ML20207C281
| 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
. g 4
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 l 1 l t s i i I i I 0000050P60 0006'30 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
. .- - - - . . - . - ., . , _ . . _ ~ . , - _ .
.L 1%
~
r~
'n "
. i. .
.c : '. a s . :
. ,. ' , ;, .. . , , , . .; .,o ' >- ..
. ,; . c; , .
. . ,.~ , > % ;. e .. . ., ,
- x. ,. ..; . . .
i .
.c y ..
'b '
, , . 8' e /; * * , U
.~-
, . . .: . - :e .:. . '. m>,.* : .. ..
vi. , .. . .j ... . . . . . , .-
.,.:, .1
,~.
7 -
3" . . . ' '( .
' ' NUREG-0750 Vol. 27, No. 4
.. . . - . c . < ,.c:r. . ~ Pages 33s-483
;........ . . v. , 1..; . ...
..w.. .
. . .. .. .=. ........x
....c ....<;y,.l
.;. m, NUCLEAR REGULATORY
..- .g g. -. W. v .
.. ..... x ;. ..a.1 .
COMMISSION ISSUANCES
. v . . o.
-.e ,;. 1. , M.
.c,.c7,.f.i' O. . .
April 1988
. ; .;:.~,:-
.e. . :
u.;
. '. .,.~*'.,a...
9
.. u .
.2.. *: ,..- . .. .; .
- . . ~. ' .,--
.s -
, , i, , This repc't inctdes the lasuances aceivt d during the specified period
, . * ? ,,. i from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal
~
- #- ..,'t -
Boards (Al AB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the
, 3 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Dects:ons (DD), and 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
',. . y. ,
U S. NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSIO
'...l'...,.
~ ......' . . . .
, .; ;~ '. .
, .' - Prepared by the i ,' Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services
- Office of A&nnistration ar.d Resources Management Un tuclear Regutatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925)
. . .. \
y , \ . f , eg.. .- -
. - . ~
9 n' ; h hhht h. .b bl ; . l - i
# @.h , .d@. !*Y* $.p. A .*;R@.Nhk '\-:.&f ! S R Wby $.
$~e@,[ $. .
M.,yaf N. . h,@;W < M M; ,W a.pRg. e . , f we xq.. c; - t ,
;g . A; a g
.. g Ad..M d e;d ;4
,n,.f.*(. c.ks,p - 7 s . ; , ,, ,, . %,La '
s.e y . r. ,L n . : .1 w. *.: c:ty. ,
;~a .l. .'f.. ...p A.,y ;3 !..
, , x . + v- . s .-
,c, a..y, .. .g, 3%. ,.;;.
.. s c. . ,, y 5, . . , , .
p , A,,. .1-a
,y
. n. .a . . a . ., .J , . , %>
.,7.-<v...
.a.
, ,, .. . . ~ . . . . . . .s c .<s. .
v x.:.~. a.,.s . a . . n. .. ,;,.,, ,f,' ,. s e . c. .,.a:. . .; A-
., n
, ,. w. . .
. . ., . s. :n a . :, ,W. .,. .
.* ,4.. a 1., o. . .
.s . .'n, 4 ....... .,c. , . .4.
1.;.se...s . . ?
, . . , .... . ~ ...
. ...;. ......,.,.. . v, .....m,., , ,. . g; ,.,,- .. ... .a n(.ue .
. . d,, % : $,... .
'y*t' G. A e;, , , , ,
. .y.M., . ;. ' 3+ t:.'. M.:: .. <" J. g.,.s... ..,
, ~,, ,x; :,*) n.
c . r,, , . s.. ; ,.
.r s'
, . . .3
.a' ~,c. . , gs * . g =u. .,,f , A ','** ; ,
k . .. ' r4' g<t-.,/.;...,3
- p* . N. ;* S*, 4. r. +. . i .. . . . ..
ar . .+ * - m.. + -+MM. M.3... ; pM Uh..Y[t
.e
' [ .72.1
~
,o.a ev ,. ,.ew;. c.x,,s a :14...e . ..
# .g
* + M,. . .%
o w'..c , /... s'9,4.,4,,+,m,..n p .y , .
. .t. . 6., , s .. . 3, . . .
. . . ,. . . : .* o. e, d,3 * ;.
< .... .4 . .s ,
~
. , .; ;. . .f.,f ..y q. .e.v :./:
n* y;; we . . n'<. . ; .. COMMISSIONERS
. .. *r,a ..x..;
p: : ',.. .m a s. .
': @' s',v .,i y, p .f
- Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- s. 7. 7.* y .*i,g'*L,;.**'.g.y.,P* M ec -
., s - r4 Thomas M. Roberts .c. .w ., ,- s.,;r;e,, ,c.?.,..i , ; '. .
v,
, . .. . . . < ': t.a . r. u v. Frederkk M. Bernthal d ..; c j:.g *;'r r 4*? d'ro.*7?,,s.y,T
. Kenneth M. Carr
. q, ,., r
- -- . . . . . ..*. .. . ..'.<. '.: ..,..*o. .;.-..e
. , i t 4. , 3 .-. Ms.< 6.T, Kenneth C. Rogers
- 3. - n. .. . .;- - .
,. . : e. ,
- ,. .. -. . .c..
~ ., . o .( e ..,.e..- . . . .e. ..s * ,?" t .=3 . . v. . . . ,
.^ , w ?. . ; . z :.. ',77... : w e. . 1.. <, . . . . . e un . ,.'*,/.,.4 & .*. . . f ,,.
.,s..,s.. ,
,,a .'.'. : .
. ~ . . . ,. . . - . . , .
m ...s..:.,..f,.,' .,?,.s g.
,., ,. . , , r. s .
. y, .
- , .. .;;:.,n: -'
- ., . . ,. , r ~. w'. , y v .,
- y. .. .. < .., .
,...g,g ,u.. . e..,... .a,
..... . .- .- s.
n, ,.c.., . t,
,.:c .,.: .:. . u.n.:..- .. .. . .... . ;"
s ., W. s . 4 7, ,: :, t..y < .
.e g +* , ..,,.
%- ..e ..., -
- - -r , .,.. r t, . -
-.>.. . v.;y;
, s.
,, c. .
s
. u.
7,, . ,p , I r s-
,o
.w . . . . . ... .r ..< i. . .
*g ' :. . -n
. *. . p
,. N ~i."'+. .;,'.'.37' 't ,,7.y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeel Panel n, .
. 3 'Q.
. . l< ta. ..'.". % .,
B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Board Panel
..s,. n. e
%,.$5 Je,
.%..e.,.. ;p ,*3:
, . e. .,, . "
$ % s -. r ps -
( *r .,j,:? * , ,9d'. ,n.s.,
.6'
. ; *'8,,,
.'..,-,..,,,e .
,, 3. *,
*4,,
> wa
*e i.
,/*,. .
a
', ., a k .,'
- s, -
.s ' . . =S , ,to,.
,* f..' ,. ***s ( .% ~'.4 ,),'.3.s p
..I' y t4. .e
-
- ao s a . -f
. .'%. s an
- f g .
*vp g *c
* ,*. s
}: 4
. e t., , $. 4 . ,
..* *. O .0 p
,, ...A g
.e ..
g . e
.e #
,,.. .. d q
.; - .,. a - :,. ,
.s . * . . &. . -: .- , . . . ..
'4 . n. , *' p e'
+
****;4-
', .a q.
y ' s't s
# , a. ..
. l e' e
g s
'*. ' o af
-{
A g s e k O g,,, 1
,.' . . ^a s
'a ., 'a *
, ' *;, s,
* * ** .j . . ,. . , < ' , y ,
*- , s.c ,r : ., ,p.,,,.
e 1; . ,
, - > . ;r %-; ..s, y s
. * . h s. , ..,'4 e '. .,'f i
.. . g[, e
. 'i"t,{
k ,
< F
, .s -
g 9 e g' . N *g.*,-**.'+=%9**wgm.,** - gese- ----9
- we e e=w q em e-. - e ,-..y.pg g., g = , . . .. .g, . , . . , , .
'- ' 2 , ,4 it. ' *'
> * , $. ,f .4 " -' ' - .' ,' ~ '
,. 6
/
f, . . ,,. , ; ,e = ,
,.. J s. , < , r;* ' + *
, ; *' g, - < n -
, *, s
*.n . s J y . , '. ..
* *ly j( 5 , '- ,. s. .,
8L e '. , . . . s m
, 3,.,.
Q *
., . . .g *g .
h' ,
' iI,*, A s 9 ."*
*.' g ,."
e s , 47
, e
.P g( e* * . (-"' 8+
. ' ,$ e. . g % % ,
b
^
^* I' *
- t . , *
- g 'g *,i
- s s.* , ,
, ' ~ 1 o o e ,,. a L -
3 9
,Q i
,g
.. .,e ,
. .r g
c3, .%
..n . .* ,ss.
.,.t . m, . _e
, _ .,e_* n, d , ' e_ _ * - .
- I .+-
, - q. , . .~ , Tr; _
- s. ? - .. .
,g - . , .
, , , . ..1. .
.'n , - ,
,. r ,.
.4,
- 1. ..' ..- -
.y .
..!'.. .e a . .- : v i . * .. -
,,. .. . i, -
<f
..? - 6 .. j
.n. .' '- r a.u ' . . li ^ ' e ,- -,
'~.** <
~
s.
, 3
. .' CONTEN'l$
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
,.- .', .r. - ,' l o j and Safety Issues)
, .' J' ( . . , c "' . .-},
- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 891. Apdl 25,1988 . . . . . . 341 e '.. ,
.. ~ '.- %. 3 j Iassances of the Atonale Safety and Lkeaslag Boards
, e
',. J.' . - C' ALFRED J. MORABIIO n,; " , ' .
,' 2 -
(Senior Operator License for Beant Valley Power Stadon, Unit 1)
, l Docket 55-60755 (ASLBP No. 87 55102 SP)
',, 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 a , s- ...., 452
.r t N. . o .
.,. ,, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(!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 J ill a
- s , ,
., . . . . s y>A- , ,
. a
,,! b~ m, yp;:. .. .' N ?;bt > Q., 'y'? r Q, ;h. sj';26x & & OYN $ N'Q 3k(C . . Y'N .Y .m *z, '
y , , . . $h? *
! :? . . .
g,*M, u 4 +J. . n .. Q,'s...'Q.'f* m.c . - l3Y, < [ e b Mh'fh k.5h'[g - f. M r. .
? .' J '
.f* f k
}'&- /"g hM p ... .o.,4,Q[..wrt.w:3,er,e.l.
~'yQR*. f* %,Nll. N Q .>,V h.I
} } w y R N.
.8 '. S. t h kh */ *
,,4.N . w ~. p y; .. 'y'b. . . ',..,,,:r). ,,A3 ; .r.y',.J .f.- ' .',y,Y - O;A." ' + 2,,2 .be:w.1.1 o t_..% . f:.% [ ..&.a..Lare u;._ .(%ei%s"gl?S
~, - .1 , .', ~ . e ; y : ; ~., t . ?
-?. c;
. . <.a
. %' ., ; U
. Q,,;g,p, '..
- b,,Y J ,, ; Y ;,O **s 5-
~
t
*C .(: *, .(y. i.,~ ,; a p . ; < .' .t .y., >. . . .' >**. ;* ', ', . ... .
g . * . . g . . . s .,. s 'sw,p**
- .~o
, C> y, p T, . ', *
- s . . .~
.; - . 9,1 ,
- ehQ.J.9. W .;/,. .:, ,4i' .. .f.. .s .. ' ,;,,. .. . '.
.m ,w., LoNo ISLAND uormNO COMPANY
;'y;
.~. .
g ,. ; ; ".
.y. (Shoreham Nucks Pour Stadon Unit 1)
;pr% ,t. J. . ' . ,
Docket 50 322 OL 3 (ASLBP No. 86 535 Ot-OLR) (Emergency Planning)
.h. . 'N j. .' .h U 4 '.' ' ' h.;*..
kd.rhd$.Ts%..%M.;g, s =%,.'JJ ' ' ' hEMORANDUM. LBP 88 9, April 8,1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 t d,y
.e.. g.e,3,.A, .. s;,. d w... , m. , .
. h d k,.~. w .u. e. . hN~. .. . . v.; Issuance of the Administratiw Law Judge go.e . < .+. r(f. .M ,-N.r'.T- f
, . EDWARD IUNES, IR. MEDICAL CENTER y;,Q(. .. 3. ~ 9.)( ',.' W O',$,',Mf 3. -
it. h;?,'~ Docket
' *g 301391 (Veterans ;Administradon)
SC (ASLBP No. 88 565-01.SC) krW*' ',o.p, .-', . .*M. M.,..37 . y. '" . '[ . ' D. ..' "; ;; . . .
. . . . ~
*;I ~'. ;.I.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ALb881, Agil 29,1988 . . . . . . . 475
. c. :
a s
- r r.
,;;y;* ..,~. , e.. .'. c.e.'
s *
~,e. ..
- 4 .n- .::%,v. . . ..
ss i, ,c- . . .
..t. .
. .y.ge+
., q o .*
- 4, ,; m, . . A ., A. , g. .
4,. ,w h )nQ ."...' *
; . ,/ t , '- , g 4 . ,, ' ; *r ,;+.Q. ,, 3 -
- 1 c'.' ,, , .* ] - ' g). u sae- .
' A*J" ." . * * ( **4 -
* } ~*
. . o, g. , 1. , . f. V.;*.'f,w .' 4 v s N', .; . , ~ . ,s.
f . ks ,
,~;.
+
' ,e e
*n'. y
.:,f.* .'..
'% ,z':*:;.i.. . .
. a., R.. , ,y 4 .*. .<., *gg*;"n . > 'np, ., j';
i d.
,, p ,,,
a, . +.*- -
,6 ,
- o. e ...,o. #
.es D)* . p 4 8 3,<<. a
.**,.*g-.5
. 'g ,' ; gb,.,s
,'g--
' g[i .',
'e* '
g a ,p W , 'g
- 4. O
~
o.
. . ~ t. :D. .
. o..II .:~.., t
. i
..,.S ,
- 6. .,g
.,g,...,'#<
.- ,, -P,
's. & .
' ' =%
* ,3 A ' 8 '. . ' , .
- s s, '
.,.3 4,, $ ',, , .
'e ' , s* - ' ' ' t ,a.
e .
' , . , iFs
- 4y '%..d ";* 8 3 .. .
'p*e e .a
- 0 . 3. .
[,.'.,.,...
*y* , s , e. .ea
; - s, . ; .. -
,s.. * ,- . . * , , , ,
- p* . . %,
g,',_ ,,
?
,,.14. . ,.
. en., a. .. , * ' <
- 8; g ..'.,g ./. ,.3. .,, +
,, e e. '*
j . [ , ' *[,A~i , ," 'o 9
- ,. *4 z s . p,o
. , e i ! .tc , . *i , , . .
* * %,,..*. , 43
<g - * *
't .* a. 4 * ., g
,@I * - g e *pp, g 9
. , e 4 ,.
- e. 1 , * * .
J
.Y g ,,
,O ,
's.*,'. *
. ,e .,s .
; f s'. ,+ % , ~.' ' %. .
C # 5 -
, a.., ja,,., *.,
r . , , . ,
- -
- 6. .
,F.' 6
/,.
4
> . f r .,. . . e.
* ,'i
, *e e: ' , , .,
.a .
e-e g ,h' +y ' Ag $ ' . .
.s * .
* .p '** #
.' . '. y
- f * ~,,',* 'n , +.
ly T , it ,
. ,=<.3..,.,.4 % . go . I. i .s* -
f, y, , ., 4
, t. .,,-.s]*g'g*g.'-
- g d 1
,,,4 g
.,* y a . 9 g
. "* ,, - p b k O
, g ,
g,, -e*'*s -4** *****y**"*$**. ***r*, -~)* '-a-** - . * , '
- 1
,
- A"% %
.. . g #. [8 ,
t ,
~ '
- s *
. , g ,
i h ., . . * 'g
+ # i 9 '
'} _ g. , .
g..I O
, g ,
, , k,
'e,* ,
s Q.
' ,,.e y
. .e ..
, t . , ' , ,' i p =
g ag - '4 v- gP 'd c s n & s . _. .
~
, .. '.i '
.s .. .... :. .
i 1
- ;. . . - . . . .. .+ e*
.s 1
.d . .,
- . .' :, ...: 1: - : .
OmmlSSIOn lSSuanCOS 9 *9
* . . * ** \.. N, a .
. . , e,
, 9 .
. . . 6
. 8 I p
s O
. , , 'a7
- g . p. *
. s y s e h n
~
o
.;'l l
S 6% i 1 g ! s.i
. t
, , 'n'x
. * .i.
e e'j .
- g 4 1
l g h
. m
;, r ., 7 - -l 4 .
* - ,. . . .:: r, '
.. . q . , .~ ,
n y ;, r.:,, 9 : ' . ..
,, i,,.. , '[ . .' ,.
' * ^ '
s yg . , , '
- J* g. y ,,.
, .W ~ . .., .' , . :. .d,y !.W. . *;v L. ; n, . c i. 'g , a
.~.w
....w
,.. y. *.3.y g . u ; *;
* - - ' ~ .
- - -- - ~ - .'
, W,n.yt
.P,,..: J ., . os. . .
. . t, ,; . ..
...r...y-.;...,..-
v...a. .wn., ., x. ,,.' . > .
.~. CU442 v Cite as 27 NRC 335 (1968)
', ,,%.,'%. >, . . u . . . . .
. . . . .. . m .
/n
- .y C < ' , .r -W *' *,..
m.~
- n. ,. 3f.<
~ .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- e. -.: NUCLEAR R.GULATORY COMMISSION
' ,* Nr '.*/.' .,,;
- i '.,.~ @ cf; ,x ... ~,,',
> i. :...::y,*. n 7,-
4 ,: a ,-c s. F 5 COMMISSIONERS: k[ . .i/ ,, [ .',$ ". ' .**,I
<pg .';;u; - ytW',
7, ..,.-. , ; . : > ; ' ~* . ' . . . ~
*u* '
Lando W. Zech, Jr, Chairman d.-). .M. ,. . ; . .,,s.. 3. ]'t
# s * ? .'. .. . .
.P.. .<
- Thomas M. Roberts Frederick M. Bemthal
'c .' ;.*.f .. ' '. < " ,, ', 'f .' . *'r 3'
- Kenneth M. Carr
- Kenneth C. Mogers f
'{', '
, s.
,l c.,
y,,, + . . . .. ,. .
... ..,.v.. <-
. -v in the Hatter of Docket No. LMP
.' '~*T J.y
~ v . . .n
' .7 .;; .. .. f
.- :. N * ,'; , y .; .
. INQUIRY INTO THMEE MILE
, .; ,(; . -
.,.J~,M*/ *
'* ~.*,' - <
ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE
, g .
J,f,.f. 7 DATA FALSIF) CATION April 28,1984
..g .
-3,
.,e, .,
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
,7 s , aMI l Restart proceeding as it applies to all those except the preeccident TMI- I
- g. ,'
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 , :
t l,,-' s In a hearing insututed to develop the facts and to determine individual it , ' . . . , , . <
. involvernent in the falsi6cadons, the Presiding Board found that virtually all . , ' , - e'* Operations Dq runcat personnel worted under an erroneous interpretation of the leak rate technkal specifications and that most of the personnel had some l l',, ' -
degree of culpability regarding leak rate serveillance testing irngularities or
.-l 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 The Commission 6nds that given the time that has passed and the fact that g .] , ' *
, l], the leak rate surveillance testing irregularities directly Sowed from management
,j . - ,- .
.-N'.-
# . q shortconirig in training and procedwes, the restnetion should not be continued.
~* except as to the TMI 2 Supervisor of Operadons, who is prohibited from
, ic; . ,
. . l
\
s } E . I 9 .
* . 335
,, , s l
l
' 4
- g. .i- 9
.[) a"
,a
.. 1
.. c . .
Q_
%,.f}Qy%QyQ:QW; &%*!:cQ,;.. *];hj&i.; ' 'W :;';a . .
u EQMQ'&;$ h.h hb bd M M h M' '
*.bb"E nd*
kbt V$?hkk@WdWWiG n % % M M. W. u* %..m.I
.r m,,Y f;+@4.a4.w
.s W .m%. ,4. %# , .'4',9 n 5 ,8.we;r{es%.m:p.4 e '
'. 3.-l2 Q *V Q.
.kNy)M,'M'9, k" N$5$ih, *1
.* #ipspeci6c NRC approval, employment at na.1 in a responsible management or operadonal posiden
[@s m PW4~g+y d " .' v J.W.c:o.,.@. without
- . G,. .h. -
M., Q,. kls s'.
$/%';,,
et
%' g&n hn.m
$. .T P f q: m. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER h?'% . I k.h 4~'Ul.k *a
>QY.r h):h
&ta N)M. ;pfl.? .
IA an order issued in the nree Mdc Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (ThG h . fya'd 4 M 1) restart proceeding, the Commission stated that it would insutule a separate
%y' ,fk. 7 ^f),! inh,M'Q;,,Q'.;.p'M**?,',esd
-; @.M;lf.
proceeding g to consider what action should be taken fencerning individuals possibly involved in falsl6 cation of reactor coolant systun leak rates at Unit
'ak?D4L.,%1MM a -
**b h,(' W h 2, and imposed the following condidon on the Licensce:
.,s ,s
;s. . .
E d ,' s,., e %o , . %. '% ,
.e m,. 6 6 ,8 ,e(1) $No,pre-acddam
[, . r M 2 opermer, ehm apervisor. M fawnea, or say a)=r 4
- f J. L _ t 1: / .. , r.f6 . ;4 J's indiviemal boek in the 9ersons eow and on old tw trainms se a licensed b<;' ,d.l.iQp?6Ge.dld,.E W *
,.cL
. v, M;r,3 a k.'
., !P:M s.$ lW. opwesor a M.2 prwr io de mad w shan be emp54 a m.1 in a respmeith saamasanas or wwwkmal position. wahoia speak cannimica es,mt.
My.w. .3 . ..r opa.uanal posidon u d hue inchda any poemon inmiving ecouel J'.Q e /,N.M; ,e:r.c.c&;V J .'M. ;; .& ,p j ,. 4y,'6 epwmean d she piem, on du.cium er wpervision of geruors, er " , u--- eeweighi at crasses. 1e,}lq'42.;j(.i
. 'a 191 'zi,' *7 H%Fi.-b p M*.C.1 e, ,.y$ .;k .:
M e/ y;c y $t 4 This ec=4suc= aban deo esWy no du pe.eceder vice Pr.eidea, Genermica, M 2 statice Menes r, M 2 s ervisor w d Taduucal support (frose hauary Q.f rl *T.'qV ff,T *;L 6 2
'!y,t.P Q' ,1lgp ;.., J 197f to Weenber 197s), M 2 V- ' - d Teduucal Suggen (fsten
. j Deconder 197: to the accidem), and M 2 sgervisor d Oswrwooms. This cp ,,
- g. .
g#v,,4;p,J y .. . c.,5 E.j.* G. d.o
,,.c. j.9 ,
- f. ;ng .m. ,Q c'adidai shan oca es,1y to Michael 1 toes, and Brian Mahler a ey ecremue lo his p -u poauan ocmaimens with this condaian.
e,
.f,,,* ..
.t wtg , .y. . w.. n > y
, . ,f./. ';e.: 'c, ,;i q ~;,d..T W /$
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,, .
- 2. 21 NRC at 305. De Order and Nodce of Hearing initiating that separate V.' ' T. MAN ?g'p .( /M /s.y.
V, ?,! prMng speci6ed that the hearing was to be conducted in a legislative format 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 'i J recommended
{F and ident16ed heefing, the steps to be taken afice the Presiding Board issued a
- a. .x . ,i. . .
. A. . . ,. .t O,/ 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),
r After a hearing, totaling 33 heenng days and ow 5000 transcript pages, C c,f ,. ? ?. c;; ,; 4 f. the Presiding Loard issued its Recominended Decision on May 21, 1987
- j ',y[t.f,J,. J f', E f." (LBP 8715, 25 NRC 671). It addtraed ca-n of the speciac issues that the
.m. _ . 2. . ,O.,* [ 7 . . '1\ f..'sv.; [l1,(&[l 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- 9,
, %' h s
.Y . ,. p)
' t.
'q'.
- lr' ,
.s
.(',q.)
, s
,i' ,
I , . * *,p ' ., '
, [ k
,. . ... N- t
*> l 3 f- * .
c .)s , y *?.*a' . ' " ' .. , ~ . ,nwm
, ; ,3 1 2 y , 7 ,~~- - -~--~r -- - -
*~. y O' ,. ' i 1 ; i' ' ,. .I' ,
. ., ,, t - * '
, ~f-
- 3 - < - t.
s ,, s- *r s ,.g
^
(. ,
.'r, 9- p -e..,,,, M ; ,, " s -
'( i .f',
.p., - .
e .
, .c j.
.. i s
, ,* .+r. . 6,t . .
r d'
' z , * , ,.
t',.
- Q g?, g
, . , .f * , ;
'A^ .,..., **
.*1 ' ,, ; ' , , .
s
.E '
.g' . . , ,
,,,L
. v c* ; g
' .y v . .
i
;_'s '}. y_ O. *,. i? % *
, __ _ , , e , -. -
,, . . v , . , , ' ,
'y~ .
. t ,
.y y'
. q ..ki,. t.y s.S.Q*i ^ , f,, ~ ,.. ,.; n " '
Q,Ql.; Q s.; &Q
.( , .q., .'d,.> :c a, . >* . -
v., ,, i , , ~ ,: ..a. ,. J. . ;. i , uc a .cr ' e .. -*r. .cl: ,..; .q' . ....~,g;< . q
;u .:*.~ :.. s . . ,7 :
I
;,:*n .
.; .. n v ,. . :, ;y 8. ,
u .s a .\. :. s - . ~ m , v ., , L , l . , .. u ;c ' , , .
- 4 l
d ' . 5 ;, , . , ._ , . - _a. 4
+ i ;l'f,4'.,1,"iJl'i(: - ,, ,,
under an erroneous interiretation of the leak rate technkal speci6cadons. 4...y,*,;l . i f. ? , y. Y .+ 1. . .. r, . ;
. , .' ' 4 ? -
s.. J\)1 '.*- When this improper inscrpretadon was discovered by an NRC Inspecta in October 1978, the Lkensee took inadequale corrective acdons to instruct
?'
- .,T4.l.,p.
4 6,;! ' , b.77".s 7.. .G.,: .=l ig , .'7*penonnel ;. . on proper leak rate surveillance testing pracdces. Second, the Board 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,. J"' Operators (CRos) and approved by Shift Foremen exhibiting "remarkably ) .y.Wf. 'V', . ' j' '-l, ,i # ",,3f 4 ) G ' y /.I(1 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 N . w X @'7.), ',',t' 7 . against them if they failed to obtain "good" test results. Third, the Board l
.,.'~'(.y .
, 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'. . . ? 9
;~
.j ; operaton manipulated tests er falsi6ed test results, that Shift Supeevisas who (
did not personally participate in the tests were guilty of "culpable neglect" in 7*
, . :i,. ,g.
s .' ,
, ,t '
'>,'f*.. Jj .
i falling to ensure that the performance of leak rate surveillance tests followed 1 { i 7 3,.'! N M
,, ., , appikable technical speci6cador,s arki administrative procedures, and that the j
, q, . ' . ', 1 Supervisor of Operatione for Unit 2, James R. Floyd, knew about the dif6cuides
".;.._* , , ,', .e- ).,]7,7%,"l[l. the operators were having with the Icak rate surveillance tests and was also guilty i
. , - (, . '. . . .. of culpable neglect. Finally, the Board found that three other members of TMI 2
.. ,$g,, ,, . Jld
,t . l managernent were also guilty of culpable neglect.8 i
. L . ', . y 3 v.,{ After the issuance of that Recommended Decision, the NRC Staff, as
- s. / f.".f . ,'l . j instructed by the Commission in CLI.8519, forwarded to the Commission its
. 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 l
.' / .tJ ; , , ('- , proceeding barnng certain individuals from certain positions at TMI.l." 22 NRC
. .. i e' - o at 883. In sum, the NRC Staff recommended that no further enforcement action
~ , .c '
C l 'e u- { ' , : .s be taken against the facility Licensee ce the thirty.6ve individuals formerly l . s . j at TMI.2 regarding leak rate surveillance testing irregularides at that facility.
,4q(1',c~rj i , The Staff also recommended that the condition irnposed in the TMid restart
> ,",.s
>.(]
, proceeding should be lified as to all individuals except the preoccident TMI.2 f *. ,,
', .i Supervisor of Operauons, about whom current questions as to suitability for
.,, y i. .
licensed activities remained, and those individuals emplopd in the TMI.2 Site
? ,.,, , ; .' . , , 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.*'.
' (* l +
4 and the reemd before the Board. Based on that review, we conclude that the Presiding Board's 6ndings are supported by the record. We have also considered
... r, '
, 'y '
\
.i.' .-
~
i i % ,,, ,.
.- - s* *. .- *- 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 1
., ,. l
.- .. 337 l
,a j
,- n ,
g C.'. \ ss , I g 4 y . g .
~
i e .d . [
,; , ~ .
\. Y~h: n w w, WAs H. ~ 1.h d, It F . ,. 8 h a.,.2.?, p h ,.e Mx.A-vnw % w 4h @s; .. D ,m ..c Q $M,Q
.lNY M wJi.'.$
$ S. QjQ v. m.
- r. W m43 m
% q9$j,Y h TA$.7(;bk'
- ;y m w. .;s,ytv
,t u
. ., a .O '*).A.,,%;t.. ye sp.
n
. M .
k w h ,C %.u e p@+4.c t,.m 2 ng ,. w *,.e .m.,,. .vp , q.
. ,g ~p,.p/ . s . - .6
. , s.
w-
,,%p@v < f.. Q ..r,i.p C a.. .$. , e, 'A L't.O i h s e n' L. NMk.<.v. . . .e.,k'.
the Staff's recompnandarias and have determined, for the following rusons, r p . . 'a that the TMI.1 restart condition *haiM be rescinded to remove the condition for
,#,@M pj. .Yjf*6 individuais om, man me prosecem m.2 supervisor of Opersions.
pMOM*).%@..y$'%,g.6~.;htlj(y.g . The Board indings indicate that vi tusily all Operations Department person. i
!5://,M (S 4c.iMg t N 7J:GNr d M. @Qa*je - N nel worked under an erronens interpretation of me leek mie technical specia-cados and most af the personnel had some degree of culpability regarding leak
{ rate surveillance testing irregularities or falsiacation. The performance of ten e M.dQWe'f-Theh yh'M@7$.'jM N d
*' rYl,'d(L M*1 !f ; preoccident indivWals employed as licensed operators in 1985, as documented l
,.g w .x, a M *@.gW; 1
. in the April 1,1986 Staff report to the Commission, appears to demonstrate met mey now can he mised upon io conform wim pacedural and reguisory f..C *).M > '(,e ',lp'3 2 3 T ,. ** *4.s. C c . . ,y' .;.. The currem performance of the remaining twenty.8ve individu. - i I L*;,Y*[. '
- s'.d, ,'.' als, twenty four of whom were not licensed a the time of me joim O!/NRR l
E*['\,$.*J[. c ,,i. fg ^, "[/,5 '.h investigation, has not been evaluated in the same detail, or in some cases, at t ?eq .?- 1 , ', f '* ' ' ' i . * ~
, J.Y,l N. .- L' ;[.N. N. ,'5*l. 4, 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 ?. !$. v, .%g .
