Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for March 1986. Pages 113-232
	ML20205S506
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1986
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V23-N03, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V23-N3, NUDOCS 8606120550
	Download: ML20205S506 (129)
	v • d • e

- - - -

NUREG-0750 Vol. 23, No. 3 Pages 113-232 r;;f.

w ww

$g[g.r t ff,,.

,:;a.

4, y r;>

.::g., -

~

d WMi)ssNOCLEAR REGULATOR i s2 pCOMMISSION ISSUANCES 1 e. T

,4 March 1986 a

+

?l?

pBREGy co Ay s

$,,9E u$

]

O

.t.

f c.,

o Il'j[ dis:

Q

.)}.,;<'Q

~'

l

c g

E

.e s

b ',' ' e%

Q

' }g'( '.

r

,u,,t 33 i

!l r

+4 0

%***4 1

. ( :.

bl ;n ~,

.,q*;' :'r! '

.[..

9 t j.' *I..)[h,

i s,,

l U.S. NUCLEAR REG 8606120550 860531 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR

I

)

I i

i Available from Superintendent of Documents 1

U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, j

4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication.,!

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 l

l l

Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Technical Information and Docement Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C.mmission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/432 89:5) or (301/492-7566)

~a--.-m mA

O

..a-..-......

I NUREG-0750 Ji. -

Vol. 23, No. 3 g

Pages 113-232

'.m..

m.

..=

. 7..

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

'.4 %s COMMISSION ISSUAl\\CES

..m.

March 1986

~

r

.s.

.V*

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period G,

from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and

...x' J,

/ E...

the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

e-

..,m.,.x.

The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein i

are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have anyindepen-dent legal significance.

. ~,.: :,

~

e a

~

4,#f,,. ;,'f U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION f

'vv

. s '.!. *:f,,

",,t

6..

m, Prepared by the Division of TechnicalInformation and Document Control, N;

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555

~.

w' (301/492-8925) f.-

-1,

, p.

q

\\,[ f i 9_

d y

e

.>F"-

4 e

... 3.; i

.-- t

.t,

.y.

-s

_: p.

.-., = -.

.,..a f-

+) ~.r.~,

y;.---

r.

.n.; ;

, '. } h '..t '

q*..-j, ~. $ ; r ', *,..:- '~,------;?,.3.nv-,...

, ;n, m.

~~:-- * ~ r.

r-

.e-

.; L,%j.,2 m

..?;;

V

~... -

, ', /- t?.,.

t

^. '

.s l 4 4{9 :f. sl. '

w,

,.?

?.'

_.,,.!"3 Q' ' s.,

v -

.l*

j6..:. e "j'.O :: W. '2,'

'k. ;.v.

5..) ~R T.~#*

Fh..

W 'C.tJ i..'. :

'\\*

N>

L

,h, 'g; h,4 s*.b ).

.}

'4' '":{f; ~,!,

'l,&,e y < * '..,

s

.. o..,.

.% -t[#.

f<j*:llh,rQ,MT$3l.',Q

. -,m,<...; w >;;.

M. A.. '.. s.. hs '...~ r

Jt c

. f$$@$

w m,.w: a,n&:gg v.

9.

?

. ?k,.efi

%g.

4..

.,x. :r..m - :;..;wlg ~..,;.c.. -..g Qfifh,*:hl yf':;,l nw-

.go. ~.g.m w;.c

.v n mp,-4;pt3ygy.py,y p c.

q.?ig:

... ~.

j y:

r.

y f.v.

C

' f 'r 3,

a

.a.

.. c.

..-J'.-ar-*-"ae--'-~

^ - ' -

- " ^ " ' *.,

- - ~ " * ' "

.l,.',

l w J.s a.+

a -. ~.*-

, p_c.

W

.q c ;. y.

.,.; ;, y

, +,.

.~..,,

_,W,..j;.

.,. g.,, ' =

a

. w x.

w -..,,,

,,: <. v" v d *e 2,

t

. ~. w. y w;,,. 4m.a. s c,,,,r.:.

s a-'

.,p.'

?,; 'i y, < a j. '.

: *

f ll. y n.

.m

+ w;....

,..w,.2. s. o 3.,m. 5,o... '.' f;. -g,,

s.a,

-.., n. ;,,.

u.

.a.

+.., w. w. <.n.,.n.

.. ~... +;, a,

. m u

. n..., o ',. ~

w.

..A,.,,r'.Q.(.

y..s.e;;:y. n:m,.

,"g,.

.y 7>

- i :. _ s.

s

,v.., a.

w.

m.a.y u

.,. n..,.

m..,.

~.

,._.y..

,s

~.

vv,

-,c;.W,g.

r. w /,> >...,a. 4 : W /, M.; M COMMISSIONERS

..r.w:. m.v.

...-.1 ~ u. _.. c..>4,y,m.,.9 r n. m.o -=..o.

,,e vp

=c

..s..

m.

c~..

m m..

..g %. s,, s,. c f e,:.,.Wp ec,ie Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman

., c, j....... - ~ ;. p... m, r. +

James K. Asselst.rts Thomas M. Robe

.. +.

e m.

c w

ine

.'...y.

. 1... w c w w. M

~z,? ;, #.

'. ': w p. '

Frederick M. Bernthal

.hTM.

Lando W. Zech, Jr.

^

5

.,..y w :

_ g,~. y

.a..

:,..,gs,..,.... a.j 4

7.,.

r, z

w.

s.,..

.p.

. + q...

.-.p:. p, r.<,,;;,

..e '

. W.

,,,:p.g3,Lfp

.,t

..v

,....w.....s.

w,;m,.

.2

N.T :.

J. s ~..e7..w,

.e j - u. - my Wl.J.m. m.+c...o. 4. :;m, :,

.a-,

n.,.

,.e

~.

~

. w,E~%-M.x

.m.

~.: : ;n.,a..+. c...w, s,~.. :w m

... n

- ~ ws,.::i....,wyr.s:i.^ m.4.p,.n

r

,c s.,w.e m....m.u M,g., y;m, >;p.,y.p c

g

.o... s -

e.M pH s'c hw m. /,m+q.x.M@y*

T

. e..,:.. y.. -

f.3.,cc., v.g

~,n,.s

.m., c

. n...;.

a,o. 4 e w

-.. ~ 2 w

g...s.+.

. l.Q * *.]q 3 Q a':.'

- p4 t..

.. 3...,;.. y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel

.(.=.,

m ; gf,,.

g., p..L. g >

e.. ' j.ii,'J,d B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel m d....

y,..j m..: ;

.,y

~,., q, aQ'e s.o.,.w.._~.,..,. :

9:. '., -

~ 4

~

. <...,.s'*q

.,.u.

...g.

.f.. ;;;'. ik*' ' ' ~...

p,;

%,n :','. p = -

n.:

r.

?f.,.-N h)

,,'.4..,.

f *%..,

,.'t M,

,. ~ ~

... '"y

. s

...a.'e,.* ', ;'.ss.

, y ('.d % ;~

m.

.,,,s-s) v*.

t.

.E,..

.s.$*-

g g

< 4.=.., y[ * ' * :

'/~ ;,, d %"'

.A

~f

.s f; e.- s.

st'e.*.

[!',e ;.C, ?l ~ % i _ l

M o. *;*'-

v,,

..y s e v _..y'.. . >.py. s... %je;fn., pw;,,j m,w ;sc :' % s _ v w. a s 'A 'l ..-,'g' - : {' g

g. *

[ 4 4 h ~ I". y., ,.*hY M',h [ ', h ',. 2 =. ' i R... %,

. k.: ;

. ~ ' 6,,..,W.$..,., 9. ' v<- ~.$M,. *>j ag (* ~ ' W ! '....,'ss'. o 1, l 4 y9 W U '9

/, h'h.., '.

a m 'c 7. Ar - O ., [.._ s ,,s %Y t *Y

- [ hi7, l.

s., 2h g ]'. - . 'c;.'. z.. \\ 'quq, a<; pi 9 g ..... R R ua /*y I s .+ r. 2 b e b &,b l

Y.

,.1 e e3.e n w 3.'., r ud.-

r,

'N. ) *tR7'_ ~ ,',s y _. U, j,y, t - l 's Iy.pc,Wc. e-- -- 7..,. - e r-m; p 3* A a #4.b 7 h /- '- i n,, --..z ... *',q.J; y* * ;; f, 1,N - .W .... 2 cc.NQ p,.,

s. *-

j 'e. - + ,5

_s."

c.q, ' c .....f, .'., J'

4../ #

s .s c -.W *.h. p ?.y ' g A. 7 :,. .M3,. .,#+ 3'* c ; ** 4 w Je g. p ~+. i.+,,,i, g;p' t eQA WWhN NrWrg[y)lM; %=p' *ig'M. %@m ' m:.'# K M.sG: W Q. : p,1*.. f. p'. ke,, j7 1-M.'/df.,y % g #g ^ '* .4% - ',. %a W.3 r y"W;,.,, f. 1 ..Q ". C l e., . '.-;s' s ' g af,. %p,. f..,,w?rl r6 M.9 a

y, w g....

, &s !/gp% a c pr.we M.v j.@S 1 +,' y';We%*VQ ; .i. .-,. p -v' A -u'in - 7.:C.c.- FV H.j p'j $ n hg A4. -g W etC% 0

r.

. 9 % gf ! ,9, 3.Y, d-f.Y@)/M.6 @%*j'...Y.;@'~[y y # N.s'Yi,EY,7 A W &.)'$' M:. 6 f. Mih*WhW N'hM @'

O g

4m w.n% M&Opm% 4? .ww.W.MW

o J .___.....m. -m_ f f. i $j CONTENTS Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission PillLADELPlilA ELECTRIC CONIPANY l (L.imerick Generating Station, Units I and 2) j Dockets 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL l ORDER, CLI-86-5, htarch 20, 1986. 125 PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC CON 1PANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2) Dockets 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL t h1EhlORANDUh1 AND ORDER, CLI-86-6, h1 arch 20,1986. 130 i i TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COhlPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-445 h1Eh10RANDUh1 AND ORDER, CLI-86-4, hfarch 13,1986. 113 Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CON 1PANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning) DECISION, ALAB-832, h1 arch 26,1986. . 135 T Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards COhthf0NWEALTil EDISON CON 1PANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) Dockets 50-456-OL, 50-457 OL ( ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OL) NIEh!OR ANDUh! AND ORDER, LBP-86-7, hlarch 28,1986. 177 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COhlPANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Units I and L Dockets STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-4c9-OL (ASLDP No. 79-421-07-OL) 4. .+ SEVENTil PREHEARING CONFERC_NCE ORDER, ., = LBP-86-8, hlarch 28,1986 182 1 ' J. ;J , u. ...i.i . e-a a } 111 g j -7,Pv*~--.t-----+, m p, e, _ _ _ _,h[ , [ 4,, g. ,s , r:. x~~ -., ' k .y ((- s ~ '[("[,.. n. v:. r.g , ;. ef,..;f ', j.T 7 '.s.5 - {. ( ,e , e %'.7,. i. a.., ',', y M, pii:m. 3 C*yp:j fdm .u.. . Q' ', e,' -h

g i e.;.,t.s; &,..,,

,'o.f..K. % ',*;,,2-u ;j< pl'Jt. &..+. l,:, ' ....,..\\ ' it

G..

yy*#.y a _. y,, 4.M <c 3; p,- > s - . r# .. ;..:. W - qq%>3p'j.... < W* K'+,. j ..<, - syg d. ?.q.y* p / s.., 3 7 4 .v ,t

j;ps y O;

' _ :5,',q*',,.g p%.&

h, s: n N,f ?, ;..,[7&g Q, r.z' s

m-P' 2%d M m.jQ9y., .?.r . G' ., ;V%y..f. - y ':.' m , A1";fspl,..A, <f. y wi%. 4 A 4 a.-- o tw.v.: y.-,

9 X

l :.n,. g?.3cy y. p 7,hg., y.m.g., , N,

c. c.. -

+ s - ;y 4,7,w. .zs.;, p,- yJ J, y e

.:, x.. ~,;.- R$

A

.9l ^ tr%: ; L.- l

y

t,

k h.'.) *_

qy, %. ~... d > { 'v:; *

my (;-

.L' \\'. s ~ g M;. J.a- ~

..,]c,.m.r
,,2,

_._u..~., ..s.- ai.v.m.m ;, p qg:7g < ~. w e~ g+ .w u.- . j Mlf IV p

t f(, ' 'd

~V.wp-t.. M. <..,. -s., ? 4

.y

...S$(# ~'*[

, y g:g.'; & '

..p N

3-tg.F ru..,: .

?

*L c

. ? PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY t W VJr ~-5 p'QfW4. ~..t J u - N.J C..- (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) ~.vn. Jq%, g,,j :p..,,,,.. gw 1., Docket 50-352-OLA (ASLBP No. 86 522-02-LA) hhgN'f. (Check Valve) [$@ N N A [M' WNE: 7f)k U.c d ' . MD? m MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON ~ ....h ROBERT L. ANTIIONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE M;.a@z,.u.~j d,@:.L. A.SD,.*L.d$ c' TO INTERVENE, LBP 86-6A, March 13,1986......... 165 s ..w.. :xo. a ! NW@c i : ; ; ~ -3: s:n,..., v,I n ^.. ', b. g&c9+ 33; s + PHILADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY 3 +.w Of .Jf4 s: eJ5.7D!*-h p I ,'9 i (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) N T. k,p) h d b. N.h % [ U Dockets 50-352-OLA-1 (ASLBP No. 86-522-02 L A) k:.,43,+Neww#..;3 c. v, (Check Valves), 50.352-OLA 2 (ASLBP No. 86.uo-04-LA) W . # u,m v (Containment Isolation) m.t:40 es c $w,'G M.'.' .m %g.e,Q%.w,g * ., ?.. *f E$M MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING m G PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCHEDULE ,m .c D. Q'+ ?l7.;.., G.; - FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES, 1, d hq[N2pn.J. T..o@:.. '* g&W LBP-86-6B, March 14, 19 86.......... 173 K.4

n. 4 f:
m.n? M M w*- #

.%N;,.f.a; 7'w.M#J.' :,LV.

Q w v

g Issuances of Directors' Decisions W% Mr 9.-e o ~ HN $.5 h 1 esh.W,s.@!w;.nv.n,.,. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. t.n.. .t E J. sqw..g ~ s.pm%m,.n;,a&+y - (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) w, 9A., w b. Q 4: 5, Dockets 50-440, 50-441 i(bfy;W,".~,9'c.n, M }Q) bl.9, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206, kh'ib. hh.h,d;j ;o - h;h DD-86-4, March 18,1986......... 211 Q w,y.;m.w, m.m. u,,. y'T ,.a-.. 4 oy/ $ihSN.k 'engvN.t - NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. M D G 9. (Erwin, Tennessee Plant) 1c5.33sym fr a. Docket 70-143 .D $ $p 't 1h.' 1 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. } 2.206, ~

.W.m.,.

DD-86-3, March 3,1986 191 .t, s. + 3*'o. h;.., y '.N :y 73 t4..-,.* g.pcA. p.w. o. A " f.4: c .. en. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMPANY

2. M,M@M E ;',P";..f

E,,,

O.N?A (Limerick Generating Station, Und 2)

6: 2, 7'.,.*;

Docket 50-353 d W* P;3.. r a/ '. d.. ~'..,. '.'. f, c j DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CI.R. j 2.206, / G;>.s. . s DD-86 5, March 21,1986 226 sd.,w..,...%.,..,r.'.n:;M.e\\* ' W.?. S;: iM.

aq: ,,.,, p, m.

,4.. k,w. r. L vn.s.mn 5 s,i 7 ~.;.'.w., a Q)f. .W* is 4'Vf" b&y *d g$.> *. (4 6% i ff Ne A.. . -. Y &'?.I 'h' Y,.. f . g,klq.1., * *,. :h. '

i ? -* Y.,

8 A.

o...

c,:. 5 -

d,. t f W.O.y ' *, p }* r i,.. y W G # ?.5. r.Md (!N.$*$ e,O,- YM9)@lL, ',., *, g : O C,' N . -sk % 4-.- : en ? H. }MWM,,M.I,P ?. /, , U, '.Y. Q:* 8.[m.. t .\\ lY

a ;..-g...: w. % y.4,,?,; p.,.

8 E f a q%..,h.: : N y~;;s /. $f,,. 2 W.,'p *; U e sr .o. .14 e ;. 4

k -

r . g 4.4r 8 [***j.. " hf ,I

hb h k"ts w m',m.n w*n%;w&c f p h.: .- v a^, n,,, e.,l. - nc'f.v:t,.:.

. m :g "a l g p.W. w w t, a.n:Y v y : m&n 4M' 'Hy.: w P y k.o n. s p,t-g~ qq W y. &y.m.c.k.:g.r.A..;f.9:.kl.hhEk$$.m$g.oym? .y

e. :a L f,. e ~

r 1

v.y?y x; y W #e: M@. s.W. q%w%%w.+ m.y%m$S,bbh a

n. - y

..~ f $u. $h hh$$b p% % n & m.~.$ $ hMPM h 4 4 4 . s it M@i

t 4 J v. i m. .. _ ~ .~... ~. _.. _,.. .r..: 2 n 4 4 N. - ~ COmmlSSIOn 4 l ..m a. .1, lSSuanCOS .4 e + f. e. ', %, .a>.., 1;,, t - ' ' /z.t '.. ',,f a i.$. 3 - +. : , 4 e5,: r- ~ ,1-6

?. i

.} i* e.,a, t 2 .- } ',j;

a. m, ; ;,n d '

~ -*:r';v 4-s 7 l t, ' r* l is ' * '2, s.&... s. if e. o .s 7 +i 4. 1 ?

A g,

s I f I I a n l s i.. t i M. . t v,.**,. s a .i. ] <, 4 4' ' i '. E.. " 4 ;f ', g, i. ,.,.>..,. L... y l . 14 '6 1, v wn). y m n.,v, c I s Q s. .v.e t *, A. ,l..,se-g - i 4? n .r- - ;, 4 p i + 6, - t f -. i. n?,'N C.. v.,*,; - i.,;,, j sv [p {'. y 5 g a w (s- ~. c &.4. f. .e., e ny. p'. . l

s. 6 * *

9 4 2a e

6 ,,g g ' }' ,k* L. l,J ?q-e %. < an s. [.*.x %f. !* '.. - 4[, A - ' e.( e c..%j.0,,f. ;.( i i

m..,.

8 3 e s, j .+, b. ',4 ' d"V [{N !, 'g } ) .y' .4..,(,.,,'.,,'.",7..4 - )Q g [, 4 4P "

it' lp.

Y ' y*e'w#,%. g, =- 8 ' ,u.. I,. 6 k

b "l j

w a n',e.( { y.g,,

' 't,. S.

.'g .,g.. _ y 9 9 I g$* W 'e > v.M v '..,f t'-; f,' 1 1 e-3 -,1 c.c,(/**'.%.7 ' 4 i,.

[, I 'i~

.h s "y J,- x.- .,. ~..y 7 ; i m.< 1 1-s-Q. + I ,a a /, ac., -, w e -(- 4

j +j,.

o, 4 ., ; s.m .1,<- 4, + s.g. ig U e3 % Je .1* y ,2

.{W""'"*N
F-9"

^4"'"' "'**%""{ - ' p? D f*

7 19

..-f s s;4.a., e5 e.,,-' h - h. s\\ t* 8 4,.. <

1'

,*n, y< >g % s *.k.A., e.4 m,,x,s.., 0 = ~., at f*1's 1 j,. ey., b',,.* ' s},.,'.~, '.r^# -..'U. (*ft, 4 yyy 4 f - 4.4 I i. U' ~ t 4,s :.;,g e.:e,- x :smp.h :. '. ,3 N :.4/c.9 ( w p.+ Q C. i.*. '.,.,,.. M .s %:+'

M,.$ '.' ::g;iks.W. p.ylff

.y,.; - ? .. ~.. e ** s L..',3.e<,f'-M;:b W,>y'y*; 3..; .,,. g. :,, x, u%

;,. - fe c t>.-

av A' ;.. a u L e,, p%a.Ni .4Q.u%.

p%,i?<a

~.a, a v: - & -ll &,.s. -Wh; h.4,4 ',- ~ ; O..g,..% !:l4.% 'l - l' CP,, ? M6t t p., f ;w++,*pg /4, f.q.. s,(p.t, ,a e s s# +., 7.,,g. %e. 9.**,..u.,. s s.~ c-pf i, t...r t. + .p ,, g f,. f.,s_ . c. s, mt - c u.. - w. 4 ,#3-.4,y N

g,y,.p,

_,3 j ;. x T, g g-tM.,ir.Tfy fgj: $.pd';. f *. C d.,..,-(a-f.');Ct+f,p-$+=I;7id y, p s,!yn.s, j. j,., yg4 3' ' 74 J gy, - L ,. i ,a '/g 3, g* 7.e 4 r @, s.,jy_y,$,', *>,g;yp g.ig

yy j., -

,, ~ .e n..

3 . ;.l....16 R b.. -w h*,'i,w f.

' [,.

? ~e q,1.., me { '- m _ ; w_m;. 2,, w,, 2,_, . ~

,7 s..

~:?[: . '...... a.a.. --lM y 7, "M t- ,~ j . H.s -.n i y, y,.., ..., e ", c - y Cite as 23 NRC 113 (1986) CLI 86-4 C,' '

.s"x,

,t 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r 2i.- ., '., ~ y A- .e, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s . r r,. '. 7., v r., y ;,..., ~n..;..u.., 4 e s ,. e. - .~ COMMISSIONERS: v. v. M;,. '. Nunzio J. PaKadino, Chairrnan ?,;. %; 1. g .N ..t s. ; 5. n,..' '.O Thomas M. Roberts 't..h>...,, f ',... ,*. **. '.f,.3 James K. Asselstine 7 Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr. ,,.fpr,. c 4 .,...s In the Matter of Docket No. 50-445 ^ u, ,4. s t TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i A0'~b' COMP ANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric f Station, Unit 1) March 13,1986 -, o. ,o.. y ',. (;... 9-6 .t p, y c r: w :e.,,, e - 9 s....m. The Commission denies a motion requesting that Texas Utilities Elec- ..ppy i,6i tric Company, which neglected to request a timely renewal of its Unit 1 ' "Y?. g2W ;.. construction permit prior to expiration of the permit, be required to o 4 , p / a :L,,...~..M, ~ apply for a new construction permit. The Commission agrees with the '.f....' i- .i NRC Staffs finding that the construction permit amendment granting ..i..* j " extension o the construction completion date involves no signi acant .. x,.; s d, hazards considerations, and it therefore refuses to stay an extension of ~ ' that construction permit granted by the NRC Staff, to halt further con- . s.z..F+ P3.,c? y,,,,,,,...- . c.t e. y -. ,j,.', struction, or to grant a "preextension,, hearing. The Comm.ission refers ,mw. J., . e .n

v. y m n. ;;,...m ',. n j 4.i.

the request for a heanng on the construction permit extension to the . a -n.i,p ' o.' V.,6, t. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for appointment of a hearing yMi , M,#,x.ve;s@tq N 3 f ;g. q;i !l'3 s s wy,..., board, and it refers the request for enforcement action against the Licen-i.>0'< W i see (or construct,on act..t.ivi ies after expiration of the construction .u.a. l,13,.:W ~ i permit, to the NRC Statifor appropriate action. ..e ..~.,, ~..H - + w.a aq >,:,:,e cn.y,:;a.g -n...:,..

y. y g..,,>.~ r,y,e t

< i ;. y n....,.. - 4 ^ n.:.. y.. s, , s 3 ; ?,()\\ x';.y..;7.m,,a t ,q.,, ' ' c?,M.4',.s . t i p.. ra. . /. a -~! e 113 'hk.h'[,['f 9 ' $i 2 - j. ... O d,,',M& w -+ - "l, s. . k.., n. v +y

??T

- - ~ J Va* } *- " -. - -

, s, 7 ,.m.., j g'<p, :, w- ,""W'*T*****"'**"^'#*"*"* =: ' '*0 ~~' ' * ? '**"* }~; ~ ^ 1.w,P

m. :

,e - :*a s . S e..pc. - Qc 15 '-l.'n, '. p w.[.} ',. .e .x. s,.., k jj k h.}lb N hh,'f*f)',['$i' fkhh' d %j . '.c - p s .1. t.. -- ) & t$ 'q,.14. 's p..,, ; d '. h.,,, #,

ij V '*

s 'w.: .s.c s s . r,, w;? y m.<< ,v. ':.4. .p~ ..? v: y hY u, n.,...c. w.,n,: w.y < w^: w; u w-y,, v.py y. m,. y;a n.o. u $ m m g-:;4. s ;y

e .. ' x j'. :, 7.: s r .s;o. ~ -_. w

c. v.

.a, ,c, e*

g.

,. i

a e

'. I. , jft, er} ' ( l'* * ;[.} ' sq e (,g

l

- [ *- Ft, .m - .~#

i. ~.

...,"7, , e ':. p .g mm,w~ + - 9 :.,- -n ..., ~ ,a. n,,, . ;y e. n..- w. ..ys

a... #y.. ~_,.

.G - ..s M ' : n: wu=wn - 1

i.. -- a.~ a..: w,m.-- " - = ~

1 d (, _s 4 4 ~ '; ( *' ,n, E* . 4. 2, ', CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: EXPIRATION OF COMPLETION , ' ' ~. - '..' "...=. u., DATEt FORFEITURE OF PERMIT Failure to make a timely application for an extension prior to the expi- ./( ,.. h. ~ ration date of a construction permit does not have the effect of causing a ..t: ^ .h. ' *.. i ,e complete forfeiture of the permit such as to preclude issuance of an ex- . iy, ' ! tension and to require an entirely new construction permit proceeding. e ' N ' x. '.. ,m... ,. W,. ..s .o , 'g' ~ e (, e. yj, 1, 4.. -.., DATE (APPLICATION) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: EXTENSION OF COMPLETION s.. 'r, ,, 3 4.3.,q,.;; &. %,W 7 tG;. - The filing of a timely request for an extension under 10 C.F.R. +.. n= r.~ n .., y 5 2.109 keeps a construction permit in force. s ..e o l . j CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: AMENDMENTS (SIGNIFICANT 7 ..,,,; 7.'! HAZARDS CONSIDERATION) %,y t cc ') An amendment extending a construction permit does not necessarily y.

,. E involve a significant hazards consideration, especially when the amend-

.] ment does not involve substantive changes in construction design or l methods, but merely gives a licensee more time to complete construc-t tion. _i -H j . y .s.- " g. a. "..,. % . c,z.r ~ ' ' ' y 3 O, ^7 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: AMENDMENTS (SIGNIFICANT N &J HAZARDS CONSIDERATION) ..pa. < ',.,, 4 :.t ..,.w. M ' M' i.. /.d f.7.f.$. ff The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making signifi- [:y(,,3 .W

, U.Q d iJ Ei: D cant hazards consideration findings to the discretion of the NRC Staff.

p.- s y,., ? - See, e.g., 48 Fed. Reg. 14,864,14,867 ( April 6,1983). in. 4. o m. s

4.,,-

. '! Q ',., .,,. a e !. ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT /. - ' 7 "..;..,. AMENDMENT (IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS) K j)1:.. :. F M., W. 6.s Y Md Y Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act allows the Commrssion , gg$$%w..gm;?Wp R::e wr. " '. '1 w; to issue a construction permit amendment on an immediately effective ..y n .. 4 basis, without offering a prior hearing, upon a finding that the amend-N Im;.Wl& m) , Q,@,h'N N f.% Q f[$ m yw : M y b a p@ ' n. W . x!= ySA ment involves no significant hazards considerations. 42 U.S.C. 3?.vj 6i'1.. 5 2239(a)(1) (1985 Supp.). .7 'O r g.f' A p *.y; ; ' *,a.. s.,%g' 5 W & u e;.:x =W mw p @,.e; + a 4. - ,, ~. ] h t .u, ;',(.Y k. %&, Q* u* f..n' lyk. 0 A i V*i H.o. 4 sur m. s 4 3 ...,,r p, ;s.. y', ,, ;; y,y;;x,

n,,.

9

4., 2 s

.t 3 4 ,b .? E e, ,E. y'

I,k [ h f:g'fh h 7.?f.

i ' *. In a / p M .m - a n.. . cte.... l+ s 114 7p ~4 @g j@'-l'. ,. V ,f. h.' \\, wj x ?. ). m ..c. I

g j

a a,,x,. g

e g,

s ? &,h..,. MT.*} j,k 3 [y^ t..',.s ,g 3, L

cg

};V 4 );F jj ',.*ip*.* g .,9 .s ,-- 1,= rer ~*=e- ,em av. e-* ?q., . ' *7;* F .iv.'"Pr* ~ *'"~ " " *' # %Q. *, gl. 6,l e.. ;,,: J h -., ? M a.', b , i O v: ,~.

y.n y:

Ehkd.*hd,4'h,w.. . ( '.. n((. 'h. -hl .m m. ~c.w r1 U$ N .".[ . -. i

f 6

v .y. m W L g4,$..a?%w:) a,s,4.p :t,d - /h4 tpAw.., a :./..:%,,vCsM,%,v. ~:*.f.,, %~f.w.}..m}M~. s.-;W.- Y,f..~.. r,,. qw, u' / Pj .%mb ',;'m~ '.'w.M m.'.-@w&; M.. n s .,r. Q-. - . y a. s..r u .~ n .. b N.r.W. <J q wr d.).6 ;pw. c i..,

o G..,rm.p,v p. - p, s 1.

/ h kI $ ~ f E} f f

~ 1T - "u c s. w ..u.:-- ..a.

a.. - w...

.a, _... ,--.._? 49 , 4( sf' a s ..,g. i CONSTRUCTION PER311T: EXTENSION OF COSIPLETION .,J W.' , ~ y -S r j ~. ./ DATE (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING) The scope of the postextension hearing is limited to challenges to the . 1., 7 licensee's efTort to show " good cause" for its extension. CONSTRUCTION PER311T: EXPIRATION OF COSIPLETION DATE After expiration of its construction permit, a licensee is not rree to ' N.;;'

r 4 ', -

(., continue construction until told to stop.10 C.F.R. (( 2.109,50.10. ,4.- M., < : I r .:I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i ] I. BACKGROUND s,y This case arises from a regrettable and wholly avoidable omission by the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC), which in 1974 received a construction permit (CPPR-126) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric -c' D '.' Station (CPSES) Unit I facility, to be built near Glen Rose, Texas. As extended, that construction permit was due to expire on August 1,1985. , $'6fI i T, ",J, Under 10 C.F.R. f 2.109 of the Commission's regulations, the filing J,.j[,[ ^ {, -:1 of a timely request for an extension keeps a construction permit in %;p;., p,.. 2 .7, force. TUEC failed to make such a request. The omission was detected , f-d..,;.y' 1. by the NRC on January 28, 1986, during a routine document review. ,397 This represents the first time in the history of the civilian nuclear power /. ' 7 '3'I program that the holder of a construction permit allowed its permit to . j expire without making a timely request for an extension. The result has j been the needless expenditure of time and resources by the Commis-sion. We note with approval, th<.:refore, that the NRC Staff has advised ~ u.; .s us, in its filing of February 13, 1986, that it is considering whether to II'd.i,5;,- take enforcement action against TUEC for conducting construction ac-s pp., m 7t.,c/.?,.. ' ,,1,

t. ion permit.

tisities at Comanche Peak Unit I after the expiration date ofits construc-d@p: %, /. 'e On January 29,1986, TUEC applied to the NRC StafT for an exteasion f@y J W.A r-T y;; ' ( y l' of CPPR-126. TUEC advised the Staff that while physical consti action ' Mp /,; L of the plant was essentially complete, some onsite work remained to be , J.,,f. 3. u(N.I:N 'd.h,, ' completed, including an effort to reinspect portions of the plant and to identify and replace any defective or nonconforming materials or sys-y tems, and that it had ceased most construction activities at Unit 1 pend-TYh'. ', ' i 'l h.3 ? 5]f t,i 'y i ' .l

'.L q-

. M./ ' ' i ' ~ 115 wm ] -h gg .?

3...

'! '.1, + .n &,<.- r' r n ) '9 ;* 4 .*w P'*.* =. gee

ee

.m e, 9. wm%..,_ ! * :l $Q i g y,d,.' M(,E.,, 't ,_y t, ; fb t '} . Y' , *.* J;.2$3'i.c.:l. ylj% s .h -q

n. a m, e#:.y~f;: - :x' 6 2,y e.

- L ~.:, ky 5 1..: 'c ~ l h,'.. +.s. - ll 's: -

%j d,y Q;,',( o ..p.. wn. n

~

w s .r. . &. -. ;I;-

- - - r M.Wg?r*.C'#p tMQ f',.,.f%. y< {f g fl.,f. ",-

' a' 3

6

m WY 7 u a*w / n. K> ~~O Y',.. QVh / e.y; y& * %. - .e. k _ - -

m.. &,.;m.,.. : a 3.

1 w .+,e. .w f;f..; g;&g. * .N...:. Q L. N. l<Ckt ~^ > T M ;. M, ?. 9L --.~;-~ L ' J - 2.= ' - W%*M" ~ 9 o, .N .e .&a:,fG'.. " 2y' .;l l Q g&&. s ...N., g .c1 n .w. qwp.-. w.,,'

x.,s 3

, a j/ '", x ;.' [ *. F jp; \\ .>> 4 e Q@h.,{.[P' :fcN[ ', [" ins NRC action on its application.' On January 31, 1986, the Citizens -o S-f. '. ,,5 f ' Association for Sound Energy (CASE), an intervenor in the Comanche .P. 2.;. ; %* "' f, Peak operating license proceeding, Gled a pleading with the Commission R.g;,. ,j;,..glW, '<, W:., ..f, 2,', itself seeking (1) the imposition of a civil penalty against TUEC for con-J. : struction activities at CPSES Unit I between August I and January 29, . rye? .,[. (2) a dennitive order directing TUEC to file an application for a new gy - ~. s s. construction permit and to cease all construction activities at CPSES . m ;s,1.. .fr. 1 Unit 1, (3) a determination that signiGeant hazards considerations exist-l ..f. 9',E. a.. ' P,. ed in any extension of the construction permit, and (4) a hearing before 1,.-" dMN.$ '.,;, m :f' J %);,.A f ',J,j,. / T.', ;'.t/l.i the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) on the request .e,- Ui' ';. h '> 1.V. 4 to extend the construction permit. TUEC responded to CASE's pleading 'M',,' ~ on February 4,1986, asking that the Commission reject CASE's argu- . ;mg.,. /- ment that a new construction permit was required, refer the remainder y qi4 4 47 4 v of the Grst three items in CASE's pleading to the NRC Staff for appropri-v sw. g.' o - .. -i. j <. ate action, and deny the request for a hearing. ppz,1, & f.: o While this matter was still pending before the Commission, the Stali .)n,3,,W,,. U 't. gf f,. d\\. issued a NEPA Onding of no signiGeant environmental impact relating h.e W1. M'. a, [i, to the extension of CPPR-126 and published this Onding in the Federal 4 y. g 4, t., 4 .c Register. See 51 Fed. Reg. 4834 (Feb. 7,1986). Subsequently, on Febru-L. A. : q -:../, ,p4u a ary 10,1986, the Staffissued the requested extension of CPPR-126 after ![7A .,s" / ..e-making a finding that the extension involved no signincant hazards con-W MC7'**.?"' siderations. CASE has responded with a request that the Commission $hiiNbMT'N'WQ,-G }IN. stay the efTectiveness of the construction permit extension while granting . G.a. y (f*y n:,[ ['..fiM.,my;. 4,.h,D, a.o?n .,:Q M the relief previously requested in CASE's January 31st pleading. The m Staff and TUEC have responded in opposition to that request, and ,ya ..%.4v 3. mice.ymgen w: CASE has moved to file a reply memorandum, which we have accepted w 9 7t d.f';,', N.,,'4,WM q v.6 %$ g q<.N 2 and considered. ,..Ol%,d/1 After due consideration, we: (1) deny both CASE's request for a m ; b] Q .g 9J' C'i -[' halt to construction and its request for the institution of a new construc-lh ui tion permit proceeding; (2) deny CASE's request for a 3tay of Staff's ex- $.ypM.,4 ,. l Q p k. tension of CPPR-126; (3) reject CASE's siew that signincant hazards egC . > c 3, M_ f. !n. - considerations are involved in the extension of CPPR-126; (4) refer D. CASE's request for enforcement action to the Staff for consideration m p%,.d..'.cM+J.a#Q;, W' FW';Ma y @ &....~ 6.; E., q w ww :A' under 10 C.F.R. l 2.206; and (5) refer CASE's request for a hearing to ',G /.e",7.y,.. l /,

i. 6 the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for ap-n..

-a Mr7. Wm @WW,M.4% @& M)h 7 .t pointment of a hearing board to rule on the hearing request and to con-f 0'&[c&Oh)f(8Oli7p.,. 4;Q,.N St% l 'St N t-mo.m yt f; s* 9 p.M..q

iTUEC continued activities that were related to (0 mainienance of systems already in operation. O)

h. 7. K. p! T( h 9[@(Y IKf%..MM !.@il{;P '.

M design activities. O) ongoing inspection and planmns activities that responded to NRC stafrenticisms. d-[,y f ? $ % O,w esclusive or actual physical corrective action, and (4) corrective maintenance of systems that were un. D <.$Ap q a.q"., b>; $.

5.. e i dergoing repairs at the time of discovery,ir TUEC Judsed such activities necessary to preserse the in.

.( ,3 g-tegnty of the installed system

i. igg,y\\ h 9*h, 5 h[#

.. i.' '4 : m n. (. ', ..h[mj,L@-,M. ).; s,, . w .,me . p.. ? \\* iD # ,i .c m - I !C; c.d~p yk;h Q: g.:;i% Wm, w,/U, W.t 116 EQ- .o -,., ~. M&'.;.;*,4 v.. g,, . c ,u w;g r g,j-, .- 'nn MS E 7/ i b '* h g& ts: ;J.,..Q :/..',f'e' 'h ,---"g,; ** 7". T f '

T * ' '",P 7.Te***K**

.;, n w, - 9..cm-n ---.-= ** *.L 7 ..ps..yc s.~

~.n.m u. q.

C v w+Gi.1.N:!W.D&n% s m,m?,eI*' 'h s w, L y M,, - .f m, ugmq, yaws. 3 ,r n .g. n. w.wasqpn $v.n% U%uQ W ~Q % ' ), m?.i V..P &. w& ~W 5 Y $. & .i. Wc n $e ! e M. /Q t

~ ' .;.: m,. .' s m, s p r. c. .a ' s Y. '.h,;'a m*N ' ' *, . '..c N T ' .i 4 .4[ , "I I 9.. m .we.m,Wr - .e s. 3 s c,m. ~. ', m., u., >

e.,

g. s >.u a - w. 2 - , 3, >c

r

,as .,.. y&. mg.c a.e g_ 3 p ' = ~

~

. a.:.,: u. _

3_ x-3., w a.m . / % ? q,. . :.W. ; m y' .;r'.ht f. n. .., pp..- n. w W,.m.,. .. ; y. [ ,.3,. g,M'~., , t /,s .q. . p > ~. ;,., . %xy 7, ? -

..p a.y.. -

. y 9 @..c.,a,,,!. duct any necessary hearings in accordance with Subpart G of 10 C.F.R.

g

.w: Part 2. .7.

f. '.

~ Q t w'. R M. Y ; J/..g II. RENEWAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ?7'.6'.C The first legal issue before the Commission for decision is whether @n. [m:.g..f y , l.... TUEC's failure to make a timely application for an extension prior to the expiration date of its construction permit had the effect of causing a f,,,,. c-, > @M, complete forfeiture of the permit, such as to preclude the issuance of an i M.QT: *

y;-.

' y M 99";- extension and to require the initiation of an entirely new construction .y/6.j; _

.NG.

permit proceeding. To answer this question, which we resolve in the . m e ;\\,,h.; (.g,h( M D negative, we begin by looking at the statute. 7,q".{.~ 4 2 %em.r Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) provides in pertinent -,.; f part: -;,m.q n ,,g /,1 ,'s - ll ;.;. ,,; w. The construction permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for the completion of ~;L. s.

! s t s, the construction or modification. Unless the construction or modification of the g.,[f s'r f * ;

facility is completed by the completion date, the construction permit shall expire. s' $4 W'. ? f ~* " w'yl. y?... :.E and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Commis-4./ if..i. + " t 'f' '. s,%. fN. y,. cg sion extends the completion date. al. '. ? E,,", e ,t,,, . c.. y ', My l[ The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act does not explicitly u. ,N,' Ok$ h; state the purpose underlying this provision. It is noteworthy, however, M,l*c % W 9 tt y. f,.%' *%'y$ that the quoted language was modeled on the provision of the Com-m munications Act of 1934 which governs the issuance of radio station con-W @ j[.y @ struction permits by the Federal Communications Commission.2 At the k.MM u d. ; .7p d g: p@,}%; !@hd5&%d time that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was passed, all nuclear fu:1 'j!.ky@d@i.cy[gg@a;;%@O was owned by the United States government, and it was envisioned that ,y >l recipients of construction permits would, once their facilities were % 1 "Y T [. completed, receive some of that publicly owned fuel for use in the reac-y, [.C

' ' U.M.

2 !L j tor.) Thus in 1954, there were significant analogies between the issuance fQQ 2.. - :9; of construction permits for radio stations and nuclear reactors: both in-7, @.V e, @1.d % h T.";,1 y [ k ; %j $ m 3@MD.f -Q'3pB ,,.n 4 volved the allocation of a scarce resource in the sole possession of the %$-3M federal government. In both cases, moreover, it could be presumed that CM.' d if a permittee failed to make use of its allocation, some other applicant Mb b '.y}W;QMn.. would be in a position to use it. M p M,,,@,..'S. C Of.$g n. W, $x, a.y,pFM@p/F 4-the implementation of the Atomic Energy Act demonstrate the signifi-W v sNNJ The regulations promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission for j

l9 p

.? p.W pi[~j7yh

',',t,d h MT, A A W is % p.# _M %.y/s, u W **a a... ,.:p figf.ied pgQ 2 See Proposed Amendments to the Atomt Ency Act of I94e: Hesrtners on S. 3323 and H.R. 8862 Before o. M.;.4:ff ik,,.y, w*Q.%,y A*Dag's,!.1 % the loint Comm. en Atome Emergy. 83d Cong.,2d sess 116 (1954) (Representative flinshawl, reprmted W% di~ Q gia it%* Ng"yes < - e in il L.egislative History or the Atomic Energy Act or 1954. at 1635.175156 3 Q JC* \\. @,.l ]I. 2 section 52 or the Atomic Energy Act. which provided ror sole Commission ownership or all special ( ,-f - ;< f. /, d.J nuclear material, was repealed in 1964. Pub L 88 489 i 4,78 stat. 602 (1964) 'ls' ' W[b, j&,d,$*p'y ..g:gm, [*., c, y. " 51 [Q.'s,llA .. n.v w.s%.,.n 4w w,n. .". 3% N U g...g 117 b.af a ~ f g % *p7

k. y *,.('isA $, *,,Q:",&,, jf,e R '(

t ,, ~ c 9-. w}.e p w -. ,-,-e .ew.nw.g,.% V n; v .g' .t kWin t %{.s u. 3,y s,, 3 x.v.mW nn g.g ,;,j':Aya, py g

,1 n-t 3: 3 Q +,.v.Q L. qQ %g,%.g

%N 2 " W2 p, * ; c,4.3 @p,s,jn.p.,.qq p - ', q..

y.o, g p. 4;w;,, y v..A* ,4..

c t m e. w g t. >.. fggf g . p' ~ V MITf i ki.- i, jr, .t ' i

.E*.4., ;;'..

+ . q,n gP f.M p. h pn m.gyggy,fgwy - e n,g,ygggggy f ~ .y 5 y

t ~~ p ~ t s-a g ...t, ".,';,,,..... s 2 / s,. n. + -} . a....... ~.: v. w. ~.': = &.-...= ~----. - u- -= _,, e p. : g 7 ~ te e k* 4_' t .+ ,1 cance that attached to allocations of nuclear fuel. Under 10 C.F.R. E1 j 50.60, " Allocation of Special Nuclear Material," the Commission was authorized to include in each construction permit a statement of the .d, amounts and scheduling of transfers of special nuclear material from the i Commission to the permittee. 21 Fed. Reg. 355 (Jan.19,1956). Signifi- ~ '.'i cantly,10 C.F.R. ( 50.55(a), which now provides simply that "[t]he i,. ' permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for completion of the con- / .e struction or modi 0 cation," then included a second sentence: "If the 9 construction or modification is completed before the earliest date speci- 1 Ged, the holder of the permit shal' promptly notify the Commission for '.. ~ ',,. ; [ the purpose of accelerating final inspection and any scheduled delivery of ~, i. materialsfrom the Commission." (Emphasis added.) Likev ise, the regula-q tions foresaw the possibility of competition for scarce nuclear fuel, and q therefore provided, in 10 C.F.R. j 70.23(f), that "[iln the event that ap-j plications for special nuclear material exceed the amount available for 3 distribution, the Commission will give preference to those activities which are most likely, in the opinion of the Commission, to contribute to basic research, to the development of peacetime uses of atomic energy,.. to the economic and military strength of the Nation..[or] i to major advances in the application of atomic energy for industrial or j commercial purposes." 21 Fed. Reg. 764 (Feb. 3,1956). j Taken as a whole, these regulatory provisions indicate that at the time a +.j ~ the Atom c Energy Act was passed, the allocation of scarce fuel was of ~,- major concern to the agency charged with implementation of the Atomic ~ Energy Act. Ten years later, the development of the nuclear power and

...P uranium mining industries made government ownership and allocation y..- e a,

i c. ir5 of nuclear materials no longer a necessity, and ( 52 of the Atomic

~.';

Energy Act was repealed. See Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Mate-rials, 1964: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the Joint Comm. on ef tomic Energy, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964). It thus appears M that though the requirement that construction permits include termina- ,j tion dates remained in the statute, the policy reasons underlying that re-i quirement had ceased to exist. .s. OO As we have said earlier, TUEC's failure to Glc a timely renewal re-ld ' [ (C quest is unique in the Commission's experience. There is thus no case , p ; i.) law which interprets { 185 of the Atomic Energy Act as it applies to this s / ., Ai;;. Q situation. There is, however, case law interpreting the parallel provision ,e, t

J.M of the Communications Act of 1934 which holds that the expiration of d 's <

', ^,? g .c the original construction permit did not preclude the Commission from renewing that permit. The decision is all the more signincant in that it W i,- .h,.

.o

.m,. .J l l g' *, '., i i - ',. 118 2,. 7, .3 L......,._, --~m m - -- - y~ ~ n.&:;..d i ' :. ~O 9 %, _.. '2. Q-[,, 'h[y,,y. . +, n _'. " y' ;. - .y ..x e.- -.- f 2 ". 'Q., ' l g *;R'/.. r. 'W I' m,2-Qy$ s , n,h e. ,-,Q ( y y..

+ q, ok niy _

n' w

S s.

t. .e: ,..c 4

i [

I' ' 3,.. @ ',,

7 iM, ' 3 y ',,,', h ; -' # O " ' - *7 h $w 'qQhY', h,7,h.h./

' I* 7 .t , ( l; *. l - ?}.s'.f f '. g } % ;;. y Q,',. ;. y ".s.,,'t;;) - f;.d. g:,gyzg%"...,.Q,Q g&n.}.;.;, < W' a. -q AgM p+ ~ -+ . s v. c

,v

.w .a ~ %s, s

g. sr.

] .~,, : .,n m. ; y#::n,n A .y,~..,,. s. m a, y [ ]!((p 2 \\, Q_ ^ * '(( } J

j

( %s. ..y. ,.c. __-__ - m u_w_ m, # _w " .,.,a ,3, ._. -.,,,_f. L n__ .c

9 a

J g p r. p gn ' '., p involved - as present conditions before the NRC do not - expiration 6". of a permit in a context of competition for a scarce federally owned ,l'4 .y resource. t M. ;. 0 o, ' '.J In Mass Communicators. Inc. v. FCC, 266 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir.1959), ( ' I cert. denied,361 U.S. 828 (1959), the D.C. Circuit reviewed an FCC de-f' r.1 e v... m jy

_ 1, ; n cision involving an untimely application for the renewal of a construction p

permit under i 319(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. ' 3 @ % j' ' .;, L.. { 319(b), which is almost identical to f 185 of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. ?f 4< f 2235. Section 319(b) of the Communications Act required that the ,i ,1c, m s..a permit for construction of a radio station specify the earliest and latest f

&f;fp*y f,*

C* ;g, MON.k I p,,. I construction deadlines and that "said permit will be automatically forfeit- ~ ' A m [r ; M 'J.Y* E ^ W %. N '. ed if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified or , R ' A*.;,' ' 'i within such further time as the Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under control of the [ holder of the permit]." 266 F.2d at , g4., ;T ' q 683. One such holder of a radio station construction permit failed to file ^c Q An ;, a timely application for extension. Mass Communicators, a rival enter-3 prise, filed a challenge to the FCC's extension of the permit, alleging y, 9l .s that the FCC had to begin new proceedings in which it would have an i'N )O i opportunity to compete for the license, The FCC refused to require automatic forfeiture of the construction c N -: l1 ' j permit, even though the extension application was untimely under regu-lations which, like the NRC's current regulations, provided for continua. c., tion of the permit pending a final determination if a filing was made 30 A>';eya,= .;y ,y ii', days prior to expiration of the permit. See Bremer Broadcasting Corp.,3 ((1 Ag'

U Fed. Reg. (P&F) 1579 (1947). Compare 10 C.F.R. { 2.109 (1985) with FCC Rule 3.215(b), 10 Fed. Reg. 2006 (1945) (now 47 C.F.R.

,, ; ; 4 '.g,p b g m le,; qw.s c , %..'6 5 75.3534 (1984)). The D.C. Circuit found that the automatic forfeiture w z... M4 provision in the statute did not leave the FCC powerless to extend the p. .x, W.J. o ' '. <*E' - '

T.

permit, even though the application for extension was untimely filed. ,( 266 F.2d at 684. With respect to Mass Communicators' claim that the radio frequency had become available to other applicants, the court j-L f Q.[ found that "the frequencies are not 'available'... until there occurs an ie* actual forfeiture, either by abandonment of the permit by the original @-Wi'.? !%p h, v.Q,l $.!: permittee or by adverse - and valid - administrative action by the . M "*f.',rM A...j W N lf :<t1 Federal Communications Commission." 266 F.2d at 685. .u .%m .,. y ~... ' n ; e In essence, Mass Communicators stands for the principle that the au- .gS if.W >yh,M,1%;nk cMh: a{N 21 tomatic forfeiture provision of f 319(b) does not apply until FCC either S47ll ym (1) makes a finding that the cause of the failure to complete construction .hyy% y% g i m M. 4 W.E, ? %gQ was "not under the control of the grantee" or (2) affirmatively chooses guy. v., a 7 We s.ny,,% e not to exercise its discretion to extend the construction permit, regard- ..m m.. 4 ..W.l Vi,% less of the timelines s of the renewal application. In sum, even after expi-V y., M.,"+) G i,f ration of the permit, the FCC had to act affirmatively in order to com-t'f i i.. ",, <R- '} 0' plete the forfeiture. See, e.g., MG TV Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,408 F.2d f@ c..y 4, ',. (.... tp, 2 4 119 Q'[&K f'jf. e y j e r q. . 'k.(..

f l, n?lf ) ; '

w\\ i- '7e q 1 pp 5. ;(u.- % lf.,.h'y n.

e k

j[Ds .n;c%v rv ~ w y,..,. v c~~m-m 7;:3m7 m-wm rnmmun .hh "'.. 'h ' ' h *..

m. jiW,.s' % Q.s #;.y. %.M 4

m$m.4h em m,N. - %mm.vy g g, g,y %, m m.. c, m hv%may,. dyp$@m'nMMMnhWL,1@y. p.Mid w m,s 9/m.g w W yp b f, s f 84Q YWMM

n%me: n$nM we'.n n$ Q,w w(&ww @py.G n

n gQ iQdr m y, gpa&e ,' y Q.P. p, o pe y

l..

i e 4 ~ .~t F '..g i ' ' \\ i L : w. : s s n i l.~s~ .a' L.

. ~. - -.

= h. l <' ~. . ~,, j . ^i 1257,1261 (D.C. Cir.1968) (" lilt is well settled that a construction q, ?j ~ permit does not ' lapse,' notwithstanding a failure to abide by its own Q. 7 /*7 8 terms, until the Commission declares it forfeited") (citations omitted) i. (footnote omitted). S' '. ~. '.i ,?. _ / c, t Section 185 of the AEA, like { 319(b), provides that the construction ,G.,C-7. c' permit for a nuclear facility shall include the earliest and latest dates for ~ the completion of a facility and that unless construction of the facility is s-completed by the latest date shown on the permit, "the construction ~

c,'

. f. permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder shall be forfeited, unless ,. I,.., ~ . 3 'c' upon good cause shown, the Commission extends the completion date."

Q,,",* M,'. ; F

- "l;? ' 42 U.S.C. f 2235. We read 5185 of the AEA to be similar enough to l 319(a) of the Communications Act to apply Mass Communicarors to (, ' 7,.' this case. First, the requirement of both earliest and latest construction dates is identical. Second, the forfeiture provisions are essentially identi- ~ cal. Third, neither statute by its terms limits either administrative ~ ' j' agency to accepting only applications that are timely filed. E.g., Mass Communicators, 266 F.2d at 684-85. Therefore, we hold today that the . J; expiration of the construction permit did not at;tomatically effect the for-feiture of CPPR 126, and that the Commission was not then barred from considering TUEC's application for extension of the latest con-struction date. As a result, a complete de novo construction permit pro- , ig C ' i, ceeding is not warranted.* IQ - -,,., ,p. ,.s., + . ll. P.'.,7, n. ~ 111. CASE'S JANUARY 31st Pl.EADING , ~,.... em- .,~ We now turn to the issues raised by CASE in its January 31st pleading. ^ yv,. [',,,, ? unauthorized construction between August I,1985, when the latest First, CASE requests that the Commission assess a civil penalty for completion date in the construction permit passed, and February 10, 1986, when the Staff renewed CPPR-126. This request is best handled by the StalT under { 2.206 after final agency action on TUEC's extension ,v, request.5 a,e s d 'yfk [,.' Second, CASE seeks a definitive order directing the initiation of a

' S' ?,, O ' ' '..' -

new construction permit proceeding and the cessation of all construction ~. B'...' at CPSES Unit 1. We deny the request for a new construction permit ht.{ [, F. 3 ?.j%( g -

4 g

A* 4 This holdmg in no way absolves the permittee in this case. TUEC. rrom its burden or showing good ,I, cause" as the statute and NRC regulations require, we will not prejudge the ments or TUEC's case. .h.(,1 3,N,,', L 5Although the D C. Circuit has held that the license does not "lapw" until the Commission takes some 6. T i. f., 7,h.. N'J4 !.;b ,m y y-offirmative action to complete the rorfeiture. we do not read this to mean that TUf C was tree to con. tmue construction after August I,1985. until told to stop such an mierpretation would render meaning-y' i,c,',,,' [, less the requirements that construction permits be obramed and estensions applied ror.10 CER. H 2109. 5010. s Nf g d, y y f F.' ,(

t. s,.',' q t

jhf 120 w5. ?. ',t. .s e ,7# $'***** m' T "**~""] '"**f ' " " '* *"k.7.t' i,, s) Y ' [.W.4 8 ' _,.js-,*--+-*=*- --****'*"*""l**t**v"*'"'e'- i e-. g.._ l', . e. f ,. Y[h g *' - ' ' 'r 4-s k .,..r %[, -t f,'.-}y.,. % '. _E! ~ Y *.Y :. e; .s ...t 3 E D,* t'.' N. . hhQ,9

,,..t, l, s, ?,.*h. g(,h k_We.f.. g, 0h.s.b.f g

0l* ~.* UW.

l ' ',,' i j ,., J.., s. -...x,k,a h jf,$'%.,..af -.'t,% '!*4' *-

'J a.-

-,m....pe a4..,. 'y...h.. r 'W,.< u* M M, -aii %. y t..W.q. d,;p <n..Q. 8,. A., q p. ;#,0,.,,r, ',a m c.,4.n. m. -.D., M n,o M

4,x

+; t, y f_g* j 4 y . ~ W v v,, .rr%n q. . s

t a 7 ..~.. u.- - . ~ -. u - . ;;.w ~... N proceeding for the reasons discussed in { 11, above. We deny the request ~ for an order to halt construction for the reasons discussed in { IV in con-s nection with CASE's stay request.* Third, we dismiss CASE's request for a finding that extension of the construction permit necessarily involves signiGeant hazards considera- ? tions. The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making this $f ' finding to the discretion of the Staff. See, e.g., 48 Fed. Reg.14,864, .i.' 14,867 (April 6,1983). We have reviewed and agree with the Stafi's Gnding in the circumstances of this proceeding. The term "no signiGeant '. '.N ~ % '.. hazards consideration" is directed to consideration of radioactive 7 ' y,@^,?. . n' change: the design and construction methods will be the same as hazards that are involved in the amendment extending the construction l'a -.e permit. Here, the grant of the extension results in no substantive u.,. _. T ,,4 '" + 5 4 'l provided in the original Comanche Peak construction permit. The , D. - ~ o.., amendment granting the extension merely gives TUEC more time to .6' ' J,J ' ~ complete construction in accordance with the previously approved con-struction permit, and thus it involves no signiGcant hazards considera-i IL tion. The safety issues that CASE seeks to raise in its attack on the Stafi's finding that the amendment extending the construction permit in-i volves no signiGcant hazards consideration are more appropriately raised n in the ongoing operating license proceeding.' Finally, CASE correctly notes that it is entitled to a hearing on the construction permit extension. Brooks v. 4EC. 476 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 3,,. 3 3 1973) (per cwiam). Therefore, we refer CASE's request for a hearing to

. i' '

the Chairman of the ASLBP fer designation of a hearing board and fur- "'~o . s. % 1-ther proceedings in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G. Ilow-ever, the scope of the proceeding is limited to challenges to TUEC's S$'., effort to show " good cause" for the extension. Washington Public Power >c D. Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2), CL1-82-29,16 1 NRC 1221,1229 (1982). s j a ' 'i IV. CASE'S STAY REQUEST ',1'., ,,M l' f ' ' j,' We turn now to CASE's application for a stay of the immediate etTec-tiveness of the Staff's extension of CPPR 126. Our regulations require ~, ' '. '.4 ? n, ,i ,,y ' ,y- .1-4 g <,.4 6 CASE's pleadings ask for a construction halt as a necessary legal consequence to TUEC's untimely es. ^ ,%t8# f N I's *. f. - tension request and staff's allegedly illegal issuance of the estens on. Thus, this Memorandum ad - ;J "$ .t order addresses this request only from that perspective. If CASE has substantive safety reastm. for a construction halt. it should submit those reasons in a { 2.206 petition addressed to the stafr %e M&mo-Y * .i randum and order does not prejudge the submission of any petition based upon safety considerations. p"?'p.;',' ^*

f., [

7 Indeed, me read the record before the Licensing Board to indicate that many, if not all. of the allegs. y tions CASE seeks to litigate in this proceedmg are in fact included in that proceeding. t+ j m c,. -p. l ,t'gpp. 4 121 a. Q.u e,i, - Q, c. . 'u ~S,.A.. j s.,,...._ .-,-.-,#! r y. -,.,, ,.f ) o, ~ s, .: cf, b], &p*g.o g' 3 4 ;..., ' i .e i g: - - W 7 q'*, l'

~[**

y, M r '. f. "* ; ~ s ~,. h 'iv c ' Qf.r LA <.13f.sl%,j N.b r,. w :.q W ie U.A 1Scy S M Vs. fJ .J; M ei ' WPg )V, hf.fr l1

2 h

L'

3. h [3 p. -$ *.

N ',,.5

0.

h o,,. y q.:k' 0 g 3 m:l y. s :.3 lz.,;..',,[.. [T'l Y f &.> _.,.-. m. t .g; .y:9 .f hf j Q Q ;;:l'<Q'. f.,;~ -l 'W ?6y/ >? N nl. '. 4 W;'h %

.a. ' h -r g %^ e

3: my a -

r -

%,2-Q 1 s.. e.-W;, m y. 26., a'.D '. w. . a.px y, :- - W ~, M ;. & ;,;'.:::, Y'N 2 '

h :

3. M & m %. m. &.. m 'u

c.. y....

.. /..( :l.'. ".g. k -~~..-. - ---- ~ ' " " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ &y s y'. w.;;. M,.:h...,.k : n., ' .a ~ t,4 3, v,., n.. ~, a-e,. v.,, )cch. @c..l?.... - S.& 's.: r.q.., Q. p c g Q, W QlD i../ *. ' *. ? that CASE meet the traditional stay requirements set forth in Virginia Pe-7,M p[ %I.,/.J3. troleum Jobbers Ass'n v. EPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir.1958) and Q, f & : *'., ,n l Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., ?(.d}j.Nh*Mh,{ j ,m, SS9 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir.1977). Those four standards are (1) likelihood jj2 N I. d h M ;; %.' of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury to the moving party if '.Q'495%? y i VA 4. the stay is not granted, (3) any harm to other parties, and (4) the public ",,,6 W' . % y%,. fc i n... t (. m.r, interest. See 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e) (1985). n -- g i. W,%. 3 ' Significantly, CASE does not allege that the resumption of construc-J '? !.. U l V ~1. ,j tion activities at CPSES Unit 1, in and of itself, would constitute irrepa- .;6$[MM, EiM* " rable harm to CASE or anyone else. Instead CASE argues that the irrep-r p g W ?!$,I]. g ?.1,3.'f F arable harm results from the NRC's failure to grant CASE a preexten-M !Nhh,MIM[M. sion hearing on TUEC's request. We disagree. CASE has made no show- ?[.T $' t M. I. T' [.', ' ing that failure to grant it a preextension hearing will cause it any harm ' 6.t O E8),$- [ l'Jll Du'.,' -; which cannot (and will not) be remedied in a postextension hearing or 3Nj%. (4;; - ' u,,/+;M$@jf t,$)-

J. '

that by such a decision the Commission is depriving CASE of a "due process" right. The Supreme Court has consistently held that unless M y '. f? n % >.. _y "fundamer.tal rights" are involved, a prompt posthearing on an admin- . r, f$ % ) J;.0, 1, istrative :.etion complies with requirements of "due process." See, e.g., 'D- ,( Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. SS (l979); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 e a.y.4re, T */ (1976). We find no such " fundamental right" in the circumstances of .Af. this proceeding. ,,.. lM w,, s. We agree that CASE has an interest in the safe construction of +.m;%Me,M g. g CPSES. Ilowever, in this instance, immediate efTectiveness of' the con- @g #W D"('gM-R,6.,~-r. struction because (1) the plant is essentially complete, and TUEC pro-struction permit extension has no effect on CASE's interest in safe con-T n !W. .. -m g =, 3,^. ,.j Ms. 4 .,u Q t g g, @.,- @ fg A M k 6@ 'M i'. d b [ $.. (2) what little new construction work remains can be halted at any time cceds with the remainder of construction work entirely at its own risk, dMMM .T @A.' d, Q-Q'+1$,1.. M 1 if evidence warranting that action becomes availah!e to tiie NRC, and -r

,49p ' o

_ ! -.. ' a(3 ) (3) CASE is assured of a prompt postextension hearing to the extent .f.. y,< ..'...i that its request raises proper issues for consideration. %A... Brooks v. AEC, supra, supports the proposition that allowing construc- ., ' d@$.* % c.' tion to proceed does not violate any fundamental due process rights. In W%@MDM,7.@,,N 3 CQa %3 Brooks, the Commission extended a construction permit without making D @I d[19%,E o W@ $ffi@5M/l' Y a "no significant hazards considerations" finding. The reviewing court ./45 '* held that this action was contrary to f 189a of the AF A IIcwcw, tiie MW7 C.ir'b Brooks Court allowed construction 10 continue, concluding that "[t]he l'kr p.p.. g $u,D

a M.,*x*'e N',f G;p W.N :i';c d',&;g 4//N, '

come of a hearing on this issue." 476 F.2d at 928. If continued construc-W N coMauing validity of the construction permit is made subject to the out-Q tion pending a hearing may be allowed in the absence of a formal finding r ql., y.t,. ;. en ,i g,. of no significant hazards considerations, afortiori continued construction h.h.iQ,%yd*fb..* vey n khN should be allowed when the Staff has made a finding of no significant w d w$ h,,,f..*.. M 'i ' *, ' Mb6 $* h h

M b '

I ' h.406M;M. 1*. p We m N i t ?,

,wgAN#

m e. v / Q,,'.3 A C Q'N. * ' _ s. p' 122 <. G. a

f* W w

t

- i,h I'Y *

.c ..,,..e .q. 3 @ 'Q' %.g.:b;[Q.* < tJ t* ,. 4 f1 d [W : ., J.. f{..W-.... > ..A;p.d.r uy '4* q- [T\\ ,fh 7 7* eY4 'g-a 5*

- (.i hh M[3 l

g a 9 5 "d ' $ N bi [g r N' h/?O " "', O W M@MMM&MhMi&bApMw&,M,%'].MMr '. < * "

E-D '

k$5.Q.; M,MW[. ?v 8 Q G d. 2 % $ N. M N MWWe MMMW% M u4% d Vgt 7 MM&sh w

l 1, 5 .?. s ;.; =- =;.~ ~ .. a ~ M: D,. Y..,.', + + a;.w 3.;w.%,..n,, ~. p&,; p a w -3 v. .y' &g 1 M ..V. w._;<t g. -. w. ~. ~ - >. ~a -: -. -. ..e ~ :... v&

s. m

+h.g,L. yn. ,,s, y.sw. v. ^?t G Q j $.s.

- M W.L

m i c : y 3. m,,' c :;>..i r .,..,v:duh....

y 4: 3.%; .w;:

- w, +. =. y' T ;6 .,y iQ) , h g.y. % j,s t : f ,.4 f$ $ [c 6 Ml@6 " Q S R (f iM 6 ,M.NM hazards considerations. Furthermore, here, as in Brooks, continued con-struction is subject to the outcome of the extension proceeding. U e W..Ff. I "@.! CASE argues that it has a statutory entitlement to a preextension hear-K MX,%f[MMM. @$M:N ing under Sholly v. NRC,651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.), reh's en banc denied, 651 F.2d 792 (1980), cert. granted, 451 U.S.1016 (1981), vacated and re-d.pn y Lr W.y:lO h.$ p#e d '$9:&$k WCh manded, 459 U.S. I194, vacated and remanded to the NRC as moot, 706 S.M.'Y3YT.CWl. @MR%I;E,M NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), vacated in part and reh*g granted .< W F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir.1983), and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. MQM,Y.[. . )N).QM;Nf? In part 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir.1985). We disagree. We read i 189a(1) [( to allow the Commission to amend a construction permit prior to the OfYC *d%WP.% h.irMM,,ny.w,%(h {eH.

1 completion of any requested hearing, if we find the amendment involves

,$ D @ b'$ h'< no significant hazards considerations.* in sum, CASE has neither a fundamental "due process" right nor a

m s.t.r.c.g.g m,e,.;# g,

' W[!s% o

, a

..e t* %,. Mi d, @y. 2 g ;@M,., Mfailed to show that a postextension hearing will not cure any harm,t statutory entitlement to a preextension hearing. Moreover, CASE has 2

X . T ; A.. :4 ;; f $ p. M i

sh may suTer. Thus, CASE has filed to show any irreparable harm, the key ,,1 factor in any stay analysis. See, e.g., Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 . M. 7., %.. r..Y. ~S, W.s>. q_.r W. .9 w s ,..w

c.,J F.2d 669,674 (D.C. Cir.1985).

_ y.m. s ..,;. a, m vp ' A M>,- Furthermare, CASE has failed to show the probability of success on

3..

n. ' . W - A 'W N. y.n 3

n ' t,; JMd.Ab the merits. We have rejected CASE's arguments that a new construction M.- " N 6' JIM permit pro (eeding or a preextension hearing is required. Moreover, N'yh 2 ?',S. g y g g CASE's plendings to this point have failed to demonstrate a high proba-cr 3%D dp.M.gggg bility of sue:ess in challenging TUEC's claim of good cause for the ex-A. -..nc,. mtc. m.m tension. Un;ier WPPSS, supra, CASE's substantive safety concerns mN pN[M.>.;jarms s y,M.,W,M.,.n 1 g w4N.tE about continued construction are inadmissible in a construction permit . nm.5.,,.. y(,'.p, ff y

r u

s Me yf 4, extension hetring.' As we noted earlier, these concerns are more ap- 'id d7*~:

9M.'J UMV propriately raised either in the operating license proceeding or in a

'MMW'@ @M D.O ;\\f M],J j 2.206 petition for enforcement action by the NRC Staff against TUEC.

g ; / J. ;2.T @ ' Q / 3.- U

t.pf ' Y Q Finally, CA.iE does not demonstrate that the other two factors weigh in its favor. A :essation of construction at CPSES Unit I may cause sig-m.',

^ y ,;,.,.,;,3 nificant harm toth to TUEC in the form of delay and a possible loss of a. y, , p 3 :. :,;.. c.: 1 its trained comtruction force and to the construction workers at the %w*;. 7 ;. M iMU.yW " plant themselves in the form of lost wages and lost jobs. We see no M ..m.W.m.. q...- I.u. .e. ' ;3.., v. ;,.yCy; 1 + f m ? '.*{..,*: p ? ' * '-l~s

4 i.

94 "M' 'p.h, q : 3 y p. : .,e .. e q y f *.1/ c[f y *y p#."f.* 8 The See Luts oesspo case dealt with a situahon in which the NRC refused to grant any hennes to the TW 9 9 r r= t peutioners. In Shob, the question berore the court was whether the NRC. presented with a request that

y', y h;*. g h s. i,,d ( f." "Q-[4 "

2 *M. 'i it hold a heanns prior to issuing a particular amendment to an operating license, could issue that amend- ., M. Ip.- }{f d **;f e ' 4 'i,, . ifi *f.,. -'Q,8> ment and make it immediately efrective upon a rinding that it involved no signiricant harards considers. h . g. ae Al uon. (The amendment in queshon had the effect of permitting irreversible releases or radioactivity into ,',,s'j %, c..g 6 5 the environment) Shelly was vacated as moot after { 199 was amended to include an explicit authoriza. .g.* A % i,* ; s t.$ @.4. ' a. y,... ' t #..P.s tion for the NRC to continue issuing such amendments on an immediately cifective basis. h*, N, b. e . bd .U ' Encept insofar as we direct the Licensing Board to follow WPPPS. supre. on the scope or the construc. - t u y v., /a, '. 3 tion permit estension proceeding, our decision today is without prejudice to the Licensing Board's s' ?M,,, - f. p['.9 ; '1 p p / ;.y - ruling on the admissibihty or the merits of any contentions CASE may present to it. a a,,'.. .1 s g

,. ;, <.h u. v.,.

s t dd $ $f.

>S j',3; Mh? Q *;f

-rr. fx c:. S f.

h,? 4 ] t j,y] J e );.,*.:

g 'n w' 'f.3 4 e, r,'i & h..'A Y .h..,f. k.. q, iY, 0,..l%,h. t ?%..g; 1 1 . w&n ? W, 4 h ' _,.&.fQ ' il.,v:,n ,L ~.. . :. jw f@.kg,,Y ' 7 w'l t ;;", Q,'

O W '< ",0.i p

n w v e s e @' u-q g Q.'\\.'{4 A[is,"y,} w?

e o ww,.f.5;*%p@Ql, 5 f' E l, ...} Y fi Q .i.*. y w w e,. p h s %-, 4 m.u m.om._ _ % _ _.

