum is also referred to in NL* REG-0090. j "Report to Cong eas e Abnormal Occurrences My-september 1986," Vol. 9, No,3.) l g. I 7' 596 4 i T* .,j . s
- j.. '. O. (.J j
p-c;., a g .- - ",=# g
- h.,.
i6 .b. = y 4 3 - t * ,3 ,g -s .,,,,;,.a i 1.< * - y1 j ec: .7, .u i s' l I I.},'t' as '- -h,[ 7<.', g* E' j s,
3 - ~ ~ 4 4 i s tw . i _'g. -j s g i
- 1 the NRC to all nuclear power plants. De notice was merely a part of Staff's
.s -1 ongoing program of ensuring that licensees are made aware of such issues, and 'O 1 the threats in question cannot be considered as a specific threat to Wolf Creek alone. NAN's theory that the trespassing incidents represent a security breakdown ~ that could be exploited by terrorists is similarly unfounded. Under NRC regu. lations, the only locations at a reactor facility where licensees are required to l' exclude unauthorized individuals are protected areas, material access areas, and vital areas. Such areas are equipped with barrier; and physical security to pre-2 ^, vent access. See 10 C.F.R. 60 73.2,73.20, and 73A5. He Wolf Creek cooling n lake is not part of any of these areas. 0 i s On the basis of Staff's evaluation of NAN's concerns, no violation of Part 73 has been identified and no enforcement or corrective actions are required. r" ~ E. Compliance with 10 C.F.R. $ 20.3(14),10 C.F.R. Part 100, and Technical Specifications 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 ~ e q> NAN contends that penetration of the Wolf Creek site boundary by trespassers fishing in the cooling lake may indicate the inability of the Licensees to control activities within the Wolf Creek exclusion and restricted areas as required by 66 20.3(14) and 100.3(a) of the Commission's Regulations and by $$ 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 of Licensees' Technical Specifications. It also requests that the NRC ,~ investigate whether the integrity of the Wolf Creek exclusion and restricted areas is being maintained. , {, ~ s, To evaluate NAN's concerns, an understanding of the regulations and tech- . n,,.
- ? "
nical specifications in question is necessary. Restricted areas are defined by 10 g C.F.R. 9 20.3(14) as areas that must be controlled by licensees for purposes of protecting individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. A 'J restricted area cannot include any ara.as used as residential quaners, although a q. separate room or roe ns in a residential building may be set apart as a restricted d p' W area. Exclusion arcas are defined by 10 C.F.R. I 100.3(a) as areas where licensees have the authority to determine all activities including exclusion or removal of personnel or propeny. Residence within exclusion areas is not always prohibited, .4 but residents are subject to ready removal in the case of necessity. The exclusion y' area and restricted area for Wolf Creek (both areas are the same for this facility) ")- are set out in ($5.1.1 and 5.1.3 of the Licensees' Technical Specifications as
- ~j ;,
a 1200-meter. radius circle centered around the Unit I containment. The exclu- .t. E ' r ' 3*. h>,,. sion/ restricted area for the facility is only a small portion of the Wolf Creek . ],, M.' owner-controlled site which encompasses 9818 acres. W , f,4..N g l. ' ; ..g.g, c As can be seen by the definitions of these terms, the presence ofindividuals 0 <!!a #. [e fM (whether authorized or not) in an exclusion or restricted area would not normally y, .,, ;. g,f,.f'U. /$, ; violate either $ 20.3(14) or i 100.3(a) since these regulations are not concerned s. "' 4 '.. ' '. - K,4 'B., '- s. 2,. tsc... x [.j $$< ' J' 'n.h5:;[, '., ;. s..' f,.; '; Y ; 597 g9 ; ,,,; r :;,: _ W t _ ' ' ~ ~ s, r gi 'g. .a KWf** '" 1l'*-]
- 9. 1 ff
..*F P." " { 7 p. I I [ t. = e, s l1;Y
- 4l ' 8 '.f *,8, E t'
- y,"
t ft'i'M y,'C,F -'7- [; . 1, ' .g J ', ' .,1 ; ? ,- ;),. i ), i -e 3 . /. M i g n 3. 4 l?, .g. ',V vj ; '*;'9,Q ' r-. ~ ,,. ' J', M w?> _= O,-'. '.; e, ' 9.1.. ; s. J.. -.. v m $.q.s.s'-
- 3., J 91 f
..i- ,.. 3 o. , ;. s....... + 4, 6 Y .; 1, D'. ,3 ,)$. I 4.L'h' PG:6.w %'21WMAN : M. wmP':" : - n ' % &G b 'W
y:,.y:.:. i.:q.'-w::wO ?$g;h@.M:4:s@cq% W ;;7Q~.. '. 9 '.p..f's. b:.h b. .nme w m ;.;. .n. w^- ~. m a; .-..s'- . s, J i /j :, g . *.: n . q'. y 3.y-p w.h; *;y,g,..gG. u. ". g.';;, 50. :v. ... w,., ge.n'l *,, ';., ' % >,4 f.r.v..jv .c
- .......vy-f.
- lw.yjk,;.f l,y +9{t.
M' ;;;..) s.a.;;,k. ..'8 4 .v,- . v. x. a.
- t x,.,.y[.--,n, l,
.?i;; y .i.h y.%:@:". 5. fr. 3.,..a:. q' ':', ".'.. + "...,-. c -- y >. ; ;. y; ;w: ;y;, 2 i. : y ;r .. ~ v;m - ~" "- e-A'". < - -Q..,.-- "e;m:$ y,,.. n... ,..- : a.c e. y, i:.y 2 py 3;t;6 Ew: y, i.. ~ L;.. m :?.. g<.n* i* ;.
- C..{
.$ w. W.* c.',,.
- .s.y,;, 0: M., *#
- m. >,'i n O v. a
' '4 U. 7;' f lg y). .. :g,c:2;~Rflly. :..~ 7 h i!; 3.,;,,. f; .%gif.? r 9;;e.,.:t:O: s,,. s:<.- y#. O v w ~ s g, f&M p6 b t' ' 7<%'...~c' 4... ~ - . e-4 .c e.u..s I.T....... ^ F f..p.. 7., with excluding individuals from these areas during safe operations. As noted 9.- 1.. ic% s '.z; i above, the only locations at a reactor facility where Licensees are required to ,.,V.V(;r 'Jp, '/ ",.l .g. x, 5 '*' exclude unauthorized individuals are protected areas, material access areas, and .1 -v yM. @- ..v..q;f 'i.:cc ' s. vital areas. Although these protected areas are normally located with in the . Q. %.? $..f,8,y . y !;o 1. j '- ... M W., ;. .t exclusion and restricted areas, there is no indication in this case that they were se ". J.'.*"s" penetrated by trespassers. . y * ~ ~,( '... c.. ; 7,,3 nere is no violation of either $ 20.3(14) or i100.3(a) at Wolf Creek since ~."( 7 y: l * ' 'g ? - " " ). the Licensees have owned and controlled all portions of the exclusionhestricted .7 area and have had full authority for removing all individuals from this area if ,s.,,. [, [.) an emergency had occurred. Moreover, in this case no information has been
- c w
...) offered by NAN that persons fishing at the cooling lake have ever trespassed
- ~
.O ' 3., - - . Q./ into the 1200-meter Wolf Creek exclusion / restricted area, V v si On the basis of the above, the Staff concludes that the Licensees are in mc
- p
.1 compliance with 820.3(14) and 5100.3(a) and are operating the facility in .+ Q,. 'l. D:9 accordance with Technical Specifications 5.1.1 and 5.1.3. Accordingly, the NRC 4 N.; , y4.%.. i,. Staff has determined that the Licensees are able to maintain the integrity of the . l..yyMig' exclusion restricted area at Wolf Creek and that no enforcement or corrective 'f 4 - l,7,,, ym
- ).,.O actions are required.
. m. s-, y. w.+; ;.s n,,, -,.. w a 1 3,. ... + s,- Compliance with 10 C.F.R. I50.47 and Appendix E to g w. F. y s ..i. 7 10 C.F.R. Part 50 .o} NAN suggests that trespassers who are fishing at the Wolf Creek cooling lake q.',i-y may be endangered during a radiological emergency at the site and requests that i. the NRC determine whether the Licensecs' emergency plans are adequate to notify and evacuate such individuals if such an exigency occurs, ne NRC Staff har reviewed the Licensecs' emergency plan to determine if adequate provisions exist.to notify and evacuate persons within the Wolf Creek site, including potential trespassers who might be fishing at the cooling lake. The Staff has concluded that the plan is sufficient for persons within the exclusion / restricted area of the site, but it does not include provisions to .s - notify and evacuate people in the remainder of the owner. controlled Wolf Creek site. This remaining portion of t!4 :ite, which is posted as private property, has a no recreational or public use areas within its boundaries. Sections 50.47 and Appendix E to Part 50 set forth the Commission's regulations for emergency preparedness. The NRC Staff uses the guidance ~0 " ^ in NUREG-0654, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power .y Plants," to determine the adequacy of emergency plans at nuclear power plants. Evaluation Criterion J l.d of NUREG-0654 states: "Each licensee shall establish the means and time required to warn or advise onsite individuals and individuals who may be in areas controlled by the operator including... (d) g a 598 i" s ) -f -c,c,. sp~ i s s. g g 8
- e e
'q,-
- s s
g i -,..'I.*
- 1
,,g',* 4 - 3. m .c 3.. 8 sc :c a e+..,... ,i
,s .e-
- u
,a w4 ,. + -w .-c', y
- g
. j,,,..-. n '..g..s,. ..... -....~. + ~ z m, 4.. 92 s. ..'. y. . p.= .,.s f, * - g. . u.
- n..
other persons who may be in the public access areas or passing through the site or within the owner-controlled area." ^ - sa On the b.uis of its review of the Wolf Creek Emergency Plan, and taking into consideration that the owner-controlled area is posted as "private property - no trespassing" and the known incidents of trespassing are few (six in 5 years), the NRC Staff continues to find that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological ^- emergency. However, because unauthorized persons may,' albeit infrequently, 4 trespass onto owner controlled property at the Wolf Creek site, the Staff will request the Licensees to address this issue, and will obtain assurance from r - them that unauthorized persons are warned or advised of protective actions in f accordance with NUREG-0654 II!J, "Protective Response," [ ?,. ~ 3 -( III. CONCLUSION P et f + The NRC Staff has reviewed the issues raised by NAN related to trespassing . 7 at Wolf Creck. On the basis of these reviews, the Staff has determined that ' J-,. ' 6 the Licensees are operating the facility in compliance with 9 20.3(14), 6 50.47, s Appendix E to Part 50, Part 73, and $ 100.3(a), and Technical Specifications j-3;, 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 and that these regulations and license conditions for Wolf Creek
- 1. ;
~2 have not been violated as a result of the alleged trespassing incidents at Wolf (, ' g,.o 4,y. - Creek.
- .('
- n N g.
Accordingly, NAN's requMt for action pursuant to 6 2.206 is denied as L' "1
- W
- ~.' ",
, 3,,,, O 'i" described in this Decision. Because the possibility does exist that unauthorized j~ -E l ?,.J' M, + persons may trespass onto owner controlled property, the Staff will request the
- ?yH g.C., ;"C ~
i cl Licensees to address the issue of unauthorized individuals present within the . ; V-e owner-controlled area of the Wolf Creek site, and will ensure that unauthorized i 46* ,d. individuals are warned or advised of protective actions in accordance with J..
- .E.
- f. /
NUREG-0654 il!J, "Protective Response." E - I : ~, '.. i._( ' t. i., 7., J y w i 4 ' -. - * *(y' -,.. a \\.* g t' e - ;+.. s ( ~* ~ '& s, ~^ ' 6-t w s gpr - n s { ,q ,-. E. ~., f b,
- 'I.
- .f 4
g , 1.,,m f.h .%, ;.;;f.* .A ..T ?.,c i, 8 .i =..g.. 1',f. *. p+q ', a s j
- ]
.v .- s %
- E'y. 9 y '.,
2.(..f*;>fj, '{, - fc .y, 2. . -v m.,.,..m. ,3.,a -s s a. .o. a., m. , 6 " 5 k g. C..,,' ' f #.. ? "'t., *'. Q. ' 6 , g:sv;...:sy;Q. a w< .,a
- y
% :s '.'i.. q' 3, + .c Q' n... i.. ( ~ ;;c p.g.. W o ', L'; .. G.:h g. t, N:. m *.;' yQ.,',;:f 'j. ;-. - yj"% .,y y m .~ e._,;:,.., m. y,. ~*,.3 3 .-.:,,./, . y.- q.,, .w 599 ^) g;' , Q j'f-Q,,{ J Q,, .c s...a. i. ? *'..', ;
- y. &,,,
$,(i?. ' ).....[.' '- l,* c_ r.1.. fmy:,.;i, A,, y - 'a. + c e-.- ~.: s .wy. r ++., g i p hb \\a -,.-s [ M . ' p; " p' y -/..-t,, ,i s e c. -. a s, n.*- -..,,w--*- y. 4 g .u I'9 .1.,M,,, -.a.. b3 .. c, '7' *-3 m* .,..,,p,,_.e. .:.* j,, v. ' y '. g.. L ai l'.,g. - y 3.s ,',f p.' y r -t,**,*, .: 7 ,g'y,# 3 ....'..,i.
- i -
4 c,.n +.,:....c7 c..q,,..,,. b, s.', / 4 . f. ' ' '.-
- 2,
., r., sf.. g. ,j,.c +.rsJ r.., % $' %, , c, : YSc. - ,~. - c'.. s .c ' ? y' w s. ~ ^ ^ . ' i W,;,,3 'p. W .' ?', M r: , 7, g c p.* ;%;..w; y, y',J, t,f, v-Q-j,,. . s - j c;. s.g i -. -,,j { - ; y Jl .~ N,.' g g - 'c - g *. n.,, w... .,* m \\s.o .a.a,,
- I, u)' i e
. '"* - + .)%li: j c t ... f2 ', " g t -(J,g,i. 3 s.. ' '. m.]
- ic
~r. ' 1t Q:<t. 3< , i.' ;' < ; U $ f;,,j, a.W. ',R r.4W C G,c[ .),.)y ' .V, i f -%. k%.(' 'W 5 5 g. b g/s 'i '
- J
'N./ p 'a g ',. ~ .M ' -. 4...;. - d '.. d." f..' f y, f S .y,q_s ;' '. h, M $] II'7 r,' K' W ' 'j y9. 'r ' 'W~ 'h' <4
lCi?..? Yh: ww.un.,,,.. s....m.n$:s.'. a w&.?h'$ hh: h n (;?a(,yr%,~W,' M.4,,%. Q,7,.-n,. ..n.. .. _; w.x,,: w..- v., e.,,,, m. w.c?pw n. x. Q 'i.A.'.~ f.,,1,9l.. m,. m,,.,., d. 9,.. ....m, m.v. MVy.>, w.. %
- m. -
7.'* %. k,.y.V.,.: n., Y.,. G s,r 21 ::l:d!"s.i M %'V'..M'es &,,,,.. ,n,- -.j.?M: ?? R: 'l. %..% i: ,n. a.. ..lv... M, R..-, ~,.'y h..:,n. l .. f ,n.
- n r.:
.....an.,,. A.Q L Y>..,%: -..m ,.q M.a..'h:: ,Q,
- y:'., T V 5, 4..., c..y. ^
- W.
$ @w o .,. 5.Z. >..,M.,.p.W. e cr 4.7,-..w.,w. /.s. ; c,,C '.M c. :.t !..w'?..r./ h ' M w A M d u."..o v u.. m.%'. d.Y:' d M E G F s A %.s,b. u
- c..-
g,., y. I., c*e t< . e, t ** <g i,%* y.. m, 4. ~ 2.. >s a' ~. - y'. ,, %.
- 2 r
=s e t, ,p p., e ,s.. ,.u, p,t. <.,. 4.w ym,,,. r. ;; 7..fp m.... ,.m a e v y..,-., , &.... / E,. *. %. - g*.Qs,.r.p%:x,.,..,./... M N,,s... - X..;- g,. i..*t m 3 , H+q::. p ,. 3 .x..N' Y ' ',s. .:x* t. >;, ).... ,z" r
- h.,
n ". Mt. g.o..,';,'..V. ".. %'.7 i '1 As ! :ovided by 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed 7.', f.(( ' w 4 '.i.j,h,b,,Q@,.W.m.{.h with th; Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review, ',, ~.... - - .3... Q a, g ~ p. @... J. .a. c,.,, [p v:y../.G.'.S.. Q. :f.t. 1 ' t FOR THE NUCLEAR , q.. ?:,., u
- q, q n sp, *,..g '.,
REGULATORY COhth11SSION .<, ; p. -.::.a p.'
- c. : y c.,; r n..
..W O.3. j
- s...r....
~ J','! FI$,fs c,..., . w. . r,,7 % f. .Q:,d Thomas E. hiurley, Director ,,e,,,,$.c s yh : g.M,,.s.jJ e Regulation Office of Nuc! car Reactor s c.. s ". 2.., .. v..~..,. c :.; ,.f.,<.,~.. s. u. . -. ~.,.,..., ' '. ' i....U,.::I..J Q Dated at Rockville, biaryland, v 'l..., . <;......u .'. '. N.D.., $ h, %.,' /1 N.. ,[-f this 26th day of hiay 1988. ... w..,; ;.'g. o., %.,; 3 p n, ~n.
- * *. '.. o,. m;.
, s .., s., s.24,.4 g ,3. 4 ,j Rs;f y [*.&,. -)', j'; l.f.
- s*
.ys e .s- ; +,,, g v..u.
- .'.4,'"
s.*. dg = y. O4 y, 6 g i s e,. 1. g.., A .'. g p,.. e.e a m.- ,9l,. a. e .s,c.'. .e .,,. s ' '.. ;r... c.., *,.. ~., . t '...* 4, < t -. N. ' n :. 4 .. ;\\ .r- .< ; m.,. s-*.... s. a,,. w s .S., e 5 S $ .h i,% gb ,.,t', -",, g v, # ". e.' s. s.,=f,,'O.'.*.*e'*# e ,1 F,* g-, s s a d .lt .Ye e,.*. ,,.[,h .,g 8ag ~. W j s h nJ 3 = '4 T8.p e. s ,~ ;, 's,.3 A 3, ,e = ql '. Q .r'. s ', s v . j. 3. j,* 2. ) p e 4 4 g 1 (_ 4' o R b l y j. ? e g. k N,* -'a ia 3 9
- .t E
W g i e '4,'. e x,,.' s .s,.s' v -4 4 9 j 1 e s 6 } , + i. 5 e % I n-E g S-l t. i 4 b 600 4 w e* ~O 'N J ,k j - l \\ s, a ^? .i ' c 1;-
- t.q,....
- ~z.~~n l
',..:
- 4 q., l. '* :.,
p a. w< .q ..g.
- i, #
4 j +
- r.
7 s p .s. s.- .=,4 s, r,, j i i, 4., ,.: g g=T ,.-v.. .. ~ .J*.* 9, 1 s .srs. r4 2 . =. -, sg*l* 3 , s e, ,f,,. . (. e,, ,N.
- g 41. / z..
3 8,
- ',*2
' -,.'8' 7 ., ' g ;Q* 4 i 6 e s 'e.' t 4 .,,,.'/ j. g =9 e, ' w '. . i t, ( f y ; * ; e ["i,,b I '4 y,,p., f ' +4-
- 7
( g, -'t ' d 3 'i /.. '
- y.'
