ML20154G586
| 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) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:4 F. . , 9. . o J ., s
,y.....a.u . ..
-y r .*: 1
,- mm m we men. ,,m- ,- .w : --~:. . .. , .~..u ...sw., cc. . v P '1;
.',g,. o .,
p .s'(';s. .
' NUREG-0750 Vol. 22, No. 6 Pages 875-982 t
p p- y.. .. r .". i .. , X f' M~, .
Ad , * -g
- s.
.QM ,b. -* .,,. h o,. . . i p &.sn .'4. .o vt A.m s ' ', ..w ' ' ein4%. .. :.n .tr.A. ., ,.' W sm"W*w
., ' c . ,.
w,. b2 %hera# o.**U 8 j, <,# s 'd. y g:. 4,.,.s'.;
. '. )9 .',g g.. . w .,ip.,p. g g-
. ~
g.
.t, ~ . ..
... .- ai . . . . .
~.
vx . : .f 1.1 . n .o c s : -
-r. g ..w.
egg, g'ep4. s
- ... #.,e *
(af;,' ( 7.g;,agte
.v '
.~
- m. . . m . . . s. . ,y
* ;g ' 4 ',. , . '. , ,,
- , ,, g . .. .9 .
.e g .
1 .%.y,gg y ?.4 va -u, . m. . . . , *,,,, .. e$
..s A si .w e . = . -s e .h s- * .... '
..( - . y e> e=,% 7 ., p. ', .;' ' * : ., ( % * '
' $ f, 4%., . . -
.. c .y 3 ,.
9 .
.f. . ,s ei
, '. ' E, ' . 'A . . . . bt e -
4.,..'
- e W
. . ~ . . . s ., . _ . . , .,. ~ , .. , ". .
,' , e . f c {-{ ** *
- f. .a p, ,.. # [
. . .- j. .
..4,- 2 ..
y ._ .,...V- -
'1 4
,J.'.,. ,",, '
, [ # .. M *
~..
g '; . ".ke*. .,.; /
. e g' a . , .
f ,. m
. . . . ,, t,*., ;
p .) . , N.e . .. '
.s ...,
. .. . - . /. ..O .g8 y.,
.' ... . e ' ,.
.e
- . a ... ,, .,.e.. . . .
. a >. . . . . .
. p .4%
...... .,_ ... . 4
..s"'.'-
?5 . ;. ,,,
*: c] . *:,'* Q :..~t q . A k,,. w+ 5 a.i
... .- . . ., p
, , . , , ., ;. . _ . .: .. ., ..? .
4 ' J,. '
. .f. ,
D..~ , A. , s..MucLEN, R. REGU.L TORY-ChMNiSSION) . . . . - - . , q'3,, p y .**,w { 2 l %W.* :LG L*,. '
. .i ap'..-,".)}'iW) y;; % i , .'.;:,e.yV..Oln'Q,..s p
- ...W> [, d .., W' .: & '.
%ce : , .,j: . V u ;'. . ',' .
' ;. ' u,a vs i ,n w i ~.s ..7 m . 'S .':.' q 'i.,1~
- e. . . ,.
.:.. . J. .
~,,,~,.x .
S . y, . , , .- a s, . ..,..a ,. ,,
.. ,. 7., * . / .?.~s . ..;..n., '
,, ,..~. J. , -
, : , , N ::. y ~.'.
. . r.
.< . . a. , .<, .
. g
( 'e . i .
. [.[zl
), .' ,.
, '4 )
- 2 (r. :c . .<, ,. , r ; . ,. .,
,' - * < , f. -
4, . ,, ? -
, , ' n. -i g 4,a.g a ~
.. ....V. 3 c../ f. 4 . .. , , . <. , ..
a6.t==44. d b L a ,a ( *,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 G603100047 060220 PDR NUHEQ .
0/5G R PDR ,
s,..,;w - . . . _ g.' . oiN
,a.w wns m
. w + .- + . '
s .~s,-. . . ~ . . .
. y u., . .~. . s,
,, ? . 4 ,,
w; ~ ,.s.
.. os c. . . ...
s , .m. :. c.,. . .. wum.wm. m -. ~ .m.m.m .,,. c.% .,. w n'. , . - *
- f,G L * . . ~. p-;p . s P_,
.,p.% W;cfg i J , -h ,i /, ..;.,
a'! <
.~ .
,.r. fa a.."m. n. c. t , w~. . y .w. .
.x
- o. . . i. , .
- v. ;.. ::. . a u,. .w
. ;.p i,.,,...s . - - ,
c .
.f._ .g - .
%n . w. m v~. . . ., w, . . . , . ; . , . _ . , . .
..m,. . . s.; s ,.. .. ,w .o.u,.s.
..... . ... ..%.....~,. . . u. ,.:
,...,.,~,,.,,.-,.m_....._.,-. ., y.%.,.-. ........ . e. c!....., a 4
. u ~. . _
,4<.,, .x . 5r,,. s , . . .
.. .y, . .m .
- r. u. . , ; s . ,. c. ..e/ . .,~. :. -. . ~ .. ,. , . p ,*. ...
-1,. ,,.a, , ne e~ u. ,.. , .. . - wy* .~,q.,.,,.,e c
g,. .g., . a*g ." .,.~*1,
...,,.,..g (c.,
.?*
j*Yr**3(... ,. x.'Y{i . ,, ,,
', ,'r >,
y.. L. . m
. 7 ..
. kl. ,; O gsc's.".A.~. -
,..a. *,p (a{ p* 8
. . . . o ,, m, . c.r , .a .,.n . b. fi, j'ef'[n%
,. a m..% * ,*g..:. .*
. . e,. p.,. .
' ' ' ' mg.;v. . . .( .: t. 4.s .c ngr cg m
.e . ,. w ,s .
.qt e: , A,.p. yrgo ,, .;qg @g;g g glp;d,d e..m, ,f.p. g,;y Q . *'gu;.y9%;Qg %y N.QQffg&W'nywhy <styd, mg/wwg' i'fy / .,qp,g' Q@,4 . 6 " '-f(tyk- n@,. .
.&W7. t:g.M.x.,9gg g4'-f. e . -e., c.,$5 M g ;sp y.y
'.n.. , .. .g
. ,.1.E; v.
- v. m.
,-~.~....:u. .,n. ., ..
av <. .<. 3wL.c. ... ,z
. w . .a. ,,Aw. ... , , . . . ,
n.s.
. n - ~ . . ~.
- m. ...i.,gn.. .:.~. # .r,.,
4,gi,% .,;i- 7 . 3 ;.2 b},~ .% > 9 '. 'u w . k%.ryyd,Q.c,.;p. , . m, .;;p,,a.i,*s,w,y!p,.,g, ,s.,,,t.g .,.p..,p.4,,,a.:, ;n M q.n,; &g,...g;,4
%.- . <,2 .
e . Superintendent of Documents 4 . L w , 4 L .W.'.. -
. U.S. Government Printing Office m E.
k /, y.s . ;.,f..a. ; ,,. , a Post Office Box 37082
..s.
~
.4 , , '.
.a . ., ..
- WP. W;,(M'.@pp .,
. ... . . . qw T.5.PW . Washington. D.C. 20013 7082 .
' . .i r ? . }.U.G .g',g. . :W, n%v . . . .,pc,p1 . . .
.,sL t 3 .1.,' #.. w 9 ,,m.,e .:. A. year's subscription consists of 12 softbound . . -4.m. .g,. issues, '
. s .,
u,
,r's 4 indexes, ~' and 4 hardbound editions for this publicat,on.+sN i
-t -r-L. ,>; -
J. . 3. . lq+. M;- ggggp,y, ..m....e,9 g , g ,g g g , g .y, y , g ,y,g
. . m,, -
4... ,. g , .m . . ..
. - ~ . .c. , . , n
;;Q1 yp ti <
N '%d (
.%Q",!$5ASingle is pub
. !' t ," 3 d.3-4 ' ;are svailabio fromcopies of th. .. +hcation ,hgg^Q
'[ u .s +.a.
. A iW.T 4
- National Technical .
c
.> y . ., %, .wr.n:.g: . .p sghy .l. formation c.,, m. .yo ; '/.:44
, r. ,Service, Springfield, . - . - .. . a .,VA 22161
~
- g. vy . .,
- . n w *- v.y%* gy .r.,
. re. , , ,, x
. .v ; . .
.+n. d
* . . . W n? <. > -
..,l7,. P+~**
.7...w... , p..m.m. ;. .
F '. . W't...: .* - L - .. , s;,
.4 _ W 7; i, ~ K, jc.e.Q- .en%4p:;.,,h,.,;4-Q. J. y n.a.C,.a;G Hy L% %fn ki % y_. , :en *. , n ?' ;. '. r . , L. -
w* * (& $&p .: <" ';-m 1 .o i .i U., y"G 'e ";. 1 %W "
,%% y;yi.e.o',C, & ;.* .,v.,'.Jav y e. mm os**qe w c.
. , y'f ^m yhf.t .%f T. , p. /.. '.4pyL, .y, r. . g,m,L. *j,.,.fA,..'y G .) %
.g .i m ./ ,
7.wa . - c . . .w o 4 . : w ,. m ! c '. *
- f ., -
. . i,.b4 ad.Ph. ; ,ydr p .;,g .7,,s.. ; .7 5 a..#. f, fr. ., . 8!'
,1. . :"c ts 'e a r F i , ' ' '8- ~.W, 6
# ! Y *e Olid o - .. ....e,
. Ly .,.
. . ,n .;. , a
.. .p: - ,
.s. . ir i
'<%.,..e'.. .-..
..-++ .. .n d.
r
'fupt:yt
, A...>..-
e ;.,WM. ye ,.E q.s.g,4 L.
. a.
.. e.ps..:gf.'@
s sm. . s. . e 7,4,v.2 . v.em . . ( ..ti#
.s.
*: ....ew
%..-,+.J.J.< o ..
.i,.n.
.., ,.9' n J.s, f g%.M
. .? M; .
. ;m : . ,, M ** -
. y. Q m,w a f ' " '-w o .r "
.. r
.' .b4h 5 e.,L , h
- h .e.j $hr_
%.g.n'.? .,j;< *a:p. ., a g%d
- 2. , , y? .m .. . 2 c.my.5 , J.%j+,,... ., ww&p.j;;$.,,;. : ,,
- r wa . n e. '.:,,,. y . uf . , .w: m:A.. .,,.a.
.'u Tg o .. ^ Q';y.*W",4.W.% 'Q'n.~ Errors .h ;,Y')W(;,t'ho Ay%.%w+.:);n'i.% .,st;J'e .2:+
L L r. # % i)p, , d in this publication may be reported to the Division of J.fh iTechnicalInformation and Document Control, Office of Administration, N . b , . .- > . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20565
- r ,. g '. ,. (301/492-8325) or (301/492 7566) .
Nl ' n. :,. f) , t , . , o. - '.[ .; ,
- s. '. ; ,
(;*1.
. L, , m. .,-,. .
s h h #
. s ;
^
6 . , ./8, . * '. f . [g .,p 8 g * . , . f ,,4, ,, f
.I f * * *^
- ~
. 4.f f. . . . -
# . .+* .+ .
' . ' Y^ . . a
* , . e
- 9 e ,s , . . . . . -% . * - ' '- %
, , ="s af j ,
d s i
, i B
. <, .' 9
. : :, c. ~:n
. .. f ' '
L '"' ) 3.,1 .=ti -
. s.4.;.
y; s.% . ; .:. ,. ,.
./
a.' . . ~'. p+ n..p. ,
, , . c.( .c. . ,
, *--l .
, .w . - - . _ . . . . a..-u.--.-_..-.. . .. . . .. . . . . . . - .
<7 .
NUREG-0750 Vol. 22, No. 6
' Pages 875-982
.c:. ., .
."+, ,. . ,;* 6
- r
,a f . s,
.s r.
'W* .
y^'-; C ,'
.n .< ,
r nl.,.*a .
.s+ .
@ . f t M. &w m . w. .. i.e.
-,.i.L*;* F+ /, f.,' l. NUCLEAR REGULATORY g, 7qggg:. .
xm.4, COMMISSION ISSUANCES
-e.
".=. .;. j
. g #, a
~
7.. ,.. . . . ~: ~, . , December 1985
~
4 J
.? ., . .
- ;. s .:..
c
.,;L. o..
., .m.. ..' O. a., 4 s. . a, . . c .
s . .o - .. , e. . . u..
.u o.
%g , - b. .; :lf i, aj" This report includes the lasuances received during the specified period Q#.
; 6f .y '. c .,. ,
v'Z: 5 ' from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal 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).
- b. - 2 .,-,,,
M+
'- . ., ,e*'. . The summaries and headnotes preceding the oplnlons reported herein
- -f . , ' ,
' "g'; * ;j ;,, s.l $ U ' ),
i are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any Indepen-
' r , ' ," , "
, dent legal significance.
a .
. .a ,+ -
. .c u ,. .. g ., ., 1
" glO .
.' ,4 4;; ., . >.-. ,-, ,
~. > ' n ,.
.m. v. .
.,,.A..
' .,vc L'. a= 4 7.,;..,;m :, p .... : .,.;.... ,.9
'.TQ !y'2:.4M %.P E ;.4; ; U.S NUCLEAR REGUL ATdhY COMMISS9ON m.N .
,. A. ..
s' t i. .* y,. . , ) y ',15,G,9. sL.,, 8'
..'t3e.e
- s. 8>%....., , . . . . . . o C::';,?.}. i. -
r 3 , . .
~'C, ; Prepared by the Division of Technical Information and Document Control,
.s'
- g. Office of Administra:lon, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 2066
. (301/492-8925)
. ., . .a , - -
1 i% V
' **- e
- o. . . .e e p , .,.
- b. gy eene **w**w+. .e=.=m.e- a.m.-* ** -+-e ..===**4 4 m l[
-d,, .
. p
.,.'g.
6 6
..- t .
M W. _9! W.,", T g .U.& w , MC.?, n' ?T'. l ~xJ, ' ' %;W,'. ~n'" y,. &+W 4',
- Q. m.6%.rkh H & W O ,A ,m% y - w :w~e % *..~;a.yM .m.W. %. -@
.e. , -
s .J.>.s*
- {v w
.e.v.
,m t
..k M J.W,y .' . v: - *~. a ' '. xw vr; W e.. . :.h
-en.v&. m.%?wn".
.x . . ~ u
.m..>. ,*..i./%.'.(*2.c ./:S**..-1,,%,, ,r. .; m .4.t h.. ~. q. .e g I ,fk JK
~ -'*e- .
nqn .,.y.p..a u m?. y y&o w#'s. n? v? 9<# n','Ac Nc'w L ?,p , .- syw t -. q~* yM,n . . . c . "C- D g,Wb.m,,- e, e /w ,
* ; *-.i ..%'t- ..v ' .o,,p:m. ~
v.: ; w%. n g.y)N.a,A.,y . s w
- q.'?
.1 - p.. . ~ u. , '
t "u --
* : f 4,~
1-
~ y'y .:.- ~
n . m.. e;- .: ..--r w.s,.
,e. ,'w",n..m ..
~u. .. .-w< > e. . ~ N._ o..p e ..qe... ..- . . m< ,w. ,n., m. . . . e
.h : u. w .. ,u.
=.
%.~
- ss.xmm.n:-w ~ '
w- - : -vxs*+ ' ~ - cet.4.W.m , a. v... ,s. .y.! e. m
'. :.,:m:-.9
. .. e ~4.,;%,lQ' . m .y.
, m".m ' f.ry., M, .* ,* J* f.
w3.m. ..c m- r,r a. .n. n .e ,#x,.g:n. .
.&, .n .,y<
. s. . ..
c . . o, . m . , m. s
;~. . .
.v. - .
t * . . . ...- .. 4 W.. .:.#.M. . :- .W. i:.,&.. c
& 3;:.x.s .t .
ece. g,u
- w. ..,m r .. #. m,e.gw.w. ..g m.e.w.
s .sw .. %s
- e. . . .%. ,. c, u ...
w..v..,..m, w~. y 49. - 3 o c w mAsn p yy%,. 3
.m
.. %yv.s*w.mL.;,
*m, w.
w +- -
..:, % .,p
,.e#
a'M'WVr4 /'ww;.;.;w' g e2:NA
- emw
%*[0 $ $ f M b W D"' COMMISSIONERS bh
+, bat J A $.a.
d / Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman @b w .m.,q.h.r,d.C.,M.ty, 4,pf m.w , . +p" Thomas M Roberts MW James K. Aaselstine M m . v. .ti. M i d g:m f % ,d.C; 9.~ E n$r .n > N4, *y. Fredericic M. Bomthal M ann,_ '[y' w, $ .. e.M, n
- mj ,. f .~WU$.p
. ..yum...g, m 2 T.x V.c4.yi . Lando W. Zech, Jr.
w w. . . . n:u. .s.,-o sM ;y,
>. c ys. t.m.,. .+~ .n _,y.ml:7.
- 3. .em ,v;..4.R.
w
.. u. ,7_y . 4., . .c. < .
4-
,,u.w..
- y. .w M.a. p...&~7Q:sy. :
. r
.l h/ .cc. .:p;wW 3... W.,s, r. M,a. w J
,,-.Q.c. m ..Y , .niR iW n gn: .m". me.c. .v x.w .e's'an.%.y.h. .,ns. m ,eq?.y -d .
$ Y ,n $,y 5'"?f.Yh f'?. 5'Y.4%a' n%e.T Y'%.m. ; Yb:f . , Jm x..,.s - Ar.w, mm...T~ ,-:/:,, % ~-
- m. u
- n 1,,; %.h n..,. . .i.y e
-4 ,
+0 n4, .f . y. c. - n - q + i n.
);w;w ; w.npw- . g .v. . . .n # % m.)m,y-mM i
. m.c w .
> .r w.h. :.s -m ..
.s.% e r..c? -n, . . v u - .m ..c 4
.i n.w
..A. .c :
a" 4..n;+;w,
- , c w~..r>
u u.. . . xm-
- w. .
S e. *J W . W ,,.t X .4.es,pt M. ,NW. 4:: s M ,by . . . h r.@.. str.r..u.g4;w:a.m
.y w: o ... . p,N.v.,a
.2
% em - : 2:@e J .
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel %g)f.@.
- g. ,-q.y " ..'.pWU m ~7.M @ B. g Paul Sq Cotter,
#PM'*? Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1
- Q. . *. s F
~ , .
. .u.
.. t s. X . ,,--pp..., p s a
. .c. n , . . ., y a. - n.' t. . .
,.s:9,g: . ,e ,
.-a ,. u gyg.. .a:r s .
1,. M 9,,@y 9-v n er C e*, :Ig. , yj,,. a*y 4%p, '* 5.(n,.; Q.- y ; p i .e w.; khMhbh 4 Nje am.w,& i .W:N..n Y.;.)w;f
.- w$& p$ + , g$. m':$
N
. wd t v.b.a, w%e tt V '%p*
. . . p~. n. .
~4 4 D V'M. vG.K t, $.%.ng,:.:.. . ,L*W .c.
,~%..s . ~ ;...' v~J. .V, ,. ?. ,,**ep:. Q.gp9.
g . \yan
.e* ~.y h er,, gf s.
$," .[8
, m ,,.,' q c., . . y,,., w, .
..j *
' '- l7' .4 ,
$ y , , .,
-j 0'
. . e . 9',., *,~*
s s.
< .. ** q',
.y, ;' ,
- s* ** 9 g:e *
.i4 v., ,.,,,
u
.C%,
.*i 9--
.'u d u.e
-s .
'4 ..-;
s
,.,,,.,'N".,<3,,.~
al gi, *t .
; ,,;f
- i M/ p" } Q'j,
,..)
w e..\".,.
. ,; s -
3,, .&, , P'v... - . .,sg
',h ./ ... g , .
. ma ~ . ,.
I ' ~ y=
,e . !.a . ,. ,r ~ ~F ;$.e.a. .ea. . J-;. . .~. .6'. . #I
;.'7/",.
?, s
' ; w..,. ' J. f .1. ? ?
..v ,.e
" " g.~ %,m. .,.c ; - . o. 2.a'i-'.$"[
..m ' . ,,_'.;<.~ .. ./ ."' 4,'4 y.-7~.- ?.
p c~. e.,(_.~ ,..+. + }," n? m .s.., s
.~ . . . , - 1
, ' Q e . .n., .n.....Ju,
, i.
Ve ,O;,h.f>? . 0 }'f a.e?'c R. y..t .L': w 4-l.{;;G -. M,.,.W.Y * !
. e",d &. W. .Y
,p.. ~'u wg s
-Qa4 L.Q3 p u , % -p 6 %g;9 %
#.* s,.w.%. y- =. p .**::?t. ~
J- y:. . +&. - m i.y / e,.m. ;, . ' ' ' r a.M@hlNN,,n Q" % Mj.(%x.l .'@h , .&.w ih h Y. Y ~&. h@.@ k'lc{.,.&g w. 4. m g, s . $ $ ", ;k'/' '
$' !$N.k M M,@,h;P
'8 @& M@
,,fMQ@@WUni -
,- ., a. . , . . m, - -
- e. .
.y ; , .- q.:. y
", .yu-?,.1.%..s 4 ' . .
.l'.=.; y,'a .., y ; ., .
r
.,' Y
' d. G l ^;+ 4:M.W.C. ffo,'qr. i l 'Y . , . W , ,@: ' -.0. - -
W.S?:'Q,C .d.sd%. .7}i f. -
.w w ::- . ,~ m. ; '
,' cQ. w{wg.. 2, *h i' '.T [<% . s J '6t . ,.
_ ,q.y: :c- +
. ;p . - -:3
- ; : ,. e ,
. se a
y , 4 .. . .c. CONTENTS ,' Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ^ ' 03:, m -. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. p.g: .g. J. D / 3._g,- ., ."; . 'f .,. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ,y~,+U,. ;f.,g:e p@ c. ,.n...V 7. +. . - Docket STN 50-528 (Application in Respect of a Sale -..m.w
- k. W. .,s
%.. A.' M, . .. x .% and Leaseback Financing Transaction by Public
%g$3MKg)W,q.9. , , Q.'-F.a-(;;%.9 W :/E f Service Company of New Mexico)
- Fnf
- ;X n 4..w ci.Q -A Wim ' .. . . , , .
. .:A : ...
ORDER, CLI 85-17, December 12, 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 fw'4*y~b,+w %.,'l'",L ::.d TF,M. a 2y L]
a t'*?~..W',* f yg f w,. GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION
'".y d. g p L..,;5.'. W.Q
,r .S. ;y ,. J;. .
~ M. cu.,t; v C.
ffi, (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Mg aQ, , .p.,y WI,i. 6 qwp y ' . .T Dockets 50-289 RA,50-289-EW (Special Proceeding) 4 ,
- ORDER, CLI 85-19, December 19, 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
; y. ' *b? , .,, INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
~ '
,. W , . '. e ,
. . .. LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
, ,. . ., Docket LRP
. a 4 .n . . 2 ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING,
.$x .. , ; & ..insM7J$R CLI-35-18, December 18, 198 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w.3. tiifGw.m.;. Ac
./
".4 ,
. 1.,ny r 877
. . e. s . , +, . . g :e . p,;
i ap@w@y 9y . e. , .y M i' h. d W . Q r
2 W.gi *vr ep;m Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 3,y n. ? m. tt.e.w, 1m9 Mggf yn ,:y'eg,.1.uw..i. .
g,jgt,t yy '
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
~
} h. . ',
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Docket 50-289.SP (Management Phase) v :.b f..*...~-: wm
.. 4 . DECISION, ALAB-826, December 18, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
,~ ~7.a L.s 6: :l=&~;s;9%):s .
m, Mgh t J w .p.Sw .
<,7..-
, s.,d;Qg y M Issuance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. m.
u no m.,,'*M. _ . n,., _. . , .L . ., m.
,p> ,. ...n..
V, ..g . W: M i &...:.@w & V.
W %,,L..n.n . -: y
,i'-M ice CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH QS.:.t
- u c .. - :. N.ca .A$. 1 - c a '.N t. hw A :,p; 3 CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
- c. . . :n y ~ e3.... . r,, m . o. . e v. , m.
.s
, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) d,4.D g.. u'f'l e g 3 c
.. i m.3iW :
g w@. L. P.s Docket 50-400-OL (ASLBP No. 82-472-03 OL)
=aq.s.i. - gm..pwyt e.. /g;,w ..
is, e..,.4.N.
ygu PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY
' MN'Miq%9,M,d.,'; A .N1 PLANNING AND SAFETY CONTENTIONS, AGWN 9 LBP 85 49, December 1 1, 19 8 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 99 W;M.g.y,G,WF.W?
. - w' i d,e L,. s.
q Fe%p-.s&. v. :.. . .' 1"N>j.7%#,%*
.M v. .co-y** * 's.. , .i' %-'. * *WL
- g. .
M * ,:
J U *M . .;
** *.T l D W,',0th
..,,Tl{. .p[..j$'l. l$',x
. . wm-y y mW,w
. . < ; , .:i 4 0,'7, ,' ' ,* ,,
.2.*_A.
. . - /
, , .(. ,
8.k *, ' '
,e.' 'A .
v.
m; . . . , .' ' ' :. - .
, .? *n' ,j '. r , I r s,
.~. '*g ( ..? lll
. v. ,. ' . . .
L. ,I
- 's . a
')
ed k e
".p a
b
. %' , .# 6
.% g .' . 6 ,
.. m '
5';'f.
, j ,W ,.
2 4 , , , .
' in . .
. , - - --*--~~sv --
~~.*..,.w-?~- . ,
N e .V.F d -
y '
, ... . . . e n.,
. ,m .x - ,
6 g 7 c
~ . E j . ' e. ,y g
*,' ' ' ".'t*' ~~ * , '^*
' . a*
lh ' .,
s;.M,M.
v .n.,. *l,1.;';'
J,.
,5
.Na.'u!. ' k . '
b
- s--
., .' ' n.
i v :.;..V.X
. s ,.' M~ . , '.
.y?m...g
;,%.: k. m . ,e.\.r. . e - n.2. u.sx n,.( :,.. n, . >~~
~ ~. . a-
- y mc . .
- u. .
a
- v W . v :.g$ {l3 b U ** ';l.**.*y:S '*:~ r .GT
,a>*I',._ ** * *E '
y,rb,h M.l% rep.&R s, . < . ,
-;{,
. .a . ,. ;. .
. f~
4 9 :<. '.. 4 < 4 W , . ,'c : e1-<.', %.; e},;,:
@.. kefRM/M. . .@a, ii:@W,ns.Q;, ;:t = , p - m4.
'. 7 -
m%.O n @:.x.<.T'.c e , . < .. ,
. 7.p .h yph?w A.m'r.,/. e'M,' . * - F i t. '- ; . - ,
,,.**', .> . . 2 = g.. . . ., .;. . , , , .
t-J.f-t.1,( .J
.n g w .** ,
*. t - ' q, !, ,.*.+7-
. , . ,7 .- .
- ', b o . E' . .b7 ,
i -~~
' a- - '
., a;:
~- 'J_.,._ e l1,.,:
m; nwv m . m.m:.x v + ~::. w'.
-:.:r:
, ma. ,..
.s m
n.m,?;x. . . . , , ,
. . m; en. ..
, .s. ..uw.n .m. ;,.p.
v.. .y n. ,~e ,
m w.. . ., .
. , ~
- Issuances of Administrative Law Judges REICH GEO-PilYSICAL, INC.
.. 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana
. ;.6; y h.c . - . M. .'
Docket 30-14821 (ASLBP No. 85-508-01-0T) 0op,. $. g! -K*% Y. ,c M ,1 2y.c y,j p$... c.i.s'- S N, r (
m.
..; u No. 25-18304 01, EA-84-78)
(License pWy E
W @~P; .
.y<. -.%u.t+Dyc. m..:e% INITIAL DECISION, ALJ 85-1, December 11, 1985 ..... .. 941
~gm&7 .4 hM 9[ e*iF4 .4, s; e <
,s.
.#,~/. 1'We wy
. n.%..M'A.)/. fr*s.~c ,.w N, b ..g,t.78- .
fy REICH GEO-PilYSICAL, INC.
1NdNddM(!M.$lg%,u .% Sc9 W 1019 Arlington Drive, Billings, Montana krW~~d4..,,%.%.,.n.,a--
.sMKj (M
-~
Docket 30-14821 (ASLBP No. 85 508-01-OT) 1.$eN*
. Cig.bd. Wy2 W.2.M, r.j,4-7WwA,.n .
- M#. ...h*gdMG (License No. 25-18304-01. EA 84-78)
SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL DECISION, Cy'
$r.x
' 4 :, . : v .
?M,c $dhn N A_d
%;f $y6-7ig
%. n W e m . w . M... n,,iT, F T.
ALJ-85-2, December 20,1985. . . . . ............. . .... 968 yeb% s.,. - ;
- 4 .- %
.J ( p,J'
. 7, % : "Y a-
. ' A' f ; , e u'\'."
e 5 -
.(; . . _ ". a',..- ,:.. Issuance of Director's Decision f #g/(y.:
'& s k . m .m MQ:nV. y-:A #,r: , . ,Wa.y+' , ~,1; a.o . .
, $ :@ h Q V W Vtd . ., CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY s
4 -
.- .' (Haddam Neck Plant)
.qger.f;.MM{.MO Docket 50-213 py W g,MDS.-
4@M.,U. T.
p*.W.+4,
.9 s W. C DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. j 2.206, c e.. M'. WV4M. ; ,u .. .; T $o DD-85-20, December 23,1985.. ............... . 971
&..q.MS C . ..
M .M .? d-2,q % c- &4M ty.W M jQ.ts 6'p g!?f$ g. % ,7. W .%uGENERAL 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 DD-85-20, December 23, 1985 . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . 971 f 'l h .r d.Wl,%, e- .d,. % %..-
4 , ...
'b,W .::s.eqq%*x;qpW r s.g :~~
< +
9.
iW.. G SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY G F,$p$ 9 p,W @W M@pM78T.,q MI
@%p .
s .. - .
m- gr~ .
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket 50-206 "-*m p.w v y. ,1. , . , .=, a..'.
_ DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, Q f:; #h.C .; Sn...n .4 W7 ' DD-85-20, December 2 3 , 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 m,.u.' n. .@,
r n. %mn; oy.:p ,'a ;,,.y g $.e I NIdbhlsj'< WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION
-hMh
"'9$.$W.
7.:. F. ,m
@;Q~^$..w.f@V<R' r ,W f
(Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant)
Docket 50-305
- h. ,aM.N:$'h>. MOu'x,.t.&..[,?
$. . +s. .
Yz$t DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206, Wm;;W %p%e@kN:-[b'hh[ e :.
DD-85-20, December 23,1985. ...... . . .... 971
;r , . . %. _. e . . . ; r.
~ ..
. ,- ,.u.
y .
.s c
- % j
- u
. . .. ~ .- n.
,_ }'.a , , ,. -? ?
[ "
't
'f, j[ / 'l r 81.n *4 g pr.
F ., , ' . ..
*d.
.,.g,.g
# ,, 4 p- g h $.
i m
.o
-9 ,.c v: w .w:
g .
.- &.-*\p'..'Q..
.y,, b,s.a 4S
, s.f s,
- 4. ',,
,f b ,9.k m ; g.
n , ;.
st.:.
U YD*
. . ,, y .
- .YY, " , ~ # "$
c.
[ W *"'7 " '*"*'.W7'""*T . ..,-
> v'.' y<,
g 46Q ,.a .M'*M
- ) u Q.r*,
- ej% . n -yh,%'*;%
4 p t e-y.' .s %.:, , TVs=}b
,, 4 *l.
f_
., & ,. >.7g
- a '.r..J
. s 3 ~. ,'l ,
. . z.
J *w
.' s **
't~
Y,,*f),&mm$l)M , ,y -*u : L:;-
l'.*& ys-< ,
, . Q.ih&, 11},4 AL <, *.+Q*W~.h,.
. .*y(o.:.;} '; &.%, .}.'s F . <. , y,}}.'. i}]+',,,, ') ll *j. Q';.
.,%,. ,* .%, , ., f<lr . e,t' . ,y% ;[' : -*
a ,
k.,7 $C,; < *4,'& *.e . ."'.;, *s
' '%c.' ' t .&. pW Q , :WQG, .W.&:W ?W , f' >l, . l.lu.D f. I:i . ~ ~ h F .?- '
$ *l'[ 'Et* & t & * ~.,&>
' g$%. r.w. k.s .s - .w , 8 W .g &w T, .:'$;@r';*).$
U. V.
Wo. $* $,( f .' h& :h $ ' &;?'
'? ' '
{ f hW,'
$r< & ' e:,?.ly..
\.
s. .' ' . . ,
.- .x .m. .u,
- . ~.'.,. ,. .
n . , , s.1 . - , .
, . . g. , s.
- + . . . . . ,
f,,.*
..,i.. .w, . . i <>..
a ,.'..,.
n.' 4 3. , '
., 3'i . * ,.
. d t 'm. e -s... s, ,-. % m .r k3.., .,w. a- .'#*'*i+ _ 7. 5 .s f. * + *. .5- g. <
'a
, s 45- = ->
',A , , . ,
; e,f,.,, ~ L.W
.e ~.r. . - a
> ; s... t
.. t ue. q,w _h *. . . ,.,
.s m' .x . .m .. . m,e,. ~. y
, e
.,.p.. '4 et.*.*x.,.w.a 4
o .- - -
.,m ..
*. , m.., , . . .e,.** .. v,w<.w i 17 , [ **
. ,u
- ~ -.
-e
- 65. ';, , * .g*
' .& ,.g*
+ . .
',9 ; <* .n y,
, . . m ,. .. 4
- s s_.,% . . .. -
- o. A .
- ;. , - g . t
, _ . .a. s.
~
. J 4
. , . . . . . r . . . .
3M.t. O
~
,~
.9..J . d:.. ,
COMMISSION
- V. V. * '. * $,n.& & -5 E , '
, .l W*
- L** s A. hN %q' &,*M.M&,. ,5..- %.s
- . . .gi%shW lSSUanCeS
..~r l% ?Q'k[ter.m hs.,,,.e . ;L :.:%.y n..- e ".h X Ng %. w.t"~.4.P M.r....s 9.'i-% '.'t.T - w , ,S.3$'O. Q* M.1n.%
1 1
uh':c .Q44 @ $..Qf,,MeO.,M.';g.i.d,.
Y - .
- Me,e m e u.W 4 p I
q@}N,jd t 3... ]
l
- r. pDlm, .7-l . w 1r.M'(d[?k
, .* : - , r e .9.w..'.t.s:
+
'D.'M%.QMh..*%[ .w.~
s . a. p. t. y ; -. m ;- -. n. . -s. .:. m. a.. L. e k .?..'. s
. . 4 . _
"d Mi s j -i '3.;? % Td. 5.'-G.- PJ.{.M f; ' i'A %t '-s '
l l
l l - < l r
r - (y .- .' -
- s. - r i
- . .' T
_ fj e< . ,
o' v.< ,.,s..... ,- .,
l
.l t % n.,
,;.;s.)
h A. ol.- %,]f:f
- ,.,y , [*q% , y ;
- i~ > M.Q , ;% i :u .f'.
% .. i ~ . i
.'^, . _ py &,,. .
l <
7 -s ..- . , a \ %".' p . ;,v.s q. .e.,.s
.~. /.*
I
,.,2. .- . . . ., ., .c..r. > . .a? ?.,. 6,.; f,
<~.:.
j 6 e.., x.tse. --.n n,. ..,
,, .x.
,t,,,. . t.= -
r
- i. ,.4..,
l $'. '9;;f',DJ.;.'h
'.M c ~.W . w. . 'x %..y j = &+4- '
L .s]7,T.,/..n(,
Kr.t;. ':
'M]..'. ;,u
. ,s
. ty4,.. Q ' d.: t ,. .
a
-n -,.,
.. . .y O
~
.-f.....
C ~; : v.
r - < %a.m., m e, .;.
. mn 1
, . M. r .y -+'_-yi.
,~. ~3-.. ,.y, W , , y,
.,> M. ,g.r, y, t
- 32 .x ,s .4.4., , . . g. ;, . s . 1: . A - ,M, ,.a,, '
,: .< r~ m.wy *
,t , t .n y ,;.;
F,,,
ry.
cp.. . - - -y ..f.
.4 0 ~7,3 ..g,e ,. .
. > } . s t
. . n ;' '. ~. ..
' I r or, - .
L'M.&..N.. w ) p.% .n r?. : r a :.; w.e ei .
t ,,
e + c..,,. m, n ,r.,.......~<
g r.c ,%;w .w g g .c t,.~.y,.,
I t~.....