/ ~ 39'.. .nsT q- ~ ).0 ,.e i._~. ,.u . ~. _... w.u_-.-- R. j, ., ;9, ? ~ y, : N*

l benefit accruing to CASE from a stay and a preextension hearing which 4,.3, '

would counterbalance this harm to TUEC and its construction workers which a postextension hearing avoids. Likewise, any public interest in a preextension hearing does not outweigh the public's interest in contin-ued construction efforts on CPSES Unit I while that hearing is progres-sing. If the NRC ultimately finds " good cause" for the extension of the ij'W'- ,,1.I, *, [ construction permit, TUEC will have been needlessly delayed in its ef- '; l forn to complete the plant. ' E 1:. sum, the four factors required for a stay of the Staff's action do not - 3, jus:ify that action. Therefore, we decline to grant CASE's request for a sta). ,fy,,g., Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this order and provided separate views. It is so ORDERED. 'e: For the Commission t,. S AMUEL J. CHILK ^ Secretary of the Commission s Dated.it Washington, D.C., f.- this ISth day of March 1986.

s

'w>' .r W, n. ' ,, e. m.. SEPARATE VIEWS OF COSISIISSIONER ASSELSTINE ~,- . e.,, I agree in part and disagree in part with the Commission's order.1 agree with the Commission's conclusion that we need not grant interve- ~' .L nors a new full-scale construction permit proceeding, but I do not sub-scribe to all of the Commission's reasoning in reaching that conclusion. ....n. Further, I would have stayed the Stafi's extension of the construction e.. i- % permit pending the outcome of the renewat hearing. d

e v

84 G 0 4 ,,.'.f'

~.T. \\

s 4, i.:.. * &p'f 3 e .y,. y c I ' % e A. g ,Yg' (fJ. y 4 c a g ,,o 9

t

. 5 ', ',' ~. 124 v. y '.J- '47~ ,h' e M; ' a 8se ' 4 e io N'? N,'f,.y .r-, x r,,, v y- ..,t - , m. ,y. 1. ,,a ,. ', ' l y.'.7y { d.f'- '_f.'I,,.. ', f l k% m,....;, r... 'y l'. E, ?'i;. y;l.T. f!,.i. _.. T. 3 y *jf... 3 .s'* j g g (.s m..e m . 7. e #.. x .1 ,o : 2 :.,,. '. ', , e,e, s,..,> ;., J* g' o, . ;- j ; l '. (*. . ~. ~u.e., W, mA m, w4 .m w - w..~p,,c. v. - r...z -i;.,x,, .o .e,., . :a Q r. mL ;J, ? ...; s w {,;2; s....}* s.I.,*' 'p ( 'U*N ./4,N #,. Q M'%.t:y, y (!.u .p. (, y. "', y, W 6 9.>y,Y; Cr.% g 8 en a ..% s y. W ~ -.n ya Q; {*] N.*5iy A 1j - I .. ytj o

f.'[ '.. . ?. m,.,,,. a...,.. . c. .._..M...__.w_~_._.._.__. .v,. g., f,. ge- .r..

yy n-

. ; ;. -~ . X.; ; f * ' ** Cite as 23 NRC 125 (1986) CLI 86 5 .;3,,s.. s . d.* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A$,,, '. ' ., r. -. a... '.. ;g,.: A '% f.m; COMMISSIONERS: y ; rf.. 3, / . ;'x ' 3 O~ Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman . ;h'-i,- i + N,,,'. Thomas M. Roberts E...a T.... .e,. a. ?.3,w a w' 4...- .Gg3 T James K. Asselstine , g ' E.p ' i.. Frederick M. Bernthal I Lando W. Zech, Jr. t u. '1.,,W, j.' (. , l -y r' .g . e,...;r t e in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 352 OL v* 50 353 OL i 1, * < /; a..., u. .s , J 7,., '. - PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY I (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) March 20,1986 14 <s,a .g. y.. y> 1'? ? ? . 'l. The Ccmmission declines review of ALAB-819, but provides com- .;.,,,,%,-Y ments on (a) ad.j. d.u icat. ion of severe accident m.tigation measures and i

M +4. f,' -

(b) emergency planning arrangements for treatment of onsite personnel M,( ' T who are radiologically contaminated and traumatically injured. RULES OF PRACTICE: UNTIMELY PETITION FOR REVIEW . i Parties are to Gle petitions for review within the time limits prescribed W.,p. a. y ".W. by 10 C.F.R. l 2.786(b)(1). If parties cannot meet that Gling schedule, ..w,,.. p;.,. I . w..-o..a motions are to be Gled seeking an extension of time. ,.1..+, y c, - Y y;.;;.~ r -. ~ ,es C 9 i

. m,. 6 '

.y. x,,.. 4 RULES OF PRACTICE: PETITIONS FOR REVIEW 1 f. t, g, 9,p / ,N, rg.q m.... ' .., ' ~ (CONTENT) ,y3,. q: .s A petition for review Gled with the Commission shall contain a concise w. ",ge.,.. ~e-f">, statement why in the petitioner's view the Appeal Board's decision is er-c %%,4 ' s %a roneous.10 C.F.R. 6 2.786(b)(2)(iii). W.. Y f ^ a W'M: ,'\\ s 1 .r nn. l. s M.m,:':. 115

%e

-qu.}- t. %)j ,,.[ ( *k 4%

;'Q

(' a,. ge- ,p.. - 3. 4 =.=y +- -. -- -m g er ,-vv.=**-.*-- .-g N .g) ',q,._,l/ p y' pijh' *y. Q. e,[f f - i ' ,1 1 .,... (.., ~ ' 4 7., g 3-r. ,, p f*J,,1.s ? + yg > < n.w e u u y,c ;;u.had, ', R'h e

s 3 ', s's,,, s '.

.,, ? ' j ', a d. j.,, ; 's .e. m M[f ',> Q;,, d...[,,$.',$..u'Jf@M. pjsMd,Ll p.' MW$' ~.h. Q, 3':. a ^. t i - ~ y'. '. f. i Dys .,,%Mh aL p,.t%..'. ',, s,,,.h'M %yng@hYl;bh N $.lf,",s i

, C

'E k, -.llpFl*.)]$$,';$.gllj.'h.Wh,i t ,h $s ,x w, w n,

m

.+o .w. . ' &s.,,. h ~ '.~ Vi' f O'.!.: & i N,' &,.. $.. %,$a'5 h,. w &.~.,T.e.::..yp t 2 .a.. ~y _,.y a m..y .- r

l _,'.., ' o i > *.',.v +, s j.fy,.. t_..

. h _

.l . l 4 w.3-v n =.: < - 7. y ;, n m . o a...,g3. w;: v. * :, y; g . c, 3.y.+3. s j -:p,y,.,... %. 3. NRC: POLICY STATE 51ENT ON SEVERE ACCIDENTS ..y ...s -. n The Commission's " Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents g.y.;,y N n; Q.%p:~!.*..G y -1 2, 4, 'c '. Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 W,7.r

i '

e. (Aug. 8,1985), bars litigation in case-related safety or environmental 'N;f.p?OgIII...1, %. ,[ hearings of accident mitigation measures beyond those found in Com- ~ f:w,w&p.:d:.g.g.Q *g. m...y ; ; y 7.... mission regulations. .r ge o ~r. m, .. w < E51ERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (ARRANGE 51ENTS FOR l 7 JE _/ ~ ' m Mg%QM W,,, M *.' '. Y 51EDICAL SERVICES) . )M.a)d:.W:p. M'lg.(@N.E.5.O. - ~[' c? M h The reasonableness of emergency plans must be determined in each 7%.5 M.- case in light of the specinc facts. In areas where many nearby medical ,, U,.m, - -; facilities are available to treat onsite personnel who are radiologically 4... /: n s w4.;p~.w..,i y M - contaminated or traumatically injured, a prudent course of action under y'..' M : U[i ~ 10 C.F.R. j 50.47 would be to select for a backup hospital a facility rea-sonably close to the reactor site, but outside of the emergency planning .m.(N. ?.g> 2,e ;,.s p s..3.Ud.N.m[.*M.) ;[ .A s. ?,,. -1.- *. J C 6., Zone 'Q s 3 4 w.a~u . C f. h e} n."'.l} m :s w [,

4y %.4 C ' '

c..sp Wmcw. a i ORDER e.;, 4 %.n y,c.e 1 a, m .;n w b ~ r w;q.m...p .s, c. Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA"), Robert Anthony / Friends of the .<.g$ %@ c$7!? h h y a, Earth (" FOE") and Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECo") petitioned ca

t n the Commission to review various aspects of ALAB-819,22 NRC 6lIl M4.,gu @.W.. q@.,.,ev..' ;...-. b g-g M6 4.).

(1985). Although the Commission has determined that review of . $ (,.',:. J.;' % 'i b. 2 3.'g:, ALAB 819 is unwarranted, a few comments are appropriate. Section 2.786(b)(2)(iii) of 10 C.F.R. provides that a petition fer g.j,f: #,h ${ ', y..~ ' review shall contain a " concise statement why in the petitioner's view '.q,t.., ' M'.*?-. ' y,,' the decision or action is erroneous." The petitions for review Gled by } LEA and Anthony / FOE fail to satisfy this requirement because neither M 4l*<. w ' ;u ~ j attempted to explain why the Appeal Board's reasoning is erroneous. i.E.dj.C.',, c ', 3 .) Moreover, Anthony / FOE failed to Gle their petition for review within ..s.3 a <.;.y v. .. -..s... i n I the time limits prescribed by 10 C.F.R. l 2.786(b)(1). Parties to NRC 2 4.h in .- e. 1.'.Q j i ' ' ). .] proceedings are expected to comply with the time limits speciGed in the d' regulations. If parties cannot act within the specined time period, exten-

y. s,M..,,. 7,: '. 4 t]n l. <

... e i.. r., sicns are to be sought. ..h-M@($t.. g.,4'. 3.? '. 3 e . i,a M,h.&,'. Y :. ~.,.y. s.i 4 : -g'. * '#. ] Two substantive issues addressed by the Appeal Beard in ALAB-819 N.1 also warrant comment. The Appeal Board in rejecting LEA's claim (Con-4, $ a x., y,... .,<y;. w['.i.>..:. t .f,. ~ - -. tention DES-5) that the National Environmental Pohey Act of 1969 g.Q.w.+ :,n. ,m /'~ ,l' ("NEPA"),42 U.S.C. ! 4321, and pertinent Commission regulations re- .w y .t ',4 quire consideration of additional design alternatives for the mitigation of Jh.'., +' 1 Qq;. d.df.i. 4 9 f

4 Y,;
t %, I

',3 %.?. P. '..: ~,.

, A c - l, / g2s g'i. .h op. a \\; y, ' D' s' 7.- ( b,,. /.(' d <:..,...a ~' a , '.'a; . wax e w a c-s 'V N * * ' y p W C,*. ~y *' ,' [ - - +, - p-.=~e-v* *- - g,w*=$ < g y *- e ;* r *

=*.a

.-'-*'*-*'*se,'-***"

r*

r 6, s.e. a m.,,,m 'y ^ lr.m. -.. e e ,,m ~ , i. "a:,l. s 1' n,. f y,'w,.l#, % a.

4..;,.g f,(g.Q@.. ' y &.fy- = Y h s g,5..T m

?1 *

L^.

..-f &j? ' ;;; .y + a);'.* d t. s

4..f..,g, d J -

N.y)$M. rmg, Mjo' S.'..,' h,9.u% m,:w. /..Q.a ans f,.o %s,..L.c y'.;.g ,..p. .p. &. .a. n: . u.. g.u.; :. g'f..,?m&( .;4, u%.. %y. Q ! Q M :: w M - L

W y @ 9 7,.. b...".s-,-(4', f. 4>.q: V,f.A..avQ.#n M

2 ,,4, y.n ..,,M fr, o.* e,,,C vtdy 4 } % Q y ~ p. 4j,^< e<u.r s.. w.. t<, ...w r. -A 4

O '_ A,Y. &.., 2..p "'> N" M: , ~'. ' w ".

W 93.-u.. 6-4 -v, .,c* g V'M + g, j NfA_,M&m cWM *Kf1 +4l. ~' $.1V,: %;*'C;c W. .W.. 2 .W, e f. *ti !;; m %b. ? m*

j

-U W?'% W s. 2 M : - = _mA._s _ on _ m m. m

eA D .~ v. ~ c. =... -.~~.-.x-- ...~. u :~ u <n 'e + 4 e -#s .. (, S ' f,.,.,, severe accidents at Limerick, explained that the Commission's " Policy x.a.~ c. Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (Aug. 8,1985) barred litigation in .... - t(*7,fS case-related safety hearings of accident mitigation measures beyond .!,/ e.u,y,.w J. 7,',m.., s. those found in Commission regulations, in ALAB-819,22 NRC at 696 7u, ; n.10, the Appeal Board noted that LEA had argued that the policy state-eJ .A *...,- p ;'i; T. ment does not apply to its contention because the Commission in that

, r ; y p fc,

policy statement referred to " safety hearings" and LEA's contention -r 4 raised environmental - not safety - issues. The Appeal Board rejected . A., y..- ".' that line of argument stating that LEA read the Commission's statement

.l,f r,v '.

~ c> w

h.. 3,,

too nar owly and that "[ilt is unreasonable to believe the Commission >s,. t , ~s .4 '.i f y ). - 'eN. intended to preclude litigation of severe accident mitigation measures ~ ti under the rubric of safety issues, while permitting the litigation of the .y same subject matter as an environmental issue." Id. t d The Commission afGrms the Appeal Board's holding on this issue. 1 The Commission's August 8,1985 policy statement was intended to ad-dress both NEPA and Atomic Energy Act reviews. Insofar as is relevant to disposition of LEA's contention, that policy statement states that once a plant has been found to comply with NRC safety regulations and provide adequate protection to public health and safety, the need for design alternatives to further mitigate severe accidents is not to be ad- ) dressed in case-specine reviews and hearings. Insofar as this type of acci-u W,h r. y. .M"v ' ( dent mitigation is concerned, NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act

t.a. -

9;* d reviews are both directed at cost-efTective measures to reduce the risk 'ElG.T

from accidental discharges of radioactive materials, and it would make

' Q.,'. & .g { no sense for the Commission to implement dilTerent review policies ,g _. p... , W. 5 ' "~=i* under the two statutes. If, as a result of generic or plant specific re-c y., & search, the Commission determines that changes in the designs of exist- .;] i ing plants may be warranted to prevent undue risk, changes will be im- ~ , 9 posed through rulemaking or plant-specific backGts. E{ The other issue warranting comment is the Appeal Board's determina-9,- . l tion that PECo had not made adequate arrangements for the treatment 'Sc J 1 of certain onsite personnel who are radiologically contaminated as well vl 0,' % n. '. - :.,:~ as traumatically injured. The Board in effect found that the ilospital of CM,o. a.. the University of Pennsylvania (" HUP") is too distant from the Limer-r.i "J7 ~ ';. ick site to serve as an adequate backup hospital. 22 NRC at 713. The .M[$, > ' ",.s Appeal Board remanded the matter to the Licensing Board for further

r. ', ',

. p... proceedings, finding that the Licensing Board's reasons for declining to E. 7, require a closer backup hotpital do not withstand scrutiny. As a result of

.-e the Appeal Board's remand, PECo has entered into formal backup ar-N1dZ V. ';/o.h5 rangements with Montgomery Hospital, which is closer to the Limerick

/ facility than llUP. TC 44 g,

e

' V. C.: yx, (., .p r e..j\\ .,c gg7 ~. +: -.t v 'g + na )s) t,- .~. - -. - ~.,.- - y,-.-, v. ~ o-

a' 0

s e Y ~ML, s '.q m.,: \\ t ' &^ ; h f lcy

l.. ]

f .}, a i 1' (, M , !, '.' l ; ' ~ f Y ' ' h o' l$f. j f' *&.f;$an.. h l Thy o,YNf ' w ~.. m.~. m. .m.c. x. i h

s L ::.;' 1.,, ; %.. & ; .w.g. . s.g w:r;. y r v.y,, m. L.y/ s a,. ,w. fw4 L, %..,-;_ < w , ; qg; :y:, ~ t-n. g>,.m.

c. -.ln.-

,1A; z.., v y -me m ,g a.- s 4. a . wf. '. a-.a u ~ .v. / w.:.... . w : =.a.a., s., y g. ? 4b; ,[ 4 a-c.x .9 . ed., 7.,7 . U. ;,,., <. , ;.u...a.e w y,Q r.:;,b The Licensee argues that the Appeal Board has in effect established a r. new generic rule regarding the proximity of the backup hospital by Q3. fW4 f-imposing requirements beyond those found in 10 C.F.R. { 50.47 and . - l'e1.M.-

l.. L Part 50, Appendix E. The NRC Staff disagrees, arguing that the Appeal f;/.

e ..; */ Board's findings were based on lack of record support for the Licensing Y'.$.3 it, ~ ,N Board's rationale. We agree with the NRC Staff. D '..' f. ' The large number of hospitals within 20 miles of the facility makes the situation at Limerick somewhat unique. The reasonableness of gc M i k...$ .. l.j. mergency plans must be determined in each case in light of the specific y D...

.u.m o.;

outside of the emergency planning zone, but closer than HUP, appears .; 4 y. 9 - m,,.n. ',. '.. j.'1

:n..,.

facts. Here, establishment of formal arrangements with a backup hospital ..v n,J : -.. V. M, 9 > * ' J "

s -

to be a prudent course of action under 10 C.F.R. { 50.47. But this is not EM.@,. - .G to say that a similar result would be required in other cas:s. . :@Q[g.i Q,' 6 I' . h.*f Commissioner Asselstine approved this Order in part, disapproved it in part, and provided separate views. .y., :..T.; ') "., It is so ORDERED. ~. ~ .: y '*s;; ~ For the Commission v.a-1: = f 3 *.f...,_ . c... y ' ) n.. f SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission ~ f., , ~ w, ,.c a..y>s..y .a ~ Dated at Washington, D.C., - - A. y.,.. -

w h. '....

J' a.,.,, this 20th day of March 1986. n.m :, n-a.,3, - 4 - SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE ,.i e. 7,. _, s u v... A. ;.. l. N ' I agree with that portion of the Commission's Order dealing with the

M #[p.d'y

? "*. backup hospital. However, I do not agree with that portion of the Order which deals with the consideration of additional design alternatives for

c. /..pr.", /;f" n [, J. O

lpt '.$ ; f r

(,.. i N. the mitigation of severe accidents at Limerick. n

s... s

.... * ' Q ' J,. In its Severe Accident Policy Statement the Commission coaciuded f a b'.%p,'y/',,@'.F f',jNL ...'..t.'... ~ that the severe accident risk presented by existing designs for nuclear L. '.. ':,, W,. A,, o power plants is acceptable. The Commission decided, therefore, to bar .,*W;;'Eh,.' ".(. [. participants in individual licensing proceedings from litiga ing the

; o.,

A 'c;y,b,g%'.)$. T..-- 4'.I 6 :, necessity of design alternatives, not now required by Commissian regu- !hd/ ' Q, ? lations, to control or to mitigate the effects of severe accident.> 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (1985). In this Order, the Commission extends that decision . s n.:-s' n,. . 3(;,. ?$,hZI$% ; E,;f* 's A* 't %* w;99 Q;';. e.. r.n . e r r. f. ^ M$ m' # / tL F ),,G.'4 tr 3 " '/3. 128 a.mI ~rw . P,i.%. ...,f,.i. m n P 9 ^* ^ } .s ', df ;t n; % &. G '. '.. J :. , f $., - - - .n J h b $. b h ? (;. s. Q,l, ${f-N$D. ;%.',N&l:% - r.~ t.p -mr ~ wr ~~ L l ' 'f " {N:.ilf W O Q k J.'k L,& @hh.@.1.'.}h@$N. a-QQWQWn%.x%m '1 W M n h M M. N M

s. a,,R4~5 M.,WmT.wuMM +k.;,pgWM a.

%g -p 6. w &u

0 %pge, f-5 .s ',p; '.s . w .*5'- a ' w s. R e (~x e y,<s..e...i p ';-y, ~." k -: g,.,.' f.. .. p.> - x 4; y, ,d, m'.,. W. -. l,p !. k.. f..~,', % o \\ c q s. a u -.S c-

se

^ t e. ~w ".fy :.*..

r

,3. ' a 4 ' f.. *$..<q/,.n1,. "; 9 '. *Y. ?*A l 5 2 d, ? ".--a n "--=.

A. % m N

' a, d~ m .f, w l' s ?,

==-*-*~.* *-~--. *= d f: Y it A - 1.- J ' N * -~~<~ -- *- *. ; A _ ~.^*M-~*** -.n.1. tip s.a. :sa. r, .e z.w..p,v; :,;.e ;m..E . Us ;, n gf. g.

o.. c, -

z.. - -

i v. ..- e 7 3 ,,., ? 4, .o ,. p,,,, 4 ' (* ' *., 8 ..r-r f rs.>- +.. m' . f.. s.. .n.g. ,d,. ... 3 ; ... W..

to exclude irsues raised, not just under the Atomic Energy Act, but also
'E p,-

to issues raised under the National Environmental Policy Act. .s

i
7 1 ' '.. '

I did not agree with the Commission's conclusion in the Severe Acci- ..., c. 4 :,., & W, " dent Policy Statement that the risk presented by existing plants is accept- --1

L...3 - m [ @,9 -

able for the life of the plants. See " Dissenting Views of Commissioner ...... I ' ' : ' f * $ '.N ff i Asselstine," 50 Fed. Reg, at 32,145. The Commission recently told the .[ .v' ? f,'.ib 1, ff ' . Congress that, based upon existing accident risk assessments, there is n- .. 4: about a 50 50 chance of a severe core melt accident, an accident at least /. - *D.. W N.W.g. as severe as the TMI-2 accident, within the next 20 years. I do not bc L.,Q..*PhsQ?.3M lieve that a 50-50 chance within the next 20 years is an acceptable level '..mi. ? 4.p.%g.Mys,..x, of risk. Further, I believe that particularly at high population sites, such g c. m.. .. c ;, - y., 4. ;;- - as Limerick and Indian Point, consideration should be given to addition- .c al accident prevention and mitigation measures because of the uncertain- . ( -l' .- 'j.-.-..; v g.' O,, ^ ' ties associated with estimating risk and because of the high cost to socie-i ty should a serious accident occur at such a site. See " Dissenting Opin- ,..,4, ' U ,. ( g. q; ion of Commissioner Asselstine," Consolidared Edison Co. of New York ev ,* ";, g f y' N (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI 85-6,21 NRC 1043,1092 (1985). The Com- ? '.".'../.*.~,.,'. mission's Severe Accident Policy Statement and its decision in Indian h. c w

e.

Point efTectively preclude such consideration. I believe that is a mistake, p/ + ' and the Commission's Order today merely exacerbates that mistake. + 4 . y /*.. ,? n ,;r * '. .e. r*. 0 E ' pm...

g ge #

+b= Di ,,, % g [ ,.'/ D (( , g. 4 n( - '- in?', 4. g 5+. f m y 4, .e ,~? ] ?. ' r %

J U".;-q%
'% N,*,) *L.'.: 1. l.1; "'

s' c e . - s,, R. ylq.,

s, '. <e
<.a;

..c.. p, v

- 3,Y ", U. f..r,.i.'" Q '.t. g rj **'-8,-

4 r, - ~..- 4 f'.- &.. *s., b. f 5 '.? / { '. 5 h ,'N b ll.,9 - { 6Y % 't 4 3 4 2, p',J f.'4 0 9' .:

ug J.

s.s p. y g " E,, '.,,* , 4,U ,y

e. y,y7 a

t ,g .e ,.e !~ p'. ^ p. .n 6,. .o <y. ,'"(; # $ 1 g .. i,p'N:, .] U*' 1-O,u a, 'ss l 3 '\\ ". f.s ' ;,-9, * *. o s, p. e..e ,r. J.W r A'4 g, 6 .,. 4 l.,', $* k - kY*

l

$n V 'f 74%,) 7** th',,v, s ',,.,) y s ' ap T*. r.p (3',.\\, "(p '. 5 Te ' d d f w.,. e,%.n,_.h... '.'.,,... J., ,. k .W. s. ,. t, <.n.*gg,...,~... '((4. . v-r - s s .r-

W J.. * *[y... ', 3

fy /d *e,'4.yg, N t "f; ' '*

=1 (*> b i g./QiOfRIilejt,-QdiyN,f. . s. ~g r. s.., ' {y} j ***.- <N { 3 f'*'s$ e.s 4 'g4 N.s. 'N Q'M. ' l 1i[ .i,."p'? 4 4 y gp,r, y %r. e 6, ',*,e

.f

... j ;.,

f. '.f g9,e

,...'. 3 m - %, 6, . 4 '.+I t. 4.N,'( ,<a.,.. . ' - c.s s r h..,. n.( h, e ' [ '*k i 3 8k h ,* D y.J / .y ,#43e-

s.. c g, ja:

l,. a e .+ ,s' y r.' q e -....ss i-af ,5 ) I ' F, . a w; .,. e' Q., n m.t,.; m I

s h ". 3

>+t s. ,c ~ ~p h Yr', W h2g ,,, v l. I:a b e,. J ',.* N -~ a .'. {p ~ q m~.&,. ; 'La . f.;,, y.r g.'f

r

.?-@ [ w p %... } Q. ,, c %. -. .pe,.w

--ee

-+

t e -. 5

.m m (g ', !' s C , '- 1. -(e s * '%. - +m * *re -e.-e--. 1, .p p.+.---m.-.. pa-

o u

, * < c9, '- fg4(4 4*N ' ' * ?p 'c %r g,. }'",. v y; ,- 9 3 i

W +

g, a a...... - t,, .c u + 4 * %.. yaJ*m .p r Ww,..;s n c i -a y u c 3,,.. n., . p. .r 3.Qfo g,, 6-e. i -: V,... - -

./

~,, s,.q (f., c .L-' , 'ly,,y;.,, w. . c.o w .,.f- ' "'. J % &..

{ ' j'.; 3 :

..r ,Q y^ ., ) ! % l. ? 'I 4 ., ~ ~n.a. w. _w f m ~.. _w...~._. _ n - w. _u... _ w _n.e ;. w%, .o n M. k h*' d. I I T b$ .h -Y P 'Y

._=... ~. o-y3. t8 - y

'N -)

6 '

. s.

e. p $. a...._4..,5(

' J. ,,.s m .+ .p , a. .w s C.N.

o. -,

m-._.. . a..... w m _ u,u . ;.m., _ _ u, m, _ _. y .e J 4 4 ? - j' Cite as 23 NRC 130 (1986) CLI868 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3;' - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,*, ~ - <..o ?/. J.y r, COMMISSIONERS: ~[ Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman /,n.,-, .e ,1 J~,ref . f,,'. Thomas M. Roberts .$* 4,....A",.-

47..p.'

James K. Asselstine i ,.e. ' s,' i.,.. 7 Frederick M. Bernthal J, Lando W. Zech, Jr. g +. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352 OL 50 353 OL y ' s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ^ (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) March 20,1986

g-

'e e. ..f ~ ,I.,J. The Commission denies joint intervenors' request to reopen the ..i.. v, j.. ,).,, record and to stay operation of Limerick Unit 1. The Commission Gnds 4.v. that the "new information" proffered by intervenors does not meet the (. 'l. ; i 1 criteria required to reopen a closed record, and, that since no signincant .._h. safety issue was raised, there is no basis for a stay. I h-f f RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD a...s.,, s, m, m..,4... y ; w.. The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of a o< ~.. ._4 ., : 9 >, f:c3. g. ... 7.., three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether 0, - Q; ;< the information raises a signincant safety (or environmental) concern; ,' '4; t ;. ;];;'j,.Y, ' g, f ;,.t.n, C,f. y' % ? and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to P.,, I J,V; '.' ' ' reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile '..fjM'b 3..t. @ Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI.85 2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985). a'.';Y;., .., J, ' ; N,. i.: * ; % W.~ # 2,. , c.., .y

4..'.

d e; s o.w ' e.,- @. ,#*d ,*T.,? f

4.4 / g,"

),%,- . f.h $.,.

c t'"',

'? 9 M',. .\\ ~..r $. h.,, = ' !, 4 130 W, .A'Ac6.". i

t. A..

.. *11, ..u 4 x,, T., A-2 .i. s t. g. .c ...'. kf [ [ 7 [. 3 S [_ '. 2-h..'..-t-..f ' r '. ' "*~ ' N YIE h I,3 d%.... ' .... u, $ Y,,r.

,s'qi *;.3^'W fr. V.Sw]'....-

., sl.. w]. ;&. i )m.. p ~. ,x..,.., V ..,;.,.~* W ' :,, :. .y s _ hl$ 3 a s %';.n i,,,. Y. f h .ca: vy;h l e +. -., +,. =,. v. .g.:y -

q m,. m,.a, qf;:

g%%,W: W9k'kl.?h;l,g ~, %. g hj, g; 5. kqg Q g.,q. $ jQ:.:f Q Q y

v... .,o,. +.

c.., n

. w s,. m,. e. . m,.. u. ,,Wj;.p.g. w +y4 ~.. '.i - ~. - - f. g .d. >: d 8 i 4 ;: y;.*..,, ',. n. 2 a.: ~ ~ - " - - - ~ * " - " " ' - " ~ w G Q5.-v.. ,~<g %l.:. ;. 5,A.."m' w. .,, p .L n* L:.... ? a y. # .s. ..e.. A '

. g '> m,. p :r

%w s

my. y W..._.m..,r?.w L, .<e '.'ed~ 3g u-v,. u n. h.4.,, w. u1 '. e '.. RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF T ,My;;q, Mi ow. y + , p. c x,. a CONTENTIONS ~,,.c e9 1 in seeking to reopen a record on contentions not within the scope of L issues raised previously, parties must address the criteria for determin-

p. c. l;' r.,i ; <

ing whether late-filed contentions should be admitted.10 C.F.R. '1lll ;f'}',,..;; : ; _ 1 % 2.714(a)(l). r w , ;. y.,., ~, -f[g:,'.: +.. u. RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY REQUEST .c ' W.7 @,% '. ci Q i; ?,, Summary denial of a motion for stay is appropriate when the criteria v{.j ./'N.t p.O 1.E.**, c ir*;&'.y)., y;n " w,. -' w set forth in 10 C.F.R. s 2.788 have not been addressed. ~ .,.3 - e,. 7 .pdr.n :% ,w n.; o, c.,.. - TECilNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED ... - S v. Flood Protectian 07 i'@. A.,. Pipeline Rupture. 4.- w ,n v.yn.. . h*

W *l y?Wa, ~e; ^.,.

+, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A h. D.p.. s. ..c 4. .., L i,/ M.....e Robert Anthony / Friends of the Earth (" FOE") filed a motion on 6 FAN .h ,w -e:, November 12, 1985, requesting the Atomic Safety and Licensing M. n,.b)%w,C,9.: ?"j', < M: ' ",, Appeal Board to (a) reopen the record on two contentions which had gm, m. ^. hv -/.if ' r.' ' f been litigated in this proceeding and (b) stay operation of Limerick Unit % Q t W; # !-l M : O W'.

l. In ALAB 823, 22 NRC 773 (1985), the Appeal Board determined

% 7. W. F

P M "~ 7 F that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion because it had already issued QDI'h ?,[' 7"[",

.l its appellate decision (ALAB-819,22 NRC 681 (1985)) on the merits of ,%,a..A.- V the two contentions. It then referred the motion to reopen the record to

h.., ',.

the Commission. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Commis-8:j ?., 5,. sion has denied the request to reopen the record and to stay operation of W N,o Limerick Unit 1. ,w$. ,a. ( 4 e. ,. %c-s a g 4,. 4., i k % S Y..V.v.,L' M<* 6. -/. n ~ ~ : l.'. \\.*,.v-e p,s e w*s Us t e t g.

5. % a e

A 4

y j.W'j;J *g' ..M ?',,, BACKGROUND N. ,m em. .,y. n n.,.:, *,

9. g.,gs..

M..,. r.- .o oo. n y%.W,**e" 6 MV ' Anthony / FOE seek reopening of the record on two of their conten- ..,Qcce., e'. W..!.),, ;;e..W - ; tions that were littgated before the Licensing Board. Those contentions a ~.,,Q s.~ .. y,m...,;u n. t %c. %.7 p a WMf.W-Qn-6'. : read as follows: v 2 v a.. %,s,M N 'h i V.ja. In developing its analysis of the worst case rupture of the ARCO pipehne 'gMUIb W?,o $.M tf.c. c W - (which carries gasoline throughout the site), the applicant (in its FSAR) ,a ?. <^; % .q } ;i. c.. p. 9 ', f n., ,..'.s q M: Q ;.A, s 1. . '%* a',;4f.e(-l,h ' A p s e 1,ci * ;.. ,JE p , 't l i k ['.'Q..,.t t * *?;, %, d> 9.U.,g, W.A;. t '- u ' y* w ?,..,,e* J ?, Ns, s r. ,,f. 1 e f,. 9, c, n ,( s.; 4, s.,- v s $.. e t, o.m..*.,,,',.r- .i. , ' i..,. !. M) ..i.2 77 5 ...,%y'.y%,, sy it e. * '. 4 s r,._. ---v.7,-~~ + -~. &....

..M w., g e

ye,.l. ..;.', i s* ' ' a m, 'hf i k a.m' M, ' ( g pQQ Jy. i,,_ l

f i. (d f

I ', l

b e.

s .u ..u .. w,.,.c.. w. ~ i b' s 1.'_ h k.w &.% y.,n, k'.'.;; n.. '. e./ .2 I' 'b ~', '. & ~.: I* 4 .,s J. 'l . i e g. a w : a. w;t;.g. v;; w,5 r v- .,'. ;,g 7 ~ >'a.a,U;.g.,...,? , 3 h._. m.. s. 3 a%q w.$w$.V. Qm. ;. ~s n. wm$,9 i:" ' D ,e. s ... ', O. ',.,p r, v-NW hh,. g 4;'.g,c i *' g4.c h.* GA: ! ' i W, M.rW&.yd . m gW '4

.#g

.j , j; J,e r ** 1 .~,3 bf $$h L ' Ylo ' '. a

~ ., b** Q, m',,

.,, 7 - -

r?- [ . !, cs c q 6, W, . '. ~ ~. , ;,,6 s f/J Dy';.,;...;. ' w e - o: q w'ds*Q! 4 : m: , ' w, f.,,i';; */,%<.,'*, j*a$.s./ h ' ' d.. N 'l ;;, b,,<(( ,.$,, ~ ,C. f. 'J-c ^(w v. m h.J s .t , '9U.1 ic.I';;sY'ehT.i" '.J - - -rn . :p

1 t:

c;.g ; r., a.A. s 4. wg.% eit-n.

O ~'4 % @p,< j / %

s .u .1,4,, .s + 1 }s..,, m, +. n n... ,4 .;W. .n

d m, ?&,dj. cQ DQ. U%g%.

'5 ? W,% [. h ;3. ,u

gc,%.y.fh '/ *.

'. "..[t' . ;k, ( E' H.> e prosided no basis for excluding consideration of siphoning. Thus, the conse-8 i ', , o.,; ' ; M p D[D ) f l, ', ' [,. quences of the worst case pipeline accident are understated. . ?,,i[ ", 3 V 3b In discussing deflagration of gas and petroleum due to pipeline rupture of the .t 4 ARCO pipeline or of the Columbia Gas pipeline (which carries methane in a -..9 6 '*, h E '.3.h,a / gaseous state near the site), no specific consideration has been given (in the 't -

- <*.") K,

,7 t y.,

t..,'.%

.C. FSAR) to the effect of radiant heat upon the diesel generators and associated .q,- 7. diesel fuel storage facilities. ....;* w q, ~ 1..

*..,: , ~ M in litigating these issues the Licensing Board asked the parties to address

'., M ".

3. p *

',* /Tf4.(Q Q. jy ; e,J I J considerations that went far beyond an analysis of siphoning and radiant ,% d " heat effects resulting from a pipeline rupture and de0agration. The , C.,.. dG TM. 7.U ' ~.TV' &n 7.%j N., ; * *. postulated blast shock wave on the natural draft cooling towers which re- ./ Licensing Board also inquired into, among other matters, the effect of a ' I,.', 5,%.N.Z suited in a collapse of the towers. This scenario, as addressed by the ...(Q wag:., @.'"f,'7.N,.V, Licensing Board, could result in the Gooding of the Unit i Turbine ~ 4 Building and Control Structure via open doors in the Turbine Building. ?.i m. 3 1 y n o,. After thoroughly analyzing the issue, the Licensing Board concluded l,?. ;Mi N../. ' r,.,.. ?-7.Q ClW/.d i ' that "there would be no entrance for water into... [ safety related) 7, y 1+% structure [sl and no adverse impact on the ability to safely shut down the y:,.w f. . m. t - S-reactor." LBP-84-31,20 NRC 446,491 (1984). 4 The Appeal Board in ALAB-819, supra, 22 NRC at 730-41, afGrmed a.. ?. $.I.g. i T.,e. the Licensing Board. The Appeal Board concluded that "nothing directly ,y c,3$pl. y [,' 3 :q. 3. - pertinent to Anthony /F0E's pipeline explosion scenario was or is 'unre- .W.w& r: N bWmw. W.t 5, solved' by the Board's decision." 22 NRC at 740. 6i. h".;.@M,M@t.d,N#'. Following issuance of ALAB-819, Philadelphia Electric Company .. g .BWlv. pa NQf D%$? WW/ ("PECo") filed a Licensee Event Report (LER 85-080) with the Com- ' 'IM@M'M0%.Y;m/J49. %d . # @ /. N b ff.t mission on October 31,1985. In that report, PECo advised the Commis-sion that it had recently discovered that because final site grading had Q $g@lf/Z @b e d # ::*( #M. M !,'.?'YMM" not been completed in conformance with its Final Safety Analysis N f.' d W.G'./.M, s.8 E.,, Report, the potential existed for the Control Structure to be Gooded in the event of design basis rainfall or from a failure in the cooling tower M. $!.$.,.L },9W a./, basins. PECo advised the NRC that it had immediately initiated and W:A.s c,? jf ; 'l W,m.*/4 r 7 "WD py..,. ',% completed actions to eliminate the safety concern - Dood barriers were s c installed at critical building openings, curbs were added to control the y ' Tr# t..u, s (t, b.L r,,F WA awy.x..m. / i. Mr flow of water in the buildings, and a new plant procedure was developed a N,g,p w.- W y <.yyS(g w.. ; o.M.s... i:, ~ m.. ,r m,.... to assure that Unit I could be shut down safely, even if the redundant q.~. m. m ')A bl%, Control Structure Chilled Water System ("CSCWS") was disabled by V ': h@M W ,.N' Y h 'W 9 3 -p{l[d%5%p1i)n

kkD, h

flooding. 'i &s e.ss .m..Wmp.%"@,.y MWWW m.yk: p., n.~.m, % h,h. h @W h.dy %$Q N;y. ,g m fy WM cw l7,h-;f;ws ?m - W b; W^- >Qqw%2 %; WMy.%:%W?,9 M u ::.2 Q< , g,yIye,wo@,e@c W wnt,a 4 M .1 O .f f C.,*.h i, 132 ',f.,.Me y,W'il *. %;. %.p.,g;.T a p. A - Q yc 1b c-r. g %.,.g%.a. W.q p 4...

w.

.A. .)~h b[ h +' [*h s' t + o

c.3:.,s m 6%,. x q,w.u y'l, lk

.in.qgQ1 e.y p. - m. ;..y.. # n s A y&r TQ+ ' h'. y&.8' N $.y,% 4g,. +. ,, ',, -. 7 -c+ ~m- - -, r w--e n. p j.,',%a? &:m-- --u e.s;.e .Q o, 9 s. W yp. p tsh .e b i emmmm#m.ggewgm

q. 'f s 9;f.** .p; m r m A. ? c..c. +.m .. &. b. :w. ' %+ ..t ~ s.i,* .. r y y#Y) a.. f ,- Y b:jy . '.[ '. q 2N",,7 35,4, - R. -+ W. ;. ,c.e L*%,. +. \\ . M a x r s - m. - MCM ' ,4 m &, s wl* y %% :.' xx u. 2-a E :- -*,h*'3 , - c.m t,.r v 9 4 M :i o v m A: . + . e.. MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD n. p. g ..s je ,,.;w),.,,i., v 2.. , o Anthony /F0E argue that the new information contained in the L ,.f > establishes that, if the cooling towers collapsed, water could enter Control Structure and disable the chilled water pumps. They cla .y,, .., 4 3

this disabling of the CSCWS could leave the control building with

.. 3" x ',.Q' t i ~ - M7 - s tain cooling facilities for the Main Control Room, Auxiliary Equ ( /,i,, P i.i.;,, i.$[ 7 Room, Emergency Switchgear Rooms, and Battery Rooms. T cooling could result in excessive heat that could prevent safe sh W ..g1..,.d, S M.., of the facility. Anthony / FOE argue that if the Licensing Board h %' ? g.., f M' t 'M,j g m, known this, it would have reached a different, unspecified, conc y cf y WJ y.,J,D FMD regarding the potential for the loss of Control Structure cooling as 9J . -;.p. y y; j. result of flooding from a collapse of the cooling towers. The NRC Staff and the Licensee both filed pleadings opposing W .,.. 7, c Anthony request. In determining whether a closed adjudicatory record should be r ,v, e.g opened, the Commission applies three criteria: .;3. h'.c M. (1) is the motion timely; (2) does it address significant safety or environmental is ..a (3) might a different result have been reached had the newly pr j \\c-7' i ~' material been considered initially. Metroprlitan Edison Co. (Three M 3 c M" Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3 (1 There is no question that the motion here is timely. Anthony / F filed their request promptly after receipt of the LER. ,l,, g,. , g.,,. s

7. pr.$

q

.9..i~?

The other two criteria, however, have nct been met. In its plea .J i response to the Anthony / FOE motion to reopen the record, the NRC 2 V . c., Staff provided a detailed technical analys s of the consequences k Jo o : r. 2 ?.," >; @ u.. g.,Q ' i ', f ry;) M Fu@j flood. The Staff concluded that the correc ive action taken by Lice [6: .. 9. Q ' g is satisfactory, and that a worst-case event would y,1, ,3. < wf,. p c not result in water in-s' trusion in the Unit 2 turbine building or the Control Structure in qua 4 j., ' d., -

Tn ties sufTicient to cause significant flooding.8 b

V7 The Staff also determined that the CSCWS is not required to shut i ~ (,, plant down safely, Anthony / FOE offer no credible technical reason P s ..Mt dispute the Stafi's analysis. We therefore conclude, based on the S m.; e. - t'c w 2 U i W ** l,h. 3lN gW D A.'., W/,' . i. M+. MV [ h'[ 5 3 ,,,,. 4 *;)f y p y C

4 8,j j $

Q 1 b .,.4 .y \\'.t 4 i y.* ^* h*J./*f worst-case pipeline rupture, the issue they seek to reope ., :.f p* .W 3 nyrv6 , gp 2 rom a the two contentions that they filed with the Licensing Board Accordingly in seeki '.. *h[4M / % [ R 3.*r y a q M

J e scope or should be admitted.10 C.F ll l 2.114(alti). This failure off by y!M'

~ t ng to reopen the h=C4 ny,M<y 8Q'p #5.,;. 3 V ;$h,O$g j8 i .j. M*. ?: 4 motion to reopen. 1 vy4,,M. 2 .j the few days of the year that have the most severe atmosph {, ,' M '{'A.. %?% dt;'hdAl,

b *~l. N WQ h,./Ji.hg *,'4Iy2%.f. k.
t 7,.'

a e place during to lead to an esplosion capable of destroying the coolms towers The towers would h u. upture would have j,i (f,. 4 + 'e. O3 :y the Turbme Building The nood bemers and new procedures would ave to fallin such a .s... ,.i- %s .~t i. I h.$ ? :c....>. ~, y-We 4 c-f.],a,,t , e. i- .e&. o 3.h v 133 Ni w4 ,i %J! /r , '.,., f ' g s g, q,n .c M;. ,' y h 4 .' h fP 4 p , ;. s. j >Py_( . g t. 'QJ G h m ... ; y, s. .) ' jeg;; ?_ %p.l _,,y':;e f,m.4-, *n,7 . ;f, y ?', sf 4 .JW - e. ~ - n,-,-- c s 9 e,J. Ay. m yrf R T,, ' ' N,'-e x a .d -*~ s v n. u ,.x w : '. ' s,+' { V seJr&g, N&

k

..., 7 A f* gy....a; m7. ". o m Ih kM Ms3%an.,M,WMMMhD?@,?$@d.@\\NMMMM[ _ V

j aq

.d i, nn Adh.gmcW4$ rd W r.n.wn " n-u Q gr r ' - '~ 1

6l, ,,"vt", ,f ~ ,l 21,(., '. f k,x ..e+* {. 'u e .s - ~. e. 'Qt*Q f _.J L_ g ..u..:. u; L.n. f*/:,. -.{. W, ; ., j M:.- 1 r. a.. a ..4,. t W.;. ] %n u.;&,' 'j analysis, that petitioners have not raised any significant unresolved safety issue warranting reopening of the record. " + ' i Finally, the new information, even if it had been considered earlier, } could not have led the Licensing Board to reach a different result. In 4 light of the Staf1's analysis, not credibly disputed by petitioners, that . i. " flooding of the Control Structure would not prevent a safe shutdown of .- / l l the facility, and that proper corrective action has been taken, the Licens-I ing Board could not have concluded that the scenarios postulated by peti- .I tioners warrant further corrective action. Accordingly, the motion to T,. . 1 ". J1 reopen the record is denied. M.' .4 , r,... o...,. y 1 STAY REQUEST ,I, 'a.. j With respect to petitioners' claim that the new information warrants a stay of the Limerick facility operating license, petitioners in their motion .~i did not address the criteria for a stay set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.788. In ,.i.' ,'[ ). j light of their failure to do so, summary denial of their request is ap-4 propriate. In any event, since the Commission has determined that peti-tioners have not raised a significant safety issue, there is no basis for any 'i 'j ' - stay. . ' ~ ' s For the Commission ff/S. c,K < 4, m ~ 7g... .,C v,. . ;l ~ M:.., . f.u.y -v.- SAMUEL.J. CHILK .:.pd o. c,. 3,., 7, Secretary of the Commission .c. %.y 9m;e. : i2 a:, - 1i Dated at Washington, D.C., M... this 20th day of March 1986. g /4 s $ i g ...i +.'1 .~ ~ ~ ,,,-[.hI. ',0 ..s.j, ' ' ' ' ',fh F .'.- g ;:..

4.,

t 1 -i -.,.. t 4.rf 'p e ,g d' 4 I , 5 k y, ,6, g .,[

v%:

44 .h ,Ee ,9 l, p 1 ; <. r.i p l <,+. -, ~.a * '. q . ;M ;;#p?. ;,.. 4s: '.1 ,,m., e

.Q.,rQs.a M8

, l k '. #s' s' c '{.'.**a',. -? 1 - ', . b,, ,,7 e ~ l'.R E a

u-1

..,t._,, + :. br e ' **~. j ' ', g'f, A x' y. e. y .-. } ,s .b e: v:s.4, 9': - - 134 e n.gsa ..,:.g, ,.1-a -)&~ g .J 1 c. ..e. e ^~>Q !8 m . ? 4 (,....,

a

... a :.:. y-

w..p,. syftzg";g, n c

[by I

g , 9. ' s a E ' - J.+.:' ~ g /v n.., a. . s. mm . m. g e a... :- 2,... % ' ' &... n ;.4., h',t;& i s l& Wi:??&,.:W. ,,a. . yg Dh^/f ?Q ! M W 'j:i' & ;i _a f\\. m~ m, N.3,&hm:m.m,-$ mpy.;b??kh$ Y "p'N 4 D. hk k.rWlk L'L, R b hh h h,- e.m..s.. i,.y y.g9.g.n-w t,,, a m, ww n,y.gy s pp

g. t,s ; e 9 J - r .l ~. s + 1 Atomic Safety and ~ + 1: Licensing Appeal L.c.c.. v E %s. e.+,, Boards issuances s, .;.-.r..... m- .., y -

r a

,*r ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL l,. c., ;. s I Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman l Dr. W. Reed Johnson O l .f S l' Thomas S. Moore i Christine N. Kohl / + =

g I

Gary J. Edles ] Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy ', ".4 i ' ^ Howard A. Wilber / 1 .-yn

f %'4 t

k &'. 5 i .-a ! '_i 9 JvW g 4 t. le * %. FW' g - (,* ., &. 4 e = l

Y',>

t 4 p. ..s .J p* q,e s 2, W I'# I' ky*%, .'..t..,+). e 4g'ii ' ', f) '. ?

e e

g

s. v t.

g s. t s 'l g. s e a e

f....,-

..,, ~,,. %i g 9 1 9 $O g g g. 9 y f " >J e O g . g - b e e. 4 b G'" E -, &#e s e*

,, L l

-+c

a

., h.' t

5

, *,e.- .7, - .g ,,

2...

., g, ,YO 4

g.b ' '6" S

,'. " s"=., ' ' - 'i,'.,i i

3.,,./.

7+. e, ,,.,3,. i .

V,':,, 4 t. d s.,

_ F .g. . 'n, ', . - t,C ~ n ;.; e ? k- t ,[" t/< n g 9 g 'I g l e 1 i l y *, q - ' a , i. ( a j. ,y-l443- =w, ,.).. ', '. I ' /*'*,.d 8 F , p y' n'

g 'i57

.f*'4 - T. s. y ., L..) o' y sc 4 W' l e-s s,..?..,,. * } esy s a g. 4 1 'l9 g. '+* d

g, 1(

_ m' , (l i ;fh'<& r. ,'{ '.s .'t %. % - ,s,, e.,,..._ _, n s,,*,, ,...-~,..,.-- - -,.m

.c.- p*6. 3i r

pm, ~<<, .* - < ~,.+:. n

~ '.

l. v- .- < :*ae. N

e. f *,.. ' *.

g, 'G, eca. 6,'.7*,, ,h*T*/

5' a

.,%:n 4- 'c . / .<q;J,w yx'. 3 q, s'- olc vy 3,v.m+k >. zE -:@%;p$ w e..~. s Ay.:.M: . r- < . ry ~ - , + .t - 9.f n .3.:m 7 Y J W; V, ; y.h}.%;&... y m,s, @m. @f.,

'l,k+.;i I.J; kf[. i. -

..dl, ; m.v.'.2 ..];o,; p~,, b. m y.. M

c ve..-

4: mm.,, .. s. ~ mg,. 2 - Qf O 'i .4kibi ,, ~h, ' Q'j](,.g '.e.

i. ff I+fw;:..;:

w . w m. ~ + k/ r. .-:s. ... ~ a. - ~.. < g*>i7 jy. '+;i ,p,,- . ! * = s ".'pg--QL:a 7.g. c ^p , 6 Q. m[ g 8J,.... ?.W.$j5?y?p..:.. ,'y,i'p ?f"., e v.... '.!,hfij?!?' W R' ? ~ ? N S~W NJ ;/3 4., ../e yi. Q*i ~,S e rtvw 1{. e Iy94

3

-c . cM.. ;, s. WkV'~, !.~ N'l'?p -) i c

x. I

~

5 .W: ,e g.' > g; ~, 'r sgg,, ~ . - - - ~ -. - - a------- - - - ~ -' - ~

^
Q M1r

J , ; -

.a ;. r %. f...,, .t ,a w. ..:.z i.g. "..,,. ~.- > ; r ?.gg; w',, 7.g,,.-- - ~., ' ~ g?y,v. b:4jj '.. ,f '.Y. ; j ' @ggPi..u y %..,'.Q '1 ".;* 7.- Cite as 23 NRC 135 (1986) AL.15 832 o, y '.,, j'*d r f s 'e.. e' $ v ,eE *. ' a~'f.3 9 *> ' V. y [ Ni@ ', < YM ' .'M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j/h;6 7,.M @$Q Q.4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , ;. g + v. e y9..;%n. ; m g,.~,....,w 2, y > %. f.3 /$ l;C'..G '.'.p M.z c.:...'NM,,M. s > W.l. y.... w.. w. 4 ~ 7 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD fp :.. .Q %., f > af. N, : ^ %., .,7..?.,r.t

?..

.. n%. m.~.s. 4.;<.. m:pa.,r.., n. p... R, - + 'o O. - *' a 3 Administrative Judges: .3 m,. ep w-

. R. ~ hf ;.; <.45. - %:M:Mr..

... :m.o ;W.g!.g.,.c.c_ >. su .c 2 cc

w;n.%.n e Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

@,. r.Ay v.-m~. c , -l ph.4 ? P Jh. w w.f.e r. c, Gary J. Edles* 3 2; '. s:.. ,. p.e.. p.,< v.. w.. m. +. p rw. :. m..,. Howard A.Wilber .c .i.. m.

a.x q.s.

s,. s n;;.4.,..m 'f. y, . ~. c r. .a

. a, %<'fj d.,..

fc w- - o (i[.'.Yl * ...O ~NM in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 OL-3 ..,o d. r ~_.;,,'..: v.,,: u w..,,: f.,' N.. J.. .a p n; 'l. y s.E,m w y +It y (Emergency Planning) e, _ i.- . @C ;&. *. -rp ? M W :7.m .. g.,. :f H d iWi M. U.M LONG ISLAND LIGHTING , ',. % ; 0 ; p'. - f,.. . Mg COMPANY '.@m.. gc6 - (Shoreham Nuclear Power < s i..g**J' p + u.s.,..., v,. g O. y .g ,e 6* s Wrg *- e .,i.n.. -. t >d9-qtq , j:WeWF.W+... w c.w. c./ Station, Unit 1) March 26,1986 .f,$g.p.W'@-@@, 6gg' Mjit*6 p h:$.y nJ - 4:stm%o.p;?p;;.0,M. %sr=.Me; 6 :, .D' -mdpeph W. M

4'f..f'p... t..fii ;[4*? hg'".I Q

.ce%@6M 2pg Q Deferring action on the applicant's appeals, the Appeal Board acts on >YUJ M.,%. ~ s 4@6.,'C the appeals of the intervenors from two Licensing Board decisions on r w. m. j j : 3 1;.. c. ' l Z'S. o. emergency planning in this operating license proceeding. The Appeal U t c; J-C, Board affirms the decisions in part and remands them in part. It directs ..'r, ', ,,,.4-1 a the Licensing Board. however, not to proceed with the remand unless

n.c. s

. ;,- +, ; 4 and until directed to do so by the Commission. A,. gn ..... v. s. a 5:.... m,. -he.- n ;.i... 0 . s agt. a s 4 - :.,.'. ~ '.' - O l%*W, y. ./ M o'T RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW > &.Q' ~. : A* 1 y2 3&T, J. 4 i U.. N r. It is well. settled that a party may appeal from a Licensing Board deci-Mp$$.W.. 7' M..a.6 Q U. ' ' L. '? K sion only if aggrieved by the ultimate result - i.e., the party wishes that m h';.[.$NE[.A..N, 'pg.- result altered in some material respect. See South Carolina Electric & Gas

@.> %,.;;. i p'w. -

.,. 4.. 'g

,3 %,

, q 'J3 T -, q [pf. m m.o u..;%. t. m ;. - eD , A Jll* [ d ?.ViA *, i',.' .. % ' L%

since January 28;1986, Mr. Edles has been serving as the Acting Director or the Commission's Offee

' gi ^/;'Q > d c.,',.*. ' [" l-of Inspector and Auditor. For this reason, he took no part in the consideration or disposition or the mat. s ters covered in this decision, M S p g-M.: f 3 .k . hY N. + '.l l 9 %^ j '; ~. b 4- '? [x ;w,y.,KM hMJ,{:g.g z. C' 135

; ~m

.n. .- t, n.. a r ;.f. ; ,g ..e + .--,..g,' - f.e'".&. s. e, & ebe ,;.. %

s a

e *' ? . d-. '..M.,. .'g ~ k.: $..;i'.y>=*w,. g,'.-Gr,y.g'.*.j '*I P. N.6 **v 7.. 3.z y.,.fr. _ 'gE g e-o e= ye-i.e. r*Ng 8W. -1 4$ -jp y -P

6 f

Ug I, ,'.r*, '

M f3,

.y ...; 4.;%g: .,j, g o.. ,.y S. s * ;, y'...;s,k {s.,:;; :~,z f;ggyp, qs-3;5 a. yy, ;; f *.9

4 L.,

. r; e t. wq.. u.. ;.A.n~. ,,~;, :p%p' ' ;; 4.K ^ '. ~ a rMss ~ b Y =V y m.;.;p. &n.c.n.;4 P &n;e g;*o,*W p1rc %. ' M f.;' wP. N ' n. ' ~*.;*, 't. n'p ~W.c ~:w ~+' w s-Wm

io. es A.

,s.,h.\\i'&mnsk Wl M S5V.N f W ? N ? "N .Y: ~..., w~... r- -- V M. n n. - < ~ v ~., c%. 2v s.. w.w w wa M. ~ '

+ a R:' .. s s

e. g -

.s. w:..' ..e ..a.. a - ~ 2..'

e z.;;c,

-.~.:.___ ~-: -. -....,.. = ,3 ~.m:-

(, e n

~...n u. m-

e..e. -.y.

.w.. d 'n w.. p,. 4. -,

9. ;3

.. u .~" 7 ey,, 9.. ;. - Co. (V rgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB.694,16 NRC

.f:f. d '.

958 (1982), and cases there cited. h.. s N [. 7. b ,.. w <~. ..c,.c. w.c. y v Q.,4..g. -e.g 3:4,.x,CW> >..x.i.,a,7;f..q:. :1,,i RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW n. It is established that a party prevailing on the trial level may defend its . fe'.;.( 6 ]." %.";.,;. @. M favorable result on any ground that is supported by the record. In this . /. , q, f.6 corinection, it matters not that the precise claim (s) offered as a basis for i,!.. Q

'. m. c 9 S.p y... ; y,: $.

affirmance may have been urged upor at.d rejected by the trial tribunal. Sd. W.T c, s. :M. M{, M..w a 9, o. .7 /,y.;. ne:. Of crucial importance is simply that an adequate record foundation for .cp.. (j .gg,e the claim be present. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron. Nuclear 3 e.. , g.. c, y,, - Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-793, 20 NRC 1591,1597 n.3 53 W,'.. - + -~f. (1984); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and ..~ ..m s

n... u+. w g,mm S i%..,

w. . '/ Y 5 l 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,789 (1979); Public Service Co. ofIndiana ' '. t. ..D

k. * <

(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 ^ %39.. t ,,,..K.. NRC 179, 202 (1978); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point ..r..-...,....- lw" l Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB 264.1 NRC 347, 357 (1975) (citing 4 Jaffke v. Dunham. 352 U.S. 280 (1957) and California Bankers Assn. y ' c'i

~

Schult:. 416 U.S. 21 (1974)). -.j RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW it F. " < M h. M.. w, S M,. Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for m... ,]O 1 g.:n: Q'A _@ ;f;. %. ~ 4.,g 'J simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. 'f O . d:. cff "5MMJW Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on significant matters, not y.Q'1 ',p. f.;,gggy 7 9 every colorable claim of error. ALAB-827,23 NRC 9,11 (1986). .IF '^ qh-my.,y .s m.. < t o.u/ r.y w .. w ~. .w ., %s.-a - i h p:, .4-- _. -.% p W. '_ ' EMERGENCY PLANS: OBJECTIVE ..or ...Y. Q t. ' M..,, p ', ,n-4 s.afe q The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facility is focused ~^ E'N N d; to a large extent on assuring that prompt and effective actions can be 11; . M, taken to protect the public from exposure to released gases or other radi-n.' M - M,. T l'.-yfie '

1. w,

.s r~. ...w oactive material. NUREG-0654 (FEMA-REP-1), Rev.1, " Criteria for ' J '.- E '.. Z. 2* C '. Z.: V W : &. g..% 9 8 Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans d '} %M... ' g.. $ f ;d M ;J and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November e ( ,Q; 'tpy.. g y+:4. NM,Q.('J :*E.C TS M W f UN^i. gg 1980), at 10-12. Uf-p^W .gL;;wgQy, ;r ; wg4.< v%s...,g;,, W w c EMERGENCY PLANNING: EMERGENCY PLANNING . ~ " $. W. [ @W ' N d, d-; Q Q $,1 Sd ZONES (SIZE) +.W_., M. ;,

f%6.51.4.@.,.,M. %j.iThe 10-mile radius figure for the plume EPZ contained in 10 C.F.R.

4 sc @;h > .f. w g g-n@M.,,~k t s~ p.a., : 50.47(c)(2) was calculated in order to remove the need for site specille -; W..- b. ?. Q~vg*, k Q

w. n. g,.. q

g, y;.

w ~ a...sjIl m, & w$??w. m{ s, '5 f J' u.. ,= a._ [. 136 Q:!: 4' -.:e,: g. r . w.n W A.q n; Y.*w. C. W,. s. W,. ;. e ;,.. p .[.* a,n s.8mmpN,.1 ~; .cw N ; W....,,,._,, _.,_ 5; R. 22 ; O;L ' = R ~ %J$ 4.M; ":MQN.Y,M %*4 W"."** r y - 7. m o gg ' f : ' b,. ,Q L : :^. G g.:.J.: ~ ., c p, *. ~~m,3 lQ@WffR.T *f.M&NM.Q Mh.:,/, y .?r%whggQ:M ,f We e p*M.W: V Q.#x WL M. .hf.:'-iWi%g[a..pQ$g.%e,m:e v:y.y. $w e%!%pW W:*d bl% q b ?.R O.i g h),9 h ff } v} } Q @;;$ f, g ; g : f Q fk } l .f wq gequ& MMtp s%p%mWW M.b e

w:.

~ , in. 1 '. . u.;., - - ~.~w__._.._._.~. ..L.'s._..,_.__.__.___ m.. 3 4. calculations. NUREG-0396 (EPA 520/1-78-016), " Planning Basis for W.- the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergen-

N( '.

g' J cy Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1978), at 1517,24 and 111-7 through 111-8. o

'p

'.' N I EMERGENCY PLANNING: EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES (SIZE) fe u Although the regulations provide that the exact size and configuration of a particular EPZ is to be determined with reference to site-specific fac-Y. ~.

t. >.

tors, the, wholesale enlargement of the Commission-prescribed EPZs by P. ' 9M, ' ' ', f M a state cannot preclude a licensing decision based upon the requirements of the NRC regulations. The Commission's regulations " clearly allow leeway for a mile or two in either direction, based on local factors. But ' y f[a ~ (section 50.47).. clearly precludes a plume EPZ radius of, say, 20 or h more miles." Paci/lc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,' Units I and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 831 (1984) (quoting 1 Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163,1181 (1982), aff'd. ~. ~ ~ ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983), c.ffd sub nom. Carstens v. NRC, 742 F.2d 1546 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert denied,105 S. Ct. 2675 (1985)). EMERGENCY PLANNIF.6: EXCEPTION TO REGULATIONS l ' "

,j*c ',

2

r. 7 A party seeking to imp >se a substantial change in the area of the Com-J-

.T' ,..p.. '7 ' mission's prescribed EP.C should seek an exception to the rule pursuant _M~.. u.. J.Mp to 10 C.F.R. 2.758. Diablo Canyon. 20 NRC at 831. ,,y RULES OF PRACTICE: EVIDENCE It may be true that evidence need be adduced but a single time on any 'b'Y s alleged fact, no matter how many contentions might rest upon the pur-ported existence of that fact. But once that fact is established, there is no M cy;,;V.; :'@@" - good reason why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to but- 'G tress multiple claims. },; j.'. '..,

4.. W:

m. EMERGENCY PLANNING: BASIS FOR REQUIREMENT 'F g =y m e,*- e q?D Q:f; ~ "The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on ..u. c - -

. ;;R;4,.

' ;;7.c wg ,-y 'f[@. :, E, the assumption that a serious accident might occur and that evacuation

iv

' 4;,Q4 4 ( of the EPZ might well be necessary... As a corollary, a possible defi-c. ciency in an emergency plan cannot properly be disregarded because of Ef

4 i

'9 g e a ef 137 .M. ~ l' f g; j ' ' % q,~ Cs: ,_. n ;~- ~y

e e

i.8 j , [fe ' f/ '

?jv.

y .* W- .l6-

i.' ;s' ',.

n w,

a. n.

.... -~ ~, -w . - n.a s.

r., : v.. "

~ lf;. Ik:lj $ W.'.,~l1... ; ,h e , " }-j l-Q&;, '*. f. ?$ X 5 'Qf, Q.;:ik(:a ;9&,.. .&.n).;W',; %... g.p;.yk.+g;.,,h:f $.'~ j.f {% / q.?JM.%;c, _w, ' f'}& ,Qff W} 24 jg.m.hkk k k w., s a. .m ..~. & ~. ; y.. y. if

h,.Y,5h_.,,.w.w ' (.u?;[t ff Q.

hf 'qh,'O Nh ffY *k

ai.xl 49.# %'y :..,m &&_....

r %, W. w .m. . m %. m. MQ m 3'Q:g,A u n j y x.*<p, 'if.ng pp; 'n' c.-Q %%,..M.{ _ _. qp.;-.m;pQ.%y&q g....,y n tay y q :p p ;c.y..r 7.*a ; 7 ".+. y :. 9 ; M e;w 2.ga:

w w w:

-,.y g.

,_ m

~y ; w- - n.. .q.~... e e.,

,s. p .... ~. :.~. -..w au :w. J,,r' ./ l e.l . J. the low probability that action pursuant to the plan will ever be neces- . 4;,, sary." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,713 (1985). e ~ i EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (EVACUATION) a Mi' Emergency response planning for nuclear facilities must make provi- }, sion for the care of persons removed from the plume EPZ should cir- ~ cumstances necessitate evacuation measures. g; * ~ 4,.. </.. '. y; wm EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (EVACUATION) o Section II.J.10.h of NUREG-0654 provides that a relocation center ,,,j /, 7. 3 must be at least five miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the bounda-q~ ries of the plume EPZ. .l + t LICENSING BOARDS: DISCRETION IN MANAGING PROCEEDINGS (TIMELINESS OF MOTIONS) Licensing boards are vested with broad discretion in the conduct of the proceedings before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foun-dation, board determinations on such questions as the timeliness of mo-tions are not likely candidates for reversal. e. .. : e. j, Q EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (SUFFICIENCY) g.. P.?jy;; ~ Neither the law nor the Commission's regulations dictate how many %M Tp opportunities an applicant has to bring itself into compliance with the N '+ - Commission's regulatory rules. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York j (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983). .t> s,.g ,t., ' =- 1< * ' '. APPEARANCES $11.'.,..

-- 4

_4, j,..,*. ,. & k n, 4 y .s,... Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C. (with whom IIerbert H. Brrma m w. J[** ', and Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Washington. D.C., Martin Bradley Et9? 9,, Q's.'l ^ Ashare and Eugene R. Kelley, Hauppauge, New York, Fabian c.aji/J,; *, <: ;A '. 3 w.g., G. Palomino, Albany, New York, Robert G. Abrams, Attorney y. _3-n v.. General of the State of New York, New York, New York, and v., .A;v',*.,* Stephen B. Latham, Riverhead, New York, were on the briefs), g;& G l,,w. J, y $j.,. ";O. for the intervenors State of New York, Suffolk County, New e.- York, and Town of Southampton, New York. s. ,8 ,r ' 33. V..b.f

3. r,.

138 + f 9 ~, F *,.}. s y [r ,N. c ,- %f ^ ' {.i_ ~ !i,f; Q 3;;...' '2.'[.2NhiN:Y# .f :, Me[', - 4q,,1.7. . A

=

kh ' j,'.yg ; "~ r ekm*use, mum m a_mamm m

v 3,.,. .m

l. 5

.s .~, c. 't. ~.. - (. James N. Christman, Richmond, Virginia (with whom Donald P. e,- e t Irwin, Lee B. Zeugin, Kathy E.B. AlcCleskey, Jessine A. ^ ..c, Stonaghan, and Scott D. 51stchett, Richmond, Virginia, were .~ on the briefs), for the applicant Long Island Lighting Company. sw :- hN_fl;'f Bernard 31. Bordenick (with whom Sherwin E. Turk and Robert G. /.,~.. o. ,I Perlis were on the briefs) for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. e ,4. 8 4 . w,.,v.;... a. DECISION ];39.1, M./,' ' ,.ta ., - o;. v,. ,3. r, The Licensing Board has rendered two partial initial decisions in the < $jg.'. emergency planning phase of this operating license proceeding involving yQ-7'~s.

.c>

the Shoreham nuclear facility in Suffolk County, New York. In the first tr ' of these decisions, issued last April, the Board resolved most of the con-tested ofTsite emergency planning issues in favor of the applicant Long ] ' island Lighting Company (LILCO). It further determined, however, that the applicant lacks the legal authority to implement material features d of its emergency response plan, with the consequence that an emergency i j plan in conformity with Commission regulations cannot be carried out.' l In the second and " concluding" decision, issued the following ,, c.,y a. - August, the Board addressed the issues remaining before it.2 These were .7 ?-- primarily concerned with the adequacy of the Nassau Veterans hiemorial J'; ' 'i- " ' ' ~,. Coliseum as a reception or " relocation" center for the monitoring, h@p. u : decontamination and transfer to sheltering facilities of evacuees from jW7l f; the area surrounding the Shoreham facility in the event of an emergency. "r.. ~

t ~ "

ff ~ h I' ' ' - Although the applicant prevailed on most of those issues as well, the Board ended its August decision with the declaration that the applicant's emergency response plan is " fatally defective." The bases of this declara- ~ tion were (1) the Board's determination in its earlier decision that the i applicant lacks the legal authority to implement its plan; and (2) the MY. #. ~:. ? ', Board's belief that the opposition of both the State of New York and Suf-2Qu.h 3.I,p W folk County to the plan "has created a situation where at any given time %F :'r '~ ^ 1,. N'-<" it is not known whether the [p]Ian would be workable."3 ,C s, ! (('.!.T.. ' b' :... ,' ;- 7 f. ;.- p,(?': ;- ~. 'J h Q,y r y

3,

'. r r, s i. [' ':_ ' ;. ' I LBP-85-12,2i NRC 644 0985). 2 LBP-85-31. 22 NRC 410 (1985). 3;.,. ' . fr- -"4' 3/d. at 431 <v 9. i kl~* - l, 9.:yr. . i.,4Re.f. 139 'f'q d. s. .c r ' j.R ', g;*,;.Q. ? 'dN.6 ' t g ., ;,4.,. m.- _ p g>. a.,, a j, -. -

-. ; c < gg,.. r..?- &q. e %g.3

.,.,.y - r~, s

m s s

~ w, l f.

Q' a,

'fi '}- .c ,n :?: % ' a i.a -,. 'z'.W.%; -. ' -6 ps. y A.. w. 'L

A gi

. 4?g' n

. u w,..

a; ..p:.. P.x m....' S g 7..y.f x y M: < Y...g:e2%;.n s u-c ; c.,....,. - ~ 2 ~ : hfi a ME $ [" hM 'Nk '"'N(.f}hhh

fMES h,$hg 9.#gff.%%xfM&?% %%QW5%p@f Q - M i y., "j Q % g g gigj

t =. g e h n -, ,m ~.s 2 / ;, a. ...e

c. ~ ny a s

~j>>_ '.% 't f ' 4 ~ 5. ,. L T '. ) y-j <.,.,g g g,"-, 3 ~ . r . o .s

w.., /

s x ,, dQ; /;p;;.:= % - w -s. ' ' ' ~* a

n ';.

. v g W~

.x

ly,

. g.; a =. - -s s [e. 7, ' +. gig.' g h t ',zy 4 ,.

S;; *.%y j... e e...

< r: ?' "y>p$y@p' z.3 ; %%y% ~. i The applicant and the intervenors State and County took appeals from l.,3$; 9 : W. ,.T portions of both of these decisions.' With the parties' acquiescence, we .g separated for expedited review the applicant's appeal on the legal author- -).. V.qq~.?qi(pg ity question. In ALAB-818, we affirmed the Licensing Board's conclu- + ..n+-_ slons on that question.5 .i- ,..f r.b."t' J M ' Of> The elTect of that affirmance was to render academic the issues pre- [' M - M [.' $ M sented by the various other appeals from the April and August partial l

x ' - dr[e if Sl. @.P initial decisions. In granting the applicant's petition for review of

^V ,,, [ %l 1 Z',' d Q.4 ALAB-818, however, the Commission stated thct "a detailed specifica-v'VA f.l 9.y tion of issues, briefs and, if useful, oral argument will be deferred at j, P - T least until the Appeal Board's resolution of intervenors' pending appeal +o 5 on other emergency planning questions."6 In that circumstance, upon a N;, . O ', [ the co~mpletion of the briefing process, we scheduled oral argument on kM',. .o '1..,N,1cfquy the pending appeals. R;

g, 3.W'y At the argument, we raised on our own initiative the question wheth-

'S" er, inasmuch as the result reached by the Licensing Board (i.e., the ~'. Mf f*@ denial of a full power operating license) was favorable to them, the inter-M ML. venors' appeals from the two partial initial decisions were impermissible. J i ' ". ' f.* N That question was fully explored, along with the merits of several of the ,.,?.nx. ;'%...9. %[a$., f.. numerous issues presented by those appeals and that of the applicant .1e ~.$;; M.- t/UNNM from the August decision. gm f.e.. g,.. ny.m,g e. . ~.n. . vw.:m,.g w y For the reasons hereafter developed, we dismiss the intervenors' ap- '.g: M L.M MQW@~d h peals, but nonetheless have considered on the merits the claims encom-W ' 7,M p*g @Q: 24 gg

passed in them. Our conclusion is that the Licensing Board committed

?y& ; */ several errors requiring further proceedings before that Board. Although .f v .;. g. " $ ! thus remanding to the Board for that purpose, we are instructing it to

1

'.M %,s .) take no action in furtherance of the remand, pending a determination by . N;. ~ 2 :'+ 5.g the Commission as to whether the Board should await Commission o _s. vs v..... p,, 1 action on review of ALAB-818. i... ~ . p;.rs d e.c.. 4 Insofar as the applicant's appeals are concerned, the current posture f@.d[%.p +.73* *;Y*~.M of the proceeding 'makes it unnecessary to reach the still pending issues. .y-s ../ c; ...4 e-w c. c i,4. s.; z . m.., presented by them.7 We are therefore holding those issues in further w. ('m,@.:: w. y V A: ;n.9J. 7 e mi fQf abeyance until such time as their resolution might become warranted. n,. 5:, .,m.,.,,:.!.c ,a, y e. t r s

- M

.,y s . ;, n ;,,, ~ M- - 4 7... .( c

" q @ ?. '..? * < ?.2,t.R

'.".y. g *'

M,

'A W@Q '. ~..: *

y, q 4 E.

p 7,1 ?. %( ] < 4' y, = Y.

.f.a

' i 0Q lp,h'h. &, & s0 ? k Y ..' % X~,. ? * ' s '* : q.

s.j }?5.,

? -A q: 7 .[;. 4 In addition, the Town of southampton appealed from portions of the August decision. . cc.9 ~., & ,4N 5 22 NRC 65) (1985). =

g.

. 9 O ? i. ".- g g.1

December 19.1985 Commission order (unpublished) at 12.

/ .. -.p 7 'C*; *

W(,;-.

7in addition to its appeal from the August decision, we still have before us a small portion of the ap- . 4(f I h phcant's appeal from the Apnl decision. See ALAB-318,22 NRC at 677-78. $.U.['k [.3[7.k M..[Ih( % & x. % MY % *cr..J pg.*&y,a. 7' 4 , e.4 ~~ a.. c ;+ C %$k!T . f &'.@M,), a+, v. .m . : e# 3 ~,- n-W, Y.y[,9:*g' P/N yg

.g.jd

).gM [

s.. ~ h..w, n..v,.g w

w 4y ...,s-d. -b'h$

.fM*[~J. N b g h 4 A[% g$C._.....,,- -..- -. - -.

d,[ f m. a W[ T.'g,1v IkfCf'*C e m -- - < z<n-C'777 r. ) kk O

.j,; kA n' .%...? .X - c. W. ., 7.., n . [h Y l.. ..e _x. a-t. 3......:.,,. .. ; ay - ?

W..q;, q.,,x,, p.- ;.g;gc

't ?,."

