Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for December 1985. Pages 875-982
	ML20154G586
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1986
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V22-N06, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V22-N6, NUDOCS 8603100047
	Download: ML20154G586 (113)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:4 F.., 9. o s J., ,y.....a.u... -y r.*: 1 mm m we men.,,m-,- .w : --~:...., .~..u...sw., cc.. v P '1; .',g,. p.s'(';s. o ' NUREG-0750 Vol. 22, No. 6 Pages 875-982 t p X f' M~,. Ad, * -g

s.

p-

.,,. &.sn.'4.

.., ' c.,. 4,.,.s'.;g.. r.". s ' '..w ' ' ein4%... :.n.tr.A.,.' W sm"W*w y.. i .QM,b h o,... i .o vt A.m . - p j, <,# s 'd. b 2 %hera# o.**U 8 w,. . '. )9.',gy g:. . w ,ip.,p. g. g g- ~ ~ ~. .t, .- ai vx . :.f 1.1.

.,e g' sn.o 7.g;,agte c

r. w s :

- g... (af;,'

egg,

. ep4.

m... m... s..

, y ( .v .e g .~

g ' 4 ',.,. '.,,,

.9. .%.y,gg y ?.4 ,,, g. 1 va -u,. m...., *,,,,.. e$ -. y > e=,% 7 .h A si.w e ..s . =. -s e ' $ f, s- * '..(

p. ',. ' ' * :., ( %

e 4%.,.. - c.y 9 3,. , '. ' E, '. 'A. .f. ei

e W

... bt e - 4.,..' .,s ~ s.,. _..,.,. ~ ,', e. f c {-{ f. p,,.. # [ .a ..4,- j. 2 y._ .,...V- '1 4,J.'.,. e g' a g ';. ".ke* , [ # .. M f / ~.. m t,*., p .)., N.e .s .g8..., /. ..O y., . p.4% e .e

. a...,,

. a >. .,_.... 4 .,.e..

c]. *:,'* Q :..~t q. A k,,. w+ 5

?5 ..s"'.'- p a.i ..? 4 ' J,. ' ..f., D.. ~ A., s..MucLEN, R. REGU.L TORY-ChMNiSSION) ap'..-,".)}'iW) q'3,, p y .**,w { 2 l % : L G L*,. % i,.'.;:,e.yV..Oln'Q,..s p

...W> d.., %ce :,.,j:. V u ;'.. ',' ' ;. u, v i n

.i ' a s, w s. m. 'S.':.' q 'i.,1~ y;; W.* W'.: & '. i ~.. 7

e...

.:... J.. [, ~,,,~,.x S. y,.,, a /.? s,. ..,.. a ,.. ~. J., - .~s ...;..n., N ::. y ~.'. 7., g a. .. r. . [.[zl ( 'e i ), '4 )

2 (r

,, ' n. -i g 4,a.g - * <, f. 4, .,, ? - a ~ . :c. <,, r ;. ....V. 3 c../ f. 4. ( *,d,4.;,J.L.e.e 4 UA../. wr.d.,r.4'4.,i.d.*.,A. A.'.6f ew,4.i.ed a &A s4.-a a6.t==44. d b L a,a G603100047 060220 PDR NUHEQ 0/5G R PDR

,a.w wns m . w oiN s,..,;w _ g.' + + s . y u.,..~.. s, .~s,-... ~. ,, ?. 4 os c.... .m. :. w; ~,.s. s c.,. wum.wm. m -. ~.m.m.m.,,. c.%.,. w n'.,. - f,G L * .,p.% W;cfg i J -h ,i /,..;., P_, a'! ,.r. a.."m. n. c. t, w~.. y.w.. ~. ... p-;p. s ~ fa .x i. o. v.

. a u,.

.w c

.p ;...

i,.,,...s %n. w. m .,.x ..m,. .. s.; s.., v~...., w,...,. ;.,. _.,.. ..%.....~,... u.,. w.o.u,.s. .f._ .g -. ,...,.,~,,.,,.-,.m_....._.,-.., y.%. 4 ,4<, . u ~.. _ .m .y, 5r,,. ,.-........ e. c!.., a

r. u.., ; s.,. c...,~... ~..,.,

.?* s ..e/ :. - -1,.,,.a,, n u. m, g ".A j*Yr**3(...,,. x.'Y{i.,,,, ',*,p (a{ p* 8 ,'r g.g.,.,. ~ e,..,... - .~,q.,.,,.,e (c. . p,*. e c ,.. a*g ". ~*1,fi, j'ef'[n% a m.. y L... kl. ; O 's. wy*

*
e, p.,.

...,,.,..g .... o,, m,. c.r,.a.,.. b.,. ' ' ' ' mg.;v.....c n c m ,..a. sc .~..e A,.p. yrgo,, .;qg @g;g g glp;d,d e..m,,f.p. g,;y . 7.. ,. w ,s n g..:. .qt e : .. ( : t 4.s gr g, " '-f(tyk-n@,..&W7. t:g.M.x.,9gg g4'-f. c.,$5 Q.

g ;. 9%;Qg ' Q@,4 6

%y N.QQffg&W'nywhy <styd, mg/wwg' .,.1.E; ', i'fy ' u y /.,qp,g. e. -e., M g ;sp y.y .n.....g

v. m.

,-~.~....: wL.c....,z w..a.,,Aw....,,..., . n - ~.. ~.

m...i. n..:.~....

v.

u..,n.

w. k%.ryyd,Q.c,.;p.,. m,.;;p,,a.i,*s,w,y!p,.,g,,s.,,,t.g. ;n ,.p..,p.4,,,a.:, M q.n,; &g,...g;,4 .,g. # .r,., av 3 ;.2 ~ % > 9 '. 'u 3 n.s. b},. 4,gi,%.,;i-7. . Superintendent of Documents <,2 e L 4 w, 4 L.W.'.. U.S. Government Printing Office E. m

W;,(M'.@pp
.,f..

..s.. k /, y.s. a.

,,., a Post Office Box 37082

.a..,.. ~,, '. WP........ qw T.5.PW. Washington. D.C. 20013 7082 .i r ? }. ',g. :, .4 U.G .g n%v.. 9 .,sL W t 3.1.,' #.. w,,m.,e.:. A. year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4.m..g,. . s., .,pc,p1 lq+. M;- ~' ,r's 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publicat,on.+sN -t -r-i u, J..

3..

L. 4...,. g ..m....e,9 g, g,g g g, g.y, y, g ,y,g ggggp,y, m,, .m.. . - ~..c.,., n is pub

Q1 yp

.%Q",!$5ASingle copies of th... +hcation, gg^Q h N '%d ( ti '[ . !' t 3 d.3-4 ' ;are svailabio from National Technical ,". A iW.T u.s +.a. c 4

g. vy.

.., %,.wr.n:.g:..p ghy.l formation Service, Springfield, VA 22161 c.,, m..y ; '/.:44 .> y ~. -. -... a., o.+n. d

. n s.,

w *- v.y%* gy.r., . re.,,,, x .v r ... W n? ..,l7,. P+~** F .7...w..., p.m. ;.. ..m ~ K, W't...* - L -..,, jc.e.Q- %4p:;.,,h,.,;4-Q. J. y n.a.C,.a;G Hy L% %fn .4 _ W 7; i, s; ki % y_., :en *., n ?' ;. '. r., L. %W " (& .en w* % y;yi.e.o',C, & ;.* v av y e. m m os**qe w $&p.: 1 < ' m.o i.i U., y"G 1 hf.t.%f, p. /. '.4pyL,.,'. y r. g,m,L. j,.,.fA,..' G.) % 'e 7.wa. " ; c., y'f ^m .g.i m./ ,% y T. ., J.,. . i,.b4 ad.Ph. ;,ydr p.;,g.7,,s.. ;.7 ...w o 4 . w ! c '. c ,. m y ~.W,

! Y *e Olid 5 a..#.

f, fr..,. 8!,1.. :"c ts 'e a r F i, ' ' '8-

f.,.

6 ......e, Ly. o - ,n .;., a .p: ', e ;.,WM.,.E q.s.g,4 e s..:gf.'@ 7,4,v.2..ti# '< %,+.J.J.<,.n. %.,..e'... -.. .i, n J '.,,. g%.M ir i .s. A...>..- f fupt:yt e L.

v... (.s.

r

a..p sm.... e.

s

....ew

..- o.. ..,.9'.s, .n d. ++

m: .

em s y . y. Q m,w a f ' " '-w o.r ..? M; ..b4h M ** e.,L, h

h.e.j hr_

.. r %.g.n'.?.,j; 5 ., a g%d J.%j+,,...., ww&p.j;;$.,,;. .,,.a.

:p.

a 2 y? 2 c.my.5 .m

r wa

. n e. '.:,,,. y. uf Tg o.. ^ Q';.* 'Q'n.~.h ;,Y')W(;,t'ho Ay%.%w+.:);n'i.%.,st;J'e.2: ,.w: m:A.. L .'u L r.

% i)p, d J.fh y W",4.W.% Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of

+ N iTechnicalInformation and Document Control, Office of Administration, b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20565 r,. g '. (301/492-8325) or (301/492 7566) Nl ' n. :,. f), t, o. - '.[.; (;*1. s '. ; L,,

m.., -,.

s h h

'. f.

s [g ^ 6.,./8, .,p g *.,. f ,,4, ,, f 8 .I f

^

. 4.....

~

.+ .+* f f Y^ a e 9 e ,s ="s af i d j, s i B 9

c. ~:n ... f L '"' ) 3.,1 .=ti ./ .:..,.. a.'.. n. . s.4.;. s.% ,,.. p+ '. p . y; ~. c.(.c..

- - l

,.w . a..-u.--.-_..-.. <7 NUREG-0750 Vol. 22, No. 6 Pages 875-982 .c:.., ,a f. s, 'W* ."+,.,; 6 - r .s r. y - C,' .s+. nl.,.*a. @ m. w. -,.i.L*;* f.,' l. ^' . f t M. &w /, NUCLEAR REGULATORY .n r F+ .. i.e. g, 7qggg:.. COMMISSION ISSUANCES ".=.. xm -e. ;. .4, ~ a j g 7..,..... ~: ~,., December 1985 ~ 4 J . ? - s.:.. ..' O, .,;L. o.. c ., m.. . a. 4 s.. a,.. c. . u....' .o -.. s , e. %g, - b. Q#. %..; :lf i, aj" This report includes the lasuances received during the specified period .u o.

6f.y '. c.,.,

from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal v'Z: 5 Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Boards (LBP), the . (', Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). M+..,. - b. - 2 ,e*'. The summaries and headnotes preceding the oplnlons reported herein

-f., '

' "g'; * ;j ;,, s.l $ U ' ), dent legal significance. i are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any Indepen- ' r, ',", " a ..a ,+ ..c u,. .. g.,., 1 " glO .',4 4;; ~. > ' n,. .,,.A.. .m.

v..

.,v L'. a= 4 7.,;..,;m cp.....,.;.... ,.9 U.S NUCLEAR REGUL ATdhY COMMISS9ON '.TQ !y'2 M %.P E ;.4; m.N

.4 A.

t i..* y,.., ) y ',15,G,9. sL.,, s %....., ..'t3e 8' s' .e . >,...... o C::';,?.}. i. - r 8 3 Prepared by the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, ~'C, .s' Office of Administra:lon, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 2066 g. (301/492-8925) ..,..a 1 i% V b. gy eene

- w**w+.

.e=.=m.e-a.m.-* -+-e ..===**4 e 4 m

o....e e p,.,.

l[ -d,, p .,.'g. 6 6 t

4', Q. H & W O,A,m% y - w :w~e % *..~;a.yM %. -@ W. _9! W.,", T g.U.& w, MC.?, n' ? lT'. J, ' ' %;W,' n'" y,. &+W s.J.>.s* :{v M m.6%.rkh .m.W. .e. ~x x vr; W e.. . ~ w M J.W,y .'. v: -

~.

a ' '. ..k n.v&. m.%?wn".

.h

./:S**..-1,,%,,,r..; m.4.t h.. ~. q..e g t n,.y.p..a u m?. y y w#'s. 9<# n','A Nc'w w ~*. >, m....'. 2. c.e.v. w ,m .x. . ~ u ~ - - M .. c. "C-D g,W m - o,,p:m. ; w%. g.y)N.a,A.,y s.1 e /w I,fk JK ?,p, i./ (* ' -- * : f 4,~ ~ y'y.:.- ~, e; :. ' m.. -.. w.s,.,e.,'w",n. b.,, -e n? v?

q.'? c L s * ; *.i e,

nq. v.: &o. . ~ u.. *. %, ' "u ..%'t-t 1- . e.... m<,w.,n., m.... p.. .- y t. q - '*e ~ n. y,n. n w - ~u....- < > e.. ~ N._ o.. e

ss.xmm.n:-w ~

,u. --r .m.. w v .q...-. .h

u.

e w.. p cet.4.W. '. :. :-.9 ~4.,;%,lQ' m".m ' f.ry., M,.*,* J* f. w- - : -vxs*+ =. ~ %.~ .. e. m.y. m , a. v...,s..y.! e. w.m. - r,r a. n.,#x,.g:n..&,.n.,y< m ,:m. . n.e 3.c . m . s.. c.. o,. m. , m. s

~.

.v t *... 4 W :.#.M. i:.,&.. & 3;:.x.s. .t ece.. m,e.gw.w.......,. c,.. .W. c..g m.e.w. e.

w.. r. #. v..,..m, y 49. %s %. u.

s sw g,u 3 w As p yy%,. %yv.s*w.mL.;,,.e# .,m w.. ~. w +- - w c m n .m

m,..:, %.,p 3

o w. a'M'WVr4 /'ww;.;.;w' g emw %*[0 $ $ f M b W D"' e2:NA COMMISSIONERS bh A $.a. / Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman @b.m.,q.h.r,d.C.,M.ty, m.w +p" d +, bat J Thomas M Roberts g:m,d.C; E n$r N4, *y. w 4,pf,. M i. M i d f % 9.~MW James K. Aaselstine .n > Fredericic M. Bomthal M '[y' $.M, j f W $.p T. V.c4.yi. m. v. .t U Lando W. Zech, Jr. n - m,..~ x an,_ w,.. e w w.... n:.s....yu..g, m c n m. 2 ys..m.,. y.ml:7.,v;..4.R. u. ,-o s >. M ;y, . u,7_y. 4.,..c. < w t.+~.n _, 3. ,,u.w.. y .em 4- ..w M.a...&~7Q:sy..l.cc..:p;wW %.. 3... W.,s, r. M,a. w p. h/ . r ..Y,.niR iW n gn:.m". e.c..v.e's'an.%.y.h.,eq?.y J.Q.c. ,,- m m x.w.,ns. m -d. $ $, 5'"?f.Yh f'?. 5'Y.4%a' n%e.T ; Yb:f Y'%.m.., Y Jm x..,.s - Ar.w, mm...T~ y ,n e

m. u

);w;w p %. n..,. ~- 1,,; h..i.y .f. y. c. - n - q + i n.

n

-4 ,-:/:,, % +0

w.n n4, g....n % )m,y-mM i v.

w-n.w r..c? -n, w.h. :.s -m.s.% e m. >.r. m.c w. .i u -.m 4 ..A..c ~..r> a" 4..n;+;w, ..c v

w. :, c w u.... xm-u S e. *J W. W,,.t X.4. s,pt M., W. 4::

s M e ,by... h r.@.. str.r..u.g4;w:a.m p,N.v.,a : 2:@e N .2 w: % em - .y o.... %g)f.@.,-q.y "..'.pWU m ~7.M @ g Sq #PM'*? Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel J g. B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1 .. s F ~,. .u. s X.,,--pp..., 1,. 9,,@y 9-v er :Ig. a*y '* 5.(n, Q.- y ; p i.e w.; a p .-a,. u gyg.. r s. ' t. :. ,e .a: khMhbh , yj,,. 4%p,.; M n C e*, Nj 4 am.w,& w$& p$ +, g$. m':$ e i.W:N.. Y.;.)w;f N t n wd v w% tt V '%p* ~4 D V'M. vG.K $.%.ng,:.:...,L*W.c. .b.a, e... p~. n.. 4 t, .. %..s ~..' v~J..V,,. ?.,,** p:. Q.gp9 g. \\yan ,~. ;. e .e* ~.y $,". [ 8 h er,, gf s. , m,,. q c.,.. y,,., w, ..j

~~l7'.4~~
~~-j 0' y, e. 9',.,~~
, ~ *
~~<.. ** q',~~
9 g:e

s s.
~~.C%, .y, .*i u .'u , ;',~~
~~s **,~~
~~.i4 v. 9-- u.e d ,.,,,.,'N".,<3,,.~ -s '4 s / ,..) e..\\".,. gi,~~
t.
~~,,;f . i M p" } Q'j, al 3,,.&,, P'v. -..,sg',h./... g,. .,; s - ... ma ~.,. w I ' ~~~
.' ; -. o. 2.a'i-'.$"[
. #I y= ?, c~. e.,(_.~,..+. + }," n? m.s.., s ' J. f.1. ? ? . J-;.. 7/",..6'. . a.,.,r ~ ~ ;.e...e " " g.~ %,m. '.,,_'.; ~../."' 4,' y.-7~.- ?. ' ; w..,. ,e F $ s a a. a.e?'c R. y..t w -l.{;;G M,.,. n.,.. u, ..v,.e ' Q e...n.. .,.c .~. i. ..m 4 1 r a. Q" j.(%x.l ',.&.w. ~&.. k'lc{.,.&g g, p .~ V,O;,h.f>? .L': 4, W.Y .J
0
~~}'f . e",d &. W..Y L.Q3 u, % -p 6 %g; #.* s,.w. ,p.. ~'u M % M '8 @&. @h ih h Y Y h@ @,,f w. 4. m - e s .**::?t. ~ J-y:.. + - m 9 % y- =. p i.y / e,.m. ;,. ' ' ' -Qa4 s wg M M,@,h;P @hlNN,,n p~~
~~k'/'~~
!$N.k M@ MQ@@WUni
m,
~~a..,..~~
~~.- q.:. y .y~~
~~e..~~
~~",.yu-?,.1.%..s .l'.=.; y,'a .., y ;.,. Y ' d. G l ^;+ 4:M.W.C. fo,'qr. 4 ' W.S?:'Q,C.d.sd%..7}i f. - i l 'Y.,.,,@: ' -.0. r f W .w w ::-.,~~~
~~m. ; '~~
~~, c w{w 2, h ' '.T [<%. ' Q. g..~~
~~i s~~
J '6t. . ;p. - -:3 - ; :,. e, _,q.y: :c- + . se a <p . g.. q., .m. 'l Q~ '; ~; y 4.. ..c. CONTENTS Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ^ ' 03:, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. m p.g: J D / 3._g,- .. 'f.,. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) .g. ,y~,+U,. ;f.,g:e p@ c.,...V 7. +. Docket STN 50-528 (Application in Respect of a Sale ..m.w %. A.' M,... x and Leaseback Financing Transaction by Public W.. n. - k. %g$3MKg)W,q.9. -F.a-(;;%.9 .,s ,, Q.' W :/E f Service Company of New Mexico) Fnf:;X 4..w ci.Q -A Wim ORDER, CLI 85-17, December 12, 19 8 5.................. 8 75 n ..:A : fw'4*y~b,+w %.,'l'",L ::.d TF,M. L].W',* f t'*?~ 2y yg f w,. a a. '".y d. g p,;5.'. W.Q ;y ~ cu.,t; ffi, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION ,r.S.,. J;. M. C. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) Mg aQ,.,y L..,i 6 qwp y '..T Dockets 50-289 RA,50-289-EW (Special Proceeding) v ,.p WI. 4 ORDER, CLI 85-19, December 19, 19 8 5.................. 8 8 6
~~y. '~~
b?
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 ~ ,. W, '. e LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION Docket LRP .$x.., ; &..insM7J$R CLI-35-18, December 18, 198 5........................ 8 7 7 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING, . a 4.n.. 2 tiifGw.m.;..".4 1., n y ./ w.3. A ap@w@y W.gi *vr ep;m c .. e. s., +,.. r g :e. p,; ,.y M i' h. d W. Q Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 2 r i Mggf yn,:y'eg,.1.uw..i. y ? m. t.e.w, t 9y. e. 3,y n. 1m9 g,jgt,t y METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. } h.. ' (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) ~ Docket 50-289.SP (Management Phase) f..*...~- 4. DECISION, ALAB-826, December 18, 1985............... 893 ,~ ~ 6: :l & m, L.s 7.a = ~;s;9%):s w.p.Sw, s.,d;Qg y v :.b wm Mgh t J M <,7..- u m.,,'*M. V. W: M i &...:.@w & V. Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . m. _. n,., _..,.L.., m. no ,p>,. W %,..n.n. -: y ,..g ...n.. ,L CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH QS.:.t :. N.ca.A$. 1 - c a '.N t. hw A :,p; CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ,i'-M ice 3 - u c.. - .D g.. y ~ e3..... r,, m. o.. e v., m., (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) .s
~~c... :n e 3 c~~
gd,4 i m.3iW u'f'l @. L. P.s Docket 50-400-OL (ASLBP No. 82-472-03 OL) ' MN'Miq%9,M,d., is, e..,.4.N. w = q.s.i. gm..pwyt e.. /g;,w ygu PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY g a - '; A.N1 PLANNING AND SAFETY CONTENTIONS, W;M.g.y,G,WF.W? 1"N>j.7%#,%* *,: AGWN LBP 85 49, December 1 1, 19 8 5......................... 8 99 Fe%p &. v. :....' M 9 q . - w' i .M v. y** * 's..,.i' %-'. -.s .co-
WL d,e L,. s.

g.
*.T l D W,',0th
~~U .. l{..p[..j$'l. l$',x~~
~~M..;~~
~~J wm-y y mW,w ,,T , i 4 0,', ',* .. - / 7, ' .2.*_A. .(. 8.k *, m;...,.' ' ' ..? ,e. v. ' 'A. ',. r, I r s,~~
~~n j '~~
.~. '*g ( lll .? v. L. ,I s a ') k e ed ".p 6 b a m .% g.'. 6, 5';'f., j,W ' in.. --*--~~sv ~~.*..,.w-?~- 2 4, ,...... e n., ,m.x d N y 6 g 7 e .V.F c ~. E j. ' e. ".'t*' ~~ *, '^* ,y g -.;, s;.M,M. *l,1.;';'.Na.'u!. ' k. ' s-- '. a* i v :.;..V.X ' M~., '. ' n. v .n.,. . s,. lh '., J,. ,5 b
.: m.. e - : . ~ ~.. a-u. mc.. y?m...g ;,% k. ,e.\\.r. n.2. u.s n,.( :,.. n, W. v :.g$ {l3 b U ** ';l.**.*y:S '*:~ r.GT ,a>*I',._ a y x >~~ - v
~~E y,rb,h M.l% rep.&R~~
-;{, s, ..a e1-<.', %.; e},;,: . f~ @.. fRM/M.. ii:@W,ns.Q;, ;:t =, p - m4. m%.O n @:.x.<.T'.c 4 < 4 W,.,'c : 4 9 '. 7 - ,. ke . 7.p.h ?w A.m'r.,/..@a, e .. 2 = i t. '- ; yph e,' 'M F g.. t-J.f-t.1,(.J.n g w.** q, ,.*.+7- .,.,7 t
~~', b o~~
E'. .b7 i -~~ ' ' a- - ' a;: ~- 'J_.,._ e l1,.,: m; m. m.m:.x + ~::. w'. v -:.:r: n.m,?;x.,. w.n ; p..y n.,~e, nwv en. .s. ...u .m. ,. v.. , ma.,.. .s m .. m; m w.. ., ~ Issuances of Administrative Law Judges REICH GEO-PilYSICAL, INC. . ;.6; y h.c. - . M. 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana 0 $. g! Y.,c M,1 2,j p$... c.i.s'- S N,..; u Docket 30-14821 (ASLBP No. 85-508-01-0T) o p,. y.c (License No. 25-18304 01, EA-84-78) r ( pWy K* @~P;.y<. -.%u.t+Dyc. m..:e% y m. . M fr*s.~c INITIAL DECISION, ALJ 85-1, December 11, 1985....... 941 W .4, s;.#,~/. 1 n.%..,.w N, E ~gm&7.4 ,s. wy hM 9[ e*iF4 e 'We 'A.)/. b... 1NdNddM(!M.$lg%,u g,t.78-fy REICH GEO-PilYSICAL, INC. krW~~d4..,,%.%.,.n.,a-- .% Sc9 W 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana -~
~~1.. Cig.bd. W.2.M, - M#....h*gdMG~~
.sMKj (M Docket 30-14821 (ASLBP No. 85 508-01-OT) r.j,4 W A,.n. (License No. 25-18304-01. EA 84-78) Cy' M,c n _d W e m. w. M... n,,iT, F T. -7 w $eN* Wy2 %. n SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL DECISION, ? $ d h N A %;f $y6-7ig ALJ-85-2, December 20,1985..... 968 $r.x .J ( p,J' ' 4 :,. : v. . 7, % : "Y a-. ' A' f ;, u'\\'." yeb% s.,. - ;
~~4.-~~
~~e f g (y.: V. #,r:,.,Wa.y+', ~,1; ... _ ".a',..- Issuance of Director's Decision e 5 (; '& s k. m.m a.o~~
~~/ MQ:n y-:A~~
, $ :@ h Q V W Vtd.., CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY 4 - (Haddam Neck Plant) s ..,.qger.f;.MM{.MO Docket 50-213 py g,MDS.- p*.W.+4, W. C 4@M.,U. T..9 s DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. j 2.206, W M. M.?,q & & 4 M,... T $o c e... WV4M...q.MS ; DD-85-20, December 23,1985.................. 971 M' C d-2 % c-u ty.W M jQ.ts 6'p g g. %,7. W.%u !?f$ GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION Me,W.Q',q, ct r.a--y...p.4,M) (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) + Docket 50-289 64-y G. ' - ~ em. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 'l f h. d.Wl,%,.d,. 4 DD-85-20, December 23, 1985........ 971 % %..- ~~ e-r.: 'b,W :s.eqq%*x;qpW r s.g : + 9. G F,$p$ 9 p,W @W M@pM78T.,q "-*m Docket 50-206 iW.. G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY @%p. MI (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) gr~ m-s.. -. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, . a..'. p.w v y.,1.,. ,.=, f:; h.C.;. 4 ,.y S W7 ' DD-85-20, December 2 3, 19 8 5....................... 971 Q.'. @, %m # o,'a n...n g $.e r.u n. n. n; y.:p m, -hMh @;Q~^$..w.f@V<R'. Docket 50-305 NIdbhlsj'< WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION I
~~h.,aM.N:$'h>. MOu'x,.t.&..[,?~~
~~"'9$.$W. r ,W (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant) Wm;;W %p%e@kN:-[b'hh[ 7.:. F.,m f +s. s Yz$t DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206, DD-85-20, December 23,1985. 971~~
~~r,.. %. _. e... ; r.~~
~~e :. ~ y .s ,.u. c j - u n. ... ~ -? ? [ " ,_ }'.a,,,. 't 'f, j[~~
d.
~~,, 4~~
~~/ 'l r 81.n~~
~~4 g~~
~~pr. .,.g,.g F p-g h $. 4S ,f U YD* ~ # "$ [ W *"'7 " '*"*'.W7'""*T YY g y.'.s %.:,, TV *l. w: &. p'.y,, b,, s.f s, ',,,9.k m ; g. ,. 46Q~~
~~e. n -yh,%'*;% }b~~
~~-9,.c v: w..- -*\\ ..'Q.. i m .o n, st.:. ..,, y. c. ,.. M j% J~~
w
~~'t~ Y,,*f),&mm$l)M l'.*& &,,4 <, Q*W~.h,. %, F. <., y,} '. i}]+',,,, Q';.,*.%,., f<lr.., % - , f' >l,. l.lu.D f. e,t' y ;[' :~~
s.a

4. b
~~'.r..J~~
.+..*y(o '; &. 's a M'

p t e-
~~. z. s >.7g . s 3 ~., l u Q.r*, 4 f_ ,,y -*u : L:;- ,. Q.ih 11} AL ,, 4 s= g ' y<, a a ys-< > v' : )~~
4,'&

.e
~~.:.;}.}. }. ') ll *j..,%,. k.,7 $C,;~~
s
' '%c.' ' t.&. p ~.,&> g$%. k.s -, 8.g r.w..s.w W &w T,.:'$;@r';*).$ f ' & $ &;? f & e:,?.ly.. W Q, :WQG, .W.&:W ?W U. V. $* $,(. h :h ' ' ' ' hW,' \\.. I:i ~ ~ h F.?- ' $ *l'[ 'Et* & t & * '? { $r ' s. ' '.. Wo.
.x.m..u, .'#*'*i+ _ 7. 5 s.1. -, n +. f,,.* ..,i.. -. ~.' i s. .w, g
~~e,f,.,, L.W n.'~~
3'i 4 3., a d t 'm. e s.,
+
~~s .s ue. ,- % m.r k3.., -.. s. a- .s f. .5- .w.a m'.x..m... m,, ~.,. _h *....,w. .e ~.r.,,., g. 'a 45-q,w 4 e y ~ > ; s... t = a et.*.*x., ,.. t ',A .,.p.. '4 e o .,m..~~
~~., m..,,... v,w<.w~~
~~.,u - ~ -e 65. ';,, * ' ,.g* ',9 ; <* .n .g* e,.** i 17, [ ** +.. ,.. m,.. 4~~
~~s s_.,%~~
~~y, . o. A. t - ;., - g _..a. s. ~ J 4 r. 9... d:.. COMMISSION 3M.t. O . J A. h %q' &,*M.M&,. :...gi%shW lSSUanCeS ~ ,~~~
~~V. V. * '. * $,n.& & -5 E, '~~
,.l W*
L**
~~s l% ?Q'k[ter.m hs.,,,.e n..- %.s ".h X N ,5..- ..~r Ng %. w.t" 4.P M.r.. 9.'i-% '.'t.T O. Q* M.1n.%~~
L

.:%.y e
w,,S.3$' 1 uh':c.Q44 @ $..Qf,,MeO.,M.';g.i.d,. ~. ..s q@}N, Me,e m e u.W 4 p 3... ] Y -. *
~~r. pDlm,. l. w r.M'(d[?k 'D.'M%.QMh..*%[~~
~~jd t 1, r e.9.w..'.t.s: 4 -. n.. -s.:. a.. k. s 7- + .w.~ s. a. p. t. y ; -. m ;- L. e.?..' .. m "d Mi j -i '3.;? % Td. 5.'-G.- PJ.{.M f; ' i'A %t '- s s l l l l - < 'l r r - (y.-.' s. r i~~
~~..' T fj o'~~
~~e<., v.< ,.,s..... l ,;.;s.) h A %,]f:f Q % f .l t % ,, [*q%, y ;: n., . ol.- i~ > M., ; i :u. '. i ~~~
~~,.,y i~~
.'^,. _ py &,,. 7 -s..-., a \\ %".' p. ;,v.s q..e.,.s. /.* l .~ .a? ?.,. ,t,,,. <~.:....,, I,.,2. t.=..c..r. j f, 6 6,.; --.n,..., .x. '. M '. c. w.. %. L.s]7,T ' : l $ '9;;f',DJ.;.'h ~.W 'x.y j = & Kr.t;..,/..n(, 'M]..'. ;,u e.., x.tse. r ,.4.., i. n +4- . ty Q ' d.: t,. a ,s 4,.. .y -n -,., C ~ O .-f..... ~; : v. r - < %a.m., m e,.
.. mn

%.,. M.,~..y -+'_-yi..,.y,,
~~~3-. W, y, M.,g.r, y, t 1 r~~
~~32.x,s.4.4.,,.. g. ;,. s~~
. A -,M,,.a,, ' . 1: ,:.< r~ m.wy ,t , t.n y,;.; ~ F,,, ry. cp... - - -y..f. 0 7,3 ..g,e,. s t .4 }. .. n ;' '. ~. I r or, t L'M.&..N.. w ) p.%.n r?. : r a :.; w.e. ei ! r.c. w e + c..,,. m, n,r.,.......~< ,, t. :.3,..% . c ,%;w g g ~.y,., g It~..... t,...n 9.. v,.. p .~ ',d, 'a. M,a. 1 i'% '.,,,Q [' $ y s M 'h 4*J..h < s:h'e. ], d 9.. r. y c <p & a ,'. a, n w, m." %p., 'w...ch.,.,. + s u a.v n ..m ~ : ) + - 3 2.,f _m.. m...,,,. -. r<,..m.. ;;,p.,.n,n.; u.g; ,.,w,.y.. :., >. u. m. u.. y.,, %,:n ..,g.w w g, ..a..a.,,r,... + -- h. ~ ... o.of p, v,x.., 4 v. % *%r-. i ,. g.. m, > r,n, w...s.s., tJp,,.u. -.a .,.<.r. . e..., -.w r. m.~ w. .,Qw *%o. =,> ?,LQ %. ~ ' f.,) y 5._ -t.
~~9.. p.~~
~~,.c v e Y a g 9y., M q. g s-~~
~~w, <.,~~
~~e <'\\! 4 4 .I g 4 W g ]~~
N
~~..y<. t, i ,I /a~~
~~p t4~~
~~' ~^p. r ...,. =~~
~~v. '- t.s N [s.,'.).y. ; ;e[,,.- s~~
~~.f- - ~..ar -., ~ ~ - 7 s 8 [ e , y r m y; q'. %, g'. 7. ~.*';.. %..'* r , &p"@,*.,: ; r.y e i q' l;c, = L. 4 - ~ ll. w.1 Ky(" V *; e; 3Wf,,h $j';f , .r3. f*'. y .U. ' N~~
~~l * :- E ',~~
~~.'t" i e. ,gg Ppa F. ,e. . 's s p '.L. ; l b~ . *,r -~ : f, +.yt.w,. e..x. b.s., e* y .....m ..pp,..q y,,.y. w,. t -.,L . $,'q. v3 ng j," j g s [I.. .g,- .y g ggY p.g .;j N 4,,,_ ' T,= '4,'~~
~~e.s t m{ f '.. '~~
5,
~~', f~~
.s j ~ - *, f- .h ,.. y. i E 8' %. m, $. e.;g,. a, T f f 2 , ~~ . op. n: -.;
p a.
~~i.,~~
~~?. e;. f, .W,f 6 2,. W 'mw.. - '.. ;. - c... ww % o s.- Q n :,;, : f,G '.x* %@;,: ' ' B dC Wr a ? d >,Tb.C. - N. ~~~
~~. W. W V h';. $p 1} ;r~~
~~? ! G:. ,%s M.R~.y.! 7 Qa u,- 4, \\.;,; t ' G+.,.~~
~~q'e '1N.~~

? ~ n yL 3 ~.;v.v ;v.. . n.s,~. a. ty C.'.'~. . g, m -_ ~ u_ s tp.U..p,. s -~ ~ ,/.r-na A w~ N':,:: Q, t.Q-.%, . '..';.'t. - ...c. ~_ ': t;. s, .~m : L %.. s.J.,f;y. %,,G; ;;.s. a. : 3 ~. F., c.W '- ~ J.. r.. >. Y f.'Q Y.l *. O f5 2 Cite as 22 NRC 875 (1985) CL185 17 UN TED STATES OF AMERICA m Mi - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .. c~.,~e4. ' w 4.. ..e, .s. n ~, > N %w..f, M. e.;. #;;._..,+,. ,1. ~ 1. m.. c,. m: > t..s. x#n .f.~- . n.u.- qm s us .pm m.y g.N9-5 COMMISSIONERS: g> w.. w.*.i.n. ;; w ps.g m... u ~.,, r .,. ~. v.
~~O ", U' d 4,Qs~~
~~^ * - R RiLYMQy 's K~~
~~%r a~~
~~-A,, 4 q, h@.'s,q WN,1;W~tQ C*W}'.WQ& ah ,-r,.;::'i? Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman ~ .G, fp* ' .h <S w i. - 4 Jm.W; M, r.p~.'.,. W Thomas M. Roberts 3*M.p );::w'. u: i .g y~~
~~e. wrq%,p.y,wd&p%gD. ?%,.-.~~
ex James K. Asselstine .r. p, ttn 2;h Frederick M. Semthat n: c..%,.,- t ;m.r.&,h_.N,W re.,. m W ):t @ fc Lando W. Zech, Jr. v.,b.p+,M. ye f 1.N:~- m.A._ cc o .v. W. 'qy b v W< Q @-@ ^ - 3e >l ~ c.,e r.
~~i ? "~~
~~4.. - \\ u. g,M...,. t ' v. _,, *. in the Matter of Docket No. STN 50-528 a. 2..., (Application in Respect ';; Q * .j of a Sale and Leaseback~~
~~- ~.;~~
,. m. '2;.. Financing Transaction by 45NM. tEh N, 4ih M;M ;. Public Service Company .m wszas.wf.W @ dWM '* of New Mexico) ,wam.v.4. en.,..,.w. e.v..,.oi .s -e w R.h_ n.1 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE s D W q# v. .e ..~ ; 'd %.. m:L,h., W e',,... q.. A :: u ;, %, Qt:mn m a nya%,. r p;,.. ". \\ ,,m=, COMPANY, et al p.< v x . : ~.n:w ., W ": ; ;, -m.- Palo Verde Nuclear Generating J# 2 .C,6 3 Station, Unit 1) December 12,1985 lyc 2:- c-a ~ ~a..., c.,...g
~~d W.A e %'mhr@ h,C*!*-.,,,' ;Wr. pa r:r 3g). a +i In this matter the Commission has determined that in the totality of 3,,fN e.T i, 3 -E ~~~
v.kk' W r c: y',. . @ c G.. . Q,.it. g e...,.p.:.24 w..c n. W.. i M & il 7 the circumstances, the proposed sale and leaseback financial transaction a yy,7; ?;g. >. g 7.+ 9 - w th the license amendment recommended by the StafT and subject to specified conditions is acceptable under the Atomic Energy Act and the i A.,.w. ,p,,. s Q.'. S Commission regulations. j; $. $. y 3,3,. v?!. S P. d..,<J ' b+ c N p
m
~~, v~~
~~. w.h.e.. i. ; n~~
$; p@j,....e v.a.,,: rv.> y+.r...w..s ,g f .a 8 W; W'.'~3 t.,y.+ , c... y A$W't..v WFsF@-L v.A,? ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES J e . *q 5Mj@;X.%y.~ahjW W %] c (SALE AND LEASEBACK FINANCING) hfM;w.D. g~;:bM$%.E The lessor and anyone else who may acquire an interest under the .rw ff m,. ,.a,.M. m,.j.W3.w.., sale and leaseback financing transaction are prohibited from exercising i
~~c. o t ;~~
~~N Wi $ e u,. #% s .,y.5 , ~.., a +., y~y.. - ; e, any control over the licensees. q a ."f* S '. s.. e ,q ;.4,,~~
~~3...~~
~~.y __ g, gyg ~ ? P P r 1s~~
~~s.. ; "~~
~~,4 I 's#- - ' }r.. 4w sts ' e:7 / s - i M lj -~~
. ET,:*
~~. ?., Y. v...l, ^ ; n " * ** c g., ! j '* Ll......h *,ow .'. ~.: :,**.~~
l..

w'. w&'^'.g.* s.
'~s"'"****W*
.e
?

j
~.* tr % p.- ' ' O T <[ ', ^ *
% L+.. Q,, J e. i*
~~D r Q'~* 4 -~~
~~w"..',',; J,;,e~~
~~.c i: ? %,. *f'.,.m' ;?'.~~
~~4 W ? r ff 2 ')'.c,, s~~
2
~~.,w % N,5l;ip' ;.p?.NlN "r *.D..w*f.. T *** p "NWR}.?f % W %.. A:y'w. w "t..;. ,'l' ~ c a.mmm. :::;' /* J.j.3 i.* *' Q t* 1<.. n. g 4...- Q ' ' {\\ - s.!* "?,, t - ': %.w c..,~~
~~y. r:v.E*CQJ ^ ?& 1 ' ;% g~~
,,g.q,..V... _., w ,sh.%i, r
(l i...I I m w;W.Y'.U.W $..% ?,.*lE W l w: W Y & 4 .,j %.L,.' - f~ W0W ~ t.~ .. y: ...'.s w:sw~:# pgrw A%YW$ m;dn h W.-Ns z. kr W L +m iM:$, %n. 3, A, o~.g& p%.W Yrdt y W.i 8h.iN Q i & Qh.? Y llv $: - L~. e/A f ,m, Udx n '- -f + ..o.- . t.. cp % Q, M,w.. m.sr;;r.. e e c...
~~y...:s. m. n m..s ::~~
~~-w "' +.. n wm Lu ~ u~~
~~a. _~~
w.
pp

w. : > x g.:.
~~c a -. Q m M. w ; e i b w w :n ..M,,d;*'.,D@ N...'W. v'i e.M: [.n. 3 :. m w h;m,ug;;;p w:W.v,W i 4 .r w w - w: a# y p m,,~~
~~.).-~~
~~,,j_~~
~~f t~~
- 7. f*- ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES (SALE AND LEASEBACK FINANCING) The limitations in 10 C.F.R. { 50.81, " Creditor Regulations," are ap-6 .+ .c - n N..dW. - J. C h_.t..$. m.. 1#M plicable to the named lessor in the sale and leaseback financing transac-3 s N gjggW p tion and any successor in interest to that lessor. %g M M. s #@ b e W@ M.w,. m.om:sJ'* w a ric or M o %,. g. Mo.- ,T3 e ~ s,. .a h 4: , U. ] M.1 %g'O@; L i b f D i; p., W ORDER K @g. wym.m %.,m L .w. 5M1W.%d5DW.4,*Q MMfkhkMhiM Ot. October 18, 1985, the Arizona Public Service Company filed with &M*%M.hMY@MK!M$ the NRC an Application in Respect of a Sale and Leaseback Financing MD%T* ,e.n....n y/M.,.M Transaction by Public Service Company of New Mexico. The Commis- %,J'iT?t# did M M is R 5.. m ; g. m ~ th.Wgr.j sion has determined that in the totality of the circumstances presented N';.NElI;.'.h ' [ )..,, to it, this proposed financial transaction with the license amendment
~~1..g., C.? M.,~~
? -% ?! recommended by the Staff and subject to the conditions'specified in this M.M@$$.g;NS-NNNSN..gQ%i.3.h $ M 2 Order is acceptable under the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission 9 regulations. This conclusion is subject to the condition that the lessor ' ff jc y,f4 and anyone else who may acquire an interest under the transaction m which is the subject of this application are prohibited from exercising ,'J 4.MGM.$-... % xe,G.d.b., g,+.Widl$.1 .A%4 .., ~. q-vW d.irectly or. d.in irectly any control over the licensees of the Palo Verde 9ay.m gi m- $%d!/Md7M. MWN nuclear facility. For purposes of this condition, the limitations in 10 NN;WhNhhh C.F.R. { 50.81, " Creditor Regulations," as now in effect and as they may su%mtly amended am fuHy appHeaMe to th nand kssor b@fd 'rhgg N :a W VA M @ N d g and any successor in interest to that lessor as long as the license for the .,77 MMJZ)dW. Mff,". ~ Palo Verde nuclear facility remains in effect. Accordingly, this financial J..
~~$, j,y. $$,;$~~
transaction shall have no effect on the license for the Palo Verde nuclear s _., O W5', facility throughout the term of the license. - m w%'M.k.W.n %@55n.3.WN Subject to the foregoing, the Commission consents to the financial W %.d.,p;a,r ~, WR;,DW..w% w transaction as set forth.m the apph. cat. ion and authorizes the D.irector of g MdW,Q;: 2 wgbeJd. %>, wA W W. the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to amend the license as de- ..e ,. s.y pa..,s. e.6.- gs J p.; M scribed in SECY-85-367 and this Order. c e' ,o It is so ORDERED. ~
~~+. m.>n..c,n,.m. ;.y a,,%w,, a..J.~~
~~7+y .::.. = s .s. ..:.,u ; s p...,~~
~~y.e d.r pa.a.e. a ; s w. y,,. c.~~
For the Commission y %*%gM ~...r Ylql*iM..n/%(Q.fM. gyp @f.y9& M :7; M s 3 JWC..p.[% ggM!.3yW' y c SAMUEL L CHILK Q*j. P.w,.M.i$...i @h NM Secretary of the Commission s y.A s,, #.. ( % m. v., y.. .. ~.! s.~. -a ' h,i. -((* kM. .\\ Q@ s'f:h.Drgh.34a(*i (*.A[W Dated at Washington, D.C., m,S.v ag .7 this 12th day December 1985. 3 .3 [ 4,;h [ ; ., ~, w y.,.,' +4.. 7 6,' g, * ' W. b.. ,'V..;. 1 J u / l% 'a .e ? ;.3 gyg .~ s; ,M-j W g "g
~~9 g~~
I" D e. C x>- i :/ s.,L p. - ?... h.,, o. - - $ D'I'.Qs1*E ? lQ R f Q.w..:. Y ??QQQ.. x. z, r~ ~. .-n---. j &h:~ .pg SQlW.f.: M.pgy/g@$ '~h.w,6: W.m gy@$f p-mmr n 0 *..:'i W',i F.,,.:.,... ~ QY W&$ $N
~~Q '~~
~~WW$W,eM.w%..M Q QQ W W.C. % PAD *p. W.m.%.n.s, M. C,F,,. W.@ 6,'Q g &e. w&,M M b,~~
b
~ CC v w4 4 w x .~ c.w s. s.- ., f. n-,- ,. w p q q.,s.w a .W$d?M.t '7,.
.,a..e.a. hl*+w,;W: .h, ~Aw w 94. --.,y: w ,, ~ ~ . ~ p <n W 1.- v. ,..f.+. M,. :. C.. O. a:s~ i. .,.. W MC 'T,'$,.,'M a,!.W.,'.L.~m. i e .a.. ..wn .c.
~~" ^-~~
,.n y c ~%):S;;5% &M-W 7:;-~ f f. W ^.. c GT, 'y. y> w.cl./ ;'m e,. pv J.1.f",:91 . f. - on 4. A - 2 4. n N.. Ef 4 r; w :., r Mn. a, y. ~ p ;, m. ..W A. r_+ ~ a, m n.,;y :,A.. ;.s.,,:. .Wk, e.a.. ~ ~'
~~u. ;.w.~~
4 "n s v..w w. -n m.,,, ~.:.y.sy,winc. - -- : ;;g y.%::; ~ . s.. l% ' r v \\w s. ..r*. <.g y- **3. g..: -. .,(- -g. ..c ,.. 3 n., j Cite as 22 NRC 877 0985) CL1 85 18 s t,* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M.,..c, ! '.. y- ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,.~..
~~p. n.-..~~
h.. 9, g.. n. W.,s %.., . w. Ygm.Vd+e w.r e v.s..., e". W s. t +M.%n w.xg:1. ~ i ~3. : n.' COMM1SSiONERS' 9: w.m c.m, e sy. w &y ;:s ,..i 1..xm.y p~.-.p.y; q%gM 2q) 4W Q.us Q.kp V. k.,. < w. p.>.s, w.~ 3.w @G, l.@N32.jw,tD,,5, M 7 M 6 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman . A.t -.w:q y,4.s v. @ 1'.s.v-s, m p#p'c.b.W~y g,Gheq mm Thomas M. Roberts y*%:w n .,W s.f:,c.y."J.f. %, A t y.f ..;&. % p.: >N;.g.< Qhe m James K. Asselstine M.n M. m. @.m.7;y'W:.U.J,%;M.-.:%....n.+,q)t<;.y. b C 4 W W G 4. W:, A Frederick M. Bernthal %. N 5g.n.W~.u y w - @ ->; Lando W. Zech, Jr. g
~~t y7ga~~
~~.,e u,. o.,n.. m. n,. ~ g T f* t J. s . W *,., g ?.d4,.-!.V a # -?P ^ '. p In the Matter of Docket No. LRP 'p' am m - ~ m.* . ~W..n, / :,g;to c - 'w ~ ,e~~
~~.?. a n -,. -~~
~~.u-INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND cm t.6.%. 4.%,S yd. UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA~~
~~d. M %. q #J;. M e y ; U D ; u j IG G M~~
.Iki: FALSIFICATION December 18,1985 M,. 4.+i h ;iji M: m v.; M M J G M M. w., p + w.. & g; M l % 4 %.,,.% m; Q.M. W.. Q p[. Q.; m p w 3b M ~fG W %%3Q,h g The Commission establishes the procedures to govern a legislative-d p @m. % @ N P 7 Q ? ]l F format hearing (ordered in CLI 85 2), to develop sufficient information p-x -M,., for the identification of persons involved in and the facts surrounding v.-. ' the reactor coolant system leak rate data falsincations at Three Mile ..J: Island Unit 2 prior to the March 2S,1979 accident. The Commission au-m... c % m. w r.,. p s. ~-.A Q Q I C M R @e, a.:. MMyyt'.M'E.nf MM@m w pA thorizes the appointment of a Presiding Board to rule on petitions to in-f) tervene, to conduct prehearing procedures and the hearing, and to issue
~~/Q[~~

~~J m q:':qt';%D,.OW.MM;;.t*m kt.?;M.t ings, the NRC Staffis to recommend to the Commission what action, if~~
~~FJ a recommended decision. After issuance of the Presiding Board's Gnd-~~
~~...n p. , e - Q. any, should be taken against individuals found to have engaged in ~ x~~
~~$M'.pi.~~
. R. RM Y, o .j '*p$.m u..%;i. r3... ' 'w'I % f,w{. wrongdoing. The Commission will then address whether to initiate en- . 4M forcement proceedings against individuals and whether employment re-y, W M irs ". G.c: h M h
~~N k k % % + d. h..~6fj:lK straints imposed on certain individuals in the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 M..~%.r..# css.h h h~.p y restart proceeding should be lifted.~~
~~[. u..x.., . f;.-f.. 6f '*Y f..?."f.. ls h. (* *s y! 7 ~f w. d 4 4 3' &%,"f.+r* :;' r tv %g~~
~~$'h>. m?,3~~
~~.* j. g . e g v wf w.a t 'w .,,^,e*. s 3 y ..n., ~, ', u g77 y l e. .,,J I'.. {. t ' \\l'.-) [W ' .d h. ~ ',, s~~
}'~~-"*"'**-**'**'"
"'"'****"N'*"- ' *k{.'2G, ?' jl,y;.yyy,;yff @' ily;: f., y';.Q, ~ r,,i?. 1-6 9.v,;+..ca W.;;.f(in. W '7.15 % D.b'.3 ;. 7 's...,- . i %-j N 'i,+ ; n. /' .4 7;ffjD ?f . w 1.k [',.?/ 7. N *' .r. ~ .. : %m, w ;e,.; 4.mm:. pe n%,,. qn../; y/,.,7;. ~4',%,. ', s;. na. 5,3. e. s.. ,r. n3 we
~~y..e.,g:t y.3,hsY ** E$l.} f.,f..n % ; A.n,%.w; s.2,p.s i s:~~
~~~4 1 .,, a ., n t t-s -,~ , p,c e: s. t-s n' v. .w':&.h. 7 9 :~~
f '.\\*N['.~ : g n,.Y ?

'[<~'
~~\\ : '~~
.m e 'A: j:': Tot b b..,.:7.'e c,;;2. g r%n v. c 5 ?, l 'f* ?ltN f ,tO-
M @?W 2~:?;'.% 6V
~~s A if'..Nn't i. #~~
~~xgw. n y~~
~~n.:.g-9.~~
~~g:: m,4 w v:1.g-; 4. G.N : - ;p..* M : ;. e, e~~
~~.n ;~~
~~~ .: m.. %....: - - z y;W N -w a:6 M.M t. w 4 n. '. M &v-vQ:{)w &;w :p M % %a-m.W.Gc n@- 1 . /.. 4 M:W~~
~~;y. n.~~
~~yy +.: - $ r g. N, g; W O w.s u.;b y.p.:-v-s.:-v ;7 m w K..'" a m.w ,n: g h ~ (Q. %,h,w e ' a,,-Y-$. Y Y ' N NN N - q..~~
~~. r. W M.~~
~~g, s -c,- <..q w [ ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING 5.. in an Order issued February 25,1985, CLI 85-2, 21 NRC 282, the~~
~~4. 4W,..' J.~~
US Commission stated that it would institute a separate hearing apart from a ~ e..d h,..s[@,C ';~. e- . g.3c<. the Three Mile Island, Unit I restart proceeding to develop the facts sur-v. .~ ~N. N.gg;,;; rounding the reactor coolant system ("RCS") leak rate data falsifications W ;$ M M,, @# 2. N 2 v g @3.!gMyNisd3M.FsM:E'ed$h dent, in sufficient detail o determine the ultimate status of those likely at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI 2) prior to the March 28,1979 acci- $qq$Nla u.N + nk h.4,5.55f.[ involved, which includes those segregated from TMI l and those now y e.a working at other facilitter. The Commission herein specifies the proce. Nh.$.W# M
~~d. @g. w.y: M. M ;6 h.dM g 4 M.-~~
~~e-X 44 dures to govern the separate hearing, which will be a legislative format . L: hearing des.igned solely to gather. formation. This Order also dentifies~~
~~d%'W5MGQ$g:iWL m~~
~~i .MjW the steps to be taken, after the Presiding Board issues a recommended q,wj%.QMpM&,pf,MIY decision setting forth the facts, in order for the Commission to deter- .~ g. ] ,.. R, 4, y.-~~
~~'M-mine what action, if any, will be taken.~~
~~..: s M dN,;. l C h Y lg, ', ."! e. + ; '..'.'".. - . W. A.~~
~~Background~~
~~m o l;J l @.~~
Harold Hartman, a control room operator at TMI 2 prior to the acci-MNMY? t.Q.D hM.bS. P dent, alleged that RCS le.tk rate surveillance tests, which were used to M;W"Q*yg yW/W,@A.ma.w-ec dM assess whether primary system leakage surr,assed limits contained in the p W[vz w L. %@a b. d f M E; b 'Wh facility,s techm. cal specifications, were at times purposely manipulated y !p. kQ.g QA. q $4 and records of unacceptab:e results were discarded at TMI 2 prior to the $$Ip: Q qy Q iS N {M' W @.j %*y,)[;p @s m u MMW pij accident to cover up the fact that over an extended period of time the re-N7 suits of the tests exceeded. technical specification limits for unidentified @4.M.7 (ig i'@n. leakage. Hartman alleged that the computer program for calculating leak c '1-rates was unreliable, frequently yielding unrealistic results. This made it h'JM, 2; :.,QQ.:, operators at TMI-2 sometimes manipulated the RCS leak rate test results .. Q more difficult to get " good" leak rates. Hartman further alleged that the 3.. Yhp-u M.: $ MAlf %M$ by inputting wrong data into the computer, adding hydrogen gas to the R.g.$E@W ' hfD@P;.- $i make-up tank during leak rate tests, adding water to the make up tank $ $,.*;h f/ W:FMYFTS ' during a leak rate test and. not inputting the addition into a computer, 2.,i 6 *N.s w&;., T.J.$ mi/d'S$h 4.. n and leaking water into the make up tank while performing water transfer h N dDIM $ @o$c[.Mp' [.syWr.W operations involving other tanks. Hartman specifically alleged that shift e+ f.$, dbS ;r ykM 3 supervision was aware or such improper conduct. After a preliminary in-7 1;dDgg vestigation into Hartman's allegations, the NRC in April of 1980 AJ::tP.w.g,y:W a pM, ad referred the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal investiga. %..- g O t% tion- ' d M y 9 @k,g'.M W w,f:S. W
t
~~-tifMfM6 After a Grand Jury investigation and indictment of Metropolitan NN"D[lw hd$hg..: g lM 3 Edison Company, the TMI-2 licensee at the time of the accident, the f,..p.;.m~~
~~n r;N Department of Justice begart prosecution of the crimmal charges against y-Metropolitan Edison Company.~~
~~1. s. g. ,-y.'s.~~
~~f. f.*,y.~~
~~c ,.,..... :: T, 3:. mt,t ~ .p, =* gyg 4 m .,e m, s.,g, y..., '... i./ h ni. m.: -~~

n
~~..r... .',._ y.., y '. b,, / _ ' ...,.,..-..-.. n.,,- Q @.~.:. f W' k.. ~/ N. _ W,- O/.% c.P.. W ". W% ~. .c O :> 'm hm: h, _i'. @.i..qq p,.z.L _h.A.;.",J (. e,.- y.... N%~~
/'
~~s ~ s W_ g' g e-c.%... g I*'- l.h. i,n/ M j ,'.".,~5 J 7,, - p' C.*E,-'. ' 5 q 3.r-i',. . i Q,t '. f + r~~
~~m. ph,-~~
~~n 4.c,fN'?:h N '.', A'z f.p.? 4 d.~~
~~.,d.-~~
~~,t ',*t A h*J t @1 C %"%,.Wy,,w g% :a *.b.M6.i h Y. ; %' ' M* J.,'tsf.M!* (*M. f'.4. '.I"J. M e e n n e(;, '.A'< o d T. Jf 1;.. 1~~
~~M,+i,*.~~
~~N. 9 'b ' M .y ?~~~
~~1. :~~
jw b'*
~~' ^ a:~~
1 ~ A-r. .,.h t?M Jf: U 'sr.: %
% QW?i';',W Q:%y: 'b n . wa..,, ....e s + p.y g,:y-y n, wn s.. a N_f,i 'f., '?; ?'? f.. 'f} ~ ' ~ 's. y w .nn .ge,' < 7 .7,7~ u
~~m.....~~
.a A.... 'I I s y ,s On February 29, 1984, Metropolitan Edison Company entered into a plea agreement with the United States which ended the criminal prosecu-tion. Metropolitan Edison pleaded guilty to one count of 'he indictment charging it with failure to establish, implement, and maintain an accurate Q'. j 7..,i N. 3.i and meaningful reactor coolant system water inventory balance proce- ~vW.Q 7;.%; r n'. ie e..,.;.N n dure to demonstrate that unidentified leakage was within the allowable
~~a w,w y~~
~~~.m%e. 's~~
~~v. g+ h.s %.,.; m.s. c. w. #w e g g.:.:. c,t.;v.c.~~
w limits. he Compann. also pleaded no contest to six other counts of the a c~ u 4 .. ww a@.Wh'n.3p,... . M s,. w h.p indictment, including those which charged the Company with improper g .ws mamputation of TMI 2 leak rate tests to generate results that would ful- 'g#g p i*'.y ? Q..:.M.m e m .. m... n:.;u w w C'N fill the Company's license requirements. In urging the Court to accept ...p mum. WmM.g;@WO..F the plea agreement, U.S. Attorney David Queen stated that the evidence .m m . 1 k N.". N h N '5: 3 developed in the Grand Jury inquiry did not indicate that any of the
2.
'I '. ' ~ P.;;x 'd/ '; directors and officers of GPU Nuclear from its inception in 1982 (as suc-1 'r$4p %eMMMM,6 cessor to Metropolitan Edison) to the date of the indictment, or any of U, the directors of Metropolitan Edison " participated in, directed, con- .;M.~.... - i).~'[2 doned, or was aware of the acts or admissions that are the subject of the ?.if. > 2 indictment."' ?' After the Court accepted the plea agreement, the Department of Jus-tice on behalf of the Commission asked the Court to provide the NRC ac,.. E., access to the record of the Grand Jury proceeding. The Court denied the v. request. United States v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 594 F. Supp.117 (M.D. %pm;j.7 . s @_ q m y..,., _4..~rf N..,h.. Pa.1984). M./ / ,..~,.g. V.C. The Commission also asked its Office of Investigations ("OI") to
~
Mh '.N ! ' M, ; J.f, O.4;M.j:h examine whether Michael Ross, Manager of Operations at TMI 1, had participated in, directed or condoned leak rate falsifications at TMI-2. c.6 g :N 3 1 y ; W 1,? & q r Prior to the accident Ross was licensed at both TMI-l and TMI-2. 01 in- ?h terviewed Ross and many others under oath regarding Ross' involve-1 ment at Unit 2, reviewed pertinent records and concluded that Ross' & 'L role at TMI-2 was minimal, that during the period falsifications took 3D : '. y [M' N. 7.J.y , ncf place he was present at TMI 2 only the minimum time necessary to
~~1'C/$L. C l-~~
$r "V y w, j ' ?q ' maintain his TMI-2 license, and that he was not involved in the falsifica-Me -G*
~~1..~~
tions. -s. fi -. I. 'I- .I * ; V. 3 N ? " !, :, W.T i 't M(. R, j l. 'MW %>fil ~ M o j .M M hM. T b . h, p>bI,, u.'.h .e. c *...., e...+ - 1 2',,* y ~., c /,; n,;,,f. n.'., w(.s.. - '. %e}y. c4 .. p,,, .~ 7.,, y
~~4.,~~
,.e: % -. i'y}. a .o u.- j. _. M. D,e i The individuals thereby cleared by the U.s. Attorney are witham O. Kuhns. Herman M. Dieckamp. .:.% / t., ~ Robert C. Arnold James s. Bartman, shepard Bartnofr. Fredenck D. Hafer. Richard Heward. Henry D. ' W.fE ~. sy. 1 e Hukill. Edmn E. Kintner, James R. Leva, Bernard H. Cherry. Philip R. Clark. Verner H Condon. ~ ', , l[ ' ' ;,. ..4' Walter M. Cnett. Robert Fasulo. Ivan R. Finfrock, william L. Gilrord, Robert t. Long. Frank Mangs-naro. Ernest M. schleicher. Floyd L smith, William A. Verrochi. Raymond werts. and Richard F. Wilson. i -~ q . ~ l 879 i I
9
. 4 g ,S'~*'.. %,:. : k 7,-l. 'r ,,, ' i , ' s ',. W 9
.?

f.hC ', ? % ;n T..s i.;.
~~...-q. p;f*p,*ry'Q.,*,. ~, W ;.'. ', ' D ' *. ' ,~ ...a ;.. v .t. . e * ,.Ry J .k~~
~~- f~~
~~,q"~~
~~y. V ?.*f.,f,,",~~
N,
~~w. ?..:.f.m,.'. Ej~~
~~... [.* )~~
~~i ~ ~ , m, m., '.. ,n .. +' y. a.. g r.; v,.y. c. p<.,...,~ y... ,.e:~~
y

.
~~. w.y~~
~~h vs-p~~
~~iA3.Wg~%o. c 4.xd... w ym m. w.~~
.w;&

Me
.p w v - "- % m. ~. ;;;.a.m,w:...~. w' innL. e r g. m. ~- Q /. MPe H : Wu ;,. v. 1.,^ ' d. ' -. W y' v Rd.x @M :%: e ym.cs%:v.r.~-mNBQ^M:p3hk%&w... m..q,:7MWWY W M;< T ?>: .', b t '. wc ww -wn x- + v M @i, k M W T !$ -dl M NQ 9p M Q:JM.M.
~~' % ;a -~~
~~~r c $p.m W. 9 .w W M e Qv. t # r e.M ?@@ w$h @o;-'L'N'. $' N' h.' c i ;. ' '. :', FN g~~
~~- - j' - "~~
~~iyWA -- m. r,;;.: M. %,..:. n.: w. %.4.. v.. %. m .cy - , n. ; c.,.m.4... n:, ;. o,; mpe i L~ -n w se w.p. l,~3av;*. > y y,; %y,a.y;y g m m.g g. ',. t; - w.v'c y:.y M~~
~~a..~~
~~B. Purpose and Scope of Hearing 1. The purpose of this hearing is to develop the facts surrounding s >- the leak rate falsincations that occurred at TMI 2 from February 2,1978 1 bh7.."..- ~ ' 1< 1'~~
~~a.....~~
~~(the date 'IMI-2 received its operating license) until March 28,1979, in~~
~~...q.~~
sufficient detail to determine the involvement of any individual who M.. M M M. N M S M l,7 MM w%,.WM.:.@.n;W.g wk.M.p-: N4Dg M.,% may now work, or in the future work, at a nuclear facility licensed by a w m. .Y .6MMT the Comm.ission. ]b;-k~ M sM N Q [y kU8N3 a gyi 2. The specific issues which the Presiding Board is to address are p. e v u S s d n( m.. s h d m limited to the following: M M M#:9.a%w(Vhl$ h ME'I@.5M$D (a) How were the Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 requirements for TdWW$dSif hNN reactor coolant system unidentified leakage interpreted and im-d.MM plemented by control room operators (CROs), shift foremen, A t s w A Q ' M@ % y ? D. e$ ElW%in d % dMfC shift supervisors and onsite and offsite management? Following G @'W@ffW NSM% the discovery by an NRC inspector in October 1978 that ',. 's ; il '- g 4 -,' ' Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 requirements were not properly ~ .._. J,.. , s, 7fn. interpreted or implemented, what corrective action was taken + ,. Q7.. 1'.M,. i .. y 7 9. < Wx. 3..% 7,w by management personnel? Was the corrective action taken - * ~ sufficient to ensure compliance with the Technical Specification p. A,W, w-. 3.4.6.2 by the personnel performing and reviewing the leak ~ WWSEON,,.. S.g['valvc< _..bg @po@d rate surveillance tests?
~~m. m.~~
,w (b) What difficulties, if any, were operators experiencing when F M h .NT. conducting leak rate surveillance tests required by Technical N,v$.y @M'M M 'W M @40 yig w Specification 4.4.6.2.d? Who knew about these difficultics? 3 . %w m.s h M W M., a What corrective actions were taken? Did operators feel pres. W vs. ic . w m f yd y'f q q Q @ l, W, p, p" y sure to obtam leak rate surveillance test results wh. h did not ..m ; Q Q wr ' ' exceed technical specification limits? If so, what type of pres-L '~ sure was perceived or exerted and who was responsible? N Rc jM@yyp (c) Were unacceptable leak rate surveillance test results required t>. %.c.m@a:.#mg.f,jy..f, w-h.- by Technical Specifiestion 4.4.6.2.d discarded? If so, who knew L /GMds; M /Apgyp. of, condoned or directed this practice? Were unacceptable leak M M YiIf[Q. % g j>Up g g% i rate surveillance test results discarded in an attempt to hide W W2 W r % 3:p rW A "' them from the NRC? I.m,M.,,.h:.h, 9.n, y. l;4....M...: u,.N., M );, M. jr (d) Did operators manipulate data or take other actions during &y. n9 e ~. c leak rate surveillance testing in an attempt to improperly in-i
~~!!M..T.n....4 e W,T G M M fluence test results? Who performed, condoned, directed or WgdNN5dMF,M,9 ;fN w~~
~~. qW 4 hSMb,g. 6iM ' was knowledgeable of data manipulation or other improper ac-h . @% % - N,9' K T i M D~~
~~W tions during leak rate surveillance testing? This would include, h~~
but is not limited to the following: Y h f M h M h h @e t h [.f h-hMh (i) inputting the wrong data into the plant computer; pt:. ;gSA'f.1.jnW'p N (ii) adding hydrogen gas to the make up tank during the test A t gp.r.y;.-v.w%m@, - t..I@iM h in an attempt to influence make up tank levelIndication; p.W 7.)5h? c :. c.9
~~;. ~. _ m. >>..~~
1 2..- i .o e s - U gf. *~:: ggQ d %- Q ', s. , g;. ::c *S.,' :'. v U;-. e t. .. ll ,, f,.,.... t, -^ 1 f... w :.. -..... ghv... ~ - --- v.g r -- y -- -~~r-n m-m T--*= 1 , x p.m.5.ev."z a,.m, f %$* [.'
~~'9,~~
~~.,0 .c + s y.J ,= :,cf; ..v.h . f.. p,a. h% b. .J f ~. D' d*J .e, ?*my?'w% f'.nd.c.w%' V,Y^,1..~~
~~c. " '~~
~~.,'. m .m. +, w' ww.W &n?.A{Alp*Y.~v :, L - 7 i ! C... to */ : .,:4 L '*g.. .yT > Q.y V.A.,f %;) 4 , #w. j%Q Q*..a. '".p;.*;'/:n, @ h f* b~~
* *f
? ',".Y','.- 2 -.,, a 0; W W,M M @m.y.g.k.x, gf.q,nw;t. wh, c.. r .N h <e. e u s.n!W:nW.n 3 h. m :+mg ' m,..,.:. ;.w, ..<: 1 ~ ; a w,4.'i .s., H r :,i r - >. ~ ^- .. }' ' - - ~ / ov%ru m I I
&l,&s;;.% n.: a Q_e*. n.e.n,g"..'.p %,,.; s w.p.: . Qi'.M... % w&- L .c ~.w n ..n. ~. -.a n.+3:.y.&,. . 1..:'. ;e, .a . ~. - W., ~ y -tm a 2 ;, w,... s pr
~~4. m, 4~~
~~m v.. ; ' .,ww.~~
~~p..y~~
= + {f /. :.,, +" 1 4. e. n.. u..x ,e.__- 3.,_7.. s.w. s .. :.. + (iii) adding water to the make-up tank during the test and either not including the addition in the computer calcula-tion or underrecording the addition in the computer; (iv) taking advantage of difTerences or inaccuracies in plant instrumentation (e.g., make-up tank level indicators) in (([M S ., f :- e W.R.m.Wil W[,GIM~ e.a m e! Z..;i.7.. an attempt to influence parameters critical to the leak i .c ; W. e@ rate surveillance test calculation; t .m < m W:;.ggy;$.,, c2Qqb sM@ e, CM h N ;lfQ;w.2... .e. w. (O taking or failing to take any action in violation of technical n m' y...w.spsfM N e.mv Q specification requiren.ents? vH.- % @;i 4 0' O' M :h WAY dW M' @ % %;M ney that the twenty four individuals mentioned in note 1, WNMEN ! (e) The Commission has accepted the findings of the U.S. Attor- "M 1E!.pQ.W&dm .W supra, were not involved in the leak rate falsifications. It has h,2$.3.y# " c$m m.m@@~ m.s p$k p.. 4-7i. 1.sg: i also accepted the 01 finding that Michael Ross similarly was Q f j p,' W i S > $ @ -;,) W not involved. Accordingly, the Commission has decided that ';7 ,!eX ~ these individuals are outside of the scope of the hearing.2 "j,. Therefore, tlie Presiding Board shall not address any issue ,y,', y@;,.,,., regarding any alleged knowledge or involvement of these indi-viduals in the falsifications that occurred at the TMI-2 reactor
~~'J Q~~

e from February 2,1978, until March 28,1979. (f) The Presiding Board is not to entertain issues other than those .4 1... c. ..:.b ~..n r .s q. 4,... p_q. 7,, m 4. :.W.,., y,..,. r. set forth in (a)-(d) above without the prior authorization of
~~e.,. y a,..,~~
, jn.. , 7.... - the Commission. .*'s y.*
y
"% ( < N r. '{ < g m,\\ t N.77,q; r C. Procedures d.,' '. ~ f 5..g( M*.' fa }f r .,1 , t as 2 .c.,- y. % y,g 9.? w ;'.+ The Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing l. A 7 / ~ Board Panel, is to appoint a three-person Presiding Board to rule on peti-3 4 tions to intervene, to conduct any prehearing procedures and the hear-f;y.k-@t 7 . W %,.s. e IVl'a ing, and to render a recommended decision setting forth the facts sur- . rm , 'b g.ed, 3..,,....A ? rounding the falsifications and identifying those individuals who partici-n. ,.:M,: M.,' j#>.5.9 M $ Cy @ pated in, or knew of and condoned, or by their dereliction or culpable .ag neglect allowed the leak rate falsifications at TMI-2. 7, .e i 2. Any person who has an interest which may be affected by this cF7
~~'.. d.,~~
.:j hearing may petition to intervene. Petitions to intervene shall include h.f .. 4 I M:' j the name of the party, how the party's interest may be affected by the hM l proceeding, and how the party expects to contribute to the development g.!djk.Iy,h@f.it4fh'u[ d.'h'Y D ',,,M-h hd &.9 w w /." of an adequate record. Petitions are to be filed within 45 days of the date N h;& C). l~l .k$ f. ' ', N ~%
~~r u ; #.+.~~
gq, tc., - p 17.,.i M..*ygi. i ~ +; 2If the Pregsdsng Board beheves that any or these indmduals have pertinent information to provide on e (. F i *,, ' i j ' .4 issues falling within the scope or the hearing, at may call them as witnesses at mutually convenient times l ' ~ or, if necessary. issue a subpoena requiring their attendance and testimony. The Board is not to make unreasonable demands on the time of these indmduals of upon other perv.ns playing key roles en the operation of any nuclear facility. t d 881
~~v.. m. c ;.,,_~~
~~,.4 s _m...- a,, ],, ls . [ e - *. ~ > '.~~
~~.j, (~~
~~,# q u. ;;e. c, . - y. m s t *.,.m, m~~
~~c.Q s~~
~~'s' ", ' ',,.-e ~ M.L '_. s,k yW,r. e n u,c: : w,Q, *. M i..n,~~
~~n....;~~
-:c ,m.4 u n. c 4+- m. .pi e J6e +- ,g - g ,r s 3
- n' t,m p A.
~~c.,~~
~~w.'. o.- -~~
~~..e r -:+.4 .Dt,~~
~~h +. t,..mm.z.,.... m Le; -.m c. x.~~
~~+ s 3 .:n n.... ' v i s ':.s h m a,~~
~~w *..,,.:,...~~
~~.p. R Q. w z M.mx,M:.3W LWy:S.MQ 7: rFpllU.39:~ : 'M a,e.m. :.w..a g; w=v.; a s. yyWM W.. a A,q..s ..o6p V +.k:2:1 4c u c~~
~~w.. - :::: ;', - -~~
~~y .? gqs ;~~; . m.W..'>p y;,yly ; R:..:n : n..:. - ~ - =----~-a - : v.c.. h. p.z::G'.:..k ;x. zA n W. p.. 1.;.N.se L.T. w ;'.;.,. r.3 vV x i M.~~
~~w 37 w~~
~ s .s of this Order and Notice of Hearing. Petitions shall be granted if the Presiding Board determines that the petitioner has an interest that may be affected and petitioner will likely contribute to development of an ad-gs . m.. ,1 m equate record. 3. 3. The hearing will be held in the Washington, D.C. area, although G g( '. Q pM.; ' f.S the Presiding Board may hold portions of the hearing in other places con- . hi 'i'q.'%w.T 2dM24 W'.W?.'4.'s sistent with the convenience of the parties or their representatives and J y.y v.. .. e 9 y... w. g:. .~ ao.4... ~v.g...y.. ~ e;., ~@. 4m. ~ v +, p .n. the publ.. terest. ic m Mm c q.n a e w@ c. w w.v, W M c n .U 4. The NRC StafT will not participate as a party. Instead, it will make 6pM.%%3:w.w p.d C,q available to the parties and to the Presiding Board, relevant documentary 3M E.3"' h 7 -
4... %;WW:y%.o.E,.v%a,4.g material within its possession as soon as practicable after issuance of this Og ewAgg Order and Notice of Hearing. Disclosure of material is to be consistent f*dh.MidN91Ldf;6 with the Commission's Statement of Policy, " Investigations, Inspec-
.M; M' M'.$dM,QQG $ tions, and Adjudicatory Proceedings," 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (Sept.13, 1984). The NRC Staff will also provide whatever testimony or other ~f**1 assistance the Presiding Board requests to ensure that the hearing record M' '/4 - is fully developed. All orders, petitions, submissions to the Presiding f. a Board and other pertinent maurial shall be served on the NRC StafT. ~ " - ~ 5. This hearing will not be conducted under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Sub-part G, except that, in addition to the powers granted by this Order and ' lM.o,,g. p# -.:l; gn g-ya 4. o,..9 gb.,,'a Notice of Hearing, the Presiding Board shall have the powers speciGed L z.. x.,. g. -. W d.dE 6 Q@2;dM,D O.p m in 10 C.F.R. ff 2.718(a), (e), (0, (h), (i), (j) and (k). The hearing will g h; P W 7 $ T*:W:M:tW'M be conducted using a legislative hearing format, as specined below. A,q.hMh@p}.MLMM* T, M : (a) Only relevant, material, and reliable oral and documentary evi-c1 yJT- '4 dence which is not repetitious should be admitted into evi- .eg -.- y.,,,... %, < m.
~~e. ~ '~~
1 m M dence. Only the Presiding Board will be able to call witnesses or to question them. Witnesses will testify under oath. (b) No discovery will be conducted. Instead, it is the Commission's .h W A d. c,..,.va 4 - 4, intent that the hearing itself serve as the fact.6nding mecha. W y M+.-T.m,p%l % %i!M:.8 V9: W nism. 'At,+..a .,, ~. (c) The Pres. ding Board may issue subpoenas if necessary to i
~~i. %~~
~~J1% -?..~~
V.
[ M M@C : " Z % iW@7.; ' compel attendance of witnesses. The Presiding Board will N.';J' make available to the parties lists of the individuals that it in- 'I- '~ c v d( 2.,. ' hXM, A. i.e / ing Board to submit recommendations regarding whether addi-s. o +.. tends to call as witnesses. Parties will be invited by the Presid- '.,z.', m p Q. p:.M.$.L,J,".. r%, G i-t:g i % tionalindividuals should be called to testify. hh3 ...y;hhh t lNk;.W %a &pa.i.N e W (d) Before each witness testines, the Presiding Board will invite g -e.%.y-di n.m W. the parties to submit questions in writing to the Presiding .Qm .idMY'G.^ $[.%MC, MW X.m.9 Board which they believe should be posed to the witness. The $.C Presiding Board has the discretion to use the questions suggest-d'8 \\+.W--plv:h-M.s:M. ed by the parties. sy -,.,. . r. x..,;.,m- ..c J 't s W es .g.
.e
~~.e .~~
~~gy-~~
y"l34-,i 882 l 9 f s
/.
~~I og-3..,.3.,.q p. .'.',s*. ~ r.: c 7 7,... s.- . t,; ' hj;' g'*~ s 4.h /.,(-[., ,[..~~
~~' {~~
~~<? I ; y,.%; :.. ' g.: J,?i~~
~~7 a -~~
~~a.v [.. ~- ~. s.-~~
~~a.,x. n.,~~
~~.. MM m:, ...:p. i ,.W ' m.,,z;. M..,:'. -y~~
~~y. e~~
~~~ w, 3 -.o .o... 4 yyp:3pp;g % w%w: W. ~.. ; '> a.- s.y!;wlWd. v.Y;m..e ,$k t,, s.::::M.:n~~
.'a KAfu u.i

v..:
~~.u DhhW.'-M. W...'.~~
T W,t.? i ' :" /. 3,; 1

1/ik s
s,,Mi.. m, %M. v. r-4 .~ m.,. 1 4 3 1 9 1 7 N < (*" - " f; ^;d,1ha -a -.2--- ,~. m .., - 7.. ~ m, (e) After the hearing has been completed, the Presiding Board is to invite the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclu-sions of law. (f) The Presiding Board is to issue a recommended decision which sets forth its findings on who participated in, had knowledge of
~~6. %c O. f.!.N.-Dlg.4 1 m, m c :,a n.c.@C.u.,~~
and condoned, or by their dereliction or culpable neglect al-M.o ' a.".t. . %,.y.c W h y.p.;g w. - 1 m,- lowed the leak rate falsifications, and the facts surrounding any n % [,j r.~ 4 @fjfL' y @W [ t such involvement in sufficient detail to determine the involve-ep@MDNM W D. - ment of any individual who may now work, or in the future M; @pf.-NMN;}.W.Yp,M:,n,y*v, E..QME W'O work, at a nuclear facility. The Board's decision shall address m. N.a x M each of the issues set out in Part B of this Order. The Presiding S b a n, v y-y,. - 21,m.~ e. r.; y,,.p, e.. v.4y. Board is not to make recommendations regarding whether any t. . e,,w w ' d ': ) ' ZWOvuK. g.p p e%W,'op.rp@M.:., actions should be taken. ya,e.4 (g) The Presiding Board's recommended decision will not be sub- . j fc ...;s ject to review by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. 2 m < J (h) The Presiding Board is not to deviate from the procedures set ., l ' 4, f..,... ?, ', W. forth above without prior authorization from the Commission. ~.,; .d J
i~
If the Presiding Board should determine that these procedures will not lead to the development of an adequate hearing 'y ), y - c,,, record, and that other procedures, such as discovery or cross-N !.l j'[, ' M;. j.'.?{'Q examination, are necessary for the development of an adequate ) . O,. ,, i.~M.' hearing record, the Presiding Board is to request authorization .-~, <o w-from the Commission to use more formal procedures. The ,c,
~~..,..q-~~
~~,.:4. ,n c...,.. J....y' f,.? . 2... p.h./.m Presiding Board in its request to the Commission is to specify e, w .s %< r in detail those issues which cannot be fully developed under .;y~~
~~rca, the procedures in the Order and Nctice of IIcaring, what proce-i dures it desires to use, and how use of those additional proce-U I~~
dures will result in the development cf the needed information. .DNhNN$ On the basis of the Presiding Board's recommended decision @k3.NM.i1.I., f,Mf.tt ;.%mS and taking into account any other information which it believes y!N,p#,,A ' $ J is appropriate for Commission consideration, the NRC Staff ,n. i %A M, J shall make recommendatior s to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be taken. The NRC Staff is to pro-j5 e f., vide its recommendations to the Commission within 60 days M-b.. ;. .. ; gJ > after issuance of the Presiding Board's decision. Those recom-R.:" .. ; i;A Y-M M. s , s MMYthf.0'@42 M:2... A. ...,.C mendations are to include whether the Commissic i should .N remove the condition imposed in the TMI l restart proceeding N4D)$',I.'MM,%,@,@J MF Y4 d. barring certain individuals from certain positions at TMI-1. ' % g.; $,1 d ^ ? M y. After reviewing the Board's recommended decision and the j.,. M.. NRC Staf!'s recommendations, the Commission will decide W c'
~~7, t g,.,~~
what further steps, if any, need to be taken with regard to in- ,l' volved individuals. This will include consideration of whether e 883 .~ m 'A .{, a 6.- 4 t ' ' P #7 * "" f"* ~'*& .....-&...h ( :;:g ', I i * ) *(.:* ? ^ ', _ Q.", , '.;c :. ;,'. :: % [ - )., *,. 6 r P. .1 i y.g.vq,.. :;,
~~,.,, u~~
~~. w_.;; # _. h...; e q9,,q %,i 4~~