.~
9.. v, .. p 1 . .n <
' ,d ,c <p & 'a. M,a. i'% r. '., , ,Q, [', t$. :y.3 ,. .% 9..
y
. . s d
a M 'h 4*J..h < u s:h'e. ], ,
,'. a,a.v n w,+ m." n %p 'w...,,.ch . . . .. .,- .,. ..m +s ~ : )
..,g.w y.,, %,:n .. - -..
.a . .a . w, ,r, + . ..
-- v..%.. g,
- 3 2 . ,f _m.. m..>....,u., m. :. , , . u- .. .r<,. .m. . ;;,p. , .n,n.; u.g;
- . 4 ~
h.
% *%r- . > ,.,w ,.y.. . .. o.of p, v,x. . , ,
i
- .a, . g.,.<.r. . . m ,. .>. . r,n e ...,..,w-...s . <. .s. , tJp , ,.u.
.w r. m.~ w . .
. '.,Qw *%o . = ,> ?,LQ *9. . p.
%. ~ ' f.,),.cy
> 5._ -t.
.'. . . , e v ..%
Y -
," g a , -
9y., M q. $ g s- .
;w, <.,
4 e .
' <'\!.
4 .I g 4 W
- g .
-',._ ]
;N
* . *. . ' '/a' ..y<. '*p t,
,I t4 . . . . , . = * -
' ~^p . . .f-r N. .-[s. ,' .) .y. ; ;e[, , .- s i
s v . '- t .s . , . , _ .
- ~ ..ar .
---- - . , ~ ~ - 7 e e .# .
8 * '
[ i .
~
, y r m y; q'. %, g' . 7. ~ .*';.. %..'* .%
. r q' '
, &p"@,*. ,:.r3; r.y . f*'. y .U . ' N
- l p* :- E ', l;c, :'= L. 4 -
.; * .'t" i --
ll. w.1 Ky(" V *; e; 3Wf ,,h ' $j';f , s .. .
.L. ; l b~ * *
'. ' -~ :
.:. . * ,r f, +.yt.w ,. .....m y
. .pp,..q y .. ,,,gg .y . w,. tPpa-.F. ,L
,e.
. 's , ,
. , . .. ..x
.;j N .
4,,,_ ' T ,= ng
'4,' j,"
v3 .g$ ,'q.y. g ggY p.g e. .
,# ., j s
5, e - . . b .s. , e*
[I.. .g,- j f .h E T * ', f * * '
, . . y. ;i e.s t m{ '..n:' - .; 8' %. m, $. e.;g, . a , - * , f-
.s f ..
. op. ! -.
-. . .- f 2 .
, ~~ ~ .
p a . i. ,
?. e;. f, ; - *' '
.W ww ,f 6 2 % ,. o W .
'mw.. - .
' . . ;. - c.. .
s.- . >.
,: ' ' B*'dC Wr a ?,%s d >,Tb.C . - N .
- . W . W V h';.
1} ;r
$p Q n :,; , : f,G '.x* %@;
? ! G:. . < .
~
Qa
;q'e '1N.: 4 , \ .;,; t ' G+. , . ,; *
?
M.R~.y.! 7 u,- -
~
n - . , -, ,
yL 3 ~ na.;v.vs ;vs ..
~
,/.r- . g, m -_ ~ -~
u_
tp.U..p,.
. n.s,~. . ' .a. ty -C.' .'~. s,
.'; .'t. ;
A w~ N':,:: ~_Q,':t.Q- .%, .~m : . L. .c.
, t;.
G; ;;.s . a . :
~ . F., c.W '-
%. . s.J. 3 ,f;y. %,, ~ J. . r. . > .
Y f.'Q Y.l *. O f5 2 -
Cite as 22 NRC 875 (1985) CL185 17
.. . m UN TED STATES OF AMERICA Mi -n ..e, .
- .:,.<.- ~,>
.s.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. . c~ . ,~e4. ,1.' w
~ 4. 1. . m.. _
. n.u.-
s
%w..f
,us M. e.;. c,qm. #;;._ m: > t. ..s.
. ,+x#n ,. .f.~-
N .pm m.y g.N9-5 *
- COMMISSIONERS:
u
~ . , , r g> w.. w.* .i.n.. ;;, w. ps.g
^** -
~
~ . v m. . ..
*%r a 4,Qs -A,, 4 's RiLYMQy K
- O.G, ", U' d R
q.h, h@.'s,q WN,1;W~tQ fp* '
,-r,.w i. - C*W}'.WQ&
;::'i? ah Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
<S %.
3*M.p );::w'. y i
u: 4 ex W
Jm.W; M, r.p~ .g .' ., .
Thomas M. Roberts
. . James K. Asselstine n: .r . p,
- e. wrq%,p.y,wd&p%gD. ?%,.-. ttn 2;h ,.
Frederick M. Semthat W ):t @ fc Lando W. Zech, Jr.
c..%, .v..,- t ;m.r.&,h_.N,W m.A._ cc o re., . m v.,b.p+,M. W. 'qy yeb vf 1.N:~- W< Q @-@ ^ -
3e c.,e >l.
~
- r. *i ? " . . ,
\
u4... g,M. - .a..,. t ' v.2 _. , ., *. ., in the Matter of Docket No. STN 50-528
';; Q * .j . (Application in Respect
~.; , of a Sale and Leaseback
,. m. "
'2;.. . , .. ..
Financing Transaction by
.m 45NM. tEh N, 4ih M;M ; .
Public Service Company wszas.wf.W @ dWM '* of New Mexico)
,wam.v.4. en.e
. , . . , .w. e.v. .,.oi s
..~ ; .
Dv.W q# ,
e',,... q. .s . -e w R.h_ n.1 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
'd %..Am:L,h., :: u ; , %, W , ,m=,
Qt:mn x mp a.< nya% v ,.
. : ~r .n:w p; , -m.- . . ". \ COMPANY, et al
.C ,6 3 J#
., W ": ; ; ,
2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating lyc 2:- c- Station, Unit 1) December 12,1985 a ~ ~a . . . , c . , . . .g , . , .
3 ,,fN r e.T i , 3 -E ~
v.kk'
*d W.A We %'mhr@
c: y' , .h,C*!*-.,,,' ;Wr. pa r:r 3g).matter In this a +ithe Commission has determined that in the totality of w ..c n.
. @ c G. . W. .. Q ,.it. i Mg & e.. il .,.p.:.24 7a the circumstances, the proposed sale and leaseback financial transaction yy,7; ?;g . > . g 7.+ 9 -
w th the license amendment recommended by the StafT and subject to i A.,.w.
s Q :.' . S specified conditions is acceptable under the Atomic Energy Act and the
,p, j;p$ . $. y 3,3,. v?!.%,,S P . ;d..,<J , . ,' b+ v cN Commission regulations.
. m
- . w.h.e y .. i. ; n ,
f,g .a e
. *q %.t.,y.+ J c...
c A$W't ..v WFsF@-L v.A,? ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES
$; 8p@j, W;5Mj@;X.%y.~ahjW
.rw W'.'~3 . .. .e v.a.,,:(SALE Wrv.> %] y+.r...w AND LEASEBACK FINANCING) ..s hfM;w.D. g~;:bM$%.E ff The lessor and anyone else who may acquire an interest under the Wi $i c. o t e ;.M. m,.j.W3.w.
N ., sale and leaseback financing transaction are prohibited from exercising u,. ,y.5
. #% s, ~m,. ,.a,
. . , 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.I . ; " , '* ,
sts '
' . . *4w. . . . " * ' ' 's#- - ' }r .. ,,#
,4
*. ET,:* * ,, ' e:7 / s - i M lj -
- l. . * ^ ; n **'~s"'"****W* * " " * * ' ' ' * * ' " " " * * * * '
. ?., Y. v ... ..l,,
.- '. O..T~.: . . :.,**.
;w' . w&'^' .e .g.* s. *j . . -
" * ** c g., ~.*! trj % '*p Ll. .h<[ ',*,ow
.' ** ? ^* ,
D *
*2
- ff % L+2. . Q,, J e. i* ** . .
J,;,eW r Q'~* 4 - ?
4 ..
w"..',',; :.c i: ? % , . *f'. r
, .m' ;?'. ')' . :. , s
.c, a.mmm. :::;'
.,w -
- n. i.* *' Q t*
1< . . . . . . . ., ',. '
/* J.j.3
% N,5l;ip' % .w c. ., ;.p?.NlN "r *.D. .w*f. . T *** p "NWR}.?f % W %.. A:y'w . w "t. .;. t - ':
g ' ' ~
. ,'l' -
c
- y. r:v.E*CQJ ^ ?& 1 ' ;% g,sh,,g.q,..V... _.,'w: 4...- Q ' ' {\ - s.!* ,
.%i , r "?,, * * '
(l i...I I mW0W w;W.Y'.U.W $..% ?,.*lE pgrwW l w: W; Y & 4
- ~
, ,' f~
.e/A . y:.,j %.L, .' - ,, -
w:sw~:#
t.~
h W.-Ns z. kr
...'.s ,: W
,m, '.
A%YW$
L +m iM:$ , %n . 3, y. m;dn A,..:so~.g& ..o.- . t ..p%.W %%
f Yrdt y W.i -
8h.iN Udx Q n i '-
& Qh.?
Y
+ ,
llv -f$:
wm -w "' +. .
- L~ .
% Q, M,w.. m.sr;;r. . e e c... . m. n m. .s ::Lu n . . & . -
cp -
- pp w. : > xag.:.
~ c
. , . . _ u a. _ w.
-. Q m M . w ; e i b w w :n
. w.M,,d;*'. ,D@ w N. . .'W. v'i e.M: [.n.
3 :. m y - w: a#.r <
w h;m,ug;;;p p m ,, w:W.v ,W i 4
- .) .- , , ,j_
*f
.- . .,. t
- 7 . f*- ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES (SALE AND LEASEBACK FINANCING) 6 .+ .c - n The limitations in 10 C.F.R. { 50.81, " Creditor Regulations," are ap-N.
3 s.dW. - J. C h_.t. .$ . m..
1#M plicable to the named lessor in the sale and leaseback financing transac-
%g M M.N ric gjggW p tion and any successor in interest to that lessor.
,T3 se #@~ bs,.e W@ M .a oM.w,.
or
%, . g. Mo.- m.om:sJ'* w a p ., h 4:
W i;
K , U . ] M .1 %g'O@; L i b f D ORDER
.w.
@g.5M1W.%d5DW.4,*Q wym.m %.,m L MMfkhkMhiM $
Ot. October 18, 1985, the Arizona Public Service Company filed with the NRC an Application in Respect of a Sale and Leaseback Financing
&M*%M.hMY@MK!M 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 Order is acceptable under the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission M
M.M@$$.g;NS-NNNSN 2
. .gQ%i.3.h $
regulations. This conclusion is subject to the condition that the lessor 9 and anyone else who may acquire an interest under the transaction m ' ff jc y ,f4 which is the subject of this application are prohibited from exercising
,'J
.A%4 4.MGM.$-...
gi %m- xe,G.d.b., q-vW g,+.Widl$.1
. . , ~ .
d.irectly or . d.in irectly any control over the licensees of the Palo Verde 9ay.m
$%d!/Md7M . MWN nuclear facility. For purposes of this condition, the limitations in 10 NN;WhNhhh C.F.R. { 50.81, " Creditor Regulations," as now in effect and as they may su%mtly amended am fuHy appHeaMe to th nand kssor
'rhgg b@fd $-
.,77 N :a W VA M MMJZ)dW. @ N d g Mff,". ~
and any successor in interest to that lessor as long as the license for the Palo Verde nuclear facility remains in effect. Accordingly, this financial J. . ;;;$ , j,y. $$,;$ transaction shall have no effect on the license for the Palo Verde nuclear facility throughout the term of the license.
-m s _. , O W %@55n.3.WN W5' , Subject to the foregoing, the Commission consents to the financial w%'M.k.W.n w MdW,Q;: 2 g transaction as set forth .m the apph. cat. ion and authorizes the D.irector of
%.d.,p;a
. .e wgbeJd. %>,
,. s .y pa .. ,s. e .6.- gs J p.; M
,r w ~,
A WR;,DW..w%
W W. the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to amend the license as de-scribed in SECY-85-367 and this Order.
.. -_ c
~ e' s , ,o
.: It is so ORDERED.
.s. .:: .. =
7+y ;
- +. m.>n..c,n,.m.
. ..:.,u;.y ; ..$",> a ,,%w,, s a..J.
y
~. ..e.rd.r a.e.
pa. a ; s w. y ,,. c.
y p...,
For the Commission 3 %*%gM M :7; M s $
JWC Ylql*iM..n/%(Q.fM.
c
..p.[% ggM!.3yW' y
- gyp @f.y9& SAMUEL L CHILK
@h NM Q*j. P.w,.M.i$. . .i s ,, #.. ( % m. v., y.. . .s.~. _ . , ..,;
Secretary of the Commission
~ .!s. y .A
-a
'. .h,i -((* kM . .
.\
Q@ s'f:h.Drgh.34a(*i m ,S (*.A[W
.v Dated at Washington, D.C.,
ag , .7 this 12th day December 1985.
3 .3
.,~, "*
[ 4,;h [ ;
.es; ? ;.3 w1 Jy.u /,l%. ,a +4..
. 7 6,'V.,'.; g..~ ,< * ' W . b ..
.. gyg g ,M-j W .
"g #9 g I" D e. , *
- C ,,
x>- i :/ s . ,L p . - ?. . . h ., , o . - -
j &h:~ $ D'I'.Qs1*E -
? lQ R f Q w..:. . Y ??QQQ.. x. z, , - , r~ .-n---.
. ~.
.pg SQlW.f.: mmr W&$M.pgy/g@$ $N '~h.w,6: :: Q W.m n .; -- , ., p- .- ..
gy@$f QY * '
w4 0 *.~. c.w .:'i s.W',i F. ,, .:.,... ~ CC WW$W,eM.w%..M
,. w p4q q.,s .w v
PADw *p. x ~
Q QQ W W.C..W$d?M.t % W.m.%.n.s
&e. w&,M M b, , M *b . C ,F,,. W.@ 6,'Q g s.-
n-,- a
. . ., f. . ,
'7,.
- . ~
, , ~. ~ -
.e.a..h,hl*+w,;W: ~Awp w 94 w. --. ,y:
. ,a.
<n .. :
W i. 1.-
a,!.W.
i
,..f.+. M,. :. C.. O. a:s~ .
,.n y,'.L.~m.
, e v. .a.. ..wn , ,
.c . .
~%):S;;5% &M-W 7:;- ~Eff f. W ^ 4.. - onGT 4,. 'y c
. ., .. W MC c ,
'T,'$,.,'M -
- " ^- .
e, . pv Jr;.1.f",:91.
w :. , r y> a,w.cl./ ;'m . f.p ;, A - 2 4. ~
- n N ..
- m. ~
Mn. a,..W y . A. . -. ,
~
.Wk, e.a. r_+
~' '
_ . .;. .. . u. ;.w. 4 m n.,;y :,A . ... ;.s.,,: , . ' . . . w . -n v..w "n s m . ,,, ~.: .y .sy,winc. - -- : ;;g y .%::;
<.g r v \w y- **3 .
s.
..r*. ~
. s .,(- . . l% ' ,
- .- g . .: --g.. ,
..c .
,.. 3
, n.,
j _
s Cite as 22 NRC 877 0985) CL1 85 18 t,* -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M., . .c , ! ' . . y- ; ,.~ . .,, .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- p. n .- .. W s . h.. 9, g . . n. W.
t ,s %..,
.+M.%n w . Ygm.Vd+e w.r e v.s.. ., e".
g:1. ~ i w.x 9: ~3. : n .' COMM1SSiONERS' w.m c.m , e sy . w &y ;:s -
,..i 3.w Q.us 1..xm.y Q.kp V.p~.-.p.y; k. ,. < w. q%gM w p .>.~ .s , 2q) 4W
@G, l.@N32.jw ,tD,,5, M 7 M 6 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
. A.t -.w:q y,4.s . ,W mm
- v. @ Thomas M. Roberts y*%:w n 1'.s.v-s, m%p#p'c.b.W~y m g ,Gheq s.f:,c.y."J.f. Qhe , A t . y.f .;&. % p.: >N;.g.<
James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal
.> M.n M. m.
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
@.m.7;y'W:
%. N g y7ga 5g.n .W~.u . .,e.U.J,%;M.-.:%...
n,.
y w - @ ->;
- t .n.+ ,q)t<;.y . b C 4 W W G 4. W: , A u,. o. ,n. . m. >; . . ,.
f*
~ g :,
T t , J. , s
. m.*W *,., ^ ' . pg ?- .d4 ,.-!.V ' % *. In the Matter of Docket No. LRP m - ~a # am
-?P '
. 'p'
. ~W. .n, / : ,g;to c - . .
~
,e 'w INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND cm :.? . a n -,. - .u-t.6.%. 4.% ,S yd . UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
- d. M .Iki: %. q #J;. M e y ; U D ; u j IG G M FALSIFICATION December 18,1985 M,. M 4 .+i +h ;iji w .. M: mM. v.; M w., M JpG p
3 g; M lm% 4 %. ,,.% m; Q .M. W.. .. . w Q p[. Q.;
b M ~fG W %%3Q,h g The Commission establishes the procedures to govern a legislative-p- x format hearing (ordered in CLI 85 2), to develop sufficient information d p @m : . % @ N P 7-M,Q., ? ]l F -
for the identification of persons involved in and the facts surrounding v.- . '
-< the reactor coolant system leak rate data falsincations at Three Mile a .:.. ..J: w m . . . Island Unit 2 prior to the March 2S,1979 accident. The Commission au-c % m . w r.,. p s. ~- .A Q Q I C M R @e, pA thorizes the appointment of a Presiding Board to rule on petitions to in-MMyyt'.M'E.nf MM@m f) tervene, to conduct prehearing procedures and the hearing, and to issue
*FJ :;;/Q[: a recommended decision. After issuance of the Presiding Board's Gnd-Jm .. .n q:':qt';%D,.OW.MM;;.t*m p. . ~ x kt.?;M.t ings, the NRC Staffis to recommend to the Commission what action, if
;; $M' .pi . ,
, e - Q. any, should be taken against individuals found to have engaged in
. R. RM Y , o
.j '*p$.m u . .%;i.- r3. . . ' 'w'I % f,w{.
, wrongdoing. The Commission will then address whether to initiate en-y , W M irs ". G .c: -
. . 4M forcement proceedings against individuals and whether employment re-straints imposed on certain individuals in the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 hM..~%.r. M[. h * .#Ncss.h kk%
u . .x h -
..,h~.p y
% + d . h. restart .
.~6fj:lK proceeding should be lifted.
ls h. (*~f *s y!
. f; .-f. . 6f '*Y w. f. .?."f. .
7 ,
.# .* j. d g . e g 4 4
; $'h>. m?,3 3' &%,"f.+r* :;' r tv %g - <
w.a v
wf .,,^,e*. .
3 t ,
y
'w s
..n., -
~ , ' -,
'& , - y
- u g77 l
e.
, * .,,J
{. . I'..
t , . ".
.d h. . * - , .
"'"'****"N'*"-
~ *}'~~-"*"'**-**'**'" .
' \l'.-) [W?' 'jl,y;.yyy,;yff
~ ' , , s <>>
*k{.'2G, %-j @'N 'i,+ily;: ; n . f., y';.Q,
. i /' ,
.4 r ,,i?.n31-6 9.v,;+..ca we7;ffjD W ?f .;;.f(in. :,:.
W '7.15 % .
wND.b'.3 1.k *' [',.?/
;. 77 's . :*...,- ' , , , ,,' ., . ,r.
.r. .
~4 s: ~
1 ', s; . ., n
.,, a .> t-
,..p,c : %m, w ;e, .; t-4.mm:. pe n%,,. qn.e:./;.,y/,.,7;. ~4',% . . , .,.
s t
.,..,. - ,~
n'na . 5,3. e. s v.. .
; s.
- y. .e.,g:t fy.3 ,hsY **.w':&.h. 5E$l.} f.,f
..n' % ; A .n,%.w; s .2,p?, .s i s ,
. .m b b. ., ?ltN
' - ,j:': Tot 'f* 7, 9 *
- n, .Y ? '[<~' :\ : '
l e '.'A: . .:7 .'e c,;;2 . g r%n v. c . :
- f '.\*N[' .~ : g,tO-
M @?W n y 2~:?;'.% 6V :.n ;
- s A if'..Nn't xgw. i . # -
G.N : - ;p. .*
- n.:.g- 9 . g:: m,4 .:wmv:1.g-; . . % . . . .:4.
M : ;. e , e .
~
w -- z -
y;W 4
'. M &v-vQ:{)w4&;w N .
-w n.
a:6 M.M t. 1 M:W:p M % %a-m.W.Gc
,. , . /..
- ;y. n. : ' :n@- yy ' '
+ .:
-m$ .w r g . ,n: N ,gg;hW O w .s u .;b y .p.:-v-s.:-v ;7 m w - - -
a
~
K..'" -
(Q NN. %,h,w N :.er.' a,,-Y-$. W M . YY'N
,..-. - q.. g, , s
-c ,- < ..q w
[ .
ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING 5.. , in an Order issued February 25,1985, CLI 85-2, 21 NRC 282, the US
- 4. 4W,';~...' J .
Commission stated that it would institute a separate hearing apart from a ~ e. .d.~ h,. .s[@,C
. e-
. g.3c<.
- v. the Three Mile Island, Unit I restart proceeding to develop the facts sur-
~N. N.gg;,;;
rounding the reactor coolant system ("RCS") leak rate data falsifications W**;$ M M ,, @# 2. N 2 v g at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI 2) prior to the March 28,1979 acci-
@3.!gMyNisd3M.FsM:E'ed$h dent, in sufficient detail o determine the ultimate status of those likely involved, which includes those segregated from TMI l and those now
$qq$Nla u.N --+ nky h.4,5.55f.[
e.a .
working at other facilitter. The Commission herein specifies the proce.
Nh.$.W#
- d. @g. e-X w.y: 44 MM .M . L: ;6 h.dM g 4 M.-
dures to govern the separate hearing, which will be a legislative format hearing des.igned solely to gather m . formation. This Order also identifies
- d%'W5MGQ$g:iWL .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 . ] y.-
, . . R, 4 , .,
#'M- mine what action, if any, will be taken.
. .: s -
M dN,;. l C 'h Y lg" ' , ',
."!:e .m+ ; '. .'.'" .. - . W. -. .
A. Background o l;J l @ . .
Harold Hartman, a control room operator at TMI 2 prior to the acci-P dent, alleged that RCS le.tk rate surveillance tests, which were used to ec MNMY? t.Q.D hM.bS.
dM .ma.w- assess whether primary system leakage surr,assed limits contained in the y
M;W"Q*yg p W[vz kQ.g w
yW/W,@A L. b 'Wh
!p.
%@a b. d f M E; facility,s techm. cal specifications, were at times purposely manipulated Q
$$Ip: QA. qy q u $4 and records of unacceptab:e results were discarded at TMI 2 prior to the Q iS MMW N {M' W @.j N7%*y,)[;p @s pij m
accident to cover up the fact that over an extended period of time the re-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 3.. u . more difficult to get " good" leak rates. Hartman further alleged that the Yhp-h'JM, .2; :.,QQ.: ,
$ MAlf $i Q%M$
M.: operators at TMI-2 sometimes manipulated the RCS leak rate test results by inputting wrong data into the computer, adding hydrogen gas to the R$ $,.*;h .g.$E@W f/ W:FMYFTS ' hfD@P;.- '
make-up tank during leak rate tests, adding water to the make up tank during a leak rate test and. not inputting the addition into a computer,
4. . n and leaking water into the make up tank while performing water transfer h 6N*N.s 2.,i dDIM w&;., T.J.$ mi/d'S$h e+
operations involving other tanks. Hartman specifically alleged that shift supervision was aware or such improper conduct. After a preliminary in-7 f.$,
$AJ::tP.w.g,y:W
- t
@o$c[.Mp'
% . .- g dbS ;r 1;dDgg ykM 3 Oa pM, t% ad
[.syWr.W vestigation into Hartman's allegations, the NRC in April of 1980 referred the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal investiga.
tion-
' d M y 9 @k,g'.M
-tifMfM6 W w,f:S. W After a Grand Jury investigation and indictment of Metropolitan lM hd$hg..: 3g Edison Company, the TMI-2 licensee at the time of the accident, the NN"D[lw f,. .p.; .m ;;n r;N >
Department of Justice begart prosecution of the crimmal charges against
- 1. ,
y- ,- Metropolitan Edison Company.
- s. g. ,
,-y.'s.
- f. f.*,y. . .
c
- , . , . . . .. :: T ,
3:. mt,t ; '
~
.p, =* gyg m
- 4
.,e .
..r...
m*; ,:ns.,g, y. .
.. , '. . . i ./ h ni . m.: - _
-_ . ..,. ,..- ..-.. n . , ,-
". W% ~. - .c . -
; O :> 'm y '. b, , / _ '
hm: Q @.~.:. N%
s f W' k.. ~/ N. _ W,- O/.% c.P..
.' ,._ W y . .,
*/' ,. , ,
s
~
h,' 5_i'.,'.".,~5 @ q.i. .qq p f,.z.L _h.A.;.",J (. e , .- y . . . .
p' C.*E,-'. . i Q ,t '. J 7,,3.r-i',.
- + . , , . .. ,
n W_ g' g e- c .%... m. phg ,- I*'- l.h. i,n/ Mrj o C 4.c,fN'?:h NT '.',
- d. : .,d.- ...>:. *
. Jf A'z f'.4. f.p .? 4 1; . . N .
,t ',*t A h*J M t @1 d 1 *M,+i,*. * .
'.I"J. M e e .y ?~ n 9 n'b e(;,
'.A'< : ' ^
%"% ,.Wy, jw ' b'* a: A-t?M Jf: ,w g% :a * .b.M6.i h Y. ; %' ' M* J.,'tsf.M!* (*M .
- r. 1. : 1 ~
., .h U 'sr.: % '*
.%wa.. QW?i';',W Q:%y:
. 'b '
, n
- p.y g,:y-y , , n, wn
.. ..e s .
+
s.. a ,
' ~ ' ' ' ~
.nn
'>.. N_f,i y f..
'f. , '?; ?'? .
's. .
w'f}
.ge ,' < 7 A . .. .
.7,7~
u m. . . .. __ .. .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-dure to demonstrate that unidentified leakage was within the allowable
~vW.Qw,w y 7;.%; ~.m%e. r n'.:a ie e..,.;.N 's wn . .
limits. he Compann. also pleaded no contest to six other counts of the
. . ww.p a
v.
g g+ h.s 4
a@.Wh'n.3p,
, M m.s. s ,. . .. w h
- c. w c~ .u#w egg .:.:.
indictment,c,t.;v.c. including those which charged the Company with improper
.ws.. m.... n:.;u w w mamputation of TMI 2 leak rate tests to generate results that would ful-
'g#g
. ..p p WmM.g;@WO. i*'.y.m? Q..:.M.m C'N em fill the Company's license requirements. In urging the Court to accept mum. .F m the plea agreement, U.S. Attorney David Queen stated that the evidence 3 developed in the Grand Jury inquiry did not indicate that any of the
- 2.. 1 'I k '. 'N .". ~ P.;;x N h 'd/ N '5: 1 '; directors and officers of GPU Nuclear from its inception in 1982 (as suc-
'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-
?.if. > 2 ' "
doned, or was aware of the acts or admissions that are the subject of the
.;M
?'
.~ . .. . - i).~'[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 M./
..~,.g.
. s @_ /
q m y .., ., _4. .~rf N. . ,h..
Pa.1984).
The Commission also asked its Office of Investigations ("OI") to
' # ~
V.C .
Mh ' .N ! ' M, ; J.f, O.4;M.j:h examine whether Michael Ross, Manager of Operations at TMI 1, had c.6r g :N 3 1' . y ; W 1,? & q . participated in, directed or condoned leak rate falsifications at TMI-2.
?h '
Prior to the accident Ross was licensed at both TMI-l and TMI-2. 01 in-
$; terviewed Ross and many others under oath regarding Ross' involve-1 ment at Unit 2, reviewed pertinent records and concluded that Ross' 3D : '. y .,
& 'L , role at TMI-2 was minimal, that during the period falsifications took
;1'C/$L. C l- [M' N . 7 .J.y ncf place he was present at TMI 2 only the minimum time necessary to
$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... .
'I- .I * ; V .
3 fi -. I .
.' N ? " ! , :, W .T ~
iM't M(.o R , j l . 'MW %>fil b j .M
. h, p>bI,, u.'.hM hM..~
T 7.,, c4 .. p ,,, . .
y
.e.
2' , ,* .oy u~., c /,;
c * . .. ., e...+ - 1 n ,;,,f. n.'., w(.s.. - '. %e}y.
4.,
, .e: % - . a i'y} .., .- j . _ . M . D ,e
.:.% / t. , i The individuals thereby cleared by the U.s. Attorney are witham O. Kuhns. Herman M. Dieckamp.
Robert C. Arnold James s. Bartman, shepard Bartnofr. Fredenck D. Hafer. Richard Heward. Henry D.
~
' 1W.fE'" ~. sy. < '
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 i
879 I
**9 g
,S'~*'..
.4 'r , ,, ' i
% ,:. : k 7,-l . , ' s ' , . W 9; ',
...-q. .
;.?:f.hC
', ? % ;n T. .s ,~
i *% .;. * ,
.. .a ; . . .t. v ~,q" ,
, .Ry J .k .* * ' ' . , . < . ;-p;f*p,*ry'Q.,*,. , W ;.'. ' ,. 'eD *' * . '
f
- Ej ' ~ ~
N, y.v,.y. V ?.*f .! "
*. . . [ .* )
. . ,f ,p<,",., .. . ,~
- i
- w. ?. .:.f.m, .' . , m,ym... ., ' . . ,n ; - . ,
..* +' y . a ,.e: . . g; y r.;
p c vs- .
, ,. :. . w .y *h ,
ym .p w .~ . vw'- innL.
e m .~w. . ;;; .a .m,w:.. - ,
4.xd. .. w
"- % m.
- m. r g. .
iA3.Wg~%o. c -. W y'
~- Q ;.w;&:Me
/ . MPe H : Wu ; , . v . 1. ,^ ' d . '
v Rd.x @M :%: wc ww *
-wn W M;< T ?>: x- *
-< v '
e~r ym.cs%:v.r.~-mNBQ^M:p3hk%&w.. . m..q,:7MWWY
+
NQ 9p M Q:JM.M. ;' % ;a -
c M g $p.m @i , k M W T 9 !$ -dl M .', b t '.
W M eW.
c i ;. ' ' . :' ,
.w Qv. % t #iyWA r e.M FN
-- ?@@ w$h @o;-'L'N'. $' N'".h.'
* - - j' - "
m m
, n.. .. r,;;.: M . % ,..:. -n n .: w w. %.4.. v .. % .
.cy -
; c.,.m.4. .. n:, ; . o,; mpe se i w .p. l,~3av;*.
> y y,; ' L~
,. t;
%y,a.y;y g m m.g g. M
- w.v'c y:.y
- a. . >.
B. Purpose and Scope of Hearing s >- .
- 1. The purpose of this hearing is to develop the facts surrounding the leak rate falsincations that occurred at TMI 2 from February 2,1978 1b : ~ ' 1<
. . .q.
1' a. . .. . (the date 'IMI-2 received its operating license) until March 28,1979, in h7 .. .M.". M .-
M MM M . N4Dg N M S M l,7 sufficient detail to determine the involvement of any individual who w M.,%
a may now work, or in the future work, at a nuclear facility licensed by w%,.WM.:.@.n;W.g
.Y m.
.6MMT wk .M.p-: the Comm.ission.
]b;-k~ M sM N Q [y p . ekU8N3 a gyi 2. The specific issues which the Presiding Board is to address are v u S s d n( m .. s h d m limited to the following:
ME'I@.5M$D (a) How were the Technical Specification 3.4.6.2 requirements for TdWW$dSif hNN M ElW%in M
A t s w A Q ' M@ % y ? D. e$ d M#:9.a%w(Vhl$
d.MM dMfC h
reactor coolant system unidentified leakage interpreted and im-plemented by control room operators (CROs), shift foremen, 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 7,w by management personnel? Was the corrective action taken
.. y 7 9 . < Wx . 3
. - *..% ~
sufficient to ensure compliance with the Technical Specification
~
3.4.6.2 by the personnel performing and reviewing the leak pm.. mA,W , w- .,w
. . , .. rate surveillance tests?
WWSEON, M
F
, . .NT. . S.g['valvc< _. .bg @po@d (b) What difficulties, if any, were operators experiencing when yig h w conducting leak rate surveillance tests required by Technical Specification 4.4.6.2.d? Who knew about these difficultics?
N,v$.y 3 .W %w@M'M m .s h M Mvs. 'W W M. M ,@40 a What corrective actions were taken? Did operators feel pres.
y .
sure to obtam leak rate surveillance test results wh.ic h did not
.. .mw; m f yd Q y'f Q q qwr Q@ ' L'l, W, p, p" exceed technical specification limits? If so, what type of pres-
'~
sure was perceived or exerted and who was responsible?
t> . (c) Were unacceptable leak rate surveillance test results required L
N Rc jM@yyp
%.c.m@a:.#mg.f,jy..f, w-h.-
by Technical Specifiestion 4.4.6.2.d discarded? If so, who knew
/GMds; M /Apgyp. of, condoned or directed this practice? Were unacceptable leak M M YiIf[Q. % g j>Up g g%
W W2 W r % 3:p rW A "'
i rate surveillance test results discarded in an attempt to hide them from the NRC?
&y. .m,M. .%.
,n9 , .h:.h, M y.);,
9.n, M . jr (d) Did operators manipulate data or take other actions during i
- !!M..T.n. . . ..4qW ee W~.,TcG M M ..: u,.N.,
l;4....M. ..
leak rate surveillance testing in an attempt to improperly in-fluence test results? Who performed, condoned, directed or 4 w %
WgdNN5dMF,M,9 h hSMb,g. 6iM ' ;fN was knowledgeable of data manipulation or other improper ac-
- W tions during leak rate surveillance testing? This would include, h . @% % - N ,9' K T i M D but is not limited to the following:
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 Y h; ;.f~.M t gp.r 7.)5h?
p.W 1
.y;.-v.w%m@, - t ..I@iM
_ m . >>..
h 2e . c.-: . c.9 M A h h h @e t h [.f h-in an attempt to influence make up tank levelIndication; i .o
. , s
. *. d
- U gf. *~::
%- Q ' , s. ;, ., -g;. ::cU;- *S. ,'.:'. ggQ v ,
. e t. . . ll
-^ . . _ ;
, ,, f, ., . . . . t ,
1
- f. . . w : . .
-.. . . . ghvy ..J. .
, x p.m .5.ev ."z a,.m,..v.h f %$* [.' ~
*'9, r -- y -- -~~r- n m- m
... ; -- --- v.g
,, T--*=
. f. . p ,a . - .,0 .c + s
" 1
,= :,cf; h% b. .J ~.
f . .,
.m. .
- c. " '
D'
+,
- . ,'. m
., d*J
.e , ?*my?'w% L - 7 f'.nd.c.w%' V,Y^,1 i ! C..... '*g..
> Q ' ..
- . , , a .s*.&
- : ' ' .,:4 L .yT w' b ww.W h &n?.A{Alp*Y.~v :,
> to */ :
f* #w . j%Q .y.N V.A.,f Q*..a. %;) 4 -
'".p;.*;'/:n , @ h : ? *
',".Y','.-
r
<e. .. - .
,'- , e *
.* ,* *f wh, c. /. H r :,i r - >.
2 - -
0;s.n!W:nW.n u W W ,M M @m.y.g.k.x, 3 h . m :+mggf.q,nw;t. -
' m, .., .:. ;.w, - - ~ -
..<: 1 ~ ; a w,4.'i
* ! . :. . ,. . . }' ' -
ov%ru : ~ ^- -
- m
&l,&s;;.% n.: a Q_e* . - '. .
L%, , ..;.ns. w.p.: w&- -
.~Qi'.M... .w n % , ~. ,
.c
-.a -tm n .+3:.y.&,.
n4..e.n,g". .'.p .
1..:' . ;e ,
pr 2 ;,yw , .. a. s ; <
W., -
~
.a
.~.- .
m m, v .. ; ' .,ww.
. 4
%. . +...
- p. .y .
= ,
+"
{f / . : . , , . . - , . ,e.__- _ 1
_ 4 . e . n ..
u..x ;
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
(([M S .- . , f :- e instrumentation (e.g., make-up tank level indicators) in W.R.m.Wil i
t .m < m W[,GIM~ Z..;i.7. e .a. m e! . an attempt to influence parameters critical to the leak
.c ; -
W. e@ e, rate surveillance test calculation; v h N ;lfQ;w.2...
W:;.ggy;$. , ,CM c2Qqb n .e. sM@ w .
