ML20207C281

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for April 1988. Pages 335-483

ML20207C281
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V27-N04, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V27-N4, NUDOCS 8808050268
Download: ML20207C281 (159)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.. -. - _. - - - _ - -. _. _ - _ - ? t l l NUREG-0750 Vol. 27, No. 4 Pages 335-483 ) g v. i 1 e i 1 i ~ 1 g e 4 g s, b A t8 r . o s 4 ,t U S. NUCLEARpEGUL A' TORY COMlyllSSION - 1 I i i I t i l i i 1 t s i i I 0000050P60 0006'30 i I PDR NURl.G I 01b0 H VDH I

1 Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013 7082 ,1 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, ) 4 indexes, and 2 4 hardbound editions for this publication, i Single copies of this publication l are available from National Tecnnical j information Service, Springfsid, VA 22161 i l ? l a 1 1 i i Errors in tNs publicate may be reported to the Dhoon of Freedom of Information and Publicatione Services i i Office of Admhiatration and Resources Menegement i U.S. Nucieer Regulatory Cawi 'r':. j i Weehington, DC 20666 (301/482-8825) 1 i I i t i l 4 I . _ ~., - _.

r~ .L 1% ~ . i.. s 'n .c : '. a .,;. c;, ..,.~, > % ;. e.. .,o x. i U .c y 'b ' ..... 8' e /; * *, ,. m>,.* .:. - :e.:.. .~- vi. .j .1 ,~. 7 ... ' '(. NUREG-0750 3" Vol. 27, No. 4 . c. <,.c:r.. ~ Pages 33s-483

.......... v., 1 ;

..w.. ... =.......x ....<;y,.l ....c .;. m, NUCLEAR REGULATORY ..-.g g. -. W. v. COMMISSION ISSUANCES .. x ;...a.1 . v.. o. e,;. 1., M. c7,.f.i' O. April 1988 .c,. .e. .;:.~,:- u.; .,.~*'.,a... .. u 9 .2.. -.. ~. ' .s - , i, This repc't inctdes the lasuances aceivt d during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal . * ?,,. i ..,'t Boards (Al AB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the ~ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Dects:ons (DD), and 3 t 1 the Dentals of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). .i

• p.5 -

1. -

The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein ,] are not to be deemed a part of those opinions of to have any indepen- ~. - 1 dont legal significance.

., n

. - :,t.

y U S. NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSIO

y.,

'...l'...,. ~

~

Prepared by the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services i Office of A&nnistration ar.d Resources Management Un tuclear Regutatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) \\ y \\ f e g.. ~

9 !*Y* ;R@.Nhk '\\-:.&f ! S R $. $.. N.. @;W h hhht

h..b bl i

$.p..* l ,W n'

1. @.h,.d@. A W $~e@,[ M.,yaf h, < M M; a.pRg by

~a.l..'f.p A

!...,y,n,.f.*(. c.ks,p - 7 s

g

. A; a g . ;,,,,,. %, s. e. e., f,L n t xq.. c; - we .. g Ad..M d e;d ;4 .1 w. *.: c:ty., ,c, a..y,...g, 3%.,.;;. La y r.

3 x. + v-. s.-

.,7.-<v... . n. .a.. a..,.J ,y p, A,,..1- . s c..,, y 5, .a. a c.<s. .s '. c. a:. A- .,,,f,,..,.., n ,,.... ~...... .. n.. v s

• x.:.

a.,.s. a e ~.

n W

.*,4.. a ,,. w... ...,. s a. :,,..,. ,.s..'n, 4....,c.,..4. 1..... ?

1. o.

...,. v..,..,,. a ue. n(.

.se. s

,..,.. ~. . d,, % : $,... , g;, ...m,., 'y*t' G. A e;, .y.M., t:.'. M.:: " g...., *) n. ,.s..,x; :, J. c. r,,, ~,,. ;. ' 3+. ,. s.. ~,c.., s *. g =u..,,f, A ' ** ;, s' .a' k. r r4' g.,/.;...,3p* N. .. g M Uh. ar..+ * - + +MM. M.3... ; 3

• S*, 4. r. +.. i.....

m.. - <t- .e ' [.72.1 p .Y[t a e,. w;. c.x,,s a :14...e. ,o. v ,.e ~ o w'..c, /... s'9,4.,4,,+,m,..n p.y,.

t.. 6.,.* o. e, d,3 * ;.

1. .g M,.

.s + , s... 3, .4. n* y;; we.. n'<.,f..y q..e.v :./: ~ .,.; ;...f. COMMISSIONERS p : : '. m ..... x.. ; ': @' s',v . .,i y, p.f

• Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman a s..
• r,a

s. 7. 7.* y.*i,g'*L,;.**'.g.y.,P* M s.,;r;e,c.?.,..i, ; '.. - r4 Thomas M. Roberts e

c .c..w., ': t.a. r. v. Frederkk M. Bernthal ., s ,, v, d..;.g *;'r r 4*? d'ro.*7?,,s.y,T Kenneth M. Carr u c j: . q,,, r ., i t 4., 3.- M < 6.T, Kenneth C. Rogers , 3. - n.. ;- s. ....'.< :,. o ;...e,.. : e, ..e.....e. s *,?" t.=3 . c.. ~.,. o.( e v. ?.. ;. z :.. ',77... : w e..., .^ &.*... f,,.

1. <

w ,.'*,/.,.4 .,,a.'.'. : e un. .,s..,s.. m...s..,.,,...,, r. s. . ~...... -..,. .f, ',?, g. .,.s, .;;:.,n: . y,.

.,..,., r ~. w'., y v

... <,,...g,g y. ,u... e..,....a, s. ,.c.., n, u.n.:..-. t, W. s. 4 7,,: :, t..y < c,. s g +*, ..e -.. v.;y; .e

- -r

,. r t,. - . 7,,.,p s r , s. ,, c.. . u. .w.. I i. s-

• g ' :..

-n ,o p ,,7.y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeel Panel r.< ,. N ~i."'+. .;,'.'.37' 't 3 'Q. l< ta...'.". % B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Board Panel n,..s,. n. e .%..e.,..

p,*3

% s -. r %,.$5 Je, ps > w e ( r.,j,:? *,,9d,n.,, 3 * .'..,-,..,,,e i. a a s., ,/*,.. .6' . ; *'8,,,

• 4,,
• e

',., a k., s (.%, ), '. 3. s .s '.. =, to '

s, -

~'.4 p f.. a. - ..I' y 4..e ..'%. s an

• f g.

t S,,.,. f s

• c

-

• ao

. e t.,, $. 4

• vp g,. s

}: O.0 .e .....A.& p 4 q e d .e# g g .s a +

• • • • 4-

'4 . n.

• ' p e'

.a q. y s't s . l e' a. '*. ' o af A s e s e 1 k O,,, -{ g g g ' a ^a s ' a s, ..,.., < ', y,p.,,,., 1;., .j ,r :., e , s.c . ;r ; ..s, y s . *. h s., .,'f ..,'4 i ... g[, e '. { e . 'i"t, k .s F . N *g.*,-**.'+=%9**wgm.,** - gese-

---

9

• we e e=w q em e-. - e

,-..y.pg g., g =, .g, 9 g e g' ,,4 it. ' / 2 > *, $.,f.4 " - ' + ' ' - .',' ~ '

,e =

6 f, J

s., <

r;* n , *, s ,. s..,

*' g, -

• .. s y

h'

• *ly s

iI,*, j( 5, '- 3,.,. m n

• g 9

47 A 8L Q J .g ... s e e g s (-"' b 8 + e .P g( e* e. g ^* t. g 'g

• ,i
• s s.*

I' ^ ' ~ 1 a L o o e i 3 9 ,Q g ,g .,e 3,.% .,.t I .+- m, n ..r ,ss. .,e_* n, d e_ c _e

q. ,. r ~ .., Tr; _ ,g -.,. s. ? .'n, - 1. .4, .y 1. . i, ..!'...e a..- : v i <f j ..? - 6.. .n..' '- r a.u '.. li ^ ' e ,, ' ~. * * ~ s. CONTEN'l$ 3 2 ; (,[,. lasmance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commlasloa 3 INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE M, * -,'.. DATA FALSIFICAT10N , * '^ .a, Docket LRP ',,,5 ', g ;., l. '. j MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CLI 88 2, April 28,1988....... 335 ,.,,,a.,. ..',.;.,"~..'.. ... a, Issaance of the Atomk Safety and Lkensing Appeal Board .>,r.- a' ,.. ;,. - l,......i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMT3 HIRE, et al. ~ -.. '..'..,.i,:,'..,',.. (Seabrook Station. Units I and 2) .,T,c.. Dockets 50-443-OL 1,50 444-OL.1 (Onslie Emergency Planning ,' l o j and Safety Issues) .r. - , .' J' (.., c "'. .-}, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 891. Apdl 25,1988...... 341 .. ~. %. j ' - 3 Iassances of the Atonale Safety and Lkeaslag Boards e e J.' . - C' ALFRED J. MORABIIO (Senior Operator License for Beant Valley Power Stadon, Unit 1) n,; l Docket 55-60755 (ASLBP No. 87 55102 SP) 2 - J, , , s DECISION, LBP 88 10, April 20,1988....................... 417 ' i c l-;.f CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. 1 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) 4 Docket 50-440-OLA (ASLBP No. 88 562 02 LA) .j ORDER DISMISSINO PROCEEDINO, LBP 88 il, April.J. 1984. 472 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ~ (St. Luck Nuckar Power Plant, Unit 1) ,-.{,.; Docket 50 335-OLA (ASLBP No. 88 5/O-01 LA) ,,.'a MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 8810A, April 20,1988 452 a s- .r t N.. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY o (!brkey Point Nuclear Genernung Plant. Units 3 and 4) ..,t Dockets 50 250-OLA 2,50 251 OLA 2 (ASLBP No, 84 504 07 LA) ~*. l (Spent Puel Pool Expanskm) INITIAL DECISION, LBP 88 9A, April 19,1988................ 387 s ill J a s s y>A-a

'y'? h j';26x & & OYN $ N'Q 3k(C Y'N Q,'s...'Q.'f* .Y.m *z, ! $h?

• g,*M, u 4 +J.,,! b~ m, y ;:....' N ?;bt > Q.,

m.c

?

r Q, ;. s p....o.,4,Q[..wrt.w:3,er,e.l. p M 'fh k.5h'[g - f..f.- ' + 2,,2.be: . n.. y,,.. b hM h.I .8 k h ? .' J S. h kh */

• t

,,. w ~. p y;.. 'y'b.,.,,,:r)..y',.J '.',y,Y - O;A." .f* f }'&- /"g ~'yQR*. f* %,Nll. l3Y, < [ e M N Q.>,V } } w y R N.. f:.%..&.a..Lare u;._.(%ei%s"gl?S [ .. '.,, 3 ;.r w.1.1 y : ; ~., t. ? t_..%

r..

o 4.N A ~, -.1,.', ~. e ; c;. Q,,;g, '..

• b,,Y J,, ; Y ;,O **s

-?. %'., ; U ~

• C.(:

.. <.a ,p 5-

• (y,; a p. ; <.' t.y. >. ' ** ;* ', ',.... :

t ,.. i.,~ g. *.. g... s.,. s w,p** , C> y, p T,. ', *

• s..

h W.;/,....,;.. '. 's .~o

'y;

e Q.J.9.. s,.

9,1, .~ ,w., LoNo ISLAND uormNO COMPANY ,. ; ; "..,, '. f... ',. (Shoreham Nucks Pour Stadon Unit 1) .m .~. y.

4i g

. ;pr%,t. J.. '., kd.rhd$.Ts%..%M.;g, s =%,.'JJ ' ' Docket 50 322 OL 3 (ASLBP No. 86 535 Ot-OLR) .h.. 'N j..'.h U 4 '.' ' ' h.;*.. (Emergency Planning) hEMORANDUM. LBP 88 9, April 8,1988.................... 355 .e. g.e,3,.A, d t d,y . h d k,.~... ... s;,., w.u e. hN~..... v.; w... m. go.e. <.+. r(f..M,-N'.T f Issuance of the Administratiw Law Judge .r - y;,Q(..)( O',$,',Mf h;?,'~ ' *g ; EDWARD IUNES, IR. MEDICAL CENTER (Veterans Administradon) .. 3. ~ 9 ',.' W 3. k *' p. M... y. '[ D...' "; ;;... it. Docket 301391 SC (ASLBP No. 88 565-01.SC) rW ',,.-', M.,. 37 '".. ' *;I ~'. ;.I. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ALb881, Agil 29,1988....... 475 ~ s a o. .*,;;y;*. c. : r,e.

• 4.: %,v.

s, e.'..' r. .., ~. ~.. ..n-

ss i,,c-

... c e .., q o.*

• 4,,; m, A., A., g.

..t. .y.ge+ )nQ t, '-, g 4.,, ' ; *r,;+.Q.,, 3 h 4,. ,w

.,/

c ',,,. ] - ' g). u s '

• J.. * * ( *4
• } ~*. '

1 ae-A "

f. V.;*.'f,w f

, ~. ',s. v s N',.;. 4 .. o, g.,

1.,.

+

• n'. y.:,f.*,z':*:;.i.. R..

ks ,~;. . a., 4.*.., g ;"n ' p., j'; ,6 ,y ',e e i d. p,,, +. * - <.

• g*. > n,

a, ...,o. o. e .es D)* ' g[i,'g-- 4 8 p .**,.*g-.5 'e* 3,<<. . 'g,' gb,., a s g a ,p , 'g

4. O W

.. ~. :D. . o.. o. ~ .:~.., t t i ..,.S 6. .,g II .,g,...,'#< -P, 's. ,3 A ' 8 '.. ',. s, =% .,.3 4,, $ ', s e 'e ', s* - ' ' ' t,a. '%..d i ',., Fs

• 4y 8

3..

• 0. 3..

e [,.'.,.,. . a 'p*e

- s,. ;.. -

,s.. - p*.

• y*, s, e..e

. g,', a ? e, a. ,,.14. n. ./. ,.3.

• 8; g

..'.,g + j. [, ' *[,A~i,," 'o e e.

• 4 z s. p,o !. c,. *i,,..

, e i t 9 .* a. 4 *., g <g - 't

• ., 43 *pp e

,@I 4 g

• - g

., e 9 e. 1 g,, J .Y ,O 's.*,'.

f s. + %, ~.' '.

,e .,s C 5 a.., ja,,., r ,F.' 6 '...

6..

4 /,. . f r.,... e. ,'i e: ' .a

• e e-

,h' ' Ag $ '. e g +y .s .p . '. y

• f * ~,,', 'n, +.

ly T it i .s* ,=<.3..,.,.4 .. I..,,-.s]*g'g*g.'- ,,,4 y,,., 4 f, go t. d 1 g a. 9 g g y k ,, - p b O g g,, -e*'*s -4**

• • • • • y**"*$**.
    • r*,

-~)* '-a-** 1 A"% [8 g t ~ s g i h., 'g + '} i 9 g..I O g g Q. k, 'e,* s t. i y .e .e p = g a g - '4 v-gP 'd s c n s. _..

~ '.i ' .s...... i 1 .. -......+ 1 .d e* .s

.: 1: - :

OmmlSSIOn lSSuanCOS 9

• 9

\\.. N, e, a. 9 6 8 I O p s 'a7 - g p. s s y e h n ~ .;'l o l S 6% i 1 g s. i t 'n'x .i. e'j e g 4 1 l g h

-l m

, r., 7 -

4 ..:: r, n y r.:, 9 : q.,.~, yg.,, '

• J* g.

y,,. ^ ,, i,,.., '[..' s ~.., ',. :..d,y !.W.. *;v ,.W L. ; n,. c i. 'g, ' ~ - ~ - .~.w ....w a ,. y

• 3.y g. u ; *;

, W,n.yt J .P,,..: os.. .. t, ...r...y-.;...,..-

n..... >

v...a..w,, x,, Cite as 27 NRC 335 (1968) CU442 .~. v .. m. >,.. u....

.y C < ',.r -W ' *,..n.,. 3f.<

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ /n m.~ e. NUCLEAR R.GULATORY COMMISSION ',* Nr '.*/.',;

• i '. @ cf;,x... -.:

> i. :.::. ,.~ ~,, .. y, n 7,- 4,: a,-c s. k[..i/,, [.',$ ". '.**,I 5 COMMISSIONERS: F - ytW', ., ;. : > ; ' ~*. '... ~ <pg.';;u; 7,

• u s * ?.'.

3. ] ' t Lando W. Zech, Jr, Chairman d.-)..M.,.. ;..,.. P Thomas M. Roberts

,s....< Frederick M. Bemthal 'c.' ;.*.f.. ' '. < ",, ', 'f.'. r 3

• Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Mogers f

'{',,'.; ,l s. c., ., y,,, +. ..,.v.. -v .' ' *T '..... in the Hatter of Docket No. LMP f J.y 7 ;;. ~ ~ v...n INQUIRY INTO THMEE MILE , '.- :. N *,';, y.;. ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE ,.;,(;..,.J~,M*/ '* ~.*,' - DATA FALSIF) CATION April 28,1984

1. .* g J,f,.f.

7 .,e, ..g -3, After review of the Presiding Board's Recommended Decision and Staff's .l'.,, ( !,. T, recommendadons, the Commission decides to lift a condidon imposed in the g. ,7 s, aMI l Restart proceeding as it applies to all those except the preeccident TMI-I t, Oc :;. 2 Supervisor of Operadens. The restart condidon had precluded preaccident TMI 2 individuals possibly involved in Unit 2 leak rase data falsi6 cations from .,i'f employment in certain positions at TMI l without speci6c Commission approval, . < ' ',7 ', T, : In a hearing insututed to develop the facts and to determine individual t l,,-' involvernent in the falsi6cadons, the Presiding Board found that virtually all s it, '.. Operations Dq runcat personnel worted under an erroneous interpretation of e'* the leak rate technkal specifications and that most of the personnel had some l l .-l degree of culpability regarding leak rate serveillance testing irngularities or falsl6 cation. Ihrthermore, the Board found that the n{I.2 Supervisor of I . }; Operadons bore greater responsibility for what went wrong with leak rate ~- .,i surveillance tests at Unit 2 than any other single individual. fw s ,j. , l], The Commission 6nds that given the time that has passed and the fact that g.], the leak rate surveillance testing irregularities directly Sowed from management q shortconirig in training and procedwes, the restnetion should not be continued. .-N'.- ic;. except as to the TMI 2 Supervisor of Operadons, who is prohibited from ~* \\ } s I E 9 335 s l l 4 g. .i-9 .[) a" ,a .. c Q

%,.f}Qy%QyQ:QW; &%*!:cQ,;.. *];hj&i.; ' 'W :;';a u EQMQ'&;$ h.h hb M M *.bb"E nd* bd h M' ' kbt $?hkk@WdWWiG % % M M. W. f;+@4.a4.w 5,8.we;r{es%.m:p.4 e V n u* %..m.I W.m%.,4.,.'4',9 2 .s n m,,Y .r [@s ".' Q. k" '. 3.-l Q *V

• 1 employment at na.1 in a responsible management or operadonal posiden

.kNy)M,'M'9, N$5$ih,.* #ip P 4~g+y v J.W.c:o.,.@. :. G,..h. - d without speci6c NRC approval, m M., s'. %';,, $. P f q: m. W Q,. hn.m $/ %' g&n kls h. I k.h >QY.r N)M. ;pfl.?. .T MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ?'% 4~'Ul.k &ta et

• a h):h IA an order issued in the nree Mdc Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (ThG h

fya'd %y' inh,M'Q;,,Q'.;.p'M**?,', g 4 M

1) restart proceeding, the Commission stated that it would insutule a separate k.

esd proceeding to consider what action should be taken fencerning individuals ,f 7 ^f),! @.M;lf. possibly involved in falsl6 cation of reactor coolant systun leak rates at Unit 'ak?D4L.,%1MM **b h,(' W h 2, and imposed the following condidon on the Licensce: E d,' s,., e %o,. %..e m,. 6 6,8,e $, [,. r (1) No pre-acddam M 2 opermer, ehm apervisor. M fawnea, or say a)=r a - .,s,s ..;s.

• f J. L _ t 1:

/.., r.f6. ;4 J's indiviemal boek in the 9ersons eow and on old tw trainms se a licensed b ' d.l.iQp?6Ge.dld,.E s.$ lW. 4 <;, W ,.cL a k.' opwesor a M.2 prwr io de mad w shan be emp54 a m.1 in a respmeith . v, M;r,3 ., !P:M saamasanas or wwwkmal position. wahoia speak cannimica es,mt. My.w.. J'.Q e /,N,e:r.c.c&;V J.'M. ;;.&,p opa.uanal posidon u d hue inchda any poemon inmiving ecouel .3..r.M; 4y,'6 epwmean d she piem, on du.cium er wpervision of geruors, er ", u--- 1e,}lq'42.;j(.i M / y;c y $t j,. 'zi,' *7 H%Fi.-b p M*.C.1 eeweighi at crasses. . 'a 191 This ec=4suc= aban deo esWy no du pe.eceder vice Pr.eidea, Genermica, e,,.y$.;k M 2 statice Menes r, M 2 s ervisor d Taduucal support (frose hauary 4 e w l *T.'q ff,T '!y,t.P Q',1lgp ;.., J Q.f r V *;L 6 2 197f to Weenber 197s), M 2 V- ' - d Teduucal Suggen (fsten cp g#,4;p,J E.j.* d.o . j Deconder 197: to the accidem), and M 2 sgervisor d Oswrwooms. This .. c.,5,,.c. j.9 ;ng Q G. c'adidai shan oca es,1y to Michael 1 toes, and Brian Mahler a ey ecremue lo his .,,* g. v, y. wtg,.

f..m.,

e, p -u poauan ocmaimens with this condaian. .f,,,*f. e.:,;i q ~;,d..T W /$

y.. w.. n > y

.t ,.,./ '; 'c, Metropolitan Edison Co. (Dree Mlle Island Nuclear S'ation, Unit 1), CLI 85 2, 1l 7ej'El$'[;fD,N T.k 21 NRC 282,34142 (1985). N w.,(., p.y s [*ysgPg De Commission stated that the purpose of the separate hearing was to . 7. i Q [..-l3;; d y:.f* y.y' develop the facts surrounding the leak rate data falslocation in suf6efeat detail J.',y c,. y;f.t,/';,.q;b,or Q [ so desermine whether any individual participated in, or knew of, cr condoned, '..# cJ c y&* *; Mj,';}'g't or by dereliction or culpable neglect allowed the leak rate falsi6 cations at TMI. ,j, c. V j. -+ V,, V.' ' T. MAN ?g'p.( /M /s.y. ?,! V, prMng speci6ed that the hearing was to be conducted in a legislative format

2. 21 NRC at 305. De Order and Nodce of Hearing initiating that separate r,

},, G. M !.,.1 , f,y.,, a designed solely to geher informauce, speci6ed the pecedures to govern the f ;*l*/ 'J',,M, [,[fty,[W;/J J {F 'i heefing, and ident16ed the steps to be taken afice the Presiding Board issued a a. .x.,i.. A...,. .t O,/ recommended decision setting forth the facts, in order for the Commission to 'MccO ?.. llV;*,.M(..,,f@.{lg determins whamtion, if any, should be taken. CLI 8518,22 NRC 877 (1965), C c,f,. ? ?. c;;,; 4 f. After a hearing, totaling 33 heenng days and ow 5000 transcript pages, r j ',y[t.f,J,. J f', E f." the Presiding Loard issued its Recominended Decision on May 21, 1987 _. 2, [ 7.. ' \\.'s ; [,( [l (LBP 8715, 25 NRC 671). It addtraed ca-n of the speciac issues that the .m. .. O.,* 1 f. v. l1 & CommNion, in CLI 8518, had d!rected the Board to consider. In sum, the g y;',,.J.l'i y,,,.,'V P O Board found, Arst, that viLtually all Operauons Department personnel worked . =. - ..,~,,. - w. %D-h 9, s . Y ' t. p ) 'q'. lr' .(',q.) .s s ,i' I [ k ,p N-t

• > l

c, y *?.*a'.. ' " '.., ~., f-3 1 2 ,3 .)s nwm 7,~~- - -~--~r

• ~.

y ~f-O' y

i' '

.I' ' i 1 s ,.g ^ (. 3 ,, t - t. s s-

• r

.p., -e..,,,, M ;,, " s '( i.f', 9- .'r, p e. ,, +. 6,t. ,.c j. i s

• . r.

- Q g?, r d' ' z, *,,. t',. .f g 'A^ '.y v. .*1 .E ,,,L c* ; g s i .g'..,, . v

• _'s

'} O.

• ,. i?

e y_

'y~ . q.,. y S.Q*i ^ f,. .; n ,,.. v,.,, ', t '.y Q,Ql.; &Q y' Q s.; .ki t. s. .(, ,, ~,., .q., .'d,.> :c a,. >*. c. c r . cl, ;. ' v.,,, i,, ~,: a. J. . ;. i, u . s.

,

*n..~,g;< q a e.. r. :.. q....

.,7 :

u.

*.

a.\\. s - n v,.. :, ;y 8. ~ :..;.. u .s ~ m v.,, L, l.,.. u ;c ',,. 4 d '. 5 ;,,.,._,. _a. 4 + i

l'f,4'.,1,"iJl'i(: -

,.' ' 4 ? - J\\)1 under an erroneous interiretation of the leak rate technkal speci6cadons. 4...y,*,;l When this improper inscrpretadon was discovered by an NRC Inspecta in i f. ?, y. Y.+ 1.... r,. ; s.. October 1978, the Lkensee took inadequale corrective acdons to instruct

• T.l.,p. ',.7 "..G,. ig,.'7* ;..

?' penonnel on proper leak rate surveillance testing pracdces. Second, the Board ., 4 4 6,;! b 7 s 7... : =l f und that there was a neariy unanimous lack of con 6dence in the computer. ' M w.*,I'Q' + M,'+ ' !. n. i i cakulated test results, yet the tests were routinely submitted by Control Room ' !g. ;- 4,. 4 ) G i # '",,3f (1 J"' Operators (CRos) and approved by Shift Foremen exhibiting "remarkably ).y.Wf. 'V',. ' j' '-l,, y /.I unpiofessional" conduct. While operators felt a general sense of gressure to ) S. Ab, keep the plant on line, they did not feel that adverse rdone would be taken v!4.y.g.;.7g X @'7.), 7. .,.'~'(.y ',',t' ,. N. w against them if they failed to obtain "good" test results. Third, the Board 7? found that 50% or rnure of the tests were discarded, with the knowledge of l ,[., ~. 7 ]*. l, ; ", -[ U the CROs, Shift Itrernen, Shift Supervisors, Supervisor of Operations, and .,. _ ~ af c.,.. ,..f*: 't, Superintendent of Technical Sumort.1 In addition, the Board found that many 1 c.,, '. 1, f,,' ' " D'... ?

• .j ;

operaton manipulated tests er falsi6ed test results, that Shift Supeevisas who 9 '>,'f*.. Jj did not personally participate in the tests were guilty of "culpable neglect" in

~

7* . :i,.,g. ,,t ' s falling to ensure that the performance of leak rate surveillance tests followed { i i 7 3,.'! N M appikable technical speci6cador,s arki administrative procedures, and that the j , q, ' 1 ".,,,',. - ) 7 % [l. Supervisor of Operatione for Unit 2, James R. Floyd, knew about the dif6cuides i .,],7,"l the operators were having with the Icak rate surveillance tests and was also guilty e . L. ',. ..,$g,, ld of culpable neglect. Finally, the Board found that three other members of TMI 2 ., - (,. '. ,t ,,. J l managernent were also guilty of culpable neglect.8 i y 3 v.,{ After the issuance of that Recommended Decision, the NRC Staff, as / f.".f.,'l. j instructed by the Commission in CLI.8519, forwarded to the Commission its s. O f,} [y Wg recommendadons as to what action, if any, should be taken, including "whether , J,.. j. ag,

• m' the Commission should remove 'he condition imposed in the TMI.1 restart

/. J ; ,, ('-, proceeding barnng certain individuals from certain positions at TMI.l." 22 NRC i t e' at 883. In sum, the NRC Staff recommended that no further enforcement action o ~,.c ' l 'e { ', :.s be taken against the facility Licensee ce the thirty.6ve individuals formerly l C u-j at TMI.2 regarding leak rate surveillance testing irregularides at that facility. s ,4q(1',c~rj The Staff also recommended that the condition irnposed in the TMid restart i >.(] proceeding should be lified as to all individuals except the preoccident TMI.2 f *. ,",.s ',.i Supervisor of Operauons, about whom current questions as to suitability for licensed activities remained, and those individuals emplopd in the TMI.2 Site y i. ? Operations Department as of July 9,1987, about whom allegadons of sleeping 1 ? while on duty at TMI.2 had recendy been raised. [,1 ') The Commission has reviewed the Presiding Board's Recomtnended Decision + , '. ' J. 'l ^' '. ',..u..J.*'. and the reemd before the Board. Based on that review, we conclude that the + l Presiding Board's 6ndings are supported by the record. We have also considered 4 r, (* ' y \\ .- - s* *. i i .i.' ~ .- *- n af TestmanA sggers ress Jeewy 1977 wel *e ammees et Tn6-3. Das menness mean te on se,esummiese of Tessousal sggers rose leneary 1977 wa=1 Desumine 197s. . '/ ' I The*, _. er Uma 3 and han s<pese===seus at Teemmel sgyset nreved to in esas 1.s pes 337 ,a j n g C.'. \\ ss g 4 g y ~ e .d [ ~

d, a.,.2.?, h.. D Q $M,Q Ji.'.$ Q j Q W % j,Y \\. Y~h: v. m. m $ h ~ 1.h H. w w, WAs It h p,.e % w 4 @s; m43 vnw ,m..c M w n q9 TA$.7(;bk' M k h %.u p@+4.c r. h .lNY S. F.,. 8 Mx.A-

s,ytv.O '*).A.,,%;t. y sp.

n w ,C ,t u - ;y m w...., a.,g ~p,.p/. s. -.6 . e e t,. 2 ng,. w *,..m.,,..vp, q. w- ., s. ,,%p@v f.. Q..r,i C.$., e, m e a.. .p 'A L't.O e n' L. NMk.<.v..,k'.h the Staff's recompnandarias and have determined, for the following rusons, i r p s ...e.. 'a that the TMI.1 restart condition *haiM be rescinded to remove the condition for ,#,@M pj..Yjf*6 individuais om, man me prosecem m.2 supervisor of Opersions. pMOM*).%@..y$'%,g.6~.;htlj(y.g The Board indings indicate that vi tusily all Operations Department person. i (S t N d M. @Qa*je N !5://,M nel worked under an erronens interpretation of me leek mie technical specia- { 4c.iMg 7J:GNr - cados and most af the personnel had some degree of culpability regarding leak e M Q *' M* f We'f-Theh yh'M@7$.'jM rate surveillance testing irregularities or falsiacation. The performance of ten rYl,'d(L preoccident indivWals employed as licensed operators in 1985, as documented l .d 1 N.x, a M *@.gW;1 in the April 1,1986 Staff report to the Commission, appears to demonstrate d ,.g w f..C *).M > '(,e ',lp'3 3 T,. ** *4.s. c..,y' met mey now can he mised upon io conform wim pacedural and reguisory i 2 C .;.. The currem performance of the remaining twenty.8ve individu. - l fg ^, "[/,5 '.h .d,,'.' E*['\\,$.*J[. I L*;,Y*[. '

• s' als, twenty four of whom were not licensed a the time of me joim O!/NRR

, J.Y,l N..- L' ;[.N. N.,'5*l. 4, ,,i. investigation, has not been evaluated in the same detail, or in some cases, at ct ?eq .?- 1, ', f '* ' ' ' i. * ~ all.: However, there are other considerations that justify lifting the M.1 restart condition a this time on allindividuals escept the preaccidem M 2 Supervisor 1 %q-('O ?. !$. v,.%g c*",;'g,3; *g of Operations, 8 c, 'p. p@,.),,'?e'<,t:2r,n,Q,'.D. driven home for those involved at M. Improvements since the M 2 accident ,2 The impstance of the leak rate surved!!ance testing issue has certainly been .I D(,'dy,5N,Dh,,0 'f'.s " a

• • O in the measurement procedures, todutiques, calculational methods, and a clear

.I*h',Y,N.W.Y.M*h13*$* understanding of the tedmical speclAeneinn requirements establish a signi6cantly - - $ ',I';f / D U N U M M.,J improved basis fa correctly performing this routine task. OPU Nuclear has-E,' '[%;.,';,g.N 'e~.7, p,,*v,- t ' NK' W..n. f g made signiacant and substantial changes in management and operating practices $p,M.p:h.gA',Q, since the accident u TMI.2 which are renected in high SALP evaluations. d N [ S ~ j '/d Additionally, all individuals to be used in a licensed @crator position would be j[, g %j,t j 4

• g. d [* ' '*,, Q f

subject to the normal licensing process required by the NRC regulations, Q:3: ^ Apart from the record of this proceedtng, the Staff proposes to continue .,5,M g ;',,D. M,, the restrierlon on s.@ymsat for individuals who were a part of the TMI.2 . (.l p i. p,y.w o?N.f .t.. Operations Department on July 9,19'f/, on the basis of more recem allegations j[e%g,#8%9 O of sleeping on duty at TMI 2. The Commission believes that a decision whether f,/..;;:M-Q*ch.$[.'?q,','[.P V [ G" to lift the TMI 1 restart condition should be made without regard to the ongoing

r,*

investigation of new allegations unrelated to leak rate testing. Tb continue the >,ff,';E.,5,L[' M;;tyy,.';; /.M'.y//,,

• h';

license restriction for matters the did not form its basis works an unfairness o ' V: 9N,'

• U.

against these lndividuals, particularly since the Staff has ample enforcement

• e 4 O, N
• L'.. / ".....,

authority to obtain additional information or to potect the public health and j i i @,, ' ',f J., p. C,>.' ' O ' 2,' f,.. safety if the evidence warrants such action See, e.g.,10 C.F.R. ll2.202 and

..' e A 'g,

30.54(f). e a_ em,.. s..vlm;..;;, g 3.s +,r. ^~, :.. ' l ....e.,- ...o r.. %,s'i. ~ *y' ; p =, y,3 y s^;- s nnse.s Inn,dah ese aswa w as DA4 samen omene k I w huse oman seen emus pi ame s t J. - ' q.;..,4,r *;.J. g ;....' 'Ml; p a Da4. The Base numanar saammend mum W *e near-sve einvenh, mahdas swes merv**'s =6e s =.. P G e - see assess d en pas cena o.se o,

• p., 1 <.y -. n.. y* 3.,g. y 4.,, W, g.,'

me, e g .e.enh um sses6 or en amesens tammy ma. ne sierr<=adened seem ma l an eussed, mapi, d w himme a w.amem torU hamu . c,. and me w sneen enkseem sessa ce No saae e.sen ha sem inna d e ewies p f man W j ..,, " y.. g;e..,' .. j.. ensumamme me'd ah

• .,,,i.*
• mi 3,

t ,9 ^- b es e a .J " q { ', n..., t n. g s,- y ~. 'g e. " ~ a, .. p.,.o \\ i

4. e,..

,y } e- .,,%,n s ~ n ~' '1 e' q % s j' ',._f. .t-t

---

.-.,,.+.r r

8.I j s ', s .t (, - y? ,e s ",.9 RS ;8 w n. s ,.\\ s 9 .he. #' i 4 ,g, ', '\\, j',s e ,,e? I i g 's ,?* sg; .a. ~,#. ', + ,;g -6'. l g ~0 3 j. g a

.,.,. m.,.y.,,...,..,.,',w. T, .o ,,.,,, ; y.c.,,j., n. s,. ) l ;.;.' ' %.. 9 ', f. ; ,'.* f.?.,., ,y,.

s

~ ( .. u,?a w, "c. L;*...,,'.z..'. <.. m.. ..i ~, "., <

, j.,.y y,

..e ,,n-

.1.

s- .e. ..m.., ,',, ; '.:.:.,: -l Q 1, v, r ... i.. 1. ' 'd t.', f i' '. ',E, As for Mr. Floyd, the Presiding Board concluded that he bre greater ~

,7.f.

j.*,. / responsibility for what went wrong with leak rate surveillance tasts at TMI-e'y a. n ;,.,;. 4 2 than any other single individual. Furthermore, the Board found that Mr. Moyd %l-f,.Q., ',,, - was not fully forthcoming and candid before the Board and noted many mnnicu ' f, .. c. i l} *- ' {. ', - } '7 'i/I. s between Mr. Moyd's testimony and the evidence in the record. hkreover, g ?. '.. Q i.. 1 '.7, ; ',[(a 4 f Mr. Moyd has been convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle. Sistrict I .! !' p ir, a.',C f h..; 4. cl 4 4,, of Pennsylvania for mhking enaterial false statements. As noted in the Staff's . *l { a, r,. [p.ja: $,,,,,.?..a 4;1,; recommendadons, all of this reasonably calls into question Mr. Moyd'r pesent J.,..7 * ' E *, ^ 'i n// suitability for duty in connection with NRC licensed activities "Ih in the .g., V,. -( p,. ?[,f.,; 'f, 3 .'i. case of Mr. Moyd, the Commission does not and suf6cient reason to asmove ., ' V,,,3 lt. the TMId restart condidon. tb, Moyd does not currently hold a ptsitto at a ,'l'I licensed facility. We need not reach today the quesdon of whether Mr. Moyd

• V' ~['

, j,',1;. J 'i., should be prohibited frorn a management or "operadonal position" at am other .,.,~.....,g licensed facility. 'f.n t.....,, ; Olven the time that has passed and the fact that the leak rate surve.llance C.. p, ;.'. ', * - h.,. .g q' testing irregularities directly Sowed from management sho 1 comings in tunining ~ and procedures, there is no clear reason to condnue the restriction in restart J,e ' ' $ ' '.' j condition No. I for all individuals except for the preaccident TMI 2 Suprvisor .g ; -7,, of Operadons, Jaines R. Floyd. Accordingly, the Commission has deci'ed to lift the TMI.1 restart condition as it applies to all those except James R. rioyd, T and to revise TMI l restart condition No.1 in CLI 85 2,21 NRC at 341 '.2, to 4 s,. - 9 reed: s The ;-- - ^ ThC.2 Sepomear of Opersoons. James R. Playd, ehen aca to emplopsh r. - 7. 1 ThG.I in a. " ananageman or operadonal pesamen wuhan speciae NRC appro+.

• <~1
• Operussonal Positi# no esed here incindes miy posinon involvet kaual 9ereika d de pimu es drecuan or s,ervie on et gerenome, or ' ', " oversisk d opersoons.

i IT IS SO ORDERED. .y .'1 For the Commission 4 1' -j .e ' f SAMUE1. J. CHII.K 1 n,', Secteury of the Commission e qq ' '. '.., i De'ed at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 1984. ,s, . 4 ,,l ? e t i

• C- -- -- caer ses oss psume far un emanaam er une code. y he had hun psume he mad hm j

3, oprwwed IL \\ 339 i \\ J-. l s, s

• J e

i W

L ' $ $ & W &nX % *f,h h kT.#.2h'h N,"p h hh N hkf N &,hhl 0h Rn%Qhk%W6ME %(WW W.AS( W W T

1. OWW 8

'n #.s y;.m f.gW.,'.s h '.s '.y.4 4.f+. W *N. f.eV.% mpd w ';*H 'f rb y s,. % J %. @. y e t 4~ a'i.$y t. .fM., u. M~ t' .Y fOON: gs4.,, %s'&)s t W,4 *s^.m.. '* ;q),;.* +C.? M. AM* IMP (Nei,.W4*.C,b~. s.9 p t * ** ?.*N $'i %, pC.2 .' y,.? .m.. A,5 ' aV c.< [*.Y,?...Q Q Qse >4 Qq

• . lsj;;f****4q

,.>e-b fe .Q; h <s. YY.. > h.?* t hrh,F,:cf,%..,s.. -Q,?m$k..h. ,. 4 R g f, f-e&&..*%.. ,k,%Wh, *;'...,?. ,.,f.' %.s.ws.%* W W *L. Q.m. r- =. q + t6. r, h. w- -. w. .. g r s . 7 $..,*,. * %.. e

• M.. U.,.%. p o

.r. I. s,.. a,..e. -. :.. e.. ce w.,.*,2..L,w'., v,y- =1 4, p oes,. ..u .a., %e os v, v. w,os my > w.M. m v p;. s., J,f,,W;,S*,!,M,".N.".,~ k,V.>.'Q J o. .vc a [<w. a..m, ..r .a.. W., ~...< a.. q t ;, ' *.,' v.*O.,..s.,* a ; L e 3.,P, y.a....., A.. w. .,.,.,.,,,r..c.. 5,.- m.., .,., c.. c... u,.......r....p.~

s...f.;, y*.* : :..... *.,, '

s,,+- j t.... m, -..+.e,c,. ,,

• 4. s m-4-

*,o ?. Q ;..e ,1 .. e /. ,n% m .; w.

e. e,e,.

q. s.: + e'.c, s gp h (1, e 7, N.,.= c.9 *g MJ g** ** .W ym. * $.,Yi " 7.' E.** I*, e -e O.et<, w* 'shI* 2 b. E'$ h',g,.. d.;*vi%.' 8 7.e OG $ s -.c.~ .~ ,<.m lW. ,},n*V ;..q.s R t. 4,. ~ ,e J'.'.,**. y T.,. ye < .e ...4< ,.pp....n. S *sg. g..e s..g g,e. 'a 4.-. ,',*,'.9 h r

• '.* **. t s. ' s', e. A - '
• 'e.. t .

ts. ,4s.... q,,.. -N'. 6 p gg,. .,;. +,1 ; 9 *; H

• :.,, *., ~r *..6*
  • • • e
• / f,

I. a eN.. 1 o, .1, y y .. <.)'. .g 44

• . s...,.....,e. w. x... p,. i
• i, ; ' ' **'* g.s s

'. - [,-

• j t s-e gl'apg4 a,

O 3 ,4^* , d,,,.

• p *

',a='.**<4,h.'*. '4,7

r e

, L,, <. M..., I.,,*,i, ?,g. -,4 h *0.i.T... f",.., Ok , [, g. ~,%g ...K.,,,g,,*.,_,.j* me. 4 g gJ re j r ..h 7**, 8 A. t**.1,*4 .a / >..',q'y ", i, +,.:

f *., *

• h *,*.., *. 'b'f.' " * ; c,

4..,.q g.,,.. Q, *..u,,. ?....?. :.. * *.' $. , e e". ,s-6

• .. e

.*O,... v. .A g-e ,e. .'.i..<. . e. s.,. ' -9 e. -., .y.).,..T'y"el. g 4 ,.*m. , er. k. k .v ,.*,'e -'e s*

• t l'

,..#4 ' i. Ig.'.'s..4.',.. t . ' =....-e.'

• y.,

,. 4 6 ' 6 .. 3.*,s e .M. Pe * - e .... 1.....*',.d. ., t .* g 3. ) * *, $., t o.

• 7...

b .w'.. ,y. ..i *, ..g,.'.T ',,,'.

4. C.*' r'. 8-

.;../ 6 ,e <. r ** $ * .[.4 % 4. ',... #. * * /e *,\\,,. ' +, 6

• • r p..,.e'..b.

"4 g , 3.,.c6,.'.. 4 .s' g 6 's'. di s-

• %,',.y p

s be 4 r.i.*, -.,, ' s..- r. w P g + a g es a'- .O J.*,, =. .), g [h ', f, ['- . - a. ,L '- e N.,,,. .4.1 s k I * * . ye ..q .% e4 ^' .\\' --c.

• c.

e,,- 2 .s. s e 's a 1 , q 'b y 9 4 y e '( 'y e j ...' 7

• a t.

.t w ,s i, s, r -,. . s i. A \\ 5 e. F s e' .e g. o e ?- 4y. *i. ,\\ v. ',r ,.f , - g. . i - 3 e,..,., s y, .,d*' is..... --.,_ g ' C. '~*.,4 s \\ ^* , a-s s

• ,, J %. ',...~.tq.

s. s, r r t

8 w* d. ni ,e ?"** ,s.c , 4'i 4 i-w ',; :, F :.. si 1 '. .s.~.'. ..u..s.e ., u. s a.. s g. g ae. ?....:.. :.~. ;. 7].).? Atomic Safety and

p.,

Licensing Appeal ~ ~. 1. '>......: Boards issuances i i i ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL PANEL r w' A).n s. me nthei. ca.irman

• '-{>

Dr. W. Reed Johnson h.. Twom.. s. Moor. 's Christee N. KoN Howard A. Wdber i o a, m g t t -) i k. <C ,. ~. 9 + g 4 4 c g a O E e 4. i 4, 4 6' 4-e m 4 O-l e 4

(. r~ .--n, . ' *7 ,,'....;ly,: -

• g.Y'

'.' Y ',.A'..., ^'. .'r

• ?.. ' -,;,

,; ~ 3: .a. ?;,,, - ,3;, :y,t. k. a : y :j'. b. .,. a ..?. ..c. .. ~ - - <.y u ,,c..- ',s r,. v .,.7..." g *',.. r,..g 7.,, 3 e e. p. .. q, ;.,. (. .c ,v....s _a 4 t ~ I ej s 1 1 Cte as 27 NRC 341 (1988) ALAB-801 1 3 g, -,J <.

?..

.t :/.. n ...s UNITED STATES OF AMERICt. . '., '.c .s*,. , 'r.l y,,.., )- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . s, 4 'e. ,,f.... j. ,:.,,. -..... +, ..'., > ~:,,J *, ;*. ? j.,',,~*?. ;.r.;/..* . v. >. w... l, ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL. 80ARD 4 .... c.4,,... ...,y 4,m. tQ'osj.,4,(.l' '.

• .g ee #.' P J 'Y}

Adminletrative Judges: o r r., -* e. -,,..e.. j. ~ C.,* Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman a Howard A.Wilber ,.,:...... c,: ,t... ..a .v ...' '. F. C;.'e'g,* % , 't t 3 1.. ",,.', i,"', In the Matter of Docket Nos so 443 OL.1

• 4...

so.444 0L.1 ) a (Onsite Emergency Planning I~ '. '. ' * = ',...,., ' ',... j and Safety le. sues) =- .m I a, PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF '. ', e NEW HAMPSHIRE, of al. (Seabrook Station, Unita 1 1 ~ , '. N., and 2) April 25,1988 1 c. t, The Appeal Board reverses a Licensing Board partial initial decision, LBP. .. 'c e.

• 8710, 25 NRC 177 (1987), to the extent that it found the environmental

~ qua116 cation of a coaxial cable used for data transmission in the Seabrook i* 9L /,, e' f.iIcility's computer system had been estaNished. That issue is remanded to the l s Licensing Board for further evidentiary exploration and decision. . ~'. ' OPERATING LICENSES: Al' PLICATION FOR LICENSE (FSAR) s . N A Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is prepared by or on behalf of > - 'a" y, i i.! the applicant (s) for an operating license, must be submitted to the Commission }.', i,' ss part ol' the license application, See 10 C.F.R. 50,34(b). It does not, however. ' ' '.j automatically become part of the record of any adjudkatory proceeding on that ( 'e 1 + ', '. 3, application. e, c s i+. .Ns 'O A. q a g 4 9 f '. e ,,s. t 4' 7.L' 341 , n. 8 'f I-g. "v '88 ,s* s e s,- g 6 a ~f y s ^ 1 9 e l s 6 e e b .I 4. s 9 9 g'

', 99:W>p Wf u.h N b:".3 e$c %. M.*h'd. MIN M@u.Q ,. ] WWg d%.t.,dk,[N$ y. f e m,h,& &v.fi)g@.o.MMW 4Wl5%%a$tn. + N.~ vs :. M WW . m"' #. W&*L. 4pM QW pA y f i. 1.* N 2.#.Q6;a. w.7 %.V bj ?. 4~,,, gy 4. <y> d; l : rr' ' M.%p,.. ;. %. W ..-.tC..M s, m _ s 7 u1 o. r.;%y,( e yin .s h. m+t. v,:n.,4 Y',* . w %) ~;; ;. y., %;. w# ... i T.m. e/

• 4 4

.n ?,

w

.m.e ,s. e. w -*4 Q: q.1 W. p. A;l'.

.N:p' #

,s. m s. y s / p.D p {** n.,. rijx.) o.* s e %s n p '? &g,R:l%,.9*e;R Q :.% *Q 'S i c' 6.e APPEARANCES T;Q (:/Q,-p,y.[.,; W 5: ~,s. .h'/ ' p&. N v.- Desa R. Toualey, Washington, D.C., for the intervenor New England Coalidon . O J..k 1. 3. V.,.,.si ;:,* on Nuclear Polludon. w%e.A. 0 s. +,, i.*27/gNF.'8'*?.j.,g.;#,.g.i wj

• . M 9;N Thoasas G. Dignan, Jr., and Deborah S. Steenland, Boston, Massachusetts, S M l.P)$ OT $,4.9[t for the applicants Public Scrylce Company of New Hampshire, rt al.

MtM:q On:: N.' q Y %.f gn e:.fi..N.: v..j '. W, y. D.U*TIl Gregory Alan Berry for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. 4 3,.., M .; i ...a W.'.&.~. 9.,".D. 3 @.q;y..,.y

,. a, y;x f..o

.., i,

,,f,.,.. ,. 4 y.!<.,g /d MEMORANDUM AND ORDER %. %; <, u. ',V..;,, m, f... h... w.: n,,..*,. ,v,o.~ 2 v d.s - v, 1. ...' f p,. 4,.* 9 q, Rr a third time, we are confronted with a challenge to the 1.icensing Board's % f'3,S'6 %, g y.. Q,%' d.t$ treatment of the issue of the environmental quell 6 cation of the RO58 coaxial ca. M y. FiS.M*(,'@j?,j+'.'g*i'[Ny': d* W d!M ble used for data transmission in the Seabrook nuclear pour facility's computer systern. Rr a third time, we conclude that that treatment did not appropriately Digs l N *fd1 dispose of the maner. Itr a third time, therefore, we are constrained to return 9.lh; Q@M.' 4 A. -jl.r:, c M.<y the issue to the Licensing Board for further consideradon. QQl' A-h Q,O,*ihN@$') A.l. We orst summarize the tortuous evolution of the RO58 cable issue in f r,@5 [ :f,C@MQ~i.),i s 4 O.j \\ G this proceedmg 'The issue had its genesis in Contenuon I.B.2 of the intervenct

d

,k M Q. ? ri.g( 'icp?.JM.W9]7.?;.4 Q. New England Coalition cm Nuclear Podution (Coalidon), which asserted that w: l'? ,Ja. ' the applicants had not sads6ed General Design Criterion (ODC) 4 in Appendix ,,,e.,3 . _ %. 9, b /. A to 10 C.P.R. Part 50. ODC 4 requires that ,.r... s..

f. f.h3. ?f.'.M,..'. ".. - f.y Is)weceres, eysemas, and comipmeses knemas to netwy shall be e.isned a u s.

..s ~ $ g'.*- W. f l* Q c A. [ y' d.T.c

• • drasuhad to be a r='% *ish du armen= mal caedaa s**cdmat ** amal

.. W. .h. ,r r.A,.,. ; p r. ;g ; y;,f..c.g..,r.,;,, cretudst, anaseenance, teenne, and posadasal econdues, kcloding loseh. lass ecddwes. .e 4, f,' f.y,....,..,.,,..,. Q., i As litigated, the contendon focused upon the capability of electrical equip. ri N. : 3; {(- ,,;,;.;'..i. g..- ment subject to ODC 4, incitdng RO58 coaxial cable, to continue to perform ,.;. C

• p},

its insended function for such period afia an accident as might be necessary - .. ' ',.: / . '.Y. ~. 3. ~f. J.* i.e., whether the equipnent is "environmentally quali6ed." , y., ; ', 1 y. j* ,i' $.f *l, 'The Canmission's reguladons identify se veral permissible methods fcr dem- , E.,;QE'.*/'J'4 4 ',%'@'O.y/ i 4T onstrating that an electrical component is environrnentally quall6ed.$ In the ' f,ih' ; ;:;/,- ) G' ' case of RO58 coaxial cable supplied by international Telephone and Telegraph ~ 'M.!? .j. ' b ~q Corporation (UT), the applicants rhose the methnd of"[tjesting a similar item ry. i ,, 7 ',, ,'s g; 3 J y y*'j.'iy,'4..; 4 of equipment with a styponing ar.alysis to show that the equipment to bc t,C .. -(.L 4. quali6ed is acceptabic."8 Speci6cally, the applicanu relied upon the resulu of

.w p

n 3

4. .),'. q}, p y &,.. f ;3. gp e, 4 - ty ;j Isee 10 CJ a. s44hrt c-d I g M L.- y.; e,. 3.. -( t 4 'M;9'f. t. A,'..r,.", I s ', k, h , s, I e CJ a. s44Nrr2k l 'h

• . e. '.

e, l-

• J.

4 .V'. , 5.. v ' . .,,, (y,e,, >. A ~, '..' y 3.*,*'.",** M f -.3 t. s

• • s

,g .g ye. . ~ 'lf [. y ",,.4,.,'y 1 \\ Qw

n

,3,..' s r,y,. -., < 3 s. f_ ~ s. ? e +. 4*.t, e ,0. s c ;,,,.

m. : '

s .? t. _ (3t 3, v.4 s ',.,,, ~ ,t. a ? ? l:fl,. z }.'{ { N. l 'v. t T ' ,~ ~

y, [, , {

• : " f, Q/.,]g /

I T /.. 4 c,.< i q n, r. . p.g. ;. V,. ' c a + .. a.', v. c 8 f y c l .. ~.

• /

p'e - tests performed on ITT RO59 coatial cable to demonstrate the environmental quali6 cation of the RO58 cable. Those tests, described in a particular equipment >s

• N quall6 cation ale (EQF) prepared for the applicants, ircluded measurernent of

. '.,f e & both (1) the insulation resistance of a cable specimen during its expcsure to '*/ [ A:./ */ 'i. A an adverse environment (insulation resistance test); and (2) the leakage cunent ..-,1,.

• C,,-

during the aplicadon of a high alternating cunent voltage to the cable following

• )

/ its exposure to an adverse cuvironment (high-potential test).8

• (.,,, ' ' A s,',, [.. ' '. F.

On March 25, 1987, the Licertsing Board issued a partial initial decision ,,, ' " (, r y in which it authorned the issuance of a license for low power operation (up to 6ve percent of rated power) for Unit 1 of the Seabrook facility subject ~ , *:', *7/,> to certain conditions.* In that decisicn, the Board found, later alia. that the J _ !. b-justification for environmental quali6 cation of the RO58 cable by comparison . W., ,.'.s I,*., [,

i with the tested RO59 cable w2s adequately documented in the amlicants' EQF,s

v. ;,I.

f..~ The only speciac evidentiary basis provided by the Board for its $nding that the 1i 3 RO58 and RO59 cables possessed the requisite similarity, however, was a letter J ' ' , - l

• V....,*

s i*,d contained in that EQF from the cable vendor to Seabrook's architect engineer t,,., , I and constructor.* -l 1 ,s. On its appeal from the Licensing Board's March 25 decision, the Coalition challenged the Board's determination that there had been an adequate demon-I stration of the environmental quali6 cation of RO58 cable. In an October I de- '~ cision, we agrea$ with the Coalition that the lettet referenced by the Licensing Board was insufacient to establish t% environmental quali$ cation of the RO58 cable.' In that letter, the cable vendor st simply that the RO58 atxt RO59 cables have "similar construction details" and that it was "con 6 dent" that the ~ RO58 cable "would have been appoved" had it been tested.' On the face of it, this terse statement ameared dif$ cult to square with the fact that the RO59 cable insulation is 50 percent thicker than the RO58 cable insulation.' That con-sideration led us to return the matter to the Licensing Board with instructions to point to additional support in the existing record for its anding that the RO58 j cable is environmentally quali$ed or, failing that, to take further evidence on the issue.5* i. 8 see C tom's rmes 4, Swai e,us %m.ee ru. m 115.l**. aer e 2. %w.e. Tema ed AweJ C wee a e smas,e4 steere.tmared and tme<drooLas Aaw a fac. -1 t(n t ,f : Der IAnnam RG1LAs and RG5tN Cental C4Wm. .a I 'see tap r? 10,23 NaC 177. 8k m 211. 'M m 214 see Nh's E dant 4, Rarerence 4. l.aise fase 3eal T. sM9. ffT, is onrege Erris, Vaned fp emen a C omneue,ge % 11,isrs> a* see ALAB rTS,24 NRC 2st,26S71(1sr7) 'M. astermse 1. Usand Essimaes a Cesawn spankeoen ice spondy C.We. specAr4e.m M 9765 ' Cr*Lom's inant 4. Retenr.es 4. -),. 3611519. Aste&a A m Al Al l' ALAS.r?s. :4 ssC m 27L .-g ~ 343 + .,,t k g P b i g e 9 j +

QS$*Dh;@' m "Np..,. ;,.3 4.6;;.1.gf 4W.a;..w,,J',';M'Mr%' eq] W M. <. ' %... - u.,.3'.. a N w % w @3 p % M,y' N.. h.M g,. W(. ...i, 9 M. %dhZtNhh t3 f wMu$Wv$F%[AN@MM~45M '! @h=, $~ffb r" ' hnw:enn : w /- i ,.3%,w. <.nvJ,*%.wM yWon .+e.m, dyj

q

,qI r,, (1,6' Q.a.,w, N :w?: y,4,g q.

• H*:si s %.

1. ne; M

.,A. a0 : i (N/ M/,7.k.y.~e.L,. ip. d On October 16, the Liceruing Board issued a memorandum in which it 4,.:.Jc.f.;[?,d!&r?..j .hM. advised us that, in tu judgment, there was no need to supplement the recmi.D

yd/.

qJ,q. C;.h; *M,U.' 7. K d '.4.*.9 This was so, we were told, because the EQF demonstrated that the dimensional n,WX f 'Q% *.'.%i(3,# !.differences betwen the RO58 and RO59 canes are of such little importance [P V.-2 3..Ja.*g'*MQ)*[(,Q f that the test results for the RO59 cable could serve to qualify tne untested RO58 YA'? *Q cable. Nr that emelusion, the Board relkd on two separate pieces of information F,.;g,-h'ge.f; Q.%/ that had not previously been discussed by it. The first disclosure was to the effect - f f,('i. K j 'e*y,' M[ f-M :?.< Jthat the speel8ed operating requirernent for the insuladon resistance of the RO58 c/r! @$ f.3'g'!y[g2.'[,"M M.*;4.,,p:,.,.S that "the predicted performance of tne smaller RO58 cable under conditions of cable is nowr than that for the RO59 cane.u The Board consequently believed <.y * ,' V,,/ f*6 I[ '*; h ' Q l % erivironmental qualinmim testir's would be proportional to the lour required .c w J F..e. h..y.(.Vy y.y.(R., operating resistance of lu insuladon."U Second, the high.potendal test of the 4r s. p % %,,f,:c '.' o.U.. L.. d.NMdh'.a h... u r. . ",J, RO59 cable (wherein the magnitude of the voltage applied to that cable was ..' bjk).. based on iu insulation thickness) yielded satisfactory resulu.t* As the Board

'6

%,O W:.ty.Q,

g.. y.r.g o

e t'....v < r... f. a,- saw it, had the RO58 cable undergone a like test, similar results would have ysWs

• w g.gsi,gs.u.

f M ' N' D'M !**. f.d. @:ffJ been obtained." ia , *s e

• In commendng on the Licensing Board's October 16 rnemorandum, the W*[y J*f,'ig,.;$. QC t.A r. 3; U Coalition criticized the Board's theory regarding the propcrtionality of irtsulation M *,6 Tf,,

pQfs resistance requirements and insulation thickness of RO58 and RO59 cable." In [ k'[a['ii..*'$ M $.i,O.$*UM@S.a$MQ;..7l.* ? ' cast substantial doubt upon the validity of the theory." Based on these and 4; this emnection, the Coalition pointed to other information in the EQP that ,,3 Q,D $ c. other concerns, the Coalition maintained that the issue of the environmental -3 $ [U.'g@,$@."2'['.j; g....g;Q7t quali6 cation of the RO58 cable required a further adjudicatory hearing.is S,V') ; 4.0 For their part, the applicants made an endeavcr to support the Licensing

,.,,

• Lj b f y f..g*.': M ;,;Q;.a(M f
• Board's prtportionality theory." Proceeding on an entirely new tack, houver,

[ I;d,3;,~.'M :. '...M ' i @l '.'

.<,- j r,,

y; they unt on to assert that, even if that thecry proved unavailing, the RO58 y d,' cable should be deemed environmentally quali6ed because it serves no function '.'.? MMV h ?? m y .,,n,o - ' %..*; in the mitigation of the consequences of an accident.# Rather, according to the 4.r s.. -1 % a..* I*bt ^* , 'f ' Q :' *4 i m$ *Q(q,..W.. i. ? *5,.j P,*.' ' q: .3 7 ya; ,- 7g;p,s: u 3,, u - - =, es A,, I some conons,16,19e7, evnwmhan >==anha, taura B*ard os*=r p ..:..u :.4 .? le u.mm 4.el m a.

l..,1. **, # ) l ' *.g

• j...,,,

'e '*? ;. -v 13 O see Ch's EaMus 4, Rdesusue 1, sensus i&1.2 m s.4, s 1-* ,[ U tmumeng asned ocader le " - ^r as s. in;,*;* f?., ... %, ', f, ' 4., 14 see Csabeam's EaWus 4, Rdemue : a s. Is.

4. ' ? L

. ; y, #'* g ^. [ * }qL. J g 7e 7 l.Q,,!',?., Usee Lasemag 3.nne onsher le He== enema e s4 le J.,,g sse New fasiand rh en Nudser Pt.'hom's surr4mmmaal " M Regardag Emevoeremal ,. v. s,,'.':.,.h.,.l'y ' .Jen l q=; *E'a. ?ge.), W 2058 Cantal CeWe Senter A l@ u s. uan > 3 ;,1 = '

• . E ;.,,,, s 4ei,m

. i ;Js,, W M a 7. he Combswa eine ynn reek o erw owwere tot die ROS9 eeMe emets as be s-s ' a, 2.0y 4 *,' q.9..*'.,.7 5i 'i * ' *, gnahAnd. M a 4. We h==d be===.ar, mes tussvame's admarme awenen ie sogan ce ruase to admet a new

• g, i;,

s* e 3* f samemann shmasapag he omruummenal quah A,en,s er tan ROM seNa AI A3 M4 27 NRC 74 OtNk g .:.: */. ' J. ; "see Appbsmes' Amr==ss Rasaseme F ~ " Qwahacente d RG 34 Coesal Cows c4e weser 25,19t?) . s.. . w .',1 O 'p.: p rheimeA=. Appl.seses' No =*e 2s Rupese) a 4. Newnhmeag ear eamegs is estent me tummag ./ , ' *. J ' '.* b,y,',.*,'*; S, s p.. *g Deere's 9mmary, one egyammes mated Ses opereeng am. dane ses.amme tabas sen=44 mas tw ammeured as .A

e. *... V, 4

• ....e any ausria re saadme eedsea M as 9.

,1 (' e*p, -y, mg,3 2 s' 5 f*f.,.'..l ~?**** '.' p. . * ' ' ?, :, c;.' '.;.. 344 ,.u .p., ,; y 8, t g %F i,'. Y' P e% I ,.,,.g,'"')-,.#I.'i s ' ' ,b s = ,,,t e- '%.g, 6 ,,, s 'g e ~ t e g g-g g a *' r i. g '1 .?. - Q' ',,b \\* - c. . 3 \\ . w, 9;, C df t t ._ w

, r.. c i t w-4 c. q,j. .~ ~. ,.m. s.,,.... ..,y s . r v'.

.3 9

<s c, i; T,

f.....n..

.... u.o c w -.*: s - 4 l 7, 4 'j - e, .i.

,f 4

.N.,,. e - I applicants, such cable need withstand an adverse erivironment only to the extent 5 7, * ,."-*y._ necessary to ensure that that cable does not compromise the safety function of s., ! I. i' other components.82 Given this claimed fact - said to be established by the .. y - p ' i,,.

• 3 ~

j, ; *, documentation in the EQF of a telephone conversation concerning color-coding ,T* l,*,l.c ! _ e 7, l'. 7 J *, of ejectrical cable used at Seabrook"- the applicants insisted that acceptable .g'e., perfoamance of the RO58 cable should be measured by its ability to avoid a ," w', [.'*. ...'. 'Q. - *'. g. :. *. (@.f4. Catastrophic failure during its exposure to an advene environment.n As the @' * :* 4 '., ' T. ". g,. - *:. ' applicants saw it, the resulu of the high. potential test performed on the RO59 = N. s, ).-.' cable, standing alone, demonstrated that the RO58 cable meets that standard.8*

• *8 $. 4 g 3., '.'.

. i*. Unlike the applicants, the staff expressed disagreement with the 1.icensing 1 1 p. e,;*i, 1:. 1.. s ' f.?j Board's proportionality theory.as Nonetheless, it concurred in the ultimate con. clusion reched by the Board in the October 16 memorandum." In this connec. h.N s Ms :- 'Y e* tion, the staff supplied us with a new af6 davit of Harold Walur, who had served

• ' /,.f.,..(.[,.' *...,'

as a staff wimess on the environmental quali6 cation issue during the hearing that a.**

,. WJ l13,*

y;'4 preceded the partial initial decision. In that af6 davit, Mr. Walker adopted the ) i ve '; y, '

• y applicants' thesis that the RO58 cable performs no accident mitigatjon function 1

(and made a passing reference to the telephone conversation that the applicants + . j' t.] offered in suman of that thesis).8' .,p ',' 2 .[

• f'. r In responding to the submittals of the applicant:, wi the staff, the Coalition

,,e asserted, later alla, that (1) there is no explanatioc h the merncrandum summartztrig the telephone conversation respecting why ecrtain color. coded "+ cables do not serve an accident mitigation function; (2) the memorandum does j not clearly establish that the cables addressed in the telephone convenation + include the RO58 cable; and (3) equal uncertainty exists respecting why, if the 1 C j RO58 cable does not perform a safety function, the EQF speci6es operating insulation resistance requirements for it." y ,t M c thd As we memysea me syytneeses' arpensa, *e dem weesman! W em ROSI eaue is We feelsy's savester eyama ero em sagswed en*4 en seiedot The ROS4 seWe east he omremunemally g,ahsed, twoore, no *e sensa sessesary es eene ses en eeWe out oss dayede se esswely as to prs =ws (as, by seemsg a sne) ese fase parfareem8 tu esfuy fame.

• q see Cemheen's Edabs 4 Redssese 6. Reemed of C----

r-6ese N K. Waseomrd, M Caryassaan, is s . J,, CD. Oremen, thened tapeems a Caswasse, reprod.ased is se Appsees to em epnas, Mr. weede nte alme J', '

• earved as e emme te en syyksess a reemd is omsmenesa!-<
• 2 et aimewel oppsams see h 94

..i", u sse A ybeams' Name-he 2s 8 r-- ei s. s f 3d c '. s a s l4 a s.s. \\

e. 'h, 38ses NaC seafr asspense to bommeneneen et taosumes Seerd and New testand Ca ws-= em Nden:

Pelhassa seguding Is.weemanal M' n of no 38 Caual Cahne (N===== 11, 1947) thmanaher, i siaff's Desember 11 asymmel et s. i. W it : s 4, I'id, Af54s,1s of 14ee&d Weaar et s,4.

1. see New andeed Ceehnse se Nenant Pecunem's Reply is Appi. arse' 8 r-Regesdes L...

= - M' r ad no.5s Cenamel CaWe (Doommesr 10,1987) a 3 s; hT.C@ Rampmee to satr Resoeding

• 3 Isviruanamel M' - et Roos Conual Cette (Desaster 23.1947) et 44.

v6 345 e e a r e,.. \\ c. s 4 o 9 0 4 6 e ---c t.--

p. ),y $.&;,Ej&. %.W:w,Q.dNdhgt.Dh:q, k@&.#..&w.v,hIQ

) '.. c:,'i./ NE8d? it. % : y M v G m e;' e % O. f-l$ y+.h,

e cw& W&n.8 e.M

,.s. h,w.,&z.;Y *,;. rQwN&v:%.%v:s,&,,Qyu%

G d%.pb' 4:.~v "4.sr" "~. .c . r. nim. @A%w-" ~.s t n-L " C %s m.. v.. s@,.4 p." tr....e p *.m. W'" i n ~ ' v "-

• -Q-f" v

o .W a:4 a-"rn -=-

g...

e, L4 : v,.. e n..a,,. s..b.s.1.g. '. e.';g n.Q ;=*f

• .v r

o.

s.., m .w >, 3

..p

,. m

3....J> :... 2,m.

i..

• i i'e, e.r....,a. p... g.. 3;. ;.

~ ....s.... ,..x.. w w. ...n :.%, .s M y,;-;;..t.,:;* %,. y W.'. C,7. p... r'. f.?.. ?,,,. ;,** A!.AB.882 that another remand was in order." For the reasons there set forth, we On consideration of the divergent views of the parties, we concluded in .tte Y 4 ' d,+ .1 p 3* d,p;['[ h t t,'..,',.j."'f, y %

• ?./G k;~- d i agreed with the Coalition and the staff that the I icensing Board's propordonality Y)' 'J*l [#$*"'%;',.* T

C.x theory was Sawed. We further directed that Board to examine in the Srst instance

,;*..;.

M

.". !L j.T.f-the dispute between the parties with regard to whether the evidence established , l.1,[,- N.*5 ':,.

• i',

that the ROS8 cable performed no accident midgadcri funedon, so that, standing i. p %' '... g,.Q.,y. V A.V.7,, '.,; g, f, ' alone, the RO59 cable high potential test results would suface. If the Board W. ' * ; found the record at hand to demonstrale cleariy that the applicants and the staff L.i/p'.,.,$.'..,',%.M.,,.^Q /:, N, 9 : = = #. ' ; ?g have correctly idend8ed the role of the RO58 cable in an accident environment.

• W. p' '*' *

',*,f""I',?. 7 g ' it was to explicate the basis for the anding. Otherwise, there would be a need for ,.,. ", g !y additional evidence on the question whether the RO59 cable test results could J 9,,,:<. d.,3 ~ V r" ',( * - C.t serve as the foundadon for the environmental quali$ cation of the RO58 cable," ' 1 4., y *f 'i '.~, Q 4.g.b.;[.'.?:9.N)4 2, Apparently, the 1.icensing Board saw no need to obtain any further ' 'q development of the views of the parties on the matter remanded to it. For, without a

• , M f,(

.i ;' providing an opportunity for such development (let alone srHiting additional '* g,f,I?.p';,.*c,;j .'.y,,' j; gj <. .,.,... r. submissions), the Board issued a memorandum on March 2.n response to the

• 't. 4,.*,, a 2,*
• A1.AB 882 remand. We are told that u

...e..,. ,m.,., e a .....';"y...,,, ," w. e ?. ibere is edatuais oddance la h remed, es normi by the App &kmas and NRC Saaff, to show ,;l. / * * - '* O g r;* % ',1 ihas MI envirmsmarsal quahacetka d caWe R0 5e is na regiunt, ihm the bish feasaal d p.* ,shmend wa in all ha is needed to demanatow he C 1,atiscaska, and thes , ' '.,, '.fr ' e, y, ; p.,N l...g,..,.. >; 3 J* ihe secsoseful envirwanessal geahncetxa cd caWe R0 59 ces serve to quaLfy ihe messeemd )-

• y

" M j '- P t RG.5s cane t,y er-p,ium.H + ' ;i ' ' y '.;.r.. J. y,; " c *.

f.... y,,.,

", t ' 7 /' a, - In arriving at this determina*fon, the Board accepted the telephone conversadon, ..." a as rnemcrialized in the EQF, as evidence that the RO58 cable has no accident ( 't j, e.g ',',;.t '.. *, ;- p.. '1 midgation functen." It also alluded to the fact that the Walker af5 davit had ~. .w .a .(. made (albelt without explanadon) a like claim." a.- ,, o. ... {.6, 1 ~ ' t. l c '. Unfortunately, however, the 1.icensing Board failed to illume the foundadon g, ;, l '. for its awarent rejection of several Coalidon arguments that were previously s . ! [. '- ~,' presented to us and very well might have been explicidy renewed before the ~ ' ' L ',' Board had supplemental submissions been allowed. Indeed, there is little, if any, L - 3 1., ' M[ '- g mendon in the Board's March 2 mmv,.i.dum of the Coalition's insistence last .., f f ',.,,, c, r, i Decemter that (1) the foundanon for the crucial representadon in the telephone ..+.'y y'" b ' T ' ',' conversadon (as memortalbed in the EQF) remains unexplained; (2) it is not 2 ? e 'f clear that the representation was intended to include RO58 cable within its ambit; /5 ' * ' and (3) the EQF likely would not have set fonh operating requirements for RO58 y,,,,t,. c. n.. r, e,, 4

• 4
• t 4

P, ie s96 th W h 0&& 14 es 43. h .g, , e.* - MenesenAme to Agual Senad an Iwwwummmial Qiahaseans er casual Caus RG5s (Mansi 1. Ites, ) l ugnsWM (henanAm. Lassmang Scese Mane 2 Me,emenema) et 3.) (emp6eas an enseman , O' e'<' b','.,,*',, .P ,fg es 4 3, s. 2 s m N- ,t,. .,a, 4 /d en s.

• 4 i
• y'

[. g ;

• C.

h.*' gJ t ,* 1 ' g h '

• A,

p. 6 .P-s ,,7

M6 s

• +:

~ ..i... ? 'Y ,, 'l b n l g, g as' ( g g ~ e** 't j e y e v'. y e.,, .s h,.'4 .p i

n.; p, v....,.,; <, :,;. : w a ,; ~, p .c u. J, i .a

...n

. p: . - ~ .m .n,- . r. ... ~. l, q'. 4 t,v < i.., v.. <.. v., r,, .. ~. ,i >.^ .t i .,~. y.. t.. :. ,t < :y. -~ 7 7 lc', j n ;. G ', '.,.. ^ ( ,7 .p ~ ~ .x ; -.. ~ : :-. .,....u. l ,c.t s .. ;, 7, . c.c.. s. . ~. . r; u.. J.,.. ., c, 4 a . m.., ...t..,,.. v. ,i',.' i,*' q g e. '.,..;;,Y

• cable insuladon resistance had that cable been deemed to possess no accident

.N.*,, e ;,;< y 7 .a midgauon function? D,y.',*:. i' ;t

3. In a March 22 submittal invited by us," the Coalition takes excepdon s

5 u.',*,4= b,. 4 4,'F ',#*,O i' .' ? ' *,., @;' \\ ' to the I.lcensing Board's determination in the March 2 issuance." That inser. ,i h E *, *;f c. 447l.*c.*f*....* h e " y . M *. h. M '.,'. / ', venor renews tu insistence that the memorandum documendng the telephone 7f..M.;d 'S'h;j Q'*tt. i, ',f. - convenadon concernir.g color-coding of electrical cables does not provide an .N d, *, '.'. 9 adequate evidendary basis for establishing the erivirternental quellacadon re. w....".#. 9 quiremenu for the RO58 cable. As before, the Coalition queadons the source of ' T!!. d'i s "*Wjlh s.$, 5 the statement in the memorandum that certain color coded electrical cable need i "U '.a,**A-J*.';.Pf..%,,, M 9 only remain intact during and following an accident." Rarther, as the memoran. ' Q h g' h '. d'/,/. T. > dum %es not speci6cally mention RO58 cable or lu purchase order number, s. y/. %.7+5',.a@;; *.>rs :i ' N. i 'A*, the Coalition remains unconvinced that the colm-codang scheme applies to this [Y ',*;.,.' *p", el $y..e. a. 1 9 ; A,f.e, cabie,= Because of ihese and ceer c==ns, ihe comitoon requesu ihu we l W

3 once again remand the maner to the IJcensing Board - this dme with instrue.

.'* p p,,. tions that the record be reopened to verify the environmental quallacadon of the h,/. t,.. ' ' (.*4. #,.1 RO58 cable # p,,.,,.) In a $ ling with us last December, the staff seemingly had endorsed, at least j ,e... 'Ze '.,v f. - .'g. implicidy, the use of the memorandum documeraing the telephone conversa. y, ,,.. ; 1. -.., tion to demonwale that the RO58 cable does not have an accident midgadon ,4.f. e / function, and, thus, need only remain tr,t.m:t in order to be considered environ. i - '~1 f mentally quall6ed," Now, houver, w are told that the memorandurn cannot serve that purpose." Nevertheless, the staff endeavors to support the 1.icens. ing Board's outcorne by pointing to excerpu from the Sentrook Final Safety i }. 3 Analysis Report (F3AR).* According to the staff, these excerpts adequately i a , 3. N + demonstrate (when taken in conjurm.tkri with certain disclosures in the EQF)

j'fl,

? 8 /- that the RO58 cable has no accident mitigaden function but, rather, need only ) ), ,.3 t.', remain intact in the event of an accident.*' This being so, the staff maintains that I / the 1.icensing Board correcdy accepted the applicants' thesis that the results of . q, ..,l m, t g, f

• ',,,f

- l ii 3* see more p, ses. 's

1. see Masus s.190s ever M '

-3 ,u .~,.,p,*.>~ s.' ; et aGss Ceant CeMs [hsmanAsr, Canham's Mase s2 Mammenhank j 8see Noe anelsad r%h= em Nimiser Pu0 stem's s W" Manumenese en *

• Qahsesam

= ' * =, ' ' 'Qs ,, - q

• M g a s,

,t,,, =g g ll

• E a *

"M en s, ~f . (, 'f, ? =

• sar sess's Dummber 1t aanymmen. Afteevis d Hasm&d woher sa 4

'9 's c t y s* elsee Nac sees aw w NECNP t MansemesaenE a M t' " " n er ao.ls s m ' 7 *' Canassi Cable taps 4 s,196s) [besmaeAmr siefro Aps4 s aampmeel m 1. "M et s, 'e 1 he F5Aa. etash a paupesed by or en beelt er to oppinenntel fe en sysseeng a. i hemmm. mua be est-smed w to Commennen es pen er en besse e#,desensa, see is C7 a. sea % a eens = ,4 s,. ass, be=eier -as beespie pen er em susest d any odnese6arp pseseados em mes oprimequat '8ses snefr's Apsd e ampmes a s4 s, *; s. e 9 e .= 341 p" g [, s 6 \\g \\ s 6 g g-8 a e 4

hk 'hb h hh kb; ch lk' k N*5'.k. Yhs:'.h g $ h. h a.* m$ I h L h @ a l @. x, $.I' b @;.?2.%. 4. !7.Edh~, t 6.$y:~ : r. n.4,,...m,: rM. hl,, %m. I

2. N

'1 J x.u. m - a-Q & Q J*,[V.Ls y &.....*.s b,,e.3. < Q2 g g. u. p # u,M:,e W 7 mt <,p;,r m;,...y . n.:p. .6 e, s.y, 9,...e.. ;.;, .r u.- ,7. 6.~ n .* t. ' g *%,,.. s.. ;'s. A the high-potendal test of the R0$9 cable sufBce to establish the environmental ,%l.,g; y

• v.M,e f.hp. -{.*U y

quallocation of the RO58 cable."

• k((.' I,h' 'M.*;%.l',$

Upon receipt of the staff's Sling, w informally inquired of lu counsel

4.,;* 1 :. l'

.,M c respecting whether the relied-upon portions of the FSAA are to be found in the 8 :j.TJ~* * ' ','. '.j..., 'b ' ("C* . {.; ;/y,"j'. -Q ' ' i. g,74 ;y 4?l i.*) >.q. S 7 **d . yd s. J '.[. - existing record. it turns out that, in sign 16 cant measure, they are not.*8 The staff g suggests that, in order to cure this deociency, w reopen the record ourselves . <. J W s*i M lo receive the material in question and to provide "all parties the opportunity to ,(.. y y l* object to the genuineness and the signiacance* of that maserial." ! * *f..t*,y/ g ,.;, e.. (..f.A* # Unlike the staff, the applicants endorse both the 1.icensing Board's March (. I. , U 6.VC.:~ 2 determination and the reasoning underlying it." In particular, the applicants 6'] % [l[. J,y8 )9( l n.')i insist that the memorandum documenting the telephone conversation, in combi. %* W'(V -ll M *P;):l N,V/*; ..b ! * ? nation with other portions of the EQF, demonstrates that the RO$8 cable does 3 3 '. ? L.. R., f,M not peeform an accident niitigation function and, therefore, can be environmen. .y.J.'il Q-la!!y quall6ed on the basis of the acceptable results of the high. potential test on 4, .,, ' ,,... ; p 'g. 4 ',',h j'i.[* ~ ~. '.. the R0$9 cable." Purther, the applicants poirs to the Walker atadavit previously ... u'. ,., G * + ' + + r.* submitted to us as providing additional support fa that thesis.* ..',..?,**...< ' - [,i, 3 *.J Y,.0,.[ B. As w have just seen, at every stage of the consideration of the RO58 {,,p.,. <

• ., y,..,., gg. ;;.s./ *,, j'..4' cable issue, we have been either favored with a new themy a referred to new

..., 's asserted evidence (or both) to justify the Licensing Board's conclusion in its (r

• s. ;

7. a.,,0, < r.

.e partial initial decisicwi that that cable has been shown to be environmentally , Q. 3 9 7,,, ' i quali6ed. In the 6tst instance, the Licensing Board rested that corslusion on , 7,., St;-, x

t. 4,', 'O

.? 4 *.; a leuer written by the cable vendor that had found its way into the EQF. + i '" U *. i[ i,., f When w determined that that leuer us insufEciert to support the conclusion, .9. Q J. c.. f n, the Board produced its proportionality theory. Although endorsing that theory, ^ '- L,,. ("' f 'g (' the applicants also came up with an entirely different theory of its own, f,', l'* based upon another document in the EQF (the memorandum of a telephone .,,i ,. M. conversation). Now acknowledging that this document does not of itself allow ,4

4

,.7,,, ') 2 ( * *' ' the acceptance of the applicants' current proposition that the R058 cable has y y? ~ 5

• no accidert mitigation function and therefore can be deerned environmentally s,

'd. quali6ed on the strength of the RO59 cable high potential test results, the staff 4 t tells us that there is yet another ecurnent - the Seabrook FS AR - that does /,.. - '. ' 'j",,(I provide an adequate fourmisticri fa the proposition. Regrenably, houver, the .t J.,1. - g; *," staff has also been compelled to concede (following our inquiry) that the FSAR p $9 .e

~-

e.; * ** ' 7Y. ~ ~~. .s uer '9

• C

.] [ s.$ M b 34,3 j. am t. $m 5.pd (Ap.) \\4. \\ MS s L

1. ag 1

$ f,,\\ q '.,. + e. a,,6 . s% % n.,,,, a & - g non c w c.w. p,,3 s, s i-- m> non ,j s eg g j, . (., J < t

• u. n niw

,s m . u *. u a .m e 4 , r t ,s'h.']*x.#. /* e.m e e ew m es.n.e win ens hsws sa L mos a.e4 M.am 3 H =ena a s a.s. and.ve ab.d mysm by a. syyks s.s -. 6.t mare.d man feih nn.ess.I e nw. - s. 6. pu d e.s 6 ,y ,,, q.y., i o n y b

• +...

a -si t [ 2 l \\ ( .o g g 9e e y 3.x a

• • =e 4*

}*.

l I

t I l t 9 e N .k t t .n p ....e . q' ;.\\

E? .. '. " ~, ,,. y. U,, ; b, ;- l,.* d.a,.. ' 'g r { O,.

• ,U,

(. I e - y., 9.i .c:.. g<, , x 4 i, :. ' r ', ,s, ' '.y;; '.a ,. l '

y' ; Y..

2.

s. ^s- <~ .a ~" 7 n.. : ,w..,. q. .- i* e , '.. '.,J','? provisions k deems of particular relevance are not curTently includekt in the

• l C -.. ',..

y,,,,. .q evidentiary record. ' ^ t :.Q. There is no good reason why the resoludon of such a reladvely simple and ~ g ' T :."Qg *, g, narrow issue should have taken such a winding path and consumed so much L'. % '.r.,, ,-!,i . f t, j time of the parties and the twc boards. Much of the dif6culty in this regard .. *J.' .., 'i. *. i '. ! might have been avoided had the applicants and the staff reviewed at the outset ',. p. c. 'l 3 $ - and then brought to the fore at one time trulead of piecemeal - all of the ,.'...m d. :

• available manettals of possible relevance to the issue at hand. And k might well is' 7$

have proven helpful had the Licensing Board sought the views of the parties <.',.. 4 iCf.< before acting on the ALAB 882 romand." ,,1*%-(( Be that as k may, our task at this juncture is to deseemine whesher the , eI N ff'h Licensing Board correctly concluded that the evidence now of record adequately ,g, .' W..', -; ';. ; ;f,'c*,QQy establishes that "full environmental quali6 cation of cable RJ 58 is not required"; . 'i,, y.. that the high potential test is "el that is needed to demonstrane its environmental ? 1,q Q # j quallocation"; and that the ROC 9 cable test results suf6ce for this purposesi .j i 'N.f-In common with the Coalitior and the staff, we answer that question in the .? *. '... b,w negative. In addition, we ysee with both of these parties that the resolution .. " J 7. "j of this maner requires the receipt of additional evidence. We decline, however, 'i .C. the staff's invitation to receive ourselves what the staff regards as suf$cient

. ;, v.,

• 1 evidence to suport the claim that the RO59 cable test results carry the day, os c (

1. The brief memorandum of the telephone conversation upon which the t _s "u applicants and the Licensing Board rely is reproduced in full in the Appendix.

• i IYra. It reflects that theet was a discussion betweert employees of the Impell

.j Corporvion (the company retained by the applicants to prepare the EQF at hand) and Unked Engineers & Constiuctors (the Seabrook architect-engineer and con. structor)* respecting the means for identi6 cation of cables required to perform -~'E "a safety function subsequert to accident events." According to the memoran-dum, the Impell representadve was informed that "the different cables" in a ~ purchase ordse identi6ed as "P,0,113 18" and "other cable speciacations" were i colce coded for that identi6 cation purpose. Speci6cally, those cables having an s. Ecidern mitigation function wgee provided an outer jacket of one of four solid colors. if not beanns such an outee jzket (and the EQF indrepe that the jacket for the RO58 cable is muld colceed),# he cable need only remain intact under t v

'\\

, N' * "busader as es ALAa 87: summed u essened, Wee edusamme em enemip ese -" y unmary te ,s 9" . 'i e 14semes asese maale beso animased me pasmas' emakes en as mai6 Had a des es, a sinad he.o ameusessed r,_ y ' 1.y 3 *.9 we bainst et beh to Cankman and.hs aeft een um emwy e sewet 84,,, p g 3 ~

• The "% onnen by 6e napu4 empimpen, erumamely sufme to to ammyesy as 1.hmad Enemmes a
• ,,,,d'*.

Causema,as "Joe Ceebase's hh.nu 4, aereense 1. Arymes A a AI. _A .,,, 4 s 4 e n 343 g g \\ s e 4 f 9 g ) a

',;.M'.m-ff W 9,,$;& b M b. & :.Q'rb,;.\\. &. & i$ % h.);Y.,Q'.i *..?,$ & & % $. 4xm.m.em.;A[,Q,%.,4,x,;(i f I ~ n.. ..J g.?. r. ;,w.-ll. y w m. L 'h,V:.r,*q.: 2

R..*,;.,.n s,,'c,

*ylQQ: s<.

? rY

e %...y

..y. 4.g< z: c. ..s A e)'t e'".'[G O j,* %,jr.!gd.:h*); / accident conditions (i.e., in the words of the memorandum, there must be no J L .e. [j.i, .M.4S.(M.yg't.e'$ d, "shorting to ground")," .l f./ t. Dere are several manifest difBculdes with the applicants' reliance upon ,'. f( b. *l'-6C Q'1I MU'5h%*.$.I the memorandum. To begin with, it does not clearly appear that RO5I. cable 6,('37 f*f. 3'i,.r,7,T/gdQ*@h'd comes within its scope, nat type of caMe is not speclecally mendor.ed in W f

• h.f.','Jy/,/gh

.a. p* r/ the mernorandum. Ibrther, the caption on the cover page of the EQF discloses Wly.'?*. %*$ that the ROS8 cable was not okained by purchase order 11318, but rather G i.". . d. '+,. *d* '"j, by purchase order 113 19,8 Por these reasons, the applicants are constrained , c...' '."n *ql F i%,;;,.'g%,s .. s. ". ',y. * '@d.3d3 y to ask us to assume that the reference in the memorandum to "other cable .M. / speci6 cations" was intended to embrace RO58 cable. We and insufocient ,.o, "- justl6cadon fw drawing any such inference, in this regard, it is noteworthy M *' o ne, %Y*,'d Y $ g..p.et aQ*a t:1 N h*

• h*:'l*khh.'

that, rawithstanding the weight they now attach to it, the applicants have never M D%h.M," *p,7 sought to have the memorandurn sponsored by one a the otherof the participants .'..*.,GA.h!.hf4 in the telephone conversadon - either of whom presumably could eliminate 9* D; I'. '*, N k W V.j,e Qf any room for doubt respecting the secpc of the discussion of color. coding fx g.. ;, r.-

...... g i6end6 cation purposes.

j d '.%.;, d.'O. g,. 4 >*'y ,o,. ,8 ~ The lack of sponse.nh'p of the memorandum takes on idll greater sigt.ificance . t 5.; ; ;. ;9*p.hjk* j[.' 3 { s'. when other portions of the existing record are examined. Among other things, it 4 'g... appears from the Harsh Environment Equipment 1.ist contained in the EQF that ( Y 'g c..>l.9,.Dj 8] a# cables cared by the EQF (and that includes the RO58 cabl.') are within P. '.],

( g*n(g*w j.f9.'i'W

' c,,.,. t Operability Code A and thus, according to the testimony of applicants' witness ,,ylg.; ,. / M ",.- ~. /,. - 7.*.* i',r Joseph M. Salvo, serve a safety function" To the same effect, the report of a ~.a e d *O 2. QI pre audit review of a number of equipment quallocadon 6les placed all of the f..',"[ cables in the EQF covering the RO58 cable in Openbility Code A." Yet. In the - -s,6 *? * / Q P,.;/. ' j,p Q* i 7 case of many other such ales, the report put some of the equipment addressed

)i.*ri,..

in the ale in category A and the balance of the equipment in lesser categories c .. x4..Mft (Le., B or C)," g, ...-~_w.4 . j J r,,, ' ' V. - , ", ~ :,.. < a :...'., Q ', ' 6 ' ' .w e ,, + .y ,,r. [, 'y,g [ s 3 , ' k. ( I M A,,, g ,g m,, g e, pe,,, g e, -- _ _ j _,,,,.,ga,,,,,,,,

g. if m,,,,,

p., tummtesse d as unmasse summanse wuh em pannwa oesapense than vis assee pomme tes.sh a==.14 ', y . e'.

• i.a #

W em, . d ammpeans bevig en essadas suussman feminet 7 ja b, ?* On em same, en sessed eashamas $as pusikans arde lis.it towahed esWe ogged by a vunde, enhar den

f. '. q'. ?.. g 4 -

7, '

• ,f,-e.'***.

,,..;**,.a/,,. Trf, See sehe, se et. SmL Tr, ss7. m 7. ,'. v.. ' f.,$n'.,,.'e u,.h. f> *, N Tg, 3gt.gt s. .c..c, (*9 p See Caensman's I.nhaus is, Naeyesa true K Troped y, EGao 146% to R Waha, NRC (Fs6e+ary 11.19Mk + ,J .y*,,** fur *u'das Pse. Aaes Renee er one sehsed swam Egapnes ?"" Preyne en 16. The adempesJr i ..'. I'e amend eues ngnet somniarty ed ass pumeo my ansa.sema ed e siam 6assaem lams nas Orerstshry Caes A rse L }.

• f,.,,

the aoS4 eehk See Cahman's Lahanna 13, taans tame C.F. Chamm6am. Eceo 14aha, to K Cassansa. NRC

• e
• g e.'

.';i - \\g-e.,- 04sruh si,1996k foresees Aada d es Enrvusumasal 04^~ - W sefey neleind 32e:urval,lgagemas s ~. A, -e

p. e, s,a

,g se pg.,ut 1964) a s2. ss. - h,,,,.,. {,. ? i q '. 8 Ass f%=6='s EJasim is es s. 9,11.1s.2s, se.st. ,,..- %., k, -,,n. @ ', As prensn1dy mand, a as enahe mass es Cankma swat a nopea.mg sty, d 6e Ross eaWe d=e ,, ;.,' ', f,e " 9.3 -[ ass perferie e safey r,sisese, to sQF ashmend spesessa sommanse supuusness fa sL See aspee f. pc s*647. Ahmagh, u name

• mad Lavre P Hsk *as traa==== aa m'da==8 m *e ta==re Ba=ro s

beamt : - -- -- -M. s has as base senewed a se Caehsman's suet roses lang iruk us la ve escuruneness.

e.. -

I 't",* gg - N

• g#q

$ 46 aus esmer ethdLhst the Cashhan gamids te paese he pad. ,8' 4, 4 5

• 4 e

g

• 4'.
• / ;*
• 7' r.q te e

e 9 P

n. 4' * -

350

• I e

a ,,,**g,.. .t 4

• • . d '. -,,
• /

.- [ v l' e- %'s .Q ....,,4._. y -., l 4- ? ' ~? ^ a "g', ~ l f. n, . - + .l ' g s-p J. .~ ~ 4-, e , 4 i' y, ,s g,, 1 ? E 6 .\\

9. . W,. . g. v,v.. ~,

t, J ~ ~ ~.*

3 on.,i, *. g,..,... m. '..: - i, ' v *.. ?. ,,s .. ?. s, ,m . e,., s m y r., ,.c.