~~, - v ? >~~
-~ r 7.i 9,. .c: y v v A cp g e.. p.,y. ;s..y, ;.4 3, n.. cv g ,y& y l T; Y .a ) ' J ', ' "Fi. ** Kg ,. w. -..., n.. w. n. ~..
,..gn.,.;,. om.. w M.w r,. .. y w,;,,. s-u. .w . ~ .-4 me.,;,;., v l
't.p r.v. 9t r.tv.q" m

.4
n.
~~N . [p. }n.,.dlf...m,%,,3... s, .% %'.;: 3lA %,.?.,N.f..L. W 9 T! s m TG.. w "? ',.::W. n ~ .s. - . g. %.c, w. m.. . o.w:. w.w a.. .L>. N .* I .!': Q .4 'Ac ^ ^ Y '** M *m= ^- ^ ^ -~~
A-**-=a~***
~~~ 'E +. p a. v; :.. c.. m yi. f-r,t,M,'. y;, 4J., ; - -,,.., :e. v. d,, 's *1e.; 4 .p; ~. '- *.'-h'y. n ~~~
.s a.a to remove TMI l employment constraints and whether to initi-ate formal enforcement action or take any licensing action with regard to involved individuals. If as a result of its review the Commission institutes a formal enforcement proceeding) or takes any licensing action, the facts found by the Presiding
~g
~~n.,;,~~
~~kGi.fJ,. {.M. E k6 '.l t~~
~~7..~~
~~Board and Commission in the hearing ordered here will not be s L x...,.,.,euj p.. ,,.W.. W,..u.,. e...4. ~ ,.,n. .<W w,cw m w..~~
~~b. dm.g in the subsequent enforcement or licensing proceeding.~~
m e.. p. s..m..a.,_.n. -.n . e y,, v.m It is so ORDERED. s c m m. W. m. 4.g.-y-r. g 9.e-.: W Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal disapproved this Order and >ve. .p'?,% % j!,; 8,.nm s m m-~ .e.M.,*g.*;h.h...k....; provided separate views. p_. c pe.. ",.- M ;2 M e".8. W.. m - M 'JfMjo*f^ @ g & n;-.:;rlM!.". bd@? ;DM.,$ 3 ; s For the Commission * > t:.a. ; ,.m Q:,! m m. .f, ,J+w y n, m s: n.x. - g W p*- %,*.-,% Str. Aw.,y. O=t. SAMUEL L CillLK Secretary of the Commission ~ Dated at Washington, D.C., this 18th day of December 1985. L,;p ;\\
~~u. - p,m.~,.n;, L..n n...~~
w;: W, - an. -m.:r;w w n >, n n e. s. A., u..e, w... a.; p..,., n.. <s. v w n> w..m. c, :e a d. es v. .a43 M;gm. h.t V;!"*9 @ % SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE m .%. _;v.>,... :7 a..,;;. g> oa. m, p w%a:.n'.w.c.,.. .n@wp o..S...,.s.. v.i. p;.p j;.g,ng6 I cannot agree with the hearing procedures established by the Com-
~~e i 4~~
,x ow; g ac. ~ ie '+' mission in this order. First, the Commission should simply hold an adjudicatory hearing on .YYi, $,Ma 3I this issue rather than setting up some sort of ersatz legislative proceed- , b~i,K4.,);GW.hbb4NM@,,i ing. Since the Commission will not do that, however, they should at qJW least have modified some of the more unreasonable provisions. At a , y ',n,%s 4y',y4,.~d.L .,t. q.: 4 +4 %O.. 1 ; N.W "h. p.pm minimum any party to the TMI l Restart proceeding who wishes to par-7;;,s.e ,p. Y ticipate in this proceeding should be automatically admitted as a party YJ i.e A , Nd without having to establish standing. Further, holding the " hearing" in j C/ A ~ e,% . v..... A. go, 'f the Washington, D.C. area seems to needlessly make participation in yM s b: qt%; u x, d.v ;.?f;. F b-N&. ~^9 this proceeding more difficult than it should be. . ~ %.M+%l.j 7,[u 6D, s.. sa d .r..a 3 b,c.y..,g drip h yW g.1 )ue s-W:1-g - s$. r f ?'***?y % p,y..,,Y ..g s h! 3 J..W ga
~~Y% (ld ',T Because the leak rate falsification events to be addressed in this Board heanns are more than 3 years~~
~~i. 4~~
% 2,*Jy% el - old, the $-year statute orlimitations set forth in 28 U.s C. ( 2462 may bar the NRC from subsequently d. +* '.T J ".h$ T.k / instituting an enforcement pro 6eeding for involvement en the events that are the subsect of this hearms. ' N C'" ~ R, T,[. f'j]f **gg. Q.e.... y' W '; *h,.7y,kff.%.f , 4 J.; j,* T. t. ",
~~Q '~~
Yi However, the information developed in the heanns may be used for other purposes, for esample, en S 'f evaluating whether an mdividual's operator license should be renewed. -f 4 Commissioner Bernthal was absent when this order was affirmed. He had previously disapproved the A.' Order and haJ he been present he would have affirmed his pnor vote. m ' l + ., 7.... J ' ;.6:'., :;, .. :y,. 3, .m-gg4 3 y r. e ^ ', ... X.. t', .* /,. ;,9, .4 e A. --***---*=~===.ww-- i e 6f ;" e @2 7,, '.', j'f ;, ', .. f.it ;../. ~ Ji
/
N .d a;.y.e t t
~~t a~~
~~~. ,,k-[, [j,4* ; f[ '*r. g.~~
e.
8,
. '., 2" f e "i

d ' * }* N,' s..M J
~~6 /.' M ,,'I M~~
~~'[Y'^ M.k '~~
~~f . ' j"~~
I
,,%:.l J+:..K.,. ' x. s ;, 's n. V. s. i % } y s. en y
4,i M h 56 D M @ N N N M h S d b 5 N ' M.I$ N ". O N [ $.? M M' M Ns..'h'EC NY 4 s M n@ s w u m M :. u n n. v
?
~~.. u.m s L V..% m;.d..,.';n. % u yy.m.l5 w. y\\ y: y.,.r;e; . # p u W :,g.m,,g...%.vi 7 9'm@##' ~.c > #. v~,.._1 W. m -.,~~
~~x..f.e.~~
~~.w w-w by-7: , y ,4. % a r. y j w c, u,r. ..,t.,. . s,a n.a. - y ..w 9 m ~7 L U~L'2y\\:yd's. n -g .Q'ibth M%. m.;W;.%. 4.. x.,;d%.e.,....w t,.& *", i, 3 V,: M '.<~~
~~n.i.; v XA~~
~~.c. v.s r e m.&c y ii 7 w ;,..b: a r_ A u n. .k;i.fi,':.s. r#,. w#. Md\\ s;:w Q:y W.U.- u v &.. ~~;. '<<m~~
~~n. ~.u w....~~
~~.nm 4 y m Sx:.a :,_; n~~
~~s. :~~
~~.m,~., a~~
~~w. w~~
~. w *- u.k ? d.,.,, +eR.. / yp w:; G,,.d..m:.W., ' '.' q. u ':,. .g. .,M.. .s.e c;,. ' w- .v 3., :..a,w-. r x. Second, the Commission should not exclude consideration of the in-volvement of all upper-level GPUN management. I explained in more detail my reasons for believing that the scope of this hearing should not be limited in my dissenting views on CLI-85-2 so I will not repeat them v:,
~~s. I~~
~~hk.~~
here. Suffice it to say that in my view relying solely on the statement of h, k, /.M'!;wp ~,.VU6M;S,g y t.: & g e s the U.S. Attorney at a court hearing on a bargamed plea agreement is hh @W.if9h,%.v.m%',k ,5 T M, N...tT not a valid justification for ignoring management responsibility for the p 4 w' M }f 7( h,.d-b w leak rate falsifications. .,j te e p% n:,x h W:?~k-am A (Ni&g:h )5h ? w
~~hdM$@&h[hW..fdV.4 #%.SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL~~
&,W . :m %..~W. 5g&< c 3c w.co <. A. w.a.. & ~ky>wwy >.iv,. g%.. ?vg,w .,e.s.a . gyp c I dissented from the path the majority chose in respect to the number L 4tt W~, rM 4 y.w-l,4 7,Q and scope of additional hearings in relation to the Commission,s restart $w ~.3; CC.. T..
~~S.i:V.s.M.c P~~
' 4, E. " '~ of TMI-l. I continue to believe that the overriding consideration in the 1 m;K.y.c -,.p s,,.e, W denouement of the TMI.I restart proceeding is public confidence - the $@2 T @d~d @m....-. n.y. sc Wpq -ggggg ; need for the publ.c to be provided, to the extent reasonably possible, 3.+, f; ' ~ - ~ ' with all the facts relevant to the TMI accideat and its aftermath. ~ l consider this hearing as ordered by the Commission unlikely to 94.+:.b.W $; N;j :x? , s.g T,. . - p &, ~.,w, p +~ w %, n.. a~ 2,, w%. 4;u,a prove adequate for that important purpose. m p.w. w.. n .m. <; 9 .. h h /-(-w,h%';'q.44.,;..g* f ; 1., "./a e v# sh'4 T . 4 w =, ;. v..e nm... v,.w: a$. 4.;f!..' k; ~h,:e.w iM.. %,.,v n-w-. +.4.... .n mm$,&5 *l:f* ~ g 4 .n.,s ~m,.,.. h. > f.n M,mt2 ?mg/., $. r. .q:. :n Mc;;w.a .- v. n. .. t, h,m. : w..,,. y <: n. <. ..y . c.
~~e.,. y) '.~~
f W v; ; h .p ,y U-Q n . ! '., f, y w ;;,Q : Q Y 'i c m +i }a, w; f.fi' M ~ &.,,,, M.. D 4< 4 t.
~~.y O.~~
. a r s,=.w sQ;nf * +..t...< w , r-&,. ys, &., ;.-Q.$w.far&y hl% $,gf.'Q1b'.;.E ' i, %.3, M.o,; y. # ; & :,v. % nv-z &,- p:, e. . x c. s., .. %. 4. - v.M.s.vn@. ~ - :., ",.M.... 's..M f',s MQ 4.. s N Wyc
~~a n.yj:QQ.Q W ye & r M:y.; W th H D r p,~~
~~'y] k,A T % W w.n V n w w. Q .Q~~
~~.. s.:.w.~~
~~Q ~i ,l 9)q&J.V;W.';%m .,Q.;.m W,~m v.w. 2.?p%.,yh;.,y ::.~~
~~rv.n.s i,~~
~~.., p. y s~~
a.
n.-; v :- b %.s,L Q ',..i % e.,; n. q !.:: v. m: a*.. e ...,,y.,q. .a., g ,'.'.b... i..' J m _.o.g gg5 3 v 'e* e .f. e ..i, ; ~ 'B. l f5 ) p kMey;n.d.agt9;m:m, s ?f*
~~g e. n# a ; p w a w' i~~
~~mm.xe'v.- ,m, u v~~
~~. qm :xy w.g. m n :.p_ ymM.&_. s,4M.spygA.~~
~~cMy. ppm m g.. m._o.2wy. D_ . 7 sk_d.w : w pi n 9.m.,~~
~~p. ma.~~
Y a 2 w J__ _Q _m_.a_- a --A 2
y. v.x&; &+ n..F,,.- ...n. v .,.O 4%c,. ~~ :,: '. a,. n vs I;l:~}f.;U.V'd.e:.- 9.[,):f;t.; ~.,. e .y fc.dcQ < s o q;, + : w@ M O..<;..cc,e<q s.g.< ...n -y s.rm a;. Q.,8. M W..@ V ,.'St," 8,
~~s. m., ~ M 3 T'T 5~~
~~',N %.ib 4,.i.,<., f N- ..i .~~ sJ g~~
~~~ _ <.. mp,,,~~
~~.g., g ', : 1. c u.., - , : p; " ; S - %..,k.~7A.7. y *+e r *. ;, e. t. w.t., - . s s ~ y o, av.~~
~~u:e:~~
~~w ,f. R.,s p..-. '.. '*'.mp: f% ' ' -~~

~~a"J--~~.~~

Z-V + - - .w >. e... . 4.m. c.. m.m+,.Q;: w, r r. - - .,v .-.., m, p m ws....<.y.n w e., e. s,,.; ;~, ~ N f.* .., i j j,., ' k. l. ~..., ', * . ;* '.Q e s Cite as 22 NRC 888 (1985) CLI 85-19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..-i ; u ; w &:. W 4,. 4 ..a q. 4. c,%n yw.;M.
~~Yyp-y p.,. ~, n~~
.yr. 7;$w,.MM9 *6'4DM.,..zM.&. c.rh COMMIS810NERS: U ke a,.9 - >< v., g -. y...a.s. n.~~,. a w 1 s g } h I2}j; k. l-Nunalo J. Palladino, Chairman E.M:.IM.d.;,h.M.+. M. M.. oM.s$GliMb...k(N}q $ '; m ?.. A k o e : P,%. Thomas M. Roberts -w.. .M W'g%I.M,.m.... - James K. Asselstine M n.D!.i Prederick M. Bemthal w. M~...@n,,,yy/,e.nM, W~ Lando W. Zech, Jr. - t M: y p @: M. % 5 m W.s g i & :$ t m L Q. s ( - 1. < in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-289 RA g 'WN, " M',., 3 50 289 EW .7'1- ~' ' W,, " :, - (Special Proceeding) - g.,:. e r. ' t &up, ;. 9)4, y,..n.. '.,. +(.a. t' ~e,' t+. Wg... o, q.u g:g. <. 2,iv;s,gd.;/.y ' * .A GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES e. ..Ws, L..:.d..! i W u. NUCLEAR CORPORATION M t jQ.p.gr.a.e s.;gM...ea.v;a.vq:a 4. 9 M M dy 'fj-g g v.gf.N station, Unit 1) December 19,1985 - u. a 4;+. p (Three Mlle Island Nuclear t m,a. w.M.,,e~.e n. h%s ..w< t. o w k: s - w < ,, w-m.; e. c v y.'. y e e' M ip'h. w. i Lt + 'i y, f 7j,.. The Commission establishes procedures for determining whether to s. W lift a condition imposed in the TMI-I restart proceeding on GPU Nuclear gs g 4 2 M. w. % g.,. wc... q W.,5 ',- sion before assigning Robert Arnold or Edurd Wallace to certain posi-g 1 Corporation. The condition requires GPU Nuclear to notify the Commis- .,2w. - m ,.:e.g tv,...,gwa.. :W.c.y r. ;.. wg W C,'e. %... Mu.e a, W, 7 v m 3..m., h W." M tions. The Commission solicits views from the public and the NRC Staff t !q .,g0. cy..q;.'.pg.,c-9;,. 1 regarding whether Messrs. Arnold or Wallace willfully, knowingly, or l d '..a #. J.6.. ,. 0. 2, '44. _' with a reckless disregard for the truth made a material false statement to N.%, the NRC. If the Commission determines that there is a reasonable basis b[?$thi@ mmh.M.N?i+.UH.,. $$;%Nk;N.'. g.' !., for answering that question affirmatively, the Commission will consider f fd. initiating an adjudicatory hearing to resolve whether to retain the notifi. ?.4ihj.$, h%w[M'#$$'2V $f.% cation requirement. If the Commission reaches a contrary determination, k:r;N 7:#v4...n,;..fh.\\:4-;. 3M the Commission intends to lift the notification requirement. T ~ - N,. m.{,,~. +%J...A... n.,h N .,, v.m .. u,;. O [ o f.,p /., w. np~ n,-.+. =.,..,re,: s'w. e
3.
~~v (f.. g *, r .g; g .,..,a I p 4 p 0 T.".'.l-lg g 6;$, &S- [ 886 , r.; . L. o S M.. '. e~~
g
~~,t,. , Q,(.... ' ] <.....,']~~
~~':.y,,.5~~
. -. - +. - - - -, -. - - ~.~c-~ - - r r I ..t i D. b,.* 4,. 4 he ,i*,,,,,,.* p/ / 9 .*y E ,} I Jf .'.[*f f '. *
4
~~, 4, ~ .b. '.[- a '1~~
~~I g~~
3. f '. 3 '* .. y ]N 7.b'q..h, * *. [ i;77 ,, < N ',/ ; [ d ' ', '..' 'g. y. ' [,.'.,' ' , *;W.b b k.' N $ .E ..'f- ,,'), e ' N-....>g W ;.. < >l (' 4 W;..Wa t c c.. - m. -.< u. : %.. c 4..', p-c.; .., #' l ' i 1 ~f ..o. ..t.- k,, ' *$'. 'l' U Y', {' ,' lt ', ' r
% wu
~~w. mW n~~
~~. m. Q:y;. r < l. n?). '? ' d * .?. a ~ s >.~,O.,r s. %..q .- Mc K,n'Dyy s~~
~~:s -~~
~~'s ;. gJ f. ~ -(". ,r.-~~
~~"a;; M Q., csi '~~
~~'.' A ' -a ?... .. ' v r: l ORDER The NRC StafT in NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5, "TMI Restart. An ( as2 Evaluation of the Licensee's Management Integrity as It AfTects Restart~~
~~M.f. %} f~~
., j., ?. - of Three Mile Island Unit 1, Docket 50 289" Ouly 1984), concluded ff b.'.hh;Mpe DJ :ed.kyh: A.m.d; w.$U[r,.(d 'd, .;4j n..., F,'J 4 that Metropolitan Edison Co., the former licensee at Three Mile Island, 2dh 5l Unit I ("TMI 1"), may have knowingly provided false information in the December 5,1979 response to the NRC's October 25, 1979 Notice .u.s. o -.m.m.m - w w .p w .a W
n of Violation ("NOV"). In response to motions to reopen the record of MirG% W;>l@hf4@6@6 Mhh.wis.56; the restart proceeding on this issue, the Commission found the issue no f3 N 'h y g *i N ; @ d j e *1 qh.
longer significant to TMI l restart, because Robert Arnold and Edward ,, - M,:b -K y c Wallace - the two individuals primarily responsible for the response - OhdNM'EL..Td;d; dig 1 were no longer associated with TMI l activities. The Commission re- ~ Vi,p,,l quired licensee "to notify the Commission before returning either of e ~ these individuals to responsible positions at TMI 1." Metropolitan Edison . q. f-Q '.. Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85 2, 21 NRC -,e 7 ' ' ' ' ~. 282, 323 (1985). t c. '. J. o 3'.- n .n. Subsequent to issuance of that order, Arnold and Wallace requested ',-'.,.'n:."- "a separate hearing to determine whether the adverse implications about O. - w... G@ M.J /?;: ' J4 G@.y; - the undersigned's management integrity are factually substantiated." Vyf'dd?'f.(,"g, p'J.?;A ' They maintained that the NRC's statements "have damaged [their) .g yyJ---~~r.
~~3,- 4 good name, reputation, and honor and [their] opportunity to work and~~
. J.s to obtain professional advancement." While Arnold and Wallace are pri. qi1 T{'. f..4 ' [% marily concerned about the conclusions regarding the licensee's Decem- . cf "Q: q j',Q ber 5,1979 response to the NOV, they also requested that the hearing 2- 'i address "any other issues raised by the Commission or its agencies that the Commission judges to be a constraint on [their] utilization for activi- ,o i. ; m ypd ties regulated by the Commission." % ;.,'.j/ Fp r:~ W jd%7Jpr.- The NRC Staff in NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5, discussed the potential M l f 2 ' ". C W involvement of individuals, including Arnold and Wallace, in several
~~,. I~~
' 9' ;. '," ..' ].', i matters that raised questions about the integrity of GPU Nuclear's Management. Wallace was not potentially involved in any issue other than the December 5,1979 NOV response. Arnold, on the other hand, ~ .: 0 was potentially involved in four issues: TMI 2 leak rate falsification, . ?.. ",S.,* j "y.. r the false certification of James Floyd, the discrimination against Richard i."
~~E. h N~~
.k[,}!?8Q Parks, and the response to the NOV. The Commission will discuss ,. [,c M., s.c :F @,Wptf',..<9,.'h below whether or not it views any or all of these issues to constitute a 5 constraint on the employment of Arnold or Wallace in activities regulat- .<s.; ..a~ ' ' h. ' ' ' 4 4.; ed by the Commission. u-ar. The Commission is not aware of any information implicating Arnold in TMI 2 leak rate falsifications. In fact, the U.S. Attorney specifically I 9 .l 887 I i y. e: <-K . ' ::s y' r + ..a . 4*Y.; 'm' 3.*
~~x.~~~
~~,+. A 't[ r(- ,0 j' 4-t s~~
L

[
~~'f , j *,.,'. i,;, '..~~
c,

e
.. w

y-

.n.
~~A., 34.- .. r j +, f/c W. o. v ~.. i- ..t e x. .g 4.,.,, g q. .. /~~
~~..i.,)~~
~~s g. % C. Q C,, U.,9..:.w,u.4M{ ;j&;. ,. i,,w,,,y, - .J Q-s~~
~~m.. s.~~
~~7 +, - - 3 S,4 ~: y y'y,~~
~~., q.~~
~~. f y'- 4.. w.G. ,. s! -. a --- - - L-~~
~~4.-~~
~~.t > )~~
~~m A~~
cleared Arnold, among others, in his statement at the Thil-2 leak rate falsification sentencing hearing. See CLI-85-2, supra. 21 NRC at 305. The Commission has instituted a separate hearing "to develop the facts surrounding the... falsifications.. in sufficient detail to determine ig the involvement of any individual who may now work, or in the future . ;4. _;J. . ~. g. -s work, at a nuclear facility licensed by the Commission." CLI-8518, 22 s. w.. l LIE 4.i.i.M ?;c( 'evM ;... NRC 877, 880 (1985). Ilowever, that hearing will not address those M 3,.~ cleared by the U.S. Attorney, which includes Arnold, because " agency M / W:7.,,m,A " ';.'../ Q 7:u -ime&av~. p n y. 4.$ QnW, ~.n'?di!.:q$M, O M A '.4 resources should (notl be used to duplicate the work of the Grand Jury ~ .n ~ n y;. .M.Qe where the result of that inquiry is known." CLI-85-2, 21 NRC at 306. M.d M d M h, w G W ACC0fdingly, the Commission finds that the Thil 2 leak rate falsification s.C's{'M S @ N U.ih64,.,/,6JL' by the Commission. g, g ..-<c." issue is not a constramt on Arnold's employment,m activities regulated , N /,,,.', ...,_.~...,_.; With regard to the false certification of Floyd, the Commission has ,o taken enforcement action in that matter, and Floyd has been criminally convicted. No enforcement action was taken, or is under consideration against Arnold. Further, in CLI 85 2, no finding was made directly im-plicating Arnold in wrongdoing, nor was any condition imposed a:Tecting 4 Arnold as a result of this matter. This issue therefore is not a constraint on hfr. Arnold's employment in activities regulated by the Commission. Q.; c + :e s ~.,..,e~ See 21 NRC at 320-21. m ...~ ...,. ~ m. a n..g.y. 1 Concerning the discrimination against Parks, the Commission, in .y, l g. g;.;; m<. yf ".[M.? :.ai.Q o CLI-85-2 concluded that this issue did not meet the standards for c 'Uf p w :p.C. A.v.y., Y c m t. a. - n ,Y reopening because Bechtel, the contractor, must bear primary responsi-s n,. Q.1,vi / 4.. / '. p... ..c j ,i t. L - < v-bility, and because there was no showing of a widespread pattern of dis- .v %.,n. I crimination. The Commission also found that the removal of hir. Arnold, "the major GPUN official involved," removed any overlap be-tween Th11-2, where the discrimination occurred, and Thll l. The Com-mission in that connection did not impose any constraints on h!r. Ar. ..,..~. ,v, m, ,~ w.,s nold's employment. The NRC has proposed imposing a civil penalty wAa. p,"f[. M ;, 'a.( - 'M n against the licensee because of its responsibility for the discrimination. l j.* D' . T in reviewing this civil penalty, the Commission again determined that N ' l no action against hfr. Arnold was warranted. Accordingly, this issue is f not a constraint on hfr. Arnold's employment in activities regulated by ',.$, f. " g,.' 'p. w. ' J.. ~. s -.... ' ~ the Commission. 1. .m Therefore, the only remaining issue which may be viewed as a con-e M}EM)W Nyg Q"'.j;l'.; N6hhfU$hM straint on Arnold's and Wallace's employment is the notificatiou re-Mg'. /.(~. quirement in CLI-85-2 which grew out of the December 5,1979 re- $y is I4)IM '. ',Y.l ( sponse to the NOV. The Commission has determined that the most ap. 7.?iyc.. t / $ @ ' /7
~~propriate method to resolve the issues relating to the NOV is to invite 3, y.h. ' b.N.bh p,.~~
h,
?
~~written submissions from interested persons, particularly the parties to .x. l a-l ^.. ,. L' 7 ggg L ' 1 l: 1 ~, i._ _..__. ..r. no t ..l.~~
~~i<,., l5*.. ] 7.,.d,,. 'C c~~
+' 1 ~ t
Ma m m m q n Q. gg,M,&$.fr$87,,,0,6,g m>. : $,. :..;.K...n..% .VW. W. WW
~~c. J.. n. '-y.W s.C, M - M,,.~~
~~W.a et '-,. r, 2~~
~~p s.c;m ;sf %,m e, gp.(fw w3 4.e 4g m.r-p N r,.%g,e.g..w, s .g.gMxW.?zg y.9 a. :,.+... .s.w. m .m . r. .g.., s.. <1..o... _.o.-~~
~~w*4k&A,M%w$w%.. #$~~
~~p.y . p a,m. n a. .m g .m.~~
~~..sp ; y,h w e, ' %..~~
~~yp O m ..e yp c x. % 4 s @l[9hk IkW ,$k 'Y ' '. '..$ N I k @w @h:w.t M,w.p,,2:. E:m s as ' c'~~
~~m wqwp ^~~
~~-.;: e + , = M* q s ?:y;.y E. m e;d'y;.{;g v M 6 vvi~~
h;;*M.w v.W.py e-; 'y,.y + 7 u h. '-Q

J. 9 R n.
c.- :q ~ ., W :,2 : u, ..m. the TMI-I restart proceeding.' The NRC Statiis to submit comments. E Comments are to be submitted by January 24,1986. s The Commission encourages commenters to address the following .R. i:.f c .,i .'c = 1 r% + h :* ,@ g y questions: . u9. i;y *.;,w ff.J ., s ,.a. r.s,,,e o.c..m e sea 4 M N'T 3 + Y a .w. : wW d. .N
~~y O.th.'~~
'g (1) Does any part of the following statements in licensee's December 5,1979 .[f,~., .yf I NOV response constitute a material false statement: s. Metropolitan Edison believes that Emergency Procedure 2202 1.5, - J.~ %,, " Pressurizer System Failure", (sic] was not violated during the period from October 1978 through March 28,1979 notwithstanding the temperatures of .M );,'
~~^t@~~
the discharge line from the pilot operated (electromatic) relief valve j g .M ("PORV"). Although this procedure was understood by the plant staff, it is 'h:n # L "%g.vJ not clearly wntten and does not reflect actual plant conditions. It will be
~~I r~~
M$*gN4@h N@$)I[fJ;OQ[ changed. However, although Metropolitan Edison is concerned about the - 1 h 'If issue, there is no indication that this procedure or the history of the PORV PrsNi 1:s; G 'n%p. d g discharge line temperatures delayed recognition that the PORV had stuck ^ h k h.w [,c$YA"hh [ open during the course of the accident. g' %b 6.f.t gh.,. $.p (2) If there was a material false statement, what knowledge and 6nvolvement, if $% Yh%k;y%;Q'M*iffd. g ys?M N any, did Arnold and Wallace have in making that statement? b y,.. uy $4W.,. k 4 ; a w.i 6> N3! N M k f.,;l +
~~0) If Arnold or Wallace knew of or were involved in making a material false state.~~
h'k..i.m.&,w y..*f We AWWg D,w y. ment, does that knowledge or involvement indicate willful or reckless conduct d G r t c vr,3-W by either of them? M P&IM... WM The Commission is interested in the facts; mere argument or specula. 1 iCTW;'Ti gg,-{ G :.d @h @ g M e[Z? hNi tion about knowledge or involvement will not be adequate. If based on A ff f [' % ' V "- W,d W, Q ~ the information submitted by the commenters or otherwise available to R3 it, the Commission determines that there is infor,mation which could t NUidik'Ms d7 I, " ', form a reasonable basis for concluding that either Wallace or Arnold 3M/d '.,. [. ;a willfully, knowingly, or with a reckless disregard for the truth made a b.Mhh.M,;*h ptN% 6Mn 6;fy material false statement to the NRC, it will consider initiating an adju-4 N bh dicatory hearing to resolve whether to retain the notificat or requirement . # MEN'C i3 I@ in CLI 85 2. If, on the other hand, the determination is to the contrary, + gh;tgga.m C./ wp.:f,% i the Commission intends to issue an order lifting the notification require. p w.f.'.A... n-.
~~r. +~~
'.r s i 3a" ment imposed in CLI 85-2. Wa d,.w.,&.,.4..c. 6.af.w&, t. e ~ >4 it is so ORDERED. 4 cn. x 3 f m.. w. ui. z. .. u71,. ... s. - e. y - > gen n -eco v, f m,e>$y ' M*f44".cyyt,5 ....rL Mk5 a%($UM.MWikiidh%. JI %,c g 4 s. m..: n. m. g,,,m, .-a . ~~[ ih, h!* 4';ff).:.f.Mb yy.A C W py?..'831.*.p.,)'; } / !h. M' $r-f 8 The Coenrnission is handling the Arnold and wallace request for the hearing outside of the TMI.I re-start proceeding because the outcome or their request can no longer have any bear ng on whether TMI I should be permitted to operste. If Arnold and Wallace have engaged in wrongdoeng. the remedy et u .3 y
~~%,7 f:~~
'c
~~ould be to retain or strengthen the condition in CLI-85 2, not to revote or suspend oru Nuclear's~~
,;,.q ; g - 3: license to operate TMt.l. A: V, I:9*'t* A .n .} o, e , f dN@ :;4,.:, ; e, p' r 339 p %. M. m sW f h a r%j,') p gy. ~ ,i,. , # #h e.7.w.'w*
,[3 *
~~.,.9 >,p.' ,e., ... Ih'I, M,. ,*h i* p.y ty.e.,: o.oo~~
~~4.u,~~
~~'h- ..w _.m / /n' j % q w,N i ((E', ~' k,,g eg*.N, kg/ 4.') f[. ! [. E 3 Y)y'[ e ',k /, ;i *,','a.sI* 'j ft b WI* 1 l f~~
i
~~. p. ' # sc[ff'fa~~
u
~~' A7 :u A, h.,,i gj:~m. cm' !*7.:f N, < l :n~~
~~V,_ %w, G y q q, #a u~~
~~e y;?,% yt,j 4 e w e% 9 n~~
a;V.h.,.

p',Q f.y.;3 : b u.. #y m'q4' f t.,p f,;q w e 4*i,\\.Drie b % ; *
.w, w;m.ee. n w,', , - % j '.;e;Mj h.- ~g;j.sey$'f f,5$f{$ ' e r .. m a 4,n 7 %.,e q. e - -e h kif.2.h',f.*: ' D.*(k)l* fh.f...W M. Q 3 fy Q & 4 %),bOf-h h $fh &lg, f f.Y l:. MW[ml2m wWMMW, : h
p&r@M;@n th,. -d 4. p c.w..:.0 ;. " u. n...%.. O: f:.&-.. n.e.5- '+ .x. v , q- . ww % ",.%; t; o.s + : ML '.,, s,,. .4 .t .'y sc. M% ,'W~,,, r.., e..,; ;...,a m ,, = < p N;.w g,.* offes p,.. 3 O.:.m. m%. iVe.=g.~r,w. :.T. lW c y, ; n -y W L, w $. > Wi fp eq, r.,, y, .r .e :
~~%.. e. c v,. um,,y ~. ',. %~~
~~. 9 y R w 1 5 .. ~ n. 2, m..mp~~
~~m.,...,. p:,. m.. u~...~~
~~x ~.... n v u .m, J ' g :. y m.. w .s ;..;'; m .n.. f,l.b4,.f.~~
~~WH,W, :.~~

~~.a=..~~

~~m..i.~~
~~3...~~
. n,.v......... - w.G.,m~:..s., r x. w n.tww c. w. w.? u.W,, l c n.n y.s . p.R. c '. - 1 - ~ l( - i.; P.,.,. a u,w :., .,. J ' Both Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal approved the Order in part and disapproved it in past. Each provided separate views. c. . 6.n... :v.J, For the Commission 2 s* . t u* m.. a, ;.,,. _,... cA s~ 3* % w,p;;x w. -%n, u".e.. y a y L.. :
~~%w~y,.... n'...,;+;P.y.u.y.Q 'p p Q ~' a ~~~
~~J...,.w.e. w,... y. .o A.c/ T Q, p g. 3 q#4%NP M % SAMUEL J. CHILK .< t M -4 g $f; D M k f i ' 2 s NId.,;. Secretary of the Commission s m.mn! we9;n p $y:m.3. d,v s,%. n~~
p.,.m.t'T;Q q:CLqJ Dated at Washington, D.C.*
t y.a sNpf ' m@( ..e v-t N.Qe1m.;;e..r.mq%.s n'ua%@w:%. - W.~k:.pn;3.y[M D this 19th day of December 1985. 3 .A d...../.4 .o.. n.. +... e s;.,,o....,.,,,. s n s.: & & N)Q?Qr&E, !" E sf-3,,,') & a SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE f,' ',.. ..,,,/..;..'. ' m s P;M M f.,, 7'M. ' ; e o 1 I agree in general with the Commission's order as it relates to the
~~p..;s ;.~~
~~Arnold and Wallace hearing requests on the issue of their involvement c in the response to the NRC's October 25, 1979 Notice of Violation. p m 7 x S~~
~~x....;,~~
N.'.A~M ?Dl!.M '.'ee.. However, I do not agree with the Commission's conclusion, at least as it I @h'N h @h hlh h h / kh relates to Arnold, that there is no other issue which could be a constraint uMW4/ on the ability of the utility to use Arnold in activities regulated by the $%p(MMN.Q' D.@..N c. e'W1 Commission. It appears to me that there are at least two other issues 53 M3,C which could have a bearing on that question - the TMI leak rate issue %. T W.,7. p f., ,' C ~, "^%... 8, % '."'M ' J, and the discrimination against Parks. The Commission has never really come to grips with either of these issues, either as they relate to TMI l WJ7 ~ Restart or as they relate to Arnold. y n," J.4.d.v.gh/h...,... 4 The Commission absolves the upper-level management of GPU from k!k@.Q%WAMMAAi,Ii'i M.m responsibility for the TMI leak rate falsifications based upon the state-6 $. . f ment of the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the utility. Unfortunately, - d MQhby! ' "". '" the Commission has no idea upon what information the U.S. Attorney $g%u; r eg Q. based his conclusion. The Grand Jury information is secret and the Commission never conducted its own investigation of the Hartman alle-Y :. U.' E :. Y. 7'6T M.W.g....' N,- o. V, S.' gations on TMI 2 leak rate. As I said in my separate views on the Com-4 <OQ.6m.M.. N mission's decision not to reopen the TMI hearing, the Commission A 'hlkyh [jk h ! M M.$.M h % WT F M~'/ involvement of individuals. See CLI 85 2, 21 NRC at 348. If they will should just hold a hearing on the issue and resolve any doubts about the I i 1 k' not do that, they should treat the leak rate issue, at least for purposes of y)' yD.,g-
~~..x,-@N~~
~~,83$ WJ.M4N-/dI. I E ,,w<*',,~~
~~'c b.~~
. kWl'.2 "? ;F [-. fg, g[41.'T,-l'k< f, N 4 / r . p :< am ~ 2 Commissioner Asselstine was absent when th6s order was amtmed. He had previously approved the [' p.' *]p. 9 f. '~ Order 6n part and disapproved 6 in part. Had he been present he would have amrmed his prior vote.
~~1. y...~~
~~f,E "I,* ..l, y .t. n ~. s 390 3.,,,y, y. s_ ,-a I + . 3 1, ....d A .. t.; le. ". " * " * ' " ~ ' " ~ ~ ' * * ' 7""*'***~~~~~~"****"'*"J"" "'~* * * * ' '~~
* * * * ^ " ~ " ' ' ~
~~['j. gr[, y,y. l$.[ / e.'. W,,p - 'v,* .e f,r,.. s. / - 3 :. l u ;;-n. *.N S, 9. - [y e* e ',.), .r, 'f -r ",,'l(e e~~
. ;M, t ' L;

v. i..
'n. {,c v. g, [ h,.- .',$.. ; 4..$L, t..,,. l ~l ' { ' '..:.. ~*
~
.s 4 i ..,.g .5, i es' 4 ,....g ..c 4 l m,/.. q p.. -. f.., .v. i t,
{ w :;.:S.:w%: h.m. - ^ 4. g 2 i, ' v,.
~~w m e c..a u 3y-~~
~~.; ~4,.4 W,p,,s m & W h w ? '. uc... '/ n. <W .',c a-x.cy.s pym p .f. S Q QQci.M p.G's[p,.:.~~
~~, s~~
.J', %. % :s*n ' [ 3., n N' y $. e. r M : W;q v,, M.. <.i:.' ~ >., ? h.s.w, w M % m .n y:- w, q', .....2. ~ ;.... e.:._ w. qy. r < _ :.; y n c. p.m.- - y - ..' p;.h. y. <k- . m.... a, I .,.M' the Arnold hearing request, exactly like they are treating the NOV; they I should include the leak rate issue in the somewhat modified summary disposition proceeding established by the Commission's order. The Commission should also include the Parks discrimination issue as y.j '... lN2./.Q L W. :: %; Q a possible subject of the hearing. One of the bases for the Commission's y.a mv q.c; A wsn.a,r s .. ~ decision not to reopen the TMI l restart proceeding on this issue was , ::wn - 7 M i @x e M m.m. w,n :. . :. w fjH the fact that " Robert Arnold, the major GPUN official m.volved, is no
~~,ef,%MW,GNWi;&'TO ;,7 a,4j -~~
M
~~s. w.,..; _E. s longer associated with TMI-l activities." 21 NRC at 329. Thus, the~~
..s . W" M '- %q %p s p u :c w w e extent of Arnold's involvement has never been fully explored. The C Commission should at least consider whatever information is available ?O@dQ%,MWWN.T about his involvement and treat this issue like they are treating the &q 3';.r.. Q.bA,;;;;;3 ppg JWi;gw;c NOV issue. WEM-%vC(M Z. "- .;4 & r.4 f C..
~~! ;m.L~~

Rather than trying once again to skirt the leak rate and the Parks s d%IN 49' issues, the Commission should confront them, at least as they relate to 3 p g.qa -:s.m Arnold. The Commission should give all interested parties an opportuni-
~~- - " do.G..,~., m.~~
ty to present whatever facts are available on Arnold's involvement in all t y c- .v. N..,Q4$f t ; @,,. . y three of these matters. The Commission should then determine whether M 1-M y?.D e y'g RW -V there is sufficient information to warrant holding a hearing. . 9 y'. V. w e.o...., y, m 3., .z. h M:siW@.fy SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BERNTIIAL m O;we. M3 p ; h.,:;s;n w..w e %,nfb p u.,-,,. wn m..n w; nwt My , es.w a.. M r " t', C,m ;t .z,... i..wm.a.m Messrs. Arnold and Wallace have requested a hearing to attempt to
~~1. W., C. mmAM: w:-t:w b:. m.. 4.,1.x7*T.~~
~~clear their names regarding any matter which the Co nmission believes .n. W.A gn v.. p y-sw~~
~~mK;64'a. M W a.g@n$;'c~ m -~~
may impact their ability to be employed at TMI-l. I agree with the order ~.. ' W i.; ',7 insofar as it provides the opportunity for anyone having knowledge of the involvement of either individual in a possible willful material false ~
~~statement to come forward now. However, while I have no preconcep-J $,.,.,$th$/@My(@[M,;~~
~~tions about the issue, it is also true that Mr. Arnold's name has, in the~~
f. y G.M.$/glf ther, it should be recalled that in my views regarding CLI 85-2,21 NRC past, been associated with the alleged harassment of Richard Parks. Fur-5.m g..;i g,.g,p. t,:*
mJuA 282, 349 52 (1985), I called for further hearings regarding the Parks matter as a matter of sound policy. It appears to me only fair, given the .,j.Q oI( request of Messrs. Arnold and Wallace, that in addition to the NOV re-
~~m.. -/.~~
sponse, Mr. Arnold be provided the opportunity once and for all, to con- .c e.M.I -O t;$. [.. y Q;;A 4 @[3 %sg[,e dl?[4,- h.. ; front evidence anyone might possess which could implicate him in fy4%g .4 4 harassment of Richard Parks. I would therefore have required interested p. M M D,M $ $ p. % kT! ? E i.- members of the public (and NRC Staff) to present whatever evidence
~~v. m em%d c..,v,4 ;;,.. I they might have which bears on e.ther matter.~~
~~Ww WA87.9 nygw;;u.,,, i~~
~~u. 7 }. ;m > >,@.m e w[ w...% *e ' 'f; 9 4.,,; n~~
~~.Q .y. . c r. < e n;* - j~~
~~t..~~
~~- m i g9g ,e e i 4 .F -a.Oy~$% J_, .h .; '. ~ 2 . _. o~~
4.. m.m.._I s' w

d.,
~~?. . <.hQ,.'l,W:.~6,.l/.C. 'f ...,i*, 4 .. ',a.V,y. f *.* Qg $~~ .c "* Y e, ~ j,1j[c . D, .. ;."' su =*...,. u. 5- { { [ ib 8 h ,g .J (, ' 4 " g. : * >,. .lD~~
~~h h., ;,(~~
. M. + 3. (< '. E f, ~' W.N, 9 Og. n. ,r& r . '.(,, b +'. 0 P n
... ~.. e, m u.. n n. e...., w. w.. 4,r.;.y. m. 2w uw w w...r. J c. m.~.w.. .c n o .s I i t 4 s s ~. a. - n mu,t.&,1y;J, p. m..vr... @'p4.p;y.x.&. p..,k; g. y;.... 3.. \\ . ~.. :w, n, o
~~s r ?.~~
- $ y.y, h ..., n y p-w. n... n. ~v.g.,,g g..,.,:~., c.. ~ 4 4 a.m,.e tm. c >..,,,y s w~ m a n.....a,. s ; n., w.. w & n;:: r, D.... *... c. q,... y'. a. - .~. ,.s +,y . w, ,s u s. s, , n w 9 v, ~ ~~ .~ w ~ ~ ,,w... w_ m_., m.. a..:. s,... s. .w..v. - . ~ ..o w .,%...m,.-.._ ~ =._.
~~a... r,,q.~~
~~.*.p a,; 9 u. =.s.t: L.s.- .L. v q ..q r, ) > -w~~
~~d. n;.A t a M;,.:.~~
~~,+ ~ l }lg...p.,;+,- m; >l ...c F. !?;~ ' ' n.~~
~~.,~ Q. ~Q...~~
~~.M o 1 t. '.k. e bM, M....rM.m...S..n#M Atomic Safety and . s.m.,.,. .wn. g.d,~~
~~Wr5... e.., e. n,r.,m,,n. p,.c -~~

146.sg* 4.N,, p1 g, *wr-y,,,e,s a e. y-dg: w%.m:L.~,..e Q ; n,.. op3 .m ~. n';<. w% M. h y-rDW f. p .n n '~ @e.tm.. @-[h,[*h. rSWWW:...w Boards issuances ~ n .s. ,Qry be' k 4. v^.. h.a. *WM.pf# P W?,f ':.M.,W-,w,.%y%. 2. (..F.,es4...e. >. v u o.a..g ;.,W. "i.
~~g. u g$,.,,..W.. G:~~
~~5 p; 4 w. 7 J.;. , V.....~~
~~ag M P.,~~
s-r ,'w5=.rg g g.a..'c/.e W f.c M N ~ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL ,t re,% @xrs % [. a <y i L, g,..,, p, n, J c'Q.,N J.Q f n y> . i c.. : Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman -JY l %g, % ".) / [ g 2@ Dr. W. Reed Joht son C, 3
~~M * / i;. 9 f{/r;i pK;g,4'f' %.g...-~~
.R '.$ Thomas S. Moore . s. cg M k. ;..n Rpq Christine N. Kohl bi ,o t,' ' M, '!,' S. "/. ;. >, ,il r.s.!M, J, [..[s f,. M qi Gary J. Edles ~ Or. Reginald L. Gotchy ( Efkhsh,9. y J.V. 11O i@4y2 5,4 { t s M M,d P. d h y$. Q yN.aY Howard A. WRber [SM.e en m m% ag( WWMt 6 . rJ-dn r.W. . ;eqs e.4 y..s C1] .o &,f'"*w* h.y.37 ya sp. p. y,niryt.y;;y.,,,,, -z
c ;^

p. v.;r q
. n, L.,.. *s. kt-j + 4' ,L, p w- ., p w.;,4,. *.\\. ~ p.. a,.r..r. n w .c,rv.t q.6 .s - :,. x y ... ' D~$\\,. '. f.?h 5 * ,k', ,-t = .e l 9 cdM x MWA,*.t .... a 3- . r. ~.,.q..:<,m ap:nv 6 n. , v m., '. f '...** *** lj ?* ,. Q ] f . *>* %e* h,. J'. 5 A J . b.s.d_ p,. s --..i. 4 v.,.. l,,,,c.. 6 .j - 'f ;e - -u .p...{. t. q l o e e I "h s
e
~~,F j y.,~~
~~g. 4 [, f~~
~~.',o.W ...>.? s n ."dl' %2' * ' . 6 . as a ,, f',4. ' -siI'Ie f. .h, [' r, P t.'~~
r r M es,/ ] s

:(
~~E,. ..y s f. ,i. * *.'<. a,*, #. 6 /i)M'/*3 ';#d' di *', k2 \\ e: e.. ; ~ s ' e A(,gJE'^j,i.J* F',' a ? - M 2.* g te .a..,y $. s. a~~
~~1 a%~~
~~1 < p.. r 4*,. y?., 'I a '. #, ;4,. s- #,.'.y m d'y' 0:3 ge.M'*, N+q ,,.~. 4 = ' 46 6< >s ?s ; *, f..y;f, k*Q ). a '. < (. i 4 )..y 4.t~~
~~v..,.se x4.~~
~~b...'f a.~~
~~,.1.4,.. z 4,.....o.. s -.,s. u,. k. , p 1 < g '4~~
~~s. & V' s G" ?li,',l. -~~
~~? *"'4f. g ' '. y,. . :~ t j' ,e e I e Y k Y[ J r~~
~~7 0~~
~~l -.,s. I i s y t .t e, ,. -.. ' h.. -~ r ~.~~

~~r----r,--~~

e W. '.;;4..k w % c. + +.. __A_ r Ay es* I,, 'jr 'N ..,.,n r* a >,.( 8 e. ' ; 4 [ *
w
-)* . d #, * %, ,. ) % 8 l' g '..s .e .7 e,,,u..t k i 'I, t g. y 6. ,t' . e 6 m".eli-8 .a. n,,,,' s - s ,. r., r n'u, s ' h',, n.m k,p,. S3, g', a- ~ ' 'g.l, y, , :.. U.,, < *d a g s s# ie .vey S .a. y,. p' y q'.:la ;il> **;* *'; s - s tj. 's,' tm' !..,}, ,y* ,es ,,f 4 +e'*. ~-,, 1 s. j,, l .l*
f.

;g N3, *
.e. v, _ ;.g.. -.i .~ ~ _ -, n./... ~ J a ..,.1,
' ?&%@$$.NWWf&k&WDJ:0'$ hA pZw, - ;&MM.nnM
.a.. m.m.. n.b.w..-

d
~~':p~~
~~a. p(J D n ~p.+;-. &q :-}g:;t n y v ;n :~~
~~~ w.. ,. f.%..~~
~~Q.q M.y.~~
~~pe m c p;.. h p -:; g..,,'ac t. c. y. M. m.y :?5.:; a.G w, m.P- , ; e: r : s:.. n, '-;.., u :, : . c. n .yT,py.. pq: e q.~~
~~si w,~~
~~+ _..q ;rp?;w;4 c. + 4.i :. n ..w u .-w %...,.u ;, m,. m, t ..g orc _ y N m.. <; ;, ; 3 ,' n-L u m. p%y".g q~~
~~y p. a...L:n. M.- ';Qv.s,... K l.. ^ ~ ~~~
~~~ ^ ^- - - ~ ~ .. P . v :... "~ .. w..,. % UJQ' %y.a,;p(5 ' ' me.4,;, .8,~~
~~9. ; :F: y.'~~
~~t'h,[. y~~
~~? >: ef. ^ .e .s. 7, .~.s 'r x ;_. ' /. 'i-Cite as 22 NRC 893 (1985) ALA8 828 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .R.. iv..' Ii NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,N' s.. - , *p ,ei~~
y. % q w. W '.. W. 6.c.i'

.1... -c.C q t',6.7. y' ;% ;~'".b'1;
~~.ei s 4:1.@;.gej.ko w%,9 :s%y).r-iMy@y.te.p glF,D.ny.:. ;w.~.e,.,.; p. r, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD p.+ an . y -,. ,n o v. s wa o'e t-: v~~
~~3.yqWM%~~
~~sm. M 'I i~~
n

.
~~~. n. %. n, W/R.f ?h,,,.M, t n.6, 6.. _xA-, 9~~
~~9.,y/3R:3, Gary J. Edles, Chairman tp v.~~
~~@.;t'@v. il,d.,4~,3 ,f h, h. 7k' h.,.)4. w $. M.S A S. gM7@a .n,.W $ d~ b. Dr. W. Reed Johnson 5 r. .kk!O.btQ,j b-Christine N. Kohl ., -..,,.s.,. ,i.,ug~~
~~s 3..~~
~~~ >:, ,u.. . j...,; 4 <- s-u '.- r .s; s.A c ..w., ~o m : a,.~~
~~n.,~~
s.~ p,.> c r; W.. ;.;;g/.,,. S..>v.t.3 in the Matter of Docket No. 50 289.SP a . w.,,,. J < ,%;(.yAf"{.y ' ]f}. j eg' :J:M ~~.' (Management Phase) .r ' 3,9y 3, j 3:, c Q. 2 r')tg<. %iM.,m@v.y;.9v tpgy.@ METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, g', :. s,. t m. ye~ ym:.;,m ~ .,g.. s ! Y et al. .b M, (Three Mlle Island Nuclear n
~~q.. c @.f \\J4',.d%.u,@.y. f.T/p..;Z M~~
~~Station, Unit No.1) December 18,1985 %e 1.sm~. v,u.r.:.p.: x . W % J /g c. . n.e~~
~~g r~~
..e. c,. 4, .ysf.ye>;. - .:.jyg: 9:.M Q:9'yfp X Vh The Apps al Board affirms on sua sponte review the Licensing Board's / 7,2.! final two partial initial decisions in this special proceeding that resolved y... in the licensee's favor issues affecting the central question of manage- , e% c
~~.. '.. t w.e., -~~
t
~~W : y, g',g.,,~~
~~ment competence and integrity. 4N.:c 4 m J.%:,M... m ;;n.Q % ; . J ; p.s w ' g: a,m.;: o~~
~~J ' ','f APPEAL BOARD: SUA SPONTE REVIEW 7,>~~
J in the absence of an appeal, an appeal board will review on its own ini-i',' tiative any final licensing board decision (and pertinent portions of the ,C :, J,: - , J.N underlying record) concerning significant safety or environmental yp _4'.%:Q.WM.N.j nya. :~ issues. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear @y ?,i;h?!$Q'.:r-W.f, W,,.f DNPlt d Generating Station), ALAB.655,14 NRC 799,803 (1981). ww w%..::.,M w.yw c. %.y. . Q 4 W ~., . ycp,,f"...JJ e 5......,. w@j u,w g.: j; APPEAL BOARD: SUA SPONTE REVIEW .'f.V : ',,,.s.;g,) ~.q ., fm:,,t 7.....,. ,n;g M - ."E An appeal board's affirmance on sua sponte review af a licensing board's decision accords no stare decisis effect to any of the licensing e j 'l 893
~~A 4~~
~~l t.r - i r.. v:(er:.. 3"[,q c v ...m. e q p* */ f ** p,., g + r..~~
$(,;,'

7 ':U.,
~~.,.., y.. t. r,.- +u 4. ).'., e.,e, *7 ^g s r. .,,s,,~~
~~1. t,.~~
~~,s,. .,.p,..~~
~~e..~~
~~e !, 4 .,e o r*, ,;,h. 8...,n. a~~
~~', '$ w,.~~
r - 1 e. ~J.<.*,4. ]* 3. i, e, ,.p T, J5 ... ,,h,i ( g .q ' T,' p' ],f' i "" y/[,. .I j, ). n.
( y&y?v.gvm/c x ?.$m&ms. :,m.' u' *n'. '. 3 WWW ? ?:N N.b~ Y N SWW Y?f ' ~~ ~,. : .. w
~~5. ;~~
~~~ wx:.:w w w .. w~~
~~+y m mye~~
~~? ':.~ my V ys.uw?s.:.n' nic:VG,,'-A.,%.w~.WW., w'.f, Y~~
~~NN %. d M.B. W,'P. :,Q.* G 'V ;'.~~
~~%, 2:. ~C % G -L.v wm t v. -.-w .w .p - ww vt -~ 3w M..n. w., Wi.,.w... P Q m.. n.~. a. t w y.n.ug.:. mg .a 2: e e;w ' .e~~
~~e. n, m,~~
.,,.1 .y a. .. u 1 m c p':~v. <%.w.Q i:s M.' W i g ' v.,,-- ~~ + >:0 % g.yy w.-:.:.. O.v y % N. <: a-D. " y,.,, t.M. h. s. f, ;7,m i., . :. v:. ;'..,l-m, x. ~ 4 board's conclusions on purely legal matters. Consumer's Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), ALAB-795,21 NRC 1,2 (1985), M DECISION c .x a .... e ;t :.i. r.,. G. N.m.. L.:.s i;u y W;41W.Q J.flG@. W.c.,. s. .s r w We have before us for sua sponte review the Licensing Board's final 3;N, h 1 3 h 5[ L' 5 two partial initial decisions in this special proceeding.' They resolve in A.$kM.M M{$@?-@y[Q*H the licensee's favor issues afTecting the central question of management 'p .'9, W ' W. ,M competence and integrity - namely, the adequacy oflicensed operator 02$dMdh@'.N.MbM training, and the circumstances surrounding a May 1979 mailgram sent Ef,M.Q.M rSp.Nt:ggio by Herman Dieckamp (President of the licensee's parent firm, General j.;.y ya 7 t.7. W.O @ Public Utilities (GPU)) to Congressman Morris Udall.2 Both decisions h5icI. ;.$3M.'M.Yi Mj[{ were issued in response to our remand in ALAB 772, where we found ~ that further record development was necessary before we could make any finaljudgment regarding the licensee's overall management capabili. ..s a ty.) v ' r. -..~. ....r. p7b In the absence of an appeal,* we review on our own initiative any final licensing board decision (and pertinent portions of the underlying 1 . / 7, J.;v. ) s.;;h. fc record) concerning significant safety or environmental issues.5 Our a t.. 7 GWA,.1,M,QQ3d$$e review of the Licensing Board's thorough, well written decisions here QRW. . W.WQi has disclosed no error necessitating corrective action, and therefore we p q,. s.p.v.. n.'...g yy.g.., 4. affirm both.' Indeed, the Board more than fulfilled the terms of our +, ~.. Aye. r;f ;g eW 1 o e i.q.ey7 s Q e;t;p, g. w,.;., y remand, conducting hearings and issuing decisions more comprehensive .. w s m.- ,.4 ,hp M. i ?, ' M..J. P.
~~W.. ev,sW~~
. c %. o - ~. 39 ?. J 8See L8P.8515,21 NRC 1409 (1985); LBP 85 30,22 NRC 332 (1985L . /; 2 n LBP 85.I5, the Li6enang Board impowd a condition requmns the licenwe to implement a plan I for formal on-the. job evaluation of operator performance. See 21 NRC at 1502,1536 37.1he Ixensee thereaner submitted such a plan, and the Board approved it. L8P.85 21,21 NRC 1751 (1985L . 2,.6 *? '..);* 4 ' dA'W k r >$* ;*%.M.7;N,VM h,&,',f,h;^W. 1% $ 3 3 r A, < 19 NRC 1893,1212 39,126548,1279 80 (1984L we also reopened the record and ordered the ., "/" t' j Licenang Board to conduct heanngs with respect to allegations that leak rate data at Uma I had been W,a p >f.i *N '_ "y y.d
~~8,; A falmfied, ed. at 1276 78, but the Commission reverwd our decimon on this score and decided that no 7~~
9.;f y(- ...J ..e y hearing on that subsect was werranted. CLI 85 2. 21 NRC 282,30614, recessaderanos dras d. CLI.85 7, J .>.t 21 NRC 1104 (1985). Earher, we had reopened the record and required the Licenmns Board to hold + '. . 1.% - ; * 'c ' t '. 3-18 NRC 177,183 92 (1983L But aner staying these proceedings the Commismon some ume later deter. heanngs on the so-called "Hartman alleganons" of falmfication ofleak rate data at Uma 2. ALAB 738 .~ ,C mined that the Hartman allesauons "no longer raiseldi a sigm6 cant safety issue" so as to warrant fur. ~ 'f; '. * +,, ! h9r dy. 9. f*,'g a s ther heanngs in this proceeding. CLI.85 2. 21 NRC at 30445. Nevertheless, it decided to ensutute a ? 4M,; - separate proceeding to consider certain aspects or the Hartman allegauons 14 at 305 06 Thereaner, the ...m ic / s i y ",gl.
~~<. ' d ' q g',y se, Commismon hned the order direcung that Uma 1 remain shut down and permitted resumption of opera.~~
g r ' ;Q) tr,[% + - s ~ uons CLI.85 9,21 NRC l118. og'd Three M.Jr Isasad 44rrr. Isr. v. ARC. 771 F.2d 720 (3d Cir.1985), WM*Q.*y%*gp'W % y*e{ ? @c.r, W;. ", ;f~.:,.[d*, M*./,. fMJ 6,'C.g,f, + Dt 1.: m. dettraeafor cert fMrd sue seat. Asmodt v. NAC. 54 U.s I w. 3463 (U.s. Dec.18.1985) (No. 851095L [.c'- "N
~~Appeals from both Lscenmng Board decissona here were timely riled but thereaner withdrawn. See~~
., g.9.1; ; - 2 M tep,.A U wu Appeal Board order of october 21,1985 (unpubhshed). -.w n>w 4 ; I-l; W*k,'g;?: g .. ( c.9;er 3 DCXflierremente Mumnes/ L/nkrF orstrrr (Rancho seco Nuclear Genermung stauon), ALAB.655, le ", J..J[ . rf
~~e;,~~
~~,, Z, ., re,d NRC 799,803 (1981)nCsXA. ' Qfy-2 1t{$.: s,.. ff.~~
~~In accordance with our standard practice, no stare decims effect. however, as to be accorded any of the~~
~~,,, f W. '~~
~~.c P, ^.~~
' / ' ' j a [f. D. t.. %.. Licenens Board's corstumons on purely legal issues. DCXnCossumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point ~ a;7 Plant), ALAB.795,28 NRC I,2 (19858f!CsXn. r 1, :, 394 2 ~ ' * - ~ .mr N.~. ~ Y: '* W CV'
s.
.\\ ' - M N :+..)s,. ! . ?, ,.,,9 i;. , - ( & Q s} :'. 'h,' N ;t,. y. ...ei o ..l' ' ya ( 's. ' G.' * ,[,.h d *, ' r e... * *,.},,[~,*[,%..!3 ; ',.h...h *(dyf :'. %, L.y (;]. ? jh....',, [1* Y, ,f U l -} '. 4. i [k, ., g f, 5.. J y ?. j ' ', ', JJ %,' .. u. r..,* , n. r,
,n
~~~ .~s.,, .,,,;j ~g ~ ,Ll . ~ , 3 '. e, , *R~~
~~a ;% =.* e h~~
l
-g y,.
.. %x y8.+ m.,'u:~m. 3.N.. s.M, j. + p w m,s. m; &::t,: #..;.t.>..,..v; u., .?:v...m v '.:,* ic.a c..W;6ij;; .7.d. r,
WY &w,&y&h&n mei;%@.,%M

. +.,.
2 , ss 'hf$hn %%. 9 @[m?. 8 O+jd.Q' y V ~ i . 4( (. v %}%.g. J ht W<, W. i,/C d.Wp.D ,, sb. b: w ; i,.'.@.: $ p 'GN J, i. g.5b'* M# .i .t.: s ?W.W W'kW:m + ~"Q $f + $ % 5,.~C, -::t y w,, ~ @k.W;r c wLn. ~-...m.,,%w:re..;;~.d:&~.h,diW.. &u. lm.:;m, u%..y - = .r=
~~Iv m%4 n d.:~~
~~?- ffd % "g. 3.g.w,y.n.. 9.+ 4,. w.. m+,;. a - 9 n .s. - an.<- n v. ..x wvpy ~ ' ' ",.. ~. ,..L.y.4 .y s ..e~~
~~W.hac$.dhMO DN;"~~
~~.,c. A... c "~" ~ ' ' * ~ l Q > M, b~~
~~A g ryrg %...~,S '. W.y, g.=-~~
, i3: L V 1 0Wil .p n t ;.:4.N 'L ;W,z : y q;'.. Q.:%c,G - t. ff, q - y..; ~.. .m., .a.,.: 1~., than we had anticipated. We nevertheless offer a few parting observa-i tions regarding the matter of licensed operator training, to which the Commission gave special emphasis in its 1979 order instituting this pro-ceeding, and which we characterized as "[tlhe most signincant issue -. p,... ' p,' requiring further hearing."' N Y. ( The initial record and Licensing Board decision on training were un-C'W.'[$jg;M;T N@Z 7',%fA.a,WM@w$c..g". g;, M;.p questionably substantial. The concern that prompted our remand, how-ever, was that, following the revelation of cheating on licensee and NRC %y'Ty@My9sl. g nf .g.*- b4 hQ reactor operator examinations and the Board's reopening of the record WN,4Wg?&U,WWW.d Y,$',@S r. f M. $ N a.f to explore that matter, the Board failed to reevaluate adequately its origi-MC,4 nal, favorable conclusions with regard to the licensee's training program. Y.? d. N @ % %w %.p; a.b [ M,# $p.,ah We found this to be particularly true insofar as concerned the testimony e a ;%.O. of the outside consultants who were members of the Operator Accelerat-u
a.

W %;,@w+fg,N. i.,,h....<. w.; 4, r. t.E. O, a.i. _ y~ f, tf hy. - ed Retraining Program (OARP) Review Committee and upon whom g. W-7.2. 5 7s the Board had heavily relied.8 We therefore directed the Board to obtain .M f._-(. ' 3 ?l. <. the further views of these individuals in light of the disclosures of cheat- ,k.I.NN[',:,[,....bhhf.5.lj! ing and other incidents that renected negatively upon licensee's training i g.,Y,g ',, g h h Q (- program.' . ch., s m.%.l%. '. b. ; :~ The Licensing Board described the OARP Review Committee as "a M @M'$1' h,._M,k.f hh,W.e,... A.t.m. A hNi i select committee made up of experts in the Gelds of educational psychol-M ogy, engineering / human factors psychology, nuclear engineering educa-Qb d w. yef,,n.m. tion, nuclear power generation, and nuclear power plant operator train-i.n. v.,.s,r4 c g gyiM p; ( hh% ing."'8 The Committee's reassessment of the TMI training program in h idNk .N response to ALAB-772 was carried out in two phases. Within a week of ' Q1DN.%@;;jh;M@;,W.)MMI'd ,S$ the issuance of our decision, the Committee met to take a quick look at 'JJ.R ? ' 1 the training program, primarily through documentation and brienngs
~~Y -~~
with the licensee's training staff. The Committee then prepared a Special 2 y', Report of its observations - an 87 page document submitted to the ~ n.Q( j f ] 1,.J h ' 7,.M ' Commission for consideration in connection with its then-pending re-YgW.or d @.y; w. m >.-,n: start deliberations.H s.M.. m lylA ;'4.y. y,,J:qwc;pW %. y (e,0.O,., :W h,... n.Q"d The second phase of the Committee's assessment, when the Commit-CW y d I,3.C16 C. s. tee members scrutinized the training program itself, took place during [M. l 1,, August November 1984. They observed classes, interviewed operators a,,2,y t. %4:. ;.;, ?.,,...a,,,.,~ -.e a n.*f. A.,
~~f ;.g.f 'g l.,M, 9 * ' A,.' $ 3: W;.. !, + %~~
S.4+. cQ M v.. g ALAB-772,19 NRC at 1233. g so ?CLI.19 8.10 NRC 141,144-45 (1979); ALAB.772.19 NRC at 1279. .,., g >,7 pq- ** g;g 7 a. b.<6.ap+y, f.g g n. .. ~.%g ,M . J N N. f'*0g [o'. 8 9.m,y; M /t; e.a [i.J.b g ',. g % w' m 7 ,It at 1234 37. b t 0 LBP.8515,21 NRC at 1414 n.l. See sho ALAB 772,19 NRC at 121011. .;c. r,' ;.w.0 i.w e5s % A. W H tBP.85.is. 2: NRC ai is09.i2. rr. 33.35i. one or ihe documenia ihe Commiiies reviewed ai ihis f/ R.p.C p 4J Mliet' N, 't.n,4 hme was the hcensee's salt.evaluauon or the training pro 6 tam. which had been prepared ror submission N,M I],$"N,b @y6 %y . PyhyI d J r ',Q g.. f to the insutute ror Nuclear Power operanons UNPop as port or an accreditauon process. See note 18. 3 ? 8'lAs. one Committee member. Dr Enc Gardner, considered this material to be a umquely valuat+1e de. u ' gii;;.pi.-7 gNff,D fd., l M* * '.g E'.I scription of the program. For, as he made clear under cross-estminahon. the hcensee was hkely to be ' j ;,' * *, - candid in its program assessment. knowing that an INPO site visiung team was coming to make its own ' ' ' 1 J, '
~~u. depth evaluahon. Tr. 33.352. Dr. Gardner's reasomns is persuasive w.~~
~~,j V: 's i - 895 'J .18'FP-- .*'*mt* { *We.e.1g. - .'., f, s? h,b, y# ). [, 1i. I~~
t
~~.t y.' ,*i. .s '[ ;*,..., 4 ,s [* h.... :. * ~ s.%.~~
^
~~. f k.' 0'di 6.6;4 %,e w,q. p[.. ;[~~
~~f*.'~~
[
J.
~~L'. r,U.. ; & :,.,' w" s 1 gy' ',g; e g , y w. t,. v. ,a J 7,,.,.y: 4 4 " a M y,,deq;f3,,g gg : v,, . u:p y, s.f.g ; w' r ? c .. 9 ; gf, w 4 4WMA w.5,p.< ~ -~~
~~3 4~~
~~f ;y. 3 m,o - A- '. <;t t. -e i.' Q ',',,.D " g g ji,,g 'af h;., 9f3 n y t., y. m..' i :. y '<, ;~~
~~c a~~
s.1 e .).,. i4 ? * /,.,,.
t g.y.7,.:,. 4.,. 3... ;..,., m~: W-Ch.. c~ .t. .c .yp Q.3.,, r..,..n. ~. ,,.,&. c ~ <- ;,., x...., ? ..n n, . f 6,'. g W i ',.,, q s- '\\~ 5 ..q. 2 f,..<,,. ,y- '4 0. ' '< p,- y .,.,.,m(. n T. + I. s ,8. , ( / g ; *,
~~%7%~~
~~,os f, f.j ' g ; ~ p,n,..j, e.c.q .. u... .a. m. a ~ s e.,~~
~~y. [ -~~
W z, $ y;, s .,...3. n. 1 .:, - ~ 4 2.:..., n.... ;.s. P a, d ~ and instructors, and visited facilities both at TMI and in Lynchburg, Virginia, where they reviewed the simulator training program.'2 The Committee filed testimony in the remand hearing, documenting its updated assessment of the TMI training program and including its earlier Special Report. The Committee also submitted rebuttal testimo- [ .1sc. ny, responding to the prefiled testimony of intervenor Union of Con- ,u ,, [df '. ~ If g'7..M...'3;.MI,4.. cerned Scientists and the NRC staff. The OARP Review Committee's [.;.F G,.qjc. .s f.r;.').. ' T ; overall evaluation is that the training program is effective and adequate n y mew 2%q;;. 2.s..g. v. ;jW. rm,n,.p %m > f. to j.ustify restart of Unit 1." N e 3, .v s . esw $. Mbl It.is not necessary for us to review here particular aspects of the Com- ,p r.;,m _s.r; mtd:/ a &.,.y m c.i, j;. - ;.e; i, mittee's testimony and findings. The Licensing Board has done this job ce - i.. ;,f..n,. a. m.t.v,,c M. m,. W,.e e...exhaustively and well, discussing and disposing of criticisms of the Com-s n. ..~~.a' .,c, .;.:.c, f.. 4 .-G Q 2 ),. m c..a;2; r mittee's work raised by the parties below.l* We note only that, in accord- ~ ' m ;v .,4 v
~~1. y.-~~
ance with ALAB-772, the Committee's assessment of the licensee's ~ training program specifically takes the cheating incidents into account. Although it was unable to identify the root causes of the cheating, the Committee concluded that, in any event, the licensed operator training program as it now exists at TMI is effective.55 Indeed, in its opinion, the GPU Nuclear Training and Education Department "now ranks among the top utility training programs in the United States." Based on the c W T'2.b.'.., t,.' i.. i ', gMrk/J... Committee's testimony and that provided by the other witnesses (and .s subject to a now-satisfied condition"), the Licensing Board reasonably ... 1/... r.d',..' .J..; :.O.j.. concluded that the training program at TMI is efTective and adequate.88 e u. "'1. W l7;..f,g, ~ ~ &,;f.g-...: .i ~.3 M' W :;;c.s d., w. y,; 4 .e.., ? g,p s - : 6, u .' i a. s .%.b s./W J ~.. . M3...: n.u: n. m. - .Y '! 'l*'y ; }:;;, ?', ?-. y j r., L, 12LBP 8515,21 NRC at 1513 22. A TMI replica simulato. is scheduled to be mitalled at the improved C .(_ onsile traming racihty m late 1985. Already in operation there is a Basic Pnnciples Training simulator. 'J. See ad at 1430 3.1 ". 3;*
~~' 'l. u ~y *[~~
~~13 Fol. Tr. 31.749 at 31; fol. Tr. 33.320 at 18. i M,, .. -f t 'M,,i[..~~
~~Y.Ng: ~! -C,y. p : '~~
14 See LBP.8515. 21 NRC at 1508 35. 15 Fol. Tr. 31.749 at 31. , N[NN,., l h I'[. I.hk.$l l l' /t, Attachment I at $2. f y,f... II . m.;,, _ y. Q L *.* ' [:Q qb - See note 2, supre. 48,e LBP.4515. 21 NRC si 1535 36. + .4-g m.,, 3 fd,* 3 The Board also indicated that. at the time of the heanng. the
~~1. ;..?~~
~~O' ' [,~~
.)'.' (,*Ny.," '. fi-licensee was seeking accreditation of its licensed operator traimns program from INPO Although the w' Board disclaimed reliance on the INPO accreditation in reachms its decision. it took ofMcial notice that such accreditation was obtained on February 28.1985. It at 1421.1503 08. The Commission has sener-ally endorsed the INPO. managed tramms accreditation program. Sec 50 Fed. Res. 11.147 (1985). I i { 896 s 1 1 -.. _... ~. ..~....,.. ..g ~_ .,I e
I
~~.5 g S C ', j w,s ',' s %; r., 6 u -g.'...~~
~~t.,~~
~~,,3- ,r a ,,, $f rs4 ', 'i 4 g. A w... i '."b=*.. ,4 ,. e.O..;)a ,c 6 (.~~
~~l s L s~~
I
V'iNMO$%q%m&w:+.ew-j,QWm@p p $("f$M@g,p.m&m@g&;n - MMMSMyWM 5 7.i F. ? '; @.M. M % % %p 'a a n
~~6.. M,w.a - 4 w:wy c.~~
~~w w%.m 4W.,a w w..,M n. ;. a,. r.. w :&v.M;p+a u.N..q;n.wi.,.w%>ep . r. - a s x q,m m - y... tq W w,, a.1 p,. e r as ,.w., s&.m &s~~
~~4.,~~
~~a,. a-.s. Aw.s,e. d *, %,.. ,i. l' ' x~..m%. 4 - T. mm,u.~~
~~4., %. w.,rm, w~~
c s y ys - W t r j V'*:r /19. n,,n Es,. 6 4 M Q.. Q.'6,' f,- Q,s % ft + m. ~.. . 1 gW,Y.yi%:1 w$ WQX e."num..WX&.f M,', Q: V ** ' . d,. T F** W r. ' '* ' c ' Kl. Q-f,T.A W,i 2 .v4 a 1 y plp'y.g'.at 9..,,% $:: M.s..(~s:.QS G.q DYifD@M.M W.% y. i .e..b.* ; y +9 n3.g.awm. c, *. a q..a<w v ;- - - - 4.. m-- r.x v s.k.. r v. #.N.- .m wg r- .a .m p yh,q *. S.y.p%g,s %w'%.k
~~.,g 2~~
MR .w ,y .,, n:g y. 9, v. v - A, .~.,.. m +cm c w.r r, .w y . g ~..,.. v., v,. e.n.,. v....... : >. e ? ,.e .... v. , ~ m".. :: w -r w. D 6;4Yl Our earlier concerns having been allayed, the Licensing Board's deci-i. sions are gff7tmed. It is so ORDERED. . n p. .( ...i. .. ~..... fm M.r.. FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ... w% uy:. -wyo;.c., - : n n, w n &e. m.o.q,,rv .,e.,.- we a t rc.m c.acc..t _v. 2# :,,.js &q~. %'p. 4. %@. ,O My g/ ,s rsy ...A
~~n kh..dpMME$1MM C. Jean Shoemaker M~~
F
~~9. %~~
~~Secretary to the , n,,WQ.y as;WWuk.a. n.! b W. 9W.m:p..n.s wr aix%,ne%p::i m .V Appeal Board .. -t,au.e m y. c . m. . ~ s. . 6 1, '. - N',p wM. 9,%Wn \\.A~~
~~#.<.g;. rt..'1,W., e p'. L;.,,o t.n(. v q.4.g s,r*.*p ; m.rg~~
L
~~,.:N. 94,~~
~~, * *at y q p *q~~
~~{ p ..c...,rO,".4,,,s'. .q+,., $.w., w: vr ,s., t g .* N .sN% ?, p* .%4...sf l,,_ r s a 4* 7.S..vP.". h. 3 P W's*y Ps e W >d."g*ff* yet,.e,r g y,~~
~~y ppe e, s.E~~
~~. y ;) r 1 +.,,,. .. ;. yF ...,t 3 ,,%. [ *. f 1. N 6.. ;.p y v.~~
~~i o~~
~~- I. k ?s b, ' [ [ f 4 , f ? 3 3 ',. ; ;qf .s ;,f.*.,.,, e - ; [W..,#,, ;Qg,'C:w', %.y.M., ). .( .g.p?.,;... y!. f,1 <t .:.m. p ~~~
~~s [ =.... P.-~~
p 1i e s ' ' % &e!']w.. f i l L.]$N k lh'>.- .s.r.s . k Y. s ; +. w. 2.-.,f;d :.n**,.M p w w.- w 1;, . h*'.W:"*' G.h Q N W1.1*( &..-w p. o e ca. > v,. w c CaQ.& J.MtN.$v. 'C&$ M &jf ^',' ?*h &@ T~ @e.Te. a m- #..M,,. uf f.W. %. C.. c. ~ l,Nk ' ' af., y J JS. Rf gfee.p q
~~h:'~~
f ff h k. g.'Q k. h ?f {y Q M. g, m.M &, f~ : .V 3.g. .* h. l lp k y 2 ,y W'- , 5",..' ?, 4' '.**( , p ',, ,~ I %,g.g/. .J (,' ff,N,,h UiQ M. &D.O.*Of*L;OV&N es M NN..?.Ef WMWM. e'.QWN &%w;, a
~~m.),.fio~~
~~, s r e. .:.s..w . % ;M g.', m,d T.~~
~~1r p>+~~
~~. 7r q:. r,. ..,.r., +,S,- %,,. h ' :.>, .g f ..4 r, ,h ., "U c .e g 9 4...,,.s.,. m. o..*.A.;l ?. e fl 1'. 3, u... a~~
ji
,a
~~.g e~~
~~,r'. a l,,r g*.f ..e n. 3~~
~~.,f f.s.,.~~
~~,e$ml'?sff.;.A n. A.fs,'a,ysg.A,p.,.,y.x L.x},y}:g4, n%; Q 'L-W+. f,..,. *'. e. J,. gefAj.Q. ~ a ,..,,&'p$...o..g.,E.,b;N...W. &....%..&..Y*,1,.5&.-~~
~~3... v%g%~~
~~a ,s. 2 &. <**t,1 ',';f. "','.'Q.*' gf i,;mN $& ' A, 7 m,...ws 7.m o, o 7 ..w...,,;mm ..,.t. ! N-f:~~
~~lY..h I*;,)k:h.,y, eh 2~~
~~n:..m n, A.. 4: t ,.e e =5 '.?~~
9
~~^ s4 e# ,,e, gp1 1: .\\ ,e E ,9 4 q t~~
~~6.-~~
~~g ,* h; .PW. -g* ,, J.,, y ~ .p.3, t ,,,..' {. y$ : &.. g&*l 2"ev,.* g::;la&.m;,tpf.,)Fe s,- l,..,~~
~~l..ls. l,'. Q ;.p d p: ; r q&.. g 7.(. (-~~
~~n> . 'n. w ...a~~
~~Ll ll c !l;s;'. %.~~
~~';c' v &-R.m.. ? ll: D .L P~~
~~k...t*.~, v,., ~~~
~~e %*' C.',;j.eW, %3 ..,s e' .?', ' s. t ",* *, *. ? y / s (*L - ..F j.ly.}.. . n%A a' i,~~
~~.,e 9~~
~~sJ! i;e,%s l' V N. u.h.ty --.1 l.?gT+m: Vw n .n - w(.g 7,t'b.f.Wh.Qc,' v % m:p' N.e S )7 . +.,. ,, ~, - .a ..Q. J.*M ! -;[Xt Y.n rw w 3._eNN j4;~~
~~a. :. m,c..,, q. 9 y g g,g g, w m. m g 3.,7,,.,,;c,, m...u+..pe g e *,C..' G s%Q..w.m.. w J 4~~
~~U t.' r /M O A of c u w.~~
~~y. 9.,e. m p. w;m.. a.<~~
m -. w ;n. s p;. v
a.4m,.c.,. .a....x. _ m: a.... _,.
~~p s~~
~~w ,m.e aw. e.~.,. v*y, - e, n, m . ml. ~.,. ;..v.r. -,,n. s..r.W., w.,,..u u.~~
~~5 ;.-~~
~~Ay,. .,.'v. l. +.6.*.'-..:,, o. .,.. p a., ;* ~ .t,.On to t + M~~
~~m..t+.,. (.hs.-),.,.y.:) y,,~~
~~q ),', g, m....c..e, s.... m w,.. t . m..w, 9,. ,de' o ?., e, **; ;,~~
~~4. 9. >, 3~~
~~. ~.~~
~~.. cyu4;,y1.~~
~~s. 'e ..w ,_,..ga(1 .a. n.. ~... o p,., t .gn ...r y3.~,,,,.~..s .(.,.. ;- .m,,. e 3 y...,..~~
~~c..~~
~~3,. y..y- , q.,,~~
~~w. -~~
~~.,. - ; u,,~~
~~$ cr-f. l.G -; ]~~
~~'s e. - ),. 4 i a f. '.i. .<..;J." f g. ,,.m.,.n, s 1 -s ~-~~
~~s. w.~~
~~x. I a. . >.s.. .- j- ,,c,-.. -4 i f 1 J. 1 l \\ f 0 ,i 1 l . dli ,b ..... a.. Atomic Safety~~
~~.E...-~~
~~..w. mm. ~.,.n.,, a,tg. a n d L..icensing i..M 7 x : e.?.g. s gg J~~
~~, n..,~~
~~9 q.. .ewee,... Boards issuances =~~
~~m. g. '.<e w','v.- 3.;.,m e s n~~
~~w p.~~
~~y.;g.y 1~~
~~p s j,~~
~~.g. .)' 1.- .. 4,.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL (f"l l b B. Paul Cotter,~~
~~Chairman J~~
~~Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive) T Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) 4 EF;f.,.A '.h3 ~.. ~ '.iq c-i, j Members~~
~~$ l '?.,..~~
~~'~ k..b !' l i,g m.. Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleeson Dr. Unde W. Uttle s ...', y,. .....;,,,y.~~
~~n,'~~
[ b -S,,* r{;M,,, #.'.S gQ6.3 Cheries Bechhoefor' Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke' E. ~ : ,'~ Peter B. Bloch' Herbert Groseman* Dr. Kennth A. McCenom i.'* 2j ~...,j / C, '.' '~ f. J <";; Lawnnce Brenner* Dr. "adet H. Hand, Jr. Morton B. Marguries' Glenn O. Bright
Jerry Harbour

Gary L. MilhoRin
~~.m Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshan E. Minor James H. Carpenter~~
~~Emest E. Hin Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oecar H. Paris'~~
[. Dr. Richard F. Cole' Helen F. Hoyt* Or. Paul W. Purdom .,., r; , m;t y g, m.3 ., g 7. ; -,. e. ', 'M ;/ I'. ' I V - ' Dr. Fredenck R. Cowan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink .k.' O 2, Dr. Michael A. Duggen Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith
C
l 1.' Dr. Georg,e A. Ferguson James L. Keney' Dr. Martin J. Steindler [' Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober J Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til Seymour Wenner John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Unenberger* She4 don J. Wnife' l -j 1 a..
~~W M.U.95 t,.is,i N.',' O 2 9.4)y :A Q~~
~~...m.......,M ..a oss.y -,, .r .e, 7 G (4N.+ ; c-~~
~~m...p...~~
~~.. _,.. '...,, :n,.. ; - hy-r ... +.. .f...t ..9.,~ : * .g,y/ y. ,t I, i d i ~~~
~~Permanent panel members l~~
~~l .,'e',",Jh g.,.. .,( 4 Y~~
YY
~~' I 'E"Y*Y' M Kgppq p - Ny. - - %5 4 M W' 8@ '. ..m L, s~~
~~f, j.~~
~~) P Ivi w 6<~~
)
~~e s.,,, s %$,8 .. e 9. 1 - ' '. *( t - ,s I , [.,, i g *, ^kI T-4 [ c 8,~~
@.

, 'c.,4., 5.t ',-
-l,7. 4{ 4.I.*g. ).. ..,,s....e 1 =.e '.4.. i ,, i., g f,, +.* ... j ** y,: A p . t. -., Q.) n. 3. , m. .Y*, ~ __.'_ _' e " - -,[RI <t A.r,P. f.;:,. a. _ ~,. _. _ ' g.' ..p *' i.. s; j C,9 i N ' - '. t_ ' % l e ~~...y Q. v i n 99 l y.:JP.3., gM ~ .,c, q.S. 7f. , <17 A E~~
~~n. r~~
~~, a,... a w s u..;, m,,.;n.../.y,.,v,.,.4..x n. ; ;,%. e, G.'. S. z,< c. c. .c+yv ". v_a. v.w%g M *{.l. Mw f. h ^ &.x w,e k. %, I N.~r.&, g y: i#.A? p; %".,,M.1.L,.,o ji,, %,.,.. n,u,~~
~~m,,...,.,. ;*ms. ~,, n.~~
~~p ~,g.in g ny..b..n. f M '... s.. y: q.im:TO-y ,l + ss~~
~~x..,,e. m.. ;~~
~~.w ...J ',y 4,, y. 3. x. m.4m.., s u. s v,...y.. y~~
~~r.,~~
~~i .v' a~~
~~, ;'. e(i..{us~~
~~,..~....g,'.j'.n.~~
~~l' y,, ~, agr.~~
~~sf f.* *th,, c R f.,; */ ) - D; m ,\\..q =, ) s ;.i..;,a*. s y~~
~~.r,A,o;%,.e,:~~
~~. r M: . f'., ,M,.s~~
~~%.' +. " % j.Q(.~~
~~s .._g,'M y.-~~
Y ' t.4 * "*
~~s s. - 5.5 '.~~
9
~~(., .,*9W <-y-p *.' -~~
*h

7
.y ( *
e
~~.n ., n...e -a, ..~.m. . c. >. v..~~
~~v..~~
~~-.. -..s _ n .) a w .m .m A4; 7,.- , - *3 p..~~
~~"..,y~~
~ - a. 7-, y:' - 1A .p. 2 Cite as 22 NRC 899 (1985) LBP-85 49 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p~. W ~ .o u ,T,.,(a?..g,f.s ' W. ' T. 7 TY ^ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m w,, :..,... ~y. m w g,%ec,, q nW..a
~~_, r....~~
~~.. a -u,.. h~:.. ~ 4 ~;w w.wy w, .o, .u. e .it M eqq.;6 Before Administrative Judges: w~~
~~p;h..w.ypi%..,y;r m. ::E@W;. '4:. 7i r~~
T.c h n s. y O ury,. e.n. #1C sw M. r..W,. M..,4.M.m,2f,6% ;.,' y.fl James L. Kelley, Chairman p$r~ry dN,;..<f j C,;"D,yi.'.mE $ ~ * -, ' Dr. James H. Carpenter 1 9 . d.' i, e:... / y > A~ n, Glenn O. Bright 'y e +- .v m.e. s In the Matter of Docket No. 50 400-OL e ,. g 1 - - ' Wa +J (ASLBP No. 82 472 03 OL) t y. g, u. M...w,,..,. c.. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT u.3 ..".wfM 'i *, COMPANY and M ; ' n, 9.,.. g., 9. n. Q..i...u <.e NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN .,. N. . ~
~~m., ~i ; 4 m.~~
~~.,. s..a r -a n ,,...v +/ MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY --., g m.~~
~~y, sit.e,.. <- +.. m~~
~~. v...,.,p;;.;,~. O., g. n (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power g.~~
~~n. N!?x....W<~~
~~o. a. '. $; '4 1 3 ;', - wN n, A Plant) December 11,1985 v 4~~
~~a in this Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board decides several~~
,w.. A ,. 3 b [.? U,..'M s W d.F emergency planning and safety issues in the Applicants' favor. The ,y q q.. <. ' t ."..,.'e,, Board also states its reasons for accepting and rejecting numerous con- .uA a. tentions based upon the emergency planning exercise for the Shearon , 7 6....t. 4 -~ C. ' " ' . c. z ~ Harris facility, m.w s d.; A, ~ ? s s ~ s
~~4..s. f,4e..g : <f#;r.~~
.V. EMERGENCY PLANNING: EXERCISE CONTENTIONS o <.....%,. q.s...- w - ~ ...o.- ...- qa%w*n : $e... ;.c, ys qp >mj;mden Contentions based on an apph. cant's emergency planning exercise M. @,.f @ d.g M e.. s.. n% d . m<..f.;. should be considered in light of the fact that they arise at the end of a L' d lengthy pubh,c evaluation process and that the exercise has been evaluat- ' j'j%,&:#%'s.c :'.QT5 ' 7. /[e ;, ~" ed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Thus, only conten. ...i: tions alleging fundamental flaws in planning should be admitted; those .,4..
~~S f,l: W.~~
alleging minor or readily correctable problems should be rejected. ,q' s C '( 899 1E 4 ' w 't; ~.*
~~. [v**,...~~
~~y . n r-r i 2 1 g e 3 r, g ' ( 'q(' h 3.. -[.(,f. s. e. .,g. ,if .....'.m-p.1 , l prf ;ls p*l. ' [. h,. ,.,4,'* ! i; 2 s . }',, s .e'l 3l. . z.Q. -j !;~~
~~1, d ' ]u'-~~
r .} s. ,. ~, > s..e ju ^ f . L N"...., 5,- or s .s,. a y. 'j) (, %. ;,; v;..!.'.... '.'Q '[) ~... <-. '.?"' .-). j i 1.. p' ' l 'l [ ' * ..,' ;\\f,.s,& f t,s .], ,,3.. e. ',. 6 I, w,,.n.. p(5 " 6' t ,, - + ,y#. .s.., c. , u; . l ' b 0 "' ' c IN I }.[/ [_2 4,,', l' .t i
,', ' ' u [. ',,' Q*;; y
~~.p. 4 _~~
~~% ',p;w:y v Q E ly. 3 ,a . 4 a. u}' q c 3 ;: 4: 7 :d~~
~~vA :p ~ +.. ~. v~~
~~~. 3 v. ... x. g.m..u - m nw. ,,:. 'w ~ .+. ,..a c. ~,,,+m.. -.....m m : :.mw .L 1. - - s. f. o m x~~
~~e. w.r.x w+ m.c. p. ~,~~
~~a.a .-<. m c w.> 1:,. ~,.. ~ .... j? a. ?,;.,.m. r. a.a-e--. e,s~~
r....,.. m. y..e,.s.v v o. p