,2 c*",;'g,3; of Operations,
*g -
The impstance of the leak rate surved!!ance testing issue has certainly been 8a c, 'p. p@, .),,'?e'<,t:2r,n,Q,'.D. , *' driven home for those involved at M. Improvements since the M 2 accident
.I D(,'dy,5N,Dh,,0 'f'.s .
** O ",.
in the measurement procedures, todutiques, calculational methods, and a clear
.I*h',Y,N.W.Y.M*h13*$*
, understanding of the tedmical speclAeneinn requirements establish a signi6cantly -
-'%$ ',I';f / D U N U gM M .,Jmade improved basis fa correctly performing this routine task. OPU Nuclear has-W..n. NK' f signiacant and substantial changes in management and operating practices E,' '[%;d. N,';[ ,g.N 'e~ .7,Additionally, p,,*v ,- t '
since the accident u TMI.2 which are renected in high SALP evaluations.
$p,M.p:h.gA',Q, S ~ j '/d all individuals to be used in a licensed @crator position would be f subject to the normal licensing process required by the NRC regulations, j[, g %j,t,
.,5,M g Q:3: j 4;',,D* g ..
. M,
^
. ,d [* ' the'*,, Apart Q from the record of this proceedtng, the Staff proposes to continue restrierlon on s.@ymsat for individuals who were a part of the TMI.2
. (.l p i. p,y.w o?N.f *
.t . . Operations Department on July 9,19'f/, on the basis of more recem allegations <
j[e%g,# 8%9 O of sleeping on duty at TMI 2. The Commission believes that a decision whether f,/..;;:M-Q*c'h.$[.'?q,','[.P V [ G" to lift the TMI 1 restart condition should be made without regard to the ongoing o ; r,* .' investigation of new allegations unrelated to leak rate testing. Tb continue the >,ff
' V:,';E.,5,L[' 9N,' M;;tyy,.';;
*U. ,
/.M'.y//,,
- h';
license restriction for matters the did not form its basis works an unfairness 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.,
- safety if the evidence warrants such action See, e.g.,10 C.F.R. ll2.202 and
- . .' e e p . C ,> .'
A 'g , ' O ' 2 ,' f ,. . 30.54(f). a_ em,...o . . s. .vlm;. +,r. ^~, g :.. 'l % ,s 3
- y s^;-
r.. .;;, ....e.,- 3.s '
'i . ~ *y'G; p =,., y ,
, s s nnse.s Inn,dah ese aswa w as DA4 samen omene k I w huse oman seen emus pi ame t
e -o, s = .. P * ,4 ,r *;.J. g ;.. ..'. -'Ml; p , . a Da4. The Base numanar saammend mum W *e near-sve einvenh, mahdas swes merv**'s =6e J. - ' q .; .. . ,.. .. see assess d en pas cena o.se ,
, me , eg .e.enh um sses6 or en amesens tammy ma. ne sierr<=adened seem ma l *p ., 1 <.y - . n. . y* 3 .,g. y 4. ,., c,. W ,, g.,' - an eussed, mapi , d w himme a w .amem torU hamu j and me w sneen enkseem sessa ce No saae e.sen ha sem inna d e ewies p f man W
. . , , " y .. -. g;e....,'.-
. . j .. ensumamme me'd ah
.,,,i.* ^-
- mi
,9 t
es
, . , . ' ., 3, b
. e a t
.J " q { ', n . . . , s n .
g ! y , , 'g
.; . a, . ..* ~. ;
e . $- . . " ~ ,
- 4. e, .. .
,y ,
. . p. ,.}o > \ i e- <
. ,,%,n s
', ., n
*' ~
~'
'1 '
t - e' q %, .t-s j' .
',._f. -
-----.-.,,.+.r . - -- r - '
,',. .(, - y? 8 .I ,es
- s ',
- j
, .t ..
,. ,,,. , s RS ;8 w. n.
",.9 * . - ,
s
,, s -
9 ,.\ , i
,g, .he.*. #'
4 * ' e ,,e? ,
- I
' , '\ , j',s .,
, i g ,
's * ,?* +
,;g * #
sg; '
.a. ~,#. ',
l
" * , -6'. . .
g 3 ~0
- j. g a *
, ,... ,, ,. , ; y.c. ,,j ., T, .o . ., ,,.-. .; ,
. .- . , . ,y,. ,. m ., .,.y <. . . ,,...,..,.,',w.
, : ss ,. ' ' , .: .. , .. n. .
) l ; .; .' ' %..
9 ', f. ;
~
~,".,< . .
(
;, j. ,.y; .,,' .* f.?. . . ,,u.,;,,
,?a w , "c . L;*...,,'.z..
' . <.. m.. y,
..e . , .:.1 . ,. .
* ,,n- .-
s-
.* .e. ,,;<- *
.. :. . .._ . _ . . . .i
..m.., '
' .% ,; ,', , ; ' .: .:. ,: -l Q .
. .- . 1, v ,
r
.. . i..
- ,-; 1.
As for Mr. Floyd, the Presiding Board concluded that he bre greater
; ,7 .f' 'd . .-tj.'.*, f,.i' '. / ',E,
~
, , ,,., 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
' f, . . c . . .. %l- f, .Q ., ' , ,, - was not fully forthcoming and candid before the Board and noted many mnnicu
., ig l} *- s ,,
' { . ', - } '7 'i/I.
between Mr. Moyd's testimony and the evidence in the record. hkreover,
? . '. . 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
.g . , ,
J.,. .7 * ' E *, ^ 'i n// suitability for duty in connection with NRC licensed activities "Ih in the V, . -( p,. ?[,f.,;
; ,, 'f, 3 . case of Mr. Moyd, the Commission does not and suf6cient reason to asmove
,'. . the TMId restart condidon. tb, Moyd does not currently hold a ptsitto at a
,,,3 ,'l'I lt.
, .'i .
' -
- licensed facility. We need not reach today the quesdon of whether Mr. Moyd
., ' V
- *V'
~[' , j,' ,1; .
.,. J 'i . , should be prohibited frorn a management or "operadonal position" at am other
.,.,~.....,g C..
licensed facility. Olven the time that has passed and the fact that the leak rate surve.llance
. . , , , , . . 'f .n t.. . .. , , ;
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
.g ; ' ' $ ' ' .' j ., ,. condition No. I for all individuals except for the preaccident TMI 2 Suprvisor J,e , of Operadons, Jaines R. Floyd. Accordingly, the Commission has deci'ed to
-7,, , , .
lift the TMI.1 restart condition as it applies to all those except James R. rioyd,
. T 4 ,
., and to revise TMI l restart condition No.1 in CLI 85 2,21 NRC at 341 '.2, to
. s,.
,,,., -9 reed:
s The ;-- -
^ ThC.2 Sepomear of Opersoons. James R. Playd, ehen aca to emplopsh r.
- ThG.I in a . . " ananageman or operadonal pesamen wuhan speciae NRC appro+.
- 7.*<~11 *Operussonal Positi# no esed here incindes miy posinon involvet kaual 9ereika d de
' l pimu es drecuan or s,ervie on et gerenome, or ' ' , " oversisk d opersoons. i IT IS SO ORDERED.
.y. '..
1' For the Commission 4
-j
.'1
.e ' f > '
SAMUE1. J. CHII.K 1 Secteury of the Commission e
, . n,',
.'..,i De'ed at Rockville, Maryland,
,s ,
-' . ' : this 28th day of April 1984.
.4
.- ,,l -
? I e * *
- t .
i
, ' 3, *C- -- -- caer ses oss psume far un emanaam er une code. y he had hun psume he mad hm j oprwwed IL
\
339
'. . i l
. \
- J- .
, . . l
. 1 s, $
s *J e i W %
h hkf hh N N '
&,hhl # 0h L ' $ $ & WT #OWW &nXRn%Qhk%W6ME % *f,h h kT.#.2h'h %(WW W.AS(NW,"p W
'n W s,. t 4~ #.s*N. y;.m f.eV.%
- f.gW.,'.s % J '.s '.y.4 mpdhw ';*H 'f rb .. .
y 4.f+. 8 a'i.$y .fM., u.Y . M~ t'
% . @. fOON:
ye t. gs4 .,, %s'&)s t W,4 *s^.m. . '* ;q) ,;.* +C.? s.9 p t * ** .' y , .? M. AM* IMP?.*N(Nei,.W4*.C,b~.
.m . .
* $'i %, pC .2 -
A,5 ,.>e-
*. ' aV c.< [*.Y,?.. .Q Q Qse* >4 Qq t lsj;;f****4q b '
fe .Q; h <s. YY.. > h.?* ' hrh,F,:cf,%. , . R
.,s.. ,. 4-Q,?m$k. .h.
g f, f-e&&. .*%.. r-
- . ..w.,f.' %.s.ws.%* W W *L. Q.m.
* ,. =. . q -
+
s t6. r, h. w-r
. .. g , .. -,.
,k,%Wh, *;'. . . ,?.
$..,*, . *. %. . e
- ce M. . U. ,.%. p vo,y-.r . I. s ,... 7a ,. . . ..
.a v,., %e v. os 4, p oes,. ..u . <
.e. -. .
- . =1. e. . ..
wJ,os my
- o. .
w.,.*,2..L,w'.,.,. . . . . . . . .vc **
.. a ,,,
>[<w a.. . a w .M. .
..m, ,
m ~. . .<
..r v p;.
.a .. W .,
.. -- s., J ,f, ,W;,S*,!,M,".N .".,~ k,V.> .'Q ,
q t ;, ' * . ,' y .a....., ::. v .*O. ,. .s. ,* a ; .L..e 3.,P, .
- w. . u .,.,.,.,,,r..c..
..p.~ 5,.-m..,
A.. s,,+-
,... ....r . . ..
- c. . c.. . .
jt
,n% > 4-
.. . . m ,,, *-4...+ .
s
.e
,1 m-
,cs. ,. ..f .;,..y*.* : : . . . .. * . , , '
m
.;* w. * . e.
,o*% ? . Q. ';..e . , ' q. ' - .. e /.s.: ,
e,e,. N. , .= c .9 *g MJ g** .W ** ym .
- e'.c,
-e s gp h (1, e 7,
+ .
$.,Yi " 7.' E.** I* , e 8 O.et<, .
$ s .c.~
,<.m lW. ,},n*V ;..q.s w* 7.e 'shI* OG 2.~b . E'$ h',g,. . d.;*vi%.'
,eR yt T. .4, . ~ . ,. , ..
J'.'.,**. < . , . ' , ,*- .- ye < , ,.
.e 'a g.. ...4< ,.pp....n . S *sg.
he r s. .g g,e .
. 4.-. .
*p '.* **. t s . ' s' , e . A - ' * 'e
,4s .. . .
6 .. t . ts. ,*. q,, . . -N'.
,',*** ,'.9gg,. ,.
* :. , , * . , ~r *. .6* .,;. + ,1 ; 9 *; H*
.', - . a eN..1, .1o, y y ****e */ f , I.
.g
. . < .)'s...,.
.,,,,... *. . s
. . . . ,e . w . x . . . p , . i
. 44
' . - [,- .* * * . gl'apg4 . . *
- i , ; ' ' **'* g.s
*
- j t a,
O s- e , ' . ;r - e '4,7 3 ,4^* , d ,,,.
- p *
? ,g. ** - ',a='.**<4,h.'*.
, . . ,. <. M . . .,..I.,, ,* ,i, me- . ,4 h *0.i.T. .. f", . ..#,. , Ok, [,re
~,%g ,g L,,
g. 4
...K.,,,g,,* .* .,,_,.j* **
.* r gJ 7**,
j
.1,*4 .a
", i, +A,.: . t**$. .
8
/ >. .',q'y
., ..h .
;f * ., *
- h * ,* .., * . 'b'f.' " *4 ;.. c, .q, .
.- *g.,,.. ,s-6 . e". . * .. e ,
Q, * . .u, ,... ?. . . .? . : . ...* * .' *- $ . , e g-e .. ,e.* .
- v. .
.*O,..., '
.A
.*m.
.'.i..<.
4 - . .. '. . e . *s. , . '
-9 e . - .,
, er. k . k ,-
.y.).,..T'y"el . .,. g . .v
,.*,'e -'e s* * . , , ,* * , . .. t l'
, . .#4e' i. Ig.' .'s..4.',..
*y., ,. 4 6 ' t .,'
. ' = . ...-e.'
6
.. 3 .* ,s .,., , ***, ,
.M. Pe .* .- .. 1.e . ..,.t .*',.d.
- . b g.w'.. 3. ) * *,y., $ 6
. , t o .
- 7 .. C.*'
..i *, , ,e <.6 r ** $
- r'. 8- ,,, .;. ./
. .g, .' .T ', , ,' . 4. .
.[.4 %.-4. 'g ,. . . # . * * /e *p..,\, .e',,.. .b.' +, ' -
**r -
6 ,.' .. 4 "4 -% ,.
, 3.,.c's'.
.s' g., , 6 di s- *%,',.y p s
.- be 4 r.
r.i.* , es- . , , 'w s..- g a P
+
g a'- .O
- J.*,,
. . ,, =. .), , g e %
[h< ' , f ,; ['- .
,L '-
, . - a .
N .,, , . . . ,, .4.1 s k
. ye
- I * *
.. .' ^' ..q .
.% e4 .\'
* * * . --c.
..,, s
- c. , . ,
y e 's e,,- a 1 2 . .s., q
'b 9 .- 4 %' e
*a y e '( . ,, % 'y j t.
.t i,
. . .' 7 ,s '
., w
.'. 5
- e. F s s, e'
.e A
r - , ',.'
\
o . e .
.s g.
i. 4y. *i.
,\ * * > : v. * * * * '
?- .
,.f *
, ,.; .,;, . ',r .;. , - g. -
.i-s ., *. . , e,..,.,
y, . 3 , , , .
* ^*
s .
\
.,d*' .
is . . . .. , --.,_ g ' C. '~*.,4
* , a-s s
- s. * * .-
r t s, r -
. * , , J % . ',...~.tq.
'& ' - w* .
.' 8 d.
, , ni
,e
?"** ,s.c - - ,
, , 4'i . ,
w , 4 i-
.s.~.'.
- , F : . .. .
. . si <. 1 '. .
..u..s.e a.. . . . . s ., u . s .. ,
- g. g ae .
?. . . .:. . .~. .
.. : ; . 7].) .? Atomic Safety and
- p. ,
Licensing Appeal
- ~
- ~. 1 . - -
Boards issuances
. ,- . i
.. . . i -
' - i r ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL PANEL w'
. . . ,; A).n s. me nthei. ca.irman
- , Dr. W. Reed Johnson h ..
's *
*'-{> Twom.. s. Moor.
! Christee N. KoN Howard A. Wdber a, .
i o m g t .
. t
-)
i k.
<C 9 ,. ~ . -
g +
* . 4 4 c .
& g
. a O E
- e %
4 . i 4, 4 6' 4-e 4 m O- % l e
# 4
. . . , .--n, - ,
;- :' . . ' *7
.'r
* ?. . ' - ,; ,
^' .
. ?; , , , - >, '.' Y
',.A'..., .
,3:,' ....;ly.a. ,: - * .:g.Y' ( . r~ ,; ~
,. ., . a . ..?. , ; . . ..c. . . ~u - - , ,
.. . <.y .
,3;,
, . :y,t.
, , :k ., a
,c :.y.-:j'. b . ,.
',s .,.
v .. , ,
,. e
- e. ; ,, , 3 , , ,
r, . .
- p. <
. ' . . . . . . .,.7. . .",v....s g *' ,. _a . r ,. .g 7. , ,..$.: . . q , ;., .
, .. . . . . . . (. .c . .
4
. . . t
~
I ej s ,
. . 1 ,
3 g, *: '- '
- ,J <.-. 1 Cte as 27 NRC 341 (1988) ALAB-801 1
...s . ,.
- ?..
. ' . , ' .c .. .
.t :/...'..n. . . . .- ' *' > UNITED STATES OF AMERICt.
4
. s,
.. .s* ,-. 'e. , ,.'r.l y,,. ., )- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,f.... j . . .. . ..
. . .. .v.. " * .
, . . .. ,:. , , .. - . . . .. + ,
> . w .. .
*, ;*. ? j. ,',,~*?. ;.r.;/..*l,
..'., > ~:,,J .
4
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL. 80ARD
. ...,y
* .. . c.4, , . , .*
,. 4..,m .
* . o . .
e. tQ'osj.,4,(.l' .. r
*.g '.r ee,..
, ., -* #.' P J.. .'Y}
Adminletrative Judges: j .e.. .
~
Ca . ,* **- ..
'. - .. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
,.,:...... < : c .v ,:
Howard A.Wilber
. , ,t . ..
. ..a .. , ...
, .. .' '. F.
- C;.'e'g,* % . . .
, 'tt 3 1 .. ",,
- . .', , i,"', ..
.* In the Matter of Docket Nos so 443 OL.1
*4... <
a so.444 0L.1 )
- I~ ' ' ' * * **
(Onsite Emergency Planning ! j
' . ' . ' * = ' , ..m . . ,.... ,. '. '. , . . .
=-
and Safety le. sues) I
. ,, , a, PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF l
,, ,.-. '. ', 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
~
i* . qua116 cation of a coaxial cable used for data transmission in the Seabrook 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)
'a" s i .N
! A Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is prepared by or on behalf of
. . ., . , , , y, "., ,
.'. ' the applicant (s) for an operating license, must be submitted to the Commission
} .' , .
i ,' i.! ' ss part ol' the license application, See 10 C.F.R. 50,34(b). It does not, however. c
- 1 e,
( .
', ' . 3 ,
'e +
' ' '.j automatically become part of the record of any adjudkatory proceeding on that application.
s i+ . ,. . . ., . . ,, ; ,
.Ns *
'O q a A. ,
- 4 g 9
,. f ' .
. e
. 4' ,,s. t 7.L' 341
'f 8
, n. .<.', ,
I-
', g.
,s* s "v
'88 6'
, e '
s,- .,. g a * ~f y s
^ '
9 e '% l % 1 ' s ,.
. 6 e
e % b .I
- 4 . .
s 9
* % 9 g'
y. e WWg d%.t.,dk,[N$ vs : MIN WW ', 99:W>p f QW Wf u.h pA N b:".3 ye$c %. M.*h'd. N
. M M@u
#. W&*L.
,. ]
.Q 4pM m,h,& %. ;. %. &v.fi)g@.o.MMW 4Wl5%%a$tn . + N.~
fi. 1.* d; l : rr' 7 4~,,, gy 4. <y> o. m _ s 2 .#.Q6;a. w.7 %.V bj ?. u1 m"' . .- .tC..M W -
' M.%p,..
s , ,,. . . .
. .s
.m.e -*4 m+t. v,:n.,4
- h. :w Y',* r .;%y,( ,s .n ?, e yin
- .N:p' # m s. . .. .;wi,*
,s.
%)
e . T.m. ."
~;; e/ ; . y.,
- 4.w%;. 4 w# '
Q: q.1 W . p .o.* A;l'. , y s / p.D p {** . e %s n . ,n. prijx.) ' s ,
'S i % c' 6.e APPEARANCES
'? &g,R:l%,.9*e;R W Q5: :.%~,s.*Q
, .h'/T;Q# (:/Q,-p,y.[.,; Desa R. Toualey, Washington, D.C., for the intervenor New England Coalidon
' p&. N
. OvJ .- ..k .- 1. 3. V. ,.,.si ;:,* , on Nuclear Polludon.
w%e .A . 0 s. + ,, wj i.*27/gNF.'8'*?.j.,g.;#,.g.i
. M 9;N Thoasas G. Dignan, Jr., and Deborah S. Steenland, Boston, Massachusetts, S.' M l.P)$ OT $,4.9[t for the applicants Public Scrylce Company of New Hampshire, rt al.
MtM:q W, On:: N.' q Y %.f y . D.U*TIl Gregory Alan Berry for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. gn ...ae: .fi..N.: v. .j ' . 4 3, . . ,: M
.; i
,. a, y;x f..oW .'.& .~. 9.,".D.
- ,,f,.
. . , i, ,. /d.
. 3 @.q;y..,.y MEMORANDUM AND ORDER n ,,-. .*v,, . ,v ,o .~ , . 4 y .!<.,g 1 .
%. %; <, up,. '. ... .
,V. . . .'.;
4,.* 9 q , f ,, 2 vm, d.s f. .. h.. . w.: Rr a third time, we are confronted with a challenge to the 1.icensing Board's M f'3,S'6 y. %, g y.. Q ,%'d!M
- d .t$ treatment of the issue of the environmental quell 6 cation of the RO58 coaxial ca.
ble used for data transmission in the Seabrook nuclear pour facility's computer FiS.M*(,'@j?,j+'.'g*i'[Ny': d* W 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.' QQl' A- 4 A . -jl.r:, A.lc. We ,
M.<y the issue to the Licensing Board for further consideradon. orst summarize the tortuous evolution of the RO58 cable issue in f r,@5 ". h Q,O,*ihN@$') s 4 O .j \ G this proceedmg 'The issue had its genesis in Contenuon I.B.2 of the intervenct [ :f,C@MQ~i.),i
;d ,k '
M Q. w: l'? . New England Coalition cm Nuclear Podution (Coalidon), which asserted that
? ri.g( 'icp?.JM.W9]7.?;.4
,,,e.,3 . _ % . 9, b /.
,Ja. '
Q. the applicants had not sads6ed General Design Criterion (ODC) 4 in Appendix A to 10 C.P.R. Part 50. ODC 4 requires that
..s .-.. , .r . . . . , . . .
s..
, s.
- f. f .h3. ?f.'.M,. .'. " . . - f.y ** drasuhad to be a r='% *ish du armen= mal caedaa s**cdmat ** amal
< .. Is)weceres, eysemas, and comipmeses knemas to netwy shall be e .isned a u % ~ $ ..g'.*-
W. W .h . . ,r f l* Q
,f..c .g..,r., ;, ,
c A. [ y' d .T.c cretudst, anaseenance, teenne, and posadasal econdues, kcloding loseh. lass ecddwes. ri r .A, . ,. ;.e p r . ;g ; y; . 4 , f" ,*f.y ,N . . .. :. ,.3;. ,{(- . ,, . ...,. Q., i As litigated, the contendon focused upon the capability of electrical equip. ..- ,,;,;.;'. .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 ., ; ' , 1 y . . ' .Y. i.e., whether the equipnent is "environmentally quali6ed."
. j* ,i' ~ . 3 . ~f. $.f *l, J .* 'The Canmission's reguladons identify se veral permissible methods fcr dem-i 4T onstrating that an electrical component is environrnentally quall6ed.$ In the
,' f,ih'
~
E.,;QE'.*/'J'4 ry. ; ;:;/ ,- ) G' '
'M.!? 4 ',%'@'O.y/ case of RO58 coaxial cable supplied by international Telephone and Telegraph
.j. ' b ~q
,'s;'
i Corporation (UT), the applicants rhose the methnd of"[tjesting a similar item
, , 7 ' ,, of equipment with a styponing ar.alysis to show that the equipment to bc g;t,C3 J y,.y*'j .'iy ,'4 .- ,.; 4 quali6ed is acceptabic."8 Speci6cally, the applicanu relied upon the resulu of
;.w 3
, . . , .. . . .- , ,. . . -( p .L :n4.
4.
.),' ".
c- . . q},. p. y & , . . f ;3. gp e , 4 - ty ;j Isee 10 CJ a. s44hrt
- d. . . I g M L.- .h, '
I s t.',, s,A k, ,' ..r,.",I el CJ a. s44Nrr2k
, y.;e,e, . 3. . -(..t 4 'M;9'f. ..,
. * , 'h * . e. ' . l- *J.$- # 4
.V'. , 5 . . v ' . . ~, .
s ' . .' y .,,
, (y,e3.*,*'.",**
f -.3
,,>.A -
- t. M
**s ,g .g ' > .
-. ye . * *
. ~ '*
'lf [. y ",,
Qw * ." .4,. :n ,'y 1 \
,' ,3,. ... .
r ,y , . - ., < s ., . _,. - ,. . . s . . .. , , 3 ~
- s. .
f_*
. , ? ,- .
e
,0 .
+ . 4*
.t, e s
s .
. t.
,' c ; ,, ,. m. : ' .? . , .
,t. -
_ (3t 3, v.4 *. * ,
',. , , , ~ ' ':
s l
,', , 'v. a?? -
l:fl,. z } .'{ { N. ,~ . t T ' ,.
~
I ,' y, [, { T /.. . -
. p.g. ;.* : " qf ,nQ/ , r..,]g /
, . ,, , , ,, 4 ,
, , c,.< '
.. , i .
* +
.. a .' ,
. .- v. V ,.c' c a '
8
', f y
, c
..~. "
l
*/
. p'e - , tests performed on ITT RO59 coatial cable to demonstrate the environmental
>s . .
quali6 cation of the RO58 cable. Those tests, described in a particular equipment
*- * *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
'*/ :., , .,
'i . A an adverse environment (insulation resistance test); and (2) the leakage cunent
. .- ,1, . ,,
*
- C, ,-, [ A: ./ */
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
~
J _ !. -
, *:', *7/,> '
to certain conditions.* In that decisicn, the Board found, later alia. that the '. . ..- 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 . .~ ..
1i The only speciac evidentiary basis provided by the Board for its $nding that the s , - l
- V .. . .,* J ' ' - 3 RO58 and RO59 cables possessed the requisite similarity, however, was a letter t,,., i*,d contained in that EQF from the cable vendor to Seabrook's architect engineer
' , I
. and constructor.* 1
, ,s. -l On its appeal from the Licensing Board's March 25 decision, the Coalition
- .. , - , *' ' challenged the Board's determination that there had been an adequate demon-
'~
I stration of the environmental quali6 cation of RO58 cable. In an October I de-
, cision, we agrea$ 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 l 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 l 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$ed or, failing that, to take further evidence on
, the issue.5*
,' i. . .
.' , .. .. . . , , 8 see C tom's rmes 4, Swai e,us %m.ee ru. m 115.l**. aer e 2. %w.e.
.- t .
.! Tema ed AweJ C wee a e smas,e4 steere.tmared and tme<drooLas Aaw a fac. -1 t(n
.a , ,f : . . . , ; Der IAnnam RG1LAs and RG5tN Cental C4Wm.
., . * * ., I 'see tap r? 10,23 NaC 177.
' .' 8k m 211.
'M m 214 see Nh's E dant 4, Rarerence 4. l.aise fase 3eal T. sM9. ffT, is onrege Erris, Vaned I a* l
, , fp emen a C omneue,ge % 11,isrs>
see ALAB rTS,24 NRC 2st,26S71(1sr7)
' Cr*Lom's inant 4. Retenr.es 4.
'M. astermse 1. Usand Essimaes a Cesawn spankeoen ice spondy C.We. specAr4e.m M 9765
-),. , . 3611519. Aste&a A m Al Al i l' ALAS.r?s. :4 ssC m 27L !
.-g
~
.. 343
+ * '
.,,t g
P k
- b i g
e 9 j
% +
' . . ...i, u.,.3'..
W M. < . ' %.g, . . .- "Np . .,. ;,.3 4.6;;.1.gf94W .a;. .w,,J',';M'Mr%' eq]
% M,y' N.%dhZtNhh QS$*Dh;@' m M.
W(. a N h.M w%w f wMu$Wv$F%[AN@MM~45M @3 phnw:enn ' w /- @h=, t3
$~ffb ,
r" i ,.+e.m,
.3%q ,w. dyj<.nvJ,*%.wM,qI r,,
yWon , (1,6' Q .a.,w, 1. ne; MN :w?: y,4.,A. ,g q.
*H*:si . s %.
i (N/ M/,7.k.y.~e.L,. a0 : , ip. d On October 16, the Liceruing Board issued a memorandum in which it
.hM. 4,.:.Jc.f.;[?,d!&r?..j advised
; yd/
. *M,U.' 7. K d '.4.*.9 This was so, we were told, because the EQF demonstrated that the dimensional us that, in tu judgment, there was no need to supplement the recmi.D qJ,q . C;.h;
. n ,WX f *'Q% *.' .%i(3,# f !.differences betwen the RO58 and RO59 canes are of such little importance
[P V.-2 YA'? 3..Ja.*g'*MQ)*[(,Q
*Q that the test results for the RO59 cable could serve to qualify tne untested RO58 F,.;g,-h'ge.f; Q.%/ cable. Nr that emelusion, the Board relkd on two separate pieces of information that had not previously been discussed by it. The first disclosure was to the effect -
f f,('i. K j 'e*y,' M[ f- M :?.< Jthat the speel8ed operating requirernent for the insuladon resistance of the RO58 cable is nowr than that for the RO59 cane.u The Board consequently believed M .*;4 . , ,p:,. , *.S c/r! @$ f.3'g'!y[g2.'[,"M
< .y * ,' V,,/ f*6 I[ '*; h 'Ql%
that "the predicted performance of tne smaller RO58 cable under conditions of erivironmental qualinmim testir's would be proportional to the lour required .c s. w J F..e. h..y .(.Vy y.y.(R. % %,,f,:c '.'. o.U.p.
. 4r
, operating resistance of lu insuladon."U Second, the high.potendal test of the
. ",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 L.. ;'6 d.NMdh'.a h... u r. g. . y .r.g '
*w saw it, had the RO58 cable undergone a like test, similar results would have %,OysWs o
e t'. . . .v < r . .. f . a,- W:.ty.Q, g.gsi,gs.u. ia
, *s e
- been obtained."
M *,6 W*[ypQfs f M ' N' D'M !**. f .d. @:ffJ J*f,'ig,.;$. QC t.A Tf,, r. 3; U In commendng on the Licensing Board's October 16 rnemorandum, the Coalition criticized the Board's theory regarding the propcrtionality of irtsulation resistance requirements and insulation thickness of RO58 and RO59 cable." In this emnection, the Coalition pointed to other information in the EQP that
[
4; k'[a['ii..*'$ M $.i,O cast
,,3 ,, Q ,D $ c. : ': .$*UM@S.a$MQ;..7l.*
substantial doubt upon the validity of the theory."? other concerns, the Coalition maintained that the issue of the environmental
' on these and Based
-3;, .,, $ *[U.'g@,$@."2'[' Lj S,V') ; * .j; g quali6 . . ..g;Q7t cation of the RO58 cable required a further adjudicatory hearing.is 4 .0 For their part, the applicants made an endeavcr to support the Licensing b f;.<y ,-f..g* j r , ,.': M y; ;,;Q;.a(M ;. f *Board's prtportionality theory." Proceeding on an entirely new tack, houver, they unt on to assert that, even if that thecry proved unavailing, the RO58 [ I;d y,3;d, ,~.'M
.'.? MMV h
- . '. . .M ' icable .
@l should'.'be deemed environmentally quali6ed because it serves no function 4.r s..
?? m y .,,n ,o - ' %. -1 .*; in the mitigation of the consequences of an accident.# Rather, according to the
' q: % a ..* .3 I*bt ^*
P,* .' , 'f '7Q :'ya; *4 i m$ ,- *Q(q,..W 7g;p,s: .. i . ?u 3,,*5,.j
, 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.
- '* 'e '*? ; . -v 13 *
- 1-* ;l .. ,1. ** , # ) l ' *.g
- j,[. . . , ,,OU tmumeng s see Ch's EaMus 4, Rdesusue 1, sensus i&1.2 m s.4, asned ocader le "
in;,*;*
- ^r as s.
