ML20235S623

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for January 1987.Pages 1-62

ML20235S623
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V25-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V25-N1, NUDOCS 8707210720
Download: ML20235S623 (71)

Text

-__-

NUREG-0750 l

Vol. 25, No.1 1

Pages 1-62 j

j

^

4]

p'T uy. m w

, a

?

q,.

my;.;

m L, y fag I

N rt e

9 a

q(

j 3.

4 qg

h. y L.

,t rp f

. ?,,1j% p;.

Wif hh %

3 m-m{h_

l

.b x a,f

,.n.

AWh' "'"' %@g;lr-r.

j. n:

h

lll '

{

n w

f y,fC

'.%. : ;* ll.

}M' }EnggAg,qi }%**Q,s}9n'

%f }h '

jyb :p'f2 { g;&;!;E M*

y,.

/j,.

yW w

a$$kkf,E',g[s@,;n<n b;$8 (p

x, e

r$

T

.;?

'G tr; y

?

(

h.5 l

g

' k i :#

b

), ;

It

. } g;g;L,hlM;d.:

, j$$?

\\

, $*i qmb t4 J

1 i

8707210720 870630 PDR NUREQ PDR 0750 R 1

j

s-a u

~

NUREG-0750

+

Vol. 25, No.1 1

'.3 Pages1 62

\\

,l*

. y,.-,. ' '. } T. >. %:. }

l

..11*

~

4 y

3 mH NUCLEAR REGULATORY

.... s. :.-

COMMISSION ISSUANCES

..' ' +

, ' h r '. 9...'.r ". '.u.,.',*.'.

_',,. A.,z ' 1

y.yg; q.: n ;'y.q./j January 1987

.4

-y l

4

)

This report includes the issuences received dunng the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

q Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LDP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein i

are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-dent legal significanea.

~.

1 Q:. ".,

1 1

,:.,?:

y,.-

..4 g

,n,,

U.S. NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION o

s.. ~,c,. q.,,

j

,2,.-

4 4

. r.;.... -

.5

.. >.i...;;

Prepared by the

'. v #

j Division of Publications Services g.:,,"[,. /

C

' ",' ' ' 5, c.

,1

. T t

Office of Administration and Resources Management 2

i h ? J'W U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.C

7;f..L

".., Q'

. 3-j Washington, DC 20555

.*",3, Y,i.~... ;., c.;y :S.c.*.

71 (301/492-8925) b W g;.}.O '.$.,.l,ts, i,.J Q, '.Q.

'.'..;*g(< [.

j

.' ',i',+>

.,t

. r',

y..~

.'t.",. ;t

. 3,.g

.,,,f

l *, '. '..) W,[,,..,,...,,,,,

,,'A*

,.,.,.,5...; c';

,,., t :..

> c.

• 4 '-

...,.,'. ; ' " ' y.

-l*.'.*~

'd f..

7.7

,c,; }. :;j ; '

f 3

f'E e

g+

k.

.k Y

-.,.....!.e

• ?

- p 9 ',,, v.

.s.

7 "r,I '..;. f' '. ', n.# * * ^ ^

o*

1

~

W

.,..?.

<,,4 :., p

.r..

z 2",,,,

...'. j. -

u',

^ i

7 '., f G.,'f

,t

.1 ly.i.

s A ~:s.

....,, ;.. ;' c g,...

.L

,;a

.- 8

• • G '..?*s/,,&.,

• 6.,

.* '. l *y's 'f. * }

l',,.*

W J,. G *.'. C ' '* (. ;

'., a

.p,-

(

,.;.~.,

,e,.,.'.

y.

.?.

.-(

N,.~. '.. ;

.*....r..,

w.

,,sr

,,.9'..,

.,- y v

h. h<\\$ n :.'...,.. a. h. a.... s,A '.h '.. w...,,.h

, w,?

k,'

b., 'k.

b. kf.;

'e Y.s..n.m.h Y

Y vl :. c;,...,..,?.

'.,' E ij C

l

. m,, n,,d u.-

.~

..8

.ih'ih..h][

h.[.,k,1; $),h

.IN

$' ' ).t :N'[,.' Yi IIf^j,b. '0N k.1,*

bD Eh,.

l

._,,,b

t 8*'*

4 2

- r s o

+,.y

. g

- i

..o.

u.

a.

s.

..v,..

,y v..S r.)

e s

q 4

,~

P Wf COMMISSIONERS I

1.:

3 L.ando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman 7,,.,, i Thomas M. Roberts 3.gy,;,;. ;

., ? c.}.

- ". /,< g.

(1 James K. Asselstine.

, ?.'

W 1

Frederick M. Bernthal N,,.,,,t;J 'g,/,'.,m.,*..

E.,.r '>,f../ r,j i

Kenneth M. Carr -

~-., e.

.,.,A r

=.

.e...:,-

,.x

,a 3

,,,,4

~.-

.j 3

4

.... '.3

..,. o j

4

- ~c_+

o

- d_

t..,.. -.

.c,i

.g 1.

.. -y

..a L

(

4 i

t Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appeal Panel s

B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel s

, c

.a q.;..

. g,,;.,,,,,,

.s.

n,

. n>

.r s~,..,- -.., -

.t.u. e, 7,,-

s. i...

.a

.w

. < n

<.i.o..

e.

• q l,-

,.j t. < c,

'I.

a*

.t t

.i.1

.... -. s p:

~

3 1

s,;

1

.1 t.

,,,, 'gl i

%.<. v.j g.

.t:

.p'. -

...m..._,

..., x; : 3. p......-. y: t.

c,

..,v*

,~->u

• -.y

.m

....v..

, s. 3... -

-<-y e t

.v.

.+.

.6

. i*i w

- St4. I* t.,,..,

,n f *,.;.*..:

_ u.

i

.e 3

6

,y.y,,

j

,..-t

s. m, ;.,

o.,n, y,..

e

<., 4 *,.. iG,,,,: '... s. W,n.. u.. - h,.: ;

.. c e.

y c.

.Q

+

t,.,,, y e

.r. ; -

.a e.

.,. f: c. r..

wd v

?.-

v.

l

-r

.. p

-w., <s,.v.,.,=

,,.,w.;. ; e>,,. -..

..t..,........m*,,

, % ' g,; fJC ;a>,..~,c....

,. a, i - c.

.,3q:,. e

• ..i

,1 rr ;. 7,?Sh. *** l.,.Q) {r,.f. > y. V..' fl.a"

l,,..,..,)i

,,e

,',.e g

4'..e "

E,..

"f.. q$$ './

s e

j I

s.

)*ld#

.4j i, /

.h j,'., *

• p[,q 1 **;,* p. & *%.

'a

)

$ c..h.m.' ',, m}L.,,

,,, Ad

• j,'#

r...e Yt ut. a'=,%,ep,77g,,

./ n7e3,r -...

, If

.g,

-. - ~,,,

i.

..n,e.

, #, ;.. *y.,,.,.m s \\n%,c,..., c.

• 4...

'_ p,*.c ym. c.., ;.., s.-..)g ps*

sr.- Is s.+

,1.*

'e

'e 1

s :

s..* ' w "L,

\\ '.L p %,,.

.= l ;e

'v. g,, -

,, }y' F

,.f

.c.

.., ";. s.....y C s

t

.e

s p

.3 m

,t,.

+.

s,

- f.

.,t.

.g

-t a,.

. s

,, e. c.. i m 9 9,ef,*,'.,.c.,:

...,,3..7

.

• r,g,*....

+ gl '

'.s.

,e.

,, - ~..

a i* 3

', ' + * +

• • *, " ~,.

4 1

.s n

.m

. 9 ;,' ' ; ? 7

. ' - t,

.,o

.y

• • t f**.e ',*

p 4 ;, *,q,,,". U... t sb r

• ?. t< : r.,

1. -

., ' ~

n.. >e....*.

',4, e,

• .p. ", -

t'

.%, e,*

,.. y *

t. r.,, v,,.? y r

x a

=_

a.

i.;,,..

,4a.

e

,;y. i~.,0l.r.g.:.,., **.,',.

g, n

,, [

a 't, W.;

o,.

e

^. -. _

I

[y I

, w,,. 's d'

w...,././.a,,O.,.;

• 2. a b, m, f. y&' a..e,>,h

> s.t

, n. 's, w..m,*.,,..p. h,,. q..,.p... e.,a.

,e '.

c.

.i...,, I..,

E' W. v...,.g., e a e y ;,..:,s. :.1.s..

,-.4

.u,

... v,,

n.

. w gi. ).v.,. :., ')...a.e b u.

t. 4, (, 4.,..;,...~. <p *y,

f,g 1,,

%y. *',.x, t.*',*.

. v, y v p,.,.,. g, a

.~

< f,,..,. e., yM.e o., s.,f,,;-) Lh

• 2 [.% #F* ' *. 'i 8 <

W..

.., i <a...

c....a-. -

=

-g< >.

Y

.=.., y.. J./

4. 4,..

a,+

a..

,.. s*qV%,;Y* /.e r y,., g +p ?..o..

..g..,..

e g g % '*,,,, - e *,,,,i,.* *v*.""{',,/* *.,A.

g r,. >.,3 c.

,4..,,

r.'. t,

, r.

r %.e.,-

%p.g!s, A r. 7 *,*., '{'G..'.e.,.. e

., n..* 4 e

.2

. f a

v* s e0 e t'

e i.

.'s

. '., p. # ),,,.. N.. k.to.'.' k y#s'. A

~

,P ys 9, r*v, F, s'

,.s,

? l,,g* y (,"ip',~ k'?*y "T/ '; '.Q.g n y,. *d +* b,..,*g, y,'-

8 i

• w,

.ee e

• s y* $ q' 4 g e *,Ypb w,4 '*.,**Ff 9, /

. *p. We '. b v *

/*',l.

,y y.p.Q.34 7, *? w'."$.g.',.g;.-D. 5

. g..*

J*

-, w r,.E r*,

y

'9

l ",Q

,r,,

.j

s -

i a

'c. 9..,.W.

5.

9s fc, d1.+

• ww,1

'y n ~.W,

4 a

. i.

CONTENTS s.

y.." -... ' v. s. 6. c 1:

~

,, '. ;w',

".,.,.4..

. Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

..-., s

..,.w r.,

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH

', 's 1

CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY j

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

W.

. D.

,l Docket 50-400-OL d

ORDER, CLI 871, January 9,1987............................. 1 o

45'

. ;j j

.,4

';,.f,7 G ;

?.,,,l.'.,i' : ].,,, 4. d 'd Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards -

.,.is

.1 1

d,'jS.... ;. l. N M;f.'i Al,...;.(

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

j f g.7. r* E. ".' ; 7.}

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) o<

1 Dockets 50-424-OL,50-425-OL

'.J.,. ' a ~. ". ' '

'i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,

^

.(

M..

ALAB-859, January 21,1987................................ 23 N-5.f -

,;.f.

'.3 4

PHILADELPHIA ELECTTJC COMPANY C

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Dockets 50-352-OL,50-353-OL g

DECISION, ALAB-857, January 2,1987......................... 7

.j PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) i Dockets 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-858, January 15,1987................................ 17

,{

+

1

' y n

Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards

.$~. :

+

/ '"

t.b r

i FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. ct al.

f. - }. '

N-s

.(

, y,$'.., *.,

n, i ;

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2)

• 3

.}4 Docket 50-389-OLA (ASLBP No. 87 544-01 LA) s.

. q (Spent Fuel Transfer Amendment) o'

' l i

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, S.',. >' ' '. '

LBP 87-2, January 16. 1987................................. 3 2 s.

\\

g s

,~

j

.,.

• N.

4,. >-.

... c c.

s. s.

1

.g %

.. f

,m

,r

' *[ 9 s

6

,.e.,,,1o e s

~

. ;s ;.. ~ '.,....,.;

_ h.'.t...- /.'.I 9,.; j ' '.f,",' Y.,'.' 3 l

.h..,4.

e., s.. w.g t.

s

\\

-a s

? < y s.,,i, '

,,o.

,.,*s,.-'.'1.

c.(....1..

..S,..

i i

m,-

i

.m

',1,'b.,... MM.[65.*!n f.*?,D Y.,r.: '38l4 M.

III l

.,,u..c e

• .w,.,

s.

p;.Q,cS., *?.!7.% fs *.;'......%) Q.(Qf.?? d 5,r,

. c..4 t

w..n.-

,. n.

g,: A

, ;, 4.1.;,*. i

..s r"*

Q.,s.;."

e..

- ;..s,, t ; p. g*.

. e de,,

., 2

+.

.. ) t f,. v # g..L.,.

.s.

.,e 'a. g ;,

' f/. *,j.,,,

.c'.

v ',' ; '

. - *p g i,

.. -,, ~.

.,. z... v.,, -.,., < -

3 a.

.~

y..

L s.,**

, 6, w.

.c ; ( -

t*

.'),.

4

... i

's

~ g. y,. 3 '.;,.'.;

<f.g,=

i.)

.. g

.,i..

.,v. r,..

y 5.

.e

..t,

y *,. */'*

r,

-'",{'

. ( 'y

• g, 4 ei"

,/.'*4*

, f. A '

• .. v l p.

.,.4,'s,s. s.

p,

e, w

' a w

• .v....,,,,.;-.

.v',...,..-

4r* 4, *.. -

> +.-

• ,. -,(7,.

4, 3, e,,

..J..

i

- 3

.. 3.s ',g'i'..~',N.,,,'..

,g, d

...'s pi.o i e.c

.'e'",a

.../,p. '.f *. (, 4 ** e..,,i..f

,.,.a.,o,,,.,-c.4.,,..

h

+

e,

_ g o,.,

g

.. f'

.,. t,i,

.s,3 p

f

.,g

, 4

..y/.,;..',...,/..u.,'....3Mfhy:,'f.Q, Ihk.@..,...., <...

,. q...! 1.@,(!Q /.h! Q5f.%,..;dQ,#i[?

3"

-

• o'

..,r,

...,,7, l $QQ,,,.3,g,,,,,..,%;,,.leh.%p.

!&%.S,.

l

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2)

,y la p Dockets 50-445-OL,50-446-OL (ASLBP No. 79-430-06-OL) 1

.. c, '1

. J,.

MEMORANDUM, LBP-87-1, January 7,1987................... 29 f,;1 -

4

,e y,.

t-n t

Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge 4

ADVANCED HEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

~.

u.

', j (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041) 1, Docket 30-16055-SP (ASLBP No. 87 545-01-SP) 3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER POLLOWING FIRST PREHEARING

..e..

,%.y'.y,.$';14.,.....fd CONFERENCE, ALJ-87-1, January 14,1987................... 39 i

s.

c.

ff" , n'i.-l.

% ;. 4 + :.* -

Issuance of Director's Decisica

' ~

s

. s..

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3)

M Dockets 50-206, 50-361, 50-362

]

DIRECTOR'.", DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, e

g,]1 DD-87-1, January 29,1987 43

. i n.

Issuance of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

.sa

.a; O.N PUBLIC CITIZEN s

N.

Docket PRM-50-41

=.!

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING, DPRM-87-1, January 14,1987............................... 49 t

1 c

l

. 'J I

A.;

o

• W e.'

. '.. '//*.*.

d. ]

.1 e * *

.. /*

.,.~:r.-,,',,

g,a..-

'q

.M.

^...

l....

m.

• g',

',' s e 8-t'.

.s p

.**g, d. - gg L u c.

e.

, a n,..,

'.).*

t

,,n

.,,,

• 4" *

...w t

t;"

+ -

. =,.

,,4 4

f.,

.g

.'da f l 1, g

-'., ^

• a

,., - 7

.,{

j..

t' * *,,

.i

, 5 s

<.t...

..,,.'l,

.',..g

.t

• 3,*

, -j,

• y p'

y e

e h. (k'

, + r

• %g k,,*, g, f

's. /

p# y

, I *.

V'J g '

f,.

• ly

.., ~,....

1 1

. 9,n r y.,.,. -.,.

d..iV,...,,.%e-K,,,.s=

,,,, y * *;. n.,., v u t,,lJ

< < st

• .a..g.,..

A ye..,.*, "

ev p

t.

• 4,.,$.v.. D ! % O *,h. D b' i @ t$....".[.*).?,)

g

.7 8

, g

[

g#

<* :.. - w,.., *..:.

e~"'. ' - g., 6... v. 4d ]' *,*A.a

.. +-

.* ' /s./ ' < *.'g','*., y',/,* f% *,,,(. ;. v,', *

,t f ', (1,..,; b,..y'+'{ ;;l,V y..

y.....

,g;.,

.. 3 g'

...,.,D,',...p

...7.,,* -

,,.&, vL -,, ',,

^ * < L

• p '. '"

, -y.,

,,,,a y;. [ d ' '*

• ;r>

,y

- ' ' '.,.m.<

3 1

i, Q.

e, a'

,a,

, g,3.-*.

,. ('5,

\\..

,)

Y

'.., ".1).. *,,,,'.,

1)

,, p s.;..,.,

~.f. i,, e,v si Y'. \\...%,*.

N'e.

n

,y,

.,e e

V, p. "E t, a

.t L

/ l%.

s,v

'. ", " ' ',,, " ' #~'

e a'

6

'=.d.

s, 8

ai~

.i s

,s

'L. O';.,,. ! ' ( i.

.. p f.,v.N, ;,. ** *q

• e, 'l,;.*, - '. '..*c...,,

-[ -

,,;i,

.j s

e

d e '., ;..*,

. (

f.

e. +

,s,

..-.s.-.

-1,,

, ;,;.'-, * ;1

• Q f r,,

,,i 'e

,.,"r' l,,

rQ..*u%. m'.{,, g. t'. y.'4'or,.'"*{..*

'.'*g 7..0. J q

,#.. p;. s g n. -* W f.,, g*.,s.f. !.*N

'.s.V. 4'*

.\\'

.s 'e*'

. % s'.,. b ?.

'** ?,3

' ;, l r '.

?. s. f

'-t*

tj' n,... s': R.,. 6. (b. ~; ",.,s * ;.f. v

,, y

. 8

{p

'e

• ?

c. J.,.

as a

e.

a f

. 6

,p

j....

.,r.

w A

M[ld.Q,y;.y.,@:W,/,.g3:

..J 'e m' Nh n [: q.. a v:lf(,, $ Mq &'.

t i.

~,i h,*.7.< y:. :. aN..,..

D. ;,, 3 s a.,-

~, y..< M,; : :d'. * * '. ' 1 ~ Wi ^ c 'I,.

,L 2.,.,

t.

.V, 7 d[W' f

MM D #D W.

f

i i

e 8

4 5

Commission Issuances o

(D Y

llE O

' O

?

I i

1

-y Cite as 25 NRC 1 (1987)

' CLI-871 y

.r

.. ']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y.,

' ', m

]:.

o, W i. 3 ;f.

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.2 d s,

... <. j,; O:,.w..,

s,. s;

",-3 :

,.. ~

..s. -,,,..s

, ; m; COMMISSIONERS:

u,t.,..p

.t t,-

2 c

1 fa r

- ',_. J.,

. L, /,,j Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman rr.

c s-A Thomas M. Roberts s.

./

9'

^

James K. Asselstine g 4,. Q,. : (. %,,. < r.,..-

Frederick M. Bernthal y

) ',.

Kenneth M. Carr R Q.....b.N p C;p.M.

• ' < >@" %..,5 3 :

I,Q.. c af w.

a

,,.n.;*,,; 9., o.4..

. r,,. -.,, ; <, t... ~

9. c.

,,g p.

9 4 9, N, %~...

<. s

<,c n.

• . F ' n. ;,.y c $,..

in the matter of Docket No,50-400-OL g e. g

..g

.g

+-.

'.4.z.

~

-a ' ris m

[;j

e.

~

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT 9 j; *,. f,, *.,+ i-NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN COMPANY and

E :c

+

'/

s. "

....: E. "

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY

.n

....'/i.

- - o (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power e,*

.1 e,

1' o, -.

Plant)

January 9,1987

..s e

lt r, -;g The Commission authorizes issuance of a full-power license by the NRC

(

16. cy Staff for the Shearon Harris nuclear facility based on (1) Commission review of contested safety-related contentions resolved in the remaining Licensing Board partial initial decision not administratively finalized through Commission appellate review; and (2) issues not contested before the Licensing Board 7

but raised in interveners' effectiveness comments, at various public meeting f

s presentations, arg! in a pending 5 2.206 petition, all of which were resolved in s'

favor of facility operation.

o

/-

~

~.

i..

.q

. m.

g s.

,..c, y.,,v ;

. r.

~

,'. N i u. ?..y NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW 7,1,..%..g;.p.,. :

.s

.

~.

.o

,.i W *" 5 ".

-M..

To provide grounds for a delay of the effectiveness of a Licensing Board

.C'?-

. y " (.i decision authorizing issuance of a full-power license, an intervenor's concerns 40 if,, e

%,,j q,,.

regarding a contested issue, such as management competence, must challenge i

M '.,'..

the Board's substantive conclusions regarding the issue. Comments that are no j

j 4

.c e.u.

.o' 1

g 'l

..e f...

r.','..*-

B g

y c,

g

,g

k,,,

a

. g.

<t'",

I

• E..,*s u

'N. r ;eJ1;._

n,.',.,

o..a.,.

u, y

+

we.,

n

-s

< c. L.N, o

..se, h

g % :,'

7" -' a ',f, p '1 y,P(

g

• l. $.,.y,.~,

' ; % #.n.y* :, 'y'* ;$ > :

~ ?. ^ c,,

• 1

}

., ? '

a = z.'..,.

., 7. w.q..,,J.

,

• t

- :. J.

-k 4

1,.&,

b

,, f.r ' f,.,. # ( % ' '*g, = ]

,o, n

• ;O+ r*

• ?j* v, a,);' :s. f. *,, ' ' e*{. Q. '.

.d

.,Ai'.,..*k.

w

,,  %, l 1.7 a#

e

-*a 7; *3,,. w. %

i

.N

• 1 Q..:*y,., ;.? 's l,,* M;Kr4*',I W

• bs 'dl

.r O M h :.

M."l-r o

, NMY e ~46.N'.% *..NNS[d' 'M)/*,h h? p.

L.-g g,4i,;;*d %;W,9,0 7jg,)W g*e p%g gr: y 'f?'U,'", W ?S ".7,'

. * Q J N J,. M 'r* A..

.,'., 7 ', t v '. *?

'W

. Q <, *l...

&$&,*.? Y.

.;' ' ' O fl'~ '*Y % / V: k'..'.'.

Y. *,. g^ j.,*,A i- *l T.) ?

"&%,?*jf &

r#

?{!.. ' -......

4

~

..,_ m.

. y.),,-

u.,

g.9,

g.

..y..

't

,M M;

n i.

s s,.t.a;. m... c r, :

mp.,,.

9>..,

r. i 'g*.. ! *.w.,,. -..., %..,.. **.

t s.

' ~ -

g."

1c 4,

~;i.<*v s

.: < ?

.tf las* y

• c,y. v.[ po*. *.4,y' ?,}:. +

v. t

).'

,,,,,,s h.*.,.'? u f,'. +N e

.n * *'l

. c.' =

~..s..

~

.=.G*+

r'! *.,

.s.

q

.i a%

s.

../ ed.

J*,

,e

., s c f<:..;.l...l-

, g., g'a,

a g, y,r, g. p *, 6.'

,,,. t, S t,,..,-a.s,s.

.,,.-,...,.j

,g

+

+. - +. g; 9 3,,

e

. C;.g'* g m.f '+g &. f,g If,e. *. p,.

d v",

6 4

,a. ec f a, A; r; p.,

• e,m,,.

. g,-

4

-. +f a.,, -

e i

y*

.. gm,== * + e m

, g ;..

• a

...,,e,+

.,*g

.. e e=s

.Z,.,... a

. *,.. s y,,% l.

• O *l 'In J *

+f..,.

y 4 3-

6

,,

• g,J. p.,, **;.,ya.,[t,;,' p{, s y * ;2 '_

a

.iI

, Q-

' V \\,.

w *

• a.,

f y ).,.,.,p se.

. l*

/-.

L

. ee r.. *

',fw.

e g.' ;... ",,

.s w

. n k,. N).h._.Y...b +. V,'v.T 99.* ' '.* Os A

4 a

h...:,j& N,.x(e&. w,51Y'll.'*,h. ;,.?,0*;&.,Cr,W $}'.Y $. bl$.*'* *hjh',),

sj g

N&,)g'd s

.s

.1'r.O.M.r.'.k.d l' n

. n

?.,,i U.c 5

a yp.r 4 n. - s s,.- M -

,..,>o 9

.i.

w we a-e s7. :;

'k

,I, bh b

} hh hf h;

k

~

m o -

---________w

more than speculation about the integrity of a member of the agency's Staff responsible for the oversight of utility management competence are not sufficient.

'. ~,,'

NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIYdNESS REVIEW

.c J"

~.s The Commission's determination to authorize facility operation, reached as a result of its immediate effectiveness review of contested issues addressed in a Licensing Board partial initial decision that subsequently was affirmed by the y,-

' I Appeal Board, does not foreclose a party from filing a petition for Commission

,]

review of the merits of the Appeal Board's decision. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.764(g).

NRC: IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW

,, a.i,;

j'. -

,.. _.1 Issues interveners seek to raise outside of the formal adjudicatory proceeding

&l3.. [,. I that have been resolved either in Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission

,', (y ;

N :

4 A

rulings on contested matters, or through the Staff's analysis of $ 2.206 petitions, did not provide a basis for delaying the Commission's authorization to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a full-power operating license.

1 l

ORDER

-.,.]

l 1

On April 28,1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting the operating license adjudicatory proceedmg for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant issued its fourth and final partial initial decision ("PID). In concluding that decision, the Licensing Board declared that it had resolved all contested issues lj in favor of applicants Carolina Power and Light Company ("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency and, accordingly, the Director of l

Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") was authcrized, upon making the findings required under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(a), to issue a full-power operating licent,e to

~,

the applicants. LBP-86-11, 23 NRC 294, 408-09 (1986). Consistent with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.764(f), after conducting a review of those parts of the Licensing Board's decision that have !.ot yet become final under the agency's adjudicatory

~

^, '.

.o appe!! ate process and after consideration of interveners' June 1986 effectiveness

-/G.

~

comments and the various presentations made at a public meeting on January P/.i 8,1987, the Commission has determined that the Licensing Board's decision f, 5:

"1 should become effective and that the Director, NRR, is authorized to issue a s

j full-power operating license.

..O, In four extensive PIDs the Licensing Board resolved all contested issues

.,. l in applicants' favor, each of these decisions subsequently was affirmed by the n

t. - s l

1 zA

'o e

,4

,*l,

-,L,-.

• .,,t

.. ~

.,s y.;.,

• 1 I(-

g v

• y;j.

g

- ; ;...c, r

,.g.

cL m',.,-,

,w

.. ~:X: <,'a:;7,. c.

3

."M.lt i

.?

< n wm:..,:. ;.q. ' :. N J}

a..

'* '!,* W, ".e,.

Q

. f,3,.

m

,.e

., ::.v,.....

s.m..,,.,

' Y',*,n >.,s.d. g' 6

.a

.p-b.

,j i

 ?

• p (~ '

S,.*,'*

. j,.,. e i '

.**'g.,f

*' [ ' } }. ;

, - )-

.g',',,'

[. '

-"e',*!**-*

• ~ 7, g ' O ' t; y,*,".

., O

' ' " {t' d'

,1

, " L* d '

.' '. +

8

'a i

~

~

.,.c i'

i..

J, e e

^ b l. ' '.. A; $.J.,,>,...

p',,' ',,,

As

'n.

f,4 '.,, p.

.s.

..,., ?? s v g,-

s 7-

~

~o

,,).

. 7

[g,,%f [ ? e'.# ;j1.',e.g.,.,*.'t.~,(-

- M j.

M. x. ; m'*' i',[ a U

[.,.

w%n.%. W.7lwm.s.@d. v@.x%.I..,,.9g B &,,e, #w*%=;

RW,h b,..i. ; I '.

76 ;,'4 -

L e.:..,

,g;n.

~s.

be%. 's&

.t's.',~.f.k $j.f.' Y. Y.m

...r.

w.. ;.n.. r

• ', g;.'N "3.. ", ' >.

..! (t l'. g A.,q.f,, * -

/. a., g ( '.'.,s.-y,; ,.'j j,,

,,z,

, y.

y-...,.

..,.).

'.,e,

,. *,.,,.f r.,

• i

. ;,.r{y.g I/?

f.

KJ '

s s

u 1

.,r

....*..w.

,,e.

..,.i :,...

~ ' ',

2

;'.1

'.4",--

.I'

~

',. "./,i '... ( 'M

. V Q ',,.* 9 'e l ' u, 4

9...

,s

.-0

. Q ' p ' ;b,M. :, z.9,J.'.',:.;y ';., v...fl. ; -.

et,

.}Q,*',.:'.,=

j

~,

. y.',

.., < :., c t 1)

., 7.,

., ~y. ;; y.., '.., 4. u,..., ;2 n.3 + -;.; w,

(.,

s.

. :.,7 ; -. a _,.:.

ga*...-

?-

'j:., *. : ~.., : :';. : ;,a s ' * -

s 4.,5 1 g; L. W. M' s; b

,,','.f,,5* f

+t.,,,..r.

&)%;h), h.h,M.v ~p.?M;w;$dW.b:& p.g;r.w@ w n

wR m., un... m..e.. w[.'." b k.$.*,

h.'h$.hhh'

.ki. ch b

. '.7 [L).

I h.1' I.

n.

m...

e :. x,:.c. ~..

.V:%

s m

.a..,...

.M; i. 7

., W. 3.y..,.R;;:.C,g3K M' y,y. ppg

.W.y:

. 9. t;.4,y

.c/.;

w 4-

1

\\

1

~

1 l

i i

8,1987 public meeting that they declared provided gmunds for delaying effectiveness ami licensing authorization. Only in the June 1986 effectivene.ts

. Jj comments was any serious attempt made to address an issue - the question of l

~

4 j;', -

..w

.. r.

management competence - that was contested in the second PID.

i, : 5 '-

7,. _

In their June 1986 effectiveness comments, interveners do not challenge the

, y. ',(,,,

Licensing Board's substantive conclusions regarding the competence of CP&L's i

6' t

a management, but instead attack the integrity of former NRC Staff member Paul Bemis. Mr. Bemis, who prior to his departure from NRC had principal responsi-bility for regulatory oversight of the CP&L management improvement program that was instituted to correct its man 1gement deficiencies, served as the principal y

L 1j NRC Staff witness at the hearing on management competence. Interveners de-l clare that Mr. Bemis' responsibility to "insur[e] that the Applicants were doing i

'O

.}.