2..a,, ;8. :,
~~. ~ j e. s.; .,u... ~. ~ :,m.a ;.%, s. r ... c,.e.. s,: a.~~
~~,< -o., o.~~
~~3, ~ . e. o,. +:w,~~
~~n..-~~
~~,. + .. m.e:n nx, .:c. .,. n;.. ,.y. .w.. ...,,,....y. y w + +- . - --r 2 h z., s.s a. .y~~
~~c. r.~~
L:. ..x,. TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED j Effectiveness of Sheltering Fire Protection g Pipe Hanger Welding Steam Generator Tube Failure Analysis. ~ '. ^. ...... ~.. - %,7, %. ;..., ;c. t y '.. .1 3s . 3..,;. : ; :. ;: .c ~..,.w . n. - x ./.ce p.d ( W. s., - A; APPEARANCES w ..c.,.. ..n~,,., .. w) {x;. '. 7. M.y;.,,J. e .n ~. : a e;G :: p 'w:..<./..2::. v M.;;- .NJiM - Thomas A. Baxter, John 11. O'Neill, Jr., and Delissa A. Ridgway, 8.1 4\\ $, A,1-8.c3k d E...l g ,@f,.!U'Ja:'.M.Jg. Washington, D.C., and Richard E. Jones and Dale E. Ilollar, '..~... _ $ p..,s, -.yi Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Applicants Carolina Power &
2.
, m.,..m ..s e < ."..,..,.,.,:, 5. s Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power .c .;+,7 7~n. ,.w.., Agency Wells Eddleman, Durham, North Carolina, pro se. ~8 Stephen Rochlis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. , ' '. O....' Charles A. Barth and Janice E. Moore for the Nuclear Regulatory -.s. 'I.S'/ N d '. h f f N,~, :/; Commission Staff. V a:m.. w 1., c >W..w ,:7.:..y.... .e w ~ M, A
~~m., c 2_~~
cq,.z:. W.m.. :;r... pW.g^ t.n TABLE OF CONTENTS .,.4... v pg3 t. . u.i..eu . c :. g. ;y g., g; s ..y p,ge ~ I. INTRODUCTION 902 e,n, -,n.w.&C!a x II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 902 .. q. S q'..R 4 ~.,.r,V,.'. M...,M. p :. v.. ,.e.e..,,,.....,.,V + A. Protection Factors of Structures in the EPZ 902 .c. r ,.c,> .. 3. tr,,.. - , n.. r irr
~~. _ ;f..,.~~
c.
~~1. Introduction 902~~
~~. a ;n ' .. -. - ' ;e .e.. w-... /~~
~~2. Witnesses..~~
~~903~~
~~3. Sheltering EITectiveness - the Concepts~~
~~..,,....j t., ,.n.,-. '.,.t,.. .a Involved......... 903 . O,. m s..N.,,.4,. 4 1W.,~~
~~4. The Applicants' Surveys 904 m~~
~~d@s.c. . #. ; u.., 3 . jgg,4 g g~~
~~5. Intervenor's Proposed Findings 906~~
~~'.W de ' W@Q ;;9,q . r.., '. a & :K rN..u B. Eddleman Contentions Based on the Emergency t F "l '- l &;q%.s.1 v . -3. 2 .A. Tp.p Planning Exercise. 908 p.G. ';... ?., 'Lj',".yl7M,I.f,h:.x,.~~
~~3..s.,:. ;.. '.~~
~~' W P.,?. M.... i.^. .s~~
~~1. Introduction and Standards 908 M~~
~~,.J,Q;',. "~~
~~2. Applications of Standards.~~
~~911 7..; :. " '~~
~~3. The Lateness Factors...~~
~~913 p 900 .y 1 }[ f .4'.. s v_ ,,,.,,y %. _,;.w'.,.a,g..r' g"; r.. . a. ~ i s 'j. .(s.* y, ...! **., Q:. p' r i ;'.*,7 <., $ ',';...~~
~~1. ;_~~
~~,[ [ ' e,,_E,a '.,[_ ' aef.} ,m., 'U. b #.~~
I

>7
~~\\ .:.., ; ) I .b f 6 .'(= s g y; ,y, ,' T,. l ' '?,' '.[p Jr ;,~~
4
~~..-f. w..y !;, I : ' p.f*., 1 ,YI g 4 J,- ..,,.6 3 j :',.,,dN e ;.., s 's ( p.m. ' hI '. 7~~
~~. h.~~
'I'1 ; ' }' s; y.S' 4,
c4,Y,.. a.*,IG, ? 'f...*1.l .,$h..*fa &.h..,h,, *{,'y'.,;, 9.,Yf.'ah y5 f.,lb h eS:0 . 'l';..,
l*
~~,'. *~~
E'*O.

C.fl ;
).. % ys, o, s .e- . % s : m.:: m w' Y % N.:e m.. s..M k,G. w w ; m. w 3 4. Q.'+ 4,e y, ,' (r3w%~ R* *bw.n?m : m m,\\' .m . g..Q. *.l. *m *y .s '> ) & f k.:%..l'.,"V *75,& Nb'd.Q j[**8')' '.p%',s,9.(e ' *, :.*>'f.'l>He~ - 7 A.L :[ &%h s ~ '+ ' s... ous... * \\ f',
~~,M lhDU*N.,,.,r.ca [n[ cm.:M, ';,fI.i'h. r~, = s 2:~~
~~.7 p y 1'* N ;. ^fn -as. % e. k Ep - %, s a e }4 N h y+st$Y .s 4 w.,. <...... w,, 4 %.y.,1'%p., e As t. ;, r.M. %,,Mp <.y..y.t.,,~,m w... #. :.,.s ;.W"N. n,.r..,> a..' C*$m./,*.YM h l IE D.~~
~~L '..o. y, A.~~
~~yam :~~
y.
~~a.,4.k.t n. ;F e., ". rn. m> .:.p,. o-s a n m .n ..,, o.. ;.., y m, m. l- .-Q WF.*j$.;g M;1.Q,.. ** ' 'm . k dh, ' =~~
~~." d t. ',4,,(# WQ,o,~~
~~-4 p.....c...* <,,e ^ ... f,,ly' ' '~~
~~. u.,., 5 y =,. a ; 6. y, y,,~~
~~,q:., t- . < '.O.g. q. A p '. t.,,,..~~
Uf,

.',
~~~.ys; q .. f. q d s+ : <.>.; o..,..... c .7 4 1 Page II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS (Continued) .g s c. C. Other Emergency Planning Contentions.......... 915~~
~~t.MMW@W.. hM,%m;,Q... r.'.~~
~~J. h. .r.G.. !. " Role Strain" in Adult School Bus Drivers... 915 JM,.Ev' M.c w. O h.i-S.3~~
~~2. Contentions Resolved by Summary 49 Disposition or Withdrawn................. 915 C': m.w..h y d.~.%~~
~~e . n.;y q v~~
~~m..q~ M.m..:~~
~~e ,.r. w s.t III. S AFETY CONTENTIONS......................... 916 %(N@m.e. n.,.. u*M.;...en%! @. N:4 A. Fire Protection............................... 916 w ~ 'WM!Kf $M$WM.C.M%,h%!G~~
~~1. I n trod uctio n............................ 916 M.N. 0,O.. M.. u, i.Ay$n;,9. W,.G..M..iM.M,' R..2. Control and Power Availability to Safety c~~
th
~~.~. ..+ af.' m....: > w. '!~'- . ', Eq ui p m e n t.............................. 918 ~ ,w 1.w e!y$(lfi4WM OX%.- -- e.... n M.'. xs~~
3. Qualification of Cable Tray Fire Barriers..... 918

4. Location of Fire Barriers.................. 919
~~..,1 3 s~~
~~5. Fire Protection Analysis................... 921~~
~~,... g, m,.y n.. ; : '.,~~
~~6. Combustible Loadings Greater Than 240,000~~
~~. ;w .m. U" BTU /Ft2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 923~~
~~~_.~~
~~7. Intervenor's Proposed Findings............. 924 w~~
~~s -? 1 .s~~
~~8. Co nclusio ns............................. 926~~
~~.c. ..a l@s...... ed't.85,@$. 3 3mg.et.$$.' Mgg.,.p B. Pipe Hange r Welds............................ 926 e~~
1. In trod uctio n............................. 926 Q M & t T l/?$ k. W>. m.T

2. The Applicants' and StafTs Direct Cases..... 927
~~- ty. m ..yxq: wi @ n. h ~t.c; m;. z..v. e a. . w w A 4,;3~~
~~3. Intervenor,s Proposed Fm. dings............. 929 m@.m#gWpMp.6n m.~~
~~a. r .a. .gg~~
~~4. Conclusions............................. 930~~
~~.y A .W' f '~ C. Steam Generator Tube Failure Analyses.......... 931 f~~
1. I n t rod uc t io n............................. 931

J.,

2. Joint Intervenors' Contention Vil(4)........ 932 y T.MD is p:e.. ;,.y 6

3. Intervenors' Proposed Findings............. 933 g,.v.vy,w.n.,m ;.,s,.
~~... gs,..m,;. n~~
~~4. Co nclusions............................. 934 m~~
.n 1 . w; e y ....s. e .. :w.. - -,r... x.., a,. e~.. .t D ry d. ~;.. :J x/. f!T.. ., .M W: . v... IV. CONCLUSIONS OF L AW......................... 935 g.;..m. '. y . c. y .i.' '..i. ~'. V. A P P E A LS..................................... 935 .s.. Y.., .m; Y. ;. 6. d;iW,42.y?.'O.... .R,e.,'.i.1...,3 ATTACHMENT (Contentions Based on Emergency Planning ,s. .Miy.nRi@N' WS.W;.@: ;, -g f.r* v WW %.NtM'd Exercise) 936 $W d,'@'7.%.;a@W. 4 M> M *Mii N
~~d. % hn. M. w,3. f. w.n.w e n $r:.v ?.;g.J.y.~~
~~f.A w N H-4r r >r.vNy . J : w~i.s ap c..s u.-; o N,~ W M s.;{..>* /.4 m,'. M. e ' s ,1 $5; A,Y 3 .*:f,. M... h s'.: >.. 10.,,&>' - mA e r~~
~~k o~~
~~%A..b %. . '. 4 2, $.x,- .., f 5 . + 1 s P q g .-.}' y ( g 901 t fl, t." 2rNj g ,?.* A,, J ' ' " ,4, K '* 7 f~~
~~'9e*****W*%"W'*'*'*'**'***'n-~~
~~% - EfN ~ - J,, s l' s d . ; j. ,[f,lll~f~~
~~h,d gW..~~
~~3 - 4 ~... '.,. Q. .,,,y. e~~
~~y;. %~~
n 11 .tri g s, q%.x $. f..,'t " 4 *' 1.6.,,.p.h ,,,,,'~q,[ '., n. t'.,. (,, 4,. ',. [.. v.>l,g g/f,$. d M' 2 h:/ M y* Q @ @ Q M,y k o fi ~e> ~.- %..%t%~u~ .a m. .s.,hikh.*pff r ).# *h.' {v.. n)[. w. ,$,f,. ,Y"'~ h h r.
~~a. 's '.Q'[.,.~~
~~p q ii-* } (.~~
~~,l'; l'.'4~~
~~l.,* ' ', l ',~~
~~l, .a - ..,..n .. w.v,.~.,. e.,.~~
~~m. g w..~~
~~m., m r,s < - n3 c ,.t. +p... t,...., . s f f,5:. ,~, (.,u.m_.., t.. *._-._ --~~
s
., m. . g,.p,,. < v.s., 4. m.,.. - gw q n s ---A- ,u ..p. p a v g .v =-
%,... c D M.Y, h... M. B W W b S '. W m % W ?$. A i.nl: L Y,ml.W. @@cy.5..;lP-f m y ~a.wp,w<p;m.w g m:.w.:W %y*i
~~e..., y.~~
~~.,q. g.,... ,.,;.4 .sc - s,. s.n. s.y% x .rw.a g,_- ....p,- p@y, ~ -h i ik k.y [' ':.l ?S&&s&y.+ U&.W$ $f ' ' @....y' @L: ';i & S,W W $Afh:;& :~~
~~SQ'~~
... cf..,e M W.T.WRQ;;M?:..:MW Qhs;,.v,.. n;s@.~ a.: @ v $WM.Q.W M E..,,;. , - ;.,jn.. m :.a.r.:. g > s w m;e ua o-r ..--4 .,n<,,g y ,?.~,- g..\\ b y -... My p -:s:.,c. -, -y;. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SAFETY CONTENTIONS 1. INTRODUCTION .c.m. J A. - c,y f*g. y. - : tJ1. ' g,.3 y ..w Q. Q l:. M. 5 M fi M i, $ i The factual and procedural background concerning this contested ikd[ fad /[M@Md,ww[pf,f.4 Jm operating license case is set forth in our first partial initial decision on en-8/ f2h Y .W'2 vironmental issues. LBP 85-5, 21 NRC 410, 41214 (1985). A second ..u. e Ags...d.; A Partial Initial Decision addressed most of the safety contentions that yg.gygm%,L w.1,+M M:.n;m,.c+c,;n;p y, yy ,q:~1 were heard in the Fall of 1984. LBP 85-28, 22 NRC 232 (1985). This y.m z r. RA mo lyh,2d...e.M.p,j$m:q third Partial Im.tial Decision addresses the remaining safety contentions W,. M.. .wJ s
~~3@.~~
~~(except for the drug use contention currently before the Board) and the w :', $. q.. r.,~~
.w c cW.,,w o s;

.m C.
emergency planning contentions that were heard in June 1985. It ".,g,N *pt-N @. resolves those contentions in favor of the Applicants and adversely to u Ja g,n. ury + - the Intervenors. The Decision also has the effect of making other dis- '.,, ;. 7,, lM positive Board rulings on emergency planning contentions - i.e., rulings .l,p' W.1 granting summary disposition motions or rejecting proposed contentions ~ - ripe for appellate review. f Hearings were held on the drug use contention and an emergency .<h j.; -QNM *1. planning contention about siren effectiveness in November 1985. The , %g ~l f " M N E Board anticipates that those contentions will be decided in early 1986. e :g,.m...e.. k.,j ks. n. %p. j. p m ; g y g. y >f =. 9. w. ...x. 4 ,...s .4 ' W y W j:, ',~,M.G :"A.k. M; _#.;FS II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS [ M.U.X,.,. -s ? A.p':t.c.9- & ;hhyM.w; &, O A. Protection Factors of Structures in the EPZ c. ~^ 1. Introduction N,m.,..e@M:n.,. o.s.a, / %,pe,y. 3 u g 1. Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, as originally admitted by the L m. +.n ~ T Board, stated in pertinent part that: Mr y.& y y,'., N. F.% v.p+:t.{. - .g a~ y +h.L,2 p.g p v. V'3 A W .u ? u, y M. p g. - ?, rg. .g g The State Plan provides no useful analyses or information on sheltering elTective. ? ^ 1' .J L - ness ..The Plan does not comply with Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. of V $ V y,J, NtJREG.0654. which calls for " expected local protection factors in residential umts jf a *,.(,.~-j* ! - $'jd.[,gl;
~~or other shelter for direct and inhalation esposure.. "~~
~~f. .%...l rq n a a y.- s .~?.- m s. s v T y h w $ $;;$@da.yg #m $p, % p$ w[ M The Applicants performed v study of residential structures in the EPZ~~
~~d y g4~~
[W h which formed the basis for their motion for summary disposition. We e h granted that motion in part, leaving for litigation "the adequacy of the bh JM..t W h.N i,...%...,tG..d.Mv.{,f9.' M,h Applicants' review of sheltering other than single family residential." ?? G 3 g @"n$ g/5 3 f,,$.'JD, Unpublished Memorandum and Order of April 24,1985, at 6. Thus the 4 3, ;:'..;,$ y, "',. ' remaining issue concerned the protection factors for " typical institutional F e y g 902 ' T f. .,. ~. W Y 9*"W***""*.*M**" N' .F. .g g j;a 8 gr ,v 88 ,,97.g:
~~. g\\ ; ~ g= p;. *' '.~~
~~yl. b'l '. ,,.., ip Q 1 s .o a u lq . y y p , t l Q id : i,. ..o*, '.,. $,n. 6~~
~~J., 4..h~~
~~..c.. s ~ s.. e. ) .s .,;{<g s [.M;m[.q.E$;;6.f. ' M..? .'7 ' l 7,N, A y ce* ._e .%d d.%.Q, f..'~~
~~, G.." / *n~~
~~.o r \\* p e.q *.; . h., 2: ;' W ' b,. ' ^.,, a 'if,,(.%'M.$.&. g.j d,..[ '. ~ Q.y. Nf/ [ .,d. ..u.. v. .w -, a. ., < L. v. - ./ -4 g. ~, 1 n:g; *rj:. s' . hs (' A . % u. w ..v. , +.~~
g
,- ~ p ' ;q g ' _ u; > ', a
$.. 7,, ~ ~ . :. %s.;$ H. M...f h,;'. M,,':y>.. Y,/ Mpy};%y.w,...u.;ge.n '2 '= 9 C.%
~~~:l'. y %, ? : %.. s',l F rW Wg.~~
~~m. e n.s*,,7..n; 3 %.ny y p. s m.:w,..e. ,wg.pcegr y;a.,.,. 4.p., j Y,, s m -jMMYM%kp.y$,o.yK @mj9 & %*,'w., +., gg.t.w,, w .aq .!iM M..u.e. p,y$, q w M syy di:jiy~~
~~n.p;ez p :-) (; 4:.g.v:~~
~~p. n%.,4f.r, n, y.Q~. y. 2.: n... m..- M.g; %, f. p. p a m..,.f., a.p : w y..., n . v, ;~~
~~m. :~~
~~3 yo..;~~
s.
~~w~.,, .*M., ,.L u. a G. cQ $l ?: A*' N.N [ W 9 n, -g #J < *k2; E * ' ..y 3, [ Q *?~~
~~tI k. 2 m. -~~
~~.y a n.: _m g" '~~
~~P 31 6.~~
~~. w,7,,.,. - .3~~
~~n+3 w.:..,~~
~. . > :. ; m..n, n. .,c_, ~, .,3, 4 structures (schools, churches, etc.) commercial structures and industrial facilities in the plume EPZ." Id. at 6-7. L. 2. Witnesses h UjM,. 7,l;.Q.Iui;%g.;q' ~ en . R:. yy6,q 1'fhM-2. Guy Martin, Jr., and Joseph F. Myers testified for the Applicants. hM:,R;;/ 4.Z%)g,gg;r( Yv Mr. Martin is Manager of the Radiological Assessment Department of NMNOMy gfy Ebasco Services, Inc. He has a master's degree in nuclear engineering gff'G6;U;v,@M^N.Y,M, Mpg .L . N and has experience in performing analyses to determine the sheltering M j M: D [l. h) D9 M.5 m Wu effectiveness of buildings. Direct Testimony of Guy Martin, Jr., on 2 ?,17.iH Eddleman Contention 57 C 10, ff. Tr. 7895 (hereinafter " Martin"), at ~._. p;l;.1'9.37 N. S,3M l-2. Mr. Myers is the Director of the Division of Emergency Manage-4.Wn.c.d).M E. c..pg $f;'*W and Public Safety. The basic responsibilities of DEM include fulfilling ment ("DEM") of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control . / WIA "/.c i - the State's role in emergency planning for natural and man made disas- ^ ' ~,. ;l,% ters, in responding to and recovering from disasters, and in mitigating . ] wp.
~~their effects. John C. Heard and Thomas I. Hawkins testified for FEMA 2..~~
^- M and the NRC Staff. Both are employed by FEMA in the Natural and 7.5.. Technological Hazards Division, Technological Hazards Branch, Region M:b h.c.:. d d @.1 -., IV, Atlanta, Georgia. As Branch Chief and Emergency Management Pro- %.jb.Qi( : fG,@@$l K gram Specialist, respectively, Messrs. Heard and Hawkins are responsible J.e l'M ', L for providing assistance to State and local governments in the prepara-yQQ,; $ @Af i W@J.4%. r,. 3 ,c M K 4 tion of radiological emergency response plans. Mr. Eddleman did not
~~t. D. h.,gJ] fN 3 call any witnesses on his behalf.~~
~~, k...W W %..%,L !, y..~ 'v 3. Sheltering Effectinness - the Concepts inreind - +.. 'gx , Q q.o~~
3. The Applicants' Proposed Findings 43-45 provide a helpful expla-

z. M d % h dii,g ?F.M@B.y$j nation of the concepts involved in sheltering effectiveness. We adopt

4. e,Q.y @f~. %gEd t
~~>/ those findings, as set forth below: w -..Q ; w;- ,,.~,s.g y q. ",-~~
~~43. The sheltering effectiveness of a structure is measured in terms of its Protec-3, 2 p ;.;s:. m,~~
~~c 3~f.C w.. gr . p. tion Factor (PF). The PF is the ratio of the radiation dose outside the structure to [ M,, U."; .* 9. W r., @?.. d y Ad P.M.N[d.y,"[j,e.G~~
~~4 UJr 4, ti.e dose inside. It indicates the degree to which a structure would afford protection from a radiation release in comparison with no shelter at all. Martin at 4.~~
~~...~ t'.f ?, ; d @ [r[m[;#.c g){k N$ h @? b. yj g..J2 ' - b; @'~~
~~44. Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. of NUREG.0654 calls for a determination of pro-~~
+> - x. y 4 Agd tection for both direct and inhalation esposures. Direct esposure is that which re. 3 N.Q@f *$ [}* sults fr m radiation impmging directly on the human body and organs either from d'.$.., r %5 ;.; e airborne or deposited nuclides. Airborne nuchdes are the source of radiation in the h ;",// g d h - w phff ; . ic. 1 hhh air; direct exposure results when radiation (mamly in the form of samma rays) is ab-r Qg{.* *. M.,
~~.; **;eA.h v @~~
~~M **.~~
~~sorbed by the body. Deposited nuclides may be on the outside of the structure, such . p*, {. " ~ '< 2 4* ' : g.> as on the roof or 6n the ground surrounding a buildms; radiation from these sources~~
~~W may penetrate a structure and the occupants inside. In contrast to direct radiation exposure, whsch results from radiation impinging directly upon the body and its~~
.~ 4 903 .4 m s 0' # 1 1 p ,.m . -- y - p u. e' -W --..s., -.-- , c.+,;. '.@. ; t.y. _-, s 'b ' t'.O M . m. ,f... %- 'r ., % x,,.4! :n-l ; h., ;,,i,s 2;aV..-d,l,. ,,.r. ; i. ' v.t 1 s &. e. >. < o. a.. y ? 's ' y.w' ; W.. y&**'Y *n.~,'b
~~m. v '~~
~~a. u.e (t- ... s s. n r .,o>, <. 6 ', ;~~
a
~~., 4 at e~~
~~p. s. p ),~~
~~s 4 c.' (h?,,< L~~
~~. - }* -} s l~~
~~,'.s Y. -(' 'f.. '.Y* .nf d" k V pk % *?~~
~~y l:.n ;;n,'bz k ? *e,', h~~
}, m' l L b p .s :,= e ..~ l,,&y 'A e - L c,q ; ' s we m' v. se' ' * *
j * ' .' o
< y e eQ i e
W^].Ic0 Yi. T$. ' < M, Tt7 I'h' //.-i.i i.?b,\\.dM M,144 Y ; 5 5d ; 'G9 s w p a. &.m. $.~,,.h:d n,q,. a l*Q:; . _ y OSm:3: ' Q;gGad 2,1 3.'
l
+@ yin,.,r., m a. m",. .A -x....a f o m %p, - e., s .s,-:.m ,r d _- . r Me.1 e., p po, %c ,, l. ' j ".@@:f., '. N w 1., ' M l.d i If., 7 n.. m.f. i m.%,. tw, v q', c. a.e',a e .c s. ,,.m .3 ' I N 4 d .h s., w..s y, v
~~s. r~~
~~,g1~~
~~s. -~~
~~c a., - eo o wn s. g e y ... \\ '..,Q', h uli,< Y , ' f :,*,1,*,5 %. - E fi,j j <. d M i y .C-6 m g~~
~~m. 7e 4~~
,,... i, a ,-a s v,, n.- i. 1 4' --h. ---"""-"a,.,"'#' 7.,[/ ' %.' ', I, LJ. 4 organs, inhalation exposure results from breathing radioactise materialin the air. In the event of an airborne release of radioactive material, the inhalation esposure to a person inside a structure increases oser time because air carrying radionuclides penetrates the building so that the consentration of radionuehdes inside eventually approaches the outside concentration. Ilow quickly this will occur depends upon the i.,4 g, air exchange between the structure and the outside atmosphere. hlartin at 4-5. ~ v, @,/!'t/,;4 * 'J ^ '
~~45. The sheltering effectiveness of a structure is a function of the mass of material p[.U'N..'r.%',YMl'N#~~
. ' i.'. ' between the source of radiation and the person inside. The PF of the building will g,,,,,, 4. m.p.; ; y'A, :.,b..~g..- b,. e.N number of floors between the radiation source and the occupied area. Thus, the .N.. be greater for a building that is constructed of dense materials in which there are a et... m-. .e %.W-, v.w.m f ,m p-MM Q.Q.'J [ 7, L. 4 - most important structural charactert.iics are the type of construction and esterior % w 6 v p A. A@ F -rc finish, number of stories, and presence or absence of a basement. A building of cq .%p r y iDliN : ' 4' brick or concrete or similar construction generally has a higher PF than one of wood , c, g;',,. J M J frame construction. A multi-story structure generally provides more protection than .J a one-story structure. If a basement is available, it will provide even better protec-(.W ; 7,. c 3.t. J. tion. Since the inhalation exposure PF is a function of the air exchange rate be; ween the structure and the outside, data concerning the windows and other exterior open. ings are also relevant. Martin at 5. , y 4. The Applicants' Surveys 4. Applicants' Proposed Findings 40-53 describe their surveys of , y. f [, the sheltering effectiveness of buildings in be plume EPZ. Except in the ..g g p, ig.,
~~minor respects noted below in Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings, the Applicants' evidence in support of their proposed findings was not im-n.~~
~~~.- 7, ;,,i,f, c., - peached. We adopt the Applicants' Proposed Findings 46 53, as follows: h_ 'Y . A. x p L. s i.' 1..: 'to, r,.. we .e~~
~~46. The ERP has already been amended to reflect the results of Apphcants' survey r~~
~~of residential umts in the l{arris plume EPZ. Information on the PFs of typical resi-dential structures is included in the ERP. Nf artin at 8. Myers at 2. Applicants' Eth. 29. '; [. h d ', % !,. [h~~
~~47. DEM staff members, Mr. Martin and other Ebasco personnel worked together~~
,@,%Q,4.. % l, t... g to gather the necessary information to determine the PFs ofinstitutional, commer-t, M.. il. ; '..#F cial and industrial structures in the liarris plume EPZ. Information was gathered M' ' '. [bs. from a variety of sources including the property tax records of the counties in the EPZ, information maintained by Carolina Power & Light Company district manag-n. ' *' -. ers, discussions with various persons knowledgeable about the llarris EPZ Onclud- ! b jM. [.' f f '. ing members of local chambers of commerce, municipal clerks and postal employ- , U.t,,.', M, @ y/i b,.. , y.J ;, ecs), State hstings of manufacturing facihties, State tax records, and State serial pho-r' 'r tographic maps of the EPZ area. A road survey was also conducted to confirm the in- $[ formation obtained. Martin at 6-7; Myers at 2. h h -+w'u S b d'.3 i-m, P. h J M w $ ((f'-Q'/,..' [r.4 i.. ' '.,
~~48. As a result of the survey,it has been determined that the predominant type of O~~
3 Mf%<, -,. 2 commercial / industrial structure in the EPZ is small retail establishments, such as .7, f';;QU;.y.D ' ? 2c service stations, fast food restaurants and convenience markets. Ilowever, a smaller q.7,;,j 4 y. ;, number of major establishments has a greater capacity for sheltering the population. Fifty one large commercial and industrial facihties were identified in the llarris "S i ( I 904 i 6 ,y + <Y ~P , -
~~sae-yFyp-s Np-me. sse r~~
~~i4.*,. 5 5,. Y. \\ g .I ( @@g,tk 7 g.gWGQ .e .w Q).hh, t.g,M '&., pm p?,i4,j. f.; +.L!.; A ,,. ;e a 4 ,.., s 2; ,H., e,.g,4 q,. i %. g; q ?., 3."~~
p
- s
, [W f'; ^ ([6; ', , Q.. ' '.. ' n N;W p v'9 T,' y H.fQ. N'$ ',' [N k, X 7 0,. J o -}.e..Qw (f;4g c]%.y .L ss QVr e k y q p-d, s t v.Q: a ye.. .f. h,; s nu: - p' . a;, tr: S 'r ?' $. f'2l.[ [ [} ef & & W '. &.~ %, j%.<,, W .y w." $ i. 4;; &,y&WQ&* W,q,M:
n
w
.n k' ' ~ ^ ^ ~ ' " ' ' ' 4. q[,,% ' jy ,,{ c, .% ~ ~ EPZ, and they can be divided into six categories: (1) shopping centers; (2) butler. type buildings; O) steel frame, brKk/ concrete buildmgs; (4) multi story homogene. ous structures; (5) complex sites; and (6) downtown shoppmg districts. Martm at 7-8.
~~49. Institutional buildings in the llarris EPZ can be divided into three major categories: (1) schools; (2) churches and O) hospitals and nursing homes. There Y\\,p N,.[+ @_ g~~
. ; ) 7.N. are also a number of other types of institutional structures in the EPZ. Ilowever, L MW c 3 r/ f f. W J.T,. J y W M 9 these structures were not separately analyzed because they either are of residential. N k Nh[hk,d,.. ? jh. 2 type construction or are an mtegral part of another institutional structure. Informa-y,,wA. s 4 wy,.+.5 tion on the PFs of residential structures is already m the ERP. Martin at 8, Myers l';.;;. Q Q,.,
~~lG 4. n "7 Q ;L..~~
~~,, y, -b M M c.,M*q. ara @- @...N s. 4~~
~~50. Representative structures within each of the six categories of large commer.~~
x s -a ] [ ,j hh }$ cial/ industrial structures were selected for detaileu analysis. They were selected so I f, w,,,, ; as to represent the range of construction type within each category. In addition, two c W'1,iM $ ' g,, l.1* M *y %, schools were selected as representatives of the type of design and construction used by all school facilities. Each of these facilities was visited to obtain more detailed in-formation regarding the construction material, wall, floor and roof thKkness, among other characteristics. The information derived was transmitted to FEM A for input into FEMA's Shelter Analysis for Nuclear Defense (SAND) computer code which was used to calculate PFs for direct exposure to deposited nuclides. The iden-edication of PF values for churches and small commercial structures was made by comparms their construction characteristics to those of typecal residences for whwh ,.2 protection factors were previously determined. Similarly, based upon an earlier X r;, ~ , ' M 4-survey of the hospitals, nursms homes, family care facihties and flomes for the l 7 '. J b [,,[- s... Elderly (a senior citizen community), construction characteristics were identified and compared to those for other structures for which protection factors are known. y 5,T N, c, m> ,e N..,, J,, 7.. u. Martin at 811. A c #.-a. r,- e,d,. r ..-e
~~t. 9ig~~
~~. ; 4 ~...7~~
~~.% rr.~~
$1. On the basis of the information obtained, a range of protection factors for rep-(,,e ",. structures and for the two representative schools was derived. Martm at 1112 and resentative structures in each of the six categories of major commercial / industrial Attachments 6-8. Using a series of standard calculations, a range of protection fac-7.d tors for inhalation exposure was also derived for commercial and industrial struc- .,g m ,i
h.. +. 1 '

,<.f..
~~L., tures and schools. Martin at 12 and Attachment 5. + w [(%'%I]'n.J.'N. S , j.W-~~
~~52. For the typical smaller commercial establishments and churches in the EPZ,~~
~y' ! i ~O' the range of PFs was determined by comparms their construction characteristics to those of typical residences in the EPZ. The range of PFs for direct exposure is com-parable to that for residences in the EPZ. For inhalation exposure, the range of PFs /- for typical smaller commercial establishments is derived in the same manner as for JA* -."E k .), (./
~~other commercial and industrial structures,For a typical church, the range for PFs~~
~~. c, - ', j ~., t,..~~
~~Y, -~~
~~for inhalation exposure would be comparable to that for residences Famdy care~~
~~ypp 4~~
dhM;h., [l!N'e,N$f M dQ@ ' i 4 9 ' P., k.[ facilities in the EPZ are of residential construction and their range of PFs is the same as for typical residences. The relevant structural characteristics of the nursing Dk
. b t.* n homes are similar to those for the smaller commercial establishments. Thus, the