M#. 9
~. '.s a, W 4 .u Cite as 27 NRC 601 (1988) DD-88 7 . i UNITED STATES C# AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION . q; w .e s.- Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director . o c. ~~ s i;.. .'e+. 3,:g. 8 .a in the Matter of Oceket No,50 293 , i-4. c i2 y g BOSTON EDISON COMPANY - D i.. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) May 27,1988 ',a _c, ~,@ ; f,' j.,R n r: n - ,.s,z. ;. h!assachusetts Governor hilchael S. Dukakis and Attorney General James m. .,^ed s h!. Shannon filed a Petition on behalf of the Commonwealth of biassachusetts l f', . l~ '. ;' 4 ,,..iJ
- f..:. ~ *i.
and its citizens (Petitioners) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ' N y 9.,. y r.l.gf,.('i 4 ~, requesting that the Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke the operating license held
- ,5i: > v., -
. w Q'/ . W." d.,, ' s by Boston Edison Company (BECo, the Licensee) for its Pilgrim Nuclear (. 'd c f,d7,(%.$ @I, $.' (. Power Stadon (Pilgrim). In particular, the Petitioners requested the NRC to y f;'.5,'3 j.. },Y/ K,y 7.';l (1) modify the Pilgrim license to bar restart of the facility until a plant specific b5 i. probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is performed for Pilgrim and all indicated q.g - ',T safety modifications are implemented; (2) modify the Pilgrim license to extend f -l. 7 i f,7. ' E - l,, j Y.h ';.:'f. 'ip ; the current shutdown peading the outcome of a full hearing on the significant ? l'., M 'y outstanding safety issues and the development and certification by the Governor i h, '. s ; ' F / Cl# Q/ 6 [, N, ' 'a of adequate emergency plans; and (3) issue an Order, effective immediatelY, .4 i.., '2 s to modify the Pilgrim license to preclude the Licensee from taking any step, in its power ascension program until a formal adjudicatory hearing is held and K i f @ ' ' l '> ' ',',. - S - findings of fact are made concerning safety questions raised regarding Pilgrim. p,.5 tl{g - - s- ',,.9f.,, j, The relief sought by the Petitioners is based on allegations of (1) evidence of f.'Q:'3?.j.;":.i4',.cc, 9 , ]$ y.. ' ; ',76 continuing serious managerial deficiencies at Pilgrim, (2) evidence that a plant. oa specific PRA as well as the implementation of any safety modifications indicated C
- 1. ' C,, N i.',,.cgy '. y 1 thereby should be required prior to Pilgrim's restart, and (3) evidence that the f#G.i
.,'f.,. W '.a', ^ state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that
- : ~,.
i.. F., <. *.. :r, b. M.,.... e} gi, t,.gM,,g. y.f.c,'y,A adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological n emergency during operations at Pilgrim. ,l. .. O g j & :#.% ~ $:q.Q e, - n V.i. & : 1 ' / t..." ', 4 *6. 5 '? ' :, V,, i '..[l.t. f.i.'s ( ', g -D ' u,-A c%t-p M*f:;a l.7q g . #.i M. w v e.. -4... + z.,. L- ' -.....'s*' % c. g'Pw j u, ! 4 *'.,- N '.5..5,- t m v.. 601 % J;" ..S "J::'*;
- . ;;i. 3.W'd yn f.v' c, ;p..>
- v
" * ' h*. ; :.,., $. c. i. p', ;',, i.
- ^~
y._. s'.. 3 1c. ? r. ,.. y. ' 'C p e i
- 3,.
f,. p- "- 49 'y.- ., q _r+. %',\\ - *.. g l s.'; _,,. ;? .4 f., .,.y-f._
- 4 q*l
- %.t
~ ',A, ? " ; ;.$. C $2 N N, -l' t.[' ' t- ...n. - - g +.c -~- -*c * * .e v. r &* C .:. e,~ ~p.- ' v ;; g . * ~ - .-..,, +, s
- e. -.,
,*...,; y~,.'.. ;\\-.\\l m,c ~.. r.. u .y, , <i;.. '..J.. A -d,, s + '.r*,,., ... -y i * % k .4, e ...,[, 4
- a. I.].i
, P . g '*..-3 g g f g 'q .,;:, *...'M. % : ' ' j g ., p - w..,:n;,* ... - ~. >.s. .,t.,', .a . t g;j.4 *f.c,. ' - 3 4, 4 .. a. - 6 ~.,, t, ',... %. a ', ' - %, n.j D'.*w ;,'4%l ?..^R., gf,' l e k '1 7'4 :,.,,. ' 5 ; .,7. e ,: 9 ... -.'. 3., /, j, j s
- :R,..ry X.. r.
~ .e. e,1% wc .u ' r w' '. 7.2 :q,M v _ g y. y!"-lA. ,e - ag-1. _. *g g s.- .\\ " W .,..g,- . vi v -- C5-J .4,g,.. ..i n :3 a._ e_ s. m
~ lW '. ". it.i l.\\ w.g.:.,- %;_ h,l 'vl.: ('! 'v * " 7 6 %. '='rV'T*?;' L." g r s%"T.T' ~ v&' *.' *(...f. 7.<};6 h'*;fi U 'Q'
- Cf.~, ff
'G s p:n.,.r:M. lfly ~Pj,t-f b. Q'f* *.*.l.4:h Y %WQf' n-[f,f ?x.v:n,y,f 5 \\ m.. $.g,.Y5: t. W.% g & M :.4 x ' yf e ~,&. pp g;..;;:.y)% y... w. wm & - .;. a...._ G;g*;...y,7 4q O,.h8 g. '.]q t ;. ; v;y po;!.;.- .:.r ' - ;.J > f',_
- s
-u,% ..g .,..,g ,.. N&,f,,R.,p, 9.. . j.,;. - y; lnl',f.,,y ' 24 p 4 fy - - t q[, {. y.'. S tl% (1' f " s '. -Q ;; - 2: ? j '.y,. ' t- ., * ;g .c l,Ot : s
- 2.., ~., t.,.
7. 9,, ' 4 m,. m;. ,,.*g,- q's...,.. t. r ._ ;,, ; 4p!' 15A - ~*-=;'* ', y,. Y_,y AI- . ;. ; ; - 3.,. - a.u..' ( ',. A s ?I-- 3, ' p, pl$,. 95" -= i UU 'N' A E'ME'%!Lb
- YI- ' = 5.- EEN!'?W ~s
.N l f :,.. ~ - "l I. a:
- Z e
e,.. l: c,
- M.
- .: m
,,, '; r;. ; ,c.p. .. ; (,s.. Q ?; s e., ;r, l,,,. . * * *. - ; f.a v, ' A.. ,r; t e s 6 J. :. Q ~ *. s.,,.. :.y,:.\\.T. :,.,. ;.- > ,.,,. }*,, ..,.....h,* n, ...:'r t v 3".-.oay e y~,"'y,hg,~ .y. :zg' y' 7 j.a 3 .. p.g 19.., :.g .. p, v,.,.c a in g . g.p. :' TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED: PROBABILISTIC RISK C : h, d.s' o .a A.;. vc. a ASSESSh1ENT .x.y.p;y.. y y v.. 7% n. J.,'.yhk.; Petitioners have not identified any unique or unacceptable severe accident -l,
- s
.'p.jd.M pg @N risk for the Pilgrim plant that would warrant delay of restart until a probabilistic a : r,
- c..ip;.y.
i,,, j.'.' -- w; ; s y/ '.,4f.M.w$,,I ['! risk assessment is conducted. w <m i,, 3, -,..N.,*.~.w ; . d/... - 't'.".* .g My W S, O.S,i INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION g- ..w. c W.R.. ",., t+. 3.: d; UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 ..c' 7, x >wr
- f.,,p 4.y,
.,, % z*. a, ,.d t y - v. y / m.. j INTRODUCTION s
- y 95. t.
n. s
- 9. Z. c. ' ; $ I c.% : Y.d "z" u d On October 15, 1987, hiassachusetts Governor hiichael S. Dukakis and At-
.. 3 4',yy-f ;... torney General James hi. Shannon filed a Petition on behalf of the Common. . Y,' {.{3 'Tn[% j wealth of biassachusetts and its citizens (Petitioners) with the Nuclear Regula. ? J. .>.: UiC :71p tory Commission (NRC) requesting that the Director of the Office of Nuclear '? .] q @ [,-].) Reactor Regulation (NRR) institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke f,Q A. the operating license held by Boston Edison Company (BECo, the Licensee)
- l. N c.. l'ff.}S n yq"7:
4; ",,i f.p.; M for its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim). In particular, the Petitioners 1 requested the NRC to (1) modify the Pilgrim license to bar re; tart of the fa- ,yS,x ,;;.y;,, y r; e lity until a plant specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is performed for 4 .'" h 2 .y Pilgrim and all indicated safety modifications are implemented; (2) modify 'he Sv ': ' Pilgrim license to extend the current shutdown pending the outcome of a full a e ~ ' +P N, hearing on the significant outstanding safety issues and the development and cer. 4 i ~ AY tincal a by the Governor of adequate emergency plans; and (3) issue an Order, ( effective hamediately, to modify the Pilgrim license to preclude the Licensee 'd, 4 from taking any steps in its power ascension program until a formal adjudicatory ./, hearing is held and findings of fact are made concerning safety questions raised f,i regarding Pilgrim. .e .f. 9 'j De relief sought by the Petitioners is based on allegations of (1) evidence of ,1 continuing serious managerial deficiencies at Pilgrim,(2) evidence that a plant- ~3 .j specific PRA as well as the implementation of any safety modifications indicated thereby should be required prior to Pilgrim's restart, and (3) evidence that the y g,. state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that j adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological s- .] emrigency during operations at Pilgrim. 4 J On November 13,1987, receipt of the petition was acknowledged, nc Peti-
- gj tioners were advi,td that their Petition would be treated under the requirements
.r ,, j of 10 C.F.R.12.206 of the Commission's regulations and that appropriate ac-4 tion would be taken within a reasonable. time. De request for an immediately effective order to modify the Pilgrim license to preclude BECo from taking any ~, ' 4 i 602 l s ~j g .'.T h ,a 9 9 i .). P y._ s ,-e + gi b 1 x s. q- , * $ b ' '., ? e -r ~ ,Ty'.. g.4 ^ ( 3 .e s i. .y,I .g, \\ (*
- - [ [. '
? e - g-s
. mi ,\\ ') ~ t
- .s
~l v s 'g .u. e, .^ 1 v. H
- s..
.1 steps in its power ascension program until an adjudicatory hearing is held was denied. Notice of receipt of the Petidon was published in the Federal Register ' ~ (52 Fed. Reg. 44,503 (1987)). ~ S '* - ' 7 On December 17,1987. Governor Dukakis wrote a letter to NRC Chairman I:ch and restated the position of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that an l <[ ./c (,, ; .'l' adjudicatory hearing should be held before any decision is reached on the plant's
- ~
' l c. 3.p.f(" future. On January 6,19S8, NRC Chairman
- lech wrote Governor Dukakis,
. ~ '. i stating that the series of planned meetings described in Chairman Zech's letter T 1.'.,,.cf ;" G y<y y,,' Vy'] - " j,,,'$ 1::y:q J ~ would result in more citizens being heard by the Commission than would have L, been likely if an adjudicatory hearing had be<n held. i C y
- 7f ne Commission intends to hold a public meeting to be briefed by the Staff on
(:
- ., ',y f;G.,t. l ". b, '.
- l.,
the readiness of Pilgrim to resume operations before allowing restart. The filing [ C.;-/g;r,c gy, w'.ef.; S of a 2.206 Petition, however, does not require the NRC to hold adjudicatory . ',' 4, % 7.,: V: ' M 'l hearings with respect to issues raised by the Petition. //linois v. NRC,591 F.2d [' "[.I' %,M,? 'W ..s 12,14 (7th Cir.1979); Porter County Chapter of the haak Walton League of , j, M. y :E,, 4,? y (. M '. c., T, O' f,. L America, Inc. v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979); Eddleman v. NRC, 825 W .f ;. ' # '..,'F/. N O.,1f.'),, s F.2d 46, (4th Cir.1987); Lorion v. NRC,785 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir.1986). See 6,' @ ' N,,lP;,,'".'..^L. 7 .V... % ' =.1 d
- V.
also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,740 U.S. 729 (1985). Petitioners' a c request for an adjud;catory hearing is denied. i : ' f -75.T For the reasons stated below, the Petitioners' request, insofar as it relates to U, q. ,it W :.y
- i O.".. '.,3 the conduct of a PRA, is denied; a final decision with respect to the management h'I lf. M j W
i)fQd%y.Q2},%.'.hl'.3 ' y s. (. t.d emergency preparedness issues is deferred. y;c . 6 -7>;;:; b - N. ?.c y . /z -:
- r. v
>,.c. w. r y. v. :.... p...e,,.,.-o-r -o yt s uc BACKGROUND p'C"hH*rf,;M.1.e. P Mc. O,<" ~%..f. ; / .P A . a -g::n.. '. s t.,,m p..
- i. h.
.h ne NRC Staff found the overall performance at Pilgrim acceptable during
- N7.b'... a.3 'l M / $..y f [ D M, m
@ @W l.'$, Mig h @ [ Qi; the assessment period covered by the 1985 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP Nr M-99).8 Dere was suf0cient concern, houver, about Q $c"., 6 @f G.f.P the facility's performa"ce that Region I conducted a special in-depth Diagnos. l' fa T j i M ' i (... Q N - [ M 3.},# } ( f '. 9. -T 3 ..W.) -['<
- T tic Team inspection from February 18 to March 7,1986 (Inspection Report No. 50 293/S6-06, issued April 2,1986). De team found that performance im-F,M y,
provements were inhibited by (1) incomplete Staffing, particularly operators and p ,V ?,f?M. ' l' 7, <s..,. key mid level supervisory personnel; (2) a prevailing (but incorrect) view in the E' Z$'3. l*Y%';.N ']'!. organization that the improvements made to date had corrected the problems; C 1 (.P J" ? W~ Y.?: ' M.' $lE -$~ F /c.$,. [.~V,m,%..a. ~;u. (3) reluctance on the part of the Licensee's management to acknowledge some ./ .w . ? l f TC.t.,,J...*.
- a e.% % t/-
.t. J ..,.,,. [ M -' 2..,. sA,,., G s - .3 + f 7 ** 9,. I h*N,'?;G, -..L'i 'c,.J .Y.3 Dis Decismn refers to two sAOs. De Arm is idandnad as SAD No ss-99 and n!aus to the Licensee's A. gA ;.M,N, ) 'W,1. # performarre dunna the pened october 1.198Waber sl.198s. De re >crt or cus sAO mas trutiaVy issued j, ' {,k
- Sy : '.
' y ? kt.;..
- p #.,.
- by Regum I on Febn.ary it.198& It un the sabjecs er fursher carespodence dated Wy 23,1986, bemen
.js:jf..N; Q; %-(Q, r'. % t, 4c, Rssian I and BEco. De second sAO is idenL6ed as sAO No. s6 99 and relates to the Licensee's performance , h,, 'jj;,h..,...'c;.-J'{ {fi ?(; %*' dur:ag the renad Nc= ember 1.19ts-January s!,1987. De reperi or this sAO mas inidaDy issued Apra 8, ya 7% C W+, $.';n.gO .TlgT.!',Y. ;. y.- f n '.A 1987. It nu isaved as a f.nal repon ces June 17,1987. 4As ).i AEs %' * ~ . I.'C.7[J Mi W;;-l;.' s p#.v it.< .e ^ ai.NJ t' . a.i ?. R*7 6 %,,)[n i i,f. c a -:g%m*g ,, - %
- j,. a
.p...:.... p,. ;-}. V 603 e.;-; A.' .b? ' 3,., '. y: -- ? g, p ',- j * \\ [ r, , 'l..,, % t..%.g: & L,. t. ' / ; 5,3 %, .?; / ' *..y " .. k' .l. ,,'%. ^^ l c =*, py a sm. e $s J U. s '*, l, t, O',~
- y c,; r l* ',. <.. -.
- .. b,..,.' )0*
, d +. ( .n E4% a, . [ [.,,. * .';- 5
- c c
,3.,sy m a 1 '[" 5 ,, g*,3 y
- y. ;.j, -,,
3- . *4., .,5. J -v +- +... - - r..w. ..c. . s' r f' .,,_f. '
- T
'. -. n.. - * .. <+ . s.,. . ;r ; p. ,b .a - e o. n y .q- .r. .t. . a;, ..~.- , ~. 3,, . g.v:
- r
,... jc.m,,.w. _ r-.' q. ph,,, }',.((,'s).g (.3y C "(l 4 ,7 , p, ? ,a :.;g n.,.;, ~.7
- *j,s e q. %, q y[ '
jf * , ( *[. r',, t [%),. ) ' ... s t. '.F, p* 3 p ;*.
- s.@,...MS g g
.I J
- i,3.,
s .._ t 1
- 3.A, t u
_.-_e d,.e t h, m. u. + h[.. ; d _.y ~... ' '. - *, M_ A~,
- m. i. _',
,m3 _y 4
~~W ,s. .a \\ %"' .%,3 r,g ;. w &,a ; c~.y.. p,.a ..w v ;n yl Q' 2 m a. v '. ;,_ , w g.%n.:h. " - ~ f f.) .f."g.it'
- r <
.L: ,, -, l'g., ', g g y," -' Q ' ',, - f ,#g Q ,,,'7j-. r '- - f r..,
- . 4 '
,y,,,4-.i(.m pcr '7 2, ')_- . 1,; e ,c . j,. :, . s' L t %s, - l L s E 1c.$b;L.T. .u.. Y,.l.. J l .- 2 ~ . q....< 1 .c _ m u J ',; A W,, * - c.. m z 7 ,e..
- f..t; e r ; S,W pg
. [. ~ (.. {.' s kh.y',. problems identified by the NRC; and (4) the Licensee's dependence on third ,y' 'V & [ -[,,P[g.dY. N((e 1
- 2 parties to identify problems, rather than implementing an effective program for
.s f,$ self identi6 cation of weaknesses. Nonetheless, as stated in a letter from Region
- -x j'_
,'?" p.l' P'f % f %.N. I to the Licensee, dated May 23, 1986, the Diagnostic Team inspection results U.Q ,l ( [.g M 'kc,g[d ~ l $@ confirmed the SALP Board conclusions for SALP No. 85 99 In that letter, Re- .h JN gion I restated the belief that "performance in the operation of the facility was /; W.; pS i.ij ... acceptable although some areas were only minimally acceptable."
- g l ',
/,,.,V.I " W On April 12, 1986, the Licensee shut down Pilgrim because of equipment h /[
- ,N ' "; V:i prob! cms and operational difficulties. The NRC Regional Administrator for c.,
t, + ',S Region I acknowledged this shutdown in Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 86 p" .2 10, which was issued that same date, On July 25,1986, the Licensee stated that rt ' f" ' the facility would remain shut down for the completion of various modifications p a j and for refueling. In an August 27, 1986, letter to Mr. J. Lydon of BECo, the ,[1 E + Regional Administrator stated that although the Licensee's actions in response to CAL S610 appeared to be thorough, cdditional issues had been identified that ~ v 4 had to be resolved before the reactor could be restaned. These issues included 'C + certain technical issues (overdue surveillances, malfunction of recirculation 'l pump motor generator field breakers, seismic qualification of emergency diesel ', ~ s- +, '. ~ y '.. generator phase differential relays, and completion of modifications required by W ','1 Appendix R to 10 C.F.R. Part 50), programmatic matters (the Licensee's action _ ~ plan for improvements and the role of the Licensee's safety review committees), and the readiness of the plant and corporate Staffs to support restart. Further, T,, j the Regional Administrator stated in the same letter: "In light of the number and scope of the outstanding issues, I am not prepared to approve restart of 1 '.; the Pilgrim facility until you provide a written report that documents BECo's e ^ 4 formal assessment of the readiness for restart operation." t At this time, Pilgrim remains shut down. The Staff has issued SALP Re- ] port No. 86 99 (June 17,1987). Although this report identifies a number of performance problems (as did the previous SALP report), the Staff believes ] that the Licensee is dealing effectively with identified problems and is makins; .e progress toward improving performance. ~ The NRC asked the Licensee to sut>mit a readiness report at least 45 days before the planned restart of the plant. In response to this request, the Licensee submitted a renort entitled, "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Restart Plan" (Plan), on July 30, 1987. This Plan, which consists of two volumes, ? describes not only the programs, plans, and actions considered necessary by 2 BECo management for a safe and rehable restart, but also the longer term a.:tions that are designed to ensure that there is continuing improvement in the safe operation of Pilgrim Station. Specifically, Volume 1 of the Plan contains descriptions of all the utility's programs that are either in progress or planned to correct and prevent recurrence of previously identified weaknesses, as well as a very limited discussion of the early results of some of the programmatic efforts j s. 6 i
- f 604 s
4 e 6
- Y
't I g i g = l
.D . a a. e already undertaken. Volume 2 provides the status of the Licensee's efforts to meet commitments or resolve concerns in specific performance areas identified by either the Licensee, NRC, or the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations ~ (INPO). On October 26,1987, and January 4,1988, the Licensee provided revisions .j to Volume 2 of the Plan. The Licensee plans to submit a fmal update (to be - u '1 /, presented as a Plan revision) on the overall progress of the Plan approximately .g.m. ' vecks before the scheduled restart of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. J' , i o Because NRC is preparing to assess the overall effectiveness of the Plan in re- [ ' ? %, solving previously identified weaknesses, NRC has welcomed public comments 9 7 ' ', ~, - on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of both the programmatic efforts
- 7. : J;.. gl 3 contained in the Plan (Volume 1) and the success of specific actions in meeting
,SA J(' specific commitments / concerns (Volume 2) NRC provided an opportunity for i. {S ^ ... *y.'y G, [';.q,1 ) such public comments at a public meeting held in Memorial Hall, Plymouth, 2 . -c f b. Massachusetts, on February 18, 1988, and will factor thc resulting oral and t - #
- f written comments into its assessment of the operational readiness of the Pilgrim
[.y y.. f
- c {,
Nuclear Power Station. 1, *,.NV
- J 4, '..t A discussion of each of the three bases for this Petition follows.