..., :,,,]

better" created a " conflict" that would cause him to overlook utility management

+

,c 4

.4

.,,. j,. ;

shortcomings in order to deliver favorable reports that would boost his standing

..)

in the agency. Yet, to reach this conclusion, interveners totally mischaracterize 7; fl f,y,.

1 [.

'. n'/.pl.< i the nature of Mr. Bemis' responsibilities, which were to oversee and report on

~

CP&L's progress, not to " insure" improvement of its performance. Further, even though Mr. Bemis was cross-examined extensively at the hearing by interveners,

,~'

we are not aware of, and interveners have not provided any citation to. any tes-timony that raises any question about Mr. Bemis' objectivity in his observations 3

of CP&L.

1

' ~, '

"y It thus is apparent that this intervenor concern is wholly speculative and

" '. y 1

does not provide a gmund for delay of the effectiveness of the Licensing 9

Board's initial decision authorizing the Director to issue a full-power operat-ing license. Moreover, the Commission's review of all other contested issues addressed in the Licensing Board's second PID and the Appeal Board's decision affirming the Licensing Board's conclusions reveals no basis for delaying the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision?

As to those matters raised in the June 1986 effectiveness comments and the January 1987 presentations that do not involve the contested issues in the second PID, they also fail to provide a basis for delaying effectiveness of the

?

Licensing Board's decision. Many of these concerns were resolved previously y

in the Licensing Board, Appeal Board, or Commission rulings on contested

• ]j matters (including various motions to admit late contentions or to reopen and j

N n,. y the Commission's ruling on the hearing requests relative to applicants' request

lf '

( *.,.. '?.

+

'id77..

j *. U ' 'j for an exemption from the requirement of a full-scale emergency planning

<r

,'i drill 1 year before full power licensing, CLI-86-24, 24 NRC 769 (1986))

T..I or in the NRC Staff's decision denying a July 2,1986 petition under 10 i

,1 *

-O 3

+.

our conclusions regarding the seomd PID in the context of this effectiveness decision should not be read to foreclose any peution for review under 10 C.F.R. 62.786 c( the Appeal Bosnrs decision in AI.AB-856. Ses 10 7

C

, _..y C.F.R. I 2.764(g).

.,s

.a 4

3,.

.. /, '-

.t

~

f. ' "..

r m ;;j 4

.% - 4*y,,%-

y *..,...v.

a.e - )

• [. ~

e g. *,, ;y *J v.j 3,-

?. 3 -

.t y ',.sfj

• g s";'..S O..,. g../s *; L ;.q 3.s ' *.c,, l...., * '*. 4.', c. ','e g.p. e;y

s A.

e

'a

• I

, [t 8'.

s'.

' h. [

h*$

. g.. ;'...

'.,e f /. ' r a, Y l'.6, j

< f.',

H.,

.'*2 f.'

y/ A r.

'. b"' / ' l,

[,

r *** ;'* *7 *

? j, '# l 't 1 ^ '*P"~"

'" % ',1.{ d ?"'. ' r r ' ~ * ~ ' Y*' '

,,.. ~ ~,

v a i,'.,, cre

' [,,

e sq J g

a Y",' y

.;!. h lt..

3*;,g g a '

. Y"

?8..

. joy l'..

., 0

.; 7 s.

.,J.,',

.,.7.

X -

x t

t,.

\\ _. ".

s,

.o-g.

,t 1

Y**.

Q c

-g i., J s..

s

,. l ef, ~. b ;

• l

^**

' *..' i_'

'g.

.~.-; '..."

,.y* 1, '.

p,.

., j

.H

. '.. v. v J,'.4 I: ;

o r

n,., L !*,.

. > 'r i.

- f.*,..,'- c ';.,

.<f.*,.,

.. '*a

,a,

.3..

k. 'j, l h...] . : f.k'i.V ;j ', ',h. ;.,,c.,.

a

~f.u, '$.(. n '

'~ "

. p c'. ' m

=

• hg.. *, G, > p.s '

. ? [ > I t'

w i:, }. ;. ' '. i ji,.', *

'*e;f.2, f),,. s,,

m,.,, *..f..,*.l.f.,,,y t',.', !

s,

..v

• l lq. m:. ua....,.6 lq ).,%g & ; *g.,..c

• A

.J. ;e M l' k'd'.{o;[dWW;'%,i':. '.}g,,..,....

f. f.- a..i v....., m, -.a

.tb s *.?.. f L f._.

• y s" p..

2..,3 I.

[&

• Of. S$ '" >,,. # l{*I '

s f

,.,;.,..g,.'

I.* $l,' 5'ly ', yO','

~

s.,

i

(

. Q *.,

s.

A e*

y

'.%.$$N,R.,M> ::

sUQkW

,,y

%*. a

9e..,n A

f;h. N &

P M *' W . W..Tl\\'.A" " *h l l, Q.~,'.Q,d"'.Q'*, &l, '.' &.' 9'k

.8%,..

~ ~ "

• • 1

L

~{

^

5 C.F.R. I2.206 to initiate an enforcement proceeding, DD-86-15, 24 NRC 618 (1986). Others were. addressed fully by the NRC Staff, the North Carolina f

Of6ce of Emergency Management, or applicant CP&L in the presentations at Q. fr '... k, 9,p ' d the January 8 meeting. Nonetheless, we do Snd it myywydate to comment in -

n ';7 s'

4 s'

i ', ', tl -

.3

. :, M ' o.

y l.,1,i;

'. ',,'( Y; '

some detail on one of these Concerns.

Presently pending with the NRC Staff is a petition under $ 2.206 to modify, y q a,,

t,,4,

^

suspend, or revoke the Sheamn Harris construction permit In this petition.

interveners Wells Eddleman and CASH contend that this enforcement action W ' M; }

is appropnate because (1) there are major de6ciencies in the applicants' quality e

t

"#C i

i 5j as:;urance ("QA") program with respect to electrical cable and components; (2) w.W.,$7 j.' ;.. D.?.f.i..'. :,3, o c,.,,

two recent complaints brought to the United States Department of Labor by E

,m former workers at the Shearon Hams site indicate CP&L lacks the requisite c,-

m

5..,

1 character and technical capability to operate the facility; and (3) allegations 99,7s

• $'.e Y m. ; J;i of a con 6dential informant about falsincation of documentation, substitution J..

" 7;;.l %,, M,M ;' t y

• g-l,,1 of materials, improper inspections, and improper construction assertedly show

- M.g y e :. p there are additional major denciencies in the CP&L QA program. Although the

.E N $. }'.",]

},:"Wl

b.. ; g.,

'. 1, NRC Staff has not yet issued a written decision relative to these allegations, c-;. 4 w.,, j,..-

'"t..-

at the Commission's public meeting on January 8,1987, Staff representatives

's actions to investigate and ascertain the safety e

f.-

c.

-~

sign 16cance of these allegations. At the meeting the Staff indicated that, on MU

-,C',. 4. : /e -

.?,,'

the basis of its investigations relating to these matters, it had concluded that

"?

the allegations do not establish any substantial dc6clency in applicants' QA

~

s.

program or in its integrity or technical capability that presents a concern about

~

safe facility operauons. We And this assessment well supported by the Staff's M

'.dr oral explanation of the status of the Staff action relative to the pending $2.206 f

petition, and thus conclude that the matters raised in the 92.206 petition do not appear to have substantial safety signi6cance or otherwitc provide a basis for delaying full power license issuance.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.764(f)(2),

the Commission nnds that the Licensing Board's decision resolving all contested v

.t 4:

x r

n:-

4

)

'..w.

o -

1. .f.

i:

y,f 'qg+. n..'; n ~..,...W...

.?

,..'ig.'*

[

.,v<"..,.

,,s a ;..

. ~,.

. h.*

~>

,9

• e3 g 4

-4..,....w.'

.e

.2<-

.;.,..f,~._<

g' e m

.", y; m 7 e,Ty,,.

i.

m J..

... _;.y w.

..n

..r,s..

.. c... ? e,.,. t

_m,

n c*;c

...*...,.r.,

'N?e

.-

• 7l.,, ;

1. . y N U.. ',y 9 _. '.,,.".. 's %

a

~L, &

-a.

sg

5.,,,,.;.;, 4,*

. ;v w.4..,O, o

,6.

<p.

• m. :.sy. p%. q.; ? m > m. a n. n.... r:. e

.:,n

-.. z

.y,.

%m. ;e,

m..., f3 e. -.3,.. ',w.c

~

. p:'(v..

.e.i.,..

4a

.s

.o s, - + o..

p,. s%.s.

5 e

g.

s-nwy.w sca,y;4.y :.;;. ra..y. c. y M,9.m k.D*N* iliE'[,3 'p...% e.m p* \\.J.: t..L

.r,,; Q. h %

.;.y[x. s

.I"N W-v m +.4 w; n.

.W$4 W; M. &, W,M p?. y;. 4.? % g!.l @%. w.fgg* y 1 H

f

- 4.3..,.. s., n. i g.s.,v. '.y.

y, p.. s...,,J.g

.s

...,,, $., ;>,~

s. mi..,, +... >} m. th. W,%l m.,,

.. s

' ?.~..,.v.;:: m.

.x p

.nn.

-n,...,--,.

.....w

,.bc

. o

..v.. e n.

-. yl %

s s

,).'

.. 'g.[ C

.c..

• A.

a

.Lc ja

.il W': <. ;; ?'q w'.'r. %.,s.e. :: +;.. :..u. n),.,....u.,.3..

.." ;%.p*

• y

...T.> ;.

1. ;

. (. 9, u...

. -...e<a,

• , r 9.,,e,1,y,.,.. u..r, 3*;W..

3 9,.

m..,.,*.

W..

p.

sc n,.

-~s r.. <,..n. $*w:3 wi. ',..:.

),.,,-

s

,. m

... =

1

. sp

,ga.

.,, s g,.,y - ~a a

....~

r-

,o i.,0..,. b.

i

.?..

s

.vu, q.... G *., w. ;,,.

s.

,s.,i.. m.n s

. c.g j.:.

+

4. ? L.W... *e&..., 3..,. x. t..j...'.,S ll, h.M,, %.e.p,L.W.y. g.j.

,,4

,: p,,;,,p w p[a 3

cd l U.i'W.,.

.p

... > j. <f.ilf,..c. : {.K.v?.,

[p.'. :. ;.-,.".,'

,, l.. *..-}.e,..

G M

,, f

.w.,

,.~

4 issues should become immediately effective and the Director, NRR, is authorized to issue the full-power license for the Shearon Harris facility,'

It is so ORDERED.

.,i.

4

'. ;,. e f. 'Q g: V,.. ' '

For the Commission v.

,e a

. '.,o. (,j i

+

o A. ', -

,,,qj

. *s 9.

g.e c -

SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission E, @. ',..d Dated at Washington, D.C.,

this 9th day of January 1987.

4. d j*d

.- :,. a.

.i

,,.i., ; ;.

e.,., e '.

• h. l+

. (, L.

s s

, t.' g, 'e, ;' <. s,

s.

..r.o e>

.,.., r

• r 4

-r..

• e,

1. .b

< Ig

• g

..*(,* *,

J ts-I

, I* F

,'. 4'a,, '.,. j, 1

g_

w n.

s

[, ' J, i,, ' g 4 g 4 g <'

• e' s 's'".? k,'**,,,*- [..

,.4;,-...

S',,,,pp 8,f A,

g f

p-

,, > s

.a*"E,.

+

J.. s

,.a, l

n p

s

• f g 4,.,-

...,-e s - %.

c e,.-.s'.

. g i '

1., s ia e

,,..%,+

.,4

p. j.-

I

.,. o* h [ _.,. 4

}.

\\

.s.

K j

'6 i-- gt

< +,

43

.i a

}

Os ( I W:

..t)

. N,g' e

+

f t

f4

.'p.-,.

4

/ i. :.1 t

o

.. t l

es 4

.+

9 6

y f

,,' 1

'I.l

.q

,~:

~

.~

F,.

G.j 1

.s,

,e. t a

-p..

j.-

• .c1

-d ' a

• M F,&

.',.*g*..*

,,m A','g,,. <

1-t

,.y j

$g 4

• a{

M r,,

14.>:.g

,,.s,

.t, g.~.,

• *,tg 1 u. i*

..,g' 5.

ta y.*

I.,

,. A.

,w y

,,[...-

' 'I, + fri 4

..74 e

a.

y

< </.

e q.

.J J. 1)*.

'Iess than i hour before ths Conumasum's January 8.1987 messans, a monen was Aled by the

~.

A; Council of North Carolina. Wells N==i, and the Canhinan for Ahernanvas no Shessen Harris sequesdng the_

c V..,

A, f:.,, 4.

rendsed that aquest mnot.

1j Commission to afrain imrn making any desisise to appnwe the Duomer's issuanes of a hamnse. Evams have

• ';T., s > 7. P,,

h.*

,s r,. '.* y'.,,,,

I#

c

~,

e,.

• ^I

~ : s ....

3,, [,, '. o; s*.....

s

.p t,.,/

,,, 1,1,( c.n..a -,..,3

,'.s,,..

7 m.

,#, *. r,.

\\.

e ' ~

• h., +,

~,

-~.4-'g.

. G'.'...,

.s

< + h*

.,. ;. [ 7.,.,.,.,.%

,. ;$.,d.

, ' b.;K, i d IJ[,4.,.j,,,i 1

. *., -yyj.

. i.,, ' ' N '. i...f'sie5, y

j n (f,.. s.J,.,e.'

• ya

.\\.,,

s

,. h.

-., =.A,y

• d"

,..,x

,.ve o & s e ' *. a.d=*

+

,,..e

?.'

g.,

44

<W.

A, j,u w.,.

6,. c%u 3 a, p.->

~. n t* % e Q.X' s

w '.%n

-. 1.,

n

.a.

[J' c

e

.id

.(,.dM-O'n!5',s:'F;<n,.?'.W:..Q W;-'f 'f.,Y'[:l'N,%

h e,y. -

~ ~;,;W,. ;..yi st:: h; t*,

m. - e.. c,

,y 4 1,

• f

'W,q

.. A,m. g.g -l,.

m,.,..,.,*,,,,. -- y. y,,

.a..--.

w.

s,; % n

,3

.r<

,y. 2.,. m.,

..g.

, c:

.. d.. e,.s

• [* l[3[y &."..p,. 3,m

,..,., a,' n %,a, *. *

• u..,,* s,.....&

h

,.~*'.o

>

• g, ~ :, )..

N.,' f.,

f

, (*.. f..

g

(

o g

~h;)

^

a....(*Q%: '.. -

8 f[ ',*

iO

'i^ '

$....~ '. ' '

.[

• i; c q f,' ',.,

4 I

'd,'

a 4',%) i C. ; *,, ' /.,

• w.r... ;., s.. [t. Ith.4.$, *, * *t... s.,,. 3,q,.

) k' I, ~.,.

• g n 3

.I..

.g..,,

p.o

.g';,f' 7. * '

V. c  ? ~~

= '

• • k>.

E

s. ','_

..t,.

o m.-

+o.

... _,. c.n.

f <( e,...",i.,..., 'J c '. %,<y...- * *; c*

• t.,vi,.r,-

.-s.,e,,',.. ~,,..

e,

..i

.= E,d

.p.

,8

.- +

.-5,\\,.\\,4

.n~,...+.

S.".,.-*'.

i _ yi.

6

.s.". :,, ;. fe..

5*,,

u

.4'

. no,

n

~s, 5 'L (J]p.' y x, u..,,. p*l..r f.' ' _,

.s t

• a

', n c. rg.,,

= -; e

,y s;

.o' c.

[+ 4',{'y;. 'j c

4 e

, " V g M *'., ;,l,l

• 4 /*h '

',,,,.. // ', y,')

,.,i a,: &a a n [. n. w ] f;.*,*.',*[,;

. w {.Y,,,,

..g, i,,@ ; $, y w'.. p. d.

• l,.j,.*

• j s?,.

gg e, t,

s. w t' v'Wl.s,o

.s.e,.. x*.d..e w

. m m,e. v. m.s3',.v;~;., l<.. w.,. w; *..+1 *f',.J e b*s r,,. u. +; s',

n 'ML y'N.R.e,g'}e. q.H > >. o.~

.~

.': s.~ t m

3

,Q; 0,,.&

.e

r f

.< ~-

.fh.

,V sSQ.'. :

g ** *

• lY %h$Qy, /;t.M'. *n

?! 7;%) !',t. 4 f.f' 7 la1"M* dwf.C:$ $ qJ;."7 y

.W'

• *M-v, ' *o o;

- e T!? g,s:

w..-

n

[ WQ:; 'y.

s

'*W.

~,.,'s. < n. r * -.,, ' *',

/'P

• O 4, ^ -

s g "$ f 8.! K,

/

rf",- M /,

3.,...

K& b

• A. g' U' ;U c, '1.W ;M,a'ht C Ua

• C,'

4*>k'h:?Wh'$WNDW.W.cU, ~. W'" 'A

'?

^*d.Q k

O h N f '?h h f N hi k

L

e

.j l

i

-t s.

3 i

i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthat, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore Christine N. Kohl Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wdber i

0

I t

Cite as 25 NRC 7 (1987)

ALAB 857 4

• h c..4 -

>.,c.,,S.f 7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

p:a

,, f, s

. s ;p,,. '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

,,,.q..

s, 3 1......e,,,,, a i

,, w ;..j, g,e-

,y e

l, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD o

s

.~i

.. m.,.

.3 j...

,.s 3

.e i

Administrative Judges:

y

,., y v

t

.n.

i

.; *,;;D ['. k.. ; - [.}'i, q.q/c.$ ;

Christine N. Kohl, Chairman

.c_, g - n, Gary J. Edles

• A.<

. y ' m..,.

l' Howard A.Wilber

,~

_.. r,...g

/. :. j ; / g: :* : Q i 4

. ij s J - t '.r.

y

• j., s 8 4..s.., : ;n,.. -

,f j

.s,;.

!

• I.

s

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352-OL M;,'.'. C t.I ^ [, [

,. m. 0,.:

- J 50-353-OL'.

. <f~j PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC -

v.5 c.' *! 1, -,

.c.

,,y (Limerick Generating Station,

'?

J COMPANY N.1, ;..

..e Units 1 and 2)

January 2,1987 k

- ; f.;

e i...r.

/ D.k-

~

The Appeal Board affirms, subject to certain confirmatory action by the s'., [

applicant, the Licensing Board's supplement to its third partial initial decision, LBP-86-32, 24 NRC 459 (1986), which concerned the adequacy of the number

~

of bus drivers available to evacuate children in two specified school districts in the event of an emergency at the Limerick facility, RULES OF PRACTICEt AFFIDAVITS m,.p ;,, 4,,M;. '

.:6. + 0

pu

-, c, 4. -.,. ;,. ;

Any factual information pmvided to the boards should be in af6 davit form.

t.

...;. y :;

,i::a.: ;,, ;;v,...

_.,.,.. y

n..y, s. ';.

. -.. m..,

,(

N ;', %,

pp 'y

.l,[?

'u

. l&

EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (IMPLEMENTING cR -: C' T PROCEDURES)

,..s

,p!,t f.M'$;;q i

. lJ.C. ' ' ":'i),

j

" Implementing procedures" that supplement emergency plans with details

. ;

• j,,'f/,/ *'.,/,,W > &

t.

N.

likely to change, such as telephone numbers, are not required for a " reasonable

. 7 f

. ' N.,., l x

.v.,.

g

e. c,,w* e -.

w-

, n;

..?-

.r,Ac a

c a

4

., t,9 -,4,

. r..

. pc g., q,. e.o.~.

c 3-we.

• ,.., ;. z,y w..

s -.

,r..<

s y*,...:

e..,

., 2.

..e*...:. ; <.,.

. D ' *;

• W ' d i%

,...,, 1 y l'y. :' s ~, +..'._.....~m.,,,.s..;*..

w.g y ; i.. g.~

.W,,,..

s + '..a. M....

,.... " e..,#..

. p t', f., c.. P.'.',.*J T,., s%.,pe.s;.,.,w

,s..e.,.<

y' -

• J

...,,..,... L.

e

,a,.

y,,..t.;h -o...,,,.

g:,w.

,4 p,....

% s, ' t~y.,"'.3

,.,yo';hg.,'l* ?

';;;.1 e

n h.Y. f,v

.L. ;,y

.y s.

c.

-'d,..,,;* ' ";$f!&

&h;* W+ 3.r..m.... e c.,l.&;..Jw.':]u Qll.,;$' v,**f.t..j; ?f.t ',h f,. lw,y.z.: aQ,:

Wy;p.C.

1. -4 *

=.

. !.l e

. < :. r,,4 pf"Pf.;g., My, '! ;p' e,f* m.% 4 ;' ; S : ;,

7', '.Q.,,. yr~M, ", i W,C "u..

, Jw.

6 s.

M ~, % et;Y. g., W 7.ps t.**.,u..;..',.*-.

4 s c y'

~n.,

.g :

.w m.

s *,.r

y--- m ~

d

,6 '.-

er -. --

E' G........f

. f,fi M "

, \\.

.p""<

c;4..

-, s; m* w *f. y,y

, a.., 3.4,.. :

4 t

.,1 d :.*.

.4

,. _ w.'... : a;.r,.v.

4,,e.v, s--

1-

• t ;.,

s.

v

• -. 4,n~.,, s',

.. ~, ' '

t.*.

. ~, ',,,.,,

s s

u,... r. ',

,4

.p s.. 's.'i

... -,, 'b, ; M,4 :g, r.1 C,. -

• f,'. $..; + :. t.s-t. i:..,[,*

,4,

,l.,.

.j,I -

3 I J.,4

~

, V 3. },,,8P '

..f..,.

. p'

~ y. ; '."

7 c v

. l ~*,.. y..

.i

• .., r. c,

=,*

p

, g.Q -...

.~

m e

'L, *%y, ? ;.t....,.r

?

t

.v Js'

~a i.:

.y.f;s' b,,;:,.'.. h..

• f;.d 5,*. !=

I'

,p ' [ A :: *a, :.:*,.mM, y sn

/

i

' (I 8

ii

., 5

@hR*f@;'.$c,y: eat;5w.a.Mt....?:s?..c.:7.y'.;f s

.~.~'ly'k f,b h

%',un ~ x>. w x.

'j&qmr ve ty

• d g ly.&g~'kh'&NY.s*h '$.I;Y kh?,$5.$e.l.k,b5 ;,&,hWrll~ I*, f:>*N.'. k$w a

e%$4mgann mw m..n m

r p

( :,'

.k assurance" finding. Loulslana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732.17 NRC 1076,1106-07 (1983).

.. ~f;'

.,, v..j EMERGENCY PLANNING: REQUIREMENTS

-(,

4

,~.

w,.;. s. q, }' ' y,j

. Whether a solution for an emergency planning deficiency can be characterned 0-l as " permanent" or " interim" is not important. What is important from a regula-

~

tory and legal standpoint is whether "them is reasonable assurance that adequate t

protective measures (e.g., evacuation) can and will be taken in the event of a radi-4 -

4

.e j.

ological emergency." 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1). See also 10 CF.R. 6 50.47(b)(10).

)/.'

r

/ J'. '..

. ~...f ',;. 4.,.x. '( y.,7,:j.d..

' RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD

, t.c.

r 4,

]I

'Ib reopen a record, certain criteria must be satisfied. See 51 Fed. Reg.19,535, 1.'p'..... '

'n. :,s%., m..'c.;.

19,539 (1986) (to be codified as 10 CE.R.12.734).

.1,

,l c.

s -... > g.

~.; y

.. v

.. - 2.

y,

-f' RULES OF PRACTICE: BURDEN OF PROOF

. - 4

.,. f While an applicant has the ultimate burden of proving reasonable assurance,

^

it is not obliged to prove and reprove essentially u ch llenged factual elements n a L

~

of its case.

i, _

.,o r.

EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT Under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IIV, emergency response plans M.y "shall contain information needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards

.- - ]cJ described in 6 50.47(b)."

EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (CHANGES)

U 10 C.F.R. 5 50.54(q) requires a licensee to " follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the sondards in ISO.47(b) of this part and the

.(

l requirements in Appendix E to this part." Changes to an emergency plan Y; ), ;., ;,.

g that would decrease its effectiveness are permitted only pursuant to prior NRC

P i c,'

~

y, ". ; '

aPProyal.

.f.

,,v..

y,.

, w

. T,.,

n.<

, ;... '.:3. w..

-r ;

. i.

-u 4

..c :p,

., v,,..

r, $

EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT f

4 c,

1

.f;j, q

,f An applicant's commitment to satisfy, through special provisions, the emer-

.je.

J,

3 gency plannir.g standards in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Ap-i

. I i.,

.,,<,.y: 9 [i.,3 pendix E, must be formally included in the pertinent emergency plans.

l c~ J

,.-: v.

- -u. ;:.. >

y.. s e:

-,,., s: '

.t l

s..,..,

u 6t

., 7.r. ;. L, j';.,..;

...o

..' n.; s.;,, '. i., w,.,.,

,;..- 1

, y i

.t-

...u

..., ;..^m y s., ;*.r c -

w,., y,f g', _r",

[-

c...: '.,1 y

r oy.

g

..~

s,

...y.. y}

m c* *

,.,j.,, s...- t-

%,y.

, 7.

.,.,. 5, ' V s..y q.r

'. ? "-- M. e?",/ h;'y,q.p l;;.'t 4 ; *g "1.&.3 4 d

. -." ; f;f.t*

• c vi,;3

-e

4., a g,t. ;y Q.~3d.. ' i. p. 4 '..

• v A.y*t*.

'h

..p.

'.. ;.,., c. :a,-w. p r..u. 1,!.,

y,.. gn. %,q r,s ; 9...

q,

,.S r.

... a a. ~ a.t

.i. t '.7 k.j,'a w /*l'y ),' (t.%4*j g s,87 'M.Wy

• W lf,'h,*h f,f','.

..f.,*i

?

TTj' "'.~'*? '.[%i'W:'"%.W.1Q'F,'yf* [. ' ' f,, ? ~.5 " jf. ' 1Y:' ' ' *, ?. ' r'. ' Y*. f,,'.

..p

'u~s,p.

c 4

P-p

.=y.s.

c..

• w

.'.., 3 s

-/

1

. o.q..

t -

t 3

>c

.;,', '.E E, ^. ? *. Y. 7..

7, w.

g a ;..

@[

q".

4 O '.1/ ; *.

-..'h..,,,

, ' *. '\\ *, %.,. s +lg - [-

.i

.~..

c3

• b

~

J-

-Ii.'<' '

.t.

'7'-

.y ;.

?.l

,a'?s'.

r g.. s;t ;. '< y,fp;[;,.x,,', It

..s n v.

.."n

,.n '

, n...,5

,4.?m, f

.r

• . w.s i t.s e e.,. -

m*. >. ;a,]; f g,

t.

c..,

.e

.; e. %

r:f =

, pr;. :. J. a., h,y,9.n'.-m.c.;' f 6 '. ?,

,s

+

O m e!n; m cs.

~

, i.

~.:

e

.c-

', 9.,'..,,y.

2.y.

..'. * ;.*."9 9;Q:.,j$',: tf.',.}Q.,E %g );O.C.d * > Y:.{1%. D},. 'v'y. a Q, s ; p'.

.p.

,. n,. ;

y? g

,,..;. '., 'y,q. O.

.y Wy i & *.D y $, D' u.)a 'u d'.:a,:;r:t.k.e' %

• ?

f*VV

.b

.. s

• C +.i s * > M

. <,,. J :. i QI, * *) *.%_' 6'.

• '.2 1 ::.4.. c *,')

. s yy.. n f. ~.. ;)n <.'**

y.~. y:n%+y W.O t. > n. -

V

?WQ.\\*Q W.i'.J.mW.%.i.\\;<3.W.9Q,%@< ;3;.)g&W:,%

t..

. +.,. y We -:

M.%g

? s

@fq5 ;..%.*d.'*iW:.y %W.':-:m.

,,.t

n %T.Wik.,.

t...

i-

.ty

'p M9 WWi

.l.

N.O :!.%,:

M W,

.( . f" *,& lv?@*

W9M.Mw; m i'. t!E

EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT i

Important emergency planning information must be readily available in the

.H i

,..l,,.

Y,,. '.;

plans themselves to decisionmakers. ALAB-845,24 NRC 220,248-49 (1986).

.,..;.2 p;

9..,

p.W, ' l 'j LICENSING BOARDS: RESOLUTION OF ISSUES i

Licensing boards must "' confront the facts'" and "'aniculate in reasonable detail the basis' for the course of action chosen"; they are not obliged, however, W'

to refer specifically to every proposed finding. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977),

s af'd. CLI-78-1,7 NRC 1, af'd, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution c

.v

',: *n J.. S,., X,b:,

,.,,,;.g.,..,.;,

v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978).

i 4

,..-.. !.. ;p.

.x.

. ; p.

~..

.c. /,':. j g:. J,'. f.. U.k,'.',[. '.,i,1

~

,s.

c.

RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW

4. 4,p. y

.... q ~ ;.,,.. 3;%;..

, ~-

. Appeal boards may confine their review to " substantial assertions of Licens-

. 2

',. l.. ;,,,

f 3

ing Board error" Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, s.

'l Unit 1), ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,143, review pending, CLI-86-11, 23 NRC m;. ' - t.5,. *.,

y, l

]

577, 579 (1986).

.,,...u-

~

1 v

APPEARANCES t

David Stone and Maureen Mulligan, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, for intervenor

,.,s Limerick Ecology Action,Inc.

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Robert M. Rader, and Nils N. Nichols, Washington, D.C., for applicant Philadelphia Electric Company, Benjamin H. Vogler for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission maff.