: g. q. c u.u f, w"G.R g ;. p: y - :

s .;?. .,C' ,p*t: n. s . ;,. s p. 4.- . c .sg g s c ,...- m.m :.w.:. u. w .z -% m.w,, -Jm t, p g.p.. g . A.., q .yc.. ,t 7w

~,0 r.1 %'W;,, p fk

.V

?,g l: l.g e c

" ; ;: y ; h : T T, &.' M. p.;.;.,

n p

Au,.y -

r;.v s.: M,,p. <.!n. s@./,

,W,,., s*.Je,y/'K. W.S 3 m.- m .m y-

2 ?

. A:p*. : ,a p,wN.,

G;,,t, w %

p. :

e.; t a e, ;u. i. ; . @f.Y.s., s ,o-S Q,., din 9Ff Although dissatisfied with a number of the f' dings contained in the m M*M,.}a.gyfffMy[ April and August decisions, as well as with numerous interlocutory rul-c.1((MM'(bMhg'.} ings preceding those decisions, the intervenors do not quarrel with the 3 @3W '. ' : gr J.R; N:gl< ultimate result reached by the Licensing Board. Nor could they. The ggp 4*p'!-7; j'f[" Board's determination that the applicant lacked the legal authority to carry out its emergency response plan in full rendered inconsequential M.Q ' " .' g p 6'/ p.r..y. M.; e,'J.6M. w.t. all of the findings and procedural rulings adverse to the intervenors. 47 rg, ./ For, as the Board observed in the August decision. given that determina-9 ... s M{p%U.t@hN,Mygg[de.. g tion no operating license for Shoreham can issue. That is the precise out-M'p$h; ;; s r w come that the,intervenors sought. sg 3 m. F..JY_. It is well-settled that a party may appeal from a Licensing Board deci- ' 's,i, q m,7. %.5C' ~'r.];":@~ + r gl g.. l' ' ~ sion only if aggrieved by the ultimate result - i.e., the party wishes that ,..m, result altered in some material respect.' The intervenors not being in O,,- ~ that position, their appeals must be dismissed. c,1,' ' e <,. ; CR, ( . @ C ~S L It does not follow, however, that the intervenors were precluded from 4::.t. D,: presenting to us their claims of Licensing Board error. To the contrary, , (; 94W,'; % l 'J,.! f, y,

.: >. M..,

they were free to put those claims forward in responding to the appli- .,J M,,3k f,'C, cant's appeals from the partial initial decisions - appeals that did seek a

,w t

change in result. For it is equally established that a party prevailing on JT

y. w a -

the trial level may defend its favorable result on any ground that is sup-

'.W : 6 7.i,.

-f 6. w ' G ,s ,3 s. - t;'..w. - ported by the record. In th.is connect. ion, it matters not that the precise . > q,. m,x $ $$$$y,?,,p:&r.QT([i$ TW.P.; claim (s) ofTered as a basis for affirmance may have been urged upon and cS 3 .M .M U rejected by the trial tribunal. Of crucial importance is simply that an ade-4.p[W.n.M..n.p;126,:SM.@Q,ia , M. s.,f.y.d.,.. quate record foundation for the claim be present.' W Although. tervenors' counsel should have been aware of the forego- .s s a in gAf W*/ w . c p( g Ij/ w; f e Z? ing considerations, it nonetheless seems appropriate to treat their appel- ',(.. /4\\u late assertions at this point as if thos,e assertions had been offered in sup- . y<. y. ; port of the Licensing Board result, instead ofin the furtherance of an im-o. N%-,' permissible appeal from findings and rulings not affecting that result. jpg; W ' ' .. M WplJ T.,#[.qQ % M m. But the question remains whether there is any warrant for our examina-tion of the assertions at this juncture. We have, after all, already aflirmed jQ@/pQhT.gG;gg M-QMfgMM.c:.MV in ALAB-818 the outcome below on the precise ground assigned for it .D by the Licensing Board - the applicant's lack oflegal authority to carry 7 pi, h. b.: M." 7.-4 % !A. .. a.4 & c :* e C ? y 4, $,:q." " : Rh N M @ :. ( k [h h 8 s,, sowh Carohna Elrrrre A Gas Co. (Virgil C. summer Nuclear station, Unit 1), ALAB-694,16 d / ( Mjgegyp w.SYUh M hk,* . epg ;y.-$ NR,C 958 (1982), and cases there cited.Sec Common =cabh Edaos Co. (Byron Nuclea ,. y, ;..g, .*-.o n,y =, 3 593,1$97 n.3 (1984); Pubtr Servre Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox station, Units I and 2). ALAB.573. $ p M'd.[,,,*i",16 A"7/p 9' 10 NRC 775. 789 (1979); Pubhe Servre Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating station, Units 1 l M,V,I 'D M-! y$$ [p':Q.',[W yJ' r.g ' ' *):d i., and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978); Masara Mohawk Powr Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear i, y9, Station Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347,357 (1975) (cirms Jaffke v. Dusham 352 U.s. 280 (1957) and . /, y '}.N,.t. d - .';g Cahfornia BanAcrs.4ssa. v. Shw 416 U.s. 21 (1974)). '+' ve J r & l,*M h h y 2; ,r' b..iq,W n:n X % g.,r 1 s ikk1*hy..,I.h.. *. ', i h f,, 141 S %L %, ec.

- e e [m

%w$m.s:w - 4]?C , {, y.

f

.e $$E. m./j; E .-r, mm-a .s - Q:; .-..,m._ m..f., Q :. Q._g y @%n. kkfhf k -.m...;.mIhIkkhfhfhk c._. 2 , gy-m;.; ~;Q g. m g3:. ,j ' to p ';k,7 g y.%s g kgfy2;.' Q 3~ f. .. 4p s m a n,.,y. < m, n w u.-m,.v. s.y 3, n m m e s w e m w e s$ h fk f hwegt , m f.4hkkhh kkk ff

...,. -.c. ' 3.n : % L.. .s. . ~, ', +.:,. ,o _ ;n. f a., ; w.sc- .s., :. ,w

u.,j..

,e .m.4 & m,9.;-%47.,,.f,y. , ' g;,.

C.t y,
e.
,,,',].,,-

. [* d *c/#h'.; b** C. S>, -'O, ,[ 7., i s L .a. . c. % ~, q :,- ;i.m W.f.+ ~.n ?~ cp- - c %,,, t -. ~ .',99

;$s,.w...: ..q g g g,sw L,.-.sa.uu;.y- -

~ .a x ~ g J. . 4.p +.. _ m <; ? m, J 2.: ;.=~.'-- ~. -. ~: " m -), ;. s. 4 e

~

i-.;-

c :s.- ,*c ..t ,im p. + t q.' - out its emergency response plan. Consequently, at least so long as our

1.. -

c - conclusions in ALAB-818 remain undisturbed, there is no compelling %.,7 y, U necessity to search for possible alternative bases for afrirmance. +.. ~ ... c For this reason, we ordinarily would be inclined to defer consideration &.e....*,,,. .., ' s ' p.. ' of the intervenors' claims of error to await the completion of Commis- .p. 7.i ./-...- S sion review of ALAB-818. The Commission's election to defer its ]*..'*

$ }.' - "

ALAB-818 review pending our appraisal of those claims, however, dis- ', M, ( n,,.l..' l * ? { W ; f c'{ I e suades us from pursuit of such a course. True, the Commission un-tj doubtedly made that election on the assumption that the claims were dff. Wi 7 e. presented in the untext of a viable appeal by the intervenors. Nonethe-I*hM.YM['S,.bdh, B less, we have been given no cause to believe that the Commission's + y determination to defer review of ALAB-818 hinged upon the validity of .; 3 , '.,.] % A ".( that assumption. In the absence of a contrary indication, we must pre- ~.E sume instead that the Comm.ission desires to have m. hand our evalua- , (i .g g tion of the intervenors' arguments on the merits of the applicant's , i. W.. ...f emergency response plan - whether advanced by way of an appeal or .:. ;( ;. s. l ;,. ;. > 4 .Mif otherwise - before it decides whether the plan has insurmountable u-i e ' t.2-0 legal Daws. ~ We thus have undertaken to examine the intervenors' claims and will y set forth our conclusions in Part II of this opinion. For their part, howev-l er, the applicant's appeals stand on a quite different footing before us. In h,. s. common with the issues raised by the intervenors, the applicant's pend- ^ -l 1, s i m., e. ,C, < 3 ' 4.4. a. y,;'A ing challenge to the April and August decisions is of no significance in

f.Jjn f{ x.,

f the face of ALAB-818. Thus, there is no reason to decide that challenge yg Q,., 9 ; /.[i,,. q, 2 k in advance of Commission review of ALAB-818 unless the Commission L.w.w J.,,la >..'.c..w w / i.J.ik has asked that we do so. We find no such request. To the contrary, as j....i...s<.; M,,. A, e. w2 u..a, seen, the Commission deferral of its ALAB-818 review was cast exclu-c 9w ,s ..m N f,.;;. 4,. 'f A d. s^ M P,e sively in terms of our resolution of the "intervenors' pending appeal."'8 .i ,,v +t e..., n- ' Qa v. 't s %.y m gg- .m.

r. ; pyg:

U.Eh. - ...-..i M.Mi9..,"'k@n. + ,n.-., j.. In the course of denying the interverjors' motion for leave to submit a l hY.pm pr.r.1d.[:.":k NM* hM,, k$ already tendered in support of their appeals, we observed: 4~ f. p .~ second 20-page brief in supplementation of the 100-page brief they had 74 s - M L '>N,

WQg % v WM;J

2 4 Q,..L.,p %,, M. 3 v y,w. 5

Ac/g) M. ~.h, <

w.. :. m< y 0k'.$4.Y ea M$y? ".. i N5.b,me g.

T m.f A %pW . k.d g w% 'S.O d' d. m, M...' M W Wi M., s t.y,. v .w 10While we need not speculate on the Commission's reason for drawing a distinction in this regard be. m, v,tr,,p c s a'. 3 *f t m..--f? g M." tween the intervenors' and the applicant's appellate challenges. one possMe explanation comes readily e M*14Uc.W..D. M p,Q.M $ql to mind. were the intervenors to prevail on their appeals, the Commission might find it unnecessary to

* ;*j + p.!p. 4

,

g,l %g[t

'A.. .,. ',. ;AS pass judgment on the legal authority matter (at least at this time). on the other hand, an apphcant vie. c. ? T s * 'r g tory on its remaining attacks upon the Licensing Board's decisions could have no such efrect. such suc-Iif ' ' ;., h cess would avail the applicant nothing so long as ALAB.818 continued undisturbed. g g g p, f f ?,Ye; ;. \\

s gl&e- [*

eg n .. o, ~ U s .m,. C. - g.i 142 u$s.'0'. .+ ss .%v.,M l. 8f:

(

. %gG?.:W$.;,,,% > ..V.s , y, ; h-s % w :? ? ~ i l5 t.

. c& 1,. W., >:.. p r M p:7 y*

...,y, K9 .f b %)1 *;, .p. r, r < w. ' 7.' ,T-- yD,e .Q v.%g'W$$ k %6 . [ W *

dk. ' i 3 C..U*5.7 f5 g&*.,*$$;..y.'s X Vf,. 5 :

4 ...$5kh wh'k,m?: ? 'k hY$5l Y n.w;n.: m( :.h s ?*k$;hW &m .:.wnm:.wl ~f.'t,3 y %y* g %'

l. : -

e w g:w.- e / -n

bk k'

hk. MMM$diMW dk Uk N5 il n. a n g) % %r g @ o, w % x n, & r p r e., y# M B E N M W W = i n nyx-w v m. WMMM M ~

.. ~,- c y N- .2 . %&;y-p 4 7 ", , x r,fyy;j' ,.: 8 u .. g g y. :' ' ^>:, ~ y n.. - y - : n.., y. w> n, - u; j ? c. 4 ', T-V '.T - .l .L '. O.' } .$. D. - c ^ '.i b~*-*<-~a " /h.-- e .. L* a a '.c c.!m_

2...

W M[M; f,.. ~ (' : ' / ~ . Q.'.s'y ; h;s '. v ; ~--, %. s ., x ( y l.~ -l; - .l

, \\

.M t' ." - '. t[ ,.o

i y; V [

jf - Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forurtt for simply renew. i c '.C, . j..Q' ', ; # ing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. To be sure. NRC licensing proceedings ordmarily involve lengthy evidentiary records and present numerous complicated and detailed tachnicalissues for resolution. In recognition of that fact. J.J.., the Commission in contrast with many federa! nencies. has provided two levels of .~

.*/,* i,, i, appellate review, and appeal boards frequently examine ift some depth a wide range

,.y*.t - ? ; ** of technical and legal matters. But that does not alter the fundamental pufpose of ap-

f'.,

, N,.

i pellate review. Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on significant matters.

not every colorable claim of error. We expect advocates to cull the issucs and argu- . g ments to be pursued on appeal.H s . y.. : >g. + s / ; d A fresh examination of the content of the briet on file recon 6rms our .. '..,?. ~

. 3 r.....?>.

.h .' Jy conviction that the intervenors made little, if any, effort to select the "most promising issues for review."12 To the contrary, from all appear- ,c .,,w ances, we have been favored with an uncritical rehearsal of virtually every claim - large or small - that was advanced to and rejected by the p. ' ',-J > O '- Licensing Board below. Each claim has received our attention. But we see no reason to freight I this opinion with a cataloguing of those that lack suf6cient merit or sig-nificance (or both) to require further discussion. We thus confine our- ~- / selves to the relatively few substantial assertions of Licensing Boavi error that have been put forth by the intervenors. ,~ Before turning to those assertions, some additionalintroductory obser- ~ a.s. ,..~y m s.*O vations are in order. A nuclear power facility may not be allowed to oper-ag a.. , - + ' y .3 ate at levels above five percent of its rated power in the absence of an 3C ". ' '.,3.' y C NRC finding of reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological . ;W.m & o G,6 % emergency, adequate measures for the protection of the public health , 91 q. c C., and safety can and will be taken both on and off the facility site." The (Q@,E i, J J g.g _ 'N procedure for passing judgment on the acceptability of a facility's e n ' emergency response planning and the minimum content of such plan- .a. ning are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part b 50. .x Although the responsibility for making the ultimate reasonable assur- .G,-3f.

s

-v 'W-ance finding is entrusted to this agency, the Federal Emergency Manage-a*l. ty".f.,5 }S 5;/$yr,.id ment Agency (FEMA) plays a significant role in the appraisal of the ade-

.j t.

C -l MN quacy of ofTsite emergency preparedness. In 44 C.F.R. Part 350, R.;2,, ] :/ {. ' f ',', ;, ? > r.yp'.:. FEMA has established " policy and procedures" for its " review and ap- . n ~ yc,.s. m ' yQK proval... of State and local emergency plans and preparedness for

r. agy ; %

., h f%i h Q&fjg( W~ p*'*Q.% y,, =, ,u i..y.-. v 7< 11 AL.AB-827,23 NRC 9.11 (1986) (footnote omitted). b hf;.M' Q,., Y.* ; - i. ..; l$4 12 eeJones v. Bames 463 U.s. 745,752 53 (1983). citedm ALAB-827,23 NRC at 11 n 6. S O10 C.F.R. 50 47(a)(1). -4 q;J 14Scr Memorandum of Understandmg Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear g Regulatory Commisson. 50 Fed. Reg. 15,485 (1985). lka. .~ s. - m .J ,.C{

< T-[

, *y O e l 7 4 /y..'* ,. m ', 4.r.,. ..M. 143 w:- 0 OR g 'a [ .{ j 3, ,.~ MF .4%v m + m,w...

[

h , -hh 4.z. y y.w'e % m,g,yg: w.%w w':;<<. h.MgM m%m m a:Lggy wm,mmm s w c :'.

www o: m.

, w g ~ y !k W.. ; %. . m ;N.p pp ~, ;. a.--...p.o.,.q ..a. - a ~...- - - w._. n .~ ...c =^ w.n o m

h v? a

.-.~'gm Q ;;

- %,~..,-

}.a. - .,Q.,. x,;n/.im*,,- a nl}. n,. .M 7,.p: :s %.L -- 2 ac 3 . ge&.v.2 u;-m &aq& Q &;c'..w;r\\l Q ; 5 ) m, n.'. q,.?e ..z w : -s p&.m ),...g7l'( -

.y.,

x,

n;e > - ~- 5,:q:.Qfq,,,f,cn;ggy,,-r

m. Q.,,;y h; G:

W & .~ ;; ' ';qi:R,. Q ~. 7 y~v 5,n .g ,..g., g g-:n . s. ew.x.m v.m. _ ~,. n& c . ;s,,m 4 .r.,,. p a.., ny ww , m.,. a &,4,; v 4 o,, o ^,:. M~Q.7 --w.4 n y :,KM& wt.a.wu. .M .a.:.% 0,x.G a.s.u- - ~a~. m 1:au':L w,4aMm n ; =; +._ ...,.w.,_- hm.v.e.e q.,,. ~ ~ '. - W* + ww. iou e ?-..jj .m. .. w [ = 'Qs

y@ lQ. " y: ,s.y -

..-b m,4

, m } g y p_-y

g!Js-

',1 4 c V$[. J..ji$:F,96 coping with the offsite effects of radiological emergencies which may (~ Qgy.6 Sf(_,"'" WMMM occur at commercial nuclear facilities."" In addition, FEMA has joined +;,. p; r.* ' " - the NRC in issuing a set of guidelines for the development of radiologi-d!K '. s .1 'y/c d cal emergency response plans by the utility and concerned state and Q.&.h*: %-.pt, 9. gh; c.. I c,1 local governments.16 < Qf,gu.w 2a n,a ...y.y d M. wn m The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facility is focused

g+,b:. ;p,.X, e.g.4, M. nyl..,

p,.S j-to a large extent on assuring that prompt and effective actions can be J,q taken to protect the public from exposure to released gases or other radi- %(hjd.f@$KM,.

-i, s', s NE,

Nf%;@e m,.3 oactive material." The closest area surrounding the plant for which detailed planning efforts must be carried out is characterized as the fb... %. n3,W,,c7,.Q?p$..yy 6

" plume exposure pathway" emergency planning zone (plume EPZ).'8 e .n

'dM;f/d;W.

./4, The emergency plans must, among other things, allocate responsibility

qm -.- 7

-; W. M.. %. v for making the crucial decisions as to the necessary specific protective . m a y y+,.. ..,. r.....Wy.,M;) . ;v,q; c rneasures in that area. Additionally, arrangements must be made for the w g ; 4 e,, m %y$$' the public within the plume EPZ and the individuals who are to play -. /;c.*.ud communication of these decisions to the appropriate persons - namely, 9 y .[MO.N@hfh MMi,yM M @ g d,M g 'd /. some role in the execution of the determined protective action. Still fur-m.p.e.c/.w. n;m.v W ther, the plans must insure that the individuals who will participate in ' 2by.[hij!'t:;?p..z. v,g, nM the emergency response (1) are adequate in number; (2) are familiar W,,O.yMFR, i.%,. Wj khh.M9M with their assignments; (3) have received any training that may be re- ,eeid-/{yM; S quired; and (4) will have at their disposal any needed equipment." Final- . M i k,, [. 7 Q M Q lM%. ly, to cover the possibility that evacuation from the plume EPZ will be . MM;h.6p $ pgl%)ygyg necessary, the emergency plans must provide for the requisite transpor-Q 3 g i g W Q g; d f g@M M p 32 tation, as well as for the availability of facilities outside the zone for the !Q&@M%g y% reception, monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination and sheltering 'Mgf73 $ pf of evacuees.20 dd In reaching a decision on the emergency preparedness of an applicant, MMYMMMfMW@M g} % pf e % ; h % % 4 @ MKgg%f$p% f the Commission normally bases its conclusion on (1) a review of the MMLg% FEMA findings and determinations respecting state and local emergency d , n.s. plans, and (2) the NRC staff assessment of the applicant's onsite @g m d, ;.v.n.#,-)fp%s.., % e gg

rW emergency plans.21 In this case, however, the State of New York and

u. g y W P T; Q : g f.' g i Suffolk County have refused to participate in emergency planning for

-y e a Q MMyMhbd(hgn.M the Shoreham facility. Thus, the applicant here must be able to provide, 3 ,6 W4 *M/Waqh*.d K& rL 4 w@ e.2 A 1548 Fed. Reg. 44.332 (1983). e j e ?l "' f*M 72CvYi -Q % e,; y.; 16See NUREG 0654 (FEM A REP.1). Rev.1. " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Y @MNMNjd$h 'I%:] Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980). 4 ? QR% WQfWQM.W '114. at 10-12. $hh[S\\h@2ih( IS M f-;.(U At E -(4g* DEM 5)N 18 0 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2). Protective action planning must also be developed for the ingestion pathway 1 h h 4.q 5 EPZ (an area extending beyond the plume EPZ). where the ir sestion of contaminated water and foods v %.$5* de'~ is the pnncipal esposure. But these efforts are less extensive than those for the plume EPZ. See 1 J d%mRM MQty.g h hif3 fMhg NUREG-0654 at 64. W[?Gy4:QM. h D h W M h v-20 NUR EG.0654 at 61. 63-64. Q Q M 10 C.F R. 50.47(b). 3 hl . ' Qd'VNY 2310 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(2). W $ b, & " 9 % s-n$ / p?

p..

,3 h w - gs Wrx &. D $ $3 llYf$.>h QM[6Eh N @ M U't h'm,.yy.m@nmy.w% e n h.m$M kQQ L Y,9 144 . M.r q' h ; f%p.. r c 1 s. 48 M,;. si 4t m,,,,X 4,; < 2n ; m, <* :.< >.v ) v oi. 9 5 @D . ;.. b r .,ty. . m.&my,;q . j = fv,,-;.3 t. f:2 52; ..[&, o.Myy: 2 3 c a sg. .hs ',,, * -ej d % Q C.~. IKW, f 'Q ah [% g.I 6 't Wh4e-4 ave - _ ;,r w __._,'* V, ' B *P % t; &- @. 6t9fh%,, g % % & W # % q M R $ a $y % m a m & m s Q % y y ? %n @: m y :s q ' q E, W J:.. - ; *, %, %',Q.m My'i Q~ .. f W 3 -: ;; W Q y M M S:% y9w %$un 4 sM ig p d m$ $ m$$$e?d$ m$ $p q $ N M E M Y S W Y p $m g n.:mm g s 4 h.minxxWww p . Ab iR 5

.i.- , c,. e o >y. e .m .D, wn. w .. -. ;n. v. .s., v.... . %m...a,

w&n. u c -4,.: v.,

m 7. pg .c _ ;, a m;.. .. m,n.. s;s~.. 3.~ s n. .. a.s. ~. .g W - =w

'.,'s %'

L.1 = Q.y py.@., c.M. .,s ' f u m w.c.._.; 5.. w. .,., v. ..m;.. e.

-e y

q q ;.f..: q, g. e 9 7o s. .a ~ c :,, n.t.e y w 4, , c;m. !A V ', * ,OR AM by itself, the necessary reasonable assurance that adequate protective

ja G oiz.. '.' M %.if measures both on and off the site can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.22

+ m-3 q.; s-m ,. m. x:.... oi.. n., g, O; A. Plume EPZ Size m.m, vf-4 .z:. cy. ' ',7M 'f? ' - 2.J '.1 T 1. In 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2), the Commission stipulated that, "[glenerally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ.. shall consist of an J, y7 y:gp. '- 4 g c?- area about 10 miles . in radius." The foundation for this directive ..N! L'}k... 3.?; V ^ t 'S (which accordingly led to the establishment of a plume EPZ for Shore-e,. A M E. ham with an approximate 10-mile radius)23 is a recommendation of a 6y3g, YR,-S.'V. , W W. s om. d Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Environmental Protection Agency n ' n' p;PO.@h Task Force.24 From its review of a spectrum of possible nuclear plant ~ T'(7l. 7 7.' f W accidents, the Task Force concluded that a 10-mile radius for the plume f,.g '. y( EPZ is acceptable because, among other things, (1) projected doses "1 [$f.p.'/ i O.l. MN. / 6 -, *. ' _ [- N..?, from most accidents would not exceed Federal Protective Action Guide Q, '.,9 dose levels beyond that distance from the facility and (2) detailed plan- @M ( MU..' I $f R25 *.ZM,qdF response efTorts if this became necessary.25 Notwithstanding these gener-ning within 10 miles would provide a substantial base for expansion of 5 W. [ ' i ..z.2, ic considerations, however, section 50.47(c)(2) goes on to direct that 7'f C. s. 7 ':.%2[L the " exact size and configuration" of the plume EPZ F . '... n. N s. jf.y. J

M [,1 b ci L.Ir.. gMn h,..,

shall be deterrnined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as , 3,M W f'- -{ }yM, y4N E they are affected by such conditions as dernography, topography, land characteris-tics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. .. m. ; e. mr..a.n y w y;;ny,

w;? -

g A h: g

n ?

sv ,n i. %.y v.y M5f@5 d 5M,;;q d's;; 7 :.MGQ,,f Pointing to this direction, in July 1983 the intervenors submitted Con-y. Q -Qs n.: $ No tention 22, which asserted essentially that the proposed 10-mile plume . r.y/ m;e e. y sy EPZ surrounding Shoreham should be enlarged.26 Relying on the inter-a m -n a" ,M. r e.. r. y. J.e-[. T.1't o y" M [L @.NM@Jf T-6 O ?. ! Q venors' own Shoreham-specific accident consequence analysis, Conten-2*( ~L. tion 22.A maintained that an EPZ up to 20 miles in radius was necessary ..g$ 5, g- .+ 3; s vm - @ $[ $ in order to enable planning and preparations for protective actions in areas where doses were predicted to exceed the Federal Protective g.M.Jg.,t. w,. g Ms cv v/ &N,xm, 3@...< Action Guide levels. Contention 22.B claimed a need for emergency re- . N~. n. ,.g. 3. ,s h-G f.hbhh. .sponse planning beyond the 10-mile EPZ because of, among others, the II! $, v.c pl?,'h; .. %.., c. % - k 22 CLl-8313.17 NRC 741 (1983). .:r gy - g;M;h'9 F&h 23Cordaro er oL. rol. Tr. 8536. at 10. 2 ) f '.- 24 See NUREG-0396 (EPA $20/I.78-016) " Planning Basis ror the Development or state and Local M N if p +3. Jot-1; M " ; @.yrdkb7 @'.7 ' \\.Mh@J9;gy Trup M2

9d

' M Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants b . f MM (December 1978). at 24. [g k M *j'% 4;f N';th'M* *' Jd';,J: Q 2514. at 15-17. See aho NUREG-0654 at 12. The concept of Protective Action Guide dose levels was dm.yy 73gi-included in emergency response planning to assist in decidmg at what radiation hazard levels protecthe W.t *. actions would be initiated. NUREG-0396 at 3. vq 9hid@h< < 26 Memorandum Regarding Revised Emergency Planning Contentions Guly 26.1983) at 36-47. With ?de .f s - . R. " ' (( - ' ((,]hI 3 N:p-its preamble and rour subparts, this contention is approximately 11 pages in length. ),h h ,I. s %; A . h,. w<. . h..~ :~..Q Lqg ~ w 4 -l.% * ;%:'-

f iM M GO 4#'2 fsQqA p g ts h,( P@ $ R,1 W.

145 1 .M o ;.,.:. m..,m - e., % y,< .f L *-

?: .s; f.,.

1l t WQ., h., D. -Z.,, f ~7:.K.di.f . m. g,h_ T 7,,f, $9 W. '..;e ] cp,'j f g ;j;f r.337.e.7, ,,.~.~ 3 - .,..m y. .. ' -: )..- .,7.-.

t.." : r >. c 4

4 ~-.. ., r. Qp. r*.h:s.. ;n O X. yg p& v]' $y 9./ ;faa.u;~ %,y e 4.. &;. 7.,f,,~\\w % > ;g: y /.. &n %., ~.,,. y' :;y i -4 & .J.. ; s ~t. x ,, ~ k, s. ~ sa-z.- % :e. .:.;;, s,: y '.. -. v y -p e g = R$E}- . W Y,',:*.iA N 15,l 3l: &,.n.h y

'&Y;smg'hQ%p%MY,

44'[,< ,-l(y i. n. g$ m..f q% N D M O;yg@n. M.n;gy$ M,' = m:m.ffb m %4WAM%an.y%9 Y o/ >A .%s>.p My d;.Vgg pASMW. Mw a 4,* - w ; %;- ws g s, 4 g we W. c.w v;3 ~ -,, = 8t M M N 3. .U, NM.. .., IMP..h.h x N_ fs.M,,$$.p$.,M,ggwg/M__

1 L.,

=m 'j_(y,; G ~. .u ~' y +%;., P,.,f,'. ' Q' J., " ' o,~ . ' ;;;Q

p w'W {;"<

~ a, s+w Q.- U-3 _o ps w..~ a*-- -_ -- -~ ~ m-.. 2M ,g, .s.n m m , ~ - pf.~ -a following asserted local conditions: (1) in the summer, transients add JN substantially to the population of Eastern Long Island and many of them 2 ' :.4 [' ^ ~ are dependent upon the limited available public modes of transportation; 'u and (2) the Suffolk County road network, containing but two east-west arteries, is heavily congested at all times and is inadequate to accommo-I date the additional seasonal population. In Contention 22.C, the interve-y. -(,g b ,) nors referred to the " evacuation shadow" phenomenon - here, the .. '..,, :ej voluntary decision of persons located outside a 10-mile EPZ in the event g" b. {. - y- '] of an accident to move still farther away from the facility. According to

u. i.,. -

the intervenors, such movement would impede the evacuation of per-Q&a4-sons within a 10-mile radius of the facility to more distant points. For .,. ~ *5 this reason, the intcwenors insisted, the detailed emergency planning effort should extend beyond 10 miles. Finally, Contention 22.D pro- ' 'O,, ' posed the expansion of the EPZ to encompass certain jurisdictional r-ff. ' ' boundaries. After considering the opposition of the applicant and the staff to Con-N ~- .j tentions 22.A, B, and C, the Licensing Board denied their admission on the basis that the intervenors were challenging the portion of section .C" 50.47(c) that referred speciGcally to a 10-mile radius for the plume $ [.. C 7. *i, EPZ.27 In the Board's view, the 10-mile provision was adopted as a 'ff ".1,, - iD

'.~,~,E.-

generic rule for planning purposes in order to preclude case-by-case liti- .. g 2 gation of the size of the plume EPZ. As Contention 22 suggested the es- .g.g. 7 - -.v. - r. 2 y,o. ,,~,'v tablishment of a 20-mile EPZ, the Board also relied on a Licensing .u.s a ;.. 0-Board dec..ision in another case, rejecting a proposed contention that as-z q;4 ..e

p. --

. j, f; serted the need for a plume EPZ with a 20-mile radius based on a site-i f( ~ specific study.28 With respect to the local conditions speciGed in Conten-tion 22.B and the evacuation shadow phenomenon, in later rejecting the 'D: 7- . y,.;p ~ intervenors' challenge to its ruling the Board pointed out that those mat-ters also had been raised in other admitted contentions.:' T @M.L, Without objection, however, the Licensing Board admitted Contention i:Y Ef' %.2 : ' * ' ',' C ' 22.D, regarding jurisdictional boundaries. Following its review of the .a. evidence presented on this contention, the Board required in its April $ph. ?' ^ decision that the plume EPZ boundary be expanded to a certain extent $... A.e a.@j d$10 j d',W - W 4 and that several schools be included in the zone.20 in all other respects, ..g-3:,

m.g.,.m

. w.c- .4, qm s. K p 3. V e k ' f W 1 %f[',' 5 27 special Prehearing Conference order ( August 19.1983) at 8-12. e, p' Qg t.,. 28 Sourbers Cahfornaa Edson Co. (san onofre Nuclear Generating station. Units 2 and 3). LBP-82 39 t '.' 15 NRC 1163,1177 (1982), affd. ALAB.717.17 NRC 346 (1983), affd sub nom. Carsicas v..%RC 742 % ;'.c-r ' (:i F.2d 1546 (D C. Cir.1984), nrr. dened.10$ s Ct 2675 (1985). p 29 order Ruhng on objections to Special Preheanns Conference order (september 30.1983) at 3-4. %;.;pf%' + 4 ' N I h.' l',,7 ', l, " 30 LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 701-06. t fl f, l ' 3,'l t f.c, m 146 m A.

j. Q V._,' Y g,q ; {y y',

[,% f..;,. '= ~, !MM,M, I';gM;' c-k$? Y:E '. ~:\\ d . - r,., -( - &,;jM ' ' ~~2)( - '. J.o. t. -~~7=~*~^".n'Tr.r. 'h Q' y; yr-q

My$AS hN.D> ' 4 *.

y MMQO -)'-@ 9 - '

^

' W %N

,. r m', t, ,m m V ^. l, -&s r; Q 1 3 :Q:f m ~ y .m , p.1- : x. + . s. z n Wy.?, ,..ec . m-i Q~G.. ' '., - _. _ _._? V 1..... c !y , ;,..a G^ .] = w...,w,.m u.;_, m. 4 y .e the Board found that the boundaries of the plume EPZ were in compli- -N ance with the Commission's regulations.3'

<i, 2.

Before us, the intervenors charge that the Licensing Board both ~, mischaracterized Contention 22 and failed to apply section 50.47(c)(2) c properly. We are told that the thrust of the contention is that the appli- ~ 3 [,- b'; + fe{. $l, cant had fixed the boundaries ofits proposed plume EPZ without consid- ~ ~~ ering local conditions of the stripe explicitly listed in section > ' I. 50.47(c)(2).32 The intervenors also insist that the section allows the con-Ql[C; M. " [ '. h,_ ;,'. sideration of other local factors. L. : e i?.. _c g Turning first to Contention 22.A, we agree with the Licensing a. Board that section 50.47(c)(2) does not countenance the intervenors' M. .*..cm,.,. < w~<,.et ',. endeavor to create a plume EPZ with a radius that might extend as .., w e;. s. ~,. .; y much as 20 miles from the facility. To be sure, the section allows for ad-w justments in the boundaries of the basic 10-mile EPZ to accommodate t M >l' local conditions. But increasing the area of the EPZ fourfold would ..t scarcely be a mere adjustment. Further, as earlier noted, the 10-mile 4,. -(' ~ radius figure contained in the section is based upon the NRC-EPA Task l ' '. ',[. P j..( '^9. Force analyses covering a broad spectrum of possible accidents. As its report makes clear, the analyses were intended to remove the need for site-specific calculations, such as those on which the intervenors base their claim in Contention 22.A that the EPZ should be drastically ex- .g. panded.33 c.' In rejecting a similarly-based attempt to impose a 20-mile plume EPZ ( i 7I ' Q'., v'.u..h (j. on the San Onofre facility in California, a licensing board aptly observed ,l;l$.M Qi: that "it would make httle sense to attempt to replicate [the Task Force] e,. + studies at reactor sites around the country."34 We endorsed this result in . a ~, vj.k% ['.,. !,;.,A f. - Mo f '. ;.!?', 7C i:.f., Diablo Canyon. Confronted with California's attempt to obtain the i -.. NRC's agreement to conform its approved EPZ to the state-prescribed ., j 'y ~ zone (which, at least in one direction, had a 20-mile radius), we stated: ,,^ - -- ~ 4 '#A Although the regulations provide that the exact size and conGguration of a particular EPZ is to be determined with reference to site.specine factors, the wholesale en- , a;.,. 7 largement of the Commission-prescribed EPZs by the State cannot preclude a licens-s y :' .,,7<0;4 . h D.M:7h/%'Nk$'; ing decision based upon the requirements of the NRC regulations. As the Licensing Board concluded in considering the same type of expanded state EPZs in (San ,../4 ! 9 %. E'j [ g i j p G j

W %-l.t i m y j.fl. o

'.4 ,.* g.. Onofrel, the Commission's regulations clearly allow leeway for a mile or two in % Z h /l either direction, based on local factors. But (section 50.47].. clearly precludes a ' Q., 4 @[y$h {[Ja p[e: /. d MS'4,' a.% plume EPZ radius of, say. 20 or more miles." The same Board then correctly deter- ]EJ fd(. f .% n ;. } cp ;cy:lg>qi[Y mined that a party seeking to impose such a radical departure from the Commis-i 3 : 2 *.x ..W'.Y. : t i,W,,'\\ ;&'

g 1

. K ;. ' )..-.q-: e n. + .-9 Q 4 9 '.'3.*g ,:,;'.. q qg i 3114. at 707. y grqgeq:.%;.;-?.Q;.' r'9."'...O 32 ,,,,p,, p_g43, 33NUREG-03% at 1517,24 and ill-7 through 111-8. '"a '?.4 e y. ' 7, ; ^ 34 San Onofer. supra note 28,15 NRC at 1182 4 An. 3 g V k,,, p, "* *(W

. p -

'3e .g. s< -a, 147 . - Q 4* 3% s .s } &,.,c r -

q.

e N,y.g p,.; ; s ff' ' ~ h5hN i h h .h. N Fm.:n. w e(_ > - s _ y% ig m x-m w --n-. w,,.rv ., o. q. c _ q. ce s :gg,;y s'a:p ;v.,, :, M 9 n. n

.; - pL. '.: ):,

gM94 ~ qQ.- ..,. y:s yLyx&W '.;.n j;.: n. e. ' MQ:d&@wnNw.M,QVx% %; ::"h.; iv,:, avp , - 9 ; * :,w.: ' ;, % '. &, h.,;..y.yym.CS, h 2 c, w. V i; y L. ; n s.w ,1.: m. Mi % Q m 1 '.;l6 J.' Q. Q : ; Q Y; 6.. ] Q +:' %. y, . - 2M:;p 4%mDM.dQ +:.yqy;g%P.M M: T gy:4 gyg?M:#tj:g:yppy&G-j?mm:g m.g..pg( W M

n. % NQP' 2.H.

BRWQJ pfry w+b M:

t .w - + 3 .u

U: . ','.i o

.D i... .L.. ~ i u ~ AL ' A--- .reg -& n : .< ] p.. j ,'O, ' y , i fr f,vF ', qj + sion's prescribed EPZs should seek an exception to the rule pursuant to 10 C.F.R. z,. p,:.,, .}' 2.758.35

o..

s l,. r - ,y b. We come to a different conclusion, however, with regard to Con- ],[ J Q ".'

q. F h l

tentions 22.B and C. In sharp contrast to Contention 22.A, these conten-Nj tions do not appear to seek anything more than that to which section ' @g;%t, .Q w 50.4?(c)(2)' entitles intervenors: a determination of the " exact size 7. t,.. ,w..g and configuration" of the EPZ based upon, infer alia, local conditions.36 3 w , p, (. Thus, it cannot be said that the contentions amounted to an impermissi-ble attack upon a Commission regulation.37 y..

'O_O f 1[ E '.,b

.[> Nor is there substance to the other basis upon which Contentions g.,;%;p,m..:7,, ; ~.@.. n ~a j.a 3 22.B and C were rejected. Apparently, the Board assumed that it is not .d.. Q, ,. zw. s_ y:'l permissible to allow an intervenor to present two contentions that, al- .i M ]: E-though having different ultimate objectives, rely in whole or in part on %r./ >.4 ',,W the same alleged facts for their bases. But neither precedent nor .l. ey, 7 *.? ' \\" - ; common sense calls for any such limitaticn. To be sure, evidence need 4}e-be adduced but a single time on any allege:'. fact (e.g., traffic congestion

re 7 g.t

,i y' Ji.%, ,'.$, * - - 9, in a given area), no matter how many contentions might rest upon the purported existence of that fact. But, once the fact is established, there c. I is no good reason why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to i buttress multiple claims. ~' .I In this instance, the intervenors endeavored to invoke certain local + 4 .j conditions to support two distinct lines of argument: (1) that, as a ] ' % " % j '~ ~. .j general proposition, the applicant's emergency plan is inadequate,38 and . J,qu. c. e _l 4%,j (2) that, in any event, the boundaries of the plume EPZ must be altered. j: 9.? ~ .r ... m.t. g.,3. 3.e w.. ; '? The effect of the Board's action on the several contentions that advanced '... w..J W t.. i me 7 ,o ..,w. ,v these theses was to permit the intervenors to seek an invalidation of the .w. q.c.. : - :=7; g, ]...nm,,, ..a plan because of local conditions but not an alteration of the proposed ,a . r:, c a. at ;~ j ..I , ; y;.. 3 .t q; . A' ," iV "g. s.'i ' '? h. C: '4r? r, - ..m 35

,.;,f,.. '. ;..,

Paci/ic Gas and Elecrrr Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 1.l:uts I and 2), AL.AB.781, 20 1.. ^f,-' .r f ' .1, N RC 819. 831 (1984) (footnotes omitted). a w.,. ' M~,.. '.f@f A;. ?'.., f. f* e ?. ~,) 36 With respect to Contention 22.C, the evacuation shadow phenomenon can be considered to be a .c 4 -.. .i" i ', g, local condition within the meaning of section 50.47(c)(2) only insofar as the voluntary evacuation ofin- 'l ~ "%... <, /

> i. 11, dividuals outside the plume EPZ from areas immediately adjacent to its outer boundary might afrect the
g +

+ ,s a., evacuation of persons from the EPL

h.,

i.gph'N/, q $,

4

f i.. 4 ;. 3 4[ ^.

37 One local factor asserted by the intervenors is that the emergency response would be provided by , t,D Q.*'s ? i,M. Dg:1,0 7,'. s' l q t t.7 the utility alone, rather than a government organization. Because a utihty may have less extensive c.,

M.:WRMM

~

resources for response expansion than a government organization, we consider such a utility.alone re.

' *.+ep y (M ". 4 sponse to be a local factor that may be litigated in accordance with section 50.47(c)(2). As with any e .;7',@MM;i. ' A

.-J,,

SIQ W52C8'.'Mc ir.* ' local factor, the need for minor adjustments to the plume EPZ may be argued on the basis of a utihty. alone response, but an attempt to press for significant espansion of that EPZ would require an exception j ) kkkf[NMMki..' I,R, to the regulation. '[" g! d(.!;;f, Q j '.?r1 38E.g. Contentions 16, 23, 59, 61, 65 and 97. See LBP.8512, 21 NRC at 968-69, 972 74,1001, v. m 6:vp i 1003 04,1005 10,1027 28. e . *. v:k.. i.y \\ y 4 v.>,w ,;.;s:.g. . +.,,, T e ,;g / 7;.i d Q p J 7. @ ' %. 1 w w., cw w. .{ 148 w w.n;a.a y..' ';(Q M' N & M;p.4 G,%$YQpc, '1 i W At ;&yV r g,, j!YhOO 4, - ; r }h:a#l MM % $ e k '..

s.

~...- --... -.,y m.,~.w.w--e=~.~.-, v v m meefy*.~5yc; ' n.:- - ': m s' -~;m cGir.gu wJ y -*W-b \\ 't a @. [,{ d )Ib $k .5.N.k'N U ', s [b - 4:f' 5 hL. 67+ ?[. . Y h h I NsW [ ,e .s .i,e M.b b. b s w w =.m....m@w $Nhs E t - w.m! . w.. n e% w. w. -w;g% W pny)M m M n $ n.a m%+mw.m::;.n nm&m m':..w;*igi%. sm-hepgsp MW w n-w .~J.m G.W ?; t &Q$.%.,d%e%W,8%@,Q:$Q?C"M.M ? W.h MMMbghMNQ m.,w v.+ m < m a-m;,Mt-4p

f .._,__._s. _ u _.a.,.. . y . E.. EPZ boundaries." To repeat, inasmuch as section 50.47(c)(2) entitled V. ' the intervenors to insist that the " exact size and configuration" of the 5 EPZ be determined with local conditions in mind, it follows that the Board's error in excluding Contentions 22.B and C was prejudicial.*o / /~_ Accordingly, we are directing the Licensing Board to admit Conten-

g. i, *
' ? -

tions 22.B and C and to provide the intervenors with the opportunity to

" M'. + - supplement the existing evidence on local conditions with such further ",n l ',. (fi' ev dence (if any) as might be directly relevant to the question whether the boundaries of the proposed plume EPZ should be further adjusted. a Once the record is closed on those two contentions, the Board is to ,.,. N.... W x, ., i. V... aM make its findings and conclusions on the merits. g'*[f ye,i'k(M y : 7._ $i- ,.r B. Role Conflict w... ' "l In the event of an emergency at the Shoreham facility, hundreds ofin-dividuals may be needed to assist in providing protective actions for the . l i,, N public. More specifically, the applicant's emergency plan would be imple-i mented by the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO), which dj[$, is composed primarily (if not exclusively) of applicant employees and f' contractors, working with support organizations such as the American j Red Cross. the U.S. Department of Energy, and local ambulance compa-j nies.42 This organization acts, in part, as a substitute for Suffolk County u d,. ~, and the State of New York in performing emergency response functions. sm W.; a. In addition to the individuals who are members of LERO or its support- .e .$O. 'W. 't (Q.

[,.

ing organizations, an emergency response will involve persons who do m,.,

Q.y,./ '

,9 n - w., w.,. a },,h p t; ,s, i,; 4 ., ;T,, 'l,. /. '~; mas counsel for both the applicant ano the statT acknowledged at oral argument, any attempt by ir:ter-venors to L.rge such an alteration based @on the adduced evidence on local conditions (other than ' '~ those relied upon in Contention 22.D) woull have been opposed by reason of the rejecti.n of Conten-tions 22.B and C. App. Tr $5-56. 76-77. For proceedings in which intersenors were allowed to p.ess for adjustmer.ts to the proposed plume 40 f s,* EPZ based upon local conditions. sec. r g.. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear station. Units I and 2), ,, 'i ;., LBr.84.37,20 NRC 933. 979,988 89 (1984), a0*/. ALAB-813,22 NRC 59 (1985) (an admitted con. v

3 y.

,..., ' - J J,",1 ' D,' }M -3; tention asserted, in part, that the flow of evacuees from the then-present plume EPz through a high o 4 '. i. ' population area indicated a need for expansion); PMade@he Decrrr Co. (Limerick Generating Station,

p

',j.' Units I and 2), LBP.85-14,21 NRC 1219,1236 (1985) (an admitted contention asserted that either the . 2. - plume EPZ should be expanded to include certain areas lymg just outside the EPZ or trafnc con:rols be .. R,'if provided because traffic congestion in those areas would impede the evacuation of the plume EPZ). (An

*. ~

r4. .P., }' 4, .jp g.*- q W y' <.,, appeal is pending from the Lunerick decision, but the admisses of the contention in question is not an ' 'y j a. i n, issue.) ...]* -e p',q..,,,, 41 The Licensing Board should determine whether any additional discovery is justified.

.f. '..'n

.y*.... We w sh to reemphasize that section 50.47(c)(2) allows the consideration only of minor adjustments 6 f.r,,,L A ,,q y, h ;t, (such as a mile or two) m the plume EPZ radius. Thus. the Board should exclude any ofrered evidence '3 j'.{Jh' (- ',. '

c. ';[, :....g,',

that concerns conditions at some distance rrom the facility.

a 4 " s 42 LILCO Exh. 79 (Chapter 2). 8 [Y 1 -s* e . *V ' b.b * * *

4.. Q V #.x,

=s e *;4 .m. 3 -c.s- ~ ".W ' 149 . M.3,, < w f . J q q p w;n - n TV L's . ;. N ~ Q

;,. '.Q '

-) :, -Q. .'y v 4 .- : ( s. c.** 7.,-4 .n x. ~, 'T***~'*' -~7**

* " " yen.w tr -, 7 p.e.g

,Q******'*~""'~~5'"'

*~

UMj -,"'h*" ya& -'. '"t4 ,,. J. a n,j ; _. .w#. , w .[, . r., a e x(,., ' 6 [. -

d k.' -)

r*

. v n c. v. L

^ -?. -W' b l ( - shk& Mhy &.b5&&m.;;AN. chN$ Chm'% < a: - , y Lj - L v'. I' . 'O'W as .w m.,~q+W.n:n,re,%.;y.nm.g.;& 'wa..l

m n

u. ^a~ :w. ,,W s. ., 4.g e- ~ q y:

n; ~ m w.., x ~ c ' y.,s

[.3.- t*p;g gyp ,y ~ y, p. g.. y}92 y w !A .m . - + y

a..;

, e.. ne n y, w.1,. m.m n.. - ; x n.w.m. - ~3 s. t

a. y 7;f ; lf.j ~, ~

p. -
y
y L>.

4~y.,: n ., n ,yj ,, L.. S N ', -

.7..

- s n.>

-' ' X,.

, 3; ;lp: 2.- z' ;,1; & -a 1 52. ,; 9 o. m. m ..: _.'_ u.. ..w a : .- N, m a,. -

4. a _ _ -

e =. .-L .,; V J y.,. y' ~3 q [:3. ' j not have such an affiliation, e.g., teachers, school bus drivers, and some c health care personnel.42 " 7. o . ', ' Q" w 3 :d. -f - At the hearing below, the intervenors asserted that many individuals Cy, will experience a conflict between the discharge of their emergency .j ' duties and the fulfillment of perceived family obligations and that, as a .n. L consequence, many of them will not promptly carry out their specific re- ' #; ',, ^ ' $8.- . '.M[, ',. J. sponsibilities. Although agreeing that some role conflict will occur, in its April decision the Licensing Board concluded that a sullicient number p*,,

ggy '

N of the individuals will perform their duties in a timely fashion." J. ;d,.,y ) Before us, the intervenors challenge that conclusion. In this connec- '+ r 1 tion, they focus primarily upon two categories of individuals who will 'I f. l0.",. have some role to play in the event of an emergency: teachers and c' ~' .*.-:e school bus drivers. 'f 1. School teachers are among those individuals who are not members - a ,J1 .j 4,o of the applicant's Local Emergency Response Organization, but are N relied upon to perform essentially their usual duties in the event of a .- L ac Shoreham emergency. Were an accident to occur during school hours, . +

.f the applicant might well advise the schools in the plume EPZ to imple-

~ i - ment an early dismissal of students.45 Teachers would be relied upon for

d ' + [. < '

assistance in supervising and coordinating that dismissal. If, instead, c ...,4 sheltering in the school were called for, the teachers would be needed to i e?y. .Ci " supervise the students until the instruction to release them was received. n SulTolk County presented testimony of five school administrative 014 yp. ,~.m.7 ,w . m.(f <, ? C... cials to the effect that a significant number of teachers and administrative y$/J.b :' ,7c,,,(.j,..' personnel would abandon their duties during an emergency " In addi-7,7 %,, tion, the County attempted to present the testimony of a panel of teach-ers to the same general effect. The applicant filed a motion to strike the O p[.[, latter testimony as unreliable and irrelevant.47 The Licensing Board granted the motion. Among other things, the Board concluded that, ...:, :. O.. m,- .s,- i.Mm s r.m@.~.M7... W, +"S. 6,,, ~, : given the testimony of the school officials, the teachers' testimony was 'n#, e

c m1,fy, both. irrelevant and cumulat.ive."

S; a tn,W$$( ~. ':K', The written testimony of the school officials asserted that any protec- , t W h M.W 4 ' '.> ~,. tive action, such as early dismissal, evacuation or shelteringi would re-1.d;]3 WON F #,'.." ' quire at least a full complement of school personnel. Based on a general % & ?ly G* M W C '. ~ ' ' ' s . W ' 3..;sM.%.M.. & '.Q-1.jR ?- ' u, m.

,y 7s 3

- d 4* L . D p;g,r $,f.M =.j*g k ;. -. 43 Babb et al. rol. Tr.11,140, at 78, LILCo Exh. 79 at 5.16. .M ?- [7 % >".Y 7 h.. [ 44 LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 679- .f.Q ;.* MN,7 45 Cordaro er al., roi. Tr. 9154. Vol II at 33 35. de Petniak, rol Tr. 3087 (Direct Testimony), at 4 5: Jeffers and Rossi, rol Tr. 3087 IDirect Testimo- [- , e.- ny), Attachment I; Muto and smith, rot Tr. 3087 (Direct Testimony), at 3 4. v-4 .h 47LILCo's Motion to strike or for Discovery and Rebuttal on the Testimony on Behalf or sufrolk I: b?.- il.N [y, County Regarding Emergency Planmns Contention 25.D (November 28,1983). C =* A PV J., e c m.f f ;..'3 K* Q b. 'S 48 Tr. 790 91. MM%M;M 4 it . n m' q.;. h k kn,i.@i b/; MNh

- UK ggqc; 7. p ~ J 150 h 'k%eQggyQ*
? W@** &'f % Q."h.;W ~ &c.'*

h; ..l M.%w, ; ;v;,:, .s '. f.e ww chs&w@cw%,l:N gpyQ

d i

. *) ^ " spojot h a 4 @fk f5 6 A h jf.k.f$h f f fhff+if f S*k h. $ h f Y,;v.&,f b c m.+. & &. (n h,Y .fl ue S,m..&..., w... t._3 cM%$nWP&.N h - i m; c

w;:r,- :. .w. ..a ~ _%. w

?.*y:

it \\ ty pw

%,w:cy :

4 g,p.g.y,sug., ; g- ' s i ,y ,,v..,. .m v ~- ~ - a- - -w a - ~~: w.-.A ny ~- ,m. -lL:~4 A f 3 ':. 3 q-M.(& & ~. 9 ~ @% m2W,,:.:: 6hM TI.M.'..,h.* ! pjd@M d..h ~,tq.[g? n(s. w :n.: W-f % v. A; f. 6 %, q b:M..g, W...n,m.s:. w &.;.s;- r f g f %,..- M.3-s 'W N v w . h%h khd$'J knowl edge of teachers and their family obligations, the school officials & W$ N'q': $ '? - considered the potential for role conflict to be a serious problem in '.$@WQ.M$$f providing for pro:ective actions at schools. Similarly, the proffered tes-h)ffkk.h@hdNM.@,y.C NN.Mf 55 timony of the panel of teachers maintained that family obligations could i$[ME$i :bEIE.ZW,h N C cause many teachers to abandon their students in the event of a Shore-k h M $p g ham emergency. The teachers, however, were testifying directly from L dMOT MMMMiffe the perspective of those individuals who might experience a conflict be-T N fQ g f $ 'lfy g - tween their professional respon Bilities and family obligations. D i.a A9MM M We conclude that, in the circumstances, the Licensing Board erred in h'*h@?.';.@W;., f, N $N[h; excluding the prolTered testimony of the teachers. True, in some re-4 spects the teachers' testimony was cumulative to that of the school offi-

M@ 6A A g W,v p e h cials." But it provided perhaps a more authoritative indication of the 194p

4. wwwse A N o y.y potential for role conflict among teachers than did that of the school offi-my l

M % s N %'X % h $ % %.m MM;) dT-cials. Nevertheless, the Board's error was not prejudicial for, even con-7.%M9[::. %m.n..M.hgI$'.d[N.y sidering the additional views of the teachers, the outcome on the issue is l

4. W W not altered.

w. p Sq'bp%em m Whether the potential for teacher role conflict fatally flaws the appli-

,a r " M ;$ Y Q N QQ [ h. %..t,$q,cant's emergency response plan hinges upon whether such significant Q ff M9W job abandonment might occur as to result in an insufficient number of M y:n 9 /d' g Wr. iDj' rf.M M teachers being available to supervise early dismissal, evacuation or M.Q+H w N %9.q.W.r %,Wv. b p-sheltering activit.ies. The teachers, proffered testimony did not provide

,a. p. w. p%-;: j -

m w m,w a w m, n. g g..y. %; firm evidence on this question. While opining that some of their col-e pm. m m wn,.ej stm. w:/ leagues would likely abandon their posts,so the teachers did not discuss m%.4y%y6y$. m-y% ; the minimum number needed to allow for proper supervision of the stu-wn4 SW A,7 5 dents. For example, they did not address the possible placement of stu-W- --V 4 'y w.wep, =, .t e.a n p MepS..a.s.Q hh h}} dents in larger groups, which would reduce the complement of teachers i r w necessary for supervision.

%e*u.%.~n. 5,.

fN.j,: on teacher role conflict stood in the way of the Licensing Board's reli-xqr 33 In th.is connection, neither the included nor the excluded testimony .- m m. l ^ QG.FG?.D3 .. g 1 - <.gK:g: Th N' y.4 [?'. ...p s 'Y ance upon the testimony of the Chief of FEMA's Natural and Tech-r y % M f 6 w,n J.T, Q@pM. w (g; '. nological Hazards Division. He stated that, based on his 15 years of ex-tvm; .g,., P T ," p. g.D perience in emergency operations, "[tlhe history of disaster response has consistently shown that... teachers... more than meet [their] re-h.M:'W iclifliEENN'.., . ;? N sponsibilities when faced with emergency situations."5' This observation M.h[IhkNN@#i%.$lM ir E M M was supported by a school official who testified that, in his experience, ,:. W.:.4 4.M. $s.d C n % ($

OMM,.4 :@

while some individual teachers were affected by role conflict, teachers as M S :f W MM M,y:q' ,,- g PW,

. g.3 g L Mg(N/%%.1$;h.}'*L* *'i'M di,*..f 1,h *g #g K

'j[.9 E N ' Pi .Wgnr "The profrered testimony of the teachers discussed a survey of teachers concerning role conflict that N "T, was not part of the prefiled testimony of the school officials. This survey, however, was extensively dis-g-Q:@'M W. W 'e*,'l6,7. h % p,p% %.4_ = cussed during cross-examination of the school officials. so any error in its rejection by the Licensing x;*W eis,0 .? 4 Board was harmless. See, e.g.. Tr.3091 100. 3170-74.3190. b ngIyprp '- W Qep,y... h gW Q.'g[..,. '(.Q[f, - 50Apparently, no teacher was prepared to s:ste that he or she would rollow such a course. ,M:,.'/ .' M y g 5t McIntire fol. Tr. 2086. at 5. See LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 677. a y A c,.s ..,., 7 3 w 3 :n u l Y 0 - b @;w e ml p% p.g n.v. !. @ s u M. i H@ % 4*k.h p'ik f. '.n 8'C: 151 W vp 9: ;~ v 1 ys 7i i g;*% p?.9 't 7 Sp yTA.} Or,.y.[ 'T gb

w. s : -

>s

w>e

,e &. ~ l M.,.$ ; &. &.h.I Q~h.Y $ $ &,g kM 'M $U 'N .%g y dy. 9. ~. f h ':J.V. &. D W ll$ &. ; -.--.,!? *v T'Lr ,a m, .. _. k N.' ';N W(*M M M d'.Wc&r?)._&3 m W_% G% WO&rQ&@&&":t, .4% Ph{$'.s CA f $ )h M %.dM-& 5 k I M S M M F# M @!M M M M M $$ $

7 c :- h,g. * - s,t. ,Im-m l' ( .. yl. , <. 7, r - .. j', ,,.V' ^ - p }. r c _.ms. .( a '- .w.i 1 _ _no a. _.c a. s - + ~ - i l ,. c si-t ,'.b[, a group met their responsibilities during emergencies.52 In sum, even if .; - 6.- A some job abandonment were to occur (as the proffered testimony of the s.L panel of teachers hypothesized), the totality of the evidence put before ' ' ' '. f,,' the Board precluded a finding that the remaining teachers would be f ;['ls e 2 - unable to provide adequate supervision of students during an emergency at Shoreham."

/

r-2. Students attending schools in the plume EPZ are transported in ' Ex ;,.,1, 17* buses owned and operated by either a bus company under contract to provide such services or (in a few instances) by the school district j itself.9 In the event of an emergency at Shoreham, the applicant will b@MC, m-x tG.. cd rely on these schools to implement any early dismissal using those ~ .c;,T W t,l': C ' 7.; 7 . t, resources.55 If immediate evacuation is directed, the bus drivers will be . ~ e, l. 1 expected to take the students to the appropriate reception center.56 Y ~c. The applicant does not have any agreements with the school bus .a 4, .I companies to ensure that the bus drivers will respond during a radiologi-s j cal emergency.5' Further, a survey of school bus drivers in the Shoreham ,,,y: d EPZ indicated that significant role conflict might occur.58 While the ap- > 5 c, m plicant points to the fact that the bus companies Me required by their , ' '. ;]! contracts to have ordinarily available 10 to 15 percent more drivers than lr l are actually needed to transport the students, no evidence was presented n.t. to establish that that surplus would likely compensate for any abandon-ment caused by role conflict of tne dimensions suggested by the driver 1 survey." 1, 9 n. g l .? $2 Tr. 3185-87. +J d- ' t !. (.,.4 53An applicant witness testined that certain individuals who perform duties during a shoreham g emergency but are not members of LERo (such as teachers) will be provided information regarding the ",,,j,, 3 a worker tracking system and the special relocation center for their families. Tr. 904-06. See LILCo's Pro-3 ',, posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law en offsite Emergency Planmns (october 5,1984) at 34 i n.44, see Cordaro er al, fol. Tr. 831, at 2124. We assume that the apphcant will fulfill its commitment l to make arrangements for teachers, and other school personnel needed during a shoreham emergency, ,1 to participate in the worker tracking system and special relocation center, where they so desire. ' ',' l 54 Cordaro er al. fol. Tr. 9154. vol. II, at 6162 r 55 /d. at 33-35 only in the case of the evacuation of nursery schools will the apphcant assume transpor. I tation responsibehty. Id. at $2,83 85. "p =.. j 5614. at 51-52. In contrast to the contemplated arrangements for the evacuation of the general pubhc - [

g ' f. ' s,. /.;, 4{.~e*'***

., 1 (ser htfra pp. 157 159), the reception centers for student evacuees will most likely be schools outside ' ' N

i ', g..

?j;.. I - (,' the plume EPZ. /W 57 This matter was raised below as Contention 24.M. See LBP-85-12,21 NRC at 978. A FEM A witness

r;q 7

J'* i ,o 47 testiried that the lack of agreements to ensure the availability of school bus drivers was a deficiency in .i the emergency plan. Tr. 12,432 34. Despite the lack of agreements, however, the Licensing Board ,d* ,, J. concluded that the emergency plan provided reasonable assurance that an adequate number of school , 2,,, "'...'- '* y ' ['I Y, ".v 7 '*i + bus drisers will be available. 21 NRC at 858 59. - ' ' t M 1 - * !'~i. The apphcant's emergency plan indicates that training will be ofTered to school bus drivers but it is (. .h,'. kc '. 2.f., M I x, ',, not mandatory. LILCo Exn. EP-79 at 51-6. Applicant witnesses testified that training had not been provided to the drivers. Babb er al. fol. Tr.11,140, at 79 80. See LBP 8512,21 NRC at 753-55,859. ,.w... 'h; -'v,' L .Q, c.7,.,,,, y '.. ' 58 Cole, fol. Tr.1216, at 7. some of the surveyed drivers are bus company employees, others are in the 1 employ of a school district. Id. at 3. 'N E-(l i / - t,'.' , / r. 59 Cordaro er al, fol. Tr. 9154, vol. II, at 59. wr k..; (.4 *: %"c.gr. v. 152 M' : p ;bM... :G

f.. n M. ;.x ;.

,y :,p . d %'; r. - C. j. E ' M. W;m. : i' "x . "' -( s p h.,*.Q. , [? * .t kf s ,y. gg f I, g 5 ~.

6*'9 p.--

3 7 '-'"'h-.T'1D3-- Q- ',"s"St*TM*',*9,

K-*

F %- T m 0 g Nf*[ hf h .h h r)? N.; ,5 Y Y k. "$ ?$ l's h-lE. p . l][ a ?_ hYh E $m u. .. _ f _' 04 % c~i G & ' ^m* L.+ '.m*, H.W'r gf.y%m ' u'y. e,, y m' ~M.d g.w g &g _$ Q% d t G '_' 'sfr _M ,s yy'=.4t%R *b ' a..*

t em o 4Qm.agg }p:

<a ,q'. M v' W a, k ,A s.3 .;pJ p

i. e. -

ggf...% m 9 v;.n ' q. 3, M+,7w3L WP w 'M.x n A p. 4 W E - ? u d m v.wwp O,, h. W.. ' <& & Mc wp,%p . Q.- L-f' m-m p '- 5N- / y l W hj g@.H %4.: .. q. 3. -+

a m y i C .~...o..a,_..- u - '._,,,,,;,. i 7 1 w,' In addition to that survey, the intervenors sought to introduce tes-timony on the results of a survey of SulTolk County volunteer firemen 1 on the subject of role conflict.60 The stafT objected to its admission on the basis that it was irrelevant because (1) the emergency response plan under consideration does not rely on firemen, and (2) the survey did not include members of the fire department closest to Shoreham.*' The LiceWng Board concurred with the objection and, at the hearing, also stfuck those portions of the testimony of County witnesses Kai T. Erik-son and James H. Johnson that dealt with the results of the survey.62 We agree with the intervenors that the Board erred in excluding the h.} '. te:;timony related to the survey of volunteer firemen. While the applicant

J'

' i 1 .J the event of a Shoreham emergency, that fact alone was insuflicient to '+;' 'M. ~'. does not rely on volunteer firemen to implement protective actions in ~ deny admission of the testimony.63 In our view, the results of a survey 3 ;, f, 3 as to the potential for role conflict among firemen, if they had been part of the emergency response, would provide insight into the likely course 3 of conduct of school bus drivers." .n. C Stated in its simplest terms, if a trained professional emergency ~ worker such as a fireman would put family obligations ahead of the dis-charge of any Shoreham emergency duties that might be assigned to him or her, it is a fair inference that an individual not in such a line of en-deavor would encounter at least as great role conflict.65 It is thus un-surprising that, in the consideration of emergency planning in Zimmer, we found that surveys of volunteer life squadsmen and firemen concern-ing the role conflict they would encounter raised "a serious question as to whether bus drivers could be depended upon to carry out their re-sponsibilities in the event of an accident at that plant. We further deter-b -c N o s -, s i I 60 See Cole, fol. Tr.1216. at 1216. i 61NRC stali Motion to stnke Certam Prefiled Testimony of sutTolk County Wovember 28,1983) at '62 See Erikson and Johnson, fot Tr.1455 at 24-26. 28,30. 3.7 *, ,,.a[

b y. * ' 6 -. :. q. ',,1,'

p^

63 We do not consider t' e other basis presented by the stafr for exclusion of the testimony (i c., the n survey did not include the rire department closest to shoreham) to be any more persuasive. 4: H We do not slew the firemen survey as applicable to the members of the applicant's Local Emergency . ~, Response Organization. In contrast to the firemen, the LERo personnel have undergone considerable f..J',',

1. ;,,~ ' '

'7 training with regard to their required duties and responsibilities in the event of a radiological emergency. ,L e ,. : J.. <e; - - af. See LBP-8512. 21 NRC at 745-56. l 7 ['? 4.;; ' 5 ,g during an emergency in essentially their usual functions at their current Icration. The potential for re'.e j,, 65 some non-LERO individuals, such as teachers and health care personnel, would merely continue [ +- '.,, conihet causing job abandonment among these individuals is quite distinct from that potential for indi-W* ,p 3..'* [f N,.' ! viduals who must respond to an emergency. T hus, we do not consider the firemen survey to provide any O1*, significant information on role confhet among those non-LERo individuals. such as teachers and health care personnel, who essentially continue to perform their regular duties during a shoreham emergency. t ",,4 e ~ ~, s.. 153 9 ..y gg e' m s ---,i y 7 ,__e J.'c C Q --- - vyg-m m y 7 - - -. -v- -.y -l y't ,ev' u-s s

g., }y':;;,x.;;- { i-j,..;~:,ys. -}!ll p,q,.,[ y

%a ~ l y / . ; se-i.e f"...., l,Q. ~ u'* .y g, Q.,:(' '.ch..grysA44 ^ ' O g* A ; % - ,.L

.2

- q KgQ.pt,g'k f

;S4.e-cg... p i,s., n..

k.a 3 w p.y g l,y',..; 4. n (

.c. 7,*.f,..,y ;. vh ,. ';< 7 ,q h.f h h W52%%?$WA M W W. M @;h:QQQQQQi& Yk i k khk 5' ' k

e. b 3 .o -'p.,. 4,' y- = g u . -.... w..:.- - -.~. +.... ~.. -.. u. mined there that those surveys precluded, on the evidence of record, a (, ;, finding that the school bus drivers would respond promptly.66 On the record now before us, we similarly cannot make a finding that p.. ".9, a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform their duties if an accident occurred at Shoreham. Therefore, we are re-A,S manding this matter to the Licensing Board for further exploration. All ( M,- l parties will be free to adduce additional evidence on the issue; at mini-mum, the Licensing Board is to accept the testimony related to the U ,f./l-survey of volunteer firemen. Upon review of the evidence presented at 4*' the reopened hearing, the Licensing Board should reconsider its prior ( findings and conclusions regarding the potential for role conflict among school bus drivers.67 4 ', C. Emergency Planning for Hospitals Two hospitals, and possibly a third as well, are within the plume EPZ and, thus, must be included in the emergency response plan.68 On that score. It'e Licensing Board concluded in its April decision that it was enough that the plan listed several hospitals outside the EPZ to which 5 evacuces from those hospitals might be sent." The Board also deter- +

s mined tlit, if a need for such evacuation arose, arrangements for the 3,,

trutispo-thtion and relocation of patients could be made while the ,js g...; s - J..x emerge

y was in progress.70 Seve:UI bases were assigned for these holdings. As the Board saw it, T, y n.

there ii ittle likelihood that patients will be evacuated from the hospitals t withir. the EPZ because: (1) those hospitals are close to the edge of ~1 the EPZ: (2) the hospitals are so constructed a-; to be particularly suita. ble for the sheltering of patients in the eveat of a radiological emergency; W. v (;. and (3) substantial health risks attend upon the movement of patients '. h,j. '.. L

n-
a.

N.*2. i [. Yi** 66 Cinemnati Gas J Electne Co. (wm. IL Zimmer Nuclear Power station. Umt No.1), ALAB.727.17 .MQ. ' NRC 760,772 (1983). It is true that solunteer life squadsmen and firemen were included in the Zsmmer emergency response plans. See Zimmer. LBP-82-47,15 NRC 1538.1596-98 (1982). But that fact played

,ti

, U Qa i,;. c. no part in our determination that the surveys of those individuals were pertinent to the question of the Lp4 L,3 g,/i;," J '. ',k.y.. ,' i likely response of the bus drivers to a radiological emergency. Indeed, we did not even mention it. g g N', 67In their brief. the intervenors point to an asserted failure on the part of the Licensing Board to ad-dress the potential for role conflict among health care personnel our review of the record reveals no g, ? '- clear evidence that such personnel would abandon their duties in sufUcient numbers as to make the care j - or individuals in hospitals ard nursing / adult homes inadequate. ';.. ) / -Y l' 68 At one point in its April Jecision, the Licensmg Board stated that "ttlhere are three hospitals in the pgry ' vicinity of the plant; two just inside the EPZ boundary and one just outside it." LBP 8512,21 NRC at 829. At a later point. however, the Board referred to testimony of an applicant witness with regard to the "three hospitals in the EPZ." which the Board opined would be "among the last facilities to be evac. uated in any event." /d. at 844-45. on the remand (see utfra p.157), the Board should clarify this ,.? - matter. s 64 j,,, g39 40 f 70 /d. at 840,84 4-45. NM, - TEfr, e.;l' ~, r .Nd y:& Y l - ,s n.r M. 7(?g.p,s 154 f 3,. n. p.a y%*, y.q. .1. f 4.q.* 3 i'..' k

f&..h

r W %,(!.,

,. g w J,. J w e %,p., .---__n..m.,-. ....e % Q w __ y}_ l N, __ p ?.v ;. _m.__.___ , y ?. aj.? 4 e, x

e x -" W -

. g.s s 3.:. ~ ~Id - EjMdN M c. ,s.n U., ,i [ ' Y @ @ T.*~

h. M b-~.,.'.T

C .,.g:.,, y q r s ....g 4c. ~ Pw.,5" <i:;,%.. y,e h,.. -.- ,y_. t . s. c.,.,

&c 3,

' f '/y> 'W.a. - k j.;.., ?'. s

g-p

s . Wnl;:lit 4 .T..***,., ,: W l" N ', _,

1.-

5 'n' n. .. :O ~. x -4 .T . Q. ,.,;.,. T., ' s , l:g. r ,.. i '. WJ, '..'..p -gg ( ;. .a ~ _ l-m. - .........u. y 2 ,n ,e- ^ * * '. ', ^**"--**d**~-*-"*"**"~~D-

n--

,,'eW l. '. g, . [. 4 ? ' -" , Q

h; 9

'E's !;t',, ..,,., ; %. ;p ~ Q,F.:. i /; y , ~ .:g;.n' ' '. $ L, :c, s'a C-4 ^.... - . w. g - m. '. c. .. ^, ~m

x..,,,.

g< o 'n.ldi.y '. S. l,y W"' Q, m s . (

, r..

from one hospital to another.n With respect to the sufficiency of the ' @. 'y>7..,.,...,%. s :.... u.,.A.py,j mere listing of possible reception hospitals located outside of the EPZ, 4 3 . ID @[lMi. 'My/; {'4%;; f. : d,yy.R, :".; the Board observed that those hospitals were on notice that they might ,..'.;; m.m cu;, <. be called upon for assistance, but none of them could predict in advance .l< p,,.. . g... ' ? .,.,.-r'n .f what facilities it might be able to provide to transferred patients.n Be-3 .. ;% f, m J..g cause of these considerations - in addition to the improbability that &J Ol).,MM. ;

c 2 *, #.* ' EM,a'.M:.

agreement between the within-EPZ hospitals and potential reception M evacuation would be decreed - the Board found no need for letters of y np,... msu 7 fr g.r %pp.d. y p.p';y] Rp') hospitals.n In the case of nursing / adult homes," however, the Board took an en-j.,. 7, '. n., f...' .7 s; n., - ,n r tirely different tack. Without explicitly setting foith its rationale for dif-9-: + ferentiating between that type of facility and a hospital, the Board criti- . f.., . W. *. '....,.l ../. - cized the emergency response plan because it neither identified more ,.lsua.,.c ; "mT:,.' than a few reception centers for the residents c,f nursing / adult homes s. ,., - -.7.;., y. ",. f.m ' M. dySh;u '*.- nor indicated the existence of letters of agreement between the within-pg -.~ EPZ facilities and such centers." The Board directed that these deficien-3 ' ?.- ? cies be cured prior to full-power operation of Shoreham.76 No similar di-7 ;. rection was needed with respect to the arrangements for the transporta-4..t t., .. -tpfl '.i -fc. .,$;s. f

P/

tion of the nursing / adult home residents to facilities outside the EPZ. C '.W 3,77.,%..*. 9.,p@.. "m.j Q~ h.,~ t. v For, in contrast to the situation with the hospitals, the plan sets forth '. tg,.v n, y.,f,

7. ~n J, '
;s.

the number of vehicles required and the arrangements made for securing , w... ? c_ eso e., z../. " M,.-m.. : them in a timely fashion, should the need arise." W, M *,.. vx i .gMNi$ @n a..,.s.:'g.:.'. n:). Before us, the intervenors challenge the Licensing Board's acceptance , _h@Q,4 J. ';T M,t of the portions of the plan concerned with hospital evacuation. In their N,. j#g.s.n;* 3 }, ' :. ' . 1.C, T.j h, W.{,8.N view, the Board had no legitimate basis for treating the hospitals dif-u !! M.W,, 4 ',... MJ.. ,[ ferently from the other special. facilities for the care of the infirm and aged. We agree. j.. y ASQ v q.fi. *yg ; 1,* Assuming, without deciding, that the probability of a hospital evacua- , @ v;A9.',,,. J ..t;... tion is as low as the Licensing Board believed, it does not follow that the m E.... g o.. w... v,e e.- m m c emergency response plan need not concern itself w. h how such an evac-3*.&g, :. a.. t. s. 4.c,A m,,,,/ it m a s 1 M;$4 gW. cx :.s uat. ion would be carried out if it should be directed. To the contrary, as 1 5t g.:. n fM.. T...: M we recently observed in a related context: i$NCe/ M1r u y -t D,' .f T >,s];.; % ;g ) % ' O Q.Yyt' D f. The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on the assumption - $.*(.. QJ that a serious accident might occur and that evacuation of the EPZ might well be + ..} - . g j. -

s y;. w,e. naga..e: w i,q a

~... -,j. Yh (M* % { *

1 - 1. ] ;' l $g }*y '

{* OIM 74An " adult" home presumably is a racility ror elderly persons, M..hfV*.,,' a % g .v, 4, y 1*e" W 5 t 75 g f D 4*N @ C d,, $ g,..f i-76 fg M'[(k[Mhf Wt ^ S M /,*i. M.1 at 828 29. See aho LILCo Exhs. EP.l. Appe'ndix A at IV 175 through IV.180 and EP-79. Appen. l .m .6.. h 6m cs dix A at IV.173 through IV.178. , +;W *s,v v. AM... %f *.