h. w ; s.Ih
.- Jp 'I h.h.h'; ~ l. J,~. f[ 1 ' !, ' ' hj[ h nursing home PFs have a range comparable to that for typical small commercial U,7. '<. 'ef ~ % M.E of schools that were visited and analyred. Thus, the hospital PFs fall within the i t.3 '. structures. The hospitals have structural characteristics comparable to certam wmss a. .i - I6 range of school PFs. Martm at 12-13 and Attachments 5,8. i -
~~b e-r~~
'r e 905 9 f,* ,r I e i _ .,. ~, e, ,y,e. ,. ~, g,.. y.. n ...gw.,,.,,, ..d l-a r " ?, s. y,' hq,, s ; O ; :, .4 a .f f r 'g, ,' [q 'f] j i -[ - j, A, 4 s G '. ', ' ' . ;;pfgj,-q' f,y lm j p g:o s ~ . ;., 4m.pg. j,y ' ~ Q,, m} m.. l3( c.~,,, myy .( j. c-h.,., e r o
hhfhQNV[.h'NMyhhM2.,'f.9,Dh. h NhhY.hhhNbb k N k. " @ k w &.m y %y, 4 n. w. w etS m qk q rtgt W. w igMMwu:&.s ' ~, m.nyqu n:. lp sf. n g.,;.dh e:n.wmyw w wm .-w mW[j,x,- ln$$m?Q.:' %$wygy.~.h%.iBy.W...q&pr&..n:w &. Q W y't?h. ' ~.q:r .,v
~~- s' ~ A.a :%n w &. w.* Q & w.W.~~
~~Q G.gl_ i !a ';gb &M. .; ;.3.t,... g;.; p;@ls.y+, %pm. ; yy.pWa. y, & s,,w.;wm%s,Qyn.%:. b .w w w.. ra. ~s ...k W.a m.m. s*. - a 4.u..p~~
~~'W,.~~
~~.'1 r e - w r~ 2 .) Y. '~~
~~. :; &m.%, i~~
~~$y. y. ~ lf ' ' - + '? '. i * ~ -*E ' ' " '" % o ' "' ' eM' L?. i j j. .s%- q', 1 a.: 1.. ~, p, ;.[g,'. ~* 3:. .>'..g ,.5~~
53. The Division of Emergency Management has accepted the results of the survey and the protection factor estimates for typical institutional, commercial and industrial structures in the liarris EPL The ERP will be amended to redect the re.
sults of the survey and to include an analysis of the level of protection from radiation ~ releases alTorded by representative commercial. institutional and industrial strue. ..M.fd.? . W. ;.,7.,'.Y,,.'., tures in the liarris EPZ that could be used as shelter in the event of an accident at , r. ~ the llartis Plant. The information will be available to officials who will decide what M S, . '. b., protective action (that is, evacuation or sheltering of the population) to take in the y m.i.n.x x p>g;d;' 'l2.'N y Wyflg.< ". P W event cf an accident at the Harris Plant. Myers at 3; Tr. 7904,8058 (Myers), ...... 9,4.4yy,.,;n... ;s w;. e .g r a7 J A Q,.' as h % s *Me s e:r.~iw?: nm
~~e. i'+~~
HM. 'P:M,' * ?: M 5. Interrenor's Proposed findings 44.w. l u p.sHs% ' 'M- 'n& Elith MN - M:NEQ@.y ,7 5. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Findings 1-11 and 16 find some isolat- -. p; ; '. t ' : W. W ',o,..:,7 % ed support in the record, but read in context they do not undercut the y,; y.
f
.m.. y 'c3. A.r Applicants' case. The thesis underlying certain of these findings appears -~...e' .e, am' .t. to be that the survey of structures must be more site spec.fic than the i survey the Applicants' actually conducted. Thus, Proposed Finding 4 im- , [ . S ': plies that the surveyors must look for cracks in particular buildings.
~~k. '? '~~
' T;. : Similarly, Proposed Finding 9 faults the survey because assumed air b' J'i' change rates "are not specific to typical wind speeds around the flarris site." These proposed findings misconceive the purpose of the require-Mpi!,@#jhd2/. ment that sheltering efTectiveness in the EPZ be assessed. The purpose blife@q~..,b*hDMyQh% h is to allow planners to make informed, but relatively gross, judgments
~~w-b.w.> w e, m-.w. W about sheltering in the EPZ as a whole, or large segments of the EPZ, u.. ~~~
M. M.4. V :,i;.d'..,W fp-wherever people happen to be at the time. Its purpose is not to assist W.NQWJJ.i @j2G J/p. ' N T decisionmakers in deciding whether to move people, e.g., from wood O.L u fgw. 9.ex ,, r. q.: buildings to brick buildings, seeking to maximize sheltering protection. 6 See Tr. 8151, 8156 Oleard). Thus, what the decisionmakers need is a
~~', m., e. <,~~
manageable set of reasonable estimates, not a finely tuned and detailed .s A. Mgf... A. mass of data. Similarly, we see no need to develop varying infiltration es- ' e,a .tj}}%n.x~.a. p.%w!vy!, y ' W.1 a timates based t,n " typical wind speeds around the liarris site" - at least eb. @s. 4 M 4 Q.dQP.u. In the absence of any evidence that high wind speeds are typical. Mr. a-, .m..
~~u......, m. -~~
r, s.,..,. n e._ Martin was justified in relying on published studies for estimates ofinfil- '".m,,.. . ~ tration rates, which were incorporated into his conclusions. Martin Tes-q .h W. { ', J ' l, y timony, Attachment 5, at 1; Tr. 8027. Furthermore, we can assume that p. n %y. g. g g, 7,. planners faced with an evacuation / sheltering decision and a high prevail-p,y @.q; g ; y J' .e,. -. ,. a. I bi W. w.fM ing wind could take that factor into account on an ad hoc basis, noting, hkkh; J. @Ybh.r./ m.M h/ for example, that while the high wind might increase infiltration rates in Ek hydOlld'G,$t.k.fDM.j i buildings, presumably it would also disperse the radioactive release more rapndly. .zd,A;Q+ #q. 4 M yh.V:;/ m : .y.;b., a: .,.M. e '& P, 1...f summaries of protection factors " collapse data to the point that the N ..? ". ~ 6. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Finding 12 states that the Applicants' w p,.) Ofy,L4 n l ' 3. ~ . ; 9g ' ranges given are not typical of the actual structures within the EPZ." It is true that these summaries are not designed to and do not necessarily 906 g?. , ei. e. 'j. ? t' ,?. y f. g q,, -., y-h,Q.'hkp}(;% l.,' 'fk !. p[f ',,/ *, ..; j %, ~,;o v; "X,. j l, ' p m[n:%g.gll[,y'* y c.?'p m i, y w % % }.p m g I'. W ( j.Q .,d ," '[,,. : ' . y -l.;,. . w. /u.... y y ..... e.g4.g_, #..g, ymp. g'% T~*W,.m%.yE'. p.y4,M . y,
~~.vw~~
~~..x., ;::. ~.e... 7 ; . g%. e _-..p g . m.g. g.j,a -Q'" m , ~,n .,g, T.- ..~ j 'M~~
~~d m.~~
, p3 .g
h M&l,%W '_ ; h' c ; w :.,x-;yg%l., ; 0%.
I
~~' :N NRQN; f~ . L.. W*z. 9lt: JW%W$5 YF ^ j Qg ' p Q&.y; K.:.3,.; QM_ (l&ypg Mp..,,. M y %.) %q :. 3.',8 %pM&y.; >y g.g.,,'t: - 4 _.3, is~~
m
~~.,. '. s. W;:%W$g,','; & .wynw ,s. M..-~~
~~,,y.? -~~
~~!- c - %s m(. K W y' G. Q ~ {~-';. ? 'R.j V ' QM m'r ' - l-V.s,q,.Q.C,W.a y q ' -..,~~
W
. ' g M %Q.e,..Q., G P v + x, p* t.m. ,o u a .,x...,. 1 ,p.. +3~ -[e 4 1 y .w. M,,,f,.G,. :s. lL ',,*.h l T. j' v.T~ =M' O h D'%.d.1 .s m 4.C i u / A,.. e 4, W+t.y. g- -t .n,. -,- u m:. 7; L. - t convey protection factor information about " typical" structures. They merely provide low and high range data on various categories of build-ings. See Attachment 8 to Mr. Martin's testimony. But that is all that is ,~ necessary for emergency planning purposes. Indeed, as discussed in 19 Q < l l;;,,. J 9..~... below, it probably would have been sufficient to determine that the non- @gM.g@.y Gl.".,( 3 residential structures in the EPZ generally have higher protection factors ,. m.e,.s.ut,%g., w. ~ ..M. W,.4 A& .. Q than residences. s.m.m@%.j,..m e' av. p.g. w <yX,.p,.,.x.a. 7. Mr. Eddleman,s Proposed Fm. ding 17 asserts that "there is no n ..a.m.aa.O evidence that the PF.s of structures in the EPZ do all fall in [ thel r ~. .w . ;..m. - o,- ..f n.... u, w v.. y ea.,. x:. @. 9f, w; y.g'p,1 ranges" listed in the Applicants' direct case. This proposed finding large-m M. " c, r.hm,..: m N;m .y. ir MWMyd-M in::W:f.p g ly ignores the Applicants, uncontradicted case, including the.ir fa. ly f ~ . f 9.,;;c ' G. 0.7.M..,WA. - detailed description of how their survey was performed. See Applicants'
"n#: W,.., y q' ' 5' 7 Proposed Findings 47 50, which the Board has adopted. Furthermore,
~ #.# that there may be a few isolm:d buildings in the EPZ which fall outside the Applicants' ranges is both irrelevant and unlikely. ,. N L 8. Mr. Eddleman's Finding 18 faults the survey for not making
~~S M.~~
separate calculated measurements of protection factors for churches and 4 small commercial structures. Uncontradicted testimony in the record confirms the common sense expectation that protection factors for C,g -2;u.'.;;;. .r. %DN. s.s t.X, 4 m m... churches and small commercial structures are similar to residential struc-ww-I.t %;ddm$.t et'Q lfp%.Qgg tures. See Applicants' Proposed Finding 52, which the Board has adopt- .;e.r -. A 4 G;..r.. % ed. We think the Applicants took a reasonable approach and that sepa- .M%6M. N M g.h d rate calculations for all such structures would have been a waste of time. dd/.W,.@6$@hyWA. W Furthermore, calculations were made for inhalation exposures of small MvM'Mcpg.gg. #5 commercial establishments. i'. 9. Eddleman Proposed Finding 14 notes a " low range of airborne ~ direct exposure Protection Factors of about 1.2"in non residential build-L ings, or less than that provided "in a single story brick house with no c.3 p,};g,q v., a 2.w. 92...... p g; m M...e4 basement." Proposed Finding 20 points in the same direction. The ap. v. e i - g t. y ; M ' ,jepg % parent implication is that reliance on the brick house protection factors T d. N @p i, y .y as a basis for a sheltering decision would not be conservative. While that may be true as an abstract proposition, it would not happen in this case. ,j.. n ff As shown by a comparison of Applicants' Exhibit 29 with Attachment 8 p l.s (Ui i..O,j 'Q j 'ft Mh :.:. to Mr. Martin's testimony, single story wood frame houses with no base. $ M W 'n N h;d % dd.V'$ ment are the general category of structures in the EPZ with the lowest
~~hhMSh, hYh Protection factors, substantially lower than virtually all commercial /in-W R 4j;k y$. pi.~~
dustrial buildings and schools. Furthermore, the Applicants' motion for WWdp'$4 r.pfe,g '[ summary disposition establishes that most of the houses in the EPZ are M:, f. !,9..p n of wood or similar construction, not brick or stone. It seems reasonable . ? y9[:.. '0,1;Yf h%.',7f to assume, therefore, that the protection factors of wooden houses 1 ' q q.y Y would be taken into account in a conservative decision whether to shel-o' ter, in any event, since the Board, in effect, required the Applicants to i *. b ' ~ 907 9 ~' l p. 4 ..j[ $ '. y
~~n.. W. k l, h,~~
l
~~. w=~r= --~~
~~~s- ~ ~.m- ~ r ~ 7 tw ,-*m g-- r i,,
K2 C M G Ae

l.' ? NY; z
~~I s f5 !*5 Af" I ^ '.f ~~~
-. :a,w n.p ?4. 3,

2..n.;..n.y(e.,)v2 n.,.s - s. n.. ',
~~y ., p '..c@..n: .v m ~ n* h. 6is ei. a .,.. ;..y z,..~~
~~,yl.~~
~.,,I, . ;[ ' /.[&}.I. 4,g s,.g [e O r f ., k. ' ( 'b s, ef,, y. -> p gg,.m.a.sgq fs~., y n ;. 4m... . y;,p.R W tn gw- .s _p ~ c,9
N,W:m.~ky.2?M&R.f.fMW@DO.4d,MMQWRFfy.Qf MQh.WQ:f.;<~ j'W l
~~g b'i;. ~1~~
~~. Q.qdQ.n% % n. h ;.s : p % % g weQ %ud, &a : 4. w.p.k.,,, !0*n$.m$.y$,g):,>W+h&.y.)MNQ]Y.4 &y m ! ~h. -4 . A.~~
n n. 2

Q
. ?h &. m.WSh6kh ~ ]:. 4: me \\ If O i:i pyM.k..f. EN .g. K>y,.h%,q&ES yn :+q,4p %y.. qw%:.w q.,a,y eum n,.y -.e c;p .w wA,,- p p.c. ;) y w. .R p,:3cv.y vn 4:wy y y .y;. r s. 3 l - 7 4 -y.;n. U 4 yy fi!%kdm.M: git N M ' p . s Mh - _y s; l ~ ,...~ ,.y q- , y. p.. . p:'. e,n3.% W u ~ e:.a s. _ y u.s '..m. Q ',%f, W, R..,e., expand their initial survey beyond residential houses to other structures, all of the relevant protection factors will be before the decisionmakers. The manner in which they would make that decision is beyond the scope of this contention. ~
~~.., e #U;;_ '~~
~~. W. k,~~
~~10. Eddleman Proposed Findings 20 22 seek to raise questions about J.II.d.I;fM P.5MJ the value of the FEMA witnesses' testimony on this contention. The d i M W $ M. e./ 6; h. w'*f ; M. M f~~
.us.%4.n,%n:. e r v w%, eM thrust of that brief testimony was that the use of residential protection +~ 4 w n a,,p v. p't. ~.5. gs y.. a m..e,+. wM4 factors as a basis for choice between available protective action options e.. ..e A,.-
~~5..%.@.,7,D;.lMc,[.m.M. 7@,k.9.g$~~
is " conservative since larger, institutional type structures being normally 1 g .J. more spacious and massive, ofter a greater degree of protection., Tes- ?fd T,mhi.7 timony of Heard and flawkins at 3. This broad generalization is support- ~ ^ T ; b.h. fN '/t.gn ;.7.N ed by the Applicants' empirical data, particularly with respect to deposit-j MC 56.4O.*yc.y,*ydw%@yg.W ed nuclides. See Attachment 8 to Mr. Martin's testimony, liowever, we agree with Mr. Eddleman that FEMA's consideration of this contention was cursory and that FEMA did not materially contribute to the record. '7 /U.c J _ Ml Whether, in these circumstances, the FEMA presentation should '.. ' l {i p,@.QV i. y,L
~~3. v.-~~
nevertheless be accorded substantial evidentiary weight (see 10 C.F.R. u.: b. d!Y { 50.47(a)(2)) is ultimately not significant, because the Applicants pre-sented a substantial case which Mr. Eddleman failed to rebut in any .. ". a .. s. ".,O.,, :c.ki..,M.W % dd h N p.M 4f $ $ ; M [O,r E material respect. The Board is relying primarily on the Applicants' case M w qpp. in resolving this contention. u l.d h;%r$M*/,pDQ' f? U '.,
~~11. With the inclusion in the State Emergency Plan of information E/{ "'%Nd4 p on the protection factors of representative institutional, commercial and k.",W,My j:~~
h @ @gd M h M h@' h M industrial structures in the EPZ, the plan will meet Evaluation Criterion My.$' R.@ h J.10.m of NUREG 0654 and the Applicants will have met their burden y - c,,.', '. p.. ? l y m with respect to Eddleman Contention 57 C 10. ,m K y% ~%g/N. a." M;J.h?. ;. J./.941 ,3 / B. Eddleman Contentions Based on the Emergency Planning a.:. w %_g. .f i n ?y st;a,. Eygregge s.; 7. c r y p a.r [.$,\\QY..., ' :. :.",W:.tylW;Q.
~~l. Introduction andStandards l~~
7, g.y ,m v J' ,s y On May 1718,1985, the preliminary emergency planning exercise re. Utd.j,a;-;.y.'5 .. f %.v. quired by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,6 IV.F. was conducted for the N '[W/;.'7dfcM; M K./ J'. "
~~Shearon liarris facility. Participants in the exercise included CP&L, the N st;Jti:~~
State of North Carolina, and the four counties in the plume EPZ - , 4m,c&p%.m,@,"w@v.uW,. Ap'C!i i.. Wake, Chatham, liarnett and Lee Counties. Representatives of the wb . 7 c NiayM. W$. M$YM[dM$@rD'N. @y'@#,-.j;c y;d2.' e s.a a. o.e r } FEMA and NRC staffs were present as observers. FEMA subsequently g issued an " Exercise Report" and " Interim Findings" based on the exer. M;[,mem.4p. M E'~h "4:.T C; r M. M./- cises, which were transmitted to the NRC on August 7,1985. The NRC y,9 q :; 'f:.. Sp; s Staff prepared a report (No. 50 400/85 20) focusing on onsite aspects of g7 % j.. the exercise. Officials of the State of North Carolina prepared an "Evalu. ation Report" on the exercise, which was accompanied by an " Opera. 4 908 I 1 4 3 $9, s a 8 .,4[ _ y -, um,ce.,
~~eu.~...-~~~
~~' ( ', ' ( f, [ j. '., , a }~~
~~'y,~~
~~4,* 'a,., ? Y R,y );. g m. m. g. y J ' Q, ' ; \\~~
~~.. '.;. *. g.t.Q.f,* ;J,j y~~
~~. y" P. ,.g / d :*t ?,.. .. :, g..,... n. n., n ,c. m.n... ..s. n~~
~~p..~~
~~. n,. m s e.., v+..~~
~~n. > -...~~
,:<g., .f... f4 . ~. [*'-s'Q&u *.,. ' o,.f. u*. Li '*_, +,'r. 6..*,. 0.* y.j. V, Q,w'.s.,,W WW QJW, . 3 a Q, G.;,.. b %.,5.f;? p % &,. c.^,,Q .a s '?E G 1 j r y,.g p ig, Qv.;, v.g.. .3 c.,, p 4 y e...,, d. . ;;. K.. ?,..,;g.;g4t,'
~~, p e,~~
~~-_m &%:W:l.9% %w.QW).' : . Y '. '? ;&. 4C.*?!!I% 2'~~
~~AR!iMN : W,: 0?.~~
~~r k. W. M n.h.. W:w o g W; fin n.m.k.m y. y~~
p.,

n ;,. n j. m ww,.% i~ sc.m M.v,u*
~~. Mr ~,~~
~~.Q so ns.~~
~~.+ M. %.W.:%.'.i.s.,.? M..,_ '&...,4.AW:. ~W. a M.- v.y n u.PA%wNv%.'.'%n. %.# .w'. .a u w .r / .e .. v. 4Q. M:W~~
~~f.1. a,y* N=.. g,.C T~~
~~G...: k i . ]m'fva *, %. + h~>'y>%.17.g,% (.. e.q* q. - 9, Y " ' 7: $' 6 r.# c . 75 g &aQ.-i.'i~~
~~i (~~
t 4 . tl yp./.4 + y. s. ?' q ': 6-7 +. s c..: ,r ,P - t ol : rd. , m:.4@%.%, W.gi ;. ; N ; @@;c ,4-e .a r r_- .: L m - -' _a v,.,. 2-h;'o:%, f,y[;h.. >l-.l[g.', %" ', ~. w-W,N.W ?m.,g.s, w W f.r. 3. s... .t tions Journal" and copies of messages of the State Emergency Response Team. On September 30.1985, Mr. Eddleman served a set of twelve conten-E tions based on the emergency planning exercise as redected in the docu-RM... Vf..., jM,Q,< . C. ments cited above. The text of these contentions is set forth in the at-T/c 4. j n,...,W,.. wr k%. e,.M,,.., tachment hereto. The Applicants and the NRC Staff subsequently Gled t wL 7M[g -@$-!n:cy;@%A l = .h' .N' W @ W r:. N J pleadings in opposition to all twelve contentions. Mr. Eddleman then c WMei c Died a reply to those oppositions. M%.d@.dM@er 's_. Q,y .c i On November 5,1985, at the close of the evidentiary hearing on WVM RW+. 3f8 ~f Eddleman Contention 57 C-3, the Board ruled on the twelve exercise l#$rM.m'w.?M.W.%. M*r M.f.00.", %.WQ hn/ . ~e contentions. We admitted two of these contentions (one as modined) u, N g?w.DM
~~i, and rejected the remaining ten. We stated that we would provide reasons M,6174 W W,lp q@s...~~
~~. r. y. /m~~
~~. g ; q y d aD; for our rulings in this opinion. Tr. 9971 74. Those reasons follow.~~
W.,,,,. 9 The contentions before us are, of course, subject to the specincity and other rules applicable to all contentions See Philadelphia Electric Co. + J (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 216, 8 %.[.* ~ [;',f. (p '. 7 AEC 13,20 21 (1974). They are also subject to the limitations applicable
~~-l a e,, p X~~
~~to late Gled contentions.10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(1). See Duac Power Co. c~~
~~r,,;f (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 104l~~
, c (1983). Beyond that, we think these contentions should be considered 2;e c g, < w.,1/,.a. f,,~I v. 9 5 < @rl*/.,c 44/ e r. in light of the fact that they are arising at the end of a lengthy public ce9NM:m.:qM.iVG@ J W % g . # @. Q. evaluation process - a process designed to surface serious planning ,. _;.a a %gn>jj!@Ag$j@g;% defects - and relatively close to expected operation of the facility. Fur-pf %'i ',, $g, Mhr,E b thermore, we should take into account that FEM A has made an overall
fy;; i { g

dhi3M*/ M' ',' ('.
determination that the exercise was satisfactory and that the cited den- / 'KM 'yy y ciencies are correctable. As we next explain, these latter two considera-s /' tions were largely decisive in our rulings. Through an amendment to its emergency planning rules in 1982, the . MN NRC sought to exclude emergency planning exercises altogether from %e. ~,M, h. f.h.0;y$g'c 0 g $. M.w?.M y/ #i %.s ,-. 4 v. a ..%p'p-consideration in operating license cases. That amendment was success-p T,.y fN, A/'!@ # :r-fully challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-j bia Circuit. See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 .g.y-q 3y" N (D.C. Cir.1984). The Commission had argued before the court against ., ? u.a.s undue limitations on its discretion to structure its proceedings in the
~~[W..,@?, u. 4 interests of speed and efficiency. The court rejected the implication that~~
~- y/t W.c[hcQ -Q.G ?.. di 5, R.ed.4.:..%A,p i, c'r 9; 7 its ruling was intended to have any such elTect. Most significantly, it m.: 7fp. MMO,;.,Ydf W.*p'med,i.y stated that: M:C W,),ph @h '{l* M O,I h'[fN.M '. The Commmion argues throughout its brief that the exercise is only relevant to its dS hcensing decision to the estent it indicates that emergency preparedness plans are Mr x Q*i;%y. ~3Q:.Q, l ['.,.. fundamentallyflamat and is not relevant as to mmor or ad hoc proMems occurrtng on 4,@c V,V f 7M j.. '. %..f-p. . i.' the exercise day. Today, we in no way restrict the Comminion's authority to adopt 4 l. ,i' ' ~ ~ - this as a substantive bcensing standard. s
~~i., j 1 '~~
~~909 l t l l , r',. s s i ' i ', ' Y;'cm.. c ,. t, ;. L 3f $,' a d) ? ~ .l* ., ) 0 ,d b:~~
; l.. ?%p'

*,,;h J
i (# Y. g I ; ', t /.[.,:*.)he { l . s.L.~.[. ;'. ,h e -..,, ;.mp,, m. '{..,} f, 3 f [ gc ,, t l,,,p,. v v g; r.y. n... &,,:u. r ;,.. f ,c. ,1 r,mq m.'... s 3, l .y ,, ( l-c. s e, s,_ i, m.,,q.., r.f y 3 .m. t.. .v c,.
~~a_w,~~
~~j;j%.. %oE,.W W.,..);% %. #..N..y..f.Wy :w:;,y,pW.. @. gg3. 3,W.g.sp.;m'..-;, Q1. %..H 4, ?. ?ns.W4 ' c 4 6.. G N...V ;. 5kW W. pg g nw, m. ,.m~~
~~n,.s.~~
s... d.i q.w., w /. ~ s&;.~.x.:ma 4,, : :;igr.g[Qk. s g %y g ;. ;, 3. u.R.,,> ~eus-, y,. ~ ,n . n?n. as.. m W.. g%. 7. u,.Q **.#. h. : &;y' Wy!;&/.y.g;g;,..v.q;M: t ..; 4 %. % ..g V, f::.....W.. *.W;;.piL ?..f%,, QW q$.Q igwq7ffg: % f @ &y..;;W W,'y/. 4,.N, .:J.. Q W &.%- ~7 ./ s.1 w., -9g ,gy c . u.s.,eq,., W l R 4.. y,]!:y.}lQ plQ > n y :;L M M M ~& ':s .; f ' ^:.' R. b '. :Q:'"i % w. *.Y ~ h m.. -... '.R .v'..~., u p.. w ~ .;' q ,a :..u.gy.7 g,y,,,,..V. g.m. ':, y,q:. ~ y as ..y 1, 4
~~1.. <.~~
2 .c,,.,.y..j;. ;y. .n d. /d. at 1448 (emphasis added). The Board believes that the. criteria im-plied by the underscored language should be applied to the pending con. j tentions, namely, exercise contentions alleging a " fundamental flaw" g, ,.,.4 (and satisfying other contention requirements) should be admitted; con-i.A . :c tentions alleging only minor or readily correctable problems should be ,Q..m.,, < r.; ;,. v.. a.o;. A 'A. c,,p ;a,. f.,.T M..v:,y rejected, even if they might have been admitted at an earlier stage.t L t t n ea Apart from the " fundamental flaw" criterion, the NRC's emergency dME$T.M66.n,fa ~..,c #, y.e za,.g :. _m.. .c. f..:a.. w .r"' ds planning regulation,10 C.F.R. ! 50.47(a)(2) provides that: "In any W. y,f,".M.m. M..W,.. '$..,'M. g.f,l M,o,M@I.y rd NRC licensing proceeding, a FEMA finding will constitute a rebuttable e. ....cjn s presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation capability.,, ,m 1 6.g,4 8 t,']M/~C M M 1 tW'f-in this case, the overall FEMA findings on the Shearon Harris exercise V :[N'.', M'. Res ' 6.W;., < w o 'r e, c v.. were that: p/.*? $y... S ' :3, ; d h..
~~2., p c,. i.?~~
7n y ,e M r a. s,,s ~ ' g w p.f y 9A. The State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of beins implement. +d'; ed. and the exercise demonstrated that ofrsite preparedness is adequate to provide ~, f. f. J reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health 3.;. /. ? I' j l.. Ii ' M ;. and safety of the public livins in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power f [ [Y E.' Station in the event of a radiolosical emergency. h. 9'8 h i Memorandum from Richard Krimm, FEMA, to Edward Jordan, NRC, i W.h.'.!7.hMhikbM[ dated Aug. 7,1985, at 2. In addition, FEMA made specific findings i V W about several of the problems that were to form the bases of Mr. Eddle-n m. n 'J/ 4.s\\, w%,M.J.n.ed..,; z e';;% .: u $;;.r.- ,.,c. a r..v c %_ %.,. 9 p,3 ; @N h (h3. A -my man,s contentions. To be sure, the quoted regulation is not directly ap-w %. pr % gN;,g#$NM'*y goes to evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, this regulation implies that a ... p # plicable at the contention stage: it comes into play when a contention . m n. p.. M ft,w. g g m M.. Board should give a FEMA finding of adequacy or correctability some w M.. deference at the contention stage. We have done so in this case. . t. + 1, s t 'y.'hlh. q .<, c. 4 t.4 i,f >r 'q'.l Q f ;* } p.?? V 'gg /, Qd'k'y '. ']';p) % q.y',lQ, y h q
~~m. i u *.,_.%y.e,,7 ;r~~
~~.f;. w.. - s c+, r e. ,,p p rs.,. .c ,".~~
~~L c ;. s.~~
~~. h.' ' ' 'la discusa ng the apphcahon of these er terta. the court stated that the NRC could "summanly dismiss @./ - ' g. W 'j J t~~
~~v,,.a~~
~~..y.,, *. i ~ any claim that did not raise genuine leaves of matenal fact about the rundamental nature of emergency~~
~~.. J ig.? * 't 5,<', /~~
.... 0b - ,q, preparedness plans." 733 F.2d at 1444. As an abstract proposition therefore,it might be argued that the g*;f g /, ['. .5 i " fundamental Daw" cntenon should only come 6nto play at the summary disposinon stage, that 18 ... - f..p g " p, 'r4 li p' l ti should not be apphed to esclude a contention at the threshold. We And it siemficant, however, that the /f. court did not draw thss disuncuon and that it cited with approval 871 c MC. $02 P 2d 424 (D C. C6r. (h.7" f M ' ; % ? @ Y[?.i d.,k M t.jf .~F./ 3 h* Q.*h 6.*. h. 1974) which approved threshold eaclusion of contentions. Furthermore the court went on to state that y gif a s f,...g,7jy gfry M (gg fr,y "the only central requirement is that there be an opportunity to dispute 6ssues raised by the esercises 7 ,, m, under the relevant decisionmak6ng enteria." Unsom e/Cearerard 5cararsses, snapre. 733 F 2d at 1449. We t, ; " *q'.N', ' d a f f. *g"' g,,, ' k.%,9:* e
~~Q beheve that such an opportumty has been afrorded here. where the pleadings have made it apparent that~~
~~. 39o l,' J, <~~
y,.

7 i the bulk of these contenuons do not involve fundamental Daws.
+
~~f;f. N. - +,~.~~
-:i a 4 +f , %,.ij.,i',. We are mandful that the court spoke of "the Commission's authority" to adopt such substanuve i ;}f, {,Q.. ! C' () ' J hcensing standards and, to our knowledge. the Commission uself has not formally done so. Apparently, 3 '. 1.1,.1 this 6s an escue of Arst impresseon. flowever, our delegated authoney to decide this case includes the au. i t 3 thoney to decide novel legal queshons. subject to Appeal Board and Commission review. Cf. Dake re.er ca tCataebe Nucteer Stauon, Umts I and II. AL A 8 82$. 22 NRC 785. 790 (1985). ..+ '.e' 910 8.._ e u ' - m., _r_ ??l. ..rs-v a q. m A.,. .t> :e. 4.dpe y(.'.h l,1,j, j: y ' 'r g,5l h ~.s* E i* 4 ,s...> 's,', = r . -. r, 2.,s . p, .4 r .s ,,,,f.'. ' ';) ; 4. >f e b c,, 4 '. i . h,.li N g[ s #Q. &r.&. !W&,y.; &. ? ' ]l - Q N); f..:,;"f f D E ..yM 7.MQ. (n2 k .~ 1 S*' Q..: ,,.f 4 ' f.& ')$.A Qh U.c i.'.'l*$.. ll
n
.a j W.'u,.'w, g., 'u ! '.,p. ' ;. .w 't).q% o 'j,*.g.,. $ g.. >. y,.y> 3, vn. 4g , a. .<,y ,, d,;.y, u,t i .a _ 1 g,) - g.3 ..).., i jg,, _t
.y 'y ..c.fy.;. ; f, ' ~ a 75 F eo .-, r.,, - 7 / *:., a,..?r. n 1 J. t
,.w. +.

.. f' '.;o c
~~.. s.. ,, +. wsy. g;;p, y; J.,.9:: g.., j,.%.;.e... w. -cw~~
~~m..,,.~~
~~.. ;~ Q... g. t.h,. :. ' ..b .^ y t.m..., s, w..~~
~~j.., ~,~~
~~e ... u.. ....,4~~
+
~~_w s .. m.: , M, <. c. sm-m, [.2 h.. 1 '..g /m / ),' p } [+'- ...,. g -u,*- ,.r- ...r -M" 4 ~ ~ ~ - - -~~
r.
~~v. ,_ ; r ? 2. J. - %.,. y~~
~~r {.~~
m..n 2. Applications ofStandards Admitted Contentions - 2 and 8 These contentions were admitted because they could, if substantiated. involve a fundamental Oaw in planning. Contention 2 alleges six areas of 3dV..1, ? ' .2.( ; ~ 3 g$/-).I 7. I / communications deficiencies. Effective communications among ' '. :?t.C32K'l-K emergency personnel are crucial to plan implementation. In addition to h h.C ';; '6 ~.ks];[I[ *y.a p;'q;% W unit capabilities, there must be effective interconnections and coordina-Qb @ ',. N tion among units. The number of problems cited here suggests that ade. j.p:g/. f'N %.: fg.@ 1J eq y i*:.),dik. quate coordination may be lacking. If, as the Applicants argue, Conten. MYDe r,'.vfTNU?p e',cFf' 'M/4 tion 2 merely " strings together a series of diverse, relatively minor com-f;q.,y/? N;y y.Y.E-Emergency Broadcast System. The effective functioning af that system munications problems,"it should be amenable to summary disposition. ..c x. Contention 8 cites various implementation deficiencies in the 2@ -,lf;..g dl. ' t. '., is of crucial importance. The FEMA Exercise Report is critical of the system in various respects (at 12 13, 17 18). It includes no specific determination of adequacy, noting only that " activation of the EBS did ~^ ' ~ improve as the emergency continued." Id. at 18. The FEMA Ondings ,~ refer to but do not discuss the EBS. ~..y n,. c..; % j.l b- .& d ?
~~U Q['~~
Contentions Reflecting Minor Problems - 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 11 'T 3 g;. 7 These seven contentions allege minor, ad hoc, correctable problems. .C,[,?:y"~. 4. Q Q';g Even if substantiated, they would not represent " fundamental Daws" ,, y%.. f i - j, ;3 and thus would not compromise substantial implementation of the ',ff;;p,y. emergency plans. Speci0cally: t, ' 1 W 1 Contention 3. This contention was taken out of context from the State Evaluation Report, at 3, which gave a generally favorable review of emergency medical operations. Whether viewed separately or together, ( 9 ".'. ..-' t. v. . E. +, these criticisms can hardly re
~~resent a " fundamental Daw" in planning,~~
,,,f. /.e/,f. ' *f. E; y. .,.y .~ ,s s , r... 'f, $. ?. '/.. ' S.4' " a..y. i.e., the plans could be carried out successfully even if equipment like s .f R ,~ >>./, ,C splints were unavailable and measures against contamination were not perfectly executed. The NRC Staff Report, at 8, found onsite emergency I medical activities to be satisfactory. In any event, any deficiencies of this .e sort are readily correctable. .A ,o.. '.. *r
~~Contention 4.~~
~~This contention is also based on circumstances de-g. A>.,. .,., *b i } h h. t, , M,' '- U scribed in the State Evaluation Report, at 5. The FEMA Exercim Report @jG;% p[i. 3M$$2fND.~~
~~MhE, is generally more favorable on decontamination activities. FEMA Exer.~~
~~48, b D*', '_ QNWQ i.se Report at 4 5. Moreover, as noted above, problems in decontamina-tion are readily correctabte through training.~~
~~Q y.~~
~~.W,, 3-gy. 3. p. / q.. c.. '$ Contention 6. This contention alleges various problems with " rumor n control," relating principally to dissemination and coordination of infor-a "'- y <> .i 911 2 g~~
~~"MM W'M8'W***4 5 MO "~~
~~g% @"'We. 9 .I ~ .. %y.. 4 ] [ i s s..~~
n.
a... ~ [ l, U. ,k'.gr' .t > ~ .s , g g; p t .,;g a
, 99.. w;g..w:a.~ j m, n e...; 6. s.,.w. s,p....ws, Mrn.py+., s.
ns,.;s,y.p.g Agoy 3g

,qq:gM+.y

. ze. a,... @

g<a
~~+ . ~ ., m 4 w..... .t ,n.... - v ,.. m S;w:x 1.. ;c.:.n. 2. :. 7::.;;,;..y.... \\.... m,g ~, ~ z ..,, 3. w;:c.,y.s.4 ~ ; g y y%u.,. y w...g. q s:.,,. g,av,,,, i,,.p..ym<,~~
~~y,;;c,~~
~~.y: .v, n~~
~~u a~~
~~....u n. p, , u.. y u. ;> ; g g. y...y~~
~~y y.o, n,w,i. u%w,. u..,, +y u,. 3.. r~~
~~.,s ( -.z~~
~~,9, s n4 q~~
~~,..,....,,;.~..m,.y <.. w y.*, g. . m, ,,. :,o, f 1 ; -,, . ~., n~~
~~4.,p !.#~~
~~m4 ,.w,~......;u w,;..,. 4 ,c . r. g.. ,, w., 4' ..y[f ',.. w* y..y.m..g. v.T. q j %, y - ,;.a y, y'.. a s n ~...f-7.*'~~
~~n..y '~~
a /4g.. 2. r.' s, n.: W y,M'Q;s, D Cl***,'y' '.,,.g...' " -^','./- # - ". -. < v ,.. - :.W, ,p 7 ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ' M.A M. U C.'.. Iv. .;y3l .. y. Y, ..;<.g. -g-q/,4,q.y, pw v 3'y j,., I 6 a . n,. r r a l mation among the media. These problems are discussed in some detail ?4 in the FEhlA Report, and all appear to be minor and correctable. Id. at 11 13. FEhlA found, correctly in our view, that these problems "are not significant enough to seriously hamper emergency response." Findings . i "-. at 11. D E Contention 7. The first part of this contention is redundant in light of 4.i-t :.J g,,7., = m ; < A.....; 7..' ',. Contention 11, which also concerns hard-copy data transmission. See ve e pu g 4.A v.;/.:.l3.Rg
~~Discussion of Contention 11, below. The second part of this contention~~
' $, f, $ MD l/ concerns delays in tabulation of coordinates of traffic control points to .{.C'E.g'q.(-a$hU@i. ,f,$f facilitate dose projections at those points. While better coordination .. M,W.srG p;...F[cf@dWPQ w might be helpful, we view it as a refinement in planning, not an essential .. T. h 'MW/ element. FEhlA apparently agrees. See Exercise Report at 9; Findings ..,3.,N,,o.p, at 15. ...-....s...,. s . n~ ', p;.,., Li 'l,d.(i..g Contention 9. This contention alleges, out of its context from the s ' L, -.y, '. 'm. '. 4 State Evaluations, at 12, a " weak level of training"in the use of anticon- .s M a.- Q t:,' tamination clothing and respirators by radiation survey teams. The Eval-s p.;' w ;.g.' W.,' uation also notes generally, however, that the teams had adequate 4, .,3 a ..giF];G'ug*sk.;[ knowledge of their responsibilities and performed in a professional <. ;,.T "., ~. manner. For its part FEMA stated that " team members in general were ,+ sc,,,. . '..., s.)2.$... ' M:;dd.,".Mc. > adequately trained." Exercise Report at 15. Assuming some training ' @TJgk'/i; W,$. L A i', N 'U.'k:J.9'.%O, denciencies in these areas, they are minor and correctable. (.P: Contention 10. This contention alleges several minor and readily cor- . $. /'R. $.,,'..t.M],1, f.<.y;G4,Mf. D@);L .. ?,- Ry7 .M.,P r." rectable problems with respect to protection against radioactive lodine.
~~4 Wp.. ops..~~
~~See FEMA Exercise Report at 15,29. FEMA found (at 13) that meth. ~'.#.:.M.s'.8.,.t, y~~
~~b..,h/.%~~
..M,? Mv 0 ods, systems and equipment for accident assessment and protection c against radioactive sodine were adequate. m e O]' Contention 11. This contention alleges various proolems in hard copy transmission of information. As the Applicants point out, while such ! q.y.. w'.. $< T Y (.9 M '.. hard copy messages "are useful for record keeping and are more con- . o ggy W ~,, ol venient than hand written notes for maintaining logs, they are not inte- <0.. uo
~~y..c. a..~~
..,,;, l . q.4; g%.y. gral to effective communication.,, Response at 11. The primary means A n, " b y;. j. c - of communication are by telephone and radio. Furthermore, such prob. S ' '.< ' tems are correctable. According to one county of0cial: c ...Q .;(' gg. ..s y ', ',3 ,l . [qf(*(. y..t.; g $. y; (T]he facsimile unit that we had was not nearly as efTective as we mould have hked o yl . N. '. ' it to have been. It worked great up untd Thursday rnorning, and 6t's working great t
~~h. s. <5,r!b I.',, '?,.~~
~~N today. 50. evidently,it,ust dedn't want to work for that drill. 4 . y3 y,m,1.,m%.t. FEM A Public Meeting, Tr. 86. s. w.. s ..s.. y~. 4 m'c + . n . m,. e e~~
~~v. o~~
~~q.4. g. 4.,~~
~~W 44.j...~~
~~' ' i b A Q7f n},'jer.*y%,?. m e' W~~
j *
~~f b 4~~
,,,...y ; s < 6 N. # o + ,,. h l*; " [ . + t,.,, ,,.os 6 y f 'e e . yease . ee ms.e =m.-e., e.-= 7 *;*f= **.=*g=* papa, eve.e.. _ g., e r.*-a. g..e ye..e*=e.y,==.* e-e,=g ge . (,.. f >e * '+c.O'n. 'y,=v.. y, e *,., ( 1.,...i ' < y ,, g.t,;. r a/
~~1. o,s.i,.~~
.y ..,,'4,.t .,d, fr / j V r. t,. ~ s .'n ,a ,.a 6, '/U f '/7.,,u. h;. ' '.'<.;rm', 7 *.
~~V, ; ',',i~~
.,.., '.,.a, ; b '.4, *, 's e < ., a v.,..',, .? ,, s, w.g % a <..-t- ,, [. /, .I. N 9' ?;,'. '..'i ('O a. w ~..+f . u.g. ;. n?.g'g.i. jf ' , 51 '.. n w *1' 1 ~. d M MfF f t Mv L'. v
c .c f> f. ,x w.n: ...,~a, ( I(.,j,.; 7.?, ~.e - m'(y,, ,m. '. ) m? 'i. N ,;c.... c
i,
~~ad ,.3- .i' , t. r f,; {f, / > - '. L~~
~~+..~~
~~17 W J.j. r/ a : ' s. ..:x w~.. - --.. -~~
. ~...

} ?~ [
..i Contentions Rejected on Other Grounds - 1, 3 and 12 Contention I alleges an " approximate 42 minutes delay" in plant au-thorities' notifying SERT of an uncontrolled release and a consequent lack of assurance of timely noti 0 cation of emergencies. The allegation is based on an erroneous statement of such a delay in the State Evaluation ,- [,,, ' ~ .J,. Report, at 7. The Applicants' analysis of contemporaneous messages QM i h '. ?M. ~ demonstrates that notification of the release was virtually immediate. In - g.Y y,.-A.rpe f y;;. n 6,M,.m..3.J.hR..,.A.l'.Mo.i3M. addition to their analysis we note that State EOC hiessage 207 states Y.M%"G .7 'p .fc',,,% T ' u.. s. 1 n that the county sirens sounded at 12:44, also demonstrating that notifica-tion must have been received prior to that time. Contention I thus mis-df, T s f a>.@, s,.6 g v, s y,g characterizes the very documents on which it rests; it must be rejected. hh hc , c. 7,h.. This contention lists a number of problems with the t 4 ',. g,. Contention 3. .j sirens. Installation of the sirens has not been completed and, as noted in 3 .,'1;.,..',~.,' . u.. s. +' - ~.',.. the FEht A Findings, at 8, "the official FEh!A testing of the alert and notification system has not yet been conducted." Accordingly, any con-tentions based on installed siren performance are premature. We note, however, that the problems cited in this contention, should they arise in further testing, appear to be straightforward and correctable. Contention 11. This contention is similar to Contention I in that it N .c c'a. misstates the record upon which it rests. It alleges a lengthy delay in dis- , ' d'. O 'M U/. #'( ' i{YT y., i. patching assistance to boaters on the Cape Fear River. State EOC ,...a.. a ? }g...j ). hiessage 151 shows that assistance was dispatched in less than I hour. f (,M'. 7:,4 3,Qp Q",Z As the Applicants point out, such a response is acceptable for reaching a- .ki remote areas of the EPZ. See NUREG-0654 at 316 "best effort ,c. - ^ Y N' basis" acceptable. In any event, isolated instances of delay in such cir- ~ cumstances are to be expected. 3. The lateness factors m + ,Mn ; "'gy..t. 7 .i t + W ,' c '.ri Applicants and the Staff argue at length that, for various reasons, all x.* gv ; of the exercise contentions should be rejected under the Catawba "five m,. factors" balancing test. Ilaving rejected ten of the twelve contentions on ~ other grounds, it is only necessary for us to apply that test to the two contentions we are admitting. For the reasons briefly summarized , ^ 1.,, below, they pass. im ?.M{0,y.WE
t
~~),; 7". '+ k y 'lsj h ;!*: k (a) Good cause. We accept hir. Eddleman's statement that he did~~
~~F,'~~
~~not actually receive the FEhtA Exercise Report and Findings %,l,. Q.~~
~~p.;i~~
- on which Contentions 2 (in part) and 8 were based - until df. j -fr yl[ Q'.h4 7. t 2: ..g s.sco,-3;.. b ~. ; 7 the end of August. .f,.. (b) Other incans and representation of interests by another party. The Staff acknowledges that these factors favor admission. s Staff Response at 9. Atr. Eddleman has been at odds with the 913 l, 8 C a'gg Qe 8 J O w ) .,i q -u h
~ %.i y.;+M. 6.:..,. w,rM &..# V 5. % W $r B? #,.4. 9. M.V W: H 1 -i . A
i
~~.y: e ~.. -~~
o.. w.,. w &., a. 4 :p. M n.n. W.. m;,,,a_..:s..w,. vn. :.,. :

a.i
~~.. c. s + p.Si gh.p,.1,..w qp~e,p?>,,. m.' " 3. Yy..c~~
v.
~~n.m ,n .. s.. u. s m:w. c.. n. a.~~
u..

e. p:; s.,..

(- w et y.(?w.h ';n. S S 1 m..a g;'
~~' ' J h- .f .e .G wM. 4- .: p. c, r m-o* il.l d ' y ; D,5 c0 C '.g; %.O sa .v . :..,, ': n..n, 2,.~~
u, ).. n.,.. r. v

..y.'..,c....
~~c ~ . n 7 *., 4, ' ' N t[,#.4*Q .*.q . y a. r,. ,r o t,. .~~~
~~f 4 g ((*1 ;e.,.~~
~~.l... ' s,t * 'i ',. .n. ; n, m, ,3- .,.. +~~
~~f *;~~
~~'Jj '.*1~~
~~r. U Staff and FEMA on virtually all emergency planning issues.~~
iQ y 4 ' ' The Applicants' suggestion that FEMA will represent Mr. i' i 3; Eddleman's interests (Applicants' Response at 36) is difficult i to take seriously. See Washington Public Power Suppiv System l:* (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB.747,18 NRC 1167, M J ;- 1#' 1175 (1983). a . C.., ' ' i ~.,- p- +1 .y,, (c) Contribution to the proceeding. This factor tilts against Mr. m Eddleman, but only slightly. lie has failed to provide summar. s m.1 '.S ' I c'.4 C les of the proposed testimony of witnesses, which the Appeal @Q {fZ. k[.'i 'v.';.'7.r %. )c,f #..) y Board has generally deemed a requirement. See WPPSS supra. MM! fS%;. -;.r,3 ;.,Q> JR OSh;.1%$, ,o 18 NRC at 1177. On the other hand, since Mr. Eddleman ex. wy s pects to call the exercise evaluators, the substance of their ex. c,;,,li b 2..;.r.y;eNSW.g; L pected testimony can be gleaned in part from the exercise s m, w.~.%.cp. ov .p. u w c3. 4 reports and underlying papers. 4.
~~t. 4,..~~
g MLJ:c,MMy.; e: The Applicants direct our attention to past Board criticisms n s.r ..p***f-t(h. L.C..',##/I'.%k/h of Mr. Eddleman's performance as bearing on his potential 4 .W '. E 4 contribution here. In that connection, the Board's most recent '4 t. a-a.,y. .. f W, l-l such assessment provides a more balanced perspective. At the ai./ ~ .,E,r;p$:w,%Ey:l,7't.r..f.d@,.c close of the hearing on the siren contention, we said:
~~i. b.['I:.j%e d~~
~~R. ,_f*#4* . A.4 c.r e..., -i~~
~~9. *! b ;yi g Q.*y q.n. 3. i *,~~
J.,d; r,,j f,' 1,! D ? '.'A;- V. 'ilt,m, ? l 4, The Board would just hke to add that we thought that Mr. Eddleman's T- ...o i e cross etamination was well prepared and professionaHy presented. We 7 :., M - Mf.},;ff * ' - %,7.u%gl,.0., m,f r7. b,..p;lw$. 'w*A t , -l. appreciate that.Thank you. v v. 4 m p3 . 3,w e v umr&w.w. %,p a;;A w,g.t.m ,v.y. g.- N gn..o p Tr.9955. 1 f 6 @ N !, N.; g @e,1.0.h f y,] / 4 (d) Delay. Admission of these contentions may delay conclusion % jn w D, p' N.9 .Nc, p. <.a of this proceeding but not, we expect, by very much. We have g.'M 'l4: .D$.'M established an accelerated discovery and summary disposition ' /. //.s,.: : motion schedule which concludes on February 13,1986. Tr. M'i 10,206. We expect to decide any summary disposition motions l s' u., .c by the end of February and we also expect to decide the siren 'q.5.r., m ,a A,.4. <c g u.. ;,,gp. w M.,;M.'s y .s .5 and drug issues by that time. Therefore, if summary disposition 4
~~j.. yD, is granted, there will be no resulting delay. Should hearings bc~~
.n.. X N M. J' necessary, hearings, Gndings and a Board decision could be ac. ,,'i Q me ceterated to completion in the Spring of 1986. Since these
~~v. ;>~~
y Issues would not affect fuel loading, they would not impact the l,/ *M. s.U.f..h; M 5 . & t Applicants' schedule for operations. .;.7.g 1'i 7 ' ' ', M% Ts.J W ' in light of the foregoing, the "Gve factors" balancing clearly favors ad. p y@.$.$.:.~cM'p*' q. 4N,,,c.FWJO d M mission of Eddleman Contentions EPX.2 and.8. y+ f ~. lypr.. &,, yq ,.,,.r .cv.f D e.h, 'b, 4y/.9 .g' f,
~~1 g&,A~~
., Ay'$NR y[*ll !,',t Q.g;.u-v s, b,L g? ;, .,d 8 +, =. i if ? s fb l;, v.e ' '
)..M

y A,q<;1,p,yj.6 g6,.
~~x:,. g s.g ; O w, t . nf. j,,,. p. . g,.3..., gm.m ip,..,? ,.,. -.e oc.,. 74~~
~~, ~~~
~~4 f'"**- s-Qlf ^ .-f= t ' . I ',.Q..'.* .c.'.. 2, i., <a 'J ' y t .;. _. e==== 9 ey -* a.- s v j. . *.. + -~~
-e.'--***
+ v** - = *
~~s I~~
~~8 ' 4 ].y .. s .k. -~n s e; fr. ; pf M'#! } Q 'f } !, 's ! i, ,w.; f, i. > ji~~
~~.O a~~
~~. "I s %* 4.'e inl7=.s,. ., 3 ..,' a 1 i.. 8' t s (',,,* J4 = , l, ',l + ' I ' ., ( ' 6 .,.j. s M". g,~~
~~i.'s' *. 8 '+ ' " ' u r~~
~~! 6 ..p a ,j.d. 4' ~, r./.E,*i, t.',. ' i e v- ~.~~
~~3. o s~~
~~-o kq4. '. h,I.. a." ( e .( ' I, Ie,b. (, .g l t".*);.* '.I g/ ~ 5 f Us% . I' y' g e g,q y;.h, n.mp' y's ' t + <.* ". ; w y *u ,p' a e~~
~~7....~~
~~l' ' ' ' Q,, JJ~~
~~e~ 4 '~~
%l3-- > .g f ' ' e
'(.* ,:J1 e., ,i ..u . s n -- a.%.+:.,; a.-m,+ ..e .m. ,, v.O - m.m 3 xg 9f.s. y' u. f C u a.m v a .c r: .mv e ,'9,- ..N . s 9. : s. + .s. 9., >. .....,s y t, .2 q[c y;;u.N g.,3;m1<c.;r n)%. w r
~~.. w..,~~
~~^ ' -eynL%3 ?*r s J,~~
~~C t.s~~
~~. ~ < .1~~
r,
~~' W ::@ W.ipFrW,~ Jf ,. yV 4. y. W.'o i,~~
~~s. :.Q:@;.C - l@~~
~~1,. : ?- - a y vw . e.n.y y. w.y -. '.{.% e~~
~~s :1 <~~
4 C. Other Emergency Planning Contentions I. " Role Strain"in Adult School Bus Drivers The Joint Intervenors sponsored a contention (denominated w.s EPJ 4(b)), subsequently narrowed by the Board, that focused on wheth-f.S 9 . 'en. , W b_. :. ' % p :V.e.%.< q q/ u. Rmghgfs M : W.a. Q. , s,jd.py%,.r:jMA gations. This contention was litigated in an evidentiary hearing, with the a,u. er adult school bus drivers in a " role strain" situation occasioned by a a. on e' A,w v, J nuclear emergency would subordinate their driving duties to family obli-y;
~~h..WyrW W : g.C. ;wrMW' ff Applicants and FEMA presenting direct cases and Mr. Eddleman con-7 e < 7 l;, !';.G. 3,3 ?~~
ducting cross examination for the Joint Intervenors. The Board directed ip41M,'s%:cy.@fdglj,b all parties to file proposed Gndings of fact (Tr. 8159 60) and the Appli- .c&.m+.. i ',, ;, s e, .. ~ T;'.? cants and FEMA did so. The Joint Intervenors, while filing proposed "T c '.;. ..y Gndings on the protection factor contention heard at the same time, i 3,f ^,- T te., -, mn
~~a...;,.,..A elected not to Gle Gndings on the " role strain" contention. As a result.~~
this contention is no longer contested. Since this Board's decisional au-thority is limited to contested issues,8 the EPJ 4(b) " role strain" conten-tion must be dismissed. ' "/L, 4 4. 2. Contentions Resolved by Summary Disposition or Withdenwn 2 .; q.w Wi$. 3?.%.. ; h.,. ~.,. - Apart from the exercise contentions, the Board admitted twenty-eight J,md. e'.> e .m...L.,..,..... emergency planning contentions. Of these, three were later withdrawn, a.g ..,4 one was settled, three were heard on the merits, and the remaining p;yt. Mig. ;. d,g ~ 7 . 9'U {w.T twenty one were resolved in the Applicants' favor by summary disposi- ~.<a, tion. See Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact 3 5 for a detailed de-z,l.6 mr scription of these rulings. In the case of contested summary disposition motions, we issued a statement of " Reasons Supporting Summary Dis-position of Emergency Planning Contentions" dated August 14, 1985. . Y. n...yfj Q ;, c.~., Many of the Applicants' summary disposition motions were uncontested. /F ^9 ,y% in those cases, we could have simply dismissed the contentions.8 We , j @N.;. " M, nevertheless satisGed ourselves that the Applicants, supported by the ' f*" T Staff, had met their burden of proof and that the contentions did not L raise a " serious safety matter" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. l 2.760a.* Ilowever, we see no need to provide in addition detailed state- . : W, )i..,g;a.4q .. sy .;q,e,,j,..,9." '?*, imA 3 DJV & rlf'e0-)*Y... 9 '.. .'y,.ity
W[
210 C F R. ( 2.760s. The Board may put an issue tn controversy on its own motion only upon a determs. M /'YM J /,' 4 : h"4 , E s J %.3 ' ! ((g-- ? ;,- netson that a " serious sarely.. matter esists." There is no bees for such a determinsuon with respect "' 5 .*~3 to EPJ.4(10. On the contrary, we round the direct cases or the Apphcants and FEM A persuamve. f.'J g.f s., t ',^/., . > y,,,;'g% c 3 See note 2 above. and accompanying test. "y
~~one or Mr Eddleman's contennons on which summary disposinon was granted. $7.C.f. concerned ar-~~
'.*- lr t.. < ' '7s d, rangements ror medwal ireatment. Fonowing the Board's summary dispomuon rukes. the U s Court or - il$, Appeals ror the District or Columbia Circuit reversed a Commission ruhng on which an earher Board f+';' i" ruhns narrowing Mr. Eddleman's original contenison had been based in port. GU4 AD e NAC. 751 F.2d rConronued)
~~1. "~~
915 ../,' g dE'**NN6 'we.h _g g,. 9 gg g m,opg 9 ',' ] .,L. H 'T y. er' 't ' h; ' '?, .'f? )., 't a [,~. ) IU.* l'-} 'l' l .8... u
ru ;p,. %.c -Q..W~. n.,$. q, w,@..,, Q.o&e..e.n.,4.w _ y.. w- , yuh. %h ...V.. 9. 3 sG Q M,": &.' y.. s.4 -X.- ,a> s s ym.&.p..w . g,..., a; m.wp y 4 t.v.. o,. . e; ?. w.p p,y *,m.m..n <. . w y. n..gdi,p. yaw.a. u f... th.- .P <, e ' .r.:. .p.y.j w.. ,.. n g. @f pi-f.w;.e,;f m ,WtQ,'Y.M,W. +.,K. *W.5:: '.,%_,,. h.. %..m.m':.S;g W. @,'.U c"/. W%. 3,QA m,s..,i. %q g wi m.Ar U. _.o'." Q: 3, m*M.e.].m a.' m .,.~Z.c: s . > > '. ',J4.Q,. 'k'.M. f, ',a,- n.4... W, m. n ;, v ssQ.1s @..M...,Q Q6%d... k.:..x t .,g
~~11' e~~
~~2 J* p. vy ... w e.7 /; ',,p). -.~~
~~~"" i~~
~~~ .ea. m. 4 y :w$~p...iN.N.,. M..$ @ ll. >h..[ ~ .u c.- 7.,.,~~
~~-~r~~
.w ( ~# ~"* ~ ~ - ~ ~ .n . ::.y. '; y r%.:3.,.?,o;,:n:n .g-G y,4.,. ..,o.9 ments of our reasoning in dismissing contentions which had been aban. ~ doned by their sponsors. 'y',% f.A_M M Db III. SAFETY CONTENTIONS
~~p. ~.~~
~~.e % VM 2= $3,_ p: a.%.,% -,.i,i .<.e, o ;e %..,' nk w:.w. M. . Q A f G 1 E,a.Y w,.n n,>M.!:~~
~~g 6~~
~~A. Fire Protection ksf.w,s*p,n.9.h y m m-hs~y k ut:ko, ~sy 1. Introkefien + n.%:. -. W *s G yn w w.- -W bkJ J yt.. M~~
~~3 M M t @j tr;dyg.~~
1. Eddleman Contention 116 states: d-fl.%Wsj&&,Q~,f.M' ' Q.g,;-lG.SSo pg The fire hazard analysis of section 9.5A (Appendia) in the FSAR does not address Ufpp$yd (/.n...$.,II.k,#2d h.h. ,d i.hh the availabihty of control and power to the safety equipment. In establishing fire f ys' id;?.",'g., resistance ratings of fire barriers with respect to fire in cable trays. Apphcants have ,, Tj,7fsp.Qf.;i~ /'.,,*)T' ldaicQ f.4 w.M$j.bzN.Q.M e ',. not estabhshed that quahtication tests represent actual plant conditions or compare. 4 ble conditions. Another vague statement is that fire barriers are used "where practi. i .,e 'i cal" without defining practical or stating the criteria to decide where a fire barrier is d 3 ..Y . t.h.sl-R.' i.g or is not practical fand what type of fire barrier should be used). Fs AR 9.5.1.1.1.
~~Q' <,,,, p.,,~~
~~The " Analysis" of Appendia 9.$A does not demonstrate as 9.5.l.l.1 claims it will.~~
v
~~+ + the adequacy of other fire protection measures in all cases. Rather, it estimates the t' ' i l BTU of combustible material, smoke generation and removal rate from the area.~~
~~4. f. "~~
gives usually a quahtative description of some measures to mitigate or reduce the /g 2 n u ' k9 e i-fire effects, and assumes that the fire will be promptly detected fusually no analysis ] Q p,N %,p,?, N.%s.3 u...- . ~. t yv .rdD*M- $p,j[*A'71![qk of location of detection Instruments etc.) and the fire brigade will respond rapidly d,$'M.g u.....,'g3 4 g%% j p \\; 1!N.,s/N@w M,.Z b,,M(*{Yl M .a G and put out the fire, or the automatic equipment will work. These assertions are C R %. C# made despite the time it takes to get people into the containment and to the fire / p. M N c M.; p. W.y I (not well analyred). Further. the " analysis" of what happens if the fire spreads is M. '~E b<l.C d y, 4,q.ds p.r.a a, c m Hm '7 arz w. 7, g. generally a rationalitation that it can't spread much, not an analysis. Ser e.g. "Analy. , ns,, s 7 ec m q.A sis of effects of postulated fires.,, The effect of a fire in a fire area or a fire tone with m. .g; /.,., a combustible loading greater than 240.000 BTU /sq. ft. doesn't set dealt with in V' reahstic terms. The plant fire fighting capabihty of simultaneous fire is inadequate, a:p;&S.A.4r y-or at least unanalyzed.
~~s. g ;fl.lyg W;r,N.<.. p"/N h,.4 Q a~~
%q h .W $ This contention was admitted by the Board in its Memorandum and w' gA@r2,y'..WWp,<4. A w.. us ,.. e, '.,..a f'" M Order dated July 27,1984 (unpublished). During the evidentiary hearing ..,G/. f f., ';jg,S,iW, on this issue the Board dismissed the issue of simultaneous nres. See .,'2 Tr. 4370,4831 32. 6,. . A. a. 2. Applicants presented the testimony of Margareta A. Serbanescu ,,t @y c. . c f t./.,.,. c,.p.. C... ' s,.. ; /..' p and David B. Waters. " Applicants' Testimony of Margareta A. Serba. ,. ~.. M *, N. O;,.j h 'h h, M M7.rl $*..IM.E@M .);. nescu in Response to Eddleman Contention 116 (Fire Protection) " fr. Tr. 4256 (hereinafter Serbanescu); " Applicants' Supplemental Testimo. 2.@i8NM'a'.[}$M6hs%13,) gi ny of Margareta A. Serbanescu in Response to Eddleman Contention -.d% y4.f.b'Q&.m,': N'yw y&*W,%*; nlpt.tY:; nt .p n ( a 3,:s ... ". 3 - e:s y, 4;7 j y.g g..- u.A.j 'i.J>s;;3., g, g
~~w ;* -~~
f ;,.. i g. z.4- . - M drafted 6s pending before the Board. We have inued an order establishing a pleading schedule on Mr \\ 1844 iD C. Cir.1985L A monon from Mr. Eddleman to reconsider has Contennon $7.C.7 as originally 6 P--N-1 l, e a-l'ddieman's motion. We espect to aJdress and rewive this matter enpeditiously, ,e { ... %,g ,,s. r
~~x..~~
~~916 r l~~
A.
~~y s..i { ~ >.~~
~~. ).,~~
~~.l % ' d. , #, e # [, m _ ~e.,.y.- g - e - em ~-..~. -. ~. -.y mm.~~
/
~~I. "'t. C 4 ~.~~
*i
~~'f e h* ,.. V l * %~~
~~'. *,Sf'~~
~~"'s l .,i t .((s ,I,. k(, \\...~~
I.
~~I.,Q l.~~
ly *
g 6,.'gq

wg,y,i,, w n,,". :.:,
~~,,7~~
;

:: y :: v.,.,,. @1
~~-...,9 o 9. g wp........ J w..;,:m..m. ~.~~
~~j..~~
~~v- ,1 a .y,, .ds ' s.f. e ;, r.,*, g yd.,~~
gQL.v

s. ;.,
-e e
MV h; -. .T n. x, L, ... V, 1.,;c,,.,,,. n.. a. m '. ~ u .%., %._.ffQVid,i',,. y' 8., '. b' w '. N, , ] qM." gW ' f. 4 ;,.,' U 6 s n,. + } yQ U. ' '. [ : ~ ,i, ~ _. _
.p.. %. '

s
[ 116 (Fire Protection)," IT. Tr. 4256 (hereinafter Serbanescu 11); "Appli-cants' Testimony of David B. Waters in Response to Eddleman Conten-tion i16 (Fire Protection)," ff. Tr. 4250 (hcreinafter Waters). 3. his. Serbanescu is a Principal hicchanical Engineer with Ebasco Services, Inc., and is the supervisor of the Ebasco Fire Protection Engi- .. lg;.q.,;; g.L: .ge. 4 ti. e.L.-. '.m neering Group. She was assigned as the Fire Protection Engineer for i h. /. q ; N b b M O,'. h @. ij liarris in 1978, and is now in charge of the Fire Protection Group which Nf N f Q2 is responsible for the liarris Fire Protection Program. Serbanescu, IT. Tr. ~ M$ggp j-yj[y@g ;. p , lQy 4256, at 13. Mr. Waters is employed by CP&L as the Principal Engmeer-Operations, and is responsible for the admmistration of the o 7. g.. Q 3 D IA W. W 9 "A / N.P.% Fire Protection Program at liarris. Waters, ff. Tr. 4450, at 2 3. M It[;1? NU.'.,k # ' - Z. '. 4. The Staff witnesses were Randall Eberly and Robert L. Ferguson. ? /. c n ,y !., "NRC Staff Testimony of Randall Eberly and Robert Ferguson Concern-g g,.,, e -, 4 .,.m 9, 9. ng Eddleman Contention 116," fr. Tr. 4626 (hereinafter Eberly/Fergu-son). The Staff also presented the testimony of Dennis J. Kubicki in the form of a Joint Amdavit with Mr. Eberly. " Joint Af0 davit of Randall Eberly and Dennis J. Kubicki Concerning SER Open item 8 (Accept-s ability of Fire Doors)." Mr. Kubicki was cross examined on the contents of this Amdavit on December 17,1984. Tr. 7415 31. . jp g N 5. Mr. Eberly was employed as a Fire Protection Engineer in the g,15@',C/"J.W..., id f., Chemical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Omce of Nucle-dM.hi[.S d ',/ '
~~ar Reactor Regulation. lie was directly responsible for the review of the~~
.4.{.u 'g:%$ Gyg kr/ V.'yb ff. Tr. 4626, at 6. Mr. Ferguson is a Section Leader of the Fire Protection Dre protection programs at the Shearon liarris facility. Eberly/Ferguson, fp. Q... /,s Section, Chemical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. lie is responsible for supervising the +
~~Staff's review of the Are protection programs at nuclear power generating stations. Id. at 3. Mr. Kubicki is a Fire Protection Engineer in the~~
,T[ W. [, l' ' Chemical Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering, Of0cc of ~ g, A,\\;.: - M. g u '. W. M. f. 4, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and is responsible for performing safety . g,4 y.. ,.5 rev ews and evaluations of the Ore protection programs of nuclear power ? I plants. Staff Exh. 8 Attach. I. r 6. Intervenor Eddleman presented no testimony on this contention. s 6.g[.j : %f.O.'K, s 7. The basic purpose of a fire protection program in a nuc!cer
~~n, J..~~
power facility is that, in the event of a Gre, the capability of shutting upt$[,j,h?[rjj.Mh,Q% M;j @,f down the reactor in a safe manner, maintaining it in a safe shutdown C iy. $$c. d condition and limiting any release of radioactive material to the environ-MAL N j'p$$ Y 'n M P f ggy. Hf?. ment is assured. Eberly/Ferguson, fr. Tr. 4626, at 6 7. @dhs A 8. The NRC regulations and regulatory guidance for nuclear plant %.L Qp.F' /-. G. 3 _ fire protection programs are set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, d. General Design Criterion 3; 10 C.F.R. 6 $0.48; Regulatory Guide 1.70, -(,.. + V nh '. } 917 i 4, ,f ~ ,e -. _.- n., i "t .**s', t_.- _.g' x. i, ,7
T:qnA g.:@;.QQjy '
~~b. gf ' '~~
~~,s : ; ' y.q.R. ;.;%;;. ,$., @w.y., K,w..Q. M. x.w.w% t m?.7..jM.., 9.y,. f. p e: m. m.. ~ w.f3.,r,% j d.:s,,o y ,n ...3 s a m,., - .2L t.rys ~ 7 r n' .u s s " :%~~
~~M.? '-W.~~
~~us. -- ht3!' * *;~~
~~' ' H %' '~~
~~II., q - L~~
4e.@~ t. d* M.. '

W
-?J ~.!A .nh> ':. r & M,.2,.p%' K.FA, s;; y&M: ';hj4:f &.m. g[ d..J.q M ' ". ~, ~ * ' %e . c , P.M.7 m,:.~W W m.,C, w,. k ;gr 9 : ~^:;.. , o v s 'l n. ' e, h ( ;pl+ - ^ ,,.~., . k ,e + a ,'...L. '/ 4 i y' ,d i d 1, j* 1 ~c:M. p 9..g 2 .s, - " ~ ~ '^ ^ ~ " ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' .[).y.u ;, ;. - g.v x,e. % w , 9.:... o : q:. agg - " n a
~~p...'.'c ~. -.L,y%.7,-~~
f .w n. l Rev. 3; NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," July 1981 (SRP), { 9.51.5 l 9. Implementation of the NRC rules is carried out by using a t' 1, defense in-depth philosophy. In the case ofliarris, the plan encompasses ',a S g c. i;a. C. g, e : plant system and facility design, fire prevention, Gre detection, annunci-m f.:: e.. : <.wt..m73. ation, confinement, Ore suppression, administrative controls, Dre bri-c E g li m i; 7,T. W / g i*/ y..., gade organization, inspection and maintenance, training, quality control n e,y .,v n p g,;. 4 $G's.09.u e.gs; w w,A..M..'f.w['Wfygp.@ 3 and testing. Applicants' Exh. 6 at 9.5.1 1. l W$rN..%, ','v&'5ih..p&m..,, 4.W .M.4NW/ T. 5 N.fi@y M. 2. Control and Power hellability to Sdery Equipment ',Q;",,'5, q-f,Q+ l.Q
~~10. The Orst subpart of Contention 116 alleges that the availability of~~
[. M'.t,.o;;p..m !*NW.MT-control and power to safety equipment is not addressed in the Fire ?s . y.l. % g Ay Hazards Analysis (FSAR Appendix 9.5A). Both Applicants and Staff testified that it is true that this is not addressed in Appendix 9.5A; c.,- rather, it is discussed in detail in FS AR ll 9.5.1.2.1 and 8.3, and in the .,,.si ';[ '. Applicants' Safe Shutdown Analysis. As the Staff indicated, the entire ^ '^'l N t. fire hazards analysis for Harris is made up of the FSAR, Appendix 9.5A and the Safe Shutdown Analysis. The availability of power and control M;;'.g.f M.r W,y @p,d;.,y g.g +.4JE9Fwf;nt., tection program. Serbanescu, fr. Tr. 4256, at 6; Eberly, Tr. 4653 54. In-cables to safety equipment is therefore addressed in Applicants' Gre pro-h d INf.$h.jp;: tervenor did not identify any specific deficiencies in the FSAR and SSA t.f p %c N.M K @ "M b V.re analyses. Wm,m.4.w g.* M..,< g v%.. ..-,m ?. 4";j *.:g**- N [ . e-.mL,@e en.. j.. ; K4 , n g 3. Qualification of Cable Trey fire Barriers
~~11. The second subsection of Contention 116 expresses concern that qualification of cable tray fire barriers does not correspond to actual con.~~
/ 6.h 4 $,Q Q 4 6 ditions which might be encountered during a fire at the plant. Fire bar-m ]M,,h7dhh_%'y;ad."W% wb. riers are an integral part of the fire protection program. The plant is M QQ.M.. Q &;p.' divided into a number of fire areas, each of which is enclosed by a . ;,, 7 m v 3 hour fire resistant enclosure or its equivalent. Additionally, as set .e forth in the SSA at Table 9.5B 3, certain cable trays within a fire area are ..?;:. y e, ' f. '.. ",~ protected with 3 hour or 1 hour rated enclosures. Where a cable tray h.@83M l/Dl4 i.lil S, W penetrates a fire area barrier, penetration fire stop seals are used. These MiQ'dh!.TpE.M. have a minimum fire resistance rating equal to that of the Ore area bar. / h ik ; M @Y.r.d..~.4,M.d7r:g.7M'E'.h.d rier. Serbanescu, fT. Tr. 4256, at 8. r. w <.,.p ..c..e.,
~~12. There are a number of standard testing procedures which have a~~
~~. m r, y, W Y, p. ;; g. y. @.. yf,M.Q been developed. App!! cants' witnesses testified that the ratings of their~~
~~, '>.Q, y g y;'~~
.t *( /.,,* *..Y Q n. f: ^..y,. (., o y. p r p y. 3..,.. J, $The If arris plant es not required to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part $0. Appendia R. as the plant was not ,a..., , ' q,y,, operating pnor to knuary 1.1979. llowever. Applicants' have committed to meet the resquirements therein oWeill. Tr. 4598 99
1
~~,.F t p 918 4 '/ ,,c.. e ~. e, }g. )[o : _w .. ~ .~o n. ...s. e .,c c s e : u n g" o m~~
)
~~v' sf ./ '. '.'.'_,,,~',f f. y. f{A*c 5 s. = s. e % V ',\\*.,*L p.p~ l.' % ;'. .. 1 2 :,.. ' ':&..h.)g.: y.1.'q'.Qf}L;:.,,.G~,[.'m.. ..'a y..,~~
~~m..~~
~~v,-se .+ 6 ..s s., + ,w [ 0' n. l;.3 ,.i r '. is. . -. d., .n.,~~
~~s C t *., G r* 1J.;.v 5~~
~~' g.I ..p.~~
~~t..,, - ' g u.,,,,y 4~~
a e s .s
^ ..a, s.. s ~. m B.,. s s. . :,L..
~~f M, j &', r.~~
.w w. . cg.?. c g c ' g'.;S. ' I;' *, .,k ai n -.w s,, .{~ i '7, Gre barriers are based on standard fire tests performed in accordance with the following: ASThi E Il9; NFPA 251; Nuclear hlaterial Limit-ed, " Property Loss Prevention Standards for Nuclear Generating Sta-tions," Appendix A-14; Underwriters Laboratories 263, " Fire Tests of Building Construction and hf aterials"; and American Nuclear Insurers f., .g Bulletin No. 5, " Standard Fire Endurance Test hiethod to Qualify a Pro-I.,e ' 2,'.11./% tective Envelope for Class IE Electrical Circuits." Serbanescu, IT. Tr. .s. l' ,. T.E .. s y,.' Q :c,, l
~~iri,,4,.u +.:t:.,... ) ;~~
~~4256, at 7 8. ,y~~
~~13. In determining the qualification conditions for Arc barriers, an~~
[,g7,w'@ v., exposure Orc is used which is based on a standard, empirically derived . -l y .u-p* wy'];.,.'r y v.g -v;n 4*f.9y.4 ' time temperature curve. This time temperature curve represents a 3l 1 ~. 4 at m.,,. A,p,, worst case exposure Dre, not an average. /d. at 10,11; Serbanescu, Tr. 0: 4526; Ferguson, Tr. 4656 58, 4666-68. Therefore a fire barrier tested p., under the standard time temperature conditions will resist a fire from . ~. n '.. .. e. 3 0 the maximum calculated combustible loading in any Orc area in the SilNPP power block. Serbanescu, ff. Tr. 4256, at 11.
14. For each barrier, tests will be performed by an independent laboratory on a " generic" assembly of that fire barrier, and installation of that barrier will be done in accordance with the recommendations of
~~+ the testing labo; story to ensure that the actual barrier has the same con-g: - Y;: o e &-h.. a figuration as the test assembly. Id. at 12. . '. ; r..,; i :. ; ' y~~
~~15. The Board Onds that the qualification methods to be used by the~~
,*7 4 ,,r s.. f.;'..s:c n sin. Applicants represent equivalent or more rigorous tests of cable tray Orc QN '..%./e Q.fi. / g g. l'.- barriers than would be experienced under actual plant conditions. y.';.(.~ u B.1.b .): : e. a 4. Location ofFire Barriers
~~16. In the third subpart of Eddleman 116 the complaint is made that~~
~~, '.,.U.'3 J.l.i.,. ' O.' FS AR l 9.5.1.1.1 is vague in that the term "where practical" is used in~~
~~.ti b.x,. q lce ' .~~
., g'/, : describing barrier placement but is not denned, neither are the criteria jrf dff.'q. - '~ ' used to decide whether the location or type of barrier is or is not practi- , l. ; t. Q */ cat. A detailed description of the use of Gre barriers is not contained in 9.5.1.1.l; a detailed treatment is presented in 9.5.1.2.2 and in Appendix }l,',, c 9.5A ( Applicants' Exh. 6). Specine barrier locations and quah0 cations i if.o' L,, are contained in FSAR Appendix 9.5 A and Applicants' SSA. Serbanescu, y.M.i+%..f[.[. [s4 A.I '. M Vc II. Tr. 4256, at 13; Eberly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at i1. ~ ' H q,[.6.~a.y '.n@.2;r,p u.. hl,.y,. e.,. r )... c, \\ m p-, a..,'
~~17. Applicants used the guidance of the Standard Review Plan, i~~
s. , ni,3 Ay, ':,~E (( C.5 and C.7, to determine the location of the liarris Dre barriers. 'fliNEj'$h' D., 1.C Under these guidelines, if it is not feasible to locate a fire barrier in le compliance with SRP l 9.5.1, an applicant may use an approved alterna-f, n q, '..>#.:".l/.9 p t, j O. tive. The Stalicited as an example that if it is not feasible to erect a bar-e rier between redundant safe shutdown components in the control room, si 919 l. a
.. _-Q_',, T.~ Q c.
~~. r.:;6 ; ? -~~
~~, }" .c ~;; x y;..;-L.s c..n-y ).. .h.w c ' + -., y. s., ; +3 g. <?, ' u.a +w ; s. , s '. A m. g..,.,i,. .g,. a .a ,h'[ $,.N, '? [ [ r [ k, e V* 1% Hy 'M $,*C U b j', f ~ ', ". A,, [i J,yj' 7~~
~~j (((~~
~~.g y Qs.Mb~M.', '. &,~~
~~'.:' :) 2. ~ ~..a w~~
a
~ 2,ff (;,'$;y ~~ - um... :n f ~ an alternative safe shutdown capability would be provided in another area. Deviations can also be requested for other features such as a com-bination of partial walls and automatic suppression systems. Eberly/ I. ' f Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at 12.
~~18. Where the Staffs guidelines recommend a barrier, Applicants x'.; a. ;~~
~~have attempted to install one. Where construction or equipment prob-~~
~~w..j,c vy, m 'tf... w.s;~~
...g. f.u. s.; .s. i lems have rendered the placing of a barrier impossible, the Applicants p '6 M;$){l-l p$lWEV@,...o ;' 'e erre -w.a.g-J"$. have found an acceptable alternative. The Staff witness considers this k. n s,:.f h p g.c,yo.N.*. m...r statement to be, indirectly, its definition of "where practical." Eberly,
~~-y.~~
~~Tr.4670. N vif D.jrs'id*MR$ @,1$W.~~
~~19. In view of the preceding discussion, the Board finds no merit in~~
~~.$,$6[;kTEh's$$[l[' ci0cally fire tested. These are special purpose doors, bullet resistant this part of Eddleman 116.~~
~~l '.' _.1>,~~
~~.L. e o~~
~~20. A number of doors used in the liarris facility have not been spe-~~
~~., n., >.at, ; r :, t., <* 6.. doors, and air and watertight doors. Serbanescu li, fr. Tr. 4256, answer~~
~~7. A great deal of cross examination was conducted on these doors which was objected to by both Applicants and Staff as being beyond the i','~~
scope of the contention. The Board allowed the cross examination to continue, and now feels that the Are resistance of these doors, while not d.QA t specifically called out in the contention, has at least a peripheral bearing
~~0. '; !.'.lf[Ut J.:n.:.c!', c on the contention insofar as they are part of the barrier system.~~
~~,;.e u ? .U h~~
~~21. Applicants' witness testified that the doors, while not undergoing~~
~,,N,Ti 7,$p9 f :. standard fire resistance testing, were so constructed that they otherwise J'gy'y'. 9p.y g,. ) :., met the requirements for a standard 3 hour, A label-type fire door, and e,", y@%f - the vendors were requested to provide the appropriate certincation. The N witness further stated that many of these doors are located toward the outside of the building, and thus even if they failed,it would not contrib-ute to the fire spreading. Serbanescu, Tr. 441718,4440-41. ?, y.s.;hlW :' Y Q,,., L,. f.%.' C ' e
~~22. Staff witness testined that Applicants had taken a common ap-~~
~~$,'%g L.~~
~~4..(~~
proach when using specialty doors. These special purpose doors are nor-3 4 g ,,l'<Q Ws? N mally very heavy, bullet resistant and missile proof, and therefore ? o* would have a degree of built in fire protection. Eberly, Tr. 4804 05.
~~23. StalTs witness further testined that the special purpose doors are too large to At into a standard test furnace, and too heavy for the furnace q,~~
. A supports to bear. In the Staffs opinion, even if a special furnace were to ' M, c"X. t <Mly,j.pD.'. ~N'.. e.'/ t. ~,i~ -,.cs, AM be built for testing purposes the results would not be standard and there f$'y%MD.h@.h' [1.l T. 'M c would be nothing to compare them with. Eberly, Tr. 4811 12. 2 '7'
~~24. The Staff has completed its review of the adequacy of the liarris f.. g.t x,~~
~~i.i fire doors. Stafi Exh. 8. Except for the specialty doors Appheants have d, [." % 1','J.K ' ~ committed to provide tested Ore doors. The special purpose doors were 2 '~~
~~jf G'f, *. '~~
7:N'**' found to be constructed of steel plates many times thicker than those used in approved fire doors, and to have multiple point steel locking 920 4 e. .,#-)?* ' f. s. 5 e' t l , i. 'V... ,ix .o. i.4 '.,y, ('.,- ,.q, p.4,
~~n '. ;~~
,,., ; ~.'.(,s..., + y: (, -.a ;s y l.- 's - s,. .a. .r,. .. } ' i ' b,,' ' e,"S ) Q,
d( ,1 - m- ..t, 3.- o I.. ? f $ M l E l i [ T [ IJ N;, U C 'y y *. g: y y e..,; s '. .?. "..( 3.,,,.., c..,.. p; u. t n pins which should prevent uneven expansion of the door and its frame, and thus prevent warping of the door in the event of a fire. Additionally, the combustible loadings on either side of the specialty doors are insuffi. mi,' <. 3 c. cient to create a Grc which would endanger the strength of the doors. The Staff therefore found that there was sufficient reason to justify a de-a 1,. H. '. X. viation from fire protection guidelines. Staff Exh. 8. . ( A,.
~~q... s.., o..~~
~~1 .a p .n- . m .H;ns g p ' y y.U O W. y~~
~~25. In view of the uncontroverted facts presented, supra, the Board~~
..; N 3 d - O M N, W 6 @ %@ ;!. finds that Applicants have adequately defined the location of the fire bar- 'W:.?*J.C. n...l1lJ-g riers at the liarris plant and, further, that there is reasonable assurance y 7.y . j gg-that the untested special purpose doors in the plant will be adequate to y g v-y,g y w 4's.S gk.y. m, 7 p-prevent the spreading of a fire. U. w v..,... ; 1 A, ,. w a. .f .o j, W,,,,l :. n g. u',i ' *'. e ; 5. Fire Protection Analysis
26. The fourth allegation in Eddleman Contention 116 takes issue with the analyses of the fire protection system in Appendix 9.5A of the Applicants' FSAR in certain specific aspects. We consider these aspects, namely the BTU content of combustible material, smoke generation and removal rate, measures to mitigate fire elTects, fire detection capability, i, fgl.,"t m.c -[@y,N n.
~~fire brigade effectiveness, and fire spreading, sertatim. ~ J. $ ;'. 4 m ' // 'J L~~
~~27. The flarris plant is divided into a number of fire areas which are q~~
.,$ 3 [, established through consideration of a number of factors. One of these /. y.:i. 4 "m factors is the possible combustible loading, which is determined by the 3 'O.;:, l' W U fff 4?.Jf.gJi amount and BTU content of the materials within the area. Serbanescu, N , p ;... l. j,...l. ff. Tr. 4256, at 16. Both normal and transient combustible materials are r,,1,.. m. included, the transient materials being controlled administratively through written procedures. IIcat values, or BTU contents, have been determined by use of those contained in the fire Protection Handbook , ! [ ;. / ;... ~~1 (14th Ed.1976) prepared by the National Fire Protection Association 4 O < ? t.4.. A. (NFPA). The analysis itself is conservative, as it assumes complete com-2'%'rt,.p$:Q, Sl,;. A W bustion of all combustible materials in the area, takcs no credit for lack ..gl G7> of continuity of combustibles and does not assume that any automatic or manual suppression systems will limit combustion. Serbanescu, II. Tr. '.p ', A : :, ' - n 4256, at 17 20. The Board finds that the heat values, or BTU contents, . 7 c y, 'i k, " ' j. ..,f3 used by the Applicants are acceptable and that the heat loadings which it'fhy$.. l.MOh,M.Q p'. / result from the analysis are reasonable and adequate. 4 b..
~~28. The Standard Review Plan lays down no criteria for treatment of~~
, D E.. $ y,r. $ S J 1:V..'M".G. C '[ ' smoke generation and ejection. The Staff review relies on industry stand-n u .y . s (>,yl M@m.... 3 ' q%. y.. ards. The llarris philosophy follows a containment plan wherein the area t. Jt is more or less scaled olT to remove a continuing source of available p % @. d ;' - j f ' U :[ ( oxygen. Eberly, Tr. 4677 83. To implement this plan the ventilation 6, r.'p. [ . '+.;, ,. d d 'o 921 P, '
~~.ni~~
~~.s. 1, -- ~.~ - ~., s g 'eq, g -a wv.< a s~~
~~.,, /. c.~~
~~f W,~~
s \\,
3,. g, s,7 . n... @y@g.%, a G mg;g T ;O P 4 4l.;, y.gggp@
~~i..,..~~
~~p %. 9,2.a uh,., ~~~
~~b. ' '~~
~~GG >y r 3.;, : - 4~~
~~e. < x..'>.,,,,#,,.y m. j m~~
-n :.. y .y W.. v -, {g; n..,v.; ,,,, o... pp:4,pn,.eg ,$, q.- 1,g,g g g,, q,., y;g j.g e m, gg.: a gg yg ,C,3. ,, N. o, y. pj;;clg&,: gg q 2 ,. r.. '. 7-y .q n .w m.,,,, g m .. y: 3 - p. .y, q,. ~ Q. s %..' 2. >~. n a; K.w .,y,q u.,.
/
. ?,, - { ' '~ ~ ducts are equipped with dampers which close automatically when a fusi-l ble link is melted, and ventilation fans leading to that area are automatic. ally stopped. Serbanescu II, fr. Tr. 4256, at 5 6. There is then a greatly lessened smoke removal capability. Ilowever, if it is determined that the fire must be fought manually, the ventilation system can be put back in Y fad, ' y, hf ~ *' f.M@..7.'.*/; ; ' f. 'q$,[f ','; operation from the control room or by the plant operator. Additionally, the fire brigade has smoke ejector equipment and self contained breath- .s .) U;.y 7,s <
~~sag ing units which will allow them to manually Oght the fire. /d. at 6. The G'M~~
~~'w%@@N$2DM'.'Jiy~~
~~Board finds that Applicants' approach to this problem in fire fighting is~~
~~,p.g.p,.sf,,4 ;, p.MM ' both reasonable and adequate. .q -@,WI @q,d ep.wQ', M ' ~ q y m% !. '. dy~~
~~29. The principal means of mitigating or reducing the effects of fires~~
@ W, .yg. ' - -T' the wet pipe system, where the supply pipe is water full and actuation of at the llarris plant is the use of sprinkler systems. The most common is ~.; Y a t.,., Q,, .",2 / 34 , T.'; the system is achieved by nozzles controlled by fusible links. Other sys-tems, used where inadvertent actuation of the sprink! cts might damage equipment, are of the preaction, or dry pipe type, where a valve which is temperature controlled must open to fill the sprinkler pipe. Some of these systems then actuate as in the wet pipe system; where a minimum amount of water is desired other systems have a temperature controlled ,0 valve that cycles open and closed as the temperature rises and falls. Still y m.., '. "!NN M p
~~..L.h another system, used to mitigate fires which spread rapidly or produce n;, N, n '~~
high temperature quickly, acts much like the preaction system but has .. ' j'g ,.~ open spray nozz!cs, allowing immediate discharge of water when activat-h i g'.}2 g,, u,..,,.. J*,.i @,'j'MQ} Q,T ',}; ed by fire detectors. Serbanescu, ff. Tr. 4256, at 23 26. The liarris sys-
~~1. S' tems will conform with NFPA Codes, as committed to by the Applicants.~~
l. Eberly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at 16. The Board finds that these systems, designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable NFPA Codes, are an adequate means to mitigate the effects of potential fires. ... ?
~~30. The types of fire detectors used at the liarris plant are selected w w, p ; ym 3. i~~
. s, y.,, a m, j, ;.. 3.pa on the basis of the kinds of fires which would be expected in any particu- ,, mi <g.,.: lar fire area. The primary detectors are ionization smoke detectors, ,. y,. s .. r.;. r c e. .f, e ~,. ' 3 ".' C' i < which respond to the Grst traces of fire in the form of visible or invisible combustion products; these are general purpose instruments and provide - '. ~., - '. early warning for timely fire brigade response. Thermal detectors, which .- ^ b...; ? are used to actuate water suppression systems, have a set point at 30*F K ;Ma,M ? "( *,, 3 t'!*[A W ',$ above ambient temperature. Ultraviolet flame detectors are used in the c.$.) ;, 'y,. * '. fd diesel generator building and fuel oil pump areas inasmuch as a fuel oil .c, k Y,Q'f';,Xh fire can develop quickly and with little smoke. Serbanescu, IT. Tr. 4256, $.., ' M ' ' f at 22 23. Applicants have committed to following the NFPA Codes in .I the design of these detection systems. Eberly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at .., ; 1, 4U
~~16. The Board finds that these systems are adequate to provide timely 6..~~
~~.e c;.,' warning to personnel and actuation of the fire suppression systems. 922 i ,,,r,*,,.-*g.a---- - - - ~ ~ -. - .-e,*+-***-y===****--* 9 s. o ***v.e=+ywe,*.=g F,i 4 a q 's. .., + A ~ 4~~
~~,63,,(~~
..I,.. ,b'. r,u ,j., x. 8'. .y.> ,,4 /, N >c, t .s ^ .[ ,,e[* / J' w ]~.:;,y[n,3;5 ]: +r ,." 7,,. >,. r. c . m,s,a q y. ,.. u c,, ' 7,. ,.,/n t. v, ,s., t L-A g., . o.
, a, <. a ,a. >.. s,., p. s.;;y+.. m ,.,, g ;p.s g,e.n. y.~ r' w :. 4..;..g a w. m...,y. y- .e n.w. g v. g. .... q. 1 v. N p
~~x K O. w h 3 m c 9 : e %q d %.:, >a q:wy m W Q'.mn.y: Q'.;.'.YW:p i.\\%W* ' ' ' :' + e %~~
~~. N~~
i
~~~ hl:p.: r.y.. W L Q :c. W.C w w @.: +. t ~.v. ~ ^ =--" ' - ~ ~ " - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ;w &l, : k. y.y WM W.w . m.. f. ..q y 1 %,~~
~~.; y.m.m.~~
~~.> ~ .Q~- l a~~
~~31. The Gre brigade at the flarris facility will consist of a minimum of five people on each shift who have been trained as described in FSAR~~
) 13.2. In addition, there will be at least one Gre protection technical aide available for advice and assistance. If the need arises, additional 4 p d..,.. [h;.g. @h,.;.4 h,. .rs .'. m. b plant personnel are available. Waters, ff. Tr. 4250, at 910, Attach. B; . ? #.', h l. A. N;. h N h ' Z /.' Tr.4600-02. Applicants' witness Waters testified in some detail as to the MQM"W b rd.I stafung, training, equipment, drills, and other relevant items concerning nQ the fire brigade. Waters, IT. Tr. 4250, at 511; Tr. 4306,4308,4311 12, 'h": @,'M%. h. h.^Rh.%WH ? $dM 4318 19, 4330-31, 4601 02. After reviewing Mr. Waters' testimony and y Q /r. .N,tW N the ensuing cross examination by Mr. Eddleman, the Board finds that $. M. D@[ [EU M M W h @ M@'@'$ is the estimate of 5 to 15 minutes for fire brigade response in the power TCit $51M block is reasonable. We also note that the Stalievaluation of the Ore pro- @k dd.fl.h@?@, tection program assumes that the Gre brigade arrival time is 30 minutes, U @e.M66MWM i-r an estimate the Board considers conservative.
~~32. Mr. Eddleman contends that Applicants' analysis of the effects G~~
of Arc spreading from one fire area to another is inadequate. Applicants maintain that this is an inherent part of their analysis, as each fire area's o 4 combustible loading has been calcu?ated, and, if the fire should spread l .,"4 from one fire area to another, that combustible loading would describe .>.X .a. , e.. c f '... the effects of such spreading. Serbanescu, Tr. 4521 24. It is the StalT's cygdh r.giKC;;m,0.Q l.W.< $$ view that if the Staff's guidelines are followed there will be no spreading M.M ;2Ji:rW of the fire. That is, if the proper fire barriers are provided and detection M[/M%,T ',f"..COTQ and extinguishing equipment is provided, an adequate level of protection ' hh.h.,$f:40'M,hgl ,$ @;y' M y@'ic g(.' agair.st fire spreading is attained. The Board agrees with both Staff and Q M Applicants; if the proper barriers and mitigation sources are provided, i c ;;. the fire will not spread, but ifit should spread, Applicants' would know what the effect would be. We find that the Applicants' and Staff's analy. ses are adequate.
~~M.,. ~~~
~~.: nM{.hNJ,.y.. h mW e ~. w w. p.. W'f'@N,.'qC&,;;C U$9, y - ; n &y, 4 6. Combustible Londings Greater Than 240,000 DTU/ft' . n'; :, w ' vp.. fl J t...1. g g}.g~~
~~33. The NFPA has determined, through tests, that the reference time temperature curve is followed by a fire in a fire area with a com.~~
~~.~. q$ Q.%e n.;,r&, *. y ',,,?. bustible loading of 240,000 BTU per square foot (BTU /ft9. Serbanescu, Y,y!~~
~~lggv $lN.&pi.5)$,i, e 4 3pFN ff. Tr. 4256, at 11. Special attention must therefore be given to fire areas g~~
gi)'jp.. in the Harris power block which have combustible loadings above this $M$.", figure. Eddleman Contention 116 alleges that the efTects of fires in these Q. 'd}jk. 8%@h' ?.R :1 h a .t f.?,UgqGQ areas are not treated in a realistic fashion. %;h,ddNM .'r M k b l
34. There are four Ore areas in the llarris power block that have 5,y.'-[;.h;T D Y..l%.'d.,:M~': 3ldfM fuel day tank rooms and the two diesel fuel storage tanks. I,l. at 28; Eber-

w: ' J.J combustible loadings above 240,000 BTU /ft3. These are the two diesel
~~+, '~~
~~ly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at 20 21; see also Serbanescu 11, ff. Tr. 4256,~~
~~~ 8 4 g. .?.? L,(,, 4,3, - 9 f, .gz.,, I ,u 923 4 t f. [., 1 . 3 '4N p.s, g s ,,.e O.s~~
~~e. w~~
~~.,.',..,3; 4, .,..l i?- 4 .m l',y,*, d.,. .++$)I,!.?k.[#; 'A'. I' / ' / , )(, y 'y. ' i~~
f.p.

. : na z..

u m!o
+ w ].:,A,.x_,. '.. C.h;%,. d o, '. % :y y 3,, (,& v ~ s Q;,:p g t; s. w* 7 o.-
[ s' O ?,Q W l,'. & M ! & # ', '. ' " '}N) N ' $ ',; ?"L,R & ? f.;... 3.y <.pe g%nn e p:u,:w. y<,.3 N.gppg6.,.g.r:;,. 4 tt. .% e Nene. , c.. ~;., ' J. i 4 6 eb,w 4 m 4 }.1, 4, A.68'* e qM '0 , 74, u-p M. ~ ,. p, '.iq,,; glt.,, s 4. g, p .,,y 4 -3,7 g y< Rmy 9 q. J. .,r.., s.. s.,p.. y,. y ,s s. u 3
1-
~~.g<.< s. 4 i. a i,o, 3,, q... c, .t~~
~~.,y s~~
~~ce,.<,3 sy 't s. ' *~* " '.z ; ,ya .t +~, gl[~~
~~';, ;. ' q)'D j( f~~
,y* 4 t* i ,e e4. ,, y. + * - +'., - - - - a - ---- +- ', + ,. ' A.$ . _ ' ~ ; ',f.f.,'..,, *.& 4 ].- 4 at 5. The storage tanks are underground, constructed of reinforced con-crete with a steel liner and are Seismic Category I design. The only access to the tanks is through a reinforced concrete hatch. The tank vent is equipped with a flame arrestor, and yard h>drants for fire fighting are
~~f..,...-~~
located adjacent to the area. The tanks are also located at a distance of ZUf,MM'.-QNll%. [(ZT'?:/ ...".-6 .,; ]$ over 175 feet from the principal plant structures. Serbanescu, ff. Tr. 4256, at 30; Eberly/Ferguson, IT. Tr. 4626, at 20 21. The Board agrees ,7 *M'- d..'.G/3)*%,'M:d.w,J. with Applicants that these tanks do not present a threat to safety related J %. i;A. <c2 - m.y ...,,.-h . m e q.. - W :m.., systems. s t.;c{.,c.c.;, .m.Ny/g.NcMDT
~~35. The 3000-gallon capacity diesel fuel day tanks are isolated from M M '%$h M d%% % M other fire areas by 3 hour rated reinforced concrete walls. The tanks~~
% '. W M..,'#.'J.W.. '<N...,S@h t CW themselves are Safety Class 3, Seismic Category I components which are W ;4 designed to remain functional after a safe shutdov:n earthquake. Inas-r . A. M, >,' r' ,;M l'. Ah M N ' much as the combustible load was calculated on the basis of the burning of 3000 gallons of diesel fuel, the only way this could happen would be if the tank ruptured, thereby making all of the fuel available. Serbanescu, C.l4, ff. Tr. 4256, at 29. The fuel would be confined to the day tank room, as A 1i the entrance to the room is located at a level which is 110% of the level the spilled fuel could attain. Serbanescu, Tr. 4530 31. p.. ,y/u-
~~36. From the testimony, the scenario would be: (1) fuel tank rup-~~
..'.., y 'm.. :.ty d';.,.pyTN tures, fuel is released; (2) ignition of the fuel is assumed to occur; (3) ' g '. ;', $.(W;%:C the automatic multicycle sprinkler system would actuate; (4) dampers in 7 *,, : a
~~2. k.~~
~~.a ns W.Ni[;Q[6.*Rf.p,Wsm3.p.dy,s the ventilation ducts would close, limiting the available air supply; (5) ' ~ o.~. e~~
~~a....~~
M yyr u the fire brigade would arrive, manually actuating the sprinkler system if 3.5,'h @'/ <M.6,,,-Q.y,%! the automatic system had malfunctioned; and (6) Orc brigade would "n& combat fire according to the proper procedures for this event. Serba-nescu, ff. Tr. 4256, at 29.
~~37. The Board finds that the testimony presented does portray a~~
" realistic" description of the event, albeit a very conservative one. We O p..v a,.,dy, J.w.M.w m.. further find that all the fire protection measures taken in comb.mation S W4 .um v. r,.. .,.4p[ wEs.Q@gf;.' (Jg
~~y-4.~~
~~1 2, .'y E.pg? 37 provide adequate assurance that the fire would not endanger safety-~~
~~f.o p..~~
~~related components. .c. t. ', ' ; ~, 7. Intenenor's Proposed Hndings W %lSq', y, :. m'. e t m u.w. .['[t,..,f. 'N., 2 f f'~~
38. Mr. Eddleman submitted proposed findings on fire protection, k(..,.
'i '".J;g' j.1 [hj
" Wells Eddleman's Proposed Findings on Contention 41 (Pipe llangers l' N.d.@c '.' QA/QC),116 (Fire Protection) and 9 (Environmental Qualification of ) Qi.N'.c.A.py.J.eQQ; Electrical Equipment)" on.lar.uary 8,1985, at 815. The Board has y '",.. /,'f g reviewed these proposed findings and finds them to be unsupported by .i. e o /' the record and to provide little assistance in arriving at our findings in -l O 4 3 924 .'g. },.' ,rq ..._.n. ..,-~.,--.~.~.-<.m---- c m. ,,4 yy rr s .,,i*',,' ] [;*J 6 ..t,*',' t,
~~,s..'~~
~~fi j, i b' 3 ,%l . a e .~. f. .s .,. 4 y, of /,, T,. .s~~
~~e, f~~
V' h{ 'g. ~* .n ,a e .i* s w.. n.. w ~ v' ' s. -p ;,y..- m' y y % '.g + s, l~ a t
y., r n. ,' ). .p,. N < 5.% > a ,, i.,.
~~u,.~~
'-%,&w....J.Db W,....-Gt hiVM..b 5'.?',O l ?ll. ~ s l 56 6 3 _ 3.f,. a,.3,. o v. m. a c;. M u.;;p;..,, wr. . g. ,y. :...x. m m. ',),,' .'. a g, , %* j. % ~ w:,L';i.?. e ~ &q ".b.y. ':,. n,i ^ - - - - - ' - - " " -. J -~ "-**- " ~ -- i ,,, lv
~~ll n g&c.;M.:' Q,, Q;. ),) Y.,..D; f.~~
~~s 4 A this matter. We therefore reject them. We brie 0y discuss our evaluations below.~~
~~39. Proposed Findings 11-15 concern the special. purpose doors f'~~
which are at various locations in the plant. Due to their sizes, they have .~ _ not undergone standardized testing for Grc resistance. The Staff has, 5;r. ' 'J; g...,n y,..L6 4.. :,W.,M., ;,.. yJ 'however, granted exceptions for these doors for reasons which are con-m" 7NNdinh$M h$/; tained in the record. The Board agrees that the exceptions are reasonable t i and well founded. See Board Findings 20 24, at pp. 920-21. 4 xyWSQ,7dN*p;g'hi@/,- p g. g f l W.J. f(;.t>J
~~40. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Findings 16 21 consist of various alle-fM$/'k,g@/$T.%M@~~
gations about material being omitted from the FSAR, in an apparent Mh"Md5%!'MPM effort to impeach the FSAR's credibility. The Bc.md Ands that the mate. %.4ii W W rial in question was placed in the record at the nearing, and thus any car. 3..%.... e y ;.ENN. m.. - W-#,y M., c y';; ; ' : p " lier omissions do not alter any conclusions the Board has reached. m-W..M M @ d4..M.%. O. > C.
~~41. Eddleman Proposed Finding 22 attacks the fire brigade training as being inadequate, but the only conclusion drawn is that there must be a,~~
a well. trained fire brigade capability before the plant is operated. The i. C Board was presented a great deal of testimony on this subject and is con-ndent that there will be such capability in place prior to operation. See Board Finding 31 at p. 923. a.- J.- ;g.
~~42. Eddleman Proposed Finding 23 takes issue with the fact that the~~
, Q;. N :n W.'w / g} 1.%4,.Nj. seals between fire areas are not yet in place, and suggests that proper in-Mr.M r.~.. f,5 e,;;;;W stallation must be venged by the NRC walkdown inspection. Although m. ., :. o,... c < . ; o, ..J.N.m 3 % verincation of proper installation of these seals could take place during ,.? n. f .9 ...t 4.krNh.N $ E ' $c$;l.ih ~ the NRC walkdown inspection, they will be subject to the Applicants' 4, d l' 4" ' ' Q ' O. M,. 1., 4,;,f QA program inspections, like any other piece of hardware in the plant. J'd Mr. Eddleman does not point to any specine deficiencies in these seals or their proposed installation. We therefore reject this proposed Gnding. L,,
~~43. Proposed Findings 24 and 25 argue that a Ore in the diesel day MN W W c.Y.>v.d W. '~~
tanks would be very serious, especially if the automatic suppression N. p 7 c.1 %,.',..rdap D.'N, E-O W p,%,T.;1 . g . w... s h. system did not work or if a door were left open. There is nothing in the . e...,ca,c m.3,J... X J.. T,.7 record to show that this accident scenario should be considered. Ade-t . gym g;,. ; ( m. : a. g4.k. quate testimony was presented to support the Board's decision on the - m. sy diewl fuel tanks. See Board Findings 35 37 at p. 924,
~~4. 3 d^ '.,,,k,~~
~~4 d,'.~~
~~44. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Finding 26 questions the quality assur-if.1[f 'r4, '? /h lJ 91 '~~
~~ance aspects of the fire suppression systems. 'This is beyond the scope of . mcg.yph cgE:, ' this contention and is therefore rejected. i@hhhk$ ihh$~~
~~45. Proposed Findings 27 and 28 express concern that the StalT will N~~
~~M,..ry;MMQhhMih','M.... .W not properly perform certain inspections and reviews. There is no basis N g,e.s.. wn3e,.;. t a in the record for this concern. m.~~
m.. N. a.. w.,. e rJ c '.. 7

46. Proposed Finding 29, Parts A II, presents a lengthy list of vari-s
~~../. _f.,,6,,7. 0.7,$ 7,.,;s., P+, 9, f ' ' ' a~~
~~h..,..~~
~~,,m ous items, many of which have been discussed above. We Hnd them to 4l 5 j '3,e*. " >.*= 4 3 -lr 925 ...s. ." I g i }.'y,, y * + ,,z., ;* - - --..~..-. - --. 7 %,".g..b \\ 'tl~~
~~9 s..~~
~~[I' ?.,, ,e w.pMW :.p : ;< s..a c. v ". '.. s-xv .1 n e. y- .s. , lN O.Q,7. Vl, ';Q..W y l;~~
~~i, Y~~
. h.2, I { p. (,,,' ' I
p g:q Q Q W WQ ffg N w j D V fQ: Ml.f.Q7W}nhf}}f yy&h . h.x w p.u e ? m % a w. m e m. m in. ., p:;,r. %.Q,.)y g.a,v,..., e.,;,,,. an
~~v..~~
~~,;,.au 3 p.r.ppu.p.u zu.f.p,, ,h Q3,;.,c;;,.:h2h.;,(MNN@M $y.~...y&: - m m v.w.m&,.r,,,). Q&.&; ' ".Y. '.: &n b?YWN hq. c4 ~ s. u a , p,;....t&.lgn. f_,.d.# e..,;.,,v,s: Q h , y, c p A.yo .w f~~
~~y. %~~
~~.A.n ~ . y e. cn - ,ca g.w .q..v~.,.: ...+..,s.. m, s,e. m.. i. . vs.m~~
~~8. y ;m..~~
~~> s, y.,.~~
.m
,n. s-t ,e ., s t s .,;. 2,>.:,. o." q y u ..-3. ..;, m,y. u.;.. y y, g;,,., s. g.s. c: m ; m g p. 7 7, + m:;.:;.y. p g m a . Q,. Z, e,,f:- ' -:Q../.3,G M, p t ,. y 'n., j be of little help to the Board in its deliberations. The Gre protection con-I tention is quite broad. This creates opportunities for an opposing party l to present pieces of the record out of context in proposed Gndings, as is attempted here. .. ~.. gg m.. (yg@a.., w..k..'lW.7:..c.n.,['.N,., iff.Q,)
s. Conclusions a.

m. a. :. n,c., n. W
~~.,s,,,. 8 e. 4 4 lya;~N. R ,..c. M. < s. o~~
~~47. The Shearon Harris fire protection program is based on a y /m..g.3em,.o.</d M, *.n, ei m?,,~~
m.
~~f. v ense. n depth concept wherein no single aspect o the program s e vm u.~~
D,~.M,fTU@kF*, M[W i Mi O .?? depended upon to protect against fire. The elements of the program are slf...:hiQ ; $.$ @.fa% ;d Gres, (4) confine fires, and (5) separate redundant safety related equip. U.$if$ designed to (1) prevent fires, (2) detect any fire condition, (3) suppress T.: 3 p.n,ip,. ~ ' ment so that control of the plant can be maintained in case a fire occurs. /../.i v/Q O. %c9 %cQ L:ib s> %' .i. y Applicants have demonstrated that the various elements of the program .o ec meet at least minimum requirements. The Staticoncurs. In view of the t record before us the Board finds that Applicants have met their burden a ..l. J < C?,4 G d ' with respect to Eddleman Contention 116. y - q.g < .. w " '.a. B. Pipe Hanger Welds v% c.. ~,.. m.. w.. i...a ~.o, on. 1 .u... u.. o
~~l. Intrednetton w,, r..~a. w:..g..n.,a DO &~~
o
~~m...:g... my&~~
..,m.m.. s +py,4 2,n. ;.y qw v %., o. 1. Eddleman Contention 41 states: " Applicants' QA/QC program (k'hkbbh kkh I'lls to assure that safety related equipment is properly inspected (e.g., , 5.r,y 1. MVN:% ' the 'OK' tagging of defective pipe hanger welds at SHNPP)." This con-Of fi o-:my@;p#f3.?P JT '% tention was admitted by the Board on September 22, 1982. However, r ,o w 'he Board ruled that the entire QA/QC program would not be the subject of litigation. Rather, the contention would be limited to Mr. Eddleman's a c p X,, v.v.,s h. "c only specified concern "that there exist defective hanger welds that have ' WM.g.c:W. '@m y c/.Q@.ro k,2.., y l.% been improperly inspected and approved." LBP 82119A,16 NRC W s.6 N M M. %d 2069' 2097 (1982)' .a~ b1 4 < yW.F i,a nl3:;jl.g/ ;. *g :
~~2. The Applicants' direct testimony was sponsored by James E.~~
y: :... .e ' Nevill, Principal Engineer-Civil Harris Plant Engineering Section; f }- 5+. .. J. P.. w,'.. /.. Alexander A. Fuller, Principal Engineer-Mechanical Olanger Engineer. $. $jN,".'.'[ ~ci(($.M,N,h'l [ ? ing), Harris Plant Construction Section; David R. Timberlake, Senior "t!Yg.Q.g,g p,h.WP.My;$~ p>4 Engineer-Metallurgy / Welding, liarris Plant Engineering Section; and Kumar V. Hate Principal QA/QC Engineer, QA/QC Harris Plant Sec- -@~ - @ M'+ %,6,I ".Q. W y N. 'Th,h W tion. Nevill et al., fr. Tr. 6663. pM'I/ Ti .J,g,[
~~3. The Staff's direct evidence was sponsored by Paul R. Bemis.~~
~~f /;l;9 . Acting Division Director, Division of R. actor Safety; Jerome J. Blake, 3 g4 g :~~
~~.W;, w.~%g.~~
~~Chief, Materials and Processing Sectio.t; and George A. Hallstrom, ,M p.g, _ yw l, Reactor Inspector, all from the Atlanta Regional Office of the NRC. s,.7 ; Bemis et al., ff. Tr. 7217. g-f 4 ')~~
~~9. F g~~
~~if. >. '*,.g S f g~~
~~y,g'~~
. f j..' 'a.S[ff,'t, J'$m.s^,F,Tq.'A ,. p f*... % .. g; u, w.......,t w ~ %.. m' - m a..,.. n,. ' ~[: (. ; **.*
m
.a w. ..-.c-o) < qf. 4, ';, / .* r /Q, 'Q;ln } , j f. lc f g w. 4 (. r r , r,;. y '.. V. !' w w'q~,fVs.f G*... w.9 , '-.. /+Q f ' 3 y, fi t i ,s ., %, ), .F y. .J.,. e:p. ,.s;.., .,n o u.- v /' =, g,p",8i. p ',/, ie M s c... I }. y
~~u.,~~
~~Ie, '8"~~
~~g'. fa '~~
e ,g ( =sj g;
.!.pg<:r.w.1_w :.u; a,.g. U.h.. t:d. W.. l. .Ma c 99
~~.Q., U y :~~
~~L.w. ,y. r. n .m y4 .e ).?: w %g W W. .m yp n L:.yn,. 'p. +. +.~~
~~d. e p ~*:.G.C v#:s. y.4 %.M.M. w.~~
-.w, ,a .w 4 3.5*49.. :r a ~, b.u. g}.e a; r u, . M Qg @. M t. % h,M y' g~ r;(,k % p W p,n+.*' -,.[,' s .. a-h +;l W.;th .Qq{lQ%?'.'i[y?q5 : eh.. ' %r:W W.&., n..e h,Wm...,s m{p;,9 A;np.,y:y, - - l ~.m 7.u7 . x q-Q.... GL Mgb ~ ym... . M. cz, M N te W i.,6 @. a. M O.} @p + v. W. n u.. wn .a... .. u. ~ w < :.. w s u y . v %,. ~ -v' . ~ ~ m ~
y N..

')y4
~.tn w,S ',y D;g;,W%. nQg.wm..w;q.N,n& M,.,i].f, v.s..p ygw y.w 9.y c c. ,.,.,..= 4. At the request of Mr. Eddleman and with the concurrence of the Board, the following appeared for cross-examination by Mr. Eddleman: M Kenneth A. Douglas, QA specialist; William H. Pere, QA/QC specialist; 4 ~ ' 3. 4. and Gene G. Tingen, a pipe hanger welding inspector until February &#pr .U'T.G.@ 1982 (all being employees of Applicants); and Mr. George F. Maxwell, u%I Wieh d; Js@JWlm&. >%.%.e', v s :.:.w w c ^J 7 the NRC senior resident operations inspector. y -. s g,. a,e..cs" %.% 5. Mr. Eddleman sponsored no d, rect evidence to support his con-i D;A m. ...e 3 . ".NIN',3 pg tention. Instead he relied upon extensive cross-examination of the wit. R.
~~3 *T* *$ty A,b nesses and upon numerous documents (Exhibits 20 through 59) accept-f. &yAfi9*,W Si&T ed into evidence.~~
NW. W:KWE, h!q$.h h&$www? w Fa r &Q.w&Qub?gd.%M@v..>%.~.,2. u,-. W 2. The 4pliennW and Sanff's Direct Cases .~ .IMtW'Ny 6. Applicants' testimony is a general narration of the problems relat- .p. x w:..o,,,. W .t ing to pipe hanger welding and the corrective and preventive actions . y 'J..m M W /. t; ~t.,...F le. 3'XQ-4. that have.bcen instituted. Installation of pipe hangers began in early .Kg*' ];y,g .M,m unclear and incorrect weld symbols, as well as several cases in which the 1979. In September 1980 during a routine inspection, the NRC Resident y\\ .p qM',7 Inspector identified several Bergen Patterson pipe hanger drawings with .e m. . 6 M g @ N M D WiQ 'y@/$ WNc.b. i field weld was different from the drawing without the discrepancy %@ ihp'C." having been identined by QC. Consequently, a site investigation was JM4 J-condacted by CP&L, with the result that full reinspection was deemed 5$g...:3y@d.MMMtg "g necessary. A report on the deficiencies and reinspection program was bdif$4 a., . - w % submitted to the NRC Staff in May 1981 and the NRC closed out this . h.a v,dt p,a 95 pr.M.,,. a W. n,,, p... M. m< item in September 1981. Nevill et al., fr. Tr. 6663, at 14 16.
W
~~a. s y ? 7.,~~
..,'U Q /f)e . y 7. In 1982, some different problems were identined. The Appli- ' W% 7 cants' Receipt inspection Program discovered deficient shop welds made ..R N by Bergen Patterson. It was discovered that Applicants' inspectors and M}b.. f. craftsmen were using an improper technique in the measurement of hNh. 4., kh n.M'dbM skewed tee welds. Several remedial actions were taken. Another rein-gkhM(/MM@jMd[f[{!% h,;DN spection program was carried out. Several remedial actions were taken. d :9 W M i M.% A % '= n $ The Ebasco Vendor QA program at the Bergen-Patterson facility was .$J.: 3 f5 l upgraded to include'both in process and 100% final weld inspections. Nk%#Td @M s n [.w.n;fngy:$d@Odhf~ h~M[f -Mt APP cants also instituted a 100% receipt inspection of shop welds on li 4 d9,'-M M.E pipe hangers. Id. at<lS-20. Additional training was provided to craft and -gg @m k[.*SN.e7MJpg,o n.h~
~~$'pdgq~~
~~tj.y QC welding inspection' personnel which utilized the 1981 edition of mmh,,.N+Mhh,nyn$b;N p~~
AWS D-l.l. That-document clearly outlined the proper techniques for 4 p W:ThMMW,g;8....@n. MW.'M DN measurement of skewed tee fillet welds. Timberlake, Tr. 6947. h .p 4 8. Despite the etTorts undertaken by Applicants, deficiencies related .;p f7:4 m.m.p.d +. pre to pipe hanger erection continued to be identified. A stop work order p y. p g. m.MM a: a - M.y'.y. % g.o.r y m:* '. 4., was issued.m July 1983 as the result of a QA surveillance; this stop work a3, y } z.. order required that final inspections of pipe hangers by both Cl and QC 2,- os 6 k V
f
~~f.'Q* * &;,jj :&.%.W '.g, "-~~
~~s. g.r.m.~~
~~._. e[,: r.4. W- <},. ;f fgy,~~
3 927 h~t

9,..
~~n. g -M wW",'q O, s s e.s .- ehI. / M ' 8' - 9~~
~~. ' ^~~
~~g ., p W b L q.4;i;: %Q ',.T... W'Qhe) V'My.g,p'd* c&*M l;d. M:/ %, &4 W 4~~
~~,,. 9 7..C / m - -..~~
~~=, mYi Q- @MVd;$.%,_m,~.4* g mm.t s~~
~~i '~~
~~5 '**'\\. 4.% %fldv%;l*4: mww.-l;dL}W* i Q,i f. ' C M L,', ..n. ~? u. ! w. ..." e* %. ','. ' Mh W.- viW M a t ~ .m'< T-I . y. V U~~
~
~~. '. ' ' ' ;. ' e.. s 6 '.' {, f.. i ;- ' ~ m c. y ;y~~
~~m D.~~
u{' f W. ..].,h Nf ~ ) ll. E y
q, yg:W,qj;;p MW,.g, '.3 2., w % a..s . ':. o, m,iry ' r;y m,:ws.n::g&pw, $.:y;gi;g W.,Q.h @p r'
n
. W. '.~i W:Ma:.< . S, L,. ~ ',,.g j .,.,.. z.,,,.:. m ..,m.v .~ m.ycg.v. c. n. m :. 7., .a v Y Y, .. ~. ' 'f, ? ? / ' @$':qd + Njk., g,T.. N.y; f. f. rff ? \\@t% i, i @d t.6 ", / Nr' l s ,3 . m, 3feg.. 6 s >- b s, .4 -r .g f,.u.s., m.s 1 ,. 7 7.. +. xo e l be discontinued.6 During this time, site management reviewed the prob-l lems that were identified by that surveillance, by subsequent hanger and welding engineering surveillances, past NRC inspection reports and ~' previous nonconformances. The need to have a system that would stand ,.1 up to constant scrutiny was recognized. In December 1983 a completely ..fJ.N_f N f/ ; &.. f:; restructured pipe hanger program was implemented. Nevill et al., ff. Tr. y.+...-t w,.. A %w. m. y..... _.,, 6663, at 23. prm n 2.u. Mkhlf'NN((f%[O$[' <6.9 ',$~ 9. The enhanced program for pipe hangers includes new and INN'M .h revised procedures intended to clarify the installation and inspection re- -fiYq d.y.4 yQ? Q.' / quirements; further, the enhanced program provides for engineering / M@LW,d@W@n.@JMMM'$0.: M M - technical support to the craft before and during the installation process I d in order to resolve potential problems prior to turning the hangers over g. p u;7,y,.. q. 7..,Y ? '*-..
g,
~~,.r ' ' for final inspection. The major improvements of the enhanced program ...g -y ,-.e. ,7 c, O t S !/ M.;,p.. Gy, as they relate to pipe hanger welding are summarized below. ~~~
~~10. First, pipe hanger work packages are reviewed by a work package group prior to issuance to the field. At this time, the hanger design draw-~~
'. g 4 ing is " weld mapped," i.e., each joint to be welded is given a specific identifying number, thereby precluding the possibility that a joint would not be identified or would be confused with another joint during the in-spection process. This weld mapping process has been retrofitted to pre- .,.i : W. , a n.:. - / T J.@~.
~~'iW-b g.; '" i~~
~~viously inspected hangers as well as in process hangers. Id. at 23; see L...-83$p~R,, i f -A fy also Fuller, Tr. 6915; Douglas, Tr. 7189. ' M t. C 7 N. W N '~~
11. Generic engineering documents are, for the most part, no longer b.k2M.M h it used as solutions to common problems. Instead, field modifications are Q~ if,J2 i,d* [ $j.. l written for each hanger detailing necessary changes due to these prob-s
~ " '.E subsequent misapplication of construction requirements. Nevill et al., IT. lems. This has greatly reduced the potential for misinterpretation and Tr. 6663, at 24; Fuller, Tr. 6792; Douglas, Tr. 7189. i. c 9..'w.%. 4 J.
~~12. Additional engineering and technical resources have been provid-y~~
. W T,W;Qr,d' Of. '. a, 3, d.,e.?,a cd to support the craft. A field hanger engirieering support unit has been ,4.ps,s.r - w, .. n y/w g #5;,"!&~'6; ',ykii developed whose purpose.is to support the craft during hanger installa- , y pgK; A j ~ W; tion. Welding engineering personnel examine hanger welds (both shop ~ and field) prior to submitting the hanger package to QC for final weld in-g spection. Finally, in addition to the QC final review, a hanger engineer-n. .g M : M M M. R: N Fc., ing final review group has been formed to review seismic hanger pack-y;qg.tyq' $$...?. jWO ages prior to final turnover to the permanent QA records vault. Hanger NNh N."M fhh* package documentation is thus verified as being complete and accurate. $@$..E M t T I N h y J, 7 1 3 % ] D Nevill et al., ff. Tr. 6663, at 24-25; Hate, Tr. 7038; Blake, Tr. 7358-59. p ;f4 '* %.l'.. f,,. ;..,c -.@ 4 f i Q W": 9' ^' '
~~a N, c~~
~~,o s v, y >:~~
~~/n +~~
- ?".G K, - Q,s % gt. L 'a -{' I weldmg mspections continued. Tr. 7327 (Bemist 6Although rmal inspections / approvals were not undertaken until the new program was in place. QC 4 928 4 i i .m.....- .,.5 g* %.m 4,. . p j_ 0 r, *. s%
~~i. ; ;. :~~
~~.q- ,r g. f '" f s pf hg~~
~~S s.;~~
~~..r ;;t? q v? ( w+:. % c ;. ap .: a,~~
c.. Y,y b

a. gN y 4 ~, w
~~..,,.. ?....."'./+ ^ .. R.j'**' &r, W m.Q G.U Q.~~
~~s ~., y.~~
~~...i, m,.3..f.,.;p* f, ~y, jQ(3.by ;;;.: . t_. o-(~m.~,o'm i ,{," , _' t~~
~~f.'-;$,~~
~~'i.... V.t ...e.... , uy' y:' ;s%P m -y! .s~~
~~'.g ?.. s~~
~ ~ '. r..,.,, y :.! ,s , -- p .q 't. '\\' f' T . e ) Q 'e,6 * . hr : ~ t
W;d% cwMeptq:y.:4.N.%, s ;.;.lA. Sg..gM Qg.,i,:t hn v, ~.,% W,y.% 4' ~ a ? @s
~~w. 43H.%e,,k m, ' ' ;[ ^ g y.-~~
~~~ e i V d. s .3 a~~
~~v. m.~~
. x. n $.y.y.,% 'k.h. n m.z 3 y \\-i-I.s. .u ' 4;;:s,[ny;&& NQlf4'ET;i.. = Q@'.YQ.W_ W.MW!n b'NQ QNUp.h. W ' af-d;.: W u.%;s 1b so. T ,A ; s m ~. p,. '. p ' /n'g.c. *? ' ,. L.p, M M: M.Q. 7, y ;,. g g :W Q 5. p W. W,.c.e ' 3 r o ,+y'
~~~ e 1n.~~
~~~ r wl,z m,,,M..WL mm(.':.m 2 u.q, e ~,s. #. 4g, .2 :v u m.me t ~t p. .w '.}? - l ' ~, ' ' ' s. ~. ' .:. 3 ';~~~
~~13. Although not formally a part of the enhanced program, in 1983.~~
the visual weld acceptance criteria were also revised; by providin;; well- .,g defined criteria for inspecting weld attributes, the potential for conflict-bb1 kk..), dk'? dkM,4% Douglas, Tr. 7159-60; Maxwell, Bemis, Tr. 7324 27. The revised accept- . f 'c#. ing judgments based upon personal interpretation has been lessened, .Mv i M 5M. C.r m*% ance criteria have been reviewed and accepted by the Staff. Bemis et al., M4;W: h.2.q$w;fgp,;- 5 E.u.. .w s NN fr. Tr. 7217, at 14-16; Hallstrom, Tr. 7334-36. $l W @Mt$q p ' " g g $ N h
~~14. Applicants' ections and resulting program appear to have been u~~
~~Tf w g reasonably effective. For example, in the second quarter of 1984, ap-pM M.c~~
~~c y &EMbSh5EDJ proximately 93% of the work presented by the craft to QC for weld in-kd$t~~
'h.M % M %d spection was found to be acceptable. QA surveillance of QC final accept-57hjdsh,j hh rdhk; ance of hangers during the period January through October 1984 .@k.,,. #d.bM. WpJy,fpMws WRM# f6&3;i. revealed 98.8% acceptance rate for attributes l'ispected by welding QC. n W/f Hate, Tr. 6670-71, 7041-42. ,,q c. u,. .o; Y, ,K7',f" ^ W g i' ; % y 3 %;.G M :* W 3. Intervener's Proposed fiedings 4 % _. W. < m.e, - ;- '? 4 !I
~~15. Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings are largely a recitation of the~~
~. w @G & % % ' r.)n Applicants' problems with the pipe hanger welding program, as are W h.x U.. v Vi W~ M.4,~u.%.,w n# C.,.@^.e many of the Board's findings, supra. Applicants state in their reply that ..$~ 4 . n.. w .. ~ 4 Wasi
it
~~t these are " problems which Applicants readily concede have occurred."~~
~~W pn q u,n,y s &e, +. u m' p 1,4.~ge,4pf GNAT $ %v m However, Mr. Eddleman gives little attention to the numerous remedial 4 c. yvom.m p snWup actions that CPAL has taken. hf1hI2%. MkhW,k M M~~
~~16. The Board finds that Mr. Eddleman did not focus on the basic m.hhhhh.hh.i~~
~~' issue; namely, whether or not a "significant safety issue" exists with re-~~
~~6 h.~, 7 +7.g m g.g.~~
, ; y,. spect to pipe supports. In the context of this operating license proceed-e w;%A.. /W G r,.. ~ s.s 2 ing, the issue is whether unccrrected errors endanger safe plant opera-MT ' ~ % tion or whether there has been a breakdown of the quality assurance pro- .M.gq. MyP?h M gram sufficient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of A $g A M r. g @ p v$ @ d % i 4 g rw % sdy,Mj being operated safely. See Paci//c Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon % *pM.%~-[WWW/h $WMp Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-756,18 NRC 1340,1344 S %d $hM f (1983); see also Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit I), ALAB-740, M. <.,m. v. 7. ~, ..m
~~3. - s 3._~~
~~18 NRC 343,346 (1983). 4 %'W @pA.,b s. n.. aM.~m.M, ~f. L : 7W bM h.ir. .M~~
~~17. We take the view that Mr. Eddleman was faced with an uncom-v O~~
$$q]Q"D%%%g${ Q' hy@ g mon situation between the time this contention was admitted in Septem- $9 ber 1982 and tried in November 1984. By the Applicants' own testimony h ard the fact - testified to by Staff - that Applicants shut down their p R Mg weld inspection program from July to December 1983 (Bemis et al., fr. NbMM. hAyy.hd@ c N:Awpwel G;;M.;;t. -@h Tr. 7217, at 11), deficiencies clearly requiring remedial action existed at tk time the contention was admitted. However, by the Fall of 1984, Qh.d N[,yh CP&L had reviewed the program, identified several deficiencies, and in- ~ gj y y 7. - 'c :: stituted an " enhanced" program, that has now been demonstrated to be ? er ,=w. .. t.. ' f;f. ~, F [. ( . v,;2.m. ; ~ (. 3. ;g.:
~~v.~. i' f:;d.~~
~~3 ? s. . p q:.;.gf.y ,1, .e 2-9 . y~~
~~Ai,.~~