... y.. ~

' c,; . h,; < x r u,,e. - t. n. e 1 .x s.. . s ' '.*. >' ' ~ >I v, d ++ .'..g.,., .. ' ' ~ 2 j , f' 'c,.i ., >... l*.. p a g /.-.. y ' 'g

2. The short of the matter thus is that the Licensing Board erred in relying

• *~

.. ~ s', upon the memorandum of the telephone conversadon to establish the environ. . ',t ',.f, ' ' iJ,,' mental quallecadon of the RO58 cable. As the Coalidon correctly observes, ) y'..,, '., ". ' before attaching any (let alone controlling) weight to that memorandurn, the t,',.*,~~ < '. e.; *. ' Q* ' ' ' '. .t Board should have insisted that it be sponsored by a witness in a posiden both ' [.',, to attest that RO58 cable is within its scope and to captain the basis for the ~" 7,, * ;

• j',

, G... such explanation would, o(course, have had to come to grips with the possible ,i.,,- representation in the meanorandum regarding the color <oding scheme." Any 2, 4* ).q.,,,,,. f inconsistency between that representation (assuming that it was intended to ex. 1 .4 ;,. 3. tend to RO53 cable) and the other record evidence to the effect that the RO58 ], ',,,..

• 2

, ; j.. 5 cable is capable of performing a safety function. v. 'l**-lt' ../ */ c, O,. ; In the circumstances, w are compelled once again to conclude that neither the Licensing Board nor any party has trought to tight any evidence of record that 'O ,., j C ;,. p', d might adequately support the Board's 6nding that the environmental qualiacadon . ~ 1 U of the RO58 cable has been established. There being no conceivable good reason N,... y. e *- to allow either the Board or the panies yet another cyportunity to comb the e $,... " f ~. existing record in search of such eviderre, the appropriate course is clear: [c-Q7 '+ '- i qi.- l that anding, as set forth in the March 25, 1987 partial initial decision and

, 3 ', *, ' * *. 7

• 1 repeated in subsequent Boari mernoranda, must now bc vacated and, to the

'..,4 extent dependent upon that anding, the decision reversed. Given this manda;ed .s; disposition, we agree wi',t the Coalidon that the next step should be a furthee evidentiary exploradon of tne RO58 cable issue." q The staff's suggesdon that we preside over that exploradon is not without { its attraction. As earliet noted, the litigation of this issue has already consurped j too mtsh time, And wee we to take the additional evidence ourselves, the Anal - g curtain might be rung down at an eartice date. Absent truly excepdonal circumstances, howvee, we should not impinge upon the 1.icensing Board's role as the initial fact ander in NRC licensing proceedings. In this instance, ard despise our desire to have the RO53 cable i issue resolved without further amece:Jary delay, we cannot say that such 1 S{ circumstances are present.*8 Accordingly, w once again remand the matter to the Board below. In the interest of the prompt development of an adequate record . I on the issue, however, we provide some addidonal guidance to the Board. s "q tw hi.e ce. s w. a. w,o.,e n.a s= th.e n.d 3. A1> Beet. is NaC ess. m w e m com ,7 ( 88 3ee Cashassa's Haae s2 b6mnsumedhse et s. The tasenses amed unpeanus te the semahansa si h amese spiergewy paeasons and enfery us.mo a.a n kan anku rumemend an as heroe a Joe A1Aa r7s 36 baC a Its teesse poseene teme usagrey and ensdag speen estuust A1Aa 441,27 NaC es otM)(pahhe anw ammAsense a the Maaneenemme er se %eetmash phume espansse pe***y emmemry peannneg ammek b dess me ape appens sea me tal numend t

• ne== *=aedw 4

s ~ j .r 351 v \\ W-j g e s .s

%f\\;, c. .My@>... \\ p\\of,,'.Qk,0.A(&fs:%,[l,Q(l',ff:&m 4,., v.,:. u. 3. s ( h. $ 's b'*PGy. h. E u. ae.: a. S , W 8,. : m.p.,p$. ' Q* !j' . y.j, e. &:., o.c. a,. x v' +'. r.. u &e & *.v,. % :e [ ] & r & Q y m. $e

• ^~ ~,'*' **"< "m.. m^a g.

<%: p'$, $;..f.),(b & & F. M,'" k ' f,,W,a Q.y; 4 3 y;Q;Q W.'f, ^ a, se ., :n...y'n tQ,$:'.:~h.y', Q /'9:. s~m. :;.:;4. m. '.9.,'. p*. M o h..<. n.,.s, ;.:.. t*N In the pesent posture of the matter, two questions are crucial to the exam. 4 ' Q '.. ', @

6'M"Ed'4! *,;y; p[%c ',$

• ithd/

ination on the remand. First, does the RO58 cable have an accident midga' ion M,O,e.$r,'Q:*[:PiQ function in its interhjed use as part of the frility's computer system? Second, $h$**.[.'i.Q if the RO58 cabk has no such function, does it follow that the RO59 cable @fj

c-sy. h**n%,4 y.%'7.**,C.M,p t

high. potential test resulu establish that the cable is environme itally quali6ed so % de 'J. tc. n long as it is used exclusively for data transmission in the computer system?" M.,*: ,%M s @{.$@@' QM&. ' y

• T)lI 'N D'.

All new evl&rce on these questions - whether accompanying a rnotion for l yT . summary disposition or introdoced at a hearing * - rnust be sponsmed by a .Wl<";.*-(."..P competent afaant or wimess.* g ; $. h M A %[ ' h-v f.,". M. A .4, Q g',7. L *g., * *.. y In Mdressing the arst question, the parties un&ubtedly will wish to take h% l'*?,S into Ecount the revelation in the existing record that the R058 cabk has been A. ?* Ie **f - S placed in a classiacation reserved for cornponenu having a safety function.as se2M['. ag,r*q'?i:,4&h"7 h This consi& ration may or may rot cut against the insistence of the applicants

WQ/

.A. W N N. 5* v and staff that, in its inten&d use in the facility's computer system, the cable ', D. d 'f.'.,*'.','* M k.*.,f.'.? f* lxks an xcident mitigation fur.cticn The new eviderce might show, fa g ;:., *. cq.: ag y?,y, p *,; t..- exampk, that its Operability Code A classi6 cation hM other possibk uses S . h ' fe p...,.;, t j,. o.,, c,. ' 1,. - O t -. v, A *. as.- s of the cable in mind. But if it invohed an accident mitigation function, no e. such ahernate use would be permissibk on the strength of a Anding (assuming

• 47 d,' '.([.N., f.*2

.' $,2 one is mMe on the remand) that the cable is environrnentally quallaed when p ':,,1 g 3 ..,.,i e / , ' *,., *^ ernploytd in the computer system solely because, in that capacity, it need only o. 4. *.3, y, remain intxt in the event of an accident. Stated otherwise, before a nuclear s' j facility uses for a partkular purpose a component subject to the environmental e, ., c .e. ~ r-s' quali8 cation requirements, it must be demonstrated that that component meets 6 ' C e j;k.. those requirements wben so employed. ,s ~ ~ w. ' y /,.

• \\ h a j (

[. 'k$3 4 2"'s 3 es,; t 1, ,'~ (br the foregoing reasons, the Man:h 25 partial initial decision,1.BP 8710,

• Q***i'g.t.,

f( 25 NRC 177, is rewrsed to the extent that it found that the environmental ,.- ($ ; rf ;.,$.. quali6 cation of the RO58 coaxial cable had been established. 'that issue is s. -*s .?,. 's '*l i. 4 ~' j.'.,.. ' j eIs @Se hM AI.da-h$s ktdd he feed W bTgndy hn hd W

• • 4 M M 3%e# 6 sed

.,s. .,j ;, apre p, M Bis 6e Ceebaum hee ese meeemed On as Mana 22 menrummAse m 7) em skruss to sand 4 .,,.,e,"" -i e.g$e ese be 6e ends tahme made by the the h038 esbis sende essegwismase to esfer twsmaue et eher v.c,, . tr e.e e m.: w en e6. s noss e.,se e env= a, mm, os aan man,s.new e. s.w pe wi m. d e 7 m *. ;y ..,?/, puet w-. a = no erp.e,es e=4 se r me bare p nded

• a f 4.'.e.

,i,****/* yua nueher sygnemanst to emnetduh am the aOS8 seNe e ~ J o' r t a W rassem eases em ee

• ',,,,' p-*' ' ' g.

CJahtwo be a3 seed to pas se se e.gsmane as the samend ' a. t.. 9 y.. ' '. ' 'i *, # "C4 afema"* no 88 P-M*y Wat e Saumary Lapeame =*= m.44 he saed aband as be idee es 4* 'r . - v.( nacyme wr brt.at unraams etaha' *=4 6 -e amad to **=amai

• • Premaneedp, to new ownesse eVI andmas te pertwee er de sentre 4 Tha to eta.4 *e sa3 setsved
• .s.,,

.e

• ,. 3

'3 ) m to Apn1114 ** ie< see ei,*e p M7. see si,as seestae Ce4/P8he EdADe (S. (I4e Okbe NiedSSf

• ', '*' N,,

Omuseers scene. Umse 3 and s), A1.AB. 717.17 NRC He, M47 (1983k af'd, carsesgr v. A#C. 743 FJ4 ,e 0/ nine (D C, Os.19W), eart deo.d. 471 U s. I1se (19t$k we samase no egna.m. af ansen, sa etah. 'e , ' **.3 ewee pasiene assyen the prope.a.m ks whah es, he,e base seered, la pean 6ag spa emas ma=&smian, me g* .e a: + taisest Seesd abadd name ehe. eme.hw he ase,ise and esame el em 6%nme' e64anewee en setsfrug he a arenseenesel v.a.kesse powan.se fand in essan 8J l 4 b Ill) et abe FsAA. 1 C

1. sas aero p sM

. S 't .P T. e 1 r. .t s.;....,' f s o 4, ^4 9 g .,,, egg, s m aw ,e p L u s, 3I E 4 I

• d*

9 4 e. 1

, M ..y,'. ,<g.' i ~ ,j.,..' dt U; y ,a ,;l

5. ?"'.'

~. ' '.',.,*.,y,. ',,.'e'- i 1.' . ). 6 <.A ,J**1 4 4 .,f ./, e g.,

4.,,

,,. ',...e. .y..;- .4 t,, t es s, J.. s"f s,. p .i. s .,. i. v. i.,., \\ j 3 .. 3.,a A. > y. .#.. o 2, ..3 s... ,..E., ' '. remedad m the Ucensing Board fa further proceedings cortsbiert with this 7 '.,[* ;, ,.' i. '.j;j,5 l.... o?. ;.. ' decis60st." e h Le so ORDERED. .s....... g .,~ .n... r.. .. u ..... e..: ma mE Amud. BOMD . v.. w, N... u,..

c. u,, 3ho,m,w

,. c. ;. .I .;p.:e s.c, ry m. l c. o... i h Ap s,.. . ;. e, a.4 n = i .*[ I ,f.,,; .,e e. . v. ', ' A. ,e.... .g s ..,a e * .,6 e. t.. .i s,. . s. 18 lt ..e .. -e. .o. r - - -~. s. ,e --**t., 3 ,8 'g. 3. l .e. s., l in c 1 i 6, I I \\ e 1 .e . r. 1 e \\

n.; t

,-., ~., i j 4 f iL-4 4. l 1 a ( o e .,p, i. \\ l a p. = s j ~ s *. ,e

• %A

-p ,.e* .. e e .1.>,'< s in - d e.,

s...

. - ae m.m.8.e.as - e md. e - - w .,r .' ' I. e se .m. m

h. esame,. u.. i d

J i uswumanal W At emmmmmme suhases aque es 90,hegh. m us true samn Gaguse pp, M340). Cammmene sagdeem 7'* 0 eshe nas sammes lu unasse emmbumme esms sents magm supp.e4 mmmenes ,j to est ens is asem86 to as dansmas esa omnd yestees one egyhemum,, d se===hmad jgga ggg gbgAqshg i emummme and embumg le das among of 'bs 3054 enten, j J e**.- 5, he oms pass samend d the 3056 eehie name, um entsmed esi, d amenesy. 9m 11..===at Sesd le to dands g ehehe symuneen d es letsed geanny ensa eees to eteunens someone d so woes Jes ALA&. t (- 082. !? e 3 4 84, At es pumas unne see e emme.mmee e amamemory Ties a base sa, udses to ?. ', ' N,'. 3 t Commenen a md seersies swee, ne -p e e,mene is pse hdad a es, e as poems one same no d en 1 puMme eengmay man & seams som unnamend as ALA5-441. $m !? MbC a $4. As serbes sheened % seres mens [,'., 1 6lk a sey be same tune boos esa sessanse o eens e4 p. T '4 )

• O 4

p. o 9 ~ 4 N b I N s

• ' ~ '

p, .l 4 9 - * - ' ' ' - - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - ' '

Og:lL Q A M O N P OV. Q W.@,l.ld' 3"W k m,Y,.}N} %wili,'.l.) (%l6 M ?iW W k % @N,.y.;e;.h Q $ Qt QQ.*llqNgL Hf N' .l leu $ .',,'*j,p 1: M. )k M: l;ihn@6 2 k.u:$QiiA G G. .O-

• NM&4MzW *MM.

.m.. f e.,,i c., w.~..n. ,

• v.gw,,.,, o n m, n,,..

S. f q,,:cs v. #s u s.W.,e. , n.o ?.,3.,.a. 4' i.

• ;o w..g,, g,% r

, ~ t. e..,.,e.. '~.w#.s. .e....,- , g,.f m;;;9'> j -q s*..;'. et.,".,,,,. *.,,, - .j. w m .~ ...,.....0

• '. 9. D.,, F ;..; m. 3' 7,<. U..,w..t ;- 1

<4,. - 4; 5 .- w. APPENDIX -.. s a, s v..r,,... M.., #..... M. *M.,Y.,*'..'.if. j '.'t /Y,.,,,., t ...z...

• d [*V.,

New England Coalition on Nuclear PoHution's Exhibit 4 Reference 6 . s c .. n-g.: y s j &.,. e a., < u s ?b b t ;. m, (y..,:. .....,.,.....,.::c.3<.n,. s T..v.'.e g..s ..~- g y u.. :...g.. s.6.e r.n.. b : >y. M..s 6.j.;.;7 *;, L neeerd et conweeesen = ~ yg< M

• N. tiI'h..h.3 [>. k. x, h.

fk "*8 " " "

• m

$ %';f.,*~'.'+t..e: V. d. y..< ,1i!.[l,'* '

ll.'Y C'9Y'GR * **

N:. ., M.*,'n,... : a,,,

• c ; c.

Asiewee o.. %l?.

• ,e oueero n;.,.. a.,.,e e.s

  .,.

,,s..,1,t..; nas,s o g,.,. $.,,., y,

• gig g.,,,.

neergeren (PsNH) ..M,*.,'.*. ....,.,,..,.P / t.".

• 1 WClevtier (YAEC) f.c OTai*eh*as O u** mas O oih < -

' d-o.! y* =.;.*.,*....- l,.,,,.- .c r-

• '., *,,
• a- ) ' 1 Tet c n c,h From: N r w a ned N

~' '. '.s f:,,.g ...U.[' Campenyt Unumi Enginaarn & Cmnem Phone No.: 11mM hatet m1U

• ? i X '/; r*. -f. v_. * *'

Subjoet: hook E& PO.1418

• J *

[,e...;g hU - 2.. .)*f. Summary et Conwteston: ,' ?. , '.O ' '. s:... r. -+ g 4.. o Chuck and I discuned how linpell can identify w hkh of the different 7 .,g ' ' f Q.,.Q 'J .~ > ;f], "f y 3.. l' cables in P.O.11318 and the other cable speci6catioru are N' connected to equipnent which must perform a safety functon O . s. Y,. ". ',*. y subsequent to accidert events. ., '.g !.

• i

,,g. . 4 . J,,,.- ,.,..,'[.*.

z..

~. r The coke coding of the outce jacket as deaned in UEAC separation ,,.....1, . S '... dxuments enables this determination. Specl8cally, outet jacke6s -.,,., y ' ' ,'* y '.h with the strigne solid color of red, white, blue, or yellow ../,.."'. .1. ^....M 7 designates cebles fcr whkh perfoemance requirements such as 1.R. ls' 9 J.'. ' C ;,?.; *'c:.,. C ; e ',J and acetracy must be met during environmental quali$ cation. Cat 4e

, t..,,'.

.s '.g

• y, 's..

of other cokri or cok r schemes must remain inta:t (e.g. no

• /.

+,4 i,7 %.1 e *.., . ' j f *eey/.y shorting to ground). However, all Class IE cables as deAned by the g g c*.s,'. ,,. * * *.N e.tc.,..j.** i. Speciacatka must be emironrentally quali6ed. ,,o ',r.,..,. g.,f -*.s,g'. e,.g s , g 6 . j 4 + ' ' *,* ' i Chuck will fwwstd a cwy of the UEAC separation dxument which ,....j...,.,'., f[li'".,,p ' 9. /.....I.,,,.' deanes these cokt schemes so that 18 may be ircluded in the EQFs. , a..., 4 n -.r.,1 1, _,G NKW4m

i.... q., W' 5

. ";a f.,, $,g., v., ' - * *!

• '...6

~ 1: 3$4 4 ,.s..e.. o"?,e c' e. e, ' y *e.. 4 ,9 f .o 'N,1 ' 'f ig, f g ',, *,g 1. j,w

• '-,-. ~,.w...-.

-..g. .e-. .,g o y .g ,3 e . y 4g ,,. p %, ~. 9 j. 9. j s ' ' ~ + ,,g ,s. V, , 7 *, f 4. 8 t ..f s. o. c t .6 g y.

s.,.

.g ' t.; a' 4 I g g g y .t s t g6 2 .h. e

..r. .c. ~ u. ~ g ...l ?. ...\\. t'*

• 4

}..:,.;, { 9 4 ' '[$,. -.. " Atomic Safety and Licensing .... t ,?;, " ; e 2,.' i.1 Boards issuances q a 2 '.8 t A.- 4.1 *. ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL ~ .,. ) i. 'T. c ... ' 'i~

8. Past Cotter,

• Chairman g

.. 'l. Robert M. Lato, 'Vice Chairman (Enocut' vel e \\ Fredenck J. 5 hon, *Vice Charman (Tochnical) .j 'f.* Members

• i i.

r- .s Dr. Gecree C. Anoe+ eon Dr. Ceet H. Herms. Jr. Dr. Lkida W. L>ttie ~,. Chartes techhooter* Jerry Hertout' Dr. Fmmoth A. LowtAs ? Peter B. Shxh'

09. dew L. Hetnck Dr. Korvieth A. McCosom

/* - ' GW O. tright' Emest E. HM Mortoe 5. Margunes' s - 4 Dr.. A. Otuon Cathan Dr.Fes.* F. Heoper Gary L. Mihoum ^ j James H. Camenter* Hoesn F. Hoy1' MoreP.64 E. Maar Hugh K. Ciert Diasteth B. Johnman Dr. OecN H. Pers' ,, a Dr. Richerd P. Ceae' Dr. Wper H. Jorces Dr. De.*s R. ScNrA j Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Mchsel A. Kkt Duppe Pvem W. 5>'e' i ~ ; Dr. Harry Formn Jerry R. Khne' Dr. Marte J. Stencer ) Rchard F. F< ster De. James C. Lamb in Severent Wenner

• ~

j John H Fryg 141' Ovetevs A. Liner $erger* Sheador J. Wcde' a*#* j Jemme P. Gheeson . ) ~ g g g g .g .g e J e 4. 0

• Parmenent panelmembers

\\

f wl' bs '.'.db' N y &g( ef V t i D,. 's M s** h Me u "w,, ' g sh M /.d*"4 *. o.",g '% } f.4% i d'r, t a.a, w 4,4 .# k **.. M. O w8M' q/ tp C -a e ,.-< N*j &v n'. p. o(EbtAbh &$4QR*y e*s e y,:.e:

• 5 u, A. g.W VDPMQ& Vs nf*5&$.%*.1is5 h. ?L W Y 'O W, W i? %

r

&$&&.f.N.dkb t.c.%h& d M.*W.s. r 5'o ?.? *sf * :".:$..&'s *@?> ; 4

• '+1.?.M,,, J h *
• f ?,;

a -4:a%.,%, =*$', W e,)p)*zw(y : % b

• 4

=- A..

• *5 ~ s 3

s". *,,

h..?,U 'es ';

Yd *W r } h~ n' 4.p?*,);c -t'*Y.N*.*fa,*&,., l.p...h *'t d.>b'*5e. av 4 .e* 4 %F4sw "w s. m..sf a,e;. W n r;q,,.. W' v.{w"+ r %.m,w C D y.s'.d$pn:,.yd,p,$7k. +1.YNAI.d.; .dh,p%, h,bs..h k .. w *.. a m?4 m* **a .,.s..L n',Y? W i. I.g +;, ? Sj '

• lW* r=

e' ; a...:+e,~ s.,..i. e e<g.A -/..g,g.. 9f

• h s

r p 4,&- R.5 ~,. N.. f...y. *? e,M,,3 +b '*. u.h.*.m9:a

• s

.y c. W.e.? b., /.

• A %y.cy..s

. %q;,5.

• v,,6. - m..e % e. m. w e '.

.;.i. 4,.n.4 - e a* v t:L. w ne j ..m;. e,.~ sc~Q'. t..e.$.,x.N E,t,%s.* *%, p ^ (,'*..s o ..m. 9 . k,ts -,

• $.{,.Q.*'i *g l. 'M 8

.,. 9}r

• * %...). '\\] d e-

. c..v.4..:*I, %.*..,.,v... We. M'4..."e,, *.' v gma . - y o;. ,.w .g a .n . f,. ;j. v y.** yes( e? '. *([y )/y,1.;;, Y;M;.1;y 1 e .-h.gty f ?* >,'.?"f '?. * 'y " ? + y 4.*Y. 1 ' '. 5, W, J s;.p e.: w a \\ s?,, f. T 4..,' ' Stt.f-el 7,.i,N,,! h e **'l*q'y,

• f.Ar e. *.*

&. z (%.',d*%.Q&

• t.%:t,3 r p,p s--,... n f in a w % @. g % ;

4 e. # -. s

• W
• 's t :.

g OCgw w re. 1 ,3.. ~A,. a Q.% <xi. j - w~. m.. w;:,'.y.n.;. ' %~... 9..m,,y%.n :9.J: e* p.. u ;.+ p v e, -. e. e >y.?

• i;P 4.;?g,'SW;h.p.,w.M.s vT g,, m,c.

g g \\,:,?,.,th... w Q.ald.. sv.qlr-

• k c.

7

s o,

es a s%. mn a . ;1.l w ' w m. ;~,..:: w. m. 4 s ..i. .. 3w., b ~a .,.. m.....;..e.~ .n... ~. s. ..+ w. <M.+.. ~.,s,v y.... y. ..s pe.. b.a

),.'% @W;YU.* 0. Q.a

r.,h*.v.D k n n.U

. 4,' 3.. .? ?. y.:3.~r q & $' ]t. v W %. 's'u.:..h '. y.. gs.7,go : 4'.c >rl;f:. ?;.V,.%:. nJ ~ o.. qs.e-e. + ~

• %,..c..n#n r.v

.c - v. 4 z.

*M.

y 3.'

d. &e,t.i

• q.;. r? 1'G ip*?;+U. 'n

9. o. Y.r %. n %.! w..A.,_'.,g. %-.

O.%..,, s., ..,.s,. fl ., v g - #.,* .v. e.,,,, U.','; M.. w (,.,.y,4

.,.M.,.,.w.. +.,. s.r.. p., s., p 4 m;. 3 e>

.,,4 m. m. 3 e *JBg.: ,2,., u

• t.,..

s. M,. ; 8% 4. ) *b J e.,, g.,%..T.,f, v\\ .-.s e e

s..

- a-IJS 'p, s ' p. ~. m-N 9 %.f? v.,

s

• 7,v.. h(4 '4,t'-Y.;,*f,;*.%;,...h,y.

s $m$..nW ,iif'.- u y &. w&er

• J

.. w 'q a > j g, q *,, + . [*[' a

• g f.I l '[, *.,,\\ ', *e' g,* '. %., f ;4.<%.,,

.,,, Y.*; ~,,,..a s. 5. =.,,g ee, g e-h<e e 1 ** t d i d'-,s s,. 3,

• e f.

. g, '". ** s j,, h'r 4 a g '. 1 pf y. g'. 4. s .,r, e 4

• j,p$[

Q, # e, y, ;)p?.s.P l t* L ' *,c.;;.; '.. e 4, ... Yem. ,;.;,m t*

. e ct....,, /. c<

'.p o+

-. 9 4.. p, le w. . ? ' '., ' h.,.,,,%, < $..I.Y. ,,; 4 ' A.. ., 4.* f. 3 **'( 40, ..8. e,~. ..'s a s.,.. -. c.. V, ,8 qh h --) ,k

n...b.',,",/.*,, '.v: s *): *p,, ;; r.,. W g....: f.+.%,,.y

<... -,, /,,. i. b N~ ,J '.. g... N,., e . v.:;7... '(*, *w*.d po

• e s

./*, g y i..- -l.f, T',$.4 olpf.qm e. ..s, e., y h1 ~ .cy.,,....,,' \\ c,. a..,. ..~'.,y ...w z;;- ,..y w.,, w* * ]' #.~T *'* 7'["**#***" * *[*7

• h K e'

, O. Y.a

• y V..I ' +' ' v ~.. s. O' 6' *
  • *1: p, F.**** 7/- * * -*.=,

y*y,7 $$ q-.- V ' u;., ~ '..." ,ee, , g 3 ',' ' !. n. . [ e. f *...... .. * '. g w~ .c.. + e, .e^'.,,'/*I' ; U.([. 3 J 8 i S.~ e.

• ,a ese5

'I .'sy, + "..,._; ;3.M....@:s, ,f' s','.1:ps (' ' P M? % s %,5 1 l TV' P.Q is x - ',,'.,,,f.., , Q 7P.",C .s- .9 c. s .g'. -.. a

• %':, m,

..,.3,',,y s 3 l z { #, Z \\ , ' j '. l r,., ; t $ . 's. v. ' qi s' *;.,, *,. ] *; 9 Rg.\\y, . c, 4+.,,,, y" 3

• 1

. g;., - - L-y' ..8. ,.e.. .A.s

s..

g .,,y..-.. C('; c, @J,7,' O.,L)'. (' ' 't s ' + . j.g t /, ,Q. # d' . g, .{. ... ;, ' '. '; g.. S, - i. ', ,E M. '.,.. 4 '., ' / N.I J. S

• N, ; /M

. + - ' ..r, s.. e.'. I.'9.c.. > y i r. ' ;.. . A,4 4

• ,.ti 13

.e.j: p. .s,,;., s-s .~. / P* Y k ~A-/.' a. 7 E. .4#a' s '~

.7 sh f.

3',*. Y.Y, .s., .4 J.g* .,.,'.y.,. ','. ge.*,t,.' l + s

• s

f

,n.,. q M. g p.y . ; v g)'.v e .,y f f. * }. f., - l./;G n ,5 j _=. '. * ?u.s . ;*. t ?* ' '., Q'. %.wR a ,s

,r 9, .a i - a

y.., g,. - g-5 n,..

.* v ....,e.,. ,..r..t n. : r p, k u,p.,sn. 3. : f. ;., e..,, y e, y y i.,. r.. e. ] ,e 7 .:...mr k,. .,,.t .f.. - ;- ..J a; s,.y& .c, c u 3.,. , N, %; ?.;';'.;,' T ' ' ', ..r. cy ..L ';;i. . w:_ ;*, % u.. 'r'<'.-- ~ ~ ~ ' " ' ',< ~

w...

~ .s ,,,e '.,. t y ..q-s .. q. ~.. s., ~A., : ", c. r,- n,; ,. 7.. 4 ' ?.. n,.,,,,.. /., :..? t. ' n o..,.j., A. 9, 7.... -y. :.., ~e,. ;. /..'j 2 4 wj f. Cite as 27 NRC 355 (1983) gB p,,,,, n.,.;.,.. t,, 4 ','%y y ;. g u. u.- g; i.'. 6, J. !.lO.c/. M..L.3 *'.,,., Q-e,,

,+ ( ' f 4

.. -. 9 U.,. UN!TED STATES OF AMERICA ,e. .-r.s . p.?.t .s.., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . -...,g,., v.,. t,. e.. t;V.g s =, % n.. p....nb. e'. ~,. a v,.,' ;, '.s ? *. ' : s-- ig * " WC HB,0 i' ~ '. - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

. * >... =

3,.

7.,, r ;;. 3.....a

'.?,'.a., ?..c.{ P.U,& y;

.J &~ @

s..

6.:...A. . y 7. O. V., ., /1., * .e

• ..*F..r..**'.r.>

3. fore Administrathre Judges:

.(.......m..c. nu.,., ...4.*.. Y N, h';nl.3,G n M*A- +:.'. :

• 1 m

s. R. u ir* i% Idf,y[ James P. Gleason, Chairman . 4M. r .hk [*N' !.1

d. I 9

Dr. Jerry R. Kline -:.1. q ? g. s.. . eq ,, si..,v.. g. 5,,* * .1, Frederick J. Shon 6;.,'.g w a ( +, s ..~.g.;r. . u.e . *cy.. *. s;; ; S,.:.,;; -' : ;,y, ;,a,) . ' y {_[y.* % ', '. J ....,... .*.h , -. w. '.J .M ~s.~.., : -J in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 0L 3 ',.,7

-c.,,

c ** 'f. t. c.,v ;.... '

1,.e,.,.m s. ' 't.

(ASLBP No. 86 535 04-OLR) (Emergency Planning) ^ ~ ,?. j LONG ISLAND UGHTING ' ' ' ' ~ COMPANY 4*. s-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, '[ '[ i,, 'l Unit i) ^ A fll 8.1988 P 1, 3. ..e ; C.We .) Ir. this Memorandum the IJcensing Board provides its written opinion and ' ' e f., 3. '. 5,. 4 amplineation of previous orders denying Applicant's motions for summary ' s _.c '] disposition and providing guidance on NRC's new mie concerning a utility .t- ,",, 4, g 2 1, t ernergency response plan (10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)). ,.;. p... - ' ' ' 'j,. 9, ; ' 7 ' ?, ',, a .,p RULES OF PRACTICE: COMMISSION GUIDANCE a...w s 1 ta e e q y " g. g In new mie (10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1)), the Commission not only incorporates ..*.',:e. doctrine that noncooperating governments will provide their best efforts in . % },.*. 4.. j a '$ :. responding to a radiologie 1 emergency but amplined and clari6ed doctrine ..c 1.,

• e

., s. ,. I enumcrated in a related decisfor,(CLI 8613,24 NRC 22 (1986)). g . g c....,. c 4 w.4 v< cc ....,.. >~ p .e. -.^ 6 M , < s ;, -,.....c. r. ,.,s. e

g..

355 .e e .4 ..q. .u. \\ e. q f g s t P e e b g. I 3 9 e

3' 4 5 - g y. , ',. 4. ',?. e..,..r .c * .i...* 6- '.s

s-

• 'p a,

'- i e s ,s a, 4 y a ,,;

• w,,.

.g. (,, ,y .6, U O ' '/..,f, ,6-7' \\, *. ; *... - '. ,1 , e .,~.,.'s...l':...'.'J_d',. ., <) . c. - , (. .d y,>. t' :.: )' -3'.-. . ~.. i ~:e ; 4 r 7 ,'i, h d 7 RULES OF PRACTICE: COMMISSION GUIDANCE c,- ,- l m .,..e l ' ,.':. Q ,.,.. {,i,, S ',. ' The new rule reinforces judgment that licensing boards' responsibility is to - ' ',,.1., /...,.. Y ; ensure that utilities' emergency plan supported by a "best cfforts" response from Tj. '. '... 1* ' i ': *$t. j state and local governments meets the test of adequacy under Commission Rules ,,,.. -.. ;., ;."L., ;, ".

r j' J and Regulations.

f...,.v .'.,,' '.= ', ..m..". i ',5 + f.. /,. v., ', f. * ??*- RULES OF PRACTICE: REGULATORY ASSUMITION " f,, , +. J. t ,.... q f,'. {,* ' T [;. ((a: *(! The new rule places a respcnsibility on state and local governments to ~ ', y , J. 1 ,y produce, in good faith, some adequate and feasible response plan that will be [*',,, i * ;e.91er.,V' h;f.j . j.y.., ' ' f. e > % re!!ed on in the event of an emergency or it can be assumed that a utility's plan will be utilized by Intervenors. s...... s r. as *; 1 ? t .c v. %.. ~ 15.4 .? .?. u.7 ~;" ;'> ^ M.. i EMERGENCY PLANS: INTERPRETATION

h 9.'Q ? $, 6 r/$ 9;;'.$

,..? w.g,.9 L #Y 0[ ie'#..' [k.1 The absence of state and local governments' pasticipation in emergency , /., ~ 4, planning cannot be viewed as an absolute impediment to licensing a substantially .,., ',.,,.l.,; completed nuclear plant as that would result in a de fure veto power in the t wis c;. 7:. -l.* 'j~p].*.ic., v.p.-3 yg of local officials over the operation of nuclear electric facilities. ,. s u ,1., .p ;. c...- 4., .w, .y .' T.,.,'. wn.< RULES OF PRACTICE: UTILITY EMERGENCY PLANNING y ,.., :., e. W.,- ~ The fundamental purpose of the new rule is to provide criteria for evalu. e fg ' ating utility prepared emergency plans in cases where, in fact, state and local y',; 7 governmenu do not participate in such planning. j,. . y.. x .'4 RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERPRETATION Ja I ,'. '%';G:df j In light of the new rule's sole purpose, it is not credible that the Commission ...; ",',4,Q intended the phrase "it may be presumed... state and local officials will follow the utility plan" (10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1)(lii)) that licensing boards could arbitrarily decide that such governments need not respond to any plan or at all. 4 .,,. t .c.

f.,p,,'

RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERPRETATION ,y- ..,7. m ,'i**.* ? a,' /,.'. There is no cordict betwen Appendix E and the new rule since the new ) 3 rule's provisions are interpreted as applying to both 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a) and

s. D,,

. v.., Part 50, Appendix E. 1

• .$...P y y r, e,
• ,s.

.s. ,h' 4 \\. t '.', I 6 -J j i. t 356 4 .2 2% s \\ g g g B l I f 's 9 'el

~ - .,5

c..,,..m

, '+ ' {, f.,* . ] W Os . g.,a j, a - -< . g. ~, .t< n.~ ~ ~ .v '.o Yi. ' v.-

m. u.

~.... ...o j j q_.M e a I .I RULES OF PRACTICE: REGULA* TORY ASSUMPTION a .,2 Commission guidance makes clear that nonparticipating governments are not +:;. ~' '~ , f ' expected to specify in complex detail responsive measures that will be provided )..;Y ): .'4".. in an emerEency. However, unless such a plan is produced and evaluated for i - ' '.. ~ adequacy, it will be assumed tt.at the utility's plan will be utilized. ,,,,....., ; ? :.. .- 9 4 - p -. u.. . f. w MEMORANDUM ~ ,, '.' ';.. e,M ~2 l '; (Extension of Board's Ruling and Opinion on LILCO Summary

• {l 1-

,.J. Dispealtion Motions of Legal Authority (Realisme) Contentions

• w.*..

~ .'y and Guidance to Parties on New Rule 10 C.F.R.150.47(c)(1)) (, ~. ... q3.. n.., 3 ...\\ .i-9 . "# l .. q, '- The Board herein furnishes its written opinion and amplines its Conannatory .,,, %, ' ' b;. Memorandum and Order denying nadons Sled by the Applicant (LILCO) for 1 t 'r: . :I summary disposiden of Contentions 1,2,4,5,6,7,8, and 10. 'Ihe Con 6rmatory .C . e'. " 2,' *, Order was issued on February 29, 1988. Two LII.CO summary disposidon modons Sled the same date, as those referred to here, December 18,1987, have . G.[ ' j,. ;./O been considered in separate rulings.1 i 4 y .g The basis supporting the modons for summary disposidon of the legal au. ,6.

7. / q thority contendons is the best-efforts assumption embodied in the Commission's new rule,10 C.F.R. I 50.47(cXI). That reguladon provides that where an app 11-

.<J i.j cant for a nuclear utility operadng license initiates its own emergency plan as a g .(. w result of nonpardcipution by state and/or local governments, the NRC will make '. ? '. }'! an evaluation of the plan's adequacy and "will recognize the reality, tnat in an actual emergency, state and loca.1 government of8cials will exercise their best ef- . '<1 a ". i. .1, forts to protect the heahh and safety of the public." 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(cXIXill). ..'p .,p q L HISTORY The current motions were reviewed in the wake of a plethora of allngs, argu. menu, and legal challenges concerning the Applicant's legal authority to eser-cise ce 1ain emergency activides. This we the third consideration of summary _i disposition of the contentions, the modons for which have been raised amidst related developmenu of a court decision, licensing board rulings and orders, an y#..y 'j appeal board decision, a Commission remand, and regulatory changes. Since a i-e x' this Memorandam provides additional guidance to the parties on the Board's . ' 'c

t. ' ',., i; s

'i'

}

lsee sonrd ordas of bei s. Its: (ear =W), as taco's summary Dupeacen he or Corsemens l-A 10 vuh Repect to 10 CJ'A 9 50.47(<XIXi) and Oo, and Manh It t w'(upubhahed), en sununary Dwpesanen i-s han cd C-1. 2. and 9 -Isammesnalsy. 4} a i; j' .8 /~ 4 357 s d \\ e' f ^

ih m,b:h Y 9k Q Wy%& &qqQ@ wnw z;; w S M :6 k h.f f h b N N % n.h .,. 4 a., &.S..r,a.4,J m.,;u.%p..Mly .w. m. u. vn m.. ' ;s.d m...p y.-(w.:y..,. @ m b.

v..

. g. n g. .a .e ....n..,,,a,_ 4 ug. gy,,s.g. 3. n. m. .w

• 'aNM.U.N!V.M.5.$'$m..s:,g.

s ..RM interpretation of f 50.47(c)(1) and its applicability to the present proceeding, in SiMS?j.T.i.h.0m,h

W addition to the rationale for our previously announced decisions on the summary 5.",~.',2d' y f#.%q@!'.%9%{@@,fp disposition modons, we set forth, preliminarily, in an abbreviated account, the v.;/ der.d,'M@ y %q,

evolution of the legal authority and realism issues.* f @ d.l. M M M Tbn contendons were filed originally by Suffolk County (Intervenors) chal-le%k:IMf[J.h [M 6!/ .hh lenging the legal authority of LILCO to cany out certain emergency planning f '/l,N *p WW Q;? functions.8 In the first motion for summary judgment of these contendons (Au. ' ' (,D,1 i,4 ',.7@gMQi,f f a "Q. W M ?. gust 1985), LILCO argued their approval on grounds, later alla, that in a real .,Y eme gency, the State and County wuld respond (realism theory). In a declara.

• * *l,'e," h+.,$ E Q v, D M @. & l?

'l l.T. .'t. C / tor) action fded by the combined Intervenor Governments (New York State, 'd.h Y Suffolk County, and Town of Southampton), the New York State Supreme Court ..; q;>:3,y S..M Jf of Suffolk County on February 20,1985, ruled that LILCO did not possess le- , y' ;Q,;$. A,J.j{f.%qS g b i. ?.'. gal authority to carry oct its proposed emergency plan functions. In a Partial . ut ;' 33 9;lgg"y.h,$ i..,. 'W 3 ;.h*. l Initial Decision, LBP.8512,21 NRC 644 (1985), the Licensing Board rejected NN[.YM LILCO's realism argument on grounds, inter alla, that any govcrnmental re. 'r, h(.f @ N, M.$ y: 2

• N.

5.T[*'.,; sponse would be uncooperative, uncoordmated, and ad hoc, the opposite of .g A'; @ what is conternplated in an adequate emergency plan under the regulations. After '.'. ly fqM$g "W,d/ fS ~< an Appeal Board affirmance of the Licensing Board decision, the Commission 4'ri,.hWQ reversed and remanded the "realism" issue. The Commission accepted LIL(?O's f.h,.l.%['J,Q'$1gNfJ ' ).TlN.Q. 7 f.c f'.y..'W*g. /P..'61r((; M.

ealism argument and indicated that flexibility was called for in considering a utility einergency plan and that since State ed local governments would be U.

,. 7 response by the Governments utilizing '.ne LILCO plan could be assumed. The n qcg@g obligated to assist in an emergency at (N Shoreham is

llity, a "best efforts" h.

,j M. m.'. h A '< Commission stated, however, that it v,ould not assume that such a "best. efforts" L ~... '.l,.. 9 m i ;p.j,a.9 government response would be adequate. The Licensing Board was directed n 3 ' y;?. yJ., *. ; t, yll [.e,,- evidence where necessary to augment the existing evidentiary record. See CLI. ', G 1. E.. [ ;'. " ' Jp to recera!m the matter in Ifght of the Commission decision, taking additional

g* :.

( ops

c. g.p.a.F.

86-13,24 NRC 22 (1986), i 1. ~,..?."'S...,-.1/ $ The Licensing Board, in again rejecting new summary disposition modons c .-n .f*.b~K..j,w,l,f'.*if.g'."'-l';; ,.,s .'.y O on tbc legal authority issues, interyceted the Commission's ruling in CLI 8613

• ,; y.{ y
• f-. fj

.$s not making indisputable what the participation of the Governments would j .,.c V,.p p ',g.,,p.j {p be, and leaving open to question whether the Government response muld .. : 3 '. :'. i,,. mees regulatory requiremenu. LILCO's second summary disposidon motion was .J

• [.u(,,f.t Q' i,

., sj [t..

E denied on grounds of an alleged lack of familiarity by State and local government ,. * * + ', ', '. ;.

• u yp ".r. e,; L*c dN.,

s m o,,e %,,i e,eh ,,w,e e in.co, e,eh ,..p es, ei.,.,e, a u pte,,,,nd u u ,.a '. */ "realmse* no in.CO's dadense that, in an ensrymney, mais and local oflaats we.ld r.=r-d .>*;,,1;,. 3 l$ A..6 jf ' *.,. o s Two o de tse emearmass, me daalms we pasons tatne sw (Caessemi sn, and the esher we espouses ., 2 ;. -,3 fismi (t*,==== 9) bewe been psenamel, realved. N reunames ersemeasse cent the fauoweg asons: I ,,, s1 ;y,. ,,.w[.4rl Ceessansa 1. dusseng traf6c; Caessenen 2, leaf 5e caseret unchadmg bloc 4mg sondesys. Cmemuum 4, surnorms o*j%F .i, r a. ^ a stenruceans firme pr. Mas roadways; Cse=aum s, aestmg mress and tenhasurs f.Bs iness.ge; Cmeasuxm 6, j ./

• i t *y

resmusmandesaans and densens en pomereve einums; Caseman 7. sectereneidenere and demmons cm cas.s= w ,v< esecews patheer Ccsemexa s, res nsndatners and deemsms ce recogry sad suurety, etel - 10, l .*'f. ,W eseems esseret of f/Z penmeer .' y i 7 33 n. v. ., f,f g.- / ,,s.'

',6 jc} (

33g '( y t e, y;j j ' p,,, -.~.,; d a *(} d g, a,- c 4' i, .. h *,' ? ,.. ;, { ,s

• h7

> l: n o,. ', l 7 's s,. - .',,n ' / '.. .:-t--~ ~ ~;r v. ~ ~~ ~. - r,. - ,e,.,j ,.,H,:p ;. e r n,,* ri ; r .r'y t. ks 'W,- Q - y.

• mP,*

%';I j . \\ .i ,,I,, s .%7,irg 'b g' ,p I ,f 8 9 2, '8 A' ,,= g g, I*.

• r}

-.k [ g.# g i u

O 7.~.g .,., y ,.j... + u, sg,..,.. y ; c j n. . ~,. '., " ~ ' y,. - s .~.). w.c :. 3 a. e .' v. q g.~ i p., j (. '.. .}$ . /l personnel with the emergency plan, a lack of legal authority in LILCO to carry ~' 'v ',.4.f out the contested emergency funcdons, and a void in the record of what the x.,,,. - ( Governments' response would be in an emerge. icy. The Board did find on the g. ,"; " ',,1 7 N,' 3' & ' ;- } ".-n basis of uncontested alkgations of fact that the Governments possessed the ,,) ',J. - physkal capability to respond, in the areas being contested, in the event of an ' ' fe. "- 5:,. ' Y ',. '.*" N ..' ,f.~ ..'e,.., emergency. See Board Memorandum and Order, September 17,1987, LBP 87 , y l f ' o. 9 i, - ; C ; <" -i. S I D*.' '.'.,.1,$ B '- [," '. 26,26 NRC 201,225. In denying a LILCO modon for reconsideradon, the Licensing Board stated that (1) the Applkant was not able to rely at that time on the then-proposed rule

• /.:

.~ ' (whkh later became $ 50.47(c)(1)) stadng that the proposed nile was different ~ . E...,' N-than the law of the case set down by the Commission in CLI 86-13; (2) the '; D ; " ' ; Licensing Board had not improperly applied Cuomo v. ULCO which held, later

• .'.?-

E' a#a, that the Government was prohibited from delegadng its polke power; and (3) the Governments' assertions in the evidentiary record that they would ~~ not implement LILCO's plan, would not respond in an emergency in concert ~ f. with LILCO, and would not rely on tu recommendadons or authorize it to perform contested functions made it an open question of how the Governmenu ," ~ ', would actually respond and whether that response would be adequale. The Board .{ ', [,/,J.5 indicated that it was not ruling at that time on which party carned the burden ig of proof on the question of the adequacy of the Governmenu' response. Board N,;* 5 Memorandum and Order, October 29,1987 (LBP 8p29,26 NRC 302). ~, s On the same date (October 29,1987), the Commission issued the new rule I *, amending $ 50.47(c)(1), which became effective December 3,1987. The rule, intended to give effect to emergency planning provisions passed by Congress in 1980, provides a procedure for approving a utility-only emergency plan when state and/or local governments decline to perticipate in developing such a ~ plan. The re rovides that where an applicant's noncompliance with regulatory J' standards is tne result of tonparticipadon by state and/or local governments and where the applicant has made a sustained, good faith effort to achieve r government participation, including furnishing of copies of the plan, and the l-applicant's plan is found to provide reasonable assurance that public health and i .{ safety are not endangered by '.he facility's operation, an operating license can be issued. The Commission provided guidance in the new rule, that in an actual emer. '~ j gency, state and local of$cials would generally follow the utility plan. However, this presumpdon is rebuuable by, for example, a good faith and timely proffer of an adequale and feasible state and/or local emergency plan that would in fact l be relied on in an emergency. in connection with the issuance of CLI 8613 and the new rule, the Lkensing j' Board requested responses from the parties on the issues to be decided under i the Commission's remand and the effect of the rule on that proceeding. See 2, unpublished Board Memoranda and Orders to the Parties on October 8, Novem- / 359 \\ [ t a 9 A

hy N. ;[ i%r. N 4 A AJ.Q. m.. H.p?*dW.,w.%p,,m;M. h.y N W ~ ac.3 < an .p-h w y. r n k.p. p:.' m.W d.v .gSM..m.f 6-a % ApS v. 4. ll9. atw wu %v. #..a.n.w;,1, .c4: .m u >2 s.4-ff%4 s tr%s N"M,MAi?'f4 %,I ber 9, and December 23,1987. In the interim, LILCO fded yet another round w ! m,< @d 1,Eh DM.h.Ddf f.Dh)p5DMy. hibefh,0 M of summary disposition motions on the remaining legal authority or realism y:8.Y 6' Q &_ bas. The Board has communicated, through a telephone conference on

h. p g ?g g & [ N (!$' h @;$ k W/

.$p February 25,1988, our decision denying LILCO's motions, and the foundation .? for this action is submitted below, We address herein ow review of the various Procedural responses requested from the parties' and our interpretation of the f% ' W[h.,h/4 jMd Dew ride for purposes of amplifying previous guidance to the parties on the ,% 0#'43 9 2%g:hXtijpQ;,.o D: QpP re.naining realism contentions. n - h. p ;, W..s W.::. % . 4. w h. m M G p 1,p. m 4 . %.KR',y. ;h.3p.;9* ' +M,'%@m:W g. t k ' n,; Q.. o ic. T H. GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW RULE v m y e. y N., 2 M,J.'.[7;.M.i, y*. 3,@,A.,k %['9 'hWc. ~ p.N4

n. c r.

W

6. 5 stis'}g.,WJ

= g - ...J/ In a Memorandum issued on October 8,1987, the Licensing Board r=="ad. ",i M MS,N;)k N *.N,W, Q N M.{y as indicated above, the parties'specificatian of the issues and questions to be N addressed under the Commission "realism" remand of CLI 8613. The parties NS$Q$ also addressed, pursuant to a Board Order of November 9,1987, the effects of f4Md, PUN'NMMfDMf,TZl M'? cN 8Q%g./, *,p.y the new rule on the Commission's remand. The parties also filed responses to J <? W a Board request of Dumbs 23, which sought their interpretatjon of the wrd ]M M.$. W /. k !?( @b h @% !*4 "may" in the phrase "may be presumed" as used in 10 C.F.R.150.47(cXIXili) h dh as well as the rule's applicability to Appendix E of 10 C.F.R. Part 50. M,Uk.M;MQZ;d.g Section 50.47(cXI) reads as follows: %w \\u %.m. w.w'.;PryggS,g. M. P M.;Icc W K ; M 49. y d ' n.y .5 (cX1) Faaure to mest the applicable andHs a fore in peregraph (b) of this seah 7 c q.3 F,. may rema in the commluien den, to inus an opmaba bconut how.wr, the applicam a 19$ys:5.@,%y%'g.s:c*C d d d hm an owomumy to demonstime to es satisfacch d tam "-H eat desciac=e e p$.'c.;M Yif %j, f, yM in ll= plans m na signi8 cent for -he plant in quenh, that adequaw intwkn cwpeuting je,g s ,N. . y..

1. Ed adiens how been or d be Man pmnptly, or that eers are caher e=-.a.nN reasons to y >j;-i. r< g;jcgg".hy.g, p.p%3G

..,t.p gy r. : y. 7.. - p7

• permit plant operences Where an appbcasa for as cperating license amets that its hability to g;.g. rq a.,nn,w.ste compliance wie se requiruneen of paragraph (b) d this omairsi ruults whouy 4;., @W 'M,M*2,'. ;,*S. fdg p

di;ig7i m M57 or absursiany froen the decision d siew and/cr local sowenmeras not to patiemme fureer V ed " b; g el f'"?. M.;[M p"' h @ M b ernerrecy plannh g, an operetag licenne m1y be issued if the appbeata demcastraaes to i the Canminion's satisfaction that: i M I !? y s'p*(. * ',W> d. ;N,;/. j *[f l- '9.W!y ; (1) the appbcara's dljty to ccanply wish the requiremeras of paragraph (b)is =boOy or M., g WR

• e Q' submanniany the ruuh of the ac=+ 2.r.w. of name and/or local sowrnmaras

.WM e oi) ne awbe=s hu made a maa =d. soca faie erron io sure and resin es s.? ^M.Er:M.7j,T.Q,$ e W'. .d .er? W pww w me penin=s n=e andhe local se.. --! =eariike, includies ** [',,.,',.2<3;M(y ;h.Fj'h@j'M,0 '-f,a . p. V/ ' "r furnishing d copies d its amergerry pist. "., ' j' 12,,' %"g. k. .iN'v',p' GiQ De aplicant's emergmcy plan provides tsamonable assurance that public bashb

4 7,J

Q'h r.a r, Q,,

and safeey is not endangered by operstaca of the facility concerned. To make that $nding, 1 ,f y*M.N..K;i.f/C.G # 6e applices must desnonars.4 that, as outhnad below, adequese proneain ineneuru can t , y.,, < % g?,@8, rgl,%g'W 1 and d be a== in me evers of an weersency. A isility plan d be enkased esaina ilm

• ~ O'$,.U;f y7,&. y. s.7., J. b;Q;)f;,')'.j.Q'7'&.

f iL'lf;a \\ f.7 lk; My%.k -

• Rs a ie mp=

r .d tr as one. So, itet, e.s.nus vw c -a2 Q 3 ?f.f.Y a.W 8413 Ramand (Raspeses), to g' -9 roe.wd as Ne=eder 17,1997, en th, new ruls '" -M ,q'9 , ', lf c.'3 a, y [; '.p @, ' p.' % ..f, a .,s Bnds), ne supiass cm enhar peruss' shnes as Neveraber 27 and 30 (Raphas) and to Dnsis d Jessary,,13, Itts, ,$" 7.,. emmeermans ' m d de wad nisy" and apphselmhry d Appenha E is the new rule (Bnata). i. ,. ++ ' y f*,, c. a ;< 9 '*, ',

• \\s.

1. .r.

ar. 6 r, t + - h,',* +r. ' -.,..q*, .l<s,*. n - 6 a n g.,. '. f [ ., ( q!l 360 , g: -,; n (.3 4 [,,1,f f :y,.~, ~ + e.J.;',f:; Qy ) ., ' sj. Ms'; r , '. Al.,.b;,..,p. p \\ } A a. ,.,,k.e~ r, .,..M,,., ) '. '., y,.,.f 3 ' 8

k. '

.g . ' 1/ *, * ' '

• < [

, c,., seg, np +,

• • ...r

'.*., s, j. ',, ', ',,, j i,. 8[ *.,. ',, ',

• s.,

.-il.-* -J. e c., t

• t 1

8 + .~.l r *, ? ' ',... '. ' [,'M/ ' i-h b.~,'. ; g', ,a, t. ',. e M.7 4,.. h..", V.D. 3. ' #..k* { .s i 8 3 t i t s c.., t e,,,,

• .i * %q.,,#.yI 7 6.

4 * .(. f/. 39 tp.. ' f., ^ ' ', J A' . *.,.., g /. [v h * '.4 (r

• 3 (,,

..'t e3 ) q ..s.. ? h, ( ?n ~,' ' ','. ?* 'f, [ s .r ; 1 .' ' i,1., ' d,2 +g r 3 ,t .,El a A------ - ~ - - - ~ " ~ ~ ~ ' -

V..,... .v,e,.),' - =v w g*;.. x n.o w. .,~ a-e

• g,'-

). = ...,.C.a.9.. : s a . x,'x.,.. r a. N e, '.. j. L.' ?- + ma'. : '- ~^ y ;;-;.;.%.s. y.. M . ~.. ...... 3., - : ',. :t n. ' y .w a.. ,p. m.. ;.,.: ,wm ,v,it ]..].x. a%..,. s. n. '..', e' N.J..,... Q.. ...a a. (p,,,, p ' ".,.7,..o., _; - g,,,,,,,, 3,,,, g,, i;,,, g,p,,,,,,g,g)g ~/ a[; e 7 c.'lb J. r'.2 4 i '. 7 %.. i * ~ 4 ? this secom. with due alkmece made both fw (1) those elenseu for which state and/or I ^ ';C - ]x. local aan.partidpauon reu ccepliarce irtfeanbie ed (2) the utility's me4euru duisned s . %', _p. ' M 2* 't. b...'. g.3. g S., w., ',.. to companum for any oendmeses twohing innn stam more local non.prucipwian. In u %..?. ;., : '.a. J.f'Sg ;7 7 realiry that in en actual emersency, same and local sover=nera dadats wiD eurcia their $

• y:. [. ?' l - f p c / G f,f 4 makins its determinanon on im adequacy d a nulny plan the NRC wiD recognise the l

e .f 1 .,. ;.'.f,,5 h-;, but effons to protect the heahb and safety of the pblic. 9g, f << 7, . M. P..3 y ry.e. N NRC wiD desermane the aAn<pa<y d that especsed ruponse, m ccatannuce with p,,i r ',.a -[. J Qi.,,g $"+ M ' [c. 5 J;V of y the ta3iry's compenusint meuvres, e a case-by case basis, subjecs to the foUowing , f,* :.i ' y 4 *. e. /N ' N.. - (

• 0; guidance. In addrening the arcumstance where eg9 cana's inability to comNy with the li M *. '.' D,k.

,,h, Mi' [ [s,. ? :, < stam adhr local sowrnmeras. it may be pruuned then in the ewis of an acsual r*iasical e.y.. : (;W(: regaarements d parastadt (b)is whoDy or substassinUy the resuk of nonymrtidpatie of u ;?..., y ,,3 < =~ y a,.. :...: '.,.,. .,, 7;... morse.cy suas and local d6cials would generaDy foDow the icility piart Ho=ever, this . /,. gf-- x,. q. e. 5 ;. ' prwampaica may be retnamed by, for eumple. sood feith and umely r offer of aa adequau %, ' " e,,. and femible suu andkr local radiological emergency pen thss weeld in fact be relied upo

• l. 7,'. i' in e radiolosical emergency.

,v c.

a 4. c. 4% . y s* 'f l

p.

In an effort to synthesize the varying posidons as expressed in the filings A J,%.#;.g'y,,,0. on the new rule's impact, we set forth below the salient issues in the brie 6ng . /s d.,,".o.,,. s Papers, the respective views of the parties, and the Board's additional guidance . i. n...

/. "

for consideration in the forthcoming hearing on the remaining issues. m. -. p,-,,, c., n,,,., y,. s. r o j 'g.,, v s z,.. g,..= C. *,... :.

..'(,. c.. '. W " (

What Effect Does the New Rule Have on the Remand of the Legal j . T. N Authority or Realism Issues of the Remaining Contentions? v.'.;.,q.j..,1,. -f. q b", pg v,,..e >f;. ' ) i. m.:,... - The Amlicant believes that the new rule essentially resolves the issue since .5.,;vt.'1.}.4J.,,.>'- the presumption of the rule that Intervenors would follow the LILCO emer-f'. y.:M.} - l,.7,,. g gency plan disposes, in its opinion, the legal authority related-issues. LILCO '., LJ 1.J l,, .. ( Supplemental Brief at 1. Accordingly, the previous flaws found by the Board .}, j ' ,l/, '. (LBP.87 26, supra) concerning a lack of legal authority and nongovernmental

g.' ;

..,, ci N participation have been overcome. Government participadon is ensured by the ...? s J,; ' >,..,.i rule's assumpdon that such of6cials will exercise their best efforts to protect + . -',. 7 .,s g. J h.', the public in an emergency; the presumption is that they will follow LILCO's , ' a(. - l y,7 * ' plan, and State and County governmenu can also authorize LERO personnel to 3w 4.Q *b - y( a.'- perform specide acts to protect the public, if it becomes siecessary to do so. . 5,7 l.,. .J / e., 'l. "d According to Intervenors, the new rule essentially has no impact on the , S. 7 issues involved in existing contentions, and the general scope of CLI 8613 j "- l'~ f' J,. remains as previously identified by the Licensing Board in its September 17, h .k J~ 1987 Order. Governments' Brief at 5. The Commission has made clear in fu ( % ;,, g ; ,l,g f. h l, l * '. ',), discussion of the new rule that licensing bourds will judge, on a case.by case s ', g' *. q basis, what form the best efforts of stale and local governments would take, y,.- .~a and the Board in this case has already decided -in ilght of the Governments' .~. 1 ,j,. -.;,- .p

. ;j denials - that it could not adopt the pesumpdon that the LILCO plan would 2-J s be followed. Id. at 7 8.

.s. >a .,p 361 2 . >' m. s s y W ..L g.. \\ A E. p g 4 l E . o 0 .a %s f .I.- ,.8, I 9

• s

,I .t ~ - ' ' ~ ' ' ~ '

h.h,h l%$;y S.!. V',\\:$ - : % li,.h'hN h kN$M.N$.&&*h CMyQij ' NM;n'? e&l.%d,&'.' ~L';NN. N D kih d?$$ A$$ENNMM

k Y

, w &.. m m. 7. a,m.. M,,f ? yh x;tW S.... m;, ya 2 h?W Q.".w. m. $p Av.sa.%r-@; I.,OM..:..1 NEl.[n' .l ih;M,b A,Lr..'. W."p. ? ^ M:p ~ ?. .x ~s : i y ve g A.ye., v.m,te d ? p,.' g h,*. W M '."C ne Staff contends that the new rule and funher interpretations of CLI 86 13 MIkNhh'N,1*[WpnlA6.T.'I.h remove any doubt that the remand is to focus on the best. efforts government h,,.D.d;Q WGr..n5?kh.l the Governments intend to do in an actual emergency. Staff Brief at 4 5. De ~$F implernentation of the LILCO plan and not on an open-ended inquiry into what Nhhiy' sj@'.6M..n.,e%..:.,::. g, -;4.g*.@,r9 A +AYI.i M,N' M E M. hf/ Q.M,NNNMi 2 Commission intends the presumption to be mandatory, that in the absence of a good faith and timely submission of another adequate plan by the Governments, W M^t.d:WI 'MW,.: the LILCO plan will be followed. Staff Reply at li n.6. I w:s, s. 4 0 - w q... I*.,. y + r. g a

• ~

y.j Sp,M,Nvk*N. <'.W. U. '4.E i.' id WN Did the Commission Intend the Word "May" to Be Viewed as Mandatory &'r,Ml '*/lf.d O., w l. or Permissive la the Phrase in the New Rule "It May Be Presumed That ? u9 ;.. T,*.s5. W'.;' ~4 ,,. la an.. Emergency, State and Local Of8cials Would GeneraDy h..y,.h/4..['.@./ . M' *. S', Follow the Utility Plan"? And Was It Intended nat the New Rule N*c. '. ffj ' p' ~l.'.f.- "Exercise" Requirement SpecI6cally Provided for by the Rule? y,y ; Override Any Con 8kting Requirements in Appendix E Other Than the '*g,p,4y'$" Q. g. 4,.w # g(g,3.f.S;.c; hd^ *,'". ... ~ .T ".*;;"... -m.4'. a. De Applicant contends that, in both CLI 8613 and the discussion of .CA.4-Q,@lhM.M. d the new rule, the rationale of using a plan rather than responding ad hoc in ..n..%. q ,3. pa.,.... ~ $,... W

l @.. Q

• J an emergency is made clear by the Commission. LILCO Brief at 2 3. De

. e. c. ;. '.,7 Commission, in its Snal version of the rule, abandoned language that indicated .. w a s 3,W. Q<,.f.+.ym... y.m;;M.%<.,. ".,*..g.7.M,,, N 5 p..g L no assumptions were to be made on what actions the Governments would take, ,s j7. T,s;M. N.'k @g @2 4.' W~ * ", ".. such as following the utility's plan. See SECY 87 257 at 21. Finally, the DJd@.Id D-2.'C.g' ~,. ~ ? language used in the rule makes it evident that it refers to the alternate possibility ' 1.'! l' for the presumption: that either LILCO's plan will be followed or the plan will n.u %.~,a.%... V f M. 9.'.: j.f., Q, e. f% J ..: /7 be rebutted by a different plan submitted by the Governments. LILCO Brief at Q:g-o $ ~.,+ $.7, .w .H y !*f;;y.Qg. ' f gj Z 3.J. ; g# ne Applicant alleges additionally that compilance with the new rule is e

7...

tantamount to compliance with Appendix E. A contrary assumpdon - that an W; Q. y:, sll[s;,. W L *...,.y 3 U....'?. <~ s. d ',','.',? Appendix E requirement could be a roadblock would undermine the regulatory w A .e, +. structure created by the new rule. Id. at 810. v,.,g, _#c,g.

m. 1...- u ..

b. De Intervencrs contend that the word "may" was intended to be used

f.,

t, .,: V,b.;MJ, 4 #.' . T - ',# Permissively by licensing boards since that is the plain rneaning of the word. It f if. ' {.. f'f. W,;'*."",.'.~. : must be recalled, in Intervenors' view, that the Licensing Board in its September ., j,7. 17,1987 Order has already ruled against such a presumption. Derefore, it must f.i, 3,v..',4 3 c, y,* <. a not be mandatory. By referring specincally to subpart (b) of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47 at '(,f,.. (,* ^ *., ;, - p four different places, and by spectacally referring to a provision on exercises in m ; r ~',...,B ' _., l. T,. Part 50, Appendix E, the Commission demonstrated an intention not to disturb ..Q.Sif W f,,i:m../ ] 1* compilance with the rest of Appendix E. De 6nal version of the rule deleted - ( 3.y ,,c. 5 ;., -l a section included in the public comment version that speciacally exempted

.t% A,l

!.,. 3 noncompliance with Appendix E. Governments' Brief at 2 6, ~ Q..f. d.,^. *g,, -lq 9-j _ :,

c. De Staff agrees that the word "may" is intended by the Commission l' f".4 W.,;7,, ;

d,; to be viewed as a mandatory and not discretionary instruction. De rule in the Commission's words, "amplines and clari6es" its decision in CLI 8613 where 5 j 5 . p.,. 0-h ,~ l s, 9 of -q L ';,s 362 q ,e y. '., * '.i t.; -s s ,.ce '+ \\ l.

• ,,w f s I

s 1 w l 1 [f 'y. l [p- ..9: .U ,.,.,..,l s 4

• a ;} \\.

b 4' s t o e-

, m,, a w *, y.w..,.gt,b W g',T,.9 % .A.,. 4 y.- .p .6 s u e.. - u ..;...<.1, s s . ~.,.g;<.s o ,j f.s,g.y.c 3 w. f. m j p. j, +e c ^ ( ,n. M ; Q.. j. 4. ;- 'D,. x-'- J-Ly* J . a.. ' Q.- < - \\ v::.:.,. 2,.,. ev. w v ... m. 1 .i m. ~. x '.a. %a;. s. s, x. :., l ... v.. v - 't,v, ,1. /, ', n: c.,, 2 r 5, 8,.* t ., 3 '.',,^ - ( 4 , ) j y.. .m,;, p.s. o

• L.,

';'l ; [ 2:. c,..><,, 6, the presumpdon of following the utility's plan was mandatory, it is also clear in { : %,.;.f.'.- Q..,*,, "'.g t' ("

• ., J V,

'al[y the rule's Statemen',of Consideration that the Commission's sole purpose was to NMs,c h - [...,..M..';d,M do not participase in emergency planning. "Onience" to licensing boards in C.%.' ~4 establish procedures for licensing in cases where state and/or local governnwnts . }:. r.. ' i. " $ p, ; '.. < W p,. : Li q i the rule's context is considered a binding pecedural rule. Staff Brief at 4 7. [,.j'g-Q;.;'J g c $ $sg%,,,;/. L.3.g S.

.CQ f -

c,J, Appendh E requirements, according to the Staff, must be read in the light f of the new rule. 'Ihe provisicn in the rule for "due allowance" to be made both , y' Y...D',f ( 8.MT,' Jl's.A I. 64 for those elements where cornpliance becomes infeasible due to governments' m p.,. 9 6 [,!.,M.?-7(-% J a:4.;. nonparticipation and for the utility's compensatory measures for any resulting ' Y:7, - de6ciencies provides standards that clearly show the Commission's intent not to ,., - su, g.. have conflicting requiremenu. Id. at 710. ,s . 9 y.. .c . -,i

• ~,,.:

y c' ., s,y'. ;, ; ,,',.m

.. c, d.

To What Extent Can the Existing Record Be Relled Upon? y c. ' ' b e,,. 5. a. 'Ihe Applicant alleges that the new rule, as applicable to the record in 1, ' 5 3 this case, necessitates the conclusion that LILCO's emergency plan satis 6es j t. t x J.' r. 4 NRC's regulatory requirements, and, as a consequence, no additional evidentiary .,' ' [ p: ' ' I . : JJ < hearings are tweetary. L1LCO Supplemental Brief at 1. It is contended that the 4 -I '.' l',d nearly all of the remaining issues are related to Intervencrs' now untenable Commission left it to the Board to supplement the record if necessary and since y.Ed posidon that they would not follow the LILCO plan, the record requires no 3,, f 1.;,,., - .f k ;,.-,I supplementation Id. at 1315. 'the generic questions in reality raised by the i, W Licensing Board in its September 17, 1987 Order are either answered by the i' M. reccrd or are not substantial issues. These include questions of who will be 6,, 4,4 ! y in charge in an emergency, whether State and County officials will be able

3. '

~ a to use LILCO's plan, whether it is illegal for the State or County to use J *i LERO's resources, and whether the State and County will be able to make '. ' a timely decisions. Id. at 15-19. .."'i b. In the Inservenors' view, the record compiled to date was developed m ^ A i1 long before CLI.8613 was published and the new rule was lesued and also TC prior to the time LILCO produced its realism argument. Since all prior hearings s ,7 .? have proceeded under the assumption that only LILCO would be implementing . n. B ~ y j the utility plan (State and County of8cials were not to be involved to any y signi6 cant degree), the existing record, almost 4 years old, is likely to be of ]j ' J' Qi little use. However, LILCO should be required to designate spectacally any ' ;, ' P, j',' q paru of the secord on which it intends to rely. Governments' Response at 7 9; y ,, h Governrnents' Reply at 66-67. 'a ' ' '. ? ' j m. t,.7

c. The Staff's outline of infornellon still required in connection with the

'l remaining contentions re8ects that the record contains a nun ber of material facu j relevant to the remaining contentions, which require no further heanngs. The '- ' j,,' existing record consists of the LILCO plan itself, prior findings by the Licensing Board, evidence in the hearing record, and facu deemed admitted as a result of s-I 6 k, 1 t S \\ i r e = g O q,'.- m. 9 e' 4 d 8 ,r

.hk.Y& N,h l?,$Y h M.h-M.h,&*.&h'fhh*!'?ihb.h9bkYbhWI&-hh bb bbbbldbb

. C:

, n.w.. g, y.. a a.

l. M.1;.k. ! %;,. 6.. ; -

a, q

1. p t-8 v

l*%f MNl * % " 2 QDd$ m' 3 ' N@. dk'. '$a m:J t. ,,wt, *.Q.n. .se x..~. m.. ~,.,~. w.9 ; A. e e .x .n - . m.a., ?a 2 w,.o.tg.mp

w. t 4.- W. p..e,.gQNyg,f.g..ggig the Board's September 17,1987 Order. Staff Response at 416; Staff Reply at

,.T. e, -..',.A,,.,.,.,.. t+ f g 3,....,- g g* - ,3.. '2. n,. y,3. p=, 4 9" v 2.,.w...;: +: t .. -.. *..,o:. v .ds'~ C. <T. ",3. t # V,. 4 .1....f ;.,;4,. t.s, Assuming the Record Requires Supplementation, Which Party Has the m 4 .-i M W.y 9'M,c.y M.;W.; W ;t

i M

$'.F.I ' Borden of Proof and the Burden of Golag Forward with the Evidence? -y . c..i ,;f . WM : c W *)h.)!. *). - l'. 8 g.p{h[,#9,l. proof is on the applicant, the Intervenors here, even without the new rule, have .'* N ? /. k.*J a. IACO alleges that, although under NRC rules the ultimate burden of n

• d.7,.id." ' [$[b a7 ;,.t the burde of going forward with the evidence. NRC case law (Pemuyhcala

.[.'. 4-p,;'pf,* '..];,/. 4 M 0, r Ti..'N ',@J:..$ t'C.. f. Power and I.lght Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Stadon, Units 1 and 2), ,,7. f ~ ". 7 MQ, ~~? - ALAB413,12 NRC 317, 340 (1980)), demonstrates that intervenors have ^ t...l'D l*~*y * ;,'l',.,.'o fyg the responsibility of going forward with primafacie evidence to support their V ~,,j*n*cJ. 3 '.:*f. ' *b ( *,*. 3. d

• M.1 contendons. In this case, only the Intervenors possess infcrmadon on what their qg response will be in an emergency, and also there is a presurnption under the

"..,, V.. ?Q (..,1]yf new rule that government officials will follow the utility plan and both State '. ;, y. f....,,/ '.'Gg /? and County policy favors planning over ad hoc responses. LILCO Supplemental 6 . e.- c

a..

.g-ar.f,l. I..N Brief at 44, 6. 6,e S ;,t. J,p. fy b. Intervenors allege that the subject matter of the CLI 8613 remand is the f.,j..v,.. 3.y W 3

1. f,'.bj **,,,.! '*.,kf.k.l.Y$,,

affirmative defense of realism and the burden of proof and of going forward , S >: d on an affirmative defense rests on the party assenting it. 'Ihe new rule also ..',.S. f,A g,t.~ C /,s.,pl.- M [.j.i - l. 5 fy p emphasizes the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the adequacy of its ' ;*' d j,:r 6 '. 1 M' F(.; .'N.. ' plan and cornpliance with the rule's provisions. Finally, the submission of sworn ,e' .., 7

.e# ; 3.. f-,.k affidavits of the Governor o( New York and the Suffolk County Executive is

'*,Q 36. j.M.h. sufficient to sadsfy any threshold burden of going forward on the nature of an ,j, 'i.,,* -.;, g.~ q.f. g assumed "best-efforts" response. Governments' Reply at 29 34 ' y;[

'.7 4.p.

c. The Stafr lainu that Applicant has established a prima faele case by

'M '., ~T Q C.g.A.,t

c - ? submitting a udlity plan that accommodates partk.patjon by the State and '7,r; ' J.Dy local governmenu. The evidentiary reccrd cited as well as the material facts Cy ' O.'f. y D }Q;.'. O.. c }.F',( ' the known capabilities of the Governments to engage in protective actions in '. ?. u 7., y%f.: admitted demonstrate how a response will be conducted and also demonstrate 3.,, ( :.v',3 y ;]" ' %.7.p. an ernergency. Accordingly, it is Intervenors' burden to rebut Applicant's prima

• /*N f..,7 facie case that there is rcasonable assurance that LILCO's plan with a best-

'.f,. - efforts government response can be irnplemented. That burden cannot be met ' (.

'Y

'. *,. y, [.. : by a claim that Intervenors will respond but will not follow LILCO's plan since ",.,[a., *~ ?, /, 7.,. .p, g;p such a clain. is precluded under 150.47(c)(1)(lii). Staff Reply at 11 13. ..4,, ~.. .w t Given the Assumptions and Presumptions of the New Rule, What Are the .: M.,4 ~ Issues to Be Litigated,if Any?

• :,. (

5 .y ..s' ~. s..:: p.

,,4-

) .y.;.9 4 a. The Applicant claims there are no litJgable issues since the LILCO '.I. .,*',[ [.. *: ] i.h;',.'~ emergency plan is a complete plan that is prepared to respond to an emergency. l ,S s.., 3 3.,. t. -w'.

• ;# s~ j,,;g.. ;.. p q,

' ; *, . n0., .*.,./., p, ,s 4 s 364 .N g 4 [ 3 g" { f ' +-*'.*'"*4***** T 9 / ,e 8 6 5 s ( .e e 'i i -c

i.

. c .a.,

• • I. $

j n. i.; ,v. 4 7 4 , '., /f 4 9, .' g i s ,g, 3 q ~ - ;f gjj l , _ n,

3: W,' g,. n s. % ';;.[' Y q,,, (.. se.v w .-n.. U..' ..> :n... .,;.s,.<. Y..,. %..'? ?..,i :'<l.',. >.'..,~ e q..J. : %,:...',d,!l;!?,,.l..

~.;.

/ 4 w r.y. . ~..z.q.g... ?.. . v. c< ,.. u. - n. .a . n.. . y,y. Q ;; .~. ~ ~ v.. u. .n s..., s. -y . c, 3 .I

y..,

... M,.,

.o' i . E ' ". s. '. in addidon, there are the espertise, manpower, and communication resourced that j . L

• 1 *,3 New York State and Suffolk County can produce to respond to an emergency.

,. ),.,.. il: e;< .*,,E,. The only deficiersy in LILCO's.plar. is a lack of legal authority that can be ' (,,. s O'il . f.'.,. /,.. supplied at will by State and County governments. The only possible issue is ' " ' 1 ';j h- [.'. y' whether the addition of government resources will damage the response and 4.. ;..1 .i, - J e.g :%, t - 3,,* :...yM,",y;J ', C,. increase the hazard to the pubhc as compared to LILCO's plan alone. LILCO i l '. 3.,., -..:. f.j,a a P. ME;] Supplemental Brief at 10-13. b. The Intervenors contend that issues raised by LILCO's affirrnstive de- .y. f q ',,. 7,' -"p,g{;g' fense (realism), the Commission remand of CLI 8613, the Board's September J l '., a . + ; y ]....<..:lc 17 Order, and the Commission's new rule require new contentions to supplement f b.MN ,.,,L - 0 'd, the legal authority contentions. LILCO, it is alleged, also has to outline how it will comply with the standards of Il(i) and (ii) of the new rule. In addition to f,,,' A addressing issues contained in CL18613 and the Board's September 17 Order, d ,~ 3 Intervenors suomit a number of "pnncipal issues" or quesdons related to best- ] efforts assumption that allegedly requite hearing time. Governments' Reply at / r (. *,'. 7,,, ,J. o *

M

. :,

48-66.

c. The Staff believes the hearing needs to focus en a narrow range of b ".

questions that relate to the Goverrunents' implementation of the LILCO plan and the interface between LERO and responsible government officials. Staff Reply I..'4.- ,1. at 2. In addition to questions raised by the Board and the Commission in the l ~ remand, the Staff suggested several additional areas requiring exploration.1hese , f,. ' '. T.

• f.

weas concern the adequacy of LILCO's plan's provisions for ad hoc best efforts respnse by State and County officials to the end that employing the evidentiary e presumption that the LILCO plan will be followed a determination can be made ~

• ^

that the best efforts respome would be M*qiiea. Id. at 910. .; y~ o. In the Circumstances of the Shoreham Case, Does the Regulatory Presumption That the Intervenors Will Follow the LILCO Plan Apply ~, and Has Time Run Out for a Proffer of a Government Plan for Rebuttal Purposes? "Ihe Applicant submits that Intervenors have had ample opportunity in the past i,.t .g to indicate what their responses would be in a emergency and declined to do so c, 'q (a f*:t noted by the Board in its September 17,1987 Order) and accordingly, any ..c c ,y proffer now would not meet timeliness or good faith requirements of the new i / f. j rule. LILCO Supplemental Brief at 13. Intervenors' assertions that they would ,,2

• f< :.i'-

I ,i rK4 follow any emergency plan offered by LILCO are contrary to the **best.

• l,

-J efforts" assumption and to the new regulation. LILCO Reply at 27. The Board's earlier reliance on Inte:venors' statements that they wuld not follow LILCO's N' p'.an rnust, in light of the new rule, now be changed. LILCO Supplemental Brief i at 4. The only issue remaining is whether New York State and Suffolk County, using their best efforts, would somehow detract from the safety provided by the +.. ' 365 1 { e e' i. g g .a - i Y, s e p_

L.Nh0NN.MTkMEE$. Ub.. h.' h?f d 3 h,' k ' y. W @ y:: c,J y, dv,k..~,$.k,g...h h.3)$p: w. n . ~. -, ~ p. ?t R &Y I5 .h.y ~. p.

5. :,g!.%s%.ah;a.

.w .va. .w n a $la M*;$p'JAll$y@4h(%g( %u '.Q*A. @ (sy;N ? M LILCO plan. But, in LILCO's view, this issue was for resoludon by means of 1 7,.MM,9:}g f% k*.M,. summary disposition and not by litigation. LILCO Answer at 20. De new rule ' '.C;'[.E*.; i Nf.. fi-J'% W makes clear that if the presumption of following the utility plan is to be rebutted NM.7 N@!hhh*D;Q#'Y %.",;.U?.".s/SMM lt cannot be by arguments that the Governments' aspc.,a will be ad hoc but only by a timely, good faith proffer of a better government plan. De proffer yNNS2h' of a worse plan would not be good faith. Id. at 26. In fact, Intervenors have M{*%@$,.N7.Jh'QtN@$$p*Tn (*, pf4l MMe& FTPestedly argued in this case that an ad hoc response is inadequate. LlLCO

2. 't.',*.y'h M(N.y $ ggth,'

t '~#.Q Supplemental Brielat 6. M g ig De Intervenors initially contend that the Licensing Board's September 17, a Cf.Q 1987 Order dictates that the new rule presumpdon of following the utility ' h.*MM.~d*'g.'Q*y

• P M,*%t *A(+p "Q (*g,$@.7M '.:1 lPan cannot be applied in the present proceeding. His fmding was based

1. hh J'.

on afadavits in the record from Governor Mario Cuomo and Suffolk County '. 7 1. .ii.. Executive LoGrande that the LlLCO plan wuld not be used by the State or the U."*jf *J..Qi.'b M.'@..'..(y County. This ruling was conarmed by the Board's October 29 Order wherein .,-) p*(.W M D /h.J.I*,,M @. M 'j it stated that it remained an open question as to how the Governrnents wuld

• Q M j. N Q M y' pE respond in an emergency. Governments' Reply at 1415. De new rule did

/ *@ 'yyr.Mv 6.: <,.i b ' not vacate CLI.8613 or provide any basis for invalidating decisions (like the , Y I.I,.M$N September 17 Order) made pursuant to it and the evidentiary record. In fact, # 3 Q @E G h* h k *h, M @ Mht the Commission's discussion of the new rule makes clear that decisions under it j hi 7*@);b M3xM/.;j+ e .. S % % g. #.F I.y,'f% M Q,y must be based on the facts and evidentiary record in each particular case. And the s Board's previous rules were in fact based on the record. Since neither Governor .'M F f.*,2..%.M'[b(h;h/ : M y g.k Cuomo nor any other State or County of6cial has expressed an intent "to refuse

9;I/. 3.M$OM to act to safeguard the health and safety of the public" in the event of an

' p o. $y $ $.,JJ Ci; %y A y } $ g ; j : f; G'7p emergency at Shoreham, the Commission's direction to the Board to reject any ,W.%$ .K such claim has no relevance in this case. Governmenu' Reply at 1619. Any ,.,. 7 ';hy.Q3ypC <-f,Qf in,erpretation that the presumption in the new rule can only be rebutted by .N, y,T*p,MOfSeM/Y:$.[Ihfh; y3'$ Qfppg.vgjk the one speciac exarnple mendoned - an adequate state and/or local plan - would essentially make the "rebuttal" presumpdon an "irrebuttable" or c. Id. at Q.'@ g,pg2f ;s,q,'qj

23. Also, the Governments could not be berred on timeliness grounds from MO M W TrM;MS;.-L:

. attempting to rebut the presumption, if they chose to do so, since the rule only .Th,,.cf,L 3j A $.i. 'd.p,3 became effective on December 3,1987, and a rebuttal cannot be rejected before . M.! o O ; f/pj?;,,";M ^ ne Staff argues that Intervenors either must come forward with another Q. 2 *y.s it is even proffered. Id. at 23 24. y *.7Q;;d 4 r ,, l C h*fl y*: % $ plan that meets NRC planning standards, or it is to be presumed that they 3 will generally follow the LILCO plan. ney can no longer claim that they . 7.1,'r7.54%,(,P: :g% ,,y yi.; 3

• 7MQ
• G will respond but will not follow the LILCO plan since this conflieu with the 7.'*.0:',.f d $ @ $y/ y,i g h,9 new rule. Staff Reply at 13. The new rule and the Commission's Statement

, '.., ' : $. h.W'Q,W.g.'.7. of Consideration in adopdng it make clear that the utility plan is presumed to '. MM y,'d@/'.SMS. p be followed unless it is shon by the Governments that the best efforts will U.'.f; <. N n -.'. : f$ be based on another acceptable plan that would in fact be implemented. Staff . :f ';.p? % n py U,j?'@.4 '.* ..W '; /7 p *i t Supplemental Brief at 4. 4. t i ,mt,.f a fh f') h.:.a... w, - m., t,..,. w;.jk % y. q ~**fl'

1,,,q t h *g

y K-g ~ f,;)4, *f *n _. o[ F y w. ,g 3, s., .-l..- r e y'.' ?, f. ' 4 [i, ,y '*..'*3'.'.5. ,*g ?,.d .f,*..i

• 4

..,,,, '.e.. a..,. I p..w,qq .~ 4 s.. 4,,.c s W a.~ u. c, ~. -s'. 2, 7.. :. A.. \\ 8, ,., Q,.j; a f,. f.7.tq',

• m m,,,,.

.c *. 5,. v.t. e p i. .-t rJ s w 'I.. p ',,. (.*,. 's, * .e, ,,',.,8 +

• 1 i -

6.

• • e fg t

',{ I p 4 e i

• {

7 g s 5 e, ., a ,y , /p * .,6 ' ',. % :,f.. '3 ,s .;,,.. 3. ;;; e. o a s, s, G, (,,,e,g,,p,, g .4,, y,. ,s> ,,.b f 73,., ym. ;, >

• +

j .{' - ,1' r, Y,#

• • g
• a '.',

,y + l e '~ ', ' S.5 ( j < l is,

3; 39.g,u..y,; .g;;,.pxpq'?;;;y:n, y, ~ v-p m; z.

i n.w.

s..

>.. n..: y. w.u. .y... 9 y.,q..w.

, a,,r,c,.,.p, 9 S,.

c,i, g ;,m, n.;g.: ~,,fc,;;3s.cg.f y 7. ;., g : a. .:.. n n ;,. -. e m y.,. y,yy,s ?, - .a ;,r. - ~

y,

. e, u. e .t.

v. y n.

1.,. <a ,;.g._,2, v s.3% f'.. q - ~ put ,e ;. , : o.:.. :,. ;. i. e,,. t j t. 1 i c l 3,. e,c - l .. - ~, l Boaruf Guldence j s. h.. ". *:,... .~ ,e< ~ '.3 vi s-The Commission's decisions in CLI.8313 (17 NRC 741 (1983)) and CLI- . N,: ;.M $,. *; N,'.,,P,' 8613,.npra, couectively afBrmed that a utility. sponsored emergency plan ', %,pc',f'. T. G : sf *' offered in cases of nonparticipation by state and/or local governments must 1 f,. 7 f., ;,. be evaluated for adequacy and that a best efforts governmental response, also 3 i '.G.I. Wy requinng evaluation, would materialize in the event of a radiologpcal accident, in

j,[# 5'7 "[y-M7 *, ', '.

0..,.

MT.f. 2. 4. [ our previous consideration of modons for summary judgment, we indicated, as p,'i'/.' ' ' i'6.** r,';p?hipf'.'N ' ..- 1 S i 4 '..a we do here, that LILCO was not entitled to a decision on the merits of the "legal t authority" contentions, since the adequacy of the Governments' response in M,i;k.,_.*. fu18111ng regulatory requirements had yet to be determined. We stated there that , : :..""." r '. i ' t t'.- '7 (* the Commission expected the Board to determine what the Intervenors' response 7,,, ./, g, would be and, since the Commission did not specify completely the scope of .i., 3 :. y e.?;,. y ',,,. 6.f issues to be heard, we requested comments from the parties on what quesdon . - ( :( f y#g,.. f 'e,p' f.. a 3 ,;, 3.... wen to be answered, the extent to which the existing record can be relied ~7 ,;l on, and what additional evidence needed to be taken. Board Memorandum "]7'3'c,'.., V ' L,. d. X.,*. ! ' ?. and Order, October 8,1987, It is evident from the summary of the party's m ,i

• l,,

f, ", ? l.,. submittals,.mpra, that LILCO and Intervenors are far apart on their respective l .,., (' f.. a~ , '.'.O views, the one concluding the new rule satisf.es any gaps in the reewd, thereby .ry' 1 justifying summary disposition of the remaining issues, and the other that the 3,! ',.* h. f ' ,w. Governments' continued denials that they will follow LILCO's plan essentially

,.e J f, '.

leave the case where it was, with the new rule having liule impact, if any, ,',7 M. .. W Q In the new rule, the Commission not only incorporated the "best efforts" nE

,.. y.., 1, or "realism" doctrine of CLI.8613, out "amphaed and clarified" the guidance

, J Q ;, J. provided in that decision. We are directed to not only not accept statements of j y n.', noncooperation by governn sntal of8cials at face value, but in an evaluation of the adequacy of a utility's emergency plan, to take into account the probable o response of state and local authorities. See Commission Discussion of Final Rule .,,iU 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078. Except for that guidarse and a rebuttable presumpdon, ? '. c,,,. discussed below, that state and/or local governrnents will follow a utility's plan, ~,. the new rule basically con 8rms the remand directions of CLI.8613 which were 'w, 'i. Sf' evaluated in the Licensing Board's September 17,1987 Order, y. ~ '. { 1' We conclude, therefore, that the new rule reinforces our previously considered .(91*,,~,*,f' judgment that the Board's responsibility is to ensure that the LILCO plan t e,,'.y., 7" '. *- 1, supported by a best-efforts response moets the test of adequacy under the j, g... !

• 3,, * : * '

} Commission's rules and reguladons. In carrying out that responsibility, however, ' ' x 'S it would deprive any proceeding of a meaningful purpose if the rule was . 7, # y 4 , 1j., A,l*',' .l interpreted to permit any state or local government to successfully demonstrate a

p.

j continuing nonparticipatory role. We are con 8 dent that the Commission did not .} - ),* - i.$ 'A j. ' should devise to cover public emergency situadons, but neither did it contemplate i 3, m-intend to dictate to any state and/or local government what pardcular response it 4 1 3 ~ that no emergency response would materialize. 'The effect of the new rule then .. +, 0..n q 9 ,b '3,p ,. *g 367 ..n \\ ,\\ h g . ~.... -. m, ;. 4 ~,, t e. e i .,s J ,6 .f v

• we

( E {' 3 e g s. g g l>' ,a s I 6 t - i

t s.

h I %M [ti ,(~ h,.;'. h ? $ O M L N ^l[

• > W.hbWO.'. L... N O, L*MhWA',

2. "yfMP.w y M-n tb Ql'@W %dC *B.

4i p!lM[.n%c. iNl';b'N> *,'hp.f.Y,d ma W Wm f?:$m &su$Q !dlT *Yi? ) I. is to place a responsibility on state and local governrrents to produce, in good ' MMR k;M.@y['e? ;*pe.N[f@M;d

• yO.M. ;.

@ ' b,F d!l:g' faith, some adequate and feasible response plan that they will rely on in the event of an ernergency or it will be assumed in the circumstances of this case ..? !p "f /*W;t-igJ that the !II.CO plan will be utilized by Intervenors here. In that event, the M

• hil+'f,V 1.II.CO plan will be evaluated for adequacy alone.

'iN;f.a'%% %@FC$ N[ff%dfM7:((MM[$ fMrf 7 The Commission has stated its conviction that state and local participadon 95 in emergency planning was not only desirable, but essential for maximum 'N'Mk'M;$ ;, ctfectiveness. However, the absence of such participation cannot be viewed as . 3r,7 k;iOg:A$M* yyy f % *', E *ltJ M:;/<[;.'g*tl [. k,$ since that would result in a de furt veto power in the hands of state and local an absolute impedirnent to licensing of substantially completed nuclear plants $; M L t.1l/2M ,h government of6cials over the operadon of nuclear electric facuities. See Long 7,.Alp../@M,Db .19.8 d "N /sland IJgh#ng Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), I.BP 83 22, A T '. h '?. I,7 @M N [ N 'i d M t %

• /

17 NRC 608, 624 (1983). Accord Commission's Discussion of Final Rule, $'*,%dI. M lW: 52 Fed. Reg. 42,080 (1987). The fundamental purpose of the new rule is to J.Q.,' *[? M.-lM.%UM'K provide criteria for evaluadng utility. prepared emergency plans in cases where, f.3%%/;.Q jfMik/4%g ? 1 in fact, state and local governments do not participate in such planning. In Y 'a providing specific guidance for evaluating the adequacy of the govemmenu' l'c. [/4,W MJ "h. Y.h. M.h

7

Q$,d@Q?;$p1/.(:

response and the t;tility's compensatory emergency plan, the rule provides, ZC f M Y through the use of the word "may," a presumption that the utility's plan will . ?'$[%g,[%@(yt@d,gj;'t,(.i Mi .;p,".; g. .p.g be followed, a pesumption rebuttable, however, by other responses, as for N J:ND[,NOh example, producing an adequate and feasible government emergency plan that 2 ; %. '93ld Wu%Q would be relied upon. It is hardly credible that the Commission intended E. 'Q4 t,M' 9 '"l ;ll @d.4% - in Ught of the sole purpose of the rule itself - that licensing boards f.', q h;.n,gy ;. ?' t'. r.,,.

\\.

could decide arbitrarily that state and local governmenu need not respond to w..-- R ' f. q.,y;. ;. % p, p.. r. 9 y any emergency plan - cr at all - during a radiological accident. Such an . Q,j,* '{ f, %, y j Q interpretat.lon, as the Intervenors contend for here, would reduce any "best. 4 c g. S :E y,. qQ efforts" response at best to some indetermint.te ad hoc responses, which in a a Q p / T,' Ml.'. s i. e es.;. p.;,7. 3.Qlfg$ 54 W% fast mosing radiological accident scenario could have a catastrophic effect on v y.vt. the pubbc's health ar.d safety. Assuming some detailed response wiu develop './.,,.; p.?*0 Q,fC. ur4eriles the Commission's summary comments accompanying the publication ..g.c 4#,.>d' of the new rule that the rulemaking record strongly supports the proposition that ' ' ^ y ; ~.3 q;..,,,

• state and local governments believe a planned response preferable to an ad hoc

.f ' ' M,,sl; # $ * [t 7 one. 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. We are obligated therefore to view Intervenors' '.5 x. j.a' d:%% J ~ i f$ obilgaden, in the context of this proceeding, as looking to the utuity's plan to ' "* 1 l $ "yj,. 9f[.%; ;;,: i d ..g r M,f". A.. *q k l rely on in an emergency, or fouowing some other plan that edts. Id. (emphasis .f,@{ supplied). Further, we see no conflict between A@codix E and the new rule. It is @. Q,kh, I ~** } p'7, a: an established method of statutory ccnstruction that provisions of complementary 1

• y l hl y e 0

reguladons should be read together where possible. And read in that vein here, it i 8 3 ; M (,J7u ;l bi< is clear that no conflict was intended by the Commission. The new rule provides 3 , L N gs,C ~, ' "*. q,.* i g'l that due allowance is required to be given w here nonparticipation of state or local 7. .l y

Q 1. T '

authorides makes compliance with 150.47(b) infeasible, and, since Appendix A.,...