DECISION

.;4 <

u.c n.

z.~.:,h,

m;g,,,

e w

,:;.<,c

t..

-: r.T.

y p.,..... -.

.q, :

.t,..

M. M..

in ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986), we affirmed virtually all of the Licent-

'.,,,c~

s

.p g } '. 6,...-N;$;

ing Board's third partial initial decision in this operating license proceeding, concerning the offsite emergency plan for the Limerick nuclear facility. As a f~ ;,,

e,,,,.-

result of arguments raised on appeal by intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,

.' %.1.

7, y m g 1*y Inc. (LEA), however, we reversed the Board's finding of reasonable assurance 3.m

ice, i.M,,'.'.,e.,c ' li.* ?',

of an adequate number of school bus drivers willing and available to assist in

• * * [l -

, e c,

• ?.,.. '.

.*j

'[

• 5 * ?. ".[*, j I l t ',

"'._\\.',.,..;

'..' C.. k I.,l

• :,, nt.' 2 a,

e M1

-b' if,,[;a 2,,["G 8 r,p y],

%;y y,

g

. w,o - '

9 c N.,,.,. s~....c.c j

,, - a 8

d '. M ' Y.,-[.[(. E.,lo

[,,.hI'* h,.,.';\\, ' l. ' '.

• l[h f.,*,'rl*i.s T;, 2 k.. !n R.? C, ';.*c.;e., '. N.

Lo. 4$'*h.,,*[n

.'l,,,3 R

1 A *.t.

e A. e -. ',.f. t y

..f. /;,,- : a.

, w g..g,,

.a

.e.

y e.

• [ h. [ 18 I'* #k

• tD i n.fM.,;o c'4$/Y08' i c. -

4,a,,%.r,.'m b,,*,4..s m.s 4

~

.s

. j.,,

,,,.g[.y g,..,,

,g

.q

~h Ik *,

j-4

" ' (" 8 ', i t,.

s'

..y (:: r; :.\\.m M $ ! % y';%&;; z, *..",,,,,y,, *,-l,W. d. Q' m ',G. ',,:/ ', '

• * ' y, *! & lt ; W. *, ' b., '.,[,5. (T}?

v

.I

. n '*

t

.t

, ~.,..

.. y..

. q,., *r. :

, m

. r s.-

- W' f,

.3 7,,

,, s. ?p 7

GV..* ' O_.

I ;', '

' h *.

1 n'

• ?

~ j

~\\

E*

(-

i.*b,',,., ;*;Y'{,,l,li %.T %;g&' P ';'i.Tfl 5

e':'l

.W%

.'* T ^>V,

%'.',.~.,

~

3

. Q.. QM ; N.* ', < >.i;

.3'

~

3.. "

%, *) v, '

j.

~.

..e.i n.'<..'.,p..

f.,

... ~.

N

.,..., &.. ;v, *. $q ?. ml*.*., * $* 'v,%.? 4 ' 5. ',G >,, l p*

.e s

. '1

..,s.-

,r..

.,'%'.\\*.,. ".e...\\,,.

. ')

,'$ s '~ {

• ".1-

. s.',..,..N.q. d :...

'?. *

• l s.';'<h. ** [** *i*,.'*llc.,n' e q - l

• w' **,1,y '

,. /

.,.a a

&?

• , (*

g.

Y

..n..:

b E w.b e* g, e..,.

a._,,,

1 :7.)..-

.v,.......",. p s

.u, v.A. #$". '. f. "-

,(

Ih 8

^

..,9.4. ;.4 y.c?.,'ri.

.?'.

,. }n ).? : V:s.NQ' Y *

...t.ra.,).),, A.d.J.,: n.a.

.,.5

.,aW4'n'd 2,'.%,8a <H.'l.p M. Jd,;Jp.

f ".r *>. ;,,.'..

e' dc'i.$.>..*/...t., d M. rg'.

q

,t;/.

p

,ra.

8 c

-m v

,,,f.Q;'Q. QQ$7,h&.?.A:$ ;s6.' 1 Q., 7:'A*m:f.Qile}Y::}..}h&$.l.f'. O,* l,e.'~ klQ.

.,w

.V v

~4

- i' e

3-

..d W,ny +1

.i=,

o

+

% Q[

-,a._,-----_

1

~

l l

an emergency evacuation of two specified school districts within the Limerick emergency planning zone (EPZ), (Spring-Ford and Owen J. Roberts), tnd we remanded for further action on this one limited issue. Id. at 515-20.2

>1 In response to this action, applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) l o -

n.A

h. F proposed to have approximately 200 of its employees - after proper training j

'. 7, Limerick. The Licensing Board held two days of hearing on PECo's proposal, and licensing - drive these school buses in the event of an emergency at 6

where witnesses from PECo, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the affected counties and school districts, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency i

j (FEMA) appeared. Based on their testimony favorable to PECo's proposal, the

a i

Board found " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency d

at the Limerick Generating Station, there will be an adequate number of bus

.a

.7 drivers to effectuate an evacuation of the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford n

g, y q.,,.. f. $,a.,

4 7,. y.;, ?

Area School Districts." LDP-86-32, 24 NRC 459, 471 (1986). Indeed, with

.t

..J

~

rM q

the additional complement of PECo's 200 employees, there will be four to five l

I

%.r.,,: m..

".,4 times as many drivers as are needed to satisfy the driver shortage in the two

'a:

s 6

.s.

9..? W,-

~.

c m,

,

school districts. Id. at 465-66.

.,/ b j

LEA again appeals, while PECo and the NRC staff seek affirmance of LBP-86-32. As explained below, we direct PECo to take certain confirmatory action but otherwise conclude that LEA's appeal is without merit.

~~

1 A.

The Licensing Board's decision thoroughly discusses the major elements of PECo's vc,lunteer driver pool and we need not repeat that discussion here. See s

3

'j id. at 464-7L LEA does not appear to challenge directly the Board's findings themselves. Rather, its principal argument is that some means is necessary to ensure that PECo actually fulfills its commitment to provide volunteer bus driver employees to participate in an emergency evacuation. To this end, LEA has p-proposed that the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r

~<y, and FEMA " verify the immediate and ongoing compliance" with five suggested license conditions. LEA Brief in Support of Appeal (October 20,1986) at

16. Th( record, however, does tot suppon the imposition of these conditions.

The fm condition would req 2e all 200 PECo volunteers to be trained, licensed, and " enrolled" by name, address, and telephone number wah the appropriate county emergency office prior to the beginnirig of the fall 1986 1

school term. See id. at 3, 8,16.2 When the hearing closed ort August 22, 58 c.;,

.f~

,7

,j, volunteers had already been trained and licensed, and another 45 were scheduled E, M. '... j for the test (on August 25) that is !be prerequisite for obtaining a school 3.5 S.

f. ( n. -]2 d bus driver's license in Pennsylvania. LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 467. As LEA

+

,7

.c.l acknowledges, the particular relief sought by this license condition is essentially

-3

.].G, I

,, i,,'

The Commission declined review of A1.AB.836 on My 24.1986.

2 The Owen J. Robens School Distnct is located in Chester Coun y and the spnng-Ford Area School Distnct is l

f

,* 4.....

+., j j in Montgomery Caumy.

+,,,

,.4

.: 'a.;S.., g f,

• D

• * * ~ ', ',

/1 qs

> i'

, i

,p I

,e

',.y.},N 10

• f * ;. l,% {. 6 ' >

,t;

a,:,;,. :

...,.%,:?; '. Q 'e j,

~'.ms rW,

~.

e c. M..

. ~

',,, ;w...c. r'.,

..,t.

m

'.L.'.% e.Dl.:. 'M ;. lp, s;? 3.,&.:;Q

~

^:

ca..

Yml.y;%'d.

h.,.Q*l<sy ;,Y!Y.s!.L'i.,,l,',&.:.. :..., + < A m*b.t a w e..,,p:U a, e. w.

. e.,. g, d. ~.:. v.....,-

.. 3. 3,-

s

..,T:..;*. %.'..

.vi A:.m;.......=...,:.'.,.

.,,, c ;..... e:.,..; s.,

.~

o

.:.y,v.+.:qd,'y A'

& ;;; 1;.

...x u'

y.-

3 f.v,y ;;.,*.~.;.'. . m :f -l;..... Y,G.... +. e.

a:. ;:. ',n t

. ;. u ;. f' {.y-

~

s c

.s

~.

+

'x

v. :..

a.:

W. u

.a. r :,, a.

,. :. N,'j..., '.,,.

.t

p>

-c s

.' y '.y. ' i.

. '. v,(*,' M.. . ',',.Y,),

,?.'

La

,.1@q' u,

,o-9

,, ? < i,..,.

n.' t h i

,;;..,- n;.?,'.n,~.;lR... f,..., y l'.(1,

;s.......,.

}

.V l.

.x

.o-

.'L.... - -

,^!

w:

..c y

., ; ;, . d.'

..i.,

, vt,.t ',f.f.I,1: <. a. J;. ; ;.r, q,.',

4',.,r.9 tr. }.,

• 2.... ',.,,5..

., / *,

.. 6 7,.

ji' '.. '~,. ;, ;&:..'[. 7. c'? '.'s.:,;)]%. 'i.y :,

e'

. N

...,,g. G '.. j e:.2 Y

,O

f. s. m% }.'

.' lll Y.u L',

~f

~.

.?..,

~

WZw ",y L,y s.'. 2 *t.*}v )*.f;;,"f,;l'$. 73.,9.7h,..

,es

s

,m

.

• V l.

1.Qy :. j' 19 f..,

' 'n I, p

.,.~,v.y?pl,.v

.'.Mg

..[h.,; P, w'..,-l M..,

}

.H..

','.F ~y..%. ~A,; -?~?

? j%v.y.*NriM,p.,S...;r.

Mr q,ps.?.9m. '6.*$:* %.!...)sy: f'.,.r.;&:.,;9, n N e.<%* ?

-

• Qu - ' T ', '

,c

.m

~. < =? c

..% v. - r

... q <,..

c, 'Q. 7.W' n...k'*.,m.

~ + <s' q.

. r,..

'..n,..

r *,f *(... sp...%.t V;

.(

.~ d.. "'y:*.C'::,,~;',.f~t 6

~A

.y.m o !.s

.; e*..

. i M kt.

+%* ' v c

' ;m nq.,,'{,$.-);..

u

. r" 8 - M*

..,0 ^

"s ' *.

)

W.,; y. '

..t

jn.

____-______a

J l

i now moot because school reopened a few days before the Licensing Board r,

m issued its decision. LEA Brief at 1,2, 3.8 In any event, according to PECo, its " volunteer bus driver pool now consists of 234 fully trained, qualifted and

{,,

J,1, w'c licensed drivers." Licensee's Brief, supra note 3, at 5.'

g s

u., -. fu ;,

7,.

. ;., d, ',, l.-

As for LEA's proposal that the volunteer drivers be " enrolled" with the county

' ~'+

S emergency offices - i.e., that their names, addresses, and telephone numbers i -

be maintained on file - this exceeds the scope of the very limited issue we remanded in ALAB-836. 7hc additional proceedings before the Licensing Board

~'

~..

were to focus solely on the number of school bus drivers willing and available to serve the two districts involved; the overall logistics of driver mobilization was n.!

not intended to be at issue. ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 520. Wrther, as PECo points l

'k J Q M.%,* 'j d'[f:, g;.,7..,c[,

out, drivers from other sou ces serving these and other school districts need not be enrolled with the county organizations. Moreover, if a need for the PECo 7;

.. '. vn ;, 't d,,.y volunteers arises, the counties' basic plan is to contact PECo, not the individual c

' 4 s.. m..,, a :7.

7. r.,7 '.p,k,,.* 4 drivers. This is not unlike the manner in which the primary sources of drivers y

for school districts throughout the EPZ are to be mobilized. See Licensee's Brief i

]

at 1415. See also Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric

• j Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1106-07 (1983) (" implementing

. :. ;, w7

-:. ;, J

.. G procedures" that supplement emergency plans with details likely to change, such r

j as telephone numbers, are not required for " reasonable assurance" finding).

.,y *

,,. g c

,4 7,,

,l A second license condition proposed by LEA is designed to assure that there f,

will be a sufficient number of sr.hool buses available at the pertinent marshaling areas for the PECo volunteers to drive. See LEA Brief at 15,16. In a similar vein,

,j LEA also argues essentially that specific individuals should be given specific

> g' advance assignments. Id. at 13. But again, these issues concern bus and driver mobilization and thus exceed the scope of our narrowly circumscribed remand

..L.1 in ALAB 836.8 Nonetheless, the Licensing Board found in the decision here on appeal that the counties are responsible for transporting any needed volunteer drivers to bus locations and that, as a practical matter, PECo would facilitate this activity. LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 468. See also Licensee's Brief at 20-22 &

2 n.50. LEA has given us no cause to doubt the ef6cacy of this plan. Thus, even s

v

,u

.,g.

J, '. y,

.,'n.*",,

y y..

n.

,, M.?.,

, f.l..

, PECo points out that 17.A could have sought, kna did not seek, a stay of abs tacensing Board's decision. Licenses's

• ,p ' y,$.,;;. j *,.

2-

• ' './ ;

[..'/ s : e a'

.. h Bnef (November 21.1966) at d a8. Nor did t.EA seek suspenman of PEco's operating license pending disposition J

,g,-( I N<

. n r y ; y,.7 of this appeal

'While we have no causs to doubt this repeesenistian in PEco's trief, tha namnbar of trained and licensed drivers

'~

,f

.!?

,d is factualinformation that should have been provided in af5devis fornL We therefese direct PEco to supply such an af5dsvit to us ar.d the panies within 10 days of the service dane of this decision.

.c.

p.,'i,g :;;

i

.p

...e *g sit s worth noting that in ALAB.836, wo expressly affirmed the tacensing Board's eartiar Arxhng that a sufficient

, 4. : i *.,._

,i*~.

number of veMcles would be available to effect a "ane.ha" schael evacuatiert 23 NRC at 51215. In addition, the

'(,

,.,n,, s i -

O,..

• '," a ; [

_ for assigning buses and drivers generally were also previously addressed by the Licensing Board, sas

-. +...'. /,,.

t.BP.8514.21 NRC 1219.1275 76.1322 (1985). LEA did not challenge this % its endier appeal and is foreclosed

• 7, T.. '.?," '. y

. ?;

.c.v.a fn=n dans so now.

r

. u,t. -,- r +.';

,l M. :yl; -

. 'f:

s,./:

• M '. L, y,, m <.N. c,1,1.,. D m

.9 K

pr{

.. 3 5 j..Wh',y. ' I W'..q.$., u? / i. %..,%,,9

..Q.jj.

11 o.w..

s.3

.3

. y,c Q...

,a

. xm-.

p;,

x w.g.g+ n.;.4.,.3....a nr

, a k M p n! + 5.s;..'. Q; e :y:.f a ; g' v& R.:* s.~ g y y.s.- y :.npg, ),.

QQ;g e

f.

~*-c Q,

.. ".t. ;,,:n h, r 8,..

vQ. :a. y. my c.,. t@, a.,p.,l.;g;.... m., m r;w.~;y pri. p.y n,y,

.v.,.,

.

,3. q ;.. s... :. y,. *.; j...:,.,. g n

m;.,

., p,_,.7 ;, i, :,.;

l g

e.

v, I

4",,.

i m.,',,

. m.;.,'.

. \\ ' * '.i

,-e

.*.'r.

k

.<,r

.t - - <

i c

....,.'t,:. : i..:n!.;.,a,...+

n

. St" r v 1,,.z r,2, G :....... ws: :. ~,~?: e..

..t s.:

,. * %,('.

..y

.r...,

N..

G...

.'..,.,.,,...n,.

%.e wy. T.,

, v ;,..e u

c..

).

~?,r.., x,

. e, g:;. r.

,.r.. ~.9:. > < r

,~. g.

.... i t,

..... e:, v :

.+

.:. ~,. - -

. A,,

.. - n,,

. u.., c../...w ;,

..'.u QEg$h,4. ybkl$.g$ff h., h. f,...

.. :.,....'l.V.7. '..j,k,.,..

t :

.,..:;,/,,,;..

o M ". x. -

g Q 5..'. W.,c

;;f w,v....

Eh ?]'k.f,p... s.tYY..'.lq;.e:. b,. f,'.h Y

.o e......p

, ~v.

.v

. s.

r

,.'h;...y>

~

\\..

. p t

i A*.

a Y

,&b k

f h

n. v?

e M

. g,<.g. 4.<..c1;tm.~

3 e.

s u.

5

__m_______m__

v n

if this matter wem encompassed within the rernanded issue, there is no basis for

' l ' ',

the sequested license condition.

L*

/ ' ',

j MA also complains that there is no " permanent solution" for the driver r

3 s - Q'g Q s 'Q.9 Y.

availability problem identi6ed in. ALAB 836. LEA Brief.at 9. It therefore

. N 4.," '. s '... ;' [, proposes a third license condition that would require the counties and school.

. -Dm

i

1., *,, 1.', 'E./, ' p N.n. " *,^ i districts to pursue " conventional and local options" rather than the "less reliable

,j f

T utility provided ones." Id. at 16. LEA's reasoning, however, is flawed in several 5

respects. First, LEA points to nothing in the record to support its suggestion 1.A that the pool of PECo drivers will not be reliable. Further, the characterization sg

,M M PECo's driver pool as "po.

.;" or " interim" is' not important. What is

~

r

,W

~/

important from a regulatory and legal standpoint is whether "there is reasonable

. p7

.. ?,g.?f..j n.ww.p,g.3 l fp?$* e'f.:J,.$].j assurance that adequate protective measures (e.g., evacuation) can and will be a

., j.

taken in the event of a radiologmal emergency." 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1). See

+ i

'_ y

,,g;

/7"N also 10 C.F.R. 650.47(b)(10). The Licensing Board thoroughly discussed the s.y[?E,y,NJ W ' g.16{. A,lil.. 't,]

jr

.hI, t ', u I evidence ameM on romand and found the reewy reasonable assurance. That

' p# l p e", : a finding is based in part on PECo's commitment to supply additional properlys

• ' ', :73 -

j trained and licensed school bus drivers from the ranks of its own employees as Q Q.C... 9, 1

/,9 h - E -

~j long as necessary. See LBP-86 32, 24 NRC at 468-70. See also iq(ra pp.13-

~

4

%....1

.l

14. LEA has failed to cast doubt on either the Board's fmdings or the underlying.

~

,4 evidence. Finally, emergency planning of6cials from both Montgomery and f.Y:

,J 4

., ; ? ' 2,]

Chester Counues are already pursuing other sources of buses and drivers -

ev,,.,.

the stated purpose d LEA's proposed license condition. See LBP-86-32, 24 4

NRC at 470-71.

Our decision in ALAB-836 to remand the school bus driver availability issue was based largely on the results of driver surveys in the Owen J. Roberts

~

7"

$,L and Spring-Ford Area School Districts. We found that these "turveys raise [d]

a legitimate question whether there is re'sorable assurance that an adequate number of drivers would respond in an emergency" and that the Licensing e/

Board had not given the survey results :-f+;m weight. ALAB-836, 23 NRC -

J

-1 at 518-19,517. The last two hcense conditions proposed by LEA would require f'

W d

that new surveys be conducted to ascettain the currer/. unmet driver needs of

M

^

Z not only the Spring. Ford Area and Owen J. Roberts School Districts, but also other unspecified districts as well. LEA Brief at 12,16.

' % ' $,.. c, f.. I,,, ;, J l [.3 l'C Clearly, as to these other school districts, LEA's proposal exceeds the scope

. r;d,h '

',f )!j',M, Q.

of our remand and therefore this appeal. Inasmuch as we previously affirmed t/

s; P

the Licensing Board's favorable findings as to the number of drivers awllable

} ". NN,0f.-p.

for other districts throughout the EPZ (ALAB-836,23 NRC at 519 n.72), ?.EA

{

p.[

g 7

, g :. -

M l-

.d essentially seeks reopemng of the record on this score. But LEA has failed

,, '

• 9 *,, j..;g'f b L., d.d.

to supply any basis whatsoever for our revisiting, through the imposition of a

~.+- D bcense condition or otherwise, the issue of driver availability in school distrkts g '., g,,.

g 4

q; m.8kd.4,... m,t. g..N.. C l O'[,3]

4 other than Owen J. Roberts' and Spring-Ibrd. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19,535, 19,539 1

. w%,. .

.,... a s. n.... 4y J

p-Wc

.( g

.j 4.g,; 's p/ 6'.

g.

+ /,.,.$ * *.[,,.g,

• t, j,.

'e.

.." e,7 '1' l

w?

y,' y

.+

.. e. g. ? **

,o N',' Q.ea ~ @ -.?4 w;., %;

• +.7) 1 j

V g

VU':, n"?).,klrN,wM 9:

1

.m.p.a.W-C g w%eg.

g.;

y

, q.u a v -

s

%.o.,.,.q W. y m f-12 q.fW"t.,.m.,..

.n4 s

0 4

m-

, y.,,,. a, : 4y s.

4,%.-,. '

m Q..,.'..,f.'(gd,t e*4 t,,..,%

A j

. 8 W Q,,y '=..

~ Q..

,. ys<

,k* [^i

,",', N * !

• 6

'*N*

, M** . '.g' *, w i;w f.. -

f

':Mv6 r.: w..n,Q.;;.d[*,%

. fh l

4,

.,:e n.

. r.,.. -

a.. n..

" Qj &,..";s.V;fs.y m;y;>,.

,r,;

. 3.~ g ;y:.i.a yer~ ~.

7 or~

%: N.;ff{k t'.

3

..,,, :n..

y, ;.*, ;f;

.. n.. o;, ';.,.' ? *.h,. ?,I '. * * ),,

i !* **

., Y

'

• Y Y 'N**

.., "a

^

.,w

f. ',*

1 l f * * '.'

4Re

?

a; y c.

r.

.3 o.4,.... u c u..c,.,.

\\

.g

",~n

(

s,

,k

..h.

?,1 :.*

! $ t ". Y e.,.~ ? > *.

.w

.m

.c,. 4..'.*

-,e

g...

..".'s

• ^ * *

..,.,.i. '

s' L -

v e

".,:a[ &.;., u t u r2.,

S'.%.,, w.e g y y,y,y.; n.,z.j.

,s',.

4,.y,,,p.v,y.

t,:.,c..c

,,9..

..m.

) m e

e.4

... r. -..

f.... m-,

'7....

.- i Qf' r9:r,;.iry. : ;.$,. s,,t,e -

-y.

y..-

sc

.s

- 3;. '.

-. f ?: _ _.,.

.. f.,.,?,i,,.

v.

,.V-

..;.-(.~

, o.

...m..f. c ^.,..

. :n.

-w

.o;p,[.

. - e -,.

n' s y %. k q #.*tjl +D#.*m [y.c,.,m :eg'7d'.3.#**v.a.s. s.%.d,9

. q r.tg :.m;.$;?. m'. n'".'.,.,' #

s

d 92.

v,,.T'E,**.,,.

d

*i n.

y., '.. I ~ *. r. ; y"?.v.,',. v. 9., /

• y

/

fr '

h'

• E*

A

.v.3..j t, r.

I 9 %.9gewaw W w w w.m'n' w w.a ml

e.

(1986) (to be codified as 10 C.F.R. 62.734) (criteria required for reopening a

.i 1

record).

J LEA likewise has not shown a need for new driver surveys in these latter

?,

>h.

.af

.j

f ' '.,. (...

two districts. 'Ihe potential need for additional drivers to help in evacuating

,.8*

schools in the Owen J. Roberts and Spring-Ford Area Districts was explored

^

at the hearing on remand See LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 465-66. LEA had the -

opportunity to discredit the older surveys on which the witnesses relied, but did t

)

not do so. LEA merely asserts a need for more current information, without

.D '

y providing a colorable reason to question the accuracy of the unmet driver needs

'^

",I reflected in the existing survey results. While PECo has the ultimate burden of proving reasonable assurance, it is not obliged to prove and reprove essentially c

.i Z,r.u.{ g,.p;' p ],j{

unchallenged factual elements of its case. In any event, even assuming new

,. f.; N.;;,j 9.y, t

)

surveys were conducted and results significantly more negative than before-were c'otained, the number of drivers available from PECo's volunteer pool y,, p.a W u;. y.,f.,u: V.C4., y,,i v.:n., l 1,

^

/

is almost twice the total number of drivers needed for the two involved school

.s,.

districts. Compare supra p.11, with ALAB-836, 23 NRC at 517 n.67, 518 J

n.70. Thus, given the substantial size of the PECo driver pool, new surveys would serve no real purpose.' But see infra note 7.

4!e

-..J.

1; 1.m J]1 LEA has thus failed to establish a need for any of the license conditions it

'i A

has proposed. Its skepticism about whether PECo will follow through on its r

,g.

.., 'd commitment by maintaining, as long as necessary, the volunteer driver pool is

~

>g

~,

not warranted on the basis of the record here. But while we need not impose the specific license conditions LEA seeks, other action is justified. Under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, IIV, emergency response plans "shall contain in-

'. l, C, formation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards described in e

";'." l 6 50.47(b)." PECo now meets the regulatory standard pertinent to school evacu-

,l' ation (10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10)) through its commitment to complement existing school bus driver resources with its own trained and licensed personnel. The NRC staff contends that no license condition to make this commitment binding E

s is necessary because 10 C.F.R. I50.54(q) r.: quires a licensee to " follow and

~ '

maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in f 50A7(b) of this part and the requirements in Appendix E to this part." Changes to an emer-

, p' gency plan that would decrease its effectiveness are permitted only pursuant to

~

- F..,./- %5-prior NRC approval. Response of the NRC Maff (December 4,1986) at 8-9. It

,f ;

. f.; ', nf

, ',, V ' 'qE.

would therefore appear that, unless PECo's co.nmitment to supply school bus drivers is reflected in its emergency plan, the plan is not in full compliance with Ty','j';'.C's:^M, NRC regulations, and the commitment is not enforceable. It is unclear on this

• /

• e,,

"tj 3 *ep-

'.9 record whether PECo's commitment has, in fact, been formally included in the

'y," { W. ;ll

• emergency plan. Accordingly, we direct PECo to take promptly whatever action

. u.

,+

., g,,

,y.,y. -

'*, 'c, g < ~

. 7

.f'

> G :*,.',I'_1[y i t.

• LEA's objecuan to the inclusion d PEco volunteers in a gaieral paal of dnvers available to ineet unexpected

f. *l@:[.

needs elsewhose (IIA Bnef ai 7.12) is sirnilarly unfounded,in new of the nurnbar of voluruser drivers availabla L,

1o f^g Q,,- i, lq%:~ D,,S b.s:,.,;,., ' W '

d, y,.., ; '

,. l.:;

m. ' r..s.. 'f.

.r.

.,,. v 3. ; y:.y; o

. 6 3 y..Ecy;p,s !.( - jj,[, e.'.1, #.N,g]

13 o..A.

.. e v. N% z.

2.@C? r.Is W<XQ p:,' @ :;, d.

,;.g m n v.

ry.,.t.

U$6'N 'Y!Yf'i,$...... n.'E'5! ?Q* ~k< V.lx

~

. i.*. : if vs r'. ;.- gsg) ? Y,d*:-(y'r,M.:

%b

.fof?l t.=;.Y ;h,'

i, ' ".

?

l* h

. yff.

' 4:'

m...,#* f?':RCR.W. y'f,t} 'W.yy v',f.W'? p.* TN ;j: yx.n..Q:y

,f.l j (},'ll:.ml+.;!

o

. 5. f.

• m..

cg'

,.j 2-

.,','*gr.'~.

., t.

y.

< n a o,. WJ ;..

.g.'*:

.g

~,

g

.., q

'.c,,

,,,M,,,,, M ' r s. m i's. p.%

.. '.,( ;,

' A ~ N... ' ' ?.

-,.Q. :, *. c 5.,;;

.. # v:. m.".<

• 5 +,. j

.. t 1

%.,. p s

d 4.-

y n >h' hk'.e.hh.

• h.h k ' ;

E& ;

?

A

,. -?b., 5' 9%. ?d, v,.... w... r.. g,,.. 4., "1,.... ml..

- l k...... {'.N s

> p.., m., y ', '. ;; V.J. J:} '*;.s<.%...:*i, y,.v'.)l l5 v.;;:.* 1, 'f*, * '.If,a

• g-

> C'; J,vi,

, :.,; s.Q...u'.

,l

,1

.u

.G

..,y,s 7 v,.. -

.. a :. o; y w @ @..e.-e w w{,pp.m.sm'magd.

i I

is necessary and appropriate to incorporate its provisions for supplying backup bus drivers into its emergency plan, as well as those of the affected jurisdictions, and to notify us and the parties when this is accomplished. See also ALAB-845,

..I,.,,. s' J 24 NRC 220, 248-49 (1986) (noting the need for important emergency planning

.g s

'y-information to be readily available in the plans themselves to decisionmakers).'

t

..b ;

c 1.,

f 1

,l,./

E.

LEA also argues that the Licensing Board erred in limiting the testimony 1

5 t*

J L'

.{

of Drs. Roy C. Claypool and William Welliver, Superintendents of the Owen l

t J. Roberts and Spring-Ford Area School Districts, respectively. In particular, l

LEA claims that it sought to question these witnesses about the extent of their i

EW

h. ' y '

emergency planning responsibilities, but was precluded from doing so. LEA also objects to the Licensing Board's findings that the "early dismissal" plan of e

1 the Owen J. Roberts School District is not relevant to the remanded issue of bus

.'.v a$.p,.

., m driver availability. LEA Brief at 10-11. See LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 469.

m 4: '. -p.s.

g,. i.

We have revbwed LEA's questioning of the Superintendents and do not agree

.' ' $.d, " y %.. l, that it was improperly limited. See Tr. 21,310 43. Indeed, the Licensing Board j;

^

..(g.c *..

s. -

initially allowed LEA a certain amount of leeway in its examination of these

.g. pyy :

..p' s

w i.

