ML20197E054

Memorandum.* Lists Conclusions on Issues Raised by Lilco Appeal from ASLB 871207 Partial Initial Decision Re Scope of Feb 1986 Emergency Preparedness Exercise at Facility.Appeal Technically Moot.Served on 880525

ML20197E054
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/25/1988
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
CON-#288-6430 LBP-87-32, OL-5, NUDOCS 8806080062
Download: ML20197E054 (5)

Text

. -. . .

DOLKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges: OFFICE GF hulI A" 00CHE16HG :. ':U'ilCl' Christine N. Kohl, Chairman May25,TYkh" Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson SERVED MAY 251988

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1) )

)

MEMORANDUM Pending before us is applicant Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) appeal from the Licensing Board's December 7, 1987, partial initial decision concerning the scope of the February 1986 emergency preparedness exercise at Shoreham. See LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479. Another such exercise is apparently scheduled for early next month, and our disposition of LILCO's appeal may well be relevant to it. Although our opinion on the merits of the appeal is still in preparation, we have decided to disclose our tentative conclusions now, so that they may be relied upon to he extent feasible in the conduct of the next exercise. <

1. LILCO's appeal is technically moot. The circum-stances of this proceeding, however, warrant the rendering of an advisory opinion.

8806080062 880525 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR hSo b

2

2. Contentions EX-15 and EX-16 were properly admitted for litigation.

3. In deciding whether a pre-license emergency exercise is adequate in scope, the exercise must be judged against the NRC's regulatory requirements, not the customary practice of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in designing such exercises. Particularly pertinent among those requirements is 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1, the entirety of which (including footnote 4) must be given effect. Thus, a pre-license "full participation" exercise must test "the major observable portions" of the of fsite emergency plan and mobilize sufficient numbers of state, local, and licensee personnel and other resources to verify their "integrated capability" to assess and respond to the particular accident scenario tested. Nothing in the regulations permits the testing of the major observable portions of the plan over a five or six year period, during l

which the pre-license and several post-license exercises are conducted; i.e., for the purpose of the pre-license 1

i exercise, all major observable portions of the plan must be tested in that exercise. Whether a particular element is a major observable portion of the plan, however, is determined by reference to the Commission's emergency planning regulations as a whole and to well established NRC and FEMA 1

guidance. Finally, an exercise may nonetheless be "full participation" if an otherwise major observable portion of L

3 the plan cannot reasonably be tested without mandatory public participation. The burden of proof on such an issue, if litigated, is necessarily borne by the applicant.

4. The emergency alert and notification system is a major observable portion of the offsite emergency plan; contact with the designated EBS (emergency broadcast system) station is but one element thereof. If the broadcast of a test emergency message during the exercise is not reasonably achievable, little purpose would be served in making actual (rather than simulated) contact with the broadcast station.

Conversely, where the EBS message is to be broadcast during the exercise, contact with the station is necessary to test the requisite integrated capability to respond. In the circumstances of the February 1986 exercise, where the Licensing Board found the broadcast of an EBS message was not reasonably achievable, the failure of the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) to make actual contact with the then-designated EBS station. did not constitute a deficiency in the exercise.

5. The participation of schools is a major observable portion of the offsite emergency plan. A sufficient number of school and related personnel must participate in the pre-license exercise to permit verification of their integrated capability to respond to the accident scenario.

Where a sufficient number of such personnel have not participated in the exercise, applicant is obliged to

4 demonstrate why greater participation was not reasonably achievable. The participation of only one school district in the February 1986 exercise was inadequate, and LILCO failed to sustain its burden of showing that more school participation was not reasonably achievable.

6. The Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1, unequivocally require some participation in the pre-license exercise by "each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ [ emergency planning zone)." The extent of such participation, however, is not specified in the regulation and will, in any event, be limited necessarily by the accident scenario tested. The February 1986 exercise was deficient for failure to include and test any ingestion pathway objectives.

7. The participation of special facilities (e . g . ,

nursing homes) is a major observable portion of the offsite emergency plan, and a sufficient number of them must actually participate in the exercise so as to test their integrated capability to respond in an accident. In the February 1986 exercise, there was insufficient evaluation by FEMA of LERO's coordination with those facilities lacking their own transportation service.

5 As noted, this memorandum reflects our tentative conclusions on the issues raised by-LILCO's appeal. Our decision and opinion will be issued in due course.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

b. ~h .,

C. J{ an Shoemaker Secr&bary to the Appeal Board L-