ML20214G860
| ML20214G860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1641 OL-3, NUDOCS 8611260206 | |
| Download: ML20214G860 (12) | |
Text
..
Ib A l =
D0thET((
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~86 NOV 25 - P12 :20 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SA*ETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD YOdd$iiNd..>Y g '> '.. r.
In the Matter of
)
)
A LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF COMMENTS PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 4,1986 I
i i
4 Bernard M. Bordenick
(
Counsel for NRC Staff November 21, 1986 8611260206 861121 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
i
)
CCCM!IC' sm<c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAWETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOABpn,,
C0CMI.Tihv ; E v [;,, i.
BRANC" In the Matter of
)
l
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclesr Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
i l
l l
NRC STAFF COMMENTS PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 4,1986 Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff November 21, 1986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
~
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF COMMENTS PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1986 INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Order dated November 4, 1986 (Order), this Board asked for the parties' views on (1) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (ASLB's) " Clarifying Decision on Remand (Monitoring of Evacuees)," dated October 29, 1986, wherein the ASLB determined that the issue of whether LILC0 had to plan for evacuees seeking radiation monitoring alone in addi-tion to evacuees also seeking sheltering had been properly raised in the proceeding, and (2) whether there is an obligation in the Commission's.
regulatory requirements to provide for the monitoring of evacuees who go to relocation centers even if they do not seek to be sheltered. The Staff here submits its views on these matters.
BACKGROUND The events leading to the issuance of the Appeal Board's Order of November 4,1986 (Order) is set out at pages 1-3 of that Order.
In sum, in ALAB-8471/ the Appeal Board remanded two issues to the Licensing Board. One of the remanded issues involved the Licensing Board's con-clusion in LBP-85-31/ that, in addition to planning for the number of 2
evacuees likely to seek sheltering through a relocation center (at that 1/
24 NRC (September 19,1986).
22 NRC 410, 417, 430-37 (1985).
. time the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum), LILC0 was required to plan for the number of evacuees who would appear only for purposes of radiological monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination.
In ALAB-847, supra, the Appeal Board returned the matter in question to the Licensing Board to enable it to consider whether the issue of LILC0's plan for evacuees not seeking sheltering had been properly raised for litigation.
In light of this step, the Appeal Board stated in ALAB-847 that it was declining "at this juncture to rule on LILCO's alternative argument that the obligation imposed by the /Jicensing7 Board runs afoul of applicable regulatory requirements."E The Licensing Board in its unpublished " Clarifying Decision on Remand" of October 29, 1986, advised the Appeal Board that, in its judgment, the evacuee issue was properly raised for litigation.O DISCUSSION 1.
In its Order of November 4,1986, the Appeal Board has asked for the parties' views on the Licensing Board's " Clarifying Decision on Remand" of October 29, 1986.
In response to this Order, the Staff has reviewed closely the Licensing Board's decision. While the reasoning expressed by the Board in that decision does not reflect, in all respects, the views originally held by the Staff, concerning this matter, we nonetheless agree with the Appeal Board's observation, (Order at 3) that substantial deference should be given to the determination of the trial tribunal that particular issues were prcsented to it by one of the litigants before it - particularly in a case such as this where the relevant procedural history is exceptionally complex. As the Appeal Board recognized, the ASLB in its " Clarifying Decision on Remand" has carefully examined the record and has supplied a reasonable foundation for its determir.ation that the " evacuee issue" was properly raised in this proceeding. The Staff does not now take issue with this conclusion.
U.ALAB-847,24NRC (September 19,1986) (Slip Opinion at 9).
O The Licensing Board further observed, as had the Appeal Board in ALAB-847, that the Nassau Coliseun is no longer available to LILC0 as a relocation center and called attention to the pendency of a recent LILC0 motion to reopen the record for the purposes of substituting three LILC0 owned facilities for the Coliseum. See, also, LILC0's Revision 8 to its Interim Plan which is presently under review by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
_ 2.