. <,(';

7 c w tnesses. But the Board properly defined the issue we remanded in ALAB-836 - i.e., the adequacy of the number of drivers available to help evacuate l,_'

students in the two specified school dist.ricts in the event of an emergency at n,,,

1 Limerick - and limited the testimony in accordance with the scope of this ep,

'.,,,,, a issue and the witnesses' expertise. See "IY. 21,329-37. Moreover, the Board accurately portrayed the witnesses' favorable testimony as based on assurances 5

~

they had received fmm others. See LBP-86-32, 24 NRC at 469. As for the l

Board's findings with regard to the Owen J. Roberts early dismissal plan, LEA's point is not clearly articulated. We agree with the Licensing Board, however, g

that this matter is not directly relevant here, inasmuch as the early dismissal

..j plan is intended for use prior to any official emergency evacuation order.

.y C.

Lastly, LEA raises several claims of an essentia!!y procedurr.1 nature. It complains that the Licensing Board did not answer specific arguments put forth in LEA's proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, particularly the five-

.j part license condition offered by LEA. LEA Brief at 4. Licensing boards must

'J

"* confront the facts'" and "' articulate in reasonable detail the basis' for the 4

y course of action chosen;" they are not obliged, however, to refer specifically to every proposed finding. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook

]P.,, ' ^ fi[,'.

9:';

Station, Units 1 and 2), AI.AB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977), aff'd, CLI-781, 7 w.,

. e.g ' P.ti,,*

., >., '% ' ' f. .

NRC 1, aff'd, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, $82 P.2d n

. ;..,;. :': - m. ?

- ~

. a; : * *.

3.. t ',

.t.,'

-;e

.- a

e..y,.

~3

• 'f, md;

. i,

,.'. ~. ', <..

e 7 :is not necessary for the emergency plan to specify the sue of the pool of badup drivers to be provided by 1

• 'f.

/.

Q, _,

1 PLCo. PEco's only obligation is to meet whatever needs arise in she two affected distnets. otmously, to fulfd1 23 w( p. N '...G ; < %. ;.../ 2,.,:1. J '.i. f f. A'q l'

mis commmnant. PEco win have to monitor om mas of mese needs penodicaDy to amure est its volumer

".j driver pool is adequais in case of emery.ncy.

n.

s..I. A; yf.; v..'/ '., j,

'l - **;*u

, t. 3 a:m.,

t

,a.

.....,.. ?.y. c

, c

• Y. w.

. ":4 G']f?.fjjj-:$.s:k :;j &. p.f lQ &

)lj:',j:l?'y;>," ' k%llL QQ 14

\\

o.,. f, p.l,,4

.n t.o. p....z

..,r>

, ?, ~ n.,, -

Q m &, w.r.s s ul! Y.g;\\

p : b. y..

i MN;M/7,W :. h lp;p.Tt;.v Mpyg P.j

.s g.h

.p:y, 'k 4. qq.m';..n. :m.

7:.;,

v.,,- m ;,. v

... w.,. y m a.;.7, 7,m

/. s,yz:

..a r - 4... m'a.'

.,..., :;.;m

f. g

s.; ;": n;. n.> <..::@ y.:n. r ). n ' y...' y

.ex^.y.:;*. 9

6. -

~

. 1,%

','w

,

ll. ?@. '. p,., y.'.. : * &..c; W.' > ;;,.; y,v :: d,, a.. 1.,

o. s :s ; *. m,,. 3 j,

, j;.

p.. t. >..,,..,... ~. 2, p g %.,..

.1

. g,y..,

.,. 7

..p.....

.. i

,2 o/

.[

y c

,,' M,

'... - ' $j i ) '.

y p } e, o ; g. ' g.* ',

,, % 'g a ; %.,.,

. "f ?'; *# Q~y.:3., [',h.,'.(',/;.e ?.,,' ', f.,,.*,

([(c... g/ *, *.,', l. I 2

.d

> [3, e.

.' g,.II.%,' ' ;,[...$,'.'sj / [- l? [,.,,',,,U -

((,

?.,

.. ' * ',[7,b,$ '

l 1

n..

x -.c s

, *.y m,

~.

4 g,%.. G, y.4, g,r,..a f. g.~l s. \\.... r ; ' q',-

. y.

. *,3 e

.+

hh@m,';p,y';?;,.f.,kf.n.ky" 'h. 3p;;w 3

sj

• "*(.

. y,

....s. );; j,,, g

. ; 1%g,p.:.,7,..

s e

J,,,, *l. #.l'. '.* ;* p: /' #.3 2 * ; 4... *! P

.\\( r.; 7;. ;. ' 4 *;,.-4

,s

,, ; F,',

. ", < h. iha.+3.f.

/.. -

• • f,,' ff i.* h,

• . '. %,.,,.* ' /,*g;a

?.,l-s

[f

?

4

• H %. -

en

< v q *..n,.,, G'

";.e f

h, h.,M

...,,.~ a, ; <,.., v. y y b. - i; a -

q;yp 3

p..,E m%.'.h.,8 h.n.p rl'QMo{: df. *,U. i u .w - V+* %.*.%...<. m.g! ^%'Y. ;. s , p.Y,yc ;. ; :...WrpJ.%:* W..W..;h Q,,'a...

,@Q. 5p.:

w"+. tt L uf:y v,2,H. y., w m.;.,w

i..m:

e

r 87 (1st Cir.1978).' Our review of LBP-86 32 and LEA's appellate arguments discloses no significant deficiency in the Licensing Board's decision. The Board addressed the parties' principal arguments and noted that it " considered all the ~ ,f,. ,N J ,,y J' evidence" and "the entire record." LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 472. Although the - l ',[i. \\. Board did not specifically discuss LEA's proposed license conditions, we have ? i shown here that none of these conditions is warranted. Thus, this omission frofn I the Board's decision is, at worst, harmless error. LEA also suggests that the Licensing Board Chairman was not fair and -t w n, ' objective, citing Tr. 21,242-43, 21,262, 21,342-43, 21,348-49, and Board finding '. j

1. 30 (LBP-86-32,24 NRC at 470). LEA Brief at 14. The referenced portions of the record and decision, however, do not support LEA's characterization or

,,s.;.. .'4,;.'b. 1 reflect any bias by the Chairman. See alSo ALAB-845,24 NRC at 250 n.31. ,, ;.c t,} Finally, LEA objects to the Licensing Board's inclusion in its decision of a .. f ~, s ,j discussion of" Additional Sources of Bus Drivers." See LBP-86-32,24 NRC at C,': Al.3. - 9 M d.l., .ci 470-71. LEA contends, among other things, that certain of the Board's findings S.: I exceed the scope of the remanded issue, and that some findings reflect views previously rejected in ALAB-836. LEA Brief at 13-14. We are inclined to agree with LEA, at least as to the latter point. See, e.g., ALAB-836,23 NRC at 516, 1 ;' '.[ 519 n.73. On the other hand, the criticized Licensing Board findings merely recount testimony given at this stage of the case and are not essential to the ,'./ i' " " Board's decision.' Hence, LEA's argument is without merit. J.. The Licensing Board's supplement to its third partial initial decision on offsite emergency planning (LBP-86-32) is affirmed, rubject to PECo's (1) confirmation of the current number of trained and licensed drivers in its volunteer pool, and ,3; (2) inclusion in the pertinent emergency plans of its commitment to maintain .M this driver pool as long as necessary. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Eleanor E. Hagins 7 /,. ;*. ,[ Secretary to the W a ~' Appeal Board ,.. ' M 'c.,,, L G. ',,M .....s.. .r c, ..g . m,, s y a r a ,f "4 - , r.- a imilarly, appeal boards may confme their review to " substantial assemons of Licensing Board error." l.oag ~' 1 s s . ' y

• J.,

Islandlighang Co. (shoreham Nuclear Power stat.on Unit !). ALAB-83123 NRC 135,143. review pending. '5 /.,, ,.' l CLI-86-11,23 NRC 577,579 (1986). <

• k.

.I J.'. ',,l 'We note, however, that Board (mdings #33 and #34 concern Chester Co.mty's contmuing effons to increase . ~. - ,.,;.' D f ' 6,;. p its driver pool from other sources (LBP-86 3A 24 NRC at 470671)- the very action sought by one cf LEA's [ ~' ' ' ',

'.;.,.. ' * " -,',(k proposed licesise condmons. See sgms p.12.

,,,... 'u 7'

n. j e

y 1 '3 , ' a {, ? a 2,4 -l ; in. T;y i a. __ ' % ' s. ' ) l

t i. / *; ';

G.vi' - Q

t..

15 ,..,-- *

• 1 gj

...,. y., y** i ,.,..,s.7...

• ys ;' t c ;

- f,.. 1 -',*}e(3".?. ;f.gl f:,{C ?n ';;.&w . t* ""4, i. ., ;c. m ;a,e; p:&.<W

- t%. x. : ! w. '. A....p}..

^ f.;. y -4. G.,. s en 'Qf L

• I t

% f.' al,!, '[ -l " o.>.y )l.f.Qf *, f* [.yyz\\;;*., y, sq, \\ q. 4,1. ...a ,; p W '.7; < m. , -.,,,,-.,f.' ,0....'* 5 3 A f J.y

• I

.,.,,.,;.,,...,,g, '3. - ..--.,.y,,, *:'p.... y .y.,,... t } p; s ', 3 y"?" c'.' s I, ?! I.>l, ,',.,r .,' . j.;;,'r ., E, - [ r e .:, c. .. +. 'i s,

• ,, * ;,,' ) %

(.. -, s

• . e
• w W.,. x

\\

r '.),, s,,,,,,l,, o ....,:..f. 3,' v.g*2,,g r '. e.,f '.Q'y { j. '* '. '.N; J ~ ' W; },4,,- ,' - E' }l ', .s.

r...y..t,-

) *. ,3 9. y s.. e,s sy, *1a,- (.,. J r% f I.C,s. - y5*

.y*

d'- '.'p" ; ', y ",,,

• .4

, c ** !. - ...g.<..'_ P A- , if e, ' ia t . 'y ' ', ,f l,' ;" fj'*<*h,,

4. m.

r.., y, , &f' $d e'.L Q: h [. j,. h[S 5

• N..h 2 th's. '

%+%; @$, $.% Cts %%@M@MMf[@% .I h

C 6

b.3.M $%M&

1 l 4 - Mr. Edles, concurring: 4 j 4 I join in this decision except in a minor respect. In my view, LEA's proposal O that the volunteer drivers be enrolled with the respective' counties does not f F ..y.). %, (e 9' stray beyond the matter.we earlier remanded for further consideration.' But I l ?,. .., g ,,a... '.,. !'i, f..gyi believe that the plan to have the counties contact PECo directly, coupled with ' ~,

); l, 3 ' A'

p. ',

Mj the requirement we impose that the PECo commitment to supply drivers be 4 formally incorporated into the emergency plans, is more than sufficient to ensure ] the safety of the schoolchildren. 'Ihus, I agree with my colleagues that there is ' ?" u no need for LEA's proposed license condition.

• i y '

m W, r g i .k., i g ,P . ],,'*'/.'E s _j 4t,,..s 6' '/. - l'h y b *% ,1 ,.w.. ....,.,~ L a ) a L t .

• o

','f,,* 8 l. ' ' #g ', 9. f y p; lAw' 9, 4,*,'

. n? $ <. p ( i. 4 'p.'...),',h i e,,2s*

• , 4 ' 9

,v, ( e f ' i e,,,. f <y: ,- D . ~,,. h p .,, *. t. g s ',.g e., N. ? -, ; g., o + .v' Y a .4 O g .g 3"... t g . =%: =,. h -h'. 7 6 J,# !, ',. r. + i-* e-i'r- .-r ".t r,; t ,,c*" k..s 19 gF Y '8 D w L r 4 A ( L ,5 ' b f y g of 4 s 1 n 5 .e 6 8  %,, 4 8 p ;.,,o ',' ' y.,m eg%., 5 p' te,'n,... - r;? *

• i s,..,.

y.*

• s u *,

~

• W,e, l.?'.

'Re .o; ,,.s., .r.,,,<,,..,.ef f.;. a 'O ' Q ,a. y e.,..w. 9a .a. m y.. 4* .s. *. g, 3~- -. e. ,e a '. a e, e. p g.,*. - *. - y '.ea V.,vt q _ - o ., ~ , t. e,. s s, z[ ', e e u./*, -',.3....+. v-5. ? J s .f,, &<.wn,.%.-

• 'Ae,

()a ,..f'j * ' =5 e'. $ g, *,,.v.,..~ g L., a.s, I. . ~

• ; "~ *

..., pr 4 f ( p,_,.3/_ *"*. Sa# 'f^, .., *, y - cy '

• J". % g ' 1.(. -

'l .1 " s a h .e op ", g. $u., . v m..; 4 .. nd :m, y~. ,e' 4. a...],,,7 . w., .h,t., s ~ R, T * *,, j

• l fr

v..'

.s > e f

t. t -4 y; 3.,., g.

a. <.g .c,., ..,c,},,,'..h.,q.

• ',,.g1hs,,

.'44," l'-.,.ua,.-e.'.#8 .8'

). y.%.

s :.L ~.:. A'g"-9 ;'. 9.g,. g.qq ; )'*9. [gy ?"" " t..v,., &' A.c gb, ,te A g,,* i,*gp b f

• ,r

'#-- 'k -. .:o *. .%.G . ? s y,. + * ,p.

i; s..,,

y,."? :q$ .o. g *4.:.. s m. 4 : si sr , m v,,..o.. f*. : p *f.f. W - A, - g ,n : s% -'%,ds c :, r. 's ):,W .u. t; L,.. 9 sq '.3_ o. S .A- /. r w' ., ;; g. e, me .u 4 ?. *..*, n w :y.h.wa %yl-lty's$fyp,t.,-(( y. * =.W;Uek,, p M

• g*:('"ls

$ f *.*i & ;;*f. f. i j'. v ew.c M.]',y % ru ..+.. 88 4 p d PGg.M, 7 7. +q Wy' x.rp. vu ' G ,,.~.T.':.-M. V * "3,q. % w v yy.w n. :,, ww. eV..: e ? rptu*y:,.j.p.f.ap,9 % g gim p zv, p v, 7 ; m : f *' : W,,s o g -y psi, n y '*Y . q:'s .;;3.s%,p;Wf 2. : s l(_.Y".kW E.," Y.,.7.n&,..s %,h'^, ';,;,W ' ','W' *$,. :: ~. r,.., yf ' f V?';,;, f, + w . s, a.., .,e b.{.Q..$lh~&.~'($'!?. '.? _?. f.;?. y.s. ~ m. . * )I '[. e ^ * [T I,a. ,. f' ',,, t - -

• B'?

g, e,e... 71 .'.6 ^ k Wg. 1,, -.y :., e4 A O [ '9) M' ef,j,: I l h = 'g

• e

; -

.'g;. t.,l}'

- -r. j 3 8 sJ.'.- ..

• 4.s., 's y,. e,, *,.,,,
• 4 ; *

e.,s *,i 3,..=,,3..,

' 4n * ,,1,e .-} .:,,Q f,,,. ,, f.',,.,, ' f. , ~f .o ,,o i ..,?,.#,. ,, ~, p '..e ' g,.. (.%*.f'. M.M f f,*, I O. ( gt'pmpi.f I #,h #.? D... .,M.* c',A i.# q .f '/p. '.t'

.,,, ". 5

..y

,,,,,,,,.,.3 ,# si p 1 ^ 3,*

• I

. cap /i,# c 'p y. ,P. ' r*f. y $..,". ',*,'x].,' w)v.~Q.... r@.,. 7,.N'*J.*.*.,y,D [,a 7 8.c. s' $,*y,;,J -i. [...*h,3 g. ,,"r ,i 8 a z 4% e I

• l,,p f.,Y, $,, '.

G 4,[ & yl. l..7,,,, ~?,,, m..i.. y i d C7 3 J ... ; 1,*

n. - S 9,,.'.f m

i n. s'.p ; i W.,.,w .. ~.. n . ~ f' +Wh.j;... t '.* 4 *W.,M.<. a.,,?.', '; s.'g. w.v., g...,,. '* c

9

. ; y,y.Mg.w..;;,c p,pw., f.> ., f :w r..g.,. m, wW ;. .;n. % m?! N N $r % %'t & W Y.r,U M. W'q.':sn W a ;.s m M.V,~.,A..Lt;1.,. ,.c/.. v'.-;,:.&;c,.. ,a. 4.. m.. m..: ..r p'f

4. &g;;u n.m> h @q M Q s %. & h

,.7 t g. a&.

• k

,g y $?pp a n.ww:Nm.O... Y'W,,A WY .J* \\'.U$y,;,h vt n m %m& f5, 5 Mg.%wqm=%g&i.'S .$mm M M6 9 3&, .b .tuy; e i a -____A

y 1 Cite as 25 NRC 17 (1987) ALAB 858 l y ,1 ,j. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - g 7./ C ?;b: '[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i .. j, -3, ' l,..'- .s : s ~ i ~.

.m.

q' t-1. g., ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD' d-v

'd Administrative Judges

I e. .n g. ^

j. j o

s a S., E,(

C Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 4

r W (,f G i d.,,,. pc. ',;.3 M Gary J. Edles Ju

w.;

,y~~f Howard A.Wilber -a e,: '.j ,s j.. S w % 9, ; m. >. e Q3.,, * "q .t ,e , ' v, g e N, : g,t; t. ,. " i' . - 9 in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL ..d 50 444-OL m l.. s{;, t.. ,. * ~ ' .m J' (Offsite Emergency Planning) s-7 . j ,. yy (, ' N lO, l. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ", ' f,j ; ,.' +, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,'et al 'a. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 j s I and 2) January 15,1987 + n. z;,;. In this operatmg license proceeding, the Appeal Board denies interveners' w ], y, motion for an immediate stay of proceedings leading to hearings on the State A of New Hampshire's Radiological Emergency Response Plan. s RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS (DIRECTED 4 y i CERTIFICATION . @?m. Qi.i .1 gn ?, ]y Appeal board will only entertain a motion for direc:ed certification of a Kd "Q licensing boa d scheduling order where the complaining party can show that the (;N.g.,_ ' ' ' ',y-)y , ~.$,- schedule deprives it of its right to procedural dte process. Houston Lighting G ,,.S 'g'4 .g. T W O $ y; '. N MP & Power C2. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-637,13 NRC 367, - .,5:'.$,,. P,.. y '.. n-.. g " p, t-370-71 (1981). .e < m.. : f y6, . v.s .1 e

• ,3

+U 5

• I-(l[

-}l'l {p .m v, ~ -t.c..?.%'." '.6, ;;\\. ..%,1.6 ' ( d.',%. , % %*i' '.o ,e, y'*'".. l.a..h. r ' s f k, 3 p,' I . *g *, $ ',. ' Pa g; ~@ '7 ,..' *, f, j.( t. *y * *,. '.., V,,.,,.;', A w ".' '73,, _e

j.

.T., e),*,Q n, - t-m *

• r
• i**,.,p 4-
• . j,,9

..j,. - ,.,f?',, s4 4 -g.s.g... *; -.* , g:......e... + + m .q,,. m..~ . d' W c s ..y',,4 i. i, l

• M ag d.*j*.:? Q.>f'.y l p

..; J../

• 9

l ' .. /,'O...A l* 2,.. ' m$1 t',* .y m. ,j]f 9... ~.'r.~,3,. ' *l ,, ;. ; y, ?.<,.c.,, m.c ..e. .U , t. i 3 . //c.qL.. j. F.w?, %v,7.",W,1.m.. ,Any a* . ri, t,

• u e n,,

N" *,4M.'.# :"J*gM' %q*L J yp.i,, p..% 44 i A [d[. 1 gg' .J

3

'g 2 W .e v .,..sd p*w d w.e W,,,;.

N m*h, v.wx. *y,$.$rsM.%e,4 y.4 a

yt Q.*:&w.[p,,.4d*9..nL*j'g%. 'M,., '4 h.,. u a(s K 4, N'4.b.. %,"W?.n, 9L %*:. :v n s. e ,,. ~ (f ',,f ( 6,9 g, # [.

• ]W [g ; i, "f 8 * * *

-89 ?f '+ g **.} p

• 47,

., 7.,,. ,,.q, g, g , m I h, r. %.f..., e ' I + t e f , c 4, ,.. / ' (,, 4 . - u.. .y t 3.. w'.,,,,..,f + ; % =Qgh. ^",'**.d T .t .t.. t 4 7,,.g ,, r a $.,.* , + -:'. (1 e,,,...,..y,,-'* sa, rm ... ~ -

$-r.e5.T

..s .i r a ipg .

• s..g r f.:. o.,, s,i <.,,

e '. nn *.*'..e , = %' ;> ? *7,'(.. + y+". i a18, ', p> . f g, 9',s, e.8 e ~, 6, + e '*% 8,v.p* ,W-e,e 'pJ - s..,.. .g .f, g . Y*h,. y. h.Q,., ff,*.*. M '4 '* fT... ' g, &.,f %., ( v'..#i. 'p * + s S*,. T., n, 2 e,.p u',). q e., e + J - _ :f ;

~ ;

, ',. =

.P

• ,s

.&. e,3, g-

• , ',.v !,. ;e., o, s 1

,- i

.,~,8 .w. . *?.c ta y 6,;. r g.,. +;W.,)1,,. .m a u. ?:m..q.., 4y.?. y>%.. b, g, ./ .,s l ...>..^; .m. o s 'c - v %w,4 (.:.;.A y i.,.el~1 ;,,;., M.,..f..*,,.. r.,g g,, * ; .a r,,.,,. 'y. 3,,?: w. y t, . ~.. . s * ~.A,m.,n.,. e y ,... v .,~u...~ n .~ m . o? l* . x ".... [ *.. ;,,.. 3,' 4' Wy..,v $. t ~ x.s.,.,y. m.. 8,k ii, a *..., e .n. x' x.,,,, {f,&+k:,9.':V., b w. ~A.n...,. ,s g. ... K n,.... L' i&.p%$+$w.ml',&c,.'&aw~ %~ * ' ':'. r.w +.... ' a. ';- my&N3.*hsf.% p 9, e. ,'q' ".,q.Q V.:<:l' Y.m.':r...oQ,. f. W ?..) ..w.a'. myg.g9.);pp.b.'NQ, N.,q.W.$.q&p:fls ~~ se;* - i P.gWq% p::t e N.. jes 'a A ..r.

• r q'{,y&g,&c'$?S.y w

yy g.y:#.f..& g$Mh.W'&;44 ft v r W M .Yj f b

qp 5 gy y

--~-:- ~--_--_'_L__._

DUE PROCESS: SIMULTANEOUS HEARINGS - [,, t Licensing Board decision to conduct simultaneous proceedings does not .T

p. -,w,... u.

t...'. > ;.e necessarily deprive an intervenor of its right to a fair hearing. .4.. m. n.m ,4 .......,v._ e ~. y,. S,s;,'.,.. , :.n. ,y RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS v. L The provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.788 governing requests to stay the effectiveness 1 .t of a decision or action pending filing of and a decision on an appeal or petition p i n, - for review are not applicable to requests for interlocutory review of a licensing r ~I board scheduling order. . o r p' .m . w lyt-((.hh,q. !,g,%.c.eg.{.y. APPEAL BOARDS: STAY AUTSIORITY .~ Q;{/,,d Qs; 9', M.y!;0@;, ,.j. kp J,l.j An appeal board's stay authority is not limited to circumstances in which 10, I r b;-lq C.F.R. 2.788 comes into play but may be exercised pursuant to the appeal board'sj

g general supervisory au:hority over licensing board proceedings. See generally -

,,3 j, s y y. l.; .~ s Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-835,23 .y W.ylf. *>,q q,. q;;, d NRC 267,270 (1986). m m. <w 1 e,. s ?, f, .... : J 4 + '.J ,n, RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS-i .c.. .. s c o-9 j: e.,, ,..a 1 ? been unnecessary does not justify interlocutory review of a licensing board "- Q i scheduling order. + ,. J t w.d L'. .W W . RULES OF PRACTICE: MOTIONS (MODIFICATION OF HEARING 1 SCHEDULE) - 1 l 0 ' " ~ ' Requests for modification of the hearing schedule should be directed in the 1. , 'J first instance to the licensing board. Cf. Public Service Co. ofNew Hampshire s (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-338,4 NRC 10,12 (1976). c. -t

2...,n_

.. z 4 ~ ;.~; m, . L , j, W.,. ~,, +. %n..;r.g, M,, A.., ' - s. % h, APPEARANCES ,.. b.v.,g, '..,,...,w .s g . %:m,. .s -n ..e' pg" '.p-Jf{M,Q Donald S. Bronstein and Carol S. Sneider, Boston. Massachusetts, for 4,, m. 6 ~.c ' N interveners Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of the Commonwealth p, ..,..,*'"./ ~ of Massachusetts, et al. ,,J c .. n ; _n., y.m. ,s .y . ' fj:.. ,. V. ? h' t t -* -f :. ,,v, ,3. g bs, 4 s f.. + f,, / S[* *,8I,, $ 1, y, 'I $* l'[h.- ~. 5

o..,.,'.v.:m..... L,$Oy,% k

. l.,\\;.,m s. .w - 3 l ' * *. '-[ ^., fl

• i gl%?.. T..

. m.,, - .A..b,,'l-,,'..'q*'.v.,,.:.s,1. 3, f].y.,1, , * ;,. 6f M~ ,.,), o..v.p,.j ~ y, r' l Q '*;; &-)y, l'?.J i> 4 U.Q - sr., .-s -& s YQ ;.* s ,& Q .. * ' D,'Y'.c; p - U F %..,d, h,.5llll' ;- g 4 .h .s ?-;, j f *,,-* w, * ... W ' f....y ' # ..j .-V .pp .. g.. s.. A 'r-e'A E.* s e <M W 'i s v t*J ? 's...

1. .b ' c 'fl'd.&' L

• ss >.. G,j M s. (\\.?? N M.j 6 b 1 ** <!:s&? %y s. h.~.V,' hW,

?;;,*,)y Ql:,'q,Q,t~;.' m) yin '.:.:/D.M..r, ;)-T,' li^';; QVi A a . A;, Q?'% i ';:).',m.8:. ' u ..n. Mwv M }ky',f.g!??~;:'; &./m'QGl',s "k, r N'. . +. . f.]0 % r: m-7 -~: VMW hiptIilh*.,R.f.E.Q.hg;m~~~trcm'.V*h*;c;fe ~ 7 ,\\ ;;.:,~,l *...'.il j.,/ *..Q ' q. ' * 'N

S ll,' Y? I' N W.

V 'o '. f . ^* ,~s.'. t

e.. ; g, s. 4

.n... q.,y. 4 j -p 5. , y C r* . ;,,, p -

• 'e" r? 'Y

's .,t'- ? '.g f

k. N l', *.0 0 kt bY><*'..

• * 's g.

+J. K, w'. m '. v... 'a l ,l. l. - ^ . ', Y:...h.'.. ;.". '.. 4 i .w.mn.w w'e.%m.v% x.m. x. .. i;F l d..,,$.,6. v:"yYVW W. 1&h&,f;. 'Ohd/M i' M d K sf d?!p p.,%'%;h Amm)h...~ @~..... ny. N,,

.n,,, :.~W;u,.c. mN e,.,M g.6..m. :p. '.; +..W.C L.,e f M.:v.'T.b.

N n..p.a .., m m n ;. w'}o y; 9 .a .u~.Lwf.9g.* *O A:'Vi'y'%\\*s '.d.f ' %%s4w,r.; :.<;:(M. m; ;. '.y ,..e Qri. I'.Y. N*,&.mM*.>e 0 4 hfkk&kh. '.s.a.:l,-w:&o,N;t?*.'.* %:-plg ?V :.* ~. - l Es. q u* M;e;., gd

w.. Q y

'? Wn?'.vgr.A.mQ y. w..r edy 9; .yW,ir%V.%.w4pMW.m,. e .<*.wd P w.y O. W ' W Y,wn,2y' $$fWh W'Y: YkWif'.?'&' f

y i, n - j Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad, III, and Kathryn A. Selleck, Boston. ~

• 3f Massachusetts, for the applicants Public Service Company of New-g 7

-. *.. g -. < %.1.. W; P ; J Hampshire, et al.

a

-. v u,,,

.. w,

,.... 4 w

a.,5 1 >... ' d.,..V.p!

Sherwin E. Turk for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.. a i 3 a s r, I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

s..,

s :,

7. w.

. c x. I,. 4 9 > 't We have before us a motion filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Francis s no,. X. Bellotti on behalf of the Commonwealth, the *Ibwns of Hampton, New Hamp-

f. '

m g {%;.S..g. ? d..j;QL g/j.i shire, and Amesbury, Massachusetts, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution 12, ague, and e;~M. .e g, y.gg Y' the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (interveners), seeking an im-Q.M. /4,.j' Q. g cl 0. [f,i -.V'$il.,';, ;,.a mediate stay of all proceedings leading to hearmgs on the New Hampshire Ra-L. . '%1* m..

• g y'y J Ce; diological Emergency Response Plan in this operating license proceedmg.8 The

}V. e. motion is similar to one filed earlier with the Licensing Board but contains a re- .. ;. Q '.^..'. .c quest that we direct that Board to certify the stay question to us for decision. The y .,;T w .dpplicants and the NRC staff oppose the motion. .c o,,,m Because both motions were directed to the timing of proceedings before the .y., ' , t o ;W ' J Licensing Board, we deferred our consideration temporarily to accord that Board ..Vff j * /, ' - an opportunity to address the request filed with it.8 Although the Licensing Board has not explicitly acted on the interveners' request, it has now issued an order. deferring prehearing activity for about a month and thus effectively granting the 5 ,y request in part.8 For the reasons that follow, we deny the interveners' motion C:s li 3 [ V* J$% without prejudice to submittal of a new request if future developments warrant. ~ A. On December 4,1986, the Licensing Boani issued an order establishing the schedule for litigation of the New Hampshire plan. The Board announced its intent to rule on pending contentions by January 16,1987. Discovery would L, \\ follow and hearings were scheduled to commence on or after April 27,1987. On December 18, however, the applicants filed a petition pursuant to 10 [. J. i C.F.R. 2.758 and 50.47(c) requesting that the 10-mile plume exposure pathway .M = 1 emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the Seabrook Station be reduced to one .., s m c. - mile.' And, on December 23, the Board directed that responses to the applicants' r. p Q.

h. [~ f [$. h,, 7 'r h.'J; l ;> / D I,.(' Q, % g.;

Petition be submitted by January 27,1987.