- ,. c, a '.,.
~r. n.. i a .,.s..;. c3 DISCUSSION d , ?y k.l.,f,, ',
- s. ;3..,.
- p...
.,~ . i ;' 2. ;. r., A. Management ,, c. . -.. j... ;, w,;., - 2, l. c.,. De Petitioners allege that serious managerial deficienchs continue to exist t.. l , n,.C L.' %'Q.' y7. i J.s T ' M.'y, at Pilgrim. As Lle bases for their Petition, the Petitioners cite: (1) consistently .. r. "...; j, j low ratings in SALP reports; (2) the Licensee's inability to sustain performance ((f ' 3' ' J improvements; (3) the Licensee's poor enforcement record regarding the severity ~- Q"{[Y'q, j level and number of violations; and (4) recent news articles concerning security
- 7.(,,* g ej-v ' P;
f, 1, - Wi problems and the use of excessive overtime. Documents cited by the Petitioners ^ ", M' include SALP Reports 85 99 and 86 99 and various inspection Repons dated ,, s ' X. < - s. m c.y, y' .from 1985 to 1987. u 2..] i, ne Petitioners provided no substantial new information or evidence that was .A ~ not known to the NRC when it issued the "Interim Director's Decision Under ~ Q., f, ' '. ;?,. N 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206," DD.8714,26 NRC 87, dated August 21,1987 (hereinafter '.. C ? +' J '. ,e s. referred to as the Golden Interim Decision) in response to the Petition filed on r.;: f.j. -' ' ' r, ~e N.. C,' ' ' p July 15,1036, by Massachusetts State Senator William B. Golden and others, . ' 9 '? m ' ' Q ' ] also eL png deficiencies in the Licensee's management. A copy of the Golden ( '- f 'I "' ? Y, s i? f.?. f 3 ^ IMmm Decision is attached to this Decision (published as DD-8714, supra) ., - : /.
- .i;i fC 1).;@. 2.N,k s kl C '
2/. V' and is incorporated by reference; we will not repeat here the discussion of the management issue given in that decision. I;3,J,' Q. ., ',@!0 W,. g% 'S g g ' y,I,'(,[ ? Because the Pilgrim Station is shut down and will not be allowed to restart until authorized to do so by the NRC, there is no additional safety assurance to D y; .,n M; '.7.,; A, q
- c.., g y*.. ;c,7,,
r.4. f 4in J, y'. */; ;..a e,. { ' y r. * <.'-,2 a g 605 ?.-} %,,', ; '6::( ; y. ;. ;.gir .p c.. &.,.' ' g \\, . e ' iv ,....,.... n , }j- '. 3,,,a .$ / s. ,, 2 :., V*.. m .. (..,.w,'.. s , n : :5 *.
- r.
,,,s. 1 ~- .;.,...m. , 7. i. v.y'; f,., s ...s r ..~ .t = s o \\ s w a 6 - 3,;' 3 ., s ~. 4 N;.',, s. y e' I a.>. .. c., c o-3. ,c ,.,s,-,,,,.,9,, y k w ,3 r p k '_h l 'D-A ~' ^
i Q.9,;;3.,yr.j. [ *' Q W f ' !,l.l?' .,&$.) . ' ~ p* '.y s ' ,'y.,- .g, :..ge '. y
- 3..
. :~. l;_.< y j ~.,. -.., y
- _Q"Ly';j [ %:[,il;-.. :. y' f {..'
,,; W ;,c ,y,; . s.: -c- .r.r ,i': >r.. ,.s y ..- ' 't p y1< . ; 4.E es '. .. 1 ' ;........ L ". wl m. u:.
- x... #.,..
s y .w.. g - _;.,~....;,b :'i, s; ~,.r. s y .,,,v. =,..;.,; - ) ..g ,..-w 4 L.
- , m.y 9,.c. +,..
nn, U v:.< z.[u:~ & f, w,. ' g ;. )>. m. :., M,,~ _ : ;, 7 g.s, %q w.y y;;%,,:x:. 3 9. M, DY'y:.. [. Q'-dy,dl jh]1 .j cyjpj, l. be gained by addressing this aspect of the Petitioners' request at this time. A \\ final Director's Decision regarding management is sues is deferred until (1) 'U.i'/,.* i'.:t.Q h Q Q 'l. the management deficiencies have been suitably addressed by the Licensee M { '-fj.N@.%@c *.'p4 ii.T.)1 H f,j ll and (2) the NRC Staff completes its assessment of the Licensee's efforts. The ' c'A w.. ..cs -7,..y.i..;;33.[. 'j ] ( management portion of this Petition will, therefore, be addressed in a subsequent c . -4 v
- '.C
- .A.
decision. ,,-r. < c... v s- .4, 4,, q,. ; c . -l , '(. t xr yy g }, 1 II. Probabilistle Risk Assessment and Attendant Plant hiodifications n. gr t'm_ e , '.,. c..;- 1 M, - t The Petitioners have requested that the Pilgrim operating license be modified ? ' #. 9 to require, prior to restan from the current outage, a plant speciGc probabilistic . ' M.
- c.. -i,.,d risk assessment (PRA) and implementation of all safety modifications indicated y
(7
- s' z;.
G ~ 2 therein. The Petitioners assert that such a requirement is necessary because of 3' the combination of three factors that influence the potential risk of a postulated -m severe accident at Pilgrim Station. These factors are (1) a vulnerable primary ,' "'l containment (htark I design), (2) a secondary containment (reactor building) not 3
- b.
'Q designed to provide an effective backup barrier, and (3) a large population in the s ' J l i immediate vicinity of the plant. Central to the Petitioners' request is the assertion 71. n. ,' '/; I ,1 that these three factors preclude consideration of the findings in draft NUREG- ,y -y. c. } l150 concerning the remote probability of a severe accident and attendant early 4 .r' .e fatalities.2 Finally, the Petitioners maintain that the Licensee, by its voluntary t '- - - l action in initiating a Safety Enhancement Program has, in effect, raised as a ,j restart issue the question of the adequacy of the proposed plant modifications f; that are pan of the Safety Enhancement Program. 3 7 The draft assessment documented in NUREG ll50 concluded that the prob- ,c 3 ability of a severe accident with early fatalities is extremely remote. The Peti- . a .E tioners incorrectly assen that the finding of draft NUREG ll50 is not applica-
- ~
ble to Pilgrim because of the characteristics cited by the Petitioners: a Stark I containment, an ineffective secondary containment, and a large surrounding d..;. - 3, population. It is inappropriate to apply the specific numerical risk estimates from draft NUREG ll50 to Pilgrim. Nevertheless, it is also inappropriate to conclude that unacceptable risk follows by virtue of the fact that Pilgrim uses a [ htark I containment design. In the Golden interim Decision, the Staff provided an extensive discussion of the design basis and adequacy of the Pilgrim containment. The Petition has not identified any issues with respect to the Pilgrim containment design that f, .,h were not previously considered by the Staff and resolved in the Golden Interim d Decision. See DD 8714,26 NRC at 95106. - )* ~ ? c. 1 2ne Remor Rah Refereree Documerit. Drah (Nt*Rf G.1150) FsMary 1917. .e. s .g 1 ,4' 606 e + 4 ,,c m 5 'b s
- i...
g 1 s
3.. ,,y c
- 7. -
s.
- i.
v. s n 3 . ~.. p O. n. ~ 2 : ;.u - .a,,
- ?. ! ' l/
+ ,l' L.u 'y D 1: ' '. s es-S- u . ;z ~.,..,co. 7 ; ..~, e. - i. e..- j3' ,s J. \\ ', m g N.., <,. ' v Petitioners assert that the "large population in the immediate vicinity of .g .. ? j b?" i ~ Pilgrim" (Petition at 13) constitutes part of the basis for their request for a y 4.. PRA. Petitioners allege that there is a "large population surrounding the plant" 4 (/d. at 14), and that "the EPZ population at this plant is among the highest . "c? [j ' 4 y (.. In the country" (/d, at 21). Section 2.206(a) of 10 C.F.R. requires petitioners b';b;g "F. N M, Mll. J 3 ";., j.1,p.;.&y.[it:,F Ty',.,. to "set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request." Petitioners do b .'g;U yT c6 : ; ' f/h. o not provide amplifying information or details in support of these statements .f concerning populat. ion. W/J., ' ; m. ,3 , P ] 's,' 1 p.<,Qr 1.,( Although Pilgrim has an above average population residing within 10 miles of the site, a number of other facilities have an even larger population residing ([,g y,G}').g, g,g e,"~;>.; % nearby. Using 1982 data based on the 1980 Census, the resident population
- i
- i; g,, g;k/[.? '. '
tl; U ' g,.,J M, (about 41,000) surrounding Pilgrim up to a radius of 10 miles ranked twenty. ' Ql((/'1[j%.;f M.R" ,f? a c . "%'.'MC ' sixth of eighty sites in operation or in the licensing process at that time. As . 3 / ;.61.Kf.:[cy..G; N[:. Uf of 1987, the population residing within a 10. mile radius of the Pilgrim plant {d[g'[g.p.? ?.V :?.' is estimated by the Licensee to be about 62,000, with about 70,000 within [:. d.{,(j, $.p'(,Y.) Qli. .., f. g $, the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).8 The 1982 data for U.S. nuclear .i 2 power plants indicates that at least seventeen sites already had over 70,000 ,g people residing within a 10-mile radius of the site. Petitioners present nothing rh;p... ;ti^/ %. 7. ; k$. i.h,i (l~ ';M f M ' '[ g'[ unique about the population in the vicinity of Pilgrim that would merit further c ,' M.. I, F., #.. M. M.,' -l, %,;e W.,.M consideration, 1~T a Although the Commission requested PRAs of the Millstone 3 and Limerick G - V o., '...,. iv. fch..,:, I.<,4. facilities during the licensing review process, the Commission's regulations do p Ny J-V.. +. mce,..'.ec.17,6eV.P w 4 I W.. w >.'.;.V f?-Q 7.(V O 77 4 ' D. w.W d not require the conduct of a PRA as part of the licensing basis for nuclear gg.. u s.y ). e r $[. Q 'Q.Y; y e power plants, PRAs also have been conducted by some utilities as part of facility
- .Q 6 upgrades, such as those made under the Commission's Systematic Evaluation h.Q.
0,@h;g[9 ?f ' ,7 if,y/j.; Program (SEP) or voluntarily by individual licensees. Although some licensees i .;- l with faci ities in areas of substantially above. average population density (Indian .N Point, Zion, Limerick) have conducted PRAs, other licensees with facilities fff:.MGl.j ;4:4.,]J,y.y gp %;", M.t d;T h'l3;.$p'!,;d located in areas of higher population density than Pilgrim, such as Oyster Creek, ' M/.} yf 3:? g 3.- p O$.7 % 6.'$i Beaver Valley, and 'Ibrkey Point, have not been required to conduct a PRA. The Petitioners have not provioed sufficient evidence of significani risk @.M. -.,l. h .%"E., w-;/ O,..T.. ' [.,(, y@,3;MlM ? g' s. $ f. vulnerabilities associated with the primary and secondary containment design .G e ,. ;/W.},'[ jk that are unique to Pilgrim, or unique aspects of the surrounding population p',' '. 3 7 (when taken individually or when considered in combination) to warrant the ).. " Q ' ' " W ' * /. ' n' " requirement for a plant specific PRA prior to restart of Pilgrim. ' M' 9 JO ' W M ' ' Y,..[.O J 91/.f.., i., s o s y. .. V r f.;'s k,8,YQ))\\ '. '?')..,e' The Staff has reviewed all points raised in the seven.page affidavit prepared L,7. i. by Steven C. Sholly that accompanied the PetiLicn. This affidavit concerns the j { Z. 8 S M f u,' y yJS. F : Pilgrim power ascension program, the potential risk associated with operation i.d. 6.' W.d.e -N:,3. $.M. 6,1 ~ of Pilgrim at progressively higher power levels (based upon consideration of 6 3,., M 3 N. "^?c..,.'.~... > 9 -f
- ,c
,&.,fr t. $ s,s u L.A bc y. .e r.Mpl4:s, a 4* . g e 9,; i F. df.. -
- 3...;%,b. (.. h.A,, h..b. '*.-Y M.,
N 8 The EPZ includes au cd the io., or Plymmah, Maunchusena, some er which is shshey mers than to mass .~ e* m.c w.:n
- 1 - n. e.
t-ro nm. s r.
- c*
I tT.\\'Y -Q C '&'.. ' lp: l;';?'.h.iA;.4 ~ M ' W.- P.5 / 0. J. t 2 t, j ' y.* my'.;,,. i M'. J.Q 1e. g.b. ... r '. g.- 3.:/* G. \\ s,,f \\.,,.... -. .n
- e. p :4,.,. J,iW<.. f e.
g n e -- 607 b<, ;;.. n
- n N.>
..y~,,o.m.g . s ;; m .e ,I, 'e N .af ,i ff... ,k y,>y ,.D.i0*:
- s., m.,,. t c.-c,.$.h..)7...UrI'.'
. / of4 ' - ' c..
- !
- q, p g, %,
1 Yr A,.. ...'1,). N.
- **1
.,z ~., Y. , ^@... A ,(.h,?,;'(og p:,:.:r.;. u '4* <.' ,..t,.xt r. .e 3 v .s if t . <,;.. ' g r,i c. y?,e. a.. ...,....., m.. -,
- i., ~> ' -., e r,.,4;..... c
, y, ', .; 4,,. _ i.,f - ,'.t:. c g g ,,.. s .,,,f,,t;s,;p n f-.) . y ' " b....q., m, '? c q.- , u; g. s....t .4 j. 3'4,( 4 s.w
- * ~, *,,,,,...A..'
, z.,v g,., h,',,c. f 'p[ y?. ) a
- g cf
" '. 3.f;. - .: v1 83 qj., tr.- 't j .e"*. ,.O a .o.,,.,c,. 4 h e. Jv ..gs*}.J p,. g((/g t 'e, ,4/ a:,,,,'., ; em,, \\,, ,,/f L.. j $ v. j ;;t. t f .+ o. . > m. 7. s..,; t, p.'n 1 ,,,...,tt v ..g 1 :_. > w:....,., :., 4 g g; y. eg *p V -,' O.j',> p" m ,m. t ? 'y ...' '.,,.7, s . *.,. ny.. y % t *M i . j, -.. us.. . -.,u s v .; y4 .t., y 3, s. 2. t.j .f;s; -
- w. g p ag A...
', c..y 1;;s 4(,', % cm. 3, .?- .a. a..>
- y ;w'
~ ,n . v.
- Q.& m:h pyy;;q%,:
. b,; '_ ', ; .:e 3 .L &;>,'y ~,.R,=;%. 'O:*Q<Q".+f;v '. &; ' -i : " '= ;a *.g% J;f ^ * .. l. '* ;1.r. / ?}- ...;.y .e y , a w r.. a. -e ~ ." j#,&?/ D... ' ' q..v -. '
- b, -
- v:0::w. '.l" ? D'[v 14 .v. f r e: g r.. 4 1 .. 3;. . r..
- ~,.w.._ rdcf;
- j s.
1, _., u.;;, .. a..., e ,..s. s.. ws ; c' 1.
- .su r-
",f,Q>.Nj,..- 'f;
- r'N
"'ln { y W e. y,, y fp ;. c, r,r.... j .e< k M M.'..M ".?. W <'N. bj.;,i.9 .l p.4,xll.;0 tc ; ,.a M.' ~ ?. L W y:
- . *lr;,.
W/.f %'N 7.; ' I, r, (.q, m " ( q , 32 t k.: m'n'4fj the Shoreham PRA and the potential impact of external events), and the need '(g.f4yJW.% ' T, R.;; F q' 0 for a plant specific PRA for Pilgrim. The affidav.. also discusses the Pilgrim f jn,.p.'&.j @y.f. i gc j Pd F.h ' '?Q Mark I primary containment and secondary containment. De Staff has dealt p 4.q - p.x.. J ;m.. gjxt with the Pilgrim containments earlier in this response and in the Golden Interim u e n. ;. w... .s, -e J.-:.:,.;..; Decision. !;;j,w%y.. N. j; Regarding the Pilgrim power ascension program, Petitioners assert that the [ Q. $ p.'q; i ! M D y ; & f / a3, y..( J ^4 *-()) ...gZ details have not been supplied and that it will be a "rapid ascension" to full Af g.g. 9,.., M ' 'm power. A description of the Licensee's power ascension program was provided , A fa f 4,. ~' to the NRC on October 15,1987 (BECo Letter 87163). If power operation is ,.. c ; i :.: i ! y approved by the NRC, the power ascension program to be performed as part U N'. " ?a,,. of the Pilgrim restart effort will be a controlled and orderly process. It will l , 's. Q, ;, ' ~^ l' have prior Staff review and approval, augmented monitoring by the NRC Staff, ]. and "hold points" that require oral approval from the NRC before proceeding u
- 4 ;';
further. Rus, Petitioners' assertions regarding the Pilgrim power ascension ^ 'i program are without merit. Regarding the potential risk of operation at progressiv:ly higher power levels ,q. - /. , i 's. J' ( ~ and the potential impact of external events, the Staff agrees that operation a at higher power levels may present higher risk than when operating at low .',/ ' - ' yj power. Nevertheless, operation of the Pilgrim facility up to 100% power 1 c g (1998 megawatts thermal) has been previously analyzed and found acceptable
- c..- ; '
..,..e.," J by the Staff. Applicable documents include the Final Safety Analysis Report y'. ' +* 'O d.. ~ ']' (FSAR) and the associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER), dated August 25, 7; ,f 1971. Additionally, the design basis for Pilgrim to withstand external events has ?- already been considered and found acceptable in the FSAR and SER. Neither .c. the Petition nor the affidavit provides information that renders these conclusions incorrect. i' .c l De affidavit refers to a PRA for Pilgrim that has been in progress. De Staff is aware that BECo has been conducting PRA activities for Pilgrim. However, .l this effort has not been completed nor has any 'ponion of it been provided m i to the Staff. The regulations do not require a PRA as part of the licensing 4~ ' i', basis for nuclear power plants.' If analyses being voluntarily conducted by the Licensee reveal new information that materially alters the licensing basis, the ~.' Pilgrim Technical Specifications and 10 C.F.R.150.72 require that the NRC be informed and appropriate corrective actions be taken. Accordingly, the affidavit does not present evidence that warrants the require-ment of a plant. specific PRA prior to restart of Pilgrim. a t,. ^ .i, F
- he Carstrussion is present:y ecs.sidenns irr pnses requirernants fcr p'ana.spenne enNaums mder an tndmdaal Ptarn Enkauon (LPE) program.1hs prognen waid mckde assessments or severe-sec, dent r.sk of indmde faccues Conduct of me tPE program emud not be a pr-ropsas to restan of PCar.rn or inh. bit opersucei of oser oprsurg faccues he Of5ce of NcleAt RegWatory Research (REs) is a;ao essessvg me prformance of u
se Ma4 I pnmary car.:ainment des:gn. has assessmers may in pect dens ons or yield regdamry acuan affecurg Mas i facutes. g s s. 608 + s t s-O s e g I' s ~. h .s g L
. + +
- 9... : m s..
~-* i gN w 4 p4 .s,' . ' -.e r '. %,,.. y .y l s. A, +,o' .s -.,s. 4 s, .v' n =s se e. ( s. p;s,p.: ; ', y [ p:.. y <,,- -y -a 1. 3.,... *
- n.
y. o. w.3 M. }.; ,v, -.<, y3 .u .;. g .I ..,:a
- W...
..w y y
- w
. c. n, ;.. c o a>, .~ .y. 3. .a With regard to the Safety Enhancement Program, the staff also addressed this . i ' 'c -
- 6. '
'7 l s mattet in the Golden Interim Decision. ne Staff is reviewing the modifications . v. : J.' ; %. l. , 7.4 q.K,1 associated with the Safety Enhancement Program to ensure that they have no f, ;.' % ? ? <T ' ?,'-.@d + overall adverse safety impact on existing systems. Moreover, the Licensee's ,", g~::d Q.f.W, d ' Mt W ;.. h. s,- & .><..,. %,; V t. 3 initiative to improve plant safety beyond the point of complying with NRC u...s.G. J / 4 m a.- reguladons is not a basis for opening the issue of the efficacy of any proposed ,7.(,g$%
- c Q c W % ;. Q @. K Q plant modifications.