(O taking or failing to take any action in violation of technical H.- m' y...w.spsfM N e.mv Q specification requiren.ents?
WNMEN ! (e) The Commission has accepted the findings of the U.S. Attor-
"M @;i 4 0' O' M :h WAY dW M' @ % ney %;M that the twenty four individuals mentioned in note 1, 1E!.pQ.W&dm .W supra, were not involved in the leak rate falsifications. It has p$k h,2$.3.y#
4-7i. p . .
" c$m1.sg: m.m@@~ .
i m.s 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 these individuals are outside of the scope of the hearing.2
~
. ,!eX '
"j,. , %
Therefore, tlie Presiding Board shall not address any issue y,' , '
y@; , . ,, ., regarding any alleged knowledge or involvement of these indi-
, ;'J Q : e ,
viduals in the falsifications that occurred at the TMI-2 reactor
_ -. from February 2,1978, until March 28,1979.
.4 1... cr . ..:.b ._ ~..n (f) The Presiding Board is not to entertain issues other than those set forth in (a)-(d) above without the prior authorization of
- e. .s , ,,-. q.
. yjna4, , ..,
.. . p_q. . r. - 7,, . ,m . , 4. :.W., ., y,. . , .
, 7. . . . -
the Commission.
*: .*'s y.*
- y "% ( < N r. '{ '
d .,' '. ~ f ,. r }f .,1 .. ., $, t- as 5..g(
.c .,- M*y. .'2 <fa g m,\ t N .77 ,q; r C. Procedures
% y ,g 9.? w ;' .+ .
A , 7
..- l. The Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing 3
;; 4
/
~
Board Panel, is to appoint a three-person Presiding Board to rule on peti-7 .
tions to intervene, to conduct any prehearing procedures and the hear-f;y.k-@t W. rm %, .s., e n.IVl'a ing, and to render a recommended decision setting forth the facts sur-
- M,: M.,' * - , 'b g .ed, 3. .,, . . ..A ? rounding the falsifications and identifying those individuals who partici-j#>.5.9 M $ Cy @ pated in, or knew of and condoned, or by their dereliction or culpable 7, .
.e #
.ag neglect allowed the leak rate falsifications at TMI-2.
, 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 g.!djk.Iy ,h@f.it4fh'u[ hM l proceeding, and how the party expects to contribute to the development of an adequate record. Petitions are to be filed within 45 days of the date
/."
d.'h'Y N h;& C). l~l
- r u ; # .+.
D ,,,M-h ,
' , N ~%
hd.k$ &.9 f. w w gq, tc. , , - p 17.,.i.
M. .*ygi.
- i ~ +; ',
e *, ,%,,,, - 2If the Pregsdsng Board beheves that any or these indmduals have pertinent information to provide on
, _ *- . (. 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.
d .
t 881 a,, . : v. .,.m.
,.4 ;- c s ; . , ,_ ,
_m...- _ _ - . . _ . . . , _ _ .
. e - * . ~ > '. * *
; .j , ( . , . ], , ls, . [ ,
,# q u.* ;;e. c, . - y. m
- m s t * .,.m, , ,, , ..,
- c .Q s
' ' ~
s,k -
. - . , 's' " , ' ',,.-e M.L < yW,r. e nu u,c: : w,Q, *. M n. i. .n,
- n. .'_ . .
c ...;
-:c ,,
+- g
,r * ,m.4
,g - > m. ,_
.pi 4+- , , ,
e 3 J6e s ,
- n' t,m p 3 ,
A. .
- c. ,
- w .'. o. '.-. - ..e
-:+.4
.Dt, s -
r
*.:n h +. t , . .mm .z. , . ... m Le; - .m c. x . + ,
n.... ' v i s ': .s h m a ,
- w * .. , , .:, . . . .p. . ,,. - .
R Q. 'M ; ,
M.mx,M:.3W w z V +.k:2:1 LWy:S.MQ 7: ..o6p rFpllU.39:~
a,e.m. c :.w. .a yg; w=v.; a s. yyWM W.. a A ,q ..s 4c . . -
u gqs ;~~; -
- w. -. -: :::: v.c ;', . .- -
.?
- ~ - =----~-a
. m.W..'>p ::.y;,yly < h.; R:..:n : n. .: .
p .z::G'.: . .k ;x. zA n W. p. .
1.;.N vV *w x i sM.
37 .se wL.T. w ;'.;.,. r.3 <.,
' ~
. .. .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-
- 3. '
equate record.
gs . m. . ,1 m -
- 3. The hearing will be held in the Washington, D.C. area, although J
G g( ' . Q pM.; ' f.S the Presiding Board may hold portions of the hearing in other places con-
'i'q.'%w.T . hi 2dM24 y.y+W'.W?.'4.'s v.., p .n. sistent with the convenience of the parties or their representatives and 9 y... w . g: . v
.~ .
. . e a the publ.ic. mterest.
ao.4.
Mm c q.ne .. w@~v.g. c. w w.v,..y. W M.c ~ n e;.,.U~@. 4m.4.~ The NRC StafT will not participate as a party. Instead, it will make 3M 6pM.%%3:w.w p.d C,q . .
available to the parties and to the Presiding Board, relevant documentary 4.
E.3"' h 7.E,.v%a,4.g - material within its possession as soon as practicable after issuance of this Og.. %;WW:y%.o Order and Notice of Hearing. Disclosure of material is to be consistent ewAgg f*dh.MidN91Ldf;6
.M; M' M'.$dM,QQG $
with the Commission's Statement of Policy, " Investigations, Inspec-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' '
, is fully developed. All orders, petitions, submissions to the Presiding a
~
f." '/4
-~
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
'xlM.o,,g.
L p# -.:l; z.. Notice of Hearing, the Presiding Board shall have the powers speciGed
., . g .gn -. g-ya 4. o,..9 gb. ,,'a W d.dE 6 Q@2;dM,D O .p gm in 10 C.F.R. ff 2.718(a), (e), (0, (h), (i), (j) and (k). The hearing will W:M:tW'M be conducted using a legislative hearing format, as specined below.
h; P W 7 $ T*: (a) Only relevant, material, and reliable oral and documentary evi-A,q.hMh@p}.MLMM*
m .eg -.-c1 yJT-y . , , ,. . . % , < m. e. ~ '
'4T, M :
dence which is not repetitious should be admitted into evi-1 dence. Only the Presiding Board will be able to call witnesses M '
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
'At ,+ ..a . , , ~ .
V9: nism.
W y M+.-T.m,p%l J1% :V .% %i!M:.8 (c) The Pres.i ding Board may issue subpoenas if necessary to
- i. % -?. .
[ M M@C : " Z % iW@7.; '~
' compel attendance of witnesses. The Presiding Board will N.';J' c ,
' 'I-v make available to the parties lists of the individuals that it in-
'.,z.', .- tends to call as witnesses. Parties will be invited by the Presid-d(m2 . ,. ' hXM, A . s . o +. . i.e /
.. ing Board to submit recommendations regarding whether addi-p Q. p:.M.$.L,J,". t . r%, i-t:g G i % tionalindividuals should be called to testify.
. ..y;hhh lNk;.W hh3 %a &pa.i.N e W (d) Before each witness testines, the Presiding Board will invite the parties to submit questions in writing to the Presiding
!'g -e.%.y- di n.m W.
.Qm MW X.m.9 Board which they believe should be posed to the witness. The
.idMY'G.^ $[.%MC,
$.C Presiding Board has the discretion to use the questions suggest-ed by the parties.
.d'8 J r. x. .,;.,m-
\+.W--plv:h-M.s:M. ..c
't s
sy - , . , .
es .g.
'%, . W *.e ',
,,. . .e gy- y"l34- ,i . ,
882 l 9 f
s
! ;/. . ,
I og-3. .,.3. 7,.q
~
p.
7,...
s .- <
r .: c
. t,; ' hj;' g'*~ s , * *'
.' .'.',s*.
- 4.h / .,(-[., ' . , , ,,[..*' { <? ! '
I ; y , .%; : .. ' g.: J,?i *7, ' . * *
, a - , .'
~- -
~. ,
- a. ,x . n . , . a .v [. . s.- . . . .>
y.. .e MM m: , -y
~
...:p. i
.o . . . ,.W ' m.,,z;. M..,:'.
yyp:3pp;g % w%w: W. ~ . . ; '>
. 4 w , 3 - .o .
. a.- -
- v. .:
v.Y;m..e t,, s.::::M.:n ;.'a KAfu
.u s.y!;wlWd.
*1/ik
,$k u.i ,
. s DhhW.'-M. W.s,. ,Mi.. .'.
- T r-m, W,t.? i ' :" /. 3,; 1 . ,
4
%M. v.
.~ m . ,. -- - - -
4 .. . 1 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 O. f.!.N.-Dlg.4 1 sets forth its findings on who participated in, had knowledge of
- 6. %c "
and condoned, or by their dereliction or culpable neglect al-M.o
%-m , a.".t. m c :,am,- n.c.@C.u.,
- w. lowed the leak rate falsifications, and the facts surrounding any W h y .p.;g
- 1
. % ,.y.c nM; %ep@MDNM [,jD. -r.~ 4 @fjfL' W y @W [ t such involvement in sufficient detail to determine the involve-ment of any individual who may now work, or in the future E . .QME work, at a nuclear facility. The Board's decision shall address
@pf at. n , v y-y,.
S .-NMN;}.W.Yp,M:,n,y*v, mM . N.a x b W'O each of the issues set out in Part B of this Order. The Presiding Board is not to make recommendations regarding whether any
- 21,m .~ e . r.; y,. ,.p, e,,we. . v.4y. w actions should be taken.
g' .p d ':p )e%W,'op.rp@M.:.,' ZWOvuK. ya,e.4 (g) The Presiding Board's recommended decision will not be sub-
, m . j fc ...;s 2 ject to review by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
< 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 hearing record, the Presiding Board is to request authorization
.-~, <o . O, . .
,> ,_ i .~M.'
,c , ;
..,..q- , .:4. w- ,n from the Commission to use more formal procedures. The
. 2 .. . p.h./.m Presiding Board in its request to the Commission is to specify c . . .e,, . . J. ..w%<
.s
.;y rca,
.y'rf ,.? in detail those issues which cannot be fully developed under
>- . -.# the procedures in the Order and Nctice of IIcaring, what proce-U .
i dures it desires to use, and how use of those additional proce-I dures will result in the development cf the needed information.
On the basis of the Presiding Board's recommended decision
.DNhNN$
@k3.NM.i1.I y!N,p#,,A ' ,n..,if,Mf.tt ;.%mS and taking into account any other information which it believes is appropriate for Commission consideration, the NRC Staff
$ J
%A j5 M, J e
shall make recommendatior s to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be taken. The NRC Staff is to pro-vide its recommendations to the Commission within 60 days M- . , b.. ; . f .,
after issuance of the Presiding Board's decision. Those recom-R.:" . . ; i;A Y- . .. ; gJ >
M M. s M:2. . . A . .. .,.C mendations are to include whether the Commissic i should
, s MMYthf.0'@42 .N remove the condition imposed in the TMI l restart proceeding N4D)$',I.'MM,%,@,@J Y4 d. MF barring certain individuals from certain positions at TMI-1.
' % g.; $ ,1 d ^ ? M y . After reviewing the Board's recommended decision and the W
c'
- 7, ,
j ., t. g,M.. NRC Staf!'s recommendations, the Commission will decide
., 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 6.- 'A
- , , 4
' ' P #7 * "" f"*
~'*&
.- - - - . . . t - , , ,
? ^ ', _ Q ." , ' '
6 ) *( .:* :
, ' .;c'. : . ; ,' . :: % [ - )., *, . r
. P....y.g .-&. .1 . .hy ( :;:g ', I i
- i ,-
n .. ; :, - v ? >
4
- , ., , u
.vq, . . :;, .c:
- 9, . . ,' -~ ,
_;. - v r .;,
.3,w_.;; # _. h...; e q9 ,,q % ,i . ' . , , .,
v 7.i cv g cp g e. . p.,y . ;s . .y, ; .4 -
,y& y ..,.
.. ;. A "Fi. ** Kg Y '
' J ', '
l , T; . .
.a ) , ,
. ,. ~. . ,. w . .. - . .. , n .. w . n . .. - .- .
. . , .. ..:M.w
,..gn.,.; ,. om. . w -
.. y w,;.-4,, . s-u.
. ~ r,. .
.w me .,;,;., v . ,
' " ' l
;'t.p r.v. 9t r.tv.q" m: .4
- n.
W T!% ,.?.,N.f..L . %- N 9 .% %'.;: 3lA TG.. w "? % ' '
. ,[p. .::W.
. sg . % .c , w. m.. }n . n m,.dlf. . .m ,%,,3. . . s ,
. ~ .s . - -*
. 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,'. v. - y; -, ..4J. - ,, ; - - , ,. ., :e.
d,, 's *1e .; 4n *
.p; ~ . '- * .'-h'y.
- .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
~g . . :n . ,; , s
, . , takes any licensing action, the facts found by the Presiding kGi.fJ ,. { .M. E k6 '.lLt 7. .
Board and Commission in the hearing ordered here will not be
.<W w,cw . . .
,euj m
,,.W.. p. ..
W,..u w..
. , . e . . .4. ~
b.mdm.g in the subsequent enforcement or licensing proceeding.
. . . ,.,n.
x...,.,. .,
e-.n It is so ORDERED.
c m m. .m.. g.a. e y,, ,_.n. v.m
. . p . s . .. s 9.e- .: W Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal disapproved this Order and W.>ve m. 4.g.-y-r.
.p'?,%
p_ . c % j!,; 8, .nm .e .M s m. m-~ ,*g.*;h.h. . .k. ...; provided separate views.
M ;2 M e".8. W.. m pe.- .M",'JfMjo*f^
@ g ;& n;- .:;rlM!.". s For the Commission *
> t:.a.
, .%; - bd@? , .m ;DM.,$ Q: ,!3 ;
m m.
y n, m s: .f, ,J+w g W p*- % ,*.-,%
n .x 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.a- p,m.~,.n; w;: W, , L -..n an.n -m.:r;w n
...> , n n e.w s.
A., u. .e , w. . .
. . . - .; p.. , . , n. . <s. . .. a d. v w n> es w..m v.. c, :e
.a43 M;gm. h.t V;!"*9 m .n@wp @% SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
.%. . _;v.> , ,. ....:7 a. .,;; . g> oa. m, p w%a:.n'.w.c . ,. .
o..S...,.s . .;ev.i ,
. p; .p j;.g,ng6 i 4 .. <
,x ow; g ac. I cannot agree with the hearing procedures established by the Com-
~
ie '+' -
mission in this order.
First, the Commission should simply hold an adjudicatory hearing on
, this issue rather than setting up some sort of ersatz legislative proceed-
.YYi, $,Ma 3I ing. Since the Commission will not do that, however, they should at
, b~i,K4.,);GW.hbb4NM@, qJW ,ileast have modified some of the more unreasonable provisions. At a 4 %O.,. y ' ,n,%s 4y',y4,.~d.L
+ q.: 4 - .,t.
p .pm minimum any party to the TMI l Restart proceeding who wishes to par-7;;,s .e 1; N.W "h. ,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.yMgo , 'f
. s the Washington, D.C. area seems to needlessly make participation in N& . ~^9 sa this proceeding more difficult than it should be.
b:
. ~qt%; d%.M+%l.j u x, d.v7,[u ;.?f;. 6D, F s ..b-r s .r. .a drip J. .W h yWga g.1 )ue -W:1- 3 b,c.y. g
. .g .s ,g - h!
s$ . 3 Because the leak rate falsification events to be addressed in this Board heanns are more than 3 years
% 2 ,*Jy% el -
f ?'***?y
- i. d. 4
+* '.T J%".h$
p,y..,,Y T.k*Y% (ld ',T/
old, the $-year statute orlimitations set forth in 28 U.s C. ( 2462 may bar the NRC from subsequently instituting an enforcement pro 6eeding for involvement en the events that are the subsect of this hearms.
, 4 J.; j ,* T. t . ",
- Q ' '
Yi However, the information developed in the heanns may be used for other purposes, for esample, en
'N
- C'" ~-f R , T,[. f'j]f **gg. Q.e.. .. y' W '; *h, .7y ,kff.%.f S 'f evaluating whether an mdividual's operator license should be renewed.
4 Commissioner Bernthal was absent when this order was affirmed. He had previously disapproved the
. m , , A.' Order and haJ he been present he would have affirmed his pnor vote.
- , ' l .
+ '
y, . . ,. ., 7. . . . J 3, -
' ;.6:' .m- 3
., :; , gg4
. y r .
* . . e
^ ',
- t',
i e
.. . X..
.* /,. ;,9, .4 e A. , .- -
--***---*=~===.ww--
6f ;" %. e N .. f.it ; .e
../. ~ Ji */ - . , ..d *
@2 7 ,, ' .' ,,,.. .- j'f ;., ', .,
a;.y
;t . a t *
~.
t
, ,k-[, [j ,4* ; f[
, '*r.
8, * . ' ., 2" f e J #
"i ', *e. 6
. ' j"
- g. .,
M
/.' M ,,'I ;'[Y'^ M.k ' f
. *I.
- d ' * }* N ,' s. .M
, ,%: .l J+: . .K. ,. y' x. s ; , V. s. i % } 's
- s. : en .
y n.
4,i y:M h 56 s D M @ N sN N M h S d b 5 N ' M .I$ N ". O N [ $ .? M M' M Ns ..'h'EC NY . . u .m4 M n@ s w u m u ,rM :. u n n . v
% u yy.m.l5 m - .,w . y\
wW. L V..% w
- x. .f.e.m;.d..,.';n.
.w w- *? by- 7: , y j r.
n .a. -y y y . ,.r;e; . #. p.wu W :,g.m,,g...%.vi . v~,.._1y..,t.,. ,4. % a.;,
. c,
~7 7 9'm@##' ~ .c > #. . s ,a 9 m .
, , , r .c . v.s L..y U~L'2y\:yd's. .Q'ibth n -g M%.
ii m.;W;.%. 4.7 . x.,;d%.e ., ....w3 Vt ,.&
,: ~~;.
M*",' .<i, .
; n .i.; v XA e m w .&c
.b:
a r_ A m u n. .
- n. ~.u w.... .nm .. - .
'<<m,.
4 .
.k;i.fi,':.s. r#,. w#. Md\ as;:w Q:y W .U .- u v &. .Sx:.a :,_; ' -
n - s. :
w.w *- w .m,~.,
u.k ? .g. .-- .. ~.
d.,.,,
.,M
- +eR. . . . /.syp.ew:;
c;,.G, ,.d. .m:.W. '
. w- -
, ' ' .' q. u ':, .
.v 3r . , : . .a ,w- ..
- 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 s.
v:,
be limited in my dissenting views on CLI-85-2 so I will not repeat them here. Suffice it to say that in my view relying solely on the statement of h,yI k, /.M'!;wp *hk.~,.VU6M;S,g t.: & g e s the U.S. Attorney at a court hearing on a bargamed plea agreement is T M, N. . .tT p.,j not a valid justification for ignoring management responsibility for the hhw' @W.if9h,%.v.m%',k 4
M }f 7( h,.d- b w ,5 -
leak rate falsifications.
wte eA p% n:,x h W:?~k-am (Ni&g:h )5h ? SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL
*hdM$@&h[hW..fdV.4
&,W
%..~W. 5g&< c 3c w .co.<.:m A. w.a.. & .,e.s.a
. gyp c ,, . I dissented from the path the majority chose in respect to the number
~ky>wwy4tt>.iv, L y .w-l,4 .
. g%. . ?vg,w W~ , rM 4 7,Q and scope of additional hearings in relation to the Commission,s restart
$w P ~ .3; C C.. T. . of TMI-l. I continue to believe that the overriding consideration in the 1
' 4, E. " '~
- S.i:V.s.M.c m;K.y.c ;;.
Wpq -ggggg ;
- , .p s,,.e, W sc denouement of the TMI.I restart proceeding is public confidence - the need for the publ.c to be provided, to the extent reasonably possible,
$@2 T @d~d f; '@m....-.
. ~ - n.y.
~ '
with all the facts relevant to the TMI accideat and its aftermath.
3.+, ' ~
l consider this hearing as ordered by the Commission unlikely to m
94.+:.b.W . - +~p &, ~.,w, $; N;j pw :x? , s.g ., T,. .
prove adequate for that important purpose.
p.w. w.. n %, n.. a~ 2,, w% . e4;u,a
. . h h /-(-w T v#
,h%';'q.44.,;. . 4 w = .g*
.m. <; 9 "./a
, ;. f ;
sh'4 1.,
~
g
.nv..e nm. 4 ..*l:f* v, .w: ~m, a$. 4.;f!..' k; ~h,:e.w iM. . %,.,v n-w- . +.4. .. .
mm$,&5$. r .n.,s . . ,. . h. ..
f.n.- v. wn M,mt2
..y... ,,. y <: n .?mg/ .. t ,.,
.q:. :n Mc;;w.a h,m. :
,y
- e. U-Q , . y) ' . . c. .p ,
. f W v; ; h n . ! '., f , y w ;; ,Q : D t.Q Y 'i c m +iw }a, w;. a4<f .fi'
*.y ..:M
- ~ &.,,,, M. .
4 ,.
O. r s,=.w sQ;nf * +..t., ..< r-&, . ys ,
' i,
&.,..%.3, ;.-Q.$w.far&y M.o,; y . # ; &hl% . :,v. $ ,gf.'Q1b'.;.E nv-z &,- p:, e.
. x c. s ., .
f',s MQ ,..,
~ - :4.. . , ", .M. . . . 's. .M s
.. %. N4. Wyc - v .M.s.vn@.
W ye & r M:y.;**a " W n.yj:QQ.Q th H D r p,
'y] , k,A T % W w.n
- . . s.: .w .
v.w .
. . V n w w. Q ..--
.Q Q ~i W,~m 2.?p%.,yh;.,y
;a. ;rv
. .,.n.s p. ::.y
.,Q.;.m s
n .-; v :-
i, ...'.
,l 9)q&J.V;W .';%m
. e', ..i %;;,;
b a*.Q
!.:: v . m:%.s,L e.,; n. q...,,y.,q.
;,. . .a., . .
<..g ,. ,
- m. i . .' -
,'.'.b.. J
_.o.g .- -
. gg5 3
v e , e .f. 'e*
~
..i, ; ,.
'B. l *$ f5 ) p
?f* ;. . i m,
- vg e. n# u mm.xe'v.- a;p w a w' kMey;n.d.agt9;m:m,
- p. ma. g.. m._o.2wy. :. qm :xy w.g. m n :.p_ ymM.&_. s,4M.spygA.
cMy.
ppm Y a 2 wD_
. 7 sk_d.w : w pi n 9.m., s J__ _Q
_m_.a_- a --A m2
v
- y. ..n . v.x&; ; : &+ n. .F , ,.-
. . a,. vs
. ,.O 4%c, . ~~ :,: ' . n 9.[,):f;t.; ~ .,. e I;l:~}f.;U.V'd.e:.- . - .
+: ' >
.y fc4,.i.,<.,
.dcQ
< s o q;,
- s. m ., f~ M 3 T'T 5 w@ M O..<;..cc,e<q s.g.<
g ...n
-y s.rm a;. Q.,8. M W ..@,.'St,"
V 8, .
- - . N- .
..i .~~ sJ ',N % .ib
- 1. c u.. , - ,
-*" r *. ;, e . t. .g., g ',,:,-
s . s * - , : p; " ; S -
- u:e: : ~ y_*+e < . . mp,, ,
o, av.
%. .,k.~7A.7.,.< . . , .. . .
w.t. , - y - ~ - ' , ,* ,
Z-V
----------a"J--~~.
,f. .w R.,s >.p..- e .. '.. ..-.. .,'*'.mp: f% ' ' - + - - -
w .,v m, .,
.ws....<.y.n 4.mp . c. . m.m+ , .Q;: w, mr r. - -
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
- Yyp-y
.a q . 4. pc,%n .,. ~,yw.;M. n .yr &,
U COMMIS810NERS:
7;$w,.MM9 ke a,.9 - >< v . , g - . y . . .a.s.
w *6'4DM. ,a. .zM.&. c .rh 1 n.~~,. s g ;
} h I2}j; k. l- Nunalo J. Palladino, Chairman
-w..
m ?.. A k o e : . P,%. Thomas M. Roberts W'g%I.M,.m.. .M . . - James K. Asselstine E.M:.IM.d.;
w .
m M~...@n,,,yy/,e M n.D!.i,h.M.+. M. M. . oM.s$GliMb...k(N}q $.
- t M:.nM, W~
.- Prederick M. Bemthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
yL p Q.@: M . % 5 m W .s g i & :$ t s .
( 3 ,-.
- 1. < in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-289 RA
.7'1- g 'WN, " M', . . ,' , '
~' '
50 289 EW (Special Proceeding)
W,t -,&up, g.,: " .;.:e9)4, ,r. '-y,..n. . '.,.A. +(.a. .:
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES t'..Ws ~e,' , t+.L. Wg... t oi W ,e.q.u u. g:g. <. 2,iv;s,gd.;/.y '*
- u. M.:.d..! .
NUCLEAR CORPORATION a 4;+. p (Three Mlle Island Nuclear jQ.p.gr.a.e s.;gM...ea.v;a.vq:a o 4 .Unit station, 9 1)M M dy 'fj- g g v.gf.NDecember 19,1985
,ae.t. . w.M.,,e~.e y.'.n.wh%s
..w< c -
k: s,,-ew-m.; we'<
tm i
M ip'h . wLt. + v . y
'i
- s. %,. .
y, f 7j , ..' '
The Commission establishes procedures for determining whether to
'. lift a condition imposed in the TMI-I restart proceeding on GPU Nuclear gs g 4 2 M. wW
. %%g.,. wc... q W.,5 ',- Corporation. The condition requires GPU Nuclear to notify the Commis-
, .:e.g -tv,m...,gwa..
.,2w.
g 1 :W.c.y r. ; . . sion before assigning Robert Arnold or Edurd Wallace to certain posi-wg '. .
W C,'e.7%... Mu.e vm a, W, 3 . .m. , th W." M tions. The Commission solicits views from the public and the NRC Staff
!q .
1 regarding whether Messrs. Arnold or Wallace willfully, knowingly, or
, . ,g0. cy ..q; .'.pg.,c-9;,. : with a reckless disregard for the truth made a material false statement to
- 0. 2, . ' . ..
d '..a #. '44.
J.6..-
_' N .% , the NRC. If the Commission determines that there is a reasonable basis
$$;%Nk;N.'. g.' ! ., for answering that question affirmatively, the Commission will consider b[?$thi@
f fd. mmh.M.N?i+.UH.,.
$f.%
initiating an adjudicatory hearing to resolve whether to retain the notifi.
cation requirement. If the Commission reaches a contrary determination,
?.4ihj.$, T k:r;N 7:#v4.. .n,;..fh.\:4-; ~
3M h%w[M'#$$'2V - N,.
the Commission intends to lift the notification requirement.
m.{ ,,~. +%J N. . .A. . . ..n.,h
,. . u,; . .,, v.m o
, ., f.,p .
O . [
e *3. v . .* . . .
/., w . np~ n,-.+..g; = ., . . ,re ,: s'w.
.,..,a (f. . g *, r ,
g p 4 p I . .
g
&S- 0 T.".'.l-lg 6;$,
, r .; .,
[
886
* .., . L. o S
M #
, Q ,( . . . .
e
*g .
< ,t,.
<.....,']
' , ' ]
I
..t D. b , .* 4he ,.
- ,.;. * ':.y,,.5 r
i .
. - . - + . - - - - , - . - - ~ .~c-~ r *
,i*,,,,,,.*
p/ / 9
,# .*y E
.'.[*f f '. *
- 4
* , 4,
~
*,. . ,} I Jf g f '.
*I 3. $ '
3 '*
'g. ,
.b. '.[- a ;
'1 7.b'q ..h , * * . [ i;77 . .*y. ]N W;..Wa. - t , (', < Nc ',/,. ;, [ d ' ' , '. .'
4
,,'),
y . ' [ , .' .,' ' , *;W.b b k.' N .E $
e '
N-. ..,..#'.>g c.; Wc ;.. .. < >l - m. - - ,
p- - ..'f-l' .. .. . . , i 1 . . -.< u. : ,
~f %. . ..o. c 4. .', ..t.- -
. , k ,, ' *$'. 'l'
* , * r. . .
- U Y', {' ,' lt ', '
% wu w.
mW - -
n .
'? ' d * -
.?.
. m . Q:y;. r < l. n?).
~
- s . s >.~,O.,r a
%..q .. .- Mc
's ; .
K,n'Dyy s '
. : ~
- :s - *
,r.- gJ -(".
- f. _
*"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 ff . , j . , ?. - of Three Mile Island Unit 1, Docket 50 289" Ouly 1984), concluded
; M.f. 'd, %} f .;4j n... , F,'J 4 that Metropolitan Edison Co., the former licensee at Three Mile Island, b.'.hh;Mpe
.p
.u.s. o -.m.m.m - w w w 2dh DJ ..,,
5l :ed .kyh: A.m.d; w.$U[r ,.(d
.a Unit I ("TMI 1"), may have knowingly provided false information in the December 5,1979 response to the NRC's October 25, 1979 Notice W ::n of Violation ("NOV"). In response to motions to reopen the record of MirG%
Mhh.wis.56; W;>l@hf4@6@6 .
the restart proceeding on this issue, the Commission found the issue no longer significant to TMI l restart, because Robert Arnold and Edward f3
, , N -'h M,:b y g *i -K N ; y@cdqh je. *1 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-e ~ Vi,p,,l ~
quired licensee "to notify the Commission before returning either of these individuals to responsible positions at TMI 1." Metropolitan Edison
- ,e Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85 2, 21 NRC 3'.-
. q . f-Q ' .. o 7
J. 282, 323 (1985).
t nc. ' . ' ' '.n'. ~ .
,,- Subsequent to issuance of that order, Arnold and Wallace requested
. O. - w.. .
',-'.,.'n:."-
"a separate hearing to determine whether the adverse implications about 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
. cf "Q: q
. . J.s - to obtain professional advancement." While Arnold and Wallace are pri.
; ', qi1 j',QT{'. f ..4 ' [%
marily concerned about the conclusions regarding the licensee's Decem-2- ber 5,1979 response to the NOV, they also requested that the hearing
'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."
' ,' The NRC Staff in NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5, discussed the potential
% ;.,'.j/ Fp M r:~l W f 2jd%7Jpr.-
' ". 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 below whether or not it views any or all of these issues to constitute a
, ..[,c . , 'M., s.c .<s.; :F @,Wptf',..<9,.'h -
.; , 5 4 constraint on the employment of Arnold or Wallace in activities regulat-4.; . ..a~ ' ' h. ' ' ' 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 . ..
y' . , . -3.*
. r + . ; e: <-K . ' ::s
'm' , ;x.~ .
., . ,. , . .a ."
, . 4*Y.; , , . .
. ,+ . A . . . . ..--
- L ,0 ,
*, j' 4- t .
't[ ,';*. ,
r(- s
*c, ,
*e *[ 'f '*
., . ; * '.,'* , j * ,. ,' . i ,; , '. .
- .n. ; . .
; .. w:y-
A ., 34.- , e x. ,
..t . ,,
. . r j + '
, f/c W . . o.
v ~. . i- .
.g . -
4 .,.,, g -
q.
.. / ,,. ..- *..i.,)
s , , . g. , ,
%7 C .+ Q , - C, - , U.,9..:.w,u.4M{
.J ;j&;. :.
Q- . ..
s
, . i,,w,,,y, 3 m. . s .-
S,4 ~: y y'y , ,
;. , q .
a --- -
. f y'-
- L-4 ..
w.G .
- 4.-
, . .ts!> - .
. , ) > '
- 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
-s , .:
.s.;4. _;J . . , . . .
~ w.. . .
- g. < ..- work, at a nuclear facility licensed by the Commission." CLI-8518, 22 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 n / W:7.,,m,A y. -
" ';.'../ Q 7:u p -ime&av~.
4.$
~ .n ~
y; . n resources should (notl be used to duplicate the work of the Grand Jury QnW, ~.n'?di!.:q$M, .M.Qe O M A ' .4 .
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 issue is not a constramt on Arnold's employment ,m activities regulated s.C's{'M g, gS @..-<c." N U.ih64 ,.,/,6JL' by the Commission.
, N,o/,,,.' , ..
...,_.~...,_.; , . . . . . ...
With regard to the false certification of Floyd, the Commission has 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-4 plicating Arnold in wrongdoing, nor was any condition imposed a:Tecting 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~ m .. .~ See 21 NRC at 320-21.
.y,
. .. , . ~ m . a n. .g.y .
c .. 1 Concerning the discrimination against Parks, the Commission, in
'Ufl g. g;.;; m<. yfY".[M.? :.ai.Q -
o CLI-85-2 concluded that this issue did not meet the standards for n ,Y p w :p.C.
c m t. a . - j A .v.y., .v reopening because Bechtel, the contractor, must bear primary responsi-
..: ..c bility, and because there was no showing of a widespread pattern of dis-s n , . Q.1,vi .; %.,n / 4.. . / '.-. 'p . . .
,i
- t. L - < v-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-
..,..~ .
. ,v, . . . , . .<.
mission in that connection did not impose any constraints on h!r. Ar.
wAa. . m, ,
,~ w.,s nold's employment. The NRC has proposed imposing a civil penalty 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 . .m1. ,
' ~
the Commission.
" g, .' 'p . w. ' J . . ~ .e s - . ...
. . . Therefore, the only remaining issue which may be viewed as a con-M}EM)W Mg'. /.(~.
N6hhfU$hM Nyg Q"'.j;l'.;
straint on Arnold's and Wallace's employment is the notificatiou re-quirement in CLI-85-2 which grew out of the December 5,1979 re-
$y is sponse to the NOV. The Commission has determined that the most ap.
7.?iyc. . t I4)IM /$@ '. ',Y.l ' /7 *( propriate method to resolve the issues relating to the NOV is to invite 3h, , y.h. ' b.N
.x..bh p , . ,
*? written submissions from interested persons, particularly the parties to 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.VW. m q nW. s Q. gg WW ,M,&$.fr$87, ,,0,6,g
.g.gMxW.?zg 2
- c. J. . n. '-y.W s.C, M - M ,,.
- W .a et '- , . r, y.9 m> . : $,. :..;.K...n..% a . :, .+ . . .
.m
.s.w . m .
_.o.-
. r.
. p a,m.
... .g . . , s. . ., ,
;nya. ,h <1w..oeO. .,. ' m%..
.m g p .y .
.m. .sp p s.c;m ;sf,$k% ,mN e, gp.(fw w3 4.e 4g m .r- p N
..e yp c x. % r, .%g,e .g..w,
*w*4k&A,M%w$w%.. #$ yp s 4
I
k
+ @l[9hk
@w @h:w.t M,w .p,,2:.
- m IkW wqwp ^
E:m s as ' c'
--.- 'Y ' '. '. .$
-.;: e -"-- . . . .
'. , =
M M*
- h;;*M.w 6 q s ?:y;.y E .vvi v .W.py e-; 'y, .y + 7 m u h .e;d'y;.{;g
.. '-Q v c.- :q ~
,: W J .:,2 9R n.
u, ,, , .' .
. .m . .- ,
the TMI-I restart proceeding.' The NRC Statiis to submit comments.
E "
Comments are to be submitted by January 24,1986.
.R. i: .f c The Commission encourages commenters to address the following
.'c s
= 1 r% + h :* . ,i
,.a. -
.a u9..wi;y *.;,w ff .J ,@ g y questions:
.: e sea 4 ., sr.s, ,,e o.c. .m
@ wW dM . # .N
#y O. th.' N'T 'g 3+Y I
(1) Does any part of the following statements in licensee's December 5,1979 NOV response constitute a material false statement:
.[f,~ .,
- s. .yf Metropolitan Edison believes that Emergency Procedure 2202 1.5,
- J.~
% ,, -. " Pressurizer System Failure", (sic] was not violated during the period from
.M );,'
j
*^t@
$ October 1978 through March 28,1979 notwithstanding the temperatures of the discharge line from the pilot operated (electromatic) relief valve g "%g.vJ
.M ("PORV"). Although this procedure was understood by the plant staff, it is
;I'h:n # L r not clearly wntten and does not reflect actual plant conditions. It will be changed. However, although Metropolitan Edison is concerned about the
- 1 M$*gN4@h PrsNi h 1:s; G 'n%p.
