Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for December 1986.Pages 769-930
	ML20235C313
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V24-N06, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V24-N6, NUDOCS 8707090378
	Download: ML20235C313 (170)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ -. 4.+ @d W g +s h6 $n 4 m$ M #m% s ..,.e ~ MM.M., M... <..., A @u... 2. ...s Br $ $ M. M @W$M @MMM. U s @MW 3 %r .WfW%r M P W-~MTfMM W y@ W[/M M @ M h WEN lD, W @M M W - yr g n. w. %w@@hy@@M p p m$a v$p W h.'? r, e."E 2 yyn w aeve% M. M

MGi NUREG10750 Q.

S4 5.Nrs. g,.. M i + g... & ivol. 24J Nol 6f x .c~%:u~$. ~W M.M

N/[,.4lPages D..w.N.. :... ;. v.v. v u... e....

wM. s.$.4.%u n w., c a#v IR WD wm.. mg.vi e~ ~. wn z.um.~ n..v,:.;n,w.?.n.m.;m;r.:-p.,3;..... . s.q:,;. v w: n. m w 6, a. m. m. ; & w a " +. " &p?W W %. ', w u, X@m@&pmp a Q@n.n. w.9;.n'WJ2?.>;.* W..r.>.c..g.v.W9. c p;;a! A . A a...n 4.,-. m 4 gF c r.. - ' M .w w.. w,3a ' 0 a,' '. ' Y. v y.7.n., %; ll.r~M:.}.y~'; n.... l*'c, T.

}f.J+@

. hk, ; '.. # Cl.&.,. 1 .%..q .,w..,.,n'

m..

g. .. v., s : ~.. -.. w.o,w.y. n,.gy.. e w.. -m..... .r g ; p m, M.... p.. y

r~y

~ f (( nm.u, n. .... s . w.9g.. . m. t g>.:.., '. f,4: %. 3.,. :.w*,,.. 1 ;. )4.. 4.~ y . : y+..s.~.. e.;;,. -.., . f. .. ;f. a

?;. n. 1 s.

p - j?W g J .T.% *.x ,c.p. :.e . ;.x'..:..m :.h z.,~q;.':),c. ' - a g.: G.,g, 1ke 1- ~ W.b.t : w ia L. 'n:. c. .'t =;T .. c ~. ,,m.. "<.4 .,, ( 6 ew. y f, e, g...,,..g.., f", d'g. .t..

3.,c.,.g..t,

, g. r'.; e... e h.5 :,,.., J i i.,* 6 .., g,. g. - /. -. -<'1, ,.4~. 4, g ..i

' W}s

'.,. i ;pl 'y,' a r. *i *,Jy f 3 g, Q:!%, h.:M:h. f; %f;RM. W Fi%; 8 - s . lff . e.

.w...gyt.;w w w M m.,,.3.n;po.p w y. m%.,.,g..a.

2.9.,... :.%:. .... r.... m., ., c,.,: m.... g g. ...e... 4 v, o,...,. :. ;

n. y.;

n m# c.- ,.s..- . " I,. f.[. [ . ',,f 4 .i; ..,_m.,1l,id.g %,., A(. .,.'.....~=.4..4,r,]m.. e./ r g .c A-s....s g y.. ..... ;' 4 ',r..; s.,7 4 ;,4,...... m}j.. 3 g?- {,..l, {3a. 9,.A .y., s7. g.w. :, u ', f 4.1,, _ g. u..,. y.y w v .( .n.

.su,,

.sv .L<,,,.. ,.;( y y w. %g,wn. m. my,.. ,3..

, 9*p e'..

o. . m:,.; w ss .m, ~ w v.,-

x.... x. +a.. m. m.c..,.

. ~,.

.y.

a ~ Wu : .a..- e ^... ... - w w, .... :..v A -.. c

q. 3..:.

', <.,,., - + r 4 'c r. ',., rt .,;.,,:...u.....s.> s .,g. ~.. .... u..,.. p..,. ,.(. ;.m.,,g ' '..] g ,. ) f. i 4 ..,g .g.. .q3, 3 $ x;g -

w. %

.. v <.s,;,..,. y x, s,,;.,.m. g .c. m,3.., y p: . a.u - . e.,t.e* g 3 y9.. 4.q,, y.g;,49 . s..- .t gy. g'g.Ne Q? d- .?..}.,.G v. :R,. w'* ?. 1! ' a*g*'... y' ~

g N 5 [g %}v sll G ll [. y t-s.

d.h.n.3{ ~.~.. :... .a, s *hi.bi-[g..;.[hk [ L aa ggj;[d ' .jy j . ;J' hk + w, y m w g..

w..

S*.:. ac.,3 5.7*; ;9. ;q.. z < u,. 3

. o n 4 e 4 3 w

.,.a w q. y l1?;::' p. @:...e.:.. e{ M f. 4 R. y g g p @A & nM $ h.,}lgd w$ $ $. s .. :. 2... .~ a n - x a-m

... e.

m.y.. u., ;;.. ..;. s. * - p.9. g...g. M. y a :z.:.-.,.M... S. M. U.S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY CO.MMISSION P +.. n..... ~m. ....... e. .n. m.

s... m,g.a mm:g.u.m,. m. ;wm,L p"cm,. r m %,.y1h 2 y M(,e. J

,",4.s%y%..c. e . m.n. g g y* n. r m;,, y z.2,a,.4ac. 4gn;mw F.':3.. y [*. {~' y.+g,.N,........

r,a. s..:.... e.... ;.. :y...*,

,,n.K.. .s.: hte. (*w,y y.gyn. g;.a .<. : e n v y .n a %Wjnrff.,;h.%'3gu.m,.:yh.~4Mg.A eQ9 W e an_ )~< J 2., ; y .&riK gN j.gigb;,p A gy, g. m,g e. p. M8.~w.m~M@p{@p.@g@y(($g#ggg g < J

',.{.'.. g pg i

f 9 &. $ $kg g g ~ & W:n & :.c..y n>. %; Q. y M e s.:. M...... %.ng ......n e..y y m ,wc+ .g.. 9::. w.9 PDR Nunca ' 4 y w$+h; h++ h..ik k 2 %..., k. h...hN.,,h h.... s .s.yg. ;..spw.'.-

h. !k,

.h 'k..h..9[ f.Y h. ~n.d. / [ PDR . s..... e a p5 'd QK;g2*"y,.. w..%. y

H 2 ;p.c.., ^ ~,;,., & Q ',g

..,,.. n. p[. ', i * ; " : v.. : ;..a... e, -:ln. y ;..,n }.,c.;.,. ~.. +. w o -{;.f "[. R g': i, ..r. n

w... '

.n g.,,. a. s..-

t. r,....

.a,- ..m 1l %.. '.*

r ' ' -

... C.' y 9 l c ,m

.s @,~. }.,Q' ' W. -{':'l:UJ B ';c. h. <,:. o ..-s-- m- .x%.,;,y s,. a 9* '&;,.n,. ylkl>:.y . h i. Y.'. R.. q'.c.. a m.:. y. a c.v..',d.+"...L..'. Q... ;. %..,. ,.,..., ~..,. ; F,. 'Q', '. i. c, s*. nA .~...,t.

. )'i

v.g.p%:. .~. :.f~;n.. WfWk,.W,,r.h.u$W.$ ? y M$..wl'l" <,..i';:.;;M.WM., ; g..., IWh:Q.W $v$,W' Nkh.Y('*','%?'b,%' g.x,.;di.%,.a a. !.. .sq,Qy%<' &,1 cn .. ~. e .. w.., x:. A s;..g.-e s o /..a. c.p, .:, :..a c ;..... . (. ; y s., n!3;Nd '- u

c...

..U.*QWh;.Q W 1 31;- f5'o MNIM.f.W):l,'y.).C .: hi:fi., ~.5 9.C ? 7. EM;. hMYh,Nh>.m!s; s% I 1 $U i ($$$ ' 0.i.O: -h f

m fy;)

., as c..~.: .r.*y.p. : W p.,v & s :: ;;ry f W. b.I$ NrkhyhMh!O$h: bhh.& g[ht) I,k.'I#Nb$. A.%g,L <\\^. ,.jw q,, A.V y.Qt,.pLggtky'M?.%yg % Qv~n{ Q 3 1 H

q,., '

%pe. y 9 .c 4 .t v. < :.' ~. ' , ?;;.~ r.: 7.,. f, l. ^ ';. :y '*.~. ' ',.: T,:~'.;%

./',,

h G A n m %4 .7 d1 p>2A&e U Sup:en,n& r g.n g p p3, .\\ e. -. : ~ ~. ' ;.:V. ^ h...^. y-Lf6 f.. mmw.n Docume,n : dry ).. tende N [r -.s .a. .,. n., ".;- ~.. ; O ~.; .. f. J, *. a a

f n ; hl 'u w!);S/Governme. r>.swa t

~ m w yng, n r ~ ~* y

a....

,c n ynn ice.. I my - kg V y . r.. u.. s g i A g,y WL.4;h fdliy$w f Q fRPost.Offsce Boc37082, y;, py. .e

. ; L ' '.. -: r. ',.

? p > A 'f' ,' q '. :..

1 "' N k..

,A'*:., ";; ;.;4 'N J! l.7 ;. , i: ~ O$ddl3 l l A O idh[Wg g$h M % M M $}f082 ' ih, 5 ",,l E Q l W M N ( O 4 a ek,w@,..A yea.r$'s s,u@bse@npt. ion cons.w..%s12.se$/6 b y ists of oftbo diss es yu W xC4 in:.. dexes,;f, an'd.4' h; ~rdbound editions.for,th.,un.%.~u, #* bbcatiorg e..'...,.....+. A.; % .a Wp. ..e m . + va

s' S,"., /.'. n... F';.

g

.'..... ~ : (.- a is u h Nkh['thispubj'fhhhh .wgeS -[b, . - l.. },. A ~ ~ [ .g,

Jk: i p A u J.-,)p+g%ung'. w.com.tpm,hcati.on <

(' Sin le pies of g + w dr C....

t,2......*N '. ' ~...c 4 s

r,pn.% ?are 'availa ;fr )3 . ' O @>G,. p e.,. qT.'informat. w.ble,u.om Nationa T.echnica+* ion.ServiceKSpnngfield/VA

,,- N '.c '

C." 7.

..r

:.c.

. : a; . ~ . c. 5,

e..u.

a m .w ~. w n o ~v~.c ~ i a ~, y ~.n Y yN @hh hhh 'h kh h k2 hf h & m %.. w,Q W n W 6 % Q W h M h W Q & ? f..,$[y[ y w?E hd'N N.h W(h.;.Q,l5. HAM.,.U[b'. ) / NW %y,a ,., ' N.E. I.M b 's n.R. J uw. y mg m s% d hy$D YS$.NiN D'Nhh[9khNNdh .. ~ .w,., .e ...M:Y.$ 19,5-g Q y W . E k). M C.6y E%W'd I d !..,. A Divisio'n of Publication'slSer'vicesy, j[bg l$ihiQ rror,s in this pubhcation pays be, reported $'46.Q{4p9),,p;;.$ g 7.f](g gMhgg#gg%g, p +g;g ec/.gf; ya Lt l W% tOffice of Administratiorr'gidatory'C6mm y z Jgy.T,,;. 4pfQ ^ lhNM !.h. and Resources Managements .a..r h MMU.S, NucleaY Rs gg.y M.wjc.* ?!GN.A y y34.gy;%sy :. Washin ton C dgf J

!PhN@@dMN$g$,D '20555N@gg. ym m p.w p%g gw gg. g g g g, g'Q W:gggg 1.

d 25 e, w %. 4 w x n,k W k 5 ha k 4 w nnw .ma m 6 Q.~ m. u?.% n.. n m. WQ.g,;Y:)M$% MN+ENh'?;QjQ&yMyM'd4Qf@?)W%f:f5:!N DO. SM.NID@,6;@ygf w w MQMM f'Q.W .s h$NM.wk.&.m* a.m. SNMM kM . N M. m d .f %n e e. a u e u w%QWG W A hb.% [r~.? "Vi'W : nf% &VW:

s. wm,-w' k * }W$%p n; c?M.\\'I' n.M%n:t'-:

W% + mbi.dh m %. T. MsM493 A b ~* ~i m$. M'O = ~ ~ .4' M 8 ~.i'Yv MAM ap?= f i>' bh./.... N. hh.A..,4,.o.n:[,;m;s.....h.u..b.,x.c.a, +N.y@N

b..,h,.:;u.wbh. :.

...:w. p h.r.p.- U5.W. b k h.w, b

v..u.w a.n,a...p.. u n.c...

....w.. ..,34 w r s

.y w<.e.m$m -w.,M.n u,, W ;g.m.M;-M 2,.W.2'??,%.b. ;h*:,LVar.f...m'" *:A Q?.>mv m.c. vw..:

wn.y.7w e r.y. . w m* f: . W.. .. W:I.J. ;2C?w&.%.~..'m;k.%.. m. 2.tc

f: iW4

.? ~; ~ f, $; $ T . $h !$' ?.I 'f.

f., j

h.f'

' Y Yf'.' L

I a %=,,. % b % 3 4. 9 W W:hMM, $M' MMMMsMMM b ,rh.a. m! '.mllMY'8;. ~m,6,:' v y.M ..a 1 n 2. ca.W w, w-. tf m gV ep.%s N,.5.d.;,'Fp.!.6..':.,;'j.* < w, &s.h8.s.'N.,v..J,N.:w sh M .v e

p. p u.,,. > w....m %:.m.c...

.y. ;.,.. ; -,.t,i.:; rw. .r. s e <.s.. d,,a,..,.- ......v>. .m..e.t,q* w..*/,, o. .p ,.m.. t,+s s.n,.9.m. -c. ph. .4,s. .n.W.:. NUREG-0750 4.y;p..', %'.. ,.,L y.Rn.,?s,.;p 7.fp4.'J' w.y.2. d ...M,.* .K.,4..M@y A n."> '.., s.. O.y

n. 9,.l,.;,..g.

.d., i.y ;;%.., :'1,.%.,,m,~. n.>:;,.K.,,,y-l, l1P.e:n a Vol. 24, No. 6 ..:,.a : u.M. n. p : s. Pages 769-930 1 .g+j.,t %,h.c.%.. o. n..g y.o n.. ,,1 W. s ~{c,g*.,.. e ?*.f.,, &.p*,*,/, c.

l.,/.3
? I'h. }.V s'i

.,p.n*, v.<:n,.M,5...;.c.,,:*z. n; r. a:. c.g. gv. :%e,,/ ' ) e.e.f. g c .w. 2 e., ...a .c ..b Nrs.:... d..1:2,S.h. ='.... Q 7 W A,.,7,? $.cS,. Ja [;k~f.4.r..v. x. h*I M ** r! M t 41n

e..

p< ~ ,.y'% @d:'g y;;..,,% I>,.y. 4.gw.O-[,t. i .? . 0 r] i ...,in gy dh,&,.*D k'y.D,s.n.p[di'De?5hfMfd%,)w#di M.C.i %.@,,.1

4....w.. E..N. E.m@Wa NUCLEAR REGULATORY hw,

.,re. .N,..E. w COMMISSIO \\l ISSUAl\\ CES M.~..,. m. e .w M M.. s,:.. w.:.x.w:.s.. ..m..... w..., .esa~ c.: u.m ..: e :

m..,.., n w...pm.,.. n. n..,..M..,1.g. :

.. w. 4

2

..r o 6f i-l. 74 J.y.s..@j'"*s.[.i'ia*$#RMl, r,N ?M.IiR.$.q;j December 1986 ,,.. / a* C * " * " e s......: 1..<..q

q: .p..y. y:.. u..,y. x

.a ;y...x., :.,;.,.,,> .;...;,q. c w,. _.c,,u, y :. ",i... s ' c..'.e,. ' ,9, n. e j....~;.......a.....:p, w .. ~

c..

m. t s..

.t . i w. s. .n. c - .i... ;.. -.s... W.;l..'.;, h,..... u,,. . i.,,.:.,.: :...... : ;.,.,. :..,... ~ s... .,. =. i e,.v... ;n. s,.- ^' W..;a...n.;y+n..ft. .@Q,@ ).;;,.-l.f, W J e.W.....,f

i

. A v. .p:...a.. .., ~.... ..,....... s.. 1.'y ;f.'.O.M. ;T,.';q', g,' ;.... <,, . c.. m. .o '. d, This report includes the issuances received during the specified period

'. ? i r.,'.}."J. ', '.

.; ('*/,..i.. :;.., ,'3,.,. :. / 9' ? ' *.j ,.'.s from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal . %'.e '. 1. -( ' '. lJ. s.'qy, y,, .'6',-

S

.y Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the ,,1 p, &.. m'. Q.,'. N,., %,f.

.. (.

5. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and j l:.

.., p the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

] c :p3.. ...,..p. ... u, h.hPh'...a....k:.f 'j:.' 4 ...e,. n... \\ k.h.?, M..h..l.i The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein 1 N.. /..M.,J...J.$. '.W,.,,, s; 7,..s'a ' ~i:L. < <F.;,,.M J, are not to'be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-1. g, ,'.,., ?,.. ir. ', * * [/. 3. $. >.... i... ; y : r.%, N.y.,. ;. v..,./ n.. e.. dent legal s.ignificance. ....,.~, f. ,p.<,,,]..e*"..~.. .;rg..

\\* e %.?

?, .u.-.. , %?. .. -.' 1.! f,, "/;*,'d s ,i'! % s* p+.Q. ' 1 *.. l q : .,. ~ ;.,..C..f.,<D ;}.]. .ti r. .......;,o..,.,.,J..,'.',,.g,'ir.,.. v. x.,.,.. t.,n....f.,. 70 a,..J o* f, s .r.;., ! 1. <* e;....,... ,,.,,.',.r,.,> . O. ,1, . :a.. . Mt.. w.. m n... '.%+o j. ?l2. :w:wla w*' c?;h ' m'. e* U.S NUCLEAR, REGULATORY COMMIS$10N M.. N..:M:::~.3.y;,ggg

.y. :.3... =.:.w c

.: 3,. p n d.i,,;.n.- ,!.,w,. z..e. n;c r .. ~, .....a. yh, b,!.. ;..,, .n.es....,m,;! e .. n,,.t o .p ...s a N> u.m.,..? v,., ; s,;,,j.., c.e,4.. y %:.. a s. y.. ;. .4.

m.' u:.. :p.a...; %..,,ep.r.y.,.m ' q;A.. rv. y :.;:t.>.%, m. a.:

Prepared by the vs* u.e4. .u.. ..:. y ec; ..,,. p e. j.'f.>.N 'N'Mi tfic,%' ; */r?Q%*f !@M.o 3.1...

%.c:4 D...ivision of Publ.ications Services

.c.. :my.[. i :.e..j f. w. a. r.'.'Mf 'QN.3.MM Office of Administration and Resources Management h d. i ,y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.,b.:c..::.i r.4.;M.. u;..,.y;;.,.Sl.. e< *.,..,,..;.:,;E.i.e, n,Xt.

l.;.',.h2 Washington, DC 20555

. ~.L y.r.. q. W. t.,r,1 7.p v. .2 (301/492 8925) .e Al- -. ,,..N q. e U.m. >.,.; r. s u ..sM., W. > 3 a**:c.%pW *W.,. a..d u,.p'. g.c M. 9+.- Mn.J.f.a.-* 4 myt.u{.,;g y x*,:,;.s.m; &;;t.W..%,,. g. 6 s.. g.%c!M.s. 1. ~ n ..IM..e.# r. s,..$m.g,.,.r[$ j J. s. D...y j..? y rf ty u .b. b D U T k.v'.n :* m).d * *i,'N..G.r.,*,,QM>;'i.f.,r..T/.'}v@A..< T, e.W../,M. x. '.t,7.3,"e..M+/ d.n'/. . mg ?:sga,. (.w$' *.W'* ".M....+.,'. 7'. y

V#

T ? .V:2* !.:. *+?.. "

b.!h.f.h;n'g.nf,m..'J.

a .t 't Q.e n .?*. -..q ?6 *.'A.f

n... ts W,.,p c

b.. c.'4 6.*v h~'.: v.

Y. *..~. t.s 3a e M*Y 'I. /.[,w.[' Oh t d . t. n.m.m s..N.n, "I *,.b - 4' p.'4 j,., s.h..<.[y. . m m.rd G'...N'.Y)alL.1 Qb'.('*N.h. <N'.4^[v.#...n.

p. s'.'#.k(. +Nehf, 4[',%',U.: w"[

(.$ 6' A

1*

.h.,bm.m..y,fikh M4 v.: ,s. .. w :u .c : N .bb." h

, h. Y l.'... w$&~*. a. &.n'*;.?. m:'l. zW'?n;.'&,' f f*s ~ w? 'j,.; y*(::l.Q;e {'......c.. .i. :.y. 'Qqn.ll,y *.:,*.;Yk' hlk,. ,l*h"Y Yab . 5b$hf Y, h' :$.Y Y Y lc.,'}.:%'*lsfib$;h'Y hr Y"f.**N -n .c .gre ~ v.- - b,k*k.h i...N] h hY.N,O%. ? . i'.; Q%,r: T 'i;,; ? $< n' s i s a d E M E 2 M h. MlE. ?.h Y, l'ih IN ? f ' Y.$. i Y Y $ g M' h M M M M g &.Q:' sT.e. g r M:.Q-W.*:,Q., i'%y..... s,e. h'. 3 4 3. a..,n Y;%yl2,U'Q. ....%'1. f.J ?..W- .~

4.;d.;.:.'?.'s

?... kh. h. p.:,,.y

.m, u.....,;. r.. :..e, J.c.s,9

.ca..,... n. ,a p.<.,. u ... :.,. e..k..

,;W. r. n,,

e , m. N..ss c. :r. L.w. .r r , n: Y...:; o.>,p./. g aM.W..:'C.'...;,2S b s:p ~i. u.. j; 0,.9.$ 5.'..rr 8 .c g <.?5.'s Q.... si &+1"A.i%u,%.ghQ. Q. .rv.:, : w ;.;r..,T: q v <.z.;v.'*3l,. W. W,*Q *,'.'. .s.w.;:':a *f.g 9.. ; r - a. y ~.,v.n.,n. h.';. :. 1;*u. e ?i / 7;;r. pg.4. $.:.;' "*d,,* :# %..W. j.. ff - ?.. "... i x..,,.m.,'. g. .<,,r:, v tn

d. x, j ?:Y.. ;!.9/ h. '. ..d

^ '.;*,,(;$. h.. e. 3 . r.,.O:%..%. ..b..:.

r.c..

. A.. . n. s[,.im..... <....c..

c,

g s.

..n

e. :.v:. ;,..

,;.u..s... v ...,.. e v.,.. e.$*#U,[p**.. ~ A,* . a.,,n,::. @7f.i.;M Jh.@dM., s. $.,.Y .. 4.c. COMMlSSIONERS 39y:yi?.N' r.7 e.u;Wyof :.'. J k'/dbM.iiC@O,.J.3'.?@^ Lcndo W. Zech, Jr., Chairman 6; G M.C. n' ?.u..'-N., hE.. y % 9.N. O x ;:n Thomas M. Roberts M

.....,..'W'.a.N.,..

James K. Asselst.ine i'i'D55N' N N.g.i[, fi~:.4.*.,' D eh. f ?. 'N./'- Frederick M. Bernthat c '.sM.,... Kenneth M. Carr

m

.Y.:w:s +.:, a h> h 6., n;,;.n. s, 4. *..."s.s,, ' ;. r; Lt., t, c ,n; r* c b .^ .,.c.. ...... :.t : "... ~;:..,1,,: s.......

; r 4.7., g,R,.j 7g.h. ':.t*/ '.. f,,y]. i,;.,.

,o. 2 h.. s. .*...s,. p'.,...y ,t v,.gn, '?;;c 'J ". ?..

1..n. g: D..., ~k.:. 4 *,; *: 'z.

yl..' <l..r. m...,s <....s .ny. ~ .. n

z.... :

W.t,R. s r. v s,,,.. ., a .v ( ...n '.. ~ oit). $ s*l1 %.)w. y ..s .1 % s'. 3:;',.'- : V l.1 . q :..i ",..x..s.&..,..:*., e.j . ~ s.s., y.. ;;c,.; h.c,,, e. ,g a; .q p ..b i. * * > :.a .c

r... f...

~.y ...;.s..y._..... 1.,....f.,...,.. .r. o,*,. s. .h!,Q v w Q,.'..V,*. b**..T.*.' & :. j.?. *'G,..,.ve. e,:,*

Q
m
- ...c

. w

4. c..

4 1.,a, *. **. ',,...c.,3,r , ~t.v. - re

p "i

(. *g 3, 8 ',. ; s.. '.. w

.n .4

p..

/,. / p~,. :, f.e.m.' ;...i 5. J* s ",.,I i n...s. '. s;.q .y .'f.a.'.' .,.,.-{",, c :s.w.,. u...,1.-.y, u u n, 8 rf o.; ' d r.'. '.Q,., :..n,.g ..1_...;,... " ..;e.,,' Y he. 3,;. 1 !. l .,.. *.. G.,;M...f '...... . c. Q'.; : .Or ' y . =* h.,.... 9,. :. :cp 2.+. 2 3 ;..

.... *.'y, b. '>;i, '.;W, e,/. ;..,..; *!.,

W,., (.,r. <.,%.. 1.,;;:. . ; m.3 .',3 ' t y '.:.l;*,:s., j;. .. e, 4

..' s: . *. * *..

.s..', ...iD.h. u.,. .s t.r.p W: iM:@e...4.. ,,,y.,s c . e.,. p c. b 'LM. w,.%;c. r. ....s, c "99,.9 ><;W.t i,. r.g..s,s.,.W...;m.::

m..e b.p@mua.,.,.s,.,m..v :.. ".

p. s

.w.w~;..;. w . n.,..e.v., x 4., .m. .g . ;..m.a,.. m <.,.;,.r. o...

W... n"o.':;t. h...*.M;7'.Wl.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel AS.M ' '4 ',c. G > k4' 'f

5.' a
W.:.,?,' A,**

B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Fga.M.,. "; N ..l's. : B. ea , ;,;E;, c tr... 4. T.*?.h}.. .? 1*.'** g ...o. m.......s w. r e:.r: e.o.

;.,.e 1

.',*,'f.,;.,..,w:a.d.,'.,* T. v'.t.M.q,,,,' %,,Q.

..t,.m,Ls f p.n..; s t..;

. ys.~:e.,s<, A r. n.7..; :s.,, A.h.s,.,,.;,-.w., A... .?.4:.y;l.M... :, ,f... .g.

., g. %

4:x ~. t,. :N. 4.1 .r; b,..s..c. c..s...,e v v., 8 s..:+f..:%.:, v. c, 1 p.W:p. :.:M.J.

:w.:.e :.rw,.

g ';.c,4.. e;:.m;.,pM'Wr: w:. w:s. :;m. m..e%.,3.m. n

7..

e.. :r.4.. fw y u ...3..:e:;,R,p%M '

),p".cj(. v&w, a.': :ox?.W,;; pt

. n. *;,,,. 3 r.' tw + 6

n.:

,:W1,.rngJ'. .) ., p, <>?.nyt'%; r $, b :M.'.r. y

9.. w

, n v.dj.-- v.,.. t . y;v.3.a@.A,. v.y/;f;-.w % W

[g *k'.

. i .* e,.,..:. sr,;. g v.

9

, re' !.,.M ; fps' '~g*f'n;%

M "., a'.W.. X'..^

f. J n

d g *1. ?;.i.j,4 4. '2: :p3..M. s... .g.We t ......;. n',, qu..m'.3.. f,7e.N, ?, p s ,, I. v R...r: W.b ?s;i t

i

'rjf.w:jp ;w; ,3eJz.p,:.,. A

i

..:,.1..W:.. ;.,$m a.;.. t. g r;.A.,y., tm.4>;$, t. e

y,7...

.t 9 s.

t..

.,J s g..; n..w,.. ms.Q..s a4 A..

:t

.7 ;. ia)*?;;k? U l 4'y*' 4...n.?.. V'M,'.Q . y. *,, t. yl(,Wt,;*t,; m....,,...,.;.. 8 LM.Rldge.V.r$,M,,d;. %3 '2 e.

w 4.,

Q*l7'f. i,Wdr..: v q., .+ ci q s.,U..t. 6'.;p('V. W.,... ~',W:g ".g %,, k,. t#/ .@p p .,,c f.* O*, ,* I,b . hI." M O's.W 37 I qr .. e., p .a. I i

$W. r..?sl. i.,.. !.,' bf.l! :.,',': L 'f '.&...M.1&W.&O:' Y o'l* f1 a t i,.'klG.,$},,.. y,...* s,y&$0,.... + ~ ')&,..

$,{.;,.:

?. f.$', W,. W N $..,e.O' &je &&.'N$ Q*

N!!bV.'V W.9$

W, F,,.. ..

hfb '

e S,;&5.'i i.hi .N t ylhl1M?%?lJ@*ND#.'!&>y..o.n,%9h.', MMMM

g.. t./*. ' Ye

?. l} &.W*l'. *. $J'/ k 4'. s.p/,?' N'./.s "M..,v..s...r,.k ;# 4.'g U l ,' f h.'s,4.l.,m. err di R4 f.' ar-i s i <t ,e,.a.

e. t,,:-) "dl (.,%. ~, 4 v

...:.. :. /s. z.%..:e.t.,$.a.m% /.y G b 's %

g *;,r,s

...yr... r . - ri.4.f ,%.. v n.. o. n. c hb@SE,.N.+p[:.p,1.p... ..,.u,,. sf e.rV. ;p p :,.',ir'. .g W. a.T.. >.. %.,..c. t,..w.,...,3, v..,..: f.~S .. 3 , s..a,' .. m/. y w,c.:. m.,p w..n.A.; < . f. o t n.m.. e ,y.,..x 3 s n.. - s s 5 ~.n. -c r w.:g%. w. 9 ; ,y, . N+ v.,M,...,h. 2}$.w,.'.E,s.U'[.3 h.,,I.b.r.y Y CONTENTS r s. r, m { Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission p..k. w ~.- * * %...'P.e k. w e,:e

h.h. L;*:.%..cc,.. rl'Ifi/?.1,Dik.}k'@pp,...,hSN,b[I: ih,bk,Nh...

w s o .?. p CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH i EE(h:.hM.h.9 CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ' '.E['.ff;t;;iM'.i.' h5).% (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) pf,W[d..P"N;MM@/.Mk. k,"n/9.lO'j67j5W%,57./? lI .;O'; ,ie;Q$M Docket 50-400-OL d.I: @' d MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, i@n,'!.' r.if.C.W;;,+ 4@'c.9.%...n.*,1.,e.:.. f a TK: W CL1-86-24, December 5,1986.. . 769

m. +.s,

,.. ve?s..e..> r.:.: N...: .c ,h. m". 7.+.,6e'. i h g.f.$...w, y g., s. ~."..:(; ;.e. rw. 3..,.s..... d. Oe . 'P.. ' ',~c ,+ r..... ., 9, Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal floards N...7.Wl? M< ;..., ~..,U,,R...: 4: ,,r,: f.. -,4-@e.'..?. b..~, rt,,,,.r @. n..,y w, a.'.9 .1. e...

s. "..:.c / j q

.., n H. C. ....M.. er,:i. ". '. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH .l d,... w-YIf $y. M(,.*.$,*cM lN*@;,2.'*EU..[.i..$ f ~ ld. CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY .....c. ..C.. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

.7. M..,g.

f.. <

. m. e.. Docket 50-400-OL (y/.~i;*Cy;l;,0.:.,}M'..,4'?;;$,'.J.9., r .k.'.i.',c. I p ?....T' ' ' ; 9.i. 5, DECISION, ALAB.856, December 31,1986........... 802 .'.'?3.N... V,.l.f.'C. '.'..C. :. : ?.',, + '. 7.,. W...%.4 .s .Q. f.iy...e. M Q. p,,, LONO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .s

.n?. w;;.f y.

. ~. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

9. -l c.7, ',",, 1:.: h;'.' [.. J ;,d... *. qN..; ;..

Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning) P. 7 DECISION, ALAB-855, December 12,1986.................. 792 ,...,' /...,, 7,',;< ;u:, ~.y ,. h

7.. c:.i. : '

..;. b...'. m."' ! '. [.,.,".';/.

M. Y., U. o PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

s .t s (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) p *.h.; M..)f,1. 'M.... d' ' h',.a N.- 4 (.,M,( /,...d ? 9, '8M Dockets 50-443-OL-1,50-444-OL-1 (Onsite Emergency .ci

7. '.y, ?. y.p,^.g/ *'.j' ";7. Wig Planning and Safety Issues)

).h>. ;)[p[... :/,[.h... '.b,.hvl.%,. ] j' DECISION, ALAB-854, December 8,1986..... 783 .. :p ..3 .,.,..w.w~., s[r.,..r,'y. N. sy [J.,U',h....,...D.,.[ h...- [;.9E [ c ,,...m

j 2

Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards ... f.[. 1' . 5 s,- '-]. - ?, '. / l. J' *.j. +./,c., ;aW.. : ;.%y.,.,~.,,<? ' [,';.i..e..J, BABCOCK AND WILCOX ~Q /.V l,. ','. *

&, c.,: ,,1..,4...,, ',:yy': : * '

.3. b. y l c, -,.,., ...,i,3.i Docket 70-364-MLA (ASLBP No. 815 51101.ML) L.*,i. ;.; P P,'. :i.;;..;.' ' ' 4 ?

7..,.;

(Parks Township, Pennsylvania, Volume Reduction Facility) .s .s. i r/

ls

.. 9,.. , ~.g. :. n....g DECISION, LBP-86-40, December 23,1986.............. 841 .~ 7 C,T... J L, ....,r v.; e,..... .,.. w;y...: .?. x.W...NY.,.,.: q.g:. %...;... h.: W.. W. '$.. Q..s'. . Q..o L y...x.u. 5..g y;:.. m.... y y;.:;',.yy.; s., ) .; *.w..:. ;, r.v,.:m. a ;:.,,.. .y,' :: $ n 4., w.*:: .,.....,w.....m...v. m,. v

,my s,...,v..m.,. : m..-x~;v.. x....~

~... o... .. ~ NM;.,. . o,. y+~, v.. .. w s;.. z 's Gi.W ,s.

0,4..d.M.,;!$.?.sg.:@p.n n

e. -3.. ~..,.+..,#. > ..~.,,.,..,<u,. .,.w.. a; <., w., ;.t; m'.. ,.a ..,.,.v.. w +......, : : ~.. ^ ; A *i ( o c,.. *. p, y,. .y..e w. ...y.. . m,.< r.:. v.....,u...w.,...,. p.s ,.. n.. ~...e.w.. ..v. w:-.. .w. a v. e..n.. :.;.s. m.. w. n~,.. m.n c.. :. 'W.fSW.v,%.~ a.am,y:G.n.r.;A 4. M., c... :,..,W M "n.u r ~.. e... n .r: M .%+ d.,.h..?i. p+' %.. d.n u $. Q..*]. a.~S.!.Y 9.O '[I..#!, W) S.i.N.. qSW.u%;.,b.xf:2.9.4n.y.,.d.q;h.a..[s.,)p.Q.~n. Wy ,%s n 49.'3.;.,. T F WGn=.'w.. M".) M.w.,j.f..'['D[,. n$i. N. p?p,.7

m. n a.

r. C h.d,g9[m. - m.v..' , m... n ~ x. vs ?.&s 4v .a ~.. ~. .s.y;w.,g.c. m,:;,h,Q h,j e': ". m,, c...[p,D,:.m..d5.,.., p.n,61hy,j.'.'.,

';.N,4@e.

g t. .~.s.*~ .v '. */,' 'I..[u....M. v.7,.. M.. 'e;g. u. ak..U;... l .I.' N. . '. ~. - s 's, j f , n. r. . z..- .e,.,,,'.!..-..- c;- q q c.... p.q. -.,, V~v.-. + v 3 p. . c, L. _s .n .a p.,., ...i 4 . =. q,.4 (

, u. n!;.1....,. <.1. c.gi.g 7..e,e:; nMr%;$p r.I?Wh&.,s W y$. ? 8,-5% e 6TJ G.) $. q$ .c.v g r, % .4.,.. ? .. ;m e 4 s *.. m:.. '

p.., 4.,, ;;A' c....;

.*a...~ 'g :.x.. ' s. h ;y,y.~ . y,. r,;,n.'m(g , s, >.;s..,C *y:h.;g. e- ..db.n.*p$f,b.q.W, %y. e~.- y[* 1 ri,re M.p Aps I .A u.. - e. ;?%, v g e 4 :, ... ;p s e %< 93t ~;r ; t,.*!.'s. g.,4,3;;,R.O.3.,,.w~ S M d M f M ! M v M:. w$,$'&g gN;* M4 &.g. J %* q Qm>$%y?$';,a. A..s .aa c. s +., v p as M, ? S kk#y$hN. L,N. O A.%,5 &,- 9 9n%::b?a5 8 Q t a.2 r - &m. 2MWAiM.$.hM*IN'k@.4.h..&.

Mh,'.).%!bV O

n. - ' ~ r.%4

~ .MfdbgNs t:y... glW %nbNN,k. Ni te. mr :r ?!b=H y !;r. s; he~.< f ) 5 .p 4 h - w~. " w bs n. m. - g 6 :mM.f.z,'i W d p. ~ r. u . uNp ;. W

6:$*yb,v'.'

W M.) t. rg: *

..,t.:,1 m;p. p+.. f.

ia...:.w. *b,,Sp.gd .n.. :.,, n . z.o r.o ;g u:.~w.,.. ,.s,. c,,.. .,.t%.";'.o..... ; - y. .p.~ .y. w. w'.... s,ss s qg T j F @d...;6 c.M. ,m.. s ..o Q'. y CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY $3 !?'E.@f7! 0@MlrJM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) Mr.n..h.. r ,?.N...,.T;r..'.6,O Dockets 50-329-OL,50-330-OL (ASLBP No. 78-389-03 0L) 4 n,'[p.6. ]%;- W @ g.,. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, p;'.?f y,y g

g.f,'y

'.bl.J.g.' LBP.86 39. December 17, 19 86......................... 834 ,pc

. cc...

1: . -... c.?t

.*,.; ;',b..o: , ' y %.; . 4. ;".r. %,.4( ;

~ ;;% '..:y ~. 9. :,..J: g:;, .,q.w:1 ..s , e, .f / e. r.f,,,.. s t, x(J. "f OEORGIA POWER COMPANY et at 9 d., 'j.,.,?.c. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) 4 TB. M' .$.'JM;<:;%}u'.+ :

p. c.b... /..'.M.

.M*.... A > V Sr ~.,a. < s. Dockets 50-424-OL,50-425 0L (ASLBP No. 84-499-01-OL) ,, N. J,W'.,, E.+,M.. CONCLUDING PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, ol a...?;;'i ..q,

p. e

(,,rf./.g,,,T?( j

f;'q.4^.; 3 Q y,. 9 LBP-86-41, December 2 3, 19 86............................. 901

.~. :::n. w/ :., ;i,...y. v.L...v. 4... s. f 4:. a. fs. * - 8%, a

k. r... s.. C.. j' y

d

" M @ l U,E. S '", '., M ,..M"g7. 55..< p M V, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY .4 W.e.! ' O.A.'.Ad T (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1) '.G. . '1 ~ i s y m

m. ' '.,.'m.U.

"? P '. a. J @...'F.O. < M. W,n m.. e Docket 50 322-OL-5 (EP Exercise) 't n c MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,

a..W 6.

L... g s

("Q..s, x, a: . gi, '. LBP 86 38A, December 11,1986.......................... 819 M Q. M., "'e r.'I e .. Dr..,.y.M.. J.f. e, % r,,.g. ;' ~

,. * '. 'J. '

,.t,~. '. 4.; ; n'..).. *..... t 2 c : r..,.

g

.,. n y. h,y.

..s,.. r. p.. g g.. P.r.

l.,...3,.5..s.s"n.. ',., f;.,
...i,..<

.".b.;n.,;y ,.,.v . :, t.. o ,t .s., s,,. 9. a y, > ; </ 4-v c- ~ i.eN .r... q ..i+

+ 7, ;:

m,., *.Q . % +1 - 9,' ..'.V,o..,.:',,c'. f*m!, ,J..' ;. -r t.....c 'O ?l y.., a-4 ..,(

p..a

('.. c, s. ; ;...s,,,. u,, :,. o.u e .g. .,g. l.. w 7j,..,, s..,..., 7 ,...g, w. 'c . '. g.w;...j n LJ ~, '.~ y -.

; *=.4

., 4 f *' '< g *m.;.* y'v.-s;..t,.,%r;.- . r.'.... y i.it,,. - n 9.f. f.,.. s%. .. 3., s u.,. ~..., /..,.. n. *.f ~.. s.., v.. w.a >L',.~.. ~). c M.v.. : ;: ' - a: s

m *,.. it t

a ;)H ? \\.e,. ;n a~f J.~:.,.q, :.d; M i;h :n ~,y'.0.':N.3 V. Q.. c. L...al:a.. s. w.w,3.f. ... u.*f.<. R *. s. c ',a. v., ?, n .~.s.a; 4.; c :..v; fe.,:;;,A.3 s,.~. . s.. r*.? y,. ;,.

.m.

. e ( *.,f. "l f.,.*. c.

1e;.>r*, n:. 3 : bm

e '. ' "'
',k. t

. i....?.K,J.g,v. p .y en &.,'.; sf

_.-: s

.. p't.g*. %.p. ,i. ,% l.. 4 *,M. &s .an';.% d,.%. .pO pr s )~O*F.q\\. % !fC.;ly?.:p ;..A'$.. ,.s. e avvs.* ,. o. f.. mr,,....,;;.., 9.w..o.,. *,~; ..,1 ::. ,.. :..d t o. .., * *.'g. c.k.Qg,' .w5. . i,'t. t'*.?

l 's o...

)

.: .. ' f-

,.*, :1 i u mp(,fm'.. >;,.

i b,.ge,. . p,. 4 - .?,c. 3. ...,y ,/' e.' 'IO nyQ * **.s.k..s..,g. 4,l*... ,8 %.. &* '.3 *.W,. p d .. - *d- ,?, k.y', kl'/r [,' j.[i.'u* f. ',.I '. s. M.c ;O...;, a.: W, * 'n *%.s {% -' W*,' hj. M,. ;.4 '.. ,,: ge. s n . d *[*h,,"' ' * '.t ** J N.o'f...$ g Y gt ,.s .,e T

'lb.. * *.bf b.. "f: *'* 4 ' '.,..

.'r2 t [e>... J. W *.' f..,,. <.

1 f,*.3@s%..

ad,il.h3d., :< ~.j'....,j. p., 9 6i .4,,a Q.',l,T! N t( N. % O.,,.,Ijr .4. t*:.)'.#4, - 1'.'.M.;T .. g. a * ; h W* ie %. .p. 4,%.p 4. ' e --..r..=.... @Ga..>..W.%. n.<&w.a,a. t

v m.n ;: x v. ".;,c

.npQ. J= s p. s;s -..t.. ..:!:. v..bs %.\\m

bf)n,: s. m; s n

.im O. Q.t a MOA*W

7.< k,.

[ l's.s. ' V.g~ '..s. /,. '... .u 4 m

m. *:. u..,.~. \\. y:

' w.l%..- :.g,:.,....,q.,c m L'.... f . Q % s s.i 5 M. ~.. a.,.;4/ '

M

.c,, ~.: nx.:,.:.p:4..q w %.

n. r q:v

.n... _ t. ,y,.e* a. ',+...W: ,...e....e.f'yWy,'f. $P,. u,. y.c .......s a M J.:.Q 7..g;.)?h,,*n.k.*:- W ....r,,. >,;c. go

m. yq :.w: '.'..n.,.

/5 o r. n.,,9,..~ s ....es*s (, ly?. ' .. p%,. ; ?^,f ,,%.y.'.f =;., y'g>;', .;,. 4 y,.?. jy. /.',, %w. <A 6 m.o...,..

44.,.,

t;,. y';s:&..,4. :n \\p'~,K...t.r;.:;[.s.'. d* '.1 ~ f,r,,.t.;. ly ,'.n.r %',5 e ** < 1 r%. .r, < J < r.> p.,,....- t*m.s s.- s er s .r,~ g-e.e . n$

$,g.. f ';: ~

ew e $,*D.b..*M'b'M...*bd.TZ N ~ ?' ? d ".;! 5 -l.W.g%. * * ' ,3, .hD,DrD.'. k*Wk,) h.' hl ,,h he'p.n, nm.,y-l'$lef.N6f f'.k.v A.r.y.,%,lh;?;&...n.s.e.,. e?Y .Y , m > n.. s. Wf.MG'hib&s %x:.Q...W.W.1-}h~$n& .,&.,.~d.. m w e .n. n, h hW id'f.f', ~ hfN,.h w. d ?i'{ ?UI W C $t&mj.W.af:'E W.Q-Q.a;G $5 W O t4 .. p. s. y. m $ p$ m'4' t} W .p:yr.e.p:w 9-zew mv w N T h

7 { Commission Issuances 2 g e; i m

..f .k ) ) 74.c$cd:rnl t'W &r.) Q %. ;??:,%,* fin,q: ?.Ql % T N Q i M Q W : %.i &:.,; p).*%. ~ -r.,% y;:' v:g h..~ c 'W.h.. <%cw.O av..vw%p .~ r t v.u.a(d,n.s.,g p, p; -tqs ;A;*.

4 w-hyW;#c V.3 m,s.4,,..,.1 Vgc..G.t,4M,.c.u.M. +1.c.,.xs,.v..@W:i.s,,.f..,.

y s, . Mc. WN .. c. m

a,'i'.. - {,.Wr. '

~ i r . % m V,.v Cite as 24 NRC 769 (1986) CLI-86-24 y ,92.WA-M;;rce. k.t.c i.v.t.r w ~.l W.c v; W fil.~: q..;Q n.;.q .s.,

c'h ;r p4* g.qr;p,.%c.

q,,n hh.,'M. e.N,c.ep,:k.,i/M.p,.In tr:, i.&2t.m,,:l a ni,t u,.j,.e.t.,.;;,.,4.. i...J '* We'*%os.

x. p.r g p..'t;<n ~.

, !A

e.f,.

b, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t suc'A Mp M g"L.3'b,O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M.b.d.'$.9.,.%,'dS.f. ~ 4.q em $,*l,'fS, $(,WM.Mgl.Wf4...< a 3'J.'W. N.'.'p,l.%[..c). /N:.w$:W..9.g','i;h2.Y@' 'W d*& ER:..: p -Y.Y COMMISSIONERS: kl,, i; &. ;>v...,... <t. 4.'s.".',+a.%... %...,. v,.. t..%.v.. .s%9 .c %d. ~ dQ ='.. 9 H

y.. >..

.. v.. c.., -w.s...., c,, y. ; nc.;aM,..M,. %r:w V, :t..w.n...,.. :*.m.m. ,.x.i 4 a :. m, ;...

.bM'u ):.,f.. aM;e!l Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman T; O.W.,

[ M,ri n;m@,,4. t p,.u $.'M3.$..hM...,W,.M.s@,..r@0.'.N.r.4.d )l..f.d.. Thomas M. Roberts ,... ' #...',i i ...... t Mf .4 James K. Asselstlne .p .... O,.*d,,,hg.,.Vr..J,3 ..,,d /....W c J.. Frederick M. Bernthat 3,, 6 % N.3 '. $.r..n..r.z..J.,.;. 3. $. m, v. r. p. v<., .r. e Kenneth M. Carr .g t.a.v.;> h. [:# gg r n.R >.g.:vpf.g.. q.; y~.e. e M. W. g. g: p,.- yQ.., m.-@.g,,.r.s 4 n.. a.. n.i. :4,.;

k..,w.

. _...b. A . ":t < 4.,. 1:C:ll W..... W.s..,U A . g ;.. s.c.".e.e 4.'.., n.. s...,f M. E,v.N..@.g.. in the Matter of Docket No. 50-400-OL o.OJ.f,.;. &. ( t ..eg s. ....G".. 'ysa

- .,t s

.4 m..e ;.., ;.,

V "n**
t k.

y.j.. q.@.. g.. .m g,,g.... ?; CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ., $l}'.[g. f,y[Q y.' r@M,d.lf' *.l.9?;A~e,*fhl[.?,h.q

.p,,ll l;$5 COMPANY and

.i... W LL.9, c,. NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN , y.;....N, p2.p. .. t., u.5 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY y,.,m,' ; t.Q;.! c '..... .e.

..~ D.,,Q.f....' ) ), 'R.p:,,;<', Y .; M r t @ ;

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power i.1, m. M T,,'.'. l.,.', n.,,*ll. i '.'.i. ; 4, s.0.1,"2.,,b Plant) December 5.1986 ..y .r 7., ,.2 . +.g..n, x,. x, :t. .<t .:.. v.e..,,p..,....,...~,~.n,. w ; di,f l.N.N, v...r. 1/ N. kr The Commission denies Petitioners' request for a hearing on Applicant's ....w d *; >p'N D' p i;[ '. h ',h' $ ['.; l J,. request for an exemption from the NRC's emergency preparedness exercise re. ,~), E';j/f@k,;'/.; P4 '<2:.}. G M h .( C W " S M,('J %gy;d quirement,10 C.FR. Dart $0, Appendix E,91V.F.1, that a full-scale emergency

G:di

. 4 planmng exercise be held 1 year prior to issuance of a full-power operating M.'^.T..;,i,i &, 's),,,i, ?;['MP.3'MIT vy$ *# i'; heense. The Commission finds that Petitioners have failed to raise any material W.~/Y. K'!;,s;' issue of fact with respect to whether Applicant has met the exemption standards G^2.! !.M.D;;gl?.t.Q'. @'f# 8'GW; 3.S.Y[%,,y5" 7 of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12. i..,"k di > y/' ; hN ih.W. :,}.;, y.;,:l, v.N. IQ.h .........,.:...,y.

h..

y. w *. c.....

u. l'fty; b.*cF, $w.. h..... $.I).U' h.i, k,... b.'s REGULATIONS: EXEMI'I' IONS ,m.

h..

.v; 6 . k;hM'.Ugs:,h;, y..,.t.'A The standards to be met under 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) and (2) for a grant of .c. s L~ N.P.$'t M, @M M..'" D $-[8 5 [*/ EQ Q.!) g ,0..D: an exemption from the NRC's licensing requirements are as follows:

?.~.3' MMj; (1) the exemption must be authorized by law, not present an undue risk h M N [p to the public health and safety, and be consistent with the common

$.. E.. ',W,./, $a.vld NEDC. '.f;;. 3,9.,2.,*g,d. (.' ,'..M_,. -.,M... s defense and security; and %. ~ T.I.',.' ';s.f.t.'jd. 4,.., p,d. t. m.M.. (.,) "special circumstances" must te present. M.'N N ',hM $. ...n ...u - x s..:....%.. ;y;. w. +., q,, j

m..,. s..

r r;.2 a.. m,.,.,g... er g..y a ;n,; ..e < /A.,,f,,w.,.,. t u. L.,....,; M. NlL.0, @N r.-G sij%. " 'l 7.3.,c .*.ti.e/.~. &f /v 5.y:s'. i.:.W ,s - % n.. " ;;'&m.*.;Dl.9......f* '.;'.;X;Xt,.* Y..i.s .%. ',3..'.,,(w. Q b,/,;e.. Tg n.m.. d;':;,!.;;..-W J,5 * 'id.g. i g W..A se.,.7.., so m...,c. y nu n.,,.c.v,... : n,.u. .....s., ~ :s ~ .-r u

Y

t. p1.. x. r. uR;' 'll f,.;y.

Y" .,

a # W,. ?. %[A.T..'4'h'" ' "b. P'WW,./ U. ;N h*i' l.$'od j

2.(. 4 g7..*>p - .7 s.,,.,. n..f

*I"t.7'"$hy^.. s 3

. */ 8 ,,..,. + m;< v..%.,.,A, *:..h.j.9. n. W;,.y. e^'.' . /. s uw ..o.,n.;%.. 2 . s - = 4. r. .ye~. -. ~p. d,gD :

t. p/% QO;g,f.%'[,..p; %s,~ry 47 Mkg.YJl,'i;M {Lf.*4 *.Nfd39 ty F */tt.w.p p--

.a..e.ww w... .$.. /. g M' pw,m F.k,tJ gs .n.~. '.3;,w...,, w.,,m, "w.,..%w...:..w..,. r~;,,.m..,...,m.. t i ~

- .f m' '# m.,'.s.

.m m m. w w.w-n .. -,.p 5,..,#,..... .t. ., (. s r ,.,. =. -. p., g- '.ig' 3 t

y$,KWV43*R.L...,k.f,,:.,Y'&.hk>5$.h:.~.tiW

L.?: ~ E,*ii;&& iW )& &.!,l'.>lNb.Q; d.... n 'L ~ u. - ;...

y.ifih.$h. h& h. $5 bkhhb h{f? W&.uk. -mkeu.&7M h$ W& 5 %N{isy;~.%:h

d Agg.,;;W $lflw*E.M.J d W m.: $6

.?- W ,MSQ$Q%f*S C.Dl:thWW.;$*;$ll1%. +;hfW Cl &p. ).,q: 42 g, +W yfq:r4..y.\\ . n. ....:.< 7%.,p.. -; g/y~. :;..p.+,7~c.;: ;'.s., %, c?:3

4,s p,.

NRC: POLICY STATEMENT ON CONDUCT OF LICENSING $'.@.,.p.ffp/,i*g~. .,y,M. y.l.g:~.i,;..g] g PROCEEDINGS W.R. -M//s.. :.c'M.. g.. W.*r W &.4 a.. %.m s:v n..!

.ki,#$.

] NMl';' g.5.'Qgej.(h.k.hl;Mhy Y The Commission may reject nonresponsive pleadings and may find parties i that consistently ignore Commission directives to be in default. Statement of [f.D,%I?@nPQ?MN. 3'ldliN's /$7f. f 9 Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-818,13 NRC 452, 454 la [qM.g;;5g.;':eyp,;j;;..%;4.V .,...e og. r ., w. r. f,1*ij; $,. c

j. ;,.N

,Oy ;f (1982). Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), 7/ CL1-85-2,21 NRC 282,286-87 (1985). <.s..g,p',.y. . @<. m.Q-; .,..<...,, < c :.r.e. :..q. ..,, 9,.p,.. y..,4.

4. ;,,,,a

=..

m..

wr u,. .M.. :?, g,p p d..,. ;.s.a. y. ~. ADJUDICATORY IIEARINGS: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ,. - 7.s '.D ' &.. T. Ij. w.a. g,GM,,. N h".l y;G @Q,% ':y@ . 3. v e h[.i,y.,y Since adjudicatory hearings are intended only for the resolution of disputed .p. C.l pl.i.h C') issues of material fact, a person seeking a hearing must meet the threshold fi.i' l M%h,r :,, / WW)h,'f.O'j[.[. %.' (. ;iN.y requirement of tendering sufficient information to establish that there are material issuc> of fact that warrant a hen:ing. %,:d'W;1e..($ g 4c; .. D,d '.Q..'...M.. ...a Q ! y..r* -.,,,%...n? ln ~

,f,.h.. ?.?*.'

,........r. r6;$;fL!:q[,b.j$@.d.Of ;.M,: NRC: aUTilORITY (EXEMPTION FROM LICENSE r ?' /.,.. {[u;%l.f,'iS'.$@' ~ p.*.w$,W/.'W.i 'ON.M: REQUIREMENTS) r

A?

n/. <'.1t '8/<' 9~.~ ;,:.

F'W' d F..W;I O..,,W, ' W "Ihe Commission has the legal authority to grant exemptions from its licensing requirements. Sec 50 Fed. Reg. 50,764,50,766-67 (Dec.12,1985), citing United

.. j.y.&.Q.' b.A(1

W States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel. 406 U.S. 742 (1972), and Alabama Power RR..' '

W-W,.f: Co. v. Costle. 636 F.2d 323, 357 (D.C. Cir.1979). ... f.. U (7.,...?..,W' s.r.# Ql,i,6 ? o y'*.. ;* J. '" 9.,. yp.9..... 8,i.n,,)'* . sn a A

y..

[. . 4 '. i .,.4; %Jp.p I 'gq >g. s.Q:' 7, s. ~,, w ' MPv W.P;,S.iyf. .e ? .. '.'.O. t. ,,i. g i i REGULATIONS: EXEMITIONS rW r?. 'g- @.M1, :s m'.g W'.*M w-O..: wr d."-;c F..*;v .. *V'.,'.O.W V.'a.M..'..V.ao - r The appropriate method for seeking a waiver or an exemption from Com-N c . fW,s;.y.. vh./. v... ..,.,.a.. mission regulations depends on the circumstances of each case. If an exemption

r. J

Sy,... J l

,c.J.'. D, r. L. m'L. a h, @.f.n. bn. n.. ..o request regarding whether another full participation exercise must be held prior g g.,',g;;n3 '. i w ' p. W t.m'@.%g. t.f.; /.g.y..$'*;e. W, - ...y .y to licensing is not directly related to a contention in the operating license pro- .s te, g ceeding, there is no requirement that the exemption request be addiessed under H.w.,;p~.$,..d.S,'.2q!.,, /p. .t- %;M .p y.-Q:;pm 10 C.F.R. E 2.758. See, e.g., Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear b.p..e;,..,o.y W<.5. J.s..m,, e Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-33,22 NRC 442 (1985), aff'd, ALAB-841, Ie. .pf...... % .. w..l@c s Q.cw%,N;%, g.M.T..m

Mh',.W. #

.i S. 24 NRC 64 (1986).

p. ;.pm mv;.cw w

.W. 4 r,y,w ,.y;m;g, L %....,,r, n m ..m . p. %.. {fh'. Q .f. REGULATIONS: EXEMITIONS [Ulg, [j. 'Qjj.,.3'{d;% ,.y >if o. When a proposed grant of an exemption is based on a finding that the k Q:. ,9,# gg requirements of 10 C.F.R. 0 50.12(a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) have been met, a person $,g.Qyl(,t Mf {EMQg.$,W D.' R $ W ) 6, M.'{. seeking a hearing on the exemption request must demonstrate that there exists Yci$. .,LijM.$ f5iI.$.,.,34.Eng a material issue of fact regarding the appropriate application of either of those .Q [.y. .h$ h.hh two subsections. hfj'5N,Mbk. 4.e-. $<*km p 5?h . r.. s..

n..

.n. Nf.;?/ $$'5M.n. k.?.....m,*;* tr / . M 770 r.' * *?. ( '..f' 1 *;. s. .M/(f.&'* > .y,; 4.,4,;l:t .M. i.

)7 O q+>T f:.cv, f i *. gW,. *4's y/;Nf@

V.n .} g m r..,c.m.a(.ym, A..,tWy ". 'f, $'% t9.,, .f. 'r f.f.W.ih.v-d. ~. .v. ...,...,n ,,g..,,. m.my,,, y n v :rn..,.mv., w ,e. d.mw;hne i n$hSkN.g.m.m.w.NikNdk8N@%.;&'n:mppemw. h.Y i

w. w wwaww FMh'f8

.N! ~ .y\\

l

f Vh,h.$,.)'.;;d.,.s. $yE)Yhl,'.$k.k.

Q:,y.'y.M

b $hjk,b :.*(.l h

h .c WW#.e5m.0 a..,p&~,.\\.9j$;hl,l @qs4.\\;s.my.~ w&?.m.h?k,a, ?>% s y,W_y.% ~

s. a..tp).:. Ij M

sw mms h.h.i?iWhw.. b. ..'h..,,s.~Y.s 'N' ~N**W'W; WU:.,;H'Y:. Y..., Y,, 'YN' N' $'WN?UY W ?p;...?,..r11: %.<e.~.2;;w,g;p a n. U,:. A. lM....,. y:.+ },.s.s.. %..d,.o.$..n,, h..Q. <G.g.,%.lf. oM. /.,* W.1m t

4

. 3.e. MQM,.', kin.D. d,, TW,.. '!..:QV: c t f:~scId.j',l XW 6Tk f.M.c... s, < m* ;. q: c.w,;. g. . >.e R+.p.. '.%.... 9. 9e;f, ,s.,.0,,.:c, @.yu.iIk,h. a.y sc.,P.5 a. r.... ] EMERGENCY PLANNING: PREDICTIVE FINDINGS w g u..... ;.. r. ,m g 8c../.M....f[Lh..l.?;6$,h,1.,'a. l 2.y,.;.c,a..;e,; ;q,.,i .e t.;,;wl,,.i t Staff review of exercise results is consistent with the predictive nature of ne< ,c -.T$$,.bNOM.] emergency planning, and is restricted to determining if the exercise revealed c 7 MM.'".,.Y., 'M ?s $,ng % 'd,P:[/.8Q,f.1 any deficiencies that preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that protective i Nr J'$5N.flM.n.%.a '........W,'.".J.:c .NJ. :;-j - %er," 4-measures can and will be taken, i.e., fundamental flaws in.the plan. Long Island 9 h ' 5 9 e.c, *%, '-"'~+3 (p.. E.py. $.,l;; Nl;@,' M. M..k $.N f/ M -m..". s. :a m...g,.,.,. .T...V..;,Q,5 .Di k Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI.86-ll,23 NRC 577, 581 (1986).

y.o.9... c...~ v-, 3.)v ;

7,. v >. p.:, :;;: e,,; y.

.;;; m..

u, i(.%v,.sg. g 4; 4. 4. +;;,.;'.n.m ..t,., r:a.q, al ... fa.. . v... M>;. .. 4. ;.,c;-... a g..., EMERGENCY PLAN: PARTICIPATION c .l. y ..f.'.Yi iL. J'] 1 i(Jh.,',q,'y,, [T[2.'; g,p, J,,... *n.2,}, Commission regulations do not require public participation in emergency $ J/T,

u'

. g., ce -r. .gc. 7 h, h. '%...eu..O %. h.$.. 9h, x.!'N;,.hr.7 Preparedness exercises. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, @IV.F.1. n.V ?. .t . e...., p, :.w y/:mlv,. M. sp... m,c.v.. 'o..c.x..,...,~.. u,... p :.u w;Vf.c.p.; .S. ..m.... . s.. .it..r..<.. u ;.-r, MEMORANDUM AND 0RDER ...,,,a. .. :: g.. '.....y 1.. a.,.. ; m. ,. ~. c. ;,.,... .. c.;.. w,-..,y. ;.. x.i + . ~

s.,. i,

.,.3 wg., 9 e.".1 ..,...m.. .. -.Q..,..t. % W 1..4. y;lS.' @.;i The Commission has before it a request fcr a hearing on an exemption s, s .;... l." .M. ,,. ' f.,., g. [. request. Finding no material issues of fact that would warrant a hearing, the t. . -l.'..,...... j e ', ,, ; f. -r...... r :. m e.r..c.. '...,.. ; "..f. Commission denies the hearing request. l ', ;. f...{..{c.d',f*, $,1.' "l O'. fW...,- -n .l . 7/ ; V I. BACKGROUND . y;..;.7,;, T,....,.. ' c,.,. j.,.g s..e. U. 3 , i..., a,;, %,..,' N., 'J,.y '.c,( . i ','?,T.'. '..? W. 'c, The Commission's regulations require a full. participation emergency pre. . s,,.. .y. s. ... +,. r,. .l ?? ;,, y%, 4.. A.l, :.. 'J;'.glQ.. paredness exercise "within 1 year before the issuance of the first operating li.

; (j. jj, b ( /,' ';U.,4} 'l,.'/..,^ C'./

cense for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first J J/.T ' *(.E,< (/,,1. c. p .J..?; M,.. e., %i. r reactor.. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, { IV.F.1.1 Applicant Carolina .y.......,.. c ,f.,.c,f..n".

.,7 ;i..y Power & Light (CP&L), projecting fuel load in March 1986, conducted a full-k .];T,'* ). I [, '. '"..,.'-;l.(,h,;,..j.,,3....A. / ; G

. S .. 7., ' ' Participation exercise on May 17-18,1985. Applicant did not meet its projected f.' {:.qW,,,.. e... %.;. 'g[c;f;,,.y,;, t q'- cise planned for 1986, on March 4,1986, CP&L requested an exemption from w. schedule for fuel load. Since CP&L did not have another full-participation exer- .. 1 ; y,. 2 .f.; [ N '.' [ S:[ ;N".,~, [' the emergency preparedness exercise requirements of Appendix E, $1V.F.1. d,.' n*,M,f'll([. U.f.D.I;. ' '. f.. M. a' On April 3,1986, Wells Eddleman, intervenor in the ongoing Shearon , :. ;.,;; C..r. 4 @..L ' 9.;3 / -lt / , i.,,,G, 3 Harris operating license proceeding, requested a hearing on this exemption 3 . g.,. 3. ! s t ;e..g.7 M r,.4..,,... t.y.. .,u a r.,.. .. s.g. t,., %..., .p.,,,. r. . * /,..f.c., WM '.N y a ...,.. w*

cy, T.*,

. # gi .*... ',Af3 . f.y i 1 n y?. .:.,,-e " 4 ;i,!P'l / / U. ['*.,) j h. y,j-[2y;/[;..,@{ #.h(f A " full.parucipauan* exennse is defined as rncamng: r,. [ *,, $ I A.1 '.y ' i.'X [Alppropnate onsite local and state authonues and hcensee personnel phyncally and acuvely take part - j m tesung their antegrated capabihty to adequately access (nc: assess] and respond to an accident at a l, . 7.. ; /. ",,,, commeretal nuc! car power pianu " Full parucipauon" mcludes tesung the major observable poruons of

j. Te :.M 7,;

c,...i,...y. ..+ t '. i .,s 6,, "t.I..,ly l, * ' i g the onsite and offstte emergency plans and mobihzauon of 5:. ate. local and bcensee personnel and other

.. Q., E f;.

,c [. fll, ;.i;ig., y ' Q.,.. v,.

y p.. o., s,%.. m.. t Q,'?*;'p,.*;.

1,. ;.;( ;/l

g

,. ;,; f,.,, g f.y resoureca m sufficient numbers to venfy the capabihty to respond to the accident scenano. 9 e 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendix E n.d. s,.y'*/;w....u.... .e.'

,....,. +.

.u.. :. F,,.. e .t.- m,. o,w, t. .e g,j. .....,5,;W. i.'W :,,- x.. ~3..a-

M. %... : '.

.m...e.s -..s s .. c v. n 3 t QA:.':2, P. .m ~.s : +p ,.%s...:., ;. 7w.c.,. . u a. 771 . c.. ....,, f. c. .. v. a. r.... . ; i).a ?. t.ng). ', M.: ~:' 0.r C' '. 4 :. 2.Q'. '. h .. $:.t,:.3...: fglw'e<e, yc'ef,q\\. }&%. Br.... :.. ! g.;. v v .n.s.*'t n. 7 de;*j.,- W ;; Y 't .w.c-a 'F + : a:s.;,)..,D. 'h %.~. ** t;,l.,7 ::.,r.f.. . a? 4f-n&.s s,m..,.y.e. c.,. . :L,w, ~m,,,.. .,3.d.;.n. e. t.,..*.r? ?. *. *,:...e., h,.A..e.e.,n.,. w1 ,r.. *v r .Va. b:.W..r. ly,%.,. ,s.h.m. '

1.n..., api c

4; h b : m. fhh. hh,.$.sWW.,kk,h.h y,.g.m:,R.:v.w:gz,p.+gw~. . ? W htkf.h,. ,w:a.s.., yyM. W

.1. %.,z

.hk;.h. s.m. s. 6.v.. n..'h[ffk/.h.khh,-kh,,.b.N'$k ... p

h..

.,, m,... w. . m. w. w. s m.. m e n m m.. n.~.v. m r / : u

. w. .,,e..~. .. v aaw .nm e-.HvC,'.f.y,'?;M,n.%.?,.y.J$,h*;;,Mk;On:M:%.&;;:D.41:Ein..s:c $:h;d,in $.w nM W >%!*$t %.:.:(n

M %..!

d u

~

t' !$$N$$d N< db idb (( M: M SYiMNb.lSNSE [$YfbMAh$ ~

@ h h 4'* M

... 4.. E,. ;,e;.#.r f,,r:,,Y.-n.h

e. 6.<,; Q,

-f. t %. + &.,,9.r%<.p,@ .a a g. g&

.Aaw

o..,.s Gm:..-

n ...a y Th.%.;% 6.W: o 6

p;%ysF4w,. <,-

.a w...,.w <.a,.;.M;n..,.a %./ap. p ~ n m: t ~m.g....;.p.,Ji,:lw,h*);0.w o n.9,... m.. m .m. W.f q, W.,. w.:Q31 *egn~ request. While Eddleman's request was pending, CP&L on June 10,1986, asked % :; %;; p %@ h /. Q '. f4.. b the NRC to suspend consideration of the exemption request. On July 10,1986, 5. b.W...: 7.%. CP&L asked for resumed consideration of its request. 'Ihe NRC Staff on July W m - w -r.n E (Q@q.$q %:Q.'5{.yM 24,1986, filed an opposition to the Eddleman request for a hearing. On August j n W.1MTQ;;h{.@i..yg* 5,1986, Eddleman, joined this time by the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon f.'Mh. R.q A8. &g,* Harris (CASH), again requested a hearing on the exemption request. CP&L filed gr. I;.jl* f a motion in opposition on August 28,1986.

q;e

. y')y,,h.fW h. M :h, p' y $,.;/ t [;g %g / & On September 22,1986, the Commission requested briefs on whether there were any material issues of fact regarding whether the exemption request should j. P;- .v. .flMji .kjf f,pf MTk. be granted. The Commission explained that it had decided to determine whether QMF.$.J,D.N[ tnt'Y.D.;$D MO there were any material issues of fact warranting a hearing before it decided 3 Q. y,. ' T whether the Atomic Energy Act granted interested persons any hearing rights Me:M" M M. Q; M @ @W D M,"',,,0 on the exemption request. ' C.M $ ';f '. Eddleman and CASH (" Petitioners") submitted their brief on October 6, Y...,9.,"<,J. M...gl$f.4c,,,yl S b,a. Y. m# b 1986.2 As pertinent to the issues addressed in this order, they argued that the iE a ~ kwyy. M exemption request requires a full evidentiary hearing under @ 189a of,the Atomic t,wQ.,N., M.v4.M ld. b'WM t. {,,9,.y.-g..twg.g Energy Act, that deficiencies in the May 1985 exercise raise material issues of yF 3 fact regarding whether necessary improvements have been made and the plan is . pgl.g& y now feasible, and that occurrences subsequent to the May 1985 exercise raise .$4:91.f. material issues of fact and compel rejection of the exemption request.5 g,.;d "..%* Np f. ; r;.'y. p,g ?.'.,y u-.j{.g,@;, g

.Q CP&L and the NRC Staff opposed the hearing request. Both argued that Petitioners had failed to raise any material issue of fact regarding whether the g M.'

f;g';~;,',{'.$....f,$.,f$jg;y,Q.i' pi exemption request should be granted. .cj,'.V, %'::';&l"J -J.eW lf.' /N r.E.' ).- c V.',,.h. i s.

3. ;...

'r.** U ? 5.015M ?. {7.,,,y>4, /./*E MW g(*.c;@QW(;beQ;j.[.' y')Q 3 De Commission in its September 12 order (unpubbshed) merved whether CAsirs heanng request was $y umsly, and whether CAsII. whi& did not imervene m the operaung bcense proraeAng, would have any nghts to G *,'@s 2.f.' g,W + f;; +4" Q *.. *4* ,,l. parucipate m any heanng. In view of the Commisman's decision that there are no matenalissues of fact warranung

n. 3

".; c g s - " ' " J' t '*) a heanng, and m view of the fact that CAsil and Eddleman fded a Jomt bner, the Comnussion need not reach .,.i.

r P.' %"W' Y '. *. i. gf"

.*4' 6 1.,...t. g : 3 c..p.. i, p.j.. p4 those quesumss. g%y,. ;)I f-@c '7 'r Tf ?;- m, ,e. c, g I Some cornmmt regarding the responsiveness of Peddoners' bnefis in order. De Ccsnmission's september 12 y;$/gk.tMJ.['.DJj3[/[gl,,'h h.$" . r d... onisr directed Eddleman and CAsil to " indicate what contendons they seek to hugste, what the specific disputed af pV.; 4 Sc.f.Y tg r. . g. .4 matsnal facts are for which they beheve a heanns must be held. what ponuori they take on such nasues, and the .h* g,T ,jy' /f;e M.Ji f'(k'y*.H..Njf %f*% '; * ? [ i f', A,q'Q )..dg factual basts for such posinan? De onier funher stated hey should *sxplain why these issues are material to a th.T'v.:!g 'i '--i.? r/,-[n.,g

4..

'l;t. - s ;. c. dxermmauan under 10 Cf.R. 50.12." and *ses forth their renonale for behevmg an oral heanns is needed for a /e g*i. ;i?is d,. full and uue discussion of the facts on these issues? The Commission by requesung this mformanon intended to ( .tl" p '% v 'i p *'ta? M b ibTJ.P'*7.?.$ m *N resolvs whether Penuoners had raised any hugable comennons. if,*h',"hfh ,.h,. - .[.l Peanoners' boef is somewhat less than responsive to the Commission's osder. For mstance, Pouunners have Qh;yl;;%'/.$4.?C+.9,p'% s, k.a1 Q 2 ; r..k/? ;'8 %... h., f4 failed to identify the contenoons they sick in hugate, or to set fonh any rationale for beheving an ora' heanng is k*'.?'T'.2[.P d P P-* M needed for a full and true discussion of the factualissues they raise. j'T

7 The Comrmasion m another pmceedmg was also faced with such nonrespanove pleadms: he Comnussion in

.C 9.Y N that case stated that it would *not tolerate sud clear disregard for us orders an the future. .(N]anresponsive 'fr ~ Ts,IMfr/f. itMJMh.[> j d M M' pleadags enay be sejected, and parues which consistently agnore Commisnon direcoves may be found to be ft:f,Q:.%,:,,j..?,,:,;Q.!,%.Q*..*(7: Wjv k m dafsult. Stauument of Pohey on Condset of beensing Proceaangs CL1818.13 NRC 452,454 (1982)? %;*'M.V*.,,& ? ' Q , W f

.J.p %lqg'"Q' T;(1,.M, A sf?'.[*4 Metropolaan Edson Co. (ntree Mile Island Nuclear Stauon. Umt !), CL1-85 2,21 NRC 282,2868'l (1985). he 8.,;%7... ;.j,,,.,g.

!9 h; r/ Comndas on does not amend to have to repeat this warning When the Commission specifies issues it wishes to have addressed. it expects those assues to be bnefed. In the present case, the faihngs in Peuuoners' bnef ' r;-g.:f'h H(g'pt (.g.p.g/.r4.f. t ? y.44.g;] alone could serve as a basis for denymg their heanng request. Nonetheless. ihe Commiss on has considered their jv ..ie u. f.?bpj,[4&ftl;.(@i,/ th hN@'!I7'd4.3@, 7

arguinems regarding whether there are any matenalissues of fact war-anung a heanng.

M $%+ ?py v'. 4 4 ks. v ;.4Ay,%.t..UVrd,. wy. :/ w b y, g...~. 4 4 + U. 9 ' :h..g mgm .4 +*3 +

W,;wM.,. g 3

'

s.* +.,t ept ;4.br.o~'; f *ss ;2 r

n. P... N as '. -m h 2.%.h...9)kk*h% YN ? uG[. E .f 4. t d y k. y. V;q. W. . i 772 e t N 'b. a - b.;1: 39 p.. p : 4::vm4% Yp&.Sg.,,Qq ej s'i, %q.* t ,n..w%q:;.Q.. ~,Y, e ..<r.- ., ggy(,3 m.,&pf'M.y .x. .,.e,- $$S,,lhiM.$sfSt$.Y,((@Q&ff@@ - r? 4 4 '.*f &,yy -%{9eh?;Q;i e

y,?)*
r, *a :hN';.

YY

Q.T.Mj?b s

f.( &$~S!W'.&fhY WR&5Es$fllk b *f'. h 'n t U-h $$i MM $ $$QMMM Mu 1 ~.P 4

[> i 4 } ~ A ...%.,,.7,(,Yi}..,ps~.fyw..,;,....~-..,c.,y. s n. p,.,,3F. ,.y. %'M..*..a, 4...a'k':..,.g,n -, Ll> i.,.k, w ~. ?.., i ..,.y .w.s.u.n.. kIh...u. l%. f*p%)' WMS:) W.,'4. &v, '.'.n,.mf:,. -

w. (

-l .H.. .U..p... .r y,c y,s. s <,.9.... e. v. L. 5.b ! N M.... q.

a........,u..v,. n.. t %r,.s.,,u,..T ' W o,.

e. ..u. ~. .,n. . k Q;:.'..r SW<W. c.,.,. c,;.p.m,:.g y, g.,..,, w.~ 5,.. /4 g.,.4n,w ylQ,;.M, - c %. i .;..... 9 .%...~. g,w n ) ((':3.h.brfi.,w.. bh.i . kf II. REGULATORY BACKGROUND AND TIIE +;n.4.ci..n, si..y y.. v%.x)p...h 46. s'.t..%,%.e W g g. EXEMI' TION REQUEST .:q -n. u g v;G:~w %. 6.g. RQ:: ;..%q.7.M.y W:{ p.MNh:.M+r p,: 3dY/'h!.EIkl.h./ 'Ihe Commission's regulations set up two requirements for the grant of an k! . %yilt,b.A.

f. './.A., *G m.

exemption. First, the exemption must be "[a]uthorized by law,... not present p.: W, m n;n & : w ;,'7.f.,f p.,.jr.l.OJ,: @ '.'.s. .e.n pW.P.@,..,.1. ;,.,. 4, r m..pW...,... an undue risk to the public health and safety... and [be] consistent with the

hd,AM. h, y;g, s.]d'NIJM: hN,Q'k'q;[D,c'Q; 1

..., ~ J:Ebg -.

M..

..e. .V. common defense and security." 10 C.FR. 6 50.12(a)(1). Second, there must be fGM : r ~ Qie,."hl'..E! 9h M a "special circumstance" as derned in 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2).

h.: .I,%NiNh.i Applicants in their March 4,1986 exemp lon request maintained that the

-.W. :: : M ': .r...* W 'Q'f,,:.Pi' 9.., criteria of 6 50.12 are met. They argued that four of the categories of special , ;j.,i' p. x.- m...S n..jQ. y.rQ;';jj;.)~1.4,'m'Clj,'i g P.Q' circumstances - (ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) - are preser;t. ..i

'f..

s .t,

.,',y.C..qt,.g* ?f

/. < : " ', 9.. p. 7 / O. ?..=p.v.".s. &. m.,,.,'r..J.[ :, d.: -.. + :e The NRC Staff has concluded that the exemption requirements are met in "U,.' J > W.,.c. ; JM.he ,%'?, j the present case. See " Safety Evaluation in Support of Granting an Exemption i

gy i.Q..., r.: .......v.q. ;;,.1....

c., Request for an Exemption from Section IV.F.1 of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. 50, 1.9,: -;$2 ' M. h l*.3,$.".3 3. h;.y} 7 l9,y.7,.g0.";h.[7'.W, [llM.y, V),f f-l y 4.,... Shearon Harris Nuclea-Power Plant" ("SER"). In particular, Staff found that rN the fol'owing factors support the granting of the requested exemptions:

g.g..j..

,w. i ?.. [* Q,,.,,,' ' b, %* *W

l. The conduct of a full participation emergency preparedness exercise in May,1985

[ /. '.-...,.\\. c,~;., ' ':. I '( [.. i. ..., ',;f j ; '\\.*. ..? where the Staff identified no significant deficiencies in onsite preparedness and ....oc...; :

y * /. J :.,..

leading to a favorable FEMA finding on offsite preparedness on August 7,1985. . ? t.<....... ;, 3.'s a. ~..e ' ' '.y<,,,*g. [... :.:. ;.., c t.. y+.,. 9 4.. . /. * @j. g..,, /.. g, e ,. 1 g,

2. Full participation by the State of North Carolina in the exercise at Catawba in

$ ),'7 3 / February 1986 and the planned full participation by the State in the scheduled !

c.,.

-l.,v. *.j.v-

4.,.

,r.. './ l2,.,.,",.f.";5...a, f,. exercise at SHNPP [Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant) in Februa;y 1987.

ay;>

3. The participation of local response organizations in a partial participation exercise e

,y ,.' y, ..... e.4 0.; ". *e;i(. ','y f g, r' ', '.:i.'at SHNPP in October 1986 and the involvement of these organizations, with the ,...?.. 1.:.. : ', ;'u...,,' l ; " ] } il/ h

.,'.y ; ;;ff.j.,,,l s c; 'j assistance of the licensee,in an ongoing training and development program.

i c 2 . ',, ;,g. ,!...2.e,. c., .. k, n... . -l1.(,, f. S (J,4; / ..;. lf-Ty',7, 7. li.;. : SER at 3. Staff concluded that granting the exemption is authorized by law, c,c... * ( n'.3..';., c ',C d 7 *','.. 9 will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with c ,t o+, 3,,_ #, q T,.5..i.: 'l, (x..'p.Ug *, * ; the common defense and security. With regard to the requirement for a "special a e ., e f c..C,, 3... .., r,, ; +.i circumstance," Staff found that application of the regulation "is not necessary to

5. :.., '

.f.,l $ N.a,. ff'1.f,y achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" under 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2)(ii). /d. o 3:- g.lJ//..b/.' M'j j', d %g '-}Q. ;;.. 9.?. '...N. '(,~M,,,' .".., 'f l,,'.d Staff explained that the " underlying purpose" of the rule is "to ensure that

$,, /.'

adequate emergency response capability exists at the time of licensing." Id. at W...o._, ? M.. ':lt,,..N,;g.;f 'l. ,k E.

1. Based on the available information, Staff concluded that this purpose is met

..W. s. / .. g + : /> a without another full-panicipation exercise.' &.; 1, 6..,,...:<./g. W R./;>f.;y;.t v. ' '.. m-

,q v.

9.'. ."s"*... T.*,*, n s.' *. * :. (..~ !*. . *,..,. Q:. n s.:, r v. A. . p'. - /.=,,.. L".p. c- .r ,.4,6.. w- ' /7 l'q,i5. '..y,- - s,.: ::"..,.1. gr.,.* W.,il

0.,'* j f c,.f

",*A..., e d '.,..,p,;'.4 e

N '. r p

Before the ments of Peunoners' arguments are addressed, thers is one other prelimmary maner that warrants S. discussion. There is a full-participatton exemse scheduled at she. aron Hams for February 27,1987. On october j ? *.3s.6 I ..l.y,;, ' 4 'U/*l s.. i'. :. * /;* 29.1986 the Nonh Cambna Anarney oenem1's office requested that the Comnussmn determme the probal hty i,. '.r, -ld.t.. '< j'" '.G*, f i,'.. *).

g.,,

',.v of readmeas before February 27 for full. power operation at shearon Hams. *nie Attorney oeneral argued that. , y,. ?*:y utiless there is a reasonable probabshty that CP&L will be ready for a fall-power bcense by February 27. the t.4 gw2.,,.7.!,. :. M ;;,,,,

ga'

s. Y.

- / }.h fl.'] 5 "[. :.**/.,;N..s.4 )..,q. 3.k.- t,. %

T,? 5.*dJ.

"* M '* request for an exempuon is moot. .El~;).*.'s.,..?.::e. '.N. e. '.... $., 1 b .'<? (Conrased) .?: :: m.- ~ n.. w. :n v...g:.;y H...s.n :s.

y..

t ~ e m. y ..a. m. :.,r.c . n. , i.^Q.,V.,'l.e m... Q;.;c., .,'.'-l.*.w, v:. e '.; 's,, v..,.'.* '.' '.:v:v., 773 ? *. .~,. a. r.x.%,,.,.. 5., c .g,. y .. s..s.. :.J ! *m,,

v. c:.. '.~ : :; y I

1 . e.. t 'J 'e 4. 4 <e .*p i M.,.i '...,.,.. ' *. ll. i* ". .e

*',.?"&,,*,

r 5 ?'.

qc., Q' N '. , :'**M ).f Lh,* E; *.w,.*%"J {d...[.h,u.',h. i.GsI*q.p.. ..b.f.,b ' c.e,. 'y %.. : ,e s ,..,N;.. h. t~ j,'.hh.*,'.8'1*yfg*D... *Nc.h . o S '%' ;r.6,.M nW... x m'

J, d *
s ie Wu.

v

.d.

(.J, '/.?.g',n* f.,ry' s. $*Qf.w?.4,=*.3. * : < f,,r;,'Y rs " + / M'*: Q* h*'(gES;}d j$;W'..r.y ;.m?.f;& yp r,x.$lt'A."':.t.*. gf 5. * *[y:.%r,~,s.w w*-.. g W'. c ,3 '.m y. 'Q.%,Q n. $%. iso n,. s.,;.*y p ,r. 2,*; w'% Q t -. m ~;w.w... .:7;y:* y n, f..,,f: &m(:.*s.8 6; y... .s,..p q - ;; q b *. gi.* eA.. y !;;*l)lyhy k&;g* lMf3.',W&. .h y.m:.u'.%.'!;.Q:.;:...e w :. q;. n,.... 3*;.;. q..,

w. w?.Ul*Y&,

.9'.,. 'Ts.

np%.*5v:q ls~.Wf..f-):.*t'J.:l} ?

Z% y ~.. w. /...... m.p,.:... + ;,..:. y;... r,..... w y' .s, m.e.+c .... 3..... .+ q *, sy rt.n..;.. s.,;. :w ..i,'j., :.*.,.* ;!.;....... '.a

~.*

.. r. .,.....,%u.;<. , 9... ~ ..%1 . y.,- ,~,,,;... 5, z', A g ; ej ~. .t se- + x. ,7. ,u 6

a...n. w & m a: m./: q ?. w m. wlN p; W:. M x a. & q).s% g ;. N" p&id yv

%O.M.y#ff.

R W yg M M kM 4fpWW hp/474.yMq.. ng W.t. w :: h! kh f hI ysfi-M @h A.f g%,yNW<,i,. eM q o @Q&.w&p. M.:r4.Q h g/ N 6 5 $, ,m $.,.> ? c Ls. m.'l... < M M. E %. a .,. n, v. m,e.a. * {.,.,.,&..-.v..9;pj.,!;. . g,.g,,j.. .s. g III. ANAIXSIS

k. W 4(a.H" @t,

%pM 8:f $l:y[p,75g)M f/ A. .Whethtr $ 189a Creates Hearing Rights M '$s O f.- d. ? !.M g*;%' t ANQQ,, Even if i 189a of the Atomic Energy Act required an adjudicatory hearing on

ycn.

. gkl@$.'g%

%g ,j h this exemption request, as Petitioners assert, threshold procedural requirements ,{J?

for institution of a hearing would still have to be met. See, e.g. BPI v. AEC, jlfi f.,gr t.g ifgaJJ?l$~k,J

.'h/pp@'-]p;3p;jQ 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir,1974), Since adjudicatory hearings are intended only @h(.JMdS$. for the resolution of disputed issues of material fact, Co3tle v. Pacific Legal QA , ?.4 pi a MM3.jf ?'dA '- Foundation,445 U.S.198,214 (1980), one such procedural requirement is that k,0h.Th'4,@..M. W b Q@ a person seeking a hearing must tender sufficient information to establish that 3,,M. M. #,g. M,$; 7.: C O g..% there are material issues of fact warranting a hearing. Petitioners have failed to . u (M.. .-9 ';r. meet this threshold requirement, and therefore the Commission need not address fg;.,- Q.yf f.M hyp.;'[;,g 1,.'. whether i 189a gives interested persons hearing rights on the exemption request

Q@/Y,yd j:W,f.pffiQ'.% p at issue here, either within the operating license proceeding or as a separate gg.Mi...M.6.:.*8,T;p Q:%g.y.M.p&

W'&%. W.~ :.'"&: n matter.* y. t gp.U.N;: i 7. e'. M*. -f. y,*1,l'g,iF ' M. M.y (*2.tg.%'; W @g,9;iSg.:q:;(f ,f. B. Whether There Are Any MaterialIssues of Fact n/ .,c :,h n y6[* i,*[2.?);![S. , W ',:g y. 7,9 -1: {;. ?;r ,$g:,..,:.;9.y:., The issue here is not, as a cursory reading of Petitioners' brief might indcate, i g solely whether there are any material issues of fact regarding whether emergency 'nlNQ.fp [.:gM"p, $Q(,@f-$ ;;)@ . l$';M M*c7 k,# preparedness is adequate. Rather, as explained in the Commission's September '12 order, the issue is whether there are any material issues of fact regarding p,.c:.,.d ;. fib.,m. ,'. w y-1 U;.},;/.,g. M,,:s*.,i. W @y *E. .e g b 9, p,l*,$g. y%.. y

. -..g i..tg h;[/j';f*,.y'O@!,'%

,, y u !. gh,C ap< r Q... a f J.k,f:,.,[%, W 7;N.y'.+ he NRC staN responded to this motim on November 17,1986. De staN stated its view that CP&L would

7 ;. l
4

,/ g p, be ready to escoed 55 of rated power in January 1987. ^~b' 6 WN;.C*f i i N,n. c., Q [*"M(M. %Y,/.P [:. g. ' he Commission in this order is not addossing the merus of the exemntion request,inckdmg whether the . Y r."7,I I'.p'* requested reJaaf is necessary Unless there is a heanns on the request, dl*,f* C staff has the suumnty to grant or - ',.;$./ * *.. g y.g f gp dmy the request However, the Commission notes in this resard that even if the plant were not nady to saceed 4 gi p.4. 3 ; 4,[;m ; 7 @,/ b,; T $ ' p 54 power until February 27, the mere fact that an exernse is seeduled for February 27 does not rnean that the f Nayyy'.' 33 ,.?, / t... results of that caercue wi!! be avaBable m February 27. FEMA and the NRC sta!! must thereafter evaluate the h). . ' t e + M...*te; %.}*@f. I,#'7 ' h'gp N,.83 esernse, a process that could take several weeks.

y W N" D g a/.g,Q.

!vyf%.yD"l7.k'N'*#.b's lh*j 8 Pounoners vene nurnerous other issues that can be addressed summari4 First, Peuuonars exmuend that the h '. pMp[;sg'J6b p$ f TL W .. d,%( @,;* Comnussion does not have the legal authonty to grant exemptions. here is no ment to this contenuon. See 50 ? Fed. Reg. 50,764,50,766 67 (Dec.12,1985), ening tinised34 ares v. Aflag4snyM=n 3ssel,406 U.s. 742 (1972), d,p**Y O,)./, k y. ;wJQ,.L.,g# and Alatinaia Pow Co. v. Carrie,636 F.2d 323,357 (D.C. Cir.1979). Nuaners next argue that this enempbon is related to an issue in the operaurag heense proceedmg arabauld th',L, Q ty. sy[',;f, Q Q (' .'h, yr,8;,;,!. a-9/ Fry..Q,9 ?q?

be andressed under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758, not i 50.12. Contrary to Peuuoners' asserum, this exwnpuan veroest -

' fgg.Mte. y regardmg whether another full.parucipation enerose must be held prior to hoenung - u not directly related h., A.* ?,'g.' n' [ c N),M[-t.f[eg' )g*.g. g,,./ to a contenuon in the opernung hcense proceedmg. Mareover, 66 2.758 and 50.12 offer alismauve methods 4*y;a8 ; r@+,,,f M Vf,t,,., l .g-for seek 2ng waivers er emernpuans from the Canmission's reguistions. Wbch is more appmpnate depends en Q '; the circums ances of each case, and there is no requuernent that CP&L proceed under 6 2.758 here. See. e.g., f.W@,}f,'h. x8 drN ;,.M ' ., p M' d Ne kg.- Cleveland Electne Illmunanna Co. (Perry Nuclear Nwer Plant, Umts 1 and 2), tEP.85 33,22 NRC 442 (1985), 4,,/et W. "*">3 4[MN "e'iP. (.[g*h spil, ALAB 841. *J4 NRC 64 (1086). De carber Commasian decisians indicaung that 650.12 was m!y to be g;j%MMM' 7,,Dq'i Af used in emergency situnuans were issued before the revisions to 6 50.12. See 50 Fed. Reg. 50,764 (Dec.12,1985). .h&

dt y*}.'pf,W..w;p,$'D?

Nuoners funber maintain that CP&L has not met the entens far issuance of an exempuan, and that the r tt Fe ;& M.t exempuan request should ne derued solely because of the lapse of ume smce the May 1985 encrose. Peuuaners' 3,,d[+a..y*phQi u > arguments in dus regard are beyond the scope of dus ords, which addresses only whether to insutute a heanng Q,'gj[ f',6/,'{

Al 1 (,,.

i on dus request. See note 4, supra f.b. /MMP. , m G..g*W'ti m @P...y Q _ ',5 % vg,Q,, rM.%y 4..g.3.jj aW-s h Ms: ..mp,.,. t.v. &.s..L, w %w*. h.y., '4, a .v ,f h. h. i ?:DV W[,M[ - gj.j,

M* N^- ?M *'k N< )

pQ.y'"Qlh['

9. 4 hwq.&'.;m..

try ?'U rF W ' 774

~~
w w: h:M,2 i,yJ eeyny p sy%p.* W gw A,4.vt.;m.i.?

nw , e..t .Q n ;*. h, M%,,% k W_;.3.e.. ;...,m. y <.M_E M_* M_ ~ a ::

,,,..s s

4 4. 8 9 r i n

i (- .J h.ir 5 . w a. w @ q M.Q. y y,. u,;+s%,pra r,,pt.y~;y,i,/ A ,t g.. r. Wr .W W. .,g 33 4 89 ?Z.,S. y'Oj.p;,p;0.w$74..?MM;.3 ,..e%./,.f.';s.4 .v .e, w . w f...#m..,, ~ W. yl'n*d..!','sD,hr.. whether the standards of 9 50.12 are met. Hence, even if Petitioners did raise a .. d j4. @ j )h. % e.i. W, y,'?.[I Gi N.Tj'4h{ s p. v. a .Wf c cq3.ll..iN material issue of fact regarding emergency preparedness,' they would still have O'.a.M..J.?: Q to show how that issue was rnaterial to a determination under 5 50.12.' kh@,h.kht'N.'@E .'. jiN'k h ;N; h 'Ihe NRC Staff proposes to grant the exemption by finding that tha require. "j;h$-W'qpW[fdMQIOe! .%gfg5NG mente of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) and(a)(2)(ii) are met. Therefore, to demonstrate MM.%r4 %D.d.'O that a hearing is warranted, Petitioners must ratse a material issue of fact regard-8.'s j b;k,h.y. n.,a.CWQ. T. l.cm: I.OD. 7A.a,n.&.. e# ing either one of those two subsections, i.e., Petitioners must ra:se a material /. ,v. c g. M iIMOj. c.,4 .M.Vh%.M! issue of fact regarding whether (1) the exemption is "[a]uthorized by law, will 3,%Q'g@th,g ' W.M:)N.f'Tif, M('N,@'l not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and [is] consistent with 9)~,..[@U.['.$.(;M:g).h, 0.h.s1),y the common defense and security," 10 C.F.R. 9 50.12(a)(1), or (2) "[a]pplication .j

l@ce; M['T.b,2]SD!d,,%,M..M.W.iM.9p/.1.J!

S. Wt 4.. *~Q,ylj,M.;l.. pp.,v M..-R. @. n.;(k'.;g7..,,1,. M ff,-r of the regulauon in the particular circumstances... is not necessary to achieve . a' the underlying purpose of the rule." 0 50.12(a)(2)(ii). 4 if W Petitioners make essentially the same arguments for both sections. With U.:.,. @ M. M. h h hN.N $ N.$ $'M':';'.y.0%'J.M y;&e;<.4 and safety, Petitioners maintain that "the Plan that now exists is not the P!ar. regard to whether the exemption will present an undue risk to public health ,M..,.9..J,1.a ;6. y:p.e*d.'.e, n...Q.. t,,14. :/a that was tested." Pet. Br. at 14. Petitioners argue that the May 1985 exercise s z.m .4 r .;, o. 6..:,. o. 4 s .v..fa...Q O....gr. w..q..v.e %....."; demonstrated " serious defects" in the plan, and substantial modifications have ...w. r.. ' ',').. f.p,. ...Y. w'y V...... ".l 1.. / d. been made subsequent to the exercise Petitioners claim that without a full- / ? .. s s .,.,w . o.,. s. 3 m,,.- participation exercise there can be ndrensonable assurance that the defects have been corrected, or the modifications implemented. Petitioners also argue that 7,W.,.., f.; } ' M.;.W'7 'i,";y eq ip > ; K~.'f.. ;.. .(,.

j., - i,.

F4. : ( g,. w f,,u. T, signincant population growth and a lack of public confidence require a full- ?;..,,.' ~,l. '. 4. ; participation exercise to show that there is no undue risk to public health and s.- safety. [,['. "y * ', }. J.'. l~ ..d." 1,*I\\'.'$.h U.[,.i With regard to whether application of the regulation is necessary to achieve ... c.. . t. j, ' (.., ,t ,.. r. %.C.. :7 ; the underlying purpose of the rule, Petitioners maintain that the purpose of the ,, c h * ? h,7 [,?! ",@f requirement for a full-participation exkreise within 1 year before issuance of a ,. v.' ..,...e ,.n...,t ~, :/ full-power license "is to establish reasonable assurance that the emergency plan r .. v. 1. ",;. > .t M. r.;; *i..' ' d+ r.O..N.I. r;gi W %'W' in place can and will be implemented." Pet. Br. at 17.' Petitioners main'ain that . v .*f. .*,% r. y l,... m -; W :.,,: f..:*/ ;r n. ' ' ' ? a..n Q %. ".. $ ' *. /.. [ * .s \\" '"?'. L 6 i E W e J,fM. g[( '.'.(. t [.;i*/.. .~7..' j Die Commusion in its september 12 order stated that to the extent alevant it would consider allegatons c,- f $f f '? a. of deficiencies in emergency paparedness an!y where the basis for the allegaum, if shown to be true, would , ; /, *. .4

. ec * /

demonstate a " fundamental esw" in preparedness. $se, e g., Long Island tigM4ag C.P. (Shorsham Nuclear Power 9;.,,Q, p.'. M '.'*..,, ',...7 ' [C W,' l. * - 7 m,. 7,, , eT 'f'/"' ; h 7 }. )'. ' '. stauon. IJnis ). CLJ.86.ll. 23 NRC 577. 581 (1986); Carolina Pawer A LigW Co. (shearon llazns Nuclear .7 ( fl,j, f, y F /,:,';; *l /j',,a.. f Power Plam),l.BP-B5-49,22 NRC 899,908-10 0985), #d. At.AB.843,2at NRC 200 (1986). ',' 7, l/ 4 %,' - ( r' t t* The Commasim m Gus order resolves all of Peutioners' clauns without m!ying on the " fundamental Saw" p

'h,.,t {. O,.. N. ' d, Mf s s E @.i $.7 g.)

studard. ~,s.',,. D ^ v..p / v..k. Fur instance, issues concernmg matters that would not be tested in s full-perucipsuon esercise would be 7 . ;

1.9 8; :.

, vf ,.,.? . 5 g . t c. 4.,.......4 w %../ s ; e P -;,,p 7.. ;, ~'3 p

J*.Ur'.y.*.'.f'n.n.

. r. *- '

irmlevant to the extrnpuan aquest at tasus hers.

p WF ip!, e, '* ' *]i, %* Ee'."I S .. (:4< the Commisstan agrees with the thrust of Peuuoners' statement of the purpose of the agulauon. The .,4 +[f. (th '.J. [Is. ** [ . ( ', i*. Comnussion's regtCauons requue that there be "masonable assurance dat adequate pmtscuve measums can and b,~.e:1 fi.,1."' ,.i, c',1 ;* 'J ' /*f.h ';. / e.1,

* [.J, f

' * ?l..h*.1 will be taken in the evem of a radiological ernergency." 10 C.F.R. 5 50 47(a). The c.sercise requuuments am >!y.. yl,4. g.M,,L...p';.4 'j y., v; designed to assist in ermunna that dus standard as met Hence the underlymg purpose of the requamment for , Q';L* " %. ;. 5

7 s'kSf ;*UJDl [ *.4..;,. ;* Iq '.$ y,

,,.. j e-a fulbparucipauan exercise wuhm 1 year of becrise usuance m to help ensure that emergency preparedness a ['.*q*/. 76,; 'Y,4.. * (h. ',$.J './ y'ys./. j;.Q,M I

t. '

adequam at the time of hcensmg the facihty to ascend above 5%. of rated power. t

' f

..e*, e The Commarion has scently issued a Nonce of Pmposed Rulemaking which would chanka the 1-year Nl'.,.f.,Y,.;57 * #l[: v:.;.t.;5.; /.:m':,"/lf.*.'r 9'..:-(;, k'.%'. i M, ylyn,c, v,'* o requuemem m a 2-year regtumrnem. 51 Fed. Reg. 43369 (Dec. 2.1986). The Comnunsion m that Not;ce explamed ~. ...s+. ...u (Conunuad) . y.. m;f.s*.. !.&.1.r..

,.q,W?..h ? ?h.S. e?q,?/. llM. :. 4..,u&..'. 'i.

~...s- -*- y:..' :

e s

a. 'lhy ... Y.:.. [, y.ty v:.q.. k,.'I.,.th,,Y'$..,.',Y,.* $, 775

r t.

.y .n.;:.

7. v

.Q.w . r.

. )W.. -

0 m.5..%* g %

I,' / 2. -

'2.

- .u t ?, '..;6 k..Y :. c.=. # *. f

' % 7.t: ; : *, :' d D" j /,+,.,(* *8. }, ' A n .,, e r l 'a.' <( - s '.\\~i.,L.WQ.f*%*~1.t M@S'r,'W:?.k' 'pi.lj. *:. 'ja C'Z % G 4 V*.*

Q j y-'a.;ns,v :7: ~ s/.p7,:

? - r-. .yt Y,'.%; x'?: % 9.r.vC '.or.'s v... A V* ~;A

g.

a =

s. x.. f.:.d:

? iy': s ,< W s v .s.y * %*Q't. v%.* pb_ V r,,, :.,lp ?r.y y; .p .J. 'h g/f.M*h $ h N Y Ul' N h M h. f,I.D. h !h'S $'*?'*:if.?,$'~ N. W.=. n.+h. E.,. b,t E 4}' M Y**6*@ h ddMDNhM dl."DWW[UTh N M;..I Y' M,*M *V,hD M . g, 7 7 c.+;.

,w.n,,,..r.,,n.,.n,.: ,w.e....:.n.

...,.w .... :,a... :.. ,.,.m. ..g,5, .. s>,e.. ,+y. : ..s. 4. -i.r ..?~ , ;, y,.. w a

c. p,

/* 7;.. e. ,.wi .t",t ,y, .p. ,-.s. t

M M D $ N $8 @h,.MhM hNh;=h N'$hh@h:h:@ N M[i k f) M*h & Oh.. $k.hNhNih.h.,.. gc.mv u

m. mz n

. n ~.. : '. .a ~l hdr' h h. E m.vkM &N ute.a.570.x.4. A >Niv,M.2km,aM:h.$cQWl.ht:l{& b$ f%%-Q.M

f tg.r i.,*A,Q.g.%

.m. A4.y g ,p.. r.u r f'J.M2n5f%.;n%g?,:n~. 'i'itWl>ty e 7 .~. 2 p .. w.,u,...:.,g::n :;, p q.,@M ;M, p m,;s..n l.. '&QQ.s c2: ..q

s. w c.

L.; .w,.,. -.NP . a +.. w the regulation requires that readiness and training actually exist wit!Ja ' ae year t;/ tM. W..G.m[aw'DNM, X.m before operation above 6ve percent power." !d., but that the May 1985 exercise r g..

9.. t ? N,ed,* W:p#

.%v' W,, 32./ ". :.M '. *~L6 falls to establish such assurances. Hence, Petitioners conclude, an exemption , wt - h.y.',,y;y.$.K'J,g$g%4, s. p4' g@..(1 g".l,'.**?,pff would defeat the purpose of the regulation. Petitioners, to support this argument, .(. cite the same factual arguments regarding preparedness as discussed above, i.e., .f (].g?.8.. p-Q;.c p@m#fM, ' p.g. g,,. they cite defects in the May 1985 exercise, modifications subsequent to the g,jg... A.y#%y:.!.Z.. exercise, population growth, and a lack of public con 6dence? c. e

a. a. y.-

t;).;d, ;.@ p,.. W '#.%%.?.N., @ In sum, Petitioners maintain that defects in preparedness pose an undue risk .A.., /.. .a. f[..i dfh.k*g,}@ji r;7g,@. s. to public health and safety and demonstrate that the underlying purpose of the s !.b,. .' fA *d $ regulation cannot be met without another exercise. Below we discuss each of 2*2'l3a W

.de-l.i*f

.AWl* M Q 'a: QM $'.@h,&4.)M Dp qde Petitioners

alleged defects. For the sake of simplicity, we will divide Petitioners' h7M(7,Q-l)/i

.f.5"d.$ yg.$.h[. t claims into two categories, those based on the May 1985 exercise and those based on events subsequent to the May 1985 exercise. The issue in each case is h,,,{. ,l.f;;g, . j. Mr. l e.'N.%.g.?,y,3.Jy*.,q .y. '.w -l, A,'g;<j,g" e.

7.. 3. Ql:.1/ -

whether the alleged defect raises a materialissue of fact regarding whether the Ce

4 Q.

.y exemption should be granted. &.,... f..n, - %.,r (r. .e r. b. 4 s..v., .q.. 6 1 y v'.,.,.

'?,,.,..

4M.a... 1,- s.A.W.en,.4,..; :. <. %.,. at, y.#.< ,...y Ef,... ~.

y

n. y

.4 W9 a. The May 1985 Exercise .., y, e v .., W,a%.:; y.. .... ~ m... ['g)7.:,f cS, p.3 .,;y.-l;ig.. i V.., Petitioners, to suppon their argument that the May 1985 exercise raises r.J.s.E..Q. ;** 'g,Q.-;,r,.i.t: r material issues of fact, rely on various deficiencies noted in the FEMA and state i %. A W.x. %.t,' W.ll ' T (." t, evaluation reports. However, they ignore the fact that these individual criticisms M,,, did not affect the overall conclusion that emergency planning wm adequate 'Ihe , T.l,'W. WP.. e?.' w~P. ' o..f. u.. ,, f 3... P./ "N.,,. n a rs ,,o .s. w,*.' .r.w.f. 6... tli,.l.~.d. W.!..'. N. 4.M.,'I_ - overall FEMA fir. lings on the Shearon Harris exercise were the.t: +4,c c. ; I. e... c. [. 4,* hg ';,.. v, e...s c.y. - A ...*. *. g ; e",s,,, A.4.e.t M..,:. W,,r./. t@. yL

( t.g.

et-w r '"lhe State and local emergency plans are adequate and capabic of being implemented, 4,s(. up* .. lQ.t.. end the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable j'.![.';f ,lp.';[,*;, /. ;,,,$'[g. ,,y *(. (?Q; 3 . li*.sg @Y.W .y essurana that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the Q* A ;.M r * .? t.; 4*j

w..

.....,,p{.%... Ag*M rs),':#.'8. Q.',M. 9. pablic twing in the vicinity of the Shearon !!arris Nuclear Power Station in the event of a ,g'. {2. hy. /.Q)g rzdiological emergency." e.. .o r,. r. k. ~% rf w. _4 3 ~ N.a g M.c y; m ; M.W'M.* w:. r. c. ,h.}~pu '5 " Mh LBP-85-49, 22 NRC 899, 910 (1985) (quoting Memorandum from Richard 1 ac.-<c.n. g..gbg/.,'.7[:cg;,.g. j'g. e.. ,.y.~.,. ,....t-.,,. g ?g Krimm, FEMA, to Edward Jordan, NRC, at 2 (Aug. 7,1985)). ['.3 G

r t., s,e,.)j:.g %.,4.w$.;.e.t.<.;*Q. i,r*

,,.w. NE, s n ...c

7.. v..

.*?.r.,; 1 wsa. ',v = n..,+. * <1.y g/S?ll. By $ [*} N*[;b, eh'; h. N h.'*E,' h that h had deternunes! in an carbec rulemaking that bienmal exercises by state and local governmems were (J;,ttM? /M'r.. D;./. y[..f.7.. .wt };,y% {y.]3.,p,. $*j'. %.% y';4, edequate for plams with opersung bcenses. and that there was rio reason to have a bieruual post-boense caercise y, s. requuemem and an armual p.e boerise aqmremmt ' Die Commmmon explamed that the only sqmroment regardmg ^ "J-p

/

f*. '.Q, ; .') f ' 4'h t g.<.'$ p:f.i %' *j.h 0.j.j*3 the tmung of a pre.bconne caercise should be that the parucipams be in place and tramed so that the exercise as . /*2*. $ d meanmgful M si a3,369 70. Wja 'Peuuoners also claim that Apphcarh is suggtsung that less than a fuli.parucipsuan enorcme can subsutuie for !.($,,*M y

.Q

% [d 2< M d<g3. p f*ff,/,h*

M d;*"M(*

rg., f a fuu-parucipsuon essreise. Appbcam is unir.g a perual exercise and other measures to show that n as conunuing in m.mmm an ad.quate level or pmpandama. As nmed by the MtC suff. subsequent to May 198$ *addmoral ( g ll g M;m@.. %.* Q. w/ g.X 2 2%< inuuns h= been Provided. fire onDe have been conducted.. arid other seuvities commenced that carwace the %p siaff that the May 1985 level of rupmse capabibry has been mamtamed" staff Br at 9. m.M..$rf"'d.\\ga ;t f.%y.%g:,p;:C:;'r&$.v,.j p.ty,S~Q**gwM% M?} !.. . u ;ww.w.,gl.f.?:fjv.g, "* &f~'"i

f r

s tQ

.m., yr.7.;,. w*f.r c.d Q./:'w.ep .,76 5r,esN,y>'..6/Y[rf;.* e w ,..,p M e.,.n?~.*.- >ENM'h. NCAl. M.r.p..a a..e3

1. ;. w.-..a 9 9 Q G.w.gt M,i.e.j.

a m 4. h".iS*M 6,QsM[s+g.$y3,MJW .T,,.9 y:A G m h,$,m AAr i

w..w *.:d 4.sM g

4 =

~ h f ,- + b. fhkffN TM k y-g+.'"'$w..)q%:,,3l@%.:Q W g.3/;E L&W, M: . m., u.p,u..f.h.t.' 4,,9; s 3.,c,, W> .y s1.Nf*.,,,t..q e.t..,c; rt.p.,n. m ~.,m. A . 9. e y y:jj

w. :.4.,. i. m.,...

r m s.t y,p / n ,,gi, w~i N...c, m;g, ,m ..p...s. .. su... r sv.,..,..e.n... ..a 4 )4.....g ::c..,,.y+@.e...g. r, s..+ s. Tag $ @ @.g,.g'1 c..,;,. s+:. s .. -j The purpose of reviews of exercise results was explained by the Commission .%MIM ,M<.h.b..iff"NM,,.%.9,.?.?.9, in the Shoreham proceeding as follows: p.9,1 -@[bNh., 2....i,T.s, C.$q% k.a @!'s;. >Q +t& Y S?lm N.J.;I.@h!>ff% q6 v.y. yi?M.dh:r* 1, J j.*?.} E p.b i [. ~ .'.'M)- Staff review of exercise results is consistent with the predictive nature of emergency planning, 1%;,/ and is restricted to determining if the exercise revealed any deficiencies which preclude - /. p,,,w't. : ')$. g'K'.'N.w f'N,sf $N ;+ a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken. i.e., V.h,, y[.!/,.U. 'i *; p'll'. Y I f v ;N

4. J.r;h.,m,.hf p

a fundamental flaws in the plan. a e 4.. ;M ts .k. ;p/. :7. ' j@.hk:hl:m. 'if:M,55fN.k.;:%C;4$%.M.N;.V Frw,b ..4:W;,2 .hk h. g. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86 .S. 4 11,23 NRC 577,581 (1986). Even though the results of the May 1985 exercise 'C5e'r[.@ 2.'"f.M5I-N.$ show some problems, they do not show a flaw in planning or implementation that f MSl'k;NhQfk.f,hdh'h'J/.3.. would require another exercise prior to issuance of a full. power license. Rather, f.W.. :,,. 9pi.....;r :.w.,.u. i. 'p w%:g.y 'e m > C..:. the May 1985 exercise showed that both planning and implementation were /m. .f. 6.r..... r ', ~l %. . #.,:4, s.. ,f; f..f'9;g.A;. W.,,. adequate to meet the regulatory requirements. Petitioners have failed to explain

49..m #'l,9 ? 't:f N..A..

{M:Q'i.-6;.k;' p;.th.rtk,@..,.e',;."jj' e ~ f .R, how the deficiencies they cite raise a material issue of fact regarding whether NrcOT the exemption should be grarted, given that FEMA's overall conclusions were ,:: f,, p. y. &..b,,!p.;:;, y p 7 u W. s.~%. M.?.4'N'.i, y ..'..'. ;W.:, favcm ble." ,4u ') yc;; l.,.ce: ;". y,.,i Moreover, Petitioners' allegations lack nexus to the exemption request in the r, ..t.. Ml,@,,'d,W f' 7. '. f ..W.; sense that Petitioners would have had the same complaints even if the plant had .l4: n,i %:Mt;'.s;.p*3.y.?;$y..!l7'.f"; .1.. ! ' ';

?-

commenced full-power operation within 1 year of the exercise, thus obviating .c.4'.g' ' %lj.'. [j,.. ';[ %; N[C.j,3

.O any need for the exemption. In sum, Petitioners' reliance on the May 1985

'l - exercise to raise a material issue of fact regarding the exemption request is , jl s;c '.. ~. v misplaced. .. ':v, .P ,e, s e q ;4."1.. ..., c .. ly. > O< s, :e,.

4.. l

~ b. Events Subsequent to the May 1985 Exercise ri.,; r. 3.... Q..' N ...., W. c ..,<. ',. ;.,, <f s.,.U ;.. i. '<,G...n i.. /.,; p. e. ..q. Petitioners list eight events subsequent to the May 1985 exercise which, in ...c ... w a M@ % ', N;. r., A ;.,.a .,... C. . a.3./2,9 their view, raise material issues of fact regarding whether granting the exemption ,i(C.' $M,9.%.$'.' W would create an undue risk to public health and safety and would defeat the

w. %v.;,. j:.%p. j.'.d.V. ~. ]M.h '."

underlying purpose of the regulation. We will discuss each in turn. S. - 3,ny. <.; g : :d. Petitioners first argue that one or more warning sirens were inadvertently i, ,.,..,i t su. gt, .. ; $..., /' set off in the early morning hours in the summer of 1986, that many citizens m ll.,')l.W 9 7, M., c'g'y.$;;.;... i;:,. n, ( g f., h,jf6 J f.fl'.. nearby did not hear the sirens and were not awakened, and that persons who .7 e '..q.g, le. . u:.. 7...,. i,~-,,. g..y,*,O. did hear the sirens and call the authorities were unable to determine what the s. ..,eo.,,.'.

'. i,e -*:J V

. ;.% *... f -= s i n 4 w h;. 8..%g w y, 3.e.y;,.G'. *v.k. *.:h**% y g'-l.! ?.<ll' . h... L : ~l,.6 ',? ' ,T...ps.,?.v... c,.< .,." "w N ,,. y,'.y ; :;,,. j y .;;.. ' '.:?, t.f...,' g 4.. *.'. ; ;w*.:, ?.t..,'. 2 [',[,.,'; , r.

Ots/' N. 4.p */ j, h j/

d '. M f.;*,'. f5',.h'gl,y.* M..,, '.2. M,..,,;. r... i,'1,*... i,. # l' Y 8 in fact. Eddleman fJed twelve contenuons auegmg deficiencies m the 1985 exercise wuh the t.icensmg . f4. Q. 1 .;h Board. The Licensmg Board rejected seven of those contennons because they alleged "nuner. ad hoc. conectable $< [$ fl,$.,%*W E **:.*p;N$.[h*4';'y : [ ," (?,,4* ti, problems. " LBP 85 49.apra. 22 NRC at 911. h refected two because they nuscharactenzed the documents

'.h7., g *.*I.",.1,' 5,,f on which they we:e based and failed to show any deSciencies. h rejected one comenuon suegmg problems

7' p!O's:., W.,<. r ;e. fo,,,, w.y * "i. f * * ' ' with the suun sysam because the system had not yet been mstaued. and because the problems, if there. l',N}i,?)d[q.?.j./[T*,8.liM, Y'.[ a ;,p,1',g.,;;,( rf u;. .. g 7 *..,; y appeared corra: table. Id. at 913. Finally, the Licensmg Board gramed ummary dwposmon on the remauung g 7 'rj/.l af;'... ;';/* two contenuons. tBP.4611,23 NRC 294. 398 407 (1986). The Appeal Board afftrmed the Licensmg Board's

a.MJ,"

f .,.i,b. 9'.M* 7. 'i decisions. ALAB.843,24 NRC 200 0986), ALAB-852,24 NRC 532 0956).

1. h M.;. ;..,. g '..r. g.;,..?,, y.i.p'.q.,Q.. :f r/<, s t

n. pp..g. />.1.m f ;.y,r.

.. g ;,..m;'.,y, s.w;.
+

..x..- ..s .g(.t.f..w.......p;m 3 yi;% e. tu:. r q .. %. mi ;3. wc c h. m :::.,. .r. ., y. 9,l1 ;c. e. . g.. :v.e...s.. ~~7 i1 A.. .i.....,..:. aw,.0 w. m...: u * $, tM...m..y!$o.;..' W's a.*Q. /.l.",Y '@',.6 ~'n.$.? s. '1

c;'...R

.e;t

Y, ^ - y@..

.L,..a. e,f.,.,*o.. ,N v ;s; m,.n. . 9,.. .],..r.. c. .~ a s..w s r .m...,,. %../.f&.T*'.(2[*Y. . ~.m. g. 's. M f*A'- Y.1 .#2 ed.* ; h,6 ' L' A r' f'.'Q.+5 A'$~.% $.I' O' W'.%. p* ** \\ {.Q*h

f.(~.'R.o '.'.Y,7IE #[

.bIh ILMN -d8 2 *e l} d V% s. '? $ -'[f e $s %f;N-l:[c.)f9,7%f},DT,*@?Oo[s.%'[p*[4 W.est!"[ 87W [b'*sf M. i O'. ,'E' [.') # ',ytd *

% W,#,,/

e ,.t ) el;*!. *Off.l'A E: ? !' '. '.' '/* Q.$:Wl4,. nll f' ef ? 9

. w,R.. Q. r#.,&., W,, W M;. n. 7 w %.,Q,. d y ?. W:.>.y yl s<" M I X. W..;., $.ly.d. h,, W #. @. + W 6

e..... a. w.

..n. u %*;: *.._. i,.. ,.a,,,,... ;..... u..,. s..x,: ", .a.. .n

. o., - ) L y f..w

, * ' R r s,... .. v.,. , y. y ! ,A (,,,) -.. c:.,-,, ;: u. Q,6.g. 3..e . **.%'L..i 4..- n,* }.., *,,, s . c, .s m,- .f,

.,y ;

. ;,, - q' y v:

s,.,...

e, . n,

L.W$h.%::iba?.k'd %$,, E0?G121lET.%r $*.nE$$$$YM1 ncdK.h&G'b ,qf$u)? h Fl% MlpW$%H.:?%';t. ' &M h} 2 S 54-s N f u.: h k.d M. h '.v m %m.;;... k IES U N M .Y I 9:w...,%p6...p. m yg,h.fp,3!;. sirens meant. Petitioners also state that tone alert radios distributed to persons k"W,g,M@y7,$ living within the 5 mile zone " reportedly have malfunctioned." Pet. Br. at 34. M g y$ Applicant and the NRC Staff point out that the inadvertent sounding of T. j " fg.jg r the alarm was due to vandalism, and did not pmvide a true test of the E.M.,IN('s,9fMf.y,$'., Ar M' emergency system. This inadvertent sounding was fully addressed in a decision dp.- Qy nL %.l.':M W:M.A GM.'9S by the Director, NRR, denying a 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 petition by Eddleman and wQ4 M ;f w @p.,$ h.g j;.pr W CASH. DD-8615, 24 NRC 618 (1986). Moreover, the adequacy of nighttime .f. 1 .fy - Ny CF4DI*4,0#.. g,us.S.: public alert / notification systems at Shearon Harris - including the use of tone eQ7,Q. - 3 g".. m w,5,y;g:&,y,Q v alert radios - wr* litigated and found adequate by the licensing and appeal N@5 UTb5@g!h@G5 ,? g. .nd hCdg'6 boards. LBP-86-II, 23 NRC 294, 364 et seq. (1986), af'd, ALAB-852, 24 h.M h.$~g &[.$M N N M U NRC 532 (1986).. / Petitioners have offered no reason to believe that the act of vandalism .% IM Q h [. Q '),$f) M provided a true test of the siren system, and their claim that tone alert radios

f

" reportedly malfunctioned is vague and unsupported. Moreover, another full-f.Sp*W:6 M & M,g f"'., 1 % $- h 7'G; (,[,%'e$$.TQy,,g.g,d"G .G. participation exercise - which would not require a test of the notification system at night - is not even relevant to these concerns. '.$$W4 Petitioners next argue that the lapse of time since the May 1985 exercise, QOg3 f%'$ gjpp%g.,gJf7fy,';'gW,$.lg'$,f personnel changes, modifications in the chain of command, and the need for pl.ygtpq.'M....y..WN N... b' d.%. b.. retraining raise material issues of fact. Petitioners' bare assertions are insufficient ..%y.. c A ..s.

g. n..4p.

y"; d C/(.71@qh. to demonstrate a flaw in preparedness. Personnel changes, modifications in py h N @p the chain of command, and the need for continual training are all a cotstant h. Y"hMJ,.E'- [.If,b,@$j.a part of emergency preparedness. Neither the passage of 21 months ur..il the (Q'U;p #.WAt;7.f.(,'%. ( next scheduled full-participation exercise nor bare allegations that changes have ."d'.'E.Q..,n.$. 4.,',[ 4,,.y occurred, without more, raise material issues of fact regarding the exemption ,O.p.g. N.R !. .c'7.p,e 3*agsll. request. Here Applicant has taken numerous steps to ensure that preparedness Q ;,1. gh 7 g /W d d W Q d $ g-y after the May 1985 exercise remains adequate. See, e.g., SER, supra, at 3$NJ)N.'@dll," s I. M 's...X.,v* g

2. Petitioners have not raised any material issues of fact reg uding the adequacy S.

MN 9 M of those measures. a ....s. 3 ,;qdQl,,,f 'yg. Petitioners' single example of a specific change is the transfer of responsibility [. y:y'.,* g.%'tip.. Q Q ;Q for traffic control in Lee County from the Police Chief to the Sheriff. By itself . b.J. f M. t'@.i.p[v"4;: this switch does not raise a material issue of fact. Applicant points out that this R,b,..* J, y e. M d. g : # 7 f US.h"'D!.!'@M +'~'! 3 xw % change does no more than reverse primary and secondary responsibility, and .n !N*dNNDN.37.5 Petitioners have advanced no evidence to show that the Sheriff will be unable to fulfill the primary responsibility. Indeed, the Sheriff's participation in traffic If?;$h,hfi%hk@kfy',hN U]tdy,dp[.Q,h;$F5N l Q:'ps' . M j M control in the May 1985 exercise demonstrates his capabilities in that role. Hence agement of the Jordan Lake recreational area. Petitioners state that the Chairman k'$h.j.jh.[k-[Q r fgfg .Q Petitioners have failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding the exemption. f.N D 5 h bM Petitioners' third argument concerns responsibility for evacuation and man-iffff,;f.(( yh* Mg h.jp,;&;,% of the Board of Commissioners, Chatham County, has stated that the County ,g'g 5*4 will take no responsibility for the Jordan Lake recreational area, and that these [f )M;,.g. 6{.jk Qm,1,g.' 7 statements contradict the provisions under the plan. Petitioners have made no y .. a. (MJPM.ig, gg.g h&u ?$g:dM,p% g [MMM 2DGW attempt to draw a nexus between their concerns and the exemption request, and t. y rJ g a .s.r.c. %. p % s.. YO b ffYW5&.D;i p a 8. %,. a n.- ap5f9m %ymp.a h h$k

a s 4 l MW . W'g.M. &. h. fA.;&:.99W.%.,1.f.w.y?Wt;'p%@ m.W W;g.p,,d *J'/b d.,.Mh;.,~ M9y f s%w;,,%Q.L, nn.o : 9 .:?hk. s'@ih$ C&g.' NW cw W',,V;% 4$dyMl jp 'f & &@.. 6 their allegation fails to raise a material issue of fact. First, such alleged state-

d

..%.h h. 6.'W1k. Mr3 9s/@,f,$/M ments, without more, are insufficient to raise a material issue of fact regarding N'!k[ Y;huyp.$.h whether Chatham County will fulfill its responsibilities. Second, even if Chatham h.m[.. p,p$, ? fi i ?. County took no responsibility for the Jordan Lake recreational area, as Petition. b1y'$,W.1,'flrh.w$$.r-~ ~...wt.. 4 V,.MM dg.hp.d MNRN.Qd.M.M ers assert, Applicant points out that there would still be a large complement of $s ' f,%:0, other available resources. For instance, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources $u,w$[.6, y@y?JA'!!.QNd98[',Myl.' g. 1M.,N.M,..s. d'./[/W.@W,N '%.'fWN[i,y,M,ff.@! ,1 *M

46 Commission has direction and control of emergency operations at Jordan Lake, 5

with assistance provided by the State Division of Forest Resources, the Jordan l MN@.h,M.f?S,h N.!M,d,ir: y., v

!h h

M,( Lake Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Division of Parks and 9 n,., a< / Recreation. Petitioners have not suggested why another exerrise is needed in 3(fflkQ)y@@db*h'bh(MON.3 'M h;h57.) view of the complement of available resources. Petitioners' fourth argument is that public statements by the President of $'M.,~.Mh;$~1'M[w$1%j$,Mh,,ij;i Q,, lf.il$r'k h.%%j $f.b1,fif,.:,/f2.19l,dCP&L contradict provisions of the emergency plan, and require another full-I 2h participation exercise to avoid confusion and to reassure the public. The two e;,. U.. u r, e #.$ h b.

W M

alleged statements are that (1) in a worst-case discharge, evacuated residents +. :m~ m W4 :,. u M, ^:!lt'fy,-V, r, 'm..g ' m. would be able to return the day after the accident, and (2) in the event of a s, n ',M h'g,'/h. 8 4'/' D. :J'/,2.y.f.f.G'@o..9.: radiological discharge, persons living more than 2 miles from the site might be N7f-Q' .Y. lM. ;' k;,y,.$s.

n.. M

.:n,. :t : n. ;. -. l..h safe. ,cr p.~;s.j,I3k ' jy/. ', 0 Again, Petitioners fail to explain how these alleged statements, even if made, .~,,,}[J.' . ? ". q. 72 #. ?,,,[. j 'j' ..,,h 9.f relate to the exemption request at issue here. Exercises are not conducted for the Nig[h J'.;M.[l3' D,/T j cducation of the public, but to test the emergency workers who would actually P f i G 'W Mr,'p.' *. v.,.lf. N ('.N respond in the event of an emergency. Moreover, Petitioners have failed to . '+ g.,-s (.A, '. ". l M ' - explain how a lack of confidence in the emergency plan among some members % r ', ; * .e ,. t;.,.,l . g W.. *. '. ',j of the public, if true, would constitute a flaw in planning that would be tested by f f,;;g another exercise. In fact, it is not apparent why another exercise, if successful, , < wl; J 1. ',.,$l y...... %.,. [., ..:. ',Z. " R ' ", would achieve any more public confidence than the exercise already held. q,; d p' ',i 'd; M..:.G,.,.Nc','.g ...c:... s ', ]' g,.., ; Petitioners' fifth argument concerns revisions in the plan after the May 1985 d. W' ..4'.' ' ~.. M exercise regarding what hospitals and medical facilities would be available to Ph C,...,.....i t; J " ll 2.W'g., i,1,%...;.U,!jil{.f7,{.3 provide decontamination and medical services. Petitioners assert that questions f,.Rll,: ',.. } f , :..!.j have arisen regarding whether binding commitments with Chatham Hospital j ',..p.i @,1,'v.#$/Ub'l ?U *y /.y[J / have been reached, and whether North Carolina Memorial Hospital is willing " ^ :;.l.," ' '< ,2. 'cl.gg,7l.y .D!;T.,,'.'*n,f,A $'< M.^9 M to participate to the extent required by the plan, since it is willing to treat only (./[Af i .l '.i@ a. Y'.P. ' !.p t, * *l' -31' persons in need of in-patient treatment. Applicant responds to this argument by stating that negotiations toward ar- ,.g

l ?,f.;..g,

f. 4l."

L..,' O,..-l., ' 5".%...'.. 'Jrg. :y ;.,f, 7.: :

s',

/ ;'t,,. f,, ' ' rangements with Chatham Hospital are ongoing, and by noting that the exist-o 7.../..h':.M'.$g !:'.n/2[D4pll;4 i, [,1%f%. .a .d lyd; '. ing plan does not rely on Chatham Hospital for the treatment of contaminated 'c;, M i[.,$.'yf, M ', M 3 persons. Since the existing plan does not rely on Chatham Hospital, questions regarding the commitments by Chatham Hospital are irrelevant to whether the e,J{M % N!'W ' r ')YC'd; ;. t,N exemption request should be granted. With regard to North Carolina Memorial J.$.. g,f,4 W.,$,.3 i.. j.gt.N.; ....v*, 'I? c,, Y,.,....-~....,,Dl .s Hospital, that hospital's policy is consistent with the NRC's regulatory guidance, (*.hj@;['kl?. w.r;:.?-d-l/h/," k :)Ify)7+.Y j W .?ly.i. 3.f lN.l ;

M.

which provides for separate, nonmedical facilities for monitoring and decontam- $y., //;, ination of the general public. See NUREG 0654, Criterion J.12. The hospital's ?.6d.(/f. w.; f$)./.... y.. v'* < ?;;n k' h '...y<g

r... '. s..

J. *,.'.1,* .. v.- e, <: #e.; .e. s.;. . f v...

f. *,x.,s..,
...do. d. ~.,',.c %., ? M. Y,;;'. s'm *: ogl,m'. m.: c u.. n.

c . '.s >. s ..e ('[:T;N., w)'1'y,g* k.p;'(.,~e >

7@f **,. < ':Q,%;.g$K'1 W#,

l* : '. M.l. ;; p# 779 I . W. # l. s. r:.,.D. ff:Q'N'Ql[

.41.*,n 3i l

pjY..tW ~?~&y. : ~.t:[Va.:4llt'. %;;5 ,hfo; p QSW:'.'tl4.W 0

'lQ'kht:

S f f % ' O }M j.Oif:. R$.'& $ NQ$iy.*Q: M N yi,MMkMkN.M't$0.f.EM.79WfrmFfe,p$p*e yi em!'I hf*g:f ;;-,.y yy &T'< :n.,Y'W.$. a o r vv ;.w. . m p....,,

h Y m.f

.V,:.lQ',K $, h $;,h'k f.:.W. . M'n.Q:u2. +,.G;e:, :r.;...W C& ' M:,,b :;':,lQ:hefI &'!$tQSft.W;g,W:n.%,A;;;0'i'y ? .2&kYA*!l$h,WC& Y'h! W W w?%& c 'M.e :e(5, y.,}v./. 7 d' - Q.'.Ny.,2,"c' v 'o. 'W Wm ,, EQRy~9' l.'::;+p%.a,;. M: 1 ,,, 9 .'.3 , i,..

q

-, ;. y,._, - c. g,

y 7

t.- . u, .3

f.. ;..

.>u

....~m,.. v.am 4 t., c ; ,. O a hh h m,h. ammgeh m m m e m M m m@Im s w w s p u~ u p p f ? e g g., %. 3 gd. s bh... m&: ?$.. $g$, g. $$.,$.:m;

c. ?..

.g. Dy.<N. c.M,D .,M;cm.... W: g.d>. ' %,, ;W, iy. 'W - 6.. s 3 i& policy seems to be a reasonable allocation of resources, and certainly does not h.. !:,.,&,. 7,.s'.u k;: %n} MT;$ j %.. '(( #..,. h. w/,. M M suggest a flaw in the plan, or raise a question regarding the atemption request ,,. kF. $b.l.kh*.S'k ;.d.&, s 3,@$ at issue here. n $h;?if.v,4D[J'. Petitioners' sixth argument relies on affidavits of county employees subse-(d.'G M, [.$; Q' 4 G qucnt to the May 1985 exercise which state that they will participate in exercises, but not in actual emergencies. Again, Petitioners fail to draw a nexus between $.h.DiFN6 ).'.. Q~.d. &..rQ' M 4y N;'.7+'Q:M their allegation and the exemption request at issue. Holding another exercise [f,y,1.. 9.M.,'g4 9@ in which these workers will participate is irrelevant to the question raised by r nm.r., Gj{ gygg ^ 'p,*;lf.: kly,#pyg,,KGQk% %7

p.3.f @,..g?g.t.Q;;fl Petitioners, which is whether they would participate in an actual emergency.

G.. Petitioners' seventh argument is based on the growth in population in and ,4h;J.t.fif:! near the emergency planning zone since May 1985. Petitioners appear to be 1'g,f*'+1d.;.T 4pp'!?jQ.s @M.: i j *.$i.,e. o.f..yy*M argumg that a full. participation exercise is necessary to educate and assure those .@d .6. Wfy.(f.';M.FHj. n.%:" who have moved into the area since the May 1985 exercise, and to determine 4,%.Ag;M. 1 .,n d,?, C.'t,M,}'w},,'/'f.J; 'Ji whether the major roadways can handle the current population in the event of an r.

7.. M,f. 1...WQ evacuation. As stated supra, exercises are not tmining tools for the public. The c..Q. (..

a Commission's regulations do not require public participau. .. r e in exercises, see R - .m.. on fli'r p(' Q.Q.[. g y .g. e 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, sIV.F.1, and the exercises do not test the ey adequacy of the roadway systems. Thus again Petitioners have failed to establish q Q,j @y'. g p*f, g * %gl../.I". any linkage between their concerns and the exemption request. !.y. Finally, Petitioners maintain that subsequent to May 1985 the onsite fire service provider (Apex Fire Department) has withdrawn and been replaced by 6.,'gj.%('$!.Q %f[,7*d.i.5 9], Q Q & %.E.. M j d./5 % ?' h"((/.'MPl.Ml.J^.[2 Mf'W another fire service provider (Fuquay Varina Rural Fire Department). Petitioners {N,.'Nj}' *l W ;d". N.#.Q 4 assert that the replacement fire service company must be tested through an ..l %m,. ~. P. @ P': exercise. However, there is no requirement that all fire departments participate p,V #.f.yPx'...( Jf g2,,/,%'f.,, w. in all exercises. Indeed, CP&L points out that in the present case it was the g,'r'i.f.Tif y ; pg ;f.%p. Q @g.}}f f,Qy;.Q,'*.lf g Holly Springs Fire Department, another onsite fire service provider, which ys. participated in the May 1985 exercise, and that the Apex Fire Department %1.@;fi J Q$'f3 y,Wlg/t.@@/ did rot even participate in that exercise. Thus the change from the Apex Fire f) .yT5.K e?MMg ;. ;.pp Department to the Fuqua~v-Varina Rural Fire Department has not occasioned a A..'*. 6.N.. M ?.C3.O,Q W l loss of exercise experience. Petitioners do not identify which significant facts f are in dispute, the basis for any such facts, or what it is that the Fuquay. fh' '/h df-I[Md'f.'$,qr.hM.N $@y,Y*y? @ $ 7[ h Q Oj. r Varina Rural Fire Department cannot do and why it cannot perform its assigned F W 9.,E4t s.;# function. The Commission therefore concludes that there are no material issues d.$bk. N*.N.hNb..kNM ' of fact presented here regarding this exemption request.n , 4.p> 4 ;

a W7.J b,%; j[f.:?; e.*.L.f*;*.g v

~o .g . W,g.9 jp'I,y g . MlW.,4

J p:v.y;:*,.x,.' %..a.&.' l#. w 4c R..

c,e6; q. t 1; 9. qT.,e..
f,.m...n;,V9.,.'$.pf* 3 *

i:v y r,

re +. s:e. ;.. -. .dr. D.L t.h.f. $*cf.=Y ' > /. els.fg.y..e < ? te [,,.% jm. ls f..k.5'., d, &s.,..p!!Y R k M Pettuoners also argue that the state's effons to evacuate Bogue Banks in anticipadon ofIlumcane Cha6e were qqpg.p4 'G rd.,m.qvAgdf,; e ;q.;.'g.*'A. .. ?g anadequale, and that b dernonstrates that a fulbparucipaban erernse for shearon liarr.e as required. Peddoners r

hg,+.a,,

g. ?g. "9...[ g-y. se. ' have fa0ed to show any cannecuon between the state's effons regar&r:g &mcane Charbe and preparedness at p.6 'p, p, n', gg,,6...b.o.a,Q sbearon llaras. .1 y ..c e **,$..q gi.e.%: g.. !..g yb. t

.>4 4.W g Q.&wq' 1d E.Q: lQ.olal;*%

g Q Q. c. a oy.My; r'ycl.w.m,; r - 5g.,...f'a% v.g;MkM y%7 .v.f

x. -

180 My: 9w/U.%pe e:.., e 5 I. Y h.l. r.&..,,... ;,f %~.' ..r:%".,'r'm*,..1,,.s.Y~.D 4, .'r 'a %.,+y,m,. %. p..r; S.,. 1.t..'..,.;o.,Q:*.*. ?.0 %6. W.7r%..;>.j e r. , * *'A. y. C <^, a I s"',y &"".qq ..:.,. 4 ;*sjy '.w). %,,.,e4.C.;9 i. --a-k....>r r epy t 5 WaY A Y'g k ,$.Y W f.f

Y-sq

.r. y y; e%. %w.vanspwm?.gpR'pW7WW@WiWM@. %, $hM e.mgra Mr.p$$mdgm w$ %p % fk%w.Y. NWh%ec@T&vdp%,, a. w wpqwh M 4 w& k.N @ $MNk%MM

~

4 ^*

'b I .I

5

'N'YNY b.i.h{?kN!!{$$s,$:f($s$.w$.w&.f.fxr$kh 8 sp 8 'Y $kh tNI NlW..m:f.t:*.fi.h;$( i,a i h' %:. n. .:'d' MW M QY +. s gWyMs.t y;.?y!ef..y.,b.q,%d. .. %.k,: .%f i .y14u.l,cy; re-n ' 2., .P,. ri. A %-.c!?.i yg .- U e.,,,".lf. Q-t'W. IV.

SUMMARY

A .r .g : ov .:m ;x.:s; n.. z i.r.,k,.w>n.:.q.h.. h'I

.y. y'q rqE +,: M *%

4.a. .se$: s.,* f'; , * t* 7.dI' h. '.k Ih. Petitioners have failed to raise any material issue of fact regarding whether i

%@.bh,kd.k - * '

t+.%. / n: I$p///d.b[l this exemption request should be granted. Rather, they have raised concerns f M,M.EM'S.S'[.Qb.,l'dDfCp.Ah.iff E,.* . M without any supporting factual basis, minor problems, and issues that are k'IN, - v%,.M....%.../e M"W , fT4..h.tq:/N. o 7 '/64[f [ifi% U. unrelated to the exemption request at issue here. In the absence of a material 5P .6,Y. h,.@M i %<?q.2.7.: issue of fact, the Commission concludes that there would be no purpose in Mg#@e,.;-g 7;W<.'B.'5MM M p[;f M. :k.,iQC$g: T initiating a hearing on the exemption request. Accordingly, the request for a ~ 4.%J,vR, :.;y @M.~a%.,y;./..-. .rm .,. -. a 0 + hearing is denied. ! %,h

IM; W'd

.i: 7[S')fiD/:."{h'?$.fl'J$Ml%..T.M.h$a,. Commissioner Asselstine was not available to participate in this Order. It is \\ M,ft: so ORDERED. MJ. ?.;h. 4 f v.~o..m. t

k. >@* y pl:!.'@%.a M.1.W.w..4.MQM@.T.:

id.:lN 's '.*,r.... p. W:Dy :.I.54'r: in 9.?.Q':.y,ptg..,; For the Commission '.'y'(M:1 @J:,M N,;;M.Wp,[.,;,G,f...w. . a. '. i. 1

-

q.1;...

.y1.%n.. [. ;..!),'~,..d.),..$.$,.?[ W r*.'/r; (y f...'; *h (' i r.m .., ~ M. JOHN C. HOYLE e l ..u t.%e .g m u,s..c.g5"-g m.. o. "E . $h'k. - ['.f., uN,h, '. <...: I[.$h. *.? Commission ..,~.,..- J ;..,..g ) f... T., Tgg, '.,,,.,,',* ( <. ',"h g. g,. * ;/ j. ;,. t / r, s. l 4 y.. y. .,, '/ y ; %,.,. A.. g..,,. :' Dated at Washington, D.C., ( '. ?:. ', V :e/,..'.< '..i $., v:. -

-..i; this 5th day of December 1986.

c. p.,*,.,.. %e.:..,;..:... s,..,: s,. .'t.".4, e ,t,,..; t. .,,. n., '<t>: .,q; ', r ~ w;; ; ... *

o v.

,e o ...i +,..v. ,n...

7. i.

.,a * :, t. :,-

i,. U.. 4 r.,,:,

J.

. a

. ~ .6 .*v., e. . k. Q; ,g,. L, ,l*, *... '. .., " q; T ',,,L ; M s' L.i.p. '. +.... .......a. e g.., 4.. ..S. . s, < _ c., 1.s, a; .n %',,;,,,,,;p -

r.. *r.A*u

.. pr,3..... T *. '.. :.,;;,Q.. t,;,, r..

(.

... c 3.. t... ;5 ,. l s ',;;s : :,. %,i* :Q., e,' a. * , t v.;*,, Q... v... %, :.. ',. < s.. ,r .',y:,,. a*,. a.. ',s. .o. s ..... I e,. s.. . x.. ...,s 6 ., s., .,( s.,. i _i r. s. ,,,...i.. i ,. ' + .T c, -Q '. l., ' '.r,%. 6.

L ",' lc *,,;f (*..",j.

s, ^ - 95+ ., e*. :. 4., * *.,. ; t..,..v. A.* .... s. ,.i. .s as. n t.'.,f ' * ;

g l :,.*) }

.:s. .e

e'e,,

,,., '. e..- .. s.. ?,**.M. (.',..,, ] ".,b l)' 'o J. ' *. M. s,= f, ~' *. ".,,...,.,.:. C.*,',,V.='

.%e,;' '.'.,* ' Y,*)n.'

s, .. '~. : ' " g z +5.,,,g**.,.,,..(,$ ..s. J. ..4

ed,' ' * '". *. *;. J a.*.,,,y ',f. / N', 2 :, *

,.g s.,.,.,.p c.. s r g S, Le.. x - '. Q. t..J ', *. '. ' *:t.,L, l }y ;,,,-. - ,.. ', +. s., ....g

i. +j. y' s

3,, .,;* l a, 1,. n.c.9. I.. r \\. :' * ;.* 7. :< y..,..l *

,. j 'l s!..,.,, V. w

/ \\ '..

e..s e.

L a.:s \\ .,. ': ::, '. e '..,'.. : . -v. *

b '

g s

a t- ." tp.s. l., v2 m.A N .e J.. 3 .1 A. p r j -[...:, u..f.,. ?.*? Q. " t.y t *. e. 5 ;;'1. .., s.}" - .?'".s.,. ' g/ (., f,i' p V... 't e 1 e., .m, j 3, .*e'.. 6 > - l, - ta.; b 3 l 7 7. / D 9. '." D,7 'rD.. g.., I., . g s. 5.',4 [.1.,I#,M" r '[I ', ( 'p l ~: v,;, b.. t . g .. ; y- .:..r a ;h'.?.M., n.. I . d.*,g\\.'qii:;:/. %,

e".;.l,,,. % Q : (p.s. o.,.0iL.?.:f,,..s-?y 1)f * ';.,g*j:. y.. V y. ';.,

781 m.n.;;;.:*n ;1

r..,-...'*v.....,sM.',,

W%.g' *...

v...,

y ... <. s. ... v. <..,. v. .l };*t;^','},**.*\\ kbQ.,y,.* f..., r. 4..* .v.'*..u...m. o,,.*, ** = gl, y ;*, j,m.. y b' '.. *6

h. t k.Nl'l.,.? f. o, ,.' '

s'. ... lJ.J ' f, v. 4.np.. J 9,p,, y,'9,. M.W k. ;l]#,0? ',0.. p.5?.l. &,.,e ,.U**. q n -.

n,.y.

g -

$ I'd
eh.,bI *N *$I s ' [

i **.k y + s %,*.,*e k ',r.N,Mc'.A.I'/ ' r ej .,d. .., k..I ,, p !f.* * *@*; l.V, r.%.Y;...L i* t 64.. . a yf. t.' cf fJ' e h ww'#5. p.s.W};~. f..%;; %w; h.pl.%?w:!,:%#.M.' Q.Q=?."P,&w#gi *,W: p'?: / W'*.:::: h; . m. w w w,,e m.. w l M;: P:

y. :

f.%p. y :q = f,;;,..j,..,,y. 1 e 'e. Y

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards losuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ~ ~~ ~ Dr. W. Reed' Johnson Thomas S. Moore Christine N. Kohl Gary J. Edlea Howard A. Wilber ~.4 -sp.W1.- '.I; ~ e

4 F y n,;, x> h '. i y'h ih. Ni . f'f k...p.M.fW-&n':.,ys %, m k 4g }. f. w n %s . 4n $p dp.y h m. w w h; d.Ty h,fa ga ap l hp a.' y M: N, f Mwa.Q ww ! s? a o Pa w~ M 4.A:,W.6 ps.fp&;v:.:p 4 d,w.h'w.:,3.3 .4 l ...;q Of3 p 0- . J. b W' E E' ' W MQd% &.. N h,%*[i @.~.' W h.*} .E..'s')M. 'nlMM.p $.d(w.[y'D.W@f m.M.Ol ? c;5/ i .y e,R n tTf. r.U.% T

f.;*H.*.

.\\ L;. $hfG Cite as 24 NRC 783 (1986) ALAB.854 SM,.,M Mk'dpw'4.', .. /:JihgA<.4w.4 y) $// W6 gh~'o:%.~f>. if.Yg.,s@. #{w.q,f't nji.yM';% p /. MS1 o p, G r

sys, m

M.@JNj$ $$p;.Ws,%;d e9~. df's& f UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA %N;/il&,k9hh, Q r; G & d. % ; k d >M N.0 '%IN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j ap, %m.r-m; $W i a:3 W. dy. 4.,.m.w. %. y.m.,y..i w 3 Mf5.N. n n e..e. n.DWMW$h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

s m

%*q: mm.. ;7, *s,.m. a.w;y),n?.w*up; pI.r.;.tg~ a,.b.:> % P,- y u. .w mn T.,,k;.;?;.<. ;.v -;;y : y) m,,s,?RyJ, K *ip;c.W M iy &' d* % @,,n u y,j . y, (*A. e..y,..r 5...,. %, q.. ; t *',.

n

, a g 9 ,.9 l W.4 Administrative Judges: +- y m,iQm .a s.?::.:. ::;,y. * % ip, m. v.;,. e.o.., w:&m N'A'l%! ;',*.?e'$;I,h';'.W'N., ? V* br M 4 % fC ~:M ;? k. A [ fly M@P/h.yE.Y.1,p[di{kkk~j f. s'%'t'.:d. ::fkYfb;M I"* Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman M*?'Mkdh3 5'* Gary J. Edles %R91 ..H.f.,. h a. Mg-l.,l v Howard A. Wilber Q' N Mip; N., y,f@.e&yhny $' f;M' r.W 5.9 .w O F 4, 6 f. M,i.f,_s;,kf*h.h;.,.v' hM;;y,:.y:pQp> p;;& y...y,,n y; ;,,;.. p [ *$ kh 3Ih'*h h N in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 0L-1 f., - #.MF E9 ntX;, p,.cf.g&Mr" 50 444 0L-1 p c.t,.y.d,,.. _...,.. %,.... ~...,r,)., ld.

3 N3 M 'M Q NY.'I^ y (Onsite Emergency Planning

3. M '; *... Q.%..W.P... :.. *%.. :,..y.T,,.. W) and Safety Issues) d.i.

W/ ..g.. .g. ap;: ;.y",;&,.d.,.. p yff. [n.

h,{

h PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY I n.g.. s<. %. % ( r.5.. g ;., ;.,... ,.... g.;, A 4.,7;... 7 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. e u.r o, ..e-i%. m+. 'e., e,9 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 /?jM. M'd.L.g((.*:nN.WiM.(6h and 2) December 8,1986 .: p : a.:.:.. g..,g ,,.g.*.. ,, ? n,, .y 4, s $ p.5 N -$ $.:M ',N 3*%. 'y*L,,"* M.hMk.((;*dN 7, .. t.. y ~?'. v. o 4., l.M.M. ::.,, ',....., m. ;r.4 -,,.<;..y. .w . %.S The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's memorandum and order, .;h LBP.86 34,24 NRC 5491986, authcrizing the issuance of a license allowing v, ~,,;...,...p.. p,3e;:py.1.w,.g, G.,^.N!hl.} d M;.: /6 Mc.';.*;.! fuel loading and precriticality testing. .s ..a.. a....,... o.... s..m. 7.., ;, s,...u..,4 ..o

y. pm%.....

.?. v.m :

.,,e,. 'M f.W. ,[ hJM OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR .N P 7.. j'N.;r."..!..'

c. $';. q@.,.$.y.u@$.

;.;.% N'S *7

^- 0. LOW. POWER LICENSE . ' < - /E,,. ;.m ' $y>:N,:.. . l ' ' $. M; '-l'.1 [ j.: ;7. N E sU '786.D.'# an operating license proceeding to make a motion in writing for a license Section 50.57(c) of the Commission's regulations permits an applicant in s,J8.. .h.'D @l.h.:d T N..,e.+...., p('.tM,[$@h. [,h',kdU (j'%' N M authorizing low. power testing (operation at not more than 1 percent of full ..,f.M. N.OP@WMyi.$. J-W. power for the purpose of testing the facility), and further operations short of full [ h. a, power. It also establishes the criteria for action on such motion by the presiding n m.s.. i...:.p.c., B.; &,Oh$.t.!.,g,;, n.1.,,.[., c .v ofScer. . s,. w.n...v.,. y: > *

m. ?;,.. y :

- 'w:g.te,;...,

.Ai 9,,,

,v,:. a.

a9 a v, 4 *. v. ,..t,,m, :r. s g .... g a.

. %.n ' A,e;' y %
4,,, p;. G..a.,u,., J'..,,y,

..Q: [.,......._ ). .s....' <4 ',ys 't,'y f m.A. a),3.%*'. r .p,.'.' *, y... ;; p; v, a l3 *,..,.,.m.. .,Q;,

pf.gf,og.,

N. , e te &.V 9 J ~..% * <* vl,s..* 7};.. *:{. '.y.*y,s,,%' y h '..'[..;.., v, 4 ~.*. 3 Mr h .A sv ..:.,, f;.* :.*:.' %ec n.,.t.*y..* C'y.'y/(??' * ** *:$. *. )...*. - s')."j,.N!C'c?. *f. @ d]lt.V.1 e h..y' l.j's i;*, 6 f*;' *'r*/. ]g3 't t * !'*d")~ ',.. p 4 .s. s., c. ;g ~. 'n... Nw.,.. : g, t n.

e

.c T :* L.* r.Np.e.~y. 4'.p,.y 'yr.,4,y'.i Wh.,, p?.-;y ' W;, y. .n

',,.,..v.%.'.g,,Wr;,* q.,%.f.,,,;. ;.p.y.@.....

n".,'f w ,.c.s..v.

..e

,..q.,;.... .p. n ; n.. *.m,. e.,. p t- - s.,

v. * ;

e..w fA?:.\\,,,;..,g,. s j.g.,,,g . y.

..-.,*t

%,.. p 'd. G T eggp.f, A.

- e i,s, y.s. v s

~.p ',';4.. *.,....,. v,w,.. 4 cr. 1 ,p. .. w,Y. p a n- .If,k..'h$

b. (* S. Y h. ?.. h.. f s'I5. k?

w.,i$sidb<$Mf@5.Q%f:.~1#?'N&x' 'r'kh'N~

) 1 ~.. ,M W l ar??r;$. n i b E $ D $ 5 M h. 6 'b h$ M % m $ s? b b M h" hb.i W! . a $ N. M.8. Nh i f .~.+w.. a:.m.e<.. w.. m. w m.. k,,y.s;t . n-v s

.~ n ~ h Nh. Yb .b ......~.m..,_ h.'k. ~..e $rie&.o aam$ra$.4 behm$.wh. wWlhM .hNid'kihbN.M s$ $ $ p hb ML8 r.w-- byt d o. nA g n'. W ;,.;k, g;. g u 5 W'Q' dW s.9,f:wy.~% 6 p>.4 n.:4:p V. 4 m.x .. y M. m..M.;.a.,5 G.K.o*.w.,>w'.n"Q7/ r h 4 t..- - s..r. r@ce.'g.y n w g.,.@Q.98S%@:,/lp;& RULES OF PRACTICE: CONTENTIONS (APPEALABILITY OF .Q.. .a. ls,,,. .f. DISMISSAL) 't T !N T4S .N .yw k&~ nJ.n., .g %n-N.[@.g#.';@Q M: h. f.ff[.h ~)h!! Licensing Board ruling dismissing contentions and paving the way for is-Q suance of a license is immediately appealable to an appeal board. Philadelphia j r$Y.074;'hihi.1'@C-d Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2). ALAB-765,19 NRC f., ?- MI ,'Md 645,648 n.1 (1984), af'd mem., Anthony v. NRC,770 F.2d 1%6 (3d Cir.1985). h.. 'M"J. f.y.. r m.4..v.....a ,.3,.9.a$ Q. T .e+.n., ."s.s.g. n. 6. qe>.g,.. y,: L xf g r. w ...w.~.+., .n.n - M.- nf V.".,.39.44.7, .h. K,' 4*. 0. RULES OF PRACTICE:

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION

d. yyy;;@j,[6.W, f'M. %

.fi#~, gg.W (APPEALABILITY OF DECISION) W .m#. m! ..c. Jer a.. -s.:,tp, .h,$ h.ld/k.s,,.,. v. (}jli'.),.,%q . h;,Wfy'.h An opponent of a licensing board order authorizing the issuance of a license '/e, h,N.f allowing fuel loading and procriticality testing may challenge the licensing d;, Q.Q. - @~ y,#'73,g,g$'g; ,z board's summary disposition of issues relevant to fuel loading or precriticality ', $..h$fg:. testing in connection with its attack upon the order authorizing issuance of the ! v,d.e,#, 4.M,,trt, $,.W,7 t' V* 4 o license. ,'. r,1,lfa +L;. W

n.. m j u.:%ml,q p. 3..,

v. p,

~ h [.siW y?l2":g .. w. ,n.. s s.. u%. ?.a.. c +i p,. :..a. -. - u ,ce w; q.. .m.w A.h-w es A y.Mh-da y.# V Pro.' a OPERATING LICENSE: CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE +.. ?M.W'4 ;W

.L. :

M QQ@% ?f[gj.' $ I'.M,I.7 %.. Q An applicant for an operating license need only demonstrate, and a licensing board need only find, that there is reasonable assurance that a reactor will operat-Pl% Qf'h.2%g,,'g./.l ,y. , 'g.Q; as proposed. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 Q.N.<gj uW.iM, s '* d and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,741 (1985), review declined, CLI-86-5, 23 p.d.y.?,K,p,;..~n.' ..&, m.,.J n. NRC 125 (1986); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), 4. UdQWWM.f.If fl'N5?.e [N.*E. r ;fh*/e! fMW. ALAB-616,12 NRC 419,421 (1980). i d'.;

v %. ~, e< q*c. m. w yt,.4. s. g >, p..,a cy v

4 . : s... f' '. y h,

l[S.kNN.#

f N.ES.58%,dM@ OPERATING LICENSE: LOW. POWER LICENSE (SECURITY M ,M !W 6W8d.W". 'D M PLAN) Q. $ y 4 Q g % $ g %g.g,rMSUTjf&. 'd% J Ms. Commi.ssion regulations requim each plant to have a detailed security plan to protect against external and internal sabotage.10 C.F.R. Part 73. The theoretical p [ 6.g'gg,';'.p[y$ 4.Q. f 'Ng:' possibility of sabotage cannot justify the denial of a license for fuel loading 3lf ,1$ppfgy:

3., s%,y; j.'.n'.N.u and precriticality testing. Cf. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating 0%tP '

t Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,699-701 (1985) m,.,@ Q. M.y Q.g p@p.. h. n $ ygy, % b,.:re,.: qL & b p 4.p,g$.Nwm$ h.NWeg u r.0 h .4 OPERATING LICENSE: LOW-POWER LICENSE EMERGENCY d'h1hf5 Ih hN.$3Mf?. GQtM.'rh;%m,Yj$'4MW PREPAREDNESS) W Section 50.47(d) requires that the Commission be satisfied regarding the state MC,p~hed,.g% d.. r.g L3." q Q.M.y.R.. W. ~. p. 4. %o .M W of onsite emergency preparedness before a low-power license may be issued but @,f. '@Jp$ {.?,g r/ 'k does not assign the responsibility for that determination to any component within WMW hNk.v.@h.'A.h' W:;71 f. the agency. Section 50.47(c) requires the Licensing Board to make findings with M%.o,.5.f A J w. m. dy

p. g &y G. h 2.W W.5,'%

?M W h,9P'.O. ~. A;WM T,y?edd.?. u,.*:., p.%p. t W gg g.s.V W._a < yv.. ..,a... 4,. s &..,..&. ?.9 m 784 6 r.e.p gM':. M.. m. q.- q'*,:, 4 , tyx.. .;p*.; W.'J,h..iY,h.. MNb'.Y'm w s.>. u p*, $41.. ./;i c ...a.I N.'.M,. q v r.:. ~. Y

/'

o w #n'w'eW.,.s, wpynl %:,.c m e &., s @h 6f n r M %,;i*9 %;c q u k-e. q $:.gb[a h.p.%q g g$!A Y! &p u%

g. 4 MTMWFWU$ WW.MW i

%wj.,ggf,p. .W y A bh l;, h: h W W',)1 % -: m m f$.,! NWg. f.

y/.z:T+&~. ;/w %p$w;.?&y %Wcn' Nnl5 4

h f.

hifk

a. v)

S sD . ;u;n. 4'n,% dw$$ e #.wd='d

yau&..;pkv g.+.%. P.f..

wf. r . w ~,, n - c' c s u*t. t ~,.: - ~- ., ' < ' wp:.~' k g.fs...>J ' i W,.. +, 'E.y. -{ -l 5

.u $..o.s.b.,.... ,. h.. W...uk.:5., w'q4. e w, '.~$.,.h. D.h)$ n%w&,...$.~...e Nf i YYi.$. $yd*W3q h hh.hE 0 M M.h...?.'t,p. +%.y &u,a $.b.'$.k n,n. +. M <.O$ i ~- 44.F. n,.3.Ew. s..t.w.m??> %'..N.w.A.rA@A~+ &.W'. .,G.. 7,v M T4f Q &r-'M..*.@< k.,3 4.v9,u% yp'p,.h.. .c G uG n ? wmm ..m'#my'@.%..G?s6,d. d%. h.W.. R e ':, y m. .c ~. Q>?; n.a.%v.1 eQ ~ l c s.e yL. * ^;w.. eu.:n,%,: .v Ws c u..w q.. 4,.%%x.?~

M y. M., M R e: m%' W M.,.%c. y %c.I.y..

..e M' .v

f

e...i.s. s..o. *:e.. w.,&,.,..r'. V,.s.,d:.w..,x.~.

...n%r .n k respect to contested issues while the NRC staff must make all other necessary 4S.5f.'MN1'i.d)If.'i.] determinations. See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units $D, U@Mws9.z.f.Q'*y..*.0 MUMM &),C,W '.*.. L sl,T s g** 1,2 & 3), ALAB-319,3 NRC 188,190 (1976). Gs%.%.:.,*., v.