. , f?., 14 see Csabeam's EaWus 4, Rdemue : a s. Is.
- 4. ' ? L ..' . ; y, #'* g. . . %, ', f , ' 4 . ,
Usee Lasemag 3.nne onsher le He== enema e s4
^.[ * }qL. J g 7e 7 l.Q,,!'* ,?J.,,g ,. ., le sse New fasiand rh en Nudser Pt.'hom's surr4mmmaal " M Regardag Emevoeremal
.Jen l. q=;.. *E'a. , . v.?ge.), s,,'.':. ,.h., .l'y '
; W 2058 Cantal CeWe Senter A l@ u s.
>* 3 ;,1 = ' W uan
* . E ;'.a,, , 5i ,, s' 4ei,m .
. i ;Js ,, M a 7. he Combswa eine ynn reek o erw owwere tot die ROS9 eeMe emets as be s-s 2.0y q.9..*'.,.7
*g, * -
- 4 *,'
i;,
'i * ' * ,
3* s* e f gnahAnd. M a 4. We h==d be===.ar, mes tussvame's admarme awenen ie sogan ce ruase to admet a new samemann shmasapag he omruummenal quah A,en,s er tan ROM seNa AI A3 M4 27 NRC 74 OtNk
. w .',1 g .: .: */*. s..
'J.; "see Appbsmes' Amr==ss Rasaseme F ~
" Qwahacente d RG 34 Coesal Cows c4e weser 25,19t?)
./ s O, 'p.:
*;, p
' * . J ' ' .* S, .
p . . *g rheimeA=. Appl.seses' No =*e 2s Rupese) a 4. Newnhmeag ear eamegs is estent me tummag
- e. * .A Deere's 9mmary, one egyammes mated Ses opereeng am. dane ses.amme tabas sen=44 mas tw ammeured as
,1
,. 2
. .. V, b,y,',.*,'*;
4 *....e (' e*p, -y, any ausria re saadme eedsea M as 9. mg ,3 s' 5 . ~?**** *
,. f*f.,.'. .l
'.' p . <. .:. . . . .
. :* ',.u ' ?, :.p. , c;.' , ' .; .,; . y 344
. * . - 8, t g
P
%F i,'.
Y' ', , e% I
,b
. '% .g, s ,
,.,,.g ,'"')-
, = ,,,t
, .#I .'i s ' '
e-
, . , 6
._ _ , . , ,, , s -
'g , .
, e
~
t e g ', r g . "
- a *' g
- g-
.. '1 i. g
.?. .
, \* %
',,b , ,
- c. **
- Q'
. 3 , .
\ ,, .
,. , , :,..,. . w , 9; , C df t ..
._ w . t
, r. . c c.
..- q ,j.
,.m.
~.
it w- , 4 .- ,
<s s . ,,.. ..
. r v'.
', - ,. .~ . .
.. ,y
. , s ,
, c, ., ;.3 9
....n..
. . . . u .o c w - .*: s
- 4 , i; T, f. . ... . '. .
. l 7,
4 e, ,,
,. 'j
, .i. ! .
;,f . 4 5 .N . , , . e - I applicants, such cable need withstand an adverse erivironment only to the extent 7,* ,."-*y._ '
.. necessary to ensure that that cable does not compromise the safety function of
. *3 . y ~- p ' i ,, . ,
s ., , ! I. i' other components.82 Given this claimed fact - said to be established by the 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
," w' ,' ' *' .
.g'e., *
, perfoamance of the RO58 cable should be measured by its ability to avoid a
. , [.'*. , .. .'. .
'Q . - *'. g . : . * . , Catastrophic failure during its exposure to an advene environment.n As the l
(@.f4. @' * :* 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* I
* '*8 $.4g
. i* .
1 ., 3 . ,* '.'. Unlike the applicants, the staff expressed disagreement with the 1.icensing 1 p . e,;*i , 1: . 1. . s ' ,
,- f .?j Board's proportionality theory.as Nonetheless, it concurred in the ultimate con.
s clusion reched by the Board in the October 16 memorandum." In this connec. l h.N Ms :- .: 'Y ' - e* tion, the staff supplied us with a new af6 davit of Harold Walur, who had served a.** * ' /,.f.,. .( .[ ,.' . as a staff wimess on the environmental quali6 cation issue during the hearing that l13,* "
- . , ;,. WJ y;'4 ,
preceded the partial initial decision. In that af6 davit, Mr. Walker adopted the
)
i - * ' ve '; y , ' +
*y ,
,, 1 applicants' thesis that the RO58 cable performs no accident mitigatjon function (and made a passing reference to the telephone conversation that the applicants
. j' t.]
._- . offered in suman of that thesis).8'
, . ,p ' ,' 2 -
! ,,e
.[
- f' . r In responding to the submittals of the applicant:, wi the staff, the Coalition 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 c . M
- 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.
s ,*
. J ,,
. *q see Cemheen's Edabs 4 Redssese 6. Reemed of C---- r- 6ese N K. Waseomrd, M Caryassaan, is
, ., , 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", s ','* *
. u sse A ybeams' Name-he 2s 8 f r-- ei s.
3d
\ . .-
c ' . se.a h, 's,, l4 a s.s. 38ses NaC seafr asspense to bommeneneen et taosumes Seerd and New testand Ca ws-= em Nden: i Pelhassa seguding Is.weemanal M' n of no 38 Caual Cahne (N===== 11, 1947) thmanaher,
- % , . siaff's Desember 11 asymmel et s.
i . .*' . W it : s 4,
- ' I'id, Af54s,1s of 14ee&d Weaar et s,4.
. = - #see New andeed Ceehnse se Nenant Pecunem's Reply is Appi. arse' 8 r- '
Regesdes L... -
*3,* .. M' r ad no.5s Cenamel CaWe (Doommesr 10,1987) a 3 s; hT.C@ Rampmee to satr Resoeding 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
- , t.-- , . - - -
e , ---c - - - - - - , - - , . - - . - - -
) ' .. c:,'i./ NE8d?
- p. ),y e.M:,.s. Gh,w.,&z.;Y $.&;,Ej&. *,;. rQwN&v:% %.W:w,Q.dNdhgt.Dh:q, it. % : y .%v:sM v G,&, -
m e;'
@e% O
,Qyu%
;e . f-l$ k@&.#.
~.s t y+.h,
.c cw& .&w.v,hIQ W&n.8 n-C v -
o L "-=-d%.pb' 4:.~v "4.sr" "~. .
.W a:4 a-"rn r*-Q- f"
. 'nim. @A%w-"
%s m.. v.. s@,.4 p." tr ... .eL4p *.m. W'" i n ~ ' v "-
- g. .. e, :
- o. *.v r s.., .w >, 3 m
- i. . ;s..p. .b.s.1.g
,. m v, .
.-.3.. ..e
- w. .J> ,a.
~
n..a,,.
.. :.. . p.
2,m.
.. ... .s..g.
.. . ,..x 3; .w
. '. e .';g n .Q ;=*f
.s
, ..,.- . . .n :.%, - .
- i i'e .tte , e.r . .. .
M y,;-;;..t.,:;* % ,.r'.yf W On consideration of the divergent views of the parties, we concluded in
.? ..'.. ?C,7. p.. .
, , , ' d ,+ .1 % Y 4 .. p 3*
A!.AB.882 that another remand was in order." For the reasons there set forth, we
*?./G k;~- d i y % agreed with the Coalition and the staff that the I icensing Board's propordonality d ,p;['[ h t t,'.. ,. ;C .x theory was Sawed. We further directed that Board to examine in the Srst instance
;,;* ..;.: M ,',.j ."'f, ." . !L j .T.f-Y)' 'J*l [#$*"'%;',.*
- i. . , l.1,[,- N.*5 ':,.
- i',T the dispute between the parties with regard to whether the evidence established that the ROS8 cable performed no accident midgadcri funedon, so that, standing p %' '. .. g ,.Q . ,y. V A.V.7,, '. ,; g, f , '
alone, the RO59 cable high potential test results would suface. If the Board W. ' * ; found the record at hand to demonstrale cleariy that the applicants and the staff L.i/p'.,.,$.'..,',%.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 J 9 ,, ,:<. d .,3
,., . ", g !y additional evidence on the question whether the RO59 cable test results could
~., V r" ' ,( * - ,,
C.t serve as the foundadon for the environmental quali$ cation of the RO58 cable," ' 1 4 ., .'y *f' 'q'i $,'.~ , Q 4 .g.b.;[
. . a 2,
.'.?:9.N)4 Apparently, the 1.icensing Board saw no need to obtain any further development of the views of the parties on the matter remanded to it. For, without
*, M f ,(
, . .i ;'
- providing an opportunity for such development (let alone srHiting additional
'* g,f j; ,I?.p';,.*c,;j gj <. . , . , . . . r. submissions), the Board issued a memorandum on March 2.n response to the
.'.y,,'
* 't. 4, .*, , a 2,*
- A1.AB 882 remand. We are told that e . . , . .. ..e..,. .
.%- u
,m .,., .
.....';"y...,,,
a ,%. ," 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 , ' ' . , , ' .fr ' e, d p .* '". ,shmend wa in all ha is needed to demanatow he C 1,atiscaska, and thes 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
' y '.; .r . . J . y,;-' " c * . ' ;i '
- 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 .
.w
' .. *, ;- p. . '1
.a midgation functen." It also alluded to the fact that the Walker af5 davit had
,, o. :a.- . .(.
made (albelt without explanadon) a like claim."
. ..' { .6 , 1 ~ ' t. -
- c '. Unfortunately, however, the 1.icensing Board failed to illume the foundadon l
. s
,, g , ; , l '. , for its awarent rejection of several Coalidon arguments that were previously
~
. ! [. ., . '- ~,' presented to us and very well might have been explicidy renewed before the
',_. L - ' ' L ' ,'
g
, , , Board had supplemental submissions been allowed. Indeed, there is little, if any,
* .- . mendon in the Board's March 2 mmv,.i.dum of the Coalition's insistence last
- 3 1. , ' M[c, '-r, i Decemter that (1) the foundanon for the crucial representadon in the telephone
.- . ., f f ',.,,, ; .
' T ' ' ,'
..+.'y y'" b ,
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; y r,,, , ,t , . c. n .. /5 ,' '*' and (3) the EQF likely would not have set fonh operating requirements for RO58
*4
- e,, 4 4 *,
*t
.. ,-, P, ie s96 th W h 0&&
* * - # 14 es 43.
.g, , e .* -
- l .
- h MenesenAme to Agual Senad an Iwwwummmial Qiahaseans er casual Caus RG5s (Mansi 1. Ites,
,. O' . . *' e'<' * -
)
b','.,,*',, ugnsWM (henanAm. Lassmang Scese Mane 2 Me,emenema) et 3.) (emp6eas an enseman
. .*, . -...' .P s
. m '.< ,
2
,fg es 4 3, s. *4 i N- ,t,. .,a, 4 /d en s.
gJ t *y' [. g ; ' *C. h.*' ., . , A ,
,* 1 ' g h ' *
- p. 6
, s
,,7
- >;. s .P- .
,, ;M6
* +:
~
,,- . .i . . . .
? 'Y
'l b '*
*'
- n , l
. - * , as' g ,
g . ( g * # g
~
e *
** ' 't
. j e y %% , ! , y
- e v' . -
h,.'4 e.,, '*%
.si
.p
n.; pw, v .a. . . , . ,; ; .<. .n , : ,; . :.,; ~, p . . .c u. J, i . . . . .a
- p:
. - ~ :.. .m .n,- .- ,., . , - ...~. .
. r.
> .^
r ,, ,
.' . ,~. y . . t .. :. , v. . < . . v., . . ~ ,.
l, q' . 4 t ,v < i . .
.t i .
,i .
,t ,
< :y . .
7 7 lc',
^
-~
.p ,. ( ,7 <
.
- j n ;. ,-G ' , '. , . .
* ~
~
.,....u. . .x ; - . . ~' : :-. - :. . .: . .
l
,c.t . .. - s , ,
.. ; , 7,s. . c .c.. .
. , c,.
.~. . r; u .. J.,..
, . ., 4
'.. m.. a, . .. ...t..,,..
v . ... -
,i' ,.', i,*' q g e . '., . .;;,Y * '
. ..- cable insuladon resistance had that cable been deemed to possess no accident
.N.*,, -
s e ; ,;< y 7 .a midgauon function? D,y.',*:. u.',*,4= i' ;t b,. 4 4,'F ',#*,O i' . 3. In a March 22 submittal invited by us," the Coalition takes excepdon 5 ' *.' ?,., @;' \ ' * - to the I.lcensing Board's determination in the March 2 issuance." That inser.
,i h E *, *;f c . 447l.*c.*f* . . ..* venor renews tu insistence that the memorandum documendng the telephone ; .N h de ,"* y, '.'. . 9M *. h . M '.,'. / ', - convenadon concernir.g color-coding of electrical cables does not provide an >
7f..M.;d 'S'h;jw ..Q'*tt '
. 9i, ',f. '
adequate evidendary basis for establishing the erivirternental quellacadon re. 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, !
' N. i 'A* ,
- s . y/. %.7+5',.a@;; *.>rs :i cabie,= Because of ihese and ceer c==ns, ihe comitoon requesu ihu we the Coalition remains unconvinced that the colm-codang scheme applies to this !
W 9 ; A,f.e, ;3 l [Y ' ,*; . .'* ,.'p*p", ., p , , .el $y..e. a. 1 once again remand the maner to the IJcensing Board - this dme with instrue.
; tions that the record be reopened to verify the environmental quallacadon of the h ,/ . t, . . ' ' (.*4 . # ,.1
- RO58 cable #
. .,' *p,,.,,.) j , , , . .. In a $ ling with us last December, the staff seemingly had endorsed, at least
, ,, ', y, .
,e.. . 'Ze ' . ,v f . - 'g .* . , implicidy, the use of the memorandum documeraing the telephone conversa.
, , . . ; 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 3 i
., ., }.+ ,
Analysis Report (F3AR).* According to the staff, these excerpts adequately i
, 3. N a , .-
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, *-
. , . .. g, , ,. .- -
. t
, f *' , , ,f
., - l
's ii 3* see more p, ses. :
,u .., ! .
#see Masus s.190s ever M ' -3
.~,.,p,*.>~
=
8see Noe anelsad r%h= em Nimiser Pu0 stem's s W" Manumenese en *
- Qahsesam
'*=, , ._
s .' ; et aGss Ceant CeMs [hsmanAsr, Canham's Mase s2 Mammenhank j
'Qs ,
,t,,, ,, - q
- M g a s,
' *E.
, =g g l ll . a *
., , "M en s, '
s
'9y 's c
. (, 'f , ? =
t s*
, ! *sar sess's Dummber 1t aanymmen. Afteevis d Hasm&d woher sa 4
~f **
elsee Nac sees aw w NECNP t m MansemesaenE a M t' " " n er ao.ls
,* ' 7 *'
- Canassi Cable taps 4 s,196s) [besmaeAmr siefro Aps4 s aampmeel m 1.
- a. ., , , , -
, . .', . "M et s, 'e 1 he F5Aa. etash a paupesed by or en beelt er to oppinenntel fe en sysseeng i
=
.' hemmm. mua be est-smed w to Commennen es pen er en besse e#,desensa, see is C7 a. sea % a eens
*' l
, ,4 s ,. ,,, ass, be=eier -as beespie pen er em susest d any odnese6arp pseseados em mes oprimequat
*' s , *; * .
,; '8ses snefr's Apsd e ampmes a s4 e s. . , ,
e ', , 9 .
' ." .=
,' 341 p" g [,
, s . 6
\g , .
\
. , s
. 6 g-8 .
g a .
'. e '
4
hk 'hb h hh ! kb; ch lk' k N*5'.k. n.4 Yhs:'.h x.u. rm. 6.$y:~ , :, . . .. .m,: g $rM. h.-- hhl,, a .* %m. I m$ I h L2.h N @ a l @. x , $ .I' b-@;.?2.% 4. !7.Edh~,
- a-
. '1 Jt g g. u .
Q & Q J*,[V.Ls y &.....*.s b,,e.3. < Q2
..6n.:p.
p # u,M:,e eW ,.rs 7 mt <,p;,r m;,...y u.-9, . ..e. . ; .;,
. .y, .
,7. 6.~ n y .* t . ' g *%,,. . s. . ;'s . A the high-potendal test of the R0$9 cable sufBce to establish the environmental
,%l. ,g;. *k((.' y
- I,h' v.M ,e f.hp. -{.*UUpon receipt of the staff's Sling, w informally inquired of lu counsel quallocation of the RO58 cable."
, 'M.*;%.l',$
- 4. ,;* 1 :. l' .,M c respecting whether the relied-upon portions of the FSAA are to be found in the g
8 :j .TJ~* * ' ' ,'. '.['.j.. - . . yd s .. J ., 'b ' ("C* existing record. it turns out that, in sign 16 cant measure, they are not.*8 The staff
. {.;. < .;/y,"j'.
,(..
J W s*i -Q y y l*
.. M ' ' i. g,74 ;y 4?l i .*) >.q. S 7 **d suggests that, in order to cure this deociency, w reopen the record ourselves lo receive the material in question and to provide "all parties the opportunity to object to the genuineness and the signiacance* of that maserial."
! (.
* *f..t*,y/ g I . ,.;,, Ue..
. ', , . Unlike the staff, the applicants endorse both the 1.icensing Board's March
, . . 6.VC.:~
(. .f.A* # 2 determination and the reasoning underlying it." In particular, the applicants 6'] % [l[.R.,J ,y8 3 3 ' . ? L. .
..b !f,* ?
)9( l n.')i insist that the memorandum documenting the telephone conversation, in combi.
nation with other portions of the EQF, demonstrates that the RO$8 cable does 4, . ,, 'W'(V .y.J .'il -ll Q- M ,'*P;):l N,V/*; M not peeform an accident niitigation function and, therefore, can be environmen. la!!y quall6ed on the basis of the acceptable results of the high. potential test on
, , . . . ; 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
* ., y ,..,. , gg. . .;;.s./ . , 's*,, j'..4' '
cable issue, we have been either favored with a new themy a referred to new {,,p .,. <.. .., - . 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
, 7, . , St;- , , Q. 3 9 7, , , ' i quali6ed. In the 6tst instance, the Licensing Board rested that corslusion on '
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 ('
f,', l'* the applicants also came up with an entirely different theory of its own, based upon another document in the EQF (the memorandum of a telephone
.,,i , . M.
' ,, ' ,4 conversation). Now acknowledging that this document does not of itself allow
- 4 ,.7,,, ..
') 2 ( * *' ' the acceptance of the applicants' current proposition that the R058 cable has
.;- . s, y y? ~. ,5.
- no accidert mitigation function and therefore can be deerned environmentally
; 4 t 'd. quali6ed on the strength of the RO59 cable high potential test results, the staff tells us that there is yet another ecurnent - the Seabrook FS AR - that does
/ ,. . -
' . ' g;'j",,(I '
. provide an adequate fourmisticri fa the proposition. Regrenably, houver, the
.t - J.,1. - . *," staff has also been compelled to concede (following our inquiry) that the FSAR p
$9
.. .e . .
- ~-
e .; * **. .
' 7Y. -
, ' . - _ .< ~
. ~~. .,
.s uer
*C
,- s '9
.] [. ,. -
#ag s.$ M b 34,3 j. am t. $m 5.pd (Ap.) \4. \ MS L 1
i--
+
$ f, ,\ q '.,. e s. a,,6 . s% % n.,,,, a & - g non c w c.w. p,,3 s,
. . . . m> *:-
, non
. - . s ,j eg g '
.- , j, . , , t . ( ., J < t
."
- u . n niw ,s m . u *. u a .m e 4 , r
,s'h.']*x 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
,y 6 .#. 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.
,,, q.yo ., ,
i y , n
*+ ...
. -. b a -si t
[ ,, 2 l
.o \
, (
g g e y a 9e 3.x **=e * .. . 4*
- l
}*.
I
. t I
- l t 9
, e N t
.k t . . - .n .
, p
....e
. q' ;.\ .
" . * ,,. y . U,, e - y., 9 .i
; b , ;- l ,.* d.a , . . ' 'g r { O,. ,, g<,
E? ..'."~,
*,U, ( . I i , :. .:
.c:.. . . ..
' r ',
. , x ..,
s. 4 . ,
^s-
;y'7 ; Y . .: 2. ;,..
,s , ' ' .y;;
'.a ,. l ' -
<~ .a . ; ' ' '
~"
n.. : .; ' , * * *
,w..,.
-> , . q. .
.- , i* , ,
, e y , ,, ,J','?
>.. . ,'..'. provisions k deems of particular relevance are not curTently includekt in the
. -. .. , . .q evidentiary record.
' ^ *l C - . . ', . . -
~
t :.Q . .. There is no good reason why the resoludon of such a reladvely simple and L'. % '.r . , , ,;,g ' T :."Qg *, g , narrow issue should have taken such a winding path and consumed so much
,-!,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.is': 7$
- available manettals of possible relevance to the issue at hand. And k might well have proven helpful had the Licensing Board sought the views of the parties
, , ,- <.',.. 4 iCf.< before acting on the ALAB 882 romand."
,,1*%-((
, eI
- Be that as k may, our task at this juncture is to deseemine whesher the
,g , '
N ff'h Licensing Board correctly concluded that the evidence now of record adequately
.' 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
.j . .,
., 1,q Q # j quallocation"; and that the ROC 9 cable test results suf6ce for this purposesi i **
. . . ' ..? * . ' . . .
'N b ,w
.f- In common with the Coalitior and the staff, we answer that question in the 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$cient os
; . ; , v. ,
- 1
("u
' evidence to suport the claim that the RO59 cable test results carry the day, t , c 1. The brief memorandum of the telephone conversation upon which the
_s , , applicants and the Licensing Board rely is reproduced in full in the Appendix.
*i .
IYra. It reflects that theet was a discussion betweert employees of the Impell
. .j Corporvion (the company retained by the applicants to prepare the EQF at hand) and Unked Engineers & Constiuctors (the Seabrook architect-engineer and con.
., , . . .' . structor)* respecting the means for identi6 cation of cables required to perform
~
' -~'E "a safety function subsequert to accident events." According to the memoran-dum, the Impell representadve was informed that "the different cables" in a i
purchase ordse identi6ed as "P,0,113 18" and "other cable speciacations" were
- s. -
colce coded for that identi6 cation purpose. Speci6cally, those cables having an Ecidern mitigation function wgee provided an outer jacket of one of four solid
, , ,, colors. if not beanns such an outee jzket (and the EQF indrepe that the jacket
. - - 'v, , . for the RO58 cable is muld colceed),# he t cable need only remain intact under
- '\
, N' * .
,s 9" '
"busader as es ALAa 87: summed u essened, Wee edusamme em enemip ese -" y unmary te y - *... r,_
14semes asese maale beso animased me pasmas' emakes en as mai6 Had a des es, a sinad he.o ameusessed
. . 'i e ' '
we bainst et beh to Cankman and .hs aeft een um emwy e sewet
~
. , ' 1.y 3 *.9 84 ,, , p g 3
. ..
- The "% onnen by 6e napu4 empimpen, erumamely sufme to to ammyesy as 1.hmad Enemmes a
*,,,,d'*. '
Causema,as _A
. ,, , 4 "Joe Ceebase's hh.nu 4, aereense 1. Arymes A a AI.
. . s . 4
.
- e n 343
. . g g . %
- , \
, s e
4 f .
. 9 g
) a
',;.M'.m-ff W 9,,$;& b M b. & :.Q'rb,;.\. & . & i$ % h.);Y.,Q'.i * ..?,$ & & % $.
I - f -
~
4xm.m.em.;A[,Q,%.,4,x,;(i w ..J g.?.m. r . ; ,w.-ll. . . . :.. n.. y L 'h,V:.r,*q .:
?
2
;R. rYs,,'c,!.:*ylQQ: :: e %s<.
..y. .*,;. ,.n
...y 4.g< c. z: . .s
.. / accident conditions (i.e., in the words of the memorandum, there must be no A e)'t JL
.l f./e'".'[G O j,* d,
.e. [j.i, .M.4S .(M.yg't.e'$ t.
%,jr.!gd.:h*); "shorting to ground"),"
Dere are several manifest difBculdes with the applicants' reliance upon the memorandum. To begin with, it does not clearly appear that RO5I. cable
,'. f( b. *l'-6C Q'1I MU'5h%*.$.I .a. comes within its scope, nat type of caMe is not speclecally mendor.ed in 6,('37 f*f. 3'i,.r,7,T/gdQ*@h'd p* r/ the mernorandum. Ibrther, the caption on the cover page of the EQF discloses W f
- h .f.','Jy/Wly.'?*. * ,/gh %*$ 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 y
. . s . ". ',y. * '@d.3d3
, c. . .' ' ."n *ql F i%,;;,.'g%,s
.M. /
to ask us to assume that the reference in the memorandum to "other cable speci6 cations" was intended to embrace RO58 cable. We and insufocient M *' o ne, , ..o , "- justl6cadon fw drawing any such inference, in this regard, it is noteworthy N h*
%Y* Y*h*:'l*khh.'
M,'d $ g. *p,7 .p.et aQ*a t:1 that, rawithstanding the weight they now attach to it, the applicants have never D%h.M," sought to have the memorandurn sponsored by one a the otherof the participants 9* D; I'. '*, N k W
.'..*.,GA.h!.hf4 in the telephone conversadon - either of whom presumably could eliminate g . . ; , r .- ..- V .j,e
; .... .. g Qf any room for doubt respecting the secpc of the discussion of color. coding fx i6end6 cation purposes.
,o , . ,8 ~
'.% .;, d.'O. g,. 4 >*'y The lack of sponse.nh'p of the memorandum takes on idll greater sigt.ificance
{ s'. j d when other portions of the existing record are examined. Among other things, it
. t 5.; ; ; . ;9*p.hjk* j[.' 3 4 'g. . . . appears from the Harsh Environment Equipment 1.ist contained in the EQF that P. ,.
'.], "
( Y 'g c. .>l.9,.Dj 8] a# cables cared by the EQF (and that includes the RO58 cabl.') are within
' c,, . , . ;* ( g*n(g*w j.f9.'i'W t Operability Code A and thus, according to the testimony of applicants' witness
,,ylg.; ~. ,. / M " ,.- Joseph M. Salvo, serve a safety function" To the same effect, the report of a
' ~.a * /,. - 7 .*.* ',i' ,r
, . , pre audit review of a number of equipment quallocadon 6les placed all of the f . .' ,"[
e d *O 2. QI ' . cables in the EQF covering the RO58 cable in Openbility Code A." Yet. In the
. . '. case of many other such ales, the report put some of the equipment addressed
-s ,6 *?* * /: Q;)i.*ri,..
P,.;/. ' j,p Q* i 7 in the ale in category A and the balance of the equipment in lesser categories
. , . c. - <, . . x4..Mft
...-~_w.4 -<; g, (Le., B or C),"
. j J r ,, , ' ' V . -
, .w e ,,+
,,r.
. , ", ~* : , .y . . < a :. . .' . , Q, ', ' 6 ' '
[ s3 , ' k. ( ,. I M A, ,, g
,g m ,, g e, pe,,, g e, -- _ _ j _ , ,,, .,ga,,, ,, ,,,
,..>,,. [, 'y,g '.
- g. if m,,, , ,
tummtesse d as unmasse summanse wuh em pannwa oesapense than vis assee pomme tes.sh a ==.14 p.,
',y .,.,..- . W em , . d ammpeans bevig en essadas suussman feminet
. e' .
, 4 - *?**'
i .a' # 7 ja b, # On em same, en sessed eashamas $as pusikans arde lis.it towahed esWe ogged by a vunde, enhar den 7, '
- f. ' . q' . ? *,f,-e.'***. ..g Trf, See sehe, se et. SmL Tr, ss7. m 7.
,' . v. .
+ *
. ,,..;**,.a/,,.
s . .. N Tg, 3gt.gt
.c..c, "
(*9 p See Caensman's I.nhaus is, Naeyesa true K Troped y, EGao 146% to R Waha, NRC (Fs6e+ary 11.19Mk
,J *
' f.*g ,$n' .,, .'e u, .h. f> * ,
.y*,,** fur *u'das Pse. Aaes Renee er one sehsed swam Egapnes ?"" Preyne en 16. The adempesJr i amend eues ngnet somniarty ed ass pumeo my ansa.sema ed e siam 6assaem lams nas Orerstshry Caes A rse
, *e ;',,. -
} .
- f ,. , , L e.'
A,
,, -e .';i -
s ~.
\g- .e.,-.'. I'e ,
the aoS4 eehk See Cahman's Lahanna 13, taans tame C.F. Chamm6am. Eceo 14aha, to K Cassansa. NRC 04sruh si,1996k foresees Aada d es Enrvusumasal 04^~ - W sefey neleind 32e:urval ,lgagemas
- p. e, s ,a ,g se pg.,ut 1964) a s2. ss.
i q '. .. - h ,, ,,. , . {, . ? 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 9.3 ,
ass perferie e safey r,sisese, to sQF ashmend spesessa
- , , , : *, ,* - , , ; *. ,'s ' , f,e "
sommanse supuusness fa sL See aspee I
, e. . -
,. f. pc s*647. Ahmagh, u name
- mad Lavre P Hsk *as traa== == aa m'da==8 m *e ta==re Ba=ro beamt : - -- -- -M. s has as base senewed a se Caehsman's suet roses lang iruk us la ve escuruneness.
't",* .* gg - N
- 4,
*g#q $ 46 aus esmer ethdLhst the Cashhan gamids te paese he pad.
45 *4 ** e ,8' *, g
. . . . e. '.
r.q
*/ ;*
e
*7' te *4'.
P
,,,**g,..
, . , 9 e *I a
4 .t
, n. 4' * - 350
* ** ; ** . d v '. - ,, , */
.- [ ,
e-
- l' .- 's %
.Q
....,,4._. , , . , , y - ., l
. ? '
4-
~?
~
^
a "g', l
-
- f. n,
, . - + ;>
.l ' , s-g %
, p ..
J. '
.~
' ~
4-, e , 4 i' % # y, # * *
,s g, ,
- 1 ?
E 6 _ .\ ,
- 9. ..
.W,. . g. ?. '. ; t , J ~ ~ ~ .* % 3 * , ,' .-
v,v. . ~ , on . ,i , *. g , . .,. .. m . ' . .: - i, ' v * . .
,,s
>- ,m . . s m
. . ?. s, ; , . ,
. e ,. ,
. . , y . r., ., .
,.c.
- . .. y . . ~ -
r e 1
.x ..
, ' c,; . h,; < .<
n. u ,,e
.-t. x -
. .. .:. . s.. -- - .-
. s ' '.*. >' ' ~
v ,
>I
. ++
d
.. j
.'..g.,.,
..~ 2
, f' 'c , .i .
a
* *~
'.,. /.- ..,.>y.. . l*. 'g . p 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, t,',.*,~~ ,
. ) y' .. , , ' .,' ". ' before attaching any (let alone controlling) weight to that memorandurn, the
< ' . e.; *. *
. .t ,' ,
Board should have insisted that it be sponsored by a witness in a posiden both
'. ' [ .', ,
~"
',i.,,- Q* ;, ' ' ' ' . ' to attest that RO58 cable is within its scope and to captain the basis for the
- j' , .