The Appeal Board (Order at 4) also expressed an interest in obtaining an elaboration from the Staff of its views on whether the planning requirement imposed upon LILC0 by the ASLB in regard to the monitoring of all evacuees arriving at relocation centers is required by the Consnission's regulations.5j As pointed out in our earlier Brief of November 21,1985,at11,0 the need to plan for anticipated evacuees who might seek to utilize relocation centers for monitoring, but not sheltering, is not explicitly addressed in NRC regulations. Section 50.47(b)(10) of 10 C.F.R. requires that offsite emergency response plans provide that:
l A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with Federal guidance, are developed and in place, and protective actions for the havebeendeveloped.!_phwayEPZappropriatetothelocale ingestion exposure pg I
However, NUREG-0654 ] which provides the guidance against which protective 8
actions described in offsite emergency plans are to be evaluated, states in
!i II.J.12 :
Each organization shall describe the means for registering i
and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available should be 5/ The Appeal Board was correct in asumming (Order at 4), that the Staff's principal ground of support for LILC0 in its November 21,1985 Brief was that the Licensing Board imposed obligation was not, at that time, rooted in a properly raised evacuee issue.
N NRC Staff Brief in Support of "LILC0's Brief en the Relocation Center i
Issues."
U 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E similarly does not mention relocation centers or monitoring of evacuees.
U " Criteria for the Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/ FEMA Rep. 1, Rev. 1 (1980)."
capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers.9]
Thus, while the NRC's regulations do not directly address the question of~whether provisions must be made for the monitoring of all evacuees who arrive at relocation centers, the guidance provided by the NRC Staff and FEMA in E II.J.12 of NUREG-0654 for evaluating the sufficiency of the range of protective actions in offsite emergency plans states that these plans should " describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in host comunities and that the capacity for monitoring should be sufficient to monitor "all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers." Nothing in that guidance limits the provision for monitoring to only those who seek shelter rather than all evacuees who might reasonably be expected to come to a relocation shelter for monitoring alone. Therefore, in view of this guidance the Staff believes that the obligation imposed by the Licensing Board, to provide monitoring for all evacuees who might reasonably be expected to come to relocation centers whether or not shelter is sought, is consistent with the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
E FEMA has also issued a Memorandum dated December 24, 1985 headed " Guidance on NUREG-0654/ FEMA Rep-1 Evaluation Criterion J.12."
A copy of the FEMA Guidance is attached. This guidance provides in part that:
- The State and local radiologict.1 emergency prep (aredness planssho of trained personnel and equipaent to monitor a minimum of 20 percent of the estimated population to be evacuated.
t
- For highly improbable radiological releases involving high levels of radiation encompassing a relatively large area, it may be necessary to monitor a greater number of evacuees beyond 20 per-cent of the population.
In such a situation, State and local governments would be expected to develop and implement ad hoc response measures, supplemented, if needed, by Federal Eiid private sector resources.
'This FEMA Guidance would appear to be probative of the number of evacuees who would seek monitoring at evacuation shelters.
Cf.
Philadelphia l
Electric Co.
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 iiid 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 710 1985).
I CONCLUSION The Staff agrees that the Licensing Board has in its October 29th issuance supplied a reasonable foundation for its determination that the evacuee monitoring issue was presented to it in the contentions admitted in this proceeding. The Staff further believes that the obligation imposed by the Licensing Board to provide for the monitoring of evacuees who seek mor.itoring is not inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, and the Licensing Board did not act unreasonably in interpreting the regulations to impose that requirement.
Respectfully submitted, Y
&I Bernard M. Borden#ick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21th day of November, 1986 r
l l
l l
[
A c
1/03 10:30 P02 x W I N C D __I C P P 637 526-3499 t
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 E 2 4f955
,g 4
MpopuWtixm FCRs MrH' Division Chiefe FgtM
/
%5fwm w.~ Kr
..., l Aseletant Associate Director State and tocal Programs and suggart SU MECT:
Gaidance on ICREG-0654/FDores>1 Evaluation Ctiterion J.12 i
his asnocande prwidee interpretative guidance on NURIO 0654/FBIA-REP protective response evaluation criterion J.12:
d j
and monitorirg of evacuees at relocation centers LA areas. 1he personnel and equipeent available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12-hour period all residente and transients in the pine exposure EFI arriving at relocation contare.
l ably be expected to arrive at a relocation escter(s).De question n.
emergencies is not conclusive. gathered on wacuation responses to a variet Prwious experience revealed that anywhere from 3 to 20 percent of the waeuses arrived atR I
relocation contere or shelters.