• [. [. 3...,., ;

,r . J r *Q;,[ * * ;., Ji

• f,y, *",;. #,,, '*V
• if { *y-li v -

. 4 7q.4., y,, g,,,,,,,,. 3,,, u,si,, r,, i,,,,6,,e say of AsuB Proomedings (Desmeer 30. 1986) OmasAer.

,y.-

s._ .m. .w, .-.. NI ,j__( 's 3 8.ppest Beard onier of Jeunery s.1987 ( _,1 Losnams Based Mamann&nn ^ A y."[ ys,N.1 Q:,? -;f '.? " Q.:.. ~ 7 y, Canumssie regulataans designais two sagians to be used for semesney plancans purposes. One is she

• plum 4

4, C ;. O espesure psemey emergency planmns sons." shun safened to as the "plunw EPZ" or "EFL" This is th

#c v y. g

,j pl+ 7g, f ;. 7 'y q q e geogssphic ans sunnundmg the plas in which the ask d sapasuse of membass of the public to redoses @. 6 C @, h, Q.. cf S. M * ' 'c M.J.G,,y p,g..,y* Y would be smause in the evem of an nomden. vaise mesians no panes es public nest be developed for th g y-m.* (Coussusad) D '.N.*Q %WW ' R.. 7,,; [+et.i..4 w,,,';A ~. si 7. ;%, g,

• aq y..u,,. i.p<s.; * '.

.s %, e >p..,.,m._,,ph, " '.s.,f.&,g%.~ >. ?. *Q v./* St.4. Qg '* lM ,r s. ' f*. nl ., p . M*dg i. A s.' y* d J.# ' [ h ',',,O h} p 4 w 4,4. f-9 s.v 19 g, ? s, 7 m.t,g .... &y. w,(.t'r ,.5,,,, y c 3 y;. e4 .a 3

• ?YY. n.6N.&m WG ' "h

/ g.gr.v.g&..v.*N:, ld

i. l

y, p.$.,$* p m% p*[f,,, Q. Q'g, f**[I. @y Ejp m k,a uc..

d..,o,(.. YM k Ug.i. 4g.-'$.N,Q 4Mli j

,3 g h.l,:'w!,p;..c C:. r.& ;;g*y.y* *n. I q;.+0. ,4 s. . e.; T, e, c s... % e. >3,. '.& o r mp w .. g.. .fe. w!y* ,m,-.,'.',*..f. [S ~ 3

• r. '. +. f -,..,,,... ; r f, M r, {'lh.s! q,2'.'., w:6 f; n,\\ *,, *
• N'a

.,4 'h; V )',* v .,,. :,' q *.. "~,. c. u:;, - -, u, ;. ;. - , ?k '- s y-.1 ,7 ,3 .:. m,..., f n., o,+.,....... m, w,., a.<;, 4.e,.

a m<

.t. n .n, ,.3-

.4, q

,.,.- 4., +.y.. ...... e. s g n a vg,.,., 3,. .., h. e m.~,. f, ( '..k.. .. m. n a n.f p.u.:.- , f :, ' .lY e, y .. n i '1 l

• d' c..

u. W Mw &., g $g eM *W'~.h M.?f. M g...:..:c...-- ff- :,M.: e.W..c'. e' g. e l EM W M.nJM}?ww,4y y@.

• Q.s "-

A$[ 5 ? !at. r M G d' h. WyN&.. y$.p@g"Q.&;mwy .aN,o:..&W.1Qyf&m.p}?QdlWQ I .M Av.?v -> %e c s&

• yhv a%

,e +4 q

w4 psm s.< c 2MUQQ$s>w.q

w..

L

---

.~___..____m_

0 After the submission of the petition but before the scheduling of responses to it, the interveners f. led simultaneous requests with the Commission and the A Licensing Board secking to stay all proceedings on the New Hampshire plan. The request filed with the Commission was rejected by the NRC's Secretary, who i4 i, } '( ' advised the interveners to file any such request witt us. They did so on December ( .<5' 30.Ihey assert, among other things, that the hearing schedule allows insufficient time to prepare for litigation on the plan. They point out, in addition, that action on the applicants' pending petition could render the current New Hampshire plan moot. Further, they claim that the simultaneous litigation of tic New Hampshire i', plan and the applicants' petition would be unduly burdensome. For these reasons, ?' they maintain that litigation regarding the New Hampshire plan should await the l disposition of the petition. ,./ ),,.. ', ' ',i *4 .q, ' c.* :l B. The Commission's Rules of Practice prohibit appeals from interlocutory t C 1 licensing board rulings of the type involved here.' Thus, the interveners' motion ^ constitutes a request that we exercise our discretionary authority to review s

3.. c 5.;,

1, - ?, ". C }';

c,

• o; the Board's ruling by way of directed certification.' We employ such power, however, only when a licensing board's action either (a) threatens the party 1

adversely affected with immediate and serious ineparable harm which could ' ] not be remedied by a later appeal, or (b) affects the basic structure of the "; " O .l '~f s. i ..L Ef7. ordinarily, the EPZ has a radms af about 10 miles but is exact sus and configursuon may vary dependmg on demography, topography, or local emergency response needs and capabsbues. See 10 Cf.R. 50.47(b)(10), and (c)(2). 8 At about the same dme, nest of the imervenms f!!ad with the Licensmg Board requesu that h reconsider I ,i im direcove that responses to the appbcants' peuuon be subnuued by January 27. The Board derued those j 'i requests. Ucensing Board Memorandum and Order of January 7,1987 (unpublished). In doing so, however, t it noted that af "any pany cannat complete su response by January 27, then that party {shall] provide (to the j fy Boast by that dais) ira parually completed response and advise the Board d a reasonable dato certam on which hs wnnen response can be completed." 14 at 3. i ] The interveners also filed a request with the Comnussion that the Chief Adnurustrauve Judge of the Atomic i safety and Licmsms Board Panel be a to decids,in the Ucensms Board's stead, allissues presented by l the pennon to reduce the size of the ' Intervenous'Joars Pouuas for Appoimment of Admirustmuve Judge and ,j Request far llaanrig (December 22,1986). Followmg in transnusman to hun by the secreary of the Comnussion ,i for consAnuon and dispasmon, the Chief Admimsusuve Judge demed the reg. nest. Memo andum and Order of December 31,1986 (unpublished). "See 10 CJA 2.730(f). .. [!) 'Saa 10 CJA 1718(i),2.785(b)(1); Pune service Co. of New Mempshere (sesbrook stauan. Uniu 1 and 2), m y ' 7. '* *

• p,;, ;,.

.L ALAB.271. I NRC 478. 482-83 (1975). ..j The NRC staff treated the intervenos' motion as a request for a stay pumusnt to 10 CJ.R. 2.788. In tems. s _s ' V'. .,a !. Q' } +' - l, '..- '3, r f,. Board deeman or actran is involved. Rather, the are seekmg interlocmory seview d a schedulmg

• il howereur, that secuan as applicable only to endesvors to obtam "a stay of the effectiveness of [a) decision or a/ tion pendmg f.hng of and a decision en an appeal or petttian for mview." Here, no appealable Licennng l ; *,,

3 order. Accordmgly, as indicated in the text, they are m essence calling upon us to irndts car directed cerufication ~. 'y.,. i authonry and must meet the standards for the enorcise of that authonry. ~ The foregoing does not mean, of cause, that our stay authonty is necessarily linuted to circumstances in which J.

• ',..., *..J~~ 'y emetion 1788 comes imo pley. Ahhough we need not explore the maner hers, there well may be occasions en s

..q <d,,' c, 14 which the grant of stay rehef will be apprapnate m the esercase of our general supervuory authonty over licreams 3,,, ' 9 board proceedings. See gewe#y Philadsphas EJacmc Co. (Larnanck oenerstmg Stauon, Urut 1), ALAB-835,23 .4. (.

• ;;,.t.,l',

cj NRC 267,270 (1986) y n

l:f y 1.-

5 J.A ..; 3 .. ;1. if<. "t a + 7, *. pah*q~* j ". ', )

[. t*

• 3 ~ lj f '

5 . ", 3, ~ ] '. ', p. g .,Sg ;+,,,,4,.' 2.0 u ,y ., y v,., m,....t.>,,..:-,,...,. ~ ~.. s.,. t,. y g,, 8.. .a _.;s,. r.., M. f 9,';; v. ,. ;q* ,,_, e p f, -,r e.. r

.x,

s, f '*,.

1. $' $ N w,f//g/ "['.

s.ja.s s<y m*.::(.Ti 'r: e,f' ' # %[*h[f

• t l

.. ? w. u e.;. .q,,h, g,[9v,1,1N.D.,Dh7lJ~7.iv,r,]'Oi.T',D]b.'Y< 'f,;'Mx e [. ;.-[t.; i e r,I, ~ ' w. " 1 ' *. c. : /. 7 ') 4 v - ' e. W, ,.a y(m.gM,,3 - ',. r .,;, 0 4 , ' ~,^; ,.4 a .....'"....b.;.J.,.',. ,a '. s,. ', L Me Q :,,d.. &. \\.,* 'Is.CY'c.,r> q~.1 y ' s -?g '~ - ~ . d ',e4, _. c,,, e c, ' ~, J u.' n ;.el'.v. e ; p. y.: '.,.;.r' T.'t,..q ' W.q$ /.q ; '.N. '.. u,.' sv ~ g 3 r w.s. e, .- W., g c.:;.... g. g g y s ~. ".,..., %' s.r;~ :p.. y_.6,::, s.... t.e j..p. s.u . t s ,.o 3 m. . ~\\,... e i.,-n t. :1

• g 3:r.;;. v.a s :(

s

c

.~-,..,v".~..a. ~ +, r w.. 6 y. - c-n ..,. ~' e : ,s 3 %fof' RC{h %,4rl6*]'I,W'.W.u...c$},lc r. s ',;:,;.l Q &c$#$,Aq:d(f% ~ <~; k N !k;,T. D.h E b h.@ m y h " 7d % ' y" b :? E 'E ' % ; #y ~ h,h ?:}ll 2 c. ?.t.n ,ah.w.,kW M &..,..l q.e% R.*^' : $;.~. X, R';,. ( ~ .vy ,u n., ?l, C,i'S Qs'T; (- !,4 f'if ? l i,h.Mh'U hr -QQM.A x *- RQ:'.', . g.V:,. ? 7 v% m. [ @N'?: n,A[c .,.D..,D.. 'M^' L'

$ri ._J .i .\\ ~ 1 H a a

}e l'

proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.' Where a scheduling order is involved, that standard ordinarily requires a showing that the schedule deprives ?, J '<.,,. y] ,f the complaining party of its right to procedural due process? - N ,; ' y 7 9. r y., '; g,..... E ' 9',.. 1 There has been no showing here that the Licensing Board's decision to move j r forward on both fronts simultaneously necessarily will deprive the interveners ) lN.i.. , " m. Jo.g jf&"

• t,]}

of their right to a fair hearing. Although the interveners tell us that the hearing : t, h ', p j N.h, e ./ 1 schedule allows insufficient time to prepare for litigation of the New Hampshire plan, they do not specify, let alone document, those elements of the schedule 'J e i I.- %' ' 4 y <'. ; i. with which they cannot satisfactorily comply.2' Nor do they substantiate their i. assertion that the schedule is unreasonable. In this connection, it is noteworthy that their request filed with the Commission and the Licensing Board (attached .y as Exhibit 1 to the motion filed with us) claimed that litigation of the various 1 '.,5,,WDM ', p of the schedule. j l In any event, as noted above, the Licensing Board has now modified its earlier 4 l p a.

.y,

7 f schedule and, in effect, granted the interveners' requcst in part by announcing ~ -i - Q-Q,, *n,., g, p;- y 'f.i.J ~ .i a brief deferral of prehearing activity in connection with litigation of the New l-fi Hampshire plan. 'lhe stated purpose of this deferral is "to permit the parties

l....

an unencumbered period to respond" to the petition to reduce the size of the ' yf.',, t. ',, K..f Q: EPZ. 2 And, in response to 81ings by several parties, including the interveners, ] /,6'i - 4 /o 4, it also indicated a willingness to accept incomplete responses to the applicants' ,*,-4 ~ petition, provided the parties advise tre Board by January 27 of the date on 7l which their written responses likely will be completed. See supra note 5. At ,l.(p0 . present we cannot say that simultaneous litighdon, if h occurs, will necessarily ,M 3 , fnyg be so onerous as to deprive the interveners of the fair hearing to which they are x entitled. To be sure, the upcoming litigation over the New Hampshire plan will be 1 g rendered largely academic if the Commission ultimately decides to reduce the V radius of the EPZ from ten miles to one But a mere commitment of resources M v g. -+ . e; to a hearing that may later turn out to have been unnecessary does not justify ,y. , i. < s _,~g..,.,,. - .p w o r.. ., r.a ' s ;,, -;,'. t o...3.~,r.'.- o h;,i. e.* . ;,,,.~,., g. g_ Padplic sdPwec# CO. p[ladiese (Urtile Hil1 Nuclear ominating sintien, tJ:iiss 1 and E At.AB-dE 5NRC + ,* < u *.(, y e. g 7 '* ;ch. .i$kJ 1190, 1192 (1977). e i'E ?.i /'; u. # ' A B J.96.; %.f,*,P, 4: w, "f; p ;,,yg ,5[p DNowsonlighag a Pourr Co. (south Tomas Project. IJnits I and 2), AtAB.637,13 NRC 367,370$71 (19st). ,, g j ' T 4l..1 We noia. tiy wey of cuntrast, that the Anarney omnesnt's December 30 request that the Licanems Board 3D resonader he ruling sequiring rerpenses to the opphcants' petition to be Elad by January 27 was -- ' ' by . A.g,c / ' J ';- , f sf6deviu enempung to ponroy the dif5culties anandant upon compliance with that Licensing Board schedule. ,1;j. M,'*CJ c * ;'l p ,1 AP;; ?>3 . % l., a,'q, m. c 3y' 18 tmervenars' beation, Exhibit 1. at 3. Licensing Board order of January 9,1987, et 1. '!he baaid detened fnen January k6.1957 U p,.. :

• LL Al yj.' ;Al 3,i *14. '..7lWG '7y*. ' j,;

ingly defened, with the bearing now scheduled to begm no endier than hiny 28,19s7. .. b *% lp.- 4 g.. 1957, the issuance of its ouder ruhng an consentsens and staning the clock runnite ror ducevery. All other dates [f.T;J;,[2',N-6.M i

• Wp *J P

^ L v. Q,-..+,% *: w,, yl Ac. &: D.f,I;, -.i 3,i.j' m .pj are _ CL,,. -f f 9.' * ; y L.,5# f", ; ('f,'..rc

y;.. )

,4 y e c.7 .a...m. s. = -;y ;, y a. y.,.g} n s sp w.;;,y. L gm,. *..- U &f;,m,[8 7. <. % ? [f, y,.a. ',s'/I ....s..+.. r, r/M "Mi '8?N, dog /;j% .... r. -, w.., %.a ,;u, k .'*L

• • a..

Y.E,.e* M. *n, $*4,1 f,.9,..

7..m$*c%+tMf./dP%g.-

d-Q*'..- ,4 i A ~. 7 m :r,. s y . ~,v.,.l. h.~, c.h. w..,o h i w.. .e n y;@., y..,. :y.w, 'y,jt. m... - o.g.h... /.,

• s.*, ;t '. #l.

, t M* N.E [t. /**

• f I*[sD. Mc.o. '[-,.'..'.,h ','/r I.ls ' *. % .i. i ' g* N. '.' *. $,4,. *., '.i. ; *. "'.

5 ,g 4.s. .+ e. . c. i.c... m... *.. 4 3I,+ * '..pl. . m, %...... 4 k', *., ~ .3. .,,'*n l . -. J. f ..-..:g8ln 'a3 w >. * . V,

1. l%'

. tt',(A % . %, p ;Q, *a ; *, + u u;,- o, ?:

.s' f T,a s,$, *'

' / 'm., e'#';. m,o r,... i. ! *,\\p '&,b.* * '" -

,# 'T.l 's'.'. *p ..g ,f".., u .,e n(. 't 'i '.#y* i.t'E* ", ' T ) $,,

• W.'

g. .. a 'V ~. Qt.m' (.p,.f,4,g' 'g g./$' ' 0 W,y. 4..,',t 'f.,*.*#. g.'. g, .??; &.'M,.p;y,':. M ;;J.,. v. -. % / s. =j - 2*?' ' * .. w,j 9 8 e.4 f*ly. ' (4 ,v. > J, ' o. ^ ? w

• g.M.:

h' & &,h*. &, k h W k $ $ $ $ 5 k &

interlocutory review of a Licensing Board order.n Moreover, it is far from inevitable that the hearing will prove to be unnecessary. It is possible that .i the applicants' proposal to reduce the size of the EPZ will be rejected. If 3 ~ .. T ,e so, litigation regarding the New Hampshire plan will be required. In such-0 - p,' e ; * 'j. >. 3 ", E, circumstances, deferral of that litigation could seriously delay final resolution . o ". - I,,, s. '..y, C $. y,[ f.1 ofissues surrounding the plan. 7,. - i The interveners' motion is denied without prefudice to the submittal of a new i request at a later date should due process considerations so dictate." N> - l it is so ORDERED. .i 1 FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

4.. (;,, y.$. g.. Q;ti *.y

...e,.... i f;, ; ..=.;*,..,. ',.. a ,s af - '. e*.r. C. Jean Shoemaker .. s,. hl[ [*),h., ). '. b ?[.' 1 ?,'%.7...i Secretary to the /,f ; :. c /F. v' s Appeal Board s 4- ,o-

;. - g ; n..

~. 1 , ~... \\ l ..,D ,: 3 e 4 j: c,.., .,.i.-. ..e i, n,,. l 4 n .,..(d t .s. c.. ,.(' t s w: .i. .y .t.O ..4 .,. o - 4 9 e r y.. ' s r.?

• ,,, ',...Q A

94

24. ze, L,.

,g 3 ,q i, a: n . :A ' qli.p a *.' /, > '.,f, :C, i "* l*,,','.r L ,9 .s ' 3.j,.. c? 4.,>,'... .y c Q ' 2, , '{ zu, ' s . g. -4' [;' D Cleveland Elaemic Illemasang Ca. (Perry Nuclear Power Piern. Unies 1 and 2). AIAB-6'15.15 NRC 1105 ,./' ~./. 14 1113-14 (1982). . * '/.,, e ,'y. $. <,) 4..y Any further sequest for modtScotion of the hearing schedule should be directed Erst to the licensmg 'i . /l .tQ;, J- ?-- "t ,., t.. s Board. Cf. Public Service Co. of New NeWre (Seabronk Smuen. Unns 1 and 2) AI.AB.338. 4 NRC 10,12 -f A.,.. f, f'ltI 'Q A '. [1] (1976). And if that Board were to (any it,our soview, of couros,could be obtamed only by doucted eorufication.See f..

• M siers pp 19 20.

. s,. J * ! * ".1, *

• 4

...u .? Y }.,l,,' .h +1;...,,. G *. l. Y ',n,,',y,

• {. 4 I

~ i.- +,,),., "o .b. ,J.'... ., (,,,....E.'- A, i O g

b. g M. *' 4 g.

a,h.. g +, , '.. a, ;h,,, ; cdfie - '+ q' p" g* 22

• g i.
• 21, q g%l "g

.. -y +.. f .'..g..,,,. u..,

• sa e...

tg. 'j .l j *::.,4a ' %.,.,, ^,,,'a ... \\.t.,q* , q< s, '.Uy. c... ; ,a.a.,g, ", # e py?. f,. f..= j '- f,l+,'.1,.s, ' ' < Vh s. ?.e .s .p W

• . (*r

/*.. ar* m% * 'o' '. 3;3. <.e -r e,y* ]s e c.;6.. 1 .v. . Q,..;?... T, m., +a

,. ',; p'.. kL.u,o Si-

4 v. y r*~ :.. A,)Cy,;p* s %,y f.s.J.:,q;; J; ff, e },',..;hf;x {.l!{,?..a$.f,..s.h.f...$:?,'.e.$,.il ,s., vi. m.+

. ~*

w s '. r. ej-[. i..m... M,g N..e,[3 ' *;'L.. C .i '/., N,.,U * '+., i @6*c k. e' *.......,... e h '. ', ' f,,c" 0 ' sf- ,.m....,... .....,U, ';.'., '. M W..,, [ . ; ' N. ....M 'A 1l )8.e

7..

..c,.([. * '. + *

• 7

.'., g ,y,s ~.. l f %r. s w. iir[. -,l,.,,,'.; g',..f, p,s e.,,. ~ I .,s .~ .e.

s...

.M >[)g g'# '.^j,g., O.. g I '. k': ,( e a[,o , [,...,7.^.,.d;... '.. t 7/, ?. /.. * *t ', ( j' ** I + ' si k* <, % %-d .Eh** [

• Is[ $ '[

j.,.*.'1Q..,~y.,*'7 /,@,- T . 2- '..',,4 3 , e i n,.e . y I.'/.g,,. ff,. ,r e 5 .i.,., c -,,,. g 7. '. W t ':[

• ' f.f*,,,

.\\; *. 'c. ,y.. 'e' t ~., ' t' 'i,.,.# 'sa 4 ', o l I 5ll e

w w,m; m n.p w p i

: x s w; + % -

. :. n..c..:. n, ;,.v..m. 2.n + n. :;. 1 w. m. r. r. n ~.~;: v; : v n.. ~.. m y., d.. M. r..

w.,,.

.. r ...., ;. c.u. a, o, y, . x.a .~ v p,k),,h.,M. 7/,$ !"/e.!.h..x h Mh.. w.x :.n.,9'b. h.,.. m;h ;+.,, w a. e.m.,h. .w I ; *,.. :. *.. ' w' . v [v ;.. [1 ~: .w. .v. 1NI..'. 5yN e% T.I k'. im.a. w..:.;w.,k.. .w. M.a. [.J ..s. v).. v. t, s.v,. [~,.f. k.. m'.*h*~ b p.4 i w. a j. m .u

ge c[c

)' - <.N / d f. "? ______m__

4 i I 4 Cite as 25 NRC 23 (1987) ALAB-859 m. e 'J g. ' t,i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '.4 lf,,>~, 0, y '/. ..., c! . ;. lq 4 w

• ,s, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD a

4 0 ,_ g j Administrative Judges: i. .. "., p Gary J. Edles, Chairrnan '~ Christine N. Kohl n LP . ~.+. S '. e

• N : W.,",,p ',;gc,;

y'g.$.. tj Howard A.Wilber ...f... ...,,s 1 ,5 ... =... a. * /.. %. ' ) 9,~ ;]Q ',;;s,l ~,,. >,, - s 4 5

s

'.,. ( l in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-OL j 50-425 OL , 'f. ~y 1 e. .] GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al m,.... v. l. j (Vogtle Electric Generating ..... g. - Plant, Units 1 and 2) January 21,1987 P s v.: g.o The Appeal Board rules, in response to the oral request of the Director of f,q the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that a license condition imposed by j the Licer. sing Board with regard to a matter over which that Board no longer 5 %' c had jurisdiction was null and void and therefore did not preclude issuance of a s .c, f ' '> : low-power operating license. %^ 'I' f.. LICENSING BOARD: JURISDICTION y , yi W;. Under NRC case law, once the Licensing Board issues a decision in which d it disposes of a particular issue on the merits and a notice of appeal from that a o 4 f$; ...' 7 decision is filed, the Licensing Board no longer has jurisdiction to act further .,f W; K g.?@rj,[, ;,  %. ( ~,. '. with regard to that issue. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nu-

• h ' S.M. 7

. s..,.A,M [.l.S, clear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1327 (1982). Jurisdiction .n ,c " 7 :. .c p., y-<,y c pac] over that matter rests with the Appeal Board. . y4c ]. n+. q " b,,.y,, p. . ' :d ' + .j' k.;'.'L o A M b LICENSING BOARD: JURISDICTION (IMPACT OF ABSENCE) ,. 1 j y '.4 .x.:.'. N.U.., v'.: a e,f #

• p - 2,^;"

A license condition imposed by a licensing board with regard to a matter 4 .4.g + 4l 3,,'s...7,., q,... ~. gy,.b. over which that board has lost jurisdiction is null and void. e ..w.:. w. .. ; n, h.. Y. c ~. h4 c % c k -):,'*,.l, -; % 'j '$'*sli,,y *.';. : :', { "",,; ?? 'T.9 1..[s " 8, b ~ ~ l- [

n

! k;.J. '*.i. J. y),y; ; ', y*13 M,.,p.., 3 L.;s ~. %J 23 ,, i =,i.

• 4'

, d:., w**,.... o m w.f *. 3 ;, 4*;.g. ?./ t -+ . c.. 1 J,, 4 a,'y' y " f," j, w ~., . m,.1 '. ,y 7... - ~ e, *,6.. " s .g .. g, z u.,, p,~...g:.y j.p m. -n. ~.... n ? 4&.. x*X;s?s,}.c&v';p* ;p:. ;; M.1 ?.. ;e;2.%t,WWI'< *,l;,Q5;f,,r Q'{g~Q*p t. qf s -. '.- a.! - ? ln. * a - .a 'a,.b '.~~%,r y p;m*'i l jf,h: 1-9;.. ., '",wl?g.N.,4.p. ;h.gf rc. ?, fry l,[q, g* *; >3.f;WzL &ygtr: y~. '.n

.m.,

'~,:::m; ;f;.:e', f.' W &,+ @, 9,' ,;,W. Y:':', f-M,I!Lp% p Q' v p...;.., yy,, ,,,,; ; v s..> g.;. '^~u. ~.,l'.G ,'. f ?;i'!0; %...r~.ift..?.;' % T- +L s, .. x. r > &.. "v.

• F. '

~ ~. a ,fS,M ; ? 4. ' '=./ 3. *!. ' E. b M' g,'i,',** 'N

• i f.. t- '

.., \\ q . %'I; 'J i . l* i '. eM'i.,l,; ;N #, ~,.;D *.l b' "~ ' t.',' M,

i.. ; o

.a..- .... s,* e. y,, 4 .ss ) h *..,d,N.'+ L 'g.l: k;!. M ifi :,y,C ? w.ic.* 's ? h.:[, /.b. i.. v d,N.f,.N,..*U[.;D,.i,,,p+.,.. m.i...., 6 ~ %.; ' Y f h 7, f[O < M T i,. ., c.; - - ' $.J' 'T' + i'. Y, .,V.. * ?- f " i ..,,..i... x .M. # q.9.,q. %e' 4 n 4 .,i..c,e, ;. . t, 1 ., m* .s. ..s. 7,T. 3%.,.. '... V,e.u*. \\,.,',s,,.e g ,.1., - A-b ,, y,..g*[. 's. ;5,.s %. l*.

• * ; Q,YdQM,' 'M$g ;..

ie S. V.ii'. W,4.iM ,5.-.,.g. g 'c y. . '.,c.,,, .a.' s .~.4.4*..,..,,, MS.QM5(,,'f e, s,,

l 6,,/,!p f,l,.., e.y{ ;:...

.r.3 3 ,J

• f ((,*gg'),gQ4

,y j y '.' 3., (;(/. 3,.

• f
  • • dQ N'W-ipih h(M85"$7s*/)Wy'4.c.,

g ,,; g 3,. p iG M.D% Wi...@ c,!: 4 ..,-E h h .b Y.,, b Y-Y.

l l \\ g s OPERATING LICENSE: LOW POWER LICENSE (RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF) y The Director of the OfSce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may issue a ~ , ' f, .g' .'. q.,].a. "J. low-power operating license on the basis of a licensing board decision or i - f.1 decisions authorizing the issuance of an operating license.10 C.F.R. Il 2.764(b), ,,' i M,. 2.764(f)(1)(i). c 1 d APPEAL BOARDS: SUA SPONTE REVIEW p * ' ',,1 ' Appeal Boards have long established authority to review sua sponte the 'I entirety of licensing board decisions, even where no appeal has been taken. See v... R

c. fj.

Ogshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power +, m.,,: .v, s., 3 7,.. y...,.*:'n Plants) ALAB-689,16 NRC 887,890, af'd on other grounds CLI-82-37,16 ..,'.'i NRC 1691 (1982). ..n.. p,..,y.. .n,.,.., ' ",,, 3 w,;.,. , e. c, 4 APPEAL BOARDS: SUA SPONTE REVIEW .;'[ y g.,,,

• ', ' * (

Appeal board sua sponte review authority can include the imposition. of license conditions. See, e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Oenerating Station), ALAB-746,18 NRC 749 (1983). .o, _.,..s. . p,j]. TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED 4 f, Polymers i Dose rate effects. x \\ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER o . ', s '. In an order issued January 16,1987, we ruled that a license condition imposed q by the Licensing Board in its concluding partial initial decision, LBP-86-41,24 i NRC 901,928 (1986), was not a bar to the issuance of a low-power operating i. Mj!.

• t,

? license for the Vogtle facility by the Director of the NRC's Of6ce of Nuclear M.",,' ~ (*<,7 7, q ', ;. ~ '[ ' Reactor Regulation (NRR). The basis of our ruling was that the Licensing Board 'pl.FL, .,[. [ 7, ,i,y

acked authority to impose this condition, rendering it null and void. We now y /..,, c, ;.

.L, ,W explain that ruling. .. n... y ? b. q r ..,e s, (, ,I .ch,..* s. c..~ i

• p.

r,' -s . ~.. 9.1

• ,l,'

. *. y !4

• ,d.