M f~k

,N e 4,* t %s = % e.<.* w*.u-s g g.. 'N ...u 155 Xh%lSW..; %,4% y? ;.,T %.pl.

h '

.c ~ Q* +&Y fisO*cji.V* ' % ~.' M ~ l A W++h. W..m W -r w ' b r o tlv %.r

- - -a et r

%ndg #, e g, * *e -g'

W. &. - -

o

g 4 ltA.A.O-QS SQ

' % l. Gn.-*%i% Q e v Nm > m,,.. R. i - a n;. 7.r ;vg2 4 % # '~p n.,~.Y, W' 1 ; 7 &f ' r .7, n.,.,cs y v a x...,

g. : n.4 m d, --

%y:hN h['[@f Nh+ #:h hk d h Ny M M?.\\?*?MM."h..NNh..NE. hh. hhb h!fh_n:.hh, l $rT Nhhh I ~

a A. -.~ -. -~ ...a w : o . u _. -w. ~. a ^. w u.~. a.

+:

Y? .r .y'[ .L (,' if necess ry. .The adequacy of a given emergency plan therefore must be adjudged ~.. j with this underlying assurnption in mind. As a corollary, a possible deficiency in an u. l emergency plan cannot properly be disregarded because of the low probability that L.# .MJ action pursuant to the plan will ever be necessary.Thus, the Licensing Board majori- , % [' <U ty gave undue weight to the fact that evacuation of [a hospital within the EPZ] is ~ 'g;< - m, remote.78 .. g. ,- y. .a 4 ...<.;: ~,q We find no occasion to reconsider that general proposition here. More-l over, we are satisfied that the Commission's regulations and the guid- . ~ j ance contained in NUREG.0654 provide su0icient reason for treating . h ??' - i< hospital pati,:nts in the same manner as the residents of nursing / adult .; '. -a f b c. ". homes insofar as planning for evacuation and relocation is concerned." First of all, although 10 C.F.R. 50.47 does not itself address the L matter, NUREG-0654 dennes (at 4-2) the term "special facility" to in-y p*W clude " institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes." And there is ( not the slightest suggestion anywhere in that document that, as a class,

1f' hospital patients are not entitled to the benefits of precisely the same

~ . ~.M emergency planning as are those individuals confined to nursing / adult r homes. With respect to the necessity that the emergency response plan con- . '.1 cern itself with the transportation of hospitt.1 patients to reception hospi- .' ] tais outside of the EPZ, the regulations do come into play and counter any thesis that such transportation requires no pre-planning but can be q, t,.1 7 left to ad hoc resolution once the emergency has occurred.80 Specifically, 4 o -w. i':, '. p. in connection with its emergency plan, an operating license applicant m.' ' ' t

e., -.

1 must provide "an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for . : u.s" 'w" w taking other protective actions for various sectors and distances with.m s - '*: m m.- ..m ..4< -e.. 4,.. the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent popula- ...y. .~, .c,, - i T.7, tions."8' Such an analysis cannot be made for the hospitals without an e ' /.g ; y7 awareness of the extent of the transportation that might be required to ~' remove the patients from the EPZ, as well as an understanding of how f*, 1 .> -.a*.,

[v M.?

..-+.j .,g, l

. ~.y g-

~; 1. PWadelphu Electric Co. (Limencit Generating station. Umts I and 2). ALAB-819,22 NRC 681. 713 78 i. .E*. ' T.. (1985). renew declined. CLI.86-5. 23 NRC 125 (1986). In this connection. we cited Southern Califorma Edison Co. (san onofre Nuclear Generatmg station. Units 2 and 3). CLI.8310.17 NRC $28, 533 o (1983). rev'dinpart on other grounds. GUARD r. hRC. 753 F.2d ll44 (D C. Cir.1985L D.. 79Quite apart from the matter of regulatory requirements and guidance. as earlier noted the Licensing ~. '.4 - Board did not explain why it was drawmg a distmction between hospitals and nursmg/ adult homes. Nor + 1.. ^ is a factual basis for such a distinction readily apparent. To begin with, in common with the hospitals. if y /,,. f.

e sit or the ten nursmg/ adult homes he on the outer reaches of the EPZ. Attachment I to LILCo's Tes-f 5 1,'

timony on Contentions 24 J. N 72 C, D and 96 B (Planning for special Facihties), fot Tr. 9017. .;F = second. it is not unlikely that the evacuation of a sigmficant number of the residents or the homes , -.E. might pose a sufficient health risk to them that such a step would be avoided if at all possible. Third, the ^ -.q r [.7 if.-. '2+m Licens4ng Board has not referred to any eudence beanng upon the sheltering capabihty of the homes. s + - 80 Cf. Guard v. NRC. supra note 78. sl 10 C.F R. Part 50. Appendix E, section IV. 'W ,,.N,, 1, ,$M .a 156 c' e, - n,. =* ~ t .k %;?'g' g/* si . q? '

l, D f+Q,,.

.) 7 '. i w.,m - - _ 6 I!A? Q v t"% ? e W'6 ,*Y- ,$ e' Q)} e., \\ ^ s' mm--. .w t, # --r-----' * ^ rw.,.'~ --w w ---. - ~ > ;,, ; s .;.'y' l., p. 9 s - YNL l' 5 ".e -} ?,.; 4,, ,p; g s ,...M. ,-.!<( m. b;h, - qy

9., c F

%g

.. [n ww[y G g...x g,g:A p

Q T. e d n

. + y,,,.y y p g y '. d;Tj'n,..: $,A; @ g:p &@ g'(.' 4.,.g;sm.;y, w,,. - ys - YN.N.. ( '. c y-y.7 . [_ y ep,xj. .s g% y. y. g g ,. j - 4 R.q.ns,-g ,n a n.n g aa,. m;, Q.- y. p y.t g;y m r_w ;p .r.g; g.: w, s m e.,n r.o y ;v cw v/.w.. w w.-q:i g-

q. Q~4 c ~,

.W y 4.

t. ppm m e w, ga,.9g.pty* #aw.

g. w.c3 w p+y t u

.y. ~m .Iv

g g}..~ ~Qg~ e.g.p.r x

w. m t &, m s. %v 4: ,-

w.. .m p-

.n+n a w.p,w m q, q.: w wWg;. p.2. p., y.. e 4. y m o g ; q.s p g.

n ?~ a g.ypy.i m . 9....,n,y g43 g.gg,

Q..'

~ ^ ' 4.;,. 'i,,. gL.

c,-

w~c' .a .e yyg : : s , 7, g ., - an. w . g 'y >- ,

ig..A',

+ 5, - ) - r q o g ' y ts I A ,y: . n ;.. .? 4 e Y jy, ,.e p z.'n :.a a.L. m ..=w..... ?_y.. z, *- ,..'m,, .y m-

n f.:,,

.-.,~.>; m;. %w e!c. ].ts - ,.j and when the evacuation would be accomplished. Yet the proposal to 8RQ N 7.lQ '.g-QMD deal with transportation requirements only after the need arises supplies t h.[6 l;:.N '~ ', f 4 ' '.V - 5. no insight on either score. e,.. ' Further, NUREG-06f4 contains several criteria for the evacuation of special facilities. The criteria set forth in section II.J indicate that the . >l t..

i..

emergency planning for special facilities such as hospitals shall include: ?,5.. '. '.' X.i;o. ;, )v. ; - , &g;; h..s '.'. > /.,,, c l. . j. r.v.,M.=.,., ',t. + a

c..?.

1., '.. ' - It.J.10.d. Means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to ~ y . ? u,T,...,. -< 8.. ;,, . :..n ; -; i.; l -. such factors as mstitutional or other confinement; d . "tx. t .,..f-s + n s n..,4 -G II.J.10.l. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a g,., 4 dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the f plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. ;and

* }., c.,

-.1 n ~. [ ',.. J II.J.10.m. The bases for the choice of recommended protective actions from the . {'., '.f " plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions. This shall include .i W +'y., <i-expected local protection alTorded in residential units or other shelter for s ','.'. 'k ? ). i.' direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.s2 .,g The ad hoc evacuation does not provide a foundation for ascertaining

d. e.. e..

.c....". ,w.p.9. >.m.,- e: y @a.. evacuation time estimates in conformity with these criteria. W 5 : y, # 'l : C u p : ' 'Ji: In sum, the Licensing Board should have required the applicant to ful-g.t,T_; ?.,..e. , u,w - -p *., '. fill the same planning obligations with regard to possible hospital evacua-J r 4 yp;' 7'O. A - 4 :.' e t c. ..? tion as the Board imposed in connection with the nursing / adult homes. MUfd Y %'29.?Y(p*l We therefore remand and direct the Board to rectify this error. ' %hQ;l[ , ' 'Q ' ' l;; i '

e. %..

~ . C TL;F' '0. D. Nassau Coliseum m..,,. cD@,.. g r

g. ('. ? [. -

As earlier noted. emergency response planning must make provision a 3 d h 1 [ ' ~ ' ~ '. for the care of persons removed from the plume EPZ should circum- . ~h:,. ;,n',. q., v.. m.. 1..,. a m. stances necessitate evacuation measures. Initially, the applicant's %M"W'.g. P, C'@. emergency plan designated for this purpose five facilities located in Suf-Q M b W h. 323..::.s! Q l._7 folk County - three to serve as primary " relocation" centers and two as !j %p.. o.,. o Q Q N,.. . m m m. backup facilities. Each was to provide radiologica! monitoring snd decon-2 .g d i' f3 f;e

wf Th. Q: ,M. Q S.e '.

tamination services, as well as emergency sheltering 83 3.,7.j.Y. W N.A In their Contention 24.0, the intervenors asserted that one of the pri-M, . s e ' mary designated centers - Suffolk County Community College - was not available for use for that purpose and that, as a consequence. the W,5y 4 g),) E q p p y.y..ipf.L.< dK....' M ', occupants of a significant portion of the plume EPZ would be left with- . M.*d, J ' ' #M ' .- 4 out a place to turn to in the event evacuation became necessary. Another .s' q ' ;p ; a W. W T '..'. ;,.. a.-: ..-d..a., p,.,, e ur .m. .p

p s i'W.fce j.. e D...'c -_ '

s2NUREG-0654 at 61,63-64 (rootnote omi ted). Q4 (K. t ; f 6 ? %,f+. n.s.p;p,.oggy i *

L.

,s s) Lit.Co Exh. EP.I at 4 2.l. 4 2 3 1 %.h.,w '.w....... m,..'. i s 4 YN&h',? N $,t ? n-c - 2. 11 - - 157 -: ~ ~ ..%g}b ..,3 T D f '1** ei. (h,'g-. * .c,( ', 9 4py 1 g ^; A.'kWf Q 'gj. 'l fu lbEl: **? W h.T.x '.' &m.pg&y::y&. v.m.g..&.s,. d C

QK r,g~,s :x;mpm g+it ;,g....,:w.

~.a. m?;.. M - -w w.mcc -m p mne...., ....... x. e .x w ',: w

w,,m

t.*.

e,w v e y. ;;n... g.m g & y..p

g...

c ,a.., ,, e Q ..v .c g ~ e f. sg c . 4 m [ Q7'P. #( _ # M y [ifg'd,.;he g.y9, QLhyjd.Lnydjp..q.,gg-jg.png y . %. Q yg M;; f '. W M p

?*"',,-+ i + e ,a . Su -~ Ep:.y. u,. : .m 4 ny'/..L e '. c , :W h >a: ~ w ,.,h. s wy.ro. m. ... 'y.. :,,- .E.. .o. e. up 5 w,,

m.,./.sg.

e. 4

v..

. ~ s._ a v. pc . y. y,-, 7.s. 7.,,,. g- -, 7,, + m,, w > ( ,.y 1 w q .j.y s v.4 6.* ', w 1 n n..-. 1 . m..a e a. m;, 1,

..z...;

.s ,. c. ,<N i,I j(' ' ; A. ? r 8 f;

s g+se,o

.' w o ,.a 3,;.y. t /. pa u (.. ., a O,.. ;, v, m.m..,. ?, ...j t , t,. u .. n. 1 j.Q.e.3'.. M4* / %.ai contention (No. 74) alleged that, contrary to NUREG-0654, section ,Yk.+E..N [ ' [q$k,;.'J 3 II.J.10.h, two of the primary centers were within three miles of the t;.*y. c...: plume EPZ boundary.84 A third contention (No. 75) maintained that:

,q:,'.s -

0;,V., .'4 n. y,.

94. ',' '.',. -

,l The LILCO Plan provides no estimates of the number of evacuees who may re-

'.?: , f ' ~...,.. e quire shelter in a relocation center, and the Plan fails to demonstrate that each such Q. $/

[dr#2.MC1 ' l' facility has adequate space, toilet and shower facihties, food and food preparation ,,['.D '.E V " h * .,[k,.h -;;i areas, drinking water, sleeping accommodations and other necessary facilities. Ac. ...M,p[' [;...G* /J. '..o f dp!~ L cordingly, there is no assurance that the relocation centers designated by LILCO will be sufficient in capacity to provide necessary services for the number of evac.

cy.s.V j',.$, ',.. ?, 'f,, f..., ' (

uees that will require them. Thus, LILCO fails to comply with NUREG-0654 filIJ.10.gandJ.12. o- . ',.W. ; ' -

j. y

, ' ? w /.. ..,,_ c. / Before a hearing could be held on these allegations, however, the ap-1 n .;y.:#,% -c-f :. ' plicant revised its plan to eliminate the use of the five facilities it had . gb 'd C. ? 1 :g. '- ';L. previously designated. In addition, it made several other significant y.Y ' ' * ~ T.r-changes in the plan. Instead of all-purpose facilities, the revised plan ~y l contemplated that some facilities would be reception centers and others

?lFf,3,. ; d ' 3.: 7 '.'..;-c'i would be shelters. All evacuees from the plume EPZ would be directed C

q;J initially to a reception center for registration, monitoring, and possible ' s#iB f. M5/.9 decontamination. If necessary, an evacuee would then be transferred to f.d"Mc; ? 9 f,y,.. ~ ;.;q %m ',p%t;N S y f

u one of the shelters.35 o

, v.s.y;.,y ,3, _.;. e . i.V. 5, o. ..c...;. 2 /.3 " J.n? r By the time the hearing began on the relocation center issues in -.1 2.%,,., '..,. gM, c,.'

7

w. <

'. M %.... *.% August 1984, the applicant had designated some 50 facilities, all located [M' y 2;@T( .W p within Nassau County, as shelters.86 But there was no designated facility , g<n;. c.t ' that was to serve as a reception center. The applicant explained that m: . '. 'h '.3, q, T i.. 2.h~ ,'lW.'. N. O negotiations were still being conducted for the possible use of two facili- %"TE 7 s ties in Nassau County for such purpose. It was reluctant to name them $7(Q.,.c;((,. at that point, however, fo'r fear that outside pressures might lead to with-drawal of the facilities if their identity became known before completion 3 org.:... g ....t..f I, w*,. A y%y.,J.,, e, s.r'

./,

of negotiations." The hearing ended with the Board declaring a " void" m w n.. 2 m. .s ct, z. in the record on th. is matter.88 j?M'@;n, Jf ? 4@;i.;%d: - q:.t .cf.p. w. v Two months later, the applicant notified the Board and the parties of H.C.m?:.. the completion of negotiations for the use of the Nassau Veterans ..n. t u. @$Q[Nc. '.nM%s P. X-W M.!),M,'IQd@fM $ 9f i Memorial Coliseum, located some 33 miles from the closest boundary 1 M N of the plume EPZ, as a reception center." In the applicant's view, this ,,,D.y.y...w' development merely confirmed commitments on the applicant's part EV ,p+ nf p., :. g.g,g.p,gNJ....,weg Q,M;.,' e sm w. v i~ .,7

h. Y,,t.3

,N 84 section IIJ.10.h provides that a re ocation center must be at least five mdes, and preferably 10 .;.[, dj b3 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume EPZ. L g.m, c

2 ;, L

. ' e-t 85 Cordaro et al fol. Tr.14,707, at 15-16 and at Attachment I; see Tr. 14,781 85,14.801 02,14.809. .s. -l. . e, W Yp,.R , (, $.s 3' 86 Cordaro et al. fol. Tr.14,707, at Attachment I; Tr. 14,780,14,784. g 'JrQ'V M f. $[ %y <"' 8*' 87Tr.14,793,14,796 97. 88 Tr.14.806 07,15,713. g g, w. 3 y L %.. q Q b [., ps.wM.ak.. i b*.,e t g u g m ? :,c p .y. m s t A a .m r.,.. .m 158 q. & m,.:4a e.w u

n..

tw .4#v. >,.,.,' I ' * ". f. ~ '" "M-M E .' / .a'avy n.9. - *,.. y,.p -,.6..m ,, w g .a e i j g r a

a.., v.

5 . * ^ 4,7 e, P* I e w4. 4 $ @.$ ; W h e Q. W E M M 8 Q. @ g# g, y,;C Q. m.m.n s, g ;jiTt.S-@p @..,3g 3b - 7 ;@ [ G i.dy WN A M..,r @y gg

! G '

,'I r .= ( r LQu; A e . n :)s a:.L.. m s. 4 c:. u,: a _.:. s-L : a _.a. =..... =.::. a. ~ -W*'p;. j... 6 e .n .,d,y 5 ,d r i m.r. s p..w.

-(f. -: - l.-

y ~, -. ;, ; 4Q,'. j f,- (( a y s u.w y '&.f r.. i that were already reflected in the record and thus it could be taken into y K i Q@Q$;l.!',;' ' account without a reopening of the evidentiary record. The Licensing fg ~ .j 'j 2 ~ Board, however, disagreed and, on January 4,1985, ruled that "identifi- . J . dc. - 1' cation of the Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center is not merely a con-i, ;. % Nf firmatory item, considering the state of this record."* A week later, the L T N.' i R: p,?. -m: applicant moved to reopen tne record, subm. tmg with the mot. it. ion its ,py.g# ..W l- .f proffered evidence on the Nassau Coliseum." Over the intervenors'

,.,~

opposition based upon asserted untimeliness, the Board granted the .y motion and set a schedule for responses to the evidence submitted by t, .t

. $$ f@: 6'..

. hr. 9,, the applicant.'2 7 ;;f.C .l - ... M ,1,.. ' > Following a hearing on whether the Nassau Coliseum was " functional- , % K * # k(* ly adequate" to accommodate the number of evacuees that might be ex-h.}.f?$j,d pected to show up in the event of a radiological emergency, in its F; 3 m gc ,4 Q August decision the Licensing Board found the applicant's "overall ..h..- ~.1 . e-Ja..Jf procedures for processing evacuees at the Coliseum to be conceptually a *. ',[,,' 7.5-adequate."') Before us, the intervenors attack this finding on a variety of i. grounds. For the reasons now discussed, we conclude that some of the ' /[5 '

v 1.

The intervenors maintain that the applicant's motion to reopen . b. :._".. .W.* intervenors' claims are meritorious and others are not.

. 47e*

the record to receive evidence on the use of the Nassau Coliseum t. should have been denied as untimely I"cause it was not filed until Janu- .f,) W _. ' ~.7 ary 11,1985 - approx.autely fise month 3 after the applicant formed its ..m... M. c @ v,,y. 5 6..% mtent to i nploy the Coliseum. We disagree. , ~. ~., ? Licensing boards are vested with broad discretion in the conduct of ,.t +,. && M t,.. " the proceedings before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foun-4' %.* M,g . S., 9. Vs. Wr. dation, board determinations on such questions as the timeliness of mo-

9. r, 5!'d5.h,

%.2. [3 m?/ " a i n.wWc n. t. , m.. tions are not likely candidates for reversal. un ...,.. e ..v$s :.. ~ In concluding that the reopening motion here was timely filed, the y g..4 m 7 v.y G' - Licensing Board found that the applicant could not be certain of the .. 3.,. ? b J;$ ' k availability of the Coliseum as a reception center until final arrangements ~' ..s were completed." That did not occur until October 24,1984. A few days Z.: later, the applicant informed the Licensing Board and the parties of that , 3. g a g 7; ' W , '.y fact and ofits view that the record need not be reopened in order to take du %[%[al'GN, I'. , ll., cognizance of it." Inasmuch as it was not until January 4,1985, that the i, $:.), M.. ,w, u If v; A -> a, gv.t n % - ?' ,. \\'# *Y OhN Ny n '$ y* w C', n""a < .fhu h.W {.s. yg *'t ; 8' Letter from Kathy E.B. McCleskey to Licensing Board (october 30.1984). This and earlier develop-f 1,'.J -iJ 'W N.-. ~ ments placmg all shelters m Nassau County rendered the intervenors' Contention 74 moot. - LQ{g:.ph. ;.h "' "N.? 6 i,[y '*9 l = 90 Tr.15,739-40. '.' 4 9' ' ' ' + 9I LILCo's Metion to Reopen Record Ganuary 11, 1985). $i 2 i' f. .,p_L 92 Memorandun. and Order Granting LILCo's Motion to Reopen Record Ganuary 28.1985). p s!s -J q t e, g g. 93 LBP-85-31,22 NRC at 41719 The Board found, however, a rew correctable defects in the plan. {N '-..e 'pz -f c. g 4a'

d. l

%?jf,f,p.,' - U See mera pp.158-59. " January 28,1985 Memorandum and order at 6. O S." wg;c.. ; 8 ' 9' 3 {- c,.m > ysw.. -.*- ,-. a ti.y e r: * 'A' f,, Jj 159

3,.1

'.4 ~e94.% N, ^["~ ,- ~ yt .H 5,sy 3., +5% y? ~.w, :4 p ". * * - f *' l9 9h. %N - ;g *. .q. ,.w.. ? w -,-.-,,.-.~ -- -m., ,. ', i' ' ['( : k 't Oh ( .t; s,,. f-2 -s N '. f. har' '[hm,@y N r. w 6 f s g *. 4 ,,.'N. 'l .v., ' c.2 4 [n-li,i -< Oy .'s. -"**j N a+ _', e M, - Q;,1

_ ' >&', :x[ ':,

3

l. K W [ga)(n.'.,,

4'r ? w * . 8%*b'g. <ty1.%l ' .Yy I Q: iMi @M N f'J.l,' ' %%lQl.5% w o - }x. %x a g, ^'.yY y' L.- ,}j.cw%x.,, a, Q; ,. nae ,.w,., 9. ; g, 3 .g Mta,3 w.,^y,. !' g,r;, - f g s;r-lQ.] r.~ - y.-; -/V ; gD, g,; 4, 4, y- .~, s y g* ~ : *

,,. '. : y T

,.= + s, 9 ,s _7,,, + 1 g ~

5.l L ::ay" 3- . n;' .; ; N:y.... ,^'.&^q'a-z' . P. Ll:^

w : g::..ft x.

c M :fg'. u : .- ?/ g ,. - ;P. ,, q7.J A ', ^

f - ( $',.

a

. x.. - ~' - L. : ~ y c. .,,.c ~ c:s.m 3 J s..c L. . s. s. 2- _..-,r. , -: :xu : a z..._.a_. .a % zV.. 5: 1, 7.c p ,;7 -. u.. P

m

.n. i . 1 . w.,, /. .F.*M M', the January 11 filing of the reopening motion certainly did not involve Licensing Board made its disagreement with this view clearly known,*6 ~ an unreasonable delay." 2. Three days after the Licensing Board granted the motion to . A[2', s reopen, the intervenors requested information from the applicant, the p,, 7.# ~.-.T staff, and FEMA retaing to the applicant's proposed use of the Nassau ^ Coliseum as a reception center. The sought information pertained to the [,, arrangements made for the use of the Coliseum for reception center pur- ,y. y *. ;.. ; poses; the physical layout of the facility; and the schedule for sporting w t m... '.. N. _ci r :.. > ~ e and other events.'8 .fj;j ?c^ ~.WG.. M O g The applicant objected to the request. Following a telephone confer- -t ence, the Board upheld the objection and announced that the reopened ', ;7 1, - proceeding was an " expedited" one that did not allow for discovery." _, m f - r The intervenors' motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground m that no good cause for the requested discovery had been shown "at this ,4 late stage of the proceeding."i" W. In challenging that ruling, the intervenors stress that it improperly re-q' (, J (. J quired them to present direct testimony and to prepare for cross-examination on the applicant's proposed use of the Coliseum without J

g the benefit of any discovery. We agree.

e Although some aspects of the reception center issue had been litigated . t. -( earlier, the proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum did not surface until +. . y *.. after the record was closed. Once the Coliseum's identity became

.,., t i..'

a m. -.. jib] known, as a matter of simple fairness the intervenors were entitled to be 'l ; - ,,.~cg . M> accorded the opportunity to discover any information that might bear } q. g s. upon the suitability of that facility for the applicant's intended use. gy,n % 4...h -+ 't '. p } - '.'(Q . ( ; (thi '. 35 (,, .)'..Q., '[^ 96 Tr.15.739-40. , ' 3'. * " Nor do we find merit in the intervenors' charge that the Licensing Board applied a double standard ~. \\ in passing upon timeliness questions. The assigned basis for that charge is the Licensing Board's treat. .' W '. 5 .9 ment of the intervenors' pnor motion seeking the admission of new contenuons dealing with certain . -, e,' f. issues assertedly presented by a sinke by applicant's employees. That motion, riled 27 days after the 'r'- ~ .,f

- d strike occurred. had been denied as untimely. The intervenors have not established a simitanty of rete.

f , ' C,,, $p.YM,; hfM ", d *.iY,L % N vant factors in the two situations. It is also noteworthy that. at oral argument. their counsel explicitly dis. 't claimed any suggestion that the Licensing Board was biased against her clients. App. Tr.15. , w'f'q-f 'g ' ". lid ; i...,

' *f No more substantial is the intervenors' complaint that. in granting the reopening motion, the Licens.

/. M ; }..,'p ing Board unfairly gave the applicant a fourth attempt at establishing the viability of the evacuation por- . J. c.Ia s.p N QT 1 ' ' ' f y 3 tion of its emergency response plan. See ConsoWared Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Unit No. yf j t 4 '. p'(.W.i i M fcCR.g. ? y Nf,, 3 ; g.M; / 2). CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983).

&*: dE li i j k

.;i: ' QC ; 98 See letters appended to LILCo's opposition to Suffolk County Discovery Requests Concerning Use J h.k(('aj "3:M h,f ,' I '.D. Board Ruling (February I.1985). of Nassau Cohseum as a Reception Center. Motion for Protective order and Request for Expedited s'gyg -t MM.A T 4 .,. y "Tr.15.803. This bench ruling was memorialized that same day by the Board's February 5.1985 M %'ks*.-a #:%' l-L ruling on LILCo's Motion for a Protective order (unpublished). Q, c.i aO.p: im Memorandum and order (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration of Board's February 5.1985. Pro-g M.M P. tective order) (unpublished) (February 12,1085) at 5. The Board pointed to the provision in 10 C.F.R. .a C ? s s.-- C;a 4 2.740(b)(l) to the effect that "no discovery shall be had after the beginning of the prehearing confer. .j..L, ,j cf ence held pursuant to { 2.752 etcept upon leave of the presiding officer upon good cause shown.' R(. QLA M'

:, m o. J' h&

$Y.y; [ ~ 160 ,.Q

J;$@l4g m

m..39. g , g..p$m%. x ,. y> .c n + o * "[ q, f i ~ .M kI-Y .~& a e

, 4 9 LM.;.:. ..x.. ....ea-o a w.- a- ..h, w -. e Moreover, although there may have been a need for an expeditious hear-ing as declared by the Board, there was no indication that the requested discovery would cause a delay in the hearing schedule established by the Board.~In the circumstances, good cause plainly existed for permitting j, : <, ', 'l: discovery and, thus, the Licensing Board abused its discretion in not so finding. ]' '. * ~. ' - Robinson on the use of the Coliseum as a reception center, the staff 3. In response to the affidavit of the applicant's witness Elaine D. ~ ~ ' (jointly with FEMA) and the intervenors submitted the proposed tes-d,g timony of their respective witnesses. Upon considering the proposed tes- .,i,,. R., '.. timony of all the parties, the Board declared- ' g;t -#. 'q. .me v?s, ~; [Aln oral hearing is needed to resolve the contested issue in Contention 24.0 as to . ~ whether the designated relocation center, the Coliseum, is itself functionally ade-quate to serve as a relocation center for the anticipated general evacuees. The number of general evacuees that car: be expected to use a relocaticn center has al. ready been litigated and that subject will not be reheard. The Board will only consid.

~

cr evidence that goes primarily and directly to the question of w hether the Coliseum I is adequate for use as a relocation center. Col'ateral matters will not be heard.Mi d. The Board went on to accept the proposed testimony of the four staff witnesses (FEMA officials). It rejected, however, all or substantially all of the proposed testimony of the intervenors'seven witnesses as either relating to issues that had already been litigated or as not relevant on the W issue in the reopened proceeding.m2 // Except with respect to the testimony of Mr. Campo, which dealt en-9,,. T, .,'.,. ~ tirely with the subject of sheltering, we conclude that the Licensing i Board erred in its rulings cn the intervenors' proffered testimony. The 7 .o r, error stemmed from the Board's unjustiGably narrow interpretation of TI:. V - ~ N the issut to be heard at the reopened hearing: whether the Nassau "n* Coliseum "is itself functionally adequate to serve as a relocation center .', [ * ' for the anticipated generai evacuees."m3 The Licensing Board construed k'y,c', the question as relating only to the capability of the Coliseum's physical facilities to allow successful conduct of the necessary monitoring and ,w..; .q/,*m.',- decontamination of evacuees who arrive there. It d d not deem it to in-clude, as well, consideration of either the Coliseum's accessibility to p :.. f, NT.kk,-,.,S[ evacuees from and around the plume EPZ, or other factors that could M.%' { -,. k. c likewise affect its utility as a reception center. But, manifestly, a recep-fgg j /4 v. J tion center that is beyond the reach of the persons it is set up to serve , gg ?'y

'q,

.o ,se. g.-,t t).'* M Mernorandum and Order (Reopemng of the Record) (unpublished) (May 6.1985) at 4. i

g.

qy y 7-io; /J. at 5 7. These witnesses were: Leon Campo, Dr. James H. Johnson. Jr., Dr. Edward P. Radford. .h. ( ' <.* j I *.M ( Yq Richard Roberts. Charles E. Kilduff, Langdon Marsh. and Sara *. J. Meyland. 103/J. at 4. a.g 3 R., y e 1$ k ( =

y. y.

'eg., ,a Jf

s; ;.

/* Jy :>: e s w. w l 7 S*h,Y *, .[ \\ e- : yg 4- ",_ ' t it __

ene

'. u f,. f % -, i_ j"f m[~y ', ' A; %fs ,,.,,..,.-.,r' .,-gg-,------- ---..m ~7(p t s ,-@4 6 s.v..S ' , y A m 1** e*

e

.A, ? %n.- " ryh '. j u. ~'.': '. S ',' 2 ..'ke , - 'g - P.c.Cd s' 4: ,'?' N i.s a-; ,~. , N s p.p. , q.-l -.' _ '- . ?.W +f,6l a f. mM. . e./ J..;.Q f. );j if N; %, ' ' f,c.;' gj,yb a %,4 @:.[ ~ s Q*. ;Q L l: ,. Q. n f 2:. f e%f:~~ W, f.+ r + T @f,; t . W;.. y y ', u v' 9,m.y% ? e.C.& yl.;.~. :d nn: 4; h: . v.. a- ~ e . m. b,y., _ ?,/ t*p* '. *.p#h}

y [.? 7 4.y.. ;

~ v.Mo.i _ - t,.. .y ..,c y. + ' v. V; 4* ,!.6 s. 4,.

$; ps -

,7 L. Y J:

.M0*

.( ef! y e ( ' ) c ; ',. S, '. c,. :

o y.

q.s as. _. ;g.

%g g J /. >. g s, y-ev ^'.(; Q :e .,r.. 'O N. 2 e \\ % ; 4 ", " g;.w u "y c/ Q '

(
N.s. :

.,-' cA' 't e

q,b, '?'

4, t 4 n

%h : Js.. s s . t. p .q. ,s s

m,&,. m.,. v. t, 3

,,1 gggc;c. g g:.;y, ' ~ l ..a l vm x MNr : Qff.Sx,.D, ._w ' .* a *- -w-.... h fly Q : Q ;; m - , d..m.. w. .w m' m.. _~ ^1. M %.Q ',. W ~y ?.Q; c k - (, n'- %'? " h m m;y 44 &:.WiqG%*Q @f&& ~.?. , X+&M..$.hy%y :4-)a.. cannot fulfill its intended purpose, no matter how well the facility might X vmy- %% , _.4 w; >;w g ;w%.. S,. p. .. J.. %, t .s a.3 .v

w%... p ;, N...pa: w,, s ;

M~o@w@N; W%m;po.c.~.L,y.,g'.t.]. be designed and equipped. v. b, u ..w.p g 6th / f4 In short, especially given the concerns expressed by the intervenors M O ii @ti M U d @g Q. e t - +. a from the very outset,'M the Board should have taken the issue before it QM$g@yd9.%l@@SM'7 to be whether there were any factors - including the location of the hM ' r %ca.m%we-e.QW@h@G[-3,. s Coliseum relative to the various portiens of the EPZ - that might make d pheQ that fac.lity unsuitable to serve as the sole reception center for EPZ evac-W'.W i N hR @.M '. W W@.

MMP

'P MY lW Q uees. On remand, the Board is to revisit the Coliseum issue in the con- [ h g Z $. h. Q [h k k,. $0.h$$ text of that broader scope. And, in doing so, it is to admit the previously. aMhMS S' rejected testimony of all of the witnesses for the intervenors other than @$mQs?Y. m~.N~ ~MW.t?g+s,${ Mg that of Mr. Campo (whose testimony, once again, did not deal with the Coliseum but, rather, with already fully litigated issues concerned with % Q'qMN.*s y%rw am~rog%. M.2.6 w w - designated shelters).'" Moreover, the Board is to provide the interve- .&. M Un-c wry d l

.3.w.p. q,sq pwgip h.

nors with the opportunity for discovery that was improperly denied to W

.,s 4

ihem and is to allow the introduction by any party of such additional evi-d{ E U M d, O $ 3 Q M yi %g qd)u ~gMS.Mhzdhe @k Q dence as may be germane to the Coliseum issue as delineated above. , b g,p ym p.. p s O "g.ay r.s. uMAmtQ

.A.

+ w Wh. iW@p.wi. For the foregoing reasons, on those issues raised by the. tervenors, 4 r ...r in ? M.* M gi W M.fS M Q @ appeals, the Licensing Board's April 17 and August 26,1985 partial ini. 43; y . T/FM;.M N6h?hd@Mbk..h tial decisions are a/Jirmed in part and remanded in part for further pro-MO.if gpf ceedings in conformity with this decision.'" Given this result, the Com- . d M@% # h M / M ; * @f M lAN?n$ t^t f mission may wish to consider whether it should proceed now with its f!We .,.a y *W g GM,Q gyV c qQm;Q,,w-&;.,..;):pe a. 4 Although the relocation center contentions were cast in terms of the lack of agreement evidencing d' A'M,w.k. i. m 'e, p,.3Mh permission for use of designated facilities as relocation centers. the intervenors' essential concern was g.,- whether those facilities were adequate to fumil their purpose ir actually called upon to do so. This intent T.h,n W *$g[IMiy'MM., f.VM., kD. -%.p is manifest, for example, in Contention 24.0. It states in part: J. 4

, LVQ V.$g 9

Ag,MMy ' 7 1,2 y N' i M4 suffolk County Community College is an entity of the sufTolk County Government. LILCo has 5 no agreement with sulTolk County to use suffolk County Community College as a relocation sd ' N.1. y. J [MM.. %, center.... Therefore, there is no relocation center designated for a signMcant portion of the an-J' ..I..yc,Z..v { g[g ry f,,.. ticipated esacues. Thus, the proposed evacuation of rones A.E. H-J cannot and will not 1e a m;$'. . T.N *f. J, '. a implemented. ea y ,g ,. ~ % 'J h s[.,,[..;,. S. a e s;.I *1 1_* The same thought is inherent in Contention 75, which asserts that "there is no assurance that the reloca-o ( %,s [*; y a Yr tion centers designated by LILCo will be sufncient in capacity to provide necessary services for the % ;lQ C *p. @ h W % *)f M,. M ,f number of evacuees that will require them." See supra p.158.

y L..

'M The testimony of Messrs. Roberts and Kildult is concerned with transportation and traffic problems Mc iYk.gi % _T W.d.-fr OM f. s'i./

Q M, Q J pI V (s - f this is relevant to the question of the accessrbility of the Coliseum to evacuees. Dr. Johnson's testimony
/o t that might develop as a resuM of the Coliseum's location and its distance from the plume EPZ. Clearly.

',' C. Q. ib 7 " 6 'f y r.. %y' 3 p n Q,. e r.Jli deals with the evacuation shadow phenomenon. See supra p.146. While that matter has already been ca- .@a Wt 4 D tensively litigated, it was not done in the context of the Coliseum and any problems its location vis.d-ws .d 3.*';.7.',*Q-yg ',h ; the shoreham facility might create. Mr. Marsh's testimony addresses whether the proposed use of the ./Q if C% W,Mh "j-lNJ$7f.'A%,, *[/SM, L.k.)pi, f*7 N;' center purposes and is, therefore, televant. Ms. Meyland's testimony deals with possible health and k M M N. Y Coliseum is precluded by state law. This question goes to the availability of the Coiiseum for rece;nion M g.A i.N N b *. >CQ /* $4'. Wi *.lvf Jy> A, safety problems that use of the Coliseum for reception center purposes might cause to the area water ,a%. 4 g? I h' 4 a y @ W c M.J g in y p . *4'W' nifvkt y supply. This testimony focuses upon the auitability of the Coliseum as a reception center and is clearly r!.. rf K.MQv; N. relevant. Dr. Radford's testimony is conce:ned with the matter of exposure to radiation and any addi-S A.h,0, ED ( NM [ T ',,{ t. C tional problem that the Coliseurr's distance riom the EPZ may cause. This testimony likewise is relevant <bd to the question whether the Coliseum is suitable to serve as a reception center. , W.% y >

g. r

.i NlM M, f d is[.4, " ;(. Q s 3%As indicated in Part 1. the appeals themsches are dismissed. .-.& & y.b* f %'fD.lR, y %s Mry c%%M 3%y u. y : . pm U;r;?. Q.Wg " W. ' Q~g -\\ b v &J R 9 ir 2 f w w " m c 162 W@WSpf y$y v.,, Y o...,0V 3.h. u go ;. t . s a n, 4 /'$se.Q E8' .% I ..-* m M P WMV-6-WN.t

v,;f W: e'c f.w

. cy m.e w -

-o>r e s: e.

,s ; -

- -.. -.. - ~. - ~ - - - - - - - - " - ~. - ' . v. u- [ t x i.. g,.,. + s ,1 2 '.e ,../ /f., F., . x 3.. n' review of ALAB-818. Should it decide to do so, it might further con-MO E. D e 4, 4 clude that the proceedings on the remand should be held in abeyance to , ' y ;. @~ > '. await the outcome of the ALAB-818 review. Accordingly, the Licensing '~ 1. ' ( ;i.. J Board shall take no action in furtherance of the remand unless and until j' 4 [.,l7 4'. g. so instructed by the Commission. '4.-l n Review of the still pending issues raised by the applicant's appeals from the April and August partial initial decisions will continue to be id

o. f.. e. -.'

deferred to await either (1) completion of Commission review of - ~ i g,.. - l ALAB-818, or (2) further Commission instructions to this Board. S7? J lt is so ORDERED. , '.F; " " y.,%,. ( ~ n,..a. '. e O.@. FOR THE APPEAL BOARD f 7.R. a. I",.'c,#'.. '. i' mn., - lb I . m i...., ' g . ' - g.., P,,,.y,.h,..- C. Jean Shoemaker s -. ~. e-Secretary to the D'^P-- '^ Appeal Board .U - '-I.C... e. 5 ^ c y. , ~,

q.'

h. Y 4 e S 8 ^ b. b e

2 i

p ,,.. 3.s e o w p. 9,.. 4 e.e f,,,, r f 6 r.-,,, * ,-t's.. ' { L *. ' {. %

~

i

t. s* ~,. ! :.c ', R.:

n.- .,1 w...., <.ot. a, c..M.,s ![.k,h.. * [ 4. 1[

- Pe (*

.,p. e

1 f * *4,, - f. - pI/.

0 T *as -...;. * %., .[ - ..4 ?.J u.- 1, t"~' e 's -)7 f b',$< i e..';; ;.:,. .t_.m2 -. ~,. st'

' *6 t......

4 ~;.%'. p;4 r* .l .,. - [- a .n .,v ' Y L '^ l dj.* . e. ~ ( ?, .n, .,54 ag' [ a pr,.., J t [p. % g, g - + (W}' s P.'.Ne rWp ' ep + d g . e. i.,g j '

w. W. s b-4. W. y s d,,..

.,. *. 4?. < ',., t U,,4 , e..,.,i.. 4= g. l(.,, -I k[l I,,,',4 V jJ >=..e,-. J

',***['.8
O 'W*

Iv.: y.. y, ; z;su v .'. m;, #q .0-h } a.',.., -,'* q 4 ,9

i, i g<-

.&u 6 ~ ; <.- 6..-.J ,,tm ' 7- ,5 '-m i e. 1. 5 r r,. k' s j ';,K,. =.,3 i ' fc ps.y 7,g,5,' g,,'

Oj

.k .- ' l, '=

s t. +;..r '.,~^ * \\; &.: L.

- @r ~ * * ^ 1<.. ~.* +s; ,4 's* ,P.?.p._.,,,- g,6, g '(' e, '8 l.,c,,.c.q%l'.a.i- ^ '} .3..<.,, .*l ',...A.,..,i, .y, [ pgep,,, ;%* [Y 9 7'f ' " .e . u :- .,,r 4, e. "W t t.;,W. ;,i.$y;.;i rg 19' ^* . h I's u }Q ' E.w. g" A. w y s.

,: ,. fy;,.y

./< f,., -# p;.,*p g;? ); 4,a. . ' F,.,, u... r., e,. .a ,. *.,n. swm..

m. 4,,.

.~ ,'I9 . 3 y. e' . Y a. s-1 .y. -n m.- -~~-. m L.? j n.;% ~^ . D &. 1 : y,a.x >. + - >.~ r- ,v Y sfI W i @

E,.

. -. g m W,,; g+

s. ?. 6g.

',^

< ' 4',p

4- ... c - , '..: CO. s.',. ,y sj ><

3. /. (G l. ' fl?;

c4 "J t p. m ,5'

l. ' h...

' h w.w;;hh f!h. a-i

r...

.: @a y

'i 'f, %y: . 6 -..

..w.[hf@,y,i-$f.,.QT*QQ w. c %~}.w$tqv&v'. Q:. l.F,[ FC=%p'e: E,. .c. n.,n.y:f,^.J. ,.S W R ', Q... -n w. ,a.w; uw a m;xy . wq~py,.g. w, m.,

....,. <..a l' } m... "p ..._m. ~ ~.., v.-,;A., 4 5$',.y. \\ e i .-r ':..t... Atomic Safety and L.icensing we. .:.?. Boards issuances ,... m. . c,.n;&'l t >c :':es. 'qf^ s

1, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4

m j B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman 7 j Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) a Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) = 4 h ~ y;; es-w% ri. Members lp Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little ,J Charks Bechhoefer* Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' .'4 f', Peter B. Bloch* Herbert Grossman* Dr. Kennth A. McCollom Lawrence Brenner* Dr. Cadet H. Hand. Jr. Morton B. Margulies* ,s Glenn O. Bright

Jerry Harbour
Gary L. Milhollin c

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter

Emest E. Hill Dr. Peter A. Morris
s o

, ',; f Hugh K. Clerk Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oscar H. Paris

i Dr. Richard F. Cole
Helen F. Hoyt*

Dr. Paul W. Purdom I Dr. Frederick R. Cowan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith' Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley* Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Khne* Dr. Quentin J. Stober 5 Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb 111 Seymour Wenner T,,...,* John H Frye lil* Gustave A. Lir'enberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe* .M

2, m,, ~.y.

A* c ::. .+. ~. .nt; &, jp.y s.;,

QQ'f. l...

,',- ~ .v m,s,.. :.. ,9 7,., .q. ~..qq,. 3- . v, e_.s.. ; st.. c - .3..

..e.-

$,*). j s e g '.(='

o.. ] +.

.',t~a .y.:. s.3 7., , p %.y s ', A c, v kN.l.?.,' ' Permanent panel members .c ,Is.# . e. i3 ',4 ,4 . % ; ?:, _ Jc ir$L. ,y 4,..i < = ^ % c:w u . p. ;>t,. g: ' 's., ,f+. ' l'.' ?..

M

.q v, .~ f,; 3; rw ~ ~=. -. m..y ye~ ,~=--*y*- . ' ~ Y.q' ^***j"**;~ ';} 31711'. l% e- . > Q.n. .~. _. y p

1

-. >,.

)

x +::. Q;... ;, ',.. ~,, mm

4J.74.1 ;.

w: m:.r-:.s.s :). s. .; :. 'q* ,a,; ,. Q y.* d g V - ,-;. y. - r. ,j. 4

a y m. m u

.;q,. , <,,y. . r gi.u --.. 6.,a

w.,. -

' s,r. "$;c,*g))*w,..,,e mA.:J C p>.'p).t. #wc

hw;m..:.g:6.::,:, :.

n .:W L.s,cy. % f.i m ;, ;,' p q..

- a. w M..,.p

, e;, w\\.g x, e y .c.. =Ay

c n.~, ~,.. '^.,. ~a.>,

. n... ) W... y. ps : + s.

- - i

=.~:*::%...:.. w. y :ts , w ,a.. .+ '. o ;.hr e,%Qy p :s t,. % *s.,.{,,,*- g,.,.~., s,., j,% 4.t. . ' Q y Q[. %.1h,....

_ t
y' r

',y: <1 -s: ., s; uw a 4

}*; *.,

= ,v. n, - - u c.%.t ? %.+ 0,v ,' i 'f ~+ e,. 9 3 :;.m ',@,. l ' ?.y ** ?.Q l* -h E. pc."; g; ? ;;f.,g y, ho,.; y 5. N,c.<.t.-?e:lf, y y :*.. 's '\\'

' M n

n - : g s...y:4. :t,'m, ):.e, :;M W;;<!,;,t;9;p g? ? ': - +. -, g h N,4: y.,.py. .p y p,n. ? * - ..z..... 8 ~ z .m g,7;y;3,. = - ;4 v' , y. y ~ 7:., %.: 7 ..,,s. s -.n i3 ,,..i s

A i ~ - ~ * ~. . n

- - - ' ' ~ - - -

s.1: ,

-- [4 ..+~ i .i..m-.. y_ ;_ c, .. ~. 'r

r

~" b.- . 1. w* r ~ LBP 88-SA 'V. - .; g, _... -^ Cite as 23 NRC 165 (1986) ['.y ,9 ,. s. r ..if , ~,, t,

- 1a~*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k.fc. _. 6.,.9, .#... 4- ,7 J, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .e ~, v'"., ~ W- ' f.,w., .+ r.. .e.. v w E, % e."**4 .,.*M. I

! a,.-

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .c .e p o, -f .g ; f,,.,* * .s ~., ', ~ w.x;t :. - ~. - c".: l ',t ",

7. 9.,;;:

e' ..v....... Before Administrative Judges: A ...,...~; mm3.%e k,$m,*,5 9 h.,: - l M, y*M',s! ". '#. g.

w: . 7 J

-t v i; - tvan W. Smith, Chairman

; q, ? - y~.

- o p y; y*. 5 P n.l. % x., ',' Richard F. Cole a F*% u m*n.s ] Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. y '. S. .s p, n., (v.. u.7 p, : , '. x"3 s, e r. s c . k,. <. .~ D'?m;.?.3 '.Tr,, e. s Docket No. 50 352-OLA f ~::fr.'W u'. -, ::m. ', in the Matter of (ASLBP No. 86-522 02-LA) P(h v-m .h (Check Valve) ~ s 8 -f ,ME.if'MW ._..a...- ' # '.? e .n sA. p ~4.u PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMP ANY py yrR. '4~ '.(, t f.,, 3.:' (Limerick Generating Station, March 13,1986 W.Wg. ~- a %e g# %w ~ '"m Unit il Vg h,a. e&m%$ ,.'c b '. < a t2i)Q ..E,.:. __ - v - MdM e. / M'i,%c,3 ~ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RUI.ING ON W%.a%, a..v..e3 ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVENm. k e W.d!- 'p-.' t TO INTERVENE L.W ;2a 5. i

p. >...:, t

'?,c:> 1-e'. 4. M HACKGROUND e.. f. .,, w.s!,s & ,.. A+m. n.. E. ' '. L This proceeding involves an amendment to the operating license for l. y s,

3. i Wr.y i,.

- w.. 7, g: $ s ', the Limerick Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in Montgomery f..- Q* d o.. ,'2/M'g:~ if. -- County, Pennsylvania. The Licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, ap-The C r '.f, N plied for the amendment on December @O @ ?* h 9.' y, a, 18, 1985. V*- .':yfNf tially determined that the requested amendment would be a "no signifi- [R '.T,'. .,5:[. .k cant hazards consideration un<ler 6189a(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy ./M j VFD[fd@@> "4. Act (as amended in 1983 by the "Sholly Amendment"). That section b ','., e. d% N .Mq.f,, y, g' rs .7 provides that, upon an initial determination by the Commission that an 'yg L. amendment to an operating license involves no signincant hazards, that f,. e,';bM;M. .4 2'. 7* a. .M 1.N.,%.., %, i - '.4,, h 4.'.... - 4 +- p. [;4,;. * * ' ',. *

w...,. ~- m,..

W n.o/, . ~, .u. su..o. y.,. t-165 yne. 0 %..,. ' my :'f,. . s

. ' (.h 3

% @n.2, :.; A,. - ? m-w~~m' v=,- n-~,. -f..?,x,9 ! ' ; ~n. .h [ .u q '.,7* :*y.)4 c, w--.-~~ -c ~~ p e~ g; * ~ ~~. ~ w[ P -F ~~-~-~-m~ jt ;. ;

. t W G,.'; n,

.y y%,4 4'1. ; W. t >;.,, c w 74';';;Y '.N,??$%:,2 E l Nk.'g.;); ,.-?. I ls.? K., .Q

T

^* - i.'? :, a4%.u2 ww,h c?;;,,.; flY:;q:.;$y;.% ..a 'L, f n, &%,.'OT, Q.:i M Tyi%c f,Y W. U'v*: 6' n ^ ,4 djV W . 'n %. t -[.e4.iY l'..f4' 4,' t i f

<% @ y %: $ y wl.

Y&, W ~ ', .;d i-y,'f %.3 p. 7.h.,g #v Q Ql% s,.3.<rf ;mf, S Q U ' % a vl W;l. W. e %..w z ...n ,..., m ;; O: Q Wca f U4 % /

u. w;

' + en..; &g *i ;_ ; Lyt,p:g s. c M n-; gW - m,. ,. g.g _ ' *

qv.

- y., .Na..e. -- m q,g, o.g._a;..g.4 ty -... c .c..,;;. e-m't ;r.s. r,;,W,.w. a ;.;m.1..', a...g;N.%;.gwe% c. :.,gm y -a ;. w,y,.,p .u1 T :. g M.,r*. WR gep

~ u, e, s. ; - , w... m , y. m n. ey y M ,,3., m st

s

.. ~ r.'. ja; m.; -m.. _. .m_m. _. u.. _ < 7 l.&

i

- 9; .c. ,s, w .4 amendment may be immediately effective in advance of the holding and s.. fp' completion of any hearing required under the Act. ,y'A-On December 26, 1985, the Commission published in the Federal Register the notice of " Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to / Facility Operating License and Proposed No Signincant Hazards Consid- /,e eration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" on the proposed ..5...- ~ e ;- amendment. 50 Fed. Reg. 52,874. The notice explained briefly the . '[;' technical details of the proposed amendment, explained the "no signifi- , y , g&.. ' cant hazards consideration" and the hearing and intervention procedures the Commission intended to follow. Any petitions for leave to intervene ,[l ...y 1 were to be Gled by January 26,1986. Id. at 52,875. l, / d, On January 30, 1986, hir. Robert L. Anthony submitted a letter j i, a4c-7Jt U} requesting a hearing and seeking leave to intervene. The Chief of the , g, Docketing and Service Branch and the General Counsel noted several %-}' defects in the letter and declined to docket it hir. Anthony was informed ' N % '?'- ,- r of this determination orally on February 5,1986, and in writing on ' 'W. ' February 6. Subsequently, hir. Anthony, by a pleading dated February 1], 5,1986, submitted an amendment to his January 30 pleading. The g- .. @, 1. g Docketing and Service Branch docketed the amended petition. i On February 6,1986, the requested amendment to the Limerick JM Tf.i ^. q. 9,. operating license was issued. According to the federal Register notice, N'] e u flyfMh t the amendment revises the technical speci6 cations to allow a one-

6pe,.

n mc time-only extension of time to satisfy a limited number of testing re-r

JiWW v

.g w F. M.. < /.M, n#e h. <F quirements for the excess-flow check valves in certain instrument lines. The testing must be performed every 18 months and requires a plant a .~ CC 1%j,y:

i, shutdown. Under the amendment, the surveillances would be performed

.m . \\ .f g during a plant shutdown beginning no later than hiay 26,1986, which

f;,[

will occur a maximum of 96 days beyond the time otherwise designated s

m. m m,

, c.< ; p -.. 3 . g 9,.- ,.. -.l by the technical speciGcations. The stated purpose of the amendment is

..s j$MTyji..;E 'd,.. >, % W.".

..r.w ; q.s y,, 4 hf 49 to allow continued operation of the plant until other more extensive sur- ^g he...qV 3 a n 4 tym.f [ veillance testing needs to be performed, and for which plant shutdown is 9 3.9. m.;. ' n e. .u... ?7;.M.' ;,. ' % :.W.y

{

unavoidable. Limerick Unit No. I has been operating under the authority of the NM& a ', MJQO, f'% h.Mif ?? M ? M p amendment since February 19. Pursuant to G 189 of the Act, persons hkJ C $6'p? y a who qualify as parties to the proceeding are entitled to have a hearing on 7%%.smR the amendment even though it has already been issued. GMS[.t The Licensee and the NRC Staff oppose hir. Anthony's petitions. Mip . d. 3 ).?y M ?ff( Q Q Their arguments raise issues of timeliness of the petition, Str. Anthony's ',1,gE ' ' p;[.,$;pf,Q 3,.. 9.% uG,- d 0 .'ff,,..~ f!};- x p;I QV n. ,.,w $*#5 * ' *. * ) k* n['" *.. *

_ lslf' d&

~ ? ~ 6 n n, - .i' , ' '[';. ;. cTM', * ) ', . C $f ; l.Q, g

o..

G.. j66 ', 9. Af 1

;f n[M L *.O,

..d.%',}l,1, & * ' ' 4.g r.l

. C o

....i. j -A- . s p.,,p (t, v. I s%- (v[w*.x,,f) ".w' $ th I' t n. 3 w- , ? '~ fki$Nh q t 7 3;

w-.r.-

,,. y 'gdD M.7.. yrp%e. , yw.c%a.;o,g@,. %,,.,2, .,..p7 .. e ~ -- - v... , e.g,,, s ..y,... g., s. 9, - q.. s.

y...,.

.~.. .g.r -:e 1._ ,,.. - 4.. ..7,

[~,;.:.. c M: g{!r:., .i.'i ' f.t q.; ' d q.. Mm ~ n.

.u. '. -

~ m.p p :x%,Si+',: - c.; w's ;s x <. y "y., '""*"^"-*"---~*~-**--"--""-+;+.+~. --.---.u ~

a. ; -

.,%.s.ee w4 .u . _. u .o + .e.>.?t y 3.. : ~m r,, i ? c . >, g i w ...,3,,,. - u. .,a v .. ~ u.. ',,, 7 o.7 y

p.."

standing to intervene,' and whether the aspects of his proposed interven- " N ; -. ;g ' (.7.,, tion are within the scope of the notice of opportunity for hearing. 7.;r j Efq, 1 C. -.t LA 1," . l THE PETITIONING

M,.Wc..

c- . / .o ..,.,3:

s..'

f. o..;. ;;..-l. '. ;,,.

The Board regards the initial petition of January 30 and the amend- . s .2 c o -a u..~.. M,7 ". 6 - ment of February 5 together as Mr. Anthony,s. tervent. ion petit. ion.In in

.'a r>, l

q

~ i c i.' ;

addressing the threshold requirements of the intervention rule,10

, y' ].,,,.j, C.F.R. f 2.714, we do not now consider Mr. Anthony's subsequent fil-b

, c' ings of February 15 (contentions), his " petition" of February 26, or the s , ', y,Q. y /),{m' '.;.,, ], several papers filed with the Commissioners.

~.z.

... :: ? ; *...,. "r.,. :, J. %'qq "...;. p w ,...g A. Timeliness ' [i. ', ' ' ', ' d,"/. l -. The intervention rule requires that nontimely filings not be considered l' ~. without a determination that a balancing of the five familiar factors of ...O

the rule favors granting the petition.2 Despite Licensee's protestations, we accept Mr. Anthony's letter of January 30,1986, as the pleading for 3

7 measuring timeliness. Functionally the January 30 letter performs about .' 6.;7 ep J.y .; ' Q as well as is required for the purpose of testing the threshold merits of . c., ', - - j.'..' the petitioning. It tells the Licensee and the NRC Stafithat Mr. Anthony . a wants a hearing and gives the reasons why he does. With some effort it ~..

., 1 " ~ 2.'

is understandable. Despite the informality of the proof of. service nota- ~' tion, it is apparent that Licensee was put on notice of Mr. Anthony's in-s,. J %;q,f.J l u,. - n- ,v tervention intentions on January 30.2 -s 1,. v> g. . g$...

j>...';,,, W R,".[ ','i.

w... - T p g*u,.J, y 14 q,. " 2.' m,. , ( 'm . ' * * * @ UNM[,s -...rU'D F, ' ;b[' [.",*g* y" f;,*/ j ;.', ""(* l Mr. Anthony refers to " foe" in some of his pleadings, which we understand to be a reference to the Intervenor in the Limerick operating license proceeding. Friends of the Earth. However, he explains 9 nothing whatever about foe or its interest in this proceeding. We have viewed the petitioning as an in-p s,.,s, ' J f '., . N h;

s j j gM
3 c,

/., ',b,',' U dividual cliori by Mr. Anthony. f. ~\\ ' ;?.}M.,'

2 section 2.714(aHl):

c' (i) Good cause,if any, for failure to file on time. ^ "..Y.h *. 3 '. * [ (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected. ,j; (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in t, C .e* developing a sound record. ?? p,'.,. ) S ^ ( M' s *.I ' ?"i t ,? .d.j h*,%..,a.) ?. ! (.* (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. E. y t

h.

I <.'I Q,.i., d. f.. I. '- f. t, }

r. ;

n (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the

4.,3 -

~ y ',cQ.ar. :,y%. 4 d,.f '

" +,

F(CC**dini-V.. V!fl.'. f,f *. M.M *;* W d,' x ;'. *

2It is not within the purview of the Licensing Iloard to ratify or reject the action of Mr. Clements. Chief

. 'bc,%g N.? 6 f,;. i .b of the Docketing and service Branch,in declining to doctet on January 30. the January 30 letter. How. w 1.J.d@g' M - 7.;'g, s4:- Q ever. Mr. Anthony's letter efearfy did not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.70s. The fact that Mr.

-'1 il..

M l;'82*' Clements specifically informed Mr. Anthony of the formal requirements for NRC intervention petitions [* 7.I :.N-D y g,M ;y.Z['f ?M [. M *$.,f.W (s Q' /.1 C Q did not come to the Board's attention unul after we issued our Memorandum and order of March 4 ./p. . y,.,; 3986 (unpubhshed), in which we admonished Mr. Anthony about the poor form of his pleadings. Had r7s. -

s;.,. 9 1

we been aware of Mr. Clements' esplanation to Mr. Anthony, our March 4 statement would have been c' , ?.% <.. ".t c *.. ) 9.g,M 4 stronger. Mr. Anthony should regard this discussion as the rArd warning that he must comply with the i. .k.i9/ N S h h h.Se [-h,'.$ N RC rules on filing documents. ' Q *%j f. _., ; o

As c

f ,,.w qe ,.y, c C2. g.~. 8, }f 3 , y (g' g,.- I .,. ~ ... ~...,M, y M. w.~..h-T.? y >;iN,. Nr.atf /. i.. -t 1 ~. #- .g < u * '.. Ws?? ' N

e. $,

s ,,,g,g, %(( y%, hf. :.Q.Q '.: v.h. w, fh h ?(' + c. m, yf,,$. '.e 1 ' ....i, M,9.,. 7 k{+.f.D.'s ?2. Wf.,q<.f.c.y - - 3_., ,q. 'ff,

f. g

,) y g., cf '. !.1.% c.&, ,e g g,. g w; ,.<.,r,..,, ,.,,. x. %. A.( '.^ '. N'.' / sy e.. 4(,. '.'.w.,.fa. / *

es
p.

/ =4 3 .u. s . :t.

e.4 g '..

s _a. . r,.m - d cA e ;.- 's 4t t",vrA[s.4 we u8 's. g, $ 'I " /,, *

.M.h$,h';.*f LM.

_ Q.,? .$,(;;? ~ ef.[k, yt ?;'. i [,* f.# 3 r../.. w-M,M '/. N

Qp, s., o, >

~,,. s n +. ..,y t. ~ 'g ;- Q /r y < p ' s g s_ s. < ..w sr g/g'* g.6c gW. . dc. _.yW p. n,:nW 4 a a a..e - a r x -y y, my.h e,._ c y g* h,pa ,..C y -w J, 5 f ?. 's \\ 4 t n%1.ev.w . q y&_ w .m w x n. 9, e @.g.rq.n o w.m. pM.c"9.g% VM ^c" W,-,A,.: n,.w.n.aNw gg.4.t U.na@e-.m,w.w 4m%HWi$ .. e.L M94 m gy.r-4K g %gJy'.7 t Q Jcc W i

m p ?- ?

n..

E I ,. h. b 4; ~ e e .gD p ' m

str yy;

,3 ~ rm - w% x,. ;... - ~-

,. m

. y-., ;, . ~ - - - o J. .---~~x.. - - - ~~-~- np.: e. s c Gs,. G-

p....

psn:. r.p i '. e -.gg;~ y 3 ,..m.. " '%. p :. ~.. _- s c t 4py 'y The January 30 letter was 4 days late. Mr. Anthony does not expressly y.7 l. acknowledge that he was late but alludes to a possible good cause justifi- .. N 1, *. cation by explaining that he could not have responded any earlier "since G@M ;"% the NRC notice,1/27/86, reached us only on 1/29/86."4 $ $,9. Q when Licensee served a copy of its application for the amendment on The sequence of events leading to Mr. Anthony's petition began QM$M. '. m Mr. Anthony at the time ofits filing on December 18,1985. The Notice 3 gggp, - - of Opportunity for a Hearing was published on December 26,1985, but

'.}, K / ~. '. w 4

the NRC StafT, through " inadvertence" did not then serve the Federal pq~ WM.e g. di M.44Q.,Ja.A, 8 *,'; Register notice on Mr. Anthony. Mr. Anthony first learned of the Feder-Pp*h,ng.W,, % w.*g 1 a alRegister notice when the NRC Staff provided a copy of the notice in a .m -i/_[7'$;UT j" ' letter of January 27, 1986, to Mr. Bauer of the Philadelphia Electric Company. The Staff's letter to Mr. Bauer with the notice was served on %.g.h.,1 - i @ d.30.Y.'@,^, .1 Mr. Anthony. t In a two part argument, Licensee insists that there is no good cause

4. 4:.y.mpw,

-y$g.hk,c 'f. for the petition being tardy. First, Licensee argues that the application for amendment was, in fact, served upon Mr. Anthony. But, notice of O f $g.a m.' ^ the application for the amendment is not notice of the opportunity for a hearing on the amendment. In this respect the Board believes the Licen-U.S. m see is not being fair to Mr. Anthony. The application for the amendment

e " +.

A was itself apparently quite late. The request received a very prompt turn- ~ 3.; ~,.., 1 -around from the NRC. Within 8 days, including the Christmas holiday, y,u{?(M g, y -I Licensee received a "no significant hazards determination" from the AAs% 3 { NRC Staff and the Stafl's publication of the lengthy and complex Notice ..e s x.M OL a... n. sgo .c .N.t.%x.nW e. y. '..! of Opportunity for Hearing in the Federal Register. % n.. ',.,.;w.t.'j~~ ' Second, Licensee argues that the Federal Register notice itself served yw thv. . u. s . %., w as full notice to Mr. Anthony. The Licensee is correct that publication in M Qf..C 1,.] b ',- the Federal Register gives legal notice of federal business (Licensee's $Qff s. Jh *,@C, ;", Yf g Answer at 6-7), but Ligensee acknowledges that Mr. Anthony was a Mf W

J V

.~ long-time intervenor in the Limerick operating license proceeding. In fairness, Mr. Anthony should not have had to' monitor the FederalRegis-N N %g,W,%....- J. s ter to learn about his opportunity to participate in this amendment pro-h>;.kM(,Q;G7.! f..w. ceeding, especially when the notice was published so soon after the appli-k%. U (s % cation. We believe that the Staff has taken the more responsible position jf wes.;7 M,.' C.?': .. - 4.u on this issue. It does not oppose the petition on the basis of timeliness. 4 m - ? w. > g.v.~. y;, %:wh. A. s u/ tet &g?n & NY-c &gng &.n ';?.~!:h.n s'&lb %, o t:a A L'?:n o k. ' M.< A@h@g't k - i,i ' ' 2 ,.L ~ ,} .W.. 4The federaIRegister notice has a very substantial potential for confusing would-be petitioners. By its p s e %,4;: terms, only the hcensee is invited to file a request for a hearing. Any other person who wishes to partick .,ysyv e .,. : S 4: Nhd pate in the proceeding as a party is invited only to file a petition for leave to intervene, without a thor. f'.. %.+[b@; yl((,1,..

M' M (N 7 */j' ough groundmg in i 2.714 a reasonable interpretation may be that a petition to intervene may be filed
d" 7

. QWll y,71 - 4' WWJ only in a heanns requested by the hcensee. However. in this case. it is apparent that Mr. Anthony was ygg _, not misled. His letter of January 30.1986, expressly requests a hearing. N.p.a. 4 c Wh.N.DdWe

J'; a

' ;.m f,; Lq f , d.w'& f + 5:.y 168 ..mnNr yv. ;. ,9.,, m ' If, ;W*,*. - ,e N'4: %,'fg, J'f g 4

s

.( Y w' /Jh,.f. / 4,: y.., e. ,,, w n %.p;p; ;,. 6 ", ("?<% aT U ? D ',Q l' T - %TQ;C % e ) &k. W $.T ;*** M '"*'*la 3 \\' L J & ' 4>. ; I. J.,, f.:;r. n - r & ' ? p l k. m e ; j.n ~& m w., t.y w sp w e;w.w ,. g.. (. +L ~s rq c. . : y.. me:,apy %:cg, w h_..c ,..~ g.n 3 e_. n q. ,v w% %w,,. + w, < ~.m.. m, ~ f Y . m w q{m n e w e? w?.h.hh$ Y:h.E ?f$h&bh hf!?w$NNk. 4 m.mem.c.A y y a. u k U?k m ,I-d 'N.. e d.. r it k m. x u, i

, ag, [* z,. -,. -lr. l

(f. c.

.y '?? - '.s ~ 's . ~ :. w. +.,'* ,.m n -L --- ah~, m a m A - u h.,- w A-a i,, i * .m- +:4...,> -n ...uc -, .yr,

u. r.

e

,.s

.),' ~ en The StafT implies that Mr. Anthony was entitled to receive a copy of the

l i,.

[,' l FederalRegister notice when it was published. Staff Response at 3 n.l. [f y(. J,'

\\,

In any event, Mr. Anthony's petition was not very late and he acted / "X very promptly when he did receive notice. The Board rules that Mr. 'b /.' .,c Anthony has demonstrated good cause for the slightly late filing. I.<' ' ' ' ? ! '.'. ' on the other four factors to be balanced for late-filed petitions. There are With good cause shown for late filing, Mr. Anthony has a light burden A -; e - ye no other means by which his interest may be protected. This Board has

a no information about whether Mr. Anthony's participation would assist in developing a sound record. No other party will represent his interests.

f.,E*s The only factor which might weigh against granting the petition is the

p <,

.V,',.'... fifth. Since there will be no hearing if Mr. Anthony does not participate, y '*. J, 4 his participation necessarily will broaden the issues. But since the amend-n. ,y' :.J ment is already in force, his participation will not delay the proceeding. 1 Any harm visited upon the Licensee by the lateness of the filing was ob-j viated when the Commission issued the amendment without considering "' D a -J the petition. Balancing the five factors, the Board concludes that the peti-i/,', ?.( tion should not be denied on the grounds of tardiness. J y x,; B. Petitioner's Interest, Standing, and Aspects of Intervention r n. w..n.,c Section 2.714(a)(2) requires a petitioner to set forth his interest in 'i .n

c.--

the proceeding and to explain how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The rule also requires that the petitioner set wh r +

.~,

. s L' ' out the " aspect or aspects" as to which he seeks to intervene. We turn G,#7 0, M P. 3 "l first to the third of these considerations, because Mr. Anthony's inter- .'T ests in the proceeding are measured by the " aspects" of his petitioning. y c.g. ;,; ... c. JMSD.h.* Y ',,;" "., * ^'f The Federal Register notice offers a hearing on two aspects of the

'!M": qg,3 amendment. The first relates to any possible leakage from the contain-

{ W f :..f ', ment in the event of a check-valve malfunction. Mr. Anthony's petition does not address this aspect. The"second aspect alludes to an analyzed W, ?', .q failure of an instrument line and states that the proposed change would .j;.y g

.,1 ;

/ is not require a respective change in the Limerick Final Safety Analysis M j:.,.., ; l,, '.. c ;, '. .s.

- < &;. c,r.. s. ~

/ Report. Id. at 52,874. .N b 7J,y. g;; g' vWG U.v ' ' ( V. Mr. Anthony's petition addresses the instrument-line aspect: .g $?i r..,J + 4 ,-,-a.J. *u a n. ..m x,

' <i,

We are convinced that any extension of time for the tests required to determine the 4 *?

e.. '

? ,u 4 1y*' ability of the instrumentation lines to function properly would pose risks to our D,A'fTN r.b,, y [t jN h',' s health and safety since these lines are essential to operator information and function-y " y it '-, " "d ing in every aspect of the plant's operation and are a key link in the control of the (.hyD:.W.i,n;}.., T 7 nuclear process and absolutely essential to the safe shutdown of the plant in the 7%mm , =.. M W,4, M <.6 9.:., O ($ ,I NM, ,h N, '[?. - ,WiU Q.*.y Ja ; s - :: m,. g ad n- ,4 - .f e N, j;.$w O.%,. A O, J '-[ 169 a m,; '. *,;. n.,.. 4, ; e,,,.. y(.. .y. ~. Y t /. e. '

- y s,*- f' 4.,,.

y

,..s*

r. w J ---(# E*, q WA. .=l

l. ;

b . $..,.llvl%.."~', *. m.s, --m ,.- mm- -+-

v. w ?.pyy.z,. n 4,, -

./ ~ ~ u ..... g.,Wgf'h + (V.'[f 'M '.*. ~>, q ,[ L i '4.a -].c.m.w w l F, *. j ( l ( D., ,,q . t n,(. ~

e.4,.