~ j d i.' ~..; (( h;f. M. y E sugle.nenu those standards, due adowance for compensatory measures is j

1; ,. f. b [~. ~..,.,,'r }. I c .,m 'y.,q.. ,.y 4,,.....wa. gq jfg - >.. 'd.*".,..a'.'s..*. 1, gj h, 1 e ,,W*, l; w [i. as, \\ n, s, 8 g E i I r ,g 4 e g J ?",.. ~v: uh.' n j.',. ..t. v\\". >,>.%,. ~ h;s ys, b ' y,y j, ',e, ,hr ~

U a

,.4...., -. n :>. n 4.Q.... " _ _.. W. 'd.,D"%.a."'T"? ;.m' q,'m L n._..,.....' , r.: J.. ?> w q; . p. c y, x ' *; yy.. ~ n,' .7,

r.,.,.',.m.

p..ys ;. m.., '.,m :. ;, 9,_ ;p. x, b . r.. ,i.. ' '.. s.w-.. m

• e :. L.

'./ A - .U'd..,M c:. N. "e 3 s.'. c" .1 7..

• • O

? O _. '.... d, s +' ., v, 4 .l s ,~ 'e, ) directed to be made for the requirements of Appendix E also. Beyond that, the P ', d ~ o{ Applicant alleges in its brief that the planning requirements of Appendix E will , ~ > N.. oc be or have been satisfied by its erricrgency plan and its Revision 9. LILCO Brief 'g*]',**.j<..a,4ge-:...L at 10. ^ -' '.W'y.. ( _Q A, ., Jr ..,.x A question can be raised on the Comm!ssion's intent in incceporateg in the ' lO. O I.*7 [ <1 new rule a presumption that either the utility's emergency plan or, for example, , 1. s . '...<. 4 -; r ~~ 3.~ (*]*; -+ /.' *; some other adequate state or local response plan must be forthcoming to rebut 4 ; f g. %.' .y,.. g., .14.. : its use. Frorn the beginning of the concept of emergency planning st Younding (s., p'.%*.~,..<cy.3 ;J '[ y' P. g i-." nuclear plant facilities, state and local governments have been intricately in. ',, / ?.

t..

volved in the Commission's deliberative processes. See 14UREO 75/lll. Prior j,j;~p. V* to the adoption of I 50.47 in 1980, the Commission, consulung with and receiv. q';.j,'".7.j,',,*,r,.,.*'"' . ~. , -' ',. '..L ',.fy 7, ing advice from a number of state and local officials on emergency planning, ,. [* :.. G,*:.';

• [., }* )g,'

,,,a '

".3 evidenced not only a consciousness of nonfederal governmental responsibilities but considered those entities as valuable and necessary adjuncu in the agency's [,.,4... f. '. - [ - l , N.'. * ; planning process. Hus, in the Staternent of Consideration accompanying the ( y, O.,;. 1 ',, p.,.. l [ ' '.'] cmergency planning rule in 1980, the Commission noted its belief that state -5 " r. 5. ?. v c,,' and local officials would endeavor to provide fully (through emergency plan. , d J[,, ;' ning) for the public's protection. See 40 Fed. Reg. 55,402 (1975). And it recog. ~ '.. ;'. J C. ~ '.. nized in the new rule that for 200 years, in actual emergencies, state and local ',( * ' ' 1,.3 (and federal) officials had demonstrated t!.cir 'fforts in protecting the public. 52 .VU Fed. Reg. at 42,082. Licensing boards were adr /mished accordingly not to ac. ~ cept any clairn that state and county officials would rduse to act in a radiological c r e:. ?.,, en.ergency. He Commission has stated here again, as ti td in CLI.8613, that

• "J'

/. ;.' '. emergency planning rules are flexible and the ultimate test to be applied is to .,a y 'i I ensure that, whatever plan is used, adequate protective measures will be pro-j vided. It appears clear from the guidance set forth in the new rule, that the l Cornmission had no intent to have specified in complex detail what responsive measures a nonparticipating government - state or local - will provide in an q ,.s emergency. However, whatever measures are planned, the Commission's rules do require that that plan be produced and evaluated for adequacy. Otherwise, y ~ it is to be assurned that the utility's pim will be utilized as the only available coofdmated plan in existence.

• ", 7 -'..

his is not to say that Applicant's position is valid that the Intervenors, j C s. N.,$.,, 'J* who have failed to reveal the nature of their responses in the past, have lost their opportunity to do so now. De Intervenors are still entitled to challenge .. '. c

i.,

.l.a l the adequacy of the LILCO ernergency plan supplemented by a best efforts W .f.g q,f, p response from the governments (State and/or local) in connection with the l' activities contemplated in the remaining contendons, and they can also produce a a plan of their own which will also be evaluated for adequacy in meeting ..V(;.. the NRC's standards. De timeliness and good faith criteria in the new rule 'J*.. cannot, in our view, be applied a pdorf and in the absence of any proposed response. Intervenors, however, can no lcoger raise the specter of a lack of (.. 7 e A g y I 4 ', 4 l a. [- s t i p . { g e g ~ i i l 6

hdf.gMTYh.hepAfi ( )l,h,hh$$U (..S$. !$ ;' 5 I.I. ) N f N ~ f)~ - f r. 4.g!..,v.m. %Ay'W., % (.%.. M%2~ i ..&.s y:.g,.W ~ ~ ~ ~. h i ~ W.. f..; u aw: g i y. . ca m - rk 52 '*f ?* .p s A. ), %...y a......,,.,. k W., $j3{6.I'$ kdy'. ds' fd's., . w d,eq. $.Q.,.. . e 4.p ~ e W.. .m. .7 M,%- wl N. I'f,.+g d f legal authority as a response nor can simple protestations that they will not use .U "Ec,:. %n eM:.5 3* h %.,j};tli/,NN3,$*M;'jM.E./?: LILCO's plan suface. The Intervenors are required to come forward with positive i statements of their plans and must specify the resources that are available for U N. D.$ @k ~f. [ f p,' D. M -t b.i a projected response and the time factors that are involved in any emergency 2gd 1.gW A 2.W. d>%:i'.:p activities proposed. lacking the presentation of a positive case for analysis and J evaluation, a Anding of default and an adverse ruling could result in connecdon 7,Mh[,DMQMM.;< +S1 'Med' M. with the contention to which such omissions applied. N'/'M.kMi'QE .It is apparent from the present LILCO motions for summary disposition that . W' h [* ff.* d l N d.' O i. F.. W f .el d.V.7 j%v4 effort of State and County resources in terms of expertise, manpower, and com-the Applicant believes that its plan is a complete plan and that with the best ?'@$f dyd.*yNQh.W/. kN munication capabilities combining to 611 any gaps in legal authority, a prima .NP. d h q//;;;M:'s.GSc'.W $1 facle case has been made that lu plan is adequate to meet regulatory require. f'y 9[.N.M[v NFMiDf y,

• @ 't.:. N Q Q ments. The Intervenas argue that the fact that State and local governments are prohibited from delegating legal authority to LILCO has been recognized in
• $@4,Q.XQi$Qt$j '.

prior decisions by the Board and has not been changed by CLI 86-13 or the dQW.$.bMIM,MeV:iq'C.)c .WW' h. ,@,J.S new rule. This was the principal 6nding of the Cuomo v. ULCO decision rec. MM ygQ ognized by the Board in its September 17 and October 29 Ord rs. The New Nf/M ~ ".~. D h 'O. York State Court of Appeals reversed Cuomo v. ULCO, February 17, 1988, Q}' h hl,'y M "'C.' Q ;;.g G ?DRI on grounds that an advisory opinion was not a proper exercise of the State's QS!.MMD.$, yQ QlhN'D' judicial function We did not intend then or now however to oc nvey the belief l1 lM %' that State and County of6cials could not, under emergency conditions, call upon g,.'y.ig g. N ="' D.,d A ' $ /j ~ private entities to assist in performing emergency functions on a temporary ba- ?,E i4M- '. ', f,.. y. ci:' sis. And as a factual matter, it is our opinion that the New York laws provide ./. -Q f.4.GMf(',.M g',g.",*, for precisely that set of circumstances. See New York State Exec. Law, art. 2B, M.,f g,c g ? yl % c D f. d 'l i: dt; ll20.l(axe), 25. f. W y!.ll :..;;? ' Under the present status of this proceeding, with the injunctions of CLI 86- .. T !(.%. / W k, M.%;.'. 13 and the new rule in mind, we believe the proper method of procedure calls .C. ; c 7,.'. Af... Q,..y.g y,2 Y.'3( for a restatement of the contentions so as to facilitate a resolution of the issues e 1 s U g;2...t; w :, g.,. f. n befcre the Board. Accordingly, since legal authority is no longer the focus of

7. m< p.;y.c U.qf).TNMf.@.J?.c%r.r.M - ?

our deliberations, each of the contentions will be reworded to frame the issue p.. ,. g. y s. ......... p > i - to be litigated as follows: I 1,. _*/=,;. H..s+:, ).5 .v!%, "[g p f..

,,rt. 4. gg 1 f [7/.{[,j,g..i;, '

%Miher LII.CO's emergency plan and the best-efferu reepmse of the Sme and Carry 'e 9 bMet M f 8 w5 !..J. f *l, : ^ i; y 'y,j 'y'!*j '. t > <s.y,; goverwnenu *111 saisfy reguk cry requiremenu ccocerning directing traf6c. y.. y v, .. ~. ' i.'~ A!o*;. :',

,,?f9-Cototion 2

g w ' M,;m, * *r.[,

,*' {. 4; r %ksher L.IILO's emergency plan and the best<ffcuts respmse of the Sme and County 4

,7..$., ! i., ' '.,..,

X".'.' governmeras *W saisfy regulatory r%-.ms concerning bkding rohnys, sening up .'a,. 1;,~o," l n

• t..

.s, s barriers in roadways, and channelir a traf6c. 3.. , ',, y, ' - Cototion 4 q,, ..c~- 3 J", b +';,i d-j Q h whether lit.CO's emersec<y plan and the best efforts respmse of the Stue and Carry .*I '.I'. i';l 9. 7 'A3 ..l ,f smenmeras m imisfy regulacey requiremenu <=eming remains oeuructm fr= s ,',

• i. '

,, ;.); c. f. 'A,j ' ; pablic rondesyt, including the noming ct rivate vehides. + F 3 ~.. ** *, <,4 s.;P r'.

L- -j

>g.( h,.* ;,... '.,! w. o ' : s. i y 1,, ".. 4 s o. : m *,$; . s 370 s., y' < ..g .i .. '7 ^- - g, ; .t; t '1 s, I

• r "gy 4

l c...,; \\ s e

• g.

' a p

e.

>.'s F e t, 'E ' - n ,- s . g i, . + + N. 1 /'

• t I

( g , * ) = 4,, if % ' ',,. 1 ,i.,'% kb g ',. ' 'l 8; %g '5 ,8 7 r

T h,.' m p:. *i.s 3'

3..

~ s - - ;, - ',.M .? 1) ,L .,,f s u s... e . c,. s. n- , ;,. ',.;,.7, g; t ;j, ' - 3 ,s, e ..j ,;,W.y 4,, ,.. e, 'c ,.e Lh i. t e, 6 . 'i

• t
• _ g; i

c., ,.. j Casesion J

.,' I

'D, 's a i, e. ' * */ . y Whosher IJ140's amargency plan and the bem efforts respose d the Same and Cowsy T perwners wiB sesisfy regulanory respirunoms concerning acuveung sirens and direcung

• g ' k',,' - '

,. _, y.,, f. s .? the benadraar and casesas d emergency brnadram system musages to the pblic. ,t Causesion 6 s . G.# a ;?.j gw. hor IllfD's emergency plan nid the best effcets rupmee d the Sims and Cowsy _f+ 1 (';r ' r,;,,:',L ' ! . i gonromsens will satisfy reguimory requirunerus concerrung making decisions and of6cial g:.' - ?.*, * *'e..g...... 7 r r- - W to the public as to the appewnaee ecnians necessasy to protect the public ((' f'n.",. D;.**"({-. 4 J "'.jA,, the pundie. heakh and salesy,Inc. hades deciding gan pronacaw actions that win be crunmunicaned no .g . e

.,,,;,. (.

, e.*. j.1 Canesion 7 ,w a y. .~ > *:.. ' w., " t. .f. ;.. ',~ O: j. Whashar IJ140's emergency plan and the bem efforts rupmee d the Stue and Cousy

• [f. l

' l, . 9. * ,a governmeras will entisfy regulacey rapiremeras cmcerning proascsive actions for the ,,.? ? 3,.'.,.,,'r. **,t infestia esposure paahway.

q

?.. 3 s w 4 Cauetion 3 /,, s-l g.. 7

e,.,l,

%hether LItf0's emergency plan and the best efforts respees d the Stas and Cowry 7 ?,,.".

• S ;.i

, 4, * * ;/ j,,, pernmeras wiB saisfy regulancey requiremeras concerning recowry and reenity. R s

• ?

.. ; l '.;.. Conrewien 10 . ~ ", , v. Whether 11140*: emergency plan and the best-efforts supmse d the Same and County ', ' s ',. * * ". y sournmass win satisfy resulasory r puremeu cacerning access emarci W the EPZ pmomer o .t j [ i We concur with the Staff's views tha' the forthcoming hearing needs to focus on the latervenor Governments' implementation of the LILCO emergency f plan and on the methods by which LERO and responsible go,ernment ofAclals .M 1 will coordinate responses. The Board raiwd a number of questions that had In its view no record foundation in lu prior rejection of LILCO's summary disposition motions. Board Order of September 17,1987. LBP.87 26,25 NRC at 217 23. Tte Commission has also raised several questions requiring funher exploration in its remand decision. See CLI.86-13, 24 NRC at 31. Those inquiries may have been answered by LILCO's revisions to its emergency plan, but they require evidentiary foundauon in the forthcoming proceeding. We do J not agree, however, that these matters require further ampilScadon through a new contention process, an action argued for by the Intervenors. The current M,.. ] discovery process, which has been authorized on the restated contentions, offers '.,.7 ample opportunity for the parties to explore the additional positions of the 4 i i /.,, a litigants on these matters. ./ '. " ' '.,..,j: The partieg disagree over the validity of the current record to support 6ndings 7 +4 'W. by the Board on the adequacy of LILCO's plan supplemented by a best-efforts response. We see no beneat to any prolonged discussion of this matter since N ;,'~,*: _ ',,.,.: 1, 'd the reccrd, consisting of the LILCO plan, prior andings of the Licensing Board, 7; and evidence in the hearing record will speak for itself at the proper time. We ' a.

• '*.I have directed the Applicant to submit, in an evidentiary format, those parts of 371

,s - t } 't' ..l { .i a

s W' . E.W% W @M)N.dk9,UPM. W@6 N. gb W 6p6 Og,Mff'n'! .b< e-....s... p.c,*p.p.., ew :.dWiddhd

/ g c.v w..,

4. '+ 3.. yx g

p .n.m..e. w.4 - Q gW< 79..y.hT. 7 'As, ...,e.n..ex. ).&llMAN)@ "J,.'? M d' gh gjf Q /@ W.Q %n ;;%.hM,f.N@~;,v:N' y-9": 'h N .n .n Q 1 -;y ?: - ..t ..y~l, d.,.'.. W. % W n 3, ;:.yf.~ G' J.,.: y W. g g. 7.c > s :*3;ff.n+":.~,..j ~. - e .".r.- 9,,., ..'U. :.;;7.,w &,,.+,;,f/6. 7l'..,r'f.,*/. a. v O.,*. e @1.,A. ji+ M the existing record that alkgedly support its claim fcr a favorable ruling on the

• c n

. s. 3..#,y -.". issues from the Board. We intend to restrict our forthcoming hearing to take , 2. ;.j ce, p;*.'.,g,.. q. J. - W M ? ,g, e-d only "additional evidence where necessary" as directed by the Commission and (l*.d4 Y.h'."y, n'Q.'b D :.f >,f'.*V p* Q'M -h will use the existing record to the maximum extent possible. Id. at 32. p 'l 18 7",li;' j,.j,*',

• N'.N.i

'Ihe parties have provided us with their differing views on the burden of poof ..y with regard to the forthcoming hearings of these issues, and we conclude that the @:eQM "< h*.*.l.;. ;lJ ;.,/,1 ',M * [7p. 6:3.?"* $,(1.S*~/

• M.%+g /

burden of going forward in the proceedings will have shifted to the Interverxrs 4 5 ^ after the Appikant submits its prima facie case - that LILCO's emergency plan supplernented by the best-efforts retivities of State and local government t s% >'P'C 5 C, h[.)+;,'Ep [! ;{ officials will meet the required regulatory standards so that adequate protective .A +V. p measures with respect to the functions called for in the remaining contentions ' f b, d Q6 ' i.3,?f,.,..t..d.'@ can and will be taken in the event of an tmergency. It is assumed in this shifting -f, d!:.c P*p C-Q J'. M Nf of the burden of going forward that the Fesentauon to be made by LILCO w!!!

7.f. fdy Q. pJp,,

7,. g. m, [; c.f[. ~.. ' p< have answered questions previously raised by the Board or Commission in its remand decision. 3 f.S.., ?.h.p.. ,. '. 1').g .a. '/'k/ All inatters not referred to herein that have been advanced by the parties in ..~, ..-j . y, ;..'.. ;.. their briefs have been reviewed and are not considered essential to the Board's .c... p ;w. y. u,., s f. c -+ Ja .*.,-a guidance on the fcuthcoming hearings. t s c. "3 ,n ...,',..o.. '.' u > , q.., M,. - t ... J N %j ,+ , ~.. . l. ' ij..:y.f; .c. ' s

9..,%p.

^ fl1, J(" III. BOARD OPINION ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION MOTIONS .; 2-5 o 1.. A},

1. 1 p; y LILCO's latest series of modotis for summary disposition on the so-called

...M ii..., - V ;. - '. ,3,'.a_ 3 ,-e..- "legal authority" issues included: LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition d,, e o / < *.,q. of

4 S., ; q-l.

V.y;].., of Contendons 5 and 6 (Making Decisions and Telling the Public) (Decisims ' '. j'. Motion); Contentions 1 and 2 (Directing Traf8c) (Traf6c Modon); Contention e p Q,(,,-ls. - (

. ~ [.

10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter) (Access Control Modon); Contentions

s, t,.

4 and 9 (Tow Trucks and Puel 'lh:cks) (Tmcks Modon); and Contendons 7 and 8 ' s fl M/> (Ingestion Pathway and Recovery and Reentry) (Ingestion / Reentry Modon). The f~,.y.j, m , -', N[* % A pi,.,.Q, f ,p 'f 7 filing also included an introdu: tory document stykd, "In:roductiom Memoran. dum of Law on LILCO's Modon for Summary Disposition of Contentions 12

3., a

.,y<>

and 410"(Introduction). ., y. ; ;'g., " ' f r. '.. Denial of LILCO's summary disposition modons on the Decisions Modon, 9.c.N*Jl('.3 the Traf0c Motion, the Access Control Modon, the Trucks Mction (except fa .'.,9 ~ J ' il jj.,f*f.

1. ,. ~j Contendco 9, disposed of on immateriality grounds), and the Ingesdon/ Reentry

a. y.S,. O.,. ; ;,,

'.a ?,.,7..i, l K..- * ; Molice was announced in a telephone conference call on February 25,1988, '.4. T '3 and conormed in a Conarmatory Memorandum and Order issued February 29, ly.*' y j1 1988 (unpublished). In that Order we promised a clarliYing written opinion,

• '.).,'",,f, f j.,.

t <y All of the modons to be treated her are predicated upon the Applicant's (, #- N 8.y' 7 interpretstjan of the "realism" principle, a principle introduced into this case by . <

• j. M n, g. -.f*.

the Appikant. As indkated, supra. the Commissico issued a revised version , l;'. Oa .. ~

• of f 50.47(c), irnorporating and modifying the realism principle that in an w..t,..

~ ' .,,*,.'*3 *kaf*,' nt v. 6 ' ,.J (3 p ' a

• Y l

g ,% l 9 s .*.t ,.,, ; y ?,.a y. *. ; 371 gi m.' <., , [.

,l

,,.y, 'N y b e i r-- r L t e e s 5 + h q y s t V I e e e e g i' - .. /. i t .',4-y;s., p W g. ' /f,'; i. ,ydg.L t' 8, 3 ag*.*, t g e 'u*. ?m A im

_ = q.,'"7Tm . _;. a,. y., .,.,i. n,,.. /. r., , :4.,. a.,.;. .v .,c ~ .u ,,;pn.j,,. ...s. 3,., .,,- n ...... :.g. .n-

.. y :,2

, <. >..,...s n. ,,,, 0 * ^ *4 .,*n ,l,, ,.. , 7. ;. -) ~ '... + 5.. ,y. \\ n., .. c.,J., : c;,:;;;,,5 .....m...,. - a ,, ; i ..j -4 r..

p

. A; .o ~ e; +7 %. '- . ' p,.g g, , 5 .j emergency, state and couruy governments would respond. and the rule is directed ",? ,g (c,,,,l," t at clarifying the proper procedures and applicable requitements where, as here, ' / */ the state and local governments it. the regions around a nuclear power plant have

i. (c. '.M,, s..j [s NT *. Jr. 4 declined to participate in ernergency planning for that plant. The Applicant's

.g r. pl. g ~ ' r.' !. Y *, ~.i new modons are predicated on its belief that the provisions of the Commission's , f, t,... J.M. "' *". :.,q.,'.... r '

• new rule now :nake summary disposition available. Indeed, the "Admined Facts" p." f p.* M. } ; T /* Q 7 " h '

upon which these modons rely are, in the main, those of the March 1987 [ de;;K. *., j '? h,'.) b.W, Motion, it is only the applicability of those facts that the Applicant sees as , (i - 3.<'.< . C, .7 y ? (, different now that the Commission's new rule is in place. 2.e : % J: 9, :.. '.c . 3 .%.'...em a = J.*l, './ c. ';,* * ( [. - .,h'j I LILCO's Positlom i ,' 4*l..'...' *. [.' f (. l. ' i ^. l LILCO believes that all of the contendons under consideradon are resolvable [',. .~- by applying the "best efforts" principle enunciated by the Commission in its q ',,,, *;./ " = 7;,, '. 4 - . c. new rule. Introduction at 2. Although conceding that legal authority for the ,,. 6... t. eight functions addressed by Contendons 12 and 4 10 resides with the State and .. z ..J County (id. at 3), LILCO believes that that fact means merely that the LILCO .i 6 .f.**, organizadon, LERO, would have to get permission from the local authorides to ~* f perform the required funcdons (id.). LILCO further alleges that the new rule "creates a presumpden that ' state 1,..... and local of6clals would generally follow the utility plan,'" and that the "only appropriate way to rebut that presumpdon is the one expressly mentioned in 0,' , p.;, the rule: 'a good faith and timely offer of an adequate and feasible state ., 1 and/or local radioingical emergency plan that would in fact be relied upon in s a radiological emergency'" /d. at 10. LILCO further cites the Statement of Consideradens accompanying the new rule, in which the Commission said that r the rulemaking record "strongly supports the proposition that a planned response [1 j is preferable to an ad hoc one." /d., cidng 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. This chain ) of citadons leads LILCO to the conclusion that the "follow.the.utuity plan" f,. presumption simply cannot be rebutted by allegadons that the authorides would respond ad hoc and ignore an approved plan. /d. ..;e .q Thus LILCO alleges that "(albsent speci6cs, the Intervenors' c' aim that they

i

'would not use the LILCO plan' is meardngless. 'the plain truth is that the n s .,'. 'c, -l* ' ' '. ' 3,.,;- l authorides would do either what the LILCO plan calls for or something better. J 1 *,' l. ' a. [.e., If they would do what the plan calls for, then the response has already been 'J X. c, lidgated. !! they would do something beuer, then a fortforf it would meet NRC ,", i. s ,. f j standards." /d. at 12. ] This logic ignores the fact that the plan has not already been lidgated (both ,,, *,, s, in this proceeding and in the exercise proceeding there are still bars to cornplete . 7,, c ,t I approval).

1.. '*.;,.

It is this syllogism: the LILCO plan is acceptablel the local authorides would use the LILCO plan or something better; ergo, the local authorides would + i ,,g. i l<. - '.,,, ' 373 i t .'s.., \\ e + g L g s / + y

e'Q %W hj'.h~

• DWQ$$?hnkhY'h M. fx,&p?.w.&f t%

lr;j kb U f.1,p.N y:& M M W y k &i $ A % & 4 % byy qO K Oyni,kyla.' y Q, Qu h W.w LS 0 u M %.'i& M ~"

n... >W.e,c.s W;.s.#.a. %.;..M.,,.I. hf.,

V.M W y r w - ~ 1 6,. w. ~ 4. m. .t M Q. fy.-f@*'.'?:;,;&;

• p; % n-

'.g.Q:, r ..~

• ;. g p

s. v.

b)%.E.M;.gC-1.G*k.U*.u..,, . y y.u. 6.;-f f use something acceptable or better; which runs as a thread through the ' entire //V*W':.[j,.'N f ,U.

i. M set of motions for summary disposidon.

h'y+.f% @f'E N'UM._. Q[.C.'M sition that Intervenors will never ' implement' the LILCO Plan because they, not W f. .T W LILCO also chameterizes the Governments' posidon as "based on the tropo. 4 ? .Q:f ; % f P. the NRC, have decided the plan is inadequate." Id. at 18. And LILCO cites M. :f N..* v,6,T.;* Q,. various Board and Commission opinions to the effect that some parts of the

• $ 6*;2((.N $t M,s!.;;,p

- d.' Q,Mf." G,.' W.M @N,3 plan have already been approved, thus presumably making the adequacy of the plan the law of the case. Id. at 1618. Here we would agree only to the extent 4 '. M 'g'!. 'd $.1"., Jf;p of conarming that, as LILCO repeatedly points out, it is for the NRC to decide , l '.O ' G,.. y. M.U.'?,[**pN,$' whether the LILCO plan is adequate; it is not for the Governments to decide, s' ?.;'j$g;;'a. Af@M.;,MY.,; f)y In the Decialons Motion, LILCO analyzes the manner in which, it believes, .,'7,';4p.a.k.h;g@.'$.p." ~.),pp;Q.Ml.M[':['I,',. .4 ,T.. d,% fG?@. decisions would be made to sound the alarms and warn the leblic. LILCO avers if that the "best eNorts" principle of the new rule compels the conclusions that: M@ j,; M ; W..'d;td (1) the County would agree to sound the sirens LILCO has provided (Decisions i ~ p 4,;,. Motion at 2,1213); the County Eaecutive would allow the use of the LILCO . %;g*'W p ',l. . t, ; g *c 4,,"4 EBS to broadcast either LILCO's messages or his own (14. at 1617); either the g,*,asi.):- y, Q,% State (id. at 6) or the County (14. at 19) would assume command and control 1,...? E,,,. 'T 14,. ' '.'! H (see alto introduction at 4); the actions of those in charge would be taken in 4;g.!,. y%'./D;..y [y? ;' N.w *,V' %.]., T. ,I-coordination and communication with LILCO and LERO (Decisions Motion at 'c '; / 4 19 24). 6p 2.[,c "/c cp, 'p 'f. ~.-..S - - LILCO appends to its Decisions Modon a "Staternent of the Material Poets ? y., s pyp 7 '.,h 7Gy.g i' !,'- as to Which 'Ihere Is No Genuine issue to Be Heard on Contendons 5 and 6." ' K.,,tp 'the Statement comprises twenty two separate assertions, some with subparu. Of - '.~. c ', y j p f,. ve p., Q these, Nos. 1,2,12,13,15,16,19, and 20 set forth details of LILCO's OPIPs or

e.,

',,. M,. J Q gp,-l EPIPs that concern the manner in which LILCO employees are to communicate , y.., $",, f,. ' t. L '._ ;,.,. m. $f ' ' g,. '.., n describe features of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness . a

• i..

with the governments in an emergency. '! hose nurnbered 4, 6, 7, 8, and 21 sc ,,3 Plan or the New York Emergency Management Of6ce. Numbers 9,10,11, and

• • y. ih,. e.,,- ', 'f0./C"l,!.:

Ji 22 describe details of the so called "Vorhees" Plan developed for (but rejected Y., g,.',' / i by) the County. Numbers 5,14,17, and 18 concern the features of plans for ,g ', t. g4 &, other New York counties. And the statement numbered 3 quotes the FEMA Post. E ',1 q,.% ,g, ./,( Exercise Assessment of the February 13,1987 exercise as saying thai LERO r E '. D *f. j,

• i ; e,.;a demonstrated an ability to coordinate with FEMA simulators of state and local

...,,,, '. ' ( 1?'* (l., 4;'l'. ~. The Traf6c Motion asserts that the "best-efforts" principle dictmes that the of6cials.14., Attach.1. et y C-} .f.O 8,; Suffolk County police would implement traf6c control in the Seld. Traf6c . N, y.,,. J. f.,;6' ' ;, Motion at 2. It funhet indicates that the police would have the resources and l,,,i .j T - ~ "t

• p, f knowledge requisite for implementation of the plan (/4. at 2 4), basing this

$ :..,,, '. ', ',, j ',w;;.(ff,,. . n. '. ',., s M ',2 allegadon on the "Admitted Poets" submitted with LILCO's Second Renewed '; ' ~ Motion (March 20, 1983) that there are a given number of of6cers available, 'd j that the police department operates 24 hours a day, and that it has a communica.

.'<D."'[y; 4.,.

J. <,.., y - .,a tions systern. The motion purports to and support for the notion that the Suffolk ,/. a ..?,y' ,9

k., $ '.

{-..a#,.[t ,, y.,..., v. i,g,. " c a..a., '.f,- ,p>.,,7'. .,. ?.. 7,. a ;. # 314 n 'f. (' .o ) 'I ", ' J * *f ,f')4. ' \\t ' ' 't'A ,g'. 2 i**^. M,.' g. ,,y a +, -6 J 1 q t g t et 4 .g..g .q, m., , *de -*'-*r '4,',, 3 ., - a * (y 9 ,g*

• • • • 9 n

,e s g s ,e',, * .T S 'A t; .o. 1 ,.( s 4

• g.

+ % .. ). s m , -P[ ? t' g b' g.. a k '( r p U. \\fh.. l ' b.'. n.

. m _m

);6f.. f!",,.. MQ y'.si,W,.- %,~ m O< 3 '.

--l h.,. V F 0 i .y._..,&'n nG,. V n e , w.'..... n . ~

• e, l., t.<.

. p.. i -'.,*3t* .* j t-s. ',.g' ) qw,'.., /,i

y <

• • f'g,s

,/ y c ~ y;,g.W, " 1'- e g a ..,,/ mf f g.f,. ... n;. W.',,,.&o.X.r.d.%,,%,'M..o. : :,... s,: a;.s,........ ] ~'" ""'L "- - ~ ' ,.r. .. g. n ..-.~, :.,:.c , 9 n. ~ ,a,

s,,. w, n..,i w.,- u ; >. y..

u.

.:. a, i n. :w, - a a..:. n,. .c 4.+;? 7 ~ . y.m a y <.1;.4., s S,, ; <.=. '.,. w : nf 4; ;, j ,. r...,6 j .fi..,,.ss,.74.k.d..W,.?w.. $ County Police Department will have, suf6cient resources to carry out the LILCO <.g v.. ... d".ys i ; ;;,.., h 9. u,) N.. p, %., %,,' f if,(."- l;. '. " [ h ?.' V plan in a recently released guidance document. NUREO.0654, Supp.1, which p,.,:. M N g k;*q'( M... ...S..". u., g,,p, "includes the reasonable assumpdon that" state and local offwials will have suf. %,,4 s- -s ocient resou'ces avadable to implement a utility plan where necessary. 'Daf6c K.. '.c.,.A,,. A,L,. 'f > S,.00 v. 4 Modon at 3. Finally, the motion sta'es that the "best-efforts" principle "fore. l c M... J m 4 G@@MWM'7'.F.f '. L*',, u - - -e closes the argument that the police wousd drastically deviate from the LILCO 23..,f,

• 6> q d. 3 G.*.

.*.f;./,( plan, or simply ignore the advice of trained t.sf6c guides, in favor of some spur-9.'SiW' y.?' is ;j. '. ;*g of the-moment, ad hoc, sc+,,.x of their own." Id. at 8. Attached to the modon P' K L ?.."jM Q, A@ ;7.C.*./.9 I'. is a list of eleven matters alleged to bc... Matenal 1% cts as to Which There

c. f...

4". F.. t.,, j,.. g.,.E..i. J **.. %o. 'X '..'. *,.1 that Suffolk County has the resources to direct traf6c during an evacuation. Fact ,...N Is No 0:nuine Issue to Be Heard.... Id., Attach.1. "!%ct" No. I asserts s j ' W. l.;, ' '.., ? .N,.: lj,,' j :'1 ' No. 2 says the Suffolk County Pobce Department has responded to calls from a the Shcreham facility. Id., cibg the Crocker Af6 davit. The others merely list i 7 *, 3',,,,.j e - v, 'c'Nlf. a('...'. p 't.-;.'. ', '. [' 'l5,t..,7 g and describe the OPIP sections that instruct LILCO personnel in procedures for %f,- g @".4 rfp.,Tl?'VT K,*, 4l coordinating with local authorities.

. U.9l%

b'...c "f 4 '!he Access Control Motion divides the nodon of access control into two I w T l'0, ' I['..,. # Mld. laj<.. Ug-time frames: short. term control, or control during an evacuation; and long- .c '/ /, term control, or control after the evacuation has been completed. Access Control ? p' g w' A;:.6. e,* '.2.;.. m,., ;g Motion at 3,4. LILCO argues that the short term control proposed has already l7 0 4 f. i..",, Ff.' p c been approved, citing our Partial Inlllal Decision LBP 8512, 21 NRC at ~ L,{ c N.,f.? ^ ?ll. '..M t.T 804 05. Access Control Motion at 3. That decision did indeed approve the i;.'..,.,N S ,'U,D ,l9 1 M; $,f methodology of the control proposal (which was to be implemented by LERO .[..?'/,.34 'Daf6c Guides). Read in context, however, it did not approve, or even speak

' i p, ;; ' g< ? +,l. A l4 i. ].'

., N, o,. 2 T ('t; to, the question of whether the plan could indeed be implemented, assuming a ~ l ;.h ' ] W. ',,,. ' 'j.' best efforts State and County response. SA .e

fl'. g

• N As to long. term control, LILCO invokes the "best efforts" principle in 77 ;'./ ;- !f,f.G.

l'.," conjunction with an assertion of adequate police resources in much the same ,i.. j y - ['f [; : J M. 7,; e ?" fashion as it did in the 'Daf6c Modon. Id. at 4 8. Finally, LILCO pleads that j l c,1 this portion of Contendon 10 rnerely duplicates other contendons and refers us 9e e,, M ;Q.# .<L ,W to its treatment of Contendons 7 and 8 in the Ingestion / Reentry Motion. Id. at ! *, y,9, ., y. '. 3 ',y 7 ' [.,,; Which '!here Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard..." with three numbered

g. Ihe Access Control Modon includes a "Statement of Material Pacts as to

. j ;j; - 4 p, .< y .,q..,,. . w^ statemetas. y'.:,.a

.,,(,

; '

? U. '!he $rst of those statements says that da Suffolk County police would , l,.. [..f.F.,'; ; f c..' j

• f ' '., y, provide access control. It cites our Special Preheering Conference Order (Ruling U'. -

l ?,. Q;_ a.,y'* f t ?..', - P.c,. on Contendons and Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Modons, Briefs, N"j.;c. ' Conference of Counsel, and Hearing) of August 19,1983 (unpublished). LILCO J., '., y, 7, '. D. k. Q.. l *; J,g. misreads our order. In that order we refused to admit a contendon that alleged C] es absence of letters of agreement wim he police m ensum hat me polke ,t .,., ',7 : .., t y,1 ' h, gj would maintain security witin evacuated areas. We relied on the assumpdon /#, ',c3 that plice departments would perform their normal duties. Controlling access "..a* s. l 6 ff-l to the EPZ is not a day to day police funcdon. Indeed, the EPZ perimeter is a l 4, y [ l . 7...i 375 m, .g 3 s. a. 'O j \\ t,' .,t. l b/ p 4 .e t ,g g g .- i b g ' J [ I ' .y, , C (' 4. ...,. p J e' J

• r 6

&h d j y_,.

f.,

ge s,

y fp;,; _ b. c ., q,.- .'n.', '. L- ....,:..a ' s 2 '. .a+ .4 + ^..... f. x :,s,,.. ',.,. '., . '. "g.4.},,,, : ;r (.g' T.- s <n,. .o /.3 ".j. ,,,,i'.

p, q% 9 ;g %,. N 1 e.

3 .n 3 x;,, %.;3.,& . ; rl .t v v ..,. 9 .e.u. .+ __ ;n c. r, c-n

.z

. s. 1 . s. _. f.. .o .9 x,.e .? ,{ . 6 4; l.A.- .,,; s - ,[ "2 p l. ! < ' ~ 1 C,. g hypothetical boundary that is largely ignored in routine life. Whether the police [Q.4,. -;.f. 7.i. J, h..'l. ] p couki rv would mobilise to control it in an emergency is scarcely a matter "as .c to whkh there is no genuine issue." "Pact" No. 2 says the police have adequate ..,f0 ,,e. r.,T. 't resources, a statement vigorously disputed by the County. "Pact" No. 3 says ..<.4f,h[E.J....1*./'p-'.,'..% the police know which intersections would have to be controlled. /d., citing s"8. *.N %d[d..',' h. '.1 d.0;,*. ~j*./ County's Testimony, (f. 'n. 2260. That may well be. The police deny that they .- j would or could control them. a ...J, g' ' '? y,,7.,;m,o

• • ..y i

6 i "J.3 '. d f-N * % That portion of the Trucks Motion whkh deals with Conternion 9 has been . -r mooted by our Order of March 11, which granted summary disposition of ,.i.i ' 2'. d.. j.. ..G.5",,,h*'.h., "(c.[..,IJ. D"1 ;. l ,',' l Contention 9 on grounds of immatertality. We still have before us the ' Ducks .". T 4,

,.. ! '. j.f. ')/&.. ' T ; q Modon to the extent it seeks disposition of Contendon 4, dealing with tow

,,.. ~j,l.' S trucks. The modon, in essence, simply asserts that, as with the other contentions . Ql' ' j,; r f.a' ' *.4 s, ' ),'.f,'; j dealt with here, the County (or if not the County, the State) would simply allow 1

,Q. Z

.,.u. ,q LERO to use its trucks to remove obstacles from the roads in a radiological ... e.j -f c... y *,j.j, ; -l..(,..J emergency. 'nucks Motion at 1, 5-6. That would, LILCO believes, consdtute a '.,. y 's, f. w :.E., A,M './4 :5., "best-efforts" response by the Governments. Id. at 6. In that hypothesis LILCO h.(? .g,

• q*,.y,p offers an argument not unlike that offered in the Decisions Modon. Id. at 5.

. M,. ;;./.;..

1. j }. ~ ' ". !

Rkhard Kessler to show that LILCO routinely cooperates with local authorides . c '.t. Here, however, LILCO also offers the af6 davits of Charles A. Daverio and Jay 4 - 4 ..".N 3.,i in matters requiring LILCO to remove road obstructions or reroute traf6c around them. Id. at 2,5; Accompanying Afddavits. LILCO also appends to this motion ...' 7 a "Statement of Material Pacts as to Which Thcre is No Genuine Issue on (.- ,p.3' 'D 1 Contendons 4 and 9 " Two of these (Nos. 3 and 5) pertain to Contentjon 9, 't ; and hence are moot. One (No.1) simply asserts that the LERO road crews have 5' radios. *!he other two, however, assert that Suffolk County lawfuuy could, and .c e-would, direct or permit LILCO crews to remove obstacles from the roadways 's in an ernergency under the condidons imposed by a "best-efforts" response. Id., Attach.1. That nodon is clearly disputed by the Governments. In the Ingestion / Recovery Modon, LILCO tells us that there is, in effect, a ,t. ^ dkhotomy of responsibilldes at most power plants for the ingestion pathway, l.. recovery, and reentry functions in an emergency. Ingesdon/ Recovery Modon at e y~'w- . l*, 1,18,20,24. The State takes a major role described by a generic State plan, the 4 .. j ? .y coundes take roles described by appendices that contain the plans developed by 4, f, "jf,, , n, ' Lg,' ?. .;*-l'. < ' ' i-the counties themselves; the one for Suffolk County, of course, is lacking. Id. at ,,f . q

2. LILCO sets forth its hypotheses in considerable detail (Id. at 3 26) describing y

( * " , x$,c.. *,?. ' 'qhow State and County would interact, always assuming that the County, at least, ci.; e - cyv f .0 would be constrained by the "best efforts" principle to follow the LILCO plan ,f-s. ?,f,.{ in the absence of a County plan. /d. pesim. LILCO stresses that the State would .,.g ". have no dif6culty in responding and coordinating with the County in meters

J;. -J s -

i! regarding the ingestion pathway EPZ at least since the County is within the 7 u.',. J.', ingesdon pathway EPZ for other reactors for which State plans exist. Id. at 19. '. s, J..' '. 1. Again, as with modons concerning the other contendons and in the Introouction,

p. '

u 376 .n . g, .6... g i. ,s b . 3 e i l . '- } - s. q, g. 1 e. s q .i

.+, 7 ' s.e ..,,o..,..,. a, .m.,.. .. ~ 7 7....,,.., +. e e i .o , y,.. ' k o '.' i:,s,: ^

s; '.% :* u.

' r ' 4 ;.,.;.. : - a - <.~ u. .,.m .). .-.r. c r. g i .y- .y [.p pOl-I. l' :;,,A, '.. ;,

• Kd h,.

I + 1,, ". k,;.' ' * + ,..} LILCO repeneedly tells us that the force of ths new rule compels us to assume ~ .i . c. ', f k %. s that the local authorities, where they have no plan of their own, will use the f Y f...". 4 ~ y, S G ;$ m LILCO plan. -v s . J.. '. '., >Q;, 6 'Jy*. ]A.;f 7:*.* d;gg LILCO also appends a "Statement of the Material Pacts as to Which "Iherc Is 'l ',1,- $ a.:

f., 7,,

r No Genuine issue to Be Heard on Contentions 7 and 8." These comprise 6fty. . p git "$.y?'.'. "a d. -.i Sve statemenu generally outlining features of the New Yoak State Radiological

• 1.

,. '. 4 : ( 6, t*; Ernergency Plan, plans for coundes other than Suffolk, and LILCO plan features, _ ".h. %?.7 Y.'d all of which are alleged by LILCO to be descriptive of what the State would do 1

0..,

,n,. ~ 0.,. %..(p, 3 ' ,+ g., in a '"best-efforts" response to an emergency. Two statemenu (Nos. 54 and 55) i a

q.,

,: 3,* p '[ note that FEMA tested the ingestion pathway response for the Ginna plant and ..N , y.s.N.* ' @ m.,..; provided New York's plan with favorable comments. e, .. q... m.. c4,,p.. v. . ~,;.. -r c ,;,.n., N. <..,.,o[Q;. 01 February 10, 1988, the Governmenu submitted their replies to the mo. E g. j,, ,y. The Governments' Position J. ' l; * $ c.. '. s .e. h,. *, ;,.,,, tion. '!hese included their Overview Memorandum in Support of Governmenu' f *U, f7.r,.,. Opposiden to LILCO's Modons (cr Summary Disposidon of Contentions 1 t .w- ? J' ',, j. J 27. F,.*. ~ 2 and 410 (Overview), and separate documents opposing LILCO's Summary g.;, " ' ig ';

• Disposition modons on Contendons 5 and 6 (Decisions Answer); Contentions I s

-.,, N and 2 (TYaf6c Response); Contendon 10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter) -i (Access Opposition); Contentions 4 and 9 (Trucks Response); and Ccatenticos 7 and 8 (Ingesdon Pathway and Recovery and Reentry)(Ingestion / Reentry Re. i ' " ', ? sponse). Attached to these documenu were af6daviu as follows: Affidavit .[ gb; of Mario M. Cuomo, Goverrw.r of the State of New York, February 8,1988 . 9./. - 1 ("Cuomo Af6 davit"); Af6 davit of Patrick O. Halpin, Suffolk County Executive, i /. a. February 9,1988 ("Halpin Af6davil"); Af6 davit of Richard C. Roberts, Suf. 1 ~ folk County Police Department, February 9,1988 ("Roberu 1988 Af6 davit"); Af6 davit of Richard C. Roberts. Suffolk County Police Department, Septem. I c ber 25,1984 ("Roberts 1984 Af6 davit"); Af6 davit of James E. Papile, James C. Bamnski, and Lawrence B. Czech, New York State Radiological Emergency J ^

4... ' ;..,

Preparedness Group Februa4y 10,1988 ("REPO Af6 davit"); At6 davit of James .i i 1 'j.,y. E. Papile, New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, May ' ']A 11,1987 ("Papile Affidavit"); Af6 davit of Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lock. 'i ~, ./ ,l. '.14 D hart February 10,1988 ("Leuche Af6 davit"); and Affidavit of Richard J. Zahn.

• • i

~,*,f'. tb Covernmenu' Overview first lisu three statements that it deems "reasons" leuter. State of New York February 10,1988 ("Zahrdeuter Affidavit"). ?,,.'A..,..Vli f/ ^. A for denying LILCO's modon. First, the Governmenu allege that LILCO's in. v terpretadon of the new $ 50.47(c)(1) is erroneous. They believe that LILCO s ,,, 4 truerpreu the new nale as eliminating any requirenerd for fact.Anding on the i

• l nature of a "best efforts" response. The Governments see LILCO's treatment of "best effotu" as simply a plea for us to accept LILCO's hypotheses cco.

.s-cerning the Governmenu' response to a radiological emergency without further P 4 377 y t j .\\ I i i l i

s ff. %. E Ikh W.< '! r?.,'4f:@Q,bf%3f}:y}/etGIW$,.$$$y5 w M. @a.$p;R? %'q; q.v.e ;.n-nh p ?,NQr,.? c... .,.Q:.fdlTy:..g $gy.d'l/O,bh'/d.M.Dy? eA*$'*M,..9fdi?T QMg.D,' '8 Inquiry. Overview at 5-6. "Ihey cite the rulemaking for the notion that the Com. D,K+ % Q f mission did not intend that the nature of a "best efforts" response would be @Q,h,NYf i accepted without examination. Indeed, the Commission said that the licensing f. i$G[ of a plant would depend upon "the record developed in a speci6c adjudica-hjh-{/h" 8 fc y'p tion...." Id. m 6, cidag 52 Ped. Reg. 42,081. We agree. But we caution '.4,g% pT. 7M*ydQa4[ again that the need to develop a record does not (and we amplify this Iniow) ib T?.2.'d.%.f" W. mean that the Governments, by blocking the development of a record, can in- $/i@[M,ifM.p$hh.2%.,;f' le % S - de6almly postpone a dens;on. The Governrnenu further point out that the un-8/ dad

• h controverted sworn stamments of their responsible of6cials indicate that they '

IyQ* Y.*M <'t Mf M;#.h[@eff[E*t ~ would not use the LILCO plan or cooperse with LILCO. We intend to 6nd out

• W; I.T what it is that they would do.

d,s.W.g,, e h'gyd,.t.. RJrt!. g g. d. h@.'*T.M.Mt.j%..n.y.,e second, the Governmenu argue ihm uLCO's "realism" and "best efforts" m. e .a i concepts assume the Governmenu would "permit" or "authorize" LILCO to ,y!df .. O. %EM,*:.%M perform police power functions itself. This, they beueve, is contrary to New h'h'.sf@p?M,/j?gC,'%*$l L'i York law and to the law of the case 'They argue that in both our PID and our b 9 '.f.;.7 3M.M. '/ Order of Sepember 17, 1987, we accepted the nodon that Cuomo v. ULCO .K'". ".? ' (" / precludtd such an assumption. Overview a 8 9, cidag LBP 8512,21 NRC at x $lNN'I *4.@h4Y.' 4 fMw 911; LBP47 26, nyra. I WJZh.';3%,e ' third, the Governmenu see the recent Decision of the OL 5 Board (LBP. S'NdhM" Y7.'$ D I M, .88-2,27 NRC 85 (1988)) as "compel [ ling) summary reject:en of the LI140 M.p(p.3'>;'f'Cn*.'),/3.}g./ . fw??j.; 'Modons." In essence, the Governmenu' reasoning is that, since the cited vf - ( . decision found "fundamental Saws"in the implementadon of the communicadon 0* T g .,[ ,4.. k Q > and training portions of the plan, the Boarti is precluded from anding that a .3 f,. t f..,.'JQ y ' response that relied upon the plan could ever be adequate. Overview a 910. We - f 'T?,i/,6 y'n f 6 g,; cannot accord this chain of logic much weight. While our colleagues did indeed , e.3,h;/, 4 a.,3 n ,J and the fundamental daws in the plan were revealed by the exen;ise, they j ejM.E.M.$ ) '[, y S.g jg.1 y @ ; p (g 41,. did not suggest that those Saws were uncorrectable. Quite the opposite: they glp'l.t. . i, s.,8,,.,( : ; 73 ' [.;.,, ', '.l 1 ,.y speci8cally rejected the notion (there put forward by LILCO) that a fundamental Saw would perfcrce require a substantial effort to correct LBP 88 2,27 NRC y. ., ' J ;,, ' f. *Q'M M.y at 92. We reason, therefore, that, while the present plan may be Sawed, such ,f. 1 i. 7, ?' Saws would present no bar to its use if they were corrected. Il.. NN.f;.' $'. 'The Governmenu correctly point out that the primary difference between the .M M

3. p 3 [-', f., y e. g.)T.i y{-

yp;cc present modon and the modons previously denied seems to be LILCO's belief A m,, "y,,,p.4 d,C p)C /f *.' that the new rule, standing alone, endtles LILCO to a summary ruling without ,'NJ WQ .g further inquiry. That idea is grounded upon LILCO's interpretadon of the "best. @ (t,fp - g" ' '7 *,l. efforts" provisions of the rule, and that interpretadon in turn rests on LILCO's 5 C' M D h. i'.Q'.l?,'.m. -g,'? 4,l i(y,, f;g view of the presumpdon that "state and local o(6cials would generaUy follow the , y ...7 i7 utility plan," a presumpdon that LILCO views as mandatory ano Governments y,'(p ',,,,~ l.b [.,,,' Q ;,;ll.;,',y'p view as opdonal. Overview at 1013. 'The Governmenu argue that accepting J-[', I(,, [.Q1J[*')'],q; cp ,,p. >i v ;,.y d '*j such an assumpdon would require us to ignore the swom statemenu of the Oover.)or of New York and the Suffolk County Executive. 'The Governmenu y,,a? .s b' y*y i ",,. ,, i '. f.,'. ' .?* i#< 'k.,t 4 4, , [ ' jn'.' '. A *, /.#.A[( a f

• f

.a,e ....,, t -.. =. =s 1, .A,,p *, 's,6L (. ,.77,g'. : A.,,.. y.. ;. - ,,, % y,p . 7 ~. 37g 6 y .. A,. c y $ ;., 9 $!c? [y .* W g,_ s ,,.'a c. v.,, ..n ,y .'?. ~6* 'q 5- ,'<'g .. ' *. y ,,%g .t \\ 7

• s.

.* \\ E. ys* =m y *s ~ ~ - - y*:qs. z m-r e n-.-~.y.-

s.

• p

.,'*,J+.3-* (' O, c' ,w, e' sse ; q :..yw ra vv. 9 1 g' r, i J, (, 4,0.' ,3 ,1i, 4q.,.s ' S,c. . f g,. g ' EP g g a ps- ,p ..o,"e-

f.,

9 ', 4

'., ^

"i[ M h $ [ g,.h,.', ' '..'l < /,,'. ~ ?. l -[ %

• f..

n, . ~. :. L ; ;:.. ~, g..'. - ' .,t

• 2 y +,.

.,J Q' o = i + 'f ., v

• ..,6-a*,

'f, a i e L I. s F 4

• . tf e/,

0, g' ,g g p. 'g 3 ' N, * **, N, q*. 3 i y ' ;t i,g, a' k ^*; ,'t a f _a .,e i

L.. h, ~,. y.. 3, .p...,. "

• r. " w y& ; -

r <:, '. < ~ ^~ 77,,. 4~..n _,..? ",g e -. : q. -r .'s ~. 9 L., ' n. . 2 p.

v. ',

n'/,c- - s.y je' ^ 7' ;,j *.,...'<.,. g - L ;.g; ; % ; ' .c e.. ..a v .+ -s, r - JL> ,y ? .~ 1 . :~. -. * .s.. w e

g..,.

- t 3;.. 4 g. 4, ' ' J. . O ^ , f f..,O,

• also disagree with LILCO's posiden that the only way to rebut the assumption

/*l 'f f mentioned in the new rule is to offer an adequate State and County plan. ? e ..N ' f*

. t..)..

The Governments then asseat that LILCO's assumpdon that an ad hoc - -, = - response would be "guided" cr "defmed" by the litigadon of the Plan that has s y

• -; < ~

1. .,*. N.

occurred in this proceedmg is "a variation on the... LILCO argument that the f.l<. 1 J,- lN Plan has been ' approved.'" Id. at 1314. .,.. 7,, - The Governments also assert that the defense LILCO has raised against this series of contendons is an afbrmadve defense, and they cite extensive case law =- , ' ', l. f ,,., * ], to support the notion that the burden of going forward rests with the proponent t . ;1,,f, ; : 'w. ,1 (. - ( ' ~. - of an af6rmadve defense. Id. at 33-41. We have put the burden of presenting " * ';

• b.

9. '. a f*., ;: y the assembled primafacie evidence upon LILCO.

e-,, g,, r*

• ,X*,'.

And the Overview would have us consider the motions barred by the doctrine M n@m ihm utack upon LILCO's modons is founded on the earlier '. ) ', G *; (. :....; - status of Cuomo v. Ul40 and our previous ndings based upon it. Overview B ',5 ' ^ -

i. 4. C *.

m 4149. The fact that the New York Court of Appeals has vacated the Cuomo 9., f. a., a t,. . 'L. ',...f. - [ decisions considerably lessens the forte of that argumerst. We believe the case 1,. : has prwMed beyond these consideradons, and we intend to pursue the case in

• 2 [ J., ';* ?.

,4 its present posture against the background of the revised rule, s. ' *]. 7. ' : s. - In a separate section of the Overview, the Governments expand upon their .2 ,p , ', f.,' f assertion that the February 1,1988 Decision of the OL 5 Doard requires rejection (' ,[ ;,. of the LILCO modons. Id. at 49-63. They point out that that Board found ', i i fundamental flaws in the LILCO plan, and they therefore argue that there exists no approved LILCO plan and there can be no anding of adequacy by assuming F that the Governmenu wou'd follow the LILCO plan. That is correct as far as it goes. But, as we have noted above, fundamental flaws are by no metns i uncorrectable flaws. And of course no Anding of adequate protection of the public health and safety could be made until the aaws are corrected, regardless of whether it might be LILCO or the local governments who implemented the plan. '.)', ? The Governmenu also address a handful of other LILCO arguments they see as erroneous. They are at considerable peins to assure us that their convict;on that a 10 n11e EPZ is insufficient and their differences with the Commission's (, f3. result concerning the possibility of orderly evacuadon are not challenges to the Commission's regulations. /d. at 63 66. Quite so. We will not allow them to ,d be. It is our intent to hold a hearing that will sadsfy what the Governmenu 4 f,., themselves term the new rule's "call fcr a case by. case adjudication to and out +- precisely how the Governments would respond." /d. m 66. .M

.u j The Governmenu offer the af6davlu of Governor Cuomo and County Ex.

e i ecudve Halpin as eviden7e that they would not be compelled by Article 28 of l New York State law so rely upon or work with LILCO. /d m 66 67. We are, l of course, no longer convinced of the accuracy of any party's interpretadon of - l.4 State law. As far as the current stmus of the case is concerned, we are directed I q P-

1. =

379 s. s b t I e 4 4 9 , [, 4.

n. y,p,*:Q:%e

,' - 1 w A w.... w.o,. . ~.,'., 7 p.'a. ' l ,n. w. 'N....,$.,l ~. v.~. $. m.7.cl; #;M: e.;:?. !.e,.hijQQ ~.',).*G.g# c.W n. y.i. b,, N 5 Q .. N, ::,$ .wL c.4l?.9,,v;e.4: p V z... ,.y*.44;.J ;c.?.. w%.)x m.,;e ~ < n.- e,s.; A. ;f:. '+. + e h- .-n:- -9 -i- . y Wu& . + 9.,%,...Y.J l l .4.:r. a.y 1. y -7 . s m.. ..;e ~v .n..,> pla. } /,, % ; n : W., :, g.g.,. ~ '.l.r. W,o h (+ 'Q <' ~ ' !) ?.1, .. J /< y -

• e,,,.

g,, w,, Av,;g a..v - *.,s., u.c, *:.c.

r. lNw,;' ' ?l;. -.-l,\\ d'.l.?,:.f,.. ;.w 3*c,pg.)"*i p j/.a2 }, g' S 4 not to take seriously any government of6cials'statemenu tiet they would not

~ .h p'.Q.*f.,.';?W c I-take action during an emergency. .%d.y.~,.,.F.;[A.'.i.?.y,'.* **h for other planu, especially in connectim with Ae Ingesdon/ Reentry biodon and Id s? The Overview challenges LILCO's reliance on comparisms with the plans W :.d,$ N. 5,' ?'.'. ~ $ m]. .?*/Q ' I,., ji,? I.'. the Decisions hiodon. Id. at 67 72. We deal with the Governments' answers to .c. . N.E h N,y.1..g. L m.,ef.7','.M' t % ~ The Governmenu would also have us ignore the newly issued Draft NUREO. those modm helow. CG'-t. Q,'$'!,d,f*?* N'S 0654, Rev.1 Supp.1, a document upon which IJLCO places considerable Ag?-@g *' 7 MSM','g%- l f ',.c g y, C".<. re11arce. Id. at 72 73, cidag LILCO hiemorandum (Introduction) at 111 LILCO .iy .d biodm (Access Control), Attach.1. Fact 2. De Governments are particularly MY. Nh h exercised by the astumptions of that document (set forth at page 2 thereof) to .;,, $. 'y, d.

• .a d.'.., y, l J '. q,*,

.., * * : i.,.*. '.f a the effect that: ..e ,..,. o g,.~.~<.q , p ry w + %.,.. r. '4TY,'. f% ',, p;.,.,* [,*, % ;.'[,.ig l #.';.*r, @.* M */ 4'i L' la en actual radiological ernergency, State and local o(Scials that hsw dedir.ed to particrpate '...Q' %cM,., /'.,** d'O Q[3 ' y~; ,[ is emergency rdanning milt: j ,f a) eurdu dur best effom to prwa die heahh mJ ufay d the FWe. 6

.a.,,. J. 1

t. ,. q. =,. g

• 4."

b) corgenin with the tailny and fWow tas dry dftite plan; ard ..o .s.. , g,,5; / y, .'. g ~ - - ] f, o. e) hm the rim.es sufadas to implemas do pms a the sty offiae plan g l [, =,, ,[, a., - 1.h,y when Stase ard tocal respmse is necessary. g - . t.- 'd Ps- , '% t..i, 1,,' '9 ',t ', j,. The Governtrenu argue that the document is only a draft, that it is not to .is' 'y 4 5,;. [.i it be applied until the process of public comment is ccanpleted, that the second a geJ,. vi, 7,,,,7' m, .? . and third assumpdons have already been clearly rebuaed by the Government .,1.,)'.'., ** ofocials' sffidavits, and that FEhfA itself has said it could not defend these .W ,. /,',:. "' w, ';' a 4 'j- '. /J. ! assumpdcus. Overview at 72 76, cidag the afadavlu and a letter from FEhfA

3 1,,

".',. E *' of6cial D. bicLoughlin to S. Chilk (April 28,1987) at 4 ,.V - ',F lc Finally, the Overview characterizes the motions as "premature " nodng 7 . "' t that they are based upon LILCO's Revision 9 to the Emergency Plan. 'The + f . ' y, Governmenu complain that they have not had the opportunity to review that ?? - j~ revision. This argument, as we state below, is adequale, in and of itself, to ". ' / ',, ' support a denial of the modons for summary disposidon. q, 4 ' ',.,,, l 4 o.' J'... &.'! [*.i.repeat argumenu already rejected by this Board and the Commission by igncring 'm In their Decisions Answer the Governmenu assert that LILCO's modons s ,'*N ^,. t,,.. '. signiacant quesdons pointed out by both tribunals. Decisions Answer at 512 4 *1

c..

r, .,. c... y, a y,, 1g.22. It is evident, as we noted above, that LILCO believes that the presence of ,-]... .. <. ? "{a'. + i /, f q 7'.5.v ,,7m ;,..? < the new rule, pceticularly the new rule': language conceming the presumpdon about state and local participadon, gave the LILCO argumenu a validity they did . ' '. * ' l ' f *,.., ". ; nct previously have. The Governments also take issue with LILCO's assumplen l' / ' _',. Z, * -. l 3 t ( j' ; g anted. Id. at 1315. Here the Governments' ressming is heavily dependent .l ' s ar, that "permission" or "authoritatjon" to perform tne funcdons would be readily ( ~~ ' ',. upon the cattler decision in Cuomo v. ULCO. The Governmenu also quesdon T ~ s. '*9 g g g g b ? 'V". .' w. e; 380 y .,e. 4, a ~.; : q,. .a. ~ '.. ' Iw. \\ ,'2 9 .e 4 5 -. _.... ~ I ( i 8 4g I g A e e g e i e ~ 3 P / g e

1. 5 9

,,.'.a g g f ; p; g,.y.L,;,. y,

q. G y' 7,

1 e. ~ u.. ,3 ,i. .i 7.. g, v 3, wa y,. ,' c, c, ,p <;a A ,. u.,.,; y-s. i. ,c

i 6,f [.' ', 0

'.,'1c2: ' ' 9.[L., _ r '., 7,;,, .y .f .c v - . c., f. .d f -.g- ,C t f ,.-,q M e g.;,., 'e ..,.n ....~ ,6

• +

o'.*, 1 f^ .1, the nodon that LILCO's plan has already been litigated and found adequate. '.P.' !. 4 Decisiont Answer at 1518. ,e ,,,.,....(.,; 9,t-The Decisions Answer also argues, not without some redundancy, that ,.. y j.,..;- [4,< *. I g ' .Q.3 "ch LILCO's hypotheses as to the behavior of New York State and Suffolk County . 7 M + / -O i ~ ~.. are without basis. In particular the existence of a generic State plan for other

• .,.,,. s

, ';. 7 ). ' *,*..' facilities, and the existence of a previously drafted (but rejected) plan for Suffolk

• '.] y, // '. (,

..f. County, do not, in the Governments' view, constitute the existence of acceptable plans fce those governmental ertides. Id. at 22 34. We are, of course, ordering 4 f,,. y, p *;. * ',', '; ' ".....,, ?.- Nor & the Governmenu concede the existence of proper communkstion

7., f. 9e -

a hearing simply because we are uncertain what the Governments would do. . - t-g ( o-J. %, facilities between themselves and LILCO. ld. at 34 38. We agree that this is one ) . y .,;. 3..,; ' i * '". of the matters that must be settled at a hearing.

• i..Y*'-

l, In general, the Governmenu see no sumcut for the hypotaeses LILCO ,' D ff,. 'T. ,.c.

.(

adduces concerning the manner in whkh the plan would be implemeret. Id. at J'.;f ".. ? '. 'r.

/. y !? ~ ^

38-50. And they attach a list of no fewer than forty one "Material Facu as to e, q& *.,,,,,. Which 'there Exists a Genuine issue to Be Heard....* 4,.y. 7 f *s.,. [. :'.., >.. In the 'linfac Response, as in the Decisions Answer, the Governtnenu argue .y thct the OL.5 Board found flaws in LILCO's plan arsi training. 'Itaf6c R esponse ...N-

• ?f *.,g :r y,..

.,, 3. at 3,6,22 27. They again disagree with LILCO's interpretation of the aew rule 1 'y (id, at 4 6,1519), and they assed that there is nothing in the record J support N "v 11 LILCO's position that the resources of New York State or Suffolk County are ,4. suf6cient *.o accomplish trafSc guidance (id. at 3-4). They again che Cuomo i' <N

v. ULCO and the Board and Commission decisions following from it. Id. at 9 f

11. They repeat their claim tiat the motion is premature since the Governmenu

, J.3 have not had the opportun'ty to study Revision 9 of the plan. Id. at 1215. They ,s. 1, reiterate that they have neither the authority nor the intent to follow LILCO's plan or to authorize LILCO to do so. Id. at 20 22, 27 28. And they deny any substandal familiarity with the plan. Id. at 35 37, citing their attached afadaviu. a ~, T* Finally, the Governmenu categorically deny each of LILCO's eleven al. legedly undisputed "mater!al facts," offering statements in their attached af. x l3 l< 6 davits of Roberts (1988), Halpin and Cuomo. Id. at 39-46. d in their Access Opposition the Governments urge us to reject the "short. C. ,Y>,,i ternVlong term" dichotomy of access control that LILCO presses upon us. Ac. I I a.sJ'" 1 cess Opposidon at 7,9,13 n.7. They dispute LILCO's assertion that the short-4 term phase has already been decided in LILCO's favor, poindng out (as we s,,,. .t 3 :.. .Qils, ourselves pointed out above) that the focus of the present dispute is quite diffes- ]. f ..4{ ett from that dealt with in our PID, centering now cn the ireracdon of State, County, and LILCO rather than on the proposed methods to be used by LILCO 10 8

• ' ' ', " ~

~ Traf6c Guides. Id. at 9 11. They characterize access control as essendal to com. \\,' * ! ' t,..,- pliance with the regu'ations (ld, at 11 13, cidat 150.47(aXI) and NUREO 0654 .' i ' ~ d !!IJ 10.j), and they assert that numerous issues of fact still exist, issues that are ,..'t.( j not resolved by the "best-efforts" principle and that include matters pointed out e b 4 4 g 341 l ( \\ .q i 9 ,s s ,s' 4

(w'd @ ~& &w.@~'.M A'.i/:J. 1 ;4J D ~ y9'.%.}.[n,j:ltf, W h, M k L'2 5 O W %~* N. W,' Q, y, b 3 'i.%g,Q. o...,..,., c* gr, %,..s n.q: $l%, s.;Q v v,.P,, o n. m w %a. a n, V 7.% n, q'y.xj,. y e 3,a ..g p. Ts ./ n g t, y. 3 g.yg y, g yi % W'A r. , e,A

y,,..T. hw.l,pb:.hIlh Q ' W L. A 2 & g p^- O Q

,1 s d *i h T W.M. .,s,.,#..e.,.,Q.,A. y.,..M ~ v,? 'x. n 9 ;<. e.%m .e m. 4 p.J,,.a .v e ,v ,p n - s e; m ~.;..:'.Jt,[. y.*'T?. nL.t> ' u >; .k'*.~ os,x.; m ;.m.. - . i. m.y. s m.M... m. :.5..u r :s r n&.,,.. u an .,u n ..:,,,,., e s ,. c, R. !W' %.:...,..). j.(?n? M t.7*,Ds by this Board in its Septernber 17,1987 Order. Id. at 5,13 22. The Governmenu , %,4N.. J i / ';;55 :;% W';g append a list of sixteen "Issues of Material Pact in Dispute," some o( which % o)@Q N J'. t'M-chf.;.: (Nos. 6, 8, and 9) repeat questins raised by this Board in tu September 17 M].jtw'.M@M tjMW $p.y Q T*,. g

• Order, others of which relate directly to the strategies, training, resources, and M jy; y, Q '

p Q O ;.',.;,\\.- dy. * familiarity that the Suffolk County Polke Department could bring to bear on the -Y s; 14 'Ay access control publem, and the last three of whkh question the overall adequacy %%@4;2M"M,Q,*g?C.l L'C' F.!r ig.M

• f..* *.,>d of a "best.cfferts" response by the Governmer s. /d., Attachment.

o " f,N.. f,W*e es 8 W.5 the modon's assumpdon that LERO persmnel would obtain permmim fmm The Governments' TYucks Response challenges as "false and unsupported" %q-,,. ?.i 'R. t. ; 7:,,mW,*rg *k the Suffolk Count.y authorities to remove road obstructims. Trucks Response at /.w ' 4 .S, %. c ?,. m f ;':? Q,} #,,, y j

1. The Governmenu further assert that they are pohibited by law from giving p.

, e, 3%

• f P. 4 " A i such permission, and that they would not do so (id at 2,610); and they state

? !?. /.;i;,.% ' ,;t,, ?..\\*'fe W.t'i.4/ b M'%.K.'".Q,?f/.% the issue at hand" (id. at 1012). They Vint out issues of fact previously found that "[t]he anecdotal information in LILCO's af6 davits are [ste) irrelevant to .,,gg,$q;d; s.,d.* $' n* M 7, T [

.g N '7 unresolvd by this Board and a!!ege that the new rule does not affect the status

. fs,f h,:t@ of ' hose t.Jes. /d. at 1215, cidag Overview, IIII. They append a "Statement . M y /yy;!,'. Qj,*.7,. of Mater.al Pscts as to Which There Exists a Genuine Issue to Be Heard on y;;.,.,' /.y. p, ge f. Matters Raised t>y LILCO's Motbn for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4 .J,.4 e'e, o.. h b" Q ;AJ9..<y.'

n..

and 9." Id., Attachment. These sixteen numbered items are, in fact, questions 'i, c,l y Q u.

• ..w,-1 W /(.'$., n' y, Board's own questions, propounded when we denied sununary disposition in

. *r, a that the Governmenu view as Ning still in dispute. Some of them repeat this .,,w %,..J $ f q..[;;[/g our September 17,1987 Order. Others simply raise issues concerning the nature + 7... ? N. ( and effectiveness of a "best. efforts" response, g ' (,. Q,Q J ;.g,. *,.l, y 3, M The Governmenu' Ingestion / Reentry Respmse urges us to deny the Inges. ~ f,J J p +, ,, W iif; 4,y . tion / Reentry Motion for two primary reasons: First, the Governments allege .. i; M ,. qf,~,,. b., Q,.. ; that LILCO has not dealt with the issues we identiSed in our Mernorandum arx! c. ? Order of September 17, 1987 second, they Allege that LILCO grossly under-f. ' s y.; y; g 4 - estimates the complexity of the a:tivitks required on the part of the State and ' \\,,' 1 J*C,i County in the event of a radiokgical emergetscy. Ingestion / Reentry Response J.1 .,a . - l7 c - , at 1,2. The Governments particularly stress the need for prept..'ning, training, 7, 7. J. drills, and exercises. Icl. at 2, 9, 10, 12, 17, cidng REPO Aits vit. They al- ,, T i b,.?[.6; %. ',. 3 lege that the New York Plan cited by LILCO in its mouon does not contain, as . f. '. ['. >. '. @, '. " It ',,M, ',b, alleged, detailed procedures. /d. at 8,12,17, citing REPO Af6 davit. And they a f, f. y '.~,,fr.* ^ see far larger requiremenu on the part of the County than LILCO see.. /d. at 8, . q. A,: 3. ;. ** l.{.L* ...g(.f 13,19, citing REPO Af6 davit. Md they view the fact that Suffolk and Nassau ....c'..J.**-'/ j ^ counties are within the ingestion EPZ fx other plants as irrelevant, since they 4 + f,,.'.g <. y J'J.*j.. %, consi&r ingestion EPZ planning to be plant.rpeci6c. Id. at 16. C ,, g 'i .f o The REPO Af6dailt addresses each of LILCO's afty Svc "material facts" in m , ' ' 'g ] j M. *].g),f,'f 1,.. - r b VJl turn. A dozen (Nos. 3,13,29,31,36,37,38,42,44,45,46, and $5) they label 2, 4 "Agreed." REPO Af6 davit at 17 27. The bulk cl these are simply quotes from O.. s,'...s. ',, a1.J the New York plan which the REPO witnesses accept as accurate. Interestingly, e,4 l' 'S .. hg q v p I' ~ * .y' i O 4 ?*f. ,,,.,S '.,c* 4,.#. #,w; s. ,m - 13 4 ,g*l,."

• • .e-1

< ;. { u. & ^f. "3 g.; s \\ 7 .,_v ....,_.3-y- ..,c 3 .v-.-.- .v s 4 s p .1 s i .,n 3 4w i ,,"6 ,q I' ,s ep < l .g s .,t, . 'g' I', s i 4 ,g' 's b Ib

1. g.,

( g u e-s.- s ~. q. r. '.2.; c s, ~ E 9 g ? e. I m _ ^

..c ~ ,y ~ ,.i,,. p.;,,,

.t,' j. n.,,d '.,.,

m .,. r ,, - r. ,.gy ^ a. .~.e e,: ll , ;,v.. y ',[ l' *. ;*, \\ { c' .',l -l-l' l ,...i ...u...., ~ .s.- ~ 'c. s.(I

c...

n .w,,- . ;:w v.,,.;,- .~.;,

2-i^

. ' 5l the one agreed fact that does not at that descripdon is No. 55, which alleges . ?l.?. 8 ' g;,, S d that New York Sta2e did wil in a FEMA graded exercise at Ginna. (.,. c j. l.,. j ,a,.. Another hfleen (Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9,11,12,14, 24, 25, 28, 30, 40, 47, 48, ano 2 g. .'d *. *. */ v '.. *. ),,. C * *- :

51) the witnesses also sgree are accurate quou:4 from the State plan or from l, *,,'..[..G* ' u,f [ '., G,.f." @,, (.

.? f LILCO's plan, but they diugree in some measure with the LILCO interpretadon . ft f;,',, '. ; 7f, Twenty two "facts" (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5. 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, . <.,....y t y y,.p

32. 33, 39,41, 49, 52, 53, and 54) the witnesses label "Denied" or "Disagree."

r

• y'f. c',j '.[ %,. .' (O. ' 4

, t...,- ;,4 y -c, "a l In the main, these denials are of the nature of disagreemerds with the LILCO i intestrerations of certain features of the New Yort State plan and the manner l k . c'tM. '.# M f.,' M ".*.; in which that plan interacu whh the plans of individual counties. Generally .C. f ;.',7. E. ?,Tl? ' speaking, the New York REPO witnesses see the parts taken by individual ,, 3 ; p ', %, ;;.Y '.., Y j .,gA ,.. y.'. ; f N,. d,. ~ coundes 'n recovery, reentry, and ingesdon planning as much more complex 6.- ",734l;.].'[*[y'f*['['J.. than LR,CO sees thern. The witnesses also see such things as police actions /O' in an emergency as quite differera from day today police acdons. Hence they .3;,*;W"f:'I/4.]M'j,7C"]). believe that proper response cannot be ensured without preplanning and drills. ..r. e 4,(, I A handful (Nos. 17,18,43, and 50) the wimesses label "irrelevant." Their .Q...,... ;d, c. r ^W N.. '.v e * ' 3,,, 9 'i relevance (or lack of it) seems to the Board to constitute a matter in dispute. As ~~ .' (

• y f t,,q,.e q. ~.," ?

to the two Snal facts (Nos. 34 and 35), the REPO witnesses agree that they ., 'r(* L. j represent provisions of the LILCO plan, but they doubt LILCO's ability to carry l ', /. c e y. /.< '- r them out. ,7 -.;. ;,.c l .f. y .'( ~f t;.' j NRC Staff Posidoe + ^ ' /1 %','~,, ,9 On February 10, 1988, the NRC Staff Sled four responses to the LILCO ~ modons: On Contendcas 5 and 6 (Making Decisions and Telling the Public) f - ', 3 ' '. v, *,' '..

4 (Staff Decisions Response); on Contendon 10 (Access Control at the EPZ

' ~f'-l Perimeter)(Staff Ave 4s Control Response); on Contendons 4 and 9 (Tow Ttucks

r. ' '

1 and Puel Trucks) (Staff TYucks Response); and on Cont:ndons 7 and 8 (Ingestion .s ;A.. - f ,. 9 Pathway and Recovery and Reentry)(Staff Recovery / Reentry Response). Staff 4; Aled no reply to LILCO's Traf6c Motion.: .r..y In essence, the Staff supports LILCO's motions. In the Staff Decisions Response, the Staff asserts that the "best-efforts" Trinciple "essenually renders 5' i

• 7

' 'g k ',' ff..,* '.' i moet" LIIIO's luk of legal authority to activate the prompt notiacation system and to make protective action recommendstions so the public. Staff Decisions ) . a.., q;.' . ;,,i Rt.sponse at 2. %rther, the Staff sees in the present record answers to the w l ', queadons posed by tre Commission in CLI 8613 and by the Board in its l .s i _ h ' *.2 c ,..]* 8on Fabavary 23,196s, the Omerveneras fund en wereness' T--- to NaC seafr sewart d IRIo's i '-..... ' ,/ 143n1 Aushcray seawnery Duptunnan Moss, Ths: nopease vessyname (and demunnes in a fannaeshumanas O. reased by the sufr oce,seriens rep &iy of energenry response and easiana dunaas et the stair Imammaa.Ramery ( Raspanas h Onsa medaans say suses cm cis paa d cm Oegrnemises te penema fanhar odewsave pnemens j 3 s, I 383 y l \\ I l s I 4 + 1 A f ~.-

h ,.~ .&$$$%h$$$MW& h.hhh.Yhh.Y.hh.::Yhbhhh M & W p#c... W.+g.. W.>ig d 2 MMMdM$M%WCJMhh Q N $s.W. W .d,e%e q.. ...x, p % c. a.4 ;,s. n n.. g.o .,wa,y,.c. M .c ..;r ,, w,. .a, .y s, g-g 9 d..; y< ::.. g .,g, m t.v. 6. r-' ' :. :.+; ye;4 n s.. .t u m n. . M,6,Q.y M.'. Q, September 17,1987 Memorandum and Order. Id. at 2 3. The Staff would have $ hj%$,9 n'@4Q.' ?, M i; '.g.t :~

• us grant summary disposition. /d. at 8.

f.[ "* Q.M!.'.* The Stsif's reasoning is thm where means exist for alerting and notifying % ll?.'i.rp*a. y.' $,t,.[/ D. h / ' 0*- the public (and they do here), the "best-efforts" principle means that local h' "'y MW [dhpk.* -QQl authorities will use these means unless they have some other adequate and se W f.h.;M.Th'h..Y[g.,.h.;G.M f. feasible system. Id. at 4 5. The Stafr granu that there remains the queedon of d 1Mh34 delay that could be miM by lack of familiarity with the plan or a cumbersome 4 fny '.77 M*,6.*f decisioomaking procers, but for that quesdon the Staff indicates that lu review i y V ' h k k (.h k ?, E ') of Revision 9 of the plan and the coordinadon procedures therein are still '9*f.! y. $.3 %. g :t n M ?"

i. T '%

ongoing. If the Staff means that the Board should leave to its (and FEMA's) N N.#. S. aulysis questions such as delays that might occur (id, at 5), we are not in: lined , #p * [ M, /. a.m..m..p.m. io ronow ihn procedure $ pf.,N '.[E h@.'"? *, y Q[..'s Q* The Staff notes that protective measures would by advised by the utility N*N N. 'fl.tl .. C' under any circumstances, and sees in that fact (and the "best-efforts" principle) kh t.,.';*A'S,L ',Cf. * * &. ).c assurarre that "[t]his situation is no different from that which might happen S ,Jr.4 ;*' t'.vty...p*.C wre there to have been County pardcipauon in planning." /d. at 5 7. 0.?. c$ U " ;' j. M M 9 ' Q M. * 'i WE'.?;.4 % 8 { : *- The Staff's Access Control Response would have us grant LILCO's modon h j!

*.i. ".[

with respect to Contention 10. Staff Access Connel Respoem at 2, 5. The t q. ) ;c. L. y. '..MllQ.*6.%g%g*M jl*.},. qgi Staff does not address LILCO's reasoning splitting the mater into "short-term" and "long term" cornponents, but its analysis parallels LILCO's. Our earlier ~ l.% t-Q@?i44,w. P., PID is cited for the idea that LILCO's plan is adequate with respect to access E f '.7, Q:; ;.'g,7.1 I. N 7C'C': co%el. Id. at 2 3, citing LBP-85 12, 21 NRC at 804-05. As u observed, supra.

. y.1 9 A[m"M',. [, *n y fO ne do not believe that the PID, read in coatext, settles the matter. The Staff also o ;

Q' 9 ! Q M '( % y[). y.'.;.C 'dand familiarity with the plan necessary to carry the plan out. /d. at 3 5. The says, yhh LILCO, that the Suffolk County Police Department has the resources

,W- <ec /. 3,,. A, ;;, yl /.. SCPD's denial of both these points seems to us to be good reason to assume , m. . ;.u.. . a. s there is a material fact in dispute. w .'W. ~,, ' ',. .)..v d. -p,\\. 1..J. - g l * la the Staff *IYucks Response the Staff gives LILCO qualhied stippcrt. Recet-

• ) *. if
• f,,.

7C nizing that the OL 5 Board found a fundamental flaw related to communications ';.a. g..,.a;

' j

'.-}-M.$;Nid.yg;.g-% q q',,, 'l.,.. tions, the Staff urges only that we find "that all facts material to summary dispo. and realizing that removal of road obstructions might wil involve commurlea. . E.

,, 3 e,.

sition... except those facts concerning the adequacy of internal LERO com- %[.f'.Cj k /i;N'-f. "%J -j/;.y *p% i'

;f municadons, should be deemed estabh.hed." Staff Trucks Response at 9. We ate

.t +..,. - '.j ;,M.3 told that the assumpdon that State and County authoritienculd generally follow -.4.'. ;.. ;.W.%';.3,, * ' /;t the LILCO plan removes the defect of lack of legal authority (id, at 2); that the Board's questions as to how obstructions would be removed, who would remove .) k .-;. i @'d ' [,'h..I.M. - '. f.'f them, and how their removal would be coordmated are all resolved by previ-V 'g ~. 4..$, f(r.?A.W / % - f, '.. things are true, the Staff says, because unda the presumption mandated by the ous fmdings on the plan and by the "bestefforts" assumpdon. Id. at 3. These - @ M*

• A

- 'F Y,7,[; :,' c '.' 70. new rule it it the LILCO plan that will be implemented. /d. at 5. Questions of D p I, j%.,.j 'g.# timeliness in implementadon are, the Staff believes, settled by the record, which p *. t,s ,1 J e establishes that some SCPD officers are familiar with the plan arid that the plan l s. ,,k h.g [ *4 [. i' ' ,c. Q.P Y s:.e, p s -e f [g-*. . n,... e l[, w ./ I' ,..C 384

e., -

. ~ -;;s:..., !.. .~s p. 'c f* W .. m.'.e&. s.. ,6 \\:. Q. ? *. 7 f..p ',y,( e. , l T, L ' -, .~..,_.K,. ~.f.s. :. ? =

• n 1

o %.5 y 9 p ',; yh.;,, ?..". -(.,_,,,,_,....,,.7,..,. m e . r.~ c s 8, c.. t 3 ,',i.,f '3.s"-.,,. w 9 4g +. p- . / 1 6 Q-I,, q,. g t P p s q ' * ( .4 e,, 3,. g. z. y' ' -- e-

y' n

g 1:' ~ ,e , ',l .. g..- a n .i,,. 5' .'g,, -,y 'y -) M b .r.' ,t 3., .1

• . Q,,.

. 3 e _ 83,.Ty

• i,

y ' .3'e' 1 g 4 ', p e

• I

,.o 9 o g ,y ,P 'fci q, ./ U ,F

<.i.. c - '.n. ., ' ' ' i ' ~~' '. p. 4, '.,. ;...sbe o ', ~ t r 's '. ' '.c\\b n <,; w ... ' l.. "3.y. ;r . '. s, _t ,i.. 7 v4 ,...,s ,4 _g.... j-.....,.. .o, ,4 s.,., .j gi.. y< p ~.,,?.; 'qi, .p,f ;,, ^ ', : } ;p.;,2 6 ,4, ) 4 ,s , g* g, '. ' ; & ' 6. ; *.A.,...: :::c..w. ' O r. C.L;;, :, y? L. . F.. k ,,,5 J,

• , f '

,,g / ,q{ '., b.4 '., ' s - 1{. 4 provides for coordination with tbc SCPD. Id., citing Testimony of Roberts, et ,, ; ) al., fol. Tr. 2180; OPIP 3.6.3, Attach.15. G,'.'...,,, .~> '1 The Staff Ingestion / Reentry Response supports summary disg sition of both ' - ~ C { f.Yl}f; Contentions 7 and 8. Staff Ingestion / Reentry Response at 1,9. With regard to ,. i,,n - <,0 *.,'* the ingestion pathway contention, Contention 7, we are told that our ruling in

• ./;,.

~ L j.,,.f,.,,. g, * ~'J. - "; ll.%. our September 17, 1987 Memorai.dum and Order was simply wrong; that our 8 concern as to whether the two entides, LILCO and the Governments, might work 7 i. ., D *,,.'

• J,.

...l i; at cross purposes was, even then, unfounded, since "[a]ny conflict between the ....L.(*, -:.,;.'(.h State and LILCO response is prevented by the LILCO Plan itself." Id. at ? 4, citing LBP-87 26,26 NRC at 222; OP!P 3.6.6. ( *.,.>. J.'. (,,*,,T, . r *. J. We are also told that the regulatory presumption of the new rule mandates i..y7

• - p...

that the Governments will either follow the LILCO plan or some other plan that s '. p * ' g 7,9.f,.. y f 3 ;,,.. ' is "adequate." /d. at 5. f.,.g ',.) O

• j ^

'V Contention 8, we are told, involves only questions that are already answered j ~," m .y'y: fil1,* U in the record. The plan provides that LILCO will defer to and support the State k in connection with the ingestion pathway, and State authorities can be quickly .#. g.,..,' 7.... 2,;', i > ' ' ;', f.;J.:. 4. ' familiarized with the specine needs of the Shoreham ingestion EPZ. Id. at 7 ,;{*-

9. The last, of course. is a nodon with w hich the State, REPO authorities strongly

.,. :,. :, n.yn disagree. Vide supra. v _ w .**i,,. - ..)J p,,. :.. Board Analysis ~ .[- t ',', [ f We believe that the posture of this case is such that the actual "legal 2' , s,e ,~ authority" point in these contentions is no longer at issue. In order to more ' ',.' b.a closely conform the contenricms themselves to the points in dispute, we directed in our Conarmatory Order of February 29, 1988, that the contentions were ce ~.,., 3.B' - g to be reformulated, and we set forth reformulated versions of each in this ,.,i s

. s '

Memorandum. O.: 'L After careful considera6on of all the Slings submitted in this matter, we declined to grant summary disposition on Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and j

10. We conclude there have been a number of material facu raised relating

,y ~ to genuine issues to be heard on the adequacy of LILCO's emergency plan, -i .,I assuming a best efforts response from the State and the County; the state J ,.} of knowledge concerning details of the plan; and questions related to the ,,y'*,,.. [ ' ' ' Y.J. t.,H availability of State and County resources. Speci8cally, there are denials of ,.s s 4, c t,.,,. LILCO's ability to communicate with responsible State and County of6cials ' 3. W in an emergency, alleged failure in requirements for a site specine Shoreham .,- C.' '. ' ' ; "., emergerw;y plan, questions concermng past emergency response performartes of ? LCO personnel, and failures to designate responsible County o(6cials to ~, p ', / r. ** i ect an an emergency, issues connected with LILCO's traf6c control plan, the (', /' " adequacy of pouce resources, and a lack of flexib!!ity in response plam; the g necessity of prior training and relevance of emergency plans in other areas m 385 1 \\ ~ \\ \\ l i \\ l j \\ ~ ] .1

.., e,x.n. M.. sp',,'.'M.p.. :n%;.A', c'Q;i,ba.i,. % ? l. ;., D ',, m e,. A V.g y '. @ r @ %:stg ,] 6.. ; .' 'M r, ..,,... c9. W,-.:.x, %49. 4.H n.. . p,, 4.w. f.,4y,.,... g,w..g<y n k.. %.. ~ 5. ~, p .. s , :. s

),,_: Ms'.Ws.f.v*y<y MQ. j, Ag.jM3,Q:

% 'ur. b p Q 3 2 .d*. *... s, e,f[ &y. g

• W g'. Q.. y., - p

' y 4.;. yQ's '9;^-'..%<' e ,, a,,3 ^ ~ ~ " ~ " f. '.t:

m. - s. A.,7.:- Q,,*. f.:. y: w v..v.c,,,?,,; %.. g ; '

• ~ ~ '
• L '" -

g.. i

+ e.,, y

,,.. y ~. e .u

• %..,. m.. q s,. w

,.., y m- ., g e. "t.;, e. ' r.3.,. M~i,:.x. s N q.. <s,,p.a p. j'; T g q. . p y,, y y c '.' ; /'.f.p;;:. /; J S MI'+ y y.c.;@ ~ t of other New York State nuclear facilities. Additionally, and not of minor ', s. 'y - MQ,;n* significance to this decision, is Intervenors' affidavits from counsel representing

f '. s.,', V

.'.Q. E.*; W. Suffolk County and the State of New York concerning the txt of opportunity 0. '.. i- . J/...en$ $!g'% W'Mf to review and analyze Revision 9 of the LILCO plan. There is no argument that 7

, w

.M v, the plan's revision was received by the parties on January 25,1988, and that the W y M ).*d. G 'd j/r Q,4 p '+l)' [',j -

• [ ~Q'e?..' 7.Vt N,QQ.

jf revision plays a fundamental role in LILCO's emergency plan and the proposed WE ;* jf. % s,QW;[.Y,j M,N!sjQ@-f*Ghp;,*.;; best efforts response by $ tate and County governments. In light of Intervenors' response to a very substantial filing of LILCO's summary disposioon motions 4,.[.?'

h!.

f being due and submitted on February 10, 1988, and, in view of other liling -,. J; ; et..ge,CT$ S requirements concerning this and related proceedings, the Board is unable to r..;.

• ' "i'*/*aJJ.f g 4 Q I conclude that the Governments' claim for lack of time to review and analyze

~ i ' f c.,j,'Qf.t [D,' C.F.R. 6 2.349(c), to Applicant's motion for summary disposition forms a part

f.,

the changes and revisions is unwarranted. Accordingly, the application of 10 l , 's '3'7,n .A ...):;4e...

q.,,, - Ci of our denial here. We again point out to Intervenors the uselessness of their

+' j - 't '

• j,,.7 j,*a

  c<

continued submission of presumed statements of material fxts under the format ,'[ [.1 k.1 L;....' y. of questions on their perception of unresolved issues. If it were not for the 4 ?;: . E l /;, c;*.,' . d,, _ affidavits of Papile, Roberts, the REPO group, and counsel representing New ,,.;.,# ( qq ;, %,

• Yor'z State and Suffolk County, the margin (cr denying the motions for summary j

",.3

• .,./ % ?. 3 disposition would have been more narrow.

.'...,'., n. -3,%;J.:.;s 'f ' a. p-t. A.. " < TIIE ATOhilC SAFETY AND 4 3 . e. :',,. / 4. ' r y;, g LICENSING BOARD s-. m s

o. -:..; t s._,.,.. j,,,......,

, r.: ,a. s

a. q

. s. ' ? ? ',. e -s . ' J A ~,.f, ", ,4 7l, James P. Oleason, Chairman , d.g ADhtIN'1.RATIVE JUDGE g . C'.4 .d s t Jerry R. Kline AD5tINISTRATIVE JUDGE '.,.'-l a'

e.., ".

', + %....,. ,. l - ) : Frederick J. Shon , a.f s. f '.;,,;.,..,...",. : ADhtINISTRATIVE JUDGE e' - +' y;',, Dated at Bethesda, biaryland, this 8th day of April 1988. g %P % f ' ~, ,,...b .'(.*

• . ', =,

,p 4, r 2

• 4

. ',,s'I' s t 4, v., ) 386 ~ 9.9 b g e a l t \\ i .S.,p,.g'y..., i-4. t 5 s. . t. = 9 g '.Y

• s a

a \\*' A e 4.

q.,. ' ' i

. s Y ,j s

z.----

r e q v.,.. n..

s. - ~ .g. -es- 'l y '- g,', s ,.i. g,

e..,

• A, p..,."

U .,a .i t. +. -. - '- - '- U n i *: k.'..' ... ~ :r.u.u-. ~ 's 3. ~ .N '; .s. ~',. ,y Cte as 27 NRC 387 (1988) L8P-88-9A c ,,J.'...... ~.,'!., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..... V ...r ,* e .,,',.1.,< ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD . -..., e., '.'.~.,*..*..,,..$.. .. *,. s . ~ ". .- 4 Before Adminlettetive Judgee:

• .
• c. '.

,0 1

.. e; .i - Dr. Robert M. Laao, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke s. f s q ~ ,g in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 250 OLA 2 ~< s -..'s 4. so.251 OLA 2 ' s (ASLSP No. 84 504-07.LA) 'n- [ (Spent Fuel Pool Expanolon) f FLORIDA POWER & UGHT (Turkey Point Nuclear Genereting n COMPANY Plant, Units 3 and 4) April 19,1988 1. 3.- c, 3 In thu Initial Decision the Lkensing Board resolves the two remaining .J' i contentions in Lkensee's favor and orders that the Ikense amendments issued 1g by the Oface of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on November 21,1984, remain in full force and effect without modifration. The Boards 6nds that the Licensee's

• ',,. j seismic analysis for the new Turkey Point spent fuel pool racks shows that the

~ rxk design satis 6es the structural aspects of GDC 2,4,61, and 62, and 'hus there , ~,.,, ' '.l Is reasonable assurance of safe stcrage of fuelin the event of an earthquake. The Board also ands, that, contrary to Intervenors' assertion, the Licensee and Staff ^' f 'Q ',/ ] have adequately considered materials spent fuel pool integrity during the storage under the expanded capacity. s w. s.