'If N@$)I[fJ;OQ[ d g issue, there is no indication that this procedure or the history of the PORV discharge line temperatures delayed recognition that the PORV had stuck
^g' h k%b h.w [,c$YA"hh [ open during the course of the accident.
g ys?M 6.f.t $.p gh.,. (2) If there was a material false statement, what knowledge and 6nvolvement, if b y,. . uy $4W., . k 4 ; a w.i N any, did Arnold and Wallace have in making that statement?
$% Yh%k;y%;Q'M*iffd. 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 t G d
.&,w y..*f D,w %
r y. .
ment, does that knowledge or involvement indicate willful or reckless conduct vr,3-W by either of them?
c P&IM. . . MWM -
We AWWg A ff f [' %t ' V "-%
G 1
- hNi iCTW;'Ti
- .d @h W,d W , Q ~
@gg,-{
g M e[Z?tion the The Commission is interested in the facts; mere argument or specula.
about knowledge or involvement will not be adequate. If based on information submitted by the commenters or otherwise available to R3 it, the Commission determines that there is infor,mation which could form a reasonable basis for concluding that either Wallace or Arnold NUidik'Ms d7 ' . , . [ . ;a I , " ',
3M/d ptN% 6Mn 6;fy willfully, knowingly, or with a reckless disregard for the truth made a material false statement to the NRC, it will consider initiating an adju-b.Mhh.M,;*h 4 N bh dicatory hearing to resolve whether to retain the notificat or requirement
. # MEN'C i3 I@
+
gh;tgga.m C ./ wp.:f,% i in CLI 85 2. If, on the other hand, the determination is to the contrary, the Commission intends to issue an order lifting the notification require.
p'.r w e.f.'.A..n-.. r. + ,
~ s i 3a" ment imposed in CLI 85-2.
Wa d,.w4 cn. .,&., .4..c. s . - e. >4t . 6.af.w&, . it is so ORDERED.
y - > gen n -eco v , .. ...u71,.
x 3 f m.. w . ui . z.
. ...rL f m,e>$y Mk5
' M*f44".cyyt,5 JI a%($UM.MWikiidh%.
%,c g 4 s . m . .: n . m. g,,,m,
.-a ,
!h. . ~~[ ih, h!*
} / 8 The Coenrnission is handling the Arnold and wallace request for the hearing outside of the TMI.I re-4';ff).:.f.Mb et u yy.3 y.AM'C$r-f W py?..'831.*.p.,)';
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
*%,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, ,
o, e
.} A
.n I:9*'t*
r .
, f dN@p' :;4, .: , ; e, 339 p
M.%.
' - m sW f
gy. ~ ,i,. * ** .
h a r%j,') p *
>,p.'
, # #h e.7.w.'w* .
.,.9
,e.,
i* p .y ty.e. ,: -. o .oo
- 4.u, 'h- . .w ,. ,-. , , __ _ . . ,
_.m
*,[3** *
'j ft b WI* 1 i Y)y'[ 4 k, ,g '
/ /n' l f .'-. . Ih'I, M,. E ,*h u y q~'q, #a w u
sc[ff'fab % * ; *'
, kg/ 4.') f[. ! [.j % q w,N i ((E',
3 e .
n . p. ' # A7 :u A, eg*.Ne%
e ' ,k / , ;ie *,','a.sI*
h.,,i 9 gj:~m. '
cm' e !*7.:f y;?,% w yt,j eN 4*i,\.Drie
, < l :n
- V ,_ %w, G
- e - -e r
.w, w;m .ee. n w,', , %- % j '.;e;Mj
. ,e q.h .- ;a;V.h.,.:p',Q .. m af.y.;3 : b u 4,n .. #y m'q4'7f t.,p f,;q
~g;j .sey$'f f,5$f{$ '
&lg, f f.Y l:. h kif.2.h',f.*: '
MW[ml2m wWMMW, :D.*(k)l* fh.f. ..W M. Q 3 fy Q & 4 %),bOf-h h $fh h
-d 4 . p c.w..:.0 ; . " u . . . . . .
.x. . v , q- : .t -
.'y , ,
p&r@M;@n
, , < .th,. n . ..% .. O: f:.&- . . n.e.5- -
. sc. ,
. ww % ",.%; t; o.s -+ : ML '.,'+, s,.4 m, . , , = <
,'W~,,,
M% *
- . 9 r. ., e .., ,;. ;,. .. ..,a p N;.w g,.* offes p , .. 3 fp eq , r.,, y, .r ,- , .e ,
w L, > Wi 1 O.:.m. R m%. iVe.=g.~r,w. :.T. lW c y, ; n -y w W $. - ,
* %. . e. c v, . um,,y y ~ . ', . %.
n . 2, gm. : .mp xu . . ~ 5 >
- m. ,. . . ,. p:,. m. . v- -
. y m .. w .s ;..;';
u~. . . ,, .m, J ' n . - <.
~ . .m. .
- WH,W, : . .n. . f,l.b4, .f.
- '- ----.a=..
-3.w.G.,m~:..s
; . .. m ..i. . , r ,.v.... . . . ..
. n x. ,
w n.tww y .s c. w. w.? u.W ,, l c n.n .
. p.R . c '. - 1 ...
- ~
- i.; P .,. ,. l( -
a u,w :., . ..
. ,. J ' Both Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal approved the Order in part and disapproved it in past. Each provided separate views.
, c. .
. For the Commission 2
.s*6.n. .. .:vt u* .J,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 ~
3J . . . ,
.w.e. w, .o y.
A.c/ T Q , p g.<. t q#4%NP s M% SAMUEL J. CHILK M NId.,;. -4 g $f; D M kfi'2 Secretary of the Commission s m.mn! .
q: we9;nCLqJ p $y:m.3. -
p.. ,.m.t'T;Q
.ed,v v- s,%. t n Dated at Washington, D.C.*
t y.a sNpf ' m@( 3 D this 19th day of December 1985.
N.Qe1m.;;e W.~k:.pn;3.y[M
.o. . n.. +. . . e s; .,,o. . . . ,.A
..r.mq%.s
.,,, .d s .. . . ./.4
. n'ua%@w:%. -
n s.: . , . .. .
& & N)Q?Qr&E, !" E sf-3,,,') & a f ,' ',. . _ SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
..,,,/..;..' . ' m , s P;M M f. , , 7'M. ' ; e o I agree in general with the Commission's order as it relates to the c ; p. .;s ;. '
1 Arnold and Wallace hearing requests on the issue of their involvement p m 7 x S x. . . .;, ,
,- in the response to the NRC's October 25, 1979 Notice of Violation.
N.'.A~M ?Dl!.M '.'ee .. However, I do not agree with the Commission's conclusion, at least as it relates to Arnold, that there is no other issue which could be a constraint I @h'N c.
kh h uMW4/ @h e'W1 hlh h h / on the ability of the utility to use Arnold in activities regulated by the Commission. It appears to me that there are at least two other issues
$%p(MMN.Q' 53 M3,C D.@..N which could have a bearing on that question - the TMI leak rate issue
. %, . ' J, and the discrimination against Parks. The Commission has never really
%. WJ7 T W.,7. ,'pCf.,~ , "^%. . . 8, % '."'M .
come to grips with either of these issues, either as they relate to TMI l y n," -
, , ' ~
Restart or as they relate to Arnold.
4 The Commission absolves the upper-level management of GPU from J.4.d.v.gh/h...,... 6 $. .f responsibility for the TMI leak rate falsifications based upon the state-k!k@.Q%WAMMAAi,Ii'i
$ M.m ment of the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the utility. Unfortunately,
- d MQhby!
$g%u; r eg Q. ' "". '" the Commission has no idea upon what information the U.S. Attorney based his conclusion. The Grand Jury information is secret and the Y :. U .' E :. Y . '
Commission never conducted its own investigation of the Hartman alle-
- gations on TMI 2 leak rate. As I said in my separate views on the Com-A7'6T M.W.g....' N,- S.' o...V,N 4 . . . .
<OQ.6m.M mission's decision not to reopen the TMI hearing, the Commission
$ should just hold a hearing on the issue and resolve any doubts about the I i 'hlkyh [jk h1 ! M M.$.M h % involvement WT F M~'/ of individuals. See CLI 85 2, 21 NRC at 348. If they will I
WJ.M4N-/dI.
k':. .x,-@N,83$ not do that, they should treat the leak rate issue, at least for purposes of E
b.
- ,,w<*',,
;'c ,,
Ny)' yD. ,g- . kWl' .2 "? ;F
[' fg , g[41.'T,-l'k< f, am r 4
[-. . p :< ,
~
/
2 Commissioner Asselstine was absent when th6s order was amtmed. He had previously approved the
'~ Order 6n part and disapproved 6 in part. Had he been present he would have amrmed his prior vote.
p.'
- 1. y.*]p. . . .9,-f.
f ,E "I,*.t. ..l , y .
,. n ~. s ,
3.,,,y, ,-a y.
, s_ 390
+ I A . 3 1,....d
.. t .; le . . *' , .
['j. gr[, y,y . l$ .[ / ,.
<- "."*"*'"~'"~~'**'
7""*'***~~~~~~"****"'*"J"" "'~* * * * ' ' * * * * * ^ " ~ " ' ' ~
e.'. W , ,p - 'v,* ..
.e f,r,..
.r, ,, ,
. , , . , s. >
- 3 :. .
* .. %.. -r /
- l ' u L; ;;-n . *v. .N i . . S, 9 . - [y e* e ',,, .) , :* . ;M,
'f
, g, 'n. { ,c e",,'l(e . , v. . ;, . ,
~*
[ h, .- .',$. .es'; 4 ..$L, '*% l
#~
~l .s
' { ' ' . .:. .
,....g..
,. t . . , , . ,
..c .5,
,. 4 i
- , ..,.g i
, m ,/. . q p ..
- . f.., . -
. 4 .v. .
.;. i t, , 4 .
{ w :;.:S.:w%:; h.m . -
m e c ..a u . 3y- , ^ 4. g 2 i, ' v, .
- w < ' .
<W
.;a-~4,.4 W ,p,,s m & W h .
'. uc...
.',c'/ n . .
S Qx QQci.M .cy.s pym p p.G's[p,.:. w ??.J', ;, s
.f.
, . . % . % :s*n ' *
[ 3. , _
. . n .
~>.,
N' y $..ne. :.
h.s.w, r M : W;q w v,, M M ..%< .i:.'
m ,
w, q',
qy , . r < _ c. y:-
- .; p.m .- - y - y *
- n
.....2. ~ ;. . . . e .:._ w . -
. , ;, ' . . :.' p;.h.
m.. y:.. ..<k- 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 a possible subject of the hearing. One of the bases for the Commission's y .j ' .... .~ lN2./.Qy.a L W. ::s %; Q mv q .c; A wsn.a ,r decision not to reopen the TMI l restart proceeding on this issue was e M m .m..w,n :. w
, ::wn - .
7 M i @xfjH :. the fact that " Robert Arnold, the major GPUN official m.volved, is no
* ,ef,%MW,GNWi;&'TO
..s a ,4j# - s.M w .,..; _E. s
;,7 longer associated with TMI-l activities." 21 NRC at 329. Thus, the e
extent of Arnold's involvement has never been fully explored. The
.CW" M '- %q %p%@@@ s p u :c w w 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
.;4 & r .4 NOV issue.
&q C.. 3';.r.. ;! ;m.L: Q.bA,;;;;;3 ppg JWi;gw;c f
Rather than trying once again to skirt the leak rate and the Parks WEM-%vC(M d%IN 49'Z . "-
s 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. t . ,~., m y . c-
.v.
ty to present whatever facts are available on Arnold's involvement in all N .. ,Q4$f t ; @,,. . y three of these matters. The Commission should then determine whether
. 9 M 1-M y?.D e y'g RW -V . there is sufficient information to warrant holding a hearing.
, y'. V. , .
.z. w em.oO;we . . ... , y , m 3 . ,
h M:siW@.fy M3w ..w e %,nfb SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BERNTIIAL pMy; h.,:;s;n
, es.w wn p u.,-,,. :
m..n w; .z,nwt ... i..wm.a .m . . .
M r " t', C,m ;t Messrs. Arnold and Wallace have requested a hearing to attempt to
- 1. v..
W p . , C. .na..mmAM:. W.A gn w:-t:w . b: . m. . 4. ,1.x7*T.
clear their names regarding any matter which the Co nmission believes
~ . . 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-tions about the issue, it is also true that Mr. Arnold's name has, in the Jf.$,.,.,$th$/@My(@[M y G.M.$/glf ,
,; past, been associated with the alleged harassment of Richard Parks. Fur-5.m g. .;i g, .g,p . t,:* . ther, it should be recalled that in my views regarding CLI 85-2,21 NRC 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
;m . . -/. .,j.Q oI( ,
request of Messrs. Arnold and Wallace, that in addition to the NOV re-
.c e .M.I -O t;$. [ .. y _ ,
sponse, Mr. Arnold be provided the opportunity once and for all, to con-h .. ; front evidence anyone might possess which could implicate him in Q;;A 4 @[3 %sg[,e dl?[4,-
p fy4%g i .-. M M D ,M $ $ p . % kT! ? E
- v. m em%d c..,v,4 ;;, . . I
.4 4 harassment of Richard Parks. I would therefore have required interested members of the public (and NRC Staff) to present whatever evidence they might have which bears on e.ther i matter.
Ww WA87.9 nygw;;u., , , ,
- u. .y. 7 }. ;m > .Q>,@.m e w[ w. . .% *e ' 'f; 9 4 . , ,; n
. c r.
- m
< e n;* --
- t. . -j i
g9g
,e '
e i ,. ,,
4 2 .F '
-a.O s' w 4 . d. , y~$% ' .h J_ .; '., .
. . _ . o
...,i*,
- 4. . m.m .._
I
'f
. < .hQ,.'l,W:.~6,.l/.C.
' ~
.c
?. Qg
. .$~~',a.V,y. f * .*
"* Y e,
- u. - .
D , . . ;."'
~
su 5- { { [ #
=* .. .,. .
ib 8
,g h j,1j[c.
. . M. + 3. (< '. E .
.' , .J ( , ' 4 " g. : * > , . ,.
.lD .
* .h..h. , ; ,( ,
9 f, ~' W.N, P
*
- 0
+'.
n r Og. ,.
- n. ,r& . , , . '.(,, b
m uw u.. .c n . o.. ~.. e ,
w w...rn. J c . m.~.w..
s ,,.
. ~s. ~.
. .s I n . e...., w. w. . 4 ,r.;.y. m. 2w .. 4 i . .
t
- a. "
\ -
- n<' -
. :w,yn, o h -
p- - $ *y .y, w . . . ., n .;, ; .. . .
mu,t.&,1y;J, p. m. n . ..vr... @'p4.p;y.x.&.
, ,g g. ., .,:~. , c. . p..,k; g. y;. ..., . . ... ...3. .
4:s4ra.m,.e ?. tm.
,- ., c . ..
u . w, . n. ~v.g. ,s
~
,.s >..,,,y q ,. . . y' . a. -
s, ,.
, n w 9 v,
- s. +,y w,. s ; n. , w. . w & ;n;::
~ ,
~~
.~.
~ * '
~ .~
s w~ m as. n.....a .,. r , D.. . . *. . . c .
.w . .v. -
. ~
1
,,w... w_ m_ ., m.. a..:. s,...
~
=._. ... _. _ . ,
.*.p . .o w
- a. . . r,,q. v
,%...m,.-.._
,+ a ,; 9 u. =.s.t: L.s.- .L. . .q r , ) > -w q .
- n. >l d. n;.A t a M; , .: . l
}lg...p.,;+ ,- m;
~
.M *
. . .c F. !?;~
; .,~ Q. ~Q.. . . . . .
o 1 .
t.
'.k.
% e bM,
. s. M.. . .rM.m. .wn...S..n#M g.d ,
Atomic Safety and m.,.,.
;Wr5 146.sg* ... e.a.e. , e. y- n,r.,m, 4.N , ,n. , p1pg, , .c -:
dg: .mw%p .m:L.~,..e Q*wr-y ; op3 n,..,, ,e,s ,
~. n';<. w% M
.n rDW f. . h y- l
@e .tm.. @-[h,[*h.
n '~ .
~
n .s. .
rSWWW:...w Boards issuances P
. ,Qry %
be' k 4. v^ .. h.a. g.*WM.pf# u p;
g$,.,,..W. . 4G: W?,f ':.M.,W-,w,.%y%. 5 .
- 2. (. .F. ,es4 ...e. > . v u
-. s- 7 r J.;. o.a. .gw ;.,W.
. "i .
, V. ... .
- ag M P., ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
,'w5=.rg
[. .
g g .a..'c/.e <y a ,t re,%
W f.c @xrs M N%~ ,..
i L , g, . . ,, p, n, J c'Q . ,N-JY
. i c .. :
J.Q f n '
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman y>
l %g, % " .) / [ .
g 2@ Dr. W. Reed Joht son C, pK;g,4'f' t,'%.g...-. s. cg M k. ;. .n Rpq
,o ,
3*M*/ i;.
.R 9 '.$ f{/r;i Thomas S. Moore Christine N. Kohl bi l
. "/. ; . > , ,il r qi .s.!M, J, [..[s
~
Gary J. Edles
' M, f '!,' ,.SM Or. Reginald L. Gotchy
( Efkhsh,9. yN.aY y J.V. 11O i@4y2 5,4 Howard A. WRber
{
[SM.e . , .o t s en M MmWWMt ,dm% P. d ag( .
h y$. 6 Q C1]
-z . rJ-dn r.W. . ;eqs e .4 y ..s ,,
- c ;^ p. v.;r
&,f'"*w* ,L, h.yp .37 w- ya n wsp. p. + y,niryt.y;;y 4' .,,,,, jq q.6
. n , L. ,. . *s. kt-
.c ,rv.t y ., p.. w
.s
.;,4, . *.\. ~ - :p. ,. .xa, .r..r.
,k', . **
D~$\,. ' . f .?h 5- *.- .
=
.e
,-t .. ..
l 9 .
, 'v, m., ' . cdM x MWA,* .t
. . . .. a
. r. ~. ,.q..:<,m ap:nv 6 n.
3-f
. *>* %e* hv.,.. , . J'. 5--..i. A ' . . .** *** lj ?*
- Q ] f
, , . b .s.d_ p,. %
l
,,,,c-u . .
4 s
6 J
- 'f ;e -
.j
, .p . . .{. t. q l
I o e e
, s "h
*e .' ,F j y ., g. 4 [ , f
.',o.W
. as a n *
. 6 '
."dl' .
...>.?
%2' * '
s
.h , [' r, , .
..y f',4. ' -siI'Ie s
- f. P t.'
\ e: e . . ; ~ s ' . ,, f. *
;r r M es,/ ] s: :( ! E,. M te F',' ,i a ?. -* * .'<. a,*, #. 6 /i)M'/*3 ';#d' di *', k2 2.*
e A(,gJE'^j,i.J* g
.a.. ,y ;1 a%
,,.~. < p .. r 1 4 $. s. a = '
>s 4*,. y?., 'I a ' . #, ;4, . s- # ,.'.y46m6<d'y' 0:3 i ge.M'*, N+q
.4. ). ' .y 4.t '. *
'. < (. . - ?s ; * , f..y;f, k*Q ) . a
, < , . z k.
4,.....o.. u ,. , ,, .1 .4 ,.. ..
- v. . , ,.se p x4s .1 <* b. g-.,s. . .'f a.
'4 -
? *"'4f . g ' '.
, s. & V' s G" ?li,',l . -
. ,e , y,. . :~ t j' e
I e
. Y k Y[ ,
J r * . *7 0
l -.,s.-
I i ,, s e,
- y t
.t , . -. . '~.h. r. -~
----r----r,-- .(
r . -
e W . ' .;;4 ..k w %Ayc. + ..,.,n + . .__A_ ,- > , r*
es* 'jr a
, .- 8 e.
' ; 4 [ * *w % ' t y k i # *
'N
'I,
. -)* . d #, * %, , , 6 .
* . .a. n ,,, ,' s-
, . ) % 8 l' g '..s g .. * ", , . ' I , , ,t' *
. e 6 m"*. .eli- g s
. .e < .. .
.7 .*. e,,,u..t .
,. r .,
ie r
.vey a
n'u, s ' h', , n .m k ,p ,, ..,S3 8
g' , a-s >
~ ,,
s# .a . , : .. U .,,>.
< *d S
,y*
~- ,, tj. 's,' tm' ,' , ! .. ,} , ,,
*' * , *, ,es ,,f +e'*. ,,
4
- 1 j ,, l .l*
; f. :;g N3, y,. p'
- ys. q'.:la ;il> .e.
- . **;* *'; s - s v, , ,
_ ; .g.. ,,
-.i
' 'g.l , ,.y ,,
..,.1,
.~ ~ _ -,
n./... .
a
. _ - - - . _ . . ~ _ . _ - .__
, .. - .- __J
' ?&%@$$.NWWf&k&WDJ:0'$ ~
pZw, - ;&MM.nnM :.a .. m.m.. pe n.bhA .w. .-
- d w..
':p
- a. ;Q.q M.y. . , m ,
.' e s: . . n, '-;. . ,.u :,c.
cp(J p;..Dhnp~p.+;- . &qt..yT :-}g:;t n pq: ym.y v ;n : a.G w, , ; e: q.r:
n ,. f .%.. m.P-
,py..
w, -
..g orc _ y u
N
-:; ng..,,'ac
_ . .q ;rp?;w;4 c.m.. .
- c. .-w y.
+ 4<;.i ;,:. ; 3 M. .,, ,
- ?5.:;
t
+
- si ....
. .w m . .p%y"
. .P ., .-
- .u.g y pq ;. a.. , m,.L:n. .M.- m ';Qv , ,' n-L
.s,.. . K l . . ^ ~ ~
~
u
^ ^- -
- - ~ ~ , ", . "~.
.. w.. ,. %
me.4,; ,
.8, . v .
;;t'h,[.UJQ' y ? >:%y.a,;p(5
- 9. ; :F: y.' ^
ef . -
.. . , . . 7,
- ...e . ,. .s. .
.~.s 'r x ;_ . '
~
/.
'i-
. Cite as 22 NRC 893 (1985) ALA8 828 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,N' s . . - -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, *p ,ei
.R. y. %. qiv..' w. WIi'..
W . 6.c.i' ,
- .1... -c.C q t',6.7 .ei s
. y' ;% ;~'".b'1; p.+
anwa ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
,n .
4:1.@;.gej.ko
. y - ,.
v s m.
; 3.yqWM% w%,9 :s%y).r-iMy@y.te.p glF,D.ny.:. ;w.~.e, .,.; p. r, o v. s o'e t-:
. M 'I
; n: . i
~. n . %. 9v. n, 3, W/R.f ?h,,,.M, . - . t n .6, 6. . _xA- ,
9.
tp,y/3R:
,f S. gM7@a Gary J. Edles, Chairman
@.;t'@v. il,d.,4~ .n,5 .W,3$ d~ b. Dr. W. Reed Johnson b-h, h. 7k' h .,.)4 . w $. M.S A .<
.kk!O .btQ,j r.
Christine N. Kohl
,i.,ug *-
s .~
,u..
s- u
- s 3 . .
. j . . . ,; 4 <-
.s; ~ >: ,
.,,.s.,.
' .- r
..w. , ~o m : a ,. : n. ,
s.A c ,
p , .> c r; W. . ;.;;g/.,..
, . S..>v a
, .t.3
. w. ,,,. J <
in the Matter of Docket No. 50 289.SP (Management Phase)
.r c
,%;(.yAf"{.y
' 3,9y 3, 'j ]f}. j eg' :J:M - 3: , ~~.'
2 g', r')tg<. %iM.,m@v.y;.9v Q. ye~ METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
.,g . . stpgy.@
- . s, . tym:.;,m m.
. , ~ !Y et al.
.b n M, : (Three Mlle Island Nuclear M Station, Unit No.1) December 18,1985 q.
%e .1.sm~. c @.fv,u.r.:.p.: r \J4',.d%.u,@.y. x4, . n.e f.T/p..;Z *g
.ysf.ye>; . - ..e . c ,.. W % J /g c.
- .:.jyg: 9:.M Q:9'yfp
/ 7,2.!' ' -
X Vh ' '
The Apps al Board affirms on sua sponte review the Licensing Board's final two partial initial decisions in this special proceeding that resolved y . . . in the licensee's favor issues affecting the central question of manage-w.e ., - .. .
t ; .. ' .. t m : W : y, g',g.,,w
, e% c ment competence and integrity.
4N.:c J.%:,M4...
' g: a,m .;: m
. J ;;n ; p.s .Q % ;o * --
7,> ' > J ' ','f APPEAL BOARD: SUA SPONTE REVIEW J '
, in the absence of an appeal, an appeal board will review on its own ini-i',' .. '. '
tiative any final licensing board decision (and pertinent portions of the
,C :, J ,: -
,. , J.N underlying record) concerning significant safety or environmental yp _4'.%:Q.WM.N.j nya. :~ issues. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear d Generating Station), ALAB.655,14 NRC 799,803 (1981).
@y.w%.
ww ?,i;h?!$Q'.:r-W.f, Q .:: . ,M w.yw4c.W%.y
~ . ,
W,,.f . DNPlt g.:
. ycp j;,,f".. .JJ e 5~.q...: ',. ,,.s.;g,)
.., . w@j u,w APPEAL BOARD: SUA SPONTE REVIEW
., fm: ,,t 7. . ..., . .'f.V
,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 c: .
v 3"[,q
- i*er7 q *. . v:(er:. .
. ...m. ',
*$(,;,'
':U., p* */ f ** p, . , *
+
,s,.r...;
r*,
. ' ..,.p,..
,;,h. 8
' ...,n.
.,e o
- e. ..
4
- e. y. .
~J.<.*,4. ]* .,,s,,
t.
r,.-
g
. +u
- 1. t ,.
. .,-. . 4.
. . ) .'., e. ,e , *7 ^g s e !- - 1r. .., ,
(
.q a r T , J5 ., ., ,.p
- i, e,
- 3. ,, g ,
* ' , '$ w,.
p' ' '
... ,,h,i
.I ' T ,'
],f' '.,. i "" y/[ ,. , ,-
j,
).
- n. , - ., ;
N.b~ Y N SWW '
' ~~ ~, .': ' Y?f
- ,m.'.pu'- *n'. ':+y .3 WWW w?w?:N
(..y&y?v.gvm/c w
-L.v wmxt v.?.$m&ms.
- 5. ;
- .-w .w
~
wwwx:.:wvt m mye . :. -w
-~
? ':.~ my 3w V
M.ys.uw?s.:.n'Q w.,
.n. .a Wi.,.wnic:VG,,'-A. ... P ,%.w~.WW. , w'.f , Y
- NN %. d M.B. W ,'P. :,Q.* G
- e. n, m, .
%,'V2:. ;' . ~C % 1G
..ymg' a.
.. u ,-
m m ..2:n.~. e a. t w y .n .ug .:e;w .e . - v.,,--
c ~~ +
.,,.1 g
>:0 % g.yy wM.'
p':~v. <%.w .Q
.-:.:..W i:s i y , N. ,. ,<:
a- D. " "
- O.v y %
t .M. h. s.
f, ;7,m i . ,
. :. v:. ;'..,l-
;, .. .. m, x.
~ .
4 board's conclusions on purely legal matters. Consumer's Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), ALAB-795,21 NRC 1,2 (1985),
.x a . c - - M DECISION i;u
.. . . e ;t s.: .i. r. ,. .s G r. N.m.. w L.: .s y W;41W.Q J.flG@. W.c.,. We have before us for sua sponte review the Licensing Board's final 3;N, h 1 3 h 5[ L' 5 two partial initial decisions in this special proceeding.' They resolve in A.$kM.M
'p .'9 , W ' W .
M{$@?-@y[Q*H ,M the licensee's favor issues afTecting the central question of management competence and integrity - namely, the adequacy oflicensed operator training, and the circumstances surrounding a May 1979 mailgram sent 02$dMdh@'.N.MbM 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
' ~
..s any finaljudgment regarding the licensee's overall management capabili.
.r.
. ..:* . .- a ty.)
. v ' 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 a t. . . / 7, J .;v. ) s.;;h. fc record) concerning significant safety or environmental issues.5 Our GWA , .1,M,QQ3d$$e review of the Licensing Board's thorough, well written decisions here QRW.
n.'.....gW.WQi has disclosed no error necessitating corrective action, and therefore we 1
p
+ , ~ . . ,
q,. s.p.v.
Aye. r;f ;gy eW yy.g. .,4. .
affirm both.' Indeed, the Board more than fulfilled the terms of our
.. w Qs m.-e;t;p,,.4g. w,.; remand, conducting hearings and issuing decisions more comprehensive
,hp. ,
o e i.q.ey7 s
o M. i -?, ~' M..J.
, . c %. .; . P.
- W. . ev,sW .
39
. /; ,
?. J 8See L8P.8515,21 NRC 1409 (1985); LBP 85 30,22 NRC 332 (1985L 2 In LBP 85.I5, the Li6enang Board impowd a condition requmns the licenwe to implement a plan 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
, 1% $ ., "/" t' j 3
r A, <
3 19 NRC 1893,1212 39,126548,1279 80 (1984L we also reopened the record and ordered the Licenang Board to conduct heanngs with respect to allegations that leak rate data at Uma I had been W ,a p >f.i *N
*? ' . .);* 4 ' dA'W k r >$* ;*%.M .7;N,VM h,& ,',f,h;^W.
9.;f y(- '_ "y y.d
...J
- 87 ,; A
..e y J falmfied, ed. at 1276 78, but the Commission reverwd our decimon on this score and decided that no hearing on that subsect was werranted. CLI 85 2. 21 NRC 282,30614, recessaderanos dras d. CLI.85 7,
.>.t * , + . .' .
21 NRC 1104 (1985). Earher, we had reopened the record and required the Licenmns Board to hold
. 1.% 3- - ; * 'c ' t ' .
- " heanngs on the so-called "Hartman alleganons" of falmfication ofleak rate data at Uma 2. ALAB 738
.~ .
*', 18 NRC 177,183 92 (1983L But aner staying these proceedings the Commismon some ume later deter.
,C mined that the Hartman allesauons "no longer raiseldi a sigm6 cant safety issue" so as to warrant fur.
+ ,, ! ,
s ~ 'f; ' . * -
ther heanngs in this proceeding. CLI.85 2. 21 NRC at 30445. Nevertheless, it decided to ensutute a
...m ic / s i y g",gl. ? 4M,; - . separate proceeding to consider certain aspects or the Hartman allegauons 14 at 305 06 Thereaner, the h9r dy. 9. f* ,'g a% y*e{
r
+
., - s ~ * <. ' d ' q g',y se, . Commismon hned the order direcung that Uma 1 remain shut down and permitted resumption of opera.
'[.c'-;Q) tr,[%"N
?
Dt 1.: m.
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 dettraeafor cert fMrd sue seat. Asmodt v. NAC. 54 U.s I w. 3463 (U.s. Dec.18.1985) (No. 851095L
@c ., g .9.1; .r,; -W;. 2 wu M",tep ;f~.:,.[d*,
,.A U M* ./,. fMJ 6,'C.g ,f, +
- Appeals from both Lscenmng Board decissona here were timely riled but thereaner withdrawn. See Appeal Board order of october 21,1985 (unpubhshed).
-.w . rf
- e; ,
", J. .J[
.. ( c.9;er 3 DCXflierremente Mumnes/ L/nkrF orstrrr (Rancho seco Nuclear Genermung stauon), ALAB.655, le
, , Z , ., 42re,d
, ,, f W. n>w ;1t{$ I-l;.: W*k,'g;?: g # In accordance with our standard practice, no stare decims effect. however, as to be accorded any of the NRC 799,803 (1981)nCsXA.
~
' ' Qfy- , s , . . ff.
; .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
! '* W '
N.~. ~ Y: .
CV' *s. ,
( , . , ,9 , - i;
- M N :+ . .)s,. ! .,
. ?,
' ya o , .\ ',
'. - ( & Q s} :' . 'h,' N ;t ,....ei
's . ' G .' *
. i [k, ,% .,
- y. ..l' ,f U l -} '. . 4 . , , , ,
,[, .h
,' , ' . . ' . ' " d *, ' r e. . . *
.' ' '. u *,.} . r.. ,*, ,[~,*[,%. .!3 ; ',.h. ..h *(dyf :'. %, ,
.L.y, g (;].f, 5.. J?y ?. jh. . . j. ,',,',~[1* JJ %Y, ,'
, ,-- n. r ,
*,n
, 3* '.'** * ., .,, ,;j ~g e,
. ; . .: * ~
, *R
- a ;% = .* e
.~s.,,
- l ,,.
-g
- . ~
,Ll y ,.
h
r,
. . %x y8.+ m.,'u:~m.
,. 3.N. . s.M, j. + p w m: ,s.
m; &::t,:2 #..;.t.>..,..v; u., . .
.?:v...m v, ss' .: ,*
ic.a c. .W;6ij;; v -
.7.d. (.
, , sb. .i g.5b'* M# .t.: . . 4( s $ p 'GN J, i .
%}%.g. J ht W< , W. w, i,/C d.Wp.D
$ WY &w,&y&h&n
'hf$hnmei;%@.,%M:. %%.
?W.W 9W'kW:m
-::t y
@[m?.+8~"Q i
+.,. $f +y$V%*. '5, .~C, @k.W;r O+jd.Q' .
. < ~ . ~ <
b: w ; i ,: .'%.@.: .
m%4 wLn. .y ~- ..c .m.,,%w:re..;;~.d:&~.h,diW .. &u. lm .:;m, u%. ..-.y - : Iv
=
n d.:
n s 9 an.<-
?-
.. - n .r=
v.
.s . -
.- ..e
..L .y.4 <
wvpy .>. ~ ' ' " ,. . ~~' .'
.,c. A . .. .
ffd % "g.* W.hac$.dhMO 3.g .w,y.n. . DN;" 9.+ 4,. w. . m+ ,; . a -
, .. . .x _
" ' "~"
* ~
, i3:
M , b
- LA g V l
ryrg %1 ...~,S Q 0Wil '. W .y, .p g n.=-
t ;- .:4.N y ..; ~. .
'L ;W,zff, .
- y q;'.. q Q.:%c,G -
t.
.. .m ., . .
.a . ,.: ,
! ' - , 1~., than we had anticipated. We nevertheless offer a few parting observa-tions regarding the matter of licensed operator training, to which the i
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 C'W.'[$jg;M;T Y. ( The initial record and Licensing Board decision on training were un-N@Z questionably substantial. The concern that prompted our remand, how-7',%fA.a ,WM@w$c..g". g;, M;.p g nf .. .g.*- ever, was that, following the revelation of cheating on licensee and NRC reactor operator examinations and the Board's reopening of the record
%y'Ty@My9sl.
r.
b4 hQ to explore that matter, the Board failed to reevaluate adequately its origi-WN,4Wg?&U,WWW.d Y,$',@S f M . $ N a .f MC,4 nal, favorable conclusions with regard to the licensee's training program.
We found this to be particularly true insofar as concerned the testimony Y.? d. N @ % %w %.p; a.b [ M ,# $p .,ah e.- a ;% .
; a .O. .:
u of the outside consultants who were members of the Operator Accelerat-
- g. tf hyW- .- ed Retraining Program (OARP) Review Committee and upon whom W7%; .2 .,@w+fg,N. 5 7s i. ,,h... .<. w.; 4, r. t.E. O, a.i. _ y~ f, 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-ing and other incidents that renected negatively upon licensee's training
,k.I.NN[',:,[, .. . .bhhf.5.lj!
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' hNi h,._M,k .f i select committee made up of experts in the Gelds of educational psychol-hh,W.e,...
Qb v.,.s,r4 p; c .
i.n.
d A.t.m. A w . yef,,n.m g
gyiM M. ogy, tion, engineering nuclear power
/ human factors psychology, nuclear engineering educa-generation, and nuclear power plant operator train-( .
hh% ing."'8 The Committee's reassessment of the TMI training program in h
' Q1DN.%@;;jh;M@;,W.)MMI'd idNk .N
,S$
response to ALAB-772 was carried out in two phases. Within a week of 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 y',
2 Report of its observations - an 87 page document submitted to the 1,.J
~ n.Q( j f ] h ' 7,.M ' Commission for consideration in connection with its then-pending re-
; w . m >.-,n:
YgW.or :,. d @.y . .
start deliberations.H s.M..
%.ym (e,0.O, lylA .;'4.y. , :W h,. y,,J:qwc;pW
.. 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 a,,2,y t.: %4: . ;.;,
1,,
..a,,,.,~
August November 1984. They observed classes, interviewed operators
. ? .,,.-.e f ; .g.f 'g a n .*f . A . ,
- g so l .,M, 9 * ' A, .' $ 3: W; .. !,S+ .4+. .
% cQ M v.. ?CLI.19 8.10 NRC 141,144-45 (1979); ALAB.772.19 NRC at 1279.