F,.M* h. r'*,;dl 4.,f <

,*'**i.gw *,;ds.D & '*g,t.f*;s \\4l p, } Q. a =< Wi m. 1 y es. s vs..g. v... . ;,p p...,pW,o.. ., #.r....... W W OPERATING LICENSE: LOW-POWER LICENSE - s.. f W %;,.,.;f@k;. m %. %.. $<: p. - w,'d. W,... V,'g).c.4p.4.y Q).,U...;W ';,7/#. M h$'f.g/ },$y,Q (RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSING BOARDS, STAFF) a L.r j ;. .S g .w- .s'@.h.TJDB-;>py.; % ~3 .~.:;. y MM'4," The distinction set out in 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) between the responsibilities of M'4,W(T."."-j@dhhhydff.d s.,h 'Ti[M. a licensing board and the NRC staff in granting a low-power license reflects f'. lf.'nQ4T'ji.jQ well-established NRC procedure in operating license cases. See, for example, N.l.r..N>..a.'-$.,. Nr *.kk,@1.M...M.sN,?.. ; :m.n.+]; NNhD 10 C.F.R. 2.760a,10 C.F.R. 2.104(c) and 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, VIII(b). ,i.,V';f p...s y... t.; @.-r, Q; W l Wa.Y.L.1 f ;.ll M. :., N,..... Q [M.., is, .m.&f.:Ys,f,l.Mr.Q TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED ~. .. n,... .! 4 ' n,..? ?., % m ',.u. d,v.1. @'!.;*" ry:.,;.:,n.:. #.,e..> .,.c~,, , d,. f o...,s, Wce ., :n.. ,y p. .N;p.,.c.,7,! Prevention of Unintended Criticality. - c ;.T a. ...., r c..y,-;;. : .w:. r c3;:,e &.,m:.5.'s.W...i y... ;c. n....:c e.r.#,,. :.;< w.*w. A. . u. ...,,9.. m..,w : .S

.> ' 7..,,..

s, a., a... fq:. d. -n y 'y;.w. M :..r.. * ..s APPEARANCES .e.a. ~,.. ,.. e. e, e s,..,? i e. w ,7; W.fe'. h,lA. 'f~', : '.*..".^ ;..,,.,.,ba...?,M,. i .. ?.., Robert A. Backus, Manchester, New Hampshire, for the intervenor Seacoast [.

3. n.

e ~, g .X,.t.. 'ic; 6N;:?,6'i g Anti Pollution League. . a.,, ;. e: s. n '. ; y., . q p,g.. r. l. ' < r : M~ a?,. > < e; .a' y. S.q: Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad III, and Kathryn A. Selleck, Boston, w Y y V;; > ' i a ..'. 7.. 'i [.[ ".'.'.7:,?:. 7.,E .,..'5'.,..Q[. M Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service Company of New

f. t ?,

f +... ' ' *:G.:,,.,..L n y .r.. g :...y:.. t :q;.C",L. ;; .......,..,v.,. Hampshtre, et al. .,,. ; n., n.e. v. 1 r.. Tc;. e. .. a..0., o.. s.f,........W Robert G. Perlis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. .a. r 3 > y, u... a. e c.... f,.o, 1.s.,, a.,,,..q., s. r. ,,l,...,;, 1,a h$df,f,M..... ~. :, c . c.. u.. ; :,m... s -[... a -... n.., ;. . ~., ..~...';['.'. ' p 6.?cy.. DECISION y f,m. g.:.,.. .a w e,, ...~....,; N,. .c. M ke,f{3,i,,.'.S,'. M C '. " '7yg,;.,'. d M..f ,h The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) seeks reversal of the Licensing T l Board's October 7,1986 memorandum and order in this operating license %'@d * /j..' 3 <.',N).?,'.l:lM.!:1.5,',.

1 / ',,le!.N.fMe d";..^ $,

%.L ! *.' \\, q.HJ "F Proceeding.1 That order authorized the issuance of a license allowing fuel a loading and precriticality testing at the Seabrook nuclear power facility. We 7..'g'i.9..$.;.,.p, g e;. ;,' p' ,1., *A,V. "s. d earlier took up the appeal from the same order filed by the Attorney General a ' 'i f .,p. yr.Wi#',C. ;.$., ,. 3 l d (,.: 7,< r, @ ~;.-Q:,l'i'i;.; ??0i k JW,*A.\\, of Massachusetts.2 SAPL had joined in that appeal but raised other issucs as /. 4 Y. + a ' N..?. J.'.;.ll;'i* '.*,;.y "f. ~.$.'r v.s..'!.N..,:q. ... ;( *. I. s O. y p, ?." ; & ;,....,,, +... ~:... :, %..n, Q. t. p *.t, %........ rr s.m,. .) s '* 9,i'.'.;.;' d '...... l o *g;} Y.9'$'/5 i 5ee LBP.8634,24 NRC 549. .,;.y p #ce..... ;.,.yP.,.{Q. 4. y @h......' '# 'p;,0 ;7.,p ~ n...

p.,:.,.j,

r 3'.'. '.!!? I# 1 i 2 See ALAB.853. 24 NRC 711 (1986). . ~ * ' s. a . 4 %,:,l'%...' ~..'s%s G, ..,h.. Q,,* c. ',>'i.,' W,,/ i % i

J

+.n. e.< .o [ i..*,.i *.% W '.W e,s P ? <,j.t.,p;t.N,.,,.v s s e ',- r"q,.s : ;);. j..t ;,* ;,y, 'g W' ' ,y.:, %.1 I a.,[.'

> L.u.%..'.,.'...

e.. 1., ; /, -...m.l ,M;. 785 v ,3.w.':~ j;E ,%.. f.. 'X's ',( k i."R~ f*a..,4,l..: w.',,.. G. <.y c wa ' , A.,,s,.,., y ;. p* O..d' " e?.'.*,i.'[ lM, . ', * ^ *

s ?; *O

' f w.*f;*..s q".ss g,l 4

i'. ' x. '., ;,'.*t,af. \\..

...y>.. ,, ; ' ? %.,. *., ,,h* . ;c,,.3. A'.; -l ^ 4. h,,;..l;...,..s.r. y,I '* S T. 3,. q.... k3..y...f.......g..n.'#.,,,m h W..E..*? \\*b;y;.k.4.,d4] o f'5h,& WW:*%)n^Y,%.o&.'*h.%IS f' !!'s#..$'&'$ . o..

a...s

$V,b. W',','.h,m'.h.... ?h.m.w'.?..,.$w'$'h. h. N. .4 e. ,,. i.$.],h.Y'~W O ONY. +'.lhn%J Y'.,?,.E..'l' *r W . Wlc. ifs &:s A % G,W. ?,&;.N ':~d ,. h % Y %:', *Na 'l:\\'~.'.$'. ik,'.% $...)'.. ,.b.l.'f.s2&.s-RQ 5. y....'.!g'.'.,':.s..s. h sis.uv,w~..-. : w +A m.s n..~.r ..u ... :., v..,y: .s. w..;. D %'.. p g.$n. ~ > d',., i e. %. q, '_ *.':,- l.. ".,., ; J' * / ' a,. j, _ ! [- .~; v. m. .., c., g 7 %; * ..w.

8

.'e. .V. ..*[{,','. jg g g 3, ., < - _. ~

~>

e

s .rg,,q .%h).& .n s. fj.9 o,.cpf rg *$aYZE$iG$p.s$ Q y v%h.?.h. ,d 'J ahAtWNbN$.bYYY'h.% b k h sl.b Y Y.> %':j e $ b % %. I'v hY *t qq %p, *h l S $.Ysh .U$'.k,' Q '.&yM*N.pS ?b'.y % ha ,t w.'y:+,t.M:n.'..'w -n w p: s r. n s @; K tv h 'v jMMCp .. m.- g'.:My, pi,, p sm?.;y: 9 .t 4;<h..+.m ..os + c Q m.cu.r..;y s, L. A., P*.d.....WD. dE... e..%m;y g POS "M;"M well. In considering the appeal, we evaluated SAPL's arguments in support i..' P., @C %..s.&, M. 4 f '@l' g. of those advanced by the Attorney General, but deferred review of SAPL's W.,.1.".S.t.p'fA,p p p.4 separate assertions. We also declined either to affirm or to reverse the Licensing . f-e v W,.WO Mf,MT. Q;lf,W'W .a Board's October 7 order until we could examine those separate matters. Upon fhy; cup NG;;$MJ&.7/f[,t% %Q.%~4f .jf. such examination, we now affirm the Bnard's order? p(4.d, A. The applicants filed a motion with the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 RM'Q'.gfdM@.@p?,W, C.F.R. 50.57(c) seeking authorization to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing.d That regulation provides, in part: }.f.pg&:.< Q, .Qf ,f.,

w M.

. m , M ',!.* g,.g!qg y.n %;, s.,:

g. Mu.

.p/M;fy'4.,,g. $ h .r. ',.,e,.:' c ,u ir.... An applicant may,in a case where a hearing is held in connecdon with a pending proceeding .. g,g y;. ' !'ylf.; 'g', under this secdon make a motion in wridng, pursuant to this paragraph (c), for an operating M "7si'Q.j; Z,s{. y,,fQ ,Q";.;. ;., } y 'g?,f, Gy q.g.3.,j g(Q]g. ,f,'p, yrt.j,r.,.y license au:horizing low. power tesdng (operation at not more than 1 percent of full power for , j td the purpose of testing the facility), and further operations short of full power operation. Action l.g.[. g.;,7ld,,.,. !%r*g[';![l' ^]f.' ff on such a motion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the E,.'CM,'*.l'. ';(j,dd,ff.'i

;l;, t 1 :,pf f.a,.

f e l,. 3',1 parties to the proceedings, including the right of any pany to be heard to the extent that his contenticms are relevant to the activity to be authorized. Prior to taking any sedan on such ...y//jd'Af 1 @!,%;$g'P 'i. ";dJ'. a modon which any pany opposes, the presiding officer shall make findings on the matters Q:/,l. - q .$ 9. - NM 7 e [t'.* specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a controversy in the form of an (,.,7 '/y,-l(;*,(',,*e,d.*.y8 t ". *. 4 inidal decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized. he Director $.j,

@'$,0

[%% * !. s~.%sf. '.:t;g.,'p *]; h, 4 of Nuclear Reactor Reguladon will make findings on aU other matters specified in paragraph ji l (a) of this secdon. . :. c u.

c.. s.

. '... ', 9 %. w

.W a W.. s; ...a o yt. /W m. P.. s,#:..f 3.?fg; ...>....t.p... _ ;r; m

f,?? 3 f.i.

De applicants asserted that none of the pending intervenor contentions was @.o,$ lR.-l; M h y, @ @'I. relevant to fuel loading or precriticality testing. SAPL claimed, to the contrary, j M G,T .,1,"N p y yM.jM that a portion of its Supplemental Contention 6 concerning the Seabrook control M WNCtDlh.E'.' y [ '. h h g h ['

d. UW room design review and associated human engineering dc6ciencies was relevant P, Jd:M ;'d.'t.Q,d.y.W to the requested authorization. It also argued that some error or malicious act might permit criticality to occur. In this connection, it suggested that leakage

- J.iW<? c D,M'f $;t l1

[?[k*jMQ@U66'.M',$ ..l of borated water from the reactor coolant system could affect the applicants' -?. h'L.,.);d,h*ddg[%lHj; I/h8 ability to maintain boron concentration at a level suf6cient to prevent criticality. 9.:

Mf hot.GW/sW

.j).i!Q M De Licensing Board rejected SAPL's claims. It pointed out that the part of 0 Supplemental Contention 6 that advened to the control room and human en- [r[j![ %@ h h h h M Md Q'h,Mk gineering discrepancies had earlier been decided in response to the applicants' .o.-?fdfAQ[M,iM:h. motion for summary disposition.5 It also indicated that S APL had not submitted tW h,{2Q f p h any contention that questioned the applicants' leakage reduction program. Fi-Qhh'?;?M.m:v'?a? nally, it concluded that the assertions about possible errors that might lead to 1,'O. fgr.gh@Q$,@$ll!@f+. ,MgN, ?S.p f accidental criticality were " vague" and did not challenge the applicants' methods n!cc. a,%a a.r.a%., w.c ra. %:r!.g...: r. '.77 '.a .?: *. . fv.W 't.,?. & n,u. e,w c e..+sm 4 M. m: y c.4 y,1,7'p.ws'.q.,%.....a w &.y p-t; (, e.e ~.y.g,p..- 3 .w .u Q,. 3

f*W ir ;w,. dp,.,.,;4
i

,,7** The applicanu argue that whm a pany pans"in another's appeal. it is emfined to the issues and argumenu .: Qp;'q;..fp.h'A'B 5 [fQsik.D div.gg;Af.I./* made by the ongmal appenant and may not advance separste issues and arguments. Given cair substanove ' 3-J '%r e, ?? dispacnon of sAPt.'s clasms, we need not address the apphcanu' argument in this regard. s' .$ M N Apphcants' Mouan for Authonzation to issue Lacense to Conduct Fus!Imad and Preenucahty Testag (August , / h,)fVf@[h}Q[M V S .Q.f[lG;p{'W.!,ti.h 22,1956) at 12 Onenafner. Apphcanu' Manon).

L.BP.S&34,24 NRC at 553.

l',y&'d, 'Q* '&. hWk I.':l'

C.'dl'fi.G".?9@6%MF5;-

tf1 J rw}n5,,lVgw..m; ea.. ' 79. **s.y' y.;; 9 l '..'a VI.]}&g,j h o .c. :, ::4 m. .e 786 u.s er.u,q"~,&;..:e e f s.,%,)n;.., c c,. .le a.. g-sJ ,fa h , %.w %..w

I

.e"%., .,,4,7..Jo vf. t.yW.y !m~, y..a.,.... e 1%s M:?*.l.y'N sl;//,5"'Mk.d'.[N e

- 5* g,ilj.51 et&

y wn ;.-]'%' t'- t-ie. e,

. g-)ik

&, %.. />.::. a.~..(e e,.&e o tM s.d * . !.W* b **s %fW. '. + r 4 'flIf IQ[En '.QW'l;**y&{$@f6%pJ.y%,7y,Tt'?[-j; % [.;f,5l$'.5%.!Q.?P1*e% WN &,& Q$h&ibE &* W %$1NWQ, %:,.*iQ'l:h'.?fi' 9:f"' b 5hWG N IDS $$ $y@ M,@@}#MM@Gll!f?Mk. M).$r.'M$ Q% l t MM ,s . o,.< ,; Y~., ; s e L-

b. n ,m. x. Nf,$NICMAfiN'.O;. 9., M $ 42,' % $ N,',. U.J:1.M4f.e..L(.M m;... 9 '. '. d...w.G. " N 1. '*k. L%$b% it MQ,a$? SPN.~.&,.x $n'l s; i .'p +.~u (h *. w -.a.;,, g. .m ,.!.s q,.4..),{#.g.;$,$,.s..$g$..;,;.h.y*?,$bh[h g .j n -l r .r 9-NW$ h.hj,f. Ih for assuring maintenance of boron concentration in the reactor coolant system M M.p$ h@ Q.D fhE.5..ih E n jl!.N sufficient to prevent the occurrence of criticality.' Y M. N' M IO %,2D h'$~$.W QThd,g.y bk.'.hh'NMpy p[;E.YhfM Before us SAPL makes three arguments. First, it claims that the Licensing N'.N Board's reliance on the summary disposition of the contention dealing with con-28 fb.' % ;)[ M M)h.. hs$,$$,d$MM'NA)W[ %'Q .g tr 1 room design review and associated human engineering deficiencies deprives .I'%W/$/y.d,tM it of an opportunity to obtain appellate review of the Board's determination. Sec-4 SIMf$l@dD 'NM.~hl,$ because there is no guarantee that criticality will not occur during fuel loading ond, it maintains that the Board erred in authorizing issuance of the license eg.k. g !t g h ' G b 'y"g@ % f.,g.4 p f N,a d [' ibN gp or precriticality testing. 'Ihird, it asserts that the Licensing Board failed to make f,%'hbj.MF,h.'$,6?h.32j a finding regarding the state of onsite emergency preparedness as required by %qt .$..,..q3@..'d.WJ.fs..*?... u.w.,', a%c't:&g.'s.h 4 ...gM M.W. 7;MJ%g, B.1, SAPL first contends that the issue raised in Supplemental Contention l 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d). The applicants and the NRC staff oppose each assertion. ?',% ,%.D $.Y'f.,3.;.Y.s@.h.WJS!P/(M..;.NM;f'p*%,4.H Mih'.W 6 and decided in response to the applicants' motion for summary disposition .Wy ' hd .7 N. 4QlM.M 1 1 (y(.,. A. '.W.,.. $.,m.,i; 2T is relevant to fuel loading and precriticality testing. It argues from this that gq M,y,WZ p%'%M/$t%N,.h..M9,;, the Board's authorization of fuel loadin.g and precriticality testing " deprives fE N' WPCMS.Wi!"4 [it] of the right to seek redress at the appropriate point in future of the denial M.ih*b@.M. N;,) N;*/kl. M. @ M,M.;) S of hearing on this issue...."' Contrary to its claim, SAPL has not been %e, r. ?,^. h..:k>,h..l d5*L.M M 4' deprived of an opportunity to seek appellate redress of the Board's decision. If,

a. m@tMT e

.$.W.,f r,$.'/h'; '.: t.;p.j as it contends, the control room design issue is relevant to fuel loading or 7

i. $.Y. "f ;i? *.yf 8hbs;.6.7./.?..MPM(W.

W precriticality testing (a matter we need not decide), SAPL could have challenged w,. e %e.;.y. N.u M'.'h;,%..s.qrf@.esMl:,ydy..m Il;W.. .m.14 the Board's summary disposition of that issue in connection with its attack fs. fj p d upon the October 7 order authorizing issuance of the license? But SAPL has M., Q.t' A,9vMy..~.,R 7. 'cW .%..m 4.. m 4.; ;;.C.i.'., l.. not availed itself of the opportunity to challenge the substance of the Board's

b...

,... v...:;,.f,, summary disposition determination. In faci, it has not referred us to any instance fW'g$q, %,; e.,T., w,y[':... NO;Z3 N.,,....,a ;. go ..l. n > l.m.4..,L where the control room design or an associated human engineering deficiency .,,7. - M. d$.E

.2,a.

?! might affect the safety of fuel loading or precriticality testing. That being so, j g / i. Q h Y' e;. 2. 3.',1 7 3 ': @MI.F/Nh ~%.Yl.$.h'p..h,;j1 we find no impediment to issuance of the license by virtue of the Board's . ;,?.$f,."J fM'. disposition of Supplemental Contention 6 matters. Whether SAPL may also D y,c.%*m.v&f.I 4'h'? ; attack the Board's decision at a later date must abide future events. ? fdM,V 6.. ".i.'; f.,)n...

r.$ t T.'5,il,.'. 9. e.

c;.: 6.'

2. For a reactor to achieve criticality, i.e., a self-sustaining nuclear chain fg '@. p,,

.m D. ;T.,e,.M-@gf.4 :d,p.;M....,.2, 4.f9 Z 'l ;j,) reaction, a sufficient number of neutrons must be captured by the uranium .' d ;;> w. c ..,J 8 c 3"; fuel. Control rods or dissolved boron in the reactor coolant are used to absorb

'j 9...

'.F.'(;9 neutrons if it is necessary to prevent criticality. (Boron is a neutron-absorbing y... m i,W p *c' Nc./ \\.,. a '...? ? N*; f '. *; *i 5 l;..:.w. m' 4,.s"n;.;%.. j *. 4, .,?. ).. w:;. 3 e "";e*.. !, ... :. 0 *

u.h;rps :.s tm e

.e. w+

k. y.

- s1 p;.<.a.n. &:.wl,. n... h 4),:h?f. *;Y'? ' {;. ',, * *, t Y '. n., @t s:,.: . ;. p..N;.s %. ;., :.!.... m. ; t n.t.[.. <m. v.. g14 at 5s4, e q i.?f 00,'.[l/h..fi,fi.7.p/.'* Q'I., i ;*g.\\.,$... .D I' *d'N': .G .;LBP.8630. 24 NRC 437 (1986). h "Q, l.*Nr' 8 seacoast Ann-Pollunan imague's Bnetin support d Appeal of Licensms Board order Authemr.g Issuance O 'Mih*. I* h.g([%'.aC 'e/JMj,f,$g. ';.i.. YE' g of Operstmg IJcense to Conduct Fuel Lead and Preenneahty Tesung (october 29,1985) at 8 (hernaAer. sAPL n-ifq'M,LTM /j *17.. fl r.Qf-t,*T1, Q.t.ns 1m./'. % a*( 4.'O,*,' '4., Ener). . N'.*.. l, f 'Ses PMladelpMa Ekcene Co. (Limerick cenersting station. Urdts 1 and 2) AtAB.765,19 NRC 615. 48 n.1

e fJ. tl */},.W.4. '

h..,'.lN,.3. Jn.lu./{'*i. 7;j,@,.jJ 2.p+g.*.' ;f[ y.
O 8..y.

'T ay (1984), gf'd men. AmAmry v, NRC 770 F.2d 1066 Od Cir.1985) Oicensms board rulma dismaasma catennons '.@d..d. 6

1 and pums the way for issuance of a heense is'immeasie!y appealable to appeal board).

.p, 4.

e* s. b..

A V... s,7. g..,. +% .,...m :. p ;.;. : :**gp 'y.. 4 ru:';.1v..,t o s ';i.,+y t..e.- /,;.Na w s &t w w>'" ?+ T ' q ?r...%., gp.N, A *.y...:1,~ 3 VW., <.. l/ #.kd ' Mfb. lT.,C:A< em : e $,,c

M 787

'ti U.?,?r, M, ;'."T.@f.. s.,'.h.;..y h% &c.0',...,{h,y'.:ln. '";,**Mf.s.,,t

,Y'V;Y%g.,D % #

4%

l l: .y;...

'* Y f ':y.,,.-,.;*y:%,... g.it1 %1. 9.75'.i.i. ' y <e g; +.. .%y w- - s n.; . 3 Y &&M&r.k. b; .: 'b k A$$!$,Nh@M6MWif bk@Nf?Ik5bYM,.m$nrN..m. ~wMMM %: A d 6 i ..,.:~br.w. m,~. w nd.E, Mkf0 b dl d% n.Am,y',n.v. w $n'%~ n.n.W-

.=.c ; w ;..d. M

- - " s' ~.-;. a- . r.c.. . W,-.w' e. ed

Md'M I.k. d.NM[>Nebf'- k,* h. I"h'f I '3 Mikf$$kkM. t* M 'Ifdk'N.k, k s',. kh Yb/ IInthi,. h'Y h?N L. d @. M ,${. ,fh,*.',h.iw % oa %o..slg .t. -

Ye%'

n

y...y n

~,. %.9.f v"

y.,rk,s.;_,Y.. a. s. y.+ y *).

4... i :g. $.f..it *'" A

k. '6.r.

. i W,,,.. n..n l'. QE& -c. .,bv .t Ay. ; u e. lf.;e.. g u.. %* N' g..'h..c. s. ;. < gi.m .u N','h M . e p.. e w QM,.D. &,.i d.-k O*).'&.Q. **Q;iOpf2 ',$ u'if f$>do' h. " poison" and decreases reactivity?) The applicants propose to protect against gy;y.M...$.$.c,$.+ g-M. 3.. 7@s't r.3 - inadvertent criticality (even in the event that all control rods are withdrawn from . :. g.g.,.W-,.n.,.W...; ~,:. the reactor core) by maintaining a boron concentration of 2000 parts per milh.on i ww. ... d r-.* w 7 p q pe y f $ M 7,.- M (ppm) or greater.n W SAPL agrees that criticality could not occur if the boron concentration in the h,Ir.y.Q.,'M.(Q*.yC:fM. &W" i}df.p,h?'-lM reactor coolant system is maintained at a level of 2000 ppm. But it contends that EP.D@!'g[., D the Licensing Board erred in authorizing issuance of the license because there is L' O. Q.r.c.,I %,J. Q j.j Q. l3 M, no " guarantee" that criticality will not occur." In particular, SAPL bypothesizes C8 , A d. M 9..; N< h,/. % l (. r.r.,./..d...'.,, t. h.. m%f. the occurrence of criticality as a result of the inadvertent or malicious addition of o

.h. b 5.. p 7 %

.s WC.',Mi insufficiently borated water during the replacement of leakage from the reactor dj fQ. t t@y@%j,, coolant system. SALP notes that the applicants have not submitted the results k,%'. '.?.';,'Q) j,. (y. K,, d:;!.;' /g :.g'fj.; of leak rate measurements. Its concern over the leakage reduction program was sparked by the appearance of a requirement regarding the submission of leak a fhj M..QRN, j /!O@P'[d rate data in a draft of the license authorizing fuel loading and precriticality

gi M.ErpM'. M.'.*)$[.*[d testing (and in the subsequently issued license itself). In accordance with that 7

,$.py.jQ .Mh@ rfM @f.,;"eal..C'k M M requirement, before exceeding 5% of rated power the applicants mast submit the results of leak rate measurements in order to demonstrate that the leakage tf

9-

.h. ! T;!?.U @y$,J.h' rd.i23' reduction program has been implemented successfully.D c p{M[f Q3.,/QT Y,y,2

@. N 'e d.d,7 SAPL has not set forth any justification for withholding the license for fuel P"d'y. M,$jyhM:@). t loading and precriticality testing. To begin with, the license requirement cited y

.?/rl; by SAPL has little, if any, bearing on the safety of fuel loading or precriticality ff'y.r3!j ' Q M l,r.3 7ll $ $, $ 8:G testing. The submission of leak rate data is ordinarily required before the Q.Q';2Qfk.Qg !,7 ascensica to power levels above five percent in the instant case, the applicants .. f ' Q. W.' W M. S. M_.M; E.,O. e.' committed to submit these data before initial criticality." F

h... M..MffErM.

Moreover, SAPL has not shown that the APP cants' leakaSe reduction Pto-li fij.Qr l.M. P.M.Q[Q m ff g.Q@,.f.J l.7 gram will be ineffective. The efficacy of the program comes into play (if at ',J62@. all) only because water to replace ' routine leakage must be added to the reac. !c., q;j'f'"-Q.Q'E. .Q$,$y'li(9 tor coolant system at the proper boron concentration. The applicants described @@@,h';$@Q/.I/d P M,Q, dt*g'. l 67).3 the method of ensuring that the boron concentration of the reactor coolant and makeup water supplies will be maintained at the proper level. In particular, they ..%;;q'.k. ~ %:h t.;.;9 9.:,.'R.t: M,: @h. D indicated that

f.

9 ftN SM.5l;.:.u,flp' a.;1,%...,'h.

9;I g. w 2..rdf.laj.l . b.

i' w....v,.ilifciiy y ~~d.Yff;M,.% mu.s

.T.A.?.j.,, a u.. y.. .Q

h1,.

t Ull, *.) >.. h'l g,.,. ,%;.w,;,*Q *;;ny.g.p *w,h . s ..r fg ..w y,: < :.t p .r 1.;.

5. Y:

h %.. % L. &y s r., ja.e.,x.r.f.. %?&w. ?* L .c)Ql'fl%,% f Q* @A a,.,*. &DRf.. ~w.v. 7 \\' lv b..m g 'r @f' .%.M.h 9 *. l M tog,, pafj,3,,wica Electric and Car Co. (saiern Nuclear Genenung station. Unit 1). ALAB.650.14 NRC 43, ,.,5M' ;'/.., S. 7;., W M* !wN.!> A'.Q'd'iNF,M C s[ ' f:. 47 n.2 (1981). ajf'd, 7m.ap ofIm.wr Allomrys Creek v. Pelic sm. Elec. and Gar Co. 687 F.2d 732 Od [w.f.Qcy'.*Q. n%. AV..W ./^t M. Ctr.1982). -a .f t4 3'Eg..o 4.fj g-u Apphcams' Mouan at 5. {yd',,p,[,y)1;g y@;da,g$;n U sAPL Bnef at 8. MJ U ,gsfq. ' yvy. 3Qv.ty.f.ag;, Sen Seabroo' stauon. Urut No.1 Facihty Opersung License NPF.56 (october 17.1986) at 5. See also sAPL's f,* pg p *f Q.j, W c. p 6*h d t n and NECNP's Response and objecuan to Appbcants' Moum for Authonnuan to luue License to Cmduct Fue! gg .,4 Mc. p P.M"*Sr .g hw,D,q,",t%*y'k[ / FiM '[4 V.// Imd and Preenucahry Tesung (August 29.1986) at 4. %hthhch. 3'.f',%..}}fs h %.g[W$I' e* M See safety Evaluation Report for the seabrook stauon. NUREG.0896. suppiernent No. 5 (My 1986) at 1513. % pp. A. .v.h 4 a e .ij d.: 4 W~w... g ~: %.wrcl'd,.W M. m@d/. NMT &y,~.m W..,p%e:Q.Q: m -e p% W u w A. t.N. Je.< ' vs ~. 788 mA %. y.VU M* d.%..?

if.k h" h % Q' G Q h.

r'h 2; i b Nk S5$ hh,.%gi;sh;,*kh (NMM,Mb r~ ~ e

,..w. j i. f '*< Y. 4 '.- J &.g ? I k %l $.: -..y*.. Nfh;u4 k[fhf bb b. 3,bl h..,.,..bhhhhh, hhkNMkbN 1 hb %.>1 -.%w.%n%tlNMpYh:m.rmi;b'Wh.&&Wuu hM %%:9.. .e.+,p. u. a,nw-e p w %q p.,. e .., <.m g t. m. m ; w ; y e 1.. f ' %s....,s @ pW rg n. ?. r.rp.. s.~w1, pe.4 jffi E'h. hp q,g '.f.Y.. .c,..

g y

. Id.-h;:. pfy.s ;;9..q. p.g t u t.....o. .. s 2jY$.W'M ?/ U. N,hWf[!M.N')@$;k;h. hl.*,['!8h.',;i hh I. igirab samples wiu be manually taken from the reactor coolant and makeup water supply - .p7 and analyzed at least once per shift to verify that the boron concentration is at least 2a00 kg.d$;% 'f hMNP' h ppm. In addition. the makeup water supply will be sampled and analyzed in this manner each M'.fM /[&'..).J,.*' h./.p'e.w. h /l.7/ $q h. appropriate valves with chains and padlocks.u %.* ht@,+N'.Y{#, i Q g h-Q[(p,N.'i $Awh,., 'h* time any water is added to the supply to verify this concentration. To preclude inadvertent y P; *Qsj. ,/p$ boron dilution which could reduce the concentration below 2000 ppm, nonborated water y, d~.k d ...w.,.4M.'..a$.,p..)W%.s,NM'h.$,,. 4:

,A;.

sources will be isolated from the reactor coolant system by mechanically locking closed the s.. @p;. m... @ rim. t.'.@a. W M'. m %.r. <yp.m.;wrg w.... m ~v.W d@.,NT*[E.M..r,y3r#jb,..g.y$hj.@.,..n s $r..M 9 '.Dj 'Ihe staff reviewed the applicants' approach and procedures and found that they .i h wC.r p.AM%9 provided reasonable assurance that the boron concentration of the reactor coolant <.frN W.f ...p a. sv bh. y!y.wx $@dM.M...,/',W/f.,'.,mi. hM. a d Tl:U.3.C./ system would be maintained at or greater than 2000 ppm throughout fuel loading .'M !O TU.$g;U .58d,$Ml *:W.$ and precriticality testing? ?.,

N Based on its review of the parties'submittals, the Licensing Board determined y M,h.: .Q t 5.M* *.t that SAPL's arguments were unpersuasive. The Board explained:

..e.. 4.t.9[p.,p...y4p{k *.:., 2.; u.y % 'y.Y'.th @lJ-

Q.

.h )1 4 o.... g. %7.'/d' 7%{@;/J,ldiOD,$.j/,7 plif.'j.,p p! SAP!!s vague concerns about possible errors associated with addition of borated makeup Sligh7r. !.! YAM /';*' ; Qh*/y:kt Q:yj&.p.i.. j of the physical and administrative controls, or their implementation, devised by the Applicants j water, and possible analytical errors in monitoring boron concentration, do not challenge any 7 M Q: d[.M b' c e, N,1"ffh.*h h,c : ,'.. ?/i.fsMMit<D '4W NIM to ensure maintenance of boron concentration in the reactor coolant system sufficient to h.< [J,.7,?.%,Ob WN Prevent occurrence of criticality in the reador fuel." A. p,.! ..a.,.,%..r... 4. . J). * -e sv. e*... a.! %e .~ y 1(9'h&;'w,%g'lN...w (w.o.m. M,Np,y a 2 k . N. 8M We agree with the Licensing Board that SAPL has failed to point to any @f /f,*,hk I6$$Q1.Q, " a ,/,:./?i. jk ,T,q.N..;.!*/c' deficiency in the applicants' method or controls. Although criticality is not an V-D,7S @M-Q $ 'b( 6,'Op N.'Q. f impossibility, an applicant need only demonstrate, and a Board need only find, $r 0"FM YM that there is reasonable assurance that the reactor will operate as proposed.18 Dg*?)p.p.y

?.: M.7*Jb SAPL concedes that analytical errors leading to a concentration of boron h[.'.QM.%Q,$@%MM insufficient to prevent criticality is "not a high likelihood event."" Furthermore, it

e. y@,.E..,@4*Jg 4. 7.g.N;.0p. fi does not allege that harm to the public would result even if criticality occurred, In hk.k[h* j.S/[.h G h.

.N., : j the circumstances, the applicants have demonstrated that they have an acceptable $MS'$ ';Qk Q:QM.$..N.N.%;1)g: N N M. N,$. 1 Program for ensuring that criticality will not occur during fuel loading and W.QAh precriticality testing. %dD[h'/h"MJ;9M/Mi,f] SAPL also argues that a disgruntled employee might attempt intentionally D" El.'.E.S h Mr8.D[ Q g Q'.i y, N to cause criticality. The Commission has recognized the potential for sabotage O.:N'.9 M N '.M'. as a contributor to accident risk. Commission regulations require each plant to 0/sQ., W Q O@M 2* N ' %.f.C.',1G v M.l: gky L have a detailed security plan to protect against external and internal sabotage? .Ofe'</ M...~*rfff?.f.", SAPL does not challenge the adequacy of the Seabrook security plan. Indeed, %,,..M~3.v,u...,. t.:,j ., +. -, n... .a 'Q.% h. ;,. n t.v.a e.,IS cs 3.;l,, 4,; a... 4 p ,t :+. g., :$ ;y f.,..h,".1 -,%.,,.. !..!

f. t. g*

se -3 s 6. & w#. ,s s . t.. d. a 'h.eI-l[..O[,M/.17.Y..); ;g, D) $#. ;,.f 3* /[4.;Q: **[;.#.. N# h, #,. "A ? af * ' '~ l f PP icanra' Motion. Af6dsvit of ocorge s. Thomas at 2 3. l f f .T.

p

2, 18

'*jU %.5l'lph g;;Q<.fi ti,;;'.7;;*f*i'Y.!D[g;,.N,.C"(' Q Leuer fnun Roben O. Perlis to Licmans Boant (september 18,1986), AfSdevit of Warren C. Lyon at 3-4 W ':V 87 LBP.86-34,24 NRC at 554 (foomote onuned). L' NIT /M, / '.C :WK/.f fj%.r.N f.A..?.:*7,,$.D. ts/Mladelpha Electric Co. (Limenck oenernung stanon. Units 1 and 2), ALAB 819,22 NRC 68:,741 (1985), s' f.fM b: review declined, CtL865. 23 NRC 125 (1986); CommonweaM Edison Co. (Zion Stanon. t' ruts I and 2). AIAB. 5E ' ./. I y;; ' g6.12 NRC 419,421 (1980). j ,.%w>,3.1:.':g!g....,y. s. < w. m... ;

f. q.. m.s T** p*)8.G.;*e*g. w K e.

gr..;.n, gu...,.c su to C.F.R. pnn 73. sArt Bner at 9 to v e&.g,.. :.*. *.s. l.) 3, c.g... / :;. 2. ;+: t e g,: s. ?. s v .ild rg;f:* o t T'lp$. * *.'.M...

3

. Q #N;.":,,4.s" T-) ".. 1 -Q ,N A.L, ( g'T *. f : g.^< f5f,'+7Ml t y/p.(.!f.Y.J.J/ % f ', - S? h A 7bh $.w'.,.,. :.,7 . h.. e.*m c$'7. 4 .;f 4 (e,. v...+.n : *: '. w'^%.,,,l. r e s $,,. 5. Q '

n,. %.. v * "VVf* *' )D'

.,g..'t s W i. ;4. h *t., fe " e ':.it.f '*,*:, n. A ee .:,. Q f . : ' p* '.'3 qeCe.f ;a.gf. 7 *. p'; /s ~. y!* y&'lsY.M:T1 .'.m.g..s hw(;jyph,I.f:f h.;fe.Ql;,;sm.;.f.,p'ppl)&,E & L.*$Z:

,.;g

A -, f.t.. s.. .p h $r$k @a_ w~Q%..,@.~.a* cW9%W.n?h?5$.$$ N e' mf0 hsk.M. f$hk.k... +. w n m..w w. w....m e w w%R@~M~ . %w. M~ x -

kN

h. ' ?hh $ '. $

lh d.k8hk.',fchN.k:6 h. h ;"hJ,5(i.V M..',d M @,i$.y d @ ' f I .......~..a... .w.m.u.s m, _.,m. cra,.u q, ., <w..s uw n,e. -p.,.,},...cAn....n, ;e. s<o&, m.s.. }.c .h,.. - m./, ac,,.; fn. g. . * + o.t (.). : i.,h.,..'P_ '..%.%@.q. /r# pm.i. ,r. Q,. h >' J M M. N. s. :.,p %q;o.,;<n. m t , +.q.. $..W.v ;...%..f. T. ra;M. y.. q,E.a,.@.;:v,,...ip /,..,.,g h

$s we,..! v.s m:.t.a.p.y

. vn.. m:.., :. ;..' W>- .. h.s..n E M.Q.... Q..s.n. . s;... N N. f. w&a' O R*. h.' g.?" M;q W D it characterizes a deliberate attempt to cause criticality as " remote."22 In the c af. r 1 .W. &*3JW..M circumstances, the theoretical possibility of sabotage cannot justify denial of the

.:.n.c.;.+u;M; g.-e.,: m.a pw,

.... ;y ,y j,,g : m.n,:.g;;;,g,, u ,,. g, ;. , g, p g!' D s h; % e;' Q; W; G.% p,$y g@. requested license.22 pa,s*. K f 3. Section 50.47(d) of 10 C.F.R. provides that a license authorizing fuel Qf,"Np;*.f.yl@,M*4l,p$*'$pdlNkMp S,' loading or operation up to five percent of rated power can be issued "after a M.Kl,8%y/J.J.'fl.'W W "ifMgg $.jj,y. f$p %3 fmding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite emergency preparedness x .//$.i.MD. O.@. provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will WQ1[j: be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." SAPL contends that the N N. M...l' $. 7,V, p ' 3 ; M N,; M Q,.it'O. regulation imposes on the Licensing Board "an affirmative responsibility" to N'.#;.i. k.. "..N. O....M@rD make the requisite finding despite the absence of an applicable contention raised J 9 Q @. 7 G,.^< y,.' M.,,;. ?'t,i.k,. c,c,%;t; r g'.M k,,."J.', g ' m. by a party in the proceeding." As support, SAPL points to the Commission's 2.c.c, 1, .a. ' '. <,@*.. ~,,.f.d.;,. f. p...D response to a public comment on the rule change to allow low-power testing j; Q. - e,j .? 2-without state and local emergency plans in place. There, the Commission stated . o,,. ..A.,g.~f..,'g.5;;'j(<c,.'l,, n.'.7 .,j; S s,..w'%s. that "the NRC will review [certain) offsite, elements of the applicant's emergency -v L y";Q...,. m... ... ).. e* ... a.... w w.-. w : g.,~. p1an... .u / e c. ,g,g;91 g.'. 2....... y,;.? 1t.... '.y ic' g, y f,',s,j!.grg/;,rp.<q-q;.,,g]'.g'i The applicants and the staff disagree with SAPL's argument. They acknowl-f ..r,l,. edge that, in accordance with section 50.47(d), the Commission must be satisfied

O Jg;? 'O[.Q,r2t,y;S,';:bN@'M,{

' M ".$;*J,

s" regarding the state of onsite emergency preparedness before the license may be ' t #l-@.W.- issued. But they contend that the Licensing Board need not make such a find-

ft,'..

M' Cf,Q..@.f..%h.%.,d[. h ing. They point to section 50.57(c), which authorizes the issuance of low-power .....'!,tr, W *;, N.r,.u - @y,.! a licenses and provides in pertinent part: s. % ',;' ~ ? y';, M <;t, : M,'. .......,A.l,4 :

. *, y, %.Q.

,; %. i *, g.**3..;.e r. 3 u.-. m %. g + ... r l. v.;, - Prior to taking any sedan on.. a rnonan (for issuance of a low. power license].... ~ 1,l.. l t'. .s .t .a..g e,. + ..*). ',. Q'.'f,lQ 1 O% ;,&y;,Q. Q f ".T,?,7.[@f;,((G _. f ;0. hl'.'Q the presidbsg opiter shall ruke fMings on the'rutters specified in paragraph (a) of thir Y*(*f, - ); 3 section as to which there is a controverry. . The Director of Nuclear Renaar Reguladon l,T. .'.g; ./ ' N. .( .,?p. will snake findings on all other retters specified in paragraph (a) of this secdon. [Ernphasis $,,N[cg[d[.dlf-y@& (r. u.a.....', ; r.,J.."..*,.. 'ca .s..:.

w C

W<

( ?, l added.] \\

s..;a '; Wr,.?.. %3. e? m-

.. s;..& n

e..., Q...p v;Q $. p%,"f yl. iW We agree with the applicants and the staff.

g%f %. g.y g $r g g h4.y s.g Contrary to SAPL's interpretation, the regulations do not requLe the Licens-y gjf.g g ing Board to make findings with respect to issues not before it. Section 50.47(d) f,f y.,g.. v. meg.,M.sr.,fg,~s s.i.f @L y. Wg;gf;W provides that the Commission will make a finding as to the state (,f onsite emer- ,M. r. gg; j.s. [ ggg.gg::g gency preparedness but does not assign this responsibility to any component ? -g,.tR@',fc.p ;j. l $ h.$.d d h D. M ;% p ftet-p ddMhM l within the agency. Section 50.57(c) does. As noted above, licensing boards are W.Si ' f Uj h.K ([.y,fj M 3 7$@. l to make findings as to contested issues, while the NRC staff (i.e., the Director 57$ of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) must make all other necessary determinations. Q4.W..'. fry;V'. 61 r dj.mM;,$w:p,im.@@v..R dg, yl4 3M.. The distinction set out in section 50.57(c) between the responsibilities of 4%y .. s J. @? :;;v.u."m....*.,.,o, * 'v*.n*;. *,dpp.j.Q g h a licensing board and the NRC staff in granting a low power license reflects %k ryed@.f.. - g t., 4)D [%"f %sc .'sei;,fG.&'.*;.... ,l n~.n.[,&. G

,3;g.a.

-e n ox $ YrDh N.I'U'. V;.r ;.'h, -;gP @#S,77)[fh phygAv h M sAPL ener at 9. yK."h. PSI 1.. d'h,l,O??;.yj;l.hy;hy([y(M.P.. ;['9,.,Q f "c/ umerica. At.AB 819,22 NRC at M9 70L " sxrt. ener.a .,. ( 8 47 Fed. Res.30.232. 30.234 (1982). w e,;w.n. e,A % w& w w . w.y. s a wgg.snum. q tWMMppMWW4 g, .e ~ ~ j.. e

p n ... c. ,.m.. ........., m... ~ 9 9., ol.~:,(.ff ,*y'2.h. p.0'id.;5,4. M. W A. C,. m.v.@.3N.D. b N M L. o k:., )w,. +f. d A.3 d h kI .D.J' p. ;y,,. i

9. W..~.e n..aA J

.r

p. r p

1 .a . wy%., u 3]:.W%%3A;*.'g*.%, v.y*,t.y. t.:.fD.F.: p. 6 EE6!- .4 - a.y.g-x:.w,,;f ,.,.,} ? ..]- %i, Q. f', i 'iN..bd..,b((,e. +k.w.QNA.p.t~4.}~.):f g:.:=Ih.' ? ~ t.ps : .,,,.e .Q. .x w.a t.'N. 7.......ng.r i 8 well-established NRC procedure in operating license cases. For example,10 QM, 'a,.,,!.%.7/e,W@M.kik.@s';.r%* $, ~.'//o;.n*4,.ha i 59 C.F.R. 2.760a directs that ~ e '*? c :tW.& ;W,.?ip.,. a; JM..1. A. f .M. fc V* g.&,s.,:l: k li"p b Dp....s; f 63 F Uyp* In any initial decision in a contested proceeding on an application for an operating c

n.!1 y e
, A: k.

n r*.I v

.y 0~.7kwl1.6YD'. s,. NG..';* Tdft.N.P;*2TI' $': /O.f'{bh.N. / f license. . the presiding officer shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on ...l.hr,Y.'.2.,'h:.Wl. kN fh,' dsj the matters put into controversy by the parties to the proceeding and on matters which have W+h h.P. h.hN".l?. ' '[ 'U'$$;'f "1, f been determined to be the issues in the proceeding by the Commission or the presiding

Mf;/*W4,3*M'e?*p','Q,,l.3r,.N.. sits.b'~',O.

M..,'..',.;. t J 3 ~..a."b;.r ' officer. Matters not put into controversy by the parties will be examined and decided by the 4 5 .v c ,w. v D:h.+p,bh: 6hi d,W,b,?.:.TC.y*r;$s!.; .. ; r...; presiding officer only where he or she determines that a serious safety, environmental, or r ,De# h.N'.4 c mmon defense and security matter exists. .am;&; M;6.h.Q ib i M.NY#. M. m'.;5: M :5.M N M M 'd 6'/, g g's U:. v ; N. ;E. @d. l.*+M @$y ('E h.;

5D.. u.N.2 N As we pointed out in our Indian Point decision, "once an oPeratin8 licensin8 f lD..

i n., : s rs r e t l board has resolved any contested issues and any issues raised sua sponte [by i'@;.';MF./; 31l*g:Jd. .d the board], the decision as to all other matters which need to be considered (./ N K'h.f.,s.. n%. ;u. - s 3 i..- c. 69:.7 d.(.'[DfMl.,g.. i.Fli,$MN,. ir3EN'.t .7 M prior to the issuance of the requested license is the responsibility of the staff .G.@i'$4'7).F?1 and it alone. 2' It is thus evident that the Board is required to make the reviews .G.o.c;M...M.. :'.J<V.. 9.m.;W: /. 23* h and findings referred to in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d) for only those matters that were

i

.a.., r:.,q :, a.y,,..,e. .,?... ~.m,...,..t .., ~, :, )..m. r.n. &. > n .u ,y; contested." $.Q. T-[. ryn.tm.d = :.a,+n. +..v.v.:.., m. : n:....:. ~. .s .. g, -..f .q.. s..: ~. w. 7.,u.. sy %s.c, m ..y.' g*.p )r,.., [hsD The Licensing Board's October 7,1986 memorandum and order is affirmed. g; '.,:.c [. .. y... : <:.... c v.$.,q. ;,.9. e%.v... d..' It is so ORDERED. .a..., y;%.. ;,,. 1 .;....s .... p ,.J g...* n., t.. :, ' y., ;..; y'. i.t. *p;.h..e.?.1 ~ u i;;. W. ;g m.. c,...k, ;+ FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ..w >+, ? u*,"

y. c? L..r;,

8.'...e,....

. N., ' p.: c ,s*.,.,.s;>, o. y,s. ; g' * .,'..w..f..W M.., e. o,. d, tj .o.- bl 'f.,:. ' :y.. W.F:=. N :b.,i J;d, E c~ P:.A 1.m qy,:.. S.. W* *,j J.',.o.. " e C. Jean Shoemaker s 4 ..a, . S %.N y

.,, O Secretary to the T

Appeal Board

ep $... y: Q.%M. /.1 g p.

.v y .g : * *. .n .", m,;y 4,, 9 s. y;, m :?,T, /. q.v;,. '.p.g.f,v'y;f.gNg,ijy 'g .:. a.. 9..m.. :..c..u. ,c. n s . t.:s v. p'. +,.. g.%.a. 4%,, c... ;g<*,w..*. a.3 : m; c m.1 nP3 y. .../n.w..:,. i

,... g...

.,o.. v. *.:,.4. - %,..,.,..j..?. r. :. s,.s.. e..cy g e. y i

u.. a w

. v.,., o. m..r.+.,.. V..,.%., g,g <<,f..,f n/ p. ..q " '* 1 ,. ;a..:W.,, ~M*Gi;7:.?..w..: y.. kl/;c.d*,l ~ . :. : u.~ ...,),, , Q. a . ; +:.... .~.. c. 2,...:t.>, ;- ~n '!..m h.*'.,;W; .., y. ':L..'t. *. (. ;n.(M - %,- : '

y: f. ;. 6.,.,, <.. ;V} b...]t ;[,p".,h. w.'.y.." ', W,'%q...,. a., s.,,i,s J

.'Q.J.y.es. i3 m sa. f. ,,.. s W e'.N+.;;.e.....a a w.,.. Jg...... ~= <.. . nc 3.

, n.

! q. ;.,m.;.,. I 7+ y.1 : +,. a 'e

4.,.

M.,:4 byj e f g., ;n<.. c. 8...n S.ff,

c..;

,......,., j.... ). ; u .5 I"'., g'E./ ' ;k'.')[JJ$.;.((% ;r.A '. /'.M M,,,$ :[.V. 'M;. :,..... /.k ; "388 833o 10 C.F.R. 2.104(c) and 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Appendix A. VIII(b). ~

'f.

e g 26 @?,*.,'jVP.qc.j;(@jj f,. . J ',J * / r; ., >,', @, 4 Cesvolidared Eds.ron Co. of New Yor* Gndian Pomt. Umts 1,2 & 3), ALAB.319,3 NRC 188.190 (1976) + .e l'.p tf. (foomote onuned). 1*zp;;,,N,*7 W, r .' N d%,f/(sd

M,;..U[J U

l.*;tl9 tn this matance, the NRC sta# has rmewed the state of onsite emergency planrung at Seabrook and found it

- [% '*.g 4.fl:*. *.'.!:G/ fy* lJsh,,,g :;i, $: *y,,p;,

adequate. NRC staN Bnef in Oppoamon to Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leag..e's Appeal from the Licensmg Board's 2 it ? sd.f '. ?..

g. *,.% i 1,A.o d

.- J - Order of October 7.1986 (November 14,1986) at 5. / w,. 4 s.M..'... v..:.t T;'.. ' i <;.;*..*.',A,,*.@g.. m.v. Q. *[ .a r. 6* y. e .y

.>A;.e p.

= ;g e; t..,,. m., g.0,;. cre.% ?c A ;.w.z,.,.,, :. g..,..,,,14 .a - ma :

y..j., ;, ?,,Qj?[Qfy'ey; J. s.'.s,.?{.*..?,;;: .

.>.d. c." s Y::<>. t:Y?::: i ';t. ' t r ?..,1.%. n.o.: t t: Q@:; *L ::. > *;. @,:l} 791 /n.h.* . > l,t,,;e.. t. y*... v. ;. ' ',gl, ts .r.....,.t e..f e.;f.9 . < 1. 3,p sq..' d. s.. g.,,G.1 *, ;..ec:',.,o C't,f.' d*.;g., t..n e.*. h

.i f..L..

,i, .r.,. e. 4 l :o..g.-s,...y.;;h.,.:;.e2lf;<:.w& :&.,,., 51

/lYt: i,.,. '%Q,;.... :.;J..

n . =.

1.[: .

1 y, w,"$.*y!7 Q; Qb~/ g g... M..c.:w:c. w %.9. oc..;.f.y, r'*. N. ~1 ..v w c . f..f '; .q ;1.Q....r. x : g* h. . a v Au .y n, u A.-e s f{ k f)*.**p 7, f.Tf,,?.,i t j l;;Q* .4' NM:mm,. w,$,$h w.,W$v s. h.t;.jff ="Qi .g$?h. Acpa.%;%m.e-v? W'j$,U pm .g'.h npic: g, MG f s ' w e: &. MY&*.$hbYi u

m. h.h MMMMIM$$m.:pa&n.w mpm,IM:

re.N.w@$@3h.Yh;e= N ,w wn, re. iW

7Q k.

ni hM M E M..- y A. n

. -m- - w. 4,..s r,. m.- -- .. ~. ,,.m 7.,- i ,r ^ i bfIbb!!kbk[bkb !k hf!If Ihhhhh hh[hh 5h m;4rnb.c.?..%~n* i 4.vg k 0 l e-fb 'A V ( i.: a? M:,'~e... etiJ vo ^ W.';y t. & P p/'4*b.$ U >:io.%.Ar 6 s ..s.& h r7?l.p '^-

5. r r,',.y-9[dE., f*i

. s. m+ b.v# e+., Cite as 24 NRC 792 (1986) ALAB-855 e..m.. n. A. m. h.r3%~. - ..u c. . h n'r00 t 4, d... j,yMW*h*M *iW..W+. 7 ';,W" I Vr.;W[%$' ~;q W 'y* (ry.Jy;-lfitg# h'Q, 'n $1, .a Q. j.,g J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,S,.&/.mA:g,:,gt: - p, , a.y-u;>@ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e.r r p.ja:f.t e. ..., e. . em .a.

cu,0.',:a.e. ?' 9 M:A.

M.:;y.%.%;.h;b. e, .re s I,thd a. $.:,.9.I:'h.?';O'. .$N ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD f .aq M 1 ,e.. .. w.9, h.s W. e... W.,.,,M,,S.. . ;t.ge a s a m h,k'.[:h,h, y.j,e:;,s,; 2, @,. O ,...dl: Administrative Judges:

:.. r;d. ;.s," g

.e ~. ...; q.tp e.- ..

g 8. A :...cy ?

r e.,,e, .t. a.. .p.,.,;i.,.w. r :;-- ..;.....;p ..h ,[ h'.' M..W.Q/.9-f.)N. i Alan S. Rosenthat, Chairman s;-$'l/~9.NC chJ.S Gary J. Edles N.s.,,@y,;$k.,<.$..,'%.p .. Y,,.h:%/;[j5'. N Howard A. Wilber .,r/.; v'. Q:* p. 2 f. ,p:? } :. . c.u..: ', lll , 5...;.M,lu.M. 2.te4...r..v., p,;. s e f.,.,ylyc,.y.gt.m, ;W"'o. t.l - ...... m... ;, m ,j

. r..

.,y. T In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL 3 e.- e o M.7.'... . g ..*,,,3.O., ace-<*1 4 .4

m. =.:.y.m*...;.:A)9.rt' I.'Q:

htd;, Q: . M::i;$.; fw a e:.> (Emergency Planning) [*.M@M.N;c, $ c p*, y . M. N.M+ e .de;/M*fMi,f-f91./'!'f. @ T..D.. N M,. ].M J LGNG ISLAND LIGHTING ,2.h*W-t.'..;,W...,.;.]g.,M../.',4, COMPANY . :, ' ' ;.,.@.,'w. 4 , mf.f; t'@r., c (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, w. N.p, y W.f.f.<.Qlj;. ip,.*,.?, ;P.;ty C. %,r. Unit 1) December 12,1986 J n.,, W.. p; .v :.., s. w.,,.... y.... m.,,>.. ~.. +. ; st . &%., r lw.q';md mM,WQ.hIh

hW

/h:NN-Nh k,.%' rid!:.Q;f 'Ihe Appeal Board affirms the portion of the Licensing Board's decision !,%:dMD..M:$h {y M .;/ in LBP-85-31,22 NRC 410 (1985), requiring the applicant, in formulating its j',f 4 ??.i emergency response plan for Shoreham, to estimate and plan (in addition to Yj,I, Id. ' 'i.h-planning for the number of evacuees likely to seek sheltering) for the number Q@h[>f@' INJ 9.$D 6Y'WlM of evacuees likely to come to the designated relocation center for radiological [$' fg:> ; monitoring and decontamination alone in the event of a radiological emergency .~g+O ,'/g@ at the plant. u d ,M :%41.:c?h ?2&'M.%.'.. P., '~K", e.,YuJ:eM.4.-fW/;,c Wi&M .i.@@~y' 4.W.M W.wW EMERGENCY PLANNING: REGULATORY GUIDANCE .w... ~.y ~ W (NUREG-0654) f[ h;s:y.w,pf.%.g,w. p,f4.,1.y. w. jdhhh,MhMhp NUREG-0654 (a joint issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and M..gg:gy.y[ h g 7 Q },e.y, g. the Federal Emergency Management Agency entitled " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in S gf 7, .~g. . ~..,. n. Support of Nuclear Power Plants) is a generally accepted guidance document &fh,gSA{ 'h.?'!!E,!b'Q.g&.. ~ f* hi tQ .,;;'Ph A h,i.#.e.Qrymx%SiQd 3 t$ r iWG DbiM,%. !d#y$

x Y _.,, h..,,.....t.,h,u,h,thf 792

. - r..p.

,. m, y

. g...m.. c W' Q )pp u;p; c./.,,* '4 Ms /.Y

7 Maw.ye m' a u tMf:. it;... j M,

,hu.h 91gWe .d g. ..M_, ; u * * ....Y =s ,.r. s t .s., *. P I s .r. ( a Y g I 9 n----

p .s.'.,,'" ,'.g' ..,e .. ~.. $i s.*1;Y. 'k 5 I $,,.s'. Mp.,yfy'%,$ M W W ij W $ M.., M r.d h %.I.lv...,y W. Mf,b.' A U N W. ~..e4.r n r ~5li's,l* . N I, j-4,b hw. -a> r "M.m o b. ' r, a,r4spq s *r.ty a. M 3 v h M'%& MWWAb MMA u.Q{k,fC,.Mh.5'.w:.t J h.'q d.,:% s c & :p:>

w.

4 y sWQ Y %.wTW'.+~G gW@H ".m. 5i.

7sy;

./ h'%x i,#l{'9 s? :.....:%',g.~p.1,.+s.s e.s. 3. G..:p.n

u. h s.fu t.

?a.d; ",.../t%.

. m ~;,. s r. 6i ., " %: a.p., 4-).f,% 5.,;.y,,.*,?".P..*. 13.'* t. 9> :. * .

d,%,; #

e ,* Vy d r '> *, t: hNhe, :,qi,s*4y**:*:dQ. %fw vic.M w A-M h ". sed to evaluate the adequacy of emergency preparedness at nuclear power plant j!f: s h r,k N"..,.,t.). %,M. : y:s. j'/H e

.9 sntes.

'"A s.u, ;we, e. % .e..r y M, v.W%g.n. }.A., ,. t.,.,.,y,.....;~.y..s.n..mn..m.,4.;,,4...Q.u..v.S..V.'.N:~.y ..v,.&:.. u..j.. r .m s. ~... e../.%w.~:,;. %,. t., n.. r.'.t %y. : g;. .s. n. vr-f irp W '$v. t., 4 REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)) .p W.h s... e.c...... ;m r.a.i b,?/@.c.$3*dn,m.&..y f, -c% @-s Monitoring and decontamination services are within the " range of protective ..b - m.s e s M,s$N,'.'M'i'.,M.Wlg,E%4k@E,p.9(M.d@Mp@., MM* 7MCC C. actions" that 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) requires be developed for all members of S...U5;$.,f, y;':.y..; g.a.;.:% .9 &. r.M..... the public within the Emergency Planning Zone. /./. a n:' .N.....n,J e.y:6. T,. e w.9...:...c D %:..,,.,r:,.s; en. !:: i in.,y,,'9.;.

O'M, ~.;....n pN.M.,. :

.y..,:i :..,,y. J:,.: e. . 1 . ;;s,g.%.,-;'ed..:M:/.:r.rf: d.1 EMERGENCY PLANNING: REGULATORY GUIDANCE r .,v s, .h. N.. N, ~s., k.. h... N. h..Y. h.}., I ...v, (NUREG.0654)

M...' g' m e nr. $. m.c.,..iR.!'@, M..,.w~c2E NUREG.0654 leaves room for satisfying regulatory requirements in ways Q,1. 4$. p. u' M. y.4

. ;r...'..?,. .. s,Q A' hM,.:> :.U.tM..;;.. .$: ~.e..,2.,

k...k/.g other than those specifically set forth in that document as guidance.

,[.p%.,u..u/p. n ? g

y:...;

.p .. n..

n...

c..

o...,.9m...a.:o.w... u n y r..,a, f W..;.,.....,...,. : u.,.. g;?@:;% g@y'{.J.#Eg t.,.b.A.'W't wir-m .. m,

-f!r, f i. 3 APPEARANCES

?n* :n :. , ce.s..,

g 7. -.'.p, w,,,. v/c'. 3...M,; :w 3,.;,,.,;.

s. c.,.. ;. y. :. t y'. s *..:. 4 ...jf..,... ;/. M. o. James N. Christman, Richmond, Virginia, for the applicant Long Island n.. 4 -.~. +U 0., ?... j: R ;t. >;. g >...,",.;. e.,;. f. I, Lighting Company.

1; f.....: m. :l..?.,o:-).. m,q.

W, l ,,, f, ......3.,, .m .;? . ". ', +. ~ b,.'ry:4;J.ig. Martie Bradley Ashare, Hauppauge, New York, Herbert II. Brown, Law. ,f'r...p. R(.:. g,,:g / ,. 3 i; rence Coe Lanpher, and Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C., Fabian w 7,1; p%,.,.*.iM.N.fl:W.3

$,,f. s.., ' ~

G. Palomino, Albany, New York, and Stephen B. Latham, Riverhead, t .. g, /.f,,..> ;.y......2.;;, ; A c..) New York, for the intervenors State of New York, Suffolk County, New .n,.. +., ', t :.;:....;,., , : c.. 1:.,,.,.,.i... e.,

, b..

,y... ; f,,:v.f w 4 York, and the Town of Southampton. New York. 4 .,a. a . 1...., '. 4g;... n. ./..b d.'{.3.f c..J., ^c, t.. v.,4.,,.f. j c. s 1 Bernard M. Bordenick for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. q k,...y, 9,.... + 3, ,. :..o .m,7,.:.,,-:~..;n.,....-, p... gi i: * : e;.7.s .u..o . e.; -.... :a. c.w.n .. A.b,. .dP'S ?% DECISION m. s.. : ;...,. a.. r. c... :n....

: ss.s.or. <..s.

~., ~ .. n...e ..r.,...m., g m. S 'c ".*'..,

,. /,. ',i'..T M l$' #,.. p...

d In ALAB.847,1 acting on the appeal of the applicant Long Island Lighting i.'I[.O"%;T[JlfM Company (LILCO) from portions of two partial initial decisions rendered by 4 e % ',. y'cg. g '.gl4[i.h'" } $ {E. y' J pf.?] .F.;. the Licensing Board in the emergency planning phase of this operating license a :p, q :. ..W j..W: H.."?e'.): proceeding involving the Shoreham nuclear facility, we remanded two issues Tf...j'in,@.WQ;$i'lQ.'~ YQ M, e:#'h to that Board for further consideration. One of those issues concerned the ... l:..

.4 8

L..

g. v g**

portions of LILCO's emergency response plan pertaining to the monitoring, f.,.h:.na.:;',':./.e,'J r. f yy%.../..y. Q,. #h; *ls' . 2:/:.C..%;

/

v r '.. ', ..' 4 4 ?.,,?. s. Y.' v ^: : t/lM 'y R'l.,;c..*4 g ......if., w';. ?, e w,. t y n g;. :.. s,,,.. s;w,

p.~.. p, t.s,4. v... a.. q., +3.? c,; e....,.

n. .g.* e r

'a n,s;.Q,,,.n t r...,', 'V... g ; *.,.: . -,. *%

l, 'r ? : '**

:'.. ' r.

g j' Q. ;,l.f h ;,.3 ^.*ae'. t s,i M. i.,'.i I,M.. r.,[bl.t.Y.,Gy. 'g@*s* y'd i . an,' c M, e -l 1 24 NRC 412 0986). 9 ..$. Q; *.] *, ...,,..es.%,,.,sfi.2.. g ? n... m ;. sg ; r. * > l.: .,v,' se .m e.,.. >. r. w. 9..ig;,s .u'... p;,w..! *,, %. ".* N.,,.....

l.3.?. 't :.L y;.e. t lR. g/,,., *....%.3 6.?.('

.~,,e;> -l::~.?e 793 ^., . r't.. A.s*r,~g ,4 'v.!? ;*.* ., : ',. w....., 1 * /, C

- 'n w
7 m;..

9 p. '.C ..Q i r r%,;.. s, Q'.. *p. e,;,t..,..,'.4..if ;. g. r.

r',4.v

.ts < A.. p. y.. s- .s .;;.l' ?,,- l -t 4;,c 'l-.*y..r.?.c -)m.. snl;..I.f. p.4 2 g c.... .e ' h.e... :. ,,(..i c. 1 s ~i

*.p **g 3
4 a,-

z g,.e.@Q'p' ' y&l.t g..y,e.@y:y ;,; ;.,r,8.. A,.Q:2 v.o.m.krc:;7 a,W[7,0-... ..f. f. 'g ;. .- m.j,:a.,.. &.~. 4,,* ?; m

g.,

, v o ..s,.. s ..s e f r ,;.y s. . 4. i ep z . a e,; v.'. g.,* 4,c. r ' a"..,St..f. N u..,, s1 r .*. s f**' .g? .T,.;p k'F') 5....W .(, c%' $ L *1f $n*5..,M,.9.M,.;y.+g%h.e,YfM k!@ @ m @M y, T*% K y y *,, g y g.p. M;, I ' Nth.. n. ?p,g %. Q.eQ, *f f,Q M.\\ 70 . % k.,' ' SNEI./;.= nM M..,ffT.Iz[3. .tTh.','bg..d~.q.,$. <*. %.hg[h.,3 5*h M t', $a s..x. x.,t'p,. e AQh M'[..ca..%+ %,. . a ~ Mr

p. M m*

g.$. s... ...n. y a..e.1,2. w'.,. ,l[. L'Ik hadh*- 'i"$"'M $M [lg,. ((# .9 8: . M

n,.... n.E M i M,, M. ~M.,.. M,?

s, n

,c: v. y..:...; t.. w. y,... a;,,.., p- - =.

.w.,].,i..-x. 's -.n.... - *.

m. ;,.., s,',.*,

e= <. g ,,t

- my;?.W y D.9;;9;d..a.?N N A* y: q,. ~. m wn..,... w, .,,e c, '. .e y r a, v a; j '.,.,..., ~

n..n i <z..m r,. %..g

_ ;,,... 9 .....s.~, .y 5.Y. n.s..r.<. v*.v.m,;.3 -. t?b *:h?$? l3.N.y.... .dy.

e

.n.v.. fh? $'.*;.'$$' t %i*h C * ' $]y!*;l& ;5'. *\\' Yfb,.\\'?.$.*,) f*!* .'. i *E $e'N].h. '$

Y!?*a1.

.M

e. A@' k.M.g.t&.*

w!*e. m.m.. e w aj mP

s. 's, '

~ s c e s%M c W MM Y@st

- = r3 5.

M M.

.g<

,. W O A' fh. s v.. q r.;..n.Q V.W',:.'Q:+.. m s e< g.L g $ w:y.3.V.,,' h 4 L. A .t en @D r p y;d..y %.?7y$..m.w q decontamination and sheltering of persons departing from the facility's plume @/> 27(,9 ...,g.. f. 6 r%.. 6,. $,r.'g:yv;j:t;g.1N.w exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) m. the event of an accident .f. ;.gt . "g -g, at Shoreham necessitating such evacuation. $@.y.,lf;ff[h[7 '; k>@Ml@o7 d' '@.%;,?,'D More specifically, in LBP.85 31 the Licensing Board had concluded that, %',M,f. $f in addition to planning for the number of evacuees likely to seek sheltering, ~ -.4.'a, e,M..t W":,d. ; J

J.'

LILCO was obliged to estimate and to plan for the number of evacuees likely to be ,.d.. come to the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (the then designated relocation center) for mdiological monitoring and decontamination alonv.2 In challenging

*?fj.;.d-G.. ay O'.J. M y,).,. p;..

4. 'f,*p,y,q'./O this result, LILCO had asserted on its appeal both that the Board's determination .N, T$.,J.,,W...). 'Q:)lf....du s '7. ?. - 6.". ~. 4 [4,o,, Menv:.R,;W@.; O went beyond the issues admitted for litigation and that the imposition of the ,h*Mh[!.QQ.}.'i'.'.hh additional obligation was not justified by any regulatory requirement.$ ',m*fMM ~ ;. N* i As explained in ALAB.847, we decided to return the matter to the Licensing

F..I M.. $. W. $..;1 ST/r '.:;.l*

<.. E fi M.j - l.. I,l. y Board to enable it to consider in the first instance whether the issue of LILCO's Z. Wi.W.. r., W'.d.c'? 3 plan for evacuees not seeking sheltering (hereafter, the " evacuee issue") had fM*Mj.y.G.y((.p f'y,ff c " ffe m. been properly raised for litigation.' In light of that step, we declined "at this y b,hf5f juncture to rule on LILCO's alternative argument that the obligation imposed 'Q $ 1.W.-M. ?.6I 7,s$ f,$,$n. M.. n(. by the (Licensing) Board runs afoul of applicable regulatory requirements."5 %.' 5,7 7:, .,p.f. %.. A;M " ' F. In response to ALAB.847, the Licensing Board advised us that, in its t fg ik. judgment, the evacuee issue was properly raised for litigation.' The Board $ h% '. [J.lQ@@.2" ff6,Or [. f A

...g l

further observed (as we had in ALAB.847) that the Nassau Coliseum is no E '~.9. " W N,9. v1..,.i?.. %. longer available as a relocation center and called attention to the pendency of a ,' ; gJ ', c(;.y .g.;;.k. (Jef ~... ~ u.

4. c..

recent LILCO motion to reopen the record for the purpose of substituting three @p.!'j*.g;p,.*s.,g l7 ;jy.l7 g other facilities for the Coliseum. The Board indicated, however, that it would g .7, iy.[,4 yg l, '. f *,; Qr 'i f .gg'j not act on that motion prior to our ruling on whether the obligation imposed Q.g.y ,,.gg,4.p,.;g,g

7.,j;.;.

.N

,2f,, 2. upon LILCO in LBP-85 31 flowed from a properly raised issue and an existing regulatory requirement.' D., Y 2l J.p; jeg., f, 3,,,. p.) M :..jM f'Q N:Q'f;i In light of this response, we entered an unpublished order on November 4 in f. '+.' d. /t.,;"...$,..;.E.E.'a. which, after reciting the foregoing history, we stated: an

r..r x,. ;.y > v y:

( ~,, h. [. k ,u, ifl'(*aylg'/J[i'M.Q*'.,'/'if*d!,,/,,*$'s ,hi

f[,

in our view, substandal deference should be given to the belief of the trial tribunal that D $ip,? a pardcular issue was presented to it by one of the lidgants before it. 'Ihis is pardeularly so G 3@g// : f f.j.:-f f[,;G.f,j").'.g)'/(/$.h*4'.lf,Qlf 'rQ, $ Y y.$ where, as here, the relevant procedural history is excepdonally complex. Thus, it should be .i,d,k. fig. enough that. as also appears to be 6e case in this instance, the Ucensing Board has supplied i I."..*J: g,g i'#q.yg!c f :gy a reasonable foundadon for its determination. T.dlL*, ,J We nevertheless will withhold fmal disposition of the matter to afford the pardes an [*g. y'. opportunity to comment on the Licensing Board's discussion in iu October 29 issuance. In Rgi-vgy*2,@c-Ap{.'Tfy,.p fi$ y"k ,.>3

w;g, W.r,b-3pd T,../. v addinan. the parties may address further the regulatory requirements quesdon. We are par.

,E .%pl?.h, A c- ..u y. ;.p<tw. a.N .s ,r,. m. ?.a s. n' y.r w M.< 9..v.4 m, p.Nf;%[c],n.:'.fM[.,[l*. mu. s ([l <9 2 hlMve:[t.'.t.~.:; y 22 NRC 410,417,430 31 (1985). , N.Y, 3 j- ,p[ .i; Q* C'/.7 See 11tro's Bnef on the Relocauan Cemer issues (october 7,1985) [heremher illfo Bncf"). dsee 24 NRC at 420. k7 f 't e M w. t.;..g.. ;,, sy .gl j. . h,O.

b

-'.',k 'LDP-8636,24 NRC 561. 572 (1986). W.%:;[ pW.y,%r& 9 [,y x;l 'u.t $n M.M.4mR3i .g i? Q:,YRt% )U'. & ; &. h d.M

6..:n.C)p$.c%.,~

Y'. N Y YW 794 $k. t.:,.. .a ?i'N &c0,bbA &.2WM.&-h,%QWl W f m.&... -

;li.s.f@.,.;,.w. w c,J, q;,.;

..ryi wg.j ,;,N,,M'.. w em.'w.i. @5.Sar.?ig.G..hp.e +/w.y~ y, r C v.t .?; w x.n ww 3., W'- ;P'(,..?.c. ms,,,.Q,

%...e~ t.m,.

e Q, n,rm,. .,w :.. .,a y,. n <.; MQ,.*t.;p, ~, :.A .ee- + +.. 4 p ,y.i.yr p ,. g: ,s s

e s,.

d J

I p,rr.* p) N n%%., a%w.k.f..k ; e...a.:h'n &.'* M.""*~"2 ' ~ dI's W ".s**r'B 5 -~<'. M, ~ - " ', " ' ' -

-" h A'~

b .f" y g, , kwM 8,.., e&, 7 s O.,y '&w@.&,;,>.n y!k2;%'!'U; 4,Q8 f, O. ClQi'}.*;\\ I b"b1, ;P.*y,g&;;i,9.,, i y. p r ,-b !.'J.,&i'h R. by a gh ?,b',(L'{%

f. &.rWjs *5'4 W..,.Q.fl/.* q.Q e, /> n '.'O.

-[4,,jm,, w,7.;; (,;..'.'%. l'd v s. ,. m. -q %.y ~ .Pt M M/fD$.[*N(% Jf.hAlrQh;r'M,.7,8.Kr,'%{iQe*..; ...~%h;; t y...,C;y.* e h,s V .We" ticularly interested in obtatning an elaboration by the staff of its views on that question. Pos. O'.< ,b Mh. *,h IYlh@'fd. Nf3,,MlM[M/Jit 7.Q,(.R kr i!. .. f' "=, sibly because its principal claim was that the Board-imposed obligation was not rooted in a I2![ff)."g;j properly raised evacuee issue, the staff's treatment in iu prior submission of the regulatory I'c" h@N2,,*M..% >.yl.'..M.*s.ff.;dd11;h h Nb?,Q /'8,MS';p.. requirements question was quite indecisive. At this stage, however, we are entided to an i 'y[h,5'h f,, j,n.l,,J'. ' unequivocal response from the staff on the question whether the obligadon imposed upon m/.g..D./.

'f"'*

11LCO by the Licensing Board can be squared with the Commission's emergency planning m ~ o. w c. c's,,,. jg.. r y 4.- y, (,.O dictates. 6*.... ,3.y>- M%~d@N;ik.EfN N,k 9Mh ?;hj$,O@.f'E',@.@.'WU; .Nf All of the parties accepted that invitation to comment. LILCO maintains that E.D. Ul.@h the Licensing Board clearly erred in concluding that the evacuee issue had j h( ,.?l*)f[/3[d.$[M,#u,7$.,M.g%'@p%@s'f A %....y D M.M '$,,,'.,3.. been properly raised for litigation and, additionally, adheres to its previously l,'t ';{ t

h. 4c... a',y>0!/.'i q.. [?s @p,5.'Nj.?I.y),5N,.l.

1 ' 'iM. I j expressed view that, in any event, the issue was incorrectly decided by the ,fW '/.M.t?e,.i Board.8 'Ihe intervenors Suffolk County, et al., disagree with LILCO on both .E ..o 4 ;, w,.A...$.. ;. 4.G, '.s.;c '.'s.$..m... u, .s. s. j.N u, rl,M.'!;) scores? Adopting the standard of review suggested in our November 4 order, the w;; N.- .-s e. M ;.e;2.5./r staff no longer questions the Licensing Board,s determination that the evacuee ,0.%... ry.S>rre,g'G& g; /p p @%.6.yx.ir,;.rc. a.QpU.g,p:r W.s !N .Qfs,.f.ig,n y S issue had been put before the Board? Moreover, in the staff's opinion, the v.. w cg e 6t yr ;;g,N. M.h-disposition of that issue below is consistent with the Commission's emergency 4ccy$;45yk$$jQ9,/.Mh l.y'p.[, planning regulations. [,3[,. 2 '.";N, N.%".U.M,1.,';gy[

l3 1.

We have reexamined the Licensing Board's conclusion that the evacuee y,7...'J4.,'T, D.M;.d[s Q*' ', issue was properly raised by the intervenors and t.%s warranted disposition on 3 t.,'. # ~ 'M. C' ;., n.i.'..,. l the merits. As a threshold matter, we remain persuEded that the determination ..,.Rl 'i, ?g lR. ;..'M,,,/S.f'. ',.,. f, ; '.... $./j... 7..,[....

b. 3g ;.:-/ '.v.y..

of a trial tribunal that an issue has been squarely presented to it is entitled to ,;..l M f-substantial deference and should be overturned only when it lacks a rational 7; 4'.... ;y.fk..@,'.:.!M., ( f .,.,; 3.C. g foundation. Although certain of LILCO's arguments have merit, we cannot find ,.;, *. r.,.j. p .. ; g,.N. that the Board's determination lacks such a foundation. . 4....;. i.,., x......f, ~, g.. q ;,,. In ALAB.847, we pointed out that the intervenors argued that there was

(.,'....". e,.

,.,;, 9.F *. ' y; y..... general language in their contentions that was intended to permit inclusion of . p.. 4;. ' a 1 , 4 the issue. Contention 24.0, for example, stated in pertinent part: ~c.~..,.*:..,..,' 'c;. *.' w. 4, s }..,;,; ... '..... 4,.. y. ~.. .e m M,..

:e...

.p..;;N ", j,,, 'l ,jf,*/ }.[rh;,',nV.C . e.. %, i,.'.'s '.,U W.1.,$f ^.(. ,9. "..l'h b l F '.. ' ' d ?.,,,' The Plan designates Suffolk County Community College as the relocadon center to be used ..j.-f '.,,., ; s ~. v.?. nt ; e - u by evacuees from eight of the nineteen zones in the EPZ. LILCO estimates the populadon f.';:,*,".P,, 3 J(,s.f f;. ;..a,. V.f, '. %.., 'P r.,. of these zones to be 18,599 (26,574 in the summer). . LILCO has no agreement with / . 'a, Suffolk County to use [the).. College as a relocadon center. . Therefore, there is no , * '. j.}.,;'"..,.QU

7,1,W 2 * ';.ig;. ; d.C.q 7

relocadon center designated for a significant pordon of the andeipated evacuees. "..2 ... *g,. 3.,.%f., 't,.,e , i. ';^ ;* ;. ;.l.,..*s .'.,".): .,' l i t .,.,...t.... .g.,,-.,,. .; *l.. y, ;.X:.%4 6 - %,..'. r c %.p.g'.' j n:;t.+<..,x,. .,..,.,.g s.. e. } . *. 9 *ulc.a... x.. 8,s Litro's supplemema! Memorandum of Law on the Number of People Who Might be Momsored m a ,..y/j,j jr UA.,,; *:.]W ;f.* 'g[,9 f'c$ fWl...4.;,';k h;.n T a O.,./,...c 3 s. Radiological Emergency (November 21,1986) (hereafter "LHro supplememal Memorandum"L i $ [*~.,O.@WlN.:,,'c;k;.4 ) Y OI;1 *. [)' 7*. (g ** 'See Suffo2 County, state of New Yodt, and Town of Southamptun Rarponse to Appeal Board Memorandum l / ,[.'. l ' ;* e*f,7.h, L'.c.',1 and Order of November 4,1986. Concemms Morutonns of Evacuees (November 21.1986). j {.I.2:.;D,l'% y 1.if *. (..-i ' .h.;,i;pf['*q.< p.f*.E,. *.Ulj,[;?!"' M f ' 0l,.4 7. V(, }/. M r 'J'i 5an NRC staff Commems Pursuam to Memorandum and Order Dated November 4.1986 (November 21, M. A;,. ', ; d: ;/g'Y. <.t ,'2 $ 'p.,E-; 7.j, D;,. f., 1986). As noted in our November 4 order quoted above, in its uunal response to the appheant's appeal the staff ,.? *,"; t fi.h.f["l* f h.?f (;y i, ?- had taken the postuon that the usue was not embraced by the mtervenors' contenuans. See NRC staff's Bnef m ih'*13 2 1.W,. .s i ;. '..* V~ sj:7 suppon of"tlLCo's Bnef on the Relocanon Camer lasues" (November 21,1985) at 411. "h.f.],.' ] / % ?.s;:;';..,y /,[*..,,[;.9\\'.d,. &. ",'., ' ?, l. ' Q See 13P.8512. 21 NRC 644. 979 (1985% H 3.? ... '.,. P. y- . ( a,,c., ' <.. e.., 1 :,.L*. %s i [?f.'.,G.. "gJ,- ! "i ,e. a 6 -' e Q,' ' '~ ' * ..G... ' e ' '.',* m?. t 'rf:','lA

yl',,a.*.. ~, 9.... &,. a
.\\.~A +g,, n., :

Q g,*. . ?;'s ;rt... W J.,s.., k . c N'iC. } AY y;x,,;'. ; Q.,, +,J ~;::.?y,.L11..'..C..glig; *;',';M; .?.3., e.,. <> * ,.,' W' p ', i: v;. 795 r, v .1 .., e. r. s.J..* 4 *. o g. .p fA .,Q Yr..i,.. ...y.* L: ey. g,+ s '. '4,.g.. ;,,' 1, '.

W., *.* h. " f. f *z '(.. g, %.,.,.,';,a 3

..n,. - N.. ;9'r ! *,e:..s.j ; y{,g p g r l.:; M .p t.. ui>.. .f q'..-r # y ^ e,e,,.em... e ,,i s &bW~h,M'.shd. U'.4$m:Wr %,dM.5 d, u..W,$if.h;h

T.}M$ Q u.

'N4

.h h

h. h, Mf. y'h*j ). '..,h %%. h, M.?;. M,*1..W. & *p # **. %'s A!C

,: m.y.:g~w.,.:.'u' n;..hrrp...a.

C;) W' G 61 Y 9 ' &., t. n,;'N..'s,4 g *:. : W.,W,'m m. s:m.. ;m.?L,,:c,.a.. y%.m%,, !

.,?,.*!" E ll,*.y *3 ;,.mh. m?:.,e;;.;:, .n. w:.v ~s. a*W.

- d y?QW

). 5 s-R

l'".. M,....',s.: ,W. 0A$hf.' e w

l,n. g.ei j ' *.

yhl t?,., e A. - 4 v.. NN a

%y),,.f p f%.

T.i. y e s p l5 eV ~ ='. % *I't ! * * # QW " & s 'f * ',. e .a > q E ** * 's V f <.,.;. w. + n.... n...s. m :. p. n'.,, n 3. m. m a' m... e n.~, . t. s

% W.

7. v.. t a.,,a.~.. f;

.:,,~, ,&: '..?p.:;.n a p. ~. w ,.. n $(:kr,.,,A,*f.. m,.J'l.% n,s w.:'s;.:@f -lCN.N' Chi.%-{,?;;,%; ml;;s xL.n,..;2:s Min {.'*W.v J Q'fx?Q c .,. +... .. ~ - j * > 'Mf':?::;.y's%.,.... n,'hW.:,':,Ltt..?) n * '.N 7 q, .,,.x bV.Y,W,,,3 4..:..Q: f 7,Qk!,:4.vp.f.;y,:t. %s.x,.: na.. A..A .2. u....rv.w. msg.~.:se.z .a. te:.m.t..es,aad.>, w.hhA V.%>.:

s..

Vw&.'m.1. Q %.A.H: l':r fhl3 ).G.'.My m:& a: ;n%g.g& e fY.Mn VRt . g m..

9&u.Ml6.%y;W.;

'.k.. W;5-d:1;WW%..m,hi.];40.h u v / :.J!.h h. i I, M. %.g h..s er./ %

t. %

fly g.g g;e g (;g;p ,(;l .d53%i'D N .I This contention can be construed narrowly - as LILCO asks us to do - to fl.q;;M.p.,7.p.1f/*y. j'.i. ;.d. attack simply the lack of a formal agreement for the use of the Community ff]W~dJ,ffi.C ' g.l College. But, given that the contention ultimately had to serve as a basis for ,g;$gg litigation in light of substantial changes made by LILCO in its emergency plan. ,3,s.,yfrO,.M;g . A W'. V *... ..".;l. 'Lf.'-/;t. ; Q-it can also be construed to reflect a concern that any center selected must be .d' d*'. - **3 [. 6 b [.p,. yd W. P:.'NM W'.T p' .*g adequate to accommodate all anticipated evacuees. In an effort to determine ' g l;', $ ' &..[.:*&.J. f,/ N,'f'.t. h .y' $":.pM '. ,'%7 the meaning accorded to the contention by the Licensing Board during the S_.'. '.d, 't.< " G

. @o.. E.N, course of the proceedings below, we asked the Board to indicate whether it h

4 s .f. s*@ Q':~*(fc.y,' :!;g'l%)?f,$[dl.;$ was significant that the intervenors did not expressly challenge LILCO's alleged Mr.5:!!lflE.i?.. iin failure to estimate and to plan for the number of evacuees who might seek j Q f,i.%CO' $7)]:t+$3,}.y: ;$ j.';)i monitoring and possible decontamination alone. The Board answered our inquiry n C [.p W.:.W:.l h.

b. m:<

WW~.:: in the negative. It explained: ..s k..

. a

... ~ W:. ... :. C w.. .; n Y'". 'ff*jh.:.Wv.::fgM 'Q,Ell, [. he contendon specifically stated the total population of the zones to be served by the of ;.,Rs y, M. +c ' /.#.~. .C;;. fc,..'.. '.O. ;'.;V.} relocadon center and, at the outset, the Board presumed from the wordir:g of the contendon l'. :2 Q: l N pj,3.,.,.g, g,j.l,"if, Ef;.g;g that some subset of that populadon would be identified in testimony as the number that . v - s. e. would require service in the event of an emergency. his expectation was later borne out / %' L.'.< M.. when IJLCO stated its planning basis for population in prefded testimony.t2 ..yg.y $.. c.,I.,.m. ,,4,g.,'..9';..I.V.I'.9 !. r.M ., n,.;.,...t.., j, .,'7 ..,. a. ,g y..... ~... .n ..n ,b' The Board's construction of Contention 24.0 is not unreasonable. Indeed,

'j;d Gh.3 ',

Tj~~[j.,p its reading of Contention 24.0 is consistent with the language of, and purpose behind, other contentions as well. Contentions 74-77 dealt generally with the .:W...h. e.r. 'N.,.. N, F.... *. L,'. ' -@ V.p'. - .W..'.N, u m.: g adequacy of the relocation centers. A preamble to those contentions read, in ?:.l., Mr.4.. Mi..c;y & ;':,..f. d..,,i .r .v. 1 ..g.. w part: V...f.:~ ti @Q f.. ~.. i 'y,. a CM.6.k...."A.5~.'D" '.e . r ? f.. j .1 1

j 'f,\\. C.../A..z..t.!E.,,., <.3 A e..d.;: *c, R G*.p,.4 _ ;),'.;d;:

.r .F.N M, [R]elocadon centers are essential to provide food and shelter to those evacuees who have no pse..): s 7s ahernative plans to stay and also so provide radiological monitoring and decontamination 4 () '.g.;b .N,* * *.. ! ; ' ~t'f ' a - //p.".U'!/-,.3'/ for emcuee., and their whicles he relocation centers must have sufficient personnel and

%,'.[n. j.}l".(ij.j d.l..,

. *? [, l j;?.$ ,3f equipment to monitor emenets within a 12. hour period. hTREG.0654, iIlJ.12. .. ; '.y. '.f.<,. $. "

u... t. ;;,.. C r. A. j <

-o w. .+- 'OyI

,e.

M 'p/J g,d. b.% e. UWW he intervenors contend that IlLCO will be unable to provide adequate relocation centers '.f Mf-A'.,@,,.,,f ?.f rf/.fg*Q"? '^#W f and services for evacuees, and thus the Pian fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. Il50 47(s)(1). g. :o..p ty;,1p,;$.M. ~., % s.,., 'd.~ s ** .a 50.47(b)(8). 50.47(b)(10), and h*UREG-0654 IIIJ. [ emphasis added).n .-ad ~r" f.< e p.Q w rs.- y. ~'. -A m s w s. n. :.o. yr a.c...n.? m..r :,. c. ~, e;g+.s :. :::N.v. .s q. s $5.M. : "[.','*.[,pM f$:..,.w,.g.a..M .4 The language of the preamble reveals the intervenors' basic position that all 7 W M.:@. p.h

t. $. e s,.f.%. p'M y, 4...GQW.,,p cw2cuees may seek monitoring but that food and shelter will need to be provided s"..y ~&.9 t"y only to those evacuees who do not have an alternative place to stay.

~,. W"M/+ i.<'O.l.D.s. d%, ;,.M.-.Up,M .P It also appears that LILCO was aware of the import of the intervenors' con. Q... f.tg.$/. g $,:j;.,fQfh({,p* g. - c tentions. LILCO's direct testimony specifically took the preamble to contentions W.,l.gy .p..m@)., <...c.W.. p>//n9 -,s, < y .M.. c.< s 3. n.n.;ly.b. ..-u.. ,Jg,e :4. w. L.. e. Q. C...W <,n.s yh,y;.v. s.'y~.

r.v.lg.%w"9s /

Vc,l'.W..

gun o

. W ' Q ~w3 h c

O./,;&,.. :ff 'p't, ?'.N.'{? w..?* R')id' /* ?'Q 4f *. S.' 1* .. ff;;:* t'h"b, f %..j7 f,'.#" '..:. 'W7 v"'.,.,7 i. 5,; y,m,:.e.'. s g r, ,.. t y 12 LBP-8606. 24 NRC at 565.

a.*.J.C '.~'g.'

* ^m q,g.3. *-

u *. ...s c t)LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 1020. tjlsf;:3"' t'r,y yi. ' hd a . ~W ? lk Ws.%.e.,'? W.Q: g / 4 't., %,.rg R .*J e.*"- NSDl.l%?.'k[.R a*..Y.?r* 5'N 'ti; Y 796 '. W. Q &n.Nyl:} W. f :h W[:.&?-h1.:l4.W,h,.p .n<gc-

3... : w.

MW4 i,l.%.;,W,3... r ':.pc J. Y~% p i 1:.y,~ p., M % m;..m.r. w giv. %,.n, m n,.o. m,.. q.r. WM '5'y. :..c ui,t,Q. n y.sp za n .~. Q" l.,?.m&'gL,.[.,;,c,.,is.,;.' . n.y. fW '.e. v u., n ny4:c:]c.s.e.,W1%..,;p.., n . s t % ' v,Q.;s.'.s'.~* +s*,f.o . % w.. . ",, p L, s r y[;;;..$ uW. <. .. J.. ,D, I',:* ) 7@E;y *[-]O!69M;'g'!$'M*.3' WCt'O,j.**[.QQ,M.Td*[8'!7#7aM,,*'.Y.if!I@ h *fN If g p ;*N:( D if5 hh!b 'p g f, ) l

t c ..~ $ 5 W N.ff H Q Q ~.y;;,f] M..M. q5. @. W... c}{l. Q. : .....~ .s ,v. .~.v.%.a).i.7.Q.....~.Q.~9.'l.K*t2W.. W:VQig if8 h QQ QQ 4 9%..A. &.AsyN. L.y$ $. : y d M @. n$ @ % kif5 f M $$O km $r.yM7 $p s W m .%., ;;;.i % ;4- ~ I.&&$$4 ~ ..4 p a %p)Nh ,y. )- hk f4N 'S, l 5 &,m$.> ;

h..

.i U@.$ .?.?>..Q.:ep.x.M.c,w w%e#.c.y. J. 4.3.,& @. W,1e:,.n u.;u.,&..m.3. :.M,%.w %. n M,. M;sn#r,t.$W.w ::.h. sv.y. a.g.a.,.m., M u ..%..a.. ..s j%" s,.u.w. e.m.. .c. : m. e,p> a. sm .s. ,.n y h,'@h.E$$hd3D.qlq[.yN;y %y..y M,$g N S.$.7d'h. / 74-77 into account" and, on cross-examination, its witnesses seemed to acknowl. h edge that more people may need to be monitored thsri need to be sheltered.u MI:d.M'b',MWh[$,($,%. h i As far as we can now tell, the intervenors' position at the hearing was that NNk,N .E.V.??:?$ LILCO needed to provide facilities sufficient to monitor and, if necessary, tc IM.Y.4*]@jj.j/( %.h?'iMMMI-h'M%P,;(.jd MN decontaminate, the entire population of the EPZ, i.e., all 160,000 persons." N O.d.K /. Q f h h ?D.$;d %%W/MI d 'A other than to project that 32,000 individuals would require sheltering." The LILCO disagreed. But, as the Licensing Board observes, it offered no estimate hMh'3;g.h'$DU,WM;WSD@!-l,y hM*2 M 32,000 figure was premised on a study that showed that roughly 10 20 percent of-2,p Nl l.".t h.' y..Q' seeking emergency services ordinarily need only temporary sheltering and do M... A/ however, that the study was based on natural disasters." where individuals any population requires sheltering in the event of a disaster. The Board explains, d,iQ$~W..:'.%.'.,O.*M@cP,*,Q%..,;;;d,y,,3, J.A..O.. 1.Mh.@.'.Ja&.u/.!$MINM: 4.i/:.

W/.I,%+My[%., :. :

J>9 not require radiation monitoring. Hence, LILCO's planning estimate simply ,,c .s... v.,<v M........ Sc,..;:c,Aq.,3..,...... z. %. ,..c cS

- l,0 failed to take into account that radiological accidents produce a category of n-4 a...

vw

s.%.. ~. s.,.'./..g<- Q T'ff.g.t '. f,'M. *. -.log.., a.

EMW~.g,.. .,. g. r < *,. ,.;.r. v,.,. 9 y,.; n,a s.,p require sheltering. 4.M, 79-individuals who require monitoring and decontamination, even if they do not u s y%.n. 6.. m...fi' Cf.f.;;;.,..~...'{.,T.;.y.".d.;e.Q..:Jp,f.h, {3 Ifi sum, the Licensing Board deterrr.ined: n

c.,..

s. .g 4 t .,,.m:-. ~. . m. t 4,4., p..,.. : } ~.: :.\\-l ..,.,, -p....., n,

r. 4..

+ l. e ' 9.f4...1,,fs.,,c ylw::l <v?: $, W^p ~.r,; 2, y;.t We conclude that Contentions 24 O and 75 taken together properly raised the issue of s

- n

%e. T s gi if- ,q, 3 *'. j *, [, 0,,% j,pg.p.C (* p[*f-t,* ^ population planning basis for evacuees arriving at a reception center, that L.IIIO had a kl, k +, '

1,' /

' ;. *. 7).kC..[ %.' ?. *.C} fair opportunity to litigate the rnatter, and that when the smoke had clearrid it had sirnply M, '., " '.'.,;>J.[ y,',f cQ,w '.:.3, ; <,;.,,., p. ;. failed to carry its burden of proof on that point.1' .v. ~.p;i.,h, i r.i '? 7 p. c.. i :.,C.:.... -W'u.., }g. pf,'. ',y'f..W t.

1,.i..?

~ .U.. M. , "f..l. .8 v. 7 Because we believe that these con':lusions are reasonable, we decline to overturn e 3 t,'. 7.p [- its action in reaching the merits of the evacuee issue. We therefore must now a <.. e{ '

'q.h turn to whether that issue was correctly resolved.2o

[j ',p L!b %. P...

7..fl,,r,.1

' i r df., ) W.. .N;n - 2. As recognized explicitly or implicitly by each of the parties, the Com-V..., p$;l'.7'. . (." mission's regulations do not addrew in so many words the question whether .. r.... e.,.,.,..i p :",s, ;4;'....,'] ....y. 4 emergency response planning must encompass suitable provision for the mon-i..,.. ...y c. .,.<..s...

..@w.

,s.. %. s,.... s ,$.. ? i s..

y. r... ~..,

lv:*,2,.,..,

. ~ g: .e . a '...,r * - ..; y - y r 4..,[; 6.,;,,. ',. *,. %..,,.vi.,*.,g t,. ' <.,l,,f... *.i.,t. 14 s,, Direct Tesumony of Cordaro er al., fol. Tr.14.707, at 7 8. s ... '/... r 4,. '.! Q,.*"/;9.,.l ** e f 15 .l$ne ~. ; ['<,#.)l M' Die Board now explains that the intervenors' direct tesumony did not accreas the issue because. at least as to Tr.14,825-30.15.898. 5 /,[. rte, 3 2 ? ['*

g / g?,... ',P ',.g ',, [L. ;

p$..

,,,.: ...y y.., ;,.c

.,..,q' Contennon 24.o. they elected to pursue their case on the basis of cross-exammauon alone. LBP.86-36,24 b1C y t. e 3 ", dl.y *,'@.t"...'. j,...*./ 4 ;;,. p, 2 cg'., M. at 568. Such an aproach is perfectly pernusaible. Ses loidnana Power and Ught Co. (Waterford steam Electne . g.. J'. 7 *, * ,.+...;.. y,~4.'; 4.. siation. Urut 3). ALAB-732,17 51C 1076.1096 n.30 (1983). 9 .[r,Q.O;**/,3.'s,.*.[p,.;sJ.,f.#f.,,j.,,,/*), 17

r.,., [

LBP.86 36,24 NRC at 568. The 32.000 rigure is 20 percent of the 160.000 EPZ seasonal resident popula. i f j s;. c..;..,. ' n.,w *.:.; ;, c.a. &y ) c.. ?.:t. c uan. lw. ,r.c.e 9 ;...,4. v,4,~s is,ia 3, n o h 'i".,[;;. ejf r.. .% ~> *~. : %y;,W'.,f ','.1/(.;V.., s < :. ?

f.? %?..: .d.

20 we daagree with LRfC that according deference to the Licenseg Board's deternunation that the evscuee issue 14 at 57L o n , $io. *)Q;I.,@' h,J C, fr, '

@ J was presalted to it for ht:ganon runs afoul of the appmsch we employed in our Limerict decisions. Philads/phio I.I ' ','

, n.,f, U. ;,*. p./".g.','5 1.".s/ ; Q}.F,.$..,.'.*;./,y, r

" ci Electric Co. (Limenck Generstmg stauon. Uruts 1 and 2). ALAB.836,23 STC 479. 504-05 (1986). and AIAB-3

.l. c/ . f w.N

g. 3 :.. ' 'l b 819. 22 NRC 681.707 09 (1985). Here, as in UmarscA. we endorse the construction of the comenuons placed upon

..I ),*/i, h.g }.', b'*".h,.Y,"N f '{* d { them by the tnal Inbunal. To be sure, we took a sornewhat closer look at the Licensmg Board's determmauons in lamed in those sir.iatons, however, we were called upon to decide whether an miervator's cattent ons had ifrTC.8,Ii;' # i ' 'M. * *'. I e. M t j l'.4;;..]Q}f been construed too narrowly - a matter that gets our clasest review in order to ensure that an mtervenor is not i Wgf s *I..O *, **@,'/y.7 ".* ? g..;l*V.. ??* G %. 7

d. r +{ p e. f t,' ;.,.

g;e,..,..e: 7. f,;,4 *; 1.? J's;i.'!, ** y .f c a. 's " : * <'p*'. 7 4,. ' ?.

depnved of its statutory heanng cghts. Cf. AtAB.*143,18 NRC 387,404 n.10983) (Mr. Edles. dasenteg).

e. .?e

i.?;g'*s,r't....';..... ;..: ;g.3.. c..as;o., t
f - s

n y

m...e 1, p... ..~.. n. M., r....$F..M. *. **(,(,,l8.*f. *p, / ej. - *;8,#.(., d f[,[,/,'; j S.18 U l,c ,s a. m. s. . :pW. ,.n....,,, M,. W...va. W H. ;.;;..: 797 .:9:.. 3. ;... 1:L .N* s ~..,.r.. ~. %.v.r... y.,Q. -:}'.*

g
Yl, *

& Y'*)'Q.Q.,3.l.W~W - Ns m.y.,,f .k,*l*.l A' A lp *. t ' @ %,#.:r.. Cf;,.*f:]?$fe.%*s I;/*.O'.;3..,;.'g:s ' *i., *s.: - u w w 1A g.,r; y4p.,pM*??"Y,;.h. Y U. 9 .::? ./s ' % E,)"W* Jjd %A t..A'e). C'.d. mntm? ~ 'huqmm;..en. w m m m. w :g p w w u w p nc m y

E s

. w& w & M M@ % m$ %o@. p m&w@iE & e-m v.s.mm J. Mh&50&f%s EM MWhM ,@@9MMMWP%W @.@@@9hMMMW.W!R N m

.g':.,s.4,m.e.~a@. m... ;.w.v,&..-.. a.a,c;p,i%'% h:.%,2ti.W. 0%y;$Q..e..jW.. .,a, {.c,.n.=.r;.o$o,rgy.e.., - .,.m,,.,,.,.m.,..w. .a. .,%;b.%. ii:%..i CQsQ}' W ,.r. m . ~. -. .e o -~.c. W;cy~.. 3; 44 . i Np h%>.m,.te &m:y'% j.

y. IA?

lt&!ff Ah;

Q g.g p w.%.% ; W, %.': M p n g,-

sq ff$ g% 9 5?. hf?5k ? tr. p: h ' m:h t @d f A T.t Sna%%.f me.m.::p?:.? s..w s..q,,.. m:.- w .;dnb M. ?:'v-gn 'v. m.M s. '-%. C.W: t ih. v;.%':&v: .. Qf: M.%g.n,iy:.:t$m:::,4.W c , ge, ...M ?N.- ,$e g'Q. 4 :. ):'&;i+.o.g:r. itoring and decontamination of EPZ evacuees not in need of sheltering. Al-W A N.w pw y d f i).li [.c.D%h-k'l$'i,k.I$M %l'h,h]h[$!;t though requiring that offsite emergency response plans reflect the development Q.t$C., '-k @Q,D f'W.6 .f .? J Qy%.$,y; of a " range of protective actions... for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for 6'% emergency workers and the public," 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) neither specifies t. f $py]l.N.y[.{y(,k'Q. 1!hh!$i) what that range must include nor makes mention of monitoring of evacuees .%)$;g from the EPZ. Similarly, section IV of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, also concerned with the content of emergency response plans, is devoid of any direct y'..a.,.; 2. i.,@1,r.;.s .g,Q..., m.9 v. reference to offsite radiological personnel monitoring. The parties (particularly LILCO) have therefore looked to a different source in %'. #il. d i.y+.jfs'?;'F-t W@y.& W,fM< m.hME( T <,., M. : fashioning their positions on whether the Licensing Board went beyond the regu-r.n mf.8/f;y@N f.}%% n ~- $. y f.'#:s, 'W-:'M lations. That source is Revision 1 of NUREG-0654 (FEMA. REP-1), a November 0 M., yl.0D,' QQ: 1980 joint issuance of this Commission and the Federal Emergency Management ?Q[Qgfg. Agency entitled " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emer-g%@g.y g,y.A;%M$g.j;;j z;t, gency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."22 W Q ':gy $'j@ JXy@.h NUREG-0654 is a generally accepted guidance document used to evaluate the tg~}'g;.;p,A,'g; OW'? -Q, /%@:,[l'Q,,htp adequacy of emergency preparedness at nuclear power plant sites."

GxhM.$:'

The relevant broadly. stated planning standard of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) - [M*.YO.'::'Y.7:6f/yMIP/W d $$ / i.e., the development of a " range of protective actions" for (inter alia) the f .r.!:$.,$..,I,%.Q. $#8.l,.k..M.r. L' n,.M.... members of the public within the EPZ -is covered in section IIJ of NUREG-S {.ylg.';*}!g'i j 'j g '.;;;, '.s. r 0654, which also sets forth a number of more particularized planning standards ,y.. p ; W, M 's.p;,] C, g g ty ( ; (or " evaluation criteria"). In support of its assertion that it is not obliged to 4 concern itself with the monitoring of evacuees who do not seek sheltering, n k...N.g..: 7, H O

s.. 5, p.n r.M.<,',,.,,*.th*N.s

..'G i v t U.:W-4U.u'4

LILCO points to Planning Standards J.10.g. J.10.h, and J.12. The first two are

@ ',[*, N.M U!. 4 M MW vWiYi NNE to the effect that the " organization's plans to implement protective measures . h hh[.h.y h h hEd for the plume exposure pathway shall include... [mleans of relocation [and) My.s;'%. M. b,,,.r WC 79,..olf;.2.GQ [rJelocation cen;ers in host areas which are at least 5 miles, and preferably 10 b..,e,.;.(l.^..f g,./,y"

1 ne

'ghg, rd ;... ;.t.. - (. 'e miles, beyond theJgundaries of the plume exposure emergency planning zone." ig t l w.~. f r. :,C.. M, c, T..,s Planning Standard J.12 states: .q . U..N.,

le.

.s.. a .s.;C:, t: ~,W, gr' 1 ei h r;< w m..: u +l:c.r. w,..,, A.,? m* h p. e.Y,.!.R;..a,.:.m: a <N s..p ? - ;s*w. s s* r 'r.;. - a 11 %sw ' All subsequent references to NUREo.0654 are to Revision 1. ..f y q $p g,4 J,3 l, f r..,2c Q,#3P,k @i n d W [ M r.. M,?n N 2 k? At one ame.10 Cf.R. 50.47(b) contained a footnote to the c' rect that the standards set fonh m that section for -t* $+'*.'t. F{. h.r.5' i / N M, $. 6 8*;@yp50 N G emergency respcrise plans *are addressed by specific entens in NUREG.0654." While the footnote was removed Qgs v' ',p.9/NNeM*.;'.2%.V"h'ldf,'$,a an 1984. the Commisman was careful to explain that its delsuon would not affect the use of NUREo-0654 *as a h is O *h ih*h*$[,$ f,[.k d %m guidanos document for ernergency planrung," adans that that document "is endorsed by Regulatmy ouide 1.101, p[c.pf%Mt,K,g c'; Q*.g.p% and will conunue to be used by revacuers in evalustmg the adequacy of emergency preparedness at nuclear power reacta sites." 49 Fad. Reg.27.733. 27.734 0 984). y-r p ,,p.h *g*3. %. .p4 Regulatwy ounde 1.101. Revisi:m 2 (october 1981). entitled " Emergency Planmns and Preparedness for Nuclear /.'.e M d?* '# d Q ff.q,,y,g.,E" j. v Power Rosewrs." states that: dl%I5fNd@/h'g JfdINJ [i The entens and recommandenons contained in Revision 1 of [NUREo-0654] are considered by the NRC 7, ,;ggppg . g )fq.,;;g;2t.,/gn f,y,j,"g,@,y pr y staN to be generally acceptable methods for complymg wnh the standards in i 50.47 af 10 Cf.R. Pan 50 , C, that must be vna in onsne and offsac emergency response plans. Furthermore. FEMA. NRC. and other t j/ ,s involved Federal agencies intend to use the guidance ccmtained m Revision 1 of [NUREG.0654)in their ygrp "ligl.gq% t<.fl% h:-g.M.3;$'g'hd'*! ' $'s rg indavidual and jomt reviews of the sn6aiogical emergency response plans and prepamdness af stats and t lL t 4 local governmerus and the plans and preparedness of appheants for and holders of a hearise to operate a ,;,pG, ../ M...w e' d4 w %w. yh; e. nt.$ $ p&Vl$0(:,$.w;,,%.:% $TT$l,f.Q i r 4a%'%q c:.g.,u. 798 Q g1 Pg,Yjy*$Q'&,.y&r.M. 'M9b h.,C "f,Ns'Wi.T1:$ .yq f l <! em.Yl-N5fW,T.ryp/ 1pc ip

f-Q'. g.R..W.wg,1 rd.Wr t S.;*

ts [s v e..,y,xyws.v%~*.r*,ga.y.. a , /. M q.;, ' ?. . k. h l.'

!?

A h h !ww w m y g. bib M NNb h h@>$%D@ hhh fhbf5 h N b h e g w y m a m m m a p p"' b g.m w'~ u ,' s , 7 '.,., )/" D .i:*< s. s s 5

$m.a@@u.gg;m.su.n%#$Wh@mb'.h . k. ?' M FD3 n.mes m, w g. y p.,: w _ 4 y.:y.. v.4..<: w-.,..v y14 nu n g r. .wjc mt,..s ;.r c.-

y'd'id Gy.NJ%%AMM]klN,p.*.h :.4e; a

a I9 hq.fhi h* D NSN8 h.Y2.N .P

: cd.bi Each organization shall describe the means for registering and rnonitoririg of evacuees at

.t7lfk.k.bfil,h'J;;Oc 'N$.h.h.f'. relocation centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available should be capable of k. d lll*.b' j' D'M if [7k taitoring with'n about a 12 hour period all residents and transients in the plurne exposure ,:;w.w:p~ %v,'J'b.*W M.g,[s* M A T M g,%.p, W[. $'/,P. D>[. g.%q. 2 h.Ur. EPZ arriving at relocation centers. w@e.n.3,; q yp. c.: h.. : M. M.h. h l h<; $ $ N

NhI!.h h' V;M ZyM.k.INM.N.d,h.'.Uyh[)dh.Q,h:j As LILCO sees it, "when read together and in context" these provisions suggest 7dd that emergency planners are to provide a " relocation" center - i.e., "a place h jf, W !.V. N[? $' 9 ;%!f. @ l p 'd*g.f for
relocating' people who have had to leave their homes without another d

M sufficient predetermined destination"- and not a monitoring center.n On this 4,'O *f'N.h!",YM,QMS:!.,.64; fig @Np i @. h [ $ lN N. k d M,D.F. f s f MD .d premise, LILCO moves forward to the conclusion that all that it need do is to .N'M " provide for housing temporarily homeless people and then also for registering lj N!.h.j.D[M[;:.UWMMM%k,;.heh }!Nk.N'Nh.h"$j %Uld R. and monitoring these people."24 j The Commission does not appear to view Planning Standard J.}2 in that light. For, in a decision involving the San Onofre facility, it specifically referred ..ddjig;V,7dP;&l.f "My$ j .M@ ) ((h,, kje!.@, m,f.f..MR.Q.,.,Y 3 to that standard in observing that NUREQi-0654 " requires relocation centers ca. , 5. 2.. -.. m 3.. ...'/,,.'.c..,p.t'.a.,. l. 'v..lW. v.. 6...%.;W.J.9... pable of registering and monitoring all residents and transients in the plume .. r exposure EPZ."u LILCO asks us, however, to disregard that statement. Accord-N.Q,M.e,{. '.*,i@4..YMFM,.,$.8, M.h . l,..g e.~..e. [.l.,.,4.Q/.,.. W. v. W_..?.iW,y;..M..r.;W

6. s ing to LILCO, apart from being dictum, the statement (l) erroneously attributes f.njy.

" w,. 3.. c 3.// U.y..lq " requirements" to NUREG-0654 and (2) inaccurately restates Planning Standard 7.-l.d.3.x w.. ~. T.,..p. l...... s :.. x.

5j!

.y... y :w; a .I.}.u r. *. u ?. ...,..,,,..,....-r i,,. / . g.f4..;g..": 'Ihere is no occasion to explore here the bounds of our obligation to give r .. p.; M ?. ' p f, ;, l;.J.. C '? ' ' M '. [ *..;l l dD,:C;'$. effect to a Commission pronouncement that, albeit clear. cut, might not have 'h.67' ) '.'i ' O-);!' ?l"[: \\ '.% * ',[, been essential to the decision where it is found. Nor is it of present moment that l ,l+....y s p.< . g/ :... ;...,[.Ws. ! NUREG-0654 is not a Commission regulation but, as its foreword points out, . y... o. a.

7. "?.

J.. 4 *;*

d...n ? J.

ff R r.,'1 contains " guidance and upgraded acceptance criteria," said to be " consistent with ( ~(.< ;,,,:.,;, f-]<p;,.., r,,..,,%%.. Q '(,ct NRC and FEMA regulations," for the purpose of providing "a basis for NRC .'d *y.f,$ W * .'. i licensees, State and local governments to develop radiological emergency plans '.:,W(.}&i'/:>/.'N;,N,A: '...'.';Q ';.f;35'f.. ; L.. '['] and improve emergency preparedness."" LILCO itself stresses that, even though W.Y f, not enjoying the status and effect of a regulation, NUREG-0654 is nonetheless .:h..N. f. / el,fJ G:.Q.;,,. instructive on the question whether, in LILCO's words, "there is a reouirement 4,@ d.,gy$,' / '[q!5'92 U.T..[ DJ a.] h.Cd [.i .i for ' relocation' centers for the homeless (with an attendant requirement to be able E'k'h 2; b[Jh. f hMl;;.{. {j to monitor those people) or a requirement for ' monitoring and decontamination ,V;p ; 47'i.p' a.y[.l,(l.G ',,:: Q'.;; ; centers' for the public."8 And there seemingly is no disagreement among the i w>, u.4.,.. %.,. n.. ct. ;,Q '; c...,. **,,.... ; h parties respecting the probative value of NUREG-0654. Rather, the controversy n";7,;7 . s,'. e..,7.. m,.; ..f. ..m :..p.;y.. ~ ,':.'f.,3. (,* .,; a.'.",',..ffi,,9 ,' ; [v.g[.;,-. il., s Q.::y;'. .., ~. ,,2 ......y .-h'ld,N. ,.. 4 ;s,,: Q[f f '*l3 ULILCo Bnef at 24. ?, 24 g

a. f.

c A. 9+@N,C',.f'NR 5;Jr 2. a.y q: %*. s.s

- v 2 y=*Q.s*.:.

U 4 ?'* Sondern Cala/ernia Eduon Co. (san Onofre Nuclear Generatu g station. Uruis 2 and 3). CLI-8110.17 NRC v.J, :

e g!s?U.W $l '. t.;c

.V!i;Q 528,536 rL12 0983). rev'd sa part on oaer ground.r, CUARD u. VS. Nuclear Regulatory Conun'n,753 F.2d ! *7,.1.;'f,[. *;W { $**. ; Q:k ffy 3f[L;*',. '.%.; 2* 1144 (D.C. Car.1985) (emphasis supphed).

j. 3;,

c ' /. > l'M., y s 'J ' D7)

ee taco supplanenial Mernorandarn at 10 rLB.

S d '. M*3/ ~.iWh'/i,l1.#.$.*[..,'/s' I *T.'. I.[. ?i ' '[ ' Ib,j U C *: NUREG-0654 at L See also PMladelpMa Dactrse Co. (timenck Generstmg station. Units I and 2). AtAB 819, S. @ p.Y J '. :. '*

i.' I. "

22 NRC 681. 709-10 0985).rawww declined. CLI.86 5. 23 NRC 125 (1986). ~7;d.19'k'.!J * ';/ 't h;'r,,5l. s 3 p.p. y-[:m.eir. i.r.:. 9...,.w$.'.7 "*f ' t100 supplernemal Mernorandurn at 10. .r!?:. w.. ... 7.ge,.G..m,, A r'

. 'r **... t

~.. .e % y'J ..e ' hyg. '. p,C,pO s LS:, *, ..%*Q.. o f [a, .% * *;4.,. 7 6 t.. 3.p.....j/... 9,.[h...., N.. %c.;c;.7.,*.?, ? Sh.\\ *i M,l f . #i":. { t =r99 s

lTri W %;:y,,.4.j i.v g...,i

....f,v- ...

n? :,../s.;.. "Q.'v'.;?F::: *...,. e..y v. g.; q, n

. m v: s. .w..,, );,Q'.l %; b.Q.;l ?. #

L'()s
1

,,.. e

,;. t. >6 .? . ;,4 e~s. 'Q,gs.'. s,'7} ;y, y6 0 s. s. 4 .m 4.yl,y' y;(+~W:*a. 7,%,,.,,2. % .*'f A.s;' w c..% : . :*G.i. b.

l+U"i'.*%.9,,.2..h.q'w;.11 j g,'#,.jp.$c. ' O s r*e. y,.ai: m.

t aq

.W O,IYi~.. ; e s *. n.& T ,2-.,c. s,:+f. M $ S p,;9.s..g8 w. 'A' $;@< NM7 .j.M6.F8 >_ y'?M':##g Q' hw 3 '., yyc:.lh... M:s.O c:l%lx r.g; e..,ml}qll%.. < v"rMya. >gc ;M;p&:q ~W1.hy;%,.., ~.l*& G n'.n;n

m:q ny.v..?.w s.. t g

,v n.. n. . < ~ . myy ..t t. -x. &Q.* Co.%.%,i,,.qg?. W:.,'d(yn,%::;+. -%:9.m. n n 4W..M.:r...;;.&..n.W,v nf6 w!,4~h. ': WCg:'.t. &g.;i.], Q.L y :i n"l' W.j. fo. w e N ! W*, %(e r. y't y.x...y).; s , Ts '- -u 4.Q..hi;V,. 4N a.m,1.',W .. G.r M.. E.e;.k Q,'+nf;* *.'*.o>.!. Y.??..s 4,, w :.. T,W,v.e.?r.: ,,0 .g. ?. Q 9.e. a oin c y.G-7:.C:vlh.z.x e .- ~ ,f.h. ' ;. I,* '

5 *lt '-$ ll@"!l'} *. \\'l.' El A')?,D 'l 0sW:

& he

l E.dl.W in ' ?"T.,. ?I '~

O ? ,/

X-V

~ n:. QoV M_ DV m:'.

-grn>cr; s-g,

';F.,

as 'sq* .s.

z t., g{ f., h %y.~'[ * ;jf '(V. C" y;, T *$';."Y,'v5, lls% ': * ' L s? s s

.t.,, * *. {,** ' *':** i g.

V**.

. ?

l /*' *. *iJ* H ?. s', ;, 7 -N'l.'e'.E'Y',;A'

7.

T*,'7. s # T.
w.Qi..Q' a n,'

.Q "? y h.h '.Y (.tg ,?.y? * ~ %' yo-Wa.. Lo .. (s* l, 't...

1. M.Q' -

Y' S:* s.

W. *?t, y.d' Q, *.., < s.),f *g

' r 4 e,. - i. y V f,. 3 D'.,.,.J. J *. Q,.:.

a*

, %*m. .? 1}*h >*:,V. -: egy (g(f**,.. **.*nf * ?;*a..* "c*- e 6 n

a. e*.

t...' 9 J ? .og. N T)* .4 .e .P P

A*.

m, . J y '. ed 7... ' a d (* a g. '. = * 'er ,r 4 $ ' y w $'!a# O 5.V. Y**.Y? Y $$et.e' g w': n'f' D s' m*$5'$ e m$$+ n.,m. 4 a.5 ' ?. % si % k d, $*n' b a.n'we. t s .5t:,a $'hY. .i

b.

nt1 .O $aa.

f' '

M.=.1.,t tf. M. ~ e^ e a ?8M. v..... M < '. se [$*ev.v,;pw.M;,;a e m w,.e.;a.....c A,3.w., n ~.j, c..c,.. .w 7 y v.~. r .. v. 2 ..r.W#;d;;rM.9,+i; n focuses upon whether it supports LILCO's assertion that there is no obligation gO,$,$g' @dh,[MOQ d./ r.Ap ,M Mk to plan for those evacuees not asking to be sheltered. M .M, :i j.h< We think such suppon to be wholly lacking. To begin with, LILCO offers no basis in the terms of NUREG-0654 or its history for the premise that a N$3Ih'%,yn$iO MIM;b% s y]gjg,9..ha,@.[.QMJ 2DE " relocation" center is designed to serve only those individuals "who have had to leave their homes without another sufficient predetermined destination."2, r 's. t fc. ~,9 'h @'4' h;, Q 9 J;';u. Q M Pc..s...;.. a.m. s. In our view, the term " relocation" can justifiably be given a much broader r: .p'r J. p r%,Jj k. scope than LILCO accords to it. In a real sense, any person who voluntarily or -],j, @,'/J't.hf%[f~m,'tt.;.;d involuntarily leaves the EPZ as a direct consequence of a radiological accident at s.p, ?l.y 5, /. the nuclear power facility is undertaking a " relocation." This is w irrespective k,l.ij {.'$: Q % )9 + ),[L of whether that person requires only monitoring and possible decontamination t',0.y *l 'e 2;.@[M i' 's.- ,S T

,pd,a;.6,{K[,$.k'g{

(i.e., is prepared to make his or her own sheltering arrangements) or, instead, expects sheltering to be provided as well. In this regard, it is wonhy of note .,1,. ' ',M.,l. W ;.2....;...j .r.. t ,., ? that a report prepared for the NRC by the Sandia Laboratories (which was r.q 5 - ,5'$. '.M.P tl<y@W.QN'.lc.s f.. l.(, M OLM. specifically referred to in section II) of NUREG-0654) defines " relocation" as .h;','M " essentially a post accident evacuation of persons in affected areas."2 We know .C,KM[@9 WA;M of no good reason (and LILCO assigns none) for inferring that the authors of g,;~.g ;/ g,,,..' y .:h.Q,4'[$.

j','. h.

':,l-ho,(t.a..,. Planning Standard J.12 intended " relocation" to have a more limited ambit. To @m.e M.

N V

the contrary, had it been their purpose to confine the reach of the term " evacuees" ed j,* p:ll' V'g,y. as used in that planning standard to persons in search of sheltering in addition s '.;i",.'. d.,.7.y 0. '), e... r,.:d..;'Ja ,..h. "*+'.:,. to monitoring, the authors of NUREG-0654 presumably would have said so T.,..M~r,,r,e.y.C....,V. ~i.. D Wa.. t explicitly. .gj;<,4l.; iI';l. : /J. !a'. 417. V,A. '/n%, t,f.' But the flaws in LILCO's position go beyond the unduly restrictive interpreta-

M..'.

f.%: i. tion it gives the term " relocation." LII.CO does not explain why it should make n j..l

c. v.M', '.c Q,'.h 1..W,9;,jf; {,9 '$f.,Q'?-f a difference whether the person seeking monitoring and possible decontamina.

5!. tion also desires sheltering. Surely, the need of evacuees for monitoring and Iy,}.{'.fh,'i,[@{.g.Pf.5 fag decontamination services does not hing: to any extent upon whether they have $.4;i.' f WA. l,.<'E..e...f ;d Yef; y,',.M. p.. W<,. '.,;M.... s.f.: been able to make their own sheltering arrangements.M This being so, it seems beyond serious dispute that monitoring and decontamination services must be g m r;.W.,A..p,,, $,% r:4i.l: .F t /J.l v. T.@;.W regarded as within the " range of protective actions" that 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) N:%ff'i. E i requires be developed for au members of the public within the EPZ.

. Q.n.Ku.gt g,. v.

.Kg.n,7;;%l;;g, c 3 :/ p..s To be sure, in the case of persons not seeking sheltering, LILCO might choose to arrange for the availability of such services at a facility other than a designated .r.. d M.2 s,' @ p % ;3*i.%..;...W.,!/P %..# i .,%g @ [t('.yJip. q,pygd,6 y .g " relocation" center. (As noted above. NUREG-0654 leaves room for satisfying hy p.,.e M.h= a.p][,. r[.n. a regulatory requirements in ways other than those specifically set forth in that hh, a*:.*M.g.,v.; 'g i re.. 5.c,.:. r,; r.,e;s. * ..., ; i f A.. e *cn.c- .w.. . n.... h,/ M m'**=.. y w..e.$ t,?, .,h y7 8 ' w.... : %.y,V.. g; . '.:~n t.: :: f.><: m. s.,,.,' 29

y. >.x

See supra, p.199.

H..'y.o 4 4 e .A.s e y ?.4 p.p s

jf

..l. 4.,j. -s yEaammauon of Ofaae Radiological Emergency Measures for Nuclear Reactor Accidents invoMng Com Meh. .6 u ..y C"8

M. W,. p,il.;.4/*,*g.j,VI.

W[.,8 ;'k *** *,,gg,y.r \\,e y,

F'-

-- Q jJt A. s t ;,-a. SAND 78&S4 0une 197s), at 52. h *1 e'ut.h J-

It seems lughly probable that riany indmduals who marafestly should be momtored as a maner af caution wiU h,T**r,{hM %y't*f,p).

Q f 'f,y ;,. ; G.'y'.y[rh'@ht ,,g;, %,. both wish and be able to obtam ahehenna et other than a facihty supphed by LIlfo or anothet pameipant m the ,h ernergency response plart r, sv..gfJ,' &s.,'p:3 g7,.;.g: :..)r ;Q* . 4g p. 4,'.1 $..e{;,h*.. w.c.m u, k.a:M: :s a hO

f' IN!.4* s N.7 r m'YC.(*.hk_k. h.m

?f**.'e E' ON.h,40 b ;$.,&Nf.t. k.b.,m f goo -w%;k d

0..T h, 't. m :S &.. %

-c % r,;s,,.'r.,,j. w. u.,,~,* yr,Q. w - f.f. w s,. 9 F r m L. s.; f$hh.%te v,~:r ., yj b O $b ME 6 M,rn..n:s % @m. ? r W n*r.,,,, wm;.M n. g+ .v W.hm. Vi . >;u, ot. . p*'. .q r-

eV,. a r.G.'2.'s's q p r ; 7y,A yv's. 4ly.;'..r.%%'V.1.-N;M$?'%.';&.7;,;QQ' m.',Q V' L

3

.g

.A 3 f:ypyy.'

u;3.f%.s*p.f.,.: ; p>:.rrN. >s;n' 4w;5Wl*ntHyl

.\\ f. Vf* e wW s .,...-.W. s. ,..Q M, v.n.;pi m.t e.i vy [..> p. j 'N..,,:t.. m v.ce,~. 4..h:w. tM..re..(j,g.3.g,.:f.;.IJ; w W.iq;r * ~ ~m ' u s w

n. W D A. ~N'9."J"c.* 9.v.4:r;k m.W ;.r%.%u s w.a.<j,:.6.w.,$

.m. t r. . p C.,M D,w.e.ErY$$'? c. 9g 1.. tN N W9 ."M-c:= *. N "h;% -M.I. A. t d

v. q "y[f... f.*.,.

-r } E-f ..n. b.' S' l m.a ~ .u m e T5

... ',N '.v.aI..

)"b,e, f. S

'(.'.

f J 1 f

--[ ~' 'J Mh'I.,.. f Mf'[i.I'((*N.,* h I."h.M(, ;,# ~ N. (I*'*s bb,, s.('d f'f. j' ~.,.f' k,![,.. :$ I'.h. ".... N uea$. e. h,hk!.hh[..,[t"@ N!' (* f h h $ Y bik fYhh uk.mm*:!..,,s,p*' 2.n.. <w;.ex.,a: ^m.'"m.': ~. - - - - 9.t. -. n. 2 n 4 C.*b ;&, 7gn n-; % W.+MQb.. iO.. / > - I"*'-.J, h.n.,Ma b p: mM). u.MM.%[M.gv;.;*y.:.q8'.fA,%Ce'"l.G s,lf!".+

e. '. J.?. a.;., a b,%

M N.c.;.h @<i.,w.y y;. g r:<:f.g,y: a.w... .a a m.,.. 3,Q;,.u.,.: u.f%.. S;:g'M'.M.e gd;~n,.~%,..*y*.'s : '.:.:~~.l,;W.;; p -s.

.Ull.6;' e.?M.'.D'.,W,g'gj document as " guidance.") There is nothing in the record, however, to indicate

'4; %+g ',.iM. d.';$g1: trSp.M.- that LILCO has that intent; to the contrary, insofar as we can tell, the LILCO ? ? p i;;$,M[iD,. y L..., gl@h;h.64 s.m m $..Md.,M[5M:f,D;%,$;,.aa.M~...)4,,;.,f.; '.- 1* , f. j'M emergency response plan contemplates that all monitoring and decontamination activities take place at the " relocation" center (s).32 In any event, to ensure the w-'4. : I/.W....h..t: fulfillment of the section 50.47(b)(10) mandate, the Licensing Board justifiably l3 ,m 4.. I'Q. sMh.,,..eS...': -...g.a.. g: imposed upon LILCO the added duty of estimating and planning for the number J

.;-f; n

,a

m.....yw.. s.,i u.a%..+ y.w.w r',.

of evacuees desiring monitoring but not sheltering - whether the monit.a ng t- ,,..,,1 , ? r.;@n, es ' er.T'. /.R. :.h M.cu.,.o. n.?: ::.y.s

. r.: ;;,e.V. ;. @:

.y. f:M...,% :,c; yl a w. would be made available at the " relocation" center (s) or elsewhere. .y

%...x,n,.;

i .,. y:.. ;.., :: /..., :.

m e.

.~ g;p .c e. M.M~. @a..,...:...,.a..,,.,~..,. ,B.,' 9.. :..,, M,. j:.0, ];).r-p,. #.~'. ;m'f:as > That portion of LBP-85-31 considered in this opinion is affirmed. With v..-.. .. gz.

7 s.:

.f? .'.','.} . *0.Q.. h.~c,. N...,N,. %.M.Wm.l/~;'iM. , b'j ?. the foregoing determinations as guideposts, the Licensing Board should now wa. $ proceed to consider the pending LILCO motion to reopen the record for the i M.'W'EM. _.P,J..'.D.....'s N. .!'MM n 4 1 s idd:W :. W. M. Purpose of substituting other facilities for the Nassau Coliseum.22 c MT'M P,b.$. i,MNh,9*.Yhf"*,M[.N.2 Should that motion be granted, the Board may be called upon to examine an /;G;.Q-Yl$le:?,'. Elf HMS*. 4. b.;.M additional assertion LILCO put before us. In LILCO's judgment, its planning f [.'O !! t. $3.3.'.hh.I... '9'!"N. 19.U..h basis of 32,000 persons is " conservative" and therefore "can be expected to

<.P,y....,.

. /.i. .t. cover, in moet cMeg both evacuees who need housing and others who want ' ', U '. ',,,,, f.. i.l.. ,*.;',,q.*( <* '.' *

c',i y monitoring or are advised to be monitored."""Ihis factual claim is not pertinent L.

.:,; *.'.j.,. 7 f..;;J.J. .j - ' ; J.'. '. : g i... h.' d.: N to the narrow legal issue presented by the LILCO appeal and, moreover, appears /f r. i 1.Q A.. '.<Q. (,',.sMMc. ',M: r, to us to be of dubious validity.38 If it so desires, however, LILCO may reassert the ~ ~..s '. ; $.,, T ;.J,. l:... N, claim before the Licensing Board. Alternatively,it may proffer a new estimate. ~ .. ~. 7 ;a -f . c. e..

3.. ;.-. ;;.,y..... -.,;. ;

f It is so ORDERED. J f. v... ;.x. +,, a . ~. ',% p',c,h e : ' ',, r,df,. '. *.. - FOR THE APPEAL BOARD ~ /,c. .3.... N. v m,.,. W. W.y. '..* : W C. Jean Shoemaker c.: :,;;, 3., e.?... ;nj.yb .l.:.....,.,.,"3

...a.,:

+

?

) 4 3, ..,:.. -?,a..,y,-l/%..?,. Oi Secretary to the e

c.,.,

.:O,.. ., ~ : '...: 4 ,4-y....,,3..,o,.o ' . :,e o. g rfn,..g 4.. ?,i.- i.' ; ',:;., g ;', jr. 7..,, : Appeal Board .e,z* i, .,4. a a ?,,. s 4.* ,. t.,:..- r. Y 7,, ~. ; s t.c.f.)i......-.s, s 4 f, . %...,..j. .f .,. ; u. y;., gy.....,. e..,e, y *J [l,"b (l. v. "'i ?. j * '...,.,..,',%* ;,. :t n. D,. : l:..{'. ; ..j P Q f, W ..A.,

1'-~ s,-
4

,ld ] ?,. e. 1 ;.&. . i,..jf..' :.:...,. '., f.. h.; * ;'.'*g '.. *,.. >r,.. .... p;t .g...

.,. <. ~

(;* : ;!,c'i., ',;;;:.m.:0 7 h.'.';Q,,,.,c. lQ. i:. ,5 > :.: n n;.....,..,.., ;...,.v.,.,-.

..,. w p.

... ;;.. p.. v- ,;p%.., n.......... n. c. . ; c... s... ; :..:

r.'

i -...e .i..;,

h.. 't.#s..l a.,.j.:

.t.>u..- t:. !. b.'. [..h.h ( v.....,.Y...,M,. a,s,. - . ;4 e, *,...... ** k.... ;..,. 3* se, Tr.14.825 26.

f *.

y,, U..,n.,

, g..~h, '..'.yf!!.;..* k..,..

i[

?....v,4.1 33,,si,pra,p.794. 3

1,, r,,

[NY.Q' ? t.!LCO Bnef at 28. /.,. 35,, supra,p.797. a,,3..., p,1 6 ; * *. p4 O O..w,

f., t
c r.

7 f. 5 g,.;,. y;. %. lg[;.... s.,. p %~,e* '. '.,.,..., s.,,

Ml;'.h %.:

......k, :. 's; c'. 4v 3,,4 - *;:. 9, D ',.,;:',;:M*; N3.'.~ V.L;.;,'l.'.':.. L'. ;'.- .; g V

+;.?. *= /i.:,..

..T' " c>rl.. o. u.:p% - ;, y Q}

.: t Y.r.. '. * %l ', s l;,4,,,';.*;!.,e.'. Q i -.. ; : e. :

.o. y; f.;.%,:vf

f...

u .= .,,,.vg ',. ;* ;p *.,*. r.... p.,ee q%. !,,- ) ; *'t c,..., b-w A- ..., %. '-= V,, s.',., ;,o. '. ' .,a;.h, ;..,. ;.y... ..g ,f

s..

.,, 4 g/l... ~,s v .9 l ,,. r,. c. y. V@*?, 'd* '.is.U.Il;tk,'t',.W, '.af...A.. p:Q.?.,. ', f,',: Q ]; o'.*.y*. . : ry:*,l.glt :d.f. 5.,Q-4, t, } R's f 2,,p,..; *-. :'., da,'* ,. ' C. s.. y,/,) pJ >..,,.,[...% g.w..,;,. y>v, s,, u.. s .I .q; r f'4&,.,7:# ;M.2-4,.. d.4.1,. e g 7Q 4 .***0 %* W*.,. 2.. NM. em@Y. *.hs.g.n.v.g..h.Y, h k@.$ih :.N'.M. N*.p'... W G.m.. M,.. M.1o.s v* W**%pyNf*"Sv p Y"tyr lh* -bY fu $. i' $*kf.c o.

e '.cf ~. } -

p.e. E$W.hY.h)E$.h . s t r. e s n.-..r.r *. es.. + yr G 'I .9$.$...s. . 5 s.v*a,. n. e,r* b. %. r.,..:,. :. " 3 W .<~s.,.. p..s..,,'.n ,,.t.3 7.x..,y *.. ). -.. pw* ., a .F.. ,e ..<..;e ....s, ,, ; p,, . ii . * ~ - <. - .J e s..,., p,- % g,aq...,. c,,..,7 %y e .. ;...., f,. v.*. 'sw. ,y..

. ;WW &WlK'M llfR4.fBiY'iMW,'Q.n$$M,y.7%:@'$*ht &.Sifd,b%@.. b O. m ly:u p N f8 6. g W. Q,222' W W D M ihrW)M:; .Q'.WR v:,q.;hq:laisHN '?.MQgQqqf@ph,.W;q f.

4M.

&xp%.wsk;..tW 2 N 'i'* ~/,p:.d p wvnNn%.'w %ph yr M hh. J:w,,d.d.m.h. ev.$ b'N Y h kiY.h. g.Y h 6...L't.c.mte:ms.it.a 4%1 s h %,wm #. d.eM ew;.# w'mm.4s.r. 43p&'s ?. y,.U.:h b 2 N.s p;er..).s..? p,O. r '.t d '? Dr n. 1;% :p>o.;;.;n .H y 'rawC 4

. O a tnsw m.y;jM.,Q e

= J A. u- ,M TA :. (r%::d.4:. v.14 y m* W ij 3 o :.y,s4;hrE..?;:&v,.p .r f.a . 7 e g r a Cite as 24 NRC 802 (1986) ALAB.856 . Y;s;,,@ !, 7

S.'c D*. hM.I.M:e.;:

t v. -:,r,n.;',.. 7.,.,t. M? y.?;5cn *.e.q yw+e s .r.n[2.N.: ' 4, @@5s':'0* f ...m '. ~ W ?. M t Wi.- : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n!,:.g'% mY',i.Y,li.?..Y ?W, r t.'g 8 MW NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M., c

. n? '..;. *@A*s,

m s.:

L.

g,.p::n,g.Y;Dh.]*N'p yn e. hf.og h,?. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 3.4.c.., q.. - 5 i s.;g, j s~.t:gi rr4 .

s,.. v.

4..g

~. . y. ;&..s. a y*",.f{yf.7

lfj,'lngh5.h,,.*.":.r'?

r. g q. c).. g s.. Administrative Judges:* F.s.Qo !f.e 2&. W vy..*.).;;4'Wird.a @ft:u ;n:w. W.. IQD.s

i 7,77" Thomas S. Moore, Chairrnan

[:.%.a;f.k'....h;h'$p) [.hi t. Heward A. Wilber l:;,;.h .# ;Q'%.f.f. ;W.. r.i s s,.f.s. v. m., ... s. .- -.,. i,X:$2.: u.,a m.. s w i:..M'5M&.".c% f 3'H'MrM i. 2:y ':Y. a,WeJ$ A.h ?.h.,c In the Matter of Doeket No. 50 400 0L M 2. J b4 'i hfN h.h $. gd% 'fM;g'?.;f.p CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT col 4PANY and W. i.M;. M... e,s~d. i4.u~*.'c. O. F.;A. W.?, M M.,l*3. C,. NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN I.s'#.$.M M M.3. ' ?.:. .D.. Y,.*N, '.' vd$5 g, MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY Uf L (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 3 7.d.*fiU..u.:. s .s s u.~ p : ..'.I.<N.g..fr.p.c. '.9..'b,,.. Plant) December 31,1986 . 'i... J It Q. w i.e ..~ . p.. 4.o. o. s.c. @.,h.x m!.6%m,%w M %.A ? y; m y M.r ~. . na kl.gs.). i,,P/.5(;W'st;; M,i The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's second partial initial deci. yU.dj.f,.jM;]j,$.k.".6,' l(4;..W@g?-.@.*:s sion in this operatirag license proceedmg, LBP-85 28. 22 NRC 232 (1985). The

y. '?$-Mwet %.W. i.'-

Appchl Board also affirms the lower Board's license authorization granted in its r Odi. c< initial decision, LBP 8511, 23 NRC 294 (1985). qf'd, ALAB 852,24 NRC

".. Q';p c. h M Q'j q pg,' '.

V: 532 (1936), which affirmation the Appeal Board had withheld pending comple. tion of review of tlus decision. a,< M., e...w. g i. 9 c.5 5 A. g 7..t , ;,g.g.. .p;. ff W .t:y;%. # -.e a @...... gwM '...u .2M..:v.... e u.,1.. %, yv : n a,. n.. a M fi'd:N,I.k.M, w,@. I RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS %h'c..-/ r. d. sc... .:yr A party's failure to submit a brief containing sufficient information to allow an k'Q iDNN@kIk#jgMJ f"MN'Mf E$Md.9M *id? appeal board to make an intelligent disposition of the issues raised "is tantamount M M $ n-h; d i n % N: to their abandonment." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Strtion. Units 1 Q gipn?j?.Q*g. and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,413, reconsideration denied, ALAB-359,4 e W N n fl,,Q'g2. E. $.. y!n. 4q /.:.* iu p a "*i',, ;, 'h.7f.um !f,yy;.%'S[h 'Dr. Regmald L Gotchy mgned from the Appeal Pare! October 1,1986, and he is, therefors, no longer a member of the Board. d:. gw;*g.. r,~.'*~,.%. a { j' l l

y 1'

W b ? s.. pq t* .L . 1 v e.. y.s,. .ge,.v, IQ7pG$,M.h 'Wy$ WiM'i'$:$ s. 5, b ,@. m. a' w'g# v:y w$ N 802 .e. k.Q.)'>q;p. h Q: $hh...... $b~!!h..% .P ,,,....%~ h, J. '2.W'.D.'?;,W 9m,_i c'.# gh@.. ....M..,.9.M. h,;,r' hk: .N.vMid ;.i,y& r' sM ? m ...e" $ e,..,...,.. ;.p.e Ma. ..;c#v*,I'pNabno,e"* r g f,,m ,,.a.. y, ,w i r~ Nu r. AM d p. a i ? 4- 'f .3 g

I V

j;w yy,W..tl;;;s,yy.;y-j&lhq....Q.u.. :.3n-:,; ;,u,%,'g G ld.;.p m :,. y...e;e.; x;; ;... y. p.

s =<,,;.;. w m N* b !r ? 3? ! M:j&y%i?m!$&.,,;$g.p$.!.R..Q:,,wh..w f n y.g g W. MMM& MNWB5 F,Q.&.-..Q.- % ; M Q. k % f (; W in%.W.G;;j3 Q+ W ' M '- k i Q $ NRC 619 (1976). See Pennsylvar.ia Power ar.d Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Nn.h.,G.M. W.h.MNh.m.'MW%,'cy.fil.%*Q.'...r ; 4, y.yi. 6.n f, a., 5 Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-693,16 NRC 952,956-57 (1982). J s\\ h+ W.M...%:.:::: y+ p..,.

c. f..g.9 4l u.. w. v..,. w,e g %rc

>r. .,c S-w.CA v? 4Q.. ~j.,g RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS 2; p$ O*gt n, @..O. a.;c.S.4

.r.,S. 1.,,

g.W ,:r 3,t M... - ...a W. y../uWW.. + -- M.iN'C M*. M.7.M Ne,W E*g @" M.%..?p' M The Commission's Rules of Practice require that the appellants " clearly 0 d identify the errors of fact or law that are the subject of the appeal" and "the M< [A.m.in..,"p*. Q R. w'.' M f 8, W.*./ @r m,~d.'N.u E precise portion of the record relied upon in support of the assertion of error." r v fr.n.g.n g 10 C.F.R. I 2.762(d)(1). na

NI?g E.

ri. ' Q $hf,kM'&,@C.;O': 9.%%.v.% % ja.;.

' ?.*^* :.*;:J Q.WG V

M,;g 4'./t.'..Y,Yh.+h] w....1l Q Q Q ;; W9.5r:eg.R..-i. - *M.Mf $.;;N4.Y. l /M. .j RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCOVERY (SANCTIONS) <Q. c.&.;A. ' f -R c.7. 7., %.*fN..;p.y.t 'c%. :.yn. %,.w. %, ?.., The Licensing Board's dismissal of the appellants' contentions for their b.';S['. s; 4 p/5...$ E6M,1 j /O. M

M:1Q;}.W failure to respond to discovery requests was an action well within the Licensing M.* '60.M.E'[Q:...:v.d.Q~,NMl;f*

Board's authority and not an abuse of discretion in the circumstances. See 10 &.,,%.f *..P 7. Q.%,'.U.n.. a /,;,v,

.-.T...d..: .%. ?I.:&

C.F.R. t 2.707; Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CL1-m . W.',.f E.,. d.:. R @y 81-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981). m.,;. d. r.,,.. - !.W.,y: .,, p. f, e,,, -l7 3. " m. b.,..,,o.. p..4 9. "r* s... *. ,7? e.. .j g,,.r,..'l.. -^-.;..,1 RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW j An appeal board will only overturn a lower board's factual findings when .. s.,;..;..? f.i.: fc p - it is " convinced that the record compels a different result." Niagara Mohawk I: * - M.. * , i, ;WJ '/ :,i; 'f a'. :,f,'f. I Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC gy., - s,.j ',, q;,,,ty.. 7,y,.7,. y 347,357 (1975). See ALAB-837,23 NRC 525,531 (1986). . 4... r. .,.. ; m.. )...a ;. ;.; n.,..,.,,'.'..'.,.l...,.. I' ' ~ fg,.. z.,,,. n'.,.:.G

*r.-, y',; c 3 g.;h,4 'I *

...:......,, 2* ' $

'W. RULES OF PRACTICE: SUBPOENA (S) (STAFF WITNESSES) j.: ::?.;.h.*.':j.. ;<;;,>%,:, 9 C,,f,+; M, M ','

. l...'.

The Commission's Rules of Practice provide that, in a proceeding where (N... u".y#p.... J.q.. ' A..,p*.g,e.,4.:.s.v.,R t. t (. ..,.. r. . g., v i,. ,..,1.,;. .pp>e

m..

1 the NRC staff is a party, the agency will make available one or more wit-c g

/y./.'p,l;' g..( v.J, $ ';.," D. W. . r.,' '. M...'.'. M iO; nesses designated by the Executive Director for Operations to testify on the p. , W@. *afi.v.$,.JJ $.M.,,ajf.',1,f,.p... ' j )tf. i N, ; er,,- issues involved. The Rules further dictate that the " attendance and testimony ip3. py'.:< ' - of... named NRC personnel... may not be required by the presiding of- ,. j..j' b,'. V. g 4 *:p"., g, ficer, by subpoena or otherwise,... [except) upon a showing of exceptional ... o 0 *s,. circumstances." 10 C.FR. 6 2.720(h)(2)(i). t g,' ;, .j.3 .m,,...,.... p. :10,. Q.Z,.,'. w.%. g...%.. t ,u....,.. _.s.7;, s,. ,. j.1..a.. g~. p. grc.. v., ::,.,j. :.,n,,~,.,..,.. - g. .y..

4. a....., y;.. g..!.g r.y. e - n.v pS+/f RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS ea ( r.j.. 4:

,: e n n e.. ?. a e:: 4, }; Al g >. p 'l.i'$ The appellants' newly asserted ground was never presented to the Licensing y '. /~, M',5, (h k O. 3 h@ {.b N ',te: % i ' }y[ 'lj f.* Board so the appeal board may not entertain it for the first time on appeal. See Ec h.' '.,;-l.O.{;7c'if.!2.Ni&.. @. f iG.t Duke Power Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-813,22 c.wp;.!. n c.hl.1l.f, M.w..., 'n.6'<fc;.Yd'...,. f,w. t ,w:_.,,,. a. v.;,,..a. s.,- 7. y. p f.i,0.'c'i9'h /.: NRC 59,82-83 (1985). e.. m u. .r Wl$&y,0. 4'.:/ )Q.:t{T)}l&mm?-},$;y&. y. ,.9, 1 7', 803

,.. M s i.: ,f,i&,.

~.... w.. w,,.f. Q:p f.7. ~c ye.v. ;,Tl..,l,;ff,) g.

y 7*/

.,....s<,~,~S-..,.,s. g.. p.... ,. c.g gm.. g p .u. e:.m.. ..u.w.x...n.n v....:,:c;%. ;"(y[~l6C *%>'s.. k U.*-i'N. v.,.~ ,t..

- uk,.,I-&p.

e Y.V*Y ;n.fi l ,[f.'f.,. 4 i.ml;:.$...A w *.p. ,1

e.

v a u h' I .m dCrQ,&pg* E p g. g er f s WE . 0.y g'f.{ };;?W".':uw=?e4.';.pMf y;p m :,r ;.W)m.'y. qj~n.7s -roc.m-r*3, .w%.a%*.p4'r* sy.p ;. rw d Ay:,.e&a 4'.p.p!:- ...s. q.p.3 gw. 1...o.4.m..,.m. n.. :,, -r ~m.~ o.,.o,.m.m,...y.,w,.s. pw:. n,.. .,,..s..w.,p:n,,,#.,a.,.e, .p,wm,, ,W... ,tp m.:. w .. m. w.s.._. ~, y..-.. m :.;, w... a. m. n h.7 {l....c.3..m... a. ,m ,g m,, e. ,.g ~ .4 .m..

m. m 1e.

2.9 w. e~....B.. .n /l ;n m.,. h.... W..., Ws. a G.. M. W... ' 7. lf *'rf.m.. m~.We.,~.. : s..n

I ?., "*'}.. ~, O ',W. * ' ' ' ' ' ' 'w' ' G',

. s.. s %.

'.A' n**

-l' Q $ *l '{. [ . ' * 'W \\.' ^' ,a .Q 3 ' ?. l, )" \\ % ) '4 l

...p,.,;.%ql:liW%,,n.?li%,,y... Joy e,MW4W:m e.#... :1c(.? w h.m..um,'..

~'ge '!w.e y,.: .m.. ".. i' f "' :k,.m,.. w

.,.n.. ..., ~.... ,.,. &w. d;:WM:m;4;.. M Vi'iMuwW %,..... s.V.w.&,.: *2 L,:M. m '* j4 ..p e

c c

-s .&v s . AMM' s s s

t. ;,s y :9..,,, -

.:. v.m. Mc Q4.h:.D M.v.y,.q..>%.c?gm%.9M..} s. y qoi d4 &v.p;~%a&y)p@M: &w W g ni i yM.menLeqpwqpp.wQ vWW;:.:.w+ .. e #: W.. g M..L. @c.rh.s. n8 9 s:sBW$n;..e.r.m.:W.s.n.n: .,9 i rw % M .s; m e m qfpt:.s 8NTriM -4. w.4 PW-o.,w.w..ma/.q. h .. u :y e p.. v e.: w *s. $.:, ef ...1.w.. m.u. s i ,r L. w.p, w,J]_~.y,/d;./* g. A 3.....m?? :.W$g'. x s,.,w f. r.,.,e.,:.* 9 ..,1 ..n,n.-m:.*+ty:4 ,n %'Ca. '.;.?.?. L'l e ..W. A .a.9% W.:. n : u..,+;;:2:.a,,.u, n'..r:n v. 9... ~%. !..;.; ~ T..m..:.a..... .c:

c.,.s.>,hh sc m:. n.

... e h, M. M,.i dii M ."E',.,;s REGULATIONS: INTERPRETATION (10 C.F.R. f 20.4) f @. u Nve 49.D.,,@;: t. a;.: ,p:.. t: v.,. r.p..Y.i.;.. m, W e. W i. The Commission's regulations,10 C.F.R. il 20.4(b), (c) define units of radiation

$.'/*?'.

sr. dose. not in terms of absolute values, but as a measure of the dose received: "The rad... is a measure of the dose of any ionizing radiation to body tissues ilC,[:.:T5..:L/ M...*[v. N .D$

. n.' M BN M&*4 9..

'W.; (/j,r'Jf.W1,tg,., .. ? .q, in terms of the energy absorbed per unit mass of the tissue"; and "[t]he rem [ U.Q:{f.^]ft} 'i.{.l.'. p. p & 'jj. ... is a measure of the dose of any ionizing radiation to body tissues in terms .fg Q f,W;$l. of its estimated biological effect relative to a dose of one roentgen (r) of X- .,A'p3: F M. Q'; g Q g" M ' M. y. W, g rays." (Emphasis added.) See also 10 C.F.R. [ 20.4(d). It is thus apparent that W,n.A. dd. t',7.- W...z,,. e p ...'.. J ..c the Commission's regulations, in setting dose limits, speak in terms of measured .4b.YO!.YM.N>.,.',f.? m.: c. Or..,' doses, not theoretical absolutes. = ;.a.m.d. %..,n,. :.. pr. :. e.,s.f x~ 7 :. iy ;; ;m p. e.g,..y q..v:f,w.p;n.. y .Q:::g.,4 ?.;: 'y..

,... y s.

3.:,[.yg e.y.... ::~ /. ; ' y; o. 3.~.

APPEARANCES .{.y,.g,i;j.il;;;[.{f{g:I $.'U.I; ".g.,.,I.,..! f.M.. S.n. :n ..ma.>..' - w: ;> a. - ~. ~ . >.i. M.,.; : John Runkle, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (with whom Wells Eddleman, ?. %-N.' ' J. 2 .c .. Te W > / Durham, North Carolina, was on the brief) for the intervenors Conser- ' W "9.!'s.M ' 'n '5' r.~W ' ~'3' '.G.,': J 'a ' vation Council of North Carolina and Wells Eddleman.

f.. --

.. s 7. 9 v.- .. tv e.n..,...,. e.A .ie ts [Kf"1.k;@....,....W,; 4 4 Thomas A. Baxter, Washington, D.C. (with whom John II. O'Neill, Jr., k'[l.4. ~..'.k';.. P. '.-(1,,%..," 4 W"M ' ....W 4 iN.: ..J.K...,'~~11" Pamela IL Anderson, Michael A. Swiger, Washington, D.C., and F.U:i,,M M);m,'/.N '.. v e. Richard E. Jones, Samantha Francis Flynn and Dale E. Ilollar, ."...fw.M'()c%'i,-M'. l.* h i,'h Raleigh North Carolina, were on the brief) for the applicants Carolina t Power and Light Companygnd North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power [.):?,'.Q pf..f':fyk,1:%'/. T'G. ;.F ;'y$.A. :-l5. M. O '... Agency. ..:va:ya ihS. M....ia. :... ;:tr. e, p,, .,... ; ".... : r..:,. %,'.

M.S.";?.h,E il

?.l[4.. ,.a .a 'C Charles A. Barth (with whom Janice E. Moore was on the brief) for the ,6d .'-\\ V.iD.c. ;, *.. e. 9:.M :.h'r.w [ Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. M. g.e ,,s.Q.-.+?." W &.< N .. y, y.

f..,~.,s...,

.~1 ; ',' n,..<. v.. s:e. ne r r.&.A,., ;. 2...j?' Y D n. s

e...,.x*. '. >s.V. v....,

DECISION W. #2 .w.c. n... g':.wV! M N %..,y. ;,u.*. ..o.wn..e ;,;w.m.n,.*.C,a w:s y ys .. c. <j...

. e..;:,

W%,, /.1.;.y..f,,. y.@ .h.. h', N. v. .u'. w. .. m.4 We have before us the consolidated appeals of the intervenors, Conservation ..f: 7 g...- Council of North Carolina (CCNC) and Wells Eddleman, from the Licensing

i;d M.

^ 1,l'Jt),,*v$c;*>,,N. $.k$6*sN.,..yk/M., . f. Board's second partial initial decision resolving in the applicants' favor a number I @[N, $. r of contested safety issues in the Shearon Harris operating license proceeding.8 On .q .. 'pp.$ m..)Ir.% W'W,V.p /d. appeal, the intervenors complain that in earlier procedural rulings the Licensing .rJ/ b...d. 5IU.(f .,., m . ' %y /.m '.%,1,. Board erred in rejecting a host of their proffered safety contentions. They also byt fE %g?.l.(>'.%p&,M,.% '..+ 2'f assert that the Board erred in granting summary disposition against them on e.v.c;... c.'y,W'df Q p.:A pp:gg-(~k :7 A y,y

u. X s.

w-s . d. O%.. +% a, f[*N.}'ki').IhN,,.'D [E, ,p."yI.;cy.m.. m...n.,< 1see t.BP45 08. 22 NRC 232 09E5). N. Ol@ g.n.,,v....Mt pi. w...,g,h..sw . n. m ^. m v. ~, e.u..~.. g :.t p-r.m. *y ,.. m . a ; ;.~>u-v p..a t. . - r*.m. s pr .?P M, M ". N.@. ..MM.

p. v,.4. g/. w, c m..&,'.k.

SO4 y

n. r. t =.j:,f,:,*m*

W'%.'.1,W

/ t' Y e > q. -

.. = ~. t g

n.. <.,y, e.. y. n: s,.. y, n: u. n.,m. < :..,.,,, s. A

3.,:u9l. %;..,u.. % n m..;ip. n..

3, W y. b@.J.D$W MrE!M GWi"" W.t,w;'r.y.:s,y;, q i< p p %n fiY m..&.n.p? w u nM'en:.g,# c .y i .a.a.3 n. y. ~10,&r ~y.. 3&,+n.., p

h..,, j@.w.n@a,w%

p ~

s. yym:t.t h.we.W.m. P C':g ;W.mppy:p,Wh...:.rm:gpyg,y.;.y@C.s? v: [

m f s y g- ,. w. .q.u w. W.. m m. a, .y W ,,.* j .v.*

~.%,'.

.e ,.y,..s'.u. ,.l.. . *~ ,At e., o ,.,..."*,'*r'. .d- .s-2 m .1, =2, = %=

s t 4 MMEM; @dMMM. hM B M M M, R hih. h h ffl $d*&@fh>I.'eld[@Mdeb. h,I M k'? % ) l G W *?p & ' v' & k?Qk b. U h.,..,#.,4..;A. "hmu[.hyM.p n.lk.W.* w.M;k T W[ fWW p#ry L ds Y Wf ?, I*,, o..'m.' 5 m. s',.. .. y.Mr !.e* /;..c..,k,,. >m43. r%.r.$ r, 4; a 4.lm.p.pp;W,V.,.,s u* r hf,#'27, MM@&{!,'Np.y -j..m%*Q;.W;ily::m.%, A r 9,,g~e:,.n... p. ,a .:g N. s.y h. phd ft an additional number of their contentions. Finally, the intervenors challenge the S@yh, h. h;'.N,Mhr. '.T."$$*Q'M0 j'*

Board's findings and conclusions on several issues that went to hearing. As W

j yh>N..'.@. :@. explained below, we affirm the results reached by the Licensing Board in its .?d.,. * .f., oy!$.h.,m ..[', pQWWp;&..y-q.;Qp&.'.lp,5., +Mw* uh,.y - it ,.0,,f.l second partial initial decision. n,...Q'",M;&,y,1,*.t*c = v' .M:.?;'Q' *,,f];'.C.fg'l 4

s?..

rr.s. tj 9,n,,,. 8,.;.3, z;,(,m<s; %p.y..c.g'm n,M..,. [t e 4. 4 - ya.v ;;., a ;r.e .p.. ,- e x y' y;p:.%. q:Q,Q, , 33z.q 'Wi"'.?!d,;iM'O Fp;$4';bf,E,%.f3 %.'U/ Fr"6.Q MNJ74i.' i In their brief, the intervenors claim that the Licensing Board wrongly h M O!.[Q', M @ @b $ U.h d.$"?' N @M excluded many of their contentions as well as several contentions introduced h.h.N;i;h.7,;,.My:q.h*hMMd,M./N by other intervenors who are not parties to this appeal. 'Ihe brief does not state .w,M.g,,m,,..,i f., qs; y,,'.' c g'3 the grounds for the Licensing Board's rejectior, of the contentivns or why the M,M. ',i;..., ~.d.va..,U... y e, s f. S,..q,M'$.TlW;.N... m p.myJ. Board's rulings are erroneous. Indeed, the intervenors do not even reference ';t * ? pN:j::c. q.c.. .Q...F.QW..,Jr9,,f. a 2.:d..,~h..M, n. .Th'.D.,W..e P '..y;... :,pf . :6.iM. all the Board's rulings rejecting these contentions.2 Rather, the intervenors w/'c r simply make declarations such as "the CHANGE contentions on failure modes .;. P N M ~j;M h,[t h.$ k..p$ pf;,,. W. A

KH.T.y.Q,..

n..., cs l &..w..

4,,@a and QA (14,16, 23, 25, 26) not withdrawn are good contentions," or "[t]he

t n

$.%3.d Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) issue on Contention 115 is ,; y!?.: J.9 J adequately specific, and the denial of hearing on unresolved safety issues q 'g y[.9.f',% Y,J,,. 'q, sM'g. ',t gf i , j < ;1. @,Q (Contention 107) was not proper."3 Even putting aside the improper attempt $chtd*' I)9,k/hh/,'h/J.'[h;; of CCNC and We'Is Eddleman to appeal the Licensing Board's rejection of contentions that they did not sponsor,' the intervenors' bare pronouncements, 5T.N '.d;d:cN [P.*p','y g.(J; g

h

2 'c{el M?, Y.M.