'y, :sl.:..,t % T.. f. '.e. ., Yh I.. ~ - v ' W&g)M/iv?)?).;"C* e!.7d T{,).2 ".+, \\ M. p Wif HC:M n:: an ' l1h;%{.q?. & e d d C $ f"i; % M.i W; a.; M .~~.--~-e---,-- bg W 4_i : '/ 4 MAj2 b .n. ?: :, ~ ~ ~. "V '. 7~ 5 .w.@n n,.4f W y'q.6yhiiy bia.M;ha. A wl,.gg.gN. ne....a%m W tqJ 'Q U. 7 .W2M T ' m: x @a, Mil./. , y; m=iu( 4. q . r, wW p g w g.x - s + s . ~. - ~ n s n y:s -+ 9, h yu y pa,W h @.,g& u*i $ 5 l ~ e $; N A'l Y W lq-~ ,n.~g& h k aym au + f. Yh' WllI
~~. & a ;.,,~~
n . : ;:w g.;p.., p.r 4pmy... .,.y ;:y,,,, ,.g.y. w+ yyr9..y.-.. . ~ cl k NN M.- N. ' h..+M,,kN N@IS z^lTMi M.: g .w$k[ M 'i.' ' P,;M 1. [?![k 6N M hy. W@ ,, W :.? w. y ' x b i g C. M M. h ii M' a ' f. @g y. Wnf{. M 'L j -p-,g,. Q@.we,;M[c.W ' jfyy; R,i M P,,
~~. GE M~~
~~,.y. @;,j. pG.'pd, %, :i.%, - O y 7 ~ ..+ - - -, a:. g> x- - - - - m~~
~~3. :.y w~~
~~-(,~~
m. 3,g.., ~u a t , w 4. s .3, m ..n. m., effective. See Finding 14 at p. 929. Lengthy and detailed cross-examination by hir. Eddleman failed to uncover any significant safety issues in the revised program.
~~18. In Proposed Findings 4 and 5, hir. Eddleman would have us find 4~~
that Staff witnesses did not agree on "what the root cause of the problem W...pf ff-M.4, Q.% . _..., ',4: was.".As the StafT witnesses responded to questions about the root r..-<. a ..w q w.yc.,.,..,u,...,p g..<g;, s..< cause m sequence, different aspects of problems with the weld accept-1 xd..c. 3,c.W; n.,s : .p a ww.k.w..: 7321-26. The Board finds that 4 ..u. .m e. / ance criteria were described. However, these views are not inconsistent, 64 W.. ~..,.,,~s J ~.e 7 a. :. u.rw . c.. w ., /M,.J -..g b; y.., but rather complement each other. Tr.. . YOg.w.nb s.:@4,MR,.g Q : there have been a variety of problems in the pipe support welding pro-Y '. y J PN,,,N R K3 _ gram as reflected in the variety of corrective actions that have been MFS'( : M taken by CP&L. It seems probable that there was not a solitary root
~~c...Q, r.~~
+- ".ie cause. 'M,i.W In Proposed Finding 10. Afr. Eddleman concludes that CP&L 19. has not been keeping its commitments to quality assurance at the Harris plant. We do not reach such a broad conclusion. The record documents ..,~r., from hir. Eddleman's exhibits and cross-examination that numerous nonconformances requiring additional work were identified. As required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, i I, the primary function of quality ',$.sy. assurance is to verify - by checking, auditing, and inspection - that ac- $..dk.J ..a. n.. I x. _a,... y@N C,, m. g r,. g y. g tivities affecting safety-related functions have been correctly performed. ~- s y g.f r. ,g gy Reporting of nonconformances is a demm stration of proper program ex-g.'Q N,3, Mg%p.g$v$e ecution, while at the same time revealing that corrective actions are
~~m. :,gy%~~
~~-.e~~
~~needed, o~~
~~, z.y 3 ;. o 'y~~
20. We note that whenever the need to improve some act..ty is ivi found necessary for regulatory compliance, ipso facto the activity must have not been in compliance previously. The various problems that CP&L and the NRC found in the pipe support welding activities caused
~~..; M U P ~ /@ylQ ,uN.% extensive rework and reinspections to be carried out. One might wish, t +.#.M,a,w.., n c,.3..f.,f 3.,. c.p.,, %., ; 3' .?~~
~~c.. y in retrospect, that the problems had been discovered sooner than they pe y..~~
~~. w......:.,.. \\s s p Q e.<!! a Q:aff c were, but the essential issue for this Board is whether adequate correc-tive actions have been taken. U,.;.. . M,~~
~~s... :,b~~
~~.- ~. 4. Conclusions t.9..+ .:".)g,f@M$iMS..~~
~~21. The Board finds CP&L and its contractors had a variety of prob-7::;j..~~
V l j$ $& .. n;.::;y .. ~ MM. Ug.fCA' ~28 4 ?MWJS g.r'-y lems in carrying out the pipe support welding activit.ies. Th.is contention .e ...a~w. u M% ,'w-a., may have had merit when it was mmally raised but remedial actions MF... ; ; 3: Dy i *, '.'. M '-'? ' ? have averted a possible breakdown in quality construction. No uncorrect-e.m' ?.-. ed errors that would affect safe plant operation were identified in this proceeding. A f 930 i I e e ae - F - -e*- a.- vemp.m.o r, __ , % i.,C,y :%. G. a G. W. ~ "< S y.:j,*nt ,: JO 3 O s. a ^,. ,3 l,.:. .s... '..V,:m Vzg;9 m.;. -
~~p. ',a.~~
~~.4 e r l *~ >~~
f.
~~, e ' # $.:' % ^ ,, ? s., f.*V... } $ l ;% f ,y-. . $s ,l-. e,ly & f es - j' ~ "'?,yn"[.;n. '*u 'm ;[,2l g y.. H M Q!.~~
~~?[. [.f.~~
p ~: . x .w
c & w.;v 3.s. n 5. -- e,,..~ -w ..gi,mm - n er .e .m*o., % y ; y smm - e. u i- ,:f, 6 e; :. qa.p
~~f. ~ s,a~~
~~c. g ~. j z.,. h' m."'~~
s$ N " O3 '. 1 N ? ' x' W J. Ad'. 2h N. - y- +. l '. ~p w i, ,( s 6 s s ! ; ;. g :,.ty' : ,. n.. t w a e' 5 2 7-[, a 'ti 4~ - . s ' s ( s r. s a. r.. .u- .Qc . :.v 4. y g, - - - - ~ - - -- yf y ,., qm 2. c / h o ?.
T
+ C. Steam Generator Tube Failure Analyses c 1. Introduction . o N'....y', Joint Intervenors' Contention VII was originally admitted by Board s Memorandum and Order of September 22,1982 (LBP-82-119A, supra). f.%;y 7 R.. 4w
~~w. k;.~~
w#.m., e.v 9 M. ?. ~. n It stated as follows: k > w.p.-n & + %m o. e za %$ w.& a:1.*?..% d5*W.$,'.f*. G*?~?] ~ .m 0 ch Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the steam generators to be used in the A df$kg[h fd@y.pyw#Q: a$gpMyMfiM h NY Harris Plant are adequately designed and can be operated in a manner consistent p { g with the public health and safety and ALARA exposure to maintenance personnel k mM..ig "O in light of (1) vibration problems which have developed in Westinghouse Model g ', @t y g N.w,; p;; y. ;bv.e...ykh@v, D-4 steam generators; (2) tube corrosion and cracking in other Westinghouse .yag;6 r.- 4 b r.gA s ;. %]h. y D%kul* [%$.% steam generators with Inconel-60n tubes and/or carbon steel support plates and [$ . 'U:s. S:MD.[.J AVT water chemistry; (3) present jetection capability for loose metal or other ror. >k[U,.IEMN.[. 4.M NN;s gge;,;;;.g, q eign objects; and (4) existing tube fa. lure analyses, 6 ] 4 of da 7. ~ .s 16 NRC at 2077. . ' - < -.a .c. Applicants submitted a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition on j... M.f - ~ i fr. y. @, May 16,1984, in which they asked for dismissal of parts 1,2 and 3 of i 4. 'Q. ~/ ', M the contention. Stali responded in support of Applicants' motion on I,.e h - d h pl 1. f u.J..r w June 5,1984. Joint Intervenors answered on June 14, 1984, informing .Y[v'd*4,M.., the Board that although they disagreed with the premises advanced by Mif.M M,p.t Y? Applicants and StafT, that time and resource constraints did not allow 2.#. f,Mgh . f W.M d -.A..d,.c.N d)..m;y. 4 4,.a.w.s.w.h..?yf;d, T,h r M @ W %:.%'q.;ff ~ c them to respond adequately to the merits of the motions. Q $.@ ; U.lfl The Board has reviewed the arguments and accompanying affidavits .ge w
~~. f.~~
~~g' submitted by the Applicants and Staff and has reached the following MW.4 7.#, r 7MM M vi-7 ud conclusions. .~.,..a. .,. C. m,;,a?,7 "~~
~~l. Suf6cient experimental data, analyses and testing have been x~~
~~performed to provide assurance that vibration in the Shearon g,, w Harris steam generators will not be a major problem; .4c@m,%.Q~~
~~,....s,~~
~~!y?d, z,% MN<u~ ;.b,. m N~~
~~2. The use of all-volatile treatment (AVT) water chemistry is f.r.. %m.4 W.y 7 5 7 T. %~~
~~state-of-the-art and provides reasonable assurance of obviating~~
~~. w #, - t p w %, y; c.,,.~~
~~many of the corrosion, cracking and denting problems expe- %%S%. f J.., T . rienced in earlier systems; and ~'~~~
~~3. The " loose-parts" detection system for foreign objects in the dN CM b b- @b@a '.,:~~
~~m steam generators has been tested and found to be capable of iM.@ f.q.c fQ.G~~
~~c. c g@ $ M D d; M M f f;I k d M~~
>#.%hM/M.W '.",fe r detection of any such objects which might affect the integrity '.9# 8 of the steam generators, M N,k '*h h h h' con 6rms,ts prior grant of Applicants' motion for summary disposition b j In accordance with the foregoing uncontroverted findings the Board ye,- cM., h"T.. C D d y@7$ .n.,,y ; 7,y~Q - i of J.I. VII(l), (2) and (3). E. un.3., y ~ ~ 7,4. . - ry z. : f - Q. g. L F c .,r.. EE'.L. t. ,,','a_ 2 s' .k. 4 7 g'Nc~.Rs 931 B g ..e' R l' ^ 4 :..
g.
~~\\ M ~ n.y i;&...f; n.: 'I -*p ,g ,. 4 s .,f3 .9 [ M.-:,1; ~m w. H~m -R..Q ;',y ' '..,,. d I.,.. _. p,y ? '4 ! F.* / lJD* Q.,@C 4'. 2..:n; 'Q *'4~~
~~w,.. t' n' 4 E~~
~~hr t' ~ ~ .s ...... j t. . o '3 r -~ ..~-L..c.., ., ~.. .w ~= J ' s..4 g g'y., i'.Q.;r$.;[a..R.n985.M,n~~
~~.@'A y"- W W t. ; s 1~~
~~.e '4 L 4,. w bW H W,2 9' g+r, p.yL. '.A.N.- a.,. m,*n. p.<M G M ' W ' W W 9X. +;;$q' M ~ a - .= 2 x . ~, O*.g n.. v,gy ms - + - u..yg*ps.g.,. g;~~
~~3. c,~~
~~. ry~g,.,,.~.v:,- t ow~~
s.
r. v
%y &M m, w.p e Nq d y'@%w v F W W # M sE W.6 s M $t @r g%yn P -N9Fow NFQM 9.'% Um.g-? eg%dfW.g$y 0%%%g. atfw. W%@c. Lw W 2 ky. w. m.M W anJ: n 8 - m. m%f.]p y$h'Q.Q.yMk%gf n 3.S mp v u t,..a M N. $ M uW 6 @g;dCf$~% :k",.4"4p"% ^.q*'MM W %% LE?WCf+.W d@N b6 6/'M E F' M M s.yM W g& MQ G%.shI P MA P.?. 5 ,W.@r.%$. % '"~.% "~ W y:pp wek. m&@t.%:. W - .? - ~ A"'n = ' ' ' ' ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " + ' 3 Mix-a mw . +.:.y D *,W:Spm:mw"M $ W &.o.$$$ h h. b h-h.. . n %g...fw - v. r.., 2. JointInterrenors' Contention Vil(4) L 1. A portion of this contention was settled by stipulation of the par-ties which was approved by the Board in a Memorandum and Order ?,5 f ~. W.;, %. m. C.6;y h y:.."',4 dated July 27,1984. The remaining issue at bar is the question whether . ~. c
~~.n.,.~~
. g.' the Applicants were required to consider multiple tube failure in their s%ag Qn..Nr.m. f%u,+vy%wa.' bp :q.,v.W.-e.p%up..3 d tube rupture analys.is. m- :f. m y.w....v. 3+ u..g.s W.. 2. Apph.eants, w.tness was Michael J. Hitchler, the Manager of i .w.D#6.84?MP.5*.Mk g Plant Risk Analysis with the Nuclear Safety Department of Westing-yM & yh[%e. m;k -NNNi Ledyard B. Marsh, a Section Leader in the Reactor Systems Branch, Di-7 k. e ctr house Electric Corp., the steam generator vendor. Staff's witnesses were N> M.. y p@g.h,T.t%i [YI M%W:dyf G vision of Systems Integration, NRR, and Herbert F. Conrad, a Senior bSN Pd. 4N.i;..M,. W q Materials Engineer in the Materials Engineering Branch, NRR. Joint In-9 f.F.~. M. Q.w M.4. $-o.Wn@RAXMM yN MMW tervenors presented no testimony on this contention. Using the conditions set forth in the " Standard Review Plan," 3.
~~nn r ~~~
....1 1 ? '.e My' JGpfGQM.. " s., ! i." Z.s M l fY.Y;% NUREG-0800, Rev. 3, the Harris FSAR presents an analysis of a single double-ended break in a steam generator tube. Testimony of Michael J. [sch 'v.fih$g.7%,I Hitchler, fr. Tr. 4012, at 4. Results of the analysis show that the resulting release of radioactivity would be well within the limits of 10 C.F.R. Part ..f. 6.';&ig,,pyW;WM ym -a.i 100. Staff Testimony of Ledyard B. Marsh and Herbert F. Conrad MSW (Marsh /Conrad), fr. Tr. 4176, at 2. Intervenors did not question the EUEQM NWhp!4-Mk analysis, but contend that analysis of a multiple-tube break should be +7dh&$g4y 4G. E@C.6,4.w& p a %j'y% p% M included-f WF Mk. 4. Applicants argue that the frequency of multiple tube failures @Q@h,9@Q'%f$pyk[.h would be exceedingly small, and thus would present no significant risk ..l6 u,+r;k.hNkWhhg,g.k,1. M to the public. Hitchler, Tr. 4014. The Staff agrees, and further argues T d m, that the conservatisms embodied in the single-tube analysis assure that ....r ' C,y the analytical results will be bounding. Marsh /Conrad, fr. Tr. 4176, at 3. y. E... 5. Applicants' witness testified that a data base of over 4 million ~ 4-gffs.$q@%p'd9f'NQ6E 9 u-qd tube-years of operating Westinghouse steam generators using Inconel Wg. egh.n&jjg@hp tubes has been accumulated. During this time only five tube ruptures m M.r NNN% a.bhyg,WQP M4My$dh% gjg@-%@M have occurred. Hitchler, fr. Tr. 4012, at S. Using a conservative number of 3.6 million tube-years to allow for 10% tube plugging, it would be pre-q/39 G,-:Wci,.,j v dicted that a tube rupture at the Harris plant could occur with a frequen-l. cy of 1.6 x 10-*/ tube-year, or about one tube rupture every 45 years. Id. W.ig.gp!%@.%,'.H.h.i7.@M h.N.hNpy
~~Ekih. d;h)~~
.h W ' at 6. This is a very conservative number, as the causes of the five failures OM@ ik k' - stress corrosion cracking, denting, and loose foreign objects in the M} eM.c d..k;gMM,h{h.d M hy system - have been either eliminated or mitigated by design and opera- .QS .d Fh tional changes and sophisticated testing, as the Board determined in its F. d. % E N summary disposition rulings, supra. Id. at 710. If these changes are fac-k.IN[n{h E$fAV:Mi j@MN.N*rdP tored into the analysis, single-tube failure would be predicted to occur ( ) h a out &6 x IMthyear, or akut once in 120 years. Id. at 10. ,s., e. :- (# 4 '[* N h, '
~~p i.~~
~~.gLh 1 ,g 4,f 3, id ' D .\\ 932 y ,f ,a 1 o s, n "9~~
e 0

. g ;. __ f. g.,n'L.4 1,. s..
4 .i 1. m.w r hbY. Yh h, h;& rM.9:ka.khh, p.y& ;m m.p pe. g x$w w w %w. p y y n g & .,,,n....s. fc n Qky.y.;,. m. r &., @y,~ V, ' ~... .. r % P. ? ~:. w. GM. hbhh w w w @. h Y aww way mm a gMw. isw. w on
. a., ( ?w....., s.,., r, s. u; e..o>. ,W a 1' 1* i....x : w?;. : M* *,3% ';Q. ~.. ' S; :.< !:. ', w
Q:
~~i b G'\\ u /. '>y .r~~
~~1o.+.~~
~~qn./.+.. -hh. h.e hhb.bb. ', ,1,,',~~
~~r. s.c. s~~
~~_ - o,,~~
~~e. 4 l 1 ^ ! ' ', ',.".~~
~~o-1i -,u v .i. -s e..,w-%,,. o~~
~~7 c.~~
~~~. h.h;-uj.g ~;$, ? h;..,.(;A, 2 - " ~ WA 4 ;.s.~ ~;t% w~~
~~m. y~~
= } ~ l 6. Westinghouse has developed an analytical method which can be used to determine the probability of multiple-tube ruptures. This was necessary inasmuch as there is no historical data; no multiple-tube fail-ure has ever occurred. The method, termed the " pressure pulse" model, relates the pressure differential across the tubes to the probability .f, # ', p.t.54. m e,. m @ef V t-2: _ . w4.,.w.*W.,- %..!,. s m..s.+9.. w. e%, of tube failure. Id., Attach. A. Using this model, the single-tube rupture ic 7-p m M e % o. is calculated to have a probability of 7.5 x 10-'/ year, wh. h compares 9,4.ew,.w m .pk.. u;MwW ~r e p well with the 8.2 x 10-3/ year obtained using historical data. /d. at 11. h 9'N h 3,P-D.. e. M w ;;%(Y g,qq id % D K Multiple-tube failure predicted by this model shows a frequency of 7 x S 10-5/ year, or once in about 14,000 plant-years. Id. at 12. The Joint Inter- . @ m n ?.4 W M 4 9 W.S NkiYhhhbNhkhM. venors did not question the analytical method or the conclusions ',':5 W. h S $ s._3 M.v W W h reached. %y :,y.v. n % Q. %....w r,.u. Q. : ; u. ,RP.. g~a, w. . v -:..... s .- %+w % fMQ ' 3. Intervenors' Proposed findings ,b 7. Intervenors submitted a number of arguments opposing the Ap- 'y
~~c. br:~~
a plicants' findings. The Board has had great ditTiculty in determining a .,e s {.' ' >' Mlf.y nexus between these proposed findings and the necessity of performing a multiple-tube rupture analysis in the FSAR. Nevertheless, we discuss %;,y ~., 4.$'Q...,' a them seriarir~1. ,.:..:.y ., v;$.. r. w 7 G.Qg4 8. Intervenors' first and second proposed findings consist of a calcu-O 3M ; M W f p l M. g f.t* lation not previously aired at the 1 :aring or in any communications be-QW Tty T.QQ".M7, ' tween Intervenors, the Board and the other parties. Intervenors include khNhh'Sh Nhi only U.S. plants in the calculation, rather than all Westinghouse plants 'd $ 'E $.k p k"j Q jj ' worldwide using Inconel tubing, thus applying four of the five failures 7, ._ J. /: which have occurred to a reduced tube-year count. While this may be a '^ '? legitimate statistical compihtion for some uses,' no grounds were laid i - M for the four tube failures in the U.S. reactors and one tube failure in the ogi, 7 r.q w&,,j,y. foreign ones to be considered anything other than fortuitous. In any . M('.%. +. 7.N:u.,-. g.@w, M. f.i, event, the results of the Intervenors' calculation show a probability of , t. ,t f, 4 f 1.8 x 10-6 compared to the re3 ult derived from using total plants data - / f ':""f f.;4 1;p Zu ' 7:j.c 1.6 x 10 4 - a difference which the Board considers insignificant and
~~.p not to indicate a trend in tube failures to either higher or lower values.~~
^ 9. Intervenors' third finding is somewhat difficult to follow. Howev-m, < c. < .o o f, .d, C.M < 73 f..h:2 er, the bottom line appears to be that, by Intervenors' calculations, two '.4.f @,C.% j MniQ ;... M R 4:T'.M single-tube failures can be expected over the life of the plant, and there-R 1MM fore the possibility of multiple-tube failure is not zero. Even accepting . lW,w...bh~[h.,$. ge y.r a l ygg Intervenors' calculations, the probability of two single-tube failures over idy..&l.[,,j
p y T.? W k".r.y ; R.* w,
~~m m n. :,.s y;y.Qh-y s-'.~~
.

W'Q:3." ' 4. t:- i
~~??n. ,,a e di' M,, '. *y*F 7 /fe <~~
~~The Board notes that using only the statistics compded by the rour plants which have espenenced tube 7~~
radure would perhaps be valid under some circumstances. but that in the present case such use would be a s reductio ad absurdum. c .(_- - p j... 933 o e y-'d pz. g t ,Y ., l % 4' 6 4, [ d ' '. - /(},M*7, U"*';; 8 f9 'P ' 7 ' 4,..*,A&,'. y, ;**, s ; f.. ;%.*s .v. ~. a + ; j h j '#"*" p, , h '." ; < ,, y- * * *..,* ' Cl} f 3, c.,., < n .eis% s ,l .~.,?. } G - (s. s, v : * ^* y :v.%,, &*t. '^< 7#,. g&*
~~s;-~~
~~,s ' s '. L, y.7,~<~$*f. z.,'.y s k 7A ' '.5., _.i. A. s..'.,- 's 9 'N. e 1- .. j. 4 ,~ s 4 L ' ' 3. V g ;g'.D',q h ... ~ * *, ~ - K ' 3 5 z.' *e m at** ? .G~~
~~pm=, w L y..~~
~~g . =~~
~~4. g p..~~
~~.;....o y *, ,, [k.[., ~ m -, a.1 a a ~ [ ej. .y .,s,.~~
~~. ;u.~~
A.k, {, [ [ ",O s . s.%, *Q :...I [ y., r., " [~ [;,, ( m._f(k,* U. --y.** ,,., ; ~ y* . <), .'(s, ,c r. 5 4 '.'J 'm, u 1, e *
~~L, &y~~
~~,.m~*' ar rV w, '. ~ - e' e ' - 99 s. m , >*,. ~ R.. kr.6 '4~~
"' Y 1

b

uC '.
,,4
q ,p?.* t: ?.9 e, i..z 4: a + twyy,7..q 7:;; ' M. m w.
~~Y, y.-~~
~~, o.m c.. .u. s 3 c - ;; y ; n v.... m.x 2.o.y. A ,t. er a v&n ' :. ^ 'f. w y .g-2gi;.. sg.*y.. 0qfW. b : vp... ~' 4 7:;f 7g.Q.y;;&;y,y,..fe.'Y;}s-M: * :.y,,Q;.:~~
~~Qr Aa 4 n~~
~~a m~~
~~a -r* 1 ,y+,h.;.y b.M:Z%.yp' Q.p{ppJ;%, %>0.Q+.'6, -n y r.;- y.Q.. N W ; % ~ - A g 2 . lnT, 7 [. ~ + , r ;.g.. ; y %Q',,- ss~~
~~. a n.~~
gg
u
~~'r pm .s..m~~
~~.s y.~~
n,. _=_.__w u .;: 1 L. ^ * ~ ",ue Q ;, [P', ' Y. g' ) t ) o'* ., f the life of the plant occurring at the same time, absent a common-mode initiation, is too remote to consider. Intervenors state that common-mode failure "cannot be excluded but they do not elaborate. We find no merit in this finding. t
~~10. Intervenors' fourth finding states that (1) there is no analysis of~~
'l.. multiple tube failure in the FSAR, (2) Applicants' witness has never EhM.i'. c.s ', M,':f.4 ,hg4 done one, and (3) the Staff did no statistical analysis for the Harris MNfl:L c'.. MNQ 6ld plant. These statements are all true, but have no discernible bearing on d@y. m.g.'Ud@@@N'D.ia..;9.." W.. M M.MM.
~~11. The fifth finding states that Applicants' witness has not reviewed dF M~~
~~whether multiple-tube failure analysis should be required. V.f~~
~~7.. ;4ST;nJ:..m.~~
~~Harris QA procedures, as the witness testified. Hitchter, Tr. 4136. How-r ~ g.1 .s. - %w: %. %..~~
~~Q:.' ',.N: r l m' (;.;;.m ;m.,w...." ?1.W.L y, t, gg%~~
~~4l. - 'y p. q ever, Intervenors neglect to include the cont.muation of the witness, re-s~~
~~f. M, marks, wherein he says:~~
i > -* 1 ; f+ e. .'.;, - J.! e..: e, p-What I have reviewed [ist where the recommendations have been made and what . n. 7 p . [. the plant has agreed to in terms of check list and keeping track of parts that go into '{, and out of the steam generators. Also, [there is] the fact that this plant is using I' loose parts monitors such that when you start up the plant you will be able to hear , ' (.h '. these things and take corrective actions. So I have not specifically gone through @i' every item in their QA procedure, but I know what the generic recommendations lg are at this point and those are being adhered to. L. . w v, a: fL O*. . *4'h. ?....d. Q'3 The Board finds that Mr. Hitchter's review of the actions to be taken at .w .w-a' .NI. .., D q the plant are entirely adequate for the purposes of his calculations. .6'.W. G :,o.; f. 3 Q5 Q.'
12. The sixth and seventh findings concern tube leakage before Y 3. 3. Q J,,' f y W N y;.
~~breaking and the technical specifications limit on detected leakage. Inter- .m~~
~~f..,. a.~~
j n; p..g. venors state that leaks before breaks cannot be depended upon and that the high technical specifications for tube leakage at Harris make it more difficult to detect leakage before rupture. These may be debatable points, but they shed no light upon the issue considered here - the X. a.%.m....u.. .. i...
~~d..~~
~~.J l ..',.0.xo - need for multiple tube failure analysis. The finding is therefore rejected. Q.%Mi. <.;'J", ' @eW h~~
~~13. Findings 8,9 and 10 are somewhat difficult to evaluate, because g y,' M p g f 7 7 ', -~~
they depend largely on isolated statements taken out of context. In any t ~. m. - -, n event, the Board finds nothing here which would support a need for rigorous analysis of multiple tube failure in the FSAR. z, s s., .:y;& - . s M..,:.. 4. Conclusions m m m. .i;rL_...,;; e
~~.w.y m... s.,.,~~
~~o . d,pa,,4i?~~
~~14. The Board has evaluated the record before us and finds that r,PW;,t:W j.i. 3.xw,,y#. p; f,w.. q h..~~
~~M y~~
~~y % w.oy.. -.~~
..,..g 2 ~ .m there is no need for multiple tube failure to be considered in the FSAR. m %@.r_x,. c'. [ ' U ";q.ng~ It has been established that single-tube failures are rare and that .,j j, multiple-tube failures are even more unlikely. We conclude that the test- ~- + ~ '
~~t'e~~
~~~ -t ' y.i,T!~~
~~ing, design modification, water chemistry procedures, loose parts monitoring and inspection and maintenance procedures which have~~
~~~ 934 t. 1 I ,l . k. -e.,. -. - -- ~ ; m -, m y ~---;------.a~. r .. 4 g :.w * ~ ' 3 $. . ~ 'h 7~~
~~S q,~~
s W- ~ ~ ~ l ?. k '5. $ S ';'N ' m ',,, ;.p, ;.fw,;c,Gy 2y ; z.; q.,.. ma.. e-j-Q ;:q, 4 K* N;;w x' ~ s .~. .(. ,.., ; a..my.O.,.,,. ,. y-,y y,. .s e .,7 o.g . p 7;. s
,..g. . g 6 w. a m ". c: p @w@pa - w M,J nu ft.1 ; v.M;, n 4.. g J ...y:.w, w Q,.i.q,,w.,#.m.w. a..,. m, , L. s. c, g.p. . 3... .....%.w. t
~~gjQQ':;'9.<..Q.7 i L;g,; q.,,,~,~~
~~n.:M~~
~ ..~..~8,,, e a,.. f - ~ ' f l ' '.l. ' ', ':' ';. .m . * ; Q. ;' a.- - -. " - '- ~ ~.-- ~ . 3, . v, ,~ been or will be implemented should make tube failure even more unlike-ly than it has been historically. The Board therefore finds that analysis of potential single-tube failure is adequate. .d:..4 i 8 [ ". @. M. .e.. iU; IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW lt,;5 m;r..n..ar a,.,a r :,.c...a..c c. 7.1 y .b .,: a.v.s.w ,? A...
~~GfC9f'.? 'IWrt.iN.fr.MU The emergency planning and safety matters in controversy in this pro-~~
.( n %qy.M,6'.: e 2...,m.de-4.a w neoy ,gs ceeding are limited to those raised by the Intervenors.10 C.F.R. N5![NN((.[.$NNf$c3y i 2.760a. As reflected in the foregoing findings of fact, those matters p-u,,W,. q%.y,.M.,..f,.. t: 4.sJ..tw,, J. h. (with the few exceptions noted herein to be addressed later) now have Y:T:"fymt.g f %y W y v n I M N M~.MdQ gg$ been resolved in favor of the Staff and the Applicants and against the In- .Wh tervenors. Based on those Gndings of fact, the Board concludes that as
~~s.. iv,. i.., e~~
. t to the contested emergency planning and safety matters addressed .<w~ p:'.s. '.ec. F a.m. e m&>.-. u n;'w ~ herein, there is a reasonable assurance that, if an operating license is subsequently granted for the Harris facility, the activities authorized ,j thereby can be conducted without endangering the health or safety of
G}
~~3 ' i, .~ f the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with l' applicable NRC regulations. ~,. ~ v. 9 PA.. V. APPEALS~~
~~m. 3 -, a w,~~
...vt. M yt:. ym.p. :N ~.. s. ;...r z.. i.v, Th. Partial Initial Dec..ision is efTective immediately and will constitute is a, .;...,.. 3, !.,. " N, s.....d.(l-,$dDw$M L, the final decision of the Commission 45 days after the date hereof, t. .u ..,3.4%ld - d.c M;j i. unless a party appeals or obtains a stay pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.788. t J< c / ' Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. (( 2.760(a) and 2.762, an appeal from this Partial J Initial Decision or from any prior Board Order granting a motion for + summary disposition, in whole or in part, of an emergency planning con- -- p t ..Mi e tention or excluding a proposed emergency planning contention from
y. ;%.,.... y.y.<:.

1.,.
z, 4.' .Q.4- ~1. I tigation may be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the Atomic -c: m'm'.-,>. g,%.t,.. e v ! RQ' &Q( ..,g. i Safety and Licensing Appeal Board within 10 days after service of this k+s Decision. A brief in support of an appeal must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal (40 days if the appellant is the a 4 NRC Staff). Within 30 days after the period for filing and service of the M 2,, ),.. , y J.. ~. <. 1:.i i 4% E f. ". i briefs of all parties has expired (40 days if the appellant is the NRC n ..;,. :. ap +.. r ?.;..Q, s.-,..n K!;h;%ViG{Q-k' h%.Lh u.:h&: &. ']* i:. " 'L;.. QR ' Y'@? n.$.. &Q?- Q4 .%%Qj W .:r r.wd >... r w*[* - sj .& Q*.,Q'.) w 'm . ' *g ' e t. f,;- c l., _ . ~ ;.y. g., e .. y. i s t4 -4 o f a 935 .c.q!p.m. < 2. ' :w
.=

P
-y
jU"-8*.I**,#*.""
. ; :,.,.!a:; f. ;m,:, f: :.~,p, n..., m : m. ; -y ,.. k '. '. .L t ... c ;, - .,j <.. . y,' .a ' n c. i:-: ' a .r ,~ { v < . ~ ;r ; !la"i [p.% ', ','e <r - *,. g j *. ',- 3* S F )._' " ; j ,,a e, .+ f f.,D :. [ 's?
~~,..n A,~~
~~n,._ h 'j'. y,..,q, y.. - ~ ' ~ .s y . v.. v,w,, -;,~~
;?
.r, a
% $M f y W y.ff & ?Qf Q.Q'h Q. & $jWRf??.' %N' l? Q S h.O g,.- i wy&, .n-.v:;. :.:%:;a.~n m,.p:s;mmm sy nw%y%~; w i &. t. :r;n.,m. <.,;;n. 'f. r y,g, 9,..., w. s.,t m.uSp.n.u wm. 2 . x. ~ .m.,%y r.s.; <,. -,. n
ea

.u
~~.n M..p.w< t f fy p. cap,- < m.;5 3~ -; 7 ur, .4,, *Q.. e.w..m@Q...) w,h, a'~~
~~1.,*.- -.~~
~~g9. m4 Eq ,. o., a e, v z. , +%.t b~~
~~w. #..~~
~~. &,' s.A ** #.',, T 4.,.*p.w. *:~~
e
~~, w..,,tv,r W .6. n 7. w ; e,.;y wm.w ..s .? -.~~
~~8.j d. s, + ; "f'~~
~~.n.= q. s .:-. 1.@pt~~
~~d. r.,'['y' '.~~
~~w a m~~
~~d y,~~
~~.c c .c . d h w+ A y#.. e n..4,. r :w,g.c{Q<=N , Ii 'Y !; FP 'I*. '%.g..JS*3 Vu. y, y a'. ;,u a p". . u, s ( : >' %.q. Jj@y. <.,... ... : w G,p,v..... y w %- - :. e ....y y c~~
~~u..~~
~~.. ~.~~
c.;.m.~. m., s.

;m. >~ n.,;.;.., w,,.
.c, c. ~ ,ck ~ ~ "w : - ^ ^ .; 9.. "..a & 3..a,.;.;v. C.@ :,, m... - .w n p,. .:v. +:, : ,v r. q, .. y-u. . c n.n.3- ?:s.. v *., c. .....,.f, cc., Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of or in opposition to an appeal.: I FOR THE ATOh11C SAFETY AND N LICENSING BOARD
~~7 T. ?.^~~
~~s ~p. y. 7 :.,.. ; ,..: 1 n., -. a,.< g..:.,.:.~ %. :.my,,m. u.... ..m g .,... c.. ;,.,., m.v,.~~
~~w. _.~~
u co m., a en ; r..m..t.s.. A..a u. la. w :n.,.n@e..:m. w.-~.n.,:wv..w:wn... o.,. pM James L. Kelley, Chairman .m. ~.a r m sh .. w ..~. : .m.a.,. w .a. n,w .. r,w :...:7. 43.w a...m m w:. ADh11NISTRATIVE JUDGE 3 e
~~> m w.c 2.y.;~~
~~4Wl.Y ;***$"O" A;f.v : =,. w. ..h. W..hY,., ~ a n@,5,.S'*%.*;Ts%@@,.4,Aw w:.y p.,? n W~.W9 . Q.f~~
~~,.f. m...~~
~~~ e c. h. ?~~
~~p 'sr @,, 4.,W.s,p n@ ;O~~
~~Jr Dr. James H. Carpenter, hiember~~
.'J. y. ADh!!NISTRATIVE JUDGE .f-t. .e c' .. t g.M L ?. f. j. .d.2,, M.TM*% f.T Glenn O. Bright, hiember (by JLK) .g a.' N' ADh11NISTR ATIVE JUDGE ~o 4.- 1,t MN.'r.y,.,.;'%M 45. $. !.6I.:e.j.-;r n$ Bethesda, hf aryland . M.s..;3 . U December 11,1985 U S M.7 M,I;1 d E$ @7m..f,.mJ.y p:.w.;y? w + %.-~$ y. Q, f _Ab5 . a.. ~. H... v.,4,L .y e. . 9c..y 3 ' 'd.d.@?;,,.4 4.;N J U'w Mp. ' 23g* .t. i Tg*.pe ,m o m
f. :