Because the Petitioners have not identified any unique or unacceptable severe-t c M. Q.9. M /d } < l' d 'p,@.. d.C,n...M.. s. ~~.F:.Y -).Wi accident risk for the Pilgrim plant or documented that it poses an unreasonable Q,U e/{a g.?j '. g. ', threat to public health and safety, there is no mesit in their request that restart be delayed until a PRA is conducted. Derefore, this request is denied. . 0 Q.,%. ly,, >:~ gy!(' '.f..,.'y s. v.. n.a, >eJ.,.,n %q1.:.u,:w ; 'w. ' ?.v;T .w?p,c: L? b 4RFc ;.9.y *< y,y%.q :, C, Emergency Preparedness ?%.y% Sa /A e c e,,. n. .... a.,. bs.s. i.% %.w.a $.e w
- d. t i if.,A. g.o.k~,3< g He Petitioners allege deficiencies in the current state of emergency planning Q.
p and preparedness for Pilgrim Station. The PeLitioners cite assessments performed n s
- . y..gy.g by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sand the Massachusetts y,p, J' Q. M y ' q' (;*,f l
Executive Office of Public Safet/ that conclude that emergency planning and ~ f y., y.,'.' k g ',
- }f;.;*
p dp.l,, ;q;.t.5: c, preparedness at Pilgrim are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the Mpla i public in the event of an accident. The Petitioners state that both agencies have W;'lrgey QWD,1y' 7 7,'.f.g; l identified deficiencies in (1) evacuation plans for public and private schools as MQ};h,b[:'N/,'fMp@f [ M'.V . a c4 j well as day. care centers, (2) evacuation plans for the special-needs population, Pfp- '
- giQW, J
(3) evacuation plans for the transport-dependent population, (4) identifiable pM@Qy h 6 d,f.T j public shelters for the beach population, ($) a reception center fur people ,N g%;h'Q,68@h W pg W. g,U{.: y,M]W.,.]* /., esacuating by the northern route, and (6) the overall progress in planning and gds .$,:lM.@%M the apparent diminution in the state of emergency preparedness, i FEMA forwarded its report on the adequacy of emergency preparedness %j. at Pilgrim to the NRC on August 6; 1987. In this report, FEMA specifically h P J.d,' y k : N ;t M ; 3 4. 'j 1 /;.['e&.w..[n'JDi MfC.f.) a addressed the information provided in the First Barry Report in developing its l findings. r.'., ':n Y1o O. & ..z, M .w <. " h k* On August 18,1987, the NRC requested that the Licensee provide an action L ? N pa!,6 N.b[. %j'.G;M plan and schedule for assistirg the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and local 1. N_.. N governments in addressing the FEMA. identified emergency planning issues for li [.M.[
- 5.. O '
Pilgrim. The NRC stated that it viewed the emergency planning issues to be "l Q. M. N;t [,, @ p i, $ '. ~ i; 'e J a r. atter of serious concern and that the determination to restart the plant will ,QQ g,' % [. . M /b. L. ) involve,in part consideration of the resolution of the emergency planning issues !i f j' $0flJ.( % 4; A (: y..'1./ / . - -/ e/ .,E n, m;.R.J. A.W Q ';n p,s;.pc.s.,.j ,r* i'.S. ; 4..,p*..k. ;qy',.'. 4 g..s.. h. M%.
- ,f 3 -. g.. '.
b,. - ( - .w ,Federe! Emergency Manassenen Aaency "selt.inhawd Rmew and Innenm Findarg for the Nanan Nuclear i's:[4.7;, i','l.gG "i((., N..;..Mgg[y.# .u .r... t e v. A Pows? $tsum." dated Augua 4,19 7 p ? A y]; W. h ; [,P; h[k $ 'Massadweens Esecuuve of6ce er Pu%e safay, seemry of #Wac safay. Charles V. Barry, "Report to the 7 J,'ff, brw = Emersancy Preparedness for e.a Accident et the Ngam Nuclear Po.or stainen," daiad C !e.,*;.,':x.9 pM.. @9.d ,.N. ..A @0 > ; p'seg. w e. R 1986 6he "First Barry Reposti q' ... J.N.3 M. v, ^ y
- ...,. y. 3 _? s, e c.h*c0 8..
n w s - ' p.3,., - .r
- 9,g* %,g;, :.'% t:::W.
p. y. 6'p.,:.. :, ,..u/e . e, q 6% U. f ,b '..s - f.,) p[p.* },* 1 ..,37 s,. .: a..iY.sp#.*; '*I.D,* *q% w
- .( 7,,,h,W, y1
{. A 8 + ..,Q..y.t;Q ;
- .;:g
.v
- 8. '6, r ; y '. e e:
,g*1 g,
- s
.c
- 7 -... x
.e,r <. p, &(* ?n.. t - wf,. .y.,.M, ; .s, ....,s,,,. - Y ~ -,.n.3..,N Q.,*,.v.. e, *. .,a<.,%. e e [* Q , '.*(( - },( c ,m 's v,..., p.. g,.. ", s, t m.. 5.:;(M j.,,< ,I o .g y. ..,,..y y. -.c+.,. f,.,- r--esa aw- -*,g%*. !* 17.j * : t '* e ,a-i = -C, t. 3 . +. . ~., - 3$e. 3 g d. t.,q. c., ,r v 0 - f, ?. ... ~.... m. ;,, 3 'i. - ' k,yr. r..c, f.;,. s m., t.. * .<r. %,..,q D. "'j- ],. g, j 33.,;,f ,.'4.s p.';.,J q.; Q; c.,;p .g;" -*,1 s-A y Qc a ' tg. j y q 3 <*. ".. - 4 ,,.4 a ., a,s .3 7,.. ;.A r. -,
- ~...x f +. e P.... *,.3
.,/.'.
- [,.6 d.,.
s,...h#*,.-g a.', ; <k. *
- T ' Y*i"v.*g.'
.j,- ,. 5 6, ,.e - ?* * * ,4-
- 4..
C ,u.%...v .4 ,...f . ( ,13 -*
- y WJ' d.s,. ' d
- ,h l[
'N' .,e f' g' ? IN s }7h [3 b. f* 1 e ;q'f5,..; ~.,, ',(,&'. g. r, 7 *p qt, &-c4.';..'.%.y;;. ;:).{,i 4. :, + V*f. :. . f ..' .; t .,... g.. ,; y ..-?.ex,. .l,}t c.,. Q* % I_J ' " t L ^ '. L s ',,.. ~ g.,.,N " L., n'* h ? Lu! e .'>'M.,a 'a ' w %,*,.L_ __* M.": y. g*:..Y'nV-l f 1, sy_ f,
- _ _ _.
s.. 7*.. s. ^.':. J.. '^' s-n
M ' f ; P...., [ [ s ][ [@..,;.]~ y A.S mN ; r : e}.[] '. [' a w- .o <,y .,. :..a ~ *, ,.w. ~. ;y~4g v<e u <:,3,.. p g/. ~ G. .h
- y,,. h 9 v. ?.;.
s. , + - 2,. . q; F.,..c. t.g
- m. c > > -
- ,? %.w,
- ;,x %m e,,,+c, ;,. ( p. w c
e -l. b.. u. :v.c,.; 1; . n p,. :.. ;. ,.... ; ? y ,. ~ ....r. n.
- 7. q.,. ~, y.
,.,,,;...,.+- . c,.. ,,a . n y; - w 'K.f.l)'. I & y ~.,. liO : ". f : A M,- . E 2 &~~e'L' - > - N- .n
- 2.;.:L ;, ;. : ~..~ 3.n
[+1,.. g.... c...',. i...,%,.. : i/w ', ).' 'M i. y .,o V;f.M~ -% ' c' ;.,:.4 . r. tp.p;.; ~O.. ijy
- W.'4
.. 3...y 3:
- g gy;
..o t,.. W. r [; f.,; d-,,.;; O ident;fied by FEh!A. (A similar conclusion was stated in the Golden Interim $s$, ~ h '. h. x, p;,.e.C,.g u ,.. cy. Decision). ...s MQt.: 4y 4 l By letter dated September 17, 1987, the Licensec submitted to NRC an M t 'c.'. *,"W'! Vg Gd action plan and schedule summarizing the status of the issues and the assistance
- N;:%.' # 3.58g *.th W p%@Ci.y.y.
McM being provided by the Licensee to the Commonwealth and local authorities . :( {}.}Fg] in the improvement of their emergency response programs. These efforts have t ,jg., . S.C. p.1 VRC.y,, y included the development of an updated evacuation time estimate (ETE) study
- 7. J ' ", (.
cg.J and traffic management plan, a study to identify public shelters for the beach J,x -s, ,,'.,. - J. ' : population, and the identification of and provision for the special needs and .'i. C 7; l transportation dependent populations within the 10-mile EP2. In addition, the
- 1 Licensee is providing professional planners to assist local governments and f~
the Commonwealth in upgrading their plans and in the development of a c ,1 new training program for offsite emergency response personnel. On October f,, ' 26, 1987, the Licensee provided additional information on beach population j and shelteririg to the Commonwealth. In a letter to the Commonwealth, dated 1 December 23,1987, the Licensee forwarded a report entitled "Reception Center m'u A Feasibility Analysis." c .? The Petitioners acknowledge some progress has been made toward improving 3 I v:... J 49 >. 9 ' (," *,, j emergency preparednest, including identification of school / day care populations, 7, 1 . 3 j estimates of available resources to evacuate these populations, an updated ETE j 3 R'-' '.c 9. Jj study, and estimates of the beach population and sheltering data. Ilowever, i<! the Petitioners continue to identify concerns regarding the current planning l l;< ; 4 cfforts involving the identification of the special needs and transpon dependent 'f. - j s .' j populations, shortcomings in the ETE study, inadequacies in the sheltering data. determination of a replacement for the northern reception center, and the conduct s .,7 - of an exercise. 6 s. On December 17, 1987, Governor Dukakis forwarded to the NRC a report prepared by Secretary Barry entitled,"Report on Emergency Preparcdoess for
- .[... '
an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station" (Second Barry Report). In l o this report. Secretary B.rry provided additional information and backg ound l s, concerning the issues raised in the Petition. 20 The current status of the efforts to improve the offsite emergency response l .;w' programs is as follows: .f " i - Drafts of the local emergency plans have been completed. Six of y these drafts have been forwarded by the Commonwealth to FEhfA { for informal technical review, i - Drafts of the local emergency plan implementing procedures have y .g-been prepared and are being reviewed by town officials. 'y - The draft hlassachusetts Civil Defense Agency Area !! Plan is com-plete and being reviewed by the Commonwealth. - The draft of the Commonwealth Plan for Pilgrim is complete and u being reviewed by the Commonwealth. g .a b l' 610 c 4 A ( g
m " r y, n . l. ~.; *. Ie 6 ..j ; t t. s ja
- 7 v
- 1. w u
,,s ( .(. .. a., e . a s m.{a 'g
- 2.,
1 i
- g. s t,3
. n, . g ;, .) . a-.. . w:.: V..; t.: -.s 4 3.~... ..+s - A training program has been jointly developed by the Licensee a . ~., .. o y'n "[, [ - M[.M nd the biassachusetts Civil Defense Agency. The hiassachusetts Civil .Q Defense Agency, which has approved the training program, is review- ~ f1 ' <W
- '. [,.
f l,','H for offsite emergency response personnel has begun. QW.ly, p. f.j; g e. " ~ J g ing tre attendant lesson plans as they are being developed. Training c; p.% 5:#f.u.ir ??'.%., e :. %w. - A northern reception center has been designated by the Common-mg e wealth. v r.y%..g.... y 'a "1 W.,,C.:).4.. m:.aP- ?- t 3 o j$.. ?Wh [ 61;4N..%,.J. 3,Eu De NRC will continue to monitor the progress of the Licensce's efforts b. .. fj g: y' /. y[ { }f 3,1.'... 7We 7'%. -G, to assist biassachusetts and local governments in improving their emergen':y
- "'Qf.fp
- ].. {'y response programs. The Licensec has committed to conduct a full-participation exercise following the completion of these efforts. On September 17, 1987, S.. ',4 9 6: 7%.f ( ').o;;/..Q.-).
k@: the Licensce requested an exemption from the NRC requirement to conduct a b;;gk []W'N3g.cy}' *',.;d biennial full participation exercise in 1987. On December 9,1987, the NRC granted the exemption, stipulating that the Licensec is to conduct a full- . T /, c . pt.,W, e.'.9 y'$,y.% f%j'%/ f@"% ^" Q)W.T '.7 %[ participation exercise for Pilgrim no later than June 30,1988. On April 4,19S8, the Licensec requested a further extension of the full participation exercise to Kr f
- C-C ' '
' *i ,O. #.[#. ~,M;,? ' f the end of 1988. On hiay 11,1988, the NRC granted a further extension of this ,f h .pp.j, requirement, but st pulated that a full. participation exercise be conducted prior i to the end of calendar year 1988. ti .?.. %.~ <. 4 % ' ' A decision on this portion of the Petitioners' request is deferred. However, L. 4.(. 9.. ;..,,.~ t. y. -'.$, ' +Ce '., s . ~ !. !.".p. c... DW. '..q".lm*.N +,M., P 5 the determination as to whether to restart Pil rim will involve consideration of
- s..v '. ;
a m h I<TN ~. J < Z %, the emergency planning issues identified by FEhiA. c..:.a n<q. 4 :c'w.~e?. w & '..,l,, t. a,'. y e t,..,w m..o: m c..;; w a.m. a e .s ; : QlG:e_ };..K..7..~. 2.'6:gf W'. CONCLUSION v.. ; l..;.~. : c. -, f:e-mu ,u .a. N./ [# @,c,a.,.sfjM Y#'t. ')7 ),%., ; For the reasons discussed above, a decision cannot be made at this time k.Q M M.T O,' D[~iM f F regarding the management and emergency preparedness issues. Rese portions W T /, I.. 'M of the Petition will be addressed in a subsequent response. However, the NRC has required, and will centinue to require, that the Pilgrim facility remain shut Nd_,.? f ; } [ [ s . T. I.. down until the management and emergency preparedness issues are dealt with hN " 's.' N J-3 k - f;..' us N1 M '- V > Y-;.. w- -,...g. !o the satisfaction of the NRC. '.i For the reasons discussed above, the information identified by the Petition ?. [6 L. " i ' c* ;[ " y, ( does not warrant the initiation of the requested actions in regard to the prob- [p';E. : .[' j / J. ' "QL,7 abilistic risk assessment and attendant plant modifications. Accordingly, the
- ~
L~9...f-y>, %i.5,?., _ fR.. Petitioners' request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.206 on this issue is H A. M. m. - (. -N,T denied. - : x. m. .y. (
- at;..
c. p [@..T C 1K) 1.[, fy,'.d.vl:(0< y.Q .7/ *.s. [%lMQ h,24 h '..Q, C O','[j r. p?
- c ;e F....
Me c 4.. n.. '..f' T.d :..'.1u r6'.%' ll'. 7,y:y'?.';., ;t *
- h-)I M.
,.-: n. an
- 4;,.:'s.i. y. t:v.Q. s.
77 9 W.;I Q:,N,;..) .4'. A .'s.%.;?-. .I, iv..., av - f,. *..:.r :,.=., n:.p. r g q ..,y,.j & k'f;!;., ~.! ..n'.?.. . r. .- C. gi'&'n ~ y i T a:,. ::,y;,'s n. n<. q N W.J,5 :? t. N.g.9 % !,, W
- a. ;%q [,'..a ?.M. 4 9.;,w M:R L ?L*D$
Q ry%.,w. 1,.y. R f',p; Q.'f.;m, ?< n.:i;;q' 'm.' 2 % e r.. n
- ...~
- e.
..t. .o .. g..
- y. b b N:.m.h k k N.,.
.k['*,p,,.y, 9.. m C",$ s] f.m 4 ;q'd ', e"., h~=[h t *,N,.'.,[ ,j 611 w- .u.. - - i 6E -NMk ' n m n g..,,. .s s;w:n,lw w.v,+x,.. th,;,. t *- f:6W.Q.Q's Q* :;&,[0lbf~K".QQ'} M, V.. r -.. S... 3 s.z..pc ::Q s c '.n w
- n. *,g,j, Q4 ;--
Ks * * ~ $ Yl t];'%...., & .~.? ,b f. ^ ?."d Y' ..,.,.,.,, w..,...,.,.-..,-.. q,. L..: m p $ w: " l? ylGv!m.. 3...l/.*g; y ,, m. ,n, .r.,. - u.......,..,., l. , r, ~ + ,,.. y~.... a. n ., ~, Q, -l,' . 4,,L'] sl ?,*? l.f,..*.*.:.l.*,f*ilG... d' ~S
- ,j,,.
.\\r -. S .h. e*. ~f.hr. f. 5.h.,.','. , 4.'. y.._ m. , f*.Fq 7 .g g h g o [, ' g g,",.,y* [*
- .w
- g.
g.g,:,' 44. gig Y.. g
- . g y
p &:,j g.y.Q.g a :.... gp g:ge.y..r y s - " u,. };** [9.w::..,o.h ?;.,,,, w.:.v gg c. <- m.,, y. .e .k,, ', ?,/
- f?
N l]^:. *Vk .h. '. ' N. N. ?. . 'O n ..%...h l kS&.,T'.Q';) d.W s,. ]>..f.;f ),% j i.,
- ),c.
,'.'g ~ s.* g;6.1 ,., s. a t , %o .} n , ,z . s p..1;:. .,n -~ Ws. 'N..,t...h % N,, ~..~,c t.... r+.. - y s (d,a.yv.,.,.c.,, '.... 4.. :.1;.,.. <.s '> ;,. s @. t,.
- n..y 4
- )d l lh Y.e...,,.,y' l%&, %,.,
a + n. q...je ...i9y. g s ~ .w J. ' L.' ~* b i:!!. ' %'r ~ N,, % -T $ ,'l$b,!..s,:.. ' S W. " ~D O :
.qf t /.l.:L W...s. <,g*.:4./',t p&.. Q'J - "~ . ~. 9,.. s,... .~._
- h. xk,,., p'?, f>T, U.,,.' ? f. pt.',r sa.9, 6 <,.., W.g.....4. o.s.y. f. >u+.. g....
g- .L.., m. w,,,, <,., . y.1p. y};g.%..n.. ; ; 7 y ., p,:.m.v, m.A., p-3 ..A;. a c e .-r s s c - w,.. m. . cg g cj u, 4, e M s.=, e. q. iu z s,.. -e,. N .4.,.l.J.. p.(*F,f.,*i.j/,a (i}.T y* I.'r gi., ?f-
- t..j !*.: ~,i )'
r :r,? .e, st.'*g;, .J, ,p',, ., c.( N*. . # y , r.%.. ,1... . g < o..,.cs.,.... ,i..~- > =.. ,. [*..j v **he.. f. f. ' s
- y T'.w > 3.. s..
d _p. e.0,;*. Q. W v). Q A
- V, g.gr; r
. a n e M.. : 4 9 s. i , * (, s, j 9 ,3. {' r,. IM..,f.. ;.,.o y pi b',.,.' *.s h.g-.g.....,
- f M.. ;i, f,',g,i.w..s,:', 7j ?.@. v.
q;.~,. *. ' i *, \\ ' "? ",^ ' Y. t.7., t y Q (~ g.- ..sy,. ... N ll$., N Y. y . 2. w . 5 .,-.,n. , f c.. ~8,g g..p.%-; e.spg, .,s W-h k*$( %... A.,.
- N?
.?.H
- &. D ?
- l. y? 5 5 "**.. h.Y.1f*0 Uf s f Q w
,:d. 5
- ' 2 \\. * : L ~.
',. < ~. h M.'lM,L.\\ ^L o ~' ' " ' ' ~ * * " - -
- a e
>? ~ f ge; c llr.? / Q, f.* Q %.:;'h. W, f b L.*, Q.p:Q:< ' ' s.i Y sc'.7 %y:.. O,. I/ * * +.. , c.., A..,. (a;4 sw g f;n;%,. t.%,.. 1 . *v r z dz*@: *.i - ,f..s.,.r s e.l C. ..s v.c.;p's.g[y.., -. ",, y~,i.1. '.*,6.,. M/t'. *.
- ..';y( %..,.J;S.,?
'.,, p.. A,g%y., M.,,h.y*.n s., f, e"j..... ). '.'y. ' r. Q '; U..,. : ;.' Q, ! + g 4 t s or..A,y p,s..T *s %,*p?.y-n 9 ns z.ar min!dW$w?mh).(;,:.q%:h.a*f',*,,..) ..w -s;.,ycs c "g.'b,, * :,. .n ,y 1 PA. 1
- 9. m
. $. i. f,p. W b. 9. d $w o/ %w.m
- s
.v wu: e. n e c eh .~. M.. .N.d . As provided in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review. 83le. 2%, s.e. [. o,y,'#..f,5l @ W. 0,. 3.