..,y;]/.F,] without more, do not qualify as legitimate argument and adequate briefing under ,/) i lg/p.c.S.4 2.., '. ;, *g;?Q[/.] the Commission's Rules of Practice.s The intervenors' failure to submit a brief l', / e llWfyG, ;'p/. l';f containing sufficient information to allow us to make an intelligent disposition ,t.Y.,['O'N M ddj,J j,,'( 'I'f":/ 1 of the issues raised "is tantamount to their abandonment."6 Accordingly, with , (.,.c.,y*g i W, * " j;.,,* '.M ~ < y,

h. c. 'i.e.%-

the ex. eption of those contentions noted below, we deem the intervenors' appeal .o h,n ?.;i.s d.M,p>,*g'6,,f. 4,l..t ;.,g.jKM.M yl:'.4 W#C,l4.'c

j. '.i,,M e.,2,9 i,.i of rejected contentions waived.

a$ y.f .y 4 Viewed most cimhably, the intervenors make a minimally adequate argument , t.,.*;. .J with respect to the contentions listed in their brief as Eddleman 132A,132B, "g;;,,,C ;/ '.i, p,. ,(;W;A... w,i.. N 132C(1) and 132D, concerning the Shearon Harris control room. The intervenors t&

E r' g ' K E f },i.','7;'[,;(.,",[ @ % () @},y claim that the Licensing Board rejected these contentions "on the grounds that b',';$.Nh. :.!'.6 s# dNY:

g the Staff is to review the matters in question."' They then argue that the "[u]se ?.. ::E,';:'c M. ;S@*.;i/.% '.f.,@; *A; %. Uc t; of pending Staff review as a means to avoid admitting contentions is not proper"

:G

'\\r,* !p% ;,. '* 1,l' : ; W. ;, ;,;%,. * ' in.:.,,i az.

v :-

J2 'j e.%.. .v c s p .3., it'.' fil,,,..c$,,a';,,!;..'l'?'M U.;. 3J'?.1 ' ' g^. [.' 2 appears that the imervenos acek to challerge the Licenstng Board rulmgs cantained in 1.BP.82119A.16 1 '* V ..5.,C; (*; Y,0*** W 'j #,.,, - / b(r yg.: 9 7.$:.63 NRC 2069,2083 2108 (1982), and its Memontadum and Order (october 6,1983) at 210. ^J,#.( (g'y 'p"p'N,,.};*.(..; t 4;;*'i .,G.,,,,i,! 9 {,,(, 6,, 9 *n' ~ iffp 3 1memon' Bner(october 8.1985) at 2122. [N,.llA[S;Jl.' h" (f' i *. '.h; ;!.. -l. 4 '.Y ' 3 h $,*M & Powr t's. (Allena Creek Nuclear oenermung stauan. Umt No.1). AtaB.631.13 NRC 87,89 (1981). 5,e ALAB 843,24 NRC 200 203 n.3 (1986); A!.AB.837,23 NRC 525,542 n.58 (1986); Nourron Ligassag C. J.ll? @M.,4.n(; h. j,./~j. * 'I [/; e#*,+;'t/g .i.'J P 3,e 10 CIR. I 2.762(d)(1). 5 W, e '.' '- l@'l,9 l, 6 UQ'8 'g,%* } Q.,)[*,$ *.jp? .M.f i DuAs Powr Co. (Catswha Nuclear stacon, t!mia 1 and 2). ALAB.355. 4 NRC 397. 413, recosuiderosion / N.' M(rJ.,.$ f 4. 'lj .[, ?Y *, ', denied. A1.AB 359. 4 NRC 619 (1976). 3,s rena ylvania Poi.er and legat Co. (suaquehanna steam Electnc 8 ,.. '. 5, Cl.., g stauan Uruta 1 and 2). ALAB.693.16 NkC 952. 956 57 (1982). W::l.nf'%,4{.*ft. P -W. $ *i? 1mervenom' Bner at 23. c.'c:*if.W...~.. n..u .,,. : v.?,...y$. :.1%. a.a.,iy:~ '.'., W..,,. c.y ;l.1 .~a 2 Gy r. 4:' w n n... . a.. :. ..g ,p',CN % 4:.;;;&:e *ik:::v ITF:'$h,u. M',h*T.s.'l.s.. A,' m*.!.,9~'yi,h'M.N.N.Yh:::,i$805 .',s...s. M:..v;r ,,a w4"< = h (; - v m N:.;y,q% Q' ^.S,M *. i:**-O[*';. ',0.k ,'. 3. d..,l. 2. t.e,r* N. q.D. # i.;.,,h[k.s {= 6 2*- a .W W,Q, . i m.. .s .s %.9 t,b,..~,*,eq.5f. t * *> ?h., E. ? .0. * *.t' *.yl. f..g,Q*'%s ?.)ll:}? 1 [

,w,. m* g.m... ce "p,.

v r -s ~ .g. k:kh*a :-3S p N.?? a.&y.m,?,;y;%. M. !L.!@z;N.w.kf W*Q'/CC'&~W %t.f.iid%.\\,

w Qg t,hb.*.s.4.'d WM'Th C E.

'eT 9 i h y..% O hp .- MW: g,.. f.%o e d.u. 4 P

M&.,,f"w,t.a.QMr.L. g:

, t.. 'r."g? W'S g, s.,,A,.w%%r. .m wr; vG.t.Q.,p n .e. A

wc t e.1,1.h. %.m..

w. m+,. .4,. n~ % p.e $

h., 71;.., ~ W...e.

cc ..w o t ... :.~. e .v pw. M. ',.,A. t@", y@. 9 G, M.... ' M. s. ,y.q..g L.K.., J 4 ~ g.~ i s '; mi s;. w.t, mJ.~%q%..e:.,;~.,c., :u@,;f.,.a,,f.., s v %.. ;p. *. ,, %.;tp b~. y.n;1 e.~.:w. :w:'*n...W:.r.o Q3:.M.e.. y.n'.. t in .... wr N e.. s. s .... :,.. :'.,,. n ?. ';;.&. p ~ - M.i +,.. - : v... y n..gsi, '..., ~g ~,p:,.~,v. > ( z, .a..., s.. ~.. W., s..,, : y L,, . vl. 'm. J,.;k.~.,.Um. y V .. p(.:a.

s. t. c.

..r .... W:

~

.'l.~* ? ...v : c .w p %,wdy>:n.h,;g<sl-.,a c . 2. w :- ~ .; n Y:- r *

g" ' ~

c-t 4

-..,, yd'7.. j.gf,*.T, &p.y'4,. ; 1/3. p" y. {%. ' p W O) g W.n.' /.to.**s i f.f p Y Y:s ~;;.. (-ltr 4. :..T'*~C..'F /6 9-vsp a. s.f].',. 5.P +. > w,. Dt..' t..o .p,y,,.p p, m.,,x s. 9 &. g n?* h.'J.;, - W. % .. Way.- kp ,Q

v. 5 p

.e e f h,, Dk* Y Y .' Y We p.e3 wy*l"s%rf4Whis/td* y* ~.g. l.Mp Mm+me.E' whlfcf.M.4 ~ h* g 4,*%.& ~ ' %., *hi's.*a s ' i w e $. Q N*.r%6>.*Y y *f. 4%' f f E u d. I,. l ff,.y;,%f.?..Ii' i. yj'

k.,.,..*,*Q:f.:; ;;'. t '. *l Y

0 um o. w v. m.. m. m. n% w* y s :.-..uj. sa u..s.,n,. h [.s.. Q.V,,;.sRf..

4 *..

.s y,'2.,.m,.. : w, ' .j. s p ..,h ..mQ ...i. c.,..w v v

24.Tj.

and violates their right to a hearing.' Had the Licensing Board rejected these ?y'"'$1d.fs}r.Q.g;7%f.gi.M.k' contentions on the grounds averred in their brief, the intervenors' argument f Nf. 3 i.d.*.M..M.w, P,f. .N.. t.,'.<.f might have merit. But the Board did not reject the contentions for the reasons .6M b.Mi wA y...M,,.'+.[i claimed by the intervenors and they have asserted no other grounds of error for ,?~~,c.;f.: m 0..S. the Board's exclusion of them.

.- /

, r..r-.o + id.A.*;j @.. +... .q 2@;c,Q,D,k,gg/if.rg The circuitous procedural history of these Eddleman contentions perhaps lU r.+ Fy;I'l Q.' q -lgl<... helps to explain the intervenors' misunderstanding of the Licensing Board's ~ (J. .QQ y/6.y,.% ...;;p $,[ @"DPM'f. O action. As originally proffered by Mr. Eddleman, contention 132 alleged that the +

';.,, '7M%rNN.$tsty design of the Shearon Harris control room failed to meet regulatory requirements w (.p;..W.M.

/WIS r U. r'iW?.f..'h N24 *;. because it lacked sufficient instrumentation to detect inadequate core cooling. It l'4,).~l. l [* 3fJ%m$ r4 s. U.g. also alleged that the design of the control room had not been stibjected to .O. *k,.l.W.W W M. a human factors review? Mr. Eddleman then amended the contention to add tg.y.%>,.cA.J.,.1. e'., t..,$ :' y ...,:g,u.M, m.W... .Q l. specific information on reactor vessel level instrumentation.S Although both f"/:.Y%.~.T..:Q. E o'. r the applicants and the NRC staff opposed the admission of contention 132 as 4 N.W... N. g, ;y y 'i.' f;. originally proffered," neither party objected to the admission of a narrowly GMi W. M. !N.-#.WJ M" /h. drawn reformulation of the contention (suggested by the applicants) asserting k ';,m;V N, $@r@l %. F'@ccQ; Id,'l. f*d3i, 'j. 4 7. Q.,'y.,.,,, 8 f! only that the applicants had failed to provide the design for a reactor water level h,{;.:$Qy,'{":,WW.% indicator.u Apparently believing that the applicants and the staff had conceded i?.C the admissibility of Mr. Eddleman's original contention 132, the Licensing Board 1; ' ?. n ;:,'e ;J.t. U admitted it." Upon the objection of the applicants and the staff." the Licensing .o . 4 m. r./ p,,fg.gypi g y (l73[? ?f,Wlj h,.l.y Board reconsidered its prior ruling, accepted that portion of the contention reformulated by the applicants, and deferred ruling on the portion of the original

J;7 ; f.

y,( contention concerning human factors analysis."'Ihc Board also provided that "f0;MMWf . f '. r. % h.'s I'. h h [$ h @ Qlh h Mr. Eddleman could file new or amended contentions on this subject after one of [k[,0:Q the applicants' consultants filed a then-anticipated c6ntrol room design repon.M %.?;@,[

J.'.:$,$,

Prior to the Licensing Board's ruling, however, the intervenors had filed %,'/:T Rg,.M,. '@,C.Q'.W d.'n* @.. W..*.

.,*.W.I.#.

additiona'. proposed contentions dealing with the applicar;ts' control room. Those p.y. $,. qQy.3%;Ql. contentions included, inter alia,132B dealing with the safety parameter display +... m system,132C concerning the qualifications of the control room design review team, and 132D regarding the lack of a control room design review for Shearon QI *&. ; p.:'Y$; %.:*'.?[y' y 6 y?.'W.m.. c......,..,y * %lQ'd8= .v. kM.- g

r.a.

G t i'? p.'D,i. t: .v ?. p *f, j!j,'D(.T,D, n. .s. 3.3.., '... p e, y,%,.a *.., -- t :..., ,..t.., -Q g o );';.c.'t. ..r,+ ...n....,f,,.g g...,, a gM .,, r r ' ..f 2 -J $ %,((d ,g:f; ' supplement to Peuuan to Intervene by Wells EA&eman (May 14,1982) at 239. ,'h 3 , l7%y,/rNgk.. 't 4",.. yr.h;,,9tI. 8 Arnendmmt to Peuuon to intervene by Wolis FAdeman Oune 2F.1982) at 22-23. @%y.%l%piQN,.hl.'* t e II it AM.4 i 9 Off-Appbeams' Response to supplement to Pennon to Intervene by Wells rAdlemar Qune 15,1982) at 145-46; NRC staf Response to supplemental statements of Contenuon by Pennaners to 1mervme (June 22.1982) at 68. U ),[.l . t.,.,ff%rQ ,,f *.Q'$.f.W *: Appbcams' Response to Amedmems (second set) to Comenuans of Peunaner Ws11s IA&eman Quly 13,1982) p{h*/h'., k.Q:N.M.[f;O f'N.YA ".d2.g*M;/f;f'.fy.%.)g ,. ?'g bb,.fJg,Q st 14. Tr 448 50. D i litP 82-119A.16 NRC at 2109. ..f ;4.MtQ(W*j.?[y's!NN'f 7*. 3*See Appbcams' Objecuans and Requests for Clanficsuon Reisung to the Boar (s Memorandum and order d. J. W).y4.,,, t: = ,j,. ('q:rQ p; (ociober 15,1982) at 1516; NRC statt Response to Memonndurn and order (october 25.1982) at 12. .M.,W.,. :*y.y.. '.?.i. -s'd. U W .w ,e-1 Mernorandum and Order Qanuary 11,1983) at 6. w.h. r."l

.l*

v g" .m&,N,ll.hW$w'A5$$. f5h C

r. %

Ly:r. 2.?.,',W y.s :..>..; W.w'p#. 9 +% m.. w.sc, a. r.p3 p..;..n.m "*if,.S n

K % c.%4 7 '.

.s* ,.c i...,g..'t.. o a.*.;<n-p W;A'9@pf6 W..n?m!MM.:ce/ t 806 t ly n y, m.Vi'J %g,e e N6 w.;. MA,n m...ys$,a,,.:*g ..,. ' \\l f. r ., e w .p. L.- 4 e 4 c o. . v., M N. q$;.s. wamWWd&&.WWF.t.c n.W g;s -sM s $.. .W?f Q'M.'li.m&f 1p A%kp' ! o W p w w w p WW m p w @M M TfN N N N $sN M M k NM. N5M..S s 4

I.. q 23 ,..wn h.f $ & n,w wA h &. y n.c, y u, % I.?.e.y.d t%..*NQlw%l$&. Jik,+h , w$ .m ,e.. t. W A.tm.I;f; w-w?n. th: W Mi'.:i~fb.9.. ENM.gsp ~ e m. Mp,.u@sg M M. s@.q M. d '4;,%.W;y,a ;,9 .w: m.9.wyw.yMyM;;1] Harris Unit 2? At the second prehearing conference on February 24,1983, the n /dU.Of MS$74p2l M.N. I.*k;M.IIhhS(d$4'!5.;hi$yyg4 $h , h*j Licensing Board again deferred any consideration of Mr. Eddleman's pending %dd.h**h,f.u;&.Mddb[?@yg@Ts~ @l gg control room contentions. The Board ordered Mr. Eddleman to await the filing CfMN.%,E:D 4 h C. of the applicants' planned supplement to their control room design review D t c d report and then, on a schedule set by the Board, to revise, amend or renew c./n:q.5 Mc. ,.f;..n w wJ.?.4f : cy his contentions on this subj.ect." After another delay m. the issuance of the Asp...fe <:a ;h.?g m(.a.;;: s L;.. 'C.@N/;D..w'r,'p.P..jd.d..,. g.W'fu.i.M;,., SS applicants' supplement, the Board altered the contention filing schedule," and on ed g w.9 .a w t 1 A g..ge.y. >y July 2,1983, Mr. Eddleman filed his revised, amended and renewed contentions $.%'!;o W?:{.'!%%d$????@k;%.;;g@.?q ?.$-J.< b N..hhh @.b'k ; dealing with applicants' control room.2o The Licensing Board then admitted a /dF number of Mr. Eddleman's contentions but rejected those at issue here.21 MMk%?'.[.-ldNhy,)fliS,N; Although Mr. Eddleman's revised filing contained a section entitled "Old I.dM.N(lf.3MNY.'.$.NlG.F.f.M 5 Contentions," he did not reassert that part of his originally filed contention 'M.q'?,? c,9.c..M.;Nk.M'[W; ;, J,@h,D'[ Y ..T.hM'Et concerning human factors review or any other contention labeled 132A.22 By . y..vd,W.h. ;. ', '.,.] w;.if not including such a contention in his July 2 filing. Mr. Eddleman abandoned ../ f..r ..t. ,t .. A . ~. g... n.... t.W...J it and that contention was never presented to the Licensing Board for a ruling & P. gg. .r h' f.,[ h(, +f ' hh:%'..hh'M on its admissibility. Consequently, the intervenors' argument that the Board Nh,' y... d ,. 3. ;. 7,, '..m. c.. ' 'ir.. e.. _ ; g/[e../E c., " y. is totally without merit and does not accurately represent the procedural history rejected the contention because the staff would review the assertions made in it P. '. q e wr -... >p s.

p.. -

.. y. - ?aO1

.?)h..

Dr l'/J.,e ?:

surrounding contention 132A. Q.?N'g'7,7!N.[7';h.,l. r. k '.M6,J.;. ;.f q , ! y.h. a,., m W;. Nor did the Licensing Board reject contention 132B for the reason claimed > u. Q.... .,3 s,v' .. p. s(3:fi-y,.f..Erl.h.9.. m. p.,.

. 4. ;., / N..a o~

M. c.o..,,. 4,.y.,cyj:,., ",.. . ~.. by the intervenors. That contention alleged that the applicants' control room u design did not provide for a safety parameter display system as called for by p;.f703 applicable Commission policy statements. The Board rejected the contention ,' J.;/f - ' ;',#,0. c h "'.7,M.jg.g::.T.' O..;,7, j< y. q',,.'. ;[y.;.,. b,'l.;/,.I. M @s F.p. .,R, ' because the materials available to Mr. Eddleman demonstrated that the allegation l. was factually incorrect:8 - a reason not challenged by the intervenors on appeal. 1 - N. w. v Q M.' >'3' d J.f;l & '?;.' 6 3. c.',,

d../.:1 a..,J, ce ;l7. : t*:#,, tM;, @.,.

Contention 132C(I) challenged the applicants' control room design report 4 .s. on the ground that it failed to establish that the applicants' review team 7C h [4.Q:;/.i

v..'.(!*jk.M,.'h. v.,..,,$.u";.'l'T..'[,M....,j had appropriate interdisciplinary qualifications as called for by Commission y..... t ;. v s

fc.. ,r . e p < s a%.., ;. y. s,,.,. t; -,,,

u.. r,f.....,n,.. !,

. r '.. + 1 .n a,

f 17 See Wells Eddleman's Monon Concernmg DCRDR Informanon (January 8,1983) at 4-7.

).../ /, t', L ep i } l p .fyg, g Tr. MS. 18 '.,.[.1,N'.d; C,.. *P, '.. ? i,f. f p. A'. ';[;.,'. i.,. g. ?J. [J:., 18 LBP-83 27A.17 $RC 971. 985 (1983). .,. f.3'h,M I:f. :. ;h g* ['.1 l See WsDs Eddleman's Response to 1983 Updated DCRDR Including Revised and New Contennons (July 2,

q/..

20 ,y-.

N.

7 4 cr, - /-. 1933), k '." .Wh,$,N.'#N 1.1 ".,.Nl.h.. :. ,h.'[ d*,'.7'"Ih .'. } f[ 21

e.. I'.k."%.

jj-l,.d.h,l'.t i V See Memorandum and order (october -6.1983).

*.
4 -, ' l, tJ..: ** n.-*j ** ' 4 3.. *'c, I".*.

I.2 See Wens Eddleman's Response to 1983 Updated DCRDR Includtrig Revised and New Contentions (July 2. n ;*; ,.i'> 1983) at 5 8. r

p. /g;:,, %('.. J:. 7,. c,". ','.t ;s'+,,

r, ,i 7. 4,, ..i * *,. 23 Memorandum and order (october 6.1983) at 4. 4,... u,. s , y.- e/;' j '.. :4,...*

,': '. ***

N.; } ",g; ; '. ',q' y,.

g.: *.c.. 1 i t-Although no other assue regardmg contennon 132B is before us, any quesuon regarding the correctness of the ef

lL'f,.1 ' *i~." <'. ~'*

Licensing Board's stated reasons for rejecurig the contenuon as largely acaderme in light of subsequent events. After i Ci.Y.'/p/ *k.., '/ '.! :-;it'. (e..',/,"f*:.,((., N,;.h'J, .'. tf ?., rejecung the omtmuon. the Board ordered the appbcants to pmvide Mr. Eddleman with a copy of the safety t. '},. analysis for their pmposed parameter display system and gave him a further opponumty to file contenuans on the 7.h *n f tP;.js.f I;.Q;f v.?.,."lX ' f 't ff'j t.!.:4'u.'4 Sf. adequacy of the system. Mr. Eddleman filed such contenuens (see wells Eddleman's New Contenuona re spDS ,hf..,,.,'([? ;. : W@e ' 7, [.,'f /d P a [MT ; y'56 j ;t['j;j,[? 6,'g,[}~#.;,,- %'.*[g, /. N /.'. (January 3.1984)) and the Board rejected them (Tr. 773). although it once again gave hun an addinonal opportueuty C j!.M. to bolster his proNered contennons - an opporturuty he never pursued. Mr. Eddleman h4s not appealed, however. 55'?N.'h. :kJ. @&,5 &,h. gym.,.+..rW,m.,.h..;s t...C..r.;n, c.,$ ?,?,5-f:.h ' ' ' * * * " ' " " ' ~ * * * * " ' " " " ' ' 2 v. 3 - ), n. . t..t,...,. <i *,4..;'.a*.. a' ~. s,, W:*. G..i .a ..w.. _ 3. s ,).... s..w... n )N.,s.Y*'MN:* u ve.. '.i dh. ['[r..,S ;Iy. 807 sj )q:'4,A.L. c..o. 6(.I.Q.W.'Mb. q.;. w.. '.?.; .T c.n w =%;. if.Qt.nih. ~;;,: ;? Mdity.y *K&. l:W.%r,f. 0 .drow , u:... 1 e, d,y $%,70$W$$$f'c@Q.WW;f. ?. BQi fc % p w,& va # r.e. W g 9 M p%:*; h N,f3! ,,w.m. .aym. m.--.n '%fh' NS 'yp'DdiDT,Ni". kN.$.bmam .m.g*'.w'{).. k h'O.'IhfM. N.~&.',h ikN/ d 1 O-M M b M:hYh.hN. <. k$h.,.O.5f' . ':W $.,s *,

fl N.m,y.M,7

.J t ',m.,. ' 's ' ' 7,:n.n. m' f 'v.* * ' ' " m' ' 2 ll.,' *. ' ',) h*'n. t.:. ~* a t + -..,. v'.. ~** e. . tl Q ..vy, . -. - \\

K', *vln 7,.

..e -q. - ..r. s s -

/.4,w.m.g. %.lt. ;,: N;,.W.: G.4M. Uf.,a.W,y,qW..:MC.

%jh?:nn.%.:,%;u%, WMMQa!p:p.:p ?MRQ A N kbNdlbbhN' N,,...w Wp,.m:m,in.,;w., t.I,u. .x .s k. . a.n,:, vgy %n g

w %w.m.. u y.n:..n. c.:. :,,,. m: ;.m n.S.. m;; s.,,,s.

,:n%a. >,..yy>,W>,+m,,x.w/t.;:.n.yf.,. w .y mgw:.Qw: y:. .;~J.p . 42 ,~4 y w. y.. g. ; .gn.; c.q:

y..;:

., o:.g:g. mJ.q.x;,;, n.gc.@ n,,pms w..., vb:: .a .,,w

t.s.n. w., w, Qk -u. e N. DIN..,,

m-t. hf U bdY.h. pt hd.$5N,N..n.,. : < .+ e. :... m w q. w... +..w..:.n, h. k.,. A..,., h.x .n n .:s,;m.. u. ~ p.- ..y. .a,,b y h c m h.r k[h. s,r s: W.$.g., Ah m:.#pM 6kV,W 3.M ct-

rq$lM, 4:.%%.;;'i.;.%..u pw E

.. e.. a... e:m. :,.: m ?.,. h. v.....u.,c.,h.[h,h,. c; w...n.a,..g. ,.,.v... v.,., 4.... c .o c y[.M'g"[.. .(r[- W/y@'M %.),Q,'.. policy. Here again, however, the Licensing Board did not reject the contention for ! g. ;,*;';*). 'y. ';..p i.ali the reasons assigned by the intervenors. Rather, the Board excluded contenuon @.Q,-1,'Ri j b 132C(O for a lack of specificity because it failed to dispute the credentials of any members of the applicants' review team;2' and, on appeal, the intervenors Y p ' M.T.':.. M. d.'.""Z G.-% W,':- N[ M,I'(' '.)"@'1 M $',1* $ 7 have not questioned this basis for rejecting the contention.

.f'yWp 'M'g;.:

M:.h,";j,Q'Jg?,..' b. O-@ j ;;3', Finally, contention 132D, which alleged that the applicants had failed to per-form a control room design review for Unit 2, was withdrawn by Mr. Eddleman 7A.'#; 6 W'P@;s' M.o .. 2...(Y . '. A,f... in his July 2,1983 filing." Ilence, it was not rejected by the Licensing Board 'P...,..'.e. Ey. a ~ 4. ', '.;m.,.r.','A, W<,.Sl Nb'i' Y. ,W for the reason asserted by the intervenors. Although Mr. Eddleman proffered .c..a$ a N., WK.. Q.~..Pf,,' : a revised contention that he denominated 132DII, the intervenors have not ap- .( .. +, ......e... . '. f.'r 8 t yf3C. c'.(.,< y.v pealed its rejection.28 In any event. the applicants' canec11ation of Unit 2 makes f?' !, *

i. Nid.'.k -l M '.il all questions concerning that unit moot. Accordingly, the Licensing Board's re-S % ',,y. t. s.. <, i.,,.. [T;e

.s. 7,.', M jection of Eddleman contentions 132A,132B and 132C(0 is affirmed. . YY','..Y.N Y,,...,.,., ~. ..,.,.s. ..,...c. j.. ....~ .g 6 MM Q,yy.y ? S 5-:?.Y, c W IL

..:.c.:.>.lQ

c, ~ n s, -.m... s. vg...

~ . n. v. The intervenors next assert that the Licensing Board erred in granting various h c.d jJ.l.r,.,.:f.9,.,, ty,W, <^ : G...'5: y m.. a. i .r. .r of the applicants, motions for summary disposiu.ol by holding the intervenors '.L"', *S 'i.y' ',;"..1. ',. y r v.

s. ;,

t a b JU., < 6. ',,

.y,; to an unreasonable standard of proof. Once again, however, the intervenors' '.. ',.d..~* * ;. ;.. ?..' ' 3.,.. w,.. 4. arguments are merely a disjointed miscellany of charges. g,4: 4. < .;.t. v, .,, c. 3.,, In their brief, the intervenors first assert that by admitting their contentions, . T. ?, '..

,sM.,

.t" 3 the Licensing Board " recognized that there are issues of fact inherent in the C. 'g.s s c. contention."27 They next state that, in order to prevail on motions for sum- ,M... 'n s' N. :s.. ;.'.,,c.". '.%,s,? '..&,.W W F'k.p," p*n.y'A # Q 4:g,jp s. G mary disposition, the applicants have the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact; but here, the Licensing Board " required '.yli.f 1 T y' $.. '. L. M.9;;... M.K....i,/.. f.,.%..'.L.-f.s. an unreasonable burden of proof of Intervenors by ruling for the party who t

i. '

, n. presented the most or weightiest evidence," instead of determining whether .h', Q g su r,1, G.s M ' Q Jf M,.,,1.a,.! 1 .,S ' / @ g* k y f Q f f,' y' M e3 p % there were issues of fact or law to be heard.28 They then claim this "stan. dard for review" applies to the Licensing Board's grant of summary disposition ,Q-[l, A !,$g%.g%(,.1.W/,$qQ*/%"$ 'l,Q'g)$ y 3 cq;< of Eddleman contentions 11, 29, 45, 64(f),132 and 132C(ID and joint con-tentions V and VI. This assertion is followed by six short paragraphs of one, two j/ K'.

,;/ ': :

W, G.', : & C:'i M ;.Qj,j W L r: A..L.t w. :.;d. ;i.9.t... e. e a +t.. ; 7 r.r,.:.',. p 7. ..,........3,a. 1..s r ( %..,. a 3.

s: 2..' (,%...',.2. i.p..;;;?. )

. '=.en.J s..

2. : ::- *;

c.,. q e ).S.5.o,.r..'l,E $ h< b.. w.:$ .b: %,$'ff wi?,i,'),?.i...j. 'a.. A-.A 4 .M. c** ;... :.g. v... dN*[c d W.1$, $:W(' . i /72,'c',Q/.[Q; a. 6

. s 4...

s,.i 24 k.,j p %.'.' i,';i. Q i Memomndum and Order (october 6,190) at 5. E D :e Wads udieman's Response to 190 Update.d DCRDR incluchng Revised and New Cmtentions (My 2. [%'9 < Ic"s J ,.-.b'2,,W;**bgr.,'( $' t t s 4.,., l 90) at 7. .}..',f. ' I.h.:' %,;',y.[il][.[j '.. 4 '. v. g '_..I'h 26 Sie ed.; Memonndum and Order (october 6.19D) et 10. "immens ana.t x i,.. s.. N..w 3,, eM.y m. ;.' c.;; p**.s*v~*k - . I.=.e*. 4,. yc[*,.Q h. 28 g at 3. .'.}

p *... g

7. *,,.a 3 '

1..

.c . jW *l;;;'n'.,~ ?,... a.. i, ? :,n;* q'. y e... ,.C..*. G. 5 p ::(?... i;,. r . p~ %s, %. 3.' set % w,g I V, ; %. ;- w,.. .,.,. r. 9,.. u!x *.J'. 4 " **

g u y.

s h - U.;*.*;J,h. u. *.e[J?J,,M.. N 77.,;*+4.'.(J ,. m... u.)Yo,(%.g'[ 4 W. / ' ':. ~ c i). g r;c pr.,-,* /.,.,f".#f ./P.='. .(3 .. *p.t.w..s a .4 p,.m. .g. ..a 505 ,. o 7,4 ' s.. g. ft ' W" S',:.'..;l& +'N '.;y ,6. q.g* I * ~ ! * g - C.," *.s K'% e i t' +.a,. ?.J (d.'J: . b 3..s. ' ~$ y. ' 4 f. *;%e a.m e%.M

Jf.

e, s. te.n - g,7 rw. y.:t Eh?, *'UA '.C *Y f,W.*hE*U*kh,Q&.)(& N ',hc'.. . v,.n.s >,..~

X V f.f,Y."!p th n,..%'rj'W.e.t!M;;MTV-:g.*;.Y.tyLW,Ct.7:.W'X;M A'q:"9lmt::o'r.3;q.Y*'g

...,.. ' :, :..'lf *.

h.,;g w< c s.

t y,a < ys g y '13 9 *' #7 **^ * ?;p; N L* .-,.~5.; n,v.Q. !,.", /., -*. h hhN.hy~. ~ ~*(;y:.n* bDhh., %u.a.w,.t.,,... s n.. s..h,. a . : t,t

:t Q i'! [ h..... m;s. g S.~

..,:n:. 'q.,:,... 5.. %w:/.p p "..w a :. n.4., h M[aE ,. :-: WS%.a.G.

w. w.,

.:*y *~c, u.,,%.0.. p, m.k.,'~O..m.p e ~r ; n,L

~.r..

. n ..~. ,n

9' 'N '

',[ N,'i.. h ;e;; p .q yo o y. ,..v.- 3 ifl.! '% N- ,.kMb'[ .a e .h

i N.,, k,, ~fm&. m.#:W.. A> W.e,.,,+d.>,.,n'd.@e #* Mw* hdM k a. r 1 6 w i ~~?.5. A._f,,..,. a!.. 4.s,.,. ~}r.r. <,. g,j y v.3 p krl:Q' '.h1p% !,a:n,Q,u~*:h+@: Y0W?sem..s.(G Q. 'f'* >? s e, $. t;-&s$,.M N'$flE Wl.'N.Wl.5.':ll,C~y:w. : I W . RW U 2 '2' ) v w{,b.O *b' ' h%.i,W M.h.j,h)N)",,h@.N( /[, h.k;'J@.3. N,I bN.N W c w j d.Yi'y'1'L'Jft i d or three sentences containing various purported claims of error for the listed $ k) 4.M k : h kp; contentions." w'3.,.jm nw. i.y.ly',m.. h y@,6

L.y.k.W.iM?G....M' h.. -

p,.V.@,i Nowhere in their brief do the intervenors explain, for example, what genuine { P f , r' *y.MW..- s,., v*.,.w.: %, s.. a.,c..M.;.. Wv,,,..Vk'iG."..d,(d c c 1 ,m. issues of material fact the Licensing Board overlooked with respect to each of

c 1

h :'.s:u:7?q,, %,A

p. p these contentions or how the Board placed the burden on the intervenors. The

$? j. i-d .VT; il. intervenors do not mention the detailed affidavits of experts filed by the ap-

9..' 'M..,i. e:.3&c:Mg,;.. a.y. wg..,;

g;n:n f q,.p.gyg%m, /p,..w..;Td.. plicants with their summary disposition motions or suggest how the applicants j 4 .q .r ^.p,es jQ@. f..,.u..s. e,.....,~,.... r .s .#p..,_ W,,,M failed to meet their burden on each issue. Indeed, the intervenors do not even $.. ?b, dt;$.@,5..G@1'@M,,!M. $y@+(*pE.lN<.,&].

.3J

. iy rT.E N N note the subject matter of the contentions at issue, much less reference the Li- .4,.W.$.M.. ;. 4,cV.,$m. W.D,M f, D,* e,,. . M..,RM.Q[ hp. censing Board rulings they purport to appeal. Thus their brief does not comply f, ..;..} W e..' C. r{9 with the Commission's Rules of Practice requiring that the intervenors " clearly i y t. $?.i@h;f[O[3[.bNNfd'Y.V, JF..h.gF.$',$y Precise portion of the record relied upon in support of the assertion of error."" 7e ' .;;.J Z W.%..CI identify the errors of fact or law that are the subject of the appeal" and "the b h.d. e..,.cg% ) d '$.o.. ,3.;c.J.w$..,q,Y:.'c..;f.*.',a: *c.W... :. V J The intenenors' arguments are so woefully deficient in setting forth information . q.c,..,mfa ; y,. .s..C.. W I, suf5cient to allow us to understand their allegations of error that we deem their % 9$.'d @:g r.. M. m.. .e ;... v. /P .$hil.U' M,,.raz ,.p w

n..:-

M.

i appeal of these issues abandoned."

J.N.N.QN'M@ji,$ $,h' vyl,.%4WT[.f.'kN.fi.$.,'",{ j.ll, Even though the intervenors have not briefed adequately the issues they seek

P!f

' k: : M $ to raise, we nevertheless have reviewed the Licensing Board's rulings and find -.S.E ? V.;.J W,e. y l.e ;a that the result reached by the Board with respect to each of these contentions L,... 'M.M',,M[,1 S @N,N $ h 4 3:[. *,.C..W.7 is correct. No purpose would be served by freighting this opinion with a dis-9M%* $rJ ' k.: cussion of the individual contentions. It suffices to note that the applicants filed . p,',.~ g.f.::.'.. L...;;.., 3. f- , /f ; t,,gt, '.1: motions for summary disposition for each contention and that Mr. Eddleman 4. .gi.g..Z..;,c.,A:l'..7.%.. O,..., .s......e. filed no response with respect to four of the contentions and that his limited -?. p.) ]. 'c. i {,.g gj,. 3 responses to the other contentions were totally insufficient to raise any legal

ML N. 9 issue or to establish any factual one." The applicants' motion papers for each

[l :U". :' N,ry.,. s.! o 7. j;, C.';'.,W' [ f,[ }, :] $'h '..! contention clearly established that there were no genuine issues of material fact k [ M [,4 p Q N V.' E f ' p M ec y Q] ,J - }l (. i.Z,' i .[.,';',3cpy).L. and that the applicants had met their burden on each issue, thereby entitling P; y%. '. . :.D,c. them to summary disposition. The Licensing Board properly granted the appli- .Q ~ C..:.u'Q..'. 2.',.i. i,(o.; s.M/ '.?i,y ;:' cants' motions with respect to Eddleman contentions 11,29,45,64(f),132 and p

y e.~

...y f .9 :* 'i,(,7 'l b.d.:',;y..,) y~. 9*'.>a v.

* *;
U,;.'ti J

f r..,,n..t ., : o,.i %;.a,J. ~ e< s,.c s:. .,;.,c.g,.r. l.. ',.. 4,

,w

, $% ;*~ **;v

*R,(.: *.01,', X..,l. f e,s...

e.- E,l*. ?... l

1. ^ E :' *,,y, J.. ?/,

'g,.,. 3 s. ca.,. s .e 6+..e .Ngv.,- . t :. g . v. "The imervenors' asseruons concerrung Eddleman contention 11 are illustrsuve of their usatment of.'ach of the ,:)6,'c, '.;'} ';..h.r.r2[f [f '? i ...,N-

, M *. ~, T.; i,* W, & qf.,.f*.

other contemions. Their bnef states. without more. that ,,yP.6.%i..,J . t, (, j "1* **1lj.; G( ', s:.Y'h"S 3.s s s .r .s... the mam error may have been in not allowmg it to be ameded to include the neoprene that CP&L i ,, $.l4 7 '.,d <.u,, [Carnhna Power & Light Company) pnnetpally was as cable insulauon. However, the evidence produced j; [Q,1 "M*/ ~ j h?E *h +:' ]'[f *h 'd p.#';,, J';p, f.f.' y.{'.. ' 9 G, ; *,,'*lIl y'7. ';A 3 W-*,, ?ni. ,#j on summary dispostuon was msufficient to cime of the issue, even though the intervenor did not duectly f** Pond beyond what was available on discovery and a request to look mto the neoprme issue. [', i.t.'3*'+,V )*. r,'.\\;,..,*., ' t.Q ' ': ^{ ll :o. ' M at26. i li..I.[N.No,[-.,;$.,b[h.h{yy'A 10 C.F.R. I2.762(d)(1).

. k,

't'i.. *? (,,P:' vel.,%*?dep:,y a;;,* g,,; *. k,I Mi.',W-t See Sa.sgi aastna.16 NRC at 956 57; Casawi>a. 4 NRC at 413. 2,e 10 C.F.R. Il 2.749(a). (b). Contrary to the smervenors'suggesuon befors un (.res.mpre p. 808), the mere t. %.. a, v,.g./f.. f..'./.. 3. * (... 3 [C[9..S', ** [. .T,I'*

5 h *?g ; l[' }e'/,[* $' E i;w,'.h admission of a contention does not estabbah genume issues of matenal fact withm the meanmg of the summary Q **'U C disposiuon secuan of the Commission's Rules of Praeuce. Mississippi Pa er and Ligiu Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear T*'l ; y.1.*d.W.,);,h;',M[*,~M.. 7!.h '",,r, <, 'M M, l[*/,:;J,h,ye

..dN..; ..~ stanon, Uruts 1 and 2), ALAB.130. 6 AEC 423,425 n.4 (1973). 2'.?.d;

. )..

,.,-o r a:. f .' + M,1: o( a.. =.o *. *,1 :: ~ **, s.1;. . ~... :. ..b n. 7.:- ')..J.* .. V r Jl %.3;.S.,.,g ;s,p. g.,y.;. y) g

ytu p,. ;.c. g <.. m...%.

,y _?I e no..i...e.

v....

x. - a..m' 4

m y2' g09

'-f -Q..,.t., '*q wv ~' -:... ~. . t. ',y ;I '* - 3,.=...g.?'.y

A. g;;,-~, e.. l.c h......, a, v.e, e,

< 5

t *

.F.*v*...,*.~,, - ;t. - 6 : .5 *..;,..,.6 , e., s,..' o r... -.f.s;* .e i... 7 v* 4 .l ':'P. kje ?'.'l ' k,.E.'.Q5 *.'.,',;?;(.

f.

1*.. E' v

, al **,t.. ' s w. [d'.b.%,,. e f vp's{; e.Gh. w ?%' o / <.%;.A,pb.;%$- d(f / / Q M

S

+ct r 4.n;ip;' y~p. 6

W%

Nk.0?.,d.$.m$p.y :.g.tb: .rM;,M;..' h..wq. s v . ;s s .d w!D:.4!..sy,W'M'W.h?gE,?ST;;;j!"MTf.qn'JN.pw%'V.y.rgxqrs. 5 74gW 4 Y..y*W OJi g'.M.a'l5 '5p Q B A 1 c.- .;yN%h:Q; t;$5.?f,.;An%'u.a,;M.. %*p.C?:.&w yn,:s.g. W.:.a.s.c..m R m

.Q3:,V? CQp r.%, n. s-N&. ;ry.t%.%.iy?.:n; f. V.'s.y:..

g Y ). c.g:'..q w%n. V.q yy ?;*Q@.... 6h* :5J' h$ C @I.' a .M2.L Rt. .c h. ;za ,.a;W;f.~s r f.m, e r o .a.l'*pc9y.pw;4::, r ym..y. N ':y.. f'. '?e.. m^ \\'y!~ 7* ~!.>f $ka ?m'.,.a-W[. -%5yg...:w.::~ y,'h?,n. u, e;>;.s.N., WW:.w . 1.yM( m V;, g : M- . ;.d%..,'? W. , w. w. .C- ..m' n, s. t' u. - - i,?y:~; r iif Q,r,'I'. V*f; 'N. y.'; * ,T ^ A 3

..,q. m cm.ss..r, W ~;'v; p a.Cr4 W.p.%.r. ...y+ 3.... .-e ,.u. Y' N N}.g* f. & h'i*l..Y@ W $ b y. N.. k. Y. .QWh?9 SV.'-fr 'Ok?6

chyf, L'#;e

. h.i f $ 5 '. Q :,8 W,' rj'. b,sbEbb$ kNh l l s ry o.f_ '.. s.y ;.i.%.vj..,W.,n. *.W'...f.; 2.p%, '.y%. y.6 oy.M.m.,..,,,,W

g.,a,. a.

?.s. 2 .n i.- y y, w.- ,e.. v,e" ?....;4. fi.. ~.- , -> j m r.y@M. sly e.jo,Qy.

y ;,a,.,$ w;.n

w n.p n

s .m;. ,..m ?.* .,' n g...- .T,j?p?[:; q.,. dM.. o p, x..e r T.'.N.,v h..s.lh.?. -C 132C(II)." Contrary to the intervenors' assertion, however, the Board did not .c Q* grant summary disposition on joint contentions V and VI. Rather, it dismissed ., x ) up;

&g*'j;H;y$' di
f;'WzN

.ggA' the contentions - albeit after the applicants filed their motion for summary . g.

. ;ff!;

disposition and the intervenors failed to file a response - for the intervenors' .. W E5 '5'3'bN'Mys: (M '.*s,J..i.+'.,W.. g....h... N, ;7? .h.. l failure to respcnd to the applicants' discovery requests." That action was well .i.. i h [~r. / within the Licensing Board's authority and was not an abuse of discretion in 3 .. q. , M.. w.J,:' @4,.... V. f.. ,,;.p.,, /,, n,"..l., ;idy!.,.aj.;-Q.,. e .y!.?j the circumstances." Accordingly, the Licensing Board's rulings with respect to 'fj '.0- . J. W, o these contentions are affirmed.

r. s.,c..' y u ' y-lvl'. m. 9.'4 N9.

g. .V vp. e .* N. %. ^...

.c..U... i, % J'e*' e b V1.,,",, ".u;.,j. q

.. b s.3>.f*,: ?'.y?*y;.t % !li , y..

*- W c J,.. ;.s.

o ', %;! y;, '% e:G.ji'wi,-r 4 w.,.r rw, g ,a Ill. o h.s;;..,.e,.. p. *%, Q V.,y. ' t. p c, m..,*, m.v..y e */ w.J.'."u* * ' V.

E.Y n;%. -.t?

.s th,.J. 6;.

~

.N m. P. W M!.D.. u.>...%, A. Of the issues that went to hearing in the proceeding, the intervenors first w PQ N,Cv,!;./.@ y..y.,pc.4,. W. '*5 gg h,!@,^ a; W, challenge the Licensing Board's findings and conclusions on joint contention 3 r

1. That contention, the result of a stipulation by all parties, stated:

.,D.,4.".k.,I..Mv.'O',N...,M$..M.'.N,Y[

p. r...

.s. *' '* 4 4 4.t. x s. [i /'. l -dOV '". 3NV MI d.B.'M .A ..j 4 .t s. . p,,ge n*h n.4. '7..ee M@ 2.'bd*[.k.,Y.6,Y/.M!D.'5 The Applicants have not demonstrated the adequacy of their managing, engineering, operating e n. 2 5 '~ i and maintenance personnel to safely operate, maintam and manage the Shearon llarns " ' 6.*'I Nuc1 car Power Plant as evidenced by their record of safety and performance at their other j,2bkN$l k'h*,0.$1..h,$,h[.'O F nuclear power faciliues. A ponern of management inadequacies and unqualified and/or U,g. d M<' g % gc;g W Q;t ;l'-/ L r hi.c t.T.h.y, ;[ inadequate staff is likely to be reproduced at Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plars and result ". [*.f (S.&f. 9 in health and safety problems.M M....,.s. y. c (.*[v,,..[w~. ] l. ' fn n,. a..s.. $.'d,,n.%. ..e. gg,.y~,u.a.m..'!.gM

s.. -

The Licensing Board found that the applicants, supported by.the NRC p@'(;*M@MQ,,j.{Q;f. f,$9 staff, effectively refuted the contention. The Board basically determined that, although CP&L's management of its Brunswick nuclear facility had shown '4 g. ;) Q'f%9fM.ya.S;gyl.C)T,h some significant deficiencies prior to 1982, the company instituted corrective M.l'.$'j,%yJ;Q;$p.'ntft.?.Wh actions and, with the strict oversight of the NRC, improved greatly'." It then . ' '.,.; Q j-g., (@1.ns Nyf6MT,$..y.j;%;*.M$ concluded that CP&L was technically qualified and that il possessed the requisite P7g;f.c%.n..D'.7 w$.<.D'"S M. E. 5 hi.f. @<.7. management ability and commitment to safety to operate Shearon Harris.38 M p[!f$bM;MIsi.I@ ,i.e. c In reaching this conclusion, the Board specifically noted that "[t]he Joint t.QQr .Af W..M+ < fg,/'.Ghn i Intervenors' rather miscellaneous collection of evidence unfavorable to CP&L D*,.h $ @ @ h M 63.i),2..l largely derives from events occurring in 1982 and earlier. This evidence has 'Q been superseded (substantially, if not entirely) by a sustained period of improved

RI.;"h.N$$.1,.s.i$.,@

fk. E Ri !'-7 4J a.4.g..,. gf" y. o. $f;* We. e...y- -?Wikh! y . q :.xeg s "See. respecovely, Tr. 2167 (mth rauonaic set out in LBP.85 28. 22 NRC at 297); Manorandum and onier (Nmember 30.1983) at 3 5; Mamarandum and order (My 24.1984) at 3-4. Mernorandum and order (Nmember 'Q*,.7,(f 7.FMi..?,$.% MM's,[;M.a d /. 30,1983) at 5 7. Memorandum and order (Apnl 13.1984) at 2G 22, Tr. 2167 (mt.h ruuanale set out m LBP 85 28 r'.jp,j f,;f.;Dftg. NO S.b, y]p W,W'ikE 'yNhe,4p% 22 NRC at 295-96). %ndt r g l. ' M or.ler (May 10.1984) at 67. s MOf!* "See lo c.F.R. g 2.707, suasement of Polacy en comiucr of Licemring Proceed.nss. CL1-818.13 NRc 452. 454 &@@9.c.5;af'-h.*(Q lj'iifff'.f ? l'l{kQh M.h;j.$, j, (1981). J "LDP 85 28. 22 NRC at 236. % '.t. [y.+ M ;a p %M.*{; Q 2l. m. v.- ..p I n.,. D v 6 5g

m..

!$,f b k h* w $m% e. w, m d. w # w a., U9 W 4W W,'.C.*a. yd Q,y q u. m..,.gs r 810 fcjz.Q;fly a d y G. 9,..//, M. ~.L.Mh.%y'i.;* W w9.,'s N. ,- f .,bp,p.P @r.<.,,..- M..,M.d m - n ? "%

f. % ssM e1 Me h;. *~ ^

s > < M.Wf.U.. I m w

1. ;dt %.. s.r. t"A.' *l).C..

.<c55. '/<.M, 'Y-}),g: +sf,TW't.Qs%@ ai. f:4s f% . > g'.N %' ^" .k. a,..Q ', I:.y *, ' W + ;; 9 e ,.'l .'K'*. . ' ~ ~. Y Q;'c.; v'.~

. %.,e..v:.

.;.;c"* f.' ' 1 ~ ' : s .Q ;u i

h 9 <~j*4 .c ,.e, .,:.4 v 1 s,n.%.4 6,m,M..n.^.)f,.,?m%, :f,n,.k,,;n&;$.bl%s.i. a i ., a.y.v.c mv.. eu a;;*c.s. r s c ncm .,,y w,. y$.h!bNNYq3 w - u s.n w n !l ,hh N'&h5 hh.hi$d ff%O CP&L management performance sincc that time."" Before us, the intervenors u%y,M dy$hf'M, h'hd3.g;f ky'd merely list this same " miscellaneous collection of evidence" referred to by the @.iffd$'['N'% % h,. k'd'$ M,E,h.pf48.Mh s $hdIddh D Licensing Board and charge that "a review of the entire record" demonstrates d, [.ij the applicants' lack of management competence.48 r 42,TM,y, N-As we have pointed out to the intervenors previously, we will only overturn a lN,. M...g M;,0. k.8,dJf.hh.n,i y M.4..,$d.h:. 4:

)

.pi

1. S W *;ffWe gy;,

lower board's factual findings when "we are convinced that the record compels a s k,. $ different result.'" But our review of the extensive record on this issue convinces MM.hhh'khWd8NfMg a.4.7... rM

/

us that the Licensing Board was correct. The Licensing Board's role as fact g;.s.;aegW.& c.J 4. w. U..M.e.Q.4 A.a<h; A q e m .;p, ;...y,; ag,J,,7, ;. finder is to weigh and consider all the record evidence. Here, the Board did e- $e k'k [., Precisely that and the record amply supports its findings. It fully explained its 4g.e.,&c Cg,,N: findings and responded to the intervenors' arguments raised in their proposed 5 def,,yJ N...r.;,.:laN.. P. e~5K';@'/j/g:{ e Wn 3A .r % II findings.d2 Although the m. tervenors disagree w. h the Board's results, they have m. it W M N W,..w k'.pldqhSMQ9jpMMi.)# failed to present us with anything demonstrating the Board's judgment was .NM8;'E wrong. Indeed, the intervenors' brief does not evn mention the Board's finding, d.%;*.T.NM'7C.M,.,.#'ig. Q.sf.b?%"34,QgM..g 'c/, W. M... w ; g.. s..Y,df.Z.(;b b $ h @ h @V much less explain how those findings are. erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the y :.q,$.*i.. ' m v .n ~ 49'!r: %j Board's findings and conclusion on joint contention 1,' hfN, NNN.b@.g.h. m..i-h In addition to challenging the Licensing Board's findings on joint contention

..,a.v. f.mn./.S.../.h,,.[.,h,.>i4W: :y;.,piv q

'4 1, the intervenors also raise a related procedural issue. They aver that the Board ,.. j ..fyt, */ j;f '.l o y; erred in denying their request for a subpoena directed.to then NRC Region II r k'hN,h h* W,N k[hh .' 'hl 4. /' hl MM' 4M Administrator, James P. O'Reilly, to compel his testimony on this contention. [J,U S,-c y. D, [: @hh N b,2 W)[)I ? ! H g In this regard, the Commission's Rules of Practice provide that, in a proceed-f < [?bh$'.k ing like this one where the NRC staff is a party, the agency will make available i , W..,, e. ' /. r.W,. O.,N*1.., ' J.;. y'.s*.,

one or more witnesses designated by the Executive Director for Operations to v

wo o a:. d6fy.'U f.cy:MQ.: testify on the issues involved. The Rules further dictate that the " attendance M..T; '. j ; %ygh:: J'$6,- N. $?N'g O.3.-(M fk Wl/%;i.l@.,Y g l7,5 and testimony of.. named NRC personnel,.. may not be required by the

lE.91;Y,7 [l d'

presiding officer, by subpoena or otherwise.., (except] upon a showing of ex. $ @ C,'.j O l @M lt':',r.,:.Jf,h $'i[;.h ceptional circumstances."d' Here, the Executive Director for Operations did not r;:!M.T.E :4.N pi'.h$'. ', :d designate Mr. O'Reilly as a witness and, in denying the intervenors' subpoena %dh M,'f.E$kN[U.'. 'Q request, the Licensing Board found, in effect, that Mr. O'Reilly's testimony c 3.@ 1(td/i $'M/.O.p:gD.3, W $A would be duplicative and not add materially to the existing record. It concluded, y,4 Q 'J j d; (<$' ql Q, T d W" i j. D therefom, that the intervenors failed to make the required showing." if g.p;G.,:.C3;

3 Before us, the intervenors do not attack directly these. Licensing Board h.6[;.'.MG.QD%j%>.*h.w'Wiy$

d .M.j,':7.. determinations. Instead, they point out that Mr. O'Reilly was the supervisor of . 7-(h:hh$,]d. *,.' Q+,Uh:?.i:',!.h...,; another staff witness, Paul Bemis, upon whose testimony the Licensing Board !.n. :,.:,, s w;.sv..;..

d. K ?, S... '.;.. <*N,.3,eQ.

d,% .q

. 9.

g 3go [>'./b*)n[:- :.fl.W.Y.1i;M IM7( l2'*I.t 'l((.,;) 7.Q. i,.';W* ",1*.t('M pgM gjJ/ W S W fn w 3* M .'! ';fiVM lr.;" *JJ "Imsmnors' Bnef et 16. I f.'.N,, fif...'e'g.Nj$l O',..y,.? O).,h. n

j.:M' W,f.
- D 8'8 MOA8M ber C8PP. (Nine MJe h Nuclear sr.suon, Una 2). ALAB.264, I NRC 347, 357

'k E! .N 1*' M' f p 0975). see ALAB-837,23 NRC at $31. "'/t ' ?h,.e r

:d J','
l*:Y'/~d "LBP.85.8. 22 NRC at 237 56.

? R*[f2*'"T.,: g!W D?l,U(f/?[.%j Q '.'.?(h*/ '3 reiw.7laj 10 Cf.R. f 2.720(h)(2)(i). W* :..','.y,'$'.%;: Wfj&ljj.! 4'....MD '.* "Tr. 3894.95. .e.;'s.,;; s y& c u. A. M Q :f.~ Y: r,n j%(T.S(%. '.d 5 :"M.i? m,, 7l.'s ei.l ',';$.. D'p$.;'y ' tu. M :w.>:9

v :)"

p.;.;Dl. N l W;':k*h %$ tl.:. W Q." 4, . l.Y. 4 . - ? a:%'~ -. Wtw aw $. M.:$I. Q @..g %,i d D.'.Q '.[i 811 .M@&d: l%F. 6 '.W % %l3 .'G:' dg: <&l$\\.g*;: .G ' g:ff.Yb

W ;&y,r.Y,g: .w.G;4:%y.h,)

'::Q. f,Ap;?y a 'lby:M o.'W:$v;t.W4;Gef].g. y 3 15 N,4;2,'2W/. lN.NC; y 't %t .M, s i M: pt#p*'a*',Q M ** H J'.?w*.4,w#sMe w?; - 1 vy m n.. w: .u. m .g. h. we' am%m%%k *M. mmq%%mM::6:@>amm.m, 99m::p.., %KS;yy:!N.$%w@Wll,[m- ! M .641p .G),'g/$ M @ W @ @ @*.kNnardW.S@y.$ s4pp WuM99pu. ?

Mt.g. J.; - Vf - L, a,. / o,. h.. @ GM'.l.sM.T'% h j,"N .MiNh%I',J $. :,iN',hh[ki' , @;h hh b $@h h. hh ) fl y w & M,h. f..$[h mf. % e shf PWW M,ed m E b id Mq & @ hlk$$! N N y$N @E d t 8N N hh!l{f$lh}h eW d

h. j>M.u.,nk,;6;a.;.N. A.<.%*..f.5

/*5,%,s t.$,. v, s 't e w .1 --." > Oy;.. - e s L q,%s Q.n.* z..<y.)

i

'.s % ,s.,e. p r/*,' *. pg..g P.g*N,'n n**:.?

w j.L

. v. t y,

+

3ej% 'ui.v*S pw. . s..1, i

tt.i-f f.(y' 0 ' L. "*.d.,f heavily relied in making its findings on the management contention. They state

% "QM.;/./f. 2,.N.. -.,.,, that "[a] subpoena was requested for [Mr. O'Reilly) in order to delineate the [.d.Qpl/gs(y. ?li,;*p ..W,Jh.,'&...,, m.. W r.w c conflicts Mr. Bemis faced in overseeing the Applicants' management and his role W.

g '. ).3,Q in shaping the SALP reports.-45 The intervenors then argue that "in all fairness 16.;. y

,(')[fYg [they) should have been afforded the opportunity to attack the credibility of @y),g;g.y.G,0ld,tg;.,qs. g [hir. Bemts)."

l

.;*. A '2 pfQ'.7j'X tp 7 [Q i ; h' f' 9 8 Q).,b p,py;::A Although the intervenors urged several grounds in support of the subpoena llp !g*.,gj;,d ./ below, they did not, contrary to what they state in their brief, assen that ':f,ici . *I. M: e,C D K. N*r/;I[.Q@(.1.*;$J'J N. .'idi-hir. O'Reilly's testimony was needed to test the credibility of Mr. Bemis. In R *t Q g,8 I.. their subpoena application, they averred that hir. O'Reilly's position as re-Og(o'y,'.. Q gional administrator put him in the best position to know about the applicants' Y. s. T;$ .J. ,p N>S ..4.,... M..tl'.w..~ %.D?. management.47 Even after Mr. Bemis testified, and the Licensing Board gave .t, p.. W Wi w.. t. O .:,.,.AFW... ;, c,.,.c.....f.,.:.f. A 3_ vc them a second opportunity to establish the exceptional circumstances requiring ,3Ll.ys5/d.9 hit. O'Reilly's testimony, the intervenors still claimed only that he had knowl-I6 M fN f..M M 6,t@.."f*g LW,d ' & h e..'.E.r..<II A M.a ' "N. ' edge of facts not shared by Mr. Bemis. Thus, the intervenors' newly asserted v .n p., g 3 ..w g,';,7 ground for the subpoena was never presented to the Licensing Board and we W.g?glp:gQf,y.{.j. Mig @;,$.. n. r may not entertain it for the first time on appeal." Because the intervenors have y, 7 f:kp%f;SO,# 3.gg. ND,yeq$ asserted no other grounds for reversing the Licensing Board's denial of the sub-Q},t.'e:g @y" [o. @f%,', poena, their appeal on this point must fail? '1%vr B. The intervenors next challenge the Licensing Board's findings on joint d[-f Q, y y;M. ; '. y,,; 'Q'j Ws f, contention IV.8' As litigated, that contention questioned "'whether the TLDs and measuring equipment and processes to be used at the Harris facility can

gMd

% !, M p Q V ! 7 M ';'d.S M measure occupational doses with sufficient accuracy to comply with the NRC

g@M:.*. W,lfy;3.+M.. :

V, n,. g,% 'r* W t.g $..,..6 t. k -...v.....,.s.

~.

W e,3:,,.,.u... 2,.c... ,2,'s ;p#,:p;

y %. ;,./.. ;/ %y o,Oj,1; y fMf GQ l ?.". ; W;. r

,7,,e.. 4.;y .7*. ,.y c g5 Imervenas, Bnef at 12. 40 c i,, Q' % d:,r.k'. g's M at 13. l. di Ses Joint Intervenors' Request for Subpoenas im Jamt Comanuon 1 (Managernent Capabihry) (August 17,1954) h,('*y 'o,h)f *[:p*[.\\h' *h'$.k%fg' at 2,3. Wtth respect to Mr. o ReiDy, the miervenors' apphcanon stated, without more. that t.,,, flg;j,y,;h,,f;,g$y'[ , A'"a] f M *-%,r.;@ n. ,q.g, James P. o*ReiDy, as the head of NRC staff in Region 11, receives repons from all of the inspectas and Q',yls.;E.% f $, R.f t

W,f)4 k D';;i.W*,.;,N has been able to develop the most complete picture er the Apphcants' management Mr. O'Rany was also r.+ P< t ]/ h

.D :, j = trwtrumental m recommendmg the fmes, parumlady the 1983 fine for $600.000, for vanous violauons l'$*.), M h ' p j - f i.Y'* p.[?. f, N (,J M' at the Apphcams' nuclear power plams. AddtuonaDy. Mr. O'ReiDy can also compare the management 0, N,.7 p.' .tv.h>;f<Tf M '.'si. p'V [. 7.f IY Wil25 Nk,f s f,% r 'r obibiy of the Appheams with other similar comparues in the southeast. Again, Mr Berrus cannot do this. " 0?. h,*,k ",# I. i8.*q;%.% lef/At / 48 </ h*f;M. NN 'f See Tr. 3882 86. s*: "Se, Deas Pm.er Co. (Catswbs Nuc1 car stauan Units 1 and 2), ALAB.813,22 NRC 59,82.s3 (1985). f r[v; .(Q,*ghM i 30 The imervonors also charge that the Licensmg Board ened in denymg their mouan to reopen the record %a,1f/(.(y. K'l(j.7f&d -f'y;d.l -. k ? /,0*l;/.W),6 on jomt comenuon 1 in order to mceive die aff> davit af Chan Van Vo, a tenrutated employee of CP&L. ' Die .h,t..k %, l g 'N p ;.*j'y,,vy y ?,;' f Daard below demed the reopemng mouon because it was unumely and raine4 auegauons that, at best, were Wlg *gy@n, of margmal signincance to the management contenuan. See Memerandum and order (December 7.1984) and

-g,.4.~.'/.4 g;f,@fsP,(.rV,Tf.y[e g,,. p p' '

scccanpanymg attachment at 7374 76. In their bnef, the intervenors do not address the licensmg Board's ruhng .-g.m p'"'N p T?fd?.6,T,iEJ gg '#4.y s- (,f;.i.-.3.p,4jy;;;;.b.,.,. 'w and otherwise explain how their motion met the test for such mouons. See Kamrar Car and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generaung Stauan. Umt No.1). ALAB 462. 7 NRC 320. 338 (1978). 51 Fed. Reg. 19.535,19,53r (1986) ~; @'E*M.Y'# g (?p sh*,)[yh.ff'y J .W> g (to be codifed at 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734). Rather. they atmply declare that the affidsvu is relevant to the management '.*J.y f6"*d % $ .;.,'r*g.).h ',;,jl.1,fg P,Q.*/**,*/- 2.[e ccmenuan because it directly cetradicis the terumany of two CP&L officers that no worker had ever brought safety ccncerns to them. such bald asseruons are obviously insufficient to raise properly the denial of their reoperung Q'.%"" f,%'*[<{,1'"i :li.( 2;, .q /

s.(Q'.;g,' e,Q'.;.;dij.'r* '!Qi.*R.7[%p?

,4 mauon. Nevertheless, we have rev ewed the mobon and fmd the licensing Board's derual of it unassailable. ysQ%.[M'W f

ty.

f3 SI As filed, the cmiention consisted ongmaDy of four claims, but the Licensmg Board gramzd surnmary disposition .?.N,. ig'r; f.. 7, on three of them. See Memorandum and Order (April 13,1984); Tr. 2218. in Q.'O! 3 o..n.S.'h';& :h: .fp,.'b 'l 4*.!n th, D&'. .N. %sp f ?N h. k.p M,n:;:,v.%*ihk;,. e g..ggm.mg.~a"f f ay e< $,', { ,i s.g,3.m . m:?., g g.%. m.r s a wu y5n z t 812 yM ay*M.[f~. n/7f'h,.. NkM.@$ $hfhf$ n.. [ f,M y..>..,a /,N I.T .@r,T*.h.6,,%.E d Mf, f*I r$*?. / l 5."@g.V,, t% 4 $. r r 7 W r. % - . &.i'&:,;' ;.,+.M,=. ff VM. k ,y.x-h p& y*7'e t*J - ?% p . E [,My* f.,. f. . dbl &M.n "?Nih...a k o; f f h!f.*k h k &f M,D$8Mi%NM;kfh}@k f$6f.'$I iNW W9%. h J ________,_m_______'

4-Q..' h %.~ M,;?v;. & l ,. '~.. ' .'i'u lQ,p[J$S@hh h;%$l@D<l$l.'p'N.d8ENp.jM:. W.,y: . M Q.. e.f jdi.y,i S /J. NMINNb$kNN' f,g. ;'&c,*s 5ln.Y m .A.;...~ + N% - U$*?; .y e;G.f.N /h rJS.y 12

f.4$

U 7 MIENb.%; LH;ym$~[r'y'$,4.,rs.y$g.yhs;d.v.s"b hNhN h d.W..J.7.. h .h$ Y' N, s?t'. h' l'K,% e s? W h*'A 'XI . rc m;.f,:.w'.g). w%r'@w.? ~}:is '$wl.. :.... y. XyQ.d (i~Y. 4 w g. s... b i.N,:.p.. ?u.n,9 a.:4 :m y

e...g mi, &m$,', g g.. em @.t..

..t. g. A N:.1p, WQ. ytrsw.gln f,f..c.i i. y

9. m.

e u. M,wh@5["$',[h[{M-$,g$.hM.%5"Id.@ .c .M regulations."'s2 Although NRC regulations do not dictate an explicit standard of hYkshNhh] accuracy for measurements of radiation doses to workers, the Licensing Board N Mn gpLa %;W. found that the regulations would be satisfied if the applicants' TLD processing %. IGM,i?;@WfQW.4{'M.%Qf3! d?hd met the allowable uncertainty in the measurement of doses above 5 rem endorsed . h.

ij,.

ry ($. Mq.-r...<. ct., %. o.; &m,;;$.h'^e ? g. m a.y by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP).53 hfi:GlM ~. .j lM.M? The applicants introduced evidence of tests conducted at the University of .FD,q @h k. N.V. W W W,'. W M r.MIO.: 2 '; 'l N .3 6 Michigan that showed that the TLD processing in use at Shearon Harris meets k,b MhN;' J{9i%}' ;',,y?/3@*y.;{ CO.1/M,"W3,*.bN: the accuracy standard established by the American National Standards Institute Sl,$i. '.9'd .y p) (ANSI) in 1983.54 In the Licensing Board's view, this standard is less stringent 3 l R.W.jl'hg[, j.d:k'ff,.4',M?dt; than that of ICR,P.85 Nevertheless, based on the applicants' expert testimony, it k.d$.hN.M,M@.'.;[y'iGTek@@7.'MR@ f MG,',J'1 found that the University of Michigan test results would be acceptable even if the E.'.h jE:kI.. ,$5.M ICRP criterion was used.55 Hence, the Board concluded that "these test results EE '2DMJO. ~j provide an unusually clear and unequivocal line of evidence that refutes the

W,'.7,$.$3 M.,y,W@

allegation of dosimetry inaccuracies in (joint contention IV), and demonstrates f [%[,n'Y,,N),WF,@,QJMf'.l1,.f;@s.W@3;by; 0 .:M d!d;T "!? compliance with NRC regulations."8' ,(/h.c,dhl$I7,h':iMfhMhh the Applicants to violate the regulatory limits for actual exposure to radiation."5s p. On appeal, the intervenors assert that the Licensing Board erred "in allowing <;[,f".fl/ Q, ;Q *;,fy;f.f[c;;',:@,'.] Citing 10 C.F.R. 6 20.101(a), the intervenors argue that this section sets " limits [g' t.,,g.( s?,. y g...i c.p;*!F,'.C for delivered dosage to which workers may be exposed."" They then refer to f .%.i.[.M,M;F.f...'Q,./;.'"i.'i,Sp)"{M f 2 10 C.F.R. 6 20.407 and claim that the personnel monitoring information reports g.'f; 4.-/J'y[ M.?:%..' N M the workers."* Thus, they assert, in effect, that the regulations set absolute h required by this rule "are based on the actual delivered dosage received by . Y,2,$t', %lk,'.[,.W g[ % I;"iO { OJcl.i.',' 'J7 values and that the Licensing Board was obliged to " correct" for the " difference" 'l;l,I.k f..p,! ' O.< .OlM E,I',; between the radiation dose is measured by a TLD and the dose actually received %['W M','s M.y/V.f' W J. ; - <f / . O* f. ira determining the acceptability of the applicants' TLDs.

9,%. Q,. l '/ J,' l.

'.c,'i l7.4,. v,,- D. t J f,M, 5 The intervenors are mistaken in their interpretation of the Commission's s ,p '\\.12.J*,, ? 'l g.9]. P o. .. ac..:., y

J '^ ",

c .. ;.. ~, s ' ..,.. i.e... t.e : r...r.~ . u. ;' ', * , ;; m h.,,.. '. !;e ,...,.s- ..w (. i'. M.'. J d. j;,*U V id i ' ;. l [i ![,.,,j$",,7,l * 'W. Ja 52.BP 85-28. 22 NRC at 258. Thermolununescent dosameters CTt.Ds") are commonly worn by persons t $.l. J'. - e h ;'f * '2 a... y[O l + r..,. Q, ; k.e.. I. 2.N U l f') '*,?! ."[.'. wodung in radiologically contmtled areas of nuclear power plants for the purpose of determuung their radiacon

e exposure. when a T1.D is irradiated by iomzir.g radiation,it absoibs and stores energy. By heaung the Tt.D, some (1 ;

, ".. ?[, *i. l,'.h ';[ f *;.[,'[g h O of that stored energy is released in the form of hght that then can be measured, with the cuanuty of light being ,7;',W;.E.:k,1I 'U.* Ief.; f?..,p,.,( '/,f'['[a J ^ $ 'n O, hmPortional to the dose received by the person weanng the TLD. See Browne. Tr. fol. 6407, at 3-4. . rT 7 See t.BP 85 28. 22 NRC at 259-62. "Cm 5'See Browne Tr. fol. 6407, at 8-10. We note that the 1983 ANs! standard. known as ANSI N13.ll 1983 3 g,.g[j ';,*111! - '. *;,, j ~ ~ IV;'j.,- (;;

s. b ',.,

j i." ; *i h.*N '.j* J.$,Q1.. ( f.:.

' C.
9,.,

' ')., h part of the regulatory scheme of a proposed rule concerning the evaluanon of dosunetry processors. See 49 .. "; J. ,'#' 4'.. "e; e 4 @I Fed. Reg. 1205 11 (1984). ..f /,. 6.,

a '

33 p., p;;;.>,[> H '.* y 4 C '( !b. Q.f 1.!'.[d.( G g. *.*c.** 1n fact, a detailed companson of the ANs! and ICRP entena pnwtded by the apphcants demonstrated that the ?., 4 ,1 L,' ANs! entenon is more stangent than the ICRP entenon at very low dose le~.ls. See Browne, Tr. fol. 6407, at ,".I '.'.f. EY'. h, M 7 i 8'E!* l1 12. See a4 o Tr. 6519 21. )..h*/,r. D@2'lI,t, */ l D.[ d.'.1 @)% es b a. 56 ', U S, See L.BP-85-28,22 NRC at 262 63. V. i' /j,.*.N**;e'ffd-S*f*.";s. l 924' i;. 57 '.. v' 8.'[ * ' M, /d at 263. The Board also found that the applicants' quality control program for assunng the rehabihty of their s ' i. h:. dosunetry pmecasing is adequate. See id at 263-66. The intervenors' appeal s not concerned wah Llus aspect of C't f %I ;. i i g . 5.. ;{ dfr' N '<',I't ~'*'.f'.Y,5 p 'g* *f.;1 ^

9. '

the Board's decision.

i *.G,. ' fe :.y,W.?',;li' ?. fi i. 5sIntervenors' Bnef at 19. / .. l<.. d.j% ;. f:. r ;, e b 2 " A.

G h ;s::*.;;.8f.f...-

.n t.WQ;;;. ih". )

T er' 59 Id at 17.

Y

'?.

- 14 at
c "r 4.

u..a.,a,n.. ? e t g.; * %.

.1.,>.g,

.;m, m.:s,:9 .:5;h %.4 3::W,:cwyn.. 3....,..,t...x:';:,? W

s:F..

,:.s 5 u .Q W. @p.7, /> m, s.,. v.d..,,h. .. _.4..e;*:a.n.r;.c.. M.., :. +;,%...@.. :t,. _ y -, ?

a. p:.W.y..

813 2;.g .w. .y.y., t. c ,c, f q.../. 7,i 'i *..ng,i ,:,4. pN FA.;f.,;n'd I;*pN;J'l,t.< v p M.v.M;.,t:'. d th',t 4~....A..c.; y % ' JJ,s y.y.:d.-[M v w &, ~I'g'ai'$[.Es% ~w: p..v..,: n.. . y. i a w. i.1

c...

. W,La [. *.h M', )*'.". lO' f..."L.:m,.s:.%.4.'.?!.6. :.,.?f.'t.w%p'l*n'. y,;%p.h 9 i 5 .g. y W: s e

7..

s.nd&y.W?'n .N,W.% Q,w 4 PqWi: %m v%.L.,.e.&#4.t:,.bs'.%c,f;,y.,f.v. m %., E';C.& 'W9 : Q;.;q':c'W %. N.p?i97.*.,i;.P,W..'&.d'R,L,,W,< P, N..v o,.2 "M. d., B'*Qi Wf A '.e4 . ape *h y W.*M.{m'!*hW,.;k* j:.Y*..nh,W9.sh - %.c.m !a.,.a..%v,, :.~,.:,c .:Y.t..e.%!.8.W,ec..%. m,t s Q &.W?y%. #.w.s. --.c-w 4 p. D~... m;.&, c.f...,n, r.d]k'p??y)e%{',W'Q&:, m*lh h':;Y.fhl ?;f c 3 fz ".5 w. m

SOL.Ys

) Vi <r*,r.'<pi= %.y k: . m, ' g a. e,,..3.,:.:. v ngg

~..: .o- >

~ m .R A. t .Q w '2 .,..,,.,., gg,,,.,..., 3:;.,.:.w. ..,.-;. n: m :. J..:.,u,. :1.P .w,u.1.c. :. u,. p...,:.n. f, 7 p.e.o. u m .g..,

k.,.e.,v, w..,;c;.p. m pr 3w g,i p..

g a s, -*,i . =..,. ,.,, p.. J.. -

e..a.

,... g ,7., a, - t., , s f, .; s . ) s.* ...6 y. -s ,e .m

n.ry..a.',,p~ g.. w a, c M[lf[kh;h;.y[;?b...;.?.r,.i.p w.. ;q.>v. p.- T bg,c,w. :..y..%.~,.Ur.d.h '.f. i..b.~. ^ m $MS$d.MNESE$$$$$MMk. p:. A A v' m,,. 2 6 .8 o wp w.s::e o..>. w,.v - .s J. yam n. Nh$h$hikh. n N d..p.:;.a...,.,y: -..c y hh... wbhh.mu-w. v. y .....; % u.Q .a. q.s.. -w m.w A, ..,p o w ~. 4~ 4. p w n m) M' ?? n- .m It is thus apparent that the Commission's regulations, in setting dose limits, speak . 0p.. m u... l. Q.,y,;'m.%v..q w @c...f.'.. s in terms of measured doses, not theoreticalabsolutes. Further, the Commission's ^N. a ,a. g,j.lf $.m. t.',t.:@q.y. N.D.p'..M;d, regulation dealing with personnel monitoring,10 C.F.R. { 20.202, is fully g4 "4;. p, consistent with this approach. Section 20.202(a) provides that each licensee W. s.. %.. ~.( %w p,e "shall supply appropriate personnel monitoring equipment to" its employees t 4.t.W.ff. -4 p.e.%. is?,;Q(M'$:.p.4,'g %,ez$d,Iy,. y and then defines that equipment in section 20.202(b)(1) as " devices designed .I,kf .;g. to be worn or carried by an individual for the purpose of measuring the dose

ld' ; j, TG

. /' N.M,)f. %y gs:$ ?.jwy g% f!N,@ ( received (e.g., film badges, pocket chambers, pocket dosimeters, film rings, ' {f"Q 7 .$y[i,*,9",.Q.:gM@,g%"'.'$ ctc.)." Thus, contrary to the intervenors' argument, the regulations are based .1:,7*1.. only on measured doses and the Licensing Board did not err in concluding that b'N ...W... n>.@. >. 4 > V.' G '. p..j.. M,h,.t Q '. M M'dQQ.y the applicants' TLD program complied with the agency's rules, ' q: p ;d,,,Q: .#.?.,i. 2iM W4 /,. The intervenors also seem to accuse the Licensing Board of appmving

M y[%'.%' y$gi.c.

t . Me.. 6., i ,..s 1 the accuracy of the applicants' TLD processing on the basis of the 1983 g.Q~ . 1.Tg ANSI standard, which they claim is not stringent enough. They apparently ph!f.*7.. "[f, 2 IM.y.3 y.'y! '. ?i *MMW misapprehend the Board's decision. While it is true that the Board determined r.- that the applicants' accuracy in reading TLDs satisfies the 1983 ANSI standard, it g,O.'.F, f7*M.e./.9M.w:D.h.M ,~'M.tg r D m.. y.g.':g;&y;';,g-!pl. actually approved the accuracy of the applicants' dosimetry processmg program .:.rl on the basis of its finding that the program met the ICRP criterion, which the g,.W,g'.p@?, gig.$p%y;,.g.T Board considered more rangent.S The intervenors have not attacked this finding yMgd SQg!!;a. /$'J f,$5Nki.? !. .. Q on appeal and we see no reason to reject it ' 6 h$.#d.MQQNQ.Q@ i%f dj 'ti4..'l .i.% C. Eddleman contention 90 alleged that the program for environmental T.. M. M y$ 1 M 7 ;'Q' qualification of electrical equipment at Shearon Harris is suspect because of .'/M,MD j$c 3 M. m' w..s s ypJ~..M .i, A.' .-s *. / D'. es

?r ".. t.',' W.,* a f

-t 6 } ) M,Yh, *M,"h, '~Jp[ 10 Cf.R. I20 4(b)(emphasis added). f' ,,$[ .vt,y$c# p/(f&h; ',f.gi'4;f }7 C 10 CJA $ 20 4(c) (emphasis added) 2 8see t.BP.85 28,22 NRC at 262. See supro p. 813. ,Ul , %QT,~7 '24.~h f,'Jy..';I

fg' p?.N.

'd As furhr assurance that worker esposure will be kept wuhm regulatory hrmis at sheann Hams. we note that "'$ dt h(y}.Q;q.g% h,7'1!'$. %'$@Q .J N_M.v[/W ? f several aspects of the appbcants' dostmetry quabty control prog-tm employ acceptance entena more stactwe

? $

.r.;'

teR. U ' f8l' g f h z,;fp;r W than the ANs! standard. See Browne Tr. fot 6407, at 20 23. The appbcams do not plan to relax their acceptance i e-entena. See Tr. 6536. @'Q M/ Af g M //*'Q.> . y* W*f,a;.,e. b&*. :e.*. m & f',f'.' 2 ?.% > }. N.iv,Q(;.y;%l'.d. i,e?';s,.t. % g~*.a. R.Q ;. rv p @ c.? a

p I',T.f,?.

o.

s.

v.1,U.,,w (pW oh M a: y.. *=

N.'*.*y;$m [.pp*(y f /M),

.e...,.4.I

., q 4 D ;ds J *f( a- ?.

*'.E*/ '

d. Q",*4'N:

.'k..:d&w.. 7h 814 A* S h:,Gr&g& ;q,Sy.k gve q. .I.M .&.:.wd.M. ?qy-.;..y,. %..c. %,, -N f.7 .y f Qy,) &MV 3 kkhihh. h~MME..flikkW~$Ye.4.a $h -y$..9. W 4mhM-M cdpP.,% r P .skh? hk 5h h n.% % $ @n $ @ wW @ Y$$. iW.W& 0 nn

k: h. Y

.h f' ? Y

r i b F h'DMf.$.m57 /d NM[h..w.:.$ h W.?fyb.S QW;@n? %.h,&:?..g.W..G..<Q.%. m is WQi D V*~' -isi."I M. s.6.k. X._?%..y%.. W s.% ' 3 v,p.?'% pL.y

7. %,s. a.,,.

hh; y.~.Nm:.f *y8M5M...a Y.!h. he N c%. :.7.n:n..r,h'...N. .g..J,w.a.+;,s w;f.B.? t n& u a hbh,,-(!ny h.. e o g*-4.ap.w.gc:p .h,9. k .V),ygf] ?c.$ 2G',7j'4Jd.M. 1 " inadequate assurance that failure to report all results of environmental quali-t .'M f fication tests, including failures, has been brought to light.... This includes

.Dh 6' %.d, @,. N," b d,g w [.N h

.n. N h Past test failures of equipment which subsequently passes an (environmental 36-1,.j..M..b'@f.6M[@.f i.%W:ko f o qualification) test and test failures of equipment which is said to be qualified b.M. h'h h.Q-t@NI.'l$ l, %r < /YB v ~ i-by similarity."" As filed, the sole basis for this contention was a reference to a .yf > s NQ' portion of a report by the Sandia National Laboratories. That report concerned h/E<$'N@M.i"X d,5%rE;Q'f$j$l)

gA inspections of the Rockbestos Company, a supplier of several types of cable used MMD,h;'d,Y;M, hM,/.E.-.g" /;e.v.~m;

.N,M..k,. in Shearon Harris. According to the Sandia report, that manufacturer failed to ~ O.., p r,w;;y;3a;. - 4f A*N reveal in its environmental qualification reports on five types of cable, that four Q V,M.?..e..f,,D%'. Q.Q',p MN,$N~t.2d/DbM. '.@[ ?AN-$t$] cw. ~.... 2

f y W,'"

of the cable types had substantially degraded during testing. Instead, Rockbestos

4

/' qualification repons claimed that these four cable types were qualified by simi. Q,.@,..w'J!.'.*:i%.M, S O..T. y,;&...',y;-M.',.?,Wf.,$.larity to the fifth type of cable, which had not degraded. That fifth type of cable, i. ~;;I,'h,'.9.,'tcrl.'."-l@g;.a '.1:,N /,t'?. :h, ~':,','hh.hM[QMy),Qj fact not mentioned in the Rockbestos report." /j however, apparently had degraded during previous qualification attempts - a M..,<W. 9. l b,J.;9@9; ;'6"(. ; /.f.WeyA.;e.@f.,t?'5.$~ 3.;# p ;s..,$.*.1 pcl;3; 1, Shearon Harris contains five types of Rockbestos cable." The applicants y n,9'.; Wi%'.7.' - had originally intended to rely on the manufacturer for assurance that the G J./c. l. p 7_gf.:,;,.,,c/ < c.'3 : ;c,p.;.*j cables were environmentally qualified. After learning of the unreliability of the ,a r 4. ., n. . ;.V. 3 3...c s, Q.'t. g.c.4 %s,%s..;, ycy,j Rockbestos reports, however, the applicants demonstrated the environmental '.'",J,*. p l. qualification of the cables used in Shearon Harris by relying upon environmental N'%. f,,y ah.M.. l 4,* ;.4.p:,'ijf.j]...'y 1.M(9/lN! '.'"j. "p.,@..y.] qualification testing by the Conax Corporation of assemblies that included W' ,;,',. p,.,r f fec.l.::.f,',':$(f.k.; :j ' /; E!*,i Rockbestos Company, RSS-6105/LD cable." The applicants determined that

F s.

the qualification test parameters used by Conax include the necessary parameters ' M. ;s. (s.. ; ,c 7.: c.., - ".$.. '.,,W,' 3.... for the Shearon Harris plant and, because only minor differences exist among u .a .y .~ g y 40.,,;g.Z 0,J t the three RSS cable types, the results of the Conax testing are applicable to the ......,. <.; ;. ;.,,.. u .s ~m -s. ? ?.f:7' ; d. a. - %,*g,x.,{, r p,y, ige,:7;.l4 ) 'f other Rockbestos coaxial and triaxial cables." Further, the applicants obtained j o. l >.,,,,, z,., 4.;.... ;:2w !4 2-

e,y.

two reports that describe environmental qualification tests on Firewall III control /1/ 5 9 t .,....,.a.,.y,,y ~;;.,e y r ;. ...g y.

.t..: ..f.

s.y. 3 3. s. >,s.

r..

.g L {i i,q..' = %.'. ;).*; #M'.,s t '..:M..*,y '. ' d %. /d

s' - J;,.*.

a IlQ; ;,l.'p'. ~ ,;s 1 a y t.BP.85-28,22 NRC at 267.

$ih,;'.g.'; gy, ; ;,' ;,

eg,e M at 286; Pnmty, er al, Tr. foL 5515, at 4-6. i.s (Tj .3p Mt I q*,I'#.pQ,,. %., e.,,

p;

'4 O

P M.,*;> Q. ayff.('j,,' L,.*.
0)'a ef,'

,,..,"e Two of the cables, Rss.6104/LD and Rss-6105/LD, are both comual cables ofidentical con:truction, and their e,,;.,,Q. 1 "k_' l" f, '.. f j conductors, maulanon shields, and jackets are of the same materials. A tlurd cable, Rss.6108/LD, is a 'naxial

,;. (.,j,u: -. ' ;,. w cable that uses the same matenals but has a thicker insulauan and jacket and an addtuonal concenmc shield. The u

(.h*3. ;./. ' ' '. a' M d [*. .N, smulanty of cmstrucuan and matenals of these three cables provides a basis to apply the quahficanon of either c, % 'l,."[. P.3,'. d,.,,, (. ?7.e d,,., j., f'q W, %,3 L'. . Q:1

,t ",

of the coaxial cables to all three. The two remairung cables are Firewall m insulated thermocouple cables and t((3

l,'.'. y. : ; a Fuewall m insulated comrol cables that unhze the same msulatmg matenal. The maulanon on the thermocouple

. j,'pf; s z W,.s,<' f,[/ '.' f,b 'lf'.* >( c.D,,;,. [ ;; j,s y, an addinonal metalhc shield and a jacket on the thermocouple cabla that more than compensate for this smaller My1 cable is only 25 mila (i.e. 0.025 inch) thick, however, while that on the control cable is 30 mils. But, there is ,fl & ;/ ; A *.f,;

0 :';,U 1 :-

.W: /t..*4;]W/.l@,Jf,;I//*ga.;, /.! insulauan thickness. Pnoty, er al. Tr. fol. 5155, at 67; supplememal Tesumony of Pnnty, es at, Tr. fat 5515 ,.4;,q. ' f, s'.j ;j if,, ",.'g;Q'y*', '*t,. [heremarter cued as "supplememal Tesumory"), st 4-6. '8 .{ i.'[.a,/ (,L,757 M:'Yf't 9 f i eJ @4 d** ' Ni.[a 1 Qi The appbcants qualified the quality assurance pmg am of Const Corporation by usms an audit by unother utility 8 ((.'# as part of the Cocrdmaung Agency for suppber Evaluacon (CASE) program. See Tr. 5529-30. In their bnef, the % / A f t, f tr/j Nrh.;</k, '.,.,; M ;( Zh,A ;'q : n.?i imervenors appear to quesucn the vahdity of such an audit because it was not performed by the applicams or the y / :: >.ff,y ;, i >.;;.q [s'; y.l 3.~. fr :.\\ . 'a.. ('. 74 staff. Even though the mtervenors did not raise t!us quesuon below, undisputed tesurnony estabbshes that this is e h

h

/ N h.%[. -. ..g).h,,V b V} ??..e g,*,4 ;%[.;,S t.'. ?,, '.ld.I.'t2 #J v an acceptable method of quahfymg a suppber. See id. In addition. the quahty assurance program at Conaa (which g@ ' W.. * **f

is a dust vendor at shearun Harns) has been reviewed and found acceptable by CP&L (the lead appbcant) and

.. y p fn..jy*.}j? 3 Ebasco Services. Inc. (the architect /engmeer for shearon Harns). See supplemental Tesumany at 4. / x../4/. g **c,,'*y f ~~

See a at 1-a.

r;;. n;%r...,,.g,.m. 7.m; : v...:~ ~;; !^;~r y.,.t>:.w hq$ %lr T R $ $ Q 5 ? q b.. ;v.:f. ae .N ..Q.

t.

.r G.*,: W/.h%AMAu.Cd.$'.^;?.'?:& f j ?l!71 W ,~ y.a..,.. w. r::..:.~.mQ:i y.,r,....,.,u.. m. n.;j~i.s. 815 r t..r,,...,.. .m..jh. ',',.,.~. ;'. *." 6'Q... ~ mQ V.'), ?.'3* '.jn. "'"'W.1,* l ..,.J'~<. ,.9 , p 2 ~..... ...f.,... .'- m*..f.' J) y# p;rhb&:m... e[...... 4,.. dlm.... %'.fr. e . V-f.:0 0* Q,2 M;; y.?l$l.:, %g.y * % A .... eset."> j.*nu et" /* 6 #.

.d. '

M {m& 5;.k. % u.,y &.4!. Q-4.c. Gu. g; W. W N@ % %...0 y y 1m).,~m,.wyye..:w.n:.&p a.mM:

Q,Mp.,,&: y%Q' qQ;R hm,y&.,;r..&;..plM'u;.@,

... :,..x sm ~ . 9.. y&rN.?,;~@..,; 5 hih,a lM

p y,;g qs. $y, c. %. m :p ; m&.. N n@ w;q..m d: n.

s W.k y? u.ctyn?. t H f* G:W:y,: ;GW?.(6;h, W E gg W&.th. c

p; mn.M;o.;,wpp_i...gy.l.-g.my, w:mp.&sm,.yg.M:.;

,.y .!.h .y;q a y

e y.y

.:.m,.

%y..c,;y.: ..d :: s.p.p, w,,....

x q. . v.m 5. ;pd. :.pa.g n,.qa::- J.y. p. ,.p~. ,a. ,i... s .,e i .) . v. q

.,e.,,...,. . mrym. .; ~. n w w.. -.~ ..a.; g,.s.. 2 - u. t m* ammawwww*ge[Y.u.N2M... (fn.m...dp,M..w.N.k.:A., t .m b h,. S, L.g

t.. n

. Ln.4 m t %.,Y,1 6. v..%.- ,... e.,%.; y$ ilk,, :l .u ..a'Sb v W

e.. f'...* s.v,.%

h.bhik, g.?g m.

w

.. r &.f kh,.m%.97;ya.@$u.,-q 'k.,' m r.M.* d l " o.,;. gu.Q..Q cable performed by Sandia National Laboratories. One of the Rockbestos control T.G.{1g'$);jl;)k.#.Q s?. yp@'d@7"J4/2. Of W f.h, v.D. cables used at Shearon Harris was among the cable types tested. Once again, [T.;7Mf 'MtRS the applicants determined that the test parameters encompass the applicable g {;:.,v. Q'd.. W, Shearon Harris parameters and, because of the similarity between cables, the m, ;.... '!ly@I)y @qdjp&,. - .s .,.p. 4< Sandia tests demonstrate qualification of both Firewall III cables in question." y;9 Based on this evidence, and the fact that the intervenors "did not present [any] Q*fP glf g.;glp($ $ % p2.W ,. f. 'y dI,,Q.i.y$$ evidence... which would raise a question as to the adequacy of the Applicants' gh' }'g. r.y environmental program to address concerns regarding... Rockbestos cables," .ihf.r' M' 4%'W.? % W h 3. p g./. N-. [ y,,.'itir. the Board resolved this contention in the applicants' favor.M ~ %. ??'

v.,M4.'

p.Q$.l M....ci.W QLp# g

4. 3..

a.p.V.g$"-;:f.9*!l.Q. As best we can decipher their brief, the intervenors first assert that the . k. f Licensing Board " misinterpret [ed]" the scope of contention 90 to deal solely j with test results when "[o]n its face.. it is concerned with fraudulent f,,'"

k. M.. N. N.". N @. O 4;.;d ': $:.p.?-M p%C?M M.6 6-testing."3 But Mr. Eddleman authored contention 90 and the language of the

(}r.Wm <W.4.d..b.1W ['. admitted contention neither mentions nor deals with fraud." Moreover, the f0 J. G @. N 3 y %. stated basis for the contention concerns only the environmental qualification %..- 4..t:: .'Mj '- +yj; f.e., Q..w @.,. c. .,,r. n. T.".nM..]..m.. N... E',M...-M' ggt.i.. of Rockbestos cable in use at Shearon Harris. It is clear from the record and rl. 'Q. the decision that this was precisely the concern of the parties and the Licensing o ,[;M.,,d 'f.,.'#.J.'d.Q v Board. As far as we can determine, the first mention of fraud is contained in Mr. Eddleman's proposed findings of fact on this contention that he filed after the k.... *,. W E;/R... '.,.M hearing." Thus, the intervenors are bound by the literal terms of their contentions ~. Ym >/ M~.*jN. i .a. v $[$... [.t, D g ;',[, M i [ ,Lif.~'y.. ('j,.;/l ? %.'o N,bld. and they cannot now complain that the Board misinterpreted contention 9G." The intervenors also appear to dispute the practice of qualification by simi-h:i larity. But this concept is recognized as acceptable in the Commission's regu-pc,0 ~QN. s #..,%..tW. N d.gd@;.gf(.i:$3,2N:M.M.. .M. lations and the intervenors have not directed us to any part of the record that g s. f r.$.O,c;/.gd, *,@,N.N.*,.[ challenges the adequacy of the applicants' qualification methods." Thus, we tsW . vg. ;h: R~.a.;e.C. j.!J. A' mr. 9 see no grounds for disturbing the Licensing Board's findings and conclusions wu. ..>1t. w<, yr on contention 90. W I. @i;..?.y.u. ~.,,.. Q.SV,@s A. ./.e.,,. e - w w.- w,s... D. As originally filed, Eddleman contention 65 broadly challenged the n,6 q; G::.?.:..% ew.1.l.,l Jjh.A b u %gw.,.n quality of concrete placement in the Shearon Harris containment. By the time g;';U.',V.'.'Y, y;g;.p,3.D.M.3'cp;.n. .fc v.QQ*%jg. l 7.9ft %,:.rd.?.'*:?1% f;..'J h-e:M.~e,. ~ g .. vu r., .M *; :. t y';*h*M. ~' W'.y. O ly,-w&'}'.*y, b. r-n)p. asp., &.. g:.*&. ~Q 9t: s .,,See id at 4 6. M-i s .hN hr;y'.M.. -

l. *..; *

?,..n,.. i. 4v.* - c

s 1
j' y ! BP-85 28,22 NRC at 288.

.g'w:*.j.v,4."je.j.W.: /J'p4f c,; ge .N U lntervenors' Bnet at 28. D f.dN'y f gi. hbOs, /.Q;dJ.Njhlg. 3ve Memorandum and order Culy 24,1984) at 2. San also Apphcants' Mauen for subsutuuan of Contention t'.M*. +;, l,' c {*E',..' gy,.y gjfA'J".f.%. and for Revismo of schedule to File Direct Wntten Tesumony on Eddlernan Contenuan 9 (July 12,1984) at 3-7. 4 See.ruera p. 815. h" ;! j"'"af,M.haYSD'U c.J Ut:.% M *3 - Mi a. D @.*I.N.k'(k 4 See Wcus Eddleman's Proposed Findtngs m Contenuans 41 (Pipe Hangers QAJQC).116 (Fue Protecuan) and 9 (Environmental QuaMcauon of Electncal Eqtupmaat) Qanuary 8.1985) at 16. d k ( h ; y*:/*'t.>,% b*r 4,'* 1 t<.4 u.. '2'.~#r fe,*dh % ee ALAB-852,24 NRC 532. 545 (1986). S "See 10 C.F.R. I SO 49(f)(2) In perunent part that secuan states: ' $'j. fl).k., g, pit s.M/$. p.p tg.%;4l,, F.W4p dhE.0;gyy,.,d..y,fy W. - (r) Each turn of electne equipment imponant io sareiy must de qt:aued by one of the follomng R..y n=*

N:@}W m{p. d W m +M W.

EMm. ,q'q.? (2rresun8. smtdar item of eqinpment mm a supporung analym to show that the equipment to be ,e a$ Ma, ? e,,C#ff ,r 4, ay

p.. w,. L.. 8a'.:s.es. 'u.%. w...:

4i ,_ sees.,.m.. .u. .w. c v+.3..m.w. e.pp,w.. w A...;...y:.y.,.%y? e 2 g'g Q-)[f 4s.1.x,r,s p.v.~.% I"Y/JIC w .4 w y . - w. . c; h'Yi/M,a f.. N..rQ L. 04#WA*fa 'i4J i N,9 W*WWUN h#" rs..h'f ". ".. h 816 y c FN'r*IT s/8k?*N*h.T;kN'[{G E t' * .D '67e i %wg,4..;.g.p;f..e@p;py.$ TY9W c,w 'w

4. pia.a..,gep,.w.

i ~' .+. % C R *' %' - - ~ - 1 g 3, =/

1 j 4 e a A.%w,,%[%,hM/f'. h'Q W'.,T4,. ..z..L'lt,.4;hh' ). h,'.'W.??M....*!h'.'Wlk' %NW.m'M 'h f, I r M,

M' M

~'M ',Y* ' " h*

u...n. lk f '.4 1

. E.

k. f * &

4* yu %f,'%rl',M,M..* a.$.hYf.3 W.$Q ?. i; % b@N.d. m%g..w. ye ..r..a NYMMM.rg@;y F.g::r 6./.v. A-. c .u~ y,1. 4D h ;.B g 4'fj d the contention was litigated, the Licensing Board had nanowed it to thineen M'k dj specific concrete placements'8 - a scope the intervenors do not challenge on 'd $:h. f.N.TU@Ztt;yn/$h;f[2f] .M/ h.N N appeal. With regard to these concrete pours, the Board concluded that "the record j t

f,%MJ.;2ND provides no evidence that concrete was inadequately placed" during construction I

M bk [$ M.f.f'. % h ) of the containtnent building." The intervenors now challenge this finding. P.[gr.h h. N ;I$ M d h First, the intervenors question the Board's conclusion with respect to a O.y@.(n.4..v....$. (;o.,D.Q@.hQ.. >:h.9. 4.%@ 3(';AK./.gqVQ.: . J ..M problem of insufficient clearance in one concrete placement, Based on NRC staff 9,.J o h N. ? " Q: E N;m. W M, f M y g,.. W.'$ ,'i testimony, the Board found that the problem had been identified and corrected. In .lt $N.hTf.,i.i.0. 'W. :f n3,

.&....,q;;,.

p ffy.NTM&t%,.Y.1 M :M. ' 4 c...ir-addition to discussions with the applicants' employee, the staff witnesses based ..y .w h/- their conclusion on the applicants' field inspection report for this activity wherein ....'M.3sY.$ff8 ' d'l. both the probl;m and its later correction were noted.80 The intervenors now assert v :.*;m,y. p ;,.<.1. W C,1.:.;. pr.r M. v 4W.n, that " correction of the problem is not documented."81 This position ignores the .m M.:t

w.*;g.j; c..n, r.@;! ~.PS,.< Q. s;;c q.. r.Ml@.'%: .t.,

v N.s.. i .e.

c. s record and is clearly without merit.s2 e

. ~..,. .. ~ l'fifW/[..- pQ'MS@%i?@ N@$, fs.3

ks. v@g./,.9 9.C j.M.I.Nh@&h.f[;Q,;

c;y The intervenors' final complaint regarding Eddleman contention 65 concerns

$>;h.j.y.P.3 h'? dl.,'. the strength testing of a particular concrete pour. Compressive strength tests conducted on samples from this pour after 28 days revealed that the test .Qr:d"/ l,W.%%','Oc..' 2.5.s.; 9 b J..M samples did not have the required design strength. A further test conducted /.

e.%,Vlp;,3 %'f. 2 a, after 90 days, however, yielded an average suength of 5660 psi (pounds per "f(I. ?.. p 3.g.r...m.

r <. <y NO '.. !.'.. N iF M ".i y square inch), well above the design strength of 5000 psi." On the basis of this $.J,..f.' vl.&....,.,"',' *., :;'.v / ; $.. f.y* 43 i- . '3 evidence, the Licensing Board found that "the Applicants properly identified . ' s. 4.i. ?.,.. 7...!/' Q m;; y a nonconformance and properly resolved it."" The Board was satisfied that s.,..,.

.',A y; >;'q'i.'i. p,.. g',l,,.,.Jf.: '.'

' g.'g t{g.y?/ ?.-M.g .(./ .b. "..; the subject concrete had the requisite compressive strength. In the intervenors'

g.aj
a /.

view, the Board erred in making this Snding because it ignored evidence that . '.:, p.p '..... ;.O.,. ?a,.4 the applicants violated one of the American Concrete Institute Standards.

r f,g,"',y,: -> p, ; p,.'J,,.

9

p,,.y,.f,..ur According to American Concrete Institute Staridard 359-74, concrete in a Q s[ J M.*

' l U -;. Q h [,i.,._, Q %if MJ particular area will be considered structurally adequate, even though it fails to 'Q ' D: . V.," .M ~9 g,, *,',i 1';, > t. 3 meet the 28-day strength criterion, if the average strength value of three drilled

g..., i. t +

s vy . ;,.. y. : c,

g. s. j.,..j y ; '.. v.. '*... b.

g ...e ... ~ s.. *. ..! i,,...,?

s. *,y 7.1,.,.,,, e. j,

... T. .t,' 78 4 v 1 l. C;-

,. : W e, y '",;:g See LBP.85 28,22 NRC at 289 93.

': 1,.? ',* *.Q, #b % ([.', *l. ';.,s./,; ;'.; >lii', / j'.,: -** Q % g ag 295. .': ? e ;;t.. J s j.y './.,.c,.. . g.Cl d

+

M*? /M j. [g.,,'].'.,gy so Saa id. at 293-94; mrna, er al.. Tr. fol. 6320, at 45; Applicams' Eth. 21, Field tnspecnon Repon for Remforemg y'. .j ',p?i.$h..l, N ' ' *'.$ ' ft 3 4 Steel for Placement No. ICBsL216001, sheet 1. Correcuan of the problem n in&cated m the founh row of the .y J'i.,' g." g *, @p (..$. 'd ' {F o

third column of the field repon:

"A fmal re-bar inspecuan was made and au vtosadons cocrected." 81 st ;'., > d., *, - 1ntervenors' Bnef at 30. De intervenors also assen that the Board erred m relymg on the staff wimesses' O.[,f '/j ] '.[, f' $ ','.g * (~.[, ;. ",' y ';.y ' " hearsay" about conversanans wah an unnarned employee. De mtervenors failed to object to the staff testunony W., :. e '... 'ltW' c L,.4,,, ; * " '[:/, 9,9 *Mr,;,,;p"i,. e., v.

..i.,.

below so they cannot now be heard to complam. s. [f lpi... f. .o Y,y.y ', Pc$ v. p

s }(,.* k :..V.f

.J /;,* The imervenors also suggest that the staff as "covenng somethmg up" because a staff wimess did not mendon e,; e' in his prepared tezumany an of the mspecuan repons that he had previously listed m an earher filed affidavu . ' '..... -%Q: W.. t. p"&,W f i s, 2 *i

y...; ; -lM

<,3,'},-[. ; :f,lli(k%']. >'i y;r.; a* *W,. 3 c ..t ,.e in suppon of a modon for summary disp <mtion on Eddleman contendon 65. De intervenors have not given us ./ f ;/.U,. '. 4f .,. ;;. A.M any funher explansuon of then.r allegauan nor did they raise this issue before she Ltcensmg Board. We have. f. ' h'* y'.1 O t. f -,1 fg, y T. nevenheless, reviewed both the affidavu and the tesumony m quesuon, and find no basis for such a claim. !;*h,/q,k "[-:),R,M.k. *L.('f. 9,) 6,Q"** [ "'.l/.'f,h *,f'.. '*;,.p ; / t ( <f p,*[.g /; E2 ,"k, The intervenors' confusion probably resulted from the simple fact that the applicants' wuness on this matter, 4

h..".

,.,9 ;+,.$ G ?. besides ciur:g the wmng page of Appbcams' Exh. 21, misread the mspecdon report. The mspection fmdmgs a,. ie 12 :'M/".V.l ?.s ! j$[;ff[.f*.Ry*y.* ify should be read vemcally; the wuneas appears to have read them honzontally. See Tr. 6069-71. J.[l,'.h.. 'M.v:'/.,.r.'j.,j*r..f M ',? );Q u llarns, er al., Tr. foL 6320, at 26 27. . o ' ;% pot .. f., ;3 *.~ Q [ f.i..,p,/; "'LBP 85 28,22 NRC at 294

.$.,d.<'

., y t et. y* =... n'..' .a,,,.e..n.1,,: &...., '. e j

.,,s;,

s.

~ G'M..? h*:s.r]

'.. y

... i.,;>.s O.o in.s.~r.'.i.%c. < 7,;. e' ' * %..l. H. iN:.',*, i.. :.: ;...,n.s a ,'.'1 -. w.. ;!, lt, +;;, g.~.;; %..t.,. ? ? .t ... y.v. e g. y ?,.. <.., p... Jy g., .y. '.e ~.. 4 .f. p 817 . s l.t.'y l, n,t y.O.t'.,K.,p.p,7.Q,e,, N,p <.s: : *,.:,3.. e, .[.. e u.., s. qi.: W ~,$.. :g .a,. , !!D.a,t.)... r.;p J ** ).?A+ O.'.,.', i'd Ws'.Q *l.f. I' ',:.* hj ~ ev . t.<:.&. r,.. n,: = v. ;; *, n..n,:: m.:: m :.; . 'r, : :.. 1 ? n r t. 1..% g.:(W. A;&.... A....,....a.MWp,%, Og'W T'@ '? > kl/ '+[n. .s.1 ;Q 'W..g? ory$. Q.s'.:*i $h *.' w.. .~ w q.:f;."d'M' % % ,.26% p'k

nQ.m$w.a'P C'FMW'@9p a.e@k,n&.4.k RW4G DWQ

'T@W671 M h; *;:i.a W:.,k,p';.b. *,g$$,u$,. m.; 3..~ n .t * '. $.t p pk*x...y $, $. $,. $. h.h.h.a,.q. #h. pn e e. m.s r:. .= .k, 9. .. ho' N h. hh t,. u e,> 6 *,F.i, . p. 4, 4.,

e.. ;..... ;* -. g ; 4)q ;..d '; ;; f. i i,

e h c ..,. ;;./. #. /-... g g.: s J', 4, . ; *. ". s.: %, r. ,r

w a

.,.f,.,',.,.W. i s w. s.e'*y o g- ..w,, * .- f' y te. ..,2.6 a "3% y a_ 4 'T 's n 3 g ( s

'k '. h d A h bh.)h.,hh k

k. b b..h 5hh"h

.h* %i?.M+5L'UMr a f.Mi*.'Ml.,Yhf?,$hhWkk.a4e.4'lWt,*.%$:? $?h$ \\f Yl$%' h k t h h. r Y f ?lr .,,?'i /.e.'ar.A&$j.b a i"$, b.%.$.t k'..i;:kbYf)Q. }t p.tl'f*yh: ~ t .? MidfNM1k kQ A.w...gtr t'bg,l'.DdNI[eQ'L,a,h,.,w+fpj[g*p.g..y.D i S .naa 'y qbp

,.;4 :;%,,..y,!l>%9,:n.4.;R.yp:Npq W.9.9 C rs..

tn % M .g. i h .-..

i -o f.g'Qh:$.$:.,.. Ay$p,;,J,(.[, c.v r-%p::t.n. 4.'g ap.q; Q:.k-v L*n.. p..*.)-

.:O ~3.l v :. +

. : % '.y.-

.S.jl. .'81$Q'f.f test cores is equal to at least 85% of the design strength and if no single core is D.f k,El.f.# $ $ @.- g' S $ ' d MW less than 75% of tlat strength." The intervenors focus on the fact that two of r/f:(q..,s. @.'#.1'r. , !X.s $.V.M....... M i the five test cores taken from the concrete pour were less than 75% of the design 7,.V...,p@i.i..... gq T,w,.W -.W/.g#:. y.. strength. Although two cores did fail to meet the 75% requirement, the other .w e. :/K. .. e el /3/.' %m.'..pe !! C?;f" rl,'.@,6..W

s.. ;.a,... r three yielded an average strength value above 85%, and none of those three

k M *.l [@[. h,$,fff. [g g y.]..jf.Jd was less than 75% of the design strength. In addition, the industry standard yj yff..! v.g.3..

gc-fygc.M 4,y.4 recognizes that results of these tests may be erratic and allows retesting near Q{.f;,' ].l) g. [,j'g g;.g/*,g..Q the location of a conctete core that fails the strength test. in this regard, staff D. 3 j@.pp.W.1 g.g.F.:W@.:,h.,,.d testimony explained that experience in concrete testing with cores as small as ~ >.h g.7 ch,7',f.f.p...TM,M., ' $.. D. '.F.'..M..D... S 'N/. those used here has shown variable results." Each of the two cores that failed the QQf.d',,.. hfi.'@7 lv;, p,lM.- /;ge.b;.': strength test was in close proximity to one that passed." Hence, contrary to the intervenors' assertion, no violation of the pertinent code or standard occurred." .h...) rl O ,/j,'Ag@t."i,b/.. ~W. e( n-D !.i~j, //576.'? . 4

g.

We, therefore, fully concur with the Licensing Board's conclusions on Eddleman 1 t glr;g.,9..qf/v'..i?...'d... p6,,$. '~ 3 contention 65. ~& . - 7.-.x:. ;v ;.g,.y:....e :.,g ;q g; ~7..f,J as n v.~ g % ' Q.. v., @.

5.,.. +l'.",$ QM %..m s

G. p% a k.Vi H; Having reviewed the intervenors' assertions of error on appeal, we conclude '.h'h,.3';dMS*rM0Mh that there is nothing in the challenged Licensing Board's rulings, findings or p.,.l...f... : @.. gl !.,._V..N.Q. i?;

':r conclusions that warrants reversal. Further, we have conducted our customary r

t.g'n?;W]Q*lg..q' 4, 7,*,,$ "..6, y.,,.y$ '.F sua sponte review of the balance of the Licensing Board's second partial initial ., l < T y.',M W,...;. J.",v,; N..J,p y @i M.,,.o gf.. decision and have found no errors requiring correction. Accordingly, LBP, C.L ' - d.i.' ?ul W..1.* W, .O.id.. 4.(. M. M. W/. W: 28, 22 NRC 232 (1985) is affirmed. a.. v v. ?r.D.. y s' y(Q.WlT;ff.K' 'd <., in,., In ALAB-852,24 NRC 532 (1986), we affirmed the Licensing Board's fmd-ings and conclusions on the last two contested issues in this proceeding. We Vy'@V'.],l[.9Mf.64M i M6'l$.2 .M..[:Q:.y).M.jh withheld our affirmation of the Licensing Board's operating license authoriza- .q tion, however, because we had yet to complete our review of the Board's second j I l.' ;[,',

,].p ',yplj; ),[. pep.?"l7 9,'7:..Q';';,;

~ partial initial decision. Now that we have affirmed that decision, we also afirm the Licensing Board's license authorization. p E.'.j.Q::4;K..%j.Qtpp.'$..oe.Q.nv

pg M

It is so ORDERED. .. s y 7..,I';:.WC -r q e t.. : g

.m (W*p,S*.W,t.$a l,Wi;,cy#pD'/. fs',,'4 b>V-

. O......... N*4 l 4% d FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 6"...,:.2. 4*i.. .n .v.; v t'v 1 .,.m.. i,,..r?. ** ;.W. 9. g p. l6. mp g..J ;;;,. 4 a.~ k..tQ;,p: y .o . f 1 m 9 ;. ..hy. o;:.w.,p:.n.:p. m $,. s; p.4. M.,R.' M g;>4.

g.. &g '.s;g.. M h4 p;c;$.

C. Jean Shoemaker 7 g; ; p.; ..s ... 6.y.. ;pg,1,r..P.q, m Secretary to the -~ ..m.4.,4,. s p'; gg

y g v

Appeal Board j".p. qm ggggja.>. g,

W' ;',

. ;:.y,.i, .g.p;g p 14 *e,b.s',.. y

m..:g;. a.o -

. J; 4..+ ' X h."yl.;rl.R'.?.&.'y.'.44y~'.rQ)v;.M.% t -., 3.A'n', ,W1 f A-e v -:3 o n.dy,.4 c l,"'k:@:.s.n . z,ty u,M';**.y4X',}jNp.,.. t lp 'f.Q 4. - ES

Y,f.".-Gc/l.,

?,% y W@..?gja.,' v.j tyl).y See the Arnencan society of Mechanacal Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. sectxm m. dmsian 2 (1975)(mcorporsung Amencan Coneme Insutute standard 359 74), art CC.5234.2. *lhe appheams are comnuned hs> @QLj'N.$ i'h/'. h M n to abidmg by this code and mdustry standard in their Fmal safety Analysis Repan. See Appbcants' Exh. 9 at 4 4 *q !'W, M WJ ( 3.8.1 11 W:.Q,/ih* M.r.*3 cli?M.M. : kh : "Dj 8-jih; "llarns, at af.. Tr. ful. 6320. at 27. " u. fs n c. >M.,,W. :.v..p"h.a"r.;.$'L.u.%'Jj's ~. n:. ?u. - BsSes A M r h nsds of k My coge test cankms h %G d h caneme, r.,t.8 g.j3'!(, g ng o

n %v#.:.1W.t M U.G Q &

fs,.W d ww.9u M:;;;&y.s i 2 %&'.93.w.@MW.qf$ C.@d T d %(hW %n&r: w. F.u w.,. F U, T.. k'. c.r h 818 w;r - % ....d. h w.: M. y.... s....v. u. M. V r.: v i $ i*h(/N f.T ',,.L.%.m.W w w.-; A,s . m%*.R* v

p

.n 4@).MC'W;)]k%er.(Wi;k!ih 'e : H.,g.-if a. s y . WW. M '$.4,'"'j%y.) F h e c %. x;% sh...*:..&., :4 b.*u*.vy: WGh ~ A n.Q d'[ .h

n. s s

M'$*f:*:.fl sic' M.f 5hfh..,Yp f S N j (*.b' $ g g M. @x. 4. g $ 3.X.. M. m @# W $ $. jQ(. i:!.4@..f.yp@id d is l f.%@y$@n.gvv S%rgM.rf7y%@.M.miae.~y$%y,;c+i ...ne c. --r ,v - $.,y@M@r--@...@x. N.E._y$ d@. m. *..d.. n4,r.r 3 W l$, 0 .v ..ph, M e.l @$R W p $. -,n!. 6

n..

.m . ~,.l .o, 4 w y 3

9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL B. Paul Cotter, 'Chainnen Robert M, Lazo, *Vice Chainnen (Executive) Frederick J. Shon, *Vice Chairman (Technical) Members Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Groseman' Dr.'Emmeth A. Luebke' Charles Bochhoofer* Dr. Cadet H. Hand. Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour

Morton B. Margulies*

Glenn O. Bright' Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Milhollin Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Emeet E. Hilt Marshall E. Miller .2,,;,, g, James H. Carpenter

Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris'

~~ Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Oscar H. Paris' ._Dr. Richard F. Cole' Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Wetter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith

Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley*

Dr. Martin J. Steindler Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline' Dr. Quentin J. Stober Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb lli Seymour Wenner John H Frye lil' Gustave A. Unenberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Unde W. Uttle l

Pennenent panelmembers

J g 4 wg. 4,4' M.q:r, v.%g,._ Ry.?., eM.$p.3 'Q iMG@m%.v&.wi;$ pM.ty,c,. .x.. .- u M w$(~,*h.%;g@w.#,.;m,. a.w. <..,w$..n,.p...o..mpa.a, . w... A { w w.. n. ,.n p n.. n'a::@r.WU c OGl; A tyAh. 7 :i.m q..;;e p ? NJ8M.#OM.Y.N. Lp.: L <m . ta.;

h. :5

/?,Q Cite as 24 NRC 819 (1986) LBP-86 38A r+4 0,m;' m m? (f,Wh@b;14,yviq,wglW)g3 hw-&.&,... J.f - s.ws.( ~., m. .y ? j,,e,NT@MhnM.m.w r-Qy:..:.:.g:n #. ( l M M;M*t *: a..,M;. :y.$hfN. M.p!$~ wlkM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o.e@! .,*.,9 n f:% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v... 4 g) M@ f?Mhh $.f..,u'h'%h k.,,,$u$g$$,,f;.v.[)E.dh[h,fr. \\'$. TC w4. N ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD R. .W i M.?.'M*A.'f'# '

m.. o :.Xh.;h;o 4.':b..'AM3,'M,l' U.'blFb'r k ' i' hM45.l**}f' #

rWIGP. h F S %.!y. 4 3 '-%.'2 f.'@d . 7.... w.c. ,M.m,v.;;,;':44:; Before Administrative Judges: p+if4,s.w.bw.m.:.e;.$e,{.y: p o

s. %u NM.M.,M:

p..

k;V:N*2gsa Ji&'!<' '"Grg';lg Q. h. N f.[/:O I$[NSb.h John H Frye,I!!, Chairman rf M, 4.. e.y.M's %e: p. .gi;llQ Dr. Oscar H. PatIs WW

s..M, :.m9.q:%,:m,. ',... u, n i.p:, y< >..p;S..% 1 erg /$W.'.. M

,g . i! n .e v. Mr. Frederick J. Shon r- . ;;p;.:f;'M'fr a M 94a v. c..e v 3w. > w..vq 44'd5/@N/S(p l.Me;G@.,p Mf.,ww v.t g; -. p.

4. -

s . q*h M7t

e,iM-,l.*!vW;': yer.7, g.N,/;}};%'?,.M,;

f. Irt the Matter of Docket No. 50-322 0L-5 %@s.i <. g;+,g. :4.J.y f < ;., ',Q. i t t. 6 c y>. s., yo (ASLBP No. 86-533 01-OL) py .t. ;.3. v. s.c, - i %s.- (EP Exercise) n. w V..It j,:t W k;., d.. x o w n,,,'.+/- @ x%.c.. s., ..? n

fj LONG ISLAND LIGHTING

11. a c.

x , e. u <...:.. t :...,t,,. .... n.

v.

7.'.kn J . 9 i..%.. <. :;,v..c:. @ yS E.R t. M,.,", < ?,/. N, p. J, COMPANY f

g

..;.i"?

@p 9... ;,.S

,, a ;. ;,... (Shoreham Nuelear Power Station, .. +,...:. ".. lV[p. N , ;r .,,..b ' l ' iW.

i,.: '.

.... g..,..',.,,., ti,.,s;. g, ',,;l f .. h t ~,g W,.,. i.3 Unit 1) December 11,1986 .. e.9c,y n. +,.,J e<*..,,,. <.c ...c y n .o ~?.-. ..,o n.: ..,,..~...m...,.. - 2,. .. p p;; :: ' L ' ; ';dn '..(. ' '

N.R'h'l M.

..? t gency response plan, Licensing Board rules on a motion for reconsideration filed 9.j, .N W.M, q.y#6@@dt.;.P.S; EM.1.f.kllh} y'

!/.q.. $ -

In the proceeding concerning the exercise of the Applicant's offsite emer- .fi

r..i,t.d by FEMA objecting to the scope of the proceeding, objections to the demal of

"'fM.@$lif $,yd.'@ .D certain contentions filed by Intervenors, settles differences of opinion among the %.h). /ji.[U$*.%j$J@.M[T:! (J.?f.M. y::c.*J;7g :s^.' M p' M[.t.O.D c? parties concerning which contentions had been admitted, and denies Intervenors' m m.. -j motion that it lacks competence to make the above ruh_ngs. A,3,$. ga..s;;p.U ;u.y,;.+1.n,; 3.;.n.y,:

s. 4..s.c... r.cc..o" -. s,.ca -

.r:f!.; q, ;.;; @.W:,m.ylr. :./,;+y.,, s.; 4

s 1

LICENSING BOARD: COMPETENCE MN/[:"IN,Y/N.:.Q,:,Mi^hb.r. :s .w ... ~. c u.. j/," h b h...k h h'h......c .N Oh'!.fdQW/.Ms The fact that a licensing board has been reconstituted does not render the i', N.'., Y R d N J N. M; d Y. 9 f d MN '$ 'l:50 board incompetent to rule on objections to an order issued prior to reconstitu-i tion. While the new members of the board cannot know what was in the minds d',N$ of the former members, the reconstituted board remains legally competent to 7@w$. h 'AM NJ:M. 4,..,Q....J;y:%.. c'l decide all matters within its jurisdiction. +r. ~., m. . m +.. / lf *.N.q.".5.r**:. ".s','. t,e.:.;p. p ; ;.g;;..*2 P ~.g::.. g, g

r;n.gis.*ff u.....pq o.t v.;I*'

. a. ty.: +.n.- .s s,; e p,g. j., p.4 ; '..i' q.g W 4 .. i..., g. yc { r ..on +, %.c.fn.xp.4:.,s yQQ,on.' ;Q*6:s M:.*=.,e. :

[.' G,&%.. s..

. w.:n c.n f.,..

%::ac

!!f,W:'.n % *%:. M.','h/ ;,f.y?.% m

a..m T4 n.;h.w&.:-;&

.q sO ?,; p ; W, a@f h *t %,N) ;.sy'r,l.e y% g/c~'; - %. ky,.%.;.,. r.. . :a v:N. +p %

s 8I9

.j:. ..w "' g

s a.. ~,..?'t.. a...**c,.2,. \\*'; 4 Q* Y ~;*,:w;;c 3 *.?;

l L;,

r. ft t,n a

gv *,."r ... 4 / 8.*. n p . ? "% I, I.i"m.,...,.m.p ..r.,. u.* Q...,.%:

e s

4g, 4... w;*fe, f. %. ?.* {3 f,,{jf.*.,,'* **(*.Q'..g' tyf *1

W g..g.- 1 3

.y y =*l#*

7 Ufw<?..,. 3.:..s. &..Q"g./
4 Q

i-

' C' s.h,,.,,' 2 h.k,aiW;M.*%y'h'?:t'f,* QW'a o, .h. ^ 'e A Q:ToitG j

9%ad/

hk %pAv!.d. !x.['*,?,ff.' yMs.W*M.fm e p$. m.1, R.W.WfBMWS m.... e.. m. n% p*'.b.i qC.#.; f., %.v. w& &w. p~ 2:.

w.. o.wm

.s .. :m.,, s.. . y ;p. %tm e .. A...% y,:h..<.

w. m;hll

W. Ny.'p' 6

"f ? : :.. h.,,. Q. l.%. 7. V. Yh.C.:. W.? b.. p

)I:
i '[%r,y

.~ Y.D r.** '. *M*Y.e: \\c[:a %,?;K.y,y'h,.j,M.y,, M(, s.*P: .w.v b ).n c E . j1 ' 4 J e4 N '*" ' "'*C "W. L l , M.be

b..; ' ". ' ' ~.. ~ L,, *

Y,. (.3*Pj 8 ' 9 C '*;V $il[' '

'tt Y. v' s '- ~

h

f.

kh kNN b k. h $ -k h $, $$ds[f g M S y).,, d M W MMw$$WW@edMW@eig@ f Mam j i.yf**.p3 y :.n.c+. @y. A M;.ff r r.~Q'y.. .om.. .d:;* ~;.p*.r*.a. y i ? NQ,sd>6@.:*Nh.:fr >K.,.H.*,,n;.-;*:j 'e .g.jf*." EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE: ADMISSIBILITY OF JQ{fhh).f,f,jy; Nf. $g/hMy@a 39;M CONTENTIONS ,%:,..,. r.,h..g.,, .[. o a,..,'.p .p (. g;gly,.;vj.pg",@f. ;p*,y.. Where a party maintains that an exercise of an emergency plan was the " full-r

d., '.,d participation exercise" called for by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, iIV.F.1,

/y, %pglg],.g 2 t.h.9 yf# lJ g,,;6;Md.{ contentions that allege that the scope of the exercise was too limited to meet pi rf sf 4 7,@i%..m. Qp ??f(g.c' f.P.Q-a.3gv.w$p?.h N N t< that requirement are admissible. T:jf h M.$ p. .s, 5+ siQ( er ^}Ql"a.sT- .Q'.%&*.';;*

y%

py.ff$$y.[d.% id MEMORANDUM AND ORDER @j.@ff,.rR4* W-6..h,pg? 5;7. r.6..

W<

(Ruling on FEMA's Motion for Reconsideration gs a 4 M., @. e.,* w' of and Intervenors' Objections to p..A. hN..x,s.e.e/.D.y w October 3,1986 Prehearing Conference Order) MAN. A.,C.A E MW M.. W: .a hh[h. <.:,n M.hh.s .:. m..a.. INTRODUCTION k I;WW %,ft.f.%:A&p?! T h M; D Y N( @ h.D hdN' N p %. k 'Dd M'@ This Board's October 3,1986, Prehearing Conference Order (unpublished) E' T y g d.Q j k g ( ruled on the contentions advanced by Suffolk County, the State of New York, and N the Town of Southampton (Intervenors). These contentions were advanced fol-ji g g, k f M Q, M. 9.g.gs $: Q 2 ' lowing a Commission Memorandum and Order which initiated this proceeding ( in order to decide any matters in controversy concerning the February 13,1986 ' Q Zdh i;y [bO'Q@h.@.Mhlg,W exercise of the Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) emergency plan? 'lhe Prehearing Conference Order has prompted a motion to reconsider from

fl;j[', % )..p;1k k fr%

h(gg,]. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and objections from /c;;;0.W.yM;tyg Intervenors.' FEMA's motion raises questions concerning the proper scope of k@hi.s(5 4:}/J,.jgh:. W dt s. U.':.

Q${;': /,2 the hearing, while Intervenors' objections challenge the denial of some of their

/1 Y;.9. .%l contentions. Additionally, all parties have expressed confusion with respect to M,.T:,*~7.[MM.,7.c* W. k .Gu

RH/ M s' I-the Board's rulings on contentions. In this Memorandum and Order, we resolve f;2. dp u.O,,M.%.Y. u.

these matters! However, we must first address a preliminary matter. .co <.s. w ~4mJe h'/.b?.*W' . a 63,. e'i,*,3...+w.m. tW ' r.,.,Ir ::f..* {p g gl<. f.,m.,ow,r... wlL e s 1 e.r. . :..it 'ig%.p !=

.W37.'.28m*4,,,7u.~

,m. . %,, y w?',f.5s 3 g; #.c j.f eyp { v 3 'N fy - @fP This Board was reconsututed on october 7.1986. A clanficanon of the october 7 notice was issued on

/k

%*'S '* * h.6.,,J[g*h'Mkd..h*k.y, '3 october 17.1986. On November 7. the Chief Admimsunuve Judge derued a modon for recisim of the nonce of [.,@ ' Q.n;$ @,3 k,[h*#v.Cd[ M '/. "![,'N";pk u'~' '** ' W reconsutudun and clanficadon med by Intervenors (t.BP 86 37A. 24 NRC 726). Imervenors Aled a motion for J ,}Q[$y*,yd(al;,MV. *[,q.gfhq reconsiderauon on December 3 which was denied on December 8. fg 2 CtJ 8611. 23 NRC 577 (1986). 3 Union of Concerned Sciansisar v. NRC. 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984). required the Canmission to pernut ~ 3,y/;j; **y+. jp;y,,gg;hl @,qg*g l.i fy}'. 4* y P.5Vqg.g,(ag!;W;,'W.,-p .(ja such Itugatim. wtA conducted the excrets. and will furrush testimony concernma its evatusnon.The motion anJ objecuon. A <,cpj,3 ' g.gg.. J-f '.v kl3.p,gQ,g::a,(p@ f%y,WQ%.Q?.9%ig.rj{pf r d y1 F.iQ V, 1*M.i/ were ed on ocwtw 27.1986. pursuam m an ext sion of ume granted by the Board on October 16. e 8aMA s mouan was med on october 27. Imervenori, t.ttro. and staff responded and Fr.MA nled a h..s f. q supplemmi Au monon on November m Pursuam to a Board request. UWo Ed tu so.caud "Rmd p.< p,. g <i g. p, h; .ola, sunda,d ve.on a comenu s. November iumemen da m mese ad ma me-on a g,f,. g gJ. *f Wy 4.'. n..g the comenuons on Novanber 24. suff also responded. November 24. but did not submit its version of the p. ,,4 @ki fk W~ .g commo. . fpY'.! m. 2 (C#"""""U H .we. M .sxm u n. W ;y N : D l) m' h 1.p,7g;-b W e s. f.k *h hh ,i 820 Xh,... A.,..n.-hh!r ,m.n(. ;;%,. wa.5 & n a, .w . e:. mu.- ~..,,,.,,,,.n~r Q-ws. .g a "J e e .s g ,,.g.. .1 ..n; .e i,! i 'e e p,

i e 9 1 a ~ y .. '..., Q p. l ..'..s. ; < *. n 4 4.':1, -;,.iG : ~,,.+;h >.. J s l '.>.. ? '. " %,w...;; e .o. v L.. ~. h , - r ' &.. G, ' ' +... sc .'? %. "JQpj*%l*..' 'f, s W.%:m?,9.g 7u;. %a. W... W e N'A:ll $ W '.&l.?i Y'.5 W W. O W

D'E.

5. i l

A

[0' : %*hI s^ O' ' * &U 0 YN MM,4 ?(J.,j t.a,p';.Q:,,.a%k u. g gj.. 4,,J'.g*..?.f.IM.:.hM.? =p(f.*d

-,w ~.. m 1 L Ja,'..

d 9,;s.j%:aQ Z... r

' W *
d.*. 1

.m....;... ;?S. 3i.ym r.

f. g: Q'cg e&.4 s -. T:::.. *W.4. Apl.3.,,

C.w i s w j e w. @ $. h. 1.ss.r.ift.*.h P,(h M. % f6 3 Q y S 'u'?. y v e c. Q .h.kh k In their response (at 4 8) to FE.Y A's motion, the Intervenors challenge the @./;f*2. W Q O:6 M @ M~.., M. N.. d k exercise related issues now pending before it." We overruled this objection in M p competence of the reconstituted Board to rule on "the FEMA rnotion or other s@#{;.x ah,,',$n.>d.v v y# 'u@,p,E.p. yew,A....,!.. d~e,E"'D-@@p.M.il.9p@n..c,

W.

t'. 3 footnote 1 of our November 13 Memorandum and Order (unpublished). In a Wh..:qyp. P. y. letter of November 17. Intervenors object that this ruling did not deal with the t e..q.W;...e.,j.WM/4.;o,.<..., substance of their objection. Therefore, we address this matter below. l q,W y.GW rm,$. ;. s ruf o @y. 4,v/.. ;........, 'p, ; u.,c::.< q;..s.W. G..,.M, m e %.,.g..W Intervenors' objections raise two points. First, they cite their pending motion m,;, /.e,.M.. j/.-Q. s p:.i., r,,.a...< s $ s p'ye.%,M. ir,.:.g.",g/.qZ., v J J." g o..'.': to rescind the notice reconstituting the Board. That motion and a motion for h m f. g d reconsideration have since been denied (see November 13 Memorandum and WJ,W.Ni.@MQif%'Q6(y:

$iC ji?$$M)7-h'!!

jg M...#1b Order, n.1, supra); thus this argument is moot. A:;i 2 /NW;M;k"1!.E,.M,rM[.',.y.':.g'N j Wi.Q 6/ Y Second, Intervenors argue that the Frye Board cannot know what the Mar- .%D .3,;fY'n gulies Board intended and that the schedule conflicts that dictated the reconsti. h$.h'.i. $'h.5 'i.h* N tution would not prevent the latter Board from passing on the matters dealt with $5.k,j[;:NQ'Qy,@3^h

i

.J herein. Intervenors allege that rulings by the Frye Board on these matters will h C~ [t',4 W.-( i'i p. N F,p. h,G. Y, % % ;s W@h!,. j deny them due process. However, they cite no authority for this proposition. Intervenors' argument is premised on the existence of two boards in this f h.. ;$d$ 5 : % $.Q,(.t. % *U.N.,%' j f portion of the Shoreham proceeding. In point of fact there has been only one. It

-A ;4c,: )$,MN.Yy y, d *., '; C.,; h'k N

was appointed punuant to the Chief Administrative Judge's authority following . 'f.,;Vf@ issuance of the Commission's Order (CLI-86-ll) that a board be appointed to g tj. j.yp #,.Y.,. [.;,. ,t.,y..j ;,

.. ?,*.,,,, (.,..Ml J.,'P; r.'; '... l.

~ 7-review and decide matters in contmversy concerning the February 13 exercise. It was reconstituted pursuant to the Chief Administrative Judge's authority. While 5 .1 intervenors are correct that the two new members of the Board cannot know ... :. g.. 2,i.;,st /,,.. '.. V ... u. , i, s M.f.

a. ;N '.S

. 6s 1.. p..}..i,..., /. '. 6., r/.. what was in the minds of the two former members, that fact does not render the + ,/ JJ,.;' c ..a J 7... .y Board legally incompetent to pass on the matters now before it. The Board was N,".jlQN- },.f. .j gp ' '.,}. and is lega!!y competent to decide all matters within its jurisdiction. A ' y,K" ; A :.f y,. i ?,. * * /q ?. .y ' 4 Moreover, we note that the question of which contentions were admitted ,2 .,l by the Prehearing Conference Order, decided in this Memorandum and Order, . :/ 41 ..s, ,y m.,". F s the question to which Intervenors' argument is most relevant in a practical

m. s.. f y. - ;r... e 3,./.'

J

Y "l~.

sense. That question has been decided in Intervenors' favor, thus largely u.e, .s. .~ r..r y, f, ;. W.:;'.la{.:7.r; $ w..c h.;.;- mooting the objection. We do not believe this argument has any practical

./.b. a,,..,. J~hi>',.M[.N'fQ?q$p[.

a relevance to our competence to decide whether errors were made in the denial of .$.. :M4 3...i!.},. 7. N...e<..s.9.a./.M.- contentions. Apparently Intervenors agree. for their objections allege numerous J l .,, s..,x' s.. errors m th.is regard. .;. swp . ~. <.. .;;,c.y",c.4 .... n. .r .. 1 .v c i : > ; A... < - !,, * ' ;,.~.n, = A r w...-...

W ;**,;

i '. '...;g /

:. 3 u.+

,s A l- .

q., A. "/ li

W*,. ;,;,' '.,;: f"

.:V C;\\,; 7 f.3.,r ?,.lo; ?, l,",e[..h ';;: _S.. s?,. :n. ',w.,.M..,' . ?3.', , * [ 7 * .s ~ .R...,

', g,,.., c,j i..:.,",p w,.,.: p.e; ' a

,s e ,,.mp, o..s g 'g.+.': c...v.....,. . u se 4... ,, ~.* * / :/,.... P '..

q. r 9. '. 4

.,,. S'. #.,,.; 3 ; >n..y:q.t 1. '. '. N

, u.,. ; n... -

,).[ e.. t, ,, -.c..>. , g. . + :..,. g.. ;,... .m .s .y. k.. g.' i "f'*,; h. y., *f-f. Inuarvenors' objectas were fJed on October 27. taco. staff, and FEMA all responded on Novernher 10. .. [ ;)[f $ $,'* * ,@ N4 /*d/M ;'N:# ['** 'SI *,,'[!)l. I

A e nference of counsel was held an December 4 durmg wtuch many of the rnauen ra: sed by these pleadmgs 4

p,.d. r,. c' M '.i r.:,,,,..,. ,.y tj. 9- . ew e..;.5,;*IG..D . y, ;.S e'. g ? It and a schedule were d:scussed. / . p;'.~. % t n,. .*,4;.- c ,M s +9 .., t i' '*.. ;. ..., = t.; v.,,, e ; c W. ') 'rs ). e..Y,. :,'; x.'.'. f.' ' M %,*f o.. *.= :

',4;.e

.l *].G.h W:r

.'t.

'f'\\*, i? '.*.l4

. r ;d u.. ,.r. ' '1 ; p.p-u..i <.w; ~,. ~z.. ;..c,?v.,.;:: I,,:.

e...: n 82I

.e. ~*.p. : -.iq 4 g sh -. *. Wx..v.,s.y: *,l, p c. 5. g, ;f. ;.O... , e. f.x, j ' #, .g. e . w ?:%:,..r. ' a

vy: c;6 V. N.t

. 9. e.P*i l.Q. : , ' q 's,'. 4.'s;W.. t..'. * -l. **,,..T..q.r.c. t -. t'.?lQ< <.'::s ta. ;y. e, ;d.'..g,. .tt* n . t l.'s '..a 'p.. A/ ..%.^.".***..,. N.*. d, y;".f.'lr 'A. :.n* 'l((dc *(;'L y $.,,<f, ? *>*.A ......'. $/ S:,,a ;,.-..m'. *. I. '.N,2...>.. 3:E

*. t[. '. L% VQ ;..

r %'. '4. Jh;(/J:'k' N hl.Y, bhNih*,th ,) r 'i h,

[. f

[& L W 'N % % W*Q %'"Y d'[ d b,;.s j. m. w.; k.~w. a. Q. C &r m y b.j v: j.O %, &... w Q... m.e.,. n,;7: g.,..v.W;~:p.4,:,,x;-.;..u,;;3. w.,r,. @p,v..::nsm% y.p 4.m..m m.g *m ..n.., -.. .-.. m w.y v :-

q.qg w p.g.Q H-Q tp.

r . 9 a: .\\ A pg. a..a.t. y:g.s,at,-cp: p .A,v. 4.;ymy' .: e w- .q k h $' 1 .. m. g.:,.m.;: )

n.,c....w n....,n.....:.a...n.

s w m., y.: w. 4. s.,. w%.a: a. ~u..,.+... m, s :m. ~..., e .,,..;.,q.m,. a : :. ~... m., ... 4 s

s. u

.a4e..-.,. 3;.. . r. a.. y,. .y . y*. ,,v s. t n.,. a.. g,. .s ....y, e r .A: e ,. ~ .t 7 s,

f::NM:N ;u'. M U W @e.*5. % !n' Y

1. N. Q,$. %y %.. % @em m. m.N u; M {~i%.;9, % k: p f ;%. i q% f.q 5 EG k p q Q~,n. Q.s d mM

M

'Q: W a +.w;:ggg.-eL.g$ v.

p..

44 - wta.wp.r. :., .hh Y!k Y h ' f55d$bb)N. Ekh b h3dldN dIkk5$ M h2N

h j

b rw... .f.r.b,,. %* ':.. (k,k'b y'~ k c.S n 6>l5n ? f. - O 'h&,N'Wsk'4. % ' $Tl*yg. I WJ? i %,:%:?.syr.:;:.7p.'e.M, t%# c FEMA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION yF ~$...:Ih.p*f,3.,:: rM. Y

y:

~a..

A.

4 I Ambi uit7 n Prehearing Conference Order M. e.m S.D.. c,T.m h. g N.... f,,Y E i . Uh,. 3 .h'f[.fffk[,h. In its Motion for Reconsideration, FEMA noted that the October 3 Prehearing

4. N d [; Cd: . W :'.O M f M,d.iAV,h;,[$ps;;h.W W'

Conference Order was not clear with regard to the contentions that had been ht jQ:- admitted. (Motion at 16.) In their objections to the Prehearing Conference Order. g.ggi,.,N.ci the Intervenors noted that in many instances we denied separate admission to a i.,.&s y"0. % ? %.. m?F. N. WW n ... V S-contention but indicated that the facts alleged in the denied contention could be

2. W,Qg/

,y W/./.lM %,;%,y!.M J 9. w.?w " litigated in connection with another, admitted contention. (Objections at 2-3.) ht. rd;$... m>.f. n o w@$$[iMM?pJf'[, y d'. ;? W In a motion of October 30 requesting leave to respond to FEMA's motion and r. pt A( Intervenors' objections, LILCO took issue with the Intervenors' interpretation of the Prehearing Conference Order set forth in the latter's objections (see id. . 2.ce p.N ;.

p 4 v.~Mh. 'h.Wp.q

c;.ND

[..r' M. 5 f gI at 2 3) and indicated that it would file a so-called " Revised Standard Version" y ep s. k@,.h'hh.p..<, .p ..yg of the contention:: if permitted to respond. ff % h @( k h. E M Mf N:$$'MMi 4' N hS In our November 13 Order, we noted the confusion among the parties with M.'I.T. respect to which contentions had been admitted and called for LILCO's " Revised 'J. i g,M*tW4 M.a....f ..N. -..y< r:yJp,s. Standard Version," which had not accompanied its responses. On November 18, o r .s g.'.,t .M.; ty,' gg.;u.. we indicated that Intervenors, Staff, and FEMA might file their versions of the [.D'Q{dM@..., M:?.y.~ w., f admitted contentions in response to LILCO should they desire to do so. Only r ':c*. *tW. . ?fp, fd@qfyg.b Intervenon did so. ' $ $, $ g y**$ @.Q,0,Q?) %

y,,

The differences of opinion among the parties are shown in the following ta- / .j Ji&.QMi[,.( ble. A separate column indicates Intervenors' Staff's, and LILCO's views. An yy,4,: 5gh ).lf,h lyg d;/;,Q.y'@,Ya'g@.: C'.,yf.7.[;<* @g* d '"S" indicates that a contention was " subsumed" in another and an "E" indi. A 4 cates that it stated matters that might be offered in evidence under another [. '** " Mi.b/ CAM A kW(.W8J * '%D. 'u tae,W. contention. An "A" indicates admitted and a "D" indicates denied.

.4'.4 ! ',D,hlMfjQJ W

.". g' /s. ..$p AL e ~ , p@j Q,h,g.% p;~W.- WA.r,.p Contention Ex Intervenors Staff LILCO f >a .n .i% dd M.3[ p..y.?'.g@y.y.,l@.M. d M ~- t.MM.,@.Mb 15L A A D AL . m.. r.. i n;rgf. 16A.D, F-J A S D iWre@l..A.a.tW:ggNg ,. g did.4 A 18C -A S D

A!M,,r m@@.: .-

y &g. $. % 4.N .a.u. - pS.. h?[rdM*,?p%c%.'i.* %pj g%fhf$ 22F A S D 2 21 A S D y WW4M,. a$.,6 sh: 22K A S D n :; 9 *.1 M 9 96.. W-q m np v :p f-s b9 3.*:3C: .p.:; ffb 23 A E D n r ys.m.. Iib 5.E,.dp Wy..u 24 A E D e s f

g, -p W:,.Mp.Q 'c.<:S y,W~!

25 .A E D [ % "t..g %. a $. 4 r 'NhDM ,C. p,5 *. W M..&. 0 26 A E D q .y.er.5g'.g:$g.,,w Vil> J m 27 A E D b.}. Q U ;; p g%

. c@. g.. t

. $.:{ 't ,y y 28 A E D r Ol6!%p%;$$'DfM'pTq 2.i'QSt 29 A D D N M NNiO'E.~M!o 30 A E D Wh'hMMfh3.kN.MYd.T -k 4: 4 MM$gpo rte.!WW.u. ($.n.,$:.w$Mg@i 822 h . c?; Qs p,w.:%..ng.. e; e2 a.@i;>. 4 );y b. .. f ,%? Phe.H..7 h:;f0:.h54.m6,p2..@4.fg:.C v m i C G. n g; & f5 5 '.p t& b o.y;4@.N.q,W0 n 9N %qny. h k _h, f _- i !-f ..,. _.e _e. o 4... r z i. t.,.. - i g i t* a

1 I i ~

NW.

.i'NE *h.. Jc b% +

Ok. -.~.mYhs.%...o&:..

... A w *...** ,1w.~. ~b.. n.

h.

3..?0+:,/.g..g.2,.r,.%, a: g*.'.

= s '..S,r @s,. ~n 1 ... c 1:r- &p. I :,i.C.~ V

~s.m'.,:l.t..= p.;W.v c:f'c.'.w'; p:bzp

.sp..M....t 'f 4. G. w, e:. ..% y:t u .,. d ,a::7.m, s. j.w., L@q'f,,/:yu.v.:,.m,:.s..w% w.c:;... gl:.t,lf nm.;, . cy.. 2 m.p. .%,1'QT ;. -y j ;e.?"'Y Q *> *.lV.'?.l'. -%.js %;W sj ~%. 3r ;,,: w :,r.r..r v.. m.cm,c.c. %.n. .s r @Y.y 3.,,kj, Y.m..,'.,;ym mj,. u,e;q.;n2' ~

u. ~.u r. a.e./g.%. nN.,y W 'M. n..tg;

. L.. n...%. e.v ; e; .; eS. m>ew: .a y A< : , 4.,: ig,yy.a MiM. w. N D Contention Ex Intervenors Staff LILCO a.- ..w. d.;F.ur.W+l~.c} ' +?.34,%,.%y. s.,+AW, %, v.M.. . a t.-.. 3 %y w W.:.t..m....W'A'h - 1w 31 A S D SQ:Q*>2.,;:,w;.y.)i?:: -Q M f M 32 A S D

.f

.M.$q$g:,M,<.*.,j@,. y.%bM. pf. y:,,:MR~&<iys%4;@ f ..w.t(9 <e.$ i' 37 A E D vs rwq w.. no, w..g .g; l' f C: ' 42A-G A D D d fy.Q Q. it 44(first sentence) A S A ($:5;/ N. - e. M N. h'.b M $' M. U S:~. I..... i. s,....M1.v'.M...b. f:d,,,d P,,7.. ym.:N3.. MYM '3 45A H A E D E.N c 46 A D D m ~,~~.~:.... < a:. %.. i 1%n] ? ^,) :J r. y.[;2 ; c'th :* L.,.. :.,y. ! 4'g., n'.'4 ,,..,.. p.e.c - - p,'..... use of the terms " subsumed" and " evidence" with respect to some of the

l

..s

@#pmg.v *

c $...: g/..M.. e,., a g.'.*7s.. Wa/ u.... e,,.,

4, The table makes it clear that the confusion stems principally from the ...o. N.. F, 6.. W,.. W.. ..r

c

,.9..A.. d. 3 f.g;..

h.@... 'ml.e?.1..,

contentions. Only Contentions Ex 15L, Ex 29, Ex 42A-G, and Ex 46 do not .ie.ey,R..T..'j. f. q, /,7.a0.h.M:;D:'.M. :%.i.'(f.V/. Mp

M.

q.4 ..,fb: '! @G@f.sjd involve the use of these terms.

i. M

, 'dii.<,lE.f,M. q;.; w 5.9 Y.h. 4 [d7..r&.r.,,j bh. 8-The term " subsumed" was used repeatedly in the Prehearing Conference Or-2 ,..c CW!?QN. der. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridi,ed,1976) de(mes ,S, l$l'.N,':f;M :.;y f.. 7./,3l%,.J;1p;,: d, f.A:./.@.", 4'p 2 subsume "1: to view, list, or rate as compared in an overall or more compre- .o s..., f r. -c I... l..'f.g'M[J. ;*W'; J',,' '] V(te:.'s, hensive classification, summation, or synthests: encompass as a m example, ? : 4, '. v..'. r. *I or phase: classify as a part of a larger scheme or judge as a specif:c instance 'i e, g, ' 9 l; j f N governed by a general principle...." Thus when a contention was said to j .. q', ;

9

.,. "..Y..$ ~ :*N,../ ;'. ; L,,y.]. @n 'p: P a t'.

K.; ' ';.f.J. V f;.. '; ; ;7 J.""

contention. Any other view simply ignores the meaning of the term " subsumed." be " subsumed" within another contention, it was consolidated within that other t (Je ,t..ij,q:L!* "* O .y .3,. v.,,,, _. ; - Staff has indicated those contentions that in its view, state matters that may ,- m,...:, c, be offered as evidence relevant to other contentions. A review of the rulings on J y :,; i* +..,; ; ;.f c., ',,a 9s..' f. (g:. L,

q., ;,, &q W.c' t%se contentions indicates that Staff's interpretation is correct.

..y ,.y. At the conference of counsel held December 4, the Board handed the parties 4 - ~. ,. a. c. r., e .i,. " j ~. A......,1 a version of the contentions that reflects this treatment. Those contentions . ' c.

, c.i ! ~l. '-

subsumed within others were stated with the others. Similarly, for convenience of T,C ;g,0 './, c.i 'IM.$.'l< "*7 '. i j.l. :p{ (5.glJ c.fJ -6. reference, the bases of those contentions that state evidentiary matters relevant

4. A,. ? ;...,. s. < (. ?c,.[.'.m.j.

.W.fr/.;.ll.N:i' *! to other contentions were stated with those other contentions. The remaining . i c .. n, mc contentions are discussed below. .s m.

m.,

j,w 7"a : g'. .M.;r.;;f, 4 , ;g 's,.. g 4 LILCO takes the position (Response to Intervenors' Objections at 2 5) that c.,~.N w n... e n... d,:,.,: Cantention Ex 15L should not be admitted but that Contention Ex 21 should be p i".@[../g.;;'. :.,.-. ;.

o,' 4 (;. e,.y.t'.y' t 2

.l r:y. ( : ?, # bl.f interpreted as including the substance of Ex 15L. In essene, that is what has D. 7 6.f {;, f G % y been done in the Board's version of the contentions and LILCO's position is J;; M,. '*?.a ?p.. : t :,..?,...w, $.... 5-u.:,, w :, ;, '..." 2 3 .e m. rejected. J O,~;t.;-Q. :,,s.p,.f;Rm...; LILCO urges (id. at 14-15) that Contention Ex 29 be stricken as duplicative h u t 1, T.tzp;yj.Q:f ;.;'ft,l'l3/J.'.,fI;Q;.:.,' */

O (, -;? /;iT.j;.: 3.flg... y:

of Ex 41B(iii)(a). The contentions are very similar. However, no harm is done by

3J setting out Ex 29 with Ex 41B, particularly in view of the fact that the Prehearing M, " ', b%. h.I,

M$5.; 9!. Conference Order (at 17) noted that Ex 29 stated a matter cognizable under Ex ' %. 4 ',., ' '.4.f[;, : 'Q','tm. ? tah'.g~&. V 41B. (See Staff's Response to the LILCO " Revised Standard Version" at 6.) / % *.,e P..?- .,q.e,. M..',t,'..;,',i..*j p.;f 7,fg Y tf,[.. -c,. ; ^.

.a 7[g.7i. g M,t..'j,!.;); *.

f*y*l1.2 d. *.*T. :f,%,.7;,, *.W,a *.

r .. w.,. ..x... 'lA. :.f. **. ',*.,f;;;: :.),.?. l:.* s

s l.1 }l9. Q.. ;** *y' r

. U,, , h.t * ** *; Q'... *'*. '. h7 ?. e ': q. t' 1...* %s.n',;e %. Jh.....n * ::.

*. p. &.,?. ;, s. ?,./
o. -Q P

s,. J ',(,,a,e,. g., a 2. ., ' b.. L'.,.. '.f.., ! " N * ' j,',.i

1.,p".. ;,' *. A. * ?f. A.,.-]f. i,.,.5 *.. (

y

fc;.. s n'.

e f'. 4 u -egg ..p..,,,~. d

tp.

4.~.' '. ?,W;'.,? 7.*:$y4< :,y fe t*.s f * *s, ,.D, .$ *if $.,.. 0.O..'R..A.? ?. Q

e. +,!

n -? .t}y. a r., ::.\\; > y. % l 4 ,,.3 ' ',.: n y., '- A ;i * 'se.

?

c';W.'[* W'. MD;.:ya W[/ 9 ?!O.,.:'.;;R.lcQ. 4.'.4'-r-ly. .,; U;N g Nf.*", ' Qk.C 2 J b!E5-hk$p..i:Q:.M.z"g,s.r '.Q:*.c;,jf.;Q,S'&, @ %e?.w$. i q 6%g &gy:. w.f f{$ .Ma, seJ ? n: wa.w.,M. k. >w!E 'l** hh"w.w;.m..h. a)s,y-(E fb. <..

2i: .~3 W wn

-T :. t v-< m .-,- A -v.. x. ne w. ;c% n. w ~ w n y O h.: m;h, m,c $ w. m, n* m v:,.$ e.k h-h h. .h.Y k h ':w*?: n'.nn:.. w.o>w w:c o <. p.5: l. k .hhY$ . W p.-h.m . M..y y.w.pa... y.. e x,. 7,.. 3.. r.a:a.w..n.,y v. , e.. w.;

s.. :.

..v ..s. i. 4 ...**_...r ... w :. '**'(.. .%.'.,.~,,.....

4. '. ' t

.c .c (g.,g%- ylp

e

, *':'.,

g.,, 'g p

'"I,. 7, y' ? s .-4 'a, y . S 3 .+ ./ f

0%.r N...,d '. *N..y..t% M..,. A. ySg p'c. .-m,.

p4

..v. %., ..x .s s..s'3 e b" * *" % r %. r,.V' sg, : s r *r./f't,. '.* x/. J; y.4 p S *g

d.,

/,.5 p. s*

.%.U.' MI$q.e.i.:,.hj,Y'M n *#. s *./.W,

t. '.

j LILCO urges that Ex 42 was rejected and should not be set out in connection Q..a.4,s,.., M..-., ec -t $,M... 6 ' t,.,c.Ofeg(:W.;il@... .,j 4 with any other contentions (Response to Intervenors' Objections at 20). LILCO is W. M d. % [. 3.c.( %.f. J p.....g.5,'.b'h - r ;pf.;N,h;% n t.~.S. correct that this contention was rejected. However, in rejecting it we pointed out .d' .}, that it is redundant to other contentions. To the extent that it sets out additional .;$ e B W.iF,q.,;, D Q' W, T'J,.s[T..G

k. N, p l?.GDe,l *,*Y factual bases for other contentions, it has been incorporated in the Board's

$ g.m..r'S d,. M2* p <...' I.. Sy version of the contentions.' LILCO's position with respect to Ex 46 (id. at 23) y- .,3 W.;;.]4p'OM., is rejected for the same reasons. N.% -.3 q.,q; r'..,C.:.'.% u,.r.+ y

r. g....r

,y.:.: :.q. r:; o;%. : m.....,,n.s c. f t c / gyj yf/M.,.cji.%w.s.w n 5 m.g...N<,...,,f.l..N.m f/4 Contentions Ex 15 and Ex 16 2,.3 'D. $. '[.w.. e, % t P' M,.fM h,.6~ c"./. ' in our Prehearing Conference Order, we held that contentions that allege that ,1.'Q1,3*g,.. s, jY.[,',.$........,,, (;3{.! i;/g'."l'/7'i!., t.@p .,i. c,' the February 13 exercise failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part .fi.;g. 50, Appendix E, LIV.F.1 are acceptable. Under this holding, we admitted .$. d, h. > & a.,- M.7l4.4.,, g,d.

8 ^." ~.J.t, ',

Contentions Ex 15 and Ex 16. These contentions allege that the exercise did a. p..

e4,...

f.. ggy..: .g;$ W-not include demonstrations or evaluations of major portions of the plan or of g%f@Y'd$ #T T WM ,% -g.'t f a., p the capabilities of many persons and entities relied upon for implementation. M '93 FEMA, supported by LILCO and Staff, seeks a reversal of this hold- [ @ $ b l.I, h j' @Y ing. FEMA suggests (Motion at 8) that we have ignored the limitations contained MNS r* .h @. Mjl$f-in CLI.86-11 and have opened the hearing to challenges to the conduct, design, EiQ. and scope of the exercise. FEMA believes (id. at 10) that the exercise design and conduct are not n: levant or material to the evaluation of the exercise and D Q.;", g %., M,'i.O d. Q $ p,'j"~(*j,gif{V.*k(-/..";Q g.,. W (9,*,.Q N,y (Q that FEMA should be subjected to scrutiny only on its evaluation. It maintains %dh@ha'l';';, .h.%' */4 that it should not be required to " engage in a contest as to how to design a better exercise or exercise scenario particularly in a situation where FEMA has g,lfQ$3.:.?p , "lg made no finding of reasonable assurance," and notes that its " regulations do gy,g'yM'.fjpg@'f./;,'g.$p$ %$ g not require every element of every plan to be tested every time. This does not .Q.QQ;g'h Q.$.%,,'f.3h TJWIO.},'qg g'yy$ W8WWI make the exercise meaningless.... The primary reason is that FEMA's regu-f'M'W& h.y[Ak,h@,$[h lations contemplate an exercise continuum wherein the plan's various elements ffhhh k h,hGd are tested periodically." (Id. at 10-11.) In short, FEMA believes that questions tp [{M,$'. CQT.***d.bhrj'.'.h of exercise design and scope or conduct are committed to its discretion and are y k%i not challengeable in NRC licensing hearings. (Sec id. at 14.) W.W< d M 'Dr &* . ph.. 'J..;?.en;;SM.H.MM.Jg % LILCO supports FEMA's position; LILCO's position is summarized on pages ..n y..:u: x.L 3 and 4 of its response. .W m.:.r. ? Nt,: v..t..a . T.J pQ:Q ';*,W %w.9 y /;3 ?;p'"t .,,nyj. f:&.4. w

F; # @

g n:h[rg. ;95 O f n. 8.Q/],e,m;.-ny'f.Jy; G W MM fi' 1. 'Ihe Board's construction of the UCS Case erroneously neglects both the lautude M.N.% ~6*?C..D. d*[P.Q J fr L'@.pa;~b;;; g"f,y*;.~<,j.y.r %. e 'A conceded by the Court of Appeals to the Commissian to design the manner in which it -d

y*

Jy raff 4,'.. *p*P... v.- - fQ,,p.J;.. Q' /'t would permit htigation over exercise results, and the fact that the Commission has exercised " p,;p$.p;W,. i W: y.o$p lsy,?.[%C. that lautude in st ucrunng soch litigation in CLI 86.ll, by limiting the admissibihty of t-h.,.n' &o...W y%*<h

t,l

.f iv.vM -A a., r,. ^ a o. d.Rf- -N ? u...n:.'d.[& Y'd*;. N.y hy.p;*f,b.'.' g.K..,w *:o,,J Qg., c, -l ? ** k '.'JV 6 b 1n its veman of the content:ons, the Board emmeous:y included the preamble toI!ns contenuon. 'Ihc punble .b+.M.'.sc *. s 'N * /s

y...I' A.N tT o

i

... p. po.,,,t,Q@,e 3..d should be sincket gs j

4f ..;cg W7

5 5h

., ;.. w r,.. n, r. w.e E %';H,y,:u.m./. w.p.;y. : p:m .f'..... r.e.%?;?.7,'.W bv 1 G y .m. g;.M

c..

L 8y Q, ?.g n:y,.f,.c%y.. %,.<. z. u.,..t,. c sm '.* - e W w,<1 s y V.,,.g.v.w W.WiW a, e k '#'?:4, : 7..c..r,,,.. w..s.. VD. Q.'M ges ' Y.g. n'*z1;.&.>. W?N. .' W.'.$;'b, *W/;.D.. M egc W:p @y, p.WM. f.bO5h'b'i p i .w;.Qy m w D$hm,s..~:.,r >p wM F.mm.... pMqc. p. 9.,q6w,,w[.,9.mwv,4;h,.c B ,h ; .(5, y5 O'@N., h.N... $h,.h..k'.f<.h%$. SSf. h_N..h..,h%kw-5h.,a F U m$ @ y J. mB: siq i -.M mL f.p. m s ...., m + 'l 4 i

i,nf,. d. % W..{.a ;. . v. v't.,. s.,...';,&* .. v

h. b. ' s,h.,Y.1.... v,.;qh.,3j~ +,e,;e N.,,, r *m/N.g.M..S.jJ.,M.y[y ew.g' @r "'

ty, r' V. w. ;- t . N'.,%a f s x t - ... v .r. ~ .e v., ~. w k g+:& -c. j.F.ta.op <d.g.t..w , a.p+ : ,:s ~;;A),.,a,ne,',.<. 4 .i, e.g. m.f.y.K'u' f.4....p,. vw ,., 0.,t,A., 4.* ? s R *},,wr,,.. ,o :b.)',a ;*. '. s. 1,, *.. m. w - . T4 0 ,.o,s. =h

. p.A,

. A* : ? : W ml,. q:.g;?. +';z.s2.?p: j.~ , r.,4.'. M t. .S. 1

f. e \\%v.g,s'(/ 9M !.:..'sh,; M~ /.s d,

m.- Q.id.['b.s.f, %.N((.,RTYQ*&.[:;C....,s e.* * >,%r, .e e.- M.. contentions to those that allege a demonstration of fundamental flaws in an emergency plan . R q,R* 3h.I y h.k.h.ru r c. y.r...'. f l.?;% based an enercise performance. C ,..k f '.?M),kM.m.h r l,l'.Y.dV,7jD.M$'YJI[N/, Sip lgj;.% Lf

2. '!he Board's open. ended admission of contentions challenging the scope of the f

7;?'.

exercise, without requiring any showing that FEMA has departed from its normal practice, kai 4 f'Qe '[* $,gy@h,h.N./li*fi',* :;h,'h$ y/.