> ,M ,7 pq- ** g;g 7 a.
- . ,., g ,
g ALAB-772,19 NRC at 1233.
.. ~ .%g b.<6.ap+y w', f .g m 7
g n. ; ,It at 1234 37.
b i.w . J N N. f'*0g e5s % A. W
$. [o'. 8 9.m,y; M /t; e .a [i.J .b g ' ,. g %
.;c. r,' ; .w.0.
t 0 LBP.8515,21 NRC at 1414 n.l. See sho ALAB 772,19 NRC at 121011.
H tBP.85.is. 2: NRC ai is09.i2. rr. 33.35i. one or ihe documenia ihe Commiiies reviewed ai ihis hme was the hcensee's salt.evaluauon or the training pro 6 tam. which had been prepared ror submission N,M f/ R .p.C p 4J Mliet' N, 't.n,4 to the insutute ror Nuclear Power operanons UNPop as port or an accreditauon process. See note 18.
. Pyhy I d J r ',Q g. . f I],$"N,bu '@y6 gii;; .pi
%y
.-7' gNff,D 3?
8'lAs. one Committee member. Dr Enc Gardner, considered this material to be a umquely valuat+1e de.
E' .I ' ' ' 1 J, '
j ; ,' * *fd., .
, - l M* * ' .g scription of the program. For, as he made clear under cross-estminahon. the hcensee was hkely to be candid in its program assessment. knowing that an INPO site visiung team was coming to make its own
- 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 . -
). [, ,s
.t I
y.' ** *.** 4
,*i. . **t ,
.s ,
.. 1i. .'., f, s?,,#h,b, ***J.
y# ,- . . . , . , ,
gy' ' ,g;
'[ ;* ,. . .,
, *^
f*.' , - 1 .. . f k.' [ g h . . [*
. .. : . * ~ , ' e *
,a s .%.
7, ,...,;.y: J , y w . t ,.v ,,
w"v.s %,e w,q . "p[..
4 ,
&0'di :,.,' 6.6;4 ;[y,,deq;f3, 4
L'. r,U ..
. gg u:p '
s.f.g ; w' r<.? c.' .. 9 ; gf ,
w 4 4WMA:3 ~ -s.1 3am M ,g :
- 4 y,
f ;ye . :c w.5,p.< a .
,o - A- _
'. <;t t . -e i.' Q ',',,.D " g g ji,,g 'af h;. , 9f3 n y t. , y. m ..' i :. y '< , ; .
.).,. i4 ? * /, ., , . ,
t c~.c ..
.t.
g.y.7 ,.:, . 4. ,.<-3.;, .. ., ;.x..yp
. ..,, m~:
?
W- ,
Ch. .
..n n, . .. , ~ . ,,. ,&. c ~
. , , , .. . . . Q .3. ,, r..,..n .
+
-; 6,' . g W i ',.,, q s- '\~ 5 ,8. , ( / g ; *, I.
.. f ,os 0 . ' '< p ,-*%7% y
..q. ,
f, .,. , .,m( .nT. ,
, , - ..,, s e.
s 2
f,..<,,. , - ,y- ~
.'- , '4
.,...3.
f.j1 ' g ; ~ p,n,..j y., e.c.q -
[- .
W n.
z , $ y;, s
.. u ... .a . m. : a
.: , - ~ 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.
,u - -
, ny, responding to the prefiled testimony of intervenor Union of Con-
~
, [, [df '. If cerned Scientists and the NRC staff. The OARP Review Committee's n .sg'7. .M...'3;.MI,4..
[.;.F y G, .qjc.
mew f.r; .').. ' T ; overall evaluation is that the training program is effective and adequate N
2%q;;.
.v e 3, s 2.s..g..v.esw ;jW. rm,n,.p %m >
- f. to j.ustify restart of Unit 1."
$. Mbl
; It .is not necessary for us to review here particular aspects of the Com-
,pj;r.;,m . _s.r; .
- mtd:/
ce - ; a.e; &.,.y i ,
-. . m c.i , mittee's testimony and findings. The Licensing Board has done this job
, s exhaustively and well, discussing and disposing of criticisms of the Com-
-.,c, i .. ;,f. .
.; .: .c , f.. n.
.n,. a. m.t.v ,,c M. m,. W ,.e e...
..~~.a' - 4 mittee's work raised by the parties below.l* We note only that, in accord-
~ ' m ;v .-G Q 2 ),..,4 m c..a;2; r ance with ALAB-772, the Committee's assessment of the licensee's
. . , . v 1. y.- .,, , .
<_ ~
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 c the top utility training programs in the United States." Based on the W .- . .s T'2.b.'..,
Committee's testimony and that provided by the other witnesses (and gMrk/J . .e. u.
t, .' i. . i ' , 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
~ ~ &,;f.g-.
.i
"'1. ~.3 ..: M' WW l7;..f :;;c.s dw..,,g, ,
, y,; ;
.e.., 4
? g,p s - : 6,
. < u ,
. .' i a. s
,. ~ . . .%.b s./W J
. M3 .. .: n.u: n . m . -
?-. ?',
.Y '! 'l*'y ; }:;; ,
y j r ., L , ' .
C 12LBP 8515,21 NRC at 1513 22. A TMI replica simulato. is scheduled to be mitalled at the improved
.(_
- onsile traming racihty m late 1985. Already in operation there is a Basic Pnnciples Training simulator.
'J. . . ,
' . .;- See ad at 1430 3.1
". 3;*
i M, ,
, ; ' 'l . u ~y; *[ t 13 Fol. Tr. 31.749 at 31; fol. Tr. 33.320 at 18.
.. -f
'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'[. " l l' /t, Attachment I at $2.
f y,f... _+ y . Q L *.* 'I.hk.$l [:Q qb - II See note 2, supre.
. m.; ,,
.4- g m. ,, 483,e LBP.4515. 21 NRC si 1535 36. The Board also indicated that. at the time of the heanng. the
- 1. ; . .? , fd,* 3 .
licensee was seeking accreditation of its licensed operator traimns program from INPO Although the
- O' ' [ , '
.)'.' ( ,*Ny. ," w' ' . fi- '
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
s { 896
# 1 1
- . . _ . . . ~ . ..~. . . . , . . . - . . - ..g , . , , .
~_ - . .. .
.5 g .,I e # I S
-g.'...
;t ., ,r . a ,*,3- .
u C ' , j w,s ',' s %; r .;. ,
. . . . - , 6 4 '
, , , $f rs4 ', 'i g . A w .. . ,.
i
,c . ,4
. , .*le.O. .;)a 6
s L
- s
.- '."b=*..
(.
I
5 7 .i '; @ .M. M % % %p n MMMSMyWM .' F. ?
V'iNMO$%q%m&w:+.ew-j
- 6..
w%.m 4W.,a r M,w.a - 4 e c.
-Aw.s,e a. w sx w:wy
,QWm@p as u.N. .q;n.wi.,.w%>epw w . . ,M p $("f$M@g q,m
. r.
w
,p.m&m@g&;n -
n . ;. a, . r .. w :&v.M;p+a, m - 'a a
- 4. , %. w.,rm,y... tq W
, .w. , s&.m ;4. ,&sa, . a-.s. n,,n y ys - w,, a .1 p ,. + m. ~.
y Q: W t r j V'*:r /19.
. c s
. .v4 a Es ,. 6 4 M Q .. Q .'6 ,' f,- Q ,s % ft
- M,', d *, %,..
1 ,i . '
l' x~.. .m%. 4 - VT.
** 'mm,u .1 . -
$:: WQX gW,Y.yi%:1 w$ . d, . T F** W r. ' '* ' c ' Kl. Q- f,T.A W,i 2
;- - - - e."num W.%..WX&.f i
M.s..(~s:.QS G.qv DYifD@M.M y. 4 .. m-- r
.e. .b.* .m r- q ..a<w .x v . - r v . #.N.-
plp'y.g'.at 9..,,%
wg
; y +9 n3.g .awm. - c, * . .m a p s.k.. . -- -
.a
- .,g , 2 MR
. ,,yh,q *.y.
.w ,yS.y.p%g,s v m %w'%.k c w.r r ,
- A, n:g .~.9, ,..
e m v.
.w +c y v . . . .. . ...: > . . g ~ . .,.,.e . v...,. v,. . v. e.n. , .
, ~
?
- w. ,
. m". -r. :: w D 6;4Yl Our earlier concerns having been allayed, the Licensing Board's deci-i .
sions are gff7tmed.
.. .n It is so ORDERED.
. . p. -
.(
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD uy:. .. ..w w%.n, . .i.
. . ~ . ... -. :fm
-wyo;.c., ,. .;.
n M ,
, , . .r . we t
rc .m c.acc. .t
,O
.,e.,.-
My
&e.,sm.o.q, rsy a
n
,rv
_v. 2# : #,,.js n &q~. %'p . 4. %@. . . . .A g/
kh..dpMME$1MM C. Jean Shoemaker
, n, ,WQ.y, m
Mas;WWuk.a. F n.!9. b % Secretary to the c .. -t,au.e m y. .V Appeal Board
*L W. 9W.m:p..n.s
. 6 1, ' . - N',p wM. 9 ,%Wn \ .A
. m. . ~ wr s.aix%,ne%p::i N. 94, *
.,,op t.n(. vyq.4.g
; #.<.g; *, .* *at rt..'1,W p'.., L; e p s,r*.*p
*q {; m.rg q vr
..c...,rO,".4,,,s'.
p*
.q+ , . , $ .w., w: .*
.%4...sf l , ,_ r N ,s. , t s g
.sN% ? ,
a 4* Ps e W .
. y ;) r 1 s.E 7 .S. .vP.". h. 3 P W's*y *y ppe e,
., >d."g*ff* yet, .e,r g y,
; ...,t 3
, . +.,,,. .. ; . yF
. ,, % ,%. [ *. f 1. N 6 .. ; .p y v.
- i o
, f ?- I3. k3?s' ,. ; ;qf b, ' [ [ f 4
). .-.
.( .
.s- ,; *
,f.*. , .,, ...
e
~
- s [ = . .. . P .-
e - ;p [W. .g.p? .,# ,, ;Qg,'C:w', %.y.M. ,
<t .,;... y!..:.m.
p 1i f,1 s
Y.
. . .s.r.s . k
' -:' % &e!']w.. f i l L.]$N k lh'>.-
s ;ca+.. >w. v ,. 2.-.,f;d w w:.n**,.M 1;c , p w w.-
. h*'.W:"*' G.h Q N W1.1*( &. .-w p. o e CaQ.& J.MtN.$v. 'C&$ M &jf ^',' ?*h &@
T~ @e.Te. a m- #. .M,, . uf f.W. %. C.. c . .
~ l,Nk ' ' af .,* yh:'J g.'Q Rf gfee.p q
f ff JS . .
h k. k.
h3.g. ?f {y Q M. g , m . .V
.M &, f~ :
l lp k y
,y 2
.* h. ,,
W'- 5",..' 4'
?,
, p ',,
,~
% ,g .g/. I
,. '.**( .J (,' ff ,N
, ,h UiQ M.
&D.O.*Of*L;OV&N es M NN..?.Ef WMWM.
.: . .s.
*1r .
.w e'.QWN .
r e. p>+&%w;, a s
% ;M g .' , m,d :T.m .),.fio
. 7r q: . r, .
; ,, , ; ..,.r.,
+,S,-
< %,,f . h ' : .> , . r ,
.g ..4
,h*ji
. , "Ue g
c
. . ,,.s . ,. m. o ..*.A .;l ? . n.
.e # "
fl 1' . 3; ,.gu... a
,a 4 . g*.f
,r'. a l ,,r 9 ..e e 3 f.s .,. 'L-
,e$ml'?sff.;.A **.,f n. a A.fs,'a,ysg.A,p.,. ,y.x L .x} ,y}:g4, n%; Q f ,. ., . *'. 3. e. .J,. .v gefAj.Q. ~
%g%
W+ . a . .o..g.,E.,b;N...W.
, %.. ,,&'p$. . ,s &....%..&..Y* ,1,.5&.-
&...w...,,;mm<**t . ,
,1 ',';f. "','m,...ws .'Q.* ' gf i,;mN o$& 7
.2 7 ' A,
..,.t. 7.m o,
! N-f:2
- lY .n:..h.mI*;,)k:h.,y, eh 4: t
, . n, A . . ,.e
, e =5 '.?
^
*9 '
s4 . ,.#-
e#
, ,,e, ,
1: ; .,
gp1
, . .\
,e E ,9 4 q t
*6.- . ., ,* h; .PW.
n> ~
g .. , _ . , . _
s,-
-g* -
, . . .p .3 , t
. 'n. w . .
...a .
, , J.,, y ,
P Q ;.p d p: ; r q&. D .g7
.(. (- l; ,.
*Ll ll c !l;s;'. % . ';c' l..ls. l,'. ., .L v &-R .m. . ? ll:
.~ , v, . , ~n
, ,, ..' {. l'y$ : .n&..
- w(.g g&*l 2"ev, .* g::;la&.m;,tpf.,)Fe
%3 <. .. ..,s s (*L -sJ! ..F e' . + .?' *"
Vw 9 *
,,~,- . ,,. ' s. t ",* *, *. ? y / rw j.ly.} . . .a . n%A.. a' i, *.,e ' *. e %*' C .',;j.eW,
*k...t*
w 7,t'b.f.Wh.Qc,'
. .Q. J.*M ! -;[Xt Y.n3._eNN j4; i;e,%s A V N. u.h.ty--.1 l.?gT+m: 4 u w .vg%..em:p' N .e S )7 U t .' r /M O
;n.q. of
- a. :. m - .,cw ..,, 9 y g g ,g gs%Q..w , w m..m.. mg w3J .,7,,.,,;c,, m ...u+..pe c
- y. *9. ,C ,e. m. p.' . G v
m s w;m.
p; . . a.<
a.4m,.c.,
m
.a.... .x. _ m: a. . . . _ , . s
- p w
,m e aw. e.~. , . v*y, - e, n ,
~.,. ; . .v.r . -, ,n. s . .r.W ., w . ,, . .u ;- , u. ..
. ml .
. <> ...r ,.* l.
.,.'v. .t,.On to
- 5 ;.- +.6.*.'-..:,, M
+
. ,. . p a . , ;* ~
- o. < ,
y3.~,,,,.~..se 3 . .w ,_,..ga(1 t ..
.~.
.,., ;...e, **; ; ,
.gn ,de' o ?., ..*. ,
. Ay,. .
.( ., . . ;- .m,,. . . ,
- c..
.a. n . . ~. . . o m. p, ., .t+.,
t ... ..
q ),', g,-m.
(.hs.-),.,.y.:)
..y,,
.c..e, s . s. . .. m w, . . t
* 'e . m. .w, 9 , y...,.. .
- 4. 9. >, 3 ,
; . . cyu4;,y1.
,. 3,. y . .y- , q., , - . ,
- w. - .,. - ; u,, , ,
f.
1
'.i. -
-s
- x. .<..;J."
, 's, *$ cr- f . l.G -; ]
. f
~-
- g. _ e.
,,.m.,.n,
- ) ,. 4 i a s
I
- s. w . .
. , , a. .,,,
> .s . .
, ,c ,-..
. , .- j- -4 i .,
f ,.
1 -
1 l . . J.
\ f 0
,i . .
1 l . dli
,b Atomic Safety
- .E...-
. . . . ..w. . a. .
mm. .
i..M 7 x : e.?.g. sgga ,tg.
J a n d L..icensing
;, n .. ,
9 q.. =
.ewee,...
~.,.n.,,
Boards issuances p.
n w m..: g- . '.<e w','v.- 3:y.;g.y .;.,m es
- . 1
*p s j , , .g. .)'
1 .- .' .. 4 ,.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL (f"l l ! B. Paul Cotter,
- Chairman b
., J Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive)
Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical)
T -
4
. _ ." c- i, j -.
Members
- $ l '?., . .
'~
~ 'l.iq EF;f.,.A
% .- k..b !' '.h3 ~..
s
...', y , . .....;,,,y. i,g
#n,' m. . Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleeson Dr. Unde W. Uttle E. '
.. ~: Cheries Bechhoefor' Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke' [
'. ,'~ b -S, ,* r{;M , , , #.'.S gQ6.3 Peter B. Bloch' Herbert Groseman* Dr. Kennth A. McCenom
! ~... ,j / C , ' .' '~ f . J <";;
Lawnnce Brenner* Dr. "adet H. Hand, Jr. Morton B. Marguries' 2j '
i.'* .
.m .
Glenn O. Bright
- Jerry Harbour
- Gary L. MilhoRin -
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshan E. Minor <
James H. Carpenter
- Emest E. Hin Dr. Peter A. Morris'
. , ., r; Hugh K. Clark Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oecar H. Paris' [.
m .3 g,
., g 7. ; - ,. e . ; , m;t .
Dr. Richard F. Cole' Dr. Fredenck R. Cowan Helen F. Hoyt*
Elizabeth B. Johnson Or. Paul W. Purdom Dr. David R. Schink y
.k .' O
l 1.'
2,
', 'M ;/ I'. ' I V - '
Dr. Michael A. Duggen Dr. Georg,e A. Ferguson Dr. Walter H. Jordan James L. Keney' Ivan W. Smith
- Dr. Martin J. Steindler C ;
,' ' [' Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober J Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb til Seymour Wenner
-j . John H Frye Ill' Gustave A. Unenberger* She4 don J. Wnife' l:
, 1 ... .
a.. .- . .
*oss.y
...m......
W M-.U.95
.,M ..a .
Q
. , , .r t,.is,i : N.','
.e, 7 O 2 9 .4)y :A c- . < . . , . G (4N .+ ;
; m.. .. .p. :_ ,. .. . '.. . , , :n , . . ; - hy- r
, ,. . ...+..
. .9. ,~ : * '
.f.. .t
- y. ,
, ,. .g,y/ ,
,t .
I, ,
i d
~
i
- Permanent panel members l
l Y
Kgppq p -
Ny. - -
%5 4 M W' 8@ '.
, ..m --*f,M 4
**YY ' I 'E"Y*Y'
, , '*: # L, s P &* .,(. '- '
j . )
Ivi w.,'e',",Jh
*) g.,.. e s . , ,,
- 6< '
,s s
9 .
1- '
' ' . *( t - %$ ,8 . . ' ' *. . ,. e I
, [ .,..,,s....e
, >. i g *, ....
^kI c T- 4
[ 8, .
',#'* -l,7. 4{ 4.I .*g. .). . .
1 , *
- i y,: . ., * *; @. * :, 'c. ,4. , 5.t ' ,-- . , , i ., g=.e ...
'.4.. j **
- A .
3 . - f, , + .* . , , p
, m. .Y*, . t. - . , - * ,
- 'i . t_ '%
- -
l
~ __ .'_ _' e " - - ,[RI <t A .r,P. f.;: ,. a . _ ~..p , .*'_i ... _
* # j C,9 i N ' ' :* * '
j .
s; ,
F . ' . %. .. f. e./; , w' '(:,M. > ...y Q. v i n 99 l y .:JP.3., gM
~
.. . ,c ....% , q.S. 7f. , <17 A E .
- n. r . - ; G.'. S . z,< c . c. .c+yv < - ". v_a. v.w%g
%, I N .~r .& , ^ &.x w,e k .
Mq .im:TO-
*{.l. Mw f y. ,l ;
, a, . "
+
. . a w s u..;, m, g y: ss h
,.;n..
i#.A? x. . p;./.y,.,v
, %".,,M.1.L,.,o
,e . m . . ;,.,.4..x ji,, %,. .w
,.n . n .. ,u,
.; . ;,%. e ~,,, n. ,.
.v'M:~,g.in g ny..b. .n . f., M '... s. . y:
p a v,...y..
y 4 ,, y. 3 . x. m.4m. . , r. , s u. s ;m,, ,. ,. ;*ms. . .
. . .J '
- l' (y ,*, ~, agr. ,'M y.- ; Y ' t.4 * "* * ,..~....g,'.j'.n.
i
#* . r :
y - D; m = , ) s ;.i..;,a*. ,y
(., . f' ., ,M,.s s
* , ;' . e(i..{us s *
.._g :.r,A ,o;%,.e,: R f . ,; */ ) s. ,\..q s
- sf f.* *th,, ; e c *9<-y- p *.' -
.,*9W - 5 .5 '.
*h *
.n ,-
. , . . .y
;%.' +-.. " % j.Q( ., n....e 7
.pc. >. .m v.. -a, ..~.m.
, - v. . -
. . - . .s, -_*3n
.) ,,
a w
.m ._-
.. 7,.- A4; <
.- ~#,,-
; ". . -,y ,,.. . ,
7-, <
y:' -
a.
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 ww ,, : . . , . . .m ~y. .
. . 4a ~;w
~ -u , . . h~:.. w.wy w, .o ,
r.. .u. ..
g,%ec, e
w
, q.it
; nW. M .a eqq.;6 :
Before Administrative Judges:
n
#p;h. .w.ypi%..,y;r
,, s. y m. r ::E@W;.
T.c h '4: . 7i O ury, . e.n. #1C sw M. r. .W, dN. ,;..<f M. .,4.M.m ,2f,6% ;.,' y.fl p$r~ry -
James L. Kelley, Chairman j C,;"D,yi.' .mE $
- 1
~ * -,' Dr. James H. Carpenter i, e:. . . / y9> A~ n,'y.
. d.' e +- .' .v m.e.
; . Glenn O. Bright s
e , ,. g 1 - - '
In the Matter of Docket No. 50 400-OL Wa '
+J (ASLBP No. 82 472 03 OL)
- t y . g, u . M. . : .w, ,. ., . c. . '
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT
'i *, COMPANY and
- m. ,. N. ..".wfM
. ~
,-a
~i ; 4M u .3; ' n,m 9.,. .
. . g. , 9. n.r Q..i. . .u NORTH< .eCAROLINA EASTERN
, n ,,...v . , . s . .a
--. , g m. +/ .
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
- o. g.
.,. ,p;; .;,~.g.
n ., -
; y, O.n. sit.e,,N!?x... . . <- +.. m (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power v.. . ..; a. .W<
wN n , A Plant) December 11,1985
'. $; '4 1 3 ;' , -
. v ,
4
,w .. A .
, ;a in this Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board decides several
,.,y3qbq [.? emergency planning and safety issues in the Applicants' favor. The
.. < U, . . . .'M .<.
s W d.F
." ..,.'e,, ' t Board also states its reasons for accepting and rejecting numerous con-
.uA .
,-~7 6. ...t.a. .,, ..z 4
tentions based upon the emergency planning exercise for the Shearon C. ' " ' .c. ~
Harris facility, s
m.w d .; A , ~ ? s . ~
s s .,
o . ..
- 4. .s. f ,4e. .g : <f#;r.
.V.
EMERGENCY PLANNING: EXERCISE CONTENTIONS
<w . . .-
. .% ,. q.s. . .- ...o.-
.. ; - '.c , ys
~
qp: $e. >mj;mden Contentions based on an apph. cant's emergency planning exercise
...- qa%w*n should be considered in light of the fact that they arise at the end of a n% d .f @ d.g M e..
L' M . @, - -
d s..
. m<..f.;.
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.
. ,4. .
- S f,l: W. ...i:
tions alleging fundamental flaws in planning should be admitted; those s ,q' - alleging minor or readily correctable problems should be rejected.
C '( 899 1E 4
' w 't; ~.* '
. n r- r i 2 g
' , y -
* . [v**,
-[.(. . . ,f. (
1 e e.
.,g. %, ,if 3 r, g ' p .1
....'.m- . ,
- s. .* . . ,
'q(' h , ,
h, .
[. s
. }'.., *, ,
3..,.*",4 ,'* !.
2 i; ,
,> sl. .eprf ;ls p*l. '
.e'l 3l. '
or
, ,.~,
s # ',%.
s <
r ju s.
..}z.Q
. -j !; .s,.
- 1,ad ' ]u'- , *.
i 1 . . p' ' l
. L N" . .. . , 5,-, , - + e . ',. 6 * *
'l [ ' * ,& f t,s ^ f . '*
'.?"'
. . ,' ;\f,.s t
,,3.. .], j y . 'j) (,,y#. %. ; ,; v;..!.'. ... '.'Q '[) ~ .. . <
, .-).
.s . ., c . w,,.n .. " 6' ' b.:
. .tp(5
, u; ,
c , . ,. ., .
I , l 0 "' ' '
-* ,." IN I
i .
}.[/ [_2 4,,', l'
y ,a '.
- .p. 4 _ % ',p;w:y ,,:. 'w v Q E ly.
3
. 4 a. u}' q c 3 ;: ,', ' ' u4:[. 7' ,,':dQ*;;
- vA :p ~ + . . ~ . v ~. .. . x . g .m . .u - . .,
m nw. ,
~ .
- e. w.r.x w+ m .c. p. ~ , , . .a c. ~ , ,,+m. . - . . . . .m m e: ,s:.mw
.+. .-<. m c w .> 1:, . ~,.-. ~s . f. o m x 3 v. a .L ..
1.- a .a -
p 3, .a- . . . . j? a. ?,;. , .m. r.
- r. . .., . . m. y. .e,;,< .s-o.v., vo o. e-- .
- 2. .a,, ;8. :, r -
. e. s . .
, o, . ..
a . . . . . c, .e . . s,:. ~ +:w j e.,.,u.. s.; . ~. ~ :,m.a ;.%,.
. . . , .,.., . ...y.
nx , .:c. ;, . : ~ , . +
.. . :; n . .-
w y . . m.e:n -
+
.,. n;
,.y. --
.w.. ..
.,. .. . .yz., s .s a . .
- - - c. r . .
+- . - --r 2 h
. .x, . . . . .;- L:.
, TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED j Effectiveness of Sheltering g Fire Protection Pipe Hanger Welding
~
'- ! Steam Generator Tube Failure Analysis.
'.^. .
y'..
. 3. .,; . : ; :. ;: .1 3s
.c w
..n~,,.,
~..,.w e
.... ..c.,... - %,7,
.. n. . ~.
x %. ;.. . , ;c. t
./.ce p.d (. W. . w)s.{x;. , -' . 7. M.y;. ,,J A; . APPEARANCES
~.:a e;G ::.np '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 Washington, D.C., and Richard E. Jones and Dale E. Ilollar,
, m. ,. m . ,@f ,.!U'Ja:'.M ; 2. .Jg.e Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Applicants Carolina Power &
' . ..~. . ..c ,., . ,:, 5., s- .yi
$ p.
..s
. ,s Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power
.;+,7 7~n. < ."..,..
,.w..,
Agency
.. Wells Eddleman, Durham, North Carolina, pro se.
~8
. Stephen Rochlis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-.s.
, ' ' . O.. . .' Charles A. Barth and Janice E. Moore for the Nuclear Regulatory
'I V.S'/ N d '. h f f N ,~, :/; Commission Staff.
a:m.. w 1. , c >W .e ..w
,:7.:..y . . .. w , . . .
~ M, A .,
cq,.z:.t.
4 .. .
W.m. . :;r. . . pW.g^ t.n
- m. , c v 2_
pg3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
. u.i..eu . c : . g . ;y g . , g; s - ,
.y ,
~
p,ge I. INTRODUCTION . . 902
.. q . .-:
e,n, -,n .w.&C!a x II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS ..... 902 q'..R 4 ~.,.r,V,.'. M...,M . p,V:.+v..
S
,.c,> ..,
.c.
.#.. ,.e.e..,,,.....,.
r
, n. . r A. Protection Factors of Structures in the EPZ ...... 902
;;. _ ;f . .,.
.a. 3;n. tr, ' ,..- irr c. 1. Introduction .. . .. . ... 902
. . - . - ' ;e
/
.e. . w-. . .
- 2. Witnesses . . ... . . 903
..,,....j
- 3. Sheltering EITectiveness - the Concepts t.,
m
.a .
,.n.,-. ..
'.,.t,.. Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 903
- 4. The Applicants' Surveys
.. # . ;. u .., ,..-
O,. m s..N.,, .4,. 4
... 3 1W ., 5. Intervenor's Proposed Findings
. ... ... 904
'.W de . jgg,4 g g . . . . . . 906 d@s F
l &;q%.s.1 v
. t r..c. . , "l
' W@Q ' '-
. a & :K ;;9. -3 . 2 ,q rN..u B. Eddleman Contentions Based on the Emergency
.A. Tp.p .
Planning Exercise . . . .... .. 908
- 3. .s. ,:. ;. . ' . ' W P.,?. M... . i .^. .s 1. Introduction and Standards 908 p.G . '; ..M . ? . , 'Lj',".yl7M,I.f,h:.x ,.
,.J,Q;',. " 2. Applications of Standards . . . .. . 911
.' . 7 . .; : . " ' .
- 3. The Lateness Factors . . . . 913 p
900 1
.y
}[ f
..'.. .4'.. s v_ - . . - , _ , - _ .
,,,.,,y %.
.(s.* _,;.w'.,.a,g . . . . .r' g"; . a. ~
i y,
s r .. 'j.
.: . ., ; ) I b # . *I '
.b 6
g ,
'.,[_ y;' aef.}
s
* >7 f
.'(=
l ' '? ,' '.[p Jr ;, . .
* ,[ [ ' e,,_E . ,a ,y, .
,' T ,. *4
, , \
,m., ;_
..-f. ..
. ..! **., Q:.
p' r i ;'.*,7 <., $ ','; . . .
'U.
- 1. . 's, ' ';
1 J ,- ..,,.6
w .
. .y !; , I : '
, ' . . . . . ,.p .f*.,
3
- 4 g j :' , .,,dN e ; . . , s . ,,
( p.m. , ,
s; ; . h. 'I'1 ;
y.S'
}' ,YI ; ' hI '. 7 4,
& .h.. ,h,, *{,'y'.,;, 9.,Yf.'ah y5 f- .,lb h eS:0 c4,Y, . . a.*,IG , ?. 'l';. . ,
- l* ,'. *
- E'*O.
- C.fl.,; ...)..
'f. . .*1.l .,$h. .*fa s
. ., y, w
% ys, o, .m
,' (r3w%~ R* *bw.n?m
- m m,\'. g..Q . *.l.N ;. '.. .e- *m *y .s 7 A.L :[ &%h w -;%,ms . sw \ f' ,3 4 . Q .'+ 4,e Nb'd.Qyam :j[**8')'
4 % e.
- ,M lhDU*N. '.p%',s,9.(e k Ep
,.,r .ca
'IE* , [n[
- .*>'f.'l>He~
cm.:M, .}4 % s-N h: y+st$Y
.7 p y 1'*
';,fI.i'h.
mr~.::, =ms 2:
'> ) & f k.:%..l'.,"V *75,&
- w' Y.s% N.:e
^fn ae -as .
- m. .. s..M hk,G.l D.
- L ' .o
~ '+ ' s ... ous . . .
- w . , . < .. ... . w,, 4 %.y. ,1'%p. , e As t . ;, w.. . #
y r.M.m,. :.,.s ;.W"N.
%,,Mp <.y n ,.r ..,> .na...'.y.t. , ,~ ; . . ,m
#y. o- . y,C*$m./,*.YM
. A.
s .
. ,, o.. ,
a . ,4.k.t n. ;F .:.p, e.,. ". rn. .-Q m> ..- ' .
' 'm ;.- .
a n
.. m . m. , -
* ." d t . '
WF.*j$ .;g ,4,,(#
M;1.Q, WQ,o, l-
. . ** . .. f,,ly' ' '
* . k dh, ' = *- - -
-4
* . p.....c...*
u . , ., 5 y =,. a ; <,,e 6. y, y , , ^
t- ,q:. ,
~ .ys; q .
. < '.- . . f. .O.g.qqd. A
; s+ : <.>.;
p'. t .,,;,Uf,: ... . . .'.c ,
.. . o..,..... .7 4
1
. Page II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS *
. (Continued)
.g s c. .,. , ..
C. Other Emergency Planning Contentions . . . . . . . . . . 915 J. h . *
.r.G. . !. " Role Strain" in Adult School Bus Drivers . . . 915 w.
O h.i- hM,%m; S.3 2. Contentions Resolved by Summary
*t.MMW@W.. ,Q. . . r .'.
49 e q v JM,.Ev'. nM.c .;y Disposition or Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
- m. C': m ,.r..w..h e
y d.~.%
w .q~ M.m..: . ~
w s.t III. S AFETY CONTENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
%(N@m.e. 'WM!Kf n.,. . u*M.; ...en%! @. N:4 A. Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
$M$WM.C.M%,h%!G 1. I n trod uctio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
- 2. Control and Power Availability to Safety M.N.
. .+ af.' m0,O..
c
.. ..: > M. w. . u,**th i.Ay$n;,9. .~ . . ' ,W, .G. .M. .iM.M,' R..
'!~'-
Eq ui p m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
~ ,w 1 .w e.... .
n <
e!y$(lfi4WM .
OX%.- M.'. xs-- 3. Qualification of Cable Tray Fire Barriers .. .. . 918
- 4. Location of Fire Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
. . ,1 3 s 5. Fire Protection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
. ;w '
- 6. Combustible Loadings Greater Than 240,000
, . m. . . g , m , .y n. . ; : ' . ,
~_. U" ;. w BTU /Ft2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 923
,,,. s ,
,. 7. Intervenor's Proposed Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
. . , -? 1 .s .c. .
. .a , . .
- 8. Co nclusio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 B. Pipe Hange r Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
l@s ed't.85,@$. . . . . . e. 3 3mg.et.$$.' Mgg. ,.p
- 1. In trod uctio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
- 2. The Applicants' and StafTs Direct Cases . . . . . 927 Q -Mty.
- a. & t mT l/?$ e k.z..v. W>. m.T .
- 3. Intervenor,s Proposed Fm. dings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
. .yxq: wi @ r n..ah.~t.c; .w a.m;. w Am.4 ,;3 .-
.gg 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930 m@.m#gWpMp.6n .y . A .W' f f
'~
C. Steam Generator Tube Failure Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 931
. 1. I n t rod uc t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
- 2. Joint Intervenors' Contention Vil(4) . . . . . . . . 932
- J., ,
y T.MD is m ,s,. p:e.. .n ;,.y 6 3. Intervenors' Proposed Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933 g.y , w; .v.vy ,w.n. e ,m ;. . . . gs ,..m,; .1n 4. Co nclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
. .. .s. e -,r. .. x .. , a , .
D ..ry:w.d. .- .M . :J x/ .. f!T.. v. .e~. . .
.t
~;. W: ,
., IV. CONCLUSIONS OF L AW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 g.;..m . '. y '
,. . c. y
.i .'.s' . ..i. . Y.., .m;
~'. .
V. A P P E A LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 Y.; ;. 6. d;iW,42.y?.'O....
.R,e.,'.i .1. . .,3 ATTACHMENT (Contentions Based on Emergency Planning
. ,s. & .
$W .
Exercise) ............................................... 936 M .Miy d,'@'7.%.;a@W. *Mii .nRi@N' %
4r M> WS.W;.@:
4 N ;, -g f.r* v WW %.NtM'd f.A
- d. % hn.
r >r.vNy w N H- . J : w~i.s ap c ..s u.-; o M. w/.4,3.
N,~ f. ew' .n.w e n $r:.v ?.;g.J.y.
s W M s.;{..>* m ,'. M.
,1 $5; A,Yo mA r e *k .
.*:f, . M... . .h s'.: > .. 10. ,,&>' -
3
%A.
. '. 4.b %. $.x,-
2, , . ., f 5
.+ .,
1 s P
q g . y
.-.}' g (
.. 901 t ,
fl , - t ."
2rNj g < ,-
,?.* f A,, J ' ' " ,4, ., , **'9e*****W*%"W'*'*'*'**'***'n- ,
K '* . 7 % - EfN ~ -
3 - 4 ~ ...& '. ,. Q. J ,, s l' s d . ; j. W..
.,,,y. , e
,[f,lll~f
*h,d g
- y; . %
- n 11 .tri g s, q% .x o k
$. f..,'t " 4 *' 1.6. ,,.p.a .h
,,,,,'~q,[ '. , n . t'.,. ( , , 4, .
r . . . .a m.
' ,. [. . v .>l, g ..,..n g/f,$. d M' ~e>
2 h:/ ~M.-y*%Q. @ .%t%~u~
@ Q M,y
- a. 'sm '.Q'[. -,.
- p q ii-* }(.
,l'; *
- l. ,* ' ' , l ' , l, fi
.s.,hikh .*pff r ).# *h.' {v. . n)[. ,Y"'~ h
,$,f,.w .g w.. m.,h r,s < &* .
- n3 c s ,.t. -
+p... l'.'4 . ,
. s f f ,5: . .. w .v,.~. ,. e ., .
,~,
. , m.m. gw q n
. g,.p, ,. <gv.s.a , 4. .m. . .,.*. .-
(.,u.m_ . . , t .. * ._- ._ -- t,...., , . .