1 ..v .~. -t -Av . fr, y t 9 ;+ " w ..- ( b ' - 4 '* E yt a p, ; n,p . - 4 g ;-- A e. % g. f,,,j v.c,.c. p ,..-..y. ',i [...p **.., y', 3 >=- , e, n 4 M,3 -/ s M, g. ' *...@, c, 9'h 3. 2 t m ,;A hN .e. Y?h _ W - Yll [tll hX Y* .$msl ?.Csv' : lf' g'24 A q m M@ e@xg,4. gap; d"*agg G.* n:c ;r;sy g Q g pgj:zyls:'yf.ppgy g g& A;.~yngA

, q q s 4

v;Q ww.;. ;v g y.n.s - m m y.c Myl g g g wm L .,e h y y 4 y;;y

y i.~.A. s -. < '

u. i.

L.1_ _ ,., ~ ' r [ [* ') event of any accident at the plant which could result in the release of radioactive poi. ] sons to the environrnent, thereby threatening us and the public. m i u. 4-' .t. ~1 Letter, January 30,1986. 'b D ; ' But next, Mr. Anthony slips into a digression. Citing a Torrey Pines 76* Technology energy-line break analysis, Mr. Anthony states that it "is es- ~ ' '2' ", pecially important for the [ instrument] lines to be checked" against acci- ~ . s J' 'O"' dental force and adjacent-line whipping. The NRC Staff pursues Mr. ~ Anthony into his digression and accurately points out that there is no C. nexus between the Torrey Pines analysis and the amendment to Limer-i s. . 7 '. %@. c., _. ick's operatinF license. Staff Response at 6-7. s - x.g3 :; ^ m ',. Mr. Anthony has satisfied the " aspects" requirement of the interven-

3.., C

tion rule. His discussion of his concern about instrument-line failure (quoted above) is directly responsi"e to an aspect of the amendment no- ^ P# ticed in the Federal Register opportunity for hearing. His digression into r adjacent-line whipping is in the nature of a contention. It is premature, f',' irrelevant, and superfluous. However, the discussion is not fatal to his f f, ' petition.5 ?V Licensee states that Mr. Anthony, who resides some 20 miles away from the plant, has no interest in the proceeding because he has alleged no " particularized harm" from the " minor and temporary change in schedule to delay certain tests required by the Plant's Technical Specifi-y - i 'm cations rather than any change in design hardware or analysis." Given .w-i.g' the fact that Mr. Anthony seeks to intervene on instrument failure (not i 1.q. i i A a. ,$,.;*+. N.r m on check valve leakage), the Board does not understand why the WA,, 4,~' Z.'; :..,J 20-mile distance between his residence and the plant would preclude a M.', s ' 1 M. UMQ; cognizable interest in the proceeding. The probability of any instrument-

$. v/,. 0.h,. ',; 9. ' L.*

line failure during the time extension does not depend upon the distance .n e ' ' w.y' 1,~~ from Mr. Anthony's home to the plant. The consequence of any such ~ .. ~ failure appears to be about the same as in the traditional construction permit and operating license proceeding where a distance of about 50 ,3 miles has been thought to be within the area ofinterest for intervention. , g', - H Underlying the objections to the petition by the Staff and Licensee is q P.y,h;:.,*p N.. it f'1 the implicit assumption that this matter before the Board involves a "no y,., f,' Q f %, - significant hazards consideration" factually as well ai, legally; therefore .. e , y7.. - : o*'

'. ' d Y ?.

Mr. Anthony cannot be exposed to any harm giving him standing to in-tervene. This is an incorrect reading of f 189 of the Act and the Notice .'s^ : 7 ?,_,%q!

.;: ~.

~

p

.p. .- ~~ . #+ \\ 1- .[.e b *'.9; 's 5Both the Licensee and the NRC stafrimpute to Mr. Anthony an intent to litigate once again the safety ' 3 q' ',2, @, s , '; 4 a of the Limerick design. This is not a fair reading or Mr. Anthony's petition. It is clear to the Board that he seeks to litigate exactly what he was invited to litigate by the Notice of opportunity for a Hearing, i.e., the atslity or the instrument lines to function dunns the cutension of time for testing. ,7, r: k*{^ ,g r. x -:~ g:v.m,- ;g s... 170 y.h.. ' re ;. sy

.c s"-

k. '

; f * 'l }

'U. , ;.,.I 3.,. s, ^, .m,.c, n1 ^9!.. ,:., ~ s' e n /y6 e., 7 A a, b

s

,L! vy r;e s. f V,1 n.,:,' %'g, ^ . ' > ~

e,

'f*I."s'~ ~,'~" W T** Q M YsT.. dQ 7" a. v. n - ',r 0 ' _ n g ; ;6.n a ?;.*'. ~1 %r!.u ;gr. h ;%.e f. ~., ' t v..,. . i . t.l u..~y...- . l}.:X' h. +. 5 .. + ' * - j n * ',Y m ..'t _ %r < x ',f.;d f.* (I i>* % ', W. 9O h..,- -O... W.' -r r- -. ~. ? " '. J. ;% G.G W /=c. %'e e .. Yh

se ^.

p h

n. n ;..,y@. h. ~pWM %;.:,o _N

? i y ,t .,., u.. ,n. n.y ., n, o . ~<: z. %v % g ~g,kt M $ y,,y,4 E. % ys w, $,n w..-Q* n?Q ~ ' N sp.;q g...s..' .g 6 Q._. 4R %. 'wpq

&, 1.; w; ' p 6 &g': 3 ;Yii a

n a

u..y e,

?. _..,

R' " " ^ * ,~m

,.s._..m ... ~ n. ~

g. y.- y,. c. w<

g,.

s a

..-x 4y, , g;. ,,es ww ~ a. r; ,v-L,: f G'] O s,y&*..' **. p :

,. l -

- ~ -~~~-.- - - - w-..a i. z am.w q'.;m c. ". .: ~ &,=_j. [. ~ p 5.. q n.g. . p... m,f.. y.v.,. o.eg. s. 1,

. t
-@.. w.: 9,, c a.c z

. ;. v ? ,a d.WW

. A ',

.,..f";r;.'fyjgT.' ' of Opportunity for Hearing. The proposed determination that the amend- .f- .gg;3:8 ment involves a "no significant hazards consideration" in no way fore- . ; f., closes the right of persons whose interest may be affected to test the .f. 3 #. matter on its merits. The Board concludes that Mr. Anthony's petition .,3.['"

l-].'f. 1.];yy f meets the threshold requirements for admission set out in { 2.714.

m..:..

~". %.? e...'<1 c.:e.O..N. ~ J. C. Contentions . e, However, before the Board may admit Mr. Anthony as a party to the .uy.. m.

$.f ~ ' jZ M,b 5 y. hg j 2 proceeding, he must advance at least one acceptable contention. He has 4

already submitted a list of contentions.* In out order of March 6,1986, ,d!//g s c '.r;q.- , 3:., : p;c,.J J J. 'J /. we directed the Licensee and NRC Staff to be prepared to answer the v.v contentions no later than 12:00 noon, March 17, 1986. Now that the y .,7. m,. .q. .;"> b q. 4 ; Board has found that Mr. Anthony has standing to intervene, the Licen-l.N^.;i see and the Staff should file any answer to the contentions by that time. t - s-Section 2.714(a)(3) provides to petitioners an opportunity to submit ,s' ' '- !. p,,. ~. dM.yd...a f..' M. ~,j,.. an amended petition or a supplement to petitions with contentions at t any time up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference. However, 1 r.~ that time interval is not appropriate in this proceeding. Accordingly the .- x - '. ' q f. a c, Board will alTord to Mr. Anthony an opportunity only until March 20, V... p.e f, .., g a 1986, to file by express mail any amendments or supplements to his peti- '. 4,.m. f. tion. A prehearing conference will be convened on Thursday, March 27, .7 7. f.,

3'

,. j p. p M 1986, beginning at 9:00 a.m. EST, at Old Customs Courtroom (Room ') i s,E-a. ?N'3,m.p gv.. .c. 300), U.S. Customs House, Second and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, L s.

X.V 4 y Pennsylvania. All parties and Mr. Anthony or their respective counsel i".f' p,IflM O W _

W g4... r. mMW:gy.(.'; are directed to appear. The Licensee and NRC Staff may respond orally s.<7.. w.a; w.x m.;ww.e, u. J,u to any addit.ional petit.ioni.1g and contentions submitted by Mr. Anthony ..m t g

/ '.,j,.

at the prehearing conference. The Board's order of March 4,1986, sus-M.SO WM.gW...,. o n.3 c, ,Q L Mc.E. - p Y,,g..T pending pleadings is vacated. 4,. ,m,.i ..w, NIk)*h 9,b.. .o 4 U-l- +, I s. 1 T? w . ep. @t * *., y,, i-"..., :gj}, A > ,.s .,, '.. ~... 3 t. 6. ,.. + c z ;- ym ;*phc.- > ,Ry $*^ ' J dwp. p-4;

9.. '

4 M 'h;-( W', &'f-(G M './h,yl<{,m~ ~ q:.c ;2 .yp a n. +.w, k 'm;[kik$.D@N., ,.t M M C:1 4 ! W Q W M % 7 W5; M - N l,k CNd h;.Ul*'4 W y /G. a" ' ml M t 3,pt'-#. 6,,T * @ f,. %.. .w. w 5..., J t: s$.. pP'"5'. W@ mfg.' b;;d. t A. Q %['?9*W,M;4,yd W.g$jW Q.M i;.m M y.% .rw.v 6 The contentions were included in a pleadmg submitted to the Commission on February 15.1986. The secre ry of the Commission referred these contentions to this Board. Letter. Chilk to Anthony. March ". ( (.( ":.h 6 h NM'k, .J.-3 9.

s. w.

u. v.

w.. ,,,w.;s.a

o,

c4 %gwl: ;p,3:sp.y "; < ., f. e. ?,1,'. s@f ; ! ' E. e'%, e: ~ ~.

s,.

, t N,.., w, 4.4,,..g + :..-. c'1 171 s4 %.m .c x w,.4 .n:....

r.'. q.,;4 q.y.

t y .,f. j;[ * ",. - '

4-e d/

,Q W 3Q, ',': %*.. hl % '? i - 13 ,z 1

s,.

Is W '
- 8-

-(. &v)se,.. lO: hhy M-k,~,h; #.Ofs %';w.;,,;,n. Q):# $~.:.&y7j.;,q&u,, ]. i[% i.0 w,. -s'. 3 Mgo. 7.yd, F;- ~' ~ '7 ';'l'N?~~ T r'* Tv'*'-~ "J 'y '.,'s.., 79 " 7 '.Xv ,p e.

r ( pQ ~ c'.v ms ;;4 g Q; _

. < + c a -+ r 1x*r., v . t,. s q.. ?y;( ; 9. .s, y ..n '. =,.s. ,a c )w.. g4:. 4. :. p., q' w,'r* ~py..

i. Q &" Y 'z:..S.t.. q.

l ( p.,. t -W - 1+ s.Q...w.. ~q :s.q t . o' < : m.,g, s,e e n#'M h,N,.,.i ',~.. \\ f.,fyM'm'I h.m;_,w[if8,hg,. a-' ..,v.. .n,4 %'. .. ~ ~,.- C ' e s,.

H M *' h.

w c t k' .<n.r J ('l.'b...',, p t- +-. s d,hy.C d, 'y,,.?S,~ p$y 3 ,'. ' b' N.,. m.)/.'* V. 4w; M s k % *%m ahb 'h.w.. '...J..w. +M,w.%.. e-v,.. n. ... s. ? ~.*v.. N u.. z,:iy. b. ,L

g. c :.v,v... W x..be *y y.

.s p v.?. 'O.a e. ,.. W.~ w r. 't

s :wm u..

a e... +. h. Ks. w .O+y y..,. ',., , ' c H *~ v, A (,Q,, p,. t 'l.> kn.,,.. ; g.?) f,*.. .v .n e., ...'.y.'* Q.:... s.?,.,, 1.,p,~ " -n ~u ,? *.Q y: '..t L 9s ;,p ; s i

,.: 3:,..

s... c e.,.,.,-,. . v.., > g.,,, 'ynff'-;.s ~ s;g,. s

. ;%q s

ab', 'qd M 's.f,',, 4 ..cefn.,, -.. .6 5 s-s . w.;. ',; .Nh 1,4 ,,o 1

v. n, r. 7.,, -

,v 2. u.,. e u ... +

mm

,;'T, . " ' -- u - u-- " - - . p*),. #,. ' ". t <r y

s:

lg: ,;W;m.u.: 4. v.

g .:o n,, ,.s%;.y c.pp, a.,...,, s

..u

.i.. r. n. :,.a w-: +y : u. .. n. y u., - .e,- ~.. a. &., r.,:. wn-y. Nc..MM;M. ie. .W'?.' s :y ' Judges Linenberger and Cole were not available to participate in this 5, j'h. / .:Y d 9 $u ;',C E f.7 E

W -

d action. Both approve the action. < m d/;"}w p u A -W, 1..v.f ' u. n. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND <;w.rm e er y -ms Wgi ou.. 1%$%, ~ .( E [ * * ;, *. LICENSING BOARD yxc.. u. k-

1. t. m;V.

..~ 44 ;a g,q;% n x,:.: 4.: /l hm;C:. ,?. + w a.2..r,y.,., % r. b.*4.y v., s_ .... n e.: $w % @t-.. $...d, f-. W...9,. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman . ~. n w r n g n. %. n s.g 4, %.s.. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE .44 ..w.. . w ~ . -. L; ?., .hv.;M'~a m: +f:k.. A o a _.n z w x4 . - w.'e~n y n :y r Bethesda, Maryland %QQ14, /;r. -a ..sw.pg-g,,;k..:a. ~f. ~... ; e. March.13,1986 .c.u m. . ~ n, esi;Oc%M

it.

.. o : AfQ).t'M 1*?"% v.*) Q;#:.r + %shpW;'r++ -. <,x. u*e MJ -? W A M:h 0 @:.ib l &.Qoh.<8 D+e St%g .3 vm c:L A s, '~ %a'W.q%%;@-.M%%, '.. C u ~ .r[.n.s v.n .c IW,s t7 h .1 d 4 .Y.M.E 2' 'e %..,Qw.. wc s > tt.,.%..,%..y -.% >, :. ' r-s, t- "A - , mk;)... +, p.. s,m. 4.v.,... m. .s . si.n.. s a.... ~. i,... w zte4 $. . t s lMT % WJ 'lF,u -p ". t,t .. Q :h.h i, w' a ~1 s p .,f. r m .-A-A n .2 Yk ' %.wv.sprwro:p, t.;., ac%, m/ p Way.vp m.1:r.4f y,., 1 %x* a., .g .g*v4I.1

8 4 0," w8.I d,gh r VA,.,g

e:' 7.,.

J t M e y, m... W,,... . %.1:v....y ~.. 1 - x. ~ t.. w y :.; ~, s. tr..; ~ va .;.s. w,. q. > s.;. . p* : o+, 3,,.. '*yi t y yhs.4 - - g .s'

f. pr...s,..a, s..

4. t m w

.f yM: u.. q,. e1 g*.4-,~.

..e w, v. - - x, c.c, .. r,-%... >.: : e..,,. r r .n.,. u s.. ".1:.4. m. r%,.., o l. .A; .../ % ' & f ?.). A [':.( f...';~ V; m '.. i g m..,. e u 1 7.. -, . v. w..g. w, A - e.. ~..., S g.,7 e.4.. '+, y - .,y,+ f e4.... , s. 7 r,. x,, w,. e,$ , 'p,% f.S f,', ;$,, * ,w h.*c; fh *N I,W l., I 4, ,.3 sp,.z;.. .<..,...c u,...M.... ,. < + ~.. m ,c. .~~.: N w ::.M..

.% :.a _:;,.? :.a.

. wp, e.,, ye.. - .-x . ~~,. u.v;,,,w% .m ~,4

u. A- %q. c.~,,..y;. w 3 c..

.c +,,, .a. w. s s .~. r. s, t <'[e, 'l 8,

O t% I $'?,

, a,e.{ h k '.;r.., 1 9.. i W. 4 m.d,%.a.. e.a..~r,;' w y p,hOQ^,;e ;,. ; 7..,.. O.. wu a '.;a,,e.c h ?.M U' M. 34=., g' . W 172 .. f..., r, j. e. m., e 4. 3..w s-e 'k ' i e Yh, hO.A,hN*,g.$,h. _a. 9%a.'v..h

k. h n

,m ,.j ?j f.. w - - w-- --r, c 4=p 3 p. - w -s n ce. f. ; g. .fp.. q.., u.N ,, y.. - 4 g - v r-g. ,_...P .... A

5
7 h.[a.5pf'.*v'i g. + :.%., * %jY. ;a ',.,

J 's.1.s.-Vc i ' c c -/>.,M.K: &' f. 3f>,- sv- ..+ m n%N.y ~hkh.$'h . O 3 v.. " M" '(.. '. -,' %, %, p.n - Q t..s.u <.s*G q t. L d jf.f y,'a Y v ..W v; u. i.- -J s O? *hh$ ,,,f* ih'* *y ?*kh?5h*fs.".k Y $

.ht,)h.?E U i '

!f i k s

r m _._. ,,__a__.... _. _ -..._. ~...-.. l. ,j 4 Cite as 23 NRC 173 (1986) LBP 86 6B j 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( f l ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: . i. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Richard F. Cole Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. u. in the Matter of Docket No. 50 352 0LA 1 (ASLBP No. 86 522 02 LA) (Check Valves) Docket No. 50 352 OLA 2 (ASL8P No. 86 526 04 LA) (Containment isolation) l PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) March 14,1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR 1,.,. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ... c. _, 2,'..?.'.,, L s'. .6 'J BACKGROUND x -4,- On December 18,1985, the Licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, ,Er,- applied for two amendments to the Facility Operating License for the s. , ' - '..Y; Limerick Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in Montgomery

.3' '

County, Pennsylvania. The first amendment relates to the testing of cer- -L., ,.,D'- tain instrument line, excess flow check valves (the " check valve" amendment). The second amendment relates to the testing of primary a;w .,t containment isolation valves (the " containment-isolation" amendment). 173 s l }.g ' i '; x. t, m e**T*****

*V'
- .~

h Q TS **

rqY}

- - 'W A..:c gf.:r 'Q $,.r.;e

.] 4 Yi\\ ~ s b '.e

* ),h.a:?.
- '..TM Q. as. Yil 1,5 5 7*; gv 0:,j s.e.n ;?O.
i

. Q,' d "- ' ' ?4: n ~.- = qwu g 9 _. p% 1. h v...wc. i L. t

a\\ E

u . e s/. ' ~.,., r..j s.. 9 . g.:s ? i, - ..;w. O a. 6.W.44.n h #* ?. w. .nw 4 .t. .* *.? q,, e6 i a+ G 'g + 9.: MV P - W 7* r v.; ;,. L i ..h.'f. 'n s'lh.sug,%i[h,ge. J._.,gh.r:f. % p~u y m,h._5 h N D Q...ti. h..,h. ',. . m ? g.. ,,. 9ys s,m,.,u,:..p, m.r v, m,...,n,. e. 1:m.g. L.w, v,.. n.. gp..r4 ,4..o ~ w. w,.. w.w. m.o. - .n n ,, a 9...m.

p.,w,..

v w. .z ,v.. +

e u c '.~ 9 _ - ,-v. ~ n. -c s-v, e - _2...-. _. am.a. .-.._~x, w; .[-. ; - ,a .r + b j. ' yr:. .s. =; - W... s, s 1, m* . '. L A. The Check-Valve Amendment s O 4 - 'J, On December 26, 1985, the Commission published in the Federal ~ Register a notice that the proposed " check-valve" amendment involved E I. a "no sign!6 cant hazards consideration" and provided an opportunity for i,f. E [ * (,d a hearing to any person whose interest may be affected by the amend-ment. hir. Robert L. Anthony requested a hearing and leave to inter-P vene. The amendment was issued on February 6,1986. This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on February 12 to rule on pe- ),, titions to intervene and requests for hearing and to preside over any (',. 1-3 Ag .. yf. { hearing that may be ordered. The Licensee and the NRC Staff opposed _.j ;, hir. Anthony's petition. On hlarch 13,1986, this Board issued a hiemo-48'f, i randum and Order (LBP-86 6A,23 NRC 165) ruling that hir. Anthony ,'. f.' had met the threshold requirements for a petition to intervene as set out a. . F in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714 and that the contentions submitted by hir. Anthony Oi j would be considered as noted below. ? J. - ~,,, ' ' -g'1x Frank R. Romano, Gled a petition for leave to intervene dated February J- ~' In the meantime, the Air and Water Pollution Patrol, by its Chairman [d.- 1,'. ,,j,, ',,' v 24, 1986, in the check-valve amendment proceeding. Licensee has op-posed Patrol's petition. The NRC StalT has not yet answered the Patrol's petition and the Board has not yet ruled on the Patrol's petition. a ,, 7 .N "l B. The Containment Isolation Amendment M -e r;w _' _.,.. n, m. ... + (,\\ - On December 30, 1985, the Commission published in the federal t,r. - 4 4.P n.. -N. J;;gj.y;s Register a notice that the proposed " containment isolation" amendment i.. i e. a..y;. involved a "no signincant hazards consideration" and provided an op- ..i:4%..,...,. .u " portunity for a hearing to any person whose interest may be affected by n o m.v 4 g,' < '. j y %e,9.' ~jq','s. - ' tne amendment. On February 26,1986, hir. Anthony Gled a request for .g .;,) hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the containment-isolation ye 3 (fN;g+ proceeding. The amendment was issued on hiarch 3,1986. On N1 arch Z l 1c-13, 1986, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, consisting of the same t e- ,n. 9N % 5 '.,,,. 6.- T c '..q., members as those designated for the check valve proceeding, was.estab- ' $.[ [:ffl[ !.~'. % M.*M,,'.j Q' ? lished to rule on intervention petit ons and to preside over any hearing i ordered in the containment isolation proceeding. The Licensee opposed y.':, i ' i$fp,'.~.,. +l E ?,- hir. Anthony's containment isolation petition. The NRC StalTwas grant- ,C,* ed an extension until h1 arch 28,1986, by the Chief of the NRC Docket- ' $,],'.;%;;.0 ing and Service Branch to answer hir. Anthony's containment-isolation @k;@';t '

.l7,

.4 L...# M,. Q,. l o.: s ~<+~.e-n3 ym... r,;, j

,x. as,.,

q:g a.

s. m.- R n,.,3.;. y ; m. c. s. y, p..,. m m g g. 3 , s, u.

, c.-

r m , e7 .; 2 ,g,, n .v. @$y 1 ~ % p;lm t, y 1. v ' .v .s ". mf.c,.n, 174 "7/c ? v w y;V ' / :/ f f,. :: ..TS,, 7' ' , ' - ~ ' ' ' t Q% :,p 1'; ~,.

<;;:. ;u

~,. - - - -, m-n- - . --,-,. -. z i <o - 3- . i,. ',.q,' - s . s., h O.I +, - s. p-

3 *.,,,

' ? p

a c\\ ;!

s ' ',i ,[ h i,'t [ hD, '~,' + X,<*, sh_1.. b s.V.4}).[ Q Q % e,. .J'.**,, Q"* 9*., [ '. . G f Lp g l 'y <*,y.. ,) -)* . *)*,' L' Y G l &,.,%,f:;,'

t...\\ e '

poQ'rj . H. 9 Y .) %:: m.a'hh $N $'? ' ('k ? 'lY. * 'i , lf. A r

f

$ h,0 N w,u,..n.. -- +L '4 yn..l so 4 mA.n-. '

. p, ?.

r fg.. ;.m7, }}g g g.: ,, O m, . - 3 3;m.. ;,: .,o ;u,w. 1 ;, a. .y =p, .x 5

=

~.

.s. s. .e s e s. .a =--.':n>. a_u .w x .s.:.

v' "-

g- .l ~.. 7 r .m petition.' The Board has not yet ruled on the threshold considerations of x ,l.. Mr. Anthony's containment-isolation petition. He has not filed any con-tentions in that proceeding. .q ,7.%ly, ORDER l,. :W,, A. Consolidation of Proceedings / 1 d." - l The respective Licensing Boards of the check-valve proceeding (50 ,_ J Fed. Reg. 52,874 (Dec. 26,1985)) and the containment isolation pro- ' ;v. 4 'l _',., l '. '.*~='m ceeding (50 Fed. Reg. 53,226,53,235 (Dec. 30,1985)) have determined .f'"'.,y 'YU that it will be conducive to the proper dispatch of their respective pro-J 'X. ceedings to consolidate them for prehearing purposes and for the pur- .j.6 pose of any hearing which may be ordered in both proceedings. Accord-ingly, pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. } 2.716 the proceedings are consolidated. .3 a 7:.V. B. Schedule for Identification of Issues s 1. By Memorandum and Order of March 13,1986 (LBP-86-6A, o supra), the Board directed the participants or their respective counsel to appear at a prehearing conference on the check valve matter on Thurs- .,. d, r., day, March 27, 1986, beginning at 9:00 a.m. EST, at Old Customs + 'N - Courtroom (Room 300), U.S. Customs liouse, Second and Chestnut .,r Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Board has today issued a federal Register Notice of Prehearing Conference setting the prehearing confer- ,c..r..

y. ;:T.X ence in the containment-isolation matter at the same time and place.

.. a. ..a. 4. [*,,* f ' @< ;.*

2. The Staff and Licensee have already been directed to file any an-swers fo Mr. Anthony's check-valve contentions by 12:00 noon, March l - ' -

V"* 17, 1986. Memorandum and Otder of March 13,1986 (LBP 86 6A,23 .,' w. NRC 171). s .f'M 3. Mr. Anthony has already been directed to file by express mail . y{.h. ; N h any amended petitions, st.pplements to petitions, and additional conten- 'G ' f [,;

r..

W, tions on the check valve matter by March 20,1986. Id, Mr. A7thony is Q t. ', S.J M;. directed to file his containment isolation contentions and any amended .';y/ .E M : y ?.y@;, n. g,' 1 n ..r.d'; \\,i,' l 'j ; y,y' k '[, &., p,, l.. .. y.. - Q ?. .5 .b, i 3%..,. M 1,$$., ~. J ..., ;,. ; p.f.g., q,, f -i, I Benjamin H vogler,. counsel for the NRC $tafr. has agreed to comply with the procedures set out 7, M Z. (, u ff 3 p' A , M6( d'., d, .'r*. ' $.5,. % ch below for addressing the issues in these proceedings and has waited the Staffs prerogative to delay its answer until March 28 Mr. Vogler and the Licensing Board chairman have had several discussions at W.i ' 3;.p*, ?,7 Mo f G- '6- ,f a 4 W.., + f3 ;,, '. 'i2. j. Board the mechames of the handling of the amendment requesta and the pleadings riled by the petition. i hr- ?. the instance or the Chairman to arrange for filing the background documents and to explain to the s jl ,, * . Q( :y,,, - ers. The parties have noi complied with the service requirements or 10 C F R. ) 2.712.

W'.

y $btb .Q r., r n 6.o p 175 o l ~[:-i 3.g !- e q.p y

T.. (. /,M - ?

Qv. [ .,,..m r..- gn y,v e -~ 7 n < g - - -~ y KW.s.;G.:k.}.mM&,; E) y,h.)q " E .7, y J S: ' w.,', p.V f ;f ',. ^ ' : is ,3 ,.) y,".,.. '.g ",,n l W.tAs y, y, ' 4,e .j.. .,bl$f V p, 1

, + 1*.. c g;n

'Ay 'p f --s.i'. &,9 J N'ib /.

g.

^r

p s t

.., tyN. L,,)f). - 4, %Qk.,%.hhiMh.. y,. W'. %w,y&cr,k,f9. k 'd hj,;....j f I,$. f,Q. [;[k..f)/.,(',N ~. ( 4 J ..r r. 3 y. & ;.l n,,&,n.. 4 :.' ' ' ) i.b.y%.3%. ;&>&....m( ;.. '.s., n,g.. !r. lm,'.,, '..' %~ ;, ..m 7.m:. 4p.g .,. f,h'. iQ4 p L ?- f.>', M, -. ! L

Q N

.xr mg.: y u 3 q.

~ .. - -+ M:.,--

* ' ~

... - -. ~.... +... -.4.--4 ..Ue s' b==1

a

-v. r e ,:F ~.. t,a / i'.g *, g W,. _. v. petitions or supplements to his containment-isolation petition by express 'C'i,W y a. - 1. '.. - mail no later than March 20,1986. ,el.". ',. a : * ' l'. 4. Mr. Anthony or his counsel has already been directed to appear .' M @ @.',; at the prehearing conference on March 27. Id. .p

f. ;

" c,C

5. The Air and Water Pollution Patrol is directed to file its conten-

$.'?".f % M tions and any amended petition and supplement to its petition (check- ~ ,e Q?/fi. 7... N gy1jf;. ct;,.,

g. ' ',

valve matter) by March 20,1986, by express mail.

6. The Air and Water Pollution Patrol by its representative or its 1l'!,$ 4 counselis directed to attend the prehearing conference on March 27.

M'.WM:.".7,. ; 'sh'.h.N:' A "'..h 7. The Licensee and NRC Staff have already been infortred that

i.y.*i4.@Mr.g.!

7 ,1.,;, '.% 5 each will be afforded an opportunity to address orally any amend ~d peti- .x.

' e,.gf.3

'. 5 y 3 tion, supplement to petition, and new contentions submitted by Mr. e.g g y,tr " -. g ,...s Anthony on the check valve matter at the prehearing conference on A,.m.w .w .,s March 27. 'f- ...,. :,. _.,i ud.,,.,,r..a. p ~ a

8. The NRC Staff will be afforded an opportunity to answer orally 6 J,..,.,

C R..O J b. f.',3.,,.

g-Mr. Anthony's initial petition for leave to intervene on the containment-v

.M;Aggn. f isolation matter at the prehearing conference on March 27. The NRC ..p.w 5fy'4..,., .c. 3 s m v y.. 1, a *. Staff and the Licensee will be afforded an opportunity at the prehearing [@hbb' 9.f.t; ? ", ,/** conference on March 27 to address the contentions, amended petition, d .1 and any supplement to petition submitted by Mr. Anthony on the con-tainment-isolation matter. D@k@MM;M S Cht...,... .hh,. ^' 9. The Licensee and the NRC Staff will be afforded an opportunity M.i S.. %m g, gh,... to address the contentions and any amended petition and supplement to i o * !. petition (check valve matter) submitted by the Air and Water Pollution v ,A Q'p 6 'L Patrol at the prehearing conference. + i Nf.p3.y.r,;>h e,M :i. N ' .a,. , d

10. Each petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to address any 3.m. yq ;7

- 3 a.s. new considerations raised by the Licensee and NRC Staff orally at the N %y j.p;s.i.r.a,.- #. s n .I e ;, prehearing conference. l.f ' r w;e. i.,i %c,'.,.l,, y c ct ;. w as .&n

y IT IS SO ORDERED.

7,3 3g..e,.t c., J, or,

nn s

'q.y-] % j f... '..*. ' '...., ~. r FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND

w. '.- a.

LICENSING BOARD . c.; , J, f.

p. s.

...v,. .s. .,,,, w...,.w..s,2

M.q. :. ",-.

.R "? ' [,..'. i ~ Ivan W. Smith, Chairman d ig, h ;,. if' ', "... f ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE @ a,... c-y ,3,.... - ;' o. 3.. ay.r, ,n .1 - ;t. Bethesda, Maryland 2 g y L.. i,w., e ..g.. u...,. March 14,1986 L e.y. a..v e.. . ij y,'.?. v N.ac' ' y. 4m n. m. s. t.n c., ".,.; '. 2' s y m ;,.L., tc.. P ,s, a c ,w ~ ,t..- .<.s.

f: _ ?,-..

u w m.. n. m.,.,w.

c, ; ".. ;

,.*.df k. p*. p. s.*. > : s s. A.,a., m'L ga 176 e ll f"N g *. ' f, .w: c:, c.

' e *- ): -

ll. ,y .y - y, p. p '.

4. :. s-e t u t et-

.rg $h'I J ' A ' 4 S.d' D I **U' '. ' ' -_

'4' $- 5

p e3

>? 4 (',h 'e. .!,.WQ y.t o+ -c j;, p, ' C ^ }*Q..), & '.* f ,\\. 9 ,. y,r.M.s J.g g. %g m n..,y. .,., _ _.y. m -.y E' Nf f 5 k ? ? . ; ww..n. ' , _h:.y,x wQ',. :&'W m' uem u.w.w y%p- @v$W;@hMWWrc.AunW,0.,AUp W N @-@M,4 J,N,w 'p!A N f %.4'?M i 4W.9 W % <,., p 9 .a.,:~W. A F M~i.n.3 m'm 4 %. uG h.m'. %,)g;r..pn, ?s/ o. ~ c A s.,, 4 o e' f, 5. 'n. +..v. > V; w.m. c. 4.s/ s & s "h, if h I*/[ Q h,*'y* T 5 N k N}L as p kd/ N' T b . N., p.s As,,,,.9 %o (N,DY'N V' W .ns.? - ~; .,, e - N#M / erUN M \\ T*; d 3

a:.,-. a. m.. "y r J q , i. .;:f Cite as 23 NRC 177 (1986) LBP 88-7 3.' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '<C..,'.- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ., o.. y... ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD ( C.' i;. 2,,, j Before Administrative Judges: af..,.-.. .a.;,. r~.,,:.;. c s gr c Herbert Grossman, Chairman WM,, hc;e, A....,. e e..,:, Richard F. Cole r, A. Dixon Callihan .(. . ; :2.,

1 y

w.> .a . ).s. ; e, In the Matter of Docket Nos.50 456 OL ,a.. s. .+ 50-457 OL i ,1 * (ASLBP No. 79 410-03 OL) N' COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power p Station, Units 1 and 2) March 28,1986 J,.... ~ 8 D.* g .v... The Licensing Board rules on a motion to compel discovery of matters 3.d.b 7 ~ 5 ~,. . r -N'.', ${

on which attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege Ify are asserted.

"~ ' *h.. q,* RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY: NONWITNESS L-7.. y'? EXPERTS . dM. In accordance with recent NRC decisions, Rule 26(b)(4) of the Feder-nDi. 'g f@,.j$cIl, .f'. ' ~ k al Rules of Civil Procedure is applied to permit discovery of a nontestify- +.. 3 iy)fr 4 .s k,,?,@j, [,, '. o, ing expert only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.

n.

'q*L. et." l :. s ,' l \\..' , ' E.', l RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY; WORK PRODUCT -[l } 5's,. ^.. e ;- PRIVILEGE

v,. w.. -

) .jgf[f:'

',: ' ' j. d The input of counsel to documents required under the regulatory pro-

, gg. e.-

q. N cess and otherwise discoverable cannot immunize these documents

M, from discovery.

,e 6 -e a-r *8 .. x.. 4. s 177 s..r. a.,. %o< . v.e,.v.', .r, ff .w.',' s 8 n go 19 o E 3,... _........ _. _,,. _ _, _ .s zs s s, w. , ' d, 't Y' '[ i;".' c -. .'W. : 5 )l:,h'.~." ;' M" 'I g 'g.8',. . '"':a*' i>

i ;* ? A t

.'., C' t- - i ~- 3 :? ?, i - + t. '

V,.

, O ', t s v u '.v'..A - q +g#.. c". v. .;. E., n m <,w' ' Sts'.' m. 3

.., b jg'h
ide#. l

.0

Nf.

IL , 5.k9).,',' *,'[, y'.,,, -h. m .', %%u'.',he[u 7 r We;M's. ngifs."NI.lX y 'D*. 1'

j. ! * ' " >. 'r, e ', ' )

i.,7 k 3 N= a.w. %, r %%E7hi@WQ;'.d,,.,,. f qd . Cf.,9, @MQ y?g.tx}%(c wM- &n 1y.4 ,.o *<, g. y g %.,,q.* y* 5 % e% !'. h ;a 4 1 W:..,a .v: ': a p g ej ;,p,a T, ~,4s. & y."b' w,l[W.a.'&m':Q p', 0,, ^ %c / gy. M:,.t ~3.g,~. e z. W 'a**- s' v i ,y. g g g. c.. 4 fg,j../ c t> .c.

, 1.

.;3'./

y ,u ~ i . ~ -.a ~.w........ ,*4 h a .v ~ e. 9..m. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, Intervenors' Motion to Compel) .,m-3 q.y i 1 U J,M,'M By Motion dated March 11,1986, Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem et w al., moved to compel Applicant to fully respond to Interrogatories No. ~. + ~ -V 10 and 13 to which Applicant had objected. Interrogatory No.10, in general, requests the identification and description in detail of studies a U;i, y 't V evaluating the "Braidwood Construction Assessment Program" g M 3la; h,,. ,q-tive Action Program." Interrogatory No.13 asks for a description in Q'ft ' ' (BCAP), certain " corrective action programs," and a " Ongoing Correc-i; detail of all work performed by Torrey Pines Technology with respect to quality assurance or corrective action programs. b ' '. ~!! Applicant's opposition to Intervenors' motion to compel, dated March U" 21, 1986, contends that portions of the interrogatories to be answered (by narrative or through the production of pertinent documents) fall ~' under attorney-client or attorney work product privilege, for which Inter-i,.. j venors have not made the requisite showing of substantial need to over-come privilege. We agree with Applicant that Intervenors have made no showing of substantial need for privileged material, and grant Intervenors' motion ,; OT ~. only with respect to those documents that we determine are not privi- .lE 3 leged.

y.

} } l,n t-A

.a MEMORANDUM 6, ~GM,,7 3 ~. >.,,> e4.

4
l

As a threshold matter, Applicant urges us to adopt the reasoning (and application) of Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, -c which permits the discovery of the facts or opinions of a nontestifying ? ~ expert only "upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which 'i. '. it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opin- ' - p**; ions on the same subject by any other means." Applicant cites three g Q'" $ :$ $, : ^ , [E Licensing Board opinions' that have adopted the provisions of Federal Rule 26(b)(4), and only one2 that has refused. Applicant's Response at (/Of? [.' 3-4. Ilaving read those four cases, it is clear to us that the decision on

s. Md; -

-l s whether to adopt Rule 26(b)(4), in the absence of a parallel NRC rule 2bf ' [t,c,$J ;9; as, Uk I Aerr.Afdice Chemral Corp, (west Chicago Rare Earths Facihty). LBP 85 38, 22 NRC 604. 60910

]*. j @ q

.*W gg933); c,,olino Powr a Luthr Co. (shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Uruts I and 2). LBP-83 27A. I* " 'Q'W'f," 17 NRC 971. 976-79 (1983); Pub /r Server Co. o/ New //ampshire (seabrook station. Units I and 2). , {~M.T, o 'N LBP.8317.17 NRC 490. 497 (1983). ~i. -=

2Cencral Electre Co. (vallecitos Nuclear Center General Electne Test Reactor), LBP.78 33,8 NRC 1 ".l i ; i.

461. 465 68 (1978). 1 r .i.*. s 4;,.' u, n A 'g y;: ' C 178 0 N ?,hy ? l r r s ym J 3 .sw4 - Q.; - l q., f. 3., .-.v -y gy-n-- ,,. -, _,,. y 7, &(fjAwhf$NkDhhlhhY f S 'hY 5, .h ? f? h' l h $ ?' $ {' A $ h h h, ! N (s e e a o h. $ w$ $.s $N .?h% me. s.,c umspr.mm~mywwwwmp i n.num.w:s@y,gg;gpmw.g pgg3

7 .,,,.3

3. Us,, y

Q,*[g { Y,4 N r ,up 4 " l. s . :.Q, / A*. t s,. ~ + -*L .M.. -[~.l[ ] M_ ( c

a., (

.,rG N;4' 3' .Fph 2 y. R "., [b_ c. m.. W.: = ' ~ * ' " ~ ~ - " h - A-i- q m&.p.,&.. y.. fly. W , p 7._.;:j, -, A g',l[ d'44.:,(-[y/p;%y.; . e. a. " J $' d y, .v.p,h.,. v.-, w,

m n

M;,n,M ut,*:'.,wrm W Mdgm. MNOW'd;9;y D:gp;. 2s . g.; or decision by higher authority,is still open to the interpretation of this ~. m >..ld. 7."' a, &a.. M,,(. a, '*i. Board. We are satisfied that the system adopted by Federal Civil Proce-n M.y. c dure Rule 26(b)(4) makes good sense in keeping discovery to the essen-d%'e0}/6 ~ iiM T f.M( .E r y% ~ dg-tials of the adversary's case without encroaching upon that party's ability M.% W [,y; C ;,Q'N.@@W h Fc to seek expert assistance, and that a decision by us to adopt that proce- 'P.$wA;V.h.j@@. -(. ~ 31. 9 dure, consistent with, all the recent Licensing Board opinions, would pro-W Q,;,' '$r, m..,d.. s'.. W.M.:N,;.7,,.;p.T'.'*!Mg. 7. M.S mote a desired uniformity in application. We therefore apply the sub-s qGyy q'a ,. 5m. 6 stance of Rule 26(b)(4) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. to this proceeding. Ac- .,m.. cordingly, on the assurance of Applicant (Response at 6), based upon ' W.3*(. Ip;d*:g.tff; m 6?4 the affidavit-of its counsel, that Torrey Pines Technology, Inc., was em-a s ,N.h hNk. ployed exclusively by counsel to provide expert assistance in counsel's T.)h. MNs.'y. j p).pNWM preparation for litigation in this case, that Applicant has no present in-h/nG , M$%YMI.M'7;iN$ tention of calling any employee of that organization as a witness, and fid that no information concerning conclusions reached by Torrey Pines has W@Qy'y, C/, idM (. de'q y.. W g W..y.N. '.4..,%,.. been communicated by counsel to any of Applicant's employees, we _.g,... 3 a,. f..', .4 y y determme that Interrogatory No.13, which relates solely to work per-I$ Nlg,g,.l. M.'" Y @.J' M 8 WV q.O@. W 1 q 'M.C qi i formed by Torrey Pines, need not be answered. If, however, our further b ' q ".M;, Q discussion indicates that Applicant's definition of" preparation for litiga-tion" is too broad, Applicant should reevaluate its withholding of the .q F E [ EJ : <. requested information. 3, / J[yl ' "l~ 'I. Y "d. Applicant objects to describing or producing drafts of documents relat-7[pfm. f, ['q. M JJ G ' " ing to the "BCAP" (Braidwood Construction Assessment Program), .%Qf> f f '- l. / * 'W. G. ~ "BCAP Quality Assurance," " corrective action reports," and "Correc-Mkh$[3DhkN.$$ tive Action Program." Applicant asserts either the attorney client or work product privilege on the grounds that its counsel played a substan-M W: M ;h.l D N@@d! O. MW : y .w tial role in preparing these documents and that they were prepared in ,. w. pw ; W r.iW MN the anticipation of litigating the issues which they address. Applicant's ' $.~.%,-*..t ogwgo@%.rm MW;:: W.: Response at 10. Nowhere in the. motion papers is there a description of %y,$. C r S L g:. @[4* d. M,f f@. E ; J @'dIEf*G the aforementioned programs or reports. As we understand them, how- %g,p'. M...L y*ph J ever, these programs and reports were assumed by Applicant under its obligations to NRC Staff and the Commission's regulations. That the ,; If;A;..M.))k'p,4?M /', drafts may have been prepared with an eye towards litigation and by Ap- , i c,...e '.y, i ,v ' 4~,M R. o.jNo., Qf.dlJ;N;.%,/ m, plicant's attorneys, rather than its technical staff and consultants, should e .v- ~ ,./ M; Wa v. a n ,a be of more interest to NRC's technical staff than to the Licensing Board. a %.9.cM. J. W,k G. % w - m7 g / s n. T,.; M, y p g, %.gt p The input of counsel to documents required under the regulatory process &fd cW; M.. d. egw:g h,.W),p. ", and otherwise discoverable cannot immunize these documents from dis-J .m: m y covery. Counsel in th,s case were assisting in a management function q.W-% b.c4W hp ..M,dN@,MNMN;bh i MO that is outside the scope of both attorney client and work product privi-kh lege. To the extent that these drafts and other documents relate to the

a.

V

M.4 quality assurance issues admitted in th,s proceeding, they should be q $ 9,p,7: y *M W,y % M M i4' i

fD %3 divulged. We do not decide whether counsel's handwritten notes and

a...

me uv W W. 9 p. M k~ g. u m @. M gdt.h;@ '4[.G.".L-S @h;y,@M.W %. 179 W D',C.f, n d eng -s n. .:y~ g:g.:m,2,yff?tgg j. 9g mW.wn y % lV r* 7, ' i ;9 / a.y%.x?.Q t.y.iN 4 p'k(Q,6?,Q6eyl*g,~&Wh*d%{Qg.*

':%~ ' n/ yr-' r*

h _. ~ ~, h,. ~ ~ ~,.. -,s.9 )?*n ; A t' .e .y ,u .m~ % *s r o. w ;y3 p v .y ^ ? :?. ';*.&z. 4.,it ; igQ ni. m:- ~ 8 o ~,. Y; 'h$;,k @*y M M s p t..* g g M M M W @ $ 5 % piQW;h.Yh{&$& ?h ',,Q.% b $S f .h & %.g . g.gA %!WQg W W.MWW Q d QP@ne$w$h.una%mp - m A m a n@lM,n m.g. m yM .a w ded W %&r hw W N ggd m:gWyp.q M

, 9 n. ,y. 4 n .n: ', y 7..a, _. :..

2._h;

. _,r, u. _ - c. ..._._.. _ _.._ _m._

ics,

.-e .%'9 eg.. K*a

4. V. s u' p.

u..

< - ;Z. '. divulged, since Intervenors have declined to " seek the disclosure of - .,. ;. o W 3 4 mf mental expressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of Appli-

.T.20.,d.h cant's counsel" (Motion at 3). Counsel may delete those handwritten

,q r,, $ 7. @.:.c notes and comments from the produced copies. .jy, ~ 3,%;yg*4 A further category of documents withheld by Applicant consists of N J wVL compilations of materials and conclusions of an evaluation of various 1..m.u-n,.:'rZ 3.gg programs at the Braidwood site performed by a Special Assistant to the V.: ,' Y ;l..y. company's Manager of Projects, the purpose of which was to aid Appli-i.S cant's counsel in preparing for licensing hearing. The results of the Spe. f .3 y.Q,%Q: 1; cial Assistant's analysis were communicated only to counsel, the Braid- . f a- ' ' - C 6 4, %,hQh{r.3 wood Project Manager, and Commonwealth Edison's Manager of Proj- ,l g. c ; v. e W>n ects. Applicant asserts the work product privilege for these documents ' l. [M and assures that all factual matters set forth in these reports had been ~ ^ 4,* H.' U made available to Intervenors during the discovery process. Applicant's ,-y ~, 'OO* Response at 13. On the facts stated, as sworn to by Applicant's counsel g:VE and uncontradicted by Intervenors, we agree that these documents ~ : would be privileged as " prepared in the anticipation of litigation or for ^ ' ' [ j 1-[f s trial by orfor another party or by or for that other party's representative /. C. ,,f ? s ; ..." (emphasis added) under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of s' ..M Civil Procedure. Since, however,10 C.F.R. { 2.740(b)(2) establishes 'W ~ the privilege for trial preparation materials only if the documents are pre-7. pared "by or for another party's representative" and omits the phrase s .n.. 9, &, - + g~. v s. n., "by or for another party," it is debatable whether our regulations intend- ' S S W (".1 f U.%. wtv ' . s. ed to depart from the Federal Rules by making documents prepared by a O, 'y, M @b 1/ c 1 ; *,%:'O @y?-2 Mc@ that if they were prepared "for" its representative they already fit under G party itself in preparation for trial discoverable, or whether it assumed MC M..a-w the privilege. While we gravitate towards the latter interpretation, we T **! q,p,* W W T J, Qc., .,y find it unnecessary to decide since, in this instance, under the circum-l,j 1.., d' ' stances set forth by Applicant and its affiant, we determine that these w,

'/ j cc,,v

..'y documents are covered by the attorney client privilege, in any event. In summary, we determine that Intervenors have failed to make the '^ N p ',~., M,9,,...; y F[

a"

.,Q showing required under 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(2) that they have "sub- . L,5 stantial need of the materials in the preparation of this case." To the i g[',. p.., ~. f.h ME 3 extent that the documents are privileged, discovery is denied. On the c~ f,*.,7h?.D,hj[;OAT other hand, we have determined, above, that certain of the documents ..p %. Mk/$.5 ~ " A which relate to the admitted quality assurance issues should not be con-K, + :. 4, y,- Q g M@ ' fS.f. sidered as trial preparation materials where they have been prepared to 1 MG .p satisfy Applicant's obligations to NRC StalTand under the regulations. .. ; p...y. , > :, : u 9. ;. ; c e.%6 m,o$.,,. ;, h k l M b.y*= &..l 3 '7 < ,-l .s l b

s

.s N "s v. -

l}/c[.lv f h 1, /M.' y'-

) d' ,,4 s. r f g . [ , $y% (*v i

K L. i), f,,W.. y ~w;i:

180 p a, < a 'c.v.g v%] %,#. c % glp W[g y,, lf*1,[h( ,M

h.. M j n, M [ M Q E D ; j &

v,,s. 2 Y/ O' E 9 %,S. g ;ll 'i C M* ,m 4 e e,9 H g W %,//j 47g 4 wWh3q$.$.<.g@ (p wCC""CE WrA,Mesho t.N< e - S ', W i.l./ : ~ v P. 5v e 3.-

D, #W e$q$, w$w$.?p ?.

. - m .y.

g t

%,Q%&a,49pg m 4 s g r% a. n g pM %. p w.k M W pg'hl$ es$s,WVW f f Y$? h 0 NS & .W$ h5$ g p qqw 3 m w Mw&gnQmi, M_ hby.%mgyp.y%...a +Qpq n m e wa . n. w :. m. .+ w

~ = m,n.s +J g,,.. .w.. rw. sm. 3. J+,. 2 s. pp a y D,. ') 2 . +4.%.#,[. ag ,s-.. ? ?

s. a..t M Q,q#

. =.u. a.:. u. =. ;.., a.. u.. a ~ - .L. u.u: r* N,y.,. l

' en.

,, 4 ,g .~J,.t. Je.. p... p,, ~ - .e. ~ 7(....l

f.{ -

> g.T...U, . l ORDER q%r, c.., .,. t 4 ' /.,'.. * ' ' - For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the w .r [e entire record in this matter, it is, this 28th day of March 1986, ~ J ORDERED , J./:j p.

1. That the parties apply the principles enunciated in the foregoing c,'.,...'.c memorandum to the disputed documents; and

'. A :,.4', ', ' w

2. That any documents remaining in dispute be brought to the Chair.

Cy f '? man's attention immediately by any party so that the matter can be re-L >I solved expeditiously through a conference call. l n. c. k.': &, ,j. r,. u..*., ..M c.. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND q# D-.. *,.. - LICENSING BOARD M.... m'.J i .L. (. * ' r.' ~ e,; 5 d,. ;.... t.. ~ t Herbert Grossman, Chairman s.. J* c h.,+O,.: '. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE F,'< m . i r . 3 Bethesda, Maryland F . M.... 'I' " ~

j

.#. s,*, i 9 ...,Q /_ /

j

.~. 4 6h g,

4. %..,

O ll^ = g .I I F*g

%,;y._;' = ^ e

,s e. +. {. .,.. i; 4't, r.%

s. s...

w ,y .t s 41.t{ p a'*P * * = J 1 _., t. 3 + +

. 'y.: s. -y s.tiY; t.%sy,. ! :

s ,t n, * ** a * * *p. et. 3 , ;f f W:x' *;,,, _>* + [ '..,4 M.(q f..,. g

(.

b h; O ( .rs b$ /3 g.

' [.A b 4

I , we * ',. g ,,,.'d'

j

'N :S .( 51 t v e ;.: s

]
e

...s, .t* >,.e. wisse .'.*, ; e .'. s..g ' 'i . gh.Er%Se,* .. 's'Ip g y.'. ' 5. e e ,(.. 4W g.'j,p, c . % Q.. .v., g. 4 b A k... n. p. t;n.1 r s, . )g$..,g; &, v.

t. %. s v'

~ hy..,.gh.4.,7,H;t',frM).h.... $,e.*.'. ' ' ' ...6 n.g.s. ' 12-x ' '* 1r

J4',

.yf s , t

.l: %

1 l*, ;;. J .U. y,,* rm.. . 9.;G Nin

2.,. *,

[ H.,,';, .,_. <.'C s ~ { ' ".^ ( -, g b,. f (. E [ e -1.

e..

~ 4.,s s.,d DJ ' {1', g y ?* t" k I ! t ? ' 6 /4 l ..e %w.I".y' *. 3N n*,:,.. . p p. ~ f M.o $b,.. 181

.n.W...:.f

,9. u. l* '*ll

& dli'!s {'s, 4

,.e.\\.l f . Q'.'.C.ceH.$*. 7 , '+ %r'7 .,, y s p m.. +, ., a y,],g*, d,? ,6 s m

h. r.

e . m$ [ 't '} PN.,.i*,..; e.. g. , 3. n p.... -._.41.' ~ f

j ; $

---....,_..*,w,. .. m,~, 4 + a ya s... .,_.-.-..-....m..-, (t* s >+',g.- j' .p. m .a ,'g(- ',r..N.-* ~...m( %g*,..,. e 8 i ,., ja .. r, ].

U M +

7

y r-y

.,.i ,t ~ .A"' M2 a,, 3.. e @~j;N k, 'eT@nea w g'

rh

?* fI*

N

[ ') W;. M.9.$wc._p... e&,dg'i'~, *.,M, ~.N'. i.()y.w.,,d,,n.~w. n, <*2*,,. f. W e... Mu.,g;0wlw+.,L m.s:

. ?w.,

n.w. e& '.. ;O,.q'f_M J.%.1.. :(wyy '%,., Q Q, t.f.j.l.'q M. q.n.;lQW y. l.n'.,h. '.lw. s.Q x'tl,soi w'. Q; s .v ,r m.. ~. . n .% Q. ) 4. W. m L.. i . ' * * '1 .v..., m. .. c.. z.

. y.,. ,a. c.. a m p u ..., o,. h;.. o. ,s.. e ~ J' i. /.. .._..._ _._... s a _..a ma.. ,gg:,. a.+ . u s 4v 5.v 5 '[,, %.,7 :s, s p,". r. v ;. ,,w,...., y -l; & -,: 7.y ~ Cite as 23 NRC 182 (1986) LBP 88-8 %'!R$R.;, s. ..;,+ - y.. g. p,q,.,... y)v:, ' <? ..~. m. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j4;$@<f"'. j. v. E *.. N. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WyM ' v ' ", ~. ,,e n a a:d\\w ? %.r e... h,f.%e,Jf:,.y't! m "e', 4.- +.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

cyg.act.. - ', ~....,

ow& W '..;-

p.

3: as.a..

v..

f.y e.: .

jk.-h ;,Q c',. i., Before Administrative Judges: a,i, M N 6 df d *..Sj' [ J '..[ Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. James C. Lamb L.% M.yQ:.rg e. A >a.p. ,. n p'-@. %. S.'. - u. Frederick J. Shon .i wpJo%pyy.,m .... n, y y ~ $;,, m 4 .t. .w.4.m.: e, .w M Khn';e. n$ $jr..q,hN y @ p's'[ .s.!.,..g-.'. In the Matter of Docket Nos. STN 50 498 0L ~ v .e..<.s., STN 50 499 OL d' % yt w.7.,'V. h': h %3 1h 9 ,,. r, (ASLBP No. 79 421 07 OL) khh M:M R f C Nhb[ I HOUSTON LIGHTING AND SiAN.[#w../v..qu,/ POWER COMPANY, et al. Arc. M kh h h gIb.44 i.'. ; (South Texas Project, tN Q UI:] N N. ".'. 9 Units 1 and 2) March 28,1988 %l?p,3Y ~%; T.4. c ? - E..' 4 I 4 ,1 3 y. %g.,.s. 4. % % y;";.,m.:'. ., r; ,-4.' ,. *- {, 4 4 g ;w,.- +....} ,, + 4 ,o. t.. n.., pe M 4 I e.., ~, m.W M NNN,h ev'

.h'9 The Licensing Board issues a Prehearing Conference Order discussing

a. p' f

issues for which further hearings are sought.

p.gy,f/jf?.', f d '.,,

y; d....w.... r. .a t. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM: REQUIREMENTS d

C'$~p, Y F. C 1 '..u,'

l There is no programmatic requirement under the provisions of 10 $ t?.'. t '3 M.' ;. '.N,,.' f. , C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B (setting standards for a quality assurance program for operation) for a program to control the use and/or sale of 1l M.{.h l $ ;

p. -

$@31 '.JJ.t '.,. #. t,, illegal drugs by plant personnel. S. 4.. r,, g ,m, ? &>',. 4. Yy ['.; ;,. ~o W G.. A, F M. y W?.. t RULES OF PRACTICE: CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES e.. e p..b ?, v; (T, *. v v ;.. .;,. M A. INVOLVED IN RULEMAKING D.N G :{*is;. >;*.q:.+>. %'y .' e .$tf. W h.h..:, 6.",'T, q ;'.f Where the Commission has suspended a rulemaking pending the de-velopment of standards by industry, and in the absence of any statement [ f,} //.4. w..t..,. ',.'...i ',. w. .r s.,. ;.. f~ , kt OM., *

..;, p>j )., I,Q_ 2..

.k $ ' [#g' 1.. '., y .+ L.. " q/9*. n, t .I *,. f* ;k,. * '. e, ;, ',, i.

q.na.w I82 c

/M n. s . u... . 'l

m. '.yo M~.

4 o. .(, i sl's 5..,. d 4,., v.,,.,, y il " p- ( ' 4...4

4g*!j ; Y?

W. ,. W e 'A.'* 2 %.v.-,

.A1...g...b

. 1;f..,y:.f'1

h:'1((.'}?;r-h**'

,J*j ,4 "" T'" T *~~~,'" "T":V"W!r'" w l w.h $.,~"*".O' $ W,h:&5;&m& ' $k.. ? * ?,*5 4r,n=' T*;n ~?WY ~ ~* '*t~W***~9~Yf S,h. c ,V V'TVTr

m.,w%y%ltr qQpp;Q.qqpg&: ;y r.5.$Q+,.;a::.]:

& m ?.$'$kb@ h. .??~ % - l m' N l/h :N TTT sm ,/ .swn.. ~ p f; Q. Ef g ih .s.f p< n..m..p3..npyny%wp.mm.or%,v.ng.%y myn,. pn,..,gg,p p.b. - e.

n..

qm.m.

q. e ~

r g t. 'k k D h 'Y'Yh s

4 y.- --n, 5. - u.:- u .. a 2:. by the Commission that issues involved in such rulemaking should not be litigated, there is no generic bar to a Licensing Board's consideration of issues which may fall within that rulemaking, under standards in effect prior to such rulemaking or under ad hoc " reasonable assurance" [ ' .fe criteria where no programmatic standards exist. c., '/6-RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS The Commission's Rules of Practice require that. for a contention to '.V,'.- be litigable, there must be " bases for each contention set forth with rea-sonable speciGeity." An anonymous telephone call to a party's repre-J, f,. 7.y.t N., y. sentative does not, without more, constitute an acceptable basis. f o p.T, 7 ;4 % v. .r .c q TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED '. a' I,' j Quality assurance program for operation. g o.. SEVENTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Motions to Reopen Phase II Record; 1ssues for Phase 111) 1 .i On March 21, 1986, pursuant to notice,1 and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. { 2.752, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board held the seventh y,,;,.' prehearing conference in this operating license proceeding. The confer- ' ' ~ ence was held in Bethesda, Maryland. Participating were representative < 4, m ' of the Applicants, the Intervenor (Citizens Concerned about Nucles y.,.,* g f J :., : Power, Inc. (CCANP)) and the NRC Staff. Following is a description of -.~.@g. ~ 7 a 4 N, the matters discussed and rulings rendered. .f l:, .s 3 51 8'

P %.

A. Motions to Reopen Phase 11 Record .i The Board first posed certain questions, and heard argument, concern-F.% 4 - ing CCANP's fourth and Gfth motions to reopen the Phase 11 record P i . s. W,; . ~.,., , s.,,, c. i n.. (Tr.15,715 53). The questions related to the substance of the material proffered as well as the timeliness of the motions. We have reached no .. ".r,t. a. [.,f ' /. ; t f, * *. 4 . A i.. decision on those motions. However, we have determined not to reject [,'g',M -:a, T,l./,.I, '.( s. the motio is on timeliness grounds. Accordingly, our rulings will depend ..r r ..y. m. i- [.' % _' .r: Tfu f * :,. . b. *.Y.,-.s. -,, n ,.p 1. ..s s' Q,,c. * :i ( *. I Nonce or Prehearing Conference, dated February 12.1986 (51 Fed. Res. 6054 (Feb.19.1986)L s .. r ].o,. . rg v.t 47 183

u. c. s

. ' ' d.} v o s' 4,eci; ;,' -.,.m.._m.,. _. _._ m 7, .'r, As g' y Q' 99.' gN. =1%

Q.b* & ;
- .,,,g y

9 7 4 k ,a 4 4 q r p.m.... '.'.. $g.,,v,'"-',..." ..a,',,,'w ..h I i _, u, 1 z w, ,w .. + .... r ff. w: m. ~, 4..".. .p..-.,. .A..,.,- ..e,o.. o 3. w. ...s 1 "..p.n.. -,.,'.e. o.- X,. %r! y* h.% ;..,. ...a .y _ a' v 9 .u,' g^*' -,'- bg.. 1J ,. t. " f'./ g.T F ;f'.w.,%r.c m. *. # f -p'C h.:r;r *, t'* ** D M * 9. i. .',b N'.. f, ,h;n'.: k t' f,. t w /,'3;

ip e a-

+ 'f kW [f hh. w,. gn;;bkQ)f,r).'k;h.. l., a. 3 M?ilyQ.(j I._',f%h-bfi;fMN&j&l. ',k ~5h Y f Q f f. (% h I' ) % K Q'y,y y QT

(,

W n ~h Q.Jf. @.

. m ., :'. w.. % gp.< M@ n&s, y.. ..-f

M M

n M.;c..,n r* % P gg -....s;__.........__ . -.... ~. ~--a , ; pm.y c. e...:A n;.vn. .V m'. s.... s a.M.4 'y.f..h, <r,i, - .W'f' ,'s--Q J,' 4 .4 .,s . m#39 '. ;w

u.

eq'.; ?, k.2m'Ag 7. 1 ,fr yp;e-g;..NC Q:N,,, "4 on whether we believe the material proffered would affect the result .hbNbh$ m,. u w w. s,~w..; [..,..- which we otherwise would reach on Phase 11 issues.

w,A g,,., e,*a
.W;2 +.aM w+,L: e, m..'...m a? FJ'. ; t.

f ,7 : B. Phase III Issues MS@P-oQ ..n s.. N.f.qt W.Ms hc @4 p..b. m..,'. The issues currently open for consideration in Phase III are Issue F 9fT S + W ygg MM[f,Ie. M ?l i.1'< "2 ' c: ;. (QA program for operation), an update of our ruling in our first Partial y$.QMir3:% 3 Initial Decision (LBP 84-13,19 NRC 659) on Issue C (organization and Mlf.N@f3M,3 + 64* .P '*s. personnel for operations), and limited aspects of Contention 4 (to the $M NN6Md/'g'J extent it questions the adequacy of construction to withstand hurri-3%v'.,/.mg@ip%g@og.; f.... v canes). We have thus far authorized Phase 111 discovery only with re- @M >Rv..,rw e a e w !.@ )~; % s +. - .s spect to Issue F.

v. y.g,.Q*ef.WP.* "

CCANP has currently raised only one question for Phase III litigation.

4g

'M@~5dd@hy.% .,,% g 2 .4 w ! h*,A It asserts that ilL&P's program for control of drug use has been prefer-m; M entially administered. Specifically, CCANP alleges that many personnel , w</,', F..fv. ~&..W.,i M~,. -. s:v Wd' u ~ .W tu found.to be using or sell.mg illegal drugs have been terminated, whereas k h y>. g. h

I, 6 J s

["igNfM@kg[MMMj.s (. .f: N7 others who are members ofIIL&P's " Operations Group" have not been 6 terminated. Further, that some who have been found to have been in-Mh.hhkIf E0kD. volved in the use and/or sale of illegal drugs have not been terminated N' WOM MW'OM,0$ggef.a' Mh40 ; because they might implicate members of the " Operations Group." As a rer dt, according to CCANP, IIL&P's management has demonstrated a %dkh$b @h'g h % $. -Z[a lack of character which disqualifies it from operating a nuclear plant. See MMk8;

NN;&.de CCANP Answers to Applicants' Eighth Set of Interrogatories and Re-h,43W g S MWE;. 7 quests for Production of Documents, dated February 12, 1986, answer

.' w C & @M y Q;4W.9% (5) h Dk h.h @M,D.Vd%, d h h h hd h N 1. CCANP asserts that this issue is covered by Issue F, which in-WWM p quires whether the QA program for operation complies with 10 C.F.R. Q$['!.' @ d h.yf@;.,r M,f( fMt0 J'TQpt Part 50, Appendix B.2 CCANP submits that the alleged preferential treat-Sc ment represents a violation of criteria 11 and XVI of Appendix B. It filed ]f 9;. $, y }..W.y X, [~7 ' - a number of discovery requests with the Applicants, based on the allega- . ? Wjl ' g. f '.'*';' q, T." if1 tions falling within the scope of Issue F. The Applicams declined to y 3 y ; gl,,y answer most of the interrogatories and to produce any of the documents . q,Njgh').i,'l p.(D C ', f @ k. Ma,.'d M. A, %,. requested. Their reasoning was set forth in their Motion for a Protective S.' . i. e., +.b,. Order, dated February 18, 1986, supplemented by their Answers and M 4+.:.P h-Objections to CCANP Interrogatories, dated February 18,1986, and , M ig; m. .l'. 1 f '. M -MM their Response to CCANP's Second Request for Production of Docu- [MM{.$h'Q;fd%{. N ments, dated March 6,1986. For its part, CCANP responded to the Ap-J M - r.NY'M r.F - plicants' motion and also filed motions to compel with respect both to w.%r;;&. : ;;,..a..M.r%.;. p ; M..a ;,v. r ....gv.,,h.$.. '*I/ Obe .(,

hb h.m. Nh

. h{. I.'N i S

s oh. D* 2 Issue F. which was denved from the Commission's ruhng in CLt.80 32.12 NP.C 2810980), reads-jM,- "will HL&P's Quahty Assurance Program for operation of the sTP meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. a y f, f,., ; , s i Ma%pey.Q:,.,., >eff. ,y ( ; * [.' Par 50. Appendit D?" second Preheanns Conference order, dated December 2.1980 (unpublished). !,,[k d p$ - '[* I "r g % y* _ 9* f

5)
'['

} [. * *, ' Qh' ykO,'d.h:. M, v.9ff. d gg4 .,o. ',6.,v'. u ' c - m I 1 C1 #: + l{ $$ P f,*;'.f' *j %' '.'

$*. e, V **

N. ' x. 9 s, e , ac.ha 2 -. p Y bi6 A,'.hsf ', k Q ' " @Q. l'Q. ',. 4. %i..M. " ';. E 4 y s. pi *y. . )e:n, p.; ,>?y.*(n..vM.'O.,.j r.;. M; i i!Jk'r "f* y w i e A, mm 7 y-,m~.~7,~C., p m.v~ 'r";'"'. 'T~7' =? T '.' o ! j! f*e. p L% s,e w"s y'y w m$ y, . v,acws s.. t nm 4 ' y2r., ' 4W%y,@1 -) N a s f. - a,.m. g y m. p. %c.~ w:P.' d* M., t. ~ s. sW gs. 4 as$,p.t. 4.. e

a.w L

{ h 4{.g 4 c$ yi,e.N[e~,6 g,J - h [9,. p[s N.f" ./, j e y f .Y'f M $F g J A >.?p - m.2 %.r.(w# 6 n,' N,'N[9 M % rs p :+. W x.3 :.s @., n.m.

M'[ 'm nfL 8' [;.y w :. n ;Av)-

m w g, p m. eu w . ~ . % $.. h e k k %'rtMMAM..S(,M'h;MM @v.vW,.idM ' [<M E 2M d. h.'gM-f/TbM [ [ t, Q%.w. C%m & C 'L d %f: .t ? M w? 1. W "~' " 2 *.". ' ~ w &]A Swg .M M "'*@ M w f: 4 "l-WM L

n '.. m wf - t t - ; ( "t x, .y . % y; "0 f n, ) y

mc y r

ye, m c ,, '[.. [ ~N N )J }. D[ ,. y, t \\ . 4..a;,* Q.A w+ .3 - s.gi.P s, s ~ .s y; - g,g;;y% . h.M.y., 6 u-- _ wa; w;:.im c w 'v .g., c 3 A y,M. z .n.- '~ \\. 9 1 o I :.,M 4 :,. [ M. p.1m + r p'7.y y, f. g% its interrogatories and document requests. See Response dated February . y Py M

v,"

28,1986, and Motions dated February 28 and March 21,1986. f,,' %l, - . c 36 "-f c. The Applicants advanced several arguments to support their objections f' ,N!;.!, '0 , MQ@s 4 *;. to most of CCANP's discovery requests. They primarily asserted that a I Tc drug control program is not a QA requirement under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, f *,.... R P.r Q. Appendix B, and that NRC has never considered such a program to be %' '$h5, part of its QA requirements. The Applicants cited two pending rulemak-I, ' ],.y ;'. ' ^.~'?f* O.ds7' ing proceedings - one dealing with " fitness for duty" (47 Fed. Reg. j ', N, 33,980 (Aug. 5,1982)) and the other with access authorization for per-M M.*M$'. d. sonnel requiring unescorted access to special nuclear material (49 Fed. t, E 'A..,. ..a >,'; - m,w m + Reg. 30,762 (Aug.1,1984)) - as evidence that NRC hc no current re- !,1*,$.,I j;) ' W .. h+/ M.o g... f .3 0,j M '*N - quirement for a drug control program. Accordingly, they considered the "m 2\\.C<i'; effectiveness of the implementation of such a program as beyond the J '7.d F-g Q scope of issue F and discovery related thereto as not relevant to an issue v m' < c..Tlh' ++sep,t i, f g,[. ~ in controversy. The Applicants further claim that the two pending rulemaking proceedings deprive us of jurisdiction to consider drug con- .?, I ' i.h 4+.,. m,,.,

f.C,.

trol issues. 6 CCANP asserted that a drug control program is required by the terms .r n.. of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, criteria 11 and XVI, as well as by the

/ M,j'

' q;% s". ', j' '

generalized introductory language of Appendix B. Tr. 15,783-85;

, J y,- d

": l'c

.S ',., ?', ' l CCANP Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order, dated ' W.' February 28,1986, at 3-4. In any event, CCANP asserts that its allega- '" 9 tions do not attempt to challenge the adequacy of a drug control program N.' ' '. as such but, rather, the character of the management officials admin- %'g$!$ff. ' N OP, - ' Ylfi,ils f-. gy, istering the program and implementing HL&P's QA program for opera- ,,dp I h'b 6@.{ ..d,>4g#w,., h; eb tion. CCANP views issue F as encompassing the adequacy not only of the QA program but also ofits likely implementation. ww.w c. ' q"' W.e* ' ' Prior to the conference, the StalT had not taken a position on these wp,@g$;g[ o W W1 ,W 2'y. issues, since it does not normally inject itselfinto discovery disputes be-tween other parties. At the conference, however, it took a position on 'I. '3Q,f f 'M , ' '.' y} ~,U

. ?f4 some of the broader aspects of the questions raised by the dispute. The

..M * ' Mf,,.:. Staff took the position that CCANP's allegations did not fall within ,c. v ~, 6 'a !. y

Fs.m.

Issue F. It agreed with the Applicants that Appendix B includes no re-4 m es%,,, i n,,..l. querement for a drug control program - evidenced both by past 3tg

g..,s.W.g

.p.7. D S.9@',My *y implementation practices and by the pendency of the rulemaking q,g.,., W j ,,..4 Cg h'.%%@A gcqt f$gO@N6,.' 1 The StafT expressed the view that, if considered at all, the allegations $ @?.N' proceedings. g W M'h.g$ 'i l * " would have to be regarded as a new, late filed contention (Tr.15,780). '"Mj *p. @.6 .ftpih.J y,N. D.... In that connection, the Staff disagreed with the Applicants' position that N@p y,. the pendency of the two rulemaking proceedings deprives us ofj. r. d. u is ic- -i h m.f;e..c v. tion to consider drug control issues under any context (Tr. 15,833 36). ^ S?"M ap 4l!D+.- 4e $f.9 7,f p :P.* " Based on the arguments of all the parties, we ruled that considera- [NN.N ' k tion of drug control issues is not barred generically by the pending @/M IN N 2. M.:., n f'Oe?. , p. m, n. w, a 1 M 5% ?. ; * ',s N u,m)gj;; , n. .',.a 185 ,.*' N..-' %u ; t .r v & g. N. g*'; j' '(,

D. e%.g.

s,. f. ~ p'" gs.., y, / W y. a. g &#.c' ? #

4
p

.. -w' ' }, m"I, y .' % t. g -. e - 2, a .4,' u ?l;p(w' )3 d' '. J **

Y % e p ' 'i e A' ? W.',

-ww y-. .. _ _ _ p 9% d*u N e m. e$'m m e g g g g. g t

y' ~' 1: s p ~,. _,

r,y, f

J; ~ ( [ ~ 5 .- < = . (- .% ;J, - s 9 MS'. jf?L as.-- s. ', C .x. --a-

=-

.ifl ~ M %T

J.