9'M incorrectly fails to accorri the deference due FEMA in :he exercise of funcdons within s,

i .h [I[,. the area of its experdse, disregards the pres.unption of regularity properly granted FEMA ".L. ;e..N.YI !* *IC'j;.4.t {,r..g' Q. /(M'.: ".f .. k.4..*;,%.\\.i...s. p. $ r/ l.+. N in the performance of its duties, and disregards FEMA's function under the FEMA.NRC H A g.'...M.,. v.a

0. m, e - '.~./t h ' ; Y.*'al*: %;. W :.J &" w r

-. Q 6 '.r. t 'r-Memorandum of Understanding. a e

:,' i f

~ a: t.- hd[Q.g:~r*h.N;[C.h;h,I,6N'M:dh'. Qy 0, g p.4 q.e d.A,f"/$ i . p.*Qt, 3. Admission of contendons challenging the scope of the exercise is irreconcilable with Q ;N j, t the exp:rt description of FEMA's implementation of its duties with reapes to the licensing of nuclear power plants set forth in the motion for reconsideration filed by FEMA and in the ft. NfC attached affidavit of Robert S. Wilkerson. drX y{e[ h h I'h k bI [)Y,;).k,M.y.. A N, re d h. ,f,.' r l. u ts a,f. J.9 o. -%@'ll.h[L:, s.. ' m. h ' h ; h[M [' h$?.l 4. Admission of contentions challenging FEMA's performance of its duties in structur. 3$p tj ing the scope of the exercise raises generic policy questions concerning the implementation ,~, ' R.,:;h:.h,(.g (M M..,.)P *;/rJ.,' fff. :"3.{. 7:. 's..?.,?. f,y.,,) b %s *...h,,, ; g"qlf'.i}t d.5. ;;p %.Y. of the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding which are appropriate for a rulemaking a .;f.y.D+ proceeding or interagency egreement, but are not appropriate for resolution in an individual s . 4.~ 3., ., ;..,, 9

b. censing proceeding.

a

k. S'.N. i 7.,,

.es. ;s.p. ' p.pt pA.;.y. <j c s.9. 1,;,% y,, *, s r)*i,,,.s :v.s ..a .,{.* r<. y. s ...s. 9; 'M h S;" J.b... -.sM^ ~ ..?..yt...,7.~i..h'?. In its response, Staff takes the position that even if proved true, Contentions M,.s, '.fl e. Ex 15 and Ex 16 do not demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the plan revealed . ". ! c.f,.....,;,:.. -l :, i ;,; v. c. .,,4 y. '. " 'i,. by te exercise. .c..

y','

n.,..,; p' *..*,../. r.... y ..;.y f'."' y In opposition, the Intervenors assert that their contentions do not challenge ^./.. ;,..,. r..b;', , ls. ? [ls..."..;6 ?,: FEMA's design of the exercise scenario or its exercise processes. Rather, they y.,.. ~..g.: v..E;,, ?.,.,.. 9.,. G. e.7, e, f i, l3;; ,'<f . ; c..? maintain that the contentions challenge the exercise results and evaluations. This, . <ft,; . ", l<'h ?.' they maintain, is clearly proper under dCS, supra note 3. (See Government's Response at 12 21.)

n<,.....,.

v. . s...., g.. 0.,.'. f. i ,..1 e,*: c ((T;, '.,'i. c, ',' -, ' y,' f. 3:.'N ' ;h.. T,*. The Governments have alleged in Contentions Ex 15 and 16 that there is no basis upon S. ', ". '.4 ?. ) 17,.'!. g;;'W d which reliable conclusions can be drswn from the February 13 exercise about the adequacy .y. M *. *,. s t. .,'; d,' :d.$ i iT *M>...k.,,..[.y,$ [ 7; ! /h...4 f./.. and implementability of the t.Ilf0 Plan, because major portions of the Plan and Litf0's .;'.q;..:llLt.i.:,17),g;.j,,4;t'.[;d l.,, ability to implement it were not demonstrated or evaluated and because the response i.

",';l. ';.;. A l,,, :.; a capabilities of persons and entities essential to plan implementatiors were not demonstrated

p..f. * ;; g.

/M.*,h(CI'(2b)'.h f. * *{t;* Y.5'... Y',' i; ?? J. '. * % .."/,'. S? o t 4J or evaluated. Such contentions do not challenge the scenario or EMA's alleged role in the 2....i.+('5'/:-[../*c,.i"'l':~,~;,..(..?"7l).{ design of the scenario. Rather, they take the exercise as it occurred and the FEMA processes ,{ as they were applied and challenge the exercise residts. 3 t :. c....,. m. ;.,,,. c. .. ;.:... g.. :. '. n... e, g.

3. n.

T &. '..,, g,.,.a,, ca,'c ;;X.9,,^ ;.. s... .,, e ~ .; p., ,F, y.3 Ye, (Government's Response at 17, emphasis in original.) i.... ?s,p..;:..'N'

g..c.. 3 l..,n J..;;jf,& ;'*M....'h:,.@.

.,.s.h., We are not persuaded that we erred in admitting Contentions Ex 15 and Ex '? .i, ...,x;... ;W.... :.. ....W..Ju

16. While the Intervenors' statement quoted above may stretch a semantic point

$ $ ~ /.y~eyf- @,E !.'l # v l."'-l.g,'jf; i 4.- .~ i in asserting that only exercise results are challenged, it is clear that the issues 'd,;.i.'i.' S.f.6 N fD.b' G :{:.f l..'. raised by these contentions are litigable, I'f]:U.W,,'" '.0,@'f, d,(.p.;;;,@ /,C[ j;y X,$:V U.'W.7,. '.- It is true that the Commission directed that this proceeding be limited .;j/j';3ll$.f to the exploration of alleged fundamental flaws in the plan demonstrated by .h.. l? ?l['h fh'.Q the exercise. And it is also true that the results of the exercise are facially N .' e,. f :..v.,...'w;+ <* ;'. <..y.p.t 2. U l. ;.k;.;*h... O. ' s,: . 1 ?..s. u,. m.w.,,,4.Q g 2 U..:.r... .......w b'g,.Ii k,. v. ' % * &r.. Af.*r%.' h., Y., ', ll',".m? Q * ~* *l r e 4, ~a.m ,,p, , l:, c!l*5h N &y e c..;;.. l. ~*..e ry :.:.p;,,t. ylk, '55...'$f,3:]c.h 81$ e z.+ ..y e

' i.." f., j Ay..j.;k'
l,.(.4

) W.h,,%*:pN' / $ %. '4.,o.1'.. n +Ik[ (.g /I...c,.%.t %. *. QlJ.f.6 4,r ';,; ' ',3 *,.t, g.wl - i + p,.',c.d...,.(h. y g 'o a ;- .s f.f.}.;.f *. ; Q-u 4a.. ';, y 4 ', Q s:,*).4'-{.Q ( %. r,...Wh, j a ..o ,,I*. %.,s ' m. 4..? - +;r.Y/.' \\

,i w

, t .8.'. I n..? , _a_y~,d. _-<g _.cg. _-.. - t.,;. y_;. m,_ ._-_e i ,.., $.1. ; .p 4,4,, .+ c <;., ...g,, .,g,.A .,7 + t r .h. t , n

...N"? f Q'. ;

f,1 *,D.yg.,... -

.e.g. 6):.;w.R J. af. %w u: r;Q. %:;n.,ej g5 e... w..~.e,e.:.g.,., , v;.:.#.y.,m.x w ;gc g'p.y.ww.a.._.{o.,,f.;m...m, w w. .5 ..;...ri. n,... q.;.. .w.. .. m ew, 4,. - . a. ,.ay 3 /*u .>.. g.,e;. ..:m.ps p w u.ag.s.. p . v c .w. \\ 5' i f

.z....%,.m 5:..,

ey.f.%.*M ~ ..? ~ .*d.V':./.Q a."CC+.y... s q , p.:1..~. %. 5.~..n. dc . ' n,y;y cc..W '?. .-r m 9 ~ fhI f.y;M.%.M.. bh.N; .kk distinguishable from the scope of the exercise. But that distinction does not . N, :... F ' F9s'P/,e' r q'q;t,.@%;;j P;;. hold up when viewed in light of the regulatory scheme governing emergency 9@~..g.. planning. @;fpt-f g, In our October 3 Prehearing Conference Order, we quoted 10 C.F.R. Part . p$.pWj.- 7;,

.c h.%

3$/@2/- Q,/ 50, Appendix E, iIV.F.1, which sets out the requirement for full-participation f.,'!p;@QjN'Q,'.3,7ll@ . h,. g :?f,j,: '.(({ exercises. The paragraph immediately preceding the quoted provision states that W,t.. @, A, $ "{t]he plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency preparedness W;g.l y;.'q,y '.,j.. f S..J...; '.7r

t. n @. %p exercises...." Indeed, (IV in which this requirement is stated is labeled

@, h.

W f .w w.. . f. *.@ff.: # " Content of Emergency Plans." Thus the exercise is a provision of the plan. fJ Q :.g.P.!;;s@

6.fg W

lh.N,.h'$' 7% Further, the regulation calls for a " full-participation exercise" to be conducted ." W M. P ?.;tf u h. within a specified period prior to operation in excess of 5% of rated power, LT;. ".{.;W 'j$:p..M'M . [$. M., and provides guidance with regard to the scope of such an exercise. LILCO ,;;iCl maintains that the February 13 exercise was such an exercise. (See Tr.16.550-

(j.

p ;.. P.'.@;.. f. i T!' q.d. n".: /. 51, September 24,1986: Tr. 47, December 4,1986.) It has indicated that it G

p.

7 pt.,': 3 will seek a waiver of the requirement that the exercise occur within 1 year of 4. b;.W.C.,,.e ~. o gjjh.<iMrlON@1,Rr operation if necessary. (Tr.16,551, September 24,1986.) IN 'I M4' g' j g r. f.A-Md h'U@,f,(dfiN;I(h.h Moreover, the Commission has clearly stated its desire that the exercise be e as full as possible and its belief that the exercise would at a minimum measure p'.cg.yGr ?):.;?w':hM the effectiveness of LILCO's plan given the restrictions imposed on LILCO by the Intervenors. f4,.gr x.. 9e,s.;..,f,7g q.:t ;...;.:f.+ - .~

%. '/.7.p.7 $(*

.?' *$ h -. v' ( 't, s e d. 1 - ."*.'J. 'the Commission does not disagree with the view that an exercise of the 11LCO plan k{,3j%.i'.h f(*J hgy?.'d.M[l@y ] could yield meaningful results, even though such an exercise may not satisfy all of the requirements of NRC's regulanons. la could, as a minimum, identify the impact of the .b .- ! !.4. W j $*$l.y[jy@Eh;' ,3.~# y' [. M limitations of Illf0's plan when executed under the state and county restriedons. Although .'.;;.d:..h $ M*ll. f".[y, %[W lJ f the Commission is aware that because of the recent coun decision a full exercise of the .y.;i."* MNQ:;';.K';,jaggM,Q7,'" tJLCO emergency plan may not be possible. the staff should request that FEMA sdiedule 4 '. 8 [.9 py P'fjf d,*c". as full an exercise of the tllf0 plan as is feasible and lawful at the present time. Ij.el;.,K.:,8; ;pf.p W f,;,ign.h@y%,%>.e.AM *j 'M

vf m.

r2 rH. . v;.t,TH. 'W~.O,u +-h, M;.. (June 4,1985 Memorandum from SJ. Chilk to WJ. Dirks.) M 8.; are.Ms/. ',W,;s/./.P* .>.yc. 9 3.. ~q 4 From the foregoing is clear that: pv '.W w ' M '7 r% @*n m.,M.fp. N.;M M*.W@?*.t:,y. We..iSl:'N

1. The exercise was conducted pursuant to a provision of LILCO's igw 1W.

emergency plan; s. ,e.. y:,.pspf y~p,f:..,Q'g,.;.>y, .a

2. LILCO asserts that it was a " full-participation exercise which is p<b. W~yt......,..z @ G. w ofM W y

t c. MM'd-. required by the Commission's regulations prior to operation at more E. W.M:

l.6. w%.....>.,m.s.,er?@!M -. m v.

..%.a @Mit. than 5% of rated power; and Mc3 [(;;b.4t.p$y:;.e; yg.j . n..y, c 1,g .: ~.c ...w.. n. .n

3. If it is found not to comply with the Commission's regulations

h, WMe$Qgy gpT ~'.F concerning the scope of a full-participation exercise, it may constitute

$ %s.5 I % %gt, W. a deficiency "which preclude [s] a finding of reasonable assurance that .r u

.-ht.N

'i.Y# Q%pi h.h.M.@ protective measures can and will be taken, i.e., [a] fundamental flawD h[.R fyh'fs.'.$,fR.'..;Q..,@

'.Q.,,,y in the plan." CLI.8611, supra. 23 NRC at 581.

P d ,h% hh it is beyond question that licensing hearings exist to permit the public to

3Kr.;~.,...

S, t

l-9, ' question whether the Commission's regulatory requirements are satisfied by a %,, 7 *= J7-kh.,* g((*f' A (*'[h b d' [', h.w$k',$.Y[(SY,Mh[ ?. IM" ~ t i .Q.v.r.F!["f-('fi*j . w.,. t

.w...+. w >

826 .s.

S1

"?j Q:q'c. .,-l{.h'f.)4 %jy%g,-)*" * $$f I s v 9.*.g..jY s

d f~

r f* N;p.g;.. j. ; : p dj.~f.. . h"$g$..m r. i$,'h,,., Y, ?f5.y/.i..w: [..&,..i?i$W+IN. : . m fs - J., .<.n.e e :. p. g.;.~. s, e *3 e. W '.n : a . m. 2. b, N . m..m. h....cr.q h,; c.. m,,.., hn. w... .p n,.,. j....,k + ..hn... es..m.b,.k%.hh.p.m.v x ,2:*,h.3. a bp. 6 w , p. 4,, v..vt .o y ~ h hh. N m m.. .,,, ~ n; e.y..x,- .m.mm. . ~:: wm m 9 ~ t e E

P s. 6,.&v,.v; ..i ;. - v '. a.... A / u ./g.,>f..,,p ~9 T p,i o, e . :W<. 9,<c.1,. v..w

M w'.s m e.m, 'w ;,r.g:.yM.';m%h%,'W'V:l. W.W/

,4 sn p.o :, .w.. s y .e. '..e>n].4:Q e m n. ~7 &sf W,.,L &.y',..n'.,.4. +. w @4.v.w.w.? %' .O. v ... w*. -~ r. %p t.4; 4JN'@.L.. t.sQ..e$U:@;hM:i .s n/h given application. That is precisely what Intervenors are questioning here. So v idfM/N', y M SMM'k.3h %@'M M Nb h. viewed, Contentions Ex 15 and Ex 16 are admissible. %gID ' hhiTh.MMfjpg hdh@ lid.2M K Moreover, it would be wasteful of the Commission's at :1 the parties' re-2bhi.Q sources to refuse to consider these issues now. While in the circumstances M y W. l %rg, C A G.$ 9 M #:% W W 9 LILCO may bear a heavy burden in seeking to demonstrate that the February o N.h' 13 exercise met regulatory requirements, it cannot be pronounced an impos-p. C; % % i M. Fl'5lI h,$'f. h.$ [fI;,k' g'ik w.,% r!.I.f. ?, f.V.%.. 'NJ 7 b,,v. gyp.,7.t+,; w ;m,9;,1 % i.4

QM sible burden now. Further, it is conceivable that a Commission ruling on the d

m., M.5. @o.,-

preemption issue could lighten that burden considerably. It would be most un-MTV yp w .a n k'; %'J h, D / @ h[ k 3 b@ N;; @),$. N M y pg. ,WirN fortunate if, at some point in the future, all other issues regarding the exercise .hM/kbN'.NN$NN;M.$N were decided in LILCO's favor and those raised by Contentions Ex 15 and Ex 'i 16 remained to be litigated. Moreover, any deficiencies that exist in the scope EM. Uk' of the exercise should be identified early so that any feasible corrective action MP27.#d$r[$Mh2NN!?;c~r;.'@$ $"$'N,.F;h[d.(.1'b@d;idif'*.] >MS.y may be taken. Clearly, it is in the Commission's, FEMA's, the parties', and the MUMM ' '7$Q, public's interest to take up these issues and resolve them now. y r.,yD;f.. p p,,;M>hM.M'[.DM;.l!;j ft.N 'd.Y We do not view our ruling as unduly infringing on FEMA's preroga- %M *7.N$;',j tives. Contrary to FEMA's fears, we have not opened the hearing to issues e o s;gf.e. a.. 3.W.g.'( 4., concerning its conduct and design of the exercise, nor have we determined that f v .p+.~

<.... s

., ;.l7,'U. F ; :.., '. G. c.g;. l.,,..y....,l.. f...', J.* ly .,y. the exercise must be the best possible. The issues litigable under Contentions o r,y ;..W. l j..eyl *, ., ;;/# Ex 15 and Ex 16 are limited to whether the scope of the exemise meets the h~f.f :;.).'N. UM*)*.'...D'c ;g@f bl. ( ' 'd Commission's regulatory requirements for full-participation exercises. FEMA 3, J.t ?.',. ' ~$-, a. f i,%,. ' F..%:;l.g. ' f..) properly takes no position on that issue. (See FEMA's November 19 Response ?,D,i.-[.c io' .Jl' / f'3 to Intervenors' Request for Admission at 5.) Indeed resolution of this issue L,;'. l, '. Nlf,. w W>.,.. [:% ';.'.y p.!M; properly belongs to the NRC. While FEMA may be questioned on its evalua- ..' /.. N.~ '.',/. ([; [. * '. y,* [l' i tion of the exercise, it may not be questioned concerning whether the exercise N. M 72<' N,',,'. [ T'U. O'.,f f;.. meets NRC requirc.ments. Because LILCO maintains that the exercise does meet .fcA;.:! Tc 1cip *.J O A :i> mQ r, hose requirements, it must respond to questions bearing on that issue? .'... ; 'tf;(,;;/. % f..'?; ".. ',.. N y.'. D,",9 '.' # lFEMA also objects to the admission of Ex 19, which asserts that FEMA's i ,...r.~r.:o f.*.;t, W.,,..t Q G, i; b.V.b,. -: ' .... ij .,iy'.. inability to make a reasonable assurance finding based on the exercise precludes - 1.. .ll :. / *. W::.7'Or'?.

p $.' H f ' '

NRC from making such a fmding. We admitted this contention for argument 7/l,f J.,lf.k.J'r % [c3 p;jf.Q W,i. dj*f; ; only, and we adhere to that ruling. Once the hearing is completed, the parties fc.;.6 '? 'f will be in a position to argue the proposition put forward by Ex 19. Like Ex 15 g:, M,;g.',,p;; P.1 ' ' 7.,'.?.d,J'i..l.r. O.. 4,D,.. f. 'l f, >.;. c ,7

7. ; s..

and Ex 16, this contention should be taken up now. LILCO must meet the legal 4.. f. S;f.W?.}<..i*;'py:.6J/., obj.ection to its position that this exercise satisfies regulatory requirements just

.a. t. g.'.9..,,,";. l t.q.r. p.i a.

%.>.g'.;.. '

c as it must meet the factual arguments against its position.' ,5 y& * ?.p.:..:. >p...<y? 52:n.. G:;M ;.'g::y ..m.-w.~.s. ~c.. e.. :1.w, : + 1 a i,, ?.???. % \\ ; le'/',=., ?M,-M.c,... l* '., c *. W. {,'.'s S '.*; <W '( ' v **. , m . c.i ; *w. 3 g, 5.i *c4, 6...., ;, %, ff..;,' 1siaff apparently takes no portuan on this tasue. (rr.16,557. september 24.1086.) We trust that staff wul. at ,j.$'.*,5* ,[* f f.d.f.h O'e [.Ill,i. [.' ~

a muumum, sdvise us of as views on this issue m its proposed fmdings of fact and conclusions oflaw followmg 3.-

.c'l the heanng. u '.0 ar [.N,,, 477 W..J h*%*g W@8. ? i'* *'. 'f'A) T [y. [l 's. A. '. li;*'V*..,, V *. g 8 M.,5.S;;;'fd i n,y 8 e,".p/ -,8 ?- W.* " 8.V d P.:..cg :.$..;'I.' $ EMA requests (Monon at 1) that. m the event we decide not to reconsider our ruhngs. we cerufy the quesuon 7 'b. 2T,"iPM'.4 i of the standards for adnussibthty of contentions beanr:g on EMA's evaluauon. *nus request is derued. While we 7 a .a f If[r. have adhered to our ruhngs, we beheve we have also largely anayed FEMA's fears concernmg this hugation. We k',ka,Y hh*,if.i,'.(f,...?: ;MMa q~ en.., w :.r.%;;;.;lc'I-[h.it 7..,? ',[?5 do not beheve ceruficauon as apprapnate. ..t w .. j ' q,yc i.s't. s9,$,,.;?;o <f W.';l{W*l:. n'.Q$4,L.;. J \\c?,. J.*Jf:01, N*t / d4 .V q % 3 > %Vf 3,.+ns t. ~ 827 J .,'n.,,.,s'

t,o,.

,,1. *, > y~4,.,a.,w m. pe.;e, 4 ' r.~ ' t..m.p %.,...,. . e.

t..

-.. a. .rt.,,,. o. y,. s,k. -:;. M ,.,c,r %.c.c.,.w y v..b..c,,y ,, ;. a. - *,e.y 4.g y.. .6. n., n.y. - ;,r ; 3(.... 4.?..f w%n g. pc.,,.S~'.i.

., e.....: e...rCr;t,u

.w j, s.- .ip g. s... w. c-A. -{.c.e%,, a . y..,. 4 W .? e. .: tes;.u.... ,3.J ~j u .4 (A... p/w*[.* :Q.,n Y[R'v[$$'* **%

I. w s.*t

.6 . 4 86.t r %.'.3, h.'c... t.*k[([n$k'i.. b" 'B,G.' iFM.M.c'.Tf..ic'Q, ? 'LC'w.. N M *# .y gYt 7. ' ' '.W~ ,8 6 ? 5 W* Q! W'V'* C?. W~r.~a *: L f s p,.. %r.. ., v

n.. e g

t< z. y o A's, N,..,

- ?*rf,.s.m... M% %pW/.'h'J 1 '.paM 4.;Q...u h.,g. W. 7' If,'%c., fM,,.....

. J k, $$:pti?E9f"(.3.,.h..h .Y,W'.y4T/..cg.. va76 .@7.3 g et ' N:.5;J.{ ,Sf,'.' g.5.cs.w d pg,s 4,

a.p g 9 h.T.O f.h,h.~o. h, Y.,.

... u,,,,. h. c.. Y f...

w..... ~+.,l.n

. n1, _,.,,f.~,,y,. ..s. ~. t;*.. ..**;*j p. n.

n..;,. y s.

.e~. as'.. i,.. ..,,.k ,v , s s \\ ,y \\

.r:. i a;s. 0E W'O;Ph,. u,.,,1.'Yh.%N'G.c...m.s'yjMj. rg:i.g,h. f, Q,f.f.:. hl$

,M.'.,hh Ik' h? r ,h. e ' I hh(( ;1

!,h Ni

Y.

h 5

+:W4n\\t!?b.r.'gr,[%q,,,.Q.

,t. N

yQ 3

nW. * 'h&d^!b l-

&s ~ N.la.8'D' [c.'d; ve v ay. -* i7 Mg $$$f Y. ..?.: /.. :. a..m.:. ;o'.p<,..c. (s.t. :,7 %'

m.m.. e.y;u,: .r;% '...

,,r m. e,..tp. 7 ;.w;... n o +.;> n..,..y. %+ ['/. % y $. <.y p .w.... w [. ~; hM.p'y. 'i.. < m Q,y.s?. INTERVENORS OBJECTIONS M4 . r . e t,,, ; i..,0...y, te p' ' 9.*$g;; ;.,~...;2 '.t.t -

s,,.. %.

....s ... = e:. hy.,z. a ;. A..o r s Contentions Ex 17 and Ex 8-14 r p,. grw >,;r M .- p J L.:. ++...., .a. 7)l.h.J,*N.%e,..cv,L, qm.,w Intervenors object to our denial of Ex l-7 and Ex B-14. Because we nia not u -151..?;.n m . M.. -... ..j.4 'e -,.,.,2.f believe that Intervenors have raised any substantial reason to depart from our 4'.((;C[L J.'hC.k% .M, rulings on these contentions, we did not require that the other parties respond d i.{i.,h:.,.5:.F.\\'f[.$. h, N Q lf,;[,';.l.',;A7 F to these objections. (See Order of November 4,1986.) Contentions Ex l-7 raise the question of LILCO's legal authority to imple-i f Q'. ?s p '*,M ('9../,.T.'".%pd/<'i.l;y' ment its emergency plan. 'Ihey were rejected because they " allege matters that {, i,.!. ,. 'g ( have already been litigated and were not raised by the exercise...." (Prehear-t ... lyJ $! W* ~ %.,,. CNN..... ing Conference Order at 9-10.) Intervenors attempt to place these contentions in . (,. ([. g' * ;"ll /Q, fy*g;., . m, 4y w e, r

f. y.yl..;,p f g'.+

the context of the exercise by arguing that they assert that the exercise demon-r ..J;., W.I. 1 4,. M. Q g. f.,., ...?. f l," strated fundamental flaws in the LILCO plan because of LILCO's lack of legal .1 g g,? ?,?'jl.'], 9.f.;,, 3 authority, and point to CLI-86-14,24 NRC 36 (1986) as authority for the propo- @.h'v.,,W..</ '. .C..?. '..'...,?, ' i,..i,M,.,W.. @f'. # .. Q*, : .b sition that the Commission desired that the exercise be designed to reveal any &.~,,...,,;Mg:';$ylM , M Q,,/. %,\\. r... n defects in the plan as a result of the limitations on LILCO's authority.' .t.w l ~.,.- @ l.9 Contentions Ex l 7 do nothing more than allege that LILCO lacks legal

.?

authority to take certain specific actions. They are not in any way directed to MN[2., h).~}.h.T d%}. ).l' ,L.fO the Commission's concern that the exercise be used to reveal defects in the plan Q l-l/f ', N,h j, l ',?) f.;*.Nff';c'l'7 resulting from this lack of legal authority. "Ihese contentions do no more than raise issues that have already been heard. Consequently we adhere to our ruling Ly E' @ g 2l f;lt' /4,;;)@ 7'S ' ~. W.. !, a..' v],.e. and overrule Intervenors' objections. N..*l.. E d, f.. C M. W Intervenors' objections (at 6-8) to the denial of Ex 8-14 must also be o. Mik s.2,nJPl+1p52 ..g

b..... T,7* W[s. a..,

N overruled. These contentions all assert that LILCO's realism argument was not '"k,N..., [D,n.D. tested by the exercise because the individuals pla>ing the roles of state and . q. 'S % p4;p :*/a.W,8* C ~4 D. #,$ '.xM..W. %j. local officials assumed a passive role. Intervenors have failed to advance any a 7 *. . Qs.T..k' " u. y., 8%.c' W i VI.,e"fi W. e [. g $ /p@<,g.$-Q;.hl reason to question our conclusion that these contentions do not raise material y facts arising from the exercise which bear on the realism issue. These objections ., c., r i.h 4 mmcy:W.&,, e w are overruled. p G.%yv.3. g .y,..;,c u.~.~

n y.w: M,o.

s. s. w.v.

.n .,.,.g s s. M hr,2;.n% g;s.{I h 1 d

h.Q k,3.gQ.'.

Contention Ex 16M ,6..1.:.sQ@.ca %.ww. M.,f.w'WMa. 'D";; F t WM..R. dg.,w.W,. m s MI .M Intervenors object to the denial of Ex 16M (at 1113). We denied this .u Ds,lM,y [d'i" #;,jy m y .M CQQQM31,,'. contention for the same reasons as we denied Ex 8-14. Intervenors attempt to ,'"ch. distinguish Ex 16M from Ex 8-14 on the basis that the former raises the issue of U./!r ' 6 s'.NQ y ;y ;.$,';.'.Q. %.(.l=, k. 3 3f. the participation of Nassau County, while the latter do not. We agree with Staff v. rt.y.'M,l...yj plQ dM-A 6 )i (Response at 4) and LILCO (Response at 26-27) that no meaningful distinction

t+.*e

l.%+*Wy..q[.v'me;p $,. ;,?

, d. ,'e,, has been raised. This objection is overruled. ygu 6,, T g g,,.,, ,,,,, \\; .'. a g, g,C. yi.t.s %n,n,.s. ;>;g. n. s,. i.'4.,vw;'g Q ;:,..... ,w : M. s wW3;.,.. -d2.f. se.. sW .. d.. v.. . g :i. v. c.s.. t. g{ M e d 5+ v' ..e.. x ,objecums et 4-6. CtM614 was angmaDy served on January so.1986. and nserved m I:ebnaary 5 and e... :s.,,.a.f. ;,*i.gY,f l,& h' septernber 15,1966 [h appears m the Jujy 1966 NRC lasuances.) m y t.p., s& v N*0 k s, m<*,. nr..c.,m.a't.c ?* u.h..l k s.e .. e... Qt.V ogy,:,o p.m.g. Qty.u,.tw. :* .}c.n#:.y c .c..6 m.;t .e g..+,.y %% q.m... N S.$ m@ D / M [t @M M@,.'Y [@$* M.I,'f h $h. hf s hs.e:[ m. h .w,w.w. w..4s,.. N e $.. h, M 'd?$,E.? n.h @ m. w s;,. m, num .s. .o t " ,4 .c , q 4 'i I 1

~ } hk'5NNILMNNfk hh@ky:5$$l,h.o.q,g.N[h,M,..s~,E.y.U N h f tY G wHm., Q $4.c.,@.%. !. SM,,$y$ $ .- q, m. 4r r3,,w-Q.se-Q iQv.A.iu try(@,mp%m.& rWr.WN. n.k n,. r. M(k.r.. :..w...e.pn.e.,%r %...n.'ya.Q.... 2.,,.gs.h:nL.,.mm..a.. ay.r.,%, m.h.,:. r,.,A .-,.c. y3. w; p.:., nd y m .m~ a 3 n..v w )m..n....w. -.;-A s c,. w,se ,-{g %w c -@./ %y,.. p%..,;,%~D:1:/,'iw -o. .;&v e - !:6 it W: f. 4n. w, q -3 a ?.. t , ~

h. r., k.

h h yT: %.. Q! %q K.1.TM' 'Q:g!-9@,.:%'i),j%M@b@T p%*'Qf .9 ?. c;< g/.,.,v'.h.%e. r,.[. y Wp@.,.@p..,-w.0,d;c SJJp @f D. v J.6,0.,1; ?. 5N.D..jM/., Coatentions 15J and 48 . y C., 'i $.y/ u.. 5;..h. .)Q.;.:v:y N Intervenors object (at 6-11, 25-26) to our rejection of Ex 15J and Ex t 2.g w./O s u,'g. g.. gf.y,., p,. g (. p.q v..c,;..a,y p '.

48. Ex 15J concerns the alleged lack of any demonstration of procedures and e,;

m .,ay,o~N:y i .4.. /.,hM'd@').d'happ.uFi,r,R,U. A{;, M- '$.i arrangements for the treatment of offsite individuals who are both contaminated 'c AW.y,W.,.fs,I,.r N.t.$,@.. ?,. f;?. f;r. w v and injured, while Ex 48 raises the same concerns with respect to offsite f '.G,egi' Q...y. !,",-$.~f'M,s/.d.F.y,.m,-.c!,'OJJ individuals who are contaminated but not otherwise injured. v.W/,'g r N;, W;,:A. d. - ?.,i.4Q:f o... Intervenors assert that our rulings on these contentions amount to a failure ..., 3,W V;.ly d'Q%.' T.T..iS'y@...... @4,x* W,.a M Wy{4'K;.<lW,.1 to follow Commission regulations and the holding in Guard v. NRC,753 F.2d gN 'f,19 Ql,y. .J 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). They also assert that these contentions are completely 9y. ,s o.r a ~

'3vp$,p%tiQ{*[y4,$ v$..NIfh*,$j:y(,

c.- .. y Qf fy J different from the allegations of a similar contention that was rejected in our $'dJEd.yM'*n .h UN 3,.72.3.j Memorandum and Order of August 21,1985.20 h5;/,,'- g Whatever the merits of Intervenors' last assertion, it is clear that these T-contentions were properly rejected. At the outset, it must be noted that Guard 9..a.hf.f NG...,g.W. M.$h@.N6:. ;~,:'d:h?#/,,N.:.,Y,:D. it / U,, M.....

v. NRC had nothing to do with arrangements for the treatment of offsite W,. ?.!?.,

v h yg individuals who are both injured and co'ntaminated. The only issue presented W p:7M/Of . N.h.hk?kh*/U to the court in that case concerned arrangements for the treatment of individuals . Q. Q.,y M.c/ M.. v.,.:',;f. 4-i.i;.w s.b 'ef?* c,'.f.M.[< ' ' O uninjured. Thus the Guard decision is not relevant to Ex 15J. n who had been exposed to high levels of radiation but who were otherwise 1tf,. l g. e: M.'.j..f.. 9,,A. . s.. . f:e..;c. ',8,n,,1. '- i../.O I. The artangements that must be made for the treatment of individuals who are v N.. 'w;. , c,. u., h,.,.. #. " '..,4.?,: 7f '.] both contaminated and otherwise injured were set forth by the Commission in c. c 6]'Q.,. ".',j.; ;,P;c?.4lt.-W;.,n., *d. f'r., u,. 0. 2 9, 2 and 3), CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983). The Commission summarized these Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units ie.. ; f ' W.7.,e c. requireme its as follows:

c. 3 ;. - +.. 9,

s w.. m,;,.,.... .e.. y + 9,..w,.. y.,e,. w.,; 4 e c . v:......o .4 ' *['I.5 , '.',, b,.,b',M * /d, l C1 [.,Y1 ' h Ji With respect to individuals who become injured and are also contaminated, the arrangements 3' '.,,. ; a /-[ ', eD ,.' N l... V,., that are currently required for onsite personnel a id emergency workers provide emergency .Q.[',. e J,. 13 capabilitics which should be adequate for treatment of members of the general public. There.

- I*

'Mr '.

.'...,e' .: : (..,'. fore, no additional medical facilities or capabilities are required for the general public. How- ,s . t ,?,8 7." /.,. 2.. 'N.,. f. ( 3 ;.4,".f....,. L '. . *. 1 ever, facilities with whidi prior arrangements are made and those local or regional facilities .L. g.,," U,u,'.

3..... ". ': #( y, * ;. W'd

r., -

which have the capability to treat contaminated injured individuals should be identified. Ad.

.e.

Al,...,q s + e ,i.,. i:r,Ay my.., diconally, emergency service organizations with.m the plume exposure pathway emergency .; ',,, Cff,f/.l.; ; *

f' ',,. 'l,' ; ': '< 'M,.k....,

p.

N..c.

r,. 3 planning zone (EPZ) should be pruvided with information concerning the capability of med. .... f.'f.j d *f '.. '../ ',

t. f,.3 ical facilitics to handle individuals who are contaminated and injured.

3; s...' ' * .; *. j ;....... =. ? f, .a ..,..,.>p. m..... . ; '.,:,. u...:e. >..

a..

n. r: ~7.. a.;*.....'. : Id. at 530.

^ (vy.'..,

O..;,? A;:.[,;> !~' j.$] ',

The Commission addressed these requirements on a generic rather than case.

.A,

,,........ w. o.. 3. C.,;. 7,.;.... ;9,. l.M. specific basis in San Onofre. Thus these requirements are fully applicable to 7,;;. O c, - 'n M..,;,..,;.. s :.~ v...'s ;9-..?t.4"."$,f,, The Commission's determination that arrangemer$ts for the treatment of onsite r-Shoreham. w,;r. ~,. :..c. e. i'!M W W,... ..i. q i sf.O r.(? '. <).;.*:1. < ',.'..';"?:..f. .'y, ' F.c individuals will suffice for offsite individuals as well dictates that Ex 15J be

g+...%. t.<.,.y: 1. Pfy im..f. ",L,.t. < p:v s.a. v.ry..

...,. v;u, :.3 r y..;..

p... ; V.:.ee, '.,

e. -,.

m e .*t...,< ,,, a o.: ',. gh....,.,-e. a 4,* y ;*<.(/.';:t.,-+p.t. A;,*; .$, ;.C j. : : [,.%..:[.-

.+ \\ y 70.e,i.:....*68 *e 'j.

.e .. c 4,'. y to staff and t.fifo oppone these objections. Ses stae's Response at 3-4. 6 7;!.Hro's Response at 2626. 32 33. R. s.,+- r,. M'./,;.b. g 9',5.:s.'a,; 't. a. p. 4,, .,.,:r.,.c.'/. ~. %. .,@t.?:. Y *.Y.7.f,U/- Un.,7 4. m. . p.: 9 t b' G M;;S.;?:c.' ? M2 ' r :.QiE.W.W'&:y1 &u;-ln 829 .: 1.a5.; :.: t. s'; n.^fS C s'

! d.S. m.5 'b,,?l.g; 'f N i H.'f m y% Q'.,.'

., 3,"..y a8%.. r...,, K. S.,.. ;J, 4.5. ';.,. r m e r3 v..,. . ~ s.. y$;g%..v.s?. &...,,}.&..,..Q.,.:'$.gr.y: ;g.:,o....:b,.$.g.k..?; ..,..v.,y d.?.9. ; Q ~ ..a. i-o '.. -4.. +* '. ^-{ u^ . )J a. v.., a*?. t'*. '.w.3 t- '.yh'h' ' M .t .t'.;

N*n,..

'n t .~ Yg M. .pc wge &..,.?'e,.* Qts.,:gh: p;W.: q.'"*m*Yg%W T,\\.f.f. : e7*:.*m'$* y:c.n'W.;f. :n}*%*d Y ' k:. P? 3*t*.?kt 5$$ .. l M 2 W .c t '7 -4 9c w. k'y a.$'h5 iiMN,,$ .$U,W!k.hhNC . N M.h M. M @ M, &kk@Nl,?l M. f. $ @. h,.!.$i$ijrh,N fb I .M.....M... . nA > n).,- ~. n.4. ,,..V .s: I

' =. *. -

f,. e '-'}

,. m,.. 4,i..~.s.m.. ".. g.H....,. : (.,.-:g );c; y;,a;;};;;e.g... ,.,p..,. v.:. '.p,. _S .w,. ..-e , ~ag;p.f:,~.O;:. -3Q....., c;.. i,.c

s. c

",f;, %.. AmL~Mn-.Qn;.?Q.s.'%se:,+ ;r;%,ay;i c.Q': che&.ei%,.;)a,3' 'Y. m, h.& f.. '?

L h*.

9. Q.n 9,,s.# g 4

., Q w;2. m d u'.M.a.s. y 0 .c: M 6 j,. O ' d n .y& 5,,1.n',;%,.t.. W.,1, .,1,,ia -f.,. n

t. ':Q f

~. .1 e c.,.ri. ,,.w., .M,.* e,,:f. t,v""1:. 2. agt g.{'v" > C 'p' '3v....,A, G. g.:,..s,.;?.%.7% jtr ',k tN'.cg' ' l: ? y ,.q

v. ;.Y;..1l....,n;

u..s' G '%.

y,1%e,;@.s.,K,S T. .y. t n s.c. ,. s.v. : s .v%.:.&. .i Y 4 ~' 'm ,$'M[W ;j:}; .lg- ,.y.%. excludu!. Dat contention recognizes that the exercise demonstrated the ability to /.N F.< N...,. 3 bT c.,L:?. b!;.: : ;W'..l *>.D. i.,;m treat an individuar. ntaminated and injured on site. The remaining requirements f, .c ,.. e;A.u..,$. 6 :?..h".;;:~.;. f?'& .t W ",'. m.w.L,". D *(p?.;G...'.U. z. W;. ...M.. stated by the Commission essentially concern the compilation and dissemination of information, matters that are not amenable to exercises. Thus the exercise %. ~'. M,y :g,.p: Y.;. R,: t [rf,,,- .,, p..,.. p,g.,. N... adequately addressed the question of treatment of contaminated and injured W/; M. 9,;, o

6.,f.V......

v .d individuals. ..e. p.,l i'. T. q h.b.. 7 $$7'if.97. 'd'[ggf.;f./ i . 5 The Commission's Policy Statement of September 12, 1986,u similarly .j - '.6ll; dictates that Contention 48 was properly excluded. That Statement concludes 0,.j $.$'<!.jf,S. ,:-l[ that until detailed guidance on the treatment of offsite individuals exposed to (l l 'i"$.M."##ld. 2.~.2.@ ;l h@dy[;[Mlf'.7.5,7j.E. high levels of radiation is developed by Staff (scheduled for November 17, 1986), Boards may continue to limit litigation on this topic to those matters that 5 * $, E ~~~ h lc:'?('f 7 peed,[5 cE 0.9 were litigable prior to the Guard decision. In its San Onofre decisioa (which was . Tf: @ MM 'pQ reviewed in Guard), the Commission limited this to an identi6 cation of facilities b'l9'.,E. % @.f Q <f.[". f. with the capability to treat radiation-induced injuries. This is not a subject that ' H.j *' *d.Y,:., y.:,lE,; D '.[.'f*j . v.".c+.u: e.,.a.a 4 M... y. is amenable to exercise. p.... 3,5 oa.,

e. y,r.r,s

, 3. x., n ,ye .....~ c.;c..; . t .?

lg.,%,,.y; w* fjf.Q.M:1,-j,. M ; 4.cd..y Contention Ex 18B

, f, . r. e+. n C. :...' M,'^ .g....,'t.. .,.m....

ff.'.C. 4.L.M f/.r',. W,,,V,..E i. e,. /.. A....

'r. Intervenors state (at 13) that they perceive no need to object to our rulings n c s on Ex 18A and C provided that it is understood that the requirement for full-f ('/,( !.( ?:.b';s?!.j.Q.M'.,+. M participation exercise stated in 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.1, is deemed p, ~ ' ~;..r. l'. c.'.#. f:2%,' . e.../..:c.. + to be a part of Ex 15 and Ex 16. Our ruling on the latter contentions clearly sets -W .s py.. 1. , ?.. cr/ a.

S. f p,3,Q.

out our conclusion that this regulatory requirement is involved in and, indeed, f j 7 '. 'N*0,e;,; h. Q. ),;..!.' ' A Jr.* the justification for accenting Ex 15 and Ex 16. S..~..' ". O. A < 7.', P~ : . M. :W. Intervenors do object (at 14) to the denial of Ex ISB. However, Ex 18B f- ....m g.T.d.,. c 7.:.1 Jb : does no more than reiterate that certain governments did not participate in the '.D'#:.Q:d2.,y/%alc,y4 jf exercise and was properly rejected for the reasons Ex 8-14 were rejected. The . e.. wjp.,...j;, y;."4:. obj.ection is overruled. ,f a..y a. f s;@,. o (n....;.. :. s. n. :e,. s. e.,1;y.... f v %y g,1 q;.\\;.(;..;. ? . q. r.. ~.. hMf.k,.p* * ** N h. ne ,.j .i

r ~$m. fh, ;

N$,,,,.;'j['.,[,l);[ Contention Ex 22B.E, G, and H U, p'. V. :.,?p.:. n..n/% y,

g.,Q,

. gigg.?; *7U."l,,9 Intervenors object (at 14-16) to the denial of Ex 22 B-E. G, and H. They assert p;y g";fpf.. M.,W. n!.$:.. that these contentions challenge the basis for FEMA's conclusions and must be t e ...,. :+ yy.V,p g?;@u ;Ej y 6 9 ;S Qa.M @;&f;%-Qf.y Q.d admitted. Staff (Response at 5) and LILCO (Response at 28-29) point out that we were correct in concluding that none of these contentions raise matters that f. 6M*h["hb'I'MI.'.fd'h.? arose during the exercise and that all the matters raised have been or will be hN.e..w.h}lh'h,$:.@lf-h3($h[ .k N litigated elsewhere. We agree; the objections are overruled. r%h., ; Q,.v ;,,4.. . x, y %,%.g,. v - e' n 1.~,r,e m

8.. -.

.rc ve .w - W 4

e...ec,,, v. M.,4 s,. g. 4.*,p :.W~..n,.1

!;r .,.,... i'. e,. a._ ?. w s p ,e ~ N..e.(.gt.,+;. 4.s. n.,. 9 A r. 1%.g.4,.j.. c p.,, . 4 pp. 3,, * , %.r '..- e s. gi.,. 3',0. gs..n.'\\., 6.,,.t.,24 ~ .ns. @V .i p w,, v M 1 ..t m...?m> >itz ;. g w ~ t.t. f v.::. .y,. f pM 4 :',,< *M*qv.p. :.w...,No. ^ s,.3 r.

gr.?,/ '-@r e 3..

r, s.m:o, ..c ...y d f M .7,.p:t:::.7.a ? e.n7. p. st.w!',).;%- 's $1 Fed. Reg. 32.904 (sept 17,1986). L .r..

' p a?..

+: ."n..L..> &.g Rn. Op.. &. n.t..i.,..;.;y.,s y .rn. ... e a.w, %~ : :.w- );p. m..M.i v,.;n,.,. , J'.5 3 n,::,,<:r? 'nw f..,.,s.cv,q/M:pd',v $ s "y'T fc.M,r.y f';m, y.u Q.,.I 1 Yr g30 ih.3.w g bm a. N/h,.. g c .p. bl I)1NN,.o N .Nh m w # m s,w[k. q m. 3 ..w ,0.#'&. w.5l$,.$Y*%:%t,e.-::lN.&' ~$ t'.% ..n. s.,,.: n. &.,:k MM. D..,M. y!'g;7NW,rQ@'5QN'p$$$$' W.( 37*MM,. s, 9 :p. j.. u. n. :

3,.

,a y ,c n>..,. i h; h.N'Nh

f.e m.

e4.. v.i t sn.m. rs 3./, N ! $ h. k S, N N 1 "WYJ.'?MIM M.YM;.w.m.w.a..:ln.y.m$ p. m.m. 7.p;c., g.5MN.E.;a.. F m' r h'MP T y.r,3n&.p~.:..q.:.nM Ni f tDy.M

, <w

,.m.m w..;, m. y... a:n .o. w .9 4.g.y. x ~ . ;.c ; n: y e.. b

1 r i .u... mWWv %s. pN i p, % pl. 4. ~ a,,)~g. 4M&,:.c )p%.M.,. m P@g;,$up%. ppm'lu::h.....w:i. '#.%p.sm% p#. -5

i..

v3:.Gk9gM;s. <.w:Wew. :gA 4 pe:r.6;%.m 'M 2 gr% y y r M+.s,.W.d.2qpN.,,a,w.N,4 ~ mmh',N'* MMM t WW..m !f.'s$ s..Nf,v,%y%}u,w%mm.5. g, N5 M .w v.;5 T.........,,,,l,,NM.h. V,'S%'S r... 4 l1

6..*

9.;.o. s.s..t. &,f, .~o w < :. ,y.v. :..,m . - A t.m..g.Q.),7j&.i t .w. D, ; &;,,,.........: .q.. s f *

P...p ct

....'),./$',h... M.e.(h%. %,.Ns'rk.;.g. g.) -Eb.Jr.ep/.M,,i . a. . +.v ./ h D G ')) y..if M.. Y.J.,i.:.i"4S ..y%.. Contention Ex 33 lW./ g8 , fdg.M Intervenors object (at 1718) to the denial of Ex 33. This contention alleges @$M[d[yM!.MW/@)J.M;p&,.@ $[ i' that notification of local and state government officials consumed more than i,Wy;K[.M".!\\dQ.;%[pp, h / h M.. . N..NI the 15 minutes called for by Appendix E, iIV.D.3. LfLCO correctly states 'f (Response at 29) that it was pointed out in LBP-85-12,21 NRC 644,707-09 h/$NNM3*tM,MYV.M.L; @J (1985), that state and local of6cials are not the offsite authorities to receive NA.III,kN$hk'?v.cl.pe cQ@ctd,O.j khN initial notification in this unique instance. Rather, it is LERO. This conclusion ep ng. was not disturbed on appeal. "[LERO) acts, in part, as a substitute for Suffolk N$.1.,u:.W:,2Y%p&. yW'Njar M M,, p .%..Q.. 2.. D... 'h.

h.

County and the State of New York in performing en.ergency response functions." W/.G. h:y$;'.,%w!7 p /.,. ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135,149 (1986). Consequendy, regardless whether our %'J,k,,rg,e .pi:p. f,9M original conclusion that the delays involved do not amount to fundamental flaws m .l h[l YM.hh*;ij')4;h'/lh f was correct, this contention was properly denied because the requirement as g[.!Q. to notification within 15 minutes applies to LERO, not the governments. The N.[;.D,ltf.f.%/ @'JJ;:;2:, m.G, Ay M.Y@$rJ,g..y y.i. r 7 /:; $ e, D/j.,;%*

M objection is overruled.

u,;;ik,,:s ~.: h + ;v.W.:.,n:h. ;>:::- p'hn'S;Gv.f;', .a , y ;p x.

).: ,' O..;..: %a f..; 9. u g,,,y 9

M@..%.. n.,... :Gy.,W. n 7.'a r,cfd, Contention Ex 34

c-p

..w. m .u;.,...m.w y. , mg..g,.,o., v,..+, a..., :.. :a p a,, c.. '

p....

Intervenors object (at 18-20) to the denial of Ex 34 which raises the question ,7...y f. of the timeliness of backup notification to the public in the event of siren v $,(f" f..."l l,'. Q< t, J i .,,@.7. '.'.. (..l;@ a '.f.,7.. ;cf. r '6 . g c.;";,j. %.. s.:.. / 'ri .. //, *,. '.... -' 9. */. failure. Intervenors argue that failure of these backup procedures could amount to ,.r s.., %,, ;.. ;..,s.*.s.)4. p. p.. ~ .g C. A a fundamental flaw in the plan, citing NUREG-0654, Appendix 3 at 3-3. LILCO 7 (v.;. Q.:; M@c.$ '*..'.p,; f. ,,#")'.g / j (Response at 30) opposes, but Staff (Response at 5-6) does not. Wc agree with .,(. ... f, Intervenors that this contention should have been admitted. The objection is , c..,,' n. w/,.., /yl.. 4.;; ' y *y. -.- t e ,.. a

4...p..,,,..y sustained.

c'. .? ... f ';}:;,~,3 ';.% ' M.W *f.:.3..,... ~ q. t.: ,L {,.......q f.a. . /...w...,19,!.,Nr2,;,l:.s..y J i M(ff' l q f #., M.,.d,.. (b.c. ;'J".ls":. a . ; e.n Contention Ex 35 .g,. s.- n.~@.f. -/...- . n.{. DOl1.SN.fc'9.' ; y,,'{.6.., l.3 Intervenors object (at 20-22) to the denial of Ex 35 which alleges that LERO . t ',7, *l '.d.F.i Personnel failed to independently assess protective action recommendations 'F W l7,/

g ~';# {,; g ;j,;c;, h ( /

T;i.Qj.'/;4,. j f'.'/ '.' ?;"'I.? made by LILCO. Intervenors essentially present the same argume.nts that were . $' ' p originally advanced in support of Ex 35. Staff (Response at 6) and LILCO t . s- - ..y.. l ['. i (Response at 30-31) oppose on the ground that Ex 35 does not allege a violation Vi .g 7, af 'v. p 'T:.'.. ;. .t.d ~dll[:)4;4 ;. [,/ 1[ of any regulatory requirement. We agree. Intervenors have again failed to point 1 , M j.';;y. 4 ,?.,,' '(. @ [ M to any stated requirement in the regulations or regulatory guidance that requires ', f.7,3.ic;it .,:7. -,7.h.Q. Sl?s, qr,">.E!/.t,jf.,.g.y.'. ':1.,I offsite authorities to independently assess information furnished by the operator .....<...f.r ,3. <t, l -[ ii, dps,'.'. d.1 n ^ M.

u.:),r 1 of a nuclear plant. It is true that LBP-85-12, supra,21 NRC at 679-82, concluded yge.s/; / ' '.F,W'.J;

',W that independence between LILCO and LERO was desirable. However, this l. d . /..g y.. ~ . C.. s S.('.[Sr@..h]...(; ;:t.f l conclusion falls short of a requirement that LERO independently assess LILCO's g;'J*,~. p[N;. 41.,bp

.;M :;[U Mp',/l',' '.,'".ily protectise action recommendations. The objection is overraled.

..?..v.. g. 4;k,d.. q.L>.y, . ! ::.c.: 4..yy ;. ; m...:w 7.. ~ c.. , ;,.c.,. b'a'$. v*?[w. I.h,, L,2,df,,'b;} h j,:3 , s:.,e. : .,..... m,,.,,,,... ? *,,si.Y ac.. .h.g s *M m*, . * *. n c'*,7.. .r . s c ,;,.. 'L' i., \\. > $, l.u.

t** M '".i. ' ?; L.

3, s ; * + %.. p,u S.. s p % m

- ?.. % y,.z e o m. g. *,.e..

? .%,.v.... '.. i ;. *.. l, m,e. e

7. t

' ',l' N&}e,w., m,.4.C'.,.;g t

+4 e,,,, - > f." Q *w.l.yl'.f Q.;fl.~;., Qlk ' $v.?3 v

o . * =. g3} 46%; &.lll x, :.~v.M, t.. <,,'; ~.::wu..., -l.r.r,.. &' ,s :;.2;. "m. w%n..q. ;c:.xl5y.?.;.W:'.'.::. L;>m;G.:.. m w~ v .y. ~? ~ Mi;.;f. ' W. ' ',.;

.m
44y.QC.i.; *N: h.,p;;f.:'?:,...W

,J,4M,f..,s.f,s,v...i k yf p.W;C.h. +v*M A+ p< W's.N %,., M ty. (;o(.'.a.jp;?[,%yM.,q,.. ,s. %> @,.f.y *,4 r m. s,,, sw. r s..Q w gs.... es sv ., g&c, A,p:.i., n} g,m\\. net,rst4 y.;.y. h;t s.s y,a#. n.. s,;. ;>.%..y.m. -u;,y. n s ~. h >v;.Wp.ry5.. 'L y* p. y; V. r.; n.:ip:.p;.r,f n;.; y; g:?... . &.cc-. t e.~

r., y

~N. s ~,g a 0:

r.h[h'*

t.am 1 :e m n s., .s. ws k[kw.@s.p;s%...'?-.e,h,.4 ~., [.I.h.. [;,. Y f [' a.,' R. Dbh 'n.g. x w :. m' w.:- x:w.u:m.'?m.. ,s..:m.; m..x.b m4 mp&. w.,.,[,4 if 'i f, ..w'ww , ;;%; 71' ' cm.c...:..%, r ,~w. ; q.q, .c.e.q-a ,'e...: g+y. x g w.v.e .v u % *.C ;. f*'d l'. g. m. .- e n. .... yts,v.. sm.m,ws w.e o.. 4 ' '..n. n ' y)f 2*p.r, ':v.a.yl,.' NQ'j;7,'.

s,

, .. L 'f,.. :n' ~

..,...,.f.,3 .., -.- p s'.,y. j.. ,s # .s y g -- .m s v !. m.., s.- p. v*,., .1 p:n.)m. w'?gl p,D,'4y W,%;.?. f ll f;,5.).*f k. g!f,@n, %y%fr,,:...,,$.f:n 'W f. $k'/*.. 's. f ;,5,h f:';g, k, p.;51. g :p >;.;,;,j.;..N

7 jg.w N? ff**W;.,

9 w -s c.w >~:xv.qp.:.. c.4. m a psmmc.~

s b

l' h Ains. A..n.ek.fa.Q.,";,p%@gg w gp$ 3 3 & ; } j.j g f ...g,

., '* ; ;t J x.

o o w m.,'*e,a w%h.R.'f.. ..e

Wt* Q.v,,Q. *m%D

,..?. T O a,..%. t *&...%.&q <'S

'r<:

,.r'. /;b,%.. ?,L e . ~ L :*. Y.e.y y,1.e ,*m.m&g**,.. *J,y;:..,. , s:,7 g? .RNF e s ,.1 j)'.yL p. t',. .Wo..Q :~ * :+ a

t..Q

..:: !:p.*.* f *:4 ,.Q+vM.,..! j't 7: Q~ w.m,~ *W.e

h.

Ah I^ m.~ N.. I*. ' p -4 4 t M m:.>q.,h,.., g r).' :

o.. v. n.>.w.*;D.N. o v +-

Contention L.,x 38 h,. 4Je. .M + n , w ~ a.;,,. m.. p,y @t,...O R >M W.o 64 o $., w' N,.< p' N / Intervenors object (at 22 23) to the denial of Ex 38K and state their belief n.. &, 4,. r :S... J,E..p2.. that we misread the contention. In the prehearing conference order, we stated f'@n v1..d';i.M...

'.n.W

p..,.W 9 ".'./.J.

7

r. c., -

3 fn,?F. ?.lO..;3.;W, .y[. K..'$...;f. $...$.. de.'409 that the issue had previously been litigated. We should have stated that Ex 38K. . y gify... +... i..";.%@.. which alleges that the ENC was not promptly notified of the designation of ,6:(,q: yr.c;; .1. m, congregate care centers, was denied because this designation is not to be made 'Q'p g. *. g '{ 1. public. (See LILCO't Response at 31.) The objection is overruled. g.o [.. &. i.: n : y;9,y(.j y.s ' + p<, .*-.ut. .;...y u. . /g: e;;g;y;Q. ' n a. .. +... Contention Ex 43A .v W,;.y.' c.'.g:h t.. ',N.w .'$ g,.y,H. '.. p;; 'e'.g. ' h..tvenors object (at 24,25) to the denial of Ex 43A which alleges that, '.** M"J M.a 's W: ,.G 'U - Q'.7.,J',.y,..,.,. -. C.e bt.ause buses to transport transit-dependent individuals were not available when s .y ; g j.a

. e.. f. V,.,p.~..j.].

g, - .3y'(:[ the appropriate public announcement was made, a fundamental flaw exists in the

4 t,, <,. "..J,,

. WlM... t.. ~,. i plan. Intervenors assert that the statement in the Prehearing Conference Order

..~.y. ..g,, y',. f y.pf.,}/.y.4h 'i'lp. '.;y,ri. 3 that this merely raises an administrative matter easily corrected amounts to an improper determination on the merits. Intervenors may be correct in their siew r/. MQ; l %'N.W..};l.-@:$;pc$d, ^.a/.,,f,.M,, c,.8... M..W~...,SM. ; f/ of that statement. Nonetheless, assuming the factual allegations of the contention i. a M..... '. M..... t.i.^,J,..W.,..M. '.%.. ' r.

~

a.,'.,.. !.'a.. v. .M. are true, no fundamental flaw is shown. While it would be better if the buses c. ..n r...'.: . %.,i 'r. .... j. <.,'a?.'..f: and the announcement were synchrenized, the fact that the buses wem later than .m4. p r.,'p... c announced simply is not a fundamertal flaw. The objection is overruled. n;,p...... ;e 4. 4.+.. >..... .r p ,-.-n r.. .n, +.: O;3.,.o..... + ( !.,:t... v.%. r

SCIIEDULE t'.i UQi. ~Q., '.., D.. 9...

e ::. n.;

m. g.; kr.(....

.:a~ .t W. $1%;pi# Wy;;.f..V,.- At the December 4 conference of counsel ('llr. 82-85), it was agreed to P))@g, $. ' ; .1,...g;yf y W; $' ;. designate December 24 as the cutoff date for the designation of witnesses. Dep-J 'W @f ositions were deferred pending issuance of this Memorandum and Order, but d '.;4..,0.:. :.,D,.,' I' N. ,f 9 interrogatories were not (Tr. 80). As a result, eight depositions scheduled for M@.M,?'&gf,. 3...,,o h : M M[.E.'N b !lCg-this week will not be taken. Counsel for Intervenors estimates that, in addition Os ff'? to the depositions scheduled for the week of December 15 (which should NQWN i M U i-iJ.A M d :1 proceed), another 30 remain to be taken. Assuming none can be taken over I I.5I .i the holMays, and that two per day can be taken beginning in January as has hFtq2Q';y.p%,7-hih.b?Mik.;lI/$ M,97rg been the practice (Tr. 86), depositions should be completed by January 21, N.f M M i @.jYM.D@Je 1987. LILCO's testimony could then be filed by February 4 and the hearing e 5.i commenced on February 16. Intervenors', FEMA's, and any Staff testimony would be due 15 days prior to presentation. (@%.'gj,Q.2:g(, /;'% .5, Consequently, we adopt the following schedule: M,iMai'S.W?.h 'QAM.J.UM [,g'g@'gy,h.,$yg%'

g [..

K & $.?;, W W ES Ed fglig December 19,1986 Termination of discovery except for j'. depositions and discovery ordered p-yp pursuant to motions to compel Q.*l - y:, M ; M ;Ji M jf @j'M: $. W ' M Q:YAN4C.6d M 7R. ?:>. %. h JMrM &-kQf % c% p:f*lpl!Q .d*A M MWlY

2 y'4.*g5'0!/(.e.l:;;.p}&&

g'?'t b'M.f Y.v h 832 .* h'fQt,'.,v e/ \\ v ,&l'%(,,%. m / r o :w:7.w.>m;w+ e.n.:g& A.. A i 1. :gd. q:p. - s. r, g- % y :<- v >r. r. . sj f.>g.k'?".t.'.T

r.7.*,,. ) '.' 2,, as d. LQ ?.***p ra.'. 48 '.t*

{f. s..* *'. g -tY*'! EsM*.n* ] .e .t. a .s h q :g.m. .f., 3,y. n.nn.su%s.,y, e 5 g.s Y j,- .:w..:,.n.;y.. r.*;; y~:';n:.m 4O,.m.a.n;.Q')g.n:ppp,. 1, .;p ;4...Q yy,f.y,gg,y.,. y, 7g. 9,,.' :;g a ..a .h 4

9 W n=s. 3,

{

l* .s .s ..,3 .,.k ~.,b.O"%*5 Yw U k&...ek'Wl$l,O'h*'W,:&".Uk?c'&f'Tsh '~.'ik' *l?t ? !'r E &.- i I,b T. S 5... *f.., 'AE** %f.h!}l'0$.'.i o;&$Eh*'I*)i'$: h ' Q. k;;. Y)S.N(.'bhhUN!$'.i' &'.h. n d.h.?. ? l 'ik;ih .f

$.Q;jn.s.>p,Iw *A..,..r..??.s***.* ': 2>x. *

v. ;ry,...:.

.:.s.e.i s .e. .g ..,p ; fe ; I I$ W* 1* '. - v

' ' l $I':4

?.b. G &$

4

.,.. fM, +W e / o,* *,c.../.. Yi.. M. M.,Jf,.s ?,,, N":w'!.N.. Al:',.';3.9.)..y,%.k.<;; . p.. ; pl': h.. e,, M,..*y t h.a':; y,* r,, -.4.Q..ff-O,. S -! December 24,1986 Deadline for designation of witnesses I .D M 'O. QW1*.".y;l,2;M..w.t@r./;;."W'p.GCf,s.,o.s.;,7 75 r ..r .

o.4

'q 8M l:iM.. n.t/J/, January 21,1987 Deadline for completion of depositions x.g. v. GJ ea p'fa [,Q"@.p.G...W.y"f;.f,>y!.M,%jf'h. p/4.d *,q'gb.:l.U ; p?4 .Me't l. M. Ji N February 4,1987 Deadline for LILCO's testimony rMm .:s. L .d. Qt . f?;I .- i% w H.' February 16,1987 Commence hearing U.::Mw;.w.5M(G,M,C/'5(..d@%,dw.nv..e e$$.$n;$ .eu L dWd9 15 days prior to Deadline for Intervenors, FEMA, and ' ;'d,.@M@w:NMW .^ N "'eck f resentation Staff (if applicable) testimony P Of.M h,iE'.,Uk'!.'=%* 5,kh:.'N.. :;kkh. N[@;p**M'7 /Niid f tJ.'N.N. ,ff Q;g k ORDER

?.'n. w >w.,...,.y;9.,.s

~4 a.,..r i W O llh M,, .c_ M. hr n,,.. y

r. eq31;" ' U@,,.

. '. M Mj in consideration of the foregoing, it is, this 9th day of December 1986. N7., w.n@%..k.m!.9: A:p w&:;r';"l:%.m$5j q t?;! ?W ORDERED Mf .v ~a w sn ,p n.< Y v,hW M.-t!M y.6,M?bQ 1. Intervenors' obj.ection to this Board's competence to rule on matters 3*.l .,t N concerning the October 3,1986 Prehearing Conference Order is DENIED. /2i'M@NI50'S*4%d[j..h'/Q,;hi k M,Q 2. The Board's rulings concerning which contentions were admitted are 'N K (.f.&., M k 4>M.. ] Ma .'U.4'W;J.3~.. M. h W./a.$ embodied in the version of the contentions handed the parties by the Board on .. y ;'i'.". . c ?QlT?p;Q,?lQy,.: Gl:,yidM,;QO;'&.Gy .Er;*$ December 4 as modified on pages 824 25 and 831 above. in ...:;J ?,,,o - l.,'*T Qi' f

3. FEMA's motion to exclude Contentions Ex 15, Ex 16, and Ex 19 is h..M'3 y.

\\p.1,,w,?:: :.J. ; .. g,.g. 4

pgyzgo, as,. qc M *. v.;'/.

.c

..,,.. e n.

Qp.e.?.'.*y./ ';Q.4. 4 p,9. Nj,9 ;?:f:'$ly 5. Intervenors' ob.jections to the denial of Contentions Ex 17; Ex 8-14; Ex .c ;;,;. n,. ' e.,y 4 FEM A's request for certification is DENIED. A s ,M,1,;,.,. Z. 3. N,, p. W-.. N,'M M. 15D; Ex 18C; Ex 22B.E, G, and H; Ex 33; Ex 35; Ex 38K; Ex 43A; and Ex .C 1l>;.;. 3s.,,. -y; f. '.a.',EM 48 are OVERRULED. i, EW.$.. y@ s. :.%. ' U.rN ;.7. F i,.,t N M... ,i 6. Intervenors' objection to the denial of Contention Ex 34 is SUSTAINED. .u. , ~.. o g;.n,. >. p. c.c.,'., .P..- ?.. U.? ?sw. x. >.. a.q P.~a 1*1 @ P.., W.. 7. The schedule set out above is adopted for this proceeding. y ,.n w. ..1 ;,. }, *q..p s e.5.J g L.,z +..... :,,. 1* . M; 4. ,. ',, u...,' ;+../ ';. ". 1. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND m.,. .t., .,;W,: LICENSING BOARD r *, ":; se,. 4 %.,a v..., :W>J .e.c.o.c. :... e.:J; f. : y.;,,;*. s.a m. .~q. v. g e.. -;4 A..$ .,.,.,p.,.. s,c;. .p l4.i.r,...'.'?,7? p? gl c... c..... t,;. 7.v. f, s.e:..g, .....?-m. e.ip,r U "..

. y. '

.,.,.3s... f.. f.; I..e c.. i W T, jy.*f .i Frederick J. Shon y

.t r

i

.e. W. y. .. -... 3 3 c r.r:;>..-..,...,. .4 .r ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .n.,, r

t. g

..s,s.. t. 3, .a.. o.... m. y.q..:.;.T, e. x .,.... s 43.f. K.m,q?.$, /;al'.l.,i, '.0;I;S'[y@,.Je..:: f,,y t.*j. Q'. h , i'.., Dr. Oscar H. Paris h.. s "7liC. lf .,..., t O. 'C. ' >c

.G..;

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE . y,.. u,. y..,...v ; e,u.,..r j... n. ~. t r ...,.s. * ?..p:7. t,.,.,Q ;...,., e. f.. ;

w r. *e x, '

..o..

..n; a

s i,,.*O -

u. t

... :A.. a$.c.. w., .;-/.y,'n;...y,,..tv. ~..... i ' W.. John H Frye, III, Chairman M...c @pf.

'a i%,

~.f' q.is$.:,,-@.. f. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE q... 'fF...,.:..,,?<. $ g,c. A. ;.;

s. * ',v w :. ;*.?..::m.....

e; e - ) *, % A * ' J.* s::y. '.. ' ~ ' ;:;%. e u. *;.

y * *e

/$' i;ff"} Bethesda, Maryland .19, - 1 ,.ihf'[,, U.

. w ;,u.y<:; m.,.v.,:}.';-; >:.,' p, y r wh,o n. 'e a.',9,.:. <.em, lg,s :.,p.. ;. W.M r.- '~r,,.

.e. 3:c w ru.- 4 1 .a,

~; -

,.*.< g t

%Nv.-.ll 'c ;,,(,. c 1,

y. - a s y.

9.'e'v'!%.!. l., y'.,%. ?(..... r;* G%y>;.. ;,-Qf'., ['Y.c,..p,, h. 0 e,' 1 t,.; &&!h.N~:$:. g e *p:.'...s. ~"*lJ..:i.t.q p.h* ?] ...: C " %. 833 V s. %,L.Q.r :.%. : +.* ...,,q,.... h.?.{&...... b,kQ?l%~? .. J e g.. f... x.,.: w.: m-... w.. c:.g ey,, 2. A,m ..:...m'.v.,;,.. Jg.s n. c;..:v

(l;;W.m:.t.:

e.- : s p. c ,.;;,.:.f..%...C.s.f..h.,,:.;. :,... W: ;ryb,re., Q .a n -....,,m C: ~s ..p,.k.- M.n,,..,;.. v y,; Wy(b MWWNWW M5M W M ' Q. 9 9;9..:, ,+ .. fy p m,b, M, m.I.$.n M@ W F M, m.ws..a v.g n%Q.x.n.v h .n.pw

m r/;m n.. m !a, ... mKN.;k:.'p:'?. ..,. Q ::,_ &,.! g.) 7 :y.... W Q,.,,?.4 ;..c.

3,: q.:.,.d..

p

L: .

%q$f&pp.Q.M. N)h. ~;.,Q.:/ p%.3'q:\\.i ; f.3;i.ti.%,*q,i.t,rdM *,;y.5!Jg'.W','.T. -p#,. t...w !w.g. i m i N .a..g.. $.w,.e%Af' :n ...g:..n%~ W.. ~:'... & .v-. ....e x m.. - g. 4, .ua. a.u. I u..e;.,w,;h.. ? b.u.g,.gg! g,gg.. uc..,& h(.WMMM:.p%. : t&M $. ~ <.me. 2. v, 1~.dt.a. a jp,

W.

.e e.q. .... s.M. y%,, p,. f 9 .,>,w.... m < +. g. V. iW.. :4..-:.'.g;r, .m m MJ~.ka.. ;D...r.

v. e

. q,:;y -khNn., ,.,r.? ,Q

.':.p:

.m. Ji $I 4@,,..,m,,(e 4. v..spsm.G..".15h:. ... -. d s w,y v, ;d"'?s. y.. v;...,)d Cite as 24 NRC 834 (1986) LBP-86-39 v,.,. . w e

y

[ hh D%. 4. w; g:d N. '.N.NM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15 h. G. Q* ;~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.i.

Wm7 . -j. W d ..q...'?.. y ".r.;.'n...:g.s' 2.,.~..... ' C }l,e.. D W 'N.d.m, y.7.h.h,y,.WbO ,s i: 4y: M.n s 6 ATOfA!C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ', ;r. ; m 'M:, ?,. "a';,d h!h [..T., ' r.,'G e/ <;T v. .W',*'.,.~\\ ;, . 'Q s l'*; '..h.. ~.

s..

. v. $.l. ' :: '; j',@'.[$[:k) '.,'.'. 7" yj '~. Before Administrative Judges: E J J M,.!: p. :'..': ?.. fe,r.,u. :e.:. n c_.:: v., r. gg. n, 9 .. g. ,'g..W.R kMt ;.Wwg>5). 0...T. :~,G.*.'.N... f ':!,W.'.d @.. 9.4,/.:'n Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman .3,'.'.t..%.... "i',:. +..p.U, *?*tJ M s '. I M..1 '.." G @ M..i.<. 9.,.h W, Dr. Jerry Harbour r@... s, . M4-Q,c f Gustave A. Linenberger ?/ # /@ JA.. M, g.y;' t.. v.. q&y.4,...'. m.:.G. ;...:;-:?.:..', *..;:?.,'. m.y..,.. p., r.... ,.c. P...c 4 7..* r.! w 4.%.. v.., ~;..> e... n.....s. '31 O.. ^%a i..W* - A+ m :' w a.... r.'r.?! v.' 5..'. N e In the IAatter of Docket Nos. 50 329-OL s U( T;L!S.. ' 3:f;'.?^h?,$'GC.Cj% M,.i, :llj$. I h..r.. ,,bd.M.. d.' ;D,E'.f.c' 50 330 0L Si. (ASLBP No. 78-389 03-OL)

d. dD*. M'.,.

..~. 'U.Y. '.$.

t..

.. ~. 2 MTN "J. 7i.. @D< 2

25 f

CONSulAERS POWER COfAPANY N'.f..,M.. J V.... <a. t. ". ',. '+.., if,.' M', W' E (fAldland Plant, Units 1 and 2) December 17,1986 ..w .,~. -:..c. y.- -. c. c'. n s p. n 7..

s.:,., n.+,?. :...... C..,.V.... c. 3:v

,a , a ~ ( + .b bb b The Licensing Board authorizes the NRC Staff to permit Consumers Power b N.bh.". b:I

h. 0.'.:

Co. to withdraw its application for operating licenses, and dismisses the oper.

6.. %. 9., '.s.W *, w 4, M :.

4 r:,/t. q w. ; :+ <.,7.y...:..A...., / pw,r.. N,,:',...., ating license proceeding.

r..,., s#.. m v.

y.w s,; ; M../O.4@S- [UA$, 4.,/.M. i .W., :s.. ,c t TECilNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED q . :ks.. e ,Y.Sf}m{,N::N,.4.~ht:MNy, W: r.. r ;< .,t '.LQi.mx.*~N.A..e f,/.a.5 Environmental impacts of withdrawal of OL application. NN. N., ~.m,.k.. . ~. a. ...m. 3m 7.. v r. N INE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j' %' M b' ' b hh ~ ' "} @',. a *. nT, W*! (Authorizing Withdrawal of Operating License A lication b @w@'n %: y' i t-and Distn'ssmg Operating License Proceeding) .. p.c tg, c.. r.w.. o... e.,.;/ w.. :.a...;.,~ v>, w.- .e -M.h/M.. p..,MiII[k. $. O ih j,.. r 4 p.f g. $NM.N'2IlbMh)b.d 6'M. n uly I1,1986, Consumers Power Co. (CPC), the Applicant in this op. "D hs !EN% erating license (OL) proceeding. filed a motion for authorization to withdraw N.$b'b'Nhk its application for operating licenses, for dismissal of the OL proceeding, and for termination of the then.pending Order of Modification (OM) proceeding. In h'g}[.f?, g h k h. f. r'1.W

i@I.'R%d.t#W.Df.'d.p' I5'I M,ihi*'

U' mc,,'6.c p:r,.M~ - Q N.Ml$p'2d W. 7 y..% g, J.:.np; t4 n.. Q.%a.,. e ...y>o;, .v.M.., ~am.,,. A,n O n 834 m t ... a. v.v1 a .s %r. - n.t.,cf.,,,..x. p.u,..vm...v).&. p.. n., :y.:.v. w N...r,r.e...*s.,4 pm,'m..op y.-4. ,,4w..w,.,

m..v.g.p.

2 w.v.sy.m.q %.v y:.&; :,.>.- am n.c g;>G...7s' .s & yALC 4 6...3.,.. +. gp4) e g " '.,M.s,%'g. M. 7swO, s@' +* 3,',4.h,e #. 4., .9m"..d" gf y. 4 ,,a ....,f,p* F v.q e..} p. s. ,m... a. ,y %.8,,*. '..,./.f p%.., y.'o., m... n.I.) $$$$. "[,4- ,shs.....W h' MEW...Ylll,hi. Ti kh' k.Y'h Y f,f k $.W ).N W'fl*?'94 F M 9 k ~Nr Q W' Pd.@,,MNW7MMED9MM..@y,3,Q.y.h.7N.**:@sf?.p.v.*pM..? [MM / Q M e3.-e7 m u. .x .v .iP.

m. ~ <. f' N. U *. + y;, .I f! k Nhhh hkM h 6 B M h.d 2 A i milM & & %.jfhN% N h M,h b. % $ k % !hQ 2 M b.M,Y 9 n., p W.x: w a. o .%qgh.m p,q.a.n. ,..,r..e..m~ m. tG m y. '%ns 1.?o,h,sW:Eem. w c;i.s; w c .v.a m o...n. p..r *;mw.p1.y .WWr.m y., wpa N.4>.w$ wnr m-Sh%9445B+fiWp.w -: u dg our Memorandum and Order (Motion to Dismiss / Terminate Proceedings), dated h@.h.gr.a.ye,,g/g.hs MMbg.4.SI.p@ ww . wqf.. September 26,1986, LBP-86-33,24 NRC 474, we dismissed the OM proceed. 5h-f ' b M M N Q

Q y;S

/ ing as moot but deferred action on the OL application and proceeding pending d# N preparation, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ! 51.21, of the Staff's Environmental Assess. M p M, .OQAM ment (EA) and the receipt of comments (if any) on that EA by other parties, k MM. N.M!h'kW.*:',j"' d,h?.@ h:h d $ M[$#' 'O.M)' hg The Staff served its EA on November 17, 1986. By our Memorandum and !$b Order (Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings t SMM,D.fEW@8I{55Ik.j'h.k, 4E@.'.%[I, h. Af, and Posing Questions to Parties), dated December 3,1986 (unpublished), we d.d.i Mhfff kM provided that comments on the EA were to be in our hands by close of business Ek'h$M*k.NSUT. .J December 11, 1986. We also posed certain questions to various parties, to be p.-d'yJkdry.h W[#,U.4%/H'.G@i'dd answered by the same date. We received timely n:sponses from CPC and the h'y. @kb N Staff, each dated December 11,1986 (CPC Response; Staff Response). No other MQ$;,.)/y pany has responded. "Ihe Staff response was supported by the affidavit of Gary $ ~d h k(pp,7 % N d:hhdh. $N!d').h'i B. Staley, an NRC hydraulic engineer. hMhh. 'M$A[MWg),yd M.M.,fd$'*5@N,h;W.e.!!sS*.ht/ct! After considering all the material filed, we are authorizing the Staff to permit Ry.h,%'M@ 4.] CPC to withdraw its application for operating licenses and are dismissing the .W.?tY..$1P .,M,

4,'

OL proceeding. Although we are imposing no terms or conditions, we expect 9[&.P g?p,'.;J&.W W M 4 CPC to honor certain commitments (described below) which it has made. g~, w.,.. r,M Qt/Th,. ?. ?::r + n,c,. g.ap@w&:;q: .., yw. ...:;.y. .1 ;;,3 .r...%. m,. s v y n.s m y:. .$.'g.

ig. 9. c;*ey

, *7.g.." s f. [W fc.'c;.4.,* ;tdr.t.i b'J.;it;.;.m,.&.."#.*,-gM w u n c +hMh%y..o$.

.1 A A.

Background

g . yhj) The background of the withdrawal request is set forth in LBP-86-33 and need - r- .4 3.. j h 5 N ' $ $ @ 5 % '? " M @ h'ih?",t(.! Mk not be repeated. Suffice it to say that, in July 1984, CPC for financial reasons ,'.M$ "r'?'gC6 / $84 &*j u, discontinued all constmetion at the Midland facility, and that in the Spring of M.'h.SM %$4'.(IW,*A[$, i.E.}p 4 i-M f:M ?i.) 1986 it determined to abandon the nuclear project. It now plans to convert the ,.',Md.M I P N N 9 N @% ..@.F,% facility to a gas-fired cogeneration project, in parmership with Dow Chemical W :f p. N R e s/ife.E % @.~. W ?*".i Co. and others. Qli;.y,bh.%m&&y**D A/Med :.iG ?.$lN.5.$.flJ CPC's withdrawal motion is governed by 10 C.F.R.12.107(a), which pro. vides: $'. Q s:n y. W<.. ~.T.. m.,n >p,:.Q:.. v"- f @c.w% fp.j'Wi[.q,,J.l, gg;#.,,,/ 'j k.4;l,3, n .\\y 6 U. .! 4 (a) "Ihe Commission may permit an applicant to withdraw an applicadon prior to the I[.A c' I.". $" Y Q,W.IWV.# D W/g; h."[.M['.,q '/. ';f.d '.M Q.$ r? /M issuance of a nonce of hearing on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, or may, on .Qr7 . jp,f,. i receiving a request for withdrawal of an applicadon, deny the applicadon or dismiss it with g .h,k')'.N ' ).' $g Prdudice. Withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a nonce of hearing shall be on W..q,.h,'d,.v..P.fe; * $..,.:.3 Af.i #,.7,):,% e.',.#., '.l',*,g/. 3;. ;(,QeF;t . G..; y such terms as the presiding officer may prescribe. j n Yw..;, %.y. w.,,, .-..u

;. w m.: , 2..,, W w

.;.QlI,.c i 7.*? (,1 sponsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (and the implement- .p.r.,,, e....., s.h tQ~ In considering the withdrawal motion, we have been mindful of NRC's re-N, if. p rUh,m..$'y@N.kW., Mp V \\ If.$, mmh 7' 'b,b ing regulations in 10 C.F.R Part 51) to consider environmental impacts that may [ [ G @I* b ? D l M @ N,h U2. F,4 D@9: .M.Y$' N d:M .i stem from the withdrawal. In doing so, we have examined CPC's July 11,1986 . Qt

4' 327 4@..

motion (including attached affidavits), the Staff's EA, two inspection reports R: M. , '.7M@')t & :N..Y:?W.' M,,3.;%..+.,3 g.. w~ g% ?.:W..? on which the EA is based (dated October 28,1986, and November 14, 1986, . S ;~,*,'?. : .6.,, N),f c.,,.,.,, w., v..%l+ Q#.;. 9.M, u. i?fb'* ?y .s s, a=.:..q;.s,,,.-} 9

,,s.: ?..,,--q;>w:.y t,"M.:?.

';l. }7.:..., y)S j./ ; A..'&. Lg.., % *. M h,,..

i'

....,:, m ):. M,3 y ;,,

p r%y.J.%%.R:?<. c@..,.. g% W;.*.;. W ui,'4. M n.

lv. ik(%)MW.::NW%y.&zG 835 , g.-e.1 a N

?.

Q: J.,R. ::,: ,, r w ?.,....... u.... ....,#.a_a.,lM,4 t,. p a.. c ,.< cts, :.o ;pvW, : >,.w ..g. s. g 3., 6 .,,p.

n. a+.'s..n5..,c..,. m;;t s.

a.,.J,' W,,;.w s*';w.. n$1.n.2a .A t (:.y-t4 r;V. &w@;: f W m N:9.*g P.n :,M : WL. m m.M!Q': % p M %O M 9.n Q. p -V M

.r x n.,$

u%g#.i.?% rfg+ - n.m@.m.ym;y.r.N tM.y.ha,.:Mnp, m e. cn.s. .Cyn$$., 3; y.w.w m., j;gs.? q'.-;fMD%sy:m:qm;nW@ Cps, Wp 7 Arej:,gy'? .y

d k*

~ ~. ? w'. t w w w:eewe! n.

w. ww.. -m-k ;_. e

4.W-w w. M g', n w.l[h hh.hl h %'i h.0, .$X hm y n.g m %.w w.g Y bhf s v m e w:4 9 h&.Lp:..pn.qyAqMMe&n@MdRyME sy m. -mm m e..w AMER. ..:e,.:-r..y 'm>,@n.,. ~ *: m < v Q.w tg.r.Ob - r a W.-;n;?- n.g: >J:.f p: M ae*i: & m.Gu w pj'[yI(-@ h:: p.W.g:yQg respectively), the environmental report (ER) prepared by CPC, dated October y. 2,1986 (titled " Midland Site Stabilization Report"), and the responses of CPC ig[:i'J.O.e p;'i%f$,./.c.g/.,'..? and the Staff to our December 3,1986 inquiries. M- [j!;.f..T }p,.gCdMQ.', '/.g g n*,Ml'yl @h'j_. g % Q ; h As we understand it, CPC is taking steps to convert a portion of the partially constmeted facility to a gas-fired cogeneration facility, but site construction (e.g., R. '3.r.W 'd{.W.. d .$ ' [. N E @. demolition of unnecessary buildings and extension of fill area for gas turbines) ys/.,h. '.:lt," $..N.~7.b...% ? would begin no earlier than 1987. The nuclear steam supply systems and other ~.,. ~ G. h,v. W <:.',a: W R..J77.,..u..,.W.b, buildings and components of the project which are not usable for the gas-fired 06f[.U' :y.va...:.'j'i.NJ ;- N., .,;.d:s ~. g. @....s.,7Q plant would be abandoned. ER at 1; November 14, 1986 Inspection Report, '8.e*.6$.>.Y.7,W; .e

MI.;

at 3 5. The cooling pond would be used for the gas fired facility and such use

.. @.. m.. r....

b f h M. ?.'?J W would be controlled by an NPDES permit (under thejurisdiction of the Michigan c c.4,~"T. h.yW'e ViW. Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)). o .s

u. 2. ;,. 0,,., %,

m 5:-..3. i.- w,.. ,"n.,2...' v.v- . w n.. u. :M... 8. 9..;: :. n

2. ; u..* i

$ ~. w 1 @w,M.. P. t.jF. y e '. M.,. - .a ~ .w,%.5.'7.@;.W. 3.i..r @ y... 9 B. EnvironmentalImpacts of Withdrawal .v .a e.. f!-. Ei"..., ':'?. r.@:,. p ..~.u. w.~ .m a.. .M According to the Staff's EA, the Midland site was found to be adequately t. 3 jW..s '.,,,.Q.. _.. P u.., d...L J~.r; o.,. d. *?O..1.M... ' M'A. C, 'X...TM. stabilized and there were no areas where crosion could lead to detrimental i .t. yr)h $..:P;gl;$'j;,Y.r;F .M,,. .,/.n.. ,M

R. *J...J@,;st.in.l.J.a'-W ~.

U. offsite environmental impacts. In addition, the Staff determined that the planned .,m,.,.. e-9,J,1 underpinning work to support the auxiliary building had been completed; -y iT/ j;t ..!f y 1 W T,' % and that, in the 2 years since construction shutdown, the auxiliary building h.'. f.% y:n lf f $2.f.[M.. v ',dW has experienced virtually no movement except for seasonal variations with

t. A.y '.W. <@ lW..%. =M.. m.

.M.., temperature. Moreover, physical barriers are in place to prevent unauthorized

q.

m. ~

,, )/

f '

.g./;., Ng/ M', "'M.yp,'y,$l%m~ access to the underpinning area. EA at 3. The cooling pond was sained in 1984- $/'. W.fM A O '. Qi Jf!r.' b 85 and currently remains in that state. November 14,1986 Inspection Report, I"Y'h s! Wm;i ? 9.,. % d.. w l at 10-13. ,,,A. g; v. .u q j!; x,U;).(;M:y'c g;+ .. w c The Staff further inspected the transmission line corridor from the plant to Q,f

r 7

the Tittabawassee substation and from that substation to the Kewowa/Thetford , sV. <.W.~. N,b i,/9.3 V-,,.J :l_W.';,: .t h. a. e ..s ,.:fi.'. ?,J 6,p,p) ;*g.. M. @.. c? ..?., Q ',. gf..,C..,lR..,W @, a. substaticn at several locations. It determined that the corridors are predominantly i.. A*?? 4.. through farmland that has reverted to its natural state since construction, and .z ..:Mf.a p. ~..,.. y

R, @,WSN'.7,k$y$%'g..gy$g that there is "no evidence of any adverse environmental impact." November 14, sf Q

'. f (c 9; WS,.Mp.$.9l"Ehl.*%v. 1986 Inspection Report, at 15-17; EA at 2. F Finally, the Staff found that the site cannot be used as a utilization facility oc ~ w cr w

h N; E..

c p w @.s, qr @DW,g *f$4 '.N;f.:;WQ..,JM (EA at 3). It concluded that the termination of the existing construction permits 4: ;< d'd M d. s!':[h[*@54'k (and the concomitant withdrawal of the OL application and dismissal of the OL 5 !Md.Q' YU proceeding) would "not have a significant effect on the quality of the human .hif[$ %,$phC [. environment" (EA at 4). D.~..f<E.N, : $m'NTB QM . g N 4,i. M .N i'$. - After examining the environmental submissions, we determined that two f M94.. items in the Staff's November 14, 1986 inspection report warranted further a a. w:n. - m:p ,N. y;$g g.Q.My,CM@fP;,s. &9dy

$.$ca exploration. Therefore, we posed certain questions concerning those items in our 1

3; N,f M M TC h!lNh;[k / O.0.M: $ ?i96$ NlM.. December 3,1986 Memorandum and Order. The items are relevant in alternative f d$ E situations: one if the plant were to be used for the gas-fired facility, the other h.%.vwm;.flf'. s h!.j, p %s;h. ;.:: tWl~*Q.y;,

lf, M.y if it is not to be so used and is abandoned. We will discuss these items seriatim.

....t s.. s ,U".n','pi"Y$ $c,6lElW'$*:typ h:.Q.'QW N i '"4 t s E6 cl.;r. 8 ),y cw,h' f.? UM;i.&Q 's r.Wk-cQ,f-Q; .h*N.W &iX 836 R"h.gweghmu:td M s O..n >.h.w.t 'w.t.S trM 'w**u..s.. q4. W W ; M.M &. &. WW .y~ n.rpia 4.o.gm(*. M..rm. W4 Wsy e w.e ,.. s. p s*,.n m.m;hf I;,*,r,. w g:M.c*%g,.y I .....%y. Y M'4, Q ';ld'gh:.': ,i,1*- 14

g tw W.;f L.'t..i..

m.~..% q .? Mp(;

- q 4

.u M.U.kM5EM[NN ~','$$MYlACMWi@yf@MWE'K'*7A W@yi[p% k .h kI h k ( t., ,4 ~ ( i

.. g, y n t W't b'$ kY %.k. hIS' k$?.hY'$.h'tf. g Q'&$'W.hv,$' M.y-ByC - M.. h :.<%&Q.C, n' G..> :,,&&:t,%;f'. a %w'&*J 'W*Si. yI'f*4'U.R..n . G. y a z '.h h 7//jg.fe..d g&.&.Q,.$...;h.&e, k, Wl.#,W,?.f. 4 3,(d. -v.1,6 s &t.h..$....)yi.$t ' } 1. Underpm.mng Excamtions fu W,:.W/!Q.. pd/p.e..r.%(s('W .h 3 4,. r. h*'d[F,$',kh*'[,'.Mjh;f.5[kS[@.M u.!; The first item concerns the situation where the cooling pond is refilled, as N S N h;M! M,h j '/.'J f ,2 b .M would occur if the plant were to be used as a gas-fired cogeneration facility. The N. Y/ fh4S Staff's November 14, 1986 inspection report states (at 7) that "if the cooling is M hl$ [D' Mi'd d'~d' N.O.[Oxf.? t.k. 't. Pond is ever re-filled, something will have to be done to the partially completed ' Q.N /R M.Si.$8.YM, 'y 2.EfeI[@hfk@%'@j D underpinning to alleviate the possibility of soil washouts (the positive gradient

O would induce flow to the excavated area, thus possibly making the building d? O..Y;NM

] unstable)." To the same effect, see the October 28, 1986 Inspection Report, PCf.').W.MMD,"h.Mihy.W,t,Nyh We asked questions seeking to delineate the extent of any problem (i.e., .h' 4.l at 3. ?lI/g 'h' M f;7.:e5.4... p'y:A '." *;th, JfJ

h' '..h.bIfi.k.

washouts or stagnant water), the nature of any corrective action, and CPC's M'.: y&c > GM. ;,,d.,M.&;?.. %... L M..,.D: @.'Q@,,..k.@....J.srM @N intent to carry out such action. CPC indicated that it had not yet determined .-$#(T..N +$ what steps were appropriate but that a. g,i,Yd.h. y._. M'

s. f. %.,. ~.. s.
,J

'M /p,p, f;$$mt,.%.,..?*;a*,.l, v ,,. ? c..o.' p .n NU;,;;,.YlN@Q,.., ',Mt; '* 7.}?Q*.i ['*.y% '?J/f'4 '.y.;* r b k;M55.M,.g"le.Q Q" '. i: [t]he contractor selected to do the design and construction work for the gas. fired cogeneration g facility will be required to complete the Midland soils remedial program in a way that %.',; *T *f J. addresses such concerns and assures that the structures, facilities and surrounding areas will . P.... m.[: ' }p.y(.,'j;,.y,

-"**'*a.

~ ,;;..y. (,.., d. be stable and suitable for their intended use in the contemplated plant. .,v..'.*?'..;..a. :,..:n.

v. y : ;f 4, ~,c.5 g..g (Q,,;,' N,.. y' g t n.

<7 y s,: q.*;, r . o n..... .mo

m,i.'./,'.'.l'y.s p

s ' ,.,,. r CPC Response at 2. CPC further made the commitment that "[i]f the site is used 3:....1.N..',f.,..

e. {. r. m s.i. W h,., '/y#ag. 4,P.2.d.
f.f.W

/T

M ~~

for a gas-fired cogeneration facility, the contractor will be required to take the m .w;V.: . ; f.; Y,it. %.

p'. W.,

appropriate steps', (id. at 3). [. (.[.h.p,I.' M"A.5 'j,fy. P g$(fgay .f.hv.3[gl. in its December 11,1986 response to our questions, the Staff opines that a soil y@* '(dgj h,y J,"7,.Z'.m(,geg.Q 'y . N, y.. pW washout under the turbine building could lead to the development of" sinkholes" o fyi;j outside the fenced excavated area into which workers or visitors could fall. It

1. ' d., ~,...

7... g j 3 M'?#e,j it suggests that commitments from CPC to alleviate such conditions would be .,.y,,g.y characterizes this possibility as "a very low probability evenL" Nonetheless, .c A..s Q ?. 4.r.,,' @) N'NM... 2: n-;,. f.*.i'

f -.s Q;.W, t.,,!

" appropriate." Staff Response at 2. . r;7.t?. np $.Q,L y.c. ',w.7$. N...,@.. .,C;.. M . ;.,9 i..f. encompass the " sinkhole" condition referenced by the Staff. We also understand t<.ff'.l?.'ib p',1Q $c g We understand the aforesaid commitment by CPC to be broad enough to l h.fff.,:I.;, a,s yw s c. i.:,;jv..'lf. r@i.."y...h c' @, Qtf.'.g.y M" the commitment to be broad enough to encompass areas of the auxiliary building P.

. ; %,Js y h -1 9 ;'b h j 5 $ [ C h. [.1

.y N' $.i beyond those to be utilized in the gas fired facility. As so construed. we accept

!.,f.r.;.

..m.if. f M,; Q ;j such commitment and find it to be sufficient to obviate the need for our imposing jMl4 'p.[c %C@y.1N,3.$.Y;'i a specific condition to that effect on the withdrawal of the application for l M ' N [ M i '. U 9.Y,Y '.N 'Q '/ M. $ Operating licenses or on dismissal of the OL proceeding. M p.I'e"(.y;Olp:.YNN.$y.7N hkNh.$h.b,dlC.Q)g.E'jd.g@;' 3 N We note that, in our December 3,1986 questions, we inquired whether the .t'/ A 7.g e:., permanent dewatering system would be utilized for the gas-fired facility. CPC 3 y.ek..yj. ,,..r. /.. D @Gi Er.N) . :MN^.f'1 responded that it would not be so used (CPC Response at 2). Since the dewa-tering system was planned to be used to meet NRC safety requirements and was "' yb. t,.. t.,,n.y;;.}:^A.yp.m,m. /HQ.,.,$'s% n not planned for environmental reasons - indeed, the potential environmental Og

Mi.1 impacts of the system were among the matters previously considered by us -

p. @;w. :.,W:. y,Y.., ? r.".,/W. w).;U..;,; W..t y

i . s.. ,nn ,s.w.. e.u.,,e g:;:a. s,.~..~.%..,.n. y;@..2,f.v:.m:.9. : : p.q;. s::q:. M. s, e w v..... : n.'h. q ..JcQY.M.b '; W >:;.,c.;;. .H.'. s.:e. w: ,<, c.. >;:,..li 4

e. <~....$..;e e,., @m.w'5EFU::q.t... d*Q% N..y#.,,.y::w.9 rn n h.:

.c

a 7

4i 837 g .'w.,. s, c.c....:. m. %n,: ~ : r ...,#,.s.. s. . + ~ ,.v..3:t,. b,,v 4 -'.. qg, * . e- . <c. - [%,, x...,.J g.' *,J p. 'vY. .,. y [5 pl@a,.r."./*, l4*. e e.,....

- ,r,,,.,. w..,

,ds;. *s.s..- s., p,.... e... 4. ..,.c...,* ,o g.j v".e..Y.'p %[?*- N.%... s. f-. g. .s As 77'. * %'I.,b.'. ,A,'.,.,, - g r ~A * .1 .. p

- - p,d' Y

tQ* .b(~,.k }[, y'. yM

1 r'b i hNO
I, 6 b

- rf hh h @k h f h } M... $. _$ $ M. m. J...*y. m..,# _s W N M. m.- @.: M.t, M M.. M m.,M.. 3 M @@-@~..MWW ; .c m m.. ~. < h._%..,. %. b... .g.., m. . ~ - ee< c... 3,, s,s- ...>3 3. s a ? ~,.% q.

WPgW wm@q.w.au. s w

m. e-o/ m..

t.m,,:b..,.w w:p,7 n,,1;n r..w? y wm.w@.a.m.v...;1.:e?..,m:-a:r...e f,:W,;?.@

m.;p%.,gg ,w < c g< - rn...e. a % ~%. p.,e -t . ? W. v.. e. e.p.....w g;p sm. .x s.< - ..-v-m.a qq:.s s 9.r.g.;.gc.,m :..GT9.. mice..U @. .:. Td

q n

m er . E6 S* n,a .w.:.&..m. . yy $q.QY2 d{ fiMMAW..t . y$.&,&p& NQ.h % p r M.N.G.y! O g:dM'9, 9 %y. M@ m.%';'+ir&m; W lh P W y :n.h .a m a h. dig @. $ @ fy M/ M j @W:~:g( [. G m,y .-g%g%v4;: i s f ywh ?%4 Mei%M I.hdlimiY!bMMIN.DdS2dMM: Ypf p fg.

: u p,f;W.~h;~

$:W'.6.IN M EM Ms t y;~t,p:h,h;@k'.Q.:.6 's:9W.1 (*4 (ffi2,'[($. P % w[e.v.,. g W we have no reason to expect that the failure to use the system for the gas. fired .g facility will result in any adverse environmental impacts. r: v.e W. - w... r.. . NA., h h h, f.l N) h:. & $[M.?,1Mt-!.M.I!M M I D::..' w. h. &. -.1.o 9.il S 2. Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir et z1 h. v h.' h., %../' [ @J The second item concerns the drainage of the emergency cooling water

11: '@NM:yj'h reservoir (ECWR), in the event the site were not used for a gas. fired facility 3N N.:t hi J.

$.;. D M ][,k W @' R and were abandoned prior to any other industrial use. The ECWR consists of a small, depressed portion of the 800-acre cooling pond, in the northeast portion .QTi.. @,5Q')f;. h.W% )'. 'N.. .9 AN 'E CdQ,Ql2lfCG.T of that pond (SER, 5 2.4.5). The ECWR presently does not drain by gravity, and $p.).l"0.Q.-Q..M,C: rainfall accumulation must be pumped (November 14,1986 Inspection Report,

8. M.,r'.p. M,., rs,.e.

4.5 at 14). The inspection report states (at 13) that "if CPCo were to completely N M 9l.- ..,w. R.lN y abandon this site, it would be necessary to provide a gravity drain for this portion . 'i .. e :....,. n..

.;..: 5'.g. ':-@(....g.",a at G A.ytv},@hl [yy*.

of the pond [ECWR] to preclude eutroph.ication and an undesirable mosquito S-Qd% ,.M,. g. breeding habitat." De report adds that "[t]his regulatory responsibility should 7 pr d . W.. be assumed by the MDNR under the revised FPDES Permit." e i!;p' J + ' ;f..?;M...

s. s...

.. ~. s T C.'..$. lN,,i..:,.l eM. W. Our December 3,1986 questions sought information concerning the effec- .v. # ....m.. ,}.[. ; N?: ,;..y.9j, tiveness of the gravity drain and the jurisdiction of MDNR to require its in-stallation in the event of site abandonment. Such a drain would apparently be k4 W.

+etEr M. -

t [,. l.10.,,' )..y'd~ fM:.?f.y/ ". N. E.I..@9 4 y . S.'.c...O '.E... effective. But the Staff and CPC indicate that MDNR may lack the authority 5 o 1$, */#1.. to require CPC to provide gravity drainage (or, alternatively, backfill) for the y'y Q. 4 .M,, ?.,7..,'. t... ' Mf'. P t. 9,,.'.,.,,/ i' /. .Q. '.W, ECWR prior to site abandonment (Staff Response at 4; CPC Response at 5). P.~. 'r J;F.*.,, .,,.,,7 Y W'. x G:/P P* Nonetheless, CPC has made a commitment that "[i]n the event the site is . f.;., g e 4 f .. /,. ..g J 3.;,;,,. ; ' %: completely abandoned, CPCO will modify the ECWR by backfilling and then j' . l: fM gylz 'gp"W'g,V.Tl,.jl,g,4.g trenching to the #003 outfall structure on the east side of the cooling pond, so ,. g

c

. n ??V C je n llL " W. P N ; M f d[jW, 2 D $ d that the entire ECWR can be gravity drained" (CPC Response at 5). We find S.,.E.O...,Y,. ~.., this commitment to be satisfactory. Given this commitment, we need no explicit condition to assure that, if the site were abandoned, the drainage of the ECWR pfpL.J./;?.(f/,:%..W..~.s.....m, .n.. SrL M.

ro;.w;. ca./. ;,.yi.p;a,,,3 y.;'m,.... %..,.,s

~a. .3....- N would not lead to untoward environmental consequences. . t,., t r.,e m,.. e r.c .o.,.... g W CS'. U S ; O.4 g..: . 3. >. c, s,.,.< j.*. A i - < s. v '.:. ?. %.s 4 3.,.

4. W. l W

,$M@:$g.Q'y.&'g$Y .e -/gj,q:<, 3m SQhl) S 3. Other Environmental Questions & 'C-Q Q :1- .h i4. E j y?;. ne Staff's December 11 response to our questions observes that, if CPC MEl.,'.* "n. '.'3.2.;.>7 :.,.y:iW M b* %. 4@S..%...,V.. '1 p U..;,c,c, t. relinquishes control of the site, the excavation for the underpinning should U @.... p. t.Qj... t,:f6.,7, $.WA ;G,:,T.jj !d,g/i[.Q "m. 442..'a'N be backfilled (Staff Response at 2). Although we did not inquire whether

y..p3.g!.M M'

CPC would commit to such backfilling, we note that CPC has recognized its 5?/; responsibility for the site as long as it maintains its ownership. In our view, such $2/1,'{h;IMi%,5y[37h[' f@.h,$?$hi@$' lM.:% responsibility would include placing the excavation for the underpinning in a fg_yfy%,g_ ;@h. condition where it would pose no significant threat to the human environment, h 'eki QdylQf either by backfilling or by some other means of control (e.g., baniers) (see ER pg,g,g.;g.,h._ f. at 3). 3 ,p Q..

. g..c,. m m. u

/ e,,,.<. p: f vr <;, ? 4.* lj.Y;&. y p W . W. *:Q.f.. - e,y., ,r.emn,..k$ ; $D ?- Sk w g -p N Dh w.vx a m w. w. tV:.sn.n.,s.n;W gf. w.%.m<%w 838 ur W 3.3.r m.,v w h o.M.. y.u, A4'm!%:r.w. +;, :.yg,g 's.;m v r a... g,&, W.. 1 m, wM rQ.. ~w w.:hE m ,. ' r,s; 6 k .h I 5 w d.g,pm;y%s %u m a%., n m nypp%5%AWMymw: womwwwwww www W ?m eme:%n wllc@ p m.w %.,;:. ;p. k.y a inW *, h..r.. :.:cG,4... 9.bg.:.y.my.,;. .Wyn. 4

Uw e

.ya n < 0 .:,p .. y.,: -

9...,

.., y y : r ... ' 3 - :. w.. :- .n, s a -l s

$5 3. ..P $,1.s,..f?qn. ha ".u..yhh.a.h.Wn'.9 4 *ir c D ;,Mylhd,N.9'f.N:[$.9 w'ey:W.p+a...y;. vwm w., a ~ p. p 1 .&a.. p. 9 ..m. M ihv 4 w, w A,;.- w* mv . q, is kg " : y>o.g.hih'i b,llQ

.y,. a SilW,%g. av.S$.M.9g d.y We would expect CPC to take steps of this type. But we perceive the p

l Staff to have authority to alleviate the effects of the abandonment of nuclear '".SN, M p'#&dR7-bv@,d#fd.$N;Q.7[M 6 structures. Because we did not raise this matter in our December 3,1986 inquiry, ,h h we are not imposing any conditions with respect thereto. But since we regard a condition requiring backfilling or other means of control as appropriate, we d'$M: Qg6%yp;. % P$..W#.j;.'q['hhkNhjQ@ N,D'y M % W.' Q' ~j";f,:. d,,3) would have no objection to the Staff's imposing a condition of this type which }Mp.!h.AfbM.p'$ k;k .;pM,? We note that the record of this proceeding reflects certain other commitments it finds to be warranted. l $.'j.7yf@$AQ.6.3@g[de:jhn';h;N.Gy.'2j U.N of CPC - e.g., the November 14,1986 inspection report observes (at 9) that y@.W9.j@i.tg!$.;17.g,d8k';'r.MC..,Q d kOdid CPC has committed to dispose of debris from the Poseyville Laydown Area i%, 9 in a licensed landfill area when certain temporary facilities are removed. Our i M..~'.Y.NtM.'[,7/ ? hd[f ',f@?,,.,@,.Q].2 ? .ll, emphasis in this Memorandum and Order on commitments made to us in . ? M... ;'u? '.i. W h/ CPC's December 11, 1986 response should not be construed as limiting any A,2*Q&-p'. u,. g.G9y.,'f.,6.. 1 M?i'g I f nf $ 5 commitments that the Staff may have obtained or as precluding the Staff from M.N't.~P[y.G.,,,.I..W#Ml.0;g/:,^.M,98.',6*g: FV.& M.$.Fl 1 i .: imposing such environmental conditions as it finds warranted. ' *h,M*.Y 4 76 . W.k c.. i.,:.,fte. ..g..&p3. 9,. 7.,..t.1 . /.S .n n,o,v -Q P;'*g,sO k*; .q y e. 4. Reporting to the Staff > q. d.,;m. '.'..,?&...*?~c f.s.y@..,l.,(..R. t. .MM,..f..:. M M M., u,O (.y ... n. .n. :., $f.'M([,.p.. .e

o... y N,'M.' '.l j;;~.

Because the Staff's environmental responsibilities depend on CPC's eventual .AjE%i.D[Q,,(Q; use of the site, we inquired concerning CPC's intent to advise the Staff of suf[ df use. CPC stated that it would advise the Staff "when conversion (i.e. actual g'(/ M y/,94 ff.%'(g:;.g].JQ/J e; f *@.....,.. Q.. w.j d.. f.N, constmetion] to a gas. fired facility begins or, alternatively, when the site is .,3.a..,V g%g,7.. ;.;;, n. .t. : abandoned" (CPC Respor.se at 6). This commitment is satisfactory. 0,.7 ~. yW.s y /..,., 'p,.. %.. 7 gg' g. 3 .,:* '.C... c..:; ls.h,.. ' :.* y:n " '. %y.7,. $Qi.:. f.i;, ? :' j @m..p%(.~.:. 5 ;'..d., >.n v.. s, ;,7 ..F..,?.$p'.1 C. Order

v. y,,.

..g. !,.p... Y.... n.. n :. .Ru-1.n #. q [. gs., '.f..j h.l, y# ,i,p;"y Based on the foregoing, and the entire record, it is, this 17th day of December 'J. . t.' (D*fy. 9M.W Q... ,7;W,. < v.W..,.. 4, < L v; - 1986, ORDERED:

s e.

p[ h;:',j', y.. 0..s. w,. j g,, y.. y,<; @ 7N@,N 7 q"[' @. .g 1. The NRC Staff is authorized to permit the withdrawal of CPC's OI ....,..,,,l .g...c ~ 'l application, subject to such conditions as it finds to be warranted. ..$ k.[k Q.,f,it." G'j 2. The OL proceeding is dismissed. l '. y.g p M,1; M i f. g%. W,.V. y..qi.y '/. %.f.s p $. j+. { : 'ff.K 3. No conditions are imposed hereby, but the foregoing authorization and % (;yI f '.J.g :.<:.O.:. 9.T. h dismissal are premised on CPC's commitments as described herein.

7. e.,

4 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Ii 2.760, 2.762,2.764,2.785, and 2.786, as

e...

. ;c....,(y. a.a. r. amended, this Memorandum and Order shall become effective immediately and ,t.e.... b., n. Af @,>Va A, #,.,;. m.., 4 hM@$@1:@[30,j[%j,..e.

u..

':;0'. t.M,+4'. !'.4 will constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice. Any

U:9Mg['M'.l}? Wh party may take an appeal from this Memorandun and Order by filing a Notice of

. idQ, .$r $'l.d.YM@[Mh'd.!i.ydg[y EM l 2,ff.N. Appeal within ten (10) days after service hereof. Each appellant must file a brief .Q jcZ.@:.;,yQ *j supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) days after filing its Notice of . .%... %lQ.,..c,.7.,d. ;."@. l.Y',Q. /J':. M.d Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty (30) days after 7, j J % ts,, t s, ';. ? !,,%.;, f =. L ~ 4&'; ;..T)W;.r, '* g. . ie* * 'i '

g JE **<.;. g
w ' s*
r.;.dy'o

..;.. ' 7. w,.' 's .- g* :+'.^:. ... + .n s l*4 ...s- ,,.,e .%3 +.r r.. a. ?. g ts W ' t < 2.$,9 h,,.>g': *7. cs A..l*.s.-a t. 4..M# e.,q 4 E. .M x* :. - %.H 8 . '.w ?, 2-N W ',bf..o.Y;.: Gr.b. e. 839 sy" y $l.R.*V $.*c::illi '.

$l

'l. t ....,.,. g. fy y,.;.V.. &..y<*S fn,pe.e gj..g%a., y'm:.:::,.\\.:. ',.. t a.s..%; u w. e r e .r w *- s.* *

i P. {*,s.e h.., g 0

';q., t;,.

1

. ;, ;. r 8 ,l.*,"g W. .,,Ar.*:..,r .s '#a .. p.. ,g.v. m. I *. O f ~ i 'E ..N * *1 -[, ',.f.{.,b. 4 , p'...% i'b.. gg

.s

..s r.'j^t ;,=* 5%Ll.., q.,' t ;l. &&EQR.v'h;,. ;,* j Ql. "';f',pIM%m&g .,M,. sh - m? '[*El .hk.(.,Nkf MhNMN.WJU.g. Sq id E N h hk k tk2$$@7D53$}%%@&:$$$M.Y,'M/ $w% h M W %. w$ a$ $w. m..;$m% e/h M $2/)sM 'l WkWMNEWW 6 vs , f,. y q.3., y. g y.,,.; m. y. 3 y,. p +g y.; {; e m : m... w ; gm > g. y ;y.a. g w.,j q. g y::; y g y. w -qu 3. - y q, y,, 3 ,4 3

,v -m, - .g.u/d.h:1.'k. 7 %. f*TO,;'u.!"g'/.,;>'rN@,. 4. r..,"r

C. : ' J?,y 1. *. 9, ? <...,..

's.- %.. _ o'L.4 w. : .,. S. 4yv ' ;, y p.- 9~.5 M *o ro ~ p,,.s.; t. p. / e:."e, s. ). m a, w a g g g gW.L..**d % rl';'Ly;.},q f*' g**. g g .i

. C

q.;,,

D k'*h!. s dhNNNh ,c.f.*.S:d*y.$.W,., pM"p%;.t; r,Q p.(NI' w e. W$NkN"'N. M bN'DUO M/9NdkA'h'E: D;N. the period has expired for the fil g d s rvice of the briefs of all appellants M W M "4 "C W*"i GM' (forty (40) days in the case of the St f0, a party who is not an appe!! ant may f21e 4 " h'., ,. <.v h,.vW. k.,Iff}a}.',[. j.M j;d a briefin support of, or in oppositio . any such appeal (s). A respondinE E#@ a shall file a singIe, responsive bn. f only, regardiess of the number of appellants

e

.+.$Q.5.!k.l0 Nll $kh(U"N.&. $.N'.i %'N, s,.- briefs filed, $.[YE. E. %.m.v4,.. ~ M, c..g.M.,,s.,.!a.$ e a,, N, e THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND c., g,., LICENSING BOARD h(I 5. bk,# nab.. ~

.,ks],'I'N'N " h vs...

. N..m,...x@ .,..,, u..S'.w u., .' / ), e,*., 6 Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman J $p. < U < .a...x - -?.,.n.- a ;.. .n c ~.w v ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE v: ;u y. 3..Q.. %.. y. try, wn.; ;c. .:. v. n....<. p t,r:. c:;M,, n.. :',c.,'

c. y.'.: v. +

.v , +. ?h.. ~.M.,~)w.k. <N ' r e '.t.,w.. M. ~ Jero' Harbour .,, y.o..,., 9.., r...,.. = y g..,. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .... -.,. + ,e.r +. u. E.. M..r, n.. r..,.- Y. m...N-[..?.' ?,9 ,. c ... p ../ b2# / 'f.hIN.."h.,

U N Gustave A. Linenberger d

9 [I$.b.![k.@b* [:N,,,, ' ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 3; MI *,

. L. * ;s r

r%. ~. ..,s ;. i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, .* c c. ; *,...<,.,p~,.s. .~ A. ;,... ~.; e. s.- %,y*, j.' ,u. this 17th day of December 1986. r m er * *. w ya' Q_..... c .,+. - ... ;..f...*.'r,.eN. 5 ,e , * } ',o, a. a. .i .,..,.,.e. s... ,....'.n'.

m,...^.. t: n.

.',+t,....'.,,,1*...,u *,- u <* 2s t . r. g,,.., y,.., ;. + r,. 7 ..'...*.g*,i,,;,',T...., , ', s,<ri.*d. l q.t.... f l e r 4 ;$,y ., q.' y ; .*4-3

1.. ;,';. 9#, )

a*,

5 d.,: =.. sy., y.<, ; A e > <

,....p..s......g.,,f'd,. '.t',,*. s,

< s

,. ;eg.,o ss .';y;;.,- o y yo .,?y. . n :,, ; > %,, M. .,. :.,.j.;. s 'y.. > p + 3.,,", ^ jg t .,~.. !; ),* , :., ;. s 3,.,p n,4,,-.3. b ,l,... 6.,..*'a. A5.s - ?.. 3, y.. .M,,... ,i, ... i. r. ..{.. j h.. 't.. - 7.u,c, ;.. l w. e*

..w;'. l. J. *,, N.'M L*..

(,Q*k: 4'. S *D.,J.i*y J i I r c,M, g 7 s,.'?.\\,;. t. n. s... epj e, m.g;..c;,. : . ;g,Qg : eW e $ * :,y. f'. i.* ? $, "g.,; -Q,$ q *.p* a",I],N.;.."J /.!.F '[,a;.}s p

e

,l1lMHl:'..:p.

9...... <,.x,.. n

/..y *e..., a.e. pt c. c.. r. v,Ls ~ W. <........,.. f-y; r;. &, z., e...,,.,.,. v u c .u, l..../%'.';%.5.M %&:l.?:s; .E y r-2 e,....%.,..,m. v.,.. y4 r , g ;., %.., - 3 ,.,p. s 4 se = f f " y':* **.;. ,.1. l.x...c. ' v . ~. s . ^. %. T..' g**. J,gr.:** M.m

. /,s.....,. g
#4 o 'h e..~
ey

,.'.f, J.,l,/, .w.* 4 -y*I I n. s...,,. s g.1.,,. %,, n :,; y'.r' q;4 9,.s ij ,,s.. ,'**d* ? q:i ***s.,:r:' 8* so.94 .. : s; .M,. ? D*A i.. Ej Psi, " J'y g' 4 't c'*.;y# 8u f d. n g, g ii. 8.d.T y %^0.* *I',.$ psf e. $. e 1 ;. n.

/

't ,.s %,. 9 i <% M s %^ b }l M R ;,*f*;1 ,,~{ . ya; 4 i, as'

i

.hn i'

p;. 9t -

p..: n.;m>7:.4,,Gr:%::%.4%q r'*n,.g: fl D@}'s * , M,spM r'W

'I?

a

. ' ' p'*

,t a y y. - -444 ;4.m. r,r, - -....o,p g,., a. b..s. 7.L t,r.,,. 1 up a,,.,,, f g

- d a...#"'c,.

.'.y .,3ly.... '/;<&;Q<d; v:s;* ...4 g F f C.,s/.4;'%. ......PMr +.5, s ,e.. e- -a. - b;k,1, qn: v.,,..:m.,J.;.~.u, eke' .t t h;

A~,.w *i.t

..y..u.u e. m -ug

u

.M *y p,s F.;3 .,,c.. l,44 t,4.,. *;.,.. eha.. <M,9 %. c'.p;* %.. r m;* i a 3. f.

3.... c.

, n.j,e,. a.s 1, .r r,$vM, a %w.~,.f#,;'.W4.4 i. g. p. .W 6 ,, a.e, q. bc.,%".*,5 J.g-lmls.h.*

e9*j(',,,

840 y, ,,\\.*- b. * >. eg.,e.,;,.?*... 3 % .6*W a,"N W.. r* z; 1: Q o. s - l-e. f.,n.a.*. 2%e,y, n% ,.z,, t.,, i.<.~m...,s. m -.y;, ha.: ' ,f.f '.4 }. s.:n an. :..: p.y .'$[.;'%.M.;',..Q: *??N,1';c:,.; ' . e\\ -v A *$ :LW" 4 'le 't 1

a;4:

n.,..,.u.

,,,. :,. n.s. w...s.n. E ,.. o. % ,,g _. ~, .. a we es .P. 4

1 .h!k?' &.;/.g;IS.9.p.M'y/gV.,k.0.m?.up 'jhN hj b Y O2 glL. m. g' w. M' ;$. b w : $.. yN.. QQ f.aESQL>Qy$Q;a.p;;9{NM Cite as 24 NRC 841 (1986) LBP.86 40 s .m b ? f.,

)Mzi A: Y r.

f rJM%>.@.w$.Mh@.k,M.N['/.'? 'h&;0,.N.p..'.d.%,ygg),p@;,q p,;<f.fN% v&.j% UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' k f.Y,Y x4..?3 ' W...r,i':-

' 4..-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..i ..,,,e 9 .r Wi' 2 -.%.q'M',p,.M..i;IC.< M: e u g... s w is m s ..R// y ;s.@y;Wfyl*N.AA v k 9 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL y e w& p v sh?r&,w.Y,;n[.%m.p.o,p.m.Q,!,p;.yy:y Q. t 0 .n g:,1 4%.,.s m %:%lg.st. y? 'M. D,dN.M.. M.:;O 'thM,m.,d..y%g%g,gq;e.n.4.W:a,p&.&.h / Before Administrative Judge: $&f.w:"P Tr,.; t_ .n 0 v a 3fA, s %.- cy.p,%.19 w W,w

.'q.p.n.:

lYy.xw..?.tnXy.. kink'O.%. EU$.,$,t: 4 '..... . $$w s. D****'"'**"* -h, ,?.,,..gi..e.M'

h. o.:.'.d, d$:n.e.x.R.~m:'+r.%.f.fe.F.? -:.m:9, r & c.

N.sn.8;m...a ,u N. 6 h In the Matter of Dockat No. 70 364.MLA

9.. v-n

s g:gtr,ka' &u9;:..:..W r,; Q.96,65,Y,i.g 5Y.

(ASLBP No. 815 511-01 ML) . /c,1* n.c:.; 9n;A.r.f .gby:.:pe@A%% yyap

. g$l'2M',N,.N

) l9..(6.@M hM0f .'h '[:\\ - BABCOCK AND WILCOX ff ..MG VM$".Sl; 2'5 (Parks Township, Pennsylvania, ~,s,z..,..x@:,..Y-o.'M4T..U..Uh..if.?(4NTdN.,,5 Volume Reduction Facility) December 23,1986 . c.

,, n. a. w. ;&. a.

2 s...:n. s;. y :.,..., ,r.,..., y y.... . ~ h,.:m;:. .-.y; :.a y; g.. v...V,.3,,.,,. :... m' 5. %r...;L;.;v c.;.,., .. Y W 'N IU,'h . w.3 . wg M.7,h'..dY,....v.: In this Decision in an informal hearing involving an appb. cation for an '?g 7 ?$,2@Md' ' e,%!.g.7.W.; 9L i'S". fc-j amendment to a materials license to authorize the operauon of a Volume M '.;h,.l(<fD.7/;'yI.$d.z';.ph,@,M T:D.$'rFJ,'qM. Reduction Services Facility (VRSF) utilizing a high. force compactor and an .l Q $,@ra"Mf;j ncinerator to reduce the volume of noncombustible and combustible low-level i.T?'/ l:.M,9M[M f.M@M:[y'M4 radioactive wastes generated by medical facilities, research institutions, mdustry, e

3.l."iQ:

,D and nuclear power plants, the Presiding Officer authorizes immediate issuance M.jl"f.h W@ C S Y

k/,1;l[h@f;i.p[.~ES@N$.E.i'.h,[iQ'i of the license amendment to allow operation of the compactor, but rules that the N

bh7,[,l' 'k-NRC Staffis authorized to issue the license amendment to allow operation of the t W$yf.R h.0.%'t %c.['"y!.*W.fc,[.@; .WlQ$ f incinerator only after certain conditions have been met, the most significant of 05l;.' which is that additional testing must demonstrate clearly that the incinerator will @h[,3 Q;)".,'.)

f.Nh: d.Cfd W <h perform to the standards adopted by the Licensee to protect the pubhc heahh -

E ,'?;,. g n.M'.l'O$ 7@8'CW%:.W ?*: d and safety, . y..r..7. y<,~x, v y so :n.m. ~..::'...:n%.M.. rv x cL:. c. 9 W / $ " 'i U ;.: ~Q A M, %.; f. g.7 ,s. x TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED .. M @ s.., ,a. w: m. 6.. w.. s: u..o..g m.:e., wly< ...n Q9-b.c.... i i -p r v.d (l,f5D.'N.f,;.Q'pW'j'h:T"..WM.. ' :DN:$$(((Md'd.h ' d@i.M' Mdp/f, .y.{ $d, 5 Operation of compactor and incinerator. Release of tritium, carbon.14, and I.125 by the VRSF and their health effects. Release of dioxins by the incinerator and their health effects. >;,.,.: p ; ;y v.,,. w. q d.n. [g..e y,? g q . A..,:.w..a.,c.F,%s 9 1.,1 Q.:. evy.n. ..- 5 '5.,G. v,;t. g.g ;..A. ;.* 7.:g.;. ;.. e f a pse s.,.., g,..;. a *.. p.. 4 . ~,. ..,..+q ,p % Gy).v:..n. m,,..,<. ,.,i.,v. v;,. V..*,.: a. .y a,.4,..., 4 ..s .y -u. e. :

8.,. M.,., o,g.t. &w,?.a,M @'v.,z.s u..r; w..

...r. fr.. p .A.ifa%')} f.'.*,

8. %mM:

W.B&, M.. 8M m.,.t.w

k....r.~3 % -s *l.. s:.. m. r,..

.q:...... r 3.. . n..

w..r,ne;:

..p ,&, ~ sye. ; ..N;Y].h..h.9': m a..,9 z%*.s p n. % .Viy: w .a .,3. N . w $=7('. 4d .'p..u. e ?s *,f+%v.;.. sp'. T M..*,,,d'..#i I.. g4;,s % f..,f,G'.F,g w*g rf,(.,Q;. h '.. ~

- C 7

s. g.l, M} $.vy 4,rg s t:.';.
p..... j p/

W, n u.ci.1;.l.1f \\ h' M[, %9sM. M ? $sh@m &I$$@5$ w& & wW 'Q;ik a.mownnww wpa A A. i&eme &w$$w$$e$b' U$ b iN W W WW Mh@$$ ..%. g.M M M g. @ @ w W N e e & 4

.w. G: %@&..D.:,/.W.W%P. %W'hQfc.*:{.QiQ; 9...w o.M%cl. :&.@.!'.l;.%$$$OV &m.:$.h :,1

.M

4. SW '.

.W..:%.m..pt;h.W....~. ; 3,;.h,, ; w.. w.: Q M.9, u. n,,iW.:>.H,m.. R,?.&..,!. s; %. *>%.g.:.s,.,.G.p&2..4 :... ~...... f i

1

%e w ;.

a v. . m. m..,..,, t .~.. g,..w r.d w...a. n.,,..< 3y.,. 7 .y:' w .. w.

... N m.,,,

.. u..a,.c, c u... e o.,,p,... v.. w ,c .t ,Ar,.p e-f. 5 '5

t;)l.Q

,b_ 4f,. e.

W$'$.-it'f'4.(%bfi.3 *.YS';1.%. ;.**N'*.k e A.eutan..;n'M, ? u.Qf.h

% d'b id.6t..*jr,g' gyQ' L'f.?l.W.'3+[;.4..C ? W H' f',L f.f.,~z ( td; &,\\q.Q.Q.. ,, ;s_ t *,,,f.f f e ','g.,,. g, * . na b6 g.f;, .,y% ,'....t. .~. squ vM, y.y,v..,,H.1%,,.h' yf f tog..e. ~;,.q n,,.,. .r. sr ht.. ..a3 s.mm..'/.. l. -I.,,.. th.. *!a, Y',."g*M,...\\'.. w.N '.'e.9dT,p.

/

rt - c. ?.M...,a9* -ll'l %.'.i.. sg. *)* o ; 's k .a.,1 F. 6, /dT,,: #.. M..h'$

'm'. t ?"

b.....a,l*s. y ** 4 *, ..e .6; (.= % 'l '..'*... ,s I1 g :'s.;; y s\\..)'... e

f. :.,. '. '( Q.e

n

'd. t.W.= * p' ,?..,:.si-n, Performance of the scrubbers, HEPA filters, and charcoal adsorber in the p c, ..m4 y. incinerator exhaust stack. t f' m D

e.aa.R.,M 2,.:e,.,5. WJ..".F...lf..'R..'.@....,W:

Accidents that could occur with the incinerator and their consequences. .s.6;7 p;.p,j..;3.w.g, g. 3 g. i s ,/.9,'.M.s,p,',*.,'.y;f.p,,',,g.'Q... Emergency plan of the Licensee. w. ,t,rf.. s y. g. >.. s.g. p..r p,... w. g;g, .,y; s. s ...w,,.p. ~:.. ::..m y.w{ e;;.:>w,f,e 4,., n,., 2,.g,.. ax.,;.4,- > w . 3:.. : r. m.

.. ? m&

c.e w sw . ; m ;,... w... e;.c;:.g ; APPEARANCES ,,:2::<:@<%.W..,4., .'.,ls..

+s

i.. ;*.. >:. ' *:h;.,.:a;:<i... n

..z. 'ru.$... a,,,a,. ., ?;.,..a,..,. g W;^. p't g. ..,.1 J

Q,.,,.

4,..v "i'.@.g't W..,'yy.,6,. y *d a* W{',. o., + Maurice Axelrad, Michael A. Bauser, and Frank R. Lindh, Esgs., Newman

y%$66'/p,Md Nh'pi.?;f g

o-e & Holtzinger, P.C., Washington, D.C., for the Licensee, Babcock and l Wilcox.

<; cyp.&...,.re. s.p;.c.. -

y. a,.... 4

p.,,p. e,J c.:. t.,.,. q,.

g;4 4 c.t.g ;.,.c, c ......y;; s.y, f.7M,.,...,,r s,v. s..n... s .* [,;' Dennis Paul Zawacki, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Intervenors, John s;..

l'.J'@fd@p)N',$Q f: U P. Bologna and Frutie Johnson.

i'i. s[ :.p;f ; g,;'f., [ -),. y@

g. i.f. sf.;..,...;;41..N,h..y..*. E."..d Thomas Au and John R. McKinstry, Esqs., for the Commonwealth of g..

n.

. 'Q Pennsylvania.

W:..N ;/C 4, >... n...:.a., c.%.-.,W.y W6 ii O MN ....,; n,..s. g,.y :: ,.: ;. c., l,. w,..

0r.e,..,

.~..e....s,. w. George E. Johnson, Esq., for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff. .qlq,.,., ; s. .S':). W.'.7..d.. ;.'.,.. .. Mk.'.&: .,.,.,,~.~....<.n....,.1$..

n.,,y;.,;*.s,f.g a...

.f .,,. +.... y v. - .., g,.*.

g

'.t4 x.,, v @ w;./..,,.,

?> /. 3. c..-<c

a. q,g.e. -. c. p,., u...

_ :.e. TABLE OF CONTENTS t m. '

. 7,.. e..Q.; g.e ?w. Sci,,1 p n n...c

... 3. e ~ ,. m. . q:. t ;- . 7,e.t.;,..w.. - : r.. n. ;...,,'.,.c. ,:.n.s.4... - ed

i. v G..%.'.p.. l.1g.. r.;y s

Page c;;p.::' :.'. M kl;:.ekZ ;[pj f;f-ly

1. INTRODUCTION 3l 843

. ' f.b.M,f Q$ U V. !sD,.. s A. Nature of Proceeding and This Decision.............. 843 W.

d';.f)M,6My 8 (l ?.,'. W,. c.

B. Development of the Proceeding...p.................. 844 4 a 9 % J-n.,.f.!F.,.%. s. g ? .,.v 4 II. FINDIN G S OF FACT................................... 850 .3 , a..,.s, .. r ._~ ..:. u. n A. B ack ground..................................... 850 M D ;? % B. The Compactor and Its Operation................. 850 G.< ' Mj,f.M .k$$.;,idfjy.h.1',W'R .QMWOd;@.'. C. The Incinerator and Its Operation................... 852 it M Gi.W.Q. g!; M.. ; @v M j@.. D. Complaints Heard in the Proch unc.................. 853 D9 DCB%d'.h.c.flS-(1) Administrative Contre 853 , W d,e,...g

W.

7 .W.v Complaint 4 (Limits on Emissions of H-3, C-14, .$,N f '.t:dQI..,i.hfG,rr.i.rtliW

'.i'@@

and 1125) 854 ... //.tQ Complaint 5 (Commitment to Install Monitor on l.'&.r., u .e.w. s.,..%... s s;3, :a-m..e c. V. ..n ,cn.

i..

Incinerator Stack)........................ 859 <~ ..>. n .,,? a~w. g . n.. ;,,y W P '3..,i Complaint 9 0125 in Scrubber Solution)....... 860 .. > r 6,, 7... - %. l. G M r.,;m #. T'N,J;r"y'd' [y.A.':.fhnjM. " M Complaint 12 0-131 in Reactor Wastes)......... 862 .... s s if.,':lM. ,a.:n. 7.. p.,....g ,., a........ Q.,h. & ,. -.. c.4. g. p.... m,,.,<A.,.r+s .v. oc.,,,,., eQ y. ,h,,,..c..p1, y ..s.. W.r.t.v.:.3;g 4v 3..; + e,M

9. s. g c:.

., #,m. m,z..g. -.. R.. g.W ,, *a,w,...s. 'g m ;,,,.~.,,,,. : a * (h'.s.m 1.> t e ** %..c. em.. '. ;,.:5:3,....s .*w..sn. u , b. Kff.p@ j $ $ - M..v.,4 d M 4 s. a- .MIM 842 M v.,.f.:3,..Qlfa.g$e,W:..w$'#. :ff&y y d h.',k.,z[ m.;..,, m'N.s/.f[ 4.',)? .,N.N' 'g,s y r &...v..Mp,p%....b.a. *. &.,7,,.%.h

'# ek es.

g

!3.iW. *...,

%f W*;.. i &).,? .6 % m %o/.t: ,.pn~,;K'hy )4.,e n,2.>..y@Y.i$ W a e e.

W. 4h'{. d

. 3.l. ?.'fG.,',,$.. 'lr.N..t,.y MQ, ' &.&. m.?,.* -t*.G f,.* 'r t eQ';%yeD'*Qj r 3 y

c ~.

i.R. Y

.Vif*,M M'OD M M sm%v;p'f.Hf/4a't.a.y v.Wi.p;d$;.lty%eeR

-ypc, :

.s '.M. dq. "ws M m +n m Vi q?.n.M&*k..G'RIF *FayW' s ;'W;.~.*;:' gig':.; :::m 5Mi' m $ N N: 4'h '!Q W.*LQ 7 v n. Y j .,'f%u:.., &lW.y m,,.g%;gW$.'W-?. %;.v.#.. %'g#v:~m. m. pp:%. &!q 'L' M.W?v. ?M::n.,,M.. in'&asM.MMW.Y.wu:ptM.,C w e ..H c

2;;d'.9%

W' 5 Q W-xv . - - m : W~ :. W & ;. / n:::n _ y s. r.. 1 . s y 3: yy m g ~ ~ ",. p 1 m ........ m.

M., N, @c......,h.,@I.,.g ). M.... NdYO NS. ~. ,. M ...hD. .M.#)N.u.NhNhh.c$. YN. ec m.w: M...f/5.pfa$.Np.'.'M,ec c.., I h /?N. b.r b, N. p g ! M WW u j w;.a.r i.0 .j. p- .m swy 'N ' N i b .'d. m >y,p,Mf2. ;w.~n,w.,.M..'.]@%n.u.ym%.S

c. 8,,'m,.d.

gs -w m. DfM.m. Ay.%pMQ,M;.r <;. 4 d. w t m .= ana.,&wA'n s 7/M.l.%..y;$y.^. y .w y MJ6,.w' OQ4.Q,?. 5hy.C:*lMM5.v'.CN'(.{*a,, I'. @w.c Q Cd N M N@):v M.m$g;Vry?Ah.; .p .yd Complaint 6 (Radioactive Releases During the Past pza.w&. . #g .ef. g.4 gig'%,%;c.p<~.WM.. 4YkM,., 9 10 Years)................ 864 . g f4, q% y;g!y Conclusion on Administrative Controls......... 867 Mk;kJhF,..M,18..,. $.,. A,Q,,v 'ms,..L.3Mh%k$".'bhh$ys;., A. y d $ypN,j:. f /r. 71 4 W (2) Health Effects of Radiation Releases............ 867 M M.rch5.$ M@"D Q'.'ji % p, h Qb$ Mqdo$p56ie M W 3 ? jj % h Complaint 1 (Effects on Health of Petitioners and Their Families).. 868 (.,$.5 Complaint 3 (Effects of H-3, C-14. I-125, and Cs 137 N%iN d kk Within 2 Miles)........... 871 Complaint 13 (Effects on Residences and Schools W,h.bp@g@F h;.'y;q); f.,.,:W: Sj.. v M.,,. 3,@. h..', ;@.$..W,.p,(....i.

4.., t d.3 M?,'.422$$.7.,a'

-d. Within 1 Mile).......... 873 ',a o m-Conclusions on Health Effects of Radioactive %o.h. 7M..$'.l.@@..d$r:h.mp~;"@,. %',;p., t.Q...v i Rel eases................................. 874

$.%3$o.?.A,.q.m.,k:.v.,.. D..: $ '% @ M /.;. D %p (j g.

f (3) Consideration of Factors Used in Dose Analyses.. 874 ~ .i.o Yd52dMl M.. Complaint 10 (Effects of Valley Topography on 'd Yi D.6.S.{/ Q W % ; p[ $ @.h g, f I ,>.4. '. m:0 Dispersion)............................. 875 ,'i. Complaint 11'(Assumptions About the Effect of Food hM-Mdhf[$M#.MEMh.;,N,3'V; 9 y Preparation)......................... 878 , N. Conclusion on Dose Analyses............. 882 ,,,..j.3N'.I[ 8,'Mhl N. g.J:kD,.;y;j . ;., g.f (4) Additional Accident Scenarios........... 882 1 , j, c ; 4., .a . g, l%.c,. nG ;; w:. v. T t,.,.., e. '.y - .. s.d. e.. Complaint 7 (Consequences of a Fire in the Off. Gas

r. -

at. i ;a -. f,.9.Cln..... . c .y;,......., i..m... W. System) 882 M 5.,N,s.,O.,q. ,s l . r o. T'

r. G y, i ',

. !s* (5) Health Effects of Nonradioactive Releases 887 2 y.'.lc.g > ;, y, o,. (,. y -Q;.V.b", J.

. g Q K N. i ( S.;

. g'. j..W Complaint 2 (Generation of Dioxins) 887 j ,g, ;l.g.,.g,. g:! ...sm. (6) Design of the Incinerator 892 -li g,"..i,.. ~' s / W.......,j. j p.'. q' 'a Complaint 8 (Design of Incinerator for Processing . < w.f. m., 3.,.... w;.c. y.;.,0 Institutional and Industrial Wastes)......... 893 .a u .,/.(. c,'l R. M.. e,c.u.,,c,.*,;.,,, id Complaint 14 (Performance of Off-Gas Scrubber) 893 .l j s. 'Jef'v...., i ,.c Conclusion on Design of the Incinerator. 898 m..r. f r.,#. ',;.3.,M.,..,". sa,.,". p %..k.tJv. H. sl*. .... l o.... !,.'f, ;. .... :.l.. n.c. : ..J. .. P.a d. HI, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW............................. 899 ,n & y m. x ..s 3..;..:.O.. p, e.t w 1,";l. i W .s : u.., n. : n... e ..v. v;... ...;y, /,..-Q:. ' )...v.py ' '.c,.5 m,,. 9 p.,.g:), IV. ORDE R............................ 899 { % v.. ,. v..c.:, j, i s g..,..,.o .?., e e. +,.., 1 s,... i

v...

o. .v. { r.u..s ' 1. :, : * r ? E'..~%... y;;.~% . +- f & ; fy;c.'$R..?...l.l7.2 o. 9. :9 '.e..lg.. c. .y. 1... y.. p i$.., i.i DECISION .c.... p., ,n,%. a.. m *,., \\ .y, s .*7 .g 2 M, @:. s' is <,,{%,. 7.6b.i', ('s y,/y,,.n .,.p ',...:, L ~ s. G

,.n

.!'!. t

4./J-L INTRODUCTION 7; WW,.A ;& *y

>l v..l W yi . ;.G. O. :.m.m M y3.. ': [ii'.'.(:l ~ ..o.b .t @.. c.,. '-%. ; C. /5 :y..:$,, N;'C.....!,~/$i4:F'@lM*M; n,;.*::Q I i. u.p.. ,r.y, A. Nature of Proceeding and This Decision This proceeding is an informal hearing involving an application by Babcock ' p.'.1k'

tl7..,'.+.1:4 ~.c; 7,y,;;..o.5.;. M.,e.M.... 9 /.dN JN... r,:..I, L)

e..,,7/r.. ;lj,L J

O.. and Wilcox (B&W or Licensee) for an amendment to its Materials License e. g ...r 'i. A No. SNM-414 to authorize the opemtion of a Volume Reduction Services Facil- .h,3:.r <-. t

r. 3;(,y +,q'f,,.... -

.p, %. ' V.c.

k..~.bh... 0l'.$. N&_..;,j, ;

,.,.gr.,% fr.l S^$,l

.k c :... Q. ~.'h,.'.*b,N.'; l ,s .c .w r m:;Ms.,l,-u:$. e

h y..v. m n*D...~..M., )., h.g.Q. ;;f.l.'M. #

Q *,O. ;, fitf.v'.lg.11 O/u plj q y,l'..,, t 1* W:9 4.. g t. y n. e. m >.4)Q ?-lc..

a '.p:J7.Q4j$.W:Q: 'e yy.. qd Ui ef:.

.W.@6.*.&,*.l,.6 . (ff[h;05*M.y;%'h . ;.. u m [t : h M.?' 6,1~:Q &iyin l.h, b.I i f!...Msn y,V.,.M_$.c,$ul,. M..s'>'.D' A.l' V'!.U *** *,a.b.,y...... h,.h.n.[h hN:.~id. r N.., yNM.. -. ;$m@$ .! (kMi@@5M.nS U2MM D MAS.,N W M..@59.0. 5@!I. M..nNN..N...,3;In$.Y.% .m.. M* w. n G ... [LJ' O ~-f - - * *}. .Y. R ;*?: f '..O' ..?.T'*$.. ' ' :".N 'h ',>}.% J.f'k? ','[r. - =. u.

s../ s.

.a,.=~. r. flQ 1

b hY, q. ;#... % .,n.,p.q.. _.,,m e -. - >. -. - w,. -g. rg.. w,..s,. ,.o.,,- t . +n.. -.. w ' y c.,- Y 'h. n g, v.3. n.,. .;e+;y. w..,:n. ;.g.. y.#ci.,.f v m,.. w, 'h e s m ,y q. .. oc ....e.. s. s..

b k.. y -

h.,- $bf. l A d., e. I[b '- ng/.t.C..t:1.O'%.w.gdhw,e'e. $bh k@b ff$i h,W[h.b 5 ep:,

bIhb, b

I. M % g w p M L.%g e6 4..y. m dmf'@4>Wieven<.m .c %h'56e w% <tu .m a .s Es.. 7 e d.vM.ra4 M N m d.: ..w .. Ti %3, w..,. ., v:p,...n2 s > s...wwp.. e;th :y'@:%ggy. t..,..s.:". r p.w.: e,,. 9E:gn.Lh:'? ?.<.r ,.~a ~ u 2:.f a . W. W.. u e. W- ,i.k.. 7 " +, 4, ;W,\\..g;.r.+s*, V. :n* T.,.',. ;,u:* a ,w u. ;,,,&a w

u., ;.,

.y.... , a + m.: .~% y.v,...,i*. a.2; " p. M. .m. +t ,.,;;.; ;;t..y n. N.:......M. ity (VRSF) for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) at its plant in Parks Township, 7 1 V,t -C 4.. C Pennsylvania. The license amendment would autharize B&W to operate a high-y.i$.. : g/ s jf,q/,N,l.,N'/$.N'...i>g@,.gf.Mf@ force compactor and an incinerator to reduce the volume of noncombustible ,'!l/ GN'< $73,,*.% and combustible low-level wastes generated by medical facilities, universities, J.M' (;f'@{R.y,[ N.B. :l h[lf ' l; l*:.1

!3 d;#.6'.'Mi #$

J. reseamn b.titutions, industry, and nuclear power plants. Wastes treated at the ..y*,, ,;,,p,{',]p,N,',,a VR$1 Nuld be returned to the waste generator or shipped to a licensed waste p~2.M. j

/

disposal facility. Inarvenors John P. Bologna and Frutie Johnson, whose res- .:'f. :'s@c, o..'W-.:.3, e s., r.$j. - W....i,:4 t.. U. o idences are near the Parks Township site, contest the application. The Com- , M, &@.&2.J.f('Rp'

.. * ' Q.%

fd ;f monwealth of Pennsylvania participated informally as an interested State, and L.'<'V,p di

-yh%3yQ,.].fi/.h :Q',4.@ the NRC Staff, although having elected not to become party to the proceedmg, also participated informally. In this decision, fourteen Intervenor complaints G N,3.. H .%....',* ; W[.3.i y,P/Q@.' concerning health and safety and environmental issues are considered, and de- .....,..; :.0/ ' a, a~', e';.L,'W... cisions are rendered independently on the amendment to authorize operation of ,%. 5, N r. yj; Q...'!;W." .l ' :'-' .s the compactor and the amendment to authorize operation of the incinerator. v (.'.,y (? !3 fQ.y/ TK l) ,p. The Presiding Officer concludes that there is reasonable assurance that, if

g..c f.;

1.%.!; W .:s c J-the license is amended to authorize operation of the compactor (which has been hf V.. M7 #.i. '...

A W,*,.N : /;" 9,.,.. d. o :'.s. 4. &

r installed and is operable), the activities authorized will not be inimical to the .r. " ' ' ?, k T., M...h....ic/ '.,r.l.'.'. <.. common defense and security, can be conducted without endangering the health 6 ff ? :.', v...' $., s N.<B. '.1 and safety of the public or the environment. and will be conducted in compliance p'~..f.s.N.#G..,:..d,.Q; with applicable NRC regulations. The incinerator, on the other hand, is still W-i.

t. W-under development and had not, as of the date of the hearing, performed to the W.,.

V .1 .... y.. ';Y.i. '.i. U 'P ',., ~9. r ~ standards committed to by B&W and accepted by the NRC Staff. Consequently, Q 'rg.W.,. 4W the Presiding Officer has concluded that the Staff must withhold amending the .;.. 7l.,s. 5...M N. U $..,_,.f N (j, h: Q.#. 3. license to authorize operation of the incinerator until further testing has shown .,. '. "c.,,.. . e..... t.. >..,.. * <.., that the incinerator is capable of meeting the performance criteria committed ~.. ['3.?'Vf* @ ' 8.,tpp;.l,3r 3, 9 TI ',li,!". j, to by B&W and accepted by the Staff. Those performance criteria are made a $y*!!".6,",'.v'C,'jN#O@ licensing condition, infra, in this Decision. W-T l'.'d..:S.;. @'[.[U.p'N /- i.3 ' Q.?. r,s.s.;. n :.; p,..-.. y- -. r.,,. +A,. .m.. L ..,,,;"u e, r$'g:jf'.;.n..i'.,., fay;s3.',j

- y.s *MQ D.o. t (, '..

...j.E',

o. t *.

B. Development of the Proceeding .. c .... s. 1.v m: a i 4 rNF *.c., :- M.'- M.:Rldid M h: 4. M.. m m.? , n...s The Licensee applied for an amendment to Materials License SNM-414 on w? October 31,1984, for authorization to opente the VRSF at its Parks Township facility. Specifically, the amendment would authorize receipt and possession .Mf! @9f@f!!y.sd.p.Q Q p; f,'/ $ e:y;l['U M of up to 500 curies of byproduct material in the form of LLW; storage of the Q.M';) k.@r material in the Parks Township plant formerly used for plutonium fuel activities; @[!k[Of??iME.(ty$ @ 3 Y. ff '\\. processing the material in the VRSF; and waste packaging and shipment under the byproduct material authorization of the license. The processed LLW would 9.g,'@h%y't}.L"; d.i.)llyg,p, y%.y,'!#'MQ::' W'MJ -fQ.d be shipped either to a licensed waste disposal facility or returned to the generator M'hp. f?.$Q.MQ'. of the waste. NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Volume 2' // .MM2 E k [bN.N.I.S I.WN Ny/[Q,N;O.?.,Y' *Ib Reduction Services Facility, April 1986 (SER), i 1.1. .N?*w.k k,%e'.'{:: . s.. r. v . y. m.. I -X:W*

. :. NJWll&

d.%v %..;E;. $$<3? Q. 'ii:..,, % A x,,,.~r.,.%.: y*>'R m.. y.y*. ?w n. u, ,~s ..y r 844 m 2%r,,.ya%.%,,,&q-.&.%.%p W h s k,Y[,c$..g de, h &tW:; a.q...y~..n.. p w .4 ,.M,.yA'i i kI.I..... Y

... p,,g,...E.lM, j 4

e..w.e.%,-. r... .e n p;.. a.... i.,s.4.f .v.,M.V M,, y;'h:.c 4. :.f,. _. .a (%l '* e ~ i. Q i .,. ~ e

. g,.

y,.. 'k pp, z*. n;fcp tlhb 'wp y n/.g[.hh .<;k.: 49' ; mf. 6 w.c.-r d h ....;.9. m. .a. :. m.g.:.w $hI .i', Nf'd h dkI ih .k fh[ k e%. a~m$...,..c l.:.@n'h.m-hik.hbk.m!m+m.&) n,,WW-%.n',h..m m.m*. e[. y @ w $. o!. % T,. %. s... Q 5 W av Q .qk:t:M M -.. M..W. M...:M W :: M.:9 men n. .,,n </ ..n .y. r s

1 - %.;id*)%W.'Df;y'sQ? r;r.s e ), e..!..? -* % v,,y. h'y.te.u d.M[.t%.7}:W! $.??)kr? t at'.d P $ 11 v, y p @7 % U N #, U.~F di $. k,d Wf 'p k h' ,k.,h'.0 h/ Q D+J.*.jp#'5t! .57 A petition for hearing on the proposed license amendment was filed by. 7, f. Messrs. John P. Bologna and Frutie Johnson on February 15,1985.2 B&W ?d.L&h'M[p.g, A@Q@. /@M@W} respo_ ded by letters dated February 25, 1985, and April 12,1985. The NRC i s n 9 lf Staff responded by a filing dated March 25,1985, in which it suggested that the 9.QW.jD.h[N %f;;:, J;;,4*1"$w Q' 'fph Commission order an informal hearing before a single member of the Atomic h yg phj T(.h'h',T.fth'::-$f%N.9$ h Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP). On July 24,1985, the Commission "C M y ordered (July 24 Order) (unpublished) that an informal hearing be convened k"y. y h. @$, % @d$')$.{2.h, hd - h/.EM;Nid before a single ASLBP aciministrative judge and that a notice of opportunity for 4h..Mh NI.h hearing be published in the Federal Register, inviting petitions to intervene. ,N J N'd$ 5 A Presiding Officer to conduct the informal huring was appointed by the M[h%'%W 0,U Chief Administrative Judge on August 1, 1985.2 Notice of Appointment, 50 M.,3.M N,$eMMNh:.;',fM..'IM.00.?j Fed. Reg. 32,128 (Aug. 8,1985). As directed by the July 24 Order, the Pre- 'tW;D9;; W $.l 4, 9 ' U..e. M~N Q[i M, M.s, 6,;@.5,E.!.S.,. 9. g: c fr$$,$ '$ c d.... siding Officer issued a Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Become Party. 50 kD,Jeh.q..J..,C..l9.1. .t Fed. Reg. 32,782 (Aug.14,1985). On September 12, 1985, Messrs. John ,,p x '@M...u s$. 4,h?.s /,M...yM.f.NM P. Bologna and Frutie Johnson (Intervenors) petitioned to intervene; they raised 4.@;,, e N,0 $. $J a number of complaints in their petition, which they asked be addressed in the )$.M".4.;MMl#C:@M.$jlQ'g@W.pM;- {$ 7-Q/8.C

MW t$'.

proceeding. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) also peti-y,@m_ ;D.,j4j../ tioned to participate, as an interested State pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715(c). The 0, r.Wr,.. p -... W. M; f c:c!'.Jf4,,,+0 3 NRC Staff, by letter dated September 26,1985, advised the Presiding Officer MQl,O',L;Tlh[h8 N[kl$-Wl:4.Ve.Jyd ;.c/,b M'Y,M 31. d and the parties that it would not participate as a party in the informal hearing, AbM"$%% f'. M f.-:.c. j but it reserved the right to present information, either on its own initiative or in c response to requests from the Presiding Officer. dj b. NfE By a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petition for Leave to Participate in c (: D d 1/. W ',' 'l W / d ~,a ? g' 2 an Informal Proceeding, dated October 3,1985 (unpublished) (October 3 Order), 9,',0 p t. X.u. J f...'D p. 7. y.,,p.;./ 1 71 the Presiding Officer admitted petitioners Bologna and Johnson as intervenors in L t.- t

g,s L'l *M.Q: ! fit ' @q.,!T.h j?. :.Of d r;

. 'l .l7 'S -y y %.N ' *j the proceeding and accepted three of their complaints for hearing. 'Ihe balance B.yy.N& dV;EWl 1,.g' %.Mld,[;? of their complaints were denied as premature in light of the fact that the ll7,f,M[i?b.-.4$,%@./,'pf%Md Staff had not yet issued its SER or the NRC Staff Environmental Assessment M J.J. M Wl 0' $,MQ (NRC EA). The Intervenors, however, were granted the right to file additional MMM'@h'$6*: h!N[h.N complaints based on the SER and NRC EA within 30 days of the issuance

re.l.M' M AU9.hM.Q

?; h h [ of these documents. October 3 Order at 8. The October 3 Order also denied MA!.,y.}6 ;ck,,f'..i[:.':'. ';,f.h the Commonwealth's petition to participate as an interested State pursuant to ' NM ;V, 9 2.715(c) because the Commission, in its July 24 Order, did not apply that B.? @M ;4,'c.* I,:" X :h.7. Y. 6 ?/ v v n ; Q;.i U. W

.d y w*%q;: ;;p% =r *.:.s. ly;; s.,,.; r.,. I "{.

L *;:j. .,g.),h. 'k.Q,,..* f ?* 2d.A s ylh* s De d %s i Another pention for hearms was filed by Joseph H. White. M. on February 14,1985. subsequently, however. [5hhk/bh. I

?",*Q

$ d ,* f G.lb'} Mr. white did not fde a request to parucipate in the informal heanns ordered by the NRC on July 24, f/ 'i.?Y*.. fg)4,.[..)%@A**....Q.J.!@.;8 j,@4[@,.* 0 /,.Zh(Q'. 1985. Consequently he is not a pany to tius proceeding. A late pennon to intervene was fded by Ms. Cindee Virostek on August 2,19M. B&W filed an answer oposing h U~ p !,h'$' @T,,i g't.M.#r./

kl D*f/;

/ the pennon on August 19.19M. No other responses were filed. De Prendmg of5cer issued s summary Order on ,M.p

f :-e$

y, kp,M d@Q i/lu,'d'f,..' /*.,* U%.! p. i sepurnber 4,19% (unpubhshed) denymg the pennon, on grounds ses forth later m a Memorandum (Explaining f f. h9*.$.!$'J;yN;Tr.?'.N.,$'p 2[:py;d[* t%2.Q .fsd ,,e / g.MQl4]s

h the Denial of the tate Filed Request to Intervue by Ms. Virastek) issued on september 11,19% (unpublished).

f. [ {,'

%e Presidirig officer <mgmally smomted to conduct the pr =4mg was Dr. Peser A. Morns. Because of Isr.N','.fijf *.'e S 2 Q p.4f!T.1 J[.*[I[p'NN.* *;/J ".*J';p (7 a schedule confhet, the Chief Admuusunuve Judge AstEP. replaced Judge Morns with Dr. oscar IL Pans on 6, + k'[a U/ % >,h[j',6, W' @% ;,Yr7, M ??r$' M}m;r[',Y h @,Y. 7 March 25.1985. 51 Fed Reg.11.120. %.I *b kN d$ W fy:$Nlf. ;0g

.e.
l@e R*: r.i:

M :%';.< Xp' w :,%!,;R*:qy.:.v ;,:v:(m.~2AV. ~ w.m. -. n-T.v', W;2 p'. y; y %.c b.;3..;. s. 4.. Q P.,e' W.,e.^ p. f.%n 845 v jf G.;E, Q ****.*l w?* W.4%.s. Q g.?'.',)y.s m s?i/. *W. W*y;k& w ? d. p.y- &y m $ 'i,; g. h.. p. v; w ; m ;.p,4.q g.4q 3;,g ~Y,. q.y.v w,.g ' 1.M, q.%q$fY. g y s n,n,,...&..$fUI,f;,,Q,e:.ls,f.$,m, e . h'n k w d %' h f t +.te 4 r,p.,g.H.. &4 a ~ ~

25%w.c.; m m, D5 W.s mp&:.gG-qliO%b,~!y&.m;w:m.:.. n.m,et% -mn w . ;q. .. e. n p.c,,,p &, :y .n c Q.P;; fp'w*plx.7,$%:n?& mj+y*&,%,Q{ b o.c- . f..m. -: y pr,.O.N.*,ytr%.3 %:.k.,bg;p v%v. - .n. : 1.,4 ?s.y*lO s. ~. m 9,. '. M '4 x -yf 4 ';?* d; sJ T .eJL,

.jbe

,.jf QN,T 4 r;Q: i;MN bIfI5Ykk$ 5 h' M M M h M @ % J $ M M R'f M 8 M Q 'h ['k w; ;2.&m hd. n. m l* ?s'y.6 % m.;. n % gu?;lcdLA::I:. Q

d. :.Nm G O'2; 'h %.:~.:w*

r,M :.* i 'f.70..G..Q.'.? *l,h;.'{, $h.. a %,. s.:.ta.h.: ^d?m, ~ .g. y.%;m%f.%..a.p.ve m'.4'.,;;, ~ .:..s.;

w

..n".~~. ...,, ?a

y ;

.%:l. :n,. ~ provision to this informal hearing. The October 3 Order did, however, recognize a .E that the Commonwealth had an interest in this informal proceeding and special .;.g'g-Q{fy:yl7@yl.t,y,.W.:p T %h, l.3Mpf responsibilities with respect to the VRSF, it ruled that the Commonwealth could suggest questions to the Presiding Officer if oral presentations were Ty,p 6,p~ #':. W Q*p?. g,M yp M,.;fu scheduled and directed that the Commonwealth be put on the service list for the

M.CGj ;,

proceeding. Id. at 9-11. Qf@f;'-yj+Q.l.f.{?;.7;&,'::.f'.k',l't. f@. 3 The NRC Staff issued its NRC EA on March 6,1986, and its SER on April 9 . ?.igLWgc fV. 1986? On April 11,1986, Intervenors filed a Supplemental Petition with respect 2,';.k k ;,f. Q h *[y /j Q,37,':f .i'. - b.& p. to the NRC EA, and on May 9,1986, they filed a Supplemental Petition with

/@M3g...d@..M..

respect to the SER. B&W filed its answer to both supplemental petitions on $~2:Y,. t, s..l.Y. S .g., p.p.p @*g..g...f May 27,1986. In a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Supplemental Petitions, m pf f. ,g,P,l#:t,p;ss,,.'.M.5..,. Procedure, and Schedule), LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) the Presiding Officer J admitted eleven new complaints, which, with the three complaints accepted in (~., ;.. ,s.,. l_'O' p, C. Q ;.r.pf y, p, 2 .g.fy y;',gj...../.g.j the October 3 Order, made a total of fourteen complaints to be considered in s.40 %, ^>. W..,.. J Q.f Q.:<3..F J.f this proceeding. LBP-86-19 also directed the parties to file written testimony on .ff,,..'.' ; yy..it W. ..-(,q..~ . /,/.7f'f..- @,... i! T. W "l;:@v the complaints, by affidavit, on or before August 1,1986; it ruled that discovery ,r.'... and cross-examination were not permitted, but directed that the part,es were to . ~.. s $;M.%fc!.C.&y.,'l.sg$y., ;p, A,9 .pg,,g submit questions about the testimony, to be asked by the Presiding Officer, by lC,t August 22,1986. Id. at 842. Further, the Order stated that oral presentations f'5fd,Y'.J :,,r'.;'y,M.1,(' H{h.? p.T I M W ':j would be heard at an informal hearing held in the vicinity of the Parks Township I .-F.- % [ p.. 1 -;%r IJa 7O. ,,'. ".'Jl: ' '%.... site, at a time and place to be announced later. Id. The order also prescribed p procedures for the oral presentations. Witnesses were ordered to answer under e f.. ~ .'p.,, ;y " A'Q(.1;,7 -C oath or affirmation the questions to be asked by Presiding Officer, and the parties .v.'s 4.f : 7.W- ., ; n';;. Q/i were advised that they could offer supplemental oral testimony and submit 6 ) % M).? N,WiNj?/h,[*.6 %, 3.' W2 Wf.g T,M;.. y% additional questions on the oral testimony during the hearing. Id. LBP-86-19 ,L. 3.#... k 7. - [N...,.J,$f.Q also provided the opportunity for persons not party to the proceeding to present p H/.fi,*/...,.., a /, wntten or oral lu.nited appearance statements. Id. at 843. g;3..y;q.!w,g, @.,g,:;l$;vfan R.: m B&W and the Intervenors filed sworn testimony on August 1,1986. In ad-(h;@h5;'$@.' h.9 *- fi 9, '$.Ef@f.I.%ffb Q.p: 'M.. @ .W. dition, the Staff, pursuant to a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Supple-mentary Information from Staff Relating to Complaints Admitted for Hearing) @).jp7,2d;$IlQ.$f Gl.j.i. 9f y$,yg.g{$.'g 5 dated July 18,1986 (unpublished),' filed Supplemental Clarifying Information t 'i;4 r d1b.pfg{.,'T;Q from Staff Relating to the Staff's Safety and Environmental Evaluations (Staff Vl We.- Clarification) on July 31, 1986. On August 13, 1986, B&W filed a motion to r.l,5;$,%,,y.M. w? W q,...pf 3( >G. /j -o .s... u p:. :n,;t.y,.'ei. <..c*,pq.v.. ,P

a. p r...

. G.;; ;Q g.....e.j:;.g . f..... - s* *w,o . 44 -.g %*,Q Ji.l$.[h[,,.h 3 .T, h ) By lena daied June 3,1986. B&W requested that the Premdma of5cer fmd that anne of the admined complamu Nhd SI,7 ..f.f'[$ b,Y $3,. .j,:$'. Mated to the canpactor. so that the stan could consider insumg a license fw the compacts immedtstely. By lener dated June 19,1986 Intervess groned the request and mamtsmed that certam of their complamta as ongmally I'b;, Y,%"'g".M}s p,..',4;hM'.,lg 4 .t filed related to both canpacwr and inemerator. B&W replied to tne Intervenws' lener cm Jure 27.1986. De I ,Q;M.~';3.;,f d/%.

lNMF

.. /,34 %./,4 t.f.1 jf,, ; h Pres. dang officer found that certam of the complamts $ led by Intervenors nasted to the VRsF as a whole, and L@r+y;W. (Q;'*f 3.a,9 Mg;f[, / hmce so both compaetw and mcmersia. Derefore B&W's request was derved by a Memorandum and order v.h- - '*fyy.,h.' g?.. r '/. g.' 8.f'.'*,.',*:p*Qt Pr e gg (Rulms on Licensee's Request Relaung to Lacense Amendment for Compacta) issued July 1,1986 (unpubhsbed) h.c N,'$(..W(:[.-42*'kk %

7 8 i

4-(July I order). 'on My 17,1986, counsel fw the sta# had telephonaf the Presadmg Offeer and requested leave to provide 70.3 .E*j';.% *P!, M f.D pd.'.f,77 3r,?.f'I M.W::[?.nd.@M supplemmtary informacon relatmg m the complamu admmed for heareg by LBP 8619. De request was gramed.