; s . .. . ,
,u .v ., v . .p . p
%, .. . c D M .Y, h... M. B W W b S '. W m % f W ?$.g. A , . i.nl:
. . .-L ... Y,ml.W.s @@cy.5..;lP-m y ~a.wp,w<p;m
- e. . . :.,, y ....p,-
. g ,_- .
v . ,q. ,.,;.4
.sc - s , . s.n.
.y%
x .rw.a
.w g m:.w.:W %y*i.-
. . . cf . . ,e :
M , ~ -h i ik k .y M W.T.WRQ;;M?:..:MW Qhs;,.v ,. . n;s@.~
p@y
$WM.Q.W : a .: @
[' ':.l ?S&&s&y.+ -
U&.W$ $f ' ' @.. ..y' @L: ';i & S,W W $Afh:;& :
- SQ' '
E ..,,; . , - ;. ,jn.. m :.a.r .:. g >
o- ,
s w m;e r ua
..--4
, .,n<,,g y ,?.~,-
g . .\ b y
-, -y;.
- .. . My p -:s: .,c. , . ,
PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SAFETY CONTENTIONS
, -, . 1. INTRODUCTION y
.c.m. , .. , ,.
J A. - c,y f*g . y . - : tJ1. '
g, .3 ..w Q. Q l:. M . 5 M fi M i, $ i The factual and procedural background concerning this contested Jm & : operating license case is set forth in our first partial initial decision on en-ikd[ fad 8/ /[M@Md,ww[pf,f.4 f2h e Ags...d.;
Y .W'2 A
vironmental issues. LBP 85-5, 21 NRC 410, 41214 (1985). A second Partial Initial Decision addressed most of the safety contentions that
..u. y, yg.gygm%,L RA w .1,+M y.m z
. .. r. yy ,q:~1 were heard in the Fall of 1984. LBP 85-28, 22 NRC 232 (1985). This M:.n;m, .c+c,;n;p mo .
third Partial Im.tial Decision addresses the remaining safety contentions wW,:',.$. Mq.. .. r. , .wJ s .w ;* 3@.
c cW.,,w olyh,2d...e.M.p,j$m:q (except for the drug use contention currently before the Board) and the u Ja g,n. ury 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
+- the Intervenors. The Decision also has the effect of making other dis-positive Board rulings on emergency planning contentions - i.e., rulings
' . ,, ; . 7 , , lM granting summary disposition motions or rejecting proposed contentions
~
.l,p' W.1 '
, - 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 "..Mk. ,j ks. n N. %p .E Board anticipates that those contentions will be decided in early 1986.
e :g,.m...e j . p m ; g y g. y
>f 4 ,...s .4 = . 9 . w. ...x.
[ M.U.X, .,. II. EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS
' W y W j:, ' ,~,M.G-s : :"A.k? . M; _# .;FS A.p':t.c.9- & ;hhyM.w; &,
. . c. .
O A. Protection Factors of Structures in the EPZ
~^ 1. Introduction
/ % ,pe ,y.
L m. u g 1. Eddleman Contention 57-C-10, as originally admitted by the Mr +.n 3
~
.g y y,'. , N . F.% N,m.,. p+:t.{. - .e@M:n.,. oBoard,
.s.a,stated in pertinent part that:
- v. .
T y.& .u -
W
? u, a~ y +h.L,2
. p.g p v. V'3 A 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 f.
jf a *,.(,.~-j* ! - $'jd.[,gl; s v
- or other shelter for direct and inhalation esposure . . "
.~?.- m s. s .%. . .l rq n a a y .-
T
- dy h w $ $;;$@da.yg
% p$
y g4 w[e M #m $pThe , Applicants which performed v study of residential structures in the EPZ formed the basis for their motion for summary disposition. We JM..t bhi , .W h.N
. .%...,tG..d.Mv.{,f9.'
[WhhM,h granted that motion in part, leaving for litigation "the adequacy of the Applicants' review of sheltering other than single family residential."
Unpublished Memorandum and Order of April 24,1985, at 6. Thus the
?? 4 3,G;:'..; 3g ,$ @"n$ >
y , "',g/5
. ' 3 f,,$.'JD, remaining issue concerned the protection factors for " typical institutional F
e y
# g .
902
' T ., .
.g f.
. g j;a
- 8 gr . ~. W Y . .- 9*"W***""*.*M**" --
N' ,v 88
*.o. g\ ; ~ g= p; . *' ' .
1
. yl . b'l ' . ' ,. - . , ,
.F. s , ,. . , ip Q a u .
p * ,. ,
,,97.g: . y y
, t l Q id : i,' .. -
.o*, '.,e. . $ ,n .-
6 . , lq
... ..c.. . ,,
ce*
,;{<g .
._e _
.%d , . .o r ,
a
\* .
) .s *, G . ." / *n -
s~
f..' .
- J ., 4..h s.. s p e.q * .;
[.M;m[.q.E$;;6.f . ' 'l 7,N, M..? A y.'7 [
w d.% .Q,
~ Q.y. Nf/
. h . ;,- 2: .,d.
, a;'. W ' b, . ' ^. ,,
'if,,(.%'M.$.&. g.j. %d ,.u..[ ' .
. .u .. v. .w
..v.
, + .
. hs;g (' A p ' ;q g ' _ u; > ', a -
,- ~ . , < L. v. - ./ -4 g . ~ , _- 1 n:g; *rj:. s'
$.. 7, , ~ ~ . :. %s.;$ H. M...f m .h,;'. M,,':y>..
-- . '2 '= 9 C .%.- : ~:l'. y %, ? : %.. s',l F rW Wg.s
,wg .pcegr y;a. j,. ,. e n.s*,,7. .n; ... 3w m .:w ,. .e . . ;
%.ny y p .
+.,
Y,/ Mpy};%y.w, M ...u.;ge.n 4.p. , - - , . ,
gg.t.w ,, .aq Y, , s m -jMMYM%kp.y$,o .,
- p. .yK @mj9 & %*,'w., ,
. v, ; :n .p;ez .!iM M..u.e.
p :-) (; 34:.g.v:
n syyp ,y$, di:jiy qw yo ..;n%.,4f.r,
. 2.:
- u. n. .. m. .- :M.g; . s. %, f. p. p a m .., .f., a.p : w y . . .,
.L :m. :
w~n,. y.Q~.,, y.
a
..y 3, [ , *; P 31 '
_m *. g" ' G. cQ $l ?: 6.
Q *?
- tI k. 2 m . - .*M.,
A*' N .N [ W 9 n , -g #J < *k2; E * '
.y
. w,7, ,. .,
- a n.: .3 . . . . .
w.: . ., .. .>. :. . ; m . ::n+3 ,
.,c_,
- n. . .
~ .n, . , .
~,
.,3, .
. 4 -
structures (schools, churches, etc.) commercial structures and industrial facilities in the plume EPZ." Id. at 6-7.
L.
Witnesses
. 2.
en .
. R:. yy6 ,q h UjM,. 7,l;.Q.Iui;%g.;q' .
1'fhM- ~ 2. Guy Martin, Jr., and Joseph F. Myers testified for the Applicants.
Yv Mr. Martin is Manager of the Radiological Assessment Department of hM:,R;;/ NMNOMy 4.Z%)g,gg;r( gfy Ebasco Services, Inc. He has a master's degree in nuclear engineering
- .N m Wu and has experience in performing analyses to determine the sheltering gff'G6;U;v,@M^N.Y,M,
.L M j M: D [l.?,17.iH h) Mpg effectiveness of buildings. Direct Testimony of Guy Martin, Jr., on S,3MD9 M.5 2 :
Eddleman Contention 57 C 10, ff. Tr. 7895 (hereinafter " Martin"), at l-2. Mr. Myers is the Director of the Division of Emergency Manage-
~._. p;l;.1'9.37 N. ..
ment ("DEM") of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control
. / WIA 4.Wn.c.d).M "/.c E. c. .pg $f;'*W and Public Safety. The basic responsibilities of DEM include fulfilling
; i - the State's role in emergency planning for natural and man made disas-
^
' ~ ,. ;l,% ; ters, in responding to and recovering from disasters, and in mitigating 2.. . ] wp .
- their effects. John C. Heard and Thomas I. Hawkins testified for FEMA
' ^- M and the NRC Staff. Both are employed by FEMA in the Natural and 7.5.. Technological Hazards Division, Technological Hazards Branch, Region M:b .
h .c.:. d d @ .1 -., IV, Atlanta, Georgia. As Branch Chief and Emergency Management Pro-gram Specialist, respectively, Messrs. Heard and Hawkins are responsible
%.jb .Qi( : fG r,. 3 J.e,@@$l l'M ' , K L for providing assistance to State and local governments in the prepara-
,c M K 4 tion of radiological emergency response plans. Mr. Eddleman did not yQQ,; $ @Af i W@J.4% . call any witnesses on his behalf.
, k...W W
; :t. D. h. %. .%,L
,gJ] !, fN 3 y..~ .,
'v 3. Sheltering Effectinness - the Concepts inreind
- +. .
'gx - , Q q.o 3. The Applicants' Proposed Findings 43-45 provide a helpful expla-nation of the concepts involved in sheltering effectiveness. We adopt wz. Mt d % h dii,g ?F.M@B.y$j ; >/ those findings, as set forth below:
4.- .e,Q.y .Q ; w;- @f~. gr 3, %gEd 2w p..;.;s:.c m ,
3~f.C
- . ,,.~,s.g y q . ",- 43. The sheltering effectiveness of a structure is measured in terms of its Protec-
. p. , tion Factor (PF). The PF is the ratio of the radiation dose outside the structure to
[ M , , U."; ;4 UJr 4, ti.e dose inside. It indicates the degree to which a structure would afford protection
. . .~ t' .f ? , ; * .! from a radiation release in comparison with no shelter at all. Martin at 4.
+
> - x. y .* 9 . W yj g..J2 r., ' @?.. - b; @' d y Ad P.M.N[d.y ,"[j,e.G 44. Evaluation Criterion J.10.m. of NUREG.0654 calls for a determination of pro-d @d'.$.[r[m[;#.c 4 Agd g){k N$ h tection for both direct and inhalation esposures. Direct esposure is that which re.
@? b. sults fr m radiation impmging directly on the human body and organs either from 3h N.Q@f 1 . ic.
;",//*.gMd.hhh .
.,r
" ~ '<;.; **;eA.h v @
- M **.
h, - w*$ phff [}*
%5 ;.; e airborne or deposited nuclides. Airborne nuchdes are the source of radiation in the air; direct exposure results when radiation (mamly in the form of samma rays) is ab-sorbed by the body. Deposited nuclides may be on the outside of the structure, such
. p*, ' : g.>
r{. Qg{.* 4*
as on the roof or 6n the ground surrounding a buildms; radiation from these sources 2 -
- 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' # p 1
,.m 1
p
. , >. ., . . . 'u.
--..s. , - .-- . -- y -
e' c.+,;.im... ' .@ . ; t.y.-W
_- , . , , - 'r -
,f ... -* 'b
,,.r . ;
,l,. ?
, - 's s
%- ' t'.O ' v.t M'
. , r(t- % x, ,.4! :n-l .; ..h.,sat ;,,i,s s. 2;aV..-d m. ; v' 1 s &. e. > . .<,o>o., a. . y e
-. n .
. ., a., .4 u.ep.:s. ..
p),
y&**'Y *n.~,'b
,. s < . 6 ', ;
- a , .
(h?,,<
.. 4 c.' ,'.s .nf d" k V pk
;Y . e-('- 'f . . ' .Y*
;.e - }* -} s l L b l % *?
' y.w' ; W..
L . . .~ . -
l,,&yp .s :,= -
v . L c,q ; ' s we k ?}m'
< y e eQ * -
'A e se' . ' * *
- j * ' .' o
- y l:.n ;;n,'bz i .
*e, m' ,', h
W^].Ic0 T$ . ' < M , Tt7 I'h' //.-i.i i.?b,\ .dM 2,1 3.' Yi.
, M,144 Y ; 5 5d ; 'G9 . s w a l*Q:; p a. &.m.
*l +@ . _ y OSm:3: ' Q;gGad m $.~,,.h:d .s,-:.mn,q , .
. o ,r a._-m" ,.. gr Me%p.1 e, e., - e , .,
-x... .a f ,
.c s. eo o wn yin,.,r., ..s ym
,v d p po c a ., %c s
.A ,,.m n . .s.m.f
- r .,g1 i m.% s.,. -tw, .3v q' , c . a .e' ,a N
- s. 4 d .h s., w y e -
".@@:f., '. N w 1.,
,y' f :,*,1,*,5 %. - E fi,j j < . %
'., ' I ,,
, , l .
,-a
' j 4 .C-i g 6
,; ' M l.d i-If., 7 m .. d. \ ' M
. .,Q', h uli,< Y
- m. 7e a
, , . .. i,
. ,- v,,
n .- i.
s - .
4' --h. ---"""-"a,.,"'#'
1 ' '
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
. ' i.'. ' , . between the source of radiation and the person inside. The PF of the building will p[.U'N..'r.%',YMl'N# .N..
be greater for a building that is constructed of dense materials in which there are a g,,, , , ,.e 4. % met.W-, .p... .; ;v.w.m y'A, :. ,b..~g f p-. .- b,. e.N
,m number of floors between the radiation source and the occupied area. Thus, the m-. , -
MM Q.Q.'J [ 7, L. 4 - most important structural charactert.iics are the type of construction and esterior cq % w 6 v p A. A@ F -rc finish, number of stories, and presence or absence of a basement. A building of r y iDliN : ' brick or concrete or similar construction generally has a higher PF than one of wood
.%p 4' frame construction. A multi-story structure generally provides more protection than
, c , g;', , . J M J
.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 minor respects noted below in Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings, the
..g g p, ig., *
,. .: , n. # ~.- - Applicants' evidence in support of their proposed findings was not im-peached. We adopt the Applicants' Proposed Findings 46 53, as follows:
. A. 7h_ , ; , ,i p,f, c . , 'Y x L. sr i.' we 1 ..: 'to.e, r, . .
- 46. The ERP has already been amended to reflect the results of Apphcants' survey 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 . ; M'
'..#F cial and industrial structures in the liarris plume EPZ. Information was gathered
' ' . [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. y.J ;,
[.' f f ' . r' ing members of local chambers of commerce, municipal clerks and postal employ-ecs), State hstings of manufacturing facihties, State tax records, and State serial pho-
, U .t,,.',
- M , @ y/i 'r b , . . . .' .
tographic maps of the EPZ area. A road survey was also conducted to confirm the in-h S b d'.3 i-hm , P.
-+w'u
$[ ,
formation obtained. Martin at 6-7; Myers at 2.
- O 48. As a result of the survey,it has been determined that the predominant type of h3J Mf%<, M w $ ((f'-Q'/,..' -,. [r.4 i .. ,
, 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.
"S -
- Fifty one large commercial and industrial facihties were identified in the llarris i
( ,
I 904 i
6
+
,y *
<Y ~P , -
- sae-yFyp- s Np-me. sse
" . * , .I
( r i4.*,. 5 5 , . Y. \ g ,
.e .
@@g,tk 7 g.gWGQ '
, .w ,, , .
-: A
, , . ;e -
p? ,i4,j. f .; +.L!. ; a Q).hh, t .g ,M '&. , pm
- s 2;
,H., 4 e ,.g,4 q , . i % .
, . ., s g; q
? . , 3."
- p
, [W f';
^ ([6; ' , k y .
p v'9 T ,'
, Q. . ' ' .. ' n N;W (f;4g s c]%.y
.L ss QVr e y q p- ,'
d, p'
H .fQ.
'r
[ [}
S . t v.Q: a ye. .
ef
.f . h,; s nu: -
. < ..
- N'$ $ i. ',' [N ,,
. a;, tr:
k, X 7 0,. J$.of'2l.[
?'
-}.e..Qw
&.n & W '. &.~ %, j%.<,, W , , ,
.y w ." -
'.. 4;; &,y&WQ&* W,q,M:
*n
;w
' ' 4. q[,,%
,,$,. k' ' ~ ^ -- " ^ ~ ' " '
' 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
. *; ) 7 .N. Y\,p N ,.[+ @_<,- g categories: (1) schools; (2) churches and O) hospitals and nursing homes. There L MW c 3 ,
* . are also a number of other types of institutional structures in the EPZ. Ilowever, r/ f f . W J.T ,. J y W M 9 these structures were not separately analyzed because they either are of residential.
Ny,,wA. k Nh[hk,d, s .. ?4 wy,.+.5 jh. 2 type construction or are an mtegral part of another institutional structure. Informa-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,
-bx M M c.,M*q. s ara @- @...N s. -a4 ..- 50. Representative structures within each of the six categories of large commer.
]
I f, w , , , , ;
[ ,j hh *
}$ c cial/ industrial structures were selected for detaileu analysis. They were selected so as to represent the range of construction type within each category. In addition, two 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 X r; , ~ ,'M 4- : ,.2 protection factors were previously determined. Similarly, based upon an earlier l 7 '. J , . . '",- survey of the hospitals, nursms homes, family care facihties and flomes for the b [, ,[- Elderly (a senior citizen community), construction characteristics were identified s... ,.
y . . . ,
and compared to those for other structures for which protection factors are known.
5 ,T N. . , , J, , Martin at 811.
A N, c , m> ..-e
,e c #.-a.
7.. u .
r ,-
e,d, . r
< t. 9ig . ; 4 ~.. .7
;.% rr.
$1. On the basis of the information obtained, a range of protection factors for rep-( ,,e " , . . .
resentative structures in each of the six categories of major commercial / industrial structures and for the two representative schools was derived. Martm at 1112 and Attachments 6-8. Using a series of standard calculations, a range of protection fac-
.,g ,.
tors for inhalation exposure was also derived for commercial and industrial struc-m 7.d ,i +
- h. . +. 1w' ;,<.f. .
L., tures and schools. Martin at 12 and Attachment 5.
% S ;"* , j. W- 52. For the typical smaller commercial establishments and churches in the EPZ,
[(%'%I]'n.J.'N.
~y' .
! i ~O' the range of PFs was determined by comparms their construction characteristics to those of typical residences in the EPZ. The range of PFs for direct exposure is com-
/- ,
, parable to that for residences in the EPZ. For inhalation exposure, the range of PFs JA* - , for typical smaller commercial establishments is derived in the same manner as for other commercial and industrial structures,For a typical church, the range for PFs
-."E k .), .
( ./ *
*ypp . c , - ' , j ~ . , t, . .
- Y ,4- for inhalation exposure would be comparable to that for residences Famdy care facilities in the EPZ are of residential construction and their range of PFs is the
' i 4 9 ' P. ,
k.[
dhM;h.,
- h. Dk w ; s.Ih [l!N'e,N$f
.- Jp ; . b t M .* ndQ@
same as for typical residences. The relevant structural characteristics of the nursing homes are similar to those for the smaller commercial establishments. Thus, the
'I h.h.h'; ~ l . J,~. f[ ! h , 'i t'.3hj[ nursing home PFs have a range comparable to that for typical small commercial U,7. '<. 'ef
.. a.
~
1 ' '. structures. The hospitals have structural characteristics comparable to certam wmss of schools that were visited and analyred. Thus, the hospital PFs fall within the
.i ,
% M .E range of school PFs. Martm at 12-13 and Attachments 5,8.
- I6
- i -
- b e-r .' 'r e
905 9
f,* e ,r i _
I
.- . , . ~ , .-. e, ,y,e. . . . , . ~, g,. . y.. n ...gw.,,.,,, ,
hq, ,
s ; O ; :, .4
..d
.f a
*-f .
l-y ,'
r a
r " ?, s.
j, A, 4 s G '. ' , ' ' '-
~
'g, ,' [q 'f] j i -[ - .
. ;;pfgj,-q' f,y lm j p g:o s .
. ;,; .,~4m.pg . j,y ' .
l 3( c.~,
c- ,, myy ,,
- r h ., .. , o e Q ,, m} m..
; .( j.
hhfhQNV[.h'NMyhhM2.,'f.9,Dh.
w wm .-w k h NhhY.hhhNbb k N k. "' @
igMMwu:&.s ~,
m.nyqu n:. lp .,vsf. n -
g.,;.dh e:n .wmyw ' ~.q:r Q W y't?h. w &.m !a y %y , h%.iBy.W...q&pr&. 4 n. w . w';gbetS &M. m qk&.q rtgt W. w
.n:w i
Q G.gl_
mW[j ,x,-;'W,. ln$$m?Q.:' %$wygy.~ .:Q &
4.u. .p , ::- s' ~ A.a :%n .
w &.
.'1 .; ; .3.t, w.*
.. . g;.;
p;@ls .y+,w.W. %pm. ; yy .pWa.
y' ,' & s,
~s ,w.;wm%s,Qyn.%:
r .
. . .k W.a m .m. s*. .
eM' b L?..w w- w ..
- w .
. .... , . e , ra. r~
- . :; &m.%, i
$y. jy.j. .) Y . ' -*E ~: lf ' a 2
i ' - + '? '. i * ~ " '" % o ' "' '
.. ,,. .s%- . . q',
~, p, ;.[g,'. a.: 1..
1 - ~*
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.
, r. .,. . tures in the liarris EPZ that could be used as shelter in the event of an accident at M
.S,.M.fd.? . W. ;.7., ,'.Y,,.'.,
~
. . the llartis Plant. The information will be available to officials who will decide what
. '. b ., protective action (that is, evacuation or sheltering of the population) to take in the
. . . event cf an accident at the Harris Plant. Myers at 3; Tr. 7904,8058 (Myers),
yAym.i.n Wyflg.< w;.x .". xePp>g;d;' W
. . . . ..g. 9,4.4yy,.,;n.
r'l2.'N
. . ;sa7 J
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% ,
'n& ' 'M-Elith MN - M:NEQ@.y,7
-. p; ; '. t ' : W . W ',o ,..:,7 % ,
- 5. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Findings 1-11 and 16 find some isolat-ed support in the record, but read in context they do not undercut the Applicants' case. The thesis underlying certain of these findings appears
' -~...e' am'.m. . .t. y 'c3 . A.r y,;
.. . y. *f ., .e, .
to be that the survey of structures must be more site spec.fic i than the
,. . 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~ h; w-b.w .> w..,b*hDMyQh% e, m-.w. W is to allow planners to make informed, but relatively gross, judgments 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 O.L u fgw. 9.ex@j2G N
, , r . q.:
J/p.T' decisionmakers in deciding whether to move people, e.g., from wood buildings to brick buildings, seeking to maximize sheltering protection.
., 6 See Tr. 8151, 8156 Oleard). Thus, what the decisionmakers need is a manageable set of reasonable estimates, not a finely tuned and detailed
* ' , m. , e. < ,
' e ,a mass of data. Similarly, we see no need to develop varying infiltration es-
.sa A. Mgf... eb. A. ..
timates based t,n " typical wind speeds around the liarris site" - at least p.%w!vy!, .tj}}%n y@s ' W.1 .x~.a.
Q..dQP.u. 4M4 In the absence of any evidence that high wind speeds are typical. Mr.
.m.. a-,
- u. . . . . ., m. -
r , s'".m,,.. ., . . ,. n e._
Martin was justified in relying on published studies for estimates ofinfil-
. .. .- . ~
q -
. .h tration rates, which were incorporated into his conclusions. Martin Tes-W. { ', J ' l, y timony, Attachment 5, at 1; Tr. 8027. Furthermore, we can assume that
- p. .e , . - . n %y .,.
g .ag.g , 7,. J' planners faced with an evacuation / sheltering decision and a high prevail-p,y I bi @.q; W. g ; y w.fM ing wind could take that factor into account on an ad hoc basis, noting, hkkh; J. @Ybh.r./ Ek m .M h/ for example, that while the high wind might increase infiltration rates in buildings, presumably it would also disperse the radioactive release hydOlld'Gi ,$t.k.fDM.j more rapndly.
.zd,A;Q+
.y .;b. , a: w
#q . 4NM yh.V:;/ m : 6. Mr. Eddleman's Proposed Finding 12 states that the Applicants' p,.)
Ofy,L4
,.M. e '& P, 1. . "..f.? .~
summaries of protection factors " collapse data to the point that the 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.
'j. * * ?
y- ,- ,.
~,;o v; . . -
- e. .. . . ,..;;,- *
. .; j % , t' ,?. y f. g q, , - . , l.,' 'fk h,Q.'hkp}(;%I'. W ( j.Q "X ,. j l , .
%,. . . < $ ,' .,d '
, ! .," p[f
'[,, . ': ,' ,/ * ,
. y -l .;, . p . e _-. .p m[n:%g.gll[,y'* g y c.?'p. m.g. m i, y w % % }.p m g y y
. g%:.vw
. w. /u. . ..
. .x. , ;:: . ~. . :. > e.. .y,. 7 ;. , , -
, ~,n
- m. m .
, p3
.. .. . e.g.g4.g_, g ..j,a
#..g, T.--Q'"g'% T~*W,.m%.yE'.
,g, ymp.
. .~ j 'M p.y4,M
*d
YF
*I h:mM&l,%W '_ ; h' c'; w:N:.,x-;yg%l NRQN; f~
., ; 0% . . , , . L ..j W*z . 9lt: JW%W$5
^
Qg '
.wynw - 4 _ .3 , ., . ' . s.
3.'M,8y %pM&y.; >y g.g .,,'t:
,s. M..- is (l&ypg :WMp ..,,.
!- c -
% .) %q :.QM ;,,y .? - ,,
m'r ' - l- p Q&.y; K.:.3 W;:%W$g,','; ,.; &QM_
%s m( . K W y' G. Q P ~ {~-';. ? 'R.j V ' . ' g M %Q.e,..Q. ,G V.s,q,.Q.C ,
v 1 y a
,W.a y q ' -. ., .,x...,.
.w.
. 1 ,p..
+
,o
-[e ..
u 4
x , p* t.m.
v.T~ +3~
=M' O h D'%.d.1 M, , ,f, .G,. .s :s. lL ',,*.h .. l T. j'
;., m 4 .C i u / A,...;e 4, W+t.y .
.n,. -,- ; g- -t
,. " 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 below, it probably would have been sufficient to determine that the non-Q < l l;; ,, . J 9 ..~ . . .
residential structures in the EPZ generally have higher protection factors
@gM.g@.y Gl.".,( 3 .
A& av..j,..m e'.. Q..M. W, n.4 than residences.
s.m.m@%
p.g. w <yX,.p ,. ,.x.a . 7. Mr. Eddleman,s Proposed Fm. ding 17 asserts that "there is no
, . m .e,.s .ut,%g
.w . ;. .m r ~. . - o,- ., w . ~ evidence that the PF.s of structures in the EPZ do all fall in [ thel
. .a.m.aa.O
. .f n. . .. u, w v . . y ea ., . x:. @.
ranges" listed in the Applicants' direct case. This proposed finding large-r.hm,. .:m M. 9f, " c ,w; N;m y .g'p,1
- m
.y. ly ignores the Applicants, uncontradicted case, including the.ir fa.irly MWMyd-M fin::W:f.p g
. 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. t .X,%DN.
s.s 4 m m... churches and small commercial structures are similar to residential struc-ww- tures. See Applicants' Proposed Finding 52, which the Board has adopt-et'Q lfp%.Qgg I.t
.M%6M.
%;ddm$.t
.;e.r - . A 4 G;..r.. %
N M g.h d ed. We think the Applicants took a reasonable approach and that sepa-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.3e .. , v . 92 . . . .. . .
p g; m M.. .e4 basement." Proposed Finding 20 points in the same direction. The ap.
y p,};g,q v., a 2.w.
.y i - ig
parent implication is that reliance on the brick house protection factors T d . N @p *
, t. y ; M ' ,jepg %
as a basis for a sheltering decision would not be conservative. While that
,j..
n
- may be true as an abstract proposition, it would not happen in this case.
ff .. . As shown by a comparison of Applicants' Exhibit 29 with Attachment 8
; to Mr. Martin's testimony, single story wood frame houses with no base.
pMhl.s:.:.(Ui i..O,j 'Q j 'ft '
ment are the general category of structures in the EPZ with the lowest
- hhMSh,
$ M W 'n N hYh h;d % dd.V'$ -
Protection factors, substantially lower than virtually all commercial /in-dustrial buildings and schools. Furthermore, the Applicants' motion for WR M:, f.y$. pi.
4j;k summary disposition establishes that most of the houses in the EPZ are WWdp'$4
!,9..p n r.pfe,g '[ of wood or similar construction, not brick or stone. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that the protection factors of wooden houses
. ? y9[: . . '0,1;Yf 1 ' q q.y h%.',7f 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
~'
p .
l 4
..j[ $ '. y
r li, ,
- n. . W . k l, h ,
- K2 C M G Ae
- l .' ? NY;
- g--
. w=~r= --
.; . z
~~~s- ~
~.m- ~
r ~ 7 tw
' ,-*m I s
. *' !*5 Af" * ^
mf5
- I
' .f y
~ : - . .:a ,w. ;.n.p
. .v .y ?4. 3,
,p' .
a
.n:~ n* h. 6is ,)v2
- 2. .n.;..n.y(e. r f n.,.,k .s . '-( s . n . .'b',
z,..
..c@.
O s,
- y. ~.,,I,
* *,yl. 4,g s ,.g [e ef, , ;; ,
ei. ,-
. y
. ' .. ;[, .n' /.[&}.I.
. y;,p.R W 4m...
c,9 tn gw-
_p . . ., .s .
~
-> p gg,.m.a.sgq fs~ .,
- g b'i;. ~1 j'W l N,W:m.~ky.2?M&R.f.fMW@DO.4d,MMQWRFfy.Qf
&y. Q.qdQ.n% % n. h ;.s;n n.: 2 p % % weQ %ud, MQh.WQ:f.;<~
;Q g me m ! ~h .
. A. -44: l \
&a & : 4.
c;p .w wA,,- p p.c. ;) y yn :+q
- w. w .p.k.,,, !0*n$.m$.y$,g):,>W+h&.y.)MNQ]Y.4 vn 4:wy ,4p %y.. y EN y
IfK>y,.h%,q&ES pyM.k..f.
.g.
. ?h qw%:.w .Rq.,a
&. m,y .WSh6kh p,:3cv.y eum n,.y ;
~ ]:. O i:i
- .e
.y; . r s . 3 l - 7 4 -y.;n.p U 4 yy fi!%kdm.M: git N M ' ~
. s Mh - _y .
s; l
,...~ ,.y q- , y . p. . -
~ e:.a
. s. , . _.y . p:'. e ,n3.% W u u.s
'..m. Q ',%f, W, R..,e., ,
expand their initial survey beyond residential houses to other structures, I
all of the relevant protection factors will be before the decisionmakers. l 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 f J.II.d.I;fM P.5MJ .
the value of the FEMA witnesses' testimony on this contention. The l d iMW
.us.%4.n,%n:.
a, ,p v . p't.e..
+~ e4$r w M . e./
~ .5. gs y.. a..e v w%6; m ..e,+. wM4 n , eMh. w'*f ; M . M thrust of that brief testimony was that the use of residential protection factors as a basis for choice between available protective action options i
l A, .- .
is " conservative since larger, institutional type structures being normally
- 5. .%.@.,7,D;
?fd g 1 T,mhi.7 .lMc,[.m.M.
. .J.
~
7@,k.9.g$
more spacious and massive, ofter a greater degree of protection. , Tes-timony of Heard and flawkins at 3. This broad generalization is support-i
% ^ T ; b.h. MC j ed by the Applicants' empirical data, particularly with respect to deposit-fN '/t.gn ;.7.N '
ed nuclides. See Attachment 8 to Mr. Martin's testimony, liowever, we .
56.4O.*yc.y,*ydw%@yg.W agree with Mr. Eddleman that FEMA's consideration of this contention I
'7 '
was cursory and that FEMA did not materially contribute to the record.
, '.. ' l '
/U.c J _ Ml Whether, in these circumstances, the FEMA presentation should
- 3. v.- u.: {i p,@.QV i . y,L nevertheless be accorded substantial evidentiary weight (see 10 C.F.R.
b . d!Y { 50.47(a)(2)) is ultimately not significant, because the Applicants pre-
.. ". a , sented a substantial case which Mr. Eddleman failed to rebut in any E material respect. The Board is relying primarily on the Applicants' case
. . s M. " .,O.,, w:c.ki..,M . qpp. .W % dd h N p.M 4f $ $ ; M [O,r in resolving this contention.
U '., 11. With the inclusion in the State Emergency Plan of information
- u l.d h;%r$M*/,pDQ' E/{ "'%Nd4 p f? on the protection factors of representative institutional, commercial and k.",W,My j: M @gd industrial structures in the EPZ, the plan will meet Evaluation Criterion h@
- My.$' MR.@ h M h@' h h J.10.m of NUREG 0654 and the Applicants will have met their burden l
l y y -.. c , ,.', '. p. . ? ; with respect to Eddleman Contention 57 C 10. .
. m
, ,m ,,
J./.941 ,3 / B. Eddleman Contentions Based on the Emergency Planning a
K.:.y% w %_g. ~%g/N. s.; 7. c ra."
.f i n y?yp st;a,. a.r M;J.h?. ;.Eygregge
[.$,\QY... , 7,' : . g.y : .",W:.tylW;Q. l. Introduction andStandards 1
,m v .. l l
,s , y
# ' - J' On May 1718,1985, the preliminary emergency planning exercise re. I 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 st;Jti: Shearon liarris facility. Participants in the exercise included CP&L, the ;
N
;#'[W/; .'7dfcM; M K ./ J'. "
- c State of North Carolina, and the four counties in the plume EPZ - !
. 7 wb s.a4m,c&p%.m,@,"w@v a.
e NiayM.
o.e W$. .uW,.,
Ap'C!i Wake, iChatham,
.. liarnett and Lee Counties. Representatives of the l M$YM[dM$@rD'N.
g r
} @y'@#
issued ,-.j;c y;d2.'
FEMA and NRC staffs were present as observers. FEMA subsequently an " Exercise Report" and " Interim Findings" based on the exer.
M;[,mem.4p. M.M M./- E'~h "4:.T cises, which were transmitted to the NRC on August 7,1985. The NRC Staff prepared C;a report (No. 50 400/85 20) focusing on onsite aspects of y,9 g7 q :; 'f:..% Sp; j.. s ' . 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 l
1 4
3
$9, '
s a 8 . _ _y - , um ,ce. , '
'a,., ? #'y , 4 ,*
. /
.,,# ,.g .,4['
[ j. '. , ' ( ', ' (
, f,
; *eu.~...-~
,a ,
' *. }
. y" P.d :*t n..a> - . . .
?,. .
., ,:<g.,
- . . ' .;. * . g.t.Q.f,*
;;p.. . n ,. m s e. ., v+. .
a
;J,j
. . : , g.
yn . , Y,c.
. . .Rn.,y nm .);. g sm.
, n.n ...m. g...s.y ,
. J ' .
Q, ';
.~.
\,
. 3 .,
'?E % .
[*'-s'Q&u * .,. ' o,.f. u* . Li '*_ , +,'r. 6. .*, . 0.* y .j . V, Q,w'.s.,
y,.g ,W WW .f .QJW, f4 G1 j
; ,. ,p. e, . <, y e. . . ,'*, d. . ;; . K ..?,..r ,;g.;g4t ,'Q , G .;,.. b %.,5.f;? p % &,. .3 cc.^,,Q.
p ig, Qv.; , v.g.. . .,, p 4
_ . _ . . -_m . - _ - -
2' o : AR!iMN : W,: 0?. ' '
&%:W:l.9% %w.QW) p. , .';n : ;,. n j. m
.a ww,.% i~ sc.m M.v ,u* .Y . ' .e . '? ;&. 4C.*?!!I%
.. v .W:w y
g
- .Q W; fin n.m.k.m y. so ns. u w .r .+ ~, / Mr
.w'. r k. W. M n . .h..
T M. %.W.:%.'.i.s.,.? g &aQ.-i .'i k . M..,_ . '&. .
i .
a
.,4.AW:. M.- ;i (
v.y G...: ~W. n u.PA%wNv%.'.'%n.
r.#
t 4 c . 75 %.# .,
. ]m'fva *, 4Q.a,y* N=
-%,M:W . g,.C
+
q9': , Y 6- " ' 7: $' 6 7' . . +.
- f .1. y.
% s c..: . ?'+ h~>'y>%.17.g ,%. (. , , ,., .e.q*
.. ,.'. q . -
s.
,r
,P -
t
. tl yp./.4 rd.
ol :
2- '*
e .a r r_- .: L m - -' _a v ,., . $.
, m:.4@% .%, W.gi ;. ; N ; @@;c ~. .. ,4- w-h;'o:%, W,N f,y[;h.. >l- .l[g.', %" ' ,
.W ,' . . . . .
?m. ,g.s , w s .. .
. W ,
f.r . 3 .
.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-
. C. .- ments cited above. The text of these contentions is set forth in the at-RM..