,l , M ', _ l rulemaking proceedings. We also ruled that CCANP's allegations did not fall within Issue F. 'I r. 15,888-89. c ,- 4 On the generic question, only the fitness-for-duty rulemaking bears i directly on requirements for a program to control drug use. (The access authorization rulemaking bears on the qualifications of particular indi- -{ viduals to have unescorted access to areas in which are found quantities l4 'r* 'j of special nuclear material.) The fitness-for-duty rulemaking has in IQ ' q effect been suspended, to permit industry to experiment with programs r to control drug use on an ad hoc basis. That is not the situation in which ]' I the generic bar to litigation of issues considered in rulemaking was in-l tended to apply. This rulemaking is not likely to lead to the adoption of ,l definitive standards for drug control prograras in the near term. Under J.u. these circumstances, examination of the adequacy of the ad hoc pro- ~.1 grams is clearly permissible - either by the Staff, or through adjudica-j tion of appropriately raised and presented contentions. Beyond that, in neither rulemaking did the Commission explicitly bar 9 the litigation of drug control issues. In the situation presented here, ',,., 7 j such an explicit bar would have been necessary to preclude litigation of I drug issues under existing standards - which would amount to an ad [ <f h y; l hoc examination of drug control practices to ascertain whether a "rea- , V..t m <t sonable a*surance" finding can be made under 10 C.F.R. { 50.57(a). See 3.j,f4 JJ .,( Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-82-63,16 -n.; NRC 571,585 (1982); id., LBP-82-118,16 NRC 2034,2037 39 (1982), 4 i..y ; +

q M

,lj and authorities discussed. Nor does this situation involve an impermissi-y -4 ). ble attempt to litigate a question under standards proposed by a pending / '[.. ' rulemaking, as was the case in Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP 79 33,10 NRC 821 824 (1979), one of the authorities relied on by the Applicants.) ~ ~ As for whether the allegations with respect to implementation of the y$y, N ' ~ drug program fall within Issue F, we read this issue as broad enough to encompass both the description and the implementation of the QA pro-

v.,

g t. t gram for operation. For, as the Appeal Board long ago observed, ,d y'h,,,.,* h. h r,. : hl1,. ' I.i., No QA program is self executing. Thus, irrespective of how comprehensive it may ...s .. ;*'a ,5f, 4.' U,d j b.,,;'; '?. appear on paper, the program will be essentially without value unless it is timely, O i' ~* continuously and properly implemented. This being so. it seems to us to follow that . l'. '.Q. .} it is not enough for a licensing board to satisfy itself that, if implemented, the pro-3 . p.w. 3 - Sc, o -. - 4 } 3 The Appeal Board's later observations on the errect of a pending rulemaking on another issue in the sarne Rancho Seco proceeding ( ALAB-655,14 NRC 799. 81611981)), also cited by the Applicants. are ,,.~.g i Ol; b' ~ entitled to no precedential effect, since they resulted from the Appeal Board's sua sponte review of an + .l.i.,,~,,' /c ~ issue not clearly within the scope or the proceeding C/ bi:oea Pubir Scrwe Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear s Generating station. Units 1. 2. and 3). ALAB 71).17 NRC 83 (1983)-. Genera / Electre Co. (vallecitos

- Q q y

/ .y; Nuclear Center - General Electne Test Reactor). AL AB.720.17 N RC 397,402 n.7 (1983). . -.: q,* q .g, j, j$ ' a $,, ' 5 e* 4 m,, L ,4., ~ ct.

c t

186 .Q : .V:q s ,1

'.+,cy

{,Y '.'.,,, I L . T' N 73 4 g

p,

J of,7,I Mh
[.*

t, .-~---""--*-~.~q .. "F"'"9 '"Y"*~~~'"*"W'**7 n n.k.,( ~. ',...,q,p ~ . a -:,., ,, u -.,.

,e. ~ A 4: D 5 gram described in the PSAR will adequately protect the health and safety of the public. At least where, as here, there has been a legitimate question raised in the course of the proceeding, the board must go on to inquire into whether there is, in fa':t, a reasonable assurance that the applicant and its architect engineer will carry .-v out the program in accordance with its terms. /, s * ' 3 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-106, 4 AEC 132, 184 (1973). We also disagree with the Applicants and Staff that all character ques-tions in this proceeding were relegated to issues A and B. Indeed, we -M[ *. have real doubt whether CCANP's current allegations would fall within s ll '. the scope of those issues, even had they been able to be raised in ',.( i ^ Phase I. Notwithstanding the scope of Issue F, however, we do not believe that it is broad enough to include the current drug allegations. Even though drug use might be perceived as falling within the generalized lan-guage of Appendix B, programs to control drug use have never been re-quired under Appendix B. The circumstance that the Commission cur- ~ rently has under consideration two proposed rules which would encom- ',i. pass drug use is convincing to us that no such programmatic requirement currently exists - in Appendix B or elsewhere. .r This does not mean that drug use or control issues cannot be litigated. We disagree with the Applicants' position that we can only litigate 1, compliance with existing programmatic requirements. As the StalT ob-serves (Tr.15,834), we have authority to explore certain "mterstitial J L areas" between such requirements. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that d*- J,'.. drug use or control, and management attitude questions associated r- [ therewith, are not currently litigable under an issue which questions the n-structure and implementation of the QA program for operations. For that reason, we ruled that CCANP's allegations do not fall within Issue F. We accordingly granted the Applicants' motion for a protective order and denied CCANP's motions to compel.* s 3. We also explored whether CCANP's drug use allegations were / ',* ' properly within the scope of issue C, which questions the adequacy of M.. ,f. - c, . ', b. A'(. IIL&P's program for operation of the STP.' Much ofissue C was litigat-ed in our first PID (LDP-8413), but only on the basis of the preliminary '0

.r;..'

,,ysc. e -

, L ]" ^, ' r 3

s, 8On March 12.1986 the Appigants fMed a motion for summary disposition or issue F. We understand

' *iW*V,?. that. since CC ANP's drug claims are the only matter it wishes to litigate under issue F, it will not re-spond to that motion. IJnless we indsate otherwise by ruture order, the stafr need not respond to the ' ^ :,, 3 h ',,'p.,,,

7" '

~

i' A pplicants' motion.

S in our Order (Response Dates for CCANP Motions), dated March 3,1986 (unpublished), we advised the parties we would discuss this question at the preheanns conference. i e6 j *?..' ; "

, f, q

}f d, g ', 6 187 g% ', a ,4 y 0 *, l( ~ woe - w= eer, e . yo o e -,. .n, -e.. y,, .e,_,9.,,, . '.kW .,.*T s

A}*

,'...i. I 5 '[' p r 3 ,f, h., ).~, d

e. i. s:.t,f,n i$.,, V

,.l,.g7,M;[g,'g,p. ,yS, c.Q4Qg.,gN.: %..q ,.y)).3 0,,. .. n,, s .a n,7 . v, y ;y',., N,m.-/ % [s ,7( 1< .,,,. p. 9 % ,f + mg,,, , s.,- w. < ,- y,. e ( r,, 7,.f %,g- .j,,-., ti,,, - g.p, j .,3 p.gy..,,,,g.g.. c y y 9

u?, g 5. .,t ya u -r + e c.;'. . w.3. a n.c. a - a - -. -.-~.. ~ u-. -~.-:=- ~ _ y.- p ~.~ -.: ~ ), 'l.{,', ?' -.w;; ,s [s.' 7 =. Q@ ;. l ' 3 3 *.? ,l information then extant. We provided for an updating of this preliminary . format. ion. m At the conclusion of the conference, we had not reached a decision 1,3 ~ whether the updated portion ofIssue C, as to which both the Applicants g" _., ' ),-;- and Staff have filed affidavits, is broad enough to cover the allegations

q respecting the drug control program (Tr. 15,888-89). We determined, however, that for the allegations to be litigated in any context - i.e.,

whether under Issue C or as a new late filed contention - we would ,n. J.* W f.., '. .j need more particularity as to the basis for the allegations. CCANP de- .[, ,Q.' %; scribed its basis (under affidavit of its representative) as an anonymous -l i telephone communication to CCANP's representative. CCANP advised < t. c, o that the informant did not wish his or her name to be identified. We "~ i ,] ruled that, before we would authorize adjudication of the allegations in

A,. y ;

any context, we would require further particularization, such as the -l mf;y. name of the individual, the foundation of his or her knowledge of the g, f,, allegations and willingness to testify. ...Qf;... .,e ,S In reaching 'his determination, we took into account the requirement -l in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(b) that there be " bases for each contention set 64,4* l ,...,,,.{ forth with reasonable specificity." The only basis provided thus far by 7g. - .@f' ; CCANP - an anonymous telephone call to CCANP's representative - 9 does not in our view constitute a reasonably specific basis upon which , N.*g,i f'@b. ; e,7 -r*l allegations, if accepted for litigation, would constitute an unspecific and M. litigation may fruitfully be founded. As thus far framed by CCANP, the . r. /p,3;% 4 gg l s. ,?. ~ -l'. impermissible entree to a fishing expedition conducted through broad-ranging discovery of the type CCANP has already submitted to the Ap-Ae plicants. The NRC regulatory scheme requires more s'pecificity prior to =. y;, : * ?' < C : q.. g. : - ,7. the initiation of such discovery.* .y [. N N.~ We indicated that we would provide a protective order for any such in- "J ? i ?, formation, and that initially it need be furnished only to the Board (Tr. '.S [.1 15,889, 15,891 93, 15,898). We ruled that this information, or other in-i J ( formatio.1 providing more particularity to the allegations and/or their %.dy.. ~t source, should be furnished the Board by March 28,1986 (Tr.15,894). Based on that information, the Board would decide whether the informa-l M, Q f' N J.i Q' *-'.',*- s. ?N. *, ' E tion was sufficient to initiate adjudication, either under Issue C or as a hNk7,N'- l new contention. If we decided that further exploration of the allegations y w,"p b

7. 4 :..

fi was warranted, we indicated that we would develop a protective order , G' f. :MMM ' I M ' ;,' ! i - with respect to that information (as well as for much of the information W l.**,4 which CCANP sought through discovery, to which CCANP offered no V.T;(p't. z fs gg -p s '

Q, 3

,,) -h.,hh [ e in so holding, we are not evaluating the merits oran otherwise adequate basis, as precluded by Houstos ry J .? ; p.,.. a t ' - @,5 l. ; 1', Lt:4 tint and rower Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generauns station. Unit 1). ALAB.590.11 NRC 542 (1980) 3,y ' )*. p,,. QMj, E.? y.. ' '. e s ?.

~

%% 'm' s:.A.. '.,. wp .s s

,. ;g n

188 r,n w (4 ',a ~.7 4 ) ,., ~ q a p ' ;;, L.. y - a

n, r,

,**;Y. ,p,, o.y.n., ~,,,,..-..-._ _ c, r.- m.~..*',.,4. m, a ", ,5. s. /

e'

[; khi^h, hjj '. }~, +, ( ' [* [' N[g (, c.,7 ( - h s. 5 .L:, a.~.pe M...g.:: ;v... .uma +

n w&, p

~,. '... .:+ ,4, fy,.W.g, :m. y W:p.u; a" m q; mwie.-G nmg 4 .a .y.;w g f, '.. a+ ~ i@.. 96 m.'m.m.u.d u : .v .._4;L;* gw - yn +.%,M.[yg .a- .~ m ;. w

l },, ~~ + 3. _3 s e, g,' n.v., - ~,. '_____.s.__ . 7;,.

- _ c.~w

.. y % g. 3 .-j .2.

4

-p .., 3,.: c S [ : C. '. *: 'c y a 1.g. n, o..;W,".... .r .m w ;.. s T ob[cction).'We also indicated that, if we determined that the allegations 4** Q'Q]-1.kj,7 ..; J - could be litigated only as a new late filed contention, we would provide 3 :]) g, e. ?. , O CCANP.an opportunity to address the factors of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a) i.. ". and other parties an opportunity to respond. j@g s.3

y By telephone on March 25,1986, CCANP advised that it would not rJ.W[s :.,y.

t,- reveal the name ofits informant, even under protective order. It indicat. G ed that it would confirm this advice by letter. In view of this response, ?[. l i '.f/@.:

f,.a,... '

we decline to authorire discovery on, or further to entertain, CCANP's a e4 drug use allegations. We express no opinion as to whether those allega- $ %,%_. a.."Y QN

Y ' /

tions fall within the scope of!ssue C. s .-ns. s n.MM Sim,.&,,. '.3 w.":;J. ;+.. v*. %a p w;n .ap, C. Other Procedural Rulings f w:y.. n. MMM @. 9dA i. In our Order (Response Dates) dated February 6,1986 (unpublished), .j we provided that the Stati was to respond to the Applicants' affidavits fyg.)g,,T ', '! [' '., on Contentions C and 4, respectively, by March 4,1986, and that j.Q: ,u < ,.,] - CCANP was to respond by March 18,1986. Those dates were identified N.) M 7[Q 'U.? '. ' f '.

^

for the purpose of providing the Staff 2 weeks response time and )ff,$'. CCANP an additional response period of 2 weeks. . g.. ,2 1. '... : ? 4A With respect to Contemion 4 (to the extent it raises hurricane design n questions), the Staff filed its response on February 28,1986. At the pre- .o;2

.4 hearing conference, CCANP advised that it had not filed, and did not a ;W :.s.'.#

complete its review of the motion for summary disposition of Contention intend to file, any response.(Tr.15,905). Accordingly, the Board will FDe ' d.* M M S s. W3i 4 (insofar as it raises design questions) on the basis of the filed affidavits. Q R 1 4,4 1 f. Z *. 7,', ' ' * '- Q,.., As provided in our Sixth Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 17, QTf y e ,3. M. W @@ V';;; A. 7 O I Q'(hQ 1985 (unpublished), at 6 n.6,'we will not consider alleged construction ' "l > deficiencies bearing upon STP's abilify to withstand hurricanes until is-suance of the Staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Such issuance is OIM1 ';34 g$ ' f '..,C" y i currently scheduled for early April 1986 (Tr.15,905). As set forth in the cp.? Sixth Prehearing Conference Order, CCANP will have 30 days after Jd J.CIk/$ release of the SER within which to file claims based on the SER concern- . %.4 '.*.J _ le. 9 9 s. g.. .. M. ing the adequacy of construction to withstand hurricanes. Mr*{.,f [jf@gif *. i U.~'4 With respect to issue C, the Staff advised us on March 10,1986, that d D.!iji M .6$f.h ' .Q.'. it could not meet the previously prescribed date for filing its affidavit on M.M.k$.;M S. 24 issue C. It estimated it could file such affidavit by March 17, and aded 9 *'.M l' M. 'f4W/(</ [- p.f '. gig ,1,$..*? D2'.' j our approval of that schedule (unich we hereby grant). The afTidavit was .N. in fact filed on March 14. J'Q N/ j@ In seeking the revised schedule, the Staff noted that an extension of ( M oce u.".f., t. 4. g. M$ the Intervenor's time to respond to the issue C aflidavits would also be f f$ necessary. At the prehearing conference, however, the Applicants (al-J @, M [ $ e r* g?.' y s y1"M,as,;,.->. T.; ;* ' ' ' - 5'

c thogh not the Staff) took the position that any extension should apply T

v-pS@a Lih.k. i ' ~ d., t 2; w s: j M' D.';f.f "' N 189 'a ..w..M i .v ~m t i* f i sy1

i,N,! $ p Ni y )*g'. : g ; f '..,.

[ 2 M R t.

s.,

' GK., ~ f gg - pyf-) .t l, y -g' i y yn.~ ~. n g Q%GnygqQg%QM 32WiQfff&ln_,,,,,,py W3 p y f& . ; ?.y'$ h. f.' y _$, f.Q,f f.h; g?! "0- ' lf Q 3 .wgmw4 Mtgedr v4.ge+gg ; agg.,ngummsww y r.~2. e n. u. m; m o y a a v y.u n f;.. m;? y,,9m p i e ~ m yyw w msu a Oss:4: Q

,n A

4 M M w. c.y, ww qw;

b e g _, m, n. .s ...A. g.y n a ,1 y;,.,+:y e-s... m ,:+. s, M.2 a ' ....,......t =: ... a !. n 4j:4.,.. ..j , {L. :. ,..c+ . m.. r, 3 7 r m 7 ,:~ oa.ly to new information appearing in the Staff's af0 davit. (CCANP had 'Of; ': 9 ? - .; # m - not rerponded by March 18 to the Applicants' affidavit.) At the conference, we determined that CCANP should have the .. e,', f - benefit of both aflidavits in determining whether litigable issues exist ~ L ;.., j e. g? under Issue C, and that its time for responding to both affidavits should

o,

extend to April 2,1986 (14 days fo!!owing service of the Staft's affidavit) ,.w :, 2,

y *.f{'. g,,.,

April 14 and 21,1986, respectively (Tr.15,904). We advised CCANP 'e (Tr.15,900-02). Replies by the Applicants and Staff are to be filed by - j.' that, in responding to the Issue C affidavits, it should not attempt to Mh,'./. ' ' - 2W reargue its already asserted claim that the drug controlissue falls under 1, x m. ,1.

Issue C.

s..,. :.;. n _~ , e wa W , r.v As a result of our ruling on CCANP's drug-control allegations, we 5 7 7 'W... ~ " ~ 3 ' cancelled the evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on May 6, 1986, as well as the April 14, 1986 date for filing prefiled testimony, d! both of which were established by our Order dated November 18,1985 M.. '. J x '... (unpublished) (Tr. 15,899, 15,903-04). 4 ~

~

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/

l FOR Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD , v.U.~ % - - .. ;, : : [. w- 0

i Il6 3

'-r 4 a .. ?

7. xr 3..,

P P. p..'. ~. Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman T v-

3. MM%v ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

. s - --v

ggg.v.

.. - ~._ . l F..r.y i. % ~"' r, 7 c,170X,) M y' Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 7;a. '. '. this 28th day of March 1986. , m - 4 es ....*g I ,p[ ' *; q 6., P - s .r. 4"

t,j't

.,. g'r..a . 3 s'*

,,.t

, d. 4... -d f. >.' T143.e?'. ' I '., k u y 9,,I,5 ' N ? '. d o g.:- y .yc. m.- .p.. m' 4 g -..t t.+:. wm .x. g.-c.,

u. n,.

'[' g'.f

'e-

.6,*- ' - y.yN'b,}? 'N1p['*g[ '%" z 4 ai se+ ~.,e .':n& c,a.m.q :. < w r 3 0,y?..,3 M,e.ia s. i ' ((* ' * [ypd[h.. . v. s. x, ' *# /; M.~$'d p [. " JWg.. /. 9', = . ele th'.1. ' O 6 o = N. y/.y, : m ,,..g.%.5,,s , i.

m..,.,.

e;g %2 4.,o s -. 6 fl&, YS,M .[. *

h.

.$'5 N 't*. ( ,,, fin ' + 0, K- ..)3 '. ?..., ;.. ..'d*,4 ..* *;,ysg r. f g$ ,s-t n 1 c mv n; ny Y a.<. w r .~

).py.( n

~ % *.'**ji$[. - - c 5 QY;& L , i_ ':J Ji,d6%& i _ _'.m. __...mm's. m., m' _s~_ nw. a

x. J.< Wa:

yr. %%*,p:Q...

b Qf; Qrb> s 4.sl' ' e*4% & _s;NMQf ~x ~ w $*,:ff'*4:Ny%%G%i"Qf i M.E47z RQW,Rik6?$g%,'on lll.,6,6i%4. JQQ'hCJ, J'kk ,9 t . c,%ldMHT 3 % W M ?Wh..M \\ _g & H'

a. ~... -=. y t s ( * ,_1, y 4 . n _. a Irectors' w..e r_'+>.,o o. ~. Decisions ,s. 24 s, - y%.~.v.. :. 10 CFR 2,29g .n,...fr..* ~

g.,3. '....

= s. ,, 4. c....b y<!, *.4..'. e q 7,%. .t.. j a -3 -gp.e1 o r '., $ ' A...d ' };e ;,..,,* '., ' D.. ' ' 1/p'/,1: - c " r .t- ,*.ep. U.9 :' *\\, ' 4 h*. i -.

T,,[i. 6# *3 A..,,,

i..A. .. ', d :*

N t

.y,,* .a s i= iw.(*.J. 4.,., - f, P~.V'c..". g._p -.,Js..' a ... p 1. -.,.s . YQp s 'f; t ' st l 3 1*G, V j / h ' f'f 4 _ +4 58..' *,, I ' ' ' ' li i

g0%;*p r'

d4Q M,'.$)Y'[Dj Q ' y'. , ' *, ',) ? e. ? 3 f(v.kf , g"*f's.[. ~p:. L. y ~., I'. 4 u .s * } wj, p. y '.,. ' J -3., p a., /* <1 r.,, r..a. P r', ' ; , ;q. , b - .9 u g '; <1... y >..w y g t,... - *, . 'T.*,y' >, k. J

e
g s

I

4yi

.'*...esy '.3y' * - s

n 9

e 9 4 ..o ; t. 6,. *'s. t. 4 g e Se a y f- ' f. '..,

g

, l* e'* } ), : *,. '*y, s, 's., ( ew.. s e g 1.. i. 7+,'. 7. ;, C e

.-7,,-

? y ,.c. %' s.. t ;;c. 8 ...~9..,4 t y* 3 .,.s + ..a . ? j.;[.,. e e 3,.. -%i 2 i .t ,e h a s g* (.'" .je y 4 pv.:, , l k** A,.s, = j.. .v e f *, 6

ig
g' 4
4gh., g
g vA. g g * '
f a

3. ;A' gw7;. * + ys} +'g. b 9 s. ,,1 e s _i. A= s ~ g,Q' $, ; -. n. .,s ,v....,,$* s. < 1 --.., s~.'.,- 5. s d, e.e Y' 5*.,,. n_ L ..l. s '. 'g. '. f i o t* 1 -i hv.- ,%2'*T w - -.

W ~r -~.

- a m,,,7 * >=v,. .s. w-t t

,4*

l U'./ ' 6)' '.Q e[v,g,,.' + L$ .c' ' .'..4

4..:. s,,,o;,.,w.v.

a t a.. 3.,g, L >\\',5al;O (4 ^; < ,;-s f s e : y... v 7'{, g' $.e,.' ) @., y*=n k' J') s s p.. 2 f w. ** * {s,,' y,,, ' fv, G., a * .

f * ? '.,d 6
V., s

,.11

t s a3 r ;'

w.m.;.a 4 g :s,ml-D[y'.a }$)g g.fx.h Fi 'a* f i TfMp?,'M O ,.$7.' 'p' --q-gsg .,s._f., ' e 5I O %:.s gw }'N:&~, q.%d..l}p)y%.g,.J;y.bi w, \\,. - pg g y. ,,,f ,,,9 i ,8,** [I .%i'[+a e d 4**h' '.QCm,y ', ~ ,wg/ t.# ', , : 1*, y * -i., F=or -,,. y ,5 f - Q*$w-W.A,*.,.n.. p., %,,,.,, ( w., ,2_..w. w A,".- ,' t s.*q ' ), ,. M x: s c. 4. s ,. ;n t': g.4.) z :l, ~ s . - n.. D .r r4 l'

tir-c .qy Q.. ~ .w .n;.

v. s.

"A,rf ; r. y ..-.....:. =.J u _.. -. y p;

c...~.d

_ z w. ~. a.: -.z .. a...: 4 .. y g. _. r ~> ~..,.

*i): li

.G.. ' t., ~ - - , y fc.t o Cite as 23 NRC 131 (19E6) DD-86-3 M. ';,.' 3, l', 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . W' *.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOMMISSION L,. -; -.,, 4 W<~ [i 4 t'- ~*

- .'.,4 t p.. j OFFICEOFINSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT s,.

- 4 s James M. Taylor, Director ,...s. . ;,.y. J:tj 5.?.. ... ::. 2: g >. c,,.: s - c.. a,. :, m g.. e

,g., ~..
.. * -.;t*/ A: ,..y.

Docket No. 70143 f 7. T w y4 in the Matter of ' d '- - .;;i (10 C.F.R. I 2.206) o

'N.<

-. 7 ~, I~'

C.

NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC. March 3,1986 - >.n (Erwin, Tennessee Plant) .'.4.. ~ 1 t v3.,* The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement denies in part a petition filed by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna- ~ C .s.*. Q, 26.... : '.,, tional Union requesting that the Commission investigate certain allega- ...q g,,0. tions and take other action with regard to Nuclear Fuel Services' Erwi*t, ji] Q'7 Tennessee facility. The request rested on the claim that the nonbargain-6 ^ ' ? '.M. .y ' W JINT Ec?f-Mi ing unit workers carrying out limited operations at the facility as a result %5 @v - s: of a strike are neither trained nor qualified to perform the work, thus M 73.K jji C C ' f posing a threat to public health and safety. The Director determined that ' *:'5MTfiiqA

[MN t '

the Staff had already investigated the specific allegations raised in the pe- . Q* tition and taken appropriate enforcement action, and that the further ~* -W 'M' I n 3 @n :, .g,.4 relief requested in the petition was unwarranted. ,~ W .e v f..I m,t y t..' c,s. - / l' ( , t' -,.c c,.; ;.y.. .M.y. ;, RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING tC.. ,V, p$d b Not every violation of the Commission's regulations or licenses com-iU.M...M....@ 1.:- h r

t.,-,J. ? 'f:?. #
'M.w@...

r. 4Q. pels suspension or revocation of a license. 4 2 O c. s.yn - m. r V[ ql; af..v , g -:.P i 9-w,% n,> j .w g..- q.. g,;w&m p%y@g.4.. r M, p NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY: 10 C.F.R. PART 2, a APPENDIX C s m c:g..~g l in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, a violation involving n yr,uy dth M$1%n@Q% w.m./ W M -? C a failure to perform an adequate search, resulting in the entry of a W dN.M, l i b M. j.- W 4.2 %'ha [ weapon on the site, is normally classifie<1 as a Severity Levei lli violation .lmfh',. ' s'U, m' t; m -i N.

b. *.Q$%.'.A#

O%S:YQ' e.m - [.$2'l h T.jffM m,SM.. r.;N 191 w : %y t.. %.95% 7;'. 4... w .t %.w R n.. }.-'M E.e t -

l n *....~/ :wM';

f @p.it.r. . - ~ -. / - [,.A:fyy,?, ! t m n -9 E ..ry--.,~.-.,~..--

. Q g ; o.

.. <-. n - q.m..: - - ----.s. - e-.4 n .,Qgy,. q.. +q g.p g 3 -, A' t; - e. t. g, s, ?,, l. = r..,;h._4 r> ,,ug g, r e-, 4 4 = %;t a ^ l s s r.y. f * -Q+.,r I ', K.. _,,Q.,. ..Yl C y f ;.lxN / U '{e-;. c ? r e,3. myc..Q eg +, y<.s r.; '? )_ ? ~, ^- * >%1%Aj%n. k,m. Q ;i '. ~ Qhl&m m(. -

.V N :3. Y % f 1 ^v

..

2%,,,.,',, ; '.,, ;,.,,,&#x s.. ;

.. %,p;-:. Q g 1, 7.'a Y} ' n..? L , p,... -t u.yl;g% n',1;; y.,g. p,'.; y. g % :,.,.* ;*:;; .'W.: mQ y ug. ? M'Q 4 N '&. l' 1,4 ,.3 L r

m.-.m OW ygp

~ :.. -i % ' lv ~ m y:. ;; ;w:. .4..?., g. M.A q &,,.. ;7,\\i,..L,. ', ' b ~. .'. ::, y ? gQ p;\\

' ;w' sh j,7, r, ' n.,: j, *:":.. ; '

't ~. m..v .? w ^~?,s.js;f.r.,y;$,.Q. 'p.'

u..

v ', ' }} [ L '.j- -l ~ p.s-q. ;, ~,.; i. ,.f,*). : ..y %% 2 p, .x. ~b,' m, _7.,;, L fLL.f;ll > ~ _. [~ a' N ,;' g>, n, -K.- -w yr s. g - 3. __

l n .f p; s .3,. y,,. w 1, ,y

c.,

.,i.. ;, l' a-d., ' ^ i l'* W. . a. ::... >. :.:. u- "6 rg .5, and warrants consideration by the NRC of the proposed imposition of a

q 7

civil penalty. ... ~ q,WW, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 ..:y,. ar ms. - 5' 1 On Septemtier 3,1985, the Vice President of the Oil, Chemical and ~! Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) Gled a reauest before ,q .iq.: k the Commission to suspend "recent amendments" to License No. ,'D?:76.p,L,, ,.f i SNM-124 held by Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS), which OCAW balieved . ;f',$,N.; y ' ; ',,N T _m 1 permitted reduced operations of the plant by the NFS staff at the Erwin, ,' j,,.,. ,] Tennessee facility during the current NFS-OCAW labor dispute.' The 4, letter also requested that the Commission order an investigation of twenty speciGc allegations raised in the letter, require a formal hearing =- A with notice prior to granting any future request to operate the Erwin ,7 t* facility, and hold a public hearing in the Erwin, Tennessee area to estab- '7,t lish that reduced operations can be conducted at the facility without ad-versely affecting the public health, safety, and interest. On December 13, 1985, OCAW supplemented its original request .c with a request that the Commission require NFS to cease all operations at the plant until NRC has completed an investigation of a December 11, 1985 incident involving possession of a gun by a driver leaving the plant. m.a c t ] M,- 3 The OCAW request rests on the allegation that the NFS nonbargaining unit workers carrying out the limited operation are neither trained nor F'- ~ ' qualified to perform the work, thus posing a threat to the health and safety of the residents of Erwin, Tennessee. OCAW alleges that since j r 1 the work stoppage, e number of health and safety problems have been l " brought to the atteation of the NRC staff," and that prior to the work j stoppage NFS was cited for a number of safety violations. On September 12, 1985, the Commission referred the first OCAW petition to the NRC ' / J,7 . p y,. ;,. ' i StalT for consideration under 10 C.F.R. f 2.206. On December 18,1985, ..h. i the Commission referred OCAW's second request to the Staff for con- < e: ~l sideration under i 2.206. c s. 'j Having completed my evaluation of the petition, as supplemented, I 7 ' J., ' /.-} ' ~ ) have determined that, with the exception of OCAW's request for an in-I -I... ' ; r_ e _ A,3 ,9, L& y: "..t ..[ '. ducts under contract with the United states Department of Energy. The facility also perrorms some com- ~* 1 The NFs fuel fabncation plant located in Erwin. Tennessee s,rocesses highly ennched uranium pro. ] %.4 W J ' ,s g' '.:',. .7 mercial work involving recovery of low-enriched uranium trom scrap generated at other plants and from ^ %[f ' 4 cylinders usea to ship uramum hexafluoride. ).* f.7.,e s f,, g,

.-?*

=. h .1 + .,y r ' Q f.o hL,~[', _ 192 K m s, n e. ~ '., {, .M j yk.* * ,.. ~,

3. '

1 -&M""*7*8"*'"' / \\ ~.,9 i s' L -L,s g_ ~, g, ,g g m. < - ~78-[7 Y("'."' s '.GlC.Q W , l1 u )Q j .,,'P'G > Wll. 7(p&y'e, ' C@f b J WA L. ll'dQ,., wn~%,irh.eQ ~ :3*% & )>% ' b & F J' p& r,4s r. ~ p1 Q~m&4"Gd;4e c. :,; ;, y :7,.m.b.. ?,;&,f,. PWC5.W, ~.7* Q3N,M.4...h %@4 W- . M. %g;a&,7 a $nb Q n

p 1ucw x

yi mww D x.y... v .s c .y wmM rn

b. M

.Q:m.46MF, f .u.d.,.W ip W, m.,s' a O ? ",9.f. p p'.?.$CR9 { w v.

m. #

n.w pN? w., u v I flYh$U.&$% ~~4& N S'?,WiWO W Y ?"N-W ?-% ': ~ w s

b +. e... .,v 1* n. e; - y. '+ b;.h.. : u. = - a.a. _.. w _.u.. m.. a _ _ _ .j a 4 i N.- : 7 vestigation of the specific allegations raised in the petition, the petition -O should be denied. As discussed below, the Staff has conducted an exten-j sive investigation of these allegations. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, OCAW's request for further action is denied. V./ . >7; ,.. ~. t y,*

?'.<*

~ ? '~ On May 15,1985, OCAW began a strike against the licensee, NFS. .[' When the OCAW strike began, NFS voluntarily shut down its high- ,..,,y -y .e r *, enriched uranium production operation: and suspended operations until M,,.,.,91 y e ' ', j it developed an interim staffing plan for the duration of the strike. Subse- ^ J" .~ quently, NFS provided NRC with its plan for limited operation of the ~'.. ./., 4. plant in a letter dated July 16, 1985, entitled " Planning Guidelines for the Period of Reduced Operations." NFS provided additional informa-tion to support the Planning Guidelines in a letter to NRC dated July t 22,1985. Based on the NRC Staff evaluation of the NFS plan and the re- ,s c, sults of an NRC inspection conducted during the period of June 3-July ^. 5,1985, of the readiness of the NFS staff to begin operation, NRC noti-C fled NFS by letter dated August 14, 1985, that it had no objection to 1 NFS resuming limited operation of the plant in accordance with the in-m formation provided in the referenced documents. No amendment to the - ^ NFS license was issued to allow reduced operations because the activities '.,h. '[ "'. Y,..,1( j;.t to be conducted were within the scope of activities already permitted by NFS' license. NFS resumed plant operation on a reduced basis on - 2; i,. "e" t August 15,1985. On September 3,1985, OCAW petitioned the NRC to take the action V,' M ' h,.. h * (T% .ul i s.?. 4 previously described above.2 On September 20,1985, the NRC request- ] G.(' t., Q, ' ' c[, _, ed NFS to investigate the allegations contained in the OCAW letter and f report the results of its investigation.3 This was done and NFS reported .>..'j," l. C the results of its investigation in its letters to the NRC dated November 1.F ... Q.; ' b 'r 1 and December 9,1985. The NRC also performed inspections to deter-a. .'N mine the validity and significance of the allegations contained in the ..g.. . T..h;y y y:mp es : 5% US . > w.f, lf::]s, p ii; .y_;c. ,;'b p 2It should be noted that all of the allegations raised by oCAw in its september 3.1985 submittal had '1 @$e' 4[pi {.f., c.T 1, ;1 p%[ d. t.e 9 been previously raised by individuals to the NRC. and were bems reviewed by Region !! oCAW also b(d2,%) d;" 'h; J raised similar concerns to the Commission by letter dated May 9.1985, and in a meetmg with NRC J

u Headquarters on June 21.1985. oCAw did not present any new allegations in its september 3,1985 re-

, $ [. I'

3

, h ? %p? b m'.',:.,- i: .c,cy.3:g g quest which were not already bems considered. fN.Ji s 8:;**d.Qls t. e e. v. 31n accordance with the NRC procedure for handling allegations, licensees are routinely advised of J, 7 *

L. (p:. <

allegations and requested to address these allegations, subject to further audit by the NRC. except in cir- .L. 'r, " 5 PM. *kl ,ii y f e ,; t* ?g S. J, ' N ' m, ^^ cumstances where the identity of an alleger might be compromised or a licensee could compromise an

r:e %.-y. 3 y ' ' '*[c &.. ;. ? i[-7f,} @h h *.

Y "., investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the release ofinformation to the licensee. .r,'*u j. In this case neither of the exceptions were applicable. The latter exception was particularly not applicable -.,y because many of these concerns had already been evaluated by the NRC and the petition was a matter

1-2 2.

. Re of tublie record. , t; -.*. c. und ii .. v. g - . m. m l' j, f " j .yhy*il. .-g % : W, 4.- < 193

y.,. d, c

,r '..,' ?:i? b,h ; s' WQJ [ ~ Wr Q' v...'

S

'~,.a dih ~ l, 'd. - o{: r. p_ d.g r-., ~ m.~- r w.3 xg. e e , a- -- - n. p r

m.- ~ w- ----

Em *. >:s ) '* D,,,,.,[ d.,Q. * (:;;Qf&..R : y, _ -;._ a..y.;g.&f:'y Q '. < j -(( -{y}e; j '; ;

j-b

~^'s- ' L . e y;;f,.}m;;a,O;n :w g. ~ < -. - n* n. a ...p - +. aye m..x. : - 5:y.g....

v. 4...c n,. y,.

w/ s .r z +tG n%g ;* y,3*3 .v m -m > -4. v. .:s xn..,. e. :p 1 h.M*\\ '$e ew,M,v,*.[.-p 3,y s.;u.u ., A,. ; -. l.f p. &. W, in; W'N2 i, *.4.W q.y",a%4.>p.dtw w'd[7 Nhs ' d*4. - %f & ~ p. s .. %., - t ;, & i b. N.rW. s M ww@.a%f, ,> M6M<., 'qay' %, w.. n 7 I $w:w, f W m. 4u~ .y.e.,-n;. m 'M A s. b e Q u@ %. p,. % - - '. t+

ny, W' : 4 s. + 4.s ;. ~. s %.y.

c ~ c,'>* E

.,- ; - [a, 4.; s

~ : : :.

L.

's ?Ug N*... .e. T .;r- [, [l*y,V%$y,%j [, IQ ** @(' f h, ( 'l's g(# 4 '#G]%rb N M.;

5

N- " ~ - [. 'P - s t - N&. ,S

5 %d1 4 J. 6,

,,a J, g. ];h. '^ d5 "? W % 7 v'

.p. - -: r. - 7'. y s_ ..N . c. y^ ' 'i, ..P-4 y..rLn:.;n. A; - p v.

n w ;; p

~ o. A L t- .~ . ;. & - ; N. y _.m._. 0 L M w i k. U_' Q. ' K ; e., O.; ., f./. ~ n . m c.:.:. n M i u 1 a.i ._..'Zi.e. h

r: -. ;; ~.

OCAW petition. The results ofinspections relating to the allegations are 7 'l c ?- found in the NRC inspection reports identified as 70-143/85-24, 85 27, 85-34, 85-38, 85-40, and 85-42.* One of these inspections, documented 5, in Inspection Report 70143/85-40, was performed to follow up on NFS' . c.];: report of the results of its investigation. Based on that inspection, the N

.T '

NRC determined that NFS had conducted an adequate investigation of s ..;4, 9. te the allegations. OCAW states in its petition that it regards the " single largest issue" to py be the training and qualification of the workforce, and alleges that the (.!) . f. - 'a. 1;n.a > [,.. 4 workers expected to carry out the reduced operations are neither trained c ' ' '..p. g nor qualified to perform the work or to take appropriate steps in the 1r event of a criticality problem. However, as indicated above, the NRC .~. N Staff reviewed the NFS plan for training nonbargaining unit personnel .s .g. i.G and conducted an inspection in order to determine whether NFS staff tj was adequately trained and qualified to resume operations. Furthermore, ( pd the NRC has implemented a program ofincreased inspection at the NFS 9, C .b^ Erwin plant during the strike with special emphasis on activities that \\

M'" i might be adversely affected by the absence of bargaining unit employees.

-7j In this regard, an NRC regional management team visited the site on W.d October 3,1985, to assess the adequacy of NFS performance in the re-I duced operations mode. Moreover, the NRC has had a resident inspector 9 at the plant since 1978 and he has been making daily inspections during 4; ..MM the period of the strike. Other inspections have been performed by spe- .t U t ~h cialists from NRC Region II in Atlanta, Georgia. Based on the daily ob-s% e m.,J servations of the resident inspector and the findings of inspectors from ,r./ . dif the NRC regional office, while minor events have occurred, no signifi- .pty.7.;. q g." j eggp . cant event or condition has arisen since reduced operation of the plant

;V; n qq :rgg was undertaken which indicates that worker training and qualifications

. W,$q are not adequate for the current status of plant operations. f Y W J With regard to the specific concerns raised in OCAW's September 3, ~ _ F#.'$ 1985 submittal, the Staff evaluated twenty-one allegations. The Appen-4 Wi.U dix to this Decision contains a listing of the allegations in the OCAW pe-nj n ' ... grn-r <y u tition and the NRC response and conclusions regarding each of the alle-e e .,wp .. w.m 'm..Pg gations.5 Based upon information provided by the Licensee, Staff audits r,qq A. # a yTM n 3 2 , e?, ,Aw ~ ~ ~ n "%m -*p t ' * ' '~

v w

Q Ya 2; ~ [

hl Q f 4 Enclosures I and 4 of Inspection Report 70-143/85 27 contain information exempted from public dis-

%9j;f1'ii.7N>rg.W W

2 bd GM 2;d closure by 10 C.F.R. il 2.790(d) and 73.21.

h iJ.#>, p'Ti,g, $g h'i.a .$ ' ;? ; 5 The stair evaluated 20 specific allesations labeled A-T in the petition. These are identified in the Ap-3 6 ; M ey y y pendit by the same letter as was used in the petition. An additional allegation abstracted from a para- ' ' g ' * ". ; W:..(? t'yq

NJ.

V yQA.y graph in the petition, that nuclear material was hidden from inventory, was also evaluated. This allega.

tion is identified as "U" in the Appendix. For each allegation, a summary provides the results of the W Q[^ $ *Q ;g'gs 'Ag NRC review of the allegation and identifies the NRC Inspection Report that documents the inspection

g A j.

. M. J. i a a..%.,'. y : .p .%yf : .. ', '^ / EDM of the item. k l T }}& (Contmed) . - y; = H C %.., % '.j

t g&y

.m. W." ' W% 194 2@x 3 x yms W&'%,;'1 _ 0.'.W M W- ~ i1' ' ... e =w=:".w - 4=-*-wm r rg - ;.,y b$ MM' 3& ' "6 h.: MsQ &..' & y,'; [,Q. 4 &- -l i Q Q,. W & m-y.n. a ~q. m.g@a@.w&Jf.%.. ['Q.Yf:jk: lg,2 m M Ta; T.4 :. :Mw - k:rg N}$5&.;-s h m% Z V Wff y rg,.i@~M i..:

w. a%..e%.

.c n M,:

g.. i n. 4 W. m% h $ n.4 W. & p

$ E il $ 2 n. m n.. ._ m9 c.; # m$ ',' S f; x. Y l; ? m n e kbW$'~$h0.W&h.n .h s m?$.i U mr.&hifk ';.$ :'N? n u~ ap.- n a.,a 4 7 m.m &m +>W O'5,& &, a4 4 n,.&.- w$ $ Q)Mf R. 4 f.gg..(e .... u ;- w,a lf h lQ & t m R375 s W!.% LQ S Wgs ft.

p 1.' 9 G^. - -,. _ ~.. u. ... ~.:.. . ~.. -.. 1 6 vestigation of the specific allegations raised in the petition, the petition J s should be denied. As discussed below, the Staff has conducted an exten-sive investigation of these allegations. Accordingly, for the reasons set 1 forih below, OCAW's request for further action is denied. u, II. j i t j On May 15,1985, OCAW began a strike against the licensee, NFS. l When the OCAW strike besari, NFS voluntarily shut down its hi;;h-enriched uranium production operations and suspended oper.itions until g ; 'f it developed an interim staffing plan for the duration of the strike. Subse- . [o. '. _ .TL quently, NFS provided NRC with its plan for limited operation of the j plant in a letter dated July 16, 1985, entitled " Planning Guidelines for '4W', .l the Period of Reduced Operations." NFS provided additional informa-tion to support the Planning Guidelines in a letter to NRC dated July l 22,1985. Based on the NRC Staff evaluation of the NFS plan and the re-j suits of an NRC inspection conducted during the period of June 3-July .y .l 5,1985, of the readiness of the NFS staff to begin operation, NRC noti-I fled NFS by letter dated August 14, 1985, that it had no objection to i NFS resuming limited operation of the plant in accordance with the in-C ?., ; formation provided in the referenced documents. No amendment to the . b. NFS license was issued to allow reduced operations because the activities to be conducted were within the scope of activities already permitted by E. ~ NFS' license. NFS resumed plant operation on a reduced basis on a.. August 15,1985. J. '.l.~' :.1. On September 3,1985, OCAW petitioned the NRC to take the action . Q '.2'. m pJ, ' f '.. previously described above.2 On September 20,1985, the NRC request-W[ *,, y' ~ -e, ed NFS to investigate the allegations contained in the OCAW letter and ~ report the results of its investigation.) This was done and NFS reported the results of its investigation in its letters to the NRC dated November .j 1 and December 9,1985. The NRC also performed inspections to deter-y; .I mine the validity and significance of the allegations contained in the 4 ',.,o

i....

j W C r., .c -] y ; c.' n : :yp. s. ~ -- I 2It should be noted that all of the allegations raised by oCAw in its september 3,1985 submittal had g.y 4 j, J. ] been previously raised by individuals to the NRC, and were be ng reviewed by Region 11. oCAw also lINi.M Q.,,'. 1., ] raised similar concerns to the Commission by letter dated May 9.1985, and in a meeting with NRC j Headquarters on June 21.1985. oCAW did not present any new allegations in its september 3,1985 re-

' g$h.= M

,3., '. 3 <,, - { quest which were not already being considered. ' ~ ' i 3 n accordance with the NRC procedure for handling allegations, licensees are routinely advised of 1 .v .;. y r DM.M 7 I, 7 allegations and requested to address these allegations. subject to further audit by the NRC. except in cir- . kid (J.,' cumstances where the identity of an alleger might be compromised or a licensee could comprornise an i +.2. ? r, a .,,i.;5 %[ "*- s investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the release ofinformation to the licensee. ..u ' a. e 1 . ~hj(Mj sD,e 'a In this case neither of the exceptions were applicable. The latter exception was particularly not applicable Q,' f because many of these concerns had already been evaluated by the NRC and the petition was a matter of public record. 4:{? 6 $ : b l, ~ . W y t( 'i ' .-rl "%. n ? 193 3'iv,'m - y:g y w' m 4g, .o A e , f j,';s':' ' L. s.. . ~ _ - - ~ r .,, m.r-m y i t..a / e w[.f.k.i

7. *'b,6 1

' f.h .~ p' .n ~ s;0 6 =,.# e .y. e .a tA;-Q, *,-W %, . n

3 k.&.%,'.g.3 f? r - ; f,./> 3,,

. -G p. 4,. q ..f

p. s.. q..,,,,' g y.

g e y,.,,n : :)3.%.:: m;q . q.7 7 m s..._

k,

.g ' Nd%,:vy,.,,-.. ' t e. , &.. 3 ;P m Q M :l M %f h_ . 2,. 4 .a %Q:n?,2 q.n L.. y^ ' - - - n c > ; &. y:: < %.; f %h pr6 ,pt,W* n, ,Oc ep.'.}3

f.,%.s ~$'&; '

s.. ~ j ? D..W. ' 4h. % n '.;y i.r* O l Y:2'l'.,i.l.y~ g.f. _& ~ ' .c , ~

A = l t '~ e t' _.e 7 ~- + JU i ll-fl:. A i ~. u.- .U h.: w._ L... a.- .. iI -l;.;.L. A . 2 g .y. -1 OCAW petition. The results ofinspections relating to the allegation? are J. s found in the NRC inspection reports identified as 70-143/85-24, 85-27, ..a ~ . 1 85-34, 85-38, 85-40, and 85-42.4 One of these inspections, documented

b..;

l in Inspection Report 70-143/85-40, was performed to follow up on NFS' ,q report of the results of its investigation. Based on that inspection, the NRC determined that NFS had conducted an adequare investigation of . - ; 's the allegations. OCAW states in its petition that it regards the " single largest issue" to J, be the training and qualification of the workforce, and alleges that the g, ' 4 ,f l workers expected to carry out the reduced operations are neither trained p..,- / not qualified to perform the work or to take appropriate steps in the Qy - O N,' ',,g '1 f ~' event of a criticality problem. However. as indicated above, the NRC Staff reviewed the NFS rian for training nonbargaining unit personnel f,1 and conducted an inspection in order to determine whether NFS staff f." i was adequately trained and qualified to resume operations. Furthermore, ',( the NRC has implemented a program ofincreased inspection at the NFS F-Erwin plant during the strike with special emphasis on activities that ~' J N* might ce adversely affected by the absence of bargaining unit employees. <j in this regard, an NRC regional management team visited the site on October 3,1985, to assess the adequacy of NFS performance in the re-duced operations mode. Moreover, the NRC has had a resident inspector at the plant since 1978 and he has been making daily inspections during the period of the strike. Other inspections have been performed by spe-g ./ cialists from NRC Region II in Atlanta, Georgia. Based on the daily ob- ~' i V -' j servations of the resident inspector and the findings of inspectors from the NRC regional ofTice, while minor events have occurred, no signifi- .L_ 2 , - a '.f,', '. t, cant event or condition has arisen since reduced operation of the plant ,m . W 5fC x was undertaken which indicates that worker training and qualifications T: f. 4. are not adequate for the current status of plant operations. . c, With regard to the specific concerns raised in OCAW's September 3, .c. a" 3.. 1985 submittal, the Staff evaluated twenty-one allegations. The Appen-4 [ - dix to this Decision contains a listing of the allegations in the OCAW pe- ' j t e ~ 4, J : ' ' :< tition and the NRC response and conclusions regarding each of the alle-YL . 1.,A'.y USM.f.) gations.5 Based upon information provided by the Licensee, Staff audits F ;..~.- M.

3. :

Y. b '. e :. Q .h.% ],' j ' Q[G.** . -p....- I 'N.' i

j ;*f;;..;,,. < > <

s a 4 Enclosures I and 4 ofInspection Report 70-143/85 27 contain information exempted from public dis- .7 closure by 10 C.F.R. lj 2.790(d) and 73.21. .' t :." ' ?! '4 ; j

(l-

,. p'/ ^ y,~ y ' f/;.M *, 5 The staff evaluated 20 specine allegations labeled A-T in the petition. These are identined in the Ap- + , i,- t G${.Oj pendix by the same letter as was used in the petition. An additional allegation, abstracted from a para- ,y',,,. p. y, - G.* i t..e7:. graph in the petition, that nuclear material was hidden from inventory..vas also evaluated. This allega. .*A

wp ;

tion is identined as "U in the Appendix. For each allegation. a summary pro % ides the results of the g [ n,1.C a,,. '..'E , tg ; * : *,.le cWS NRC review of the allegation and identines the bRC Inspection Report that documents the inspection ) ].] of the item. 1 (Contmud) \\

-l;
.~~a-

' ig s. e. L.,:., .n : ' :nQ ., p 2 r y,4 194 s p y.t ; i.'& e s _r.

4.,

,y ' ; _, q. sQ .y~,.'p.. 4 - ' M7 g.-. + ,? I w '. 't, j ,P F, g ,.r ../ e' ?..: s==c=*w, .~ gv , -war-at m-r=N---eT j.._ , g' Q ' 4.Y m

3 WNN.

' %M 11 YM ' *DE I ' Q[II((

.s ':

'I %lW;g.s y).-M L: 'M5l&gh-f *I

W %.';'$}a ) Q g.? Y l 6, Y.'lli.s;': . N.',_

h* ,'4 * % 2%[v. l 4,1 T

&Wtel*%.L -

d;

3-

\\ D *&

KV QK4 a. %g;%g;;~';'%.W % %;:
Q4: ; Q,-YX}g f

g y WY - Q L.,. % {p u:, 5 p,s;v.g;yy

cms: n %>..'W,:cy&'.; r. G M % ? m:

y% .,} ? zy1

g

e

.p.t ewsy, . %:p

.w w,jA ps4 pe.. yypa_,.py;w.1 y~~..p..

, c,y.w,,,,c.a. 77w,;.,np;.gr.j.;g q y,g mm,c, g

. u.

-me gy j 1 z. 2

y. p %p e.y-w;: p nq ea s '.- r. *%

. A p .. m. .c .~7 e g .s v.x, (.

r.., 'UD W &:, ;g eq':Q- %.-yy&,n'w.g, y.e v; R&_ _. $:,.s.M kw.'.yy(; QQ,+ &, +. - >., i.g, p~ W, nf+

., l 6 ',s '.. Cse; } ? Q **X^p y a;,

qw.y
^

W,J.,. i. q$Qg=, y o , _4_. %; ...qp .n a m m -m

o -.:. a. n. - -.-- -... u w-F s s -o of the Licensee review process, and its own independent inspect?ons, . T *i the Staff substantiated eight of the twenty-one allegations totally o in part,* With regard to these, the Staff determined that no NRC regulatory ?v requirement was violated in four instances.' In four instances, an NR" 4l regulatory requirement was violated. However, these violations are not s of significant regulatory concern such as would trigger escalated enforce- ','. ;. ? ment action against NFS, as the violations did not result in exposure to m radioactive material in excess of regulatory limits or indicate a significant ,j problem with nucicar material control or accounting.8 Furthermore, it is ,, - G

r '

noteworthy that all of the conditions in the substantiated allegations ex-A.D ~ [y isted prior to the commencement of the strike at NFS, and thus are not M attributable to the Licensee's handling of its limited operations as the 3 ,d Petitioner suggests.'

p. ~ g The substantiated violations do suggest some weaknesses with NFS' f

n ' ~ health physics program. In fact, prior to the work stoppage the Staff determined, as a result of inspec: ions during 1984-1985, that violations .g Subsequent to the completion of NRC's review of these allegations, on February 19-21,1986, indi-vidual allegers submitted additional details to the NRC about allegations that had been made previously, e includmg some of the 21 allegations that are included in the september 3,1985 OCAW request. This supplemental information in being reviewed by the NRC stafr as a separate matter. The stair r --

7..

will determine the segmGcance of the information, ascertam whether additional violations of NRC re. s quirements have taken place, and will take appropriate enforcement action if violations are identified. 'J-J[, ...h., y.h ', 6 It should be noted that the NRC cffort to ascertain the wahdity and sigmficance of some of the viola-tions was hampered by the fact that the violations as received from the Petitioner as well as the original Si .t, ,s ' *, ; / 3/,,,, allegers did not pmpomt the occurrence to a period of time or provide other details that would have aided the NPC in trying to determme where the alleged egent took place, when it occurred, and who 5 g%*., j. @a M knew about the event, despite repeated requests from the NRC for additional information. However. .'.s the NRC proceeded with the available information and tried in each case to identify the condition or .a g* Q '. I event by interviews and esamination of records and to determme its validity and significance. As indicat- ..j J.;*, T

Y, ^ h O]gu y

,p 7 ed in note 5, supra the NRC is pursuing additional information recently received from the allegers. m, s. C ?? r These instances stem from the NRC's review of OCAW's allegations D E, G, and Q. 7 i 4

e 8As a result of its inspections, the stalT found violations related to oCAW's allegations F. H, I. and s.

in accordance with the " General statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"

e.. - *q,.'e-(Enforcement Policy),10 C.F R. Part 2. Appendiz C (1985). the Licensee was not cited for the violation alleged in OCAW's allegation F because the Licensee identified and corrected the siolation. Notices of

~' Ai Violation were issued citing the Licensee for the other three violations on July 10, October 16. and s / December 3.1985. ' Aside from the allegations in the petition, five siolations of NRC requirements have been identified q' fi,7,,g, * ' i', u - 5 d;.i '. ' Qg as occurnns since the commencement of reduced operations at the Erwin facility on August 15. 1985. See Inspection Reports 70-143/85-28, 85 31, 85 37, and 85 44. (Enclosures to inspection Reports .M* .i.,.j,,~ 70-143/85-37 and 85-44 contain information exempted from public disclosure by 10 C F R. H 2.790(d) ,, y.p. q ] - 7 and 73.21.) Although Notices of Violation were issued for three of these violations on October 16.

- N g.,4 O. y..s 1985, November 6,1985, and January 16,1986, none of these violations resulted ia escalated enforce-

.*..y' Q*. ',U W 3 e ;.. ment action or had a sigmficant impact on employee health and safety. Furthermore, these were isolated .h, . jM J$ i @ events that did not indicate lack of training or quahfication on the part of the reduced workforce. ' bI .7..,,. On January 22,1986, an incident occurred that invoked a potential exposure of three individuals in 'w- ' f, A ps;g.Q m l7' excess of regulatory limits. Based on the results of an NRC inspection initiated on January 23,1986, the S ?3 cause was determmed to be fadure of a water cooling jacket that introduced water into hot gases, re-

%g

,.' 3 sulting in oserpressuruation of the system and the release of radioactive materials. This incident re-O,.

[9 -3 { ' <.* t-N suited from an equipment failure and possibly was exacerbated by other factors for which the NRC has b.

not yet made a final determination. Ilowever, although the incident is still under investigation, the . Y NRC has determmed that it was not attributable to inadequate worker training or qualifications. e .~.ei + ym : ; y,, .xw-., ? .M t, i:,,f;[J 195 45 M-* . + N 2. '.m L;L &w m a s .,s '4 al w f j.f- - y. A,$^k,, e a If ,.Y .b & a%. Qw V.. %n.t' %. k;5 Ns' E**M - n ' - f 3 WV .-m - k f. )$.fj.[,;; h.k k 'Jf$&v f.h kb,.h5 ?f,b :. k. N V&y.w..hy 1,,_ W-d

c.&.N M Q

h F AJ,=j w.w.%Q.$n,G, n. my w. %C fy%w%Lw%. =,.,a.. a . n.+ . %g... . c g wp wwy i ~ m..y.y,.o s wy,9 3. %8. %ea w%;? %.\\-(,y 4 $ $?.%. ' -A. . g%g.b,,.?.m p p%.s.Q w~% g;Q NW L, - g m..y' f(p r.w n $b6 y~ . A w. 3 am 4.. Q s ? ...w v w -:

n 3

. N e c g g g y$.Wf g q q p.;,[M W,x4,% m%m w..@u% 2[wn s% ; g i &M.% ~. W. et w'Q : b,y g *My$ h kV 7 h 2 M.~ r,3, + x n-e n .,M. yb n, w.,, w a g. suF

n u

pgK M @ p'S9@;,e*w@e. g,gm..ya c p q g o y p E*a

W q m -

g W W.e.e. 4-ge

j+

~ 2 4 - ~ . 4 y,_- ie. J' / e ,6-y,., y..

('",

S,... u: -"u--~~-- W-2-- :- - y'- ".y,. '. .q

M

.p. 3 [. - w,;; f ,n 2 f m. 7- ,s j vc:s- , n:..

e. 7*t

( ,,f ',- .s . a se

s. 4

y. y' g ;

y a ;, g of NRC regulations and license conditions had occurred in the health c.- ^ '.I physics and safeguards programs and appropriate enforcement action has been taken.'8 Thus, the NRC was aware prior to the reduced operations 1.', f,,f$ N ! W h. ~..t' .l _V/.n N i;.W'... w.,'.'" s'y q. q lems with its nuclear criticality safety, operational safety, and health s and prior to receiving OCAW's petition that NFS had experienced prob-dg., [ i ?W ': 3.L- . jc; y g a,q. ;, : phyrics programs. Ilowever, these inadequacies do not warrant suspen- . - c'.] ff..$ j. y.lf. sion or revocation of the NFS license to operate the Erwin facility. Not f6 every violati n of the Commission's regulations or licenses compels sus- ', 2. ' ,c ,,, j i.. *, pension or revocation of a license. See Petitionfor Emergency and Reme-4 Q. - l. - v

p.,y_. M.. M.

{f.; '- IW - dial Action. CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,405-06 (1978). In this case, NFS has . ~..Y,. M w. vc taken the necessary corrective action, and has developed and implement- .ncs m.., ; g 3 .,ve n.e.? aa. .., y... e ed an extensive Performance Improvement Program in order to upgrade - : W :E a. ;, s#.,M ;,m e, " " its health and safety program." The elements of this program include in- ~! } C M.L f.7.,.'f dependent audits of the NFS radiological safety program (the first of f.< w e -T which has been completed); use of an outside consultant on specific

r.i. -

l 3 - 7.. ;..,.y... ? ?i... : E. - tasks related to the upgrade; improvements in the respiratory protection T-., program; increased frequency of measurements of radioactive materials ,9e, _G ^....',, t - 'n*,. ..m. i" .s collected on plant air samplers, which includes changing and measuring ji '. ', ;s .] filters each shift rather than daily; improvement in personnel exposure 'A. records via automated integration of personnel work assignments, train- ^ m e. eg

4. ', ' ',, '

l ing records, and air sampling data; and improved contamination control 9

s resulting in a reduction of the size of the contamination control zones. fa. - r. j.=j,u ..J.w. e.;M. s. - 0 ~ 7 in addition, in response to the findings of the independent audit, signifi-Q . 7., *.'. cant management changes were also made in the health and safety area. fMM. C .'. t,.../'t.)l * ', NRC require the Licensee to cease all operations at the Erwin facility .n-O,.y.- y,gJ C In its telegram of December 13, 1985, the OCAW asked that the g y,,.g.: egj e..: c - . '2'; 7 % N G,:M.MW'9, until a thorough investigation of the incident which occurred on Decem-l, . n;,W,w.,.,,,. a. w ... a n n,c..~. :- .a O ber 11,1985, involving possession and firing of a gun by a driver, has s

w c

.,s,... been completed. In raising this issue, OCAW expresses concern over . +j y : p.- .t -n S. -.. '..,.f-both the fact that a truck driver illegally carried a loaded weapon into ,?'.s . 7, Q" (; n' 30Four escalated enforcement actions were taken agamst the Licensee pnor to the stnke during this ~ C"-[q. *'[. d

N

<, -. 'l - 2-year penod Sn EA 84 22. NUREG 0940. vol. 3. No. 2. at II-A50 (May 9.1984h EA 84-60. 50 Fed. 1 J yil.y 2 f... .y (,, ny< ..;e M.,.' ~ '..,,b"M. ;.l* j y M'.,*,,. /.SJf Reg.19.825 (May 10.1985) and 50 Fed. Res. 4286 Uan. 30.1985h EA 84-128,50 Fed. Reg. 50.023

i,

.T ., lP. l*.g (Dec. 6.1986). 50 Fec Reg. 43.484 foet. 25.1985) and 50 Fed. Reg. 8420 (Mar.1,1985); and EA ' [J ; +.,jf 2, ' MDB; ' iD ? ? '. 85-03. NUREG-0940. Vol. 4. No. 3. at II AIS (May I.1985). These actions involved a proposed civil O c4 ...,. c. % 2. J ;' A. penalty (paid and not contested by the Licensee) for failure to follow procedures to ensure proper han-

J 't f'.: ,..p :y

~ dling of special nuclear material; the imposation of a civil penalty for failure to identify and correct degra-

ep M g,%@'. ?,$.

:;g% *-

-lp,yi,, ,4 dations of the material access area boundary; an order modifying NFS' license and imposition of a civil penalty for accumulation of uranium-235 in the ventilation system; and a proposed civil penalty (paid Jah. @[,? l'

44. '.., '.

. Of - 5 y[-Zj%;[,i. and not contested by the Licensee) for violations involvmg esposures of workers to release of radioac-a ;m !..g

^; 4((,;

Q'i. /. ~.' tive materials. , M *, d .f N;> < ; V 2, 5

w 7#.

tc1 r. U, U The elements of this program were discussed in meetings with the NRC Region Il stafr on April 9 . y%U.j g'N' G Q'Q%^fi@t. $ y%,::.... ?. fI and August 7.1985. The Licensee's oral commitments are documented in a letter to NFS from L Philip m t. <, x 7. 41;gst p? Je 1 ' ' Stohr, Direc.or. Division of Radiation safety and safeguards, dated september 30.1985. During subse-3

MMMM quent meet;ngs and inspections, the NRC has noted that NFs has made significant progress in carrying

, Z*1 ),,, %,, G W d ;- JJ [ p out the details of the program although a number so these elements are long range tasks.

*.. ;V 2 A W.. M. f.

. 4![),,b;k[hjh["u,., ',. x m. g, c, x, c.a. '. :q eW,. k U'UN [. l';.QPi-MMMQ N 196 e ef.3 t_m.4;, E ~. ~., > -. _ m- .i. x- .~ 7aj ~.4 ' A '[fsM;/; f@$.12ll..D.vi./ Q Q. ftv-D

d. f. f. '

' d ;. g, " g. . y' - * ? .A.- ~ M 3.y ; _.'c u Mej,.'; v .~:,, w_ _ .._e.

,, %_fg.f*k;; ' f : '

.l 3(g ,, gg&, J:y 4M.? M:,'Me:&5%'-Ysfg%, y;D ;)l..;'y ~ Ts ^ :a@qQ . __ X g.

_ f **

R... -,, y,c. %e m.. a. J.,. W.,, W. N, e @. h $ M

C

M '~

h bh h?N $$ b$. f.k.hh ?Y 'NhNNhh

khh0 G

n M W.L W Wes?; RM, k k h.. m.a. 4 ;l&$&.h5d a 3 hh h

~ ~ .Tt' ~ S a 1 .- ~ .a.-.....s..- . < q,:- a .,7 ' __ n. ~ c.,... ~ 9.e* -\\ / .. Y ?. N y. .f L. Thus, for the reasons stated in this Decision, the OCAW petition, p.,.

j' -j y q ;, ; M '

with the exception of its request for inve',tigation of its allegations, has

y s. ' m,,

been denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c) a copy of this Decision .fm.- /, .A. .,. -/. X will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review. ~ .....m g,,,.., n. '.v..<..,,. 2 %... ' </,.f Q ,,. :. s ,-. n.c.

g. v.. ~., a p,.,. ~ e: s.m.9

>, *,. s. w, .. ~. c James M. Taylor, D.irector %,.},.

o,..

. 1 s '.. l ~ j L "c .e ~ OfDee efinspection and r Enforcement ~. t j : -; *n.,z :,%.. %.. 1

W %.

e ..: p.w..: ;..~ -- ;. [.'.. /., Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, 4 ' ?[,QG ? , s, - this 3rd dry of March 1986. e 1 .j ,,,.9 ,.. c..A q .~ ^ APPENDIX ~. ' y..;, ], V ;.O

77.. - 4.

.E- ' ' '.a .i OCAW ALLEGATIONS AND NRC RESPONSE REGARDING t .I EACH ALLEGATION c.,.. e; ', ;g - i.- ..c , r. 7.2 ~~ M All of the allegations raised by OCAW in its petition had already been 7 y presented to the NRC. The following analysis reflects the Staff's investi- . W v y, 'C, t' @.. - _. ',c. e s.t r gation of these concerns, based on initial contact with the individual ..e. ,aq. s. 7". c. p.,,.' M whom the Staff considered to be the source of each allegation. Additional , P..,. 3 7., A. m.

,{[f.'y@U; < y;{i,[*. P ;

information concerning a number of these allegations was provided r/ g-1a;j ~ ' e >; during interviews with OCAW members on February 19-21, 1986. g /gg., +. >y : P., -,.; o.- - Y' these responses may be appropriate. The responses given below are f 7.l'"O' When that information has been fully evaluated, changes to some of 1

n..

s,N,, n .q based on the results of inspections made prior.to the date of these mterviews.

c.,

w.,,.,,.

.a wx: ; ^ f MM [:'N,.

1. T,. J '.'.J '." 4 A.

Allegation . #.M.Q s, .)- .f i,f Current plant procedures which utilize a computer to randomly .,m,.. .h@ .g y. s..(. f,, select areas to be surveyed for contamination do not provide com-W.,@, s 4. f,.y. ?4,, . '.',..%.w f, v,@fq>. q;M % an,> m -'. p :.. prehensive coverage for all areas.

s. -.

c.

Response

~ 4. .w, - -31 Not substantiated. The alleger had identined an example of nonran-WW ?[ffM....5;gyy.d p,G, M; ', .. - v,. the selected survey points were the same except for one location. ... -JG1' domness as having occurred on November 2 and 9,1983, when .., c

3. g y.;'"v.

.w >3,?N.. M '.$N.' B 4:s*.:.. w ; -:.' ; h ~.. z; Q,,A.c,s m,.,. e - s . y:.. g99 .s.. , [: g-..a. m n W '. 4 f s. ,4.f4. '..? -' Q.y.',r [ .g 9.. e F*+e "**.,[',, ,'.). f,- A ' U, ;."., 3 y 5 .e .E g s I s e,.,_[* ".*4p-T%4 {W.-P. 99.,.*-h**..****.

F.8.*r

-*****TV.,* 9"**l8,.'"g.ar^-w+' f*M'*'*.W*

-""*C

.{P > ' h' *3f,d e? N ...; < ! " *f,q ' **i

%e'* Gs4 '

S I.? . n 4.... .S 'r w'...'.+ 3 4..;, ,s .c[#%6. f "',_ 4 g.A. N ' l 'n. $-Q' * * '.g

$ " ['.;, j'

...,.w lm,'N[dO,(gf ~ -- ' ' =- .E'.

[.

s?N[$'kQ

^ ~]R, 3 '; ' '

,.,,y ... 'w% U.S:Q 5 8( Q"' ' - - J,. d h; 'm'- cV g- . s. - 4: m~ m.a r.,2 ^ W,,,$.m'. ', rY M 5e O., c. 'F .',N n et,Av...;.w, .,.,:s... e.. ; m.,... w,...:...,.s.. m,v..,., c , ~ w w e... s p. s. = 1 ha [Y f Y f m: h+ :n%g e y i.~.m W..m-%u' .v. f E 5*:l f25 f, .l? z.4 y? .. ' {:m.-w n u m-M., N ', - ? ~ s ww. >.. w '... 'y e ..>.%. w _c a, %pW?. ',p w.. gw e;\\.:4 N::.y ksy.e 4.; A: g '; bL e-: b.

py;g.g n a

^ l' c:..: N ' ~. "c. f : f'-.. Y )l kY. Eh k 'fh k "Y ~Y, f.b, 5 . l r f, Y. !kb5 (( Y Y h

.v,...r. -L,o o, p,cK. c' x.' e, .s.-*. ~~ .fM.., n ~ .:c. s,a. x' _,. c.f - , e.: a.,;ne.. i a '#---*-----A--~2----hu-'",' ~.. ..j,{J.,. g j.' * ..e yn. > d.a '.wr-g f.7., -;w n .r

g (.

?. ...,,m ~s.t,.n. J., c,., ..y 5..K kh.'. [ ' '.', NFS stated that this occurrence was probably caused by failure to i'. U,p N C, ./ generate new random numbers during early implementation of the p' program that had been initiated in October 1983. Based on the M ' 'u NRC inspector's review of test data that were generated to deter-9 l t i s. l ~i e mine whether the program would provide comprehensive coverage 1 l.,, f~ ;>.'.? l. . 3, and on an examination of survey records, the inspector concluded that comprehensive coverage was being provided. NFS initiated its 'g. current program of using computer generated random numbers in j October 1983, in response to NRC criticisci t'ia'. the then-existing 0;. ',.R'. : '- ' y, c

of,

/l survey prcgram was nonrandom in a statistical sense and thus .r

4 6., k' -

probably lacked comprehensive coverage. See Inspection Report .W .g m....., ~. 70 143/85-27. c- ..g. :. .,., n #,.~ W.**. ~i e .::e n s.%s ) B. Allegation .e,3 y O, t.. n. Radiation monitoring personnel who perform contamination sur- . r. Y.r;.@.' " ] veys in the computer-selected areas are not permitted to deviate. m7 s u. ~, ::.,.,.,.. l x ,.o .y 4., - - 2

Response

v,>.e.- .pMW ; .s : -; 4 ,j Not substantiated. The NFS procedure instructs radiation monitors 6:M y,. f@YE ~. ) \\.. /..:. j to perform surveys in the locations designated by the computer but ri hh 9, N '4.i y:4.' also instructs them to perform surveys where spills are suspected. t %W@.M N..j @,. 4 a.,, (Inspection Report 70-143/85-27.) The NFS operating procedures -3.Me nt W " ' W., > : 'a further instruct operations personnel to identify any suspected V' .s 't M' c..wy.M. -Q.. 6.... ( '. a 4 .p,47,. m. spills. Health and safety personnel then perform surveys of these .,,.r...e,,,..... s. a c.., ; : ^ i t r, < areas. . W.o%.lj,. .W apw. m'. w J* Q.e.N.g-g t .,, - t ey<.<, C. Allegation W .Qg,Ma p. ;y y "., w A clear oil-based spray has been applied to benches in the .n.

c. : >.

lunchroom to fix contamination instead of removing the contami-m ;9.n. ..m, M.,c a n.,.,_.. s,.. s. nation. g.u.n + ta w 7..,mm. :.,t,.. y n.a.: a.n ::; a m. , s .wu...< Hje,.M..u,A ;; ; s. t,. . N...,

Response

r..n. o n,.. :c(.. /$ w.j M W d'[9., e -PM '. '.?.~. Not substantiated. The paint was applied to the benches to facilitate $.N5.W M M ( h M J A'*^ cleaning of the benches, not to seal or fix contamination. Contami-w w g, f. 0, p,;: y ; x ::.,W ;: 4 m.: nation levels were below the Licensee's administrative action limit .f

x. p.

v e ~ M ^,.,E, ~ 7 ;*f, @4 v. s.,, r yy C before the paint was applied. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) pa gsg&. ;. :s u,Q. k.h N-h7hNM,[N$C C&,4,f,. : S f 'l l S .t. , o, ,v .v %6 1. r,,.. t .f-1..' ^a.. :,<..

~.-

a n..yg*%, ye 5 ? s w3.8 .. n $.;'. ". - >. ej;2N.. n ?._ M,y',:< 200 n. a n...,. ,q g s [.I .M* 8 A .. x &(.',( **w.w.. ' % ;. 5."h. y * ', e

. - - r...

,!'.s a.". - ~ .~>.p, f.3

sm.

? h, ', ~ '~y.,*---m.*n- -%m=~*- '-.~w*~=.-*-W--~~'~.-mv'-~--w-^wr*- ~ - -- # t: * ?-w t'- e 4.' n /, o g+f J - @a$g$.+W yym,w.%;;. ' ~ h ?,'f. ll 5 1 . w :4.. c c .c., ;/.,, %,:s '+.y,@.:;'n. w.n,

y. n

., W. w:N.. ~;.

e.,:.

~.. c, w s. goW tga.. b. . / q', ,,.a .&rg s.C.m me.7, o,c.j:. : s n p: s. i. 3 . m. ,.. ; ~.t.- (,, e ',. ,,r- ? .-,ps. c u. e N.m.3g~;,p?. p. .Y x Yg i';. . r, .1, 2 .,p ; ,c r ..~,4 ^ h " y,f k f; ?.2 ,?.k ' ?. N, \\ I.. ','; i 'l.55 %'f, $h,[r.-l, .s f ' ' i. <' '.&,' f

's o,, \\ ..a, i. m..m m .t 4

i D.