• ~

i e l . ^ s

• 6 4

o y k g I A I e q 387 \\ 6 d g 11

hMd?Yk&fl' ' Wh!&/.':$.*fk.? 'i N& d.~.,W ;b.f1.'l 0

hhkh q

k yi.yb':>[c w\\.".d,j e v Q. ,c.-;c. d J 9 ~ -. Qu.#y T.Y;,.:y.Ey% f-ww-

a. G j ;,QI %a*@

A E,f:('W Ig id

n*

NWWwa.m%y ::'W@*/, %,N

nD e

N.;t s j y!. %.p: vf e Hlvqr*g.O M

• APPEARANCES

,p bh bi dN.v./.+ F'4r M; #.gy.gb. af.sg@.p; g$9,(( N. N Joette Lorion, Miami, Florida, fcc the Intervenors Center for Nuclear Respon-4 t,p. sib!11ty, Inc., and Joette I. mon $ Q $p** $ M'i M,'c-d ,. q.g@ '.Qv u $$.$ '$G',fij,, p.-h.1 Steven P. Frantz, Esq., Washington, D.C., and Norman A. Coll, Esq., Miami, DM~'WJMQ, 4' 'M,N,,.sifiO< Florida, for the Licensee, Florida Power & Ught Company. Y'a 4 ' i?. d %'f i'[4

• N'f* y P

=g {,' k' M. m,. N ,i M

• M. D i # N M *p' d..!

',N MitrJ A. Young, Esq., and Jantee E. Moort, Esq., for the Nuclear Regulatory &pe g, g.r:9g h J.:..cf '7 Commission Staff. . y. .... + i.yn,V n.*+:a ~ % ;* b; *.= >s - W.:.5 w,.. n c. 4 W.,k.. ~?. 'r,.M..., .t,, y.!; ** d ., q4 M..W'. < INITIAL DECISION ....,

• a x ;;... y:1;,,.. : -

v

t

... v n. .1 .g9.. 3 ~.q. .a s. ' Q ? I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . t ',r.',.n..-y'.m w./. ; 4.;3, s,, s,W ., s. .a .,... g 3 w i.c< m 7 ~, p,M,,.! 'fj'M r,. b..N.2,c'M l Florida Pov er & Ught Company (FPL or Licensee) is licensed to possess, c '* ' X,dT.[? m G).,' 'PJ Mbeg'd.?,.' .,g. ; e.. tae, and operate the 7brkey Point Nxicar Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, two [:,' 9' ,'l @

• 1 W p ; h *M.7,a pressurized water nuclear textors located in Dade County, Florida.

9* W f; On March 14, 1984, the Licensee applied for amendments to allow the . t m g p '.

,

'y <

f.j j.r..;. expansion of the capxity of each unit's spent fuel pool from 621 fuel assemblies . f.Q.; O W.y'y'[(l c**'.1.lff.'@5 to approximately 1404 fuel assemblies.8 This application was supported by a $., 7/94 ' ,l.i.g, Safety Analysis Report which addressed various safety matters related to the '. 0. ; M.y..C 0$'y&.le expansion and concluded that the troposed modi 6 cation of the 7brkey Point -. V. g % y ? , v..b,,; -f spent fuel pools would condnue to trovide safe storage of spent fuel. On t.'., I *[ lN, !'.. 9cq.7i June 7,1984, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I2.105(a)(4)(i), the Nuclear Regulatcry .. A g I' ?,. V : f 1 ' :,]M l'M; Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of 2 Gy},, ;,C"glg: g/ ..f the issuance of amendments to the fxility operating licenses and offered the ,i. opportunity for a heanng on these amendments. 49 Fed. Reg. 23,715 (1984). On ,y ;gh p av ,. - }/;; July 9,1984, the Center fcr Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (Center), and Joette

• %*J *,.,, s e

Lorion (collectively referred to herein as Intervenors) filed a timely rquest for a 1,' %;,N.*y$,#,(, hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the license amendment proceeding.8 '*T

1. 3,-[f ? I$y>

4,> ; - The NRC Staff applied the standards of 10 C.P.R. I 50.92 and made a fina' C. l*...l t ,, ' '.,'.. ([ty. 7 /,. determination that the amendments involved no significant hazards considera-N tion. 49 Fed. Reg. 46,832 (1984). Consequently, on November 21,1984, the ..v ^ '.W r:U,S'. F NRC issued 114 license amendments to allow the expansion of the caprity of t*4 ... '..;;';.16 the spent fuel pools notwithstandmg the pendency of the Intervenors' petition

• .s.. ;.,._1 :,, :.....' J, T, b s.

.~ f. s a.. * %.=,: ,ac sg i2 J .,. a.,, -=,.(,*..* N'[ 8 Lauer tsma Mr. J.w. Wuharna. Jr. QM.1 to Mr. D o. E. madam (NRC) (Mad 14, I984) (Twiry Ptnis this 5 ;.. e

• s and 4. Dmisa Ns. 4:30 and B231. Prgesed Am.wknas i. spass Fuel sunse Feahry Egensum1 l

e#

• j 3

s. +-t Ragumas far lleanas and Pe.am fw 14rw no tamanwie. My 9.1964 a s. q. .... ;, l c,,1 388 t s '4 .su s ,s .a. g 'd

~

( ~ g i

• y.-.

,~. + ~ .I '6..,. .c 6' s,< s t ~~ s 't- \\ F $- ,," 7 4. 0 - A, g e -l .7' to t *; 'g e s a.,i .s

v

,g t V, 1 n c

. w; '.;n o.c ,.r.....,

1. -

u.i 3 ~.

v; '-@

;

e / p e, f. ;..,. <,.. m s,. .V m _4* *u, ; ;%. '..' P.

• w. 3, },..

j.

3' 8 . : *.- : L..... e... 3 ..y, a. r.s . v* '4 ,, x.. -. / l1 ,,,, l : v. . y, j,4 i, a. c .s.

• c ;; v.

.,.l 4,,:. ;... ../ >; ', ?;; V..; t.l} ,' i. ' '*g.y, < ',/ to intervene, bi conjuncdon with the issuance of the amendments, the NRC Of. ~ ~ 'l ; ' ; See of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Safety Evaluation for the expansion ,;.2 ; W. I *',Y.{. j, Q.D*..{* ' 3 7 '" ' /.'*' '

Q;

',-j - l;. ',. ", which concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of ? the public will not be endangered by the expansion.5 '.. - : g r m - g ;,, ' "l f;..- On March 7,1985, Interverors submitted an Amended Petition to Intervene i * '; c/id (',,,. r ' w.. &j' v ",, which included ten proposed contentions. On March 27,1985, the Licensing j (?. i '.; y[ [,:'... Board held a prehearing conference in order to consider Intervenors' peution to ep 9,v ! h * ' : *.'.,; i ( 4*M..$.*/, intervene. By Order of September 16,1985, the Licensing Board admitted the , S,,,, l, Intervenors as parues and seven of their proffered contendons (Contentions 3, c.- I..'.*. ; e. ,;.j L 4,5,6,7,8, and 10) as issues to be litigated in the proceeding. LBP.85 36,22 ^ 1,. 1,1..,,. E, - i NRC 590 (1985). Contenuon 1 was rejected becarse it sought to litigate an issue '..?!.'; e 3 ' not cognizable by the Board, and Contentions 2 and 9 were rejected because ..) ". Intervenors failed to specify an adequate basis for those contendons. In several t

. h

.;. ' c cases, the Board noted that the admitted contentions were supported 's only a e 'j,, i..'

, ?.- "minimally suf6cient basis." Id. at 596-99. c .. ; r[, t..\\. [, " ' ' '.,. On October 28, 1985, the Licensee served interrogatcries upon the Inter. 'as 7 ..',..? venors.* The Intervenors oled a response to these iniaTogatories on November p6 [2,.,g y, 27,1985.s 7he Intervenors did not cor. duct any discovery, and no other discovery c..

• j f;.

,.7. was conducted in this proceeding. ,. s. t,. w. ; e,' each contention raised by Intervmors.' Licensee's modon was supported by the On January 23, 1986, Licensee Sled a modon for sumrnary disposidon of $ :f.",...;.'; ; ? 'i NRC Staff with respect to every contenuon except for part of Contention 4.' . Y. '.a Subsequendy, the NRC Staff submitted its own motion for stynmary disposidon

;.

,: (,'

Intervences did not 61e a response to the NRC Staff's modon for summary of Contention 4.8 r.- dispositkrt. Intervenors' response to Licensee's modon for summary disposition , d, q, was 6 led on March 19,1986.' This response was not supported by an af6 davit J, < tQ f, [',, from any expert or by any other evidence. 'the only affidavit provided in support of Intervenors' response was that of Joette Lorion, who is one of the a

3. y Intervenors.58 e

...,j ,, s After considering the motions for summary disposition, the Licensing Board C ~. s, 7 - ' * ' determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated l

• 'i h respect to Contentions 3,4, 7, 8, and 10 (unpublished). Florld.s Power and t

I a. 4 '. li INRC suit Enh.1. --l

• tu e 9 -..: a C.m. rer N=s== n-,

my =4 3 e t =i. o

h. 2s, itss.

,' W ' 8 y, sw vvenes' Raspass is Laenness's i.. - w in Cane 8. N=sser Rosementalsy and Jasme tar,m, .l Nemmber 27,19ss. s '~ 'l 'taneams's Mean far sumanary Dupemean of1_ ' r" , Jensary 2s,1966 / 'NRC saft Esmyees to Lammmes Mamum rar s.numery P_, - et C . Fabe.ory 1s.196A - - j[. -.- ). 'NRC suft Maase far se, unary C, et om Pensuset Espemere Puman et Casmes.am 4. My 14,1966 'Irinarnaces' Respcmes ne taesname's Moose for sim, emery Dwyemeen et Imervoise' Ceresseum s, ou, Mardi J i 19,I966 Used A.f!idevs of Jusie tmsen an Ccsecumme s,4. s,6,7, s. and 10, Mamh 19,1964. 1 389 i I i 1 t

• .b

? E&m%h/k'$. $;.h!.%$%.l .Q VQHkUNN$h$n $.f;?;$NiMi%$:&:i,.k', %'. M '.lN N ' 5 W S k.[ a. WW c. U, f ? &?k i

&.,:. J N

$..w,s&. in.n ; g,., #.,h.a, m b., w.,)r. c._ u u s - w ~.w q n a...: - -- ~ LA n. ~3 w....e. e.,. w. a ~ d. f W

m.,.g @4,k :t.,?. % )m:n, s

, d.,.,,t M+'w% :.y )p:~. n..a.3 A p& ?;Y b;$ '+.% x .i z ~. c., . < : a.. .T-p.. z.....T~ W':s C Q M W % g [? f j i.; W;. e" q p; m'# ;.4., <,,.,.,pa. f,,,, *..d. 4... g. .9 kr > !!;'4@4C'g, Ught Co. (Tbrkey Point Nuclear Generadng Plant, Un'tt 3 and 4), slip. op at 62 Q $/ MOM.Qi@w j,."J,D .i (hfar. 25,1987). The Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Intervenors' My *.'.hze.6 Ccntentions 5 and 6 was denied. W .:;.C'. d *t. p ' f. N h y'I. U [ i M. Ifearings were held before the Board on Contentions : and 6 in Miami, k J.M/6%,..,, Florida, on September 15, 1987, and September 16,1987 During the hearing, 7, w4%@.D M...R. @i,Qf',;N...'.?,e! b the Licensee and Staff presented testimony from a series of witness pane't. As v!. 4 ..7 3 @. #* ;. 7 discussed below, these witnesses generally were in agreement with respcct to pJ sf J, t R ;;;.'p!['/M"; %:p P;,'y... DIDfh'htW resolution of Contentiont 5 and 6. Intervenors did not sponsor any tes;imony $,MQJa' and did not offer any exhibiu or other evidence. Funhermore, with respect ,^ h., % d. h.' k ? M d 'p )c o- ' Y to Contention 5, Intervenors did not cross.ctamine the direct testimony of the s,. -,'i.49 ., e p.ra Licensee's pnet of witnesses. Consequently, the evidence submitted by Licensee N.M..*4-).h.f.f[.~., and Staff regarding Contentions 5 and 6 is essentially undisputed. "r

",., o ';

D;C,f;, '-f,G *t, ;flr [, gy;F, g.' This Initial Decision is based upon tne record developed at the hearing. The . i' decision incorpcrates the Findings of Pact that follow. Any proposed 6ndings "- h ~ WW; submitted by the parties that are not incorporated directly or inferentially in

• M',,~ S

.,"' S Q ': ( M,j @ ;t ' g; Q a t, *(,[ this decision are rejected as being unsupportable in law or in fact or as being i e.,4. c... :.y..A.G... I ' unnecessary to the rendering of this Decision. .e m....>, n.% ,.e.... #,.<.e . y.w 4.. w.~e - s..x.., 't n* "'.j;.,s 2 TJ.f.' N'L W... .~. b..j II. FINDINGS OF FACT s. .'*q,.r.%7,. 5.h,:. p.., ay. n. Ea. 46 ,:.y.,.,. y,.s.. :y.e > ' A. Contention 5 .,. c. q, q 4.. > % e. i. k ': 1 ..; 4. y %.4, j., r,.? * '. '..j." a.;. p '- C. " 1. Intervenors' Contention 5 states: m.S;l, ' \\;"h {t V '.a gz ;f k, .7 That the ma'n safety functicn of the spers fuel pool, whid is to sairasin the spre fd N:;bh o oy %s ~ u.embua i.. ufe ema unum erwsh a emi-nma as ahn-me kaos. m y s ,.,.Ai';"..Qp., am be met u a nsuk d a narmly t==sk to Lak tanvie=d safety exum irrmh*J in

. '-l'

..v.c %... y ..w ' e. en curms rmd de ian *= ano. r de = hon mau rows aerhans se sune mds = ,v,.....,p, y9 .w f, $. sers tw pmt. Thus, se amwamera swu be avded. . w ".a 1,,. u r 3 ^ 6 ll i,,..M,h.,j.. Y,* 1. t,M Intervenors gave the following bases for the contention' cf....,.s.. o. . 44 . ' g..... >.f. 1, f % 7 '". In a Feruary I 19s5 lener frcen WdL ems. FPL, to Varga, NRC =Nd docnbes the pmercial ', " i. ?; +... - n, v ... ',;, '. P.: 1., ",. for rad ha 4 under seismic evers ccn%ns (sk). Tb is dearly ei unmien,rd safety ((,<- i','.' - ".,J.;; J,' psucri ihm demaras a safety anaps of an wismic and hurncane ccranxes and their puercal impac = e4 rids in pium befae the lma amaameras m inued, tasuu f.., ,, ',* j 'e . *,. cv d the pNessial to incnase the possibdary of an acciders pmirody edate [ sic), ce to enge a. p ,. r /.. ;...,.' the pouitstay of a new ce diffems LinJ of ecciders causeJ t'y kes d aructural sungnty. If 7 > f N ;f,. i, ( O' ',, ' t b t irsesney is ket, the 6ased fuel rcas could cause a enucal.ry saiders. ' Y. G.

. l

<t ...N n. . ? - , 1 The Board admitted this contention by Memorandum and Order dated March 25 . - N,;, - Q, 1987 (unWblished) (hereafter 'SD Order"). The contention questions whether l:, t' e', 1 t' th.re is a de6cierry in the TbrLey Point rxk design and a necessity for a y ,M res'riction on loMing to prevent potential liftoff during seismic events. SD

• ,-{.

i s 3 .] \\ E e, , ~, e 390 s .n t y .k .'I k It e s p. .l b g k 9 I g 4. ,g' j,- . f 9 y 4

• y

~ ~ \\ .s e

W., v.:

• q.,., e ;s=<v ~

8.- u.r.p. n,

• . 7-r o 7,..,

m., f,. ;. : y; :#

.,, f_ t . p.... , k,w.;. s.. \\ ~~ . m.,: u, se,, .,.s e.c* r. y o rt.

• '#q..g

.* $** % ) v '{ ',s. O - ,?'?ne' j,y;,., ,s. ' 1 **; %s..f.k..,..#a' 7,. f* ',.k{,,. [7 9 s w L Q% (* .,, y 7, L.'.'s..'... r 4 .[ J.. ' *, a. i.Q 'q L}f ,J. ,; [^.u: '. r...a Mf.i c. ';. ',v. j c....,,.,;e .- V i, V.f,

• ..,\\ o

+ -t r,..

• e..,,'

,J

• f.t.. >,. e

~ n :w.. w. y> s '. <,,. n 64 , o3..c...ya. m a,,.: ,.-. w ....a,r. y.;;,, m. s. n. s

,.s*,..

L. y.,., z f ,.9g 1, ..~ t a;..L,e . se.y,.y .. vt3 e .oe +; '. Mi'j * %, S Order at 18. This concern is based on a Licensee letier that indicated that 7, ",%.V,s. :. N :~ f. f ? ". D * #. ',],. the structural design of the rack, whose outer rows overhang the support pad, .'. c,'* p dl' d.**c '.*(,,c.11/O*< 4? ' T.1 could cause the racks to lift off (or more liitely tip off) from the pool floor 'h"*)3'M*d,Nh,JYJ dwing seismic events. See Leser from J.W. Williams, Jr., Licensee, to Steven ./..' d.T..Nc?d. (,p',' ; 'l h Q*d A. Varga, NRC, dated February 1,1985. In our March 25,1987 Order denying .q.y,((f- . x l g g. y i. sumtr'ary dispcsition, we found that there is no question that properly executed h,y "**..,2 3:$.h..' E.s\\,,,I*3,$,[ t* administrative controls would prevent rack liftoff during a seismic event but 2}. y e : "..s !-j ;.- /. a. f.T,s /+r,,,'.;, observed that there are suf6cient doubts as to the basis for issuance of the .qu ... 4.5M; amendments, particularly the structural analysis involving the safe shutdown .*wj ar/N..,' / ,Q '.q., '. '%.',,,.. 'i, ' J. ' 't earthquaka and various loading conditions other than fully loaded and involving the overhanging rows, conditions which the Staff apparendy has not evaluated." .,,,s,. < e,.y ;.:. ~. ~ *,

7. 4 '

%.,.'.,s. f. e. . y,.l. i. SD Order at 21,24.

v. ', ? j.-;.. ff

.,';J':... f, .. v. 4,? ;. 2. Tb determine whether administrative controls on loading should be

• r j

s~ imposed by means of eithee a license condition or a technical speci6 cation ...,, f,.p ' requirement for 'harkey Point, the Board has applied the guidance of the Appeal g,'

,. M./,..

r, ].]. *.. '"},, b,,.;. Board in A+tland Generet Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB.531,9 a - , Q,. .'..,'.f.l.*. NRC 263 () 09). There the Appeal Board stated: .7... .,. u,t.....g ~ ..w.d mh== le andar e amawy act assistory =gniamma that evwy opersional daied su .y fonk in en applices's safeey emelpes repet (or the eqmveles) be subsecs to a todnical . f < '.... (; ' q - @, ..s, s ~ ,...,,i e p '- - a he bedsdod in the tiesame u en ehechse coneuan c( cperesian whid ' ' ' T ',. /,'a ;c,',,,,.' \\ } [,,J'l;' 4' is legeDy hmAng upon die tiennese wtan and us4 chaneed with speci6e Ccoveniuion , f '. i appnmi. Itsent,... es t - of twe me Aa mid me movimimo is thes emmical g- . w : :.: 6 -- en to be weerwd fw mese memori u to whis du empoeinion of neid , C . ;E f ,...'i sendnsens = Isanomous upon menor armemen ne enamed meannery a chias du peu.wey c. ' ;, U. l.J., ; a, c,e,...'A ' P,' of en shmorwl sensuon w one giving ein u en imunahme ihmet u de pubhc twekh and

• ,,
• q l.

~. ,q l.,. n. ;, nesey. ,. s. .., ^ r, .,.. ?. : j.. %. h 9 NRC at 273 (footnote omitted).81 Consequendy, we will determine whether ~, ". (,

* }. gf J

the administrative controls are necessary to prevent an abnormal situation or . y,. ,, T..e 7 event that poses an ir.smediate threat to the public heshh and safety. %.". 7

3. 'the Licensee's direct case consitted of the testimony of a panel of three J *, D,s

..A .A witnesses: Edrnund E. DeMario, an advisory engineer in the Commercial Nu. q,. ' - 6, ; l '.. l.,'..[ ~ J clear Puel Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse): Harry ^. E. Flanders, Jr., a Principal Engineer for the Advanced Engineering Analysis

c. * -

... y, z,, -t,r 2. ,J j Section of Westinghouse's Nuclear Components Division; and Russell Gouldy, ' ; 'i,* ' ' 'l ' - ).l.i a Senice Engineer in Licensee's Nucler Licensing Department (ff. TV 103). .y .3..,s ., e g, .g.*.* .g...,. ..,.l i . :3 .....,4 .p rs . 1.. t. O

2 s= Io Crn. s nw ser asun,.t ves,, os.=, ca.4e s.e N.d.,os

. s g Ataa. 'i 746,18 NaC ?*#,754 sLe 098sh C ammemesht Kdne Ca (Issa seamen tJuses I and h ALAa414511 NaC 3 419, 422 0 9401 Wynne flateur and pene Co. (Neah Anas Power seeism.1,1 mas I ond A AIA&.s7s.11 NILC 189,217 0940k e 391 b 1 t. \\ 9 ,s g, s s g s g p F i J ~ .c

,Q; t $' 4. w ?.ee:p.4., 4.h>&s 43...o.'. h.. L.:+s &nM Y.\\; <.W . M. Q ;$ g.b.: h M .. : *:.. x a. < ~.,h. : 1m M v:c:. / .x .s n.- n% 1.: W ?r $ ' d ' Y Mbr%.vawmm..%.s a w g:u,, >w) p* C n F; >,&p p:::n,, % F.t.:<; 3 9 -a x, %.,nW...M.,g:.;', %. 2 l[.,i n c:

g. 4. ~.. n: :

Q. ' M;&1 +, .a.'Jffg St.'JP,W-h', M i .1 W !*f+ & p i hi ? Q.Q ? R Descri tien of de Synt Fawl Pool t f;. M. *. t ' 9.b @F,' %e. I'~* N e5-j,'N.' 3 ';- : <e2. ",' j',,% : 4. The Turkey Point spent fuel pools have two storage regions, Region w e.g..t p(C.k. I.C.;** ','."T**. q' I and Region 2. The Region I storage racks consist of th*ee major sections, @ D. whkh are the levehng pad assembly, the upper and lower grid assernblies, and E.'-N W Individual storage cells made of stainless steel The cells within a rack are [%d" 4hMi.6,%.'d Dt:

• AM"'[.h;7.N*.E *a'%'.yh m interconnected by grid assemblies to form an integral structure. Each rack is

t} M .5.. E. *- provided with leveling pads connected to the lower grid assembly which r.ontact 'd*8. h y; M@ $ J*.'!,O* J the doce of the spent fuel pool and are remotely adjustable from above to level $ilq, the racks during installaden. The racks are freestanding and are not anchored to

• I. I tM.

M; Q.* 4Y2Mp. q;.'.% ~;.l',M, 1 ' 1 the door or braced to the pool walls. Support pads for the new racks sit on the 4)4'y?c,. /A c..t,;.,W l' ? ' i

• N d*',

existing Soor embedment plates whkh are located at various places along the ' ** v'.g M(. Oft.j C.';*C,$ bottom of the pool liner. Due to the kxation of the door embedment plates, some ' 1 :.. '. ' ' h, ..g of the su; port pads for some of the new racks in Region I cannot be situated 2 5,g'.a[ *4 - @.,1*,. a f ',I at the corners of the racks. Therefore, some of the outer storage locations on M*2: .N ;s .c -[,.. 1'. these racks overhang (extend beyond) the support pad. Flanders. (f *n.103, at ../.g+ 3 4; Kim, (f.1T,129, at 3-4 S 'i.' M., u '... !,'f. d[ ' D. p h ;.".;.,,f.* V '. h, ~.., DW {. V - L

5. The Region 2 storage racks consist of two major sections, which are

.7,, pt'..'c g. f.... the leveling pad base assembly and stainless steel cells. The cells are assembled s.;$~ iO " /*1 f.., " # .1 [ $.$, . In a checkerboard pattern, producing a honeycomb tpe of structure. The cells %,. 5' O are welded to a base support assembly and to one another to foam an integral d@jf@7.t,L.#:r ;.M f.d. t <<. 7

5. C".y*7. L stmeture, without the use of grids of the tge used for the Region I racks.1he n

v h[&,gf(ll'.[CQ.'f;f*,;-J1 ' pW.'d, i,r. ^. '. ',. ;. Q J Q '.,l. i '. connected to the base support assembly, which contact the pool door /embeiment 1 Region 2 storne racks, like the Region I racks, are provided with leveling pads T j N a...,.:'. J. J plates, and whkh are remotely adjustable from above to level the rack during .e M,; 3 . ' 4; g y, installation. The racks are freestanding and are nct anchored to the door or .,,r'7 5' 't. J, ;.,.: .[+.[. ' braced to the pool walls. Some of the storage locations in some of the Region .' s ' '. w [.',, 2 racks also overhang their support pads. Id. at 4 , J.' '.'y.

e.. a.

.i t x <..c '.%.- ( ...?

u 3 ;' v t.

L..

e. ?;> ;...,. ~ ^l.

Analyses q- .. t e.y I z [i .3 y. ]# ) E.l,',,. C 6. In suppcrt ofits amendment application, the Lkensee provided the NRC y 'y p - l. j f L * '.,,;.,;*',,~4 with the results of an analysis that showed that liftoff or tilt of the storage rm:ks f..,,. f. '., q..'l ',- 4 c i would not occur during a seismk event. This analysis assumed that the 1.icensee ., s,,

t..,g, ;., -

would establish administrative controls to prohibit the inading of overhanging ~ ., ? 'a rows of a rack while the remaining rows of the rack were empty. The NRC

• • '~. ;,

V., a. n.,,' f,[, /> '-. * ' ' ' f s 3 " i; issued the Thrtey Point spent fuel pool expansion amendments in November t

• ,, "', /

_ j * *m

..,? a 1984 on the basis that, with these administrative controls in place, rack liftoff .. i ( :I 79:,,". * ( 3 7 g would not occur. This procedure is currently in use at 1brkey Point. It requires b the preparation arid use of a fuel. handling data sheet whkh designates a speci6c . j^..;;.14lq '9,..,,,,,,,. kration within a spent fuel rack for each spent fuel assembly identi6ed by 4':.s, i ., 2..* J,

• Q ^ *,,

s5 -T. namber. The fuel handling data sheets are prepared with the aid of fuel status T~...

- g c.

.. - yl s.: ,'.. c -a. 3,=, ther storage locations. Prior to their use, the fuel handling ,[,

1. [.'( ' '." 'j, <l, lf...,. '

data sheets are subject to review and approval by the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee. These types of administrative controls are common in the nuclear - y. l, f industry and have been used successfully for loadmg assemblies in spent fuel ~.,, ' f .,,(. , 3 M. N racks as well as loading fuel assemblies into the reactor. Couldy, ff. Tt.103, at 4-6, J. \\. 7. The 1.icensee's fuel rack seismic analysis was perfwmed for two f, * ',

i. -

,.5 cases. Case 1 assumed that administrative controls are in pire to prevent loading ~ *,, of fuel assemblies into the overhanging locations und) after assemblies are c( Iceded into the xher storage locations. Case 2 is an analysts perfwmed by Westinghouse at the request of Licensee, after NRC appoval of the license amendmenu, to determine the potential effect of loading fuel assemblica into ,s e' f overhanging locations while the remainder of the fuel rxk is empty. Flanders, j ff. TV,103, at 14. 8. Standard Review Plan (SRP) 6 9.1.2 states that the storage racks should be designed to Seismic Category I requirements (i.e, able to withstand the 4 y. effects of a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and remain functional). Section 4 111 of the "OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Puel Storage and Handling Applications"(NRC Position Paper) identi6es enteria for performing ,J criticality analyses fw spent fuel pools under accident conditions, and it states that the gesence of soluble boron in the pool water may be taken into account when analyz.ing the effects of earthquakes. Section IV of the NRC Position Paper identi6es criteria for performing enluations of the mechanical and structui.J integnty of spent fuel racks. These criteria state that compliance j with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code provides d g an accep:able basis fcr deriving allowable stresses in spent fuel rxks. The j g design of the storage rats is considered to be acceptable if the amplPudea of sliding modon are minimal, if impact between storage racks and the ox>l j wsils is prevented, and if the factors of s*Icty against tilting of the rxts are within specified values. These enteria are widely used in the nxicar industry ? y{ foe performing seismic analyses of spent fuel racks, and they are recognized as being conservative. Flanders, ff. Tt.103, at 4 7. aj The racx.: were designed in xcordance with Seismic Category I require-ments. Re strwtural analysis of the storage rxks was based upon the allow 2ble stresses of the ASME Code, and the remairkler of the mechanical and structural I analysis of the txts was performed in xcordance with iIV of the NRC Post-tion Paper. Id. at 7-8. 393 i 4 m

y-3 bh, %$N W$)M.MN-)N$$M.NNhb,h.9hpIM MMd@NM;h.NhbT MON N'ik.hMQ'/5 MM M,bN 3 c % & &t.w m*p . w. e,r. 74, s. o, @e g w.s. ,7 g.f n.% ,. 3 ,. -,,....,m..,. w.. ", q.g. o e,;v. g..m, . !,:;.g. w e. 31,,,, : s,p n .; y. r.g .,.. m, 7., ~,4.,

• f. #y "TQ '../y m,3,,., h j,. g, gW;.

%'.9, A.,,?,,;. - 2;.Q The Lkensee's seismic analysis of the spent fuel storage racks used the .?.,5.- M. following conservative assumptions: i've,f *.S/ i A. The maximum seismic acceleration used in the analyses was the s..%,'. i.N MG.'M723.}l( design basis Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSli) acceleration for the .$,h*Y'f") g M S M f;. 1brkey Point Plant speciacd in the Updated Final Safety Analysis ,.. iy Lt ;.*a(t J.N%* S.*y(M . r.k A. .M, Report (FSAR) for Turkey Point. [4 'y.%. i. g.@[JJf *G" V'8

b. The structural damping of the seismic acceleration provided by the z.?.

1

t.,".5'c storage racks was consistent with the value provided in the updated

..$.h, h,f1@, V,* O ~y.g.'.'I' * *i -[,.kly,*[.I Z.f*.$. FSAR for welded steel frame structures, and damping provided by fQ

,N the spent fuel pool water was conservatively neglected.

. y'.

• JW

! $.. ",y ' p 'f;Q/ t *.*h, @../ 0 T-

c. A range of coef6cients of friction bemen the rzks and the pool floor embedments were used that bounded the maximum possible rzk r r.' I,.~i s' 6,f J'q'j.V.@$h1 y$.D *D; *"],j%

horizontal displacement (sliding) and the maximum rack horizontal overturning force (tilting). a_ .w / :l.% d. The storage racks wre assumed to be hydrodynamically coupled, V',3f,,.,;*y%"psf *g(,,g[i .,1 J 3 thereby producing maximum deacetions, loads, and stresses for slid. ..p.9 5'c b ing or tilting. ,1'.~v,.(c W Q .s

e. No loads on the racks were assumed as a result of sloshing of the 3 [.;

.s ;[ * 'j s S.MM pooi water during a seismic event, because such sloshing would occur ,5.'.).**. W..,g p;,PS.; in the upper elevations of the pool above the top of the racks. l, n*ll '.;{ L'M4'\\ ]% 5% 14.atS.I1. .- U U.$c,:;';;, % 'di$ QM1

9. The Lkensee's seismk analysis was performed in two phases. The $rst g.

5

• 1 '.

phase used a M-dimensional nonlinear model of an individual rack cell. The ] J4 '.>.',,y;. 7 y $.c(., M'y;t .O le results of the 6rst phase provided input to the second phase of the analysis, which , ), .Jf,"8,.lly*p % used a three-dimensional linear model for the purpose of cakulating loads and 4 stresses in the storage racks. U~se of thae two models enabled the Lkensee to . A 1 y.y f,. 4.;..m a:'cE account for both the nonlinear and three-dimensional luponses of the storage .~ .y i ' /.....,di 1.;g; 9.;. M A,.:'g. rxks. In partkular, the model used in the 6tst phane directly accounted fcr 0., y g;hy. ncnlinerrities and provided input for correcting the loads cakulated by the linear Mc.>,

• h~;;-j

.,,(f, f model used in the second phase, Similarly, the model used in the secorkl phase

7.,.D.' '., y J provided three-dimensional response data for loads and stresses. Use of a two.

,.i q* N'... '7 m dimensional model in phase one to cakulate disptxements was afpropriate - f, ' ,,,'.:,'; 1, f because earh fuel assembly and s'ange : ell is structurally symmetric about ..;.. g,c 4 r t l;. either the x or y horizontal anis. /d. at 11 12. ,/,- ; e ?. ,;c %

10. This methodology was applied for both Case 1 and Case 2. The l

.,.. b,i ',; 'M A' NJ Q' results of the analysis for Case I, whkh considered full fuel loading (i.e., fuel M fi'- J. v' p (f.1.. ? assen!- les in all storage locations) and various partial loading con' itions wre d

,,,x-O as follows

. %*. h '.[v.*i', L The fuel Tack support poins: did not lift otT or lose CCntxt Aith 4 t.' ; VJ-. 1 ,. - >, %q* the noor of the spent fuci pool when subjected to the speci6c ...... ~ ; e.. -t', seismic ground Ecclerations. The factor of safety against overturning , v ;y. - ~ s.~ s,; *. s d,.s. -.. e > d. 0 s* p.C, 3

• y A ',..,.

,,,? v. i.' .g, ,., ',.,'s ' t....s./. ( ".,]1 394 4

• 1

. t-l f, .P { g g - ; y,, A l ( ,7-...s- -,,.n.-. i .t. a i . 4 e g s T r ~ e u =

• [*

T 3 ' 11

u'.c

,h: , p e. V. s e - .a _+ - e

+t s

s.,.h. 3 _..m n 8 _'s.nx ~ ~ _p g -w

r 37 _ *.Q,{:.... - .1., ' ' y. 4 .A ., A~...s',. ' ;?.; - (q ; : u < q,._ .,3 ;T _ ,.c. (_ _ ;, 72 '."c f..i. e g:,,. p 4..'.' l 3 y.., -l ,7p ...~w.. .. -, f. c.4.'.{g. ~ ., g, l: j.,.j .,,. ? q;.,c. o. -.;,.g, + .+ 3.. ..aw~...7..~. y p. .c. e, ~ , ":.. !fG ' I was much greaset than the 1.5 value speciaed by $ 3.8.5.11.5 of the ... ' *.h *..' * '.. Standard Review Plan. 1 < k. l. b. The maximum reladve displacement of a fuel rack was enklad i .. W...V.. L,t. )..,,".'. i

• ;.',4,. J.

.. j.,' ?'.. to be 0.256 inch. The reladve displacemes accounts for sliding, . ',. 7; 'v' : f 5*. .t structwal, and thermal monment of two adjacent racks toward each / ".*Iy.,

• • i J:;,,'..* '.'-

'd ' & ' ' ?. '. * *c..; ' ', ' other. The gap between ad}ecent fuel racks is 1.11 inches, and the gap l . ;. h 3 *; M $' ) O.'.. '* beaten a fuel rack and the spent fuel pool walls is even larger. Thus, ?.' j.; . f *; m.1, impact between adjacem rack moduke or *uetween a rack module and .e,, '...i',.*. the pool wall is prevented, and the leveling screws will not slide off '.,. L *, ' lP *; * ', * ( the embedment plates. . -] c, The fbel rock stresses are within ASMB Code-allowable limits, i.e.,

• '7I,,.
• ".C n ']

c,. ~ / 'l

• A the minimum rado of allowable stress divided by applied stress is 4.d. 'f d,* * *,= ' ' ?

'... } grenser than one. The minimum rados of allowaNe stress divided 'e i ~ by applied seress for the leveling pads, grid asserr.blies, and cell

• . " - f re..-*'(~'l

',' p ' ', t .i assemblies, are 1.27,1.15, and 1.11, respeedvely, it should be noted j t . ;,,..,. ( ; s '.. ?. 1 that allowabic stresses do not represent the point of material idlure, but are values that include conservatisms inherem in the ASME Code, 4 i 2. The results of the Case I analysis conform with the acceptance criteria in the ) ,.~.. ' c '.i *, I. NRC Posidon Paper and demonstrate that the spent fuel stcrage racks will be ',j.< mg-maintained in a safe configuration during postulated seismic events. Id. at 15 16. v. 5. ~

11. In Case 2, the 1.icensee analyzed the potential effects rf loading fuel

'(,. '..~ 1 q^, assemblies into overhanging locadons. The models were adjusted to account for l ^ the mass of the fuel in the overhanging rows, and the analysis was conducted e ..r*, for various partial fuel loading conditions wkh the apprepnase seismic ground 4 ab acceleration inputs. 'The resuks of the Case 2 analysis were as follows: '. 3 n. The rack module was predacted to rock and result in liftoff of one 3 side of the rack f>om the sugott point. The maximum liftoff of 0.18 ~ s '~ .:'t tach was produced by loading the three outboard rows on the side ~ w.,,, 3 of the rack with the most overbs.nging storage locadons,l.iftoff of { support points is not uncommon for freestar. ding racks under seismic s '. condidons, and the structural members of the racks are designed to 1

• C accommodaae the stresses produced by liftoff. The liftoff distance was

~' '.,.,. - used in an overturn stability calculation, and it was shown that the ,.V p, ~ rack is stable and will not overtwn armi that the minimum factor of ?.- [ ,61. safety against overturn is 8 (which is substandally greater than the " [ f. *, ' 1.5 factor of safety against overturning recommended by I 3.8.5.11.5 j of the SRP). ,'? 4

b. The maximum retadve displacement of a fuel rack is 0.709 inch, i

~ ' .3*';., 8.'. Relative displacement accounts for sliding. rocking, strwtural. and V"' thermal movemems of two adjacent racks toward exh other. This is less than the gap bemeen adjacent fuel mcks and between the fuel rssks and the spent fuel pool walls. Thus, impact between ',g., g. e M5 4 \\ i 6 e m A

..d. a.g.,.; %.,.~,.b r.r.U_.:,,N c. g. 4 4l, n;4 $.r M., S..b.sl. &,y$ y,.A. Y $.:1N. v 4.;. QW W %m, J.1. 5 A t g,,..g O N .,.., p.o. n. a',?..q.. %s,J; 4, g; ~ qf my+ y. y .c p,, e&.y < .J,.. m. :.m m .... m . y.n,-.. i. s f,'W&H.!!W,w& ' f 5 )l. Q. a $. h ' & lY lt f. l&,E ,n.,<. e..,..

• T.+. a. 7..A
• 4 T.m g g. 9. f; M, W 4.,.- 6 i 7

J ad ent rack modules or betwen a rack module and the I wallis y; ...tgy.f..'g

.u ;<,. -e prevented, and the leveling screws will not slide off the embedment 4

s plates. N W, + y,g.M fl}a. p : e,l'e ' *M if..l.

b c,.1j. f*. W '.' O, W,' % $

c. Structural loads and stresses are enveloped by the condition of a fully "Ml'.

• *G,.7. a loaded rack. Thus, the maximum stresses produced by the part ally i

ej; M M y. g % 9'.'.h.h#* in Case 1. Therefore, the applied stresses in Case 2 are also within laa w racks in Case 2 are less than the maximum stresses calculamd 76...N.'C.'s;s V r g. the ASME Code-allow 3ble stresses. 9: '.i.v.y $ e t>.C,%;W;QZv.' 6% up

.y :. e

14. at 1611,

'7: G M.'/*.M.M ',ej ;p*.i

12. The results of the Case 2 analysis conform with the acceptance criteria

?y. Y.3K.7'f.j.,tl.]f.. " [y d ', in the NRC Position Paper and demonstrate that the spent fuel storage racks / "t /. ~ ?'

• f, 4.*t. w;.' Wo[.p;,'% J.T.; #g M M will be maintained in a safe con 6guration during postulated seismic events. The

'M Case 2 analysis demonstrates this to be true without administrative controls to 9(,f.,,t.f",%f ; i f. g y* * *4

• c ensure it.at spent fuel is not loaded into overhanging portions of the racks undl

,7 @ _E '. %. D ' other portions of the racks have been alled. Id. at 1618. t '^ f.2,'.ff 4% 9Jg$ ?35.'[.i tg. /,7..qw 1,,4.3,T,r. ;..; ',' p;3,

13. The NRC Staff's direct case consisted of testimony by Sang Bo Kim,

. > :,,. 6, a structural engineer, and Daniel O. Mcdonald, Jr., the project manager for r.

2. s _._

g . S '.v 'W i n 0':< e. %* M Turkey Point, ff. TV 129.

r. *M;W ^ add;4.~.n., *M, C-W.&&g,M.

r. %

' = .;2.;,: w .A *.- u 3 - y : = y e s ?.;. ?? ?.,, '['?. M iiN M M' & h. Q 'U*&*; b,M,I NRC Sed Redrw 14 The structural design of spent fuel pool racks as well as the spent fuel ,/. v..%.,y%'@' y;N; '.:?. " '- Q7;rd;N',4;y.J.*? Again<t Natural Phenomena." ODC 2 provides that fuel storage be designed J d.I,' { '.3.i pool must satisfy General Design Criterion 2, Design Bases for Protection A^. .j - q. @[0 '. jl'ic! M h'.i ,.X W 'c, J' to withstand the effecu of earthquakes without loss of capability to perform 3l

.'. h

.,

',e tu safety function. In addition, the spent fuel pool and pool storage racks ~ ',j, ;* f rf;3.J.,T. y, R g : @ M^a / must be designed to ensure adequate safety under normal and postulated accklent conditions (ODC 61, **Puel Storage and Handling and Radioactivity t e d' 4

1. 9%. '..

.' v C. Y Wf.l (; y. E,..,1f@,*. Control"). Ocometrically safe condgurations of the fuel storage system should 'm i by g. g,., ' V -,;! y be used in order to pevent fuel criticality (ODC 62, Prevention of Criucality ,.- cl3 in Puel Storage and Handling"). Kim, ff. T1.129, at 4 i ,,;j.; ;.1 ' G.,

15. The NRC seview scope and accepante criteris are described in the j,

a,, ',: %' -], OT Positice for Review and Accepanee of Spent Puel Storage and Handling ,r5 ] pd,',,1 v.

6. -

Applications," dated April 14, 1978, and later amended on January 18, 1979 3* ' '. ; ; '..[ / is k;*},M Q~p g,% (Operating Technology Position or OT Position). The OT PMition speciaes H. 2.', accepable load combinations of weight, temperature, and earthquake. Dead j 4;. *;;y, J ff,*.'/ * 'i g t.J;s.

• .e,' p f-; 7 ";* N and live ionds are cor sidered for normal service conditions. Thermal and

. 7 sf)..,] l.. earthquake loads are added for accident conditions. Allowable stress levels

.',q. N,M. 8,. ( P,f l t a.K.e' "pra tice. ASME Code i!!!. In midnion, the OT Position specl6es an allo *3ble

-l L-w increase with the severity of the service level. This is generally the industry ', '; $ f * ',A' *y *(" '.; -Q, i 'j j ,j safety fa: tor for overturning by referencing i 3.8.5.11.5 of the Standard Review jfq ; a 4 :. e4, ; * " - j..;. Plan (SRP), NUREO 0800. A range of the safety factors between 1.1 to 1.5 r ,7. N* t. r..' b 'y $ g' 'g*, d ' 4; e' 4 E ' * ' 'q ',.*, I,', a ns :,.. t. va c. e e - a ,t 3 p V,y.,,,o a, ug,... t a, ; yl" Y.,, .g, 3 g g '.,/-a. .g.. .j $96 i s, 7 *, 3 4.J .v q A s,. r',.,,.. ; e s '("..LJ" c', '1 '. ;. f [.. .),- \\ l s. . g -c

• 4

s. p.%,.

s.3 3+- w .y. ~ s ,1 s s 'e s. s s s ,s o 9 - e i l -n s .' 5 ' n. ,n

• . sis

.o"L p s.. ' [ a 7 y k. .,l s .s t p, g. ,s s,, g .~.,, 2

5...... 5, m,, 7 7 , '._, y, c J6- .c- .3 _, ',(

' )* *.;

j. s. '.,'a... 2 ( ;:, s p' 7 V,, ,.7

p'. c ;' y

• n y

4 ,; f.. c:. 7): .....,._;1 ~. ,5 fe' q.- . 4,.. + 4, y ...J .. s. e .4

j r

f s* ,g. e b are specided depending on load combinations. The OT Posidon also states f f *,p Y f '. 2 '. * -..,..".: ..f1 that total displacemem, including thermal expansion due 10 temperature as well . ' '..d' as movemeN of the rack due to carthquake (shding ard tilling), should be

• 3ga 9 *. f. G t '.&y,

considered using a detailed nonlinear dynamic analysis that demonstrates that p , ;. l,$,*, ,'*7 ** ~, ) [,, y displacernem is minimal. Kirn, ff. Tr. 529, at 5,1011; Flanders, ff. TY,103, at .r. s. e *,w.. 1 44, .!,fA* j,/ s',[' f.: ;*.-.., ', ] '

16. This Staff criteria allows liftoff or tilting of the racks grovided that, as

(,, [.,* ',,. ;,, % ; P,. $, j,. ! ; ' 5 stated in the criteria, (a) the factors of safety against tilting (or overturning) are ,,J i ~* 3... within the value permitted by 9 3.8.4.11.5 o( the SRP, and (b) it can be shown

• .r?

.r7 * ;',, ;. p. '. p 7, ' '. ' ', '

• that any sliding and tilling modon will be contained within suitable geometric i

1.,

,. a q constraints such as thermal clearances and that any impact due to clearance , ' f,.. 3...?,'i is incorporated. Thermal clearances are calculadons of the space between the ,./ (. , 4.'.*. ; g ?. !* ', ' ;,. d racks after expansion of the racks due to the heet 'ransferred frort tae spen fuel ~.k 4.<,'*.. assemblies. Kim, ff.1Y 129, at 11; Randers, ff. Tr.103, at 44. r ./t ..,.,',,'i... .',,*V ,'W...,,.

17. The Staff's evaluadon ofIJcensee's rack design was performed with the i

3 %.. - ?f, k C ,. *g,, assistance of Franklin Research Center (FRC), the Staff's technical consultant. O ' '.,. ' ~ and pablished in a safety evaluadon supporting the amendmenu.1he NRC I Staff performed a review of Licensee's Case 1 analysis. The review consisted ~' a. ( ' ' } ? ~ of an evaluation of the Licensee's descripdon of the sinactural condguradon of s the spes fuel racks as well as the spent fuel storage pool, load combinatkns, L calculadons including rack response to an earthquake, resultant stresses in the , e-i' rack, and comparison of anal stresses with allowable stress limits prescribed .,; s.. in the OT Position. The Staff concluded in 52.3.6 of its Safety Evaluation "i that the design of the racks satis 6ed the structural aspecu of the Appendix A requirements of 10 C.P.R. Part 50 (ODC 2,4,61, and 62) because: (a) the Lkersee considered all the required loading condidens including earthquakes 3 and accidenu; (b) the analysis methods that cakulate stresses and earthquake response were in accoroance with industry practke and were acceptable as ~ detained in FRC's Technkal Evaluation Report whlch is appended to the Staff's ~- Safety Evaluadon; and (c) the resultam stresses and oserturning safety factors 1 e satis 6ed the allowable lirnits specl6ed in the Staff Oi' Posidon. Kim, ff. TY.129, 1 at 44; Staff Exh.1, 513.6. +' ' ~, . i

18. Subsequent to the Staff's November 21, 1984 Safety Evaluation, Lt.

a censee, by letter dated February 1,1985, Tvesented an additional rack earthquake .,(. ', i'.. j response analysis corsetning the loading of the overhanging outer rows. This l~., l additional analpis was done as a result of being informed by Westinghouse j s Electric Corporadon, the rack vendar, (a) that lifung of a rack could occur dur. 4 'i-d ing a seismk evem if the outer rows are fully loaded while the rest of the rack ,N, is empy armi (b) that administrative controls on fuel loading would te needed for those spem fuel rxks whose outer rows overhang the support pads. Lkensee stated that the analysis resulu demonstrated tht the design of racks with fuel overhang continued to satisfy the OT Positior in that there are adequale safety 397 6 t I .J s 1

i 5 .B.Q:s3.h.g &c~!?ljha%,f,e.+Q. % %t .g! e p.,W.c.~y'*46Q - n %.,qo;y.:,iy u:s.s an,.):j x.e 4 q Y.. [1,' N M M.fh s'b S h.x q kk 'Q' fM.h,$f.TQi,/

• g't!Q margins against overturning m.d swam in the racks and pcN. In adsidon, u.

c-S{j(,20;M.Q'['&'Y.@'y, %}/gi ceases stated that it would provide administradve consols on fuel placemem in 3'p w 8 P "M..,.f. order to preclude the possibility of rack lihoff. Kim, ff. Tr.129, at 6.

• .,... " K 'a)!. p.;j.. h D F '*

d

19. By leaar dated February 26,1985 (Mcdonald, ff. Tr.129, at Attach.

f%,T/.*r*M:'g*P.[*@% 3 ment 3), the Staff responded to 1.icensee's February 1,1985 request for NRC

• /Mth:

review of an analysis that showed that the results of linoiY would be accept. .,f[*dT,g;M;%_dl7*,f,l# N-45'- Q* able. Licensee's request for review of the analysis represoneed a change in the ' J ?* qy. . NRC basis for inuing the amendments that authortred the pool expansions. De ',)i < MLgTj $*g;Q, h?,1 Staff stated that Licenses could make changes withon ;itor NRC approval pm. (*I.1'[h 't e.W[d;[42.y.fN, .g e ! vided it performed a review pursuant to 10 C.P.R. 6 50J9, "Changes, Tests, end t..

• M[u..dg?$nNfp.M e an wueviewed safety question is involved. Tim 1.icenses wishorew its February

[ '? Experiments," and determined that neither a technical speciacation change nor /ci.a j N.'..Yg# nrmM('p.*f:

2. s.'

• 1,1985 request in a leaar dated November 13,1985. Oculdy, ff. Tr.103, at 4 5.

1 .'s NM'ggA[h {%g Qfg*v

20. In addition to 1 sting that I l-* could institute a change la the use

, M L :..' @. of administrative controls pursuant to a $ 50.59 analysis, the Staff stated that the

• Q ' g
• y h f { '"

conclusions in its Safety Evaluation and supporting Technical Evaluation Repet ap'id.:*. \\ p[ *'5(:/f; h M M(,6.h)L yy tyg g rhlO (TER) remained valid because administrative coneols were initiated prior to any fuel being loaded in the SFP racks with overhanging rows and thus precluded S.M d;1*.I.2 M* [J.RIhf.p%ef,, .MfC the possibility of any rack lihoff Mcdonald, ff.1Y,129, at 7 8 and Attach. 3. .2.%l ~* *Mhy: .Q

21. Section 6, of the Turkey Poim Technical Speci6 cations. "Administradve

• • il?'y# B W; W.g@g D p.7

'y.~. Controls," generally requi:s the use of procedures and administrative controls to h N ';,.%.*W [ y M,,yg@p'JcNd ensure that all safety.related structures, systems, and components remain within .,p.,g their design basis and can perform their safety function. Section 6.8.1, "Pro. 3.'?.Q ;f.8 4..:p',p.J 'f Y cedures," requires that written :nocedura and administrative policies be estab. ,f. ~.,

A W h*

d-(S.R 5 lished, implemented, and maintained that meet or exceed the guidance of the

• * [q. -t, ",M/p/$$Qf l'p, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N18.71972 as endorsed by Reg.

.,w ..;. fg 9 ulatory Guide 1.33 "Quality /Amurance Program Requirements (Operation)." d, 5.'. ?,p (f.$ W.';.lf.3. Q.W V ' Q.,wpWpeM;. p .;f.%Q, M ' Under ANSI N18.71972, I 5.3.4.5,"Pust Handling Procedures," fuel handling at S operadons, which would include the movemem of fuel in er about the spem fuel s/,*.D4eN.% k gQ/M M pools, must be performed in accedence with writ:en procedures. Purthermore, p J.,g.';4.,,,ff; g y.3, g 66.8.3 of the Technical Speciscations governe the modiacation of procedures , K.off;5 4;: y and permits changes it: (1) the intent of the procedure is not shared; (2) the

• j,3,i.,.1;,t,~f,%

change is approved by two members of the plam management staff, at least one 3 ,.. ? M :. /.... ;;j,j

• ry i... A,' F. ' A,t. 9 d.*? A f.y.x.7*$p[Jgfy of whom holds a senia operssor's license; and (3) the change is A-:nM.

s v. feviewed by the Plant No: lear Safety Committee, and approved by the plant maaasw. u. at 9.iO. m igt. 22. y9 2 M* *, 'h,;{wgF. Q. De fuel movement p.ocedwe for Turkey Pois has been revised to [, N.!. h.,i. h,'l;- t $, g.

,l

• g.,

include a wstriction that prevents loading of racks with overhanging rows while '.,,,' ', ',,, %.. g mg1/ the remainder of a rock is empty. This procedure is currently being used at

b. C*P,5.

Thrkey Point as described in 17. ..,.,..:- u p,h. -... v. s.,1

/.n s.

3.. /ag ", de ;*",. ai n'.

• M y '.

v. a g e., * ; j, w ;. .F ..p.,3s,

e. t s

- s r g 9 9,. +s ,,.. f.4.,* e, q' '.s ,s,ys ,g g +#. jp' 4 a g. . f. t , f, l,,., i. R s*. * *... A*'*., ' '. j $9s .. J.

• i -.' '., ( m,., '. ~,u _. s * (.'

s. o .7, Ve,. e . v '^ ,j- ** y p ,1 ..*.f , 7 '. p, *. f.- ',;s * "..->i*. ; * -s. ; e,,w.c. ' .,,y. h \\ . x 4 s c,*, "( ,t4, -., c m.+...- c-s ~ y a e-i e s s ..-.- 5 ,y-s p t +*i.'.,.C c 't a g;; ; * .( ., y(, ; g. "s* 4e .(W,. t n '7 ,t e. 6, c y, 5 : 7,- .... c.%, ; - WA. 'N ; ;s'. 't.t J

. l7 y 'e. -..,, 4,- s, cy gl:).,3 + n ,\\ s, a. 7 . y '.;. f, .. p.,;:.y 1 c. e. .g ~ i , i. , - C. * :,. M *, ',..., q '-

23. Licensee's seismic analysis of the spert fuel storage rick was performed

.. pl for two cases. See 11712. Case 1, discussed earlier, is predicated on the use mn.,,'..

• 2., s 3, *.}..*

of administrative conuols to prevent loading of overhanging rows while the

• 4

,..,, + M.'

• l 7,.',,,-? ! i '

v,. 'J remaining rows of the racks are empty. That analysis considered full fuel loading j ' " s, ; and various partial loading conditions. In Case 2, the fuel assembhes are inMed

• y'.t.7 e,'.$,. ;. *. c.., *. t in the ovahanging locadone befoe the rernalning locadons are loaded. The

>I *,'/ b " # (y.' results of Licensee's analysis of Case 2 are mnsistent with NRC Staff's OT 4'E *t rr 't,'.' ,s. ',' *s Position. The methodology used to calculate overturning and stresses is the 1 same as that reviewed by FRC and the Staff in connection with the issuance /*;.*-',[.. } }. of the rcrack amendments. The cakulational methodology included a gercral. ','...>,f.', . ' Cf. 7, ,t purpose compulet codc that performs rack response analysis for the duration of -: f

• 8 an earthquake. The results of the analysis of the loading of overhanging rows rs '..,e'.

y in the absence of administrative controls sadsfy the OT Posidon. Licerace's

,'j'"..',,

. s

• -.I ' W ;,*

cakuladons and tabulated resulu show that the total dispirements can be easily t l 'M (. ' :; * '. 4 ~ ,.e i,* ',,* ;,. [ scommodated by the gaps povided between the racks and between the rack ,','A.,.. and the pool wall. The results also show that the stresses in ihe rack and the pool '. ? ';*, ; srs within the limits speci6ed in the OT Position. Kim, ff. Tt.129, at 11 12; .g ..C Flanders, ff. Tr.103, at 14 18.

• I 2

24, Speci6cally, Licensee's calculated factor of safety of 8 against over. turning is greatee than the SRP mintmum value of 1.1. Thus, the criteria are ], satis 6ed, and the results indicate that overturning of a rack is unhkely during an earthquake. Licensee cakulates a 0.72. inch total combined dispirement between racks, attributable to seismk mooca and thermal growth. The spee ~ between the racks prior to lasertion of spern fuel assembly and thermal expan. t sien is designed to be not less than 1.10 inctes. Kim, ff. TV 129, at 1213; Flanders, ff. Tr.103, at 1618.

25. Consequently, the Staff concluded that administrative controls on fuel leading are no Imger necessary for the Turke) Point spent fuel pools Kim, ff. Tt.129, at 13.

26, Intervenors did not put on a direct case or offer, sence at the . ',j hearing, intervenors did nct cross cumine the Lkenue's pan of witresus. s I TV 104. Rsferring to the bases fo< '*v.tenum 5, Intervenors point to a Februry ,4 1,1985 lesser from Williams, Lk. usee, to Varga NRC, which deacnbes the . *1.. pmential for ruk lifnoff under wismk event conditions that raises an unreviewed .c ,f p, ?. ' ' 9 safety question. Intervenori cite the NRC Staff cerclusion in 12.3.6 of the

• ' "..,.f/

November 21,1984 Safety Evaluation that the fuel storage racks satis 6ed the ,y s structarsi aspects of the Appendiz A requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (GDC ~. 2,4,61, and 62). Kim and Mcdonald at $; Tr.126. Intervenors summartre a y, ,6 .O-wrice of correspondence between the Lkensee and Staff regarding the analyses and reviews concerning the loading of the overhanging outer rows with fuel rods. This ends by citing the NRC Staff testimony that it had completed the 5. 399 t 9 .ns k e e

p );P '**. f ' d.1, k e .'$' k. $.;. g- @fd ? A' $ ' kh..,h,/;hMN. s./. /, %., :...,.w'w.. K / y Q m.c..,',n.,6. 'S ?

• o.'n. us'u,iQ.-},M:.

.r,. .m. s... w. m;yu e e !wL.s tl%,;* v

e..}o,b',&,0 D,q Q,q&. l<' 2;. Q'Gl, _

[n.;,.m ;y*&',..;g i... ; l ' ' y~ 'D .p L J.3 C K) ='.,a _s a u L Lsy T n.. u m s. V: g'v.s. c,e,.r.K..:,,3'.t.4. v. A.,3.n r., y e , s q:Lf t., a mt p ,; u '*rt .w V. a O. v - - ^ 's 9 w 7 ~< *. .;;,fj~'- ; : a .,s s se e o n,',3, >3.-p<- . s :,.:f '. Y, 'a... e ', ws x ~,e .v

r. q ; '*

• Q c',. Q 1 '.

Z.,il'.i.T:y y {.6 *.1 4i* 9 p,. %,- Q;: s e ... r',.', ,.y. 5,,.p, ?,* Q, i ce . [../ O .h.d .[.. reviews, including the Case 2 analysis, and determined that administrative ..1*f f4.1,a y,,', G

q. 2.<,-[* b d; 'f ?#F t..D. y '.

,g,

controls were no longer necessary. Kim, T1r.144 ' " g.;[* :

27. Based en the evidence presented, the Board concludes that Ucensee's N 'Z7f *^

• f *.;,[U ":.*;j,,.q".,!)

,y' f .? y-seismic analysis fcr the new Tbriey Point spent fuel pool rxks, and the results of those analyses, comply with applicable NRC criteria. The record shows that rQ @,3 Y.'l.J. W."....

• 9l..

7/P.'9 77./ 'y.g;G; j.l.1 the Staff adequately reviewed 1.kensee's Case 2 analysis agairut the per*.inent a:cepance criteria and acted in accordance with the regulations by permitting ' M p5 W J '..: - - c. i iN ' Uceruce to perform a 150.59 analysis. There is no evider ce or record that -g,.y w[.c,- c 9,J.i.', p.*f

• 7,.,..

' M ;>.7. Uceruce has abused this Fovision. Intervenors did not put on a direct case with .f-l*/fG'.q..g*.. } <, ;, - SM '- .m evmence. The ucensee's Imar analyits shows that the fuei rxk itrems wouid 7 be within ASME Code limiu, the safety factors for overturning are sufficiently n. /,.U$ ~.,, ?N. .,.. : ;'* -'., 3. J', " larger than the Staff acceptance criteria, and the total displacement due to seismic w D. y,,.gcJ, 2*f;' 3lJ.M*.y* *#, W/ 1h '; motion and thermal growth is less than the cold gap between the fuel tris. Thus, V.g"1,.N " ;. 'W ~ g the trk desigti satisnea the structural aspecu of GDC 2. 4,61, and 62; ard , ?g. 3,.,.i..j[.g,.,v,li '.*, g... M 's p ',' earthqmkr. We and that the smten testimony regarding the Ucensee's analysis .n ......Ai there is reasonable assurance of safe storage of the fuel in the event c( an s,. U.*, *.fl # WP ft. ( hed NRC Staff's review supports the conclusion that loading controls are no ];Q' Aj,'., f.. .'.G ?

e.,e

>y icoger necessary. ty s M P. i; p,... 3,.,,., x..;7. a .y c.,,, g., - *,g.s w %[h$ e. 'f.?$. Y,'% '.g%.f:., h,_, B. Contention 6 ,,1 v.. 't,,,,,, n A

20. Contention 6 states:

...,,y y- 'm;'. l *** o n * ,. p., c f ', ( *. c,4 ' ' '1 n J. ~,. .-.e

• ',e The IJcensee and Staff hrve nos %=tsfy cmsmserad w analyied snaariale detenoratn.m s

s*f. , S.- * -l p,.,.'.N ce fa3ars in enar.esiale knegnty nauhusg frtra the h%:rtased generatre as4 beat armi s, J.,s,, .'I + - j .r. ?

?..

redson:imry, as a nsuk d increat=f sapary and Wg arra storsge, bi the spre fueJ wd.88 I ' 2,[.3 4, ~.,,, \\ l, y.., '. The bases (Cr the contention are:

rL

. k, h. [ ;' $.,;~. a.., " J,. E The spers fuel faality at TMey Poss esa ensinaDy designed to sus a lesser erncans d .,,.W.,- 'l- , l fuel fce a shces pnoi d taw. Serne d ibe prerna that have mit been analysmi pmerty ~s. 7,- _'t

• ;t... '.

s ? . Q,t. (s) deserusin d fueJ cle,Wg as a nsAh d hicetased espews armi decay heat ni y, U;. ,s t. relatain newJs skruig eineesseJ prwais d pcsd siongs. p ~ ~;4-, ;, < *, f "*.s.-.<Js* *[f,3,. s b$ h p bishre newJa of ratauce cws Wges penait .],, ' *,*' ] ,,. ~, 5; [ p 'N (s) deterMMI d CE31cTT18 ItXI structure at a ftsak d s3{Asure b3 knc1944esi heat 0 ;,', f, * * * ', 'j

• n ',

ews ausrmisJ pexmas d Luna. '4 p lp 4 b! g... * ' =

• ,,Y P'

)' 3g, _ .t* Y'*.g s s E tA bensBass 6.40 GEWSSEkm. be $4 Whee 'br4 449 Sittge* Wee heubned 40 WW ECTtge Feubead 6dpeaed by ,.,,. ;O,.,i, .l. [ +* ' '., ;'r t j mW. lap U% 32 NRC sm. stl 09tf1 ..y. ' ~; .e s *.,, .c a. ...s. _.- Gs e. 600 .o ,g, y - <a 'A ~

• 1

- i r o \\ r 4 t F g e we 9 J' t g u h e, 8 l, p e s s

u. ,.. ^ - y. '

y.c

? e n, i n.~. .1w I 4 g / . v; ' D 7.' .' '.." c ' ' ;* f,,,,

29. In a htarch 25, 1987 Order, the Board denied sumrrury disposidon

) of Contention 6 and raised'an issue as to "the modes and effecuveness of i ..'.,...j.. ', t 5, 'O.. surveillance of materials and the monitaing of the fuel storage pool and ' to[; #-' &,-l, } l ~ *. , c. .t, contenu to provide a measured basis for safety during the extended period . g. l'y,*',9 *,

• g.,'.* * : I,' '.

of use." SD Order at 33. The question derived from Intervenors' arguments i 4 concerning publications by A.B. Johnson, enuded "Behavicr of Spent Nuclear . ',. 1.g '. j,. " " ', a

• v.)**;

1~'..,, Ibel in WNes Storage" (BNWL 2256, September 1977) and "Spent Thel Storage l '". ' p, [,/ ' y.l3 7," '.*,.' y,

• E.sperience" (Nuclear Technology, Vol. 43, mid April 1979). While Johnson 7.p'.

',

• p - ?.

) f }-1 ) i,. f ' * *'. :, 1. s -~ stated that the technology for handling spra fuel has developed over 35 years j and has largely been sausfa: tory, Johnson concluded that expected spent fuel . /' V'i I.,i.'.. C. storage of 20 to 100 years wouki te an incendve to determine whether any I h.,..,M,- Af f,,*.

• W... L.. r', f '..

W'. slow degrsdaum mechanisms are operauve. The Board also acknowledged the Intervenors' observadon that spent fuel presently stored at Turkey Point did l . # q......, f.' g ;,,.., .,.t,... not eacced 39,000 mwd /MT1J but that under the amendments the plant could i J.;Q. 4 '.,' (.' S..I, ograte entil burnup of 55,000 mwd /hf11). SD Order at 32, 33.

• , ( 1..

.,.? ( ;, ,,.

30. A few months after the Board issued the suminary daposidon order, the d - -

'h,. *

• k,. 7 '
• Staff issued new informauco concerning Baraflex, a neutron absorter material used in the Turkey Point spent fuel pools. BN 8hil, "Board Nodacation g?',,-

n,' . ).. regarding Anomatic.s in Boraflex Neutron Absorbing Matenal," dated July 15, 1987.a Botaflex is a relatively new materif and will be dtscussed separately after the other sperd fuel pool materials.

31. The Licensee's direct case on Contenuon 6 consisted c( two wit.

S. ness panels: (1) William C. Hopkins and Eugene W. Thomas from Bechtel Eastern Power Company (Bechtel), and (2) Russell Gouldy from Licensee and of{ William A. Boyd and Dr. Geraki R. Kilp from Westinghouse. Mr. Hopkins r hidressed the impacts of radtadon cn the spent fuel pool liter and concrete suucture, Mr. Thomas titressed the impacu ci heat on the spent fuel pool j

• f liner and concrete structure, Mr. Boyd addressed the impa ts on K effective of postulated gaps in the Botaflez poiscn material in the spent fuel racks. Hop-kins, Thomas, and Boyd. ff. Tr. 222, at 914. Mr. Gouldy aMressed the po-tendal for degradadon of Borades and Licensce's surveillance program for Bo-

) I, raAct. Dr. Kilp addressed the integrity of the materials in the fuel assemblies e.'.. . l aM storage racks. Kilp aM Oouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 45-49. a 1

32. The Staff's witness on the arit portion of Contention 6. materials

• , -i ' ' - ' ' l}

other than Botaflex, was Clifford David Selleri, a Senior Metallurgist at NRC. ) Sellers, ff. Tr.188. The Staff panel on Boranes consisted of Dr. James Wing. l 1 Ccnrad E. McCrm-hen, and Dr, Laurence 1. Kom. Wing, McCracken. aid Kopp, ff. TV. 339, Professional Quali6cauces. Dr. Wing and Mr. McCracien tesu6ed s, =... g a LI the s.a# seted een u emad yielme show as nepmas fe=ome esse =sry enemman er Cassue 10 use 65=ned by es noe entwmassa BN 4711 en L sum e.adwei sia.e4 est surs pee.m e sanemary espa.am ef Casmanwu 10 een s. shameed by me es, odermaaen Yang. To r14 77 + 4 9I 9 s e \\ i / l i 4

t 3 n.Q 9 e J <,&.v % ',y,ty &,' Q.*'s,[4.. ,. +.i es',,"i s 9. Qm q j. , ' f : *. *.d g@ m Q; ;;, w# % m % q,. w %y w o u 'h'. p rd',

b v.(4, %

f pad C 9 L,.. s'! w'p y:. q%n' f *t 'L s) 9 s s J iM w;e%d. % e .,a T y <P e .e n r: '1'~,- D h.u Gt d;y' n y?,b [,,,i.. y ? w:., L.a .,,n., e .A s yl i,gi R 4.;t / pt;by,f. MF,.'(. 0; t absorbing material held in pixe by a thin walled stainiess steel wrapper on the M -#[ J.>g,; ,'J'. f S ',y '*t-outer surface of the storage cells and between the cells. Type 304 stainless steel . J.' f' ., i ? J.'.)- \\ Y.1.t?',', J,.*Md is used in the pool liner.1he rack feet consist of 17-4 PH stainless steel. The pool . '. " ' '* " 4,% y

• g tk ~

structure is concrete composed of cement and aggreg.1e with reinforcing bart ".,1 (, M.' fl. 'l }'j,Q[.},2 -. t ' - of cahon steel. The fuel assemblies are constructed of Zircaloy fuel cladding. .b ;},h'. *,-b Inconel 718 strings, and stainless steel nozajes and bands. Sellers, ff. 'It 188, Y,- t... ' '. :.; s , ; 'm at 3; Kilp and Gouldy, ff. T. 222, at 4. rd 's h {.',,.. ', i *,. ',f.,'3.f

35. Redesign of the spent fuel pool racks increases only the storage capacity

--'y.g/ y'*3' of the pool and not the frequerry ce the amcunt of newly discharged fuel to . 7 '. '.,,..:y.. ( ~ J.,..,

• ' 7, }y..

' ', l,% y ql '$ be placed in the pool during each fuel reload cycle. The terxk design does '1 nct change the rMicat.ct.ivity of the newly discharged fuel pixed in the storage

/ *y.,* " 'a *$ aio pool. Sellers, ff. Th 188, at 3.

M h 3.. f 4.: - ? T*. 3 '

36. There will be a smallincrease in radiatice posure and radiation heat-Ll. ?, f.' %

i. '}9 M. #..

Ing to spent fuel tool materials as a result of the ex}unded storage carocity. As glM : ' ., 3,.. N-the old fuel elements continue to age, they ccetrtbute less end less to the heat 7'( s .'", ' ' I. '. ' icud of the pool. The maximum pool temperature after refueling is nc4 expected s y to rise above 143'F and will decrease thereafter. This is within NRC guidelines 4 f, ac - for maximum exposure temperature to concrete. Sellers, ff. Tr.188, at 10,11; '" w , .{- Kilp and Gouldy, ff. Th 222, at 4 5. , '. f,./,,,,, I '

37. Licertsee performed two seu of calculations to determine the cumulative s,n l*

gamma and neutico esposures of rnaterials stored for over 40 years in the Turkey ..y ' s y Point spent fuel pools. One set assumed exh fuel anembly has an average M ' ', * ,g burnup le<el of 36.000 MWMtTU. The secorsi set assumed a future average q C.,.. burnup of 55,000 MWMfTU. The resulu for 36.000 and 55,000 MWMfTU l, t' showed that pool materials would rtccive cumulative gemma radiation doses . i " .? of 1.9 x 104 rads and 2.9 x l&' tals, respectively.1he curnulative neutico ,3 7,. radiatien dose of the two burnup levels wss 4.8 x 100 neutrons,tm8 and 1.7 '?* x 10" neutrons.tm', respectively Kilp and Oculdy, ff. W. 222, at 510,

g".y p f.,

38. Lkensee analyred the effect of thermal stresses on the pool structure

,, ~. resulting from the temperature d fferential between the pcol water and outside J conditions. Pool water temperatures up to 212'F were considered. Licensee ' ( assumed ambient temperature as low as 30'F outside the tool. Tte arulysis n...., 7

• ..,..,, i f

^ showed that the pool stnrture would maintain its integnty even un&r severe 4 .j,'i.. gt ^ ' f, ' .g 9..g ',i y, , ',,,c ' A. a v s. 402 = t. ,s i f -s. t ' it ' .c E 4 \\ e 1 3. -e p

• 1 S'

T' g 1 g A g ,3 1 f s g L e p, /a .g.

• 4,s, % 's '.

..MV k.' *.a ..,J7 ',. ? 8. ;,;; y .-,; 3, ;,,z, yl., c, t ,c ~ ,,.}. o e;,..C .m ,. 9. 3,,,,. ; r ;

t

,,1 .. 7,. /. ., 5., a... ) s a v.. , ~.......;. ,s. ,f . '.y .s. .1, ' *; I ...2 . 'lj. a :,,,*... thermal stress condidons of postulated boiling combined with the effects'of the C e '. ....,. -3 / a.,. design. basis evthquake. Thomas, ff. TV.163, at 4-7.

1. . p y

D, ' 'f f,..**d : *. * '. M. ?

39. The Staff and iu consultant, Frankhn Research Center (MtC), reviewed s'e'.7.;.'.

• Q,'
• i Q, m 1.icensee's analysis of temperatwe induced streases on the pool structure and

~* > c.',....,,'.('.7 4 1 *[ C,

• g ; y f liner and concluded that the stresses were acceptable. Staff Exh.1 (Safety

(,; e,.*;.. '..,. ...e.c. a,, a Evaluation at 10, I5; Technical Evaluadon Report at 25 26). [; Y

• s, G,{M*(d.'

40, T1e temperatures associated with radiadon due to the mcreawd fuel

1. * ' - '., " % h.... *., g,,' i storage capacity will not result in significam detenoradon of the emcrele pool c%,*.

.j. stnache or steel liner. Tempestures bekm 300*F have utde effect on the i e..

• ..".~'[,,',T["c;,.,g*',e lt concrete and reinforcing steet. The pool liner plate made of TWe 304 stainless

~,, Q', p ;M.[ ,g..$ steel, maintains its stability and insegnty in temperatures in excess of 1000'F,

j which is far t.bove pool temperatures. Sellers, ff. T).188, at 10, Thomas, L l' L, ',,

6[4 i;,@.,* '. y%gl ~ 4 [. " l. *= -<O, c ', f.* *- ff. TY.163, at 810. 4 y, [. 4(. i

8

?.? 41, Tesa show that stress corrosion crecidng of sensitized steels m3)acent f,,, ;*

• to welds in the fuel pool liner would be highly localized and would not lead

..i }* ','.**, i ., *, a - '. b]S 1 to gross degradadon of the liner, Chlcride caused stress ccrrosion cruking is 1 y ,. '.. +. - prevented in the stainless steels at Turkey Point by the controls on chloride levels M, g- ;,. ". J. *. ",jq,. ; e in the fuel pools. Sellers, ff. Tt,188, at 6 7, !.y ( ,A The espanded storage capelty will not result in detenoradon of the 42. 3 *,.' "i spent fuel concrete structure end steel liner due to radiadon. The radiadon + ,.3 f is attenuated by distance and the water. Such attenuated esposwe would be

'4 well below the threshold for radiadon damage to the carbon steel in the i

g.['. (,, pool structure and the stainless steel, which is the order of M to 10H c, neutronskm2. Concrete is used throughout a nuclear poww plam for its structural support and radiadon shielding chara:terisucs. 0amma radiadon has a negligible e ft iv ' offect on the mechanical properties of concrete. A concrete structure can '5'.;,,',i withstand neutron fluences up to 10" neutronskm without loss cf material 8 '3 integrity. This is many orders of magnitude higher than the fluence capected in i j the Turkey Polm spent fuel pool Reports on the irradiadon of corcete have Il not ident16ed any defecu in concrete that can be traced directly to radiadon c damage. Sellers, ff. TY.188, at 5,10,1415: Hopkins, ff. Tt 163, at 5 7. ~, j,,. '..i

43. There will be no loss of integrity of the pool liner due to gamma j

rellanon. Tests have shown that stainless steel can withstand rwutrm radiadon .,/ - l',f levels that are orders of magnitude higher than those predicted in the Turkey , ~..- 7 * [- l Point spent fuel pools without loss of insegnty. The effect of no: lear heating ) 0,q. f.., a,, ' on stainless steel is negligible at the levels of radiadon in the spent fuel ,.,a.c pool. Mcykins, ff,1Y.163, at 3 5,7; Sellers, (f. TY,188, at 5. j', s 'l

44. Zircanoy, Inconel, and stainless steel are used for fuel assemblies. These

< 1, ',.. g (.', x. materials are essentially unaffected by the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation

,/

4'. that comprise the major fraction of the rdwe in the spent fuel pool. The j '. ' '. s,, i primary efrect of 34mrna radiation at the levels expected at Turkey Point on these ia .,.'a ..i 1 .~ ~ s 4 9 J 1 \\. ~ \\ p

m.kg;[q.,;:i?.y*Q: n 't. W :V , e. v..;,%. s; m. y,. %* h. ? Wd' ~ .$l Q M g' >..e, y,'en.*,';,'- K ty ;.2 R..,.' W v 3 ,*.g F. n t l - Q},0.Q.'j;'y ??.;@*.. / Mt.h*;; materials is heating and not structural damage. Kilp and Gouldy, ff. TV,222, at

Y Q,,.y.

5, 11 12. W

• Y,q;y.y f.!

-* 1pM r;..p,*.;.y.Pf g,g'. 'eK 1 , ; <;,R.,

45. The racks containing the orst discharged fu'l assembljes can be ex.

.UQ j,.y pected to receive the maximum radiation in the pool. The assemblies are exposed j'-lfl[ [ j d.iWMg7ig to approximately 10" neutrons /cm2 while in the reactor. This is appoximately I !.. 4 g D 'm*- ( *. g. g,, M

i,S -

8 orders of magnitude greater than the 1.7 x 10" neutrons /cm2 exposures during D'. * '*f * 'y 40 year storage of fuel with burnup of 55,000 mwd /MTV. Stated 1.nother way,

1. jd U* Cd.i,.f ;v2,.,%- g W a 40 year storage dose is similar to 1 second in the operating rextor. Sellers,

1. ...$j.[C.co'.,.y,W.NM

.,<,v. ff.Tf.188, at 5; Kilp and Oouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 1012,1516; Sc!!ers, Tr. 211 QC.,.f f 12. ,, 7 v.y. g7, '.'. *.'; 'y%,'.?, 7 *g "?g' 1,*Rd*'% ,.9 $.,. ' i.M.

46. 1.ittle a no microstructural change would occur in the spent fuel pool

• & g6 2 O

materials that is attributable to the extended storage. The NRC Staff does not .o M*.v y y

• d antkipate a signiacant increase in the carosion occurring in the pool because

%'.. s o. Vg[G,o,sW**y~.*.Q' u h I. t ,,...,. @h d -ij g the rates of most corrosion reactions tend to decrease with time as protective , j',,.. .;.3 [.bg,* N,, *,.*j' Y %y . i..'s oxide Sims form on the metals. Microstructural change can occur with Zircaloy. d clad fuel when the hydrogen produced by the textion ber cen rirconjurn and " R,e, 4 -',s.,, *j b g water diffuses into metal, forming hydride particle.1 or a hydride phase within the ... [,, Z l.,N' 7, M p*'*h Zircaloy cladding Microstructural changes from solid state diffusion processes ty sj ,(q.;i

. 2 do not occur below 500'F in stainless steels. Sellers, (f. TV.188, at 5-6; Kilp

'..o.*v.,c,.. r, 3.. q.~, gc h ",.!. and Oculdy, ff. Tr. 222, at 1214 + ...4 t. .m q c,W '. 'y 3 i.'M',c'1 f,?

47. Stress corrosion cracking and intergranular corrosica can occur in the 1

.N 3p4.. d p *M l stange rack steels Mjacent to welds but it would be highly localized and l. y,. '

o..a

,,. c., ;,.. " '< would not lead to gross degrMation of the stect. Test textors use Type 17 ..-K.;f.'!,'

... ' '.y 4 PH stalnkst steel in control rod drive medmisms. Inservice surveillance

,/' ' /...;

• has shown no degradation at all of this material nfter many yezs of service in a

4 r. <,

• i 14 7.

( N water of similar quality to that in the Turkey Point pools, and a temperature of o y M..

r. m.

145'F. In addition, chloride-caused stress corrosion cracking and intergranular 7 . ' Q,,. ~.f. - S n [ .E'* # ' stress corrosion are prevented in the stainless steel at 1brkey Point by controls ', 4. f.; 5 p - ?..... ;m,; 7G ' on chloride levels in the fuel pools. Sellers, If, TV.188, at 6 7; TV 193 94; Kilp . q, j ']

• f

~.. ;y.. and Oculdy, ff. TV. 222, at 1214. ^, I t .l *.

48. Radkective crud enters the pool with the freshly discharged fuel. It is l'

....,,, j y ' l *, " '.,'. subsequently removed by the pool water puri6 cation system well before the next

4 h. '

refueling. There is no evidence that such crud deposiu in6uence the corrosion 4*, l'.7,'{Q(h 7 :. ~ $4. / of stalnku steel or degrade the fuel itself. Sellers, ff. TY 188, at 7 8. , 1, S;;.,. *. 49, 1.eakage and disintegration of spent fuel and tu cladding while in pool , *9,. ^p 'y,- sacrage are highly unlikely. In the Battelle Priac Northwest 1.aboratwies Report ., ; +'], ; '., ]y. y,11 BN%L2256. Dr. Johnson sutveyed the information on behavior of spent fuel in (# pool storage and found no evidence of degradation of spent nxkar fuel during .a, , /' p <,q.,- 'y pool storage after times up to 18 > cars for Zircaloy-clM fuel and 12 years fa .e ' q. c.( u f Wy-M stainless suel-dM fuel (as cJ 1977). The rtsults of surveys for the Nwlear , c.,,,., y j'd Regulatory Commission, perfortaed by Dr. J.R. Weeks of Brookhaven National .g - y

• S L [,, ' ' ' )

1. abs, sixe issuance of Dr. Johnson's report show that stahless steel-< tad fue!

.3. L 'N

• O, y,. :p~ p,

(. . y,, l a ~ e e o. '<g.._. 3 .1 ~ 'l \\ *l E, *.._ 4Qf ,p. Y, ' ;gf 3 % 's r, ,s j( k g,,. s g s s y,--. 3. g. -, --,. p..- .;~ ,e p-., = ,v-~ .. ~, - i 7 a r i + .f. .'p g, ^% - n., +

~' ,]- c' .g,4, ,.L, y.c' j ,5 . ' ' '.~ :. ' ^, ~. s .s . l 'e - v+- j s \\ has been continuously stored in spent fuel pools sirce the cady 1970s with no e evi&nce of any failures developing in fuel cladding. Selkrs, ff. Tr.188, at 8.

50. Whlk leaking fel has been stored in a numbcr of fuel pools, uranium

• ?

calde fuel plieu have displayed excellent corroskm resistance. Should a defect

• * ' ] '-l..,'.

develop in a fel clMding in the reactor, the volatile aM Solubk Sulon producu, g-J ncemally tre alkalis and the halogens, would be released to the reactor coolant "w and removed by the restor cwlant purtocadon system. Some sriall amoenu ( ;. of these materials may criter the pool frtrn fuel that developed &fects in the a ( 1, 'j .i 5' reactor, dunng the Arts few monthit after the fuel enten the pool. These (except for the irert gaacs) would readily be removed by the spent fuel pool water 9 .1 i ;. piirification system. Puel elements att tested for their leaktightness before being a s, "f 3 ' P,i. '.. placed in the pool so that the plant staff can determine witich fwl elemenu to [ 1 "'. '., 5 be placed in the pool have defecu. Sellers, (f. *1r.186, at 9. $1, The proposed bng term storage does not affect the probabi!!ty that d 'll degrMation of the fuel will occur in the pool or that sign 16 cant arnonnu of f ". " ~* 6ssion producu would be released to the pool, in the unlikely event that a , j., defect should develop in the fuel claMing during the tirst few months of pool

., f '.,

i stasge, gaseous and alkali radioxtive assbn products could te released to the s. ..i pool and the pool environment. The spent fuel pool radkectivity monitors and .4 '4 the cleanup system monitars would detect such a release. Should a leak develop ,g -l in a fuel cladding several mornhs after it has been pbced in the pool (an unlikely ,f, occurrence) and after most of the gaseous fissica product activity has decayed, j the wruequences would be less and would differ litue from those associated 4 with stored fuel eternenu containing kne n defacu. Sellers, ff. TY.188, at 910. q $2. The 40 gars of industry experienct with wet fuel stcrage plustrates .s that it is a fully developed technology with no associated major te,.hnologica! problems. Ibel elemenu love been stored conunuously for as many as 25 years without evMence that Zlicaloy-clM fuel or stainless steel strictural eternents degrade significantly dunng vet storage. Sellm, (f. Tt.188, st 4; TY.195; Kilp and Gouldy, ff. TV. 222, at 1417. ,l

53. S;ainlesa steel clad spent fuel has been stored in PWR spent fuel pools

'{ rnore than 18 yests. The exposure in the textor, which !s much greater than , j rMiation levels in the storage pools, repesenu the maximum rMistion expc.sure any stal.:less steel can accumula:e in a apent fuel p>ol since the steel is directly against the fuel as the clMding material. Destructive and visual examination of this material produced no t.dlence of signi6 cant degradation of the stainless steel. Reladng these observations to the materials of construcdon for the storage rwks demonstrates that they would also not be subject to any signi6 cant a degradatkr over long term use, far beyond the pesent storage time. Sellers, If. TV.188,6t 111 Kilp and Ocoldy, ff. Tt. 2t', at 1417. 54 Zinaloy-clad rods were cumined after nearly 21 yuts of water stor. age. A comparison of cladlig pmpenies with those measured 20 years earlier .h 405 e \\ l t. a

' k ?b b M.. W ~ 4 k[ m ':y m %, m d. A'N h %, " ", "l.k ".

s. L... c j'.

A. , *h,.S.h,. A.1., z g-h.pg.. y. ;8 $ w o?..- i c 1 i 'k,y[s.uk,/f.'n,{0.}t f.,y,t$' , ql*.y Np t'jf,g.3 ,q,v,l,.,, ;r an 'd gfG/l on rods from the same fuel assembly showed that no detectable changes had 5%th=N.fd..[lhl / occurred in corrosion Alm thickness, cladding mechanical properties and fission 7dp .T.,.,M gas thkkness, cladding mechankal properties and fission gas release. Zircaloy. k[.N N$O h*w**7,M d h *p,Tp*.'N. [r*Q fy F *' clad fuel elements that were loaded into Canada's NPD restor in 1962 are N f/MI condruing to operaie satisfactorily, with no apparent degradadon, afiet 22 years p.t. q' - .,t.prt*g of exposun: to far greatee radiadon than any element in the Tbrkey Point spent YhphNb,h. gE je M n fuel pools will receive from being in the pools. Sellers, ff. Tr.188. at 11 121 ,. 3* M." A ,.y k Kilp and Gouldy, ff. TV,222, at 1417. . N h M, Q h.;*.Q h

55. Surveillance, as used in the context of materials crigineering, rneans

+ }hNp? g-p.N W/d*,# removable for testing after exposure to an environment that may degrade certain . ~o GMygg* the installation of speciocally prepared test specimens that are nondestructively V.y[yfjd*Qh*f.h'f

• ie(hy?b Y.

.P' 4QMN*/ material poperties. As such, no surveilhnce of spent fuel pool materials is g

f#.W O i' ;.

fd

• d*

planned. However, in the broader sense, spent fuel pool materials are subject C.! % .)f./, tb Q.M to survelliance. There is rnonitoring of radioacdvity in the speru fuel pool building atmosphere and the spent fuel pool cleanup system which is capable of h. +7 l, Ntid.p,'[*<M

• ?'!

determining the condition of stored spent fuel. The Licensee also periodically '. ~. sg sl%f,J,',., !gld.g{'.. r 4 -f Wh. Tf. ; performs routine visual observadons inside the fuel storage building and subjects a ,c..,. the fuel to inventory by underwster television. The condidon of the liner is . g g' s.?fy Qg# 7 gif**y .Q%. o' = N monitored by the installed leak chase system, and procedures exist that require .g 4,.,, y ,*.h. a daily check of the system to determine whether leakage has occurred. In '?,[J [ '[ pl'f, [ ?9, & ' 4 ' ';. *.sf N' 3 ) w.,, 4-p.- y % i.; addition, the Lkensee maintains spent fuel pool area monitors to continuously monitor the pool areas and the plant's vent monitoring system to monitor total 7 ', f

~ ~ ', c.y ',

plant altborne radioactivity released (noble gas, iodine, and particulates). Sellees, <w-S ff,. 9 c ni ff. Tr.188, at 12 13; Kilp and Gouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 1719,431 Gouldy TV 301. 5 .;.f Q' 4 p :: M t f,,.'

i. ;.,

56. Intervenors argued at hearing arkt in their 6ndbgs that 1.kensee and d. g.

C Q ' f-)/ Staff witnesres base their conclusions regarding the ability of the pool male.

• yld, Q,, M. i'Mth

('f, *' ~ rials to withstand radiation upon assumpdons and engineering judgment rather

• 4 g#, p.g.48 J

Mfe than 6 eld experience. They further assert that because predictors regarding ex. ' %, s ! p ;g ' N C W % js ' tended storage are based on limited cperadorial caperience, an extensive ma.

, L," * ', /. @ '.. f p i, l, ; P. L

• larials surveillance program is needed to adequately potect the public health v

... \\.v. ,L,A.'. ;q 4';,.y,.,,1 (W.,, ( ' and safety. Tr. 93; intervenors' Proposed Findings 17 21. A similar argumeru was re)cted by the Commission in the W'aste ConAfence Ademakty proceed. ./ y' M d,,;e;,* W N,,',I.,. ( a 5; 1, dence Rukmaking) C1.18415, 20 NRC 288 (1984L The Commission agreed s r: ;. - ing. Rademaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear %',aste (Waste Cono. ,O@% 2"g C zQi ',. i?.M,, that the basis for con 6dence that spent fuel will maintain its intepity during 29,; , y *i i - /./ T. ' extended stange was bawd on an extrapolation for storage 30 years bepnd l i 7 >" A. ;,, 6y : f.3 7.d,'"'4."..y W a facility's Ikense from current engtkace. It found that "the extiapoiadon is .T 3 * *. A 1 made fut conditions in whkh corrosion mechanisms are well understood' and ,'?"l,f; @,a pf

• 1the) extrapolation is reasonable and is ccasistent with standard engineering E,. U l*s *,.{d c$..Y

('- [ '.t. J.'. prm:tke." 20 NRC at 357. The Commirsion has ccmcluded that spent fuel can i

• ...A,0.,J S

!?.,, - Mi g,.lt.?*, l. ' '. $^.'.,~ ' 4 c,. te safely stored in reactor spent fuel storage pool for at least 30 years beyent o, the capiradon of a restor's cperating ikense. For exarnple, the Commission a ^l . ;.?. s ' b ', t' s w \\ ,[ #_ g. ,**'s,e ! [. .[ 3 n e g...,,. ; 4

• r,,

406 l .gu 1 3 k', k i , [ ',.,, j} p. s D.. ~ ,N $...,' ., ' r .~.c

• f.,

,<,*f .;.,.q, e . j ,t ,L v n ,. 9 ; 4 ', ,.4 g . k,..,.m., 7..... y s e 3.- ,, e s e '( w , y s. J.-

r,

'.t ~ '/ s. e { s

T-

q.,.

mg if ).),'s 7.,t (l,,%c^ ?.'*'6*E l,,; y 9 ;p ..,4 -r,l' j,,..>;.. q :%,Q'., 4' 'W. ;..i l , c 'l. c,, i.: m . c...., l' :.,' :, C ' ,.*.*Y.;,,r*'.;lJ;ss. I .. y,2 L, L. Vi' ,{ !l ' ,.'./g ; T* ' E. f, .c 3. . tr - a e. .l7... l V. e,,o,. ;

• A., 6 '., 4y l. s.. ' l *. ;.

.Q< f. , ) 4;.o 4 ' , f f..*,l~t.' e r,' I '.,/ e./. ....cl..,.w. < 3 .m..,. t. <,,.f .y , +. ? s. .f* ,/*1*, .g, I 'c. q'.. .s e n, e ,> s,;,3 Q.y. p p lf '.;, J** 1.*. ;6.y ; .,r;,_ a.,,,;, 3.' */ - " 5 n 1 g,3,y .

• g,l

[ ;,. g,

( ',, ;,*,,.

,',ll f. 4 -,, O ..v ,,f ., [.' g. .~ *** .,*,W.

,e % '? g! ",, t I.. *

• • ^

.a;...m,. y c.;:,q.;. ..l , 7..;, ,y. y. ' g.,,. * *.. * .5 ,% ?7 ,c, ct iw, :.i.*,.l. ,.,l. ? ? found that the cladding that encases spent fuel is highly resistant to fuel failure '9.. ;r....,7,3',,9

• 'l 7;p.'"Q-l7*S. "r,','f!;. ;,' ;Q' ' #

f,j J../. M '- under pool storage conditions and that corrosion would have a negligible effect during several decades of entended storage. Id. m 353 57,366, ,e,?,..j.s ":s p, > i.. M,. $7. The record in this proceeding shows that the mechantuna for spent heel !..c.g(M...,..,,,. l//..*:,%.. e N: W.t.. tuel pool radisson aposwa and redispon headng will not signiacantly arrect .c 2 maaerial deseadation are #-:% undenicod. aad me waall incasam in spent a.. o

• f. V.. 2..*., f.., s

,m me iniegrity of spent fuel pool maartals, F.,. ) 4. J': ; 71 n,... 'l e M'h^ ss. The evidence shows em me mamelais in me spem fuel pools will not .h M s - 1,. W,,e[ e '..f - degrade signiacantly because of the increased pool norage cgarity over any p, i. ;. term of years foreseeable for sacrape at individual plans Stainions sesel racks Z,;.., fe;;" j",% p.2 A y 4 c, 6

? ~

f., can be used to the and of life of the plant and experirnet.n have shown that T (, ** :D7 . '(( stainless steel, as well as the inconel and Zircaloy in the aged fuel asserablies.