, G. . .
representation in the meanorandum regarding the color <oding scheme." Any 7, , * ; .- 2, 4* , such explanation would, o(course, have had to come to grips with the possible
.. inconsistency between that representation (assuming that it was intended to ex.
) .q., ,,,, . f - 1
._. < .4 ;,. 3 . .-
tend to RO53 cable) and the other record evidence to the effect that the RO58
] , ' ,, ,. .
- 2 v.
, ; j..
5 cable is capable of performing a safety function. '
'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 .
1 might adequately support the Board's 6nding that the environmental qualiacadon U *
,*. .,, j. .C.. ;, . p', d
- y.
N,... . ..
- of the RO58 cable has been established. There being no conceivable good reason e e *- .* -
to allow either the Board or the panies yet another cyportunity to comb the !
. $ ,. . . " f ~ . existing record in search of such eviderre, the appropriate course is clear:
[c-Q7 *
'+ '-
qi.- l that anding, as set forth in the March 25, 1987 partial initial decision and i
- , 3 ', * , ' * * . 7 *1 .;
, , repeated in subsequent Boari mernoranda, must now bc vacated and, to the l
.s; - '. .,4 extent dependent upon that anding, the decision reversed. Given this manda;ed disposition, we agree wi',t the Coalidon that the next step should be a furthee l
'; 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 i proceedings. In this instance, ard despise our desire to have the RO53 cable
, issue resolved without further amece:Jary delay, we cannot say that such 1 circumstances are present.*8 Accordingly, w once again remand the matter to
. S{ 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. sww. a. w,o.,e n.a
,7 e m' s= th.e n.d 3. A1> Beet. is NaC ess. m com
( 88 3ee Cashassa's Haae s2 b6mnsumedhse et s.
The tasenses amedn unpeanus te the semahansa si h amese spiergewy paeasons and enfery us.mo a.a
, , 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
,,.' %eetmash phume espansse pe***y emmemry peannneg ammek b dess me ape appens sea me er se tal numend t
4
~
s ;; *ne == *=aedw l j
.r .-
' 1
... . 351 I
. v . .
\
W-
. j
. . g e
s .
.s . . l
u . ae .: a . -
- .My@> .. . \
S 4 ,. y, v . ,:. u. 3 . !j's ( h. $ 's *PGy. h. E c. Q* p\of,,'.Qk,0.A(&fs:%,[l,Q(l',ff:&m
%f\;,
- m. : b'
'.v,. % :e [ ] & r & Q
$e , W 8,. : m.p.,p$. ' . y .j, e . &:., o.c.
* 'a ",. x v' +' . r .. u*&e ^~&~*','*' g. **"< "m.. m^a
- " ^
' f,,W,a Q .y; a ,4 se3 y;Q;Q W .'f,
<%: m.
. , :n. ..y'n
/'9 p'$,s~m.
$;..f.),(b tQ,$:'.:~h
- .
- ;4. ..
.y', Q
& & F. M,'" k
'.9. 4,'. p*. M o h. .<. n . ,.s , ; .: .. t*N In the pesent posture of the matter, two questions are crucial to the exam.
*ithd/ ' Q ' . . ', @
;6'M"Ed'4!
*,;y; PiQ p[%c ',$ ination on the remand. First, does the RO58 cable have an accident midga' ion function in its interhjed use as part of the frility's computer system? Second, M,O,e.$r,'Q:*[: $h$**.[.'i.Q .
if the RO58 cabk has no such function, does it follow that the RO59 cable
@fj t high. potential test resulu establish that the cable is environme itally quali6ed so ;;c-sy . h**n%,4 % de y'J..%'7.**,C.M,p tc. n long as it is used exclusively for data transmission in the computer system?"
M.,*: ,%M s . D'. All new evl&rce on these questions - whether accompanying a rnotion for
l yT
@{.$@@' QM&. '
.Wl<";.*-(." ..P y
- T)lI 'N. summary disposition or introdoced at a hearing * - rnust be sponsmed by a competent afaant or wimess.*
y In Mdressing the arst question, the parties un&ubtedly will wish to take g A. ; $. h M A %[ ' h- v f. ,". M. A
.4, Q g',7. h% L *g. , * *.. l'*?,S into Ecount the revelation in the existing record that the R058 cabk has been
?* 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/ D . d .A . W N N . 5* v 'f.'.,*'.','* M k.*.,f.'.? f* and staff that, in its inten&d use in the facility's computer system, the cable lxks an xcident mitigation fur.cticn The new eviderce might show, fa S g ;: ., *. cq.: ag y? ,y, p * ,; exampk, that its Operability Code A classi6 cation hM other possibk uses j , . o .,, c, . ' e . 1, . - t..-s of the cable in mind. But if it invohed an accident mitigation function, no
.-. h O ' fe p .t .., - ..;, v,t A * . as.-
such ahernate use would be permissibk on the strength of a Anding (assuming 47pd,' '.([.N., f.*2 .' $,2 one is mMe on the remand) that the cable is environrnentally quallaed when
':,,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 e, s' j . ;
facility uses for a partkular purpose a component subject to the environmental
., c .e . ~ r-s' -
- 6
, quali8 cation requirements, it must be demonstrated that that component meets
' C e ' . . * , ,. *
,s , w.
~ j;k.. . . ~' , , , , . .. those requirements wben so employed.
y /, . ,,
*\ h a j ( [. 'k$3 4 2"'s 3 es ,; .
t 1, ,'~ (br the foregoing reasons, the Man:h 25 partial initial decision,1.BP 8710,
*Q***i'g.t., '
, f( ,,
25 NRC 177, is rewrsed to the extent that it found that the environmental s.
,.- ($ ;
, rf ; . ,$ ..
quali6 cation of the RO58 coaxial cable had been established. 'that issue is
.? ,. 's '
'*l
. i . , .' ;
4 ,
-*s
- j
~' j.'. , . . '
** 4 eIs @Se hM AI.da-h$s ktdd he feed W bTgndy hn hd W M M 3%e# 6 sed
, ,, 4
.,,.,e,"" -i .,j ;, apre p, M Bis 6e Ceebaum hee ese meeemed On as Mana 22 menrummAse m 7) em skruss to sand
, .< : .,s. e.g$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 mm, os aan man,s.new e. s.w 7 m *. ;y ...' . ; -
..,?/, e6. s noss e.,se e env=
pe wi m. d a, puet w-. a = no erp.e,es e=4 se ar me bare p nded
- e f 4.'.e. , ,i,****/* yua nueher sygnemanst to emnetduh am the aOS8 seNe e ~
o'J r t a W rassem eases em ee
, ,, ' a. t . . ' , , , ,' p-*' ' ' g . CJahtwo be a3 seed to pas se se e.gsmane as the samend
%* 9 y . . ' ' . ' 'i *, 'r#4*
" "C4 afema"* no 88 P-M*y Wat e Saumary Lapeame =*= m.44 he saed aband as be idee es
. - v .( nacyme wr brt.at unraams etaha' *=4 6 -e amad to **=amai
*.s.,, . .e
* ,. 3 *
3' ' .' ' , )
**Premaneedp, to new ownesse eVI andmas te pertwee er de sentre 4 Tha to eta.4 *e sa3 setsved m to Apn1114 ** ie< see ei,*e p M7. see si,as seestae Ce4/P8he EdADe (S. (I4e Okbe NiedSSf
*0/ ' , '*' N ,, '
* . . , .* ,e Omuseers scene. Umse 3 and s), A1.AB. 717.17 NRC He, M47 (1983k af'd, carsesgr v. A#C. 743 FJ4 nine (D C, Os.19W), eart deo.d. 471 U s. I1se (19t$k we samase no egna.m. af ansen, sa etah.
'e g* , '
**.3 ewee pasiene assyen the prope.a.m ks whah es, he,e base seered, la pean 6ag spa emas ma=&smian, me
, .e a: , ,. . + * *
* ' a
'* taisest Seesd abadd name ehe. eme.hw he ase,ise and esame el em 6%nme' e64anewee en setsfrug he arenseenesel v.a.kesse powan.se fand in essan 8J l 4 b Ill) et abe FsAA.
. S
,,,'% C
't 1
'.'. #sas aero p sM
,, T. e .P * * .
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* *
. e. .
, 4
. 9 1 %
~
,j.,..'
dt U; y ,a % ,
.,,, ,<g.'
i
,;l 5. ?"'.' ~. .',.,*.,y,. ',',.'e'-
..y,'. ,...
* , M e i 1 .' . ). 6 ./, * . <.A
,J**1 . 4 4 *
.,f
- 4. , , .,
. ' . < . . .y ..;- , , . ' , . . .e . >
t,, , ,; . .4 g., t , s, .,
, , . ,. es ,
..-p s,. ,> , . . .. . . .. ,. .
J. . s"f ,. . ..
. . .i. , .. . . . , . . . . .
s v.. ,. i . ... . . .
< i.,., .- \
j . 3 .. . > y.
., . . 3. ,a ,, .,
A. , , . 2, . .
.... .,. .#. . o .
s... ..3 7
'. ,[* ; ,
.- , . , ..E . , ' ' .
- remedad m the Ucensing Board fa further proceedings cortsbiert with this e ,,
decis60st."
,.' i. .'. .j;j ,5 l . . . . o?. ;. . '
., h Le so ORDERED.
.s . . .. .. ... . . , . , , .
g
.. . ,~
.. u
.n. . .. ,.
r.. ... . ..v..e ..: ma mE Amud. BOMD
. . . . . c. u,, 3ho,m,w ,
-. , . c . ;. . .
s.c, ry m. w .I, N. .. u,..;p .
. .:e . .<,. i h Ap l
s,.. c . o... .
. e,. . . ,
n a.4
... =
i
.,e .
A .
. .*[ ',
- I
. v. ' , ' ,e....,f. ,,;- .g .".%
e.
,. - . ... ,. . . s . . ,a e * .,6
. * *s .,. .
.. t ..
- e. .i
. .e,*. .. -e. . s . 18 lt
- s. - - -~.
r
. . . , . - *.. .o .
,e - .., .,
,. , . -**t., . .
- 3
,8 . ., . *
. .- 'g.
l
- 3. ,
., .e. .
s., c l i
. . in 1 ,
6, , I
. ,.,
- I
', ,. .
- e
'. 1
\
, e
.e , . r. .
1
\
; n .; t '
,- . , ~ ., i j 4 .
f iL- 4 4 . l 1 a ( e
.,p,
, o
,< . , i. .
\
. l a
- p. .
, =
s j
,e
~ s*%A *. -p
, ,.e*
.. e .
.%, e
- - s .1.>,'< in - d e.,
J
. . ,r i
.' ' I.
.uswumanal - ae m.m.8.e.as W At
- s. . .
e se - e .m. m md. e -
- h. esame, . u. . i
- w d
7'* * ,, . emmmmmme suhases aque es 90,hegh. m us true samn Gaguse pp, M340). Cammmene sagdeem
- 0 eshe nas sammes lu unasse emmbumme esms sents magm supp.e4 mmmenes i *
, ,j to est ens is asem86 to as dansmas esa omnd yestees one egyhemum,, d se ===hmad jgga ggg gbgAqshg
, . j emummme and embumg le das among of 'bs 3054 enten, J ', e**.-
- he oms pass samend d the 3056 eehie name, um entsmed esi, d amenesy. 9m 11..===at Sesd le to dands g
- 5, 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 ) 4 .
O
- p. . .,- . ,
o . 9 %
~
4 N b
. I N s #
*'~' '
. ' . p,
. 4 . .l 9 , , . . , - _- , . . . _ - ._. -- - - - - - * - ' ' ' - - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - ' '
.',,'*j,p QQ.*llqNgL Hf Og:lL Q A M O N P OV. Q W.@,l.ld' N' .l leu $ 3"W k m,Y,.}N} %wili,'.l.)
(%l6 1: M . )k M: c ., w.~. ..
.n. .
MG ?iW W k % @N,.y.;e;.h Q $G.Qt
*NM&4MzW *MM. .O- l;ihn@6
- 2 k .u:$QiiA
< - .m. . f e . ,,i .
,
- v.gw, i.,.,, o n m ,.,* n, . ;o, ..
?.,3.,.a , ~ . 4' S. f q,,:cs v. #s u ,s.W.,e. .
nw .o
..g ,, g ,%
. ;r t . .e....,-
e . . ,.,e.m. '~ .w# .
. ,..s.
.j. w . , g , .f 1
.~
m;;;9'> j -q s*. .;'. <4,. et....,," .....0 .,- ,,, 4; . * . , , , - 5
*'. 9 . D.,, F ;..;. m , .
, . . . 3' 7 ,< . U..,w. .t ;- 1 APPENDIX
.- w.
- .. s a, s v. .r , ,. .. M.. , #" ... .. ,.%.
t
...z... '
New England Coalition on Nuclear PoHution's Exhibit 4 Reference 6 M. *M.,Y. ,*'. .'.if. j '.'t*d/Y, .
. [*V.. ,, ,,. ,
..un- g> ..: y s.. j &. ,. e a.,s <
.sc .
.' ?b b . -
~- . . ,. . . ,. , .
.. . .. T. .v.' .e .g.. .s. . , .::c .3<.n,. s t ;. .M..s
>y m, (y. = .,:. *; , . g
~
y u . . :.. . 6.j.;.;7.g.. s.6 .e r .n.L. b : neeerd et conweeesen yg< ,
;m M
- N. tiI'h..h.3
[>. k. x, h. fk "*8 " " "
,1i!.[l,'* '
;ll.'Y C'9Y'GR * **
$%l?%';f.,*~'.'+t..e:
o.. . N: .
- c ; c.
*. , M.*,'n, . . .* :;,e a,,, V. d. y ..< Asiewee oueero a.,.,e e o.s. .:.,.
n;.,..
.. . . . . , ,s. .,1,t ..; . . ,
nas,s g , . , . $ . ,,., y ,
- gig g.,,,.
neergeren (PsNH)
..M,*.,'.*. . . . . , .;, ,'. .. , .P / t .".
- 1 . WClevtier (YAEC) f.c ' .
.c r-OTai*eh*as O u** mas O oih < - ' d-o .! y* =.;.*. , ,*
.. . , , , l* ,.
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
*J * , . . * ? i X '/; r* . -f. v_ . * *'
Subjoet: hook E& PO.1418 [ ,e . ..;g .; hU - 2. . .)*f. Summary et Conwteston:
, '.O
' '. s:. . .
r . ...% ; o
,' ?. . + .
g 4..7.~ Chuck and I discuned how linpell can identify w hkh of the different l'. ,g, ;' ' f Q.,.Q 'J
,, cables in P.O.11318 and the other cable speci6catioru are
> ;f],O "f y 3. . ' . ' - N' connected to equipnent which must perform a safety functon
. , ' .g ! .
- i ,
. s . Y, . " . ',* . y ,
subsequent to accidert events.
,,g. .. . 4
- z. .
,.,..,'[.*. J,,,.- ~. 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:. ,.**',J C ; e and acetracy must be met during environmental quali$ cation. Cat 4e
;, t . ., ,' .
*/ . +,4
.s ' .g g
- yg , 's. . %. of other cokri or cok r schemes must remain inta:t (e.g. no
. ' j f *eey/.y i ,7 % .1 e * .. , shorting to ground). However, all Class IE cables as deAned by the c*.s,'.
. * *,,. . e.tc.,.
,,o ,,',r.,..,. * .N .. .j.** . -i .
Speciacatka must be emironrentally quali6ed.
-*.s,g'.
, e, .g ,. s , g *
, 6 g .,f
. j 4 + ' ' * ,* ' i Chuck will fwwstd a cwy of the UEAC separation dxument which
,..... .j. . ., . ,' . , f[li'".,,p deanes these cokt schemes so that 18 may be ircluded in the EQFs.
, , . . . .' ,9. a./.. .. ,. . .I . ,, ,.'
. 4 n *
- .r.,1 1_, ,G .'
NKW4m
. ";a *'
- i. . .. q., W' 5 f.,, , , ,,, $ ,g ., v . , ' - * *! <
*. .. . . . ~
' * .. .6
.- . 1: .
,, 4 3$4
, .s..e...!*, '..% ,
o"?,e
. 4
,9 f .o c' e . e , ' y - *e.. - .
. . 'N,1 *
,'f, ig
* ,g, f g 1 .
. , ,3 e j,w *'-,- . ~ ,.w ...- . ,. -..g. ,, , . , . .e-. . .,g . o y , ,. .g -
" . . . y .
,, j
' ' ~ +
,. 4g ,,g ,, . p %, ~.9 *,
- j . 9.
,s. s - .
V, , , 7 *, f 4 . 8
. -* < . < t c s., o. * ;. . . . , ,.-
..f '**
. g ,,, t .6 . .
y.
- s. ,.
.g
' t .;
, . g 4
a' . I ,. , , .-
- g
- g ,
, y # -
, .t ,
.. g6 2 .h.,_
s __ , _ ' e
- t
. , . ..r.
..; . ~ .c .
u.
~
, , g
.l
?.
.., . . .\. .
t'* *
- 4
}..: , .;, { 9 4 ' '[$ , . - . . "
.: Atomic Safety . .
and Licensing
. . . .. t
,?; , " ; e.. 2 ,.' i .1
. . . . . Boards issuances q
a - 2 . .- . A.- .- ~ 4.1 * . . '.8 t ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL
. .. i. .,. )
'T . *
, c -
g
- , . . . . ' 'i~ ,
- 8. Past Cotter,
- Chairman
**. .. 'l.
Robert M. Lato, 'Vice Chairman (Enocut' vel e
. < \
.- - Fredenck J. 5 hon, *Vice Charman (Tochnical)
, :. - ". . . .j
*i
'f.*
Members
. r-
- i. .
.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'
.. ., -4 s 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
,, a *
- Dr. OecN H. Pers'
, 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
* ~
- j Severent Wenner John H Fryg 141' Ovetevs A. Liner $erger*
a*#* . j Jemme P. Gheeson Sheador J. Wcde'
~
* .)
g g .
% g g
.g
.g .
e
. ,. .'* .' J
. e
- 4 .
0
. *Parmenent panelmembers
. \
f i D,. 's M s** h Me u wl' "w,, *. ' g sh M /.d*"4
- t.4,4 o .",g '% a .a,
} f.4% i d'r, bs '.'.db' N y &g( ef V t w
tp C e q/ .# k **.%. M. O-a w8M'
,.-< . ' . N*j &v e n'. p. o(EbtAbh y,:.e:
- 5&$4QR*y u , A. g.We*s . ,
;r !&&
VDPMQ&
&$&&.f.N.dkb Vs .:.
nf*5&$.%*.1is5 <
- h. ?L W Y 'O W, W i? %
rt.c.%h& d . .&'sM.*W .s
;=-4 .
h5'o*. ?.? *sf *$ * :" .:$ *@?> _
- f ?,;
, % b * *'+1.? 4 .M,,, s". J*,,
3 A.. a -4:a% av Yd *W r } . ,%, =*$', * *5 ~ s h. W .? ,Ue,)p)*zw(y 'es '; : d.>b'*5e. 4 h~s. n' "w W m. .sf 4.p?*,);c n a,e;. r % 4.m,w
.e*
-t'*Y.N*.*fa,*& %F4sw ,. , l.p. . .h *'t r;q,,. . W' v.{w"+ .
C D y.s'.d$pn:,.yd,p,$7k. +1.YNAI.d.;
.. w *.. a m?4 lW* r=
.dh ,p%, h,bs.m*.h**ak
? Sj ' *.,
e e' ; a.. .:+e,~ p s.. , . ,.i..ss *..L rn',Y? e<g.A *hW -/.i..g,g. I.g .+;9f, 4
~, . N . .s f.. .y R.5c.
W .e.? b.,.y. /. * *? A e,M,,3 %y.cy +b . .s '* . u.h.* .m9:a *
.;.i .
. %q;,5.e *a*v,,6. v - m. . j w ne 4,.n.4 ..m.
*: . . . o p ^ (,'*..s t:L.
e %*,e.. m. .
* . w e '.
*$.{,.Q.*'i *g
.g a ,.w
.. - y o; . . e l..m;.
e-'M 8 ,. v 9}r ,.~ sc~Q'. :.
* *We 9
%. ...).
'\].n dt. . k,ts -,
gma .e.$ .,x.N E,t ,%s.* *%, 1
. c. .v.4. .:*I, e%.*..,.,v... . ., . M'4 ..-. ."e ,, *.'
h.gty f ?* ,
>,'sf,.
.?"f;j. 1'?' .v '.*.<.5, y4.*Y .**
W. , yes( J'y s;.p " ? + ye? '. *([y e.: w a
)/y,1.;;, Y;M;.1;y
\
, ? , , f. T 4. .,' ' Stt.f- el 7,.i,N
- W,,!* f.Ar e . * .*
* 's t :.
s h e **'l*q'y,
& . z:.'a(%.',d*% .Q&
- t .%:t,3 r p ,p s--,... n f in a w % @. g % ;
4 e. # - . g . OCgw w re . 1
,3.. ~A, . Q.% e<xi. . ej -
e* p . . u ;.+ p v e, - . w~. m. . w;:,'.y.n.; . ' %~
- i;P. . . 9 . .m,,y%.n :9.J:
>y.?
o,
*k c. 7 :s s%. mn g g \,:,?,.,th...
es a a
. :..i 4
. b .;?g ,'SW;h.p.,w.M.s .w. . 3w.
. ;1.l
, 4s wvT Q.ald. g,, m. sv.qlr- ,c.
~a w ' .w, .m. ;~
. m. . . . .; ..e.~ .. ,..:: m.
.n .y . .. ~ . s. ..
. .s pe.. . .+ w . <M .+. . .~.,s,v y.. . .
b.a. .&. .
- ),.'% @W;YU.* 0. Q.a & '
.? ?. 4,' 3.. : r.,h*.v.D k n n.U y.:3.~r q &
- e. , - ~
o... . . - qs .e-
+
- v. .
~
. .n#n4 r .v .c -
$' ]t. vy W % . 's'u.:. .h '. y. . gs.7,go : 4'.c >rl;f:. ?;.V, .%:. nJ
*%,. .c z. : *M.
3 .' $
.,,:.'.', d. &e,t.i
- q .; . r? 1'G ip*?;+U. ,,
'n
..,.s,
- 9. o. Y.r %. n %.! w..A.,_'.,g. %- .
.v. e . fl , ,, , U.' ,';O.%.. -
., M.
, , s.,w v g -.e>#. ,*
.,,4 m. ;. ,.M.,.,
- s. ,2,., u
.. .w. . +.,. m.
*t. ,.. s .r 3.. p., s., p 4 m;. 3
( ,., .y,4 e *JBg.: v\ M ,. ; 8% 4 . ) *b s. . - a-J e. , .s , g.,%. * .T e e .,f, IJS 'p,
- 9
%.f? v . , :s s ' p. ~ . m-N s
$m$. .- u .nW y &. w&er .
*7,v.. h(4 '4,t'-Y.;,*f,;*.%;,...h,y.
a > j g , q * ,, + .. w 'q
,iif' *J *
~,,,..a
., , , Y.*;
- s. . , .'
- i. [*[' a
- g f.I l '[, * .5 .,,\ * -
', *e' gh<e,* '.e% ., f ;4.<% .,,
= . , ,g ee, g e-1 f.** t dd'-,s s, . 3,
- e 4 . s Q, #
. g , '" . **, se,j , , h'r 4,. a g*'. j,p$[
,
- 4
.,r, e 1 pf y . g' .
e 4, < t* ,- y ,,; ;)p?.s .; ,m .P l..t*. LYem. ' * ,c.;; .; ' . . le o+ - . 9 4. .
- w. .
p,.
; . e ct . . ..,, /. c<:'.p
., 4.* f . 3 **'(. ? ' '. , ' h.,<.,,,%, $ 40, . .I.Y. , ,; 4 ..8. 'A..
- . c. .
.'. V, e,~. ..'s ,8 a s . , . . : * *-
h --) ,k , . > qh
.b.',,",/.* ,, '.v: si.*): * <
. . . - , , / ,, .
.,' .; ' . < < ,Jp *e , , ;;N~ r ., . W g. . ., .:- f.+.%, ,.y
- n. . .
bs
. v .:;7. . . '(*, *w*.d y po
' . . g . .. N,. , e y i . .- .
./* , g e. . .s, e. ,
~
-l.fc ,, .T'a ,$.4 * .
.. ,. olpf.qm .cy.,,....,,'
h1 . ,
\
,..y <
w ., , ..~'.,y ' ..* ...ww* * . z;;-
, O. Y.a * ,. V
' u; . , . .
]' #.~T *'* 7'["**#***" * *[*7 *
- h K e' , ** *1: p, F.**** 7/- * * -*.=,
, y*y ,7 $$ q-.-
; U.([. . [ e. f *. . ,ee, , g 3 ',' ' !. n. * ' ..- + y V.
.. .I ' +' ' v ~ .. s. O' 6' *
. . * '. g w~ ~ '. '..."
. . .. .c..
e,
.e^'.,,'/*I' 'I -
8 i S .~ is 3 , " * - . e. * ,a ese5
- M? % s %,5 1 l TV' P.Q
.'sy, .@:ss', -,'.1:ps (' ' P J
.s-
, Q 7P.",C
.. s
+ ". .,._; ;3.M. . . :
,f'
.g'. .. a
,,- x
- ',,'.,,,f.., c . s 3 * .
l z { #, Z \ , ' j '. l r , . , ; *%':, m ,
..,.3 ,',,y t$
. g;., - -
.9 *
. 's. v . ' qi s' **;.. ., <,. *,.
L-
] *; 9 Rg.\y, y'
c,
..8.
g y" 3
*1 ,
s
.,,y..-.. C('; ,,
,.e..
. g,
.A .s . c, 4+. , , ,,
' +
- s. .
.,Q . . ;, '.'.s-
#'; g . . S, - i . ' ,
. j.g t /,
S d' ..r,
.{. ,
,E_ M. '.,.. .. 4 ' ., ,/ ' N.I
- N , ; /M @J,7,' . + - ' O.,L)'.
(' '
't
' J..~.
s , , . .' . s.. 13 % .e .j: Yi kr. ' ; . . a *. 7 E. l / %,,,'
- .7. sh f. . -
.4#a'
$ s '~ . A ,4 4 + *
*,.ti - #"
.s,,;., e .'. I .'9.c. . > y s <*
- P* -
. ; v g)' .v e .,y f f~A-/.'
n '.,- *s * , p. j
'- . * ;f
,n . , . q M.
.4 . J.g* '
.y.,.
g . ge.*,t,.'
- p.y
. * } . f. , - l./;G
*' 3',*. **.Y.Y, .
.s . , .
,s _= . ' . * ?u .s . .
. ;* . t ?*
,5
' ' . , Q' . % .wR a__
.a a
, . , 9, n,..
5 - i - -- - y
- y. ., g,
.: . .. - g-p , k u ,pc . ,sn. 3 . : f. ; .;,.- .-
....,e.,. : ,r e.
.mr
* .. .. - . . . e, y ]
,e
... i ., .. ,r., .t. . ,
- k,. , ..r . .t n. : r .c, u, e . .,, y
..., 7 -.
.f.. - ;- -
... .* v ,.
3.,.
..r. *,
..J a; .,
s,.y&
, N, %; ?.;';'.; ,' T ' ' ' , ' . ;, '
. , . . ,, , cy
- w. . .
<- . .. . ';;i. . w:_ ;* , %
. u..
'r'<'.--
~ ~ ~ ' " '
~
..L ' ,< ~
- - ,,,e
.s ,. ..
,. t y ..q- s .
.. q . ~..s ., .
- c. . ,-
r ,- ~A. , : ", .: ,
, . 7.. .
n,; .. . ,,
. , . ., 4
., ' ?.. n, . .,,,, , . . /. , : . .? ,,.
wjt.
/ ..'j 2 ..
.>.;% 4 n . ,.;. ,. . ,
f.
' n o.., .j., A. 9~e, , 7. . ; . . .. -y. . :. , ..,
t,, gB p,,,,, Cite as 27 NRC 355 (1983) Q- e ,, . 4 ','%y y; ;,+. (g' fu. u.- 4 g;. .i.'.-. 6, 9 U. J . ..,. >!.lO
.e..
.. .. p .?.t
- .c/..s..,
M..L.3 *'. ,,. , UN!TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .*,e.- . ..,g,., v. .-r.s ,. t, . e' .
. .nb. . ' ' -
t;V.gig s =, %WC n .HB,0 .s--p .. i'
~ ' . -
~,. a v,.7. ,' ; , '.s
;' .? ,'.a. , ?..c.{ P.U,&
3, .
= r ;; .,. . 3 ... ?
y;
..a *
.J
- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.e
&~..@ 6.:.. ., .A. . y 7. O. V. , ., /1. , *
- s. . .(.......m..c .
nu.,.,. . ...4.*.. 3. fore Administrathre Judges:
. . .m. , s.
*..*F..r..**'.r.> +:.' . :
- 1
. 4M. rR. u ir* i% Idf,y[
Y N, h';nl.3,G n M*A-
. eq q ?d. I .hk9 [*N' !.1 g . ws.. -
James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline 6; .,'.g -: .1. a ( + , su.e . ..~.g.;r., , si . . ,v. . 5,,*. *g.
' . ..1, .
Frederick J. Shon
. *cy .. *. s;; ; S, .:.,;; -' : ;,y, .; ,a,) ;
.*.h
~s .~. ., :
,7
. ' y, {_[y.*
-;. -c.,, w .% ' .J', '. J .M ..
-J ..., . .. in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322 0L 3
;* 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) APfll 8.1988
- 3. .
1,
..e ; ,.
C.We ,
' ' e f . , 3. ' . 5
.) 4 Ir. this Memorandum the IJcensing Board provides its written opinion and amplineation of previous orders denying Applicant's motions for summary
' s _ .c -
.t- . -
'] disposition and providing guidance on NRC's new mie concerning a utility
," ,, 4 , g 2 1, t ernergency response plan (10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(c)(1)).
. , .;. p . . . -
, 'a...w
' ' 'j, .. ,9,, -; ' 7 s' ?, ' , , a ,
.,p .
RULES OF PRACTICE: COMMISSION GUIDANCE y " g. g 1 ta e e q
..*.',:e. . .. .',.:
In new mie (10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c)(1)), the Commission not only incorporates doctrine that noncooperating governments will provide their best efforts in
. % } ,.* . 4.. ,' .
. j a '$ : . responding to a radiologie 1 emergency but amplined and clari6ed doctrine 1., *e.
., s. '
. .c.
enumcrated in a related decisfor,(CLI 8613,24 NRC 22 (1986)). g ... .. -
. , . I.
. g c ....,. c 4 .
w.4 v< cc .- , ;. -
. . ..,.. >~ p . . .
, . .. .e . - .^
6
, < s ;, - M
.. , . . . . .c . ,.
, r. . . .
,s.
e
- g. .
.. 355 e
.4
.e
%, ..q.
.u. .
. \
. e. %- q f
g , s t P e e
- b g. . ,
e 3
.. , 9 I
3' -
. .. . 4
# g y. * ,,.
., 5 -
'- i a,
, .i...*
. ,' .c *
, e s
,, ., 6- ,
, ' .s
;s- *'p -
, ' , . 4 . ',? . e.. ,..r,s a, 4 , ' -
.g. y ., . a
, ,;
- w ,,.