Allegation A table area surveyed for contamination was found to contain ~- 200,000 dpm and was invalidated by a foreman because it was in a dike area. .t.. ~

Response

.s 4., Substantiated. Although no evidence was found regarding a con-taminated table, high comaminat:on 'evels were found in a box in a diked area of Buildings 302,ind 303. The Licensee identified one .h j case where a radiation r'ionitor supervisor had invalidated a survey

Q'Ey' 1,;

'V which had found 40,000 dpm smearable contamination inside the , V.' );i :., box because the box was exempted from the Licensee's routine W ~j survey requirements and license conditions. Neither license condi-J,, tions nor the routine smear survey procedure required diked areas to be surveyed for contamination at any specific frequency and no i ~ action levels were specified for contamination control in diked areas. The situation did not represent a violation of NRC require- ~ F ments or significantly impact health and safety in that air samples that indicated worker intakes of radioactive material were below l; NRC regulatory limits, flowever, NFS has since revised its proce-l dure NFS-IIS-B-2 to establish action levels for special dike areas to control contamination levels. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) ~ s.,. 4 o ,. A.. c '. E. Allegation i . ~ An grea in Building 111 was surveyed for contamination and found 1e J -l e to contain 20,000 dpm and the foreman exempted the area because 9 l it was over a catchpan.

Response

,:e Substantiated. Apparently the survey was performed on March 12, 'a 1984. Flowever, the equipment in question is an evaporator, which j /. ' l'".e.,' ".,, is protected with Plexiglas sheeting and with a catchpan to make it 7, 3 x ]-/ ', s neither accessible nor a working surface. Routine work is not per- ~ formed at this location, and its inaccessibility prevents accidental j t y * } r.. c"", exposure to contamination. If work were to be performed at this 10- 'C s.. )

l cation, a radiation work permit would be required which would specify measures for worker protection. Catchpans or columns are

.J s

f. v., ;,~

y-not required to be part of the Licensee's routine survey program. fy Ap.. g;. " ' a. For this reason the smear test was exempted for the reason docu-mented on the survey sheet by the radiation monitor supervisor. l ,[, Q ' j ? *f s s ., g 201 .d: i.. % S,. ^ 'j. 4*y ^ ~;- .M.s 3 "., _ 7 6 Gy*, ',f l s *d ' * ,.o .l f ,'[. - 'I' WI T '6 z :e :m.r ..:s .qy';.; '46 - im, h h.. '~ ;.. pfy Q[/ C. W h M h W p@} #;g[s;M _r-N [~[* @%gg4 ,N I, - cb &g % p$A %y %,..' [p m. t :A b. m[. V :,. m. g;.c %. p..u eg jA g a - m c m sn,q

g. W. : e g. w ; m. - :c c; c m

w p S. y g ^ A. M3ye 4 - tqmx-e..

'.v,' '7 - - - - - - - ~ - -' - ~' x x.. ~:1 .c n. Y (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40; NFS Letter of November 1. A~ 1985.) -y - s .m. .,Z,.. F. Allegation , ;m :.- i.Nc t Paint was supplied in Building 303 before a contamination survey .W.. ?.c could be conducted, which was a violation of procedures. u t, 7.....

Response

. u,- , 4.. m.-. 4.p..,. Substantiated. Hand rails and structural supports in Building 303 [. *. t*, . g; M. '! A were painted on January 4,1985, without performance of a con-L..... -( . j-*. 5. 7~ tamir.ation sursey that demonstrated the contamination levels ~ Q,7, e / were within prescribed limits prior to painting. However, this vicla- 't.4 ' 1 tion of procedores would not have resulted in an exposure of work-o + ers to radioactive contamination. The requirement to survr.y prior "i ( i f^j to painting has been established due to the possibility that, if the '.i - @q item were ever surveyed to determine releasability for unrestricted / V c i . ij use, the paint would prevent detection of contamination, resulting ~ in a remote possibility of ingestion of radioactive material upon ~ ' i

1 removal of the paint. This occurrence was identified to plant

"' 4 '. j management by the building supervisor the dar after it happened. On January 6 and 7.1985, all supervisors were reinstructed on ,t' 'f ' procedure NFS-HS-GH-15, Covering of P! ant Surfaces, to preclude S' i .J]".',.X];' s.. recurrence of this type of event. As NFS promptly identified and l&..%- v,#,1 corrected this violation, in accordance with the NRC Enforcement .m. v r.,.,..,."., a.. ',,.- 4.m * /q tc.) Policy, it was not cited for this violation. (Inspection Report ~ Y 70-143/85-40.) i:~. < ',yn:.i.u. [. ', < : r <vc t: 'i.,~ .. ~ r. G. Allegation y. Q ' Vending machines in the lunchroom were contaminated; in par-q.I .. t :3.,J' 3 ,.. 7., n, ticular, a milk vending machine was checked and found to be ,. ?.g 4 e. 2 ,4.n.o.W. ' contaminated with 25,000 dpm. The Licensee is aware of about g- _,. c. J,. ;, %, s. + c. ...u twenty hot spots outside of the plant and noth.mg has been . y. g ;.. 7 .g done to decontaminate them. L.,. % . s.. ?1F.i 2pf v: r4 3 4 { [.,..'/. a%,$e V [* *' N.

Response

lb e. d,.e 'T.,, 7y4.~ f. With regard to the vending machines, the allegation was substan-m 7' .6 s.d.' tiated. Although contamination had been measured inside the 3 ~,.; <, -'T 7 scu s.3 ?.,Ri! @ vending machines, this did not violate any specific regulatory re-f, ' +.. *.Kf, 4 .I f., 'R quirement, but represented an excess over the action limit specified , o c, ~. 4 a {.,

j j,.

^ e-(

~, 202 ~ , 3 ;: m.,$. l Ihlj:9 N-l d' _ y( '9, . /s .e. . bhh';iv r. r J. .V si "~~*"" "; [w , y.;%--* C - y m r ].- ~ %.;m.g.y' r, c.d. ~. - %g .y. w.e.; t,

,;.;;,, < : ?, d. 4 c ya ; t.; w,..* s, c

.p_,.

7..w ;,-

. - ~: - c~ ss. v g c, f. ,-3 g;.. ,..,..g. ,..~ QJQ. -khI? W.. t

. ' ~ ' *1

~ 'M g k;}hkg:N?'.U Q.t E hM gear..lW'; ; % %l '.? *\\ S:y:nf'.i '. %n';;m} av,*A.. .'., O y?

az.%: A

/ 'M :- m..

$$n&,&s,&,qs% QhQQ* ?RGMg,'h.Ql.l;w%MQ-;.;;Vm;;,%,,;.y & yQ f

% > ' s ;., a.l n'ti 7 f. 4fy??Q., y.G.f b k%,.W e:g: Jn sm. %.tp.y Q,w..% w:- 3 4p m, jj&q.?W6:n. W4. 3 :.a n m nu. - e w y\\ 1... n, % y,. m-p w.c. w. 5 % Q, Q p % % %,: q lW h,'M.. n,,; %.. -u b r ..s. y , +: ?. a-t wr M.&y

.M &'?

7 v q)yy?.Q;~f.hC'::.VCr

,x ~ J -j n ? A V' *... ' : +4 ^ - m .h, ,T = J:..'.MMl~ w.4 ge< ?1 g,- ._.,..h~.. ww m ,4 . ~. a. c, N, m .g. + + .,.;. ~..v ,.'-,,y 4

r.

.c. c %., b.y y ~:7 4. y;- m,3 a c .w.- ..w g .m ,s.s w -.w p. c.., f g.g, ,..-u t .q., a... .,,y 3: +

, e t,,.

C< in NFS' license. The Licensee's application established an action t,' ;... 1 -P, limit for initiating decontamination for transferable (smearable) 7 contamination of 1000 dpm/100 cm2 and for a direct reading per [ .l ' ' 3 ',N ' 7 '1~ probe area of 5000 dpm. An NRC review of the survey records of f*"'* the Licensee disclosed that on April 11, 1985, eight vending ma-J* c. 09(%j?;Y !e chines were surveyed for contamination. The levels of contamina- ' ? '. [f ,y [' '" '.[ c,, tion were below the action limit, with the exception of the radiator section of the milk machine refrigerator unit which showed a direct

7_

reading of 6000 dpm. This contamination was not in contact with <N k-(- M; j f[.M.T 9 *. l any food products, and the radiator is inaccessible to workers using ([.{.f. pd'.Q the lunchroom. The Licensee subsequently made certain commit- ? J r ' ',' ments in order to facilitate contamination contiol in its responses G.m@f8W. ns.s:p w..w.cmW n . w,1 dated August 6 and 27,1985, to Inspection Reports 70-143/84-39 . j D J ' *., 'j and 85-08, and is carrying out a quarterly survey and cleaning i '. y.M ld'j. procedure for the inside of the vending machines. During an NRC " i M P ' T V.v inspection in September 1985, described in Inspection Report '.D .Yc.O. t v 70-143/85 34, the NRC Staff observed a quarterly rdiation survey 6 N E,5.*Cl i ' cf. '. '-] of the vending machines and determined that all radiation readings $ f~ " fji.N were below the action level specined in the license. Unspection " ** % e ?d "7 Report 70-143/85-34.) -s,,. O. ' ; '. m f,' { With regard to alleged hot spots outside the plant, the allegation '., f. t was not substantiated. Low levels of radioactive material do exist p-. y' J.5 '. M,. in some outside controlled areas within the plant security barriers 1%.4. e.n m.M ? w. h '.n t but these are controlled within the action points speciGed in the I d.E..,!., ' "' E^ 5 e c. ,D,~ j,(dn S. license. Periodically the Licensee has found spots of contamination pf y*" 7,f e above action points outside of controlled areas but these have been i GT. ' 6p.T v.: & M.s fv.:.'q,n.Df./ MM ' M M.e.. '... cleaned up as required. NFS has committed to a program of reduc-w,.m V e, a ' m.. i ',. s v-%

t. ion of outstde areas contaming low levels of contam.inat. ion with Y' /..

an eventual elimination of areas outside of buildings with uranium N.l W M f "1 contamination. Unspection Report 70-143/85-40.) M.: W.. .v

,: w c '.

H*.~q'.;ky g ;,'.} D.u,. W c.g;.~.:.. v;.'.Q n._ WP..',, H. Allegation g mv w. h... z.. s.y:n,,.as;f6 Hot spots are not being decontaminated within the prescribed u u-k.-@., w.[wcM 3 v. f '.t@4lg '. pi- 'S period of time. r, f ?: Q'd ' tj n ,3., .l . - ' p., 4 : ;.5.% g, w;. e.

r w k. w:n

Response

y

a. ys...a.

s. m.b

.:s .. y.... Substantiated. However, this violation did not signincantly impact N'y, r/3.f.j q Y :/f t S v7W %. lW/4, f: '.#. worker health and safety. While action limits in the license provide n s u..... gy:,'.,* 7. yp g for decontamination within 24 hours if the level is between 5000 wwh A, .@w M,.:f ' 3< y %'.y .;( ).' t!' _. ~,. - ~ '. ;). t7 (Q-? .r-a n -S [$.?5%-Q.

f.

4 %., * }*",*jA g l4 -y's'Q *<

m*

97/q'Q .s f-2 7g*W_ y YT C %.h, . Oy 'D:, t '-,... '. 203 s w,. .,s

y.s

.e e. ,.yv.. ,=

x. w3.,.

.r a.,',.- ,.; ?, " 't ~.. u.-, - i s'* f,ia r w#v[ W'y A, E. h[ v,,

p ,.,

m--,-.m - r-n mb '. T.l,tlSl9 s- ' } Q sO 3 M4 4. - wr 3.=-=- -m,- y x,,g 7 ,,t(' ,./n- [ f'. N-5h b hN' W:w. i.'s..pk~ y.<l:&a' th .,,,w -... f. ._y.wf.. ~. - g,g y-Q g G &. ~.Q g " W p {'& I, 4 t, .,e._ .m - ~. .. s m; ,m? ') f~',k&4M'&, A-Q=~ y%y+.ys@t $QQ G.? +.9.,W.s&n:Ss%m%. L f y%g%, %..f sybg.&.B. % Q Q g Q - Q, % Q Qj y e. y ..~ Q$',Qj Q,,%e g - qQQ fvQ e a w a.n n m y f 2Qggfg;p

, lE

.s n ~. .N- } 5,: W.J , s ?,) A g; E' -M. QW. -

C;.,y..

c - n. :)G.. ~ ' _ x., v .l ..f W 4-. 1 ' b_.. - g%g. 4, _.,: '

i 1

, g. c,, q.y, q. ,.s-A. ;., -7,.. .H .,n. ..~ e y n,,.

v. _

c awa:_wt.c..,e -c.a.e 1. u w,. a-.. y,... ; ca _ y; l l .. _ s .l ^ l y ~ e ~.

'n i

- ~ y dpm/100 cm2 and 10,000 dpm/100 cm2, and for immediate decon-( tamination for areas contaminated above 10,000 dpm/100 cm2, the - Q. y., ~ '., purpose of these limits is to keep the level of contamination from I G g '.P building up over a period of time to high levels that might result in 7, elevated airborne radioactivity levels in the workplace. The failure '.. ; *s. ' - 5 e<, . '...' 8,r ' T to clean up a small number of spots of contamination within the . ~ ~ ' 7.; prescribed time frame would not affect the health of the workers. +- The NRC was aware of this problem prior to OCAW's petition,

[.1 O, '. M l '." '

and issued a Notice of Violation to the Licensee on July 10,1985, cm. ':.,. g:m. M. n.G - g. as a result of the inspection described in Inspection Report ?.9 w,

A i. 4.n.

,,M W '. N..s.u-D: 70-143/85-08, for failure to begin decontamination in the pre-9 ?J - .d, '; 7, ' ' '; 7 scribed time frame. The violation was classified as a Seserity Level ! 'M,.. i.' ..., ~,, IV violation. Subsequently, no instances of failure to comply with the time limits have been identified during NRC inspections of the 2 A Licensee. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) 1.w :. m. ~... ~ ' ' ' -~... . s. I. Allegation I .* 1 - a z; A forklift was partially surveyed for contamination on May 15, t - 1985, and was not completely surveyed before it was removed from the plant site. m. <g j ' :s J ' 1 1 y.

Response

o. ( , ?A.R - Substantiated. A Notice of Violation was issued on December 3, y% .1.. cg 1985, for failure to perform an adequate survey of the forklift prior g; q.pMh! I to releasing it for unrestricted use. The Licensee surveyed the fork-S lift tires for contamination, but failed to survey the seat or pedals. g y ~ M However, the violation did not significantly affect public health and safety, as any contamination that might have existed on the 'l seat or pedals probably would have been of a very low level. The '~ [ya,;.f., f. '%.j [. 6.1'f violation was classified as a Severity Level IV violation. Subse-n. A3 quently, a complete contamination survey was performed and no y>"yM .q contamination was found on the forklift. (Inspection Report p.n gW.. ; <; r . O,y, v. ,,3j,p%. ~.o,,., '1 70 143/85 34.) n...f w a. gt gw p c. s.. ..., a.y ,-. :. c r % n..:;'w. x41.@ .-

q. ; &

2 %+c..c; ,.c 4. %s, sl*.. J1 J. Allegation ~ ..s a e

a. '

Several workers in the lunchroom had contamination on their f J @,.i. 4. M, E V g ?.. hands because only five to eight hand monitors are operational at a n,..( given time, showinF management's unconcern for the safety of the ( 14 f #R :. <[,J,. workers. j i. 7 q i y, g , ~, ~ . y:Q s ^ lWl l, - ;} w y,:.:, y: s, r.y :. 1g4 s ., ;., s u M [ '..: c e;,~ nr .,, y., '~ [~' s, v.,. -Q~' s-u 5 .y. .. y,,, y %.,. vy,. n: ..,v .a s r .qc m&'. M *., '.W - WF.f..% f ?ge ,.37,% ~t.. Q..

r

..lgg;d ; w( ,.,_,__,y,. phw;m&QNl[. MN?p,h+v.k*W+...: lb:.lm. m^ N:$$,Y,C.Y 0lk 1 P-OWSWa.nh'&$ W W w nt 4y 2 -U m MwM %. h tt $ g g.. m g.g m. w, m: e.e y. r & yk i W mamwsp q. am n m,. 2 : . p. m. n 3.x. NNW#14hbVkWWN.}Q f

i ' i '.

-+ , lY'l,

1-1 M,:,

~. ~ ;*. Q ';; _: g '., - ( ^ I' }l ~;. -.

Q 4A\\" '

?.*l.S;' ' ', 1 -, . 3 ~.- e ; yy j ej q.. 2 . 2 y ,n. , 3.,..' ;.x -, .,~., - n. %. w' A. /. /.., - s .,?. ~

2 2. Ad.n.Cx.w k. d..i.:.l dl.L k_3, _. ' _ _ _a

_ _ y,(,_ e. ,p &; 6Y:. <, ' ?.l,., g{ f ll (.- p..s { s c .. a c 3 g.. . y, .b .t,.,. <. ' .. '. ~. c.l..,,. W '- y N

Response

'a w ..n, e;, ' Not substantiated. Licensee procedure NFS-HS-GH-1, Procedure for Contamination Control, requires personnel to survey them-W s3 l '. ,,1 . 4,. 4.1, e '. 7 selves prior to entering the lunchroom and to report any instru-c.- ment problems to the Safety Department. It is a fact that instru- [. O. f, .l~! s, M.,.. ib,. f,,,, ments used to detect alpha contamination are inherently susceptible g.i c y.; ,x... n. .y. 4,. y e to damage and contamination. For this reason, NFS does not sa,. 4, merely depend on checks of instrument operability by radiation 4 1, g.. ';. monitors, but also requires notification by any employee of instru-

N. f 4.... _.., p ',, Y."?- p -

g,W,.<ry. , C '.. ment problems. A check of 5 months of NFS personnel survey g., '. records Ganuary through May 1985) showed only one employee to ... ~.. g[im n! W -- m. be in excess of the l.imits for personnel contamination. Based on .. e 4 the NRC's direct observation of current practices at the plant, the TM d s i 1 G,'- J inspector found that the Licensee's program for personnel surveys ?. W was adequate. (NRC Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) -.. 4. 4, 3.,., y, ;.. - .... s . c ~- 7 +:.g E. Allegation ' 's. /

3. 3..f.. G,f '

P.,... v-....?< Workers were sent to the plutonium building to work and no con-taminaNn survey was performed in the area before the work y*. u; '-Q.. bcgan. When the workers questioned this, they were told by t!'e I ... Jm 2..- i / M. health and safety foreman that he would determine if the area was J

0,, J i..['. y,n.-f.9 3. N safe to work in and that they should go back to work.

..u u- -q;., w. ;.:: 7> s ., %iL N.

Response

M. m. x.. 4.. e .w...,. c.g_. Not substantiated. Neither the date of the alleged occurrence nor a [QW . g@pj;.pg/d .y r, c T i gp ' g pff description of the alleged work in the plutonium building has been e ^ provided by the alleger. Health and safety personnel interviewed ,]!( m p ; g g[j. -p[,0.J.?( by the NRC inspector did not recall any such incident where such m,,3 , ?((. .[. i.* statements were made to workers. From a review of the sign-in log . ' 4'> %.4.?",,.# C < h.. '. [. o. s ,s J-for the plutonium building, the.mspector determmed that two ~. O m...)h., &W ;W; J' i; -- ;rn.& 4H maintenance mechanics installed air sample' lines through a wall in , %.. q v m &. p @y:e-M.4f..+u v,, m, m6. a6.w.a p? February 1985. The radiation work permit indicated that no con- ~ e p tamination survey was performed or required before work was E u g.. Wye - y,.. Uwl ;.... .a begun. However, the work permit did require use of respirators .m.-

. w.,
e,. M w w w.. g: .M;.:V.rai % :/a. ~ ~".$q.3 %s h$,., A p1

/'! m 4M . n ~..M $ p4.S - : Y.. and special air sampl.ing. Th.is practice is consistent with plant

m...

p s% procedures and license requirements. Onspection Report . W..wWW.A... -m .. L y*MP" Mpxq: 70-143/85-27.) @< W 'W.19 @ h,#y 3.z.g,.5,4 j $, h,.Yf,.v.., 4'Y[w'&.. >;t .W W.&"'M v (s'i'.6*.I. M '$m$ M.,.':".s h.N j'*?[

v m,?,.

"n > r m*/,,,* p t. - x 'r p,% .i.,' - 1m f, .*e.9 1 .y y f+h

h;k '

g' gs MM T.,MM@,Y, 1 /a- - @ 5 N( +. WW.Yy MJ 205 . ',u.m. :dlI / g :. ~,.,,, M. h ' ; & 'h* h.k h ? ;. $h'....r id e m.:s t p?f.g,m y'., %9 ;. .n, .) A y :. v,: W.E>f(xfi.Q.*[.W y,f,'ldf:: m.g ' r==e-~s. v&; g, < v ---- % m-,- ..v.--- ..e.~,.., y- .L 1 v s: . ::,n .n

,.yh' ' g h t, m.

~ .h . pu*.Q ' Kf 'O -} h g w ~hh yA n.; )l6s fd U f w. U,. I h .},. i s [, w y..,%%.y%%,nmg%p%W.@u..,s,. & 4?.~. M.,.G b. R,ce p: %n uwsg M w wr -w n . ~ n, f I$ hM. I k -c

,,c,r . v

3..

. n.' :u. ;. ~. s ;. R - < ',..;'y , _.w. p.3 u a . n; ,p... .o. c ra.. w,p y y - 2 -,.c u..- m .x,,,.. c. n.n ,} 1'"'~ b '..y.' 'W . ~. 1 I ',^ y y, s. ~. ' n ;e..

.gn: K $l,,g,

.~~ ' ' %W-- - J" " J- ~. u - -0 'l:: *c; '. ~ " M E L ~'L \\, 'Lt ea w.:5--i d .-v d v e; i L. Allegation Approximately 6 months ago there was a release of airborne activi- ',,a. ty from the finishing unit. The foreman hid the material in Unit J for 3 days because he did not know what to do with it. u Ti. ~ y.

Response

o. Not substantiated. Air sample records indicate that airborne levels were higher than normal; however, no regulatory limit was exceed - _3 l.,, Oc A.. - ed. The Licensee stored this material from the finishing unit tem- @( ', M,. :, [y'T.J,....., porarily in Unit J until an approved Letter of Authorization (LOA) ..a... l, fy e required by Licensee procedure could be written and approved to ~ ,a.a ; t unload and clear the tube which housed this special developmental finishing run. The NRC inspector reviewed the approved LOA for the process and concluded that it was adequate to prevent excessive

C radiation exposure to personnel. Unspection Report 70-143/85-40.)

. a t M. Allegation Some of the foremen are not competent enough in training person-nel to run the plant during the strike. A specific foreman asked a worker to triple the amount of material being p! aced into a dissolv-er so that he could increase production, which could have caused > Y. - * ' *!.,t' criticality safety problems had the worker complied. .c % s,. .t s A 4 J.,.C '..p :g dgi

Response

c sg. - a. -j. ( c 7 7, -fe Not substantiated. This allegation was referred to the Licensee. The Licensee found no evidence of instructions given for triple t ~ batching. NRC inspectors found the Licensee's response consistent with prior NRC inspection findings. The Licensee's training pro-j. .1 gram was inspected by the NRC and found adequate. Onspection f.M Report 70-143/85-38. See also Inspection Reports 70-143/85-24 .'s , w m..' .# c. r -*.. _3.s. %m e-p#, ^6 w,.t, .,: r >- and 70-143/85-34.) ..,,. f:;+f. w'%.& % :, ..,~e,, .. W; ' y& < v.a. y... o,., oWW.., 3 e v.;m a. c..p> ; z _.. g, M.rh,.d. w.9 .G'. N. Allegation e ..,9, t-w. s

.>,<y; y -

x >.. ..W. s,..g,. f On February 4 and 5,1985, contaminated overhead areas inside .n x . s. ; (['3'7N. f,,, ; Q;5',, the plant were being cleaned by individuals in respirators and dust , m. W W....n P ' W W r # fell on the workers below, who were not wearing respirators. , '*a. 4 p I' *,tJ Q f*. -. s,% [.[g* j, ' -).~ J Q'.'- 7 {.._,p(; T '?'.h-- er ~ ' w ? h-7 i 4 s a. h ^ 1

'[ hit '.

.* '" - [ " 5 e . q:s v . @g..&- ~ 206 p.C..t- ~ < L. 'ss L in + + ~- j";yKv~c-,, qp ~ 1.c. 39 .. ; ;h; . s. p. .'j*,,ic%: m - c ,t ; e1 T.. iT<Q: ~ '; k, . f h.y.. QA 9,~,.", l;f'?[.M 'e -r-_~ m n -.z . wr. - ' 4.< e s ',(M % }. p,.. j-,,u. '. s - @ y.; g_ g u S. :.,"7., ;g,:p.dl d j l P.'.b N., K'*vg?,.h O] Q-r%

,. +

,>c', 4 -5 f.,- M. c -- %.., ^h ('M VM., 2.p;DJ ON @f/ S~ ;s L.1-7..M,,4.4 s.;.5:,. j .f O. t-t N D $ p' % y-? s i.:3E.2 2 h( '_i-M a Fh%' JI :;ae.'lv: dM,., tf M M W.% u,w.wn%@ wry w' e.w,. m. ;LW,a&,,.2.-. n. +., _ _. t v.g % ktz.G.y$. y?','9 m' W.M

w.u m' ' m.,

+,w C - 4 1 x..a. _ ?m d.g....,v..n' : n 2; * ,..ic, p R (; ?= r.a C + -y n'y.f.Q. ft. .. f ~<x %. Q f*V '.; e (.. J s _ z (.Q.r, 3 -aA l4-4, qq ;%., N y*M R, n y U.'JT. /:*- w y ^ 7. .x. ~ . p,b,.** b u.J 6. m ; W,.4, # w;, M, g %. 9 y. ',s + g ;.;. Q_t,;- @ g' 7 pp.: T*7_-pj%. e@ p v '.y.y ;. r ' 79.3.;.4s .M_,. % y & # 11 '. /

.n. A ..-_.____.m-- .u_ .. w a a..m r .g j l 4 - i [ t

Response

i, <a 4< l' e - J Not subs'.antiated. Based on air sample records, no respiratory pro- .1' [ tective equipment was required. Both high-volume air samples and i .,f ~ stationaty air samples gave results that indicated the radioactivity .s in the air was normal and created no hazard to personnel. The c[, Licen,ee did not have any elevated bioassay results which could be

I attri'euted to this cleaning effort. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.)

O. Allegation , ~. .,?, Union workers have to use the grievance procedure to bring health 7,.. S.., .~l Rf, ',1. f-and safety issues to the attention of management. e. . a -s. 3 lha 4

Response

., + Not substantiated. Section 19.12 of 10 C.F.R. provides that workers i must be allowed to raise health and safety issues to management. However, the NRC does not specify or mandate the particular q system which must be used to raise such issues. Accordir.g to g Licensee management, workers are free to approach and do ap- ,..r t proach NFS management. They also have used the union grievance I procedure to bring health and safety issues to the attention of NFS - i management. It was observed during the NRC inspections that 1,. -.,, s.. E..., ; y ~ .y -,....#.y 1 notices describing license requirements and the rights of employees

n..,.

. n %,, i were posted at the facility in accordance with the requirements of .b t - E,, ;.9-N 10 C.F.R. Part 19. Workers at NFS have also raised allegetions of y c y. gl 4,jf f ^*. . 6 f violations of license requirements to the NRC resident inspector W A.wd-L.i., [hM;Q.V.$y'f jf and other NRC representatives. (NFS Letter of November 1, 4 1985, and Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) (.%, f. g, ;, g .. s ' m. > p" < : ~ P. Allegation ,j Workers are concerned about the urinalysis program and that e o,lg Q. j

r' '

they are not notified properly of the results of urinalysis of b;fignCig.i g a their urine samples, and workers restricted from working in radi-6 e ;. W.Y., G ' l7 .# A L y... ;O b. :.J, c ' 6. j..y ation areas are being harassed by the plant management to go L'.? ;'Y., '. 7.. e.....,,. ' 4,'.' _' back to their normal contaminated work areas. Many feel that if g.. m, s h ; $ 4.'yv.~,r ; $. W they do not comply, they will be fired. . u oc . m. :. 9 a' 4 [/,MMf. a.I' .s s, ((' j

Response

$5,h' .bI' a.. Not substantiated. When a worker's urinalysis result exceeds the p ',, restriction limit, the worker and his supervisor are promptly noti-4"\\, 4^ M h. Q. '... ~ c,..'m q, D t N ot i j w ,? r. 207 % p~ L;rJ :'.y w m. ix. y,..q, i s g}

e ','

N 0 W ,%ylt ^ @.C?.R.' ' ; & C;.y 1r,., 0; 4 f. 1%,l~ .,o m,.. m. ..,m ,.k d., ] p,',- $9 " i ' x- . ;.,,, y g v ' :.,.u g . t.q '., y ;

.a u w --...

?!. w. '*k.p'.y> E . ',1.Q c O, $ *..' *j U D q ,>,4s ... g?p,~ .ef,e;;{.' *$ %,.~*^ =..*:y n; ,,s. w > ?., k .i qq a y%,h.W::',[. /~ L ~ a %...

n..::. i

.m

<n e:

u

,a.m >. a3 '. hy.Jtztx: :w&[.3 ;[i.,s('k ". .,c '. a. u,.,.

w. Q,I~.ln,n '.

,$n O W

E. 8

^ *

d. ;

+ m - a 6 . is' " ' D. g yp,r. x ni..w;%p:n g" 04'- L. '..a m( q,.. : o, N'M ef. . s.,, s s, y.,,,,s w.g' :.p< y f JLi z\\ A,g. y.' u, y.7 q*}l g e

gu s

M .. y.. a rn,, g c-. f Y l e ' b

l s

l* p

.r . w' . a, -.

s. '

,,t. ,J f-r- .e [ T: -.. ,..( J , :s *

W.._-

,.2, %n;. w.% %j u;dQ R m> m. ,p M s-.F.) ' 7:2_.

$.t: .-

+ - W;.',.lp *.^ ' 7 '.&n

: a m s,-. ',, cyl,,

e'. .w; u v a- / n. s.~ - - O %.e :.%w%. f'. 3-h.w?,*. ~ . Q '.i '. s.. . ? ~ Q

a, [s,

Q ?- 9 W. l:n::k _ J w..;. W %w =..- a. :-.:.:a a.a.:.wi.- ;: :.k-.=i.:k :- wu u ruc y. . s + -. s $*e 4 w.h. - . w.m, ~. vs . V.g.m.%. e8 ^d5: 3.... 3 n < 1*,' > g!.> >. (#h "#D 8( Ag.

2 4

.,.,u... n / GN.N$ fled in writing. In accordance with provisions in the license, work-k h. 1,. $%.M, ers are restricted from working in contaminated areas until their v}g. s

e urinalysis results are below the action level. The NRC has not re-

.lg / ceived any allegation that contained sufficient detail to enable it to Wl'M v,. r ,..:(..' N D, investigate to determine whether harassment occurred in a specific . @).i ~. 1M * ; '.,$ case. To the knowledge of the Staff, no worker has initiated dis- ' @, c:A,q, +w - rof crimination proceedings under { 210 of the Energy Reorganization M@, /' Act. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) ~ 'r -v

. +, -

,c ..e z .s s% *, g m.n

.pe;.g. f;

,N: J+-?r: Q. Allegation .y.p - -,. .h ~, "[ 5N.[2.+M;., A sample of sludge was found from Pond #3 containing excessive amounts of radioactive material. . d.n, : >W w , p a,.~.

9. ?. o.. f.. ^. ; r_.

N 4 w- .c w! o

t.,

-...J. 2 ;,

Response

.. 7 a. ,_ s..- @.g. m, L n.* y Substant ated. A sample of sediment of Pond #3 collected on June i . dF 1 i,. # k ' '.'5.) a c,.._,jb 10, 1984, did exceed the e.ction limit of 0.0012 gram Um/ce; how- ...v wa.. n-

<..,.., a~. w...-.

ever, the inspector found actions taken by the licensee were ade-i,y u, f' Q'e .. y s h..N quate and subsequent samples were below Licensee action limits.

c...,

f.. e W,:.-@ d] No violation of NRC requirements was identified by the inspector. W.,. f. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-40.) y. ...n ,#,# x 7l ~. c

g

,. w s y g.:m .w%...S - q ', g y n, m4...H R. Al!egation 1 , *....,4 M ' I,[..- .ggf.w._y m M.. There is concern of water mixing with plutonium residues after ob-mssp/ d?. i'WW[.,$.

99. J MNf serving puddles of water in the plutonium dry boxes.

.. ; r. W M.e % @

u e ;.. c.ii,e.

n;mnw,s+g...,.g

Response

e. . w,.. n , M.w.:.s q -wyrW4 u q.m ^ - -jp[kMI

p.';

p'g'f...N

JW.

Not substantiated. An NRC inspector toured the plutonium build-gw -:p yg.@H > J ing with the Decommissioning Manager to observe any roofleaks. M4 D. ' M MMnks The Manager identified one roof leak where ceiling tile had been 3 Ni;h AN,.SM'hCNM damaged. He stated that rainwater did leak onto the floor during N'$A$hNMkg$h heavy rains and was cleaned up. The inspector evaluated the situa- %rh,y. w.,m.s. y;. i Q d p.'.;p. %y$ k!E 9 WJ' c y.p. tion and determined that it was unlikely that rainwater entered the 4. q v.w WW Q dry boxes. The roof has been scheduled for repair. No visible y. MND JN., damage to the roof was observed when it was examined by the .... v v w w. gggm SiMN bhhSk. g NRC inspector. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-27.) nwn ,m&_ w :ThW.v: MUi.>IM M - M m.n w,' WM.M@ . U&.M g W N&p f.MM'E % 5; p.,.-l Q w N%pl'4M,Yn'3 j45W p .hkhb(( c f h. hh, m.] [. i..s

p,

+ .,..s1 ,. c.. ,Q. dW D ~ 2 @', Q,., 'M'/. n Q, f%1. ;,.,*,v)l . ;y%5A

W

. R. y; e. :1;vg' w.N.q,~gT .%.. y..& u. fl 3 .m 208 q,w ; r ..yo x m., n x. .n < m, te w~ gy- ~. << -s.,d i Y '

3.

' ) I-.. I 4 n.b ?. r. 42'% - d if. ' ', ,M. -t c s kik?,Y %;A :. &{.g. : -" W Q V ^*~T '~ Y ; m:e.h y., C h, W W &. Q ~ ; W.c a., up..,4 y. %g.- c. x. m. y #.. M,L :n.q M. n g.%m, .. y ? w. +f.. m.. w u1 .. p r9 e.- .:r ,2 .x

s.. g.,,,.

9~q&*m-T {m' *.l,.$

3. y %,h f'.fy. qw.w(.&*:b g a

s .g .,.- 3

w....

.v. .. m. h .' ; Q,l. Q ?;z. _g[* ,l} j,,,.. .. m j4 .p .g y c . g. n k$s @g y,< ~ M.~- @. p/*C f QN 4 ' jQfL' f? we. m-)wwr _ .'% '.,r..: #^ y.o . o w a n < w %* M .,'S ~ u m(m w ys p y - J',.;g4p p;y.4%y e .x., .2 y..y;,, 9,v p:.

m. m.e -m.m>.. q. p:pga.a p: - ; -

.g %a a.<. m g g g,wy m. EM. N ' ~N, - w'W"MkM,MMkD3[*Mi +

w..

o ..: 4 a.. M ENI'k$$f#$'M5j.c[.- .x.. y N /

~ e :.. V r m.- , n_ ~

s..; s.. e,
..a.: .....

-.....L.~.a_-. 3; 7y . n, w.. .n -.,g, a >t.,. s e. .c .;g W.r... >.:..- l+v;w. s ;y: x. M.' ..u. m.c +; ?,e i. s..v q ' 'f ;.. t... 7.1 ...~ p.;N-s. - S. Allegation . A' r. nse, ne AN e .S

v e.e 7 ~,4 % P-

',; 7 q b: y.,f.Q.Q Q,j.h f W/ J On numerous occasions, operators were ordered by supervisors to put rags of ammonia in the scrubber system to manipulate the E i : ?[N.:f.pjSQ;-ffg system and keep it from reading high. The Building Manager or- ,M;; M. aM 3 0 %KV i.W dered operators to hide material (raf6nate) in a tank during the in-

C :. _.. @$:.m m.:.w.

.9 ventory. N... c.g,.j r..a..j &:. -d y g, y, 'lJ..' - ;., p ;,. s.W%

Response

. M.f @ W ;?; M., < n.s,. % -i'.. .., ~ - ?. .J. n % yF Not substantiated as to use of rags of ammonia. The inspector hl<h.h ' Y,..,hj.s,MKY7,h M M,$f.@k system and measures the amount of radioactivity released into the found no ammonia-soaked rags in the ventilation system. Further- ~:p. h more, the identified radiation monitor is in the process ventilation yq re.. q.:. .g,y

m. e.rG.;.p, 5...s e -

ventilation system. If an ammonia-soaked rag were placed.in the 1 . f,, w 'a.4. 0.a ,.y._<..e. s. , t e 'w * / gi ducting at the identined location, it would decrease the amount of y w ,fx 7p', ,.f *. [ radioactive material entering the ventilation system since it would ? partially Glter the effluent. The sampler would still detect the - 1, '

4..
*.f.4 aty?' p!gt..'I amount of radioactive material that actually entered the system

.., s a c,.. .s p 3c...,.,..,..~.. %... M,u and the rag would not cause a false radiation reading. (Inspection ,. n, , O;.n. 4.,2,, Report 70143/85-27.)

i..r, e

o ..... r ..8.k.;,3.M.h. M g she NRC Staff was unable to corroborate the allegation that the ,f g, w}; <. m, V 3 9;g$% Building Manager ordered operators to hide material. However, an >w c. NRC inspector confirmed that a tank contained special nuclear M k::.;;ra,,. J. 9. a. M 3 W @ n, m,n .gy '.,;.#' material which had not been included in the plant inventory. The .a. m ~ s 1@,M..'dfMZ.N NRC inspector found that the tank designated as Station 56 in 7 d g..y mg.;.y. Building 111 was full, although the Building Manager said that it p;,".?N,5 7. %. < g..., w,,r...r,4 M p was empty. Based on a sample of the material m. the ta ik, the tank ,.p9.... o ew p,r,.. ~g-n .m. y M W a pl'f..W ;T2);pE!W W m.n.,,.g# contained about 1.5 grams oflow enriched uranium per liter of so-c0C l p.v.* G' % *,. '.j Z.', o quantity of special nuclear material it contained, or its source. A .S .p, lution. There was no record of the identity of the solution, the .o m.. , gc..c i. - Notice of Violation was issued on October 16, 1985, citing the ' kd O ' ', %.' ) (.U. ?,? =' p .l, Licensee for violations identified in connection with this incident, O A ;J..-c. M,....j.;.$.Q g R. yNUM.s.e.5. _ - v ;O ) t. including failure to maintain current knowledge of the solution in ion 56, and fa. lure to follow procedures.m conductmg mventory [ ' Kw@.e r > %j. 3.,~o xs.,V.,^*l9 %: and to inspect the tank. These violations were classified as Severity , m. Stat. i r# t Q% J! m.$ 1,o - qQr; Level IV violations. However, the quantity of material involved ! pfy.f'.@'Tb.,, was small and this failure to inventory appears to have been an k d N,i.._*A., M.W.n. 9;' W.,.f o ?: W iGr W r.l[& i8 %... f. @g'-7 isolated instance and does not indicate a pervasive problem with v ' :C. :.D the Licensee's physical inventory practice as evidenced by the fact h,Mp h y j y,~ jig.jj$34 iEN N 2.. M/ N..'? that the dilTerences between the " book inventory" and the physical inventory have been maintained regularly within the limit estab-g; % 7 .m, ;Ge:d_ 3o lished in the license. h e b-t* s,f f u g Q*hf.MQ,$f G [, %, 7 ; y. @,dy ; h AL.f. @,, %.4K,GW;% 7*;' .&$ W - ' %.@ ;W j'Q 209 4, w %.,s.. < '. n, 1 ,,.n.~ ; y,e; d. w. b < .A -- .e 3 3 w +, ,e,. g s.m,*

i ffQQ*-&.4 }m.*'yj [M.l.^

..-e ,, 'w. gr h- .i b ..,py. ~ a. . h74 g,>Z.2 }. r QN..' N [dy '.g Mg}-%.~ :, p..o~' w... :.:.. k.IL Q@y !..y s C.M.j d, w. r w .c ..v. m.,g m. M,.0,yn, r g:;.&. 5.e f;. R AW4N n % yRw w;f. 7.,+rc.,.m..m..., --- u. y.mv,., r.,.;.w;t. 3,9

W ; i.'. -

g...n..

u. e. >./ 3 w~. r ~ ..y WT .M, O cp.g s-% m q

gy..MW -

p n y~ m -w . g.:. w w.n n %;rq?w..n,q wmm.%@%ew!MM$w%@,M~QM@~.h h s* @m m M M M M M idE NQj

}., Q.._- ,= m ~ ' :* ;-y v. e. w y;. M,i c. e.f y...c. s..,; - ;,..y, :..., e, .s s . vg ~., Y. ;, g .y, - ,) p:1;7 G ? . ;.O: ;. ' s,_ _ w _ :. w, a.u.aa.. :.a.. 9;. 3, -- i-q:

4

.-i~.. + . g. g.,,..., e 'cl, ' - T. Allegation ??;o.F.h [ S.'.. ',' / ~ ,~ ~ f Material was coming out of a furnace and producing excessive air-borne contamination. Management was made aware ofit numerous ( +e ' times, even to the point that a grievance was filed, but would do t g;;.- nothing about it. s.- l,

Response

Not substantiated. NFS determined that a grievance had been filed on April 3,1985, alleging excessive airborne contamination at the ', $p, f,,',,,.J. ,J Area 10 furnace in Building 302. NRC reviewed air sampling data A i..mc e. -.. O c;,, i '~. ~? ~ at that location for the fourth quarter of 1984, and the first quarter ~ of 1985, and found that the weekly average at each air sampler did not exceed 25% of the permissible concentrations in Appendix B i-J'.,. those air samples were less than 10% of the permissible concentra- + of 10 C.F.R. Part 20. The quarterly average concentrations for n tions specified in the regulation. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-42.) 1 3. y, ~ U. Allegation r Nuclear material (even though low-enriched) was hidden from in-ventory. f... .a ., ; c:,- b;;.., >, o,.:.y,*. :,. a ;

Response

^. u: ' r - q :;., ~y, Not substantiated. The alleger indicated that the buckets that were %.g;gg e., i-%n allegedly hidden from inventory were not labeled in any way. The M.qq-7.p.. -;,f.< ' inspector examined the area where the buckets were reported to y qlf-( g. r ,pe, have been hidden. During an inspection conducted from July 8 '1,5 ~ 2 ] through August 16,1985 (prior to the date of the submittal of

3 OCAW's petition or NRC's request that NFS investigate the allega-tions), the NRC inspector did not find any containers of special nuclear material. Inventory personnel stated that the area where W.'.?>+-

the buckets were allegedly hidden was routinely checked during

$4'T:'ig. ;.. _5 ;.v:l,9 0 the inventory listing. No buckets had been found there when the VU -

(a,,. fbi)4, 6, . T...

last inventory was listed. (Inspection Report 70-143/85-27.)

,.4 N% 's ..q A g d[ 4/ s 3 ,y. 4. %';,% n trefl 1 g' -$N%..h'Q f,:,'s?'Wi';ilt' -]. w; m.,%n;;m. z ff:\\$plJv.* iqs.<hN,S ' h,W. ~' -

gy:,'

y bh. 3

- ^*

s e., e .~: <- N ..#e3

I.O 5

,,e

ag/.

g - ?'?. "3 210 q%. ~,.j;

p H.,. ~. -,

-ma p y Ma, j<,'- ! l : ~ l&.G<Q ' ' '. * )* -

ne,

"f.W-3'- M. ' ? ?,,; + ' Q ij.'T.,

n !,,lT..

.g i.... 1 s - o P, gm .._,__,,,,,_,_,._...,.....m._y..,p~ W ,'.i a< .3 sc .l,,,- Rg r -, Q : kf'% .w ;W ..,s _ s %~ n;. w m. m m,%y. pe rg. o ... v., %' , ,e-4. 4 . 9 .s..,, 3 %n.p ;, . M +.Q.:, 3.- ..*l.- w - g?KA&-w ' f, W,- ' K,'0 W.% y ; w j. - n,% g.g).y.;- Q ' :~ % , m.. m, + .a = -m y+Q.A 2 1,nf%"M c; w.m,ma rm, y. ~ : ";c.,,.. ~M;, ',w CP. ,y +3.v r. a l &&$W. p., r u w%Q- ', Q\\ w,. n., 4* m.n Qym '4-tg ,~ m m. . g: < ~ _' ah Q,;,,G.;-Q;iyLe r y -; w. i, $ r ?' ' *, ~*[ & Y*;4?h 3 W W '}? ? W * : " p y : N.y.':;~'7 %;M W v +cy

,y s

6 i -

O~ $2 :?

,e

^

g s y. p. .........L__;.__. V ' v V s s c' +- 4 Cite as 23 NRC 211 (1986) DD-86-4 3 t; .. ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,t l. i

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f. n k '....

1.v r

,a OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION r* L. V. ' -i~ 4 4 e.; Harold R. Denton, Director h w l. %,' y z.m.. ~....;- .t

i -

i.'.kn ;y<M ~ ~. '.. ~ { In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 440 ,., ! y~.z ; v s e s - 50 441 e ", (10 C.F.R. I 2.206) ~{', aj / CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ? COMPANY, et al. ~ 9;; (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

f.. %

Units 1 and 2) March 18,1986 p. - t-The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a pe-4,,... - > u.. f 't, ~ tition filed by Donald L. Schlemmer on behalf of the Western Reserve y' .y ., T

Alliance and denies in part a petition filed by Susan Hiatt on behalf of

-.'f("f.Y Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy. The petition filed by the Western b ' C. " -.d. Reserve Alliance requested that the Commission suspend construction W.. > 7,W 7,7

7

~ and other activities at the Perry plant on the grounds that the seismic r '.W Mr ~r. .',.[ % [ design of the facility is inadequate in light of an earthquake which oc-T^ curred January 31,1986, and take other actions with regard to the Perry .,~-W facility. The petition filed by Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy requested that the Commission not authorize fuel loading or issue an "' V'?? operating license for the Perry plant until certain actions have been , h. xJ.. - .i completed in connection with the earthquake, including inspecting the I..,'ll.F4,' ' n' ',9 '.,. facility for damage which may have resulted, investigating the earth-f,, M $ 1 * * '. f wy 7 (.% -:') - quake, and reevaluating local seismicity. The Director determined that ,e,-Q the StalT had already extensively investigated the earthquake and its ef-i4 dy p@..t * {^.$ fects upon the Perry structure and equipment and is reevaluating the ' ' $-f,.d '8]' g.#9.f geology and seismology, and that no adequate basis existed to grant the r " ' Y.I[ 7 $w nNJ J _.b: g'. 3 > e.0,a: additional relief requested by the petitioners. ~ P. .q, u[ %. 1. w. m !$.a u fp -- g, 3

r*

'-f y , (, ' [ ?'*.?? 6

* *# [ ' '

g,

r

?

' n

' ~ ~ h .q'j

p<

. w. M w

Qim

~~. u ' ~ ' 211 b..f '.9 #5. M 4 u (< N M d,' h 2 &2 1.Y Ql ]..l?w... w 2i . p .m$ bh [e.1. g, th; FEY.~s,, , v 4 ~ ~ " " ' ~ ,Pm . w . 7 :.--~r. ;o ,. m, --e.- yt .. s..;.t r .,,-..,y,t 4 J 4 W 4 . ~...,...,. m % -- s y e4Wwy#@FMy:w&)m?sik$w)6@ - v. " s .mn*,.,.x,y,7 55 g, g HEN.9g.kNhdQMD$E y,MM M$fdh$IM @ M p 3 9 @d k h i m $ r& cMte wi G_g. deni4RMF iy vmigd

l ' ~ n. y' t Q

, ;.;p?@,...,

_.l ' .D : ..? r w.a.. .-;>?> y. [

r;.'.

.3. =.u.. c w. -- ~ + ~ " : " - " ~ ' - > ~ u. ~ w. s = - u.: - q:f:.?O '., ':2 - ' - ~ u .)1 q-3, : >:,.,.m.. s (, a, r \\ RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING l ~a The Commission has ruled that ! 2.206 is not an appropriate avenue \\ e I for relief where an issue is pending, or has been considered, or could 3 4.-. :c have been raised before a board in an ongoing adjudication. ..e,= m. v j~ w- ,y n ?,'y - TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED: SEISMIC DESIGN ?. c. CRITERIA q .t Under 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, the design basis for earth- + V M.. g} quakes must be determined through evaluation of the geologic and seis- .g ;.,. M jC ~ mic history of the site and surrounding region. The largest earthquakes - V 1. 4,% occurring in the site region must be assessed. TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED: SEISMIC DESIGN CRIT ERIA ,s [-! It is not unusual for an earthquake to have high-amplitude, high- ' M frequency peak accelerations of limited duration. These high-frequency peak accelerations are not used in scaling Regulatory Guide 1.60 design spectra because they are usually of short duration and have little energy and are not representative of spectral response at the lower, more signifi-cant frequencies. 4... .n -.u. 4 .w3 ,a ? M 6.,.,,. J.. '. " - TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED: SEISMIC DESIGN .f ;..., ,,.,,e.;,./.s.: e?.f., A m 4 CRITERIA y. 1:.. v., ..e;m. Y a.; a (, (3pg,;, Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100 describes procedures to be followed 1,Q,. -l'. D', ' M.% N in determining whether a fault is capable and whether the nuclear power c.QO.;Q y plant is required to be designed to withstand the effects of surface a 4 O.h,' d faulting. a, ys .N RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING fr. q,; y *,. _.. m. e, t w ' - -.w.

r. 3.g.,.g# ',w....,, M.

Section 2.206(a) of 10 C.F.R. requires that a petitioner " set forth the m. .~,o W m. . T : 7 7.% ' M 'qc W,R. w,.;d,

(

facts that constitute the basis for the request." Absent such a showing, i,$. R. : +. c .s no action need be taken on a request. 'i ; ..f @ M.. m % c 1 ,e w VQ{. ],iff%7'b.a, -N RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING ,,L '., '..,. / d $ ' 4 The Director, upon receipt of a request to initiate an enforcement pro- -.o, Y m. y A.Pa.n ceeding, is not required to accord presumptive validity to every assertion e774.-. . +s y*;3 x Q,+., 's y = r, _.: ,, ' ' ', ~ ,J-44. 'i ,8"..*h*y,..(.., 45 a

-/

,,f 7 ** g' b[.g,^,-) .h, g. c. ,'cx,- ,,j OS'g" %."g e,. 212 w 5 '#l-QE f[,$,2*l.

- '?.,**

'9 . n MO ~* ",

4. ! ;,j j !.h.p*Dej..

J. i i' I 3 s 3 s . A, k G.% g g%r..f, 4, ? r*..c)f.,+. - <* s; th Q-f*'?lM

m

-~^*7 e..J7 w s n. _.. -..,.. '../', *. L :c,, r---- qm' h' ...s .\\ a e m m <* ~,. ) **, V(g.,,, s..' .. ~ 'Y .y.' L :,

T

,.r ' o ^- ~ * * ,,,. i. ; ; ? 1.*

6y

-*o c

s e

,., k,. g..ty N,s ..., '. -,.es .. -K. a.. .w.c e .4-

4

..,s .m p. sy.

eg,,

,7 .ms v, a a p,. .,e. + r y ; a : e M y4 7 r'$Y^,Ychme,p.n.v'gagN r- ~ f. I* ~ '* li. sl h.'S,$ ' h.. ? w' p. ..,;r g s,%: p Qw.y w-n. m ; gr.c. g ?, s, w,, :e m

e.. x 2

h k.kY. ? h k h Y.w s e g;k Y Y g$ $ a m w ,hY kh0hh;:r ?y? m ~. a r.o

n l.

hb. f

e, , nla,. a,,: .: n.,...

p

, -3.. -* j;*,f 3 :,, e7 7, ,.s ~ ~ ". [ 'Ll: 'n' ~

M{.y

'i x ~ ^ * *

v. /,

7 :;. 3.~~.~~.... 2, : ;R, .. s.. ...-.,.v.,. ~, ma.m c,_,_. ,y . y.; .,.a

u*

. :,. 6..) v:, 2

l. e,

.y <z, u of fact by a petitioner. Rather, his role is to make an inquiry appropriate

f S '.. '

~, '. to the facts asserted, and to obtain and assess the information he believes .~ ; / necessary to make that determination. 4, y. ..u...;w; W DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 e 6 <,u' O, ~, INTRODUCTION .v... ++y c :(. n '.h ; I',, ; ' ' * ' '.. fc / j By petition dated February 3,1986, Ms. Susan Hiatt, on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE), requested that the I l.'1 : s Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation not authorize fuel loading or issue an operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, W /<.. s Units I and 2, until certain actions have been completed. Specifically, OCRE requested that, prior to licensing, the plant be thoroughly inspect- - l 9' ed for damage which may have resulted from an earthquake which oc- .1 1 curred on January 31, 1986; that post earthquake functional testing of '.l,, ' all plant systems be completed; that a comprehensive investigation of 7 ?- the earthquake and reevaluation of local seismicity be conducted by the

- - Ol s

.V NRC, the Licensee, and other scientific entities; that the Atomic Safety .y. p,

. M: v. "

-A.,N y and Licensing Appeal Board complete a hearing and issue a decision on wg 7- . gg '.. c 3;' a new contention submitted by OCRE in the Perry operating license pro-ceeding concerning the adequacy of the seismic design of the facility; ' 1 & &,S' 3 y,. A .Qf ,-? ?p '- ..f U and that installation of any required seismic upgrading on the Perry gp]g-. .-l ~ ;, 7. W plant be completed. As grounds for its request, OCRE asserts that the '/ g..j,;.yf magnitude of the January 31 earthquake indicates that the FS AR analysis of site seismicity needs to be redone and that conclusions in the FSAR .~

p... q. m.
7,.. y,.0 J

and the Staff's SER (NUREG-0887, May 1982) are erroneous. " ? ; #@j) By letter dated February 4,1986, Donald L. Schlemmer, on behalf of .f,.,. ' 'A a .o; f( / %. E the Western Reserve Alliance (WRA), requested that the Commission take a number of immediate actions with regard to the Perry plant,

c.

a-h// ,,U ma :., Units 1 and 2. Specifically, WRA requested that the Commission: (1) h,77@N@f'.x'.y.,',7;Q.ifE'.'.s QC p. permanently suspend all construction and other activities at the Perry Mli ;@RW;hs JZ' @G plant, except for removal of radioactive material; (2) require an indepen-

lj!O
{ 'M d

M C,.' ( pyi{;i ;f,JA y, dent design and construction verification program to assess the integrity hrNR it U :*i. M MiB and implementation of the Perry quality assurance (QA) programs; and g eyg..ac,;g

g f8 (3) review and require an audit of an application by Centerior Energy Corporation (CEC) seeking the approval of the Securities and Exchange

.,.u . s,,.%w ,l b,.

~~'

.y9 Q Commission (SEC) to acquire all outstanding shares of Cleveland Elec-Mg'Qtf.6;O -.%g ?! J@h. tric illuminating Company (CEI) and Toledo Edison (TE) and of mer-( yy y ag 7-4w.p* gers by which this will be accomplished. u .~. (.;.. vf - ',,., 1 . =,. 'w s.4...

', h h

. f. '~ 's .. e...,: u , J, pi s... -W..Na '. 'C - W. 2L c -:,.8 213 a.r s 9 N W;.3; g w.yg .:a p

~Q;pVa.nh

,@L u -:fW se grh '

.g
- I k h-

.* -", *m-- w -}i!_' OE'f**"' P.w's -"* **"pp - ~ f er r C O'*-*7(* x,y Y,". ,n '~ 4 o a. a s w.e m @l , w. W Qm m@W;l bn u, .s % Y \\ !) 3 E (', ) e l {? ?[N $ k,, 5 f ;= R M.R xC W,! ,,,t- ~~,, tY%. M m ? & w Q $$m, y $". fbi ~~.: %..u eq%tBr.2.~tW^*..w- %.bgi&' k,s -V %. 2M MM.W mn L e mn W m m. $%VQ3.$$MQgg.jpg;., b:i?.MY%ggg.q%Q;3;l((gypy %W%MW yyg g lp %, v-n m - Wk

y 7.p. ^ ~ ^ y.,.y;: .s. .-N.....j<~ n y., ,, _ _ ~.n, - - - - ~ - - - [ c a. " ~ s- .~ a. s 5 ?r

w.. '.. ~c, :a

. s 1 b '-. + J ?c[ ?,[ A (., ed, that the seismic design of the Perry plant is inadequate, particularly WRA asserts, as grounds for its request that construction be suspend-

3. i O.

e in light of the earthquake which occurred on January 31,1986. As f: 4. y ,..,.if. F. 'y grounds for its request that an independent design and construction verification program be undertaken, WRA claims that CEI and its con- .,~#..'e L,,<7..., &,. a a. K, l' ' c '- ]~ '.., ',M, tractors have failed to implement an acceptable QA program that meets '.QF; P;V'. . p. the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. As grounds for its cjf (, i ' ' request that the applicat en of CEC befole the SEC should be audited, WRA asserts that the application will adversely impact the ability of CEI .. O-S !*'* g. f.,..' - ~ T, M. j., M.; and TE to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 140. In accordance v with the usual NRC practice, the WRA Petition was referred to the Staff igg 4, :.~, - W f:4., for appropriate action in acccidance with 10 C.F.R. { 2.206. < ~p,, w 'rv By letter dated February 19, 1986, the Licusee responded to the >.e ~N WRA petition and by letter dated February 25,1986, the Licensee re- 'E;.*. 7,1 sponded to the OCRE petition. With the exception of OCRE's requests that appropriate evaluation of the earthquake and site seismicity be undertaken and that the facility be [1; inspected for damage which may have resulted from the January 31 - e 1 ,f earthquake, I have determined that the petitions should be denied for the reasons stated in this Decision. As discussed below, the Staff has ) l conducted an extensive investigation of the effects of the earthquake upon the Perry structure and equipment, and has reevaluated the geolo-J $u.i.I...$ ".,9c. 7- ~ gy and seismology of the Perry site. On the basis ofits review to date, .. n the Staff does not believe that an adequate basis exists to deny further

. /,'g f pT'.

licensing or order the other measures requested by the Petitioners.

2. t c. 3,. 4.

, ^ 7- ./.,. -e ;. T' .Y > e s.~ ..;s* .c.g a.y *. e- ,g < w.,y.y .o s , iQ. f-~ .v. s ' } ;,,4. f't e r.y + ,2 .* j. 'i.: .. i.,., f y ,{s 23 3 .c.. g Apart from the ments with respect to the seismic design issue, the petition may be independently .,k ...a u' 4-4 denied on procedural grounds. oCRE's petition requests, among other things, that the stafr decline to + ',* h g$,i ;,p.y . b 9 ~ p [-. "Q . J** permit fuelload or operation of the facility, relief that concerns imtiallicensing of the facility and not en-J'

forcement action such as is usually contemplated under i 2.206. See Cleve&md Electric Ilh,mmarmg Co.

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). DD-85-14. 22 NRC 635,642 n 4 (1985); Detroir Edison Co. . J'F.l. Q. ' 7 ^, (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2). DD 84-ll,19 NRC 1108,1110 n.2 (1984). oCRE has also t ; g;,;yjPb g 4 , -- [ *-, filed a motion before the appeal board to reopen the operating license proceeding to consider its new 1 [h fit./ 1 *.k " ' * % ' [ < seismic design contention. In other circumstances, the Commission has ruled that i 2.206 is not an ap. .s .g; ,3.*.# 4 propriate avenue for relief where an issue is pending or has been considered before a board in an ongo. 7, ing adjudication. GracralPublic Unkrars Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear station, Units I and 2;. g t {5ig.#,M, ? g 7, : MN.h P.x tre Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-81-6,13 NRC 443,444 (1981).

e oyster Creek Nuclear Generating station), CLI-85-4,21 NRC 561,563-64 (1985); PacMc Gas and Elec-

,.~h;f;b ',~..

?,

.,c g Therefore, since a forum is available where the same issue may be raised, a i 2.206 petition is not an ap-W.- .y propriate avenue for relief. ' -L Se. ,..,,y m'*.* 6 ,'.;'g .x. q ',; :p '.. e

,e 211

,u m 7 -. - yg.!.L..', .V *-' .v.m v - [ ]' s b '.,.n, . 7

- ) b 2 NtI '.9 M. h.,f

_ Q.3 ~.* M 6 ,.Q x g.. @,.; g, " i([s ~ - _ q E f, ~ ,,..-t' g[. w.+;_ 3 ~,

' ;,. 1,

.:. t. ~ w ep%.%gfr. .Q W. 3: ~ h> . m'*e:7 g [JP i,,.M M';,y;; i 4' ,?, - p M ' e %+ 0 1 '. m., m p* g3 f ;.,,.

4.,,. m%,.h..g*E M $

r gg: N l l . h UM.m. SL$@%..$MM_ipWW,hb,G4@b?$NW @ %lW M hf b

..V-1 l s '...:. 8

y

-y J:_ s ,.a

: 9

>.,.,. ; a:

ty -

i ,' y: _.3 ..~.. a ~,. a.. w:.. _;.w _ _. ~. _. -.n w - w c. 1 - ~ s..... ~ s I s. ,. ] DISCUSSION e

v..

Impact of January 31 Earthquake on the Plant The OCRE petition requests several actions with regard to the Perry J. .s . / y facility. Chief among these is that, prior to licensing for fuel load and op- .g. eration of Unit 1, the Perry plant be thoroughly inspected for damage re-

r. :

.l. sulting from the January 31 earthquake, that any necessary corrective '. ) N., - ~' action be taken, that installation of any required seismic upgrading be s' ' j} completed, and that the earthquake be investigated and local seismicity 6' be reevaluated. These requests have been essentially satisfied.

t. N 1: # v

.. M Both the NRC StalT, which was notified of the earthquake immediately M.,.9 : MW. ',. cw following its occurrence, and the Licensee have undertaken extensive in- ' a:<;Wfg. 3 vestigations of the consequences and potentialimplications of the Janu- 'f M - 2 (*k' - 9 1 ary 31 earthquake. The Staff is also reevaluating the geology and ,l'y @.* J* i seismology of the Perry site, including a review of the seismic design 1 bases for the Perry plant. The Staff has documented its investigations y < JJ.. ,A.'. , i. - and conclusions in a Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-e N 7, ' j 0887, Supp. No. 9) issued March 5,1986 (hereafter SSER No. 9). o, ,"7*/- l~ Immediately following the earthquake on January 31, Perry plant oper- "g ations personnel were dispatched into the plant to survey for damage. The initial reports indicated no damage. Subsequently, a utility team of

+:. ~." i,

'.j approximately sixty-five engineers and technicians was organized to per- +ils,.,' ;. damage to any systems, structures, or components. The hairline cracks J y, e. form a detailed walkdown of all plant areas. These inspections found no / m.. +, - G B T' ' S.' in concrete walls that were observed have been reviewed by the Licensee 64 4..... c

7 ?f * '

f',.is'dMS D / . Q.a : and the Staff and were found to be typical of those expected in reinforced WT EM '.,., q concrete structures which have not experienced seismic events. Numer-M ?.i ous safety-related systems in operation or on standby readiness contin-Ud@g # K(*-[l?Wll%,

M f

ued to operate without interruption during and after the earthquake. if ". ~ 'p The NRC StafT also conducted a review at the Perry facility on Febru- '^ 3

,,.'.y.% @W-]

Q:gj jS ary 1-2,1986, of preliminary seismic recordings, and performed a walk-through inspection of buildings and equipment. No significant damage f.J ;.,

s I.,p.N.Q,-{.' 'f was observed at the plant. See Inspection Reports 50-440/86005 and Q%,*..,

l'M M...'e .M.X,4', ? 50-440/86006. See also Trip Report dated February 25,1986. l my.g.L ',r t ggg % - p f 8 _ L'W ~. A Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) subsequently conduct- .i ed another site audit on February 6,1986, primarily to investigate the gj Mz + -f f p g ], ', ,*] effect of the earthquake on the plant's safety-related equipment. During y; M7l& ',' hp, p,G. i '.- 1' the audit, the Licensee and its architect-engineer, Gilbert / Common- '; 1'Ay/

f j M

ff ", 7 ', '

7 f,ks/g.

wealth Associates, Inc. _(GAI), presented brief background information

.%f,-

jdgn.., on the event and implications of their views of the recorded motions at

y. -

.w a ic > - y~m +.. y . m. + ,, L;. ..L x )q;y y. -

r.. ~:

C g*N : J, ggg h;p,? _ _, m @.W.,., M y*i~ Kg,;. r~e., s.3, 6 r @,- < -' M;g,3 kjk. ?, c': a.. , - ~ m7.. n ~ -~ m ., J

p r ;;,

j } .; N

i_

', f.

g e. '

n'ng,%Q(f,;p Q .{ { ? . n. u. n....s w.7 . ~,-. - a.. 4 - sg_,. . e.,7 ~ o ,. ~ }. v m, e m :m -Q,.,.:+.%gg.~3 ; g., % n. w m 4 1 ~ m n ww W p. ,N;,y.h, M:f.3 W7pjgsg: g:g:(,hkM q ' kyNh g bk 3 T Q W. w,s f,"3 p g.g q h p. p p,p:u y: h k :hf.gggjplggg .[.h h h M'% f M.

v.. 7, p,. 7 y..'sl, a.y m m 3 32.. .. e'.., ..y. .~ . ey. s, g,'+1tr s > e. s n. -s c + vp .GF n. ..M. .,..EL:d.dd.a.. :.. - -. Mi ~, ~. : = u &. - A' ,, f. + ;. : w4 4 t 4 j ....-...?. p :.. t y, 1 - ' [ ~ ' N s. 'i

various locations of the plant. See CEI Report submitted by letter dated

- - /.,y

v. <.

February 12,1986, and NRC Trip Ileport dated February 25,1986. Pre- 'j[* V j liminary observations were that the recorded response spectra had ex- ~ . c. P @% *.m.y e.] Earthquake (SSE) in the high frequency range (above 15 Hertz (Hz)). i ceeded the Perry Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown _ ', ".. ' ' - j ".p.Y * .j On the basis of its qualitative evaluation of the safety impact of the .. (C.'

2. - ' '. ' ' (i event on plant equipment, G Al stated that, in view of the short duration e

. f ^ } (strong motion portion is less than I second), and the high-frequency v,.- ;,.,. >... ' characteristics of the recorded motion, the impact of the exceedance on 9 ,.. ~ - .. q,jy,- ( -a' S plant equipment and structures would be minimal from an engineering - e y -M p.. q viewpoint. In addition to the technical discussions with GAI and the ' y *~ g l7y g;f ' 'E.i Licensee, the SQRT performed a walkdown and observed some repre- 'i.," '.L'. "l. ,".1 ' ] sentative equipment that was a part of the detailed review of the SQRT y(,. l audit of August 1984. The equipment inspected included the H13-680 N,'. . l Unit Control Console, Division 1 battery and rack, motor control ..y ,. M, W - s, *. center..and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) turbine and its relat- . ; ~ *. a J...c r,s. 4,,, ed pipings and accessories. No damage that could be attributed to the v q. ',, '

7..f.* p p January 31,1986, earthquake was observed on the equipment itself, the X

equipment supports, or the mounting conGguration. Furthermore, no ".. f.;<;,'. apparent structural damage was observed during the walkdown. + / f in addition, a special safety inspection was conducted by the NRC's . ~.,, u % '..- q.(' x Region Ill Staff on February 5 7, 1986. See Inspection Reports q. 50-440/86005 and 50-440/86006. This included a post-earthquake walk- . y,, .ry, down and visual inspection (involving a total of some 90 inspector-M

f...;

hours) of an extensive list of safety-related systems and components. ".m, .. ?,) '; . 4. '?. -

!.[p, MF.%.M..,

The scope of the walkdown and visual inspection included: (1) an as- -W A sessment of the general condition of the systems and components select-g v. 9 d E f[. l~ ed for inspection to determine whether there was visible evidence of

'S "

" h'j M . d.I damage or signi6 cant movement as a result of seismic activity; (2) ,,d5f*h'?f.Y ll examination for bent or deformed pipe support structures or compo-r f.j nents; (3) inspection for loose anchor bolts or cracked concrete associat-j. s s ,an.,~. ,7' cig:R 5 ), ed with anchor bolts and embedded plates; (4) inspection for signs of

Gfs,

' > $NMQ,.4.L.4 signiHeant movement such as damaged pipe insulation and scraped or jd,W M.M' $M cracked paint at support locations; (5) examination of pipe snubbers and tl..['1.J",4.,g & MMY-1 'E 7 spring cans for changes in init:ai settings; (6) examination of exterior s;. g. q g 1 .p.u and interior of electrical and control panels for cracks in frames, termina-da /.2$@4 3@m, ,.2

$ '[,..