,g y,.,

3; can be uposed to many codes of marnamic of reamson gresar man can be 5,sf,. [j';:,l7,. " '; i..u '~

• C reasonably espected in spent fuel pool rarts without signiacant degradation. In
• qW o

'..gc.f%.,.., ' i addition, there is no evidence the degradawn would occur due to the small ej ;f f;?,. y,

• s -/,,*.-

lacreases in radiation or heat to storage pool liners or the concrets uructure in f .j.... ".1 spent fuel pools as a resuk of the incremed un. age, 'the 1.icenses and Staff have s ' '.. ',, j 9.,.g. -W., t. adequately considered and analyzed desmdation in enaserials inargrity as a result 3 ;. \\ *I;,h',.",.,5:f, f, ', n< [*

• g; *
• s '. ',

~ of the incesased capacity, and me Board concludes that no additional monitoring f:- c-or surveillance of materials is needed to provide reasonable assurance of safe , '.( ; q- - Q., ' # *f z 'c. storage during the eatended storage authorimod by me amendments. .ls.* $9. The Board Ands 6hst Le routine surveillance or monitoring currently perforsned by the Liconese is adequase to ensure safety of the fuel sacrage u. 3., f,., ,. c t?- pool and its consents during the eatended storage period authorised by the o r. y7i .,. c unendmams. q- ,S

• g-l

60. Based upon the evidence presented by the Staff and f k:r^. the

,f, , ' i 1 ~,..l Licensing Board Ands that the heat induced stresses in the Tirkey point spent '^ s ,a?' '. n....., s fuel pool concrete structures and stainless seest liners are acceptable, and that 6. J,.,l< the temperature and radiation levels in the spent fuel pect will not result in any T, ' " e, loss of insegrity or degradition of the pool concrees or liner. \\ ..r,

e.,

,, :l.. J. - ? l, Bernpas v ,. n

• .2 l.f h. l'

.' ; ;; l

61. BoraAsa is a neumon.absortdag masenal or puison used in the spent i.,y*

.4 feel storage rocks. It is made by unifortaly dispersing ins panicles of boron

'1, s... - y. :, " ! g,.,l.% (- ~ ' certdde in a homogenous, stable maarta of a methylated polysiionane elastosner + J ',, (a polymer), lhe baron dissolved in the spent heel pool weser and the use of .),' ', 'j Borages or other poison material in the racks are each mdundant and independent ,1 4

* ^ *. * -

snahods of preventing spent fuel pools f>cm becoming critical Kilp and Oculdy,

' ' >, 2 j.,,

f... -

~j ff. TV,222, at 23; Boyd, TY. 330 32. t.,, '.a*.S

62. There are two regions in the Tnastay point spent fuel pools. The Region I racks are designed to hold fuel assemblies with a maalmum enrichment of am

'J ,3,3 .y r. s 447 . ~,.. -b 3 \\ s s ..m., i

%w....,.. f, * &g( pW..L_ _.... s.. n.wm.v. e e s ~v &y&W$.;, C,m.,q..x,ma@l3. YMW,&Nh$p$ s..,,. &s.tp. Xp. p.e 'g. J

q. r.

r. NMbW .m,,/~.>g M>.ag;.A'.d.~ b. +Q(.: of w.< q

, z.

6 m: .y.,rw w,.. m,,,4 A.:. >QA, rg.. k./\\ :m.:., ;O.,., s,.. m-y.,..., .. x. .@g.. mh S.,r,s.. m. s. y ? y R.W e.D t 4.55. ne Region u rack.s m desigswd a hold fwl ammblies with a maalmum W i reactivity equivaism to the reactivity cf assemblies having an inidal enrichmet h,y%gopd'.h.hhl.Vf W N of 1.55. no Region i spem hwi norage rack moeles a wrtey point a .qUN:.f %.d. U v..v.t. t M,:MM IS*H each composed of a mmber of colis with BoraSea panels which run abn6 the yW.f F(+'p$.'W.7'+.23 1 length of each of the few sides of on cou, ne Regiae !! rich -*i-how a ip .F

• 9 somewhat simi;ar sevetwo, be spacing bumen individual celis is smauer and qw w.

. ihe density of the moranea paneis is ione than in ihe Malon I racks, soyd, q.s QMy. a&.y.5,4 SW ;-g es, ne reguinary rowiremenu m prevem crideauty e found in o.mi

r. W.222,a 4 5.

[Q"kW*y@.M31*Mpq'O - @e$ @ ownga criurion (ooc) 62, "prevedon of crtucainty in 1%st sarmee and Y!j@;iK'.M,68y%p9 Handling." 00C 62 senses that criticality in the fuel storage and handling - f. c sysum shan be prevened by physical synems or proceuss presorably by use of e$.;.M t.fm,-:?:M?. g.hti,$ 'I.g'"M soonwaricauy safe canagwedons, ne Nac's acceptance criterton for ensuring f. V,rQPj%*U' h*WA,A.N;<g? A the ODC 62 is met is found in the Standard Review Plan (SnP) 4 9.1.2, which M 5 5 W 4. h ?. requires maintaining a storage array neutrcsi multiplication facsar (Q)less than N.s. or equal to 0.95 in spent fuel pools during normal and accident condit6cas Kopp, $'s.,.id. : f'f J"2'l 7 5 De'id ff. W. 339, at 3. b 4 : # ~,'..A*r/%

64. De Bomoea captures neutrons that would how csherwise been avail.

T w; r(ci' =

• r.$ '*T( / j." M 7

able for assion and therefore provides the required subcnticality margin.De to. (f.",857.T Mi d 7[Y, tal suberndeality margin with the Bora6en panels and the techn; cal spect6 cation /. 4 -. i. D N ;n >-' 3l. 3,:...'/.., C,'Q., 3,.5}.;Q concentadon of 1950 ppm baron in the spent fuel pool woest, is.w. -M!y W ,f 255 (Q = 0.75). Kgp. ff. W. 339, at 3 4. j; QV,.f.y. i'e' i5 ..x

65. Bora$on has undergone entensive testing e dessemine the effects of w

i. 9. 7 i.,["/}1 [.$..%, ,J  : m.c, gamma irradiation in various environments and a verify its structural inesgrity W( ., i.4% and suitability as a neutron. absorbing material. no evaluation tesu how shown .m t.d.; J, ic a j .' #* 0. that Boranea was unaffected by the pool water environment and would not be g*g degraded by corrosion. Tests were performed at the University of Michigan, + j.1 c.y 7 l. y).,, ;.y g. ;y '. '1~. 8l'.?- O' raposing Baa8u up m 1.03 x 10'8 reds of samma radiadon with subsen. ,7v qi dal concurrent rwuaan Ana in borated wear, nm uns shond the Borasu (, '.', f;.1. G]'J,.. L,.gy maintained its neutron amanuadon capsbuides aner being subjected e an envi. s' ,. % y * ', / ;y. reament cd bor und weser and gamma irradiaden. Irradiados caused some loss A'l, fC.." ' 7.,,. of Sealbility, but did not lead to breakup of the SaraAsa. l.cngaarm borneed 'S.- ff;..., .' ',f,%.,...7 ?,.. waist soak tests at high temperatures also showed that BoraAes withstands a ' i 4 d. ,"a *..4.? ?;'%. 1 sotiening. De Scranea showed no evidence of smiling or loss of abuity to i borased weser immersion at 2407 for 251 days without visible distortion or n ijs' 7,, ; i [' 5. f.' d. Q;M,$'.7 ,7 . t. ?f t. y',*A,[?. E maintain a uniform disenbution of boven carbide, Wing. (f. W. 339, at 4 5; Staff F.ah.1, i 2.2 at 7; Kilp and Oculdy, ff. W. 222, at 23 24, 7 's i },. ;g ' - ]l;./-)v. 3

? ;

66. At the wetey point Nuclear Generadng plant, the spent fuel pool meest 's',*..- .f C.,, .. *,.:,' c,) tempernames under normal operadng condalons are not espected to etceed .'i.'t, N J ..',.*'?:'t/*4 %";4 1437 which is well below the 2407 test temperseure, in general, the ress of a l.' t,- ;e . 1.., (, 3 Q,,, chemical reaction that could cause material densnaration decreases esponentiauy with decreasing issperneure. On the basis of these tests, the Staff did not

• * '. + c.~ ^... [, #

l. ...tg4 s w ' 9 7. %. s. '9 f ,-e 'g*

• • e

't \\

• e gg

,e Wo..I $

• , (" ' ' '

j- [ $ J' 40s i . 5,,....

• .*#s

., 9 ; 4(. ' y. j. ,5 y ,,,,t' l-n y oe, s.- v. ,.Y;- . }. ',.,1.j,, .S , '.. '.. t m,. \\ s t .../s

,qm ~,

. " y 7 n e p :"*7 .,-lt y,' l' Y g J. 'b,

• 9 g
• * }' % 'f, '.,.>'p
• 6 e
• ,. ',..=,j".,*

g ,] . g., , l

• i,,

y/h,. ,b e s tl y 's y y i] 2

• i. f A
• 1 g -._' t i.

s., 3 4 7.. u,,- ., f' * ' i ;, 9, ,s .p.- 9 >\\ ,f, .i 4 .t" s* -e g, 'y, 4,& .s O V 4-s. .J.. ".

.],; '.,, O,'. '.,' '.', y a : 3.. "4 R..,*. ' &.,. s. $,. '.! f, j'. V * ),.,

• ".] l.

w ;..B.~ jG s.,, v, s,,,., e. , n..,,, y s o t <t.

p. i - g N. f p, p.,; : l,..

t: . ".. (. /~ ' g X, ' ?, l 4 G 4 6 ". e, 8 O s >,..? s P s a. x .a. ., /*., r,;.

'..".s. o,1 A

c./... s 3 ;, ~ ;, ; *,, ".. '. ". ~ ',. ( t,,, ;. ' l, 1. antkipate any signiacant deterioradon of the BoraAct W the pool under normal 4 -. g,. , ", J

. Z,. <

4,. ' operndng condidons ova the design life of the spent fuci trks. Wing, ff. T1. 339, 4 s n,- m 5. c. .".",....e. y *,.\\ M [,' '.,,b* *;*,' ','.,.,/ % f.

67. Experience with Boranet in spent fuel pools at some operadng nuclear

... ; M ;.. J *. 9,*' power planu has shown some manials deterioradoc or failure in inugrity of

• ; r

.?. g. . Je ; 4 " ' ','. 7.,, DornAct. The Staff issued Board Nouacatkm BN&ll subsequent to the Staff's f, review and Eceparce of the Turtey Point spent fuel pool racks. It reponed that n ( t.$.. ll } A,7. j1 some physkal changes or gaps wee idend6ed in some spent fuel pools using .', J. j'l. .i i / ,fa. 4 '.,'.A . i,.*. j T.:.,;~ '., 7*f.,. -.,,. Scranet. The susveillance program for Boranes used in the spent fuel pools e. q ', ; ;,* J Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, showed tha the 2. inch by 2. inch ,A M.*/.*'b,4?W c surveitlance coupons, which had a maximum esposure of 14 A 105' rMs of n 7 Mf' 1.,. ;. ' g.,,'. m gamma radiauon, exponenced some physkal changes in color, stae, hardness. C* W f l . >. ) g '; (. and twinneness. A full length Botanex assembly, w hich had a maximum esposure } ! ' ] Q6. -.,j;,*. f; l.

• s y #.

of about 10 rade of samma radiadon, showed far leu physical changes than the i s q g /, '.. l'. v..* :/ >,. i surveillance cogons. Neither the coupons nor the full length BoraAex assembly l.1 ; y'.' f.,,. '. h..i-.' l '. ' ;* showed any unexpected change in neutron anenuation properties, inspections at f.', l, Qual Cides Stadon, U'du I and 2, revealed numerous gaps in some Boranet (,- (. Uo N. 3 l y; l3 ; - ( * '.. ~/ pinels that had been esposed to an esumated radiadon dose of 10' rads. The j i 7 i:

l. ( l,. " '. *j f ; y BoraSex assemblies showed anomalies in the neutron utenuadon po6tes. One l

?*...." '. ~ of the Bor Aex surveillance coupons (8. inch by 12 inch) m the Praine Islani l .. W, ' C 's Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2 showed some slight physkal chargs: or degradadons similar to the fulllength Boranes panels at the Point beach I 7.Lf M f' - n,? ]

64. nw east mechanisms that caused the observed physcal degradaums Nuclear Plant. Wing, ff. Tt 339, at S-6; Kilp and Ocul 9y, fr. Th 222, at 25 26.

a 4 '(,,;,' ?

• 4 of Boranen have not been cm8rmed. The Staff postulated that gamma radiadce I

d .' ( ', from the spent fuel inidally induced crosslinking of the polymer in Boranex ? ! -.... ~, *.. :- 4. asul prodneed shnnkage of the Botanes material. When crositinking became 'N -

l. ^ ' p annarated, scissioning (a pocess in uhkh bonds betwen atoms are troken) of 4

p.*'.@' ',g r, the polymer predominated as the wcumulated radaadon dose increased. Scis. I skaing produced po60sity whkh allowed the spent fuel pool watei *o permeate e" p \\ , ] the BceaAes maserial. Scissiorung and weite permesuce could emt'ntdc the iso.

J reden material. Oamma redsatka from spent fuel is ccmsidered to be the most prdeNe c:ause of the physical degradadons, such as changes in color, sire, ae'-

', *. [;. ~ l .. ' ' ? hardness, and briatene.ss, thm use tousi in the BoraAct maiestal a the Point *.*,', ]q 3each plant. While the Staff could not pinpoint the cause of the gap formuion in ,

• j.,

~ .j some BeraAca panels a the Quad Cities Statson, the Staff thought it conceivab's j y, 'fj that fulllength BoraAea penets that are physically restrained could experiecce L' 4 'i shrinhage caused by gamma radiation ehkh could lead so gap formation. Wing, 7**,: # i ff. Tr 339, a 7. i-s I, 69, t.kenase atsnbuted the gap formauon in QuM Cities' Bcranes to a J',> "**'*l, s- .I . f,1,. l ruk dulga and fat ricados pecess the dF1 r.ot allow the Botan. n muerial to l O. shnnk without crackfrig.1.kenMe tesdaed that the fabricadon pocess, which

• J U.

l_. e l 409 \\ i l \\ l \\ 1 \\ l I 1 r. t 4

s. T D$7s "dYW7h $%.fMN.:,My'b ' 'h NN.h'b .h, '.h. &,,Q Uh& f .MhDW w % g a' W... $,s.*Ib1 yp &'w.d M W.$ @ A. W' ".4 5., W" ' N S'h W i:' !?." Q C-3 O = ~^ % E. .. h, y;a,.Y. 4 m u,@: r

,p

, Q. &,5,4 &..

N r . r, ms

y.

;

W.:'l 7,.. % ;,p:... a .3 p '.. ; t,r, ;,..e 2 -<y*.,. 9 -M),3, y."4 '\\'.; h

",*

..;g e., U.7 I,t5.9. Q, 'y-%..~. ? ~ elg %tG required the Borsflex material to be glued along the cruire axial length and NY '..

<J y / ' f .T h*/ J $ Tck N. h s s h f k'.d j* 'firmly clamped in place to the stainless steel fuel naci n,!' did not allow for f.p. 1 Q .Q11-shrinkage of Boradex, and therefore the gaps developt, r.O ?h",A.m n ;a., 7q,..v,;w.. .p.A*.,, w.4 n.ed @ E'.

70. Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) hypothr.

Y c. Bc aflex 7,l h '. N,*' g W.,.li d shrmkage caused by irrMiation resulted in sufficient ten >lic = 3 ,di to f:'fD3 Pf f 9h,.8@f;(U[Td.'. 1**.'*.J breakage when it was restrained as in the Quad Cities spent iw - BN.87-y.J.'[l;4.G

Mi 11, enclosure letter dated May 5,1987. Bisco Producu, Inc., the

,facturer of .,k,'[ $ [ Boraflex material, informed the Staff that the failure of the neutem abs <.,rber may $, g[,. - ;, ).f.j.3.;}A $y/,Q - 4 l

• $cj be due to the matedal's properties or, in the case of the Quad Cities racks, some fNj$"5 0 3' I h,M P[i. ?.y [..'; h.% *I.i,.' h),. h:

rnanufacturs.1 deficiencies such as the tearing of the Bcnflex panels during l , pf v. ? handling. Based on this information, the Staff inferrM that gaps may have been 1 1 ,hE'*.Ek formed at Quad Cities before the panels were exposed to any rMinrion. Wing, l f.l,. .?,'. $ :.-f j $,G'- M [/ P r. ?; O(.j g., ' .[,1C; ff. Tr. 339, at 8 9, In the Wrkey Point racks, Boraflex is held to the stainless steel l 7; y. ~.g? e, wall by enclosing it in a wrapper. The wrapper is an enclosure that protects the y.*/ q > 4*ib Boraflex from the flow of water and malmnins a clearance between the Boraflex .,L. j

" ' M Q itf. N jif * -

'J :-{. ' M.[;..*:y.Jff/.F and the rack cell wall, which is large enough to allow shrinkage but sm.+11 enough to prevent dislocation of the panel should it become briWe or crack. Short lengths

• * "
• M. f' ;, y;....'F,9 of adhesive were used to attach the panels to the wrapyer for panels produced y

l ,/,,; ,{.A by an automated process to provide temporary support during the spot.wc! ding , e ; -- a ),, 4 f, y .i process. None of the Region I racks, and only some of the Region !! racks, were ', j* c y 7 h., ~.Y,,., f 'M. b.., .,G.,;.. y.g,2,l ',h ^ fabricated using adhesive to attach the Boraflex panel to the wrapper or storage V. g ..*s L.- W,- 7 cell. Kilp and Gouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 39 40, as corrected; Gouldy, Tr. 242 44. ...,fy . 4 1,

71. Gamma radiation-induced crosslinking and scissioning of the polymer

'..T,,',.. , n "l,'.M[,j;(g+ e ", ?.. 07h, 5;> [y 9 N,, in Boraflex can take place in the spent fuel pool racks of the Wrkey Point plant ~ i in the presence of spent fuels. Because water can permeate into the Boraflex, ,. ? ; < <l,;.,;t 4 especially at the edgea of the panel, minor degradations such as chang 0s in . ',,. c;, ,6 color, size, hardness, and brittleness, can be expected. Howner, the Staff could ' S f. :

7..;,

not predict with certainty whether or not gap formation will occur. Testing at ,e y. j,%,,,, Point Beach and Wrkey Point indicatt,s there are no g.rps at accumulated levels of - irradiation higher than at Quad Cities, and there is information that suggests that f f f :./' the Quad Cities' gaps may be related to fabrication and design of the r> ks. Tnus, . *2 ?.,. it may be inferred that gap formation may result from a combination cf shrinkage g. F ,';. 0.;* J, & [ 2:'m,'? . ij due to inadiation ni to fabrication or rack design deficierwies. In addition, th< ,b A# ' / g 7, 1l'. -d Staff was not certain whether physical restraints exist in the Boraflex panels at ,, M A.,N'.r.$. G.j.p " b, Y. > 'l Turkey Point that are sufficient to cause up formation. Because the Bc'allex ,' f,, } C. ,j. s 4, panels at the Turkey Point plant wue conscu:ted from single 6ects, th< Staff 4j./6. /[.-T,'-; f testified that it did not expect that there were gaps in all the Wraflex pinels . j. > 7' 7 : $.g +MQ f'.(7 prior to exposure to radiation from spent fuels, un'ess the panels were damaged f,N' by some means. Wing, ff. Tr. 339, at 10,12. ,', SI'(,,c, Q., ;'l ( y[c '

72. Similarly, Licensee testa' led that since the design and fabrication process y...

... ?,,$,' . ~ ' ' ' s.A- $}, i used for Wrkey Point is rnere similar to that used for Point Bexh (rather than ..,, ( Quad Cities) and those panels were not restrained from shrinking and did not ..p... . y .i u' g < & (. a p.N,, ' c,y,j y. 4to n.., r. + ,...o ,,.3, t. 3 ,'

• l; ? e,y'r',,'

i O*

,) p ... e ...r .c.., .e ry \\ ,,~.e i ./' f.,- y-.,.. :-. :... -. -- - r. n .r v

• e., ~

g-* e ~- - ' '(,. s e ' s ,.s +

• • N'g

,8 ,,e* ,8_, s 7 g , l ,. + t g 8 ( 'T a g i 8 g .'[." 4 i e, g > + 4 i ___'___-__.'l 4 8 I 6 q g- .~

L-

i y q c ' y.., e,.

,;...v . \\..,. 3-3:.ha ;. q 3 .~;j;o.) c. a /,% t. s v:.- 9.. n;. . :..>< a .y. > ;., ' e

c.,

.; n. y^..o ..~ x. m;:. A.:. - n,; ? ". 8.

!

l'

~ .; w ,e ~ 7 '. ^y ; 5 :. c

j. +..,,, ;

,q..,l ;; r y..a 6 { ; . 's p* .j .y, .r*. j s

• 7

. g.,..,. < x y 3 ,::s a , f. .. ',. J., develop any gaps, it would not expect gaps of signiScant size or extent to develop

• c 4'

c

• f',

.-ty ..f if at 1brkey Point. Kilp and Couldy, ff. TV. 222, at 40. ,,1 >. ~./, ;

73. The Staff is collecting operating experience about Boranex from plants that use Boraiex, addidonal test data from the vendor, and fabricadon in-8 i

- [. j.,','." r.1;,. ['... formation from spent fuel ; <ck contractors. The Staff will evaluate the in-Y9C. g,."2. a * - [' 'P,.~ f.,' 4, * ' formation to arrive at the catse(s) of the observec gap formation. McCracken, ,.4. ?*. ? - ff. TY. 339, at 10. .,. ) ; * ~". G,'..- ' * ' ? ? :. J

74. lla 1.icensee tested afty four Boraaex panels from storage cells in both l 'f.

..f ; ' tj.('f*'f % [. Region I and Region II of the spent fuel pool They were representative of those u.- storage locadons that have received an estimated radiation dose of 7.8 x 10' rads, . [' ',,-.,. *.:.. p.).2-I ~2' the highest cumulated exposure to date. The testing had the capability to detect

,..g.;

1. 6 pyyl.' %,

gaps of 1 to 11/2 inches or e eater. No indication of gaps, voids, or other spatial .,., y.0;;4.. ; distribution anomalies was observed. The results of this testing also verify that y ,3.. et*.,, -LOK. Q no gaps existed in the:c afiy fout Boranex panels prior to exposure to spent , ',M.$*l;g ,7 fuel. No physt;al restrakts are expected to exist in these panch. Therefore, on ., f,. ' 'i (, .,1 y C.W. the basis of these data and informadon, the Staff believes that gaps will not ..7. V.13. ";y 4 :-. l %..,.g/ cA,' 'j likely form in the Turkey Point Boraflex panels. Kilp and Gouldy, ff. Tr. 222, ,, r... 4.,e at 33,39; Wing, ff.1Y. 339, at 11. .,. s ~~ ..b

75. Substandal physical dectadadon can alter the neutron attenuation prop-1*

,. 7.! c.,'.',C* crties of BoraSex and decrease the margin of suberiticality of the fuel pool. Neu-s.". t ' "( ' ,,3 ,,. f. 4. ,J tron attenuadon of Boranex is mainly due to boron mass number 10 that is ~ f. b $i' present in the boron carbide powder in Boradex. If the spatial distribudon of M".' .,j ;y,- boron.10 is nM disturbed, the neutron attenuadon properties of Boradex should , 3 _. c, ,.7, " remain unchaaged. Physical degradadons, such as changes in color, size (shrink. ( / 4 age), hardness, and brittlecess, that do not disturb the spatial distribution of 4', boron 10, should not alter the neutrm attenuation properties of Boradex.1.arge f y .G d gap formation in a Boraflex sheet could alter the neutron attenuation pro 61e. Of ~ c i the 203 Boradex panels examined at Quad Cities, 31 gaps were found in 28

p l'.s J,

,L ri 4 panels, and two three-to four inch gaps were found among the 31 gaps, if the - 4,:

• 6.. f *.. (?' M conditions which resulted in gap formation at Quad Cities are present at 1brkey d

Point, the Staff concluded that 1bdcuy Point will not likely have gaps greater e, L cf- ] than four inches in approximately one percent of its Boradex panels. Wing, [ ff. Tr. 339, at 11 13. . LY]3 n,

76. At the Staff's request,1.icensee pe: formed a sensitivity study to de-

' ' {.7.j...j,s*' ;' ', ;k M'j .; X ; '. termine the effect of possible gaps in the Boraflex at Turkey Point on the margin .. f*n'( "?. ,H of suberiticality. Siwe Region I of the spent fuel pool contains the higher Bo- , a, .i. l'1~ ranex Inading as well as the smaller subcriticality margin, the sensitivity study ,3 s. ~

• 1. ' 'a conservatively used the Region I spent fuel rack configuration. As an addidonal i

A.;c }.1 conservatism, the calcuhtions did not take credit for the boron in the pool water, , ' 'J. ~ ,f ' ~j i.e. the rn:ks we assumed to be flooded with pure water. The results indicate 3 (, thet for fuel enriched to 4.5 weight pu :ent nt %) U 235, the acceptance crite. ,e ,.o c.' V * .l rion of km less than or equal to 0.95 is met for the case of a 2 inch gap at the .A .s

• l *

's a y .2 \\. , W o 3 411 'i 3 ( -i t 9 I g b 6 e J f 6 f w

b?ON asQ,..a.NNM{:MNhk b>/ Mk.$. hbhN'bN b E ' M N N.j. pN ' M O Q*"A A f*n. k. ppf -Mh pr tj. O..w.< m t$. 4 Q,2 m u bNI,**,Nk@m.~h Md'an YM .fg.%~t Ns TdNWO N ~ 4 d N-1 e w CMf g.% .Y.dv. b",.m Q;.4 m..yJ. i..<;,m.g. h h% .,W m. i -. a

4.. x.

's i.7 & N-4'f ** y < c.,.y -u.f.M.t-j,f, s t g.2.,.n, v.w% ;q[kNM;: y x

• e +., :..

\\ d A.N[p.M ' same elevation in all of the Boradex panels in the rack. *the acceptance cr'iterion 'I <,y p % j %,@ ; k;;Uf f, y is also met for the case of almost a 4 inch gap at the same elevadon in one half .M R.4/V,M'&.Lf::,Q;ld ? of the Boraflex panels (two of four panels in each storage cell in Region I) in d.a.d'Q.'g @[4* M ; @.I'J8 M 4rpt.f.} the rack. Kopp, ff. 'It 339, at 1314; Boyd, ff. Tr. 222, at 6-9. VN5f.[hp@.d$4'4 )$Q* ' Q./$ is only 3.6 wt % U 235. Licensee estimates that in approximately 3 years, the 14

77. The maximum enrichment of the fuel currently used at 'Ihdey Point y %rM

'2Mjf*M?I1 maximum fuel enrichment at 'Ibrkey Point will be less than 4.1 wt % U 235. For @k.h.h[Ai*h:'dMY'M. fuel of 4.1 wt % enrwhment, the 0.95 acceptance criterion would be met fa a f h,f.l. W~hN 3.5 inch gap in all the BoraHex panels and a 7 inch gap in one-half of the panels Wed&+%,. W.Qd - [D$Y;.h,[.hdA gf @khD p in the rack. Kopp, ff. Th 339, at 14; Boyd, ff. 'It 222, at 6-9. 7'?/,f 7g. The Staff considers Licensee's assumptions regarding the distribution of khW.j%'. Y gaps to be conservative since if gaps were to develop, they would probably not @i;.;1,d Nldg d;; f:.h MJd. h.D: h@N][.W[.[.-/-@M YOW. H all occur at the same elevadon or throughout the entire storage location within 4 M. the racks. It, Quad Cities, for example, the distribution of gap sizes ranged from D h WJ.,N O to about 4 inches, with the maximum si2e (between 3 to 4 inches) observed U.0 '..M'c*f,* 'h,d'g%'[h d DA.T. In only 1% of the Boradex panels tested. 'Iherefore, conservatively assuming W/?&:! M that the maximum gap size of 4 inches observed at Quad Cities occurs in 50% _2.*;,s.:t N',$;he h' N;3, N '# 5% of the panels at 'Ibrkey Point, k,, for the storage rack would be 0.93 for 4,1 " W 17 d;f.1 M. Q. g ; W p. g .*- Q if wt % enricned fuel at 'Ibrkey Point. The acceptance criterion of 0.95 would be

e. :., ~.;

,,e .1.;;.m. w. met with as much as a 7 inch gap in 50% of the BoraAcx panels for 4.1 wt % L M.,jlf W .r.. N. 3. _,.. ,.,., ;y 'y F 4p,., M.. c/y.U.J w;y fuel. Kopp, ff. 'It 339, at 1415. 1. n M. $r -

79. Licensee had originally planned to perform an initial surveillance of

' g'jp[.y,O:/Q':;,.a'"iQ;9 l BwafMx specimens after about 5 years of exposure in the spent fuel pool envi- ' q C.Pff,+ f 5. l. ronment, as described 'n f 4.8 of the 'Ibrkey Point Uniu 3 and 4 Spent Ibel Stor- ,. r..,(f. h 6,J/,.;(M,$.(i.(,$ . M.", l ?' age Facility Modification Safety Analysis Report, dated March 14,1984. This . g.?.6. g, program will be increased. Two types of examinations will be conducted on ,,;.v,4. ;.<, y: ' '/ sl/?l ,W -4,,j. j S;., Boraflex to examine and evaluate its physical and nuclear characteristics. First, ..J M,W ',) %;.g N,;Y.,;g; W.'D,p -S. g i. an in service surveillance program will evaluate the BoraHex specimens in both j Region I and Region II of the spent fuel pool for physical and nuclear characteris- ,, ',. V.,, y R,w r... : tics, including the deterdnation of uniformity of boron distribution and neutron .3. ,,;..,yo e g.:, 3.. x j.,.;4.Q: attenuation measurements. Second, a surveillance program will detect lany spa. , fk '

t.. ' $ /. c,c f,f; rl; clQ.e tial distribution anomalies in the full length BoraBea panels. Wing, ff. Tr. 339,

• $ fem,i:'

at 15; Kilp and Gouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 30 33. (.,;., - (-, g$.. c., e.h'.;%R@i

l. n.:W.y

80. The second surveillance program is referred to es "blackness tesdng."

y _ s..((sy,,. <@; 3,Mh,,.](T 1M ' ' .[,4 These tests are performed using a fast net /' surce and thermal neutron q, r d;..g.O detectort. Any gaps in the Boradex will be -.ctable by an increase in the d f, A ' 0-C number of thermal neutrons reflected back to the duectors. This method has a '.,C'?D j h t,-.;; g,;. D M R $c' t '[~-0.? been used satisfactorily in other spa.nt fuel pool facilides such as the Quad 1[@p' f .,. g,yjjC

• Cities Stadon Units 1 and 2 to detect spatial anomalies in Boradex. By retesting 4.

g. ' ' K'.. i [$ 5/;'%.y) (',q%g;y.yi D. A, .L '$jh ' at regular intervals, any changes in the neutron attenuation properties or in the ? 1. y,

t..>.

.ng, i spatial distribudon of the buon 10 in Boradex should be detected and corrective .i.f. actions taken should it be determined that gaps large enough to violate the k,ft v < :1 v ^ ' :. }.,,. o. ,,, 3,; L.q:;';

• e'
• s'.

... g ;p c ***,, p'

q a

j,. e's,iv- '..,c, u.-(.1 (Qi., ;; Md 412 ,'.s. J,;eb;:A.. +.,. f, j, w... Q, i c -l'M.. f* . [ T *;..- ; qQ,. *(. '.. .',8; g K.., M) '., a. [.n iy;*Y h g,. * *Q; [,ga,, E, [. \\ = 3; ; T ,a. .o < c. u. .l 2%v

r. # ' '

, g.,. ._ M ..L >.,,y y \\,

• .c' ? :d j ' y.pr...,.y..~~.'.,,,....,.* y......,. -, r,

.T' - (, y,

• r

.. n. .q y e......,. , er m ' s, ..,. ~. l4,, '.'i - le

• y.

  .j. f '

~ u e

i [ 5,j ir

'3* ' y'9 'g/ p,. " - . ?. '> 3,: .f s - F i, .4' 9r-y b.' ~ ~ .',,,;,,./ 4,

• ' wl s. > u -}...p, s..

1.- >, ^. 1*' ' a ; *: . ', ~ yr

l.. ;., 'u -

.,, ;,,i e 'h, g,8 I

• {r
• I [... *.T..

,l 6 e,., M k, ' I * )% w,, g J 4p ,ji*i3 q'< g e i 4 t' _,,g 3'-

• .<..,2

'e ,r. Q 's,W ; F<N,. t ...J s 4 q.< v 6c 9' ,,., g.. f ' t9 7, ry" -(,, 'e l} Q e

• Ls'

.w' .r. ,'l. .y 4, ; _ s. It 6 w 't s*;. ,s.*'.- \\ ~ e = ' 'e s ([.' 'frf'\\ l %' ~' 24 y,,

• 1

~_., -,[ .. e a

>,. M". ..j j xc

m. %

v n w a 3 3.. ;- f.i;;;; c W -, o' g c,.- .r'- q.,; ...c o.., wy . ; ~ <>,.., ',.e .,,;.9 _. ps" 4 ..s.. 5. c. r,.,; g, 2: ' W L.. : Q., " :.h i.L.. h,.. ,, ^, as, <.,.1 2 Y

• I' oL L

.h t c;--, ,c .- ? e '^# .( +. .,. j,f. ? acceptance criterion rnay occur. Kopp, ff. 'TY. 339, at 16; Gouldy, ff. TY. 222, at ,<.4s;,; j. a. 31 32. ,,,S. ,s. 81, in early Aupst 1987, Licensee performed baseline blacimess testing on ' ' "!.' j. L' ' d.,. $, $,,. -> the Boraflex panels that have received the highest cumulated radiation exposure 1 '* " to date. Licensee expects to perform future surveillance testing of the Boraflex p ,.;f.; g.].,,. - ? panels within approxi.nately 3 years, or sooner if industry experience indicates ": *. W ; ;"'s. $ '; { ".,'j f a shorter penod for suveillance is mutanted. In addition, Licensee made a ., ' e 5 t, . ' ; L

• M, !., J ~,

commitment not to store any fuel with an enrichment greater than 4.1 wt % .,,p,y.', U.235 prior to completion of the next survelliance. Kopp, ff. *1Y. 339, at 16; g,...c, * ~,...,.e.'.' ".,W..<. McCracken, TY. 375 76; Gouldy, ff. Tr. 222, at 30 33.

,.y*.

82. Initial surveillance testing was performed by Licensee dizing the first

+ ~, 7;. .f.^.", ?l'{,W ' 'jf 4 we* of August 1987 in the 'Ibrkey Point Unit 3 rpent fuel racks. Storage 10 ., i M ..., i. ?3.f C p a. cations were chosen in which the Boraltex panels wold have experienced the 7, } *,) 2(( s highest accr.:nulated gamma doses to date and, therefore, the largest pe:centage s 1 _,., 7- ', .l1 of shnnkage. No inMr bn of gaps or other spatial anomalies was observed. The ,1 b. f ".;4 ^; ;f 'N maximum accumulated gamma dose during this testing was estimated by West. '4-f inghouse Electric Corpo ilon, the fuel vendor, to be 7.8 x 10' rads. The rmt s q,

* ~.y }if - ;.feP f surveillanc' testing of the Botaflex panels at Tbrkey Point is scheduled in ap.

?, ,~ '. g. 1. ' proximately 3 years (December 1989) when the maximum accumulated gamma if. J. /',. dose is estimated by Westinghouse to be 1.2 x 10d rads. The Staff believes i .,r . kc that the next surveillance should include a representative sample of panels sub. j C

• .6 i'. l.

jected to a range of radiation exposures to provide reasonable assurance that l l ; fr. ' fuel with enrichment up to 4.5 wt % U.235 can be stored at 1brkey Poirt and .,-<1

s. L maintain the 0.95 km acceptance criterion. McCracken, ff. Tr. 339, at 17. Wing, m

'..,J.[. ~ p McCracken, and Kopp, (f. Tr. 339, at 17; Kilp and Gouldy, ff. TV. 222, at 36; 4" ,J Gouldy, TY. 31012. ~' . f.

83. Bisco Products, Inc., submitted additional test data for Boraflex on June

-l ',' ). m0, - ? '2.. 25,1987, and August 26,1987. The data shvwed that shrinkage in the Boraflex ~,. C ../ samples at the dose levels of 5 x 10' and 108' rads of gamma radiation was .p essentially the same, averaging about 2.1%. Irradiation at 2.5 x 10i' rads showed ',~ an average shtmkage of 2.4%. The data indicated that no appreciable change in .r," ' 'q shnnkage of Boraflex material occurred betwen 5 x 10' and 2.5 x 102' rads. The .l ,i fif'y.four Borallex panels tested at Turkey Point had an estimated radiation dose ..,'.,y of 7.8 x 10' rads and an esdmated maximum dose of 1.2 x 1028 rads in 3

• s

w. fJ o

years. These dose levels are within the range of 5 x 10' and 2.5 x 102' rads ',..,' g"C,. ' :, where no appreciable changt in shrinkage was found. The Staff believes that the j proposed Turkey Point survedlance interval is adequate. However, the Staff will 1 ,.'j,' - 3,U, continually monitor industry experience with Boraflex to determine whether a j

s. v d

/- 'n j shorter time interval la, warranted. Wing, ff. Tr. 339, at 1718. j 'l Gg

84. Intervenors argue that because the blackness tests performed by Li.

Q.. I. censee dc, not establish that no gaps exist in the panels since the test could not i ( f.

• 9, detect gaps smaller than 1.5 inches (Tbrner, Tr. 254), the amendmenu should j

.' s'y d ~ 1 8 i l.- ,,C 413 1 4 i I 1 \\ F 4 4 / I I f* g 1 u :v s n - y

. p r~. -..,. w$.j.m.y' C.m. d.,. pw'.m,;We m:s n.',i &q,.,,..

lec, f /WY,.,.,,e

.p ...,...u.

c..

s . ~~

e. Q.Q.,.. -.. d '.p;; Wl Y M,;*,* N,,f.

V.1.,y .t ', .W. f. .. :.,- i M. M. ~ tt q ~ ,s -j i.Z.T.- f'u/ p/ T 52 S / lN; $ j..fn a h U/. E, be suspended until the absence of gaps is proven by an in depth testing pro- ': W IV M gram. The record is clear that the K effective limit for either 4.1 or 4.5 wt % t fN'%'8-.$ M if f.s Wib fuel enrichment woWd not be exceeded even if gaps smaller than '.5 inches 4.0$%[d$@.NNI.O N 'fhh exist in all the panels in the pml (Kopp, ff. Tr. 339, at 1315; Boyd, ff. TY 222, , h'[.h. M M c N. d*1 %[.$h<hh:Mi N. N.~/ ' at 6 9) and that the presence of dissolved boron in the pooi water pione is ' '*/

• ? Q {f enough to maintain the subcriticality margin. Kopp, ff. 'IY. 339, at 18; Boyd,

. 4, .,,%'r. Q. g p;; y % -1. Tr. 267 69. The Board 8nds no safety reason for suspendmg the amendmenu, bA % h h*

85. Intervenors also recommend eat the Board direct the Staff to detamine WrM%MA 4

u Bannex is "= unemven==cric ra Pe= f*2 ml usage ed W *e um pp.?cf 74.rbOf':'M.,$1 P a f '.*ip.t of Boraflex in the expanded storage capacity amendmem involves a sign!6 cant ..$cy,dh.Ph..Q.@.!'dT hazard. Intervenors' Proposed Finding 31. The record shows that no safety. 3 7a;v,Q374. Mfg:.d.M sign 16 cant degradation of Baadex is expected at 'Ibrkey Point and there is N an adequate surveillance program to mordfor its performance. The Staff's [,fjd.OI,,g@hMd;,f gliG.h 3,W.D ?'; i' l/.....h determination as to whether an amendment involves signi8 cant hazards pursuant 'l b ; O %'4f. l# h. h to 150.92 determines the timing of any potential hearing either before or after Midd")hhC',,$7..Q.1;.o :/q W the action is taken. This heanng has established that the Boradex panels do not ~l y,y' i DlM,Wh[t c f, /1,.l.. ;l,.Nb.M[.dM".1 % / t,p M4.pg3 pose a signiacant safety concern. 4V W.dyk

86. In addition to the Boradex surveillance, Ihrtey Polm Technical Spect-6 cation 3,17 requires the minimum boron concentration in the pool water while M.t.47, dDO' p,gy'dd-9 fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool to be 1950 ppm, and Table 4.1 2 requires that

$' g.y[..1 nkbfG,)N [,_}.;.

• d

'l C the borou concentradon be sampled morahly. NRC calentatimis have shown that ,6.[.7 ?,Y @fl p i /N ' . :. S under normal storage conditions at 'Ibrkey Point with the pool water borated to k 1950 ppm of boron, all of the BoraSex panels could be removed and the 0.95 k ' T " 4 i Q,* ,[. r.c;Q3..; c.Q+j@.,.,p,v.a . ;jw.,g"y, ' q:. i'i. g acceptance criterion would be met, even with 4.5 wt % enriched fuel. Therefore, 3... a, the bann concentration and sampling requirements provide edditional assurance WJr y....3 t..,. y/ c /.. '.~ f..P of safe fgel storage between surveillances of the Boraflex. The borated water 4 '- f.4, g.,( #.,. ; pf, and the Boradex panels are independent and redundant safety measures. Kopp, i.l?. <;7's J. )

• JR '.l^ '

N,' ff. TY. 339, at 18; Boysl. Tr. 267-69, 'J1, 32849.

• if..

fS 'J. b < f 4 0 R .i

87. The Board Ends that based on the evidence presented by the Licensee

~[( :/,Q ?.ip.WM.' ". '*J. 9, 2 and Staff, no safety signiacant degradation in the Turkey Polm Botanex panels at .d g.i...,'.'... g Tbrkey Point is expected to occur. The Licensee's surveillance prograras include . 'a d y > $j ,7 '.j F. ) M.:/ are adequate to detect physical degradauons, including Jtaps, and will provide , MJ rp 7 blackness testing on Boradex specimens and panels at speci6ed schedules which f.[,L4 C ".4;.[,q;?l.,Q J y,,.[

W, reasonable assurance that gap formauon will be detected in suffeient time to gf;4.W..". $

M R c U.* ONl4.h."M d. [ T Q iSN enable Licensee to take corrective acdoes such that the NRC acceptance criterion Y ~ I:E U..

of kg less than or equal to 0.95 is met. Licensee and Staff have adequately Q' KQ analyzed the materials integrity of Boranes, and the material continues to be

@,:4 4)[9',' M fq; - '

'*/? i %,f.Nds J " /M.' ' acceptable for use in safe storage of the spent fuel at the Turkey Point Nuclear T.c. : Y:M%

.w. ; >;,t 6.,% >- ~: 7,'i.h b Generating Plant.

.. :a. s i .,, A r e _

• .=.:

s. Y' b,'- ', < + i b,l],f., h. A c....... '*'.. ' ',.

• l;,"

h. w.,..q e e. g y .W -.y & ;', f.: ;;..,.. y e '.8 ,f. ~;.y p..,. e..

• s..l

.,y e,lln?.g%...b.3,, pj * -2. ; >,.o' 4,,y i u.. .G g.. r. .%..., 3,4 414 f .i .qN ,8 ,;) s s;.. . Wg.f i g :.. w.. .t 1 ..e.* g.m -9 3,,, f ,,. y..., J *y -

• • i

,,,. t e _.m 3, f.' ' a, p t. 3 e \\ , ;. s.. y ;g,.. e..+,. ,s ', i Uh: bp. [.***;*'l,W 1A

• y-* *'"s /""g* 7 *y[ $ **,* f
• _ ff % !'?.JT*" *','

W" * " Y 0 f . [* g 4 j *, .'i.,.4 [ 4I g .., $'.. s i ,, r

• / ; m,,. '

~ eM ?- . s s' L'.. v .a s p p' L ',,.:4., : ' y

. 'm,.; ' T t -

y 'd!L't - sy,s'S. o . r, p.,.%, i T ). ] 9.,'}2Q'..:'^,' Y '.:';' a"r. ;N. i t W ^$l. :. ' >, L U bl .,.:... i;;., *y j e .l .' n, '

' 3' ?: P '. * ',? ? ,,,

l'

s... <.,,':. >.

• r, r 9

.N ,1- ,,,g,v., J ;j s v,, s, ..A. 4... H. .t- ,.y ' i l '. .l .Y. s ^~

.. x. -. ~

r v g..+ .'_:; ;-m'.r: m,.y y w. a w 7.2,

u.

v-u --- ,u - - -

M..,, r-i

• . '.. FNf f g,_,

2 t ',_.q, _.y . ' " ;. \\ _ ;,.. g. i: . gu. ^ * .} c,kl.jK,M l.' '[. ! { ) -l r- .s Q.~ s e. v - n,. ',3 r. u.. !,. ...;.,% >.p c: c> T..,g ak,, ,.}.. - .s .s + -s - v. ~ ..c: .l - a - '.: d .' :'~ m 2. '.,. a. m CD3 L.:.,;c, ;. < 3.; kN....> :.,, ' ^ .,s,fe'

... w...-

a W ' ; p '. "..,.... a ,..- ;.,3 III. CONCLUSION .<N,.,..,..., c., ;>.,.. Y. 9 f9 ' "f,'N 'c. q,. !- ff, j a ' Q. s,j.' ; t,* i47.. '.,, " Based gon the entire evidentiary record in this proceeding, and upon the foregoing 6ndings of fact, the Board concludes the following:

sb-f. ' '",* '

.'f: J.. :.:.. / 1. 'Ihe Licensee's seismic analysis for the new *Ihrkey Point spent fuel pool aff,:s,f / ' -! ' racks shows that the rack design satis 6es the structural aspects of GDC 2,4, (7'T h' O.. 3.".*' :.'.',.c,.;_ [* '..*:.,*'- f 61, and 62 and thus there is reasonable assurance of safe storage of fuel in the ~.-e \\,e.h..i'p.' !.. ;. d. 5 '.',...'W. event of an eartiquake. .;* c.(j

3. :

..- 7 ; *;.. ;,, ./ 2. Contrary to Intervenors' assertion in Consendon 6, the Lkensee and Staff g C y '. 0~',;. [,,*n have adequately consalered materials spent fuel pool integ~ity during the storage . g *,. j~c,.. i 4.. , ',. 7 under the expanded capacity. y' r ?, j. c _ IV. ORDER c. .e. i ..a

• l.' "

?;~* WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as .J' f, 9, J e **, . - - 4 amended, and the Rules of Practice of the Commission, and based on the e.'c foregoing Andings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS ORDERED THAT , 7 t').%'/., I *.. - [,' [ '. I' ' ~,'f.. License Amendment Nos.111 and 105 to License Nos. DPR 31 and DPR 41, qQ',,0 respectively, issued by the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on November ., s' L 21,1984, shall remain in full force and effect without mod *a81an. '*p :, ~.i' r - ' d ' '.* - - - f. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 4 2.760, that tius Ini. ~. v v,. tial Decision shall constitute the Anal decision of the Commission thirty (30) j 1, days from its date of issuance, unless an appeal is taken in accordance with 10 + ~ C.F.R. I 2.762 or the Commission directs otherwise. See also 10 C.F.R. Il 2.785 l and 2.786. Any party may take an appeal from this Decision by Gling a Notice of , ^ Apred within ten (10) days after service of this Decision. A brief in support of - / such sqpeal shall be 6 led within thirty (30) days after the aling of the Notice of ',,.,f'. Appeal (forty (40) days if the appellant is the Staff). Within thirty (30) days after s ,J t. .a the period has expired for the Bling and service of the briefs of all appellants }" ' ~ * (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any party who is not an ardiant may ,s ,. J,) ale a brief in support of, or in opposition to, any such r.ppecl(s). A respending , .I i-

• ,6..

l

• :s i.g I

v ,t. j , i f. l

• s..

f l y_ j 4, T-gg O 3 ) t .g. V 1 415 p \\ m 6 0 4 1 b [ W 8 N 9 i

hh,Y h ?'.. &:' ~. l-S k$$. ht h .h k) h y &' V. $' $. f~j. l$b?ld,'. y' Q-Q :' W '..' ;-:e.h . r

.C W R. Q &w (Q @/

/~Q~-- f 4,Q 1.Mf w 4 h:9 0 r"-----

• -),l. N:'.phmycfy w

N.M M,W;,>..J.Q ,' A.. g; 3..,s, %, r. %,..q.r,..o.. %m, e, e.. E. *. f. 3. *, % cy '.M. 'r,.M,,,/,.W..S.. W....

n. %

. 4 ~.',:'-. g.. A:... W.zY. w: :,v= 7. n,.c r#. n . a u. 7j idyf T.[.N@Q[dM%, f party shall nie a single responsive trief, regardless of the number of appellants' ,; p.4. :, Q... i&',j briefs Sled. +. r. - P.h-d.e h@...,,,.i f,g .~ :. ?hsh.hTIN THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ,.- s +,..7.. y ...g 4 3 v.s,v."'.,S. w'K.* M y'.* W ~ $. LICENSINO BOARD ~ S.J.,7 %. w t,k:g *g k ;. v. r g.

,*

• n S.

'e,... ? f d.RMM;@s.Q :lw.g,,. ; f e,-jd17p.*.ygj'h*,3 n;. qrt< .am 7 Robert M. Lazo, Chairman ' $f V.~?(.9'N'. {@'5Gr.Qp.MQ. ADMINISTRATIVE RfDGB - ^ < . % ;.. y ;.g.,v n.. m.q y%g + >.W*b@ r w.: - 'j. ' L Wf.*...c. ,,,,.. P.. J Richard F. Cole y,],'.?' '. MC.4.3 @. 4@+$, .......w. ?. M..D. <. +.C] spy. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE w. n.. .v . *,.,. c,;...... r; 9c/ ; m .f- .r.. ,e, . c. .a,.- .o ,. -.s.n ..' r. n q Emmeth A. Luebke ' a f., * ".. ' 2 p,. 4,. = H<~,.O ".!." .*h.. p;,.;;.;.' y :.y. i, f; . 9 ADMINIS'IRATIVE JUDGE 3.- ..e ....pa .. - e d.,. M'(p ;Of.,, %,.'.4 U,.Q Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, ..', J,',n;...,,,y ;,s,.c. gi. 04n,N this 19th day of April 1988. g' .M'..'=.' . ~ %., :;. ',' ' e, 4 s s..a,o....... d,'

• • 1. [.

['J \\p '[, s,. [ p e j,4

• K..; '..e '. g, m::'$a' !)7,.* T.

4,l;i. t M y' .er 4. w ;,( . <. f., c:,..r

4..n.t

.,,4.. 4 s'.. 4 ' 4.,<*3' f,.,.,. '.., [- G .,'i.,' Y .a. ,,, Fr ? 8 i e* 4 ...,e e s ie _ g, ..g I" g j ge 6 e,Y " * *. .h. w p eq*,' p, - ~,, g. -

. *g C.;s...'.

a as - . 3. > c. .;..v. e sM, g /. ), , [ d g J. 1.l t, ',,1,* t ,k. ) f j'.g,6.g* ..y e. .4 (., y.,,, ** ..t. .s e.. ,.i ..h 2

• ,g

% L,"m e o. . ', *. '.,* p*, ' e , '., ; -,. s. '.,y j v; 8.

• ~.v.

~,, ...,Of',. 64 8* .\\ k.g. ,'.g g' h g , jy.

• /.,'e" 1.'.;,; a-

= ? t, *,.4, ,a. ,c , y,, 4- ,.. M - a <".s; ,=,.ri.,,- ,e ,'a /, *. e -g, g

• 1. ,.a

,**'%e f.' 3 e, e da

• .i 9

3. #

4 ' y* ',( 4,4,,.8 h-4 , r* 4 ,. iq .. *..,4 3. i .s*

• a,

,.#,.y

• • 5,,.

gg .* r

• b. " g

"[e3. 2*l[ ly.,.. f., =nt .b. -{ g. a c,. p

• s.,2 g

';s 'S i . i e [, W 8 tg...., e, t. .i*

• 4 6

A ). ,t*. ',, <%.,I-t, 4* 8,g.: e, 4 8 p. 416 4

• s

., 9 ,%o '. i t. en ( -2,'h H,,. d c.7. .,w......,,. i /.

• 4.'*

,.+ 't f, ',, - '. 8 t, \\ ,s .g h. s , - (,

• e

' '). { % 's g,.. e e .1 4 . 3.. 4 'l 8*. 4, .(', k e ,.j >n ,e. g ,g, I y g s... d w + .e ,.F

• O. <

8 .'\\ g ,9 ,'l ' t ') . 0; 4 .I

• so
• 4r 9

e ,4' e

• 1

+ .i . 4 e r

• he *
• h + ',

e

,D i. ~ .A f,, i.,4 4 t,, i W:, Q,.. '* ?. !.:i - ..,.Uc y..;.f, l,b~N ".,lin 47' 't,'. .V ~ r .c' ,h.Q ' ;,. k '. :.. r.. m c., v., o. t.l.. \\,. s;y. ~i.. m'.'l'j.L [;.l _..,, g,, .t c 2,.- N.' 4 L UU ~ ' 5. l',i.f,h.'j ;..,. ;,,,,

• J.# A

(,:.;, " t.m*..f .*y. .,. - 2, , ".;

• t,  :' w

, g-. /,. s v"a . r j.- -1,,. e,; *., s ; 4.;,..* -s,'8 '", ' l M.,e ..,,,,..~,,.'3,,'.

g'g'

.e'. .3 ..'a '.' y" ,f- ',, re 'g.9 ,.2 -. C, j .c 1 ".',4.'...e,ff.;. 2.,,.* ;r .{ 'k, ~ '.,,;j..,r

• g'.'.

~

i..,*-:. ;.s...

7. ;. ;,... ,'s.. *,.; ; ' ".. Cite as 27 NRC 417 (1988) LBP-8810

s. e.

.s s .,-....y v..,: 'i. <,,..< . e ' : i. ? . ;,..i:"' q, e f. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d,g4..,,c,gV.,.... ;, s % E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .g. a.~ k.. . ~. e.c - ~..,... s.. , w,..n.. m .v..,,,..,;.. -.. ~ y m. ...s. : ..-,e,, /. g,.q J 3,..,*. J y f.4. g ?.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL A, esq..i.J *. - ;..;. : %,,. s,,. " *.,.. ..,,..or ..,yp-s ,. l- 's. ; -.t.. : '.., }'~ <, *, :.. 1. ; 3v

6. s,r,. 5. Qr-e...

> j g...% '..j4;,+. ',k Before Administrouve Judge:

i.,;..

m ge n,.,.,. ..'g..,. g.; n... ".. i.,.,. " ' N,'. Charles Bechhoefer = ?. w9 - y l ..o ....s a f.e. rp.,.M6..,. y .?. In the Matter of Docket No. 55 60755 ..e, , y.e (;., -, .c (ASL8P No. 87 55102.SP) y-6 g..., y..g.,....,, , ~,. .. l..<',, , ;,,'ly:.a. ', f, %.,.... n ALFRED J. MORABITO , ?.,iJ 3 9',.*-[f', (Senior Operator License for 2* , '~,, $' g '5.,e Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1) April 20,1984 .,..",,. j g. v..

- ; y, fr..u ~

.L ., ~... '.,. .,..., ;, -. p..,,.3,. }.. -. ..n..~ - D ' *, ".: In an informal proceeding involving an Applicant's appeal from the Staff's 4cl . 7,. ',',. t. i !., denial of a senior reactor operator license, the Presiding Officer holds that the c., j Ny. l,".* #.Js Applicant passed both the written and simulator portions of his examination and, ., J',:,. - p,7,Q,. accordingly, is entitled to the license he has been seeking. ~ ; -l : .s;t..,c, m.,q- ...a- , U. ' '- . f SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE: CRITERIA , 7.,.. p 3 ',(. *s +.. f: N ~ ' ,, l.. In order to ob:aln a senict reactor operator lictase for a reactor, an applicant - "~ . ~. " - ,J'.." must, later alla, pass both a written examination and an operating test which X,s [ c';;;, 'c., ?f includes, where feasible, a simulated operating test. ,,f ,.,..r . ~. N, *,[,; ' $." , M ~ 2 RULES OF PRACTICE: OPERATOR LICENSE PROCEEDINGS

.7

' G.. ',o.4,... 9.' *

*J A senior reactor operator license proceeding is governed by the regulations

.,f f ,, (![. c. ' g., Y y, ',,,. '. l '.,a.*' ; o., - and reguNery guidelines in effect on the date(s) the examination was adminis-tered. ..j T '. *q ..,s'. i

• l

,a *"4 .' ks.

• \\ s

+ e 9 p, d 'g 417 y o ~

• I I

p 1 ( e ,a B N t , y A 4 . sh / e 4 g. 9 8 . %g3

Yf.A.$:,Q,me.o.;j'S,dd' W.%e'.'JQ,.. >.y: M .jAV y..c, .A. ? f, ,:. J ;A.1'p M;W:- r.%. G w9. %..:,.v, ; M '..,a.,i Yi. ' A.'e.. .. L.,g , M.,N e,...!;j # " ?p )., ? .;rt kwye ..+. T.,6P ! M n. & v. h ',. f{, kh m k W).,.k h.Q.f p$? $p$ W.

A.N? D h W,e?

u:s b NWD$m'NS'N..e u:.W . A. :' e nn. .se W.N' c MY en 3 9 M M %i hh]I N .A . r+.e.tk 9 e w w j n,M.. w' m. T -i;.. .y8

• r.h *u:mp 3. s. wa.q.;p..# y' mycq

. M p;- Wd. !;*.n* i = M,m ..,.c.. . q'. v,%m .?.w.O.'m:% '.C.,% % ?.*g@>,*E.N '.

p.M[f #%S.

f. d

.< 8 SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE: SCOPE OF N .u..u n. >.n.;:sg%:m Y r ven .9 wg m.; 6.m,..,,..g p,w;...;4:w:%v, PROCEEDING ,f 4 i @ k",.p., i. 2.,. > SthM,,Lp,. g.fQ.. -,s(' The scope and content of a simulator examinadon depend upon the type of .s - se %. m. w.s.$,M:$ M Ml:d. % N@J.;d '/MMMfM license sought. For an "instant SRO" license (where the applicant is not already .$ *C S SD l.7.W,A.Q.43&R a licensed reactor operator), a candidate must demonstrale that he or she meets Mf the requirements for both reactor operator and senior reactor operator positions. w &.m. sin...z e. y., ;m.. .o .~. w. +. y. W*s&s Vg,Wh M i E. Wl... % 3 k,'

d.6eq@.%@.M;slX i

> Jr-w NWLATOR EXAMINATION: GRADING STANDARDS s h,p 3 J,.a. ys.a k3 M Mb.NM The stardards governing simulator examinadons require that. for an exam. f S*Q.N.U*j@.# W*.%.ic'4.T

Q., h' 7p W iner's comment leading to an unsatisfactory rating, the evaluation t,e supported 9 ?'? ^ TMf?'?

by detailed notes explaining what action was unsatisfactory and why. A com. "./Q..%p ';,k.w.

• g,y4 *.{t; '.M., %.N. [. ment that falls to satisfy those standards is legally defective and must be deleted.

R w :u, -. u . t ;...':xfpr. K.m.%,a.)y.\\. e a. ,s.. A p **- 4 a

• Q...

.c,J.,..f.,h@.;%',1.)t.<fD.,.\\:J. Q> TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED p v..w.;~w?*? o P.1: J g :. A.. a.. s%." wep - . y<:.9,. a 2v4 Senior reactor operator license examinadon. , M. 4.., e, <. f.v..e. t. ;,. n - a.m,w.ye~q. a..M.u,f %. ,v w . w;, .-. +... w 3 ..s u. q...w.

.

.n. y'gjy.s. L. y'l.c g;,. co' t.

a .y'p., f .# 6. APPEARANCES j W%.s, y..p:c .p x :,. N Alfred J. Morabito, New Brighton. Pennsylvania, pro se, Applicant.

h.Q,. p.'p.

.:e,.,. m? w. n i b3 mc..f. a i$I -@., s[%. 3 m s y /h :$ %,,Yf.).if.h,@M,....y@2 (*.lk..iD . v. s u I Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq., and Benjamin II. Vogler, Esq., Bethesda. .. g, iW J,p$,W -? %.. ;$'. jd Maryland, and Jay Gutierrez, Esq., King of Prussia. Pennsylvania, fc/ 6 ' N O. ~,1,3l. the Nuclear Regu!atcry Commission Staff, ~. ,.. ~.,s.,. r. e..;; m. W. 9,. m. 4, t u.: Sr. .,,y w, ; p,.'*: *k. o".M,5 )i, h i'" .+,7.,, y V i.\\.

• W N

? y-

N.;m7..sv.,sa

.. ",,.M b'y<.{,@i.W.'s Tyf"p&>,. t; y ,t TABLE OF CONTENTS . w,h.,f;;.h:).[..: ,hh?,g .g.c- .gn > m 1.q.. I. ,S, PROCEDURAL BACXOROUND......................... 420 .jh P[..y.: f:b'? Q*l ;,'f g#l O, < l

11. OPINION............................................ 4 23

....f' x Q f v g, P A. Written Examinadoti ................................423 ,,.[;/.4*'?.Q /,i.,. WN };.[. " " B. Simulator Exarninadon ..............................423 ~ i MI. 't

M G :

1. ComplianceNsc of Procedures.................... 425 %,.* ' gg.. A".Q.M :..".,Vw;%g( .C..,,.s. ' ' ' f. a. Examiner's Comment 1....................... 425 ,.$.4,. .) b. Examiner's Com ment 2....................... 428

j g. A '.G.;,.:M. : q 4* f,y;,.3,'o

.,,,,(. -

c. Examiner's Comment 4....................... 429 4 *'.;' f ji j,,g[n 2,C s..y *: n.*,, w:,,., g<.

.. ~ ./, d. Conclusion as h CompliancWse of Proce6:ru .;[,.;.[ Competency................................ 4 30 .,...' ; em.. ;, *- s .. s... i 'ti 3,. ,4 ' *,l ', ' '..s'. .,0 1 ' a,. ' g ', 5 .,,.d., . s..., !.. *,. 413 .,3*'. ,t o 4 2 b

• 1 h

.u: .,s ,,.q' 'l.% lt a. . '.p. r e 6. =.. - '., N ',,. g.. j g 3 F 9*.. s e ~. g. ~...,.,.,,,y. ~.... + -. -

• 6 - f'

. g 6

• 4,

,.. s ls o..

• 5+3 + *.

.. jm q .o e u. .s ..,.V. 's - x. * .y .,,. '._ :, > > c., ,4..n. '. ' .s, '. . y y r t. .: ~ ep.. a. y. : n.? - s .s 6 7., ?, J, n.q p. 3...,.? O ^ ~ .'r. ... :, [.a. u:..c: +k ., j ;,, h ' N 4 I 4v v$ 8 . :. v. ~.;.. .*.,%,.-, c. q ' :. - ~.. .j 't .o ,. v 's -." ..g,. ....(., .s 8' g .*t

• Y,,.

g'.- l ' g, \\,.l. ' o : h,, s, c r. ',f V s q. '. .s .e y 4 a t~

.y -gy.,.. v, v.c ~ 't r-. ,..gg.).e..g .., e,, ?..p C*a. s,?. n.. 3.-. "..r s......, c, ;. : +.b y n w~. v. r..-~, T. ,r ;y.',.. y e<*. b y. .,a,~. xuv* ,. s :n.-7.l ;.... y *. <.m!- ..h. .n,.,s. y !. ?, a,'y. qp'r.,,..! q i:.~,,y s. 7.'. 9 ;Q,..i.? L ;..,. y*, r . ?. = w y . i: y. Y 'y; <,w .f..A.c _.'1., v<. ,;.. c : .c ' ..y;' y, mf egr- ...,.s.. 7.. <p,a s.; < q,.e r ..y.

• ...a.,r.. % *.,>! %* p> %..

s, ....,f.A. . w. A.r

• s

' ~ ~- i**

• ^$

.$;.? J.. L .C.,wu.tVa.i. m.W. .., :... s,(s.. 7 I , " ; J e. E",'f*e (; c.,.3... w(, f l.,.. /*.,, N,,.:fc. .-. g., - x e ,3...s . u ., ( '8g*,,., l y c #4.- a.p';.g(,,.,,. ; .m,. .n , s (, % q I i= c,. .;'3 . ',.4. 1..'e ' 3.. ;.i..d[.. V 7 * ;:(y..,...r.. ;,. f,.. 7.so y { e i

• ] y ';. ". h*'

2. Control Board Operadons........................ 430 .', / ?

• 1 Nhffi a.

Examiner's Comment 1....................... 430 ,j.3/ 'f[.N g'*f;'[:7'.Q[, b. Examiner's Comment 2....................... 432 g .,? N9j. Q/ Wr. pjt

c. Examiner's Comment 3....................... 433 P,:).j.i'.I; d O g....); %. :. M'@ {

d. Examiner's Comment 4....................... 434 . mA. j. ;/. o. p...c.9.. <,, m.,M.m m e.g:.,. u... e ~ Compesency................................ 436 f;x u e. Conclusion as to Consol Bosed Operations n 7 %,f,Q' f; s.4,p. J,Q[,l[;. ' M:J *6?'jJ$7 .9ff!.'h 3. Supervisory Ability .............................437 .QO: a. Examiner's Comment 1....................... 437 , -p.,l </.S b, (.j'jp, f}j.j,g.j;T b. Examiner's Comment 2....................... 439 ',,,* F [. ,c c. Conclusion as to Supervisory Ability Competency. 441 ,' y 7,y /. N.,* y. ;, k 4. CommunicadonsRrew interactions................. 441 j 3. ' . *,,.f.:: N/ < + 't ' - a. Examiner's Comment I....................... 441 fr-c b. Examiner's Comment 2....................... 444

• r 1.p'.,93,,.p ;,g._./

3 t y,..

c. Examiner's Comment 3....................... 446 3

y.g,. 3 7. y -l.W.ld d. Conclusion as to Communications / Crew Interactions . 7,s 1;b , ',J '[J.';M Competency................................ 447 .g.f f ". ' M ?.i C. Conclusions....................................... 447 i , Q.,., y;f. w ;. c. IIL ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS......................... 448 ',,.< /.. .. y n t ) c-1, %... * /. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.............................. 450 Q ' f.. %...(..b.+..:.l. : Y s V. ORDER.............................................. 4 50

. ;,. m

..... e ,,.s ?' e .m.

• ?<

.. %..'. S ,,i... ' N l.(, APPENDIX A: List of Exhibits (not published) a ..s I i ^ ->e APPENDIX B: 'llranscript Corrections (not published) ...t.. 'a. ' lx.., ' ( h 7 i, DECISION t. c.0, , S.,w..7 7. '.t e + J.~7...f J ': 7 This proceeding involves the appeal of P. Alfred L Morabito (Applicant) ..,3 , e., from the denial by the NRC Staff (Staff) of his applicatiore for a senior reactor , ' /,., '. g e,, .T.*. operator (SRO) license for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. The Staff ' i 1., J ~'..,tj, denied Mr. Morabito's requested license on the ground that he had failed to ,

• f( / ;, r Q*,

4 v f /q pass both the written and simulator examinadons that had been administered to i. ' ';, ). /.*r.' him. During the proceeding, fouowing its reevaluadon of certain answers, the 9 ;. fe'ld Staff conceded that Mr. Morabito had obtained suf6clent polnss to have passed i . ' (

• f,. g.. g, - '-

i s

']

the written examination. Following an oral presentation held on February 22, l'i '. ':

• J~

1988, and taking into account all the evidence of record, I now conclude, for the reasons set forth below, that Mr. Morabito has also passed his simulata .f ' ~ 1 examination and, accordingly, should be issued a senior reactor operator license. 84 419 / \\ 4 i , t, .s'.. ' 1, e e. .a 'l s

g

-=----e-" - - - - ~-- ~ ' ' ~

W%$.l

:4.Ny% c,G :.a 4 7,.

. 4.k::. MQ W.&; %QWL m@&~g%.q.%lW$mwm,yMQ:r::Kd,.@(M;.g +FM.. v :;mn.t. @: : hh*g:dMm.MwG .a.- m G bd d6 DIGWk N 4 . n,nwp 2 1 g +t @g.,.,. M.E. 5 *nD 34 c ... s,.:.4;.wre,fqx,y,,.4.n,. 2., .n. .+o,.... .2 2.w.n:;,.n..,: e,. x ;n.p.;. m.<u:m. ;.. .x ..s it'. iei.' e.. ),: I':., ; -.s 7 v 5' i ."" 4%j / w' ?y,l.s t. ' 31 @a.v4 % 7,M.~ @ts. g A,r,n ,..i.i.w..s,m' -) ' '... y v' mt s ) _i. % N w,.,:..u.g.., s...p. _~;p. y, q L PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ~&: ,.,o .e..<.. .o " g M.,.,, j%,rd.g;>M'$ Q.y. ?.m%',$7'r s;fn 37 ' jchQN.$. '. t. In order to obtain a senior reactor operator license for a reactor, en applicant J must, inter ano, pa.ts both a written examinadon and an opa. rating test which ' p.. W.M'h..[ includes, where feasible, a simulated operating test.8 Mr. MwabP.0, the Manager U.NW. d+;'.W :.N.N 33b&.2*3 % of the Nuclear 'IYalning Department at the Beaver Valley facility and a candidate M/b$'u -gN'M et W for an SRO license, took these examinations on July 22 and 23,1986. By letter M'Mkd.NNhh[QE,j' ')ff dated August 27,1986, he was informed by Region I of the Nuclear Regutnrnry v,,4.g.E 3 Ns Comrnission that he had passed the operating test but had failed to pass both the G

• M. ?,,*.

6':. % @+ %'. Q W.;M.t.h,.. 'g. ,,.A for an SRO license was denied. He was also infamed that he could request a f .f,,9. 4, te, Q r, ; written examination c.nd the simulator test; and, accordingly, that his application eV s.C W",[,M QPC'e 'tz,-./., hearir:g with respect to those responses to examination quesdons that he claims g,..p1,.p.? o Y;*N{s.3,,N. ;.. wm graded incorrectly or too severely.8 ,:.p..* 'N. J.;. '.T On September 11,1986, Mr. Morabito filed with Region I his request for a H. f{D [ci.' d "; %;',i ' '.5 ,f' 7,. ? headng, setting fonh the questions that he claimed were graded incorrectly or

t. y.3,

'S. h~ . S'QY,.,,, f. ' 12, 1986, Region I informed Mr. Morabito that it had performed a complete i too severely, together with the bases for his claims.8 By letter dated November 2 f.M,26 %lc ; M

• W*f j W **,;

m.'- independent regrade of the written examination, had reviewed the simulator

• t.is

';w.T.'::l% *;C s ~-{.M]. $;d i ]/ claims, and had determined that there was no adequate basis for reversing nu .f.'T,$ e, original de:ermination. Region I further advised Mr. Morabito that he could U, 2.,y' d'.hhM,.Nd E'll*1:,'- continue to pursue his request for a heanng to the NRC Division of Human L . M O N '- Factors Technology in Washington, D.C.* '@y),.Q.~.,i%',-M!{Q's.> I. By letter dated December 1,1986 Mr. Morabito advised the Director, J,; j A,.} . A,... n. w.. y. '.4 2 3 f,.'q n,.s.C.->y n '.Y:. Divis'on of Human Pactors Technology, that he wishai to continue to pursue a .a e i < ;_. hearing on the license denial. He forwarded the details of his claims by letter

$ yf > g<<7 3 r /'y '

c!! dated December 16,1986.s Ihe Division of Human Facters Technology, by letter y ((.y i ' [. h ',.:l f 7.. i. dated February 2,1987, rejected Mr. Morabito's appeal with respect to bcth the ...>.,,y . * %,., e., .e-

• , o*,.

% 9 ; U' *

• ~*

_\\). p.

• .#er J j 7 57, *, * '

.O fN *a .g '",,P. .,....,Et.j.p ; n,,,,,, r ,,I t,. a 2:.-, - *;I s '; n ';,.., '..:-* :,,,. 9,x.. s */ .v...( \\ 'y. s. _ u p I ,,y.47 ', " P*2.g',.,';. "I'.;, /. . g. 10 C.PA i $5 ll(b)(1987). N re@ders we revised e6scove May 26,19r7 (52 Foi Reg. 9453 (Mar.15, . N), T y!, i,.1. ; a. 1997)). and sura'ar eaarnmeturi reparamesa enest in the run, resdanes a 10 c.PA 56 35.43 and 35.4s. The

3. '.

l proceedes is smrned by the regdancru and sagstawy gudebnes in esses cm the dates the naramatm was ,t, nhenrusarei d ^ ' ? 8 Larr fara Harry B. Kir ar. Chef. Pseiness BrinA No.1. Divuwm cs Amecter Projects, NRC, Rega I, ne o y~. ,s .c ,, e ,e 7 Mr. Aland J. Wrnbue, dated Assuet 27,1966. 8 ',,, X r,,,, ' c. ' WesNo Ea)L 1, anaeed E.aMs s. A Last d EaMn:s is oss fanh to Anundia A (nos p&ahas4 J %; '..., j

• Writmo Eth.1. seased EiMen L tJndar Mtc ria' delves, e cand4ts arus reas sed d sewrij esctme

, ' '.3 2,, ;a, 4,. , + d the wnnan narranance wuh a grade el at lema 704 and the eununsuee as a who&s wuh a grade d at least i,.,, ' , y *,,' W ,y 50% Mr. Mnse had ensmany paaned a3 secome er the wnnan saarvunas.no usep fm 16, cm whd he had '. ' (/ been graded $934 He bed been graded 82.2% en the saare as a whnna On regrada, Ragxsi l inesenad the .t. .. p **, #, > " s ?,, grade an 6 6 to 67.6%, ahhash m dreng se is bc4h adtad and sWacaed pama. on eher escome, Mr. Writnae 's, 3 .,'(. eren.rned topese end sasm, ahheuth as me cases wun a lower ocm thaa esitaar. it.s mrau scose dochnad t l ', ,./ s..],', * .,. * ', - ',- a to 806% suu suf5aars fe e psastrig gr34a6 Id. Anach.1. on the turnalawr saarn, Esgum I surnowed cme edwese ( ,,,,wners tu ermsaed to bcad thes Mr. WreNo had fanat /4, Ar. aces 2. 3I 8 ,'.'2 Wriboo Es2L 1. anached EaMas P. .r.. n. + ..;. i o 4 ',v v. e ?.' 420 8 a '( 'D a 4 i 4 l l* b 8 ( '.I e i H [ 1 l% 4 A (- ) t '4 '4 4. s

s l

6 r e __q. ?- 1

• .e' s,

1 e i s *.J' 'e. g, s 1 s g I-l u gC

'.., 'g.v w* . ~., 'pa.e 'O.

x... g 29.n. 3. Wj,.,:.W 3

'. g' s i." , r. ;; 9 - 9 ,.y. .y..:,, ..x '.. cy ) v. .com .,y s y y.n, ,.,,. z.. ..s e. c ws m A a,. '.v a.. 31 ~i. ~ ~,r. x s " i.;. wrinen and simularnr examinations,' and it forwarded the appeal to the Of6ce .n ,./.?.,,.. ,.1, i of the General Counsel for continuation of the hearing process.' .. ' C *[.,. ;,.,.. '-.' ,, " Sl After several telephone and written communiemlinns between Mr. Morabito c s ?.4,- .S and the Office of the General Counsel, the Die of the proceedmg was forwarded , v..;'$[. ;,.f..,,. ',* : . l.l/. to the Commission which, by Order dated July 1,1987 (unpublished), granted ,l..' j

e....-/ ;

. /. *. : Mr. Morabito's request for a hearing. The Commission ruled that informal 3 g. <.,... '..,.. a.. y:.* ; ; hearing procedures were to be used, that the hearing was to be conducted J.T'gi * ' *. q, '.. f.'".*W'd by a single Presiding Of6cer, and that the Presiding Of6cer mJght make i U.... a M/ 1 ',E '. 5 use of proposed hearing procedures that NRC had published for comment e" ' ( "' # * ,,,;. j approximately I month earlier.8 On July 2,1987, the undersigned was designated as Presiding Of6cer.' ' "~ r. By Memorandum and Order dated July 15,1987 (unpublished), I ruled that J.',

• s

' ',1 the proposed regulations cited by the Commission would be used for guidance ',fN f.. / in this proceeding e.nd that, in accordance with the provisions of proposed . ~.2..,:., 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1231, certain specl6ed documents would initially constitute the L.,. M,j'? ]{..J.j hearing ale. I also invited Mr. Morabito to submit a SpecificatJon of Claims, to .*] de6ne the maners as to which he wished to challenge the Staff's conclusions, ..~; and provided for a Staff response, Wrther, I issued a Nrxice of Hearing for the ..9. proceeding.l' On July 31, 1987, Mr. Morabito submitted his Speci6 cation of Y Claims.n The Staff 6 led its response on October 9,1987.n 's 1;f Mr. Morabito requested, and was granted, an opportunity to respond to the Staff. He 61cd his response on November 7,1987.u The Staff also requested ^ <',g.; an opportunity to respond to Mr. Morabito's response or rebuttal, and by ,cc a A 1. t ', T. Memorandum and Order dated November 24,1987, LBP.87 31,26 NRC 436, 9 I granted that request. I also posed numerous questions to both parties, set forth t. 4 a schedule for answering those questions, and directed that an oral presentation s e- 'l.. 6 a. 8 Laser fram wuhan T. Rusen't. Directs. Divism of Hannen tscios Todmology. MtR to Mr. Mornbue. Mut 's inaensed Mr. Marabao's grade en l6 of the wnnan saanUnsoce frun 67.6% to 68.1%. su21 shat of a pamrig grida. N* 7 Maratnso E.A 1. eaaded Ealntat Q. I f.] Prep ed to C.F.R. Il2.1201412C s2 Fed. pas 20. Cat (May 29. ttt?% 8 's2 Fed. Ras 26.106 Qely 10. Itr71 Hs2 Fed Ame. 27.44s Ouly 21,1987% ,'W "hinas EaA 1. hi Judine seeded Eajahiia A.Z sad AA BB. on sepaneer 10.1967. Mr. h4ae Sled .o e edded is.eme.d Eshes J. As a meh er to nessamt om,pusy of ennaa d de unme rosed by s Mr. Mushens, en October s.1987,I appessed.* O '- _ ; Aadge Dend t. Hanne, a msnbar of te Aunue ' ' ( ',' safey and Lumaung Beasd Penal, as a teshnasal besvegeese to seem me uses sistaa no isshrecalinacare inveiving a. ,e e. .c.-. * .l sRo besse easninsema. .. ~ 83siafr Enh. I, basisdans the emenhed af8deve of Masse. Dend M. stk and Beery s. Nana. ne staff art,ar

• 3 4M had ohnamed as saimunen er imme wahne weesh ne fue he sesemus."

- ~ ; and Order deied Augast 19, 9 - g 4 1947 (impublashoo. to ais rispaan, the sanft==d--n-d ihas me pereen d me d Mr. Meekse's one.oro to a s,

• wnsen araesume woudt had poenmely been gredad es incorrect had na fact been daarumand by se staff to be I

.,1J-eavert he staff husensed Mr. bettie's grade as l 6 d the entas samuunavn fnse 64.1% to $4.24, suu e eher6 et e peanas grees d 704. s.nfr EaA I at 66 see acnes e and 6. ace. D Masebne EaA 2. = ,t;

• 4.'

i 421 8 4 6 \\ g h i i. e*

.n..,a x ...y. ... n s a 9%n,' i -l. ....L... . ;tw h,y.- M -:t3 ... ' Q, b 5... '

. W 5. ' &NW x M &y4 c..,.~;4. y :;r;p b h 'a s a: b. ; 5

.: c .pp swP. p G ;u6 w;; u.. q,. ..:4;; .X. :' o r s ..J:r...n % fh,i.;. i ' ',. 4> .;- n.g y pmX.:..e. :h,pn's u.9m s .. n hl' h i.e n y 2,. 7p." N

1. Ob bb N :,

' q< p.c 4;4:;.e. q * ; o m.,,.. M c. A,.-... -

9. 4;..

? .e -,....., yy~ M rJ $ W/4 W;. m.r. r./ s. .e

':w N@.. ], Q M..i.$ H.M i a e 'M

?JY. :;p g '. W,.: ~J '. i nn .,. e 3 .'Q Wi$p N.[y '."'; be scheduled. De Staff responded to Mr. Morabito's rebuttal on December 21, Z @ N.' N h,3'7[f f f~@T.' " 1987,2' and both parties responded to my questions by January 31,1988.u M M' M' fl. $[.p' h ( 'lf *2'a*jy - /C' ,.fU -. On Fetruary 17, 1988, the Staff 61cd the af6 davit of Mr. Deodore L. Szy-N'7-i.y 22.'? g.: manski, Regional Support and Oversight Section Chief in the Operator Licens. c.; N,hk'S+i34 C.i,$.* d.: ;,W,. y,. g. ing Branch, Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR, '7('d IIcadquarters of6ce.15 nat af6 davit took the pcsition that Mr. Morabito had AM N been incorrectly graded on one question of the written examination and that he [f!h N N. %g ]y[,,.'h;. %

• q[.

f.'.* # - [5; was entitled to an additional 0.5 points. Although not specifically stated in the 5.q%.N[Mff. h Ad?/,9,'N. passing grade on the written examinadon." $. 5 %j *

• Q*?C *.[;4-

'?. ~Y. affidavit, the additional points were sufficient to provide Mr. Morabito with a O,

• T-E ne oral presentadon was held on February 22,1988, in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl.

1. 'D 7.. f." i f?

. '.. f,c. f G 4 " - b %K( g'.y;..... vania (about 25 miles from the fxility and from Mr. Morabito's residence). Most ~ l,,; l( '/ ' [ "f,.7 of the record was developed through the direct testimony (several of the trior i g

, %- r, M

61ings of the parties) and through questions posed to the parties by myself or n[ ?.- p.,% . i, the designated technical interrogator, Dr. David Hetrick. I permitted each of 4 '- [.. i',.. }, gr,.; the parties to ask a few questions (screened by me) to the other party. Wit. 7,; * ~ p. *,.., -. 7 nesses presented by the parties to respond to quesdons were Mr. Morabito and % (' i g 3/.,*.$...;.. ' '.,../ \\ v * *'. ;.. ' e * '* Mr. Lawrence G. Schad (for Mr. Morabito) and Messrs. David M. Silk, Barry M f

l.. i *. f. '..S. 1 S. Nctris, and Theodore L. Szymanski (for the Staff). Mr. Schad is the Simulator 4.@;:,b *,' l [

N'E.,*,,.t. 5 Coordmator at the Beaver Valley facility. He participated in Mr. Morabito's sim. t . /.)'.*Q.-e '..;4.,1 %. < ;.',. f ' w.. .. ;...?

• ulator examinadon by assuming the role of SRO while Mr. Morabito was being

, y 7 c. 4.. ', Q tested as a Rextor Operator; he also was present in the observation booth during r;1 4 - Q : ", 2 j : i a,*f. 1 Na the period when Mr. Morabito was acting as an SRO.28 Mr. Silk was tne NRC . :/. t.. examiner who prepared, administered, and graded the written examination and ~, ' + administered the simulator examination for Mr. Morabito. Mr. Norris was the 7 ";,,p.,'-?[. f' cenified NRC examiner who observed Mr. Silk's administration of the simulator ~ - u.. ~. a. s ..,Dl. ', ~ ~ examination as well as conducting cenain reviews of the written examination." ,, ' a. (r' Mr. Szymanski, who is identified above, participated in the Headquarters review W ,' f b '.:. > ', ' ' .. ~ q,. the opportunity to file proposed findings of fxt and conclusions of law.u 7.5 : of Mr. Morabito's examinadon.2 At the oral presentation, both parties walved r ,Q .- a 3 - u.. g. g vr ~. .';. V,,

n. ~

.' [ ' G.*,. 3 y -l .a *n t *, '?. H stat EaA 2. meludes ernders d Misers. se and Noms. "Mcrohito EA 't Qariuary 2s. litr); suff Enh. s Carmary 29.1981), scimLag ar$devu of Messrs. s y Noms. Hsurt EA 4 to.,:, 'j '.~,, y **.'. "5p my calcWatore. =tuch w,ve later ccmarmed by the s ff. Mr. Wrs'aio rWd ordy be ereWad t* f

5...,,

s *,, W mal 0.2s para, but that would be naciars to see hun a gnos d 70M en l e et the wnnan saarrenaam. e pasms $7ses.*.se escae 22. spa

• J$

2 Tr.17. 92 (sdiad). AD tranaengt references in das Deciswa refer to the triremg4 et the oral posessaan he

• .,4.

%,.' f. en Febevery 22.1988. A hatma et wereene er==ome is esaeed harine na Arpruta B (nra psahan. 4, - 9 '

• y,g J,.

. *j g,,% gg 3, % gm 4 'O ' H Suff EA 1. ana*ed arnderd. H 1. 2. f M a

• 'g%..',t,

" j 31 Tr. 2ss s?. ,4 ..p 8 q, p 't,

• j m; _.

)..." 1 . e '~ 422 6 e' 1 g

~

f, k 4 l s* a =, g g 'p 4 t .'.s

1. O

..? c, &..,, 7. , e^r~c .~ .s

r..

' z.. r. O . s, 'Q l;;'"] y,.,,pg ld W,. 6>. v ;. : n'6,o l' '. ~ e. ..,.tg.' .'L ' ^ ... ', :', y ' - y.y,Y

• l... C.G.'

s n, s.. s,. m. + o v, m. %c,,y ~,-..,. < ' m' < g..; .e y ,s.,

m..

,e .e..., , '. e..,. _,.. .L....-: ma,'.;,~- r s., < " ,......-.e . -. s. c. c-v," * 'y... .n ' < < - ~ ~ -~ ~~ -o. .,,y ~ .s. -c, 4f'.>4.,,,, 'l " % ".'.f., II. OPINION 1 v ".h ~ .h ...',.... : n..., A. Written Examination a .a.

• v.

' _ pf 'Q * 's - !,'. S ',,w 6 ".... '.l r';A., h...?[;9g '.,,' 1 As set forth above, the Staff filed an affidavit that indicated that Mr. Morabito ~ I ; ?. was entitled to extra points on the written examination. This determination, ,' ',* gy ? ' A' f i,f. ; which responded to a posidon that Mr. Morabito had takeri throughout his f, D J 7-p 7'y ~f f., .f, / % ":h appeal, raised Mr. Morabito's grade on 6 6 of the writren examination to 70.3%# l '..' {'.,.,*..f i. p,- *

• JM 'jd..]*%+ fe i;/.' % O As a result, with the agreement of the NRC Staff, I ruled at the oral presentadon

. '.,, ~ ' <. ' that Mr. Morabito had passed the written examination."

c........

.u .,. ~,.. .r. w u. ..;.?. ; '....(,'-..

i.. C '.i. /.. -. e-? s,. '

s .e B. Simulator Examlastloe h g.b.. *...... J j, ,i.l 'Ihe exarninadon adn'nistered to Mr. Morabito was governed by the Op-J " *, ;.17. j..'..i ;.1, '.,j. ' O [; s ' g *2l crator 1.icensing Examiner Standards set fort'l in NUREO 1021, Rev. 2 (April ... J i c A, y4 .;.",s.,, 1986), which were in effect on the dates of Mr, Morabito's examination.S' Under 3..- S' '.r.,' .. i. O,.. e ** ; those standards, the simulator examination is a portion of the operating exam. . 'i. Q,; , - - '. 11 inadon. Mr. Morabito passed all portions of the operating examination except j ,('., f ( ' j >H for the simulator examination. ,,f 3. I ' ', ', ' l ,. i. The scope and content of the simulatoe examination depends upon the type of license sought - for Mr. Morabito, an "instant SRO" license (i.e., a senior 'J reactor operator license where the applicant is not already a licensed reactor

• J.~.

~ $.., 'l f. -f operator), During a simulator examination, a candidate is tested by carrying p'.l 4 - c* ".f' ]i out the functions of a particula.t position during several hypothesized events or 6 scenarios. The scenanos are developed by the NRC Staff based on information from the licensee concerning the design of the plant and the capabilities of the simulator.u Instant SRO candidates such as Mr. Morabito must demonstrate m ,1 <3~ that they meet the requiremenu for both reactor operator and senior reactor l'*- 3 operator positions.28 For that reason, during various scenarios of the simulator s. The dispas butwenn the pee.ies concerned the meihod et gredag et quesuce 6.03b. winch ca:ed for ifree 'p

• 6-ensowe. The entre qwsst'a was westh 13 pressa. Mr. Wrebue prended far ensvers lentaDy, the stafr

,s 4" reeudad erJy ero of the armeen as oorrect and grve W Weebne credd for 0J piaras (ens enesce answer out 5 of stues). Lanar. w6e 6 deserwurned that ano6her ans ser was owrus, the statr detied to e meshed er pregaur.mel = ,,,".3 gradene and awarded Mr. Moonste 0.73 paras (two ena of four ennect). !a b Feivaary 17,1944 af5dern, the staff s-a*.. t sessed that, aWhangh ta maahod of properusal grading was in genrol preferable far sea!44e.uswar quarums, 2^ T. -.,* ' * 'j k was not aggregnau for the stan to have used is in the sia d the parocmast osarrunsocsi unde ,, l +* 2 review. Ahhangh the sca8 indaceted that Mr. Mesebine wedd be monded to 0.5 adaan-si pcarms. a recalculaman todiseans diet Mr. Mosebne psended two enriest esswers aus ef to three required and ohnuld be averdad 1.0 '? pouns Ier die genomen (as edenenal 0.25 pawast tl ems that spese, Mr. Meehuse hee sessived is.9 poires est et a psmehle 22.6 peues mi I 6, or 7a34 The star seress enh eus s nse (Tr. s 4). v{ '. e ..: - l H Tr. 6. la seashes des eendence, I empras en epunen en any of die substeserve quesome remad by ?, Mr. Merehnte wuh resrect to the vnman saanunsean oivan the emeesmen moon by the staff in he afsesvt E. ii*, (Stat! Enh. 4), these other spaseness have tesene meet 2' sane of these state'esde hs g edesqueely been modt8ed. see MlREo.1021. Rev. 4 (May 1987). ~3 d,* ~.

1. surf EaA 1. asedvd atSesvu. i ss.

~ 24 M!REo 10:1 (Rev. 2), i F s.302.11 a, DJ. 8 I a ~' r 423 e9 4 I 9 'g. e a v. \\ h \\ 4 i a q 1 i. S' e 4 ~ f y 4

....A/ ,n,s v.c,. ~ 4wm $N &,y? lWl'h* c.' .$;%.>hQ Q;..&> Yip'M^, N'.ulSl NNMNNNhM{NN& U,M.W&l. :?.. s ?.$j,'k N.Y b67[Nih. h k. d W h/ [ M bb, e..bb.S ? '.;j M Q.1 $ $ &. $ Q.A L. r,. 4.. a, r....n..y.,.... T.1, W.<l, M.,.< g p.e.-W.4. v,. %y,.w w. ' w. ~ g,m%m'*ve.n@.:.,q s-f . 1 P..' ..; y, p. y -M e .w .. n.e s. khc 'h

• =miwh Mr. Morabito acted either as a reactor operator or as a seniw

. g;.. ~..7,3 ope,as,. Du,in, mese scenarios, posidons ome, man mat occupied by me ^j;(, ",,+ g.' Q.;,,.;.'..T, g g v

• f,s

,1.Ie-c,G,'M candidate are carned out either by other candidates undergoing examination f p,9; ;$:,..; ' 'm Mf..M2 d or by %,w.;4ves drawn from the facility staff? y, t .g ?,.y.6.;<j During the simulator examinadon, Mr. Morabito was tested on three scenar. Tfb los: (1) a bcron dilution accident followed sequendally by a vacuum breaker /,'d r s W }H,$,f.*Q '.y. i

• N..j(.. >a:$p/

4...* leak, pressurizer reference signal failure, errade governor valve control, and H.~,"*.s"Q*.',M,Q.'.[**Cj..l.i .2d stadon blackout; (2) the B spray valve falls closed and the T ave (ternperature .'), .i average) input to steam dumps fails now followed sequendally by B loop FRV ' l];, 4; *, w

• p" *?.DJQ]

(feedwater reguladng valve) bypass fails open, loop 3 'Di (hot leg temperature) ,? ,~' 'l,g. ),* D."-4.-Z. fails high, turbine generator valves fait closed, PORY block valve fails open fcr ."y "";;*$..:;7 1.q'y.p]. 455D due to a breaker problem and Pzt (pressurizer) PORY 455D fails open; '.,(3 7, ;, y8;.g*j and (3) PRN! (power range nuclear instrument) (44) fails high followed sequen. ,.,.i ' 1,. ,5*T,,%*f.? ;.$*/4,.*Wp r tially by SKI (steam generator) tube leak (developing into a rupture), pzr level , Q Q,5 d falls high, FWP 1 A trip from 75% power, and "A" HIISI (high head safety

• 7,,," '.y'fj'y,Q,6*j'ih,*;

injecdon) pump fails to auto start on low pressure St." In the third scenario, f 1..Ngif .g.S.K^// Mr. Morabito functioned as a mactor operator; in the 6rst two, he functioned as t

5. J

. ' '( '.' c.-NM3;M W a senior operator. ~, f.. f.. *c 64..'- %.&//& In accordance with NUREO.1021 (Rev. 2), iES.302,11D.3 and D.8. the .h of, l'j'*UQM scenarios (couectively) are designed to test the candidate's pro 6ciency in eight i,' 4 ).1...f, i. " M,'.*.M@ d competencies, under condidons of normal evolutions, instrument failures, com- ,G W ponent failures, and major plant transienu. In the case of an instant SRO exam-

1. .. MWMT.;< q',;.i c.i i.