For radiol sonable to asases that additional wacuses,ogical esorgencies, it le see-have been esposed to radiation. fear over radiation, will go to relocation ce to alley their concerne and see for radiological emergencies any te ciceer to the upper end of the 3M to 20% range.
De congregets core issus is reviewed as a part of all Atomic Sofety and Licensing Board hearines, although it has never been foemelly litigat d such a hearing Se congregate care facility capacity in the vicinity of nuclear poner p.
e at lanta le usually cited as being betwen 5 and 15 percent of the estimated rmaderr of evacuses.With these percentages in mind, it is apparent that there la significant diveretty in the frees of reference sur romiing this issue.
.v.-,,,.,, -. - - - -y,,,--m----
y-.-., -, -..
,..,m-
4
,11/03 10:30 P03 xWINCO ICPP 837 526-3499
=
2 s.
Se guidanos provided beltpr is based on the followirg factoreI l
experience with erecuations regardless o* the nature of the energ(on) y 1 Past (2) inclusion cf fear afd imoertainty factore associatede, g '.
amorgercies ard (3) percentage of with radiological facilit1*e cited in A53 hearings. potential evacuees for congregata care i
M
- he State and local radiological energency preparedness pl of trained preonnel and a;[ulpment to semitor a minir ans percent of the eettmated population to be evacuated.
levels of radiation enccreaseirg a relatinly large areaF I
inay be necessary to ruanitor a greater number of evacuees, it beyond 20 percent of the population.
I State and local governnents would be expected to develop and
{
In such a situation, iglement ad hoc response reassures, supp by Federal and privata sector resouroce.lewnted, if needed, k5{
bout this guidance should be directed to Mr. sill t6
~.
i i
(
(
l l
l t
I
1
.1/C3 10:30 PO4 xWINCO fcPP 637 526-3499 Federal Emergency Management Agency Weahington, D.C. 20672 OCT 22 25 4
MDC5WNRM RE: Marshall E.
Oilef, Foi velppuent 3r
[.
rami cr.
.w Otte, FieM Ope ions Brandt amJgers policy Determination Concerning 143E0-0454 Element J 12 the attached October 4,1995 letter from Joe Neller, of the Idahe IIntional Engirmring faboratory (INEL), to Stewart Glass, Regional Caunsel of FINA Region II, wee recoind in this offica and in Region II en October M, 1955.
Although Mr. Neller asks his questions in somection with the Screham plan review, the issue is also applicable to other p1rJis. Mr. Glass has requested that since this really involves progree policy questions, the response he coordirated at Readquartere in this offios. couM you please anser Mr. Roller's questions? We have attached a supy of sne October 8,1985, FEMA finding on Revision 5 of the LI!m Trarmition Plan '
for Shoreham. That finding is referenced in Mr. Neller's letter. tie would appreciate it if you ocuM address this tasue soon so that the PIM4 witness panel souM have an ansNor before they have to testify en the Revision 5 finding. No hearing date has been set en this setorial but it is probable that the panel (Retieski - FEM 4, McIntire - FEMA, Neller - DEL and talerin - Argonne National laboratory) will have to give testimary, i
1 htta h t khW e
i
.1,1/C3 10:30
?05 xWINCD ICPP 837 525-3499 g Westinghouse Idaho
(
Nuclear Company. Inc.
==m go:4000 Idaho Faris. !dano 834 ?
JHK 51-a5 Octrber 4.1985 Stewart M. Glass Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Region !!
26 Federal Plaza New York, how York 10278 Cear Mr. Glass:
Subject:
Clariffestion of huREG 0654 Element J.12 I believe that clarification is reouired as to tie meaning of kUREG 0654 element d.12.