w..
r? V* .. C A, ? ~y$. @L v'd;gk' '. -A,;f ATTACHMENT TO LBP.85-49 .j 30 September 1985 f 4, t.g.:., g i, q CONTENTIONS BASED ON EMERGENCY PLANNING a4 v43,,., s.WWW;V. i/ ~MM:Mf EXERCISE w n y s : N W s g g c p /. 9 p.m < w ...w2. bp.. g,q:ni 7 ^. ' .. " C Wl.W1 el. After the emergency planning exercise for the Shearon Harris plant in '~ af " - i hfay 1985, I sought the evaluations and other documents related to ?., these exercises. However, the State evaluations were not in my hands . l' ' ~ i;@ ' 'M.... . ^f until after 1 September 1985, the main cause being delay by the State in ?y 47
~~4 f ch g..;W v,_.t.$.'i;g.G releasing same. Likewise I received FOIA documents from FEh!A only 7diDDSMhM@N$'Q,y f~~
at the end of August 1985. FEh!A has still not fully responded to the E 9, 1,; ;. $. @; m.,~@,.,... p'. /!l'1. F., m,,d ~. g,.. ;ry:*p w,,m.' xp.+i M FOIA requests for Harris, nor has the State to my knowledge made its origmal message logs available. v G >, 7 'w ' 9..;;.p.y
~~2., j t {; t-~~
~... *^. r. ' y, _# a,,!,;.p,5e;t'U,+b* C a;- , 44 o, ey . ~ ci e, ey N 8 The Apphcants' unopposed motion August 1,1983. concerning transiript corrections is granted and the endentiary record shall be deemed amended to incorporate sa,d char ges. g 4 936 i t . l. .c ~. ~,,I ((3 ' *.,,.,.,, j. i ',' ^4..*- .. ] 'J ~, k,k +w er=.e.,, m.w .I,.,: ' [ p ;.,,,j[. -... 2 e p'p:. ' : z, g',',',,', c g, .,... v >< ,.. M,(wg*.W~.:q: a "... ;l,4V; r~; .f.', s
~~si.~~
~~-l ;., .,,, j. .., y:'r.*,., e.y..... 4 ,.., w.. c.,t' ' ; s - W' .t ,. i m,. ;,.,a.,...., s.a. 1 .. 1.m. .w.~~
~~i..~~
.s
~~m. et-o~~
~~.. ~ ., ::m x c r-. ;,, n. ~r as .a :%,...s.. a.': A;u a q c.r.m,.. i.~ ', f y.,':~~
~~f :, **,;. y O,, j,;s~~
~~+.,, f,' ]~~
~~. fv v 3 'w' ,-?,*- r e&,>*N l 3 r L.. s,~~
~~.g e\\v.~~
~
~~s. s t~~
ye d...' m z. s ' > $. 5 if ' 'k'?,,o ff l,' ,,_, f,.~,. ' ,s- !.' )n, I@.3, i r.c t:';[ t @h ", # - M/4' W' ' >.T ' N.9 i / ~ ' '*'6, ;; 6, Y"C" 3 # ' / i * *;*' ge H^
h M: h Q ': v. V W + $.S.O W N i d; @ * '. %. lc.*v.e Mh$Md -V ' ~ 3 t.c.cw +y D W M p v' W @ w -r y r %'j; [r6.;Q.%.,Q. <, :Q ^, ; Be.t : > T Y. %~ f;t % g.9l p' Q....3. a W .he m4,. u ( e a e y;w;.c:,f,M,M3,, 2MMQ,,,Q,,Q,, %y. %, v,. 7, q y: / '. % ' & J.M.; 3.',6 M. q ,,. F. S. m m.w.r,.Mge, m; ;. n. ~3: E .+ e ~ .p. is - y;.: wwg ~ ~ .,6 3H* p n:M*'[..m +7.9.,:,p w.- m v ' 3. 4 w.- x r.,; m,?. y.._."..~. m, .., 1 : U;.;C.. a m...^.p- ; n yY.Q :w
~~m ::f ?.~~
L 4% , q. ; ,: x. + .m i; w [ Nevertheless, the available information makes it possible to frame the following contentions. In general the same "5 factors" discussion under 10 C.F.R. 2.714 applies to each, and thus a general "5 factors" section W WM96 , 1* and any specific additions re these contentions will come after all the C '.3.. J, W; y hy M./d.pp gm%:. 2 contentions. v-y . v 4:,t$.dyM- % r y:Q4y).pddRQ p.v/ g*W Contentions qiJW.?by6pfpQ ',4ht3).M$F[diMhM% EPX-1. Timely notification of radiation releases is not assured, e.g. UNIN.>. b dfp (( Q in light of the approximate 42 minutes delay in notifying SERT of an un-controlled radiation release during the exercise (State EOC evaluation ,n4 Wywfy.w w g$,, w*3.g&,u.. h.A by NC State Govt Evaluator). Without timely notice to emergency re- .g. &+;pX a 3 n.w > u @z3,0 %,b,. ' b:.W m Ta sponse personnel, the emergency management agencies cannot ade-a,.,U,c. %. 6.. w :#t. Wr Wy.SW quately protect the public from radiation releases. W ' @s @. u.N Q.nF4'M 9,;8 D EPX-2. Communications deficiencies revealed in the exercise could r have severe bad effects in a real emergency, including lack of effective 4.n .?; 7 d @ 6 ~MN j q l.
~~s. h communications and radiation monitoring results, lack of contact with~~
. $[,? T..'jy@gn.<V;'y 'Q'.Q. di > field and ground units, etc. For example, the emergency inter system mutual aid frequency was so overloaded the state's communications ~,: -.a y evaluator stated it was " proved that there could be absolutely no com-n Tl w. f.46M d'.WZ %W.9.. munications with ground units on this frequency due to constant .. w,n%.,31E'R h.C M T,g y M? S misuse.". Other examples: The Highway P.drol evaluator found "com-er 4.% p w A... c mm.a.s. 9%.m., munication madequacies; equipment.. is not yet capable of adequately hMb-bhlhf$ handling the impact of so many i:aits responding to an emergency of M.Mp.d.T dk'%;A6.[' yp.', C 2f6 L this type"; Harnett County had " insufficient telephones": "[E]xtra g'gy,.N'g,; g.y gs radio traffic overloaded personnel on duty" in Chatham County; "exces-2 (. f +$ sive delays" in Emergency Medical Services Office receiving messages ~ * , g.~ W from SERT (State Emergency Response Team); communications from _x. 7 1 the mobile radiation lab had to be relayed to base station at times, which
~
$ - @;;u g.A; & r% n'.:.a ~ 4x. - - -m .d.fM @.d? M i$t ":! ways introduces the possibility of delayed and/or incorrect informa-y,w,,,M..w;.p&u..A. MW,y:W. f@~. DM.3Q f ~. M tion" according to the State Radiation Protection Section evaluator. - lJ.. 9.mw@ ~O,.m EPX-3. CP&L emergency medical personnel do nnt have adequate c , w. m- ,' y 7 equipment available (e.g. splints) to treat fractures, and have not g-( ,5. y, demonstrated the ability to maintain a high level of patient care while .i c C; f p 3 7;g ' < y.W,, f.. W preventing contamination of themselves and the environment. (Ref: Q,;$ $f'p' i $.M C.N.. [.2 ,h State of NC's on site evaluation of Emergency Medical Operations). I YM EPX 4. Lee County's decontamination training and practice are not Dh ![M5 M@Wph, p.h.N@pdh[?g% h; P.ddfgph adequate. For example, evaluation revealed that the group of decontami- /D;D$ A nators indicated "they had not been trained and were unsure what to do. '.5 9 %, M :s @ .M E w. d --,n ~ a They appeared to have no knowledge in the use of the instruments, no m.a - j';q'- @'. .qy consideration was given to collecting water and attempting to control "!'~ ,W contamination. None of the personnel (knew)... *when is decontamina- ~ tion complete'" (Lee County evaluation). This problem must be reme-e ",h. ,4 9 7 ~ 937 g,* l t t g s >*,'.,.;_r a .,1 e s *,. My o ..,a .r m, .h r y v p.- f,a; ? :. ix ~ -.y g,+ y xy. x.q~m,a.y,E ?,, { I M!hsN.,g.g%,.c,y.., +n, m. ..j e n g m., s.p ,.iQ, M.., ~,,e k M. b. > g... h N.h,w.fMVM:u.L~g.a rm.c n%$1S..& / k D.NN
~~7.,, l J. ~m O~~
d, n* - l* w.:.; - Q. f= ~%-] a.'?,. sl Q f, :
~~Q Q y p } >. ~]:.~~
~~K r~l,~~
f
~~s,,, j,,~~
s ,s
}t M @ ; [ g {'y /M @ h Y Wi F G F'.7% $.V % Uv7;%{.% %b Q S; $$g.7;p.$ '. ;*? m.. O dih he hw*dd e W. $ w@Q u.'. %"05 t W y'-W M w: / wu'. *. MnQ y iWNb M J 4> wcA* 4* M >Y ie a& y~ &' m m "v.d s
~~$N, mw & Q9.rw-C, NLN 8M.~~
~~~ . egy d2 F a y p *b t~~
e.,g,,1./V w.*
3b3 M4; ' M.fg.u:%;.w[ M*. S-9 e$.i &+g 7?fb AwA '1 Men.~k.. Fa A e ,.a 4 _ m - w e y w %.... N... W r. D. D W i. W e M, T4$.h. e k1 .q 6y.m%d i. Mty 3 s-os ....v.. +- i. s . M M w. mewmyM 5M4 xm.. 5 kMR W-8 9pG% M $$y $, % O 9 n, S.: y p %';o. @J & n %. 4.m F:cm.M M~ Q k $% W L,. ~ h.w. m .N, y m.* ....w.., .sjf ?. w k f C.V M. W. j* 4, _ u f y g gy. .y b.",.. ;; G S y died by training and retesting to assure people evacuating in this area can be decontaminated and that Lee County's volunteers and other per-3 sonnel are assuredly able to carry out first-class decontamination work. MJWMS@f@y '.. 4 Q, _ EPX-5. Emergency siren activation is inadequate and there is no s 3 dmo reliable means assuring that Wake County emergency response person-N@;h M h;$ M'm, nel will know when the sirens have been activated. Ref: Wake County h Mg _ pg mine if emergency warning sirens have been activated"; State EOC ),9 evaluation by State of NC "some method should be devised to deter-Mh@$n$$ MQyd ~ N messages 53, 122, 160, 166, 176, 182, 205; numerous areas had sirens PN.C l $ b Al &, R. N. hM 4 not sounding, sounding of sirens was delayed about 40 minutes and '4.Eu MFf M there appeared to be initial confusion over confirmation. .dkfk M~9.M.7 k M ko,h. hh EPX-6. Management and coordination of rumor control were inade- @i@[NMP'hI$d.$Mk Y{-E quate (FEMA exercise report, e.g. at 13, see discussion at 11-13) espe-M.b;is!,...M cially in that there was no announcement of the early Harris Lake evacu- . a %f ? t['g iAE(gg@R., g ation (necessary to avoid panic, FEMA, p.12); likewise the General 3 J 4 AW Emergency was not publicly announced for almost an hour after it was TNHMD {2 declared (FEMA, p.12). With the General Emergency declared but dgy,p/.[, a D unannounced, public knowledge (e.g. from emergency personnel and 'd
~~f. n$s y radio-frequency scanners and listeners) could also spread panic. (FEMA d4hpM'.h@7 Sn@V(!Mg ucQl:2. w report received 8/30/85).~~
M.Syh% N "lKi EPX-7. Radiation dose assessments were not promptly communicat- /WW'Mi$b. rs' /.M@W ed to State Emergency Response personnel, data files were delayed up .M7WN6.wD. 56 - (OM( to half an hour, and coordinates of Traffic Control Points (TCPs) were m . myk.%2/ n Jf
~~4 not tabulated to allow faster calculation of doses giving allowable " stay MM~~
~~, v' M(,h.$b(dhh';hh N~~
N:i. times" at those TCPs. (FEMA, pp. 8-9). All such deficiencies need to ' g {Q.l -A & p. be remedied to protect the health and safety of the public, which y&. C depends on accurate and timely radiation dose assessment. ii a EPX 8. Emergency Broadcast System use was incomplete and inef-9.d'C..$ih%$&.M fectively managed (FEMA, 2.3.1. (2), page 13; see p.12 discussion). khh.My u.1 Jr,.h;Mh$v9d. h Inadequacies include procedures for activation and use of the EBS p 7 y. %. w g.m. p : w. (before the State assumes control); inadequate coverage of the emergen- .o p au - Wh gg cy area and emergency response area, incomplete messages and instruc-m.y 4.m . $. ' [ " .FMy j.h a tions to the public. (Ref.: FEMA report received 8/30/85 Board Notiti- 'M ?' %. 1: M OW' g.c m cation 85-078). Numerous problems with EBS activation mentioned on h(/AR?,Hp'.h.4@f ' y; y,j pp.17-18 of the same report also need to be identified and rectified. All Kj'cip:.W 'Ul these problems must be resolved to ensure timely and effective notice k%F-M to the public about nuclear / radiation emergencies so that the public can E MC Y/[N yphy[d _ 3 tM . A be protected in such emergencies. O Y(%@@N2f[$,IV-Y%*M EPZ-9. Radiation survey teams have a weak level of training in the f use of anticontamination clothing and/or respirators (State Radiation <.g@iMj{y f']p M 9w.d M.# O L-Protection Section evaluation). This needs to be remedied to protect the W health and safety of these teams and to ensure that they will be able to me.
~~v. i do their work in a timely manner.~~
~~t .s- ,.7 ~ w.~~
*g
~~.y,e~~
~~u. '.3~~
~~.5- , 7 ;... 933 ,s ,' E** g 4 s s' ..c ;.. ;, ?,,.. ; %...- l,, '. ;. y., G c~~
~~i.,-.~~
~~f;j Lff.>& jl.; t'.. _, m,Y h. Q : Q W.f'$E.ksh*,. N'.;) M __ _.,,_ e.w x q:j s% {2 C' Q Qf Q h,'$,/TE'l @h., h h.n,wn.-QF !]fi}.~.% .f~l,$ lJh**. f % ;pg. w & - 'M Y.- .,'l ? tl }. l !.~~
~~w. S.1,si. ~C,M,s 4M Pd, q~~
~~.c. p. W G 4. g %,$ h. m@d, m.~~
~~e. a. y h, m, N @o 4~~
",,MhN!jhk y m w.w. v.: ..w f "hb-N,0.'hhh: m.cf,Q h.4ME Nk IMNk.hIh s$W N&m@Mv;6m%.cN@wgdu: w-w ew %.w. 6M.M wW 9WGpu.t. wpm 4 fpg.4% A
h i N ' u $ x % N N I O 4 M M M $ @ $ @ $ 1:My. d W:.a : n 45 N 9.'~.; ;E 'J 1.I.M M i W2W5h.%re; w.v: n, f-
r
~~?q.~~
~~e. r' L n~~
~~%w.:.:n., N gh% -Q..p ;.n m w(p((fvh 6 m w w w v ?m,,VG4b,W'.'M'# ?. ~., ' ' # T * * $ ~... : W:. . ':, a ~t% *'b b ~' ew&".W a. n>.. < *.. h L w .t an ,m, . n .,0cw...- u m'tbl~~
f p % w $ w% # y,T.' w6-C' DOM %.,. M'? e' m' h.
~~MQ f "* F'7' iH -y4 ' * ~~~
~~y. eqv:NQ WiQ$l9A sm;$.MR5ethWfCM ' Er 6 ' S~~
.d M ~n @- @~ W:. A$ Gn 'Y, 5 m m. w m: 2 ~'^M~Md2.u- @% l ? W m w & fM 6, W, % n(*
~~dD Yv~~
'M J. & & ;. %c jy. y, n.e,.-p,":v:n m y m...W p ? L. ~. n. . s.: n s ~g,. y, yn, .x Q ~.. ?. EPX-10. Protection of emergency personnel and the public from, radioactive iodine is not assured because (1) low volume air samplers f are deficient in calibration and flow rate information, as detailed in the 4.,'
~~,y,.~~
~~NC Radiation Protection Section evaluation, and (2) there are deficien- .'9h's:N f cies in the distribution of, and notification of when emergency personnel C M M h ;.N~~
~~N. p M.T.; QDMWJ are to use, potassium iodide (KI): See, e.g., Wake County workers 6~~
eM w :w.. 7: ~- %n,w.m.%w..h M being notified late (after possible contamination) (Wake Co. evaluation n w m / . m.g 5,g.g.,P/. m~ N by State of NC/Meck. Co. evaluator). f M .p. gfg b g EPX-I I. There are numerous deficiencies in hard-copy transmission hy4NM@it9 h h 4 of information (see, e.g., State EOC messages 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 34, 35, ,,.kN i' P.M 40, 41, 57, 67, 71, 127) which must be remedied to assure timely and l@ g accurate emergency information is available to protect public health and MV M'*?,9 %.M. ; - L
~~Q ' Li: %~~
Nm
~~safety, I~~
J. M 5 N > W M: p '.. wr M y EPX-12. Emergency assistance needs to be upgraded to assure evac- ?.. ?. m. ~., e O.,. k K.w m.. uation of people fishing, boating, camping, etc. near the Cape Fear g, ptg 4+3W $;p%+p. x y:3gp
~~C Qe River in Zone ('H') - see State EOC message 162, a high priority third~~
~~.x 4~~
~~1.85S...W.~~
request to get assistance. n 4... f.r.,.,$n 1. O m$,..w.4. m.egsa%yk yg g.... W $, Five Factors (generic) / m.& '.q_@7 ( 3 ite... f qg M.g.dq %d g$@@y.d}I%g%J?an -t'5 t.~ (i) There is good cause for not filing these "on time" (51982) since N.% the exercise hadn't been done then, the right to litigate based on /.k. % emergency planning exercises had not been clearly established, and the p*@.Q,M$pur 7 7 aGb YP information was not in my hands to provide the basis of these conten-y
~~g. ee A. 3 g.W..y>.c%y,;.)f 3~~
a W tions. State and Federal agencies controlled the timing of the release of r A. w.y p. .m.n. w,p. :; y: ma : #,. this information. I have filed within 30 days of having it. .p,.s;:i %.%> b ...w. Mc,: ..%,;W... o'. ;a.. q..Q, s (ii) and (iv) There are no other means or other parties that will pro-M. p;L. : b:M ,m tect or represent my interests m. these matters. f'"m" jagh;kMED:2hd? t M % g d,,
~~M. W (iii) I can call as witnesses the evaluators and other knowledgeable M'k h h h.%~~
persons (e.g. exercise participants); I am able to conduct discovery and f.E cross and direct examination and have more time available now to deal d);,j. o....jp,45.N.M'M Q- @f @: Gd ~ ia with contentions; also my health is better than it was during the safety o.... ( S.h/?M%.,d; .. e hearing period. Without a record, of course, there is no sound record. F :%s.,, i (v) Admitting these contentions would broaden the issues, but that 7, h,MMjJMrfiGCA. is inherent in emergency plan exercise contentions since they cannot be C 2 M M D [r$ h 5 N framed until after the exercise. Since the scheduling of the exercise and [ 4 44/h,Mh the release of the information about evaluations of the exercise were h outside my control (the information was timely sought, e.g. one FOIA Al@b. N f h @$ N h@ M ] Q j s 1 F .w,y y.x Q request nea-the time of the exercise to FEMA, other requests to the lJ WM;9 State of NC within a reasonable time of the exercise), this delay should d [ 'ID. x T.. =6.5l MA not be charged to me as an intervenor, $ym.t,n. a,. u ..e
~~a y.~~
~~, i..w 9 ,.fM '.f4 '~~
~~I. ;[. -~~
N 2- % g.M @.,D-.' i 939 '~r n; . a.., sp u ']. .n... ,i.., el [ _? q. at,.,. Uus .s..* ..+.e*T ' w %.* # a' ,,,V s" p .4 k e5& k}y.* A gf * * -*. *\\ 'j h' E ?. 6 @ 4 e =. ' fPWOMW@gl94. W?p4;M.3,hu%.r,.;yd@w% ~ , Hw y R i.,W, A, ;W%r w %me., e.c?. :Q J %w. MiW y h r - g .- op. y c a e.%:;tgh qw.-. 6 M D g h' h 0 h $ h ; g& q ht $;r d h(v } M W W K&n& a : >. 3 Hi-m Y. M.f m:
~~y x $:.m. f m ;.. m.cf ytayfjhw L:~~
q ~. dy c~m. N W W $.$ $ $ N $ $b [qc +% U,W.?& ec q +~3 .J.. 6M .N:%,.y.7> 1 M %.4 Mqp m a f-f5N.h W.k: $N S 2-
' 2. ' ) .. / " I 1 8.' JO h W W,i W,, W.g% W p* m p y%.ljft s moh + =*, & ~ n QU&n. d%,' Y.p
~~tw4R,n.~~
~~W y,y..?% n % ~ r R.c[pp:.r.?,,y~W:w w y%.' ~ L. s.' k T QM-h s g(.= y$. ~y.Q... C;~~
d
~~'c.g*'r* Ar>+A Qn :5 % Q %% 6-~~
~~9,. ' ?. A~~
~~- %., le,. -,. '1-sv y Y. ', o,j.d :q. .v! ): @; j.M, r d.,n. 2 a w *ne %,%,n 44 4', <r...;%..! s o;< y;b.W:h < n .er. g e s ;..y; aLy m'd e 4: gg.~~
~~' + - : r.',J-.,'.6~~
~~...i ,q%g..;<jf s i, p.. - L y w e. U*.~' A 1p., - m, e.*. .s 's~~
~~3. ', %'#= < *&~~
<. -c 9,b. m..(W.g 4. i.:. '.f%'y'-. r .s,~* w .Tf.c%*%'%.5. '.N e h s. - & K* ..,*@~..<.. 'i' 'r.'g ~ ' T. n.#, e' ' ? ~. r. .'s.' Y v/J. a,! w a O d $El., W('N-k.78%9$'h'm,, e .o ' e t % a' o. A l.R.
~~l '.h.,.n,.~~
N h y" ** ..ti.e u Yc qhW ^~~. ,* ' * ~ ' 3 ~ ~ ~ " %.h. 4 v V,,,.,., 6*Jt!,. )e,h,y,>., ++ y,e.,d, p.M,pg/R.', ' ~ 1 t e, r ',y z e ny vj -n u.s, 0 h.y@b ~*,ri q,.tb. m% ';. W.h .'k.. W y v 3 3 c.. %. j.. %, . A~- ..a...3. -.., dD...E There is sufficient time to have discovery until late December, and ^.. still hold a hearing (if necessary) in February on these issues, before fuel load (even if Applicants don't delay it again - they can deny delays U' and then delay, as experience shows), and fuel load and low. power test-d.j % MhkV.. W.MMTM,$6., k m,WFEMD Thus, the delay and broadening of the issues are inherent in preserv-ing could go forward without the emergency plan being approved. @qu..g@g kiWiM.m.'MMMk k%?.M$@>c'%N ing the public's right to litigate based on the emergency planning exer- , W W. pp m.,fy cise, and there is time to carry out a hearing. Y M NdN$ Specific factors: the time information was available for each conten-liSW@f. S%fhWM$ tion's basis is the time the information was in my hands for each such IN+.-m.v.w.MMm. m c.cq h.u s.r. h.M@ M M.n. 4 js4MM M hM6d contention, this being 8/30 for the FEMA evaluation and after 1 M.c$MT 3 September for the State evaluations and messages. gm w r c.g%,4.,.,,; m.cv For the above reasons, the contentions 3iven above should be m.:y(qi.a.,cW 57.y,, w@ %,.J,m @r ~ W-... adm.tted. ,p i ~... w, o. m # t....%. x-,,. gw..+.4.,g...., ;.'...g av<.. .s.. &,.*.... s. V *.'4..ay ;I.[V;,p,./[,,.[Q [. f .3 d@,..m:M*Q'6d.DM:m %n' &% M@,i di. W '. % m. m f.:Y. T*. mi.e.: w MS Wells Eddleman
~~4 sc q'. :$.W %p0:p,a^, - c '~~
t e WhW . e v 30 September 1985 M,%,.y m w % W %y %.r;ggy4 %e'% W.R. w%. ~ WM'}.%y... ' s n. Q '.M.yyg*p.@n.Rv4p aq o .s 4[.'.r-M.Q M'$ N h b k ' !Q,b,.4sqh.Mhhhh.h h J 9M#R,h,., o .y,q e 4 yy e.g&. g. a.n,W.y :Q q w. f;g. ep& %Ae. W; V w+1.. roc % 'p %pe,?.w m 1 d %q,t'f g 6 4.. A. w ;b.!+pv.+>,i -eg'...- 6.y .%, e,,J. w q. 3 .4;'y,y %.N,.h. s #..n.4r s... 9.;?j-w yJ t +.. g 4..t.9.W > y., r N IA.i - ~w. " o n'.. qly.mlx-%>,yy .9 ' p*, ' _ q.. y - o y, .'m-W .y:C A M w;e,p:. M;.;e g. G %. 6 , g.40.x%*m ca.. m. ..g,.,.., v* e y. ~ y& Y.m M WQd.h w;t%;q5 .~. . u~ n. .w Q, W:.+ m.~ ' We ii.:.9 g>..,s; 6. :.,' c -
~~v..!'~~
t s n s. a :, ; ~ v. - \\ w. ' g ',0 m ^4 J. ' ' ' " e b p* 'p. v,1. n ". I ' -~ ! C...e % % '*g. -s. g.,,.. /. - n l'f %l.J03 ;*.Q./ y.P y.. Q ' V Li+'st u!}*py, -Q,, Jg.x _ e.. y; M.Wdra;t:'j'i a W y h -w h Q i s=v g @t W h & M %MMM%Icfi@8,e.g c&ptM 9 d$,%2. nn..,c. %.<, Q - @,.M-;g w4 s.
~~m..~~
~~c t,v.e. g, u .a s,*.. {s.e.g,, e'n .e n.J, m.. v~~
~~y r-- M.=. 8.p e.~~
~~n,,v t ya g .. 4 y^g Q g-C.,g, M. 'M t.',I y,. . S* H {cj s. 4,l,..L..i..,( *3. % %< g 4.' Q "b,'rL. ' 3e t W.*. '.1 M I.%t~~
v*
~~=v,1 - ~n 4.t 4 , f[4 ' -' Y ** v ; f 8,- i a y l* l7 ~ l 1 t t y j '.y 9. .y, .y 940 <= l l L = I ~ 4 l i~~
f l

(
S
~~.9 I~~
~~p*" A _.. -.. ewe eg .. i.' g f WM-@m e*P M W*T-~~
~~D*'-='*.}^{.=e-~~
~~,**P ~,,n 7 ,.(D*g, t.d .lk ' E. s.~~
~~p. -p~~
~~r. ;; *.. ;,a~~
~~.a ,1,,...m. ?.g~; e.u s.n.hJ [e.;a,.h), .n.' , A '.i ), +, %.' .,.' i '. [. : 7,- h. r'. -.'~~
7
~~a.,., '.,~~
3. a..,-, ; g. .,.v s -,e."k w. J g+ W,y ~,.;.c. % *e .m,.;*.,. :r.~- ~ e .. * ~ y'*,6,. m M d ,c ..; w.e3 &.U... w & Y & * &.IO,, $,'..wh ~'.'f ,, os. . -,, ! W, g,-.. 2.. [h.. : e 3Q. . < 6..g g3
c
~~&y'$.$w n x -. -~ w. f J L [ J.'.f.5**fla* 4 ' d, $.'~. _, ~j s %. w m?~v$ $ n} f...n*u $ U ' &w&,$. & m.f. .f.,h.w*fy.W ej kf.. -a :,' *. . hp &,.~~
~~M, a.. f f ' ', ln-l. <<,*,,., !!~~
~~i Q.~~
~~~ '2 l~~
$ W.bl,W - NWNS O '!' I' J M." ~' t
_ su_mwm,. _... _.. : s, :.. a y _,. -__ _. __ m.w :: w a.m4 m ~ ~ .~ ,,. %..n.p.m. e.y %.y w w+ 3 4c.* * ; go b.W*w;s,.f*1. y..p m. cp.. s v.. *.,
~~c.,~~
~~.s. s .m n e + o. .i .*'*cs t:4. s c%. N'.,J w, r'.3. o TW , s,. .,. [ . i s 4 4 %C+ .2.: .. 2)m : p. m.y y <:%p:.,,.,:,.p%.w._ c.m x: rJ: m.. .,4. e W -: r.6_g .*we . s h y, p mt~~
~~w.?,s s +.~~
. Q..r.. q+*
~~h.,t :A r%+h ', *,:+m~~
~~,....-y'a c* M. n+p. r @..n..g, ,w~~
~~c, m.p;+. w.$.~~
~~a. v sm-f+ c~~
~~.o..%~~
~~-i. . y c : y.. .T,.. r 7- .~ + m,w . mu .nn !.~ m g.n.,.,.m%. m... r. : .n . s..m .+~~
~~a,,.~~
~~e ,.._/.n... _o%,s.,e T .a r~~
~~,. %.. -.* *=e %. y.p.)...~~
~~~ . s < e.n.,..,. c, a.. +>~~
r.- u..*
v _ ' + s 7 l p-l , s. ~ l ..ms:ww.x e eace me ;- Adm.. trat.ive inis g%w%.~fw.g@se,m.. :-s ...n .%&pp aH n ~. p - W**$$ a T M4 %g%fa ;4 A,1g*iM>^4?. Law Judge P / Fy=.."%; - W 3 +y 2&.5;ps J a fe..a.r -] J 'e - t -t.. "3' nM f v o4s.s;. 4 4y a h, ',
~~Q g.s g,,I(yy na., s.,~~
1. 4 s.,"..'. .,.,_Dy#, ... h. s g ** % Aw s g l. +. 1 C'is *Me* **...I *. fM"..' f'.f.M,. Mw,. o,- %,pJ,r..hi.'. I.4,g *y /.4 f, ' ' ..e W 5 % i'[t, l,'N e - +M. e a. .Y / m. i 4..Q ' ;.or a g,* c v * ** 1b*h 9 N ) e,9,,. a, p ,'9. i e 5-. ..p.. Dh I *>Y ' ". X.'M [,,4 , 3 c, .. ' -r. ; w ',' Y.,'$, d'$ 6 *v, 'M/4.Qi -. ,.h i ~ *. b) l 33**
s. s..' ' A s s.\\ l *. r ~ ->y*
~~'t.ty,..s %, t.,.. >e,4 %... g i s',j"y, y. g y' ~,* .O ). s. %. ' e 3 ' x o J.u c.r o l . N. ! * ; - 'gf;".' %q... ,Q? t g i . 2i[rf<a?.~~
~~i. '..,# )~~
~~s. .u,,~~
~~Ii 'N,.n2 ' '. '. E..,~~
~~'i f F' ' j :A w J :.s= r~~
>. v.,

t ~ ** ;,'
~~s =..'.? m 'y ses. N.~, bf)y& k ? mh:&q V (t M $ C h N Ih; 6. $~~
~~D O i3 U,J~~
~~4 m.p/m,p,, a. 9..~~
~~,.5..s M, J *c. v%w. e,s. y, ~. e.. ?. t r $.3 S 4~~
1., '

,, f.

, %% 4.G+~.
~~.,1;.'. i ... gL , H %., -* y : W,'esi 72-M.;.; h..h a,n L "i~~
Q.*
~~.y,.QQ^~~
~~af f, -.y 7~~
~~p .s. 4 sa. l. g 'd? Q ,'?t , n. '. o s~~
~~m.(~~
~~c s -m,. 4 ,,,t l 5 4 g je. m. a ju'S. e * - w n., J ^N .L p r%. a > #. k'hkN$f;'{$kgr.3'$$;hh.& -h b, ?~~
~~n. M' 2.,.y n, e ng;# y 1,., -~~
~~r: .nr \\_ 6- . M . 0$M h *:W * # ~!".~* ta.. .. ' ; 2.g&, v - :*~..,~~
~~, R Qp~~
~~.f. . >/ S r >,.t.,.. 3 V>.,~~
~~m...,.,,..-~~
l l '-. .g ..... w .. ~,... f [ b g.. s'. I . r, - < r. ,. m. *...., n'..,.n>N',. l$ a < '..u.n.5* q. .w x. ov,. s, 2 4 c, 6 9 p.4t.5.*:. 4... #, M fe-. . g.:.;., .. p.., g og..-- w., ,,y i. ... ? w s,,. .sy wY %. 9, % ' (
~~j. -~~
~~. b.. m....,. 1~~
l
~~.. m., s 2'~~
~~D'-*..',.**+1:~~
~~,s- ' * #.,j ,4 4 J. g~~
1 4

h; y
~~e4-~~
e
~~.s 4.$ k 48 r l O e' 8 ) 6 l l 6, 'y ) < ' ' O ,.b, ?~~
~~98 m*--r w~~
~~N- .' [.. ,.,,L.'<,.^, 3 ** '..,.$..$. s.i,.'. c ;' )n.'..)'.y 4..g @..~~
~~, h #.~~
~~,e* '[ ,'.h, g. ,'h .J S b k '[ * * ,. f.,(p ". 2dH.- gD,eo.s. M* ' %. s, s,'. ' ..,,.*,*,.? > * '. p{,"' ('.g,,.,.,.? - "".// -', g, .,.4.. '..,., " e A b~~
~~'.h.........64. S.,..-N.~~
~~s. ^ - ..r . J' %. r*./ g m' -v' 1 .,s,. -.4 s ,.3 g.' +."- e J/ *,f[ #, f... [ (n, ' '# gi*,. , i,,2 .r 4 4 4.' ,. ' J [f '" o~~
~~1. * - 6 [#'~~
~~,ge - 's ,*.j d 2 7 's,j y,' ,h $$ + $,f g .'$h(( t <b. I k,,' [ L c.N...,:, + Mf. M..: p.,g.e., wg' C,.. M y' A k.,,,, A.r y g %.. g h, g.o m. g %w S c. 4... s' s Jg-- n4 x 2:8 l. - 9.. r <,~~
~~q _.,,. m. ~;'. f.:.p... c. A, n.* *.. *, y (ed '.(~~
~~qr I;w. w s, s . m. p. q'< f. '~~
~~y 3 v fr.W.F.u.as.~~
t p - ~ r e. r ~
$f.:p,e.w@&,a&.;.,Q&.;.,piYflfW:n:'.3 ', b}'M' l, l ? C.W . ' n'. YWh tI N' " ~O ~ .,:::Ms a ~ yy>y
~~n. ;%c.q.yy n u,V.>.~~
,, w y. gp3 .: yg.. g :. ..s,. j.. .., ;v . ~, x a t.,.y.Q*>A~m~ p 2:t v.w;2g: u - M..y*M, p).$ 4.. .. w., -(./k..,._.._,t.s,:,w g &,,;,f,,_.az. _,.T.E fJ l5,'%. m ;y 2 h 4. .gA UP . c.^tT hQp W * .y
,

c..

d.. *,
~~. m;sy. it,. * ' Y - '. :.* - '. ', - < 'm., n g- \\n ;~~
~~n3 3bv p.~~
~~. w - >. m t ,. 4.,.: _w : q OA* k' k.4 w f)4 .....r... s- ,s s ,,,y m s -f " ... ? b y,, s~~
1
, _1 m 1 Q 7 ',.; &.th. N g "L s: c.p%i: W i s W a p.n.,'il$.g:. n,,%, ..gQ;%y \\'M..v,. v. t, W. m.. .a v. w a. ~ .c: .W.. . h..p Cite as 22 NRC 941 (1985) ALJ 85-1 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION +& n'....... R _:. m. .ly'*sh_ y... T&. l.h, p., ' ll'.y-)* { hg,Y.*,.%.Q 4 ,.8 w $hMh..s.,.w..d@ ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE .. o .g.s. .w. N. y M @N ' D N b h.h [d' D N F b.h e ~ I i 5 4p &'s vb.
~~4.," ),g@0.6.;NMMM*M. eN.eM Ivan W. Smith Q,.~~
~~8 u qG. *M ~ i. N~~
~~'.s.~~
Qpg$qs.' ~ >.*,1% h'Mv.[M;Q,WgJ1!;gg.e;f@dh}El ,n: iMkk$ h/.r g.. in the Matter of Docket No. 30-14821 $ f g % % % % $ Q @,9 (ASLBP Wo. 85 508 01-OT) A y(b.H j/2 M ':NayMg '... g,6 ) (License No. 2518304 01 s% ?. y.. m s. EA-84 78) I.:'..- [ @m,.[J.. Dr.6.M bp.g
~~s,.+ v:,. " N: %, a..~~
p,. :. - Ei. $.,..'_w,r. @... N, M, D l E.. f ..,-t W,.,. .T,@c $.f N RElCH GEO PHYSICAL,INC. 28,d h.- [.96 i.j'M 1019 Arlington Drive GAMp.s,.vM,.I..%.3 'id i, Billings, Montana December 11,1985 4 W,~~.Mv .w;U Wcw:n g.6.yys*m n .s v. . e .p,y nW y: n.. yw %w..- m.N. a q.
~~m.N,~~
~~%,,,..m.u w a t n., 4,-- n: m m.p m. w.. wam u In th. In.. l Decision, the Adm.. trative Law Judge susta.ms a civil is itia mis . g,,c m .. u. e.~~
~~S,y.m% %h ;"t. N.a :1?Ngm,r -7%e;m 4 penalty of $1600.00 imposed against the petitioner by the Director ofIn-m ws-as~~
.g u ,9-n g~ n. .n s N, v;;:9j c g.g ;,sug,. vestigation and Enforcement for possession, use, storage and transporta- ". ' T tion of radioactive materialin ways not authorized by petitioner's license. ~ h L;. NO.M M..m.Sh ws M.b.9 % M ENFORCEMENT POLICY: 10 C.F.R. PART 2, APPENDIX C wwe.%~f %,J.c 9. %.+., 4,p.m.w %sy MThe Commission's General Statement of Policy and Procedure for e.:,%u n,f,. f. ..y at w.
~~0.. w. m.~~
>.,w m y 7-p" +w. .n,.. -.,a a ~.,.,......+; md NRC Enforcement Actions is, by its express terms, imposed upon the , e pv. .s. <v Staff and the Commission's presiding officers. As a matter of fair notice to licensees, the Commission's presiding officers must apply the En- ! t c.,. n.
~~r... ;.. g n~~
~~-.,..4., k' 5';G '@.J M ' Y' w', forcement Poh.ey in civil penalty actions. k.Q ;N.~c...., / !".m. p.;,,.9/[ [, Ji,.s M.e. g.M, e. o~.' p p ;n.3.'g, a~~
*q: >3;-c.,
w. N.. < ~.. h ENFORCEMENT POLICY: 10 C.F.R. PART 2. APPENDIX C Y ill,'MO&.WN,p - -%,4:[.J;i& -3%:pi ikM The conduct of licensed activities by a technically unqualified person M.,O G tc %. 6 M.P.o'.r @9 h '6; M.'( . c, A.,..,. W is per se a Severity Level 111 violation under the Commission's Enforce- --a D ?...... ys '.n.
,,1c e -.g.c.,N ment Policy.
~~. x .-t +e~~
~~c. ;~~~
q, 'e. t .g .b,. g s 1, t',' 4 941 y N ,,.'t' "' ( e q t > -., ?,/..a.Q 's.,,;.s,', ' d (..f*. ' + ' k.'.. /. # -,P eupI>99en. me im m eer =. f, '.';-[~,", 6 ..f ,-s ' ; ',,. s.. p :d.,,;. fl*y.,,,,( Q.y .,, t
'

,. 3d
~~'. f e, ,, ' v y $, s. -( , :, h, ^.,,-~~
J-
+,
2x
~~,,,,=.,.~~
..,.r t P. ~ .~L,..,, r .y+. t v ;.a.;.;_ln"r* 't.-f.u, A f:.;#,. ; ; }.,a. /
~~e. V-~~
~~%. y ..; *, ; ^,. .,< v e..s,,~u..,!,.* ; q.:,(.~~
4:
~~,r ,,..H ^~~
~~q.,...~~
~~nn : w.a.r.,= x. y,.v. 4 u s .. m ...pg 4 ry% s.g \\ n, O ', *h,,. 7 ' ..y ~ [. ), Q' g.,..,,;,,,.,4,s i. a .L', .'. a. \\ %.!W c . l. ~ i.. . P.~~
; s.,,., - %M a.n, p. ;..q.' ',

e..t;- M; *
~~,a :...,.. ~ i,.~~
~~y'.ov' ?, ; f.'., ~,~~
~~_,. M, r %;,;.y ;'Q: ' - , t,1,%, ', .g; v '..' ,.; x.. _. ig-s .s- '**'y p.g,2, %s L.. p%. p. 3:/,....'_.,.t;u.f, y**'. ;i - / /, p. c,,'* *, ' .,,.s ..-.7;*f ; s f "a~~
~~s..~~
~~. ;*,, r.",,(, '.~~
~~4 4...~~
~~.. s,. .4 )t,,p. ' ' + ^ *.....i * /, s,A,,.",+"; , e p ;i, ~,e -O *. " ' t '. r: .s- -5 r ...,a~~
~~g. a.~~
"g' .{. i..t4 ,,f . '* ] .,. f + b-s.
6W.Xg...j.R. R.V.3.mNkt.Wh.M... g c.~ ., + c; ; y =c.[, .n. : %....'~ pi
C

u...+ 2 x:n.,...
~~V.W ' V: -w, M, 4,.%. M~ ~w.+.?.i.i W g, W e p w ,.. o.,..wi..,O. . ;b;: +A w v..c %.pn vm,y.ab, %.* %ze. - .n. -. s.. M. a. x.c,,, -~~
~~e y~~
~~.c; :e.. y. w. a .v :.,,.,,..e. u,- _., w w %,.,z..... s.. t. yDw.. NW awar w y~~
~~+ h&. J,.db.e.'o -~~
~~s W t < i y.. .A '.,j ' ~ g A,. ,., f.3,. -9.-.- u.-C y ,y n .q + .-r v. m~~
Q. <. y*;

Q } O g
~~c m.. e sfl +? t c* w ., ; A ' ' . y lh, I'[, s \\ ".M.^*** e'. p- - l' ~ . a. l, \\ I s 'e - gg.. s.. . ~.:x, n.. y.: y a..n. 'u' p ~ .. a.>.:~~
~~-.g~~
~~- y,y.,% ; 1,.v:m H;...;~~
.f
'i (; L ze y %xy,a. w.-. ^ ^ --",L__. c p'...y.f.;"G: m y y y, .. v.gcM.. i.V K.:. ,...c n... y 4 ~ ENFORCE 31ENT POLICY: 10 C.F.R. PART 2, APPENDIX Ct AUTIIORITY OF AD311NISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Under the Commission's enforcement policy, the authority of an ad-S. " J. ? R' fj ministrative law judge is limited to imposing, mitigating or remitting the - @,f-9' q.:., 4.y,. %. k n..?* M,W; y% r: c vil penalty imposed by the Director, Office of Inspection and m\\:%,s.. n M'.wE.nw.%..g(@%.Y,% ;wh;:w %m nsw.% Enforcement. iN Q U L,r.W W $ $ Q c h.G. %.N q%wu .u sad ,wwwj.3it mA M ENFORCENIENT POLICY: 10 C.F.R. PART 2, APPENDIX C; elm.. W %s.-jy m,~.,W,4,$n,, o.p, :@- w . <a. e
W ymmy AGGREGATION OF VIOLATIONS T W r y % q W 4.>d W c W @ M 9 DES

M Wi;4g%gg g
The Commission's policy statement is silent as to the effect of aggre- . ~pd,% p;. c P'A D,c A s. px.p hefy@.wg.tr take may be aggregated into a single violation of the same severity level, yM.4,4>.p., 4.. <.._u3,h i:dv gation of violations. While many violations flowing from the same mis- .n W T M,.. -..,p'.<, the u. tations in th.is case are cumulative, demonstrating the absence of r g. g... C., o s m,?o; ~O mistike and a pervasive pattern of d.isregard for license requirements, ...g ., - e%-V ,w ~ .M;JS
~~u. w.. ~m:.i.i,,.cc T54Mip,.';q: U. y-j ano justifying aggregation to a serious Severity Level II.~~
~~. l...x. e m.%.s.. -y. .. A,- e &,~~
~~u. m..~~
~~. y'c N,: #j.., m.g. e,... e N s', c. p." '.' ,. ?. M. M.f,.E CIVIL PENALTIES~~
~~s..v ~ -~~
m% to w.f%w $.+.;@cd@,. +h..,4N.fNY.: M,N;:Wi;'.if Civil penalties will normally be assessed for any willful violation of Qm the Commission requirements regardless of severity level. Even for m d J u. w. y.w. m.1;. m. r_ x.m...A d-lece.Nc>v.~. o.,wru w g Severity Level IV violations, civil penalties may be imposed for v la- .se WW io l::{p[x WMyg,%hnjx% tions that are similar to previous violations for which effective correction N was not taken. gy 3 s
f!. *
-.+ a t ** r ; 9 -( 6 * = 'j." CIVIL PENALTIES: SIITIGATION c v. While adverse publicity resulting from an enforcement action may a. J. v rg,.,p,. F,; ;...,,, w.n(r. .., ~ .u . p,..,,. n. r g.3. %.,,1 deter violations of the Commission's regulations to some extent, it is el, p,g.x,g A,,.~ W'.p,, 1.g .....a: ~. 5 -. ? W,.e not a reliable or necessarily effective means of assuring continucJ f
~~n. a~~
.N. 2t e s-. Mi ' #c ^ compliance with those regulations, and in this case was entitled to no m, ..a , u. n ~ n mitigating weight. .. ; 9. 3.. M :.. o - a,. a$.J L l ~ W@Wd4WM*Q,..m. :,.7 :h. p$ p L :r
1

~ 4.. ',
~~u 3 w a. ,.e g.~~
~~4. p;Q-APPEARANCES~~
.c c-10 s W h y' c,iU??:5 5kb l.;. g g. M M $. d, g;; & g.NEMS n behalf of Reich Geo-Physical, Inc.: 51r. Keith A. Reich, President M Wiweg 9.pe.g g*. p ' t. ** \\ sp. ; j ",,. - y,1,,.r "y;,A On behalf of the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement: Lil-z 'i,y. J q e ,. v . n r u. ?.. m. i.:.f. . Q g r;, 4 4.y.dy T. J. t lisn 51. Cuoco, Esq., and Stephen G. Burns, Esq. a ~ ~ c. F =' ~ .N l ',,*fe
~~f o~~
~~/ . r W Y g s 4-T w. 3$ r. .u; %. P - 's. s. Y,.., <1 +~~
~~jp, -.~.,~~
~~'T'--***- -1" ~7""- -**'r**"""'"""e*T"'**,--t.. m ;)* mr~, n. ,p',==== .t: , p s~~
a.
~~4,g:..; 1 .a,Or + um 3.. W;g q. L sp,r,, p. r.,. ,,5 s m:~~
~~a.. gy.,4, R..j y s. t 5~~
~~a . [, i s +.e a.si.,. s~~
~~~~.. y 1.s, s~~
~~~ e..~~
I
~~,, 1 k ',. J.1-,L./ 4 g..(r %., c.,; '.w' ~7. :...,, '. *, ..>v.~~
~~;- %[..p.% :.A N..~~
~~.,,'.,u.. '. b,.. :. f,..: 2). :V 'y. ). f ,'.'s b d f 5 V* O D~~
Jg *
~~/. 'l 6f m 's ,.. - m' * "g-s ,,x< h,,., m.a.s..:.m, c m ...:n, e $ '~;..,x>,.,-..'. .n .y, u~~
~~,y}~~
~~m4.::.s v g s..:...rm -a~~
. :. at.1. ::.:.:-

e.
~~4. w w.,e .n - . m. y,: r.*r . w w, a.1: 7.:x.}e.., w, s. m.j Q*.~~
~~w v.~~
~~r. n., u.,, n.' g ;y ; ~., _ ./ s..4 ,7.. a }_ d '* } :,., uj +c s 8,..g~~
~~1. w)tr' y;'~~
t. ' f,,,.. r s. g' . y". ; u .;c, s .1-. w.a. fs.,..pg..,e.., m,/ m.., m.;o: 9.p v e.1 g.=;;m u,.r., w.,t,.n. y ~.5 e x ~, ..Q* p. - w,,2 s X,;&.,,,, e a;3.y*. ~ ~ ?,%.:;d;,y, y&&,x. ~ O. t 4 3>g*3 ::C;~d 'li'<;4.G@;bMy
~~n t~~
n :- Mf *e&4 + kg G% ??: t.V'*y%s %.]% y:T.'he @9 h<*'@%'q.% ?>...h $-T', D'r C. A*4W'D'.. > j. ;. '.4.. -p. a. c Q;< &.* Y.::,&'n &,. MQ W'4g,"Q' W@7@,k %y: M5 w:n. p* ^, ** .> M >'.n 2 ,.~ m W .g *..'/e P Q. U : ru.:q ? 2' - ~. * ,'L s., r s+ t-
~~m + - s..~~
a. f ',W+;;*4,*hYS =" e,,' 7.# .L i .i,. q 5 f DN. W'I M# ' >7, MN$ $.shM*W[y'd*[%N @4t"?i % 1' ? .'$.. m" ","* " ' "-- - ".- - " - = - - - - ~ ".. ,M.h N.'. *I 2 ,,. -..vd**5.+.* b>.. .A. a. %q....A-.:%n. y. m: ~%. _ 4;*;..y.d.f ~.f, "4: M.". a. ~~^ s.,.. .w n i n WM u.y
. Au.J

n.
~~,8, P'.' ? p '..Y * ; 9.':'s G& y%, 3 e *.-~~
~~.* o.~~
~~s ' p H J. Q C,- J .. N, .,.~.c -.r a yr; u r- -..c, r a.- ~., TABLE OF CONTENTS ,? 4 9. ~~ Page 7s . a.o: _ a. m.- y~#,,M.. m1..~~
~~1. INTRODUCTION AND LICENSING HISTORY 943~~
,.m..o .n, w..g ~ M'WMM.., m.,p+cMfG.Pipd-II. BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING........... 945 .., ~u.. w /M r M^' h m u M '% > M@ M M M.m Mm q%v.d % 111. THE CASE AGAINST REICH GEO-PHYSICAL..... 947 6 .. b h. 4 M.hvd A. Violation No. 1............................... 947 a-gWen m Mm B. V. lation N o. 2............................... 951 MW-W io Y h h@$ 4,g:y4f. by3l h$hh.71 6 C. Violation No. 3............................... 952 P" W,O ".kd. ia'4f.M (W:$$% D. Violation No. 4.............................. 954
~~64 MW E. Violatio n No. 5............................... 955 s.Le.4/.~~
M t v 9"w.s k.rm u, F. Violation No. 6 957 +Q. q$.m %e** hT W 4 'h dt nj d$@k, N'[,$J.p;%,D.R[fi. " s K IV. WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE Q3 .W ed% W CLASSIFIED AS A SEVERITY LEVEL II PROBLEM 958 h h $ $ $ $ g$ g @p' $ $ )' M A. Enforcement Policy. 958 f-B. Whether the Violations Should Be Considered as a 7. hNMId.I'$, M. ay%..,. h. ; Sin gle Proble m............................ 960 bFR...S es.Q W R%%%8M. r e. %~ %.. +. p.: C. Whether the Violations Are of Very Significant . Wdr.,m,e
~~,s m~~
~~N Regulatory Concern........................... 960 a .~.c ...s 'iM.NM@, MM ww Wi 1 Safety Significance........................ 961~~
~~u y~~~
.DMdhh 5M Licensee's Attitude....................... 962 e h: V. WHETHER A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1600.00 IS h[a.$h.. k, l.', , M 8.. D,.. A P PROPRI ATE............................... 963 .i ~ ,1 A. A mount of Penalty.......................... 963 s n...
~~g. j., m.e,3 4~~
7 'j,. @ ' l /, ' B. Mitigation.. 965 kbhIkkhNhkk VI. ORDER...................................... 966 %' g @:.wr $,M W m.,s k t $#d y-g. W ~ v?c -m f G,: ,.s. s.. .v, r .m - M d @ ' M N f.Y R W INITIAL DECISION f.crn:e,WQ'n J q.blr y & r i 5, . "sy..; n:,. n n:,w; 's w a.e.g..ar...; W;.c.,, W.e @. w@ M Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law s@A'$y.@.w: c.o. .e.. n m. n w@mM!M,w: nM M. I. INTRODUCTION AND LICENSING HISTORY ? m r , me-:. W.WNkk..MMidQ'w@mg M On October 31,1984, the Director of the Office ofInspection and En-dd Md;j;W.J'NNi dGs;[ forcement issued his order imposing a $1600 civil penalty on Reich Geo-J. '.O.: d@' 'Of,W;.,k,. fM. C,.CM..I~.,M>M, / Physical, Inc., the Licensee, charging it with the possession, use, storage 0 ei. _. '.,; and transportation of radioact.ive material in ways not authorized by its - d.. w., ; - 'f d.k(g; 'N * 'c. f,* .,' N ;
~~4 n'3 ~~~
yl ,.. c 943 ..y. V T i. 1 : fa s..,. . s.. .*s { .. j.* ~,-f., r,. rg s, s p ,11, f p L. i ' l*
~~Q a~~
G" ? t'- I h. -. ;p.9.,.p; A ;.Q., l' l... ~, ':.., Q a.:.) x. ps%; f* G g4.' 1 " ),V : [:q'R:% :ln z.sf, ' s ..., ~.,, '*k.y *k.:*)+**7]'~e,I y h j? lb).'y. p,,j:, p;' % '.,5L' .,wmm. 3.n -,:n*f -:.m , y. 4. m y[, a,,m q M,. N ., -~., ay": u
~~l.. '~~
~~,s : ,w-:: F t , E'} O if,QA,. ', * } ' f. g;. '~~
~~y'a^.,. f ' % y A j,*,' ~~~
~~'U* J. {A, i,;s . s.ch> l. ,... -.;, a..s T, ?.'W, L,, I '.. v =y: m -;P y.r, 7 J. s. y, . u. N :: m .,t - ~ % c., e-~~
~~e., w )a.~~
~~.d,.~~
~~z. ;1. w.,.;y?-.. q.. q..~~
~~eQ,o w ep~~
~~, e..~~
+
~~4. t.e g,j } 3.,Yhf,. 4 +&.,, ?,~~
..j. c 3 * ? 3,. m x';jQq 3, J- .,,Q ~ ~ Q g, au,*) ' ' ; " j,, h '.?,' 3ff;. Q:[ g f..,'; >./ ' W;; V n.M.,.1a > ~:L%:J%. % u'M, *. .~ ~ ~ .Wi & s
{ W G...H pa %,m % @ @e r., ara..y6. %w pM. W.Q,M.n U,v.y,.@n. iMs ;. u'yr:y m ;g.e.wu >;g, V g,W.W.j.!Vp. ],.,5 T. gi. t ~.., t; m.w w ;y;.;w yN y.a y% $e~ .,....,m, y:. n. >.m.. -. e. ** z.. m.. ~o e w;: . 3% }'4.,W.y '.ww# m ?L v.;.s ? g.m 4.,..r: W(,,g. % f.W M.s s'. : ',.'%. s.
4
.w: y % NG t':;2 +. ?,;y';w. %. m' '.. , n k 5 g,..-/ e. M $ 4 W,tw,.O R+ %.; y;. y.g.f w:..r. 9 %fs.i._., cch.,..yE~O ..+r. Q,s w.....,e+.. m 4tg;[c$..% Q ,.9 ,p r,p ~ 1 .f .-y q V % n,, <. ; y y'.,s c. A.eQ; p s's 2 v,wta.4 C. _ / Gl.. c.. ,'1 4 W. y.i-N, r e n.; + .. %m.,. a?'M:n .., e. t :.4 .e. m,; s .-, s.7,. 33 kpQy... set.a.phw!5Q.Q,4.e - n-m w. - - 2 - :W-- Mu% m.c A..oj.r. ,w n.. h
~~g. y@T.w,4.~p.9p@wG..y q *.~~
~~mm 3: s~,wY~~
~~r. g:..~~
y g e ,_u .,,8: v ,,sm .b; license. The Licensee requested a hearing. This Decision is about that V hearing. Reich Geo-Physical, Inc., is a small firm whose business office is at ~ nyyy. ;3 ? 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana. The president, owner, and t d*6@J.'ad..; ;,2 ~?4.Q principal employee of the firm is Mr. Keith A. Reich. Reich Geo-4..~3k@sH g 3 M g* M " Physical does energy exploration in the Mates of Montana, North
~~7....=~~
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. It has used cesium 137 and americium 241 ~ sources to perform well-and coal mine logging operations. g Cesium 137 and americium-241 are radioactive byproduct materia's 6 within the meaning of f lie of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section J. x '+ w-' 81 of the Act, as pertinent here, prohibits the transfer and possession of 2 ,,, Et;j 1 byproduct materials except as authorized under specific or general k.W M CA ; 4 : Q h y.d b " " W F '* M - QM licenses issued by the Commission or unless exempted by the Commis-MM sion. The Commission has provided for the domestic licensing of by-7 . vs.Mw: product materials in 10 C.F.R. Parts 30 and 31. Nfa.--.m)...wdYEhm'M@~d.k .vw a . N Part 30 exempts some concentrations of some isotopes from the 4@.2 k' licensing requirement. Neither cesium-137 in the concentration relevant
~~4. m 3.- 4 kp;p NhhhM to this proceeding, nor americium-241 appears on the schedules of~~
$ M M 'M W-exempt isotopes. See 10 C.F.R. ll 30.70, 30.71. Part 31 grants general MT K-g. %geg*- g;.y% pi licenses for the possession and use of some byproduct materials. Neither radioactive source used by Reich Geo-Physical is covered by a general ^ 4 .Q a 4 !M license.' W a .2 nwM7 Section 274b of the Act authorizes the Commission to enter into an v - ...m i "pMP agreement with any State to transfer the authority to regulate activities b.h Pf;'hM,- involving byproduct materials within a State to the respective State. Part hep M l u ~ V.p,W,),: M s n 2 o...,p:w y e.. n 150 of Title 10 sets out the framework for the regulat. ion of radioactive r.- 2 i
~~u. o.~~
p v.. d W. C!W.. 3,. a N -t" material, including byproduct material, by those States with which the Ff7N ?^' Commission has entered into agreements - the " Agreement States." j @ M Q sigf ",.' hum.g When an Agreement State has license. activities pursuant to an agree. ? h h'd% a;g/kg PTmf>Mj[f ment, the licensed person may, under a general license, conduct the 1 q ; @.,7. j@. %!M$,h @%,. same activity in a non Agreement State for no more than 180 days in a M+,,3 calendar year, provided that an NRC 2412 form is filed with the Com-Tpi mission at least 3 days beforehand.10 C.F.R. i 150.20. North Dakota is .~ 9,m:.q)., o w n+..e n %'+.,g,a,,/.. an Agreement State. Montana, Wyoming, and Utah are non-Agreement u.s%pQ "r,F- @ "r4t h States. a '@ M y' @- E M W ,.~. !p.$g On August 8,1978, Reich Geo-Physical applied to the Nuclear fpf. Regulatory Commission for a byproduct material license for cesium-137 .d ..... r m y ]nw
~~~n a~~
~~jpp d. 3Amencium.248 in the form or cahbration or reference sources is covered by a senerallicense. How. b'Qh..e.,I I #.',A V.M %.t~~
~~1 ever. Reich Geo. Physical uses amencium.241 in a manner and in concentranons not covered by the r.~~
~~'Q F IW e~~
4.. f,.,,A

N
~~.7.e. %. ?. c general hcense. See 10 C.F.R.131.8. .i.n -p e;J6 '.'f. p. 2 The NRC 241 rorm is entuled -Report or Progmed Activities in Non. Agreement states " It is a W Q,T!N/T,',',h. ; '/p. s -~~
~~i. 4 4 ~~~
~~O ? coincidence that the form number is the same as the amenceum 241 isotope number. , pip; m W ( je.:.',:sL .,; 1 q' V 1 $0f.-lh;N;,.:., L,, : M:$ Q M' !v~~
-(
~~944 w& .l y$. W,' l~~
~~- m:~~
.i:'M % W L h: .5 f :. h; A ~ \\ , f, p ~ h. M w s.,p> p. g ~. n.. ,y(;s;, *. M m : L.Y N: 9; J: g .,1..~ ;u:p%. :,8.y" itfmW >;... p" r.a x w.:. >.m>w }.s.xw M... 'f. y,1;w(,. l N,,d.., ;.p,?.c,:,M Qgi T' -G k , 3; '.. ;.
~~u. d, a c g.~~
,m v .g Q m,, 4 n. ..W R. - y ngwyn %-Q,!d.. d: }u. sa. ' Q,N...s. s f *l f ' % 2 Y,.[ & A >,f.~. Q ' [* 5 k. C *,'<.(5 ?.. '.',y,',N$ W> Wk,.s lx.* l N...f',.. Tjf 1 u e a- ? ( ff
M.E.hM,W Mg i. - ,r
~~xn r(~~
~~T V e,.', s..,,g y-4, - c g, w wiw%n.m.,.~~
~~u.. +~~
~~>#y.m -g -.-9 r.. L~~
~~W""fM M.mqA.j*rcs.w.~~
~~i. ,J -%.M.yfD,. J ;,W :., g.p9 a,..~~
~~3 4~~
~~i Ws ~ . e. a-qq y; Q W ~m'->,-,. t "4 M.W..p%. e M,.,.m e ?.. __ -. w ___. _ -.L._. .M.... L pl'd W* +.a%w>M u ? .n .u t 4~~
~~; 4 r i; e~~
~~:7 A. u ' -~~
n.,u. t /. in the form of one sealed source of 125 millicuries to be used for well logging. Mr. Reich listed himself as the owner of the Orm, the sole user of the source, and as the Radiation Protection OfGeer. The application contained several commitments explaining the testing, survey metering, M M ? $. Y,;G storage, operating procedures and other aspects of possessing the E'DQM32f cesium 137 source. Mr. Reich amended the application by letter dated W '.@-p. Je2V.M. g.f.* ci,d.Mid.' P1 , uh. M January 30,1979. StalT Exh. 3, Attach. 2. h'fbv#d;%q,v-M,..~M. M P ~e..~,. -n . m. ~ M35bM,M~h.o The NRC issued License No. 25-18304-01 to Reich Geo-Physical on March 1,1979, in much the form applied for. The license contained W M @p 6-% several conditions including one (condition 17) which incorporated the ,w &g.ep p@b@h W.w@ a Y$MMNNNi SDMfg commitments made in the application. The license authorized the use of M.2MIM.d..pM@.,w$g@v e,PT,di-o.s. W Staff Exh. 3, Attach.1. %d the cesium source at temporary job sites in Montana and Wyoming. g y g g. , t,. .. a., p. $y. .u he.MgNM's 0; -iMb.') h.QQ NRC Region IV inspected Reich Geo-Physical on April 14,1981, ap- ~ r parently at Billings, Montana, and discovered a 15.5 millicurie ,/ f;.y americium 241 sealed source in Mr. Reich's possession in addition to Q@7.;Qi f ' *C
s.
J4Mdv i.. ^ the licensed, cesium-137 source. The disposition of that inspection is a ..m.,~ ~ .J.;x,,,,Mm.sr wg,.
~~.; ;.p : q %.2Ws~~
~~.J,.~~
3 pf -y , w. : matter in contention in this proceeding, but it is not disputed that Mr. g v. Reich possessed the americium source and that he possessed a valid ..ep q@k f fy. ' 7 North Dakota license for americium, but no NRC authorization for it. fk f. Mi'%' M ?DAh jnQ $ @{M k ff$ As a consequence of the 1981 inspection, Mr. Reich agreed to apply for 3 -p@ an amendment to his NRC license to cover the americium-241 source . h g@ M gs.wl,.}M.w+N;/.T $9 Ti.ZW.W
~~> A and to store that source until he received his amended license or until~~
~~?, nl 9., he filed an NRC 241 notiGcation. Id., Attach. 6. 1~~
~~m@gtpm M On June 12,1981, Reich Geo-Physical filed the NRC-241 notincation.~~
., w, @p . t..- >Q.,$.W~ h * +, r 9 * - f a u' Mr. Reich certined that he intended to use two americium-241 sealed w . < 4; J'l ;' sources of 15.5 millicuries each at his business address in Billings, T o 1,.. Montana, for 180 days beginning June 20 and ending December 20, ..N: M . 9. a rg.,j g ; 1981. Staff Exh. 3. Attach. 7. Reich Geo-Physical does no well logging WhW@dhhbhS.M[.]; MmU yJv W.n ' at its business address. All of its exploration activities are conducted at Y,U. N sites in the Geld. Reich Geo-Physical's NRC materials license was never '].@'@ 7,C. f amended, nor were any additional NRC-241 forms ever submitted during the period relevant to this proceeding. I understand, however, that at the time of the hearing, Reich Geo-Physical was in compliance s.hk: d6 a with NRC licensing regulations. a <Y% %.r. 6. g.a.#-e s: b. N M w <- W , e a. ~. 9. e,^7 %.9.QQt stR Q.7 'n MM Q. &d My%y %@$hM@)' II. BACKGROUND OF TIIE PROCEEDING l f;V; %hd.& a . s b. U@iOM 44 - On June 20,1984, Mr. Charles H. Hooker, an inspector from NRC's %KM@y!$F%.'s -'Mf% ' C Billings, Montana ofGce. As a result of the inspection, the Region IV Region IV, conducted an inspection of Reich Geo-Physical at the firm's .i M 2h> 1.' Administrator, on August 22, 1984, issued a Notice of Violation and I ^ f.',..=- o n r g .K ,'a'. M ". i ~7. ~ i j :, 4 g,1 e.y;..
o.
~~3 c .,1 . i,.s ..I .g. y i ' O,,,, h(<TN h.. L, 3~~
d,
~~, ' / \\ Q..' t k.a, f.),. 4, 7.. ( k i f..* {f'.jf::h.l}:. n /.' j 1ll f .L,.* *.~~
~~,.\\. ( m%,.* ; Y,l.,0 J.'~~
~~w u q: pg. & q, 'y,f l. ' v ': > 3: + J 'J:Q .r ' 4*. ,y w e,f g. %..c ; q..,,.- Ac g~~
~~7., :~~
,e (- ,e.. a. i
f g. 6,,f; W T s)$ _~ +.p v %.d. ' V M _ M.; Wm ,.w. rv s W. q* -.~ c ..~{,? .j
~~'M'~~
~~, ' ~ Q yff - . ?.J !& A OM,;n&'p %r,,.' d ' r ... n.. m e. u ..na -Q Ry:cy.e m,,.>,n.- y n. v, e,. ~. v w /.. v ,,. m~~
~~e...9..~~
~~s n v+(p gg&. N a @ '.W,,r..n, . f.c,. W..,W / g %g'y.4~g. eu se , y.- p ~., s' &.S, ~ 'n 4~~
~~vg q.-~~
i .x 4 .m J l A 3.w _ . _.w _a . u;_ _ MQ,Mgr. u 3 w;ejy;. w.,c @q -@a. p. W t r. .. p,, ' % F.n r is s2. ,g p n~. .,a. Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1600.00. On September 8,1984, the Licensee opposed the proposed civil penalty. On f October 31,1984, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforce- -Q@. ment issued an Order Imposing Civil hionetary Penalty in the amount M.UCa p $ ' W N,h dhd of $1600.00. 49 Fed. Reg. 44,253 (Nov. 5,1984). The Licensee request-T. g O h [@b%@$,{M N.M ed a hearing on the Director's order and, accordingly, the Commission p y ordered, on hfarch 8,1985, that this matter be heard by an Administra-h f MEJfj tive Law Judge. W.[ydf.'Zp$@NMN h i =,3 2Q The hearing was held in Billings, hiontana, on July 24,1985. As part I. WMA ofits direct case, the NRC Staff offered into evidence the relevant docu- . M. h M @ h h b N@, a m i.f,t.w m.bp4'Shj%y mentary exhibits.) ,.M, d &W@tf. @- c hir. Hooker testined concerning his inspection. hir. Edwin D. Flack, a g%w%w..a (.s;.m q. w. "m.., Senior Enforcement Specialist in the Omce of Inspection and Enforce-r.. .o y%$$.fri$M%Q. m e m.-,-AWi@@U ment, testined about the safety significance of the alleged violations and w9 ,J. u the application of the Commission's Enforcement Policy (10 C.F.R. Part .,MM c.M... 2, Appendix C) to the case. pp.,M 4 s yMR, g ,.. W JW... Ntr. Reich also testined. He offered into evidence a copy of a letter z .wn.. m. %,.%pyyJpfg?m ,r 9(M. J ' dated hiay 13,1985, from the State of North Dakota favorable to Reich 45%'a,'@fg@O d s.:.;#.a/ '. ce Geo-Physical, concerning an inspection of the company's activities /.3
~~f. &,,~~
~~. c. ? Q.g under his North Dakota Agreement State License. Reich Exh.1. The .Mf M NRC Staff offered two exhibits in rebuttal: a June 28,1982 letter~~
~~4. @hdO@WDM hNdhS@Dd7*iF.E (Staff Exh. 4) and an October 5,1984 letter (Staff Exh. 5), both from i~~
the State of North Dakota to Reich Geo-Physical concerning violations M[W m.,j?k T & E d M* W 3 iD@M 2lN:$P under the same Agreement State license. M - Ms : .. w ;v a ur, - a %r..,. a - a y, e t, 1 s, s ,g.. r" 2 stafr Enhibits 1 and 2 consist of pages from the Lwensee's utiluation logs. staff Exhibit 3 is an af. fm 6 davit of Barbara J. Kay of Region tv as custodian of records. Attached to staff Ethibit 3 are true [ 'j U ?,ehh.;t. E A. v copies of !! documents from the Rexh Geo Phyncal nie; a S..y i N /, #. *.*?@T . 4' ' Attachment I: NRC License No. 25 18304-01 issued March I,1979. 3 [ k 725** Q W [.Q Q.IkY $ MI : License Application of Rech Geo-Phys cal. Inc., dated August 8.1978. @[q. N 9 3.hb YIbkhh".% V
~~rg y,,q N 7,ff. A : Letter from Reich Geo-Physical, Inc., to Joseph M. Brown Jr. License Manage-D,'M.. ;I,.: D/MQg]i y$~~
rMI.W ment Branch. Division of Fuel Cycle and Matenal safety, office of Nuclear Matenal (.*/. H ' safety and Safeguards, NRC, dated January 30.1979. j. VJ ' My ' : Letter and Notice of violation issued to Regh Geo.Phywcal, Inc., dated May 18 8J 1981 f f. y,%.;M. _ : Letter from Karl v. seyfnt. NRC Region lv Director to Renh Geo-Physical, Inc., s. 4. ..! C. dated May 21.1981. -P4 p Q t[MQ/k/j ? N.$,. ?J.i.. J'. t%y , ~r J-"., F .A:,,
~~: Letter from Keith A. Rexh. Reich Geo-Phyncal, Inc.. to D B spitzberg, NRC M~~
~~Region IV, dated August iI,1981 (executed August 19,1921L I 4r .h.'<yg.N,'hN PM.3 [.E; - Form NRC.241, " Report of Proposed Activitics in Non-Agreement states~~
~~submit.~~
I. W[.i ;;;;Q..Q 8 . /t.e.T;* J ted to NRC Region IV by Rech Geo-P%sical. Inc.. dated June 12,1981. v Y,.',.[r-ls'.W4.s N " h 'h$ N,,.,', g. Letter from Glen D. Brown. Chief, Technical Inspection Branch. NRC Region iv. U
~~, 6 to Reich Geo-Phyncal, Inc.. dated Jur e 25,1981.~~
@ g..I'V M # Q f.O,m,,"a 'y w /lL . ):- cj g : Letter. Notice of Violation and Prcuosed impositson of Civil Penalty, issued to ~.$c).M.[f8 '*/,I,f.87 _{'.," y )'..'$.. *, ]u N.f Reich Geo-Physical, Inc., dated August 22.1984 0: Response of Reich Geo Physmal. Inc., to Notice of violation and Proposed imposi. /_ J. t,'; tion of Civil Penalty, dated September. 1984. l $.s g o ..y y M [ma ' 6- . 1: Letter. order impowns Cml Monetary t'enalty and Appendia issued to Reich Geo-Physical. Inc., dated october 31.1984. i
~~;1 C'?.p i I r~~
w. e r o-- '. 9 16 s, .y' 3 ",..,.G. n ; W',' yy; i - - - - - -...~.--,-,.,--.,.v.p--,.g<,..c.-.m, ', 77. g.,,.n --". ce <n e, .) ,h < %[y q U,k!,) [ t ' " I I S.$.. * , ry to%[ ~ ~ ^-- e,' ,... ;, [ c _' e ',;^ ,',. l,. h.w 'c y[,,4 'e
l
~~,,, *,.. ;, a 4..,, (), . 7.-s g .x '.; *, / 7 '. p... . s f W. J.,M.f.f.,~~
~~3 v.y~~
~~. n,. g,~~
~~f. ff J' M,j. *4.. ' .11 \\ ; N (.. ',(7(. '.n a j f- '. f. s.e.j % l "./,* st"7f...t4, &@/,W.;p. s t. l y'd % g.s. +.*' +**v.* p; n. h - p.1 > : r' g -n -u s, 4~ c Le r %. ~. <. '. '. R~~
~~b,. b.~~
~~. * *,,7,st'.j<*[,r ).', M.~~
~~s s~~
...i ( 7, ( ' O. ,N ( C" I r '. ' ; ' s i
mg,w.a,,.. g~. g.f..;z.. yy; q;, ,. w, ,, 3; _ m.y,g..p z,~.,, .ppc.e.%4o.3, %.e w-4;.v ..w .n y p w .,..,, ~,.
a.,,,.

9. -. -m.,iw..me r

c N, v'%,...q-,y a mn;y p. y x.s,..,. ' ' '.
~~'o . %,s~~
e c

a. <
~~1 '. : g. s., g.gq.gw, ,.s.~~
A
~~'? MW g, w w( 4 W M. '. d - - . qL. %. t w' w a .m, s.q ,jf&:'y*f $.j?,, lN,,r.;;;!5%N.. Q; ;. _ Gs.-.:.u k -.. - : w -. M m.a - Q u k -.u -~~
~~2 J..1.~~
- Y %. w. .y. ; l..c,, g um3 - .4-g.. 7 i 4 r s.- ...,.2 This civil penalty proceeding is brought pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.205. My authority is limited to imposing, mitigating or remitting the civil penalty imposed by the Director's Order of October 31,1984.10 C.F.R. l 2.205(f). The NRC Staff, as the proponent of the Director's order, . JE ZM l.d bears the burden of proof.10 C.F.R. l 2.732. c..... _. m m.up m, &: c e.w ir cc.,v.y4 p,gf%,p&p, M,.r : a f M y MWMhR @m m III. TIIE CASE AGAINST REICII GEO-PHYSICAL gyT.p. '$jdhww ?;M M'/.ZN G $g@it3MW ff.v$$MhN@4 .b W4' The Notice of Violation alleges six violations of the license conditions f .f[ charging (1) unauthorized use and possession of americium 241; (2)
~~. g ; eW..% W M r,.y.h A. %.s use by unauthorized persons; (3) failure to timely calibrate survey~~
~~~pm~~
~~twsyhu o~~
~~(WM i m.. Lyspq g,g gh.,..,.n 'A 5~~
%aM.4 K meters; (4) unauthorized storage of cesium-137; (5) failure to timely 4 M QUR M. WMb test americium sources for leaks; and (6) improper transportation of A @G W@ ;.W r g

g gr g p $ Y ? Y radicactive materials. Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9. In brief, two of the alleged 9
y WW.,Q M violations 'vould, according to the StatT, be Severity Level III items s a 6,- j;,.Q.c e y @~ d d,,, under the Enforcement Policy. The remaining four alleged violations s .?. .My would be Severity Level IV items. Flack, IT. Tr.144, at 7. Ilowever, the $ q j p g h @ g;sjr .w g c.s.2 2 ; p.p/ ym. % W..p y-; Region IV Administrator and the Director regard the alleged violations g;h 2 collectively to represent a careless disregard by Reich Geo Physical for ru-. Mk...?M@p,~*4j@g/if;%@@k .n $f,'. ' ' i compliance with NRC regulations and, for that reason, categorized them k in the aggregate as a Severity Level 11 " problem." Staff Exh. 3, Attach. w. p M y{a.v m m.m 9, face page. m w,, .Mdy%$! %,Nr$h>,.p.f5'?h CME.W,SQp$ f For his part, Mr. Reich does not dispute the underlying facts of each
~~f[i;N y.~~
of the allegations although he believes that the NRC Staff sometimes ,9%g.a. 9 5W' NO.M..sk exaggerated the number ofinstances of violation. He disputes the StalTs ~4 s.s .['[;. _. lJ f ^ gr.M-assessment of the significance of the alleged violations and, most of all, denies that he has carelessly disregarded NRC regulations. lie opposes e....~ the aggregation of the alleged violations into a Severity Level II ,.m s. w.n e . ~, consideration. <di.Nm ~..w W.c4.g% : w Q.p (*f'fy '!? % ijMM In the findings and conclusions below, I have first considered each of -r. hWWW the StafTs allegations to determine whether the StalT has carried its Mb ~ Y ' 3; .:.'F'9 burden on each. Then I considered whether it is appropriate to aggregate [.',W. .i any violations that I find into a more severe, aggregated violation. In the e order below, I impose the civil penalty in the full amount imposed by .. c.. 'N,,,f 2;;,;. O...J d. d @w E $.. if. b i, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, $1600. v . q,. g M,A WAP.W+gm %WW W @ s h. ? y ::i W g@#p.o. p. 4.,m .- s.
~~m. +~~
~~c LI;'iM21'.?f,M. ! MM%s.g i. m A. Violation No. I iQy?g.y~ ~ ".*d.. M.~~
~~l. 6,W W *'~~
~~Violation No.1, as alleged in the Notice of Violation, charges that:~~
~~r N.;ry;v &.Jp.s.w,~~
~~' ; p., y ' myf;..y.u ? j9' '; p': License Conditicns 6,7,8. and 9 authorize only the possession of one 125.milhcune~~
~~y 9 s (*,~~
~~+' j, cesium 137 sealed source for use in well-logging. a ,/s7+.. 947~~
G

,
e .4 .-.-s-,-*,--.,-,... .-..---,y.,v., ~., -.i.-.--.,3..--.. ,_--,...y.,g.m.,. ' * ', 4 .*'i.,'k'.'.
~~[ W,.'. y ' p~~
] e f>.s .y. I, [ .-v s, ' N..,' ',,,' f ;; ,,c,:, .:,r . q. y.w.,- tv.- , ', l \\ -- R,. 0,td..* ; ;, '* %,,' ~,p* ';Qe ' + s %l .o . ' f-H, l '* ~ .g.. ,e n vor.. n ^ p& s y NY ,L.,, ' ' ' ~ o ,s [ .N 'r_. .2 tj i f.
.. n.y,.s,, L ~..~%.) n:p%:.g; g;,i. L% W...,*~ h i ~, ' ~ M'* l s .w' ~ ff;f$,y.>Q Q. s & %'M M Q @C Q % % ;l, p %q W.?$IM,q,+ Q %,.. "^s.h:,.. iJ
~~V '~~
~~'g,. MW @ VS M'Nlh?Q D p49hpy' ;Q.$. D@E'.h-7. dQ.V. ' '.& "4M. f '. T * '. *l ',, W .~ W ia 0 r.+ 1.f.w.*% m;' @. h. .%J 0 W^~~
~~t n~~~~
~~G h~i. :,C:W v;f...;,J i.S Q"c1;-;: 4.Gl.@, ~ s . d ' c_ ' ' K. ~ + .,2.:.Q.%; ~ " " ~ ' ~ ~ '. y,14n.. :. , y,, - . ~.. s ?A,~~
1. : *

~~p i.h..~~
~~,,0.f.4.1 e, ,y e i.* t y';, ' ", 1 3 14 . ; y,e..s Y, A,, ..p ~ -,. a n, n.~~
~~. r 1"~~
Y y J* ~ Contrary to this limitation, the licensee also possessed two sealed sources of americium.241. SpeciGcally, one source of 15.5 malheuries and one source of 25 mil-licuries had been possessed and used by the hcensee during the penod April 14 1981 to June 20.1984. y: W..,,. -g.. (This is a repeat violation.) D. a c a... -... Nhk2[$/.MM'MJh;g,.rgg Staff Exh,3, Attach. 9, at 3. .:.m -wiq.,.9:;W u : _ :
~~^4'd(f jh&p%@Q htfig M~~
As noted above, Reich Geo-Physical's NRC license authorized only h the possession and use of one cesium-137 sealed source. Id., Attach.1, T., s)M.dh.e,4. m.w.b$$h,. kM at 1. Howem, two scaled radioactive sources of americium-241, one mq containing 15.5 millicuries, and one contammg 25 millicuries of material, o %-e n $s. 4' Q %j @. were observed by Mr. Hooker inside the Licensee'.s logging vehicles M Ku,%4Z t.WAn&sq$.,: m hG:q during the.mspection. Hooker, fr. Tr. 75, at 10. Reich Geo Phys.ical,s ?.MMWRM utilization logs show that the americium sources were used by the Licen-
~~(3ff%' W@%%pQiy$%~~
MTf4 ARN see to conduct well-logging activities in Montana, Wyoming and Utah in l.;g-W.f. w. W r. y, 1981, Montana and Wyoming in 1982, and Montana in 1983. See gener-2 .~ 3.. .s..m,. . v%.. w !,m. % n.m: k W Wm. ally Staff Exhs. I and 2. .- wo ;.. 4WWhity,fM. $%..y.f4.,.4W5, M.%2WE..N. 1i.t9 25 millicurie americium 241 source was used in Utah that year a total of Beginning with 1981, the Licensee's utilization logs indicate that the b %. >..M_ :. 29 days. It was used in Montana 10 days and in Wyoming on 12 days. N; Ng%:ry:-@%N6%ME G rW ;-i,S @hR2% Also in 1981, Reich Geo Physical used its 15.5 millicurie gigg,f,y# g' -[A{.MMWWh hk [h@f-americium 241 source in Wyoming on 36 days, and on I day in Montana r An that year. Staff Exh.1. m.g e.ad fM All of the uses of the americium sources cited above occurred after Mh %=p $'gpM@ME4 MQh May 1981 when Mr. Reich had agreed to store his 15.5 millicurie source ,peip until he received his amended NRC license, or until he filed his w.f NRC-241 form. Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 5. I can identify no uses of m 9- . y americium 241 during 1981 which occurred after the expiration of the fr u -.A December 20, 1981 date for the termination of the NRC-241 notifica- .w@%'mM&qaQ:t@ww yv pWl C tion. O f W 4' @ 7 @. K um w m iM M 4A Reich Geo-Physical also used the 15.5 millicurie americium-241 hWMW.MM.44:MMW so'urce in Montar a or Wyoming on 35 days in 1982 and on 1 day in V.g,u u p m.m:.) :7.ac ;im 1983. Staff Exhs. I and 2. Mone of the Montana uses was at the head-n -c ,4 A quarters in Billings. 5;. h 'dv... M TP N. N b The year 1981 presents a special subissue. The Staff charges that any %.DME:M dd field use of the americium-241 sources in non-Agreement States was T. 9a 4.f,.7s.w;c 9,%.kp'9/ggQ ' .5 h W 's f ,W~w[r # g unauthorized because the NRC 241 notification specified only that the ogg..w,,ey,wm,,. ~.. <%m# 1,0 : sources would be used at Arlington Drive in Billings, Montana. E.g., Tr. v. u i w ag-.,w.u 86-87 (Hooker). Mr. Reich, however, states that his understanding of . g@tIOf M @,< !:'i.9. M p,p/ d
~~w..,~~
~~.u .m u q~~
~~Y7 the purposes of the NRC-241 notification was to extend his North~~
,R.g.r..; W. i J ; :;t '.:Q Dakota americium license to all places authorized by his NRC license, g:n. - w.-m m 9 m .) :. w m 4 a s a g,e.nm ~q. and that anybody who knows anything about well logging must know w v:. 6 d '1. 948 4 l f s geA " ' - 1 g h.. I- .J l[
{
~~Qg l x. m ~, w :. p,4 y... ~.A,.; u,g..g +. Gig. ;.. o. ;- ,.n, ; pta g.,. m. n.u m n..a. - n., m $ }, Y h; f. A(!,Q,.**f.. m.f.:,(.pl. ~, s. g.% '.. Q. s. .p 4~~
m. 4. r; ;. e f%;Y j+q

2,
~~= h3kbTh .jh 'E., W, '.q:,[:$ f, 0 V~~
~~l w y.. m\\r* V-(,b'$ D~~
~~.,. d,;,k :w. f.x.,:.*n$p'l.Qp y.v.>;..,,%a. cy;$ m..e + n]<.a*.tigi\\.7p..Mf + a:. .:, c .e. ..v~~
~~.h T g,A (~~
, z.. W .Q. < '. ,*4 t .n, j. 3 q
.D:*.*f.l.MT,$.M':'M.5Md'b$.kfI.YhY,' 4 - } " "r [ ' ' ' s., ,[N, 4 Q%VMWW.MP g&pir 4t.gn-N ; - - =: - ' ' ~ . m : P '.'
W*P.#,;w-W*
~~' -. a M. W,W%g w";qfNM. j< s:@ y,aw *+ r..g p.. 9 9. - 7+. ' - . ' W.;; .. e.'.M; < ' s. 4 ;.. Jf ' - J - m";'*Fa.<< 1.. N. e -.-- i m era pww%,.c.,g,- e@. py,,i s, m~~
~~s. 4 I~~
,, r 3 4.Y. f.,v p-,b. y W T 6 M W E M. N s ~~ <. - ?",pN *cP h '~ vn + .u-I M 'E 9 ;4 7'> i' i !; 5 4., V y A;,,,,9 zn!! @,t a.9.(~.) D,,y w w,g c g t.,. fs--ee.- ' .1 e 9: y, t. ~* y a +- s T,. .i,y,-- g m m..-@.m M>%,&, W.. g ~' - a u : u u:-. Q., - ; - wVm .y a.
~~m.,,-~~
i', :i :C,c.pW .? W n g, ; p.. d:i. F ',w/ ' i ;y %. W.3, s.";c n.. mw e. .::g. : v: ' k - c 3 c.% f y 2.L. - .~., ?; - o r... b'f.. that it cannot be done at the office. E.g., Tr. 87-89 (Reich). Mr. Reich's point is rational. True, the NRC 241 form by its express terms, requires specific notification of locations where activities will be conducted and ~ ..e ?4 the dates of that activity. Yet, it is not an unknown phenomenon that
~~4 c c, w. t v.... 7 < e government forms do not always conform to individual situations.~~
. 9, w # k.s yhd$ Moreover, the Staff did not explain how it was hindered in its pattern hNC%@[EAyjfsh. !' '%" k. b of monitoring the use of Reich Geo Physical's americium in non-Agreement States in 1981 because of any shortcoming in Mr. Reich's 4 @N.#!NI$DI,b@j $ h M f. W N . }1
~~l NRC-241 notification. The NRC does not learn in advance where (except by State) and when the cesium byproduct source is used by i}h. k.o.ce.. W' Mp M @ {z s~~
~~Reich Geo Physical in field-site well-logging operations under the NRC iN MM h-q~~
~~.p license, and it is not apparent how specific site information under an W A MQ%f bp J 0 k.%p % m {m g a~~
y. m gfy NRC-241 notification would have been useful.*
I find that Mr. Reich's belief that his NRC-241 notification authorized .Mth! @,p; MW7M M.@tT1g .i d SG the use of americium-241 sources in the same manner and locations that d7"':sn@' c7Nic@Q.M,2r..g e %(%,c, W.%. :...< his NRC license authorized the use of cesium-137 was inaccurate but $ ;: E f s. f not unreasonable. Such use was in violation of NRC regulations but it Q; '.fdd. N [IJ;W.Q'MS.%wp;?.7 yb.C@m'h7.gs g;4g Mx mW n did not indicate an intentional disregard g.or the regulations.5 hh' This finding does not carry the day for Reich Geo-Physical, however. "Yh4M h N,W I. h{ As noted, Reich Geo-Physical used the americium 241 sources frequent-3 9. # $ $ y Q - d
~~N,1 ly in Utah in 1981, while the NRC byproduct license authorized activity DhWQMMWdM.M only in Montana and Wyoming. StalT Exh. 3, Attach.1. Mr. Reich had k~~
no defense for that aspect of the charge. Nor is there any color of author-k'%dpMb8hh(Iljfhf' l Nh hEh f2 hg ity for Reich Geo-Physical's use of americium-241 in the non-O.MhM$ OON[: db Agreement States in 1982 and 1983. Further, until the inspection in JF,6 ',q. ;.e 1 GT.M"r. June 1984, Reich Geo-Physical unlawfully stored the americium 241 ,e{ M "7 sources in its two logging trucks at the Arlington Drive address in Bill-J... ings whenever those sources were not being used in the field. M .L '.[. c iq.p$.Q. :.(..l.RMW.5% ' W A'NT p 12y.g&? Mr. Reich acknowledges these facts but contends that he is not solely r+..n.,n.W m at fault. He states that, pursuant to his agreement with Region IV in ,h,,y pid?'s;j 6 ~~M4,,ML 1981 (/d., Attach. 5), he twice orally requested application forms from 1,M+. u,... W,.....,9...m: ~. Wg the NRC to amend h.is matenals license but received no response. E.g., gj /d., Attach.10. Neither Mr. Reich nor the NRC can produce any record sh,,, i e ' e e %., '$ M. of his request, but it doesn't matter. That explanation, even if proved, . Q,' 3. ', c'.QrWQiG., would not attenuate in any way the seriousness of the violation. . :F :,,"d e.r. w r., C A e M w Q t ,3 g %4' (29 ..ey ,j,..
~~,'q. c g$ N.,%eM Cd AST gw. 5') h, q!g.. A y.~~
~~sf# ,k 'UH *4 v.. iW 'r.,$QQ, ) 4-~~
~~$j4%.yN~~
~~,, L 4I agree. however. that the stafr could have been misled ento behevmg that the sources were being f~~
~~';hio N Df.',d;h lh g g[i h, gg/~~
~~i h'd* stored at Billings rather than being used in the field, but there is no bass to beheve that Reich Geo- 'I y~~
~~A p 3.f.f Phyncal intended to convey that impression.~~
8 yyg The NRC-241 nonfication hsted two amenctum.241 sources of 15.5 mithcunes each The stafr. how. , @g?b y.s's .. #., *',./s,f g: 7 j y2 . x y y' % < ever, has not charged Reich Geo-Physical with a separate count of unang a 25.milheune amencium-241 'y-p A.' f. ~ !- " rf R ' source. I assume that this is because the stafr does not credit Reich Geo-Physical with the right to use either l$.5 milhcune or 25-mithcune amencium source by virtue of the NRC.241 notirication. e 0. s .e [, 't. . J,. s _ .6 e -f .]t' iy l ......, f. ;*.3[.. O..s # e t. f.P a **, -, .c.- ..,.-+,.3,,,,.,,9 -+ y,, {.. yH,, .a e.>
~~c. <~~
~~g '.. q,u" y; f:. ; Q,,,f~~
~~g,.~~
~~5p r r* es.,s ,,w~~
~~;g;.gr, sh.,;,,~~
r y ' lMvf rf.: '. a., :.;. V ~. rc,y%u,., \\ q .*.1 , '; 1 ~... p.,, 'a 9,.,m~,., x: u-4~ .. g u,Ar s ~ l *
~~y..m < ~ >:.y} h*$:%, -p. $ -h ?g -~~
~~, i %)"J #. p,,. .f. ,lti?' 9 ; 'u ?. g,.~~
~~.,i,,~~
.e .;" 4 .i,. a;;,* / *f. W'::pya. -yf.J .,V 6 ll %. ' 4 ~, %.~,. . a 1. /.6.. ., %g. p~'.q;.% n' , L. r - 3. : : . W,. %.,n q u, qU,lg h*' S. i % G / ' c n '<.2'.. 1;c - ~a ... % Q .' ) t 'O " y .n'
%. x %;U. M....h. W.. ~ ?.,h W d,g) %. w % & %QQ.@ ~
n,
~~.V: e e. gi e, W &. ws. c. p. w,qf.s, w.y.: u@F.a&:W: w.M,*b * %..3s. {. * % ':,. < '.. .. # %y.m~~
~~n.,~~
s
~~9.. t.y x~~
+.~-n ~ .a w < y :. 'c y *, W:,3 x e t \\ syW-L.x ..sy$w e,,.%j (J.%.J@ :e [y.n w.sy, 5,. ~. - f M.~ 4 e y .m a my p. e ~,, .y ,. x .% ^yM $. ;@q lrs]@,y%.,x %. r .~. i $~.E rf $ W ~ .1., pg ~... .i 4 pw- 'Q, f.).:: .'.U: i $ ?' ' ~ ' ^ --- "- " -" - - - "-"i a
~~m..,~~
5,f S. w :.., W4.p.7 a hir. Reich argues also that the Region IV inspector, hir. Ilooker, con-ducted a hasty and careless inspection in 1984 as is evidenced by some errors made by htr. liooker when he copied from Reich Geo-Physical's utilization togs (Staff Exhs. I and 2). The errors made by hfr. Ilooker in M,Q@~.r.6,E.,.....n., J. ..L 9..,:. W. ~.,.... .~. - copying from the logs were trivial. Ilooker,11. Tr. 75, at 14. Also, in d, M$d'W.%,. copying from the logs, he overlooked some of the unauthorized uses of ar., y ~ Nh,. wtkNN'$. :$ 5 the americium sources. Tr. 79 Glooker). hir. Reich has not pointed to 7 uf g any material instance where the Staff's inspection has produced unrelia-AWis. v: p 3} 1 $ m e _@ pT;i. w.a.. v.n - p ., w ff 7 e evi ence.
w-
. %. 9f hir. Reich does not dispute that Violation No. I is a repeat violation. ~ MjsM- ^ ' M[Q Q g@.M ]kd MMpdM, 6ldSPM It was the discovery of the americium 241 source by Region IV during D? N6 @'ty Yp N the inspection of April 14, 1981, that led to the filing of the NRC 241 [(g-@WGUQg%WWmi notification. Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 4 (Notice of Violation). p
~~u hfr. Flack, the Senior Specialist, Office of Inspection and Enforce-~~
~~' 2l;," W ~.r,W ment, who assessed the significance of the June 1984 inspection find- .a 9 H J.,. '. /..d t. ings, testified that Violation No. I was a Severity Level Ill violation be-~~
~~MWm -13M cause it fits example C.2 of Supplement VI of the Enforcement Policy.~~
S % nsf M? @ M '~',. g' t w Flack, IT. Tr.144, at 7. That example states: " Possession or use of 7 t. ! QC., L f., J. unauthorized equipment or materials in the conduct oflicensed activities M n c. $ $ ; M M, which disregards safety."' 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Appendix C, Supp. VI.C.2. O.& q%MUJp:MW. '. hir. Flack is correct. For almost 4 years, Reich Geo-Physical . MAW 4MQ#MN W W possessed and used the byproduct material americium 241 in violation }M:.Q.Q.pfM@na;;yh..;' ', Nkf ' ""* $. i of statute and regulations in Utah, hfontana or Wyoming without the . b., $. N or e era inspection. knowledge of the NRC and thereby foreclosed the opportunity for State x c. ,g 1 w,.;i w y.g - 3., r, W Remaining to be considered is whether the severity assigned to Viola-f tion No. I should be reduced because roughly half of the days of unlaw-W' ful use of americium 241 have been found to be unintentional under the . ctg %.o W@m...T8i b v N NRC 241 notification. The severity of Violation No. I should not be re-Y[WW@m' %,1 .,M.. P.h r. : duced on that account. The remaining days of use and the uncounted w.:w 4. &:q n., G V. M. M : pp.9 %' times the americium-241 sources were possessed at Billings without [,MQbW@i.'f. g,N#. .? licensed authority are more than enough to establish Violation No.1. ~ ~~ ' ' MY' hforeover, Violation No.1, without regard to the other five allegations, If
~~dih,;c,h establishes a willful and careless disregard of the NRC regulations by~~
(@,+', . - t o $;LA J Reich Geo-Physical. v m w 1, w, ,p. v.y , +... s.. ,a e e s s b$ I -[4 ..e, Q', ;sf,M..;. 4.. a 2% Q f * ?Q@ [;,p:;f.t t..l.q.; 's, - ..sW s .,.n. v ....+e.,,...~ f. s c ., '; { ' E, ?.. ', 'h <' Meg, ) ; { k l ",s [ '.,, - 8 Literally it could be argued that the use of americtum-241 was not "in the conduct of hcensed activi- ,* O ties" in that the NRC bcensed Reich Geo Physical to use only cesium 137 Reich Geo-Physical has not 5 j ' ' {! ] ".; y e '.,**,,, @ l.,, d. raised this pomt. however. and at would be to no avait to do so. section 234 of the Atomac Energy Act l ' Ei subjects any person. licensed or not. to civil penalties for the violation of( 81 and other sections of the Act. 42 U.s C. t 2282. > L 950 d 4 ,g . - em. r -
==us-mee mr+-.e.-. is.- .._,4p.p.--=, e-. I?(Q'
~~S' p~~
.3 ,R ~? Id i, f,g, j * <,,,. mQ. ':. [y +K.g;;%,.;' ' qf %GlM. !x - f}. [,;p.-{-. / . ' * ;,,., J s + ' j :...m hyl.yyg';4 y 3 . r.lx.y' }... s,':D. ; h'iQC.t..x<,:;, O. ','M k. U '.('. Wl i,4,.- r.m- @5, .u x. y a .q..Qlf.s. T,.,,..,W ,. ',,.:& i:u,. y;C i *.;,' < 'l t W,' nt' l: ' Q' 'b W m ,,4... y,g w m).,, q. x.a s.. y .m y~ .o ,. ; yv.,,,.g;,..,. m. e 7,;.. g, ~~..,:. . 9,,1 f. 3 c y.~~
~~'D W: @1% d.~~
... Qn MM. g

m y ' kd,

f. < g {,, ~ (
~~r)%;g& ~.h.f. & Q :-h u j 3:,' W. W h $. M %h.i.y ~.-e,, 2,.:.W ',. P ".s,'^c Y.$l. -<'e 4:, q. ,k.,m . L iw, +; Q }....a a.s ak.m.:h.. S bg...y : e' '~~
~~? n w..v. v+..+u.m % o'~~
~~,.. :s...@4.,...w v,. e r 4 7~~
~~i. Ts\\tA~~
~~~s \\l" \\' ..t . a. 2. : .v. -.'o 4 i .,_.,..;\\1~~
~~a. >~~
~~c, w _ ;,._ _, a.,y ,.m. .....c X.f,;;. c~;.s.p..p, A,. f~~
~~d, e~~
'~ g; . w. m.;.,. ,J.. n.. e - .1;, . rq j'- r;( p. B. Violation No. 2 i l Violation No. 2, as described in the Notice of Violation, charges that: ,; e. License Condition 12 states that licensed matenals shall be used by, or under the su- .r , - g. h, :y, ' 'd j.[ X pervision and in the physical presence of. a speafic mdmdual named in the beense. " *.; ; ; c: y hf w.dPW.b. gr~ " m.' 3,M;w Contrary to this requirement, during the period of August 17,1981 to August 14, %L,7 n'l)'? 31.%. "'( 442M@G NO E e 1982 heensed matenal had been used by, or had been under the supervision of,indi- , gs.y ...e,.,,2.kh,,, s. Q viduals who were not named on the heense. MIh. j;h e .. +.. 4 ;
~~a. w ; p a.r, m,u..;. w.:n 2:~~
~~WW;:.....z,%@gwpqp svw.ra Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 3. -m, ,2 W MGM NN~~
~~r. 6 M +!! m d h The Licensee,s utilization logs confirm the inspector's report with re-~~
.mi.c6 I Aca spect to the dates radioactive matertal was used. According to the logs, . @,',@J T f Q,. 2:.sw.t;m;..c;fM:GM/.l Mr. J. Jarocki used the 15.5-millicurie americium-241 source for 44 days yv.p.m.yqmryw. ,1 in Wyoming between August 5 and November 4,1981. Mr. Jarocki also jf.e >U,- / used the same source on September 26,1981, in Montana. Staff Exh.1. I .i 'i w ) %.h.. Mr. Terry Dowling used the 25-millicurie americium 241 source for 7 3 :. 3 cat w,R,..' + wq days in Wyoming between August 10 and August 16,1982. Staff Exh. 2. b..,..L o (- -' N. J Mr. Hooker testified that Mr. Reich said during the inspection that he (i.4 9, - [W$Y $ u.'f, G.;t. 1 i %y ..,s., was not physically present when Messrs. Dowling and Jarocki used the americium sources. Hooker, ff. Tr. 75, at 15. Mr. Reich offered no evi-v x n.~. s M g%g;m.wg..m.. m.-.ziyM..s5,, g:)y.a(.M"hyp[*:Idjf.4 ..-m g lh ~t J ; dence concerning this violation. p .Q.q. NS. However, in the Response to the Notice of Violation, Mr. Reich ad- . w,. m e d .f mitted the unsupervised use by unauthorized persons. His defense is q-g;;$ g n[.h. W M p %,g g N Mf hf' that the employees were properly trained; that the sources, when en-s; N : @ ' ? M.. closed in the logging tool, are inherently safe; and that the employees N. 'f - were instructed not to remove the source from the tool. Staff Exh. 3, ^ ~. Attach.10, at 1. The difficulty with this defense is that it cuts the NRC out of the QC ' J,y :. f%,. g 4 7.;{ regulatory process in favor of Mr. Reich's own self serving judgment as . ;;.;. 4 f G /,g jw; :%.k to the adequacy of his employees' training. In his application for the Q,g.a@. ;, w' cc " NRC materials license, Mr. Reich listed extensive training and on-a.. the-job experience in the practice of radiation protection. Id., Attach. 2, J2 ' ' items 8 and 9. Obviously, Mr. Reich must have known that this repre-7 s sentation would be material to the issuance of any NRC byproduct mate-f../. A h c - 6 y; 4. rial license. The NRC Staff knew nothing about the training of Messrs. L.vkr%'M,3.@ 'DJ.phg.N i:MW;%Q4fM Dowling and Jarocki - neither do I. Even if it had been adequate, the c yx,,E1 6., c NRC had a right and duty to be assured of that fact before those indi-l M'p)g%g(y"(w' J'M; WM.,y,.. 7 ..m viduals were permitted to use the sources. . 2,...n.vc'y,:'-v.;M,(e.- I find that Reich Geo Physical violated Condition 12 of its NRC 4.. h' m "'$?.', [ C ' l<.1, s [:j M license when Mr. Jarocki and Mr. Dowling, not named on the license, used radioactive material without the physical presence and supervision / 951 e L ,.p y.*. s
~~~*=e..*ee***-~~
~~-=*W,~~
~~..a.m~~
~~,. > =* l p~~
*h.
~~~. '.;. A~~
~~y-y ".~~
~~n '~~
~~y Qs~~
.[ r.a[ a:, ,e;- ,. ~ -3.b : n,.: m i; - 'a: . l'p. _,...,p p-U; '<a.. .i '.'.Q', ;' f,.- s; i! + 3'.q! h;,. Q} ~* -, p, o ,f ~ Q _.Q&, L .,c ",f r s
4.MM.c..@s m@me.&jk%Gh?fMWMiWWy?Q 96%.T : ??;&'. % %: Q' M G 4 x Q. Q.W W.g M C ag Q*.. O,:vv:- & a - V : O.J +;fc: d sL A d X W .s ? vw n!.. ...p+y>WEC:m.W.; nyx +P h.,,, .m.A. w.., 9,,, z ,,.:.,'..t,, m.c.. , i :.' > c k, o. p<7 v, y,;y-p.> Ay':Wp. J.?t.f..g.;4p@m,u.y% ;~~*, a s
~~p.v.,.~~

~~s e-n.m +,. ;. m g Jp. e u. n.- +. s % mm c e-m. e n%, x .a.m~~
m. c. m :

k....