- ,,.u.,.m, r.cd L'.%%%c
..s. 9,. . 3~ 2 Q.Wnlpy&.MN.S.W&WM. Mfd.:.%, FOR THE NUCLEAR
- QOrdM.4 h$khh.xh.%
gj REGULATORY COMhiISSION b..i. +.w n.,, n. t.. ;..m.:, w. :u:&.;.p.s v. g.,q.m..p w,b9. a...,., m. v.. x. e_ s.;, a m ,a; s.... r gM. c u. ud.Qgi4%. a[e,.@#,.0.77,$p. .s, .,,.[.. e Thomas E. Murley, Director - s ....- 4 2 u'. i. i . 3 $.M.. a. ~..P j $ M @ t[ 3 ' t g Office of Nuclear Reactor / Regulation =, M,,. W,. M..., M n'. W,,,' 5,s w.'.,#,J ! - y <, sv.
- s.,.. w s
c C_ p:},,...c-A.py Dated at Rockville, Maryland, .s m. " f, i..J,. .gg,,,. y ' > c , s.,.- th. 27th day of May 1988. . y. is s. . ~ s. y. -1.. , so . J o.. t e : C M
Attachment:
. u,*.~ - ;ig.. M.m., ;. r3.,.W,... Golden Interim Decision w,.... y.m.. -T. .. v m. ..u .M.,...,,. * ;. c.y!;%h,'2.,.:j:j [The attachment has been omitted from this publication but may be found in .n ...s ,. 3 .,m> i }s., ',((.,y$jde'tib :dt the NRC/s as DD.87-14,26 NRC 87 (1987), or in the NRC Public Document W.. l h,3 s,M.hk.k Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.] ',..,.p 5. ;f.h....I;k ,, 7.... s o,, s o, 6 as, s y .e.u y '.... , ! ' ) ' '. (m..y,n. ( d,.,.( t h ... * - * -* g.*-, ;.y..,- .1y, . S... s ,e. v.,
- .,, e n.. x9...g.b;w,3' e,
.c ~ ...,# :. s< +,.. ~,.
- ..t. i; e,%.
e,..s p9. .r 1 ,2, , 3,, ,g .e.. ..., p h :t.' q ;,. m., -c r.., w a,s,. s, g.... M. g
- .- e a
'a 'f.,, =.; ..a w ,. p. e, ,e ,.4.y fM,,.i 'y W,, W i. r R.. =.w+' '; 1 ~ .shk ~.' ;ng..'.a,* .)+.. 4..- ' 1 ~. f i ; .' )! ' ' 's a jt t 3. ,T,* ; J i O,;,,*}[ > :.
- .1 i #">
~. . r:..,. :% pl..., ,o., ' y ;..' ;. 4)..?,{!\\~ 1 ,p*6,., ',0*,* =, g y. p",' m i '(. 0. ',., ".,4 _s l = .t+ N, -. ; a.,. 41
- ..,.s.
'o,-.. e,..... *, * * ' -.'p;+} lv-e 4 wa %7.?S />* ~, .r',. r .,)8. u, A" " s '.o ;,5) 5 .; _' A .) i m.,'v* v.a. :rg .n -. 'i ',,,O, s .. g,'M
- y..
y M, .. ; U'.,.- ,a '. ;. * * [r. t-... ' '" 4,,,~, i ;'T.u.f,hs.
- +
..r.... s -Y,; ' O E ;,', ? { _g
- f,:[ I ?, $
t ',.a s ej 1 5,,". s., s
- s o *:., *
.s. s . ' '.';g * ...sg 'y ' j.%; ~ r 's %. a '*.. : (, f ~;...,e - i c.4 ;,s ,e '~ s ,, 2 ;.s v.e q g ' t. q' rp 'p".. ?j *',"-l* t is ;n,
- , ' j%..S G,? T '.
' k ; L.,~ m+ T c
- P4 T
'y:. *.
- .s s: c
,'..~ g,h. . ~ g 4 'G w.M. .. ;,,f '.,. *.,.* y ), s ' y: ' ..h;.. e s o . ;s. s .,v,.,,,.., i ,t. b s. ),
- /. * [. > q i /* %,,
9,..-* f.... '",,% 1 s. ' f %; i d'. t-
- 3
'e => %D. g s. -r s .) . y.;. s .e .O. +' ' s o r 61' v '. c., - . b e D ) 4 ~y 4 ;% s s s .*s 1 5 _} ba ??.
- .A.
c ,h '_F
- (-
' f. e m* ,.) 1 g.. T 4 g a -..., 3- + ~g 9 g y V .4 g s s ' + . N; ~ 1 a. z-sy- .s s .~ g. t / g .m e v ;&. 4 ~ s
.e, . s.., ->~ ..e r. T >- .p s ~ 5 k ,m.,.- 3
- 2..
. s. af..,,,. ..s. e a V n.;, x .,~.. ,a..y. ,,~.. = a. ,. ne., -a. .a s .e.,'.= -. b,g 9 s -. a' e-N .I,) j., ' .c l 5,,. j .6%'- .L- . c.. +- ~..... e a .s,* Denials of 6.. d.D.z. i,* M s... s'Lh. e. ,4.*.. a .,e e n,
- c.,v m.. n.g
.- e :. Pet.t.lOnS fOf M.,.. S M 4.. , W.. L. i 2 "- O ,(eg RUIemakG n .m,.N'm,.*
- gs.er.,. n.,
- I 3.9..'
4 5 ** # a., .e.,..p.- J - J . 1 '%..= ',s..',,5- .q
- [.
,t' 9 g 'v$ .,s. y- % f a,1,. .y. ,+ ;
- -..u
..,. ~. .., - *. s.. -5 g,. t. e .rL e.,I g p, % ' t. 9 a. ,h,, O 4 g D .s. e
- ?
,*s,, p. .h
- t
.. j, 4 p , s A e f ',% . t l' ' d' s a "O*. g,'1,.' * -; ~
- .b
.'E.. ,g s y - :. n "r.t., A g a s .,.54 JNe,. fF . f 'f ."4,* tt ,.. r..; - M, ,\\.,.. . E-l-. g. . 5 m.
- s,e, N-a
. : k',. '*.' r :.1 y
- g
- 3*,
S'..'. 1 .3. )..r-3.,, y <; e.s.. e ,- L,. 9.. s :rc = *,,, y. e ,..w ...'L,,. ,, f. * '.t s. .,., er g.g,.,,, 1 ya,, - ~ a*Ad ,.,.m, s.
- i,.-#
3 9 4
- O'g W
...ge g g~'* '. =. '"g A 3 Id # ' S* '[..' +h
- b.
p.g, '. * = + '
- pI.I.
g ."[. N 0 8". ) 'y ..h go .,s -.,g - A Aa.. a,. --t..; 33, <r. ':6.,.u. > s v a 's - f-p .%,J..,o..s* g ^% b. J. , J.. = a,3. J'.. s .t'" ., ' ' - [ t.s.44 ,r
- j%
,, N
- . e i.
- .., '. * ; ?
? \\, v .s. ., e.
- g,-,
s ' g n s. .y. s .2.' 9 L,. .d : > w' -.i g, .-\\.- . J* + ." F_ g t, _ J / o"e 9 - ns -. ;' -y,,5 0 .?;,.n* ~, -. 4 ,.'s. ~
- 4. '
4- '/. -,.,* .a... - m. g .h J.Op g 9 ,f. '7 ,.,'e}. WP..,,,., 9".- Y s., : y- '~ '. ',h. _
- p
- . 6, t
f.l:.llr:l N: )......
- ,.s,a.
ry. ..,..p.. s.. e. 1, l -.. P.,. 'y. ,, +....Q'_,
- '"?.-
,y:
- -.,e'
,g s w =.-l'.-.c =, 4's s ,s. -3.,.,f u.: r *, 1 ... n ...s ,,,.,<4, O /, f,f, f *' p.,* ?. l.- a' =t . v.c.9g..*',,?<**';."**'..-<T ,.i i,.." .A'.'., .'.,M.: v.* %, _i; j'y' "\\ hl, ". ',')
- ; ;~V:. ~ ~ a p 3 k I'd'-;f? he
- 1;
$4 1 '(%,'} },'.
- s k.
- s a -e l
1,
- 4.. p ;1' j'g m - *
.l.' a4.b s,,.g 4 - r.. a y<.. .(' 4,.s,.y 4 .g..,
- p;
- Q,
- . *.. r,., ' f *.
a.i. f..:r, '. ;=-y ; y..*.;..
- l. - c
.e,q';'n e h,ni'l 377,f \\., 9.^.'.i, #g,
- 1 $ L' j.. '.'.#.*. jri ' e 'A
, e
- e..p.,. m','. ), ef, m-e...' r u' o
r-.,.;x $s, x. g.. N... 'a"s.,Wf..p :4.. o.. c '.S... s'!.Gi W 1,- w
- i. i. %yu, %
- <, y' e t e,c o s O*r,T 3
'"#3- ,,/ 48 .'s,..%** g,. " S -i* ,f.$. F'
- A
^*'y*.f. e'p / 3 5. . t y., ' ~. y r t.- +r* o..% n 4 ' s.:t.s* c =' ; s q ~,,'. s. r. e.O...F'.J. . -. pd ? A. + n .'t.- Q. ,* j ;,. y: ?e', }, . * ^, r,,; ., ' ' g+ n *48'" S i 'A s.- - =, ). 4 .s 4.- ,,4-.
- s.. +,f 9
- a
' s.b, 3, f4c.' g
- ee-
.5 [ I i r s* e e' e y, L ',. '. ,t a. p g y e s, z.. a ; .y, ) .'..m = .a A.,..%, , g e O il a oM ' n#. - * 'l); d e.,- O.,f "' ' %"s)* Ter ".".1'" ?. 4 ~J' . l. o. '6.,,"c. s.. J *. * ' ;F* :* *4, *e *.ba'-,'.e so gg 5, s%.).. .,3*. j ..t a* J.,-s *.,,. =,* . a. -m. ,,.w..,a,.- -g, p . ~ _. ,4 d9?' s4, :., n, <,.,,,.c._ <.. '- r,~ - ~. 4 3. .,w. . i. ~ .\\. s g
- (
w 'l.? (,, s.,#'q# I.,=[#eY /, ' i' #.-,
- ,5~
e LP l ..,a +. s' e ..; ' d .t a+ .e = .' f # $. J " 4 ,8 y's W s,Q 3 c,.y r..-s..1'c f,.'/)., c '. t
- r,.,...,'.
s t ._. p.. ,1 ,i.. w..
- 3...
,.s-v.-.. s 't e, ['; s
- e. d *
d g ' "', ).,k.j '.. }<- a .I
- s m.;, n,
.~%o. v q
- c.,w rs s-m
.t.m. y 3-r.-. . :~ s ,,>: \\ f... g... y.i n.. e. ,1.c -u< a.,,- 6 .7 'e, 9 ' l ' l,'\\ ,N I ~% . %*;3 6 :., ; ' '.,.~. r Os # '4 e,t .' ' j, .m.. ~,'X'rG=
- "'s ',,
u 'd, ...y. M,, g %..'Q,' m.. '.~.)~ t g ..L v *, t e ,e
- 1.,i., -
~, c.'.,, L_?.,...,. 4..~ a.. s.r >> . < t 34 .e. s ..., y.: &e m, - s v. s,. r u.o.n.....,+....k,:',,:-. .% s.w. *
- r
.**'\\ - :. ~-... r e ,,..__x.s_t~~__,.a..._ ..t A" s -s*** r g
s . p f.l/~ v,jp. y :,. 9 s .,. i,, f 3 .i. j
- QO,?.lN.,,;.,. y,.....W f..C
. 4. % ! .~ '. '.. N 'J .,c,.. .e ~c,s. v,:..., ~.. e t. .l ,,...., 9. . ; r, r'. ' t.... - -l- . w,e.
- u..,3. :, '
y. .\\ 1; ~. :. ,~.. ; h. b.. d. ...,n:, .v ,~..x, .s,.s..c. y,. n s y , :,1 -,.i.s :. .'< n.: ... s. b.. M,, v . r.,,,. s. /m",. sf 4, u 9, u- {:, .-c.',,.,c- ,o . e m - 3 m., 3. ......,,. v .a ,,,. v.pw.. .y
- o...,
-7.. y.,.My. ". P, r ~.,Q,. . /.e g, Cite as 27 NRC 613 (1988) DPRM-881 p. ,w. . /.,... s..:y :. e. >.. - ~ 3- .p +.... r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' ##c.'A c e ' 'll- +.7 .5. ' 'I Q: ,N,.' ". e'.' ;N.,..nn.
- m..,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cP.,.. N, ......y y ,e. 4 .e v,.,,.9:.. w, ~., .r.s e +: . '. :.y.., s s w +c OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
- n;.L.,. 2,f f ( M '_ t p.jMy
'. <.e..;... ..;. q : m :,.- ; n l b;.a ;
- . n;.,,,y. -
r .v 'f Q '; g m... e;<',4,'/ y. .c c,n ~....,.9 Victor J. Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations '"Q. S,. a.
- 7,
- ^
-A. - 'l' N. * '..2 n..4 3-' 1 w.
- c.. a,,.,,
,,l. -. W. e. (- e,V.,q~W... %. .l t s. In the Matter of Docket No. PRM 50 25a U. O. *' 4..u.n !..... ' ..r. ;, - 1
- r. ::..
- y.;
.. fy ', .% ;~,*,. P PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE Ef.:W...' W:h.... '. 'M..E.,...,, p.; u.. f, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF %' *, l. 'E.M.U. 7T,. b '"(>-76. f.' .f[ W 7.'h. - W.f,a AMERICA, et al. April 1,1988 j'- ,.e,,. a.. %;. y. y:.g n - .v n,,.,.g f p .y,..w..
- - -.,G.m. '
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is denying a petitlen for rulemaking y, '. mf [ * ' J '. V %c/,.y j ;,,'.'j.s"'.... submitted by the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, p. % M c W A :? M 1 et al. The Petitioner requested a change in the Commission's regulations iP !; ^ 3. iN ' :M. Mh.'N W %l[p[d g y.p.y g @[ governing the extension of construction permits. Specifically, the Petitioner requested,that the Commission not limit its inquiry in granting an extension ,1 to those reasons why construction was not timely completed but would require ,f.';[.S; %g !,G.p Q.p.l T /c, t t h J,,- the Commission to consider whether good cause had been shown for continued g..j/py %fqwr.;&. $.+:, 'u% ,a~.-Q...I.(, .M. :.?c-: 9. .g;j .., j +- - v construction of the reactor in light of all the circumstances at the time the w. request for an extension was filed. Commission decisions since the filing of '. %. aF M.....M.Q c3 h++: ? b r'. '.9'. "; f. W,.c u. a the petition have emphasized that f.he decision to grant an extension should r. a l.. p e - not be used to conduct a brord-based reconsideration of the initial decision to ",5. M,t.l 7. p3 ;c;q, T' ( s.v.f;. Q1 [, cv ' ',.f.' [l',
- 1 7
grant a construction permit. 3ince the petition would, in essence, require such broad. based recensideratior., the Commission has decided to deny the request p/J M - .;/>; [ 4 c?M>..n;br6.4.: n for rulemaking. - - tJ : / w .;p t L. .r. . m..~ ;,+....;;.,7,,9,.; .h s.nu ' : %, n. cn 3.6 p.,,::.. 7 X > R, ::Wn- .c:: NRC: AUrliORITY OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FGR .., :4,. , P M.$f $',,,f.),h. OPERATIONS TO DENY PETITIONS (9:v n.. '" .yn. :,M.s a%e,. a s. E.T.i..m[..,/ Pursuant to the 10 C.F.R. s 1.40(o), the Executive Director for Operations Fl W,' W... M.,,' A M, ~ M.@ .M;}i, is authorized to deny petitions for rulemaking of a minor or nonpolicy nature '$ k ? N M;j. F
- 4. a, m. ;
fj;O9 M ; %@N,D'M where the grounds for denial do not substantially modify existing precedent. In $$$-[/Mk$$,N fact, the Commission has recently addressed this very issue and has seen no d'"#4M;n?e. M?:? reason to modi ~y its existing policy. F '$s ?/Sh .: m..?. w.& &Tp &. m 4,g; p ? ~..,s.. ...c,4;'Y.%:'M.:%Q.g y. K.W e9:. d.g .m.a. y f.w q. %,:.. f s $,$qn tv,.../s..H: e .r, ?, Q.. ,h;c:h.e c y u % w':s n n . s a,.'
- ;*j';,'Na*ll% ' f, f
- h hhh f,
5... '. + - a ;. J. },.,*'* m.,', w ? c d '.h.;g.w... w
- - ; i
? ...'p. $... *M. s.[, M. m?.[b.,.;' ), ;.s .'t
- ky2,[.,'1'yM,..
.s .g.. g. r.,s . t -g. >,..'t;. q ;. :, : m9-'::5 g' ' '. 4.y: 1.... ~ t e .,",.g t j Q.. .-%g Q::v:a r .) iyf9Ra;%;. :'.f:_v. * ~ g;. f.7..
- s. < y
.s. '-m p*y3.*f .z, h.j[*fl;*. ; * ?! Wf,'i l:~ } '*' ~ ' *ye* y% y. *:g r,.,?. ' w.-7:W 3,pMnr ..A. ',. y?. ci,g.f.f.c.3..6 .", y :,'{ > .,' t,. 47 .;.- ?.:p; %.4.: W. G :'. e 1 <- : a 'f;3'.;l'; t ',4',p,Qll 1.f' ; .:i ' t . y '. k.. O,, ; r-i<.'... r.< e w. 1 'r,.. ; ~v.. ,5 ; u 2. . lr.... ll<} b ',D lll f .., ; (- ~,. 5. : - ll n "..,A.... m. s.- .g -f s s
- u.
..}... a.~.,.c, "d, s '.,. g,/,.,, v ....*,.,.h,j,,.,... y*.).,,, ; f. s , m I ^ .,6,,.- .,./'.,",',,,...;- e. ?...ce s. .g, s ,s .. }., s w y .u.. [, I .,.'y;>j a. g , j ':.. k Yy'.N ~[.[ I ..,s j.,, f ' y,,(;.y. -}. 4 '...., 9.Q'.2.;);, yj.t.m'... A' lg.fQ....,%,.i, )"m.f; p .y 9 s ;; $,.:-:... , 7., ; 7 m.,. ;;;; ;,*m.')s;. <.b.)f
- c. y
,g, ,+. ll.,}... ~.9.pA '.',' .c.,.- e.. . q
- a
, r %. r 4.
- l-
.} clN j'i,
- b a
'h & }&s y') L. y i z,
irrr y;m:.;w. Q.g y.q T v.' t ..:;e;.g.L7 W ;w.
- 7;,
- .Q:N grc y L3. '
'V ' i g'r...v;W;a. ty.7,N.2;;; o::-:.. ~.m. s^ ", u :, d. ?' . w
- m. -,, m:
_2 a; ~ . A 61.. o c :p^ ; . : ~ co. t ...: f.*}. ys.,. .^
- l,, ? r. t l
Q .:...,,l* y,l 4; '_.4 ' ',' Q
- i... :.,y:.o,.:q.,x.,'.
, :n. -, .{- ...'., y :. : ~ n )- 'x... s:;fp v.p.. <~ ~. -+, . v, y. , s. .,..t $,,n...fff.},y, l.f.f& - " h :- n E- ^ YN ^ U ! ' '" A x e .v v: -a, ,.[ d:. V.. p.i.' ?,.1;.. D l 9. ' a . a s.p.y. '... v v v:m... p,.:.. ~.p n.g,i: y : R ; : :., ~, n* ;..'% L,>;., . y._ o e: g. ..,;.f w..,+
- p :'*r... - c.,.: ; ~,
.,. m, cg :y r:. - *.:et f.'.. J - y g.<5 -:'. O.' ' CONSTRUCTION PER5 TIT: EXTENSION OF C051PLETION DATE MhNf.'.D,.9M8':( ',%.j'. >,; O .h; ?.?, (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING) Q,Q:g:.
- n 3: s. r;.
p j.g.St.Y::#'";g' p g,y.M; y, j Re purpose of the construction permit extension process is not to engage @ l.? r, K 12.ir;.. ". in an unbridled inquiry into matters already addressed in the initial construction
- . s.]:f l:'l. Y.. & g., ' f d 3 ; '.;
c f dC. W. permit hearing. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear ?? j (, M.]" A.; :?W;p,] $ y % '!
- h Project Nos.1 & 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1221,1227 (1982). A person who
- .M.