(, ,
,y
, e .' .6, U O
' '/. .,f, ,6-7' ,. ,. ,.
.,~.,.'s...l':...'.'J_d',. \ , *. ; * . .. - '.
. . ,1 ,
. .d . . . . . . c. - , (. *--
y,>. -
.,.... . , <)
t'
-3' .- .
- .: )'
.~.. .
r ~:e *; 4 ,. 7
,'i, .
h . , . . 7' d. .
.,..e:-*,,..
.. i .
c,- - m . ,
,- l RULES OF PRACTICE: COMMISSION GUIDANCE 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 f...,.v :r j' J and Regulations.
;."L. , ; , " .
, , , . . -.. ;. , .'.,,' '.=, ,,
..m..". :
" f ,, **'
i
',5 +, f+..J.. /,. v ., ', f. .
* * ??*-
- t RULES OF PRACTICE: REGULATORY ASSUMITION
~ * '
The new rule places a respcnsibility on state and local governments to
, . .. .. ..q f ,' .',{,*y ' T ,[;.J.((a:
. 1 *(! ,y produce, in good faith, some adequate and feasible response plan that will be
[*',, ,.-i * ;e.91er. . j .y. ., ' ' f.h;f.j
,V' re!!ed on in the event of an emergency or it can be assumed that a utility's plan e>% will be utilized by Intervenors.
, .. ? t s .. .* . *.:. . s as r . *; 1
.. . . . .c v. % . . ~ 15.4
. . .? .?
. u .7 ~;" ;'> . ,..? ^ M. . i EMERGENCY PLANS: INTERPRETATION
;h 9.'Q ? $, 6 r/$ 9;;'.$ . , The absence of state and local governments' pasticipation in emergency w.g, .9ie'# L #Y 4, 0[
~
.,. , /., . . .
* .. planning cannot be viewed as an absolute impediment to licensing a substantially c;. 7: .
,. s
-l .*
,, . , . , ' , . , ,.l.,; . .' [k.1 completed nuclear plant as that would result in a de fure veto power in the t wis
'j~p].*.ic. , v.p.-3 of local officials over the operation of nuclear electric facilities.
, .:yg
. u
,1.,
.p ;. c . . .- ._ 4.,
...,' .w, .y
.' . . T.,. -
,'. wn y
.< RULES OF PRACTICE: UTILITY EMERGENCY PLANNING
,. . , :., e . W . ,- .
The fundamental purpose of the new rule is to provide criteria for evalu.
~
.. e ating utility prepared emergency plans in cases where, in fact, state and local fg '
,. . y',; 7 governmenu do not participate in such planning.
j,. . x
. . y..
Ja
.'4 I RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERPRETATION
, . ,'. '%';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
, 4. , . , ,. t arbitrarily decide that such governments need not respond to any plan or at all.
., , , .c . . . ' , <
,y- ., .:
' ' ' , , f. ,p,,'
RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERPRETATION
.. ,7 . ; m
,'i** .* ?
)
3
. . a,' / ,.'. '
There is no cordict betwen Appendix E and the new rule since the new rule's provisions are interpreted as applying to both 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a) and
- s. D ,, ..
. Part 50, Appendix E.
. v ..,
y y r, 1 e, . .
*.$...P *,s.
.s.
, * ,h' *' .
6 I 4 \.
. t '.' , -J '
j '. ,
- i. ,--
4 .. t 356
.2 2%
s
. \
g . g g
% B l
I f
,* , 's '
9 'el . ,
, '+ , .- . , - . ~ -
, c. . ,, ..m
' {, f.,* . g .,a
; .' .,5 a - -< . ] W -Os j,
. , ; , ;. . g. ~,
.t<
.v
'- * * - . .,.. ~ .,
~ . . . . . .
- m. u . . .,..;;...
- '.o .
'. n.~...o
~
v.- Yi. '
. j
. j q_.M e a I -
a .,. .
.I* RULES OF PRACTICE: REGULA* TORY ASSUMPTION
. . +:;. ~'
'~
,, , .,2 Commission guidance makes clear that nonparticipating governments are not
,f' ,, . . .
expected to specify in complex detail responsive measures that will be provided
):,,)..;Y i - .'4".. in an emerEency. However, unless such a plan is produced and evaluated for
- ,..,,.. ..~ adequacy, it will be assumed tt.at the utility's plan will be utilized.
,,, , . .. . . , ; ? :. .... .
.. 4 - .- 9
... 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
(, ... ." ~ . .*.. ! .'.'y
- w . .
~
and Guidance to Parties on New Rule 10 C.F.R.150.47(c)(1))
.- ...\
. .i- 9 . . .. q3 . . n. . , 3
- , . , . "# l '
. . q , '- .. ,.;, . . The Board herein furnishes its written opinion and amplines its Conannatory
.- Memorandum and Order denying nadons Sled by the Applicant (LILCO) for
% , ' ' b; . 1
.C t 'r:
. :I summary disposiden of Contentions 1,2,4,5,6,7,8, and 10. 'Ihe Con 6rmatory
. e'. Order was issued on February 29, 1988. Two LII.CO summary disposidon
" 2,' *,
- - ', "'. modons Sled the same date, as those referred to here, December 18,1987, have
, 4
..';G .[ ' j,. ;./O '
i been considered in separate rulings.1 y .g The basis supporting the modons for summary disposidon of the legal au.
- 7. / q thority contendons is the best-efforts assumption embodied in the Commission's
,6 .
- new rule,10 C.F.R. I 50.47(cXI). That reguladon provides that where an app 11-
.<J i.jg cant for a nuclear utility operadng license initiates its own emergency plan as a
.(. 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 y#..y related developmenu of a court decision, licensing board rulings and orders, an
'j
;' - a -
appeal board decision, a Commission remand, and regulatory changes. Since e x' i- ; this Memorandam provides additional guidance to the parties on the Board's s
. ' 'c t. ' ' , . , i;
'i' ;} lsee sonrd ordas of bei s. Its: (ear =W), as taco's summary Dupeacen he or Corsemens l-s ,
A i-
- , - - ' 10 vuh Repect to 10 CJ'A 9 50.47(<XIXi) and Oo, and Manh It t w'(upubhahed), en sununary Dwpesanen han cd C- 1. 2. and 9 -Isammesnalsy.
a i; 4} j' .8 , ,.
/~ 4 '
s 357 d
\
e'
. .' f
# ^
ih m,b:h Y 9k Q Wy%& &qqQ@ wnw z;; w S M :6
.w.k
- m. u. h.f % n.h fh b N N
., .. . 4 vn ' ;s.d .a a., &.S..r,a.4,J m.,;u.%p ..Mly m..
b.m...p; y.-(w.:y..,. . v. .n @. g. m g.
.e m.
. . . .n. . ,,,a,_ s4 ug. gy,.w ,s.g
.. . 3. n.
- 'aNM.U.N!V.M.5.$'$m..s:,g.
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.",~ v.;/ der .d,'M@ y %q ,
.',2d' y f#.%q@!'.%9%{@@,fp f disposition modons, we set forth, preliminarily, in an abbreviated account, the evolution of the legal authority and realism issues.*
@ d.l. M M M Tbn contendons were filed originally by Suffolk County (Intervenors) chal- ;
.hh lenging the legal authority of LILCO to cany out certain emergency planning f '/l,N *p WW Q;?
le%k:IMf[J.h f a' ' "Q. ,, (,D,1 Wi,4 M ',?..7@gMQi,f . . ;
.,Y
[M 6!/ functions.8 In the first motion for summary judgment of these contendons (Au. gust 1985), LILCO argued their approval on grounds, later alla, that in a real eme gency, the State and County wuld respond (realism theory). In a declara.
. 'l l .T. .'t. C / tor) action fded by the combined Intervenor Governments (New York State,
'd.h YE Q v , D M @. & l?
* * *l..;,'e,"'
q;>:3 ,y S..M Jf
h+.,$ Suffolk County, and Town of Southampton), the New York State Supreme Court of Suffolk County on February 20,1985, ruled that LILCO did not possess le-
- i. ? .'. gal authority to carry oct its proposed emergency plan functions. In a Partial
, y' ;Q,;$. A,J.j{f.%qS i.., . 'W 3 ;.h*. l gb Initial Decision, LBP.8512,21 NRC 644 (1985), the Licensing Board rejected
. ut ;' 33 9;lgg"y.h,$ LILCO's realism argument on grounds, inter alla, that any govcrnmental re.
'r, 2 h(.f *N @ N, . M.$NN[.YM sponse would be uncooperative, uncoordmated, and ad hoc, the opposite of
.gy: 5A'; .T[*'.,;
@ what is conternplated in an adequate emergency plan under the regulations. After fS ~< an Appeal Board affirmance of the Licensing Board decision, the Commission
' .' .4'ri,.hWQ ly fqM$g "W,d/ '
reversed and remanded the "realism" issue. The Commission accepted LIL(?O's M. ;ealism argument and indicated that flexibility was called for in considering a f.h, .l.%['J,Q'$1gNfJ '
., .', utility einergency plan and that since State ed local governments would be
' ) .TlN.Q. 7 f.c f'.y..'W*g. /P..'61r((;
,j
- h. U.
n qcg@g L
;,. 7 obligated to assist in an emergency at (N Shoreham is:llity, a "best efforts" response by the Governments utilizing '.ne LILCO plan could be assumed. The Commission stated, however, that it v,ould not assume that such a "best. efforts"
'.l,. .. ~... M. m.'. hnA '<
. 9 m i ;p .j,a.9 government response would be adequate. The Licensing Board was directed
' , G 1. E . . [ ;'. " ' Jp to recera!m the matter in Ifght of the Commission decision, taking additional 3:g* ' y;? :. . yJ., *. ; t , yll [.e,,- .
evidence where necessary to augment the existing evidentiary record. See CLI. 1. ( ops c. g .p .a .F. , . 86-13,24 NRC 22 (1986), * '
~ , . . c .-n i
,.,s
. ; ?."'S...,- ,'; .1/ $ '
The Licensing Board, in again rejecting new summary disposition modons O
.'.y*,;.f*.b~K..j,w,l,f'.*if.g'."'-l';;
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
.J "
. . : 3 ' . :'. i ,, .
mees regulatory requiremenu. LILCO's second summary disposidon motion was E '
;., sj [t. .:
*[.u(,,f.t Q' i ,
denied on grounds of an alleged lack of familiarity by State and local government l
,.**+
' , ' , ' . ; . '* 'u**yp ".r. e ,; L*c dN. ,
. sm o,,e %,,i e,eh , ,w ,e e in.co , e,eh , . .p es, ei.,.,e, a u pte,,, ,nd u u
.>*; , ,1; ,. l$ '.;A . .6 '.
,.a */
"realmse* no in.CO's dadense that, in an ensrymney, mais and local oflaats we.ld r.=r-d
, 3 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
.. o*j%F
,,, s1 ;y,. ,,.w[.4rl
.i ,
- r Ceessansa 1. dusseng traf6c; Caessenen 2, leaf 5e caseret unchadmg bloc 4mg sondesys. Cmemuum 4, surnorms a
- a. ^ .
,. stenruceans firme pr. Mas roadways; Cse=aum s, aestmg mress and tenhasurs f.Bs iness.ge; Cmeasuxm 6, j
./ .
t
*y.
- i w '
resmusmandesaans and densens en pomereve einums; Caseman 7. sectereneidenere and demmons cm cas.s=
,v< ,' esecews patheer Ccsemexa s, res nsndatners and deemsms ce recogry sad suurety, etel - 10,
.' y , .'. .*'f. ,W eseems esseret of f/Z penmeer i l
7 33 .
- n. v.
g.- . , f ,f/
,,s.' , : ',6 jc} ( 33g
'( y ., . - . . ,, . .
e*'., y;j
' t c j ' p, a,-, ,
-.~ .* ,; , d g, 4' a
*(} d i,
. . h * ,' ?
> l:.n o , . ', l 7
,. . ; , { '
,s
, *h7 's e r ' - ,' .:-t--~ ~ ~;r v. ~ ~~ ~ . -
n, ,*
,.,H,:p ;.
r, . - .
,e,.,j
> .' , ,n ' /.;' . . ., < ,
s ,. - r
.r'y , . ,
ri ;
,,I,, .', t. .i .- ks %';I
< j . \
.%7,irg
'b " ,.
*mP,*
g' I
-, . ' . ,'W,- ,p
,f '
s
" , Q -'8 y. , ' ,A', . - ,, ,
8
,,= "
, 9 g 2, g , * **' , , , . . .
. . . I*. *r}
- .k [ g.#
' ." ., g i
. _ _ u - . _-
,.j... .,. , y O
+ . ' u, .
, 7.~.g n.
sg, . .,. . y ; c j
.~,.'.,
y,. , - ,. . .
" ~ '
.~.). w.c : . 3
- a. _ - . . . . . . . ... - s e
q g.~
. .' v. ',
i p., j ( . ' ..
~' '
'v ' ' personnel with the emergency plan, a lack of legal authority in LILCO to carry
.' . /l x ., , , . -
,, g.
.}$ ,: . ',.4 .f
( , out the contested emergency funcdons, and a void in the record of what the Governments' response would be in an emerge. icy. The Board did find on the ,
',J.,"; - <" ', ,1 7 N,' 3' & ' ;- } " .-n .
basis of uncontested alkgations of fact that the Governments possessed the , ,) physkal capability to respond, in the areas being contested, in the event of an
' ' fe . "- ;, , , .' ,f.~
5:,. ..'e,.., emergency. See Board Memorandum and Order, September 17,1987, LBP 87
, y l 'f 'Yo.',9. i '.*" ,-;N C ;..'
<" -i.
26,26 NRC 201,225. S I D* .' '.'.,.1,$ . B '- [ ," '. , 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
. E . . . ,'
N- (whkh later became $ 50.47(c)(1)) stadng that the proposed nile was different , 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
~
. f. .! not implement LILCO's plan, would not respond in an emergency in concert 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 indicated that it was not ruling at that time on which party carned the burden ig - [,/,J.5 ' N,;* 5 < of proof on the question of the adequacy of the Governmenu' response. Board 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 r >
and where the applicant has made a sustained, good faith effort to achieve
- 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
," be relied on in an emergency.
l 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
. unpublished Board Memoranda and Orders to the Parties on October 8, Novem-2,
, /
359
. \
[ t a 9 , A
hy N. N ;[ W i%r. N ac.3 <4 A an AJ r n k.p. p:.' m .W d.v
.Q.
.p- m. ~
h w. y. H.p?*dW.,w.%p,,m;M. h.y
.gSM..m.f 6-
.c4: .m u >2 a % ApS v. 4. ll9. atw s.4-ff%4 s wu %v. #. .a.n .w;,1,
! m ,<
tr%s
@d 1,E N"M,MAi?'f4 %,I w ber 9, and December 23,1987. In the interim, LILCO fded yet another round h DM.h.Ddf M of summary disposition motions on the remaining legal authority or realism f.Dh)p5DMy.
y:8.Y W/ 6' hibefh,0 Q &_ bas. The Board has communicated, through a telephone conference on February 25,1988, our decision denying LILCO's motions, and the foundation
- h. %
p g ?g ' g
.$p .?
[ N (!$' h @;$ k 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 QpP jMd Dew ride for purposes of amplifying previous guidance to the parties on the
,% D:
n 0#'43 :::. 9p2%g:hXtijpQ;,.o re.naining realism contentions. G - h . pM ; , W. .s
.W .::. %. ;h.3p.;9* . 4. wm h. m m 4 1 ,p .
v T
%.KR',y yge ..y tN.k , n. ' n,;
c r. Q . . o ic .W
. ' +M,'%@m:W 6. 5 H. GUIDANCE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW RULE
=
stis'}g.,WJ g - ...J/ In a Memorandum issued on October 8,1987, the Licensing Board r=="ad. 2 M,J.'.[7;.M.i,
",i N y*. 3,@,A.,k %['9 'hWc. ~ p .N4 as indicated above, the parties'specificatian of the issues and questions to be M MS,N;)k $
NS$Q$ N *.N,W, Q N M.{y addressed under the Commission "realism" remand of CLI 8613. The parties also addressed, pursuant to a Board Order of November 9,1987, the effects of J <? W the new rule on the Commission's remand. The parties also filed responses to f4Md, PUN'NMMfDMf,TZl a Board M'? request cN 8Q%g./, of Dumbs 23, which sought *,p.y their interpretatjon of the wrd
!*4 "may" in the phrase "may be presumed" as used in 10 C.F.R.150.47(cXIXili) h dh
]M M .$. W /. k !?( @b h @%
.5 M,Uk.M;MQZ;d.g
%w as well as the rule's applicability to Appendix E of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
Section 50.47(cXI) reads as follows: \u M.7 %.m. P M.;Icc wW .w'.;PryggS,g.K ; M 49. y d 'mayn.y (cX1) Faaure to mest the applicable andHs a fore in peregraph (b) of this seah c q.3 F,. ;- rema in the commluien den, to inus an opmaba bconut how.wr, the applicam d je,g s d d hm an owomumy to demonstime to es satisfacch d tam "-H eat desciac=e a e 19$ys:5.@,%y%'g.s:c*C yM
,N.p$.'c .;M Yif %j, f, in ll= plans m na signi8 cent for -he plant in quenh, that adequaw intwkn cwpeuting
. y. .
; ..,t.p gy r. : y. 7. . #Ed adiens how been or d be Man pmnptly, or that eers are caher e=-.a.nN reasons to
- p7 y >j;-i. r< g;jcgg".hy.g, , g;.g. rq p.p%3G
- permit plant operences Where an appbcasa for as cperating license amets that its hability to
; a.,nn,w.ste compliance wie se requiruneen of paragraph (b) d this omairsi ruults whouy
; p di;ig7i m M57 4;., V @W 'M,M*2,'. ;,*S.ed fdg or absursiany froen the decision d siew and/cr local sowenmeras not to patiemme fureer i
- b ernerrecy plannh g, an operetag licenne m1y be issued if the appbeata demcastraaes to
" b; g el f'"?. M.;[M l- p"' h @ M the (1) Canminion's satisfaction that: i M I M., g WR
- e Q'!? y s'p*( . * ',W> '9.W!y d.j *[f ;N,;/.
; the appbcara's dljty to ccanply wish the requiremeras of paragraph (b)is =boOy or submanniany the ruuh of the ac=+ 2.r.w. of name and/or local sowrnmaras
.d .er? W .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,$
*> . p. V/ ' "r e W'. pww w me penin=s n=e andhe local se .. --! =eariike, includies **
".[',,.,', , '.2<3;M(y
. j' $;h.Fj'h@j'M,0
. .iN'v',p' furnishing d copies d its amergerry pist.
'-f,a GiQ De aplicant's emergmcy plan provides tsamonable assurance that public bashb 12,,' %"g ,f . k.y*M.N..K;i.f/C.G r, Q, , and safeey is not endangered by operstaca of the facility concerned. To make that $nding, 1
; 4<7,J:Q'h
, y . ,, r.a t 6e applices must desnonars.4 that, as outhnad below, adequese proneain ineneuru can
% g?,@8, rgl,%g'W and d be a== in me evers of an weersency. A isility plan d be enkased esaina ilm 1
l
* ~ O'$,.U;f f y7,&.iL'lf;a y. s.7. , J.*Rsb;Q;)f;,')'.j.Q'7'&.
\
Q f.7 lk; My%.k - a ie mp= 8413 Ramand (Raspeses), to g' r .d tr as one. So, itet, e.s.nus vw c -a2
,q'9 3. ,s?f.f .Y a .W ..f, a
-9 roe.wd as Ne=eder 17,1997, en th, new ruls '"
Bnds), ne supiass cm enhar peruss' shnes as Neveraber 27 and 30 (Raphas) and to Dnsis d Jessary,,13, Itts,
-M i.
, $,', lf c.'3 a , y ar.,
[; '.p @, ' p .' %
,$" 7.,.
emmeermans ' , m d de wad nisy" and apphselmhry d Appenha E is the new rule (Bnata). ,
. ; < #.r. * \s. r, ,* ,
6 ' '+r. - . ,..q*,
. t
, . ++ ' y n
, f*,, c. -. a ;< 9 '*, ',
g ., . a h ,' ,* '. f [
- 6
.,.l<s,*.
( q!l n
+ -
' - 360 4
, g: -,; n (.3
[ , ,1,f f :y ~, +.~. ,.. ., ' sj . l
.. . Ms'; r e.J.;' ,f:; Qy )
, '. Al .,.b;, A ..,p. p \ }
- a. <
,.,,k.e~ ,
8 r, ) '. ' ., y , . ,.f 3 '
- k. ' .,..M,,.,
.g j.
. ' 1/ *, * ' '
*< [
*s. ,
, c ,., seg , np .,. . + , .
**...r
' .*. , s,
- t *
. , .-il.-* -J. e c .,
8 t 1
, , ' , ' , , , j i , . 8[ *. , . ',, ', ,'
., .# + *
.~.l r *, ? ,
' ' , . . .t.' . ' [,'M/ ' i-h b .~ ,' . ; *
' , g', ,a, ,
', .s. e ', i ,, M.7 4, . . h. .", V.D . 3. ' # . .k*
. . 8 t
c .. , 3 .- t ' { s *
. i e,,,, ,
, . .! t
* .i * %q. , ,#.yI 7 6 . '
f/. 39 (r e3 , , ' ,**.
- 3 (, ,
.4 ** . .(. , . . , g /.
tp.. - * ', * * * ' . *$. J A'
' f ., ^ ' ' , '
',' :[v h * '.4 .
' ,,%> q * )
. .s.. ? h , (
..'t s
~ ,' ' ',' . ?* 'f, ..
,' . ' .r ; +g < r
,[ ,.,@ , .
,'
- l
.' ' i ,1 . , ' d,2 ?n
,t
, 13 -
_', .,El a -- A------ - ~ - - - ~ - ' ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ' -
.* g*;.. x n .o w. ,e,.),' - =v w
s -
,' ea
- g,'-
. . ., .C.a.9. . :
.v . ,~
a. a- , . ,
). =
-*. ...: '%.:. x,'x
..,r V. .,...
' .. j .
N e, M L .' - ?- + ma' . : '- ~^ y.;;-;.;.%.s. y..
~ . . ... . . . 3. , - : ',. :t n. . ..
.w a.. ,p. m. . ; ., .:
'y .
,wm
,v,it N.J.,.. . . Q. . ,
]. .](p,,,, .x p. ' a%. ".,.7, .., .o. ., _; s- . n. '. .' , e'
. . ...a . . . . a.
^
,,,, g ,, , ,,, ,, 3,,,, g ,, i;,,, g,p,,,,,,g,g)g
%.r'.2 i '. 7 ~/ a[; e 7 c.'lb J.
. ';C s -. i]x.
- 4~ 4 ?
this secom. with due alkmece made both fw (1) those elenseu for which state and/or local aan.partidpauon reu ccepliarce irtfeanbie ed (2) the utility's me4euru duisned I u _p. ' M S., w . ., ' , .. to companum for any oendmeses twohing innn stam more local non.prucipwian. In
;, . .. 't . b .. .'. g .3 . g 2* makins its determinanon on im l adequacy d a nulny plan ethe NRC wiD recognise the
%. .?. ; . , : '.a. J.f'Sg ;7 7
$.f
- y: . [. ?' l .-,. f; .'.fp ,,5c h-; /G , f ,f 4 1
realiry that in en actual emersency, same and local sover=nera dadats wiD eurcia their but effons to protect the heahb and safety of the pblic. 9g, 5 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 ', J;V of y the ta3iry's compenusint meuvres, e a case-by case basis, subjecs to the foUowing
.a -[ . J Qi., ,g $"+ M ' [c .
,,. f,* :.i ' y 4 *. e. /N ' N.. - (
. *0; ,
guidance. In addrening the arcumstance where eg9li cana's inability to comNy with the M *. ' .' D ,k . *. regaarements d parastadt (b)is whoDy or substassinUy the resuk of nonymrtidpatie of e .y.. : (;W(:
,,3 ,,h u ;?..., , Mi' [ y[s, .."? :, < stam adhr local sowrnmeras. it may be pruuned then in the ewis of an acsual r*iasical
< =~ .y /,. a , . . :. . .: ' . , ..,,, .7;. . . ;
morse.cy suas and local d6cials would generaDy foDow the icility piart Ho=ever, this gf-- - . prwampaica may be retnamed by, for eumple. sood feith and umely r offer of aa adequau
%, ' " e, , . x ,. q . e. 5 ;. '
and femible suu andkr local radiological emergency pen thss weeld in fact be relied upo c.
; ,v , , . . ,
- l. 7,' . i' in e radiolosical emergency.
.. ' .. . . 4%. -
. y a
- 4. c.
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 . i . n . .. d.,,".o ., ,. . Papers, the respective views of the parties, and the Board's additional guidance
- m. ; /. "
. /s ,
for consideration in the forthcoming hearing on the remaining issues. r
'g.,,
- . p,,-, , , , c. , n,,,.,
y,. ...s, , ., ". .
- j o . . v s z , .. g,..= .
;; . .'( ,. c . . '. W " (
C . * ,. . . :. - What Effect Does the New Rule Have on the Remand of the Legal l v.' .;.,q.j..,1,.
... . T. N pg-f. v, q , . b", .e . -
- Authority or Realism Issues of the Remaining Contentions?
j
, !; >f; . ' ) i . m.:, .. . - The Amlicant believes that the new rule essentially resolves the issue since l
.5.,;vt.'1.}.4J.,,.>'- ,
the presumption of the rule that Intervenors would follow the LILCO emer- I 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
,l/, '.
- g.' ;..},. ,, j'
, (LBP.87 26, supra) concerning a lack of legal authority and nongovernmental
. 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 a.'-" perform specide acts to protect the public, if it becomes siecessary to do so.
. 5,7 l .,. 4.Q .J /*b e., -'l.y(
According to Intervenors, the new rule essentially has no impact on the
, S. '7 '
> "d j "- l'~ issues involved in existing contentions, and the general scope of CLI 8613 h , . . .
remains as previously identified by the Licensing Board in its September 17,
.k f' J, J~ .
1987 Order. Governments' Brief at 5. The Commission has made clear in fu ( % ; ,, g ; ,l,g f. s ., discussion of the new rule that licensing bourds will judge, on a case.by case
', g' *. l * '. ',), .. .- q
; h l, basis, what form the best efforts of stale and local governments would take,
, .~.
y,.- '
', and the Board in this case has already decided -in ilght of the Governments' 1 2- '. .p .~a denials - that it could not adopt the pesumpdon that the LILCO plan would J s ,j ,. - .;,- - : . ;j be followed. Id. at 7 8.
.s. < .
.- >a ..
. , . ** .,p ,
361 s 2 . >' m. '
. s y W g..
..L ,
. . - \
- ' A E. p g - 4 '
% l - E '
. o * "
- 0 . - * ,
%s
' > - ** .a ,
f
,.8,
.I.-
9 I
*s ,., ,I
.t . , _ , _ _ . - ,- ~ - ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ '
h.h,h l%$;y S.!. V',\:$ - : % li,.h'hN h kN$M.N$.&&*h D kih d?$$ CMyQij ' NM;n'? A$$ENNMM e&l.%d,&'.' ~L';NN. N
,;k w ya &.. m m.Y 7. a,m . . M,,f ? yh2 x;tW S .... m; ,
$p h?W Av.sa.%r-@; Q.".w. m .
.x ~s : I.,OM. .:. .1 NEl.[n' . .l ih;M,by A,Lr..'ve. W."p. i ? ^ M:p ~ ?.
v.m,te d ? p,.' g h ,*.A.ye., g ... W M '."C ne Staff contends that the new rule and funher interpretations of CLI 86 13 remove any doubt that the remand is to focus on the best. efforts government MIkNhh'N,1*[WpnlA6.T.'I.h
~$F implernentation of the LILCO plan and not on an open-ended inquiry into what h,,.D.d;Q Nhhiy' WGr..n5?kh.l the Governments intend to do in an actual emergency. Staff Brief at 4 5. De M. hf/2 Q.M,NNNMi 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, sj@'.6M.
W g w:s, s. 4 0 - w q ... ..;
*~
A +AYI.i M^t.d:WI I 'MW,.:M ,N'
.n a .,e%..:.,::. the LILCOM E plan g, -;4.g*.@,r9 will be followed. Staff Reply at li n.6.
y.j - I*. ,. y + , r. id Sp,M,Nvk*N. <' .W. U. '4.E i.' orDidPermissive WN the Commission Intend the Word "May" to Be Viewed as Mandatory
&'r,Ml u9
'*/lf.d
; .. O., w l .
?
~4
. la the Phrase in the New Rule "It May Be Presumed That
, , . la an . . Emergency, State and Local Of8cials Would GeneraDy T,*.s5. . M' * .
- W'.;' S' , Follow the Utility Plan"? And Was It Intended nat the New Rule h..y,.h/4
'*g,p,4y'$"
y,y ; .N*c. .['.@./ Q.'. g. . ffj ' p' ~l.'.f.- Override Any Con 8kting Requirements in Appendix E Other Than the "Exercise" Requirement SpecI6cally Provided for by the Rule? 4,.w # '
- . . . ~
.T ".*;;" . . . -m.4'. a. De Applicant contends that, in both CLI 8613 and the discussion of g(g,3.f.S;.c; d
.CA.4-Q,@lhM.M W :l @hd^
,3. pa.,.. e . c. ;. ' .,7
. Q~*,'"
.. . $, .*J. .
the new rule, the rationale of using a plan rather than responding ad hoc in an emergency is made clear by the Commission. LILCO Brief at 2 3. De
. .n..%. q.. w5a s .; Commission, in its Snal version of the rule, abandoned language that indicated 3,W. Q<,p..f.+.ym. .g '
. . y.m;;M.%< . , . were
".,*.to be.g.7.M,made on what,,actions N the Governments would take,
. L ,s no assumptions
.. such as following the utility's plan. See SECY 87 257 at 21. Finally, the j7. T ,s;M . N .'k: .<@g @2 4.' W~ * ", "language .. used in the rule makes it evident that it refers to the alternate possibility DJd@.Id D-2.'C.g' ~ ',.1.'! '
~ ?l' for the presumption: that either LILCO's plan will be followed or the plan will
- e. ..: J/7 j .f., Q ,
n .u f% be rebutted by a different plan submitted by the Governments. LILCO Brief at
%.~,a.%... V f M. 9 .'.: -
$.7,
... .w Q:g- e o $ ~;.. ,+
ne Applicant alleges additionally that compilance with the new rule is
.H
' f gj y !*f;;y.Qg. Z 3.J. ; g#7. . . . '* tantamount to compliance with Appendix E. A contrary assumpdon - that an
',','.',? Appendix E requirement could be a roadblock would undermine the regulatory W;w A dQ . y:, sll[s; U....'?.
.e,
,. +.W L <~ *.s. ..,.y 3 structure created by the new rule. Id. at 810.
v, . f. ,,g, _#c,g. :, 1...- u .. b. De Intervencrs contend that the word "may" was intended to be used m.
. t, .
.,: V,b.;MJ, 4 # .' . T - ',# <
Permissively by licensing boards since that is the plain rneaning of the word. It f if. must be recalled, in Intervenors' view, that the Licensing Board in its September
' {.. f'f. *. .W , 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
,,c. 5 ; ., '
a section included in the public comment version that speciacally exempted
- (;.t% 3 .y A ,l ~ -l
!.,. 3 ,' noncompliance with Appendix E. Governments' Brief at 2 6,
, Q . .f. d. ,^ . *g ,j _,:, -lq 9- <
- c. De Staff agrees that the word "may" is intended by the Commission !