6. S. [44 p*C3 r p,(-.

.y r .r , [%((f; d '* . El.Pfj h- !,D.*N 'QYr $ 9 P M G.}:.6J.h [Td 4,,I

2m., :?3,%;.Wl.;@Q.f{pg!

W 846 Q, jgg.g 7, .gp g..% ..... c * ' f.,.,. e&. x:. ?r#'.* !a*3_..;'hg.%.we,I.,.. ygem .,..*;%4.J. {. knm[!.';i:~n:GNlf;a.?a..k.,$q ,'.g y%,), I$k _. <. up. h 'NYEW $,V. o g. 5 ~fp';?.h s ap.w'* {':{*f.f $N 0.$.Xln. w@kW%..e@%QWWW'&.,*W ,y.W qsM, X,.p.F94.i M .v. Mig: b..gMq W E ag.Y h..E.. 4n. 5.? ?. 4,U W W 5 ?$NI??.5 N. k w$..w .Y. $ iMM. p ..u a ..$ %$.h?5.W. ~-.@ .m m f )

9 LP.,b, e b q n.a t.r d.e.WS.ufa g' & ih M n&-Q p 4f e %., $?$hW Y. ,A,@....Ff..El n.o;..np'.n: h-t ? p .AMM M R.yd.W,s,e$...y:.CMN N d % C M 'S.Q. [h. Q M F;a,q.h n. strike certain portions of the testimony of John P. Bologna, on the grounds that AM those portions of the testimony were not relevant to the fourteen admitted com-MN.O*6,'MW: fM;f.,6.,Md.MN.u[.'M$$y.s."f'{.y ms..~N N h plaints. 'Ihe Presiding Officer granted in part and denied in part B&W's motion, N.. ?M. 6 m .f4.* in a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion to Strike) dated %*M$f%p.['s).RQ'M tp % cpa g %y.d$$ [43l"'@%*4 l@ September 3,1986 (unpublished). 3.I h h M h,$.M Q r N ;,l,U M: $$'.h Suggested questions were submitted by the parties and the Commonwealth kN hkI5h on August 22,1986. All of the suggested questions were accepted by a Mem-d.y.i,N,'s @.', M.d.:.r.,.gHTW......k.,N..,W,,..... W,.,,.,. W.;,p.M;,,,TM. orandum and Order (Ruling on Questions for Witnesses) issued September 8, .e M;$8W'M./MV:y'84@&MyS f dN 1986 (unpublished) (September 8 Order). In addition, the order included ques- .D QM;c M?M..a. 4..w.,$.%.;[.S..s'.id.,i$. c@d, $.4.3 '?MA $'. tions for the witnesses from the Presiding Officer. A Notice of Informal Hearing v. m , em .f,,/.g.3)s issued on August 28,1986 (unpublished), directed that the oral hearing would a; W commence on September 30,1986, m. Apollo, Pennsylvania. The September 8 p;p .M.!+. e.N., #q.4. ".p,.v. W.w...ne.. m.w.,M....t3 Order advised that a site visit would be made while the parties were in Apollo f m , <..c f., vt.v g,..p.,f,'2.;4 e ,k.... M*. ..w,. @ v., [* M. a w,e. M. nY M-M[h'D.,.., for the hearing. The parties, the Commonwealth, and the Staff were requested yd,N, ky;; ;,ufre. ;9 u, c s.,.. ,y n. ., y

6..cv,c,-

to have a.acast one representative on the site visit. ...W..c; py, pr+,s f..a..v!;ig,a.jg..1,..%'.,,....s...J..~ i, The site visit occurred on the afternoon of September 29, 1986, and was f lic i,?$:U.:$m.. 7, > .., a w.L.M ve .g

r. s.

N.Ql ST+AP1 attended by the Presiding Officer, by Messrs. Bologna and Johnson and their .s. I c r%f.Mg;N/..@M'f,?. t.,e:.y S counsel, by counsels for the Commonwealth, by the NRC Staff counsel and

*',9

. i'f.p..3. p ; # ;y,'.. y,;;,,. .L N.,,' technical staff, and by representatives of B&W and their counsel. The visit ..._........t. JC' W,Y.' n j t.6% ",+ 'y.. O.! ;. '. : included a tour of the facility, where the super-compactor's operation was

'/ f"[.jd f QM@.@p[t,9;M.]

demonstrated, and of the z.rea surrounding the site, including the village of if.7,;4,.V.,tg,*

z.% Q:m~.'

Kiskimete. 9 %. w,..a;,.: e.. ::.y..,-.R.,?. . ~.. ~... / .9 The oral hearing commenced at 9:00 a.m. on September 30,1986, in the ' Q.Wy f,py,'6 ", il'; >.1l,'h, y ...,.m,...

".1,',,

Apollo Community Center, and continued until mid. day on October 2,1986. Li- [, N. !.,) ',([a.y ; '.l.J. ;',@,. f l.Mid,,32,,r[4.j eensee submitted prefiled testimony by six witnesses, and those witnesses ap- '[ 'M ? .... : 9.., peared at the hearing to answer questions and provide supplemental testimony, c. s, ...O. y,. (r e ' - y. o. ..J if needed. Those witnesses were m4

F A, @g~g.,d,,.....,i.;.n. a_ ;.',.:%.'d, W' *,..? ?

jf.'

Mr. Cary R. Bowles, Manager, B&W Waste Reduction Services.

. g.ll.I.h. C l YJd O. k }. N D. d ~,

MI M Mr. Bowles participated in the design of the VRSF, the preparation of 9...y.$.,,y"??',q. < f;.M.,t.,g.,. /Q T; ; p;.!l; rl, f license documentation, and the testing of equipment and certification of . s..'sJd!;v@._, n W....,..,...... r Lf... 1 operations personnel. pf.M. t /.e s 9. :.t.,.:' 2 J j.3 Mr. Ronald D. Corridoni, Supervisor of Health & Safety at B&W's '.6 ., - a; ',.,;,M., s,... et r ~ f. f,M.i,#3.M' '.IN ' O.MQ '/;, $ N'3i. M-<!?i. Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operation, which includes the Parks Town. ', h.$.M @I.j'? J,%l,NM.'v.g,".M.19 ship facility. "f;f %f;.j,.}<d Mr. A. Scott Dam, Manager, B&W Waste Technology Services. f D J.!.! :f. A

v:%(,,.e. x.,M..s; 'ff;'sM...

.[. t'g. ..;.g,f ' Mr. Dam has been Project Director of the VRSF since its conception and l. . c;. 'p.., v.,... .s. ,q has supervised and participated in all aspects of the facility's design and ,' y b.l.g.Gy"F;l I.','.'@Q,,P[4. l.p. d, h..,:. ".,/,V./> i .WS; G[g;O I / implementation. Recently he was placed in charge of overall operations of @.9 y;,5%'W;'L. / ...,f N. N..'g.fp..Q,f.U: ':u .:. ii' B&W's Pennsylsania Nuclear Services Operation. ta .a 3 J? ..a .... ' ',J.r,;W, : Mr. David M. Fogel, Production Manager, B&W Pennsylvania Nu.

r..:., J. ;,.: $ :.N..f. s.:7Y.;;.'a.,q;4.:. - r,.r.Q,.p ;.;;,, :.:4 clear Services Operation, and, until April 1986, Product Manager of the A

-.,'..<.*n .t.

41. :&.9.;;../,. w; p' ?.'.,,n. %p*.,.

.,:....\\. " ',( yp . &,..%:.14,.,7

Gg, T'.

I x :s;. :-a.:@i %. pg *,. ~7'O

p 'R(-: k"'t.c.%..,11: h.

r .w '..s p : r?. 3,.%... a sa a. tzf:.Q:*n ' :..s. n g 0, g...1*,;j.'dl1

Q.

,.-d. g ? s,..w... ~ We @,'fi,L'l.* c b: r.5.:,7.:.%;.:,p,f ' gi.;.,..y?M,+ f,.- t;.4. 4 :*

g47 i

.my g. %: M;.n l;;e;u 2;%Q

:v.::ls.s' t.W..i,?.

'p.,.;?-;,.=.s .p%.: s n. X .W ;,4.Q'.;.r, .m.. ..J e t f.**:r lMy$... 2.. r. g E *.6s,*,yl,; ;l%* # Q

L..*g) '... %, h. 4 Q$1'W

.cg3)*[,fb.?'?)y,.;s.q. 4. Q.M,q&,y*,b.(Z.,.%......,.., a s... . sc. w., r.<.: a q;.gWll ey;.1 .;t m[^;.;i,. %-e,W. { '... /. ;&' b,,a -s a s, ..f. M4.. v9 (.;.M. y',* y;, r,,g

W.n.4;J O.

$+,

d*

, y 's*,*

Ia 93 Q - i d in 2 3 J

,523.s'. Q ;F....;4lk,& kN $;:.I,l. &. '5. h f. & $ N5.h Q {lY 5:,Y.A WsGW.&Y('N j-NO A i?WWsW@Mh6W#d.a#W8M$;g?'b@*kW" GMMF bl' hIbbhNbMM$N$Ibb.?'CY.;.h'hj;a9M@ f$;hk$0$.YYIN;!b.W$$$'hkYhf'h Nh. %,.&h h h \\' k M.V 4 W Y % *,:y.y&e.~, -!.y..W'.->y p& r,m.@y. Q.. &:Q:{uks' 4 Q n:1 "- h.a;;u..n h..a. .o~ t..i ;..$.:. y.s.. 6 >;o:.v;w. q 6:.:.w,.,;. ....%yv; . v. .o p.~,u c.,j r ...cr 5 h.5::.%), f.NO[d: VRSF. As Production Manager, Mr. Fogel will be the official responsible Q T, M g[h @. for operations of the VRSF. ',l Mr. Thomas E. Potter, member of the consulting firm of Morton &

f-

,'f.[,.h@y'.'.$$,M'f [@f Q.i g %("t: Potter. Mr. Potter performed many of the calculations and analyses relating ,g,Qi,q.gi}j to radiation contents of VRSF effluents and resulting doses set forth in the 1J.. Mr. *...,, B&W Environmental Analysis (B&W EA). .M.. >l. -Q'M.,g.. 9. tc. i, Mr. Stanley E. Spas, Manager, System and Process Design, Aerojet ? Energy Conversion Company (AECC). AECC is the designer and builder ?-y,,j g -;.i.l M.J g:'. f:j.9.l,.'. q l.;*,1- . f. m.:/.:W. e,M'sM N..U. f0 @a. D )M of the incinerator that B&W proposes to install in the VRSF. e.w /FYl1[.UN[R.;* .m r,.$ [/ M @., M,.. @ Dr. Niel Wald, Professor of Radiation Health and Chairman, Depart-i'W'-$" #i 43 'M pfl.;,ct. .;o 9 ment of Radiation Health, Graduate School of Public Health, University .$;M;?l.k..7

i'[*.MQ y.

of Pittsburgh, and Professor of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. Wald served B&W as a private consultant. 'q'Mcq, W l.j.,.r?y.f.y/. ' Zb.. '.i.;jl-/ / ,.g,.L.: In addition to these witnesses who presented prefiled written testimony as well gy 'p'.d;[., M..... g?. : 4, i: l'. s f.., 1 p'. Q g %,. y,f. [g j,,ip N,. as oral testimony, B&W presented three additional witnesses to respond to In- .g( r ?.jj?g,pg,p tervenors' prefiled testimony or to concerns raised during the oral presenta-tions. Rese witnesses were t,.?s,W. I M,19f N. 'l...- ";W. o',. s W. . e... y u Q a%. W., t,. N_ W.. r ;J. .c.W t.J.. .. r/. h. 6., : O. W<.d, !., Mr. Thomas A. Bauman, Health & Safety Operations Coordinator, s. ~ B&W Pennsylvania Nuclear Service Operation. c ',. .Q.M s'.;.,, C2.:. ,'n-A,c. G 3.,,.'.s :? 5,@r,.7,..... Mr. Jack D. Lauber, Associate Air Pollution Control Engineer, New

..V 2-...o. i w

York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Lauber served ';f f hM/. ",.9.M sf.'. ' )f.- $,. -f %! h M[QA.M..,. .."r.*('.;d. ".;.N,3 B&W as a private consultant. ,/~c.10' M. Q...rf -?. '..V, ;3.S Mr. Lawrence Ozimek, Manager, Engineering and Specially Manufac-n.s "E 4 turing Department, B&W Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operation. ' E6 h);h A; ';O:M %. V ] ' ;),.['d,h.(. 9': g[t h)./j:: Intervenors presented two witnesses who presented prefiled written testimony 'f,$' f, ht','y %[.-r.: }MQ'. '. F.;; and oral testimony at the hearing. They were Mr. John P. Bologna, one of the Intervenors. Mr. Bologna owns and ,W@ ;9);p.gy#of..@.f.N.s9M lives in a residence located in Parks Township about one. half mile from M.;*; }, the proposed VRSF site. fa'< J. F;"i..fCJ W Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, Nuc! car Scientist, Sierra Club Radioactive Waste ,F.C4W.,f :f j%'M.ky.;,M..e%'y'W. 3. e g...., n. 4 fM.k@:M;h.NhS.%,'('k'dh. Campaign. Dr. Resnikoff obtained his doctoral degree in high-energy @j'h.h { b4.q..y..h'fh.kM@$. %.ST physics from the University of Michigan, has served on the faculties of I. ENNk,@,Q@M several universities, and has been working on nuclear waste management issues since 1984. p:?1 p4.g.l' gl.l.y. MS.MM.d. M $M$M The Commonwealth presented one witness, to answer a question relating to .NS';EM.b the state which came up during the oral presentations. The witness was b.d.,%*R.d.d[ bE'?Ni'h:$ M M. m.:.,..,y$8. 8 Mr. James G. Yusko, Western Area Health Physicist, Bureau of Ra. i ...n.. <k.,..wA.M h6 y -D diation Protection, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources r[..M..g.a. / ;...;/.M.c M O F' y rf'. W OM (PaDER) f.'.>{.q:g'@g: %($(p ya ' {' M.itR The NRC Staff, at the request of the Presiding Officer, presented a panel of witnesses to address several issues that arose during the hearing. The panel @G sW'$.%,f;.,,%,.$,Q,y qM j consisted of the following individuals: .u'Wy'.WA?r W.N M/ntS M. 7f.W $sdM&,% .D.%' m y

f.y m%.v6 p @i @

Dhih5hY;y7.y.i.gtq $@ Wm.%% c..p...n.mn. m:{+...v.f bi. $2 848 5.gpnyh$5my?s. p$ $ n' ? W Y M h..V .k t .pp:..dm 4 i g,.n.,<=. p -. n x'. g, gh.; m si.% y.p u a n 4 m, p'h :- s a.

h.Eh

$hk'$$f $'V$?*

N$k?h,I(okh?$.NW[;fNhk&. E.E.fdhfE$,N.hN.W$. f. h. $h' hh5 il

=

. k f lb' 4- ? E NNfibtY"W:.Y'Jfik?kY f I'b$?b N-5$ Y. EY: Y ON$ Y$?'?k ?@l.&dl%:k. s.@p;&..&@, >;Q. yM& M 3 . y,9,r-j.1.?a.n* ,f*iQ'!.! yp: m.m. v h.,.\\.&g.,. p.y:s;.p..

s. 6 =.,,..y.s.,1., y.. / Q.u...,.yn:.fa.:-

s 4 .s . s rs . a

c. w L ;,

d(;.V..;h.y%ye;,u m.mg?n m%yn@B,uh -..-s. ...:7 u

m;.q:p:

3..-

,m.,., +; -u ps d. m .W l k'7,.g.h;., .N;h.mg.;(f ~)gfGM,M.N%.g.f. .pq Mr. Roger M. Blond, Division Manager, Science Applications In- ~.9tIlh.M.M :'p%,$"N.D,...,i.5'a# 4 ternational Corporation. Mr. Blond was a consultant to the NRC Staff ,.9 g J p.n 'kdlhkMD NbMg. on the Staff's NRC EA. d MI-d -Ti,5N.N M h h( N @.g Mr. Peter Loysen, Senior Chemical Engineer, NRC Office of Nuclear M@45@ I.[G^eWdi.NE'4M',~U;',% Ml; M,5$>.5MhdhS$. $f5M Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Mr. Loysen is the NRC Staff M Et Project Manager for review of the proposed VRSF, including preparation /.G.M['):l@.9 78.hp of the Staff's NRC EA and SER. .,h7 t.',@h.M@dM$6%.p,43.d 2 .'T fl'!.TMT.M' Mr. Frederick Sturz, Health Physicist, NMSS. Mr. Sturz reviewed the / $f t2 llMJj:! B&W EA and B&W's safety analysis study. N.5I.b At the conclusion of the informal hearing on October 2,1986, the parties W.u $.. c..@.[w..&.k.'b.f/.M..dNtd U. Oh .. s. f -e..t.t .;;#..nM agreed to an expedited schedule for filing proposed findings and conclusions, n u, t 3 s., v o 6.Y.,P,M*J;;G.%, fQ.. - lN.YW.E.1,':N$%.. .!M;M.. l and the Presiding Officer so ordered.5 Accordingly, B&W filed its proposed 2

1. W43.$:,%;;M.,.@' ):.76 9 : qM't. 41 r.:.fi. s'.+

h findings on October 23, 1986, Intervenors filed their proposed findings on M! q October 30,1986, and B&W filed its response on November 6,1986. By letter h.h'b h$.h,h.b @' k S'7 N 'U.' Q.S,'$ M[ to the Presiding Officer on October 22,1986, the Commonwealth advised that @M J $ "y. N'M. W M.'N,:, M %.fi A R*e?j JA,?. C it elected not to fi!c proposed findings in this proceeding, but would cover its .,0,.r.Q. " concerns regarding B&W's monitoring and emissions... later, if and when .f.Z,f,..j,li,,'.'f '.f. :l. c.Q M.,.7,L. s '@?f"'.0 4 1 B&W applies for its permits with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental .-.t c ' hi. ....., ?:d, :.Q ] Resources." v/.Mlq.. :.-u l.', ' P/ O

Q t';,y.

.'9.$hh M.:a t.!l,Q.7 ?//$[. 3.Dh.,ht which follow. Any proposed findings or conclusions submitted by the parties This Decision is based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law jy[.I. M' :3 f e...,,:. y" j'. g.;.p,.! ld '. ( ], ..Nci"/,u 'gW being unsupportable in law or in fact or as being unnecessary to the rendering and not incorporated directly or inferentially in this Decision are rejected as Y.'. '. d,, h };.y.,y [:,~[. V:Nj6,DP % of this decision.' 'y*EU H. *:, f '* [,p) ej %. #. #, '. ' ' ". 2 AN'M /- [~r j ' * : 7, .t,,'.,, c .l'. . r,,. Y ',*.,E. '.9 'lff b'~,'[.O; .a;.. ' a.. : : 'i. *;,',. .y > g.y.g. e,,r,,,f * /. .... t f. 4.J.

0: e; e

q;,.,.y.c,,,"l. ; e, ?y ; *c';2y;w;.c._ p e,, ;;;;.x.,

t.,

c

g. y ~...,......., - <.,.

,,,,.c.. ,a .: s.w.,.,,.w< :... x. y; r. een. 3 ..p .f.,. s ' q.. pj y (;..r' f e. *.e,.,,;. ~.,.. *m.f.~.i v.q. t sp.,.,u. r

2.. f e

kl, % *p..;"ry.,3 e

. 4 4.'. * *,;, ' a l rt t, e. < 3 Bo;ause of a delay in delivery of the transempts and the need for transenpt contenons when they arnved, the h p3 *i.$('. K..t * '.h.g% ','.i:.p.4 *F.*7 g,. y: J Prandmg ofricer postponed the Bling dates in a Memaandurn and Order (Rescheduling Fihng Dates) issued 2 G,' t '

'; V ;- E

.mj October 10,1986 (unpublished) (October 10 Order) Dunns a telephcris contenmce on October 16, 1986, f j f., ,ja ' ; ;., ;'f' *;*, ' ^.... -y.k at which the Presidmg Of5cer duected the partes to have their wttnesses review the transenets and suggest .s a/*,. p. I f '. A ', ' '[,qs.'.', / j "> ", ! % ' 'y 'y '1 ' <, ' ', J [Q^,*'*%Q# . gp -G,,L sppropnate conections for their testunony, the parties advised that they could stil meet the ongmal expedited i ".,J.i schedule herefore the October 10 order wu vacated by a Memorandurn and Order (Memoriahrms Telephone 6; '" '. ; d', *. e *. [M l.o.v *. /:.)'.,8;. 7 *,, y Conference Call and Vacanns Order Rescheduling Filing Dates) issued October l'1,1986 (unpublished). t.icensee, Jal'.;lf a p/,.,J;,k.'r ; 1

- f! Y,. r,' '[,i'if c, y *f[.O'P,Qf.l,6 [.%..;,,()',

,d.f.,,.. Intervenors, and the staff all Bled suggested transcnpt carrections, and a Memorandum and Onier (Transenpt a' ',q,, ;. Coneenons) issued November 10.1986 (unpublished) set forth the correcuans to be made m the transenpts of ,.M,,,' *;.,*:!,j ; h.'I ';', p.' %h the hearmg. De order also granted the parties leave to Ele conecuans to their pmposed andmgs, if necessary, on r. ',4 w%, e (l3.,:?1?.<,;.,;s*.'. j ( %,,c;,.s*, G ', 's

the basis of the permined transenpt consenons. only Licensee filed such correcuans by teact dated November
Jh

.. p t q..: h. c'p p % .p. < ;, f.., 3.u. z,.q:.,. +,,, ee.;' f '.., 6 1986' s g*i/!,f,3 ? /4h:?.h., p,..*/, *,;. i d '?'. j..e,'Om. a 8 o 0n December 15, 1986, tracrvenors Eled "truervenois' supplemental subnuse m" constsung of a copy of a ,;.;%.]yNy'f N','*.,.'./. p,((v t"$ Q,f.d'f*U ", Oi, Officer. Because the reemd was closed and the films was unsupported by affidsvus, however. it was not ccristdered. i 6:.M i n,*

Paper by C. Waldrcrt, et al., enntled "Measumners of low levels of X.rsy metagenests m relsnan to human f

L=.j,.. f J.,\\*,U (.,',',%, %,$.,. 6 ,E l's @

J h*," Proc. Nett. Acad. Sci. USA. Vol. 83, at 4839 43, wuh the request that it be cmadcred by the Presidusg y.

4 .'3 a f. ~e-w'\\'J

g[*,.s., t.t..

M....;i "p ; t.y, g,aa -c,,;g s..,.n.f ) 3 $(Y,M. n,.. t? -.%N @A[.M'Y.is;;':*i"s a ; eO'7,.k.,! .s 1 + ., y y: y../'?.:. 7 .4:. #.. n,i. -

4.,: y..r..;9,l.

1; a. .m** u N.- m't**n.. ?? ' j.y. ' \\ ..?

m. s*. T l.3.

g.jg Q ',", *. m".Q^.Q*' t 5'l$ '. ?.F.. y.nf..w 4,; e r e . p.. fT, w..",f.;k. Q 1 .W.: i, w,e&.,. ".,. t, ' q.N,% ,,... ~ w... *>... 'n~h,:i, R..s,a,. r,. t * '.9,.. .m, , t (?. *; u,. * ; e.

*e,

, 3 tu.. p. s w.h:..;,, > y<,r,aL%. )%;+-.

: D.

q 4. -

s.4 e,t;m.d, t....... y ;.% (,t.h;A. s:i.,g*'. y*

Q? *.e 8::%,,;* +.sey%

t;t t.***Gg. Wr? n...y tc., if r*'. n .. y. s..b b $.~e.e4 @.~.: h., b b..y % w.us. W'... <.$.a. w rt &.s k wkg w.v3p?.hk r,Aw e 5 b 5 . Y.,L;h.b -gv. ' .M.:h. u.h:hkh. wn,.w,h'w+Q.,N,,)n.c..': .t v N Ihh.n..hh h. n.bh.n.",. rw#.. t.. Y'.mca.k'N,=h.kN,'5'k5Nrhi;$ih N..n N a "..; a.t.n m e..rt..t.;** ~. n > J nw. -.w - w'

m. w

. m..., .J' s.,, e,.m. sv.m'. :.. u,,,,. +y/[ ':p W,;!';. My; ; 4..W.;. t.[, e " a " yy...f :vf, e. 7;t '...<v ^. ' ' ' ' w ', ' y : .v - -..;. e .v.. f 'a';.% o.L;k.: y.

,tp.6*p. s.m.c.c$ %m$.: w%.Q. gQ+gdQM.My.. ~r. .m m ms-.

w. v.km.

.,2 a is.p m.., &QlQt%y %-$.md@. ys..f-Wp%& -,m.-w y M :_te. v, J. 9,3: y...., -. mu v ~.- ~ N. y k* M@e,.7..f >kk g x,A,% m m Q &ws.fyf;% M 13. &q-W. s i pMki:AwG ev 9Q l.Q .g y.g? h.sg .g.4 p., b, f) hY W:u.%.af.hw.;&x$q i 4 y%*>, % w: ? %m%., u ag.:'.Q.?2hudi,W .t e 4 ~. 4. sf 1%. W ~.$:.%;;T%q8. m.... v.t.W s. CW *i,'?P:n5e.tM. [1.k;p~;Myi.y,.<..>8'm.2,.,.;MM.' yRdq.YT ' .,9s v %*W,.D. & %;.e II. FINDINGS OF FACT Gr:WUW b-l N';?*:'.$r. .#m.. ;. <.wa+,-t <..w,: ur;j. mM. A.

Background

NS:W - .y...g'h r ,t .t .yylO&c.@,p.i s .n..,. @$ ls. M..,., .@,,.f W ),@ 1. In response to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 S.e W:;;, g p E. , d,tSf'i@h.Q:NQ (Pub. L. 96-573; 42 U.S.C. 6 2021b, er seq.), the Commission issued its October y'g'@(I.J'/ly.M i iM*,'

@pi.

Q.ni 1981 Policy Statement on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Volume Reduction (46 df .j ism;.3,Y..)4 . W. M ' Fed. Reg. 51,100) in which it encouraged its licensees to limit the quantities of waste produced and to reduce the volume of waste shipped for disposal at ..: s. r .w u. s.

9d.Nm,'y,,$$'N,[h burial sites. The Commission noted that both compaction and incineration were 3

G:J. M M ;J 4,p.e:v.+>c hh,hI'$'j;@%@% U Ih among the ' volume reduction methods to be applied. In July 1935 the NRC $.Di: warned licensees that curtailment of access to radioactive waste disposal sites

'p/
./l; $ @9. /gg$.p ~ d l3.j y j could occur, and it recommended that licensees develop contingency plans for 5

.?.17$$ p.t.4-> &.? $,,. G.~T. W.3..r. such an event. NRC EA i 1.0; Dam (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at 3-4. C.4o 4 ,m% s

b;l J.

2. To assist waste generators to c. ope with these developments, B&W $,.,r,4'g.. , E.:".'? '.Q. 9.,.i.&g. u k<u.$. %R.'p@('Mi&lj has proposed the VRSF to be located at its Parks Township site. NRC EA n, ibt. 'M6@;j@;,I$ny;$[qQp _ i1.0. The VRSF would consist of two functionally separate and independent ,W[o'$.'.N..@.,,I'.Rf[W volume reduction processes: high-force compaction and high-temperature in- &: S! ? $.,6.'M.., s%. 'h W <l'.j{s)fg{,!'D' 'WQ cineration. Because of the diversity of radioactive waste generators to be served i:-TP.Z,i.3/pl,i, 'M +

g..yJ by the VRSF, the waste. will include a wide variety of physical and chemical s

f

('p g?

characteristics. B&W EA $ 2.8. Wastes such as metal and plastic are suitable 4%[.y<$f.7.y.CJ.y $.h,.',,3 for compaction. Other wastes, such as scintillation fluids, biological material, f. ^ and lubricating oils are not suitable for compaction but can be incinerated. Dam i . M. Q:;.W.6 M h?'Ois.- S. t~M HUM!i.RM.'y p,;Y,W*;M.s i.v.@.e...'d.Q (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at 3; NRC EA li 3.2, 9.4. i 3. Because the compactor and the incinerator and their operation are f .k. y.g.g', a,,.., 5m., g; a entirely separate, they wd. l be considered separately m. this decision. g,g;g;-

g. ;L gy g p M. w.&

, e n.:g; WW,N,.,.w m)* -

g. <,..e

,.&,. s. e. p : ',,y *;

wlmC

?. &. 4.G p J W.. p'en., si %.h,f,,. y/A[g)' ....d B. The Compactor and Its Operation . ;;;V.W U-..

?. u % B,t

. W y.e...; s m s

Q.,%lgM 4.

B&W's high-force compactor (often referred to as a " super-compac-h.['.6.p,W ~;, tor") consists of a materials handling system utilizing conveyors and hoists, the ,.ypfg,;.g> compacting system, a waste sohdification system for liquid wastes produced in Ryg,gg' g @y;g)f;.,'$'Qy3 ,?.,.$. ;7. y,f;.',g:*4W pqy the compaction process, and a remotely operated process control system. Dam, e2 N. d - t ff. Tr. 415, at 7; NRC EA il 3.2.3, 3.2.4; Babcock & Wilcox VRSF Systems yl; j. g. %y lt. N... A. m'3s. y e, Q.,? ..: g E-f,gg Q Description Manu' l (SDM) ilII.A. The compacting system uses a 1500-ton a .;qy.,@lj(:yh@Q, fs-lM;. force press manufactured by A. Fontijne Company of Holland and associated p}l M..; .jp. .fg d@g;dgg}fy.%(,3{;.tg..j. (? handling equipment manufactured by Stock Equipment Company of Ohio. Id. 5. The compaction process is operated by a remote, automated control g tre,.fgg$1.g-M9,@Ql.g-system, except for the unloading of waste drums and loading of over-pscks m f.Sf,M,h.ff%(g WlCkffi,(i the shipping and receiving area, which is done by forklift. The process begins % '; )[$ g g g,g.

Myjg by the loading of 55-gallon metal drums onto a powered conveyor leading to g;(

the compactor. The drums are fed by the conveyor through an airlock into the ggg'y,Q.f. 2 z press cell enclosure. The enclosure is kept at negative atmospheric pressure with gig. y (T 'N+ .5 DEk h%hhlhkhh hfhffhh 850 f wh-..,lbf* f a .e. e..,s1.,J ,r. om.. m

2. d.h',;

t d'v %ag.p '% > M,f. W y. Y ~ Q. WA Q.. Iw fQ.M.::& gym.,a.&f %='QR% h.E $ N 2 % # M W H; s "N. q. ,) yr E

s, p 4 s.. s M

@.ldN.df%r MYlIU*k f v..,. u.. d..%

6, :.M,a.,s.,$s: t.. u... ...Q. s~.. .s. ps ? o k N3.dMX@-d MN:w>m>qt@xw%,j.;;g4@MflMWW N u.5 K' y.^Q W:%$ u h. a respect to the rest of the VRSF building and is exhausted through a roughing l h,h f ,.j. - filter, a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, a charcoal filter, and finally ) M EMlkYkEd .:.fj$h through two more HEPA filter banks in series which are part of the building g.v,.:.,p%..'v%. %. Q E.,M,3,y l M,p, qM 4.W;d-w ventilation exhaust system. Dam (Overview), ff. 'IY,415, at 7. .m m.. .s gy,bMjN.. g.wfpb.;g 6. Once inside the press cell enclosure, each metal drum will be pierced 'i.h'.f h ' f M) W'k' h h,k'3 [K,} by hardened steel punches driven by pneumatic cylinders, to permit release of . recp,8,M. y-y/M2I air dudng compaction. Id. at 7 8. The punctured dn:m is then loaded into the T.i.h. mityq'M$dl did.l,fd D Press, positioned for compaction, and compacted by the press into a " hockey O. dW pucir." The hockey puck will then be moved from the press onto a turntable .' M. e,,'. f.@.<. y@. m'S*@ m' O.;., M.n: 4

M.. f. W..,@,

Q .$h'N.,Md$$NA[b. h.6@.t

3 5

inside the press cell enclosure, which will then revolve to position the hockey 3 1.', I M k @. $'.?;.5 M i Puck under a hatch. A hoist will remove the hockey puck through the hatch and h'JM;'7?.!JJQ.%r.MM.S".9lE P!Z ddlM.pKgg% N .pfpid deposit it in an over. pack located on a second turntable outside the press cell IN Nd enclosure. When filled to capacity, the over-pack will be remotely capped and l b.fylMMKdM$@Ndj.Y.j$pQ$3

.1,Midij-k sealed. The scaled over-packs will be moved by a conveyor system to the over-N M. M M d s. M

N N ','; $. h([

g@M pack shipment staging area, where they will be loaded onto trucks by forklift for shipment to disposal sites. Id. at 8; SDM 50 II.A, III.C. N r..fW,p;Q>R. f..w.'..,4.f. < r. ;; r... y-r . H Any liquid that might be forced out during puncturing or compaction j MM/.' / 'M 7. a.%. m. ,e;.y...;3. 1..y.: 4 3,c,.(..m v.v..o..f,a. .y of the 55-gallon waste drums will be collected in catch pans and directed to ..-r z.,. - %,... h.'liM,.. U,...y.e ./ 'M 6. s. n.... e.q )f ;.~.u ,.y.c..p. E. r. a liquid sump within the press cell enclosure. Liquid from the sump will be m g. y f.36..-J Pumped to a 100-gallon holding tank and later pumped to the solidification . Jl{M([./E;il.$]fA'd.M,!/J.p.Nl 5.Py.p$.Mj %M [/9: Pt. system. In the solidification system the liquid is mixed in steel drums with dry CQ 7p. cement and capped remotely. The solidification dnims will then be moved to a - %Nr O ",JdW55.M.q:li@ l 3 . f ; PM,.W,QQ*Q'; ' W & i post-process staging area by forklift or overhead crane and shipped with other processed waste to a licensed disposal site. Dam (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at 8 9. .(... %d'.%,D7 A W Q[ ' E.p:.g f.' i l,N,'!;*.'" :.$,/ j *; 8. The super-compactor is now installed at the Parks Township site. B&W /l.;.. % A personnel have been trained in its operation and all attendant operational ' *( Jl%. Q procedures have been written. Internal B&W final design and operational 5> c N...,.y < M. S,1 6N;..,s.. %,#;QN...y'N.,j @ 0.m;tll $.., Mr. #, s. E. *, .jy.g,y@. icc 44 readiness reviews have been performed, and follow-on actions have been [Q'$, N7 .'@.M@,6 completed. Once the necessary authorizations are received, B&W is prepared 3 [f.Q.'.?< 'r*c.;J.EYi;[d,l,-?'Y,.U.Jt;.J[kyg.' to put the compactor into operation. The company must obtain Air Quality .M M[.'$,'J[i@v.h. R*T.d;.N..j%a'M;i.,M, [. l/ .. n y.i. Control Permits for the compactor from PaDER, in addition to the NRC license ?d.,'b.,. / ?.?f %,.., f' ' d y ,,{..... g e ,... ~. ,9 m.. amendment. B&W has been told by PaDER that PaDER will await the NRC s': ' 3 y. 7.. license amendment authorizing compactor operation before compleu.ng its own ac.q d,N.y ;q :;.#% ;n f

r.... -

..&>, @y,.. n..f.. o,v...,. e 4y s ~. ?;;,M -. re.,g. review and holding public meetings.7 Id. at 15.

o. e

.~ .i . * ?.l,1.. l,L Qe

f.. 'h *',l's &

f *;:d'.)s.. n.s., Y.r. f,r y',.6;;:.;*]. % w., s ',C*. '* >.Q., 7.,7. 'O.. n*n, ? ** J ' *1.,;..;.; : a

e-E

.f ,n .. 5'i ;f.. ,..Q w W;?, fe.,,'. f.A.,,'s.;a ; 3 M'Q js%..,. ".T ;.;'a',.,y*.',/.f*z 4,;.;,.. : m* V T.g *,y;4.,., v. a.i y ;g.;.*4 , *:[,,.f. y',e... >. i ' *.. pr. J. .h. ?f t c 'l.d p*v,...

J+

e e . s,W 3'% et 1 '.,? "Q..Q.h';.t;&5N. Qy,t,; ;.d.'A,.,,,>? .U d. cc.,s. 0:

?..

t F .d r ]l; r J i S..y;.a af.;..[M%,jh v';h.fb ?.',i5y,\\* ).' -l?&. ' * ' ' l, %., ?l a.. *., T h.n*.. u,s.'bdi.Mr.j'~..grt t'l/5.* *. c;g/c.9, e,y Dunng the stie vms. the Pmadiri Off2cer and parues observed the operanon of the campsetor, as several vy... :a uy,, n. s.N.m...%s, t.g,9,.h...,. A['[cl't' it/[h.* W g

j 55-ga!1on drums loaded with nonradioacuve cinder blods were campacted mio hockey pucks and loaded into an pas.: N TMa.s M e'? pe yp.a,:

ec;wt a.v,, w.. W :$m; p W:.: p ;. ....u... ~ .y. ..Q Q..,#..,.,yy:M...: c .W

s{.,.w.. f<..,.,;s ;.. e.;,y" : ;

N~ v. n. . >.. w.n t. 851 .- 4 .s s.r &j. e ; .} ?,.; f.l %> Q, M j 4.,fh W ;,',....,........ .' e.tiig.%.W'y'.i.'.'W(,q'f;r.'W.%h *,;,',#,O'j'.p. ?' t: a' v= te.~.'. a:. r,c Jf'. .i, ? < e e.sM.e.%.d;.f' 4 Q,] e s. %n *:t. p:w.. QI. A :'.w s.y,:'R.W.U]$ i n /* e: V n )w.*,l&

w

^ '(kQ' q

o.i*!' %.

A.

d 3 l( I t n.n w. m.a.... s..sn k.a. m.. u..m. n e ec,kr. y.y::y.a..a..,;j..,.g.,.n.,y.,n. +n.. p.:n...a.n.%. p. ; a e:n.vm .w... w z . n...w4.e m.. e l. our.,..g.p. u w

g %

.. h. % ": c~n..c..w.a..p>r.y s,'?, n :::,e w,o n

3
z y *, pat c,

-. n.9.n,<s.g~ <; n.e.m.. y. y..,. p<:. n.;p:u :,.c- ,w. is. p-;a*: ~. ' .:wx . s - w', a. t.v..,f 7'u } < +3 - g g,..,.>. ", m. n 7 r.-.em. a + -.~-. n.c w. c m+e.s 3..u. - ' s; ~,.! '7. , ', i.* (' _' eq ?,

Oh-
' ~

'i q. .ek,ws. y 9.. ? M k;. $,B is m.* M S & q f'^d % L( 5 E'.r,W ; y g y.n* W.c, E &O.WrhW$hh.. q w*p.&@%"'&. S qWL9 W J b b [d. d % : % ; e - m, m y.~1 0 M. 4 x 'l mh :k 3 .? v. E Ibhib.: bb.y fff.ff.fy;ff.,Ih;fff.f /.A.Ihh,w h!.h.h..h. h.f,f O I ib e:m,.s~.wg$.,gy&.aA.+$ m.. v.n:. e b@~&lN. ?.p:m.. s .w k lN,W.- 5 W..

y.W.,..

r .. 6..pr.Vw,, .M., (m%..r. v. .... w. c. A.q ~ m p. @EM..w .ww....x,.o. a .m.n, ::4 4 n.e v Ms, p(.. %v.g N.,.,'S r .e N%W. u; q. W.t A 7 N s.. W. 4 4 C. The Incinerator and Its Operation m %..w:4 M.>. .:g?+3.f.;p;.,g;;.

p'

.w y.'-y$/-q',4. f?.y;,ygg;f 9. The incinerator will employ separate equipment which will be housed f hp.e. d.i'ir i,M L'.9 ;9 .?;/'V .y.Q:/.j.g.jg in three trailers and a 5 ft x 14 ft secondary scrubber skid located on a 2:F 60-foot square concrete pad adjacent to the VRSF building. Only one of Q. y.Q

y.. y n

. e.D

lf['qd..eb;..h%,h*g t!,'.g4'EWW,.r..d f,[..sQ r

l the trailers, the operations trailer, will be physically connected to the VRSF g; *'. building, by an enclosed incinerator feed corridor and an enclosed ash transfer W ,p., A %, f ;y g. ~.23 @, f area. The incinerator system is being manufactured by AECC and is designated U. Gf G!.g. ~ h,[U N.';' 'J/f,%,M[JXMM.,-:,. 4 7'//.W. P .,.;.y '", i.y ; their Mobile Volume Reduction System (MVRS). As originally designed for incinerating nuclear reactor LLW, the MVRS is described in the AECC MVRS f.f;p<(dfNYitOl'Mj' y.: n s ~ .r. .y..,...... T.,;QQf,.... $g.y. QQ;h.,p: $,, ';*.Q.Q.O Topical Report (Rev.1) (Jan.15,1986). The MVRS to be installed at Parks G .7',) Township has several modifications that are designed to permit the incineration b8Q of medical, institutional, and industrial LLW as well as reactor waste. Dam 6,,,.. M. m8~.'M,..a;i.d..., r.'.!!..> (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at 9; B&W EA, Appendix E. n.9 ,,....Q.M ,N;n.ff!dN.QA.-Q'.R : 6M'M ,W

10. Material to be incinerated will be placed in fiber drums and boxes.

~ ul.flp J These will be moved by a powered conveyor from the VRSF building into the A',,, N., m pl M.,*'8.r'. 9, S i.e.ygd.,.. 9...-sly ;n3c;; o.. incinerator trash preparation area m. the operations trailer, via the incinerator feed I,%. b.r.f,@l i..... .,. l corridor. The incinemtor operator will remove the container from the conveyor ,L v and feed it into the incinerator feed chute in the incinerator trailer. The chute ' ' !.Wa.P 4. N.., A,.', A. M. A. -.*.R. m s outer door will then be closed, the chute inner door will be opened remotely ',pf L (l.1 j'y'Q C.';.,'; g.J.g;;. ;, and the container positioned in front of the waste charging ram. The operator ,ty g 't.y'f.j.lcQ'j.p;'Q.Q'M; <W. mN. a. ". <. W i/c',' M A. -M. " p.e.' C.. M V then will remotely close the inner chute door and remotely open the incinerator ,s. ...5 h,,,... M.?, :.F'G - 1.) f,7,n # C.7 $, ing%.w'tyr t.j V. M nre box door. This system provides a double airlock between the incinerator

t. w.

N.,.M.JF 94 primary chamber and the trailer atmosphere. Dam (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at p.yA;;.'.#[ T ',Qig.:

A?; s.

,4 Z,<

9. By means of the waste charging ram the operator then will push the feed WIWF." N,cN. yM.';T.0,M. N container into the incinerator fire box; this process will also push any ash in the

/ 'd.?. :'v!f.S*f.E*. incinerator into an ash drop. This feed process will take about 2 minutes and

y. n n N,gc....N. s. 9/.~T dN

'WMf.N M ..'?I,g.g. g.Q. will be repeated two to three times per hour. Id. at 10. s y;lg;.gQ'. egtg?;'.Qg.gg.f;f

11. Incineration will occur in a two. stage, negative pressure process. The g4Nrg.g;.?:4, first stage will occur in air. limiting, underfire conditions at a minimum temper.

.!.y,N@!ylgg.p4Gj's@:.C'r ?p ature of 1700*F, and the second with high excess air (about 100% excess) at a y.. g. dMM.U.Q@MA".d]i." temperature of 2100'F. Id.

tM$MQ: 12. Off. gas from the secondary combustion chamber will be quenched to M M M'. Q,.5.Y.$ @fG.A F djfg..M h'-

M$%,'d approximately 1000*F with a water spray. It will then be processed through h y.p h k:h[$~h Nhh M a series of two liquid scrubber systems, which scrub acid gases from the gas .y. 4,.. 7ky'[yA..> stream, provide particulate scrubbing, and further cool the gas stream to about ed.Q.jS T.qv.,: y...P.. y. R L 180'F. A gas discharge system will draw the cleaned, saturated off. gas from ~t e 9 ;/g g. SQ e,J;'.d6 k'jy?p,1'Q(QM.Q1', # the wet scrubbers, heat it slightly by compressing in an induction fan, and ptss p,gldr%.~wvsf+ it thmugh a HEPA filter, a charcoal adsorber, and a final HEPA filter beftre g,73y. releasing it to the atmosphere. The chemicals discharged will be principaUy lh carbon dioxide and water vapor. Id. In addition, volatile radioisotopes, such as Q'c&. 'M a.h %.am.W V*1 m.w, $.r q g,7:.%,M.~::%;3, ;,,e. 4.

8. r a

.t -. q,. .. T. s q.A -s c.., c sWi~!;.%g,w*l,i,h. E".t.~ %.%g.,,n::"r"...e +W

t..*. y..a

-.ng, * '.J'. jt uj.R;h>h@h$,p.h.hY(..?"';g: .:M } .W.2X - t* M ? .? nw Wi@'_M. P,y. e.M.,d' ~

k., 4.ty,,e < 9

/

8s2

H. 49

.y "' w. .p., .w,,,.,. =.we p^1 46,v.y*..;. M.;5s, ? .~

vA

/- y !,.GR' if.&c.:.n yWg.p ?I,* .. Q, r. %,. c V... i. N 'I.4. - ~ e$.p'.Wg..;.ln/ d'-l(-pIf,c f .4 7 N'

s p M

q,.,.i,y'.Q'. W.%r. gs .M.~q. oQ.?M..t,' ,,. :y.w. <w,,,.p:m,..c .,p. y 9 w c- . fl 7 h ) ~t 9Ms'.1ein'w' w wn m.4m.d w "w[os.g.m. vip.#; ag .n.g w.ug.,m.g.n v[, mA

m. n: m d m. m.u %..

e .v c 9

s ... l.

h' L,

? / ?' Alb,k,$&a,.V N, k bY 5.

h. &T$.hh$kkk' xv s nWS.Wis S h h5&';k.A;?tif.r #%d#d.h 5GWQ kh.$hhfkh(.$

h:. Wm., sh. u.d'.7.3.. p'.,N,b.g' ;N'2.M: hI s Nh...,N.x tritium, carbon-14, and iodine-125, will be driven off during the incineration M 'h[;q.M.&. .. c. r 4 MM MM,b.6%,!!. M'!.7";.- J My Process. hTRC EA at 6-3 thru 6-6. (;p',f.M. 8..;W.,1,P.bO N d

13. Ash from the incinerator will be accumulated in an ash container

/q%j;7, 4 3,.y.:.$..Uff'N.D.e.h'.gg?.,.?.. e, M-M... l, located below the primary combustor, conveyed to an ash hopper, mixed with a

4. g,';2/,1 4'.9..

c4 g t,. M ."!N,,g.,M. (% 40'.i binder, and metered directly to a container (55-gallon drum). The ash containers 4h;Y:@dfG iN;i.i.v...V3 h,.r.%,.)'(r: i:; p;A J9 j will be remotely capped and transferred to an ash transfer cart for post-process N,@DMh:M./,J.y< &A + - M,- M staging and shipment. Dam (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at 10. 3d@~I.IU.7N.MIM,i. k.[NN.J:. .N 'N 14. E[iki) The MVRS that B&W plans to use was, at the close of the hearing, f J still at the AECC facilities in Sacramento, California, awaiting the completion Q. 7 d 'I M @[.C.S' h, M[ j O'. k of tests on the first MVRS which is destined for the Dresden Nuclear Power .@ Q j $

D.,.. %

..s. e.,,;..s.4. x@. m.'.,'@,{,%w. ;,i..f~@r'! . j.. Station. Id. at 14. In addition, there are design changes for the B&W MVRS, !v..'TNMfM.Y.D,,T J resulting from the tests on the Dresden unit, which must be implemented before s':.g%;-6$0@.'. kfe4EM.@fG' 2.hg.- .i' 3$WJ.M the B&W unit can be delivered. Id.; Potter and Spas (Complaint 8) at 11;8 see ly.h 2 d "t,@.;...,..... L,. 1 w. w..w.. 9. Y/[.y,75, @.M Findings 149 and 150, infra. I> ..u....~.e..t ,.3, ye...>..;. .m. ., r....,. #..,.o m. .., c. e,. 7 ~:... m....,., ;.':.,: n.,. n. ;,... wm; -..~..w.. s +.. s a... ..e ;....p. a $l.g,m.,r;4. M.j.,c.m;.,...,$.f7/.v.".:.r~.., 1W:.M-g R t .m.. s.~?M.a.} D. M Complaints IIeard in the Proceeding .e J:ep,fa,$;7;C..v./3 y,@,,jn v.s... Y,$, A,.a., f.1..w m . 91 M..:y. 76 W

15. Rather than taking the complaints in the orderin which they were listed y s(.V.,v. l y..,;." ' N.f.

/,r. 'y./,W p;l 3.p.y8 and numbered in LBP-86-19, Licensee grouped its witnesses and organized their . r. ..,.. n s - (3. 7.E,: @.......~j V i /

Q....:.",i'p'

".W n @ ((;W Q N : y ? Z N, oral testimony on the basis ofissue-related comp'aints. The same approach has .fil.,.. i been taken in the proposed findings and will be used in this Decision. Rather -,..3 Q:/* N,',,.,. W. ~., M.w c i v. e,,, a,M,"p than list all fourteen complaints at the outset, each complaint will be stated in "l ,2. w..*..,,, ( g. j, c. ;.., :,,i full, as set forth in LBP-86-19 and amended by the July 1 Order, at the place ,0 - ( 7.. ;,..z q......,. .9..x.; .N., , ya.;, y,. in the Decision where evidence on the complaint is discussed. 1 ,y ,4 3,..c..... ,..r. Q...,,'u,

, ' n.

' p;:

t: .

1.. . c,: .s .,;.e % n'M M &..;;;;R.f;'

, ): ~,. -l c ll @:
.1..

(1) Administradwe Controls E i,#$,': d..'- %. 9[(j,, w s, . y n, j q .'/.J,f:4 Q. t,.;!Jf.~ ',..y g4 6.#

16. Institutional, medical, and industrial LLW processed at the VRSF is ex-7i[M.P.f,M pected to contain the radioisotopes tritium (H-3), carbon-14 (C-14), and iodine-

$. ;;. M :.&i (E Q g l,v.,.,c...w#... ..M, D.w../ N.'J " hl,.7 125 (I.125). Administrative controls would limit the amounts of these isotopes , d o,.. '.m a w /. *.C.,,. 4 yp. P. ;.,.p J. released by incineration. NRC EA (( 4.1,4.1.1.2,4.1.2.2,6.1,10.1; B&W EA e.g.., .c ? '.f / W......,.. Q v ; c,3,s. :, .. V ; E./. 663.2, Tables 3.1, 7.1. Intervenors challenged the reliance on administrative -< "r. r ./t,. -.,../; l, r,. .;,7,,YMy@4 <. '/7, 7.;;3f,. J. v. 'f;t.; controls to 1 mit the amounts of these volatile radioisotopes released, in Com-4.g.g. se' 'Q'.. i.' M j.l, ',. p; fl',f.y.,..%.:..,;d..;i.; f.V.G.n.W,.m./4 ;~ plaints 4,5,9,12, and 6. The evidence adduced with respect to these complaints W.,. will be discussed, using the above sequence, in this section of the Decision. l .a . t s. ;..,. . ~, . ' M...,,T @. - m.:,,s.6,.y.l, $, 4.w,g ~~ 9:tf. a ' %.s c.,*! M.'J.'. t .i,,;C r [

.e

.... m;.'.s, p;.A, s",-** \\..:.",,!,i. .f.., y.., p.,.,... s. i . t.* :~....y', \\ -. o,..,.

s.. y ) 9,$ ',d '*

.e .. u c..,. \\ ,.,.s..s. ,.'**'s.. ~. c,,

I,.. s)
ef;"/ k., y l 8ne prefJed "resumony of nomas E. Pacer and stanley E. spas on Complamt 8" should have been bound
I...

se J*,' .s,.. .a.

s

'. [aJD,l t 71. h*. % f'-- @# 5,. ?fal.,.'.rf'd,f -[ d rQ.b,p{g 4 @

'. W 7 4

P l into the record following Tr. 391 but was not he same is true of the prefded ternmony of a number of the other j g ^ '[/M'.T U 'lN* ;p*' e witnesses. Catsoons to the unbound prefded tesumany in this Decision wul follow the eaample sven here. viz., I ' p. - g' n >D I'.).l'/.b.Q 7,,.f.\\'.?,%.* ?',,,[ 'l/.,9. % the witness (es) name(s) wd1 be fonowed by the compiamt number (for further idenuficanon), plus number (s) of l y' d,. Q. ' 'r, " s / l L / j- %.u 'iq',.D,. ' ? the page(s) where the cited mformaban can be found in the prefded tesurnony. p

N.a :, Q,. =*'.

s. ,..,., ' M v. ;. ) o 1,,. s.,r. #4. %",2 .o .s a4 \\S < a e *...g, ll;* d. r. g,*,,.g. "A *'.s. y'. y :; s. c . e, % e ; -?*..<.. L* v - 9. 1- %, s3

O i: y?'**f..$*,A..W v;

..; h w :,.. N. ;9,. u** T. 7,g . T: 4 l, s-s. .1 .\\* k.,ft ';l ~% * *;*4.<,=,.:? e,,, ,.m.f

. >M3 h", e g$3

'l r

j. 4',.,n,. ~ ',.:.i..., &..~," '.* y' M % p,*%, &, Nlt Gp),. s k,s l :V,

,y

,;R v f .*I ., y ?' ';..as; :.~.w, 0.

- . o n,. h e1; t.

a ...,,r,,

" d~ ';,..Y

.t T. ...,'. h * ,,[.,r 'd' $ b'k.h'lEhf*h(h'rh, Y.,*-fof W lEF J. [. [g';'k Y.'k',h[. *?yh ,g hj ih sy.wd[ljYh*Q ,..p@p.Mrq.[., UH d @5W, 5 $.9.Qs9#.@e s; M $m pwiW @ M. e' ~ W,. m.@,,.m m$w m@9$ W M.. o W s W.L y., t a@M. 49 M. W W. N, -a, 3 m.q Q s

Qd Qr Q. - b. f'rn.., . p.. M. Q. .fon*Q.,Nti. A %:y.o.Y*f: BB.w.%.hk&,; g;2. A,Q;..t, M s

D.~.A. m..i.ysy. hg ty. ><.py;:q. <x..-;.ay Q.5..4.y_.m,Qa.m%.;,RG,sm.Qa,f?Q r

. n a. %.c n cO,:-6.tyA 4 Q % m: 4k 5W w m .m k[N}&'. $$.$d?hl$' viny ~$$.% - 1

0. Mr55 IMM i.t&..i,,g..#.a e3.y5 ;7/U.N9 4

. t%. O M?b. - 6*,ER . n.., ; %...y$' M?u.?.,%.r.- . ?..,) r. (. e,:j&:..fs %y..ll:"sl g ' p:N78 ',*Y., ., e v. Q{Q.9N?(hf.@gf. -i .- g .G-Complaint 4 (Limits on Emissions of H-3, C-14, and 1-125) Q+ Q'IM gf '$'pbh@!F The adrninistrative controls that are to be used to limit ernissions of liydrogen 3 to 80 .QQ:[.Ki.gg*[,[ cunes/ year, Carbon.14 to 4 curies / year, and lodme 125 to 0.012 curies / year have not been ' p y, ..]fh[. f.T9.W,"/ c..; h f.M...[%,9 3.j;$'.I/[?.if.M/= adequately described by Licensee or Staff. Consequently whether the controls will protect '/'. the public health and safety cannot be assured. Licensee should specify exactly how the J.%. Js,.2:,,w ,'}.. 'i,7, ,'. w. : administrative lunits will be achieved. .r

17. B&W has adopted administrative controls to limit emission of H.3, C-W.M &#.. A.J.y*T6:

a's +,.e+ [..N[d'k).*h%hO[hd 14, and I-125 isotopes in the incinerator off-gas effluents because of the difficulty 3,M[nlf;y.$QUM(4'.'v ,.If. ,.$.2,5 5 in utilizing real-time control measures. The administrative limits would provide b!.p.'A Q ' N.'DlM.D@'$.y

yA,;?/-; !

,01 for a safety margin that is less than 10% of the most restrictive (40 C.F.R. Part 190) limitation on exposure to the nearest resident. Bowles and Fogel (Complaint @.M., ..N..., D.e , M,, y.N.,f..Jb. 3SIO..< i"M '; *

4) at 2. 'Ihe administrative controls that will be used to limit releases of H-3,

.s -4. $ pc:.ir //j,M. e.f Mf!J.W/. M,* C-14, and I-125 to the specified limits are described in part in the B&W EA D,e#a.f,N70*M8dMX.%.% !M' N hh.N N M (f $ 2.2 through 2.7), the NRC EA (Chap. 5 and 6 6.1), and in the B&W SDM n[, ;;6.Q',(,.".y,g,: cng 4'A* ()II). Bowles and Fogel (Complaint 4) at 3.

c..t w.y..

,.y.i.(. :'4

18. Upon receipt of a waste shipment by the VRSF, VRSF management

,j P.....?.: M, Q> [S f; N.Q.'.$M,,, 4' will review the shipment's manifest to ensure that it is properly filled in with 9.D. w#0Ml 8 M... c'.~. if all the information necessary for processing waste and that the information o. .e ~ '""g i n %.p;. y.]w; g';; g.) y is consistent with contractual requirements and with NRC and Depanment of e. ...,;QMnJ 7:5 KY,.WS.y. .p y./.i h. % y j f (c.f.},6 7. ' Q": Transportation (DOT) regulations governing shipment of radioactive wastes (10 C.F.R. (20.311(d)(4) through (8); 40 C.F.R. Part 172, Subpart C, and 40 y:>. Q^ 7 pj,'. M.idg Q, % f,j, Q l'.':, C.F.R. Part 173). B&W Health and Safety (H&S) personnel will survey the 1,, f ',, ;9.3 P'ifl% /RF:J.. shipment vehicle's external surfaces prior to its entry to the VRSF loading [0,','NN.%fcMN.:lih.:!';$. Y dock. After opening the vehicle but prior to off-loading it, H&S personnel f. j.".[h ~,a.G..*.!... % M % 7 will survey the interior surfaces of the vehicle. As the waste packages are off- .q.S.@. S lW....l :/ - Q, X....D loaded, B&W personnel will verify that the shipper's manifest number is on each package, and a VRSF bar code label will be affixed to each package. B&W c'g pr;".;?;'f. N 7;y W.'e. R!jij, % g.7'(f3}j y{. p.c Mk;;,.'li .k' iQ H&S pertonnel will check each package's external radiation level and check } !.%p?. $QQ. f $p]-@y.WrMr the surface of the package for contamination; the results of these surveys will geqgy;

)./

be compared to the shipper's manifest. Each package will also be checked for Q:3.Sf ft d p. -u %,...SJ,<.)g[;M damage, leaks, punctures, etc. Packages that require sorting will be segregated, bM 'd//'; -l.7. ~ and as the sorting occurs, records will be made of the package's contents, weight, J g% y 4 / g.- pl,'N g S'. M l;p fg..;;fgf,g l' and radiation level. Finally, upon completion of the off-loading the vehicle will 7%%Q[. f;.Q:'.$m. U again be surveyed by H&S personnel for radiation and radioactive contamination R, yl. 'J.v;IQ.].I. '. ,?. ).'J g/.liN.. M.Q$ t W levels. The results of all H&S surveys will be made available for inspection by t.~ .w regulatory personnel. Id. at 3 5. .g.y gy hl%.. v.hzh9h[5 MW,.*IleW

19. When a package is received that is found to deviate significantly from M'.Ji@.G;ti:

[f' ,3*i[ the shipper's manifest, B&W willimmediately notify the shipper. If the problem

v. M.e. W C. A, @.a.Y ?"

W f.gy%$y.A,,.,.'@p:g% can be resolved, B&W will notify the shipper and allow the material to be C gny '.Q7 p.C.,g.MW[ processed. Otherwise B&W will take the corrective action vcessary and either ,f:MI 'QWW86. 0. n '? V. c, - return the shipment to the shipper or transfer it, without processing, to an gM.r,q;b.;7 w4. 9, gp s,7.g.,4. - f Q. w. M,Nl.c ~ authorized disposal facility. When circumstances require it, B&W will notify .e .v , 3,r m Ue, +:,.,.f. 9. A. tr e v '9.w.w.Qu.Q~p .? -.. A s.,] ; p%,i'

pje 'i +,*4:,.

-N w ).m.rm . ~ < %c. f 4 s.,,q'$.c-ph..&u.w'%;l*k.l.:.., N.... ?.'.W.f i;.: f.t t;*S p.~r +: ry w 844

yl....s ar

. f, '!: p :- . w.m D'l f l*. % Q :*G@.'" Q ? % u ~-,2'.2.,

y!(.,.p-5.,3,m.w n W % w $.i @ M

%,@%.9,

s. n+4.'.h.o @.w%.'.r.g w.

u ~

r.M S

A aL -dN.h ~.s.,Nrw..n 'y f ; T y v M. s; I f.l - i w @@ m W WW M'imgwNMgpWpMW.@@ 2 J

.4 f .[' 'J 49d ?N MM,N M 'f' N OY"' .MMDI N'b O M,S$' '1' N i [ 4.k[. <fb%,,'.,Mf.:.?w%M'/.MI"*g4tJld f d'$.N b Nhh5N N pn %yh!.PA$M'($ C:.$ MI('f ,y.s...~'@m.u.%,,w.h T &..y g.p g % w.; Nh.Wv.,:.y;5:f; . r. w~ N.fiWSi 'p f*.M/@@p@M@v%.*r'd.R. M - W fs.u..

. b.r ~ W.u,;

y ,n.a.vg'd eMm. .? Nf h..M the appropriate NRC and DOT personnel. During the processing of waste, when b i Problems are noted with a shipper's manifest, B&W will immediately notify M @M *M. [7, %e. .W. mms;[OQ*d.k the shipper so that corrective action (s) can be initiated. Repeated or serious y:.' d l.M..FM.. /,W.3 problems will result in discontinuation of service to the client and may also .. M. @u., @.. n',f.S Uc/ w;e W.:n.:" M.,., W ;M ya o.s 'w (.0,"M(f 'if}y.9.ig. g W,..iSQ Q W.P.

20. The bar code affixed to each package will enable B&W to characterize cyg result in sanctions being imposed by regulatory agencies. Id. at 6.

W N, yS.M..jM.k..M&..F,,;f. f,Q..'h.,-3N.4. q:@Ni ((U,:. ..N. M $ h Processing, to the time that the processed waste is shipped from the VRSF. He J y. ,.y and trace each waste generator's material from the time it is received, through the N@y6)I.f9Mh;k,&sT!f@N..,hh@.M.,... d . d tracking system will utilize B&W's proprietary CENTRK computer program, . dl?/yIM' fd,' N %fk,*NW@N$;Mf,1,(M1%.,'.f'J which embodies the NRC-approved RADMAN program. NRC EA 5 5.1.8.2; ).h.[h.M.hNh.h'M ff $7 'd.MM Bowles and Fogel (Complaint 4) at 6. CENTRK provides for the characterization W.:Wl'1D.5,h] and tracking of packaged wastes received for processing and of waste processed /i3.c..h..,W.. .a' 4@ vi.,.,(:a:. pstr r!.9 processed waste and reports on current and historic wasti management activities @.i at the VRSF; it will also provide for the preparation of manifests for shipment of .;,s 3.;3.9/.Q.j,$@,'.;:.M, s. ;,Q U....,..~.. y .v.t.ig. "lql .y e g D'j.h. k.h,M,.Mi'M'F.N'd at the VRSF. Bowles and Fogel (Complaint 4) at 7. G.,n;4 pg: D.,.:,%.,cr...onlh" '.[hh.h N b.

21. B&W will perform continuous effluent monitoring of the VRSF re-

.; q:f.d...< f 9.. lease points. Pursuant to NRC Staff recomtnendations, B&W has committed to 7A ;y4.G l, ','O ' 4 : ./Vl'..'d'.qi * 'a install and operate a real-time particulate monitor capable of detecting emis- .s.. .. n M /i /y$ (f.d..,J f y $' .J' . iWR,. ;94 j sions in the incinerator off-gas discharge stack that exceed the concentrations / d.%- 4:M,'.J' set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20, Appendix B. Because the real. time monitor will W C.$.C. (f y/ M. /. m.MZ ,v.Lc/ be incapable of detecting H-3, C-14, and I-125 emissions, B&W will use appro- }:f..? *F,,.ff;7.'g:gM,;,1<.?j? cQ priate methods for the continuous collection of these gaseous isotopes. Samples e > .,.7 p..,, y,, ..z .., y y.. ; n.1, , '. "1~ ?. h..u j.s, from these collections will be analyzed dail" when industrial and institutional ? ..'_ y.y< . yf..,, c waste containing these radionuclides is being processed and weekly when other . d,; QG,0.. ' .(3,y. ffc;. t. m.... M ; ;,.'.M,: f (".c,; % c';Q 3 waste, including nuclear reactor waste, is being processed. Id. at 8; see NRC .s .,.', r., p ;',,,3... J ' " EA { 7.2.1 and SER 9 5.2. A real-time monitor and continuous sampling de- .,2,, ';r. '.';p / ;'y ',{, 4j?,[,tl ]h '....m vices will also be installed on the building ventilation stack which includes the

'.f..;./f,,1. 4 : J 'W

,e %., '..a./.f @r'.l compactor enclosed cell ventilation exhaust. Bowles and Fogel (Complaint 4) at ft j.1.y.4j W,,. ;. J,, .m.."..,. c.. .M v 8-9. s. .y..a. 1 s 4 y v..,... f ',,7., '.' j.,. .. wf _g e3,,:3.;; f.y

22. B&W will maintain particulate stack discharge plots, which will be

. b.'e.. ic.' ~.?, #,,1. T 1,.'." : v3.i.i.. ~.L T..,N,y>'y updated daily and summarized on a semiannual basis for the required 10 ..w..

N,'3M~ " l.[+i. M't

..;c./.y j.J'.. <.i. M. d. C.F.R. Parts 40 and 70 semiannual reports to the NRC. This requirement applies .,<?. g:.y M..,a.: .., ~,.'.3 to the stack discharge particulate activity plots, the compactor ventilation, the 5 ,.2.. q /, W, 3/.:l F,..i..".;-1, y ~li,2,".',?..? incinerator ventilation, and the incinerator off-gas effluents. B&W will also T/p Y.?.9'M)?,1;' P.;. P.H.L." *i c,Y,'.'d maintain stack discharge plots for H-3, C 14, and 1-125. The plots will be .MyflyJ)MIM;-f$.2 \\,$f@3'-5.' f,',1.MD il / .3, updated following completion of each sample analysis (daily or weekly) and ).hi,Pjj.Nf.. M'NlO*,Ul'.'d. '/y will contain monthly, current quarter, and yearly summations. Id. .,[IM'

23. The most restrictive limits on releases are annual dose limits. The pe-

$['Ql;$'.*(.h.t.M'N.;'*:..,j/)..,7j,[' -MP.l:.n.i,,.'l, riodic (at least weekly) collection of data on H-3, C-14, and I-125 releases will ,kj . fNbNSN${'.N,.; be used by B&W to evaluate and, if necessary, adjust the administrative control [ 9.i. T f n W.rt.' e. a d l. N W'L a process to ensure compliance with administrative release limits and annual dose (5.t. N.. h..::: k. d h I d $.xi @.;.:y limits. Id. at 10. The Staff has concluded that adherence to these administrative w>,.',.,.';. s. w.,../.. p. p : >m: ~ cb.9.. ? W,' 9 (;-- M. * %y,,.:.s -. ' b y.. = +: 4 .p.. v '.; ....:. r N:;G': , %..: p.v. M*a%.S,p.: %, t. u. ~.D;e, ;tR4. ;~, Vp -:.w.5 ~- 5: .,a .,...; v. 855 e... v, p .a.....,.....;,s . v. ~.. ,t... +.., ~.. m n.. .:.s~. . m. a

p.y o w. ;v.Y.

>g: n o..v..;m...

. :.n; a;.%,:,Z; ~.

,e;.:< . v.:s..e.;,...,,z. m. ,n ::a ...1,~ m.:. :. ,y t. .v ; ... 4:. .:.;i ,M,.,e.it8. i.S :*rh. f W >' e ss.y%+.*f.i- %."*.y. uh* ~. K.y- ,i 'V t g, *y(:eL a

tg

%,...,;Asl.,.u/,y. .a}PA.fa,d., gu".'.Wea',Qw M ..9. !h..,..;.yt.......J.*,, . s.. h, s.n,{.\\.a,.*.sk..,.~.~? v]v<an y y.n$'v.ww;. '. m$ .. h dp; -4, Mn. w.c..,, j.n..:.y+n.:..- M L. $k f.' f r.. g.. p$. W.> & m.. b.v., w! ?:i.m .w..... m s;..u,,~,. m m..n.p> 's u.. p;..n. r,W-; (.W,'.*..', O' ' "l*. v b, &. a.s

*, r ip J./ r),: c' "'. a 6,'Q.sl.*.r.f. s.n...w.

.u r. fw....+. ?.s, v... 9. :. u '.O. w & ' w, R,.> mn.,,},o., w? .r w.) 4.."..f. T:f.w..%a,..n;<. t y. g... .

Mq.~...,-

e d',. 2 e-s. a, ~. i . f U.*l,*.l~l;l$.,!,E,;p%.'>Q~j,ly[,W!@a'f.: .ax. ul * ; f.,,,lh; .};f

n l

T .., j'%n.. u...w e,. ;,. s. j b, m.* m,. %..e l5

?.

v

: w

n. 'p.. w s.1w.:

,,.... a: .'.{,,*i.. ' ~,. .~y' :. m z. ;,.. f'. > } ;g ;.v.... .. '..; v 7.... .y.. v '.s a, u ~. .m*r -T ' G.* * ; - *;,;a. .v ?' i 1,,'.'

*i[

.. < ~. Y. m,...vh..., h ,.k.?$ h$$ h h h. .. - -h.. MM; h@h'.Ikh. M$N%M, M.ifhh$!;,$$&@ 5 W @ M %j.kM M % E$% hh*: ?" i M h._.w ,D.~* eIN h..ah W*.mNa,s.mi{ ~ kb",k b'A h ...y...s s.A m.. d n.y., ...agm. o m: gp.. m . s. n_. y. 3 h.,. Y.y,.: .m,. 3.u..M.,3.:.y ! sy .m u. h..g$lh? tYIh b %*$.$,7&.... '. + ..i N....c..'.h,.,. : a .n.,., R %' g % Q T .~. .,.m W. 5. ?.;!!. % 'M $pg

g

$f; control procedures will enable B&W to ensure that concentrations of radioac- &.W**P.;l..?. *g,t.4 4.1.4 M.el.'.P* 4 rH'M= y s,..E tivity in air and doses to individuals in unrestricted areas are maintained within c f. o** ' 7e.@, ifr;<-l*&"%< 41M,.* r.1 .? .I'.iW/. w[ c;i'W+N D 'D [Y M s the limits of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and 40 C.F.R. Part 61. SER at 37. !'$'?]M..ks.U.n

24. Questions seeking clarification of various aspects of B&W's admin-

..m... .y.s..%. . - c M...;c.a.*.a.:o% :.,; N.

p. y

,n ;A[ Q'[L Ml @.* g G,,. E..a.,.,f istrative controls were raised dudng the oral presentations. The evidence on ..w ,.y : e v..- S,f...R..,JJ.@, s these questions, as well as evidence bearing on auxiliary matters that can be Ni .?.-.. n -r.M..

n..f.ru -

considered to fall within the scope of Complaint 4 (concerning offsite moni-

/ Q. %. v,.; tWM u

., L.Tif<.,@.~.g tors recently installed by the NRC and PaDER, and actions in the event of the h .. G o,n @. $i.M physical collapse of the crane operator at VRSF), will be considered below. ,.'[~ v.,Q. 4.Y,,Y..p;,jf-/. O

h..~S.N; > :

h

25. Although the real-time monitor that B&W presently plans to install QW,;4,n in the incinerator off-gas stack will be unable to detect H-3, C-14, and 1-125, k/~Q.N,q.t.i'.@',h y;gi-W M p ?(

p.W B&W has been evaluating and will continue to evaluate commercially available @.,MQ,fldj NM7h$ M:'?.f.;j@'.. Wpi:Q P' '%'2E real-time monitors that can detect these volatile radioisotopes and could be used '.S N in the off-gas stack to take the place of the continuous sampling devices. To date, !5)y'hy however, no real-time monitors have been found that are rugged enough for use e %.Y.M6 '40'$$,7.'{ bi';;'4]ggy$..) f. in the off gar stack. Apparently, monitors that are sensitive enough to detect ,..,. M. MQ '.%RQ f$y?:,'. H 3, C-14, and 1-125 are incapable of withstanding the severe environmental . f. C...I';T/ W Y,'M.. 8/ conditions that will exist in the off-gas stack. Hence, B&W will use continuous R,.,..o Vs f,R;te.. ~ M.,M sampling devices until suitably reliable and sensitive real-time monitors become b ;'.E.., b.. _,t.. W :' O,.i..,,' .s .1 available. Tr. 333-34 (Bowles). "C[. yf" 8, s t. 1 / t.:...w . ;.D a

26. Questions were raised as to whether B&W will perform any testing en of incoming waste packages prior to processing, other than the H&S external N. g.i 4.;G71,4r.,~.% p$p: f.p t

J.bn@M, M. '.4' i.'M MM.:.M.. radiation survey already discussed, to verify that the quantities of H-3, C- .c iG Q. c l+ 9~@,4:,. .. A.-. 4.~' r.r W.1.'.M.P 1-14, and 1-125 stated on the manifests are accurate. B&W is unaware, as is a. 4 ' g;,' %.. /:,. % f f.7 .'y. g the NRC Staff, of any instruments that would be capable of verifying the !.%.~ >.~.M('f.~-f l 'l % ','. h4liN. Q ... ? Q 5, concentrations of H-3 and C-14 in unopened incoming packages. Tr. 345-46 I.cM. 4.... - -. SD..*

,;y,f;.

;'Q,'Gf.7.l.f,.N,;.j;,,7.,N (Bowles); Tr. 346 (Johnson). Under NRC and DOT regulations, however, it is v.

..y g the shipper's responsibility to ensure laat the contents of the shipment conform 'jS,, p'gg.' f %',%%:g.f..j[Q.(p.v;aa.y,.g; to the mamfest. B&W's sampling and r.nalysis program will enable it to verify, g ,~ p'/.y;;; M.%,0 p g. W, indirectly, the customer's shipping mar ifest. Tr. 332 (Rgel). QQQ,Q jl, Q h g h $ M.....^*M. -W,.lV;

27. In response to a question asking whether B&W would use adminis-

. i<.u.p-.m 'g.,$%

c. A. s.ms W

tmtive controls to limit the number of waste generators using the VRSF and

-Q.f: e W. u f-4 thus restrict emissions of H.3, C-14, and 1-125, B&W's witness attested that n.

..w >n p3,j, :-Q$'gg g;[lyl,p.g the number of users would not be administratively h.mited. B&W recognizes the h;,} k $yf es Qg'@O'$$Q@'ll.l.g$.f, t-fWfr.Apf#. possibility, however, that at some time during the course of a year the releases $'l. of these radionuclides might approach their respective limits. In that unlikely %,4;M.j,y?)e.l. T.%, gg event, B&W would schedule any packages on hand in a manner that would

g'.jp.y/',q.

ensure compliance with annual limits. If the packages containing these isotopes 4

py could not be incinerated for a signi6 cant period of time without exceeding the

+ d, M,.j l9 y.y@%q 7.'.A.- w. g-A.- J limits, customers would be noti 6ed that shipments of such packages should be .m deferred. Tr. 335 (Bowles). g ' 4. D

4. G**'Q:.b% C 8'

' 'b, h 4 'W'.* g fW, wN4 k!' b,e:.'RE' ",,1'e y M}N'k / llQ*tG. y.A .$. n, o,.h s. sW f.Q, & * & h

Wl Y 4 k.A l.'@.:n'n. fs 5*

^UJ 4. WMdd;'??n* M.DS M'{.%'.y* J.;.y'? W. a t*3. aw.Nn:

.M G. -

856 t.p,k w'Q;q..;.cb.c..e.n.y). b &. yt, dr A. W.% :M. ~ r. g'v% so.Jy;n wl.~n,r.%.'..ytwpu.y/..; or qc.g. 9." m' i,. ):,, 2 9 % f. @oL-M 4..ev iflyI.* >Q i yq % e :n s u t

's

-; r~Q, w' o ',%'y;.f.V.Y..

,*.7 }b $ NI '!W ? hb T. lAy f:k'h

.1W... O iM.D.MMhMd@ii:%e;Mp!}$3@Nh 4MM:;,7.yg,:%. mr-mc rm ~hi?%' ?fh. E N@(Wgb.,W:m@%.w.rm.chxmeQvm: 9m s' y .Wz r ~ ~ k,. h i N M,j $.s M m y y riy. p r . NM

V 4 @ d@ N..@:w$.iM';.T hj:a[& M ~ ~ ' ' Wigllee@mjy:. y'g;zr W:tw? h'PMMrP.nM..scRtW.m +% N, weem.w:(lMy ;; 2EN - ?. P @;',m.,y,yMb'u.9 .v.a.<,,. n.A p.. :.u.g.. d y > u.t:..J m:w.W, % L .w W f..;yw.yw,0.y.&@.y 1.,w y a -r .,4:m.

miW, h'!h5'*9%%,.:

I*h f i N. h d@[ h E j % ' b M ' :yjMME,' sample incineration stack releases, B&W again attested that it would continu-

28. in response to a question concerning when and how often B&W will 4/.,d,hI.j ously collect gaseous H-3, C-14, and 1-125, and analyze it daily when industrial lRW/M'!.lN yr.#aip*,.Q;c,M*;vr r/ '

%'kII,.N.f.d@h@,*i"..M'.Y.b.h. b. Q h .M and institutiona wastes containing these isotopes are processed. Moreover, al-t W.6' though sampling for 1-125 is not required if only nuclear reactor waste is being ?.W..v,$p*.-#miaMjM:]:.M(.h:#. :.M,/MMed!;A M M.7 Processed B&V.' has committed to collect off. gas samples for I-125 contin-N W,. k.. U :,%. -,x: M y M ~K:. p; 5 R.'E.U..n.., Q uously even if only reactor waste is being processed, and will analyze such 2 o n.~ h, N$..*. 3.M..N.S,@.$. 9% ' 8.g samples weekly (rather than daily, the frequency of analysis when industrial 'hdN'W~,h. %*h.e.,s(d. $f7.N.. 7 and institutional waste is processed). Tr. 336 (Bowles); Tr. 436-38 (Dam). ,b.u.p " /hg .3

29. Questions about the offsite monitors concerned their location and e

.ejhy':.M... f;. ',M' F.+ l. 2.M.,..._... CN;44n..'Ni .l M1 whether they had been installed yet. The Presiding Officer ruled that the precise . i. ,LR.c. 6...M,1 !:p.0f 46W,'.W...f. location of the monitors should not be put on the public record, because of O,.., Q. f . ~ rw r s g.:;./w.P. M,..%, 'L.:.,4@lW.., .W,WA the risk of vandalism. The Commonwealth offered a witness from PaDER who .u g e..r., ;.,. W.,.a testified that forty-one of the planned forty-two monitors had been installed in

g.;.f @n..,.,;.n.t.;. +..,..e,%... -.......eg,.4..V.

9;*$;}.!.f @' W @ Ml..,.q.

,.m....S'.c.s e.. w. m c: c.. m.s;d,9 zp. f various sectors around the Parks Township site. Sixteen are within a 5. mile zone Uf;Ch h M around the plant and the remainder are scattered around at a distance of at least N...'Q.W;.l. ;.".~.;f. r n,.4....'.l. '-Q *..,$.,.,.f/ d,,. y., <.J. '..k a.; 9 ;g.,.37 *i4%* p'c/,W ; 4 *j (TLDs) that are incapable of detecting H-3, C.14, and I 125, a matter of concern c d 5 miles. D. 348-49 (Yusko). These monitors are thermoluminescent dosimeters 4 d.h[,h/ N..h(MQ: 7 gp;i to the Intervenors. Intervenors' witness Bologna suggested, in his prefiled /

4. %;; 'g'.v ("p://'J.g'.hN.Q. y

$l.3M 'j.* testimony, that the offsite monitors had been put in place "merely to placate" N r ': f,*: 0,f;'f.0/. b.p*$l* y.[y;:e/% l'W,. : y;. local residents. Bologna (prefiled testimony) at 15; R. 459-61. If the VRSF is e M'.Q; authorized however, the current environmental sampling contract between the MI,I. !..j:b'f.; 2Nf.$ f jY NRC and the Commonwealth will be expanded to include analyses for H.3,

f. y. ;.] vJ !<.,..!
Q?; @,V.t.Y c., y;
W.V

.i.. t.i C-14, r.nd I-125 in the environment surrounding the plant. R. 475 (Bologna, g.[t.i quoting from a letter from Thomas T. Martin, NRC Region I, to Ms. Mildred . 1.y.,(..g,. L,,.*;'..p; i,. [.. >?.h, >.~, .u-. <;* *. J,' p. 's,,h..',N,'. v,3 7l; Chelko, dated July 8,1986, at 2). Because there is no direct testimony that thesc ?G/V. D. [A.'.:, 5., 'fI' 5 9,.M

'lft.l1,. ;;{,y;).7. ^ ?,

additional detectors will be added to the NRC/ Commonwealth detector system fg 'eW.r:M..R. N, - 7 around the plant, their installation will be made a condition of this Decision. 4 A 9.s [ v c.y..,l. G e,I. d. '; % c;l.3+. Q 2/t l,'

30. An additional question relating to administrative controls, although 6@ Wi N

,1,.;.r. ?;j not directly related to Complaint 4, was raised by the Presiding Officer as a 0 s. ;. m...... c(%,' '/p,M,;*f result of a concern raised in an oral limited appearance statement. The question > t ri.' :.gfNif..RJ./;J..g..,...';. p.. i .c... s p, g - l1 7 r...,.g.. y.. was whether the crane operator at the VRSF had a backup who could teP ace l .s

@+*a;.?,X: ?a,.A.pl,:y. Nc,;. S e. 2.,d$ L him should he suddenly collapse. Tr. 343. A B&W witness explained that the

.s .s. 6< o

d. lp?p~s.y,p,:...

y.v.,,' i. ~ ? - 3 Q,, $ Mjh. q ;..,MY M.I,../. ';/ d. crane could be operated in either of two modes, automatic or manual. If the ' ' c/Mf!, .y.yf s, f 4 _?,*,7)$'f.k }Yl[,'..h &d..Q.f.*i

y operator collapsed while the crane was in automatic mode, the crane would simply complete the programmed task and then stop to await further input. For

!lN/;U y;%,!. manual operation, the unit is equipped with a deadman switch; if the operator /.p f, Q..E..d. *?, $ j ' b. y$;d'.M. M.w;;;/f. ) Mig.,p v.,1.... 4. ' d *d./v..li.. collapses, the control would return to the neutral position thereby terminating $.'Uk.' db.hk

l. b k'?.?.

+ r;., .v/ the crane operation. Tr. 343 (Fogel). ~)IIri

31. Intervenors argue that B&W's " poor past compliance history" indi-

.#M N.T.p(-llY.%< 5,9' ;;; @ly @,Jl.,f,f J dc M'.; cates that B&W is not " capable of handling administrative controls." Inter. "J Q % g. 9

*;t?!T.'O '.'t>"U:s 9 venors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Intervenors' Find.

f d

o..:. '.N,.,,S.,;4, %.. o*x;; 4 s.,R

. N...;5:.p., : . p '. h *C 'j ;fiM F... %~ y C".*;,.'.:p v. ;:a. - h /..e.;.f,Q. 'a.:. t V '.3... b.. ".'i;i;* i x. r . t - s.-i f t 4 \\. s : z-e g ",%.,, W. : w. ~ J .v., 4 q. .s c.~'. %,.*o i :iS. l'.;... , 41?...W.'.*l #. y: '? s*. . ' ? N. 857 a w -.. :.e.%: y,'.,, s v..?y m n... :QI filv tU*'.-;','..&s.C;:y%v,~4,,l;...);Q;. l.,.li.n l N.. r y.k~Q;y.nm..~.,... &.p Q:, .q. g., y.,

.iw: y s.

c N.hN;!k',.f'.o i &'. lMl,N;O$..s'$lq,* l,,,; v- ~% ;.v.:9 ll.i y.. y. m .r ?;;. av

jkYN

- *SfS

.?~. S$$~$*YDkff,N fh;&hh llWNn!$;5$i{! 5 ? y h f$ 4a. c.. f...., o.,+., a.., A ..;.., f.3. i ' m.... /..<,.. y,.'. ;:I::w.,:~;n; :. ;y.,:.:.~ 8 s.,M.) u.As,,,. 4.

g.a.,.: 1...

, W '...s..w... m.. p....a.m...,. e, f,..g

v..,.

w n tw .... r.v...: w. 9 :. er, < w - u-e n w...c.,. 4. w.D> W.,... ... +. *.. S. %, y, : ~, v ~ :.,. g v....,..., m

e. m.,x.

v. 4 ,,..n,, ' ;... u..,., ( - e <a. y ,wy, g .w (.;* s

c. us,,j ;., 'e s.'.i

/,. ; - 'q- /

a a

i 1 o .s,. r*.,

c. b %, '. g,...., ~ W ; e X :.

'*;h e ',.s .dt. k' o..' hj,L,,.ir.1'Y..:..~Ljuy:. :.,.e.v.h Q:n,:f, s&..N'4 : %eN ....;.~ e ..m. e.,.e.. !,.. '[ *s'!;U,p e.g -r.. A.,,. w p, .L v.y o.gbh,.,,,.,w,v-wy ~.!..Q.L.G;,'G lg*&. c 1.s,b 1 W .I,fiW, .e.n.. t.t. l.1dg w.; e, %,,,/c w-e...n. w E R M W W 4.? h W. [P &..fk b.,b,. c..~ y cb 5.p,.2,s.... w,m. a. . m.+.n. a.. w,m:;5a . f.... k.3,.g4.;/9)Y....,u .,.M. 4 h NM,N M.%.s,t - h q u ..w.. WMh. b.b % b.3y, A u y N..t; p hybi e kh$ %e!Ma.c$.tL *:n.%B. R..Ih# E.L ss.Utr$.r.nh.O hOw.n & a", B $1 r k..f s f. o 80;i >. al4.as1.U.* s 1cJ w. A.nu b.n: dbk5.u

!? ~w. m.m T;

oen.y J qofff

c t

kk.'i,.bkbEI.h.pp$ h . (..y,;. e.,.A.:.wm;h;)h;2'd'hNY N i h"/,k.% @.%n e.. r.j. <.s,w. v.! w.u.r.. c. c v.. ... u

7

<m s.;..m.. 4+..-r. A,.... gW...Q ings),13. Complaint 6, considered infra, deals with B&W's compliance with m r b f .v .c.a... ; %n.'.. +. .s u radioactive release limits over the past 10 years. B&W offered supplemental i t.-;/ t c f-M$.[r8,h'.[i.h..y. s:.1

d: h@

testimony, however, on compliance history since it acquired the Parks Town-I ship facility in 1971, in response to a request from the Presiding Officer that [j.'.~.q'f.M. ;;Q' '.'4/

7.M.;.!p W.g.: 7 the Licensee address allegations of noncompliance made in limited appearance it.W.g W([1ff.".l

',t'gy 5/. ' fyj/gt, j

F.4.W.MP(p;ipf'll3.

statements. Tr. 183, 417-20.

p. Q.;jf.,

,. ;-M,R f

32. B&W acknowledges that it "is not proud of its compliance history during these early years" (1971-1979), but it is " pleased with the substantial

.N M M.M T'McqYh.'.y ? improvements... achieved by 1979." During those early years the Parks % N/r k ^k@h.l:* h { i 'M.%t Township plant averaged about thirty-one items of noncompliance per year - of t, QIt'.pr';e,, '}.E'y;.a;$ Ih::t; 5,., various degrees of severity. In 1979 the NRC issued a Safety Evaluation Report 7r. df..Y M.Y.. N 4C (1979 SER) in con, junction with the renewal of License No. SNM-414, which .'.? QP,,s%A. included a review ofinspection and enforcement reports for the period July 1973 Q.".'-p[i/3.,.'.f,.'% ;;!f, to February 1979. The 1979 SER raised two items of concern: (1) Incorrect F. ' JD/p.e.7,.($.$~I/d,'$.Q.%, procedures for fitting and testing of respirators had been used earlier, but the $;{'[;'., ~f ;. Q.f h{;;y.T.,M;(',* g{.$'jy.: s4 S.;>.M,G problem had been corrected; and (2) B&W had been slow to recognize generic or persistent causes for some ofits problems, but B&W's management had become pnh ![j[j.Q@,*,7,' #]

.j: /.lf".t'.h aware of it and improved results were observed for the later years. Tr. 418 (Dam),

p

33. In the mid 1970s, B&W management developed and made a commit-p,; p j h M G J;' i. f.; e 1.,. j ment to a program of zero noncompliance. A B&W Compliance Department F..'M.

q ky.i ?..'.q,.. :**%g 7']M was organized for the purpose of auditing for compliance with federal, state,

/Q..., J. ' 2,

.y and corporate regulations; that organization is still in place today. There has 4.,. r / c.d,.ir.,. ;,'M.. .~q.w... .c/p,b.'... f ;. gv.? N.. w, r been a shift toward less severe noncompliance items as well as a downward M, QWE.e 5:q *,*1@. ?.AM[''.'Y@d. A trend to an average of less than two items per year since 1981. Tr. 418-19 ,7.h

W -

3 (Dam). The only release in excess of the maximum permissible concentration ,NI he"sf' O (MPC) at Parks Township occurred in 1973 at the Type Il facility of the Parks h(MM.W..- 7(.# Mj?Pl8ff

U.hfc Township plant. From a furnace vent in the plant there was a release of insoluble h/.G

+. ':C.' O U'$ 3. uranium-235 that averaged, over a period of 24 hours,7449 times the maximum permissible concentration (MPC). This measurement was made in the vent at the p%h' W,'. [. G point of release; although the NRC routinely applies 10 C.F.R. 5 20.106 limits @;.fQ$.ijb. Mp b,* % D;$y/ygf'.?.p$;$- $;. :j.% to the vent itself for the purpose of conservatively simplifying implementation W of the regulation, the regulation itself clearly applies the limits to the site bound-Tk' C }fNNN *$4M.. 3.. s.k ary, i.e., to unrestricted areas. Continuous air samples located at the restricted f. y>4.v.....,.,. 9',.,(,.y..q.L..,. n. p@Y Q'g u $ $; g% ldh;g@ area boundary showed that the concentration there remained less than the MPC 3 /7/My?l y during the releases. The accident occurred during the startup of the furnace and r, 'jy "h'j g h y. y&,$((ff h[, resulted from the fact that two out of three effluent filter cartridges installed in ,j* P.#MPL.pM, ?i the vent were of improper pore size. Tr. 373-75 (Corridoni). $[%.N,%hk.M-'f.h [ MDMM&r%' y 34 Since 1979, compliance history at Parks Township has been very N hI' [g~ ? 'MSMb'E' good. According to the Staff's SER, during the 6-year period from 1979 to d'3G4' T 1986 there were ninety-three inspections of the Parks Township plant, with E ,g/et, &(;;h;' fj /.q Q about two-thirds of them being for H&S compliance purposes. An average of approximately one violation was noted m every two mspections. Most of the Yg,i.v%a%y&g.,%ld M.;;, h f n XbL' Q h?. TiV

M.n-M W,%

m#A.. M....y,9,.M.n..g u nQf .MMi.@. zd..,..$.m... ff 858

V 9.

.y' % s..:w. h ..; c.

p...

..nw. r .+ w. 4 W. $ dpk.m a s.':.S W 1p;yp.9 4 . fwp:C.,y;sq: %u h.g }$pMl.M;.'i&m::q:k:.wli'.f.W&?.AQ kw ~n e.:. - s .j' W Y t I e mm,, ew.e n..a m w o m.we m,, s ->: ;u 1 I .2-A

b Y s .oje.a..@hlhh.9Y,$. f."$;m.e p y, L. 1% i;Y, $p)Qi&W'?'::?.$gld!lQQ &e: .r n.s; n. c. hfum w..w. ...N'5..Y A wa a W.R h 4 v.@i,Q;S P.$.Wi C.('M['W.7/ E @AO M'T Q9,b p. w.,M,'y.,$ #.n.7 4.'4(. %,.

s y)MNM,.p.f,w,.ym.Q >>..M..M. lw?.W;.: ,

.W r .m s a p 7. N.Mi g .i. :. ff '.g. w 'N ; ijpf mp/q'/,p hN' N.b'$[$,Nhkc(NM)iy ,5 violations were for minor procedum) inadequacies, including record keeping f ) N ffMj and submittal of reports. All were corrected within a reasonable time, and none yhNf 2#.f'f k)n,bI.h resulted in the imposition of civil penalties. 'It 417 (Dam); SER i 4.3. The Staff .TANN d.$ concluded in the section on " Compliance History"in the SER as follows: p ht@/.,%:.:,w &g,Wj'f/..G,.g. dY,C.ir.A; q g r.uc/, y.; G%s .f u..n - 1.1 i... T (M&f,$y,*U[f M2';'y.$u..C.[ >. M.;b; S,i'J,'r< h M ' M '[ $ 5 .J.Q 'This record of compliance with NRC regulations and license conditions does not provide .~.5.' .WF91. .L M.pshyM.. cause for imposing unusual conditions of operation or denial of the application for license -Y[.b@h.Y (,7' /k[5}?!{k@'*{2M'%[,i.O..'." lM;. amendment. b&W has been cooperative with the NRC staff in complying with regulatory N 3 requirements and requests for information.

(*.-l W'W*b..*,*jW".ln,.J..'.f.l5,. W,'},Y..': }

Ts.,S. [l..'.i)..'&. 5..o.M.,. D.. airt,li;;s.d.Q.,.'.m(t. ..-,...t .....3 ,7 e:t At the hearing, the NRC Staff Project Manager for review of the VRSF 7.../M';..'.v/,jp'e,. m.. @6h($$,3ftF.," @MM.My,%..gWl,.a -.. T.,1.;..M

p. @. y6

.p4. :r p.,; emphasized the Staff's fmding in the SER and again stated that the Staff would 9". .p r/.M.. G,.. 5;T.(: 3

N.3.f '[N7,DQ l.'l., : 7, y

K %,7,/ A.,

have no problem with issuing the amendment for the VRSF with respect to ,$U.** $6**N.-E2 B&W's compliance history. Tr. 492 (Loysen). 9

35. The compliance history at Apollo under Licen.se SNM-145, whib

M ?..7. d. %. 9 % A.:. w7 %. 3*'.M !.y. @

obviously less relevant to this proceeding, generally parallels that at Parks p$'.$.);p4@n$,-t%NDNhe, in the years immediately after B&W acquired the facility in 1971, followed .. ~. w +

TN.i

.P'lf.,4;.p.py,s.. Township. At Apollo there was a relatively large number of compliance problems .f.* O. ; M..... %. c i,' af f ~ 7, t '.2 "3:if..:: v.f.:.h..k. W,..d,,1..by significant improvement in more recent years. Prior to 1978 the annual ~. e. .~ ' h-f:'jA,'a.; f., i.Q average number of noncompliance items was 44. Since 1981 there have been f d;i,['[. MT M[ Win.K.7.'i.M.;!.i only three items of ncncompliance, all level V. There have been no level III .M',qh,$. noncompliances since 1974. There was one release in excess of regulatory limits 1,59...*h{.Y:~ hg;.'.' ' ',K.h.4;

t. N. Q../

at Apollo in 1972. The material released was most likely soluble uranium, g

: l.,.,.p,,n, ;t.

. ;,y,. +.m in which case it would have been 6000 times the MPC averaged over 24 ....g., : 7.

s..

. 3 . M ix,,., _., ;.

W,,,:

'M.,.'<.6 hours. Again, this was a stack measurement. Air samples taken off site and .. c..,: ....3 "2, ? . < s..b; %.Um 4.,m.. p... environmental samples taken during and after the release were all within J,:.ee *

R,YN. 9 k.'1:(*?.!.> $'. Ie,0;O.jI./M permissible limits, indicating that the release did not result in danger to the

.. t y. .c j! R[,{.G ',,p-?jie"Qr. ' ?;'.W ", gj'.3 public health and safety. Tr. 42124 (Dam). fCIP.)H.ss;';;'f, Wf;!,;.;;kg[.O7M@%M ',W.{y'd;?,63, i, *. ~ .F...r.T :

36. In conclusion, while B&W clearly had significant compliance problems h.[*.* 3'

. l.'

prior to the initiation of its zero noncompliance program in the mid-1970s, "'.*sq it is equally clear that Licensee has made substantial improvements in its .4. :...> m g.&.., t.p.. ;,o,. '.:.2-

r u.v ' L, r.7sb. '

performance in the years since then. The evidence supports the conclusion that ,s. 3 a.,..'.v .r ; B&W can and will apply its administrative controls so as to maintain releases N. m.C. '..... /L0[E,,. :.

i..;.

f<,. +.' h..C.e,9,s,f. %...e,.i.M. 3).D., ;!i,..?'.. -,f'.k.... ;@,, u.. $. y :,,y., of H-3, C-14. and 1-125 within ihe limits of 80,4, and 0.012 curies per year,

pp ;.

i s.,.1 c- . i. respectively, and that these controls will protect the public health and safety. ,.n. 8...n. _:.3...,. c.. %.n.y.. /a p r.. r.....;', h '. y' c,,.,p',#.f.,/>..;WW..*.M. .:. W,s .9 3 ';r.. L;; lf. n.'W~%:.M. 4; v Ql,% : Complaint 3 (Commitment to Install Monitor on incinerator Stack) -re s's...- Ucensee has not commined to install the stack monitors which Staff has proposed as a license .e , t >e ..l "l e. A gN' ',S

l,'*@ MA;}.,dN* Y;.(jfc.3[.M *' r,M,;

p.> . ;D'MI. ?")p, amendment condition. and the Staff has not made their installation a requirement. Public dlh. D.r;

i n

D 4.* E* health and safety cannot be assured unless Licensee commits to install the monitors or Staff

p;w'..f2..s R ;".l',..i.. v..~.4l o. 'N ;

r.p... n..

.l *. ^:

v,. - requires that they be installed. Y.n.y@J '.?1.QJ.., p..'.y.*,9.$. /r *9 ;

z:,;.,"~,;;. :.

.,, q...

?.,Jg.* ':.

? 3 r. .,;.... > ; p u,, e

si.

g. n.:?,,, J. n<.. v.,. y,s 1,.

l. j. M,,,-..

t. A,..,,;; o %.c,a,. v.;e. m, @y...s. .,...,b'.'Q.3;;..a.o.,,,,.'.<q....f,.,.;..y,.c..n...s.s.;]. f.:. w q .s l .. y

,.,.: n' s.
a..,.

.s

n. r...

'Lsi :y.. fl. M. ..,D .c.... w/.. c;L. 859 yp.;.. .. m,...;- .. c. er::::q;;.v;......,.. ~. ym..'.y,%.. ??;h,q.r,-y ';jn..t ;&, w;Qrii A,. ...n,..: ..ll f. *r.., ~V.,e + ?y.c-g.... r Q.,!,y.g:% ". y- .. w + w' likllH. M'.X..M,i+cM,p ss}:& '1 1..'2-N....,.....B',W.; s Q ?- s..,;:.;;g. a. t +* r g :..a W . s. ~.n wn.,, + g,a ' .j.W <.,@.q pd. n.... u.,.e .m q.w s *x.I $$b . ?

3. G....e.n,,.,,. m;.o.,,na:, C.c,.a.f,,.1 o.at. t.s.w.,w ml *,..,

n :w. n ua..,3..A..5..w.oe. w., v K. n'.a.. s e n M W.Q i *,r,Q \\* V'; L.'Wi.p>. y. ** V'l.:.. (eq* A.-l.s'."A',f;%*)..;.,.7 y;,.f Y t. n .- c.g.

Q.y,.W:, pe.vggr.,.W'.; / t..,tj., 5 hL.is w

..m. m '... ,i. m o 4 *; N.*t*d 1.: .,.1 u. ,7; ..,... ::n.1 ~. " (l:':::e 6 ' %*W.i,,Yll?,.' a...s:s.j ;y,, ,., p..-.f.ja -r ..p . e.'.,. v,a.;.,,5. y ...~..,.

s ~ y 3..;,. ;r.
>p. r...u.?:.. ; *

r..

t-s,.,yf*,: g.;...y,. y - g'. / ',.y~ (*.,..;. .i 1 1,, p- ,.yg. A; v,**/.*- ) m hi*,

f. * ' e e

..t....y ;.

.A.s i e g n. . i. I .,r. 5 (~.., _,. _.,e-,?. .' f -.... - ~ ~ ,d

.,,*.,a... W...m . n. :... .a. w.W '

p...e. g+if*

. a... ~.. g$.. i 's ? @w' ' e ' S 'Sig *'f.';;fk;%.%,j*v.v..g;qp.hy.JW,* '.k.p ?%u+;y,~...f-%:Lp'm. 9,s:&ap 'yd+in r:q',:httw.i. s*.. e w % J m n., d.c. .*;M Wi $f .* v M. ~,i stM ("

t

,1e 4 - h N.N h, $e$g'*&'&"'4*dG.&-X&a *. t f a'% .f $l$f{f, $.5IN:MS?%$'!? , f,(S&c.&hbh,f* G m'h.L,$!E.&. Ei. i ,jl& {l, _f_ ,h g.f*}g,;

j(,*

,],,l, Es +f }:l{, g a,. +r ? h<~: 0'4Wof..;:yc.R.. u,,]r.e5,)w: W F -.;4.e. 4:. i. s p :A. !,a . ;.?. (.* %. m.,2 n.0n...';p.y ;~.y:* :;.,.. s,. .c % =c. W.P. 4 @ <...'a o ;.,' .jn,%.'.,Q,'y,%.y t m,,,a'.;, p f. 9.1.,...., &.. e A ' g s.. =. s. w ' 'e%...%. ff#.,8. Tu./

f.,

/ n . $..r..l*f 7 ~.. # s ..t.,f.t ?.*;.i W.T *r.#, fs @. M@

37. Complaint 5 was admitted solely "to the extent of assuring that the

f..,,..

I-7y?'"'?JG -@:]-f;[ , ;w.. c s W2.'.'ql?;p$'-f.~h.h ,d;. p. A. tnWhM Licensee commit; to or is required to install the stack monitors recommended $y*f f*N -W,dfi h f'ry,T", by the Staff." LBP-86-19, supra, 23 NRC at 831. B&W has committed to f" ~'a ' .'.;j h install and operate a real-time continuous monitor for particulate radionuclides r r l 'M in the VRSF incinerator off-gas discharge stack whenever the incinerator is e,, ;y,/.;g.g..'. Q,fg... ; .p operating The monitor will annunciate in the operations trailer control room and r. , g... a .n .y g,,3,g'.3...;,j;g.. will be capable of workin;;if concentrations of expected mixtures of particulate f,4;j '. ggggf E.fljQ'-pf.9.i Y $$;;;' G35.?".{,[lJ,d/ radionuclides should exceed 24 MPC-hours, or equivalent, using Appendix B, M,h.M7. T;.ble Il values of 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Dam (Complaint 5) at 2. The Staff also '@,'./.('-{J f,6#:( % , le clarifaed its position by r.tating that if it issues the requested license amendment, eq S.2

i. A.'..@. N.s. Q..* %...y N.. D....:w"' -

x,; 4 9, M. i ?. "'.g $.' D the ' proposed" license amendments set forth in the SER would be added to .....o ... y.S. the conditions section of Materials License No. SNM-414. Staff Clarification at . ?; f S.C f.Yy9',M,8fd 7"

12. Thus it is clear that the monitor will be installed and operated.

('Al % d.'.V. @ /$. g y.',d' M 'r.@.. t.; f...t.Q. %

38. Intervenors submitted two questions purportedly related to Complaint H<.N-4. i !Q -

5, but both pertained to other complaints and were answered by B&W accord-i '!,i <. '!- 1 WJ. ; C'Q@ t gi;;;g.y,., s. .f;.*.1 ingly. The first asked about sampling of hcinerator releases and was addressed . X /; M S,' by B&W in connection with Complaint 4. See Finding 28, supra. The second ('[U.P.M9l >N,..."MMd' @ ' .IY ' asked about monitoring dioxin releases and was adderr, sed by B&W in connec-O*.:p.':h_ed.. 4. 2 N. 4 ' t.. tion with Complaint 2. See Finding 131, irlfra. Tr. 57-58 (Bowles); Tr. 438-39 . 9,Q,.....,.. ;.. We'; (Dam). t. -.s e : y w*.a..L.e, ?,; .,y. , ;... Jc ; ;.,q

.n = ;

%@m- :: l. V.:.'W,<..,., m, y r

y. v.g,-,.. ; 7

.'..: %.,;..,L.;, 9' 1 : ~.'m.

:.L Cornplaint 9 (1-125 in Scrubber Soluticn)

.s . c r n.m ;;;.q ; f d, ; :;; /U/ 3,.y ",v 8. ',..-w,R' [.P 4,0[ Licensee has not adequately described how the scrubber solution will be monitored and ,d?j.,3.a,G;'['f.2'<pc.'t. K". *U. (djusted to sisure that Iodine.125 etnissions will be as low as expected. Intervenors believe fc [.G *!J'[.... ;., 5. ' M " hh..M, ?h;p.,

c...?. O;t^N.,6.

" L':.( - t;.at iodine wit! N,tild up in the scrubber soluuon and result in the release of higher arnounts ,. d,e. M.

h..." U tb of lodine.125.

h',y/h@. - <:m,. .u. ' WP 5;.,i-E $,.

39. Administrative con'2ols will limit the amount of I-125 released to 0.012

[,k ,[ %'TMMMThE;pp. F r,ptgf%igh{(ty.is." ' Q:'2 curies per year (Ci/yr). Buildup of I.125 in the scrubber solution will not create 7 p, problem in maintaining this limit because the scrubber solution will be drawn Mf i off p.;riodically and replaced with new caustic solution. The current intent is d, Q.i? M@,lyy. N.hh@k.@] to reinject spent caustic solution with the incinerator feed. if the fraction of ,M. M % F 5 W. W 12 " % D. c,N.. U5.,'f..'/ iodine mat goes to ash is significant, buildup in the scrubber solution will be z . a m .ps.7/k -d$ small. On the other hand, if more iodine goes to the scrubber solution than iM Sh $(.'g.g*f'.'N{i$Q expected, buildup of iodine in the scrubber solution can be limited by processing fjyN@Q8p the sembber solution in some manner other than recyclir:g Two alternatives bM& @@MfS@.%cug@3id would be (1) to inject the cerubber solution into ash drums, a technique that ',?.,Tpfy. N E. has been successfully tested by AECC, or (2) to solidify it using the VRSF rd!'M.OldNh. b.p.?.$2:.";"d!.g@ solidification equipment. Spent caastic solution processed by either cf these two y_d U methods would ultimately be sent to a licensed disposal facility. The sampling b,_ @u a y/ g. Q.;;. W;i* W fMN[hY !. I S and analysis of I-125 in the off. gas exhaust stack will provide an indication .J% n ., c.s3,.:.,:,e.. ;4....g ;g@.. y.y j of whether the scrubber solution can be recycicd nr should be disposed of by n,,.n, :7....,,,s.me... 4 w_&v.. yw ..w.pua m,. a+. m :. .g o. v.. .... m.,NhN'k.3MMMb,e c $k.a.u?q%&.b e e$$'[en M 860 m: M Q, M,.6. M ,A,i.ef;f..,Y

Qi m

d 7 e.f.,{,p{.{(4.v. e ;['w,g, s .e $G,;:D"J,/.: k'.n#.m*,f u,M:f . o...! a.g g. t .i ..s.- ?rI'. 3 h:yj.% $y(U.'M,J.g'M8GW , Q.: -3i 4Mjfdd. Aq %.7;gny rr bbhf ?'h. b. :. [b,. kN. .. w. 5I. .. ? ..: a: +;., a. ,:. n y,.. q m % :" h*.n:....,iL,. n.e.. m'...,.," a.;,'G i..Q,'d.; m 3. M%e.Q.4,.~., M;'.Y$,lg.:.ua af:. a .. +...a'i,2 C' %

%u.-

n...

..gn ...y 2. Q q ?M, ;~5.;;;qi

.,y,y. y;4m; m, w. m m g.

g,.. 7 s

i ~ %.?p:CQ j,Q.: ~:o.., ;;:..:g;:'.wn 1.2 lT w. E.m.;.h.'~;. a.......,. 2,,,..:l% -l{E.m's-Q..: p.;. y h h.gi :q. h.g.v '.. M.*., W. g. i.,u. : v.w.%Q.?.h.W... v. A 1 ~. gkg%%' 2. %q@iQ ..'.A.s.i -M w.di';ypA $.w.m W.%.v, UWN. 7.$,.%.pp.o %.f.f t.;.t. y w.. '?.:jf,Q,v .J f; nu,~,c. M9Og:*.q.y. p<.G...b. yU..w,m.. n bh .s;fJ.y (.g .g c e,4 +. ah.~ ..~ .~ k l.'h k O; @ g; $ R M.' 6t$,,.Yd'$vmp;g;) another method. In any event, B&W commits to comply with the annual 1125 d ; ?.'; M Q.f. m%. Q & H M fj}@;7f;;M@ h.Q .i release limits. Potter and Bowles (Complaint 9) at 2-3. I wLyq !).

40. B&W will monitor and control the scrubber system to maintain its j$ Qpyx ;%.~;

Aw....w.e .r . t.up.:.lW +i.4.6@gyW.4M removal efficiency with respect to iodine. The monitoring and control of the g. k M fr.G@l9M@q n..y:.F 4n. &.; w. r;;, 1 scrubber solution requires monitoring its pH and controlling pH by metering Ake.#'MCd;M@%.c McMM i .i',0" M U d sodium hydroxide into the recirculation piping. After mixing with the gas stream { M:f!M .. y@@:W.3,*Mi%dh and particulates in a Venturi throat, where the scrubber solution is divided into i$. M.M$$M$!SNh,).lj;.' b h. h. h M k. h k h [M';s.I3 d small (120 mic on) droplets, the scrubber droplets are disentrained from the gas stream and col,ected in a 200-gallon sump. Solution is pumped from the sump 7 GlQ .i?Q Q W.Wc.-9;';'i.W w A c${ 8i back to the Venttyi throat for recycling. A portion of the recirculating scrubber f NOM $NM@.dh'.,f..W.7'.9/$, ' S,b.@@.M. ['N.N solution passes throegh a pH indicator, which transmits a proportional signal

?

to a microprocessor. The microprocessor regulates the speed of the metering l 4'lMlC,;.j'.?d,$'/NlG/4?N,i@...U. M., W M., 9.i g,; M...,e. Q.y f.< l f.' ! U % V. F; D J pl, y pump that adds sodium hydroxide to the solution. In addition to this automatic 4/.F;h@e<.si;;%.4.f.;4; Ddel:#N $,/fyi,';$, ;$.. monitoring and control system, there are high-and low.pH alarms that will alert f.U.t r the operator to a process deviation. The scrubber sump level is also measured ,.u -en IDGd;MM;* d.Y. p;' we W. y.. v).i x.?A,.:e.i e ', m @. f: by a proportional. level transmitter that sends a signal to a microprocessor which ? Q,t. ' M*n rl. e y]S)e,.;-w!,y}.Y..MMhM.N.',T.C',h'l.].

\\.

regulates the quantity of fresh scrubber solution required to maintain the level I in L:ie sump. Id. at 3-4 ,it.9..Q. .EQ i.O C N 3 41, ne concentration of solids, including iodine particulates, in the scrub-l g'.,d,'Zy;'7;N ?.} i g.l[Ul$pl,, j:M h ber solution must also be controlled to maintain a specific gravity of not more y,.c,f,.g.'. * ;;%. p,a.e5 7 f!l.' ',- *N .i..W.! VJ. / 2 than 1.2, because above that level crystals will form in the solution. This control p.,, y s W., ct. q..,.;..p. M. will be accomplished by a density transmitter which monitors the operation and 7 J.Y.Q.i;g;f,,f?.es.,A. ~.,

,(." M. % *l; y' y.,.'

4 3..;., p..[ y

y f.wff

'qp continuously logs density. Upon reaching a specific gravity of 1.15, approxi-O.S. :,EJ._'. Q: . y * ', :V.' i, mately one. third of the scrubber solution will be transferred to a holding tank ' p e,'.j,0. !? and fresh solution used to refill the scrubber system; this pmcedure will reduce .fy.k;;Mf.) j;;c,$ ff.S{Q;,, A N'.sq :;q. the specific gravity to about 1.08. In addition, a high density alarm is provided

n...., j.'. u, ",. g;. ; z, to alert the operator of a process deviation. /d. at 4 a }. -,,.... q....;a.:,c. g..f,4 'c/7-).j Q.;

42. These controls will provide a constant pH level and a safe operating

,.;,i 7.(M'Mcd'!.?MElM, ?.:09 range of solids concentrations, with appropriate alarms to alert the operator of t%'h["d $;W..'@[,i*pVC,.hd;M;A. ]

I'. Q /l,,.$* process deviations. Each alarm function has a respective corrective action that i fe,2 M.)W.I. [. the operator can easily accomplish once he has verified the deviation. Dus .l. l0 i@.?:N the scrubber system can perform at its design efficiency even under adverse

..: i.. '.. 2. J

//M.l QMf.,$.. >y@"-.l[.3,$%'; conditions. Id. '[?N ', *%'[,';I'. /;., '[. M;.Q,

43. The scrubber is expected to have a decontamination factor (DF) of 3 M.@i\\ [#M;M'/ NEYkiMNl'Y.$%

,7,d.h's: .hi% ber. 'Ir.116-17 (Bowles), citing reports AECC-4WP-A at 113, and AECC-M for iodine, based on test data reported by AECC for a similarly designed scrub- ?' M,' N /.;J, 9,.g &l?6*/g h'4.gd y. Q Lfl C/D.I7 l-A. In his prefiled testimony, Interverors' witness Dr. Resnikoff questioned Q.1. d...h 5 DM.t.. s.Nf...r. . I.NT.M b... whether the reported DF of 3 for iodine would be achieved, because " tem-I N.. ;ji. w c 3 W i :/ -J.V.5 /.i/ *M V peratures are so high one would assume all the iodine would be volatilized in 3.D.f.?,.d.$,^.YM...,'j.;h.: Q. ',. ' Eh. l c the first combustion chamber." Telephonic Statement of Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, U..w:/9... d,'{s *g; r,.@. $s,M,.' {.E 1,/q,.. .x..w p-n.s.

M.Q @.i

/ G ccM:9 dated July 29,1986 (Resnikoff Testimony). at 20. In response to a question from %me :. t, ?,}'My.C *.P.y/?.o r@; ?.tf.',:^ 6 : the Presiding Officer about the basis for this belief, Dr. Resnikoff described the rc ~ u; y. 3 ~Q:v.%at,.g-.ggf. 9 m:ai, p' 0.... ~, ra~': y'fp, c.p;n p;y ..A a:y.%,4,%[W.9.... Q.,y. 4'* M^> ,Q*.'*.5[,V:::<[;:.. Wr %,;,M" }Y ;'-Dj 861 '(,b7

s. p. m..a.t m.q.e,M 9.g.gl. ?. * ?&oq. ~;;.

h. :,r;....e'$$'?D h.NN.NiUl. '

g.%m.,,y,'. Q,7.:i?r..[...?..,?;;.%;,::,m..a; v

4 f,. . c~n.y.. [W,1.me, !%g. c. Q;.M.W;;Qckh. L. y@4?heiy?Q.K . w r% .:(* 2 'c~

s. mmgrQ' p

.h'i.$.. MM!UQ'TA-l p w.s.q:n.

.wq#a,y-f.wld;,6., J;<d:p.mb;%g;i.,I 'n:p;*p.c$y m p w ;5.n Q.d'W' e,. W. M. b, w.

.ww,. VQ gV.~p. v dv7:

. v Q': ? &;w*i l.B. %. /mI n !.)f,4 O. Q.,.h :!,%,. ('Y W

.k,. 62 .~ i n.v.. r" W.Y'. M.~$b@:. d.: 7 ) e.M.m,.. W;.j?5. h..s'k:;;.'Gj.*i'61'y* Q h %f f'!, $0D kW:4.'. M:.; ~% m".,4..% h. 8.

j t 1

. m.. ';. ; . t,g.; 9 .a qN r. M. ,rr.s t a .M{).'; % t' ' '..?i. ..#.~..,,. y ,~ s ,,.q a

.. '% A. a...f.,.., y r,f * *.:q.* h. v. d.. a z:...,. pi,....

, ;;p5.: :<,

4

b '. y..

e n: y e m.e :; n +. w l:'s (,7,.) v.e.~; ty ;.. %: m,.. (.. i *.

s. upy'..y,.m.. ;.. ;w. m' n p.:p q.J.;a vg,.e.c jam 7, %..;Q.

p.- a a. y..,.c

9. y; ED M'M..AME M*$ M d'Oi y M M g g h g'E Y

~

N M Te; k iA.I?,' d.

q ma.-mm'::y.'. m.s.;p?'d ?- +p ?u x x w$ f..

u. !:. :'Sg,.

f . -: i.: >., s u .... s. &.h.%. <.:..i

4.....

v < w. p.,e.. e+ y v.,e. . u d

v.

y w N,'f. c.%:ci;f c'. e. c. $7/.I,Dl.Q/ veloxidation process used in reprocessing facilities, in which the fuel is heated s c. f . iM.f.r,(. to $50 C, which is " expected to drive off organic and elemental iodides greater ,[i.g? y i. N.jf, N,. ?[N- .M/%' M V. 6' than ninety nine and a half percent," citing ORNL-TM-4901. Since the first .N chamber of the VRSF incinerator wi'l operate at an even higher temperature, %@5,*p,,.('t.Mit;G@ ,9Vr&:.s. 870*C, the witness believes that all the iodine will be volatilized. He said that he .$fMy Ml,;.% yj,. was "quite surprised" by the reported test data that showed that half the iodine e. .p.,r. stayed with the ash. Tr. 133-34,159 (Resnikoff). E/!.:. M .M? c.'.d.#... T, s.M. ;.>.';W 44 B&W's witness provided additional information about ORNL-TM- .m. \\

4..fe' Q. M... "M..%. a

.... 4..s$ .,A.. @v. d . W. eW; . ;,., >.t h: 4901, entitled "Veloxidation, Removal of Volatile Fission Products from Spent .w "* c

v. n@. & ; d.,?-
.,0 c"

LMFBR Fuel" and dated January 1973; he attested that the cited report stated that i t.,c2 .%..n.: e. ?,ew.w ~.. m./ w% 997c of tritium was removed from the spent fuel by veloxidation, but only up to ,i..@p[,J.W,s.y,.gr<,.n 9 g.. @!?, e :.n 0 p,.,,94,h.',$.N}f.Q' 757c of the iodine would be removed. In many of the tests, the removal fractions .c v J,, d g,,. Q d,'):. %,.,v.* 4.'.;p.,J were less than 507c. Moreover, it was also found that much of the iodine that 0 was removed condensed and plated out on cooler parts of the system. Tr. 355-u, a. m s,n i,g.M. ."We;,.*'d,. A'g.R.W.'.n

56. (Potter).

[ *M.$ k(i'$.5,N;M(..d Mi%.YN$

45. Dr. Resnikoff acknowledged that the veloxidation process may not be M-.M~'

..v k h.,i.' h.,M. 3 !M...M...... M...i*. W W... relevant to the incineration of LLW. Tr.149-50. To the extent that it is relevant, s. 6 f ~ however, the results reported in ORNL-TM-3901 appear to support B&W's ,6*? J. 'e. s 4 ...i.. H. p,.4. -lW m..d..M.,.W.,M. '.e. f's <b assumption of a DF of 2 in the combustion chamber rather than Dr. Resnikoff's fo b[9h.. f N , WW '

72. -

3 M./G..N,.'k,'hM%N.l theory that all of the iodine would be volatilized. $.T'Y!.

46. In conclusion, B&W has demonstrated that the buildup of iodine in f,f,*ry%. ' yyp f.m..i.:IQ 3..

.O.r.X. i. ' 1 the scrubber solution will be adequately monhored and con: rolled. No basis

4 G i

.'l' '1.p - was provided by the Intervenors to support the suggestion of their witness that y*c.h',{'JrM,,.$;.jf;.c. ',g,?.'? d*.,T B&W should assume that 100% of the iodine will go into the off gas and hence ., i h: WSid/A VJ'.9t'" < into the scrubber solution. Be that as it may, the limit of 0.012 Ci/yr for 1125 fag,,;M.. :t.r@$[.kh.!'Nh.,..y d'NNN releases would still apply and can be achieved by administrative controls. -b s.'r.;p W..;. M. M, 7- 6 . W,.w :. g.c.,,..M. *.A. * ?/s '. %, b,. - l, l?;WD s s. *r;j l q h M.0 * :':k%.s:

H..v..sp.$.D' =l.,';,

C,. L' Complaint 12 (1-131 in Reactor Wastes) t'L., r,w<. *< r.. a .., a m.,:, yN e,. s6... u~. .. 't&_ F p,v, ....,t.i :. - j j.U.',,t,; N W ':

v N

M-The assumption that no iodine 131 will be released frorn r actor wastes processed at the cp.*A j47SW'. %.,;1$'e 9 r= r,T.,7[m.et ')7*, m.'.F@My, g .u. VRSF may not be vatid. If not, the iodine dosage would be 7.5 tirnes greater, thus endangering

.g. w[., n,6.,*M,-}q i

q qt; ; c

';i; g

the public heahh and safety, .o :4 t .} fM.fhi.j.fffG.: j TGT G. f

47. B&W does not believe that I-131 will be present in significant quanti-

.ty,7.: gpig.) gg ties in th'e incoming reactor waste because data drawn from statistical surveys of wastes shipped for disposal indicate that concentrations of I-131 in reactor dry 8.i.f%O.T,WWh@@.h,.in active wastes are negligibly low. Potter (Complaint 12) at 1-2, citing "Identin-p[:g%g;M[3p:%j.,[ Mj M fM.L.? cation of Radiowaste Sources and Reduction Techniques, Volume 2: Project Evaluation" (EPRI NP-3370), Gilbert Associates, Inc., January 1984 (EPRI Re- .g. M F .y: Q,'ydjy.*Q port). The major components of reactor wastes are cesium, cobalt, and man-p.'.@$yf$' thy ;;ky,%hg g.gcplQjy,7th[p[.4 QM ganese isotopes.1-131, if present at all, is included in an "others" category of ,$/ M ydj,' the EPRI Report which constitutes less than 37c of the activity in the waste. Id.; .l.f.Ilggi ; EPRI Report at 4-14,4-15, and 4-27.

py+..ii(u m;cs.;.fc$}M'h. ?lg,6@,g.pfe

.e

.ll0,,.H: 1.ll.i,i.W... %..%..,:i,,1, tv y. - '

f?! 1 9.jA'. e,.. ?,,. s...<.. i: y...g ' n , 'O. /;,ygt ~%W %l? n.d

n. 4 Mc a

i

M.*% ?

- 9 T W,g > 862 p;.c5: n.' s

.'.;c:..g;(s; %(,Wl3.~3.L.e. 4. vp r

+ Q. h"r .i ?..p?.$W:.,h.e,<wm;,..Ij %p{s q p r s 'U{'W., -.,Qt 1;,TU. I

w. m...,....g.. g.. w r9 s..e b,. h. y...;. w. m.,h k).fh h.,r.,-h,.bI5)$kk,,y hhkkb

g. ~.. '

.s. -2..

, : ~ w; s

'g

s h* E!N[ N.N$$$ M f MlN M E$lN M N. *0*h k. '..*' r ? i

~, ' *, *
4 f

. tv b. hh 15.*f.W.. b,u. '$. > n[h.a,w.$fQE,(Q-Qy: N .1 )b n.gh',.. ,W w m%.h, q..e.. N,M.%@//l@!f8ACWdGZyp;.gM,.,,A*$,NQN,.... s n. h. 4 9 s. h(4,. d NM s . /d

48. Only a very small amount of I-131 escapes from the fuel during J

e M N reactor operations. The NRC estimates that the concentration of I-131 in reactor ly,N!3,.,%., s;M 'M. h.y..jC,,M..m.m.S, U.M,,$;) W jm w s iM b EAE.'%'v, !.MyS@ coolant can be expected to be about 0.N5 microcuries per gram ( Ci/g) 0 $g?@V.n: M Mf of coolant. Potter (Complaint 12) at 3, ciring " Calculations of Releases of d".,y.., &(?!.5'O.,,c.%o.M:.,M4,4CM. Q4 ;

,W4.g.T;, 3 n.. ;.k P'#.. v M$.n,

W 1cp Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water N.921'ONlL((E!*f'd.f.h*gM@fi i Reactors," NUREG 0017 (Rev.1),1985 (p. 2-4, Table 2-2, and p. 2-6, Table h, h,#3.k.h $s'y 2-3h The reactor dry waste that would be incinerated at the VRSF wculd 8.'5/;d [P Mcgi! % d. .g contam pnmanly protective clothmg and protective coverings that have been q) g.- @2. Q M);/.@9.' l.P M ;; h @,n @ $$h:.Y 58,b.M contaminated with the equivalent of only a few drops of reactor coolant. Because O. s s-I 131 has a half-life of only 8 days, normal storage and shipping times will result yONU;3,Q~[$.[y;.J.b['! iMl.'.I ; in any 1131 activity decaying to negligible levels by the time the material is .Y. .,,. d., j.DMer., ;9; bis.'.. Q I'.W;].9.' processed in the VRSF. Id. at 3. t .'t%Na.,,, ydiN.@,. ~...a ;d'.!Q5.h.j. ..j

4. '

49. For purposes of evaluation, B&W conservatively assumed that the dry

%;d.3.1,Y.'0@.31 . F.. 2.Q,:g !#f .M: waste packed into a drum that it received and immediately processed had been [ h NEM,q$9'd.f.M @% k, contaminated by an unusually large amount of reactor coolant (i.e., the equivalent i, h.p <,.u-14 ;W,4.,..!. M',.... /.. S.,( S. $ $ / 6.6 Ofj) @Nr.32'M,' b M'W. of 1000 grams of reactor coolant). "Ihis assumption ignored the administrative .#.ry,r lt.; controls and other considerations already described which would prevent such >h;a ..n >f.n. an event from occurring. Such a drum could contain 45 microcuries of 1-131 ,' L."c);f'!J,,.. '. u.,.f v w. %w,p.Y. "r.y._". %, '.

7..?. :.y,0,.t....' ;,.7. /i

...,.?;;./.. l.f,J...

il., f' p.',4 at the time of incineration.' After the combustion products from this drum are cleaned by the two off-gas scrubbers and the 6 inch-thick charcoal filter, only

.A ;,J, Ad.,1;.?.NM. :, / f.,,4 ??.[ -g 0.N5 microcuries of I-131 would be released to the environment - an amount if.T. c. [ n;',[l, Q ; ?,.:,/./ ?. s. y,+),' fs.9,1./,l-that would give an insignificant dose to any offsite individual. The possibility w s., , 6.,; 4.... p. y ,r., 5. f,.- of frequent or continuous incineration of such drums would be precluded by the ,..y,,. .a ..m . c s M!. :,) '.7)U,,f..,'.$.' f.irf.S.9,? analysis of off gas samples that would detect the presence ofI-131. Detection of ,, M. p.. .'je;.f,' y. ....N,',;q, I.131 would initiate an investigation into the source of the radioisotope, followed ,...s. .......,> 3,.. '. by appropriate action to avoid a recurrence. ..D :. k... 's... 't; 2 " F ei:'J!o.. i.s%, j.T ,. y '/. V. 9 W... i. w .(. M

50. Finally, if any appreciable quantity of I 131 were present in reactor

, ff.c,.i.3c,.f,. f % g '.A(. % waste received for processing at VRSF, applicabte regulations require that Q,]., Cj, t D. M.hh {'D;;' the shipper's manifest indicate the presence of I-131; a large shipment not al. k' g ~ 7.)*; %[.J $. k. j f.j. r.y;i, reflected in the manifest would probably be detected during the radiation pf : .6,D,ff[ln..:. Y,..y.d "f m'.I., surveys conducted by B&W's H&S personnel.18 An inconsistency between the y-Q.[.[.C %, f:(i R.l d C /*W ' 7 ; .a -, ?. 't. :.

W,Ri.; 5.$.

.e. W....M g external radiation exposure measurement on a package and the shipping manifest t for that package would be cause for an investigation prior to processing the V.) ?, ;,,l.':. 7,

" W- / 7. ' ' *..

material. Th 358-59 (Bowles). Should waste containing 1-131 be charged to

.p.e @ '.. c g,; ' g: 4;;.,. v'7j. g.. ;../;.,.y. y.n...... w..

j 4;..... Mu!M spK. . 4. : y f.J the incinerator, the analysis of effluent gas normally performed for I-125 would ....<j.- e

, 2.l* c,7 ? l.: ' z...:.A. *,,y,.,,c..M.,s.)...... c. N, 7,;.;g detect the presence of I-131. In addition, I 131 processed through the incinerator

..e .f.p,, ' 3.; a 4. %..y a.

7fy,Q: . u. y':.s* s,, f.*

g g ';<

y..,);: K.4%-

, :t r! n' ~ a,, r ;' * )l*'t,'Y'f./,'.T ;N.W,.I:'$,'# Q */. 7t S.i. i l., A'4'7"I $. W ;.', hhe 45 miemcunes figure assumes a specific actvuy of 0.045 CVg m the coolant and no radioacuve decay . y h P.,, e., f.S.6,..c g' ', j r, N. -. between the moment of cantammatitm to the mament of pmcessmg at the VRsF. {#,hh* ',t'.y',4.s 3.?<,.,.Jg. ., i+2 'M; nip

s

't../. i. n,'; y/-./. ; gg1131 has a mudi more energeac gamma ermssian than 1-125. Consequently it is very likely that a large amour.t '..'s* ['d p,) g ( ofI-131 m a package would be desacted by the redaauon survey of the package by B&W's H&s personnel upon E *,.$(.,,[., , &,v; M's...M. y.y.I,'r ".o.} J..,M.; . i, [gE.1] g.;/;; receipt of the shipment

n

--..~.:..4 3 s s,4, m; :.... <*. w -l. .;,e.,gy.gl.k. -y,.;.yl[&. Q,1d..ly:.9 m.~ V '. .. Q ;- . t. ;..:2 ..,. ajw v.:s,. i_q .n -... a. g, y'S.v.t t. ...,.z,_4,j/l fl 1

p.,

i .,4.. A, af.. tJ. 's, P... p 4; a., 'b f. f .).* *g e '. b3 l .7 7.. ..', e.c.u@i..#.,p:,v 7.:.Q ? N,0.~.n.a '.?,M *.f. ;.: i W!.n t e'. r.... e s u..c s. r,N

1, r "Y. /--

c,.,,N.q.).9,.',.. yf F S ..Q ( %, u.1 n, - /.,, ' a J

i.

. en 4 s.a.c.. ,C.g. ey lW ).6' 5' h.**/..;***'."J... Y..,*I';'. '.

t f

N, ? n.'s..v,.w'j :s.hl,.yll.$,,.5.'."..w g ..t :.<... 4,.. ~, ^ s. a.' . -<.c.q$l ty v,. t h' i*h [.E., a t [N' N. S' gc.... s. p.sv+. y, m. <t ... g ....g.. %g. .. s $t ' &.' :e;w' w o' * *' w...pw.mvo m... b e. w..a..u m.u. i* ge.m,;., A.m... q <.:.,., t q. t......m.....m>r a.. e w 1 ...; p.. e w 1, e.t v. b ,., ; y,r,. %..,xy.n. ;.:;.,f[;,s;.Q: q r ... o.,.,;.. 't...&.:. n %.A .. r:.. c. .. c.s, g,..c. .."4

... *> y; ;.

.., ~g; y;.y ~;'.. e y y. 3;;.. g, -u

.y e;

'm .~'% m ,q cy

...,P. .+; w.: ... p h:hkh. m ;h.khk. n @$ N, &, &. d.i.y g;5 h R K,Q:f h. & ahed'NMynM{l56.k@Q$W'jj;*gM$@W.8 Yf .N. Q.5 f % R M "I M U M y ? & :.t ihYf& bM$Q :Q'ffQ& d,$,$& hd? sMhsmWW&&a?. ? m bisi g y4/M A S t t 7 g ..y.d.h,m .w. ~!.:m.u:,". y :,hn%.. lu;;.p

M
.t.w n.-

. k~. t-

x....

m,n. ph,.,*n.:n;..; z. lr~: e*> v )*M ...h s,.Y.9 W.m. e,g&..,.y m p.2 ,s. n .., y.: 3., w. .a.:... 7 would result in an increased gamma radiation level in the charcoal filter. The I. occurrence of ahy of these increases would result in an investigation. These 'T...-7,*Q".by.@..i;'.' bW-...< . * :'f. Wl4b.*r/;:....p.V, fy.g@r.fim considerations make it unlikely that 1-131 would be processed in any significant . t 99.c N2%"f .1.; 'i. .N. r$.Yf% M ..'*v A.,1@0./.c4.g'(; ,g' fl.}.- quantity and make it unlikely that any regulatory limit would be inadvertently .i ,p d41 ME f.}..' exceeded in the event some 1-131 is processed. Id. at 359-60.

M,kJ$p#$'.*

t o Q !v.[M c.a.M. ? #jg.Qi.g.. 51, in conclusion, the evidence shows that the likelihood that a significant Ihn N.h ;L.Y,/M. 9.7'6.M.:M .ht.W i'lffi'p9 amount of 1-131 would be processed at the VRSF is very remote. If a shipment M. N.Gdd$ of waste contained a large amount of 1-131, the manifest should so indicate. If . fit. Y.9NM hly.$,[DOh,If,,ki)$$ a shipment contained a large amount that was not indicated on the manifest, Qh'h:!,' radiation surveys of the packages should reveal the discrepancy. Finally, if a .},}

g. W Q 51/;.J M jflT significant amount of I-131 were processed in spite of the foregoing consid-g[;/.i'Mg% Of).'y./,g' 9.

erations, the resulting releases would be small but would be detectable, and k .'M*. h.dI':f.,N.Nf]Oh b they would be counted against the administrative release limit for radiciodine of 0.012 Ci/yr. Thus the release of I-131 by the VRSF should be insignificant gi - [Jp,ji.?,.'.y@y{p',.dt. and should not endanger the public health and safety. k.:q,~g:g a ..n,.s- ,.-:y........ . s... t y'.y.m:w.g.w-w.:.:~n m, c.

.,t.am.: ~.e,..

t

a.,

o. Qsl.y.' r...r um r Complaint 6 (Radioactive Releases During the Past 10 Years)

Q,.j :,.QQ Q,?j[.;h"g';'f. m.,

h, M.;" d.f.T.ir"','t f y t l s f e ..u . i ;g.- 7he safety sigruficance of the radioactive releases at the Parks Towrnhip facility dunng the celr pest 10 years has not been adequately addressed by Licensee or Staff. Therefore B&W's d ,d,%,Q ,"[ ability to keep emissions from the VRSF within safe limits cannot be assured. ',.P..e.T2,Y, r. g{W. 3 -;f,.g';% y :,..

n. l.

,.!,&,, W. 4.." ' .y /,, V,.r' v.)mZ. t.. ;-

52. Complaint 6 was limited to a 10. year period, in spite of the fact that

s. W. ' P.....'.W-A.

{g.3.fy.T..WP,.o.J the Intervenon originally requested data going back to 1957, because of the fN [4.y.y W7;dM)r. 2 questionable relevance of earlier release data, especially that which pre-dated

llp.Sff.J B&W's acquisition of the facility in 1971." The prefiled testimony submitted by

. :9,.. 'a. AAA,.M, M, B&W's witnesses included a table (Table 6-1) which listed annual air and water

p..',*.- W &..r..;. C..C a.

discharges from B&W's Plutonium Plant for the years 1976-1985. The table also M3AW. 79 m w h dM.[,..,3; M..kd '5 listed the fraction of the MPC represented by the discharges. B&W considers the MPC values in Table 6-1 to be conservative because (1) it used the most Wj~..A,...%.,WM.Q r4.:n.@,a.:.p

n. e., sk.M.

W BW.' A W 3 w a restrictive MPCs to calculate fractions of the MPC, and (2) when the releases h"..:L,g:y+.m s x .;$h(.W' :..: $.3.' ., f, F.

E were below the level detectable by the measurement equipment being used, it was assumed that the releases were equivalent to those levels, even though they W

Li W . ;. a., w.t 2. a.. might have been much lower or zero. Corridoni and Potter (Complaint 6) at 2. [$. $e*l%%.,..P,,W,,e,r..y@. ..H.. M E.., w...w..r .r' G ...,g.2 'J.gg+)g ~

53. 'Ihe 10-year history of releases from the Parks Township Pluto tium

.j,$,Mlj,5/p%g.' fy* .?.9;h [#N; 4 ~@}4. :,.U Plant shows that discharges of radioactivity were well below the applied MPCs. . < v.d FW,N;bMd-The highest MPC fraction obtained, 0.58 for the year 1985, resulted from V )v .,g;,yf. w -^r.M.T,*& an instrumentation problem. A breakdown of measurement equipment required i

s W.,.

.A

,"Q';"4.,

ll:/ u s .r m'Q h.%s;.*/..s.**s4;H [?,% **.,0 &,. s'l'**'y L. :. L ; !!.'* Tif. ..s 3;.2;% p:.,s'

".h.

%.4 7 hS'.M>.,?.:f@Q['M. h.,., f %'h '[Q

'; 3 U

la addition to tesumony respandmg to Complatnt 6. B&W also provided testimary at the beanng about its 8

.} h yg

'*l'/,3 y g cGf h.9,$g<.,g?...g W canphance hmory m the yean from the date of lu acqmsmon of the facihty m 1971 through 1976, m response 2, P p'.g**;g5;4.Q p g < W,;. &. h p..$ to cimeerns expressed at the heanng by cituens who made lauted appearance statemems. see Fmdmgs 3134 f?' W a.W'c: : i y

4

%u,. '.fMW.hW'.W+.',t[ W .?y W.%.r @r

c. w.~.

.u J .o..., k.(...s.,,[lf @# 't...J..Gd' W MM '.*9 2 3 864 .i.9 4 '. *9.f,.*.]5'%o v5 d*h..+. s f (*<*<c-t I! ..*\\'J**,.'..i. ' s t a <n-' ? v m L.M. 4.e'.r,'t[.M ** W's. W.54..f>.=< 6.,4'

g *..

.*,-i.a.. J'.* ,. A.s '. ; *g.*. '/:7' '. s* ,4. 4.-

a. M V ?.'.Z' ?.',k;,}c. v:,,...tp&?+ '."'"

. e A g$A jf*'%* in s.. MV.NE[A,@~%.I[6 -.;MM.v[Y': M s., A N#k-e.f,4 *.'4

/f W.*

'g 1 ,f-! 6' .h. ~ mvC* p.

%tn..-n,.

.;n 7 v ~m ,f (,

P dNMW<Midy.WWW

'.3 th,N.4 -N_ e T T.M.-.7. M>^,'U(A*%r. 9.f:'N. M.3.E. %. M,,p t ~.A / M M.>' N I $f,, m. - v, 4 sj. d d e-b 'I' h- ,h ..fl b(f), -fi {h 'I -n .~ 9 g,

s 8 %&,.A.w% *:' ti &*f m!.>L.,.. h @Jr . t.~.. g.. .h: g.<, g#.y

V~:.y, Q.uM.t.;,p.;,. 4,s., nT.d,%e.s. u.n

.?...nr49 e %.%. . y .t..s 'g. /*9,,u% y.;.f 43'v.K.w.<:.,sd: z ,en L that B&W use less-sensitive equipment for a 6-month period in that year. The r.4" substitute equipment had a minimum detectable activity level (MDA) of about M[.h I.*[s(Mh.QNh;kl$Y, if*.# 0 $ [,T*<;N' M -$'4

N M g, Q d %.

C 50% of the MPC. Id. at 2-3 and Table 6-1. If a sample had an activity level lower l NMt. M%,@ than the instrument's MDA, the MDA was recorded as the observed activity M,%[;IM@?.. I,fN,Ih;M@ '. A, ys> 9 $6@N)Id$'M[g,$ I,$/2 c #.Q$ level, even though the real activity level may have been much lower. Tr. 376 kFI DE (Corridoni). There is no evidence to indicate that the releases in 1985 were, in hi fact, significantly higher than in other years. Corridoni and Potter (Complaint 6) jj; Mh< %M[ ~ 5)E 3*M5d.p'.'d.*! at 3. 3 9. ',g.,kc.. .! 'O A*/E.. ayy@ . gfW

54. The 10-year history of releases from B&W's Type II and Metals

\\,$.d. lP<..o.&y@..d<-T.;T.ece[f.4,..w...3.e,#;;S.u.Nt.fS.~N@*f,W. %d Facilities at Parks Township shows no releases to air or water in excess of ta

i. h

.R.. 2% of the MPC. In most years the levels averaged less than 1% Tr. 370-71 e;f. 3.p-w r.,c. 6*. %.Ms?.$. Nw.t.a%e,, w, m. .r. A.. h.e n c. ;. < W.,,.x (Corridoru,). a.. M..@. s. j /. v@@,..Mr 5.M..+:....W.e: w,A. . ar,..C/.9lh>. .M,.

55. The safety significance of these release rates have not been converted f?

AM .r 'y to effective dose equivalents because there is no regulatory requirement that such ~

c., N.TMi~fffF; bdrm?ci$@M S. c,%. 4. % 7: @ iff 9 / n. 4.. 9 tM

.h a conversion be performed. B&W and the NRC Staff did, however, estimate [(.JQs@W. yM@;t..M .w. h,. p 3 f:.WS

MMZM.

the doses to the public from releases during fuel fabrication operations at Parks .6[i 9 l$#.Yh.j Township prior to 1976, in relation to B&W's application for renewal of License N f W'3) Q N 'M R.e .j i,h. No. SNM-414. Potter (Complaint 6) at.3, citing B&W, " Environmental Data /l.p,. #. (p rl:1,-f ?3 : s :C ry;,@,. g.,147. kW for the Parks Township Site Materials P3 pts," September 1,1975, at XI-1 w x.. - ~ t . % * [, N /jff; y '. y.*.; ; Q :, M ',j through XI-21; and NRC, "EnvironmerlaHmpact Appraisal of the Babcock S and Wilcox Company Nuclear Materials Division, Leechburg, Parks Township, Y,Y;.E W.li:h';$a.WMNW."jeMNI.QM 5,',Ph Pennsylvania" (1979 EA) February 1979, at 5-10 through 514. The doses $6QM %%jj ;Y!Q.l'M. Y.E.T:M'i. 'T, W' !.'>U.9?,.t.Q.',u calculated by both B&W and the NRC were small, less than 3 millitem per {.T.M,%Nf.hi*, l. %.,7p%y;fd$3.d.j year (rnrem/yr) to any organ from airborne effluents and less than 0.01 mrem /yr .F C. i to any organ from liquid effluents. Because the reported releases after 1976 were i5 comparable to or less than the releases analyzed by B&W and the NRC for prior '5I.K..,UyPQ'" ?;. F - 4

l,' M 2.. @. M j C. M ["} U y ?Q:;. Y,9 % W. [.f.;;h.W/".(*fgj,'j Finding 53), doses during the post-1976 years were comparable to or less than

. 'M years (with the exception of the anomalous year of 1985 discussed, supra, in Sh M@.. s d.x'M.v9 WM the calculated doses for the pre-1976 years. Potter (Complaint 6) at 4.

..k;f W '.'F. M.J W.. /:;..;d +:1 y,,W,q..,a.,4,..tp.,,,o.n..,.. Fv. . v. +. .w s.

56. As already noted, supra, in Finding 33, the only release in excess e '; ;

,e. f,. u t */2 6@... y..,.;,/.1.g.%,.p. r..M. > U.:.@%<.y.a, w {f' m. ..., y. t of the MPC at Parks Township occurred in 1973 at the Type 11 fuel facil- 'aj 3.v. s u* p.N.m...,QQ .f : ity. The concentration in the effluent from the furnace stack, as already noted, .a , c WSP '. averaged 7499 times the MPC over 24 hours. B&W immediately reported T: W; q?;?..Nn ' M "b,,J[.a,. 74 .wa .~ . r. .r ~ the occurrence to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), as required by 10 [$.IfnW, J,'il-6.J.*Y.Wg}Il.7,yg.j !.Y." ] hy.S.@) g C.F.R.120.403(a)(2). Offsite monitors showed no levels of radioactivity in ex-Q V.!.ui. II.d.I cess of the MPC during or after the release. Thus, the release posed no danger ..$3 [A@. ;.5N.p$w;.%. ;;.c...;e. p}['%yr.; go to the public health and safety, and no violation was found by the AEC as a .i. .S... -p %y U, w. ijiA;.gf.j,,i".,7 v..,,.ylg.$.p.f.y/,a! M:. A,. y F.Q.. result of the release. 'It 374-75 (Corridoni). M.: dpdW.QL,. J*:)

57. The evidence summarized in Findings 5155 effectively resolve Com-MNdDf[.$KN@.M W N. M @l0 d

$r f. yff.,.Pg.;"w'C.,.n...E..@Nt P aint 6 in Licensee's favor. Additional testimony on releases and doses was l adduced, however, in response to questions raised at the hearing. Although not .:e.s%.. rdWW8 c s y;,' :. ?,.,.,.,.>* sy s.., % -.a,,..,,,. t n.?. .s'.lg y.... y. e n.4., y. uu . y n ?,3,,* s : n p;,.y ?GlIf :: U d, 'c*l.:?N ',' j, % @%. : ".. N. 'f h.p* e NJ,.e y.W3..v:;.M.h*Iu.N,W('.$..<[...h..W. c.ek.,.t!N,Q .Y ?,fi C n1 i i . - 1. %:.: I 1 ..c ..6-w e *.-

&'?h. 3.l.d,hl. %.. y A...

E 865

N f;',t f.

.x . bh*. ,?.k 0"

.l

$ h* . E ?) '.*: i t:*Mg.%y'!q&m % % W%Q:.Ul: *.:5;W*r~.: 0....W.* h v. %'A Q;. .f

6.,g *.. t y.

J D U,"E.,l,...Q 6]/.fc'9lP ',.". 8'. $p'D!'.Y;eN. ;4,,Q,C.5 Te&c.$'<($f. #w.m$,f *" L c' tdd f0 s r*

p*fi.h,*f W ?.' 5h Iirf 60.k c ;b).ri&?

..}m.. g. X..m. y, v.. q.N.u,4 3 .m _.*

_ ~ ' _..,_D*_ _ _
_I_I. ' - [.5 f}., _g*_Y

.. '.. (,,

h *,

.'[ , #j' ' ' '. * -^

y "E

'D *

1

[-

j n..

~.-..- s.2 :., %. s* t .,y"

~ N. 3Q L

a.

p',;, $.h5h.2,.Y*$;i,f &N 3lg.e:MlN f,% Q;;l$;f f. h.. ->%.I.%'.h,l..:.?f>ll.5f.&.cfff.h-. :b,MM.A:. *;h.N D $h - N.:l ? .. Iy &n I h % *.T lh e.' flh p,.w. .:.y.-F 5N$$%' $55@EMb,Wd8E)id"S,y:Sy$ hy3Eff$;. d.kqdM$yj. Q%,.v..y. u..e. ,. ty 7 ,c i'd R f u.. $$$l / 7 6,.. p ..~ t. > n?,.a. Ay m....%p. ..M y..w L.p..%y%~.,,...n o- $rX r s

s m.

.w zw p: . )?,,; y::)*. gf.3., ;%..L.r...r.,;,n'ma;,.:fM:.,..i ^>i p c, o. r,..h. %. c..., : .y. .~ <.fyl. tw}j.h e. .y h,%.. a.p{I.,W directly related to Complaint 6, it is appropriate to consider that additional tes-timony here. TiO.'p.i..m$ . N..$v. :- .?.M..'p'D, '.

58. In response to a question raised during the hearing, B&W also pre-

g..

. WI "s sented testimony on the total dose from all sources, including backgmund, past 3 9Yh.l;dj$rA.,.* itti d@'D.sl<y,Q'M.'# 'r //ff/*9.W M,..yr - l2.iffi operations at the Parks Township site, and proposed operations. Tr. 377 (Pot- .Ii .M d, 5 .. g9,s e.Q.A..,' p. v.-@%. . N 'i @ k.N.o @ ter). Background radiation is the largest contributer to total radiation doses to people in the vicinity of the Parks Township site, ranging from 61 to 210 mrem /yr a.j i c., ')).glffiy.uSG Q '!*MM. e s:i..W..< '; '? 'N W '."% J D. D U. @ depen: ling on location. The NRC has estimated that the dose from all natural Y yg,ao.y:. :Wi al / wev sources in the Parks Township area was approximately 130 mrem /yr. Id. at 9,T,.N, O..M,, n. @.4. 378, citing the 1979 EA, 5 2.8. Medical exposure adds an amount that varies M %[f.gfl (.li N;l.y s

9. M...n'9,i,W*c

.5 54.. from person to person but averages about 70 mrem /yr. Dose assessments for the .M '- y%% Parks Township facility covering a period of several years prior to 1976 gave a .~%l'y;Q y maximum committed annual dose to any organ of 3 mrem /yr. See Finding 64, p ) P l' p f..c b. $ 7 infra. Taking 130 mrem /yr as background dose, assuming 3 mrem /yr from past g B&W operations, and assuming 3 mrem /yr from operation of the VRSF, on gets fdgi . c fQ:f7,,f. g.};4:; ( 7m)"j$@M@,$ a total of 136 mem/yr. For the thyroid dose, the background dose is again 130 G

Qi,,Q N:

y,*g j'r.g,* and the dose from past operations is again 3 millirems; from projected VRSF operations the thyroid dose is 13 millirems. The total thyroid dose adds up to f.;'..P ;g. @,<4! 8: N,g.S.n'.?Q '.. (,(;,,t3 $Tg;('Ng:?cf'),'.' 146 mrem /yr. /d. at 381. It is inappropriate to compare these doses to regulatory 3 "T 'g,,3%.3.';[hl.. dose limits because regulatory dose limits are increments to background. Id. T,k;,4f,WfMSE.Q,.W' $.g.X ..h

59. The Intervenors raised a concern in their prefiled testimony about I

radioactive releases from materials buried by B&W's predecessors at the Parks !.-@)*C-@VLJf, j,I,' 79&/. / tJr ' Township site. Statement of John P. Bologna, dated July 29,1986 (Bologna 4; ,'(.j, %[g.g@O*$.f'% Testimony), at 1314. Such burials were permitted under the then-effective 10 MQ z !. l~Q. Q: .;. M jj o. C.F.R. f 20.3M but are permitted no longer. The record shows no releases of radioactivity in air or water from the burial ground, and there has been !,.W. A - 6.. #a.;E.',:*9 ?.

g.j;l

,1,'y.' (p.f." no migration of the material through the soil. Tr. 368-70 (Corridoni), citing

.f. 4....y

s- ?l'y;,4f u.g a " Radiological Assessment of the Parks Township Burial Site" [ Babcock & r

i d. $

',#.c N M. '$;f MN;,dd:; >'g$% [. N.Tf.i;.y,;*.3.y t ? Wilcox). Leechburg, Pennsylvania," Oak Ridge Associated Universities (1984) A[-@g *jjiM;f.Iky,2 $/,$ 'Q' 'k4;g

p. I.7,(lcM3@p,.g%.h:.

at 51; Tr. 485-86 (Loysen); Tr. 387 (Potter).

60. The evidence regarding releases from the Parks Township facilities and fE['.,N..y,?.g%i.f,$.'..y,%,iI the burial site shows that B&W is a responsible and capable licensee." Thus, S..d

.@,,,,... 4...M... y*W...'6.. S!.T it has been shown that there is reasonable assurance that B&W is qualified to r e, @.d,6.@g@R'$QP carry out the administrative controls that will be required to protect the public

,. @N..M.4 'C @N.2; 4

'2. ..Y.,,.'M. 4 ;. health and safety under the requested SNM-414 license amendment. , ry, c,. ; ...r ?r;'. WA*d;. *. \\.*/i,#:ji 4.W

h..:-lil r,~j*{%'. hiN.N:

6i ?.' lh.A.,'.7.*;*..%. i W,f 8 /. ;,'.; e.'"!;. sy 9 ang.j.U'; lp.l* ~ h 54 'Vyff ,4

6..);n.'$.pgN, Q,.O;.::

Q jh.*{* p{.f,:.,'; *f.e,t.5*g g '.m U As noted in Fmdirg 34, apra, the NRC staff canmented m the SER secuon on comphance hastory that B&W Qhy!.'. f y 4 f7e"- e 6' D..Q had been cooperauve with the NRC in complying with regulanons and requests for informatort B&W was also ytp r;$ ; 'jf. [*/ -l"lMf.%;p W"3 d-Q.t.h'/).G n.- rTj very cooperative dunng the beanng, to an enent not ohen seen in hugama. For exarnple. it very wuhngly offered g, tj",,.*{*'J*gtg% g, M$* t.*. fAyQ substanual supplemental tesumony that was ouunde the scope of the contenuons m order to respond to concerns .,. g y?. e raised by the pubbe in the hnuted appearance statemema. ...? y&..@. y,3 p i .....:e.... <,p.gg,.,. 4.W~,p. :.:% C...y,J, 4* M 37 A.M e ;'.,'.4 .e _ A*4..A 9;<. .,s & w" 7,.gW.t s.'r "'t.n, a '*A..+*; %;, 5 *4h *'?'% prl.,.W J g Qfs '. *; or, Y

ry l.*

wej ,r 4d .a [f.[, ,h.)_ k 3.,'w. g. h.,:, p. [aI .hkb lek 866 s, sl&..g'*;.. 3,'e y,,: a d. c a,n ',:7. O;.%..n..'.g;1.t". '.Yl... .x,;* A. 1. 'u. ;T

Q7,Q.%.a N

&{:0.$ rnlh'*l,,p e A* ?..,p/,,, p%g:.. n,w.. i* a. y.3. e. ?>..,. 9,,. 3.g:; >< ,,s %.n 4,4,;q1 ..,. 4.,. s v. .re.

Y,..p 3.,,. -,

tt y# p.- am { ' *f.+..* te ..,..., (se fj. '4. a c '.f. g h ,i ;, U.' ;. Q'r;NQ%: Q';.'E MW,;'NH.5 t "iR, U: 5 1' '.b: ~. ?i.C~C,%;M,NsI QW.a'GfHfIN.Y(Wy* %@p"k.Vs'T.ik'0..'m,W'Q. W.;T. f .{; ~7&.n$$ ..r. gf * ' f f,; r. . ~.. a. a.. ~. n.n$fi fY.c;. I$f:', ~ ~ y;..

I 6 n,.. ( hMNMMgs.7h.jI:.'bN.d.hb,5;$.h6'jd-lW /*N;:,N!,%dbNdhSN;.k ?.I,[ge; ".+'M. n..,, w'fje;Dw.e%w:.#j %n' e.Ir, $ i fe. e - ~~~- -

te.'

S ;N9& pts 3.j e i.*n*:(': QbMM.M'p Y.i4lDi.Wr.Q@d}: Rh $h t & ;$ y ..B u.?';;W,ip,Wicg&.M d.c h W W 1.0 ,.M N.W: C

i. %.

'%'y;a, ;Q. ;W{t.M.p.an, M;Mc,%y, Y.i, W'G '% tll & x& h.. m...# Conclusion on Adrm,m.strative Controls n khj 'Tf.%(: pd 5 M Sf M M M' d.e,A. Dllt e. g". W - of H-3, C.14, and I.125 to the conservative limits imposed by the NRC Staff IW JJ';

61. The evidence adduced with respect to administrat.ive controls shows

':: A.. fQ.W@., M..;...: 5..Tg.,ls.'.s v 97N that the administrative controls adopted by B&W will enable it to restrict releases

M

.;.,,.c:f; %~.%* k I.i,'.$)'i;d.2.$/$lh+yA.e.,4,Y.$ g,;.o.m. e?lQ.g.g ..ae v.?.g. 2...m. y.;n..gd,N5 4;$: ...c. of 80, 4, and 0.012 Ci/yr, respectively. These controls include a continuous U... $.4 ! g-incinerator stack monitor for particulate releases and continuous sampling and 08? N: % i @t. G ?d, @ N.$ g % QMl.if Periodic analysis of incinerator off-gas. Neither the buildup of I-125 in the r .T ,vbk. .Y MM@hU,'.)'h,k TMff?'#NM. M.b: f; d.' scrubber solution nor the presence of I-131 in reactor waste can be expected $,f.t m'A. <..'p, cs,gu.I.{$; a/fh.,',y.e$e$h'. ,... ~i..;,.,O.t., N,..,. #. ; f to be a signiScant problem, because B&W has adopted adequate controls to u W:W ensure that neither is likely to occur. Further, the evidence shows that, in spite r g..g . M.y of compliance problems in the early years ofits operation of the Parks Township i.h.US.5/Mf.E@y.T$@.N.5d;hd;.d. -Qg;l.f:!j N.Md.!! din.S.: O J D. !Y d *3. G. f/.

y. M ' M fy p and Apollo facilities, B&W has become a responsible licensee with a very (M.h.E.'l ;ld'.;'.jk'4 p'.(UR[1Wj$. 9 f

good record of compliance during the past 10 years. I conclude, therefore,

M !.

'; t'. .. /,.v */e ' $ @<.N ;Q *l; i.. that B&W's proposed administrative controls will provide a reliable means of c.n m&. '.v,,'$.7.$v~h I:$; .n..w.. . W.:. A keeping emissions from the VRSF within safe limits, L M n. .y % a. s &.p.. y.Y, W'y',:.(.: % %,1:p. % e%p:". W . e :. ;Q .e . ' '.. ;.W.7 ..,.]Lf.1.W.;1%Q...,,.:m.... (2) Health Effects of Radiation Releases ...'..,,. ; m..... ~.. .c,.,,.. ; f.w.,, *. ' ...,1 ; mm. . y? :.:

62. The radiation doses received by the population surrounding B&W's o

.y c, ,.f :t:7,T 1.. >s...y VRSF at Parks Township would be very low. According to NRC Staff estimates, .;C.,'[,.%. ':.i,'J."a .'73. : i g.;#' M $.W. 7.q for the average individual total body dose from operation of the compactor is a ..'h.. C,,.,.... ;; 'T?;./.. ;,: expected to be 1.5 x 10-9 rem /yr and from operation of three incinerators 2.6 x g.,;.(l p. 4 %..' ,.lu;.~ _, ~ ; , ;.gf./ 10-7 rem /yr." Dose to the thyroid of the average individual is expected to be g.f..".,.P';> Q. g, S Q,@;,(s. t . '. N' 4 6.3 x 10-8 rem /yr from operation of the compactor and 2.1 x 10 rem /yr from , /'~ J g y y j' y . p...a operation of three incinerators. NRC EA { 6.1.5 and Table 6.10. The anmial dose ., 7,l'r!.j [ '., jj Ndf ' \\ '.y..% to the maximally exposed individual, defmed as the individual located at the 4. ..w.- l e. :... p. l... residence in the region of maximum offsite emissions, total body commitment 4" ..n.l.. i< .r. '. f. l.. r. ".,M.;,..... .c g r. Q...'. /.7,,4. pf.?,i#d [.y'.. . nX @%.'"F.'r,..;..: y 'lP,[. 4 g.;,,.??... g,: n. 2.> R..n *.,.q; is expected to be 1.6 mrem /yr from the operation of three incinerators and "... y, .A.r;;g'.::;y,1.. r the compactor. The dose to the thyroid of the maximally exposed individual is o. .., ".y. 7 expected to be 11.0 mrem /yr.2d NRC EA i 6.1.5 and Table 6.11. For comparison, o.. g 91.1.Q,.Jo, /W;,; ' 7)Q~ ; I %' '%;S F.?.'.E ' J '.'. NRC's total body dose limit set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 is 500 mrem /yr, and

E. ' '?

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) limits set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part s ';.'P1.NYft.ph'f,9.3C.5.,.$...N.L. 61 are 25 mrem /yr total body and 75 mrem /yr thyroid. Intervenors challenged the l,".l;;. ;Q.,, . T .m .. / *.. ~,;. 77, a.:.a. 3 o.,m..=..'. *.;c. 6

t. ;

, e.