L.f,

• ination such as was administered to Mr. Morabito, the eight competencies are 2 (.,W 7 M,.gg' (1) Understanding / Interpretation of Annunciator / Alarm Signals; (2) Diagnosis 1,

W.f V.n;t'J,, ,'q's? ps $ y.s of Eventsfonditions Based on Signals / Readings; (3) Understanding of Instru. m 7.v.,"".:.gylf'f t;f ment / System Response; (4) Compliance /Use of Technical Speciacations; (5) .y ComplianceNse of Procedures; (6) Corurol Board Operation; (7) Supervisory v a y X - M.f'l W,.l,'f y g Ability; and (8) CommunicadonsErew Interaction? 6.7,#.df h.g With reapect to each competency, a candidate may receive a grade of 1 ,, :,, ( 7, f y.( satisfactory (S), marginal (M), or unsatisfactory (U)? Justi6 cation (in writing) N. L,;>,

q..s 3 is required fcr each M or U rating. One or more written commenu.by the f.

73 LY l"., if examiner may serve the purpose of such justi6cadon. A particular comment 3,- a r .Mi may in some circumstances be applicable to more than one competency. In j., t; .,." '";;; j the case of Mr. Morabito's exarnination, he was graded as satisfactory in the j '. 1 ,5. .,a Arst four of the above competencies and unsatisfactory in the last fc,ur of the ,. i .r, ; w...N g y; competencies. Under the guidelines, a grade of U in one competency may ..~ s.. v. o ,N, e e.. o' b yq* n f'.*(, e g ,..t i.*.'9,. C h )M.'1"s%. sdes Wed el$ Iled flysmeGeW94 (Aed $ 4M Dyrek ['v' e

• L'3 uff EaA 1, sensed ofR4 eve,1st ase aw Heinese Enh.1 es 4md tabbe J. AsarA s (senalaise

~ w.cl',M "s.w si.esa.i. d.ts4 1n. O .I s nnene p x N ,,,.'.g y ', '. ' *34i "WaBG1021 (ase. 2h its s02,1P.2. and S Es 303.1a. The mared wouma et WRIG1021 ne none . v y.s r,j: 4.;. y d ',

f..t ;

M 8'8 M*98*1 8"d* *"'e'rr 3*e WREG1021 (Rw. 4h ( Es@2.1 C. w, j'e.Dr.

• k',.;,f.\\

, j a, i s .i '.I ' I ', l' t. .y 7. -t ~.';j 1 s f}f .c =, j' p = g ( 1 l' \\ c, ;.;. .,,.m -v, - 5 e 6 I s p e g .;....n :t. ~s. v.* ' 8 b ir v*,. y ',f,.g,;._ _ gs..y ,)

u.,

n. -s m/..- ,,~ t .. n n. . N, y ', %,- ).i c' 'r , '.. \\. ,. r C ' ~ ^; ;,,y

c'.2

'.. _ }., f_ >.... '.c, ,. f. c. r . 0. -.,/.. } ?.* y' .g ....s>- .j .o. .w n.; .. - -, ~ au e .. r s' t ,J -S. 3 -c,,. s. ~.- . e -.2. f - 26 J (but need not) be considered an adequale basis for failure of the examinadon. ".'(' ; - f. tJ..' g M <**,...-.; ~, There must also be an assignment of an overall rating, "based on the specific ?' ',.. t. 4.. . n. ' '. 7 A;, ',-, . j.. j ' ; ', ' circumstances of candidate's performance during the examinadon."21 At the 5 ~ .. 1 c-time of Mr. Morabito's examinadon, this general rating was described by c,* y.;-, i. L ~ the Examiner Standards as "a professional, subjective judgment on whether a ,. g' *

• j{. '; * '. ; 3. ;,.,q.,*

'iw'. 'l candidate should pass or fail this segment of the examinadon."" e.,'...-+,',,q.?.. W, With these genemi principles in mind. I turn now to Mr. Marabitc's claims ( '.. t.'.' ". .. 4...,,. T 6 e. "..' , '. $ 4  ?- concerning the simulator examination. I will treat each of the competencies in ,.% p *,$,.g',' *e,. ~ [*f ". f l', ,l J which the candidate was rated as unsausfactory and, within those competencies, r.s. ', k..:~ M, E ). N.,,.f.' '...~. Y " 'Md will discuss each of the statements suppodng the unsadsfactory radng. w .g . a a,,; y... x t.,., _;,~, '. :- \\r ' 1. CompUnner/Un of Procedures .s '.'k. ; j,'L.(*,,,'.' '; y."'.'

s', ~ ' \\'

Mr. Morabito's unsatisfactory rating in this competency was initially based 3 l R" W.- ;.,. on four comments. During the initial review by Region I, the third comment ." c:- . ' '.,,, 4." /., was dehted.8) I shall review the first, second, and fourth comments uriatim. ... - e ....g., 3 . [:. $ 5 'I.,* * ' ~ ' ', g, g,amg,,,,, (nm,,,, y

• I The first comnaent reads as follows;34

'I. f. During arst scenario candideas dH ru consult any procedure when decreasing load to ched power rings iah responas for two power range indicesors that were lower than the other twa AOP.10 catis for the plant to be in Mode 3 [ba denb=3] if two poner rorce channels m asalfu,mioning ,Dw Elsewhere on the examination. the examiner set forth essentially the same ff,, comment with respect to the activity in question, as follows:ss r t'aaMasa did not consuh any peccedure when decreasing lost to ched Power Raise s Indicanor respcase for two PR indicatces that were readaig loner than the caher two. If candadmas ccasidered two PR indicanes inupasNe then plare should be in Mode 3 withlial .j 1 hoear as per AOP 10. 4 ~... 1.. a' .,# -+;;', in his appeal, Mr. Marabito took the position that he did not consider two ],.., * ;. d- 'e power range (PR) instrumenu to be inoperable; he considered two instruments ..1 to be reading differendy frorn the other two but dM not know why. He directed . h, ; ;. <

*.;, '.,v.p,.,

a 10% power reduction to determine if all instruments responded to a power , -i. g 38 ' ~,... E'Rao 1021 Gter. 2). l Es.502.1FJ; Tr. lk20 CNormi 4 i, , 'm,

I Weeb.no EaA 1. eseeed EnMas L. AsaA 2 a 1; 44, steded Enhba 1, i1s 20211. Asea IM.1s.

33g.Rao.102I (Rev. 2), insos,1 s. II 8'Wesebee EaA 1. osaned Eames J. I Es-20211. AsaA 1M.11. 88

• • N

=, Mosebee EaA 1. osaded F.we J. I Es-305, as A 1 s1A ("OrfnsymaVAhnermal Pruedwee"). \\> J 9 8 0 I ,' t t s t e e

.a. c . $' M t &, y d,. W. s. u~. @H..%}d$y$,e &f Wl.p. L : s M@;i;~ %@? T.?!4.;.php$d;:.h.c.? h.k.%?? %..,:MM ~. q MMS .i.D. M.4:h! f Q,L*; y %.., c m..~,, 3 8 ~ M % 2 .c%- m ..V.6A:*p,;m^ s,G h&,,m.jsq ;o;,g,k.Q. 4 43 r. 2;*,.;;*g t. -Q. .~Q, A 47.... s b'4.7l$f Q.ki%.g..$. Mh: change and, in addition, to commence reducing power to achieve Mo'de 3 ^ h p N N h. M h

• M' M hY, f y - M D P 9. %, ' *M N E.**S 4 conditions if it turned out that the PR instrumenu were not responding to the h.h..

power change. After a 5% decrease, he observed that all detector outputs were M N.f.74l1 Q*'[j % p ',y, Q W,'"?,ky;*;.. O,f d jg;'.,;; e,7+'1j responding appropriately and he stopped the power decrease at that time. j He claims that no procedure is required for a power reduction of up to

76W.%'.M'; f-q J

'.N;"i 10%. Indeed, he claims that, prior to invoking procedure AOP 10, he would

'M, g .O,5f$[. M A'8N*?. h g.$ have to inform the crew that two PR channels were inoperable and also which

s. Q n ~t.@@,.,@D YS b',.8.,,5 g,'$.i'.*M* g p b. @ 1.*Y instruments were defective. He explains that he ordered the small reactivity T.N O.D.*ff change in order to determine whether this was in fact the case. He draws a e /g:

distinction between checking the "precision" of instruments (agreement with e.g.. f n y-[e g...MM&e;. each other) and the calibradon (accuracy of indication) of the instruments; he .,'6 '. N@, e f.N his action malatained temperature and power !cvels within speciScadons, and ', 5.s; M,',; y 'v, Q, @ M. g*,'i+.ypp.qc*.c,'W. ': 'll-7.H,}% maintains that no procedure, covers the first of these activities. He also claims that ah s, ,5 that eventually the reason for the PR instrument readings (an undetected boron p.e r M/g * 'C dilution) would have been discovered. (Mr. Morabito learned of the undetected y f/.. '. y. m. v.,'fqV... ?f :'.'V,$7 *M.... s_ i. Wry % 3, & M p dilution only after a post examination discussion with the examiners.)" Q. s74.J.. Q, W. At the oral gesentadon, Mr. Morabito introduced for the Srst time a new Q @.M Ef,h@M M, N Q (I ;/.s.% d.h',M M.;.- ?$Q.?f; reason for his having reduced power in the reactor. He stated that "we were M ,y 'Q,?.*7 approaching the temperature limit... temperature was near lu top limit, and t d b.y.k ..t..M..- M f some aedon had to be taken."" M 't.V.h p[" Y'0 M N,h.?$.74 Itr its part, the Staff agrees that certain minor power reductions m.sy be ch authorized without resort to a formal procedure. It also acknowledges that, in Q, M' $lO.8.$p,M O,$.c$ : P .3?g d'd.pp: an einergency, the formal procedures would be supplanted by the emergency M$. -Q W pry >^ operating procedures (EOP) which must be memcrized by operators and which 7 6 ;?./ MI !l E d N.6,' M. h : g do not require producing the formal procedure, as is otherwise required." But it N, ,fs . t.i ~. ' 2 M'g...[ N;. ;.V < y, f.:r : maintains that, in the circumstances, no power reduction wss permissible without .E JJ ! ' j.gyg.. WW. l.T$p:g using a formal procedure. The Staff would not have insisted that procedure AOP. .p J.,. 10 be udllzed. If Mr. Morabito wished to invesugate the accuracy of instrumenu, 9'N'pf.UJ;j:d'fD[ Mfd ~h.i he could have resorted to a surveillance procedure, which is another formal - 4 7 l 9 W, 4,. 5-l 4 C..- A [Y proceduret he would not have been downgraded for using such a procedure. By . f. Q 4 '... h, W W : reducing power gradually, however, without using a procedure, Mr. Morabito 9., g, ; 3. n p *. masked the indicadons of the dilution accident which was creating the unsafe v, ,x9 1'~ 7 [*'? W reactivity condidon." a

• ',. ~. f

'y ?

1. . l,,% n"- '

. ;4.;f in response to Mr Morabito's new argument about approachi g the tem-n A .. f J e t perature litniu, the Staff asserts that the automade operation of control rods .,;8.,';@.,aM.,.k, h !I M..h.. should have been maintaining the temperature within its programmed band of ,, 4 n..

• 4' C '] 4;, *,.$.h+tY. 'M: n,

(*.,.. v ..e> ,j Y, t. t 4 L . *

• I [ ".

% 1.g j g v b,. k ' r ..,./,- ee, Y 4,. - 0 y..,t,, "hba Ed 1 m 1s.14.17; M. saw taas s. And u. a 4. 9; m.4, w. es.a.4 tana P. O N";# ;, * [' y,.- d,j, *, ?.. j, 8'. And s. m 16 htshe Ed. s a 7 8. ,f 6 .4 J,..., "Tr. s8. 74 77. 78 79 (Wrdest ,p l.'. ; 2.,',.C " ..v.,, w,i M surf 2.d s.1 es; Tr. 83 (h:4 , q<,.p.s (,,' W,.,, /+ y

• 4 M surf EA 1..auhad arMevu. M 4142; Tr. 82, ts.84 (Ne4

.,.g,,; - k i .ga.... .i 4,. t o'.j,(y a' t, ; f s: *,/ v. p;.f.V ' 6 5' f 3 4 . t..., ve. , y.., c,, c. ea y ;, 3) ~3 f - l7,, 4,} ,.s ..c. ? p,.', ;. Q ,o r o.8 4. N.'s l 'g. .,*.*t> - 4 .. 'd ., 'c.. " : J' e ,'6 f

• A 8

f IA ' 9l. ' %, q} \\

7. T,

- j.p.... .,... ; e ~ .g 9 ,i t 5 -,p a' 4 .i + a 1 ,, f i l 's ai' ' *, * 'i - y

• e g

0 e A[l 4

• g *.,,,i,

^- ' .g., 5 e l p, +s, g ,,*[, A-VJ 9. ' ,1

e,,.. r. w... ~..,7,,. v,. a '. c. ; ~. a. v.... ., -., ~ .s. .c o. .... n a~ 'r 1 - ..i ~

c. a - o v 1 <, a..

.y, .m a,, -.. - , e.y; ..,,t . a.%,a.,.s,yy,w.f:( Q; aW,.. A. n.a ea I c.t:. .L. L b.; z, : q1. c (,. ,). '*a .' 5 ' '.. ,f. <p- 'e.,,

• ., 4

.g c 3 x ,y, .3'. ,1 m t .s . ?.,' j 'l. - Q **l* [l,;. Y. _. .f.,6 'j variation.** Mr. Morabito agrees with the Staff that the automatic control was n. g QJ, - g;.',* ,a functioning properly, but maintains that the temperature nevertheless was in- ,. f, j', T., T,. <,., A, ' P creasing.'8 >.".p{ K", 'Q;["{M,(;.i

• j " *..l d r. ..

The Staff also advances a procedural objecdon to Mr. Morabito's introduction . M!$4. ,'.**l.4 of oral testimony that had not previously been presented in written form. It ,..k. 3 s.%.y - asserts that it would be inappropriate to allow Mr. Morabito to offer addidonal

• T. y % f' "'r,O. 3. U 'M ' *. '. d,,l

~# 1 P*yE Me&,E * :. - reasons to justify his acdons of a year and a half in the past, and that testimony 77.1 d ,. E,, M,'4Q W7i[i a,' N[. i.u 4[JJ j.j, W' ~ ~h.'. should be restrained to that which had already been presented in writing.** M ~lC % Evaluadon of this comment is a close quesdon. Mr. Morabito took essen- ,. $. '$k'My.1.*h..,' M*,',. tially conservative actions in responding to a situadon that he did not fully o understand. However, he clearly failed ic udlize any procedures in formulating

• Y 2j'@F,.q[*h.? ;.g. ? ' O*j

,.. x, M his response. 'the operability of certain instrumer is was in quesdon - not their $N;.;* :M /. E 'I N I precision ce accuracy, using Mr. Marabito's terminology. Given the operating N, !. 7.'!W'.lc.f y ?..,,.' If :d *.9, Q y.jj'" f [ i'J rules of the Beaver Valley facility, it appears that, although some power reduc. 7 tions may be undertaken without a pocedure, a reduedon in a circumstano in ' %; q :A, -?.. *. <.;, 3,l.,Ap' l.(,,* ',i which a procedure is called for would mandate that a procedure be follova

• st gc.

. f-2 ?. M,...' '[ ". j the very least, a surycillance procedure would be used to test the opera > if s c;-. .,.. d instruments.*8 .,.... e..o<- e \\ . /' e...:.,, ': 4,,,, c.),.;; ;1 Mr. Morabito's new argument that he reduced powa partly because the sant ~ t *n i' ',, ', y, was approaching temg crature limits does not contribute to the resolution of this 4 '6. '..,' issue. It has the appearance of a belated redonalizationt and, as the Staff notes, ? l/ . y,' - 'j lt was not advanced in any written documenu prior to the oral presentation. ,k In any event, Mr. Morabito is being faulted not for reducing power but for ' C. doing so without following an appropriase procedure. The interaction of boron f M. '. dilution, control rod modon, arms intermittent rise and fall of temperature, as , M.; 7 ;. 4, - Q S ; / described by Mr. Morabito, is a slowly evolving process and not an emergency V-u,.,, condition such as would justify imtnediate action." Utilizadon of an appropriate i S; 7,l ,'.. '.J. -..;, ~, procedure is required in such circumstances for a power reduction. ...l 3;

• 4 As the Staff points out, Mr. Morabito was being tested as much for his ability to follow required procedures as for his ability to maintain the plant in a safe Condition;'8

's;

1. *,_' ),.i:.,, -..

f " ' "# 10 ', '. *" J .I m ne in eudit of his kno*1dse. and in audit of Ws abdity to crew h,lars in i l - ( i. 3. J.. f ?..c.,~.,,' saord ace im Duq= ae uswre.. ^. . '.., < y, J' l#, lle is licensed to c9ereaa k pdars un accordance with a;yrovesi procedures. 'lhet le part of , ~,.'. , p,.. t, *, 7., ', c, We license and part of We requirerneras ,s l . Pl.

• • Tr. 6641,7v81 Oderest I

Eg 3 'l , p Ng .e*4,,9 s e, Tr.s6r7(Wribnel 4

• • TV. 72 73.

N* .e J

• 88 sutr EA 3.147; m eine Tr. s2. ss 04rnst

" Tr. 81 (%nsP, ( Ts. 42 45. 87 (Wrotees). '8 .,< s,- Tr. s0 (Sens). I g - t %., s 3 427 9 'f g.' g i n i \\ 1 O 0 P S

v-- 1 h,,.,.....hf 5fb, l ~. 'O Qa h{.$'f{f-),5f.<jk'&$f{ &$hh.,k*hW.kS$b.YN{ { SIdsM M W N M E Ed d M, A N,Sh,i.., f;g g SE j$.i?.W.*X.@r:3:4 ': w n ;,.$ $ W ;. @~ ;.[ ~ . 4 :, b. 9. u

ya.-J v..?, M'[f" W,1*+y> c,, g.pe. g.,,

N. r'.he, M'.'.R'J.c, &: m

• W G

1. W jj

.y:6 y, as

• M?M ',h pSh{E'T.W:

f p. $ p,;; lhat being so, I agree with the Staff that Mr. Morabito should be dowdgraded f.4,.,%.9M[",j'W.%'."'.+m,$'fi, p,g#3F

• pMY'f. -

for the activity recorded by the examiner's first comment. I note, however, that ?,j?: h,.O the Staff takes the position that this comment, by itself, would not justify a re,;v.,,,s. Qt M. Wi'. = grade of unsatisfactory for the ComplianceNsc of Procedures competency."

• %.M Me'3.f. A.;,,'l;,%gTgg.W..,'l, ;

Q f,l. E. 9,. a w ,T ,,.gp*. ~. rwa f(.1 ~ 9~h, b. E.ramlMr's Comment 2 h b' The second comment under this competency reads as follows:'1 1 ~ ;&n,.h.. a..L, j;.W p. . +. - !.*, ' c. 1

.;'.d 9 <...u

" r.H s 4 r,W/. 4, eqt;W;. ;$,W.W p Durina second sanario wide b ES.I.2 map 27 candadme asked "Are RCS la leg iernpera. 9[,a 4

f Sf,$MQQlll

"FQgMm y n,u s,emar than 395 F7" Candidam did in wah for an ermor mapmee and uswned the d%.),7hD'3ln M,pl,W.My[dll' t

-lMQ j ans==r to the euxm wu "yes" by enmrins m" akes to Im dr. Tin crum then

• c '. '.#.L-Q rr,

hidiceed ihe anmr io the waion =u So." EYhM - I :,'. D k i C 3 / ( h M M @y, h On his appeal, Mr. Morabi o acknowledges the accuracy of the comment t FS.'. AWN. d RO%f,d but challenges the implicadons that the Staff draws from it. He claims that /.b;rw%@y'i'I1 l q8" $ fh h, M,? thinidng out loud by trainees is encouraged, even though the thinking may be

• d['. '.

Q.T.gyih:rJ*l'. fI*Nh'b:N/2h/ NT.N@7) .. s., t.' 4 incorrect He acknowledges that he had expected a "yes" answer but stresses Q3 v that he took no action prior to hearing the operator response, and then directed s/ s the correct action'. He adds that he reacted with excellent supervisory control to 5@.T., Q$Eryp'p. g 'p fiQ g$j M ry 7 Ql - direct a proper action, rather than the action he might have been expected to N f: direct; and that the action he directed wss the one required by the applicable

.4.. '.v.,,g. N.' r

y;)fMD,';*'/. J'5..

',J :3Wd;E$3 Procedure." F Y- ',V. O Q.g a The Staff notes that Mr. Morabito has not refuted the comment. It asserts . p;p G..,2'c-c.:.1 that the candidate's comments indicate an incorrect analysis of the transient ,7-T,sW:MW,0,.. s.i. .m j,' 2. l ,l' f,.? ", u '.,.y f.My,'.'cM('f in progress and an improper attempt to analyze an event instead of using the symptomade approach provided by emergency procedures.* In response to my 'O'(IJM:cy@.s. W6?i' p'g-?f y'.4 inquiry why this comment was relevant to the ComplanceNsc of Procedures ., n y. - .Qf.Q competency, the Staff asserts that all procedures are written with the premise 9 [( g, 'M,', j,,%'Q@:-g.,d 4'. q '1 .,. M[,.f fq'QW,$@';2p;'. that carect informadon will be used in the determination of actions; and that. g S' if Mr. Mcrabito was not in a position to verify a parameter, then, rather than 4', ! i c. ;; D, r,,3 ; guess, he should have waited for ard insisted upon a report from the reactor , f.,'. % operator. The Staff adds that (/ Mr. Morabito had proceeded on the tesis of .. lj..." wi, 7d? w:. e,d incorrect informadon, he would not havo been mitigating the accident in progress ^ 'F l }, v.y 4.; c;,,',;;; - @y cy.,,.g j but rather worsening the condition.88

n.,.. e 2. r.

..s .a, ,., Q, ' s. : i,.e '< < r,*. {' g., )Q'.;',;l,' f,<? 7 ,,r $ ' \\ ],

• (, M I' 1

' ;,; - i . j j , oyf I..; ],.. 'g; "Swr EA 3. 01. ?, ..$ y. A, '[ [ st 7 m., Esdine EA 1. easeed Raham J,1 E3-20211, AsasA l# 11 ... ' ; y '" f.. H'1.*v,.n.:,. Q y ,.q-' g. l ~.; O ,' ',3 "mahaw EA 1 m 1718. W. seeeed Etha s, Ane A B, u 9; see eJee M, easeed Eshie P. AmuA s, z (.,..., .s;. ui m 1. 8. m:,., e sar na s a u.. s.,4.ns,s us, .p...,-. ., J. ...,. ; f g., l 30gwr gg 3, g 33, ,..,(, (, $ ;, )eI .f,. c ', %, ', ~ j.', i

• .'..L,.,sw,,.',,.

t,. ga. A s., ,>i ~;' 6 - g,'",',.'.Q 3/ ,.l* j 41g .. s .,w

s...

. a.v .j

i

3. *

' et 1. (,,; q

• s.

, n. 1 s. v, ,(.[,' j g..~4'tJ.' , Fi

• g,

l<'

• g.

j..

3 e i g.$.- ,a+ 4' s 1,f [.8 p g l WI g O g .i 4 e 6, t il '..'.,*,,e**u fe I [ .k. s ', k 8' t f ,,, ' m

q

1. t.

.'o w, t .g 4# )'. s.,_ 8 g

• ' :. i..

1 ww9.<;n ~~ k u . :s. s ~ ~ - - L

, /, ,a. .c . :. v. p.s.m a, g a :* n.,<';* ; 6,'a b :- , (*.. - ,.,._-.,r> s i...

3., %,.

. g...,1,,* .e. 'c,,-t, ..n...' .g 3 ,.. t * ~ *,:; '.. ;y % w.. :. :. a r * ',: L %n.,o _ _ i J: . v.L., <

• 2 v

o

• s'

.. ; /... , i * ~: '. y . R'.; > '.. =. . r. z- ~ ~a k - 'w 9 ) t. ,g.,,-,-

7..,..

3 E ... f. s ,;y. -. ? f .y e. ..u ~

• ' ((yg,,.

7,j je. f, ;1 2*~ Insofar as this comment bears on Compliance /Use of Procedures, it appears to coj.,. 7 H l,.',.l.' 'r 6 be remote at best and. more likely, inconsequential. Mr. Morabito took no action ,,.1C n - ., 'g . vJ. that was not consistent with applicable procedures. He indicated that he would " 4 ' - + / el y.).i J.y': . M 0- l'd never have taken any action without a response to the quesdon he had posed.si '.3 .f.'.; ;,,,*,' *-;,' / ] {* M i i il#.y The Staff's assumption that Mr. Morabito might through incorrect analysis t ,'.. '.... 2%e ~ make the accident more severe is thus purely hypothetical and speculative. With .;.;,. y @ t'.;,'J**['J respect to its applicability to the Compliance /Use of Procedures competency, g *,. . A.Q,:* *' this comment is insubstantial and should be deleted. 4.., , ~, ::. %.. +.. a.. . a.. L s n.?[.. ;;f . ; lr., s'.C.. ?

c. E.saminer's Comment 4

.. '.k..~.-. .., f $ f. ;*\\,( 'p ,.,N '. <. 1 '* Y, *I ? y':,' j h /' $f,' ~ The fourth commentsa under this competency reads as follows:s3 &{$:$ 4 ,f, m :3 Dwins ihe ed==eno (das nis Mr Mehto =s niins es e maswr opmerl. eher ' ' l, Q ', ,,, >;ltr'i g the reama tripped and SI utvesed. candsdeae.iid not ded if UlSI penps were runnies ., c,

• n *.. e.)

u mgo;md by inuned.me actie sup i1b of E.O. SRO had to remad candidau to sed if 2.9,.. .. r b .,.. Q..,. y utst ~ ~ r ~ s ' y *. f 'fq. ., g. <,,. ' /l, Mr. Morabito acknowledges that this comment is valid but questions the i r J. A 7. ".,.,,. j' weight that should be given to it.88 He views it as a minor event and also ,'* Y ~ ~ , t ';, - questions whether other candidates have been graded as harshly as he for the T..

• vi failure to adhere to one of the immediate action steps.88

.~ , ?, ', i The Staff points out that Mr. Morabito's failure to perform an immediate ~ action step of the emergency operating procedures is significant since the i; l, immediate action steps are required to be commiued to memory and the third y, ~ ,.l<2 scenario provided the only evaluadon of Mr. Morabito's ability to comply with O c.'.'. ) these procedures.8* More speci6cally: his is one d the few tasks where we expect is to be performed altnoet fleelessly. His is the l, erresen:y procedere. His is e candition where the Nant is not ki a safe condaion. To protea the safe.y of the publict to protect the core, itself, certen actices shouM take Does v saicms ese ecmetic er.d they shdJ be verifie<L He ca.id not perform that. i .~

. *- ;,,.f In this instance, I accept the Sitff's evaluation that this comment should re-L', *.,

6:7; f.f, main a de6ciency. Operators nust be fluent with the emergency operating proce. n, s r. , _ '***e,';

!(

'g 4. .i ,'**' ', ' f *, 88 Tr. s9100 (Medme), s 88 .4 As need sedse, et p. 42s. any e. die derd annumme under eue emegenney was enneed by magine I and is a-

g ',

.'e-ass new at usue. 9 8', 4 ss Mambine BA 1. seeded EaMut 1. Ias-20211. AnaA iM.14. . ',' Q' "',"1 88 Musehne E A 1 etis. '1 88 Mesenne EA s et ils see abe Medite EA 2 at s-s. 88 .i, * - 4aaff EA 1 et 1314; id, esenhed af6 deva,130. stafr EA 2. eneshed erndeva.13:. "Tr.125 04emist 6 g 4 +.. i e r t 4 e i 1 l l b q I e l

1 s..y.f3 A. e.. g.v.a..~ m.:. g w: w.

h. y.:a,.. %.y ', t,.....

v.. ~3.,.M. s..e,a 7

r,..t..Q tww.q g.an .A + 1, m M... < %y'j.N,..,, v,

p'yr.~.

m,c .w.- t. a. v,; n:.m. o.a. 9 m a _,p T'h '/%8]s Y.ym dures, irrespective of the sign 16cance of any particular procedure. Mr. M6rabito /4.pO'd >.2. Wp?;. failed to adhere precisely to the mandate of one such pr>cedure. But I also note hh.52/.Mh'Nh, that the Staff does not believe this de6ciency in itself is signincant enough to W 4. $ t p. M. d h.?..,$.G($p .gt q warrant an unsatisfactory grade for the competency." % e.s.:,*n. M' b @,t 'Fw , k.n. ;;.,4;%.2 l.e % YH.p:;A J% fq&gQ, W.n?;&Q*Q. Y.f d. Conclurion at to Compliance /Use of Procedures Competency h

g. :M.@,MW;.r!{,.W.m'. %. 7 v.c tw s-y

,7 The Staff initially based its rating of unsatisfactory for this competency on My y.'/ the four deaciencies set forth in the examiner's report." After Region I had .@bi.W:k;${r(%$e$M.*ik.'tN,Nr$'N'D*"ch.?* v t,W myN eliminated one of the four de6ciencies, the Staff examiners still believed that ~h [ M[ M '.f,d X R M r$ the remaining three de6ciencies warranted an unsatisfr.ctory rating - the deleted comment constituting, in their opinion, the least signiacant of the four.** j~J dE, I have now deleted another of the comments. Nonetheless, I regard the [p.D-J.g$.M M.Wf.n? ', l3 .pl@M**E y *W1@ i9g ability to foHow procedures correctly as sign 16 cant enough to warrant a rating . d','. .'# 'C.W; of unsatisfactory based on the two de6ciencies that remain. The unsatisfactory J 1,;." g.;pl 1.,'s, /*.*M' &c.'$y. Qo -'3 ' .d.: rating in this instance, however, is not of the type that would justify a l'alling j.;p / -l',,. ? ;,", I f [E. D N (-M '

• ;r*,..D, pq.h*l.Wl * '

v grade on the simulator examination as a whole. In particular, the two comments M M. on which the rating is premised did not involve situations w here the reactor was M..,Wj. A. ' p v q'h;f;.j

• 5 77' placed in any danger. Moreover, although Mr. Morabito exhibited less than. ideal

p adherence to procedures in tvo instances, he followed procedures adequately in f;t. q..g,'(, O "'e.fJs.. g.

other situations and demonstrated considerable knowledge of and faminarity '.. s.'.' q..C f a..,. o,q.,g.,x '..'. ". g..lL'jf. with procedures geurally." 4 l_ Nry V .,.m .,9.~.4..ig h. Ly, $2W{ v y >.. f. s.. c,.. .,. i t.,.. m.... r , c,,....: <..c ~ 2. Control BoatJ Operations g;, f;; g... ,;,. q,.;.o ^. ',l/ *j' ':A. Mr. Morabito was tested on this competency only in the third scenario, in . - - c... n.:. g.,. 3 a. '... 1.1.' //c ':<-} ' which he w1ts performing as a reactor operator. His unsatisfactory rating was iW/d,,., ..f, j A 7,.,.;.;lf@R based on four commenu, none of which were deleted through R.gion I or a ' t.t g 7 ;,'.',7.. Headquarters review. I will deal with them seriatim. 5 v, ~..,. w.,.,. q.. o>;*>J. -.,% e h yl'.. ? at .,...w G. '.;W..,2.., *

• b J,W. V

,s. [ a. E.r.aminer's Comment i I <q a;,;,[3 r. . i..Q...h..,ygri. y a..V ]',. The 6tst of the examiner's comments under this competency reads as fol. .n W J,..Ag.< ".N v.27,,p:( lows:" .g.. s-a ,.... i. y

• • s

, '.., '; W.,'n.p,,, %,y *. )s >* -. '.f' o -e.% * *% r -,d.,, %. pa s '..g .~ 4 <t s '.l.,. 8,* Y,,. D ',j %(,,*l.g?.* [,.'.'d*

• N =**

.8

• .r

\\.. '.;,',i,.,,#3, i r-, 7.;.. , ',p t. s*, P 9 t > g go - A,';' I - .r. ., *. 9[ s,

• 'f*,J;/,

s4aff EA s.1s7; Tr.12s 04ernak a . y l',,.j% e,8 "%

• p -

>c swr Ea s. m T,.124 27 m , ' j.4 ; g seTr.128 29 04aans).

• - n

' p .s,,.g r6iy pr,' y ' t,,, ;,. o., si g m ' /. '. /. L. Q. J.. ",, ' ; * " Masekee EA 1, ses *ed Eaws J, i Es403.ll, Anad6 2,64, i 1. 9 '.t* v*,.y,, e J $ ',*- 3, 9'. ,v c - n......e wig's L,. , [, 4. * ~*b '**,l

• y s

- s , '., c"2 e . e ( 1, .. y.... l <,q g

n.,..m..;;

.,.] ,.w,e.c.... .,, x,., e, n c 3 t i. u ;,w,N.,..,. ; * :; f.<.,., y. s ,7, 1 ,. :m - ',. m., < ',J. s' i ns, p.lu ...e b,<. \\ e ,f I.',

• j *,

. e p'5' .y * *.:.S , e e., me ..y ;.,..,.* y..,..-. 7,. .1# g. 3 3., q.

• .7.g-.+..

g.,.,.,;, y,

.c .g .,e ,4

• • 't

',,s: ,r ~ ,/*. p 6 8

q.,,

i O ,.,b ', i ' f ,[

• p, c.

'., / W<f '.. 3 - i y.. 1l ' 3,' ? /, g,e

• -. c

. - -..../.... 6 S,? ?4 .s o .e .,,t q 4 y y ,1* s,. . #6 O },,' ^ 4, t .g a [}

1. g g *'. "

• F

.f=

== s

• t. )-

y g e 5 g = 'g.;- eJ..; 7 ,,s 4 8 i. ? / t >, [.,n .. t

w. '

• t: '

v. ,.t L y i.,.. b... ,rr,. _.., v @..u : q.n . ' f' '. ? 'J.*i,s .,3.gi, q,.,,.,,.,,% d,;...c: : -. ~' s 4 f, 32 (, 3 t f s.,. ;, b. v, ;,, W , n'.;

p. e,

3. c,,. j, fp vL' 3 .ce- .A. .y ..?, ,, J. {- ..,,... c ;N c Mg j h. z, e. . c .-2 Ir o, r.. 1 .\\ =t .'? y 9, . r ",....:,,, _. ; .. i , s. c .. - o.m. 4. . ). ..,..v- .~ .s, ,y- ... ' q .a M M ', * ', y. ' FoDowing SI eauntion es the RCS presswa was decreasing the candideas miarud RCS wide < *,,d o- -

9

,7,t 7;, range p,ueue ia- % cmes. misread 1600 pois es 1040 peig and then chaked with 6 . gi e*i.'. ;..,,. coher operwor to amarm Rcy trip criteria

c..

3. -, ~ - ' .; J. g f...N Mr. Morabito concedes that "[t]his comment is accurate It documents a ..j signi8 cant enor."o But he claims that it alone should not be sufacient to +' .y, ,.. c .3 produce a failing grade. He expidns that it is always desirable to avoid a loss [. of forced Sow cooling but that, when necessary, natural circuladon is adequate:

o *,.

3 and that, in this instance, he established and maintamed natural circulation. As ". ~. N-{,'lW ';r 1 - : l g ( p.. the scenario progressed, he also discovered on his own that he had tripped the 0 . ;,;; 4 pumps prematurely and stated that he was about to announce that fact to the 'V. c.

e;

% y. 7c, ', SRO when the scenario ended. He then informed the SRO that he had tripped p y,, 3.' -. - Q, the pumps prematurely. Mr. Morabito adds that all paramesers west maintained ,,4., ,c . f '.:, c.. j safely within limits: that the induced transient was mild; that his acdons in ' 7.. ' tripping the pumps were "within the bounds of the analyzed accident"t that 8,y *.: 4(.* . 'f' /,,, ,j no adverse effects on the health and safety of the public or station personnel 1 ', - N. occurred; and that there was no equipment damage. Fmally, he asserts that he 1 ,' - : I '*. Sawlessly performed the complex procedure for secunng the reactor coolant e'. i v f.N':.....,.f.! pumps, providing evidence of his familiarity with the control board and of his ~ f g '** Y dexterity in performing several simultaneous ard dependent sequential actions." j The Staff takes the posidon that the fact that Mr. Morabito correctly per. . '. - } 7, * ', i l formed an inappropriate action does not obviate the fact that duttng a test of "g' j his ability to read process instrumentadon he demonstrated avi inability to do so { correcdy. The Staff believes : hat maintaining plant safety limiu in this instance 1 g., 1 does not excuse the adrnitted error.*8 !! adds that Mr. Morabito's efforts (as part of his appeal) to deemphasize operadonal errors "demonstrates an unconserva. tive appoach to nuclear safety." As both parties acimowledge, the de8ciency noted here was signl8 cant. But y. . f the fact that a deaciency may be signiacant need not automadcally produce a l ". ? "U" grade for the cornpetency. The context in which the de8ciency occurred, the correedve aedon adopted by the candidate, and his recognidon of the error on l. i his own, without prompting, all are relevant to the candidate's knowledge and abilities with regard to control board operadons. I and somewhat disingenuous 1 -,,1. the Staff's posidon that, in attempung to place his operadonal error into context 'i as part of his appeal, Mr. Morabito demonstrated an "unconservative approach sj' '- to nuclear safety." The Staff itself acknowledges that this de8ciency by itself i ? 3 ..? \\ ',', l p]i 'I Mesebue EaA 1, eenAnd Eahdet s. Annah. a. et 10. 'd -j /d; Masebas Enh. I as 1619. Mardene Enh. s a 9.la Mr. Mredene a:ee slaeve then be 64 ett messend en ge%g* es 10eo peg as slasmed by de anormanar. bie ruher mareed a en 1100 pag. De Atfwwwe u innenfieeve see Tr.13s.34 (Mrsensaa Nernak '8 .s stetr EaA 1 st Is, acached arSeeva.155 I'

• • surfEak 2,135.

.4 P 4 431 I 9 .g. 4 4 e 4 .n 1 4 9 a ,g O. t I E

Y Y, - __- _ _. l$c.l'0$:b. n..%.h k h & N??? $y& N:$1~.:&.&. k.Yn m.f;. b k,.* MDd'WN hS'. lf. !h. QUbYWhhk.h@,h.$$ Nk. mg&w: & .oc p;h,n s ,2 e h 9 c..- 'W~p'?.,g. e 3 u a N '9'$ .hf g; ,% <%,p;rfc W?.e. W.. w.m y + a..,,Q..r..;;>.:. "

g n; '(

..v...., ;.. m,, o A.,...

1. a.. p..c:

o. y @... : y .i.

~

..u 9 .v.. x s, . Q s %.., ~,% 'g*q Q,.k.,m. 4 Yf y 3 (@'.t.'M.'*l4'M..

• ,J.t.::

< ~.

.g.

f r dn.(%. @.whQk,v,.M g i would not nrrant a "U" grade for the competency." Monover, the Staff's Qs*

it/U approach does not measure Mr. Morabito's att.itude or knowleage when he took j'*'.**Qh{$9g@M;h:.;le,,; $ .lfy his a=nin*n but, rather, appears to attempt to penalize Mr. Morabito for Y..a pt. .p,q$@p exerchins his appeal rights. p Bmed on he enthe recoM concerning this de6ciency, it is cle.pr that this @h Wm@[h' HEM *gh;Q'%gnsf/-% :.s. N Q WQWF

• 6ckncy must result in some downsadins of Mr. Morabim's smre on "cm.

E}d'

{

trol Board Operations" and that he is not entitled to an "S" rating c.) this @,'g*. % Q $.3..'M //,d'. p'f competency. The crucial considerttion that is relevant is Mr. Morabito's self. .' y i")? Q /4 %. ;:I.&f'. g

• Q recognidon of his error, together with his exercise of suf6cient control to mini.

Q} % ?!' h.,g'O,' $.W.h..h'y.hj mize any ill effects that might othervase have attended the error. Under appil.

/ :. M *. cable guidelines, a condidate who initially provides a wrong answer ard then j '*g1$ % - F later recognizes the mistake "with litue prompung" and goes on to correct it is W[ri fiQ;;.Q:M,N)WN.*h{4

jv ? '

' [f 10 be rated as marginal." Mr. Morabito here neognized his mistake and was MZ .,3, Prepared to correct it. He could not carry out the correction because the see. fE,d d % %b h','.E:t.'f,tr"*p rurio ended. Nther, in reacting to his mis *ake, he exhibited familiarity with h;m.s.aFS')';[h:%Ck.;W,yll <. t W,,. t. the control board and applicable procedures. Under these circumstary;es, this

.y%h

I admitkdly signiacant de.Sciency should result in downgrading to no worse than . ::W.. ~ f., ~..'s..;k' ~ a maginal rating. y .Jy.... ;:., n.n r t.;...... r u.p:. 1, . s.. v a e 'pr y g - x.. .. a C.**',';,.';.,-j,y y' d W. &., o c;.n.;%. M ~b. Er.aminets Comment 2 W '. *a? 2.n e'se*- -

.1 a y,irl

~ : r. N %3., g4.;. l.Q+,%g:.,,sp.? 'g.'. ' competency reads as follows:" The examira's second comment under the "Cmtrol Board Operations" .Jc " 't

• w,;

}.;* g e. : ca " '. ; *.ym'f'. v....g. O;,y.'C s'.ylh e is an 4e et s.3, the Raidual Hut Fmana whs w to be cheded to =>me it wm .,; / j. j y '4,.: j.- yg,' closed, c m. = noain; a ihe d.nand inaicuor ter s raanal cormi et Ruidual y,,,..,.,', ,,5 v., p,%, l%y'l a .,. + , f; - Hem Release %!w eM ma u the indiemica lista for the whs. Candadme w buiurt to y-ruixed to the ched wrisceo= and awared contmed muit oiher c,ernor entne one and ,.'g.. ' ".. y,, '. t..A, g~, ',. .t. M he cauds and indbetices to the candideas.

, /* o a

e =I t ...n., ; p.:' , a

• /,l l n

n. '.,.S.-'..' 5.6 : Mr. Morabito claims that this comment is incorrect and should be withdiawn. .,,, /,.. f,l.,-!. 5 V, First, he asserts that there are no positloo. indicating lights for the Residual Heat 7l.lc f N Q,t ; g. Release valvel thus, the staterr.ent that he should have been looking at tho6e .p[;ly.f ' W, y,I, ' ',#."l@,*, lights was (by de6cidon) erroneous. Second, he claims that he was not confused . t c". h'1 j z.,. V, g.,...W,W,, n..S but only hesitant.to verify that the valve was closed based on observadon of ?,';.. Y.,' *l' ".:M,'d. the demand signal a?one. He states that M had been caudoned during training . ~ ;..;

• K 'M.? A.;a/ m g[' j.~. '.Q...

,f p *' against relying on a dema* d signal alone to determine whether the RHR valve d .,,, v.., c f,., %c., I.(,. s : l%.'['3l .Mf9 was ekved. At the oral presentation, he described such cautions as "common j fiJ Q: I

' %~

. a. ..l,.,- c-4 y,a ' %,; e

• '.. ',, * ?,'*.. ',[ ',*. <

j ,4 4 ../ o,c. e t ris sy a s,1 es, j l ' [4.,,,e ',, 'y l'.' ^ asMBlott (ser. 2), ls$40s,13, as i of 6 1 I 7 *

r.,.3. _.,,

' 7 ,'., home m 1. eeM IWes J, i Es40211. Aaank be,12. l '8 .#.'g' a l']g

• f p '..

4, ).e,.s. .(*, 8% e,, g , -., e..e '. 3 432 g,,f,. r y[,'s,d, . 'h f. ' ..,,..,.e m .i

g. '...,

\\. g' ~ 6 e' .y, -~ g N' -1 -'..'.A g e, ~.t -:. ..<..g.. . n *.y <, , p - -r*o.w,. a...,, A, 3 ~., :,J g .9 q, - x. ,,..g ' l., 'r.7.m. ~..f _...,...,....,.,.f..,., ,,.. l , ;.. ; ; 4,y .s s. y s .., c* s, .,t. J. ', ' s s i. 1 i '". q' I.,,.'. , u... ,n, .af4 4* g'. Q.. "+ k

• 2*

,t ;, '

• r

-..,',a' '4 P .*1 ,,9*s* .t l '1,* ', e. p* .o-i i r -( ., {, ' * ' g * .) ?.%. t 5 ,b ,'.'#F.*...

• g 4

q N [e' a 's' e .. + ,\\ ; ..te,'. ...#'(t y,,u . \\ 6 -n ,i7.* ,f s, 's. s .2- '. ',i.' .s.a 1 y .','t 4- , (, p ,i

• 1

+ ,e -+ s s x

m wp. ."o .a G.vG.4.+vt.. :e y h... t.y Qh,a. 9 y.;C '.f+ f,.C.:a. ;.l W F'.

f. ' '..'.r. '

W ' ?., +] ,... s. - c....t..s.e.,.,

4. f,

q e.,..,

,, <. c, n s + . 7. *n. 4 . :. ~,t..n. :. - .n r ,. g. .. u,,. ; r...Q. a. .s. 't, ~,.. v?....- : n.>,, w. a.c' .e. ?.' ...n ..u. s.- a ..d. p. s... u . n,.. s.. ! x.c!.. ~, ;.,'. s - ..c n ~. r . s .~ . : v. .,.g.... y .N. y. ~.. ',n.,....>. - 7 N ;,...: p,, E * ' +. .s. e f M,". e #:i/ i c.i,',,* ; ; t.g 5.3,. In the industry"" After consultadon with the other operNor to verify that the ' f,*',d ( #. demand signal was the only way to verify the valve position from the control l

j. *j

f. Q.;'f. ',a,,, '";..3.*,'y his activities as a good example of crew mteraction and teamwork.11

'J. room, he responded appropdately to the SRO tnat tho valve was closed. He cites ..g e..,1. o . D c, ,.{ c..l ' ,..'e [f. * {*;,'j *, '. t,, ",g ' Ibr i;s part, the Staff acknowled tes that its exarr'ner made a mistake as a i y ':. ,['., l". the presecce of indr2w ilghts. Indeed, the Staff concedes that, ccritrary to a .f.; S ".c y,. ? ,t.., f fair reading of its comment, Mr. Morabi o was p60perly looking at the demand t 3 " P,. %,,,. ?, ? i..$.* indicator." It divides the comment into two segments, however, and claims that ,Jw... / Tc .l ' '.U..*. the candidate was deficient in having to be instructed by another operator in ~

.,"N.C k (. '. ' '.

,..e.yj' 4 ' P.. ;*' control board operation and canponent verifkanon." / Q?. d., T,4 [* / '. i;[/'*. .;.7,$ 'I*9. '..,' i It is char that the first part of this comment, c<mccrning indicator lights, which the Staff concedes is erroneous, must be deleted. Ritther, it is by no J;; i. h.e '.. a$,"f..W :' t, * *. cl., i.e., the theory that if Mr. Morabito was looking in the wrong place, all of j.?c* : 7 '.1 means certain that the Staff's enor wouki not infect the entire comment - J,'? s . ;6.n.n v,,. l - sr,l.9,7',. 4,51..% his subsequent actions must be tainted. However, treating the second part of !", s J ' }. ;,,%.4 7 p ;.', , 7.Q." ' ;. i.',., ' f.,. the comment (concerning consultatier with another operator) as divisible from .i..-Q y, * ' the first, I do not perceive that second part as reflecting a lack of knowledge r. %1.*'. } M.Q> N ), " ', f,'.,I;. 2, -O 4.,, '. j on the part of Mr. Morabito. Rather, it teflects an atternpt by Mr. Morabito to assube that he was following the only procedure available to keep the reactor d * .,,(

• g c ' '

in a safe mode of operadon, givun the exisdng circumstances. "Ihis was not en ,.q,..i' emergency situation, where thl.e for consultadon would not be available." 'Thus, +

• t A..

$ ?? c the consultation for which Mr. Morabito it being crideized is an example of his q ~ ;sGFt utilizing teamwork to achieve the grea est possible degree of safety. Ibr these . '.. -. +...... 1< A ./ reasons, I arn deleting this commen.

. 4

? .J....l * . ~ 'Ihe examiner's third comment reads as follows:"

c. E.raminer's Comment 3

.s,. .f',., s. .7 . a.. l'? .'./,.' In stap 9e ct E.3, the ecmairunes swg punpe wre io be sigped. Candidase sigped cme ^ 'l. /, ecmainmem swnp panp and the Incoes Insmanees own, pum, m odw opereur cem. 4 3 > ' i,.",.,' ow, to show the cand das.here other com inmen son, punp ewiwi.u located y.. .~ Jl Mr. Morabito agrees that the actions occurred as stated in the cornment, " '- l.( j.h [.... ' ' ' ', ' although he clarifles that he was not shutting down any pumps but, rather, .'.'? ). q(w,, ..n putting the control switches in the "off posidon rather than leaving them in 4 ,...~..,.... s,, .e . + ' q, y / ~'...'.1 l Dr.147 (Mesobeisk D Mesebne EA 1 as 19; M. eaWied EAMan s. Appenda a, as 10. ),4 ..*; *.a 1 "Ts.147. Isl.ss C4ees). D staff EaA 1 at is.14 asashed etsems.1154.s7; Tt 147 49 04emsk i' '.. p<.'.,'..' %. <e m - i k ~^ .2, D Mesebes taA t. seashed Eahant s. i t.s40s.ll. Aa.asA 2.44. j s. ,... ~ ~. s, ,g 2 r-433 .e

• +

'Se g 4 's 8 g f. g s.. e. ,~ f.

n y,; W. Q n.c W W l' $ '.dM. M U D; OhIS.ME5}dM. h.';"DJ MhNMhE ,h..sc$,u 5 @h b h 4 a- .c. .g 44 s g og%p. p..,. ,,8 Lt . a y,~,

h. y'O.", @y 4*..g;

*:. m,z.. C M;,' M. 4 f;.

v,g,M

g, J y

U Q ? .a. "c.h,% w;: o 3 c; " *..gmj

• l' c *.,y..r: 8 6,,< ; ;.:;.

a l g.. 4 y c,,.;-,., ;.., j,',., ; the automatic positicn." Although acknowledging his mistake, Mr. hlctabito ?? '~gt. t r 'G U f; claims tha the step was precautionary in nature and was not a major oversight %g N ;;;',Q,, C;,g l '.f* " 7,. ; f('./ \\ in the overall scheme of the accident. He notes that eight actions are required '/'.f,.h,<!!.-5'.'. ha

• .S,j'-$.

to complete the step and that, of the eight, he missed only one (reflecting his '. ? r*.:m ;.-( ;,a t '.r. %.;[;! 3 %g,( 1.". Q[Yg s general familhrity with the catrol board). He attributes his mistake to his haste

3. % ', ' ' f ',c:.

in completing the step and adds that this occurreme should not support a grade .h M 'M",3 of "U" for Control Board Opeistions." F.d r[,d,'tEyh t'"N,d,',$ 2 D,. k. W.?f i W[;) M( M. y' 1hc Staff takes the pcr ition that the candidate operated the wTong switch and $t" D. 9 y,*M'lf that his mistake was identified by another operator; and that even though the ",* g'.. M".C ;.g.,3;,k. h ; s.',%; y .b J candidate's action did not degrade plant conditions, the fact thu he incorrectly 4,8c;.., 7> t f,],.,.

• g *..; " q 4 positioned the wTong switch without noting his inistake suppor'J an unsatisfac-

~.' t p tcry evaluation. The Staff adds that the missing of a single step of a procedure ,.. z,-f m., :.W. g, being conducted from memory is 11gnificant."

1. ; c.g [*/4 ' l-),'y.4c<-

I agree with the Staff (and Mr. Morabito does not dispute) that the de6ciracy p g' ; 7. % '/1,.....,p f $,,.g. -i v'* here is significant. I will treat it in that light. I note however, that the Stalf does

1. 6 I :,' h s not consider this deficiency signl6 cant enough to lead, without more, to a grade

[4. b.!],..N.N... <Ik.... c. \\~[% I '.,), h a.... of unsatisfactory on the ccrnpetemy as a whve." . L,, r' ..... '., L. :. . a. 3 ?.. v, > = a..w c { 'a. .~ .n d. Examber's Comment 4 -. ', ">. ;[ 3M; y.,:,..?.D 'i,**'.'.'3.~ '!he fourth (and final) comment under the Control Board Operations compe- . *

• n. sv rc glffy.,7 '-

,(, tency reads as followr" g .1.%. m, ', i W ; 3 '; ~y : : 7,f, " a ~ n . >t'+ %s - .,.

• g,J In arp 11 d E.3, CIA was to to resee Candida:e deressed tie CIA Trsjn B tmace and the

-. S y.. g';.;,.;., * - , _,,t y CIB Train A tumn. CIA did rxt ruet. Candxias did na verify CIA was reses following v -.,.: g n .y. ,s hie sacrm to reses CIA." .g,. .u,.. t c , af - - y '.I '9. U,. Mr. Morabito asserts that this commert should be reconsidered because it is e N N.- not entirely correct; that there is no way to verify CIA reset from the contro! room other than attempting to cycle the CIA valves. He claftns that, after he ( 7 W ]j i -%;y cJ scenario had ended, the examiner asked him how to get RCS samples; and .i l . tQ that, after some confusion regarding the thrust of the enminer'siquestion, ,b

.11 '

f c.-4,4 he eiplained that the CIA sample valves would have to be opened. Upon ..W Qf,.g, - a 9,[l request by the examiner to open those valves, Mr. Morabito opened the train .', %. 7 3 A g,'*/. g, 1,-

f*,,., ;

B valves and they came open. The train A valves did not open. Mr. Morabito ,.9 h.. '. then immediately realized that train A of CIA had not been reset and (without e ,, a 'U 1 /. /r .n. 5-

s. 7, ' ' A.

a v e. f: w, Nf;;,,g y,;,,,, _ _ ;.," u% m i o r, i,3.u %,,u,, u. e, m,_, m m 7,iu % ,m. ~,.c n %% a i. :oi a,,,,b 4 v ' f.., { ;.., *- a<* e.3.a j,.g. ' s 1. r y Mgi,t! a 1 et 1et saached arr,dem,116441. . ~' - - ",surr m 3.1n,Tr. Iss c&rn.). . y ,, m,,,,, ,,,,,, y,.,c,,, m, y s? ' $,,. U CIA and QB atar to two sage an the scd cmi of the casaanmars Tr. Is940 ('krns). ,e ...c ' v,,.,' , e.. s ' l i a 434 ,.. u s.- ...,Q l '] 4 ','**s th f?.* ~_ -[e e,,,4 =,'w,;

• e
• N',.*
• i [p. :.,... u,. ',.

i .l,, Y s i \\;,. l eg.p > r t;. yon,, <. <,. ,,. c ,i,. - J ,r t. 1'i \\ \\ l ,'i'_~~N^' 9 .,i l;( = ..'1 \\,' p \\ 4

• • .'....,,.....,.my.%7,,,#$.

u p l >si s,,,, 9 5* c... ~ 5 ) f. j f a ..?, I n s O s e e

• g

,g .,, h +, y 3 I b ', 8 5 d I I ,- 0' g g 9, = s a 6 8 8* 9 S i ,.e .g ,[' ~, 4 4* p g 5 4 4 n,.. s - 6 a. . s i - e .o .s i a.. . i s .,e a -

_) :_ - ,3 4m : ?.. v,:

e. : r.

3 ;, w,...,en; no..: q. ;?'ca..y e. ...c.c ' ; g .y. .;. ~.....

,*..~.;..

. c. -, n[., ;. ', y_ p;c. l..

u..z

. m' pl 3.m.g .9 + q,y., .f, y, 4 . c..,..... p(. .;. i...w..,~.; : n. s e + .x ..y .,. ~. m>w .u . 3..<;;a. ;

<; ;\\as;

c :....,.. p.. t w~..,,. !,.;.. :,.. p 2

t

m p.. g,@

,,,, a,.. y t. p .:s a ! :. < ~ : r. ;c;., n, /. ,... w,~ * ,,..'.c ... R' Q-A .*u q p- <... $*., '. * *..,. g ; *..:;, - q prodding) reached over in front of the enmir er, pushed the train A reset button ' {~y ], 8,,, ;.l ' ' { ' ? . ;'.; d - ~, and opened the train A sample valves. He claims that this is "euctly how" a " 7, L ;,;?... - ?7 '/,7. C'.,,{.; *; ! )i failure to reset CIA in the plant would be detect % He adds that failure to reset T.. CIA properly has no safety signiacance to the public or the plant and that his ';.

• j'9. 't 3 9..J J

) J actions following the scenano represented ' den operanon of vanous controls." ?*. N .7'/I'-c ' g..,.. ' y "3' r.- J., d 'J. - He concludes that his actims do not warrant a grade of unsatisfactory." , T ' a *.,'; ". ?. > J,;. 7.+> lhe Staff, although recogniz.ing thet plant conditions were not degraded, as. $cg*Q.;-Q.36*'?p,i'[f,'f.(/ serts that Mr. Morabito's argument does not refute the fact that he failed to reset .., y. 0

. s... ~ y. ' ' e the CIA property, or provide any excuse for his "inability" to operale the con.

W..y. e f, '.",s U.jc[,,.Z*h.R trol board adequately in this respect." It makes no reference to Mr. Mcrabito's /o . %. u.,m..., ;;.t J' activities following the conclusion of the scenano or to whether those activities (' t, :, 9 .-..(. - Qpf*.P., i t y.- 9< .o ~' 1 ,. %g;;'!. g..Cf@." ;h.i should have any impact on the grade awarded. The Staff concludes, however, .3 that the de6ciency by itself is not suf6cient to justify a grade of unsatisfactory O N E'. r..* 7., ! Based on further questioning by myself and Dr. Hetrick at the oral presenta-l ..J.M *j* p.? V;.l. for the competency." ? .c.+,yf ../. yi cbj:.i.Y,' *f f*; ..l/;.cj @Z,Y :./ K,.[ #.h*.'/. t a~ tion, I conclude that one part of this comment is unfair to Mr. Morabito and the

.'U.[;'N other part should lead to a grade no worse than marginal. The unfair portion

,j.,.P.,',. *: # 'r:.i4 r. f.. - ; concerns the veri 8 cation of CIA nset. The record demonstrates that, as claimed .<,.M ~ l.' Q @l -??) i n 4 ' f'l' - l.\\ J!H . ' 9/ by Mr. Morabito, them is no way to perform such veriacation from the control l ' 'Q.?!{.Q;;*y: *.

• y.

,y,4.. .z' a i. ;. '. s: room other than by anempting to cy:le the CIA valves. ('The reset buttons for ' ' N ;. : q..' ]. 'g..f.3.'g.a < these valves are spring-return buttons which have no indication of status.")INr. f ther, the scenario was terminated prior to any opportunity for Mr. Morabito to " '; y 1..g:;y, perfctm such cycling.** Why was it terminated so soon? 'Ihe Staff explamed j,y s. 7; that it had observed enough information about the candidate in that phase of the , y+ y; u w ' '.t ' ",., examination: .c 2 y. @.t, You have to alw aus e cald ide my me semano aw na it = foe may inn io .f. . [J 7,i..,,,. v. sem poini.hm.u tma in io dum.... . ; g.v.., ,m ^% -.a ,...T..,i/M,.J ',g.4J. In this instance, permitting the scenario to continue would have been the only .g (;f p.' f way to test Mr. Morabito's knowledge and ability concerning CIA reset. Ihr 7,,-. " ' " *,f*.:;. - G these reasons, the last sentence of the comment is unfair to Mr. Morabito and 4' must be deleted for that reason. 7 :,', f., l., N.. l,. l,., ' The Sist part of the comtnent redects Mr. Morabito's pushing one button F

• [.

4 Q ' v ;. - !...y correctly and one incorrectly. The incorrect action represents a de6ciency in

r j. ;.,, t' i,'..

. ',.. c r *: 2. 'j+. 1 Control Board Operations. After the conclusion of the scenario, however, 4

),1

'.,. r ?~,.. ,,s, p,' * * ; s ,g "Masdeo EaA t es 3421 ad, oneehed EaNha s. Aaseh a. es it, S '9 9/ ...H

1. stafr IaA t et th eneehed arHevu,16s.

i,,..e e a .y Nsieff RaA s,176. 'l 7 .. p f.. [,. . *

• i esTt.14s M=d aa Navnek 6+a

' y,,'.* asTr.172 (Silkk . ) y* 81 e** Ts. l?2 Neesk g 4 435 j i r L 't r .t .~.6 ,,.. ; s.

L

..e., u s. . ~ - - - -

h N.$'.4TMEA.Mbhbk'p N;fb../.',5'm h$N. r, - h

• C.;.-

v M #i N b 4 h!h hh ~v:w,s.s e . < p:;..n :. y...m,.m w..A., ..y .e m>L.. t ,A.... .W,, :g,m-A, m.i gw.ny ' q %.v.n.d> s dr. .. m.. L >.... .. # - 9, r% , M. 9 .,.. r. ?. u. ,,,u.. w.L.y; m .t . w. r.c . q u.... 7,m %y.. m.. ..t f.-).Y r A O.d$ Mr. Morabito was questioned by Mr. Silk and asked how he would know whether ... u. 4-,Q.. M..M,yg,i;M q QQ the CIA had been reset. He responded (correctly) that the only ny us by g n

• W,y$ ~/EM.JPlYM c.,; d.*

operating the valves. .(Q'm;AY%..t, W'.j$ :.ds /;fjg/. f'.C !,$'f Mr. Morabito was then asked to operate the valves. He operated one and ' j,*#,b - dC J'J.%).M Nc. p M found it had been reset. Then, without further prompting, he atternpted to

• 6..qt operate the second set of valves and discovered it would not operate, indicating M

N* M,[O.. it had not been reset. Mr. Morabito then reached over, hit the reset button, and [pl9]g' p,q;jfMS.pj,4.W@R p then immediasely opened the valves." By carrying out the operadon correctly, - J',M,7 $g.f't.kD.M '$@%jl%y.n 'p O.@ Mr. Morabito reflected knowledge of this aspect of control board operadon. The 'j Staff suggcsts that he did so only with prompting." But the prompting was only ' Q'jQ' Rig 3 y;M with respect to performing the test, not with respect to how the test was to be l c, y: 4' <.y lq' ;.; Tg%,j.. O jjit/ y;/4"*g performed. ( <. v. -j v Mr. Morabito's performance here reflects some aspects of a sausfactory .~..F3.

f l c

p A performance and some of a marginal performance. He appears to be famillar

• * / ~.

E *u s y J 4 with equipment and procedures - an attribute of sausfactory performance." [ ... 3. p,., f - ;,;. 4 g,... J. M. 4 Honver, he made a mistake, which he corrected with little prompting - l -. s '.y:. g..... t p. z* ' ~ 3.7 p!n.,,W l .Nr 1.e., prompting only with respect to revisiung the test and not with how to p ... n./' ;. e c,.

7. @e,. _.%,glE. '.4 perform the test - and thereby met the criteria for a marginal evaluation." He

. #.v..~.J' y exhibited none of the attributes of an unsatirfactory evaluadon, other than the "j;;M Q+? initial mistake. He cannot be fairly attributed with a poor wtding knowledge l '**b.L,;.?,q".$;3,7[hfU.f-M . f. ?- and understanding of the system "obvious unfamiliarity"- such as would L ' p(,;8'I <fDJ.7,y g *;"p v.g f.%.t;" % rating of Mr. Morabito's performance here was unduly harsh and not suppcrted W.M.D Properly attend an unsatisfactory rating." In these circumstances, the Staff's .f N fj

4. y

^ S ?.g yf/, J 'l.'jk.f.j-?'d by the record. He is to be evaluated as no worse than marginal on his attempted ,jcJ.& reset o! the CIA valves. . :g ~.. <s 1. ::. c..' <: q;. o. ym n + yq.,. ~< ll; W. :: :' T.

e. Conclusion as to Control Board Operation,r Competency

.s ,(."e' '., Of the four comments under this competency, I have found only one serious ~ % / ' ' ;$, Q.S p O, p enough to be equated to a level of unsatisfxtory. I have deleted one comment 7,M gi n - and found the others no wtrse than a level of marginal. The one unsatisfactory .. w cl: M. 7.') '. J + [7,y y4 j comment is not signiacant enough to warrant a radng of unsatisfactory for the 7O" j. endre competency. Mr. Morabito has clearly fallen short of a satisfactory level ' '." f ;. f. C,y g. p g,.5 W, e. for this competency, for he has made several mistakes. But his undentanding of l n e, /.,..

e., h.. l. j

the control board and its operadon appears to be satisfactcry. For these reasons, '+~ c. ;, ,... &. u., [' o. f, (, ; gy lQ " a. N .f, 7 ',..J. ...io ,, *: ;'n %. a; "J m y ;,' '3; f.. wh IM WK .q s , [ y;.. ny m y (, 7, . ; e q,. r ".' Myt.ILBo.1021 (Rev. 2). I rs40s 1 a (s). 4 U i 4 3 1,

• ]

Id. ir.s40s.1 a (ho M ...,D' d id. I r.s40s.1 a (L'% ~. , n,,. .a .q s We 'h - f 'l .- i- ..r. k [.. ,{'* l( .c,' 4 d, \\ s

l..

qu,,.... ....v, .y a,..., ..~.... 3 .., 19,.. t, 6 ,* ~ *,* t g y.e. i ,s. s 6, 4 u. ~ .? i b 1%' v

• . /

9 ~ .' / 's

• d

'y' 1 c. ,= * /pi.{' a'.

4. .y ',+ 1s " ;,6 H....w w.'., ",.gi.4' ....?w aa;..~. 4 p< ,.. 5.c.._,.,.y.. e,,v n..',, 2.,,c.c

ya'f.,,, El A,,....

+. ..s i x. r. .v .s. g$,t..- 1 =......,. I g;, ". :r ;,, g.y j ;,,, t.,,, ..;,v:.. ,>.4 2, g...,.x'. .s. F,,,,.l a%.r , g,... g, 3,s. A s p...; ~ G +. h ; q &.:....1.' n.p. % :.c !. 6 2 v.. u: ;' t....;. i. s; -,j. n e.y . n y ~,4A.a. y . %....?, :.N,.,.,.:.- 9,441: L.; .,,,s:,.,, , L A.~.n s.. /. r ,.. ;,.; &y - i,.y 7,.i . ':q + .,., ;e. 4

• 3 l9

.:.. v n c.. s. -.

_. w...

..s.,. e. ....-r..,

s.,..

z ,a, ,s...,... >.f.;< ;. #

m.,j.I 7. t.

/ ',; A,c 3. (i;. S J, [. I am changing the Staff's gradmg of Mr. Morabito on this competency from l ., y* 7,- 3.. 'd ' t2 .,.,.3;. unimafactory m margine. ..>v l.,.,.. t., J. ; -. .t yo, ,,,. c... n t r. .o y c .r. surmturuutin i v.

3.;,.......~.m.7.c.q;......,g...

u,. Morabiio's unsmisfacwy ruins in the Supervisory AbiU.'" compdency .. +. m. w.e T -V.J.' C... ^,t'...;. c..#Y,'. 7.. *,$>rated a number of other comments by reference. we based o,,. comm , w second of me co,nmms howm,, inco,, I..,.*. y m. a t. ,=.=.!s - ~..

w...,:..,..:...s..,.y

. e -. n....~ j:,- r. d:<,*~...:...,,;i%vi.:5 T;M,,<, a . '. ; J s.. ,..p,'.*.' Q. Eneminrr's Comment 1 l m arsi of me examiner's commern under mis ccrapeancy reads as fol. i 3....;..:.~.., ..v

o,,.n

., ?....,.g;<;% + v . ?. .s ...' 'y (.. ...,%* H t ' 3.e au n.,o. 4,4,s.464.c i e eta.ghy, vs i.,w, . rg::.. D...*;." %* lf')),p ;4y .G . t...,c.a.We:,,9 weaie*=*. +

• -s4

.t s is ei.eaiv.=. .=. t W .m %s..~; e j + . s ;.....;.. $l I :. (4 y'-Q.. A. g.. *3fR;.l l,* % . V.r.- 1 d';'.#.7 Mr. Morabito claims that this comment is erroneous. He states that. as S'?,0. [ ec.j he was the 8tst to notice the stuck.open valve and called it to the asention of l !.j

• *p,

'.y 6, e ; gg;,4.j ine balance.of. plant (BOP) operator. The BOP operator ther observed it and { ~ ? Y [ ;., "[.S ,,, oM 1 %.:f initiated corrective action to close it. Mr. Morabito adds that his account is .,F;", ' M '; l l T;y veri 8ed by the fact that the reactor operator had no way of knowing that me , g -j . y',.,N. A ; .,. ~ ' ';'.. .i<.'.:% valve was stuck open unless he had heard Mr. Morabito and the BOP operator , 3.,. , g.'y.26 c.;^. 'q ; discussing it; and that. when discussing it with his examiner, the reactor operator ,3.j...';/, knew the valve was stu:k open and acknowledged hearing Mr. Morabito's . s.p;..,, .s e ?1. .+ 'f discussion of it.** J,. ; i,. g e, i ,E' 74 Mr. Morabito also claims that the examiner's scenario called for a high. level .t _ e, p i...' h ' ',. ClJ,... . p, 7,g./

• 7. n c,.;..,";. '

alarm to be the initiating event for the bypass valve failure, and that the alarm did not occur. He explains that with no alarm to call his attention to a potenth! l f . '4 , L..,Q,. problem, there was no reason for him to do more than acknowledge the BOP 6,

• 7,39 operator's report that B steam generator feed flow was spiking in a manner f,'.

nj similar to what had occurred in the Arsi scenario (where there had been a problem .4 with the simulator itself). Aher calling maintenance to check the problem, and 7',:e / after verifyitig with the BOP operator that the feedwater flow increase was returning ic' normal and was under control. Mr. Morabito concuried with the 5.'.; ,'8',7*f',1,^*.,o..,*q.',;*.g'.d BOP opermace's request to take manual control of the B steam generator feed ,, f y}%.}*Q'.f,. 7f," j, J. ; } regulating valve and then turned his suention to other mar;ers. Mr. Morabito adds r r...., m,a t %., s,..s,. '; 9 .,6 ..,.,, + 'e...,s .. ll ,,...r a r [ *e, f 'i... sy,;. j# .,.'

• NI H

Mesetne EaA 1, e.eded EaMes J. 4 Es40s ll. Asesaw be, t 1. M Mesohite EaA 1. 6. ashed EaMan s. A.ea. B, et 11. 44; ,r..

' { ;..s.

S;.{. ? .s n 'e, 0, Sl t. .~ e s s ,b i g .? e i I j p c 3r**, + e,g 4 ...i. g g o.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' " - * ' " ^ - - - - ' ' ' ' ' ^ '-- - ^ - ' - - ' ^ - - - - ' - - - ' ' ' ~ ~ - " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - ' - - ~ ~ - '

5 <*' ),fi. & q".n ki $ ; ..,% *U, [ ;. . ?. - l 1 Nh

• 4 n

MF%mmae SORM eA M4 p AW W+ :p.m,25.n *;%s.. j...gv.,+M + s. y,..,3 M.h d.i J'd/*. W.d d.D Q i that these measures were "obviously effective" since he and the BOP operst r 'i?h,jfk(td(1MMg.e n, S 8 4.',3.',.: k. d 7 wp W, t. never lost control (,f B steam generator level."

,,.

;Ygid Wl f

The Staff acknewkdge's that Mr. Morabito recognized a problem with the 8'C Q steam generator feed flow, !! faults him for not aggressively pursuing the rnot k, y.,.;. Js.M. g ( Q Q M p; cause of the gobkm and for not identifying the root cause for 20 minutes. It W..,3. A w.., u.., s.. . ;. g., M..l.) w;.deems the lxk of an alarm to be irrekt. tat, on the ground tht! many poblems ..y yv ..d .t 0.f4w. w. ~. fdf!.N5$%p E.'DAP@b W$p+ Initiated at nuclear plants do not initiate an alarm but must be identified from i hfh abnormal parameter readings. The Staff also considers the malfunctioning of the @,.f@*7t.'y.$;.fb;A -ht$4%to all indications as he would in the actual control room. The Staff concludes dA simulator to be irrelevant, inasmuch as the candidate was instructed to aspond Oyl ;'o.;y,-lk,J.@ 14.Y c,i M that Mr. Morabito has not shown that the examiner's comment was not a valid M,M'[;2.,[' [i i..fQ:.k.,. # li M;. assessment, although it concedes that the failure to ascertain the cause of the 9"'g f j..:.- problem aggressively was the signi6 cant fact in iu evaluation e! the candidate.M f; - ) "I c .'f.W 3 l,,.- j', gflf, In evaluating the validity of this comment, it is important Snt to look at ~ ,gc1 %..e ;.,? e,

4.,

./

- W? W,i..?';.,' \\c$, e, the grading standards applicabk to Mr. Morabito's examination. Rr a wnment 3

leading to an unsatisf4ctory evaluation, such as this one, the star.dards res rr 4 .i #Mf.My. " ' O tEil',di that the evaluation Se supported by detailed notes stating the pardcular action 14M.1;;,l,C 6;.[' M/j'l*8 or respuitse that resulted in the unsatisfactory evaluation."" Tha justMeation for .,'L f. $w @ h.d M,,i.?.!A 6,".j " ih.N the unsatisfx ory rating should be "explicit in what action was unsatisfactory ' D, '., 'N . ? W., Wy.,%Q and why"" The examin'r's first comment tu. des Supervisory Ability fails to P.:s :s,;X. s,... ~ N a.g 4,4 7, ratisfy tre.a standards.

r. v

... g 'i.

• The ext..;ner's comment, as written, can only legitimately be understood 4 s ';. f.f ' -:

m-g. a m,q. @ as stating that Mr. Morabito did not notice that a valve in?icator vas reading . :g

• Ss p.yy

,f y i. % ; - (,',i : '. ;j O'! @-jp in a certain way, liowever, it was not the resp.,nsibility of the SRO (in which , t. 7. 4 g,.. y. f caprity Mr. Morabito was acting at that time) to notice the open indication. , l p, p ;;. $,'.1* f {W. That wus the responsibility of the rextor operator." 'doreover, as the Staff [, # y

,., *.y p,'

does not dispute, tsfore the erw! of the sceitario Mr. Morabito noticed that the .,. y. 'l,,'c l: %. G h / @ ulve was open.5M When Mr. Morabito noticed the open valve, he took vtion [9 7[7*..]f g.Y; to determine the reason.ta The Staff acknowledged ' hat the xtion taken by T' y. ,t f, .?. {,.,,.. <g,s, f,,.,,.j" Mr. Mcrabito in this respect was appropriate." The Staff's only real comment 6 i . a c. c .c.f was that Mr. Morabito took too long to renet to the situation, that he did not pursue s remedy witn enough aggressiver.sss.* Whether or not that :omment o... . N, ' M !c.l....'M'] s... f,, y 4,M would have beer warranted as a deficiency, the commera as wTitten does not .,(, - ;S., j. ,I .4 'y ' .\\f y t

• f,f f

/. "

• '.;. ;J 5,.,a ?>

) 4 '*. c '..? ; M M s hW M l u 2h m s mM y swr M 1m H. W M 6h 64 s ,s

• ^ '
• e '.. % ;.

,, g'[ [ W M M MG1021 (h. 21. l M 3 N), u s d 6 , %;,, J g 4-M Id.15 (W u 2 of 6 (enpass in cesmth 3-3,.', ..;,f,A' '/,7 M r0'".- ',. '. 'i ' 4 h Tr. MS. 06 7' cum) Tt 36 (Enw .,r ,i< "Tr. Its 54 (Wnbue). '.g ~ r f mTt % M2 %W je p. a s

• c

,a -y.. troy,, g3 gg '[t * ' 7 ~

• Tr. lM th l99 (N<mk s.

,j' l '.q \\,'

• 5 i

6 08 sj -.s. a t.

1. , s T

g, ,j \\ . -. y .y

f. ' /.,

~ Mf[ ,, h .~ ' **

1..

C ~ Q',*,., [ i. ^ s ., 'p L- .) -., 'e '\\ s .,,. v a

, M.,,. ', (' [. [. h, - [ vY-n!( ., i: v. ..c. ,3., 3., k.9 i ~s. -w_ ^3,. e ... y* : t .. :... &..::.L... .a.. d : w. :... . ;w - e,, L'. q .'t,'ff, reflect what the Staff intended. All that it reflects is tha* Mr. Morat.to failed to ( / ,'. y ( :.. , ~., - - perform an action that he had no responsibility io perform. Ibr that, he should ,L not be faulted.

• I

,, T, q. % ' As for the Staff's argument that Mr. Morabito should not have assumed (as he a' q., c,-

-f.. V admittedly did) thht there was a simulator malfunction. the short answer is that

,, '1 *.. * '. 4 all the actions taken by Mr. Morabito were based on there being a real problem; ~ ;. :. , s. Q *. M');. .;.y. they were not influenced by his assumpdon. The assumpdon was based on a l,,.f. '.... ) '.,, j 4 report to that effect from the reactor operator, but Mr. Morabito took appropriate ',J;..,,J.*,. f.l; steps to determin.c the ca sse of the valve problem. Mr. Morabito admits that he ,7, .'. l

• 3 was tempted to "write... off" the problem as a simulator malfuncuon, based oc f..*...)..'

... c.. - .J,s..'... an earlier malfunctioc,8" He neither etpessed that view during the examination , / '.,;,- (. *,;. nor took acuon in accordance with it. He should thus not be downgraded fcr ~ this reason.l* , ;... I '..H In conclusion, this comment is legally defective and, in addition, does r.ot .f;);[.[ reflee! an ection for which Mr. Morabito should be downgraded, it must be q M(,.,.. ; '/. I + deleted. ,. 1 s a . ; r... I ..a ..... ' :. V.) b. Examiner's Comment 2 .4 ( 'l..

• 1 l)

The examiner's second comment under this cornpetency n.Ais as follows:t" .o IJnsuinfacsory one of procwres and smatief.cicry m mur. cum surrons an un**isfac-4 '~ tory perfmnancs in supervisory aNLey, ~

s.,,

Whh reference to this comment. Mr. Morabito eks its deletion for the same f reasons he opposed the vanous comments that are incorporated by reference. He .. *f al'c.s submitted a mimber of doct menu that he claims attest to his supervisory lJ l.adership (in other positions). his judgment, his capabilides. and his ability to escharge supervisory responsibilities in field operations in a nm! car power plant environment. These documents stem from his pievious employment at another . l reactor (Shippingport).58 .i The Stan takes the porition that Mr. Morabito's actions and communicadons .] observe 1 during the examination displayed a callousness to procedures and less.

• han-prxhe communications. Ibr the first time, the Staff provides exarnples j

of the inew;vrated actions that it deems to affect the candidate's supervisory , * -d s 4

• ,. ' ~.

6?',.

l l

I"Mosotano Eah, i en 2ds Tr.1M G%ebine). .+.- s, - Mr. Messinia's synnes that the.svune. 2.-4 A delmed became ed e su naoise ear: tecum u, E,>. n a m a.e ~ 1.a .r u.u. a. aen w..a ,, w(hboe J; ..i eD*6ed sna?.ecimaa e dJfense fnem $e ene to wtech the sair was nrews and a na rekvere to me vah&ty 8 t-or the starraner's ow snare. I" Marst=ne Eth, 3. sas ahed tsMn:J. $ ts.30211. Anea s/d. (2. t

1. Maritmio EaA 1 es 2122. d. acated EaMn s. AnaA. B. at 11.

e, .S 439 4 \\ 4 g E C' O N

...;a i v. .'yd.L, >.m'% f f :,g :j ;p,,6 f y.' M :9. :'.' '.r.,.9 l. i; l;W,. t4.K...c4li..V,'f6%Q, .h ' b 5' , n.n gl. %..Nh.'k. gt,.,f.~; pc. W+, lUJh r-a

m. v..

~,e, - - m. < % e b.7.,7 *f,sf m., %.. M

• %; l -l, e

A =L~. 4 1 74 ' u A y,. c...' js.. %.m. n: %r y v%.c. p. ~y s.Wu ~.,. s.+v. ~

,. w.w.um. y v.

o. Of-@$@M [Wf.Q/M4J lM%..... w y,;.r.Ud.),% abuldes. The Strff sbo asserts that Mr. MoraNto's ;vut accomplishments at J.$, S another plant do not measure his performance on the date of the examinadon at ~ ?J.7..; g %.j<O n ? 2 ,u (l..)!$ the Beaver Valley plant.* b.'h[.4.(@d,*,$.<.C.h.['j'se4fj W,M j'W N!"M'i .I agree with the Staff that, in evaluadng whether Mr. Morabito passed certain h examinadort questions, I cannot rely on his past accomplishmenu at another mph %Ni 2 1.Y % 4 N

• Plant. Beyond that, however, there are other compelling reasons why I ca not

'g.W M;p ?'..u'LiC, s

• V4 m: cept this comme *, It suffers from the same legal de6ciency as the $rst in

, 'Y' U, D e;'ed[Mi ' * ? **,iT h { I M ig '. Q W y ' 3... H this competency. It fails to appise Mr. Morabito which of the comments in the incorporated competencies have an efTect on Supervisory Ability and why 9.%! K' @V.* g,p t.' y 't.,.'[.Nd b.I each does so. I inquired which of the commenu affected Suprvisory Ability .,. s /,, l . y y.%.;.. p *,j'.;.,.. '.f 1, H-two d the irddal commenu (including one d those sdll remaining) under and was initially told that all of them did. Later, the Staff acknowledged that -c o c-3 7 7, pN. 'J(,, y;w-the ComplianceNse of Procedures Competency related to situations when , p u 7 '..* * %,f, .: y Mr. MoraNto was functioning as a reactor operator and not as an SRO, so that j? I, 2 '- (. V.

• those comments would have no bearing on his supervisory ability.* In addition,

~ a i. ?,y. ; r g - ,.i. neither this commer:t nor those incorporated by reference makes any attempt to "',B,, y 7l, :,%.,4 *y. f.J. ' f ; i spell out why exh of t!se comments has a bearing on Supervisory Ability. I had -'h ge X - }.. % - ].! 'y - to ask a number of questions to 6velop the record in this respect.no Based on ,9fCMS? 7 these cons.Merations, the examiner's second comment under Supervisory Ability .D' L,.~w' ;<. s. ;a + 7:',..'. T's, .id },- is impermbsibly nonspeciac and must be deleted for that reason. 7.c,.c.',.p. Q ); J.'.t y,%w.',;,/",.< y, g 4.y I $ould add that, on the merits, none d' the comments under ComplianceNse ,. a. q.. :2', '... of Procedures or under CommunicaionsNrew Interactions that still remain i after my review would warrant an unsatisfactory raung in Supervisory Ability, ,f either individually or collectively. The arst co.nment under ComplianecNse of ..g 'a d,,' .,',f Procedures, v.hich I have judged to be signiacant, relates to Supervisory Ab$lity .w y,.f. 'f;, only marginally, 'Ihe fourth comment under ComplianceNse of Procedures, i- ':ch N gl, . (} ~ which I have also judged to be algnlSeant, does not have any beanng c.i f

,.,lW - [

~)l' Supervisory AN11ty (since Mr. Mcr Nto was acting as a reactor operator at that p - f'? :,;.v f A ;((li U [ J ,l \\l, time). Although these two signiacant comments were sufScient to result in an / s unsadsfacton rating in ComplianceNse of Procer* nes, they are not signiacant ',, ' ;.;, f ~;'. ; } ". ;-l 4,. Nor are the two remaming commenu under Communicationsfrew Interac. 2,, ' ~ enough to lead even to a marginal rating in Supervisory Ability. q. t. 7Q..,;;(: '..,,. '. tions which I am rating marginal in that context (see pp. 443, 446, Wra). In s y the arst, ' am dow11 grading Mr. Morabito for acting premat'. rely and giving ,y-

[ '

what turned out to be an incorrect direction. There wss nothing wrong with the s

• ~ <*

J'

• manner in which he directed his sabordinates, however, and I do not believe that

.c' l Mr. Morabito should be penalized twice for this action. I am deleting the sec. ' ^ '.. f '."' ond comment as essendally inaccuratet it is likewise so for this competency. The ,o a .v, ~, ~, (< g

• staft EA 1 as Is.19, enamd trusis,171.
• Ts. 209-1104amsk y '1 D'see Ti, s1104anst

'\\, '4 ,' l u l .\\ i e, +,. 40 / p ~ lA * { l i m -e l

• ~

s n r 5 s c. g. . 'e / 9 .j r ~ s J\\.

__i ..s.r g, > < 2,.y,

e...

n-r.,, (' .,.q ,.,1,.

• s t

., - j.* . l. M, n* .'o .. 3 c .+c

• .. i. '

u.T v"M, ~...... . w'.. ~. e u ~ , ~. r, ' f,,',A third comment (concerning "thinking out loud") is th: wne as the second com. 1"*** .c ment under Compliance /IJse of Procedures, which I deleted with respect to that >j;,.*h,$)..'*11.'.?.'..%*'; competency. I rate the comment as marginal under Communkadons/ Chew In-N..- QN teractions because of lu potential for misleading others. Because no one was in t' ,' I... fact misled, houver, there seems to be no de6ciency with regard to Supervi- .6. sory Ability. Coupled with the procedural deaciencies of the incorporadon by J',.si;g'G;.,.',,.,_,.*,'t.*< -* ' J..Q'. '

• I
• 3 l..

reference, this comment should continue to be deleted. '..' y e.. Q.... ' ' e... '., '. ', : ~... ~ .2..O c. Conclusion as to Superdsory Ability Competency ~ I' *,. ' f ]' ',.. ',.. 'N Based on my deletion of both of the commenu under this competency, .... ; s,,'.' ' Mr. Mort.bito must be judged as satisfactory in Superviscry Ability. ~. "s. 4 Commonleadons/ Crew instractions '*J..",,- ' ~. The founh and final competency in which Mr. Morabito was rated as e unsmisfactcry is CommunicuionsCrew Interactions. The rating was based on s three commenu.

e. c,.-

a. Examiner's Comment i .. ' ^ The examiner's first comment under this competency reads as follows:"5 7,,' Dwins et Srst scenario, followims the loss of offsite priwer, the condideis out to ECA40 when he misekaily ahurwd met he had no energency t==.s enesiut cend dene should how reind opai wnacetion re emergency tusses fran his cyersoor who did prweriy wnfy c a ate senergency taas was energiaod and infamed the condadese es sudi. s' Mr. Morabito concedes that, during a discussion after the scenario, he i informed the examiner that he mast bave mistakenly real the DF bus as deenergized and the he was astonished as to imw he could have done that. Upon " '~ laser consideration, however, he determined that, ne had not misread the DF bus

w voltmeter and

hat in fact it was deenergized when he looked a it. He claims that, several seconds later, after the only available diesel generator was up to speed, it closed on the bus and loaded He further asserts that he then co,rectly 1

~ directed the performance of ECA 0.0 Ooss of all AC power) for the indications f,. - li* ! that he saw a the time. During performance of ECA 0.0, step %, he asked ,4 i the opersor to verify that the emergency busses were deenergized, as required a by that step. When the operator /esponded :lat the DF bus was energized, ,.1

• Mr. Morabito acknowledged that he was surprind but, without getting flustered, j

3" Massbee EA 1. ameebed Eauni J, i ES M t t. M.nA Os.11. o 44g 4 [ g s a ,-._____e.___._

. u.. y. ...a.

• ']W" **

A

• N '**I *f f h,.
• eh [.

),, ~ I\\ Q ;4. W P $.f S ",h M ? h s $ 8 % 8 M 5 E @ W W W e tyh;, 6A.' i y,. 3 -Y MW!h & % w:. i :D ' b;...; Q & l7;.t' Q g" k. 3* m k<,:gr// W L a't q. a. ; - l %..r w x w &.4(kr%. t, f4, y e,Y rgO,Nf;,$gM;,.v..,8' o. r. 4.o 1 M.%.'.9 properly directed transition to step 1 of E-O, as required by the procedure. He 54*,g b,,rgt @g.Q N.yp..*N. /lQ adds that at no time was the plant placed in a less safe posidon, and safe

• 6" jg.g, e Q.v'dM ".

.f shutdown was achieved.iu 8,bO MOr,.$,dM*1.M, '*d9 M*'Jy ' The Staff asserts that, during a loss of offsite power where the diesel e I generator staned and loaded as designed, Mr. Morabito did not recognize that hy,w(J') %%,; f. t M t, d.' ^.y 5 the diesel generator does not load for approxirnately 10 seconds aAer loss of .w eu onaoo.er, so mat his aedon w= na based on a consci osasme= of piant NWf,('.'j,.$6;m.::*v*m./u ,jdW,j conditions. Rrther, Mr. Morabito failed to ask the operator about the AC buses @b *yW* $N*.6.%*4'd.h. C

7. Y. M *, 'y' ?.Ij.

a result, the, candidate entered the emergency operating procedures incorrect!y, and ea==anitly failed to use available informadon before taking action. As p i "%*,',*,p;*'MyQ'.! )1^;W.!'. r :,JC... %. : in that he went to ECA 0.0 (loss of all AC poogr) instead of E 0 (reactor Q '. :, l.,,y. . A *.Q;; *;- trip / safety injection). 'the Staff concludes that the failure to communPate with ,. P 'N Q,.'.;,.. Ny F, g. T., ' t *;... '. y "*[t ^p' the operator prior to taking action on an incorrect understanding of plant i iQ conditions demonstrates de6ciencies as a senior operator,u8 The de6ciencies, Q;.f 1'. * *..',$,..'l d y, w':,%, $however, are not so signi8 cant that, standing alone, they would warrant an

x,?), g q f * *,pf, unsatisfactory rating in the competency."'

f (,;... y,' 'gg. 4.s. Q d; M j B In response to my inquiry whether the candidate (who was here acting l Q,y j/ 'O,f;, *..( '. ddy as s' senior operator) would norirstly be expected to communicate with the s 5 m.1,, 'e,2J'N*) J,;14rf G.'.,ii.P,% y .,,,4..,' operator before taking action in this situation,us the two parties reach differing .p conclusions. The Staff acknowledges that for a short period of time the busses j . Q.,', Q ; / g y *a,.; T f 'if.l, , i-were not energi24d.18' It justiaes its position that Mr. Morabito shoald have ,'.'.s :,,;y,,,j.,g w 74 [ g %. communicated with the operator with the general proposition that, although the 5, t ; W. s J,. g- . p%, SRO, as supervisor, should not be invobed with control bossd opemtions, he $ u ; Af '[*[,45.. : {.J t F.i; 4 most maintain the overall plant conditions in a safe manner.nt ..J',. 7 f f /- L,'.I v M.h On ti.e other hand, Mr. Morabito's negative answer is pemised on his t ',^ ' 'f.'y, Q,, l M.G7,0 ;. s; understanding that symptoms of loss of all AC power are "quite evident" = 6,My' Wid that neither operator objected to his direction to perform the immediate l .,,K. i 7 c,.g,% .m actions of ECA 0.0, He states that the BOP op rator veri 6ed that one AC bus ,; f g ;.$ d.ph was energized when questioned by Mr. Morabito m accordance with step 8.a ,;S4.4, L' , '. ; c, t. ;< of ECA 0.0, When the BOP operator provided his response, Mr. Morabito l i . g-r. $ f,,.[g C TJ.. 3 ?f/- - Personally veri 6ed the response and then directed the transition to E;0, step 1, ( kM ., y.1.,.' l j$ ~ ; ' *. .g.h'p ' + i. j $. f. .y in accordance with step 8.d of ECA 0.0 Thus, according to Mr. Marabiio, the l ,f,s.Q f emergercy procedure contemplated the slanation presented by the examination, '.,.,',*.:'<}~;',g,Pz;g,' ,a,- ..f by containing an automatic provision for abor ting the procedure once sa operator ,c .. l ', g, reshaed that a bus was energized; and he properly followed the procedure.na s'%g .AD =t... 4. y k,. f gg nemeham Eak i a 2s.25; eenshed Zahome s, Apperda li, m 12. ,*4 o ., 1.., 4, & f.s Vi ,.4 ..**,,'m e

• • 7 s','

lc llising Iak 1 a s4 eenshed attom 1N. .3 p !!' sus sak s,110e. ~ 'W is,, o * . ef,. * ), O 1,,; I,*,lh ? ,,e, "8 esM1, are, ss Nac a eas,,imme s.e i t s.,f,;*'. 5 D'h 2:1 @daansi i., w l, i ' f I', g, *,,* ~; p ' 1 *,. .) J. ;..'d II'sidr anA s, t 44. ~. > l -N ,. ',, A' L,,,, ', y e >,*,* 7,.'t ;.,,. ; % c H8 emahme ask s a U Is h 20 Is WW t [ i./ w' . ' ' ;, o..,.p.,,,... a p. 3.g g r 7, 4, *, ',.7 if..#E g +~ r - a- .s. e ,e ...s a 442 .d,,,,,.....,, + c, j,;d i /.,.,,;.n m ~. r a 4 g 8 4 ..L' g a. A, .[, ,g e. ' at [' b, .t f e ^$ g. 1',' ~ s , ' 1: ., m..,w n - - : ., y.,- ---... v. 7 : - v.:, - +, ~- ~., ce,? : , _i.. s,.s-n.,. g 'U,3 -',1 3 ' ,, s. l g - ., q-v .. n* . 6, .s'. a 6 g,C i.; l*;s e ,i* g. ,s (. J ? ".! y. wl j s,'

J e'

$,) ~ i Y .'ws L. ,. i. O=

• Q.*C \\.*

a a .n, = ' . 9,} ,. g 7 ,,,,. J ( $ ' y ,7, j - ,, '.,;y y.(.. +' '3 ' o ..e c ~, ., +.., s y,m.,. ~ ' ., j ',,) ' [',* .D5$, l,**.',,.* (y} g;.8M Q','4 g .,**? =, -'.a p. .+ , (., [ c - - - ~ -- w w -. - ~ - - * - - - ~ ~- ~ ~

m_.-. - ~. - x-.-~m'y j ;f. efl ;,' 7c > y..,,. n' 7..