Since it is very likely that the FEMA witness panel will again have to appear before tPe A5L8 on the Shorenas emergency creoaredness issues. I would like to see the answere to the following questions:
1.
arrive at a reception center (s) for a.onitoring and if soIs what % of the EP2 copulation shoule be used in the planntog process?
2.
More ieportantly, what is the FEMA position on tne same ouestfons!
I raise tnis fesus for two reasons.
nearings I recall a hRC Commission Ruling which you supolied as baFirst, curing t material, which stated tnat 100% of the EPZ population must be considered ckgroune wnen amplying the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> time frene of element J.12.
not ree 11 if this statement was in tne booy of the Ruling or in one ofUnfortunately I can the indivioual opinfons apoended to the Ruling, statement woule nave considersele bearing on the issue.the location of the RAC has founo the LILC0 plan inadequate with respect to element J 12Second, whi reason for the inadequacy is not the ina0111ty to monitor arriving
. the Initial Decision on Emergency Planning has found the LILCO p defective because of the failure to adequately plan for the monito i registration of members of the general public arriving at th r ng and center.
\\-
I apparently acceptacle but the ASL8 points out that the number seening I
i monitoring is not necesserfly the same as tnat seeking shelter.
i t
\\
1 1/03 10:30 P06 xWINCO ICPP.637 R 2 8-M Q C 1
Stewart M. Glass Esq.
Page 2 b-i;HK-57-45 October 4,1985 While the issnediate concern is for the requirements to be used in the review of the LILC0 plan, this issue effects the review of all plans.
Therefore the FEMA position, anc to a somewhat lesser degree the NRC position, should be known and clearly defined.
I thank you for your help in obtaining a definitive position on this
- issue, sincerely, M
J. H. Keller, Staff Scientist Special Programs cc: M. Lawless - FEMA A. Kowieski - FEMA l
i DOCKETED US'mc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~B6 NOV 25 P12 :21 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR $,hhk;(
ImM;/
In the Matter of
)
o
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF COMMENTS PURSUANT TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 4,1986" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an aeterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system or, as indicated by double asterisks, hand delivery or by telecopy or, as indicated by a triple asterick, by express mail, this 21st day of November, 1986.
Morton B. Margulics, Chairman **
Joel Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge Director, Utility Intervention Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 1020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99 Washington Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Albany, New York 12210 Dr. Jerry R. Kline**
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, NY 12224 Mr. Frederick J. Shon**
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
I Administrative Judge New York State Department of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, NY 12223 Mr. Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.**
Federal Emergency Management Donald P. Irwin, EE.g.
Agency Hunton a Williams 26 Federal Plaza 707 East Main Street Room 1349 P.O. Box 1535 New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23?l2 i
-=yr*cwe-wWv--==+--N-- w zs W*m--m
---.m1-4--
- -rrew-wm---.=-ve-s--*ee.*,
v--wwe-
--w
+
wgwwee-v-e-
.we--e v t--e Mr+-rw--r-yn--Fm r-
--i-i-e-e.,get=e-w e e w ww t-y e m-u
l
~
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**
4 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq Twomey, Latham & Shea Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 33 West Second Street 1900 M Street, N.W.
Riverhead, NY 11901 8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Monroe Schneider Board Panel
- North Shore Committee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 231 Washington, D.C.
20555 Wading River, NY 11792 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Appeal Board Panel **
New York State Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office Washington, DC 20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Docketing and Service Section*
Agency Office of the Secretary 500 C Street, SW, Room 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20472 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Robert Abrams,. Esq.
General Counsel Attorney General of the State Long Island Lighting Company of New York 175 East Old Country Road Attn:
Peter Bienstock, Esc.
Hicksville, NY 11801 Department of Law State of New York Ms. Nora Dredes Two World Trade Center Shoreham Opponents Coalition Room 46-14 195 East Main Street New York, NY 10047 Smithtown, NY 11787 William R. Cumming, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H. Lee Dennison Building Agency Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW Hauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert Hoffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Living l
P.O. Box 1355 i
Massapequa, NY 11758 A
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff 1
-