T/c 4 . .j n,...,W,.. Vf. . . , jM wr k,Q,< %. e, .M, t ,.., tachment hereto. The Applicants and the NRC Staff subsequently Gled wL =
pleadings in opposition to all twelve contentions. Mr. Eddleman then
.h' .N' W @ W r:. N J c WMei 7M[g -@$-!n:cy;@%A c l DiedOnaNovember reply to those oppositions.
5,1985, at the close of the evidentiary hearing on M%.d@.dM@er WVM ~f 's_. Q,y Eddleman Contention 57 C-3, the Board ruled on the twelve exercise
.c i
%. u, RW+. 3f8 : . ~e l#$rM.m'w.?M.W.%.
WQ
. r. y . N hn/
g?w.DM
/m
- i, -
M*r and rejected M.f.00.",
contentions. We admitted two of these contentions (one as modined) the remaining ten. We stated that we would provide reasons
;. g ; q y d aD; for our rulings in this opinion. Tr. 9971 74. Those reasons follow.
M ,6174 W W,lpW. q@s ,,, ,. 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
%.[.* ~ a[;',f. AEC 13,20 21 (1974). They are also subject to the limitations applicable ec ,,(p p '. 7
;-l X to late Gled contentions.10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(1). See Duac Power Co.
. . . . . ;, 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
< @rl*/.,c ce g,44/ < wr.. ,1/, .a . f,,~I v. 9 5 . .. ,,
in light of the fact that they are arising at the end of a lengthy public ce9NM:m.:qM.iVG@ . # @. Q. , . _;.a Ja W .
evaluation process - a process designed to surface serious planning
% g .
$g, pf %'i ' ,, defects - and relatively close to expected operation of the facility. Fur-
%gn>jj!@Ag$j@g;% Mhr,E b thermore, we should take into account that FEM A has made an overall
/;fy;; 'KM i { g:dhi3M*/ M' ' ,' (' .
determination that the exercise was satisfactory and that the cited den-s 'yy y ciencies are correctable. As we next explain, these latter two considera-
/' tions were largely decisive in our rulings.
Through an amendment to its emergency planning rules in 1982, the
%.s ,- . 4 . MNv .
NRC sought to exclude emergency planning exercises altogether from p M.w?.M %e. ~,M, >
y/
h.#if.h.0;y$g'c 0 a gconsideration in operating license cases. That amendment was success-
.- .%p'p-
.. T,.y fully challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-
.g.y-q fN, A/'!@ # :r-j bia Circuit. See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 N
- 3y" -
(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..
9; ,@?, u . 4 .
interests of speed and efficiency. The court rejected the implication that y/t W.c[hcQ7-Q.G m .: ?. . di 5, R.ed.4.:..%A,p i , c'rits ruling was intended to have any such elTect. Most significantly, it stated that:
7fp.M:C MMO,;.,Ydf W,),ph W.*p'med ,i.y ,
@hdS '{l* M O,I h'[fN.M '.
The Commmion argues throughout its brief that the exercise is only relevant to its hcensing decision to the estent it indicates that emergency preparedness plans are
; &x Q*i;%y. 4,@c V,V f 7M j.. ' . fundamentallyflamat and is not relevant as to mmor or ad hoc proMems occurrtng on Mr
,.,;*, %..f- p . ~3Q:.Q
. i .'
, l [' . , . .
4 the exercise day. Today, we in no way restrict the Comminion's authority to adopt l.
~~- ,i' ' this as a substantive bcensing standard.
s .
- i. , j 1 ' .*
909 l
t l . -
l
, r' ,. s s c _
' i ' , ' Y;'cm ., ) ..
* *# 0 * *
,d b:
i << ** ; l . . ?%p' g J
, . t, ;. L 3f $ ,' a d).l*? ~ .
* * ,,;h
,hr ;,..
[ ; ', tgc /.[. ,:* .)he
{ l . s.L.~.[.
f
.,}.. f, , , ; ,* .
., i (# Y .
, , ;'m. . , 3 e - . v. ,, ;.mp g; -
r '{.
.y.
,c. .
f s nr.f. .. 3, &, ,:u.
,1 l
.y , , ( l-
,, c. s e , .vs ,_ i, m.,,q..,
ym .'... ,
, 3, t%,l,. . ,,p,.
r,mq
.m. v c,.
a_w, t .. , , , .
j;j%. . %oE, .W .x W.,m..);% 3,W.g.sp.;m'..-;,
Q1. %.s.H..4,. ?. ?ns.W4 ' 4c 6. . G N. ..V ;. d.i 4,, %. #. .N. .y..f.Wy s :w:;,y,pW. . @.ggg3.
q.w.,
w /. ~ s&;.~ as.. .:ma : :;igr
. .g
.g[Qk.
,n 5kW g %y g W ;. ;., pg3. u.R.,,> nw, ~eus-, m. y,.,.m ..
~
- n,.s .
n?n . . u .s.,eq,.,
t
..; 4. %. .. . . . .%
. s &;y'.1 w., Wy!;&/.y.g;g;
-9g
,gy ,..v.q;M: Q c W . 4...g%. 7. u , .Q **.#. h . :
~7 -
./ .:J V, f::.....W. .W *.W;;.piL ?. .f%, , QW q$.Q igwq7ffg: % f .;@ &y ..;;W W,'y/ . 4,.N, W &.%-
y,]!:y.}lQ R.plQ >
lR n y :;L M M M ~& ':s %-
~
h f ' ^:.' .
, b ' . :Q:'"i
%. w.
.v' .~ . *, u.Yp .. w ~ .;' q
&- : m . . - . . . '.R
': , ..y y ,q:. ~ y as ..;;..
4
.c,,
,a :. .u.gy .7 1,
g ,y, ,,,..V. g.m.
.,.y..j; 1. . < .
2
.n .
. ;y. .,
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.
tentions, namely, exercise contentions alleging a " fundamental flaw"
, j
,. .. - ' g, , . , .4 . (and satisfying other contention requirements) should be admitted; con-tentions alleging only minor or readily correctable problems should be i.A . . :c .
,Q. L.m., t , < r.; ;,. v.. a.o; . A .
t 'A . c,,p ;a , .even rejected, f. , if.Tthey M..v:,y might have been admitted at an earlier stage.t za,.g n : . _m .. .c. f..:a.. w ea ..,c #, y.e ,. Apart from the " fundamental flaw" criterion, the NRC's emergency dME$T.M66.n ,fa .r"' ~ ds planning regulation,10 C.F.R. ! 50.47(a)(2) provides that: "In any W.
e.
y,f,".M.m. M..W, -
. ,m .. s rd .
'$..,'M. NRC g.f,llicensing M,o proceeding,
,M@I.y a FEMA finding will constitute a rebuttable . .
....cjn . presumption on questions of adequacy and implementation capability.,,
1 6.g w 1,4 8 t,']M/~C o 'r tW'f- e, c v .. M M in this case, the overall FEMA findings on the Shearon Harris exercise p/ V :[N'.' .*? $y. , M' . Res ' 6.W;., <
.. S ' :3 , ; 2. , p c,. i.?
were that:
7n .. ..
. y
,e M r a. s , ,s d h. .
~
' 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
. . Ii 3.;. /. ? I' j l. '. 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
i Memorandum from Richard Krimm, FEMA, to Edward Jordan, NRC,
# dated Aug. 7,1985, at 2. In addition, FEMA made specific findings W.h.'.!7.hMhikbM[ Ww,M.J.n.ed..,;about i .:
u V several of the problems that were to form the bases of Mr. Eddle-n a r..v m ,.,c. . c n 'J/
4.s\
. .- , w%%. pr % .
z e';;%
man,s contentions. To be sure, the quoted regulation is not directly ap-
. .. p # plicable at the contention stage: it comes into play when a contention
%_ %.,. 9 p,3 ; @N hto(h3. A hearing.
-my Nevertheless, this regulation implies that a
$;;.r.- gN;,g#$NM'*y goes evidentiary
. m n. p .. M ft,w . g g m M. .
- Board should give a FEMA finding of adequacy or correctability some
', deference at the contention stage. We have done so in this case.
. , 1,
- w. t.M.. .. .. s
+
t
>r
, .,,. t .4 . i,f
'y.'hlh. '
'q'.l q
q Q f ;* 4} p'. ']';p)
.< , c.
.?? % V/,q.y',lQ, 'gg Qd'k'y yh
.f;.
c+,
,,p w .. - s m.
.; i u *. ,_ .%y.e,,7
. r e.;r
p rs. , . .c ; ," .
- L c ;. s .
' g. . h.' ' ' 'la discusa ng the apphcahon of these er terta. the court stated that the NRC could "summanly dismiss
@ ./ - W 'j J t any claim that did not raise genuine leaves of matenal fact about the rundamental nature of emergency
. . . . 0b - ,q,
- v ,, .a . .y.,, *. i ~ . preparedness plans." 733 F.2d at 1444. As an abstract proposition therefore,it might be argued that the
* . . J ig.? * 't 5,<'i , /
g*;f g / , ['. " fundamental Daw" cntenon should only come 6nto play at the summary disposinon stage, that 18
. .. - f. .p g ,* ',, ti .. ; should not be apphed to esclude a contention at the threshold. We And it siemficant, however, that the
.~F./ .5 3 ,
" p , 'r4 li p'/f. l court did not draw thss disuncuon and that it cited with approval 871 c MC. $02 P 2d 424 (D C. C6r.
(h.7" . - h* Q.*h f M ' ; % 6.*. h.
?M@ Y[?.i d.,k M t.jf 1974) which approved threshold eaclusion of contentions. Furthermore the court went on to state that "the only central requirement is that there be an opportunity to dispute 6ssues raised by the esercises 7 y gif a s f ,...g,7jy gfry ,, m , (gg fr,y -
under the relevant decisionmak6ng enteria." Unsom e/Cearerard 5cararsses, snapre. 733 F 2d at 1449. We
' k.%,9:* e
- Q *,
- y, .
- 7 i t , ; " *q'N' . ., 39o ' d a +f f.l,'*g"' g ,,,
beheve that such an opportumty has been afrorded here. where the pleadings have made it apparent that 4 J, < the bulk of these contenuons do not involve fundamental Daws.
-:i a +f , % , .ij. ,i',. $- .
We are mandful that the court spoke of "the Commission's authority" to adopt such substanuve
- f;f . N. - + ,~ .! C'J () ' .
i ;}f, {,Q .. hcensing standards and, to our knowledge. the Commission uself has not formally done so. Apparently, 3
. , i t '. 1.1, .1 3 this 6s an escue of Arst impresseon. flowever, our delegated authoney to decide this case includes the au.
' > ' 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 e u ' 8.._ , - m. , _r_ . _ _, - . . . ..rs- v a q . m #.-
, = *
' . , ;, . . - . r, 2'. .,s * '
A. , . , .t> :e.i* g ,5l h 4
4.dpe
. p , y(.'.h l,1,j , j:
??l. **
y ' 'r
,s . . .>s,',
E r
.s 4 ' . ' ' " , ..yM
.. ~.s*.4 r .. -
,,,,f.'
, i E . ,, .. .~ '
Q . .: 4 . >f e b c,, 7.MQ. (n2 k 1 4 S*' *
; * . ' ,';), .f;
' g,)f.&-
. h , .li U.c N
- ll N);
_t
, a, d. ,; .y, ..
g[j W.'u, su,t#Q .'w, g. .
.a
, 'u&r.&.
, '.,p . ' ; . !W&,y.;
! .<,y o
.w 't) .q%&.
> ?g.3
' ]l i.'.'l*$.
'j,*.g.,. $ g.. > .
- .Q
..).., i
- n f..:,;"f
')$.A Qh y,.y> 3, vn. jg,,
f4gD.
i .a _ 1 .
.y 'y . .c.fy.;. ;
~
F
,, , , f, ' , .- -'. <
; , a 75
;, .w . + .
. < , . - eo
- .. f' '.;o c a ,-cw . .?r. n 1 J. tm. . , , . .
. , , + .
.- , r . ,,
.- - 7w. / *: .,
wsy. g;;p,..,4y; J.,.9:: , ., g.. ,.,, j,.%.;.e
.^
w..
. . s... . ;~ Q. . . g . t .h,.
. . .b -
- j.. , ~,
, y t.m.
, e . ., s,
_w sm-
;+ . . m .: ..
,.. M . u. ,...-<.
- c. m, s . . , . ,, ; .
> .. ., . g -u,*- ,.r- 4 :
...r - . . .. .
~ ~ ~ - - - -M"
[.2 h. . 1 '..g /m / ) ,' p } [+'-
*r. 2.
v . '! ,_ ; r ? .
J. - % .,. y
- r {.
m..n
- 2. Applications ofStandards Admitted Contentions - 2 and 8 These contentions were admitted because they could, if substantiated.
~
3 involve a fundamental Oaw in planning. Contention 2 alleges six areas of W
3dV ..1, /? ' .2.( ; communications deficiencies. Effective communications among g$/-).I , 7.' '.I :?t.C32K'l-K emergency personnel are crucial to plan implementation. In addition to unit capabilities, there must be effective interconnections and coordina-h Qb h.C ';; '6 ~ .ks];[I[ @ ',. N
*y.a p;'q;% tion among units. The number of problems cited here suggests that ade.
j.p:g/. f'N 1J %.: eq fg.@ y i*:.),dik. quate coordination may be lacking. If, as the Applicants argue, Conten.
tion 2 merely " strings together a series of diverse, relatively minor com-MYDe f;q.,y/?r,'.vfTNU?p N;y y.Y.E- e',cFf' 'M/4 munications problems,"it should be amenable to summary disposition.
, . ..c - x. ., -.. Contention 8 cites various implementation deficiencies in the 2@ . . -,lf;..g dl. ' t . '., Emergency Broadcast System. The effective functioning af that system 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 b- n ,. c . .; % j .l
.& d ? ;#U,. - Q['
Contentions Reflecting Minor Problems - 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 11
.C,[,?:y"~
. 'T. 4. Q3 Q';g g; . 7 These seven contentions allege minor, ad hoc, correctable problems.
Even if substantiated, they would not represent " fundamental Daws"
,, y% . . f "
; & , j, ;3 and thus would not compromise substantial implementation of the
',ff;;p,y. .
i - .
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
( 9 ".' .
. .-' t. . v. emergency medical operations. Whether viewed separately or together,
.~ these criticisms can hardly re
- resent a " fundamental Daw" in planning,
, ,,f.s /.e/,f. ' *fy. .,sE. + ,
E; .,.y
. , r. . .
'f, $. ?. s
'/ .. ' S .4' " a ..y. i.e., the plans could be carried out successfully even if equipment like
.f R ,~ >>./, ,C
- splints were unavailable and measures against contamination were not
- - perfectly executed. The NRC Staff Report, at 8, found onsite emergency
I
. , .e medical activities to be satisfactory. In any event, any deficiencies of this
.A ,
,o.. .
,& sort are readily correctable.
g . A>., . .. t, ' . . *r
- Contention 4. This contention is also based on circumstances de-
. ,. , M,', '-*bUi } h h . scribed in the State Evaluation Report, at 5. The FEMA Exercim Report
@jG;%
MhE, p[i. 3M$$2fND. is generally more favorable on decontamination activities. FEMA Exer.
48, b D*',
*Q y.
QNWQ
.W,, 3-i.se Report at 4 5. Moreover, as noted above, problems in decontamina-tion are readily correctabte through training.
gy. 3. p. / q. . c .. '$ n .
Contention 6. This contention alleges various problems with " rumor a "'- control," relating principally to dissemination and coordination of infor-y <> . .,
. . .i .-
911 2
g *"MM
. - W'M8'W***4 5 MO " g% % @"'We.
9 $ .I . ,
. ~
. . %y .. 4 ] [
. . . , i s
- n.
~
,. .. . . . . . . s.. .
a... . '
,k'.gr' l , U. ** .t
[ ,. ,"
> ~
.s * . .,
. . , , g g; p .
_ . t .,;g ..,.
. .. a ,
v
;ns,.;s,y .p.g Agoy 3g:,qq:gM+.y . ~ , , + ..: - w..... ,, <
;. ze. a,.,.. .. m@:g<a
,n . . . . - .t
,.y: 99 . . w;g..w:a.~
j m, n e.. .; 6. s.,.w. s,p .. . .ws, Mrn .py+. m,g
.y . . . .,\.s....
., m 4 ~, ., ~
z S;w:x 1.. ;c.:.n .p, 2 . :. 7::.;;,;. :y,;;c ,
, . .v, . n ;u ,
- n. ; g ,y y%u.,. a
. -~ .. ,~:,9 y w...g. q s:.,,. g ,av,,,, i,,.p..ym<, , ,. : ,o, f . .,-.zn, 3. w;:c. ,y.s.4
....u .....
,..,....,,;.~..m,.y
. s n4 q ,
, u. . y u. ;> ; gw,;g...,y. . ..y
- y,;y.o, 4. ,p !.#
. ,s< ( . . w 1 ;y.*-, , , g. . m, m4
,.w,~......;u .a s n,w,i. u%w, n. u .., , +y u,. 3.. .rr. g ..
,c y, y' . . a 4 .
, 4' . ;;
- n. .y ' a . .y[f ',. . w* y . .y .m..g. v.T. qj
~...f- ,, ** /4g..
, , , w . r.'
%, y -
" -^','./- # - ".
7 .*'
s , .
2 . ,. .
,p -. < v ., ,.g...'
, . . - U: .W, Iv. C.'. . :
7 ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ' M.A M. -
. . y. Y , n .: W y,M'Q;s, .;y3l D Cl***,'y' v pw .
..;<.g. -g- q/,4,q.y, .<
6 a
,".. .: 3'y j ,. , I r . ;- . . , . n, .
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 4.i- . ..
E
- < Contention 7. The first part of this contention is redundant in light of Contention 11, which also concerns hard-copy data transmission. See t
- .J g,g,74.A . , v.;/.:.l3.Rg = m ; < A.* . . ..; 7. Discussion.' ',.
ve ,
pu e 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 w might be helpful, we view it as a refinement in planning, not an essential
.. M . .,W.srG T. h 'MW/ p;...F[cf@dWPQ element. FEhlA apparently agrees. See Exercise Report at 9; Findings
...-....s. - -
..,. s ..,3.,N,,o.p,
. n~ .. at 15.
. , s ' L, , p; .,. , Li 'l,d .(i..g Contention 9. This contention alleges, out of its context from the
.-.s ,
- .y , ' . 'm . '. 4 State Evaluations, at 12, a " weak level of training"in the use of anticon-M a.- Q t:,' " ;
tamination clothing and respirators by radiation survey teams. The Eval-4, s p.;' w .,3
;.g.'aW .,' uation also notes generally, however, that the teams had adequate
<. ;, .T
..giF];G'ug*sk.;[ knowledge of their responsibilities and performed in a professional
, . ', ".,~. --
,+
sc,,,. manner. For its part FEMA stated that " team members in general were
. ' . . . , s.)2 .$. .. ' . . . adequately trained." Exercise Report at 15. Assuming some training
'. M:;dd.,".Mc. > denciencies in these areas, they are minor and correctable.
' @TJgk'/ (.P: i; W ,$. L A i', N
'U .'k:J.9' .%O 10.
Contention , This contention alleges several minor and readily cor-
. . ?,- Ry7 .M .,P r ." rectable problems with respect to protection against radioactive lodine.
. $. /'R. y$.,,'..t.M],1, *4 f.<.y;G4,Mf. :
See D@);LFEMA Exercise Report at 15,29. FEMA found (at 13) that meth.
Mv b. . ,h/.%
Wp -
ops 0 .. ods, systems and equipment for accident assessment and protection
..M,?. *.. . -. ~'.#.:.M.s'.8.,.t, m , . .
e ,
c against radioactive sodine were adequate.
- O]' '
Contention 11. This contention alleges various proolems in hard copy transmission of information. As the Applicants point out, while such
! q.y.. uow' ... $< Y .9 M '. . hard copy messages "are useful for record keeping and are more con-o Tggy (
~W
<0.. y. .c. a. . , , ol venient than hand written notes for maintaining logs, they are not inte-
. . , ,;, l
. q.4; g%.y . ..
A n, gral to effective communication.,, Response at 11. The primary means
" b y;. j. c - .
of communication are by telephone and radio. Furthermore, such prob.
c -
S ' ' .< ' .
tems are correctable. According to one county of0cial:
.;('
' , ..s
',3
. . .Q gg. .* - y
,l . [qf(*(. y. .t.; g $. y; . (T]he facsimile unit that we had was not nearly as efTective as we mould have hked
. , , . , . . . . t . . . - o yl . N . '. ' it to have been. It worked great up untd Thursday rnorning, and 6t's working great N. 4 today. 50. evidently,it,ust dedn't want to work for that drill.
- h. s .. <5,r!b I.',, '?, . .
+
sW.44.j w n... .s. .v.m oy,m y3
,.* e q.4. e,1.,m%.t.
- g. 4., y~ . 4 m'c W FEM A Public Meeting, Tr. 86.
- , , . .s . .
* ' ' i b A Q7f n},'jer.*y% ,?. m e' j *
,, , . . .y ; s < 6 N . # o *f b
+
4 .
,, .' h l*; " .
[
. + t, . , ,
., ,,.os 6
. y .
f
'e . .
e ** * . yease . ee ms.e =m.-e., e.-= 7 *;*f= **.=*g=* papa, eve.e.. _ ..e*=e.y,==.*
g., e r.*-a . g . .e ye e-e,=g ge
. .. r
. , .(,., . ' ,
,a s .'n f >e *
,.a , .,d,
'+c.O'n
.y fr / j V
. 'y,=v
. ;' . r. y,
. te ,*,.., ( 1 .,...i ' < y a/ - . ,
6,
- 1. o ,s .i , '- . ,
,, g.t,;.
..,,'4,.t
~ ,
* .# 's e < '
., ,, .s, . , ' ., .a, ; b ' .4 ,*, .' h;. ' '.'<.;rm' % a, <.
7 *.-t-
.
- V, ; ',' ,i . , a v. , . .', , '/U
.,.:,.,, * . . f '/7 ., ,u.w.g ,
, .? ,
< ?; ,' . , , [. . *,, ,,
'..'i . /, -
,'- , .I. ,',' . N 9' ,
..+f
. . ~ . ..
,v51. , . '. . .
.du.g. M ; . n?.g'g.i. jf ' . '
,, ..L'.n w
- Mv*1' .
1 ('O a . w ~ _f
_t
c .c - -
, . . . f. ,
,x
, _ f>
w .n: . .. ...,~a, . . ,;c . . . . .
, c .
.'
- i , ad * .
( I(.,j,.; ,.3-f,; {f, / > 7.?,,m ~. .e - m'(y *, +,..
r .. ..,- . - ,
'. ) m? 'i
- . , - , t. .
,. .i'
- '. L .
W J.j. r/ a : ' .
s.
', , N :
17
..: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 Report, at 7. The Applicants' analysis of contemporaneous messages
-QMg.Y y,i.-A.rpe h f y;; .
. ' . ?M. .J, .
n ~
demonstrates that notification of the release was virtually immediate. In Y.M%"G addition to their analysis we note that State EOC hiessage 207 states 6,M,.m..3.J.hR..,.A.l'.Mo.i3M.
.7 'p .fc', , ,% T ' u..
1
- s. ,.
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, hc Thh s f a> .@, s,.6, c.g v7,h. ,
, s y,g . characterizes the very documents on which it rests; it must be rejected.
t 4 ',. g,. .
.j .. Contention 3. This contention lists a number of problems with the 3
sirens. Installation of the sirens has not been completed and, as noted in
. u. . s. '" +' - ~.',.. .,'1;.,..',~.,'
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.
N .
, .c Contention 11. This contention is similar to Contention I in that it misstates the record upon which it rests. It alleges a lengthy delay in dis-c'a. . , .
' i{YT , ' d'. Oa'M
,...a..
,. U/.i . #'(
y.,
? }g. ..j ).
. patching assistance to boaters on the Cape Fear River. State EOC hiessage 151 shows that assistance was dispatched in less than I hour.
f ..
As the Applicants point out, such a response is acceptable for reaching
(,M' . 7: ,4 3,Qp Q" .ki ,Z
,c. - ' -
a- %- ^
remote areas of the EPZ. See NUREG-0654 at 316 "best effort
~
Y ' - N'
- basis" acceptable. In any event, isolated instances of delay in such cir-cumstances are to be expected.
m +
, 3. The lateness factors x .*
,Mngv; ;"'gy..t. ..
Applicants and the Staff argue at length that, for various reasons, all m ,. 7 .i t +W .. .
,' c '.ri .
of the exercise contentions should be rejected under the Catawba "five 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
, ^ 1. , , . ..
contentions we are admitting. For the reasons briefly summarized
'+ ;t ),; 7". '- "
below, they pass.
k y ..'lsj.WE h ;!*: k (a) Good cause. We accept hir. Eddleman's statement that he did im ?.M{0,y : F,' not actually receive the FEhtA Exercise Report and Findings t %,l,.
df. j -frQyl[ . Q'.h4 7. '. ; p.;i ,
- on which Contentions 2 (in part) and 8 were based - until
..g . .; 2: the end of August.
s.sco ,-3; . ~. b. ;.f,.. 7 .'. (b) Other incans and representation of interests by another party.
s -
- The Staff acknowledges that these factors favor admission.
Staff Response at 9. Atr. Eddleman has been at odds with the 913 l
8 C ' a'gg 8
Qe J
#
- O w ,,-%" '
)
. . , .,i ,
q .. -u ,,
h
W $r B? #,.4. 9. M.V :*
e ~ . .W: H 1 -i '
V 5. % *i 6.:. ., . w,rM &...# A
~ %.i y .;+M.
- a .i .y:
. w.,. . e.w &., a . 4p :p . M n .n. . . c.
n.m .w 4-qp~e,p?> ,,. m.' " 3. Yy . .c:.,.
W. .
a.m;,,,a_ . .:s. .. s..w . u.,. vn.
- v: .
p:; s ., .s. +m:w . c. . n .
- o. u. ,n s .- . ,
.Si gh.p,.1,.
.f : (- w , . . . < ,
.e ' ' J h- ,
o et
.G S rSwM.
.: y.(?w.h ';n. 1 m..a m- g;'
- p. c,
- il.l d ' y ; D,5 c0 C '.g; %.O sa
.v . :. . , , ': n..n , c
;.~u, ).. y . n. ,. . r. ; . .y.'.. ,c. t.,. 2,.
~
- a. r, .
v ,r o .. ..
. n 7 * ., 4 , ' . ' s,t * 'i ' , . ' N t[,#.4*Q
.l.. , . , . . +
*$, .*.q
;f, 4..g ((*1 ;e. < . , . ; .n. ;n, m,
,3-
- f *; '
'Jj '.*1 r. U Staff and FEMA on virtually all emergency planning issues.
i' iQ y 4 ' ' The Applicants' suggestion that FEMA will represent Mr.
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, Ma J ;- ,
1#' 1175 (1983).
' ' i ~. ,- -
. C .. , (c) Contribution to the proceeding. This factor tilts against Mr.
p- .y,,
+1
._s m '
Eddleman, but only slightly. lie has failed to provide summar.
m .1 ' .S ' I c' .4 C
. *: y les of the proposed testimony of witnesses, which the Appeal Board has generally deemed a requirement. See WPPSS supra.
@Q MM! {fZ. k[fS%;. .'i.1%$, 'v.'; .'7.r %. )c,f #..)
18 NRC at 1177. On the other hand, since Mr. Eddleman ex.
-;.r ,3 ;.,Q> wyJR s OSh; ,o pects to call the exercise evaluators, the substance of their ex.
4 c,;,,li ov b 2. .;.r.y;eNSW.g; .p. u w. c3 .
. L pected testimony can be gleaned in part from the exercise ns m,s.r w.~.%.cp
- 4. t. 4,. . reports and underlying papers.
MLJ:c,MMy..p***f- .; e:
g 4 The Applicants direct our attention to past Board criticisms t(h.
.W L.C. .',##/I'.%k/h of Mr. Eddleman's performance as bearing on his potential
'. t.
E a-
'4
. a.,y. .>.,
4 contribution here. In that connection, the Board's most recent
.. f W , l-l ai ./ ~
such assessment provides a more balanced perspective. At the
- i. b.['I: .j%e c.r e . ..,
,_f*#4* . A.4
.,E,r;p$:w d
- 9. *! b ;y R.,%Ey:l ,7't.r . .f.d@,.c close of the hearing on the siren contention, we said:
, -i i g Q.*y q .n. 3 . i *,
T- . ..o i e 4, The Board would just hke to add that we thought that Mr. Eddleman's J.,d;7 :., M r- ,,jMf.},;ff f ,' 1,!* D ' ?t ' .'A;- V . 'ilt,m, ? l cross v
appreciate etamination was well prepared and professionaHy presented. We that.Thank you.
, -l. v.
-% . 3, ,7.u%gl,.0.
a;;A w,g.t.m m p3 ,
,v.y.
4 m,f . g.- r7 ,
N. b,. .p;lw$ . 'w*A 1 w e v umr&w.w. gn..o %,p p Tr.9955.
/ 4 (d) Delay. Admission of these contentions may delay conclusion f%g.'M 6jn w@ 'l4: D, N p' N.9
;'. ! , N.; .Nc, p . <.a
.D$.'M g @e,1.0.h f y ,]
of this proceeding but not, we expect, by very much. We have established an accelerated discovery and summary disposition
' / . //.s , .: : motion schedule which concludes on February 13,1986. Tr.
,; M'i l
10,206. We expect to decide any summary disposition motions
.s s' .
.,, ' . '.u.,
,a A ,.4. .c by the end of February and we also expect to decide the siren m .5 and drug issues by that time. Therefore, if summary disposition
'q.5.r., <c g u.. ; ,,gp. w M. ,;M.'s y
.n..
4
- j. . yD, .
is granted, there will be no resulting delay. Should hearings bc X N M. ,
,,'i J' * '
necessary, hearings, Gndings and a Board decision could be ac.
Q v. ;>
me _
y ceterated to completion in the Spring of 1986. Since these Issues would not affect fuel loading, they would not impact the l,/ *M. s .U.f. .h; M 5 . & t Applicants' schedule for operations.
% Ts .J W ' in light of the foregoing, the "Gve factors" balancing clearly favors ad.
d.;.7.g 1'i 7 ' ' 'M, M mission of Eddleman Contentions EPX.2 and .8.
p y@.$.$.:.~cM'p*'
i
,.,,.r
+,=.,
y+ f ~ . lypr .. q&,. ,4N,,,c.FWJO
.cv .f D e.h, 'b, 4y/.9 .g' f ,
- 1
.,d 8 yq if ? s fb l;, v .e ' '
g&,A x:, .
* ) ..M . , Ay'$NR y[*ll*y!,',t Q.g;.u-v s, b ,L g? ;, .- .
A ,q<;1 ,p ,yj.6 g6,g. s.g. nf. ;O wp ,.
t , .
j ,, ,.
oc.,. 74 . g ...
,.3. . ., gm.m ip , ..,? ,.,. -.e
* , ~ 4 f'"**-
t ' . I
,,'* .-f=
^
; . s- -
Qlf
',.Q..'.* .c.'.. ' , ,* 2, .
i .,
<a ,
,* ; .* y ,
'J '
t ,
** '. , _ .;. _ . e ==== 9 ey -* a.- -
s v j. . * . . + - *-e.'--*** * .' + v** - = * *s I ' . 8 ' 4 , *
].y ,
.. s .
'. >* s
, , .k. e; * *. -~n i, ,w.;
*.O} Q 'f } ! , 's !
a f , i. > ji * ., *. ' .
.. ,' a - 1 i.. '
. "I s ','.
fr.%*; 4.'e
, ..p pfinl7M'#! .
.., ,3.j. ,,
6 -
8' t
r
. . , s
(',,,* J4 = <
=.s,. !6 . . ,',
,l, ',l + ' I '
-' .. ., s(M". '
,j .d. 4' .
g,
- i
~, ..r./.E,*i :
- 3. ,o t .',. ' is e -o a
.. v- .
~ . .'s' *. ., 8 '+ ' " ' u , ,
g/ a .( ' I, Ie ,b. (, .g l t".*);.*
~
*# Us%
f
,p'
. 5 kq4. '. h,I. 7. ... .a ." ( e '.I '
, e n.mp'
. I' y' g e g ,q y;.h , ' ' ' Q,y's , ' t + <.*JJ"..,; ..w* e~ y *u . .
e
' ,. l' 4' ' ' * ., - ' .
%l3-- > .g f ,
* - . , , , - - e., .. , '(.*
,i
- . s. <
,:J1 a r: .%.+:.,; .mv a.- m,+ . .e .m.
v a .c
..u
,, v.O - . e n --
,'9,-
m.m w 3 xg 9f.s. y' u. f C;run)%. a .m ..N , ,.
+
r
- .. w ..,
.s . .....,s
^ '
.s 9. : s.y t,
.2 y.
q[c
' W y;;u ::@ .N . -eynL%3 W.ipFrW,~g.,3;m1<c. ?*r s Jf" J, * " ' -..
*#C .- .
t.s9., >. . ~ <
W.'o i ,
.1 '
- r,
, . yV 4. .
- s. :.Q:@;.C - l@ a 1,. : ?- -
- y. e .n.y vw
- y. ,.
w.y - . ., , '
' .{.% e * , *.
s :1 < -
4 C. Other Emergency Planning Contentions I. " Role Strain"in Adult School Bus Drivers w .s ,
. The Joint Intervenors sponsored a contention (denominated f.S 9 . . . 'en . ..
EPJ 4(b)), subsequently narrowed by the Board, that focused on wheth-
, W b_. : . '
on a,u.
a.
er adult school bus drivers in a " role strain" situation occasioned by a
%y; p :V.e.%.<e' A,w s,jd.py%,.r:jMA q v, J q/ u. Rmghgfs M : W.a . Q.
nuclear emergency would subordinate their driving duties to family obli-gations. This contention was litigated in an evidentiary hearing, with the
- h. .WyrW 7 e < 7 l; ,W !';.G. : g.C. 3,3 ? ;wrMW' ff Applicants and FEMA presenting direct cases and Mr. Eddleman con-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-cants and FEMA did so. The Joint Intervenors, while filing proposed
.c&.m+ .. i ' ,, ;, s e, "T
. T;'.?
i 3,f ^ ,- T c '.;. . .y Gndings on the protection factor contention heard at the same time, 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-
' "/L, . -
tion must be dismissed.
4 .
- 2. Contentions Resolved by Summary Disposition or Withdenwn
.; q.w 2
4 .
Wi$. Apart from the exercise contentions, the Board admitted twenty-eight a.g 3?.% . . ; h.,. ~ . , . -
.m...L.,..,.....
J,md . e' .> e .
. . ,4 emergency planning contentions. Of these, three were later withdrawn, p;yt. Mig . ;. ..
one was settled, three were heard on the merits, and the remaining d,g ~ 7 .
. 9'U {w~ .T twenty one were resolved in the Applicants' favor by summary disposi-
, z,l.6 mr . .<a , tion. See Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact 3 5 for a detailed de-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.
^9 ,y% in those cases, we could have simply dismissed the contentions.8 We
, j @N/F
.;. " M , < > - .
*: nevertheless satisGed ourselves that the Applicants, supported by the
'L f*" T Staff, had met their burden of proof and that the contentions did not raise a " serious safety matter" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R.
. : W, '. ,
'- l 2.760a.* Ilowever, we see no need to provide in addition detailed state-
)i..,g;a.4q ,
. . sy imA
.;q ,e,,j,..,9."
'?*,
3
, E s JDJV %.3 ! & - rlf'e0-)*Y... .
'*W[ .;; ;;
" 5! ((g-- ? ;,-
.'y,.ity 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 netson that a " serious sarely . . matter esists." There is no bees for such a determinsuon with respect f .'J g.f s.,
. > y ,,,;'g% c t ',^/ . ,
"y 9 '.. -
.*~3, , . , , . . , . . '
.%- to EPJ.4(10. On the contrary, we round the direct cases or the Apphcants and FEM A persuamve.
3 See note 2 above. and accompanying test.
, .
- one or Mr Eddleman's contennons on which summary disposinon was granted. $7.C.f. concerned ar-
'.*- lr t. . < rangements ror medwal ireatment. Fonowing the Board's summary dispomuon rukes. the U s Court or
'7s'
- il$, , ** . !
d, f+';' *
. , Appeals ror the District or Columbia Circuit reversed a Commission ruhng on which an earher Board 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
',' ] y. .. , , .,L. H 'T .
't er' ' h;
' '?,
)., 't
.'f? a l -'
) IU .* l'-}
'l' ,
[,~., .