E 9 ,_, AE( 't

• x 8+

,.. M.) ?- .g. 4 ,, 7 *. '( ; m

• f

,,,..'$':.,,8?,. s y. 4,,j...'"..f', M 7, ..... j 4 p.,, .,wc w n. ..3.s'*.A,,..,l.,.9 w ..,L,**t....' . A g,, 4 sv y, p..,. .7... ...t. y. s., '.2,,*;s.,,,,.v.p ' 'y.. u.,.s..,c.. ..n ..,. f. h

• f},,Q -

.~s ? 8./J. .,(N/I7,f '4,i..VYi.;,p-rYD *2,[*. b.* 1.),I " + f, -[. h ~'k a *.; t '"

.y'd.'.P Jd.".,m,4 h.'4.(6/,]i.,.,/{y,. $;'f ;.1;

{.6kf . i Tp p Qa,% 4.,,v.. m . f ; r,.

4.,... c., 4.,,,. m *..r....s,.*). \\ ', *,,S. ] *,..,,..,.,t.3

.. * -^ ' -y 5 i 6. T' ',Y ',.8,.. , ' ' '.'b' a .[ ' .,y,l$. %,j 'f f. g,f .$. '. ",'-[1, j .g ' * , ~

• n. i. 5'.~.

-8 .... + e ,,4 ^j' 4,*,... 'g 't s s s h N, .[f \\' ' 'g g ......i./,1 *O ?.'. ) '.s.7 ;. .,~ / ,f..t. * '4? T *e \\n,,.4 w n. ,1 5, .e '

• l b.. #,(,[, 5., k' ' % )

. *....*..,r. ~.' ,2*'? 'h E [.I - '), ". - 9 ' h. ,.P , a,t.e' 's',< J. e. p.4 1?- ',,.,-.. * < v; i 4.. y',,..:,. 6 .R r* -g a ", . r., e ., cp - 1 ,x V,, 'r~,, ;

j

-y ,*,...r..

• y; c

+ . i e.*,..' k.. &t.".C f, r.a :

• d. % ;., - s k,:=r,6, u-i.'.'., '.,' ';.
• X y r ? ; h * %*

.,..e r.. t. .t.

.* b,. '& '; w. L

,s

. ;'. *. ' Y.,.

v ~ m'f:#'w@M.y@.%.w@.8.p&w' WW. l.EWm. r;-:.ww.n,MnW s.M.V. W..m -l, ' l .m .n w a. . m, w w,.m.y t..,, y D% M yWW*. MD.1

4 k ? BACKGROUND ,.a In 1984, the Licensing Board admitted contention 10.1, proffered jointly by ) ,,c '(

a interveners Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (CPG) and Georgians Against

.o i ..3 Nuclear Energy (GANE). Relying on a report from the Sandia National Labora- ) 'J-tories, this " environmental qualification" contention alleged that certain safety-related equipment at Vogtle contained polymers t!.at might experience greater degradation from lower dose rates of radiation than would be expected baaed 1 on testing at higher dose rates. (This is termed a " dose rate effect.") See LBP-P i i 84-35,20 NRC 887,903 (1984). After hearing substantial uncontrovened tes-d timony on contention 10.1, the Board ultimately concluded that it was without ,. l 't..$ l. ,,,, ;, g merit. Specifically, the Board found that .,=..%., 9 ay e; " - polymer materials destined for use in safety.related [Vogtlel applications have acceptably .. ~ ' [ ',, N,../, passed an adequate environmental qualification program. Additional usurance as to the

i.. d. y< q.

.JJyrf

• adequacy of these polymers will derive from an operational surveillance program to be implememed by Applicants.

LBP-86-28,24 NRC 263,293 (1986). .l GANE filed a notice of appeal from LBP 86-28 on September 8,1986.2 By S letter ten days later, applicants advised both us and the Licensing Board (as well '. '. ~ as the parties) of newly discovered information regarding contention 10.1. 'nie i polymer that showed discernible dose rate effects in the Sandia study is a Sj raember of a group of polymers designated as XLPO and. in particular, is i a co-polymer of ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA). At the hearing before the ' gl? ] Licensing Board, applicants' witnesses testified that EVA was not used in any safety-related equipment at Vogtle. Applicants have now learned that XLPO . q. N, insulation of certain instrumentation cable at Vogtle contains a polymer classified l as EVA. Applicants state that they will identify which cable is affected and ] will subject it to the surveillance program already established and required for safety-related equipment. Applicants also express the view that, in any event, the Sandia conclusions about dose rate effects do not prevent XLPO insulation from performing its intended electrical function. Letter from David R. Lewis to 7l, l., k jf 7, Gary J. Edles, et al. (September 18,1986). No party commentQd on applicants' 4 t,', letter. In fact, in its subsequent brief on appeal, GANE expressly eschewed any .. f. n,a[.f,%,, ;;. , f. (, appeal in connection with contention 10.1. GANE Appeal Brief (October 8, . t..- : l 1986) at 16. 'N ~ .<..t. The Licensing Board later issued its concluding decision, LBP-86-41, on the - ,S I,,

,. n....,

one semaining issue pending before it (contention 10.5, concerning the envi-

w. j,

. '" ']) 1; .+ .',.y

• .N-

>c .',a 3 ,.,j-

• G ( ';', f We disnussed CPo's spreal, rindmg that CPo had wohmiarily wuhdrawn fran this proceedmg. shoreby forfeiung us appeal nghts. ALAB-851,24 NRC 529 (1986).

N.'._, a f,.4.. b + 'l..-

,, 'h. ' '

t. r q,b,,Q .v< s .w a.. J.y; ,,g . '.. 6: h...j'.M., ', '.j h.,,.54

4.." < :., t,M '.

.j 25 y 7., 4 n, L. s.w..... ..c >S

& G y.

.y ..... 3;. n W... J.a.. _ Q 3:Q,~.J. j+. M;- s ;.; JSp 'sn!-i.'q'*.,' 9'.%.....,,7q'.:,. ;)W~.:. y*.Q s.

,, [ g, 3,,,, ?g,.c.g.'hh"l!h[$"I'"*' I'.i/ 2#f f.r."I'*[-3. ' ** ]. F ~ ^

, 'J. *

7 4.l *.

,~,y.,. . Dif* g.5 ; ".;,, *. h'.;~~5.

• T, i,

/ r.., 3. ...r.. .3 \\, u

• y...*,,

. -.;s >'y ....'a.;-

v - 8.1

-i \\ A%,,,, p (;l,.,.h I ').' ' Y. &*.& lQ, ' ' : * ' ' ' ** f.,.

• .'s L f

l .t.

• l l

,- ' q:. t ,,.s.g., o,'@.:..W v,,. ~;. :,.4_f,.;.y w - r _. '. c., n.. ,.g.. ? - ~- < \\ 6 *. ';,.,.; $'..., c.,f J" j. e ?., %,f" r,.. h, f,. s.., f; ;,' 3.' y. ~ .,,.s r. ..r., .y ,c.: ..o ,.,...-e'>*s;'.k.,t N 5* 4 tt., ;. %, 6 ,, pc 4 ? O Wy"Fy;,%q:.M.

x;.:.. J 7 3 M ^

' '. : /.

'*:>: '! H m!L,:n.Xw.Q:9:..;.*.Qws:l, M rg w:;.y,Qv.y.y.t 6.;m.;.,u.'.*L; t.;iy;',9p:*f. Ve,.. %y ~ y' ',;+,Mt.. v.: i. 6. ";.Q;.,J.;n q n.~ d. 9Q ;a.Q:,

Q:i.... ng ywr m..g u. '

.n." 1 a

n

g...

,;.. y Q.

..i.<.... .' w w.;.9:.p a.

ronmental qualification of solenoid valves used at Vogtle). Although contention 10.1 was unrelated to the subject of LBP-86-41, the Licensing Board took note 1 of the applicants' September 18 letter and its earlier conclusion in LBP-86-28 . ' i f~ about this contention. It then added: f-74 ,.s. 5-As a condition precedent to the issuance of any operating licenses. it would first have to be initially determined by appropriate authority that the changed information mntained in Applicants' letter of September 18, 1986, pertaining to XLPO insulation that contains vinyl acetate, does not lead to a conclusion that is inconsistent with that of this Board on Contention 10.1. , j r LBP-86-41,24 NRC at 904,928 (emphasis added). 4 In a January 14,1987, letter to the Appeal Board's Secretary, counsel for the

• ' ' ' ; 6.W. f. 3, i y,," ' ?.$l NRC staff submitted an affidavit containing the results of the staff's review of the information disclosed in the applicants' September 18 letter. The staff concluded

', i l{[ A ',..,,. ' " *h, ?..,',. ', ) that the information does not change its earlier favorable evaatation of the safety-m '..,7 .'- ; q;* related equipment and corresponding maintenance and surveillance program at

j' ~ '

Vogtle. The staff also concluded that the license condition imposed by the t L8 censing Board was thus satisfied, and it suggested that the Director of NRR '4 was the " appropriate authority" to make this determination. Letter from Bernard .] M. Bordenick to C. Jean Shoemaker (January 14, 1987) and Enclosure. In a .]J letter sent the next day, the Licensing Board Chairman advised staff counsel that c the purpose of the license condition imposed by the Licensing Board was "to s',

• r sI resolve the matter of the changed information prior to licensing." The letter also H

stated the Licensing Board's intention "to make known that at the time we set the condition we did not know who the appropriate authority may be and we still W do not know, for it depends on the course the proceeding will take." The letter j implied, however, that the " appropriate authority" was other than the Director of NRR, perhaps "the Appeal Board or the Commission itself." Letter from Morton B. Margulies to Bernard M. Bordenick (January 15,1987). Staff counsel replied to Judge Margulies on January 16, 1987, expressing the view that the NRR .,j Director was indeed the appropriate authority to rule on any remaining matters s ] concerning contention 10.1. Staff counsel argued that this contention was "no longer in litigation" because no appeal or motion to reopen was pending on the _ pc .,7 'c( matter. Letter from Bernard M. Bordenick to Morton B. Margulies (January 16,

• 7 1987).

- + c lm .P* J ?.] Late in the afternoon of January 16, however, the Director of NRR asked 1... j

Y....

us by telephone to clarify his authority in light of the flurry of correspondence r ~H described above. We responded with our January 16 order. s. / /D, q t .~

j. b ~ '.. 1 !J

• '.'$ 1. AI
• ^ 'y,. :.

r*, O'i e. ' J ' j,

y [,,

,,.a ... g o . %,' 4,.. '..'s, .G .m. . '%; *1 3, ,

• s.1.s '.':? J

~ s

• Q.
• >~:*'.
• i ;'

y .W <s,. y

• ., ' l ' ?;Q.

' C % * ;;.

• u =- l ni.,' ?

..f. '?)

.t, L,. n '.'.*f Y:

?.'... = ... r,C.A*m%ii [l.M., d. 'g.i;/U,E, i; *;*?. ;,., e e :.. v,.v, s-ro e. .'W , D ' '.s ...e 2, %':.j, [ */,.,.* *p*,C.y'f[*,f.*j . 3,.p f.t, i,. 5 4, i 4 ~I 1 6 p, s. '... A 4, ... s. j., ' c.,1. -,. i t ;. c.'. i. .-. + g p- " s .y g . j. ~ c,.., r -.,,.y 4 a m, -. [,. ^ ab !*.4's* 'kke ', f [ (./ .I f ! ,,l ~.- .f. . p, /, ' '.

• e, *.,r,,

,.,....4',' ,.9, 'T' -[,,. ,g, /i. t r y .s. d

• h g

4 9 "4. .[, Y.

• 9

,y: g ei ', ' j .,v, EY7. w m.o., 5. 9 [ ..s'? I ,9E '. '/ ,. y., r,,v. ' V %,..,.:..* ' -i. . 4, '.'., 5.* 'l e . i,' 4 s ', f-.s. ~.c.,,,,.. e.' t ,),, s,

• t, '.!.

iA .~v.*. 2.- 4 . %,~s: f s. .; a + = +. .'*f .I.' J. f. 4

• I Y, i.h... ch..,h.,*;.w.~k..,kk.h. 0.gYcY.-,h l

., ' * ' ? 's h Ie, kYk[* 4, 4 . h.$g.h. , g.c.. a. 'n ~,. w a t pf.. ,., f&lh.Y&&q;.;a,n.p.7,.a.,;p.. -.dl.[Whh,W,g,,h.,f e { % k,.y ; y,. .; 7. -..g 6. <,. .w gy 9n ~ ~$, s;,r..,.,* .y... 5 5.' ' '.? D;,.,.. .5,3 p' 'k$ $y;p, a q, ..., W ' f$ ' 0{. 1[* 0.

3 i DISCUSSION A Under NRC case law, once the Licensing Board issued the partial initial ',y;.6 7 decision in which it disposed of contention 10.1 and a notice of appeal from p .d that decision was filed, the Licensing Board no longer had jurisdiction to . '. * [ act further with regard to that issue. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three ,, l g. ,V, Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1327 (1982). Jurisdiction over the matter raised by applicants' September 18, 1986, letter rests with us. When the Licensing Board issued its concluding partial initial A decision on an unrelated issue some months later, it had no authority to impose ^ a license condition in connection with a previously decided matter.2 Inasmuch as the condition is therefore void, the Licensing Board's two partial initial decisions s, ) !h'j ,, ' 4 /r,:[!

• r ;;

must be read without the conditica. In that light, together they provide the tP: authorization necessary for the Director of NRR to issue a low-power operating 1. .J " m.,..n.. license for the Vr etle facility. See 10 C.F.R. il2.764(b),2.764(f)(1)(i). 5 j.. * .,c ' ' i But in so ruhg, we do not fully endorse the staff's position that only NRR has oversight of the matters here at issue. As noted, jurisdiction over the subjects addressed in the Licensing Board's first partial initial decision - C and thus the matter raised in applicants' September 18 letter - lies with j us. To be sure, contention 10.1 has not been pursued before us on appeal or ,. v. in any motion to reopen or for a stay of licensing action. The staff overlooks, ^ ,] however, our long established authority to review sua sponte the entirety of

• 'qi 3

....... ' i v.

... 4

% e. u, e.. w. g $. 5 % ? 's.W. W. @. m v :. ; w. W n n w .#Pg 2,... r~ s,9.....g,,i,.,,g,s.. ;,.

.; g y.e 7,.

. u. g. n.t ru.

7:a::.7,.,;. W ';s s. ,s.. .,,...... y, f ; y g...,m.c,e r.).. .. y:. v ~ '.,. q y,. g..g' c.f.,.J..n.y. : r.3 ;. 4 .n p.i 4_ ;.;.K:,.

• : w.. ;.;. - 6, 5 :i:..b - a eV. ;. :.. ;. :..-

3. n <.n ' :.: N

y...- 40...~, m. :. s,S..y 0;,' d_ g.M p f F.'.?...N.:..., F..>:nJ5 M,

W ,3.. T. 's . s. 1.. y - 1 s.,.r. 1 .;r,. c. .. v. s.m,. n. : . v, . a...,c. ;,%r,.s;.s.m...:p.: W.i f:.:'?,%l.d...:& *d M piy;. M [.b:. f...<.'n.'.::...... < i.~* . L; :, :: W;G,. a. e. l %... g.g.. e,,r.+, a b..n =.. g,) y o..,m,.,.. w. c, s, . v..c.,.. n. s, v. ,.. c ,,.v. e., ... ;, u [, , '.. [h[- .. r.,3 .gc _v.<~ . 4,. . h n@. w m.f,698,..'1Q'( n:'['bb

s. s.h}f

s. Nih.f. m,.,,.m; h,.2 s I, Y.

l.M ' I.,, .,I'[ f .j..

.s... e.

,..e. n,. m. e c.u, n. f,;w .m :,. Q,//.y?)g1. g.y. pia,l.j.y;.. M pq, ~/7Kf W7ll:;7e.w *.J,*.;w,.V'h,m%. :,_ 7

s y.;

j 4r , t,

i.: i ~.: ? &i' aj Our order oOanuary 16,1987, as explained here, is reaffirmed. .,4 It is so ORDERED. x.,,j.,..;. y 1 r.,. f M,f.1 g '; m..N J M POR THE APPEAL BOARD e .d. . u. >.~.;..,.. .~.; m..: .f,.

5., w,4,,p

. v. ~,. y.1 sa r,.

a, ~ q..,. s.7..A C. Jean Shoemaker i y 4,- Secre.tary to the. U- ' Appeal Board t, p'. s# 4, . j, ' t 'J, '; ,e.,.'.' .. /> s * * * ,, 3., 4 e g y v'.9 f, .: L,* * +p' ,o......,;,., >l r.)., '. ; ss.l s,a ': i.~ '*4- , ', + : ry ,c A b..* y ', n e ...e . g*,. a >l 4'.;*l,L*3,,,c#y,..,. '.,., t. ,s { _.'s R...,..,.,. '. s a

• .4.

4 g;, g s ue; p y ,, n+,3 .a .c.a,,,9;su'.+ + r .*.s,,; -e. 7 8 ',' T,? 7.. (. G, ' ] f j' ta.. 4.s c .t

• . f .* 4.~e g *L

.,+ ** a ', [r y., ' /., Q-5 -a n-f. e, ? ', % *.,', g ' ' * [f,$. 3.

• g. ' t e j,,{ p,,,,e,' g

= s. ~h.la'o.. Q.g in , rj, '.3 l p ] >.....f,. 4 s s-g.y 4. S .e 8(.,,e, y, f.,,4 c. . 1 ", ' .., ' P s s .e t s., .,,,9 t .( a./ s .. g, g.j /. V., ,v%"....* E d ', r / E ' ~ y,' b O'm.'*.'...'

• 4. + q,E et g.e.

..d .,>a ,y - 9, i. i + e a s.

• t,e e

, ;/,0, ,* y - .s.,.,.,er',[b'.....,9 ~,*7 e .#i-3 4I - = ,. ' ' ' ? "b, a ,;.H

• ,1 *'l6

. '. *' h, = 4 . 2.? es

• s a

., g - *, * ,( "q.- .#

• e ? *, * 'h y.3 i ".

,() .. g .4 ' ^ 32,' .~ f ~v:\\t -. '. N.,z Y. 9 ' \\ *u l.W.( 3 "g 1; s,. -, a ~>=3,m.M e e 9 r e 5. *. 4 y .7-.- + ,.#,.4 m p[, ..'/Jd",,,.

• lt'

,M,, Hc a .s., . i' ,s .. o.s .) y 1, +. [.. ' I, <. i a h, '.. i ; e t, N ( t -., i s

• .u.

(

e; /.*, r,; rI, t _? y..g., i s . y 1 - 4 t y i - l , c,.g 4 4 ,k w. '.s e m... s W s.t ,.: s ,y...'.' ,, f,..t #, f, s'M' s M ;/., 5i , m. 8.'('2 o n, s

a- '~h.%.

• y.4

,k-[ h*/ f*'t.( ^] s{ j s .,? s >.,. n , " 2. 8.;,; d. ' z,.a j;F.' Q~..,:. c. Y e 7Fl. * *,4 &: ' %.. c s

• 9

.D .,A ar c

• QW.

.p*, e f *, .f y - p q p:. p'* ,r F. ' ... oss v . i c'T ?,4. .,,.y

m. @j,.3,,

e ., p.1 r., + w , 1; t .m... _,, -

.4 ~s e

,1.., e,s C. D, f ],r ** r...,p* .,,' 4, l ).9 ' t 4, .C.. g* ~

u.. ; < ;

• ,[~g q

v.,..,.

* \\.w..- ' ) ., [.s',%' 4.L E 's [9.,. 1 W %. ; ' *p*.. ".,,e,? g ' p. % v(.3. w'. a ,.. s ;

m z..

• y D

.w. f m. ', <. ".*x*..* s* *k, (e. *.h.,.,

f. 7 '.

• w A' #

h'{.. +- ,e~-

• s s

s

t

, =3 4,, y. s.. s.,. .a, + z. 2.i '.2%.' ' f a & y%, - %, g ;... t 9a, s *T.-

4. 9,,,.

.f,, E f*f. p.} %,,,,.k'$ h,&'< p.:,t \\ f 'e ;,'* ^ y .t e' *., p,3 t p' 6 5.. : . n .,.>.g ..W.'.,, ?,u,,,,..<.w.. >y:. J V.w., N..yg N..c A. %.. ,-4,.,, ',...a

g. 3.q ;.v

,w. se +,

• m w.m,

. ; n..... s.j v o a ..L.,....-i,,,.s. 4 %.a. n c. s y.. 4 G. Z ; } m.r.aR. p, %. VA h .1. s.fM,@N. R.. 28 .e> ;n....w .q: ..g aqa. y e... m,,4, m, n+ n;. s g. u.7..p..q- .u # wg. W pm a s q ..*v p.- .e y xe. e. n:.. 4Q*(g%s+w,wm.4.q+e$w,5!!!Q;e,AM,7, w967.W;9. e.- c s r.,. sp.y Q.p. m ~; Cf 9 g 7.m, $4NGN.%dy& j.mgwr; mg ggy.n,c; w. y,q, g:.,1,wc., c.. ..,,4/- - z.g. < S7.[u m.w p....g. m.ep..s y ;Z,w.l.',Y g.,. m".M M. /, Y M.c

.n..

w + t.~. p;m . -[. s.,y'7, M;D..; y[. x m N.M.. U.h &

M r % ~...,f. 3.s...N* N ' M.D. M...,.,9,r..

.'i ;* ? g.j. >: *, ; .d .A

w.'M, s.p.g; J : Y.

Sv. g's d.g , y y :... m 1-y 4 ,X' . *Q, +; 's : w ..3 ..,'Qi,%. %. m.. fy h.a.>. c. '-......, a". - ~, '.;- .r .+ . : ' ;, sY.. ' 9 &a .. e L.,w* v,h. ,i c.. 4?, a..,.a%+~, t. u t g?. ) T:c.;-q.;;&; %, A;N @,..V;,n.c .,i,,:,? r. r a., n c....p ..L + 9 .n.. &%m. M r ...'*.,;.4y s. ~.,, e w. ,..e. y'r

r.W.W.a B.

e '..-

r. -

a.+. - pV. 5.*. w n -,u & w h$f{...?y*0.. %,c,i, y&;o;N * %.h**;.h* as.n l '. N &;.s w.,..; w* m.oef.%W.g..h. . h 6) j h.N,... e, t.s. ?. < s n ~ %.. t D . k?b,ly;L'.a ;.>.p - %tk. Y.. Yh~ y.' h h.I.SN s .%W)y;g, 'p'% k,g k i s W. x 7.,... y ~.. "=3 r.* en~p -v....Y k -~+A,... af,, gp.O g.s. r...q%;.,..M+. %. ?z;,s,,g.g.; p ~ a.s . m t. r. o. ~:.u. s r g.. q. nA. y.,. ~.... n

c..

n. c, y V. a n.R a

., L vse;.

vm .9*. ' < q.e a s ~ 7.x ^ a ts .x ~ b Y s

i 4'i . 's.. ) 4 l l 6 i i Atomic Safety L and Licensing H Boards issuances T i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL t B. Paul Cotter, *C/mitmen Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chainnen (Executive) Frederick J. Shon, *Vice Charmen (Technical) Members i Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grosaman* Dr. Emmeth A. Luebka' Charles Bechhoefer' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McColiom Peter B. Bloch* Jerry Harbour

• Morton B. Margures' Glenn O. Bright
• Dr. David L. Hetrick Gary L. Milhollin Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Emest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter
• Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt' Dr. Oscar H. Paris' br. Flichard F. Cole
• Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan tvan 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 til Seymour Wenner John H Frye Ill* Gustave A. Lirienberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little

• Arrmenent panel members

. h).. ' ). x t y-s t j,. ,..t Cite as 25 NRC 29 (1987) LBP 871 ,7. m . ; 7.. ) Cy a'y..3_.,,,. 9:, *}P ..g, p. 7 g.j. / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ..q,$- v .,r,..3< %.,g g;1.y.(re ,.,..,3. $ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,y, ~: 1... a T.. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -.c 6,, g t W <...n < r...,/. = f. 7, Before Administrative Judges: ,, n ;w.'q. . 4t, y ; ?. +,.,,je,: 1. i. y.,. - t f, ...M..! " ,...,, ; g w v f.Of.. d Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ~ ' .,. 7 * *. ? p 'A.,..' M \\.,if y '" ' Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom .t ~K:..-:. O.1 U.M. u. W,;%,;:,, Dr. Walter H. Jordan - Ut. W : -,e, < n,,n ;. . ~. s y.. .N'. ,t 4, 0.. y. c +. ;.. ' '. u,-.J ' 3. o. L,, , d,,i s. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 445-OL- .v. 50-446-OL .... ". d ). \\ .W (ASLBP No. 79 430 06-OL). .r. L,.,:.... e . a w. <+o- ..cw -,. m.,. y .,..n t a u1 y 5-TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC W, -

o i

4' L' e COMPANY, et al .'W n.. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric n& .c -li:f.;#,p,. Station, Units 1 and 2) January 7,1987 p-s,, w se o w...

s. s.1 l

p 3

.v-;.h.1 The Board requested additional information concerning the adequacy of a 1

p. c. -

t 1 1,. f reinspection program that relies in part on sampling that is designed to detect l .e .v D,.f an error rate of at least 5% at the 95% level of confidence. The Board seeks to I t" ^ ' learn the basis for concluding that a plant with just less than a 5% error rate has attained an adequate level of safety. It inquires into how that rate compares 1.X 3' u .v.. .;l. tf . ? v.J. ' F. .m n to what might be expected from conscientious implementation of the quality .$D @i.N assurance requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and how such an M %.f,((M. /i:;. ' f[., O.,1.( %, h6 i i,&,.y < ?,' ,p.Z error rate impacts on fauh-tree analysis of the reliability of the AFWS. ..~.f.,.

• g' t.

,? ls4' };.s.. *.. y h $" t A a, ,,, J+..np ,t. t,.- TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED ,c.-. 1, l c... s.q4.. s + m ..w l . r ?. :, p q? k ";.* ,, e;i Sampling, reinspection by; . r.C.. '. g g..,..7,,t 4 I +

• y,4, ;

., 7f,.j 3:ault-tree analysis, effect of construction errors on; 7, oo f : *.G ',)D 9...',;.iy;7 ';Q ',&.d ,0 L Construction errors, rate to be expected. ..t;,: .c., r i _ - C. .;W. -..........m....,,v,%..

• ..*W.e,,,.,.

, u,. w e, ...f. .'e h. !6. .c.o ...<.a. ,..m,...

• .. % s.

....

x yl

..p

• 0....,.n' s,, n MS, s *

, : D;&,a.lw;w, g+p%,, f,)*.L.; Mf G* 4'*,.'%> ?. j ' n l T %? * .M G%.d .., w.. t a. j....c. y....~......s. m a. 29 l A '. W sc;.e A6@' a t9:.P.W..r:p.p;g'.,q ". h 3;w J ;Q.& n @ ;;<*,$ N,D i'i.] Q h w. $ s%.,M..,

• WW.i t

' r.v. m, NM.- ~e, v., p q:.;.ywy.N... n. ,r 3,f m .. w.w.w.p;m.m.9..:..a. s n .v .w. g..3 t m,c m.19. ?; y :xx%.,.. .,m,.,a .s,.y........, y. c. .. :. n. ..r. ~. x : ..y ,v .e .. e. a..,..,.,.. y ;; ..m u ~. 3 ' a'./ ~ .w, c, n. u,w '..:ww:. w': e a m.v. s .x .a

s. /,.

.n .,r: M y @e.s.m.-.~ Q..s..,4.}w.Q.,%...p yp i:.f,, Q, v.,

3'.. ;.2 m..

w... .,e, J f,b:4 7;p...j y ; n..:.. v. .. 3.. 3. : n. K n..,n,,. i.,..w.~.s . ;.._ o.

n..

m.s & % @k, W<. ~?Q.a. M j;,, M % b@N,N NWWWWM @f n. s '- .tM.:e. M 0 f.c. ,.c. ..... s. v ~ . x. Nh.sN. E l

l a i ,o 1 1 . l MEMORANDUM i (Adequacy of Record: Errors and Sampling) a '~ ,i' . g.1,. U. E, d .j

, f. (.n t >,

_,;* ;.1 4 . ',, R. $ As the case has progressed, the Board has continued to consider the rela-i f~, f" j tionship between the requirements of Appendix B and the acceptability of the I Comanche Peak Response Team's (CPRT's) alternative approach, consisting of 4 inspection of samples of hardware. In this Memorandum, we set forth concerns L'1 P', that we have determined ought to be addressed in the interest of an adequate i record. ,, y, _l. We understand that the sampling process employed by the CPRT is to provide a screen for detection of the existence of deficiencies within a given i m ', ; J",4, j,0.@y. ;,M,e; ? i population. However, we have not seen an adequate justification for a 95/5 1 ~;,

,e

,, / .f. (or 95/95) sampling program as the screen for all systems. Although Texas . G.Cip'F"Qq/M n

• % GQ' i ( ' 'y 4 -

Utilities Flectric Company, et al (Applicants) have said that they do not rely entirely on the inspection of samples, we do not undercand how the CPRT's other work' improves the level of assurance of the program of reinspection by sampling. For example there may be areas of the plant or types of hardware for .,' c ",^ which Applicants will rely entirely on reinspection through sampling.2 .] This reliance on the reinspection of samples may affect one of the post TMI-w ,,y, 2 requirements: the "[p]erformance of a simplified AFWS reliability analysis ' +: , y i that uses event-tree and fault-tree logic techniques to determine the potential for i AFWS failure under various loss-of-main-feedwater-transient requirements."3 It ,/ appects to us that reliance on the CPRT reinspection program could require a V.;:y revision to the required analyses. ij We are interested in the relationship between the 95/5 sampling program and the level of safety achieved at nuclear plants by properly certiSed, trained, and supervised craft personnel and by an appropriate quality assurance / quality control program (QA/QC), which would catch and reduce errors made by craft.' ~ ISee Applicams' Memorandum in Response to Board Memorandum (statistica' L.famncan from CPRT sampling), January 31,1986, at 17. We do not fmd precimaly the same kind of statement in Applicants' Respenas to Board s Concerns [Cancerns Response), December 1. !986, so we am not sme whedier Applicanis conumse to sly on m. i. the same 'anaaning concermng not relymg entinly on a sampling program. Furthermos. we nose that the use of

l -

[. /* 4 L two.95/.05 screens may have same effect on the level af canndence or level of error of the sampling program; I ,3,, J. 't,' and Applicants may wish to discuss the effect of double sempling to assist us to understand the asean:h tool {.-[*. ,p,f W ',,*Y, bouer. Concerns Respanse at 6-7. 7 .,n 2To the extent that the CPKr cmdibly confirms the aliability of all or pan of the QA/QC program, this would ' ',. *,j(' ; W-s v. -M of ceums enhance the credibility of fmdmas that paruens of the plant as adequate for safety because they pass the CPRT's sampling screen. De dif6cuhy we foresee, concerning the nood to rely on the sampling pmgram, is ]3.. most misvant should the CPRT discredit substantial portians of QA/QC or should the evidence about the QA/QC 7 gram be equivocal. 3 safety Evaluation Report, NUREO.0797. July 1981, at 22 38.