, d ,; - to be viewed as a mandatory and not discretionary instruction. De rule in the '
l' f".4 W.,;7, ,,' . ;. 5 Commission's words, "amplines and clari6es" its decision in CLI 8613 where j
, 5 . p . ,.
,~ 0-
- s , , h 9 l
of -q L '; ,sq . 362
- y. ,e . ,- ..
, ' .,. * ' .i t .;
-s s
, ,.ce ,
l. s
'+ *,,w f s I
\
1 , ,
- - - --. w , , _, ,, . .
l 1
. [f
.., 'y. ,
. . , 1 l
, 1
[p- , *
, , .U
,. ..9: . ...
s ,., 4 *
,.,.,..,l
, $ ,' 4' t
, a ;} \. ,
s e-b o , _
,. 4,y.- .. . . , . .p W .A.
s u e .. - .,
, m , , a w *, ..;...<.1, y.w..,.gt,b s s g',T .9 %.6 ,j u -'.
; . ~ . , .g;<.s o ,
f .s ,g.y.c 3 w. f . m j p. j, , ' .
+e ., . c .
^ ,
Ly* '
'D , . x-'- *,
J-(. ,nJ :.. M ; Q.. j. 4. ;- ev. 2,.,. .i w v
\
... m. .
. a . . ' Q .- < -
1 .. . s,
~. x ' . .a v::.: .,. -
x . :.. . ,. .
- m. . > . %a;. s.
.. .. .. . v. . . v2 -r
. ; ,1. / , ', n: c l
5, 8,.* 't,v, , ).,, t .- . , 3 '.' , ,^ - ( 4 , , . . . ,* , - j y.. -
,; , p.s.
o .m
... . 6, c,..><,, ..
- L ., ';'l ; [ 2: . the presumpdon of following the utility's plan was mandatory, it is also clear in
{ : %, C.%
* . , J V,
.; .f.'.- .
Q.. 'al[y,* , , "' .g t' (" the rule's Statemen',of Consideration that the Commission's sole purpose was to
.' ~4 establish procedures for licensing in cases where state and/or local governnwnts
. }: . r . .
NMs ,c h - [. . ., . .M..';d,M do not participase in emergency planning. "Onience" to licensing boards in
,' ". .. < W p,. : Li q i the rule's context is considered a binding pecedural rule. Staff Brief at 4 7.
' i. " $ pL.3.g ,;' c ,J , Appendh E requirements, according to the Staff, must be read in the light
[,.j'g-Q;.;'J S. ;.CQ g cf -$f $sg%,,,;/ . of the new rule. 'Ihe provisicn in the rule for "due allowance" to be made both m I. 64 for those elements where cornpliance becomes infeasible due to governments'
,p.,y'. Y. ..D',f . 9 ( 8.MT,' 6 Jl's.A nonparticipation and for the utility's compensatory measures for any resulting ' Y:7, -. . .[ ,!.,M.?-7(-% J a:4.; . '
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'. ; , ;
y ,,',.m . ,' ;. . c, d. To What Extent Can the Existing Record Be Relled Upon?
, ... * . . I
- c. ' ' b e, , . 5.
- a. 'Ihe Applicant alleges that the new rule, as applicable to the record in l
- t. 1, ' 5
. ., t
; 3 this case, necessitates the conclusion that LILCO's emergency plan satis 6es j
.- 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 -
Commission left it to the Board to supplement the record if necessary and since
-I '.' l',d
. ., . - . . . . ..... y.Ed nearly all of the remaining issues are related to Intervencrs' now untenable 3 ,, - ..' '
- posidon that they would not follow the LILCO plan, the record requires no 1
.f k ;, .- ,I
f 1.;,,. , - supplementation Id. at 1315. 'the generic questions in reality raised by the W ;
- i, 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
, ' ', a to use LILCO's plan, whether it is illegal for the State or County to use
- 3. ' .
- LERO's resources, and whether the State and County will be able to make
.;. ' . ' a J *i timely decisions. Id. at 15-19.
^
m
.."'i b. In the Inservenors' view, the record compiled to date was developed A i1 long before CLI.8613 was published and the new rule was lesued and also
, s >
TC prior to the time LILCO produced its realism argument. Since all prior hearings
,7 B
~
.? have proceeded under the assumption that only LILCO would be implementing
. n. .. y . -
y j the utility plan (State and County of8cials were not to be involved to any signi6 cant degree), the existing record, almost 4 years old, is likely to be of
* ' J'
! Qi ]j little use. However, LILCO should be required to designate spectacally any
' ; , ' :P, j' ,' y q paru of the secord on which it intends to rely. Governments' Response at 7 9;
'a ,
. m. . , ,, h Governrnents' Reply at 66-67.
' ' '.'. ? ' j 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
, s- -
Board, evidence in the hearing record, and facu deemed admitted as a result of I 6 k,
. 1 t . S
\
i r , e g . = ,. O q,'.-
- m. 9 ,
e'
- 4 d
. 8
. _ .' , ,r - -. , _ _ -. , - -- * --
- . C: .hk.Y& N,h l?,$Y h l*%f a,
M.h-M.h,&*.&h'fhh*!'?ihb.h9bkYbhWI&-hh
, n .w. q.g,y.. m' a v a.#p t-8 bb bbbbldbb 3
.se' N@. l.t. M dk'..1;.k. MNl'$a ! *%;, % m:J ".26.QDd$ .;- e.n -
,.x ,wt, *.Q.nx .. .~. w. m.. t ~ ,.,~. w .9 ; A. e
, .T . e, . m.a. , ?a 2 w,.o .tg.mp 4.- W . p ..e,.gQNyg,f.g ..ggig the Board's September 17,1987 Order. Staff Response at 416; Staff Reply at
*-..',.A,,.,.,.,
.. t+ f g 3 , . . . . ,-
g g* -
.' 2.,.w ...;:
. *. .,o:. v v
. :: +:
,3. . '2. n,. -,
.ds'~ C p=, y,3t . . . <T. . -4. 9" .
m ",3. t # V,. 4 4 .1 ..-i . . .f ; . ,;4,. t .s, ,
$'.F.I. c ..i ;i M Assuming the Record Requires Supplementation, Which Party Has the
' Borden of Proof and the Burden of Golag Forward with the Evidence?
MW .'* N.y ? 9'M,c.y M: .;W .; W ;t
-y c ,;f . WM
- a. IACO alleges that, although under NRC rules the ultimate burden of W *)h.)!..[*). .' . - l'.
/. k.*J 8 g.p{h[,#9,l.
4- proof is on the applicant, the Intervenors here, even without the new rule, have t'C..n
- d.7,.id." 'f.[$[b a7 ;,.t '
. the burde of going forward with the evidence. NRC case law (Pemuyhcala p,;'pf,* .;,
^
, ,7. '.
f ~.];,/. . ". 7 MQ, 4~~? M',@J:..$ - 0, r Ti ..'N Power and I.lght Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Stadon, Units 1 and 2), 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 3 '.: . V ~,,j*n*cJ. contendons. In this case, only the Intervenors possess infcrmadon on what their
*f . ' *b ( * ,*. 3. d
- qg M.1
., 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
'. ,e;, y.;a..f ....g-ar.f,l. 6. ,/? ,/ '.'Gg e.- and County policy favors planning over ad hoc responses. LILCO Supplemental c -
Brief at 44, I..N
- 6. ,.* 6 -
S ;,t. J ,p. ' fy 3.y W 3 f.,j..v,..
- b. Intervenors allege that the subject matter of the CLI 8613 remand is the
# f,'.bj **,,,.! '*.,kf.k.l.Y$,, affirmative defense of realism and the burden of proof and of going forward
..',.S. -
, S >: d on an affirmative defense rests on the party assenting it. 'Ihe new rule also
- l. 5f,A g,t.~ C /,s.,pl.- fy Mp[.j.i
- emphasizes the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the adequacy of its
.'N .. ' plan and cornpliance with the rule's provisions. Finally, the submission of sworn e' ' ;*'. .,d7 j,:r:.e# 6 '.; 13 M' . . F(.;
f- ,.k affidavits of the Governor o( New York and the Suffolk County Executive is
,j,
, . '*,Q 36 . j.M.h. .
sufficient to sadsfy any threshold burden of going forward on the nature of an
'i . , ,* - .;,
, g.~ q.f. g assumed "best-efforts" response. Governments' Reply at 29 34
' y;[ ;'.7 4.p. c. c The Stafr lainu that Applicant has established a prima faele case by
- ?
- ; 'M '., ~T
'7,r;Q ' J.Dy C.g.A.,t submitting a udlity plan that accommodates partk.patjon by the State and local governmenu. The evidentiary reccrd cited as well as the material facts
- '. ? . u 7. , y%f.: admitted demonstrate how a response will be conducted and also demonstrate Cy ' O.'f . y D }Q; .'. O. . c }.F',( '
- the known capabilities of the Governments to engage in protective actions in 3 . , , ( :.v',3 '
*/*N y ;]" ' %.7.p. an ernergency. Accordingly, it is Intervenors' burden to rebut Applicant's prima . . . . : : . . .; . . . f . . ,7 facie case that there is rcasonable assurance that LILCO's plan with a best-
>- ; ., ' (. ;'Y . '.f, . - efforts government response can be irnplemented. That burden cannot be met
' . *, . y , [. . : by a claim that Intervenors will respond but will not follow LILCO's plan since
,. .p, g;p such a clain. is precluded under 150.47(c)(1)(lii). Staff Reply at 11 13.
,.. ", . ,[a.. ,...
-. *~
...? . " ,, /,
7.,. ., ..
~ . . .
..4,,
, ' .w .. .- t ,-
Given the Assumptions and Presumptions of the New Rule, What Are the 5 .y
* :, ;. (
' - .: M.,4 ~
Issues to Be Litigated,if Any?
..s'
,. ~. s..:: p .
)
;,,4- .
.y .;.9 4
- a. The Applicant claims there are no litJgable issues since the LILCO
,S
'.I. .,*',[-
s.., % [. . *: ] i.h;',.'~ emergency plan is a complete plan that is prepared to respond to an emergency. l l 3 3 ., . . .#
* ;# s~ j,,;g .. ; .. p
. t . -w'. .
.... q, .
.* ., ./., ' ; * , . n0 p, .,
- ** ;, ,s 4 s . , . .; ,
364
., .N . , -
g
.- 4
[
. ." 3
/ ,e +-*'.*'"*4***** "'-'-*', **
g" { f ' . T 9 6 8
' , 5 :. s * - . , ,
( ' , ,
.e e
. , i
',' 'i
. , . . . .* . ; i . l
-c ,
. .a., ..
. c) j n. . , . ,v. . . . : 4 ** I. $ i.; .
4 ' *' 7
, '. , /f 4
* .' g ',' -
9,
, i s ,
, ,g,
.- l . '
, _ n, 3 q ~ - ;f gjj
w n . U . .' ..
, % ';;.[' Y q,,, ( .. se.v W,'
.-n.. g,. s. ,
3: ,, . , ,;
.< . Y..,. % ..'? ? .. ,i :'<l. / ' ,.
- ~ .;.
, > .'.w . ,~ e q.*: .
. .J . : %,:. ,:.
.,;.s,..',d,!l;!?, r.y. , .l..
c< .. 4
..> :n. ..
. n..
n.
. y,y. Q ;;
.n s . . . ,
.a
. ~ . .z.q.g .
.. .~ . .
?. .
~ ~v. v.. ,. . u. -
u.
- s. -y . c, 3
- y. . , .I ,
.: M,., *
.o' i
< . E . L.-
- 1 *',3". s . ' . in addidon, there are the espertise, manpower, and communication resourced that j
New York State and Suffolk County can produce to respond to an emergency.
' ( ,, . s , . ) , ., . . il: e;< The only deficiersy in LILCO's.plar. is a lack of legal authority that can be . f.' . , . / , .. ,, O'il '
- '..*,,E,.
supplied at will by State and County governments. The only possible issue is 4.. ;..1
' " ' 1 ';j h- [.' . y'
., whether the addition of government resources will damage the response and
.i , - J .
increase the hazard to the pubhc as compared to LILCO's plan alone. LILCO i e .g :%, t - 3,,* : . . .yM ,",y;J ', C, . l
'. 3 ., . , - . .:. f.j ,a a P. ME;] Supplemental Brief at 10-13.
l
.y . f q ', , . 7,' -"p,g{;g' b. The Intervenors contend that issues raised by LILCO's affirrnstive de-fense (realism), the Commission remand of CLI 8613, the Board's September J
. ., . + ; y ] ....<..:lc l '. , a 17 Order, and the Commission's new rule require new contentions to supplement
. '. ' , ; ,.,,L ,
b .MN f
- 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
- d
' ' *' addressing issues contained in CL18613 and the Board's September 17 Order,
,~
- 3
'
- Intervenors suomit a number of "pnncipal issues" or quesdons related to best- l
/ - -
,. r
]
o * ( . *,' . 7,,,
,J. - <
efforts assumption that allegedly requite hearing time. Governments' Reply at 48-66.
* *. . ;M: . :, - ' " 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
,1.
the interface between LERO and responsible government officials. Staff Reply
; I..'4.- 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,. .
weas concern the adequacy of LILCO's plan's provisions for ad hoc best efforts
' '. T.
- f.' 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 c, *% 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
- ,y
*. ' ' , i
/ f. j proffer now would not meet timeliness or good faith requirements of the new rule. LILCO Supplemental Brief at 13. Intervenors' assertions that they would l
,2 -
* 'f< : .i'- '*
I l
* ,i rK4 follow any emergency plan offered by LILCO are contrary to the **best.
l
*l, ,
N'
-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 1 p'.an rnust, in light of the new rule, now be changed. LILCO Supplemental Brief l
; 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' . g i.
. , g
. .a
. -i ,
Y, s e
.. - p_
L.Nh0NN.MTkMEE$. , Ub . . h?f d 3 h,' h.'k
- w. n . ~ . - , ~ p.
?t R &Y I5 '
.Q*A.
.h.y .w .va.
y . W5. :,g!.%s%.ah;a.
~. p.
@ (sy;N
@ y:: .
.w
?
n a c ,J y, dv,k. .~,$.k,g. ..h h.3)$p:h
- M
$la M*;$p'JAll$y@4h(%g( %u LILCO plan. But, in LILCO's view, this issue was for resoludon by means of f% k*.M,.
1 7,.MM ,9:}g 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 %.",; .U?.".s/SMM lt cannot be by arguments that the Governments' aspc.,a will be ad hoc but NM.7 N@!hhh*D;Q#'Y $ *. only by a timely, good faith proffer of a better government plan. De proffer l
(*, pf4l MMe& yNNS2h' of a worse plan would not be good faith. Id. at 26. In fact, Intervenors have FTPestedly argued in this case that an ad hoc response is inadequate. LlLCO M{*%@$,.N7.Jh'QtN@$$p*Tn t '~#.Q M .y'h M(N.yg $igggth,' Supplemental Brielat 6. De Intervenors initially contend that the Licensing Board's September 17,
- 2. 't.',* a Cf.Q 1987 Order dictates that the new rule presumpdon of following the utility Panl cannot be applied in the present proceeding. His fmding was based
' h.*MM.~d*'g.'Q*y *.$
- P M,*%t *A(+p "Q
.ii..
'. 7 1 .
#;hh J'. $
(*g,$@.7M ' .:1 on afadavits in the record from Governor Mario Cuomo and Suffolk County Executive LoGrande that the LlLCO plan wuld not be used by the State or the U."*jf *J..Qi.'b M.'@. .'..(y : ,, County. This ruling was conarmed by the Board's October 29 Order wherein
'j , it stated that it remained an open question as to how the Governrnents wuld .,-) */*@ p*(
Q M'yyr.Mv .W j. N MQDM/h.J.I*,,M pEb ' @. M 6.:y'<,.i respond in an emergency. Governments' Reply at 1415. De new rule did not vacate CLI.8613 or provide any basis for invalidating decisions (like the
, Y I.I,.M$N $ September 17 Order) made pursuant to it and the evidentiary record. In fact,
# 3 Q @E hi 7*@);b M3xM/.;j+ Mht G eh* h kthes
*h, M@
Commission's discussion of the new rule makes clear that decisions under it must be based on the facts and evidentiary record in each particular case. And the j
.. S % % g. #.F I.y,'f% M Q,y Board's previous rules were in fact based on the record. Since neither Governor ,
Cuomo nor any other State or County of6cial has expressed an intent "to refuse
; .'M :9;I/.F3.M$OM f.*,2..%.M'[b(h;h/ : M ytog.k act to safeguard the health and safety of the public" in the event of an
' p o. ,W.%$
$y $ $ .,JJ Ci; f; G'7p
.K %ysuchAclaim y has } $no relevance g ; j :in this case. Governmenu' Reply at 1619. Any emergency at Shoreham, the Commission's direction to the Board to reject any
.,. 7 ';hy.Q3ypC <-f,Qf in,erpretation that the presumption in the new rule can only be rebutted by the one speciac exarnple mendoned - an adequate state and/or local plan -
.N, y,T*p,MOfSeM/Y:$.[Ihfh; Q.'@ g,pg2f ;s,q,'qj y3'$ Qfppg.vgjk would essentially make the "rebuttal" presumpdon an "irrebuttable" or c. Id. at
- 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 ; it is even proffered. Id. at 23 24.
y *.7Q;;d 4Or; f/pj?;,,";M Q. 2 *y.s^ ne Staff argues that Intervenors either must come forward with another
, l ,,y C h*fl y*: % $
, plan that meets NRC planning standards, or it is to be presumed that they yi.; 3 3 will generally follow the LILCO plan. ney can no longer claim that they
. 7.1,'r7.54% ,( ,P: *7MQ:g% *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 be followed unless it is shon by the Governments that the best efforts will U.'.f; '. MM *
< . N n - .'. :
y,'d@/'.SMS.f$ . . p be based on another acceptable plan that would in fact be implemented. Staff
. 4. :f ';.p? i
. .W%';n/7py t p *iU,j?'@.4
,mt,.f t '.*Supplemental Brief at 4.
a
%hy. .:.a. y K- w.
fh.. wf') :
, - m., t,-3 -q. .,. w;.jk 1,,,q t h *g ,g 3, s.,
[i,
.-l..- ~**fl' r e y'.' ? , f. ' g ~ f,;)4, ,y*f *n _ . y
? , .d '*.
4 o[ F
.' .'*3'.'.5.
.f,*..i
,*g * *4
. , , ,, ' .e . . a. ., . I p..w,qq
.~
s
.. a.~ 4 s. . W 4, ,.cu.
. 'c,, ~* . -s' . 2, 7. . : .
; . 8, A..
' \
.c * .
5,. ,. , Q, .j; a f ,. f .7.tq',
- m m , e v.t. ,,, . .; - ,
. p i. .-t rJ
's , * .e, ,
p ' , ,. ( .*, .
,,',.,8 s w 'I.. * ,
- _ *,, *1
+
,, 6 . **e fg i - t
- I
- i 7 p 4 . e g
, s
*{ 5 e,
',{,y
. , a
- .,,f . . ,, ,
'3 ,
,s
* * ., ..;, /p * .,6 ,
- o a s, . *-
( ,,,e,g ,,p,, .; g, ,..4,. ,3. ;;; e. s, , ,-
,s> y ,. .
, , ,,.b ' ,, .
G, ,1' + f 73, . , ym. ; , > ,
* +.
j*,
**g *a ' .', .{' -
' . * * '* '~ #
e l .
' , ' S .5 ( j < l is,
r, Y,# ,y'
p ; m; 3; 39.g,u..y,; ,,, , ; z. :i
- s. . .g;;,.pxpq'?;;;y:n, e m y . ,. y,yy ,s ?,y- , ~ v-
.:.. n n.
n.w , u . .
.a ;,r. ;,.-. -
e w -.u.~ .y. . . 9 y.,q
>. . n..: y .
. .w.
g : a.
. e,
,..:. v. y 1.,.
c,i, g9 ;,m , n.;g .:,;.g._ ~,,fc,;;3s.cg.f y 7. ;.,
;y,
.t. .
;<a , a, ,r,c,.,.p, S,.
q
- ~ put ' .
,e ; .
- n. ,2 , v s .3% f' .. , , : o.: . . :,. ; .
e,,. t i. j
- t. ,
... 1 i
. c .
..' : l l
..-~, ,,
. 3, .e,c - .,.
l e< ., .
.~
s . h. . " . *:, . .. l
~
Boaruf Guldence j
'.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 offered in cases of nonparticipation by state and/or local governments must
)
', % ,pc',f'. . ; 3 T f,.. 7 G f.: sf , ; ,.*' ,.
, 1 be evaluated for adequacy and that a best efforts governmental response, also i ' .G.I. Wy requinng evaluation, would materialize in the event of a radiologpcal accident, in
; j,[# 5'7
- 0. . ,. .
. .- 1 S i t4 '. .a
"[y-M7 MT.f. 2. 4. *, [ ,.
','. our previous consideration of modons for summary judgment, we indicated, as we do here, that LILCO was not entitled to a decision on the merits of the "legal
'.'N ' '
p ,,'i'/.'
- :. .""." r '. i ' t M,i;k.,_.*.
i'6 ,
.** r,';p?hipf .
authority" contentions, since the adequacy of the Governments' response in
, fu18111ng regulatory requirements had yet to be determined. We stated there that 7, ,, ./, t'.- . -
'7 (* the Commission expected the Board to determine what the Intervenors' response
.i., 3 :. '! ' - ! .. .. ."
g, ' would be and, since the Commission did not specify completely the scope of y e .?; , . y ' ,,,. 6.f ,,, issues to be heard, we requested comments from the parties on what quesdon 3 ( :( f .
,;, 3 . . . . wen to be answered, the extent to which the existing record can be relied y#g , . . f 'e,p' f. . a '
, "]7'3'c,'.., ,;l on, and what additional evidence needed to be taken. Board Memorandum
?. m ~7 and Order, October 8,1987, It is evident from the summary of the party's
,i
- l,, V ' Lf,,." ,d? . l.,.
X . ,* . ! '
. , , . submittals, .mpra, that LILCO and Intervenors are far apart on their respective l
, ' .'.O ,
views, the one concluding the new rule satisf.es any gaps in the reewd, thereby
.ry' ..., :,. ", ;(', f . . a~ 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 o ; , the adequacy of a utility's emergency plan, to take into account the probable 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 t e ,,' judgment that the Board's responsibility is to ensure that the LILCO plan 1, .y . .(91*,,~,*,f'
, 7" ' . *-
- 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 . 7, # .
y it would deprive any proceeding of a meaningful purpose if the rule was 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 ! 41 3, m- *
! intend to dictate to any state and/or local government what pardcular response it i .$ 'A j . '
.} - ) ,* -
~
- . 3
, should devise to cover public emergency situadons, but neither did it contemplate i
- that no emergency response would materialize. 'The effect of the new rule then
' ' . ,. '. ,+ .,
,. l
',, l
..n
0 '
, q
',%.,b
, .... *g 9
. '3,p ..
, 367
. .n > \
,\ "
.% g h ,
.... ' .' . ~ . . . .
~,,
. m, ;. 4 t
, e. *. '
e i '
.,s J ., ,6 -
.f v
- we . (
E s. 3
,g . , . {' '
e . . g g * *
, ,a .. .
s l>' I 6 .* '
.. * . . t *
, s.
; t- i
I - '
%M"yfMP 2.&
[ti h
.w .. ,(~yh,.;'.
M-n W h?$OMLN ^l[ %
*> W.hbWO.'. L. . . N O, L*MhWA',
ma tb % Ql'@W %dC *B. 4i _ p!lM[.n%c. ) f?:$m !dlT *Yi? iNl';b'N>
&su$Q *,'hp.f.Y,d Wm I. is to place a responsibility on state and local governrrents to produce, in good '* yO.M.
MMR ;. @ ' b,F d!l:g' : faith, some adequate and feasible response plan that they will rely on in the k;M.@y['e? ;*pe.N[f@M;d event of an ernergency or it will be assumed in the circumstances of this case
. .? !p "f /*W;t- igJ that the !II.CO plan will be utilized by Intervenors here. In that event, the 'iN;f.a'%% M *hil+'f ,V 1.II.CO plan will be evaluated for adequacy alone.
fMrf 7%@FC$ The Commission has stated its conviction that state and local participadon 95 N[ff%dfM7:((MM[$ 'N'Mk'M;$ ;,
. 3r,7 k;iOg:A$M* yyy in emergency planning was not only desirable, but essential for maximum ctfectiveness. However, the absence of such participation cannot be viewed as an absolute impedirnent to licensing of substantially completed nuclear plants f$;%M *', L t.1l/2M E *ltJ M:;/<[;.'g*tl [. k,$
since that would result in a de furt veto power in the hands of state and local
,h government of6cials over the operadon of nuclear electric facuities. See Long
.19.8 A T '. h 7 '?. , .Alp. ./@M,Db d "N /sland IJgh#ng Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), I.BP 83 22,
*/ 17 NRC 608, 624 (1983). Accord Commission's Discussion of Final Rule,
$'*,%dI. IM,7lW: @M N [ N 'i d M t % 52 Fed. Reg. 42,080 (1987). The fundamental purpose of the new rule is to J.Q.,' ? *[? M.-lM.%UM'K provide criteria for evaluadng utility. prepared emergency plans in cases where, 1
f.3%%/;.Q MJ jfMik/4%g Y 'a in fact, state and local governments do not participate in such planning. In providing specific guidance for evaluating the adequacy of the govemmenu' l'c. [/4,W "h M. Y.h. Mi ;7:Q$,d@Q?;$p1/.(: M.h ZC Yf response and the t;tility's compensatory emergency plan, the rule provides, through the use of the word "may," a presumption that the utility's plan will
;p,".; g. .p.g be followed, a pesumption rebuttable, however, by other responses, as for
.2 ?'$[%g,[%@(yt@d,gj;'t,(.i N J:ND[,NOh
'93ld Wu%Q example, producing an adequate and feasible government emergency plan that would be relied upon. It is hardly credible that the Commission intended f.' , - in Ught of the sole purpose of the rule itself - that licensing boards E. 'Q4 t,M' 9 '"l ;ll w..--
. @d.4% ;\ .
q h;.n,gy ; . ?' t'. r.,, . y could decide arbitrarily that state and local governmenu need not respond to any emergency plan - cr at all - during a radiological accident. Such an R ' f .. Qq ,j,* . ,y; . ; . % 4 p , p .. r . 9 interpretat.lon, as the Intervenors contend for here, would reduce any "best. c g. S :E y,. .
'{ f , %,qQ yjQ efforts" response at best to some indetermint.te ad hoc responses, which in a a Q p / T,' Ml.'. 54s W% fast mosing radiological accident scenario could have a catastrophic effect on iv .y e.vtes.;. .
p .;,7 . 3.Qlfg$ the pubbc's health ar.d safety. Assuming some detailed response wiu develop
'./.,,.; p.?*0 ..g .c 4#Q,.>d' ,fC. ur4eriles the Commission's summary comments accompanying the publication 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 ' ~
- x. j .a' J one. 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. We are obligated therefore to view Intervenors' f$ ' M ,,sl; # $ * [t 7 i
'.5
. .g r M,f". A .. *q k d:%% l obilgaden, in the context of this proceeding, as looking to the utuity's plan to rely on in an emergency, or fouowing some other plan that edts. Id. (emphasis
' @. "* Q,kh, 1 l $ I"yj ,. 9f[.%; ; .f,@{ ;; ,: i d 1 supplied). Further, we see no conflict between A@codix E and the new rule. It is an established method of statutory ccnstruction that provisions of complementary
, i; .. ~**0 } p'7, a:
reguladons should be read together where possible. And read in that vein here, it
. *..y l hl 3y ;e M 8
(,J7u ;l bi<
, 3 is clear that no conflict was intended by the Commission. The new rule provides
.l y
, L N gs ,CA.,... ~ , '; "*.
7. Q 1. T ' q, .* i g'l that due allowance is required to be given w here nonparticipation of state or local authorides makes compliance with 150.47(b) infeasible, and, since Appendix j
; ~ 1;j d i.' ~ . .; (( h;f. M. y .,..
E sugle.nenu those standards, due adowance for compensatory measures is
# , . f. b [~. ~ . . ,. ,,'r } .,$.- . *.
I c ., .,m 'y.,q..
,.y 4 ,, . ....wa.. . gq jfg
' , < 1, gj
'd.*".,..a '.'s..*.
. e
* ' ' ;
- h, 1 '
,W*,
. n, l; w [i.
as, -
\
s, , . 8 g # . . E i
,g . I r
. ' , 4
. e .
'. g .
. J . , ': . .
~v:
uh.' n
?", . . ,
j.', .,hr..t.
>,>.%, . ~ h;s ys , b 'v\".
',e ,
y,y j,
; ~
- U a
, ., : L n._ . . , . . .' ..' '
~ '.
,.4 .. . . , - . - - c ' .
n :>. n4.Q?> . ;.w. ..q;. " _. _p. . . Wy. ,'d .,D"%.a."'T"? ; .m' q,'m x ' *; yy..
, r.: J. . . ,.
p . .ys ;. m. ., ., .- n ,' .- .
.7, r. ,. , .',.m . ...
'.,. ,m :. ;,
. r. .
'. ,. - s.w-..
m 9 ,_ ;p.
- -x,,. b 7 .. .<,',%
. . > .1
. c"
**O * * ',
.U'd. .,M '
,i. . ' ? O _ . '. .. .
- e :. L. ' ./ A - .
c:. N. "e 3 s.' s ' +'
. , v,
;. . d, 4
- . s ,~
.l P ', d
'e , . ) directed to be made for the requirements of Appendix E also. Beyond that, the
., ,~
~ 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 A, ^ -'
..,.x at 10.
, ., Jr A question can be raised on the Comm!ssion's intent in incceporateg in the
, 1. s , ';-lO. ' .W'y O I.*7 ..( _Q[ <1 new rule a presumption that either the utility's emergency plan or, for example,
. ' .. .<. 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 P . g i- ." nuclear plant facilities, state and local governments have been intricately in.
(s. , p'.%*.~,..<cy.3 ',, / ?. ' ...' , ;J '[ y' 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,
;, , ,a ' .
".3 .
. . , evidenced not only a consciousness of nonfederal governmental responsibilities
, . [* :... 'G ,*:.'; * [., }* )g,' '
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 .,;" .r. 15',,., .p. , ..?.l v[ 'c,' .']
-5 cmergency planning rule in 1980, the Commission noted its belief that state , , ,' 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
. , ., , (and federal) officials had demonstrated t!.cir 'fforts in protecting the public. 52 !
',( *.VU ' ' 1 , .3 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. Licensing boards were adr /mished accordingly not to ac.
l c .. r cept any clairn that state and county officials would rduse to act in a radiological e: . "- ? ., , ~ en.ergency. He Commission has stated here again, as ti td in CLI.8613, that l
*"J' / . ;.' ' .
.. .,a ' y emergency planning rules are flexible and the ultimate test to be applied is to l
'i "
I j , , .
. ensure that, whatever plan is used, adequate protective measures will be pro-
*- l
< vided. It appears clear from the guidance set forth in the new rule, that the Cornmission had no intent to have specified in complex detail what responsive q ,.s measures a nonparticipating government - state or local - will provide in an ,
.. emergency. However, whatever measures are planned, the Commission's rules !
y
~
do require that that plan be produced and evaluated for adequacy. Otherwise, l it is to be assurned that the utility's pim will be utilized as the only available coofdmated plan in existence.