$Q j~. c tion integrity, instrument damage, and glass breakage; (7) inspection of @NM', %U$fAL'ig.Cy f-p 6,.'y @Qf&.2 @; M d Q components for misalignment, foundation cracks, and fluid leakages; . f.C:'L and (8) inspection of movement and cracks in battery racks, and batter-ies and leaking cell jars. No damage or signincant movement that could hMD4-NMfh?%Q,@ be attributed to seismic activity was identified during the walkdown or . *,. '. 3, C, [.; dQ4]r M d - the detailed visualinspections at the Perry facility. ,+ , - m. L.. s

., s, w

e p., '? e...,, .g.;y,; f.q 3..d{ y 216 4

a. ;, w 4 c. :

t,%w:f Q( .A-q 'g r - 5.~- '^n ,. i.. y., n[.. h;h, h,d. #5. ,p w s. 3, L.? %wL,^:qf Q f'.q,.,. m. 7 %m ~~ W ~ m:E2NUSWgn P .g%. .9

.a mq.O',gh%g 36<, 4;$

y g' hf,n.. v.% f: ~ n " . [ ,g<m. ~a. u. 7.% . c., 3 g k,, h { w$ ? e& ?n y & $n. w :n g & yh h Q g.$p l y N' h:..O s $ .hu W aW. .)):. N:.. ~ 5 a hN h y% knm y% .6% n m m.wm em.y nw m n~

C ,m _ '1 s, o,. +s.._1. m. -. v. .s

o.. *

-.. ~ ~

m.,jy K ; +

..^ h .,?;. b _y- ~ + . y .y, z._ }: 3 A -;:.w. a M1%k a dL W E W ' = ~ - ~ x 3-x q'

p :n

} 7- .?- 3; In addition to the above walkdowns and visual inspection activities, l , ' ' ; jm the safety impact of the earthquake on future Perry plant operation has a-also been evaluated from an engineering viewpoint by the Licensee and ^ i 'Q' the Staff. The Licensee analyzed both the significance of high-frequency -qS 'M ~ ' acceleration on the structural design and the impact of the earthquake 5 . :,.s p.,,

c. P., i '.FC on the seismically qualified safety related equipment. The Stairs own

. f,, ' ', ' '. j ',' f,1' ]'t analysis and review of the Licensee's analysis is described in SSER No. ' y 9 fl 3.7.2 ar.d 3.10. With regard to the impact of the earthquake on the ",,. 'i., structural design of the Perry facility, the Licensee found that the '..Y 3, N ",.U,% %. M;d %y .L,.;;,,m ;,,.. '7 :; ' M dynamic stresses due to the recorded earthquake were substantially lower than the corresponding design stresses and not of any safety sig- . ; hw.,. - $ ?J' d D,{ nificance. The Staff, in concurring with this assessment, determined that the earthquake represented a negligible effect on the future safe opera-e.' .+ tz Q. 7,J ~QL tion of the Perry plant, and reaffirmed its original findings as set forth in its Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0887, issued in May 1982 (hereaf- ~. J-W, j ' ter SER) that the structural seismic design of the facility is acceptable. 1, c.u G/.' M.L.M With regard to the impact of the earthquake on plant equipment, the '+ 1.[.7 Licensee reassessed the seismic capability of a sample of equipment ,.[ ' % f' ' types. Components were selected by the Licensee to compare qualifica-JWY tion spectra with corresponding estimated response spectra derived from measured earthquake responses for various types of equipment in dif-a y e .., A ferent buildings at different elevations. The estimated spectra and testing response spectra at proper elevations were compared to indicate ample ,.s.e ; QQ9 n,'l $ N[margin to accommodate the recorded January 31 earthquake. The Staff i, f M .p.f%y ;..1." c' -P reviewed the information provided by the Licensee in this regard and g p.g.sy>; agrees with the results. See SSER No. 9 % 3.10. F K g, a: ('N.O "Of'?W On the basis of the results of detailed walkdowns conducted by the a pr 4., ,c;yy. N ' m 6 9MY. NRR staff and its consultants, Region 111, and utility personnel, no sig-p W # .4'

Wh.'

nificant equipment or structural damage has been found that could be at-1 ,' h $. 1 ,Of$[ tributed to the Ohio earthquake of January 31,1986. On a reassessment of the seismic capability of a sampling of equipment types and structure, j, Or S.. M f' the Staff does not view the earthquake as having an impact on the plant z. .L f,' ~ 7.Jy.MW equipment and structures. In other words, though the design-basis earth- , % w +g;g$ii/s @ :J A ' ;IFY NMe s. w,a..-w.y.gWna quake may have been exceeded at some h. h, narrow frequency region

_m n:s g r-r.3 ig of the response spectra, the adequacy of the original overall plant seismic 7+?,Q,s

' i. /, /, A,M.m a,.. design has not beers affected. Therefore, the Staff has concluded that the .....s -s M h f $. W W, M,g g{$ MD- -d & previous conclusions regarding the adequacy of the applicant's plant seis-mic design and seismic qualification program remain valid. See SSER ,. N.Y,. ![y,$ $h.;.[.%

[ MMf MiWW No. 9 s 3.10. From the inspection and analysis performed to date, the

,.M

%: % 2 Staff has determined that no seismic upgrading of the facility is required MgM/G3 2.-=.$ p S [ f M. M jh @ h.s and no corrective actions or repairs are needed.

s .u y y, s, s :. y s o.m.;;, ;g;w, s.- .n e w n.t.' a x. p m M a?,j % r*..g.p NV' '"'? ? C, 9hh-3 [J;7

c 4,

217 wnw g.v- , N. p .h 'I j jh M Q-MN,, ,g' (.;e m.Q M y. 3 f ;, % >.-

s c v,

'KT Mdke n '.jdEK. TQUO~ ; p ?n 7* 7,+. ~c-4.,y.x, n. 44 hM s.Uk g g g%.M M t.2 %q q @w% p: m & m,s.c m,Y i ..;y y w n, m M ll$d(!W.&umyfb@5W@?QQOQW@q e$p&}$$%;&. q.j w - y ? : - :. m .gw h $ p: fm f h %Wh. l s' $ QM!kM4 MS NMQM$i W M M f % l6@ M @ M @G M M@ MlR__$pf, %fF meMQQ d Q .g

9 3., ,w s-m.. w x< 3 }- w u -.... ~.. - z.c

a..- w. -. -

-g. ; . qy

i..s 3

.P.. $ ' 3':E OCRE also requested that post earthquake functional testing of all n t f M plant systems be completed, including containment integrated leak rate .4 testing and hydrostatic testing of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. f, 'y .{'hO These tests are required as part of preoperational testing for licensing ,. 1 .. MQ under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, and were satisfactorily completed . O=,'O.t [% for the Perry facility prior to the January 31 earthquake. As indicated 'f, above, the StalT has concluded from the results ofinspections and analy- . e 7;' ".(.i ses by the Licensee and Staff that the earthquake which occurred near ~ ..? ' the Perry plant did not have e significant effect on plant systems and

. g d g%

structures. The effect of the earthquake did not impose any loads that s c,a n were outside of the original equipment and structural code allowables. zy },yMO Therefore, there is no need to repeat either the containment integrated N / leak rate test or hydrostatic test of the reactor coolant pressure boundary,

c. -

s o. r, ,,. ;q ;.. ~ Site Seismicity w> OCRE and WRA make several claims in support of their assertion "~! that the seismic design of the Perry facility is inadequate and the conclu-sions in the FSAR and SER are erroneous. Both WRA and OCRE assert that the January 31 earthquake has demonstrated that, contrary to infor- '~ mation in the FSAR, the plants have been constructed on a fault line, -o M,. that the plant site is not in an area oflow seismicity,2 and that the plants s x..b A ~; are subject to seismic acceleration forces which were greater than they

iP$

+. ' ;/ % were designed to withstand. r .MO~ h[; ';M As indicated earlier in this Decision, following the January 31,1986 + ~ W4M f'.. carthquake, the Staff began a reevaluation of the geology and seismology '.+ , m. ddQ P3QU. of the Perry site. See SSER No. 9 f 2.5. The Staffs preliminary conclu-J M',p@m@ gf4*$ sion is that there is no adequate basis to revise its previous cenclusions y. t ~ ' regarding site seismicity and the appropriate seismic design parameters r ,c for the Perry plant. The earthquake which occurred on January 31, 5' F. 1986, was a magnitude 5.0 event and occurred about 10 miles south of 'F I the Perry plant. Under 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, the design s n ,.,.') 1 bases for earthquakes must be determined through evaluation of the '.y q. E, ' " id'fjU'*'J u geologic and seismic history of the site and surrounding region. The larg-t n g@ f y-f % * %.1 w 's est earthquakes occurring in the site region must be assessed. The Perry g;.. site lies in the Central Stable Region tectonic province. The largest earth- .}, '% jQ${( f quake that cannot be correlated with a geological structure in this pro- /: ;y J. W tN. f*. y vince is a magnitude 5.3 event, and in the operating license review the . l;. % r.*6.e. N .+,% ._; 4 Q M ? j..':, n, by; a-n L w ~ w% '. id'[J' ' ' t4 [.[.# E N 7-4D ' " 4] 2 n this connection. WRA asserts that the epicenter or the carthquake was extrernely close to the plants I i and that there rnay be ruture earthquakes with epicenters closer to the Perry racility. ( 4 , h as } @';t.g, _

g

.es .. :n.; _ y 1 . T ['- @Q b X{ Q *l? g. a t. <p,x+ 218 ,,t Q,NW@ ~'W.3 * .i t y# .fY4 - m <9 .f i (*j %j A * ,l X:. i 'Eb. ' 2-hDh>W. w.4 - =

m. m,, N ed M.h 'D$Nf er g%~.-

a N d - h.',N N h$', N s 4 j[. W [ % qA/hn$ h[Dd @h b hM Ihdk M. F %_W[N.7:f2. hI6 %a M IN K s $ pdm gh@ ETWM$ 47EM 1 8.~ i WM w.cC a.,..%.., .* hhf h}'hk hhhh ? ff&g.hh,,'sl?h g m

p;,

o .., l 3 - .h~j a.< ,;7 f.w;:..,, y-

,g;e n, m,, -

u. v:.: _,.w .m., p a.m,y,. .y 2.-.u.- ~. 4. ~.:.a-..-.- ~ _ jg. p f..y Q w* r , x. y tw P,%

g n.,.'

n p,nw.j; ~ cp p.J., y .w ..:Q %>'.'< y }. = } H j j 1. <m > :3.=.- ,y .,,,a

s., JQk

.TWll. 'ya;ji[h7 4 3 )f;s.W. o Staff evaluated the site ground motion produced by a nearby magnitude V 5.3 event. See SER f 2.5.2. Thus, the size and proximity of the January , C,,,... " ; e 31 earthquake are consistent with historical seismicity in the Central .. a. <W Stable Region. During the operating license review, the Perry SSE (a .f..1'- ' gy. l l '.' Y.. a ,E, I.~y.t !W ' Mb ;'i m ' Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum anchored to 0.15g) was found accept-V'

r. a@.u able since it exceeded'the 84th percentile ground motion spectrum from N

v4 Qi, i. p a set of recordings from nearby magnitude 5.3 0.5 events. As ex-p a s a g..s ~ g 7.,*f Y ' plained in } 2.5.2 of the SER, the Perry SSE was compared to acceler- ' ' j' AMW;:m ograms recorded at epicentral distances of less than 16 miles from a .O ~ ..,7 $!.M Td magnitude 5.3 0.5 event. The January 31 earthquake triggered the in-t 7;hM$, ' ', h?y . M D.oy@.% .Mg plant seismic monitoring instruments. The earthquake motion recorded , D i N)k:[? 3 was of short duration (about I second) and contained predominantly v >,, s.f high-frequency elements. The SSE anchor is a high-frequency anchor a.& t Ab. mm " 4,^MN ( ' p$6 'M, : I-point for a design response spectrum (a frequency-dependent description ,O ~73 f.g/.l } } ' I~ ~ of earthquake motion useful to design engineers). For most frequencies ,.V c..' of the January 31 earthquake recordings, the design spectrum of the M'M. SSE was conservative. At high frequencies (above 15 Hz) there were M i., w;,, .n c. " C.. >.s : -.. c g-o%.. y.{@ some in-plant recordings that exceeded the OBE and SSE. 6 1.*,.. WS/W .g ? ' u - It is not unusual for an earthquake to have high-amplitude, high- ~ al M Q; ' frequency peak accelerations of limited duration. These high-frequency 9 Y J&,, peak accelerations are not used in scaling Regulatory Guide 1.60 design g.g.., yf'. spectra because they are usually of short duration and have little energy , JgC~ '(.Qp;',J f - and are not representative of spectral response at the lower, more signifi-g d y g. g. , gQ,, ; cant frequencies. As at Perry, these high frequencies have not resulted y.ygg&gg + ElO M.W, Q Q u in any significant damage. This conclusion has been arrived at based on g3pg.. L. A u N '.'y ' *- er e Q the results of previous studies. See SSER No. 9 (( 2.5,3.7.2, and 3.10. d.3.g5l.. s M g y$g:*pMy The NRC discussed the issue of whether the Perry facility was con-Q :.y .c, structed on a fault line in the SER and in its Supplement No. 3 to the <g[hW.4, gyn , $' y?; ?, J bY g I Construction Permit SER (issued in November 1975). As described in i n w.- - p b'MM,Mj[O N '. M y i f 2.5 of the SER, the Staff determined that no known capable faults I s Q"4C B / 7, exist in the plant area. No evidence has been found to indicate that the f,.? [d.? faults encountered in the intake and discharge (cooling water) tunnels f 3M/$..' are capable, or that the potential exists for future nontectonic movement M M $$$ ./ d Q M %'M% .b' .P ' of the faults. As described in i 2.5 of the SER a series of minor folds ][i.Q: SMFW '.f.. 'p S, and shallow faults were identified within the excavations for the plant's 'Q Q 3 N@$j%@W Myd... ' main structures as a result of geologic mapping and photographing h during plant site excavations. These features were examined by the ap-

h. D d % *;@/. i /.plicant, the NRC Staff, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Army Corps of p%c Q:ccm*p gs l

mQ Engineers geologists. The shallow faulting and associated limited surficial .. M [V @EMM@M .e N deformation, which was underlain by horizontal, undeformed bedrock,

(N.7@j,;

M/Ms Q;cj was determined to be of nontectonic glacial origin and consequently pre- .. pC'.'l sented no hazard to the Perry facilities. Rjyt$ - W N@M:W.' t... :. <. -

g; W: %.% &

M Q chu:i agb.yM \\

W m ;ii bbN h

219 w. Al%e m.sm jh~A& 4-l !.' ?Yfll fh r' %. p;; M., y.om' ~ n ' Q,% v, th-m._,_t a M.94.mn., .q < w. p- %,.m ;$ f Q' ;i**} L'!..%h ' &.s[,"...::? ? *?:-.Al ~ _x c_ _. ~?W-&.E f.NN'M. s,, , e' 5 &?N v.,* "'. : [ V. Y. $ Shy - w. ~ Q%: 3 ;.4 M9 % W n:p M* & Q MP:f6k M Q.V.%y w g .y&.y y.~ ~y, w p g ldly,p& y' p%m.%a n.s 1;m : . a.gsg;s. .;.e.

p p %.~.r n&w$6 W. D j h & h,.$ @wM "L,4ll M: Ei hg.5 P

.;.,; p g ~m y n 2c 2bh@ ,y e Qp f J WQQMbn hJ.- % Q NN&&h5$$.w$hy@m G # ~Qw QS.Mg&&v.!%+. v % y w;.% %W T 'OS5?$ &hh h &!h5& & jW

4. ,, u ,W ~ p3. a;;../. w ...n: :e,.,1 ^ > - m c. t. ' YlA., s:

[h,'~S;.;, ~: ...a.: :

> e. 7 .r .,i.'3, _h,,. . s. ',h.w'.y. '. v, ' 4 [.- P*f [.y., .g.. + w.. t +rr,m. y yif.. ' ',*!*' g ?" q ;. %; WRA also raises other concerns with regard to the January 31 carth-s. 'M h l [' .4 quake and geologic and seismic issues. WRA asserts that CEI filled a ?,, fault line with cement and said that it was a glacial scar, that a fault line g v. t y 7.. < N.M., n, l can move at any time, and that, because of the vibration and ground ac-m - -.,i J 2 9,yu:.p.--- celeration, the soil conditions at the Perry site subject the plant to greater Mk@W j L y

j degrees of seismic acceleration forces than would occur in other parts of

%ny;.e,h:Nb h..)y e,.. '. h the world. . q '.yC: $; :ce. r With regard to WRA's assertion that CEI filled the fault line with y!DM$C7 'Q. l, *, ; cement, the fractured and otherwise structurally deformed bedrock en-My@QafM'!M. fp. /.- p4 with lean concrete. See FSAR at 2.5-122-2.5-123, Figures 2.5-43, couatered in the plant excavation was over-excavated and backfilled Mp.a x: .qmo$gM(;(. g 1:Pi Mg. 2.5-44. These were noncapable faults and the applicant's activities were j 'M* normal construction activities. h ,ig3M ' J.E W, With regard to WRA's assertion that fault lines can move at any time, o 15m$wl:m *p f ' V ,,. as noted earlier, the Staff made a determination that no known capable i.W faults exist in the plant area.) Noncapable faults are not assumed to be yf@hki'(i %%.hg% capable of future movement, and WRA provides no basis for its 4 8:L assertion. M19$,+95 Y.- WRA asserts that soil conditions subject the Perry facility to a greater K< y p Q f. i g i

9, degree of seismic forces than would occur in other parts of the world.

,q;'f@.n @1pgi No basis is provided for this assertion. Most seismic category I structures w . ~. @M&h.mMN,p: _ are founded on shale rock. No site-dependent amplification is expected 9

q. p

. + pO.$ M c. E. J. d.J and such conditions are not unique. The diesel generator and offgas 6.h h h @fi' 4 buildings are founded on Class A fill, and the radwaste building is found- ]4;; ii ! '{g ' ed on lower till soil. These foundation soil conditions are typical of those q' found at other nuclear power plants. - - ~ ,'.."a' i, Finally, WRA suggests that asserted delays in receiving information a .s l on the earthquake from seismic instrumentation and the Licensee's reli-v, o.

p ance on vendors to read the instrumentation reflect poorly on the Licen-n Wh* 7..,

see's (and the NRC's) performance. It is assumed that this allegation .d. ' i. pertains to the delays experienced in finalizing seismic instrumentation ,7., (A.R, q data, and the WRA is asserting that CEI is incapable, without assistance from its seismic instrumentation manufacturers, to read its own instru-I!!:T '. ~, - 7-w. 4 (O., - e T ', _. a ' ' ments. To the contrary, the seismic recording instrumentation (manufac- %,.~. :,f, NI. d bi.,., l tured by Kinemetrics, Inc., and Engdahl, Inc.) was promptly read by [.h. CEI following the January 31 earthquake. The manufacturers also read w), 's.,m. 3 e,. 0 ~74 a u ~a' *, ',' the instruments since they were at the plant calibrating their respective a , y*tig) Q L hp.' ', ..i s.1 I-3 Appendix A to 10 C F.R. Part 100 desenbes procedures to be followed in determining whether a fault f c ,f, g-*:*i. is capable and whether the nuclear power plant is required to be designed to withstand the effects of sur. ' [A *. * ;4,f.fff 3 l 'q ,,s-race raulting. - :Y f MfA.A. 4. M 'i f ' q q %l W.: 6, 7 '.: f s ', .r., ,1 l . ;p:b h,7~ ,y, ,, t l Q .,+l*. b% d:J.;i* ml. ,Wt ?. c&,{,Q', W :*' & y; p. y:' M .r~ % 'U

c y' c. +

y mu,. y < y,~)QEk?$M yyunn~J ED%.hd M-Y ~0'*N_ h j" f x}i Y.(?.$' v& Y W aOW,9_9/,". '0 ^,'. *U Y "9 5,D7Mi.s'b, ' M. b.,S~UA.' .m b %. y *r """? V'h$!&f N' ' ?.$s ' C '~

' lO o _a. y C-

3. 3..-

_2 Y , x.. ~.w 1

e

.,.,.-r-r. ' ?. :"f'l. - yA g, J h. y.. c s .g4, <}x.&*j s '.l... M. d.m. instruments in preparation for Perry licensing at the time the event oc- /..... " w a . :. COW * * " curred. The Kinemetrics orthogonal accelerometers (which record ' \\ #T * [j[.N@ motion time histories on a magnetic tape) would normally be read by l ~ ; .b?$;D the manufacturer since the raw data obtained by these accelerometers 4. ' f. 5.@.n,9 f.s' .o 9 needs to be processed by computer for development of the information .;.7

QS.%,K in the form in which it can be interpreted. The Engdahl response spectra recorders' data were read preliminarily at the plant site and, under cus-
qw2g/M'gy

.7 7;*,' Q Tl, tomary practice, the final interpretation of the Engdahl instrument data was performed by the manufacturer. There was some delay experienced ~ Wi in interpreting the Engdahl instrument data. Some of those instruments

i... *..

..: <.. A,,p@...s. , 2;ht U provided indications later found not to have been attributed to the earth- '/4 g, ( Q . i. :.gp o quake, but instead were indications caused by shocks imparted by con- .n, G :.g r struction activities.4 The circumstances do not suggest inadequate or

c. p.i.7,. N G.*

improper performance by the Licensee. [p-g ',7 As a result of the various reviews of ?he January 31 earthquake and its ) ~P L

impact on the plant, the Staff did identify certain confirmatory activities

~...n. , T.@ 2,, to be ' undertaken by the Licensee and to be reviewed by the Staff. These ,E 7- . M O/g.L activities, as described in i 1.2 of SSER No. 9, are an evaluation of fault 4 M," plane solutions of the earthquake and its aftershocks and the search for r e 3 [,.: 11

, %.g a possible source structure; evaluation of a possible relationship between the earthquake and the injection of chemical wastes into wells; assess-f y

ment of faults near the plant site; consideration of the impact of enriched 7-cr - o. .!i- .m'. /./ high-frequency content; further generic evaluations of energy content g. .~. ..e,,: '. ,. M.. s.W.. X~;,< w.. q,.. m ci d4. J.. and potential safety significance of h. h-frequency, short-durat. ion earth- .._^~o: . w.. ig v 5.t; - y % m.w S 7/. quakes; relocat. ion of se.ismic instrumentation; modificat. ion of specific M NEMhQM':pm,.iQ plant procedures; and additional assessment of seismic qualification of ' b A., dikW.hM.Q equipment. The Staff will report the results ofits review of these actions ( '... ( ! W. cG..%.#c.-%mr..J., in future SSERs. It is not anticipated that the results from the confirma-ZMi.QUC . -lm ', n;,, W Yg,. G tory studies will be of such a nature that repairs or corrective actions will g .o E y..J,'.? be necessary. The Staff has reaffirmed the adequacy of the seismic , r.3 ;. ..7 design of the facility and has concluded that it is unlikely that the results ,. s. f y.., ,m. v , a ;. S. q.~1. H, of the confirmatory studies will show any information which would

;n o i..

r,. r ;. '.G rCf" b d W.?3 necessitate a significant change in the design of the facility. p.. i 4 q;n. %,. y a,g.3,m,.g,g.,j< py*... W,w m -m.. Nonseismie Issues .mw pa 8 ,,l'y i g,. i?f. gL' p,M * .M.; M .. f. @em y

Q W. J '.

In addition to its request that action be taken with regard to the Perry p c.a......% w. n.,.

qd.m facility due to madequate seismic design, WRA also requests,mmediate i

-{v .. 9l N Q}s.g.Vy-l} Q.'j:, n.'-<,{ l

n% w c -;u l

'e l q (*a :. P.gQ;q -g.4,m y h,. ; W,'

.' h.

f ,h hG ]$,

4 The seismic instrumentation at the Perry plant is extersively discussed in sSER No. 9 { 3.7.3.

()db;[Ni l I

' ' i,

)

o. re c x. O.y

~, ,'L ' %,\\.

(

k,

f & % *^7',

I ..M.dc.;L.:g<u.;a'.,..'.,w.N. t o .y 221 xdy-W @,.. i t, l, u. x ~7. (,,P u.cg p

_ r..%. s

.h,,, +?.n. h ~ h_..,' c.,, l h:. {e ?g ~ ^ L'

. +~.N.cI?

.,.g i. g_ w w,- e m,.' -.,. - ym{ f.., * * -)'. +p.*. .: &. s.' U, . m..* - ' a fe,, ,n~ 7 n,.n.y..,. m 5 ', + w 6- .e e Q,* s. fg ' - e 2 ga h hh,'. ;

~

lMY o

f n

h sI a, k,..t. s h.s g e., W. n yy -,n . n. g,p h a W.%y.dm.@m:.c w %qq.s. % _ Q, e. m p mN : w R., M n,.; yN.S. .- mec x. 4 apv + gegg q W

gg-

,o

d(, s. ~ rs- .....f. 7.".] ,. l l. ip. x. 6 %, 4,,. 9,,. t '.":r &.. '., _, _- .y

a,; ~

Q,_ 'E, A_% 's 'e-rt 'a ,_u,

h{%

s **. m.W;

,. ' ce J,

'+7 .~1c i , N. -N.p, 3., ~ m :,{, % .3, y t : t%,- w y, s -. . :. L:;;, Q..y%., ? -y. ., :.,p p;,Q 7 y y, y p .n t.:,,; 'F. - ~ . ~A . yp . e,n y . ' y t > ;,.. s..~:.. > - 5.r p. u rA ~r q %',,.7# a* ?; M .~.y,,. N.4_ t .o -Q ' J M;e v +,? : >c' QA*M,.,p:CR,,M* U ^ ^ - ' ~ * ' " " - - ' " ' Q~!-

- M =- = ~-^ 6,-

4 d. v.; m qm w .x.is M:QrQ.. e z.t-M*Tfyy 'V,&.x.s.: m* -:.c,.c.. y. .m.y wd W.p

t.. p

. y. e s c _ ,t f SMNSM..' 7 n JM '. ....'hQ@ffj.J.' ' action based on its allegations with regard to inadequate quality assur- ' Y# 7; 7 ':7'QQ@@h. ance over construction of the plant and CEC's application before the '.Q. SEC seeking to acquire the shares of CEI and TE and seeking approval OPc, Q of the mergers by which this will be effectuated. h*' G. the operating license proceeding and found to be satisfactory. See + ( 6.. 1. ~ p,. <.u.. %...W The adequacy of the Perry quality assurance program was litigated in s..q' :,3 :7

t., '?

~_ ; g f..

4

.. n. ....y, j., 7 ,3 7.,f. ..J LBP-83-77,18 NRC 1365,1396 (1983), affd, ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 .% ~ (1985). As indicated in a recent 5 2.206 decision on the Perry plant, o. -.t Region III conducted an assessment in late 1984 of the quality of design ee. .g.M, y. ~ ~ ~la - and construction and found adequate implementation of the QA program r G.,..wi G., ic - M. Op g,s r $ >. and acceptable plant construction. See DD-85-14, supra note 1, 22 a s. .... Ap. Nh .d., ' y' 0.V W, NRC at 638. Nonetheless, WRA challenges the integrity of the Perry ' ** w2., R % i v ..,e, w M y,fQ. quality assurance program and, in support of its assertion that CEI has y'. u a failed to implement an acceptable design and construction program that 4 - J.4:4 chir _?. ? M + meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, WRA lists in ,j.* P.g y Q.;t g.w my;f:- - its petition forty-eight allegations apparently derived from information g. f :. MMDWnn f. provided to it by the Government Accountabildy Project. These allega-s.;Ky? p; y,*F761.:. M tions are stated in the most general terms. Althc. ugh the petition refers

s...,b

,,. Q.f, ' A..n,Mdg...v.-' J.y to affidavits that support the allegations, no afDiavits or supporting .4. A s V.. .p.g.y.p.. documents were submitted to the NRC with the pe$ ion. The NRC

Si%

requested affidavits and supporting documents but as of March 17, ,. ' ; 7.,,J.M~M y ?.y s m, 1986, has not received this material. sy v .~

r., _q..cs :

a : ~.ww.wpic..:,M. Section 2.206(a) of 10 C.F.R. requires that a petitioner " set forth the , ~ M-. 5,..9..W VP. m 1%.....A, w facts that constitute the basis for the request." See Public Service Co. of $$h mmh JM:M ? Wh@@WEMM N? dl Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 80-10,11 NRC 438,443 (1980). Absent such a showing, no action Mr& M$MT.WMtM: need be taken on a request. See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick ~A 3. lv ;,,c.y.<. g $ h k. N[w.Yd.$h b Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-85-ll, 22 NRC 149,154 g. w.o 1,. w (1985); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 4 :. g.. ' t vr.% W.., and 2), DD-82-13,16 NRC 2115, 2121 (1982). The Director, upon re-L i-m NM64 dg%4p.f% ceipt of a request to initiate an enforcement proceeding, is not required diR.C # s.,.b:?. a,.Mfu to accord presumptive validity to every assertion of fact by a petitioner. $p d Rather, his role is to make an inquiry appropriate to the facts asserted, TM.k.W@M@h.&&N&RfWPf.dW@'l and to obtain and assess the information he believes necessary to make M&!ff,j'?!,flk@EMIM'@M that determination. See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly MrN'h Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI 78-7,7 NRC 429,432-33 (1978). M@s.fW!;it d& Wig @SM In this instance, from a review of the petition and the information of 6@%e @m 4.Q;Q]M D.c@v.m N which the StalT is currently aware bearing on the allegations, the Staff n ye r O - @ A ; M.y p has determmed that none of the allegations appear to have sigmficant i: "f,h% %^D.M g implication for the safety of the plant, nor is there a sufficient basis to h/$ TM $hM. refuse to authorize fuel load or licensing of the facility. A number of these allegations refer to issues which have previously been investigated Y h M (/ [w.9 h h+ p sp 3v : :p .. m A , Y. , Q ** MO M3M..,i i. *gu.~;g.:. m m :sp g$g$. Nf,jh. m%-.- 222 ,x -, m' ' t p* - +" W M... m.'h; N E II,k; '[. d '. n. f /*%

E
f

's n' &f yl.V.e,.<&~ C y. wl.,?0fl w ~ %' ,e

r E.Nl.

.m..~w'~ ~ w-* m.. Q,.;.y ', "77.', *'*e:.'*+**'*.g* 3 .f i m

y. my - - tp

-- y: g g.. .. 1 n 7a.ws V n s;.. m;M, w. m ~,1..;, . m.p.p.gnYm.:t U N " p. . ;.m;w. v.! ( v, ;, yy,y,- a b E b. M.. % ,sM@ h M@$iMdM@MMM%eMsMWSy# MS$$fMAWsM@$ .M t' W W M G g g g N%

d ~ e..- Lw 9 9;, .c n ,y:.. . _.. _..a_.._ n :_ a - ?< m.___._ g r n f; ,,M,^ N ~. t ,N by the Staff.5 The Staff has recently conducted inspections to investigate ?- v, these concerns to the extent possible, based upon the limited informa-U '- Q ^, tion provided. The results of these inspections will be documented in a 'p Region III inspcction report. All outstanding issues, to the extent deter-minable and understood by the NRC StalT, have been resolved. 4,1. ; P.., Thus, there is insufficient information in the petition to warrant grant-G~;.>. v .~ ing the immediate relief requested by WRA. Nonetheless, the Staffin- @C q $. ,j tends to pursue the allegations further and has been in contact with the .f. c, 7,1 's Government Accountability Project (GAP) which WRA states provided E, y, 2 g.' j, Q J.' it with the allegations, to obtain more specific information on the allega- [.$ht di f ' M @h tions that may exist. In discussions with the Staff, on March 5,1986, NL yD,MI$,

D'I'* ; ' *,

Ms. Billie Garde, who on behalf of GAP has been advising and assisting M W WRA with regard to these allegations, was requested to provide the Re- , + '.. p .a $rF gional Staff with further details regarding the allegations. Ms. Garde a.,>. 3 m. J . n. x.- s u (9h..,,' he agreed to provide written documentation in GAP's possession, and to s A. y,,.. assist the Staff in arranging interviews with persons who may have b,. ,; y specific information regarding the allegations. When this information is s.? received, a prompt review will be conducted by the NRC Staffin accord-ance with the Commission's normal practices for reviewing allegations, f and the Staff will take enforcement action as appropriate on the basis of M. - .../, l. the results ofits further investigations , s. Apart from its allegations concerning quality assurance at the Perry (( ' n ? - lj,,,,, ' ~ plant, WI' A contends that the afriliation of CEI and TE in a new holding h q.s g.g Cgg I.Y;? > '. ) *s i .!w. 7 [ i.. '. .. ?. s J '%, 'V The following allegations (as numbered in WR A's petition) are related to matters previously inspected: 5 [D*.'

p i.

(14) welds in the containment building are cracked (Inspection Report 85072); ,M5 (15) most nuclear plants use metal boots around penetrations but CEI uses plastic. fr the plastic f r

4,'y.;

, C..

boot around the penetration fails, the system could belch and radiation could 30 out (Inspec-h' 1. 8'M ' ~

4 . p?. b (16) design of Dresser valves is inadequate (Inspection Report 85089); h (' ?,y-tion Report 86002); (17) Bors. Warner valves are inadequate (Inspection Reports 84006 and 85080); f. /' N s W .[ (20) CEI failed to successfully complete the integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) (Inspection Reports

k. l,,

85061 and 86002); ,"'.s.. ~ (22) welders have illegally taken tests without supervision (Inspection Report 85023); {J a - s

01) the spnnkler system came on accidentally or for unknown or undi'iclosed reasons, afrectmg portions of the containment vessel (Inspection Reports 85010. 85017,85053, and 85056);

[,. "g n " (cid.,,;, g'..: sf, f.

- 19

,* - i c, t-- (33) peint quality is not uniform (Inspection Reports 85-64 and 85 84); j.l f., 2 * '. l * *

['

06) voids exist in the bioshield wall (Inspection Report 84-02);

k

f.* - 3,f

(40) defects exist in the polar crane support beam (Inspection Reports 82006 and 85078); .., C, .; t... - t,.. (41) quality control inspectors hase been harassed and intimidated (Inspection Reports 83037 and t. ;,. N ,P u,,, . i, g-84007); C' (42) harassment and intimidation of quality control inspectors afrected diesel generator inspection b'Ia *,* ' *O, ..<5-s

t.>[;

b, .i.' .ci '/ l* ?. "'Q, (Inspection Reports 83037, 84005, 84007, 85045, and 85071) (the office or investigations P r.'. <f *.' p' ,u. f. (01) is investigatmg this matter); ,".f. .i' 6-(43) verification work was not done in the main control room due to shortage of quality control '. p,; L, .r+..g *r,'.a w.7-inspectors (Inspection Reports 85032 and 85037); 4 I** f 5.wQ' ~.y cracks emist in the stainless steel clad in the containment vessel (Inspection Reports $3032 and ' %,: -f (46) ,94 ,.6 : ., ' ' : L *,.: 85035); ,3 f* :.. ~* . b. W (47) welds in the fuel pools are bad (Inspection Report 83002); and (48) Unit I crane girder is bad (Inspection Reports 82006 and 85078). {- 5 '% jn [ *, ~.. s u a. -. .y 5 j @

b ri m

b % f(. ; '., ,f i '* ] } f' g3 ,:.;v.8j c .s i*',* pr% [e c-Q, - 3: 1;{?*' y,J gg.

g 6 y

g.f h .w. Jy (kg ,c

?.'f stj A W

.& l

A..

b, .f

.f. -C' .,, 9 ..f-i. ,c :.:,w.s. b ... m m, a ~n e.o .~..ca y:u.R. w, u a.. .P: w.. y.a &; %q wy '-:n.,w ; - .t M.w:m: tx. n n pm..., -- .,w a .. n !s v 0D .s 3 / i.:W,. ;3...-. M. 4 g u ( c - >n- / ~ .c 1 s

%o,.,.qcr.4:. :.

y-Si?.. .h,h.k '[ h[nt7~ ~ "~" ~ ~ " * ^ ~" "gK :Q:: . :l p m e y,,.. 1, ,4,, g r v.N N. .y m:; , a &, ;,, ' 9' ,'7"' & G.j'~, ^ sQ. - p/

n. ',,

.: y

) a-@*

4 .(t wy';k company will result in the violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 140 because of the .y H./ financial danger it creates for the companies. WRA has provided no cd;.. "i x;. specific information to support this contention.6 On the contrary, the for- ' J, g. mation of holding companies is often expressly undertaken to improve $M,7 ..y the financial posture of the combined entities, which, in the case of CEI . # o yy, z d' k. < ' J "/ and TE, should prove beneficial to their respective nuclear and non-nuclear operation.' CEI has kept the NRC fully informed as to the pro-i g,Q. .g posed CEI/TE affiliation. By letters dated August 14, 1985, November u,, w?.. 13, 1985, January 8,1986 January 31, 1986, and February 13, 1986, . N.'G,' f) )e,T.., FM' l'E - r ' the Licensee has forwarded to the NRC the relevant CEI/TE filings with id+3e n. the SEC. Furthermore, in a meeting on December 17, 1985, the NRC g.f o.. w.n Staff raised questions about the CEI/TE holding company alTiliation and the effect it would have on the management and operation of the Perry < c qQ < f ,,j plant. The NRC was concerned that the organizational structure and ~ uw < x - I l plant operating staff previously approved by the NRC as documented by a'

~

1 CEI in the FSAR would be changed as a result of the holding company } formation. In a letter from R.M. Ginn (Chief Executive Officer for CEI) s M. ~. 1."- to H.R. Denton (NRC) dated December 20,1985, CEI satisfactorily re-o 2 sponded to the NRC's concerns. In this letter, the Licensee explained e + y a that the planned afliliation would involve the formation of a holding in.. company, Centerior Energy Corporation, which would own all common STM. - 1 stock of CEI and TE and that a service company would be formed, but .& Airy n y, s-ppy: that the affiliation would not involve any significant changes with respect w$2 g.q.. ~ ? R W (J# *f ; W,' Nl. to the management of Perry. The Licensee further stated that it would keep the NRC fully informed with regard to decisions on the service + . #, uW.ww. @k. ;es W,. w.. m -, ~ -.- company,s role, and would request appropriate amendments to the o, re ,mm. c a:+cA +,, ru s .. -4 M. .,,t. Perry operating license in the event such amendments were required to o. .. v. e c... . ** W enhp implement future management organization changes. Therefore, the TQ .%gg..,s,.. g.,, y. " p 5.,. 1," NRC Staff sees no plant organizational. management impediment asso-M.,*' ciated with the planned holding company formation which would prevent Q :s -

4 r d

the licensing of the Perry plant. Nor does the proposed affiliation indicate that there is or will be a vio- . o J.. o ? 'ww . j.. lation of 10 C.F.R. Part 140. These regulations require for an operating f.$ bd.k gch,NQH Z. J QM WN e ~ nuclear power reactor that the Licensee maintain $160 million in finan- %d p a ..e,r..,c.# Q,', lh[ *, W. h' MMls8 946,.,. Q.,. v I;MYe M*M'N Q h {,p*% f f {b'D I O flM / J. M :$".Ed ' ~.. 6 WR A alludes in its petition to "other issues" which it has raised in its Glings before the sEC that. it as- " *M *'

% e ed.

serts. tend to show how the CEC's application before the sEC "will and in the continuing violation of I hrMM r other NRC rules and regulations." wR A did not provide these filings with its petition or otherwise pro. Q%.' %'/. hJ i$t h '. rsed]i l.' 'N [ /.h 1 4 M jr [ ', U N '. vide specific information concerning these charges. % 4 '..7, h d*4'j 6 % M ( [; [,; '.. 7 In art earlier Director's Dectsson denying a request by oCRE for relief based upon the Licensee's al- . is "%Q /M M*' ? N leged precanous financial condition, it was noted that the stafr was aware that CEI and TE are consider. 'd ing a merger, and that that fact did not alter the analysis set forth of the adequate Gnancial qualincations ,M.g.,i,h ': Q - mj, j l v; of the Licensee. as one stated purpose of the merger was to strengthen the combined Gnancial position I N of CEI and TE. See DD-85-14, supra note I 22 NRC at 641 n 3. p - I, .'I af Myeg,. [ hk'[,M fk'i$ dll M M., [*!

q'

".G'.%,f '.:. '

t;

\\ 41.e eg k. is .s r i 224 ki,d.Nt*{ 41's ? - i lNf & N.,cj!(jiyy.'N W'U a i tSd,D qT D M ?<,'. ['.in..s..I.@, M . [ 0 w.<,..-.- .. u -e. l ^' - p: .y ,'. )*.[g,1, C,/ I. i a y7, , -[/97 d, 'O ,Mi 'T-_.. _ _'.. ._f.. ' '.dtf l, ?? *7,i. Q - ? ..ts..g7 :,l ;p/i ; *'.'.< G .'.p f h - w a. @:h. y$:fn 'e4:. hh.h Yg w <.. 4 h [.hhk.? Y l f'EW'?rf.. s i n.&g ty2,1 e' g.p w #p. j".%,{i p y: ;r.' Q; O,r' _;,c,,3,,' _ g n., e,Q ;y;X ~W,n Y y g %-Q Q Q b n-g ..,f,w. T. ' j.s 7.A.,, W l.v. g. w p p,.. + m y e, 7., M e g. n. n,g @e ' d. e V6p m.g.q.c..~ w,.,-- ay a y c

m.

v. g,q . *Nc3 % g..W u ", & & v :. 's; <- w . Q & ' g.,. p p g. g.* w f j. g.v.g ygi Q g.g, g',,j Y ~ s

1 g. 7;; -- .w <y v. a. Wm' m w._.. _._.E..a. . :.. m

-o..

7g'.. ,.m s ,,.,c,..,.- .. ~;e ,;i s,,.> + . h...h,,.> ( 4 g .. n ] p . .q - , 3 y,. r cial protection plus secondary financial protection in the form of private 7y$y .a .;,. ' - 3,h liability insurance available under an industry retrospective rating plan l' J, ",' providing for deferred premiums. As indicated in its response to the y,l,],',,c, .i N' WRA petition, CEI has in force liability insurance policies (American 3 - '(.g Nuclear Insurers Policy No. NF 291 and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability 4i 7/ E*., ?, *.[' Underwriters Policy No. MF 124) which provide for $160 million in

s..grp,f.cc... f, w,. fff J.. y 'v.'"-

financial protection. An indemnity agreement with the NRC (No. B.98) y. n. . f. 9.<; : Jp%;Y.. . y q.- -Q' .s was issued on March 7,1985, and will be amended at the time the om. ",. g.w c c, - c.'c-operating license is issued. CEI has also submitted to the NRC Certifi-e'" cates of Insurance for deferred premiums under Nuclear Energy Liability .Q.~ N - (.. Insurance Association / Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters M. i. s.f< +,;,1 { @ F .p _. u s.1,, 'f. *

Master Policy No.1. This insurance provides an aggregate of $30 million 4,.

s.y %,.;,t.w,3 1 per event in the event that utilities are unable to meet deferred premium .... ?s*. ~ obligations. CEI and the other co owners of the Perry plant are also re. n .p g,y. p quired to submit to NRC the certified financial statements pursuant to '. 7 4., 10 C.F.R. { 140.21(e), as CEI and Toledo Edison have annually done C. ' ' C with respect to the Davis.Besse plant. In sum, WRA raises no substantial [., :.. ;, - issue with respect to the ability of the Licensee to meet its obligations

.. - a under Part 140 or the effect of the proposed CE!/TE affiliation on 3 r.. v. -

p :. D. ,. 6. ,1,. ..[';.' compliance with Part 140. .p. .m. w. .~. T... CONCLUSION .:,. c.3 ,.,..n w M q j'.'.. S, M. 3f y 'h,. For the reasons discussed above, I have concluded that no adequate fu g f;." ; g.y %gj,f. Z M.? ? la the operating license for Unit 1, or ordering the other relief requested gw basis exists for suspending the existing construction permits, withholding .gff" 7[Q[fc;dt .~ '. : Q ,V. by the Petitioners. Thus, with the exception of OCRE's requests for in. NQ ; P,;.f N ;.' spection of the Perry facility for damage resulting from the January 31 f.g f l- -Mf'-N. C.Wp e f "j.h e earthquake, identification of any necessary corrective action or plant i i

Z" ;.,, '*

,j ' g upgrading, and an investigation of the earthquake and reevaluation of local seismicity, OCRE's and WRA's petitions have been denied. As Q.;, ".y, .,D provided in 10 C.F.R. } 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed ,,.,'n...j- .y p ., ] with the Secretary for the Commission's review. m ,... s.. e,... x i 7 34.~e (r.Q. 7',, -J,,;. p. ,;

b m.. _...y ;.'.i ~,

.? .= y/ Mne s s. ~ s n%.t.X *., s.*;s n?2f.. +.M..: y '.s s. Harold R. Denton, Director w. w :.e. <' *6. A,. i ?.s' t. N-< %-. Office of Nuclear Reactor 3m p-t R A p M.9, ;c-9 Ay:.5.;.w:. P.' Regulation . a m, mT v,. m,w +,. m y% w.pA n... '_. n y. ..h'..sw' Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, .uv ep q a. + . c.. n.... Gg -;mMv WM&L. -- a th. 18th day of March 1986. is j,c W~:. '. ' ' ' m g. . '. >. g ,m....... ,..r,g.; ".. . >3p.'-

f*

I, e .[(',, [ g ,, 6.W.s 4,'.W- : f.~Mv* ' '~.. %, 225 1. L.~. h h 7 '34 5 Q 5. p ; './ ']e*.r*.* ' h' 4 Y& "" 1 W j "f f.'h'. p 2 p* th.%y:l 7 U %g 3 ~. ;.. hk$k . h, d. . m ~.- - 7 y.7y.,.~. , - + ;- ~ 7 e ---w--. 7,- -

wt, m,;79 sv m,nu e

.. s. . +...e l. U '..4 hQ'_T*. f.*. <.... '.,, ?..{' . n VY k h s m' t. .m ij, ! 9.. f.* ?. f :' si.*g.,,,. .<y.., .,,,pp pm,5y;,L c:.,, .s.. -c . g [hlj[ % N @,W, .h eJA.N,.,. J .h

L*.

7.'. bah l-t Q f. %s.g. &g O. h m.n..1,4 4. A. d s.m. m g & g. M 9,:yp,v w ;. W M # h d e W M g w w A %n =, . aR p 3 u %.m S N.v Q & m%.. _ w'w'*w,;.rmn% &.s &a % wa r W,,. An e -m.. :. i.%;yr.r 4@g. wW~.WM.c. e. 2 . J W&, c, H wp : '3: fMg

i. pn i

n., y m_

,.ip- .v

~ A>a s

,6

,z " ' g,.4 - ', .>, "g, 4,,n. - q,p.g, '~ x ,;y-q L; - - +. a

. 2-

i *; ~ ','ly.: ;M; M;q.. J ;-._- :l _ -

i: ,; e.- : : ,. -~w : :.: = :n G.

..: u....... v.:., w.

ia n- .s. .:', ;. L y'y +,,,,, ?,' r s ),, * : e, L ~ Cite as 23 NRC 226 (1986) DD 86-5 +

J '.

a. ~ ,[~,,, k.,', ^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .. ;.n,. a e.," ,' 1 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ~ >V rw 4; 1 Harold R. Denton, Director

i. '. '., s 4

r s. i ?. .t 3.3 s.. I In the Matter of Docket No. 50-353 (10 C.F.R. 5 2.206)

j i

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, i Unit 2) March 21,1986 The Director, Of0ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a petition j Oled pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 by Marvin I. Lewis on behalf of him-self and Citizen Action in the Northeast requesting the immediate sus-pension and ultimate revocation of the construction permit for the Lime-rick Unit 2 facility. The Petitioners argued that recent Ondings by an Ad-A r a ministrative Law Judge of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission J. _.; G.. 4 E_ , 4 7,.p.,f.., demonstrate that Unit 2 is economically unviable, that the cost / o i.n, 6. benent ratio required to be evaluated by the NRC under the National %,i 7-Environmental Policy Act is now unfavorable and, consequently, the J'

l.,

X- ? construction permit should be revoked. y ~C ^ ; J DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 -7

,w.<, :,f. c

~ ,f.i + q, # ,[d, P' INTRODUCTION T'E ,. ;,,. '..., M.l '. 1 On July 28,1985, Mr. Marvin I. Lewis, on behalf of himself and Citi- '7,. O.@. @i ' ;g@?.. zen Action in the Northeast (Petitioners), Gled with the Director of the V,Z ',;'.,. ' r

W 7..

4 ; ;.y N Of0cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a petition seeking that the Director ..a ,r v immediately suspend the construction permit for Unit 2 of the Limerick .'.;.,,,; '."*4 ,,. o w,y ...MI Generating Station and institute proceedings to determine whether to j M>! revoke the construction permit. Construction Permit No. CPPR 107 (construction permit or CP) was issued to the Philadelphia Electric s - o /... . v; ' - '4

~'f,.,',:_'>_'

ad ..',s ~ ' ' M '-g} (,; ~.s *[ r k g ,-5, , ~ _ g' E f 5, d A = ) , < ' J p <.P u.- c,s . ~ .o s 1 .. y;&[w., .M ,u w, - .,----w.-% r.--~ .v 7,,,y 5 ' 2.. q

,l., pg d: 3,%. w '_ *

. 9 - ~ ' hl i, '1 " l V -:w4t. !;;. ,; s : ,. i:Q, f '.

);s-I. * '

e

n

..a y ,W ^ ' *.. W.4;. ~ a \\n.a.. -,. u. r '. % D h O *' I lQ y ^d'S. W.h ;l *c#. f. ',;W,, h rt',b. $.n'.3.A.,s . y h.;p%..J;b. f,, e s,,.W 'C.. g .-l., #r.. '

* ~. y, > ' N.

4, M. ~,6 ^*Q o h.h D v#- a.. ,3 j , *h

r D

1, e. Qt %. Q.Off';; r 'W .6 .a T. %. 4 r.i@ v - '%} ];>.M'%Qw@,CM)$: + ~ %s y A4,c,M'Q" p+,j U1/. .t... -RwQ1 M ;W W. r;f.;;Ww '^ y. Wi[.../ n,.q}7'?'<<... &.< g g:g: f.yf Q ,1, } N :d.,,f: .. WW g.,'

Q-r

- 7 L. G 5.

G A

n-Wv '..g.'n, t x,, Q , y: &. q :3.c..,. n . y q.. -%.y q~.a in? MC,, ~.: ~.; > c j' p 2W. '

m-4.. 9 0. p u. G-

nR,:

C.p. n- ..y a u :.:. - : w. a.. w. ~.a. '% y,~. L so . W:. gc l l5([,v., - .S, W~.. r,p.. n i~ w:y .y.y().: ~ W. i Company (Licensee or PECo) on June 19, 1974, authorizing construc- ~ ' ' I ' !$ ~ '. tion of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2. Petitioners base their nW. . W,,!c :. petition upon a recent recommendation by Administrative Law Judge ~$ ,,? 2!,t.. Allison K. Turner to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission which S:.. 7M '.E-the Petitioners allege shows that Unit 2 is not economically viable. The .- n. .M* petition argues that this new information demonstrates that the cost / i.,: 9.:.'." '.- I iy'all */' s benent ratio required to be evaluated by the NRC under the National [' '. J ' N. m, ~ Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is now unfavorable and that there- ~ ',. - ( '.U., fore the construction permit was illegally and improperly issued. .A 7;.... ' 'M *.; ' On August 30, 1985, I acknowledged receipt of the petition and in-N,,M. +,.M.p_*. a' w r N h.g.),,.,,qe,f ~ l ?,g.;.., ., formed the Petitioners that the petition would be treated under 10 AcMW C.F.R. { 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and that a formal deci-W..'. m ,m M. 7 h.,, o, J A l mm, ', sion with respect to it would be issued within a reasonable time. Notice . @ t/M.fc. WT- '.: of receipt of the petition was published in the federal Register (50 Fed. JJ. ' Reg. 36,934 (Sept.10,1985)).

7. :l

p p: ; y. - Nl The Licensee submitted comments on the petition of Mr. Lewis on o Jl ' p A~..k c.c.?. .$.G ' September 18, 1985, and I have considered them in reaching my deci- .N'Y siun. My decision in this matter follows. (i 27

1 4po

[i .[ '6 6 r.K s.

.N 4

DISCUSSION ?f M.J 'i.. + s ,c,M Current Status of Limerick Generating Station p N.,7I, ' ' ' ct Md,- v. A full-power operating license for Unit I of the Limerick Generating V' S f'; S. ? W'i d s -Q!l' Station was issued on August 8,1985, and Unit I subsequently began a

40P" '.1./'-

startup testing program of about 6 months duration prior to placing the %giS :V w~.e., w se., . um, n unit \\ ion status. Construct. ion Permit No. m a commercial operat. .~.. A a . m.,... 4

c.... rl. h~.$ w.

.n ~ M..c.. CPPR 107 for Limerick Unit 2 was issued on June 19,1974. Construc- 'yy" 1 .D.D. tion on Unit 2 has, until recently, been suspended by the Philadelphia . 9;';lbf . /.. Electric Company in response to an order by the Pennsylvania Public 'T wh @ : 3. ([.;.;jt d'!lc,.. Utility Commission. At present, Unit 2 is approximately 30% complete. .y

.. ((

p. Hearings were held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Allison K. 'h; ?.' J 'fg 'f , Turner of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) in ertly T'l'Qn *Q'y'jj

h. y; g.s.W N pSgne. ' ~

1985 and on July 12, 1985, a Recommended Decision of the ALJ was u m qi t - p.V,@g;.g C SR ! L * ', issued to the PUC. On December 5,1985, the PUC issued an order .b.. ! .. N[p wherein it set forth the terms and conditions of a cost containment and hy g. ^ tion of Limerick Unit 2. On December 23,1985, PECo announced that operating incentive plan under which the PUC would approve continua-ggyM'.9 p'/h,' M - K; Wi.J.4 (%f,1} '.[p hM,Y it had decided to complete construction of Limerick Unit 2 under those V.7.; c.' [$f.YM/I;-[d 'ipk'Mf Di Since the Recommended Decision also discusses PECo's arguments terms and conditions and had so notined the PUC. to the PUC regarding the status of NRC licensing activities for Unit 2, I > J,, ",,' %.,dM.9.. w ., ~

n.j: ,;

&ny;f,;).y .H / M &',;v;.;&,J'; w

p m.c': N, '

, %wnt n..... =. o 227 . O.% :~,, *. a y. +.s & w.c : ~ w n ..~to s. n. x. ; m.p.. e .m

p..

m.%.. .v ~. ' N:.. m. - 7d ..N;% C ~r i -. w w [ ~ ( I(, j k +. g *- [l.( Y,k { ( *, k, ', s &'fll .hid. nkhk WQ.fff.h:Q, 0. .. ',. = M hW.?h h.h.kdf u g w :,: m m_...s. w%.', y.,,,;. m,.. ,%_ x_wr y~m.&um,.m.e u c.m a m.mr.. o m., _ m,., o - w.. y. s M, 'c w n ~(:.e y q,J r-y,.o.. t. m... x... q.4:.qw:uw' s e y, .%. 4 o t ~, ; w ;...u. y9 yp g .. = a m, m: s,. p5.p. p p. w ,,7 )m%m..,..,,g s, w

.6 W.

&., X ; ' J. %

O ~ Q. % 3.% h . n '. ' 9.,c. g* #...a.- M i,: ~- ' ~,.,n >;;,u.L ,G -: O_ O. *,,e...m . f, r '. m.,,. ;., -, w ..~ ,n a; q.Ryd:D:,, ! e:. u; n.w,:,'.p. g.:. y '., ~~. L. a. D, A i 3 S .k ~

n

-x w3

q.4 a <,

A. f .. t... .Wy. .h:%y W -Q,yg.;.. y[. "7 1-@ l h y ;J. &~ " **," - ". *, G a: G-- " L.~ -- ~. s \\:% ~- r.~ ;p r.. .3;;y}.. ~. .. ~ 9, y' f l is Q )s.y M, m <. 3v. : D %. rb,. Q M,

i,; -

5,'W s h kv ...s-M..m '9.g; ;;WW W,, n.M.Y, : R.o > u %,n. h N 4. & .;g. A .R,9 shall comment briefly on that subject here. A large portion of the NRC -.,e. 8 7-,ny" licensing activities necessary to facilitate the issuance of an operating MhNly 1;,./;5 h+W, gig-) license for Unit 2 have been completed. For example, the Final Safety M@dF@.@p@9.pd M.,~pf g. Mg Analysis Report review and the Environmental Report review for Unit 2 Q W g%..;p.&y.* are virtually complete except for certain issues specific to Unit 2 which w w..e v y f j %), M 1 M ' f :q p ileg.i;47 .O i f cannot be addressed until later, such as the qualifications of the Unit 2 if operating staff. Furthermore, new regulatory requirements will be im-4~ p. :p y N. posed only in accordance with the Commission's backfitting policy in 10 i p$ Y 5 bI M M - W ~ M M M m.pMW.M.y.Mih& C.F.R. 6 50.109. The four partial initial decisions resulting from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings encompass issues $hn NfNf y which in almost all cases are applicable to Unit 2 as well as unit 1. In- .9fp@# W 94@;@MMT@f[7 spection activities associated with Unit 2 completion, some additional ping, ON MW!%-t@

i. 7r i

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards review and additional con-qgwy sideration by the Commission at the time of authorization of full-power .ac g.~ .w 4 Z. [4. ; 'M[. ; )F h, operation would constitute the majority of the remaining expected NRC gMff licensing activities to be completed for Unit 2. This assessment is of / * : W ;. ).; qi s : K..;n course conditioned on a general absence of proposed changes to the .afC " ~ ' ' ~ Unit 2 design by PECo. v,. v .4 ' J - ' a i,, Analysis of Petition V 7:# ~.'. i ! The petition alleges that the Recommended Decision' by Administra-3 % $ fl.M.% 7 3 M Q i' ~ s tive Law Judge Allison K. Turner to the Pennsylvania Public Utility ' %:k. W.j Q g;lJ, Q Q n Commission provides new information which shows that Unit 2 of the u.t:.rm.. 4 j. ;pp.o-WWM Limerick Generating Station is not economically viable. The petition Mdw p,/.7 s.,.~j@mu ..r M.#$$.yg g argues that, on this basis, the NRC Staffs assessment of costs and bene-G'.d.yU,$.3^M;M2;ggl$ fits which supported issuance of the construction permit is invalid and z,.yl$ fy.7s?i%. Ml% O ym - accordingly, the construction permit should be suspended and proceed- ~ myy ings initia'ted to determine whether it should be revoked. The petition f N T./ essentially argues that the facility is no longer needed or economical and .c W. d.t.? @ thus the benefit from the facility', i.e., the power it will generate, no 1. ^ M.j. x.,W,. ;,~ longer outweighs the environmental costs of the facility and the Com- .#...,w..., - 4,m: u.w L% e4 y.iS6M,suh G mission should reconsider its decision to grant a construction permit for t i p.S.e 4.'yMi.d+.3.9 ' ,,. w > vwv @? q ar: . 14 the facility.

W.$. y.,$. m.,

The results of the StalTs assessment of the Unit 2 costs and benefits .,We. %, y1 9

d. b, y g e%*,. O, y.

ay py myy,;4N hW1 which support issuance of the Unit 2 construction permit are reported in S h,M., ly;g.' d.g y u.n the Final Environmental Statement issued in November 1973 As in- +;WN e*n,u.y.p. w, Q s P,eX%DlqW dicated therein, a variety of costs were evaluated including capital and

Y;. y;Ma G y&in

%:.?.. v. ,9W An y,,. a .W 4!Q c.W.g;f fQ< &'f}}p.g&j. p?.% n

- ,?

c q;,. 7 I Recommended Decision (RD) or Allison K. Turner. Administrative Law Judge. dated July 12. 1985 t v. ',' G, f h <'.hy$ @.v%p.j - d p ,r before the Pennsylvama Public Utility Commission. Limerick Unit No. 2 Nuclear Generating station in. W p. ,L.'* vestigation No. l.840381. . & P.$.Qs-3 < -;., N.~{N 7; (ff x. mMY [A l.. S w n f sv - ne v, y J:.y #w n MtM 22s .ma + w C. ggnpg/ m. ~ y%.,,QiyyQ RQ + s '.

m. m. h. } l5hefS. k.h.

,, 5 e s f,*.: ..$ p-.y ; M c W W. W j...+j, L p,,,..: .-,-~,c-.~,_-.--,,,.,y;p.,. .,,.m,. __s !;n u..% g e ^ Jn . Q; -

!.,4 y. >.; v _

A s..qc3 . t. ;.. y%. a;=.u,c c p,

,a, a >

c,, v 9.,.y... ..m ;;,

u.

e.e. e _nw% 'I:. C. s s ~ a. .u 4; e.n. v + 4.. G @ T.W 7 W. .~.,s.c...s v c w,~ g. n., i.' m;*s/..,;y/ y,,h,9 Q.y Q. g a. M. n? s v 4' - M @ y. ;; .y jp M U.'m , m +, s,wyQ y.,( *'- } .i.N. h.kh_;h,b;ikN ...M' Q,,w,

7..

a# y$. gay,w.s$NNM dh.ff,h;q w :c r.c .w. ,p .n h,Y.h hh ': h h.. s m*h,t. b h~ JYIMN k w.,,e. Y$m.. $mhhhk h h h!f

M. , Q> p... L,, ' Vs: t. .r.Ps 9M{Q, s .ql, i u- '%Q 's Ca. ? + 4 n g -1, . n.. g.p...q, M g ;, - s R ; ' ; c. -p .;,1 v. <.!~.y ,o ,.J

3. u.:

' y e.. + u. n... e ~ ..w ?{' L,$ L

.L.,. A --w 0-W.d -. ^.b b i L A

~a J A~E A * ** *

i ' * * %

S'** ,~, y: g ;?.. y 3,~ ;g.: _'.,3yy,:Q 9x y/

3. ~3 - +.

h M $.y .y x y ac,c. m : ..m. w: .y. qc;,:.'R

QhfR M)dE '

. 3jd fl[ operational costs; land usage; water usage; thermal, chemical, and radi-h.c. i[ N ;.r 3;X1$ck 4f ".d?$,Q ological impacts on the environment; and biological impacts. A variety grht ;3 q x, "/ " of benefits were evaluated including the electric energy and improved d/f C ( [ '..I,, [.' reliability from increased electric capacity to be supplied. The overall as-gi.1 /, sessment of the costs and benefits resulted in various conclusions as . c dW," g 4 ' Id. MP.,..,. .,I, [ ? i 7.1 stated in the FES, the last of which was that the net impact of the con-o rN.+.I, p p.r.., a. 4,,,, f@ ; e struction and operation of the station would be beneficial. Thus, the - 4@... e' -, ,3 r,. direct economic costs and benefits were not the only parameters consid-s; a ' Jgx. ~ .. 9 .,n, ered by the NRC StafTin its evaluation of the station for National Envi-e y,gl,;g:,WG ?, jg,; M ronmental Protection Act (NEPA) purposes. f$. _,g. Qi - The petition is essentially a collection of comments and unsupported f g$r. l,,jy 'Kha,4 assertions regarding the Pennsylvania PUC Recommended Decision. 7%tJ, - 'g 7,y.4 m &,.. % ;. The investigation by the Pennsylvania PUC as carried out by the ALJ

.,o g,.;

t ..y u ,c: f w/J - -.*...c,. . 4. t. was concerned with economic issues as they relate to monetary rates for .~.< _e ; m.. w V.n,i electricity and the degree of service to be provided to the public. The m. 4 ' n y . x% w.'s, b. MM, %..M N C.Ni.) specific issues concerned the adequacy of PECo power generation mar-c W.< 7:,, gins; cost effectiveness of alternates such as cogeneration, conservation, s -s @k w, A.v,,M J. %n :n w,. n .n y

. "W or purchased power; the financial health of PECo; the acceptance or re-

,q? ? Q:.; J, M n.' V Jection of securities filings by PECo; treatment of sunk Unit 2 costs; a

u. n : s ~.

plan to. duce cost-efficient and timely construction; construction costs . ' T.- W fA 6.} W Mng m N 4 Ng and capacity factors; fossil fuel prices; load growth projections; and Unit

y.,g,,,.. ' ' '7 2 operating and maintenance expenses and capital additions during its Wj.p[.W;m5, My,j@Z,flE 44 9 s

i d k :U+: projected life. j yp 3.ggpq The Recommended Decision is extensive (over 400 pages) and in-Mff.nd; ?byl.h)gg gyj cludes the opinions of the ALJ and assessments of the views of the eight M@du ~2 ~ ;. A. W Qy u]d,yM6 pp.< parties to the proceeding followed by a summary and conclusion and pro-posed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a proposed Order. The o w g gee AMQp.,-f9?j;.Adgyp;p differing viewpoints of the parties on the numerous issues are assessed q<#qu,p..n.,. ^ WM.w^Mv..V,ff.?d;/.fWk, w (.i. in the Recommended Decision. The AlJ also discusses the inherent un-M.D. n o -v. 'dQ.a y yf certainties in assessing many of the individual issues based, as they are,

b.. a., ~ ; N.

sM s.eA largely on forecasts of future happenings in a changing industry and gen: i C ;.M :"n. 4 @ d: w

n. w c

W:p economy. The ALJ concluded that power equivalent to that which M: ) M M M M Q 6 h@i'%#fd W .fN ? n;O W W

EMM would be provided by Limerick Unit 2 would be needed to meet future f

requirements. The ALJ concluded that, although Limerick Unit 2, per M W 3.th hi& %. se, is not required to meet these future needs, power equivalent to what 3#,W @'.".* P M7'c M [.4 f Unit 2 could provide would need to be provided in the time frame $!.hihj beyond 1991. This appears to also be the approximate time frame in Y h]$[g#A.J.q?,h.h 4, 7 Q which Unit 2 could be completed for use. ga e % g $ p f./- A The petition provides no citations to the Recommended Decision nor l+ PM7,4M any other indications regarding which specific aspects of the Recom-h(r$d$EM5M,d.MMUh$f.hj mended Decision constitute the basis for its request beyond asserting U@yMd3 fn1 $p$9%!Qy)+y,,fm3 that the new information in the Recommended Decision directly v p;<.6 8 v s %: .g ,,w m y: [ 5 ..e n W. n w & m* G.1 [ w* M m.My .w. h q % % M r. }}g j f,-,;&pe. A3 t sa u ';, jag 9',MJ;;%f .k{.)IM i'M yNM N @Q lM .e pm.b xg..W.m

c.,

mg: Y h h w n n m{ d N $ $ $ h ww.m m,, w w..n w g>m m+.... n.+c ~a . : :.+ .,,. :r.t. g m m, w ,9 .c. p. w .n h h Ybhh$h h Ib,b ?ka k h h h 5I Y b Y M&MyMIM;p.A..s ~, m x ' D M %~U. D N P i ME F w m n i

7

.j j. M M %,* % s. g t,[/y$ N Q M G 7 7 ?Y' Y.hD f*J 7 J

e. -

. n. ..L.

W' o-

% ),k icl d, " D - n p 1_ N ,~ x +. ,n 3, f

L.

~~. - -a.C- + ~. . L. ; m. -.a

[*.

t -Ge . A ^ s lg ' g ~, L 4 , _ ~;.

w ;.,- : '

demonstrates the economic nonviability of Unit 2 of the Limerick Generating Station. However, as indicated above, the full Pennsylvania - 0t' s PUC has not evaluated the ALJ's recommendation and has established a plan of cost containment and operating incentives under which it will f J, - '6 1 permit continuation of construction of Limerick Unit 2. Thus, the PUC j= as has concluded that, within the limitations it has established, the costs

1

.,f ,m '. J u. .e m for the Limerick facility are acceptable. PECo has agreed to resume con-struction on that basis. The petition provides a discussion that is not directly related to or sup- ^ C.~'7. ported by citations to the Recommended Decision on the analyses of t s l; .' N,7 !.' costs and benefits required by the NRC regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 g[7 vi ' O &. ~, " in a manner which suggests that the Petitioners believe that an overall ^ /- numerical value of costs to benefits, a cost / benefit ratio, must be devel-oped and compared to a specific acceptance criterion (of " positive" or ' [. ,,q; " negative" value). In the NRC StalTassessment of the various environ-a~ ~ ll ,.9 mental costs and benefits of construction of Unit 2 reported in the FES in November 1973, the costs and benefits are not reduced to single a' values or parameters due to their dissimilarity and the resulting lack of ~ meaning any such value would have. Therefore, there is no overall numerical value of cost to be compared to an overall numerical value of benefits. As described above, the benefit side of the analysis is the power that ( will be generated by the facility. The Commission's regulations govern-Xe .s. ing the consideration of need for power for a plant which already has a ~" ~ ^' ~ '. / construction permit are set forth 10 C.F.R. (( 51.21 and 51.23. The ,O Commission has made a generic determination that in all cases to date m K ~ 7N ' ',' 07 and in all foreseeable cases, there will be some benefit from operation of '[ a nuclear plant in terms of either meeting increased energy needs or T%g . 4 ,,i replacing older, less economical generating capacity. Thus, once need- ~ _ _ i-1 for power and alternative energy-source issues are resolved in the con-struction permit proceeding, absent special circumstances shown in ac-y c y cordance with 10 C.F.R. f 2.758 or as otherwise required by the Com-J mission, need-for-power and alternative-energy source issues will not be 45 '.. [. .y ;o,., S{ 37 M- .. e ,.i"'<% considered in operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants. c,G d

v. M,

7 i 'j. In previous decisions on petitions filed pursuant to f 2.206, we have 4 ? M i.G dc", g "' --( noted that NEPA does not require the Commission to reconsider envi-c .5 -,6 L V ronmental decisions whenever new information developed subsequent fepN t, 0 ,.h to the action becomes available. Rather, it is unnecessary for an agency y[lpp.M-.- Wj s S, F[ jc M r. ' ' !;[ to reopen the NEPA record unless the new information would clearly hy. 'T mandate a change in result. See, e.g., Public Service Co. of Indiana '@A MMyh T Mf (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), DD-79-17,10 w i

[

.I g [,

p

.' h. yg % '., 4:, ~ * :. i i y j.%w;.h; \\'p.. ' ' ,; M 230 p: m .1 l ' U &J'.w# r 4; ., ;w .. tim.'n9. N,M:.w .m p. 3.m, -m m.m.8,I! J,.,P, sa.,&. k.,~. s% D '. l. a.W D;WW<,a.,7 W MW,* it, . j , Mi$.? o A;. M. W

s.,M b

44.,s. ;w%n.n,h,.n.W vt.::'

g ' ' "#Q %p%m gM. WWx,s%:.;;,:sts%nlQ~W,,.. yh i ., r.::r wsp.m p.w ~ n. n. 9 m e m,gpan hk.h ? hh r+ . 1: , s.x.s w, w a..- my.., e t ,p~, ~.4 ,.we m.. _ ~ _..,y...,. ~

,*.,j K t Y..'

.f,;. e 4 r = , : & ;c9 ~ 'S w.. ,1 g e 39. 'j.m +-p

g... q m q%p..'.,7

. 3, y y. '=. g,N 4 ,u a.w. j ; ;* x -1 ..i.. , ~, - , y' ; ...< 1. s ., n. t,, a.m. ;. 2. ~, ~a 9..... % _,:.A q. 1 f w.= ? w.s, m-w-w m ----- =. " - -. - ~ ~ ~ - - " - , e, n. + i- ,7.,w; ~.. ,3 v f

s.. e c.,.,, m

.s.- c, 3.:.g.m,y- ~. 3 ,a, i, : +,;.w s :, ,-.,.. w ? U., ' *:r).,zi, ,.. <3. , - 7x w.. .- m .',0 *. '. '.' M. y NRC 613, 621 (1979); Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear "c.- 4 @' :., y. Plant, Units 1 and 2), DD-79-4,9 NRC 582,584-85 (1979). h. .A i* The Petitioners here have identified no information or special circum- ,[..,- .,. w Q < M. stances which would cause us to ignore the Commission's generic find- .q. ings on th..is issue m this case. [J.},..,", ? ? ;,'.,O,Y,, V,,y 4

r. -

. p.; %.hj As explained by the Appeal Board in a decision in the Midland case , T. A,, ' on this issue: ..,-e.. .,s ...u. , c q. *

IJniess the proposed nuclear plant has environmental disadvantages in comparison 2,I k, * (v[.. ;.y *,,. '.., y$.,%,

i, E, to possible alternatives, differences in Gnancial cost are of little concern to us. Be-cause a line of our earlier decisions leads us directly to this proposition, we need - (,'*,,*',

c..'r.,. '( i.1 f *, '. f.

record our underlying reasoning only briedy here. ~ D

P.',

e' In the Atomic Energy Act, Congress did not make this agency responsible for as. t, = (' > * ( sessing whether a proposed nuclear plant would be the most Gnancially advanta- /> l ' (';.;,... - geous way for a utility to satisfy its customers' need for power. Such matters re- ',g. +* mained the province of the utility and its supervising State regulatory commission. s, t. J.- Antitrust issues to one side, out involvement in Gnancial matters was limited to y *. # )., determining whether, if we license the plant, the company will be able to build and . Q'f.f;I 3 then to operate it without compromising safety because of pressing financial needs. ~,. ' 'J ' " The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act increased our concern with .1 f.*; / ' i,. ,/ '..I. ~, ~ the economics of nuclear power plants, but only in a limited way. The Act requires .q, e us to consider whether there are environmentally preferable alternatives to the I* s: proposal before us. If there are, we must take the steps we can to see that they are . t.l } - implemented if that can be accomplished at a reasonable cost; i.e., one not out of 4*

l ';.
7,* g

' +'

* +

=J proportion to the environmental advantages to be gained. But if there are no prefer. f.f.);- N W. g,; able environmental alternatives, such cost benefit balancing does not take place, @. M N , d;;f, & s [ '. 't Manifestly, nothing in NEPA calls upon us to sift through environmentally inferior 1 c.<

T*.

,7 f[ 2, c.: ', ;, -[.' J.,N bi',' the scheme of things, we leave such matters to the business judgment of the utility N ;f.. I,Q /c Q/ alternatives to Ond a cheaper (but dirtier) way of handling the matter at hand. In f , SI. r;J L,..I 44 v pu,;f ' companies and to the wisdom of the State regulatory agencies responsible for scru. 'yu. M]p '"{/ t c,:*,, tinizing the purely economic aspects of proposals to build new generating facilities. g ,1 /6 ?WNN W:- In short, as far as NEPA is concerned, cost is important only to the extent it results - { ' 1' q -*,',.*?, 12 'g.Q..h d in an environmentally superior alternatise. If the " cure is worse that the disease, i

J,l c y W.>+*'.

that it is cheap is hardly impressive. ,,o.,.

1. <;.%

.. t ?l,f q s v Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-458, 7 4. :. Ja O. T. h F C. NRC 155,162 63 (1978) (footnotes omitted). p663 fy@M.YUGU.,..'*h....%',*dN,: Sl As I have previously stated 2 in a Director's Decision in response to an . i,f. ; M M, 4<t ry/ >D *y earlier 2.206 petition regarding the Limerick plant: 4.. .a N,, e g,.4 .. 3 c'. i.* y. Suspension, modification or revocation of construction permits may be appropri- ..O*) 7 t.', N, 4.d.b!$'4

*. 9 ate based upon substantially changed circumstances. The appropriateness of sus.

s.M*,..s ;[ '.,' N, /.,M,,4. -t s, if.ii',' Y-pending, modifying or revoking construction permits for nuclear facilities based 'N -. '. > s upon alleged changed circumstances has previously been addressed. NEPA does not n .$g, R. 6&*1;*;.* h e n E.'&.h..Q+'d <.*K' > ; e q-S W-o .e,..,, ? M %.c0,t ,y Q/ : e a. *2, 2 00 3413,39 NitC 1137.1144 (198at . '.'(6.. , i c[,, g "Y \\.. &(.N.,# ?.g.*q

v. v,

,d ^* .'L* 2, s.Jp j ', j' ?,

a e9',,p ; M.e2 Q

g ,6 9 yQ W L -- J:W W. B. O .y ,g 13g 6:, : e q Ip d 'ryl@M.f *] 3?. 4;;9 *

' w*4Q; l'.

3*

,, *.R. v.,.-.

it .s

go M Uk@.hl$ma['M' 3^- * *,

.Q ;. + ~. -* -- w -e=a*-;:m* =~'m'oe* 3 *~**'s, m w,.W =r ~ ,--.s - w n..u nl' n 'u" d '; '" p.x ;YeaM&k &Q,)t w +\\..w 'w ..n i.d. .u .: flp M.G m.~$. y'* . ','Y'. c" l 'l ,,s & MM$#.Mi@M f6)h,[d Q M @s. g MM N h h . h. fM khk hh-h'z $4 fhbpp@@h,hh;M.,.fw., e g@n wW wM M WC@p

O + l I t require a decision based upon environraental imyaet statements be reconsidered 1*' whenever information developed subsequent to the action becomes available. It is unnecessary for an ag:ncy to reopen a NEPA secord unless the new information l will clearly mandate a change in result. (Footnotes omitted.) A. i No such new information has been presented here. 0 CONCLUSION s For the reasons discussed above. the information identified by the pe- .'. g cf tition does not warrant the initiation of the requested proceedings. Ac- .., - P

a. - P:

l cordingly. the Petitioners' request for action pursuant to 5 2.206 is f*'f- '. './** ' denied. As provided in 10 C.F.R. @ 2.206(c). a copy of this Decision will r be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review. Harold R. Denton Director Office of Nuclear Reactor I r Regulation ,i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, -l this 21st day of March 1986. n .l ,.bs.- 4

4

.p a 'bt,* f ..n. 1 3 i s I, a 6 i ..y_

-.r.*'.'s.

.t . :, t .e l c. l 1 a *y,,; 3 'I a .. b L h: c '. c.t,. .,15 s.., f:.. i Q v.,c5.. '6 ";, e' 8 3 i -, ~c~. - + ' f. - < (. ' >.a

st s

232 r *.,c"4.. . Y. m., i 'o

J. 3. CCVER'5 MENT rRINT!'fG CFFI*E s 19%%1.(15 M000 e,

i a8 s ....... %, g.- c. .,,., ~...,..,, _,.. .m.....a t g,'... s *

s

'S ...9..,. ,r ole t A. [ e % 4 ..h y e . e %) ' ;:~ q.. >,, ~ , $,,) g,.h

p

.t.a

'lA{4;y.)i!;ii.i fNijn b a y. f %.r.. ?',. . p;., ~ J'{ g#,.,s..m p..pq yyy .- u., .m /.~ )g.p/,QQ;.. {Q ?, > v <,$'4f.6 $ .%*, y, M - u 7 ,}}

ML20205S506

Contents

Text

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

ML20205S506

Text

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Navigation menu

Search