7,. g'8 wants to raise health, safety, or environmental issues can do so in a request for l "gc. ,3'X
- q i<-
.1 the Commission to institute a show-cause proceeding under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206
- ' '$d, or, to the extent appropriate, can seek to litigate such issues in the context of an j c.,, l e -
e, 7 '.T,. .d operating license proceeding. The approach to deciding whether good cause has f _ ' ;[. f,. 7.:,. ,y,.. .j been shown is to limit the challenges to the request for an extension to those ..s.,, '~ -.. 2; based on the reasons proffered by the permittee for the delay. Id. at 1228. .,T '... . h,+.. ..'t... - + . i., y ". W " ; 6. - (;, ; CONSTRUCTION PER51IT: EXTENSION OF CONIPLETION DATE ,,g.> c$ 7,. c., ,,J (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING) ' z.g. y* w.. a v,v .m .i: " QJ, ', /,i/* G 1,.7.j The construction extension process is not a forum for the reconsideration {g',. s s 37 l '/.1;;g.l} of issues addressed in the construction permit hearing, nor is it an avenue for c @.;,,',s. a.,.j n;j % ' D!y.] raising issues that can be addressed in a more appropriate forum such as a g y. l;.;, j $ 2.206 proceeding or an operating license proceeding. Texas Utilities Electric
- ' ?] 1.W. ' '
.[ ,, $.N Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI 86-4,23 NRC 113 (1986), aff'd, Citizens Association for Sound Energy v. NRC, 821 F.2d 725 , & : q,.l. l<...,; y:. Q U. d., L _. y x (D.C. Cir.1987). a.,,,,. g . <.. s. - w;. .,._.,s, y; -. .,, 4.,. : e. g ;m, 9e (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING) 9 ',w. i CONSTRUCTION PER511T: EXTENSION OF CON!PLETION DATE .z: w.,. v h 5.0 ) -[. ~ - O ",) c,.. ? De Commission has repeatedly rejected attempts to bron en the scope of 4.g m.:e .d : ,- h a con;truction permit extension proceeding. Avenues exis' in which persons ' q. .12
- ,
- 7 '.f,;., U 3 can raise safety and environmental concerns. Tk CommissOn does not believe
,g 'N 774 N.,,,la i that a full. scale relitigation in "a good-cause proceeding" of issues addressed ,,[W [... ( elsewhere or that can be raised in a differe;,t prom..g would substantially 'y . -<0~ ' ~;. improve the protection of public health Md :. ~:ty. ~ :q < s 1 .1. 4. s v ~ 3 "q CONSTRUCTION PERN1IT: EXTENSION OF CONIPLETION DATE (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING) The Commission has developed a test for determining whether a contention s ) falls within the perimeter of the construction permit extension process. The f. I< s
- 3
) contention must show that.the applicant is responsible for the delay and has ....m ~ ? 674 9 s \\ b t e 3 + ' s 8 g s g 4
.. gpy:, &. ,4 ; ;. ..g 3 C '. ',~ ' ~ ~ i ,4 4 s .s .,.,,6 \\.. / ..,1 s4 a .c ,a,.. p,..'y,s.,.. ,,.., ?. 5 c ' s -o s. 4 .e s ?.:,;. h, ;. ?,<.., :.. s. c,,. v, n 'r% < ys.:.- c,- e a w ~ ,e.,- w.s. ,i,o ~- t.
- r' vw.
.4
- .. '. p.,
,4., g o . ~. -.....m... n_....g t , i q,g,, . n y.,a.s.,
- e t
3 J g ' 4 ) ,., s' ' '....W' S.. c *. vz v t.,".
- p.y j *, y. ' '
s-
- v. :.. w.
'9..,' -e :e: y'; q. .a ,.e y. ., gm
- ,,.g,..[
E N, g']jrAs y 3 '."yd.; '..y 4 acted intentionally and without a valid business purpose. Public Service Co. of ~ New /!ampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CLI 84-6,19 NRC 975,978 (1984). 'l g l:r, M p'.L. %.T::c.d [.. e mw e / 7Y.a,?ESv' v My. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: EXTENSION OF COMPLETION DATE L~P" iJ,. 4.% 2'i Q...a.,;3 M (GOOD CAUSE) w ' - A permittec may demonstrate that there was good cause for the past delay @:r,w,j$[.cp,..y'Q.,.-:[ '
- s. r. e.
.n.. ..a in plant completion or a permittee may show that its current and future actions i '. b(;@[. g.L.p, l.' .a /. :l,. J:W N are "good cause" for an allowance of more time for plant completion. This c + ~ is so even when the delay results from past conduct by the permittee th'.t C'c.. [cf i' y.;', sought to violate NRC requirements, which then resulted in a requirement to Mi & !. 'g>; 'i correct safety deficiencies flowing from the past conduct. Texas Utilities Ele.tric 'g,'
- Y * ;,' yc f,,-. 4. y; A.- j" - - <
Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI 86-15,24 NRC 3C Q ; f +,.y 'O, (1986). If the permittec discards and repuilates its past policy of violatin5 NIK' W A. - i 1 i '.l&. %,-@.;,P..%g. 4 ,f:. ~2~ requirements,"any delays arising from the need to take corrective actior, would .i 2; y
- g.
r ,p s be delays for good cause." Id. at 403. i,. a3, e.'.. 1 ~ v ^ rJ.- r., su:.
- m.. :,ww+. x: c:n,-..,,
- 2. m. a t-i s
+s DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
- 8. 5 A.&'.
..b' r .. m... n ,1. ~ 80 D@.O(';,;;W"':(i t ?,,. - J r. "y 1 R I. BACKGROUND ..g.-g:c y W Q#. 9
- p:g..-s m.., M'
+.w. a
- c. - x, N;Z-By,' j. ' w
^ m.: f;Q$.D.M,W.,[Q. In a submit:al dated December 20,1979, the Porter County Chapter of the 'A Izaak Walton League, the Concerned Citizens Against Bailly Nuclear Site, the h <, O[:'. p, $. W E.y f d,, 3. M Businessmen for the Public Interest, Inc., James E. Newman, and Mildred LG., II?.Y h.. i. # O, '..%. s Warner filed with the Commission, petition for rulemaking PRM-50-25a. An' 'S,b.b >T,..> % trN.k... r.lp NWke; Qp.l yM.a identical petition was filed on the same date by the State of Illinois and was N, :.n...' "p2'% ' ? denominated petition for rulemaking PRM-50-25. The Petitioners requested that 4,P g:6. the Comn ission modify 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b) which provides: J,, 4...,,.Wi.[ f... g j'3, >.2 .g ,.. >; A : -y
- 4.. '.," :m,
.,... ( L n.., .s If the prcposed construcnon or modificatien of the facility is not completed by the latest y~k, j k.,3.a Q. yfQf,,',. ;;.3 47.1..W.'Afd[. ;m.3. Q f y j ccenpledon date, the permit shall expire and all rights thereunder shall be forfeited: Provided. Aowever, That upon good cause shown the Commission uill extend the completion S) M" f N.... g' M ['/l. ,f , *.. M 'T , 'u + ~ date for a reasonable p riod of nme. The Commission will recognize. among other things, .I.T.- developmental preblems attributable to 'he experimemal nature of the facility or fire, flood, ().;,7c.b[g;;.M NU , W.f 5 ' ,. qty, M S'q, $.; , 3; }, g 9 explosion, strike, sabotage, domestic violence, encray actico, an act of the elements, and cther acts beyund the control of the permit holder, as basis for ettending the completion W M ; g.;5 st
- W. i date.
w w.,;4,3?D.#w a.+m.*.,'. -.s.g' W mv m-S L..g W>.m.: y. Awi n: V,p..
- r. n$,',... n,. 1 <
1. we a. .n. The Petitioners sought to amend tb section as an alternative to their attempt v4Yn[g chu ' 1 W^ n M D,"..M'M(),.M@h@ hMEi '[,$.< %'. to intervene in the construction perrrii proceeding for Northern Indiana Public dM f Service Company's (NIPSCO) BailN< Nuclear Generating Station. NIPSCO a.m e.-*'im s1, pf,, p , ' * " 'd W. ',,-Qk.. .,'Y.g. N. ' r. ' e A.. j r g'., . m$m.hd.w-}a&,../,k' <;f,.,,(. ,'l l e, a...,7,.'.n{f. h...
- f W;
w. ( f [: '-' 1,2f. >h 4Y.bA' [9 / s'. N. .) G.4 1. P %.V" M..a v. 9.,.. u q t,s,w., w e3
- e. %..W,hD. w?. MV&.. Q97%M 9
C 'w Q J,.'- s s . t .,' ' 4.m. fem 1.f.) ) h i). ' ~ $ * '. }. h \\- W,yg(y*;;;Q L, Q:s.,yW..,. .?:3. H s, y.' s
- q M'
.v D* '.*\\.
- g q,.
y ,, y..' $ r, M* < g;,.y,,[.'Y 7 .+, y
- 'S
. a v *u,. d Q' f,*7p', Q....g. w' ;c.f (y.; s p...-j M,*g y'L*, a5 : y. . p. g.- ec y-7~ q. g --, ---a ,~ ..4 .+ r
- 4. y",v.,.,!j.yJ. Q.{j, r,g.'.
.a i...n n. q' ? ' t. ~. - s. a ,l f *.Yq-a. ,..w - ,6 ,.y, w( T.*.,,Q.Q'Q,Q o'4g " O o, fq.+ ", ,3.
- f
.t.a N ',- n5,.. s.,.) r s e s &,g.?g w*.,,;, t.,. w m,c.m...,ya. u. v. ~. L). t t, m:'*.. .q ?yy.., aw y q'a.,. e. 4 -.w. . zr .s+ .->cq.. -e(*.u. %.c. *.q. '.%gn, m, .. g., ;..;. 4,'. w.?. f., .,? .c .g* x,c[4, '". 2.'r.hU re ' OM, h}c .,.y ].. g.. w .a, '9.g f.... Or., . / C.- I". '[e'[ -. f.E ' ' l,#O 7,. s ,e, f 'b..",,.: 'U' p sR,,.').'M }f. y;,/.W ,.g ' '. ; e */ 7 'y. '., ~,. * ,c W i. $1 k,*, p .O i W. h. 4, *,5.f # .* l y. s , N.. .4 -. w r,, _cp4., 2 ..P g,. 1 . W My. ;WF.S a i TrT.i,
- C. " ~ ?'..
, h fh;f', :_...#..f.;,1q: :Q ':h. yh(iM'>; e 'd.. *T ' ? i 3.; / y _ ; h '.,.h
m:,. '.s., r v - ~ +,. m y A v.~ %,a. w W's m.u n y t m'. . c.. p ;i. . r z;
- %.L y '
- -
K ':)',.i/
- v -
'.,"y. - ~' ' ,.t < ",re -. '. h
- v. -
J r ', e ; s;.. g7 j p,,'9c. 3 ,jo. r. .t e' v c , M ;., ~ l *G. :. Y.E '. x.. :,l'. '. ~
- i. ;
1 9:, ;w 1 "'z. ', ( Q. ' &~,.J .c 3 3 ka '_- !w ,? ,;, c.c. 3. p.yfD; ' 3., r 'c., -y _,.. -a b 4?l canceled the P ant and Petitioners' desire to intervene became moot as a result of l .s.. s,.3>..; ,.x i , ' D T 'M ' N..','- ti;,.. :-j M
- '.,4iV - IJ cancellation. However, the Petitioners requested that the Commission consider
&J-Q ' ' O modifying $ 50.55(b). Specifically, the Petitioners requested that the good-cause f !,,. 5 ' e
- determination must consider "whether the permittee has shown good cause for
.1 f ( '.OM/..
- 9 ',I'f' '...
i the continued construction of the plant in light of all the circumstances at the time / of considering the application (for the extersn)." In the view of the Petitioners, l,,[.y, $ 4..O.) ~ ;. f J.] q ' .g., W.,. '., this rule would prohibit tha Commission fro.m limiting the extension proceeding ? $1 to the reasons why construction was not completed by the latest completion 7 U .+ ,- a date in the constructica permit. The Commission received four comments on '4 g ~ 4.,. the petition from law firms representing various owners and operators of nuclear f'; ,-1 power plants. The comments were unanimous in their opposition to the petition. In early 1985, both the State of Illinois and the private-citizen groups were j ,' 7-i f,. ' / contacted by the NRC in order to determine whether the Petitioners wanted to 4.' b.' ' ; j,' ] Generating Station. On February 28,1985, the State of Illinois sent a letter to .g ~ - I withdraw their request in light of the cancellation by NIPSCO.of the Bailly .~~ the Secretary of the Commission withdrawing its petition for rulemaking (PRM -' j Ml t; .. e 1 50 25). Attorneys for the privcte-citizen Petitioners were contacted and they 'n f -[ agreed to withdraw the petition (PRM 50-25a). Approximately a year later, the , ;.y - : <. - N j attorney for the private citizens was again contacted and he stated that he would O ./[,;.. s;g -6 withdraw the petition. Followup information was sent on January 31,1986. No N, '- ' 0, j response was forthcoming. Rather than delay further, the Commission will act ] ~.p. - ;'Q,. :.7 upon the petition. i a n
- o.
t s.. x, 7
- 11. DISCUSSION 4
L' of i50.55(b). In Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucicat Subsequent to the filing of the petitions, the Commission clarified the meaning Project Nos.1 & 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1221 (1982), the Commission 3 s s /. ;; addressed the scope of the "good-cause" determination. First, the Commission J y noted that the purpose of the extension process was not to engage in an unbridled inquiry into matters already addressed in the initial construction permit hearing. ' ~ c /d. at 1227. The Commission then noted that a person who wanted to raise health, safety, or environmental issues could do so in a request for the Commission to institute a show-cause proceeding under 10 C.F.R. (2.206 or, to the extent t ' ' i appropriate, would seck to litigate such issues in the context of an operating 't
- .)
license proceeding. The Commission concluded that the approach to deciding whether good cause had been shown was to limit the challenges to the request for an extension to those based on the reasons proffered by the ps tmittee for the delay. /d. at 1228. Thus, for example, a challenge to a permittee's need for an extension based on delays due to unusually severe weather could not be based y on the need for the facility but only on the severity of the weather as it affected I. / 616 4 ev ( s ~ b
..g'.,..,.. -- -.. aw ;.,.,. ,,a.. cc. .O y..W F a,(,.,<c..e - Y.s 1, , v. m. .,,,,p.,l5'O,A a.M.g.#..,$y,,,N. 7 ec .n.. f .. ry 9 t .: e. o 73.- .. ~.. u,4. p+,g _.g.my(.- q.., ; 4...;r.y> f g 5,, .- n,7, g . y 7.y, t.. -., ^ .t. e nus. o .. t.s.n. - p: .~. m w....., :.. .i' u.,w. k. m a. w..s.e.u. ,~./..,.. . R. v, z.... e., s a
- ~.u-.
s.. .u.a R. m g .w..... .m . w .a _m 4 n. ~ '. 4 S, .,, y v .,r c,., 'm'
- e
- 3.,
. l, v.; . ~.. [M ' ~ f ' ' 3, ,y .N e: ^ f,'. permittec's ability to construct the facility. The Commission again addressed [ ; i )c, ' -.,, tl : issue of good cause shown in Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak St tam Electric Station, Unit th CL186-15,24 NRC 397 (1986). In that case, ,(,h,' '. [ g ', ',[, f.;/.,, 7 n> ; }", the t.amniission held that a pe'mittee may demonstrate that there was good . J, {'. cause for the past delay in plant completion or a permittee may show that its curren, and future actions are "good cause" for an allowance of more time for p; plant completion. This is so even when the delay results from past conduct by .W.E O "' # (, ..?gj, the permittee that sought to violate NRC requirements, which then resulted in ,f k, ',,lQ[, ]Q C W a requirement to correct safety deficiencies flowing from the past conduct In ..c f, p N.? J,)Q-%, * ',,, _ Q. short, if the permittee discarded and repudiated its past policy of violating NRC
- .Ol' requirement.t. "any delays arising from the need to take corrective action would i'
be delays for good cause." Id. at 403. ! .M V h",,,?fi[A- ~' The Commission revisited the construction permit extension process in Public / - ' Service Co. of New Ilampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CLI 84 6,19 ( ,'q f,, h s y@I, 7 ".,;..VT. s g
- f'; '
~ NRC 975 (1984). The Commission reaffirmed and expanded on the WPPSS decision. Specifically, the Commission developed a test for determining whether lj,;g.f a contention falls within the perimeter of the construction permit extension g j, ' E',' T Q g;- process. 'Ihe contention must show that the applicant is responsible for the delay and has acted intentionally and without a valid business purpose. Id. at 978. L 'P ' (. The Comreission reemphasized the narrow scope of the construction permit .h - (t. J extension procccding in Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam j(. Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI 86-4, 23 NRC 113 (1986). In Comanche Peak, pt,.hy.'-M:
- 7. i e
' ~," the Commission had to determine whether it could grant an extension of a <. dT.s "' ~ w.. ;., >v. s.n / constmetion permit after the construction permit had expired. The Commission P.." . f fg.( 4 . m. 3 @.c.i D '. p./,, t i).(1.p9.-);. d.3l determined that it could do so. More importantly, the Commission rejected a plea i J J M.. i SfM$.,, C. y iu Q WR' W'L M, N,Y'.d by the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) for a full scale hearing e. on a new construction permit. 23 NRC at 117-20. Rather, the Commission [.'9M h@M G ' i. j'M referred the request for a hearing to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gG .j'yy[ ( J,j - Panel for appropriate action. In the referral, the Commission limited the scope h..,t !N. M..M,p $ ,;'e h.O.P W $ W; of any hearing to challenges to Texas Utilitics' effort to demonstrate the N..W. b.' cxistence of good cause. Id. at 121. By rejecting CASE's plea, the Commission ., 4 1 o j .. ', AAie W O. M,.mf.( Q ", S M ii.dty reiterated its policy that the construction extension process is not a forum for ~, y Q,p,% '.' .,'i,W Y,[.... 5 y the reconsideration of issues sddressed in the construction permit hearing; nor
- W
- NQp is it an avenue for raising issues that can be addressed in a more appropriated f(.M. E:S K"%.h. ', '-. ' -
forum such as a 62.206 proceeding or an operating license proceeding. The 4 $.$d*. ! {6. rV ' Commission's determination in this case was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court %. hth,%,&. &Q...l of Apreals on June 26,1987. See Citizens Associationfor Sound Energy v. NRC, [%,%~i%..k' $7f> & , E. : W W..:: 821 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir.1987). ,n. %s i t,. J In summary, the Commission has repeatedly rejected attempts to broaden W:;W>..F T.'$), M the scope of the construction permit extension proceeding. Avenues exist in . Ms.v. %<. d which persons can raise safety and environmental concerns. The Commission c,. ..~ . ;M '. : " s " ' does not believe that a full scale relitigation in "a good cause procccding" of WQ:;, : % g.,g ::.g.c z.v:py;,:s.a.,wn m L'. .=?, l n.j. 00; m .y. .P.?-Q *,,, :., -t s. O nh>--$:.J (k.s,y;.u.. s:r. _a_ % *;,. &.. a
- v pir'f.y.0," ggg+\\< $$g.l
, t's.*. S W I.*'**^ t W, Q~ 617 3;.lf m n,. *a qw.g 4;g ".sg. 4..,y,
- 3 1.-
n.3, ::.e,y.. m : e t Q :.cy 1. 4 vw
- , n...
f.Y e m :n: m2 mj u.,., e. r F ej jr,, s .2 L ; { v.: s.# o - 6r ~., f; w= w.4. <-=. ' o a 4 L. c.t h y...<- ? r ,+, z'. ,5
- c.i
,,,4. s *.* u (&,J'.."9.y,.'... F 9 4,*.* a +. W 4 y l. A, ry yg[; { {. 4 :., ~ t, t
- p y'., ; w.
. : N. e,., 3.,*fo,, ' * ' ~N .(. * "l">l* n 9 f*[l ? O
- n p~ty w y q-g.=;- 3.3.y,go ;
.r y;
- ~'. * *
.7 KA
- . [u.,,' y ~y' m-,
n l;,G l.Q,':.Q f;.g' y. '.3.g.yy '3 'jf. 3 t .f' V hj {, ;.p.y :,' >.f;;g, n.; .w.. u;. 9 J w,.; m,.m3...g gy.y pg;:q.p.mu;. .,. ;,,, q,;, y-y.;.m.3 3.. s y a O a m.r. e,v:g..n.~i.3.go,,,.%.;,.i p<*. 4 yg,g d.x y:a.n. -,. ;a.c. + y s- .,.3.y u a..,.. y y.:. :,w g.f,wy s,. + c,9 -, y,... d % *..., s e e.....~,*, 'o.,:.; g. .,..g..
- 7. 4,
f n.p'.Y. ~,Q,.1:,'&,.i.f '.1... ' s,. ED9.Y.'N.l;-f s'f D & k$;,,j ;,y$,/ e'f.,^Q' $ ',:?, ? f,&:Y,f.&,&g. y. v ? .,u.r,y.r-,
- v. J.' - f 2.p
- c -'
- e,...
c , t. ,,.s l? b.f&& %,] A i i f. ?. i l'.