, 3 3,

• We do not entirely accept the argument that "[i]f a population passes the 95/95 sample scnen.... the population 1:

,. -. ~,1 of items is free from pmemmmauc danciencies." Apphcants' Memorandum in Response to Board's Memorandum. 'e N' l January 31,1986, at 9. All we would conclude from a population passms the 95d95 snrnple screen is that it is . ' ' / J *; - 1.,, a. 7 ,q',jf probably free from programmatic de5ciencies raar renar sa an arrer rare ofM or mers. De question this raises t'- ,;q..- y ,, 3, Y,. " nJ ";,f,.,,._.. ,,".k', n 1 [

• ),y is whether that is adequate assurance of safety.

..t .,-;'s#s (t**n, y- . '.. vi '.*'*.M~, *, ,t '. f.N..,4 ,e h., ,'$ I.'. ' hl U e.. ) ' [- I.' 8,

• Y l'M,d..

M' G., e ?.. .8 .. 5.y

• s.,T, 2 s... a e

,.,,m... ... $ e

• pf'h ?,

l.y$.h,? ' $.i. :-fjQ,q.o , j,.. 2,,

• , e-4

..r.- 4 - ...,%,a.. 30 ...,.. y ..,,.,; t<e. g,q.ga s; h.: .j syn '. g y.f .';.4^r W 'th!1.Ya *,f:.Q & 5 *,*,*,, j.q e ::,,;K*h,y)7. 9.*.t.f q'd,,M.k Y'k'fl .2.*M,. p%g, s, y,g;j yN.I q';p.,, y "J '

g., %' 6,.y.

y:,.. -6 . n; t. s., ):,-lt '.~.)

• t %p a,.Q y,r,p m. '

1. . 7;y:*r tm,. s.wnpe: u,~

4 . r t - ~ ~~ n. c. ,,1

c. ;'.?

p ~

.y p

e. ; ,.m.;. s. . a.,. ' t. v. ~ t ss -. ? >].,, ,.3 's l. -** *,'l [,.*

• 's dp

>f ,..;, m. /.. v, t .. e !y'r + ,o,,

,,,,t,,,

r- ~ ..p, ..t. ,,

• i.

N h', [ '., f.I } . 'b .n ... -.r. 4, ;,...r ~.,..'1,..

• i

....s *g '4 Q= .*.L -... -;'.., ',..... .,E- . /* 8 s,s s.. .. ~. , /*,.;, 'F \\# \\.. .. *.. g *,pi Y,'x.,,1*p, ;t'$,m' f,.0,:.y'...,. p, .t %. J,,%.3 ! V,sp w'. t p.f n.k.+.Q;[m f g.- n<f,g W:/ e, s, m.gr.m."...,;.,v.g3,w,s $.+Q.M.Q]'T $p,. '.U :a ,x,.v t,. 2;.c;..y;.,c. v, n.

w

': '.7. $..l.$ y,.

\\. s>v,,,.,,. %,. ?'. a. u s.. r v ~ *

• 3 '.h :,.J ' i e F. ' ?.

.u ~ .7 ' l s..< '; '. b ' f

• f.y.C u.

.4.**.* AV .. 't : 0W 1 .v .n u ..., ; w...,,4: p .a n.w v.. : t v y,r... + n.s.u q r,r 7 e ,,x,p.m.;,. m tw,:n. v.... .. ~,- th;. >h.. h. Y h h Y $. Y... ' h. f,?

D '.~$ We recognize that enors are expected. But what level of errors is expected?. W What level do codes antici ate? What effect does the enor level have on W. P .,,.r, b w.,,i.f. probability risk assessments? +

,, p.;...

We are not setting any particular time deadline for a response, but we are 7-

7., c, ' 4 ;... -l interested in readmg the response we will receive. Interveners may respond 4.

L j within a month of Applicants' filing. Staff may respond with all deliberate speed. 1 s i ,1 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m.w. ; ;.,, c..'. f.< w.. i >', K..,,.,.,. Peter B. Bloch, Chairman y<

. /

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -c. 4 ..+ h s j

7. s. e,.,..h.;,,

. +., ;.....,..v ..y Walter H. Jords i(by PBB) 9 4l ADMINISTRA?IVE JUIXiE Kenneth A. McCollom (by PBB) ac.. c .c ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE .....s . o.. c,- Bethesda, Maryland s.yt-p... .., c. . e,. x... .,.g. t + .'y- ,"}. -[m s .3 .,s.. n.,... . y.. ..,_s.. s.1 .. ~. ...., s.... w.. -. r. 6. m. w.. < .....u.. ....,.u....v. s g .= i.. m.a... y., . ~.... ...e

1. .'/e

,g ^ a. s .9 - ). r.. >. a.: ~. ,.~ . ".,. ^..... 5

e 6

,A '(

){

1. }'

.c ,. ~ ., p.. ..m

o...

c.::......,. e.m..,- .m .l?

y. v ;

, t. J:., s .. ~.,<n. - e, .p.,,.- y m.. r...n....; }. n-n. u.. a.,. w........~......, s - e o. . g e . y p. 31

m

;,w;m.

..w....a v.a x. ~.u :a. v... v<....... n.. n s.

..x..,s.

.s a... .v..

-..,..a.,..w

~ ) h.*$7, h,, f..,.. h

a. n.... *..n.,...;. m.,l.2.?;.7 '.l 3.y,.v... x.. _..,,_.

f.......d.,'z.k,/ '.$,,,, y..,,.....[ "*...,.., ,,(. c.,..., GT.1N );. 4 g.. .e y Mc.Ff. O * ', '.',i.' " [. , {- %.'.' d. {,.Y. u. '.., W f;f V.h ? L' :' fM.'. f [d ..s. +, y -. ' 4 e *

p.q'i n.

\\g ..sb.. 9 , t..,: -r e ..'a,..g,*'... ..t .,s 6 ..r - ., y - W !.c.; > ( . I!*f t, 6. f."". ..1;....,'..,.r,,- s... c..,,.. l y b.p:.g,.,, : " 9.f.:..'.,.'.',p..,.,.f.,.,;f e.. '.y. '~".. ',',t..

• u. c'.f, ?c $

,8 A,.,.. , e 4, k *-. i. .s

c

• y','.,.'.,.,,<<.m.b....

....c .+i-3 . -. d.. ;.-. ? :%.,...w,i,.,,. ,.o. g., v.....y....,a.:;.. a. ~.: . y. .t-, v- .,,. p .c...,,. .g. .,.,...u ( ,i 6-

w. g,.,..,>s....;s.

b$hh.gn..;,., : ,z .g... ,v.... x.7., 1 ,, u... n. ;;h .. u.. .u hh.hhh.k....*.N..a.., hhh bh. h.h..?u....

r... a.,,&. h.....a.,.h, u. $b. m*

b h ' h.A i .. w...., !..a.>.,.w> r ,.s,v.~.,. .;,pg.y%g.,s,..+-.1.g.....

o. m.......r....,s_m, S...m.,. ;..

~t...st ... f ;,< *?u '. tn .q,qg..,...e.g,p.gs. .; y ng.... < e.e.e 4 p.v p s. r.. 9.ya.9.g.. y;;;vs p1.,.. .+ gJ. +

1 l 5, d ~ Cite as 25 NRC 32 (1987) LBP.87 2 7, .m

e:.,. W v '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... " ;..u.. ',' i. ~, ',, =.. s.. n. t, S.. e,.... '. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,s c,. .c '} ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD u' Before Administrative Judges: ? J.h,

p.,y,. c.,. A u. +< s,'. c..'

Charles Bechhoofer, Chairman ,. ;g y ..' ~ d Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. ,.r '~ .'2 Richard F. Cole .'.,;,.... 6. ' ,.4.... c. (, .m,, n,.*- .... c., e .., s.. u, ~ in the Matter of Docket No. 50-389-OLA 'e_', ' ,.i 'J. (ASLBP No. 87-544 01.LA) e 2 (Spent Fuel Transfer Amendment) 4 .s 1 . c i, .o ,t .,.'y FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 7h COMPANY, et al

j (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,

,a Unit No,2) January 16,1987 ..a ., + ,,.s I 'Ihe Licensing Board dismisses, for lack of standing, the only hearing request in an operating license amendment proceeding and, accordingly, terminates the t I proceeding. ( ( A f. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION PETITION .x. a s %;. f) Under 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a), an intervention petition must set forth with s.. y ' '.... t / . ' q.; / ;,.f. ?o. q particularity the petitioner's interest in the proceeding, how that interest may , M.'. :.y [.,;.:' 4. 'q.N. y" be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the specific aspect (s) of the . m:, ; @,d proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene.

• T'O 4

...,...8 ~ = ; y) '.1 - " N.

l.,,x RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION (INTEREST) s

. j.l, , e. ;. VJ * > *.9 i . 4 m; q-i ,;,/ 4q Residence mon than 100 miles from a reactor site is not sufficient to establish .j s . [. p 1,, ';.L 4, ,' g a petitioner's interest in a proceeding. r s:, s, :. s;. * ?.

• 's 2-..

p.\\! -; 1,,. ... & (* 7.~,; s.* . ; n' 'e, g*. -',y . t. - :

7...;.,4 4

u 8 .g. , ;,&y.. '.. s..+* a *m. + y L i.H p..'.. M. :e,. 'a, f," " 7. ; ,'lfi[.y 'df. ;.u 32 '4.. \\ .,. 3 A. *. :.,

• j. y #

t5 3 s- .W .* *...e.s. . Q ' '. W;;.Wl{. b7 .s .nn. ...r~ t.. ~ y,g,, A. ,: a. ..., y a. o - n, 4, ' b I c....,'m,,,. g...; . 7,

. +,1

+ .., 'h.tWh 6,

• y..{ < *; l+. ' l '2[,.

0 *K,3 +y.g..' ~ ~??'h:7.*S r;: *;Tv'j' f,'! ' k a* ** * ~ ' y is)?!)l 'y' h W ' ' * ' ~ ' ' Y,T. - h'e r'*%"'. W *c i's". 6 ^ \\ '.j m& f,ef ' *?$ '! - t r9 .;, y .'. !.;A i*

• ' l' V ~ \\

S?* ~ ' ' 7;. ,,'er ,.;~. '*j y 8,, ,g.. r, ,e s ,. s,.. e.,:,..... ,.s.. s. M.,, p d..... , e.[.,;, M., v.,$.,k f,.

4. y..t-

, m, 1.,. ,' h,[ '.. ;...c .ff..,. ' - - 3, '. .., '...(. J X,i h > Y. R, w.n. e -,i.7. d., y...,, [ '.;',J*j....ni.U.' ? ...iY 8 ! ' M W u: N i;I 5 m n,.....e,' ' ,a. ) ,m ..... ', 'y. .,.se...,..~ .c. .t. ...rs. .s c ., s. - , e, ;. p.y...,.. M,. .m.. + .. ' ~C,. L:'.o:O %.

c. g.r....r.... :. o.f che ;,v.,:4. g,. 6. ;.w.a...; n,..... v,m.,..;a -.,. n.,,) c, c.. ~.,.>. x,.

,.,e. .o..,. 7.

c....;,.;,

,,,

0b k?i ,. c,, $,..., h,o jTf;fr,j$g?gf'E h,,Q > L', l f~. ,j *$& r ..: v, '. ..w T Y,.c .&(. G f y?.$n.\\*db}%,Cu,$ **i!.}'a-)'M,Cl:!'?.Ry,N 'rM,- 2,W.,kr;?,W.*.?.f &,%4 ;;. i.' 'fT,G.Qh,Y; ' N.9..Y Q,' h [,Y. ?{sY! $'E '. $:ll[.bf!., ?.' %:f;M l,'.k? ,f, i

• ?

dl* i

.D':e,i*'Ef' Y U;,'h

?.* s . A, s f* l, hi ' I Y' k!'.* *!O

3 RULES OF PRACTICE: STANDING e ".i..' A statement of a citizen's right or a civic duty to participate in a proceeding f ') g;. ( .n .t ..o , p. ,. M, *j constitutes a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all l. ^ ,. 3.y, or a large class of citizens and does not result in distinct and palpable harm j sufScient to support a petitioner's standing. .j RULES OF PRACTICE: DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION i. 4 'y A petitioner who fails to meet the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. ~.'h 6 2.714(a) could be permitted to intervene as a matter of discretion, assuming c. G f, q, 0 W,C * /, ' ',;...' p'";,,' /3 3 ? he met the standards established by the Commission for such discretionary intervention. In particular, a petitioner would have to demonstrate how his A c.. m. '..,,', T,1..?,3.s;,. x..4 participation would assist in developing a sound record in the proceeding. 9 RULES OF PRACTICE: SCOPE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED s... +a." . t.- FOR LICENSING Where the spent fuel pools of two facilities are to be shared, the requirements g 1f4".

(.,

.- ".N of General Design Criterion 5 become applicable. They must be analyzed by an g,,i. 4. applicant and evaluated by the NRC Staff. 's e. RULES OF PRACTICE: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS e b 'N l 1. In the absence of a hearing on an operating license amendment, the Staff n..f

• • l is not required to make the "no serious hazards consideration" finding of 10

' ~^ C.F.R. 9 50.92(c). See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.91. .a O MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Hearing Request) ' d m. 3m .r .,y 1

q. v.,

This proceeding involves the proposed amendment of Facility Operating ,. - ys ,-, w * ;.L '. License NPF-16, for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, to permit the transfer of M Q'. t is,,. j', q ;,.,, 6' spent fuel from the St. Lucie Plant, Unit I spent fuel pool to the Unit 2 spent fuel pool. The Applicants for the amendment are Florida Power and Light e ,l. I!5 Co., Orlando Utilities Commission of the City of Orlando, Florida, and Florida 1 l,7

j, * ',

• 7.1.M.'

Municipal Power Agency (Applicants). The St. Lucie units are each pressurized -, p-c. ,.+ ;, f ;;;. water reactors located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The . wI

i..

f:..o. .. ?. ; $.., J.7. .

• x i fuel handling buildings of the two units, between which spent fuel would be

..e ,+ g }.g, ". _. J .hs.: transported, are approximately 300 feet apart. L .2 o ,,~s

. % :' f,,,. ' '.

• y,.., '. '.,. ~ t s

p

's L,_ ',.,-L, " '; F j J ;* s " ? . S "D.; ;*.,' Y'

• C ; r J.h. /..*

s ,.m ' (* (., [.,, i -,,. g *- y.f 5 ,T,sw g 7.'g 8 .J ,,r

• n y r..,

.;.r...,.3

+J Q ' ;.....,.

?,.. -::w c % c.,.t..W T -- n,...

g..t '.., v ^. n m..y7.&..z 33 n,.. '),:.y... - .. { !x*.. ~. .sa ,,3,..Q;,,a.,. gsll f. . 4.. h.,u.,g. ' U, n,, f. g

w.,o n v.

.w,.n ,..,Y.')y;-L,.$n<%.f&:g.p;..y,r;.;Np,. NN..g ,2 , p,.,J.3.Q n.y ?.. p 4 4,', I 4 . y..* W ): n;. J. g . dlr W. q ~ u. "l,t:e,. "<-l7~K

• ,u "**"}R 7,*%*^' " ; @ :

q) ,t '. ' .. n. 'Y ' ?l ' '?

• Y i

.w 4 a }.. g 'h; !, # ' '. O,, : : < ~ ".*1:*, W

• c;,.d 4.,s % T. N,'7.,2 i.. P./,p}.'r:1

'.. l '. ;,1 s '.. L. ; :~l,,>y ;2 '. : (* .. '. a; .,t - .-. ~,,,, k .. f.**. e ~,..~ ,o A - *

f. 3 i.

,~ g .N' J' ., n .:* *?. ~. 31 :..,; '"a

2. ;,, p.. ;. >'.!.l..]'.y..., ;'l.%.-b, r. L ;;! f. 'Y..:.:

.v b .q . V. 3*. ' Y~- . dI... ' dS 's i I.. 3 i J.,.', i sq. s' .'.?....., v YE I f.h. '.,,.k. ' W;; <.'a,..,'*b.. i' [ *.)[ < C...* / 1 '5 l* 2 *

• 5 i [.. ~[ f*'
• [ 't..#M

' k V* i i -l- . v., - . ' - e-* e. :

• 3; Q..,'. ; :.

r ,...., N. r..' I.a'l *q., E *' ... b. "4 v,4 - Yh.-,%*,'Y. 3,,.[.4...[ e *., s..

*E,

.i a.^ t.h!' N 5, 'Y ..l .5 ? NY.dg.m"&g.m:m%Wi%p w., W G W= m* ?.m.z.w' ?'m wm $ e, Q M N Q ; pl: w.. ' O. m'.u.s.u. v e- .m

v W

hWh8 'N"'"'W

.y J t ..1, t ~ ~.( .'1 fS 1.' As set forth in our Memorandum and Order (Regardmg Request for ro: , b![fh Hearing), dated December 9,1986 (unpublished), a timely request for a hearmg

a. y f" j,p, 'g,... %j'd was Sled by John Paskavitch. That request, however, was " patently de6cient." It f

was a one-sentence request which identi6ed neither Mr. Paskavitch's interest in

% ]' ",

the proceeding nor the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding. ',Cy...q 5;.. , '. N, y 's ..J as to which he wished to intervene. + Notwithstanding those de6ciencies, and in accord with the NRC Rules of ~' d i . ~ -.5 . y t ;.. y :, Practice, we provided Mr. Paskavitch an opportunity to amend his petition. We ~ stated that an amended petition should set forth "with particadarity (Mr. Paska-

,. n n

a17 T

.,, 7 vitch's] interest in the proceedmg,' how that interest may be affected by the s

results of the proceeding, and the specinc aspect (s) of the proceedag as to ' ~ CQ.y; +~ji,., y ]e.y ( l [;,7, which he wishes to intervene." We speci6cally pointed out that Mr. Paskavitch's 3 [X. d, 4 3.'.1:i h,.I T " I' 7 ' 9; ,* 1..,p. ,,.. y :7 .g i,, l,y ; j L, address in South Venice, Fkmda, as set forth on the letterhead of his intervennon d' W/ [., p Petition, although not in the petition itself, would not be suf6cient to establish y ^wl$.r.* f4Qf 7 @.T Y his interest, since South Venice (on the west coast of Florida) is apparently mon than 100 miles from the plant site (near the east coast of Florida). December 9. q .s 1986 Memorandum and Order, at 2. We further stated that, absent a satisfactory 'O.'.'.xn-(,[ M..f'. ~ 7 g amended petition, Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request would be dismissed.

g 4 On December 10,1986, Mr. Paskavitch Bled a document entitled " Petitioner's

? S4.,4 3 .3 Ji , W: .],.,.

n.,,,,.* fy q,,-

Reasons for a Reqcest for Hearing."1 'Deatmg this document as a supplemental a or amended hearing request, the Applicants and NRC Staff Sled responses, 9,j, i:. 9,,,t dated January 9,1987, and January 5,1987, respectively. 'Ihey each oppose the q. % n. c. %(- Mr. Paskavitch's supplemental request includes eight questions which hej 3 hearing request.

.3 4

,7 c e u jM( poses regarding the license amendment application. It contains no statement . j%. concerning his interest in the piocssding, other than an assertion that "a citizen i~ has the right to intervene in the decision making process." "Ihe cover letter ~ 7,; - similarly refers to a " civic duty to help insure the safety of the United States 3 nuclear power plant program." p d[,,. In our view, Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request and supplemental request fail ,o j n,- ~ f' to satisfy the intervention reqmrements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a). Although we ' '.R express no opinion as to their relevancy to the amendment, the eight questions 1 m h/.[f 6G.f.',, Q f.3.',5,iMM.. M2, WM,, a, _. TM,j.. may be deemed adequate to establish the " aspect (s)" of the proceedag as to jyg which Mr. Paskavitch wishes to intervene. The statement of interest, however, r .,0 remains inadequate. At best, it expresses a "' generalized grievance' shared in ^d *, 'tJ. y j y O,.f[. ; M, gt; substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens." 'Ihat type of -7% T] ',htjf .y j, c,..'.. c. s.,.), ,i 't,. #_ grievance "will not result in distinct and palpable harm suf6cient to support .w. O-1eJ f , j. *. a... 4.. ;., t y

• ,.9

,.a. +r. l- .g'...

• n7 s

. g, :g,.D

7. *

• A., i i

,.,: i. ,J .n. 4'p.,,a p r. g c.,,

• r

n. :.:

& +,2

, ;.. s. '{ L. g 1.Dus dociunens was udnaDy 61ed wuh the Chief Admunstradve Judgs. Atendo safety and 1 Leianamng Board heel, Y l 'Q - f {,,.,' who saferred it to this Board. Mr. hakeynch also rarwarded a copy of this desumsat to the Beasd. (Juder the ,Q %. M y. 4, s. y * *, (4 f..Y't ;',f "

• (

t 1, schedule established by our Daosmber 9 Memorandum and Order, this docuament was tunely sled. ( s, a,.,. %,, y.. y q i... P. ;..,--L f q . ov - 7 o g. , j, ';*i',' ?;2 i' n'. 'a.,,,', ) *,f.'.,e.f'-) E, ,m

' t.

,l

....n n',D"' k*. .. c ;m,~...... b MQ y,

• s Li*

+ f*', %'.M . * ~.. T,, s ~ '.; a ., a 1 (,- .I 1 ' p. > A ' 3 4.?n*:: 34 r ;ga.R. sp,.s +,. U

• A,J :;. *,u % ;,, sc;..

.t* k*f,[n*..,2.A '),N.7ht '.hi/ '",Y.W:.-h Y!ESN. };1 N mwy m w. 4.y&*;c?"a &m. -qQ l'O,HY;'.Ts *.y'& GE! '* ' %*p.Q.;.:..y'T kNi' t ,..,h '. Sf.ym. yp[7 N %.y*ygi,.h& Qg*} w.* q.,y .sp,n A q 8 ..*f.d[*(.y ['O,U-Q[

• #,i -[*!'8 * / !.)*' *
• Q. 'pg*;,, *, gl'c* c@

f . m. ~. s

• i.

"i 1 .e.... ,e . c.,, %.,.. t,.... N i*.s, 7. 3.. N.

• T,*s,'".

4

• e

. 9?v.. .a.- s. e.;...c. RT / T ;. ll

• a.,,; a.,

,'*,4',"w F, e' '4 g,, + % *f l ?.3 d'. M %. p,,*, I /*.;* I ".. f f.*.;e...*% 7'

• h T#*

(8, .f*' .} ....,. n ', ,.U ,. '~, . ~.., c"fwl...v

f. s.

Q.. ; a.,. s m ;G.s b $'.lt.; n H*h. ,,v a.,* c e v & s ; V.G,, L a L'$;.MC$?Y.m'd t. A.r. wlo%' ' ' & 'W 7.& V. :.: i.*,,']' k < W,. w. pe g ;g g e s~ g.~.m. @ qp g. q_.m. m _. o.. -..., g.m.

s..

M e4 . g

t o 4 f a s. l. t. 'x q-standag." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit .3.i v ' :' j No.1), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327, 333 (1983). 7 e g j. y. ? M [N Although Mr. Paskavitch fails to meet the standing requirements of $ 2.714(a),. y. g,p., l,, .gg,'"q' we nevertheless could permit him to intervene as a ma'ter of discretion, assuming. ,p.(. ~ 9- ' p *"j,. he met the standards established by the Cc..imission for such discretionary - ~ intervention. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units e e, "d 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610, 614-17 (1976); Three Mlle Island, supra,18 _L.

l. s -',.. -.c L

NRC at 333. Mr. Paskavhch has not addressed the standards for discretionary-u ~ ? l,, ' intervention, just as he has failed to provide any information bearing upon his-standag under $2.714(a). In particular, he has failed to demonstrate how his ~ m.x.;. ~..

4-p@21..

9 3; -c g L;fy.ij_' ry"-l. '# M-participation would assist in developing a sound record in this proceeding. In . ' j%s f these circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretion to grant intervention [ ". j 1. 4 - ~, 7 7p' to Mr. Paskavitch.- ' Jl'",h $ [. d.D I, Accordingly, we are dismissing Mr. Paskavitch's hearing request for lack of . W[ g,, Tp J. J M, ' ,'i,..f',l RQ.:,' standing. T 7 x 2.. On Dece;nber 16,1986, the NRC Staff 61ed a response to a letter dated f,'.,.c,, ; 'j. *. December 2,1986, written by Mr. Eric Buetens, supporting Mr. Paskavitch's p d:...j,3 hearing request. (That letter was addressed to the NRC Resident Inspector at J; l t the St. Lucie plant and did not reach us until after we had received the Staff's Q*f, w;. q [,.

1. W. -."

response.) The Applicants, in responding to Mr. Paskavitch's supplemental

q request, indicated that they we e not responding to Mr. Buetens' letter because N

.4, f p.4 e ~/. 4 they did not regard it as n' hearing request. 'Ihe Staff also did not regard' ~ Mr. Buetens' letter as a hearmg request but claimed that, if considered as a s, hearmg request, it is both inadequate and late-Aled and should be denied.

x..

Mui We do not consider Mr. Buetens' letter to constitute a hearing request and j ' 7"..., hence take no action with regard to it. But we agree with the Staff that, if viewed - as a hearmg request, it is late-Aled and fails to conform to the requirements of i2.714(a).

3. On December 9,1986, we wrote a letter to counsel for the NRC Staff and s

,4 the Apah which pointed to a potential de6ciency in the matters submitted p

to NRC in support of the proposed amendment. Speci6cally, w noted that f' the Staff's October 1981 Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for St. Lucie Plant, ,T_ 3. y C @.. v/ 6..r. ] ".., ((e -. v... ".. ;..; of the spent fuel facilities between the two St. Lucie units, the requirements ., %l Unit 2 (NUREG-08d3) stated that, because there was (at the time) no sharing e 9,n %.. y v. m J: s 7p? g...'. g.,< (.w,A' ;ii',.r.,,y of General Design Criterion (GDC) 5 were not applicable. We stated that it q .qq, ... p.i ,,,e .q, J 9., - - appeared that GDC 5 would become applicable if the proposed amendment were to be approved. We also were unaware of any analysis by the Applicants R J "E *,.. *,.T4. & g 'B of the facility's conformance to GDC 5 and indicated that such an analysis _, y t, iM. ' - Y;.g' f '.i il (and evaluation by the Staff) might constitute a legal requirement for the 4 J W'Q..Nr..e.(..... proposed amendment, as well as a consideration to be taken into account by C, ', j.V-Q

1. , p(;Wj,',C.

. 1.5 + !J'f U the Staff in maldng a "no signi6 cant hazards consideration" Ending pursuant to 1;(? &.wI j

- c.m*

e.. t 3...**A. w.N._ 10 C.F.R. 6 50.92(c). ,c. n:..-s & s > %o V

M.+. ' y, };gfe.

..,+e,,,..'.,.3*(f'.s 9 44 s >.,. P r

. yp:,. ;,,,. +.

4,p : 14 MW. j - 4 . %%.&l'Qf*. l 'm. j-

% *.N,.)r.,

s ~

?%

. E;;; 35 M.f.n.8%. n%.6.. tyif; A. ..;' :e'&n t y5. ' r ~n 3 ' 5' N F.' ' f',4 .\\ f., S. <'.A6 fa 'N fs 't o' ! by,M;;?&f*;-{l<W,b'..Y.W.;Qj-Q@/M..wa.f,.:,e..~.:.J.1.*y.sm,*.p., wpy$h;i

• f'*

Q.

.y ng 4

,k 's p f' ;* g ]'..;.;?. N'I. . p m.,,'. c; {1, ' *. fl [ P...* i a: 78 ]{ * P*'h D 2*",i[, "*.'7 7 4 .[

• (.} * * * *.*

-Q . ' )' - e7 Q i b.x v. A s ,m.* 4**c %. .a. .:, c. n. l,:. W*.

• I.1 's,;"* l P.f..f. ?Q *:.". :' u M /.

, H. ** .,../..*

C

.d r .. * * ",. ". *c g' %, c v.e -t. .?.. a,; A s'

. 4..