• y,

,, u, -, '" e'

'. g s.; y s.

e., , ' g n, :. [< 1 /.; +Q. ;/r .,..c ".7 : r S.c M ' % - ~ i.t > p i. ;.. w s. ^v e ?, 2., ~..,% N.l ._. g G. Ts. e A' -e L ': -~. :< a ~ n~ ^-

v. ;,.....a. u.

.a 4n *.. .,. ~f g ' _. -, s v. :.". : l0., ':',,. - 4, . q. .A 9 a% o > y s': l e.; :, y s, A y. .l q.m:,.. :.u;; c.... ,.t 1 Nh-J,. -i y'4 J.M k'd -).,:.,i.j Procedure ECA 0.0 requires, as stry conditions, loss of offsite power and no emergency busses energized."' Both partien agree that there was a loss of y.,,M.,.:N Q:f > * . i,- offsise power and a short period of time when the emergency busses were not e,a - i I,/ 5pp!~.$,J'.~[?..N...i.,';j,..v/d d *d '.,. ('. .M. j, energized. 'the real question here is whether Mr. Morabito acted prematurely in entering procedure ECA 0.0. I c.. iA:+t.;.. <..VJ.9;.,'; JI ^ Mr. Morabito claims that he did not act prematurely; that the emergency pro-l'."'.5.$f6 cedures are symptom based and "when you see the symptoms you implement"

1 I, G ( * ;},' J' /; ; 1 c %*p '; f i., g the procedures, without "want[ing) a second or two (to) see if those symptoms (J, M',V.9 'y

f,. t'.:!, .;'(., ** -

p' are going to 30 away.* "Ihe Staff, however, maintains that me diesel generator 'q ' : -* ", t; A, /, ',.,

• had started prior to Mr. Morabito's enterias the procedure; that this starting was G;.* y' *.,*',.y.. ? lj, *.. *f. "
• c' resected in lights on the control panel; and that, in any event, Mr. Morabito's i
• ;;j '

',a.. ;.. training should have taught him that it would take up to 10 seconds for the l g. l N)3 3 * *

• diesel generator e get staned and he should have waited those few seconds to

,,.,p ; 9 determine if it would do t'i.* "..=.*.?- + ...,.O 'this comment represents another very close quesdon. I Snd that, as a result MA., - ; t.j, p'y.,3 t 33.5f g,,, [g of the training he received, Mr. Morabito should have realized that it would j 3 '. 'Q. t.,.' ',' e t.... take a few seconds for the diesel gmerator :D start nr.d, Since the startup i ,. ' " ' f ' :,* g C. ?. would negnee one of the entry conditions to the neoW.are, should have waited b.)g,(

• p ';, q.,l,ec d.. ' ; *, :I;.;*[$',M'.,3i.7+f...,'.*

briefi m ascertain whether the entry condklons wre met. Mr. Morabito's action l S. ':; :- was th esfore premature. However, the effect m reactor operation v.as trivial. particularly since the procedure included a mechamsm for exiting once it was ] ...,9 ', ~ ~ '. '. 1 i a O N M '.,,J ' discovered that the bus became energized. Moreover, Mr. Morabito, during i .,.y 7 /,,. ;,".h y '[; 7 questioning by myself and Dr. Hesnck, seemed completely Imowledgeable about ,ys-how the procedure workM. Aji;f.,,}.(y y.., o.' ,4f.1" y 'that being so, his action in neglecting to wait several seconds before eruaring J the procedure may be equated as falling between a "slight or minor dif8culty ..L' '.. s jlt ;\\ ' -; p,l. ;.., //,, ~ . p P, h. :.. a "dif8culty... in teladng t'te interactions of systems" (one of the standards relating to system interactions"(one of the standards for a sadsfactory rating) and c*7 (. yy.%- ^, for a marginal redng)." His acdvities clearty do not resect the "obvious s*.I. vl

c. f. ' 'l', y;;.;c g; 3

'. [. unfamiliarity with subjec anWor system" characteristic of ar. unsadsfactory .u ,, !. t,,. 7..t, f, [. 'j, ' '.c...'.' d.^.', rating." In these circumstances, this comment will remain a deSciency but will ~ be evaluated at a level no lower than marginal, s-a,. rr,- 3, < y,..,. s f 4 ,4 4 e. , en ~.. -.,, y '.. ~ r ~...,, J. .L,7.";'L.y

• ',:,.:, y c,

N ~ ,Y

• .~

,g h M %} y, Wh 21s (nommatunek ' ~,. ',. ; w I* s m h sat. ass M Odesunk

• ".. q ',.

j, 8 ?.. ' '. Mlaso 1atI (ase. 2. Ias.3es, q a (s, he,. at t W l MJaso lett. l Es He.1 a (W at s or & ,9 m* e / 441 .[ y \\ \\ 8 4 .+- g , 4 x h ,4 g g %7 + p f .k = e-i1

• \\,

---.-------,,.,..--g----r., _ ~ ~. - -, - g --

k.lJhMNSh.M$hb NM lob.bh k , D hN RWMWMM%M&&.h.kMMMWMh8 MW.ER. jim %$N %i.I.M Wi$pI.n%,M$d{ 1 m. :., ;31~.9...v.M.w%.J.aww . 3.... vs,. .s, .o .w..,%a~ m.e %yag m.m s %.. w.<sq . e t".,. r -n g.y M. M y;;a. y .v.. m.c,,y.,. r5 c 6f.($y*m,g N, y:Mfh;:5

b. Emiker's Commer 2

.'G

W.

']a hl.jY5'[,Yh.eDN]d 52:."WM.M. >.h..:;5@...c N[ I The examiner's second comment under the CommunicationsErew Interz. tions compuency reads as follom:* ,a %.; W-Y)fr.: 7.f(C' $.,,M ..,lj y*a-f,'*U2? Dwins ibe neced scenano, nep 6 ct E.1 calh for chedteis secondary redW levsk. Aa

• y4 a.g *J q'.,/pyr4ql"; @.. /

. 7.5 opersor checa.i the ownison and said "one trecance h obous en needi (holdins ansen = i ebas 1/2 io 1 bch wen) hishu ihan acemal. caredme poc.eded h s.t. Duins roacmuy p.g *A;,, n. .p. v 7 % etue ihe u.narw. the caradeu adrniime =nwene.* ihe wouor's r,co .,. t,p.N.%..,, yK, ;,p., p*f W, g t ~, 7. .* y'p o,. c; >f. .i d narwary radiation leveh erv4 anismed there was no rouce to so io B.3. [Erryhesis 'm 4,y ,.. n,... a, .~.v 1 9 wy y.. m .rw 'fF*r'*[ M N Q'[.j 7',3't Mr. Morabito acknowledges that he relled on a hand signal from the reactor S*/ctOf %.Q'.y.f;"k % g..g operator ha claims that he astred followup questions to assist him in making .w ;.x,nN ce.tain that he understood the signals. He indicates that, in the circumstances, ,p:.....h'.i'.[. I h..

1. i [~

e ..~ - ... i r y.Q.G/:C,"b.. ' [;' j ?, ~ the hand signal was apropiate, inasmuch as a vertal description could have X,. li" < :......., ?,. ":r. - introduced other errors. He denies that he admitted to misunderstanding the _.,,c !jy' f Gb

• ;j.a R.W.Qft *W p'%;y operator's report, explaining that he misundentood certain followup questions asked him by the examiner. He also asserts that, given the ansurs to questions

, "@(, '92)..q.M @.N,@My' i 3$ he received from the operator, there would have been no reason to turn

!td.'l@

to procedure E 3 (sening fort's a procedure to follow in the event of tube .. y. " J M J L M,h. ( M 7. {g .W $ rupture). Mr. Morabito stresses that, on the basis of the operator's report (the , 9 k.'.$D.ld*$ hand signal) and his own followup questions, he made the correct decision.* . c' 4.e; f .;i 'The Staff claims that Mr. Morabito relied on hand signals from the operator f.: l', .).,,sP. W. M @Q; Q f.@ n, Mj ':.',. and that hand signals are not a reliable means of communication in the control 410:.,.w.. h?. ;, y, V . c g..q.- room. It explains the basis for lu nonreliability view as "self. evident." The %')lpf r$,(g,.( Aef.;f pf.;.v.':.4 is not relevant to the comment, inasmuch as it was inappopriate (per u) to 0 Staff adds that whetha or not Mr. Morabito understood the particular algnal ,O j,f.E 1(@,.j f };.W.p yd 9 *.iMd?' [D'p;. situation, the Staff merely states that it is "tased on a verbal statement by the q rely on a hand signal. As (cr Mr. Morabito's alleged misunderstanding of the /J. f ',. & D, p.h{*ff s. t ]4,,,.,j., r!.? Q.,i I can agree with the Staff that the use of nand signals in the control ?R pI;; g candidate."* i.

p..,

g

.. v,t V room is not to be encouraged. As the Staff poinu out, the potendal for .) ~~ '..+ r ,, ;a <. erroneous interpretations is as great, if not greater, than the potential for verbal , i e ' >. M D - / misunderstandings to which Mr. Morabito referred.m But, in re4ponse to my J s f.)J ' g.,, ", s 1.iquiry, both Mr. Morabito and the Staff indicated that they were twx awwe of J.'"f.v . ',..l M. any rule or standard that would peclude the use of such signals." Nor was p.. i d s.

1. ., h[*r/*.d=c*6'

' t ( [ ** *; ; ) *. g,4 yg- - [e ' g .h...a-4 ,,,s.. ) [,.4'*[b. }e,,d l *Y ' ' [ t O 9. ',,, W / * ^ M M.shes ad ], goeded IAWht h i E3 30111. M 4J4,11 6*-/'MV f./, Westes EA 1 et 23; M. eaaded Edene s. AneA a. et 11 henne EA 3 et Il It T. s32.H ,.. C. h.,4 ). ,...' r.

c. w f'T. ;.,

,. A e.,' m -(;.q,g

'a swr rA 1 a 2n e a.d.ru,m.1n. vse - f,].. trtsWr rA 2.M , c ~ .', ,.@ i.{..' V. W. **}

• ampass u,.mnase a.5 he hwe rA 3 a 1t, sur rA s, ylot n- :

?, v L.,,. -:, ,,.6 ',n. L /.~y. ( 6 :.;mj p.N. r, Y...,.. W,w# 54. A \\' '{ ,,.1 4 O., fa. ' g [,yl *' 3 4.,A 1 Q ,e 'a y -.p ., p, .1 ' *, y. g' a,~. .J f. , A. ** ,.g I

1 I

sA J + 4 \\ .3 g.',# , m %=r.n. *. - ;- yw. g* g 'g ,e s /

• 4 I%

, s { i' 's s.1 i a ,]i .y" . c s s ... ' < - ;, y,, ( j } f 4, h, 8' k, 4 ,g -4.~._, - w -

.g c..:, y. y g ;:v:4.g y'.V. l f..Q l *.- t .s.,.. r .p., ,'c. c. , a..1;a x. 4.Jsy : W's:.:v . :... m '.., " a t. n. ?- s ~ 3 l1 p' .. p ',f ait +.;".g W %. & ; ",'l.. N. '. ~ f \\

O 8

s 4.K...

w y f#f. w & f d.'r:A: + cd. l::;, g:s.:.v z.%n ;;q_:.&. :q,' z'..4:; " * ~.. ?' '~ . ~.. >. h ~1 w. i '.j W$., p., 7.,_ ;., a..,..ye r ,. s. 7 .. ~. s s..r,.,. ..e

• a y '.OM.j'F,%.(

l c: S

• g.. n p,>;. p. '. ^9 '.\\x.2 o

,a I

j..r.. 3, x :e... < g s...

2u c ,. ytt:

p. yep q :J,.Q.a.nz, jn ? Q;..s.

.,.6sr .c,.m.. i c'.*T,p..t f y.4 % 3 j Mr. Morabito given instruction, either by NRC or Duquesne Light Company, I M.**,G' * [l'*p.[M.[f,.,f u/c yY,p b concerning the use of hand signals. During his training, he was never told that f . y ?., it was inappropriate to use har.d signals or to permit use of hand signals by persons serving under his direction.* ., 4., W - ; ~ 7 / M f i @Y )' . ;t. i',s JA. 9l,l*M dl U $ ' g. .. u h: Ii. The Staff would have preferred Mr. Morabito to have responded to the hand %71.},f *A*;r;.y*l p,9f., M.M.';f PJ signal with a question such as how much?", which would in effect have been a l % 7 *1. Q( ;,.*.C,i,'. M.$ -l?.*.; M . 1 rejection of the hand signal." The Staff did not recall any followup discussion 1 i[*^ between Mr. Morabito and the reactor operator

• Olven the consistency of h.*/.' M,ff.'J 7.

c.*.'.,@f.j' N I M :*1*l%*1!)questions of the operator, I and that he did indeed ask qteestions designed to { U I Mr. Morabito's claim (starting kom his arst appeal) that he did ask certain , f- ?j.?.t.;,,1,.b'f.*OlN**.*.,'.[ ascertain whether there were any indications of a tube rupture (the situation that

f. ' M*d *g[.. (,[,'. 7f...w*/;J*.f.'*/

..g ' would have called for entering procedure E 3).* As a resuk of his inquiries. he / i determined that a tube rupture had not occurred and reached the correct decision

• f. *. 6 y.d'f.*,e.*;'.'.,,

not to go lato procedure E 3. [ e '. c.- g c 3,, I; < u,. f,, Q. Furthermore, it seems apparent that Mr. Morabito did not admit to the exam. j /

• YJ F S c;3 Y.,. ",.. ( '

iner, following the scenario, that he had misunderstood the hand signal. What l ,, c. . q,t.... he admitted misuMerstanding was the off.on status of the simulator, following l .,e .g .s . <s . e; ?. p.. s. v.. : s ig; }}.T;(*j,Q<y., p the conclusion of the scenario Knowing that fact was important for purposes of responding to the followup questions asked him by the examiner.m 't. s,l, . i r.,'.'.. +, ;,.". G % '. : ,y.,

.s G

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Mr. Morabito was knowledgeable of r y. the events that were occurring and that he did not utillr.e the correct procedure g '. .y

• ,,,.g T.;.. Y, .,*.

,',7.;} L' fortuhously. He did not adenit to any misunderstanding of the events that were j f..,, occurnas, only to followup questions asked him by the examiner. There was no <. w , [;.1l # g.;l '

E. '.,

• 9, ' ;' * '

regulatory bar to his reliance on hand signals, nor was he instructed as part of ..k %,J,y d d, p ' b,:,% w his training not to do so. Por there reasons, this comment of the examiner must .j" ,( ,.J. be deleted. l .p q 7,',.;..,. c ; e.:7 (.. /,y.. .; yf. I stated earlier that I agreed with the Start that use of hand signals in the .1 + control room may be inappropriate, if the Staff believes that use of hand signals i f,."..'*..,#p{m: is inappropriate to the extent necessary to lead to de6ciency ratings on operator ( f, '.. e, 1. f' or SRO simulator examinauone, it should either publish a standard or guideline >.l . 5,,W,y -Q,. ' j, p'.A ! !c, seeing forth that view or, ahernatively, mandate that that viempint be included ( ,,7[, * *. r" 1 '

• /

in operator training programs. Absent guidance of that type, a candidate cannot .. f g : *.? fairly be penaliaed for reliance on hand signals, particularly where (as here) no I

u. <. i.'y,

0...o ' '

< -.* ~,. iscerect actions were taken as a result. i 3 t c., ...{

s. e' -

e. M.... v* w.i..y ,w -+ ....t 6 6 +

m., w.*

{ .[., /. p. 3... ly)

• sepassa to pasmani alh(a) Meehne Eis 3 as 19. sins sA 3.1104; Tt 130 (Maseh, net i

g sa ' ~~ ?} "Tr. D6. D649 Odensk l 4. s 138 ,.8-. (.,.,,'.- { 13e Musehen sA t, eenshed EA.h s. u a, as 12. Wasehme Ea 1 et 23. Meehim M 3 ei it. Ta 31 Ts. 237 Odensi L { .C 38 Tr, 23345 (h.a I i 445 b \\ .~ f g .,a g 4 4 e g 3 O y. s h. I }.8 M-s n ) .W-

h -Yf M ihb fN a s w h y h. 4, k.k; a %: h,.d M w. w,wm M,kM M. , -W;('e &T.VsM;Mphh%** f,g J.Wylf ) 'y .f< G,y $ xg- <y w: m, S.~ w.t y %a f A.., @.;n,,c ?..L ye. w a. z M..:c+ w:,. c. t- @~ d. o., ,%%Q..n.. ~'},}.,w%, 'M:w ).o?.~% 6.N..m ~

Irm e

A.e ;. y~9 %.w.M..: =;. v. ..acy,w.. ',- n.. r p. - g:-

c. E.naminer's Comment 3 J,'g,,,,!.'t-$ g.Ff'i.Q The third (and anal) comment under Communicadons/ Crew Interacdons reads

,t 4. e - m [h. 0.; h.l.[j b N h.I " k h as f 11 ws:* 61 ** y(e.Y.';f3 g. A, $.pw f.

it.N

-.e. My ' ',,4 p*p%. M ?%

• s3 q $7 NM'J.d;9 N.s ' fd..+f,*j During seccsid scenario, wne h E51.2 sasp 27, the canEdeas asked 'Are RC5 ha leg isrepereams greener than 395 F7"=ha did nw weit for an c,weesor response and j

k.,, Y.e M, w tw x/k*. P *.'. Q.; assumed the enewer to the q=am was "pa" and ans=ored "pe* enoud to henself. The n,. 'c.,h, f.8' W 7.'*i* 1,WW cyerow than hdaceaed the answer to ibe questxm wee 'No'. , 18s . [. 9g'y? lhis is the same commem as the examiner's second commern under the i {f % -s k d '72.7 M [ M @Jh .MI[Y4MdQ '. ' q j f ComplianceNse of Procedures competency. I deleted the comment in that O*J -

• 8

? 'i' context as being insubstantial. See pp. 428 29, supra.

• h ll87*

?7 With respect to this competency, the arguments advanced by the parties on l 1.M W' d'hWi. M-MM. ph this comment r.re similar to those advanced under the c4her competency. Mr. M h,a Q t M,.Qf< '.$,0W,,[M*..k[W'%n Morabito stresses that "thinking out loud" should be encouraged and that the gi (ff proceduro was carried out correctly, on the basis of the operator's report. In i M * @% rj' M Q fl @h fi .',M/ 1 sermJ of this competency (as well as that of Supervisory ANiity, into which this J*.gh.?%F36/4MW a good supervisor, a good communicata, a good crew interactor to be able to

• -M comment is incorporated by reference), Mr. Morabito concludes that "{ilt takes c

%;.$@I.* DOE

• t 9:

hbi fi?.i.h%de%. d6 generate enough information during an emergency to subsequendy subjugate his

r. 4 7 ".< ?

l k% DM.CM. J'd,d7 $ owti thoughts to the rea! facu and act accordingly and correctly.=m v The Staff adds only that Mr. Morabito not only failed to awalt the correct '.NT@y,!h,MGlMU$%g$ 3 M information but also incorrectly analyzed the effects of the transient in progress ' i..

• /,Q 'W:

7 jMy and improperly andcipated ptant parameters. This comment is said io reflect p t.N;;'%g,%@Mij,gg Mr. Morabito's lack of care in communicating and interacting with other r,y. +..

77. ~ p pg, g /.4 operators.*

6 Q '1,';y,.s ;ff;N'.!!gQSr in terms of CommunicadonsKrew Iracractions, the signi6 cant implicadcri j . bis r ',.$M 9. M N [C~ @ [g%>/ M p f- / "M d of "thinking out loud" is whether others in the control room would be mis-f.,Wf O' '.,2.';. 'Q'$@.$gi.y.y.V ' led. Both parties agree tt.at no one was misled by Mr. Morabito's incorrect statement.m Moreover, no inccrrect action was taken, either by Mr. Morabito ..'.. t. f,l'N b' - W g g g.; w by angne else. The potential for misleading others, however, did exist. A1

• h * ', 'O;!',,Q '. l T..j h.0 *.W.s '_ { 0[ A %,fi,'d initial statement is perhaps warranted, because of the potential for misicading N

7 though insubstantial in the circumstances, some downgnaling for the incorrect , '.' '..t.'k;".., ; M ',fX' odWrs. Mr. Morabito argues that, at wtrst, his stion should be evaluated (with f,g ' T. p'l4 3,pf$ h, ey respect to CommunicationsStew Interactions) at a level no lower than "M*.* N./g . O.l, f 0.. J glK.4.Q.30., h I agree.

m*.

,-t i:.gm Q, -

• +,;'4* '. <

.,,..f.**4 4 g,,,a',j?

• j ;'. s',,J. s ; s t A.

J. i ~ %. t. ', ':=?f r. t l > [*g e \\ ' *%_ }

• v, *.v.,'

.-b A .w U'h Ea t ed Es t lu. mil, M M t t 1 ,' a*.

• q 8,. (' *,
• 4,W.. % @'A@.,'

..y d*i, b., mMush,ne Em I a 34,,d. eaM=d Ethba s, Anne. s. at 13. ~~ w 't.'+,.'.'. r, L. ';.4., 'y ;. C

• i.

9 ;, He d E41 e 2 emed.d N61so. s

t. 3.

• a.,

m, s.s e u m.ta : amsu,rEa s, gin ys. g;, y. r.7 m u=*= La : a ao ( r = g-aw. sJ g,n s .pn 3.;..,.. n. ,.. g., ', 4 s 1.<. ( <p y. .,. V \\ .s 3, 4 4 .,.Wg Z** \\*'.,,;b h,. a ...r s,.? % to '.,,o. s.'{.,)*;c.** L.,1 ,c* *, r-{l.. , ;* f. seg [ _,c,.[ ".z. *, 44f n 8 s tv., -. b y ,f.... ,,4 ? m P = t

• g,

., - J

,.C, f-s e ,n .i ,.r. es* ,p 3 .S p,p ,w } v. z- . ~.,,., .g g ^[

• s.

I

1. ' ' j 's

.k g<., . -. + -. ,l '3 ., '.. e r -. - ~ ~. +'

• r - -- rw-e-t
• p /,

{ .q s y e' r 3 ,. j g ?* i e .,e* 4 9 . g' e g g ': 1 ,,7 --*. *.,;[t ; s i k *7

f, j[,

N; l v d e f = " %{.'s ,c , s s h,. t'*- .s %r - q. s,' L l ,i',g. i..f ' y, " /d,h;'.,(* p.cjyg '(i r, a e,'l [' e] i % ' -i _]# ,.s m .x s

/,M,.. v.. ..,. ~ s, ;. p., ,.s

c..,..

.p ~ mn -e. s . y, ~ ., ',.,.,,y,/ 3,i,'. j.,;, y,,.:. {j7 7 7.., <. lf f, g h. ,S y .<f8 r p

• • (,

3 y j,:.. .w a o y..( g.. a- _, _, y ;,y;m.;,.a. 3.,. r

• J,4. %..w.,:

e,.., c ..'. c ...,~.

~.x

.,,. ~. e n ;, 4 -> 9 e p

• s#

,s J.,.***e,.'. ' i.'*.. c ,E. [ n j a ',l ,.} . '. c . '{, ' ), d. Conclusion a,s to Communications / Crew Interactions Compewncy ,',;, :., " * \\l ', a*[ j".,, "{;; ff. ]',Q.y... . ~* Of the three comments under this competency, I have deleted one and rated the other two as no worse than a level of marginal. Mr. Mcrabito, on the basis 4 .. ' ' 3 l $,t,;. ' i37, },,,, q.. of a lack of substantiality of the two commenu, might possibly be awarded / .' ".....i 3..,....g; [*.?, ! a sadsf: story rating. In the, interest of conservatism, honver, I wiu evaluate 4 ~ * % : /..,'/ e,u L.;i,'.'.' ;.,8 (O Mr. Morabito as margMal in the Communicadons/ Crew Interxtions competency. i L - v

• p. ' &v..ov.,

. \\,v a, w

9. r,,.

3., w.., o

,m ..e_.. .n . *r %y.:s C. Coeclusions T V ';. :. ;'.Q.r c ',.,. E ,' O,','D. [%,. With respect to the simulator examination, the Staff rated Mr. Morabito re f. e 2 ', ;,'c

• 4 as unsaticfacimy in four competencies and, on that basis, gave him a falling

, f,,. " i D,;.\\3 grade on the examinadon. Upon a complete review of all the comments that =.'v ' wie used in reaching the various unsatisfactory retings, I have determined that ~ , i. t Mr. Morab43 should be rated as unsatisfactory in one competency, marginal in ' *3 7, N, '.' t.. two others, and satisfactory in the fourth.

• S ' :,"'

e

• . 'y*:

i f,. A canduiste may, under NRC jruidelines, be deemed to have failed an '+. ' ', , '.., " f - examination on the basis of a radng of unsatisfactory in only one competency.m .h. T But that result need not take place if a candidate's overall performance suggests cri e 'f C that it is not warranted. That is the situation here. As I previcusly polnied e ..f O * '. J out. the unsadsfactory rating in the ComplianceNse of Procedures competency h,".,. f 8. t is now based on two actions that are not serious enough to warrant a falling Ui 'Q p ;

• t'.
• grade on the examination as a whole. The two marginal grades are also based

<1 i-on acticas that are not very serious. Indeed, the Staff acknowledged that the + potendal consequences that may follow from pasticular actions of a candidate J'.+.. y. .,s Q i,- may be taken into account in determining a candidate's gradet* and that none .c,'l of Mr. Morabito's activities put the reacta in any danger."' Taidng into account all these factors, I and that the single unsatisfactory competency raung, sogether with marginal ratings in two other competencies, i do not warrant a falling grade on the examinauon as a whole. I 6nd that ^ .,, j, Mr. Morabito passed the simulator examinabon that was administered to him, / c.. ,C Insofar as this record renects, passage of the simulator examinadon was the only 't remaining bar to Mr. Morabito's obtaining the SRO license for whicli he is a ..'..'./ ".' c. -s candidate. Accordhgly, he should be issued a senior reactor operator's license t ;.... for the Beaver Valley Pour Station, Unit 1.18 ,. ' 4. * '} .'a

• e c
• m;nso1o2: (n.r,. a. Insos.1 n.

E ~* W Ts. lH 4%se M3 Tt.2ss cien d l*3 he s year inre d um sao hamme (see 10 C.F2. ) $$J2 0M7D m to rise trase en esas d 6u tasunse t , 'c ~,. eeneuve StaIO1021 (ase, D, IES.ll2,11Cl. Cit, and D.d (smenines emwarmes eduseve dem d e homes) to be cryusetes esity obei e besee emuel e oursweed ema.sh haC staff rmee. To snake de tale e (CeanamQ 4 447 3 \\ n' t g,. m. g m ' y 9

h

• )

,I. %.n.mn M &eWW[.*&& w.,MMa' #wkDmM k* ? Y. ',@ g,y;%.Q'*e.,f. d., %c.p.,L a Jj. ' 9 /g',& s f .. q .p.,9 p.d c.t. m,e e .,M M k. v W@ - t - ug..,/. 4.:)9 T. ql*'%,..e, t+,.L.?, g V. ,1; s '.,%- n,y 3 s .t % 4 b.. ,e ,hk. i,, b 7 hNN, f.% I y; W;.'s IH. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS . ~....a s..e R c ' %. t e%% 'N.*f.&:,' % ,:s* p. }

• y:J S y4*.3.$'i'0M,e. ; -

y . M fa>*!,.7' * (.*7 %

• Y;, M y,/. T d.;..:

On the basis of my review of the entire record l't this proceeding, several ,,W.' f *.' NW M. \\? Q y addidonal poinu must be stre+. sed. First, both partjes are to be commended for f.in.'.' y% ':Q 'M,. j. the assistance they provided in developing the record of this proceeding to the ? M,';.f f% V @ I",C,;*k

• Gl%

degree necessary for me to trovide an informed ruling on many technically / i '.s5 ((5 cornplea issues. This proceeding utilized (at the suggestion of the Commission) 7j$,,;'?(; $p 1*.' ;, ?. R@. A'*k. -: jD.* ?,MJ the proposed prowlures for informal procNdings. Although those procedures .y ?! b wre not speciacally designed for appeals in operator examinadon proceedings, W;*'g,d y J . 'py,2l% 5'8. ;.4.'. "M.i. i they enaNed the parties to present their posidons effectively and provided 'he o MM'.V"P. , s*M.h / ' ' C{.< Presiding Oftker with enough flexibility to fill in gaps in the record which - p g, d '.( %g / M Y.,.;g; $.f y,3 7 might have compromised a full and fair determination of the merf ts of various ade ( 7 ,'s.g - f* a. t. d' fy* substandve questions. Nonetheless, the procedures, although leas complex than . h " <y, ' '# g% M. t those for formal adjudications in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpan 0, do include certain M,* d.y( L,' se f }g' r e ,.4 M 5. a e ' M ' ',;.3 complexides. /. D 'I/ W 9 'Jl;V % [ Mr. Morabito, a nonlawyer, streceded in overcoming those complexides to [ . P.@. 'Qc.'[.?([MgW.'O the extent necessary to create a record sign 16 candy more complete than at the f,'h?. ;.Q.W U /T!*i 4 F' 'W4 g.. i.<-2.*1 M i time he instituted his appeal. The Staff, for its part, carefully responded to the t. ?.9p g. ' \\'*

.' 7..!Q argumenu propounded by Mr. Morabito and attempted to provide a complete N y t $y @' j '- l ;.:,. t, h t.'i' Q N brkground for the issues raised by Mr. Morabito. Both parties provided MF.

. Vi ' thoughtful responses to the questions that I raised. I especially commed the '?,s.h.$',,ng,9.,.. @f.' r.%',@p, Staff fcr its willingness to modify lu posidon (as in the written examirmion) Qly:fl. 4 ; 0;'X ;'@p3yp;<' , yf;- when informadon was trought to fu auendon for the first time through this '.c W - process of developing the record. h. y+; y , '..N,7 Second, notwithstanding my reversal of the Staff on the result rexhed ir the '[f;,.[ ' '.h j. Y';.3,Y,$. 2.[' ' simulator examinadon, I strongly emphasize that I do not subscribe in any way 7 ",..e c, 77 ; ' e *,% 3 to Mr. Morabito's frequently expressed claim that the NRC Staff examiners were f ' y ; i '.?. J d,,4 > D,".' p [g "incornpetent." At issue were a number of complex and close quesdons which jff ? ' c Q: W. Uf,'n j could reasonably be decided several ways. That I ruled in favor of Mr. Morabito .KJ ? '.Q.I.V i,:p p/& and rejected the Staff position on many of these questions represcau a difference ' A. c L 7 - , r.. M. y ',,J.Q of professional interpretation of events, not a judgment as to the competence of "g

. w;

~ '4' :71,g the individuals who originally rendered their decisions, . i, ,,', ?lg ;K,, My only critique of the Stsff examiners was their seeming tendency to a: cord .,s !,(',,;p,.< Q .",e' '.,i . ' ' 1 c '7 ' y';N 6[, ' 6. M

• undue weight to alleged deficiencies which, even if they were property deemed to be de6clencin, were essentially trivial in nature. They tended to overlook the

,, A ? [ '. :*, 5 J',[y,, % e y [ [*,,$y 6,'T., fosest for the trees, to ignore tne consideraNe knowledge and skills demonstrated ,1.' l".. f,.Y *//.. g g y by Mr. Morabito because of the few minor deaciencies that he exhibited. Perhaps J, r, I' m this situation is attnbutable to a reladvely junior examiner (2 years out of 'l > '? ' ' l,* s, s .Y

l{v Q'jl e

,',.? 7 f, %'.yl., q er W. neem.'s hs.,ee t.e ww.h dies er edian she ind des eneswunce, as psmend by $e pudehose. 7,. v.

l,;*'

a ', l, i,p- - *.o .y a.., wenu be indow to W. Eve % in oge, er es lanch er a s oppsal pasens and he sensel enwas,ma er msne '.4 a ,,.DM..i summed te os MLC swr. 6,l :-p': * + ?p, 'P.'.., Q,. 3 d. a .. e. - ..u s v.,

y. n

[. '._}, ,,. f -Q; ' y' * " ' '., j 4 44g J, 'i X*. h;?,. m. 3:. igg, .* ', a ,y,,- ,,,.. 3 N *,. e, e g .I ',=s'. 1 ,p. .1 g q ,,s f. ., ~ - +. g 3 -..- 4 t s j. , "i e '. y g s 4 \\ s e m g k v g. / ' ' '.. ,3. t sg 6 r s 4 ' fr M 'e \\ P,' I a ^ ~ % %.'e B g ~ - O m, e, g _.. m*.v..a. u n s 1 ,a

• *\\

, ' w. y'. J. w.[..;oK .. -7,,m..,~x 2. :.,h,c. an, 3 O.*.. r, t. "+d.s %.. 7 ",.- 6 s. ,. -...,..,,. o'

• m..

...... e:. e,y .e;s. Qy. . "..,. 9., r, s e, ';**- .j;.g. ha. e, ' mo p+ ; ; ;u ;s; ;,.%u w . s. N. ;,.),w yAn... a,,m. 7..n, ',. j. u m .M..,,.L'a:.l..f,M ::W':isb....4[ :_n'.a.,-lg%,,.....,,..s.d '..:., b. ' ,,(, c

t..

..s. .m,. ^ ? ',.f 1 .s ~.,/~. +g9 ~ g ~ ,n4 ,6a e -; f * .f.',y*l ,'.,,.3. , 'i' engineering school at the dme of the examinadon and card 6ed as an examiner l ?,'.

• l for power reactors less than 6 months prior to the esaminadon) evaluadng a

.. i .l.d*,d:.4.a;,g;;,I'.J;. . '*J candadass with more than 20 years' experience in the rasclear industry.l'8 Or ,7

.$'

},.

... * / ?. perhaps the situadon is a necessary attribute of the examinadon proces6: but, ,4.g.y. if so, it may deprive the reclear utiudes of enriploying as operatces or senior 4. i*;3.-}*W,J.@4,- .,)f, ? . :.. : operators a number of competent a.id wou-quali6ed individuals. 7 , t '. h, gly,7.,4..a *,4r.y.f*,.(%i%!..,J 7; y Finally, Mr. Morabito sought to use N: appeal as an avenue for reforming T..' *;. p. N i,- ).7. ; the operater licensing process.l* I early ruled that IMs maner was beyond my f*i.** rg;et gg.,'-1:

• ,*'/

jurisdiction in this proceeding, although my And6gs and conclusions could ' '.* e 74 . j, Py..,. ;y *e, *. ; d e,',,'.. ;. 4,,. '. - seek to pursue through o.her channels.* Now, aher having gone through this t E.. perhaps serve as a vehicle for later changes in die process which he might i - 3. y ',... .O y," . *i r :P. I would recommend one== Haem'ai to the process fonowed for & i x, /. * ;*.,l.. ,,, p'... p, e Mr. Moraldto's examinadon. '7'/.y., ". '.*,'... * ;. t

• j

! noted earlier (at p. 425, gra) that the gradmg of the simulator saaminadon ? f

• 7.....

..',.3, was described t,y the NRC Examiner S'.andards in effect at that time a.s being a

'[... 7 ; 'q ^ * .,',...b ' ?..[ 4 '.9 "subjoetive" judgment. In my opinion, it should be less so, indeed, the current 7 , V '.2*ll ?,

• Examiner Standards have dropped the "subjecdve" charactertandca. referring to

' ; f ;,",*,*, y,. - l,.. j. ;.. the pass. fait determination only as a "professional judgment."l" More objective

j. ge standards for the evaluation of a candadase's activides than were fouowed in Il!..

Mr. Morabito's examinaden should be inamaad so that there is less po:ential / *,' X..,7."[ k.: s c p yy

• s for dUferent grading of eaadidanaa for simuar posidons.

N,.: ;.e.f f , . :. J In a simuar light, akhough affecting the wriaen rather than the simulator v.4,-.,- .; 7.'. examinatkxi, was the differing gradmg standards employed by the Staff for . - tQ r. ' &., muldpie answer questions, such as queadon 6.03b. See noes 22, gra. The .j g".- e - f' grading method favored by the Staff Hef-b.a. revieween may well be 'l y [ ]., preferable to that used by the examiner (which was eventually accepted by the

/,

Staff). If so, k should be presenbod for all examinations. Ahhough I have no ','...(<,',,,.l" authority to put into effect any changes in pracdcas that would lead to greater .3 objecdvity in grading. I can note that changes of this type 1ppear to be under ('.. 'd way. I also can sapress some hope that the Comeniss!on will continue to explore .' ', s ?. this maner and anamp to develop some more de6nitive guidance in this regard. .~ r 's, ..s s. l., s. ',..a...J.. ,f., t .s .V.3 ,' 4 ..*..*...,s. 2.* ~ # * *

j l*3cf. sies141. peufeminal i; -

- er pond M. si;4. un u-enne sA 1 e 2 3 and eensn=d Einit ,...l"..... ~ '. *

s. and hamme opphamas farm, psended in Puumesecrassr ed posess br immer deind Ady 21.1987 (uni;me 4

3,* - ...S

• Memma w usess e seem er pe un
• 4
  • • Museksas sah, t ei 13. st.

.... ~ iest2P.s? 38. s6 HC it. kes 09tn W Mao nctl (ase. dh las.3et.1C. + e-e s I*, ce. 4. ' M9 r g t e r \\ ,s, u e \\- .ey ~' i g b T g 9 g ( ( 'M I. g' v. s a, 4 g I

%S b %.&.e yl%'C 'iO% 2:a.'-d?.* M g t ,3..,u. a - m. s.sqc..,. wy; gn;m,,f.m e x m.w.p.; 3.y m x y e s g. :..,, y,... q ....y..e.. t..,,y a ,...,., m,. a. t ,..m . 5,p, p.. m.. :.:. e.....;,.y/.,w.. !.s. s +c .w .p .,w .,.. a. >.,9. ;.. i.Y.., pX.M. s.#7,s6di IV, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW %;iMW,2.;<. ;':(,.;iRpc 3;e r j,.r~& H, :p.... 0 ~..c.tq.w N ~ E l 4: ./.' r@d Based on the foregoing, and the entire record of this proceeding, I hereby .? M,'P, #f f*.] 8,$:,.% QM.*- conelude: df }N@.A.,3.N *%[f,D* 3@f a ';,

• f,? M,,It M

1. The Applicant (Mr. Morabito) has passed the pescribed wripen ex.

~ ., 0 amination, operadng test, and simulate 4 operating test, as required by 10 =.

1. .$M. :^,

jW.g C.F.R. I 55.11(b) (1987). .( h p *'.. N G y.N d.p %

2. The Applicant has learned to operate and to direct the licensed activides y> p mp'.r.

..%.. g.q +.;) .e.3., :*r..'. of licensed operators in a competent and safe manner, within the meaning of s m. '. ;. Q. N* -y'r. :c.

q. Y p... M, 3 p.

4 55.11(b). W..' 5

3. Having fulalled the requiremenu of 10 C.F.R. I55.!!(a) and (c) prior

$ %,h"E:,!#.W-@fd to the insdtution of this proceeding, the Applicant has fulalled all requiremenu '.j.s <!,h. = ,Y M h*D& for a senior restor operator's license, as specified in 10 C.F.R. I 55.11 (1987). l, ;,,x. ?[f;j, y@&. V, *6.. u P.i L 4; 9 s.d p m a Q:wi .W :sP.? +,., 1 1, Aj.. t V. ORDER .&w% $

• i.s i s.. a 4.-

r. .. k. o'. ?,7/ f.7r. Q',f;s tj,, %[., -

• d s'

e [ For the reasons stated, and based on the foregoing opinion, fmdings of fact,

i. V j p;. [ [ ?;. ' t ' T ' d @. M,$'

.i conclusions of law, and the entire record, it is, this 20th day of April 1988, q::M

i

'./;*

ORDERED "cy h.* M ' E M.' d ;G aQ '[ . ~. i,

1. The determinadons by the NRC Staff that Mr. Alfred J. Morabito has M'J r.* FK '., Y'DT not passed the wTitten and simulator ponions of the examinadon for a senior

<'l T M'h/;M :,l., *' t Q '.?; y [ ,S reactor operata license are hereby re ened. .r.,yr e c 7 ,, 8 .h s.

2. 'the Director, Nuclear Reac" Regulation or, as appropriate, the Regional

/. d. f.y ~,, 9 M ly Administrator, Region 1, is hereby d#ceted to issue a senior textor operator k' ' ff, N[J,. U..'.',.C;;;[ license fw the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, to Mr. Alfred J. Morabito, ,-),. %, .J.;,

f,,

subject to the standard terms and condidons that govern such licenses. 'C ' l.; " Y ;., si '..lf

3. This Ikense authorimian is immedi4tely effective. The term of the

'?';, m; i - c 4,, s..t: ?, license shall run from the dase of its issuance. .c,, ",7f, / , Q,, ;.j; i ' *... ' l;' 4 In accordaxe with the Commission's Order dated July 1,1987 (un. n.c - publishe4), which instituted this proceeding, and as further provided by the 1. w 6's % Commission's Order dated October 2,1987 (univblished), this Decision will . h; J.. '...f .,, f.s<,. tecome anal agency action thirty (30) days after the date of issuance unless . o.. s. y..... ., cs.,. 4... 4 - y.,;,;. a '; ", - +... ' '.,,,. t. ', .,y y,,.,/. c, Q'[6.y i[a lu..' 'u .y< -x'

• ~

( f,.... Mr,, - 3 9 ,' <f

.,4

e + ,* 1 .,,.-1,; 6,,lL,j/ s4....,, ,. W e .s ; e g.. -,. ' ". -. -[,..'. ^. ',.*, h [ ( k ?.,.s T y A. r', s ,.'*4, ,g. ., ~ 'i ...p. f..',, y !,,' ;,' *' %, 3 '.;, v.ss

p 6 450 39,1

'A.a.

,. - s , ',, -. k, #*,, ' ,6 , e' ,t ,.J ~, ", ,s [ $ *., q ...J t m y,,,, . q......e .,..,-,o- - v e- .y .s.-~ .---sn 5 e .g k ',[ b i 4 ?, a t j, ix ~ s e 3, t ^, I .. /. . /,/. ;',.. - ? t i k : V,. L% C : t i i a e, jp.q...,._ p V ;. !. ; 3 'u. . ' 9'. - c. s n ef N N.. c. s u, op.:. .z -e sf-a% _ V' ..,.s n ~ a

7-"..,,'....,,.., - -,c,, ,,. ; '...s.,, q,,<,. 7 s.. . w,. ,. 's.,-; t,....,M

. *,,., 7,,'..,,:

v ;, y.'.m.y J.., ..,.~,y.- ;...... c, .s m 1 ,. ' ~,4,. e ....,....... g ; ; -,.s.... ~3.. ;,,, q.m. ., s,1 -..< :.r ... r - :. ::

r...

L c c:7,. j.,, L, < y, - ~ g .,g, n, ....,,, -.- s r ,j : < ,,. m . a -. :,.f.., p,.. +.... . t:a. ...,.s. t.... ..r...,us..s.

ss o

a.s, .n. e. ( 7l ". s: .v,

y, u

~ ..s e, . S,:.* ~...?. - lI -o. J the Commission, on its own modon, undertakes a review of the Decision. No . i. '.:. 4 4>* ... ' f., 9).. n.... s[:.. 6 ' [ i ;J [. petition for review by a party will be entertal.ned by the Commission. ...?..... i./. : *A.', PRESIDING OFFICER .,s .....s.. ~ . o...,., e,. s..

4. ?;l, $ </ ;f...? P [.......

u Charles Bechhoefer f - * *; 3.4. ' *,; '; u,. ds '. *L' Q ". p ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -ge<> s v,......, +.,... ... +..,. e. i.... 7..,. u c.

• [.~. " D,,, ^ $ K *,*.b.,*, ; }.D.,. W,,.,,* '5 ',l Deled at Bethesda. Maryland.

. ' y *,., ' .j, t*.. M this 20th day of April 1988. <..s.. g,.

4..

a .,. y, , n . ',* ' !.4,i, O *,,* v ';....*' [ Appendices A and B have been omitted from this publication but can be found

. *;. ; w e. g....

1

.,. < J,t.i.

• in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street. NW, Washington, DC t

,..y... "..

• o 20$$3,)

s' = c. . r.,.,, .t.. 1.. v.,;., < y t,,,..-....,,.....:j ..) s .s .,4.,

• r...,..-

,,...,i,, -. 4... s. .?. ,'.}. + s ',. ~',- ..v.. . 'y * ', * - 1 J. ; w,+ 3 s m ..n. 4.. -e 1 w. ...6.' ,, s N s. "c .n.. -r r g, O e ,,. 1 g .t-c. s... .. s .s.

., ' + -

m. .. g,. j s 1 e g. 4 . e. k .*. h =.. } l ..'( t s W g g .s s

• -sa 9

,..L. .e -g+. 0 d ,g t t \\ t', e 451 q L g' ( .s s f g D I g n 's ' 6 t e s ,5 .s. . ~ 4 , s .___--___..I_.___._.1__2_

k<@.IlN ) 5 +,4* *

• h.b l' o*' e/ m. d

',+% m.,.,),. 4 J. b' 'm t w &...,}&..n..n. + f m,L, . s .A , t'F&.. u.yve G,,~lQ,,,.b.W Q;M g.g.

it y *.v.s.J't %w.;i.R.y f*K.b 9,h

.. N r.;MM.y.'.f.. g..,y.y r 'h'.' '- .[Nh b Cite as 27 NRC 452 (1988) L5)4810A 5* f $Q.D-

'0;.h!..rp.f.ft'ER'd'b

.D.y.'..E. N.Iyl$YN".,d. +. ~4p., *', qpg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NN NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION w e.;,;*,q q.ot m> + e, p. 3 s. .a. c, .y h. . *);h. [4s,5 ATOMIC SAF5TY AND UCENSING BOAFID

c..; o.,, e. ',.t

. w r.4 g. .. n 4 p. j;;f,,.. M. U. O, g,4,TWW I9 Before Adminlettetive Judges: C T.2

• .M

.cm q. .r. .' ".'cj (.- N;,'5** 'd, cM *[M Xuh'3 m M6k 'h ' i. '^hb,,* $h

5. Paul Cotter, Jr., Cheltman

.Ugy.$l. j?l<,$.p r.,.%i3(.5,.:'l j ? Olonn O.Brlght .hN*~,TMb h.!,'.Y..a.n.%'.,- f Dr. Richard F. Cole , ~ c.,.,. n... o. .. c,. z .c m..a.,..u.....a,. ;4.. m w m,,J, ..i.+. +s .., q 4,. ~o,. y \\,,,.g/..c.n...pl,Q.y.in the Matter nf Docket No. 50 335-OLA 6

• J Q.

s.. ,; 3.# 7,. , e.. 7 7,.,*; ": 6'l,7..Og %*g.'1 %, (ASLBP No. 88 860-01.LA) .c - m..

,..,. < rs.,,7.v.

. e , 8,,e..... n.. e o %..g. i. ; 4..... gr.;.. f.*;. . FLONDA POWEH & UGHT . w. r. , v. %,,W,:., *. 7.. y. ' ?.,. $p., COMPANY

m.. o.

)[ M y,'J[.f..' ;4.3. Tit f D (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, f ., '. J v,, - s,F 'M. M.. p-:,'*), Unit 1) April 20,1984 .,.;. 3 4 9. y.%, c..g. s. s Tu. :v.,. x g.x . u. +.- n- : ., j @ : g;& - llpa ,. '-3. )y ' *. ' i 's. y A.i ' $,, {f,. In this Memcrandum and Order the Licensing Board admits seven contentions ,/~.. Cih V L y"f.'.$p$.j{ 'N. concerning safety in the high-density reracking of a spent fuel pool. Seven other f, :..f.i'.M.;6+ c.,,Q contentions are denied ad:nission to the proceeding. y; -.e.a. ;. a..,., ca... e. ;6.,e, o,,.. <......

c..

,. 1, '. '.q N... g.. ;... '

4. ;f...,.n.[;

.t ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENT 10NS: SIGNIF1 CANT HAZARDS J i r

• 4.*.. ". 2.

CONSIDERATION i 7s,.t.. % .r. .,.,., Q.-., v _ ' g, a *

h 1 T p f fQf,y.h,.j.i Licensing boards are barred by Commission regulation from disturbing or

.,-l":Jf%'t - ; overruling a Staff determination that the high. density reracking of a spent fuel dl; ,', M@'.;'@ pool does not involve any signiacant haurds. The Staff determinauon is subject .'..a, .. 'f..O. ;J.: F.g only to discretionary review by the Commission itself.

• 3,s...71 3

m .., (,, 4-.; t'O %.4 y ,, % y.g:i p

• W,p,,,'. f 4 q v.

-l.~ p :. -a .t* ,, g, ,p ( a . '.,_. '4 ',l,z,$.. '.,. 'sQ.A,p.,..y [.2 *;% r 4 )

• e
• l.

,g 3.. u~ v.s. .., j,, *.

4. g

jd

. yg s, '/f.p.. c. ;,' N I ^ .s 4 .%j

t. g,. p *0..W.p'.4 452 T.. q W,.u,.

1 . m.

n..<

.+ G-4- ..1 s ,. ' '. ' *. ry'.; y, R. ,e s_ r,,.. l 6,' i

• f.,.

.,.,,=.,1 . ?. e4 ". J \\ .o - s. s 3.,,, , - m s. --.. m,, -.,.- g pg c. p m y W p^ y p e q.'.' L .,o. a ,( p

• I
• 1 e
• ',,,g 8,

\\ s. .~ ,ci ", 2 G'. c. .' y

7. ]. T

,s. s 'l.. . '.l ' Je r J s 4 4.. * / n mt e'.. ~,,w u i.. ..v s. .b + T.- . m b-

V "'N"M" (.. >,,,.....J s,c. r: mn ., = W,,, n

• y <,. *

,g ,4 .a-r.. c 4,, ;, .. ~ 1.c..,.,g. A. c s. N .. ~... ~.. e ,', [,:.. .f. ' ' 4 5,,.3 ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS: SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS '7 ~. ,s

1. -,

CONSIDERATION .s. o,

s..

/ *i ',,...,.:,, i Even though lkensing boards are barred from disturbing a Staff determ' nation . y ;,.," .J. , y.,,. of no signincant haurds and the issuance of a Ikense amendment authoruing .~

• 4.

.~ high-density reracking of a spent fuel pool, Ikensing boards may subsequently

y... - *,. ;...... r ;... :.,,.

3.,. admit exuentions for hearmg whkh, if roven, would require changes to the I y .,. y,.s. g "*. - m. F,..., 1 Ikense amendinent issued. . ) t.. ;. ', a . 4

. g i,.

g. 1. ;, ;,.,,. -

g, =.... ".,,. ' ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS: CASK. DROP ACCIDENTS . e r.] Cask drop a:cidents, although of low probability, are, potentially, among the , : ' ' 'J,*,, t *.,., '.. *. 4 ', j most serious reidents considered in the operation of spent fuel pools.

. , *, f.

r, '... ' e *..' . c. :.. . f. * *,.',. 3 1. -I. 1 ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS: SPENT FUEL POOL 's .'.'.t... TEMPERATURE "E ?. ! T*.0 Because bulk temperatures can differ signiacantly from temperatures at

f,'**,,]

specioc locations in a spent fuel pool, departure from nucleate boiling to 61m

• f.

o boiling is a matter of safety concern,

• *~

a ig ~, ADhESSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS: NEW PROBLEMS IN v f. ,;.,; I ESTA.3LISHED TECIINOLOGY Iderei6 cation of new problerns in an otherwise established technology such as the ase of B.radex in high density storage racks can wwrant tM admission /.. J of a co.nention. [ ./. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ,s Camlbell Rkh has petitioned to intervene in Florida Power and Light 1:. C<rnparr/s application to expend the spent fuel pool at Unit 1 of its St. Lucie N. ../ Plant. Mr. Rich has aled sixteen contentions that he seeks to have litigated. We ..e ?.~*' s ar.d hcrc.n that Mr. Rich has standing to truervene and admit several of his +.., ' d.,:.. J.f e contentions. s . < yj N I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ~ ..,s. i On August 31.1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a notke G'.'l of: (1) Consideration of Amendment to fa:ility operating license for St. Lucie, s g' e ,e 453 t \\ g e. 4 g t g

N A &[c &@w.a,$m @ W@$.. g. @,, b.i N' M@ "M !... :.J J '~. T., n @bg>P cM,'@ / M ' ffxn Q B M Q .S u/ 'W";. 'f. ibDU).5., 'i W Q bhNO@M 6'Q"J!t ~r g g. 4' $p a%j..W./7 1s ~~"*~ w..n. 4 :, ?.:.m. L. < y, p.w:,. 5,/* '. ' .Y ul &a a.. f.,,h 4 .a s.r s m&(, e,{,,3yp ~.. Q

t. '*

el: 7.~rpMQ,m,1.4.IOM w?2k..d:d.,, . %m D. y y; .~; Und 1; (2) a proposed anding of no signiacant hazards consi& radon: ano (3) Qj'K.If~ ;.g[.@= t.;;..p%.,4.a., c g ;*, , Q ;,. p %, opportunity for hearing. 52 Fed. Reg. 32,852 (1987). The nodce advised in Y j?. pertinent part that \\ *\\.w{."M. a,., y,,.. ,, +.,,, N, [*3;;;k'F2 h % k Dhe amendmes d 84dorus ibe MDM M bcreate die spers fb41 pod 82ftge CaptCNy S+c y,j'*;p 's.f.tr1'@*"'ig,m.%.'C fran M4 m 17o6 fuel merrh. N rwooed enrane is a W asiend by nadins T*h. /..f,.s,,,.v.4,y.$.$*S y 0

• ;.i Q/<r,.,$: N O t..

the spars fuel pool ho two disam maions. New. hish demny sense nas vill be a d. Q k.} t*; ' * ' e '$ I +n ' O ~q% A.t. hN .7

• The St. Lucie plant is owned aM operated by Morida Power and Light Company

..di. J..@MID.;d M i m.o*,N+; ("Lkensee") on Hutchinson ! stand in St. Lucie Cour.ty,12 miles southeast of

,0.* 6. Q.'b 8 M *' [ Q T.

,

4'Y p.?'gt,s'.5.. j,.e Initially, aM with the Boant's apgoval, Lkensee sought, without success, to $# " d Port Pierce, Rorida.

• 5h'hh5.L'Mh?N resolve Mr. Rkh's concerns by negotladon. Thercafter, pursuarit to the Board's S. M' % @ h */ / $ Q j M. Y h fif.'

.DIY M'bC directions, Mr. Rkh, by letter dated January 15,1988, aled an amended petition h' N y. N. _.g 1. u.,e > t @. .J;,M ' '@A h f;/{ii safety of the pubik wouM be adequately protected by the license amendment to truervene setting fcsth sixteen contendons challenging whether the health and M .c. / pfF@@.y..rNM[; g. 4 r.cJ.:q ^ applied fa Both Lkensee and the Nuclear Regulatay Commission Staff ("the . O.M " 7: Staff") aled responsea to the petition, opposing it in whole a in part. A ? yft., ."M.,J, *Q. prehearing conference was held on March 29, 1988, on Hutchinson Island, (,. *. " y ".;,,a.; y. f l? p*'j }; _,. Raida, to hear mal argument from the parties.

y..y.f.

.o f;f ' c On March 17,1988, Staff counsel informed the Board that the Staff had made 1 ~i,, i,; '. Pi 7 '. . ;,,.', 7 ' a anal"no signiacant hazards determination" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.92(a)(4) ' j ' l'." Isle] (1987). The Staff had issued arnendment number 91 to Prility Operating s r. .q. Ucense No. DPR.67 on March 11, 1988, authatzing the requested spent fuel ' - ' (. 3 + I pool expansion at the St. Lucie, Unit 1 plant. q 0 y 7, f. ', L e, c. ; N,. t a, - .,'i '9 y: /,..... q.,.?J ;,s,* : II. CRTIERIA FOR ADMITTING CONTENTIONS => .u,". r

w..g.

..<....*,.-a. A. Standing -t .e w. .n The requirements (a intervention in Nuclear Regulatory (NRC) proceedings , 3.,,.., S - are set out in i 2.714 of Title 10 of the Code ofrederalResidationr. A petidoner i 4.. [ ? ';, must have standmg to participate, that is, it must &monstrate that its "interest a 7,,, . R g.,,v.'.,7.T .'D may be affecttd* by the proceeding.10 CF.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) (1987). That irterest ' (

• y T ~ f[ '. A, * :. '. "',~,' <

nest be set forth "with particulaiity." 10 Cf.R.12.714(a)(2), in ruling on /. ;. ; ef:., y*A,,l. j ,J,./ intervendon ytidons,Ikensing boards are required by subsection (d) of f 2.714 7,. W. '; a x... h , to considei V. .v..,*- ,., -a 1 / * " ' [ ['- e- '*s f gg) g,,,,,,,p g, pgg ,g.8 Mr die MS M be M 4 M d W4 '( a c. T C) N assure mW enews c( the pt6 met's pegeny. &nancsal. w othes hers t un the ./. b af" ;. ' e !,J posse isig. i + e f + -. .+ '...I gg pg g g,,y g, g 9 gg ,,9 ."a., p.u ;..,,,., wu s - y..'& i

• M

.g n ~ y 454 s

• s ' !.J >

l,. s a l. s o n, ;,.,...,. . g r-4 t, s. /e s - e l g j b i 7,..,.. s . 7. 6. f ( ~ e. A l'

• 3

,A , f. 3 .g 4 m ^

^- y. .'t,-.. s';.. 8 o t t a,. ..-e 'y s

• r

...q. t(i . [. '. ,,.,. + * *,, J. i,',* a

• 4.

y 1. s, I*> r ti g 4, ' y (' i t r

• ... g '.

<'j-y,

• y '.

e

e-4.; T ', ' N, '.**, ',

3,,

f., S.,6

. ".. ], ,>.e )- .s e, ~ * * * ~ * ' .s 3 f.. P*, .,.g, a ~ u.s 4. u.. Y.....,.-.s ~. O ' j ' Mr. Rkh resides in Stuart, Florida, arproximately 10 rrdles from the St. Dicie 1',.eg,Q,t ,.. c.1, plant. His standing to inuevene in the proceeding was conceded by the parties at d.N'/ ('d; > :' d'.,. g'i. ,- 'i oral argument. Tt.16; Staff Brkf at 2 3; Licensee Brief at 54. We concur in the

p.,n.,%c b.,5 N'i *..',,, * !.;// *

. +., ' parties' ykw and Snd that Mr. Rich has standing to insenene in this proceeding E s. c.,. s c,...- within the meaning of 10 C.P.R. Il 2.714(a) and (d) (1967). ' g,. ;. ;,.,*% q,, m. n ' '. - ,i o A7.%e;hs...f r..y.** '. / '., v.. . ~ . u R. Adullasibility of Contentlons f. .c.. >

.Y'.%' ? 'd,1'g,.' h{,T "; f(e The criteria for admildng consendons to the proceehg att set out in

'. p 4 L - 1 ; )% s.,, n. $ 2.714(b)(2) of 'T1tle 10 of the Code of federal Regulations which provides M .S. d.1-O, 1.c. in peninent part that: N!2@.M.M" w'jf m?., ... -.. w -.....a *. - r.

*e. r p., 3..

.e s) r m .",. $: % y ~,, u.,/( .~. .f14 a * '* '.,f.;f,.$.,.. "..; >., ? .?ti The foregoing provision has been exhmsuvely interpreted in an extensive body of Commission case law holding, wer alta, that only thnee contendons {.' c ; ;, .,I which fall within the scope of issues set out in the federal RegLrter nodce -e ..,.'.y.. 7.i'- .).. of opportunty for hearing may be admitted for litigadon in Commission ~, proceedmgs. See, e.g., CommonwahA Edhon Co. (Zicri Station, Uniu ! and ' 2), ALAB416,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980). If a petitioner sta44 the bases of J the contenuon proffered with reasonable speciacity, the 12.714(b) requirement 6 't, is met. Whether or not the contendon is true is left to lidgation of the issues ', q.. .. ~ ' adenitted, and it is not the functbn of the Presiding Of6cer to reach the merits of ", n,. s. 'l the issue proposed in deciding w hether the contendon is admissible. Mushsippi Powr and LJght Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 130,6 . g, ",'..;e r; AEC 423,426 (1973); Hourton l/gAtlag and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear ' $ -i Generating Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB 590,11 NRC 542,548 (1990). ,s 5 Reasonable speci6 city neans articulating the theory of the ccetendon with ,s ,,/ suf6cient clarity that the reasons for the petitioner's concern are apparent i

• j and the parties "will know at least generally what they will have to defend f

g J'-7...".~.r. 4. against or cypose." PAlladcIphia Electric Co. (Peach Botiorn Atomic Power 'M

• '?

i; Stadon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB.216, 8 AEC 20 (1974). Thus, for exarrple, a r

. c. jl..,'.{ prcposed contendon challe.1ging solutior,s to idend6ed problems in the license ?.., ;. ,,y g. e,i appbcadon must stsee why the soludon is inadequate Commonweal A Edison 1 Co. (Dresden Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit 1), LBP 82 52,16 NRC 183,188 .. ' [- ,,v. s (1982). The contention must address concrete issues and may not consist of "vague generalized assertions, drawn without any particularized reference to the .s i, details of the challenged fa:llity." FMadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bonom Atomk Power Station, Unlu I and 2), CLI 7310,6 AEC 173,174 (1973).

• /- -* ' '

At the same time, our case law allows sorne "leeway in judging the suf. 1 Sciency of intenention petitions" from counsel new to the acid and pro se T 4 g ASg .e i \\ c e g 9 s

Q.lm'f:,,}.g, .;g .pg. Q f .yff, } q, f

'Q.

"*Q.,. j exh. Jy....Whd.@2MMdiidfdN@NMM;:}xf y fW MM k, ~. t 5 .A. Nml)g '.2:iM.'#fl4 .W, x,. M'.3,w$,.s,lW* L D., a'yg 'r~ %f v. @# gU .. A m f M. ,i;>. W

M.s,.';a 4.', /;'! y*. At.,."

.M 4. 8 :.f.,'.a U4

.t s., w @W Ulg. %M.g, M;.,'tM"Fr Q ?.$g ' if M Y' intervenors. Kaarar Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generadng Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB 279,1 NRC 559,576 77 (1975). The degree of speciacity required v..y '

i.d.lM/,,h;$h.4 to form the basis for a contendon must be judged on a case by cne basis. As W*g%y.$.A*N 5;*4%'y? '/.;A t

.?M JS. V"e Licensee and Staff correctly note, houver, that does not mean that this Board Q v.*s has any obilgadon "to recast" a ecotendon to make it acceptable. IJcensee Brief

w.<4[.

M ?Md,{p =@M@,{'M.M C7 q at s.9; Commonweahh Edison Co. (Zjon Station, Uruts I and 2), ALAB.226,8

f. ? J 'c ; ' t r W. ? h'. Q.'*,~* %..e. k., Ny

• <h "C AEC 381,406 (1974).

T B + W. l *eQ:J. : v. f* %y'y,.%.6%,, h..c.v~T.. ' '. - 74

11. RULINGS ON CONTENT 10NS Q x.J,fMWf..t a. par,5{Lp-y.t.

. 'y,p h:.+ 9 3 c. .3y g y;I. 4 Of the sixteen contendons submitted, two were withdrawn at oral argument. g QM y!.s ? M.'&['O N M*J(~*

• 0 9 a'. '

proceeding, ard we do not address them herein. The remainder of the contendons 1Y. 68, 95 96. Accordingly, Contendons 7 and 12 are dismisud from the M'N"McN,%'. 1 N'nU. b.?,'. Oiy 2,*U'?. ' are discussed below, sertarim. T &w..,**,.': U. ',.'. A.. &. ~~ f. ? '? %. : . ~...

>.'4.,

3.,q r. f ; g M A. Contention 1 ..e

• • e,3., a..

..g= a ../ .f,,,.i,,? . c*:. sM,. - The Contendon avers g ,4' ~s=g. e.N;- .. ? 'e :., %.ss p* -....; *.O.%. % %, :y :, e ,1** I ',% :. ( .e ./re., '.c l[ ' nas the uraasion et the seem tal pod as so toess. tNi No. I is e sisa2 Aces huanse j - (,, 'y,. g., ,U. L Z j,.y?,.~.,,i amemkenes. V%.. : a sonsidereiks and repros than a puHae hearms be held betoes iemeanse ct the License

• . -l i.3 "3

u 1,.....A s g,. g 7.. '.,. J q.;.g MF, A f*,y Peutioner recites three bases for the consention, namely, that (1) the spent al Mi :. fuel pool expansion increase 2 the possibility of cestain acciAnts, reduces the ".,J ' f.ht V, q %,, ' T :.ff i cJ ... : c, margin of safety, and creates the possibility of "a new and different type of ) ('? :

i[, ',. I" /

accident.., which would cause the pool to lose its structural integrity"; l l,:. a f,,4 .e.,'.p y '4t f.3.. (2) Commission case law holds that expansion of a spent fuel pool involves 7, L ;., ; M i, 1 / ?!' U sign 16 cant harards; and (3) Contess intended sia:h expwnlons to be "a no ',1 a ; '.' K. - sign 16 cant hazards consider @a.' Request for Hearing and Peution for Leave ) , sc.

s-to Intervene ("Amended Petition") at 12.

[ .I 'f;: . ' 5 <. p f f,l. '.'. f :.1,

@ * [-

At the prehearing conference, Peddoner modaded the consention to ask that l 1.' [f 1 D@ $ %.;ifl ? ?.D .1 J, ..r the Board suspend the Staff's March 11,1983 deserminadon of na sign 16 cant hazards on the ground, later alla, that the Staff had not adequately considered i p?.;Wif e 'Jh.%'i;g i; ~.'Y 5fid.. A. V y the safecy implicaucus of the use of Bcraflex. Peutioner argued that BoraAes k,3,. should be viewed as an unproven technology based on Applicant's October 20, e-t' @

• Q.'.

,*., M+ q g '* [.?,'. Q;., i 19g7 resporue to questions from the Staff Project Manager. Tt.17 24. l C' Both Licensee and Staff renewed their wriuen opposition to the modided .. R 1 .o. N, rc m,. ('t.. : ^ 1 + < .N. 1 contenuon at the prehearing conference. Both take the position that the Board 3 l l f... 5 +,. %, J.;;',].p y,?.., y.. d. v,, W,} la:ks jurisdiction to reverse or otherwise act cui the Staff's no sign 16 cant hazards k,. determination itself. TV. 27 29. L6cerace's Answer in Opposidorn to Amended 3'.. ..#.'. (g.=* es a ..h l c ,.. j b.$ A g + ,p T

• • • g.

ke ql .? '.,',.. y ~ 3 gg rv , M, .gA g ( f'-f. ',>* 'y.', * <.'. ;, : h %? t e g, g ,em y e s =.? s,,. ' s ,.7

• ,+,,s.
• a

.t,,

• .}

t .y.41 ."r eu, J' ~ i s y,. 1 g %,i s y p ' i. ,p.,e*,== w. ,g . **p *,

• 7 4 3 ' * ' p ** ;"i * * ;* * *. ' * *1-*. '

2 - * * *; we r * *c '

• A -+.*.

fi, ,y . v: s; s 8 .t., '. *., s g"..+ /# '. ., s s .] . 9, V* .. -( M s +# ..,,4, .6 n.4 y y . J.,, '.*3.. e , '.p 'g . g e q .s',,.,., 9 Aq,; .s. T ., s g 6.. (. Y' ' b U = a 9.* .t l t_

f. -

J..

c. c

' ', g ,, '.j ". s i ,1.. 4 f- , i u

• e 6

8 p. l2 a - - ~ ~ - - -' -A**', k. 'f L--

[ ?; , '. = Q X,S.. ;.: ; 2 'L ff ~; y...,.' ! t T q ?. y . jpg .o p...

f..

.,q* < u. A. v..q.x. i......;; .,,o e, e. _.., v ;.. 3. +< t. d. .y,t ,~. . a.

s

. s. 1. ng.. 4,. : .1 r 3 . j *, ah..*' ;.. *f 6 ' [i ] Petition to Intervene ("1.icensee's Opposition") at 1419; NRC Staff Response .f ..,l A 'A b. U,* to Amended Petidon to Intervene ("Staff Response") at 6 9. 3 J a :.*. ;.'. 4 Q.',* I.'g. Ul'. '*'",'I ' ' '. f, '..** $ *. - l.. The issue is soverned by 10 C.F.R. 6 50,58(b)(6) of Nuclear Regulattry ,wr,, - ',,, Commission ("NRC") reguladons which provides that -,.... ~,. r ,;.w, \\ [.}#*:.',W*,h?.d*,:*:,[y:%';,$, No pecuan a oest requus fcr rwiew of or haareg om de mare sigmAave haurds

".:;."..'.*. M.. p y..,s.. y!

. c.a. ; t .w n.w..an.e n.m.4 i.

• ews.4 n.

r. 4.uomwuic.

7.*. *y /;j q,- is anal, = bias only to de causmax='s emnii=, <= iu== imunive, io em de

a..h..

a,,,n=,,w . <. t,..,, a ~. y*.., ... y,e i ,.. ~

../.,'.p

, a ( * ,, ' v*.C.h.*g 'N,r. ; i in promulgadng the rule, the Commission made it clear that the reference to 4.* E [f, ,' ' k. 9.*$;.r. '].9 ?j "Commission" meats the Commissioners themselve,s and that this Board had no 7 5..'

• Y *.g' @M,'j ?,O.,,
• w f.

..,,... N. i a S % ",< authority to act on the Staff's Anding as such. That limitation on this Bormi's p'. d '[, M ;t authority is distinguished from our authonty, after a andmg is made ax1 the p ..Q#;*'/Vy,.9.P,1 license issued, to consider and take corrective action on any threar. to the (,of p 41. .' h *, ',..'.,,,*a '/, V *. h. 6,i public health or safety disclosed at any subsequent heanng. 51 Fed. Reg. 7745, .=.* s 7759 (1986). Thus, this Board is barred as a matter of Commission regulatiori (*. n y; s.j ' ~ ,y- ' r,.,, ; from acting on or granting the rebet requested by Contendon 1. Accordingly, , (,- i,',,*,> y:. c,.,. ', Contendon 1 is denied admission to this proceedmg. .o l . ~..., B. Conseation 2 l Contendon 2 states that c r.. 'C. E.ipension et es spesa fusi pool a ee St Laie fecairy, t!as k I annunien a snajor ) i ;.' s Federal saica and requese ens the C<manuision seepuso en envirawassent isap m maassamm i .s, '.t- ,y -. - in eaoedene wie 6.Nuienei r s - ~! Poincy Aa et 19ee CVEPA) and to CFR Pan l n, is.. 4 . f' Petitioner alleges that the spent fuel pool expansion increases the probability of b i a radioactive release to the environment as a result of normal operadon and a total or partial los o(coolant. Petitioner also alleges that Staff has not examined ,.c ,c.. the effuts of long term or permanern storage of wastes in the pool or of e'* .s."l alternatives to expanding the pool's storage capacity. Amended Petition at 3. At , *".o ',.,. ~ Q'. ]. '- ,,J, oral argumem Petitioner asserted that the consequences of a zirconium cladding I are are so severe as to warrant an environmental impact statement Petidoner T. argued that the environrnental assessment of the spent fuel pool expansion was "*; '. ' ' t t' f inadequate because of: (1) the use of BorsAcal and (2) a severe accident such ..' 'f, '.**,*. as a cask drop causing Lt.J snuctural failure of the pool as postulated in the 9,, , J.' Brookhaven National 1.aboratones Report titled "Severe Accidents in Spent Puel ct Pools in Support of Ocneric Safety issue 82"(NUREORR-4892, BNL.NUREO. ' ' ; '? .., '. -,e l',. 52093)("the BNL Repm"), TV,29 37. ,9 4 g ~ te s O e 'J7 e -l Y t .(

• n

\\ I t e,

Q Q.y.!!Q,E% ;y. $ N:$ &js.Q Q TQ.f % " X,l$ ihk-- n + & & Y Q '&.. A M~.r;-W,.W;Ly.p.n w Esw -M. \\?.& Nh.h&W Y,;' N' Sa'$ y%:.:

f iftQ.& #NWW *

.r;..mm, A.9.;fy, $. mw.- e - 'AL sL ... - o r <,# y*,.n: :. s, w.,.,,.n. . nlx ..s ,...y ( 7,s Q lf p l' % t v.j .v. <:w ~.. +

a. t.

.r .h...,. t,,,x.... a,,.,. . - y. 5 q,. .a n .: a 4 a,...,,. . a,a 4,.,,p" a,...-D.b, % m t Q, ~ a ..e, e ., n

. 3.,.

~*,.

kh ah. h' *b *. 'i' t j h(d. At the prehearing caference, Licensee and Staff reiterated their written .. Q ' N,f.g,4 [..' %,f..,': a opposition e the admission of Contention 2. They argue that an environmersal ',. d W e N *" M *A ~ f -7 ',.7. ; assessment satis 6es the requirements of the regutadnas and that the more l, Ny n.g.9.'?,M::.y,N. iv/@D & f/ extasive environmenal impact stmemen is not required for low probability N hlg.d accidents. *1Y. 32 33. Licensee's Opposition at 20-23; Staff Response at 1012. %cg WM a.a.?T Consention 2 asserts that i102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy DMrk;M%h2M.N Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (TEPA"), requires that an Environmental Impet 5'.*M,f.Mg M'M.h G '.M Stasement (EIS) 14 prepared because the sped fuel pool expension is a majcr $(.C@M:f.$.'ff,$' ;.,?rt ~/d S W. - / 7; federal action and thus, conversely, that the less rigorous environmental assess. yf* 4# ment prepared does not sadsfy regutasmy and statutory requirements, in support T r tM. 'b.*p.[.C.R p jJM of the assertion, Petitioner citas essendally three bases: (1) a severe accidert; e ./..;,9dg . eM1 hl.'; t (2) failure to analyze the effects of permanent waste storage at the site; and (3) ' O ' h @'.' j,, r. t S *d S'd.'WD..~ 3 failure to consider alternatives to ensite storage, .i.*is

• 9.[. C y f f.y f t~a= asseets that expansion of a spers fuel pool 's not a major federal

%#y';,,f* 1b.%,%. A;,d* #3).' ~d'%.. ?. action within the meaning of NEPA, citing, inter alta, Po tland General Electric T* ' Co. (T)ojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB 531,9 NRC 263,234 68 (1979). Because m e *. - : t ?.*. ' M M.Y. ;. M M ; d of the state of the law concerning the requirement of a ifEPA EIS la the instant .S '@[.M.).T. ?,;-; 4. *. case, we do not reach the issue. i

• .,(. fl.1 5,,[x a lhe sevese weldent postulated is based on the BNL Report. The accident

.. g r.

e,%

assumes a cask drop causing the structural failure of the pool, leading to loss ,;M ". 9 ^.7.' s m,. pi.- , a.'. Vu..N. if,; '@C '. of coolant, a fuel rod zircaloy cladding 6te, and, ultinutely, large radiation N releases. The scenario describes an accident beyond the design basis of the plant e .T g b ?./ 7 ' '.;Mc..'.M y,. %g. and the spent fuel pool. However, the scenario does not identify any deaciencies ^ ', j : ,,. l.p ' in cask handling procedures that would result in such a drop and offers nothing to connert the "generic" scenario in the BNL Report with the cask handling ( j c..; ' l, procedures at the St. Lucie plant. . ~i 2., / U,/ In the arit irmance, a consention must set fann its bests "with renamable J, A j.y . *3.,h speciacity." 10 C.F.R.12.714(b) (1987) Absent an explanation as m why s <., j. > q l or how the cask might drop in the Srst place at ihr St. lacie spent fuel My

• if*,,-

~*,S pool, we cannot just assume it will hapen and then continue on to consider .,.,,,- ]V r v. all the possible consequences. The possible accidem postulated thus rernains

• ' *lif,.'. 4; y y y l
• too speculative to satisfy the spectScity requirement for admission to the

.~~.J' ,f Q7 .C. prea%g. Fact)lc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, j y,; p * { ,y..s i ;.y 7 Units I and 2), ALAB 880,26 NRC 449,454-57 (1987). A, Q. , Aj,. D;M ', 7' Severe accidents tro also known as "C16ss 9" accidents or "teyond-design-i Q cp4).;Z'c.,.'. . (.. 2 f.*. 7, basis" accidems. Because sia:h sceaanos are highly speculadve and of low I - -jcc g,.,"N .: 7~. probaNiity, Ccunmission policy and case law generally hold that they are not ' ; '.,o<w*~.Ly c "< 7 ' 'J.q* .. ; c, - Jc., required to be cmsidered in an EIS, long Island llAdag Co. (Shoreham . 34'x g N., Nuchar Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 8712, 26 NRC 343, 393 n.17 (1987); f [',7 /., 3 M,,J %J'./,",D.9 aff #farrelly. "Polk y Staserners on Severe Restor Accidents Regarding Nture )<r Designs and Existing Planes," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (1985). The courts have " j ; l:} ;,, ; A' J., _, upheid that policy. Saa lais ONspo Mothers for texe v. NRC, 751 P.2d ',, y. '.. ' t. .s d*. 4,., ,y ,4., 3 ",,*4 g 9 3 ,04 i 3. s .e. .e o.. .r :, _ g.* y; .~..,.w w.~~,, .s .-., a ' \\ * 'e [ * \\ o,,

• [.

e s

g. ' q - -+. 3

,g -w - c. e.. e.. ,,a.g -m -~v--.*

• .+. %e y.

. = * - ,v*,.ie--- .,e-5, *..., r g s s ' s. ) i C 'g F 'i g 'I Y.

• g YY

,L ( ,r .p 7}y

• i

'c p e J - f s 9-

f. 3 t.

,yl; .' L 9 c 3_ s t. - i ,'e-s,, a. ' d \\,.: + e 1 .)

"T'-'.."*' ) ; :s. c.,. a. g *c. O g,. s c.sl, p,e fr,, 7 6 ,.'y.,.o

,,i,j;;.;.7j,,.A. ; y,,

4,' .q- - ..if ,s' J. W = f.,.,,l.. i g .,,s', . / v p i* se, e <, ,-f..v> f,.- A.r, , n#

p.,,,,

.e - j,. ,(. i /

v.. p * {,,

t- -..JtN- . #}a'l.t4. '. ' Q. ..? l !. t' 1';-..r ^ .. y 1, .V;.);%'. ,i '. : t,,,. w J. n m<,. ,.., ~, r c. r....-.y: ., 1 .. ~..,. .c.,,. a;. a. .s .......,..,a .t ~

1. +c., _,,

y,.' * - ,a~.. .( .e .... 7..,.g.<j.;.s"'. .,8; 1237,13001301 (D.C. Cir.1984), d'd en conc,789 F.2d 26, cert. denied. ., *(...<. :. g f;.,l4.j ; Q, ; 4 U.S. 107 5. Ct. 330 (1986). An almost idenucal contendon was considered 'f**4.'.. S., q.. g,*. in DiaNo C.viyon, mpra. There the Appeal Board held that

7,j s

..cw s -. *;. <. T.,...*.,,,...j *...

• g.

-*';;,.:f,# g... non la W therd% to w that eis loes d pool adas and % % are . '., f. 2 asserio... is anyeong but a newee and speanissve. beyund 4.ep4eeis esenessa.... ..'.. ', s.,

• 7.**
• s NEPA dame mas seguise the come6desuman d such en evues and en EIS need nas be pseyesed.

e ..' ',-[5 * ' * $* [ 3 * ' ~ c i*.... , ~ ~..

• 26 NRC at 460. We fLrd that conclusion conerolling and so hold in thi.: instance.

l .' I Pmally, petitioner asserts as a basis for requmng an EIS that Licenses failed , C.. ' ' f. '.; ..f f}.(,. - to consider osher possible alternatives to spent Asti pool apansion. Ll;$nsee ',;, i. '.~r.'* '.1, 2.. e s, '.. c, points out that there is no obligadon to seek possible alierr.e4 cidag Trojan, ( i N.- ?. * " ' ' )

l. ',i ' '.s ?'?.[; ?..'

b f iV* apre, and noting that Petinoner has not alleged any batis for concluding i ,U..,**. that the alternatives suggested are environmentally cigedor to spent fuel pool j f,. ,.. g ' ' t. u,... ' : 1 4 upansion. We concur Contention 2 will not be admised to the proceeding, j u . u.. ~.. e ..o ..s C. Contention 3

• f.L' 3 '... ". [.f, f.

~ C..",... '... 6 [# '..,y ..A Contention 3 states S j .>N s ,4 het the ennenlanan of M '. ' eseisequensee reseheng fseen e omsk 4 acedess en i. 'G$*,. ~ aus emeerwearve, and the redissan nienses in and un seendess will no leic] he Al. ARA. and [ 3.',..* wit not smeet whh the 10 CFR Pan 100 ernene. j ..t..', w .y / '.-.'.:, As bases for this contention, Mr. Rich refers to the DNL Report, cidng sec-t k. 7. tions ot that report that identify uncertainnes in a:cident progression and rati. ~* - 9 ological consequences. Mr. Rich argues that because of these uncenataties the i 9, 7 accident consequecces of a cask. drop accids in the capanded pool are not con. l servasive and will not most 10 C.F.R. Part 100 sequirernents, in Mr. Rach's view, the uncertainties preclude the possibility of a conservative eshmate. Amended s 1 Petition at 4. At the prehearing conference, Mr. Rich agreed that his reference t 7.. ' to ALARA was misplaced since it generally applies to routine operadon, not l ~ accidenst. TV. 44 ,"' f*t. Seth Licenace and Staff oppces adrnission. Licensee argues that the sageping g' and unsupported statement that a conservedve estimate cannot be made is in. i c* suf6cient to establish h is for the contention. Licenses atases that the leap frosa I l the saistence o( substantial uncertamty to the conclusion that s'ach ulcertainty v. ( ' *,[. 5.,,-,d cannot be provided tw through the use of conservadsms is wholly inconsistent { with both engineering practice and praedce authorited by the NRC. TY. 43; Lt. .~ 1q- - ~.1 consee's Opposaion at 25. Mr. Rich responded that %s is prepared to provide .i 3 evidence related speci6cally to the inadequacy of the cask. drop accident calcu-lations. Tr. 44 45. '..>I' r< ,s . '.*. *j ' 4 t i EF . j 9 +

e..

49 i. .g. ,6 t \\ l ' h s 1 I J l - 1 o

I'_.OQ$M @*4 & h$$$ &i& $ &5lQ.& NGl'0 h., & & k<f.,(:l:$& @dk N[Ns.M.aw$WNM M MIM W M$Ed M?d GE 5 ,,y. e;~**Jv.. e p..>.y 6., %q 9w W. e M Y.% a,4.y. ~,. :.1 #c :.. J.#:. ca vl,,. t-p ,. U.,.. h. m n p.P.c.1 . q, s ,. <g) 'l ).[,, N,j.<'...h. D '{') J The Board will affad Mr. Rich that opportunity. While Mr. Rich's written y ? %, i.;i G S, N :W i.a. ating on this usue is na a model of speciacity, it does raise an issue wimin the

1. p,& cief:' ll;*. s PN+,g@ N,Q f@,' '

secpe of the proceeding. The commtion b a:cepted as modioed by deledon of f@' RAP $?.$,$...g8@WCU?D the reference to ALARA. Ucensee's response to this contentim should show r "M .. D. .W'

• d that its analysis of a cask drop acident bour.ds those uncertainties that are ndentiaed in the BNL Report and li.vted as the bases for this concention.1hus, f@@d.}J I*d! N$M by such conservatisms and analysis, Ucensee must demonstrate compliance with s:,,.xw.1t#,D.

W 10 C.P.R. Part 100 (1987). 9. I'Y.G#$*M.@. n% w'w.m. Q ... w sn g-p e.r.. a. s. .w 4..,3 v, k,.M.. ','M.w[., ',, D. Contestica 4 3. .. e g ;<,u..,.3,.e.. w+, 9. .. x Contendon 4 stales that w .a a ,4~ ,.n..;#., s... ,a., [.Q.. A i. g@l,;1. 7@; g.N'? Q'4c ' *tl*a y'5 Wp'!..,. V,b.. n.: e. amesquences d a cmk dg utam or en occam skrer h asem and erras m .4; sready ha d au a se m o a tuse ama io be ws me ee seem tual pad s.,.s_ n....\\...< %, 'Y. s. heaans k ceder to tocamou 6. medas. . -.n. A r .,,v,4, De. 1 x.. s, m y

$. L;. 4 0.,

As bases for this catention Mr. Rich relles heavily a the contents of the [.?."',MCQ;-Q42'f* ? BNL Report. He asserts that: (1) the presence of the temporary construction

4 'S,@.V;f 'd*?$Q f crane in the spent fuel pool area is contrary to Licemee's FSAR; (2) structural

)j% v'}I! t..* ' i.p[Q.'%y e t@ 3 failure of the fuel pool due to a heavy load drop is identi6ed as a primary .e,- y f. triggering event; (3) for heavy loads, human error probabilitica, structural Cf N p.t @ g yf.2. ; damage poterutett, and recovery aedons are the pimary sourca of uncenainties; /?d'%.M,p !S..Q' j. Q < and (4) the very presence of the crane inside the spent fuel pool building ,d - c' 7*J.'i.J A.% e s JJO' contributes to the potential for a heavy. load drop accident end may inhibit the 'Q:D,.' h'*yg[', - Q. 9 ' ' ability of the exLting crane to operate in a recovery action. Amended petition -e at 4 5; TV. 45-47. t "N" '?.r.. .c. i Q.9,, - f t-** opposes admission, stating that Mr. Rich uses a generalization from {'.]g}..y lh.- .S. u' the BNL Report without even referririg e the measures actually being taken to -lM avoid such accidents. Licmsee telles on portions of the SAR subtnitted with b W ~ '. the amendment request and tu resporues so several NRC Staff amendment d , jlf, 3 ; dE. ., ;. M,' /.$ review questions related to the temporary crane and heavy load drops; Ucensee's 'E s.. O, [J %. Oppositim at 27 29; Tr. 49 50. .....,...." ; g; 4 3.- ,2,.. Staff states that construction accideau or safe handling of heavy loads are l s g.l:. M-taigan tuues Mihin the sec,e of the Foceeding. and since the temporary i

3. v 1,f W. 3 7 e y,3. c. G,VA ',.

construedon cra,e win be used e move rxks within the spent fuel pool, they do 1 mM (Trose adminion. Staff fur her states that the ccotention may be erroneously l ,, ? J g.. '..l'. b c f,'DJ. % '. O,%. d

:. i. "

premised on the (set that the temporary crane sill be in the area dunng cask ^ handling. but is otherwhe adequately speciAc and supported by a minimally l .i % ;,,,,- suf$cient buls. TV. 51; Staff Reymse at 15. W' " % ;,

s. !

3.r.y. / c ;. g,n n..c ;.;,,,.]

x... <

. t.

'..

• t.

6 .e'- .ys. 4, .*0' g ^ g[ 8,'qe .,r g., 4 ,p e.' .p %,,.h l A M 460 .. r.o, ' e '.. c m.'m.$,- h ... + I -5 i[,' m .y ' ".,. N, ' *' [t* Q[* ' (* ' ['s i )

b..

,o. a.....-*... o s ' i

• 8..

.t .s gk ' *" ' ; e7'" 7 7 9*** v e

4. g - m

<g 4 .{, c. 5' ".,,. f' .i a

• ..~r r

p+e + - ~ J i i >e. , *,.;g 4 t s 4.. .e. 3 's a ;.9 i f q.% N. 5 ( - 't, i-., 'a* ^ P ' . t,; z.. C g. r. 8 ,7 .g k. A 5 i a.4 'g i'. ', ,f e.

• e s

q S.i 5 , N

• , e P

p 5 4 ^ * .h .s 4 p - 95 J4 ,5 , s.. \\ t 4, y a7 s A ~ g'

y. * - ga e

3

r.......a.- g f,', : o. s +.a.\\ :~ o.... p ;.., y 7;e%u1 - ~. x r.s.m z..., p..n : w.-. < a e ,o. . e. ...y . e. n ..?. ,e 4, ' w, r t,,.. o

v.. (,

- i.. . w,<, . r. l ' c,,f.'..

• ., y\\. :.,,.,. 7. ; 4;. r,p *,* '.

. c g.. . ;g p - . - e..} ' .,r ,c',

4. -

s 3:.u.p.., c A..' ;,'. '. v ,4 4. w,-.. 3. .,,s.,-. ? ...,.i 3

s..... -..

... a. -~m . y, y c,.....- a, a, . e. ,.n . +.. 4 . 3 'e... ll c: .<.r..:u, ...,7,.. n.... 2 .~,. A. r..e., (, c -.,.( s.... 4 s o s*.,',. ..t - g. ,.w . a ;1.. :.,.,, ;....a The Board Ands that this contendon meets the requiremenu of 6 2.714. Cask. ,., y,:.; y..*. r. ..i,.. .f. drop accidents, although of low probability, are, potendally, among the most f.,,5 ,.) R....f. P ' f

• l. "* " ;

serious accidents considered in the operadon of spera fuel pools. Consideradon '.F,.*;- ' ',i

.i 5~ Ct c ;j... ' y n. q.',.r,,. W.E of Licensee's actions, either taken or proposed, to avoid construedon. crane, related accidents would require an inquiry into the meriu of the issue.

y... 3,":'.'.g,/.

• ' t 4.,

ucensee's response to the contendon should also address the potendal ' - ~ for cask transfer of Unit I fuel to Unit 2 in addressing construcdon crane f ' c.., '.,..4.' . r accidents. (See Staff Environmental Assesstnent Reladng to the Transfer of Unit ..s

• ,,4'

q...

No.1 Spert Puel Betwen Unlu No. I and 2 of the St. Lucie Plant, dated

4.. - [., l ' N, ;..

• J.-'72;,' N '.~.l<'February 22,1988.) The contendon ir admitted.

',,:. ? *. ' ; &.. ..g* + a ',.l.. u *;,..,;.. +.:, f,- # E. Contention S ....,..s,. g. .,;(..'.'. ;.e 4 e. r. s s Pedtioner avers in Consention 5 ,. c..

6..* p. ;.

3 y *. ',

• 1 t,. *
• 5 m FPat.has aca pcM s a sine speise radionoskal malysis of a sens t=1 baihna evne

, ',1. ' '.,,'*,**V het povae set off.sese done lmuss eM perwal exposwo temas will ma be enceedad a ,, v v:S.,.. ".,. M. y) eno. ins me pd to boa nh esake,..aer true only iemic Caneswy I eamas O. L;,.,,. ..g'... 3 y {., i,. '.. ',.1 this contention is probably inapplicable. TV. 58. Mr. Rich modiSed the concerun, ? At the prehearing conference, Peddoner admiued that his origirv.1 basis for p% a 's'

• . i,. T

, P,, la effect alleging that the site.speciac radiological analysis of a fuel pool boiling

',C event conducted by Licensee is inadequate and that th NRC Staff should

.,s conduct its on. independent study and analysis. Tr. 59. Upon karning that 4 the Staff had conducted a separate antJysis, Petidener withdrew the contention s , e, f. '. but later retracted the withdraws! prnding his review of Staff's analysts. Tr. 63, . -.s T3. , J '- Ucensee objected to both the original and restated cententions, arguing ~.. that the contendon is idendeal to a contendon admitted in the Turkey Point c s. .(,' proceeding but not supported by an adequate basis. The Turkey Point contention +. alleged that the radiological an Jysis of a spent fuel pool boiling event was s an entrapoladon of an analysis condtaaed at the Limeri.ck reactcr. Licensee's i Opposiden at 31. Licensee stases that no such allegation is made in Peutioner's ' ' c~ y([ ? ,- r.. ' - 4 Aling, and the use of the te.rm "greater" in the "Bases for Contendon" poition "...' j * " '.].

;; i-lacks comparative reference. Id.

% 4, *(. Q.,, -

.'O The NRC Staff did not omose the contenuon, interpreting it to address the lack of a site.specife radaological analpis of a spent fuel pool boding event s.+.

4 which demonsattes that 10 C.P.R. Parts 20 and 100 onsite armi offsite dois limiu y x, ~ j will not te eaceeded. Staff Response at 15. Apparendy, the Staff interpeted the + ' ' " - . a f.. ; i use of the term "greater" to apply to doses above the limits of NRC reguladons. g....*..... ..'"W e 4

i

., ;.j, '. n ~. '; .. i ? ,q >. = =. .,'e Y gg ..a... s 'g O j, 4. g g a. g e, ' o. ..q,. + -s m. 3 t_______ _____.______m._._

,a-a .-l &.1.ye..s., m.;. 'm4.,,.: p.e,N; 6wid. 4*f.5 WA i \\e I M *. L.n.5 t w. %... o % m..p g. e 3,.. ,..e>.g,$ ; ?.3 i,W4:w:.. n ;. 4., 8

K :,.W4 5.c,;'.N.;3;,';$"U%3yM

'Ihe Board reserves judgment on this coraenuon pending Pedtioner's review 7.C 7[.%* ^ c,,. %@4 7.ndN G.-ly of Staff's independent analysis. Mr. Rich is to advise the Board within 30 days

p, ;.,Y

4.. p,WO,,

of his receipt of the Staff analysis (and in any event, no later than May la, ),,d.;%.,* ' 4 / MN. 9 '.N % 0 1988) whether he wishes to pursue the contention if he does not wish to pursue M i.C/otd;'aM@Mh'*M@,#r% J M ",M lt, it will be dismissed. If he does wish to pursue it, it will be ruled on at that Uc.,v.;>$ ,,Wlb N.j'M. 5% time. J $.,'%,. M i.. s u;,p 4 % v a f ~ .g m. %w. -).J.=. y, N."',' E N 7, Q V.. %

• L
• W F.