~ Of.d}'[iGlq;%s;9,~^,,)K'.r M;k. #.yM@.,&p@, [*.Mn* 'W', Y, '.# ~,2. 7
- I * #.I'.. h;
' y, 2* ['
- i f
3, h. k & 1 7 W: ' M :y& ~, c o *. '.v e ?. f;u. ".
- 1
... x, f. ' ? En .H K h.'6 i.n, % n.c yl,n '3 H - x i?
- ^ -
& M-A. . W %.:, .l, J6 V ,=w..T. s. :s s. - '. V.,*- a.- w .:? . i. ;; .y o i- <<n l? _ s +
- . p f '. _ '
r. .jf..z, O j Q.i
- e~
e =6 s ' "* r -,- ( + i,, ,.*.E f5,*, .]h '*N [, 'y,..V,
- g '
l ' -..' i ' 3, '(,< ,I 6 g., 5 ,'N.,'- > t-j.3.;e-Q - m i r
- f...-
a.-*
- l.
7 A .,. u' *p 2,. e,C;.. l -r s,.*.s. ej..' r, ., g l+,.
- g
.. \\ *.7.. J.",Oy ,;..J.*
- ,. u.., *.x f s *'* - - *.,',. -
'j ,1. g
- q i
9- <;u, 6
- c. * < s.. <.;
.a . m,,, e. s. .s w a. + s m -e se ,,t.* I*
- U. < 4 4
r- .1, . s '- t a - + .te g- .../.ys .t 4 .3.,h ,.s...--p ~ ' .y.= .g ;.: p* ..t .~. ' - ?, +T
- . n%,' ;
,s l't. j',llN *G. k h. 0,.:, s,' h ' w, h c. n,& ' 's, ' ~ e s ?. ..,f af5.. y ;6. - .t d3;6..., - p. *. % , j 6.g .y, e , [., i w :., ~,. 1:4 r 1* - p Q y.v:;{ c,!D,@2 n.,,}f,. M...,E 'W.. issues addressed elsewhere or that can be raised in a different proceeding would , e.M,, y. : 1J fM 4 9. m.,. e ffPS-?.0;?& M. .2.mi. -yy G Mf.JJ,j substantially improve the protection of public health and safety. f:;c,.w.,w A','z., 2;uy. u. w y. h. em &' AMJx:M.- 4i:w yx:.m.y',4 .. u&.1 i,h; $....:g.. J' . m A /"G.;.y <jpg.L IU. FINDINGS .n.a. v,.. w. w ; N.c, . ww. y m: a .c.: :.n, - a... w yJ:; z.'s-l m.. .v c.;pg S, y... 4 J,.;n.. ;f _~.m.~.,a-(j. ..,t t y,.y:,.;.g Based on the above consideratior.s, the Commission hereby denies the petition ,y..Si N.@ f.ff,TlI V c/'#1' $ k for rulemaking PRM SO 25a, dated December 20, 1979, filed by the Porter L., . p.. W-...,C,,.' V County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, et al. c; y a -f ( -./.2 W 5.; 6 Pursuant to the 10 C.F.R. f 1.49(o), the Executive Director for Operations y f, f. .'o ' h. 7-Ql;.f.Q.) 'TJ;9;.j is authorized to deny petitions for rulemaking of a minor or nonpolicy nature 'i f:2,.y # ' 7s %'. W ' / y where the grounds for denial do not substantially modify existing precedent. This ' '., - 7.s i petition does not raise new policy issues and the grounds for denial of the . } Q _hi, f'.s.t d ,/,' h.k.3 ' . E 3 m.%,; J [9i, G.T N N. d, petition are in accordance witn existing precedent. In fact, the Commission has n u -~f? ' ' y g j. ']y.; 5.j recently addressed this very issue and has seen no reason to modify its exist'ng i
- ., u m j': -i;
' (j policy. Thus, denial of the petition falls within the scope of the Executive n*,...'N .; / f '.p..'.j Director's del: gated authority. .e, . '- D.4 .>...)7..., 3 tc ... s,:;
- 'n.i.
a, y ,3 - ....v. . 3.,. < :.,y. For the Nuclear Regulatory Ji
- c. ". 7p _,.;.. f,;g *. -0 Comm.ission m, ;.!. :a., m
- m. f.:.,, ~ -.
J N1 p, ,',. ';, - e : (.-
- y*i '
- - -
r; ~.g .,1 ] u.%. y ',.., V, J ry - b 5., ',.. N,< Victor Stello, Jr., . l e',s...,. ",iCf. W.L. V W: 6 . m 's, s Executive Director for s "M', u ; g ', p;p.., 'm n*vg < Operations .a.
- a. g...,
s */ w a .[ ' [ '), s ,M# Dated at Rockville, Maryland, < " ;'* ;'..,'. x' this 1st day of April 1988. go e, L.;, s ..,.c ~ ~. .= a
- Q:A
~ =, m ; ....e.. 3..: g.- .m s. e O I .'.q 'e '2j s '.4- ,OP1 . ji. ;.
- e'
.t' t.s l e L* g I ( t,
- y '..r.,.
e o 6 I J* .W~ 6 .s ,t [
- s.
...s L 'e, S ,.+
- y b
W j 6, v n m 'I O l 618 e + M 8 .g, I 4. a e,-. s )- _t. 4 i s- ~ j y 9 4'% g 1
,., e ,4 N '<'\\.~. / J. .,3.. -0. ~, ',, ,..J R 7--j; *- ,o ~. - &. ; c. ?.% m.%..;;;,.kb..)- - - b- '.M i.,' . - ).,,
- n.,., ny.~ '
. ; 5;. x m
- b. ;.
4, )% ' u + ^.O .4" 4 "c" }. '_ 6 .r l y-L., p ' ?.:-) '.c j i s .9," Q E,. ... g.,- A m s .s v,. .e, Cite as 27 NRC 619 (1988) DPRM 88-2 - " C i y 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E ', NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 j OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations ~ ^ c s h.y 4; .c, e. ~ .,7 in the Matter of Docket No. PRM 40-24 [..., < S. s.. y UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION April 11,1988 l ,,.. s. t. g De Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rule- ' 'x r. making (PRM 40-24) submitted by the Union Carbide Corporation. The Peti- .'t ~ tioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations in four areas pertaining to uranium milling operations and closure requirements. Three of the amendments requested by the Petitioner are being denied due to changes made in NRC's reg-f.[ J .+ ulations as a result of standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency y'.O^ .., '.h. 1, - ,G (EPA). ne NRC regulatory changes that were necessary to conform to EPA's Q.:: l'.? y ',. y< ,4 c ^ standards are requtred by law. The Petitioner's requests, which were received k d i J..
- h......,.. m..,q W! :l-. / ~, $ 3,-
prior to promulgation of EPA's standards, are inconsistent with existing EPA requirements. He fourth area deals with a requested change to the assumed real er'. C S. s .,a,.i w..,1 i m.~ interest rate used to cover the cost of long-term surveillance. his request is de-N j V.n;u a $ W., .C iJW ^
- 9.. x, r.
nied on the basis that the proposed change is inconsistent with the government's yg;, q%7 y..s , g "] .,,.,w.i 4,, - historical real rate of return. A. y3.l.W-, G.,.
- 9.. p y... :.
%...,s s. q c.,, s. y t g e.,- I'b.w,c. ; k. y'- UMTRCA (URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT k ,w ~.d..x... >.v,.. W, +r i.,.:..,.;.v.< r. W OF 1978): COMPLIANCE WITil EPA REGULATIONS pr y M.N[#M e y,~ [l k. hS[ .N A petition for rulemaking requesting the amendment of portions of the NRC regulations implementing UMTRCA (10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A) which '.S d'$@h.y. ;1'l.. [, was filed before the revision of those regulations to conform to EPA standards N W d.df) $ F '. 34. g ' (as required by law), will be assessed against the revised regulations, rather than the regulations to which the petition was addressed. Those proposals that are @MST d,'.". c $ Y .fh lM[t,,,'.j.Jf.gf..." N., [ irmnsistent with the EPA standards, as incorporated in NRC regulations, are o.,' rejected. "J 7.>,'J.. e e'$ ?v m. ...?'.' y; %i' <v .e .f e .y ? s 4.1 :. ., $. ]i g 'f' 'j._al<,:L'- ,' f. = ' '_ a... . ~. ~ ' j g' s'**- ne 5 py 4.}?.,;;' ;,y y %. ;ait a.'" 4 y',. * ! 2(,4. a;.;..;.):' "y i n,
- 14. ?
.. m; ul v.c.'n .c 619 B.. 76 ..s c t e. x.....q.y',,i s '... 'x...., '~ ,+ n. m.y}. rl.;yb* ' E ' f..& x,. & x, s ;., n 7.p. v -- a a.. s .. c. v c v ,.y... t : -.; f . J, e., a,. .~ 4... cry y,,-te & gg r y g ; .4 m v m. ;y-r -. c - - M /.. f. S. .h 6 t.. e e..s. ,'.j o,.. .e , ' '/' Q^ I, ( ' ' 3 <, g'i ~...Sf ., :gry. .7 r g
- q ; e. - l-.r.,3.
. :., ~..,%, ' " g.7 - ?,.~. ;.!.'y
- -,e <
.l*,. ,'"S e y'.,, . 3. u.. _. '. # y,.., 3.p;; *, 7 4 't a. 3..[. (.., h,.,C y i.-~, ' t'j. ' ' d 'i ,('; / ;,Y.,. [ yi~ ( ~ _, ( g'.' ,,e };. " y <, [,.,
- ...yJ 3, '. -
i ; o A ;'.y;us. m f, 5,.\\re . N 4,, >r.. .y1 o . y ~.,,q,, l ; ) %.. Qm.wr,; p; g,,u .v f
- .u.
_ l Q p..,,* ...., g.g, _ j - c l., -s j.*y.. :, .5 ..j. '...'.fr.". 9? t,
- 8. p ry
- y. ;,
-.,,~.,.f., 5, s y n. . 'y3.. y s >,. c;.;) asg
- ) 1 <.
.. ;,u,,,3. ;., ;,., g.,, * ; y '+x'... .. h. 3 ..j,7
- .nu,
,.;4.;,...,7, g. y. . r.~ ;,x....,.:..p ?.s. J.. ,.v . y g g .?.,,.,. ...vv.. v m,:.h<,' N,. b j . v., .a.. .,s.
- N..g %.:b.~ %;.k!; 5tl,
- h.. *3 a %@. 5 g b:. ;;,,
a .,,.~, f; - *.. }, ' b. 's. 5M \\ ' f."' [. 9.c '-;v. m. A' ~ m' ',k,'.,j"f '. '.3. t
- m... c.', h ',. p MP.M < nihtg(g,2;I,,.' :.g s
..r o.4 ,';*]m. ; w y[. s..2t2.*&.;.b... hg#,.-S V %, hy &.y.gt({ ,."f,~'.h "*,},. l t n m - _ g ;..c m,'. ~ e j sl 1, 9.. y . 7, ; 8 i g yg..C... 7 g gw _M
- a. :.2 ',. %.., i ~.,. s
.u n&A M'.M@&r. u .v
- iLtMfwi n9'..
.,.,.Wg.. :.g..7W U @g. z =., + ,~w m..x..% S/g.6 * ':% N., l'/' ' #i' e c g, ,w,g-m.,c,...,. ,n,,q p ,~ w...,,.. , a. 3., . m.. ~ '. 7 ' Xi.U, r > 1. 1';l '.@! 7.77T.%g.,%' ,. g,.g.t c(5 %U.
- y,,x,
.q g,. .., 3 - ' ' C; ..,3
- ~ -s
+ _ %.. a. 7,
- .7.26:y1 3.; m;:,3.'-:y s
, ' p.p. - p, . e.u . s.~. g M c.,1 .y ..qy..,,c p,.. ,, - m.
- c.
.-m...m s ;. y ..- 4 a - 3, .o .v;. 3,3 s.7.' a t. a- <~u 4 *,,... ;,
- w '.._,v.
m \\- - ? v,. y . G,., _'. . p:... y, y m, ."'.o.~.*f.%. '.,..*p [ ?' ,'g y
- s.., a '-.m n!
- 5.-
.) r c ;.. T..Jl'.;'.}-[<.Mi+;.f 4X.P ' ' d APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1) 'f D N REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. PART 40, Y h $l -, $.o. 4t.t. 3A,M :p,...;.m y 9..1-.,y ~;i; Criterion 1 of Appendix A covers the selection of new tailings disposal sites .,.. :., + x:. nv p f. j/p 7 ' E, ,i '. '. .....d 2
- m. '.
or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites. A proposal to amend this y4.6.( %. ' 3:3-. j'j [. criterion to provide for a long term isolation period of 100 to 200 years would be [gl '" g., #J.:.,;. ' ~(d W 'f M. ~ inconsistent with EPA's longevity standard, now part of NRC's regulations. EPA '1 i.; n - c..c ". i requires reasonable assurance that control of radiation hazards be effective for 'v ; w, . y,/j 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 5 . cf , s ;.,-. s.,, years. ' h; + r. .m., +:,,;.
- g. c.,.
.,p N.]) c.. wi % 4, REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. PART 40, . ], _[ ' * ' ' ~ ,j APPENDIX A, CRITERION 5) f-NRC requirements for groundwater protection contained in Criterion 5 (w hich i , ' f" ' i S y.,, ;? 7.' covers the restoration of groundwater contaminated by scepage of toxic materials , y from mill tailings sites) have been totally revised as a result of EPA standards. At ~1, -,' ' '?;.: + j any site, new or existing, an applicant can apply for an alternate concentration ~ ~ ' c;' ' ' .a' limit (ACL) for groundwater constituents. Use of the aquifer is onc of the fxtors 4 upon which the ACL could be based. 'e ' -.h,.y... o . s;g ;.% {, ny - J REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. PART 40, .m. 't. ,j APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6) ..,. ;, V,,.' The NRC requirement: for radon control have been significantly changed as a ??9 2 -, result of EPA requirements. The minimum 3 meter cover over tailings or wastes ~ is no longer required. The radon release rate has been changed to not exceed t.- the EPA-established average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life. .g _ ~ ~ W REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. PART 40, 's APPENDIX A, CRITERION 10) This criterion imposes a charge on each mill operator to cover the cost of C long term surveillance. The total charge must be such that "with an assumed J I percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an ~, amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance." Petitioner's 1 proposal to use a 2% annual real interest rate, which is asserted to be a mere accurate reflection of the historic earning power of investments versus the 1"e rate used in NRC regulations, is rejected. The 2% annual real interest rate is based on an industrial yield, and it would not be appropriate to use those figures. \\ i 620 i ) 1' i 1 I I + 1 [ I
"* $O";: K l h k.. m.. ,;g.M f.' A 4l=..,;'. ^ '. g., .t .~ .,e n w h..'d[,hd,'Sh. M sh. '.,b a ( '..T...n. a: . *.. ~. .. ~ s ','k, :.i,'- a ;..py8 / -A ,p., t ,. s., t,w...... n.: > a., - e. ,2 m s y, ,..g*. ".. ', J . s DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING J' ~ .. v. I. BACKGROUND ~C On November 30, 1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 53,899), the Nuclear Regulatory ~ Commission (NRC) published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by the Union Carbide Corporation. De petition requested that the NRC 7.. amend portions ofits regulations concerning criteria for the operation of uranium O, n ; '.J 'q'..; mills and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from these activities. . t.i Je'- 7, ./. The Petitioner suggested specific amendments to Criteria 1,5,6, and 10 of
- f. c
, ' (.y. ; f. Appendix A to Part 40. That appendix sets out the technical, financial, own. cL g crship, and long-term site surveillance criteria relating to the siting, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of uranium mills and asso-(, l ciated tailings. Appendix A was issued as part of the NRC's regulations imple-C menting the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95- \\. ~,. 6N. 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.). These regulations were published in the Federal Register on October 3,1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 65,531). The Petitioner believes that the suggested amendments will continue to adequately protect the public health, safety, and the environment from radiation hazards associated with uranium milling. In addition, the Petidoner asserts that p f.~ b' " '..,,,.,. ^ (+'{/ its suggested amendments are more cost-effective in that they would significantly ' :.c. reduce the costs of comp'iance at the facilities covered by the regulations, n.. r n...- ', ;r,;. :.p.. yJ. ;. m. ./.. w... The Suggested Amendments: Criterion 1 ~. k. '. " -. s=,- f{,'.M.( ;o[g (..' '. P, M ' ,s,// s c ldDl.@ lC Criterion 1 covers the selection of new tailings disposal sites or the adequacy of existing tailings disposal sites. The Petitioner suggests that the long term p;Cg'n'(f;y.J 'P';W, f J. ;..w{ isolation of tailings and associated contaminants be defined as a 100 200-year . W. i ; ilfu 7.' p',M*f.y-I ,g'*.@, "id [i. s a ' W ' Q;.3 7 % ~ AA period rather than the "thousands of years" period, p De Petitioner bases this suggestion on testimony before the NRC, the @.A,.9.. 'y//? /.."...A. ~g. e states of Colorado and New Mexico, the Environmental Protection Agency, and i,. ./... .i .c the Military Nuclear Systems Subcommittee of the Committee on the Armed L:T ?.,m {.., V '...,. '.. '.. ". ' '. "w-h Services. The Petitioner contends that this testimony indicates that: [f %,... s /
- : '1:'Ql#'l;yjc'.^N.;,
...c 1. The thousands-of-years period is unreasonable. f[".NP' 2. Technology does not exist to ensure the isolation of tailings for ?. ' ' f56 .1 Y '. '...a thousands of years. ':. A '.C '. ; P ) c.1..o m 9 'c r'. 2G,., 3. The present requirement is costly and speculative. 4. It is difficult, if not impossible, to design a reclamation plan for a %s., ;.l.3;.t'.J f h G, -Q.'E g '
- < i-tailings pile that will withstand crosion over a period of thousands of
$. A+?,. ' W <?,. ;Y A,,, 'v.
- .. 9
. '/;7.*,,1...k.,g.m.4 T., years. .... u.. .n..,.> y.. v W,- z x. q'<,3 ,... p.i r.. fe ..~... m - n. w. w w. c-t.. :, ' w .. y:_..
- <.'9g y :5<
t, 0 w,, wl &) i C.U,,. p, e. t:~. l g.V.R. 'l. Al-- J.,p... .,a N . g ( ~ f,..3... -q...Q9.. :, : ;.%., py; >, M f21 -.e . n s.- ) -g. ( ; ,.'[, ? .hh..$0 ?h ~.,j 'i Ql.' 4 ?,.. n...' '.,e.
- r. e'. u,a.v.9),e. ; '...s.
- . t.
4's c.w..x. g s.v.. a,, '.~. j? '*; h N ' *,,*, f.*. ' *. ,g
- }lhs .
l .',ew h c..t6se J,..c, 7,s;o 4 /M;" :. ' : 0. *.'" s.,.,;I;':f: g r, i >, *.,;..t Y' T'r] r Q. *P': T Y [i ;[;"W,',.i'," C (, E.N ' ' 4' ' # '
- A;.a
- 1.. s
.. ~M.'.'..,.-. v,--r...-, O V * O.. p.. $(....:. 4.,1*-- ~ d. * '> 'M J o,w 9.n :u.y i.n. yl2 yl,'R '.~ 1 *h .c m..c. ,,,---,.., -.- -..n 9e.s.' ', Y[ !. 1 I Ih A ' ' -[f,, s s $ S-' ..Y "S:f r E*' /.3 Q.t. f. f.g$ ; Q:'a;'y. 'OC ' S$ y3.n , '; ::.;f', N' '.* ~.
- l. L.,
. M' S,f';. l:'. s.?5 l Q
- l.,. ;
.t; R n / x s',.: g c p;a % % G. . w.y 4.6. . u..,.
- ..;;' & y,.;..
- .
m :.;. M;y a.* ',;..;.p,y "..f,q g :... c. :?.!'6 g u n. 3 x p n. Qa 4,. x.. y.','. : ;e s y.Y c y :. y l ::.3. w,; w;. ;.g, M. p. Q,. 6 = f.,;n 4 :q n.: , yw.u .;:. x y v;m,;g~ p.n,s u.y
- v. > g. g.4 y w,,.. ;?a.., s,..... p~s.,+,%,:..n...- p.y -:+..c.6:.-..x
,.\\.-Q m- .gi,prQ.;.g.i. i ; 1 4 cm...p 5 s.<
- . n
". q y b.:y.:1.,' 9. v < : u. v..;.g.-xq i:..:@. e. - y : /., c..,. 4 w-- n j.;.y ~ 1.x? r.@ g r.. w.. ,3(*%. <c, .r s,. v: ~ .s ' $y.. vhl .Y Y b Y 'Y
- 0. -
,. g.F = g.e O f e. s ...s 4 y g g. 3 $'hb
q..hr. g. m. s A qfy c. -p. ., - p ; ;., .e: - e. .c ;:s. g, x q...W..n. L, r ay,
- m.n,... 4 m.~ Q.u.;Q.s... ge;;.