, M methods used to calculate dose projections in the NRC and the B&W analyses. In

,.4 [. -(... = -.f.,.I'.k.,.'.,*igyY",d.b. 'E* *; h... '.,,' c. ; p. n. ~,, ;:k.[. M.. t,'.,S.. .a3 I . v y. i [. f staff's analysis in the EA assumed, for boundmg purposes, that three incinerators rather than one incinerator ..$.,.l [!,.I.i.t/; '.!.[*,,E. ' h, - lU.d. J; 4 l. N s.N. 5..% ,,.y' t'.

would be m opersoon. B&W's applicanon, however, requesta a I.censo amendment to operate only one NG',N'.N.i.

inemerstar. EA $ 6.1. Consequen':y the actual doses received by the popula' tan wwld probsbly be less than ,'J' f c ' 5 ' (J,,;:' 'f,[* k-[<f.'.L '/',,M 5, 'C* / 'b ;; '.7j '.7 f, 0,. s '.' 7 the expected doses discussed.ere. I' staff's asumates in the EA were based on the behef that the nearest residence was located 200 meters from the ?[;j.Ml&R;?;h.~,@f' N.[M 'M:.Ml'.l.;l-s;.j' h 5/; N " A,;//.' M 'T *'M,'[.f. " ' /. $'[ r-9.' * ' g. U.. Ein Evidence adduced at the heanng, however, revealed that the nearest residence was actually about 175 meters Y.?,~&.a. -Q. 'Q*.,G:. '"""*"'*"""*"#*"d""*P'""d"'"*"""2"'"'"'"d'"d"*"'d'""'"d*'W"^"d*8" lN. 1,' l i'Q,'.': Q 6 1 cg ;;W,.s. g~...i,.i.w.~ q%.n ):::;.'.;y.c, ?...%. -

.ll; A.c...;.: ...;, we,-'

.y, ajt..'.. W . 'N G:.".W j.,, u c.... n g.::p;.l s. }w~e.n..,r&: &..: Q,h p.,.'~4' f L*d. r../ 867 . n x.O./.p w e

.: x -

.~.;. r ..m... g.:s.t.~ F.f. s .m t b... v .t <y ',,g. f.,e y t ^.*v...,., c....,;., _ 6,,.., (-.Q.*f.' ;,*, *i':g y'. c.. 4,.. T-m. n,ps;~ -..% c . r.. w% * * *,

<* n'L E ? * '?}'la'L% o ':;,.p

..

ls.;.'
60 a.l' ) $. m.;.~S i' M., m.*p>' M M M.Ef: %., w ; M,.s..,

.n m %,y. hfNih$$@b.'[N.h[a.~.kh{h'.

8' d

b, u:n.sw$@s a.w.E%n.*j58EE.WiNSFWM.6N$nu'M M w.R wwww..,k. m.~f~me.n.c.~5 m.w.a.,.w.,.<?. m..,,... m.,n....e. w.ec*%.a., 9 e.

m. I.. F.#

.m. m.,, ' "8* . * " ",, mn,

i *

'.r ',. "'8s,','.v..,.t..','.j. a,, ;.,.f .n.,M.t..o r n. . '*,i,.... .ca

~

i m .i . _'*/'3*....

m.-

.,.n n

'N.

, ~ v.. .. s %g,pj;6.../1 g., u 'o % ',. '.*4 '.h (. > * ~ ; N,.?. % * \\ %.', ". i *.i - Qs , '.4.,. * '[ f I.2 # .3. . '. j,'.., '? y -

s..* '.

., f '. s.*

p.9. v *.

/. %"l c. ?..m Q,s - F.c. * \\ vA y* y 9 j.

7*'

,6'* . j. 'A.*,.. t i,,, {

y.,.

.e7 y 'r*'.,.

,5 j., *

.f 4-n. s., ( w', -

p, '

,a'. .,.,'.,p 8 .t . '. e .s..g ( *' .e. ;, .g A b o# 8, I 8'

MM Ih.., T. 6.@ - f., b,,..; %,f [ u j..; ;; p. % de M. -Nic,g.t,ds;fh.Nk,.bi 'hh, E.') k. 4W k..gw<g.m,,W;x

g. 2

c..Jw Sm g;'.

v ty%. y. ?[ p',<d. W., R g- ..Qy

., r.g p;..s.:p.y ~

. v .. <?g t g.P7y 'e'd f 9.. ..... %;?. M.'iM.p,e:Mfb., +. - vflSW..:4' tg@.4;33?'Q[ Uw/, 3 .pyQ% addition to challenging the correctness of the dose projection, Intervenors allege [.QM,-@, {p%y..(c lj: Q* that even the projected doses will cau;c adverse health effects to themselves h.h[NkNf,hy.W;w'G, 'fVI,Pf'!/./WWL T ".W, and their families. Challenges relating to radiation releases and health effects J.7 3.f.f.; M Q. K ;,".,, are contained in Complaints 1,3,13,10, and 11, which are discussed using that %. i,.,',e~:n..-::w. yW.;M sequence in this section of the Decision. $,,*.<. 1,l,7 r y ( t., .. c,. A. m...e.. s .s.....,y. Q.,,v", g.R;;Q' n,.f}.];.Q.%;.g. -.,. - q. v Complaint ] (Effects on Health of Petitioners and Their Families) .s. p.t,c v,;S ?,.l.:.%;M M@ p:judq &M Wm

63. The concentrations of effluent radioisotopes in air at the site boundary pry (;$[^.[.I"s

'Mfp',@U Q, ;' are expected to be 0.6% of the MPC set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Appendix B, ed fW fM".d.. f7 's, dig %.Mh;5 [d 6 y M $.~/:..W?J Table II. There will be no liquid releases and no onsite disposal of radioactive / .%;,[ff;[ dQ[*:. material. Potter (Complaint 1) at 2. AS. .M. ./ 64 Assessments of radiation doses from routine operations of the VRSF

y..T...

t,l/N!j.bh.'7iQ :li I;]Q/7 ;+ M[$'QlQ[8$,$kl,f-are described in the B&W EA. The doses were calculated using the mathematical y. Q,*JJ model suggested by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Rev.1), " Calculation of c.:y.y.M;&q Q-gy/ M.p*@j,'p,y Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the f f.. */.6.'l ",y %*'49@, ";NffF.cy Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I," .fl.*JiQ. d 1N;.y c.p$Mfl' A';)d,Yi;"YY. (October 1977) (Reg. Guide 1.109). Default data (recommended values in OPM,5,.." Reg. Guide 1.109 for use when site-specific data are not available) were ' NM ar? 7.CN M.7J MM Y..W...N. h..;. m.!% used except where site. specific data were warranted. B&W's assessment is in N NM~,' N-N. y:3 substantial agreement with those reported in the NRC EA, which were calculated m N# independently by the Staff. Potter (Complaint 1) at 2-3. W: 7.. 9. % W...

g..

u Im~.5; O..J:& S'/'X.;,t hy...

65. Complaint I specifically refers to " cumulative exposures." Doses
'p.r, C.ta

~, e s. n p*;].K; gk;+jin ; 9.P e..g+. J, a calculated in the B&W EA reflect accumulation of radioactive materials in the 'ffig/,'.[,' ' m... f T.. w t,. n@ e s ',,3$,k[f { environment of the facility for a 15. year period of operation, a default value ,c from Reg. Guide 1.109. B&W's facility, however, is expected to operate for IpjG *... about 30 ye.a.r.s. Therefore B&W performed a sensitivity study to determine the f.g ' ?iw3...c.'M..g.f;'f, i.Q" 9

q.t.

f g I.,/,r*S,jpg.. y,.. ..s effects of che$ing the accumulation period from 15 to 30 years and found that y//c g gg.y individual and population doses increase by less than 10%. Radioactivity intake 'k.u !. m.. ,.,.,m.r..y .in,!W.We.: s.:.Na. E.qi n c.N .Q:. ,'?gs, M3. P k:N,gg;*k//g-p,[*@gg,T.Wi8 was converted to dose using factors described in NUREG-0172 that integrated the doses for a period of 50 years following intake. Thus the doses reported in /.*/M MS. 7,,_M.. "..'M.?%. 7.. M .cC.gb7&pj<yMIR$"@ k.;. the B&W EA represent " cumulative exposures." Potter (Complaint 1) at 3. !@fpQ.3,iGy.g;.'$, s w. s.m k' Q,j.l. K. m

66. B&W calculated total doses from all sources (including direct radiation M '. *..

,".y.jf.$.'{ h from transponation and from the VRSF inventory) to the maximally exposed f Q.,, r W ' W i..! $u;. p.y.% .b.,.". s/ W.. e,: individual living 200 meters SSE from the incinerator release point (more than ..h; y..:vp.7,3,09 S 90% of the dose is expected to result from incinerator effluents). Estimated total p$g;cy;M;$'( e7, Gar.~;,j a. NkN.Nh,,M,t,.jb..N /.C t).: dose to this individual would be 3 mrem /yr total body,13 mrem /yr thyroid, and NA. TWT.W s q%Du 6 mrem /yr maximum other organ. Id. at 4, citing B&W EA { 7. .y.. p'W..M., b..I

67. Conservatively assuming that the Intervenors receive the calculated i,.W,g:g;17,2p*/1Q.J W;..@9..*j3. ~%,...f.k, E.

1 p$. 2 -.$W. maximum doses, even though they live much more than 200 meters from the i* m.q. site, their doses would be low. The doses are small fractions of the most %t .~ .(r..p,y. p p.o j.,,,.o. y er. @,,..p.. e ; + ....M@y.,..H, / y;... k~. s (/:;.,s..s?'3.,I.$'y& Q:.'.g restrictive EPA limits for radionuclides from NRC-licensed facilities, which are Q *..: % L.

4...'.W.

..,,,,.7. /. r.% Q. a .. O Q F;? P,.. ' :.; }. 'n.. m ?0..c>.JJVp}M "v%.s..y. ' 's er '. %. n. y a, F 4 ^ y;C a,:y. *:;,p:; - 4;.,A.; g, h '. y, h.:f.y'. ~ ':.m.:np'. *. ' j? 1 ). C as a 1n;..A ~;. k -<a W q. n., ' ~4. .m% >g0c.,m.

p 868

W; M m<.q. g M cas

.t@....e m....I? m,,: :.3.,y12 m

.' 3j.wg

h

Q..NM'~ms;t.W.W.W'M.W'4

%.. J M. 6 v ,s%.;,., WN.,9 r,g *5;m&.M

%...$.c &.,". A.

e. ... a wsev. <uy((~~'?'f~t.,%:p,%'*::'O,hfQW[h:>.;,W

\\'$, M h.EN.[ D'g #$ *N

'ygl ' t 't %.f*} , w::q* ::g.r;' mypa-y w.y >m:,,.w q~y 3~ y:s -w:.,. .s.w .k$ I ~ l ..e 7 ;.. n m.g..w y,p.g..y..;y,.y4p.9, 7y f

a q _:, 1 l ,,~.q . n .^05.0, l @}b}.&T hkjn,$.g;j5?Wk.jih.t.):5&.W.. y.l,' nl.y..q..Q.;;% m:;Y,l,Gn...;.. K.v.;.. hff f,f .g. iIk k)h> f i d W e, e,.,, m,p.oey%.p;.y.y w v,e.f:p,,, s %a y.,..:..! 1 { ,~q~s #.. %s y;.i r I : n, a.,.

z. ;.., M jd }.h* M % $$' %,f. Q, y Jm,A, n.s W.

y W. >w. 7.. hy - y %p.p. p..us. x.g g4 iW m.g . g..p ,. w .n .r?NC.y.g:. g;i;@p.: a . dj: N %[y, ydy'h~/Mh'd%$'$M;J, ? Q.g;m.t.. W.$.wa w&g. T.y%) Q n,V. i 25 mrem /yr total body,75 mrem /yr thyroid, and 25 mrem /yr to other organs. Id., kh .Ndh .M.Ih citing 40 C.F.R. Part 190. The calculated doses are also small fractions of the %h.h[2bd.[hNN' Sh.yh 5 dN.* radiation dose from naturally occurring radiation and radioactive materials in hh f.O the environment; these sources contribute a dose of approximately 100 mrem /yr ..M8,g, Mqu%%Ph g? total body (range 61 to 210 mrem /yr). The EPA estimates that 80% of the 'N h k h h,' .b,Gj. U.S. population receives annual total body doses from background radiation from l $ *%(h,&.g'@.f[Mi@N.g,WM:,@Q@i~yyM@ 75 to 115 mrem. Id. at 5, citing "NESHAP Background Information Document Q Ij W ' M .WJ M pt for Final Rules - Radionuclides," EPA 520/11 84-022 1, Vol. I, October 1984 MWVMMhk fv.aj,3;f. d't (1984 EPA Report), p. 8 64. Thus background is 1.rge relative to the maximum W4W- .f. g@g.m.,.,.../.%.@...M,,,.i.W1xJ.J...eW. s..g.-. w@y.-.A,. y'A.1 .l O; Ws,W.V, g. ,:w total dose expected per year to an individual from VRSF operations. Id, 9 W/.W G.~.-

68. B&W's witness Dr. Niel Wald, a leading authority on radiation effects, hM M5?;N[:. Nb}?EdhM;'

S*b }E stated that health effects have been demonstrated only "at doses and dose f rates which are orders of magnitude higher than those calculated for the B&W [5.Nlp.d@%', [d,MYN$.%'e%5:hk) [$hM. % r'.EE R$k M. kM'Nhh. 6.D facility." Wald (Health Effects) at 5. Thus, while there is no direct evidence of MMby health effects in humans at the dose levels expected for VRSF routine operations, s%. n.a $ y 4 ;'.;.n g. %...,,. n:i G. M@s.e.y(. >. 4..

y

.Q. 4d evidence of health effects from higher doses suggests that it is prudent for 4 $/g:F[@lf.p.-@i..< W @v. % ..yM*.% y regulatory purposes to assume that the higher dose hazards exist through the is .g.,,Qy$y /V.;..yY : g.ptt:.;.f.:'f'Jfp't range of low doses down to dose zero, with risk decreasing as dose decreases in - l dy'.M.t.yMf(-[/[t a manner consistent with observations at higher doses. ld. at 6; Potter (Complaint i '.0NQD.$g JM N. J.h G ;

1) at 6-7. Such assumptions are not universally accepted as realistic but were N./.S. w.h. 4/gM k..,M.... S.N'N. b ffW.?J J.g)$ M.pQMg.d.Q s... I f?.O..-

d adopted l'y B&W and the NRC Staff for conservatism. Id. at 7. qfc G

69. To estimate the risk of cancers (including thyroid), genetic effects,

..U. -l N,. p.,f,%.,j b1.'; and teratogenic effects from the low doses resulting from operation of the j '. 2 9'.. j N f Vc d'.f. Q... ' ' S.L.W...% VRSF, B&W used risk coefficients contained in Chapter 8 of the 1985 EPA A.. ' 6.. ',J N. f3 .m ,/f q"M%..Q. q Report and in the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements l '<.7. !;*'. g c., 7,l0; f._ h'i .MylN (NCRP) report, " Induction of Thyroid Cancer by Ionizing Radiation," NRCP

' y Q.7.2.".iC"...[,f;?,',,kjf1.;,,'.$j

?@@.E -N.IE90!;.iN/.M.K.NY'; Z Report No. 80 (1985) (NCRP 80). Potter (Complaint 1) at 7. The maximum individual health risk from all exposure sources resulting from routine operation of the VRSF was estimated to be .7 x 104 d3Q'l$ 44.Z.4(.7.Q.9.pc.y per year for cancer incidence, or q :f. $. Q.'.. :y.1.,C,...'w ::t r / W ,M,.M+.y V.idj.r ;/,.T.?J ;4 M 3 Nc.. 3-l4y..%,Cg *. y dd*C

3. ?,

7..m.

1.7 in a million chances per year. This is much lower than the normal risk t. = m u. ./ of cancer incidence, which is 4 x 10-3 per year. Similarly, the risk of other .f 7,]'/? health effects fmm routine operation of the VRSF were all much lower than the f.5U/5*7.:9.Y,['Nif9;,,,...l'.J. pf,

h.,,7*2'Ih. ! d ep p.,

.. w. i normal risk. Thus, even assuming that an intervenor and his family receive the <.a.,. l maximum calculated dose, there is a very low probability that any health effect y., p,././.y;Q;,hgq;.;;p,N@T. !!.h. r;'. 2 "W..i t Y.:.K ? will occur. Id. at 8 and Table 1 1. I g.p f....' 9.WM.,; ;.p. u. v...;..h:,.,.,..i,$.. n? !s,'.$J W

70. Doses from compactor effluents are a small part of the low total

.. x R$,$ dose from the routine operation of the VRSF. While effluents from the entire ' M C X,Q d ( E l.I. M !A. 7 M '): @i/

g M '.#'i d ' g ',y *j.Q $

4 facility are estimated to give a maximam whole-body dose of approximately 2 pcp.d. ';n @[cgjQ@M.p.gg,j.$ c; g'.3*.4;l /... '/.g mrem /yr, anly 0.022 millirem comes fmm tNe compactor, and the compactor Qff pfj contributes only 0.83 mrem /yr to a total maximum individual thyroid dose of h[d$h i,;; hM2h'IM h.kj!M..,t:%m: M. 12 mrem /yr. The compactor also contributes 0.031 mrem /yr of 5 mrem /yr total J U,:@w.a.e, t 42,.@,M"F'7';;f.q@.$...l. 'p;'y.,Q i i maximum dose to other organs. Finally, compactor effluents contribute 0.026 J '* & : W*:}., W. Q:&;M,y*% p';..;wl% %. - c, ,.<.vwx,. WC s..? **s;) 6}. /,*.O. y%. :**Q(. *l* ?.S.Y.>, ;,f Ye. i'* <*;&e,m:~;fl t. - ,,s, - ff.s.. + * ':r " s..,,. [f,,c;@6 p.l.f.., TQ f4,'vri'N[!y'[(gI"+ X.),'N.m

, % a

= ? 6y. I.,Q j' 5. - S 869 y :/t ? 1;9 - W %';n/r r&.S ti..m,.Q.,G,f;,ct.7..* *.'QM e -9 i .. r A s $h.Yhhkh.gc&e;%Q;y%

- W Y'U.Y
4MY{'y;hb iSun w.W.g.y5,y..aw m.p 9 hbp

.N

I

,.. +., , e.;.w .+,. g p.m.,r,y.. -.e ,.7 m - 4 r !I ) _!.a' n . n'. ,e.qhp:ieyyyg:y.,.,y. ;y;.;.3g @n*Qgg_,w::q....<_g g;p.C_y o Oy.M,.3 p ~,gi,gy. c p. .r i. ,2 w. .c . p

Im.< 4.n.c.y;).. h.+:;d M..v. M, 'inj-N'MG,JP..?r> 'W rp nna .t..... .d

.. ;.n.c.c u vu.mr y.y.

of 2 person-rem /yr whole-body population dose and 1.9 of 27 person-rem /yr I QNd.pd;$. -M.*2[f,?'f.(/$ h h W $Ir k; g %}, thyroid population dose. Therefore, risk to the health of the population from .~ A M,3.% compactor operations would be much lower than the already very low risk from %'{p};dQM!g,. the facility as a whole. Id. at 9. W.* M.S.9 A. r.W@. M;9: % @h.Mjj,% N

71. Both B&W and the NRC Staff performed analyses of several accident 7%j W/MC8 scenarios to estimate their radiological impact. The Staff evaluated the potential pp/M,,d/[@GNjQ.y$

l M , y'/,.yl.y. U effect of an incinerator explosion, scrubber-loop pipe rupture, staging area @b.!d?) h fire, container rupture, transportation accident, loss-of-power accident, and off-db'Q':hr/h.M,a i M'N. U ~ gas system pipe rupture accident. NRC EA {$ 8.1-8.8. B&W analyzed the ,Ni$([*Q T b;D MMGII M' incinerator fire, the staging area fire, and the container rupture. B&W EA 5 8.2. y',{.gg'.[:j.Q.};p$.9

72. Although the AECC Topical Report claims that the design character-

'i istics of the incinerator assure that even events such as processing a container fi : ;;'l.*$$gf;g% [',Q [.)y:/.,,vgijll{ p]'G jA.. of flammable liquid would not result in a fire or explosion, the accident anal-gi

r.., K; h, j.;

.:y yses nevertheless assumed that an explosion occurred. NRC EA 6 8.3.1. Staff estimated that if the explosion occurred with reactor material being processed, 2 y.f@Q.y p.{g$.U@h Mr. p f; M 2/W-@Q.: the total dose to a maximally expcsed individual would be 2.44 rem; if it oc-be 1.60 rem. Id. 9 8.3.1.1 and Tables 8.1-8.3. B&W's estimates were smaller M%yQ:1.%g@Q.pf.MM,,} curred with institutional / industrial material being processed, total dose would Q .@.1 than the NRC Staff's estimates, perhaps because B&W assumed that the max. % f.c.y.%'afp;.g..y; Wyl;jt . fag,) diRN. Ni yp%:9.l.[7;[d.D.,i.' i'..M..:.d imally exposed individual was located 200 meters SSE of the release point, ' M 7h' N.$~y., .f ~ @t'MmO4 whereas Staff assumed that the maximally exposed individual was located at t .?l8. f;a"?p n '; & ~ the VRSF boundary in the region of maximum offsite emissions. Id. 9 8.2. The p]f,f.$;..Q, G77,.[M c.y. 3 '/j/ h.g). p$,f.l G)g,.f , Q_ only accident scenario to cause a greater total dose than the incinerator explo- .)O.>f d fy %O ,MA sion would be a staging area fire involving institutional / industrial waste. The Staff estimated that the total dose to the maximally exposed individual resulting g S, g. $g.A, u.f. g. $ m s - @, ;'f..$.,lO.Mt s.t.,%..'@... from such a fire would be 2.75 rem. Id. and Table 8.1. B&W estimated the total %f ff,".3,7sg.,f.f. body dose from such a fire to be 0.150 rem and the thyroid dose to be 0.200 d % l./.9.' M.M '.,y /,*:/d,4 /M@gl$@.d.gNi3@ rem. B&W made the point that the doses it calculated for accidents were well Q% [ below the EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGs), which are I rem whole-body dose and $ rem thyroid dose." Potter (Complaint 1) at 9-10, citing " Manual of '@8,%gfiy/.$,';1';Q;'h].w.g IFMMI@y..Q.Q.'g'.(,.?7j $ M Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Accidents," EPA f '.k T' t 520/1-75-001 (September 1975). The values Staff obtained for the incinerator h l'.M M,,ih*; h g h,'d D.~.@<qNh.'#l.M..y explosion, the staging area fire, and the transportation accident apparently are $NM..,;$@@(3. G.tfe,. ,M.. a D.V.S s, / above the PAGs, however. Staff correctly noted that there are no numeric criteria 4 r $;*l.e.%q *i M. for accident evaluation. It also observed that the doses it calculated were frac- .. W,.;3 @@sff $'6 $ $j M '6'3 tional portions of the annual occupational limits prescribed by 10 C.F.R. Part 20 j. h .q ,A W Q $ ,hl- @ g[ a.2.;h.<!;/ M regulations. NRC EA i8.2. It should be noted, however, that Staff's estimates 'X were intended to be overestimates in the interest of conservatism. ld. $$ 8.1, 8.2; pl.,d.y.w.k. ;,. nm, r,.h.....d....Y.,,. ' -, .c n V* +*

c....

t ' y,?. nob... s..Wo..Q

b;;vy!R @*g(M Q,3,3,$y'c.4 y,,g ***.. rG' t,;a4*o 3:$gA ;y,',p..& +.-,'y, t1 - C.r 1

.i U i T: p,(f.g!J An EPA Prou ive Acuan omde is the projected dose to indmduals m the populaum wiuch warrants takms .?, t gM.Y'.V./f f."t.h.'.e%[/.'/g protecove acuan to mmmuze the nsk from an event that as enher occurnns or has aircady occurred. EPA.520/1-Wy'.I. I-75 001 at 1.1. t.c iyp:-)}s i.s.m;..m.,,..,

.4,

?. w ,v. :. ~e.ps,..s,..

.. r..a.. a..s.,

n. m.,. n v.u.

a.a,.2r. 2.p.s a s h{!.c$; W,h. M. w' w.e. a.s.' u'S j e, cim .y, 4,.,vl %'TL.). : S

p..s.a ~,?qe;&li #/1:.o,;mi $.o

.c i .+ .r.cpCnt. ',,..y q,g. >..:.n,p. rk.h.n%..;ty...;< .c.

t.$,.I)f,;qb Y ;. *

. m';. r.f

t..

L'RM.%.W * *:.s 7;.:.'W~kyW* %:'.! ; w. ', -

Jf W..

mghW.t Q*Q m' W g'

~

p y, ' ? ( a.. ,p + A ,t'..,?.'_ 3 s,;.g. 4g ,n s e s g ?. f

~ e s i hi ,h,p),.,a,*,,a.u. %.A.?.,.y &..,. &, ;.J.s !M. U. nYt.o,a. .n 1 c .c.iC,;my/ m.(.W*. -i.. .,.;p.'m. 4A.;.s 1 ..a. r,.,& p+. r ..w.. .c .Q.. 6'(([M.. a,L-E* n $ "'a-J: /, r w-c~

. m% -.

- e: /Ty/. '.Dn.,.$.;;p Tr. 481 (Blond). For example, Staff's dose was calculated for the site bound- ,y ) yd)kaMf3 ary, only 65 meters from the facility. If the Staff doses are extrapolated to the -k. $nN'f5D0@h.M,.'hy 3 M? .Q nearest residence, they are reduced by a factor of 3, which puts them below the D N h.hI h h 'Y i' t q.cMOC.. A.,N.6@d1:{$p&..@.;tWeb;~j PAQs. Tr. 482 (Blond). AMM M.,WSMh.24

73. In conclusion, the radiation doses that will be released by routine nm w v J.J,%, +j;@M@Q[i?M$$$W.'ff?/'$'N'I Operation of the VRSF are much lower than the regulatory limits designed 8.WN ddhh

'MM.}lN[f[OffrNM.,5,'j to Protect the public health and safety and are lower than doses from natural R N g.t M'@k, g y( M M,M M[ih.WG, f. ,MM.S background. These low doses will have no discernible effect on the health of n!?.d the Intervenors and their families. Potential radiation doses from an accident at MN h.'f.dj'M: MM. ;Nk$f$.fU%!f!M.3N.0;.'6 h $ the VRSF, involving either the incinerator, the staging area, or waste material in EY.blM 3 transit, probably would not be high enough to warrant individuals who live in d' 8sfh b M : IMN: Yin. 8 the nearest residence taking protective action to avoid exposure. Considering the (k M S, M.h $ 2.*'3 @/;g:f v $ p jf f f @%'k distance from the plant of the residences of the Intervenors, it is virtually assured i T that even an accident would not necessitate their taking protective action. Q.a; %sf:;;.%,a %,(i M y. 3 ..%c.h Qu..,tm;,.....g H.q.w, %y::.9 :y.:.6, y. g, lc; F. ,m..; m-. ;;y ?..y~m.., r..; .,y. m e , W y...t. f..,*lt*. O, ;v, y.~., W...d '.L V */ C C. r.. %;,q,. W< Complaint 3 (Effects of H-3, C-14,1125, and Cs-137 Within 2 Miles) ~n v% .. v.y%.r,.7. s c.;. ',s. ...,p s $81l'.ji. f,,g A f ry P %l<.j,j,; ~. T';;; ^ ';.'.(, S Petitioners

heahh and their environment, ine.luding their plants, trees, shrubs, ground water,

-/

reservoir, wells, springs, grasses and grazing animals existing in any area within two miles of

. W,.1.. E, *.. '.'. IM' l f,.,- # '.i l the plant will be adversely affected by the incineration and the resulting releases of Carbon 'I.\\ J.*y[*p'f. #.;[ A Q Jcf',$l'/f'W % ' N [il c .G t '", d *'l[. #

i:.. O M % is.3 '

14, Tritium, lodine 125 and Cesium 137. These radioactive isotopes would be inhaled or k ;C.! +...,; '.., p ::.'v .,.2 c(.:;;t; *. :

N'? }l,k N *.., " ',.4.g,; ', ; h '$l. ;.

ingested and incorporated into living tissue. J m y,e ' yc > vf,. 6 V; 'S. W 74 To the extent that Complaint 3 alleges that releases of H-3, C 14,1-A,c;,.'}] *.. N < n. . Y. *. 125, and Cs-137 by routine operation of the incinerator will adversely affect the z '.. 5 ;,.. y ;,,i 3',7 'O health of the Intervenors, or for that maner any persons living within 2 miles p.hQ.".,p{y',3 ".k;,. 'C', ?,;,' 9 . r O,

s 7;;g:...ff". j of the facility, the complaint is insolved by Finding 73, supra, which concluded that the low doses from releases will have no discernible effect on the health

.,,17 ;. j,., '., c - ,y,.;, 3,n j ;n. *, 9 ; 2,. ;. ;,... ;., of the maximally exposed individual. Beyond that concern, the Decision will 9 .V'[2$.W T S %.'.' M.E!/-l'H consider the four isotopes specified in the Complaint and any effects they may d \\ .., f. '. have on the environment within 2 miles of the facility. .F. :lg'.9. 5. v@;..N.,i . :#,';.?. a!.,14. M. J.11 l* . +... G.

75. Both B&W and the NRC Staff have assessed the environmental effects

, ;,.e.,.t 4y*. .. ~ h ".. n.;' ...!.w., >... ,... Nff.*l F3..., m..,'M if<.KG of H-3, C 14,1 125, and Cs-137 as well as other isotopes that will be released by the VRSF. B&W EA 6 3; NRC EA $ 6. These assessments took into account the , / > cl #4... ;,*.'.:.. *. -). ii,. - ,..t... '.. effects of the uptake of isotopes by vegetation and the inhalation and ingestion / :.-(P.../,., .m M..f.,'lM p,,5 7,'A 'Q ;! ! 7 :.,.*..!.-f

>: ~;.

!~' V.D..y,<. M 't. of isotopes by animals in assessing the dose to people from ingestion of locally g.j....'.;,.;;. S, <,.,4 y 3,;71 '[.y7>@./,.[j,,yd grown fruits and vegetables and food animals. The assessment also estimated the 5,.,$s.. '., e.,.a .,,ef.,.c.g l..;.: 'f. > n. Y[, ".//:4, G ', N.; .s. l;M.P Q';i.n' dose to people from inhaling these isotopes. Potter (Complaint 3) at 2. A specific r,

e.v

.y... .. :. (...;;;.., t. . F.. n. assessment of radiation doses and health impacts from these isotopes in aquatic 2

. 4..

pathways to man was not performed, because there will be no burial of isotopes ...r. a. ,m '? y y e.)g /.,-s,.;.1,".,.;;' +/ WD... v..../l; and no liquid discharge. Thus, the only route available to these pathways would t >f'I.MlM.yQ. 'YJ.Mf.lJst,*,'d.l;*W:3lT..Nep.f ;,,h;/ J., N be by transport of deposited effluents, and consequently it seemed reasonable ,. 3

N

(/2[h7"T:3fIf4d /,G',$'Mf. to expect that radiation doses from the four isotopes through this indirect route 1.,,q.. i.'n ; ;:. 5:,'.. 6 0 ',.'~ f;-l * %*:q.;i,M i g(' ;.L.Y, *" ', n ' ;. c;;r. v..* h v. v:p Y. qc; }.,4.*,q,.., ;M.f';?.l.r.; p.':.-i;..sq:.

WR.,g*;v:.h,..'.Q.. t.4.fV;os b. c. w..,'.'., %..i.O,M.

, Ya 4 2 6 2 ;,,.. .s . C_.. ,. u 871

t. g:.'.p w3.QE.,(;i. ;O,. x'd;i.; n.y:

v, v%~~ .s D' '. g. ),%u.7. *.,,;;[, *~..r*g'fr:.D.,: y*;'K::fr;;,+f..h, .,s v")/,47 *.;%g..,;,n:. ?.n. v- %'.g;.y: 'y'h c.c,y,,. V. b;; - ...o .4 u ' 3. t.7..;. * *t./W.7p;j;* . e.Ja V.,,c.3.Q. l .. m.

s.g r;pf;Q.QlL';)w'+.e%.g %*' & p.L;./,%'.'
Q.,;,. +.

na Y** %(.i.,D ; 4 s -D p yl%".ys , :..~.{.gti C,r;.%.w.,w. y,. y, p...., ;. .+

: ..,.-;a y;. z,. ;.

.C . g,p p,.. + P g (.y. ..... ;,.. g,,, e.a:.,. y y. e.- ?.. r. ,. yrN , ) 2_.,,;,.; ;.c 3.. y y: a,

:, z.

,.+.s .x. s. ~.. ; .( s .c. 1 ...m g

.m,. v n m n :3

.2co..y.: . G,n., Mai..NQW;p.,th,.g,. WQ.W,.. >. ~.

... + a.-- .,r.w .,M e.. a..},m3, %% :,:Wg. ' m.d, >';M:x c.w...w@q!;-w". y c. y .4, g.:.w. c.w 44-g 6% N Y5 ? Y. 'l W @n d w M@e% n.# %s. W,, % M M M.$ a 5 QWM.M9M,WMM me.Mwh4yg@g.M../{,a.n...,a.,,.p sa gWm. A.aM.n.. M, W:, 4. 7:..,. '.t.;;w;)'.s.,.,,y..$ gig.:m. ;n.s,g,..., .n .?: v;;n. .W v.g:. .;. y w.%em s., s..n;. ~.,.,m.s ,m...v.x

g. -. g g?p, ;%m.s :c. :%w

.o n.s. w

. m n

,.w .. ? n would be negligibly small relative to the more direct atmospheric and terrestrial ,5QM h. '@,. g[......% .3 ..i E.3 g.h.. d.s.$. g# pathways for which doses were evaluated. Id. at 2-3. i;. fc . FffG:

76. B&W performed an analysis to determine potential doses from H 3,

.g y. p,.p&-(jg.

t.f;

,;g3.y.....g W u, my; 1-125, and Cs-137 indirectly introduced into the water ingestion pathway m e h. 1 9. w'l. v. s. ,. n.

g. 0. w..

2r response to Complaint 3. C-14 was omitted from the analysis because water %@..,g, !gP.,f. ~ m.. y g. 4 g '11. '.Af>i!.M'gg4:{W is not a significant source of carbon. In the analysis, B&W assumed that y ,.Q5.; *i f,f,.. 6 the quantity of isotope deposited on vegetation and soil at the point of the -, N.*'*- J;l?:'M.@.'.".Ms. .a -.h p.5,h~9, s..:- T maximum exposed individual in the B&W EA is dissolved in rainfall which ' y$d..,l3.2, G G.',$?t$,ef'Qg5@$. M is then directly ingested. The concentration of H-3 in rainwater was assumed T,Q.M.G.4 to be the same as the concentration of H 3 in the atmosphere water vapor at [,%.$Q,'.k,,. M4 l.'.$ Of,c;.6' "' '.. i .QJ.'. fs;QA.%'O.,M. the same location. Water consumption rates used in the analysis were taken from Reg. Guide 1.109 (Rev.1), Table E-5. The maximum doses calculated on T...VT. V... 'E'.D.MN,,'.:c . ':0 .e..,. oMW the basis of these assumptions were 0.10 mrem /yr for total body,13 mrem /yr m O.'.f. 1.4.}~[l.f" ', p, jip. D.P? . a;. j, for the thyroid, and 1.1 mrem /yr for any other organ. Potter (Complaint 3) ... s. ~.,.. .;p.1,-Q . l. f.i M....., ?j ; at 3. This bounding assessment ignores the reduction in concentration of these ,., @;'. @ N., r, jQly."h@ isotopes which would result from decay, from dilution by uncontaminated ground .? V water and surface water flows during transport, and by removal of isotopes

p..h'rQ.O,QQ/,i'QM.:;. M.,.m.;;g.

a 1 d. ih.V3.Q;M,p@7l@y T from water to sediments.1125, which has a half-life of approximately 60 days, !". t.h>.t. WM9. y?. 7 j,' [';S,"j',,1 would decay during its transport through the soil, through the watershed, and D. 6,J M..ym..... s., x,.7. 's.,. tluough the reservoir systems. Cs-137, which has a strong tendency to adsorb .~. e f f ". Q .=,Wp on clays and other materials, would be retarded during transport through the .c. w 3 w M.,7.".y .J. y. 7 d'l'.~S * $ j Q S I';i M pathway, and also its concentration would be reduced by removal of Cs-137 in k: -M'.$ sediments. Both isotopes would be diluted by flows of uncontaminated waters M(E ')',M f,;Rd'yp'$;.M *d@: in ground we.er or surface water systems. Id. at 4, citing National Council k'.f)j f,gQgy.J.";g.Q.p@%,{ on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)," Radiological Assessment: }; Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by Man of Radionuclides h, :."t. L;;'. c.V..:JV M.N. p TW o M-s"? ,f Released to the Environment," NCRP Report No. 76 (1984) (NCRP 76). I,.P.... ;#F,', ',g.. ~,$, u. ipl.,[,...,..... 4 d .'/? 'f@,

77. To the extent that Complaint 3 is also expressing a concern that plants

.! !! &. v.ic"h..... eAM 't.' di ' and animals within 2 miles of the VRSF may be adversely affected, apart from pyl7@:'[f,g:y%.,,@M.pW. . ~

nn

'/ p:',; gM,ygg, pf,':'*;;d

the relationship of plants and animals to human health, there is ample evidence

%(;.Mggfh.hp'ld,y,% .p l' in the scientific literature that protection of man from environmental radiation is

w p,.jld Q

M

,.Z adequate to ensure protection of biota. This conclusion is supported by Chapter (pl{#.W;M.1 D3 Mf; .U O M $fCf6 IV, " Environmental Transport and Effects of Radionuclides," in " Effects on

d,. f MS N

%;['? @m.u r,; y,v." W'. @i,,..r' r, w Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" (PB-239-735), n. gQg;;jy %: ;gqdg ,( published in 1972 by the National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee

.E.* fig $p.g@yfqf

, Jp d;$, d g'.J/',.'.c. N,.c'..v on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiatior' (BEIR) (1972 BEIR Report)." After

t Q.V. ;

M '.#...d....n. @. L. distilling a large store of research data, the 1972 BEIR Report concluded (at M 34) .... k g.,g iO .: 6 3].s j..:'Ma.4pf.w!* QQQ.N.h'". Giv y, A.-S . W.,*4.,. .v. WN.* W!!.k*;y. g.pg 1,,,. jf,. cr. r %.<.i:-sp T WQ. df),.:? i:? * ;; %*g .. e"i.,.: z. .* ~,Y V "In reponse to a questmn about a later BEIR Repon pubbshed in 1980. B&W's witness rephed that he was /, /1 'p'hy. i.W'2/Y*."Mi[,Ih-f[('If,M" y*. " unaware of any cornprehemswe evakstions of the subject pubbsbed since BEfR 1972 or of any studies which

$f

,Qv.M.G.. ,;.p.gl would invahdate the BEIR conclusmns ened in my tesitrnany." Tr 399 (Potter). ,-a,[;y!.,.hr y';,'.{s.'.@,?W" : g '.r M / t .L', i.g.,,...s.,& t N. ;n.;ce+,.A k.u.G.,4.,. /:t..o.,p; c r s;, .e. x, ,.gI .* Qu v;sh<*I,((&. 8.. . ' r%'M. h.,g'" *. . ff ..s,q :p. e w.{. '.n?

c* d,a~.O. W :%.'gA' '

d, '[' #. .s W.,M, a , - r s., p,.': p.,,, &..L f9:M. w.? 4 . d A 872 .:.? y;t.p. s.-. w. u.,.;.w. cN.+ rJ .n.g 4.m. [t.,., m;.,% h n. &;.

t. p...

w,, i.. 3*

v

.y : p..#...- We .y.f... v f,- p%... i.G. ASO,j.i Q** v",.:.g.,,..w ,.., e. ~.,.4. a... .g g. Y m m 'vlW y:e. $ .t Gy HuQ'~ wm ygWis9pp3pME!NEG?rW?@%[WrMWNMGM@ ~ M, M;... ~iN N M d M .mpym&q,MMWWW!MMhW 'M,,es -c. a y. -n. . e.3 .. ~ ~ v mm i f

.? ~ 4 1'd '.s

f;.-: -.i..sc.s.O. n

... '..... i, '! w.. ",. y k' 7 m]$v:yl2m ;'% w, (j.MG.*fy&l[h*i@& 'd}.~ r.,~,NjQ,.N;h%;:. 3W b .q.' hkgMtNl.M lt % 4 $td .k,WII.*%1:y'[9 ..h.? M g.M'.'.s 2 ,yf 'O-) % N$ N,# @Ni @g s:,N '8.$[l5;/,1,? @li,- @M*, @M.'i S Evidence todate indicates that pmba.bly no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than man so that if man as an individual is protected. then other organisms .'c.,.<h' b.fM1.. 'th @. S?/..@t-d,d.w,,.,.. #.h.as populations would be most unlikely to suffer harm. In fact. it is very di'licult if not .'q %'F;p;g,W@M-RT.Q. g,. Q.n+.:,0@ef'.y$[&c. a M}.i. &,tf h '. M. h.k s,@M.h;k,r 4.].r.f,4'LN.k*, 2).

W

%h'b,I impossible to deted any effects of radionuclides in the environment even at concentration much higher than the minimum established by regulation agencies. CM. $.p. 3.wh,-(,NM:.y%%:.V.n,,

n.

f q Ih* SI 'w . Jn 4:2,.y :

T.y IN[Qe hf!

The EPA, in proposing dose limits that were ultimately codified in 40 C.F.R. Part U,,h.[m[.N,Thi)h.:,%%.y: k-k::MI.'Q7,' ,Qfj 190, expressed a similar conclusion in the explanatory statement: 3 rn t r.w y v i-n -Q m Standards developed on this basis are believed to also protect the overall ecx> system. since h!/ N -Q;;t.tyd ff,y.!d there is no evidence that there is any biological species sensitive enough to warrant a greater h *,' h..b,08 8..~M..i.D/,Y..m*.;;U,,f k.*,f,'([.t;s h !.,.W,p. fe! y' $. y level of protection than that ade9uate for man. E I m.. a .,~a ';.s,...% .t)yp; PCs n:- V;/.. ~... n < C M W 3 M.7,fk.l.g

s.gTjM: :

. v.y n. ~. e .g[.,'Jf. g.g;'cI 9 W. 5. c:9.,. 40 Fed. Reg. 23,420 (May 29,1975). In view of the fact that releases from t.*,9 @..qs%,..;...@...;,,.d": W: i vp . y.m. b routine operation of the VRSF will be substantially lower than the limits .p.,..9. ;;.6 : N.- @/;i established by regulatory agencies, it can be inferred that there will be no adverse sl t...<.N.,. h.p@b3,... ; f,,td4.gy%.t,M,. f M,.4[i N p's.

'h.N'l.J:2 effects on organisms in the environment. Potter (Complaint 3) at 6,7.

. s g,,. M $l

78. To conclude, the testimony shows that releases of H-3, C-14, I-125,
/pl %[?i Jy' g.i' j'.Y I'lh M. [d and Cs-137 from routine operation of the VRSF will be well below regulatory .' ' 9 ' " j limits and hence will have a negligible effect on human health and safety. Since ,,'.y.,,. I l.?:'r, @ 8 @M t, . ;7 scientific evidence indicates that probably no organisms are very much more
f ;"; O. $,/ S f li'li + ' @ W /L d
~.. : :...- :.a.,.t.. :,.., C ;. radiosensitive than man, it can be inferred that the releases will also have a ,7W.M ;P.,;,1,5 'S.W.. s :e " '.. Q ".,0,,f g negligible effect on other organisms in the environment. ~. ~ 3..g 9
c.. ~ u.. :.n ave
.,..x.. y ;y..:%... :. r.n..c,.,. ::,.f.. ~.... A... 'W., s ',,. '. } Complaint 13 (Effects on Residences and Schools Within 1 Mile) r 9 v ..~. ~.. o .y D ?'(. c.[..,. :.@. " 5f e,d 'V.'..C,. 4.$,* [. Licensee and Staff have not analyzed the population in residences and schools within one ,'c e, y mile of the VRSF. and the danger to them from its operation. 'Ihe facility should be located g2 . s. "e f. .y,, .t ,l0-i.( f... f,: !!! '. Q,/ ' '.'.....$.,, * ', in an area with lower population density. 't,..t. .....n,.., e .r,- O t. , - l<
79. No computation was made of doses to the particular groups specified M:.fY;;.;dl,@'g A t-2 @@ W....%. ' 6 '"),%., k %:f.%
'i7 ' in Complaint 13. They were included in the 50 mile population, for which S..i;'.y.. ,y C,D'd'l.';k, doses were calculated and discussed in the B&W EA, 67. As discussed earlier, 'id'[5lY[i/' 'T doses were computed for the maximally exposed individual. In response to 3.y. 7,3, 7 ' j [. :^d..'N[' ' '.4, 4.; ;
,0l'.7.Q
.( ), c,...).; ?6 '. Complaint 13, B&W conservatively assumed that each individual in the two
g,R.O ; % '.'l,'. Jl, 4 /*f:~,l',' j '
specified population subgroups received the same dose as the maximally exposed .,, 3. pg. N 0 4,'.,1,, !!:,f. 9],,;;,, individual living only 200 meters from the incinerator stack. Potter (Complaint M.Y.uh;." l. >.:. ;],";*V, '..: %' l % ' ' ~'y y. l.2 @'..Q$. : ' sl. G*',".,r m.:&..
13) at 1-2.
.N Mf/l-lN. ~.M
80. The resident population within 1 mile of the VRSF is approximately f
s-e. e. l c W ' 2. %. K...c E ]l 4500. Id. at 2, citing B&W EA at 5-3. The maximum exposed individual would ) y'g,.C. o.f. 7 ".,Y,T..... R..%' .e .k g. ' receive 0.0019 rem /yr whole body,0.012 rem /yr thyroid,0.005 rem /yr to any .N',
5. 5,:.
2 4 fy j,. [ D+^7.f y gfpy# '.i.' I.?'W.E.d.. ' seY J2f.J4/. ( y q. M other organ, and about 0.001 rem /yr to each of these organs from other facility j .&c E sources, such as direct radiation from inventory and transportation. Id, citing c h p'i N,/' ).-Q.' N. d '.:v.$, d W.."...i,0 B&W EA, Table 7.3. Ihe resulting population dose to the population within 1 i M..m..,'. R; fl. V.:,; %..1* 7. *.y y ' J.,.y = r~3.,:q.y:n.-l ry...,., \\'.. y..., ; a..,. ';e, ) \\ .z.r \\ s r r* q
A.,.' p.g?
p.
r...
?' J. -
,/ ct. .r ..,,. ' h .* $.' e '.
O
( , h, {e 'h *: V.I ); 2.j,lb.,.'\\ ).. ;'l'.* *. * ;.l h**J1..>k#: 'e pc. 4, w :,wr',.i....,. p p, p.. g.,, jif.,h~,,,; % *. g73 . e..s=# g,", s.,: . : *.., s. w.- . ;. s 1 8 i ., ~L,. L cA ~ '.
o... s. se a r. e... s,%,. p' g &. u ;, m* r.
c.,, r;m...,..,., n, y v y t.. L.';'p)r,j;.p,..~ s;* ;;v. f j:,.,n '.~ s- :, g.. p.., y ~. - - , Y %lv,#M.~. 4q.8.',y, f.q...:s.;q w,r:a,,.; y -
s.:'i'b".. t. :;. :l' QK. ";;,4

m '
n @f'b.,[%m y'd.h> D'.W %'HM'E ** M)h
a-W
.;;jg >,,.i.: ' #,-l' D *: Yyh Nh.*l$k IW . g.73 4. !Q %.dj $b,'y.m.h.., WNNyd JM w.e u. w; cd.i% ,,m7w.h..ghh..g. f s.3 hkk M s d @fS M W.f% M { M T! V i W W (.5.'S W M p 7.9 y A M.~P2/r, h hff f .I-~. .. _.,.,,,ni.,s. -,.,,. _..,,.e, s e
u m m'- ' metkhp%.Qiht D., k:e.%.%Q W W ~.M t f.hp$:$$v;.$,.C.&%WW.$v.v: ~ v. e, i mile would be 14 person-rem /yr total body,59 person-rem /yr thyroid, and 27 N'hh*$ j'/M%rg.k:y Q@N.k@d,h2/4 ihh,b.k . person-rem /yr to other organs. These population doses convert to small fractions ' g .p of one health effect."Id. at 2. YY..A.@M,%p.sN; H Sh# M. :<
81. B&W was unable to obtain the size of the school population within N."r~.4,. 2. h.~. :h.
l mile of the VRSF. Therefore it estimated the school population based on a M ll i.N gJg;;,:;g*g[J. 8-.M,y @r-total enrollment in 1985-1986 of 1026 students in the Leechburg school system -.. {g'i,p,j;g,/gy, m l M; . grade school and high school, even though some of these students attend an p.q p%.j p3.gg;M M2.g&p.g.%. elementary school beyond 1 mile from the VRSF. It was assumed that the school ?,d.p g r % C,g.; k;q':g ; Q population of interest totaled 1200, which allowed for a full-time staff numbering $@Jg.y V,', Q t, M g.f 20% of the enrollment. The analysis ignored not only the fact that some of the t.@h;%7 students attended a school beyond 1 mile but also the fact that some of the %, pt .{ school population was included in the calculation of doses to residents within k M..r., W.y j y f j, Qlw Qaf.g5. 1 mile. Students and school staff would get lower doses than the population n.... bC.O WW.d,y Ds*.M f. l E,fM. y. living within 1 mile because at school they would not be exposed through food %W W,.',O...,...'?' 4. M, W. S.;.J.". w F pathways and because they are not prese'nt in school 24 hours a day,7 days a ./,ih, G...w ;d;s f week. The calculated resulting dose to the school population within 1 mile would O.. *';.M..9 Q[,G @.?;. M;.e be 3.6 person-rem /yr whole body,15.6 person-rem /yr thyroid, and 7.2 person. f + a/ Wi .ps '
q rem /yr to other organs. These doses are also equivalent to a small fraction of
. M :$9 ~ M ';@,.gd ? one health effect. Rtrthermore, the foregoing population doses are upper-bound (fyi%;NN,Q'kqQ:. estimates because few residents and no student and staff in school would get f.k d.QX M W d ;l %g @, i W."~.h ~M.MT4 doses as high as the maximally exposed individual. Id. at 2-3. Finally, it should be noted that only small fractions of the doses from the VRSF will itsult from M ;' M MN operation of the compactor. Id. at 4 h..,n'@![.$yQ IM.h$w. n t l-llmllN. y~#".3.y,. :.e W. y.. y
,. o +
.p dh, m.A. [v, h6h$h.h... f.k . $'g,y.% s Conclusions on 11ealth Efects of Radioactive Releases .v sa s . ~..; $k..... l ' WQQ,;%'D.@[f n.%
82. In conclusion, even if every individual within 1 mile received a dose k,[./.5kM',:f equivalent to the maximally exposed individual, the health effects would not be
[ f A.gd,% & p significant. Considering the fact that the doses are without doubt overestimates, N19 7..Jlg.,N.s..m U...W/n p,,Wp d it can be concluded that health effects from doses to the population within 1 r.04yl f.a @W ithE M M @ g n g,.4j, Jg: f;;gfr..>l;*.hla. q mile of the VRSF would be negligible. N.D #.*
~ d0 5 ::.:uP il.tWQ.:Q.QfN;.
Mg?W N* Qyl: Q ' *M. k: hum Qh>.Q.;%
ir%,.Q.5 (3) Consideration of Factors Used in Dose Analyses f:
y x yl Q; 6 df. M;f.h' $.,w,. h 5 h, Yd
83. An overall conclusion concerning health effects of radiation doses from the VRSF must be deferred until after consideration of issues relating to factors Lp;.p. w..$>
.. a.8.59. gM Wm' @.w g'iM.D. T.Mp,?3!g',%g,M..m used in calculating doses. This general subject matter was covered by testimony r ,0 fy f: .g,y. in response to questions raised during the hearing as well as testimony on several W % #5Vt y},g.$c Qg R g p M MfQ. M; y complaints and is considered in this section of the Decision. w es w'.g( W@, ydsq2.$m, .r ; (g s.r.m ? offeb r. w .. y. r,.S ;,2 4 :.,.Mj N ; p:.5 W,. g. W v,.nia b pq 3 M,.,M L':jp'.f<.,D, 4... "mahh effects were calculated using the nsk coefficients discussed wra in Fmdmg 69. y' g...g, M. 3..A m. 9f dis. -. n?5hlY.,h.@.h* nf s & w. $ w f % w.h s df m A.Q:pblRh t%Dw.%>p.n,c.9%ang w.py.% e64k ?l' W h m... $h. a ll%%* h.M h.f.? N. N $.0,5$e$$m.~$ . S <hhN NE5h M...m.M~.sE N. u.. E M. _.. M N.. N,N,h M,. .,,. w., . ?. ., a ~ ? 7 e6 = \\ ll. l
I b.hh'b.h;j/Q.M@h$Dw&lthfh. h,Wf;Y l $. $ps$49.: &&?T %1 2'$: w %.tf&i 'M,?. M i %.+.,.l%,. % K.,.%. M:y:Q.p.,r.y% W qu ,u gk k,i hbh..Y [,hS[T l3.h;h[.D.S Cm M Mw pa Topoyah a MdoM 'a [h 'M..h",;Y % k., ck.' Y e.e;h F//*N'Ip;,[,h.yf M .D. y ' 'Ibe topography of the valley area has not been adequately considered in analyzing the O* . W y. health effects of emissions of radioactive iodine. Intervenors believe that releases from the M' .Ya f"Nt h b-incinerator will move upward and then lateratly to impinge on the vatley walls, thus possibly es 9,%.%.O,$.pd.;fk.s;,/,I.F h$.&@h' o %4.g,[...r.v. - L having adverse heahh effects in communities such as Kiskimere. w. o y@... ~nrw.w,'N.'.tw/: p%o.. $.d2w.k. V u.M/ Le -,.aN y MM./W.hd,b. Y.c. u w p.o ,y a kdh@.W,OMf.hiM'.M.%.byh,y,?p,yj s., hh M,w'M h
84. The VRSF site is located in the Kiskiminetas River Valley, approx.
i W imately 1 mile east of Leechburg, Pennsylvania. Hills along the valley and kMM:ADThis ' within 1 mile of the site range from about 900 to 1200 feet above mean sea b.' hit %;hNbk.h,W. DN$ I M E I.i G W IO.E inE level. These hills rise from about 100 feet to 400 feet above the river at the .N.y.M floor of the valley. Potter (Complaint 10) at 2 and Figure 10-1 (topographic %M'fy$kNNihdih[3.Yic.Y.%( (M$1 Qe,hdM..M.li'd. map). The elevation of the river is about 800 feet above mean sea level. A trace ,?.'.M @/ Wg#c..?,.C.s:.Ms, ON,. 4..*;.k%. g c; & '7 A Ml$@, ih$ of the 900-foot contour,100 feet above the river, shows a clearly identi6able .M. ' valley ranging in width from 0.5 to 1 mile. A trace of the 1000. foot contour, l 200 feet above the river, reveals a much wider valley with contours so broken .f. v..:..... su 4 .m O'.,;.M@+h:7.Ve[DU 4pW )'@7@.W. M k.$,,<'p7.h*W4;.". g s;2Mt up that they no longer form the bounds of an identifiable valley. The openness M of the valley at and above an altitude of 1000 feet is evidenced by the presence
lS?.fc t.,f;!';.
.%.rm. y f,,t.,e.'p [; :... '. G. G)+;.. t < 1, of the Leechburg Airport, locr i on the eastern side of the valley about 160 7 c,.7 ' feet above the river. Tr. 75 / Pot '8 e f ' ( *y g.['.[l [/h; _h,4hSOpf.8
85. The Intervenors, in their September 12,1985 petition to intervene char.
3, 7:: * ~~ ;;', b " O 1' acterized the valley as a " basin," creating the image of a natural impoundment [dlMPlpK.f.9.fD ;F,(,,[.9 $ @4-c' 7 i Jc ; '(.P/ within which atmospheric pollutants would accumulate. Potter (Complaint 10) '.; c, Y Q,~. ), j',7 at 2. This characterization is inappropriate, however, for two reasons. First, the d'.M 'Q..[.'$.1 '!..'il, O #...,", 9 *jj river cuts through the valley from northwest to southeast, resulting in a down-
y. N.. 4, /*/ pg ' +.0 W..,. #. 4 stream flow of air, and there is slope flow of air into the valley; these flows 0 q,. ~T '. : f....,,,..,. m' f y O '.1..
provide atmospheric transport and dispersion even during atmospheric inver-4' 9. f,. i.;f., 'f [.a..c ill3. c'..'.g.%. y,cefn.-7l J." L.,.};, sions. Second, the valley is too shallow to be sheltered from winds that occur t;'. <l.y e,, A M.,,.. most commonly and which provide good dispersion of effluents. Id. at 3.
i. ; p^i'
l',l "l f '.';. d y ly,. g,,:r.l...,, 2 h,l[ N : g..ql
$y., W
86. Low-wind-speed conditions, coupled with atmospheric inversions that

<Wy; M.l l, M.,.1 ql i,? :,< /iC.,',f;J 4 vi

W,.
restrict turbulent mixing, occur under special conditions which occur fairly w, ar.... " t s c7 cu., y it. (."M. g, ,,,~r W.k.... :.,4 frequently at all sites. Atmospheric inversions occur on clear, calm nights, when radiant heat loss cools both the land surface and the air near the land (,N M.,<f dM.G'd'(, '.b 'M.N.'.,.[3.j'! ~ . O '. : f. surface more rapidly than air aloft. Mixing is reduced by the tendency of c.:. c ,,3 the cooler, denser air to remain near the ground and the warmer, less dense .9j * -( / '. Q[W.L ;,..wN.S.i 04 g'/ ~ air to remain aloft. Typically under these conditions, however, a sensitive D ;/;.f. ;.p?.. 9J. N.. [b".', /..,>..g.$.le.l,y' ;4 n ' M.. f. tn 2;. 5..,.' anemometer rarely indicates absolutely calm conditions, even when the air seems .,$a ; %:[c* ' '" . M".. U,ll.,,.Af'.A,0.J.,*p/.,$'M., e. ";. T.C. g,,'.c.' b ; j absolutely still. Even at low wind speeds mixing is not eliminated, because some F8 . '. Q. frictional turbulence exists. If wind speed increases during the night, it can break ,. v. 2 m. I ' *.,".,A. -[ [( - 9. Q.,, . 6,..;'. ;M n t :.. *.. e.;,. -' ;,,, ? t' g -ga ff,(M 4.l*k' ' f ('*".j. s.! L** [' V ' i* '+ '; I. .e. '.yS'..e;,i.} 4 e - if ' ' . '..v J.t U. i f 18
i Durms the site visit on october 29. 1986, the Presidmg Officer and the parties were taken on e ar of the b v2 't ', '-
'l J/* y;N. !. "f;... ?t[
7 '?.
f valley and the hius on the eastern side of the vaney. In addition to a dove thragh KWomete. .s tour mcluded i... % ? 'l~.. k.'N. 1. n[.h.k. N.
?a-m;,N:. 3
.N.,.[!.">!2..v.l.Wh
l'.We.
a dme past the airpon. S.,. W.es.s'... g ....s... s.
u. f :.,.,.
a. ..Q
g::t;.,ap. V.s.-.
..y i . g:v ..m c.. ?:.~.Q;il;.l}plt:".Q.~n ' %... e:,.c?* y, ;.M;n.8 &.R % . ;; c i .~y T x Qf>; W cf:,y'
. ;,.
dg 875
'5
>2'k,1,.t W.P..%.. p' Wl:y. QMW '.
bl-Q.
3 v.p.r.t:,c,,p,.a.m,,',s.. v.c.;['. g,f..a:.?-;'A.-i .t w,.? e.y :4.. -.
rw
. ; m,a
e. -.

y%..., ef..x 'fy
.s..[ )i'(?y N,4 [',/'.,m.., f
n. ',
1.. t -
R;. ; 1Wg* :p s
..o. 4' 4
M_f n.DM Q 4 d.

M* #e~;,{!.v.
q %.,;.;y',, v W %m. M.,n. %g -!o.m,.. 4 W.
e..a p
Y -- %. >v %s v h. . L,.e.p,< > 4l.y;;; ;;%+ 4 q$ wq:.p?h:n.yGr~n?.7 0mq,:m,k yc r x..>- pNh , <*.p,o ve s, ;.; wnm.; . 4? t a ;g:.:~tb+. ? .re v w. w n-k"hkfhh g b.5 h h$ g#.mM.ff.x:a.'h..w.f$$ fkan40..:p.hi$mt;ym[,f:.my.kr h9h .y Q % m ;-c,,,. s :c. s,..y %. .S:. ms. at w,u. cM.L..:.::. w n cmg m h.,x w,>w>. w.y.wm.A,w,;s,c..c.wwi,: w.. :;:m..;::w,..; v. t.;+we..,,:s,w y rp~m.,,i,. p t.w.u:. w pw.:. v..., s,..,,.a.,, 4 ...a
s(;.,.
.....y .y. L
n. :
e:*i.,,.
,s - wm,. 5.,..,.., s ~ y e. Q.;l,.,,,, ;*', - .,.1 . g i.
5.'0, 0f,.+.wt%'h;'kh,w.MkQi?)ag$N8l?y(5'{s W E %!hX Y W Nl W hyh5f.u~ yit'??9e iWM ww &$pnVp;. *q.y..<.;1k b m... v "v.:.9 m p g 4.00$iM&&NWh! Ebb.h{$v y *a,d;i&,,M;. 9. g;:*we.:.g..g!.Cg f p.t p.nMn. 2 .g.1% 1 N % M M ': M M y 9.c.m p v .l P m m.v.w w. &gw Q J/:r. Mc. ~ %;;* V,.q. w~. 8., e % ff-g. 4 ?;m;;..M.4;Al1. 4.% N y. ayat.
. Q y%*#; n /. y*l;& ;.4;

y e G & ;4...; 3.,::: m,w.

a
}2: M.? f v.+ glW V: ,f. p. N P + nV r 1
s up inversions and improve dispersion conditions. If wind speed remams low It.0(0c;gg@4 y,yg-p throughout the night, the inversion will break up shortly after sunrise. The sun 2.w'd. '. (.N.. m.%f.t. '"WW will heat the land surface and adjacent air layer more rapidly than air aloft, and g 'M ;/.4&s.Q..h. $.J.$.. 4.M M
Y@s$. i'.l.3,M.ff!D,. h: '. JJl;q .h... the warmer, less dense air near the land will rise, to form convection currents n which promote rapid atmospheric conditions. Id. at 3-4 M,f.4 M,pryU:.$,;5* /* 9,"pN'
87. At the Parks Township site, inversions may occur at a slightly higher F j:,.$*2,V y
frequency than at other sites in the region not located in river valleys. The -Qy.qy @ M ;M;,9f ,$"fl' hills shade the valley in the morning and in the evening, so that the valley EM,%N d#,N yf land surface is quicker to cool by radiant heat loss in the evening and slower ?...tI W%.....S M y,Jg..?:fl'#?;/n,..u.d@,$. c to warm the following morning. For purposes of analysis, B&W assumed an .W.v..M. Nl%, Y,'jC.MM'"l.M. /, e inversion frequency of 33%. Data from Pittsburgh International Airport indicate iti. l."l{. ', an inversion frequency of slightly less than 30%. Inversion frequency in the 7 ,,;,N-y;a 't, hl[fp Kiskiminetas River Valley would be expected to be higher, but only slightly y; M {.g S,7ff;[.'{,. ' higher, because the time available for shadowing is small and the sheltering ?,;f.'if f(b;J.U 7 a 3 effect is slight based on wind measurements at the site. Id. at 4; 'IY. 77. A[7.8.;.D: . P,. W UC.$ >"'4-l.
88. In their September 12,1985 petition to intervene, Intervenors included Y
. e..M_.@. M....',N,,.I,.'..'s M. 4.,,... photographs taken in the Kiskiminetas River Valley which purported to show l; Q g f,r .. ig.{l.pff,p:7. 'q, ) ~.9,% gl.3' M ll;g. ','t. N that "(a]ir hovers around the perimeters of this basin. Petition to Participate [,5.y7.*y,m; W, @. 9:y,,,.,.X f,.%'.$s.
N,,. ?. '.li in Informal Hearing, September 12,1985, at 2 Exhibit 1.A. B&W's witness si#'
W0 [.'E.~[.. #:j;fll attested that the photograph appears to show high morning fog. If so, it illustrates ff.f f.. .ff '. l the surface. warming phenomenon that occurs in the morning following a 'le f. ' b. W.... G.,;. M.. w.?., u. s. . w....s h,, m. nighttime inversion. The higher air mass containing fog is cooler than the dew <'. y".W.,,T.,O O je.; U .X point, so that water vapor in it is condensed into fog. The clear air below contains .%1v. '. o ., t 9 water vapor in approximately the same concentration, but the temperature has ' Q..,J: i;g , N. Q ) 'if Q Q :.. (.. ..'; @.,.,. M... 4.F y ; risen to above the dew point so that water is present as vapor only. Potter Jfl Jc ' c..,$ (Complaint 10) at 4. t N[g '.*, 9 ;g @,$ f .t M );[.N i h
89. The dispersion model employed in the B&W EA was the standard, MEM Dr
i widely used Gaussian atmospheric dispersion model. Id. at 6; B&W EA at j
y. '.,2Q. hkl.".N) 61; 'IY. 72 (Potter); Tr.150 (Resnikoff). B&W determined that the model was
, M;j ' ' A@W'*%N.' Wh,U$ i appropriate to use for the VRSF because at the location of the maximum offsite ,,WWM <;a% dose, and at nearer locations, dispersion is limited not by the river valley but 'NU'@ YON'M !a.,v$q;y;.An%e,.:, ,m by turbulence. Potter (Complaint 10) at 5. The NRC Staff, following a site visit M@; d.3. N., d sg
9y,4.fl Wy
[T . 't during which they gained extensive knowledge about the terrain around the M- . K. h[g' Q': g %.,q $.'7g;g site, came to the conclusion that using a terrain model rather than the Gaussian sF. f m... GMDM ..,.Qyl t .w u.7..n. y model would have no substantive effect on the calculations because the terrain 3.- $.y:
r, Q

d.3g;g has little effect until some kilometen downwind. Tr. 93 94 (Blond). The distance y@,Q$'fyg,g y,%.
downwind at which point the valley would begin to limit dispersion is about $fy,T.$*B.jf.,y'f. 2dG,GM;Q 3000 meters, and the full effect of the valley would be exerted at more than 8000 fh9['j. N " '{k~;hk%?EM meters. Tr. 79 (Potter). The distance used to calculate the maximum dose to an individual is, of course, much closer than these distances (i.e.,200 meters). Any gj . [.f.}.hQ'$.Q doses that might be calculated for more distant receptors, such as at Kiskimere, M.s.. =f 6 d. '.; ~ F f' Yf-N"a i o,W, M, $..J,, W / would be lower than that calculated for the maximally exposed individual in r..M.e NW 9 ;n..4gg.w W ,sW,G.*;Q c.y.~ mMg,:,fum.6,s. &m p y 3M N ht ' D [U[d W,? M.6G d[Yd$.$ p:yW.9Q *b@ d.e y? EN.p'"k 876 W i ? M
4 y

.;3 h
3NMWh pw[:9,h;r ? WKQ.W?. v. 50'*h,h5&%VNY@hh.$h'$" mK M* o,M,. '.M+ u +., :,M.,.ya y '.,n,,..y.:.M' *: mb.* >N. w: v ~;;- .m. m M .c >. n n., >f i = e. A
... ~. - f h..,e,.y.[. M'$ N.I.? g,;. 4,,r W,.M.i m r p.., y p-... s.. ,4;.ps. u...s :.;. p.. w.. r .:y .w. . q.h, %(& p@j,g,...) .~0 N [f b .s,g9.n . g..dM1. M.Y..v h *jh )m& b.h,llc.pml.%iN [.. g: $h'%p p 9 w. W 5I4 i @ m.,'s.E i~k'J..ib.D M 'v: n@.,[3 M %,,%.a..k-D Table 7.3 of the B&W EA. Id.; Tr. 95 (Sturz). Hence the doses at these distant .- M V n%g.W.*.,.x c w. n M,r/ Q :l;f 4 - $@t. W. t> %.. M.. P,. % W r. c.wg. Stg receptors would have no discernible health effects. P:E MM.k
90. B&W's calculations for dispersion of VRSF effluents discharged into Y<.Op[b, @if6 ii-N..$k['$'.,e y$$y Ny$
y.y
E f
'h. the atmosphere under normal operating conditions take into account both the 5 <.a M. ?! f. uly T, u occurrence of atmospheric inversions and the confmement of releases in the ..,m.O.R. /s.f c q( @e w%.,hi, g.. r M..f4 7< . ?h:qy y G',.*iMy-p ( n M'?f,v valley, Potter (Complaint 10) at 5; B&W EA at 6-1; Tr. 71-72 (Potter). Inversions r $hhNh(Mhfffi$hhpl MHh5'f:.!Mr.hI,hldMM M.N'2@hib h$N were accounted for by assuming that stable (F stability), unstable (B stability), (f.Jk .(y and neutral (D stability) conditions each exist one third of the time. Potter h.hI, (Complaint 10) at 5-6. The release was modeled as a ground-level release so 3.'g*,p%. M. M.;}Mb.%"M.5,yp$/ME.:5'RM f#$ i.X13,4*. that the value of sigma could be used as a measure of the depth of the plume 'r/.x.E. f.W*D.n. MW. hNM &fN with downwind travel. About 68% of the plume is contained within an elevation 8.&JW.lM.s a of I sigma and 95% is contained within an elevation of 2 sigma. At a distance M- +- A-ts.% 1 ww ay ().V.$.-pci,.as.s.,?;.,,u...-,.,.s+.i:,. w.M...,.. meters for D stability (neutral), and 12 meters for F stability (stable). Thus for .!n
cjp;~ ',-' W..i Q
of 0.5 mile the values for sigma were 98 meters for B stability (unstable),28 A..g. /,%q.a c.. M...l M.. p.*.'w!$c?r.. (nCM'rflI h!. /;.lW ld@Mg'97dA S ki:h' r,v;y both F and D stability the plume is assumed not to rise above the height of f,.;.W~.,nNN..,Q.u. My,,,p,.s.M..; TF, . ugf,y y.J.V. n....: the valley within 0.5 mile of the plant. Therefore, in calculating the maximum t . @;v.,5 m.:.v.y7;f',...$ individual dose for annual average conditions, it was conservatively assumed .. w
.s a.e v ;q m,. a@.e. y h... / M..g',.(
that the plume was confined to the valley two-thirds of the time. Id. at 6. a @M;..n.,.., r.. .e. o, -c s. ,y M.Mj,,W', k;Y[%(ff/N.'y[j f,'Jyf,VWy'r.!
91. For the accident analysis, dose evaluations were based on the assump-i M M E.'d,I-Q'.. W d f.h UM 5.
tion that highly stable, light wind (1 meter per second) conditions exist through-
..cjy NO.h
.A. out the release. The plume was contained within the valley for the duration of F /d"y' i,..fFM b;(? $ & M.'# ,j*, the accident. Id. . N /.'.k,;'U > t f s, ffy)?..J. c;$2,J " '."....,5l. " c*/
A.2
. @N,' M, J; d
92. As T&W acknowledges, in the 1979 EA the Staff employed a disper.
T- .... c.h. sion model that did simulate terrain effects. The site boundary dispersion factor W,.. -., g eJ J.4 S. ., 1.., @,' A y.'..'.'. h.,.'. ...l u..... >f,G. @S.< 3 .2 .,J (55 meters WNW) was 7.9 x IP second per cubic meter (sec/m ), which is .p,. j '3/.r,,s..n'v..'ft.;,..K"V.y. 6.,N', .,.. Y..'i lp.: .s .J-reasonably close to the value of 3.1 x IP calculated in the B&W EA for a lo-cation slightly farther away (65 meters WNW). Id. at 6-7. The difference is not [.'3:%. i,4 J.' M. f. 7t f'c., 9 M'T,.:.M;,;Jg. ~d.Nl[R. J;.d.i"2. [D,i'..%j.Q significant, and may result from more than just the different models used. The M.H 'sl [,.. u.....'. glt.
..m
~ 1979 Staff analysis used meteorological data from the Pittsburgh International .. 0... ;p.;.g g;>'!lj' y; Airport, and it also apparently double-counted the occurrence of inversion con- /[c,J. E 'p..,$[';;%5, i /;M@.j,fy)d%]'; g .S. , D ef[. ditions. Id.; R. 72-73. The valley model used in the Staff's 1979 EA was de-f,;,Mj'f$;C veloped for use at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where the valley is deeper than at j;j.q M.W ('.W'j :".' f iM.i.; P,' Parks Township. D 75-76,78-79 (Potter). As indicated, supra, after a thorough MI.D.M/ @.7'h.N" F." N,%;p'. study of the Parks Township site Staff came to the conclusion that the Gaussian W y" v...F.. W:.. rather than the valley model is appropriate. Tr. 93-94 (Blond). ,.,.,r. /,a,Y...'.';,G lq.yt cf.. +. L,g M..'., t.,s.;fn. q.. :. '.W.W.- 1 , P.".,C,y %r
93. An important element of conservatism in B&W's analysis is the
.r A .f e .,t 1%.yp,.*
s.y.$ { s" ?
assumption that the release occurs at ground level, rather than as an elevated 'J$.70hM.$,$g(1#1r.Idv I.[ ".*% w.M(.h*Q,M*;.$.1 release from the 55. foot incinemtor stack. Potter (Complaint 10) at 7-8; Tr. 81 .YhQ $'$/.QM (Bowles)." Disregarding the stack resulted in an overestimate of the dose ~ M:.t . y ,: c9 ,.,....d D',EfI' h,.2.. m.. n:' ~ M,a.M.[.m:u: ~ .-,.:.'.,:. w, +,&m
a o
.~y ,y. $..w..h.5, l'Wimens Bowles tesnfied that the requirement by PaDER that a stack must be 2.5 times the begh6 of the nearest U, ;l'.,',1..g N ".?' '*e. t -/ 4J a C +%.1 ,gf 0..Q.',.* M,5 .cj. buildmg means that the inemerator off gas stack must he 55 feet in height M:,. g :.~< Q : p,-'.~y..;.c.rN..,....T'. , q /p. s m v
a. m m,w..q'.;N. :
'.Q; iW.R:.nu. P.W;ra a:i.v.:m'i.P' *. N. .... A lrw u.n w.,.,Wy.i.* l':..:p p..!Q.b ~4. / e
.lp.lc p.- 4
.~. L. e.. <,a';;u.3.;Q:nl::icYfw;q;' c:..?; gyy ',;W.p.2.?; y;h }MglPll;i:n.M.s&. ; y..?., &.-g c,p ;e.. 7
.. b., - ys
.e.,.. f.w..g.e C..x. % M...,;'l,: ;e ;.. ,;y;r':- l l.. i.v.,... : v.;$'.'?,' *.,l k,$$'.&...w..;xlt'r:Q Q.G.h. %. k;W l* y
~?9 y;t6*.>;:%. %;<;fl.% U e
~i % n;$.i:. 2tf q.g%;d. f.1Qq W:.h,2Q@,qg,;jg/;4:.d..q., g v.g,y,: 7.h. N KJ M.,fe.b.@z. a. I._c.W 9% m t,. c:.fg 9 $.,h. -h., h~ hkhh. k. b. N_b..!k.emqd%.gw..; . ~ - m, r,.. W M d @ u 7 %u.q u.,. p. r.r. W ; 4 h;,W..n.p;p ; m,. p w' w.m,w @ m. g y 4 p M. v d q q Nip 4-Sc 9 % w q.v g,.w.,p.3 % # N w &.-9%.w,.rwptre hh_h. k. h.S.,N.! . m-e
m.m.~.,;i;'m a, m,m m m ha.u..M,.;;,.,m..t m, w1 ' ..f. v . gc'r M,.g. %v.. %,. CM y
m...,s s...s..:,.
(..ww w..g;wq.... %e sp. s J. ., s... w..,c. t; <3.r.. .v.. j ~:u s ?:v o v3 a a... m.4,Wc...M:.,r,. :,K.Q W y 2, . m..t. . m.:, . : s.y.es. c.q g nc...>.;;:.u;j.~yy, r m...m...s i.4.Me3$l';g.., w.$,d.,$n.sh. received by the maximally exposed individual at 200 meters; if the stack had %y.l8,.y y;% been considered, the dose to receptors farther out, such as at Kiskimere, might Q'*$@'%y%'$@.s&6 be greater than the dose at 200 meters given a stack re' ease, but it would not be i r.D. v.f-J[$I greater than the dose calculated in the B&W EA for a receptor at 200 meters %. '7,Ql 'n.1.'.T@Wpfii'].i.WY with a ground level release. Potter (Complaint 10) at 7-8; Tr. 84-85 (Potter). O/I,. 4.dT OI r/ [ .'$ I [..SBN ',/ 94 Whereas the dose to the maximally exposed individual in the B&W
'/M., (.'f. 'l.MN'.I...Y N.
EA and the NRC EA was based on a distance of 200 meters, which was assumed .,7.Ds
" h ' y, . ',y.lldQg';'. 'g ;
M..O. -;. S '>W..,.': ',N [a. to be the distance from the incinerator stack to the nearest residence, B&W's m t Exhibit 2 (Figure 11-1) showed the actual distance to the nearest residence N
g "?./Q/,:r... W/.fl!@..M.
,1 f.p.ef: to be approximately 175 meters. Thus the dose analyses were based on an 1. f,'qf;Q:.- Q:x.';,';','.y(.yfglW(lC overestimation of the distance to the nearest residence of approximately 25
y fl.,.
(;'y a rneters. Tr. 241 42 (Potter). The error resulted from a small error in the placement 4; :j '. +.g... - E ..$yf'@ of the residence on a U.S. Geological Survey map. Tr. 242 (Potter). G..I.',;.g 7:c,3 J N.f'. h., [.t A.; .i).h
95. B&W estimated that correcting the error would increase calculated gy.> Y; U. -S.?. s..., '.b,1. D...W",
t.9.y, j.,. .s. doses to the maximally exposed individual from routine operations by about g,q.b.g..;:p..j,.pj. -lgg j d, 12%, and from accident by about 5%. 'n 242 (Potter). The NRC Staff, on the Ni].gsg tq3lp.Q:lj.,y [(.<j;w..T.e.N[p'Q)l, basis of "some rough calculations," estimated that correcting the discrepancy in f distance would increase the dose to the maximally exposed individual by about 'ftl #l. [gl Q ,,jf,7';! 9 y 4 30%. R. 402-03 (Sturz). The change in distance of the maximally exposed i.l J ' t ;,, .,[ g ! ' ',p' 'j.e.;g l. n. individual does not affect any of the population doses. D. 242 (Potter). The L 'iT.3M ";j;l y@,,;p 'i, .i:. %',; j '..,. slight increase in doses to the maximally exposed individual as a result of these Y.h. d. [@\\ ' Y,2*' '4 JO 3 - ? 'C ' P corrections is not significant and would not affect the conclusions reached in the O.." '!O. a.. W.. B&W EA or in B&W's testimony on the subject. Tr. 242 (Potter). ,&l'.'. g..(.' h l [, 4; '.4,l'/; 3 :. is : y b ^
96. In conclusion, the dispersion analysis performed by B&W was clearly
.] '., Yy,Q'yQ appropriate for the situation. There was no need to use a terrain model. The ,13@Tf.;" A': c.".l,t;p 's d %p-U
(fj.d.;.6.'.)').L I,j d, Gaussian model used adequately accounted for valley topography and the oc-If
.y currenec af atmospherici ions. Doses calculated for the maximally exposed (i a...' v; 3 ".','.J...M. '7M i .. J.Y'f .';ll.M,.. 7, f;, %..}'l,'p!{. 1/,'.." individual were overestimates, because the calculations were based on a ground-a .V. Ile.?,..".(*E!;D...c::e"! .e level release when in fact the releases will be from a 55-foot stack. Stack releases ... ' y 4.... 1.,..3'47 T.4
.g.)',g,)ygpcg..g f p' f may mean that distant receptors, such as at Kiskimere, will receive higher doses
.Mff iJ; than those calculated in the B&W EA; those higher doses will, however, be r.Ogg '. nW.%y?;/idag,..~T 4,' )G. fm'qs*
. 5.,:, w.v.E.%. :#
lower than the doses calculated for the maximally exposed individual in the -r &9 ,p - f.Y %. s= ~ %* e s 9.c s.$..a E .a.<r ' S*?;:iN:CA'? B&W EA. Thus Complaint 10 has been resolved in Licensee's favor.
.e k ):.~.:v:5.~ Q.,b.npm.
v
p m.,.. W.r 6 ;c q.;c.0

,,r . rf - Y,...;. p.5.&;,.p y a L,p.{c. c.;% %]. (?.? . t,s.;,o..,,,g& .u Complaint 11 (Assumptions About the Effect of Food Preparation)
3. p&.. '3 "L'.?!0Q

,5N
<.1! tyq Q.tEl.'[th.; $[?],(.D.y-7(Ify'E' 'Ihe assumpt. ion that food preparation. including the washing of fruit and vegetables grown g, in the valley, will contribute to reducing the adult thyroid dose by a factor of 2/3 is not , A.#, N, g .,'.[;.Vd'(* c..*fj; f %ih't,Q d j.i.'[/ valid. Many persons may consume raw and unwashed fruit and vegetables, whid would e.g,g%gy?p.lf'f; -e%.k;r h. l. 5,*;M;f.i ? r dange their thyroid dose from 12 mrlyr to 288 mrlyr. 9l..,4@*h*: &...D. O /'.o i, Kf .~ l +* N. . \\; w fi, 2 V
97. The B&W EA dose calculations for I.125 are based in part on two site-w...
p.Qc, 'p,p. y. specific factors that depart from the default values that would otherwise apply ZE5.Mmi%&;Q;N,. .? Q if h f'%lf hh.Oh?lhi.$[.'dMW- ?.Nith$ 'b e..m.M,w, tis %m.k &i 878 Q O hi\\ W l?..ex;.; . > a,yp. '. ms. yj,Q. 4..Q,a.,g,..e. O M/MM; f.?/n.opy -. y 9,p.. m; b' o. %;/('sY%g*f ?: %q pL %hkj&. @g#f'h%.. M
9. 7!.$..h,% e m.

r. - m ~.,.. o.:s r. nJ -
k. ..n.- n. ha. o n.3 C%.;!.m;:fn.G.n'M&..W{m@m g.C.g,i >;.. T M;,.c& &.s. s-n n.WP.;i;**p,9W.w?.p:py' 2e.c. g';' ;',.8,,.W: f:q, %m *1Y M ;W T. 5 fit-W Q WiV ,WT 't k m..w.m. . h; p. p y. M.,.y:.n ('. h yh N .i
[g. 4,, f, f ,.;;ft %'.P?. A,4++ p,3,,g y..,..r J,, c,. f .:4...h.i. J... _, ;. t/,.. ;. .~v . ;.; 1.,... ,*r.....-, g'.. o , ; c 7,. >t.,..,..,-*.,; u 3.. . g.,.. j v. a (,,,,. c , ', p m f h ~ UB 5('% 2? h !n.$.k.MINY?A%:dhMb.'.@$,0.% % iM'Sb:'. 1 3e.,s vm.w c. u.y>:e..g. w.. $..,?$ $. 8y: p. h W. % ' & RUE. '.f:*~( 15. / .; vi... m.4 disb,$&,. s.%.n.- en
y... s..; j.,.,a. p;- o.
. w. .g. r w.e
.;w e.r,o. >
A.: .a s .v. m
i.
gr. WW
5.p,. W ; Wy ~ &,Q.p./.k..'N h:t? ]y.,. s.,.x
. w. (,4.n}f'5,ik. ?, '.; N.t.i..@c F.;< yM.. W:.. ns. U.).@..I )/:3.,Ti..M.v.f..;D S a.:,v," 3..D h ' v .t..- s N. f m 'Ql@$@e[M$h5/0h";t.#M-$i under Reg. Guide 1.109. First, it was assumed that concentrations of I-125 in NN.h;7.'@.j$ih,'bM0 %'f: locally grown vegetation consumed by humans were reduced by a factor of three e.* M $bYU..M..,,;P.6."t.h.sp,M..a.$hf[,.. d@ to account for the effects of food preparation, primarily washing. B&W EA at .Ze2mt 4 g$,, A,..W'.%..a 7 3 and Appendix F; Potter (Complaint 11) at 2; Tr. 99-100 (Potter). Second, v g/S. the B&W EA used site specific consumption rates for fresh vegetation. B&W d$,N@h@SW,N(!W,.JJM'V, t. h)l: 'h .k Nh.N.kb jk EA at 7 3 and Appendix G; Potter (Complaint 11) at 2. Reg. Guide 1.109 $(*)?.33:D$$hMM@.N, yf.W.#Mh, and requires that enough information be provided about the site. specific factors .U /$ M C W 9 y / encourages the use of site-specific factors in lieu of default values when possible W.3, fMSM.k..MS%$ used to enable the NRC Staff to determine their validity. Reg. Guide 1.109 at f@.# $@h-kdk.M'hMM@D5 \\i: i $kd.} 1.109-2. Essentially, then, Complaint 11 raises the issue of whether B&W's use l
'.$$Q.?;Qt!.U;EM [N M of these two site. specific factors is validated by the evidence presented.
.M*S$lN,D$.[IbhM@, !/'h'[SNh.k'7h N MMp.rfk.Q{'/ 9.
98. As stated, spra, it was assumed in the B&W EA that concentrations 3
of I-125 on locally grown vegetation consumed by humans were reduced by 3..f, y p 3 3.l.;; M, W;g. p @ ? g '. d / Aeb:W M7;; a factor of three to account for food preparation effects. B&W EA, Appendix kD.e MNf; J F. The assumption was based on studies showing that about two-thirds of I-131 in k.h.h[.$;T 4.@'nMy "iT'[,k.5
hh vegetation is removed during preparation for consumption. Potter (Complaint 11) 2s TU;e Y.*,y' at 3, citing U.S. AEC, " HERMES - A Digital Computer Code for Estimating
...%'2.377.h ? f ? ",b Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry," Fletcher, l 7 D."d.'l% N G@f x ' $ j.;.g'.y J.F., et al., Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, HEDL-TME-71 168, (;O5 Nlij,M, g;W M.j ,WW..'i $;-{p..-T gf". !!s;}' g;Q, e.3 97 g 5-.; i. Q4d December 1971. Table 111-14. The studies cited in this publication investigated y p 4,J ;.,M y, several types of vegetation, including broccoli, cabbage, spinach, and escarole, 3, M ";, g. and found similar removal factors for all of them. The important mechanism for $. d....;p. 4 .,i.D.*g;,' '.j apply to I-131 should also apply to I 125. Id. J. /.1; k...< N..:. 4/m.W U d;i[ *.'M concentration reduction was washing. The concentration reduction factors that f:. !. ',.* 4.. p, -Q; cr W,Ml, [f,%,.,......,. 4. a, NM ..);;<S
99. In the September 8 Order, the Presiding Officer called to the attention
(: .3 yp.., 7 y.7..;. s., n q,...... f. ;r. y ;.,.:/i of the parties a recent paper on the effects of the accident at Chernobyl by a .:7 [%;$,'.j.~1/,%qi,4'S.... sd'. [.N-[d f.U.7,il.','f v i. R. ' *. ?,;,. ': t.e;;. L. '. y.. research team at the University of Konstanz in southwestern Germany, where t ? T. fallout from the accident was heavy. September 8 Order at 6-7. The paper ap-M Y ".d. ;.i ", 'G? M. M... C I.M'[ Q.. '..Y.h';. peared to call into question whether washing removed radioactive contaminants f 5,6... 4 - @f.;;;..?.fy'.f. .?. ' '. }.M." W, ; "Chernobyl: An Early Report," Environment, Vol. 28, No. 5 (June 1986) at j /,.;'.?f,.i from vegetation as effectively as B&W had assumed." Hohenemser, C., et al., .i s 9 3
Q ; %( c<..'.;'ll1 ;S f.p d. 'J M..,
[.,'.'. m c.. j.
s. 23...r, l '., %. r.C,, ll. *.'
s 40-41 (German Paper). Testimony with respect to the German Paper was pre-j cf f f).<: sented by both B&W and the NRC Staff and is considered, infra. Wl ).,L ..;f, t.B.y,. fel ,C....' ;' 100. The NRC Staff testified that it had contacted Mr. Owen Hoffman .. 3 f Q,f r.;,.g h,.n. p*4. ;"...e.at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who is a leading national expert on ,o e a..... q.i.. ~' .*..!.-(,.
p:,r.,,, s..:. '.....,f. j
.. g, a.r .-**2* n a n. r, ,<.;. m. W.<,.y'p.- r:. * .,n ~ ; ~.w - t g e.,,..,,.< ',.. ;,. ' = ~ g 'a". + r... [', 'g;j ?.f@,* s e., a $4. .t.., y j e ,e . e y e. l ? j.f,;f g ge, Q'. M . 7N. q M. *:h,, ;,y"i The authors of the paper on Chernobyl reported that their resuhs showed that the washing of vegetables had A...). 3,W;%'*l * [,7, ' fgG'i J 'b '. "' n.,.. l.' A- " proved to be whouy ine.ffecuve." Environmant. vol 28. no. 5, at 40. Because no explanauan was given as to how
t.Y.'y,,e
'- y,
h. /f;]' [j'.4.,,'h.'.MF>l;gi',"4',
7{y 'yf,.',9 they had proved washing to be ineffecuve, the Praidmg officer wrote to the scuor author requesung addiuonal
!M,;,;3 t f h d i,' $ informauan. 'nie scruar author responded by staung that washmg vegetables m cold runnmg water renoved only p!Xf* Y.,f. ?"k .:. J 'Q 1' A 20% of the radioscuvtry. Copies of this corrapondence were attached to the septernber 8 order, and the partes . Q.f' *,.,h*f*P +. , & g. Q' } Q:., %y Ia. f, $,l'7... .i!%.:,&,.,, N,%,W.:. y..&..:%,.~ f.y'q.6:,,p,v.;.: *; ~. 'P;, w@. ce,, f,' e were directed to respond to the quesuan of whether the German research resuhs chauerged the assumpuon being made by Baw. ~,. !e ? '.'. q. z. ?.t Q.. v>.. ~.%."T-C:: ,?: ro n%'* ["y:, M U.L..,""..u. h 's.,>;j;.;'o-h c.; ;&yl'.:.::;;a,c,2:,&..p&:;;. q yy Q'h.> f n.' t '%. e L * ... "w- :-:;.e
?r,***n 879
..,:x.. 7w+. . s lN.... d..- l m, f.,, d.M '..h;N t8, *'.* * ' *, ' *.',9f 'N ('. 8'.k r y"*'. /.. >. ;y ;N* 'M; - g.* ,e ;- N .%. 3 *', j e, M~.m? q..r.... $ w ::':-rW:p..,u :rt..m:g.,.a; a;9 .y s. c- { ". v.c. ?q....'tr.,%w,q t;.';;.u..,s? *m. .1y C fr%.n.&g,y Wb ~.ifC5W"ny;e:p?W&nw%y&*:xW .aa'.m% nuf 'h Yb$u.Y**b?bYh~x?Ss:n?*k wh.5ff S $??k hE ~ t n e a n W y p.m tv r. p%qy;yhM M :- J ; y Q .A J p#M N N '.- v;'. Wis M. \\ W:;Q:.6 ? : i
W

::
9- ' ys gg. n: m.
v.,. -'k. i k...;D l h ~ $.. Y g' S.'l N,., & : h.,?,Y,..,,a v ..,, h... N $. h+ h.... &,,' $.. ~$.i..$.,Y... Y... Wv.......v'&.. M g. $c..i...h S 5 w.s, a$b'.[.'Mh.l..w*&,.Q;*e:m"D.(mM. Q. k' a
N' hsN!
4. 'W r h br.h 20W ' ma;i&.} ' na .:w' N .uw. h 4/i k.-+. u. g. f %c %' @ pQ:,%.,!,a.<. a.r,+.wM" Wi + M ,4.. c >.t ,%A,f.%.g* v -.. -. D t r,. V;*:y% e.;p. &,.q+e.%6.';;v.;9 f <%$........ s. e. tf.k,. y..%. ;M' ay
.. !;. f..; m :. M...%.r.a n. i e
. W. ;+df.ed;'. .~. :r
g. v.
y
.gy Q"@Q;g'?,/;y,Jg

60. ?%yfi).p,Q.Wg
.pl:Q crop interdiction and decontamination of radioactive material. Mr. Hoffman W, 6 b T W.7 Nf,i$.N[dN n%,4 l'.. . d5 IN..... e . f:. % reported that he had coramunicated personally with a scientist in Munich, Federal 90 'Grlp,J. ~ M M Republic of Germany, who reported that they had obtained a decontamination p.*.* f rso n p '.i ).w.' $YM, s ,:;h.t.'.pj ypy'.,, factor of approximately 3 for iodine on vegetation by aggressive washing and @O?l. ex :..u.A/;[; &'.M M..s. a decontamination factor of 2 by normal washing. Tr. 233 (Blond). This result c ., :/C. p;4 a.f.;, *,'. y.qt.,g,R. a *i ~ a. m n,,,.. is consistent with results from the U.S. studies cited by B&W. See Finding 98, r.. a hl. ;g.,,.,.;,t.: m,g......:.,,.;.w %..... p. wpra. s. /lNQ; M l$.0.lhl'/;,' Dt 101. B&W's witness pointed out that the German Paper indicated that ?.J!NlQj,a,5,,,;@.... M,.,h. M..M@'T*.* . Q.. M... 2 ,.Y./l shortly after the accident about one-third of the radioactive material deposited on .r u J;.: h[)@d;;,, 'l; ',$p yf,'.. We[,9lldWM7 d[j,*.j'h' the ground was I.131 and the remainder consisted of particulate isotopes. 'It 107 l.'q.Y.'5'Q (Potter). Assuming that the isotope distribution on the vegetation was similar to that on the ground, washing would be effective for I-131 but not for some
}.
.P.i. ', V,. ($y$.. [C, 'f",, /,., i Other isotopes in the fallout, such as cesium and strontium. Id? Furthermore, the p. r, ';.: t, German Paper indicated that the deposition of radioactive fallout in southwestern i. -4 T.%... ' pyl." .Ze f , l;... $'t,1;,g.[ '/yy[..T[Mj$c Germany occurred during a heavy rain. Given that circumstance, the rain may 'a ; pr.4'gl?.fg,3-g% f have deposited the radionuclides, cleansed the atmosphere, and then washed the g
7
,,.Z,.4.g;;. vegetation leaving residual contamination consisting largely of species resistant ft,if y, d to washing. Id. at 107-08. B&W's witness reported performing a calculation [;>gJ'.?",q.n.Q'.2d
[ ',.
suggesting that the radioactivity on the ground was six times that on the plants. If u ', f ', <'.. .,. fcc Q,' A j.1,$lpi.r',,' true, this fact tends to support the rain-washing theory. For the foregoing reasons, J..: . % p ' T s.t ',d. 2. W. l Q '.' '.,. lpl 1.: c'.Y: p #;?1.?,N.$' U N ";. % B&W argues that the limited definitive information concerning the Chernobyl f-i experience suggests that it does not apply in this context. Id. at 104,108,113. y R,d b.-6...... 102. Studies conducted in the United States and elsewhere on the effective- ~. . c.. . o ['" @p r. '$,!'.,]l,h Q.,.. ( V.f. ness of washing and food preparation in removing radiciodine from vegetation Y.' have indicated that these practices can reduce contamination from around 40 f. s. v..# ; o M@ r. w. t. g %.p! 1 to more than 90% Id. at 105-06. B&W therefore assumed in the calculations a. s 're l'U.} Nu.d;W.6 % JV j,.#... %@% MlO;'( performed for.the B&W EA that 1-125 concentration on vegetables and fruit Q.R6. #1 '. ,.i. ;; "..M.I.N., would be reduced by a factor of 3 through washing. Id. at 107. It did not as-3,M.'G.$.. sume that any other radionuclide would be removed by washing, however Id. g5p',y$'f"/-@d.$$ .$-) E at 100. B&W believes that most, although not necessarily all, locally grown Ocu i pl'JWJJf 5@,.a%a,NA$f. QW, w.x c @s.. .- 4 .W.,,,'W. 'f vegetables and fruits are washed before consumption by humans, for either aes- 'i i' <. thetic or health reasons. Id. People wash fruits and vegetables to remove visible M; exu. ni:. ? . ~.@a.f. A.,S..@d '. b E./ M.;6, B q tg.; :.-ly.m,y j?g soil particles and various contaminants which are not visible, such as industrial
c 5 pollutants, lead fmm leaded gasoline, and asbestos from worn brake linings. Id.
A,. .c.e;., r; g v.L.
m...
. v.,, w. c. k.n$p; )y$.M at 100-01. ihh h k(,M;v,. 'M,:;c..h nr 103. In addition, B&W conservatively assumed that all regionally grown
$';f;iK,if d!
fruit and vegetables were obtained from the resident's own garden. Id. at dyO.].Eh 101. Moreover, B&W's calculations did not take into account variations in spe- .M;p.w... f,. i i.. A.2..m :p,e,,-g M,y nwop h..a f.W y h @x n; ..f ep s. J.N. p,;4 p.;g,h N: klNj;rA'A f. 'f.h
I'
'NI. 2hhe correspondence fmm the ser,nor author of the oerman Paper to the Presidmg of5cer. which was snached h* l io the september s order mentioned some mdependent evidence ausgestms that Cs 137 had been adsorbed mio cQy.Qll.[,, f! " h @,D*/.'/.
[ Q
.g ~.j.QI[7: g.Q,'..%,y., L.r[j%. q! "'* 8"*'h " P ""* h S i$ *.,'m q %@ .p.~7.%,,.. W..a.. ..r,.k .g .r m F O. w .w. m 1k.,,W..,.o.,N.,$NC .$ Y', M . A r*t,A....?.Z O 'W 880 ,) m s. w h M:IG*h;I$ ,Y e 'J. $j' NSl..$',.ys.e.;f;a..UE W} W50A- .Y'K~1.W$* egh' h5$? p W' 19 +. s r I
J.
,6 ' JA emf.Q.s M'4.v.%; ) A y?'y':..g,9;,:%,z\\.:.r%l.** 8 . a;;.:,.-l4. '4 ' f ~ ;.e b d 3'.? a - W w. M H%:1 e:.. p'.; u: m. y.,n.. v. d -r; s, ,a 2,by.. u Ns.S$.$ SM E.85E k . h. h. t harh ,N. +b. MNM.~nlt),-QGQQfM....f,iW.,.,g.:.R~n}NM,M.a [h.M.W;y.p. f.Q+Wi:._".X,P M.: s ._,,;.._c..... ,\\.h.XQ.,M.p'Cr ; A*W'$?, ll:3.[h. M;y T"ll : C .? : ' . ';;~ ... m, s,.. J' s t
1 y n.. .. s%. - c+ 1 .a w. d, y. u.c / r e. t G Y W y '-GS K. Q@ b:.& e.3 2 @9 23 !n ? M 3 g, W.A. &. 9 m :v., gr.t..Po I .Me..a,h. y.3,. y..mw.s.$m. m.4;, y..r.): o: + ~4 w~%.. n h;/W%;,y&.Mvy,yl$ qm.- ", %:.r /.u. . E* e ~,Q+,. * ;, e,. A. q, +x, yu,.9..,.V". p;; Q*,W,."
6W.?.yo..
fs s p f g p h [D ?0.P $,Vr.~~i; W.ku.w
v. ?
u.s m. .. gr.. J@g.-@g 67U t cific activity among different types of fruits and vegetables exposed to similar 'N@ Uh.h$@Mf{lpp.(Q;*6 amounts of deposition. He concentration of deposited contaminants would de. My@Nk crease with decreasing surface-to-mass ratio. Rus, leafy vegetables would be N expected to have a higher specific activity than apples or tomatoes. Nor did l 4 skh.D; #/rk$: f/WN?yldifdMdW.07/d%.D.%,h'. 9: i B&W's calculations take into account the fact that vegetables grown under. b hhh h[ ground, such as potatoes and carrots, would become contaminated primarily by c h'@$N@33N'te!$sf!'/Qdh(Nh M .hgjyd .Q uptake from the soil. The dose assessment model for vegetation in Reg. Guide { $.P 1.109 is designed for leafy vegetables. When all of these factors are taken into j NW;* hh. 4!.y'Q M Mi.U $ fAaccount, it is very unlikely that the dose estimates in the B&W EA are un-eiO.c.gyi.d. d@Mk. derestimates, even if the assumption of washing before eating is not entirely g%m.gy.p/4 ' gg$. lg$'g.G t 'g) .4.M valid. Id. at 102. ..dM,g. ?ddD.,.y :U.hix'&...y% f..iWp rY M 104 De statement in Complaint 11 that elimination of the food preparation /Jjf@M5ff'.%jp..:.%. s.lm.,M,NQh,4W; M,gs assumption would increase the calculated thyroid dose from 12 mrem /yr to 288 h,'; D'N'H 18t mrem /yr, a factor of 24, is a misstatement. Intervenors' wimess Dr. Resnikoff Mh,,k5'M.d.&.. s d., y.f,M'.k[fI.NM~N,$@ba T.M*M;;,$.4 DR;41.,.krd, 4$;.$*f. testified that the factor of 24 increase resulted from a chain of factors rather than i' D from elimination of the food preparation assumption alone.Tr.138. Intervenors' h,mt .M .s Q:.'ddfi'. hyl.7 C.W 14.0 .$edj analysis included increases due to greater volatilization of iodine in the primary combustion chamber, the buildup of lodine in the scrubber solution, and reduced '*i.l'M M $[$.,". M Dis,).id.d @hMM% id of food preparation. 'It 137-38. The elimination of food preparation resulted % % % / P. atmospheric dispersion because of valley topography, as well as the elimination iM.?." M}.@W(Q%.y *t:Ni#3d % @h,k k @h% 2 in only a factor of 2 increase in dose. 'It 138. None of these factors has $.Q.N t?,chgh y any validity, ne greater volatilization of iodine in combustion, the buildup / p f.; p$;i b. 2 M.I;i D d N, % Md of radioiodine in the scrubber solution, and reduced dispersion because of MN g p ?; W; W M *5 $ f-.,.', ', y;76,$Q.!N ne elimination of the food preparat!on hypothesis is found invalid in Finding hpE' topography have all been found to lack merit See Findings 45 and 94, supra. N O }Ml N N :. Pj.]x,T.g Y; $ % ; N .C -9/;. -Q 0l'? 106, infra. '3 p W.' $ ' k;' W.U N h, h,[ h M ) N $'.N 105. In conclusion, B&W's reasoning to explain the results obtained in the Nk!h$ b German Paper is convincing. It is very likely that rain washed much of the sh'W.}D;. %'. h. % & 16: f Wy deposited radiciodine from the vegetables, as a result of which the University M $0',2 Q (3.D;.?/.pQ. % ; @4S M [?.'.d @@. % D of Konstanz research team was able to remove only 20% of the residual activity P C5
,jy

?.i p, fj which probably consisted largely of radionuclides that are resistant to washing,
'f $* Q;,$ NET such as Cs.137. It is also reasonable to assume that most people do wash fruit k'O.hD;'c; NIM.%,'j h'.MGQ:tN'jd,$[qQ('N,$: and vegetables before consuming them. Finally, the conservatisms built into the v l ' d <$.C model with regard to where fresh fruits and vegetables are grown and with regard h k[MdM d to differences in specific activities of different types of fruits and vegetables will iC k [r @/ N @K dd N M. h y.'d.M.$g./ fep' probably keep the dose estimates in the B&W EA from being underestimates, NE.h... h..,, f.N,:m.$.h... N[L.Nj[lQfO.j .S g even if some people do not always wash all the fresh fruits and vegetables they h.h.y.f'....:.m?w,..,.. $.h.;j.n.g consume. Therefore Complaint 11 is resolved in Licensee's favor. o w
r. ss.m..
, :, t:<1.w p m. a.. W.....g s *. ,.;7.4....y J.P.. W.. p .%
v't. h.# k. :. *. w*[t. *.,.2.k..u... t.W. 't. r. ~. :. ), f..4..
~ ;[. 3 .9 .~.e-u. 3 s$ N, *. .i. N E
\\
e w. . :. n n.., ' eL. * . h.)Q,.%.e %.y..v;.ld.'rts L;. A s.t T 21 .' p. e s.g u.* .g ,y . ~... g y. P .6
f* p$h., gww a*..&'g. h,f * ' :.. *n a'
i d,..Q , te. ,{2;w?84 f%;. 54ff".J,.'y >jp[w*tgj Q/*$p;d.,wp,M e 7.hj f f Ut$n'. 'H a;9 p.b.* . Q"4.- 881 l &:m.,. 4. s p .~ r.4.v.g ed,,,,g EW. 4. :,.'.c
r. s. A * [n...*/. N e,5 '$ 'r..
F,.,J. yo PW;W@bf@y.$.Q.R...r.r...,p.3p.;.g.,.A.d j M g* 7. . e.~ .w .g. 3.G, p;t-: ~uf b ty r.%y;fp W t .M ~p;kiff Nh i .WF@ p W @I@WMM@T WFW WSN M N MsMR
h. hIf.w%~.gM. m. m.n, **w~h_~. w :". if.
k v. !kh. . :.w.7.,, .n .,. n; n,g.g.;p
.~.n
.~ -:e- ,c, s.
h.yp.A.$.)f'$.,Y.A.,Eh. : s..O,,y al.v.Tku.i..hs,..$o*h;{r,G.q-],% m h.&. k,.a.:.,',$D hd h. - i h' u., gr.
Y W g.i. s.1Q o.m.., b.,:-

Q.....v -
v ..u .g .;. s I .% % da e. A us Hl M $. 5 ta: W 3 2l %.)!b. k r J.,s% :l'dD.Q.-4,py:?s,f-QQ * %g,'.,.& M p,M.y/u.&, t; ru.o.9 Wt.. s.y,,**,, ~s. k g., ..w s ;.,,. _ w ..q-p... /.' *,.Q f~.
gf. ay

3 W',u,xb. ?.;f.3.:J, m %.,v 4
M )... s' e w.% ~ w fq e W.,,pcL.prp..h. gef u s?Op. A:';ew,;v.,(pep.$:q.~,$ .y L['.W ik5 $?. .Me7:, n, f.%,.N.,;$,K' ;..,.yn,y,y%. t.n.e .1'? y, Conclusion on Dose Analyses f ftin.'.+ 9'.? bgnd,.9.D,./wM;b.Q.g Q o.~. cve 7.5, N $ $. h.4;// W ' t.YX ,.M::..;nM M. IN.D,. G'n,.M,,i 106. In conclusion with regard to radiation releases and their health effects, ,v e 7 the evidence shows that the very low level of releases from routine operation r
!hY -
N fd of the VRSF will have no discernible health effect on anY offsite individual -v we. 1Dy;i !r. g W.f.w9yv ib.. v.QQQ .n: s in the vicinity of the VRSF. It follows from that conclusion that operation of k f S.. g.M..,W....... 'e.[ M. ~.. the VRSF will have no significant impact on the biota in the environment. The analyses of B&W and the NRC Staff have considered all relevant dose pathways 4*.V? ",M.'.L.W ',ti.$ and radionuclides. The doses to the population in residences and schools within g Sg 5,. h @. %f,0.' f)'!,.),,, y,y,.,..gfd,%g,-/plg'g 1 mile of the facility will pose no significant risk to their health. Finally, f appropriate consideration was given to the topography and meteorology of the (r i7'g?g.[u.~.'.f,'.
y. i (,1,';Ri %;(
site in B&W's analysis, and reasonable assumptions were made with respect to , '. ;y,yif:!J,e the preparation and consumption of fruits and vegetables grown in the area.
u., ?.,Q. ' 't.~ w '.,
- 1 JL '.. f.';. '?;l3;3.M
: g %. g,. 4,
....: d 1. %...;.?.',i ;.\\j,,.. s...'. r. F a
n.7 h 4 y *..,,,,.
c. -

'c,!..,;?,V d g y;..".'.'!
q.m.6,q.;. w/:;>.n j....o.s; w 4 9 r '.f,..t ". 4:. w-y, :x.. s. i; m.;.s ,;. ;.N..m.:.s,y. : p; a t (4) Additional Accident Scenarios
s.Q

R f.
. : R./. . M','.,.',R,Q B;f.h.y,% Complaint 7 (Consequences of a Fire in the Of-Gas System) .:> Q... p',.. b d.. (( % 'N'?'. '* m c:.. .:....; C; ll;P k,#h. N licensee and Staff have not assessed the consequences of a fire in the off-gas systern trader, M. I'
W. S t.i 'M.
nor the species and arnount of radionuclides that would be released if the charcoal and HEPA i . ;*2 %I.h D s.).u '[.[6,.. '....,(w Y. u [. f'R fdters should burn. Consequently, the public heahh and safety cannot be assured. i N -.. : ;...v......m*:&;' G.s '.1 +v o ...M. V,j.'.W/.4.W. U,,,. t ]..,;. 107. Intervenors raised two accident scenarios in Complaint 7 that were L.4, $,1 . 1 m. .i e ~ J. 6 % +.1O..; I.
N,
not assessed in either the NRC EA or the B&W EA. The Intervenors were 5I.'M..E. N. 6, Nf y, .. J'5 R. o...Id. '.$. . U. 9. 3 .]., 1.'/ W - .,v. motivated to propose the additional accident scenarios because of the occurrence in 1983 of a fire in the off gas handling system of an incinerator operated by ?. '.. $.[E/,,'!c,.[ Q,6 h [ ?li Nuclear Rel Services, Inc. (NFS), and the occurrence in 1985 of a fire in the / N.? 'Is.'f. /hThy %l.Y; %3.M j C: tmiler during testing of the Dresden MVRS at AECC's facilities in Sacramento, .' ih.f.$*I$hdIN)D 'i.. California. Resnikoff Testimony at 16-17; Bowles and Potter (Complaint 7) at / 2-3; Tr. 3W (Bowles). The two scenarios considered are (1) a fire involving [.Q:g;, the trailer itself and its contents (other than the filter enclosure), and (2) a fire %;:g y.'p.3ydp within the filter enclosure. r DhM[l'g/:@Nhdli".h,hfQ hffj;* 5G.M. fM.%.jQC'MdY 108. The fire in the off-gas handling system of NFS's incinerator was believed to have been caused either by ignition of the demister section, which M'M.h$$2S;ddbNNMik$,$ was made of combustible material, or of combustible fiberglass-reinforced t@n..< M g; M M. m M,$.$ Z O M.. plastic, both of which were located downstream of the 14 rubber system; or by y*.v.#.w/..::,. t.. r...S.. c, y. g"@gfps% D y / ignition of other combustible material that may have collected downstream of i .. ~ v w: g.... y,.y.g the emission control system. The fire destroyed 20 feet of duct work but did not J result in the release of any radioactive material to the atmosphere. Tr. 307 08 (Bowles). The fire in AECC's MVRS trailer started shortly after shutdown of b'fg;/&g,pd(%:f.M yy g ppy .t the system. It initiated outside the filter enclosure, presumably by the ignition l f.! of highly flammable styrofoam insulation being temporarily stored in the off-g% Q y'. M.<W.P.M: w...., e,;rp.,c* - Q. a gas trailer after system shutdown. The Kemlite walls and roof of the trailer r,..n %.,..lM.,: N. W; O. /l*f Q /hp.;gd+ ..u ,t.a.t s. r..%, t. .. a d O O.g' h. W
F ' O.
. r. - A. '?...,,l y r .s p ' 5 h , N Q.@ 88' r k' m...*. I w.f '.e' 54 w' m. w.,t y:.~o w v.,w... w m wa f. tt;.s. j~ j.w,...w. %;.,m..p. y.wl+ g?o % 2,.%@[lV,'1 '- m( $7..lN ""'M Uj..-m.,;,N.,8 =i s h....h.,hme%l?'Pm.Wpr);gM.L.y/e:(:.;&;*,.y*f.pF(hgw&;. h,g y;.y/wkh.h),.IYh.k -5 C'* R.%* r *
/ -3.yMs.
7 h h;. $ $... -g l ? qtfre:ht cas 4 I .g.
~ i'.,'.' l; n' . $ 2. h l G : g.): n'. f U $ k f '.' ": ? :
lol$
WW.GY y'W.r.UC;W:.8%g?',Q%i@,T;W95$h~-.L*l&l%@.W U' Y.$YS$b$$Y.~<Y)h.W.+ y.s V m;. ?; L MM G,jq. 4 %.w %;!%w....yh e;J,5, W.. sM,..n.% w l$ w$$?.?? Q hl,&;M [mht.f.kE kc ;cy LQ.. 13w. E%+;& YY.$'f
N y;5 9 c.
d O c ~ d.'Q., -jQ v-Q .H Q ^ f $Ybgb$Yec.NN$ r .y.- q:m.w4. w-.,%. w $'.ny. p;; h@...pl.t:.,u.%;a.4 y$.M,b.m% *t....,
4.. %y,.
7 W'
. f.:*i.
a % D$;8%.j<%r-'$L E'%yU h .i y.DM[hih.OYQ*((': .k,! h $.p'dY@;$2 4' 9. D were ignited, and the fire damaged the induction fan, combustion air blower, d!' -i.'h. N@M,4NU M motor control center, and trailer's walls, roof, and insulation. The filter housing hb?.5.s.N fk.hhk ' 'NM' N, hhg k .h was distorted but remained structurally intact. Filters had been removed for t. experimental analysis before the fire occurred. Bowles and Potter (Complaint 7) M,,@s@M.M h/e M @@: at 2 3. f' g$e.gy;M. ;$ g %@!!O.r%%. f.4.,;.p 109. De fire damage to the MVRS trailer was reviewed by one AECC If TDd'!.D@,'S.dNLT6/.M. 7;f.i..*1l0c.', IpIM,.......,.. h~$b,'!.Y.$@@d$.% and two independent teams of investigators; these investigators recommended d!.Y that all combustible materials be removed from the equipment and trailer / Ah, k,k EN8.1 @ h'Si.h.' d. %.;,. S.~. Q E structure. Consequently, the unit being developed for use at Parks Township was
?

7 e A M n,3

,s.

redesigned to move the motor control center away from the fiher enclosure and [N.*,gif...,.9 >W w.~MMgp.S gje'd0. 1,2, M f:3 q to remove all combustible materials from.the trailer structure and equipment, ne .W 4 m .. T. 'f &$hMySy.y. only exception to the latter are the charcoal and HEPA filters contained within jl%@$kDMlf.., i.3,,.rLY.r.,ff u g &a f;cc. '. M.. r./ W r'T, M. m.3. the filter housing. . c.... 9 y m.g.r. 4.... pW,g,q.e,i,d.. , n w f .c a.,o.,.
3.... w., o.. 4 g,
110. The filter housing itself is constructed of noncombustible materials. Id. 9 . ~S i at 3. The charcoal within the metal.containing trays of the charcoal filters .M.,,W..,.#. S%w.d! O g@,..E. f:m( 3;?a.. Q.M: d): ,v N ..c,. 1 ~,ik< r. dS .~ : can burn, but it has an ignition temperature in excess of 660'F. The HEPA c P;!$. c..lR.S,S, f.;;..i.;T.s.Q. '!M*;d;p. ;' ,-U .O : filters will have all-metal frames and dividers, and the filter elements are w. A,T.c; .W. y l W.'/..< M. . ~ W,..f, h.- @...-:'.yf 5..: p k $t/ f j 6,,. A. A ../ h fiberglass. De only process stream that could cause ignition of the charcoal or $M.. r,b.'lhi 7.%.$;f;p$//J;@@;W3?;p?d .2,,.q HEPA filters is the incinerator exhaust. This exhaust is first cooled to 1000'F by ?ld/.; l"p;tyQ,g'Q.yg a primary quench system and then further cooled by the scrubber system to about W:. }.,h,i, 180'F. He scrubber has a 200-gallon liquid sump which can supply coolant $ [n @ 5[%M.h,b y%[1, emergency plant water cooling system which automatically quenches the exhaust '0..O;',y %['Y;@MI6Ir$[/ M. M. for about 1.25 hours should the plant's water supply be lost. There is another b;4 9. & Q. ,df.//,Ch .ADi./ ga if the outlet temperature of the primary scrubber exceeds 200'F. Even if the . N" fl%' [:$-%;Wll:tG[4; ' '";'* d //p"W;D ..:Il4?O.* $t scrubber system and emergency cooling system fail, the primary quench system a; water nozzles can be used to cool the exhaust to less than 400*F, well below O'IN. Qhia[fQ:
k
4. g,. '
the ignition temperature of the charcoal filters. Thus it is extremely unlikely that ,$[]d: QWp.2.Fliit'ilr..'.s e' C N,
??i the ignition temperature of the charcoal or HEPA filters could be reached. Id. at d.N.. W.. N. M. N M ' $ N h h,k f, f
3-5. -.,uf,,.!R..M. ;4Q4"., M,.... M. > m* 111. Notwithstanding the low likelihood of a fire in the off. gas system Ip$'.';,.k,B WO'kT. W.(P.. e n [? G. trailer, appropriate fire detection and mitigation systems have been provided. The ,9,N'N'N. tmiler is equipped with fire detectors which activate an alarm in the main control
yWk;h MNr NM;;$.

.T.'. 'l0 24. $
/ f..:l' slg gf+. room if the temperature in the trailer rises at a rate greater than 15'F per minute z.)h... i T U or if the temperature exceeds 197 F. If the alarm sounds the operator is required Ne[,'NM;, Mic P., A7 W!.? r[A,...:. d to initiate the site fire emergency plan. which provides for assistance, shutting off dl. U'T.hi.jW',M'i M.' f.kihk;,k'% Ij.d.'. the combustion and induction fans, and fighting the fire with an extinguisher. If .3/;Md.h[J Cli. biDykydd 5 the fire appears to be out of control and threatening to ignite the charcoal, the ~ 8.f:lW,. ;l.('O. ;>.r";4Q.. h;.t.:%.@y.;-.i. 3 (W.!.).*. 7 N k M.1 operator can activate the deluge system, which will deluge the charcoal with ~ 'y l - t *;7,,a,,. V. -.M.M, % b.. water. The deluge system delivers about 200 gallons per minute of fire protection
e..... r?. f.y
. 2.. c;. e.m ps;.r W,~.%s. . g ;. water through nozzles positioned over each charcoal tray. Id. at 5. W;%.'3a.sO. f..h. 3.,r %'.. : '.,...9..% m. >.; n...,. 2 4~..*M> P %..@l@t. m. 5,., M,..s.'?W..v.. u, - 112. J . In the event of a HEPA filter / charcoal fire. an exhaust gas temperature w 2...- i~
Q.OJp......f..
alarm will be activated when the temperature reaches 250*F. This alarm will .l ~;;
s...w.].c,,- #.,.,.v.s s..,p g
M;,q$h<. : : i:yl.;.. ,y'.,y ,a 2. %,tw ss.~~ ,.m:.. ~.. ...m M.p .g1:%.V r h; 3 y,..m..h;e.?.I'. min %.f34 m %. i..l.k .h 'phb. 883 ha p u... mp%v.v9,. n ,.., e'y&*'g.q. ).~.3.. m ::,,..ll;p. p;. y..~.~....w;:,x:.] e...-.. .m a l'y.? p+::a+' O..'.:],,a.... .f.,.. w. ,.. e. > Q .M. e.,..,g.;. W:e;h,4. y:.M,,hp w.t:%,.o;.%v.. N)"';$h... g.,,.L,c.=:'y;1..W. :.. c:;;.N h.s q,,/lifd N Ndhv O p
r. :g... ;g.....
g.w m. .t y.. D y&q>. t.,a&mMn. w. w;.r. semege'.a?m.p*V/.ewMr,mW.l.tScf*WWWUf.*WM"E ve n n w w. w u Wt. 9 m m. An.. w, w-uwwu. m.~nM:Aan n:M #, %..gdn@u,,.y-s'/h.* G 5,nyOf.r. z..< e...,OV6M'i'l%Mg$n.S, :~g;Y A Jm.u. m.5 6"..d.., /:n.;i.?.;4:h.n.,Fr.n'/'.;g&3 n Mdf.' )
p..A

A W

p.. k:?
4.g.j%h . h. W. 6 " W.L ?..' WM' rV 6 -Qk:*.dW
g..9,%:?.<;.; 's s;.n*2*3.~9* ~i&. lw?.%WT.C.*.T.
. a u,i~ .V t-v.n. ;%
,= wne.
. 7"4 ' 9: r ' v:g m . w.. e: ~n ~ e ?,' 1., ;"
4
.**.,,y,'i. s ~y7,
"' ~ 'f.;c %a;'>;. G.-7 6,. o y.::* 4.p s,. : r x, s.y ~u.> s w. -~ .c-)"t.x, o r L s, 9M. ., I [,,.hc' $.* E,. #n '. r;$.T L,. 4ti *.l. i*f. *..,h W, h.*1"M.;Q 2 ".'.'h.,p;,. p t,.*p'.E.l~,"i O @ C:[r W(l) *. 6 J M. 3* m. 5,'.~.'.e M.,yf '!d]%* Q*' $,(**f .g ,M N;:. :: b,w $,..: Q. ib'li @ f @l**.Y! **.p*m9 %Q~/*.sq. lfi&, Cst y..f s Q-e.&,W',Q[?.~.O *%*;:G*. ;-bh'f.Q,a'U%*;~; ?Q$.d,&) *;2*\\g.?%kQ;a. y 'Q. % %1 .y. -;.o .~L p.
p- %;
Swl.w[anvW%5@*kJQ},mBg'w&l &
s
%. fk.hYe X ? ? N h'k?e s;%.1.A.lL2it*'.'.JW'p. dias,s1*bs y MMW.9%wse w.'./W .. f {:('p,tay.S*/p.'* l*M*. L. ,,gng.d n &yp 4ft.Tt?&fLa l,! r s . qi M.q'd M. ? sq@.w.:W.s..;/n,.ts/ ,~Ag.n. e4',y m .y. M,.w.. y v.hv
r. -.,4.....
. f; ~
G* .d,y;f.'.".,'(u g f. $c& <t. b.,..#
f..y.. *.

c.,.Nlr,f,r;:Y.'.
if r:m? s;<'. y b. .1*> .w 1 1... . r n,,p> :n.;aA.,c., %e.W:..~ %g-g. a w m. g:n, a : x...u,%. n.d,.i,';J."p,P.y lMi' .',K ',.i."h %q ye[y.p,I%[7 M 4M,$ alert the operator to a possible HEPA filter / charcoal fire or a process upset. RA 7't,4.Wl., % operator can determine if the temperature rise may result from a fire by 4AW.N s..WW consulting a data logger which logs inlet and outlet temperatures of the filter $,3.[D" ~.//MNff.D 7/.M.'. '.h O.3 ![h}yij;,d'f.,E;hh system. In addition to the exhaust temperature alarm, there is a continuour
?;.',

t thermistor located within the charcoal trays; it will alarm in the event of a
...T.J.,9 M h gff}tlf /,g. 'l.y,1 f.i $ {N. gl 4 4,b.// charcoal fire in any tray. In the event of a HEPA/ charcoal fire, the operator is r -ig; ,4.1 %,.a. p. g'.9 :w% required to initiate the site fire emergency plan, diven the process gas flow from " }1 ','g.>d. the filter enclosure to a bypass HEPA filter system, and isolate the filter enclosure C g.. y #.[gQ; rr.. t,- r (%ly/,'j,. if f
'1 using single handswitches located on the main control panel. Isolating the filter ii' Q% g%,.i.j $,,y
,g.f. .KNc, enclosure will stop the release of combustion products from the enclosure. De
"'f'.[J%,.y..,.

i.3 d'{%,yW 7P.'
JP operator must then start the water deluge system from the control panel. Once i..N , r, $/ initiated, the deluge is continued until the entire filter enclosure is flooded with . Q.Q y G...r M.. i.S..N~ ~W' 9 : ., J.M..p,fp.$/j,.f4.- water. This will cool the charcoal to well below the ignition temperature so that t.+%~ l<.1 j.,y. N, v it can be safely removed without fear of rekindling the fire. The deluge system
P...".w
,- j @,. j .y@8 C' 'g,I.
JiT$8~W ~.;/,y' is designed to extinguish the fire within 1 minute and to flood the filter enclosure f'
in about 12 minutes. /d. at 6. t i
". d.',...... Q..
yi't/lffjl' [ ,Q.. Pg f .t;yf 113. De ability to rapidly detect, isolate, and extinguish a fire in the . r; T % f+/?? Y [i. M i. dy.." j.'. 'p, @j.? li.,', off-gas trailer of HEPA filter / charcoal would keep the resulting radioactive ',y'fc releases small. The previous analysis of an incinerator explosion bounds the 'e ,I;>? .,l/ consequences of a fire in the off-gas HEPA Slter/ charcoal. Id. at 7. J;.; p%.%ff@;'/j'f,.J.,.;*..f/.i I, lF 114. The maximum particulate load on a HEPA filter would be approxi- ,C 1 ,} p !7 g.- R. ?<a [. '. g';{,' ]y mately 12 pounds (4 pounds per filter x 3 filters). Id., citing U.S. Department ' y.g.'e. YJ. ] f.,f.- of Commerce, " Nuclear Air Cleaning Handbook," ERDA 76-21, at 44. The N.t.v-'J scdg.?M..@U d .M W, .e.d, '1 maximum HEPA filter load would be the equivalent of little more than one t.w'..V,s.M... ' l'.'!:M'. F drum of waste. Thus the consequences of the incinerator explosion analysis ,.,.m @ _ ; ~ ! W !.];s,;ff l.' E.i.e. N.,.. :D,..m'p' would be bounding from the standpoint of particulates, because in that analy-I ' +.. '.M. o'.,. - sis it was assumed that the contents of ten drums were released. With respect
t..
p,W,.c.c%Cl w<:,,i. 1..-.s,/.r... ;9 r S.f.;..y.2.M,J, M5Qc.y to 1125, a conservative estimate of the amount of I-125 on the charcoal was .r.g. l
A> '
.n i}.t[.T p M.., h.6 N.y '!'f.pl,':,ht.? calculated from the release rate, administratively controlled to 0.012 Ci/yr, and ..Q. N @!:.U.tlt..@ the expected I 125 charcoal filter DF of 100. This implies a feed to the charcoal 0%,'s$ S. d,.,d.[.9, of 1.2 Ci/yr. Assuming feed at a constant rate and accounting for radioactive w >.s,. 7 % u
.;c;Gyi@N.'e/@'
decay leads to an equilibrium charcoal filter inventory of 0.28 curies. The in-N[c ,. r ,j.:. M:; j9.,1.N. w dv.4c.?. - N cinerator explosion analysis was based on a release of 3% of the charcoal filter 4
e[r,{:;. f [ W.%g I'l,4,1 V
1-125 inventory. Since combustion of as little as 0.008% of the charcoal would ,'$'ft.{/4 M. iM. ' f k l g g% *T. ,y,It,' g.,c.-j: g increase the off gas temperature by 20 F in 1 minute, thereby triggering the , g. alarm, releases would be quickly contained and the fire extinguished by the W~fm -W:.(; g. deluge system. Therefore the releases of I-125 would be substantially less than e'. < ."y lgN'Eg..m icMp .4 ~e p.y.a.a'3. M. the bounding incinerator explosion analysis. Id. at 7-8. 2?.d. ?.;nf .:: r d.*$Jf!3@:y.@%$ G.!YI'%9 I15. Evidence was adduced, also, on the effect that an incinerator fire would l.g;;.,;j g,' ,38Q ijf.! have on patrons in nearby Veado's Restaurant, in response to a question raised , Q Q Bil/ W 4;. W* si by the Intervenors. Tr. 311 (Axelrad). The restaurant is located appoximately W.J..wNwa.n V. ,r.WR. :?. s . -E,4 R.,.M.ar....mm e.. yM. 9 Td.M.e p. :fm.s...~. r, o%,.s.v. 175 meters north-northwest of the incinerator site. Tr. 236-37 (Ozimek) and s/ m F.ne ::h., w. m 4*e ?. }g. y %,,.wtf.~ 1:r * .?.*.2. Q' .ms o v [W,.p'b;1.*9,.j'Tj,'d, IM.,. c n t ? R.l.)w&ca,;J.,&w ~*&H.lgln,&
i &'
v%is .g. ~ s .s f &!:. '#~ 884 wn; W.r.,.p4.7ed,g, u
a.,~; ?:
m.Q' M:ya,t's.,.,. %._, ~ ..g/*,4. y.Mv.t p.pa N4 m. s
3 p.f 5.f' b,,..
t q5 M*$ ld ;* W ;!. W b;E.'eg '*.Agf yw.~. %{n{* o:.'):n. &r%l& }-'*%l h
op w:.

. q,
. y. @lk'?5lf hNY.S.&&.Q'.Uj:j&l'.QQ@,W.O M&tM ~ ? "; V x I g
w . a 4
d. + fMdy,,..a>....i.f, $^ b,h 5 ?
h5 .% r.u.'.c.WQ.',.e p;Y.i';N,Qg... @6'Q,f mtsp?W,tv,,;.*w.'Q -l8.3 L k.. ; t.pe/.ri .o v. A Qf. ,A. j &p h:t; %) r;??s Lyr Q m 3 pj d .yAA;,~ v 4wn, 1 O Y'E W W*Y'W SUY.n i %. i!$hr 5 >.m},co w'q. m. $ n w &. l ,..w -. u& ,g.. 4. m...:,5 f u.L..,"i. :.* &$..' %.+ [.s.,f:k& s," U
9. s..v.
Q,g-Q?..;..yWC s,gs M,r.G: c.... p..:g,s. 4 i.wgigr 5 Tg.: 4W;. %.y,.s.u; ):';r:y *:'t h N M.;'#k '[V W v w, M' p g@s' . ~ - M.c h.i.A Ncxi w.hh {pQ;M .~ a. h Licensee's Exh. 2. Although Veado's is closer than the maximally exposed i. %@y $Nk,Ihi 'SNM'Mg/W@ hW't!.yd.-M!$.p.F dtj. individual, who was assumed to live 200 meters south-southeast of the plant, pP the maximum doses to patrons in the restaurant would 1,e lower than that for h kk'hb N'hM.Sh the maximally exposed individual, for several reasons. The dose pathways that WhM lM67.Mfl.bli'Mh[$;/$ '5 Produced most of the dose to the maximally exposed individual in B&W's b;$g'$Y.'.hI',I%p"5N'h!. ;y2!;'$ from the soil):2 would not be applicable to a restaurant patron. 'Ile only pathway incinerator explosion analysis (consumption of local vegetation and direct dose '%{'.P,M.4..';$,.yt,,,.3ikA~C /;7&q;b'.-$.y J.&:' Ur ; i/M ' i) .. c of significance to the restaurant patron would be inhalation, which contributed s..fyge)!'M.5 @., e . r. +; g,. & n :
p W 9 *. - ;.;.%g
'gf..y.;;.ye;,., v.Mr:w;;.. M,4 i
4 *e, only about 1% of the calculated maximum thyroid or total body dose at 200
'r,.g;. >. - *@u.,m" $.q/c: q y/9 :r. m u ~..;s s /c...G,.w; 7;%,gpp O:.,m./.c meters. The inhalation dose at the restaurant would be about 17 millirem thyroid %py. P.S.,r:4:; M!M', M.... ..g.. m,.,/%...,d.e...W:b+rJh.
m...:4... p2.*/< 4.,1,,,
s .e. and 10 millirem total body, far less than the 970 millirem thyroid and 580 er .. r;,@,...W; y/ J. M..,h,.um. A5.- millirem total body calculated for the maximally exposed individual living 200 u.,;< .r 9,D.%'.S meters from the incinerator. In addition, the dose calculated for the restaurant ,$@d Mjh;3hI'MM.3[%.'.N$3 ,f i$P%gg3Q Patron assumes a ground-level release and that the patron is inhaling the plume @@t.@@,T d';N;. b p' 't,y for the entire duration of the accident. The thyroid dose calculated for the r '.N':.%l;A.7.r#l'/M.M'r[M.&:; M,s.i f/ 4 .M M restaurant patron is below EPA's PAG of 5 rem (5000 millirems) by a factor of
M i-tc,'? '.
about 300, and total body dose is below the PAO of I rem (1000 millirems) by '2 a factor of 100. Consequently the health risk to a patron or worker at Veado's lb "i%,M ,0... !,;ly.'..J ;$ [*$g'.AM 7 '.7 ./::. 5 J1;;#1 as a result of an incinerator fire would be negligible. 7Y. 311-13 (Potter). .J.q/:T M fg;3j-p 116. Furthermore, in response to concerns expressed during the limited c.,...t m... ;.7,w.. M,. E.l,(C.<r; Q,t. '.,;d...a$ K.M. t. *,.7 f, :'F. appearance statements about the difficulty of evacuating Kiskimere with snow , y,..
.f. i e....,n;jef..a.. %,1..
a or ice on the roads, the NRC Staff testified that doses there would be less than /;i .2 , ch,. fj.J} j, "-J/.(rf... o.Q5 'ggj doses to an individual living 200 meters south-southeast of the site. Consequently c.. W e. v : E' c ' 'C. :.... f.,,,,p... *a,.,.. p. 4. 4 i]f they would be lower than the EPA PAGs, and no protective actions -including .m. . a.- . g.v. ,p.. r' 97.r.e s%m $. evacuation - would be required. Tr. 482 (Blond); see also Tr. 315 (Potter). .y;p Jy,fi M k,lN M;WQf.lf,Md.4y 117. In response to a question raised in the September 8 Order about N 'C ; l- ) whether B&W's emergency plan called for alerting Veado's Restaurant in i /.< [.M., M $ y.};fi'i%;%::.g.Glq case of an accident, B&W's witness testified that in the event of an accident. i . R....r+.n. W~...." M. :>w,f,9. j Mg. gl J B&W's procedures called for an evaluation of the accident, including offsite a.~. t.w ./h., 5 consequences. If circumstances warranted it, local, state, or federal authorities 1."s.;;f.@. *.,L WY. yaN., m$$d. S,;p,fs.,4 .. m.... s. ,.a.:v.{. a 7,., O.. /.C., :..t-. c.,r...;
r '.-..: '. ",b..%c h... w nearby population, including persons in Veado's, the local police would notify
,a . + 3 would be notified immediately. Should any actions need to be taken by the .r... / y. G 3$'.'.$sf f{d'.[y' $ ;.J.i'@?J'M O
'bD,Y the population and provide any necessary assistance. Or if warning should
@'." S,P: .. '5 be necessary before local authorities could respond, the Emergency Director b'4..^ M;[;'* /.?$,$ k C'" fh;l?.M.] I 5.'@ J.6 { of B&W would provide for notification using B&W personnel. 7Y. 313-14 N.h. h,.[~...h.,. b. d.N...,. $.7f,Q(C ' Q
l, (Fogel). There is at least one security officer on duty at the Parks Township OODl) c.m...
.J. n aspese to a c,uesum fun me Pasadmg officer, the NRC staff tesufied eat atsuugh mers were no , ! og ?.; ? vy,i h.,'.2.h.;f. :L "',[n! [',* m.YlN 6\\b'[I( *((f4; i s. '. . kl.n .. ';
7 i.. V.]
m:re an accident that multed m major and contammanan, the NRC staff would tde oppmpnaie regulatory ngulatory hmits on me amount of rudimuchdes tal could accumula:e m sod of unrestncied anas if mere I.k'[. I# y,.!.4 *.,* 6 %,.Y .f.* : 7, e.,j [3c..y,.lf.,l acuan. Tr. 483 54 (toysen).
*' j.,',.'/ c e
9 .. r, o s 3, A't',?! * ?..M,N..'.%"s'1 .. ;5,,b w.,$: ~* lld. s. ? s.c.? Y *i.* U! e/v.: D,. r,, a *c t.;. g'. d. r.,e,1.g..,. :..%..v c;y *p t,,.f. t ~* t c' U % YlE?.%C'Q) h... D,*f.?nPs '.' ~".*m ..j' 4:$;Y:h' *y *; Q '.:,..... i.
w Q 'Q

'v;.\\;'.Wl.;l ;.~,..'. q;,;.g Q
~. n t.~.' : m t1 f;l.. d' g.,, Q.* ?; L.,y: 885 Mc.s. e.v. i @, r m. ,N. .e.c.p4m.. ..y n y...,. ,.P 3. o. n o i f. g.,. g;r y.,..,. u...,$.'....s.'.;.,.,,y.,s,.'. * ' M,.d .l % a*.. 4, ! *.*g N. g, t,4'. g *,. % *.g. '=',/[d D l***,
"*f oi
.. 4,. $ *.*'.9 ,,V. .,t, J
d
".j, 'e"* , 7,,.2 h.N .hM'YM..f,M.3b,..I.t.f f &D..,#. f.>,a,M;! a.?s%Chyd'DY.:fM@%'Y.,.h.,...q h;p. : A. s M NMh m.v -.$.slpSSb.T GN N.*:.'2 W th .n.v.s.n M.:. gW':T,Me.g.W@M, g WRF*i.;R, W3.,m.M,..-ll.4.1.WMIV.Ch,~@t%.$..e y .cw .um ,u. e gm . k' E k I* M. p @.gg.Q:% ; W. g w',p gz:y % % W w. w.' o >,v.n
j' e gp b 'P'K0 . o - t.4> i.is.,,f..,/.,.'- .e,*'.rm. s# a d s. ~* v -- .*j'".,,.,r.'.
s. g.
' $*h,.(, g 4 ( $'/,.;,#.Yh ff* ,Y'. a r .4 ,.e r.. e p-p we fr. h.'*U * * ;.WE) ? g.
O e.
$n fY*hh$* s " $t.Yo S".%,h ?kY !fl4.? %#'.3H&.4:Wh ? 'h * @n%lWuQ e
, s 1
.U
q 5 4&.W! % (% m$ W W:h vQ'?.

s
?M. 5.: k. W.Q : c.:.p:s%
-Q*

Q:l gb;:y):;MiQy.Q,.
.%.::i ,% b' W N R W # % :PM E Qe6 GQQW.W ig F*,,~.f..y.,.',Qu%p i* 8 .h y M,;,) F ,'yM ahr. t.
$J7.eizus.7?bli<M!**b".I'i.?
g M 8,;. d fly[pt d ""',4['*[ h ; m,'y h / h 4 $ h.,vy'.,I'(
ei,
4 a'.st't.r $ f ., j W f.-s,,",,.> i' s,3,:.c* llW
w
-:.:.&.l v:a ,.. n, - wn w.9 %..."',-.9 @/ 1 M s. 6 e'
te.
..p*.-
e
1.r.
.4 * =,1
n
.? .. t.'., r* ;e *
m.

v., ea.
p.e/
..t4,;bm. '*. c.
a s ... ~ g,
k',.. s...., ;, A 1.*
5
q.. ;W. ;. i.' ' '#p --
' Q f '/ G 5 ... p f.;:g.d.y1,,g"$;.g'/ ..g-r.l* :p,g.j Facility around the clock, but usually there are other activities going on as (.., M.JW'WM.4 .Q' /p.s well. Id. Tr. 317-18. i ,y@i!WDh';@!$dy($h.y$,% M:'!
57
'C'. 118. The Intervenors questioned whether B&W was aware that Parks Town-j.) ship did not have a police officer on duty 24 hours a day. B&W's panel was, in ' !,.',{l.';'y@.;'t,.]yi.sy.[*..MQ [ p fact, unable to answer the question of whether there was an officer on duty at 'e, night. "R. 318 (Fogel and Bowles). B&W's witness went on to testify that the g$.y$ ',3 %.:p;,'gi.g p. f't/ d -?*; g y, %l y emergency plan calls for the B&W Emergency Director to notify the appropriate ..%. 4 ,.97:.. _.w@[.. ;, ) o... ...,y, ;f
3.r WM'i W.,l.ty, s,.
C ?,5
. W., t.
state and local officers and to recommend evacuation at that time, if deemed r necessary. Tr. 319 (Fogel). The federal, state, and local officials to be notified 5,f;;'" j.M ?.E;$,j;p) *f,.E s,%3 c of an emergency are the U.S. NRC, the U.S. EPA, the Pennsylvania Emergency /gg.r.flflQ[.Kf,.K fg'W(? Management Agency, the Armstrong County Civil Defense, the Bureau of Ra. 'p, q '.y;"l" fip, cg; g.f '.J.$q.f diation Protection in Pittsburgh, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmen-is, ';[l,,[..n ';.Jj;.'! M;,g., (q tal Resources in Pittsburgh, the Leechburg Police Department, the Armstrong 'C 7@< $.,p/.ls,c' f,'. d,*, ;; J. 4,r.,f..i W i County Sheriff, and the Pennsylvania State Police. Id. at 319-20.D When asked ... 'f.p" : ; t., .,.t,8 by Intervenors whether it was aware that the director of the Armstrong County Y. .; M i ;:],C.M',W S fjlfj g.' ' 89,.Ol',V.[. Of-O. el: O.. Civil Defense department had resigned and had not been replaced, the witness panel stated that it was not aware of the director's resignation. Tr. 321-22 (Fo-r ... w O F.;.,f...Q, h R.m ;M ).pis nlc S.lN. %.. ..e c gel). B&W does, however, make telephone contact with each of these agencies v
7. ' Q every ya.ar, when it conducts its annual emergency drill. Tr. 323 (Bowlex). A g ~ ' W,. '., ;4. j '
,?;. a' Y. M..'@7..,, y l M 9, Staff witness attested that the NRC had prepared, and was about to issue, orders wt q q,..< y, ~ i..
,; V to all fuel licensecs, including B&W, requiring that they call each of the tele-
',?. 4..r.. '.. W.. g. 2,l' A: .f x .a n. phone numbers of the agencies and authorities on their emergency notification [pg..}. ?,y,,g' y :.;,') ?j-N , ;,. W. o ,yfc.y', lists eury 100 days, in order to verify the correctness of the listings. "R. 493 ef;M, 'M J M !j..!I'd.* 3.;..;,W.q. (Loysen). . );,. : y;g cN M. $ a @ ' Q.,,; [,',i Q V ,.JU 119. In conclusion, the fundamental framework of B&W's emergency plan
7.]
is sound and if properly implemented will be adequate to protect the public health and safety in the event of an accident at the VRSF that would require M ; ;. 7,f. f;; /.;. 'a ;.., d..Q p.? : S r.m,.,m. ?o. m...'M N... ;,. : #.f.$,, y.
N f? ', < -?
O U.U. an offsite response. B&W's witnesses, however, appeared to be not as well . S:g.ig'.J.Q.t.'f'f:;/ y;< Opp @:y;fgl+x ~e-n informed as they should have been about local agencies with which they / *p2 Est;.ZM%ip.$bJ /Jc.0.G.,'?;'.;[w?d,[i would interact in an emergency. The witnesses were unaware of whether Parks $,i,r..fr ..R.@..Wi,.....c. A.. . M.. 4.f.,g/pw?" Township had a police officer on duty 24 hours a day, and they were uninformed as to whether the Armstrong County Civil Defense department had a designated @r.%..,,;;,m.,^... .'.'.P.f *v**.s .o s.a. E.i e .q ..~s.- ..s t r ?, W,,.%. j 4.. director. If there is no police officer on duty in Parks Township 24 hours a day, ,v. 4 l.N.A MV.lQ 3e .r. ,%Q;j ed,4;;. 9.y;, Qa.g,.pl.M the fact would not necessarily constitute a fatal flaw in the emergency plan, %g' #w$.;N,y; $lf'M.!,F. because a State Police barracks is located nearby and either the State Police or
[, $
j, the Armstrong County Sheriff's department could be called on to alert and assist . 'QN C 7 the public. B&W should, however, determine whether it would be appropriate to &,c. ;M, g&,,'l't'?. c ? . iw * ..,,,. -M7 '6 ,?<? ^ . ?!S contact either of these law enforcement e.gencies in lieu of the Parks Township i. t,. s54-mi,,
6 7

3&~ ?'.W,., il%{dy qq if; b,%
.f D In r:sponse to e quesuon from the Praidmg omcer the wimens stated that the Armstrong Camty Civu Defense i dhb.- Q#s" (-f.~% r "5/,D* p?,l3W.D/~:i.$9,,,.WA */8.M.G 4 rif.Q as located m Litannmg. wh2cm is 16 or 17 rrula fran oc site The Presidmg offwer nmed that he had observed ih. -/-1 a stats Polme bamcks h,cated near the site. Tr. 320 21.
y,D.Qt[/f%;*Q[ffd)*({[Cr..l*.

.gk;r
.; Vl ':['. f' O r; , $**.'4 l. e.p%, Q%X**f;4p, t e a 3.Q'. @, &w, M'd.g. ?Mi 7 tu.9/w -w;r 886 h*"".NI&V'.tkn' s s.. p? '& . w o m. f,.< c* w e a .p,.m.... Yb5$ h G b V av @MM.Ql?O $.,$,.,?.$$@ %. #.,$d.f',$[. M....u[N NM., l ,s. s + i. i
~ / ..,,.u<. [... ..c s.,. s r.., ~ssu n'tQfflwI..,h.U.%,ta%..,, *m' * *k n<w n(w$4 m' a'ef '*QW ygif?K!QEM..i,i,R(m'f,, G.*V'"Nl%e.. s***ns$s % 1 w4,h L hin.' .%4 d o n'.. Q W.$. q%.: ..,a.J.k.w.)!y3 +h, w.s N,9,n,,<$.kN..%r .hA h, T Q..s.n,,p,. w w w%) M. $ * +. s . v:.g. 4.,. m, *... n.g?.m, ex!y r...* n.:s' - I .1/r.yw: q r-t,gp.%,.$ P...; ;;
a.
.k# k [, Police at night or the Armstrong County Civil Defense. Herefore B&W will be M'gh4.[. ~ - d',k $0,h*b;d;&r.N@;'!fb}lN.2$10'g'/d.'} 6.i'. W S. % required to make such a determination as a condition to the granting of a license h P '#d. .9 amendment to operate the incinerator. In addition, because the Parks Township { NE.T;.fj(! N.')k M:hhfk facility has a reasonably large population, including schools, within 1 mile of f h .MSNdl.W.M.$ the site, it is deemed essential that B&W keep up-to-date on the availability hM'.; ,.Q .).9.s !'e %. a.S@; f.A.qp. r.t,n,,,',a.';. ;.,h. q,k' N M , iT. NA'. and accessibility of local emergency agencies. ne verification of emergency g /.. x contacts by calling all the numbers of the agencies and authorities every 100 . v. 'W.!.'S."$.t 'M; b;. . m.,,f/wAWY.y. days, pursuant to the prospective order from the NRC Staff, should serve this ty[. RNE),VM,$liUO@@@.h: %N/M Purpose adequately. Since as of the hearing that order had been prepared but not
' ghj.5%{Q'OW.'jDGJ[,
issued, the practice called for in the order will also be made a condition of the $ t N d*1:3.f.b:MM85, license amendment to operate the incinerator. Neither condition need be made WGc,khMh[j$2bIh%t2.@ M,)i OkR M.NPhhjh@EMQ a condition to the license amendment to operate the compactor, because the inf$ d..T y':
/'
compactor is not liable to the accidents that are possible for the incinerator. With 'J-Q M.r h W.Y.! $,,,O. -3.$/ 9 7 W.,'S; hN ~ these conditions satisfied, the B&W emergency plan will be adequate to protect %$1.*r*A'Q,% the public health and safety. . e r.,.,,.w.. m /h.,, u,,s. 7f s.:.. e. - 2.c..e..j; ..i.e.w ..,v..;,, <.q. c, .m,.p.. .. v. :.m. a, 's $.., c< s. s. r. e,.,.., N. - ;, ' 5;i i.. ? ;,' ?w.%?s. : c.,.w <a
L;... P. p...n. f,Q..,..,Q.,. '. '%
. '4 ;, (5) Health Effects of NonradioacMve Releases
1. :n
,p, . ::. 7 ,,. ].. Complaint 2 (Generation of Dioxins) ~ m %'O '", a3 }-[.h'f,... @,,, :p.l/ 7."ll -....V
.g. v....
' 7.. y ' e ,,./. j'[.d ii" ~ :p. T. ' p Incineration of polyvinyt chloride will expose pentioners and their families to diotins, with 9* f.V p., ;- adverse he.ahh effects. i; p a.,,M 120. Dioxin is a generic name for a class of compounds that can be - 3';.7 y,.. ;;:..s.. .f. Ng.0 4*O formed as byproducts of cenain chemical reactions and during many combus- . c',. / @ j. i,;,j tion / incineration processes. The most common dioxins are the polychlorinated
..# Y $.,2. N[N} f(. *; ']:pf.l,.C',p.l.
" f'j.f;l;y,7, ' j g c gi:.L j c'y! 6;,., (c. Q dioxins (PCDDs), of which there are seventy-five different isomers. The toxic-ity of dioxins to animal species depends on the number and placement of the 5 . @ G ;~.,'. Q chlorine atoms on the dioxin molecule. The more toxic dioxins have four to six Qlf,'.p'0]l,7.?.i.?..e l. ;. Q [,, y 7 d',4 gl.",~ yii'y/I'%y..yN.W(.R,;j T 'i,.';.lF $'.NJ 3 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Other rnolecules closely associated with chlorine atoms with the 2,3,7, and 8 positions filled. The simplest is 2,3,7,8-9 W, M $ 6. w ;.".l~. p,i,"*:l 0 the dioxins are the polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). NRC EA, Appendix ,'C'C,S'gc.'.e'...N.,'..l2a;'/jf,no.;'..'fU,, g. 1.; C at C.I. . ;.g. ... qg.. ef.j.g v, 121. Dioxin is extremely toxic to certain anima) species and harmful to .f f..:q. '..T.,.D.?t,
4 humans when they are exposed to relatively large amounts of it. The claim that J,.J.y y Wlp;%.' ClM;6.'.%;.{$
%.y. Q,:! J, 4; p, y A.;%.f.ivlJ pigs. A dose of 0.6 g/kg body weight administered orally will kill 50% of -[ it is one of the deadliest substances known is based on its toxicity in guinea [f. MQI. D,.'d[.t." vl. ( ;'{,'[., N TN9M (;. ', male guinea pigs that received the dose. Hiness occurs immediately and death f?$.@'k?. $.MN";$ !.;M,' '.6 occurs within about a week. Its toxicity, however, is highly variable between [S}!4[FF13';Jf'W(O;4'd;i.,$,." ( .i.'.[Q species. For example, the least sensitive animal tested is the hamster, which c ". '2.< j b M; : Cf:Y is 500 to 10,000 times less sensitive to TCDD than the guinea pig. Rabbits, f.ii'[..'.ggih'.". Q5l@Af,h ,[fi". mice, and monkeys are roughly 200 times less sensitive than guinea pigs and .p m....,., ..,*. g 4. s..,;g.,.x. o.,.,;a.y, 50 times more sensitive than hamsters. ' Die acute toxicity in humans is expected + u "/c, 0.. ,.,.. e...4 ~~ 7 ' f f 5 ;'l.t. h.'y f.,s;i. - T '5 ?s a..sf. . C.n.g."** ...,p. e., q,,.p('% t 'I ,s.t e,3.. %' 6 ~w s .,,s.t,
..s,,,. r. ~ *.
-s.:. g,, .p u -Q*... ,,c,.f..U'.; ?,r.W. V:i, ; Q f w;.N.m d;;c l:,:l.;r.',, jA.(;*:
n
,,..a g;..,.C q. n: 887 rc A..g c, r -:;r.N .. 4 y %. -,*..o. s.,. o,c. ;.a.,. W.ept,s,uw., t. : b. * :.......:. r o .:d.. ; pi ;... t g.
t.< *g, f,. p.
./. r 3 ;,..,,p 4 /.;.. y;,. %.i,,.? L.$c g* t n* i 'e o e% A..,s;;.g..,. p.e 4,, w' g y a, y. #::.,92. $l'ff,o t,?. *3..... x:..ly'W..y; *: tQl*'";.*- x ~ +: h w{7Ne..Lm..g%.;.b h..,q.$. o<.M.9,M. M lM%m;f b [ esse. ia G ,S m
f...., &.,. v.5.n,,m5-n m. v),y. s., n.m.v,, ~.m,vg..n.p, -w. ;;A. o:Wn.:.<.. :. +.n m,.2,n,.a.p,;m.c..
ws . o... s. cw .g 3 .r. :.w. - 3 s. s
7., 7... - &.&.%.N...;. 3,g.M'$v.$,4 W Ss..p&.. 4.e : i,}.%,Yr: ... ~...,. .--,,..y m G,%c. ). $ 3*'<,9..*IJh.w;. Q.r.,.%,s-$.! $.., u ,,m. <5 Y. y. 4.. ~.g,5.'.wN,o).8..W.~,lMEM . :.p;.: w......, f,..4;$E 1 l@my. m, en;rt..n.. p,' a,w. 6... ,:',,\\., c., b ~; r: .w :.e .v . n... w .~. m
p.,
.g..ww.. . s. ih.4g*k.,7..qdc,Q..D. e.fN9..,W",.h.Q. "c*c;wyr?'K(ih Y 3':,../.Q%W:?& W '?n.WPaf:&ff
'?
Q 'Wf4
.c.
k i rgj9 ,,_,... / .h . e s9...,.>.m..L.itw,0 a-,,,/c/ sp..t.:v.d.I'b:9: *N...y;n.<y'e v a.W'J'f= - f i M /.-A/ 6 q. k * ;* se, tmy'W;. " M %, dtbI* f7 .P.S,%.> f %:N. a.S f%,4' i.f A.. ~r.f.y,eo c,. s2..u,. w:.zq.t.p.3.;>8tdy .. n..> .g p y m .. x.u..u 2y.;w..:u. m <., O, 7. 4,*.yh q,,ygy r..e. D.wq;,,34 ? "y. .g ,9 er*
v. sa 3 W;,Q1**af':...d. 4 n'. s..%
'a. '. f'0 r. Yh
2.... 'hofWy

n-O;.
M.'*. r -,::W
.p. L' q Q..,. Y'.S5$* &a.. a.N m
' v d,d. : ~ a.;'.1;.7. WMPg.t.v.::..$t!y.Of.M jg'j'r,gy$.?%j.gg.3'@ to be about the same at that m monkeys. Considering this, TCDD is about ten times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide, but it does not enter the body as readily [@7. f.f,yMf t. :g.g$' '.l;'.y.g;,. ly; .pfg.gne as hydrogen cyanide. The long-term, irreversible health effects of dioxins on !j'.g;,ypr(l',.p, hy L. .Mi7g,Wl '. j humans remains.tckrown. Id. at C-2. M;;g,;. !p '.,:'3y* y',Q 122. Although ir the United States the EPA has been actively studying 3;'p,$[.Jl?,*@07: 'n ' rg;;f.9,. the dioxin pmblem, as yet no regulations limiting dioxin exposure have been Q.; :p. [yJShf.;;Wf' g;cf,;.tdb;Q J promulgated. In Canada, on Ik other hand, the Ontario Ministry of Health has
/'
3 published a guideline of 30 picograms per cubic meter (pg/m ) for TCDD. The 5,@..d. '4 C. %. !Y.$ 3.* -M
b
.j . 5p.N* l W EPA used a decont:u'tiriation criterion of 1 part per billion (ppb) for the work 1 s, M.((y,'q.jf.N, T..,.N.... d.: 3..,/.E. 7, ?;M. & ec./.C done at Times Beach, Missouri, and the U.S. Air Force is considering a limit of fla e. 10 ppb for decommissioning of former Agent Orange storage sites. All of the foregoing dioMn levels are based on the isomer 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Id. at C-3. '.f,~ A,*: l P...O.Y.,, ,..?.,. 7.. 1. 'a' '.h. .g/., '?,.&. v.., 4.. ~.. .. '. A'c.. W, M
.'c ; f;U K.d..:.e,,.
' 'lc...,u %,T. 123. Various mechanisms have been identified for the formation of PCDDs et.r .,, m.. ,A :." ". Q and PCDFs during meineration processes, including the following: j.2 4. v.m.'.W: 4,. ~. c. v.WE
.. /..,./
..L,py,..y g.yv.sg x:g.M. ). (a) PCDDs and PCDFs may be present as components of refuse being ...e S i.:K temperatures that are too low to destroy PCDDs and PCDFs, these .'...,. ;9.. ;F.,./ @,. % :,..1. incinerated. Because many refuse incinerators operate at combustion e. " ".'F '. M.", 9 g r.Q m l5 compounds may volatilize and enter the process flu gas stream. e;.f ' : 5 (b) In situ synthesis may occur through thermally initiated reactions of T.9,, ';,h ',Ql,<,' -lt 1'gIMi. ; l l ;', i. ~ f,".[ Q...:., i'. s /. j~ ; '.M.JI,. ? j molecular species '. hat are either present or are prodxed in the high- ..~.r.... .. >.. ;. : c temperature combustion zone. The reactions imolved m. elude rear-c.,..;..s.9 M 4;s?p) ["6c.4.'*T.,','e V 7,' W 1.' pf , M (. ' [r 2'.,. ; rr.ngeme.:ts, free. radical condensation, dech orination, dehydrogena-J. &. J tion, as well as other molecular reactions.
c.,"
' ?C. Q,'.s .[JJ-n (. y.e. 'f..,, pp[,q, r.Q.., (c) If the combusdor rane temperatures are !dgh enough, PCDDs and .iM PCDFs can be produced in situ by elementary recombination reactions w ..c. ...W,5fj,M ?. ;, . ;.,,c, '. a. q, t., y cf atoms produced by the thermal combustion process. ^ W ~' C..S;'H T' ~' ?.O 1 e. v.*t...
It is expected that the formation of dioxins and farans could occur in th SF
<o incinerator via mechanisms (b) and (c), above; for reasons to be discussed ow, L 3' ". ;O,M..'W. ;P, '.G' 24l/*' ,g.j f!;. g.i,3, c.-..Ugj.qlsQ,[l o m kC;#.n.dW/..~ however, the concentmtion of dioxin released to the environment is not expcoted M.plQ* n.M. s;, .W ce
J+ M. M to be signi5 cant Id. at C-5.
4 '/ p,' g d Q.l:r. g .- w ,? .E 124 Materials to be incinerated in the MVRS that could result in diokin 2 .m.-
3 h'; f 3;;. cg3pl;llQQTJ r.
( and furan synthesis include benzenes from liquid scintillation fluids and liraited ,1
f. M quantities of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The incineration of chlorinated benzenes 3,
.:yp37;;
J.+c{,:a. 2,,:
can yield bcth PCDDs and PCDFs. PVC can ba a source of chlorine and on M i,; % K. %.-. Q :(!z.P.M. ?.s. ..c.. W'3,M., incomplete combustion peld minute quantities of chlorinatef benzene which, ,v ?.. Og. '.g. m. ; H.q/, 'cb. ..e 4 as just stated, can be a precursor to both PCDDs aaJ PCDFs. Quantities
'e, II.%$.M!p."ry.[/;,$dM5!d.
d h.$ife(~,M i j $ f4 of PVC incinerated in the MVRS will be hmited to 5% of '.he waste by $;7. weight. Id. at C-6; B&W EA, Rev. 3 at 3.3; Bowles (Complaint 2) at 2. The W (%9'U.: /d [y/Wy.i:,Jg.Mid.%,y,tNfhlh:'d limit will be implemented throrgh contract restrictions and shipping manifest .,QWT,?.W.KQ@ dccumentation. This limitation is pired on PVC as an operations restriction for d. g?N ' h N economic reasons, however, rather than because of environmental concerns as EQN$$$$m.::.? ,,p..%'.X[v:,.y to dioxin releases. Id.; 'n. 62-64 (Bowles). High PVC levels in the waste would r n,.:1.y.M.,,-vx., n c.1l',w ' 5,c,.. 8 m!*.* g .W'." a.. n . ' l 0l;.' *:..(*, s *,' E n ~*.
E.f..
WNl %['..+[ ;;it..%:D %@M,d!- ^. f*, ) . ~'[ ggg a};.w fx LfQgpf.v.2m.[. Q'. tl Q yg*. ;%m.w. e.o..m.am r: .,Q *..fy;J.4,md-g;7,d,v$_T/ Xf,.Q Q w t ..., p.~%, r QQ.)..;.*.. 6 ,,.. f t.:. .4 . g. .q f.. b* h+W SN.:?kt N M h h M I N d @ y ymow w:n$ 6* .y g .<4 r ?%ikibek.w. M rW @ h. o.5 h.k M U.;h. yW; 'ptf.&& T,,hp',: OT.n.P::ME; m.y.pwewg.y:x. m; q IS.NNbh @lf-l M ..y....' x.,.. y. a m w.;..,,w w.: y.. . g._3. g g.- .%.g. a.s... ... ~.m. -i 5 i
.,w s $, k.M M $i W M M $ M; M M{.h.:,Ti.;..
h... m..... n.,,...-,.,,,,,..., w.~ -
... ~ ~ ~.... h .h;' f.,. n'fk h. z .h.'5'h k. b MIMM. sh!$,hhh?0MM$ h "h @g&in*n d Qp i."lM!.W<l @x,en.p.c.b~. Q -p & s ....c%ahy,M&TMCd Q.h' i.G. WUI.Q c.;n&.a.c yk. : M. < yb.'x.(&.w%..Y)M. %l): r4 %%%*4% P n. - s.w.... m~. &... n*., .m s Mg.W..W mp.w:..t ; D, h.I&~$ h g %$ $ $ $[ W \\ h.M h8.kDi'MIM result in production of excessive amounts of hcl, which would be removed by .W k the primary scrubber and would cause an increase in density of the scrubber hh'. h$h
W.h h+,p.s. q..
.m...V.. Nltji,t N. % m.in solution. Dilution would be required to maintain an acceptable density, and 'p+3..@,w;;,.@rp ; p the resulting volume of scrub liquor would exceed the volume that could be iy q. A q y.4 y .-/.y.*W:$f[.N.' p 7 hth@N . !9 - reinjected into the incinerator feed. Bowles (Complaint 2) at 2. 7.r;Wk%6@h@.h@I'.b.9js,k$$N h.M 125. Two important features of the MVRS will minimize the release of 5N hM.d r>$ibh M dioxins. The first relates to the operating conditions of the incinerator. B&W's 1 .N MVRS will be a two-stage combustion incinerator. Waste would be ignited W;o (!)f Y.V, y, W *n';#m N..~M f M j;f,h ]f h
d $ M f?f :,%'i and burned in the first stage (primary combustion chamber); then the gaseous
] fp 5 '$$.'2 M,.. k combustion products would pass to the second stage (secondary combustion 1 ..1 ..or. e,.3 h(.k:g:ff. ' A; p,9.hMl/h;d@G : G,t&p,,. i v qq c.
N.Jy g.
chamber) where the oxidation process would be completed. Dioxins would be {
h.!?
kMQ destroyed in the secondary combustion chamber because of the high temperature, l T.%(S.m;.;5IN44 W/*/l4. W.MW$d. high oxygen concentration, and adequate residence time of the off-gas in the I 15 0 n M.. ;,;P... ;.g.,. w -q gm,c.f,.acy.W.,..a. n..,secondary chamber. NRC EA at C-7. De secondary combustion chamber will J e~ uy,7M. fd,,i r p<r&.. s.y. ln/ "...e,p. r.0 </'t,.b.... r.. a.,,v.n..A. c.,. e operate at 2100*F with a retention time of 1.33 seconds and excess air of about J je. .,y,.. g3 p4 100%. 'IY. 253-54 (Lauber); Tr. 279 (Bowles); Tr. 769-80, 282-83 (Spas). A .s.. w S. $ F. W J ;h:T 4.' M "30 @t >t90%{. . & s. e 5rgs.t.Q W. h.h' ' N. .'p;M.W i M.rl;W'*:),$=.N;. Q < M ?'.;ng.O.e" destruc* ion of dioxin. Bowles (Complaint 2), Figure 2-1. Test data from the
4. -
s-r temperature of 2100*F requires 40 milliseconds gas residence time for 99.99% l J. 'J. c. M,r,7.W....g.Wi:,. 2 W,,.". J... Dresden MVRS indicate a combustion efficiency of 99.9%. Tr. 279 (Bowles); f.dM'r. dC.Y ^ Jc.h.-:@f. f.-. N.,G,.P.) l v ~-. 9 )"Q:9(. 'IY. 279 80 (Spas). Such efficiency is comparable to what is usually required for Q. y.v;.flZ. >.p,'p., y. /, fly :,p j, a (nonradioactive) hazardous waste incinerator and generally results in highly ,. C.M.5,/j v. l;,7;, ('.T.Nd['" -h efficient destruction of hazardous organic compounds. Tr. 254 (Lauber).2d Q{7.W.~.jC,V.g^ .,.'V %M; 126. De second important feature of the MVRS is that it will have a y,.j..; ! l.ll! h...'@f" 4; M.-g. ; 9 0.1., multistage air cleaning system, which includes caustic scrubbing, with the gases i '. y ' '.., i * '; ' g..., p.,,J. g d leaving the scrubber system at a temperature of approximately 180*F. The l y." GN.' off-gas will then be heated slightly to about 230'F before entering a HEPA { if,., crut pg. {.. P.t' J;;' : " if S *..M':'V. O y fj.y,f;.; q:9......:2 filter / charcoal adsorber/HEPA filter system, designed to remove radioactive .l ,.,.,e: M, ...m .. a m... ,;'.';q ;p,vg.s.g,1;s,
y ').
eEN,0.? ',. particulates and radiciodine. This system would also remove particles and flyash f :N.'C.[;;)*/[.7,Qfy'[%.(S"!$.Mi j.d'[$['.d.b4: ~ k ?[7.Mi.%,..$y. on which any dioxins present would be adsorbed following the cooling steps .I. Jij prior to the filters. Bowles (Complaint 2) at 8-9; NRC EA at C-9. ne charcoal .,E: 2 0; l. 70 Sl9 would also remove any remaining trace vapor. phase dioxins. *1Y. 261 (Lauber). W )*; 3,'C '..'Q' 1. ?. '.',",".?,'/ Ov-t.V '. '.s < *.Y/ p..WO -Q, '.j ,I:.' i : 127. B&W will be required to obtain an Air Quality Control Permit from ?~.W. l:/, tc.y,.;.f.y!,.cp./., -$.. 4,%yl<;.4.' PaDER. Dam (Overview) at 15; Tr. 57 (Bowles). nat permit will contain a
97. w.;z,.
J' d [.d :,.( :.f T.,. n y".
s
c. c -
condition limiting releases of dioxins. Tr. 57 (Bowles). PaDER has provided 4 ;.
J,.
B&W with a document entitled "Best Available Technology (BAT) Criteria M,. Y ?/?:. * ;$:[*g.c lp N..r,8 $. 4:n..n. 3 .e.. ,w e.f;AN 6; p. , ri,;,/g. n .r;. for Municipal Waste Incineration and Resource Recovery Facilities" (August y M ;:; W e.s cn%'t"* w..,. ' :Q*~.., 19,1986) which contains annual ambient concentration guidelines for specified .:d;f' ?;%.. >.h. Y.( #.'iW..(j f. ",,,/ lv !.r,s*'.a . ; ='t.,' 5.. 411. ) Q t 'T ?..* ,1," . ~..... ........~.f. 2d witness 1.auber, an Assoewis Air PoDuncri Contral Engmecr d the New Yark state Department d Envi. V: ;plf Mc' s.
g..
Y h*z.,.',T.f A.;..?;;R*$ *M'Y;gMl i g' 3y.{[?,Q'; 'j. ronmental Conservanan and a leading authonty on dioun releases frorn incinerators, was presented by B&w
Wi.'.'g.7 E p/9?ff~.M.;7.s because Dr. Resnikoff,in tus pre &d tesumany,incorm0y diaracterned pornans a rwo aracles co-authored by Mr. Lauber. Tr.41-43.52 54.25641;ticensee s Ea,h.1.
i rQ.,,.,9 ;f<m& ?,J:.y:'=?N,;;s -* P/tj.v. ('.; -*p s...;' ,g W \\ I,. Y.. ; },l'r.[Ma gW:in'.? g:* h. : -lll.. t.. ,.s (L.9 : . Q.. V r ,r.V Q /.. };i'r;%*/. M; gst, e. s,: ;g -. 6 t :..!;,.,g C g*W;c q' ...t O s' eln& n.,,s.w ;;p.,'f,v,. g"*/ ., e...'
?,,e 889 l
v v.. .r ..,.s.nw.
. n.m... r.a.. e..m...... g. w.
3 W a .fg; g, g.; " 6 r n. ~
4.f.a. :t (, e.
s.<,. g ;y y,.: r
v L *(.V. a..
.. t,, ; p: n. s. 9..p .7 3.<. w, $,. ,t. f J :n a,g' th..s # 1 .d *s.e';*,n..>-fr.th e J ~,.;..,:q s;;. ;.9..- M,..p.D. Q;. y:...i'(,l i ofj i g.- v... ' s* a' ' m %f n'!p)q
r. ht.ITw ~18 -. et k
W A:uMMWeM W lapqm p pWamm%M8W $DENM. p$M. kk. MM_M@h_ mmh _.NN.~N_-@W f -~.I ,3~., y. _, ;.~ _. ~ ~. _a g _:n 73 ~_. y. :~ .,.;3 e. ,c j. ~ ~
c. w <.
s, l
~., b.
,5[ / l (;,,.h
k,d.%.
h c!* w y *.. b'*lM?.,y:hM'... OM. 'l, mj, > ~h,.; b'.b....sk.*y,p N'...o. q., N.fM.h.L..&k ?*;i,.qi..E.v*v.we.,@hhy !.. ' 1 s 1;.h..-#si:.Ns,. u b ,c v e o~ so s t.s.;, y"k.%,r<:1c&'~ \\5.
S ".*.E.s,n. l.WQ;fgg;,g.h.';,,,,;,.,., ?;:; @ss.