Cooteatlos 6 7. ....,e,. u.,t.n.. - h,.-. F*.,,.. x 4;.w :y,,". 7h Petitioner asseru in Cuneendon 6 that c.V. -w .,,;., y a x .. "/ ' W,, u.< s in.s wks a ed siatr be, no. edepainly omsidsed er eneiped mesenate daienweda or cr i .lg., [. 9 geaen n ,<.i Imesrity manuas in=e en imenesed seawsuse of h*e and reaioneuvey . 1 Nr. f.%, .. 'e. y ' d ~. ' - g as a nah of tecnesed carney and kases amese in en spass feet pool. 4 v % ' t ?. ,,y. =t %1 [~.',,., '.,.)A!. ; /;M. ?;. : ,Y.7.y;

• /.

Petitioner argues that the pool was designed to store lesser quantities of spert , ; t. E,' ) [* g 5" i'- '. " l$, fuel for a sMner period o' time and that licensee has failed to adequately . 7 ? k.'QlC*p,~'i y, analyse problems that may result from exposure to the increawd amount of ,' / r ; - /4 decay heat and radiation erni led by the larger number of spent fbcl assemblies -7,. Qq ;l. 4,, fd,,%. /. secred. Petitioner specl6es three problems: (1) deterioration of fuel cladding; eb- , 3

. V 2.,

(?) loss ofintegrity of materials making up the storage rock and the pool liner; './Y,['- ,y C.'*,i < 8'?.y and (3) deterioration of the concrete of which the pool is cmstructed. Amended " Q. '. - ( * ':" !'j. @ f,lJ

• U.

Petition at $4. At oral argument, Petitioner asserted that the normal temperature c- -A. - ,, y W, 7c.,.l.;. of the pool would be increased, subjecting the pool materials, particularly the a 1 ,,c.,c. $ ' g 3,,. concrew, ao greater stress. Pedtioner assened that the calculatforts of thew forces ' y#' were "cQ inadequate? Tr. 65-66, l Liceaews objects to thr comention, arst cui the grounds that a similar con. tention was lidgated in a proceeding involving the Tiarkey Point reactor, Li. ,~y

1. -

censee asse.1s that while intervenors there presented no testimony, nine wit. 0

/., c,e nesses testi8ed that the contentico there wts without merit. Licensee also cites the document *on supporting the St. !.u

6e spent fuel pooi arnendment applica.

,4 "".*i* 'b.., . ~, tion for the proposition that the calculations of decay heat and radiation satisfy 2 t, .1, + regulasory requirernents. IJcensee's Opposition at 35 36, a ; /g f $,, J, < ; Staff.ioes not object to Mmission of the contention if it is linused to f.,, 3 - - - ~, ', the storage period authorized by the amendment. While Staff notes that the . $ 'i, s / 'E consection may be premanare because raised before the Staff's evaluation is Q ,1 available, c%g Duke rower Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Units I and 2), y, ". - ..t- _.'.,,e' ALAB-687,16 NRC 460, 46849 (1982), it does not argue that the technical C 'e\\.',,,

(*,',.

objection sMukt bar admission of the contenuen. Staff Respcase at 1617.

y. 3,.

c., t j e.. - We agree with the Staff, "[he contention is Mequately speci6c and clearly " N 4 puts Licensee on notics of the issue to be Moressed. Liccusee's argument that the ccetenticut was copied from prior proceedings is not grounds ter b.aving the

e.

. 7.,; e i _.I'. ,i e ii 442 ,c e. 4 [. g T g4 g g .;, fr. - , -y:3 7 pm ~. - - ',. O;. yf ]'.[ y-g,.y.v-l ' ri ~ -.,.v %.; \\ t s n.. . L i - ',*,-i* r "c 'nes. ,l' r ? - ,,g' 9[', i ' % ', ' ' r s ,(* ,.i d =, j.* P g e. 'E4 x

• ) '

4 a

1. g"

,N _g s. 4 't". .n f ', ,n d, ,g, + + ' 7, ~

• y g. . )

, ' p '$, t ,L -[ l - 4 b 7,

c. d

_ [, f'- _g_

7.. .O-

.,7.

s ..,;g : u t p - c - w s.... ,s u.., ". '..

.r.-

.? > .- e

HL.x e t J

.,y ,c v 3.- .c. y. ., ~ A c ..,,,g. s .v . y ,. :.s ;..,,,

y *.

5. . y. v s., .. ;!. a,,.,

r,..,. r,y O m.

u.. c s

4 ,o. y .. s. ,:s w. .c . a.... x. ' ' +...

v..)

• $ l

.c., - .*<.f.> .r ): .o.,

;., *,. g '. ' ' '. ']. * ' :*.

.q ./*.......,. cormuwh in this case. The St. Lucie spent fuel pool differs from the Tirkey w a. ' ' ' ; '.,. *, c 3 8,f ~ - ' ",W '; i Point plant, and thus the Tbrkey Point decision on ctrutnuons cannot act as a .. ; '[ 0,..., q 2. ',..., 3. bar so considering the issue here. See, e.g., Commomalth Edison Co. (Byron >J

• ','l ',* c.,, f.**..?

y.. e,.., -; Nuclear Pour Stadon, Units 1 and 2), LBP.80-30,12 NRC 683,689 (1980).* p * [ , t', ' jf. ' '.t. f i ','.. < Honver, the scope of the consendon is bounded by the scope of the notice ..d ., j J of hearing and must be limited to the length of time authorized by the license l... o 3 j {',. ;. ;. ff .,, amendment at issue. Zion, supra,12 NRC,426. The contention is admitted as modi 6ed. y.,,.,,q

e.

.a...,. ,,.. m. ; g,., ;. n . ~ < >.. 7; l;",* ~. 6.T.2.' l f,* J. i. '.*& ; 6 G. Cosdention S ~ ,z.. ~.:...c... a.... e,. m.,> .c. n g st.es [~ .., \\'fa k y. , y ~[ m m WWn d aise d die M w

• d = W W M ased

.. m .w.

< 7.y y,,,.;.... t.

o , e ,m .a _a.,ee. i a..-. m.oe.,se e

a.,.h.my,,d w.y a e. ry desis=ad for dacey heat sad onhar r*** deal beat

,,i.*...',*',q,t.!.z..% . /.' '. M da comid, la mira. cause a make release of r.d-i.<<hiry suo the sovirtsunssa.

r. e...... m.

M;

'N.' '.@* f ', -.f*

J, * ','1 Petitioner alleges that increases in the heat load to the fuel storage pool (*,, ' using high-density storage racks could lead to excessively high ternperatures s ". +., - C M. In the pool and that a delay in makeup ernergency water could cause a fuel .N. rod cladding are or explosion, thereby releasing radaoactivity from the fuel and

• ~

J., - 0. J. ',/ posing a threat to the public. Amended Petidon at 6-7. Mr. Rich clari6ed his 'cf h*j# conteation during the March 29,1988 Prehearmg Conference by stating that his 'L,, 'J,j,o; ~#. basic concern was that the pool conting system was inadequate under certain a 1 beat load condidons. He maintains that boiting in the fuel pool would result. s t.'. N O with the probability that this could lead to a loss of cooling capability, arw! that ,~, he or his experts will provide substantial technical evidence that temperature . :,.i ~f3

i guidelines will be exceeded. 'IT. 68 70.

1icensee argues that their calculations show no departure from Standard "i u~ Review Plan guidelines, licensee objects to admitting the contention as it ',4 relace to boiling because it fails to point to any speci6c enor ' icensee's ., [.,.,# J analysis and calculations.1.icensee am, objects *.o the claddin; *..~.ortion of j l the consension because it fails to suggest hc.v makeup ws. <nt be lost. ~ t. .] 1 Tr. 7172; Uc==*a*'s Oppositbn at 37 38. Similarly, Staff would reject the .i>

, m.

,7,.] consention inasmuch as Petitioner does not show that any of the safety guides ' - ~.

• '.j would be excaadad Staff Response at 1819.

a p. 1 A e . y

s.,

.w.,'. ? a. ., } # 1 i 3. ..g .,y ^ 1Jsemme 0 W e made b em wth many d h'O aum arid h 3 apa.3y w h unes a, g in e.ame - Tins any. amass win ama be e44=ned sarons benea ,.c { 463 o. \\ r o R ,A l y .g 6

$s 'thidYk+!hfp'hk'?'.hYOU%m.-lAl h'b G <9 L.%g w& O ASk.N!< y8 y~.g%w%p%p aym,MMp W09 men m:n.yqe n a x,..w::.y:.tM

9.T & y 9

y r.{< .y s w..n.3. %.

g. A..,

d c...o y ,a.., .a s 4.'. p,2 y f m: 4,n. ' y4 1 o. f.. A, w e dw %.e,m.y.v* Q, v W.. C V Wa dh. _..p.y .y 'J Q'%'$,' ?N W@d& % However, safety guides do not have the fome and effect of law or NRC $,NM@p,This'W,.

dy 87,(fkjM,'hM[.h 2*Qg regulations. Moreover, bulk pool temperatures can differ signiacantly from 6 N'f xQ[.d' M

temperatures at speciac locations within the pool. Departure from nucleate 'IWPMTh$,M M boiling to Alm boiling is always a matter of safety concern. Accordingly, the hd soard ands Conantim s admissible. The soard expects Petitioner and Licensee, h w i3 s w % &.M m an = their expau, io present direct achnical iad=ony for

• acord.

k.qqlfi J.NQ.qW'hQ f 1WGA s hrud h' h

• k MMM4 M W@?(,e.g'%.w$.W"j.p'.V{ss@e c """'" " "

w -.m..hi. - e. 6 i m e. t p g. g;$ @d GAi m hhs frem e. T ' , mar.o. sysia. d ten died es. k 6. evus d. y ,i'.Q, ( v, p .hel f.ikese d y W 6. pu.sp. e th..l.ari I poo r s.pply

e. ps ps a the eh.R t.

4 c.)A ..s :. f.,,3,J 9 ww, n .4 p .64. d e. the ey .cn h e. d..hei. tath d e..h p W.,7. &e.GE.Q.c,.%,gy... ,2 . 7.'. g ? my,ey = ee pay.

m. p I ide d es sp m f I p I hns eye nie i haisy dWm

e. *=da*. *a*

• m ra'a'ai fa ===6d==al ahaa d adaaaM'r b=* **

W.. 4. 4.s r. . 4., te. W ' a f %w .., c., :. p a M da m. c

2. a :.

.' %,/. W :1,$u..g y % M @; W .u e.% t +o d 'this contention alleges that, if a pump or the power supply fa!!s, the spent fuel M/.f. M.,)f[hI'% M. pnot cooling system will be unable to accommodate the increased heat bad ydy@3.g[%g[4tgcQUQE!' tag;%.sgl.s$g$R ig',W: associated wkh the higherdensity fuel storage and a full core discharge. At g oral argument, puttiener anphastred uw vuinerabuity a the eisetrical pour Q O.gfy'1 supply to forces sa:h as humidity, wear, and r.Aarina 'ly 30. Licensee opposes 3 N O.Leh..'yp,n.Jp g.,

1. .E /W3 Rg'h'.,P'; d.M.,'($p

.N",. : admission stating that it ignores a section of the Licensee's Safety Analysis Repet (SAR) entitled "Deccy Heat Calculations for the Spent Phel Pool (Bulk)"

• ;.N,y,p;g.&.M;p%

x4 <. which describes the cooling system design, a detailed decay heet analysis, and 4::(yG. the souses and times of availability of makeup wata in the event of loss 47,: : f 9.m. OpJ,j;;;$ ,Q of cmling capability. Licensee argues that the "mere assumpdon" of cooling r h. 7....N ' % j $ gl N I,y [ L.Y'Ng CN. k 5 syssam inadequacy is inadequate. The contention fails to question the 1 ba='s (' % *. ?.q c oppositim at 39 40. T'e Staff does not oppose a&nission. 'IT, 81; Staff r methodology or conclusions and should be rejected for lack of basis. Licensee's ..: p. f ty g.r,g;f.n m. q([

...em.;Lm Reeponse at 20.

+. \\$/'.i$[.Y $M8% k,y, The Board believes that this cocdention meets the minhaal requirements %%'M.f m p ?jg of $ 2.714 in that it is suf8ciently spectac for litigation. While the basis for , %, T. '.' E [gQ(.p,*J.%.R,g 0 :j.. .?. the contention is minimal, the changes in fuel density and amours provide L ;.p. Y, % 1,%;p.,. ;.@C,,{g%, O. 27 the quantum of basis reqdred. Licensee's evidence on this contention should 31.d be directed toward applicabuity of and compliance with Critvion 44 of 10 t Q W;..s, .. jl%..*;%.y:p C.P.R. Part 50, Appendia A. t . s . a t. %,. Q,;g"c.*,. p.y W, s,.wm ( e ", > ;c*. .- 3 M.4t.-.

• ' **!*i 1..,.,i fy, '. g.',N*'d c

, 4

• (

4 .,4 +,i,,,,....4..;. [; f * * [ c ' 6., ,y l ..c. r . g, .- b.#f '.f f.,y,f V.,1 4 j, el W M i,.,1

• .,'.J..

e.' !, [* c #.,7 * ' '. N * *. 7; '* I h. w, g, ig,.1 % ',.,9.g *- ' 3 I. 'e f "7 4

• (

?.

• A.

I f. 4 g , <,. - Q. M.. *,9 A j j' ,e e- -s4 r i i' g.(.h* y 'Q. g.. L,,, g g / s j'* s' i . g C(. - f 9.**, 'q,4s - i q%. . s*' ..e, y \\ NJ.b i l e,*. .'. g*.* ' g. g ky g *. ** fM Vi tr" j 4, 'n * / .. p J $ ' ?S.- p*7 N % ;

• E *', A f.K,1 ~. u* ', r

.U ? J'a o;*t,

n..

. ;i,*-@

q*'.'

<.3 s

a

• 1.'bf '. ' M.'.. *. '. s ".. [.

i' 'i 4 '. ' -

i..

l '. ' , (,.. d.,.. ".,, e j,,; q,q e < Q p,. y.. g,,.'. yaj s 6 7 ', y 4 , u..- e .s s { 'i I ^ .s,_, f, s O 4

• } ,tm ', ~

I - g. 4

• ,-7. 8 v w .\\ 1.*'?* ,as v -

.'.g.,.,.: .d-- - ' -7+ . 8, s .' c s r 4 J' , = 3 4 {. A,,.', '. '.?.: n'a- % y [ * ' - ..y;Mg?.s ;%*. 1* t v

• ~

ys' ' m..s u.;9 e x ~ .z y : n.. .9.,

. y. l. fY. k,'. ' c r, f*?.s,g. , ' " D,. l .s..

• \\

i ~ e a / .o 5, , c:., 9,,, o,.. - 3,*., .. f. ./ 9,. i. a 3.v. a..,,

c.

.y. s. ,c .... 2 2... _ ; >. u... s. -, s. 1,*. l ) ,I ,e.J."q.,. j .,.c*- .? L Contention 10 n. ,.*l '. s ". ?. .._ ~ Ccntendon 10 statas e. .5 , [ '.,, v [,. nat hi hg h w W h b d W h @m d fuD m Marp

• '., N * *'

' ;..d* with &s prwence of the pnyosed 1706 usemths, RAL oulised a different set d i 7 *,, - n ,3

• % '. *, r, e; *'; ".

seannpuans than la desernunang the original 8gures foi uma to al as kidnated in the j ( Final Safe y Analysis Repon for ihe SL taae plante tl nit Na 1. (9.149. TeNo 9.13) .. [,,.,.,.

• g, ',

h. y.-

..Z..fe J. # ,.f. ,..,F At oral argument Petitioner asserted that the "time to boil calculations are e. not conscrsative." Tr. t'2 85, it appears that Petitioner addresses the anal N ' 2 '.I.. : * ~. e '. ', D '..%Y assumptions used rather than the difference between assumpdons used in the .e *; 'M.*pl,. anal Safety Analysis Report for the plant itself and those used for tr,y anal SAR ~ E.,J., .,.,:...~*'J'..,,*1, foe the spent fuel pool expansion.1Y 84. l d (' *, :,' '?.'. *.'. > '{. /y., ; ; 'M Boih Licensee and Staff argue for the r jection of this contention. Staff ~ .,97 maintains that there is not suf6cient basis or specticity. Staff Opposidon at 21;

• ,
• l.,. i.c.. % Tl(

D. 88. Licensee points out, in part, that differing assumpdons in the calculadons -..,;,,.,',., j ", i f,. *; do not form a basis for a contendon Licensee's Opposition at 41. At oral C. , * ..,,.,,.,.c,,E argument, Licensee emphasized that Petitioner falls to specify any Saw in the j c vf... - + c. ~ ,~,O.j.*; assumpdons challenged. Tt. 87. ~

i... y., : ;

De Board agrees, and the contention is rejected for la:k of basis and m S. cl speciacity. We note, however, that in Intervenor's clari6cadon it appears that ~' s,

f' -

'i his real concern was d'at the calculations, particularly in the determinadon of .g '..< "time to boit," were not conservative. W. 82 88. His is precisely the subject of l t '- / .r Contendon 8, supra, and thus will be addressed. + J. Contention 11 s. t Petitioner asserts in Contention 11 .u .,,.. j has the petyoned use of high4ensity storese rocks desigmd and fakicmad h the Joep .4 Osas Corporatica is uuhaation of an essesmany ne= and urytwen teshncdosy. /.- ) ] J', : .f Dls contention asserts th.at the use of Boranex neutron absorber plates as 1

1. */ -

incorporated in the proposed high density storage racks is an unproven, untested i; ',.; ;. f ;.. , Q, g,,i ] te*hnology and is unsafe, Petitioner quotes a statement from NRC Information 'w*.'. 's Nodce 87 43, SSINS No. 6835 (dated September 8,1987) that: **The concern '. ~, ,

• li is that separauon of the ticutreet absorbing material used in high density fuel storage might compomise safety." Amended Petition at 8; Tt. 88 95. Mr. Rich 1

- i ,1 notes also that NRC has requested more information from Licensee in this regard, and presented extensive excerpts from a Board Noti 6 cation concerning , ;;1' t. potenth! Boranex problems. Tt. 90104. '. ; * *., l, s, '. r,' s 46S L 1 ~ 4 4. 6 I A a l

W i.dMMNsY $dMI.L.'"@$MlMS:O N M E I ciSE.' N.Y h5D C' f.$'f.hh5 .h&.Lh \\.N W ::.W M %.hk.O,$ i 5 Y 5r & f N,.N, Wl7b.&, f',*.th.,$p$. M N. % M.ry m.n *c. g.,, y'a e m I,A . M* v. t. V. s. o. u f ut .<a %ets s tp smh g J b. y 4 ; *, A n wl W.. m.T.y m,d y&p,W.e@% ,e.1',I 4Wn n.. t C-M .V,.. yan.wMs c .Ihy% [. L et.m 4 4'(s p.p%,$,$g.a. r.t, .v s ,M %5MUF.4 rM I le*aaa* disagrecs, stating that similar installadons have been made at many $.' y. M MNM.,@MJ' .d reactor sites and any problems are not the consequences of "new technology" . e'. W @iT Q.;W i gk$c d;f{i;A, ylQ w. %p g m'.l lkR' C bis rather a result of the discovery of "(r)ecent anomalies... due to Bornflex ps shrir* age caused by irread= in m= punis. ucens aismscris m a has 3.:.+ $@ Q N g,,%lgy answered the questions concerning pountial BoraSex problems in its October

.'4.$.

Tift 20 and December 23,1987 responace to Staff inquiries. W.104-05; Licensee's c.> Niff5[gf gfi? Opposidan at 42 44. Staff does not oppose admhalon. Staff Response at 2122; 3lW-F).g@hMf6hih,"..,M' i'.@h @5 %;t w&Qj,.y h.106. M-ldE3 . t.. M-1he Board Armis this contadon satis 6es the requirements of basis and S K$,p'a#.W.j,M,n.s,6'r,?.;i speciacity. While the use of Baranex may not be considend "new technobgy " the problems identiSed in the NRC Staff Board N**m ccncerning the ..,; : A i.Q. hfl r y, f.;g.~ .'N.,4;y.9$.f:.@.7.y.]Q?,Jr)' reports on the Quad Cities and Point Beach plants raise quite speci6c queadons .f / about the use of Boradex in the Joseph Oats storage racks. Cna*aatiaa 11 is .N.Q,p'( ?. admitted. ,,..g a .,.. p. n. (x . W,. .2 .y . e, g* ,.., 3., e... t.:.. u ~. e, 4 .w _.., n. r. m s oj j:Q;.1,.g s Q:..,Qwv <'s:A 1 ;' K. Cootention 13 . w.c 'e.. n - -...:. y

.y v

m .,3...,v, p,*;

1. ,.": r Contendon 13 states

,.p'...ww-,W:c

w -

' q j,1 W y,. n, c g.c. ' y i ~..N @@'i,#v %e.,,,. ,u,,. s ,..o-39 ^/ mi tm ha am metya.d she errece ihan e inime or icen.do cand hoa on ihe spam 'u';l..*g[,,.. ;pyfg$ tid sarese fantisy or ins===. sud that tim SER meglecas certain acades that cmid be y 'p%. ?. W. ?.

f;,'

p.'?;. ww. A m,", y.gq r;; eaused by oncei assural daeamars. My.fJ' J.'h.2,,; g: As bases for this contendon, Pedtioner cites failure to analyze damage from ,5l9 MffM'3 5.9ff ',,- hurricane cr wind-driven missiles, Udal waves, and polonged ushovers of the 3 H 1. M M. 4.. Rlf' W,S,f.. M l3'J. ' O.CJs island caused by large storms. AmendrJ Petition at 9. .,; y : R... Ucensee argues that the contesalon should be rejected both because it is d.[.x ( W'?y.F.t.*lf;..'pM $ 4. ;..g^ 'c. beyond the scope of the proceeding, citing Florida Powr a d Ug At Co. (Thrtey 7,. y.g.;.;J i Point Nuclear Generadng Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-85 36,22 NRC 590,598 b r.??U.h "f.f S.':Pn d'.' 99 (1985), and because the issue was decided at the operadng license stage and , ;.{'f g<:.'C.-Q,, <J.d"Y ;i.y,. t i..' . no new infctmadon has been preserwed to challenge the validity of the health ,,':.J.et M. c Q N. p r. ?v.- and safety $nding made at that time. Licensee's Opposition at 48-49. Staff

1. i

.f,qW_o..: '. concurs. Staff Respmse at 23. ,.. ~l Q '. ! ; f,.'f, (O; p f,f/'. ' ;' ' V 'Ihe effects of natural disasters (hurricane wind and Sooding. tornado wind, ' 9 ,,.7 r. . * ; L,N.,, and missiles) were evaluated at the operating license stage, and the plant design . f y y, x ',; J >y 3 4 7; was found to be adequase to cope with any possible conditions. The contendon + } '*1.,9 * '( v.:., - l*,. a,,, s provides no basis for reevalu& ting these effects as a result of the proposed .. y,, "' '., ' 3,' -, : m.... .a s amendmm. The coniendon.is.herefore rejecied. f 'q w i., 3: In his "clari6cadon" during the gehearing conferen:e, the Petitioner pro-JG. .6 ','.O, . ll,,.. _ ,,'u% posed to amend the contendon to include the possible effects of "a fully. fueled i,[,, ,.7,'.;i 3 - q ;,, g j i Orumman jet slamming inao the spent fuel pool building...." Tr. 106 t 7 ' J. ' l.: .'.r,-

09. Conscridon 13, on its face, is concerned with natural disasters. Neither the

/ n. ,' #h s.o u. s, ,,t ) l . a', ,,j fff

7., a 4

y E ',8 3

• i.i ' lf,, e

'.. 7 '., a, N ( a. 4 t 8 e : - 1 ,'{ s *.' N' sd> \\ l, ~ -t' 4 4 n ..w v,.,,. l d g g L s ,.y. ,s e 3 b., I g 't Y' 3', e g g 3 g ..g g p

n..

.o c e. 4< a.... <a, ;..; - ,. s &w - m ..e

i, f.

.p x, .,y c ,.,. r,

s.,....-

v, .,s ,s c + o- ..,,.,,c.a ...a . a..., .. ~.. m.. e c /..'c.'.,T' Board not the Petidoner (Tr.107) considers the airplane scenario to be a natural

7. -

disaster We therefore do not allow the aircraft proposal to be an amendment

• 7,g -/.

to Contention 13. If it is to be cuisidered at all, it should be submitted as a ..j*..:,. tale 8 led contendon pursuam to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(aXI). '.. ;j, n., 4 . " f.. ..t -...' ' v L. Contention 14 ..;. e,, - :. g < l f.. a.- -c n... *. ,, A. Contenden 14 states e.. g. ? e' '- n / ' *' - ..... s not !?At. hu aca poperty cm idered or evalusied one radiolosical comesquences to tha ,C [J.*

• ,. I [.'.

~ . {' ""i '*"'"*' *"d '"'""d'"8 ' l'"" N"!'"" "' '" ****d"* I" 'h' 'P"' I"*3 P 'd' c.. ,# ; ~., As bases for this contendon, Mr. Rich asserts that the BNL Report identi6es ',' y,... ;,'.. ; ?'.; "j .). J three factors not included in earlier risk assessments. Mr. Rich does not identify f,,,, the three factors. He argues that the accident analysis should address the burning ',. & ;.. *,.3:.p' i .,?. of the total number of assemblies authorized to be stored in the pool, an accident s .. r c. '. ?. ? / that is beyond the Asign basis for the spem fuel pool and one that would (

1. '. ; =' '

require a loss of cooling water in the pool Petitioner further asserts that the c.

' ' '. h

• f.... ;..M, radiological consequences are underestimated because the Licensee's population 3'.',.

1- ,f *,,. y projection for the area is inadequate. Amended Petition at 9 11. At oral argument, . t.- Petitioner reiterated his general concerns about inadequate conservadsms and i. e, ' 7 [ the possibility of a severe accident initiated by a fuel assembly or cask drop ,'c .# 1 or loss of coolant mendoned in the BNL Report. Petitioner offered no further ,y E information on poputadon changes. Tr.10911. ,; fl Both Licensee and Staff oposc the contendon for lack of a scenario connect- 'g ing the BNL Report to the speci6c procedure and arrangement of the St. Lucie _L*.

• {'

spent fuel pool. Licensee's Opposidon at 50 51. Staff Response at 24. Tr. I11 n,

13. Mr. Rich does not allege nonconipliance with a safety standard or provide a l

credible accident scenario. In order to accept this contention, a credible mech-anism or scenario for a spent fuel pool accident stch as loss of cooling water l must be grovided. Because this has not been done, the contention cannot be I f 1 admitted. 1 J. M. Contention 15 ' ~ .**.1 Contendon 15 states ., -Q " ..)} ,{ ' ) het the inciones of the spesu fuel pxd capacity, which incimies fust rods whidi br, espeneced fuel faame and fwl sods thei on enore highly enriched, will caues the regarosnents of AN5! N161975 ocs to be enes armi till incrosas the pedobibry thai e . A, ;< cnucabey.ccidas will ocar in the spera fual pixd and will saceed 10 CFR Part 50. A 62 s. cruencet f i O 467 6 1 I l ,.l + 1 1 I I i a

$~biM %.'.h h,K*p& w) $ l D h;, M *. N 'q $ N W, [$& ' kkM.. i f t., d'# J-ih%ww Wh5h$$$N?$ s.h,;2tA. i ww ., w 4 s.;, p g, .gr$37h.,. ;y:M

• f,$*,

m4. w a..,',@.p~, %. 3 t @. 3*[, /. [ U .\\ N'$g. ; W.'. u., O. t 4 ' ' @p,'*.Q(',.:[w[*,'Q.Th.5.Q'f M .T *. D.. } Q ir") ';*,' i ' Il k,y'$ Y.".,3,W,4.'.h M 3 Peddoner asserts that the increased number of fuel rods stored will increase p F4V ' the "chancea that the fuel pool will go crideal." Amended Petidon at 11. At oral @N; yz '..;'i p..pg.. 'h.C.c g ,a., l' '.p 4. argument. Pedtioner withdrew the phrase "which have experienced fuel failure" r ?. i from the contendon. 'n I14. T,y@.7. M*$.C M[a,D *5't 9 M' "K Licensee argues that this contention is idendcal to one proposed in another 6); j//Q4:.T.[: 'N MyM , missed. Here, we look only for basis and spectacity and would consider the f .i.,$.".a. L9l proceeding. There the contendon was admitted but later was summarily dis. Al a* y yll JM ' W. ' '.*[.N'*

• E*,P i'd b@i.6ty ' (?' $ M[i{4 merits only in a case of summary judgment or through the hearing process.

r. 1 C:'* f,'

• f.

Licersee argues further that Petidoner offers no basis for his bare allegadon A *lN., '.g ;. b. 1 r. to que1 don the analysis in the SAR and gives no nodce of the issue to be f.,"3.,;, p- ; lT.,L c -' ', f.6 t N

• w opinion that the contention raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding,

+9 addresscd. Licensee's Opposi'. inn at 52 53. Staff, on the other hand, states its lW; p. ;-(i/%. ?",,y- *. " ' is adequately speciac, and is supported by at least a minimal basis. Staff ands ty the reference to cridcality resuldng from failed fuel lacks nexus, but does not ~, f,.f-

• '. f "M ' ' '; s.'

oppose admission of the issue "whether added storage of fuel and more highly 4 ~ * 'h,a.N ' U.?

• . l. U...

enriched fuel will cause a criticality a cident." Staff Response at 25. ? i.',,

• 1he Board agrees with the Staff. Crideality control is one of the basic u*,

Q (;,,f +'l ; *. ~ *..,,,g7.,,1, *,_ 'c concerns when fuel is being stored. and the methods used to shieve this control j,,.. 7 ; *l. J. n., l", f. '. are of great importance. The contention is therefore admitted. f,g *y.) s [ :,L 4 .... C 4,,t.. ( %y, 9. 4- ' T... .1. N. Contendon 16 .~ c,

, ; ';..p'3...

,n .,s r *. es.+++. .e +,r. Contendon 16 states s.

' f,.

,5;. .' s i ! F.- C.,. ?, .~.....,.. .4 4, / ' O. 3 ,,t Na F7&t. Im exa respeded to os cwwns as pwreed by the NRC by cuadarung a b.9 "f;,, "' ; ^ '. A f,*... keimg sesdule fw the spers fual pml detailms how the most recerioy diessrsed spare ~ 4 . ' l c. i f,. - fuei 301 be isdated fran onher roceraty discharsed fu.I andAr a fuD cae disearse in order to mkisale Poseraial rids frun &ns la ihe spers fuel pods (el resuhans in releases cl ( - c, :- re.*io.cevity inso om emi,creners in men et the to cnt 100 c.neria.

e 4

.e n ',,if it ' ..i Petitioner's basis for this c>ntendon begins with the following quote from J .) r . ~ f page 80 of the BNL Report: i .,s. 2- ~... ' ,.g \\ \\ c.4 Tur ihc plares We he, a mismacme spre fuel pmi nd. the cow revwem me..un

• ,- -. c m

=We en 4n io have e submanual erra: ce rim (e new reducti<m at s ce mon) is to raaissam ru==aly diseersed fuel in km d essy su ese r dts ih.i.n i atmed fran ow nm {f-c( the fuel r dis by a form or more cd sp.<e. = e . O.I Amended Pedtion at 11. The redstion of risk is pinned to the occurrence of ^* n ^,V,, an a:cident that causes a complete sad rapid loss of water in the spent fuel pool. There is no assertion that St. Lucie is one of the plants with a sign 16 cant ?,.,%. ] spent fuel pool risk or that the Licensee's plan for terxking and storage is not in ....'V", 9 general accordance with the recommendations contained in the BNL Report. The s s. ... a .o v.. w t j .a. v 468 r 4 a.

• A

.s } i l \\ p e ,,e.,,. .s a g. 3 9 } 4 f 8 l' 4, 9 ~ s ,.,m _,.e ,3

~:: e., ~.,..,. y ._..,;j (.,... + a. a u .y ..c. ~ 3.y n' % ;. .s. a .d..,,;. 9, .s c.~.- r a...:, ~ ..z.. -,,,c,.

. 'L,,n W L i i'.... O. i D.N, '. - ;

^.. .. ~ - 1. 3,..,. <.', '.hl. ..., &.. p..';, y e s y, e.,; !,~,, ~. s, t- .n ~'.i..:..' 7, .a , C i ;.. t, g g.

f. "..,,,. -

NRC Staff's Safety Evaluadon Report describes Licensee's plans to have two ,..;.I :;N ;'. ;, ~ l J ?.Q(' N q'./ ;'.. ' #. *l,. l ~* discrete regions in the reracked fuel pool. Region 1. a specially designed region - h 7.'. y. ;). [.' ' f j:..,'

• 1..s with greater spacing and neutron absorber material between staage cells, is 4

-j. planned to accommodate new fuel cell assemblies or spent fuel assemblies that i '*4j.M M,.4.

• )! ;

have not achieved a particular burnup level. Region 2 with closer spacing of spert I M.$;*, ; [,* ',,1 fuel cells and a different neutron absort>ing-matersals con 8guration is designed q'.%'[L,. v A;P,':,,.1

• b ',* { :

'?., Qd dj 'f,-i '.~ a to store spent fuel with a particular minimum burnup level which is calculated ,.O for various initial enrichments. See Anachment to 1.icense Amendment No. 91 & "li'D,*'.i.i.";Y ;;*.*;',;. ' i ' *< %.~. t, .(*.',_;,- at 5 5,5-6, and 5-6b, and attached Staff Safety Evaluation at 3. Y('.,'j [.' *. greater than the design basis accident. Absent a credible mechanism or scenario Again, the acceptance of this contenuon requires consideration of an accident / * '. %*. 4 * '.. i' r. ,p ',. 7,,,,.. <.1, /,' '* ', lor such an accident to occur, the contention cannot bt. W_ The contention .*. [, y must be denied for lack of basis and speel6 city. .. -.,..c ee. ', ' p ' ;- -..- Because this Memorandum and Order granu a petition for leave to intervene, i ..J *,.'*'- it is appealable by any party other than the Pedtioner on the quesdon of whether .ff,, ,.,, f... f* the petitions should have been wholly denied.10 C.F.R. l 2,714a(c) (1986). + u . ~. 6*,u,4,. ,,,,,s ...... '., ?,": j, '.l.,.. Order

.L..j

,f'yd '..,e ** Por all the foregoing reasons and based upon consideration of the entire 7 .o..' - N.* 1,. record in this mauer, it is, this 20th day of April 1988, ORDERED i s' i. '-.

l. That Petitioner Campbell Rich is admitted as a party to this puceeding; C

M. j

2. That Pedtioner's Contentions 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15 are admitted. as

,e ~;; ' ,1 amended, the decision on Contenuon 5 it deferred, and all remaining contentiora are denied; 1' 'y. ** j.-

3. Thar the contentions and their bases admitted in 12, above, are renum.

i bered and restated, when appropriate, as set forth in Appendix A hereto w'alch . j,. N,, ; is incorpr, rated herein by reference; and ..v s.. F + i. c..,. . ~..e... i q

e

.,, t, r.

\\

.,.i ?, . J,,. . (...,,, t 4. \\ .i'- 2. 3 j 4 d J l s 1 e 49 \\ 4 j I c. x I l k s j w ? p - .o M .i , s i

N. u.< }.,%..M S .'3;.n4, 3.'. k.o'. ' y...i..j i '.a,;d a, g'g e ",2 @ f..e t.. ?. t s.,. t .... / l: t 4^* '.. ;., A.. ".. r Q. ' ?.'.". '. X,. t tg J.'. g %

u..

• • y.+4, s

i ,s n.,.. .s t * - .. p. <,,. . ~... ...s r. . c k'b,' f; e*.' % p; n. 9 mm..'n 3.o. rp. .,, 7 h .ha.,k I .:x x y .w 6 f.. ys .. x. ,.,, 3. ;.;. me,, w :< <.. y . r,~ s ..., a. r..o.a,. r. s,. ..( .f. e. p ,. J...u, . m.?;e,y.. .s. .,.a,; - ~ ,.[..:."; W.l* M ed.,% 10 '$.,$ g..r.E f,*,6N;f)/T. 4. That any party desiring to invoke the hytrid hearing prucedures set fonh in 10 C.FA 6 2.1101 et seg. (1987) shall, on or before May 6.1988 file with W,,{, y Jc.',, , y..*;,, M,'g,j g' .. c. this Board a written request including a proposed pocedural schedule. 4 . ?.,.. s ( %.,;.;'r.g..., s p c ., ?. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND s

w.,.,. f j. $

., ->..; p ;,.,6..;.,; i.9.c;.5 T*.r..^L y, v.s.." : s,~y;.. .1 . ?. I.!CENSINO BOARD . s.6 ,.~.:.. 4 2 M /**J[. 4***

• a B. Paul Cotter, Jr. Chairman

, p < (#',g e,1gl'.". */ '* (. ' ,- ' (., 3, * :

t.,".

pg =.,T.p.f y.;..g ADMINISTRATIVE JUDOE . r,,..if,- ' .'Q n %. jr'; e.u.... ';, ; J.., ..v.., 4 .; e.1,.;..,, ;...-;. ?;. ;..fh Glenn O. Bright .Ny f;l b_is.1., ADMINISTRATIVE JUDOE ...t..). s,. w - %v.n t w, a, ,3,' 1x,.

t..

• W..

. c.>, 3. f>. 3.. t..,,

Dr. Rkhard F. Cole - *. *. - ". M: n.,, y ' V ?; ;'J' s. , C'...'.. < 4.,.. .;. 'N.. ,,.p .', G. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDOE

r..

>... 'g w. s % ~ , en.' R,'p% April 20,1988 ,,.s.,... h. " y,.,.r":p Bethesda, Maryland

4.. '.

3 u'A.,g.r, . gr...,...h......,.,. m. - v. s .w,. n

p. S.j,.J -

APPENDIX A <v '. : a. ,,.,.., e,.,..w:. g. y; a ' p;; *'.aY Admitted Contentions ..m ,g ( * *, ".;*,* g'[ ' * ..).. .s .," F g ...*4 .cg $ ',, ^.,r.e.'* ~ l ; g s ,g 4, l '

t. b $* calculatim d rmliological cmseipersces tosuhirig frtan a cask drop acciders s's

/,k Of. f ~ *M y,.. in causnun, ard the rdaim nbm s such an e ein tre mee unh the 10 [. -[h",.. 3 Part 100 criuria pginah M Peutim Graersam 3.) - l. G 4. ).,.n ^ { t.' ', ' a

3. '8

• • k

3. Diat the CrWasequeness of a c4&I &ty a0Edert Of est acudert SEMDat in natufe ard efied

!. ~? ' L 'g.5, are grantly benemi due to the pusence cd a large crane to be t=adt inede the sters fuel ./ l pool tsaung h order to facihtete the feroddng. (OngmaDy Arncrdai Peutim Ccesersace ~' 4y , ' f.i. - Q ^ 'a f :,,, ~'. / G,' ,M' .l s 3. The Ucrases ard Staff h*" Dc8 W ach ccrandered cv artalped materuh detencentim T l., ' i.,. *i + ' j'p,i,. ce faaurs in maurials irsegrrry ruuhms frurn the incnased genersuco d heat ard 3 g, -,,,,,, u a ruuk d inaused capary in the spers fud pool durwg the sacrise 'i ,4' 5 e$',,' t': .3 perica enhorued by tbs licesiae arnardmers. (OnsinaDy Amerdad Prutice Cceserance s* q >.. ; e ', ,f'- ~ f,, 4. N the high. density design d the fuel storage res miD cause higher heat loads ',f',.],; ,..] (; and inenases in wsies teur.,wrature ottich could cauas a kes cd ccohng m:cdont arwi'cv Ji chansmge the mutary ard instatibry cd the rpurns designed for decay heat ard ca,her a "N g'I (,

• 4

.,(,', ,a 4 h' s. 'i. -

y..,,.

m ; * '.'.d g n 94 470 j ' ) .,,,,.,.,....s,,*.. e g g g 9 g 8 9

• 4 9

3 6 , %, h ' s s \\ 5 ,pqs.

• 4

. '. ), ...'t -u

T.j % /.' Q Y,,j'{G h?*.'g 'e % * .r. e t s e, e .. a.

• ., w.e - N...;:

.o ,.i,. ,[ f % ' ' = - ti D. F s' ,a '.e ' E ,8,. *'[ '1#* '*[, g -4

• f,,'r..,,,'

f...,. -* 6 .s + ! 1.'a " 5 5.*

• -( $ '...'.

D. gN. ,e Y, y, g p.,. ', '.,, ; a l' ',., >. - - 4,'A*,*.e. *, g,..,,. -o -l. q 7.,1.f.<4,y.'. . e .5 m. ,'s' a* - +< ,,1 p,. - 9 n ..}. i' > p, *. ' t,a .m.. ", e, e.. ?g

• t.

.fs e.- v .4 'n,,, ,; k .v. a..., - *., e n ;,...~, y.% :. . <. e, w, .t.. .r- .j. N..c. ;., . **....,..,. y c . W.,3, s. ;,,.. 3. d.y.,.. -g,,g .wmi he ,em , e ca.nd, b eine, com e g sh e d reduma,,wy imo c '. *[ $ iS. ' S.7j ?[;h - j 6e a=wammen. (OnsmeDg Amended Puske Caesake 8) .r., .,..q. +.;g .c,.. -.. ' /,, i C *', '. y J.U!.'s,, "'(. d. -.

5. N ihe coalho erem= win be emahne m - se inmused hem to d b on t., f. %., t.

n,..*. po. ns imas fn=i *e bish<d===y maaes ey=== and a fee ene dudwge in es mm

-s,.

; y F.

• k'f '.o l,-( l * '

d i ensle faihwe d ury W ibe pmmps or the eiscencal power supply to se pas,e ne ,'Q" d .f,g.... q,, ;, y, '; ;..,,., L '. e.. ,y ; no, hen side d en coolms ry=== andke la 6. e e d e easle failua of ** *1= ark =1 ... *;J N' 'p% '. / ..'

• N,. h,

po-or si, ply io me page on the pod sade d he span fami pool esoins eym==. This -'e i

-f,t. c.

_J.2' E,a.ig. 'c;: ;V.,.C. '.. ?,y L..Q.. ~t hahikey win esaton. meses e ensene preemal for en eW n6 of *ehwy hmo es e======m. (oris' any Ammaded Pauuom Cmamens 9.) m . s. ....,..,4.,. a., ..e (, .. 4,,,. * + 2.;

s. Ihm he ymposed ses d bish.dmassy monee res emeissed med febekend by se Jessph

• 3'r. p ' p ' +. ;,;

.?,.

• [.. 2 Amendedpeguca e-3 3,)

. yf" osu c-s is -i. - or en e.maisuy new d esp m - ' 2.(ods uy a + l,. , s.- ' .? , ? y,',, * *, *^[s.~,4' '.

7. The ihe beseese at es ayas feel pool espespy. wNdi bdedse fusi sede ens we seen e

i 7 ','v * (>.a .,f....- ',.4 bahty earkhed win cause es sogenumsses et ANSI N161975 na io be suas and win j .I , j,..,,A, *.,M .,,[ 6.,',

• bcsonne he pmhaushey ens e cemkalky eaMme wit ocar a its syssa fuma pond sad

, A,,d ,y*c; ,in esemed 10 OR Pan 50, A 62 ontana (OrigianDy Asnanded Peuuum P=.- .. s ,.,.i...;.*,,'. 6 15.) A ,u. ,,,4 .,,, - 3.,- ..t..,<. m. 7... s.. s d. , u ;-..,,'. ~

ga.W

) a. . s l.r, i .*s.. Q.*.3. %,... 1, %+ 1 (,'.[

g { r a'*

S i, - a . ~. ,.,.,..e'6 s-8,, '. I2 d 7 f, J A 5' , I e 4 4,,. +. e s ...g- ..,1 =.g_."

6. ".

4 4,.. a.. q g *. 1 'M-g' I,- g

e. Ii gg g E

,,.p a

n. t,.

. c. ,'l ~ e' s' . ig r e

• Jg(

8'. ', e ' .k p. ~...',,r".'>

• 7 3'

4 S..

• l

.N n e, e- ' A, .,, e f

s. *..

,g F. 8

• • i **

'. g -. ( e ,s.,. t* , ~,, *

• 0

.sl

• {

4 c. ;,.,..... ,6.. 3,. ', g.,4 , i ..g. J a. .9 g'c, ..o I g .g

• W s

e 6 se

• j f-

, * - t.q.* e r s r. e 4 .2, J g s, 471 i Y o - s, 4 j .,4 5, @.. e. 6 e i ) y 4' 8

• r 1

g =. . h l . s b g O

l.7.b,'f:4,% y',4 h,7.&... N. h.yJr;.k k' F,i-.Q y'yh WWD;MM@ccM'.k:'.YWr-4.c,}'W gg$.z;'s$t.. fj1hY'Ql$,.h)2 W ia M W. h 4 644 y-A h'f%cDMid,WOMg,..s 4s @M @5Nb$ 's5'i y 7 hMN M WM.w.h 6.w W !r 6 9 W'2 *. 3 t..%,.4 *?.y ;p a.:>g/ 7..,%' a. ' < h,,,.e!.?' A p.3h* m%a % P

• w.,; &) M q j

., 1.,. q v+ y s' A. V>. y14 i ad p.., n% y. % %; h.,c.p..ni;/ @c8 4,$, A,% '. r. .,1%:'tb.,f*.*?h.,,m,.,q,.l'[6w..,J r?. $Wu Che as 27 NRC 472 (t988) LBP.4811 q.s %.. > s 2 - j v...%..m 'o ,r,- s N 7F Q,, W. ? 3 g,,a,a~.W.wa. d 1.,,,;V dfT*h. w. a..g% A.f/y 3; ?' q q UNITED STATES OF AMER!CA gi., t'f'. TJq NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ... 4*a r.o4 * . ;.. f,.. , c...

• w* w*, s-w y.

c V u- ,,a,, a...a....g.f..<n. v.,. n... o y :,M:, os. y ( e. .< v, .s . f.,..,, g.4,.. L< ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.,.. A e,.

.a ..'.t.3...,,.. n w t..f.:g / W N '[? Wp N ;,. %e, - q gk.,. a,,sw+ Y * % 2 q-r @% s. ,,.... Ag; w r.91,; # Before Administrative Judges: d. p.h, t. -W ~ s. N t /,j '[*f:.,., ,, d ';. y m r i M /' *) ,lM ~ m.y p,. r,p. Worton B. Margulles, Chairman .t./.o m. . g *,; u. s.A T. g.',, f..s.* c /... , Q , W lc(G.,y,$g*f.? 4 q/.ew3%1; g.f,a<, 4 ...s .c r 2 ,..,e, James H. Carpenter .. ;m',a. n s.,.,a.. _. < 4....- .,1 Quotave A. Line.berger, Jr. "g%.,,

g..;*,/.- g 3, g._..q y..,, x. o v. 4 3

s 5m. % ;,g g..

• 4,..s.a.,3.ys.f s 's W.O.6p j.',&,..G,,,.,,wh.;,,;.

, p ', e..c v in the Matter of Doeket No. 50 440-OLA .... 4.;,#'.~V,%q';, by..- 9' (ASLBP No. 48 542 02.LA) . #g[ex* M'dr s+ 62Q E. M..b.=, Qig r 4 ,;,j.,,;,c v. n. - g,s. q.., f+. A g',.j,.1 -w* pT g CLEVELAND ELECTRIC e s v r ((y y's.d M,;,:'81.I< T Q,,.-e. c, c.o.j. *0 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et at 43 .,'h (Perry Nuclear Powc-Plant, 4 s ?Wv4 >:,:v.MMA'.4.V l 'i :

X Unit 1)

April 2s,1osa t-v - -r.; e

w.

;c Q<: W,:',.,4 ;,{:e

..; 3. .,,m......... n.. , a s.... .. e ,....,.s,,.., .e 2.. w .,s... e. u r..p...m 2m ,y<;,y , 9 r.M.; ; : 3.n... l. " cy, %j.,t ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDENG '4 gi O y. g,3 -l.U.f s NV.1 h [I':3*. f, On September 18,1987, Lkensees $ led an application for amendment of the o . s..,., e t >c, M,y $:Wr$ 'f ' [ 7,... 1 ;[7 M '.?.4 ,,.q.** Pxility Openting Lkense for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit y' f;lr g, e '.,"3 f > :p J,4., I, to (1) delete Technkal Specificatioas relating to the Main Steam Isolation ,,, l' ". i q' ' Yalve Leakage Control System (MSIVLCS) ard (2) revise the leakage criteria c '., - - l,

3y 3'c ' - W q for prirnary. containment allow 3ble leakage through the main steam lines.

y :/..S.Ne %.. W,,. d. On January 7,1989. Ohio Cithens fcr Responsible Energy, pursuant to red. J.r ;., - N ;,'c 1.J'.{ g j b b.,J *' Q,9i..C 'l eral Register nodce, Aled a petition to intervene and requested a formal adJtdi. [. ; g. -/ ** ' .: i tig calory licaring. Its interest only extended to the orst of the amendments which t' p L. ' '. g '.q c.., p ~ 7 5 would delete the Technical Speci6 cations pertaining to th? MSIVLCS This 'c'jf'.gC'?..:+[.y*,;:J, " J a.,,.) Board was appointed on January 28,1988; to preside in the matter. 6 %, A,',V... c ,, 'O ..) Q,Q } g,'.n c.,.2.~ ', O. j '. y Commission Staff noti 6ed Lkensees that the proposed Ikers amendment was By letter of March 11, 1988, l'or trasons speci6ed, the Nxlear Regulatory f,v,....,- y. .... c... u.! t s.. 6 . % e y q.y * *... ; *

• s.s s

.s. .,..s ,. q..s.,. 7. -,i,.a. ! q... c.. q w, e,, .s g g . g.. < ;.,,,.., ,,q ';.u-3/1.,'y.l.{ r a.c. ,i....3,.., . 2 m g {,, s '.2 ' /N YJ h,.. 4 . -... ~ -. 2 .s ~ s b I g .x .f ' 't s 4 i y, .-(,. ,..a ss. ,v , w b m = -g ,6, g h

-gy .t.. y,,g,,. :.4.,. T.? v a B.;.o.. f' * :.,. . ' 3 s ?. e 4,.a ', L' r au? a 9c ',; s ~ .( d',.< /! : 's d ':+t 5. y;, ,a, 2 ;. ;,. ~ '4 ,. e '.

• :,~.y..

v. s.

• ;4...@ ' ',' L.',./> !. * *.; C-i.m..' ;,..'A'

$7 >, s.~ :.',',' r.'....,. ..+< y ! l...,. . c.','

• f,'N.

.Y:. Q,..s ;. j' ~ .,.ll.}, .. ' ': r. A l. ,. /,*...~e..e p. wa.A..a.f.,a s..:..: n' r ..,i' .. _ r w. N

• A v.

4.1 ts ~ a. .r.., ~, f,, y.5 3.;;*. j' n ';.' ),... - eay, y ;..i.e .,q */. . st *,, gg .; 7 A * .' + ..a O. ? k t (. .g,

,P.

y*. :,.. . }e. ~ . tr. a,..... j s - <.. +

• '. % n. -'... W not acceptable to the Staff. On Man.h 16. 1988, the Board inquired of the

( *,..... O..*'. g f.4 @lM '],C.n,. ,1 t.9(' f 'f;..? ; df.' ' '. l*g,*j) $;h .f participants m the, proceeding regarding their willingness to proceed in IJght of 6:.g *(. Q.

• i! *j ',

the Staff's position, e 'W _;,7,t.;. ' ' i 'q. " in a leaar dased April 18,1983, Licensees' counsel advised that Licensees . *4 t.'. e u.;:*l,,. M t,* p'"J. G.i p,) pg. 3 : d.i 9,'./4Q.i ..".g Q' had withdrawn that part of the application pertaining to the MSIVLCS Technical .W Speci6 cations. Counsel fwther requested tha' as a consequenca the Boasd should M,7.').N'.*k!.CM*Y.h N*h!f.;Y* J terminase the proceeding. He Hased that the NRC Staff and Ohio Citizens for n'M.*:'.

, Y. '... ' r *CT '.. @Z' $ [ ;0 g ;

Responsible Energy agree to that cowse of action. i.:. ,,,g ,,a ;.. The issue befcre this Board in the proceeding was to consider the propeed A. ". 3,,*., f 3. f.,,4./S.., amendment of the Technical Speci$ cations pertaining to the MSIVLCS. With I .1*

4..

.f.y,...y i,q. ; >t the withdrawsl of the proposed r-M' wuhout objection by the other ,;,-/, s.',- %.'4.' o f..,' participants, thsee is no longer a justiciable issue in the proceeding before the 3.- y a +1. * *;.. Board. Therefore, the Board orders that the proceedag be dismissed. - (.';. :.c.,.f. *r. i,'... ) !T 15 SO ORDERED. f 4,>. i,, ; ...'yJ'ta,27.,=,y . q,.,r. t. c.,, THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND

.4,

- ', ?,..- LICENSING BOARD ) r.. .g .s. c,..s...,. g c .' s'... ' '. W f.,. ',l... Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 4 w s 1 T, 4. y...,? r ADMINISTRATIVE t AW JUDGE ...s, s +.e..., ;... < . y, s '..,2 J m H. W . ;) y ,.,m ..y.- ADMINISTRAT1VE JUDOE ..s....., .( Oustave A. t " vi, Jr. 'a.c i - ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ~... 4 , i g.' c'. 6_ i ' '"t Dated at Bethesda, Marylanct 'a~' ; *t < r 1,. ' '. this 26th day of April 1988, .s ,m.- .-.,p.. l [ ..- 3 :,.. s.. 3... 'i ...%..e,' t a q'. ,{ s g -

• g>

.g g s, '.. ',,

• lg g

s e 1 .f' 4 ,j 9 g } 9 473 k 8 \\ g p '.e e .8 = ~ l n \\ I. f e w

r. U

.E g 4 e m

. +.... . a (.3 , -. ao,. .., v...,.... 4 's.. L ;,. 'o5 ?' ^ e. f. s ,,3 .....'.,,,lg .. j 'z. r,, f, * ,a A.*-.. n. 5- ,p,

.. n.

.. 3 7..

41y......( M.'; i. 2. :;.c.i. 3. jAdministrative y;;g..:.....'.r::+n.c.

.n Law Jud e ,e .1.* .'.9 a m .9

• t.','

Ie: .'9 ,y s I Q 6 7

• l

.4 .g t g 4,.' $ ...s

• ,. ?..,.

o. . r 7

• 'g

.s. o i ' e l A g m y 'T u.,) , a y .am D s v ~ H t ,y) 1

1. 4 e

.., g - t t ,1 ' -e e g e .e . i,l o } s i 4 . b 4, f g t .t e I O s i e 4.. _ n f i.

,,.....a;;.(3,.4... ...7..y x y..:,; m. ,3 y .6.- ?, .r-

'.. =.. '~ v.

.ti s e,.,..._t., .e s 1 ,. e; s

A

.,p..,...~,. . *>.i . e. 3. ;.3,.c. ; ;. e g ;, c....,s.c ;..g, s. e. e . t. y 9,* S ...s,.... e c,- i .v q.

f

,... i ..e.. 2 "... : We ' i'i,i.U d W/.$.!.*'[,I.* l$.'. (. . 3. ' l 4 [ . j l',,o 'J. l } $a s ~- e, .r ~. + d. '. :....3. ' -r. . - ;'r s -..'. Cite as 27 NRC 475 (1C64) ALJ 441 ?1-^. i

• :;. y.,

...s -.<

• s, i

..... a... ( f, )*. ?' r... \\. ' j . ~ +. ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f ),- .. ;* ',,. o,, q. j.. ' i NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMIS$10N . 7 "y, j y. s. .t..*.;.*,.,.- '. e. s.,a. ?

• ' )

h#..,, ..p

s...,, ~ r. :,. h

f....h.,. ' N ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s-

.s.,, ,,. w...., v.,.. .+. ' ?;...,..y,.-*,. '"'., s. . : *.., -.,.{'

• k.'

Adminletrative Law Judge J ~ ' ~ ~... ?.., ' ';,.,' i l,..' e". ..y g. , [.. ',.3 - Morton B. Margulies a, + ... s ;.., w :,... v,.. i - - - ....*,t'e,., ~ c...'?,. '.; - ;? In the Matter of Docket No. 3013915C .... y 4 g ; :.. (ASLBP No, as 54541.SC) ' 1 4.,e .?. . '.~ - ......sy i'... ',5,,..e.. ...,s.-, '., ' - 8 0 WARD HINES, JR. MEDICAL CENTER 1" t 7, ~... w. 4 (Veterans Administra'.lon) Aprl! 29,1944 i . ',t c c.,. o,

s.. -

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i' l.' q (Ruling on Modon for Temporary Stay of Proceedlag) \\ On April 11, 1988, NRC Staff 61c4 a "Modon for Temporary Stay cf ,1. ' + : Proceeding." until May 25,1988, pending cornpledon of a Depriment of Justice %~ criminal investigadon. Dr. Maynard L. Freeman (Respondent) submitted on i 5 ) *'.

• l..'
• i,.

April 24,1988, a "Memorandum in Ogosidon to the NRC Staff Modon for Temporary Stay of Proceeding." In this M*morandum and Ordee the mouon for '.,e *, ', : a temporary stay will be grained to May 25,1988. l i I s. i.... ,,uf...,.. BACKGROUND I .i s ) s. i . s ,,t Edward Hines, Jr. Medical Center, of Hines, Illinois, is the ho' der of a speci8c

• (, f'

.1 's bypo^rt material license, issued by the Nuclear Regul.ntory Commission, author dng the use of railo$armaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic j C l3 e e 0l 4 .J

• . y 475

,g .g w 4 g g. I b i 4 i. g A b l ~ ' 1 ~ 1

.,.y. ; %.u p. r ~. m 'tg;,.N. t *, -3@. f i Y.M..;,,;;

: % T,e n. kl. m..,y, s f,.q,'.F.

.?3u-.. g$.,.z.t3 gy$,$ $v $ 5 N . - n, y 3 e '. f.', c.. .' o E'~ v,rh.f.. r.,..:lw ' b *A 4 qa g,,, 4 $.Y.Yhf . T khYN b$$ $,?'.YY c.'Q(,'.;,or.r: ,3 i W,' :. %.; .. p. '- ).y f ..r.' j a, ). gr; i m.

s. _,.. <

y9 v ; q,..., ) .1 c. '.c' .,1 . W.,. , r. v y a ; ;.:....c \\ ' l 3,.. :.; ; < ?

• . ~ [';m;t...., g;,

prxedi.res. In August 1986 and subsequendy, Dr. Mayr.ard L. Freemati wss .o

.,.n.

its Assistant Chief of Nuclear Medical Science. j'c [ ~F.[, :, On August 24, 1987, an "Order to Show Cause Why License Should Nct '?,i. 4 p f ',,y....;;.y.

• • O Be Modiaed, Effecdve Immediately" was issued. The Order set forth that tne

, (. .'.l* ' - e ^ ~ f. 'g Q'.,, ' },

<7.

• s-Q*. *2 Commission condxted inspecdons and investigations in 1986 and 1987, which dbclosed, later alla, two misadministradons of radiopharmreudcals at the N.

• ". fC Medical Center in August 1986.. brther, the Order stated that evidence indicated

.,, J.yg e ;. " Dr. Freeman was aware that diagnostic misalministradons had occurred but that e $.,. "., "l -;*I^ he faded to ensure that the misadministrations were reported as required by the ' w * ],,.- #v *., , j NRC, and that he made a false statement to a V.A. Invesugatory Board and NRC

, i 4..

,,,,: f,. I ; *,,,.?, investigators, destroyed evi&nce, improperly ottained additional evidence, and 4,,. ;.1',. ; ..h r. t. N

• • 3 attempic4 to impede the NRC invesdgadons by innuencing the testimony of a 1 gi.g,.%

witness, all in order to conceal that the misedministrations had occurred. g al t 4 [, t' l X,e "d E,' As part of the Order, the Medical Center's license was amer'ded, effective ,}."~':"# 1. '3, l *l J. " % E. immediately, with a requirement, among others, that Dr. Freeman be removed .. l ;' ; '... frcm all licensed Etivities and that he not serve in any positico involving the J ' '. '. ^6 perfcymance cr supervision of any licensed stivides, including the supervisico .3 e,.

• a,,

of any nuclear rnedicine technologisu,

, A;,, 3 ;

The Order provided that the license and any other person adversely af. 7, fected may request a hearing within 30 days after the issuaxe of the Order. + , .x./. ',y,' 8 Dr. Freeman, through his attorney, on September 22,1987, Sled a request for . i,,, ',g,. ' a hearing. Corturrently, he requested that the NRC defer xtion on his request ,, s a

• for a hearing pending a meeting with NRC personnel and consideration of his response to the Order. Nothing resulted from the meeting. and on January 25, 1988, counsel far Dr. Freeman requested that the hearing process go forward.

~

• ".i I was appointed to preside in this proceeding on February 18,1988. Pre.

.i. hearing discovery got under way in March 1988 with Dr. Freeman's counsel <t serving requests (cr the production of docurnents on Staff on March 7,1988, ,,./[ 1 hearing date has been set. The parties h=1 ajvlsed cn Man;h 2,1988, that it and making anilable to Staff on March 21,1988 Nodecs o Detosition. No r was pematum to set a hearing date. + ~ Based on invesdgadons cceducted between December 16,1986, and June 30, y 1987, the NRC, cn Novemter 13,1987, referred this matter to the Department of Jtnuce (DOJ) (cr investigadon. A criminal investigadon was insututed by the DOJ cn that date, Shortly after January 1,1988, the U.S. Attorney's Of6ce for the Ncuthern District of Illinois commenced a fe&ral grr.nd jury invesugation -+ G of this matter. i ,i .GN

~

~ k, k e 4 476 ~ a 4_ 4 3 l t n._... .. ~ - -,..,. s a 4 sf. e \\ ' p, 4

w, ',. /, j'.,,7f>' v q.- w. .e .., ' i.,q,,, - ,.? ,f , y. y :o N .,,s, i t. ,m........ ,a_ e } g'.,: y.. ..~ i . '. ~. ~ *'{.... THE STAFF MOTION 4 ' ~, ;* ',.. ' At the request of the DOJ, Staff aled de subject modon for a temporary stay . f...',,,;I of tk ptscreding until May 25,1988, pending compietkm of the DOJ criminal ..

• f,':.c.'

y, .j'

• h..f,*.['.6 i...'

invesugatkm. e,, -l'...,.,., Staff cites recent deciskns of the NRC and the courts as au&ority for the 1, f *,. :, ' p..' .r'< .. g *. pinciple that administradve proceedings may be suspended perding a criminal y..*,- - s.',*,,, 7 ',., '. j investigad(n. Among other cases, k ches finlay Teseg foborosories, Inc., 1

• 5' Docket No. 3013435 (Mar.17,1988); Atwanced Medkal Syssens, lac, (One

.'?',.'..... ', * " ..~. g ', '

• l,

f,< Phettny Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), A1).87-4, 25 NRC 865 (1987); fondis i .1,. ~.. *

v. NortA American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936); and United Stadas v. EIght 4

., ~... ', ' e,', ^ -', Thousand Eight Hundred and ff(ty Dollars ($8N0) in United States Currency, E. ' *,., i 461 U.S. 555 (1983). ',\\, ;,..

• 5

(, b l 1'%'s is cited by $taff for the popoaltion that the party seeking the stay

c..,.... :

ws: make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go ~ =,, 1 s ' ' '. i forwani, if there is eye.n a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will j C..*'",.. wort damage to scencone else.* fondu, supra, at 254 55. j *,.

• 7..'. #

$3NO is relied upon as more recendy ernploying the test established in ~

1. ar&ar v. Wingo,407 U.S. 514 (1972) that is to be used in de4.rmining whethw

• ~

a delay in civil proceedings, pending comptedon of a crimhat investigaska, viola : the doc process right to be heard within a meaningful time in cases j involving de@stion of propesty rights. The test reqedres a neighing of four factors: (1) the length of the.May, (2) the reason fw delay, (3) the defendant's asseruon of his right to a pompt proceedang, and (4) the pejudice to the defendant of a delay in the civil proceeding. $8N0, supra, at 565, Staff argues that a talancing of the four factcri indicates that a stay should te granted. It relies on a declaradon by Will\\am P. Setims IV, a trial attorney in ) the DOJ's Criminal Division, who is assigned to the criminal invesdgation. The declaration was executed pursuant to 28 U.S.t', i 1746. Dec!want recites that the DOJ has requested the NRC to seek a stay os the basis of a Nlief that shoubt the stay not be grensed it would irreparably harm the Desari nent's criminal

• 4 investigatka i

The considerations that are the bases for this DOJ's conclusions are: (1) there is a substantial similarity, both legally and factually, betweec ,l the subject matter of the NRC poceeding and the mattees that arv .. " s * ', * -[,f ' 1,' , lj currently unda crirrinal investigatkm, g 1 ,- - -{ (2) the same witnesses, more than tra in number would be common to j sustaining the Staff's Ordre in the a&ulnissutive proceeding and to deseemine whethee criminal activity has occwred; and .s. N *- 1 (3) statements of the wivesses taken by me NRC would apparendy be subject to broad dircovay in the NRC pmceeding and gndaction of g \\ p l .1 i a f l 4

N' +j-ll ','k.Y.;Q-9..Mi Q&: r.;. U > ",4.,:.#t+> 'h..w', Ll '. 4. '..' b ;.Q,;/,. ':a;.:,q  : w*. *E- > w ... !.$,,, $ g,5 .l .h,, a yy.T s y W v ..v p m, :. 9 % <$ Y N. 4,J:...b.h5 O N'; Y at, p. < v - %. ~. hh h' Y6N UAE_^ b. yw.y,,y,:g,. 4, :.,: y7.,,, e. y a. 3,. y. < z. y x ul~ >. N.[, ' f. V:-j'y.) e:..,,.,,~. y,., 'I .. - (,. n. s

• ' q **

L' 't t ' y.. m,N.,., o . -.., c. y n

• ','..'J 7 N such statemenu would reveal to possible targeu, at this early stage of

' h.','..$ [,')-[ N Q' p(( kI9 the criminal invesdgadon, the scope of the government's evidence. ,f,g. S.Q,,. ',j{ MlJ.. 'qy*yj,., y Declarant expecu that the invesdption would bc comp'eted by May 25,1988. , h; 5lp M i'1 Q :j Q qd M 4.cde,., n . f.,,n,p:.s Staff addresses the four. factor test in $3450 as follows: (1) The length of the delay would be for a tirnited period until May 25, MQ'J.?[*g.@p.'Q.*@;g)%;6 .i,'c. 1988, to complete the grand jury invesdption. ' h '.a //p *' P3$ /f '/. (2) The reason for the n'equested delay is merimrious. The Staff shares " d. '?. Rd. : ' ' $?.% the DOJ judgment that if the administradve poceeding is permitted f.$W,M to go forwstd at this time it is very likely that the statemenu of

• <.' 4 L 1. ' a'ygfl. Q(40M$
• 13 g

'MWl} the witnesses common to both proceedings would have to be pro. g,,.,( y.y q..;9

• A dxed. The Comminion's Rules of Prm tice governing discovery,10 hD6f; C.F.R. I2.740(b)(1), pernut access to "any matter not pivileged

.kj T.. ' NNh.g'4,, 7;.r,y,. g s,,y-m%.,',

m.. i J.

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceed- , 5, p. 4 ~ M ing...." In crimir.al cases, witnesses' statemenu are not made ,,J.,. r,s. J 5;.;7, j 6!F,' .trh, W;'l available to potential targets, or to anyone else when an investipadon 'd . g

• ' '. b' %.. *'J.

is in progress. The DOJ believes that identifying all of the MAen-r,.,. '

• A g.-.[. ;f 'l,f0

.C y. ' ? tial witnesses and providing their statements would reveal to possible .o . p.l., ;,'.G.; *lil u ' ' targets, at the early stage of the criminal investiption, the scope of Oy. f% '.. ': y, ;,- the government's evidence, it would threaten to prematurely disclose ,, q.,.* q.j, p.,.'7i( substantial information relating to possible criminal misconduct by .-.. ' 5 f ; ', <..y., q. 111nes Veterans Medical Center, its ofacers ard employees, whidt '>~0 'x woukt irreparably harm the criminal investigadon. ,~':' (3) Staff acknowledges that Dr. Freeman has userted his right to a prornpt . j.s. hearing. s / j N -., (4) Staff views the prejtmiice to Dr. Freeman from a stay of the poceeding

• ' ^

4; j' ' l Q.. '. ' '. f... as slight. It stans that Dr. Freeman is still employed by the Edward + M e <, Hines, Jr. Medical Center, albeit in a restricted manner. Staff's ". M.7,' ' 'r ',,. ';.. :,. position is that any prejudice to Dr. Freema.) during this relatively ~ r n.. '-l teief period of tirne is outwt4 bed by the irreparable harm to the

,N v

i' criminal invesdgation that would result if the proceeding, particularly discovery, were permitted to go on at this time. ~. ' ;, * {',., - j Staff noted that sensitive information had been developed during the course , i, ~ * (..,..,. p of the NRC investigadon and was made avahble to the DOJ, but because of e ~; < J ' 7A 3 ",. 2', its sensitivity, the Department's declaradcn does not contain all of the details

• ' c,;

j*.5, ",, that might be twd in support of the motion. It offered to make astilable to me, .~

7. *.

us, 3,,,

should I ccnsider it necessary, an h cantera, ex parte peseritation of additicnal '.,' M. e y y .i details of the information that has been deieloped. .o 1 . b ,. y.. ,c ) o. a '- :..* y 4 ', l .. C ] +, ",@. t o s.= .l'.,>, .-., ic, r. 473 'o ,.. ~.. 'd ,, f' 4 b s d ,4

• v..

%j 5 4 1 g .=- g e;. 'O - --+et*-9=*"- -**e-

• <a a, * '
• 4,

.*L s 6 y .e e - p g

c 4 - -;....-

%.L [,. .c y.1'..., 6 ; t [,.. - ,,.t',4,, , ff$ Q g'f _ 'L,j. t[,, - t',}.,;3'."j*? + '. '. {.. S.'. j .... e.3 s.a-t, 1.- ,.. s. S,' r ' i .d. g,. f. ' t,.,.t.,, s ,3.r -,t,,.s , o g 9,, ;.;,.. a i.. e g.J,. e, - c, ,.,;,, f o

.,.s t.(

.4, 1.*. .. w.. s. --. ~..... m. ,. y ~ .s. n ^,!:;. . e; y.. ~ v. n L <.. ,,:w......4,. s p'. >. ..D: < n.; < f.y (;';[q' *" .s',]j, t .n. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSrf10N TO THE MOT 10N

s... a.., /.

,.. 3.. + f*.j."n,*. controlling standards for the maners at issue. ..s s, 7:.g, 'T *:3,, '*0. M a !, e *. 7,, [ *..'...L .. i',' Respondent does not dispute that the cases cited by Staff provide the 7 . ?? Q'.M*. */ ' f.i.*; *,: - ((q ,.1 Respondent interprets Lsads.nyra, as placing on Staff the "burden to clearly l b -A.S p'.7.'.,.,p; s...r." c. emblish ht no harm wiu be incurnd by Dr. Freeman if the stay is graned." I eg[. . - r 7 r. *,."Oi He concluAt that he process requires that the request for stay be denied relying ',*d;.8, *.

• f r *,*#

e * *18 glj'(y* 41. *,,.c; y.,, I '. on the fact that he has not had the opponunity to practice his chosen pupfession

1. ', G..

since August 24,19g7, based on allegations going back a year to occurrences j , W h'. ' a M, h0WY.I'c.M:'f~nf.:'l.. in August 1988. Respondent views the requested stay as a means of prohibiting d~ L,',% /,;. Giq. p r C.,j - f *,,',,,. him from engaging in his chosen profession by effectively precluding him from . r. y.

• i challenging or contesdag the validity of the show.cause Order in a meaningful

. r Q %*g,,.,,:.l.:.'

• a heanns at a meaningful time.

l 'g (*. : "; f. c' ! ;, g* *. '.,,,,V:l Dr. Freeman concludes that the balancing of the four factor test indicates that

v. *p 9 3,, '.. ;

'... e ' Y,.e '.' the stay should be denied. i ,' f.p]*; g * *., 3

• c.

Preliminarily, Respondent asserts that the unexplained and unsupponed con. l "g t * \\.^ clusion that there would exist substantial harm should the stay not be granted, l .,.; p. 4f,, *.., @' f as claimed in the Seller's Declaration, may not fcrmulate a t'esis to obtam a , Y f.. r i ,,a stay. Rather, there must be a showing wkh speci6 city that a panicular harm "'/ mould exist. The proffee by Staff of an additional in camere, ex perte presenta. tion is wiemed as support for Respondam's contentica that the Declaration lacks t ( speci6 city. ..h Respondent answers the four factor test in the following manner: ) (1) He claims the current motion seeks to effectively delay the proceeding ( ,' j ,M7 .,;g inde6aitely. Respondent stases that granting the stay will delay by l almost 45 days the discovery process, because a series of depositions l 4 had been planned, and this would further postpone the opportunity s 7 for hearing. postulating that Dr. Freeman will be indicted by the t Orand Jury, it is argued that he would then be required to weigh his constitutional protections in the criminal sense against his cisil [ VJ... remedies in the administrative sense. As a result, the request of the c p ' l ' * *',

• l*.

Staff could leave Dr. Freeman in a position where he may never be .;c :,J. . J.,- 1., * {* j able to contest the Show Cause Order in any meaningful way, ~ f> .. ci 1 (2) Respondent considers Staff's reason for the stay to be enecidess. He i .,.,,y.,

<*,;;1 I

stases that the government cannot seek to prevent disclosure of

o y

, y, information, W W obtained by 5hion, of information h p ~ ment does not possess, k is funhet stated that thsee already is a t-s l l. .. ' -.;, w pieshora of senermens in the pubuc secord in weers tuned by ihe ,,,'*....J Commluica. He assens that Staff should not be heard to argue that the informanon will come to light for the $rst ekne by allowing j .a. 5 the taking of depositions. Respondent also assens that there is no information as to the speciac information sought to be withheld. 7 i t 4r J . h ..a \\ c y I g g

l s

g e \\ g ~ l y

.... i g A /~ M.. ;s,. m. s.,r +,,.' y :,.:M q +. ?. 3 M. 'p ; N,.% y. a.. a e. n,n k.a.

r. ~. ?~

..o- . e.O *3 *./.,j. 3,t e t b,.-.er*, y ** v + s;'4. s' ',w, go, t e ~W.N.. *Q*j q:. y:.. a.e ' ${6 @k& y.(M*g@ YAW.d.[*', as, ~J h: W. (3) As to the maner of the assertion of the right to a ptwnp hearing, Re. 4N.W}*~< %,$s ef his right to a ptung hasring. M'jW spondent pohns to Staff's ucknowledgment that Dr. Freeman pursued I' W@d.d{$Qk[R.f.

• .3;.

%M e.. ?'Q,. t (4) Respondsat stanse that the pejudke to hhn htun a stay of the po. x D? dN Y;) coeding rasuhe is e5ectinly eliminating any opponunity for him m ..M.qk.e;. mpg.u, M ooast = aii.ge in = order a show Cau Again, posm. C h.fd [M.O p[,Q d 34.- Q. M M 6< lating the ladictment of Dr. Freeman, it was argued, as a result of .b e Q. the stay he would be Arced to: undermine his Flfth A=*adnaa* yM.<N?M'. y'M priviisse against selflacriminadca; defend himself la simultaneous M' Y* N *.' y. % 'f M, M h@' M # K f.y poceedings wish distinedy diffemat n=aat-w expose any de-j.M.r.M9@3M'?.g /* femme he may how to a criminal indkenent, or mherwise pejudice M p (sg.. g p e/ 8.t.'! m : Mi.6. ig6p one position a poesct amaahar, p $ws s R.sp-- coach.dse at d-w = ammiseers 3NiN %w. h. m' Y ' D ef. Y !.'i S I' ?e #r%.z.[- require that the request for stay be denied. J si id a star se fo.d w as ine,po,riate, R.e,onde,, wahom e a. tira, recpism she convening of a summary pocedure as set forth in the Commis.

h. v, pp.;p p -;h..h,:.

,6o,., decisica in rintay,,wra, and usco snwiry. ine. g ohto v. Freeman, ,Nl.%,.-. ds..?. k ~,,.. ..N. N 639 F.2d 318 (6th Cir.1981), cert, drated,454 UJ. 400 (1981), e s ,ad % V*%,w /.V', ',. .*.b' ya .,g',,, p <, v- .. + ,,. s c.,,.. q, 3 DISCUSSION 8 .3 s .f :- .. ;,..4 ' .,'f.,3 ' '..%, inequity should it be required to se forward with the Costimission poceedir.g. as w s ,c ne maner at issue is whether Staff has made out a clear case of hardship w A.. 1 s (. f, y ^ ,.i

~Q~

measured against the fair possibility that the stay will injure Dr. Freemma, ne 7 k' ,[,.': 'd

• t i,g)t issue must be decided by weighing the harm that can result to the parties. Re.

3 ,' (, so.. yf j.3-. 3, C.7 .I. spondsm's due pocess rights must be measured against the public interest in g. 4 i the aiminal k 9'- r y: *' : t -..e", I .c.,, f S y ne case law does not ogpat Respmdent's view ihat for Staff to prevail t;,. ' 1,f] C ; it must "cleariy estabiish that no harm will be incurred by Dr. Freeman if the .j,' 3. - 4 t J ',A stay !: grumeest." ne factas to be considered and then balanced in deciding the

1 ',..

I. i f.'. s f issus are set forth in $8Jt50 and Wingo. M*.',,j.'.4 .W.4r Anst fury F-- "-Q Semif's Modon and Respondent's Omosition, I decide g;g. 7<, e.llE %.,_% 0,

• ihe sour.encoor inst a fonown:

n w, ',.. n, m,,,. / ,, 4. f, '* 'c, y.'j,l.ml.. Q}}f. **...m p k..z:;, 1. Longsk <Debey s 'g( y f 'w# " ne delay sanff seeks is for a spect6c permd, entending from the date it Sled @;.i '.,1,' J ~ p ; c t-f.-[ i y ?,,:.f '; - c q the =*iaa on Apil 11.1988, lo May 25,198f, a matter of 44 days or some 7 , r- -

• N., o,.'.:, g, ;$ 1 weeks. k is unkke ihe possible deisys of 18 months considrred in $8.A50 arms

'*g[ asniac.d u,dic.t sy,,,mr. mers, ne aquet is nouer a signiacant leasth of 7 ' 'a., tims, especially when "-tg that Dr. Freeman continues to be emplopd a ,g t .,.. > y,. d.. * ,F - . ' 41 - *,'g

• '.' y

)',..*s

g..

.,,,.,.s 9 440 4 e* . ' i y. m *'.,..... , : *.q J , -l s r,' ,.y s q g a p 4 *' w ,kg4 f " 4 y s s af ,.v' .a . ene, + - --,= e-^ Y - y e. ~g.:+---** . s ',t .i s - t.

• a g.e 7

5 ,y- -,o. a - g - r. e s g 3 s. a?. .. ~ s' y s a g g = ,y j' ,1 g q t ,s g 4 b o e' ),, i i J. 6

1. a g

6 4. . - s g g g, 4-( 9 m ^ i* e-. ~~,, r- ~ ~ ~ ~ * * ' ~ " ~ * ~^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~

~.n.. ~ 2,.. x,. e.~,..,.,,,i a w...v...,m..,,..

y,e

..n.... m.,.. - ... m... e .,.. ~ .:....,m v.7., :.,3 s.. <,.~.c....... r ..m.. ~,< +.g w,x n..,.,.....,.. . m.. ~. .c v .s ,.a . /.. . ~ .x - ....-..x. ~ '..c r... n. s ,m. m 7, I . ;,.g... i ,,,-g-...,t: e y g ~.. s... m.3s y ,.~ .,c.m. Q '. d. [{m. N, M ( A....,.'.h'uld a ou Medical cenar, albeit not wkh en name moponsibilides he pavimsly .i* . p: w?,.... ;. J,...f3. v n r. cu,cis.d. l., ;t.

6.

• 5 I L ^*' 4'. ;l y, g. /p f Jg.U Q ' y,;J.p,3,[. M.

' r .c.,., g,, M,. Rw.es point, ihm as a pra:ikaa maner, addhional delay can ruuk fmm j u say b.- of inerrupons prior souduung is accepud. Homewr, this was W* not shown w involve othe than a marginal amount of time. nure is no tesis for accepsing Respondent's a gumem ihat the aquased stay { A.. p..( c;7.p. w g .c.. 1, ;...,w^ t.',

• U/..g,.,a
• k '.,*

Lj; io May 23,19sa, could effectively delay en procading indeaniuly. Respondrnt

i. d

, M fi.:,*d.* 9 d W.T facers inio his argumem hi8 possible indktment and having to weigh his , 4 W.%.: f ? g ? ' Q 'n't defense stratagems which could result in not fully canesedng the Order to Show {

• d.L t' p. 4.2 cause. There is no causal connection bet en a 7.

ek sisy and the scenario i A f' & *Q*M,e".3* Af.2.. !,4 U.. L 3...W.,. v. 4+ g. %, h e:,. ;i, w o, der w show caum. nw argununt ihot em say could efsscainly delay Respondent builds souhing in his not ever being shir to M 3.Ily contest 1 ~.c - 1 - .,4- .:.- ' V.f,;j..;.5. s.i */. ;4.*. '%

• i 4y the proceeding indeaniuly is rejected.

n ,,,..v l ...q. s.'..,.... s :. c z... c. , ; % :.: h ; *., v...,, L,, s ' L Jtusen)be Drasy .. w.:., ~ r '. . ' y' O ' i 9e ^ ' * %.1,. The reason for the delay was properly established in the motion, h was [ e. ',3 ' ;..+ i '.y .,*3 L, ',, ~;.f ;,'. ;;. provided in a Declaradon made pursuant to 23 U.S.C. I1746, by an amorney .., '.,:.,.m.M - assigned to the criminal investigadon. The unsworn declaradon made under the l penalty of perjury has the like force and effect of an af6 davit. J. * ; C-The reason for the requested delay, the laishhood that naesments of witnesses J .. '.. ' ~.. ~ common to both F-#-- would have to be geoduced, which would mwel i to possible targes the scope of the government's evidence, thereby prematurely l Y j. ./

V disclosing subsiantial informadon and doing irwparable harm to the criminal l

",. /. * ' ' c t. \\ investigation, was the same given by the government in AAa.9eed Medkal j q'.' .. ' ',1 '.

• is,

pi Sprens,25 NRC at 370. In that proceeding, when an almost S monsh sany '. J'- L, was granted, it was found to be a "traditional and appropriate someon for sang

• -)~,

a delay" There is no basis m 6ad otherwise in this i.--M.,;. Inherent in ( s. e, the Grand Jury process is nondmenosure of what goes before it to eroesct the j process Clear hardship would result if the Commissket proceeding is not stayed. ',';.'.,,'.*,,',,.-[. The governmera might have provided add 6tional facu in bolstering the reason f .c,

• t
• ~.'.;*Q..

.'* ('f,d' given for the delay but the failure to do so did not make that provided legally l insuf6cient, j

• ' ' c j ;]r.. T.

Respondent's argwnent that the may shouM na prevent discloswe of in-r,. t.. 3. f-to be ob ned by d,,osion, a inf.m.i n - ee. ',. T,'. '.. 7, * - -} not posons, was not complemly formulated. No ladscation was given as to how c 7 'l ;.* - 'i y this could be accomplished. It would require 1-2M ; what informahon the a., government does possess, h does nos appear ikis can readily be done where the ..,; 5,t o,.".," very purpose of du goveranwm's motion is not u disclow what informadon l n. ,'. ?_ it has. Absent a more deanidve treatmem of the issue raised, no relief can be l granted. I.. s .m: O q -. I ,t 431 7,< s g s k s e a + e 4 1 4 .,.e_ 1 -..x - -1

..*h, "4 $q>..;,.7,.. A $&, i,o z,~ $l.,'s - t, C sG S' c, 4. Y.. ). ),(w' g.,l D* w < p ny'[e s' ,e.e., x'. 4~. .s ' <f %.%, s$, '8. &p. ., % U. Q ".;:y) "m.. ' ,4 ..Q MW;{;N.M"$j,v y.

,, n.,k b 1.%',..%'%f'$X jD t '.$.Pf.l."5 bg

+ W v$' v'W .+ .m# r.Q,: -A

3..,.E r g ' ' s..e...,.. ]., 3

,,7 t.;,

7. u

• y'.I..r, f

. n,, 9 ', *c ,., s. /.,,,* ',.*.,'.' V, W x ,% g'g,4g

• ,.,Ie 9

e. ,4 c. d'.. A,A. The record does not show that the Staff or the DOJ were untimely in their Wov.$.* n .,o e .. M4.. - ?.., ,. w. ~..,.3 s.y 3.p......

medons,

s. : e. < r n,, ' T

.**J 6....g;,... )?.,N.3 p]w:'*,,&.n a..... f.t. s -

v c.

. e.,3 Q.'. hQ. *.&. h.'. L Respondent's Assertion ofIsis Right 80 s Prompt litating "c C. Q '., M h., r,~~,.%. A. *1.I Dr. Freeman timely asserted his right to a proms hearing. ,%s ,r. m . e.#.%...s. +;, i,..,,g e r ,, y.. -< . ~ ~ i,, s.,... 4., - .~b'?~. Q,q. 9 +..r.. j ?; gy %.'.Mt? 9 ~* l & ;fq'e= y ;Q 4 The Prejudke to the Respondentfrom a Stay in the Commission .y.f ,WJ, Proceeding ~ During the period of the stay, Dr. Freeman t.ould continue to be ken from } r //in. *,, C, . - fully Facticing his chosen pefession. 'The reconi is silent as to the speciacs of i;.,., ?.'g). [- ], % n o- . [a' ':, hb present employment by the medkal center. Considering the limited period ',( u

3. O, ;.g,. ;. d.,. (,,.c.D.,)i.)

of the stay and his continued employment, the requested stay would not result 4 ;, g "*. 'r. .y., ,- } ;;,4.L* in signi6 cant injury to Dr. Freeman, .,', ! '.M. e. 'f,

• .l[-[. [

Respmd nt's cla'm that the pejudice to him from a stay of the pro: ceding e ',,. 6 %, ' i ' ',;.; Sig ; V e('y#' results in effectively eliminating any oppcstunity for him to contest the allega-dons in the Order to Show Cause is rejected. Again, the argument postulates ~ y ,. ~,... ' 4,g[, Dr. Freemai being indkted by a Grand Jury and having to weigh his cefense 5. +. *t,. +..e. stratagems which cculd result in not contesdng the Order to Show Cause. I a .:' 'S.. again and that there is no causal connecticsi between a 7. week stay and Re- .. " ' ] w; V rpandent's emclusion that it effectively climinates any opportunity for him to N e contest the r!!egadons in the Ccanmission proceeding. Dr, Freeman may well ~. /- %* be faxd with having to make the same decisions as to defense stratagems,if a ?. c4 a %C .s' / criminal indictment is trought, whether ce not a stay is granted. J Staff has met the legal requiremenu for granting the stay it has requested. ~ I Dr. Freeman will rot te signi6cantly hermed by granting the stay. The harm to e. , P ' *. him is cotweighed by the harm that will be ome to the Orand Jury investigatior. and the DOJ should the stay not be granted. As to Dr. Freeman's request fcr the convening of a se.nmary pocedure to contest the basis for the conunued restricting of the employment of Dr. Freeman, better practice requires that this be the subject of an applicatxm r,cparate frcun .,U', - a 's the response to the Staff's makm. It would provide an c5Tortunity for Staff to ,' 't, ' S reapord to the request. Yhe request may be aled at the completico of the stay, ,; /, e-4 ar.d Staff may 61e a response within 7 days of the receig of the request. e,...- s g g g, .I ,r, g. 4

• 4, T 8

,.,'i4 s 4* 's

• Dg*

g,( %( ,A 9 't 1 442 l, ?. i s .6 4 e .o =. f., , '.r ~ i te.. \\ t* s-7..., . ~ - .c.;, .g F l / 5 + g

• r 1

- g e h s '.e' 1,

,..; u, -.. ;, 3. >, y.,., ( ..t..: . m,. : :.. ; y $;. :r. + ?, ;. a,.y ; qn. -.,,e<<,,g... ,. t ( a.

w..

, c,. .c... - -.., i 3 -..a. -,-,. ,e,y. J.' .s,. ... a i-., i: ..s.y, i - ',n 'c ,.,3.,n,,,..,., .'. y a..i,,. '.,.,, '.*. ..,.'. .. a f.,'_,4,1 s., r n i >. s. e ,e . : ' "... x .e ,.,... j ,..,.8.' omog;g .,,a. ,. ;s..;. r.- ,t ,7.,.. .j., Ms e h a g of h M M W E 1988, h W .> q.t ' c.,* - ..c....,,,.. granted. s ~,. *....,. -, e. 7. ,', D. Morton R. Margulies

1. i**'

ADMINISTILATIVE LAW JUDOE t., ....o. g.,,- ,..s-1'; ~ a' '.j Deled at Boheeds, Maryland.

• ;[:, t, !...

l..,

' *' (' nds 29e day at Apre 1988. '.* '. * '.' p.. l., ,- q : :,i.< ?..','.=.;,:..] ...~..:.; s =. .. ~ ,. g. s .t o +.. 4 g*- e, e. e g ' i, ', * *

• 4 4

9 4

e.,

4, . 4 p.....,,.,., - .'**,g, .e '9 . ').'. .D ..,t* e ,b e t 1 Or '?.

y i

l 4 i-j w ' t' e [ + P O 1 s n l r e. 5 + - '6 e e.. e.

• e

.q .~ e 1 ,_. ] j i 'l 4 i e, .e s s ~. e. 4 e

• ?

4-0 0 .A y se .,.g. e. i*..4 6 483 a.. 8 e e ' W. S. 84 d D*EE t t M 14 f it4 Fr itt e iles.it t.it t il3

• tt l-..

g Y 9 6 I i. 6 9 l s t,,,.. s. p

e, ,,,3 r-v,. i y- < i,. ~ -. - -.,, n -..,.., I I P -... *, i. ,,r,..., #Q, 'g* \\. ' *. 3e,- [ *- p g f, *, *, *./ ' s.

s. 't,

g' 4

• • ')I

(,.*,g n - s' I ' . n.' 4, 'e ' ^, [

• ,i e

~. e e ./ s g .. g . v..' - t V., s g. . m' e ' '. y>.>, c A . r., l..,. 3 : 9 Y ,4. 4,

i., *..

,,. -'M. l. T.'. / -, , '. > e,, 1 ,w m. _,.. 4.. 'o a.t. +- s 1 .) .m, u..... ps.v,c,.- .,<i. :,, o.. ...,c .a,. - f o. .h,.f,'

J

..m.l , " ~; ~A,...,.- ,.,..~c.,.6i ',- 4 ~, ', y;. :. ;, .,.,s........., ... + 1....o.. s-... i .8 .g?e . - ' ;,4...... s . ~.* - j ,, g i.; [ ,,, : e.,, ais.e.......e,,....,.,. s . s. . k, .... ~ *. .s

• .~,,..s.* i '.,,. '..,4

~.. '... l Lc ,...,,, e '. e. ,r'.'.*...,,, 7,'.. a y. .w ,:, 5.....,.' D. t,,. ,, /S.;e, *. :. i ' ' '.!... ",*0**~..,. P..

• 9 r o *n*. '

- a s ~, ....s...... - f i s - ~;. l k..,.,<<... + l f d i h ... o ', 4 's ,,. s..e 3-e,^ 4 e. .p

• +

.y .....e. . e. ......y.......,\\ g

3....,.

C

• * *, 4 g

[

• . [ eI,, *

.O

• .I I

O s*

4. J

• s *9 s

i = .+ 'e n..i. e.,, t ' 4' ,e '.., e %. , *o',, .es g e i..6 i s D',-.

• 8.o I

L r e

• 4*

s 'e A -, e g.,\\d . e' [ I f + ) i 3 e' 4 l

s...

... : ~ a t ) 8. s

• • (

g ,e s 4 1 g. l 4. .e e N...g t. s. l ~- s e e . p l = a a g I 4 [ ~ l ~., f s" 5 e #, 4 i i,- e., g* ,,,4-f, a#8' -b-

1. ge I

e. l

e.,gy. *,*

l.- a i. ..., p -;+ I e ..e d e 1 I 9,., .g'. j.** j i .g 1 s s . ( r.,,,. < ~ ~.

s..

~ 4 S' ' t, 4 = =. s - e,

• a

+ N g l , i% ..g,' f l q -* g 6 d t k, g s

• J

%.,n t g e I m. \\ + 9 W 4 t + + g 5 % * ' F g + - l ---. .s.. , t ,, t .,}}