. ,. .8... u ,
w- s , yuh. %h s
,a> . ..V. . 9. 3 sG Q M,": & .' . y .. s.4
-X.-
ru ;p,.
ym.&.p..w u %.c -Q. f... . .W~.
g, .- . ., n. a; ,$. m q, w,@.
.wp y 4 t.v.. o ,. . e;.r.:
Q.o&e
. w y. ..e.n. ,4.w _ y ..
?. .w.p .pp,y
.y.j * ,m.m.
w .. .n < .
,. . n n..gdi,p. yaw.a.
g.
@f pi-f.w;.e,;f ,WtQ,'Y.M,W. m m +th.-.,K. *W.5:: '.,%_ ,, . h. . %..m .m':.S;g .
.P <, e ' c"/. W%. 3 ,QA W . @,'.U .
m,s.. ,i.. W%q g;,wi v m 3, m*M.e.].m .Ar U . _.o'." ..
a .'
s.: .:Q: . > > ' . ',J4.Q, . 'k'.M. f, ',a ,-
., .~Z.c:
.. . w e .7 .,g
- p. n .4.. vy ,m.n J* 2 * - . %
~
- 11' ssQ.1s e
/; ' , ,p) . - .
. .u c~ .- 7. ,. , .
;-~r . .w
( ~# ~"* ~ ~ - ~ ~ *~"" i
@.. .ea::.y . .M. . m. ..,Q 4 yQ6%d. :w$~p . .. ..iN.N.,
k.: . .x t . M. .$ @ ll. >h. .[
.n . - . .
.g- G .
y,4.,. '; y r%.:3., .?,o;,:n:n
>. . ,o.9
~
ments of our reasoning in dismissing contentions which had been aban.
doned by their sponsors.
.e
'y',%2= f.A_M p. ~- .
Mo Db III. SAFETY CONTENTIONS
% VM .
.<.e,
;e %.. ,'
$3,_. Q p:A fa.%.,% G 1hsE,a.Y w, .n n ,>M.!:
*g -,.i,i 6 A. Fire Protection y m m- nk w:.wk.ut:ko, + M .~sy .
ksf.w,s*p,n.9.h ~y yn w Introkefien 1.
n.%:. -. .
-W w .- .
bkJ J W *s G yt..
d- M
- 3 M M t @j tr;dyg. .
- 1. Eddleman Contention 116 states:
fl.%Wsj&&,Q~ ,f.M' ' Q.g,;-lG pg.SSo The fire hazard analysis of section 9.5A (Appendia) in the FSAR does not address Ufpp$yd h.h. (/.n.
f
..$.,II.k,#2d . ,d*
i.hh the availabihty of control and power to the safety equipment. In establishing fire resistance ratings of fire barriers with respect to fire in cable trays. Apphcants have ys' id;?.",'g.,
,, Tj,7fsp.Qf .;i~ e/'.,,*)T' w.M$j.bzN.Q.M . ',. ldaicQ f.4
- not estabhshed that quahtication tests represent actual plant conditions or compare.
4
. i .,e ble conditions. Another vague statement is that fire barriers are used "where practi.
'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.
*v + +
; Q' < , ,, , p . ,, The " Analysis" of Appendia 9.$A does not demonstrate as 9.5.l.l.1 claims it will.
t ' '. i
. **" the adequacy of other fire protection measures in all cases. Rather, it estimates the
., ,, l BTU of combustible material, smoke generation and removal rate from the area.
- 4 . f. "
<* .yv ~. . . .. '. .
u...-
/g 2 n u ' k9 e i- t gives usually a quahtative description of some measures to mitigate or reduce the
] Q p ,N.rdD*M- .
% ,p,?, N .%s.3 fire effects, and assumes that the fire will be promptly detected fusually no analysis of location of detection Instruments etc.) and the fire brigade will respond rapidly
. ,. .,'g3 4 g%% $p,j[*A'71![qk j p \;
d,$'M.g u.... .a G and put out the fire, or the automatic equipment will work. These assertions are made despite the time it takes to get people into the containment and to the fire 1!N.,s/N@w C R %. M,.Z I C# b,,M(*{Yl M (not well analyred). Further. the " analysis" of what happens if the fire spreads is
/ p. M Nmc Hm M.; p. W.y M.
'7 '~E - - b<l.C .
generally a rationalitation that it can't spread much, not an analysis. Ser e.g. "Analy.
arz m.w . 7,, ,g. d, ns y.g;, 4,q.ds ,, 7pec .r.ama, .-c s
q.A sis of effects of postulated fires.,, The effect of a fire in a fire area or a fire tone with
; .. / ., ., 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,
, , or at least unanalyzed.
a:p;&S .A.4ra y-s.%q g
, . . e , '. ,. .a
. ;fl.lyg w.. W;r h ,N.<.. us .Wp"/N $ h,.4This Q contention was admitted by the Board in its Memorandum and f'" w'. .,G/. f f. , ';jg,S,iW,
; gA@r2,y'..WWp,<4. M A Order dated July 27,1984 (unpublished). During the evidentiary hearing 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 c.
@y
. c f t./ .,.,. c ,.p. . C . . . ' s , .. ; /. .'
p
, . ~ . .
.. and David B. Waters. " Applicants' Testimony of Margareta A. Serba.
.);. ' "
nescu in Response to Eddleman Contention 116 (Fire Protection) " fr.
M *, .@
N.
2.@i8NM'a'.[}$M6hs%13,)
O;,.j h 'h h , MgiM7.rl $*..IM.E@M Tr. 4256 (hereinafter Serbanescu); " Applicants' Supplemental Testimo.
ny of Margareta A. Serbanescu in Response to Eddleman Contention
- .d%
nt y4.f.b'Q&.m,':
3,:s .p n (,- a N'yw nlpt.tY:; .
y&*W,%*; % y,
- f ; , .. i g . . . . " . 3 -;;w e:s ;* -
4;7 j y.gP--N-1 6
g ..-z.4- u.A.j *.
'i .J>s;;3.,
. - M
\g,g 1844 iD C. Cir.1985L A monon from Mr. Eddleman to reconsider has Contennon $7.C.7 as originally drafted 6s pending before the Board. We have inued an order establishing a pleading schedule on Mr l, e a- * '
l'ddieman's motion. We espect to aJdress and rewive this matter enpeditiously,
,e
{
-. ,,s. . .., . . .. . %,g r r x. .
916 l
*A. y s . .i { ~ >.
C
* . ). , 4 ~. ,#
-.y mm. ~e.,.y.- g- .
e - em ~-..~ . - . ~ . ,.
* ' . *.l,Sf'
% ' d."'s
, #'. , e. ,i
#**/[, mI._
"'t. ,, # *i ,, , . , #
,. . V l * % '
'f e . '* , h*
t l . ,. ,
\... ; I. ,,7
- I.,Q l. ly *
* .((s ,I,. k(, , ,
~.
; ;::: y ::
- j. v. . , . ,,. @1 - ,
; g 6,.'gq:wg,y,i,, w n ,,". v- .m.
..,9 a
o 9. g wp ' s.f....e.; ,. r .. ,*,
. .g Jyd w ., . .; ,:m.
, . . ,1 . ..
- s. ; ., ,,
.y ,, .
;gQL.v -e e .ds
MV h; -. n. x, , L, . .T
. . . V, 1.,;c, , .,, .. ,. a.
n..m
. '.~ -
u . ,
N, : .%., % ._.ffQVid,i',,.
n ,. y' 8. , ' . ,
.- - s ,
', b' .'
w '. '
, ] qM." gW ' f. 4 ; ,. ,' U 6
' +
} yQ U. ' ' . [ : ~ *
,i, _- ~ _ . _ - . . . _ . _ . : ,
;.p. . %. ':s
[ .
116 (Fire Protection)," IT. Tr. 4256 (hereinafter Serbanescu 11); "Appli-cants' Testimony of David B. Waters in Response to Eddleman Conten-tion i16 (Fire Protection)," ff. Tr. 4250 (hcreinafter Waters).
- 3. his. Serbanescu is a Principal hicchanical Engineer with Ebasco
. . lg; .q.,;; g .L:
Services, Inc., and is the supervisor of the Ebasco Fire Protection Engi-
. .ge . 4 ti. e .L .- . ' .m "-
neering Group. She was assigned as the Fire Protection Engineer for i h. /. q ; N b b M O ,'. h @ . ij liarris in 1978, and is now in charge of the Fire Protection Group which p~ M$ggp Nf N fj-yj[y@gQ2;. -
is responsible for the liarris Fire Protection Program. Serbanescu, IT. Tr.
4256, at 13. Mr. Waters is employed by CP&L as the Principal
, lQy o 7. g.. -. . / Engmeer-Operations, and is responsible for the admmistration of the Q 3 D IA W . W N.P.% 9 "A Fire Protection Program at liarris. Waters, ff. Tr. 4450, at 2 3.
- 4. The Staff witnesses were Randall Eberly and Robert L. Ferguson.
M? /. It[;1? c nNU.'.,k ,y ! .,# ' - Z. ' . -
"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
, s '
Eberly and Dennis J. Kubicki Concerning SER Open item 8 (Accept-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-ar Reactor Regulation. lie was directly responsible for the review of the dM.hi[.S d ',/ ' *
. Dre protection programs at the Shearon liarris facility. Eberly/Ferguson,
.4.{.u 'g:%$ Gyg kr/ V.'yb . ,
ff. Tr. 4626, at 6. Mr. Ferguson is a Section Leader of the Fire Protection 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. [,
~
Chemical Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering, Of0cc of g , A ,\;.: - M. g u '. W . l'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 s
? Ir '
. plants. Staff Exh. 8 Attach. I.
- 6. Intervenor Eddleman presented no testimony on this contention.
.- 7. The basic purpose of a fire protection program in a nuc!cer
*6.g[.j n, : %f.O .'K , J.. s .,.. power facility is that, in the event of a Gre, the capability of shutting down the reactor in a safe manner, maintaining it in a safe shutdown upt$[,j,h?[rjj.Mh,Q% C f iy. $$c. M;j @,f d condition and limiting any release of radioactive material to the environ-ggy . Hf? .
MAL N j'p$$ Y 'nAM P ment is assured. Eberly/Ferguson, fr. Tr. 4626, at 6 7.
@dhs .
- 8. The NRC regulations and regulatory guidance for nuclear plant fire protection programs are set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A,
%.L
- d. Qp.F' /-.- ' G. 3 _
- General Design Criterion 3; 10 C.F.R. 6 $0.48; Regulatory Guide 1.70,
-(,.. +
V nh ' . }
917 i 4 ,
,e
,f ~
-. _ .- n .,
, .' ' i
_.g' x. '
* ,. "t .**s', t_.-
i, ,7 ,
T:qnA g.:@;.QQjy ' . ,, b. gf ' ' ,s : ;
.: . ..-. , ' y.q.R . ;.;%;;.
j d.:s,,o .
m?.7. .jM.., 9.y, y . f. p e: m . m.. .
~.2L w.f3.,r,%
,$. , @w.y.
II. ,
,n , K,w..Q.
...3 .
us . -- ht3!' * *;
sM. x .w.w% a m, ., -t
** ' ' H %' ' .. * <-
- n'
~ 7 r * ' .. .u W
s s
. .* * -?J *t .rys
~.!A
.c K.FA, s;;.nh> ':. r - ""
" :%
- M.? '-W.
q - L
- 4e.@~
n.. t. d* M.%e .'*
&,.M,.2,.p%'
W i - ^ .., P.M h ( ;pl+
m . ,C,.7w,m,:.~W
. , o v s ,e k ;gr 9 : ~^:; .a
, , .~ . ,
' e,
,'...L.y'
** '/ ,d 4 + d 1, j*
.k
'l y&M: ';hj4:f &.m. g[ d. .J.q M ' ". ~ , ~ * '
,. i 1 ~c:M . p 9..g .; .s , ..-
2 .
- " ~ ~ '^ . . .
~ " ~ ~ ~ - ~ '
.[).y.u ;, ;. - '
^
g.v x,e... %w a
, 9.:.
~. -
f .w o : q:. agg - " n
- p. . .'.'c .L,y%.7,-
- 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-e.. c ation, confinement, Ore suppression, administrative controls, Dre bri-m n f.:: e,y E g li m i; 7 ,T. W / g i*/ y.
- <. ,v .wt..m73. n p .
g,;. .
4 gade organization, inspection and maintenance, training, quality control 3 and testing. Applicants' Exh. 6 at 9.5.1 1.
l
$G's.09.u e .gs; % w w ,A. .M. .'f.w['Wfygp.@
4.W .M.4NW/ T.
W$rN..%,
' ,Q;",,'5, q-f,Q+ l.Q '.
5 M. .
','v&'5ih. .p&m.. ,,
N.fi@y .. ,
- 2. Control and Power hellability to Sdery Equipment
- 10. The Orst subpart of Contention 116 alleges that the availability of
?s ; !*NW.MT- control and power to safety equipment is not addressed in the Fire
. y.l . % [ . M'.t,.o;;p. .m 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 N
'^'l 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 cables to safety equipment is therefore addressed in Applicants' Gre pro-M.r W,y @p ,d;.,y g.g + .4JE9Fwf;nt., tection program. Serbanescu, fr. Tr. 4256, at 6; Eberly, Tr. 4653 54. In-h d INf.$h.jp;: tervenor did not identify any specific deficiencies in the FSAR and SSA analyses.
t.f p %c N.M K @ "M b V.re Wm ,m.4.w ..-,m g.* M. . ,< g v%..
en. . j. . ; K4 4";j *.:g**- ?.
. e-.mL,@e N [, n g Qualification of Cable Trey fire Barriers 3.
, 11. The second subsection of Contention 116 expresses concern that m , . . . . .,
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,,h7dhh_%'y;ad."W%
wb.
M QQ.M. ;.. ,, 7 m v Q &;p.'
riers are an integral part of the fire protection program. The plant is divided into a number of fire areas, each of which is enclosed by a 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 W penetrates a fire area barrier, penetration fire stop seals are used. These h.@83M MiQ'dh!.TpE.M. l/Dl4 i.lil S , have a minimum fire resistance rating equal to that of the Ore area bar.
r . w <. a,.p. /m h ik y,; M..c. .e., rier. Serbanescu, fT. Tr. 4256, at 8.
@Y.r.d..~.4,M.d7r:g.7M'E'.h.d r,
- 12. There are a number of standard testing procedures which have W Y , p . ;; g . y . @. . yf,M.Q been developed. App!! cants' witnesses testified that the ratings of their y;' :; #, '>.Q , y g .
,a . . . ,
.t *( /.,,* * . .Y Q n . f: ^.p .y,. (.y., o y. p r
, ' q ,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 operating pnor to knuary 1.1979. llowever. Applicants' have committed to meet the resquirements
, therein oWeill. Tr. 4598 99 t p
*1 $
,.F 918 4 *
'/ >
,c.. . . .
#_ ., : _w _ , _ _ _ . *
. . ~ . _ _ _ . . _ ., . _ _ _ _ . .
- n. .. .s . e
.,c - , , s '
.~o . ,
c e e : *
./
. **) ~. e , }g. )[o : s.
u n g"
= s.
o e
mv' . .
sf 5
.. 1 2 :, . . % V ' ,\* . ,*L p.p~ l.' % ;' .
y . .,
. .<:.. . . ..s' ':&..h.)g.: ; m..
. .+
v,-se 6 ,w s ., ..'a . , ,
+
,~',f f . y. .vf{A*c
..p. .
C t * . , G r* 1J.;y.1.'q'.Qf}L;:.,,.G~,[.'m..
, . - . d. , .n .,
, .i r ' . is. ' '
[ 0' n .
l;.3 #
5
* * , .. a
- s
; t . . ,, - ' g u. , ,,,y e .
4 s .
.s ! , .
' g .I
^
. .a , -
s.. ,. s ,
# s. ~ .
m B .,. s '
.w . . : ,L. .
.' w. . .
# f M , j &', . cgr. .?. c g c ' '
.,k .. . ai '
g'.;S . ' I;' s,,
n .... ..- .....--- . .. ...-._. - - - -.w -.
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 f ., , .g , ,
Building Construction and hf aterials"; and American Nuclear Insurers
, .s. . , Bulletin No. 5, " Standard Fire Endurance Test hiethod to Qualify a Pro-I . ,e ' 2,' .11./% l'
,y
.. T .E
. s y,: iri,,4,.u .' +Q.:t:.,:c,,. .. l) ;
tective Envelope for Class IE Electrical Circuits." Serbanescu, IT. Tr.
, - . 4256, at 7 8.
% . -l 13. In determining the qualification conditions for Arc barriers, an
'. [ ,g7,w'@ y .u-v . , .
exposure Orc is used which is based on a standard, empirically derived
, time temperature curve. This time temperature curve represents a p*3lwy'];1 .,.'r ~. 4 y at v.g m . ,-v;n ,. A ,p 4*f.9y ,, '
.4 ' worst case exposure Dre, not an average. /d. at 10,11; Serbanescu, Tr.
. p., -
0: *
,. 4526; Ferguson, Tr. 4656 58, 4666-68. Therefore a fire barrier tested
. ~. n ' ..
. . e. 3 0 .
. under the standard time temperature conditions will resist a fire from 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
; ;, . + a the testing labo; story to ensure that the actual barrier has the same con-g: - Y;: o e &-h. . .; . -,
figuration as the test assembly. Id. at 12.
,*7
. '.4 ; r.. ,; i. . :.. ; ' ,,r y s ..
- 15. The Board Onds that the qualification methods to be used by the f .;' . .s:c n sin. ,
Applicants represent equivalent or more rigorous tests of cable tray Orc
..% ./e Q.fi. / g g. l'.- barriers than would be experienced under actual plant conditions.
QN e. a
' y.'; .(.~ u B.1.b .): :
- 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. - ,
, l . ; t. ' - - used to decide whether the location or type of barrier is or is not practi-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 " > .. . i 9.5A ( Applicants' Exh. 6). Specine barrier locations and quah0 cations
. . if.o' L,, are contained in FSAR Appendix 9.5 A and Applicants' SSA. Serbanescu, II. Tr. 4256, at 13; Eberly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at i1.
y.M.i+%.). . . c ,
.f[ r.[. hl[s4 ~'
, M .y, AVc . .I '..
e., -
- 17. Applicants used the guidance of the Standard Review Plan, i
\ .
m s. p-, a . . ,'
(( C.5 and C.7, to determine the location of the liarris Dre barriers.
H le q,[.6.~a, ni ,3
'fliNEj'$h'
.y D., '
'.n@.2;r,p Ay , ': ,~E 1.C u..these guidelines, if it is not feasible to locate a fire barrier in Under
. compliance with SRP l 9.5.1, an applicant may use an approved alterna-p t,f j, O. n q, '. .>#.:".l/.9
.!, e tive. The Stalicited as an example that if it is not feasible to erect a bar-
, rier between redundant safe shutdown components in the control room, si
919 l.
, , , a
& ,; T.~ Q c. * . r.:;6 ; ? - , ,
, }" .c ~;; x
.. _-Q_',,
y;..;-L.s y ) ..c.
.n- <? , ' u .a +w.g,.
, ; s. a
.hm ..w g. .
c ' + - ., y.
, .,i,.
, As '. , ' ,, . .
s . , ; +3 .
g..a
,h'[ $,.N, '?~ ;, [ [ r [ .. k, e V* 1% '
7
-,
- j ((( Hy b'M $,*C U . .
- .g j' , f ~ ' , ". A~..a ,, [i J,yj'
. . . w y Qs.Mb~M.', ' . &, '
' .:' :) 2.
;a
~ 2,ff (;,'$;y
~~ -
f um. . . :n
~
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/
f Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at 12.
I. ' . . . 18. Where the Staffs guidelines recommend a barrier, Applicants x' .; a . ;
...g. , !; , have attempted to install one. Where construction or equipment prob-
. . .s.
f.up . '6 s .; w. .j,c vy, m 'tf. .. w i .s; lems have rendered the placing of a barrier impossible, the Applicants have found an acceptable alternative. The Staff witness considers this M;$){l-l k. p$lWEV@,. J"$. ..o ;' 'e erre -w.a.g-
,. statement to be, indirectly, its definition of "where practical." Eberly, n;-y. s ,:.f h p g.c,yo.N.*. m ...r Tr.4670.
N vif D.jrs'id*MR$ @ ,1$W. 19. In view of the preceding discussion, the Board finds no merit in this part of Eddleman 116.
.$,$6[;kTEh's$$[l['
. 1>, .L . e o .
.. 20. A number of doors used in the liarris facility have not been spe-6.. *..l '.'. _. , n., > .at , ; r :, t ., <* ci0cally fire tested. These are special purpose doors, bullet resistant 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 0.,;.e'; !. : d.QA u t
?
specifically called out in the contention, has at least a peripheral bearing on the contention insofar as they are part of the barrier system.
~
' .U
.lf[UthJ.:n.:.c!' ,', c .
- 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.
L.
f.% .' ?C,' ye .s 3.;hlW :' Y Q, ,. , L, . .
- 22. Staff witness testined that Applicants had taken a common ap-
$,'%g 4
g
,,l'<Q Ws? N
- 4. .( proach when using specialty doors. These special purpose doors are nor-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 q, . * ' ' - ,
too large to At into a standard test furnace, and too heavy for the furnace
- t. - . ' . A . supports to bear. In the Staffs opinion, even if a special furnace were to
~,i~ - ,.cs, be built for testing purposes the results would not be standard and there
' M,T.c"X.
. 'M ct <Mly,j.pD.' . ~N'. . e.'/
AM would be nothing to compare them with. Eberly, Tr. 4811 12.
f$'y%MD.h@.h' 2 [1.l'7'
. 24. The Staff has completed its review of the adequacy of the liarris d, f.. g .t x, i .i fire doors. Stafi Exh. 8. Except for the specialty doors Appheants have 2 > % 1','J .K ' ~ committed to provide tested Ore doors. The special purpose doors were
[."
'
- 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.
t
, l .
e' 5 **
('.,-
, i. 'V... ,ix .o. '-
'.,y, i.4 : +
- n '. ;
.q , p.4, y
.r,. ,
, , . , .;; ~.s.(,s.
- s ,.. . , y: ( , .;
.a. .,*
- .a ;s
.. } ' i
' b , ,' ' '
l.- .
e ,"S ) Q,
d( ..
,1 .
- m-o I. . ?
..t, .. ,
.,3.- . * ,
f $ M l E l i [ T [ IJ N;, U '
C - -
g: y y e..,; -, 'y y *. ,
s '. "
..(
.?. . ,
3t ., ,, . . , . .
c..,. . p; . .
u.
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.
cient to create a Grc which would endanger the strength of the doors.
mi,' <. 3 c . a ._.. The Staff therefore found that there was sufficient reason to justify a de-
.(A,. 1 1 , . H. '. X p. viation from fire protection guidelines. Staff Exh. 8.
.n- q. . .. m s. . , o. .
.a
.H;ns g p ' y y.U O W . y 25. In view of the uncontroverted facts presented, supra, the Board
, finds that Applicants have adequately defined the location of the fire bar-
..;'W:.?*J N 3 d .C. - OnM. .N.l1lJ-g , W 6 @ %@ .- ;!. 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 p- prevent the spreading of a fire.
y wg v. v-y,g . , y . w . .4's.S ; U. gk .y. m, 7 .
A, .o - ,. w a.
.f 1
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,
~ J . $ ;'. 4
, , n. fire brigade effectiveness, and fire spreading, sertatim.
,"t m.c 27. The flarris plant is divided into a number of fire areas which are
-[@y,N $
. m ' // 'J L i , fgl. q . .
. ,$ 3 [, . established through consideration of a number of factors. One of these
- / . y .:i . 3 4 "m factors is the possible combustible loading, which is determined by the N 'O.;: , l' W U fff 4?.Jf .gJi amount and BTU content of the materials within the area. Serbanescu, r , ,1, . .
m.
, , p ; .. . l . j , . . .l. ff. Tr. 4256, at 16. Both normal and transient combustible materials are
- 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
. 4O<? t .4. . A. (NFPA). The analysis itself is conservative, as it assumes complete com-2'%'rt,.p$:Q ..gl , Sl,; . A W bustion of all combustible materials in the area, takcs no credit for lack 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 result from the analysis are reasonable and adequate.
it'fhy$..
4 b.. l.MOh
'. ,M.Q p'. n / 28. The Standard Review Plan lays down no criteria for treatment of
, D E.u . $ y,r.
.y
$ S . s J 1:V..'M".G. -
C '[
smoke' generation and ejection. The Staff review relies on industry stand-(>t.,yl M@m.. .. 3 ' q% . y.. ,
ards. The llarris philosophy follows a containment plan wherein the area 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 . '+ .; , , ,
P, ' d
'o 921
.ni
.s . -
1, , _ . . _ _ _ _ . - . - - . . _ _ . - - -- ~.~ - ~ .,
s g ,
. 'eq , g ,
; .-a wv*W , .< s a '# ' ,. *'
,, / . c.
f s \ ,
3,. g , s,7 mg;g '
T ;O P ,' 4 b.4l.;, y.gggp@
,. i. . , . .
. n.m .. @y@g>y.%, r 3.;,a-nG :-
p %. 9,2.a uh,.,
~
4
GG q e. < x. a.'>.,,, ,# ,,.y
.y m .j
- .. y . .
W. .
yg 2 ,$ , q .- 1,g,g g .- g , , q,., gg.: gg y;g v - , {g; ,,n ., ., ,v.; , ,
,C,3 .
g,. rj.g .. '. e m m, 7- o... pp:4y ,pn , .eg.q
.' .* y: 3 n
.w m.,,,,
,, N. o, y . pj;;clg&,: gg
- p. .
.y, q,. ~
Q . s %. .' >~ . n a; K .w
- 2. . .
.,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 ~ .*
operation from the control room or by the plant operator. Additionally, f.M@.
.s .) .U;.y 7.'.*/;
7 ,s < ; ' f.
- sag 'q$,[f ',';ing units which will allow them to manually Oght the fire. /d. at 6. The the fire brigade has smoke ejector equipment and self contained breath-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 y m% ! . '., M dy' 29. The principal means of mitigating or reducing the effects of fires
.q
@ W, -@,WI .yg. @q,d ep.wQ' at the llarris plant is the use of sprinkler systems. The most common is
~ .; Y a t ., . , . ' - -T' the wet pipe system, where the supply pipe is water full and actuation of 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 p -
- ..L.h another system, used to mitigate fires which spread rapidly or produce y m. . , ' . "!NN.. M 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-
,}; ed by fire detectors. Serbanescu, ff. Tr. 4256, at 23 26. The liarris sys-h 1.i g'.}2
" S' ,
g,, u,. ., , .. J* , .i @,'j'MQ} Q,T 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 j , ;. . 3 .pa a
m, w
,, . y ,.
w,. ps,; yym . s,3., i on the basis of the kinds of fires which would be expected in any particu-
, mi <g., . . r.:.;. r c e .
.f , e ~ ,. lar fire area. The primary detectors are ionization smoke detectors,
, , ' 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
; -. .c, W ',$ above ambient temperature. Ultraviolet flame detectors are used in the c.$.) ;, 'y, . * '. fd K k;Ma,M ? "( * , , 3 t'!*[A diesel generator building and fuel oil pump areas inasmuch as a fuel oil fire can develop quickly and with little smoke. Serbanescu, IT. Tr. 4256,
$.. , ' M ' ,_ ,
Y,Q'f';,Xh
'f at 22 23. Applicants have committed to following the NFPA Codes in
. 6..
. , ; 1, .
c; . ,'
.I the design of these detection systems. Eberly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at
.e ,
4U '
- 16. The Board finds that these systems are adequate to provide timely warning to personnel and actuation of the fire suppression systems.
922 i
, ,,,r,*,,.-*g.a---- ---~~-.- .*- -- .-e,*+-***-y===****--* 9 s. o ***v.e=+ywe,*.=g **
. 4 ..,#, ,
a ! , - F ,i
- ..,+ *
.. 's. ~ q 4 , . . , , , *
.s' r,u
, ,4 / , N 8'. .y.> A .
,j . ,
- x .
>c, ,b't.
^
.[ ,,e[* / J' "',' '
;,63, ,( ..I,.. +r
- , .. q y.
w ]~.:;,y[n,3;5 ]:
, ." 7,, . >, . r.,s v, .m.
c., ,s,a .
, . . u c, , ' 7 ,.
- t. . o . ,.,/n
* - _---___:-_- - t L- A g ., " " '
, a, < . a y.~
,a. > . . s ,., p . s .;;y+..
m
- .. ., -g ;p.s g,e .n. w :..e4..;..g y-r' n .w.a gw .v.m g...,y. . . .. . q .
1 .
v . N p
- x K O. w h 3 m c 9 : e'%q - d % .:, >a '
, . N , -
q:wy m W Q'.mn.y: Q'.;.'.YW:p i.\%W* :i ' ' ' :' + e %
- ' ~
+. t ~.v. ~ .,
=--"
- -- ^
' - ~ ~ " - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
hl:p.:
WM r.y.. W L Q :c. W.w W.C -w w @.:
,..q;wy&l1 ,%, : k. y.y ; .; y.m.m.
. m .. f.
.> ~ .Q~- . a -
l
, 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 4 p
- d..,..
. aide available for advice and assistance. If the need arises, additional
.rs
.' . m . b plant personnel are available. Waters, ff. Tr. 4250, at 910, Attach. B;
[h; .g. $. .
@h,.; .4 h, . ..
Tr.4600-02. Applicants' witness Waters testified in some detail as to the ,
.? ?
#.', hMQM"W l.
nQA. N;.
rd.I h N h ' Z /.'
b stafung, training, equipment, drills, and other relevant items concerning the fire brigade. Waters, IT. Tr. 4250, at 511; Tr. 4306,4308,4311 12,
'h": $dM
<. @,'M%. y Q /r. h..N,tW
$$N h.^Rh.%WH 4318 19, 4330-31, 4601 02. After reviewing Mr. Waters' testimony and the ensuing cross examination by Mr. Eddleman, the Board finds that 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-
$. M. D@[ [EU M M W h @ M@'@'$
U
@k @e.M66MWM i-r dd.fl.h@?@, tection program assumes that the Gre brigade arrival time is 30 minutes, an estimate the Board considers conservative.
G , . 32. Mr. Eddleman contends that Applicants' analysis of the effects of Arc spreading from one fire area to another is inadequate. Applicants o ,
maintain that this is an inherent part of their analysis, as each fire area's
.,"4 l 4 combustible loading has been calcu?ated, and, if the fire should spread 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;;mM.M ,0.Q ;2Ji:rW l.W.< $$ view that if the Staff's guidelines are followed there will be no spreading '
of the fire. That is, if the proper fire barriers are provided and detection
% and extinguishing equipment is provided, an adequate level of protection M[/M%,T ',f"..COTQ agair.st fire spreading is attained. The Board agrees with both Staff and
' hh.h. ,$f:40'M,hgl Applicants; if the proper barriers and mitigation sources are provided,
; ,$ @;y'i cM;;.- ' ' y@'ic Q M
g(.' 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. , . ~
~. w w . p . .:. nM{ h.hNJ,.y.. mW e U$9, y -4; n &y ,
- 6. Combustible Londings Greater Than 240,000 DTU/ft' W'f'@N,.'qC&,;;C
. n'; :,
' vp . . fl w*
.. 33. The NFPA has determined, through tests, that the reference J t. . .1. g g}.g
.~.
, 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, ge 4 3pFN gi)'jp ..
ff. Tr. 4256, at 11. Special attention must therefore be given to fire areas Y ,y! .:
- lggv$M$.", $lN.&pi.5)$,i, in the Harris power block which have combustible loadings above this figure. Eddleman Contention 116 alleges that the efTects of fires in these
.t f.?,UgqGQ areas are not treated in a realistic fashion.
Q.%;h,ddNM 'd}jk.
- w: ' J.J 8%@h' .'r M k b ?.R l :1combustible h There
- 34. a loadings are four Ore areas in the llarris power block that have above 240,000 BTU /ft3. These are the two diesel Y..l%.'d.,:M~': 3ldfM fuel day tank rooms and the two diesel fuel storage tanks. I,l. at 28; Eber-5,y.'-[;.h;T D .
~
+,'* ly/Ferguson, ff. Tr. 4626, at 20 21; see also Serbanescu 11, ff. Tr. 4256, 8 4 g.
L ,( ,,
.., . .? .? ;
- 9 f, . 4 ,3 , *
.gz.,, %.. 4
,u 923 I '
t
- f. #
[. , . 1 .
. 3 _' *
'4N p.s, g s , . ,,.e O.s e. w >< , _
.m
.,..l .,.',..,3;
, 4, ,
4 i?-
I' / ' l',y,*, d., . / . , .++$)I,!.?k.[#;
'A'. <' '
i m!o .
; f
.p. :. : na z.. ;u +
, )( , y 'y . '
. w Q;,:p g s t; . > s. >
;, ., w* 7
].:,A,.x_ , . ' . . C.h;%, o .- . d o , '. % :y y 3,, (,& v , -
~
[ s' O, ,
tt . .% e ? ,Q W l ,'. & M ! & # ', ' . '
i 4 6 eb ,w 4 m
'}N)
, c. . ~; . , '
4 } .1, N ' $ ',; ?"L,R J.
'0 A Nene.
&?
.68'* e qM f.; . p . q. 4, . , . .- . . ,
-> ,. - u-
- .,y
., .,r..,
c,
. 3.y s
J.
s.. s .<.pe ,p . . y g%nn M. 3
,. y ,s s. ue p:u,:w. y<, .3 N .gppg6.,
ce,.<,3 sy
- 1- ,
~ . , . .
-3,7 g y< Rmy ,9 74.g.r:;,
, .< .t
,.p,
, ,; glt ., , s 4. g, 4
'.iq,
.g<*~*.< "
.. , .4 ,
- s. 4 i . a i,o, 3p, , q . . .
. ,,y
,. , 't . ,,
s.
,ya .t +~,
gl[ . ,
,. ', ,y* t* ,e ' e4.
'.z ;
+*-
,, y. ,
.' ; ';, ; . ' q)'D j( f .- - - - - a - ---- 4
+- ' , i ,,
+' . , +
,. ' 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
...".-6 . ,; ]$ -
,- over 175 feet from the principal plant structures. Serbanescu, ff. Tr.
ZUf,MM'.-QNll%. [(ZT'?:/ . 4256, at 30; Eberly/Ferguson, IT. Tr. 4626, at 20 21. The Board agrees
,7 *M'- J with Applicants that these tanks do not present a threat to safety related m.y d..'.G/3)*%,'M:d.w,J.
%. i;A.
. , . , - . <c2 ....,,.-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%% CW %M other fire areas by 3 hour rated reinforced concrete walls. The tanks themselves are Safety Class 3, Seismic Category I components which are
% '. W r M. ;.,'#.'J.W.
' W ;4
. '<N...,S@h ....- t designed to remain functional after a safe shutdov:n earthquake. Inas-r' . A . M , > ,' ,;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) 7 *,, :
' ~ o .~. e
' ga '. 2. ;', k$..(W;%:C .a ns the automatic multicycle sprinkler system would actuate; (4) dampers in
- a. .. .
M yyr the ventilation ducts would close, limiting the available air supply; (5)
W.Ni[;Q[6.*Rf.p,Wsm3.p.dy,s u the fire brigade would arrive, manually actuating the sprinkler system if the automatic system had malfunctioned; and (6) Orc brigade would 3.5 ', ,'h @'/ <M.6,,,-Q.y,%! "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
.! OW4p..v a,.,dy, J .w.M.wSm. .. ,
" realistic" description of the event, albeit a very conservative one. We v . r,. .
.um 1 2, 4. further find that all the fire protection measures taken in comb.mation .
(Jg
- y-37 .,.4p[ wEs.Q@gf;.' provide adequate assurance that the fire would not endanger safety-
.'y E.pg? ' '.
.c. ,,
;. ;f.o p.. related components.
', ' ; ~,
, . t.
Intenenor's Proposed Hndings
, 7.
m u.w.
y, :.
m'. e t W %lSq', 38. Mr. Eddleman submitted proposed findings on fire protection,
.['[t,. .,f. 'N. , $$ 2 f f'
" Wells Eddleman's Proposed Findings on Contention 41 (Pipe llangers k(. ., . l' N.d.@c '.'
- 'i '" .J;g'g j.1 [hj QA/QC),116 (Fire Protection) and 9 (Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment)" on .lar.uary 8,1985, at 815. The Board has y '", .. / ,'f ) Qi.N'.c.A.py.J.eQQ;
' reviewed these proposed findings and finds them to be unsupported by
, .i. e -l o . : /' the record and to provide little assistance in arriving at our findings in
. O 4 ,
3 924
.* ,rq .'g . __
},.'
..._.n. - - - - . . ..,-~.,--.~.~.-<.m----
c m.
. . ,,4 yy .. , ,
, rr s
.,,i*',,'
]
[;*J 3 6 ,
fi}}