E ' Q> **q. h.f...*-: '] T: !*1
-b;
4 ' " f. ';*;'..G.Q.r..%. n*
V..- wo n t 1a a s s.. 'eg ..x ., r t.v...ff 5 9...m(A...r,y e.p..,,p.1 .,p, y.,3,.1;*; *o., c he 4-r, e ,s... a s u.rk.e-- ?. o,'; % ii,';.j *f..j '. a;;:.*G.M*'.h'.',M f T s.. V t s. .en ,y.0..s YAW. w.: s. u:.<o...r.w.m.m.;;A a.u. ..;o m
x.*
h;kI.h:h[f.6,,% [Mhlg'%j 3 contaminants. ne guideline for dioxin is 0.3 pg/m for PCDD and PCDF, Q,G .f,)0yg?/ l
.l%g.Mifl.1.s pt.

.Q, expressed as 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalents. The BAT Criteria do not apply to 3,jf.g; facilities like the MVRS; nevertheless, B&W expects that the BAT dioxin
(.$, pgll/,;*dMM.I.?lt,fMl rf'.d: guideline will be taken into consideration in determining the dioxin release @.g,p-joff [...,. ?,, dD. qpl@N Q,p,f. limitation foi B&W's MVRS. Tr. 67-68 (Bowles). PaDER's dioxin guideline "^ O.+J is one of the most stringent restrictions that has been issued, but the advanced ..-a t' ). e t ..M...f.,., *.*Q;i. $., 4. '?.&..r. d .. < t..b. ;rs. features of the MVRS should enable it to satisfy even this guideline. Tr. 261-N.g][Jyh:. t, e;M T ..u 62 (Lauber). Even Dr. Resnikoff agreed that dilution factors between the stack i<uhc " '$g,1,'.,.<d.$.e,g.g.Jp.ylip s ~m samples and ground levels at the site boundary would reduce concentrations in Aikl.y[?4 WQ'T c..- P Gi.S M nanograms to picograms. Tr.148 (Resnikoff). .. q,.. p 6,.,... .....? pW ;0
n. - e -
.c..t, v".a'. t.A,,7.lmM.. ;.r,q'.W.r. C.d;l4 :"F fM*.(!M.:.. ,.e~ 128. De PaDER permit will also require B&W, upon initial startup of f .. - u f,,,M p.e. O,' ',, the MVRS, to take off-gas samples and analyze them for dioxins. B&W has N,..hUy,f,d',M.;;Q, $@,*}.O - 1,l '. A,Q committed to perform this test pursuant to PaDER requirements. The waste feed ' - 9... '.+ 9.., f..* A.. ?..,'.. for this test will include at least 5% PVC. Tr. 57-58 (Bowles). Following startup, Q i.bp/Q,s,Rl Q',p$cgN.cy w vn 6;*-NfilM.M.e.; #*. (5f during routine operation, B&W will not Be obtaining direct dioxin data, because g. P U' h 'i; ?.QE 'ri there is no known instrument that can provide dioxin measurements. Rather, to [f, '3 ensure that dioxin emissions are being properly controlled, B&W will collect %l/..M'by h[/ U i.f% PN'..,f.f-information on operating parameters of the incinerator, such as carbon monoxide il,7;. ,}. Q{:fs.'N'[(Nf k. ?.K [l0,.O levels, temperatures, etc., to substantiate that the incinerator is operating at a g,M f ] ;,; @;;, Q 'C -9 ;.pi.j; high combustion efficiency; B&W will also obtain information to show whether ./Qp I't;*g36. Ty.... ! ' .:' R,,h*T;-f f y 5 ' M '.; l. the off-gas treatment system is operating as designed. Id.; Tr. 272-73 (Lauber). 'M .(~Yg[;,[5,'l" } [i 129. The Intervenors' witness Resnikoff stated, in his prefiled testimony,
!." MtI., y that the MVRS was similar to some hospital incinerators discussed in a 1985 g.c. i,~e
... M. m, article co. authored by B&W's witness Lauber, thus implying that dioxin re-j,1f.;.Q'e. ,.b. ; y y ;5 4 W,i,@,g..f;7 ;. leases from the MVRS would be similar to those from the hospital incinera- .N'.;Y "'/ '. MM.*. ' [ i 'f 1 F.4 tors. Resnikoff Testimony at 10. Mr. Lauber testified, however, that none of the I,'2 @. Y..,'. i './f:.' < hospital incinerators discussed in his 1985 article had a combination of operat-NjN I W b 4,g Q Q.,*.,j.! *[79W,'i., $j.r.f ing conditions and a multistage off. gas cleaning system similar to the MVRS, Q. D..g M.f i.[dd, % .4..k-;Q.%; i M and therefore the MVRS emissions would be significantly lower than those from s',. v.. iza.Q. a......- the hospital incinerators. Tr. 254-55. He described a mobile incinerator of the 4$.". mT p p.. '.yJ e j;[j.[,.l.%(.M;4g #%g' f[Q.J,i.M EPA equipped with a Venturi scrubber and HEPA filter which was tested fir-ec 4.9.1,,%..c.....O.:@ ing material contaminated with chlormated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD). It showed detectable emission levels of only octachlorodibenzo.p-dioxin, a relatively non-a.. n. md. gg',: g;Q.M cWJ.ci. 08;DSN,-lMSc.',y01??Ti 9' toxic isomer which is not included in t.he list of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dioxin yG:,Qi*g,.py(p[g. M $. (TCDD) equivalents used by the EPA and PaDER." Tr. 255 (Lauber). Witness f [,f," Lauber expects the MVRS, which also has a Venturi scrubber plus two sets of .O.. ;1 g.i.t.jfyM.j,9 .. @ 8.s 4 jpf.jfG.Q.pp HEPA filters and a chamoal adsorber, to have extremely low or nondetectable Sa$p(yg,g@M.,,.p m m.,. m $. m. emissions of 2,3,7,8-TCDD or its equivalence. Tr. 255-56 (Lauber). 9 , a c... 5W .e .u QiR c.'y... 4).lL g.v.g .v. = Tw. erx p.ct. is.t ise oci.exio,oaidono#aioun com.1,e,o. oom.mm.i.a.oi-,. u..e in is..n ir.. }* ({ w' n.3 g* ] and nos frorn the inemer. tion process. Tr. 255 (L.uber). 5 %',.P.3m.q's.. *n ;m,.lbl:%,. . M,t m p3
M'D t
s,/* s ' ';* b.:.,4 '. s cs a.: nm .'s* **. A y. '.**..W' -l .s.V., 6 e f [fff fIf, 890 .o.,.w.%vls p.mq. $mg...:...m.. W w w ..e. _1 9,e2.., v.r a
@.. $.W..z. ejs
.s v ..w, .m/g 4 ... y4:@. 5..n,,D.,s,. M $$n, n.. S yy, .- y e +k 6
)- 56lk:sb'%).J' k&' \\ . W. S UM y M ?L; $y @ &. .%'.IgyOki :b $5WMi>%) WAN h.W; I;g+..:y;f;y%.m.AQ.W+g:b,n u[.L.'?q gg,m. :..m,,@h'.M,@..,,p;n?O.y $;. F.*(;.m.y.p.w..u e,,,. w;g:....:. a n,g?n" y v. r G'N,......M. $ a,g 130. Dr. Resnikoff criticized the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory's $MWId%@@h!j!M/M[D@jc.d o N $ N h j h ' h ! % lh.Q " Comments on Sierra Club Analysis of Proposed Parks Township Incinerator g l,i - RCR-29-86," May 19,1986 (INEL Repon) for asserting that dioxins in the 'd.lhflk ihk MMNI.id off-gas of the MVRS will be present as particulates which will be captured on C WDW2 the filters, on the basis of a 1983 article co-authored by Lauber, Dr. Resnikoff AGy,W *. M. w[Cf M.e'O h d M M;.,8.@g <.sp complained that the INEL Report ignored a 1985 article also co-authored by iMym&a 6f;l/ w wa m.a.. g. v jM$ M?'#iy@$M N W EN M cD'd M M d $ M 'w.S Lauber that allegedly shows that dioxins will be present in the vapor phase, hence $lWyjhM.b!M'f,i;3 Q'y t% not captured by filters. Resnikoff Testimony at 13. Mr. Lauber testified that it khNh.h$$ was not true that the twc papers expressed different views. Both articles indicated h:.Tu. hlb y M Q M o'0.y G G 5 DJ d.' gy that the combustion of solid wastes can generate dioxins in both the particulate 9tcM. N Nh. M.Whh M/M.W.N9,$f: hM P ase and the vapor phase, and each article pointed out that at appropriate h 9 9.n /4-exhaust gas temperatures dioxins would be converted to the particulate phase WM*g.QIN'8@n,7ME;.W*E M,Mp%li and hence be removable by an efficient emission control system. Tr. 257-59. Thus D,.. /d@.),.KJ:.MF,'l.d;;Tfs 3GM; c.dQlh.nM;g.@. m e gi;@/: nib.'ni' 'T&, j the discussion in the INEL Report properly reflects the fact that at the operating 'f. ...@t d.dd temperature of the post-scrubber off-gas system of the MVRS, dioxins present . w@.. @q. 'cW j.Q9: would be predominantly in the particulate phase and would be removed by the 3.. m. D.D'.D@w.d d'.*M'II,W,'!NGl 7.y@ fd ? filters. As already noted, any remaining trace of vaporized dioxin would be
m. eM.,.
Mf g W,.F..g3 % removed by the charcoal adsorber. Tr. 260-61 (Lauber). q.si(,$i.U?.s.WN-f" $.Y,N[d:s[] h."U,.$% [. MJ! 131. In his oral testimony, Dr. Resnikoff seemed to imply that dioxins ?rL >$::dl1.. could reform in the cooler parts of the stack after being destroyed in the bd c e p ;s." F, y,.M }.lQ @ y.s'i'fj combustion chamber of the incinerator. Tr.142 44. Later he appeared to refute .r/W.N.. ya . g.
q y,,; v. 4;;;~
this suggestion. Tr.147. Mr. Lauber stated that a theory to that effect had been j$.';f.,' ' d: A+b !.[h.[,@j Proposed by Dr. Barry Commoner. Tr. 263. Dere is no conclusive evidence, yf Wl ,..4 J.< M. however, to prove Dr. Commoner's theory. The preponderance of the literature W %; y. -,f.D.T #'p?j.* ec '; ' N y"% indicates that incineration at high temperatures with adequate retention time and l',,y[ j ;;.".U, ) /:< '.[.f. ',2. X'f,'.,$ e.ii at an appropriate combustion efficiency destroys dioxins and they do not reform %....: 1 5.4;r', h,*,. ' 'N.ld.QI; jyp '$'45'5$'! c. in incinerators. Tr. 264 (Lauber). Even if one assumed that some dioxins are f 3, N. n%...N/,. %..&,r.,; formed in the cooling-down stage after incineration, in the B&W MVRS the ED @.;;4.s. ?,...*,. b.,.,. 0,9@,"t. W. c.. (, *g,. A4l.. e /.<.....o.. cooling down would occur prior to and during the introduction of off-gas into ...,t-i, e. 3.g. s a ,.\\#,};Py ~! !!3 f,l. 4.' the scrubber system. De dioxins would therefore be removed by the scrubber (; f/, #.@s. ' ?",}/,. >h-,0)-l., {,9. 5 %.. ;': %...l.1./ '. system and the subsequent HEPA filters and charcorI adsorber. Id. 4., s*fM ',WJ'pf f.,.f . Oilf.tff 132. Dr. Resnikoff was correct in insisting that dioxins have been released D'W'r.; cr.l94 7:;/:,0.*.o,/gl.N:jn.Q d.;.7 $.b $ J'2,.l $ O' '. ". in measurable quantities from some incinerators. As Mr. Lauber explained, some 9; ... gh gy uncontrolled hospital incinerators release dioxins on the order of a thousand f.-@; ?,-.. ? ;W S.%.'M.W.9%.;n;. T;p' M....@[r ,,f Q.W C.,[ Q times higher than controlled hazardous waste incinerators; but there are many . vk .t.u W.m Ji/W,M.., x?h. properly controlled hazardous and hospital waste incinerators that release very gMX.'.r T.'QWD,id%C.!?@c.5.d,h/,) low or nondetectable levels of dioxins. Tr. 268. The fact that state agencies, W".y Ol.d,' D $ h b@.:$D.('#.~df% hh@,' $ D g. 2 such as the PaDER, have established such low criteria or guidelines for dioxin i g'm' releases indicates what present technology can achieve. Tr. 268-69 (Lauber). The -Wr;>iM,Nc!y[gfig iy.6Id01i capability of an incinerator to meet such requirements is normally established Jr 'rQ
O m(y,...,..t.e..M..')*J.o, /."g gba ?.-
F. during a controlled stack test program performed on site during the first few 4-f. o a:.' *c,A;* v,;6'.w* g:h '1 -r.
.s a.1= - e ' = H-.. 's;)
4 4,,9::Y. 9's :.. + .A.n$. s 4. s y. c v.. %. v.,w(.. Mj.%. Qt'?y.,,,;.,9. :v,:.. .. c. m.+. < 9 L. Wg' *.$. %c'y,.Q,: o w,-i,U. ;."*. b... ?, ?O, x,.t,q m:n;;m,;;r.O E..'tp.t, yg g91 Q .?Q .,K'.6 :... h...O.
3 g..w.,:
. f. .~ e.. c ?l.....v :&.. v,lfe lo' *f l. 4;.'ty. ')l%,p.t. lnW'e' *(l~ e '.Z hll. f '?a*,3 li:
?
W N;,.?.q. 2 d ,l Wg., y,,..,p%'eq.CA c m, m n w w.+nu, br%,sta
n' p'~yJp' s.m& e w?py pmpwwm.y. n.y;. ; ;W-;:n<;t.t:;*; wpm > :rgmy.g-g;;uym y
hs &y * ..% p %m% Rv*.N e, V't u ......, s,s.l5,M,,J.."n* *% y%> *..y4:=, b. )., W (..Jv/. ? f.Y.'4, & }a..,v. gen,y*g,,y...'% f.?,;* 4 g Q.f., f9,'e L" M, ).s g,. by?: h".c.o s q'.w.s - 2 e. tv **e's %)E m:>.m$w.W.h' y~
u. ex., m.j?'gf:v.k r
is
?
~ ..p,. et n , *.f g,. *
t.
r.4. kMf},j - g($wy&y.g':f sh. i,L?f+55{.*s{'*$n9q.y.&$w$$f&bf.p. & f' b. W$ <W. = Y*a e !V !s o s .]') '
5 E^
'&kW$lT* hl SW'
=\\
6 1
yy9.:p:.we sy.
WT:1:,v.Q, ~-f ;y:. ;i. m.... w, q g< q '.N".99:;.'n :,..,, m'. , s,v n.. y,, w' o, = ' 1u7 ,-4,.~ ... e' ') L g 's n, .csw-~ a.. ,,,,, ; ;. p ~ m,y,,.. ? w, m e. ..,: w.;,,,n.. a.. %p?>M. c ~%,.:,.. . ';1! & & .,i s k. w W 'p.. n.s. r. :.. c. $$.hMOM l,i['.f.W.F.?!'y;W',:.p. y%,W;NN;*:'Vid i?Q W4 p i ~ Ni i2 f J f* dMf O".'Q,0. 'h
NY
$$QWW
s
,..,,,.i* .y 5., .? '. J f'j* 0,$...ach
L, tQ.
f:! . y['., 5 l p f.. Q 'YQ.MlT't..g~l$, WM'g:;.b,'.j,j 4 gW:.x,r; Q y k,2.,4 'e l.' &.wv;..; e N . A.. y .W' J; - 5 9'. T .), I"*%. ff*
e';4I

/,i b;l?.M<. 5,&,.?
.*. v.o*..r :.\\, L : s t n;"p%;*' '.=s.. ** f'.s= % 't' l fs h ez., s*s, Q-s-, . t;.;
r?, <..
n.yg, s. ;
. s Si'$, ';.f.d':yl.M, M ' & Q*Q. '.f.. ; '* 4 .. } } g ?*,,*[... ? ',a_..' months of operation. Id. This is what is planned for the MVRS. Id.; TY. 57 95.'ytl (Bowles). $$/7.+ h'.;',l;)M.}'{.,!{Q'g,Q %$$}'$y 'y} '.. 'a., Ql..97,jgyf/f.%'.p,K.; 133. Finally, in his prefiled testimony Mr. Bologna questioned how the ,i,. - N '5.'. .(: public would be alerted if dioxin emissions exceed standards. Bologna Testimony 7 at 8. Mr. Lauber responded that if an incinerator were to malfunction and exceed Q'hify'.q.!, y[d.Cs % Mj/;g.;,1..,c' *.si. p{f&'j TpQ M. W. '[y. its dioxin limitations, the malfunction viould have to be corrected, but there would be no need to alert the public to take immediate action because it would 7;pf.p.p!] 4 ,2, not pose an immediate danger to life or health. Dioxin emission standards have t d. r i r.,/.N.u. i a.dg..,/. c mm W.JvM;f.4-l4,.'@y... been developed because of concern over chronic exposure of the public to i M;yMp .jO2%fd5,h.Q/.Q,?.gg.9"y small concentrations or quantities of dioxins over many years, such as a lifetime T G ' { Wi;/(%!g'd.i.; 9.P exposure. *IY. 262-63. [i;1..';.f/ 6 [ l. M '- @,. M..' M 134. In their proposed findings, the Intervenors conclude that "[t]he licensee f Od[. '3 i..' i. has failed to establish that dioxins will be completely destmyed and will pose %.,;'C.$'/;;..a
.,.p d !Q' % j I),~
OI!! ,$fM5c; 1 no danger to the public health and safety." Intervenors' Proposed Findings at /:',Q; 3-4. In reaching that conclusion they refer to testimcay of their own wimess, D 6f.$ N$j.'dej%};,$,;QW.' Dr. Resnikoff, but essentinfly ignore the extensive testimony of Messrs. Bowles, A 9, ?. ym.r. V;P f.a %.h.)Q;;':.,K Lauber, and Spas.28 It is the testimony of these expert witnesses that is disposi-Q .] ',
tive,
@',/ /. h'N lt.*2, _@ .i..! ...,.f ,';.d 135. In conclusion, the preponderance of the evidence shows conclusively Cy 'E c. $M.? c that the MVRS has been designed to operate without releasing concentrations Y' t #I'.'. M:. O. 7.'..'M*)'i..M.6bl;.Ml.N '9(6 of dioxins that would create a hazard to the public health and safety. The record y@f..I $. demonstrates that the PVC content of incinerator feed material will be controlled
< f
..@.lll,1, (*[1. -l.Q...W, to limit hcl production and any resulting dioxin production. Moreover, the . ;;,f' L M 9. '.#. l~;. : / %... N, ' '4.j - j ;. ' MVRS's secondary combustion chamber would operate at a temperature that 'l# Wls. ... f. ;;,,Y i' se. .s 2 ,7.,; fly....':. .t.y c,M.,, will destroy dioxin in 40 milliseconds; the residence tre of gas in the secondary .D combustion chamber will be more than 30 times this long. In addition, the off-W g.. j $ ..h f..
V.4 V"M$N2 N,c".
M' D :. gas cleaning system planned for the MVRS would remove both particles on .'N.[.o.3...,..Q,...n:m),b which dioxin may be adsorbed and any traces of vaporized dioxin fmm the i [:C fe.t4[.[E%jk;-lk;, A W.... n'3kf'h .AG.W m. y off-gas stream. Finally, the PaDER will establish dioxin emissions limits for the F MVRS when it issues the air quality control permit for B&W's VRSF. /l [4 g (.c.. O..,u?.:
W..:v.* m.s. _ :~.
. i... b.,.y~'{?v%1.QQg %.W .... G..: n- .,un.r.wH:;. T.:p n: (6) Design of the Incinerator i? k.'- @ [-)n@:w ;.(<y"02.. M.3.. d. ...... u n. e x. ,q.s..ar r 136. As was pointed out in Finding 14, supra, the MVRS that B&W W Q.* .q...ph,tr.,gp;[yQ. j,.,,p,P !v,(.Q n plans to install at its Park Township facility was still at the AECC facilities c iJ. i. i in California as of the date of the hearing, awaiting the completion of tests on M.IM'hl$;;;ly; Q, Jj;I.;,';Up,%i.'.j6ffi- $$ M' %S.W ;-.)7 ;Q.M$ 'fiO.R. 2;;i.T..Q+.D;ii.j sc3v, $ AECC's first MVRS to be used at Dresden. Dam (Overview), ff. Tr. 415, at
l R:::gwv% W Mi 4
4;M;%::h n cm b.. g.;^, m.r. +t-
r4..
ce te ? 'r. p~ *.-<.S.M ;, i.*4 c A. 26 6.,im.'*P ~r >;*,';d * s ; fir.e/, tmervenors did include a smgle enadon to tesurnony by wuness Bowles at Tr. 40. At that transcnpt page w.
f, s.,- ;l y '
- Wi W' + m ?/.'a;. r V.f.% =qA.q[b', .y'g"j':epyi,4 lf7,r;'p,' at,;* Q;. the tesumony of Mr. Bowles m Complamt 2 is accepted into the record, but the page contams no substanuve
tesumany,
*h*%fY:;%;.g 2 Nt. " />f9'[.*h's ;'t b a.c -(*h j 7,/;,.;y,,[h c
j&l4.D'*N,Y;$$5".&**y$' }* lY'N Y yrs s*- ~' .r ? %"V 4 AA.5 f*?(bfb.}h{;g.g.'.k<* ;k.N k"'N';bWQ s ?.' s 5 ~e f.N ?bje,7 -:vg*r '.f.M.'n f4'W*) (m.....~ M*& ga . h gp y p 'hi.bQ{.p .$r j y.,,.!, h jj,mf f $,. W ;j.j v4 r,25. '.l.h r*Q,. .f rf, y,, i.c.
e ; *ji.L, t,s,7 ".t,W~J y'e,Q v,2.i'.... <' '
.n gy.s c ...s .r 33e;.y a j N..I N'
h. k M.g,.%
%I hf;,M.s,=,J>?(c*M'W %$0 N &.$.+. m.,. 4 c ?;,y..qf%- W.~;e.e~.,yWhh?,#.h&m R.- . u :?.,,.. up h*';&n;h. u..., m k :. 'f'j,jf ;w')qp. q.; o. w:.i..y W w.e Qp=3gQe
. s q e%.s.'.;k's y,ea *; y=.u,..;,h.; ;.;),ra..n.n.pxg g
.k.,Eh.,..Qr rygry p.m,f %' *j o = r h:g:'*a ? .w$ $.9:p.my w. m pe. v y ..,,, q
Ykh
.,. ', ". -.5? $h.~., k. ...r $.. I e~.. m s P
c.,,Ahi%.gpqk.m?.hq g..% us.;,r%.,u,w'h..m*f.@'ft:::.hM..w,!* J'.v..y,g..py
ms.
Ye. i. & * *.,.o. m s. a e f* *. ?Jf".;e W (**;
's N*
@.)@,GM@D.NM@N8.$yf*l*j@% p.
14. The tests on the Dresden MVRS were scheduled for late October and early di' b h.& i5' S d.'Eh h M N N E.-$.$.A carlier on test results with the Dresden unit, were still to be implemented and.
hNf.IQ'. November 1986. Tr. 445 (Dam). Design changes for the B&W MVRS, based 'N pf.%%$NN.Mky;@W.F@$.#y%.M &f-tested. Potter and Spas (Complaint 8) at 11-12. Modification work on the B&W l i5WVRpdW " (g u.m. s p.p wl.; D.n:dd M.. ~; unit was awaiting completion of impmvements on the Dresden unit. Tr. 445 -4 0,;# Q-.Q"i$9 nog ".'.ii W2h MVRS, alleging that the incinerator is designed to process reactor waste but (Dam). In Complaints 8 and 14 the Intervenors challenged the design of the h, k,n, h:, g]; M "'$N. N. M,. @ E.h.h.)4"M 7 / 'M ehj. Wh 0 i h6 not industrial and institutional wastes and that the off-gas scrubber has failed to { M h.7.$d$hid Perform as claimed. Complaint 8 challenged the incinerator design. Complaint 14 $'Nk'd.80' I.;4 F"r;-r,@N$hO ??$.g %. ? pE.Q challenged the performance of the scrubber. Staff's consideration and acceptance r 25MDfMi. of the incinerator is inextricably entwined with its acceptance of the scrubbers, I r,.,,bp$.f.$....l.s.w.M.s.Q-m, @.'.N. %. %lW, Wr ^.T7.?f /N. because incinerator and scrubbers comprise a single, functional unit. Therefore M9.'M.O V $9 it is logical and expedient to consider Complaints 8 and 14 together in this Nr, N. e'4MS .i - m'me.,jM%s.N. h+. gd,.M,,,';[., [%; :M...,..N...a,.$,5.N.,9, M. M section of the Decision. 6!. g.v.: y. .,.n, b.9..w. u.W..wm.sz,./4 a 3 t. 2 .1 ;,,,f :g,,t: 4 .a.. +. Oq.,:.,sq; q., . g: x r if*WlRWS'Ri$ GNWki Complaint 8 (Design ofincineratorfor Pracessing Institutional and h ?,:Wi,:*: fr M., s?.h*5%f.3.M.C'.. ',;'d,. Industrial Wastes) j*~ s ~ - m :% -.. .+ ny ( t c';.'O,;J,;l 5
a
... :a " (* l,lcy'./ -f N, :'l;Q he Aerojet incinerator's design for processing rnedical, industrial, and institutional radioac- ,7 s*, g V 'J,1 d 'r t. [ Q O N Q M.,' ",g 's i tive waste has not been adequately analyzed or demonstrated. h is not clear that it has f ,,.N. ,J'?aJ,5 './..fl,pe.M'Q';w;- ]. r.,.%'.h /* M/.3?N t. l,pM1, 'S ; U,. ij..'M)..Q1 sites. %erefore, the public heahh and safety cannot be assured it if is used to incinerate the been accepted by the Staff for incineration of wastes other than reactor wastes at reactor
y. ;,
- 9q. i.(;.V. +,
.;5.; y..9... d...
,,c.;, v,'. nb;e :,.-. w,.;... ~,, ~Qc ".c. r.,,y y < f(. wastes proposed at the Parks Township site. ., ?,, " (. v.- e. >e. e ..;y l .: M "..u.., ].: 9 :. u ",'t f.. R.. R,.: M,. q ;'i.y Complaint 14 (Performance of Of-Gas Scrubber) .? 7- .;.W.n,[c. gg,6'x ? g '.,A't ' *j+ 4 'jlc 6i Ae' p i ! * ' !. ' / fa S.~ tJcensee has failed to dernonstrate that the incinerator off gas scrubber will perform ff as claimed. Licensee should specify how frequent changes and shindowms will affea Q.
c. q. T/.h1'f.
..l / occupational exposure and public heahh. and calculate releases on a basis of an efficiency l ?.. m..Q* ', *. *$.. A ~, R;v&,f W.,;; g ~g,,.,.., M ,1;,. ? r):, Q s* e,. ... ;v O., og9g,ns*
c...g.p.,,.G. s
k i.*.,,, <
4. *. o, ((@M,I'DN.b[$S;*hdU.M,W/+..y.;vr'.<$ s gw m.r. w. i 137. Intervenors are alleging that the MVRS ordered by B&W was designed n..c,h t..? D.Th-k;9;,W.N'. for incinerating LLW at nuclear power plants. They are also concerned that it .1 f "; ' 0.y%. +
cs may have been accepted by the NRC Staff for incineration of reactor wastes, O'py vyg{,.Mr e;;;;.wqy.g ;.,

,g).Y.,
D'.f$ E,1[jj{.fg%@%. S.C@. < f., ;gt. only. When the Intervenors filed their supplemental petitions in April r.nd May .Q ~; 1986, following issuance of the NRC EA and the SER, the NRC Staff had $ $.i% / 8+.MYC.~%. M.t8.R' accepted AECC's Topical Report, AECC 4-NP-A, for referencing in license
n. V,93 applications by nuclear power utilities for incineration of dry active waste
'.. < W.htyw. ;.;.p T. 4: W@, 3. lf$ @l?.*W,...,. 4:q,s. .?. 'El:T. A:9 generated in their plants. SER 63.8. There were several differences between the W l 3 6 9 N 's. Q M d '$ ' M. dl7.i d 6.'t ,$hk'<;.h.f[;- NRC-accepted report and the system proposed by B&W, however, described ed@y,[dfie,e$.R,.,%c.,g#j;%] l. in Appendix E of the B&W EA; Appendix E also addressed the applicability l):;* ' V '. 3,C ?.i and limitations of the system for incineration of industrial and institutional lVt/ d d5 ,..Wi'!i. waste. In addition, Staff received Revision No.1 of AECC-4-NP-A on January j
~2,$u;@q'M v s.
. i.i.@7 f a:cl. . m., n;m %'Q. ~. '.J:c
%c'c.h*.,$,wiA~1V. %
15,1986, indicating the addition of a second off. gas scrubber, but that revision 2'
r,r ;w.s.d.~.
n.n p:0m.r x v... s.,.-l A n.s. n: ::
n. %v,.
h u:r;r.~s
s. :
> 4.,M.. w.,. . y;r:;... w.-Q..., cyp.,;... ;.sN w b:n. ?.b. w;.:.c&.z.*l. %.. ? w w. t. W. a..~.g o v :m c,.>.:r m :a~s;'.Q.n a a g93 t e m :.c,w%p V.. yJf;r . CW* s.'%.5..d.9.,5y'i ~n ;~a ;u
q'v@; ni 4 S,
~.n* %.,,e m ?j~r..CDx 4,,,y~.g v,4.%.;, p.;::!w,, N mO-n ..w. ..w. y, b k h. f.. ,. h, a ~.~...m _.4_..a,_ _ _. _._.. _... .y.
-.s .. t.fs*
I.'-&y*Y,{'*l!$.k.l.&k,&.jhy,.]'.h,'Yy%-if.r
. ~ 7,Y fh N.k'!j.h..q n Wj. k,,.f. h,,}?'.h. _...Nh,.r r-,. _ .l;.l. j,&.,4. t;. [bf. \\.;.Q -l' *. ,, A. [.l.*p.].: f'QH fg)'D 'iw,q%M:.}M*:g.,., f.., gQn. Ql%.y,k*,j' ice..,.1,, ,..1a,.G".M./ 4 3 A. 4 -?.,c W e. y h Im d..* <r M.< M, W .... g.. )1 *M%.;,&. ::,fQg?Hr';R,.y l,%y.,~.W.;P.Q ki! :
.V;Qlc nl*@Q *%.. 5%.t.
c i Te'. .*lf .. ; I f;; s, f, '. QTC >;~.s4<%y~t.d.G' s.M:,';l$rx%@. l 4 W W V. tA M *.Y ib Y. ~ Y Y ..-D. h ?' b. 'W.ML.,i !,,h.%ch. dtp'M.m.4. ? C* //..,A_ 4. G "... r 'r.,. .NI h..vD.pu. nr.@. v.in.A( s h r.W.Y,: W,,w Ml.4.o.
3 m
ww cu.:y.a:*6., c .n. .n
..r; tw&1 s
x. CM.M W ,y'S /p.?4.A.%;f;Q..;;s.ifi ; F.- ,. A. ;; t ..HHw m..
y. s.w
.w;n ;m e spt;;q,a,;.d.n. - M' : <v*. . n ~*;.-:. :.e (y'. e (s..; %a.;.Q.:.. . q.,.r.o. a.m;.. : -e 1... .1 .,.,,.d.. n..s..., l. i@g.,,.... .,....r. Ql IfW.Q(M.Q.M .~' ..g M f.4, W. t: q Q.. had not been accepted by the Staff by the time it issued the SER for B&W's L % ; + 8.(.y%MIT.I.PNS M'if. :b?- VRSF. Id. On April.28,1986, Staff advised the Presiding Officer and the hIfy}.']'N'$i.'.hi parties to this proceeding that it had accepted AECC-4-P/NP-A, Revision No.1, 9.v:f;;.C;c.O;,M,.; yQ;l':G'We% "for referencing in license applications by utility licensees for incineration of -3,r,Jf;l<ys,< f!;,
l 't.k.
3,W.1, low-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plants, using AECC's Mobile W.4. W.,..,.9..'.s?..m,o..W,s T.4.Y.n/f/./lf 4.~',.'S..i$$d Volume Reduction System" (emphasis added). Letter from George E. Johnson v .v../.. t i. . m'...W..... to Dr. Oscar H. Paris, dated May 28, 1986. Staff's letter indicated, further, l. ,Fr, W yy.U't.W . u 2*[7$hh;$fpf,p.h.@$ Q.O that an open item regarding scrubber performance remained to be evaluated [ [. d'!;%.'l 7,% for B&W's proposed use of the AECC system at the VRSF. Thus, at the time ,;.:.'N'If '[N $'p:, "M,,$.if.6,$[.@;j!2 i yd Intervenors filed their supplemental petitions, the AECC MVRS had not, in ,yy;$. .,Q[j fact. been accepted by the Staff for use with industrial and institutions as well
7..:1m.1-ds%. A 6,' 6 W.p,,,y/..,.+i. 4.. e. Y.,., W, as reactor waste.
k a.. 138. On September 5,1986, the NRC Staff responded to a July 30, p 'f: Qc p.$'; @;".:,$.p.f.h: 4*[. ", 1986 letter frorn B&W in which B&W provided information on the open .'d,., ?.f c'. A. u.O,, M.. , a*./;f >tE ; fgj W.,<. !. < *,,:.<" N item identified in the SER. Letter from Leland C. R'>use to B&W, Attn: ,70:0's;.. l9,M.W. l,..y. i k'W'N'il'?,!(EyyMi"'Q
,Q; .
D.G. Culberson. The Staff stated that B&W believed that the scrubbers would perform with a particulate DF of 50, although B&W's summary of tests indicated M ? -I 7.Yi/l$'% % {.%;'l,YIk that the DFs in the tests ranged from 9 to 50 under a variety of conditions. The "* i Nf. Staff letter indicated, further, that B&W planned to achieve an overall system a h#>,9'Q'QrN.,f.:hi/'T;'.Q 5 particulate DF of at least 4 x 10 by actual demonstration, and Staff stated that 3 L f.. :./.M., f 2..,,ir.,' W.. Q-'T.;.: such a demonstration would be acceptable, Finally, the Staff indicated that B&W ' # 1, 3,. 'i '4*;;., : '/;.*p,;c4 q j- -
.. o n
had described in principle additional design modifications for the MVRS that ,. 4: would permit gas to bypass the existing HEPA filters and charcoal adsorber so Q,-p.e!, ":?,l#*: 4,".$!MJlp. 'M2,. ' r'J ' '., J'.,,'0 M. i.:'.//.. &...l ; P*r*c,. that B&W could make HEPA filter changes without shutdown and cooldown of y., '. M. 8..f a.. ,;',i. J.!',.' W: l' e+w!'.;N.-: 4 /.. s. yf M,? I. f,' the incinerator. Staff requested additional information about the proposed design modi 6 cations so it could continue its review. G"sf '. //Q.C.',:.g,.....: l.c.y;.4 Q,,k.][J/.g! gC.).Nffy0 d !'[ih.,. X, !F.M.%.n : 139. B&W responded to Staff's September 5,1986 letter with a letter S'
D.*hn.R; Q,%
agreeing with cenain positions taken by the staff and providing " preliminary
f. -
4:. K. answers" to Staff's questions about the design changes associated with the n ,,.. f.3.-y/M M,l:y,). @.. +g3 e.j",7, proposed bypass system. Letter from B&W's David G. Culberson to Leland 7.g;g,'W-l-g.fJ,QY g '{ i 3 C.)l*'.S.,gQ $c;jt'j.(g'g,Q*;@ C. Rouse of the NRC, September 25,1986. The information was " preliminary" because B&W's design changes would not become final until after the testing $.; ;;jgf y . @ r3'
6. 3.'...e:' ; 74%.g@vf g/ @.- m+ f.~y ' {.l,.
' Q-. program was completed. With regard to schedule, B&W stated that although additional tests with the Dresden MVRS were scheduled for the third and .i
t ft. MtM~.. @.cM..
hW;%yn.:..~%.,
l.G fourth weeks of October, the complete program had not yet been developed f,
&e/ or scheduled." Thus the MVRS was still under development when the hearing .. y.>.-)M$}pyg%'., in this matter adjourned and the record was closed on October 2,1986. t;;.:.*.;,.)ml?.M '<;ah: sc;M.. . r,e e .m. Jw.. yy.r . &i.. M:s 9.;*f('k}A);f % tr;lWlsm.H.U., ' T.s l,.j,'g:. d, l. Q: [{,. ?- 'f ' ' Q .. 'M " At the heanng. evidence was imroduced indicatmg that the tests on the Dresden urut would enend into kvember
'j
,5 /;i .'j D., z,. g.,.sJ. r' : y@:.9;,)Q;i.,'d,.Mlp&..% l95L See Fmdmg )42,i+a. ..s. . b,..~., :.;,t.g. c,:q.ty. %.,..,w ,.n, ~,...,.,. m.., >.,., s. yo e.,, .. c..w...,....,g...,v. u. c.4..,.n.. .;f. s %...u. ...m. ..v..~.,,.,,.,, .$m... 6-M".,@p+.h.% (!h/r?d4!QdM: .y k .M / gg,g
w.. w.%d.v,..,g.6%'.e< h9 re h"+a
.,7., p. *.:* s. i &. .-n..M &c w ; *, m
%* n.
2 V.?. %,.s,,.s tp*n w f.: s e blO.b!l:Q ' LG.E L. fft'$b,'.k.~$RMl!s'y*h A: < c';U.Q't ' 3' M%@;P;.W/.' TMN wL q pg.g. 7d 'r%..xa..d,2.We.:n*' O. * $$$MMd D%@'!Nf r%..? o .y ..r.,..N,.p%.-y t .y. a ..n p,s. .c .p .hl '/ ..;. R i4D
y t
MMMMW%B.I.I.K@@,'%;F%@BM@SHJ/HK9' 9Z'dW MM s $$M$$ h 4
.s fa &h.rh,,.,$..,h.. f....a.$. 1,.s, y% v.,y... s u.*...ebnq+g4./
2. p v!p-94:&UMlQl'.ct.4 D.$)%g.% %v%?Q:hd&;h!Ih h"M M W-M/K?hl..; k:I 9 :-r 8
?~' A - NI4 hr M' D 140. At the hearing B&W's witnesses who presented testimony on Com-MM .Mit plaint 8 stated that the B&W EA, the NRC EA, and the SER all evaluated the Nh f@Tjl' M h'khN5.D M incineration of medical, industrial, and institutional as well as reactor waste at D.r 'd, b M k k 'N[ N h,h. h the VRSF. Potter and Spas (Complaint 8) at 3-5. They attested that the first Qgk,'SO M.W @h@y @[,Q:$.M$%.N th.D bM'j% MVRS, the Dresden unit, had undergone more than 750 operating hours over i C- )[$'D5 a pedod of 14 months during which more than 100,000 pounds of waste were U O., incinerated. While undergoing these tests, the trailer fire considered under Com- .I.h. N ' h hf @IN. h [hf M '.4.1. % h.MWMk'. ES .&3 plaint 7 occurred and a high-temperature excursion occurred while the unit was M@l?.MMlQ. u s/.;.W'.$.n$%gg.kI.$ di-MI5! Processing large quantities of polyethylene plastic. See Findings 107100, supra. j3f%Nj.5.5.$ $QU,$/.
f As a result of those experiences, changes were made in the design of the units j
7L?.M k Jd.w. Egj to prevent a recurrence of either incident. Potter and Spas (Complaint 8) at 10- [W. d.... W,s,.3.;,.,4p.,f.:.. s o c.,g.N.o
11. B&W attested that the B&W MVRS has been designed using commercially
. di ...s e g @ -%..Q available equipment which has been used extensively throughout the chemica1 b h k l k' v.5'[ M.hc.7 h S k y h $ j u.w.sf fj@e..*.. S.g. k. Nh?,l Y and petroleum industry, ne major engineering task was to integrate the many .NMN,i.hMk7,gh components into a trailer-mounted system. Id. at 9,13. W,r N.: W.M. P, N, dM....'@....!c.M5 M. 4 g,. ~.t.'s' .t.t 141. Neither the Dresden unit nor the B&W MVRS has been tested for + e. M... *%. waste material types such as scintillation fluids and biological material. Tr. 391 .!.q d A W <..$...G W M.7,3, @. tW'jy (Bowles). B&W plans to. carry out tests with suun waste material as part a ..?. w. o + p $.?ja p ?h.y4 P.". $$.jM@SCY,:J[.)d2 Y,i,lg%.'k91' J.V.' of its onsite testing program after installation of the MVRS at the Parks M/.**'/CJ'J.iffg$;O.2.MhN.%hlWl% Y;. l s,qJ-Township facility, but prior to c,peration of the MVRS to process radioactive $2h.:.p:NMd.r scintillation fluids and biological material. /d. The testing performed by AECC C %g >,,J: .n,. y..l l..y d in Sacramento, California, has not and will not include such material because S.p$;[;}'%;(S - ]Y.*..k 77, scintillation fluid contains toluene, a hazardous waste, and AECC does not have @V.;$. e.j;;M.,, ',A,'.;5 ),Q.@. 4 o.. M..tlfi ' p.,.A a permit to incinerate hazardous waste. Tr. 392-93 (Spas). In fact, the B&W unit
.l( (. 4y,W.a..' @ ll..,.o m,p).e.*m... m) W..

p. r.g W ya.'.
will rot be burn tested in California at all, because firebrick which has been s, ~.f.;:fc.M.B., .-l.c, y. f. 4 " c... m Q..J. p :N,';p ' t fired and cured might be more readily damaged during transportation. D. 393-94 n..%,N,'F,.j~ :ElPi.d/M3% '8$..., ]{j m... q.s . 6... (Bowles); D. 448 (Dam, Bowles). Herefore B&W plans to conduct burn tests w l5.. m f on the unit at Parks Township before it begins processing radioactive waste. Id. I.i'ly@.W $4t /,,@'.h...%pty TlI:(Q:j / f-A 142. Testing of the scrubber system has been carried out on the Dresden 'y fA .d unit. De original system design included a single Venturi scrubber, for which da M e,v,,I M,:'/. (.. W.... .T.. s,I.} &, #0 $;%,N,/7/.j )j., u.6.s, ,e$s. -l, r. W P.D:,.. carly tests demonstrated an overall dust collection efficiency of only 77% to f W?.y W.. y g/.' M."; @ 4 )*d.;A.-@tu la. la=l.N 87%. This low efficiency resulted in poor HEPA filter life (less than 12 hours
. */ "Q :.O..
operation time). Therefore a second Venturi scrubber was installed. With two 7j$ *f);:(..W,. ,.t
N. 9," *,...,,,. t -;C,M W.'g if.'
scrubbers, the overall scrubbing efficiency is 89% to 98%. Dam and Bowles / ?, :'. U'N' " l'3.M W C, M (Complaint 14) at 3. Scrubber efficiency varies with density of the waste. High- $ @ [ d M. g[.. @ $ @ 'E4.C. $ f. Q EQW;@. ? l;My.h density waste produces slightly larger particulate concentration in the off-i Y.D. l gas than low-density waste. Venturi scrubber efficiency is proportional to the M.M DU Particulate concentmtion in the off. gas. Since the MVRS is expected to operate , %.; WNM.% M C 4.~ F M O M.4 3 W['I MEf8 $ h;'/, ye;,. V!/ 4M..;T..i.u.h 9.P of the efficiency range measured in the Dresden tests. Id. at 3-4. He efficiency NM3 with high-density waste, scrubber efficiency is expected to be at the upper end P.l,yW b.i.n..: D Q h7 T NS./yM: S.. M,: .e.A. 2 y a a [M.;r f .y of the primary combustor will also fluctuate, but no testing of this efficiency ".M.w?.,.M.y,.J,w* M. :.$..:. [..W-[@.kld@[lM..:q D had been done prior to the hearing. Id. at 4. Tests on primary combustor , j. itt.). ey. Q.fl.Q.. 2@,'y...,s,s -.1 4.:l(n.fys, h q* s =.y e q i ,a s .a m: 4:. 4 'T sll3 l A a n,q ?. ),'. G,M..s n.:.g-v.e"* a m.:,a6. 895 I q%.'&w.. e,?'. 1 u &p,.'r+ +.*M@e' )' **s W@.n.;... . C N e v r .W \\ Q:%. "";;k.m, L% :. -
,.m
... np y' ) i%' ;,^h:hiWN@h nd.W!g..d. >.: 1 $$.#[y%+$D;+Q.$. 2.. MF, r %. s.N%'b.,Mf. s p h S. a. M.. m:N+ lME6
.f M y y;r 9 w n
.hi'E< j'f'% 'MM I f bI$ h h $ 'l M{ ?Y hb$$bbnM~ E$h Yh$kh.$.Y$ Mn#WWR&pm...$m.$w$$ww@h : wwps,wm. SW v m p ml ,w..w s
. m, c. ~. ;.m. v7 ; w - p.5..,. > 7.; -, *,.3.,5 v. - pe, 7.y.,,, f. : c..,g, g,. - ,4. ~.
a. -
eop ~&.W% '.'Q' M. V*.h.??in&].W.4.n ,.e, , W: wy, j _..., 7.. *, f ..,3 ,.y e ' q.. ..p.v, f.;.%':t.G, fwl'hX*lf c.:k}s..,<&.L. ~ s..*. a. +,V[h ',: k's.Q~.M. :*b &. .>.u. & j., y., 0.:.ak , fkDyh, c'i.Y' 0'.QS h. 'h? .$f1, 'f Q,C.g.;((),$ 1 TG;,f,y,. ?'p;&.h$ h. y)le.*$C$ %rp *Whh l.Y I*lY@&'y! i;.% & A ,? R b .X%.W..., p..,tw,. i * *..p. ;g,h,g'..yr,,,,g.,t. 9,,,,..sv.g.... z..'..,.
r.
L.q 'e' 4's. ;?s,;'; j'.4*
h. in,,, ;.a,,n< < pt,b.,. s
.y
T.W!b..g,ej.&,y h,4. y, e.n*
. 'e r.g o*W. J..6 9 .t e. . m.l s,;y.L : n.y :x.cq,.,g,y.<m,;t.v i:..+..:;m.~.,o m-g .p. ..s. x.. n w?
p.m.n
m:,:. 3..:.
w,.... a 4..... c..g.....>.. y.;,9 ..,.. w s....,-y.. n n....e*,. (2((. Q,t weipl,%,,yfy:l.p.fQ,N$'? .;,,..a.!)~ s,. t i.T efficiency were scheduled with the Dresden unit during late October and early ll.g.j,g/;,lfg,..*,g&.4...'R..T.7,'@ l4" M.,Q?dC '.. ,b.,y,'p. f "..., f,. November 1986. Scrubber efficiency tests will be performed concurrently with
QJj....'.
1 the combustor efficiency tests. Tr. 444-45 (Dam). i.j:, g.g. ~ R:?.9;;;,4lU[;U: t N ?efW,.,se.Wa.,e.;e.5,):p? 143. Overall MVRS efficiency is based on the combined primary combustor 'E::'J D *, 7Jr. M *.G. W. ?? Qf',.W and scrubber efficiencies plus the HEPA filter / charcoal system efficiency. Pre- '$d ;d; ?,MISg.*d'h,.".['M[$.'(/; f[. liminary testing of the Dresden unit using dioctylphthalate (DOP) in accor- ?;L:$fylff[QSg.Y,p.Vig.,".g (~Q2l9.f.';Q."'[. dance with NRC-recommended procedur:s demonstrated a removal efficiency Q'. y'Q..'y of 99.95% to 99.98% across one set of HEPA filters for particulates having a O.'.; %.. %.mC A. ','.N,,3. WF. s..ye h N mean particle diameter of 0.3 microns. Rese efficiencies are equivalent to DFs r.v
n. ~..
.# '.d'. i'9,/.O~;;.Nr.jg;:4is.Mr.pn 3 3 of 2 x 10 and 5 x 10, respectively. Dam and Bowles (Complaint 14) at 4. He .d. :,. ;h.,'$[. .Q;'24.i.: @',?/;r;M f T.d ; W h.I.E N [3..'.M.. 6./ /* !'Es two sets of HEPA filters placed in series on the B&W MVRS would increase ..U./. this DF to even higher values. De performance of the HEPA filters, unlike the
w s.
.. W. W.. Fr.r .. 41. W : yi. M.v:.P.,. n,l C, q'd.. > e .a . 4 scrubbers, is independent of the waste feed. Id. at 5. .,,.V.. n .'c a 144. "B&W will not accept the MVRS for operation at the VRSF unless ' Q Q ft,y 'l, g;.t ?...:,;, p
f. g '
the overall MVRS system particulate DF meets or exceeds 4 x 105" (emphasis in M;.A %,'d.,5 y }..y.v..c'.; ly original). Id.; also see Letter from B&W's Michael A. Austin to Leland C. Rouse of the NRC, dated December 4,1985. B&W assumed this DF in the B&W
P.sW Mt
+'.&..-
J'v:; W 6:"a
, J.p,. m'. M.,,WN....,........ W.n:r.N'.P. . :.W. 2'" EA. B&W EA at 3-2. B&W believes it can be achieved in several ways. For example, B&W lalieves that the scrubbers can be operated to consistently N,..i.N.li".$;.'..jd."Ik,? b,'..'f. 9.vj j achieve an efficiency of 98%, which gives a DF of 50. When combined with a .,:dM;/ O.5k.7 T 7;iM'.'El$'q 1 U:,. %.'l 3 [2.'Q;,$'%')s'.M,'M*.< f. [Y. r[..s' 3 second-stage HEPA filter DF of 2 x 10 and a primary combustor DF of 20, the .O. ^ : E,. / d.
h... ui,"1 M,'@..,'..u ;',.I['O. G V. iF-l.,
6 overall MVRS systems DF would be 2 x 10. Dam and Bowles (Complaint 14) at5. yN],yR blfr.%c,(.4 Gll M, l#'2l[9:. ( 145. If the scrubbers or primary combustor cannot be operated to achieve y --7'il-M/S?I.@.,t.l:j!J,WV.. a consistent particulate DF, B&W states that there are several means whereby 5 .... c4 a
E M.( @M i:
y. B&W could achieve the desired overall MVRS system DF. Rese measures .7,;D. Q:i? ',9, consist of such things as (1) taking credit for the measured HEPA filter DF of .F. 6-Q.7 9/',p %.*M:[@ [kNid.?N.D;h[9f' W@;/@ G'. 3 one set of filters of up to 5 x 10 ; (2) performing particulate testing and taking .b [4.'hkhM'. credit for both sets of HEPA filters; (3) placing high-temperature submicron filter 'p ?f.Qe.yg%).j),g.hb' units in the off-gas system; (4) evaluating and installing different scrubber (s) j: @ig,96.a79. f..4.'.l.$t: digyQ;/.;il, $?h'.gf.lf which are more efficient for particulate removal. Id. at 6. 146. The operational testing which B&W will require for the B&W MVRS . p [d. % 7. N. W. k M N [4.P h.0$?.dW '%j prior to acceptance of the unit will be conducted with materials representative N [7Ef[%j7.qW{ihjjpl9'.} f,i of the type of waste B&W expects to receive at the VRSF (wood, paper, cloth, Q@f ,Tg., FWfyefj;j'jh 9,@ pg$jf. plastic, oil, scintillation fluid, animal carcasses, etc.) "This testing must verify p.iipDfj p/ d Q. M j M Q, Q' g, j that the minimum overall off-gas system particulate DF equals or exceeds 4 x 5 ',My'd.N./.D..@:,?,'[;p@M 10 for the MVRS" (emphasis in original). His DF is equivalent to r.n overall I ..J. M. W. BWf a A system efficiency for paniculate removal of 99.99975%. Id. u. s h(MM#KcN.y.%l)'g (;pf,.[:\\$d[5,.M d h..$ $ d Q ",D f 147. Complaint 14 also raises the issues of an increase in occupational exposure and risk to public health resulting from the more frequent HEPA dd y.ith'['Md$ filter changes that will result from the lowered scrubber performance. De
s,~o o'

nMri%{,

ia,,:g.N..
j.j (/II,.f.$8
E

{'.'.9%
Staff also raised the occupational exposure issue in the Open item of the &?M P,.t..:.d)m.~..RMs am . o n : :. u t.,M'.g,4*,..$.~ s.t v. u
?d. thi

L.+, tW.D
,f. @, c; ~J W,a, )n. % .y y /%'.* ",i.y' 4.- <,.,. W s ~ ~ n%.. ~.sb WMM 896 ..Wh,.%e,3HW.?.t.,:.k.<d.,R N.fA .: 9'
r. : ww.v.
. wz? v . ~.. o. * .u,e.,g. <. c...r,,.,.. se .v.. y p~. , u.f.~. 4..%,' ),, w~ f.A, m$y w?$,,5 %'W.lsl$$m.$?$Y.n. q': ..p>&.CY -.O i 2 Ks*N@w4, ?w)5Q W ' h;p,Vp'i;l:. $ ?:dOdY.'1*.'-lQ .n. GMWWi:'ZQOl'IM's.* &!i. .:\\ ki M.?Qf%M' Ob6W N.W.W.QEWi%9?M'j.&;UQ,F;%'r'W '* P$R.,WQt'XNC'.: lH&WWW@WWW%[%hh%N,(-[W. 6Mh5%;.4 O. Q / NAM';M Th.h* I. 'kN'7 '.7,EkA 'N-h ? ? . r. 4 __.m. _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _._. _._C
_yy 1.. e ,tx -) 4. h i N@ESM3@QM# d 6 M n M Mp r r M D flW RM:;;&%i k "3 hy % .a 1.%Q;.W[ff)hh,:%M&fG'h?gM SER. SER at 44. B&W amended its occupational exposure analysis to include W.h: k; Q:;. NI d; hlhkh2,p Qd!.igb3$ the effects of more frequent ifEPA filter changes. This analysis assumed ninety- $~ht .N,MNNki7fh %y I 31 two filter changes per year, based on the highest expected filter loading with h]
M.
the worst-case radioisotope (Co-60), and it gave an occupational exposure of k.bd.h;,!. h ?. M f M U. N[ k @.): N Yf $ p$j 2.9 person-rem compared to a total occupational exposure of 63.2 person-rem Mh'%h-Mv $N. Sd at the VRSF. Id. at 7. The Staff noted in its September 5,1986 letter to j rtN gQ B&W that while this dose increment is a small percentage increase in the tMhM.8$ffh@i,[('h@g j ,) annual collective dose, it might represent a significant increase in the dose to @,f#t.5/ d W M, h@idk?ff h Q ,% 'lP h A r; a few individuals; consequently it reminded B&W that the proposed license l Dr$,%@$bia).?"i. !. I condition (SER-II) (Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low @.D,$d%'sS.6;Yh%2p[#)l@j. f% As Is Reasonably Achievable) would be applicable. In its September 25,1986 $N!dkl.$9 '5Mh3,f: 3 reply to Staff, B&W agreed with Staff on this point. [,2,).@@d.Y, hG.&NW@PMiNT!!7:"*j k d.?D[$': .D 148. There will be no added exposure to the general public from more W W-69 frequent filter changes. Waste will not b.e processed in the MVRS while the gSY % m.@~.. t,s 9',f*d, L o,w., if.f - ld. HEPA filters are being changed, and filter changes are done using a temporary Ey.@.f'E.. m&,$y.d' c
f.>'.N.Y' Q'Q.1

WR J.
J.g,P.p@ O. ,C M.. M M.:~.Q containment (plastic bag) within the enclosed off-gas trailer. Dam and Bowles B.k >,.1.gf (Complaint 14) at 7. When the HEPA filters are being changed, the incinerator t *r 3-n..A
' z v.
t J. A.. %.c.:g, %,c;,;tl.s,. SQ.: h, g. M..,. f i.r.')
r..gr..'. n. W Q p '
.M E. 3 cpl/.J.. ~ would be placed on standby condition. Standby means that the incinerator is j .i . v.0 D : maintained at a standard operating temperature, even though it is not charged 'i 9'i.y'$,&n..../ .W'r :,'M "..
....c
- h ..,e . c. ...f:M.Q. id'flk/$$@C 'Mj,$ '.AF.- with waste, by the use of supplemental burners in each of the two combustion y W 3. %c! / chambers. No waste can be fed when the incinerator is on standby, The off-gas M [ y,'. y.'./p w g f, MN, W tr ;,.1.Mg,%[M$y, l' ,.' i, is diverted through the bypass HEPA filter. "IY. 446-47 (Bowles). Y$ N,k 3f.dphE[.j N:7..'A 149. The bypass HEPA filter is a design change requested by B&W because J /N. the test results from the Dresden MVRS indicated that more frequent HEPA filter d k [7..,i j ',$ y y *-l.I,;> j.f.'(d }j changes would be required. The combined additional design changes requested consist of ,, g y. t o :.s.. :. m.f. s.. n 9.; g;.:>";,. u .,, x... y f, :..w-s:,; n, m,g _ o l',h:]'[,,{b..,e q,hLygl,A s ..4 a h(M[g,f:jek. T. ih.N. c (1) A bypass line added to the off. gas system to permit bypassing the HEPA fiher/ charcoal .g 6.) Ep.Y',%:3hl x%j., Elb.9;$, ~i'.;
n A
[i.? 'd E, sysiem. The bypass line will be directed through its own HEPA filters and back into /
c the off. gas syraem upstream of the stack sample location. Under no circernstances 1
Mk ' "..! M",,i.*
y f' '
wul waste be permitted to be charged to the incinerator while the off-gas HEPA 5 hl.3 f." s.b.'s..%.0,f' 9.%
S ;[,v. l^M C
i
e filter / charcoal system is bypassed through the bypass HEPA filter.
.. N4, r',.'M, $. wC1 be included on the bypass line. d [ (2) Remotely operated (from the incinerator contrc,1 room) inlet and outlet isolation valves I ' n r. 'd,k m. -..'~[c. J %;%; ' 75 @-N. ;3.,"*/ d-Q3.6.'?..F'P'.%d,$tf.Th%w /I*"y Q 'lO : U. w e A (3) Remotely operated (from the facinerator control room) valves wGI be added to the j N.....b)ff !.Y.'/$ M M'.L/,i'Mf.Qfgry$f, 'y.Q off-gas system upstream of the first stage HEPA filter bank. Dese valves exist on the
f. *.i.d. ih. w,.ji bhM.;? ;*i). be,f.y;y;M -[i,h;, ;'i];,0..Z.c g.O.t Present design but are manua!!y operated.
.'f* ;p$'f.r..ld;.. u ,/ M;5 (4) Valve actuators wul be extended through the sides of the off. gas trailer for the four I,Nf9/U[,.;h'Wffn %t u r f]C.?.',M,$ [.,. MRN. T'.. valves identified in (2) and (3) above, to allow manuat operation of these valves from g,..,,,. .e.,M N. 'i $'./. d the outside of the off. gas trauer, T. ../ rv ,v.-.., n.v..,,m..p. .s .. jf %'3. 'l J ",W N.f;* ** (5) A remotely operated (from the incinerator control room) water supply valve wC1 be a> b krA0; 45. y'J,# @'P.'$ Af>,r!yl,'<' O M 'i W QdQ - v..e e,y,;n4..;.g,r O,S.:r. 3.;,v.,.,c *%, i,'j 'c.':lM c.b,.>a t added to the charcoal fther deluge system. Q. 4. M,., yl p.a ::qi a ;.^.. c..u d .. ~ ..e Y..;.c.f. ~. = - s. v. a,. %.<,3 .d... i t f . A ;.4';.,p . n G;;,., ry;.,. v.. :, v.,,s, w.:o.r >: n;a. a .n m. c., u.pt>4,,s a. n9 t.u. s.. A. m o..t. # m.. e e
v..q.,,..r.c. W..,,h:.yg.< w.,4. '.s.

s. y %%... ; a>.f.z.
,v.,. Qu.... y 897 2. r .v. w: ,vgyt .w i e -.p., n;:y ;,:,%. ~.:,.; ',g-...m: s.y?- (..a..c,. .o,V p;,g. <p.;e%, q u. < ,t W.;.;; . s yspM.n.p'*f. h b t' k w]@@m!!)<&:nM.Mm%o ,,s@q@@.pw$MW+.5@+& w.s p y&%u Mw W M W MMS 9- .w g m M. 'B.e.M ir z:17v.n %y w #' $' W.%, w@ w w. w ' C W D M 9 w. ~!w~ m.5n$ 5 R Wi A .v 92 m~~ n'ng:~ -
M,. R,. h.. &.,.. W..e. w h m,$$6&M$ a ~. m,. Jfe.,b,.,.m.;gg..,.,.,L.,,m.g.4. w. g:.h> *. w' & ~ m y o* ,y 4 t.f.G, ..s. ;...:.&.c.. w.~,.4z.1 . h p<?' ...( c v::.n,Q.,.4M.s@M.@M:&. ..w.f~l;,e.y..v $.;. N e WW.*,u., s yC, c.1%:.VMP,h,>;.r, + A W.'l. r .T.:d 9 9 .J. * ; p.. 3;.;.pm.M. ap.~.~'.:.: .;[J' z...,:,...e ; ~.b' :e;g,;j c .,. -;... a % M. M dre.y'*lQ@'.w.,?.).: JyM.. s r.'@f.$ (6) Temperature detectors will be added in the charcoal filter bed. with an alarm which a . y. Y.$f4.Ike G ;l annunciates at the incinerator cattol panel. w:.".;* w &.e..<,.e: n.pp;;p:.; f }. ns,.. n,
t.,. ; :a. y.

7..w%c, g;r e..n.g v. h..,
L..:,h. ,q? g. b.'"4 6"x...W .m r,,.,. ;. >t. f[R$,M.pl%.s Dam and Bowles (Complaint 14) at 8-10.2 Rese changes had only been .-e ,h@m$y c. y. Q'8N.p.pg.l;h requested of AECC at the time of the hearing and still required fmal design, cost estimating, and scheduling prior to being actually made. Tr. 442 (Dam). r Mhn n,;,elg1T*a..O .'J Y 150. In conclusion, the preponderance of the evidence on Complaints 8 .N....f.@ 9.';M,'.y<. M4., and 14 lends support to the Intervenors' complaints that the incinerator's design
f...
.u
%, 3,,,'Qf ;,;4

4. W; Q
has not yet been adequately demonstrated and that the scrubber system hss not - h h @$[."C, M;7 % dNM,;.Nidl.j performed as expected. The record clearly shows both allegations to be true. The IM MhdQN Q7*$.f.,$3M% B&W MVRS has been awaiting tests of the improvements made on the Dresden k V, MVRS before the improvements are made on the B&W unit. Those tests were 'ij ty f','.y. Q y,;fJ+ G.'l d 24.',2; @ scheduled for late October and early November. Work on the B&W MVRS was M US'!.9 W.5f$ M,PJ P*$~@N.;M~ 5 suspended until the results of tests on the Dresden unit were available. Also, d.I@~.[7'M., 5 l. M.,/pf..NA /;. U@,.Q the combustion efficiency of the primary combustor remained to be tested. All ..v s m-
e
's 'g J.;. f, - of these tests are to be completed before more work is done on the B&W . r. Q..,. G_., MM..,M,,,a... .. W V. vL.%M. 0 MVRS. Furthermore, the bypass HEPA system which B&W has requested for p .s., ;. a.hiW.c e,,Kp.y.v. m..m'.T. !.4..6. A.? its MVRS had not, as of the date of the hearing, even reached the state of fmal Q. Q. t W.J'j" :. .. % j e. t v design and cost estimating, let alone scheduling. Granted that the MVRS has h /f,.QW, (':;G'll.&,s'y!,*d Cjy,li been designed using commercially available and presumably proven components, i;%W,NRfC(:'l.l.',.U;,d,i.M*n' so that the major engineering task has been integmting the components into a
9. !$$Ufh p' v3f D@;dM[l(..M'#L*d M.l trailer-mounted incinerator system. That fact does not in itself necessarily ensure g,}. '. ' %. $,'.L.5 Ml.
that the components have been well integrated. The whole is not necessarily the j,s,l.f, Q.[Q 9ll'!'g., y,y' W{$;.j sum of its parts. Whether the engineering integration has achieved what B&W / E. %c.f~. e..m. y. Q. w:.h. . ps :'i.,, ., c,.e.. and the NRC Staff expect remains to be demonstrated. ~.,.r..y..r . j, 4' w,..,44: p;;M.W,.,.,f.,. s.s 4.,. 4..:
f. -
V't..'?; p. Q s, % n 3.-E W at Conclusion on Design of the incinerator y,Q,.s.':: , y ;r.p.
f
gy,..:6, M.}
i1;gf .d'.O'..J'W(,.*.p.t r. '.f' j, p; Ff.4.. W.r 'gC[J.),[;Wi@f;f@-\\Qy?i.$., .b.Q,;3.T.r.pW, 151. B&W has committed not to accept the MVRS unless the overall system PL y @'l$ g!.I.,QQ/;*g,y, M)Q{.g]a 5 particulate DF meets or exceeds 4 x 10, which is equivalent to an overall i efficiency of 99.99975%. If this DF can be achieved, then the MVRS can be .df q@dCg;f9, /h-6": 9[yy;(2,N[g+1'$ operated at the Parks Township site without undue risk to the public health 3 'M* I and safety. It remains to be demonstrated, however, that this efficiency can p% h'hf {f$.'y,ff,I.l.%(6 be achieved. Therefore it would be premature to issue a license amendment at $'gy,k..pe;sk 3Qg? $ '(p. g"/ g$ @ QQs'.y this time approving operation of the incinerator. Staff shall defer granting the amendment for incinerator operation until it has been clearly shown that the jf,$.If:Mh@M.9.t 'TQWW;s,9, y@ght:..t.W, 9/ MVRS can consistently perform with an overall particulate DF no lower than 4 S WM p% y'.Q > D 5 x 10 * .W ..? ?'f.%,v %p Cf - Sin $PN' /w.hm. ;4,L a 4.e.4:.;, v.v..;y j.'**i. v.M o.> w to p. r y e,s y&,.? a:., n.?%.;f.Nh,.ff.d$2
p. g S ff,l,..s,o * ' ' 'hh;k.
s?I '" "* L. -t? G; h. 'r 6'f(:1 28D=isa chine. 5 =t 6 = noi n.tama w tha bypau smem. ney ripr cnn desisa chansas decidad uran p x %.: ;g,7.'7, y*.%..y 7 marber and noi 5 insaned in the B&W MVRs. Tr. 445 @am). M,. L 5 r. Q. ge/*y. y s w;m / 3f gllve,F.s: ~,,W.m<&y v ' j.,fm,;n."y 'y...M,,?u.?..i ..g' 'b..<..h.. :/,<. cC . % et. 6 y n . y.s.gg (* W
A'?% W N'fE' WA%

,. ;Ntp<rw.ss.p'%y..
J.fb.,y . W. M #$4 898 < ~ s y h;wxW,M6W:'. .v,t 6 J.. $.~.s m., s%. W:
c t(.@n.
M. g. riTUW owc .D:\\'h$EY h....$.s e.v,c <,. ~ h;,$I[
Yk A
j l
I Y s $$ $hD&i& m.A N b & i M' W. W Q + g$ %s w % w %.h @ & s $y b. p. Q : w$ k $ b. a%pa& f bl,Ih.m.im9 w.is.e..w.M,;9hhMN mh r 6NS$.bM5fdb$N.w$NN!$ N.5 AM.M n O.c..uy m ~p:n~W.g%:M.w. m. um .m.. .wn A nwy.~~.a. m.% %. m. s v.v:. w % ; W.m d: % m s?.4., ..w. w 9 . ~ e.R?c.W.4 i W Di c
9. +y g &r e ow mm.M
%-w.,wpn,e .d@WMbl sp.@$l,&e.!.herge M$.m.O$WMM0/.v.t.,*it.a.@iKEWM) PW
m. CONCWSIONS OF LAW l
' $g $ h .. h t. h
4.,g..gw<n;.M.
~ Based upon the entire evidentiary record in this proceeding and upon the f ic.[.n . u lI.; f[j'68%YlM.E.$EJQ[M.,qgg.a . 8 findings of fact set forth above, the Presiding Officer makes the following b'A.%M.N?tyk@/QRf.c.$'.; hf3.Y;h@M, h/j conclusions of law: 9, N, M. $N M N @. h k$ @' M I?. @y @ 1. B&W's application for an amendment or amendments to NRC Material License No. SNM-414 to authorize the operation of a Volume Reduction }SM;/l.yfQ$9h%@.hENMhi Township site is for purposes authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as W MJN'fdf.i Services Facility utilizing a super-compactor and an incinerator at its Parks 'li.fl.dd3YMEl s@.g..,yl<b.,2.r.3..g.; ' A.. n93.;e?;. ;. *;.t. amended (the Act), and NRC regulations. .....g.c. s - ..o $MWy.Q@.@%.-j 7, $. %, .? *'/AM..(g',grg %,f..rd",%.. M)N/l$M f[M[W}$Vs@!gy.Q..J; @ 6/ 2. The proposed super-compactor is installed, has been fully tested, and is df.y.3 operable. Radioactive releases resulting from its operation will comply with the 'M Mi%t ?-Nf Mg,@IIf: 'Ni requirements of the Act and the NRC regulations. B&W's administrative control 3.".87IhhNM,c,dh...;)4.y.. N... procedures for the compactor are adequate to protect health and minimize danger , m...p :.S..q.., ~g..m.,,., c, t...%a ~p',..F q. 3 to life and property. ...c..... n , N.!.$I'M 3. The mobile volume reduction system (MVRS) has not been fully de. . Wl~y.%.6@yg, .%. M . y.; %. @..41.a.i.'h: ~
. q

j.;
signed and developed, and it has not yet been demonstrated that it can perform .;.C. S,y.p.. 'c/'q ;y, ' [' (l.;;,'Y,N~;/.6,.9".'ij.d"fD,.1 to the standards to which B&W has committed. Therefore it is not yet known whether its operation may endanger health, life, and property. Additional tests ,'.J @. sl.4... t.(.i.. R f @ g." $;. 7p s',9.. . f..,p {,..'7 f. are being conducted to determine this matter. -s. . %q..y. I[, (ih.'W fifr. 4. B&W has demonstrated its ability to comply with NRC requirements re- .}3..Y;, *;<.;.'y 9. :, g '.'nJ;. '.,:f.} lating to the operation of the compactor and the MVRS, provided that the design i t.p,],"]*,]~ f.l g;g '.;. y,[.! y.Q.d'. O of the MVRS enables it to perform to B&W's committed standards. Given that ( ,7. 'f-c., C!g ' proviso, B&W has demonstrated that it is qualified by training and experience to t;t.'. W. *,. ';.'..,V'.s.J i. ]n. process byproduct materials as mquested in such a manner as to protect health ,,. r,. s.. f.. '.,..;.C., %. :.h ;..%.A -..Jf.h.2./_. ment. ';i.'
T ?*' ' q and minimize danger to life and property.
flplQ.,Qa...O.. m 5. Operation of the VRSF will have no significant impact on the environ- ,g.~..... ..$m.g. y; t..,......... ;. w.,.,1, 3.#:,J)f/.I Qf;fg[d.[ ly.hZ,W.h.. '. V.. $.i M f h h M N M ;i 6. Complaints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,10,11,12, and 13 are resolved in favor v. N'.j.5 kl,1 of authorizing the amendments to allow operation of both the compactor and the ? /. M E.';/ $'?.Q M ;l.Y,. Z ;7.' kl W i F (lp, l;' $ incinerator. This conclusion, however, is based on the assumption that the MVRS l.4 '.V..,$..Q ; Mg.:j.N. '.... can be made to perform to the release standard adopted by B&W. Complaints 8 r.. ,.f. '.%... g?.r.p.",.e.. <. ',. T. '. : '.. s i.f;(,'. !;(.,1 and 14, which relate to the MVRS only, are resolved in favor of not authorizing . s..^ -.:..~. n. q.........? Of..f., < 59.u9.: l .. @ ; g ~.7,.#[?;T j 6e amen 6ent to operate 6e incinerator at this time. ' lf ,3. m:. s s v ~.,.. y 3, t, s..,.. f 5: 'W...... ;.,.,.,v.,...,....l.,'i:L :,? O g h.,. %,... 7+.S,.". ;.vv IV. ORDER m,v . o.....M. ..g
. p.s
.v. s** .v m y, a.l.N,W, a ; :',.s 6[:.v. %a... YM Tk,s: . +... .o i'W V. a R j.., ;. N(I.f4l & li.",. W 4.','l%l%f,"f, N, N,kh'*$ The Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or his designee, upon p e T.Wh-4 making findings on all requisite matters not decided in this Decision, is autho- ! N..t.f ~M. M.v.,S..C.., S & 1.,M, 5. i 7.,;h'dii.9.%* rized to issue B&W an amendment to NRC Materials License No. SNM-414 st.. .%g M. D;W %.$W,7f.a79',QM;- to authorize the operation of a Volume Reduction Services Facility utilizing the s Q:',?,s.WM:. ?.
4 :,j:? p+.. ".', c.L.,3 p* J. '.. ;L ? w, *... i *.. p.,.. l %... u,. ;., pi.,L.c.*~-
?.
. ;e.ci..
.u. f '% u. ; -'a..! ,s.,*, . f.L%'.9. '. 4 7. -l:.Yh.i
4
v. #
6, y s... %.tk$p..E.YWh5&T?;;y. yah:$:;$ l'O&yl'.Q%, QWWg.dl.W9p$'$: P. f:.: 899 l W,hl.'&h y.y:f % ;..e.u...,y. t m,. :. y v $.m$h;-lQ..&.y,.4Ql$%-,W!.Q N?,Q'y.',.M:g. 8 d 2 u,9 v..y.:,. u.. t.~. c % a;4 3;,ry.wW@ f w.b,..s > ;.M d h. N f. m v y g Q4 me */ p *,n '4 s s.- . S n,%4n>;.p. ^ ~ .):.W d% c% 2:.Q: 1:@w :.m&f r. f,..M*(w%;J.n.:. 4,n v&.M.% :h ml,' h:
w. q;. ;g.Up.2F w%lG:im:5.m;9. h t
.M: m<G f, $;,s..:s.. :G w W,) M 'f.,' Q.s N w w. %7 ~*X :+ ; .V 'W,;. jlT ^ %.c - y'bm.,~.n.%;'::- ~l. N:n.. y .q 'b, i . f,jf. y
_ _ - _, _ _ -, _. - - +..... ...,.r-.,.., .v..n..:,f6 @ & E...v,.,.:,.,,N. g...,.,W, ':0i%. R$,.. ,,,., - u..y a ) u,9.:r.~g.%v.9lw:$%, l6.6,,6.m. j'yW~~sW.. %'~*3 t;L s un%:WW9%%W N.I%%j; o.. [_. k % +-, 4 Q EQ, %@W.% ny. tt.!t*;'i.rg.e.nxd.n~.%:.w:<. M. w.9m. >%.w+Q gh..w..,w:.c,.,.Wwe,@:L.e.m*h.~ e
M W
w,p s v. .m .m ,4l*
n k,g,n e.h~.,Q.ll%'"kh.%...
n M.Q M,'[)7,W m. <E .. q.k.u,.v. .$w:Of. [~d,'W1F,d;)y-fh.kh... i.R..'kikhm.$, al.s.,.., $.h. ..gx,. W4W Y h h,i y.~.fhh,p$. p.d l f, ef . * \\; s v"' 1 .w -r g'
c w-
%.yvn;; : .u. r .u. ... q,hfi.k 6Jw.bb. m;.t. A,ca.. k.. q.,. Y'{ b $. w,.. ' ..%f.a.* *. N k t.N.h. sw
amc
.L 3r &,g f: g\\t.4 v,
c...
.a w f.,;c.P.h..;, Q $..H.&&;LQe"h.,".,C,M: Q*,lW$'&,'.s *'h '.', * ' r. e a..* O, *:.,%*j;c'. I %.* y *y.. N.JN.:nJV
.s.% %.
? . Ag:.s..!.yw.u...W s: ; e.. g. % :.wg... *g*,..,u se .. -c. ?v.;,. q:.y.gt.. .~ *.m.:@. y.: ...,e...,. ;.; v.,. g.o.. g.,;..y.p}.Qglr.g,"c.o. .u. ~c.,g,y.v.,cl<,gg s m.. .r, . ;-a ' e'. f.,.c...... w',.,i.;"l ?... jc,,T . 4.. e. ., e..'~. +.. .-n r super sompactor, only, at the Parks Township site. The amendment authorm..ng y.
g;.g

b. m,*.g.. if,*,., M.[-.Mr.v.;.
/,g.*y;t 'f."lg,+ y[^~" Gjg.T;l[f,.fg6.(..%.q,.gg the operation of the incinerator shall not be issued until the testing of the Dres-i den unit has been completed. That amendment may then be issued provided that W . y.g. /n r.
V,t.q ry~.,emw;.; ew..rr the following conditions have been met prior its issuance:
M'. M.@7"M"U','U3...61 ,Y~;:'.Nh'/J,,3'd
1. The tests on the Dresden MVRS have clearly shown that the overall
.('.",y'.p..;j ::..Q'.M.'.Ag' *l,;c
m. ;;,y*yA'. ;.. :go;
~' 5 ~ ? If;l I system particulate DF meets or exceeds 4 x 10, the standard to which s ... v ,7,,:9. >;b v.:. M c.:.,.r.. '.d; '.:

V e..
B&W has committed. .',..u.,.,"i :1;?. ;D..:.,. '.G..,O
2. The current environmental sampling contract between the NRC and a
a.
g. pay.p,, l';l.e j r ;q.. u ;;, y.g.'(; re. M,3 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is expanded to include sampling
,s..[.!.~.s:;;Ya., i,f.f,*.g..s~ S.J M15
f S and analysis for H.3, C.14, and 1 125 in the environment surrounding V %..,9. y/ M..J. @
E ,s..x r M.... .S .r ~.!. M.. M.Q,n. 'r'. 3.s -.. ; j fr? .. y.. 6 '. W,.... s r'e.a the planL N. %../..t
e. ~.
J.,q,y('.1%y;;$g,.j.4..'. i. w,c.l::,,[f
3. B&W has determined whether there is a law enforcement officer 1
p. 7:$' % .j.Q available in Parks Township 24 hours a day to serve in an emergency, tjp,.% ?;.9 2,d@J ~;^J.g.Q"l l@p and if not, has made appropriate arrangements to contact some other ,,h..,. C.$ Ml,
,T @ '..
.? '.W. 3 law enforcement agency such as the sheriff's department or highway - e ,., % <,/ M. /.'f h.',: @l; U's P'A W @.ff e,. 7.i6. ?,.r ;?;r-I,,i ' 'v ' ' m l patrol when the Parks Township police are not available.
4. B&W has determined whether the Armstrong County Civil Defense 4,
'.&..%...g',y!,N.y4'g,s.
3 .,, ; y y,g.'pg.....tc.:;, l is available in an emergency. i gl""'a ;,%',.';.p l
5. B&W is required to call all the numbers on its emergency list and
.:,;%'mj.,* Q,J;$
.5 ;PJ.';..",%

.?' - ~ / ;c ',,1. '
1.r','f),;ifU.T.7,g.];;;.';,,(;,,y.,.lj j verify them every 100 days. 5 l This Decision shall become effective immediately. Pursuant to the Commis. ',$~:;j . }.,,c,*. ;, j Q 'M.. ".. M.. ;.J.,'., -j,$ sion's Order issued July 24,1985, it will become fmal agency action thirty (30) J: / 7*.S.T..; ".<. 9.,1:
h. f[(IQ.... Tn. 4.y.$1M
) days after date of issuance unless the Commission, on its own motion, under. ,. s 4.c:n.cf y;,1,%'.C.. takes a review of the Decision. No petition for review will be entertained by the .e . n. 5( h, @E,d l Commission regarding this Decision. t/J. 5 4.#.ct,: $.,'...'1'y.... s,. y..m. .......-. ;y q". c.. f :.. - r..,.,+. ?,;. ?;.. f s:.m. ; 29. ' Wi' ': E. "cn., Q. x PRESIDING OFFICER ~. -
e. e,,.,. y, ;. :,y:. s..w.,,.,.. s '
.. : v. s....,. a. f h ,.v r.,u... ., $ g,... .,ipp g '.';;'??'# :.~.N:t/ N t,c;9 . w..;..... p. . qQq Dr. Oscar H. Paris
c. c::v..ww,.,Ma$t.".'. g'.,m..*.,A.N,u
>M,. : y.iM.,
2..
p.::;, s,.w.'. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Q:u.,,:;.-/.g!.q 9x;,m,c.:. x : :z-% .m :.y;+,.. s
J g;:. " w..'.
.i* ! Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, IM.f.~e.m. Trf..l.%..,,..' ?g.q.c. 0. S0 SR this 23rd day of December 1986. 'f g?; ;c.s, a.,y &p,%.y* ';p.. r.r ;-<.,4 ? r, a... ng .-;L 7* Y .s :f. n,.:e s.t w u. . ;;.,' O e i,'., N +', h*.Q**,.d
l >..

1
.l. o.p.p,. p. cV.42 L r;,. p.n ; f.
p Q..

/ ?.;\\ y j f d' a.??r
. 1 B C '.,f,# 4%' N.y;.' :.e9*. ..C.!,1,'e*.? WO, 4l., Mbt'm.n. : Q?.%, ,t 9,*1
1. s,% v.m c,', s.,;,n.., t y...
b p,hgy.... :. y -v n..~..o.m '... A.%y 3."..:
q.
v~v r .,J..
r..p,
, r cl*,b s,t.n..p.,z.,.%,. *:. 4.J,. c g. w. h.. tsi .O m. : w.s :** e. c
r. f 1.u.m,.,G.a h..,r.m..,..y
+:.u. *>.,L.t.:t r. .u...y. s ..m.. s
.. ;?.

m. w.
9 T.c? 4 s;. w.../r.z. . ;. s: y.". s..,. .~A.>n.; s. <, s > p1 ? .p..,.,.,.. v.c~
v.. ~.
p... s. .o t q 2>
g.. s...
. '.,+p u..r.. c.,g:p >. w;.',s. ?M&..,:. s, '_.p. 3.;.,. m..,.. . ;. c. y,m. u,2 w',%.4 .:n. jf i:; q.n w.,; u..u, a ... w<..s.. A,..,m. 3,y1A.p, 7.,,u.m v c ,.u. a m. m.u.;.e.< q. .,p.23. e..o : ;u., aa v
m..[ g....
. : v.r 6. 3 m.., ,p. s'.[ g. 2,7.l,2% '
fs?l..
's.;* %.g.U y.
s.m;i..l\\..'.. : w:.:u.m[.f,g;n
.~.o 4.'s', ? s.:n. -: o.. E @h.9/&,.u.;i.w:.Qi/M/p;f.. *;" r,.% .. #a %.p,.r,..p ',%;.,
3: 1..;&o.M.,':.M
..my 3 W t'M 900 .s
y..Q' %, ; ;.a.g c
p:w. y Ar 7 ;'e. .$1 $C'.Q:"'.&,..,c,O %.p,[fESh. m.. If.~'? s?. N . *M w m. Y-k.Ekdh.hM,p.N: k-N e v n N k r..a,y :sj. m;f y % m m. M m2m w f.N.QtWhdu.9 i 9 .W WQ#a(.hh@wl0 Y,'& b S?d@,WW.n..,W.h,f:,EM.~.n%..n ?.,,t.u!M.-nn#.ln.?.WW..e.7.2,a:a$sQ G iWB B M WV.sy@.
h. e w
M.,. f *.* h. R$ fhY.
',.,g?lg.f,.' C.g$"$. f. cw -h*f' k
..sE. '.1 N
n . l . k ..fk' 6 a
a u. s., 3-kMM$$(e:*h'.&g*;k&Wf$' $ 8' i6 M, M A a (M My@ k 0 E' ,$-p $.5.h r,%.'Nh$h Q. r l s*g%{6. Q.@r *<.gy%,s,ik, ;.?:;: .r ~ t,n, m. w?% . w*:s: 1d 4;y.%?.'* $. &y (@t d:'bi:y&mA r,:q.g+Q. 4.. v*:;s.:.'-t,: . v...e..y,q s,'c e 4...~tp.y. - t s 3 . '.1 ~ n ;. C v.,m:h Q<,,i %,wpn
t ~%q i
i s:w. ('YyW:..;.&. inh.mlm.sl!- f t .s-1,1 1 .M. pi ... y.G.:o.,Qt. q .e. . &,,'4 p;v a. ,..Qi%,f,pw i.> 1 pW 9>e,n ::,h4."%y.h ;f',@3.,g.g:yy:,p.9} :\\'.:. wllMl4..m.y"4, %p -
y9.Q fW f*;;Q.pr.;
v \\ si v. 's m.,: s. p. s... < 3.n..o.. hy:.c.4.0,w, 4..'.4;~ ;p,.Q j, ~,y,m. a.y.g.. Cite as 24 NRC 901 (1986) LBP-86-41 ~ :. r.\\.a. g..r;w t.9. s..e : +)pv;p;g;;:.%v. e..,q y .n u-i n u.. .. v 7,-s.w.#afg.:. n r .r. - v. o,.. '4'V* :.".Q. Q;:,:WQ,ilfS-iM*!DW@yA N:O@!(:2kj* -W'd W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 4: n%.cw :4M; Sx %wsh:.d.a..:L;,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ci;,'t,". a m s. .. 8,,T. t,t..N-;;7p. > ',(. e.. c'O ;.p., r 7.'s,,4 4.'.('af, 4....D. .a-s e te ."'..,r 4 t' e. g.f. g, ',kh - fi, f f. f. e k.. ....g. %,,..:.;y.gn..dh;,c[.:r:$k.n!5'-D,,, +,$h...eLy.1 $h>.3NM ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD S 9.w +, ..gN, m' maw'Off,w.:2M. ff%.#[ %..h ,yN 8. i .vc.c.,,.c.;.. W.;;7 d / .,N.. 3.,, pT.,,,.., %...?...M. m.t,;.,p -r; t 4. e..,, j, Before Admir,lstrative Judges: . 4 n.,c s. ....,....y ..y ;;?.;.m, r:.w ,n.e. ;; y,9. y:.....y,....,1m.. ..~.....e q;i.w $.,.;. w 4..ma. s,.y:..
>3. s.,%..QBs.f p...> r t w%....
t .w. <. r - a. >.. .. J .~: .,, ~.,. ..a.. W.. AN' DsU r1 Morton B. Margulles, Chairman .o 6.C. ^.'/..h.,C.. T., u,,ft !.;!.i..M..,<..E M.,a./.MM. ..."V*a. % Wg'#'W;d M. < Sc 3 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. t . 4,7;: g.,u:m.:,y%. ;%,.ym, M:a. .s
c.;..
L :.w Ww,A *M. 'i i o Dr. Oscar H. Parls '0'. %' ' fl**.g. j l *;. l, ****;.h...: p,:;.;":., k { b (.., m..y' y c v> ,.c . -,. p v. e. a;;n; :,. Q, '.,g .,;..,.',i.r...f,.,..g.:.*>...J'- .h sN. ,*~.*%. ^ f .,A ...,,....,o %* j.'4 'My@j $. *l %.. s .,, y, .,/,.,s.v.g.%.. s.. % ' :,'" i:. e /.; M,, \\ ;...f;.e. .Q7,W
g ~7 in the Matter of -
Docket Nos. 50-424 0L ., m, f..g,, lly .M; 50 425 0L ,6.... .g.s.. vail.Q;..: N... <(;S.;,a.,;%.3 ...>u.. M.
.i." /.y i, gg (ASLBP No. 84-499-01 OL)
Mp 1 ,-a. <o. g p.. ,..m.....;c., .~, [ p ; Q p. g,?',','; c,, [ f,.l,.7 l 7,5 yhy. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ,;V f N %,'.'/>. 4.I,','.h keJ i, $: $ (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 4 9;, p cyg.j llr...., f,.;,. ; .T ',. *. Units 1 and 2) December 23,1986 ,. g.s..,. ..n s o,,s f -
lM,1*lM.'sf.,j,N...., :.,:, m.@.b da,,,<n. a.
9,4...v.<.<. # .a 3.. ..t .,:: '. y,..: L. . ;.. w c.. a.. ;,..
.., 1..,y.
x- . '/.",Uc; In this concluding partini initial decision finding that licenses authorizing [53.).)/,j..plC@O,;lf":,,7[,'M,$$,Uli J,9.5$2 'N 'U.% operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant should be issued, the Board v /v, C i;. .?c finds that Applicants have provided assurance that certain models of solenoid IMlw.l $5.*.".i.hh;r;.M".,y,hA D valves that are used to perform safety-related functions are environmentally .y; Y.
j Q

&,&u';,&l% y: y'.
", *+'; C;7.'.#1;.p qualified. . a,,
.. W n
%;h.. @;;M M.T .'? 6;W;..q:. ' W A.n-2:[.% :~l':.l4 l.. g ri b W>, /(6. :,W....i,s i.',.$.6, ?..., pg;;;'N..,j pf-APPEARANCES o s ,.q.- 4 p, *b./*., c...j% .:,,.,.,.' ',.; /... '.%..'. t CW, k.'I.h- *.v, 'if.,TI:m )'p'!,W+lJl/.g @D.',.],- Bruce W. Churchill, and David R. Lewis, Esgs., Shaw, Pittmar., Potts .t4
i..".,;,q
<n. ..S.
3..
5}!$,'. 6,aM.,. I... /..v:%.... y ~M p)./.n. '., ?.
s. t. i
. M'?l.g;.. '.g W. Whitney, Kevin C. Greene, and Hugh M. Davenport, Esgs., & Trowbridge, Washington, D.C., and James E. Joiner, Charles 1A :4'3..,. f R.?? ?t. y,:.,.f g g.",,.f,.; W lf.i g t.:*:,J.J g a:M.m.V-0,, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Atlanta, Georgia, for the J/.< w;d. w;;. &,.,en, 9.t h.:ef....s g*J. c. N,: t G. Apph. cants. J;: y.ne t,,;.s.;.m, v - ca.4 $:0.g$.::: 4,M:.., v G. w.?t n..;c-se.w ;. er - $,o. W...e. i'.".a? 'M.u.,,,i.,?.%y.:,,ld:.:dN5f.Ihj.'e[, 'll S Douglas C. Teper, Raymond Tingle, and Daniel Feig, Atlanta, Georgia, for M.6 y;m-.P%$:.:.Q the Intervenor, Georgians Against Nuclear Power.
-h.,.,,
..,. 5,. ,y
, *.,.. s A.$ g,,.,. 2
,..~ t. ;..., vin g .....p.v. .. ;w..y rgQ n. w 7,.. w. j.* wu aq.j h g M.. / (, n
G 5 *[* U.:..
, /-y-2 h ly%: W;w.y.D *W%Q ' * *e'Q cAt *h*g.- @,h/ ' s'f.l,'[.,*k@., I e g,p,: ?.c s' ns s %.q R g '
7, 4' lN?
t$l,4 ?. Q;Z MS'.7'.#.M d h k d h:i j N,.w.~h h@hi & h. Q v & W:[fI'hk @ % ys ?MWW.n NiI bb W$.$m,Ns%.M.G'N.IQ?.'75W'$W6#S65M RF II
w. M rs M M.. G M d.. @ Wd M 4$ M
.wl,wys,..w%r. s y.o,.n:;....n.:.h'w..f ;M '-% i w.n;q.n$. ;..a. w.Jlcy w.m.n , - n. <' l m": a- .:.a..:.m w. a .y. n 5c s-u T*%,W *~ M. S.<.l. W - f ' 4 Y'y W. P.,X.li.w w" W Q...-1 .. ~ T.. ' '&,3-W,f. m[;- Q ':.:~i' Yis. c. ., t. &,g Y g m.,.,% .s g - Q- - '*M :& q, ,c r
h,,,$.k;,..kh.m w[.k h s w. Nkp.;h..,h..,w$h. ' ~,k)x... u- ..,r 2 0 m q ; m "w , u..:c.,.w;-;.y::w;m;h!bh,hi hfkf .h khhh. h k.e, m. "fk bhi Nbybq70hg,. w,ii)$;h..,.,.sdNb,.;r. y %y . [n p n? sin w.v..$u.g,. h'.h h ..j &:..a - u m.er.1 _,e s. n. p y.ey., u.m.. c.o>.,.. J,.,. w..h. .e r.....
4..,u.,,. s.
m %u g.
v. g,... + q m.-g.
u, .y n,...c:g...,,, : o. M..,..,,:p;: u, h.hz.u.n,r3..m.b :%. y.q W ,s,, .,f c.4f y6 a. r,%.#...r ,a,.. i:'.u!. ~.{$.:y;ff(( yaw. e
s..
ff @. N,'f;.%.2 M,;N'*.40. p :% f% 9 .bs .i,..;Wz.;
p4

.
.e *.% : .u MO.&.u...v:)':q@:;J:. y., v n...,.. ~ .x. Wn .f% m s w m.:'. r,a.. <.v, ;...y,w;...a c w. y s a., m,,,p.%, g:.;:,.y. p., w.i.s:,5 .y ,..q. )r. p :. q. v ,,erpJ...p...:;o, W. m o .m. 4: .wt < t. e. f 6 ,.,.;s ~: n.y;*%lk7p . y.. t- @k',Myf%: Bernard M. Bordenick, ared Lee Dewey, Esgs., Bethesda, Maryland, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff. D,p. M;a. g. V " w.l.f'JA. %..:t' M W : 1 4 cV .MM p 2M '0,%m.,.,., >..m.. N,; &,.,c, f s t .; r % ? / .e, V
/,3;;2,.w%.
3 r@r. w.:n.w.wl.;.(,. M % .m i. E.Md ;i,.. :e. w CONCLUDING PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION
J
. ; h. :.s.. W/v. P. - W G,. g:. 6,j.v. v.:,, .S.,..,. . m.,. /' m.ut. ::~s *
u. :. ~
y:.. . @n$:..,. M'a. E.D..,.;%... ... $j,. 1. INTRODUCTION
h...

p. y.u...y
.'k..J.j.,'s@- 'i My$ .o > n.gm w ..,p . 3 k1,;f.. e N,; O M..N'M.$.M. M' E' This is the second and concluding partial initial decision issued by the Board
. w(jjd....~..Wh. M,.;.1

in this proceeding. In it the Board decides the remaining Intervenor contention '. '. ' ' +# t..o4.*/.M.m. f %., v
,,. 9..,gj.
tg.-l d in Applicants' favor. The Board concludes that licenses authorizing operation of
m....d@.M. p,O._.}Q the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), should be issued,
$$iK/:;%@..T.,4 '.;f r - . M4 # 6.Ui subject to condition. SM, /J;ic'WP' ~..C, i 3 In our first partial initial decisior isqued August 27,1986 (LBP-86-28, 24
.Vg %
..i.'.h .!,d.. Q,. % V.01,.4 M.W,l. NRC 263), we detailed the development of this contested application proceed-b .Il ." d.v.M. ing for operating licenses for VEGP. The application process resulted in an .h v i .4, evidentiary hearing, from March 11 through March 14, 1986, at Waynesboro, p ".9.;5 .fl,n..k//!l17;y::p;.2.. k;{ C p' Q{ M;g p '3 7 [ y.,r Georgia, on Intervenor's (Georgians Against Nuclear Energy or GANE) three f.ly, ,.f g: K.,, .7.l'j:q contentions, by which denial of Applicants' (Georgia Power Company, et al.) 1 application is sought. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) has been a
Q,;'y Ql g.."4p% ' :s,.,% r(ss
!.c7. 7. ;: ' %llf.3,Ml.{
party throughout the proceeding. O <!',$3,.ijg'O<[/Dh[.hyd ', ?. t (y E r* D.H.' M.;4.i M. N Of the three contentions the first two were disposed of in our partial initial decision in Applicants' favor. Contentiort 7 alleged that Applicants have failed %.M O M ..., M,.. E.,y. I, @,.~.+M.. m Uc, d,. i,:.[$..M..: to assure that the ground water below VEGP will not be contaminated by a spill "5. +,f of radioactive water, and Contention 10.1 alleged that Applicants have failed to y#...M, g,s.'.:.,.?..w ... N. :. d.d.M r.'... . ;s ' lM....N. assure that certain polymer materials, to be employed in components of VEGP M9 a.i?,' 4 N.ib.,., ev - g ly, t..u lpj ;g..g. s .~ r that perform safety-related functions, are environmentally qualified. V.,b..M,'L../]" 6$'/g'yl .i W.b 1..t M.u, N'.w;. dj$g%;M l.;$ The third and remaining contention, Contention 10.5 alleges that Applicants .M r , r... [C
S.
.jk. sf;.99 have failed to assure that certain models of solenoid valves that are used to $l.'@.ph{l,M %.g'$. perform safety.related functions in the VEGP are environmentally qualified. The MAVil9N.f@%iy7/$ Board deferred ruling m the contention in its August 27,1986, decision because ,Mt. of the issuance on August 25, 1986, of Board Notification 86-18. Therein, 43 Mj$: UW.D*Y9.k:'s.*d$y$ v & f-the Staff stated that it had requested from Applicants additional information y,- M'.p.Q%(fM/l.{M.gl NIX regarding Applicants' main steam.line break analysis; BN 86-18 further stated Nd.. T T. ..P....t 5:.p:g;.h% g.Mt <,Wy h@ that the Staff questioned the methodology used for the qualification of ASCO h valves that were the subject of the contention. Staff promised to inform the Q
.

Mg.;.'
.') gGQ l'pj,).gg'd.fijg[MP flR v.;d:q %,$, .g Board promptly of the final resolution of these matters. Owing to the then ,Q'y jv,8%Q: ,4k'J unanswered questions from the Staff, we withheld our decision on Contention .h,'.d$M..N.N 10.5. In issuing our partial initial decision on the other two contentions, we stated .i (4. p&c.<e w%p. y.,Q, p Q...f,!+ ~, that we retained jurisdiction over Contention 10.5, the only contested issue yet pQ,.9v.; w ,%g-u,A@t.mr..n. v. %g~ c;t to be decided in the proceeding. og.'.@4.~,.4,.>.&. o@ T
r
,b.. c 3 4 'r ys,.;p-xn;e.k, L..o. M: h,
q. p ~},
%w s r;.;;... y w. DMiEINh... E 902 &@, 8: blyfn & e,$$'At m p7/ IiW;v.%5(imli,Q gh' n; .n%,. WWy .r .g $, k:Ji' Wki'@&,,,.>$g;pl$h,%.#,n. + .M p2. spi. M:gsq). M n <.~.. o gg 4 Mm,w.. w@b.%.F M.b@ w,' w%em %*@.
r r :W W. w.**%
,N e w., e
~ . e a h~%.:.q:r,.0/.45;c.,hju:.h..p#.a.[hv.N q....)Qp. h kh k $N A[. h3k hl,@ k N 'b. k h N P h $ h.<.. c.w n %.7 dk2W rq..Vy.t.r&.g%pW;W/ %q.,~.. 4.:.p%.. m%.w,%e. ,v ! v~ ~y y g nM& .W'g ~e w - - ,t n. 1-y bb b^ a N 8,,@$, QMWW::; c%:.-l. $.h %&n. r : k,s.',a.pu:s;@. t;p;yd R M,yQx p eMP,W~.'?.::;ik: :,:qpn. y, Cr.v.k<.%am ?.Qm w-w.~:% Gmypw%.k g. m.g im u pr>,; 1 w
. \\.b..y.,h.),W..,&,g)W,. 0

..xw.,.Mb...*1;t.N,%'4g.:%g
. ' b,(f .- m 2-A f A, s. 19Nf/S.[ @.fW,iM@.$hh.de;'..y,h Under date of September 15, 1986, Staff issued Board Notification 86-Nj'22kjk.h.bfhSM.i'Ih.N'l.h(.0 !.5bd.Y. M.hk?;$lhM.h7 h 19, which stated that the Staff had been provided additional information by Applicants that answered Staff's concerns. Staff stated that based on such EN i information it found the valves to be acceptably qualified. @.M<$dl NJ,P.$y.'Qd,.D'Nt M.'di%, M.. M!. [Fi ? f On October 8,1986, Dr. Howard M. Deutsch filed a GANE submittal
S % M g,, @.. /.3
~.%e..;W, -J.f.(!S:)? 4u . /MMO,QJF JMN. !w.n.p...M 3'7?P '.f:s.93.? M titled " Supplemental Information" that addressed the two above-identified Board s 5G v.. Notification issuances as well as other matters alleged to pertain to Contention 1* WSN 10.5. No reopening of the record was requested by the parties. The extra-record i ..R..O;d..b"MN MN,M'h/N $.$.k Board Notification issuances and the Deutsch submittal were reviewed by the h',U2 k !,({.N I k'." 4 M O.,.N. I'.. M. s ...Mw..f.f. ly.3 PN...G :..? Board. They did not provide any relevant, material information that contradicted M .....,..n 79f;MS., 9.a,l.W,. 'd N.kY.,M.:fe!'M 4'7 the evldentiary record. The Board did not consider them to pmvide any reasons Mk's for inquiring funher or to reopen the evidentiary record.1 [M..,.$h'.,9.1. ?)I,'.Q. N' ilW,M@W:hil:3.M.): !'[k p. % g.:;./ :;. M :AF .Q.J'd.;7$.$$j The Board in reviewing the evidentiary record on Contention 10.5, decided that certain matters were not di!, positively dealt with on hearing. We wrote to a.,, s F. e..:E,P. the parties by letter of October 24,1986, inquiring, as pertinent, whether certain e ;.W.,, r ^ fJ ?., cited temperatures provided meaningful margins that would provide confidence ... $/.t.. r;n g f i , t.. s* *l. 'c. 9,,.c.'.$ ;lf/?T. 7...,@..,.,,M.. l.i.'. that the three subject model valves had been satisfactorily qualified. 6 h.[q' @. ?.j:(, M.a. M '/ c.vy,( [c_ ',".. f g"% '.9T MA'fh,,e. '1, / This prompted a response by Applicants on October 28,1986, which provided J. s.1... . C,.. e,..t:: + '4 newly obtained information on computed post-accident temperature values that
- :3
.i;.jN. g was site-specific to the Vogtle facility. Also, it provided probative information
[N ;.,..

C.
J,/ 9.- 4 "L'. N :q on the precision and uncertainty of the temperature margins that was formulated M; ;MlJU., !]? ![f: '.;..N.,F Ch..,;.,??) :f 'l'67 k. Q.} '..!,@ . Z f_.M A t.c. N subsequent to the closing of the record on August 5,1986. The Board viewed this information as having a significant bearing on the involved safety issue. By 1, l.. ; ','y.i, J.c;/,. Q', f. '... ]. < W.T.. f,~ip f, j.S J ',. l Qs f.j. -m'Y.9, .i W: Memorandum and Order of November 6,1986 (unpublished), the Board re-r.. s p ;.,, ,, opened the record for the limited purpose of considering Applicants' newly .[, N.6'!;g,/.. C :" Q '!.ll,;f. g.].' M % Q s %4?;. ; W,(,'.g 0, provided information along with any other to be furnished by affidavit by the l..m 'M (Q/Q,. V{;.?g g%lf[,i. f other parties in support or opposition. Answers were appropriately filed by Staff f.'f,G., ~.M and GANE and a response was submitted by Applicants, . W/. M. _. vs N 3,-).5 l'.: Based on the responses to the Board, we concluded as to the matter it inquired ..3, Q.. s,*r.Z.t . ' r. s .v... ,s. ff'. of that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the methodologies [../. d;N ':,g/i..;is g'd.a.T?,.. a.C.. d.? " 'J. A r.p. -(i. ?- 'J. l';y.;,., p..,'. y employed to establish the subject values and margins; that Applicants and G3 2
h.. M, % y, a(w., A y :.s.W, ;p,,3 :...
,. ^7 4.2 Intervenor differed on the conclusion reached; that the Board had no reason to c... , ;c.p< JC
(,t/.
y ....; ;; i.o.,; ~,:.g. P. i y. g.y. inqu're further as to the position of the parties; and that no useful purpose would @.,MN..N-Q,..,.,f,,cc...c.lb,f.Id.S$1..[....,. be served in holding an oral hearing on the matter. As a result of the foregoing, 3 M. ,y..s,;..c4. m~.',::~'.e. 3 3 "r;s.;[w.y.,C, s.,..! s C. 0 $...* %..r.f C ;.,.,'.j.#8 y/.7.e lt. the Board, by Memorandum and Order of December 8,1986 (unpublished), .c, f.. E/M.5;UUd.. M-.
4l:+'d,,
directed that the record be closed. N f.'.,@.,-T;/.b. In our partial initial decision of August 27,1986, we had found that it resolved m.,.?p-A,y/t..,i'.;.y.3..,?y c ;d.. 1%...W. di;n. Q a major segment of the case, making it appealable at that time. On September 3.f. 3:: ! .. y.. v y,s..,:..... ~.. 23.. . ~.4. h'**;:.fa.. ;? W: ;,... g. t...... 4.. v a ..,.a
1
f. {. 6 h n
\\'"T . bt pl.94.? '.f[)4"'. 6,'. 6 'd'.*l: *-((.h,.%.*)[,g,h Id ),. 'U", l[J. $ [.N was subsequently rv. opened on November 6.1986. We renewed au of the mformauan subtruned by Dr. Deutsch I Dr. Deutsch again submined the same informacon alor g wnh add 2 conal comments after the endenuary record j
y,.(f;/i'.1 f.
M[./t
$. /; $ I j \\.* g -d in his october 8,1986 filing and discuss it under i U.56. st.rsg.
3,. h;M.) ;, /.. "?.c.,.. ' i .';I '*.* f 't.;., ',4?"'F % '. : ; *,)' ; f 1 ', 'v.. *.,% f':,, ',,,s... O. *.. 's Igr* s *. %. v e x, . ;; '; 3 A at'
o,
". M. '6 J 'w
*? h: '. Y'$'.',.,,',.(.( ~. k.,
s 2.' ? ? . v,.. g..q.,.:.m...n.yp ; q.. :.,. ..ux..:....,w., : .. r.,.g. g.,. .c... m. .L 9u~a .. re a., >.p. wJ .. w p.y'm...pg. m. a** f -eI .;mQ:.m.s%:f}W; M;.yn M,s.rn. s y,&... q f a t;
tv.
s
Wp,'H in t
t. r.w.sn%.v. :.> dup.?,_ o.......M.... m+v, m.... q.n...- ..y - <m.w., m. 1 t "' *. *... *% w'<. nr....?. v Y,.)&, %w$%g,7l%. c?Jh, y*G T}}. %.M.q.l.W,.liOM..+,.4.r..,. y }.Q.'%... s N a r. ~A T4 f:;; .cA l4;Q,,M f.p:e$'o*..R' T' &'r c:..M '* 't'rW " *,;TiFj J . ldd 'G,
MUW. l.;ilW}.f..; 8%
w..t. ',&> N,.5 j;.r.f ! V.,.-
E*NG*$.,',sG."Qg.,t t..,i,x:h,r.Ah'!#m.\\ y, - v..,,, 1 '.o,'q W. Q n V o ,p 9,g; t. 9,.....> 9pm;%,.?"p p.,;;;:.;P.i LM*;'i'.Q@,o ?. &qw. '.f3. v,p..w.. v ..s,. c. 3 u. Gy j * ' V. ',Msy.@:.c#9M., W i$c..gJ... n.,.s :r~:.,w, w..
e..s-1,w 9-W &: w.'u W.,,,..v;n.2. 4.QQ'cu.M.1.
u. W; CM
,3:
I'Q;.A.../.;n,?q !. ',3,Q&," fw
.W
'w ..
jAs, 7
m..,y. tp;;e'p 9.v.;,.9.%.Ab.,":.,x,:t.;1% R:<B. y.M y. p.:qq. ..u.a.y. ry ..v. .s
C;..W&j y. ).,,.
...,.,..n e.::. t.1 (-7),'ya< T.n.,... ..y y f;;-) $' h[...gi.. 8,1986, notices of appeal were filed by Intervenor GANE and i Campaign .g MSM- ' Mrd [,pI.kf;, f.[f;',T lips. /.[,i. {t'%%,].g@ for a Prosperous Ocorgia, a former intervenor that had withdrawn from the proceeding.2 On September 12,1986, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and U. g M7.yg h @ jp Licensing Appeal Panel appointed an Appeal Board for the proceeding. By f'.j,.% ' M,Wi,d'../Q. igy.(n.. ;M bk? letter dated September 18,1986, App;11.mts brought to the attention of the DDM-3'I TN ',.DE, v'l.'.M. a +Y.c7S Appeal Board having jurisdiction over the matter and this Board information N. T.. ..$.8: involving XLPO insulation containing vinyl acetate that was at variance with g. . w. t.... ..:.',,,.'r.t;. M..F C.,:y: Wcs%: .s. ,i. testimony they had provided at thc evidentiary hearing on Contention 10.1. It ...,y?#r'A.4fMA@"$,[lQdF ?[... !.7. was Applicants' opinion that the additional information should not change the C' '._.s'.M.'(T_,, ;a..W ? ", Q h [ ;" fj h conclusions reached by us. The matter is presently pending before the Appeal F. G..v. ;k :.,B.,., r '. .. 3 :* ' M..'..' Q '.l /l:.. Board which has jurisdiction over the Contention 10.1 by virtue of the appeal. J 4 . : J.'A.,i. j;, ! Q.,l0. d We do not view these circumstances as precluding this Board from taking $p.'[@$ ;?' hlE .. ; ? :,.'yf,.'*, fl...~ 'i @M k A up the last unresolved issue before it and issuing a concluding partial initial ?f. ,W? decision. As a condition precedent to the issuance of any operating licenses, !:;i.g ip: k ~.'; '.@!j *. $ M it would first have to be initially determined by appropnate authority that the hP'.@.'+':P.-Y. ll.%,' '@~,r[$.f].< dQJ 9f% changed information contained in Applicants' letter of September 18, 1986, pertaining to XLPO insulation that contains vinyl acetate, does not lead to a
m. q ;,;b conclusion that is inconsistent with that of this Board on Contention 10.1. We n.
4
vy'

O.b;g,@

, DO.M. N@
w.l. Y. ; had found that Applicants have provided adequae assurance that certain polymer .c,). t,
i. 4.m,..,.. M ;.fa.,..,2...,,4.G,
.h. materials to be employed in components to the VEGP that perform safety-related .L.. / l.: , s... m. m".. /s functions are environmentally qualified. [.., 1,'J f v .;;..yr -/ $,..'T.E*2 dD,q. (,,..c5N.a.M Attached (but not published herein) as an appendix is a list of persons e,..,;. ~, @..,i,. : p.t o.,//.. m $. w' ., s: providm.g testimony, 4... <v; e.. c.
+
2 .a..... u.:.s. . a. ~3 . : m %...s,bn .....s
c ~-
. %. at.s,.. ux :;.- ':':.q ...m....t '$! W ~..:.%. $!$:'.;l.;'it-7.' '
.;%.yy., l'
$'- $g.M. :jf;.g V.V II. FINDINGS OF FACT m .?'9h..w.ww*.,. n.. M '/.W T..e . r.. M. ?)/f.'5 P Q ;1. CNc Environmental Qualification - Contention 10.5 'g%: &.Q-#T.P 7%.h.?. 2g/ ., f .TMMd@, 1. Contention 10.5 challenges the adequacy of the environmental qualifi-g$$g DM...~.m s,., td....,;ef'.N,9.. 'l .?.. MM cation testing performed upon those models of solenoid valves manufactured ( . p 3.p;Q!?;M' 4 f.'y,q f s. fp 4 by the Automatic Switch Company (ASCO) that are to be used in the VEGP Ml.3.fj,Qy'gg$ff;M,'s to perform safety-related functions. The contention is based upon a 1983 Board ' N jj.h'O,4 S & M. R .n", kPMY%.U!M.PMk;7 Notification (BN 83128, discussed below) issued by the Staff and cited by In-
'e
/.I%YM,J Jg tervenor for the proposition that numerous ASCO valves had performed improp-i MM/;, Dfd erly during certain qualification tests. Intervenor states that the Staff cautioned h'l.JW E.Y h h h.h..h'k h,y:h@[..gt against using ASCO valves in any application where conditions could be more P. di;'. severe than those reported in qualification reports. Further, Intervenor related e v, m..w
r. a ~n,.
ya,.tt &. c.m. v.;,.g[o a .NMh'g[::#[7(.'$#.'. "Yb. 2 fy,. h, ;'.@Y.',F't;7 The Appeal Board distrussed the appeal d Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia be:aase d iu poor withdrawal y, W h,7 .l 3.:, b dlv,.W.. r?. :jj# imm the proceedmg. AIAB-8s1. 24 NRC 529 (1986).The Commasian has dechnod to renew the maner. Mem-8 g <. 4.Q%p%55'i
q..", 6. ?gM.,e.M.T. h;. LT, \\'.'p o fp.,,g.g:
q:, yy.,, g,A+*> g.,a-.gh@/.# orandam for Boant and Parnes from secreary of the Commusion (December 2,1986). C 2 ..s;&s 1:i r y t h,y,:%'*;.,. *cw.**;. J " M e.
g eyq.,,. ~.
.e ..x. ... '.-l' h .y g/.<.9,f..; m.h,. r%' M,b. s.'y,.nt.. ..,, p. e.: ..,e r ny o'.,a g.3,a,s. c 904
" "k.NW.
Q.iifM&s,&f*4.,: NW~Wx i$.$ tft$i.%f}f Q
y%p

d.%why%:m bw%t%
NM% M M D W yN%! @ $ $. %R.N. M E W u A m-I h m p. d wk V32t'!UWMM*p.'lyq.Jq l@:aM-' Wdw"q,k?lri.p?WQ8'5vpFN.y.FC N-yf.p g.y v w.ewpa 'V9 6 @ $ M D $fM yy ti$;m: m% w
.v $s@Q.%Q.,e$e@%%@t.-;MiHM M M 5 Y' h A t. &.. w; p ).g. G @r %.. y y Lw .n. s.. F G lJ W,..n.A' f. 6 f'.:,'?. S.v. y@gi 2.c., m.M i M,.e.a.,...,. m..>3./ N. " ]., q.w $ $ m. N M m,. ..n :.. y. d.h.,. 9 ;' >7.~6*$'. 4p..z,.p.g%g' ff[?.Nk#1[sN$Wh%g .u 8 ,q y p.M.% M 5 2 JNU... 2 valve failure to exposure of the valves to temperatures in excess of 340*F. Ap-h g., I,$ M. k. M. v [j"Y@O(Q,;R;#2N'7/j9/g?jh(.p. jI.N M Plicants' motion for summary disposition presented the nature of and the results 'M rl?t.M A A ' M,. T'Q' from all of the test programs to which ASCO valves were subjected. Intervenor / >f5 df did not respond to Applicants' motion. The motion addressed the contention is-R. 9,;.;~ V @,4 9.n..+,,s.:,t:a.%6b5W$$@l8,$,.$[Q^l.... 5 n. >-, /MM;?s gy sues and presente! what Applicants reported as satisfactory test results from all N[^$ @:lD M *?i M : / of the test prograi 's. The Board denied the motion, however, because it found G.9M.9.f NMi".J/2 $d M/t?,- that there were cer tin issues that had been inadequately addressed. The issues g;,.;l%!,gdg[@@).hb[g.h@hdh ? .d}pb. h5 h. identified by the F ;a ri in denying Applicants' summary disposition motion are 34i;t.p.MM,y,'dj d'h.h.'M.Yld.Jg as follows: l.'/. O**DG.S ?Ci?. h 3,q'q.M. 41. g.~..,. ; /..N!.MlMQ (1) Whether any type of failure of any of the tested valve models can MM <.. p'.1, ;e.w%.. result in an unsafe configuration of the valves and/or dampers they Q,.~.7,,%. w- .>..,j; %l'm 8d.....e; cc~:.,.,c..g. m.. s, e.v 3....m..ydA. Mj,l3 (2) Unspecified basis for knowing how long each type of tested valve ,. ~. d$. control.
n..., s v, u.
r a .u., T ',j M ; $ iM a'2,?., M+ $ 7,j.1,', W.q - .u 3/f must remain functional after the initiation of an accident, and for M, h h.M.,$ y?M.Id$h$ NM/ knowing at any time during plant lifetime whether each such valve is yf,. .4..w lg,;h.g%Q.;:.NE5',. kkhdhN.'..W %;c.d M.W;y n*q W, M. (3) Whether moisture leakage into the solenoid housing of any valve / J capable of its required post. accident performance. n N,. f,' e ;.@ d.9.... ,, ~9.;.4. '. specimen can endanger VEGP operation. i p, .,?..;;M, a 1-J'$}R;..;D.','lij'#,y/j[.:$.1.*?G.//. 9", f., t.. (4) Whether manufacturer's specifications regarding valve parameters y. have been properly considered in evaluating test program results, and e. f..,.s.. -i:.. ;...., . q..,.,.. m, T..... : the extent to which test duration can induce valve leakage. , Q'.,jjjy, D,g.7 _..,... m 1 .c + g.,. f,. 7.,.f.> ; A ;.+ M Q 'f.J g %...
p.;y 1
(5) The extent to which test results on specific model specimens might sc ,.y,.. be inv'didated because of as-manufactured differences between test
/., *; i.4 W,f.. n., ;.
/ specimens and production specimens to be used irt VEGP. . !,, MlQ';,,1. G ;..; g,p ? ..,y,.,K.,m /J.,,3,C,f ;,lJ 'U,%. ... O @ !:-l.:' N 2. The Discussion section below first deals with the evidentiary materials k, c....... D. 'p%o' 3 i .: i, ^...... .s .P:/.9,l/?,q. !'jf.. ",,*..,. y' 8,, and factual findings for all of the test programs; next the results for each valve are .;,.J,:. reviewed against VEGP conditions: then each of the above individual issues is .;'; *,l..f/. * * /..M.,;i,...... ;.& r~.f ?.*g.. ' ig. /. discussed. Applicants presented the prefiled testimony of the following witnesses n.. ;. ;, ; .j .f f U'l.i.h, c/[M;!.V.:M.,T,:1.y.5 who appeared as a panel: George J. Baenteli, George Bockhold, Jr., Stephen p'. M. 4'l y' %. Q h [,5. h [. [ /.,s il f.i k/ d [.'?M{']. ./ J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and Harold J. Quasny (hereinafter Baenteli et .,.#:Wa,d. N MOldEN L. al.. ff. Tr. 517). Staff's prefiled testimony was sponsored by its witness Armando &. m'+.> , Q",.f, 3),Y; ;IQ, *[b.. i...# ' :.2,,.,W~,.y.@ Masciantonio (Masciantonio, ff. 'It 550). GANE offered the prefiled testimony u'.. M. $..;. . /f;j'lQ p.1 of Howard M. Deutsch, who appeared as a witness (Deutsch, ff. Tr. 371). 'Ihe [. d ;i M b $.$j
M Board has reviewed the professional qualifications of Applicants' and Staff's CMQW,'G (.S,5'G)N'kl,id.%l

;
witnesses and finds them to be appropriate to the subject matter covered. With ] . ;.f. l.k.:h'p'.h$M'Mk /l,h;b respect to the GANE testimony presented by Deutsch, specific Board comments j k A;:i 2: R.. W Q.?'/d y,N'/j." @' k.i,.?h'[c.'*A f,5b &y;&*y*lr.i.h'.f,. > :i:;,' chd 7l M are given in later paragraphs. y V: Q% .w. ' fG.Q?. %..%.. %-> l.'?. i: Y.':*. f *:.i h;... ~}l. Q; t r y 6,.. y.v. e;
a.. m. m. s.-. m....-
y
u..
4;,.. v.<r;m :,;.., p.s > r. R..n. .a. ~, " - w W.v, ~.... .,.,,.r . 1..
m.M::?,Jp;n. ':';:;'M N.e%::.,t,...m. g;,. %,.,.
.yc t..w.
rp:m;.n.t.
a. g. ~ v.M w,2 n + ...m:. ?; p/ c A~; wM -,c s ~Qj'.M. i.(,.L. h.y,..;R; +g.Qh q.,;' ' .e . Q,.. iW.!;.Wj;;Q' . '4 9o5
v...u,,,.. r; s.;.,,.... s...,. f.s.,,a. s,.,., w..
.i ,..<.w y,':v, s jpi;%;., r,,,. ...,p
n....~,. -w ~:. %,.
}
a...:n.. c.~n y;;.t<..
,o u, l~'**p. Y.,*,,;,& %.i.'. p? ' .u-%. w -g.'..* V.8:y'1*WE*.;M. % ..y-O *e w ..,s.. j . m.Q...,)# t. w.~
. '

' A NN'f3 i'.%'
W, \\. Y:
e&.,i'.:.* ?..V3,.'S 6-46.w. my+..w es* y.,;w..,.v&. ;n,0.:;,r %. p,;.x.,p, c..t ';.
s..
* *.p. s.. p.s..
q. / i. w.... '* ; & './. 5. A,. .,f 'hi w.,9,k T.U ? f*M f%hM9%.Cf WfW.O,5.M*EW.?EElN$f f0.hW$h,!hl?5.$$.' m,W., M W. h tb e 9M m dM ..; M-wu.%r.. m,d.s.d. w : w s.,g. W n,M.p. w ~mc +M., @...e.n..msj . wm.g.. w . m..
-- 47v 4 .% t r y h,.,,3 ,i? p 9 7, f.; - +g,. +....,, f *; ? Is $i Nh; lE.f * - h'% . hYi. f.$ . j', ? ~-0i f ' $'k h! N* a ;'. ; C , f *~ ?.... -lY. i 5 w); Y g w h'*;*::,; n e'hs w' e *e.,w# wwt+*:UJ.W51n s e& n* wye,,,* /. /. b s a.r$f w
bY Lb,Wk.kb.5 h.o.rU.
ph)*f.f..w'V.$t},j s f.f.},,.g.s,l;,b '. m. s,..,f \\ { {* 5 1 9 p.b..,,,:, a u/..a.," *. ,. h.. ~t.. ~4*,:.se.i. f. :. e v. N r
y. '%.,e,y.,is,h,. *;a,"l p*O..,,
.s. i. V.*.1, is fy<.
W.A
., * * *'., ;., s* ' ?, :,
4.
.
cM,t.. :,. g... p.
Wl:.np.w,p,..%w',:v'.. ef a 2 y *~&. : :.s:r &.n'. W.
w.

t
.ci
v Discussion Q/.$gl;GM JJ.MY43 Q'h;$'T E.y)N;.@%.;,y,.
. /. 3. Paragraph II.B.2 of our Partial Initial Decision discusses the environ-M.".'fj,1 W.b."1 @g. c mental qualification of nuclear power plant equipment. That treatment, being +'r ),cg. ;.p:f[',5'M'. E.'. ... d.'. ;.'M/ T M applicable to this contention as well is repeated here for convenience. iW s .o. ws... .. ~,. / a., ,1j;; 4. 'Ihe purpose of environmental qualification at a nuclear power plant is t. q f@;ll V @; y' T.?; '/j; .yf, to demonstrate that equipment used to perform a necessary safety function is f j !.$.f; Q:.h. f,jj. capable of maintaining functional operability under all service conditions pos-t y 5 gl3 '8.l tulated to occur during its installed life. The qualification program must also
lJ@*glt

ff*;9?..G ;J,~. ?.%Q3
.p ;f. demonstrate that the equipment in question is capable of the specific length of operating time required following an accident. Environmental qualification is p'i.QQ,'g;k.D*.{T.y'g)['k4j V' n%,y.ggA.,1,$.7 @..Ncgf>/,h nortnally achieved by subjecting a representative piece of equipment to a test ',g,7 .;p.. ;-c. M';W.g.d@AQ program that simulates the expected environmental and service conditions the bw%@Q.S.. h..ll'V, c ? W equipment will see during its installed life, followed by exposure to a simulation .. ~. c.~ w of design. basis accident environment during or after which the equipment is re- ' M;, y a, ;;r,%. g. 'r'. f ;;;$. b. s W MT..I..W._'.N. t ,w quired to operate. Exposure to the radiation generated by the normal operation d,4.. 4 .. 4
/. h. Y.. D.,..f F..

,. W %
< M ~. g.wal. ,h s. of a nuclear plant represents an environmental condition that plant components v y;. s
h. y,f'?;.
p;9,;y";;g(j'G)Cf;3f. and equipment must be qualified to endure. The higher radiation doses associ-7: ,Q',f.171.y.A,SS,., ated with a design-basis accident are not of concern with respect to dose rate A}.j: h@W W,,, j,W(.f S7 M/Of3'. '([',,..).Q:d effects, since accident radiation effects can be readily simulated. The regulatory M...[g, requirements for environmental qualification are stated in General Design Cri- ..;.:... b M,f* W,,.% .. 1 teria 1 and 4 of Appendix A and in @$ III, XI, and XVII of Appendix B to 10 o. fl ". 3,. 4.q V.,.. C.. J. : '3'.... C.F.R. Part 50. Specific requirements for environmental qualification of electric ';9;' Nl?... 3 r ' '@s en., n,,9.,.<.d, <<...:..M. g. equipment important to safety 'are stated in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49. Masciantonio,
' oi M.

+,w Y..
rc. c.1' t c ff. Tr. 550, at 5-7. r.%;7.Q.rO @n;. y fi< i.* ;".MSMM idv'W.. N!,'u+:a,.L. N.s.' M ri. 5. Contention 10.5 concerns the environmental qualification of ASCO .'.% w.s;s.M... .,,f.J '. '4 4 solenoid valves used to perform safety functions at VEGP. Four models have B C.;j.q. :,L....., -.., x.....,. e @, %s.f2' '.y,'{ghh,.y.h,0 Wi ;, tr been identified for such service; their ASCO designations are models NP-8316 . e y M. (A 16), NP-8320 (A 20), NP-8321 (A 21), and 206-381-6RF (A-6RF). Baenteli 4,W.re. hhl,Mh[?q.h$ d. f.y - et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 5. These valves direct the operation of air-operated process r$..i.',spT.h@.g.nM..$.~p;r.y.K u valves and dampers in safety-related fluid and HVAC systems by controlling p. gy. W r. .. c. dE#$W'7W.lii.M:8Mht. air flow to the air operators on these valves or dampers. By either venting or M.hh providing air to the air operator on the process valve or damper, the ASCO M T V $ [$' d ?
M.M. (Qh.%@3y0 solenoid valve enables that valve or damper to close or open. Table 10.5-1 of h..h*
h3 K the Applicants' testimony lists each of the safety-related air +perated valves or yg:4ffiQ[ h.p'$)..,,$gg'R@D f dampers at VEGP controlled by an ASCO solenoid valve and describes the gp@. g .(.:.M.n. c,,.W. ;: ;.> f function performed by that valve or damper. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 7-10.
d. !9. d.Q., Q3 ~,,,.
YiiD. 6. The safety function of each ASCO solenoid valve is to vent the operator m
'.a lj.J.Ogj.~
of the air-operated valve or damper with which it is associated to allow that , : p. c..,'.y,3:g,, A.M; j'eJr +.4:y;pto. wng. U c val y damper to move to its safety-related position. All of the ASCO solenoid v m i7. e w. y. g 7,. c. 'p$;.ig; .t.(li ..u kyNQAg/;.
vr employed in safety mlated functiorss at VEGP are of the normally closed des n. 7his means that when de-energized, which is its safety related position, was. g *.a.~ - %,..
!. c,.,.,, s.d.., Y.s'n A)awA,% N,lQ' *$.*n.;. .f.sl. hEi& Y g, -k:My@. 1? 22 4:~@~~q ~.-.BRW.%:b. 906 a.m. N h e:M .w y~,Uy:.w.g.w;i'mul s. 2 %. ;7.i fi e.h.. yn b,Ta.9~4 .n - qi,e..M:...y *4y3yaV,\\ s.y. lQl.M,i.'h:'."{. * ' p,.l % p : x
s. uv ny*.,c l:. &
1r - r Msk f' ? %v 2.tC%y%' 8'. & R. M.w Q;G-. ;;1q Jn %. b y n ;. . o. h ' h $h jf'f . E, . N.m e:yP 4; ?.. l M %5$,%3%.39 %fM@ig w f 4,Sj{%n M@Sk.,l -.W M M M M @ h@ $ $ M N 5f. M I M F K $ sI W MM. MMW.dyis 2,Q
V v E% 4' c' hosWfm, &*AQf-&* t~.W ' d ? yel12.Y h, '%.!i'"(;.NWlV ':*;f'r:h*' 'y*^ R,flW" Q.u.fC,e;m,A-Wm'E?1-; ?.W Q (4Ib. m. pp'r:&.C i . WW ..-.x$m$f.. Mi'f, w g. grY.5.';a#.# W id. P. m ewwWSt M ?
ny.gohlh.;.(.W..g.w
,.s. ~. .'?l &, Wh. . -,rm?.ll',.\\ m h ?* I ..p.n.. p..,n m. 4. :,.;q,%.>i'.y ?.,w r, .,f,., u.,... .p:a. 3.<. : v N,,x.w.m:.,:.:..,:s..:$hg:: qn. :.M g..?a*.yw*. 4' .%..,s. .-g 5NNN,d ?M,I,. 4SN'Nb the solenoid valve blocks the supply of instrument air and vents the air operator T?c. 4 Ji41.E.;v 4... K S M c M 4 : of the process valve or damper. De process valves and dampers that are h$.b'M:: .hd N h. Mk[fi.h controlled by ASCO solenoid valves are arranged so that the process valve or N %f3h Qp%,p'M M/Wjpj.Q (,79'k.Mh,'.% fE nap,,%@0: damper will assume its safety related position, either open or cloeed, when the air operator is vented. Id. at 8-9. .h:Mh.Mh.h..$M'MlI.WQN.', p IN'/2l.4 7. Environmental qualifiution testing has been performed upon ASCO Md %.*.: t'.fY solenoid valves in two separate generic qualification testing programs, most ($/,h.7fM;W<$jM[.$.h'[y':O ty. hie $ rT,9 recently by ASCO and Westinghouse acting jointly and earlier by Isomedix, ' r O. M...c,l3,Y..M,,..S.e v.'. .fm,,.f..I.'; g;.g:e.< F;! M ' q. Inc., on behalf of ASCO. Id. at 19. In addition, Franklin Research Center (FRC) '! M ?7.5[5;>~!,2 8.!ij .:4.p.d. . ip;9 has conducted testing on ASCO solenoid valves in a qualificaticn methodology $... ff.'.0,9. 9'f..$@v.4.F.GQ,R,.,c.*;A... m
s. 3
..I.X.W. u,'S..% 1N. J., ",,;.t p; rev.rch test sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of M, M., W.4:',.,;' cf .2 7.'s,0;./3 Neciear Regulatory Rest arch. Masciantonio, ff. Tr. 550, at 3,11. Each of these .c... .w$$..v... l.<%..f.7,c'.9 test programs is no.v described. 7 . ~. y/, e.t,d, f g d M w/.* C 9'.hw(* '.hh,E */.f.:. k.9Y?4.&;vp., rm' l@v , -.l'f,M ' fd t j;p.w h).i:C,f M Testing by Westinghoure/ASCO "'.9m ,,..c. - p 3 /s.. S.-Ji ?.,, M,e f :,,q..V.'l..C 8. In 1980 and 1981, Westinghouse and ASCO jo' intl conducted an envi- . x s..,. : 4 t
9

g*ig.
. ;. M. M$ w' O,[' c).;;!'. ronmental q1alification testing program for various A clenoid valves. Re- / ;'M.U.I. ;*. ' f suits of that effort are given in report number AQ8-67368/Rev.1, August 19, - [' -l N r.c;.,;r;;p g".ft?'2;.i 'J.G.[. ' T r i w 1983. 'Ihe test program included two model A-16 valves with ethylene propy-y, '7/ 'q.f;J;t t 3,e c ',.. U;3.t.; lene clastomers, two model A-20 valyc : with ethylene propylene and viton elas- -. p ';y*';$y, ~.. { ijf.,"'.V J' 7,',.C, ' h.f f.e '!' ;..g.q."l,: a.; J. cl.r..- .I tomers, one model A 't valve with a viton clastomer, and one model A-6RF ..f. ...; 7 ',('.,S..; valve with an ethylene p'opylene elastomer. All were representative of the ASCO ,.lp. %. il ' ;.,.. le Q j. ',;,W ',f, f R;.,,., solenoid valves used at WGP. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 19-20. This program u..* my.... P,,.4.. ,v, ;. y.;..,j,,, was conducted in accorGance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics En-j dj;jl;{ ;r.,.. 7,.j ',[d 1..f gineers ("mEF") Standard 3231974, "IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE .y. ,,2 ~.... j:,. ' @,g.4/ h;,l.. B D,l. Ry'y, @:Q,,/;j' "'f N D l: ?, Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"; IEEE Standard 344-1975, J !? l.y/f,1. $; p % c'gh;y.'!. )!$ f for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"; and IEEE Standard 382-1972, "IEEE
-.r.
"IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Quali6 cation of Class IE Equipment yp w? /7D..);... ;. y.[.. - [q.. ', 'nial-Use Guide for Type Test of Class 1 Electric Valve Operators for Nuclear ".. Y!T ;[.Yh'. (.[ Power Generating SMtions." Additionally, the qualification program was per-T.3,1,Q Q ~.Q j';.d ?,$,f;.,,}, f.N,' l'../ formed in accordance with the methodology set forth in WCAP-8587," Method-3,:.f.[:+ y/ A.-),N;' C,Q;hM),./. ology for Qualifyin' Westinghouse WRD-Supplied NSSS Safety-Related Elec- / N 4'l.?.(.t;5:s',t...,?,9. ;;,,f '
.J trical Equipment," which has been accepted by the NRC Staff. Id. at 21-22.
., Q;. ,4 - %s./ 1f/ 4 q'ipf'_t.V 9. The tests comprising the quali6 cation program consisted of initial per- .. ~ 4 4 4:.7;?;W8 M[*M hp?',.f;i. j.yu 2;'f W.. M/,*I,'.gLM' f> w:,f. y,M. f' Q';p').J M , j; formance tests; thermal, mechanical, pressurization, and normal-environment ra-
,4. -
diation aging tests; vibration aging tests; operating basis earthquake simulation, .<..Q.. ', *.M..c.
7. P 9...;;

n.,.., s. f.l,*., : 6 and resonance search tests; safe shutdown earthquake simulation; design-basis-cs.
.. s i "MG, ~. event environmental radiation exposure; and high-energy line break (HELB) n d.h. 3 -n../.w*,, q..,. 9,,v.g,;;',,.2:h [ fir $:i. J! /iiNTl.D 4 @ k hN.N 'f' g:hUr;;,:h.q J. environmental testing. During the course of the tests, valve performance was j ,g.... G;? 1 monitored. While certain anomalies in performance were observed, evaluation 1 gf > $ f.:Ac? d,. W, W f F.. . +. /6; M .M.?? of those anomalies demonstrated that they do not affect the quali6 cation of the M:p %.'.7. 3 C:.g; y Y,:.".lq'~R fit,:t n'. Q'6: ..;.e.W' g ~ a :;. n n.y?. j,~ !]r' O;*,m, m..,.~ m o'Q%,.Y..+,., w \\ ..e \\ -. ' l@ \\ Of * *.*O.*.fs.'c'. *...': an.
y..
907 ..~;., r.. m,:. 1:... - t. :,.p...., ..:.W, y:v. if 7.~.p;.,'.u..:*?; e*k:n.,..;7, r;.: a.
2.., s s - 3,n..: :,...
'*. g, K

9n g ' s.4n&,...,XQliW.~,.F!1.Y$n, :wh.. n, w,*g g.
,n M@*p iW l oAp.,'@' 4,~.O:..P.%,*!R,1..m;W*., y.yS.{@d* s. A l l er w,, f .. y.J..Q,.. d. r e..g*?. F*. u ;.s.,t: '9 *, m.. k b.2,.L. s,*. s 1 s.
t l
e 5h). g&gry. (:h,;R,.w, ~, 3(;?"'.lll.'...,.Y?n y w
f.
&I'M $Qb;. '.* W %de Q*! Q.Y QQW*'a*Q.T'.WJ0'Q %M;*R,i@U."#..H qQX:,(l," ** .W 'r f.. .. w,. w. n. w. _Q.,..,w.y s. ~y.,.m.+n., s. 9 m. s q... v m.:o, w = w n n/ :,,- w u. .n n p - y. ,;;.. a, ; s. y .r n 3.e, . ~.
.=k%hMk.h%&;A:&z.' Q* fW.'44.nEXllO. ff.,%$n.W.., W. Q ; y. 's. v. : y;i ' U: ,. n 3 y O. '..;:.: ' M&'nf%
MM
...w 9 %D tpV6.5;;@p4%% Q,;hW:.W.;l .e. $$$h.(;u1...:"u w %.w $'I'?['hYhW h?ylf'h:hf h@h,a..h;clYhhh'P p $:. d d' 9 1 5 % I e 4 4Wh ' .ygh$Y.* e o :,- e mn .%..+.g:en h. i M[*Yld8 n- , f $'bN. &t b T.b'Whn$dMgMM@m.A_MU.+c5M,N.N./p. VfMAh MWi MW g ?[q W Wrdi?.1mumdcfmtMn Ygpy g; 49:.f,Gm.zd;g }Lj, !pp M.3;%..?.;e.!)yp%. . W mQ. 6 9 ay w.ura.e. u m*n, w
. yl.'J'.W.s d;;s.p,@.. r..
.

1
.e .. eCr C;,. R., c,q. w&.M?.y:,;MW&& m. '4y.%. 2 m.. j.1.r. :.v. L !v v..ry % :,;. ~, :;.. r$'<i.;'. ;,jlg: M. m-p ....4 valves for use at VEGP. The model A-6RF valve and the model A-20 valve .g-@.fo (both having ethylene propylene elastomers) successfully completed all phases c7.'JW Y, WJ-93 .h.'/[Q M @f $[.i:/ @ Q @'.$y ;: of the qualification testing. Id. at 22 23.
10. The solenoid core of the model A-20 valve with viton elastomers
. :.;.J.
p,;j$,ch9Q4g/f,M.9, j W;ypyj;;g, e 4.. w.. :s ,, ?.,'Y. 7 tp,g.;m v, would not shift when first cycled following the design basis-event environmental p,., y lg j,.%. q.g.; radiation testing until the operating voltage was increased from 102 V ac to Qit.W,*gc;p.p.y,'Ql.,fl:;.J(]'. 125 V ac. This occurred because of adherence of the viton dynamic seal to .~;d.[g.pgff/N;W4,l*e.Q the brass seating surface as a result of viton degradation caused by radiation ' 9',.,.d...WM.. :ll.g.'.'Y.., O exposure. As a result, ASCO considers model A-20 valves with viton elastomers N. M n to be qualified to the test levels used in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO program w c (,4y.;$.}; y ',q;'.E; g ' y.5 J;'f g%{-MQgi/i.g',]yO.3 p only for those applications where the valves are not required to shift position Tfjp Q following exposure to gamma doses in excess of 20 megarads. While VEOP $:.'.%.tg.@%../ f.;'yg,,f - does use A-20 valves with viton clastomers in safety-related applications, none .jd;...g/%f ;g-W. M.u.c.' $ M, c b.....C i. W /.m of these applications would require the valve te shift position after exposure to 'i_#.i. 'T% .~ radiation in excess of 20 megarads. Id. at 24. 9..Z,. 5N.R .ec;,1'M & Q.;q'i. .a.,,,..a
11. One of the two model A-16 valves with ethylene propylene clastomers gfL'*..R.--
g/Sp,s M y [7@ y.w completed a sufficient portion of the HELB environmental testing to simulate f operation for more than 1 year after a design-basis accident, which is the length .l.f./- T.,, f.[,Qi.? !., of time that Westinghouse's generic specifications require the valves to be able i $, y %".',M..,li NlI'S[@lly y p},.A N. /.;ff.l,4'l:,,' y,j to operate after such an accident. It then experienced performance problems . f. ' <. "." e.G ' prior to the completion of the full 30-day HELB test period. In the IELB Fr .'6df environmental testing, a period of 3.65 days at 265'F following the second W;:f Uk 9!. U.w. Mlf.I. 4..[62.e N k .- NM',?.W.1[/? ? transient simulated 1 year of actual post-accident service. The model A-16 valve ' e;;(, -@. ',. '. ' $,
e>P.- Q.,YW$.
would not actuate at the minimum de voltage (90 V de) when energized 13 days .. T;.. ig/. M*p$ into the test. When the voltage was increased to 125 V de, the valv: actuated ,q'i%3 , T;MT; fy /., 36 J,f. and continued to require at least 100 V de to actuate for the remainder of the y,.(! 30-day test period. Id. at 24-25. Later inspection of the valve revealed that the g?:g,ffjjp. gl 'g.,,, y'/j;g,y.;j.}, y. increase in the voltage needed to actuate the valve had resulted from moisture $J li@$$$,NI.l.'p$/ M Q'# ,nW.g. d.. Q.;Jr.i.h j. hk!) and chemical spray entering the valve solenoid enclosure and over time reducing NM. [yMi@'lMhud% 'h3S the coil insulation resistance. This moisture entered the solenoid housing thmugh Ihj..hhdh.f,M/.4QS, the conduit nipple opening through which the electrical leads provide electric g%,, Myopih-a.f... 4.+.-.%e w power to the solenoid. In the test, that opening was not required to be leaktight 4 W e 7,7ly,e.p@.o4 g.;,p p y* and thus was not hermetically sealed. The seal for the conduit opening is not part t., i of the valve; the conduit seal is supplied by Applicarits rather than by ASCO, . P./@qi, A gr g ".. cc Sx@M6M%,M.,w? d ..g.7 and Applicants are responsible for its leaktight integrity. Further, Applicants ~
N.p.%@I%%$'~-
j g.n.e, state that moisture entering the solenoid housing of any of the ASCO solenoid D valves at VEGP cannot prevent that valve from performing its safety-related
i% fyg',Q,M

!;;.'ih.p%Cg(
.Q3,7.Q,y function. Id. at 25-28. We agree; for if moisture caused the solenoid of any f,/s P.s*O M.e d f. f e, e f.g(,ygrfiq$ g, ppd valve to fail, such a failure would put that valve and the valve or damper it S d'QM;@.w.4y5),M<J ,.,.OY.g... O controls into a safe configuration. $ $,.yy, R %. g% yl'@.w p!
r.

.
.$,' g[J.WEQ
12. The other model A-16 valve with an ethylene propylene elastomer Q-3M@b e'[4g:h@ja."h.., ip[:.
performed successfully bcfore, during, and after the HELB environmental p.. ..y s.. W Qk. *Y M J zi- ?M q~ s . w,.m. u o 6, q',p 'r '7.m,4,M. g n ;..d..,k....;;g $m,;.,.,.,s,.m p$ 908 Y..N jQ .?:~ YkDN.'h![w. k.gv.r. w,- &.mrm w%:, j. p'rf,t'P M M ;. d w. m a 7.rp. r..<,, t ~ dhDP 'a h, H+' r.y, %'"h.r.Qp'.'c., A w.{!. M M.;.wM-i.k.7, ~.._h ,W q M e
w%...f;'
a Q. s ln hpg-pt h k k..m$.., e.
h. #.g.q,Y.
.tW?.#QM.WM.,. %Q52..~. %y%!.Q,.RXf..%g..y.. rs:.MBQ.@m.s9@7@2: Q % F W . h.w. e g
i b
A kl 'E.b.a..h. :.,* j :?r.% rll$>.f.:..n.f /, 4>Q?&f s.x =~ *H&,'? ?'?';WWl{,W~Q*;. Fed N %.%Yal'.l*G== ~1.e d"-% *.>.w e. M %}s j.daf; & m;d)*~:. G "...'K. M .[E *lV.'l? h'%=%* Jh'
w~
m
A~-
ep:.9 as 4U 2 * ~*
Q*
Q 'g f W; W 4. @':6.,M h f M,p'.W e)d i'f %,5g* e 8... W<? W 'n. r - 1'.. dN
L s.'.4 s
d,'9-rdA r ea e Nkk@.h.N. [l4.E' /f @ h:[ h d 'M testing. Upon disassembly after the full 30-day HELB testing period and the M h final operational check, the diaphragm of the valve was found to be stuck to the T S $ p. % W '@' 9.I'. M h3if*-! d v.v$.D. r[,@?.[@g;D. . M' j1*I/.U',:k db valve body, which caused a tear in the diaphragm. This sticking of the diaphragm Pi& Di5kfj was stated as not representing a test failure because it occurred after successful %,AM;.h.W.W sO@g%,N.g.R p N ; W M.O 9 ( @Q,7,r @y 2 Q. @M. D completion of the HELB testing and final operational tests. Moreover, the 30-day i.y 9 g testing period to which the valves were subjected in the HELB testing simulated ).3 ME.$$M h:kI,.N.' approximately 8 years of service after a design-basis event, which provided 1*O.($'bWTM-jh[.*;yMNNM.[$:ij $) a considerable margin over the 1-year period that Westinghouse generically . ;YM.d'M7.Y: N.$0 specifies that the valves be operational following a design-basis event. Id. at 28. @M.j759%A'y;d y}n.... m6.. - s..d,?.'.d. 3....%,%. ~
13. In the HELB environmental testing, the model A-21 valve, which had fi'.t,,4 y
.l. 7.., %c,.. g, resilient seats made of viton clastomers, would not shift to its de-energized f Jl position on the twelfth day of the test period. While the model A-21 valve did not M-r6.*.I[O.WgN"JC.-MS n. 3:'$', @h,%e.t@i ... M,.M..j 'AM..fl.'*.4.;.ihk'.$.[Cf.N$Q,$%].4 ~ successfully complete the full 30-day HELB environmental testing the 12-day %. J,. . s.M.s%..;.'.2 period that the valve continued to operate after exposure to accident conditions ... c. W..; w. represented in excess of a year of post-aecident operation at VEGP. Therefore, W.... .>;;,r,14....,N.,A ,C '#. C...,
t.... p ; m,~j

D*
M r s o.. '.M/ t, W /- Q..q......, s those test results do provide a basis for concluding that the A-21 valve is qualified
C. O!..
[hh; 5'hh'Yhh*.M. p.'.'M[;4*4/9 DW^'V:' &f,[t. h. where the valves will not be required to shi14 position following exposure to .J. ' for use at VEGP. However, ASCO restricts their qualification to applications ? l.hk.- - y f-s,f Z e,'. ,.f.9.4}[M y .};.. '. y {"l..N[4 t gamma doses in excess of 20 megarads. Id. at 28-30. ]..v l * (. 14 The joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program qualified the ASCO g ;. .ni g ..fq. ..,.. c:. ; ;.. O model A 16, A-20, and A-6RF solenoid valves to the Westinghouse-specified h,"J,I.5,, (' ;j l..k N.'.'..,.* -[' f.M,6, '. N generic HELB environmental extremes of (a) a peak temperature of 420 F, (b) 1 E49.),.J.. ',.. pressure of $7 psig, and (c) a chemical spray of 2500 ppm boron buffered with ,7l J 'i. ',,,r q *. sodium hydroxide to a pH of 10.5. Id. at 30. Based upon the NRC Staff's ' l '[,*. 4,v'. 'SM.'. '~.N...,. c,. W lc..,y f.i evaluation of the Franklin tests (discussed later), Westinghouse subsequently 4;- ...c,.., modified'the temperature profile to which it considers the model A-16 valve .c!..,.,. ,. w., 2. *.u....,,,..,, P..: " c to be qualified to reflect a peak temperature of 400*F. Id. at 48-49; also see n%.... ..f. .....,,,v. 1 II.,.,.9, infra. a.,..,, .s. m.,? r d o. ~. s,,., % :. ; c:.. . > v...,..,, v.. n.. : .c .o y .e 10.;,r;e..% a ,2 ..... t,;. ~.. :.ll'. l, ?;'.~, E-'.*f...s. ;.f...,.*;,.f. Testing by Isomedix, Inc. U L Q: s f.Q[Nh.. h', 2)' ' J,.5 ty.,*,. -, -@' N ({
15. As reported in Isomedix Test Report AQS21678 Rev. A, July 1979, W N. '.
P;, 1.. J, J.$ 7 s Isomedix, Inc., performed qualification testing for ASCO on several models of , g c" ' L 9.'.n n, #f. 4.g " - ASCO solenoid valves. De test valves included one model A-16, one model ,..i'.7,.'.:,.'.[..'..- F;. <, ( y Og..-( '..., +J i.,i A 20, and one model A-21. ASCO also tested a model A-6F valve, which s. G.., < u. ;e... . v.....m. W. .,e .s.,,0cc, h.pM#.,9 differs from the A-6RF valves used at VEGP only in that it has metallic rather o w; p.,,.R y wi 4 7'i',G.d. f ':.,s.s, than n:silient seats. He models A 16, A-20, and A 21 had resilient seats of s Y,Ig.S,.i.j'[f[c: -;$',1 M' f;%fd; ethylene propylene. The testing program was based upon IEEE 323-1974, IEEE g; 2 c M. k... [. ~,'.? r. .. W. ;a' t'.! 382-1972, mEF 344-1975, and IEEE 382-ANSI N278.2.1 (Draft 3, Rev.1, June
? ~.'( )
N;j.. : l, P
C h';t $...., Q D t.*;.'c +$,' N... M, %.. w/ (p./M... M,h 4.r r.}t,.,c, , ;.w. .n . '..k iM" N~'A ~ f 1977)" Draft American National Standard for the Qualification of Safety-Related ..') Valve Actuators." Id. at 31-32. ? 6 h;.,. 4.c.. e.yg{ w e.u.. c. m. . p, s. ,v . c. y q%a,;.}n,4.[q*j'. o '.. ? 's *%) > ' *, d,-$,G
E.0
.v
?.,1..,

Y%:n :.

p,... :4:n'. :.;W., e.s.

n.
Q:r?$N. %w%e:g. s..t,::.m.a.. qn +w - c.. m i nm...x. '. .x s.... mc m. 909
i,k

iG Q G.. (:,* G..iQ e
x- .2e. m,m :m.Q. * %s.. *e.,a. ;.%:. c '.. ;, ;.e.. w J , y'f I . s,g o y ?'.y:k%, c.. 4,t.r* - (.'..';.0 .&..Q..;"..,M. p,%. y:. y'.',.u : - :. s;,3 - n.. ' *, ' *:s G.l,:;'Q.,,
?.%.
L.* .. 4.s.. % s M. M. Q Q iM .gs.- m,Q .g y ;Q.l. no N'. ?aO'. g~Q. y, 'y.. c \\ ? -3 V b N.0$ h N h.<.m A,;6-O,j.. W .. w v Q.:. 2 <..,b.,.c.:. p: 3.,gW e ,$e r$,D1$ ':N h.% d.v$f q' wp.ww.(- .N kbhkhhk'MhhbhMIhk$ k Eh' hh'h' _i,.,. ,i,.,. ,s.. .'.a. ,=., g. ,.r
v m.<, . +. 3'? . ~ n ?;.., c W k..i%?.'..Q;.; Qd M., w M M W W S. p, 4 i;l M t;:- Q U 6 W W :.n. MQf4s.:.y@@%.s:: WWJTQ#S.,. 9@,. w$c:,,, .v. Q,5 $ 1; QW/w hMpfdq'Mi'2-[pW 4MM.ybd,'I(4hrhWM'$'t r SWs? M@h2 .fkh Nk 4 $'Ar t# hey'IM-tr%'(3 g dh kb ih k.$hi ~!hkfl*w! hW w:w-b+yQ:., pp*G::.;C*T%.d$; ?+W'N;& n d,W. r*wi ? -;Q. i.N ..W ? g W
k. c.m..h;[;.w,n \\ yh.*,.h u.7 9
?