.. f '.
~~pg.. n ~:,;g3.'m> i.;., p.-- ./ s.. ,w m .s +~ m,~ m - v :n., . i., > w w -m. s m.. q.,q wm,:; ~ m w %e ,.f ., mn~- y. ;y~~
~~. m. g,a.,. ~ ;..,.~~
~~,,,-,p. a , A.m,..g.*., g 5 s ...y y M. y. , R.;.7,~~
r:
of Keith A. Reich, the authorized user named on the license. The con-duct of licensed activities "by a technically unqualified person" is per se a Severity Level 111 violation under the Enforcement Policy.10 C.F.R. i _.. %.., f _ 1, Part 2, Appendix C, Supp. VI.C.4. This violation, standing alone, W: a ,.v... 4.. :,, MW)b, g.,,VD .R E id..w.s demonstrates a willful and careless disregard for NRC regulations, sk. c m.Wa wr.s.n.;g. 3.<p*?re s. 'rh.c . m,s gp@Q:'?.;.> d _p*2m%EMMs@q w.W s M kW pa p y ?: W / C* Violation No* 3 NJ h YMdN: P'L $...;N.i.l@* *.% %'. &Sp r dQ%, .M Violation No. 3, as described in the Notice of Violation, charges that: d'Y6YMkhT[N@W.Wh AfN. License Condition 17 requires, in part, that the bcensee shall possess and use h'D dPS$.b M.YS licensed material described in the license in accordance with statements, representa. ,k tions, and procedures contained in the license application dated August 8.1978. 7 D.r, Y.M. c. DA. i,DN. y.h'Mk.g. f gra e c m .s , i.hDMMlfN%Nh,Y-Item 11 of the license apphcation states that calibration of the survey meters will be performed at 6. month intervals. '.y /
~~3. s~~
..gh. I _ e 4 7 f,. - ,4. W. ? M ,y p e W, N.9 j.,' period July 27, 1982 to April 10, 1984 and a second survey meter had not beer '.% '. e J Contrary to this requirement, one survey meter had not been cahbrated during the mf. ~. M ' Z.'2.,' E,/ 4,;$. s y., C Y i 9 O.,i, '.,.,'o' ' 7 cahbrated during the period April 14,1981 to April 10,1984. yy.
e
.w.. (This is a repeat violation.) ,e . s.~- ..+ mw. 4:e n Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 4. 7GWW4 FIG @M $ #;S:c b '2 M 7A M @N,M The NRC inspector, Mr. Hooker, testified that, from his review of the PW"F"'? ?,M'hX *2P *:- Licensee's calibration records during the inspection, survey meter serial hMykiMWph no.11898 had been calibrated only cece during the 3 year period prior ,.iR,". Th' Mg;3', Q, *:... G. ' to his inspection (April 14, 1981, through June 20, 1984) - on April ] w:7 g j 10,1984. Survey meter serial no. 8075 was calibrated only twice during . -M the same period - on July 27,1982, and on April 10,1984. Hooker, ff. .n~., .r. 75, at 15. t v;My; wwifid.).rd'y t h@ The Licensee's initial position on this violation, stated in its Response d N Di .p, to the Notice of Violation, was to admit that survey meters were not ,.#WP N, A@g%.;t:hrn suptw m. calibrated at 6 month. tervals. The Licensee attributed th.is failure,.in l hj"pc mpa, ewe.sdTjg%' g QhX.I' part, to an efTort to " cut cost. Staff Exh. 3, Attach.10, at 1. At the tr - in j .M ,J hearing, Mr. Reich asserted that the license required survey meter cali-l *. ) 'Y '.$jdQ bration every 6 months only when the meters were in use. Tr. 229, );
~~.0,~~
@W'k. qg. k; MT.M A'.<M;.i;j.- The Stati acknowledged that, where a survey meter had not been . eJ ' Q 2'4-35 (Reich). tVMM , M,e t d.M 'M,,,. MOldM,D. g!ANM~%$lG C used, and was not required for some other purpose, such as storage sur- .ee veys, literal compliance with the license condition would not be required. ? %3*; M@"M;%[.):h #. W i* The Staff noted, however, that should radioactive material be put into L, _.[' f D. $d'$My,.'<f".- to be calibrated within 6 months prior to the date of renewed use. Tr. 7'~' T use, the survey meter used in connection with that material is required W.., .M i. e $ f I.- Es - f. m.. 235-36 (Hooker). l l
~~l e.~~
~~'e a 952 ).) 6 , _.Y*, is,re, ,_. ge egne. eye.g 7 %'. h .s'.+";,:%. ') 7,1,' ' M, ~ 2 '. '.,,g %'? % 1, if s >&.,. }l,~~
~~% N i~~
l
~~~* h.. '. v -..., * %l. '~ );.. s' ~ * ? s. %..r... y.; *,' ',.,. f *. g .v ' ' - l,;/. s . s c.]... > p ' .n . = *. c: y,f '* c.'... . c y ep;:.~~
~~f'? _'~~
~~. n 9l& j.$ */ m, . <t .t~~
~~f ;f L,_..~~
~~j }.,**: l (.k,~~
~~1L Q... $ f e l~~
.

m, ; a M.,'pu.t,s ;'.p) y ( f V ' l )c,.*. 'w" * ~ '
~~I.,~~
~~-,,,). - 7;w.. f.'-Y{.. ' ' k~g. g*..,.~ V,.:;p,&,,: , y> m..,. v.m.. c.',x. a ... n..,c. V.c ' ~ -,..o -M ..:.. s ~t u, .n~~
~~4. 'w* (*, #.a'j' ' e #M..r',.',6',-~~
~~- p' ~. w .. 4 A g,,p. IP - (# ',c.','. i,,~T a I e - * ?T. p,, j,,V' ','s . y, g','g , *E~~
',='N s DL,,

3 t>
y i g .e g. ~ -p 7
v., w.a.y,,.q W f^4 <d.,c-p.i% we t m. ' e P" '.N :f . -.. m. pX
~~...e.'~~
~~~ b: e _.N$. r m e o.~~
~~< +.-~~
~~e . w. c u' t 4'*j:i W E{l$?.l$.}Q"*W.b. Y, ~). f. w?*\\.*?:**U,';&n ' ~ Yh. m.Y ' t ] * ' 3f Q ~ ^( E~~
~~f. ' -~~
~~2u, f m. 4,,--~~
~~% <d, m~~
+
c
~~..,un s % ?*tt1.a.V W m-N m ovpy .,,7'.h+ +:" s..< l V. ~: % @:.*?. L.n r w? ? n'.~wQW{c $ < ~ < ^.. ' u L r q a .p* ty+.T. .y ~> .y y ., pg m.y.;Q. :: i% 2.? i.gcr.yj:.{,.r?,.~ $.m, r, W.,g..W;~~
~~v. h~~
~~~* 4 -a,q . ry,5, e -.) gw ,~ ,,c...~~
~~u.,.~~
~~.-r <. 7 t.,; _f 1. .q f M f/%*l*/ b [ f, Nfi ,'*b IJ* - M M.*he' pymn.; g,~]y.. v. ?.,$_: x,..y y' * - - ' ' * ' " ' ^ 9 m :.n 2 e. -u 'jGJMr..'.3~~
~~b.. ii.h '. #sh.~~
. {.,' 8My '. ';.i.y G. h{. {;,h" ' u, -r o in any event, it is evident that the survey meters were regularly placed in service between April 14, 1981, and April 10, 1984, but were not calibrated as required. Mr. Reich admitted that there were occasions when survey meters were used with byproduct material more than 6 .. p.... J... Jf e.m, / ... m.,. mf, r
~~1.,~~
months following the last calibration. Tr. 237 (Reich). The utilization e;,- a- 'f;, 0 C,' C 1, M W P.' 4.a.,W .s.- 1 logs, which list the serial numbers of the survey meters used in connec-g,.f g,. 6.g s,%.ye.%. e.4... c c, ; tion with radioactive sources, indicate that survey meter serial no.11298 .u v.- u t '. p .y p.%..,. ~,N%w.r.- 3 . A. y.. ,h+.ly+>A ". was used with the 25-millicunr source in Montana, Wyoming and Utah f w%m.w.m.wM.,.N, n.v s ,3,,.p.m W ^ in July, August, Septemiser,0.tober and November 1981, and with the M Mlg g s.q p.,. m,g..,,. p% y9 R .~ n .a .....wg m..g., 15.5 millicurie source in Wyoming and Montana in May, June and July g,.4 D.6h.4$MW] 1982, and in November 1983 in Montana. Staff Exhs. I and 2. As noted. h hen.,;$hE.
~~g.. s s..WM.h survey meter serial no.11898 was not calibrated until April 10,1984.~~
.. l p e r j W % w M m, 4,.... e.. O. 3 Survey meter serial no. 8075 was used with the 15.5-millicurie a. 4 W W :" americium-241 source between August 5 and September 23,1981; on + /. '. 4, gi (' y,.- September 26,1981; and between September 30 and November 4,1981. . 7 E' g... ' d. ' Staff Exh.1. However, this meter was not calibrated until July 27,1982. 7 M(ih;lM M.7 6 [ h:
~~1..~~
~~1 This same survey meter was used with the 15.5-millicurie source on l'ljd 5'%.h : V November 18, 1983, well over a year following the last calibration. Staff~~
~~.g.,g. c'.m.g.,~~
? Exh. 2. This meter was not calibrated again until April 10,1984. YM.gMN ds d,@ 4 9.. [ D{ D j % @,j h @$ y M Q The Licensee offered no evidence which would indicate that either survey meter had been calibrated during 1981. In fact, a Notice of Viola-w,".frz.7M$2Rb @Z.M C tion issued to the Licensee on May 18,1981, charged the Licensee with . 7 c. p; Agg@MTf?N LfA .Wr last calibrating its survey meters in February 1978 and March 1980. See p.g.M q%-.
~~.UWM.~~
Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 4, at 3. Even assuming the meters had been v .W ..s . g; o.,.,. ;.y.ce wt % cp' W calibrated in 1981,7 I find that the Licensee failed to have suwey meters '.e calibrated as required by the NRC license. In responding to the Notice of Violation, Mr. Reich asserted that, "there was not any change in survey measurements performed with ,g.. y - (.p{J.i.y : i W. A#( g ,g,;; meters that were over the six-month calibration date, versus the meters .d-jW within the six months." /d., Attach.10, at 2,2nd page. The idea here, I ( ' ~ , 3 YE ' Y: ' assume, is that, if an uncalibrated meter matches a calibrated meter, one y.! J may infer that the uncalibrated meter is accurate. This point was not "o; raised in the hearing, but I have considered it nevertheless. In that there 4, was an extensive period (according to the unrafuted evidence) when .j
~~v. : ;. *T T,1,N,.~~
~~^ '. ' neither meter had been calibrated within 6 months, and in that there is s u.~~
~~v....~~
no evidence of a third, calibrated meter, the ress'onse does not help ..;.QlNSW Q)f"8.dh,%*C l . %.';*.f htl+ hN O 'r*% N(%M,.;.hl. t( ]\\.>M.d i h;% $ i j % s..'+ '\\' , &M,9 -, ;h,Q.y q W/ 'L E ry,P,;
t.
~~g. w. c.~~
~~- v6 Q,*Ie; ',T7. g,~~
~~j,' a'e, 4,~~~
. w. 7 The Licen-ce's respo ne to the 1981 Nonce or violation, dated August 11.1981, stated that: "Cah. a. ' * ! ) '.. ' brauon or Ludlam survey Meters will te conducted by ICN Pharmaceuncals." stafr Enh 3. Attach. 6. .3 There is no evidence, however, that the Licensee actually carried out sta promise to have the meters cahbrsted. a, 953 n, I .L*)*,% a. .{.r '* b. ; l l ( Y '. < d. - L .. * *E 'F ' f. '. I '.f, 7 'l es., .yL, ,.44 [ ?, .. [ 6,
s,
~~i g' ,q f ' ;,.,y 6,1".r,.y,..M d' ; 7~~
~~j p~~
- L' W@,,:,; a ', y' .s
h.mt%:87~4%p@wn:r~.g)@~Ly@y%wss MkN%M N/h'N MN M 5 lN4 ~ .a %s~ V W w , W?:.:, W 'g W 9 ?. wnn + sr u 7w~ &myw.Yfhh:h.:. e.w,kbkk D, W@WY. ',/ ' - ? &'?$' .hY M.+ C,QQ!: h,+Qikg.&.g.m:& :{:t i % nr
~~M o.~~
~~... W.- m w'n h r,.v a.- w: y=...- p i -m 1 ?'~'y* L.,*'~ w,; Qc ~ o y @A~~
~~N W;*.6 M~~
., - p Y. o @#,.,,%h Q: v ~ 't X .s ** W ^@;, V c. -, G.? ~ 9:.n m-p: s@m%ye g? %Mr g.u o gtw nu, n.;.w:t.w.,7 s.. Q",.,.V' 'l[;,.}. :D:; 3 N~.~i.%.;f.%p;.~.[ vs m ;-n.m m t .. pi. m,. .I-w ,L L., , # 4.W i a.e w ;@-.; ( .N
4
~~.y;~~
~~-n..;6 Reich Geo-Physical.8 Accordingly, I find that the Staff has carried its fm.?h q'. : -~~
~ burden on Violation No. 3. It is, as alleged, a repeat violation. This viola- , cnn tion standing alone demonstrates a careless disregard for NRC regula- .Q # 6.. g Ml2.w.%. J';dpW45.f~' :p,.r. -glu M;Q.M. $, y. tions. Qy :. H.- pq
~~0:;~~
9y W i W.^}y[f,]. i ff D. Violation No. 4 g t L r.'h Violation No. 4, as described in the Notice of Violation, charges that: l W h* uh 6 Y, % m..q.% fg.., . License Condition 10 restricts the storage of licensed material to the licensee's ad-E%W M M dress at 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana. s ..Q N; y t h.T f Contrary to this requirement, on June 20,1984, a 125 millicurie cesium 137 sealed . q, G 5-j.& L 3
~~W source was being stored at a location in Billings, Montana, not authorized on the li-Y ff Y.la.FIFJ.8%.>( N,...i. ?., }f.,~~
,_y.. e; cense. c-s., r. a c sy-l.- st yW , w e s ~, /.,T- ' '.pA,j>,:s. '.1. ( h .W..% CyW @, Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 4. J J ' #6sW40p$s,.y There is no factual dispute. Mr. Hooker testified that on the date of p u%. QF MM*E'4.M% the inspection, the NRC-licensed cesium 137 source was not at the hM M..,. \\ ;'. 3$ $742W y $ M @; i. Licensee's address. Mr. Hooker was informed by Mr. Reich that the 6" source was in storage in an underground bunker at the Airport Industrial bdON4IQQ.pj$]/,gf$: Park in Billings, Montana. Hooker, fr. Tr. 75, at 12. The Licensee admitted at the hearing that the cesium 137 source was ~W)$'jjyd.9h@M 2 not stcred at the location specified by its NRC license on the date of the Isd.,,NNd inspection. Staff Exh. 3, Attach.10, at 2: Tr. 238 (Reich). $3 Qyg.;).. I find that the Licensee violated Condition 10 ofits NRC license by S
p.N.e

$$.g ' @W.W/yyy ~ g ' '-
storing its 125 millicurie cesium-137 source at a location other than Ni.Zhi ~/n.w w ': 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana. NL W 5,;...g y.gygii. However, I also find that Violation No. 4 is of little safety conse-NM?jD$ quence. The airport bunker is a secure shelter - better than the logging gjNhh trucks approved by the Staff. It had been a National Guard fallout shel-NI ter. Tr.111 (Reich). The NRC Staff does not believe the storage viola-
~~%T,N.tD/MN. dMQ.jh p '~~
tion is important. Tr. 145,183 (Flack). ...c i 1.g M %..y, g.1. ) 2., Although the matter has little safety significance, it does have some gg]MM?.$@fsd?"y II I - Ql d regulatory significance. It is a minor example of Mr. Reich cutting the Y MkM. NRC out of the process when, in his judgment, the NRC requirement is M. EpW$hk. not important. It is an intentional violation but it does not rise to the e.g b g.W."rg level of a willful and careless disregard for regulatory requirements. I
~~pt,~~
~~.C%.Qt w.?.fr.*in W' %.p.X 4 L 9 ~ ?%W rW w Q C:7. k .Q'1Q,. 'j*i&.. e} ' y~'&;,w.* N.m.;.i. h h 'E y 3-- m~~
~~r. :~~
@V - - i of.
r,, < - d.i., " - 8 have also consedered whether two meters, beyond the cahbration date. but in agreement with each g'k*~, M;& ? ~b *
~~other hf such were the case) provided any assurance oraccuracy. Agreement between the meters would~~
, g.',. g [ *,N i' /,.. 'l indicate that the meters were probably runctioning property but would not provide sunicient assur ance $,.j}-1,1 : L.} or their accuracy, ,. s,.h.g m n:. ~,:' 7 '..- e.+., *y a. .~ Q~*s. : *,* C'e ) '
~~lC.~~
~~,:,.-. ' -7,.? ~ '.,' 954 .a,. m.. ), 8~~
~~j. s y~~
~~j J h.%. n j..U. ." g. f., .i L, ^ e~~
~~e...- *,,,.Jy',~~
~~,f.., ...~ ~s~~
~~0' e.gV <~~
~~A s r,.'T z, + ,e x ' q%n &;.J.f t;.fl'.'o.gg f*y'~~
~~Q Y *s "kd ke.V P v...' l? M' gi \\,~~
't f

g r.
~~' ' Co. 4 i ?.G.- QQ : 3T p' ,. r s. JW") ~g y';&H&. %;w r m?f}'*gG@es j-q. &y a & quf7 p qq,.;&;*L 5.,fa,, ' Q* J., f,;z.'_ m ~:v~<: x.,,g iN y-m A r;.: W.- b' h I w.- u n a< . n. na.s - n ~ v.~~
~~'5~ y p.y..y-...~~
~~. g:7 :y. ; - r ? i.:M:,T. c. 7 g q.kw:1m.,,+J ,7 c.,. a s.. .r m rqc. v F +; v< ~ y ..a..q%. * : w - .c. A.M;;.,m.,;, ;g. J,.}}W.w P.v,m..I,;es. b m 4.. ,.'27..~~
~~pop ;.~~
~~, g;....s..x. v.. y ;;x.q.gi x.,,,,Bg g..c, p..; ~. n m y.. .. N.... s v,-,s. e - e>-~~
~~y.,-~~
~~.+. ~v ~s r: as - +. s. -. ~, ..s .a.c.<sy . '.t:. e..., i - a.,. &.b ~.... ~ e. W.7:~~
~~(. spu~~
~~.y, m * :c g,s#., a% . u ->. , v.g y .v c c .e. . s, m ~ ~, :p. ; -~,c;n w* > ;', a ryft,g: :~~
n~
. c, : v. g ...g .x j., .a t ,s.3:>.,y c, ; y,,,.,n.,; -&q ".yp y;;.. t>o w e., v.. ..,. a;, s - c.x,, - e.r :n.,.- y.; ',,.C*,.. [tl'.,,.glikf ',- K.:n. t~ c. (p.ng.;. [.:;.;, - have given it a relatively small value in assessing the overall seriousness of the aggregated charge against the Licensee. E. Violation No. 5 ~ A.,....J. a @m. M.F Violation No. 5, as described in the Notice of Violation, charges that: vu- $c &,.:;M h'$;,&hM" W.M:.'s t.
~:
~~.M d M . 37/4 h. h-;.w. Av.,M,,y ' License Condition 13.A(1) requires. in part, that each scaled source containing u~~
~~%I..:n$ a~~
~~, CC licensed matertal shall be tested for leakage and/or contamination at intervals not to ,,,~~
~~p..gh. ppp. r.3.'...MyL, c.ch. k,.,.,A,%w...exceed 6 months.~~
,r y f,, ',. 4..w.y AtS.*,,. q vu Contrary to this requirement, two scaled sources i:or'tainmg 15.5 milheuries and 25 ,'I:-M.,N:q ?,.Ny.dMh@M h/.- L'<Q.gNQE 4;G7,N,f.hi/%, gQ milheuries of americium 241, respectively, were not tested within six month periods s.. ;4.. *; JM: a:n; &., p.%gO, Aq-from November 20,1981 to April 30.1984.
~~9.. ~~~
~~, i..,q, :..,c, ?.%;.Gp g;c_ h;. Stafi Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 4. a.R . ~. in. hir. Hooker testified that, from his review of the Licensee's records l_~~
~~m',. m, J,M c.~~
during the inspection, leak tests were conducted on the americium-241 . f.V',.'.','.ppj.$am,"l;$, sources on January 20 and November 20,1981, January 12,1983,and d M. April 30,1984. hir. Hooker also testified that, since the americium-241 a , y.- .3 s. l }. MA M sources possessed by the Licensee were taken in and out of storage N-n. N.w:.OU.t y w. b; y. 6%CM .. 'Rr during the period April 15, 1981, through June 20, 1984, leak tests ip u% J T "> 4,, 4 r..pg.v.., m... should have been conducted prior to any renewed use of the sources, m ,g..; v Aj ... mm g n,. .J.. - $,7y6,.MM Q0 unless a leak rate test had been conducted no more than 6 months prior yg.y. {3 @&MI$fC,.,.Q.%M k@ J3U.19(q/ to the date of renewed use. Hooker, fT. Tr. 75, at 16-17. Under license Condition 13.A(2), periodic leak tests need not be conducted for sealed , A,, S. y'<:. y",llp.Ff 9 % sources that are stored and not being used. However, such sources must 2: be tested for leakage prior to any use or transfer to another person unless a leak test was conducted within 6 months prior to the date of use or transfer. Staff Exh. 3, Attach.1, at 2. T.[ (,, i,.g;D, $'J The Licensee admitted in its Response that it failed to ccaduct a leak 7%rl4..t.A..7.M.a,,}:.4[y? j;;.p'.g y 7-test for the 15.5-millicurie source in 1983 when required, out assened
~~.u, y q.~~
j that, since the 25-millicurie source was not in use after November 18, +- 'c 1982, leak testing was not required after that date. Id., Attach.10, at 2. y The utilir.ation logs, when compared with the dates on which leak -O J,. ; F r. N N. < tests were conducted, substantiate the violation. The 15.5 millicurie ' f 4%Af".% -J source was placed into service on hiay 10,1982. Staff Exh.1. The most .~ iz1 b b,n.p:.dQ:%[j$.M.! tp }W. +h recent leak test had been conducted on that source on November 20, 5 p. i; c. (:. w.g ;e.w 4, wg.
j.
1981, a date slightly less than 6 months prior to hiay 10,1982. Then it e - a $ t G.. w,..,e.v. e,. p...w. %.. C, - was used continuously until December 13,1982, more than a car since T g:N.. a.M, t, WW the November 1981 leak testing. StalT Exhs. I and 2. The 15.5-millicurie 4 a...... m 2.y.y[' ?W, ?.Of3.(N 'IM.M l ice on hfarch 5,1983, and used in August and November 1983 - the source was then leak-tested on January 12,1983, placed back into serv- [ $.~ 955 [
~~1.. (. s ar.~~
~~_ gese m j 7-1 " * * ".t *" 9 -.nb g{~~
~~.y. v. U ::',, t., '..~~
~~,,. g p?. 1.,g.t 4.. c.. s . p,-l n 4 4,.c.,' ~, y ,) @ r% s .n -~~
~~9,'~~
. f ~,. 4 ..,,,.,s.., *. 1* 5**.*
~~.h 4'.'.,..,~~
3,?. . e \\* 4,,a t g 4 .s of a p e, ,3 '.D E v. <. 6 '4.~:: _e,. -s 4 r,.. ht 4 IT '.}. ,'q. *.m s.. c b .? s; ,. 4 s r' ?,p; W w.We ~ /
P p R g g..,:. y,. &,j y W : . (:y %G w:g%;nM 7.2,. w.~ W ~MW M : aw: n.+ e,;.-QKQ n . ' :l?p '..: ' : 1 a I h , 2... w.f"..Ydu?Y ha..d. &, e l, b.- YL 0
~~t..~~
'.1, a., . v :w; - ,.w. w.m,...,...v, .w mn, . o, a< 7: . ~~,..,; u.. .j q,.. : s n.,. ,,, 7. f,~ :. w'yLyf y.- 3._, ..,. :.x. ; p. .n. .,o. k latter 2 months being beyond the 6-month period. Apparently the 15.5-millicurie source was then stored and not placed into service again until after it was leak tested in April 1984. Staff Exhs. I and 2; Hooker, ff. Tr. 75, at 16. ..... :.... G/,, a The 25 millicurie source was leak-tested with the other source on ... '. WM, '.,'. T A November 20,1981, then placed into service on August 4,1982. It was
~~e..,m.. q.v,.r.w. ~%,.,.s.W.,.2 n.~~
.:t .a n.m.ec used regularly that year until November 18 - almost a year from the 1., v: W: C @ A W Q J G' s %. g m% g.7,,: 4 . e,; w M. di most recent leak testing. It was then taken out of service. Hooker, ff. Tr. .N.yg.n.W 4
~~t. :..ry.;.Q g.qce&p. ;.e.e, n.m:,m.n;v.w s 75, at 16-17; Staff Exhs. I ano 2.~~
+m. In his cross-examination of hir. Flack, hir. Reich attempted to mini-mgMMM";MID3:sQ mize the importance of failing to have the americium-241 sources leak- ?y jMg.IEF$Mgy@ tested. Unfortunately for hir. Reich, hir. Flack is an expert radiation ' d.p MP <, health physicist by virtue of his education, training, and his extensive .y - Mh,dpgl.Nb;hth.Qj; NRC experience as a Senior Health Physicist. Flack, ff. Tr.144, Attach. t. :m T 1 (Professional Qualifications). 'T Z' First, hir. Reich postulated that the sources of 15.5 and 25 millicuries ' O.( 'd. of americium 241 do not have a high level of radioactivity compared to } ",h,' l /liQQ y cesium 137 which he is licensed to use. His point, apparently, is that if c. he practiced traditional time / distance / shielding principles on americi. um 241 in the manner that he uses in handling cesium-137, he would
~~n. p.,,.,.k' M~~
~~. 5 %e. ~,~~
~~AMpg j@.+M.I. n. ;,~~
~~necessarily be conservative because of the lower activity of the americi-~~
~~r i~~
ir um sources. y a g w, app.. hir. Flack acknowledged that, because of its greater radioactivity, a %., 2 ' s p...m. p. 4. 7.7,p e W. 4,, maq p.q n , 9 :.%^,... s%e 2 u d,,p ~h : d..,. 125-millicurie source of cesium 137, a gamma emitter, would present a M! greater external hazard than the 25 millicurie source of americium-241. e q. e' ,e :wd ; mgmW However, americium-241, an alpha emitter, has a very long half-life; '$ l ' leaking is difficult to detect; and, if ingested, it could create a long-term ~ f ' health problem. Tr. 172-78,199-200 (Flack). It is necessary to perform
~~.u av o Wy h.<~~
,s the wipe-type leak testing because leakage of americium is very hard to % vm:s h/g M M p'yfts k detect without sophisticated equipment. Tr.186 (Flack). w, ,l_.,,M..g, (j.. g.y p MQ rFT_bh hir. Reich suggested that it is unlikely that the scaled sources of . me.p'3,: $9 i ~~ 9:. :L 0<.l.'
~~g'r ' [l L.,~~
~~americium would leak. But he offered no evidence to that effect. Tr.178 'y W : (Reich). In any event, the license condition requiring leak testing also ^~~
~~d,,,~~
recognizes the fact that the source is sealed and enclosed in a tool. f. .:: p ', M f g u ;,.3 Finally, Air. Reich's argument that the survey meters would detect g M.Q.. 7j g. W.g.,(V.p.% t c'" serious leaking is not very persuasive in view of the fact that the evi-o s 4! Ao.'idEbw.a ~ Gg.lA-Nf@MQ:7 V'..u..s.n:... Ay);m.4..a.+ %. t.C - dates and that wipe testing is important even if the meters were freshly y; dence established that the meters themselves were out of the calibration r + o%.w.,.g.w;.3.p...-~ ! find that Reich Geo-Physical intentionally violated License Condi- /... w calibrated. w yt. 7,j :.! ~... s g .,y '.. . M,@; v$ Q h.;. T M a. tion 13.A(1) as charged in the Notice of Violation by failing to conduct 1 p j 956 } 4 1 } 4
~~r. %. 1 m~~
~~-rm , y., % L.,Q:b:n 9,7 ~- z - m Q.wg yi:n +...W + ' D.,., y -p'. '.~~
~~w..,,:~~
~~y L.:M d i.4V 'L . ', ph' : J-a.... a.V ; u{. ~ 2 ;,. ~,. i~~
~~p 7-~~
~~_ (.; '~~
~~,,,, ~ ir Q -Q.%o c e.~~
~~Cp W ? ;. L,, d:~~
~~l 4 W! ').t :-~~
~~,w,., ]~igi ' r i,* M ' S 7 .G. ' ' kFe', . y, a ~....,~~
~~.,.;r-M.. c,.-, g..,.g;.O/4(~~
~~<.v. f ' r..,. o.;lx'K.cf,eQ:, ;,.4 g,* +.,, s~~
~~3?'~~
-. m, ke ' I $..k % i? '/, .".'.s +f g <,f**": n. '. '. ., a ,...., c *, r .s , x,, v .A - e. q y ., ; r., e
mp> k.J ~h } &.pk%,*.VywR4. 4n'%3M..Qig,:K sr b. a* ...W%y W:@;y,y M A y. Q r b :n. 2 v., A @ y. W..i g. f. ~. Nr ; op ew Rg%.,;f.?l.M y @. ~-. ?n. :PywQ .w y?V -.31R ,w, R.:, fa, %yng.;%y:?%iv,w: fty,%%p. h.g%, %: - ~2' ?.1.i.
~~Q;m.;< s'M w.~~
~~ww,ph.ym uy%.~~
.+t a.hy.;Q.1g. r.. 3,.,: w w%yl4%.W%gW.e fg&:.o&.m .en&,v c. - ml l:l p.%.GwTO Wr & @ % Q Q M,&q G: w.,i3...; u. 4. o,b y. B Qi M it h.c.m. w. s m, g. R..Q.. & c:g % ;%, %.1. M; h.,. %,.. e. e; p m.o. g n u a #,Mc.my= .n p
~~e..v. w. >, y. t.w yn?,q w~~
~~&c &n w,w.~~ m. M. ~ m r. e. x e u.,,. x .. w;37 m \\:~~
d. sA.s';,,a

s. ; e x
~~s ...,w , 4W, L w - F2 g-E 7, y f_by g.g ~ ,.e w > s % q. r.,.. v ,.%. w.. 4l%*.,,7 -q,W* ;:.tQ,*$85.'A, y. p L,g %y.yfQ. 16: ab. 9 n.e. e, ...g r.<. s s ~, .p..~~
.e
~~.w ..j-y o. leak tests of sealed sources containing radioactive material at the re. q'uired intervals. ..c s t. a.. F. Violation No. 6 . o. ,~~~
~~v.v -d.u~~
~~~.. f.s, g/.c. ;.hf Q P N Violation No. 6 as described in the Notice of Violation charges that: q '.% &r.e n.~ o f. kp1"4,2 @.g.~~
~~t a~~
~~. #;l. . ?.?.v f. M qes~ m m n Jh,"*'-}$p.M. ;dO *TO,p EN,.A'.'.ll.4'i ' QJT 10 C.F.R. I 71.5(a) requires, in part, that no licensee shall transport any licensed~~
~~U,d gMg. Ad*C774t';~~
material outside the confines of his plant cr other place of use, or deliver any N d N M A N M~?) )M2'G U M.n & w W @ 2d.N?ih@dth.f-5.m. rwh a.l.; w w. o.+.m. i.' Q MM-hcensed material to a cairier for transport unless the licensee comphes with applica- . gJ o 9 n. g o,... c,-n t ble requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the f d@TFMY Department of Transportation in 49 C.F.R. Parts 170-189.' .N M CW ty h '.&s~..'? W "'?%,...h...M., hA. W /.r F .. K..c.C. ; ~ -
~~a. 49 C.F.R. i 172.403 requires that each package of radioactive material,~~
~~.v ,. ~ 4._gJM, 4;Op[ % [.VrM..M,,$ .'tJ i6: r d.; /. ' g unless excepted from labeling by { 173.391 or { 173.392, be labeled, as ap- %ref t ,y~~
~~iup, propriate, with a RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I, a RADIOACTIVE YELLOW.~~
, ;... y ll, or a R ADIOACTIVE YELLOW.III label. '.,,, :. g. ~ -A u~ .,,. 7 W;p((,3.' q. *,.*g d d*:k Contrary to the above, on June 20, 1984, the containers used to transport c.^(c. I. a,.:S.; t.+,.. radioactive well. logging sources were not labe'ed with an appropriate R ADI- . r*; ' - [ k.f,*fhyf, MI;g. 3 OACTIVE WHITE-I, a RADIOACTIVE YELLOW II, or a RADIOAC. b Ed-d, ,'j U A.?~ -..... p 7. ;: % TIVE YELLOW.lillabet j$Ad %%!MM.g%y;;%M.'..M
~~b. 49 C.F.R. f 178.305-3 (sic - should be 178.350-3] requires that each pack.~~
' 4 '.' \\ - c ,s ,r .,7: "/ph;NhY.@NM4:pW~h,ij I/. age used to transport Type A quantities of radioactive material have the M.P.M.s.Wm<ang DM 0.- markings" USA DOT 7A type A." %SmC4M;@N;</'q,sy..wa.eg%n N %e %%.y@ WZQ(r ' Contrary to the above, on June 20,1984, sealed sources containing millicu- ,Qhf rie quantities of americium-241 were being transported in packages that .h. were n t r9arked as "US A DOT 7A Type A" centainers. br . $,'V -.r e. V' ' ~.. Mr. Hooker testified that on the day he conducted the inspection, he ^ ',1 did not observe any distinctive Department of Transportation (DOT) 4#Mrsz P;,A p%,yw p.Y.4 M.. N d y;.-) U:3.p hi . markings or labels on either of the Licensee's americium 241 source MM .mQWuM. J. containers. He also testified that in view of the amounts of americium M"- W. . D.w,J.., Qs.W/%@jg+Tg4 the Licensee possessed, he would expect to see a " Radioactive White 1" N' M N Q' M y Q,wlO V label on the containers, and the markings " USA DOT 7A Type A" and f& " Radioactive Material" on the source containers. Mr. Hooker was in-a . b.L. Mh. 9..W W q. formed by the Licensee that, when transported to temporary job sites, Q.Q 4.Q17 / the source containers looked exactly as Mr. Hooker observed them on M %*'p M f.;';'!ff: h. @, M 7A -W the day of the inspection. Hooker, ff. Tr. 75, at 11; Tr. 96-97 (Hooker). h @. M;Ql.l.1M.. W.+Io fz. R' p d' I There was, however, a sign or tag on the logging tool, which is also a h.~0.w.n[h - d . Mjg satisfactory transport and storage container, identifying the package as 6 y g;p.. p.: s, v: H.v.e $. ->n &c 4 s..,Q s t 2 l,/.....
~~.:p;_ g.,.; o.p~~
,z,, m. . Q,.w..f.:s_,] -. + ag e ; n ': uy.,., ..4 e h...w.- ' Condition 16 or NRC License No. 23 18304 01 also requ6 red the Licensee to transport hcensed mate. ,e 7.,c, s ' ... t..g y, y e q, tF;' real in accordance with the provisions or 10 C.F.R. Part 71. stafr Enh. ), Attach.1, at 3; Tr.137 g t Hooker).
~~.O, '~~
~~.(. 957~~
~~?* ' --~~
~~~ 1 _ m t-" - m.~~
~~,y s agtav 4.'M A~~
~~. _. ~ m.an-n 7- 'l...,. 1 ' h ;I , Jg %. s -lA @g,dw,p,fG.M M : w2.*< >,'~.*1'\\T b... m, v.:w:. .. r.. (% :.,w. ~ ., 9., .m ;. p' i,, a s.. ^.. g M' :k.Y.s n3y P -~~
u<
~~t c:W, ), 4 ~. u.'1.v m '., 4,.,y ^ 4, hi ,l+.,..,, 1 g. w p;.a. P.) y tys.<( =&< 'n w ,in. ,. a.. ,.)& hy j{m..i.w tg}eg}%.gy.M.. o'.T.[f. ' a d > >.. ?~~
~~a emQx~~
~~. m...y s..i.; w.e i :t.y, n ~ V W. +; v'. .;hkl...w : n.. $Y. e 4g y..,.,~~
~~r..,..< n <~~
~~v ~ ea. no 9 e s m a p. m ~ ,.&n.,~~
~~.&,.~* 2;*.ll&n,w.lW~~
~~.Q ., $ l V l. ^Q. N d( G .,' ;n.e.y;.q.,o;lO} k.Y;.\\;g y, %;; y,,p,;n.l ,, a r,st n, 'n.yqhufy, lg.. I ,e. . c.:.,.. v. 2,,, % - - < yaq~~
~~s.. ;,u > a.n.,;.~~
a q q; g.y y.g.q jy,. gg w.,a,3 n - r .a, y
N:hv.JMin %~ w.:pp.xM."v.~C.~:,v;b WW ' # ~ X ' 'n WQQ.@QR.dQWQG . [ ',' - "u y '. w.y.s A,.. % e m.e +,.f,wf, W ?"d5 w ywf.y in - e. v.sq.6 ~. m;.nA..< ;.wy,;i.4 m*e. o. w +
~~4. e:~~
~~p~.er. m w... .p.';. m e p'%,,, M y~~
~~u. "., v ~ v f.<~~
~~2 ?, 2..: s w.- w%.%,v; M. .a,.. A d a p% - u m. c c s. a. .. 4.. 3,, s~~
~~a... e.t w..~~
~~q m.u..f r y U.?w;.' y ) g :ym.,s.x'..l;h.s'h. c. ;,; .s~~
~~v q ~ < O.. < '. -~~
~~r u. 'dt&m . m f.s .'.L:.*' % o,& ' %..m. : - ' % ' ' M.. :. MP m - eC R;x v N, m '. ;- r, q-v .;4 e. s . ;s.~~
~~c TM. n 7, W A N f,9~~
~~. ';.. %. w-w;p Jfq;w.;n m v.-7..; ; 1 -'~ c.%m :d./,,.. y. n..,,,. a 2 .y~~
~~;.c.m,.~~
~~..u n ;? h e., s. ,s .,g..)~ ~ I s. w I: " Radioactive material storage." The sign was very visible. Tr. 93 95 (flooker). Mr. Reich admits that a " Radioactive White" label was not on display~~
~~i. A, IM.s. + v,G:~ m',,,~~
and explained that the sign would have wrapped around the source be-QF;,W6.W[$ Mp3W 4N.' cause of the small diameter of the tool. Tr. 242-43 (Reich). He testified e.3.g <en.t,w g... u s.,-h.. m,..,p,. ... J u. A g e %-w;o.p.. however that a Radioact.ive Yellow Il sign was in fact present. Mr. a n e.m.w y. g %e. 6 tw. "m v .g p/w wb n.. Hooker was uncertain about this. He could not recall. Tr. 243-44 J %.,. g).. $,. ~ u ~ M. .E.s.:f . M (Reich, Hooker). As a whole, the testimony, and Mr. Reich's Response W p% A. K y4 to the Notice of Violation (Staff Exh. 3, Attach.10,16) are ambiguous. w., , a v h M /y[iQ'QL$w...f))M.,.g((T.$qhM. ' A, WTt, f Whatever was on display in the logging truck had been placed there by Nhh hhh the manufacturer of the source, and Mr. Reich, quite logically in my 4 @GM view, believed that the manufacturer had afHxed the appropriate warn-win r*w.%c %. m. w...... J;, 6 (L M re. e Ing. JpN M M W!k N N f'-h N 4*, have a Radioactive White 1, a Radioactive Yellow II, or a Radioactive it is signincant that Violation No. 6a charges Licensee with a failure to $ Q - o ? (: D@Y,T4@ c!M@& y a $N '. 3 ?.-p u.s.. 4 Yellow-III label. Therefore I cannot accept Mr. Hooker's testimony that Q the label was required to be Radioactive White-l. The preponderance of ..P.g NM the evidence - Mr. Reich's testimony - was that there was a Radioac- - ;a u.A tive Yellow II label, and Mr. Hooker could not dispute Mr. Reich's ac- ,f,MW %.c QQ O Mb;. count. Therefore I find that the NRC Staff has failed in its burden of % [$ y-h $ $@MMNO$hNN proof on Violation No. 6a. By no account was there a legend " USA DOT ? 0 7A Type A" on the transport container. Therefore I find that the Staff k,M Mh h 3. .?.fg has prevailed on Violation 6b. M+;%'..'h@Nh[c$Q@Mgd h However, the NRC Staff placed "very little significance" on the failure . q g p y g r. m ;; U to have the appropriate Department of Transportation labels on the +. y;- Op ..CN sources in assessing the civil penalty. Tr.145 (Flack). It does not seem ?
~~r to be a serious matter in that the radioactive nature of the package was~~
~~/.T '.. g i clearly marked. It was an unintentional violation and I do not consider it~~
~~h... < M TY~,~~
N h$ Q. h{;" W Q.g %y i& g h to be material to the aggregated charge of willful and careless disregard 1,Qpcq(. Myp W even as late as the hearing, Mr. Reich did not have a clear understanding .n of regulatory requirements. Of greater concern to me is the fact that, 27.K., 'M ', -5 p .y. s. i-as to the Department of Transportation and NRC requirements for post-ing transport and storage labels on his materials. Tr. 238-47. ..,1 .'e l , ; m. - a...... m., . n.,. t4 . are. ,,e. p.p.g c ^. '.,. - d y $w$ O,',7:k 5dNM, YQ IV. WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED d s. AY..W AS A SEVERITY LEVEL II PROBLEM ?fgn!@u:y%s.p4%. l 3 ?n A. Enforcement Policy W.v..M M D$..hg.D. p $ M.M,M. yQ?cO. 3tg.-.g.ng@N, .m..: p p e
~~.* y.~~
~~.A s ens for each day of a continuing violation. If it were left solely to my own~~
~~n..y..-, 9,.s....4,.., n r P&h Section 234 of the Act provides for civil penalties of up to $100,000 g7!~~
sense of justice in this case, I would, without further analysis, have no c 8 h 958 g / j ^ n, F m m m%.. if }q, sw, w,.,$ (#., w.mm'; c' s~ n .W. Y v q'pp',hn+,j j-V'****-"*"' T T * **/ w .w,fh,ef.1.4h.".Q.p%f::fQQ,ybq*ww>%y?f' i,e.'Q q. w t n.. Q s,' 1:
, Q. % **,'h. Q. :*.N & %,q'4l. L f. y'N',W 4 -
V% %. f : a.i :'. o+ l f..,-.%.,
~~.T*f~~
~~V'.~~
+ 0 6- .va y c e w .wy o .r j'fs '.Q* El. ., 7'. ea %c E. n qv>ww ) 3- .we,. t;., - .w
w ;< N...r. 6..W A;dc'.M W i;M.$, p y $g'Ei.!c y~. m@ M....,y!S n M wUfWf M7.:e.w. v.. $..? w',.e y m w y v ge: Q.h;6 & w w' g - t.m,W a.. w,.wyw.,,s:; h cny-o. .o v i y ~ ~. - M[;p,62N%n;m%.mmy:p.&;cy;@J ?W.p' /y, M(.6 N.
~~bWn im W.~~
~~^ .D+pmpM~ p. && w&w:m m .wwu MN.d h.I c'dMnhkDD$$h $'.Qh M' 804t y @yamr ~ s 5 +. p S' SE if k h;.. & y % q:gyw j&gy;s m: p pp m.:. m. w w.- a m.~th w a~~
~~.r n~~
wy s y". v.:n< 2 rg fnny ~ . w :syd:gyy..y W s 4.WP.'5 " ' r 4 A W.W 4 e W W >T;' *
~~d a WW4 Na A..~~
a f n k.c : ;: w; # % W*3, 4 ;i @ & .n M f 6.f.?.W,.h,p.h,{(- Qe?$@L O, ~.7..,%. 'K . " W-: 9 y* w y .y m s W_ e G y.' it #- N.tL. Q. 4. i i is S 3 o i, difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the pattern of violations by Licensee calls for a civil penalty of at least $1600. However, the Com-mission's General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforce-ment Actions (10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C) imposes the Policy upon 3.Q). ' 1. e 1,f,.;lc. _.W j.. the Staff and presiding omcers. Moreover,in that my authority is limited ..#.g. n ....y g. %p 4
~~s.. al to imposing, mitigating, or remitting the c..l penalty previously imposed ivi~~
~~" ?' W M C.. @.. ~@r.G.l$,gry/ g,,42... by the Director, Omce of Inspection and Enforcement (10 C.F.R. M .x..?.p .u { 2.205(f)), I am bound to e.ther amtm, in whole or in part, or to reject~~
~~S$#pMW 4:,'r.M, %.M~~
'2 i ? W'x.f r,h d. W. M,.... the rationale employed by the Director in arriving at the amount of the J Cy r W A m us k@egIu;M@W5pMhf/6M[Wo Kv.c Mg ' civil penalty. As a matter of fair notice to this and to other licensees, the kf 't Enforcement Policy must be applied. $Y8'$$%m._ o.R...w$e,.Q The Enforcement Policy categorizes violations in terms of five levels eM E ' %.r w ' x MM mce;gg p of severity that are representative of the.ir relative.importance and safety ..s 3
~~e. 3 766'pM.'.pG 4%rl.Ayi.,f significance within each of eight activity areas. One of the activity areas,~~
[ .,r T Fuel Cycles and Material Operations (Supplement VI), covers the viola- .3 L f. c .. l.4 tions I have found above. Another area, Transportation (Supplement ,[My$@p 2$pM6 V), would be relevant except that I have determined that the transporta- .>/H tion violation should not be counted in considering an increased severity
~~7..m. 'gf.y,4 level.~~
~~.g. g . W9. i h.. D.m d,@ nQ.4. to. 04.$... As noted, within each activity area, there are five severity levels: w- %,... W.q r ; g.i, % wp ,~~
~~3 i~~
[$,$ d $ A N %'DP'4 M f. M 6$ ,'.f Severity Level I and 11 violations are of very significant regulatory concern. In gener. $s?d'i".y.'.$',Q.[yy$[1% Q p al. violations that are included in these severity categories involve actual or high 'h potential impact on the pubhc. Severity Level III violations are cause for significant f3,t, gyp 3 f 'M:g @[f.@;p 2NG i.."M*?.h,. C.W S concern. Severity Level IV violations are less serious but are of more than minor F 'M'.. UM Dr.i C T. h* Sy concern; Lt., iflefi uncorrected, they could lead to a more serious concern. Severity ., f [. Level V violations are of minor safety or environmental concern. 9 ,j a.f , 9, s / .y., m 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, { III. M...';, j: m.u ;. p M w$ sQ. % 4, n.~.@r 4'.y The Staff aggregated the violations into a single Severity Level Il prob. N.d'./ 4 o c Q.w i lem to 7ocus on the underlying common cause of the violations. The , % M... p M ij.T @ @d @ h N f g !Y@ M ' M .y severity level was selected by the StafT in view of the particular signifi-
~~j'g4 Q.> Q m ) '~~
~~cance of two of the violations and, in the StalTs view, Licensee's careless~~
d
. @~i W<..;,,,' M.s.t,4,. m.... A., d q.... 1 146 47 (Flack); Stati Exh. 3, Attach 9. As noted, a Severity Level 11 disregard for regulatory requirements. Flack, ff. Tr.144, at 1011; Tr. -A j' Q~.a....q,,,+4,4,;..a,m, c ..;,.. c ; d matter is of very significant regulatory concern. In the absence of s.m. -. q$q.w. g.g m.4y.t,. ~.%.,,,y. ,a mitigating circumstances, Severity Level Il matters result in the imposi-1, d... M. 'N i M N. w&. g;5 4 tion of a civil penalty.10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, (( III and V.B. c s n N fdf.$N[s... e*i'6hyy,%.g@.. I~ M,4*rq ,i r,' M ',J.P,g a 4'. hem 9;., i'. ..x w, ~m v a+Y h/- +j, ; t he . x..W * ~-g:. f ;, * '.,'. C.4. '.,
i.
. bq _ %:(. s ..gr~ ~,y + ..) ..~ >. .c g. ( I O e ym ..t* i a 959 j,O g -,.m. m.w.m-r. - s " ? ,p lo i 1 t .} - 3 x :.s.. &?a.n. a;&v v. a %. w ::., m 4 0.n g %..s. n. g. n..,, 1 e.;&+.,%p. v.Q Jg g.jcg., q.. 4, ; ', ;m. ;m:qq.xp$g.y... +pf..g,.. g e. . 3,,:., Q...y. m.%p.gv w p. m.+ y_ N.,r e n, q q ;,g.y j,g.cg,w...p . s:. y. &W...+; ! g.a . s.. q pn. A. .q p p m- .rn... p2w n.7.g a - ?,. * ,;. 4,.g... . m-p 3 r A.
www, m q,.c.,4% %:: ' l: cWY. MM'ik :.Cf m ?,y:.~ 3 Wll.'d.y.; f i m,. e ; LW.^ g%f,.. f%. n, * ; r..- \\ ~a. M., t..* = . :;p.y ~ 1 : .,'; f,< m c L' O.*s.;e w w,y.-
w., n

\\'..
~~M' y. w. nc ~ 2: yG. ,y..S.~-~~
u.c o

u r...
~~M g W.e.',.1,;..S...,.. e # q~~ ...p^ "~~-"""---'"~'d-+-"'*--""* a mp .c.... [*[* e y. ; g,,, r.." ~" w a.,- .a~~
~~w., :~~
~~. f m 19. ', a ~ 'A, B. Whether the Violations Should Be Considered as a Single Problem The Enforcement Policy provides that: .c~~
1.
c
~~k _-[,'M In some cases, violanons may be evaluated in the aggregate and a smgte severity~~
~, d. s.m. '"w!..;bM[k,e ~h,s ;g,( level assigned for a group of violatio'is. N c::,e s 9 e..k.. m :. p, N M.' t, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, { 111. According to the Staff, the viola-n. a, 7 N"M: s.8M$w%,.a.5 0. '/. SU i M%
pn

ca S FW WM tions are attributable to a common cause - the Licensee's failure to w3.

,acs..<
v d NM.. c b with regulatory requirements. Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 1; Flack, fr. Tr. exert sufficierit control over licensed activities to ensure compliance ~ v.r.m n n .Y,n. d N,. ~,d(&m, in@., :.N. w'N. i 144, at 10; Staff Proposed Finding 54. I agree with the Staff that Viola-o
~~. G..q,..W M.f, if p t.. ;.q..N, c, y~~
tion Nos. I through 5 (but not No. 6) have a common cause and accept ..,,. v m s %.g e' s y c. M d A W Ni e., . w;c, 9 u the Director's somewhat euphemistic description of that cause. r -o The Policy Statement on aggregating violations into a single severity .. 5, J level is silent as to the effect aggregation should have. Aggregation does ,..g
~~r y n~~
not necessarily increase the overall seriousness of a charge. In most in- ' N.A d?' stances that I have noticed over the years, aggregation simply better defines a problem and any needed correction. It usually has the effect of WO.:.,.c p ' : ! O actually reducing the quantitative seriousness of an unacceptable activity. M IM'$, '9.D f$ Y $U Z <.; @d$ For example, many violations at a Severity Level IV flowing from a ...e',c9,p y. W.%v...i.p.k W sing!c mistake in an administrative manual might be aggregated into a 1,4( ;. i..~f.' ~. l2.. - Q ,. m. j .(.. s. single v. lation at the same severity level. io W'gp;;ty,tM. m uQ ppf..y;. -g. In this case, however, aggregation creates a new violation of a some-f what different nature. The five violations are cumulative. Morcover, e"< ",,:: q p,35:',O ". W lo 1 l'+ ^ together they demonstrate the absence of mistake and better demon-q- -. <, ;.~ ,.-r: strate a continuing and pervasive pattern of disregard for law and regula-tions governing many aspects of Reich Geo-Physical's NRC materials li-x h.+-. ; v._,.,.. wM,. .sw: s. cense. @,*W ,. ~ ; w% $a,Q r. G h:.; [' ^ G L. !.
p v;.". s.i,. h, q.q 6, Jy <.
~~q q.r,-~~
~~% J, J~~
~~C. Whether the Violations Are of Very Significant~~
~~J' 7-Regulatory Concern~~
~~....o.~~
4 ' '; ~: 9 a 15 "f I must now determine which of four severity levels described in the y c, e.. - 9,,%, p.3., '.t f... '. Enforcement Policy is appropriate for application in this case.8'The Staff 3 .py
~~r d d p f 'r - D M S, '.~~
~~urges me to consider both the safety significance of the individual viola-w. c %.4J' G~~
~~tions and the Licensee's attitude towards compliance.~~
, 4.4. g ?., w..<*,+s , d., M7%u,a.r jf% 9.* sa:. g" s r W. . i. g. n % g! .m,, c..43rw v .,. 7 m. ;. . ;. lJr.W.l I.*' ';'/* 7 vdf.,,..;, a'%. k;. * - a wi.. w'.,i J.,.., -. y. 10 Contrary to the stafT Proposed Fmdms 55. I rnay not consider awsnmg a seventy Level I to the prob-gy... c. ) ' '.t d.ip;
~~g '., 7 ' ' ;~~
lem area because that would etceed the position taken by the Director m imposing the penalty and the position taken by Mr Fluk at the heanns. s / v e I 'w 960 w W .g.% c <. ..c.< g m y p} ,p?o. y..._... aC. s *., < P ' %s."'.'. - v '.[%,' :.. k'? *$;'.Q, < K,,, y s. - '7 3 :, --l , *g "., 4/,. 9 * * ~? y 2 *;p p - ,a H. a -an.a n ;L, Q,
~~[i p r~~
~~t >,%,,.v. i.p v::- f v4 ,? . e c.p g,9,2 .y y:.u,..... ' 3. .7 '.YA ' .'> h. 'f~~
).
h '['3 N (, 1 3 j .,C L * /,rQ,/pQ'? Gg$y i *,fgpM;.. ,b. m r
q.m m y..,
~~p. -~~
s g . ;y g. .y. ~. a y 0:; ww ;( ~.e i. 96 ,a i: M% d o-:M s -_M,, % M - d,. m A<.... t. v.a, w.'. ,,n..~. tja 4 ..... m.., A x m,. J. v.g.rm. m.+bk.}.:p, mu..r.~f:ip.f., G. e- . nm % W.% \\:,z 2%c. f.,. %. i.:;
~~h: q a n (,9Q.jp Q;C.p'N p%'C..r~~
~~.% xy.R f, a gy~~
~~o. i r~~
~~p - + - n 3., ; :y. *y, y : W W.p ,.lc,., w[.~~
~~y.. is: Wn.M u~~
v.;; . p r.m w c 47 w 4 f.: ,y.., ~~ c mm w o.;, a r.c h m. m a ,p .g, n.:: >.. ..,x. ..e-Safety Significance I have already discussed Mr. Flack's testimony about the long-term health effects of internally absorbed americium in the context of Licen-see's failure to have its americium source leak-tested on schedule. l III.D, supra. The potential risk to Licensee's employees and to the gn SN.,- N ;9, ' e: i;M @ public in this case is not an aostraction. The americium violations are WM@Nj,M@SG,di,C;@1 } d5M7 .C.y not simply parallel incidents; they are compounded, each upon the 7 q; f, other. I have found under Violation No. I that the americium was 4%i'f ?/(a;7.,_:?. d. n.e. ~.,%.Q,,L : Aa s; -.r i.g ej^.w7 possessed and used without even a hint of any license. 't was, in efTect, x a bootleg operation during the relevant years m t'. . ion Agreement ~. r' -M. c. States. The NRC Staff was denied any opportumty to m.spect Licensee,s a. ..,. w r :, v.,- ~. M.
~~m. 3, 3. e.,.~~
~~e ~ ~....?w w..J/..c-c ,. %; y.~~
~~lMw.,. mW'. s N w;; J.~~
use of americium in the non Ai,reement States - a matter in itself of - 9./." 7 i#'. important regulatory concern even if the use and possession of americi. .,y;,g ~e.q, w .m. um had otherwise been proper.
~~v. ;,..~~
But the unlawful use and possession was compounded by the fact that Reich Geo-Physical denied its employees and the public the benent of the redundant safety requirements of the license. The meters were not calibrated on schedule (Violation No. 3), the sources were not leak-testeri on schedule (Violation No. 5), and Gnally, the untested, unme- _#:J' u l % ;. '. h.4,. tered sources were, perhaps, turned over to unauthorized users (Viola- .c+. g., -c..,: w, g y tion No. 2)." .n... Mi. S. 7. ;./.M,. m$Z[np4 ip, As to the cesium 137 violation (No. 4),I found that changing the stor-l N@' A W/%dW:h.' age to the bunker at the airport did not present a safety event because MN%di Mh.M$f the storage place was satisfactory. The change in storage location without MoY. Mg B-M'A$.7 a license amendment is a matter of regulatory concern, however, be-cause the NRC could not be assured that the new storage site was ade-c quate. Mr. Reich urges that the absence of any radiologicalincident attendant . I..MfZ to the use and possession of these sources be considered in assessing the ). 3'r U.,, l,.iq e...ps ; j 4 safety significance of the americium violations. The general description ' gc q.g.M r. ; of Severity Levels I and 11 refers to the high potential impact on the
~~w. 7..q~~
'W e 4 public.10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, i III. I have also examined each O of the eight activity areas (Supplements I through Vill) for examples of s N. Severity Level 11 violations, particularly the activity area covering mate-C ).Mfl.' l.7.. ' ; c ' f ,' b rial operations (Supplement VI). In each activity area the potent /al for a MIME Mh Mh;;f?) * ..; >,-.y.y u y.md', y Q. ;.ki.{ safety event is listed as an example as well as an actual safety event. In w', .. Gh k.Y'.fi * * $,$.Wo <. o* -c w m,.. -. .m mg u n,s. -
~~n.e.~~
~.&w >, - 11 since the testimony does not reseal enactly when Mr Reich was prewnt dunns the use by unauthor. .,e 3 .a% y.l.' ized users, the record does not estabbsh with certainry that an unauthonzed uwr. not in the presence or .b"-
~~' < 9".~~
Mr. Reich used a source not leak 4ested on schedule at the same time he used a survey meter not -i cabbrated on schedule on the other hand there is no evidence or any controls that would have prevent. ed the coincidence or all or these circumstantes 961 .r F ..q.' - i. ' -m * ^ fp ,(q ~ M' d h* i 'Q, *' t . L. ' 'y.
~~s O~~
~~t.1 - s< k, ~ "[h .J", f * .A j..".,, 4 e j ~ -~~
~~\\*'~~
a ~' i e s e ? [r @m.+ G ly, y' s., =e) y n, /,. .f, .., - p . c i ., ' o i', s ig p,, sj
7.: ?apaqq.; q:m ? q 3, ~ r m. .~ q~ s .. y :: R3. l c., e m a n,n - b e. ., /~.hl,r 3( & ;;[t '.M >. W k.. *,, [ m[y y jg .t... n _. ..I '. .)h ,.i c /. > w r. '4',,.,, " ' ) ' /.;. 5,2 * 'M E i. g,,., e i. .v. ,~ 4 g9., .-..pe ~!,3. -.p. 3 .s. 3 x. .....i ~ ..r..,.u., m.=
~~s w~~
rT., L./.. l T. j.' ' 2;L ^ -- - - .?; %.' ..., y- .t ...~.m fact, in most of the activities areas, a potential safety event is included in the Security Level I examples. Therefore the fact that there were no safety-significant events as a consequence of Reich Geo-Physical's viola-tions does not control the assignment of the severity level. I have, how- ,.t.p..,F.. # ever, considered the Reich Geo-Physical safety record below when I con-4. .,a ml MMI.c. A.R. :, f.ahn.;ji,. ; sider mitigation. ..c.up~. .M.,.s m.m,,,.w~.m: e. g g. ..,m, 3~ m.y.x *,.%., .%3
~~n. p. pm. s c..~~
~~a. - . w... v. y p.% e.vc u n n. w',. 'e:.wd7.m% < Licensee's Attitude q q.' p m,v. : m : w. v, w w@ d~~
~~v. m m p.z ;g,r,y.g.~~
A secor. factor used by the Director in assessing a Severity Level 11 a M p @.i O M @ F N W @f$ problem in this case was the perception of the Licensee's attitude about .T:.,.3..Mi$.&. ' U M. e.9 N.o.%rk:ff,. compliance with regulatory requirements. Staff Exh. 3, Attach. 9, at 1.2, .. =,. - :.m .c - ; w..g ..... n,e, Flack, IT. Tr.144, at 10-11. The Enforcement Policy allows for an in. 3..m s. m k Q %. %. W C, % u. W 4 crease on that basis: The severity level of a violation may be increased if the circumstances surrounding the matter involve careless disregard of requirements, deception or other indications ., -d. ', 7. '... <- ^ m: '. Si. of willfulness. The term " willfulness as used here embraces a spectrum of viola. ~, ' ' Jr. y T. C. F. 32-tions ranging from debberate intent to violate or falsify to and including careless dis-regard for requirements. Willfulness does not include acts which do not rise to the d level of careless disregard, e.g., inadvertent clerical errors in a document submitted dk.'. f,+...a ', h.Mdh MM hh N.:$[f h l&.Q;$ j$ % $ [, N 7 %j [.;b, to the NRC. In determining the specific severity level of a violation involving willful-99 N. M
~~i ness, consideration will be given to such factors as the position of the person in-s~~
~~. yt. 7 .m a 4.o p 4~~
~~volved in the violation (e g, Grst.hne supervisor or senior manager), the signin-~~
- M p f.p. M,[;' Q ' V s.4. D M i cance of any underlying violation, the intent of the violator (i.e., negligence not h h amounting to careless disregard. careless disregard, or deliberateness), and the ,N W:($,is.b MD., t W o,.G [ economic advantage, if any, gained as a result of the violation. The relative weight ',, Ir ;..,J 'Q given to each of these factors in arriving at the appropriate severity level will be .a., i ' dependent on the circumstances of the violation. t
~~9. m :~~
10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C,l III. . & th. y &;.Vi t I have found that Licensee's possession and use of the americium-241 Srp$y[ww.m [Sp[f ww NO hMk sources from June 20 to December 20,1981, in Wyoming and Montana
'; ; -Q

. y * ' 4 3,cn' under the authority of the NRC 241 notification did not indicate a willful or careless disregard for the regulations - or even an intentional viola.
tion. Licensee was exonerated of the Violation No. 6a charge in that the f F,. -l ,6 A y -$,Q,fg}, }.]g, evidence established that, contrary to the charge, his sources had a . ;d s .w .u - ? " Radioactive Yellow-II" label. Reich Geo Physical's failure to have a $%N*h,k'yc.e,v-A*% 3 N5M:$4 " USA DOT 7A Type A" label as found under Violation No. 6b was not
~~p. TM@g.m %.k.,."%., a%f,M. Z.,, ;4 : * $~~
intentional. Every other violation set out in the Notice of Violation has Y iu. m. ..c been Intent.ional. Flowever, changing the storage locat. ion of the t.y[,3. r.,m,l.,'.d3 '.", ",l M *.:- cesium 137 source without a license amendment, although intentional, .q ". did not rise to the level of a willful and careless disregard for the ., M...y, p-..?; V. o .a-regulations. 2,q e w q 962 f '\\. s Y.. *r - ;. 4 -"' ..TC, c _r~;...,,, & w :c - ;? M., . 6 f L i > F *y 1. %,ly %.g; v, v., e... m,, .'o MR.. j'.
~~x9.~~
~~.,w~~
~~, 4, y' Ua ; 4 y,'t h,~~
~~.',d' * ?:g g y ~. A 3 t:,f~~
~~? f.h ; l6 e i-, - *.~~
~~,;,'4 6%~~
~~p f. g', ' -,3 p, "4.. ' b. c.7. p. s., bj o ..~.6..% , r': Oq p q, f:d:,%:b~} '&;N],?y ;j/;D',DJ,N.)*t. ]* ' .WY.'lrl gs p. 6 .F '/, f .I , g,,, ': > y,) ~ 8~~
~~% y~~
~~- A: ;; 9,,~~
~~t :~~
~~, y n;~; m:n, ,, u - y gyg ..g. gg @ ;/Q s sJ, *, J.N 7~.,AM O pf.k..hu,ceg y.x.. 7,... M;1}3$ coq:.M,')5 a. .w . s m:.~~
~~7. s,.~~
v;<, M G M,;se,. mmW. .j ..n, wd; j p ' ' I ' ~ N. 2 k M M M. c y
~~h. n : 4... M.. y&~~
~~9 D 1 4.M.-> ..e %.p.... W, r. - v.;, w I i/.[,.,a.-. x .. n 4 4 s n .m.~~
~~s. - m w~~
d C. w -. 3 ~ i, %.2 d.MM '-. ,g(,,, f'.5 '. x f.[s[.4 ~ s - y, :. / . n, e Violation No. I and Violation No. 2, each standing alone, constitute a willful and careless disregard of the Commission's regulations. The com-bined circumstance of Violation No. 3 (survey meter calibration) and ~ Violation No. 5 (source leak testing) are each intentional violations and, in combination, they constitute a willful and careless disregard for the ^c._i-r. Commission's regulations. Necessarily, then, the aggregated violations { {h%[M;M. '.
7. 4%u.W,m;

g../.t y
constitute a single problem of willful and carekss disregard of the .?!* y.4.. c. 3:,t J. $f. m'.? -,. M,.., a,4;; ; regulations. e M. i. # 7 7.,,h U, M, $. <, $ 1 6 Moreover, the willful and careless disregard of the regulations has been by Mr. Reich, the President, owner, principal employee, and Radia-c '. A. 4, s, w M M M M r*,n w s e y, V 6. q q w.i: n. w tion Protection Officer of the licensed firm. IIis purposa in violating the +. e.g.p'L i.-' y
){
regulations could have been for no other reason than economic advan-e w.,, lZ,,y n..t. f. 4 ...'l., tage - cither in the form of saving money, or the equivalent, saving O 4 t me and effort. The circumstances of this case fit every aspect of the e Policy criteria for willful and careless disregard and for increasing the severity level of violations on that account. Accordingly, I conclude that the violations as discussed in the decision '~ involve matters of safety significance, meet the Enforcement Policy criteria for v'illful and careless disregard of the regulations, and, for those reasons, the aggregated single problem constitutes a very signifi-J 'c.q.
~~. u cant regulatory concern. I assign a Severity Level 11 to the aggregated~~
~~7 g.p{~~
~~f '. _ p, j,., i v 4 3-u- violation.~~
~~w. -~~
~. i . e t:,W ' 'c n. l n ' ' ; ' !::$c ?.% b y, :% ~ V. WIIETIIER A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1600.00 IS .. n G.'.C..\\ --..s .m.. APPROPRIATE f A. Amount of Penalty [.. 2.D Under the Enforcement Policy, civil penalties are generally imposed, 3y,.7. t,, f .yM.t.g'! 6 j, )9; (,fyl - absent mitigating circumstances, for Severity Level 11 violations.10 y' p, c y.
~~c.'~~
C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, il 111 and V.B. Moreover, civil penalties will "7 normally be assessed for any willful violation of any Commission re-d / N. *. quirement regardless of severity level. Even for Severity Level IV viola-
~~9 tions, civil penalties may be imposed for violations that are similar to~~
~~$3[Q... i.. s S previous violations for which effective correction was not taken. Id. ....% J.M l~~
~~t;i. ;~~
ME(( ' 7.$$. lV.B. - 6,' Y d ' > h?'lQ Tables l A and IB of the Enforcement Policy provide guidance in J ', .g %w(<Jf/yy.7,: l.M,' 7A t.'f ' ' " \\ i.., determining the appropriate amount of a civil penalty. These tables j- ; .t - / < i identify the base civil penalty values for different severity levels, activity M D, Q,1 C,' Y,, , ? }., areas and classes of licenses. Reich Geo-Physical, Inc., falls in the category of "other material licensecs" under Table l A. Since there is a !'W: e Type A quantity or less involved in this case, the base penalty would be .I 4 963 9 ee,.,. - e myspe r ~.w.~.-4. e-. peguewe gre.- e.m ge.urepe e e p w i . ^b.k. t i,. r q. 9 'L r ) ? h! ,x4, - s
~~4 l -l,~~
~~h...g ', 5, '! { .i.3 v< o ,.p' h p* >,,; L eE~~
,?
~~h' o~~
~~4 s~~
~~9. t,[ , v. p.m...P * . o~~
~~lho,,~~
\\
.x? W M. >..M ?$Ec W i ~' UN- .;d ~ 4.f ~, - Fw m 4.. !:i.y. e N .s g.
~~.g.yP.1,g ~ 0;a. t.7, L q..,; a p o ;~~
~~.d, q.3 ;- ~~~
~~W ;.'. { y* '~~
e.h ,6 - w ,M.. Mnm.c.; y % -, "r :-; r- ' b e.p,,.; Y M ~,h'd S i,. N h..., M,'v.. M.4 y /J 434, D.-,'y. W.. NU7[;; D.C/ % 'n.' v. '*y e s ',A .y.% ~. 4. ' 3. 3. w c/q O..w y,,,:e, m.v.= c. i . t $ a 1.. 6, r.. ~, - m u i . ~39. a.,,
9.m..,,. :m,;g, r

.n w :.c
~~'t .a - u,..; rs ; - /...... .e~~
~,
~~~ n m.,... - g-w n.a,. .w.: 1;g&c - ,+ - -a a- - ~ z~~
~~.n.M.; - n..A Q. G w.g -,~~
~~..;,g., ' '. f,6 Q."C.: ;hi.Q~~
~~>.Q y.~~
.'s m ns. - x.-w., p,s g .y. . f. %, 3.~ $1000 under Table i A. Because the violations are at a Severity Level ll, the penalty would be 80% of the base, or $800.00, in accordance with Table 1B. /d. N The Director of the OITice of Inspection and Enforcement escalated Le the base civil penalty against Reich Geo-Physical by 100%, resulting in a h: N r @t.J g.. [ b M,. $@ @h ff , % y ;; z. bhM bj penalty of $1600.00, in view of the Licensee's poor enforcement history
~~fNhM7' $.e$ %g and length of time over which the violations occurred. Staff Exh. 3, At-M.9 M@N@d) hM' bN h.~~
d g%i.s[43 tachs. 9 and i1; Flack, ff. Tr.144, at 12. h / The Enforcement Policy provides that a base penalty can be decreased k 5%'G or increased by as much as 100% for prior good or poor performance in MMH @Nfi$d@$wMD. kid: dN the general area of concern.10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, i V.B.3. f. M Where there has been a prior notice of a similar event such as here hb.!)fi$Nrh where the Licensee had prior knowledge of a problem as a result of the WMMMM%%' %Wn ; 1981 inspection, the penalty may be increased by adding as much as l'.~' i 50% of the base. /d. 5 V.B.4. But the Staff has elected not to apply the ,.i ...l' " prior notice" escalating factor and I am bound to do no more than the .W
~~p g.ll~~
~~-G y. yQ, ' ' Staff. The Staff may also increase the penalty by adding as much as 50% y~~
~~,*t "~~
,y 3 of the base for multiple occurrences. The StafT may also consider the du-ration of the violation. A greater civil penalty may be imposed if a viola- ~.sc,.g.,,. tion continues for more than I day. /d. 5 V.B.S. In an example pertinent
~~c..hy r cH,4 n f.~~
to this case, the Enforcement Policy provides: c.- 'Q/d6d R $..@J,p 6 JM M.T M h,,al97.D M' MV'.MM hdrI[ {C. PM *MY.M, / If a licensee is aware of the existence of a condition which results 6n an ongoing vio. ' %p%.,k, 3,(hs.p.;.n,p:w'Mj;M 4v rM M "jy% M l *y tation and fails to initiate corrective action. each day the condition existed may be 4 g.,;Q> MQS,M[.g dh [' considered as a separate violahon and, as such, subject to a mperate addiuonal civ6l < ity ,g .Mg v,. y... m..,.....
~~3. e -~~
penalty. Id.5V.B.5(1). a. j With respect to past performance, inasmuch as the Licensee continued h M d.N h; $ W Q $'y MkN,.K.. to use unauthorized americium sources and failed to calibrate its sur,vt MM%q meters following the 1981 NRC inspection, it is obvious that the previ-pp M, TM$d4:.Q, 4 Mill ous corrective action was not implemented. gs y 4 3 r As to duration, the continued possession and use of unauthorized W ..~ Q M americium sources could constitute a continuing violation such that a $$,lp%. D $Up daily assessment of civil penalties could have been made. The Licensee %.ddMG@;ib'@A8MMhNh,g@4bh.N// tion for the americium sources would violate NRC requirements, yet it N M .h was certainly made aware in 1981 that failure to obtain NRC authoriza-( 7t %g.m.E h failed to initiate corrective action. The Licensee used radioactive material h@fM on numerous occasions without NRC approval. On several occasions, b@,7 m.M.,., ;%.4..,M.,.ei M9. > 3;J the Licensee also failed to calibrate its survey meters and failed to leak-n.n ,.s, m
~~.5 33 m~~
~~.,u.. .e r s"~~
~~'W, o;b.,~~
~~n s Qq ,4 ..f ', '.,. ~v. m d + ,. a.~~
~~h h n..-~~
~~.~.--~v..,,~zr-*--~*~-~~~- ~-~ T ~ bhw.y,h, l, k! ~....- m. L,....u.. ~ ~ ~ - - m h:Uyh,'.{ '}","Wo ?;. j f ' ye rlR**** f f~~
l)