. C his is not to say that Applicant's position is valid that the Intervenors, s.
'J*
* ", 7 -' . .
,- who have failed to reveal the nature of their responses in the past, have lost j
. , . ' '. . .,c
.. . i. ,
their opportunity to do so now. De Intervenors are still entitled to challenge
.f.g W N . ,$.,, ',
- the adequacy of the LILCO ernergency plan supplemented by a best efforts q,f, p *. -..,
.l
" .a l response from the governments (State and/or local) in connection with the
. . l' *
, . , . - a activities contemplated in the remaining contendons, and they can also produce 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
(. . ,, . , 7 , response. Intervenors, however, can no lcoger raise the specter of a lack of e ,, g A y
- I 4 ',
4 . l
, . a.
[- s t i
- l e . p* .{ g ;
, l
. . g .
~ ' '
i
. i 6 .
l l
hdf.gMTYh.hepAfi ( ; )l,h,hh$$U (..S$. !$ ;' . . 5 I.I. ) N f - N h ~ f)~ - i f r. 4.g!..,v.m. i y. g
%Ay'W.,
..&.saw: y:.g, .W % ~(.%. ~ ~ .~.M%2~ i
~ .
W . .. ca f..;mu-s . $ .p rk 52 .keW.4.p, '*f~?* A. W. ), . %...y a......,,.,.
.7 e . w.m. d,eq. $.Q., ..
$j3{6.I'$ kdy' . ds' d f fd's.,
legal authority as a response nor can simple protestations that they will not use eM: .5 M ,%- .U wl N. I'f,.+g "Ec,:. %n LILCO's plan suface. The Intervenors are required to come forward with positive 3*i hb %.,j};tli/,NN3,$*M;'jM.E./?:
; .i statements of their plans and must specify the resources that are available for a projected response and the time factors that are involved in any emergency U N . D .$ @k2gd ~f. [ f p,' D . M -t activities proposed. lacking the presentation of a positive case for analysis and 1.gW A 2.W. d>%:i'.:p J evaluation, a Anding of default and an adverse ruling could result in connecdon 'Med' M. with the contention to which such omissions applied.
7,Mh[,DMQMM.;< .el N'/'M.kMi'QE +S1.It is apparent from the present LILCO motions for summary disposition that the Applicant believes that its plan is a complete plan and that with the best
$ d.V.7 j%v4 . W' h ?'@$f dyd.*yNQh.W/. [* ff.* d kNl N d.' O i. F.. W f effort of State and County resources in terms of expertise, manpower, and com-munication capabilities combining to 611 any gaps in legal authority, a prima .NP. .' d h$1q//;;;M:'s.GSc'.W facle case has been made that lu plan is adequate to meet regulatory require.
f'y 9[.N.M[v*@ 't.:. N QyQ, ments. The Intervenas argue that the fact that State and local governments are NFMiDf prohibited from delegating legal authority to LILCO has been recognized in
*.WW'
$@4,Q.XQi$Qt$j -
- h. ,@,J.S
'. prior decisions by the Board and has not been changed by CLI 86-13 or the new rule. This was the principal 6nding of the Cuomo v. ULCO decision rec.
MM dQW.$.bMIM,MeV:iq'C.)c 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,
?DRI on grounds that an advisory opinion was not a proper exercise of the State's Q}' QS!.MMD.$, h hl,'y QlhN'D' Ml1"'C.' lMyQ %'
Q ;;.g G judicial function We did not intend then, or now however to oc nvey the belief that State and County of6cials could not, under emergency conditions, call upon g?,E,.'y.ig i4M-
- g. '. ',Nf ,="' .. y D . ci:' .,d A ' $ /j .
~ private entities to assist in performing emergency functions on a temporary ba-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, i: dt; ll20.l(axe), 25. M .f.,f g,c g ? yl.. W
.,: %y!.ll c D:. .;;? f . d' 'l Under the present status of this proceeding, with the injunctions of CLI 86-
. . T !(.%. e/ 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(
- 7. m< p. ;y.c s 1 for a restatement of the contentions so as to facilitate a resolution of the issues U g;2 .. .t; w :, g., . f. n ,
befcre the Board. Accordingly, since legal authority is no longer the focus of U.qf).TNMf.@.J?.c%r.r.M our deliberations, each of the contentions will be reworded to frame the issue
- 1,.
, . g . y s.
p .. - ?
. . . .. . . . . p >. ' <s.y,;
,* goverwnenu *111 saisfy reguk cry requiremenu ccocerning directing traf6c.
Cototion 2
;g ;,,?f9- w ' M,;m , * *r.[, ,*' {. 4; r %ksher L.IILO's emergency plan and the best<ffcuts respmse of the Sme and County
; ,7. .$ ., ! i . , ' ' . , . . , X".'.' governmeras *W saisfy regulatory r%-.ms concerning bkding rohnys, sening up n
.'a,. <
1; ,~o," l , .., barriers in roadways, and channelir a traf6c.
.s, s
,, - , ..c~-
*t . .
3.. q , ', , y , ' - Cototion 4 d- .*I
' .I' 'A3 . i';l 93. J", b7 +'; ,i
- jQh whether lit.CO's emersec<y plan and the best efforts respmse of the Stue and Carry
,' ,
- i. '
. .l*.<
+
. s . . .
,, ; .); c. f. 'A,j ' ; *
,f smenmeras m imisfy regulacey requiremenu <=eming remains oeuructm fr=
pablic rondesyt, including the noming ct Frivate vehides. 3 ~. . ** * , <,4 s .;P
;L- -j o . r'. >g.( .*.
1, ,
- h,.* ; ,... ' .,! w. .. ' : s. i y s .,
".y'.<4
- s o. :
. .g
.i
. s m * ,$; 370
.. '7 . .
^-
- g, ; .t; t
'1 s, ,
I
.' "gy *r '
4
,.. . , , .#,.' l
*g. '%
e ! s ,
' a p c.. .
. ,; \
;e. , ,,
, >.'s .
# e ,
F t, <, 'E '
-n
,- s .<.
, . . . . , i,
. g .
1 /' *t I ( g &. , , .++ N.
, * ) = 4 ,, #
,i.,'%
if % ' ', , . kb ,,,
- 1
, g
'l 8;
,8 ,
' ,*, %g '5 ',.' ,
7 r
3' , ,; . '. . . .
. . .. T n-s.
. ,L e ~ s . .
. c ,.
- - ;, s- ', .M
.? u s3.... .
h ,.',.m p:. 1) *i.s 3 e . ,s, ,. ,
.,,f
..j ,- , ; , . ', .;, .7, g;.. t ;j , ' -
,;,W.y Lh 4, i. ,
, . . e, 'c ,.e
, ,, t e, ,
6
. 'i
*t
*_ g; .. i
,. . j
's a c., 'D, Casesion J *
;. ,' i,I e .
' * */
T
. y Whosher IJ140's amargency plan and the bem efforts respose d the Same and Cowsy
, 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
,. _f+ 1
(';r a ;?.j gw. hor IllfD's emergency plan nid the best effcets rupmee d the Sims and Cowsy
. G.#
' 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
.g
.e
((' f'n.",. D;.**"({-. 4 J "'.jA ,,
,w ; .
heakh and salesy,Inc. hades deciding gan pronacaw actions that win be crunmunicaned no the pundie.
; . , ,,; ,. (. < .
, e .* . j .1 .
- a y. .~ > *:. . . .. " .' ' w ., Canesion 7
* * [f. ;,'-
l .. " t.
,,.? ' l, . 9. *
.f. ; . . ',~ O: j .
,a Whashar IJ140's emergency plan and the bem efforts rupmee d the Stue and Cousy governmeras will entisfy regulacey rapiremeras cmcerning proascsive actions for the 3,.'.,.,,'r.
s
?
. ; q
**,t
. .,. , .* infestia esposure paahway.
. ;, .. .' : ; , . 3- . ' 4 w
?.. '
Cauetion 3 /, , s- l g. . .- 7 7 ;e,.,l, ,
,. %hether LItf0's emergency plan and the best efforts respees d the Stas and Cowry
',!< ?,,.".
- 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 o pmomer
> . .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 4
'., .7
i ample opportunity for the parties to explore the additional positions of the i -
/., , a litigants on these matters.
./ '. " ' '
' .7, . .,j: .,
The partieg disagree over the validity of the current record to support 6ndings
. +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
., ..,_ 1, 'd the reccrd, consisting of the LILCO plan, prior andings of the Licensing Board, N ;,'~ ,*: _ ' , , . , . :
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
- / g c.v w. . ,
Q 4.
'+ 3. . yx g p s.
.n .m . .e . w.4 - W' . ,. . E.W%
. . .,e.n . .ex . W gjf Q gW< 79 ..y.hT. .b< e-. . . .s... p.c ,*p/@ 7 .p. . , ew 'As, "J,.'? M d'
- .dWiddhd gh
@M)N.dk9,UPM. W@6 N. gb W 6p6 Og,Mff'n'!%
) .&llMAN)@ W.Q N %n ;;%.hM ,f.N@~;
1 -;y ?: -
.n Q ,v:N' y-9": 'h
..y~l, .:.,.%....n d.,.'.. . .
.t
~.-
G' J .,.".r.- .: y W.,% :- W.% : 3e, W ;:.yfn.~ 9,, . , g g. a. 7.c > s :*3;ff.n+":.~,
... . v ,
..j *
. .'U. : .;;7. .' ,w & ,,.+ n ,;,f/6 . 7l'. .,r'f.,*/.
*;c
, 2 . ;.j ce, p;*.' .,g,.. q. . ji+ . M
. s. 3..#,y -.".
the existing record that alkgedly support its claim fcr a favorable ruling on the O. ,*. e @1J. .,A - W M ? ,g, e-d issues from the Board. We intend to restrict our forthcoming hearing to take p* only "additional evidence where necessary" as directed by the Commission and (l*.d4 Y.h' Q'M ."y, n'Q.'b -h p D :.f >,f'.*V will use the existing record to the maximum extent possible. Id. at 32.
'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.;. ^ 4 burden of going forward in the proceedings will have shifted to the Interverxrs
;lJ ;.,/,1
',M * [7p. 6:3.?"*
....;.. 5
$,(1.S*~/ after
- Mthe.%+g / its prima facie case - that LILCO's emergency Appikant submits plan supplernented by the best-efforts retivities of State and local government
.A +V. .'
t s% >'P'C 5 C , p h[.)+;,'Ep [! ;{ , officials will meet the required regulatory standards so that adequate protective 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
;7.f. fdy Q.... pJp,, of the burden of going forward that the Fesentauon to be made by LILCO w!!!
have answered questions previously raised by the Board or Commission in its 7,..a g . m , [; c , .f[. ....
~. . ' p<
remand decision.
. '/'k/ . '. 1').g 3 f .S. ., ?.h.p. . . y , ;. ...'. . ;..
. .~, . .-j .
All inatters not referred to herein that have been advanced by the parties in
. ;; ' s their briefs have been reviewed and are not considered essential to the Board's s c . .c "3 .,n.. p ;w. y. f.u ,c.-+, Ja t
..*.,-a guidance on the fcuthcoming hearings.
...,',..o. . t
,+ . '.' u, >~ ..
.. . %jJN
, q. ., M, . -
^ ..
. l. ' ij. .:y.f;
- 9. .,%p.fl1, J("
.; 2-5 III. BOARD OPINION ON
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION MOTIONS
.c. ' s .. o ..
. V ; . - '. .M ii # . . .1 ,- p; y LILCO's latest series of modotis for summary disposition on the so-called
,3,'.a_ 1..3 A}, ,-e..-
"legal authority" issues included: LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition d, , e o / < * . ,q . . , , - of
; ,4 S ., ; q-l . V e.y;].., .. ; " of Contendons 5 and 6 (Making Decisions and Telling the Public) (Decisims
' ' . j'. Motion); Contentions 1 and 2 (Directing Traf8c) (Traf6c Modon); Contention p Q ,(, ,-ls. - ;(s, t :., ~. [.
' 10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter) (Access Control Modon); Contentions 4 and 9 (Tow Trucks and Puel 'lh:cks) (Tmcks Modon); and Contendons 7 and 8
, m ' s'f fl7 M/>
f~,.y.jf ,
, *< ,p ,
(Ingestion Pathway and Recovery and Reentry) (Ingestion / Reentry Modon). The filing also included an introdu: tory document stykd, "In:roductiom Memoran.
, -' , N[* % A pi ,.,.Q,
- 3. , a dum of Law on LILCO's Modon for Summary Disposition of Contentions 12
, ;.,y<> and 410"(Introduction).
., y . ; ;'g., " ' f r. ' . .
.'.,9 ,, -
Denial of LILCO's summary disposition modons on the Decisions Modon,
~ J ' il jj.,f*f.
' ' " 9.c.N*Jl('.3 #
, . ~j the Traf0c Motion, the Access Control Modon, the Trucks Mction (except fa Contendco 9, disposed of on immateriality grounds), and the Ingesdon/ Reentry
- a. y .S ,. O .,. ; ; ,,
Molice was announced in a telephone conference call on February 25,1988, ly.*' '.a t ,
; %.' ' .4. T y
? ,.,7 ..i<y
,; '3 j1 , l K . .- * ;
and conormed in a Conarmatory Memorandum and Order issued February 29, 1988 (unpublished). In that Order we promised a clarliYing written opinion,
*'.).,'",,f ,, ,,f ;,j.,. ;, All of the modons to be treated her are predicated upon the Applicant's N
(, #- interpretstjan of the "realism" principle, a principle introduced into this case by
, . 8 .y' 7 .f*. the Appikant. As indkated, supra. the Commissico issued a revised version
, l;'. . <
- j. M n, Oa .-
, g. - ..~* of f 50.47(c), irnorporating and modifying the realism principle that in an
. ., w..t,.. .
~' '
nt * .,,*,.'*3 v.
*kaf*,'6 '
g
,% l 9 *Y
,.J (3 p ' a l
- s
.- .*.t
, . ,, ; y ? , .a y . * . ;
gi 371 m .' < .,
;,l
, [.
, , .y ,
'N y b e
i r-- r -
' -L ..
t e e s ; 5 + , .
- h q t V y s
I #
* * , e e e e g - -
i , i' - t
.. /. . .
y;s . .,, , * ; ;; , *
/f,'; i.
p W g. ' ', *
, .',4- ,.
e *%,
?m A t g 8, 3
,ydg.L ag*.*,
t' im
. * . 'u*. -, , ' _
- r., _ = q. ,'"7Tm
, . _; . a , . y. , /. ,. ,, .
, :4 ., . a., .;..u .
.,.,i. ,, . ,
.,c . , ' ,
.v
... ~
n,, .. . ,,- n
.. . .. . : .g..
>..,...s
,. - . .. ,- .n-
. .- < :.. y :.,2 ., , , , . ., ,
- n. .,
. ;, ,,;pn.j,, . . .s . 3, . ,
, ,,5.., 0 * ^ *4
, . ,*n ~ ' . .. + -
,.- ; . , ,l,, , 7. ;. -)
\ .....m...,. -a . . c . ,J. , : c;,:;;;,,5
,y. ,-
n .,
..j
,, ; i . .. .
r.. ;p -4
~ e; ; ..
...". . A; - ,
.o
+7 % . '-
- emergency, state and couruy governments would respond. and the rule is directed
.'p , .g g, .j
",? .
.- at clarifying the proper procedures and applicable requitements where, as here,
,g (c,,,,l '
.g ,
," t "- '- / */ . , 5 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
~ .i
' r ..'"' !.*".Y:.,q* .,,'. . .. r ';-*
new modons are predicated on its belief that the provisions of the Commission's r, f,. pl. t ,. g . .~ J .M 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 Motion, it is only the applicability of those facts that the Applicant sees as [ de;;K. , (i -
*. , j '? h,'.) . C ,
b.7.W y ? (,
, different now that the Commission's new rule is in place.
3.<'.< 2.e : -
% J: 9 , :. . '.c . 3 .. ;_ =
a .-' .%.'...em 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 !
. c. . [',. .~- by applying the "best efforts" principle enunciated by the Commission in its q ' ,, , , *; ./ " = 7;,
. 4 -
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 6 '
.i z ..J County (id. at 3), LILCO believes that that fact means merely that the LILCO
* ~* *
, . f .
.f.**, organizadon, LERO, would have to get permission from the local authorides to i 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 0 ,' ..
' appropriate way to rebut that presumpdon is the one expressly mentioned in l
., 1 , , '
, p .;, the rule: 'a good faith and timely offer of an adequate and feasible state
, .... , , s and/or local radioingical emergency plan that would in fact be relied upon in a radiological emergency'" /d. at 10. LILCO further cites the Statement of r -
Consideradens accompanying the new rule, in which the Commission said that 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
;i n s , ,' .q Thus LILCO alleges that "(albsent speci6cs, the Intervenors' c' aim that they
' , , ..<,'.': 'would not use the LILCO plan' is meardngless. 'the plain truth is that the
.' ,'"'. 'c '., -l* ' ' ' .
' 3 ,.,;- l authorides would do either what the LILCO plan calls for or something better.
'J J 1 * ,' '
.- X . c, If they would do what the plan calls for, then the response has already been l . ' a . [.e ,", i .
., s '.,' lidgated. !! they would do something beuer, then a fortforf it would meet NRC
,. f j standards." /d. at 12.
,, , *,, s , This logic ignores the fact that the plan has not already been lidgated (both
' ' ] 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
+
,,g. .
. i would use the LILCO plan or something better; ergo, the local authorides would
. . i l< . - ' . ,, , ' .
',,,'! 373 i
t .'s.., .
- * \
, e
+ g L .
, g , ,. .
. s
/
. , . +
. y . .
lr;j
<. u e'Q %W hj'.h~ W.w
- DWQ$$?hnkhY'h f.1,p.N kb %. U M. fx,&p?.w.&f y:& M M W y k &i $ A % & 4 % byy t% LS % 0 M qO K Oyni,kyla.' y Q, Qu h.
V.M y rW
%.'i& M ~"
- n. ..,.>W.e,c.s
. W; .s .#.a.~ %.; . .M. ,, .I. hf.,
w-1 6, . w . ~ 4 . m. .
.t
- p; % n- fy.-f@*'.'?:;,;&;
'.g.Q:, rs. v. M Q. ..~ ',
* ;. g p
. y y .u. '; . 6.;-f f b)%.E.M;.gC-1.G*k.U*.u..,,
//V*W':.[j,.'N,U.
f i. M . use something acceptable or better; which runs as a thread through the ' entire set of motions for summary disposidon. 4 W f. .T W LILCO also chameterizes the Governments' posidon as "based on the tropo.
?
h'y+.f% .Q:f ; @f'E
% f P.
N'UM._. theQ[.C sition that Intervenors .'M will never ' implement' the LILCO Plan because they, not M . :f N. .* v,6,T.;* Q ,. NRC, have decided the plan is inadequate." Id. at 18. And LILCO cites
*$ 6*;2((.N $t M,s!.;; ,p various Board and Commission opinions to the effect that some parts of the plan have already been approved, thus presumably making the adequacy of the
- d.' Q,Mf." G,.' W.M @N,3 4 plan the law of the case. Id. at 1618. Here we would agree only to the extent
'd $.1" ., Jf;p
. M 'g'!. of conarming that, as LILCO repeatedly points out, it is for the NRC to decide
, l '.O ' G, . . y. M.U.'?,[**pN,$'
- whether the LILCO plan is adequate; it is not for the Governments to decide, s' ?.;'j$g;;'a. Af@M *
.4 .;,MY. ,; f)y In the Decialons Motion, LILCO analyzes the manner in which, it believes, d,% decisions would be made to sound the alarms and warn the leblic. LILCO avers
,T .. fG?@. if .,'7,';4p.a.k.h;g@.'$.p." ~ .),pp;Q.Ml.M[':['I,',. p i M@ j ,; M ; W ..'d;td4,; ,.
~ that the "best eNorts" principle of the new rule compels the conclusions that:
(1) the County would agree to sound the sirens LILCO has provided (Decisions Motion at 2,1213); the County Eaecutive would allow the use of the LILCO
. t, ; g *c 4,,"4 ',l. EBS to broadcast either LILCO's messages or his own (14. at 1617); either the g,*,asi.):- . . %;g*'W p 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 N.w *,V' . ,I-
%.]., T.
4;g.! ,. y%'./D;..y [y? ;' 'c '; / 4
. .S -
coordination and communication with LILCO and LERO (Decisions Motion at 19 24). 6p 2.[ ,c "/c? cp, y., 'p 'f. ~.- s
- LILCO appends to its Decisions Modon a "Staternent of the Material Poets pyp
' K. ,7,tp '.,h 7Gy.g i' !,'-
,; as to Which 'Ihere Is No Genuine issue to Be Heard on Contendons 5 and 6."
'the Statement comprises twenty two separate assertions, some with subparu. Of
- ' .~. c ' , y j p f ,. ve p. , Q
- e. , these, Nos. 1,2,12,13,15,16,19, and 20 set forth details of LILCO's OPIPs or
, y .. , . ',,
. M, . J Q. agp
- i. .
,-l EPIPs that concern the manner in which LILCO employees are to communicate with the governments in an emergency. '! hose nurnbered 4, 6, 7, 8, and 21
$",sc' , t. Lf,.
' ._ ; , . , . m . $f .,;' '- g ,. '. describe
,,3 ; @ . . ., *
., n features of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan or the New York Emergency Management Of6ce. Numbers 9,10,11, and
**Jiy .Y. ih,, . e . ,,- ' , 'f0./C"l,! .: 22 describe details of the so called "Vorhees" Plan developed for (but rejected
, . , g ,.',' / i
,g ', t. ... .
g4 &, by) the County. Numbers 5,14,17, and 18 concern the features of plans for other New York counties. And the statement numbered 3 quotes the FEMA Post. E ' ,1 q , .% - - .
,g, r
./,( Exercise Assessment of the February 13,1987 exercise as saying thai LERO E ' . D *f . j ,
*i ; e,.;a demonstrated an ability to coordinate with FEMA simulators of state and local of6cials.14., Attach.1.
, et y C-} .
. . , ,, , 4;'l' " '. ' .(~.1?'* (lThe. Traf6c
, Motion asserts that the "best-efforts" principle dictmes that the
.f.O 8,;l,,,i . N , y ., , . J. f. ,;6' ' ;,
Suffolk County police would implement traf6c control in the Seld. Traf6c
.j T - ~
Motion at 2. It funhet indicates that the police would have the resources and "t .
- p, f knowledge requisite for implementation of the plan (/4. at 2 4), basing this
. n. $ '.:' ,.. ,.s , , , '. ',M', , j ',w;;.(ff,
, '; ' ~
',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.
. ., y. -,a ;.'<D."'[y; 4 . ,. ,/ J. <,
- . a tions systern. The motion purports to and support for the notion that the Suffolk
..?, .[t y' ,9 .
- k. , $ '- . {-..a#,
, , y. , . . . , v .
. i,g , . '.f,-
,p>.,,7'. ,
" c a . .a. .,
,. ? . . 7 , . a ;. #n 314
'f. (' , .o
, , ) 'I " , '
J * *f
,f')4. , ., ", 't'A . ' \t ' ' ,< ,g'. , - , 2 i**^. ,,
- M ,.' g .
, ,y a +, -6 , J 1 q t -
g t , et 4
.g . .g n ,
,e
.q, m.,
'4,',,
s g ,-
, *de 3
-*'-*r *
. , - a * (y 9, ,e',, *
,g*
s
****9
.T S
, , t; .o . 1 .
. . 'A #
s , ., 4
- s *g.
. , ,.( '
m
+%
? . .. ). .
b' t' g g .. a .
, -P[
k '
.. , r .
'( p .
# U. ' , , ,
\fh. . '. l ' '
' b.' ., n. ' '
.y._.. . m - - , . _m .. - .
0 nG,. ,&'n F i V n --l h. ,. V e - - -
- );6f. . f!",,.. MQ y'.si,W, .- %,~ m O< 3 ' .
, w .'....
e, l. , t.<. . p. ..
**f'g,s
. . . . g-'.,*3t* .*
.* j t-
.. n ...
',.g' i
..,,/ mf f g.f,. ) qw ,'. ., / ,i .-
. ~ *
,/
. s.
,. . , , . . . n;.
a e
- y*.< ,
y;,g .W," -" "1'-' '-
""'L "- - ~ '
~'" - - " * " ' - , '
c -
~
y ,
.. g . n
..:W.', ,,i .&o.X.r.d.%,,%,'M..o. : :, . . . s,: a;.s , . . .. . .. . ]
, ,.r. . . ,..
, 9 n.
.-.~,
. a,:.,:.c -
.. ,. . ~
,a,
. w,7n. .,i w. ,-. uy ;.ma..:.
n . :w , - a ,
; s.c, 4, .+;? >. y . .:u . . . . . n,. . . .. . >. ~
a
'. ,. w : nf.< 4; ;, y <.1;.4. , s S,, ; <.=, , .. ,
j . , . r . . . ,6. .j. <.g . . v .. .... i ; ;;,..fi..,,.ss,.74.k.d..W,.?w.. $ d".ys County Police Department will have, suf6cient resources to carry out the LILCO
'. " [ h ?.' V plan in a recently released guidance document. NUREO.0654, Supp.1, which h 9. u,) N. . p, %.,g, % u.,
, ,p, ...S ,,'..". . f if,(."- l;. "includes the reasonable assumpdon that" state and local offwials will have suf.
%,,4 p,.,:.-sM N g k;*q'( M... s-ocient resou'ces avadable to implement a utility plan where necessary. 'Daf6c ; K. . ' .c.,.A, ,.u -A -,L-e, . 'f > S ,.00 c v. 4 Modon at 3. Finally, the motion sta'es that the "best-efforts" principle "fore. l M. . . J L*',, closes the argument that the police wousd drastically deviate from the LILCO m 4 G@@MWM'7'.F.f ' . 23..,f,
- 6> q d . 3 G .*. .*.f;./,(
. plan, or simply ignore the advice of trained t.sf6c guides, in favor of some spur-is ;j. ' . ;*g of the-moment, ad hoc, sc+,,.x of their own." Id. at 8. Attached to the modon 9.'SiW' P' K L ?.."jM y.?' Q, A@ ;7.C.* ./.9is I'. a list of eleven matters alleged to bc . . . Matenal 1% cts as to Which There l
- c. f. . . 4". s F. . t. , , j,. . g., .E..i. J **. . %o. 'X 'that
... ,...N ".,. Is No 0:nuine Issue to Be Heard . . . . Id., Attach.1. "!%ct" No. I asserts
. .'Suffolk
. * ,County
.1 has the resources to direct traf6c during an evacuation. Fact ,
.. ,- j ' W. l .; , ' '. . , ?
.N,.: lj ,,' j :'1 '
No. 2 says the Suffolk County Pobce Department has responded to calls from 7 *, 3',,,,.j e - a the Shcreham facility. Id., cibg the Crocker Af6 davit. The others merely list i ! : v, 'c'Nlf. 't .-;a('.
.'. ',. '.'. . ['p'l5,t .. ,7 g and describe the OPIP sections that instruct LILCO personnel in procedures for l coordinating with local authorities.
%f . U.9l% K,*, 4l
,- g @".4 b'. . .crfp "f 4 . ,Tl?'VT Ug-
.'." '!he Access Control Motion divides the nodon of access control into two time frames: short. term control, or control during an evacuation; and long-I w T l'0, . '
. ' I['..,.c '/. /#, Mld. laj<.. ? term control, or control after the evacuation has been completed. Access Control p'
e,*g w' ., A;: .6. '.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 l ;.h' i., N,p' o,] ,W. .
;;' ,', g< ,. ' 'j .'? +,l. A l4 i.best 2 T ('t;
] efforts
.' State and County response.
to, the question of whether the plan could indeed be implemented, assuming a
~
SA .e ; fl'. g
- N As to long. term control, LILCO invokes the "best efforts" principle in ;
l'.," 77 ;'./ ;- !f ,f.G. ,
,> conjunction with an assertion of adequate police resources in much the same !
,i.. j y - ['f [;e:?"Jc,1M . 7,; fashion as it did in the 'Daf6c Modon. Id. at 4 8. Finally, LILCO pleads that j
l ;., <. ',', this portion of Contendon 10 rnerely duplicates other contendons and refers us '
.- ...' 9e e.<L, , M ;Q.# ,W to its treatment of Contendons 7 and 8 in the Ingestion / Reentry Motion. Id. at
! * , y ,9 , .
. j ;j; - 4 , g. Ihe Access Control Modon includes a "Statement of Material Pacts as to p,
.. ,q., y., , .. ' ..<3y',y 7 ' [.,,; ,
. Which '!here Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard . . ." with three numbered y'.:,.a ; . ,,( ,: ; ' w^ -
statemetas. U' . -, l , . . [ . .f.F. ,'; ; f c..' j
- f ' '., y,
' ' ?
. U. '!he $rst of those statements says that da Suffolk County police would provide access control. It cites our Special Preheering Conference Order (Ruling P.c ,. on Contendons and Establishing Schedule for Discovery, Modons, Briefs,
? , . Q;_ a. ,y'* f N"j t ? .;c . .',. -'
l . Conference of Counsel, and Hearing) of August 19,1983 (unpublished). LILCO misreads our order. In that order we refused to admit a contendon that alleged J.,,t' . , y, 7, ' . D. k . Q .. l *; J ,g. C]
, es absence of letters of agreement wim he police m ensum hat me polke
. , . , ' ,7 :
. ., t y ,1 ' h, gj #
would maintain security witin evacuated areas. We relied on the assumpdon
* ". .a* s. .,
. /#, ',c3 that plice departments would perform their normal duties. Controlling access 6 ff- . . ,
l to the EPZ is not a day to day police funcdon. Indeed, the EPZ perimeter is a l . . y , 4, . ,.., [ * . .
- -,- .. . 7...i 375 l .
. . m , .
.g 3 . , . ,
- a .
s.
'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 d
&h ,
' * ' . s, j y_,. ,
- f. , . ge ,
_ y . -
,,. . , q , .-
.a+
....,:..a . ..
L- ,*',' ' s 2 '. s > - +
.',".j.' .n.^ .<n,. fp;,; _ b . c
.'n
.4 ,
.o
/.3 ..,'
, ,,,i'. * * -
e.
- 3
. . . . f. x : ,s,,.. ' , . , . ' .. ', . "g.4.} , ,, , : ;r (.g' T .- .+
., ; . _; , ;;p, q% 9 ;g %,. N 1 ,
. ; rl v
.t v
. ., . 9
.e.u.
c- ...
;.z n __ ;n :
c ,..;r , ,
. s.3 x;,, %.;3. ,.,&
. s .. . .
1
,. . _ . f. . ,
.o
.9 x, .e .? ..
,{
. 6 4; l .A.-
. , ,; s - g
,[ "2 p l . ! < ' ,
~ 1 C,.. , ' hypothetical boundary that is largely ignored in routine life. Whether the police couki rv would mobilise to control it in an emergency is scarcely a matter "as
[Q.4,.
.c
-; ..,f0 .f . 7.i. J,,e. , hr.,T .
. .'.l.'t ] p; to whkh there is no genuine issue." "Pact" No. 2 says the police have adequate 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
.- j d.0;,*. . ~j*./ County's Testimony, (f. 'n. 2260. That may well be. The police deny that they s"8 a. *.N %d[d. .',' h. '.1
. . would or could control them.