. hkIk
16. In this testing program, Isomedix thermally aged the test valves at a temperature of 268'F for 12 days to simulate a design life of 4 years. During
[%fjgf.1/[.@/J@ y%f.k'l.ryg:M .[(Mp N.. M.,9.. M'$.a that thermal aging, the valves were continuously energized except for 5 minutes w once every 6 hours when they were cycled by being de-energized. The valves , %,y'(. y/'. { 'l were then radiation aged and wear aged. Next, the valves underwent seismic sim-9.h.l7.6 W.' @.,n. / ulation, vibration endurance testina, and design-basis event environmental radi-M 4.Z e ation exposure. Finally, Isomedix exposed the valves to simulated LOCA condi-g/s,Qls$g,Fj.% y
,. ly. 'fg%...
tions. Those conditions included a peak temperature of 346'F and peak pressure P.p'.G &.g.f y,f @/ S t.-, P i. DR ?.%.'. of 110 psig that were imposed for approximately 3 hours. The performance of 4N.. N. ;,'k.'.f..Y.JC 2....' 9. u the valves was observed throughout the tests. As in the Westinghouse /ASCO ju '/. M. Q.p*;)k $ [ . $$. j testing program, certain anomalies occurred in valve performance. Evaluation ?.N, g.f',li'M,N.. % %. 7. I.$le ',..'.E.. '.N. M M2.[:, of those anomalies has shown that they do not callinto question the qualification M.[0,M,@,.}g.. L K..'.kW of the valves tested for use at VEGP. The model A-16, A-20, and A-6F valves 7 Q;Y c. ??.kMR % @.9,',' L'Qy. performed satisfactorily. The model A-21 valve initially utilized by Isomedix in 7 '.a' % p ;'!jj '."' Q. $ $ f ['- M the test program developed excessive seat leakage (50 standard cubic feet per ' G.', hour) both in the energized and de-energized states after 7 days of the thermal Q,n).dl.rh.$ 'g aging portion of the test procedure. The cause of the excessive leakage was tm. determined to be din in the valve that came from piping attached to the valve .%.. $. /. JM....@i...'.3/.%,..'.,. 4..v.1. -l? @.,:.,/ /.K.., ;'.?; e,..p;,,'f,mH.* F.3 q.... 1 >. !c.. - l as part of the test setup. Because the source of the performance pmblems with @,...T. 3. l.'.. c.'y; s4 d....l-ll.. .,c f,.5 G :Q N': k. 4 N.,V 1M:M.. the model A-21 valve was externally introduced contaminants resulting from a 7'i ' W. def ciency in the test apparatus, ASCO substituted another model A-21 valve in
S
[. %hl.8 DMN.a.,Z. the test. Id. at 33-34. O; W ?.C.MMglNo.;/ /,$ h.y[.[! *,*,.D**[.W,1 J
17. This new model A-21 valve was thermally aged at 295'F for 100 hours and was cycled every 2 hours. Isomedix chose this higher temperature and l*
l.*I'Y,V'L' C '. ".'1N %,lh.,.p,.
[$$ fj,1% }.}f;,[7 lower thermal aging period to accelerate the test program. After approximately
.F 60 hours of this thermal aging, the valve started leaking in the energized state, i,. : '~.w.W.H W :. 0.P W. f., but it shifted properly and had no leakage in the de-energized state. Isomedix ..w b v...' 'Q.,7, [Q',.f;%'fa, .,. 4 ;.,, ? determined that the seat leakage resulted from the softening and resultant -.. l'.p,d.'s...C... r.. g. 4 degradation of valve clastomer material caused by the higher temperature of e ..i,. e."fi %'.> C / t 295'F used in the thermal aging. Normal 140*F ambient temperature would not !*'b.,5..i.b..tM.:.M..'. y.$5..dM. 3 . ?..?$.. cause noticeable softening of this material. As the valve performc4 its safety ' {.@@,p. ' J,j'g%.4:fjjd'!C;.p.g._ function, the thermal aging continued and the other tests were conducted on Ny. #. m: %o.4.'/.f W,',; F 9,j, k. .h. this valve in the same manner as on the other test valves. As a result of the s-s.n.el'.O. 4~ h.. w.n ?..:. O . p..s.r f. W. M e .&w..e q w,. 7 seat leakage encountered during thermal aging, ASCO reduced the speci6ed dfAh' 4.y;/.Qi@:. ::gisy.g n F..,';G.%.~M-f.; 5"'. k.W.~.. . g maximum operating pressure differential at which the model A 21 valve can .S operate from 200 psig to 150 psig. This change resulted in a 25% load reduction ~ ~h'lgj;@g..,.,l. ~.
f.i;6f.d:g;,f[agl.
i'f $:.".gpf. .c.2 ~e., on the resilient seat. Id. at 34-35.
M

18. At the end of the LOCA simulation, the coil of the model A-21 M. O,,r.n

%1 MW f
valve had an m.sulation resistance of less than 1 megohm, as a result of spray w u. ,.E. @. M,..:.v., x.,a.-. n v, 6.% g,e 0
ygMQg flyQ; Qh;hp.$k~thl%j, solution in the solenoid enclosure having degraded the coil insulation. The spray Q
%, f {.I solution entered the solenoid enclosure as a result of a breakdown of the plastic @.If.W;:4.. &N.U..EM..f m lU covering on the flexible electrical conduit through which the electrical leads to ~ w. v.. c.,9 gy. 2, W< ' 4 q.f>,. Q:.. r.J C. .,.g.
. A h*h,
YEh.
m~,b.c4g*n',$am 910
, a.t. p % ifly$ @
A WW f.
),,\\ g.**- W..';b.s - m,:.,.% e;s*y.h.* t yy..Q: x $$.% p y% $ %;W- $l'~:NMQ! hM MM.! ? ,M.4.m (A?.&_g' _"&m,.%. . %.sl M .% <W*'p4,,h N,.c . -d f w.:. Qs.h.h. u,'.5.h*iTl 2M.G.X .-). - - s. t
ebwTY.h.{"./.,4,%@7@lWX.f'i'.h. :n,'//j$P.:&<.?lR',;E'jMMdMf,19:}GM5'. -W g. p w Mp.s.o. x.:w;;.A. E.fM,.n e % vuWW,dgRq V.! gT O. u&,..., M.m sg.% h. @A W ) the solenoid passed. That conduit was quali6ed for peak temperatures of only f,6.g f'4.%Qs 120'F, Isomedix concluded that the coil would have been satisfactory except for Mep?.7..;'in*M.*d.:'S'y$ M 9M,%'ry I.hWfGkk bEh h. $[.1 the adverse effect of the spray solution, which condition resulted from the use of an unqualified conduit and not from any problem with the model A 21 valve . m.p. M. Q$my..r ' r.1 itself. Id. at 35. As noted previously, moisture entering the solenoid housing of 4 t i .di.e p g
qi W '6 (i.mw. $,.@x w Wn g
/'D[~[N,Q6Tkc a r W,y.p.q.ar...,n$@,M, $
Q i
any of the ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP cannot prevent that valve from 4.M @lp.Sf9..MF:N .A performing its safety-related function. Id. at 26-28. F..!B, g'. 3..%pt,<....,. u. 2 u
s,4..c, f. A
19. The environmental extremes to which the ASCO valves tested by
.f... hiMj.%fM.hIl.k'MQQ Isomedix were quabfied include (a) a peak temperature of 346'F, to which MM.d'l!y?;ldl temperature the valves were exposed for approximately 3 hours; (b) peak %..,,.d..i. ',.l.'ir,[y[.~.. JM '?!.1;g92.:.WW, Tc. gg pressure of 110 psig; and (c) a chemical spray consisting of 3000 ppm boron '9.Y.,.-.%s...5% M%* f.3 buffered with sodium hydroxide to a pH value of 10. Id. at 36. . ]>c. r. ' t..,...y..u..s... a;.c t. u, c...,,.t.. s,..;... .,s.,,,.- .c. .a,r.pu. ;...;,.,.... a i .s v. c......m..,:1. ~ ~,, V.'w ?.i&.s, y?lf, sl.6, r.^,!. %... &.,.; s. w.. m;,%"*; m, Testing by Franklin Research Center (FRC) r
c. 3.r.v n.<
z $ff.hh. Y?h,., " ;.... t,a.p,.. ; g,....D. G'. n..... , a. . C,...(i. F 4.,<.~. j@$
20. As reported in NUREG/CR-3424, in 1981 FRC initiated a testing pro-pf.M.?.D,j '.'...@<,k. hgjf F,N' Q, M.9, /:
.f.;. f;,2 .;J..,. gram on ASCO solenoid valves under a contract from the NRC. Id. That testing I'.i?!, 4a/$;,d p..f @.g. 3y :@. y,,.'c,. (.7,cf t. (W: f .y ~ - d Program was not intended to be an environmental qualification testing program .J _ og.. g. but to be a research program to test qualification methodology. Masciantonio, -..,t. ....,.s
.- s,,..*.
yp a,,, ' 5,m.- - ff. 'It 550, at 3-4,11. The volves tested by FRC included two model A-16 7 t. p..d.. , '. s. "l 'Qf; ,.Q, r.. valves, one model A-20, and one model A 21, all with ethylene propylene elas-w. tomers. FRC also tested a model A-6F valve, which is the same as the model =q.O' ),.b,...y fp.W;. f.," O.,j .J. c
y

M ' :q - -<,.,.g s.c,,
f A-6RF valves used at VEGP except that it has metallic rather than resilient o .m
, v, a.,
.O seats. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 36. 4s.. .et,' Vf,, .'. 41 ' S ' :-> -
21. Following functional tests, FRC artificially aged one of the model A-
,. >,., ' ;.7.. p ;,..j, % [ E.M' [7. ,. g.,s., life at 140*F. Those valves were itTadiated to a total integrated dose of 50 16 valves and the model A-20, A-21, and A-6F valves to simulate a 4-year b2 lT. C,,,:.~'.i. if I. i.- }@O Vf.'.& i T.: .-.9.,..,~...f
. h. 4
. '.;. i, megarads and then exposed to a temperature of 268*F for approximately 15 r.. i Rc'J. R 5 .:N, /. t, -; ;; r...,f,'G," }r. c... '.,N, ?..d.,4 - .f.t. 'f j g., :., at that elevated temperature. The other model A.16 valve had been naturally '1 days. The valves were cycled 2000 times over the thermal aging period while s
e..
.t ..c Ql.'. :....,9.7h 3 c.' f; aged by ASCO at 140'F for 3 years, without any radiation exposure. That valve ~ .r ~ W /.. i'.J ' : )); Nl',Y ;Mf_.,h' i}M[.i g.M J.3.,.f had been cycled 2000 times at room temperatu*e. Id. at 36-37, 39. Following V.,,, ;, - Q i;w.y y [., its artificial aging, the model A-21 valve wn *emoved from the test program y-P.d. *.%'Y;9.,.. c.%. 7/ic.;.i.l,, f'+. :J.,..,'.+. 'Af,',-.,'.9. 4 because of seat leakage. Id. at 38. Applicants concluded that the seat leakage -... f.l ,J.3.1.g encountered by FRC with the artificially aged model A-21 valve that it tested
. T ', W.j,
~,.. W c _ a.. g. .a;.., does not call into question the environme7tal qualification of that model valve .......m.s.. ,,#.,.,t.. 46 p../.., for use at VEGP, as discussed in 111.22. (;#. @.7,[?.v..d.pr:M'C,.J.S;h: NyJ {/[.jfj;, S;. 6,. M
22. The severity of the artificial agir.g process employed by Franklin was
~ > t;. 3 % -t.',*.J y s',v. p '% fljj Q.'..n.['i' a primary cause of the A-21 valve seat performance in the FRC tests. The ..* = ,,,i, . 'se g,, if fyM $g$,F*.h,.sp.',f,O $. 9 artificial thermal aging process employed by FRC imposed conditions on the 3[. K.P q[, C !. CM W.$ !bi.[n.N@.9'ff'pg -i9 elastomer parts of the valves that were far in excess of normal conditions or the h;As,$.'N.4, s v s.t; :'.N.N.$$k..,$$ standards for accelerated aging established by IEEE 323-1974. Id. at 37. Cycling at .., u. 4 e ;.. L?
pvy ' a #c' rl '4 %.,,'

i. y..
Dicr*.:D:7i .. ;. te % ?
* *.. c.u,.'....'t.',0..L} y * >, q;;

>*;'.' i y*;: '. *'. *
g._l%' :.-lM ' ',-
w).. : r..*.,,). ,
w.,.r.,g s,G ;;t.,.r, %w
. ?..b. 4,.. L ; I. ~5,".,s;g....t
. v.
.,. e -~.... :.. w... 911 S .t.,. 7.,,t, M.. P +. 4, r.. v. a. iv. +,i'a. Q.; @. % .,; ?* i.'l '.. *','. ; *. p :a* ' '\\, y ' - ). i" f.9 *( *, * ,,*s E. (.. '.s-g ', 0..$.* ',t= ' h.t,. .T.,s ;.y.r. J'. n,. ll.9 A - i. ? <v c .g.
y.
t......, e, u /,...
(.... %., 2.t. '. t.... '. g s. :
1
.?. s e. . ;,.....:$ 9
?,,*'A.' T5.h.
s h.' *.,*. A '*$'.5-[d.. *,, 'b~..n a'$.,.7 8,M./.[f.v;.,',*~* dj j, =.$ k!['I i w, y, * *?,.*+'<.L,. y. 7. e...M.. - r
g. -M.W;.[P r v;i,*..? [e ".M.,i,. g "L.(M W,;#..s.
.. Y;n. M.* w. e f* 5
pfft'p:: r.f'#.f.h;, 4-lMFr7-Mu: ;,M,. N;p..-
7N *6. : M MrQ l y1 t.g... fJ M.q.y or - 4.y f.M.%@h: @%g,.3 m.d.h.y).9,d tMfIQ ' ':'f h;f@J U't@b ': Y.:d, fW.,%.,l..,.%m.Ek.,,q;<,;w:j ,,,.ho.,%u,.,.. 8. m..c.,. 74.n, m.p.,,l..,g... y:&r.. & W': W: p,.a m m .m. m h i - Y %: '. :.... %.. 1.'n L*'ldI9u6&rs@n'.' SU $nW. t~%'4W, i u e P rW'&D M.c0: %A;ad G, M',. d. Mi= ..g: m.;y, gn.y,%, r: u:;q.C.-:y miQ. r %.y.W"#.,qw%;S,W@35 . MW:@i .&W!. 3 w m g&. s.n.,i.... s...::. a. :. m..u. <. -. 5. 'M m. mWp%? y r .w..;x . gg :- ,) , ).m... . x, r.., ,g .nz .,.m o. 3
g.%.,.:., L.n
.. : pi.. x::%.W... ~9.,.,;lt. w :g; f..,s g,.u i::. %g,r w,... .v.* o. +w T.:lg.r '.7.=,:.w4;,,. i, q*wr.,,. :n.n;,w,. ~ w:. y.;.,m. s u.. 9 ;n.m:; by.x;:-m 4n. 2,.a3..%gqM., .v,,., ; a .n. wnh , p;,, s sav .? v
/:

..4 3{. & Ag ig
h*
$W a n - : m.f. p ,y b% s W 6 & b 5 d*d;c' $@:v %* @rs. g $w.g w$$$.@.y hy :Q$v.M:..? c.k h hd.h.h. 9r $%.ys.,glh%:s* MfM:h 5 BEh54e$ p.wQw - ..WY m Ap.Q. d.h W.m: h d. .J.+& Ly A t @4 $ N if Q N( W f U @QQ. W:r w g.W[c.m.y m -; v%
w. b i
SQ5 ?! at lu. h aging temperatures is not a normal condition for the valves and presents g h@,i:2.QM*q:.p.g 0 ;jpfg.f gfa.g .R'f4, a very severe challenge to elastomer parts. Id. at 44. In its test report, FRC . 7.1;J@.*M,.g m'J.-M'% " f :.d,:t.M.. 7[?.4.. NN.,4. GL acknowledged that its artificial eging process was overly severe. NUREG/CR-h#... f Y.?m. m 3424 at 2-64. In a separate Appendix to NUREG/CR-3424 describing the t.......: :s p. l;......,,. A,/ e: C, %. p..... -g A.,;,u #.~ e thermal aging analysis, one of the report's authors concludes that "it was r',7, 7,3.:.g:j: p'}.)" Q. g3. g.
i e
4 inappropriate to cycle a solenoid valve containing clastomeric seals at ambient ,q;4 Q N; E.lO,.F. M...t;.: temperatures in excess of normal rated ambient temperatures (140'F/60 C and "'",:.L.m. M. .dP .:~ .,c
e. l.4 e
180'F/82*C for the valves discussed in this report)." Id. at C-1; Baenteli et al., W.s y., N a M;,Y..I'.N,.:@. W..,. c.% [. s.. ff. Tr. 517, at 37-38. Because FRC's test conditions were not representative of o.l t, W.,1, d W / .i!.W r conditions the A-21 valve might experience in a nuclear facility such as VEGP, b. .t.g.r..@ !,1l.gf.;,,., Sy%/n.' 0.V@.:. % fj M $ ;y $ jS the test results have no applicability to and cast no doubt upon the environmental W qualification of the model A-21 valve for use at VEGP. Id. at 49 50. /,,.n~ W /J.-7'A W 6 N i f.f,.%l/.\\ 5 W;.~?f.jf?.j$g,.,M. J, ....t., n
23. All of the valves then underwent pressurization testing, vibiation aging, f
l.? r V*,*.*M'Q : M.i.?[.' Ml.;d y:C'". resonance search, seismic testing, design basis-event radiation exposure, and G.'.T,Y,[fd ')l ;M.Q*, J.2,,M.Q;,.. a simulated composite LOCA and MSLB exposure. Id. The ASCO model hlpg:{, F,d-d b fyf@F3 [y W....f[.!".fp. Y,.. MW... A-6F valve performed satisfactorily through all of the tests. The model A-20 valve functioned throughout the tests. In the functional testing following the i,V f i... 9.' f Q, W. W. {',%.$.p.h';'%;'.{.k. completion of the LOCA/MSLB simulation, however, the model A-20 valve l, .T,% gW; t did experience seat leakage. No seat leakage had been observed prior to that point, including during the LOCA/MSLB simulation, and the seat leakage did Q..-iN.Of l.,',.,.M, ...:'c.1,. (.,'l3 q,'..'l. 4" .,":[..; l[9.';'U.},.,*.o'('f O.p.p.. not prevent the valve from being cycled. Id. at 40,49. These results do not call into question the qualification of the model A-20 valve to the conditions to .(.'- J S U,,.':, %. m. y: e.i[:- i f V / f . MM. ", d which it was tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO testing program because of the c t excessively severe artificial aging process used by FRC. Id. at 49. {p.: ',.-T Q,. I.* :. ;',",f..'J. *,Jf
24. The model A-16 valve that had been artificially aged could not be cycled r.'.T...i. 4 M';t,.%.:.,.m...i. s*
.g...'...'~..;.. .-M. 4 properly between the first and second transients of the composite LOCA/MSLB p 'f. $, g..jy' N."./; 7 : $.W M i
g. g:*ef. W.
simulation. Prior to the start of the second transient, FRC was again able to cycle ff.M. Om ; ;;'. "< : C_. R the valve, which continued to function until 4 days elapsed time into the second e,. /..: %,. ~* i LOCA/MSLB simulation. At that time, the test valve cycled to the open position
- 9},; C. ; 7,,9,J h'. ~,c.. -. %.., rV 7.
,..e . t...i (i.e., process cylinder pressurized) when energized but did not transfer back O....,i.* $ 'e W. N... Y F,M c.l$.q'i k.. <4., ":' W. p.. 6..*, '/, M,. 'U? W ....r u NFWFMt,</i:..M?M,.C../O. when de-energized. Further attempts to cycle the valve were unsuccessful. Id. at ..?..g/ .~.t 'sf. n-s .e
41. As with the other test valves that FRC artificially aged, the differences in the U
PJ s' ?,C.,/Y. g..E,.D((M[. performance of the artificially aged A-16 valve in the FRC tests and in the prior T ....}; g:?$j.j,1:~ a Westinghouse /ASCO tests can be attributed to differences in test procedures, f'-g.g g* . f;i gM,agl;p.g..Q particularly the overly severe artificial aging procedures used. Id. at 44. hj.('h 9.W;-L(? W k,. r@ w.,- .n.i.~,4.%.g/N..
25. The naturally aged model A.16 valve stopped cycling between the first
,Mr$j.fpj(W}j,)g' 1 and second LOCA/MSLB transients, began to function again, and continued to r.h.' NL 6 f0 4 4 $% gM.Ih* -)iQ.[M[ operate until 25.6 hours into the second transient. After that point no further cycling could be accomplished. Id. at 42. The Applicants attribute this failure MC _;4f;7-:B:
6f d; M.%My: M I
N to differences in the testing procedures used in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO p..N%,A,.gw.p,%.$. $9.'cQ. $7kM
. y p j.. q i. m. "
testing program and in the FRC tests. The target peak temperature during the m LOCA/MSLB simulations in both testing programs was 420'F. The actual tem-m ge<. '.s..f.
)s, p, v.. ' r.,
78f.jo. : ~ >r '.,a.. M,,,.. s. j.,,.t ..., LM.. y.. . ~. - y.nM;.,. We...m,{.','.f.r,kh.r, .,C. $ *t* *.h,, c u %. #l.EMt y.Qh.'-:i k" i. f n'f m.b.h,Q',A. 4.. %.9',,.. x
g. G ' 4 a
~ .e "
1 G.v.n >
L.2., y*R.11,.<vt n*R.g%. 912 % m: '.: J i.\\ *lw:.c.* a.w r ..:n - 2-rv.
' +;r p j:4.k.. 9:
. %.:yJQn+D.',*.~T...i p.t.7'%v: s~m, ~f G '.e%.is. p A,i; p~g*,;* W: w<, y. n e w v.,.. e: .?:y ** % ' %.a.'9.g$ c ,. p... 'r hI ,.r, .r..'...s.;.,;f h* h.'a.h N'k,f,kl iJ f QW.m :d~..,B ww,.bw.sey: Wye et .y u . m. AzWS@y., p.pWh.s%.v.,W=.k c 4@:.m.yld. W F4 F Q)<;C. 4 u w R 3 M W @s; Y i wa.. F?ME:^44 NWQW 9 w.n.,: N m, ,.s we h.
ff_' '
l f.'. h'Nf'hfY. .Y f, Y Ikf[. .f I hi.r---
+ 't $?.sv,'$, ($'$.hgh.'sd.5 :.U:),b. a.?:,Qy$h:t M'E%'x $!$$.WW . Y l.W:.f."- DhN .M+: pnWh.d.. b.: ..d.'g;f.Q.5m .,4 mw mm .ww w-NM. n MAak 6.y ? L.:y u n i-M.,,V. "m.,y% )g':*.. -: 4
m i.. M,, ?gM & W,;n M ~ - W.i.r..
V M b. e r v q..7 hW:*f yg U, 0.,.,0 q?..it: 4 y . g; y. n, 42,( % % x.i, h.. b {.' %' W@ $' $ l' .9; Y / ,Q :qt m.. d c'6- .;,51%,$.$u;n;D.?:M*..'~;,.&.m;.*g9MJ5:.6 p,<. W 5.D MM;ng yw:n!rh perature peaks reached m the Westinghouse /ASCO tests for the two transients @. :f]'d.....%w ?;.%, @N+.i,f.y.h.M..W.h@$..p; M 37 p were 440*F and 450*F. For the two transients in the FRC LOCA/MSLB simu. ," t . h.O. d.M;:....,.M'd. lation, the temperatures peaked at 450'F and 466'F. Thermocouple data from R... :.);@.f N N.N[@M S/[Ndh$'.[hr.N, J gj$ the test chamber in the Franklin test indicate that the surface temperature of E d [ [ b.?J M !d h % the naturally aged model A-16 valve, which would lag behind the test chamber M$lS',FTW@'$@t"tbM,.y$'2Nh@i M.d? l' d'id%. temperature, reached 4106F, substantially higher than the 350*F to 360'F tem-JM;d W T e.:i Pi A d peratures reached by any other valve in the test chamber that had a thermocouple -NShN:bd7.$1iNM[.b' either inside its coil enclosure or taped to its body, including the other model y;;4.,(:Ah. k. N M/ k./ ]:M d 7 2 M h:w s.yg.. %....
.,..e.. <q.fc. u 4.s,,!,j i
A-16 valve. The substantial difference in the temperatures reached by the two dw'. w. 7 i A-16 valves indicates that the mass flow rate and velocity of steam at each n.s... 6, Q,;$[<[d f[IG.951.".l';lQp.y..s.s;p,$s i:M,c,y;,'WS valve were different and that the valves in the test were not exposed to uniform j.3.;N'Q',5'[O Mky/
N?!? ?
conditions. When the valve reached a temperature of 410*F, the elastomer in f,N.1$'M7$'N'#f2MM: k'l [:M
'.lD the valve was well above its damage threshold and would degrade rapidly. Id.
@M...YBth'%($. '.?..L'$$6r:(tl. g#$.Wd41 at 47-48.
Q

26. With n:spect to the artificially aged valves in the FRC tests, the NRC 4., g,.. ".Q.X,-l7... 4..y y
.y ;1: q y.,.,y.;.gp /, c,y .m<.. V N.:T h). Staff discounts their failure, concluding that those test results were inconclusive n. due to the severe preconditioning to which those valves were exposed. With .. f. r. 3,.. 9,,. respect to the naturally aged model A-16 valve, the NRC Staff decided that its w ,yy@: '. 3 d. c. v,.., sy. ".J, . i, N.,. _ '.. W< ? failure in the FRC tests did call into question the results obtained with that valve .-t
ff. Q,...'7.;>,.'.!
l1' 7. y % '}' ~[- l.'. j.T ' 7. f'M i :',L. 'M 4,; during the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program. That model of valve, the [ .J. . ?; 'r,. J. U.. acceptable for use only under the environmental conditions to which it had been &
ff.
NRC Staff concluded (IN 84-23, April 1984; IN 85-08, January 1985), was .. ; -, v... u..,:.E, ' .,?. ;M1. *
r.
, '4 ; ,. ?.,. m. g. . p. p. 4 tested earlier by Isomedix. Id. at 42-43. Masciantonio, ff. Tr. 550, at 4,13-14, r. y yy L.,
V..., e.,
., x.,vt 17. o. '.f # ".4/.T[, l i:;(f%4 "*)
27. In light of the NRC Staff's evaluation of the FRC test results West-
.,. K. .f 1; (r. : 5.,, :..E., C...f y..U.. inghouse has modified the generic composite LOCA/MSLB temperature and ... a.. ,'t-Q.g ni. t ;j,l G.;,3,;, $s pressure profile to which it considers the model A-16 valve to be quali6ed by 3..... /. Jrc.,%.. 7 7,%...i;'; ',N_?.d.. :i/,<.c.;,. reducing the peak temperature during each transient to 400*F. A thermal lag
f..
@.... ' r c W, - G((.Q.. r. .gf analysis performed by Westinghouse for the model A-16 valve, which analysis d..% '.W $ J.4";i. ' @Jd
.<i, M c49 determines the temperature reached by the valve itself, has shown that upon d ~ $. +..
exposure to the conditions shown in the mc<!ified Westinghouse LOCA/MSLB !N M.t /k. Q[. d l $ i:'. 4 G ', C D,7....; (,4..'. N T.S.t.. ~ 3 '[.- L5 y lL,. 'c l i'.gl 'f..fi.'p.' profile, the valve itself would reach maximum temperature of 346'F that was f, reached by the model A-16 valve in the qualification testing program performed S V,il, )e,f.4.s'I'60 9}, '; r .! 'L ::.9/ /,c~ f./ by Isomedix. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 48-49; also see 130, infra. The ..3,:.. '.,., : u. v.:. - M... y , $ t: Q,y NRC Staff has reviewed the thermal lag anPJysis and concluded that the ap-s
,1, 0

flf;' y ;c'.~t* M' t 3.g. 7.'
~i., b. s' u ,, y ;. 3 }3,, e..91-G. rdrQ.'r - is reasonable and is acceptable as a means of establishing an environmental ,q,
,.t proach used to generate the derated Westinghouse generic LOCA/MSLB profile I; ^"SQ.
6 ..,v T...M:.%g D, ' O.Un....... %.L h.Y.fU..E '65.$.'N;NDO@$,. i qualification level for the model A-16 valve. Masciantonio on 10.5, ff. Tr. 550, zi Nd
3. U M 8 -
at 14-15. The Board has independently reviewed the Westinghouse analysis and M..p.h'ff/ ;.f,.W'Q)'$l'5 ^.c.71I'; M.i; i $,N15 k/. h2.,0.6QF finds it to be appropriate. We also observe that the only valve failures attributed 'jip$;; Ol ,'l?f '., to valve exposure to an unacceptably high temperature occurred in qualification . r $....&.M~'..Q: m,..:.*.w*.> '..n. P: . v;{. .u, .... r 4.., h.;m.
s.. t v;
...1
,. u.. e,.s.. m.. p. w. ;

1'.Y c '
&,. e s. m...,.~ ':.n.x:...... a. v.,~ '1f &w e.,: s:ll b ;{l ht Q. @..*.W.:.D Q. n./.e 7 ' ;. W P. 4l.~O..Q;.W<.. w@.o.;,M,W,.'.;p. 913 u. .j ..y g ,W .M W%+y@pff 9?'a?C'Q:.d.? W';N.: .p:% \\' Qf, '.- e k.%':.&. h *: pd 4 WM
9 'N.H::,,Q&..yM&w,. 9:,
NN.h. h, b . Q c.ag,'Mwf.. ..v.. M' de 'kW r .J 9 t' y & v y .>c.. c;y.M. l{'%'f.6:$;nr.s[.5f,.,ec c?',QM;Q,yh 'Y h i bNhNY ,~ w.shhk{. ?b ?S hhY.:n e.1;.:a 3...np:,b$ Yh. r'.s.N.k L .v:.wy ! w g,. m. y y y...w e . 'E, ..~.
,% w]G [n.. ~?? ? n.~%N'N.,- yl0.Q'?l ' e' )
.~ $ N.l?l,.'. .x" ' E ' l..n^ ' \\ -} !,i:i (:' = , ~.. n N. .y,yt ? .[- ~;
a., a
2...
../<.. 'bN.hh'*;.h$'!.,5b .h r. sh* IrY b !h? Sh m'o', w'k'.Nm:bss n'Dr . yc,:
y..,b, '. 4 q..c,
.;<,4..ygm.5.*.. w.Ya n"W p$. wmg'&..}p&W*y:.).%p$..f n ;k
, o m,s&..m%pw&,,'.{,%.g, &u,,$'*M?.5.q"&.?. l.4 (0,*5'W;g*n%x.~,jVM*.
s f 'A1: E M,s .t. n. f ,... m,. p a. yn.y p p. .p w y r s n a.k5. h 't b*I
N
.a.m...w.;u'w &, hm.ww; m(,i uYkf P t e
M* <'W *.'.hd....e..r

f W.'dI>. 8
.,e.e..u,d., x. w., - n,. p. w. E l,... n;;..Y.. m..... c.e f: s. - y+ .w% e
v...
n. g' 4 ; p M. M.. ; N j:.~.,~.,~.,; r.;.,: y ./.4.p .e ....gy.{;pg.f[.... ,. R n tests deemed to be unacceptable. Thus the high temperature (340'F) allegation ',p of this contention (t 11.1. supra) is without meriL 0gs!.?'vQ ..w T.. u...w.r
.wi. hgs wu. ;... g.f.. y,fs.w;j...
w.,,... .?., L.t Q.Q.% p:m;; %. r ,.h
y2.,..a, :., -
m. e,y.,.
,.,..~p-...f. y . j'. s...:; 1 y..;y.. '
M:h:,&. P,*!:~ @ h
.o w.t Fitness of Valvesfor Use in VEGP . ;?.fy.M.). < '? ; 9;V.j'j:f%:'.$'%> f.2?:1 .. n;.. W 's
28. Having reviewed in the preceding paragraphs the preoperational en-

p 'g*g..,
Z.Q,%g.y:gf.g s. j vironmental testing programs undertaken to qualify certain models of ASCO g%.' gyf@,$.' . n. /T S. $.,.,.g;. Q Mi.l@g'v lg'.' valves, we turn now to expected conditions and functional requirements for ..:1i'f. G M ;f;;br:a. e those valves to assess their fitness for duty in the VEGP, based upon the test
b. '.$. WS.y:
,. '. $...N:a.F.9 4u y'My. 4;Q '.M^..v#e:,' A:', g"',q J., e program resuits. i sif. iM,;iliy,r..
29. Applicants describe three duty environments at VEGP peninent to the f?*.Q*Q: M, f.g!!;.h Wg'i.:
performance of ASCO valves: inside of containment, outside of containment 1; yi p/ 9 @/l.f. @j %'y' M and away from main steam isolation valves (MSIV), and outside of containment , ? 'j'.).y. and near MSIVs. The maximum environmental extremes to which the ASCO @.[y '. .e;.-l bl. 8r..'[p.t.$;' y valves located inside of the VEGP containment might be subjected under .j:" #1 accident conditions at VEGP are (a) a peak temperature of 400'F, (b) pressure t iMcD. ;. a. /. Jf..g$. q.W.'q. y.;g$., "W. of 50 psig, (c) radiation of 200 megarads total integrated dose, and (d) a chemical spray of 2000 ppm boron buffered with sodium hydroxide to a shon-
.d'@gTs.q..,,.;..,.
. I..df' :,g ;. J;, ::gr - .T?:,6 .i.J.C R '.,.f f;; g, Rh;- term pH (less than 100 minutes) of 10.5 and a long-term pH (more than 100 minutcs from the beginning of the LOCA) of 8.5. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 2/,9. I.t. */ '.4; 6..P... C..r.,? > " T 'J* ' J T. ;; '. .,.n.. ? '. M. C F/ '
50. Most of the equipment rooms outside of the containment are subject to mild P t, O?....%.p{#
5... (.N, O *' q.SiO: M,fgs(<y<.,.' environmental conditions even following postulated design-basis accidents. The harshest environment that would be experienced under accident conditions by C. -7. y, k. X 9 ;:^.$,a ' F. i,*k,'..Q FN.Z.19 '-!G ASCC valves outside of the containment, except in the MSIV areas, is a peak temperature of 250*F, a peak pressure of 3.5 psig, and radiation of 100 I.,@d;g ]d..,! c F megarads total integrated dose. Id. at Sj., The most severe temperature and
l, Ny pressure conditions to which safety-relate #A%CO valves located outside of the U, N.'.U ;' c ';
.50,'.s/,,
s. N C. C'
!.QG f...<.M;.. o containment might be exposed vmuld occur in the MSIV areas. The conditions 4 v.. n. % pig %@CR ? to which the Applicants have required safety-related equipment located in the F.M; QC$%N,$; N. MSIV areas outside of the containment to be qmlified are a peak temperature .hy.Qj. M '. p,,l.$.';'@ c of 320'F, a peak pressure of 15 psig, and radiation of 50 megarads total ?@y..h.N[k)t#:.tfM i/ l fGK integrated dose. The Applicants have recently dctermined, however, that the 4:. . h...... m peak temperature in the MSIV areas outside of the containment could exceed (?gigg,. '.h...IN...Wg..!N i 1 320*F in the ever,t of a steam-line break outside of containment that resulted in .WyW,1.;;f.M g : Q'Qg.y'c . @% (. Q y j Q? M M i a steam generator tube bundle being ureovered, causing superheated steam to M h.0 Q ;' C.J[ 6 be released. Id. at 5152. Er Q,iA?g%
30. The model A 16 NTO solenoid valve is used in safety-related appli-
$ M. ?hMkMNh*.2ihf2 cations at VEGP both insia and outside of the containment One A-16 valve p. ,Z,.i'.d.. R..*.W.,.... q p.'M.. u.. l',.d', is located in the MSIV area outside containment. It, however, performs no W W O.t W',r5A ?
Q.. p./y,%W.-Q.p,gp \\;.,lg.WrG,@y
..v. m.. srfety-related function that could be compromised by a steam-line or feed-line ?!M$M(8.it: break in the MSIV area. The A-16 valve has been shown to be environmen. M;D!Q.@[ h' QM;jIk.t] tally quali6ed for use at VEGP either inside or outside of the containment by ft, N j;. b,.; of.M.7CM.m.ls.a4.qs..w
p. d.
.v-99 .g u s;f y: %: q :: wlU:b'.W*4, %.n%p s-x% ;$p. r., ..m :4 .a 1 914 f h c ....,,,g... j6. h g.c.%s g'Q'A o,f.,.. %? .,q ym..W.:M i:W v i .y. ? .v. c .T h.C '&. V'.% R5 ?' yRf't$'l&c.e;i%fb)N.G.M.cyj'M f'Qh y:U'& y. &:c-t ,&e,p'N?M;!>h&$qln$19% pW SI.
P y &j ff
.tp:Qm%r;M% p.t:. f'.? Y b h w, w &. p!E:fE Ykb hh h h khh $ e~$. e.. s M. m* M.g' 5M i ,gemsm t 4
I I* Y. hb bhh l1 (:.h?hf &f0.'*.bi NW.WcffVh&.':5h$S'}d5 $&hfl?$ W Y$$.5%'1M WkE & & ,;.$.. w.;.,,,,ms..s..$ h. <.;s t.~......h k 4,'. m.r:7..g. :..,v; p w. mls.. ...,y;.,,s, 2, p. g. 'S ;..m... v. a s :.- a. w,.<.. 'N$t?!$.n>MU.f'h..e;m?AS[Y.~.. - ~ .a.m s:S.t/p./SP,L. m.n'd m..$nm.:h...l'j 3,'.i 9 - w r .:64.1p .%% > V:s? ~~;'W4;!.,y.9W W. W 'Jk.w/ W 1 M,4 mij both the Westinghouse /ASCO and the Isomedix qualification testing programs MM W "'#n&.
e.k.%v-
.t jW.: $ h.k,DIh h:dk as supplemented by a thermal lag analysis performed by Westinghouse and re. ] .dTDN.ijk%.% 'S. lp ported in WCAP-8687, Supp. 2 - HO2A/HO5A Addendum 2, Rev. O January l 1.Q3 f,.@W)Mi')pt@5 N1' Qlf46,k fgFl .9168 ; 1985. That thermal lag analysis demonstrated that, for the modified Westing-P '.W.Qe;,f. : f .. 4 s.,, s... O
' ' $ p g,N.. #
,f.v.,' A- .g.W, 4 house LOCA/MSLB profile with a peak temperature of 400'F, the maximum j ($h.$..m'jb,,o; [y ' hY;by.Mdhh.]'.a temperature that would be reached by the model A-16 valve under LOCA/MSLB t.%>1F.. 2:..cl.%., ..,'.:4r..Wn.R. conditions would be below '.ne maximum temperature of 346'F that was reached i \\ a..,6M.MM.%,' by the model A-16 valve mder the isomedix testing program. The temperature j h.?;b;g.,MJ g?,GW. N.3 c Q..';,':f./f.: os
';.j; M.. ~'dyG,. f 4 n
. a.
y.}'~-
conditions to which thr.; model A-16 ASCO valves located inside and outside i
.

,d.'..
d ;;'J'.M-e..W.: < MPfi..7 yM of the containment at VEGP must be environmentally qualified are enveloped [N$.h,Q,NMU.@a,.'i.Jl3M'w-D[S h'h:,#M.g-VMM.h:,7jf.Q.#%' 5. by the ccnditions profiled in Westinghouse's modified generic LOCA/MSLB ' *6%..i 't';N Pro 61c, which envelops the Staff's accepted accident profile for VEGP. Id. at 3,.,.M. s. y... l. / :;. - -. x...M d;:,..., y. ... u. 54-56; Masciantanio, ff. Tr. 550, at 15. 3,
31. The model A-21 ASCO solenoid valve is used in safety-related appli-VE,'[N,'M*
/,',.- cations at VEGP only in areas outside of the containmert, including the MSIV '.:pe, e;a: t,/y>./.M,0U$',.'9$[N,..!..+k.. areas. Baer,teli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 56. For t.l! safety-related applications of the . ;. +...,, u;15 5.1 n,si. , N ';t. 4 )w'a. 7,I..;. y.,. 4,.3,q. -:fl. n., . r.g, q,.,.. . t.,. '..T..,,
j..,e f.
4 q.... A-21 ydve, the most extreme pressure and radiation conditions to which that a Jp',? w ... 1,g'?, ;',:/,, g, vdve might l'e subjected are enveloped by the conditions to which it was tested ,,.j. ; *; /,.;..,' O'; , g:l.S t i..e 'M in the Isomedix testing program. The most extreme temperatures to which the
.-j
". 9.h' ';,. y, c.ElfC;ll.f'.'#y$ * ?f' l.d A 21 valves might be exposed at VEGP would occur in the MSIV areas as ,.l.
.Q,j. *,,.,' ' i!.1-T 1,. g ' a...[ C' a result of superheat conditions following a main steam-line break, Fur those
'. * '. :.? 1; / d4. model A-21 valves located in the MSIV areas at VEGP, Westinghouse has per-GR a - r. %..; formed a thermal lag analysis using temperature profiles gencated by Bechtel
ve,..e-
'g).y,, 4 .^.', ]l.f: ' J. J'" '4 and based upon generic mass and energy release data developed bhhe Westing- [. ' } l. i*i. ^ M house Owners Group addressing the superheat issue. That analysis demonstrates ,.fcf. ' -l.g that under the worst-case conditions, the temperature of the model A-21 valves '., : ~l J. a. i.g., <} '. '(7..5 ufl. g <.
6..3..., ;je. ~. l F.c,..t located in the MSIV areas would not exceed 332'F, which is significantly be-3 r, g#
,'p,.t., I'. . ;..'4' "., ; w, '. -p.,J;f.p.",.:;y,:...i.,;9. low the 346'F temperature to which those valves were quali6ed in the Isomedix ~ 3 3,. ; j.,. s.;y*... , s,.,., y. 19,. tests. Id. at 56-57. Further evidence of the environmental qualification of the .+ p t. .)'... J., s s .$.y A-21 valve for use at VEGP was provided by the joint Westinghouse /ASCO b,'.f:j 3,." ['G.?Q ]O E (j$. ' f,@ testing program. Although the test valve representative of the model A 21 valve ..c,@M. ;e:.l. 6 ', ;-l,, ;. ' s p. m.;r; : i.;..f3 g,. ......*l; failed during the HELB environmental testing in the joint ASCO/ Westinghouse g;y. e... -,a . ;.5,r;. ',;.l.gy ' {;f.gg 'c.(. [,',g qualification program, that failure did not occur until 12 days into the test se-quence, a period that simulated in excess of a year of post-accident operation N,.:., -y;. N., ;s?.,D,;. '.,...,o ?u,.clc..Q.. " - ~....s* 2 M m " ;~h. w: at VEGP. Id.
b. ?.;. T..
..:v :n .u ; y.,.v....,... pl ".s . c,.
32. The model A-20 ASCO solenoid valve is used to perform safety.related
....,.;/ y... a. y ..q %... ev.~.'s,.. O. f ;.,i.'. ..y functions both inside and outside of the VEGP ctrtainment, including the MSIV f.*- .7.,..r..
v. -1. c;,e, f L.....
b. t,$'81"[j[W@hi,i(Mg)* #.*" '. b',7lIs % / i ':.L,\\ !? @3,fp,gif J E 3 areas. This model of valve has been shown to be qualified for use in the environ-E,'j ; W.J.,.h,' M a. 'I. mental conditions to which it might be exposed at VEGP by the joint Westing. < M., M '. S'. D.g. house /ASCO testing program and the Isomedix testing progtam. The conditions W... /. /,Z.f to which the valve was tested in the Westinghouse /ASCO program exceeded the h.[< N N.h...'2. IM.9.Q[.N.N.b.i.4-Qy.y; .N Ni 2}lh:/] most severe conditions to which that valve might be subjected at VEGP inside 1,y, _y 7.j.i.... i., v.y n *v u,..?;;c t v. c::g;c<::s zt.M: )i n:. v^ :m :.~ 9,. y.m.:n. %p.. v.'. W p g 9 u...
-:9..
<g. g.. /.,n. x c;;e.:.%r.,w&4.. t.~*' , ns.;.
4 M. Se.#5 t;;c n.
915 3.)/ p.,,3.,. N.A, e. o.....s m.u .e,,4 -a,. ..n, [rb, 4 (.6,., r cF t...
- JD ',h't a '.
c*..e. u$f?.j @p:W$;,lm,r&* *Y(* ( *i$[If @u.@w :s.y '/ [.(E} @Y','1$ f,, Md T..i i e. h p. . m.. R : m &g. .~. b/'m,. %v.:g.w y,m+q'. ?.:..::f h4 M. u.M.2i.6 V k ct.~i.n..y.', .. t... e a's k,,J, m'Yi.q... &::.,m;[cQP~W;G,WA$' W::: NNfJP D .M W.%5,M:. Q.h#.%.7 % CiW ***Y,EtO*7' I '; (#f*.M'e,.h ". 7D *'.l h ' w'NU.WOSG' 7')'dN; g w.. q. q : 4..:::;~ T.;;:!. .3... v..y y.m. h.,w, S. ' 4 /h h l-W;&
W.%%$;Wi m r...
.~ ... ei.p. < y :.y y x.. m y,,. :: p; _. g.,. m. y. : u;-(.; >,.g: ,4 v.g,;<,. g., p.: ?. ' :,y ~ ' ~. ~.
~ ~...e. ..f h;c_., v.. 4 Kr,f
;Y.

.
ENNhM'U&-y$h;4.$4'5?5b$'.'1. ? y;* o 2.. h l ' Y;h@, y$ $i$"g*h,5,N.YS.?m>".y? . y ~ y::. u'!N '.l. ".n:p ?bb; '..nl n ' 7 ..s. '.. r: < * /s. > L 4 c. I b.2,iM'W M'h[(mde,.pa.' r< N!$hQ ?'!l'.?b,'W A$' ' I b0h 2 ,.E' h> a% ..r:rh u.y !M f.y%9.o%;a4:s My$ M .A -c h~jf'v: NMhj,n W q.- fd8'hk'y.j~?uih 'Q:k'fi.%.Gf
s Cv;yt f]ff,$m.h h
yk ww&w.t. f s e: w s &:e w~h'if, 4:nn',$.i.. Q f% y,ej.".', &m m.d-fd.Qf.,:.ggUp&p.f.*p.p\\',% g.g.py ';*.R yWm.m.m) ;; f.i, w rm v .E.-( e.4,wf'W W . 'iW &:.. kf.$ h. &}'*lM' &,e w~A,,i&g .^.}, d 9 * "' d..y 4 ,l s iQ. v' w.
..;.,f n,.
-A; m L. < 2 t;"pV,nly?.h.,."; Yg.$;f.j;.t. :},;.L < t' 1.M. e.g%,m, f ' r 1 y n .d..,.. . c. . a. s.s. v.p. s.,%,,.;. i/ ~.' d.l),%[j,%.?;@ or oulide of the containment in areas other than the MSIV areas. For those 6* e;.j, q ..m .id MS M model A 20 valves located in the MSIV areas outside containment, the thermal j p. lag analysis performed by Westinghouse for model A 21 valves located in the 1;;'A.fl. ',[W'L f ;*%ji.%'4
31, M MSIV areas establishes that the temperature of the ASCO solenoid valves in P'fM D,.'M.. m n.p v.,Z.h~ ~M 5. t v.JY that area will not exceed 332'F, which is significantly less than the temperature f.I%>
. 9.v.' t .e.m... p.G..'.. .a. N..;k.-M.,. ?. /./6.s t d N 9. /! of 346'F reached by those valves in the Isomedix tests. The model A-20 valve ,.s e +. p%.. ~ v... .f-jc.jjf(;W y;,ly/y.%n >...t,j'c,. .W is similar in weight and has less surface area than the model A 21 valve. There-K,.pg:J'. , 3.N;.l.t. fore, it would not reach a peak temperature greater than the peak temperature M g!,,%7Q f[!w,E.w;i-Q:. of 332*F that the thermal lag anelysis demonstrated might be reached by the ! ;,7 4.9.. " Ww.n. ;j. El% N.N, 'n+.'d...D..a..' ..r e. ": G.. N:ff..L model A-21 valve in the MSIV areas. Id. at 57 58. 3 g u. X W:
33. The environmental qualification of the model A 6RF ASCO solenoid 9#3
? valve has been demonstrated by the joint Westinghouse /ASCO qualification test-W,9M. M.,'.,.@.t ?;.g,. t,-i.N. J;.'g, m ing program. No model A-6RF solenoid valves are used inside the containment '4Q 3[N%g@$.'?'(:j;M "; fy or in the MSIV areas at VEGP. All of these valves are located inside the suxiliary UQ,; 'g, ;. e.4 9/I.M.N:$rd'}T,.p U.Wy, pt,. Q. I,. 4 building and are subject to a peak temperature of less than 250'F. Therefore, E%$ $M M@Q. ASCO solenoid valve met A-6RF is qualified for use in its safety-related ap. U.'!Eh. . M i'i U.C Nc.DYNGb.N[@[M.) plications at VEGP. Id. at 08 59. .D 'bM dlD$ N,I).5 34 The five specific issues identified by the Board in its denial of Appli. [. [. '[.'f y i., k,';,, .!'; 5,, y;l ? cants' summary disposition motion (listed at T II.1, supra) are now addressed. W.cg]s<.., ' y..t. 't.. r 7,: -j:;.a: '.1W.,, N,, M:' ;.. ;W ' ~. e - v Issue (1) ..;.".r. p.,w,q.z.-< y:. a ; ' y ;h. m . <>:.1T
m, f]i$

P.'gj.jQ.p[@!
fffSg U;,'t "O(f ,,. l.
35. The Applican's testified that the possibility of a failure of an ASCO
.c. v,. c !U solenoid valve at VEGP that might result in its associated air-operated valve rj.
..'/.y,'..'l Q l
or damper not assuminp, a safe position cannot be eliminated completely. One t V. f@* *,N,gQ@,Q.fg;3.i'p.j example of such a fai'ure would be a gross leak of instrument air across
j..lf -.O.. *.
J c.jil.' r,[q:{.4.>m.m f % the solenoid valve sea. that exceeded the exhaust capacity of the valve's m h' J.;5 J.. pX /'/.d, ? MO d exhaust port. This could prevent the associated air-operated valve or damper 9 : W M Ll, j 4 ',Gy.d Q U U from attaining its safety-related position. The testimony of the Applicants %[fd%* 'n%lJgl4:2 'yy, $..: M : $i,$'$.IC d demonstated, howeve:., that VEGP systems are designed so that no single failure of an ASCO volenoid va!ve wculd jeopardize safe plant operation, 0.WM Qfhy;'*/ ~ and the environmental qualification testing performed on the ASCO solenoid M. M. f; i,y+.:E.f @... N.. M.$...'%.1 valves provides assurance that common-mode failures of those valve will not oo l Q.
t. 2./M.+-#.sig2 * %
occur. Baenteli et a!., ff. Tr. 517, at 60-65. The Staff stated that these tests werc k.@:.d s~.w&@M N'W ' $yd.d.
W/
867/'D s properly conducted in accordance with accepted standards, and all anomalies s,. ,:u.,,p.- .m q a w.. 4.!';,7(.l.e.f. - e..$a Q7.o@,p, y t ey in valve performance were adequately addressed. The Staff further stated that Q '.;A,MMg.. <y;,,,Q;M; yi..:. f'Sy@Q.;,f.Q'%% .p, a site audit will be conducted prior to licensing to verify that a record of 'Q li'Q environmental qualification in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49(j) exis:s and J,hfh;.gM.h.Wj%'l6j.i is maintained. Masc.amonio, ff. Tr. 550, at 12,17. We find that the foregoing M,,wn.. gs!?..~. /W... m.i .e ./O.DJ '. r: D..,MM)" M.dy M,,%y*t'4,. h+ W A.e r adequately addrcnes valve failures, that no unsafe configuration will occur, and ?. that issue (1) is reelfed in favor of Applict.nts. .,k h 5 $ g
,g.,.#,.Ja..y.b.,.

M::a. 9~:y,~%. n
-.6- !U. M w M M 'fl,g;ry G.h. y%.n m.Q. q z,,
W4

2
,h. &%y.. ;Q~. g.wl4s.7,p ,1 .f. y c k..;f::J.p&;;n.m./.m.3..&.l s t d^mn.m. .?w'r%>i.?, 916 M b.t.Q'.h.n;.,r... .a...s n - p *h;/ e}s;.w.*v. m
y..
.m. k$ .A.fl <. e!L:Nas -y ....w M. :.*,y.v!&p&yJ;&). 6
.*F-o' g
g. N }OW,~W;..$ e w'4 hh s p WA C w& 4-p$@q q @ @Q % 9 ?g g g g@ g @W @B ' Yhyh ../a p h'. % f MM5M MW Mn MF WyW.WW96
~ l 9 4 .I N,.h.ks..p.,..,..kc.,.>..,,h.9..gh.,<,'.-te.!.hh[h,, hh$.bNk.,. b..$.,.b, h. ) g . h. 4...s.,,. p..., . g.g. 9,. m :$ %,. m
$$.h.w,%:..,...,
.v. a, y
h. y,..h. 4 k?
pb
k..,:h W
5 v.c.m..n. , s p:t..J. . ~..,. 8 n.. ?& s %l,. t n.. m). v.M : -.l.f $ N.t f y@. W. &'>;,j y, $ s?,.. '.'. m&. 1 Q* 12 *.. *. ,W;-n: .,;ge,..gr s. $y?li.$A ,W';?:$'.&:<.5R$ @.h. Qty B i'VM/y W l.4:k NT Issue (2) n +';;* Sh@;n
36. The testimony presented at the hearing demonstrated that for all safety-hM-)fkEhk[$,5fhhMbij' QN$h'kN related equipment, including the ASCO solenoid valves, the Applicants have
dh?3.hYNE'.j specified in their equipment qualification program that equipment operability for f
a period of 1 year following a design-basis event must be demonstrated. That 'S!/77R2e,t'd?>;.idub T-.Q)hf'$j,qN.9ROJ; f'..[n.',C:f,ff'di,9, '@.f;Q' c.W 1-year period of post accident operability, however, greatly exceeds the interval . $DdM,NMfk$.Nkh. ig'i f/;%f.l. /a for which safety-related ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP would actually have to . s. N.[.\\ MP.57f,0,tE;d.%@@.N[ remain operable following the initiation of a design-basis accident. The safety i ' 'M .M%R function performed by all of the ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP is to l $.M[$$$ *.i$?f$% de-energize, thereby venting the air operator of the associated process valve or i 'h@h@MIM4yM($.'%.%7,.); N damper. Once Jc-energized, the ASCO solenvid valves are not required to shift .MJ.Mhl:Mf D MI'd Position again in response to any accident conditions. Those ASCO solenoid k... :M..,, yf.M...,pA.W3,[L'.G. - l. l ? valves tnat are de-energized due to automatic safety signals will complete A.s. g;@.?.?..d.f... s '%.'n.V,,.,.....'i.n a..w'.,.F 4 '. 6.%s.JM.M.L p/yj m..,.M./, their safety-related function within seconds. The other ASCO solenoid valves c .f,,;.. ;: ff.... would be de-energized by remote manual plant operator action, which would I:%, *g,c ;. ' 0<C.7.d.Up.D@$ @l 'fj
t. ~; #
.T'j /
occur within about 30 minutes after sufficient alarm or other indicatbn of the {./FM. $.'-i.j !%, iQM!j occurrence of the initiating event or in response to plant emergency operating j [yJ...yl' y.]'q.; D procedures. The de-energization of the ASCO solenoid valves would thus be l h %p ' A ' n.
. l M.s Q 't, c; Me'j complete within a few seconds (or at most within several minutes) after the
( ...., 'i.
~,y ;. 4,..,(' W. "y,

y 3.

?
f ,eC. initiation of the design-basis event. Baenteli et al. ff. Tr. 517, at 18-19. l .. 'i> i f; 2 *.,'.. e~ .i: t.: .M.* 4.4
37. The environmental qualification testing performed on the ASCO sole-
.,, y ,a. 5.M. .,h. 3. yllj noid valves by Westinghouse /ASCO and Isomedix has established the capability l of those valves to withstand accident conditions and continue to operate prop-l ["..'..;['.-}.1~7,,'+['. i .. -l ?, ' ' - Q-) c ' .7. '
y erly for the period in which they would have to perform their safety-related function. In those testing programs the valves were aged to their end-of-lifetime
.:. '
y[. }, y e c,..f;.i, ' Y,.}'. )
,j condition for normal environments and then exposed to accident conditions. Fel-
,3 .s..
s..
,s f lowing exposure to accident conditions, the valves were required to continue .dl.. f f., ' s.. 7 g. V, U.h,. h t.).7 [. 3., '" functioning properly for a period that simulated several years of post-accident 9 ;'..... ' '.. ' ; ' QT... operation. Id. at 31,33. This testing established that the valves would remain %,'. '1.3 ;".}.[,r} $..M,I /:y ;. -(HW-){.Q..p.: _, r !J' JN operable following an accident for a period greatly in excess of the time dur- .jy J.[. c',' ing which they might be required to perform their safety-related function at f;P f f ', ,.[, :; ;e.M VEOP. Id. at 1819. In addition, as discussed in 144, infra. Applicants' main-u ;l*(, ; 'j.1, lI. ' c ,/;.;.,; V,N f '.j,i.' *er;[, tenance and surveillance program will verify that in-service valve performance .b.. W q(;; , ' j<.. :..' will be satisfactory. We find that Issue (2) is resolved in Applicants' favor be-c 'f. ~, W.
.. ?/l, cause the bases for post-accident operability and in-service availability at any
.l... S. ; '..*-p/,fdQf,d'.) %, '< ,;w.:+). j l arbitrarily specified time have been satisfactorily explained. 'C:.S.I $d'i,-l3,,; ..: y: ? y,,.,.....
w;..
. ~ + ..;~......,a, a.. pr. m
. ;.; w. ',.. :.. c; ; s.,/,...'c.t;:f.
,f* "'..,.C. 1 733ue (3) -n, ., im, s..;. ; <;....,.. ' o MJ'@-.'
38. The Applicants testified that moisture entered the solenoid housing of
.n -.W2 ;*c.,7 - ' ',l' .1 '..- : ." h..* h. j { [ ',:O f :.', j.['.: (.,*]. M..c one of the model A-16 va!ves tested by Westinghouse /ASCO through the conduit ,i ....,,Y,.-QelT.'..l. J 'e ll... _.,;y *.: L. ~'.i *N, f.;*. % ',f. ., ;;w.., u..w :.y. :j.r:;9.. t..; .3,..,;.:d,..o *.3.rc.Q, ., ;;r. e.....,~.c.. p. ..,...s.....,a :. : , n. . c.6. r. n .,_....s..,3..... ...s. ,...r. d.. m., r., ~. .-a s 917
cp..e w5.;9.. y.

c;t.,,t.

~
., +.. c t.y. . r,, ;
..;,4,, f. e g s.g y
,;w. e. w.y.;. p...c.,-9.V;: . f.n.7,x. c'.,~.. g.,,, : 4.. v r -m... %y;"; e. :y*\\)n ', d.:". hy,M;*;;,;.f. J.i. ;..y. ~. ... ;..s .. g ;. v.,, p:.
w
..,,,t. ,M i */ Pvtq! '; U. '.h+:'.h;.f.a...'<!. >'S
ON:

J.&.'.0:. ;'"?ifi. s&c%
Q ,@' W ' g.U d;,.n./ m%.3...n.. w;.;3 !s-,;&.p% -z. t $?h h* $ lh e a %. g M Wils p, p m. p +3..y;; w p..Nw. $.:.; h.w%. w< g~ $hh.m'bbk.'{ $ .h* S $ &.~.n &p W W % Q G,'E' &v?.v.?e,h! &-:.';; fE &i w? 1 w w. ,,y.- g..y.;.-3; y. : &e.. n::: a e s e,., 7 7.;.y7:-;, n: <.s 5.;.,,, ..6 ~ a., v. ;.. s. ~ r c,.. .s __1____________ E _ _ ____.'_____* _ _ _______.__ __ _________________1.__
.J?w;a. d.i2%. - -..,hh. W ';; ,.m ,$'hhh..... - [h d M.k.'. N,L,;g.f,LW,;.mQ:un N?.? ~Q.:.l h$$'M P M N'; %y}.h b /h,7 % s Js.,W,tlMhb.W, ::.pW: b: p h : m' 3.ti d h n;l. $ a$ $ $ b.?$ $ h $ $ 4h 5 NM$)[h3?Ndi4Yh,%.%5 5 $i:J%4 5 h 4 N W m l;,1 V t h ?.@ffb'sk W.M wl$Nh.6eMA>Uh 3 hi 5Yib c& gg g c T r. v w. s G W. du.W:W 9w::q)r.;.J% a..Gm:w.J. .s D
p.. v. p, f.-
.. n 2 < %s 6 e nipple opening as a result of the test setup. ASCO does not supply a seal for the 8.WR',.id,%u.W):';.% $:$. m:*. conduit nipple opening with its valves. Since the moisture problem originated i,'('c)'MMM,'@.!;[.hd.2'py/-%'j from a test setup deficiency rather than from the valve itself, that problem N;?: $//.Yt.': C. D.Y %
QYM'R t.'
.D.7/'-% 'JN'M*D d[IN does not evidence a potential quality control deficiency with ASCO solenoid valves. Id. at 26. Also, if a similar moisture problem were to occur with any S[U.,;%Ihy'g. ,';*.'Myh ,'h.~i ASCO solenoid valve used at VEOP, it could not affect that valve's ability %.i,'f o.f.* e Iif .4 O.pS,t l Q.i M.~/ f ',, '.s e e.e, r,< y W,'.,Z. to perform its safety-rela'.ed function, which is to veut the air operator of the - cW/ .W, j r t.,w. %.,, associated air-operated pmcess valve or damper. The design of the solenoid SQ'517"'.;d,9<4l.W[,G..I'f.;;p.it .9e; housing is such that the intrusion of moisture into the housing does not affect r v.. p ;,j. ;.W' $ g,.n,f.g.1g'*. p2y 0 .J r'4 <.',TJh;%] s,$M.Q';$M,' the ability of the solenoid core to shift into its de-energized position. Because the
g;
. f,Q..g. ,c, ASCO solenoid valves utilized at VEOP perform their safety-related function Tf,F'??, ;;;NifllP, when the coil is de-energized, a valve's inability to shift position when energized
', b '. 7.'(MM NW'M OMidl.M f 6.}'Q ' W, ':..'
to ihe minimum dc voltage specified, as occurred with the model A-16 valve Y,,'W.;.Y..s- ..v: d.u & Il in the joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program, does not compromise the 3 W....... a. x ?,l. _ g p.;
,'s.
Uj..
/
,Q.YJ'j.'s." M.M,%,fjef:;% valve's ability to perform its safety-related function. Id. at 26-28. We conclude that moisture within solenoid housings at VEGP does not compromise ASCO ,,M... M'.93,7,s.f valve safety performance and find that Issue (3) has been properly disposed of C! p{:$ p, }',1 $j,..3.gg,Q.".-Q

(,t 't N y. (G. 9 ? l Q.1'. T
'f,?, in Applicants' favor. n.;. '...x 9;..,.m,.. m.., :
b. 3 n.;.......e 5,,;,g.g,,,d,.;s...;;
~ w Issue (4) r. q....., i ~. yy ' ; ,.q, q.;A;, * ;, F., 9,.: v.
39. The Applicants testified that for its solenoid valves operating on direct
. l: ~<c%:'t . <.f ' " ' > ' J cA,.T@ T C[f*'* ;^ W p a; current, ASCO specifies a nominal applied voltage of 125 volts (125 V de), with an acceptable operating voltage range of 90 to 140 volts. For valves ~ operating on i..,.'....A,....".....* .L, %. a h*/f* j ] W, N alternating current, ASCO specifies a nominal voltage of 120 volts of 60-cycle attemating current (120 V ac), with an acceptable operating range of 102 to 132
i"lb:J.'f ; f.'!;Mr,tr g,4.9,3.f:....N, s
.N,. /. #y .t
N volts. At VEGP, the power supplied to ASCO solenoid valves is designed to be
%.j 'J h Si, % ,y, UQ.'. %fe '.i.a/ 'l[" [-: ',.., 7... M i either 124 V de or 120 V ac, and the extreme voltage values expected on the J 'W.:.wU. v%;#[,," i.l$ l. VEGP electrical distribution system are within the acceptable operating voltage .:p. Y. ranges specified by ASCO. Id. at 10-11.
f.
.9.. M. ;J!.l'.69.'O,7.i.* Q~i ' O.1,;' a
40. ASCO's specifications require that the air supply to the solenoid valves h hq'[iSj...-%.:
7 *..: s b %s c'to - .mu.. .M. C. V, @..y m'n.4..-i'.a. y, be instrument-quality air. The VEGP instrument air system provides a continuous T,,,.fm:;.. w~. 4 + di. w
. w.~cer;. V, -1 h(M.
supply of filtered, dry, oil. free compressed air that is of the quality recommended h.J h'.,'ij, in the Instrument Society of America's Quality Standard for Instrument Air, d J f,. 5e M.. X.s.. P..' vm.4-IS.I. 57.3. /d. at 11. [The Board notes that elastomer integrity can be degraded if qli.,* e %,'O)u,7,3 s -v. . if; J. 'Jt;*./ the quality of instrument air is not maintained and if other than manufacturer's recommended solvents and lubricants are used in the cleaning and servicing %~,;p:T,}'-gth;ghy;};,%Q,]!f (, ,$.gg.l,! '! a:.Qfe.,.gf.%'g.g'@gg,g$g of valves.) The operating pressure differential for the air supply must range g .5'".;;- '.g.6 $.*j % % W Tg M ;Q,,; between (a) the maximum differential pressure between the inlet and outlet M.v.,.,,@.f. /. (',@s. ,%~ h, c: h. y o M, sides of the valve against which the solenoid can safely operate and (b) the e$ .7.,1. M,.h.v a M minimum operatin pressure differential required for dependable operation. The .'T" M n o...~.P).t 2, W g y :~.fp.?.ygQf t.M.+sy,.. r range of acceptable operating pressure differentials specified by ASCO differs Wy.c 0 ..,o, g -u...). em, ~.#, c;a %Q.: .e; . e-s.g, = z.g J. /.t,., .,...t>.,g,,,t-i n&y;[..;>:? **a,M,, f.w.,,; ' ;c< +yj,u.s,. e., y ,, t.*..c./..d c.. W r.v,,..a,al., a. '.v.y:,,.p. .,,.4,N,,f., ,c .r M y> 918 v, m. ..ps g. ~ .e., ,,v .r.n - M ;, W &;rm >h ' W.~& Pj.} f,.S'sf; M,' y;*$(1:%l$ R' y?,' R$?.?Q ihV.%5l. f* ,m. "g.i~' 4.t VM - :,3.., -, c.s..t..... :fg d ' fr D. u. t .m yT 'y /.y. m.m.~.w.,m:c.m:.m.a. w./:w:.s '*.i g. Q.y % Psykn;i,Q C]-AW:;@;*b s 'l W t'.,TQfl.. f *.j d& 'f M y W qN.-@[ rh;- . :s ,s 5s N. vw. f.* ,hN .g.wmMs,prm .g.J A; m w .n M. a . nw w,,- , s. s. w:. ;;. y :. m~. .,;u g ~, m.. w. m. -. m, a mh:, n y 3. m n a.. .m..w w.m m. .nm n x
p.
n. '.e t.,,,, p..m:m m ., r. z
% f % :.d.} b >.; & S Q.:l2:a:.y. 4 $ $ n.h.-& & &.K. h k h!.Y.: ';U %..... ,u,',.t :y..:,..a;o . 3 n. .ih ' : m' hw pmmww m www, m.;u. m.,32h*.'i,,,e w:. &..a.
Me. m:
n <,.-x :Me.. e n.mM. s..:.k.uem.:e hm...v.e.:.w:.n.m.m~ ..o.,y, .m n,y '. m.. w. m. v.s..:., e ,,ya a.o. r '%y'7','j.., ). r q y
w.....
w., e ,.e w*), y ',e. x. i*. .h ava.. ki1,? s t.,i. sy,% qt.wrg.s?yM,h'.Wr',MW$&w?.%.- 2.Mp o.y.e. B.<.9 g @. i k @k 'd $ h ?4M% h for each model of valve. The operating pressures for the ASCO solenoid valves pd'n}g/MS.cs//d.k.dhlIMN.I.k':',y @M@ ,N at VEGP are within the acceptable operating pressure differential range specified .%@.Q,fl .Q. e,,.hy.,'L9;Wh.. Qt.L-} by ASCO for each of the models of ASCO solenoid valves used at VEGP. Id. at p pr. m v f, Q, M~ v)d h Q,v.p;[.A.'g$. i.%...g,Dirp{cuz.[:w$m..W..,.i .t-11-12. ,,q.!; : $.G.,..b . ;. c a @w %, P l..!
41. After manufacture and assembly, ASCO subjects each valve to a factory M...n.2 H..:f,#.<,: $' W.N S M', W 2 7
7J'.@. acceptance test that verifies the valve's operability and seat integrity. To pass .d.W 2tRh W% pMg '. W.igj 'iZ s. W.... q.p,.,.:.'f.d,..k*:n.%s# ? this test, valves with resilient seats must have no detectab!c seat leakage. The 7 W, W W...;. ' y :.p .p e manufacturing tolerances set by ASCO, however, are not related to leakage rates itM: up,ya :..slM., 'W.d.. .w.,,.k,.M,.. * $...;.:b~ '7 .W ,W Wy.5Q that would affect valve performance. Id. at 12-13. The amount of seat leakage m W,;-C. @8.DMM*ile M,hNdj!I[Alp]f.J;".d.N. d:$N0b.E'/.'ai, '4G !i
N that would affect an ASCO solenoid valve's ability to perform its safety-related d/yAEMM:
'.'i$ function at VEGP, which is to vent the air operator of the associated process kh.Y kifh N.? valve or damper, would depend upon several factors, including the size of the
.fy.3..j f R $ d;4D vent port in the solenoid valve, the resistance to air flow in the instrument piping I.M. h

hpk..hh'll$g, _..e.:d@,p$,g.W3.s'd [
4* p4. #. 3 d d @$ / d l ' S 2.r: y.js MM'.N between the vent port and the actuator pressure chamber in the air operator of the j%;.W process valve, and the residual pressure in the actuator pressure chamber. Using i N'i' a conservative analysis, the Applicants have determined the maximum tolerable ' d ' M %. 9 /!/ G :; $, 4 5 leakage rates for the ASCO solenoid valves used to perform safety-related f.,4. fa..,;;.o'i. G.y y. V. M,,... 3,k"f m;;f i'M.s. g. M.. , Y. ; '.i ..... functions in the containment and MSIV areas at VEGP to be 3000 SCFH for the m. s . ~,O. g,,l 4 - ,). ,c M'I model A-16 valve,75 SCFH for the A-20 valve, and 555 SCFH for the A-21 c
f..
J*, , ; V,....i * %.( h...rj% -' 7 Q. 3 v t.','. M.? valve. Id. at 14-17. ...E.E C.. ' '..i, b,?..,...'>. s.'!:,1 :.I., i b ' M..,7,E. ;, ;c .)
42. ASCO's installation and maintenance instructions for the four types of
.~/,. N.e~.,.S.,. lf.cg.. i.f.. ASCO solenoid valves used in safety-related applica'tions at VEGP state that .e './,. y,2 . a f*.;l. s. g.W,, g lf.e ~. 1;; e, excessive leakage warrants inspection of the valve. At VEGP, excessive leakage f e".ri ' '4 p l.1 ' '. j - in the ASCO solenoid valves would be monitored through operation of and r, @.4. $..', } ') ', R O periodic testing of the associated process valve or damper. If, during normal j.h '$,j, *[t%,. Y. %.mC, ', q ,+ ^.. h,'T.s J Operation or in-service testing, the process valve or damper fails to cycle or
,' !). -., ;g., g,
. q ;. t. '.f. cycles sluggishly, then the ASCO valve would be checked. Id. at 13,67. '/ .-l,;.c.';;B, m,.9 ?.' ~.h:l@i,t ~
43. The Applicants testi6ed that while the seat leakage exnibited by the
./' cU.a*:#....hk.6 A 21 valve tested by FRC could have increased had it been subjected to the
@*f.f.y

9. *..
, f, :C.,.,m,...', f..? g,D kj$.,p,,' l%y 'O/,',f.V, h[.4.L,* W, W.'A Q remaining aspects of the testing program, any additional test results would have J. had little meaning in light of the overly severe artificial aging temperature to ""Ng.,*h 'l0.f ' fy!'.M. ,*d.Q'.f:,6 [p which the model A-21 valve was subjected by FRC. The excessive severity of 7l.)*A.7 M'O.[lll 'J.i. / [f c.W!'.'t... j .9.h,I, that artificial aging process was a primary cause of the breakdown of the valve's f.J iO.
':4 O elastomer material that produced the gross seat leakage found by FRC. Id. at SMMf.p/l?i.p)l%y Il7 *[j,i 'M;'..i 4.' 8".[ % gE.
r X(M!* MlN t /
39. We fmd that ASCO's specifications are being met for ASCO valves at l.
VEGP and that test duration during preoperational qualification is not a cause '.,l?. y.,g '6. g:Jf.. ,;g,9,3',*?.,. G...,' for concern. Thus, Issue (4) has been addressed to our satisfaction. .*.se. v.m.e ,,,e.-t '...L. Y )*.,:.t.' ;,, %,,*. Q'\\
w. a ?m +.n; ~j,:;.,..r :=.s:.9.. p,,~, '?s,:
.. L :... f -. n W. '.
a. n. ::
.y..,,..,..:,~.. Issue (5) . w.,,n, y(. .,,a a3 .....$1['kn,.'.kh.. N..bbk;:h....fi ' k ;p r,tez,1;.1 $ /,..p~.,f 44 In their testimony, the Applicants described the manner in which the . m .c Q.. M /s. valve specimens used in the qualification testing were obtained. Those valves 3 s h $',., t,b) n',aJ,$. Q.,..k',. i.* g' k, h. U.g '.f,,'cf[.,d.'..I,; a s ; *g,9l..., ' 'Q.' t ','."l.['N, 0.Q *f *.'.{*,, ! '.'* * *,',l .s ' ~ T/ ' a. lg'*;;.*,i l* 63'
c. =-h.
, 5 9I9 r?.. 9,e..h s f q,.V. g',4'w. 4.;.f,,..,%@~,f., p. .u s w:...'. r. U,,: ~e., r s %. -s .s.3. n ... g $;,.n,/'s M y M@h, M W ',N & k & & Ij . h.f."Wh.9S.bO*I;"d,M.A AM.'%., J/,, s M3'. '. 9.f4 . y .$ {}iG &. h*h :.;*w&y.' t 6?i:? $ ^m.5 b',':
h, y 4.: -. e e~.'i.n.Q y
r .-.m [.)*dse r#' le &f$
q%.
% o *Yn

p & N ~.*f,sa$N *: *,s..:- : g ??*aq';
+ 5Y $ i 8e., i*f fV *?: W'.V*f' v.':fa M',
s,.c.! N cr'*'"

r

T * "' .4l*

i' =. K ** W'^ M *3L'; I'O',P M 'll
, s,. wm..,.e.,...m,... ~ ..r:...,.... a,,,. n>. m.,.,...,.~2.,.... ~. ....~ w..w .g '? 3 j- , + 4 .. s.; \\ n
2. J :l J:~< d ll.7 x;. %.L e : ~ &.T,~}n ~.n. ~ ..k.:.1 :.g [. : : f,&. ; L ',.?. '. u;* &.. W$, l 9. *:h . 'I. '%.4ypf,"Cp,V?,'.C?v 9.d.*:'- '.n. r i M M : p y q % &,&, y.'% W Q S M. 5
y!Al 5;q 'ag$h$'$ W0Nk$$Y NN$?O'O,h?j%Ny:fk $~ 6VOQf&c+.*,b,Q
] b' W: 'i d A W j. % 'b*i b' E 0 Y. W 1 W.4 ?,U.'N k i'.%: MJg* i-m.: &.-r Y e'.
d..
4 T.- 9?rd e *u.;...y.,W . w. #.c.w. g.c
a..<..s
.f ..,. y~:y.. r.;<.. g...a.n.v.H. n,~ e % :m.,,.g( ~.
3. W '. W. ' M,. vlp ',b,
.j were procured from ASCO in the same manner as any valves supplied to c'd..; ':C/ 'M.ydfc %W ;$/P. M ..M i F, %.-.., % . 0.. &. .,e 3 a nuclear plant such as VEGP. The valves tested were built using the same production procedures and using the same materials as valves II.at would be '$9,M.dPf.NM3[:#M..[7d.D supplied to the field. ASCO's quality assurance program, which has been audited %hj.;, yl j.[g.%Y).} ,'.Q by Westinghouse and other vendors, ensures that materials are not changed in P8j ;'Mlr... S/ egg M.'c.0,. the valves, that material suppliers remain the same, that identical production b[3. N.s procedures are followed for every valve, that drawing changes are not made, .,4,... ..,;; c.m (W7.. fC".P O%7.r t; and that design changes are not made. Everything that can be done to ensure . e:6,. c l ' W,. W<..../ N ' G..g . t. 4f. p. r, 'y ,e .s.m .V. ~.6..h : <i that the valve tested is identical in design, matenals, construction, and testing I.v...... &. A.".:,T . M., to the valves supplied to a nuclear facility such as VEGP is done. Cesarski, . u./c.'.'#- R.537-38.
45. The Applicants also discussed the margins present in the quali$ cation
'gf t.d ',*!W&,. ', i.. ,, 4 Q. %. f., w .%. << 4 s.A w '.?"lM z 1:s.,3 I.',p '.h ^.,;:J '",'f.lU;'.[' ?.." -T,2.i testing. The test conditions to which the test valves were exposed in the N M. l.ll. "? $" ;b.f,M joint Westinghouse /ASCO testing program included margins in accordance with 3
V..~,
requirements of IEEE 323-1974 and 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49(e)(8). The activation .J' Q M., s.:;[ .6. 3',..M y., g. y q ', 1../... /. energy employed in establishing the length of the thermal aging portion of the ,f 6. t/;f,.,. Q : - '. ',.*;. V. 3;l. ,,s. environmental qualification program was the lowest activation energy for any ~..... l,,q '. A, 9 :'J.g ; 4.s p of the materials in the valves. The test conditions selected for the remaining k1> hW:+,. *G.kd /:'N, d,$'/Y W aging portions of the program were appropriate for a service life of 40 years h..Q.' 3.Ji$ h.j[ y Q ~",U,' 'iyQ'lf f even though the qualified life of the valves tested was 8 years or less. The LOCA/MSLB transients were applied twice in the design-basis-event portion of %.f,~,l*. :i' 4 T " I f '. A." , 'l,;f r J), f the testing program to provide ma gin as suggested by IEEE 3231974. The M. = .I'D' S*;"& F, . O* W l' [' ~ '#.Wcf.fl actual peak temperatures reached during the LOCA/MSLB transients were 2 <'>'s.y;M.';,U.[Z C*,.' [... .Nl 440'F and 448 F. The Westinghouse-specified generic qualification requirement a a was only 420'F. The actual test pressure during the LOCA/MSLB transients v.'d, '. p. g t reached a peak of 68 psig, while the Westinghouse-specified generic quaFfication [ Q [. O::. W M' % e g.O,%;.f. 4 ;,-. ,P; ' 7. ;C.? fr N Y '.V. :/ %.Y, i...: W m fijfs&[,h'/'7.}/,Slp.,[k M' ., 2 requirement was 57 psig. The valves were exposed to a total radiation dose 8 of 2.05 x 10 rads, whereas the Westinghouse-specified generic qualification ..f, p.. k,y,v'"y.'.'y 9 4;.,f;',,, requirement is 1.82 x 10, rads total integrated dose. Westinghouse specified that .3 the valves be able to operate for 1 year under post-LOCA conditions. Under the 'e*gb;.ly ;.. p.(c.S' p?:,',I,M.Mbi'iM?N9M conditions used in the Westinghouse /ASCO testing,3.65 days simulated that I d.sdG [hN.'7$ hfY$dUf;h'.N,8[Q year of post accident operation, whereas the test valves were kept under those f.s'(3.). M[y. N };j S conditions for 30 days, which simulated approximately 8 years of post-accident 9 l'Y."' $lDS.D operation. Baenteli et al.. ff. Tr. 517, at 30-31t Tr. 544-45.
46. The Applicants' testimony also demonstrates that additional margin ex-h y,',Q F @@ W,4:, N J <*i, ?
.[l ,y ists between the most extreme conditions to which the ASCO solenoid valves ?.,.'.Y{<t.@r, ye';#. 6 n.p,; 7,M, Aet, 5, f?c.e(.-@i. M.7 might be exposed at VEGP and the conditions to which they are qualified. The
9. e."'.;w;3.r.m..
4/ g?W; Yg....... M t. most extreme conditions to which the Applicants require safety related equip-f;g. ..Q..,,. v .a $. kj,.@g'jFC.Wi'5@ .j y.. 3; ment located inside the containment to be qualified are enveloped by the condi- .yM' tions to which those model solenoid valves located inside the containment, the '% :..W.. Q. E. i s..gf y g' . f Nf- .D. s.:g!fM J/.U model A-16 an't A 20 valves, have been exposed in quali6 cation testing. In-
v. - w eg.
,g:g,%.%%. cluded in those extreme conditions to which the Applicants require equipment
gj

p,v.p ;}
g - i. 'Jb,:~0'eh k, A &v w ?.+ ;.v $ m$ N "Y h ,an .'y,....,...7.,w......,. d llW.,...e 4x ...s r4. t .s. ~, . 7.4.?.. r,..,. W 0.,,g >'-I W.v.fi r.4 t' 9.'O
,y',.O. l)lO.,i.*.
. 7. ..h.,:P, A ^ '? %.
l'lp 'M.,,{4 !. v f.'*.1 2.,,q D. c *...,,..,., -,. y.
., g .(> J,. ',11.5 '"r '*1 ' 4r'. y %.....,.:'.;,rli** b",, ..s Nffb \\sj.,s '.?f*@ e '5 t ...N ?.* *.9: w mi'.~r. ' %..l.r.A, 'o Q.e,s *p T'fX.*)q it' e et v n ~ ,,,e* g /. g e'N :g }A. 7.a .n .pn i. f se p.<,. 8 t N it *.9 t t,* <'o ir ;d;}is;4 q.g ,o g.)r, K y %?Wv :hif. f.ih...s p'.2.M,rg - :. ~ r5 a dN.k.Q *M,....>A i. f..*. m
t.,.,.. n.e.'
.. h*.A' g'#.... 5 .- fd - 2 n.g'f'd.
f *'i w*..m.'. p! ;J W *W'Wf f,f,/.Pi W..w.,
.,7-I. m. '.lrryg. e4 . g,- g %. si e f, . o.. s $ q 3 ;(;I,lg.;.5.:.,y.c.s; @n$n. w e pr.w..,w,:rm.~V,im;, ?,r,o:4 W W~:f?r.p pV e U p.'/; W.< a.4. Q.M;;4. 0 ,. y m.?,4 i p. M A,.; e,/.o:- d' +'. O.: e, i P.' W M L. w @, .t
5 W.,*,T..
...I,,,,/1,.' w:,.. y s 4 .m n y,, w ;:. c: u.~,y y, : 7.. r.+.M.W. A,$w.J.q.E:n. .ww + .v c 2.A. ti,. .a.t. 2.M QS56fyf .y.a v =... y,; y. c . N.,. > m ?L. ;> 3;p
I & u. y, '.s ). g m;. +.n 4.. ~....a. c.' -... u., a.,, A.. k.gm.b y Q L,...m....,. .. a N;h h '.f ,h .ny...,.m. w.wd.,,b...v w W & %:t w ?EN b, m,i &m 2.. 6 Ws.Q.h. Q RV.n..M.m .M.?.yN,%:&..m.;,%n.'Mp;4 SMMijhy$[h;fh'dl%[E.MMQ'-1 W N 8:& .It to be qualified are margins of in excess of 40 F for peak temperature, in ex-
hSUkY N'.3$$@h d N'C%@2@.$r[Tp%lb;.i%'MkiM,!?$
cess of 15% for peak pressure, and in excess of 20% for radiation. Baenteli ilk. et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 51. Similarly, for those valves potentially exposed to the
'. fed 7M,g/MN,.@ f R$%,
S l# most extreme environmental conditions outside of the containment, the model
n L..@h8'./NONM;;.Nb MU, A-20 and A-21 valves located in the MSIV areas outside the containment, the
$:k[iI. bW@.f, ~W Mdp y.E:,<1'J, s u.~. maximum conditions to which those valves might be exposed are well below k.ph.g... n... a.9 4 g v.sy.. t. d ; U <. +.e '. m % x. s;v W..
M A.. P.f w

eg
: 6 the extreme conditians to nich those valves were tested and analyzed. Id. at W,V..:M.. wFl,r.r a t g f
p. W

54. Thus margin exists both in the qualification testing itself and in the differ-

r';$,%,,S.'.,. h.

.4,M,?.c.. 6 o.lM, 3
.1l.,M r.9!py.!W.i ence between the conditions for which the valves are environmentally qualified h.M.N@.QiM(;$?".]@'.i.#(h$.% h5hkh.$/[h h. 6;/iMy') and the conditions to which they might be exposed at VEGP. Accordingly, we .h M.7 find that Issue (5) with respect to possible performance differen;es between G'M/.f. ;$3.Ah; MQ$;N.h$,hN[%9hMfb'Nb( 'e4 d ?N tested valves and those to be installed at VEGP is resolved in Applicants' favor, h[b.3'h since qualification test results are not invalidated by this consideration. h;/jQ
47. At the hearing, the Intervenor presented testimony on Contention 10.5 M (5

O *p' l'; l-lS-@N.ij' @.W;'!

:Mf'i'.Q: yid
' $:A.@d,E ': ',Mii from Dr. Howard Deutsch, employed by the Georgia Institute of Technology .,.,... ". V. 2,,l s'-..6.. f0 y;. l.,. '.M@',.M...,, ~,^r, ; as a Senior Research Chemist. While the record shows no reason to question E. *,L; ; the qualifications of Dr. Deutsch as a chemist, his testimony reflected nothing mr. %..s4 < G, in his educational background, training, or work experience that related to the . a.. p ;. C.J.J. '. e..<' O ',I;j. u:. '. K. J.9 td.,. W. !
?;4'J $.t. t? Qs W,,,a.fi ~.j.' *; W.
nuclear industry or the environmental qualification of equipment for use in a f W:.7 nuclear facility. Deutsch, ff. 'IY. 371, at 11 Deutsch, Tr. 360-62. His lack of av. i.. "f/ . y.,f /' involvement with subject matters relating to the contention under consideration
',. N.[ ;j l,. .[y f.,.. m.,(:/ :.c,f[" '.h Q.'
i '7;. ,. e, leads us to give little weight to Dr. Deutsch's testimony in this proceeding. He [if/. L < < c,s'.,y '., J,5 -:%:i. W..,W $. '.l /, a.t. * ? Jc' ' /'i repeated some of the anomalous valve behavioral results from the tests conducted ... Y, ' : ?..,. on ASCO valves that are discussed earlier in this opinion, but he added no W i ;M. O i.. i.... j r
3 g.-
.Y J' ' N. ".4 additional information; nor did he contradict information provided by Applicants .,n- '. L; + f;@. Ml.:[.l,'. li:l.h;M.iM(M5-:p ' y. M.N.*; A 'u ; A 7 l'[: N and Staff. Ile did, houver, raise two questions that, while outside the scope of the issues designated for hearing by the Board, were addressed by the Applicants. M.;e.'j f::,'A l"! '.5.D. f:C.9 & !,M.V..
48. The first question posed by Dr. Deutsch concerned the adequacy of ft i7/l,M.J. J.,
.t. .. :.W. testing of the ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP as part of the Applicants' Q..""h.l-[fM.;],'n[f.M:h.Q[/ [,..i ". W 'inl. Ja.[?.W; c 4,.;3 ? maintenance and surveillance program, and whether continued operability of f, ? the valves would be adequately ensured. The Applicants described generally ,6 d h 4 ih'.$.'/.(f.: eq.J, f/. l,,.? '.-1f'i.'.s..:F1. the procedure by which the maintenance and surveillance program for safety-N' $h hND) related equipment has been developed at VEGP and discussed the preoperational .??'.sc, s ",.. t..J).:.. v;< L.'.J c.-)i.o..v.r. .s.,'
j..e
..a = and in-service testing that will be performed on ASCO solenoid valves and 'U.f.QJe 9;./,,.. &fs.,.,.. :.M, g -.. p.. 4/,; ; i..d. 6 the associated process valves. This testing will verify the functionality of 4 3;'g', J.y ?., /.e, ( % :.Qh :.'J. .,.'n,:... w. ",...y. /..?.. 4 !,.. q.; r a f. the ASCO solenoid valves and detect any significant degradation in valve ,y 2 ;.l M,? ;[;#C.'['/i. ', N: /.*;. performance. Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, at 65-68; Bockhold, Cesarski, Tr. 540-
4. 9r,'fM.$ElM.J.Yi'.f.

44. Our own review of the Applicants' proposed maintenaner. and surveillance
,,.s j IMIM. l.4 J Program finds it to be satisfactory. (Also see $1II.B.12 and II.B.13, of our partial L. 9;.[/ ed, G.?.l.l.Wl.t i.i W.:.; W.'.? initial decision.) Web.6:@b.h.N
49. The second question raised by Dr. Deutsch related to the orientation of
$$*:WWM.Qp)'h;"bhhs$ / N'. Ni'. L;1.".U.t:4.%,fy the ASCO solenoid valves when installed at VEGP. Dr. Deutsch stated that the . W.;w c:., -d
t.;;r. :l,. ; ;q9.*.;;$
R $.?'y $l0 & [Q' ? M,'.'f.*, y&. (7V.}[G A, %..z.,. %.,w.T }Q,..l Vl~.. o,.r .,,,.. <.v... -..y?m..2...y$. - . o.. s A W.:t'*: ..e c., n......- s w:>.o. 921 .,. w :: '..;;.. Y n.)*.o.. K. *?y>?n "(?. i. L%}e.y.w;,,y. V.9..G. m *h.?.ig ?f,"{: .4y. ;*:o.ts -.A-- W. v. ]4,.= s. 2,.,v.- s, y .u- .~ .s ~ ::. 't'. -l., p,7#h,M./L,nf4./,.,Q.o.o}bCNh.w%WW.9 Ty n + ..t. * *3 . t*.,c .c,..., g .p. ;w., n .h h.f/ %..vNj v .z- ..y @ W.;s,4 r ' if!!.Y: .s M nm.nwngg.w.wowm.m; v:mw.wn I ^ n.... _.., g, c. n..,..,o... _s y + .e. s,. q
3..
.S 40 b
. p.-. ~ i.W:.R;d:~:W.<., ;t.: Q,:yae, w@Mr,..,,. g... :,.. .s,.ya,,v:.'.y e,h'%:r .,? l':.: c W l.~& ;;. a, s ......,.a. ...o......
&..

4
. ;&;: w 9,,. } .:Gy.5.. My % & C. f: -
r:.g:.w pkG:. %.:y :.&:
r. n., % l. g h,%.e.d .N k Q s-d .;?'.. og!'
5f {$I.b$ph?$;b$ b${ ~ Y. M, f.w.,.:.p.;4,b.s.'ew..
a Yhvyl; yh5b. E
c. ~
Y$2 %. m.. sq..~N.en?;a h $'Y s n %..n v. .c:,y.
'.;,; p -Ml. '.:,u, :.,. ?y v. n.:::....,c?g; nn:U:a-:
d s* M.; y*: m.u.tl.m~~*p**..'"- 4 9 .. '... ~ g *
b* Q./. >.,-* ;*y, p.,~f.a.*o;.P.,

'.A. #
p 4 g/, 5, %* .n :.
w
s. I *. t * / s

.g N. !@... X.TX
f.<,.rW. p
,Y.. ~.g ?..UW,~.! H.4,,,. v
i* o. e" p:.r. y r
4 4 .V.*.m,Wyg%. P . e e'. 9.:.:b.p. a r e.y orientation of the valves was important and expressed concern that it had not $g$'..n.u.', s.t8...j,. n.. ..w. e na i .g
c,.Q.,
been adequately considered by the Applicants. Deutsch, ff. Tr. 371, at 5. The yj.f;ggjf.9 Applicants testified that the orientation of the valves had been considered, and the ,M,,lN.2.fgi t' 7. [Q,"*,c/?'E@,Q @f@ only limitation placed by ASCO upon the physical orientation of the models of n p.. M.. Q..., Q l*/;. p. _ e a./ M. tW/ solenoid valves used at VEGP was that the model A-6RF valves must be mounted ' C', '.3r.,' ?,quff vertically. Those valves are in fact mounted venically. Cereghino, Tr. 530. $,...$~.p/ Qs,.W.,.../ c,.,.. )C,'Gf. 0 ?..'ji,.
50. We fmd nothing in the testimony of Dr. Deutsch that contradicts any of J.
t>f ..a. the findings on Contention 10.5. A;9,.p#j. #"6.e s :r:r.. %.:,M. 9 5 , W. ..e m , rw v..<. 2
51. The entire hearing testimony of Applimts and Staff on Contention 10.5
't%.f.~,lij:g, C[';Ml';d.,h;P . O J..WWW-f r [Y.M.. ~ JM.rM.. a " is uncontroverted by Intervenor's testimony. We fmd Applicants' and Staff's 'Q[ testimony to be credible and persuasive. Their evidence addressed to the Board's lV,'Oc! W J 6. 6 '5'7.,7. %. E.',E..,f,<; O. t a. satisfaction the original contention's challenge as well as each of the litigible s ,7' *
IM i. i
%,@:'%%,e"'.JS.A ..Q7.,.a....e.s. j'ly @.d;6 '(s.,f mr issues identified in T II.1, supra. Thus we find that those models of ASCO valves proposed for safety-related applications,in the VEGP have been acceptably .g. s., p..!.. f W.n ".T.M,,g qualified envhenmentally and that all valves will be used in VEGP in a manner ,#' /.C; W
f., ",:'/3. '.M; y'g.'-:',".b'.
u .s compatible with the parameters of testing. Additional assurance of the adequacy of these valves will derive from an operational maintenance and surveillance .{Q'l~, 'Q'f., g 7.. q g,$ : p?:. y u.{ g[lg. program to be implemented by the Applicants. Accordingly, the Board finds pfj,g..[.g W e ?w.:- W / y @...t, W3 that Contention 10.5 is without merit and that Applicants have prevailed. ...../,. + i-l..,. y.s.- t w w.. ..*".j...,.....,.. v, f.u.. 'c.. a;.eV ;)e 5..,,s .; r.... e *.... t.. ~.. p, :.%w:;.7,, ny.'",.:3c p.,. ,. *.n...
l *. '. 7.
'a . r;' ?* s* -. -- P'.... X. V 4 ,y c.c QC.. Reopened Record ,2., i',t' ? 1 .n. o.3 f6 Q M ';'G YlI;f..,W Q)7,'i d
52. During its deliberations about this contention, the Board decided that UN.4. e. '...i,d..N. A.f. #
b certain matters seemed not to have been dispositively dealt with in the evidence N M.........',.2, W: M '7M.,. 4..- ;Fr of record. For this reason, by letter of October 24,1986, we apprised Applicants "J.. L h Jl.......
ty.,Q ;'.9^7M.M,..., e mo of our perceived need for additional information in affidavit form. In pertinent
e * %R

"
r%, u@../.;. =^ s,,,,.',.w.T,
..,'p.

.g,;r. 3 N. fn 3r.Y/ I..R.
..r. . I. part, our letter stated as follows: ./ 4 gj , !, u .= ..t. d.v. 4..,i i
h. ps-L -..b..,'el'. 8,7,3.,,$:.',Y., ?,
y n:Lms.3,.~.x...\\ h.,.r'T.fy.,,.;*g '.M., n. For each valve, the testimony gives the following results: .S j i r. t .n.. 6 p.%..4..,ty it: s.~;.,w,;w
' u...?
r n.. %Jp.MIf.D;.: '" ;<;z,Sg:l% .:.* m M,c c.is8 ~
Test Thermal Lag
. d,'2.;$,.l/,12!'.j;s d ;/2Y'S yf V Jve Temperature Analysis Testimony Comment {j NP.8316 346'F 345'F " Accepted by Staff" ' 93M :if,.;?:a Q,.@<l;%ic's'~,.'f.Z8))t)4Q o\\ v,:;. v. ? v...;'.,.o.v. ..:,.L.o., w... e, ?. i~.s s. Id. at 55 s h'.;W.. v@. s. il. u...
4. m...3 p;$.x..c.Q. eGfN.
..., c NP.8320 346*F 332'F "Signi6cantly tens" i,- 4'.h&), f.;ML ii. 8 ' al .;y4 A* N. W T @'.j' p,U,~Sg.. 1..jg,*.W Id. at 58
s.,
v (p h' C.. j gbG'n'.y -p NP.8321 346'F 332*F "Signincantly Below"
.4.'.,v.f.Qf'.?Njh)x
~~,* ?, j /d. at 57 ..h;i,c,'.; @. ' 'g. H].':., f',p, par.f,%yM.,pp'f,g ,/b.. .j* ! c .. s. w. r 'Ile Board is ses. king to determine whether the cited temperatures prcvide meaningful 7, ' margms that would provide con 6dence that these three valves have been satisfactorily jf.j ?y' /j,.g,'Q?j. <,[Q, 'd,4ryr$'*g?.j.5;**.j,1;,yf. ,(::3' '?.gr.jpg.g e*,, quah6ed. Additionally, ASCO geci6 cation sheets provided as Exhibit F to the cited J. testimony give " working fluid" and " ambient" temperature values against which we are
(6 g
N.$.k'!!k':,l' hgh.ca e,Q
'lj d @4 unable to judge the a,propnateness of test conditions. If, during sustained periods of
Y ' h.74 /.-
MM*b.d A e/ f ?..?N.g i *# Gy ? <t M,y 8* 'W;b,lcjI.Qkht 5'h. 9[ / . O m$y'M'g,t e r r.d .o;:MyaAlT.*N mp;.rf.t,f.%:.G.: Q r8 "%: 19
,, n...%~,.lc. w; < QV;7 9.,2 c
.q..h..j.g.$:.9. t
n. I w m ;.m,.
w ~ M,*i,h% :;. f,*,4.ype,?.'. . : q.. ;;... q ml.,.sw.:.. ,. 4.4 y-
. 4
-q*, ,+.F+*57.v'?y;. h..,,d v S*[q.s%..,,r - f e... .,q I,*s .' 1h.M.,. 9" a-g*' r n'# a
3
y.
.,y *p's [%g/h ; N # /h' g. k 'I C w%,e..q>, g @i.*w re.i lw. wwt.,n.w.~p.,y >?,wim.:n..s.e r.-ww.>ye P.h.u*w:y'N%i'f % i:.*.P".'A-M' 2'.Al.,t..$,.g.&. !'b)h,, G m. ..,. 3g := p.,... T. wg ry v i ..u-; ; s ee 7, w s p a I;,
h.,.
[. p 4. h: I _.m. . ' f. [.h [. .. m e. ?:
f 4
)
5 k'.
$ n. f fj d( Q @ m a.:fg? hll a$ $ 1 & f?kNwtq pu%mlQ$m Y hh ht. ib f 5?f,. Y,)f ?k $ h.5 h
h A w%9 M W + Q': d ??:kQ.i bf Q W WjM
%'Q.'M k nF..q.m. ny M.m. h+y:m-m,.:.s'.?m;r ".;,i:).m.;J y.n),*..w~ ,.~w..e,.n.wa .n. m s . w u.. -6,~m,u.. vL 'w..#y*'A*.. m .wu t y r n n . g t.. - ~
~ nn
~ "'r '.^**'on ( k,h M M N $ N k.% rte N .M.wewx m
b *yc
.h vG,.,'s -s. r a.n, + 'T.'.w:.rd..;w;s w,N- ~rp 9p .?..., s ,.W., Qf&'V5; s'1.,,,yl l.*hw.c.y!..s.c,f..g --r;*.. <. p.n.si,. ~ a *ay,-; q:.0 y
e.r hm

6"G.fI ' h,.7 1[.%W';N>'ty., j'jh.k: Q.H.P.ne.v,,, y ('/@;f'.M*y/ylY.h'.I.M!,h,N//!.'h,Y.kf**' Q rp normal operadon, the valves are subjeaed to temperatures signincandy in excess of ASCO's .~.j k;4 recommendations, would this compromise their abihty to function as required? More c k* J.$[$;y;.[M,N N',YM. ['5h~ .d. h informadan is needed before the Board can complete its evaluadon of Contendon 10.5. For 'Y'T)/iU7l,'gh.1%C8?.f I-I/'9 r(($ example, with respect to temperature margins, the precision or uncertainty of all cited I N Q '*i: y 'U:. temperatures is need d. With respect to the ASCO specificadon sheets. an explanation of g El$ 'O iW .-eo %n.fS h., condidons is also required. ' @.h.k:..h.,';C.h4-!'M' lf..h.-ly:':!.%/.;* %;? 'gi 4, 2,] why the specificadon ternperatures are considered to be compadble with VEGP temperatu e Wt he s %-;.;,, r!u-h..7.?;.:p. m m :: M!m(v,. s$/ ':/.:i.'.M.y.L..5,.Q'.?j.3' v.n.. p';* @,M.!. p.. d...y. M. u y.,.. Ms,a - (Citations above are to Applicants' testimony of record, Baenteli et al., (f. f j3 m.y ) M[5[.%2.M[.s.df.Ud[y,;dlpph.s.-M,@.]O'@M N,.F;c, .Me* Tr. 517, at 55-58.) M
$tf.5
$'kN.I.[7 l. The Applicants responded on October 30, 1986, with the affidavit of SJ. Cereghino and W.V. Cesarski, both of whom appeared before us during the hear. i,F D...Q. bin. I!l5,Tv,f..l.$.N..!!Q.@nn f.t. 4., M.,,,G9 ing. The nature of that response caused the Board, on November 6,1986, to issue 3 MN, . g;s.'.!,N@.S' an c'rder reopening the record for the limited purpose of allowing us to consider f y.g~ m.2 6 m. QWr...,Ndd'$h gg..,.
.m#,
o
M..;,y.

. t%g.g.
.n. e;:. qty u.. . formation contamed m. Apph. cants, reply, together with any other information in Nd.', M. i).hMfl$ Provided by the other parties in regard to Applicants' information. Subsequently, v..,, % y.).-l ,.'t. :.; W p Ji., f.. '. ~ h. ; l -.c reply affidavits were received from Dr. Howard Deutsch, representing GANE, .n. i,.t..a.. g,.p. t q.;l. dated November 24,1986; and from the Staff (A. Masciantonio), dated Novem. ,q h,'b.- C.c{:j' y f [q.~ p. @m4 y.p>;fl$,,y
.. f 1,.j ber 28,1986. Applicants responded to the Deutsch submittal with affidavits by M.; f. y ;".y;I,;.J y,j'7.' EJ M..,
q:.'.$ h;l. hold, Jr. (a former witness) on December 5,1986. After reviewing these mate. p p'. SJ. Cereghino and W.V. Cesarski and by Cereghino, Cesarski and George Bock- ..j[.of-M..j 'F.,!'.,.'. % '5 rials, the Board on December 8.,1986, issued an order closing the record. We ' ;J.'. T N ",I. E. N [ ','aj,y'i.,'
y?g admit each of the referenced affidavits into the evidentiary record. Ibr reasons n,6g K m.~,
.f,.1,.;?.- q :,.J j.',.. 'i reopened record merits altering our findings heretofore set forth regarding Con. ..t y... c.. ; discusied below, we decided that none of the information received into the . MG. J.+ ?'. c.s ,..., p.. g. y-o .c. ; . t, -. .o . sy tention 10.5. ?:g'.W.'.., 3,h..' ". nr,M.,s. ',..... .p D
53. The Board's inquiry of October 24,1986 (excerpted above) addresses Q,'M*.[,"%,
?yr". s $ M i p l' M VNl," W... s,.hi ?.i two areas of concern: the accuracy and adequacy of temperature margins .S. w,..f *,, 33,c..;."'4 y. Q (differeaces between qualification test temperatures and anticipated post accident 1." '99 : . c.,.. '. !<,;.R ';,1 temperatures at VEGP) for the three models of ASCO valves; and the matter of 'Q. Q 'j m,j,..g' - I.6,{ *, J. temperatures for these valves will be met at VEGP. In our order of November 'c;,' ', ;j $. " J. y j. ' 4 ; whether the manufacturer's specifications regarding ambient and working fluid Z.:.';(f;."....?, 7.. ' { ,.j, ^ .. if.. ' M.f m'" C.J'.'c'u..(.. 6,1986, reopening the record we stated that the second of these two areas does j [4;f;..%q. ^,,, p'.j.. L/@; /., 'j., p .w not involve a significant safety issue and it is not considered further. .. s r.J.. a,jjp S.,g.;... gr; :..,, q, ; ;.:'
g..,

54. llegarding the concern about temperature margins, in Applicants' re-
. s$ ". T ',f,. ~ ': X...~ sponse of October 30, 1986, the affiants stated that qualification test temper. i,','.A,*.@M? z/cJ' J(f '. 9 -; W.;,' '.' c . 9 ,e%.g c @M. M. 3..-.diFTI. eO.N;.hY.. %. i?. atures were measured by thermocouples capable of one degree accuracy and y, f - th:.t temperature profiles and the temperature computed by thermal lag analy. @,'g.,(W[. M "M. @ i!c d.h.U.I. 9 Q,;. W[..,. M.,-:.. 9 J i.g. h.,',;!.i.d',le.W.. m. f,, W sis were r.ot assigned uncertainty values because they are conservative upper. 'E. C 3. N/, bound values. October 28,1986 Affidavit of Cereghino and Cesarski, at 4,5, .a. h.pl'.'.c M;W./,,'.s/[.W. - S:
8. Affiants further stated that subsequent to the hearing a Vogt!c. specific post-
!.e.m p:. s.6.lJ.,M..;..W...D,..M,- e .ip j. j)@ accident temperature profile was derived using the methodology of Appendix
ev s.
+:m :., erw ;..,. J B to NUREG.0588. Id. at 3. This, they explain, yields a lower containment i .c$ o. +N.. 4.
/'n',.:
J ps.@m.aS..:.u.;.x~...+
m: -
. ~ :p., n yy 4.. { %; %.W. 'i s g,ly,,4.?;;1.v.s.,&,. s.v., a 9 s,. :..% p:.v. py. t g.s..,...o. r.... i.s:m+.e.. :,,o.,. i W, p.:t:< ..:.f.w.. w. .4 v., a, : 7,%mi..,.., v. 9,3 af>. M.%@h$f..' 5h$ h h%llh.hh MM N S . www wg;&w.u.g :m;;p<%j.;My. x3 w.h+q.q:.g;
n. py
,m,b@V.ff.Wm..j[i F u u, f*:rAN.cv 4..e+%p3d,A::fW! .W A ;* p .w,.9 o.a,. xM v s~ f& 4 t e.'
3,.
,...,.s.+- ~.v1 ..i.- ,A, bbb.$@h&jQ?.b';hk@, Y5Th.f[.h.;E >N , h. '.hh-.. hiWM M'MM{h. ry% b,pW, dh.? Mln' ).iN,,h;;)
FW.,c' *)..$ldl&.)?;Ql N r
MM MO. b $ @j.!M MWffffffhif fh 1$ $ b .G :.A, N fr I-?.%)%yn.ss. :nlh,.%.,.;;;V.W.u .kYh%:
q r..t;.lr %..C.,%..G.v.
='y,l.hx.
s * S.h..t ;*.:s ~.*f..,~lts.@
p s;).. '. o. y Mf y,.,l? [.,.. r ..'
E'f-
.p n... f l. W. "*-V s'? .M.fjlld.lU,[:.?' W,,0/(th f s,
Y' C, a. % s -
Y* Q #f !.hg*;/cfDQ')Y'.%[.1- @ a r.. l temperature profile than was cited in the hearing testimony wherein that tem-
'EMhCh[.
N .$Ml@h.Q.f,) perature profile was based upon a generic Westinghouse analysis. From this, .'.j;:N' / Nf.h.M Mlr li.1*.h%'.ip j E Applicants concluded that all three valve types will operate, under worst condi- -! G l<.'A!,U.9*..! 9, tions, at temperatures at least 20*F lower than the qualification test temperatures f2'.3D:'C.Il%[.Wlh*h,D.@.
f. ~r
'd to which they were subjected, in comparison with the margin affiants state is ',-$h,2.,h*l .) h:kh. recommended by IEEE Standard 323-1974, namely,15'F. Id., passim. r@MSf9.WN: [.Mf;D.%k$[M.P Nl1*c/i f
55. In its No.' ember 28, 1986 submittal, Staff's affiant A. Masciantonio
'J,.s h,g,5; .9dI,:q.'yGl,.D.8' i:r/G'.J l (also a hearing witness) stated that adequate temperature margins in excess of the IEEE recommendation (accepted by Staff) exist for all valves and detailed M",.WJQ.Q.,/.Q,9;,. p@,,,] the situation for each of the three valves. With respect to valve model NP-3 p.. mT. W,,,s. :.hm.uW. 3 A.,....o) s;T. W 8316, Staff stated that the l'F margin in the Board's October 24,1986 letter 4 represented an i'icorrect interpretation of the hearing record. Staff explam.ed
li{qf.gk4-[,,,,%y.f'l]'Q.'f

.p:9
., f(.w. g/dyg., a..y.;,:J
i f
,,Id. why, when properly determined from hearing testimony, the margin (inside the f f 1 l"d $ $ ';,}.y[J',.fc !;. g '. ; M,e e, i. g * ~. c*J p :.t.'VQ co'2tainment) for that valve would be 48'F. As noted earlier (511.30, supra) no W'kUf2,h@d@Q A model NP-8316 located near a main steam line isolatic,r valve (MSIV) outside j k',.
';hr,.fcWp.4M f,i U.lC,$
,Y. gV r:1: of tne containment is called upon to perform a safety-related function. Regarding valve model NP-8320, the Staff explained its conclusion that the temperature . h.. M.M... 'O... ,[J '.'.; O%,..(['f'@a.Ni M. [.MP.9J$k'm..,M,-l7 margin is 21*F for its outside-cort.ainment, MSIV area location. This is based g5 MT.y p,N a l,.h.W,.'., $......[.D.MB.. '.'t.1. # upon a post-hearing assessment by Applicants (approved by Staff) that the i temperatu e to be encountered will be 399'F versus the qualification temperature J., a % J, ifM,gl'/.lc,'.Q.- $,}:Qo;' ' y,f,' y $ r %( M f*M,,.: ?.. D ",.1 of 420*F. Staff's review and approval of the analysis leading to this expected ,i 4 UJ 399 F temperature will be reported in a subsequent SER Supplement. For the (c . ;Yl, /. '.N;$,.1 %DOV;W[T@.iEJO'.y?UI.,f dO model NP-8321 valve, located outside containment in an MSIV area, Staff relied
p. Mf.N 2,, d Q fjfh
[W. t' W' 8 '1
h,'.T*'W9.. j upon its acceptance, noted in BN 86-19, of Applicants' thermal lag analysis W f *.* .%,.
,$.f.h[5.hhI.-[ showing a worst-case maximum valve surface temperature of 326'F. When d t compared with the qualification test temperature of 346'F the margin was shown h..Ws @a,,/..v. /: QA.,'.t$w,.: f.,>#'o .m#,.i..."'N. 7 9 .. c:., ?. to be 20*F. All of these margins are greater than the Staff-accepted margin of . a:, e+ c 2'h., ,... e r.W.% @}.R;4.g...b,. 3 w.s.. M.. 15*F recommended in IEEE Standard 323-1974. Having not yet reviewed the 'f,;.;rt*%,;* 9i9.qir.I."(ly,;p$r..' 79.c,l,W. -.h'y,y.h.';4[h Vogtle-specific downward-revised containment temperature profile provided by [.O,[.$'.DMp[N.y@/.4 f.Q,. 9. Applicants' submittal (noted above), Staff neither accepted nor rejected it but d
j held it to be unnecessary to its conclusion that the valves in question have been lEy,Q MM properly qualified. Staff advised that this revised profile will be reviewed but S.M..$e.4.,.%.. N..e.> ;d%.. J..
the results will not be available prior to license issuance. November 25, 1986 s J .u O,Q. '.y.r @.M,h'Q d W. j $ N l d t i. N$((.7$@$$y.M affidavit of A. Masciantonio, passim. , !.f?:,'.lM,f. l$r
YsfQ',
l'.K '
56. The November 24, 1986 affidavit of Dr. Deutsch, a hearing witness, M.. J;f.4,Jdf. f.Q.$l5%
addressed several matters: 5 (a) Board Notification BN 86-18 and BN 86-19; j $.,.3...h.j.?gt,;.,.W..,. i.. y.W.'t D.. 1 (b) Several IE Information Notices; f4..p. n wW.. G g.4,.dju.j,V. :v.:,.n.,.v' 3 (c) Safety-related versus important-to-safety considerations; -c:.. q/ 1 s .ygp$ -d; g.3: $r,... g ' jf.gfk$@p'j? ,'Qy['4%yyd (d) A report " Impacts of Budget Cuts on NRC's Ability to Assure EM,((M k" M+.J.l..!h :d d d f.e Safety," Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director of Operations, dated W". L..,i.r5..p. a,p'/$:pd,gl6'*%, 4.*[W4 April 30,1986 (subsequently designated EDO report); and, -v ?. .. p: Jha'..;9;$,Q 'w ;l9.)
'.,#.?.
r v. 1.pf.p' !. , % 4 &. 3. ;A'.m%,>rl.W.,;%v.:,g::'k E'. Q Q 3*3-s t. j OqM 4.n.4.p,;, - p..y.,y..,.. 2, g.,,3.,.y.3,.g 93,g M,b.r;%.@..v.nd..h.,9,. . u.,, ;#.s w. l>lwgge*;,pi. rg,tg% c.~ta., 1-..
.. a v
,y -n... p..;,g,...,.:4,.siis q ,m,g.s r 's :;. h g,, j g v t s.m,.r,..7.. 4 .. g....,.7,3,. a.,Y w:W,M,..ypWe g.~.f<,, g' y*e. ;.rd,. 6.g.$f. h
e h
1 o% ltr,,V:-w"gn%..'#g,eM(f +.M.I ' o. . f; 3 w y A;. n.g -:< tp .wwf a i,.,. .s.g,,,.,,.,... ,o ,._..A. .....r. .v
\\ c,. h.Q:Q &hY.;,,:::q., * ... f.i a.%.;.&: &. ~
l.2. M i.'.y.a.b.1.g(b.%;pyjd ' M'Wl$;;;,i.bd.M q
9 p}W N;;v;p., p,y &,k @ %..)5*
z. p,a.. p.. :.-
y,p:Q.w),.4. >9.n;*.,q;.c..,e.<..p.e:.n~n. e.+n.s.g"2.n..:n-2.p v:..&
a. #..

v. 9 kn
,'s.&>y5,%q:cn.e*&./:v,Th,w:..a ;f,f.g..>Q.g.4'.n.:.* n",.w.+. g.
e..
* #n e~. v~.
v..# ~v ...e. 7~p~. 6~ '. ~ "; o %.t. ' " ~ ' '"*~ ~
w. a w$;.
... n 1 v% s . q:*T y.p2 %c %. r :~y.9, .. A..v.y/,pN- &,9;&%'?&' jW %.W$;;'&m.f: 4. w.. ) s i
.u q % 3 M. g.,y.? ?15, 4 % W
~y,ff.y >. p"'.?,y,.W<%...Un i.fw.*&. wr :,b,.6) e r.,{a.v.. .Q*f v'e.%S.W %.s. 4..a e.p.. y%'. :..c,/ y re.7.,, + v. u. w %..
e e,%n
..~ a I %Jt. v.N. c..:wc.i.,
, d.. m.
.'$y'M;4.G.p.m,. 3:$ml.yNSDa.. ,..,a..>q.n-1 9 iN n%. f$ (e) Precision and uncertainty of temperatures. W. ;%g'Mk.Qsh."rpl;fRM hh;h"M..kN. +c .i These are summarized seriatim. N j (a) Dr. Deutsch's observations regarding the two Board Notifications hk/ M$p;NfM, C$ expressed concern about Staff's acceptance of Applicants' resolution P,MYeQ5Mi@MMdp@$9 Ai M S;. of the matters raised by Staff in BN 8618. Deutsch then reviewed %fN.MCy@plf2?L'NAhY Sip.!M3. 6 stated that based on these results (we assume this to include the two the anomalous behavior of certain of these valves during testing. He M Y h Mj'M.h. h;h;W['d hh' $:k i Board Notihcations as well as the test behavior anomalies) he "would M @k.I,ih h h k
N d'h' j not conclude with great certainty that the valves were fully qualified M.y.M:q'A)'p'MU;d%Ni.i.,$.f.th:
cMlO.. d to 346*F." November 24,1986 Affidavit of Howard Deutsch, at 1-4 3 fgpM cC (b) Several IE Information Notices relating to problems with ASCO NN k'Nhh[.;h,[.h;ytW.1, .i..p.), 9 ;@ %. O M G, k'?.,'Q.;. O. W. TJ d.. valve field use were identi6ed and related to specific conditions of W R-tg%,9.1 MW;W ?..
Q,$
usage. The Board was requested to find these valves to be unsuitable l t for use under either normal or accident conditions. Id. at 4-5. I i /)/W:.. ' W..,..... ~,M,.Mf;N.-{ (c) Dr. Deutsch expressed concern that Applicants have not given ap- .U M'n W[if!.W,i,,'YN3@.M $.,'X,;;l@f[lfQ ,M.Q;eiZ1 Y W h b.f,y TW. 'h propriate consideration to the applicable standard of "important to safety," presumably with respect to where and how the ASCO valves ,,T.S.)hN*,NIMM,%'kcM*@f are to be deployed in the VEGP. Id. at 5-6. N L;7. ?..dr[yk.MU6.;[s #l.yj (d) The EDO report was cited for two propositions: that anticipated l;Q.U[Q;[Q.YlW.G;^NlM;d; J ;... MiMi ,y budget cuts leave the future performance of equipment in a TMI-i,'.,i; M.' i ' /.I.M 2 type of event significantly more uncertain and increases the risk f, 3 [. / M.7, 'l'. 7f. ".T '.. $3'7..';/; o*;J;. E'/d 'h' W' to the public; and that such budget cuts place in question the ':. 'j 4,*J,
,i 5, S
. fhTCl..; MM, j.? t.*I*..M..' @;A g,.- temperature profile specific to Vogtle. Deutsch stated that the EDO . (. Q,. analytical approach used to compute the in-containment post-accident 3< ...q. 7 . >/MT jQr report represents important infomation, new in the sense that it was L7% MM M@p,y,lkWQ g] /4].ml: fy
I not distributed to the parties and to the Board. Id. at 6-7.
3.3;,J.RJ. Q'Mii.P. '.9[ q;h 'lJ;:l. * /.1 (e) Finally, Dr. Deutsch characterized Applicants' response to the Board's
,V." J.?dy?.).f./'c.p$$p% d%-]
question about temperature precision and uncertainty as inadequate ll 1;,7,.j oW.M.;y,",j.Np @**?.?], .'My and stated that the Staff found the methodology used to compute i$,.F.")Q,.l:M,C'. temperature pro 61es to be inadequate. He requested that the Board $'. M.ei.'.%.% f,p "dM defer the granting of an operating license until such inarlequacies are l,9 %,Uri.%l AM'tp #f fy E' y S y;J.,f*. .NN'.,%M. M A.'. W resolved. Id. at 7-8. ,' M '
57. In one of its affidavits of December 5,1986, responding to the Deutsch i
2%@:%M;;4. lC.:n'i.3 h A M f M; / S y af6 davit, Applicants' affiants Cereghino and Cesarski addressed only the Q'N}LN4$%.76;% O. &(?.J'
'!.rf'./lmd WR d..M,; ?.A m.#a.@.M...Un.,.
,SW. cg.. p Deutsch discussion of the EDO report. From their examination of the EDO re-4 x :.7. m. i '".y.' port and the Deutsch affidavit, affiants explained the reasons why they found no i e MMD()J:,i basis to change their conclusion that the valves have been properly qualified. Ap- ) M d M.hD. i,i/4lf$2]M.E'Cy.N@'Mj%'Q,Dc*3 plicants submitted a separate affidavit of Cereghino, Cesarski, and Bockhold in .y' c. / $.ph,,f,. @_... ~ o..t.1 ? d. % Q... X.$., W, case the Board construed Dr. Deutsch's affidavit as a motion to reopen the i ..4 ..r ...Q,w[fW,.[d &d record further. Applicants stated that this af6 davit demonstrates Deutsch's com- ? q.d.,.0$.,.>.v w.v,w[)4C..e,m.&.ry..wrd2.. wh. ments to be untimely and la: king in signi6 cant safety issues that would affect c:%. 4 *p $ p,!.?!. h .*,G[7. h h" 6. .~ n...::M.b N'* mt. fh k'*
l
?. '. * ' ' * * ..J lp. *%. t d:?Q;, Q. s).M'..[{t - s.p@,,)8. '..0;jE. V.C R&lh'/;#Md 2 ? V p 9 .c I' QWf,7/ oM'4 %%.esM; s 925 7 i , b.W'h.+Y. bf-k'h,..n ~, n. :.s.?.$*e(. ?.N * ?i . ~ e ...m
m.,
.w.. m'. 's $,...l., m,..._,k.'.t u',w..rs. %.9.gg'g.. $.g. p. g 0
' *'*W t t e .hm:sz w. m.: %..<;.i. a.a m. u. m*e. z.
c..n. (. c. x N, ~ h
,'~4.1, P. n e.;~. W tsA j. r.?..*.y'A.. .x.. .. t: y* M., r - .o <.. ;=. * ?. s.r: Mu.,m.,p: c :v h,.*;. .u r 4.,a .~r.:;J. <t 4 .,W : ~... m, w . " a p, f.g. s 7: r.. t;, 3.t es .u
v -<., a%y ;~

.: !w:.%. :.;y.'s.?.M<
g;a im N ;$.'.gybb.h:w; k'i.'.)..'h.h the outcome of the proceeding. Applicants' Response to Affidavit of Howard hhN.i. M.- l4NcD
5. W @W.. T4.W.b$ a d'.f.Mj,7[.i,*J4 b'D. d M. Deutsch, December 5,1986, at 4-5.
/IN.f.d,Y';/.g h 4 ..)e :
.r %
r s,.. p.'W.* <gi, M.l'k.#6,Wlh 4-dth.>f
58. The Board now addresses each of the above filings. Applicants' re-t r
tion test temperatures were measured using thermocouples that are expected to ]li:,*['g; %:Q.{.l, M y, sponse to our inquiry about temperature uncertainties established that qualifica- ,..,;.&,.,".;;. h ;rt te. p.v...if.C weg:lU. ; be accurate to l'F. The temperatures derived from thermal lag and temperature ,., c.
e,.. rg (,g,@p.,..
s. a ... f.g g,Q.lw g g"Q,'g.*ff;.y,%g p,df profile aralyses represent conservative upper-bound values to which Applicants gl$y; pl3lfv7W,p.i g.p Qff;y g,y<,J,",,'. did not assign errors. This information satisfies the Board's uncertainty about g,I.,;,'pf. l.3 f, Q T.k,2. $. N.g p the credibility of the temperature margins stated in Applicants' hearing testi- ,. (;; i '^ mony. The post-hearing analysis of a Vogtle-specific post-accident containment ~ .f;I.y;. !?; M 5 7.5. Q W l;l y'd d;. temprature profile leads Applicants to conclude that ASCO valves within the !. h.l. *p.g.?.!,[g.y)l/ Q,','+@.I Vogle containment will experience lower temperatures and hence higher margins (",",.- @,,o G.. W.4.v.gS/ II,L. $/ than were reported during the hearing, where the expected post-accident con-L Wlm.Q' g/d 5:g tainment temperature was based upon a Westinghouse generic analysis. From 7,4,;c7 g.g ?/pf9?3ly'.' $ this we may take increased confidence that satisfactory margins will exist, even
2.,,'., M,
!/:(- .,J .n' ,a f3 though (as noted below) the Staff has not yet had the opportunity to review the p Up~.t.,l.'i.,WM, tllJf.WJ/'.p y Vogtle-specific containment temperature analysis. For those valves performing
r.. g(vg.gl yl: ;dW..2 t!;.
3 safety-related functions outside of containment and near MSIVs,' Applicants' ya .-....%.a post hearing analysis for Vogtle shows an expected temperature of 399 F com-7 rN.$,Vp
'3 h;$ ;Cd' W 1.. M C!
l pared with a qualification test temperature of 420"F. Thus the Board is sati!fied M :;h6 'Z 6.- $[h,':, ij .z that all margins will emed the IEEE recommendation of 15'F. 3'5P' IN*d'. M i
59. Having reviewed the hearing record and the Staff's response to the f$:@M @;.df.M'L.,h.'*
Board's inquiry, we now are satisfied that we indeed ened in that inquiry where ,f(.j$,h.N',%?[/G'k.Mh f[' pyg,fr@;%jy,;@ 6 with respect to valve niodel NP-8316 we compared a test temperature of 346*F "gg,. *! Qi y, with a thermal lag temperature of 345'F ($ II.51, supra). Staff explained that c;;Tj; the appropriate margin for this valve is 48'F, based upon Applicants' hearing Eg.fGy.'. ':8 ". @'T. y' testimony that showed an expected Vogtle peak temperature of 352 F and a test ,g<. /..y,M..&.@%,l,'.f.RW F.n n exposure temperature of 400'F. We are convinced of its correctness. Similarly, 4 o gy2.gp..u. 7 c V.a @4 'f.W.x~v%# we concur in Staff's acceptance of Applicants' analysis of a 399'F temperature 5d.i W u fM~ 4 M* % A value in the MSIV ama outside of the Vogtle containment leading n a ll'F N h. p'g gG/f'?8@j,;Q Q Q @y $ g..(f Q,'iA margin assigned to val. : model NP-8220 for which the environmenta'. qualifica- %(W]. Ij;[h@,g tion test temperature.gs 420 F, Although not yet having reviewed Applicants' 6, 5f t,i, 9 .: 0 Vogtle-specific contuament post-accident temperature profile, Staff pointed to %dl.', / f'I {,, the hearing recoid to show that without taking credit for the lowered Vogtle-
3,',J '.y.$2
& M,$,ig/ R 0 specific containment temperature profile, the model NP-8321 valve will have a %y%'/$s!)k$$l$EhM$yqPfj d%Q'MMPQf. margin of 20'F versus the IEEE-recommended margin of 15'F. For these rea- $t iU?p sons we are convinced by Staff that our concerns about the size of temperature . $a,$,'#md 72 ~ b., l.3.;$,g$,.,$,..f[c margins for the three valves identified in our inquiry are without foundation. ? d@,,.y yM3 7
60. Items (a) through (e) of the Deutsch affidavit (identified at i11.55, supra)
.7 ~4IQ'fic.h '!;M @ $.&. 5sY;h,$ S ).%1 are now discussed. In his treatment of (a) involving Board Notifications BN 86- $. 5M 2.s p... o $a g,D%p.; 18 and BN 86-19, we find no probative evidence as to why the Staff should not .+ ..,g have accepted as it did Applicants' response to the Staff's inquiry contained in -p. i s,':W' ; M&. % Wy..kg;N'y g:Wy kyd.%' ;MM .;6 MW My':;y t'. sM. A - - Q.. ... N .t.;<. 1 c :L q; kJ. u!. - '.gW p. a qm.rmu:. $m %, p. R + M w, % g x.f. & % W w 2 g.y; 5 _. -.,. 5 ..n'. _,._,n, ,e n T .~ I L
., r l.h s '. * ' ^.,.,l, )r 2 ^ > o, .% + -. o ..s -,6*,... f. *;^ * * ' r < ~. s .3 o' n ?. &a pv.,r #., % a ol5 5 ~ 3 4,. 'ww9&r*m ' d & % a % "..~ ",~,~,' n.m.,.e:X,s..w.%.:,m ,w... w. f.~.e@d 3,y.,y hN v. .s .h,b. gc k.n.,s M., 4... h. ..-.h.3omA, hfI$.Ikh,. '.. d.!. -i - g,. W .%.,.fq.. e.42 s m....p;: gy. .m ~: a
! w..o.,i,es.a W;. a.z,. w.a.c.
. c n.,c. a. . t. ..m. o,,.y,. N. m.,.w%.4... yQ.,.y.$ V:w.; y...v y... ; .1.. u.y. 'ra ,4wy w?w ... w ;. w en ..o @:ld.s.[c..a.v,r2%f.4'b BN 86-18? (See our discussion of these extra-record notifications in our Intro. .e M%;$m[.S$il"l$.. n .m. r.,,,. .v.. 7,. ' W $ $ / M Q ; % ' @ s 7p a'Y q duction, pp. 902-04.) Deutsch's review of the anomalous behavior of certain M.!['5 M Is h.'h k ;. h M Q [f,..f,. Q.. g.h b'dl),#@.' NN@ of the valves adds nothing because cach instance of an anomalous behavior .h'iNfMi'5Y?; ?iN has been explicitly disposed of in previous findings dealing with the hearing W/R m l fp.j record. Hence we do not accept Deutsch's indefmite negative cor.clusion about 'ft f,y,R.;y m.~,., w.'. F y.7).}>? ;T. 4,.g.u.. ?.a. 6. A.f.;d,g..d,i 'JM.3 :y%y...,. B.,, 4 s. ,. tjy .c ;.m.?' valve qualification, further noting that, contrary to his statement, qualifications at . -v. s... n4 6QT.W$.'.%'r!,(f@khly$y.Q +
4 temperatures other than 346'F also appear in the hearing testimony. Regarding
[g.k,kkMfD'/,J: hhhI W@$d Prior IE Information Notices - item (b) - all such notices cited by Deutsch
4..,.y i;;.f.'.i. ;p,g.,y ;,7.;.
%w g.....@. v.,;.o ,b.*J.4. ?!,pe. f... rv,..,. ~., ".'iS. i...W ' !r.i.y.4 M comprise matten outside of the scope of Contention 10.5, since they do not re. y .g w relate to conditions of usage and maintenance at other nucicar Leilities. They ,aW J ,...,w 2 nm ~ hQN;f;a. Qgn late to environmental qualiScation testing. Item (c) relates to whether Applicants lN,0.as:f y,y Q W. l/. Yh.; {W.6,.i. !?M[h$k@.$$($j NJT have taken proper cognizance ofitems that are important to safety but not nec. $5%e. g,,h MM if%) .f., essarily safety-related. The contention as filed and litigated has been concerned NS(M;Nhi f5: with qualification of the valves to perform safety.related functions. Now Inter. M ..y 'Q #,;d,tp,,.#,e., 2. 4..w f.x....9 - U7. %e venor seeks to mtroduce a new matter not previously identified as part of the -. 9'L.. J ' w 9 @;s,{e t..:.) M(;U.? f ? y e g.r.C.5,,ff,.,.<T. m'L ..s:J litigited contention. We deem it to be outside of the scope of Contention 10.5 T,W M M,M, and it cannot be given further consideration in litigating this matter. Item (d) 9 /
. 'IfL, involves the EDO report on the anticipated impacts of budget cuts, which report pn

.9
. f/. Q,. T t..S.h;7lJR..Mdv, N. d@.M $"/ [ T. G :y; h %.j h;
a N
we have reviewed, it having been submitted as an exhibit to one of the affidavits of December 5,1986. The two excerpts from the EDO report quoted by Deutsch @763/;. hQlJ..C 4.G['g[,c "..;.'y;.U;,'[;; !c,,- jM '.% do not deal with existing regulation.but with future research that would provide NJW l the basis for revisions to the rules and regulatory guides. They do not pertain dG@.l:7W. T, d., "f 6dNp to anything that would specifically question environmental qualification of the N,Gi 'd[i. CC(4:;..N Q[di[gf? G,7.TJ ASCO solenoid valves at VEGP. They are generic and conclusional in nature
' [. '.j,0.,,,..Elyd s L and we perceive in them no basis to challenge the adequacy of the qualification T,'"....i.9..,j '.4.6. M..#.,i s, W
.f.<i.' $.../., test program results. Finally, regarding item (e)- precision and uncertainty of
r.. T,i Me (.. : i.
temperatures - Deutsch faults Applicants' response as not being dispositive of ,.~ n l,,'?,v$N;,,.Q.%.M:)W,,Wl.fT[GR,9... [i.f,uf. the Board's concern. He stated that it is not sufficient to say the thermocouples . M k i,' 5. 4p ;, ';. ;'a i. 9..,,?. 9..l.. .C. '/.' used to measure test temperatures are capable of an accuracy of l'F. This is 4.h',1 s
0 U.f.; ;.. g.c a mere assertion without support and we give no credence to Deutsch's chul.
.j h, q p.,. *. 4'2 e y,. s M'. Q.y */ J' O S,'..!~1'.~;h.[,.e.kiC ) lenge. In addition, Deutsch stated that the Staff has found the methodology used .. vv.g.7,;.6 &. g..:l0.N' y ;f.}' - j, f..y M.J to compute temperature profiles to be inadequate. We have looked for and found ~., ; y no such assessment by the Staff. Again we give no credence to this statement . J... s..,3 v."o.y..>, d, y. N.~r..'i, x, w '" 1;.
t by Deutsch. Nothing in the Deutsch affidavit led the Board to construe it as a m q/... p,.
. W.. ~ m, - n."a.,4.. M,.,,.,4 ..,,. g@,.; %a..n g.U M...,.1. W$. s. 7 M.,@e,,.. would have had to comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.734, and, if i...'.% :',. .,(, r/. 9..,,3 motion to reopen the record. If it were Intervenor's intention to do so, Intervenor e s / , %pg,;., , y. e.w. v s p ~ .;{,,'f.ifQ[.y. c <r d 4,'lf.'k' b *lY[ N. fi *. M' ' r. I'b, 'i.l[].;,,,r p'd O.,g .h;.A' '* 3/' $.'i73.*.'j M" +.Ih-2.-# )','.bf. Applicants, to sLaff's seusfacuer. provided main steam.line break temperature pir41es calculated for the locations $(. 3 .. M
j. '.
in the MsIV area and performed a thermallag analysis to demanstrate that the surface temperature of AsCo My)Ifh[*. D f,.y",;(' P.,,f'. @ ' ff, N. , Y il,', i ji f g.'/ i. J y!Q
K..l X.+ ;*f.i" ',.;M* (
staff-accepted quar 5cauan temperature for the valve. The staff revsewed the methodology used in calculaung the valve model NP.8321 exposed to the calculated condiuans was wutun the surface temperature enveloped by the k '.'M(. ",?..-Q[M * 'd lI..',T(r'! 4(.1,,C.Q'l f ,1, p.9 Vogtle spectfc environmental condtuans resulung from a main steam Ime break in the MsfV area and found it /*l? , ~h ..c, mlG W 6.;A,f.v[;, N Y **'.T[p @.[.'.? , 9 :.;aj ^
.er.f.C c
J to answer the quesuens staff raised. n.[;,'*,'f.;'? W.,Q. t.i $.. '.7.* % e %.. Wr.e, r(
pb:.
5 i;,;;Q: .. 9 v.e,.L..9., J, '.,u... ( 9.*"'.?.t.%j;,l *{ ' '[. wJ* . +.x ,,..,.n.,....s n s.. '.'s%13:w;;. p.w,,,5..r. >,r. Op!..., g;.;M 9,7 <;M.: 6 .F.:.f'h9. WNb.7, f. ~x.%.*,cch,.Kg y.-
2 v,., u: r. G.L..
9n f~... x.:.., g - a.m /t s .y... : s..' n.7 y - Q. d.y.. g. ~,a+. J.g. Efr,.S. 7'.,' W v... w... q & p w,*;g,r?i.,?,'4l.'t. . F :.,.. e. r m .. *... w-sy,.s h 5*. r. yaws -A'Esspwgfch*.g r h %"Q{Q'?f';# y ?Q* *!$th ff'"Y?p' 'S 'm".'kk#h.heeq,pp'$'*
h hmewq?'.n* ;.
e/wipm%48 ? ec h ? i a..sa,d. n..;c n.. ~. =., - . ~n. s
./- e ,.n x.. ~x r .,.h2 D $ N O.~'h.Z W.WU. ??$. :.. 0'[..Gik'.C:h lW/-f;y.'$;nt.$..ig :h2.bC00.8,,0@%l;m i h t .:. w m m m.
.w:?yy.%s:=y#:t.c. c.ww%M)p;^n$np fi;c@;.%;w;@w,G ren,Cm::q &&. :.t p:?+?' y.m.m.Q w: n m
.w.w .v Q+y j%mjk. t. MWam n 4gapw.0%p.W ,17'h; ;&.;J, i.gr,%y,4p.yqw$'.WP;y.h. m.,+,W,.g9 : n,^.pi:.;i[?: W$$y;$,rm.~ }h;@p. 1%g{}l .igp. i i .? y ff k .D.$$.* $$h f N b$.!hb i. V.., f c.pfMf.$a%v., a.,.w,yg uw .1 .. p e - r.76.,*3.s,, m.,v. q..,f 7.jf. /W.y.M1 n.: m. y:;7,;. u.r r..y'*g .t.^.,y.e..., p.4~"f,,.. m. .e ~. .r ..fm. e,g . w :3,.r. r .,...g. m... d s , n. s > q.,, t.y,., ,4,q
7.. w.
.c.,. a... 3.w..s.Wv.. s:C,,.f ;;s. y:::u. . /4.. ;.;4., w;y ' c.......g.. .. a :..i.f,%. 'i.:%... g 7 cp -p M '.$. 3:gX. F @. 7l %... W f: *. the affidavit were intended to justify any late-filed contentions, Intervenor would g f.p.J.d /i.....a-'f;f p,@.1 .u f.y.f, ..g@Qy;.'#.Q{.,;g::;; '% have had to comply with additional applicable regulations. No such action was {.l.{.;f g[t,'3.p,"(.$,,.f.*.;.r.):;f;lp!';!' QC;; taken. We found it unnecessary to review the Cereghino., Cesarski, and Bockhold f !l.: l$.!f affidavit. No basis was provided for the Board to inquire further. ',!(pk't.N.*jlf.'d.[$lQ.l.MJ r lM.' N.d
61. Having reviewed all of the foregoing materials occasioned by our iS,py,@/.b>u;m7',$'df#.Q]A
, nr..y '.
.r reopening the record, the Board fmds as follows:
M, g. 9.g#.,..-M..G. y ['w.f;.W/. 7.f s. <., f.:. - The affidavits of Applicants and Staff convince us that temperature n- .,p.p,22.y;jf,p/, . j.7,,.l. :. margins and uncertainties are acceptable and appropriate; l :.",,Ht,.,fE'.:l.4fl:/.l.,M,... f.{'.N., - The Deutsch affidavit is devoid of probative evidence that contravenes ,1 the information supplied by Applicants and Staff in response to our (c,M. ' ' g ' :.S.. su..,. .M. F,. ;, f. ;,..;, a.n. l,9..s, a s inquiry. . e.....?..'.,k,...9 r, A,C.3. ',1, i. ;,.r. y.&w.
3. m
(* 'y,., S..c A.,? l. !, '.',' M...m.Mr~ N W d)f(,,]. .e..,., 6. 9a The Board concludes that none of the information supplied as the result G w f> '... g.,,.@f 'ja s.,fh.g t r of reopening the record merits altering any of our previous findings regarding 4 ~ >.'cl.M..l C $. j M.',R l M t.,~ ~; Contention 10.5. t, +g: 9.i ., ;v. .;... e ~ r,, e,....,... ; *' r.., ;
4. y% ;M. a 7.s
.; k e.;: ....g...... . t., ) W
r '*. - 2h,,l 1
,,.;! *p., %.

.M.ps;,
'd J.' h.. ? ?. T,UU . f 0, .,.. ~ o.o... m.. : <..,.. "., ~ +.. Conclus. ion s, .g m
4 N. D.,N. !h. 5 !.T.. 4. u #. 7.da i,"q.>4,*r v.f

m...;
.l,..
J W. y,4
62. Applicants have assured that those models of ASCO valves to be em-
['.. J. j$.,G..,.,.... '..V...F. ; +.. 2 c' ployed at VEGP in safety-related functions are environmentally qualified. Con. h(;). h. T,..>.7
r..y?.~: M. :*.. -
. s.~ ., v". m.. tention 10.5 is without merit. 4 u ( c,m t;;2; sq.% o. ' ;.s 1 5 h2yh.. .d[f,,.yy;).v,.s* N'.(. v. .c III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW t.3.'O. '.fr. )* L 9,.W.. N.. :., l '.?.,X.. Q.?. ,,., ".., W.+.1 r.'. i c.. 3 ...,',.M. i.M*'i Based upon review of the entire record in this proceeding including the y 9 OCI N,?,M.. ?'?;.'.../J7.', M...~f lir Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the partial initial decision M.:,%'idf Up!U@N;':%p,Y.hp of August 27,1986, the Board concludes that 8: )$ 9$l FEM'ilI c!' 5 [lTMlE,M:.%:y%@C,?@ 1. As to the contentions addressed in the proceeding, that there is reasonable assurance that, if operating licenses are granted to Applicants, that the activities Q 4 8 . M '. M h h hl';d.7 P N / authorized thereby can be conducted without endangering the health or safety yf,# ;.!yj of the public, will not be inimical to the common defense and security, and will 0 F. M... u.. . s#.t. M ;7 v.".M@y. T.k. '..@eQ.R,M.,E,
f,. ?
be conducted in compliance with applicable NRC regulations; v t c .J$. M.2, ?: 'e. 'W s ff, k%l'n'(,g;.fM[,".}y','j"5 K, 2. As a condition precedent to the issuance of any operating licenses to y
.,9 the Applicants, it first must be determined by appropriate authority that the
%j.{T.E M.'ij.i.$[],. (k.*lj. .QrC9 =
j changed information contained in Applicants' letter of September 18,1986, to f[$
Q the Appeal and Licensing Boards, pertaining to XLPO insulation that contains D 7,W W 'J N.V /iT $*5 vinyl acetate, does not lead to a conclusion inconsistent with that of this Board hc,$',hhN;yM,y'/.Q'.j Qgf'$.N.$. k.~fyp.'j/j,y'yQ,[h on Contention 10.1. That conclusion is that Applicants have provir.cd adequate assurance that certain polymer materials to be employed in components of the @ 7;.0 [, Q. M Q[ j/U .dh 3!t' L'E.;f; hy;.$MUf, VEGP that perform safety-related functions are environmentally qualified. 3. As authorized by 10 C.F.R. Es 2.760(a) and 50.57 and consistent with the $:;.$;h.. "<;Mf 7.7/U;j'P $$.,;;x';.%$.. condition in 5 2, above, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized r?.? :. M;: % w..?. W.i.s:; :s g:. g... V,)c';'x.'..cf.b;.,f,. Q,;'q;. :+.?*,'y, 9?...ci a.., - :e
wn'm. ',, i t
i ,*. Q er *:..f6.,l4 /4# g'es l. s..p *, ',.,..,,. y . ;.Q.q.f.*
g A..
W o. s ..,.;. u!..f j... G. *Rl f.'..,.i,. f4 's ..,, 4. D.,.;'r. &.q&. &. >.${.s',k.th f' 9gg ls.
s
z. wyl'l:mMl@.. 'fc %. M* v*..%
Wiol t' - A.: /g .vi r f.a..n N p f.'c.: =a 4
w m y,t..
.y p. p. a. p,...p. r; ;..w.M.a.p:4.*.U' lG**,W g.,5..n @. y...,o j e S - W~*. b.Q ' i$s'd **y*;'of a - / $s,c ..> ',.? ? .a e-* I., i e ' me!. *n m a. 4. % w y%.g. m:.y,s!m. %y,t..y.:;;gg,r i i' s.w m'.g. .v , ~. q
.I > r };,., '...>. 1 r e.+..'g.sh...s. %. i..n,.?.'f..n.,. ;,,, ?.:. s .,,o.. .a .$,ph!b'&v.r. p,..h,cfS&'NY'4 .s .t Nk.. :.*. ,,I, .,.. t. *..*.:.,,* *,.,.'Y.i.&y-k. ~' hlc.Q",Ml 'fSN. /r".b. Q. 9.,.%f;jk',llq'. ')s$.?..,... * ....r. d..* J r 4.. 3 n. .Ylb. f y'> N$lN, s....', 3 g. ,<{ f ~,h * ' ~" -* k!
s [y.... r,.. g, s.:n... t w- ;u.
a~ W.h A'A WW **A &?'Y.l,h' *h.. ' ~,. < .,5.$*'$* **$Dy&*'*h.# '.b. p.V.k'~ '"W .,,,... A.' ~ ~" v,,. n,.. t.- t .s s u 4.. EY f k.*hd'* q.g . L.'Q'ff1 Yj. %,N* 5i'd M,. ..t p. a m< .y.. x # 3 A.M h,.. .'.,, M Ma b r.t f.f W .S@*ig.; '. > p,...y ;,.m.. $. ~. ~ ~ - e Ml1 a...);.,*. 9y..
e m / *.
dlp:Q, A*,;,,,1 'sa M P.Qa.%. ; '.b. * *' .3
.,.g s.d's$*,e,'.~,.%.... c3 a
.kl: d] ~n. g. M... ,.? <:m, t..d Mn,. m<;,.. }..l & s. s, q e, ? ',e,,*:; .QN,,.T 'v.r:. t. ~,. : .t.- . a. ., w.<< H. ?,. h ,,.p' p ... w ..,2 :
<. n..
,... a.
W,$
$@8,p.s f.M to issue to the Applicants, upon making requisite findings with respect to matters %n'g@,c('.g(' &r,.,.ssa.qP.:y.,,5;j2.'E..e.,Ms.'Pr,!.Q'.ff;.M y.; 4 not embraced in the initial decisions, licenses authorizing operation of VEGP. u ..s /i.p.. .w
,.p. n..~
.-a**$ 'l h. Y.hI.... D. w c.,.
b. h;m..N[.h'.N. e tu.*~v. r h.m['(hh.e.t.$N)3,,, $u,.'*"D*$"
i $E ' s M 'j* - d IV. ORDER .u... .J......v..; 4:,.,. gn. W,.. %:.....y,;.; j e e ?...s.g.L.S WC/MNT/Je/.,.j0.W.. 7.%:d WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as permitted by 10 C.F.R. 4> .,a k@k,,(;...y gy J..,.u. w m.,,C. W,.a:.
J.,'::y a,,., s,,,, c.

,w in %.w.? ~. h-e
.v ~ 3 .0U M 5@ 2.760(a) and 50.57, and subject to the condition contained in ( 2 of the Con.
'.k.k hhb'fh.I h.n.% g D g[ Wh..N.'M y'.it. W, h@.. M

h, clusions of Law, that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized rv,9. p* M93W.',M.....to issue to the Applicants, upon making requisite findings with respect to mat.
M q u.
*,9..X,T:
w. .s . 'PJ.@.. T .ed. .p, .T, ters not embraced in the initia' decisions, the licenses authorizing operation of.
h.. m.3 :u;.
i;,. .,,i.. q., ' N%.hNM[ #,h;,y. *9g;p,; yggy. c .,e$
3." !S.1.N[ ',U,$,.g.M.d;$ TM'@
Pursuant to G 2.760(a), this Initial Decision will constitute the final decision t ".J.Q.f. 4;. A '4 '. 'i. f.i. >M. />, @..?/..?r.Q.,.:p f of the Commission forty five (45) days from the date of issuance, unless an gi N.. .f.... f..' appeal is taken in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.762 or the Commission directs v ~ 4f r.t. f..,. p%g,i,,NOyE,,:g %g./Q @ p ? ,T-i Otherwise. (See also 10 C.F.R. @@ 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786.) %lbf, ;Ml'g,j.,',p,@ Any pany may take an appeal from this Decision by filing a Notice of Ap- . 'y,. I. :,.. ' b 3.@.p
y,$$,'-
peal within ten (10) days after service of this Decision. Each appellant must file WM. :.S.; j U. f%, ct.: ' : f.'.. '. J ' - M.. (.<,, M. + Q.pi.3 .;,'J./l. a brief supponing its position on appeal within thiny (30) days after filing its ' ei.. '. J.k.'!. @U ),y,i'f :. j ". Y.T.) ;.3'" f4 p gl f.,D M if;'.$ './ Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). WMin thirty
.W
...M. (30) days after the period has expired for the filing and service of th'e briefs of '. p-M.'l[lg,.e,f ' all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an ./,;';iglp.. W. ..,.';C,6;.r.'O. 5 ;.p p. W appellant may f.le a brief in suppon of or in opposition to the appeal of any ,.m g,. . i f. '.. ; *6, % ;,,. ,,. y ..n; <- Q ' i, n...,~ ..',;,~4 .m y;~. . = 7,,,. '. ::. ,%......~..- .<.x, .~.,<.s f. ..n~
,:.m.< n,,.,...(.
.~;<... ? ..:v .?,.,. ,,...;.., +... ' ~ + ...o. ..., w,. r. s ..o.. n ~,.%;.e ..e
c.# "..<.
.,/ .,0,
. i. .'s.,.-
se .~,.. 'M - y; ' 3.., .... y;. :. .c et ','.'q.. ',. ...,",f. .3; .,. ; e. 3 :.. N.., :.. s. - ..: s . w.s.'
1, a...,
a.., v .m.. a,,...,,.,,
. s;
~.......s..,.,...,z.,..JQ...,.v... [ .., w,.,.V ~..s * ,.g, 6. ,,. o j.; ;.3,....,. v - e,-- 7. .. u;_ ) y. ;c.,.m.: e
s n,
.,a......., ;:.. ; ;... ,.s. i ,.. s 1..,.. .,....,.,.,,.,,..,s,,.... n. '. ; : - { ,e ..a, ...,. -. s.. Q.. b, :.* -[.L.,:l. ".',y n... '~_g 4 ..,,.. w,.3 ,.,. *,.o.,+.c.,..r. a 9. $
g, 4
.'y'., E ,,, [ ::v.. ?. '. '. q' c:.,.
IV 7. d '.'[;
[.',*$ ' **, U.s..q' c.'.

.
E * *I d '
.u.
k 'e (*a '..
r. f 5, s..
r i
b. y e s
?; c.l;:.?..,,,'Q:.r. ..;r. so,. a e u. .r.. p ( +
e
.r..,.,,i,...*', '..;a., .p.
s *,,t y
., ~.. - 1 A, #.;,F.4 7~ y,
..e.
, ' -it*.*,o,. a. ~,., a 4 ; el.,x d',J8.}
f, <. '. +.
6.. { r. u, .x a, l(.* }.}' r-[] $ ' lr,k. ..,+3...,.r j ..,..u... ... '[i -', .j.. , i, ..g ' [' '.f ' * ;,. ', ' g #. $.,; '. ' *s 6*1' .. j' [ 9,, -4 # 'J,,' p. ;9)f., ;g, s; y e,e.,.'J e. 3
f. 2[J., ' 7#';
.,<l ... c.,t< V ;) g.,.'.,,.,.,.a.. . n. . i.- .a i e. h...'.,
s
$c " N... '.,.: - ~...x . *u ::;. -;w ' ' **i.aar.,.,. s.,s &',;.;t;"U ;,)C,y;ll.;;}:l~'Q & l*@ Y;'.3,.i.
f. ' $*.
f,. ".T j 9.,9 ,,,, r q s n e..-;, ' # *" '7.,7,., ', e,.,. p ;.. -i' h*;R *5,. : .wl J ..!,% f*:.'... :,. :. e.. ~., a '....,?',y;'Qa.s.' .i,'. ;..c. . ;y ) m
,a '.; ~:
. u~ ~ 1 .'h,.: a * ,:i.u. .J y. *. :' D,L., *f.,;.:i:; -i Q,.y~.'.., '.. ;;7n~ n' w... :;.*, l.- i '[:.#,.. ..,.lv' ~..: r - ~ - < * ' ' -. ...n} l ....r,,,,.. e ?g,,. - (,
M M w i (<

g.. mU y *- '..,.. 3,-
p.,,.* 3 9 t ;.,.. c. . g.' r' * /. J,, m,.. w. m w,e g w e w ?.'.h?.$ k h $'s mSamh m m'.5 e h
w. me m m' m;... *. m.
a... m.. ' m.
e. x..
.=. .,, r...a... m.m..,~.a..,,.2.n,;.n. '.,.a, b.. a./.r.,... ~y'.,..m.., i s n. g ..u, s . ^ m.. - ~. ;>. . ; g.w %.i 4'.)n,Qs.,
e y e.. r.y s -
w z* *' F., j. .g-** , f. h,2 J' ..a. r. *.,. t..* . f s ( t'.,. t'*
t..y L.e s,..,2 ~.
.., g 4 :. bo.. s, N, ; r g. g ^
g
=.
,.**v.
n s A -. .: ; s. ;
~. 1:7..
s* ' h.: h, .G, . ; *, N.* .hg.,s e. u ;. y~. y.. :. L,.,,, '.[.[.) * ~* 4 '.i b'.
._.n..y' ., * * * '. - : ** J..? '-. Lo ex
h.C O.
{f, s s,.,d.. 1 -) d '., *" * ', ~ * ?' ",o.,'"&..,.,..,'p.'. N, 0, $p 1 '.. ; s.Vl"%.&. 9. l.j . *y s,4, 3:.. 9...m...~>Ag e.. ...~...Wc.,u.,. (y. a...s s.%, e; g* * * ; *%
t
<.k* ,.e
a
.,t...*j;,.r*..,*.,.. c.)f. '.,., ,a. 2 .",, s.. ; y; :A e s.. e..
,~
,s, H - p'; 4.. ' $',#.% ..a d.y. o.u.e.
a.,.4. n,.
.,o.o,... c a ..f .ws .3 e $:t*wf9.f.l.I,%g$ W" M &' M M M $ s 2 M M M,M $e* o $g U f.i%.y.et Urf j
6.
Q n f
4 **.b. f ar p-s s ; :U..S. l s a..,.W' *,., %e..+.., f.0. +. Y ..t y,,' ;"s A,y%' W; ':y.,';. e. t..n.... u, c %:-.w..s..v..~ w..y
a..~.v s.
r.1,. e . z;/..W.;.c... . ~ ..v , r. p% y/u. c c :;.+. : m,m,- yag...s, %..H '.; L e < f..... y, p,
3.. r..,n.a, u.m, y.n..q s
other party. A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief regardless of
g. j.gA@.g.'"/pc.g6;.,'*pp.g
,m, mh..,M.. e, M....* ' %,..@u,.W....O.OA.T., the number of appellants' briefs filed (see 10 C.F.R. @ 2.762(c)). ...M % w. %.q. A., d 'N..wM;m.w,, t...,a, a.'T.2. A ,a.,,,.%....<,.2.',3 ...:.;<.m ...~<r.. m ..c THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND n .lW,1 ,@%..u,.qrv7:,.:'y.:
s.m,. n

,N~....
+ u'.@:W LICENSING BOARD
e. i Ak
'.n...a..'. e.. m. ; t G,,,9..D..*>n%...m, g-Y m 3,,y L,,.. 'w.' Q. ? ; ;'. .s ~. ns-r m, M 4m /.d.. =.. gm.N#."v . W E ';; . T* Y M. M Morton B. Margulies, Chairman O.. , G, y. e
,.i. ; ',
. A.r.A ,3v;.;. W,, d. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW i '; t,. a s r* a v:4 h..,.. y. s,&&e :..,,...' e. f.') s-JUDGE ,&, we 4*?. ; 'w.,
.*

qn '
t y r,..** s '.y + v,,3, &.?yy e -).3.,,., J;,,,wg, *,.3 3 w ;g ' e y t j e e..- a, 3.lg,. s, * .w:.,.4~* s.a,...,'... .f I."s.b,'r,C..jd...{. c. a ,p . %g . $,,,;'j:....,,;2.,, g Y h, u s.. .c.';QE '".17FJ..,.6.. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. -/.* r f.W,, M h ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ~..u....p:..C y, a ;; :
== v 4%
'.a.' d
.c.,,,.. >...,.. z.,' f..,, 7:. ,n. s ;,.,.. ...,n.,.,.. n ' ' O.. *i,B.o ;.,r J,J.O,,'M,. ne M.C..,,K w.< ,e Dr. Oscar H. Paris m
4. -
..~...:.s. W4. N. w. v w./..... .C.A. *:. '.M. M: 8 ^*- Y ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE We%.f.y' Q.t :.r,p .(;ajy?s. *,":,h. n m;;.,*.i o ,. 'e l &: t c:: . f)?;; * '.g v; !.Q,yl&, : ..e Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, .f.; ,...M.- .$. ': Q :/.l.U.', f. # ;., L.,1. this 23rd day of December 1986. s,-
r. u.;4.v....,.;, a,; ;
^ "C iOlfM,......u...,. ..,,. 2 g-w Mj,.'/.. g *. y..,.. e( '3 [The Appendix has been omitted from this publication but can be found in the 6,;, M*ji.[ NRC Public Document Room,1717 H St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20555.] [.b,'. ' 3*?N.d'%AR ib' !"W: '- M.3*'. 'W 6' 1.,85 *... M:.' n..Td;'.4.,ir ..... r..f3 p : p - M, 4 .+. (j,.%,*..R. s, s '. C k.y. .n.,!*,,, M.
/ W '.k.
'4 d ', y %, u P.l. 6,.<',e. p '8 s..,;.('# '.%<:.y .,.,', y " i 7.,r'.'s 0 ,f
y - w *.?in.,t :.
.m e.
.e i -
p+ '*1. i',. %. y,'tu 3
.g j ;..v...r.. y; ;.;.. e.x -s " Je . :.n - m,s(, r ,4
*, me
.., new. N. y ?h: "l. t$ ').he', 0.?. ift; 0.'. P i.g /?.% Ffr.NM g.y[,.g 3 1 s..r;" ' T' f E.* N*,= Q[e1 " ph/* O V Zy,4.], $ N,.. M +.lY. g)f, e.y.(~j %
/.2,.
m...; 5??'. *: ' $. E i. { e v.
,, 3. *. 32.
e. .n,e.. t., a. :... w..... :. w.. .,. w =e
f,$.,,.[ ' ;**,.i.N..o.A,.

.7: ta.
,.. ' **[.W (.. I'.~*'.f' ..h '. g.'W1.D. ? g ~,.,. '.'.s'?
k ',.o.&. ! a G
1 ;,4* /4 p. 7.
c'E*
^ #.d .y,;,M '. a .: wk(h. C . ;'. ' f *. 4 'd h* / ** ...r"%. v.m.. u..q.(.9,, y .r..,:,l.e.;.a.., r :s ;t..,. 3 b ....,../.,.u,,.e4.. ir v w
p.,r9%... s.. s...

t. e.>p.
N e.,. 4. a 5...nq
f r w.... g <g "*
e A<*- .4 h,.. > w,,e.f, q.p~..,., .n. y ~.p. .a .e :en a.. n.r. .n...f. ;q. % w.e. m cf e..It..w. p
. y:. :. ;prJ. &.
4,. . o,, ,<.w Wyp, ih u.;. e ~ .'* %. -. 9. g. C f:.. w n *O . ~.. . k.rge..% C~.w'ML @ %s
R
?fr Q j; Y %.y?,W.. % fet...N 2 '&..:.4.,
3;.+&. 2..,M..,.f..,; C.'W 3
,s.. n n1?), VE v,v M. M.n$.a. r.,:;NM. 1/ . e.. ' ~. '.,C'?./,. u. vu..m m....- .e..~, a.. w v .a.... s Q,.-..,%].L.c&.W .4. N'. Q.. s u m... W, e[J.?!.o 7: n,,.. .r 1e ;n."L %.. r. ,r&..,.. y. A; - a,; a. y,qq:; / %. %.%.9,4.M m}e n.- W,s.*. . ns.a.M c. ' W ljc.A. ,.;.w,Q:3-@
f..
ig
'
p~.;"*p g,
.w .W.3* M..s,. 4 t 9.MAQyt' 930 .i,
.1
%* " ;.. ~ *.,f,Q(p\\u,.O;p ..g.
4. w. y m.n.w';,; 4c.w' T.s.
.,.e. %e.? 'o,...;: ' ? .r r.% s.. c. .~d, [.lkh. hf[;, ?.. ,.2.,..
U.S.COWERhiqht PAlhflh*. Orritt19eb,ti.677:63037 r.,.,'
...g.;,J't s't..*j.'\\(A M**;/ bWy% 7
.W ge-
..*3..,A,>** ,, e t, - n'#g,3'.)'%g'*4. r..'. V. d. # C:*T. +r.v
y vm ;;W
~. ..t, . g ac.- e. If ;r..[; 4 s ff g. e.
s *.g 4 U...g 'e'h.
~ ' ~, ..- a a.-.}}

ML20235C313

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Background

Background

Navigation menu

ML20235C313

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Background

Background

Navigation menu

Search