- l^' ;- 3.m. u g ~ e., ~. v i M,w;;. /,y ' c.:.#.,.. f, a. U .+ q-w V, A N.~ ~.; d.;..,4 i.M;c.,-A.c...a. N.:.. p,.. A :y'.;.fi &, M ' F ".i'..-; m. ;.: ,..-w .V .. e.: ,y e
- o. y...
c. u-y,. e, 3 ,;,. - p., .r,..
- 7. % :..%. 1,.
- .
- L..p,7
- W.'. *:z.. g'"...m -. 1 *.;..L.s' ' &
e..G,
- m. j '.w. N ;*,~~.f,*. 5 le'.C.':~ '. %..u.~.:-..w :::%.
x.,.. K ' .s, ..c.,. 4.~. b. u.w}l. $ '.*'*. lh.z(..b Q.m ' he J s
- C:
t m; x.- o .a. ' ;?m;.w..... x. 4 jQQ.7n 9 -[g.1.;;:: s '+ %.. ? % ", y l g;- % ~*j
- 6
,1p .;:*L 4 2.:..; * : s N W: c. ' D@.,. n. + ~ ..,.)x. .in :g ... ' ' ~ ~ < ; r.r v ,i.t q,g -.Y e ic%..y,s: 4.,;c..y ;1:yyp :B, d 3 5. Tailings disposal should be based on a realistic period of time, such ,4 7 J :).,7..sS.O fc. '. ' as 100-200 years. m. kkk$ .$$h;k' M. -f-3,3 6. The thousands-of years requirement tends to relieve the government M,? ;.F.I.*;Q ' .e;.< Jr.f ' N of any responsibility for ultimate control (Criterion 11). ..p~. ',% -,:s.. ,t . y, sa My, d]ge,[G..o ..j. & i,f.. {.N.]e 7. The funds for long term surveillance and control will be available .Jf, U [.T P ^,N @ 6 d y.ii. 1 to pay for any repair necessitated by damages resulting from any ,y unexpected event (Criterion 10). - 3. y. ^ '. O t :.y f ^ 9([?c4: Ei[~' . .aj The Suggested Amendments: Criterion S y r,/, ..,7b. :, ^ ') Criterion 5 covers restoration of groundwater contaminated by seepage of ,, H. y ~; .A toxic materials from mill tailings sites. The Petitioner contends that Criterion 5 S j.Q.'. .; 'q L, .J ' :- ' ~70g f.+ ; Q attempted to distinguish existing from new sites. For new sites, the Petitioner states that scepage would not result in deterioration of groundwater supplies, 4.;f t 9, and technical alternatives are provided to ensure that deterioration does not x.~ : - ".6,. J - M. . ~ '1 occur. The Petitioner states, however, that for existing sites no guidance was y.4 '] given concerning the standards to be used in developing the required site- ~,. .,e a.- specific scepage control and groundwa:cr protection methods. The Petitioner's ', ' M ', ".,. / - [; proposed amendment is intended to provide guidance it believes is missing for ' ^ fM existing sites by specifically including consideration of the current use of the 4'. g,,. '. g - '3 -q groundwater, naturally occurring characteristics of the groundwater, potential >g,',.; use of the groundwa:er based on needs of the community, size of the aquifer, , f..., - g availability of other drinking water sources, and the practicability of restoration. ..~. ~. ~ 7 The Suggested Amendments: Criterion 6 ~ Petitioner proposes arnendments to Criterion 6 that would delete requirements for (1) a 3-meter cover over tailings or wastes and (2) a surface exhalation g - ~', ',I of radon emanating from the tailings or wastes to less than 2 picoeuries per 'l' square meter per second. Instead, suggested revisions would include cover ,j designs that are based on site-specif,' analyses and concentrations of radon c i an 1 other radioactive material beyond a small buffer zone of approximately 500 feet established around the covered areas. These concentrations would not exceed limits specified in Appendix B, Table II of 10 C.F.R. Part 20, excluding background. The Petitioner requests that remedial actions be cost-effective and +. based on a realistic assessment of the health hazard to the public that uranium mill tailings may pose. The Petitioner believes that health risks to the public from exposure to radium and radon from uranium mill tailings should be compared with risks from exposure to other natural sources of radium, radon, and their daughters as well as to other risks commonly accepted by the public. The Petitioner contends that, if such comparisons t.re made, it is clear that the B 622 1 g4 _y L' 4 ~... s f j 6 e s ~ }l y .-_y a-- --. -i w e g P e f .r +c- - + - - - -
,;;.. z .~ ~ l r ( ,p.. . l .( ~ s s
- jc,,
a: \\ . _y ,s l
- s...,
.. t. 4 2 health risks to the public associated with uran ~um mill tailings have been greatly t-overestimated. The Petitioner believes that its proposal will ensure that mill tailings are controlled in a safe manner and that people and the environment [ ~ ~ ' will be protected from radiation hazards associated with tailings disposal. .;y g, I* ~". i The Suggested Amendments: Criterion 10 N s m .s This criterion imposes a charge on each mill operator to cover the cost of i.. l' }'7 A,,n., long term surveillance. The total charge must be such that, "with an assumed { C/. y -C*~.n I percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest m an Q,.... cf C amount suf0cient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance." The Petitioner - ?. .c:i ,f Af '.
- i.f.
proposes the use of a 2% interest rate rather than the current 1% interest rate. The . M.' M. ~ ". Petitioner requests that this rate, which it considers to be a more accurate ~ + - H,
- q. 3 V;.," ;,
} l j, ;' t. ".3ff :.L percentage spread between inflation and interest rates, be used. {J ..n.w 2..'?-
- s-?
..1 . n y, ;;. N II. BASIS FOR REQUEST .:,-[ [ 'h. 1. [ ;,. I 4 s
- e; - -=
As a basis for the requested action, the Petitioner stated it has facilities that E 7', - are affected by the NRC regulations in both Agreement and Non Agreement ~,. States. The requirements of Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. Part 40 also apply to v. Gf ~ Agreement States. As a result of Agreement States conforming their regulations to be compatible with NRC's, hearings and public comments were solicited. The . j v. : Petitioner claims that "additional testimony and evidence have been elicited 9 w hich were not available to the NRC in the consideration ofits own regulations." ,N >~ 'v In light of this new information, the Petitioner requests that the NRC reconsider '.lN its regulatory program. It is the Petitioner's contention that compliance with the (. '7;, amendments it proposes will protect public health and safety and tiie environment .e. .~
f
k.. M.,:WW' K.', .~ , vn r,c.. p 't. / *'y /g - 'g s -J.y,. ;. .. /.,. p. r A notice of filing of petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal e. v ,q. ', l. ;,.,j. Register on November 30,1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 53,889). Interested persons were . :.M,3':@@p,gf.Gj %g, j'.* invited to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the petition by \\e.t,f ." W : O ' N /.'V;&l./ fo
- .i,.
w g';;.,,,
January 31,1983. At the request of several commenters, the comment period was i i'W MA %,
extended until May 2,1983. The NRC received eleven comments in response to T h.,NN bh M; h [
Q kS$N'@Y My i'$;3fQ.y the notice; five from environmental groups; 'Arce from state agencies; and one each from the industry, an industrial representative, and a private citizen,
'iV E.uR$.gr m..
p"m. 'f'9.2M,.u.,R W -
ne:
.- ~
m
..v..
- . 4 %f*ff2 *2%
j' h.n
'DQ-],$**'.;>..&
{. '.% s.
D,M. h,hh. m.fr.
- o
......,.'h..k.'d..Na. 4
,d h. A -
% y *^!, : '
ts '&, 'f 8$Y$p*:,.. p*~Y Wl'z %'; m,f i v, ' h, q' t.' ?.'s&".,: a., s'
. fJt,,'
'}
.l fh 623 f#
- W >' " a%. t' i ':.N Je
- c. :. g ;d'.b:m.hl~j%:V:W y n L 6..%
4 s
, :.,' 4
. r,.'
- 4 %'.y?:
q' J*,M.s i? *.C *y '
. +
s l
L 7,,
N
..y.r {.
- ;.;g y9 c.;w.;';..elyl m s.
- 3;}j W g
- v.
.._.' A ";::;3 { 3E,3.A.Y;;* m; p
" s, ;
'~,.Q t :
. T.:
t;?...,L, ;3; - <* d.... t : Q ', : %
f.?W.. '.?
r
- 9
.i
- .s
<;y e
' = * * * *.
f'*, - [.
...?'y.**
s
- )( h a f.
.sse...S.p..
s
.-*,i5,
.s.
- .a
~o'
.t v.
'.f a,. L - ;., d ';.M ^*9
>.-3' 9-3 "s.. g * '
a
, N'?..
.,.p:
- a...
-. ;,, Q,.,, s e,W 3
r
,/;. '....,i
.,' y \\ L ; '. '
'.[:'
..),
- p ' a f.;~'.~u.;..y g'. h, m*' [e.e-5.,*i '.f. ';-Q_ p ',Q Q:['.',.. - 9; J*,9
, ' j ', k.b '-
. l -
u,.
, :,. -, ~. c,, s u
y., u..
, ; %Dl v.. m...u
, e :. m
, ?;...,
. p,;
- .m. y :.. ;. :; p..
. :. o... b < f..i.sl ~(,,.p,., v.m,... a.+ f V ?.*v%l.
M.)J V:i5;j Q {:.&.; e,
9, s
W j.y %s.;f.m&,A. y~n.......
c M
. L >\\
. q,' s
.?..
.,. :~
8.
c
. c..f..
, +,Q
'.' * :..,.,, ;, b. b.'
d~
g.GQQ;;', a :
V;
. v...y.
E,.M.M:p: :.,: ' M :. ;' &:
i no-
.. w.g.; ~..,y..,,,,
.,q.
y'.
ih ig.
..a g:., y g g
- M;, c ~.x~,,.., g.y!ylhg'4, % ma.+3;Q_.y%*7
.T:.
- ~
.?,
. ; b*. '.:p' m.gyc','g., XW.W. '.?'.. % '
'0-..
ci. ?
~
g
') m N '.,.' l l. :, m '- '
.l.l W ;q.,.
?<.
- u. ; ? '? 2.' W g 1Yk.3.. :.c.l..
i r
=
uf. '. fin.i' ' $,0' ".h.,$&fE:':
u m m w ~{ =&,M. &, h.a"= 9
.fh',
A Y Y a' p..,7 ;l.; _
- u
]f
. v m-a
~
l '"i.'
- yAl^k ~
l2.
.\\.
Q.]f'li;;}f%..
_S
..c.
2.. & '
wW
%.JJ
.y;qb4'q' 14, -..Ce h.i.. I All the commenters, with the exception of the two from the induttry and the
.. g' gz.
.. M,} 4; [.. [ M0 '.) ', ' "E d industrial representative, were opposed to the petition. De main reasons cited
]
by these commenters were:
3 l7 :x..
N^
^
hi hf,].,I( c M J eral environmental standards by October 1,1983. De NRC will then
- d 1.
Based upon Pub. L. 97-415 (issued January 4,1983), which amended
'.d&.'... -7:4
.;j: N
.h. l UMTRCA, the Environmental Protection Agency is to develop gen.
y,. g.h -
(,
review and revise its regulations to conform to the EPA standards, f
,2".
J Therefore, any changes now would be premature.
e
~.
7 2.
The additicnal informathn provided by the Petitioner is of limited
.. o value.
Or 2
3.
Changes proposed by the Petitioner are not adequate to protect public
~
]
health, safety, and the environment. The existing regulations will provide for this and are reasonable considering the hazards involved.
.a.'
<)
.[
'j De comments from the industry and industrial representative are in total
,f gj support of the petition. These commenters also identified other parts of the regulations that they felt should be changed.
.1 c
,' ~
'.e y
.c
.E IV. STAFF ACTION ON TIIE PETITION i
d De response to the petition for rulemaking was delayed because Pub. L. 97-
~
415 (NRC Authorization Act of 1983, issued January 4,1983) required EPA to
..a develop general environmental standards by October 1,1983, and for the NRC q
to then conform its regulations to those issued by the EPA. Most of the issues raised by the Petitioner were addressed in the final EPA environmental standards (48 Fed. Reg. 45,926 (Oct. 7,1983)).
1-NRC's conformance to the EPA standards was completed in a two step
+
s
,'1 process. The first step resulted in a final rule published on October 16, 1985 (50 Fed. Reg. 41,852). His mle revised Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part
.J 40 in order to conform to the EPA requirements except for those relating
' Dj to groundwater protection. The second step also amended Appendix A and j
completed conformance to the EPA groundwater protection requirements. He "i
NRC began this step with advance notice of proposed rulemaking on November 26, 1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 46,425) prior to developing amendments for the
.,,j groundwater. protection conforming changes.
As stated in the proposed rule to conform to groundwater protection re-quirements (51 Fed. Reg. 24,697 (July 8,1986)), "When the NRC publishes its final rule on groundwater protection, the rulemaking proceedings necessary to conform its segulations to EPA standards will be completed. At that time, the NRC will make a final determination on the issues raised by the Petitioner and publish its findings in the Federal Register." The final rule conforming groundwater protection requirements, which completed the actions necessary to v
624 Si q
B t
4 1
p i
e a
e e
g l
r I
8 4
g i
, z... u,,,, y -
.7
,v..
. A. < :; 4.. s
(,,,
- c.
1
,.~
3 y'..
ya L.*
r 3
e 4
s
=
g; W,y 6 4
s
.., ~.
~
~..
t
,y :
,,p
,,e.
- a.:s 9.t
. 2, t
3 conform NRC regulations to EPA standards, was published on November 13, t
1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 43,553).
(
, /.,
a
,' I e
/..,
s ~ :..
V.
REASON FOR DENIAL
,C
^ *,
- 4.,-
f.. s ;4 5 4'-
i
%c first three amendments to Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 40 suggested by
. I. U -
6'
,l
'A (
, ', 6,.: u..
~,, n ;.".." -
the Petitioner relate to Criteria 1,5, and 6. These criteria were changed based
,% 5,,, S-on requirements in Pub. L. 97-415 that the NRC conform its regulations to the
. i! N.. '.' $.,...
..s EPA standards. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposals are assessed against the f['" C
l @.J.e
./
~ ~ ;l s ', @ Y,, Q';i. M. "'/,:
./;g M l. f.') A, '
revised NRC regulations, rather than the regulations to which the petition was
'5 t
p.g, M,E.
J ?..#
originally addressed. The reasons for denial follow.
- r...
.a
..j -
Criterion 1.
The Petitioner's proposal of a long. term isolation period of p:: :,,
4
..g
- (
. ;y " ;,; P;t. l9 7 W,
>a 100-200 years would be inconsistent with EPA's longevity standard, now part h, +-mNs-Q'en]
[A :.' lNc ; 2-1 (f.
3 of NRC's rules. EPA requires reasonable assurance that control of radiologica!
r
'.. ? J.,
hazards be effective for 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in h.y,' \\ Mh. ['QY[i "js.[/.][Y.
any case for at Icast 200 years, J y.;fg?
' / I Criterion 5.
The requirements for groundwater protection contained in M
'F
,4 3 d
Criterion 5 have been totally revised as a result of conformance to EPA F.m"~.,,
c'.,
y' standards. The current requirements are more stringent than those that the
!'- Y~d2','
'y'.'.
Petitioner requested to be changed, ne Petitioner's proposed changes would be
. q.} '.
~
s
.~
v.
inconsistent with current EPA requirements now part of NRC's rules. However, S. s a
m
. e the concerns of the Pctitioner as far as contamination and use of an aquifer at existing sites have been incorporated into the current regulations. At any f!.,[;
~
s
>:N a> ~#
~
site, new or existing, an applicant can apply for an alternate concentration limit j1."
y c.
f.
4 c, (ACL) for groundwater constituents. Use of the aquifer is one of the factors k.'.
r upon which an ACL could be based.
M y,..
-w
,@ c.M.Qs e
o,
- he '. 3 W;d,.
Criterion 6.
De NRC requirements for radon control have been signifi-M T
~'I', C '
P:df..f.~/h....f'4M,. C,s cantly changed as a result of EPA requirements. De minimum 3. meter cover
[: N.l/ v 1 ". T.:/
y ' W,;.
is no longer required. The radon release rate has been changed to not exceed hf, $.; c i "'J]...N@t 5 the EPA established average release rate of 20 picoeuries per square meter per 4,';ff:" R.3 R d'm
.a J, N'l second to the extent practicabic throughout the effective design life. The re-i d y fl3,' G j' y, %
?N."
QM...O. @.:
,S~ D.
I quirements in this criterion have been reduced from those that the Petitioner
,s
.yJ si g i requested be amended. However, further changes would be inconsistent with EPA requirements,
-"ti;,g. 'c '..,.]
pe;','
W*, W A.4 N.**,N i
! ? .9.f ',,T. ' '*%... :M, y :.
De fourth change suggested by the Petitioner is that dealing with Criterion
,A., f.. c.W%.'#
g & s y4' g i;g'4 ]pJp
>W,
- 10. This criterion was not affected by the EPA standards. The Petitioner indicetes g
s.
@ ! M ii # cg! W K.9
%.; g that a 2% annual real interest rate is a more accurate renection of the historic Vgp earning power of investments versus the 1% rate used in NRC's regulations.
%7M@5I.MM.)'N.hfd The Petitioner's request is based on comments provided to the Colorado h6.MhNd'ufjW.k' dD'R.Nf f.M2Mb&@%@yd'h M
Department of Health by the Colorado Mining Association on June 5 and 17, 1981, and June 5,1982. The basis for the 2% rate is "that a 2 percent annual Pa..%-...;b;C
-.?. M.~.&
j!#R R
MW W WV,A ii*,.,S,MS **",,A
&.Q..$:
w...UN. l:
g.
.R* **.%
I' W,; 'g"G.
WEh Gl'h..?YWb.&s d.','.f I
O' '
'N 4
i en
- f3 625 M.%m, ' u~.?
- m<f. u-.,.n..
n.:
n -M.h,. W W, 5 W $ &d W N. n*
- }}f. T. & *.,..~. /!? J ) ?';
41, h, ';r s,..w p... m.g ) "t '..,
..ywj w
r/*'.d k 3 '
~Q. *,.
r9-
'. ff F y g)'y,
]},,, R[v, :*q ?f.l.f:;
J,.I..".J ?j @ j,','y,; 4 s a if;'
.l tpf g-,'r%.a /:!.
W3
.....~.'j, f, p..-: ? r s.
. n :,,. y.. --,,.. J.,....
/w?.y..
t t ' '.' f. * *?'.' ' ' Q:;4 7,a; -
.g.
',,..,,., f, :. s.
-., m. r.,.
..n,
,2..
c,-
j
~,., ;;,
,3.~c.t;(.n eT'
/.
', <.'.' *y, 1 $, 4'.., 3;;a f p l y,f:',M,*... ;'.
u
??.QQ&.? ;.'w[.O._
df, u i i,.WR,q&y;l j; c...g y." f ,y, {
f
=
-il,5!.-
y, h
,,r;g.<. e 7
- .L.;y l..;, y[ ; $p.;
y..r:
?.. 4 e w,
,.u
\\ 6%.W;* *f.... Q.e.h, )g Szy....,,.h,p. ml @.
/ / -(,
- i
&,p,'tj lm..l
- ,.. c. -.'.b.
> t d}$WI5.'?q ;? h *:' ?ff:.Y.h.k s,,,h. wf.;.7.,. ? i:
3: ts.
Y
. * ? ;!v."
...w,: 9, b w;h.,.h,.,3:.
x o,.:
2
. ? if, -
~ k' t % ~ '
'QpQ.f;,,yd. ?;y.%*n '. f..%. 3%B$. :f. -h. +b {,wn!!
~
G
- N.,l c.,Q.,m.n n,. w,..
Wl.,..
-Q.
'?
6
. :y
Y j#"2*
UNITED STATES Os NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 3,y. 'e.L i Washington D.C. 20555
- g
<,,'...3 j j
- p July 15, 1988 ERR ATA SHEET Report Number:
NUREG/CR-5015 Report
Title:
Improved Reliability of Residual Heat Removal Capability in PWRs as Related to Resolution of Generic Issue 99 Prepared by : Brookhaven National Laboratory Date Published: May 1988 l Instructions: Please make the following pen and ink change to the side spine of the document. From NUREG/CR-5051 to NUREG/CR-5015. i \\ i l Disisjon of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administratlor. nad Resources Management l
3 120555078R77 1 1AN1R419N US NRC-0 ARM-AOM 31V 0F PUB SVCS PO Y t PUi3 MST BR-POR NUREG WASHINGTON DC 20555 f .}}