...J i 6 i "J .3 '. d f- N * % That portion of the Trucks Motion whkh deals with Conternion 9 has been
. *-r, g' ' '? y ,,7.,;m ,o ** . .y
- mooted by our Order of March 11, which granted summary disposition of
, .i.i ' 2' . d. . j . . . ,' ,' l Contention 9 on grounds of immatertality. We still have before us the ' Ducks
'.h ., "(c .".[. . T 4.,IJ. , D"1 ;Modon . l to the extent it seeks disposition of Contendon 4, dealing with tow
. ,.G.5",,
, . . ~j,l.' ,h* ;,. . ! '. j.f. ')/&.. ' T ; q S
trucks. The modon, in essence, simply asserts that, as with the other contentions
. Ql' ' j,; r f.a' ' *.4 s, ,.; 1 dealt with here, the County (or if not the County, the State) would simply allow ;,Q. Z .,.u. ;, ' ),' .f ,';,qj 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.
- . , . c ' .t . Here, however, LILCO also offers the af6 davits of Charles A. Daverio and Jay
. M , . ;;./ .; . .
. , #j } . ~ ' ". ! .
Rkhard Kessler to show that LILCO routinely cooperates with local authorides 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
( .-
,p.3' . ,
.. .' 7 'D a "Statement of Material Pacts as to Which Thcre is No Genuine Issue on
, ., 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
.c e- 5'
's radios. *!he other two, however, assert that Suffolk County lawfuuy could, and would, direct or permit LILCO crews to remove obstacles from the roadways
, in an ernergency under the condidons imposed by a "best-efforts" response. Id.,
, ., Attach.1. That nodon is clearly disputed by the Governments.
,t.
^ '
, ,. In the Ingestion / Recovery Modon, LILCO tells us that there is, in effect, a dkhotomy of responsibilldes at most power plants for the ingestion pathway, l..
, e recovery, and reentry functions in an emergency. Ingesdon/ Recovery Modon at
. 4 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 n, ' Lg , ?' .i-
.;*-l'. _. ..
< the counties themselves; the one for Suffolk County, of course, is lacking. Id. at f, "jf,, ,
y .
.. ,,f .q 2. LILCO sets forth its hypotheses in considerable detail (Id. at 3 26) describing ,,; ci.; e -
cyv , ( ,f-* " , x$,c..f * .0,?. ' - 'qhow State and County would interact, always assuming that the County, at least,
- s. . , .: ... . would be constrained by the "best efforts" principle to follow the LILCO plan in the absence of a County plan. /d. pesim. LILCO stresses that the State would
.., ., .g ". ? ,f, .{ have no dif6culty in responding and coordinating with the County in meters
; J;. -J s -
7 u .' , . J.', i!" regarding the ingestion pathway EPZ at least since the County is within the
.' 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
. ,- . . . . ,s
, e
- i. , ,
b i
. 3
. '- } - l s .
q,
- g. -
1
. , e . s q .,
i
... + . . .m . , .-- . -
.+,
7....,,.., e . ., ,o . .,..,. a, .-
.. ~
- 7 7 ' s.e
. e i .o , , y, . . .,
o '.' i: ,s,:
' k '
' r '
- a -
.,.m 4 ;.,.;.. :.. ..
^
.- :s; u.'.% :* u. .
*. <.~ *
.).
g . -
,;,... :. .-.r. c r.
l
.y-i
.y
., .. + 1,, . I
+
[.p pOl- I. l' :;,,A, ' .. ; ,
- Kd
" . k ,; .' '
- h,.
,. . ,. ,..} ~
LILCO repeneedly tells us that the force of ths new rule compels us to assume
.i s . c . ', f fk%. '"" . that the local authorities, where they have no plan of their own, will use the
-v s Y f . . .". 4 ~ y, S G ;$ m LILCO plan. ;
- f. , 7,, 'l ' r,1,- $ a.: ., LILCO also appends a "Statement of the Material Pacts as to Which "Iherc Is '
. J . . '. ' ., >Q;, 6 'Jy*. ]A.;f 7:*.* d;gg
- No Genuine issue to Be Heard on Contentions 7 and 8." These comprise 6fty.
- ,*1.'" ", ' ' ,
. p git "$.y?'.'. .
"a d. -.i Sve statemenu generally outlining features of the New Yoak State Radiological ;
, . '. 4 : ( 6 , t*; .
Ernergency Plan, plans for coundes other than Suffolk, and LILCO plan features,
- 0. . , . .",, _ " .h. %?.7 Y.'d all of which are alleged by LILCO to be descriptive of what the State would do 1 a
,n , . ~ g0., ., . %. .(p , 3 ' ,
,+
in a '"best-efforts" response to an emergency. Two statemenu (Nos. 54 and 55) i q.., , , ,: 3,* p '[ note that FEMA tested the ingestion pathway response for the Ginna plant and ;
. .N , y .s .N.* e, ' @ m.,.v..; provided New York's plan with favorable comments.
. ~,;. c.. *-r.
.. q. . . m. . c4, ,p. .. . ,
.:. ,;,.n.,
.: , . , - . . , , E g. j,, ,y. The Governments' Position
..- N. < . . ,.,o[Q;.
J. * - s , 01 February 10, 1988, the Governmenu submitted their replies to the mo.
,; ', .e.
. ., : ' l; * $h ,.c *.., ;'., .,, , tion. '!hese included their Overview Memorandum in Support of Governmenu' f t*U , f7.r,.,.
.w- ,
Opposiden to LILCO's Modons (cr Summary Disposidon of Contentions 1
- ' ', , , ',, j . J 27. F, .* . ? 2 and 410 (Overview), and separate documents opposing LILCO's Summary J' ',. g .; , " ' ig '; * ~
Disposition modons on Contendons 5 and 6 (Decisions Answer); Contentions I s . and 2 (TYaf6c Response); Contendon 10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter)
- '- . ,, N ' !
-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 i a.
. 9 ./.. - 1 / ("Cuomo Af6 davit"); Af6 davit of Patrick O. Halpin, Suffolk County Executive, i
,.',,. February 9,1988 ("Halpin Af6davil"); Af6 davit of Richard C. Roberts, Suf. 1
- ~ ' -
- folk County Police Department, February 9,1988 ("Roberu 1988 Af6 davit"); !
c ... . Af6 davit of Richard C. Roberts. Suffolk County Police Department, Septem. I
., ber 25,1984 ("Roberts 1984 Af6 davit"); Af6 davit of James E. Papile, James
. J
^
C. Bamnski, and Lawrence B. Czech, New York State Radiological Emergency
.i 4. . . ' ;. . , Preparedness Group Februa4y 10,1988 ("REPO Af6 davit"); At6 davit of James i 1 . .' 'j.,y.
* E. Papile, New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, May
~,
'i ' ']A .
11,1987 ("Papile Affidavit"); Af6 davit of Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lock.
./ ,l . '.14 **Di , hart February 10,1988 ("Leuche Af6 davit"); and Affidavit of Richard J. Zahn.
~,*,f'. leuter. State of New York February 10,1988 ("Zahrdeuter Affidavit").
tb Covernmenu' Overview first lisu three statements that it deems "reasons" f/ ^ . A *
- for denying LILCO's modon. First, the Governmenu allege that LILCO's in.
?,,.'A..,..Vli
,, , 4 s terpretadon of the new $ 50.47(c)(1) is erroneous. They believe that LILCO i v '
.. . truerpreu the new nale as eliminating any requirenerd for fact.Anding on the
*l nature of a "best efforts" response. The Governments see LILCO's treatment
.s- *
' ' , , , , , of "best effotu" as simply a plea for us to accept LILCO's hypotheses cco.
cerning the Governmenu' response to a radiological emergency without further P ,# 4
, , , 377 y ., ..
' - t j
- 1 l
.\
. l
. I i
, i i
- l
. . I
, s ff. %.W .< '!
w M. E Ikh r?.,'4f:@Q,bf%3f}:y}/etGIW$,.$$$y5 p ?,NQr ,. ? c. . . @a.$p;R?., %'q; q.v.e.g; .n-nh
.Q:.fdlTy:.
$gy .d'l/O,bh'/d.M.Dy? Inquiry. Overview at 5-6. "Ihey cite the rulemaking for the notion that the Com. eA*$'*M, f. D
,K+ %
. .9fdi?Ti QMg.D,' Q f '8 mission did not intend that the nature of a "best efforts" response would be accepted without examination. Indeed, the Commission said that the licensing
@Q,h,NYf i$G hjh-{/h" 8 fc y'p [ . . of a plant would depend upon "the record developed in a speci6c adjudica-tion . . . ." Id. m 6, cidag 52 Ped. Reg. 42,081. We agree. But we caution
'.4,g%
ib T?.2.'d.%.f" pT. 7M*ydQa4[ W. again that the need to develop a record does not (and we amplify this Iniow) mean that the Governments, by blocking the development of a record, can in-le % S - de6almly postpone a dens;on. The Governrnenu further point out that the un- $/i@[M,ifM.p$hh.2%.,;f' 8/ dad *h .
. '$- controverted sworn stamments of their responsible of6cials indicate that they '
IyQ*
*W; Y.*M
% Mf <'t
~
M;#.h[@eff[E*t would not use the LILCO plan or cooperse with LILCO. We intend to 6nd out
, I.T .- what it is that they would do.
- m. second, the Governmenu argue ihm uLCO's "realism" and "best efforts"
' d,s.W.g,,
i e e .a
,y!dfh'gyd, .t . . RJrt!. g g. d.
-@- concepts assume the Governmenu would "permit" or "authorize" LILCO to h@.'*T.M.Mt.j%..n.y.,e L'i *
.. O. %EM ,*:.%M
'/
perform police power functions itself. This, they beueve, is contrary to New York law and to the law of the case 'They argue that in both our PID and our h'h'.sf@p?M,/j?gC,'%*$l b 9 '.f.;.7 .K'". 3M.M.
".? ' (" /
Order of Sepember 17, 1987, we accepted the nodon that Cuomo v. ULCO precludtd such an assumption. Overview a 8 9, cidag LBP 8512,21 NRC at
,e fMw 911; LBP47 26, nyra.
xI WJZh.';3% $lNN'I *4.@h4Y.' 4
' third, the Governmenu see the recent Decision of the OL 5 Board (LBP.
S'NdhM" Y7 .'$ .Dfw??j.; I M, .88-2,27 NRC 85 (1988)) as "compel [ ling) summary reject:en of the LI140
'Modons." In essence, the Governmenu' reasoning is that, since the cited M.p(p.3'>;'f'Cn*.'),/3.}g./
vf -( . decision found "fundamental Saws"in the implementadon of the communicadon 0* .3 T f,g . t .,[ f..,.'JQ y
,4 .. k Q . > and training portions of the plan, the Boarti is precluded from anding that a
' response that relied upon the plan could ever be adequate. Overview a 910. We 6 g,;
, ey.3,h;/, 4-a f. ,3 'T?,i/,6 ,J y'n n . . f cannot accord this chain of logic much weight. While our colleagues did indeed and the fundamental daws in the plan were revealed by the exen;ise, they j ejM.E.M .$ ) '[, y S.g jg.1 did not suggest that those Saws were uncorrectable. Quite the opposite: they
@ ; p (g ,41,. .y speci8cally rejected the notion (there put forward by LILCO) that a fundamental glp'l .t. [.;.,, ', '.l 1
. i, s . ,8
,f.
.<* ,, . ,( : ; 73 ' 1 i . 7, Saw would perfcrce require a substantial effort to correct LBP 88 2,27 NRC at 92. We reason, therefore, that, while the present plan may be Sawed, such y . . , ' J ;, , ?' ' '
' f. *Q'M M.y Saws would present no bar to its use if they were corrected. ,
.M M Il .. NN.f; .' $' . 'The Governmenu correctly point out that the primary difference between the yp;cc
- 3. p 3 [-', f., y e. ,'NJ g .)T.i y{- present modon and the modons previously denied seems to be LILCO's belief that the new rule, standing alone, endtles LILCO to a summary ruling without
; WQ A m ,, "y, ,,p.4 d,C .g p)C /f *.'
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
, y 5...7C' M Di7h . i'.Q'.l?,'.m f;g . -g,'? 4,l i(y,,
view of the presumpdon that "state and local o(6cials would generaUy follow the , y,'(p.' .,,,,~
, l.b [.,,,' Q ;,;ll.; ,',y'p utility plan," a presumpdon that LILCO views as mandatory ano Governments view as opdonal. Overview at 1013. 'The Governmenu argue that accepting cp .
, ,p.
>i v ; ,.y d '*j such an assumpdon would require us to ignore the swom statemenu of the J-[', I(,,
y ,,a? y*y [.Q1J[*')'],q;
b'
.s .,
Oover.)or of New York and the Suffolk County Executive. 'The Governmenu
,. i",,. i#<
'k.,t 4 4,
, [ ' jn' . , , i ' . f.,'. .. ' ,
f.a,e *
*f = 1 , ' ' . A *',,.?* / .# .A[( a
. =s
,, t - .~. . 's,6L.*
(.
.A, ,p * ., 7 .... 37g 6
, .77 y .
, ,, ..%Ay,p c ,g'. : A. ,, . . y . . ;. -
g ,_ s c. v . , ,
~6* *'
,'<'g . ' *. y W ..n y $,y;.,.
,,.'a 9.'?.$!c? [y
'q 5-
, ,,%g 7 .t \
*s .
p -. ;
- ys* =m y *s ~ ~ - -
', .* \
E. ,,
,J+.3-* ('
y*:qs . z m-r g'
- e n-.-~.y.- s.
- ra vv. ,
sse ; q : . .yw
. ,'* J, (, 4,0 .'
9 1 O , c' i e'
,3 , ,
. r , . ,w,
, '. , ' ' ,1i, a g g ps- EP 9 . .
,p ,,
..o,"e- ; f., .
,, 4q . , .s '
S,c. ,
. f g ,. g '
', 4 l ,
, ?. * ,, . . ;'.,^ "i[ M h $ [ g ,.h,.' , '
-[ %. -* f -. '.
< /, ,' .
. , v
= i
+
~ *
- , , . ~ 'f n ,
L ; ;: . . ~, g . .'. - '
'..'l
*..,6-o
,J Q'
, a*, , , ,- .
'f, s
. ,t;
- 2 a
. y+,. ..' .
I . * *. . i
. * ., % e p . , e/ , L
'g .* , F 4 *. tf ,
0, " g' , i * * ' 3
,g k ^*;
g
.,, a' *
, ,'t y ' ;t i ,g , ,,, ' N , * **, *
- N, a f , , . ,e i . . , .
q* . _a 3
~ ,. . -
, ^~
y.. 3, L.. h,
.p. ...'s 9 77,, . 4~. .n _ ,. .? " ,g e - ...: q. ,' .
' . < ..~ - -r :
L.,
, . " *.~r;. ...a
.c e ..
s.y je' "w ' n. y& ; - . 2 v r <: ,
> p. v. ' , ,:
. , n'/ ,c-
.. .+ -s, ,- r -
JL>
^ 7' ;,j *.,...'< . ,. g - L ;.g; .; ; % ; '
1
?
. .~ , - .,, , ,y ,, ,
. .s.. w e . :~ . - . * - - > - -- -
. . g. .,. ,-
t .
- g.
3;.. 4 4,
' ' J. . O ^
also disagree with LILCO's posiden that the only way to rebut the assumption
, f f . . ,O ,
- e /*l 'f f - ?
mentioned in the new rule is to offer an adequate State and County plan.
..N '
f* . .
- . t . .) . . * , , The Governments then asseat that LILCO's assumpdon that an ad hoc
., --,=- ,
s response would be "guided" cr "defmed" by the litigadon of the Plan that has
., . , ; ';, . y * -; < ~ #.,*. N .
, occurred in this proceedmg is "a variation on the . . . LILCO argument that the 1 J ,- '
lN Plan has been ' approved.'" Id. at 1314. f .l< -*
. , . . 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
. ;1,,f , ; : 'w.
t '
,1 (. - ( ' ~ . - of an af6rmadve defense. Id. at 33-41. We have put the burden of presenting , " * ';
- b . '-
f*. , ;: y the assembled primafacie evidence upon LILCO.
- 9. ' . a *,X*,'.
e- ,, g , , r* 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., at,. decisions considerably lessens the forte of that argumerst. We believe the case
. 'L -- . ',. ..f . - [
1,. : has prwMed beyond these consideradons, and we intend to pursue the case in
- s. *.22 [ J., ';* ?. ,4 its present posture against the background of the revised rule,
' *]- .- 7 .',. ':s.- ,.. .
.. In a separate section of the Overview, the Governments expand upon their
, ' , f. ,' f
; ,p -
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
- .,.. ',* i as it goes. But, as we have noted above, fundamental flaws are by no metns 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
- ,' 4 ,d be. It is our intent to hold a hearing that will sadsfy what the Governmenu f,. ,
- +- *
! themselves term the new rule's "call fcr a case by. case adjudication to and out
.M '*
precisely how the Governments would respond." /d. m 66. e
- .u j The Governmenu offer the af6davlu of Governor Cuomo and County Ex.
. 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- #=
- , s. ,
379 s b
, t I e 4
4 . 9
, [ , 4. * ,..
,' - 1
~.',).* b,, N . ~.,'., 7 p.'a. ' l ,n. w. 'N. . ..,$.,l " 5
~.
v.~. $. m.7.cl; w e#;M: A e.;:?. w.. !.e,.hijQQ Q
- n. y,p,*:Q:%e G.g# c.W n. y.i . V z. . .
. . w.o , . .
+ -
c.4l?.9,,v;e y -7 ,.y*.44;.J .4: h-
;c.?
.4..:r. .. a.y w%.)x
-i-
- m. ,;e ~ < n.- e,s.; p
- 1. A. ;f: . '+.. y-9 Wu& %. . .;e .-n:- . . N, % :: ,$
.wL
. + 9. ,%,...Y.J .
~v l l &.
s m. . ..
'Q <' ~ ' !) ? .1, .
.n . .,> y - pla. } /, , % ; r. WW ,o.,h :(+
~: '.l.ng,:, w,, , g .g.,.
. . J /< ,
,> Av,;g
- e,, , .
a: . .v - * . ,s. , u.c, *: .c.
- r. lNw,;'. , . ', ?l; . - .-l,\ d'.l.?,:.f,.
~
. ' ' . ;.w not to take seriously any government of6cials'statemenu tiet they would not 3*c,pg.)"*i
.h p'.Q.*f.,.';?W p j/.a2 c},I-g' S 4 take action during an emergency.
The Overview challenges LILCO's reliance on comparisms with the plans Id s?5,' ?'.'.
.%d.y.~,.,.F.;[A..i.?.y,'.* .
**h for other planu, especially in connectim with Ae Ingesdon/ Reentry biodon and
~.c.$ m].
W '
.?*/Q :.d,$ ' I ,., N.ji,? I.'. the Decisions hiodon. Id. at 67 72. We deal with the Governments' answers to those modm helow. . 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. CG'-t.l Q,'$'!,d,f*?* N'S 0654, Rev.1 Supp.1, a document upon which IJLCO places considerable f ',.c g y, C".<. re11arce. Id. at 72 73, cidag LILCO hiemorandum (Introduction) at 111 LILCO
.iy Ag?-@g *' .. 7 MSM','g%-
.d biodm (Access Control), Attach.1. Fact 2. De Governments are particularly MY.
.; ,, $.*.a 'y,d .'.., d. y, l J. '.. ,q,*, Nh
* * : i ., .*.a'.f h exercised by the astumptions of that document (set forth at page 2 thereof) to the effect that:
>. . .e ... ,.
, p ry w + % ., . . , . . , . o g, .~.~< .q
- r.
@.* M */ 4'i L' .. la en actual radiological ernergency, State and local o(Scials that hsw dedir.ed to particrpate
'4TY,'. f% ',, p;.,.,*'jy~; [,*, % ,[ ;.'[,.ig isl emergency #.';.*r,rdanning milt:
,f
'. . .Q' %cM, . , /'.,** d'O Q[3 6 . .. ; .a .,, . J . 1 :
, a) eurdu dur best effom to prwa die heahh mJ ufay d the FWe.
- t. .s.. .
, . q. =, . g
- 4 ."
..o . . ..
b) corgenin with the tailny and fWow tas dry dftite plan; ard
, g,,5; / y,
, .' . g ~ - - ] f, o... e) hm the rim.es sufadas to implemas do pms a the sty offiae plan g - when Stase ard tocal respmse is necessary.
Ps-
.. g l [, =,, ,[, a ., - 1.h,y
. 'd
. t .-
',t ...
,'. , '% t . .i, 1, ,' '9 -- ', 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
. .W '
. ; . ,1 .,)'.'., ** ofocials' sffidavits, and that FEhfA itself has said it could not defend these
, . /,',:. "' w, ';' a 4 'j- ' . /J. !
assumpdcus. Overview at 72 76, cidag the afadavlu and a letter from FEhfA
; 3 1,, .
of6cial D. bicLoughlin to S. Chilk (April 28,1987) at 4
,.V - ',F ".'lc , . E *'
7 Finally, the Overview characterizes the motions as "premature " nodng
+
. "' 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 q, 4 ' ', . ,, , l ,
". ' / ' ,, ' support a denial of the modons for summary disposidon. '
4 .. .
'm In their Decisions Answer the Governmenu assert that LILCO's modons 4 *1 s , ., ! < ,
o .' J'. .. & .'! [* .i r.epeat argumenu already rejected by this Board and the Commission by igncring
" , , ' , '.,*,'*N ^,. t , , . . ' .
- c. . signiacant quesdons pointed out by both tribunals. Decisions Answer at 512 r,
. c . . . y, a y, , 1g.22. It is evident, as we noted above, that LILCO believes that the presence of
,-]... , ,7m ;,. .? <
.q. 7' < .5 . ?.v"{a' . + i / , f 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 nct previously have. The Governments also take issue with LILCO's assumplen
. ' ' . *.l ' ' f '*,s. ar, ., ". ;
that "permission" or "authoritatjon" to perform tne funcdons would be readily l' / ' _',. Z , * -. l 3 t ( j' ; ' g anted. Id. at 1315. Here the Governments' ressming is heavily dependent T ., ', .
.'* ( ~~ '
, upon the cattler decision in Cuomo v. ULCO. The Governmenu also quesdon
~
- s. g g g
'*9 g
. b ?
'V". .' w* . e; 380 y a .,e. 4, ,,.,. .'
~.; : q,. ,,
.a .
~ '. . ' Iw. .
\
.e -
I
- ,'2 ,
4 9
., - . _ . . . . ~ , . . , , , . . , .., .. , , .
5 . ,
- * (
i 8
. 4g , .' I '
, . g . .
A e e g e
. , i~ >.
e . 3 P /
, g
' ' ' * * e 9
#5
e . : ~
,,.' .a wag g f ;yp;,.g ,.y.L,;,. q. G y' 7 c,,
g , v 3, .. 1
. , < ,y u .. ,3 - ,i.
.i 7. . -
., , ,. - ; ., ,, ,' c , .
., ,p <;a .
A
,c - .
;i;,
y-
, . u ., . ,;
6 ,f [ .' ' , 0 s. , i.
,,, '.,'1c2: '-
' ' 9.[L . , _ r ' .,
7 ,;, , ,.,. ,,
.y .f .c . - v -
, .... ., ... . c .,
.g-
,C f.
t
.df e
f - M ,. . - ' .- ,q ,
,- ' .. ,. g .; , ., 'e
. ..,.n
.. . .~ .
,6
.,;,. * +
. o'.*, .' . .
1 f^ *. ; *,; ; , ' , . . ; . ,
.1, the nodon that LILCO's plan has already been litigated and found adequate.
' .P.' ... ! .
, ,. ,e 4
Decisiont Answer at 1518. -
,,,.,....(.,; ' .: *
. 9,t- The Decisions Answer also argues, not without some redundancy, that
.Q.3 "ch LILCO's hypotheses as to the behavior of New York State and Suffolk County
.,7*.. M., +.,,.
y /j -O . s,i ~*. ~. .;-. [4 ,< *. I g' are without basis. In particular the existence of a generic State plan for other facilities, and the existence of a previously drafted (but rejected) plan for Suffolk
* '.] y , // ' . ( , , ';.. .f7 ). . ' * ,*. .'
, County, do not, in the Governments' view, constitute the existence of acceptable
..,*...!. 4 plans fce those governmental ertides. Id. at 22 34. We are, of course, ordering
- 7. , f. 9e - ' .
. - t- a hearing simply because we are uncertain what the Governments would do.
f g, ,(. o-y , p *; . * ' ,'J., %'; ,' ". .. . .facilities
,Nor, &?between the .-Governmenu concede the existence of proper communkstion 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
...N- . . , -
.y thct the OL.5 Board found flaws in LILCO's plan arsi training. 'Itaf6c R esponse
* ?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
<N f . .- .
.. v. ULCO and the Board and Commission decisions following from it. Id. at 9 i'
- 11. They repeat their claim tiat the motion is premature since the Governmenu
,s. ., , . J .3 have not had the opportun'ty to study Revision 9 of the plan. Id. at 1215. They 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.
x - , legedly undisputed "mater!al facts," offering statements in their attached af. 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. I C. ,. .; I ,
,Y>,,i ternVlong term" dichotomy of access control that LILCO presses upon us. Ac.
a.sJ'" 1
. 4 cess Opposidon at 7,9,13 n.7. They dispute LILCO's assertion that the short- !
s , , , . . . , , , . term phase has already been decided in LILCO's favor, poindng out (as we
.t 3 :.. .Qils , ourselves pointed out above) that the focus of the present dispute is quite diffes-
]. *
. .4{
, ett from that dealt with in our PID, centering now cn the ireracdon of State, )
~
. _. f *,"~ County, and LILCO rather than on the proposed methods to be used by LILCO
- 8 10 .-
Traf6c Guides. Id. at 9 11. They characterize access control as essendal to com.
.., : \ ,' * ! ' t , .. ,- -
.' i pliance with the regu'ations (ld, at 11 13, cidat 150.47(aXI) and NUREO 0654 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
%. ,Q. o.. ., . .,. , c* gr, %. .g,.p. .s n o.q: 3 .@~'.M A'.i/:J. 1 ;4J D ~
w b
.. y9'.%.}.[n,j:ltf, n,
- n. m %a. na e W h , M k L'2 5 O d *i hW %~* Q 'N . W,' . A 2 Q, y ,O Ts g y.
'i.%g 3,a
$l%, s.;Q v v,.P,,
,. t, . ,
./ V 7.% n, q'y.xj Q ,. y
*. 3 g.yg y, g yi % W'A r.
WL & g p^-
< ,s e,A
,1
- y,,..T. hw.l,pb:.hIlh n T W.M. '
,s, 9 ,#.
;<. .e. ,. ,Q. ,A. y. , ..e.M
.v
. . e e.%mp.J, ,m. 4 -
.a
~ v,? 'x .
.. ,v ,p n - . . .
s.k'*.~ e; m ~.;..:'.Jt,[. . y .*'T?. nL .t> ' u >;
, . os,x.; . .u <%
. i. m.y. s m m ; .m.. -
.M. ..
an m . .,u
- .5..u n r :s r n&.
, . c, ,, ..
- .- ..:,,,,., e s 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.. iJ ';;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 Q T*,. g
- Order, others of which relate directly to the strategies, training, resources, and p Q O ;.',.;,\.-
M].jtw'.M@M M-Y jy; s; 14 y, Q ' tjMW 'Ay $p.y familiarity that the Suffolk County Polke Department could bring to bear on the L'C' dy.ig.M * . F.!r access control publem, and the last three of whkh question the overall adequacy of a "best.cfferts" response by the Governmeros. /d., Attachment.
*f . .* *.,>d
%%@4;2M"M,Q,*g?C.l " f,N.. f,W*e es 8 W.5 The Governments' TYucks Response challenges as "false and unsupported" the modon's assumpdon that LERO persmnel would obtain permmim fmm %q- /.w ' 'R. t...; 7: ,,mW,*rg *k 4
,,. ?.i .
. . . . . the Suffolk Count.y authorities to remove road obstructims. Trucks Response at
.S , % .p. c ?, . m f ;':? Q ,} # , ,, y j 1. The Governmenu further assert that they are pohibited by law from giving
, e , 3%
- f P. 4 " A i such permission, and that they would not do so (id at 2,610); and they state
? !?. / .;i;,.% ' that "[t]he anecdotal information in LILCO's af6 davits are [ste) irrelevant to
,;t ,, ?..\*'fe W .t'i.4/ b M'%.K.'".Q,?f/.%
the issue at hand" (id. at 1012). They Vint out issues of fact previously found
.,,gg,$q;d; s .,d. '
- .g N '7 unresolvd by this Board and a!!ege that the new rule does not affect the status
. fs,f h, :t@ * $' n* M 7, T [ of ' hose t .Jes. /d. at 1215, cidag Overview, IIII. They append a "Statement
. M y /yy;!,'. Qj,*.7,.
-- of Mater.al Pscts as to Which There Exists a Genuine Issue to Be Heard on
- y;;. , .,' / .y . p , ge f. Matters Raised t>y LILCO's Motbn for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4
.J,.4 n. .o.. h.. b" Q ;AJ9..<y.'
and 9." Id., Attachment. These sixteen numbered items are, in fact, questions e'e ,
... . *r, a that the Governmenu view as Ning still in dispute. Some of them repeat this
.- 'i, c,l * ..w,-1 y Q u. W /(.'$., n' y, Board's own questions, propounded when we denied sununary disposition in 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
- c. . . , . .
that LILCO has not dealt with the issues we identiSed in our Mernorandum arx!
, . qf,~ , ,. b., Q,.. ;
?
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
' \ ,,' c-1 J*C ,i County in the event of a radiokgical emergetscy. Ingestion / Reentry Response J.1 .,a , at 1,2. The Governments particularly stress the need for prept..'ning, training,
. - l7 * ' '
; , 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 a* f , ^f. y '.~,,fr.* ,
alleged, detailed procedures. /d. at 8,12,17, citing REPO Af6 davit. And they
. q . A ,:
. f . '. ['. >. ' . @, '. " It ', ,M , ',b ,
3 . ; . ** see far larger requiremenu on the part of the County than LILCO see.. /d. at 8, l.{.L* 13,19, citing REPO Af6 davit. Md they view the fact that Suffolk and Nassau
....c'..J.**-'/ j ^ . . .g(.f .
counties are within the ingestion EPZ fx other plants as irrelevant, since they C 4o + f,,.'.g .; <.., .y; . J'J.*j .. %.f, consi&r ingestion EPZ planning to be plant.rpeci6c. Id. at 16.
, , , , g 'i ; .*.
m The REPO Af6dailt addresses each of LILCO's afty Svc "material facts" in 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'g ] j M . *].g) ,f ,'f .
"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, l' v e,4 . . ' '.
'S . . hg ,q p - *'" "
~
- O
.y'I' i
4
,,,.,S
'.,c* '
?*f.
4, .#. #,w;
,m - 13' s.
' 4 ,g*l,." .,
**.e- l
' 1
< ; . { u. & ^f. "3 g .; s .. *
\
l 7 ,
,- .v .,_v ....,_.3- . . , - , ,. s y- ..,c 3 .v-.-.- l 4
-; . ,n 3
* , i s s p .1 -
,}}