A' ', ;
~~'I~ },.e~$.rv.., m. Nq'c,.'r r ~~~
~~. u.... b,;.~~
, r:. :.1 ., ;J < - 't. ..c n w' - nW 1{C'l ~
g m e.p.y n. w.r.r.~ p; p.3 - } v...,..n.
~~y ' '~~
~~'.hy.q;QL&; ? .K~~
~~3. in:; ; L ;:.; ".: um n; g p.~~
~~V ~_.h m. p~~
~~3. x:, w~~
~~'.,w,,cu.x. 73,. y,;.~.g. 5 m<, n w y u c.,,,,g..p p...,,;, . e c, L~~
~~H M,m,;q cl A.a,Q~~
~~~ y ~. s u,f,'l$ Q~,.. W W g. p '.i**u? G.**p;&.,,, ..L 3.,.Q < 7; ',',. s :.4 0;q.;c,y.. A a'p* '*-~ u e AT.; e.3 M ' y.3p v.,:s.w ?,a,. -~~
~~', ? '. '~~
~~>~ s c n .e s . :... v.y?. _ q.~~
~~4; p,,.;.~~
~~,. ; p,g. g y \\ -[ .,..c..,, ~,. z,~~
~~. y g q-4 c. t...e 7.y e..~~
e .. g,y*
~~9..-~~
9 s - /- 2 h.l.l\\'f{.f..,?,f.' ^ ^ #" """"E - -; + v: .r... L... e test its americium sources." The Staff, in its discretion, increased the l base penalty, rather than imposing separate penalties for each day. In sum, the Enforcement Policy would have permitted the Staff to in-crease the amount of the penalty under several theories. It could have considered a violation of long duration as separate daily violations. It h,. dih5k., could have considered eac!: of the types of violation as separate viola-i- h. i.N M N..s / n.f d 5 77, m ";.p r,- e n ; J tions. While this approach would have resulted in lower base penalties, hD, G?%g the total amount would have been higher. Flack, ff. Tr.144, at 19,20. 2-d[T. y' 3P,"b,, U w.tMa?a,.7 The Staff declined to apply the full 100% and 50% additive formula for 4.-m",w M, C.,c.,v-E a prior bad perfctmance and multiple occurrences. The Staff was well v.. Nw m. a; g y. m y M.v
~~w, ;..~~
~~.e.-~. o.a., rv. within its discretion when it settled on a modest 100% increase over the~~
~~e. a y.... n.,4m,:.a nnA. m. v.'L,v, w~~
n a n, N. - ;... t...d, p .g;,y;.t. base penalty. w ' g g sn h(5, f.Q..* l.( 7._ -l. p K. I, '1 ,J B. Mitigation I The Enforcement Policy permits mitigation of a civil penalty under r,. 4 several circumstances.10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, f B. The theme of 9. ' ' i' the PoFey mitisation criteria is that consideration may be given to the need, or lack thereof, of a penalty to accomplish the Policy objectives. ~M,.. 2 a. M.~ 3 :2. 5 ; Id. For example, prompt identi0 cation and reporting to NRC by a licen- -. ~.Q.',' :K, n s. +. c./.. see of a v,olation, the promptness and extent of any corrective actions, .+,o i . _,T.f p #,;' ; , M f.i, ...U..'s T, and past good performance may be considered in mitigating the amount . W of a penalty. I am not h.mited to the examples of mitigating circum-i g ~ L',mf., g. '.u Ng%' /y. pg ' '.*b.. MR stances set out in the Poli:y. I may consider any factor indicating that N the penalty is not a needed enforcement method. .q kw. ~.f pfn W C ;i-Mr. Reich alludes to corrective action by Reich Geo-Physical taken since the NRC inspection in June !984. See Reich Exh.1. The Staff re-sponds to this argument with the observation that under the Enforce- ~ h... ;MM/ t; oM.'/' ~ ment Policy corrective action is always required. StalT Proposed Finding V,6pe@yM..ycM..,.g Q..,, '
~~85. Reich Geo-Physical's corrective actions have not been timely and do~~
~~.M, s~~
~~',,vn &, ~.~~
not convince me that a civil penalty is not an appropriate method of ,r ' m% 4 ' my. assuring continued compliance In efTect, the Policy looks with careful ~ ..3, i! scrutiny at corrective actions taken while the arm of the law lies Armly _'f*: b on the violator's shoulder. [h".Nh,... d M..e # '
~~5,. M.i~~
.W t By taking corrective action, albeit untimely, Reich Geo Physical has N;h?fb k h g. done nothing more than avoid a possible revocation of its license. The f6 ShkF.W,k'gfE Staff concluded that revocation might have been appropriate. That fM1 % M h,.?.i %g'ene & *, h * ' *\\i;i,ffd 9'j?., option was considered. Flack, ff. Tr.144, at 20. g- ,by </.u.,b
~~l gag' ' 'p,.; 4 '..~~
v,, a ny+- V,, ta.i ,,a, i O rhe staff could have argued, but did not, that each day of umns the survey meters beyond the re. quired cahbration date and each day of using the amerwtum tources beyond the required date for leak. testing were separate violations a g 965 '.{* I# ? ,W '} .h I _.9=-e=+e-==e,; _ + = - 9 m e,4 -e=* -.e.* =. -.ese * --=g= g. erwe==* ' -* p -. ym +.ee. eves y, p. t, o j d S ,, * [f $_ y * - h 4 f l M) ?,., s s '. -, ', '.g,,,a.[,p. y r.i f '..g.., + '. s 's. s , s ri > ; ',f$. L T /. 4 - , ' ss t "., v. m ;, ' [,,,, e [,.4,
~~' i e e~~
~ el f %'t8Ife .* h id a.g J k' = 9* f I' p I ,, yi,., t f ".j' 4 ; ,Se y', ,/ 1 'I. 8[ k, 3 e [4,. - ;-
3x. *.*%. g~m_,xW, W,C e.:?.s%.g..... E,C..'W, y; w. .WWW W MtW W .T,
~~c..~~
~~,. ].,W, -4 s m m .. o s. ...m p~~
~~w pg;4 p...~~
. :, w y y . s m.n u ; s. 3.n y. yg.. y p h, c f.y f6 3 %;; %....~ m w w m 6.s n. m.m. ~ m c. S.e+,Wh ' *, ~, a & s.. .n . n,.. n r n,v : / M P M4T S.WCG;lQP!f,h h ' N.1 O +' b P. .GP -if N,[Y $M N @N MhMhN $MhMM tE
~~.%%'qa*.r3p gd.%sM K.W M P~~
~* + n -a- % K 2 ;,_ w k 4:m Vf.9@.m n a. .y..,(Q@@m,&a .m w w w w WW:M W.* ! . M k( h.!? WGM-[:.b.h[ @_[, M fE F. t I - ~ g Mr. Reich also argues that there has been no safety event, and that, in c view of the nature of the sealed sources, none was likely. The Staff has l . c. accepted Mr. Reich's representation that there has been no safety event. 3, y d M,U li j u.2 ro Mr. Reich's credit, his utilization logs apparently have been complete m$,Wnm%, ! *J1Y., NM,... % ; 3 %* N,J- )N.- and accurate, even when they record information adverse to him. How-L ever, the same evidence, particularly evidence of the failure to calibrate m4. m d%24.f %.e.g hn.M...,*SP . g meters on time, to leak test the sources on time, and the employment . i W.q,F. Y. J F i.# 4 of unauthorized users, casts some doubt on whether or not there has 8 %% f,E p? ? been a safety event. But I accept the Staff position that there has been k.r. W.v..@l@M? M. h @&g none. What has not been established is whether the absence of any dtMDS
~~'"g safety event is a product of careful management, or whether it is a Q YNIN amp:W@~~
matter of luck. There is evidence both ways and I will count it as a neu-9 ' M y y @ ;fn,:/ tral factor, i.e., no mitigation. . :.%,,Q.'.MWAM"[;W% Mvh As to the supposedly inherent safety of the scaled sources, that fact ' Cz '.I, i has already been reflected in the relatively low amount of the base civil . % s,- penalty in the Policy. PM '1 N.0* O - I have considered, but rejected, Mr. Reich's argument that adverse P w-T- A publicity following the Notice of Violation is in itself a sufficient deter-rent and penalty. First, his claim that he lost revenue and must reestab- ~,. MNU.S.Mhyih N;.%..m.6. 'J,, [q @h p $c #e uU:W;F lish himself in business was not explored at the hearing. Mr. Reich t.ived any defense concerning the economic impact on his business pNW,M%gi. brought about by the imposition of a civil penalty. It is possible that ad-q..;9 e-wawic.% m.,my %,WW7g@kR@M(PQ. ypMC would deter Reich Geo Physical and others from violating the Commis- @Mg verse publicity, which incidentally was not es:ablished on the record, 4 M d.h..l &.~.
~~. ~ 4w mx t m:~~
944 p.hvy.rg,.; e sion,s regulatory requirements. However, adverse pubh..ty.is not a reh.a-ci Q QQ M.- Q < ble or necessarily efTective means of assuring continued compliance with (T, the regulations. I afford no mitigating weight to any adverse publicity ' 1, Reich Geo Physical may have received about this alTair. [. Mdh M Mh,,$ M % After considering the entire record, I find no basis upon which the . WMuthhd."Qik civil penalty, properly imposed by the Director of Inspection and En. Q M;b p..r.$g.@h:d, forcement, may be mitigated or remitted. Considering the pattern of a MW6NQ' $gy willful violations and the repetition of them, a civil penalty is an ap. l g,S N.h e f.l DN propriate method to reinforce the principle that the licensee may not d!' kMOWrdWWa.Mi M decide on its own with which of the Commission regulations it will h ,hhh. hhf5 comply. dip mtw,.. f%p n.,. VI. ORDER &&f J W r ..N ~ Rwt.@qw.~.yl4+ &W f f@'g;qy,9y..q,%;g;4.4, . W n.a,.%.. p y p. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Licensee pay a civil penalty in .w. mvw %Wi the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred dollars within 30 days of the . h'.,; aM N %,0~jym p $.fg Cf/g date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the a, s v r m g .g # .F 9 G e k g ~, 5 ' .s *:. (;y -J .J( w. w.c
~~.N s '.w 7*u gy f.~~
~~e -%7 n 966 s,, ( p. 5 h ) i gn.. .,*.,q.. a 64.. y. } r '..E. y,, - z *.,.*.. : -~~~-----,.m-,--- b# .ki6.(# . M,,, gR1%..,N-M y.'a,-l, $p%],# .6 W'. 3 :9, .s n n.. .. v. r~~
~~m.. n,c~~
~~,p .y%~~
~~..,,.s.~~
w, r ?j,4- / N M <* .y. v: v, '.y :,.M.it%,p[,,}lQpr :!.4 y .9D 5 s,C. h.~.%, a,.j s>. S' F.(* v,o; 3 ..r. 3 f, l .t> y 1 l, ~,. .. W 4,14. ! m, e-fr s m, .n' o W p<Y'q,, ig o,f.%. : %,.* ;.. .,1_ -;. +
~~k' p/ q{f!4 y. 4l3. Wh..Mi; M.,,,.,g$'s y.,g.;e,.fm. y.: f,,.L..., W %~~
~~p < <, i f@f, R.y'.9 i 4 -e ' ~. ~-. y . 0 n W.h 4.g .~~
~~rq;.* s.~~
?,. 't i ' i a. '.. y, a.;a>&, +,Am.:,, k, ;.n. 7,,,.,:,~ ;'n..a -,pwL j .y ; a:: n., v p ' x gm ' ~. + n. m. a a y .~ 4 n s. c
j.WW. v..S, .%.Q ',.,);Qo'. ; k-p. :..]m.Gl> - Q ;f*:t /; o., ;. ti f i ,*y l,C ; < %, 'j,j,,h '..,j,; fahek., y.,V..,N, VQ@. h*Q L *,; < ? A '. q,. r. s e. n.m ,.xt..... .. ;, g 3
~~s. y,.~~
v., s .- Q':a. M d M'g..eQ'.t VM. W. ?: - ? L.M.% Wyk,W :,t*A3. w.,M. ; %,. . 1 . m .. 6 M ?.:Q[:.,,n.- W.x;ls,J;&p ,V, p.. 'llm v & M y4 @Q @ ';:$(f @ $. m 9 y % :;;6 m. -.~ v.. r^a a, ..An %n x., .w. ..e.,.mm. nm,n s,s dq %wac~p#QM y .)F. V * 's['d;;.M*p;pW@.4)w? YSfd. v d..Wy g&di c.M W n W M,;li M~ G /i ? Wf.0 QMW;.w p.. .yfl% 7 M.. y p 1. 73 y;@y.;y.9.
g. p. s,

- :qg.7 g

q. % - ;.
~~i s,,. s. r.y. .~~
~~y _, 4 :.;; y c.w.w.m..a.iu.,w xmum;:~~
.e: u. .ng,,.y.. we.w.m.r' ;.m n 2 ?Q . : 71.. G,y<. Pl,t-U^ r A.a ;4.,. ? y E c.:s 6.. e ,, %,.-........m. c.,. c... s s 3 c;,. w~ . #,..s.,. a . f .% v w m. /, u... s.: n m.5 sc.:; ~,. ~ ~ ~ Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Omce ofInspection and Enforcement." .~ Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. j 2.760, this initial Decision shall constitute r .4 the final decision of the Commission 30 days from the date of issuance $b,.i.7;i.h, U4Nh/My O, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F.R. f 2.762. See also M$giWiJ'p;d?C,g.QQ y.t@h;. l.p.f ig (( 2.785 and 2.786. Either party may take an appeal from this Decision W 4?ASE by filing a Notice of Appeal within 10 days after service of this Initial De. y;MihQ%h .%hDM@$i$W.%TW4%g$ cision. The Licensee must file a brief supporting its position on appeal s within 30 days after filing its Notice of Appeal. If the NRC Statiappeals, T @p W R % jh d 7[$ $ I b. M [. it must file its supporting brief within 40 days of the filing ofits Notice hitM? .t3Q of Appeal. Further briefing schedules shall be in accordance with y 1M( ,. h h. n.w. T 'h... :. .m p W.WAM. v v. ). h..w.,%r.h.., i.~ f Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board direction. n.;k yI'.h W F,$. n.p#vf; l' .n ~, ^. ' % 'j. Ivan W. Smith ~-. ' :/4 s.a., ADMINISTR ATIVE LAW JUDGE < i s
~~'. p.m..,.:.~~
~~.- '* +~~
. c;...,.- Q *W Bethesda, Maryland ,-3 4 - . y .. '. - ~: December 11,1985* ~ .? m>: syaep.~,a 4;.p .. y. 5 <,'s q;alg > %.s: ,r.. x 1 ,J .l r,... 3 <. 7, - [q,ik,,t e yd Y',k[..w.,e " 4< h VND$.~"'.*:fi' < vlp oc 5.'+ g M. ,h,,,..cn,.w. e,. .m. .a.., c.g m>+f . : - %,' W1,.~. ~. r, -y bi t ; A, A'$ :.., 1 g%. 6.(p% ,,s.s: .v , e. >%,e. .+ 4 p. i A'.=.i * ~, f Mm' e."; D L v.a ,v
~~)t; %,, Q *l; V.l "'Y L.m. Y.k..a.%.T',.&o. ;w,$4.r,h '~~
a
~~M yd.L N. %.~~
t: 3.. *
~~i.,.~~
~~ee .- a .r 3 d J :e~~
~~,-e,~~
,3
~~n. e e y~~
~~3 s N '{ %.... S;, ^'. k e( Q $ M ') '. ~ . Q J.%, D.*ff'd@rh.&.! y-(kc.i:h Q5.ty.~ .U. A gj' OF.%.vy,4ls ! y A4 : aqs v.%.:.U Vi ' f T2.... n f.s.4 : g: 9,.. ; e. ~ ;;..~~
~~t;r g~~
~~[g',.. >.,~~
3
~~. r; a, % :..e ac;y ...,. A ' ?. - w ..,h .. ~ bop, y ?n (. Q ;'. s,* '.2,;Q 3 y ' l',"G. v *.'*;;ys. :;p's/. ~.a.4 w. 3~~
~~, v.. 3 h,.. >. - ;9~~
~~',~..]s,.v....~~
l:Cyj'*bgf*;'p.*QG;; gap'f.,.p,. ' t5 a an .o,[ ' ' ;~ t' %,#8.s~i,I 'f,u: %, ~ .s.e..e sl=.y M.4.%,,, J J t g .s h.,a>x.meQ,j,E,.R.% ' 6 n Q ',J; w, A V s, M 'P,. g D
~~m....~~
H l will lose jurisdicuon over this proceedans upon the niens of a Notice of Appeal and. at the same yJ ~ 6 / 8,1c M y *Ky *';'l 4 3.'f;i / f time. I will lose authority to change the due date for payment of the cml penalty. As a matter of infor. br motion. however. I adme Licensee that. upon the Dhne of a timely Notice of Appeal, the due date for . ty;f ?jd.~b,i N'ic @Q,,.l4'<kN,Q< " ' '* J
~~'.. pl.6 g..~~
"I' Appeal Board or the Commmeon. the payment of the civil penalty will be suspended unhl further order of the Atomic safety and Licensing e . c. O' ' An unofrwaal advance copy of this Dectsson was sent to the parties on December 4.1985.
~~~ '~~
o
~~C,...~~
,/ ' ~= .g Q.,v - ? l' 3 .:a 967 e 4 2" 3 sJ' q. 5 .4 ,e ,E*'* .i e. d .%~ g I 8, w J; ... y,, n.n 4 e e.g v. ..f.e-+. ee.gypememy T- _r. -, ,J '. ' p ;, y, e*u= t guy sy.e.weg,,.yy y d. .s.ie f h,,, * $ x 3 9* &::,.' & l:J w * - f.. , q(u/:r*$ &w.":.,h;n.,/% q'* ;.. f,3 '.7.. ,();.,.,.n.u.f;.. . %.',:w.f -en,.b,{~.,1 a.:f:,. M e' GE.a i .8.. -, m , w 7,. l.f.,,e7 .q, tp,l 7.y ~ f f %s, k...%. +f.. e4o);~.s,f,.< ,, b., ~.k'.k. *. j l,*d. e'l. ' g ,e.. d *
~~l Q. [,~~
~~k,p '... ,,,,g.,. .~w , ~ y. u,. +4, +* * %..... v~~
qyy.f}. .. '

j _ _ _ _ _ ~ __
,__.>r,.,,*.,. o f,,'a r %,,,h !.t es,y; * *y,y .a, Y, n a %,. w .,y L.a 5 3 y.f*
~~t.. -~~
-4
=
e, m.- y - y47. +t ' e...,,, ' ' Nn .t 4 .t: 'l _ Me ht* y: os ,,, w, s. 4 ,.-i.s .. ;' {., ' ~.' y e
Df4'S. A n ! ;.7.,~. ~ S. >r...
~~-M. s., D_~~
~~., ;; n ~, +~~
,;c,

s

-
' a ~ ~ : ,'? . t + r ,- w... m y. -.n-. : : w.m j;ln.. Qb W'.)O.... ~,; e,~.. eM.h! dW '.'..*ji f,6,.'."m':Rp:;:v: :- - - p :l;,'G. : - ..L*"** b .%,e;m.;? ;;.t; a p:.n~ 7{ sc. w ~ -r,.".:w r.- p,;. w.
~~r. -.- - :a ~ a~~
. '_ C m,C;.g f.w. s.....z.y... .,~n. t. %g. x ,.ve,g,c, 4~,, M, 'y= Cite as 22 NRC 968 (1985) ALJ 854 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s ' '?.** n,, 5{4l 4 :/J(.5.;:'l.#C.MD6.~...c. ((,,, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ,w. 2. p
s.. x

. n.
~~? W,,,.0, % *&: :x,...,. m,. Ji:. 'M: hl~~
~~C'h~~
~~) s ~~ ? : &h.% ~,WiW.:. Jg. a r. Ivan W. Smith > 5j(;. ~.s :q-@M@. rJWm <." 1-bT.', f 2-i%... W-.p. -: ;a... "'y, L,.'/. 'C $ $i.9*.*l.E M" rNk' ?.C,,E..,qW n+w;c%'W. %h[) ' VW~~
b
~~,,. w,; m. w In the Matter of Docket No. 30-14821 ,., o,.:.. -.'o..., - (ASLBP No. 85 508 010T) y.. .w -...n~~
~~p i.~~
~~.-( s.y,:j;; y - .~~
~~1.c w,w..~~
~~s. < s., L e~~
(License No. 25 18304 01 EA 84-78) RElCH GEO PHYSICAL,INC. 1019 Arlington Drive Billings, Montana December 20,1985 m ..,.4 ....a. 3 m ... a., . wc,,a s a e... '.. + w%.- n**, a -., o., p-.,. m,. ; _..... c., a.w.i
~~n...:,~~
.-4 $y.a .. ') > authorizes payment of a civil penalty in installments pursuant to arrange-n-..s w udn%.' OS.;f :..;. _ (.-.. r u,.. J';.p..q.2. 4..p;g@ n: : gj h..y,., In this Supplement to initial Decision, the Adminbtrative Law Judge .M 4.<tiy,., {. p y, i3,,': 4 ments reached between the Licensee ar.d the Director, OITice ofInspec-tion and Enforcement. n:,a.m. +...:.. p. -9. o.. SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL DECISION W% f.1,,; w,,. M.&y. a,aw;..+, n ,u. w ,r. 4 .',.,..3 n.< r, :r:p.,, '.> :..>.. : : a.V a M,,,).',^ On December 17, 1985, Mr. Keith A. Reich, President of Licensee c,.s S. corporation, orally requested reconsideration of the Initial Decision of ,.3:9 '- s f,'; ti f.;, December 11, 1985. In a telephone conference with Mr. Reich and
~~., a-~~
,. -.,.. ;.; w a.,.. Counsel for the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Mr. s. .. y 4.e, /' p.g m,g. p. s.s, w,, p .a. .c >J. Reich explained that he had read the Initial Decision and that he accepts e f;8;fd$3.%.%.,3 ',W.r*< q'Q' - P' the result. lie does not intend to appeal. lie stated, however, that, M %% f"t ,e ,T.$$+f Mk'/7N.[lh.@,Mpdf;d.'e /'Mdh @y his business to survive will be weakened. lie pointed out that his well-r unless he has reliefin the terms of paying the civil penalty, the ability of r. /9 v ! > c.,'4 ^ ; logging business usually stops in December and begins again in May of Qa c. i.. cry,f. 7.y,j ;. h. y. 4.z,/ga. each year and that his income is reduced accordingly. This cycle is cor- ' i ~ i. roborated by the utilization records in evidence. Staff Exhs. I and 2. .L e
~~1. ' *,~~
~~968 . ~. -z,. 4 s , -, m - .~. .7 ., :.".,, D. + ,;br,, n t,: 4 ,t s.- ~,j ' q :].;,,,,,, :;.. o.e <....- t s..,,...~~
~~= *,, 7, i.~~
~~,s' ,,c,.. ,g' ..*.s,* ,4 ,., i. s.~~
~~u. p...e~~
- :*,.,, " l,?,' *,[ q,d '..* *
~~e r~~
j ? *$y%
hSh..Y - M.M b W t +,*h@,*k ',. . k f@.@h. sty m g y,.:; g i
~~f f.f,'~~
~~r-h 0I S $ Y. fh*Vhf Nh f@.;ebdlh'i . =.9 3.g '.% l%,,;,l'.g o c? M i qV pew 6,. m g- ,;c,4 ~..g *;~~
~~ryp;fqq 4.WJ.p,~~
~~N...*.dty;p eOd *,g; s a p, a,M.%.R,,,.6Q.QW.4,,..M 4 i! e emfh m.5 n ~~.d t. n .b , u, e: y~~
~~y.,~~
~~}.*.6 l ' t ~u A *.?, *. '. ',?a." r (,~~
~~^ v w A.t. g...M:'.,~. n a? y.~~
~~W. --,. ; nr <.% ? u.. ' c. ' *..~, t,. e >! a, : ;,. 4 4.?. .. a..a .n As s. tv .._.M &s w.j f. ?1*. D "ai: e r e ,9 l;9M? RW<Y r,R' ,) - a.O. e 1'. , eQQ-KM.l& %,%V s, f [l,4 ,.s-e~~
f
~~-Qg~~
~~9-c :e:g v~~
. w. :..., s 1 ~ ~. v.., m.,, ..af. p , e. M.w;..a .a .. g,,m..c.. ; 3 3.w. q:;_,w<.& y. s _' a 4; u. , s... y e 4 ~ Also, according to Mr. Reich, the market for his services has been soft. u In sum, Mr. Reich sought leave to pay the civil penalty in installments. Upon inquiry, Mr. Reich acknowledged that he recognizes that, ,c... simply by filing an appeal from the Initial Decision, at virtually no cost .1., J m. to him, he could defer payment of the penalty and, perhaps, find relief W 'xv[it..S d,.6 O.d f_*,n..9 V. o g. M... +* S. in that fashion. But, as he explained, to file an appeal, when, in fact, he .3 %:.C... 6 4,> g,.s l y. :n. &,... accepts the decision, would not be forthright. He prefers to seek reliefin ..ms yw v l$$7'g: h@~Qid-h,w. 3.2hyl~%'M g v. W. -.i . q... .... ~. m >n - an ethical manner, . M Counsel for the Director conferred with her clients and with Mr. %%fk. 3W Reich. She reported the following agreement: Thks$f@.76.N[M)MM . JIM. Mr. Reich will sign a promissory note in accordance with bl Department of Justice and General Accounting Office regulations .Qm, pT;fd8%M.ih, %C,.M,. Q.u... - QfMfW9@p%pt ?*%..@ r ?Q. p,R.;.7 y n covering the standards for Federal claims collection. 4 C.F.R. j g- { 101.1, et seg. In particular, interest will accrue beginning the date of the initial Decision, December 11, 1985, at the U.S. e i Treasury tax and loan account rate. The first installment will be
N
~~..%c V,p / $ ' N; Q.V., X J$ due on May 11, 1986, and subsequent installments will be due~~
~~},"WS-W, ;'.~~
3.E the lith of each month thereafter, for 8 months, until paid. -w-d b #w..r%@fBF<bEW 4 QJg'..(m,c.M:i P ORDER W 'y e.9 - WA@m #. Wfd y The arrangement is fair to the government, accomplishes the purpose .h,%fMc %.QWveh@ j f h w.f. W ; M g M h irM.?iM K # & D.f $m' ment Policy.' Therefore, the Order of December 11, 1985, is modified of the civil penalty, and is consistent with the Commission's Enforce- .e d 'g ei s.4' g: G. *m to approve the installment payment agreement between Licensee and g^l'o ,Jc.dW xS /X .~ '. the Director, Office ofInspection and Enforcement. It is so Ordered. .a, mi ? M t- . v.a v : s sp: w/q.b*'.J.W@H,,y, pg.QN. a W m,h Ivan W. Smith U4WW. C.u g v e ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.f UDGE . v a n y[**"..%. e aD n. N. n-t4.e 96 c w ! IP h k.J'h f d
~~Q '/ b,"~~
~~' j.% Q,!<. Bethesda, Maryland ..s Wa. ',fC.l.,, m,,C./ r..b,': December 20,1985 a 9- ,3,* 4e d. a... * * * >. * *,., s ' -.';'?. 3,,l% - eh? W YQe.. il *5l * :2,, i % Qs 3% 4 p _, *; 4 s.. 4, i~~
~~e b.~~
~~, *:N..I N"a t.,Ec?*Wl p,M E W . i, 'q U.re, F~~
t.
g, "tJ_ ^.e f l" * ' ^ f. r / ~. a ]:~.d,h p% 4,[W.b/,I.' a h'flf','M[ i 10 C F.R. Port 2. Appendes C. The ability or a hcensee to per a pensity is en appropetate enne deretion. 'fy; 7 i ~..J Putting a heenees out or buesness should be the result or ordets directed toestd that end tether Ihan a y' %. M Y,..,I' h.,.j.De, a'.tt K'. $, e$ @i P beme orits abehty to pay. et seems clear that this small buseness needs the rehef sought. Collecuon by in.
~~%. M'/~~
i elvil penelty. M $ v B. Although the Ucensee elected not to defend the entorcement action on the .>., W'. <. t .Vn g "* ?;1; ' ' -. i W D /s stallments beged on the debtor's abelity to pay is also consistent with Federal collauon standards. 4 . N' 'i C.F R. ) 102.11. ,l 4 L ^$. l
);
~~b, .y Q r E I ,3 'j'/=. e 'a .g u.h* ,- [.~~
~~[" h ', t.~~
~~.e.m-e====~e-**~******ar-~~
!**9**'w*"""****
~~. 'w. ?. ' O.g m,, y.., : f f Y4 i..., c.. [. I ..*n m .a,M **{t.b u ., v.. .%~ p ~D *., l + '.~~
~~a. A,,' ?...., a,, : r c..~~
~~j'S~~
h-
, J.' }**
~~. *;, y J~~
~~.. p .,.ci s;.,;.Y v.y.w l,c.o..,A,%n.s _ 7,. tV ,3, 7n.,.,, s,, t, e >,,%,,a y o, p. t, i .m y , i 4., s, p p.c, p,s ,y.1.,. ! . ~p.a ;;,. .s~~
~~J*'. \\ j s,,~~
~~e.. = .. wn ...J : * : ci :' - - ; n, ' ? J 'x% I s' e'~~
*. (j y t Q,.'.,s.
gy._ s V i ,. ni .w .m-c
.. _._ _ _. _____ _ __ __._ _:n ... g. r u _Wi ~... w ~.,=.u.,. x.. s.. ~.,..
~~m. m~~
~~... m..- ~ .s r*g.. V- ?, n; a - n u *.,, a. w.. w ........ n. 5 a .,a-- n), c_ -,. - p-y, we s.. 3 4 ...~..r.~.. w _.a.. .. x. u__= 4 y . +. . c... '4 i I 4 l .f 5 .I.. J Directors'~~
~~r..,~~
~~~ W-.*.,X:;:2,2.,m!;Y;b...,.4 DeClSIOnS 9, . m. v Under~~
~~.e-e. L c~~
4y,* ,s_w, g ,.,v em.w.m... @lp p,..-:3 7 @..mJ 10 CFR 2.206 7 4 % J4 g 9 '.1.*..., e $ # .#..,,s 'r. P... s y . M. 4,,.. d 't a q*. at ( 6 I -I f, i e f l, l I .c j so I ( ,.,.i,' e .e,. a q" p.' 4.,*., : ..,' e i. p, ' s '. e L., - 4, e. w-.. ' . '.
~~j f f.,,~~
~~f e hI*( j* k .%f.*,,',~.~,,>; .g W p eg . ' { f,..s.h,,4,. -. ?* *?, a.~~
~~s n~~
~~.,4 3- '3 .l t j.. Ag..e, i .Y,0 3~~
g
.43.-*., j --n 7. 3 l g. .i, p. i i ll, < -*a. - t_ is, 4 h 1...r"> ; #,..
s.
~~'f,p'.~~
~~4 a/.. d,,~~
~~4 % \\ h ',,i t> j -b{ t { a ',s' .. 1.,9 S' .,s.,,j, . g,, e m b h 9 q ' { 6'. ,e - e, e 4 49 .O = .I5', d, I(.cl,,!?l,3i'.?,k..?M.. l;,.q '. >> -l . w...,. ^~~
~~c.,~~
t.
~~.s-~~
~+ 4#. j s.p...t.' w. - . s.s.w,.. ..,,s +, " 4. ; l,', ..c. .. s ' e J s e 4 i a4*'.. - g 4 - 9 1 l l t I e .s .I M@.F M*'D.MW W @sp - f. I 9 ,,g R. ^ t ,t A 0 y %3 ^; 2. +. y, ..4.. '.a._,. ~ m. ..ru u. *'s m \\,*.. .- s' s. e . s 't,. , + ,N3.,,w / 0 # ..k i , i s s . i g -~
m. /g f.P..g.. i n 7 - op,,2 D,,. (. ' L - s x O.. 'r. *?,,,:W,,. -, ', - s ,,,:., : ^t,u ;. q a :. '.- ~~ w
~~r.,~~
t W.L %,. ':4,.,;' %rc..:. y g 5 L t*: . :v ,s, r; C,: ; ;.~:~ u;,. ^^ s. f. 4 4. - (,es .~, .,n~ [ ~< ..p v.3.;, ..,. c., 1 ; % 9:. .G.: 4 ,.y < [ '}r., - ?' l (~~ " - ~ --- " g' '. -*~- " ^ ^ ' ^** " ~ ~ " ^ ^ - ~ ^ 0;J '.
^
~~~ q, i y s Cite as 22 NRC 971 (1985) DD 85 20 UNITED STATES OF AMER 71CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION~~
~~e..:(~~
p -,q,,p' ~. :... :3;,. j,y, %;< .. ; '.,.:,'..a yv,;. ,T: [.i.. tp.: '. i'... OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION y,.,s. _,...*,. .. uy . q.,, ~,s .e ,,v :; a; ;.r,.1, w ;..<.,,.. ...x4,b. y;.,p +- r f!' h;*,.., cJa. .a.,..L. w..2 v.,.s,...o. y . y.. r,,. ,->,.,-s,,,, .,uw u ..i.we Harold R. Denton, Director . - d..j.., *>.;. p,,.,. p gy _, y, m.. s,, !f',,'.m h w,,..n:w.r.,f l' **v,5f*5'. y' $ c ym 7 - i w ' 7..
~~7. l in the Matter of Docket Nos.50 289~~
~~, '4~,.;; .,.,l,i, r j, y,;;.L / 50 206 50 305 50 213 -d' (10 C.F.R. I 2.206) GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION f,,: @J.~..'j.W.irW (Three Mlle Island Nuclear ,, J... 2 V. -] ' k H'~~
l - '.
eiq. (%i - Station, Unit 1) e 3 9,,.9~,;t ;..q, ,.g f., y, 'lc :.. ....,p.. J. >. h,,.g. 7 n;' ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON p.: 'y.' ~ l.. [.i, ?l,',.. M,., ' C0MPANY ,.:;X.g (San Onofre Nuclear Generating 3 Station, Urtit 1) .,.,J,J, WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE ' e. ;# d,, , x e,. ,....a 3 ,5 .LJ.%. J... d6h hI 7;,,' CORPORATION (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant) 7.>
i
,;3 9.'.. ;., F i e CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Haddam Neck Plant) December 23,1985 a '.. - rl?, s,'M Fi'u. f Qdw ';5 -..:;9f'd Of fe,',,, W'1 f, '..es;&Q;(['i: Xt ,h,M f, The Director of the OITice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation declines to .$'[$,'jh l! t .4 H, '.. ' t e,. ;, y.; >.. take action based upon alleged equipment quali0 cation deGeiencies at .a ,J,.,,.' c. l,..^ ' C, '*,.. specific plants identined in the " Union of Concerned Scientists' Com-ments on Proposed Rule" submitted on May 23, 1984. The Director 971 ( ,A. . * '; ; s ', '.,.. t.
~~i. *,~~
.e* I' e s ..v. -.v -,t', 's ,1 e '^
W e%... ~ ...M m. 4 m; 1 w/- , t. ?/ i,..,, ' P. ~ - sp:.wwm - e. +,... w,.?,9., ~N, .g. t;. ... a m, s.s
;m',tft.m

n. ~.+ n n ~ ~. 3 e ;)v.y. *
~~+ n c..m n < s?+ v ,u g. m t;.;,7 v-t, Jir 4 g " r.g ":f, W..~~
~~s. u[ y '.~~
A.
~~.0, r 4 b N N. N.;~~
~~.-w.& a.- jf.eh..%yW~f. M.'/5' ?.?}'., 'l ! 4 ' \\% W. S.'j*f e.,.. Q7 / M,j 'Qjlq...;L.]^(,' X M '~~
~~l E.e7 @.. D:L.~~
~~C. *., ^ e. o. qWy % Wij.v f :, f f % ~ f.Q' ^ % ' W Q',, . '. v.h...Q:L.,.., r l '. &; e m..f * ~ ^ '. +.: ~ ..-e y Q!. s,.~~
~~'j:.. s..,u; y n..-~~
,,.w. .]. . ~.. o 4 concluded that the overall state of equipment quali0 cation of the facili-i ties is adequate to assure protection of the public health and safety. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 .~c,: l.x. x. w_ v ;:.;cn.. Q t,;g;y, m :f;W, .1 uq LW:m w:J'.v.:g< h, W. W 9 / s, W, % ..o.m id INTRODUCTION i b.. e i&5 y,;t r. yqqry?hk$~',.3.?if N W:. pw. v...s.m;gc;c,jp aj-y: On November 19,1984, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) .p n .~.,.s.,s ., 0. l q., s.;.. v.. pr9mpigated its final rule on environmental quali0 cation of electric 1. 5 dN q@iPment (49 Fed. Res. 45,571). The rule requires licensees of operat-Ma.pw; MW."g. ge.: '. '.. c. w.J ing powgr plants to meet the schedule for environmental quali0 cation f f.., 1 7/'..&. " sei out in the rule, specincally.10 C.F.R. ! 50.49(g). In adopting the ^ e e.,, 94 a q. &%..q.s c final rule, the Commission directed the Director of the Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to consider pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 four com-ments filed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on March 7,1984 (49 Fed. Reg. 8445). Each of the four comments alleged 2 ~F equipmcpt qualification denciencies at specinc plants. The Commission's action had the effect of requiring the Director of the Omce of Nuc! car S h.6l D k.I. d M[.' j Q' L
~~vW/;~~
L7':.c S.N m A Reactor R9pulation to issue a formal decision pursuant to i 2.206 consid. 8 gring the plant. specific comments Gled in the rulemaking proceeding JO O/C,..;4,Wc w. noted above. The comments filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists .N M D M. i dine # N.f M-? Q $ }..f i (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) dated May 23,1984, were among Sf4'M h M those identified by the Commission for consideration. Those comments .g. gyp ,(, alleged equipment qualification deficiencies at four plants: Three Mile 7 l -, Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1; and the Haddam Neck Plant (hereinafter referred to as the facilitiesh On January 4,1985, I advised M,WY %, ll)! the Petitioner by lettu that I would issue a formal decision regarding the Mn/4 M.M'q.Q;,M ',. '. 4.'; % 0. -Q N D.E Petitioner's comments concerning these thcilities in the reasonably near GM/f ya - )..5
7 a ;

future. My decision in this matter has been formulated after extensive we. 9 >
m' - Staff review and 14 as follows. .c- . w( f,h @, ,;/ c,, DISCUSSION ~' %v p C :. ',. 1.,.M G. t -i.. ri,. t., gMWVMTih$.$MIT Petitiongt's gommgnia relate to alleged inadequacies in a number of WhMf.',Md4 '.$D$.W squipnigni qualification items including certain items identified by the Ug6.MM.U.J.%.N.M 5.,7, Franidin Research Center (PRC) and set out in its Technical Evaluation am. <- g.s y s,Y ,;' f '. ~* s V ,Q-y.;..g y a '. 41l ' P I ,, d *, l 971 .i l, l L j.,,,,

~~_.7,-,,,-;~~

~~-c-- ,;,,4;[. .Y e., ,s .i .'u, g w p. i ' *f.: z' !' cq,: X :.'%.:'y s '^. y,, ~- ? s," . J:,...r..; }. L.a g. 2, F ' y. g r* ~ . i, ; ., :l*g p. . p o.,.7 v... u., g o p.,., u. ,s ~ s~ s~~
~~~u lN "~~
~~~ ~ ' i. m~~
p
~~.. e, -.s .-w - 1 ~. < c. .. c ( n.wa,r. :... v w..s e i' w,. %w.%...,....%.e. 2..-~~
~~. " W g, y,f~~
_y,g

14. : : '. Q "AP@..W. x., ;.y. -
.~ .y' ,L l ..., ar :. ~ ..v... <3 , : o,,,, an.,_ _ a,l. _.___._,a ._,u._._ p 1 -, 7.f.Q,~. ->r c.. ...[ Reports (TERs) for the facilities.' It is important to recognize that the FRC studies to which the Petitioner refers were initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself to assist in assessing the adequacy of the Licensees' electrical equipment qualiGeation programs at the facilities. ...O. The TERs provided by FRC have been available to the NRC Staff since ij..': 3 '^ .[ k i. ',, M M;l') O. the fourth quarter of 1982 and have been specifically addressed by both .g[M % 5? h 6 50r G & g$. q @?N
~~,q-fr the Licensees and the NRC Staff.2 dM On February 8,1979, the NRC Office ofInspection and Enforcement O. * !. &.e n ?? M.'. W ' M...i. V.,~~

issued IE Bulletin 79-01, " Environmental Qualification of Class IE u Qy 1, s. w t i.1 1 :. Equipment." The Bulletin, together with IE Circular 78-08 (issued on hh.3:Y$gQd M M F May 31,1978), requested affected licensees to perform reviews to assess j[$)S U $%l N;T'h* f.5' the adequacy of their environmental qualification programs. The NRC Cr.r. n Stafi's review in this area for TMI Unit I, Kewaunee, and San Onofre q. s. ,, :m.,. t m., :,, t,q.,; Unit I was dlseussed in the final Safety Evaluation for each plant (At-tachments I through 3). The final program review for Haddam Neck has not been completed. ,., s ;,. Following submittal by the Licensees of additional information from September 1981 to June 1982, the NRC Staff asked FRC to evaluate that information in order to (1) identify all cases where the Licensees' c,_ o. H!/ n response did not resolve the significant qualification issues, (2) evaluate w I N[., D 'Y.y i t....- $.M.Dh'k N['E ls p' the Licensecs' qualification documentation in accordance with estab. N..l,I U lished criteria to determine which equipment had adequate documenta-tion and which did not, and (3) evaluate the Licensees' qualification b k ~ ~'M@
~~C]..#, *. 7.G.k/~~
~~documentation for safety related electrical equipment located in harsh M.,,. M fy, ', t~~
~~. > i; ;,;. 3 g.9,.~~
environments consistent with TMI " Lessons Learned" implementation. ,7v-TERs dated June 7,1982, for liaddam Neck, June 28, 1982, for San r-Onofre Unit I, November 5,1982, for TMI 1, and January 14,1983, for Kewaunee, were prepared by FRC to document its evaluation. It is f3.y. .., d these documents to which the Petitioner makes reference. A Safety Eval-N uation (SE) was subsequently prepared by the NRC Staff and issued to & -y.r.I ' p.e g a ry.;, ,e (,', f y s. q. each of the Licensees between November 1982 and January 1983 with is s
~~Ql,~~
~~,(,; - I The licensees of the facihties are oPU Nuclear Corprveuon for Three Mile Island Unit 1. wisconan Pubhc sertwe Corporaunn for Kewaunee. southern Cahforma Eden Company for san Onofre Uma 1 i~~
~~i. * @., ) i~~
~~.n and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company for lladdam Neck (hereinafter referred to as [f .,,.,. g' t i b. M.'.. f *,;.' ', 7, W* *a~~
~~'t j Licenseest e' l, ' '.~~
{.'N[. 7,,fgt,M. '9 < [1 3 The background associated wHh the NRC staff's review of three of the Licensees' equipment gushaca-J.- er ' h,,'([!N ( ', Nuclear Reactor Regulahon. Equipment Quahfkation Branch. Three Mile filand Nuclear stahon. Uma \\. tion programs sa provided en Attachmenta 1 anrough 3 (not pubhshedP safety Evaluation. ofTice of
~~' f,,.~~
,7 )/ *,h ^. i,, :,", I, Doc 6et No 50 289 (hereinafter referred to as the Three Mile liiand sE). safety Evaluanon. office of , ; "( ,i ..'o I Nuclear Reactor Regulauon. Equipment Qualincanon Branch. Keesunes Nuclear Power Plant. Docket
p' '~?,,g i*
4', No. 50 305 (hereinafter referred to as the Kewaunee sEF. safety Evaluation, ofnce of Nuclear Reactor ~" l Regulahon. Feuipment Quahncanon Branch, san onofre Nuclear Generauris stahon. Unit 1. Dothet No 50 206 (hereinafier referred to as the san onofre sEL A anal sE for ifaddam Neck is not yet available 6 0 n 973 t n O' -. e. p;, _r, s. L ' f $ + ~
g.
.,p s%', w h '.?, K, y, ^ 14. u,,.. 'p*
~~v-t~~
. A.. .d ? c, ... 7
'di.M W AM.9% w W W. W +;MMffW) w%.,%n :. <. +. jfG6.W d Q2G 4 ~ T5 %:n.4mf7hp?O.O % V: - 19 s M <:iq:. w4%.,ik :q.p.mv w.m$fMNNM4. NN. -,s.,M..w.y. .npns:m.. NM T Uh$9 []N'
~~,r g...~~
~~.y m~~
~~n...., ~.s s.p p.~~
q24 y m.m. M.yNh ;k..;. ~,.. a c .nm NjL.m.M.bMYM5hhM kd2 .., :y,. $... w. ,%. m.m.,,n ew&v.,e,,..m, y,x-u..m.cm. a,..- m. w..w. gw,g,c % ,m, n..x ; n.w,., . m -., a., m,,. e a :. e ~. . m. e.;. y. s y.w . n n. ..n n n L k ~ ~ d,-. W ~ .n ^2. - ~ = ": ,y. .p A yl m. W. s.U.b V P.g. M d & e i.:. n rn g.y. ' 7 G 9..,.. W. 3. ~r. g...y.. _ $;; g. p. w. gN m u y . c,... . ;>cm x-u n the FRC TER as an attachment.) These TERs identined a number of electrical equipment environmental qualification deficiencies and the SE concurred with the bases end findings of the TER. Based on these find-mg. Q.,7 ' ings, the StafT requested the Licensees to provide their plans for qualifi-IF'#M'Nh,.n.,.!..y, cation or replacement of certain items and justifications for continued @)W P.@MMM/$ g@39 ngd;$f, g operation in the near term. 2GTde Ng%,D'.?N2MEFi, j'M M The Staff reviewed the FRC TERs and the Licensees' justifications for 'N%MM continued operation and concluded that continued operation until com-h dh pletion of the Licensees' environmental qualification program would not % cpW h, %,,5; @3 E M - ; J,T m ' present undue risk to the public health and safety. Furthermore, the Nt < %; & a r.?. ~ M!b Jh.f g4 Staff continued to review the Licensees, environmental qualification pro-7. $. m.,.:s.: % e,- f @/... y** e;4_*, Q %.o g'.s.:.;; h,..,;3 grams, if any additional qualification deficiencies were identified during .. 7. w.M.~.. IplrN.. y.'W,&.3j.'T the course of that review, the Licensees would be required to reverify 3 3 O the justification for continued operation. i y 7 3 Meetings were held with the Licensees from December 1983 to April .v. r WJ. '~ + 1984 in order to discuss the Licensees' proposed method of resolving Sp.; yY. cKs.,..!R,.6 the environmental qualification deficiencies identified in the SEs rnd y, p., gc FRC TERs. During these meetmss with the Licensees, proposed resolu- ,.y v m : 7.g.g.. ~
~~, s a.., '~~
tions for each of the deficiencies were discussed and the NRC Staff N.,. t ;,M% dim 2 f found the Licensees' approach for resolving them acceptable. The ap- $Nh$bh3k,u$8M.k b,{M proaches described by the Licensees for addressing and resolving the m e. m s a - w. e.. r., a. A identified deficiencies included replacing equipment, performing addi-MM tional analyses, utihzing additional qualification documentation beyond MM@Wh%fC *.kW that reviewed by FRC, obtaining additional qualification documentation, hPJ !h-NidM %g 1:j'W,M M'l'M*M't.j W D or determining that some equipment was outside the scope of 10 C.F.R.
~~7. C '~~
f 50.49 and therefore not required to be environmentally qualified. The discussions also included the Licensees' general methodology for compli- .. p.._.- w (, ance with { 50.49 and justification for esn',nued operation with those h %. m.. : <..., o s u,p y.,. equipment items for which environmental qualification was not yet com- -p... &,r.l.QWS9 ki*M plete. MY?.97":g@ik;p.4f A , !.1P.;e. g.; t." a. g,gQ,...w. 7,;.gh. h. '.r f. 9h. Subsequent to the 1983 and 1984 meetings, the Licensees provided ..t, n ;.. .. q. w. g further information for resolution of the identified deficiencies. With . ~ ' g 1 .s the exception of Haddam Neck, the NRC Staff completed its evaluation 3 h,,p.:. a., %; j.SY'ijd$. of the acceptability of the Licensees' electrical equipment environmental NM .. B M ed n qualification program, including the type of documentation the Licensees / ' Y-FINih7MNM;%D,./%.i indicatec they had retained. The Stairs findings for TMI Unit 1, Kewau-v;4.M. v.jr':.:w).l.M.,i@v.jJe *.hM,0. T nee, and San Onofre Unit I are provided in Attachments I through 3, 9. .M '. m,n respectively. i %. g.%..y.1.
~~, up V..+ 3.,.N,upMgWe+e, kg) v c~~
~~y Y'S ;*4~~
~~s.qv,',y.::n, gy,fgb..- t, 3~~
O ri.. -;,y *; +m., ,^* my!.6@,W.V,th;.;*, +'n. . % l y,... f.. ..f 5 "p . Ia;j g. s q. \\'
~~/ / >,~~
3 Three Mde 1, land Uma 1 sE dated December 10. 1982. Keesunee sE dated rebruary 21.1963. san 1,* onorre Uma 15E dated November 30.1982. Haddam Neck SE dated December 6.1992. ', ~. ' g.n, i e... ..7 -j; .c,. ..,p s 974 t
o
{ [(, !.b;.u ' ?. s .+ ,p n m.a ,.,n,.,.p -,r.m' +. e -., e.e n. .-n.~ , f. 'W* *.,r.,,, e..... y N ,j./*Q"j dl ;' f J.- t ,) .s-e.. = f,e. p. A"l ' g;. f. -,,, gs, f. s, 3 *. /y" + i)f ' 4 ; e,, J'.,
..

, t.,' t ' A
~~. g ** 3 > p,', p~~
~~'j c, 1, ep. g~~
' t- .( g.*,? },p. 4:. ;, t 74,W ;*. i Gs. ;W.;'- 1, C..', w,. ',, * '. .s . s,.q.W," l.3 5.,.. g i q .o g....l(, ,s, ..s s s;v .a. 4 ,I.., {, 6 h.~, h y,... ).!' f ,e,*. 'f; ' ' '..pe. ci..g e t e..., y.. g N,. V ( 'R.,.3 '. t, ,6-Jl re
~~.V,'.".6,.~~
f., k,iG ls\\,*
(.
,,f,Q* G, ,y .l}**
~~o g,*e e~~
~~o, ,,s f'I 2,:f. N*h *N'** .A)~~
~~t;5l~~
'~
3
~~y '~~
~~~.. .w ~ Mpp;hr. e. . p., ,C. 6- '*E-' I3~~
~~?.'.' n g.-~~
~~'r ,g et/ g i;. ... c. -w w,.,6 m ' ;t,, + ,a c.c s ~ } %.- 7 3.y t.g. ' e '; i-4Q.4. ';. i :.t.J.v.pr, .;;;.;. a,.. :w. c '4' 4 .e c W <g . ~.,. t.. v ? .~i s u t~~
~~-? ;~~
y...,.. .T,.:)r. L +: .=.7,u . ~. -.... _.. - - -. ~L ~ .:.: x .a L, .i , / \\ " -., '9 The Onal Safety Evaluation for fladdam Neck is presently in prepara-tion and will be issued in the near future. An interim SE for fladdam Neck was issued on December 6,1982. Subsequently, a schedular exten-sion for equipment qualification was issued on March 28,1985. By letter q.R f di i-E,
~~r.,~~
dated September 30, 1985, the Licensee requested an extension until V. M a.g;..d;jEl.W K -J: 'ih.h.;,,;,,6 lN T.WQ, yc January 4,1986, to complete the remaining plant modifications. By letter dated November 14,1985, the Commission granted the requested Q[ m d p % Q M ' 3 p,? F,'f. j extension. The final SE has been delayed because of an issue concerning
l. l'. $,.'" / 7.Zd f approximately 20 equipment items with about 120 discrete components W...l "'
?.V1 * \\ '," located outside containment that have not been included in the environ-4-fSIM,W.i'P, Mf M.p e w n A. P.ti d.M @(.T mental qualification program for ifaddam Neck. The Staff is evaluating
~~F vc 4 ", ; v'wc the Licensee,s position on this issue, and will verify that the Licensee,s~~
~~.e , v c 4 o. d.C.' . ;... 7 ,J.p program is adequate to ensure the continued protection of the health~~
~~, y....y:.. i r., e~~
..f,.,,.y.:..,,,y and safety of the public. The final SE will include the resolution of this issue along with the conclusion of the Staff with regard to the Licensee's equipment qualification program. The Staff has initiated a 2 year implementation inspection program to c', > d'Y monitor the status of equipment qualification programs at operating reac-tors. The inspections are designed to verify that licensees' files contain [ " f.), : ".a appropriate analyses and other necessary documentation to support the y[./... f L6,D.i M.h$ j. h licensees' conclusions that their equipment is properly qualified. Addi-tionally, the inspections will verify that the programs for surveillance j@ .,,J. 7i.LJ!a4.'O f;ri%, A r. MN ec and maintenance of environmentally qualified equipment conform to . g%p.$4 %;jd, I lW*%l,k the licensees' prior assertions and are adequate to assure that the equip. n, N, ,[ d ment is maintained in the as analyzed or as tested condition. The meth-ods used for tracking periodic replacement of equipment will also be verified. As with any program of such complex and extensive propor-tions, discrepancies are expected to be identified. NRC regional person- ,h..,$ A M.'. M../...' L. Z' nel who are conducting the inspections will follow up to ensure that ap. M' propriate corrective action is taken where deficiencies are identified.
~~4. 3. 73.. ). y,,4 ' A;.m yy, s c l; TMI Unit I and San Onofre Unit I are among those plants that have 7..y. :.~~
. +, r undergone inspections. The Staff is satisfied that discrepancies identified W during these inspections have been adequately addressed by the Licen-sees, and the overallimplementation of the equipment qualification pro-1'> t ,. O'r;.. '.j D ' ~.G,.i
~~@%;; f;Mr% h' '"Y,M,h'[.,Tfr./~~
gram has been found acceptable for these facilities. The inspection pro-b@{d gram will continue until the implementation of environmental qualifica. N8 V4;;..,. pig tion programs at all operating reactors has been found acceptable. .Mi '.6'$!0.gM..[.Q? Petitioner's comments raised several specific concerns with respect to ,%ci. s DJ sJ . W F. the state of equipment qualification at the facilities. These specific com-f Ae,,. '. ments are addressed below. + ~ - 1; y. (. r.. 975 ~N s - ~ ~ ~~.=e.. . o .. c,,. w.s y *.a 3 _u. ,, f.. a,c.* n- ,J-r e ie Q [,, ,t'L. p. s..'. r.,. r,.. ' ,, p , q,, s,. . -t w . + r u,. s c a, s
dh ,.,, O.e 'l'e ',s J -A ~ n,,, r. ac. e=..
~~e* +~~
,:n- ~ ,4 4 sm% y ..w .. m.:. 1O. .4 A. p 'r.q,?.p.g w ;d, %a. , f.: . e ,r% V V &. 4 4.% W. % l,. m.<k':.Q k;. 4 e; w,<.) a a ':C &#rg%Q~ ~ '/ j ]% W,, ;. e..,.... ' F. k i y,,'i ., g s m, m.g, f c. G.. '. v7 ~ n fy m ;- 2 p rW 2, - ?, % g W j %. ( %...i,." ? ?. 3., x .>.... w...,. n m mu y.p .mn y..,.o. u M ~S. ,1:,
, M ';<,.,,, :.

(
, c. A. Three Mlle Island Unit 1 1. Limitorpe Valve 0~erators With regard to the Limitorque valve operators, the StalTs initial evalu-m W ation of the qualification status of this and all other equipment was j W M. w.,,;,w, e i.L,. i 4,: ly%.x. based primarily on summary type information supplied by the Licensee g J...#..c.b bc.,f W p :4.Wm, J;Wh,:v,., in response to IE Bulletin 79-07. More detailed quali0 cation information ..n w g $ $ F.Gu ih-3,?@d:E,$.jz g M; y was subsequently reviewed for the Staff by FRC. FRC prepared a TER ryj - y,y,M,;;+fWelg,g pg cN A.n. ece that identified equipment qualification deficiencies for this equipment, a
~~T based on the information submitted to them for review. The Stafi met 4~~
gc. 7, 97g, N.$,,p gggb e.M.,,._M.,4 with the Licensee on October 5,1983, and again on March 8,1984, to - 7.,Q:u.g.g @f! [, ' discuss the Licensee's proposed resolutions of the TER identified defi-l %g;f, 'c n T.fM;';.;f ciencies. N .'. m..,,a.1, p.. '& Subsequent to the meetings cited above, the Staff performed several audits of the Licensee's TMI Unit i equipment qualification files, includ- , _. c,,, l. ing audits on August 6,1984, and January 29 and 30,1985. The sample of equipment audited included Limitorque valve operators. Based on the .,. s, t., - audit results, the Staff concluded that the Licensee had the documenta-tion necessary to demonstrate that TMI Unit i Limitorque valve opera- , ( bdf [l j$/< i n, h(f,M;$ f,y' y. wr;P;.f? tors, modined to correct qualification deficiencies discovered for some i, of the og erators during field walkdowns (hardware visual inspections), , Q. M Q'L.v.,'a M :.0 d % g - s'.T.+,, are environmentally qualified. Further, the Staff then reviewed some of ..J '. ?,1.n
~~45 the operators to assure that the Licensee had corrected the deficiencies w-~~
"gy 'Q$$,#y.; discovered during the field walkdowns. t. Ng; t.7 c y.p.. Based on the review of TMI Unit i Limitorque Valve operators de-j ;- 2 m e i scribed above, the Staff is satisfied that there is adequate assurance regarding environmental qualification, and thus there is no need to ad. dress each individual point raised by the Petitioner regarding these 'y [.,. iWy8.hf ( items of equipment. . ;W W rucS.gA,r o. v.,'.s In summary, the Staff did not rely solely on the Licensee's assertions gg 4, ' v in meetmas, or on the information submitted by the Licensee in its .m di*, February 10, 1984 letter, where the reference to Limitorque generic e report B.0058 was contained. Rather, the Staff independently verined that the' Licensee has documented evidence that Limitorque valve opera-9 , '...W. G ',, b,,,' t. - @, ;,, tors are environmentally qualified. [llg,I'%, N,.'n'C [ : s j5. q ).,%y&.,?.(ol,..,.J.!.- 5 Q, *;s M
~~c. >~~
.g M .i 2 L Emergency feeheter System 15.,@m r*.f. C ;;";.y.u...!&&I;;).Ul The Petitioner raises several questions about the qualification of the .,. R m j;g-3; f.g. y$y's..)l'." M *. 4 , g t', f ,g emergency feedwater system (EFW) at TMI Unit 1. The Petitioner's p' S questions concerning EFW are fully addressed in a September 25,1984 ,j 976 l i r i L n., _ _.....-,...,.. h.- _ ] y,', 3, i ,, ' c,. ;. 4. ~ m s s v. . v &,.,.. ~ l' '. < :, ; + v. ~ y 4 s 5 i-5 NMp - h',. Y ' r. - - ~. ~... QU Director's Decision Under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 responding to an earlier pe-tition filed by the' Union of Concerned Scientists alleging deficiencies in the Thil Unit 1 EFW system.* The SE accompanying the September 25, 1984 Director's Decision provides the history of the review and detailed audits conducted con-cerning the Thil Unit 1 EFW. In particular, page 37 of the SE states: .a ggy -e(, J..' . M F,, '. :. ' ',., p; 2,. i M, 3 '.,..y' c " ^ ,rg[b] ~.;.!y p +(, ? -. ~; ,;fi . s.'.' y. Mf( l'tJyf ; 7. Based on the results of our audits. the staff finds that all electrical equipment requir-ing qualification both EFW system equipment and equipment associated with the -]* 3/[T4 'Qly.- .,gg W, /"L' ' ); 7,5 C ': ' l '. '.
~~~~lu. c i.'~~~~
~~~~proper functioning of the EFW system, has been demonstrated to be environmen.~~~~
~~~~..e ' e Wu p a tally qualified in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.49.~~~~
~~~~n>: &. Wy:w w;w. N. M $ M. ?.{:G U h n<~~~~
. w '.-

,. ~ j::; -
3, ,,,,y,7,,,;,, f,, (,,,;,,,g g,,,,y,, y(gy p ,,.o. The Petitioner challenges the justification for continued operation, or , ?;y. ,, t lack thereof, for potential deficiencies regarding Thil Unit i equipment qualification. This issue is now moot. In the case of Thil Unit 1, the plant remained in a shutdown condition for the entire time of the StalTs environmental qualification equipment review. The Licensee has now completed its program implementation thereby obviating the need for JCOs. The Licensee has documented qualification or replacement of f .;u, c .!g..r).Va4d,. Y ,.V 6:+ equipment where environmental qualification was in question by letters dated June 28 and August 30,1985. '~ . G;f , g.,C??.* n., ;e,w-e. d 4 Jf. ': u &. ' .o B. San Onofre Unit 1 ,e. ; The Petitioner raised two concerns regarding the justifications for con-tinued operation UCOs) at the San Onofre Unit I facility and an addi-tional concern regarding the Licensee's schedule to correct qualification QQ q - -q.y,yo deficiencies. sf y... i.j a.. l. The Petitioner alleged thet the Licensee, by letter dated January 18, 1984, refused to submit JCOs to tha NRC for 52 component types N-consisting of 100 separate pieces of equipment. The Staff's review of the docket found no such letter dated January 18, 1984, flowever, the Staff ,.O did find a letter dated January 18, 1983, in which the Licensee did not + u refuse to submit JCOs but stated that, except for two items, all previou'l-L $ $.[,'. g. $d.'i, ly Provided JCOs were still applicable. For the two remaining items, the @:4 igg @- m , M '.,:..... 'S ?^ Licensee provided JCOs in the January 18,1983, submittal. After sever-f[%,'J4%M.h.. f,.'f. - al meetings and further discussions with the NRC Staff, the Licensee e b y, f.q r,. provided new JCOs for all nonqualified equipment items in a submittal n g'p. v.q.sj.y 4,;<- ..d u s, .-s
~~~~Gru h kar Corp t Three Mile liland Nudest Sisimn. Unii !. t)D 84 22. 20 NRC 103)(19448 d 19..h.,~~~~
~~~~O c*-a 977 62 -~~~~
* *e e de.>** g4pe=Ing.a. _
gui. amu.m==* =ceeng _ _. _ erem.r eme y-o67,y.* p. 5 p / e. p" y I
4..:),W,m; L + d SQG.yW@.. ? ?gp. p y.T 4 e -. -
~~~~i:%,% _ @ %% i '.~~~~~
~~~~,'\\ .. ~ J D O W,% hh@A t WQ X, n;% vg., v lcm.m ,c...~~~~
, N

W;p;i
~~~~.. ~ -.:r.y w.. i; c.,. s, .eu m; .,/- sn n. . m. _p:..M. a=.:,A 4m qy,y. W,c.,,s.a.. u :. _n p p;. .y, '.,yy. lAk..,a,.. p& .. ' m.y>,p.,g S. g. &.a% L';.,,~~~~
a
~~~~. a.w . ;. a::, D %.,~~~~
~~~~. v.' -~~~~
~~~~Y d .w. m.., 1 , j N a.,".,,.. g. ;,,. 3 m,.y.3. y.~ Q~~~~
g,
.e m % .c. 9 w..,. r.e. c, ag s v:.w. ,y 4.-.^ m ,2 ., u. vu*.x a .s .pc. ; ~e 7,.g s c . :.c,;. ; '.... " & ; .,.'.3. c g :.,.. > qa c t.,. o,; g.1,.. *..;'(.e,. 'l 8_,. c., .a. \\. .o. 3. dated November 3,1984. The Staff notes that San Onofre Unit I was shut down for a seismic upgrading on February 27, 1982, and did not ' I resume power operation until November 27,1984. Thus, the facility did not operate until the new JCOs had been provided to the NRC. Thesc JCOs were reviewed by the Staff and found acceptable for the reasons ,. t i. ., 7..,5 ....:.. e.. stated in the Staffs March II,1985 SE (Attachment 2), Pk.j N/p;, a,W. "". ~. _4..; mn r... m m. S';;t.i.,.
~~~~r. -~~~~
2. The Petitioner also alleged that the Licensee's JCOs were inade. v: . 3 .p ..w.. quate for the following items which were found to have quali0 cation ~- e, g. 'd. N,.%D.y'8.."M'[I.NT..J.E. %v, 'l deficiencies in the FRC TER: 7 ;4.,q.g.w q w.w,ad,v... n g c,, q - .- j g
~~~~y. - y.'~~~~
~~~~t u~~~~
TER Item No. Equipment Description % s'ya s;e.v.&.y t 4 J.R R,.' d %... w. % ? W ;7:6. ',p,. p. W. h y $3,54,55,56,59 electrical cable 5@ Q i .y % ~. ;r... s 1,3,4,6,7,8 15 Limitorque valve actuators .:f.." a me, ;.;.. Y n. ~A; nf., :. ' 10,11,13,14,15,16,17 19 solenoid valves 18,20,21,22,23 12 flow transmitters u' .n 28,29 6 level transmitters 31,32,33,34 13 pressure transmitters .. x d. g.. v.... o 43,44,45 unspecified no, of electrical . '. G.pF'M.4 p,$.L w.m penetrations . 4.; (p m.,.,
~~~~s..m. g:?~~~~
m e.r a; ;.,, M, c. r. ~ ~. a 7 en ~ 47 2 fong. term recirculation pumps lhh2 .? W k,,k.M.*hMj d 49 2 safety injection pumps, and . J..%., @ (.c.,.,.,. /.%.g,, '.;. 50 I motor driven auxiliary feedwater - e e
~~~~g., ' -~~~~
~~~~pump~~~~
~~~~l Subsequent to the Petitioner's comments, the Staff confirmed that its~~~~
. ' f. 4, ,e c. c March 11,1985 SE (Attachment 2), did evaluate new JCOs provided by 7 M.u.y., # N.#,p%sM., N4 4. ;i. " " the Licensee's November 3,1984 submittal for all of the above items .m m m, . 5b ? 4 J. jj;a f gy' ' 1 ~ cited by the Petitioner. These JCOs were found acceptable by the Staff Jp for the reasons stated in the March II,1985 SE.
~~~~3. The Petitioner also alleged that the Licensee "has no immediate~~~~
,,.7 ' '; g. plans to correct the quali0 cation deficiencies found by FRC and NRC." 4 4 This statement was based on the Licensee's February 27, 1984 letter h '.,,,NQ. which requested that modifications required for environmental qualifica. W
~~~~M b ch,Y,.v'?4,. C /M.ld ' (~~~~
~~~~tion of electrical equipment be removed from the Integrated Living AOj~~~~
~~~~M. k M M.F j D, M d y g ';A "q Schedule of Backfits for San Onofre Unit I until a request for schedular g,.~~~~
~~~~.g., n. 7,;.i...y ; p>.t.,. E exemption had been submitted to and approved by the NRC.~~~~
~~~~,o.. . Y N..a.a...,, t S.~c '.. The NRC Staff notes that, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. i 50.49(g),~~~~
~~~~a y, a q.. s. r.- {'. /,J,-~~~~
the Licensee did submit requests for extension of equipment qualifica. 'M tion deadlines on July 30 and December 21,1984, and March 15, 1985, i l 978 5 I -7.,..;..,..r,. y.~.- - - -. 7. .,7.f.n... ~.,j,.y 1: ', ' ',,.'r / v.>. '. j i ..* \\ i.. ,r,,-4 * ~, A c;,;,,3.b o ,..Y, b,.', .......4 33 c, f. .,, t., o, e. ,.i.. ,.u .g n.. .I$,. a m s v s. . ' 3.. f ,/,. ep f ~ p8 c,.' '. n.s,' +, j.. .w d, , 4 e g 9 ] ,,',_3.,~, +.. s' g ',.... q. q,.p.,.,- + g i r,,. o., o,, g,;j ,gasy<,,9 .g s
1 em: ' ~- m,h -c a p.,W.y e g,. u,.. ,.,o. s e .a e. r-m m... ym.c,w w4 %,z.., e. p. ~ ms y + Mb %.Siu *f.:p.MQ,? M L a m J..,. .-,a..--1,,- d..['. ~ .- i, f ~, . s. ;, - -
~~~~m..:~; ;~~~~
l for a total of seventy-nine different pieces of equipment. The NRC Staff reviewed these requests and determined that there was good cause for the extensions based upon procurement lead time, test complications, and installation problems. Thus, the extension requests were found to M h [,~,, [M. h. N,k':.. be consistent with existing regulations in 6 50.49(g) and were approved
~~~~? :. m...~~~~
'f^ by the NRC in letters dated November 26,1984, and February 15 and .,'1%N9 7/ZDM,?5J., Slarch 27,1985. The extensions require the Licensee to have the electri- 'Wa.pn,J'!..':p;.gb.4.W.4fC'3 i cal equipment qualified by November 30,1985. c w. ~.g . 1 i: M y b ; ;n Q,j w ~.v9 79s %t +.r v :. R;
~~~~m. W&r,..~~~~
,..,..e ..Y. y g...s,, .v.,,, %1 e C. k.ewaunee Nuclear Power Plant p..c p gy,2.e.a mc m,,Q,7c M f m ' . ~ - .J .: M. A.. f. r, w..v..xo e. Xy..Ig.p3. :.ggW-l. Qualification Documentation n-~s c z:.v...,..,, c r. o. n. c p.yy 0,.? "l@, J ~ : The Petitioner comments that the Licensee's submittal of Slarch 16, ~ w~., +- y'. -y. m -sn-n: s . w 1984, demonstrates poor qualiGcation documentation. This submittal e-was forwarded by the Licensee to document proposed methods of resolu-tion for environmental qualification denciencies discussed at a meeting 'f with the Licensee held on January 20, 1984 Durmg this meeting, the I' Staff discussed deficiencies in the Licensee's program. Among the den-ciencies identified was documentation. All open items identified in the - 0' M.' t V E.f:'U." u.' SE dated February 2,1983, were also discussed and the resolution of khMMS$h)$*[.[ these items has been found acceptable. The Licensee utilized additionri f,w. - W EM -> c/ h d 3,M M t. MJhd f.M qualification documentation beyond that reviewed by FRC. The content g y %.-@ of the additional documentation was discussed at the meeting. The Staff a.
.3W.,w,.a y wy M

w9pm,.c/+.r k
concluded.in its September 11, 1984 SE that the Licensee's equipment ^ W / y t % @ !tep-6 't.J ".* qualification program is now considered acceptable. - z w. .m. 2. Justificationfor Continued Operation ., VC u.:k m.. .Wh+.eia %. s.a.. f,,. The Petitioner alleges tha: 'he Licensee refused to submit JCOs for twenty-Gve Limitorque valve operators The Petitioner cited the Licen-
~~~~Q M@>fNg'if. Oj % @['M'[ :.. ;~~~~
'.F see's April 22,1983 letter as the document containing the alleged "refu. 5 sal." However, that letter stated, "Limitorque operators identined in i"' our submittals are quatined equipment (NRC Category 1. A) and no jus-7} =_ .,'/ tification for continued operation is required." The Licensee stated it O f.' ". ". s : '(-.. ' '. . a s ,' ?. ?. ' .3 TjQ.w;s t. C H j. m .4 had documentation in its equipment qualineation Oles to support this . ~. M % C M,7 M h. M Q.y l u, if M statement. Therefore, the Staff found that JCOs were not needed and P M,MQ:,i hence there was no " refusal." wu.ax.v.~b&.m,~.t. '. fi h [ - 3 : m.u.- ; d.. w., :., ..tu w m,w.r .r r.
~~~~' y b(~~~~
e 'e* T h "' '. ' ' 8, 5 *, j h. ,t. ~~ '.,b** ^ g-~, e,g, 979 ce L [b. +-. eem, -m ea - gr *e. w -w -..e r a E- '4' s = m# e If 4 - 1. -, t V p t,, s e, e .o
L..., : 7 ^@
~~~~t. $ $ $,G.~~~~
~. i. " ? - 19 98, 's - QMG%%% v .a k.&%.. m..,f<.. l..'.'c d, s.g.v gn:n's ..t:. 5,r+ :.z ,T.. ,. *- s,.%: :.:g,. s ; QG,;'q,%'fstlvy*g'- G w. , s.g*.4, Ls ,-, j- # m , s c.;4..q.;,9.A. r y,2' y, L ~. e.<. ~.,' : ', c, ?- M[ ff %,~ ;q,:, ~. ?. e .(._ m' Q ' *: ' '.' '( hyg,.* M ',Md 1, ,j ~+ 3., (.; }- w - A ~ f[' + D. Iladdam Neck Justificationsfor Continued Operation 1. The Petitioner comments that the JCO for the resistance tempera-ture elements does not satisfy the Commission's criteria and attempts to excuse the lack of documented environmental quahGcation for the tem- ,..,'!. e ^ ., ),.,:'uO perature elements.
~~~~1. 7.1 The StalT met with the Licensee on April 10,1984, to discuss the reso-U(Q :,. u. ' 7;%.$. c.a' w;. Jr,f ';M$p lution of the TER deGeiencies. During that meeting, the Licensee in-77~~~~
,3 c, n,. w. s '.Y formed the Staff that the temperature elements, cited by the Petitioner ..m ....c ~r. n.c..; as having a deGcient JCO, will be replaced with qualiGed elements by ...A March 31,1985, in accordance with an extension granted by the NRC '/. .J..1 Staff. By letter dated February 28,1985, the Licensee requested an ex- ~ " tension until November 30, 1985, to complete the replacement of the 3, .,3 .., u w x., 1.' temperature elements. This extension was granted by the Staff on March 28,1985. The Staff has reviewed and accepted the JCO for these elements submitted by the Licensee in letters dated October 19 and November 30,1984, and October 25,1985. The. basis for the StalTs acceptance of the JCO for these elements included the fact that backup instrumentation, specifically, in core exit m ~ ^ -- thermocouples and the subcooled margin monitor, was available. The [;.$ ':( Licensee has stated that the in-core exit thermocouples consist of ,.s 4 ..x.~, inorganic material and are not exposed to accident conditions more r ( W.y'#,3i 2., severe than normal operating conditions. As such, they will be opera-L. r eeg,;,9 1lk:- tional during a design basis accident. All associated electrical equipment - <c e p x, (e.g., cabling, cabinets) outside the reactor vessel and potentially ex-posed to a harsh environment is qualiGed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 50.49. The existing subcooled margin monitor is likewise qualified. M.< 2. The Petitioner also comments that the Licensee has not provided y...M,. o.G. either a JCO which satisGed the Commission's criteria or demonstrated ., _s guyp Fy:' /' environmental qualiGcation for the in-core exit thermocouples. ~ ' a'- 7 3, ' In a submittal dated October 19, 1984, the Licensee stated that pres- ~.' ~^ ently installed in-core thermocouples were not in the scope of { 50.49 and thus no JCO was required. The Staff agrees with this interpretation . " ~. E* upgraded to meet the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97, with an expand-of { 50.49. In any event, the in-core thermocouples are scheduled to be % 'y.,hs%.. M,% 'f_ ed range (200-1600*F) capability as part of the effort to improve .hK W~e:... h, ", ? -'M hh "'I ' *E "*# #*E* II . ~;
~~~~W (se.....n~~~~
=.n , + ,: :..Q ; ' '. e . *t eY.. ,.y ~ .W, * ; * /,- t,- 'e 'a., 7. L ..,., 'f.a Environs condenans Dunns and Following an Amdent - e l' ~- 2 f Regulatory Guide 197. -instrumentauon for Lisnr w ter Cooled hiear Planis to Auca Plant and a ~ j i 980 I t . l' _ m... ,,1,2:.:, ' > a. t .m. ;- ". y, p. 4 - pf $ f 8, . ;e,..*9. ,y b'..; ,d [*p+<,., v 1 t.* j~'?. 4:,
~~~~ey bi gg ;.~~~~
j* e* nJ. o ' p' 1. 7., e ,,y.,= .ss r 1 ly r p; s; l , f* + a I +f.
g s - 4 w f. r ... y,. ~ ,ey : <a; . n s. u
~~~~p N A ] C T.2 % n, 0" ; W ' M '~~~~
q;., pfch ;% l.:. F:.%. N s, e- . ' f+,, :.v. _ " - ~ ~. - .a- + ..f_ l t l by the Licensee's commitments to implement Supplement I to t NUREG-0737, and is the subject of a ConGrmatory Order dated June 12,1984.49 Fed. Reg. 26,653 Uune 26,1984). - Mcd'..a'... CONCLUSION .r ' n
~~~~,\\...+ m :.w. ' -~~~~
m dNd $.I In summary, the NRC Staff has reviewed each of the items relied N '. ,s.m.,w?h. U N N.p u c a 3 m. 1 w gh upon by the Petitioner. The FRC TERs and NRC's letters to the Licen- ..gr;i f...ny 3*U+0 EC# f.'.t '., sees, which were identified by the Petitioner, do indicate various envi- ..-s x e -w..s c-: h a kih:v.a d.e d S'U O.4 ronmental quali0 cation deficiencies. Those denciencies were identified dr.y?'U'd s. ' 5. '.7 - by the FRC and the NRC Staffin reviewing the information available at a &yjQ (1: $'g f: that time. Thus, the Petitioner has not raised any environmental qualin-d. l..,h f,'. d l,. in 1 $ u, cation issues of which the Staff was unaware. Since the TERs were issued, the Licensees have provided considerable additional information regarding the identified electrical equipment deli-ciencies and have proposed a resolution to each of them that has been found acceptable by the Staff. The three attached final SEs document the StafTs reviews which conclude that these Licensees have electrical . l equipment qualification programs which comply with the requirements ,, 3,.y;f.. :..J; ?.pg . 7,. - of f 50.49, that the proposed resolutions for each of the environmental - x. y ~
',A.L.M; 1 i nk@!. N[ k...
i,.,, z. . v . '" :..J quali6 cation deficiencies identified in the FRC TERs are acceptable, and J i...A.: that continued operation untilimplementation of the Licensees' environ- .s % . o g,. .di f,4;;~ % !O.. +. >
~~~~k......., f,*w t" in undue risk to the public health and safety. With respect to Connectl.~~~~
., ' ' e ". 'a. mental qualifications programs are complete as scheduled will not result 'il : a. ms. ,... g..m cut Yankee, the Statiis in the process of completing the review ofits e.n. vironmental qualification program, and will ensure that apompriate cor-rective actions are taken to resolve any remairung diKiepancies. ., g ,.. y, The StafT will be continuing to monitor the Licensees' progress in de-y; p- .:-m ..O p veloping and implementing their environmental qualiGcation programs. b: "ONi".Nd . $,'. W l Consequently, I conclude that the overall state of equipment qualifica-a j; '~ 2.>~ tion of the facilities is adequate to assure protection of the pubik health and safety. Accordingly, I decline to take any additional action in th'si -,- ~ matter. . c, 4 3,, - - f o:W: 5li?.,%,Y.:. L @,'.4 % 1,;).d, 9 &s Ab;.c,... t ;~ ' i ' ' ~ O'f-([e'd s -. 37 8 I*- .",.f., I ".y .<e.n,, %.ie-A6 N ', * '?* 1-
b.ar i,*/

arG %d T,
~~~~7 i * 'M, g';(% _.jbjI: s, y.,A [ y %,,.s*+.; t iy .u y, ' 'f 1 i ' I~~~~
~~~~w. Q.,/ f.M, k, z.y'" 9-~~~~
~~~~b f~~~~
a y .~ ' e e 4. 6- \\, e' '<w i >i, 9gg .T l' 4.* .o y l, j, ~- f : 3 M .)- L. s. p g< h
WH %,.N,1* N.[~,$g.M...WM..m.M%. %< UU'dN ..%. g~ f N M..}ik. nim. E &' d ) ((.~J's'..s d.j @ ~ M&.Rb.O. L @:#,, ;;%>%W.WWyff*:W %,: W+ ,. 4,, a... s~. m. s ... m
~~~~m. - m b.* /vN.,pfue<fg*/[*.,) ICMh%~~~~
'[. [ Wla k K. y. m. w> W.@. % g. g $m %e bv. g. w'c %@3. w: h [ .m,m. g.s. y s g e.M,w y. g.; %*., #. %s g,..g..'g(%d4 '. +. g,.., l, # s g m yc.: 9%., b.4 -...t ~,. ~. &%wR;y$m.W(W& Q.C9 W.w w we ,m g g% W.b 9- .fs 7 .-. e, &q < ~.$UNs. ) W 2'Y<e 6h/cOfM.WWb.$%m@-.m,e$' 9 e W. 5 $dyW %&)Q- - i &. 3..&W< ,%. i. i.. & uv. ~ 4 ~ % s w.L s, - t.s A r q.> ; c. w?v y c 3. m: % g g., e t m s q M,, c. ,e : m-v ta .L s " u,- g; . @...n. % J..... n s v <,a , gr y;. ~. x.. c,; wf. s t.. * , - a, > -... "; 1.( m ** w va,. ;,.. v ( a... t' V'.. - As provided by 10 C.F.R. l 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will bc ' 9 ~ ' v" ..~n. ' ~ ' filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review. m. x. ( m s ...w. y~.. e.. .s.. .4.... 7.-
~~~~n.. m -~~~~
~~~~Harold R. Denton, Director s f m-;-. %o.,.~~~~
~~~~. ~.~~~~
~~~~Office of Nuclear Reactor~~~~
~~~~5..n.m.m.Q M ? d. 4.w@. 4.,g;Wa,3..t w. W. f "p :~~~~
.M,7 pg n m%Wlyd ol,,.47;;4.ac.w, Regulation ca wW-n t y. a f.! M p W W 'Mx.M;a@e <%,e&v.e.-b;dy.m..* Wp, %%4aph.: M W '4 er + W: Attachments: Safety Evaluations a zW. , W..R 6%a. %Aw.MWM,.m mb. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, .s. e I h Ut W W.s. m .r e.. %n,. W ) v :. 9-vW this 23rd day of December 1985. 1 a.g wa... -w.,.n.v. r.~.3.,4 r,. g. e.. u s ~. e w. w.. -a IQ g,*M d'. . j4 '.y.4.. $4.WM.U.; $@4.'g*hr'gh[c;@ IThe attachments have been omitted from this publication but may be y
M*
~~~~'. O., i / found in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Wash-a .'7 , 1 N,... .,; w.~~~~
~~~~, 1,.. 4,., e, 9.. l s.~~~~
~~~~)'.~~~~
~~~~ington, DC 20555.] >~.*;,e., ,A w ,c !.sc,s.t w*'! w...o. <.? .y. ..j+ n,.,. a.,, .n' w. m v f.,n,4 f... jy>sx-9.m . u ., w., ;,f.~~~~
~~~~c ;. pl*pg G e.% 3 %~~~~
~~~~sN+%~ v s hy,0 x. mM L ..f N. /W ;W'. 5.q* y 3,,e. Wg.Ip%@.. $. c, s ...f m sw%w,. %.~~~~
~~~~g. a w n m..~~~~
~~~~. p# Q.:.g'*d..y. 2 4n s *.; %.sggp ! f.Qg.,;];+.f&p s j A,. + a. b4-p.Q.'k' ;. t *gg.?'. p;.f 4~ y %>.",'%.RA L 1,!F %b' h4.. .w*+ . fy t. er 9 q~.ww ~ M:##C l.~~~~
~~~~, g..~~~~
/ el Q .u., .~ -ei ed -. f sj A -.7,..#e,..w. + f .s..x - + a 4 6 ,,f.'** s s. t .1. 1. M %.Q p* W } b % k Y ')& pf' #;*'r...g .. e... v. ,s s* . pf J Q. h. $. f f)*?.f..r I '. W K,.Q.'. reir lG...g @*q ;. a p -;.1 v-51 ?;Wy, h F f.*,477. Ag/. y ? 'y'.s M 4 1y* e e .U 3 Md !r 'QQ$V - Q p.- JJf.;',e ~ Q:,. Q..,. a y, u m r- - .% i~ e W, .J. '. p, ',.,;;.? <+ ; -, s . ^.. p* 34-c y
~~~~, n~~~~
~~~~-Q , O s >.:. 93~~~~
~~~~4. Jg.,.. ;,. i..~~~~
~~~~"i,l'* yI." ; f.*,.,y, g ve e, p.~~~~
~~~~c e.1 a' [t?.'*.,~~~~
~~~~f' 4 - 4 .I e #: M'8 ,~~~~
i.f e. e n.a,. p

3..r i.+. ", m A.+ l ; p* _'.
~~~~,e. #. 4..- 's,. .y~~~~
~~~~y*p q',.,'*py~~~~
(. a . w... a.,, Q, J qt a -.f r.. g 7..~7* ds .f ,.q,, ' s W. s W, ',Q" >g na.;L s / . T, w.L.'Qsd '.* 4p.l C C h Me,,tb./. 4(.M.g.'. j gt. <p #W, Sq-J'4' ta.1 c.;%pW.'y, u..,.I'/%Q 'd s 1 s. tN 6 CLnte. d a. h u rt +w, . ;j.< g,,,r,&y c ~2.. '..LQ.,s. j -v !. w q,. -n m, w \\N[m,.'RQp 9.GQ:.:rlIL%< hw ^x s p M %., n.-.s. p l.*.s p, s n %i,I.,*eV. m. [ y.,.Q ! M
~~~~r. ;.;~~~~
~~~~.. :4 a ' s. .}, ;?.@ . ;w 'anj ,.n t n,. '. n :. , y; p oy *. t ' *f.,. y, ....Q.*'_ + e, e 7 r e~~~~
~~~~W,.~~~~
~~~~~' f' '* L:,t: g y. e~~~~
~~~~c.. -~~~~
~~~~b 4,#* )- f .i p g y > ~ # 1 1, ), k [g 4 g *,~~~~
~~~~. W 'A. ',; hi j.,,'.e,.y.~~~~
~~~~y E. e " '**"*F ---r '~~4***"'""**- .".c-3*"'***y*'P***** /y a ;~~~~
~~~~r b. g~,~~~~
~~~~M p,',d.M.v p*[J.h'.7.Q $$b.f.ht a ' e d ; eM ~ b3 PJ 'j'M J,jjI i. $ '.,' /bh. T,b c;>h~~~~
~~~~.T. *;) s.;; ' ( A s~~~~
~~~~., D* s % Qa N.yD, +M;%h4;;kN., %.s :.k, k E 1*'h,'; 1,+ l~~~~
~~~~1 ', i.~~~~
~~~~T.,. '.. V.., M. 3 i: k~ v. o,;Mp y.., n. d.d, dd:o - 4 i. e , g?,M,an gel y', m. h. -,. o. r.,.,,,..,..j... ., ~. 4,y c,.m 9~~~~
~~~~a. y~~~~
~~~~.4, ,y ,5, . ; f,,77., p ' F r ,(q*' e ;p ;,/j 4 q g,- o ',y,. Qv ( 'Q[$ a t- ',t-i. go o y t JiMut.~~~~
~~~~s..a~~~~
~~~~_ _. m ; e ,}}~~~~

ML20154G586

Text

Background

Navigation menu

Search