,. '~, 3

a.' q

,, + .g-f b,.p.. b;;;.rQ' :(.'( @r a p%")'.;*y T, f..E' ~.,.f,$.' a' '.. n. ;,. x,. %4 (c ~ +W 4, yy. t'.'G. .w w .s*+., .gd.; a!l f a'

• i,.. 1

.W r y .s .c 4'.+., ...J f h. ~ p '. - <y-.. ' C 1,

i. ' '.'

t'.* 4 .. ' V. ,.w

. ~. ?:: : L'., ' ' '.. '

e 5 e -:7, ~

['t'.h ;;f/. [ h,

',4,,]'.[ 3

.- w J.[

• a $ {,\\g

,\\ g, .. :..f.N. *,'. * ' . n .o ' < r. ./ S n r(., m&'(}'f. Q A. %. ur. a u ry'&v, a ' '. s.;,a W.~.rp. w.o D. w';.,,7 ,..,s s ..&p,. s.,y,? q. , :. 3. : ~ .r s-lR,* f,,firY;U.q;; :: v?,c.'W~"rf,, Yb,h' Q& fS4.*,%.@dl~..J@..}.l.y#'( 0;$k p%...r:1hQ' 4 hhh; &* &.. f e:Q,l.%w;f.M.u%p;y}u.:.;: 3m: 5f ';;.1.'$ 3 h ' g,) M%p p' w, 3 </.

p?y -

. Y s A y3* jn,.... + c.u. .e, r..r:} [C'j.{?>r n i* *r 9t N?.f::gQ'y,e.t 4

• j.' s @,.V:)':c'r:. ferM

{%*, l* f& '.f.k. ?* O _______m_____-

s Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have filed any response to the matters raised in our December 9,1986 letter - indeed, we requested 'no such - ,,m, responses. We also stated in our letter that we did not intend at that time to +. l n. /eg. ^. g.f.[ raise the issue of the conformance of the facility to GDC 5 under our authority n. n s g, , jy. i f, x., }.2 C. /,l[i, ' in 10 C.F.R. I 2.760a. 7 + We are still of the opinion that, as a predicate to the proposed amendment, f.", '.V.. the Applicants should submit an analysis of the facility's conformance to GDC 5 o and the Staff should evaluate that analysis in its SER for the amendment. We are H _ i ..C,y

b #

j,. declining, however, to raise this issue pursuant to i 2.760a. We have no basis for.' + .] finding, within the terms of that section, that "a serious safety, environmental, ,C f, or common defense and security matter exists." The deficiency we perceive is 7 j one of analysis and evaluation, not of safety. Moreover, we are not aware of . c M. . <. g i.. J. J.'. e D >. ' f s q q yu, p, ; ;.,y any information which would suggest that the facility would fail to meet the .3/. requirements of GDC 5. ' ', i .,s ..f E '. ],, ;;C'j yN,(p. l.), a'. - J. > Nonetheless, conformance with NRC requirements is important. We leave it ? C /p M~.J. R. j' to the Staff to assure that the Applicants have complied with the requirements - C. P J'g ( ' w' ' f D of GDC 5 in connection with this license amend.nent. We also note that, given G :.G...' .i;a, ~ cj our dismissal of the pending heanng request, and absent any other such request, e..,; j the Staff will not be required to make the "no serious hazards consideration" j f.c ...t i a finding of i 50.92(c). See 10 C.F.R. 6 50.91. '+ / e. .a. '.,,,. a C '.-t; ; ..e,.,, ' ~ '. ;l For the foregoing reasons, it is, this 16th day of January 1987, ORDERED: ,t I r .., ).3 ' p

1. The hearing request of John Paskavitch, dated November 6,1986, is.

dismissed. n ' L.[R

2. This proceeding is terminated.

' *l. J:q

3. This Memorandum and Order shall become effective immediately and

- J .t ,7 ~ 1 ] will constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after the date of e its issuance, unless review is sought pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.714a. Mr. Paska-

. 7. ;.,

,a vitch may take an appeal from this Memorandum and Order to the Atomic Safety f g. i, ' 7.1 and Licensing Appeal Board, within ten (10) days after service hemof 'Ihe ge i [Y, appeal shall be asserted by the filing of a notice of appeal and accompanying - y " ~.,,. n, '.k f .lp U L+

f.,1..,$,,,,.

m., **

• i. $, -
• u

,m.w n w~ e. : n' 4; .,., y h.'* 1.g )..;k q. 8 $, ; '.,;b'r:s.h,.y? v.**.,. n:?..'. .['. P- ~- '. /' ) ', ' ' i *.) t g 3 .. i -;s ' ' ',., ; 4 ;.M. h ','.}i' . ' t., ,[ "g. -.3 ',4 t 7 f

• gy.

. ig, 14. 54

a. %

.3 J.. ,.r....',p e' r ., M...A 4 ar L .f- e'* 3 44, ..r'- .m ,c ' '.;, y ,.,T 9 ~. ] s. " i, s e ,e ., < v, n. ' g s ~ yf i n ,. 9,, ? "/ (.f-.t g . ', d; - 4 T JM,S .. ; N ". '.%, t,'. w.

• , y

.t' 's

• .4 a ' ', 'y,.e

  *d {, ---se'j',-

.3 r

.f a* ~ e* : .-g., 2 ,7 ; y, y o ;.,.,.\\* s r.n.., .y..., r ',w*. .e- ,. sn : [.,',{,.. *: %'.....4 , 't e , /,. y.' '.}

i i +,

• s,

.j = *.1. s u -4il,,, .u / '.., y4,p].,4fi,*,' q, -[]( .b, '; l's .' ". [ '/E, ' *., + t ;',.. y a C* . ' M.$y, 4, I, *. s w @x 'y ',, ?. Ih y # 't?.'.. <, [, %.y n. 4 x . % w. - / ' ',, A 6 :.4 j 3f -;h %

• a n w ~*,..;,, P.

1,w,,,., 2 g:.g >i

~s: < 4

.~an. ..r. 4 ; : :n W. %. ..Ji . :. ;.y

y.

J% . O 'm m, [.d/[y\\ V,v.e' DI.(,W* W r., .n , x.. '$ 8 $ [','TJ*[ N?d +9*

• O

. f.,1; W e, fr.r w<<:yy,j g ' YM/N NM. y*v3.YN.., 3.%.%.f- @*sk % M.,. 4. W.n 1 O" /J m, s,s. 9m..s. ~ 7,,Q%,3.:: 3 < t g kg W : .,Y, [ i. s~. ..w.r.n. n ~: ~.. c )i<' '., a,.

• p.e, p ',y., g'. s... u ;. > e, : *. :..w.

w...,,'.......'#. \\* - [,, * . s I . 'a [e., [,, ? [ ' - i 'c . ;l f g, n. a.,..,.,."

• p..o..~, 6' 's

',,*r. a.,. a 4 'd * - ?,y 1 .p 7 .g.. .d'-

• .3.

.e 3..,',..,. j'. l

1. .,,.c'., ; 1.

C,j, # v.* j s.,&.f, ?~. '. ' s [ '., 3., ' I,' cQ; , 5 a' *I m$kW..m,h[;[h?${.C,.p.p ,((, 'r,K-h,.:w:;h, \\f* 31 i"wy [b

[ " *

• Y O h,$ g M.N3**!!p.

7.,. Q. '); f.j/; M.h:,&,.4lm??s.,h:5h.u.h.w.?.h,.$l g n :..L, k : l; w.~l.N.)* kh.S$=m: . l*. :. Yb C. hhN,%WW.!"U,MW:. na.:.. c. w. em. 4 W M D. w %h. M Y.4. %u.s & y h h kh M $k/. h h h d iMi& W 6UN;:. hhh 'k$$hh --.--a-m-

u. i 4 l e

.4

.t' ,i 4

4.,,

. g.] - supporting brief. Any other party may file a brief in support of or in opposition ), to the appeal within ten (10) days after service of the appeal. J .3 s..

q...... v>.. y..

q.,; j .;,. ~ ; 4 . < s O,.... ,;M '. s. ,s - /.. ,,'.-.1.' THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND j . y,.

q. - )..,

'.o LICENSING BOARD 1 >t 5 ..+. s Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman w y, ADMINIS"IRATIVE JUDGE f ,y g ~. m ~ w[- =.O. p.' M.,; 9. ; M. p.,y;,[+,.,,4 J,.

r...r.,

., r, Gustave A.Linenberger,Jr; r.. 3 ; q~ .. l ADMINIS'IRATIVE JUDGE - .ls: ). .g. e.. ....t[.,,., ~ ',. '. '. o_,',, ^ ~ ..n 4. e,c... 6, .y H..' n,. y y: g.....,,. r. 3, Q, M. u ,.7. q j Richard F. Cole - (" ' m,- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ?- n m.. m y#. ;, . ~ ;.,..c f ^.,, Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, , m. 7 ', c this 16th day of January 1987. .o f.,:. n m_ .,,, =,. '.. 3, ,5 .4 ?,,,4 i ^24 n 3,. 7 .,;-= _a 3 (,,, y J6f L. T ,,3 e,. 6 .d. 4, 4.1 h., i .:. A .. i .,,m.c,5 a %f.1 y c ' .u. s:M }, i, c.1 4 ~. , 1 t t h ,.o,, ? E d-4 '{.. ,n V.. i q, - s .. *f 3 - 9.'., 7 r..,,'

• p@..g

.I a . ;i[..J h. q ,f( 2 <l.. %: e - *,, .se..f q +; p t, .A c*.,.N ra*q Q " g *.s $, I.' . l. f_ .*s .o) f- . i,,

• • ,S ; p.,' $

,..!L *,;*g 7."...:. D,' .c-,* .y 'i ',,.i. N *p ,f,., ,e i .s M, %,,,, q ~....... 9 r ...c,,p,e.q . m . j, e '.,g. < 3,

• • J

. : 4.a, .; r r .,,c~ 4 ); - - ~, > T. I.. .,c., w,n ', ,L s;: v e ,a ..p - v. .,s..r.., g lj. .,.,,,. g 3.s. . s_ a +.f,'.. 2 1 = *,? ..e y, ,1 .4.,, c.3 6 u,. c.

',

• 1,* *; *.>. _d. b,. b.

.~.'.v.~,J.,.,r.-

• , }.t.., #.

.~ .s s ,. 4 op ' .,<.,,g. +

• pg w;

,o , g.,?, 2 4 ..,...,.k.

7.. -

.,p .-... y, -..j s t - y a. ..y 3 * *. t.,,.#,,,4.. <, (9, , 1,.. y,,gu y n ,. A 5..* - - 'g .f + t..g. ,;jg,Q' #$., I F a t i :,,, M,.f*,, fV. /. 8 ' m.p%,,, f '.,?nq'o ? a y

• w

.. p.; ~., p... .,,f-s,. o.,, b 4 ~

• y a.

./ ;1,* + ?,.c,s., i ',.. m

n. < A, :"c.e.n. v.,. 'n?.q.4.

.*?., f.;y.;y: s. m W:4 31 ws *. ., L.o..,.a s,x. ..e.r.,q m - ...-p. ,,.3.. ' h *, $ ri < f'((.'.M.p. r n ,[*$egY,'.h t*N. g', I

• l,f"g'n/NN.':'< *,%'/E{."*bf.[u?'h[*g?g g..

w Q g.y.Q; t 2u., ~m. s~.,' a.t >p er.g,, g. ,s4 g..e* v..p,.] fr. 3,u,(, 9=. a,d %; c. v

g.,.

-%u ~. %... o.

j.r f. y 's ;... f g.. a. y/ R ;:',; 7.,, '. ;j *.

d: ..g**.c -- v r --.a. *..

r. -

.w r - k..t _p.3 .. q. .,,, '.,/, - + ,. t .. y- .- ) 3., g w, a,v,4 W..,. 6. A,% , a, ~ n.- n, 4 i,, n, s,.A. T c.. l, i :,.. ;.f,t.... ~....w... n. v' q f fm* ; ' j+g... 7,,, s.., r, e a v. 9 ) ;. %

• '.?

- T ,g' u...,;,.. i.H..,. ,...s.. ...a>+; g- .,s

• i.,*.:s. ; n,.

.. ~,., s ;,. 't. . g..sf.a n,!..m A.;; 4, C. j. ;g.,J t -i, c...,.n pfr, ..t.-%,,,...s-. + s "... = ' ..,., ;....o.

.,e.,,.

+ .4 ;

• .y,..f..*

W r $ $,4,? %.g,,,m ], i,p '*~ f p .. e ~,,,, n., m g dc,, - g,. 4 Q g't e '..,[4..t y v. 4,c s m y, .I a. 4

• - - i

w. w..M i'(.'#.% (7. %.*.S e. /, y *,4,?. l '

%,,.., y....5,.,;[e ,t +. .4. L e -.j i A r.... ple"y. Y,;' ;.'.J ' N';, -* . - %' 4 4. i q

• /.
• h O.' i. t.,*,.* I ',,, [s;( g. p.

y., 2 ' b,Q'" *.. ..rl j - E ': 6-N. A,#A. @.. a..,$'d.'. Q , r.s,,e. g'i {/..g ~y{.. e r.-..i e,m.3

,". f.1, 7 [. y... $pt ~4.,,, f Q, P '

,%4 6* 7 , r. g *0, ~. <;. '...., s. p :q. ? > ? ;,. 9 - 8 4 W.g,f..5.&...p %g c., i g. tJ.i. ! ut w..t o~< ,6c. -,y Lp-r*' ~w ,3 . e ..pt.$...c p q. w.q.#A.;R' ;w.y.?. rw.5ed< w'** %...w),p..s.p. : r 4 ?.,r. yus ' v...W. y Ng,. 7,r 6Y $ f 3 .* 4 3 e' *. W. . *fe.,. 3* [ I ~'

.~ 4 y h y; 4 1 1 4 i Administrative 1 Law Judge { } t { E e j

1 t ~ l l i l Cne as 25 NRC 39 (1987) ALJ 871 ,g l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,R>. . af M. ... '. n .-(. i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .v ., ; i. 2,7.... .s a ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE t, 'I ( w 3,. Ivan W. Smith .l'. t. .s. 4 i. ,....L,. .,s In the Matter of Docket No. 3016055 SP s y. ... f.. - g.. s.. g 9.c .+f,5 ASL8P No. 87 545 01-SP ,...r 1 ..c. l : W,f '. '. 3 '.,',c \\ (BML No. 3419089-01) 7 ,n l '. /h, ';. c?. ". s,...,... J.. 41..,, i.t (EA 86155) ..r. v ~,t-t. ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. s o 1, 1 (One Feetory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041) January 14,1987 .c...., ~. - ......... ~ 1' + MEMORANDUM AND ORDER t FOLLOWING FIRST PREHEARING CONFERENCE 'h" Counsel for the Licensee, counsel for the NRC Staff, and Ijoined in an official i prehearing conference by telephone on January 8,1987. 'IY.1-57. The purpose of the conference was (1) to determine whether the issues have been joined by the pleadmgs contained in the record to date; (2) to provide for discovery; (3) 't to determme whether an expedited proceeding is appropriate; and (4) to attend i i i to routine prehearing matters. n. t d5 97 2 - < > A. t JOINDER OF ISSUES l J..... 1. '.,1 L' S.,.'4a.v i a @ 'c,(., , ml" ', 1.s..}l..-J' The Order Suspending License and Order to Show Cause (Effective Imme-5 f . c,f '. ~,.c dia'.ely), (the Suspension Order), dated October 10, 1986, and signed by the 1 [' Director of Inspection and Enforcement, is the basic charging document. On - > *.. y" ' ' " G.M Q.4, ' j.j -,3' October 29, counsel for the Licensee filed an answer to the Suspension Or- { t ..., f,,,, ".,..,., f p^ > ; ;. c'M.6 v. l.?.. der arad requested a heanng. 'Ihe Commission issued its Notice of Hearing on o November 26 granting a heanng and stating that the issue before the adminis- . + '7, y., .,.. a r. ;y m'... x. -.,....v. .:r w.y.. .v. . : 7. 3, ; c,..m.a.: ;..~, .. n a .c

c. -

. 3..a. % m.... ;.,,...q ;,7.. 39 .,s.*~.,.m' ' 6 v.1.s,.... +

• t,.'~.,,.,

.s. ~.: .. ;. - ;m...g;., L.,',,..v . +.. =.;.%m. ,..,~,.s .. st ..s. . w. Mig..~. m. e. : ~

y. D".5.W.%:'..q.. '..* f e.,, ;... %n...

.., s 4 ~.... y C -n '.1J; yQ;.?.h, ?. o,. - Q,.. w.., r a...w, e.< m..e... .,*s.. yj %. s. g \\us..q'g'. @,.. 4,%.2.:q. yr:m... q,~EW.'y 5.q,'c. g. Q'. f r::y'; m, f. *.1 n:.*:l.QW,,, o. s.

• ).-%

v.,..- ..,,. f: )ty%.y.

3..,,

s .. t.

, m',c.,. v..,.>

u. m:; -. 4 n. ..u ~ st..f ./. i,

m. ':; c,.e. W ic..' W.

...,3..'. ", \\. ....q :.... v... '.... ?.

f. g 5. g... s ;;c,,:.; 3. :5..l.r.~. m,., c...'.: f;.3.>:. ;. ;

n ..i 3 g, . e. ~, ".+:.;. n. u.c..-. m.1,, e. r. ' ",x .i ..( . d. 0.e. a n.

e.

. :.s

w. -

s c ~.. m

.e m

. i..

....t, s.:,y,,,7. s. 7..

e 6. : e.. c. f ,g. .,g. .s. 4 , '. :, t.., ;., '.,,c,

3.,.,,y f,-

A. c .s...2*....+,.8 p.':; s... 1 . s., w : ..W w, s:.

a. :,.w n ;.

...:.n s?, ~ ~ ~ .enyw.,-y e.. n:-...,.m, kk'm. n..'n.+..,~.~ a.+i.. }hhfh.'huf,~.?h.h$W* .('i 'k N h 0 A, Y,y. n. b.. m.....'.. .n. 'Y... w.,. 9 'W. b b Y. 1

1 trative law judge will be "whether, on the basis of the matters set forth in the Order, the Order should be sustained." On December 16, Licensee filed its answer to the Notice of Hearing, admitting 3, * .j - '. A. certain procedural allegations, but incorporating by reference each statement and denial contained in the October 29 answer to the Suspension Order. The z/; 5 q December 16 answer also generally denied that the Licensee violated any federal 4 law, federal regulation, or license condition. In effect, Licensee's answer to the Notice of Hearing is a complete and adequate general denial to the charges made in the Suspension Order. The factual issues are drawn. The NRC Staff i has the burden of proceeding with the evidence and the burden of sustaining its 1 Suspension Order. -,... ~.q, :u, q /, y w,.,- 3 DISCOVERY - e e n *,, u.:...,e ,.s.a. 1 '.< f, ";i.: 1 Prior to the designation of an administrative law judge, Licensee filed several discovery requests assertedly in accordance with 10 C.F.R.15 2.720 and j 2.744. Since there was then no presiding officer to authorize such discovery, and n. A since there were no factual issues approved for such discovery, the discovery g requests had no force in the proceeding before me. During the prehearing

s conference on January 8 I authorized discovery, and deemed the previously

- 1, J.'- 9 d filed discovery requests to be requests made under that authority as if made on -1 January 8. EXPEDITED PROCEEDING y,. On or about December 23,1986 Licensee submitted to the Administrator of cj Region III a motion for " rescindment" of the Suspension Order, in accordance .) with the terms of that order. Order at 4. During the prehearing conference, the parties informed me that the Regional Administrator has denied the motion. The o ' I license remains suspended. Counsel for Licensee has represented that the Suspension Order has resuhed in serious economic impact on Licensee's business and that presently about half y; of Licensee's work force has been laid off. In any event the suspension of the ' :y'..;- 7.' . 'D@ j l?. !./ l license is in itself a sufficient ground for expediting this proceeding. ~, ; M-The NRC Staff is directed to respond to the presently outstanding discovery

7. -

requests as soon as it can do so, i.e., not taking unless necessary the time periods i set out in the discovery rules. 'Ihe parties are directed to attempt to resolve q; c' .4 - 2 discovery disputes by seeking prompt rulings from me, rather than following the s ,..) traditional procedure of making formal written objections, motions for protective .[..f ; '.y z;. - t g, f, ", ~ "... ...M orders, and motions to compel responses to discovery. i f ., q , 2.. i., ",%'y ;..>\\.. N,". .t ,_ )] 's 4 c.,:.,,n ,-.3.,m y.s.} , q: 40 q.c. ,y. 7. r....t, ._J g

1. 1 s,,

a.~...w w.... w s....g.#5.M.,n.:,.m a 3,.- m x -sj#........ M * (( *.1..'..gs'N*y. ' .., r,- j e.gE m. V;'tgh/ M.'4,.,....,.. t ; j.. ;p. c g,.(..,, (n, ..p*,. b- .- - '. s.. f ~,. s* y ..g. - r 4* *. ' ;f[ e.

• 4.,

.f. , e, ; p ' ** 6 ", '.. ' ; g*. l,3g., b ,- [.,. 4u '.,y 7,*~""" ~. ' "T7{gyr,' ;r. 8..,t;' 7.:, ff y ", *,**,,,, :,, ;

g.-

• *-.,,i; i

,...., f..( gr, ........,,s.. e. n, ,.,i.. ~,.., .v. , v t., s s ..., *..}*, v. 's SW,. ij, <,,y. ' ' ;, g, f.., .. v.. '., ,,,, m. ; e

p

\\

.J ,.' 7'... lAe a., ..s .a e,

1. *y.*G,

e ?a*

• e'.'

7* s., .,

• f 7,,3 v..,,.

3 .^ s.

3.,>^ y,.'. $. *[./., g r,.#{.

4. s. f ?, ..y .w.,. S.., ',.r. Img,*,, T. /. e . ! 'i J f.

• J' S

9 q' o

• k'

~ l, +,, - i g ;,' p .'s. ,y ,,., ', -.. = ..'f {. ',$.. ' f,' "..'.Y': so f*[Y!Y'.5 9 -,'9,.* ; ' b $,Y r ! f i ? r. ' .,'.'.,1*.N, I t

o..'

l. 7 _;

.......,N,.,;.h .k. .I. $! f r$ Q.{. W k. W.$ s .,W~ f... , ~m. ..,.'..:k':?...... $, NN*,.,...j..,.$lS,?h h

• b

.. s.....n. 1.. ,,n.p,$?h Y5?bfNh?,.. ~,.,...: q,.x....-. ~...n. : ' ?'. ..~e.. m m... a. ? l

( j a a. J J,, j). During the prehearing conference, counsel for Licensee indicated that he would probably petition the Commission for a stay of the Regional Admin-f a 2; ~ 5.; s g ),. 'g,.g.A y, M ej istrator's decision denying the motion for rescindment of the Suspension Or-j ~ i'.].Y ' >, ' :.. 'Jg l ' J )). notwithstanding the pendency of a stay petition before the Commission. der.* The proceeding before me, however, shall continue on an expedited basis (./ ' i N ' 'l VJ. .f, a Service to and from the Licensee shall be by express mail unless a faster method (electronic transmission, for example) is available. I intend to arrange for a prehearing conference by telephone in about 2 weeks to review the status cw,.e i of the proceeding, i a IT IS SO ORDERED. g. y3 < ..,+.,?. n.

1:, ~s n. c p.:

u:"w..:,, n -, m., s s ~r. .,'y. 7

,e'. "*u l

Ivan W. Smith y, D ' ' .

• W.Q.

.l Administrative Law Judge s., '.:c..,.t 3 y z....*..,. ..,n.. 1 <. % -.w., g %.,'Q.'j '.,,, ' I. ' il [ Bethesda, Maryland c January 14,1987

E, x

-).r9 ,'s. l .a ; ,g.:,A_. .g* s w

\\

t. ,p- ,....v.,. + ' ', ' -Q37 - J. 's. i i _ , s b a s c 's, 2.. c , r. N,a,".. s i c

',~'

l u l .n S

• ' i t

.; g.9 s*

t.. '

1.,

. s::

c \\. ,1 ,h./' ,[,\\* ' c I e -,1r W ,'."?,.','. N

• f}., j 7 g,.T' '
• By lauer of November 6.1986, from ths sensesary of the Canutussian, samuel 1 Chilk. to counsel for Licenses.

.,' v.. '.,,. f. 'i ,, J.. : Lkunnes was informed that is]hauld ths Rar,senal M-===ener deny sush a aquest (to useind the suspennon ,c* Q j e,i., t.4] order), the t-iney seek a stay fem the Comnasman, pusuant to 10 Cf.R. 62.788, by submining 4 L*. ? * ', ; f,. "iy ; y,. i. ', 9 41/ i( j J,' j ' 3. 'g, f., y ( f. '/. an appapnsas motum to the Cmanusman with supparung af5devna." Licensas's counsel at Erst argued that ,u, t* ;.,, ' .4 L.* junsdicuan to may the unfewassbis domaien of the Ragnanal Dimator has wuh ms. I advised him that, unof6cially and u. shout studymg the mouer. I behoved that the Comnusman has esclusive junsdicuan to canader such a j .g. petition far a stay (secopuang of causse that the Ragnanal Adrru=== tor saisins jurandacuan to asemd or relat

• +D'

. T.,'.'.s/f', * . f j/ e. the osder) i * *',. ; I also suggemed to coenset that the linenses psobably would not be pesjudiced if my assumsment of junediction . g 'g.,j c ,.y s -" /,,,. was innemmet A panian of this discussen was incarinctly transcribed. Thersfase, the following conection at , + . f.i..- Tr. 20. lines 7-11, is esdesud:

• *.,. n r 'N.. '.... <:

W,.- 4., o 51

• ' J. e y '<., ' ' Aj,.

?,' y.}...J e ' t.. ;

• I think that you would quickly And. if you made a motion, a pathian under 2.788 to the Commissioners.

I . ? '.* ;,; 2f, f. you would qimieldy And mig meester that is en ernr and gli meesher it should have baan sera to ms. '! hey y.,c,,,.',p*iEy ?m;..J - ,. ',,,; 9 7 ',..;.' a f,, would make that daarminataan wnhaint deley. I am con 6 dent ,4' , c ;.,. m 3.. ; ~ y* -?!,-7.M.h ,3';.

• a ;,,,..,'.,r 7, ;,3 /,,,e,

y,' " E. 7.t J.g ;,, ..~.R " v';.. ' yt;; ;in ,lgj,,* 9,,.; 1.y ;'t l '.: ... '.,, s,c.,& ~

• 3,,j,s ;; :c,4.., y

...._ *.,, y p '?, :.n,..=

• 1.. i,, ;'8,, %;

4 r <.. - lJ.p,s '.,a# Y,. *q,f*x$$YY. 3,4*0g $, .e. 0, Y.., %:. lv?$ %4 m-; c.. 2 4.. .. y.c...; W i3,h:<.6.'..*. Q:. m%.$ w.l Q

• f; g'?'.?,g.l IeiQ:N 0

e7.u .., n> .. m z. s w,'.,. ~*' 3 4,,,,aR h.. <,:9., 3.;,.y *s '.G:.o ., w..

m. 3.,

,k

• .*,L v';we m

,. s" ) t J o.,' l, Q, '.e}.. lle*';l; u m. , l

• • '.y" ' y

-}, ;- ~ e,*. ~;+e v v ~ r.~- 'e* '! \\' = ~*y -~.,

\\

'..,N . /,* % ' f, +=. i..,'4,.-

u. '. '.,

...c. t f ' < ' . f. y ,y,. p*. ,. t,.. **

• s, c g*,.

i ..sg c /.2 i ', '~ .f .4 g* e r y,,1 i).,. 4g ..s,8. a i g.- i , ig 4 y *,, O f M d [ e..s,.,'t 1.e,, ,g *,It Ns,

• ,5, 6,4
• f'

+ tiy,, * !. U*b' *,O ' h i, * (, .,. ~ 4,e e , ~,t ..i ,g . A *.i r3.

• f

". 3 .q- '. - ' * . MJf %q '.8';,q.x,, f..bq "f.y,#,.y:f q * ;~g,w;94 f.W['*j.,,8 'I 4 P. ' I E ", I ? q-f y.'.y>.. y : ::: n. - : s

• -v

~ r .x

s. c o

. m,.<.. r kY .?. s Y . O. s $:..;..;.n ; yyw.g,.)? w m'.g, h* m. t." o.n vnj ".s 4 **I v c:,l*i, 5 1 kh sh.s.b;.w..x:,3:;.;&:x:.* ..(.a>,kYn. m eY bh,k hh ? M M W.kW 2 % P.W.W % M.&n#WMMW# % hk kb I

a -1 i N i

.. r d.

j I

4 J Directors' ii Decisions j 4 Under ') 0 10 CFR 2.206 w Z 1 O e l O h LLJ O 4 CD bc O F-O uJ T .O 1 9 kb

4 Cite as 25 NRC 43 (1987) DD-871 .x; ;: 2 v;y, ;.. vy

v. f,li ;e,.

7 y, f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' .... ',. /.. ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ., f '. JW . \\.: t I ~ s OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT c.a.-,.4 .,h 8 James M. Taylor, Director u v t t , x.n 7 1, _.,-

p H.'..'.G, y. Q,y %.. l;b q l, y; e; !W~

,;

.f ; -..:17

7. y,

,.y. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 206

,p. M. ;'. *. p ','is.ilh,3

~ ?. l 1;, f,,.. '. g. /.. 50 361 1,7, +.p s ; 50 362 ,o j o ;, e.,. -.- .,6(; s. SOUTNERN CAI.lFORNIA .r >v. EDISON COMPANY, et al.

g (San Onofre Nuclear Generating s

. [, ...,/. ~.1 q'. 4 e Station, Unita 1,2, and 3) January 29,1987 r.y .x ;. ,; 1 - x, s ..p. De Directcc of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition of 3g the City of Laguna Beach, California (Petitioner), to extend the 10-mile radius 'Qll' of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating j- -l Station to include South 1.aguna and Laguna Beach. C. ' ' De bases for the action requested in the petition are concerns about the lack of emergency planning for Laguna Beach, the topography of the South Orange s t, County coastline as it relates to the transponation network, and the effect on d the residents of Laguna Beach as others who live to the south drive through, "y Laguna Beach as part of an evacuation procedure. The petition also referred to . g the "recent circumstances in the Soviet Union" as a basis for reconsidering the ~ ' 4,.j. , q ;;.. ? ;,.mcQ emergency planning zone issue for San Onofre. {s. .. 1 ..c. .w q3... 1 ,9,.,..

1. - q,;, a.....y c:

,, ac < r?n/.,i, n. c<. :... ','.. ';"...],*< ! TECHNICAL ISSUE DISCUSSED: EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE l .r 3 .t>.. n. .yi, The current plume exposure EPZ for San Onofre is a.1 equate, and Laguna ,' r - } Ay,,' ~ ,_ f,;., .,' g l,.*. Beach and South Laguna, which lie outside the EPZ but within the public edu. / ' ~ gl,.. ~ >,.. o.;. Q g.;' cation zone for San Onofre, are adequately addressed in the existing emergency P 'b,,ff*- Jwl plans for Orange County and the State of California. v e, a _. ~. M. V.

s..x

a..y 7,;

u.; \\.., _ g.. 6 ,.e v s z...

v..+e,.n..t.s. :f ;. m ; i. :

n, a,.3.,a. 3.,. -,.... a../. #.; . cw n

......, c "...

.. v. .c.

... a.,c.c.. m.m S A;%;w;':a2.y;e W.:f;.

1 .+ a n.. ~... e..,.n, 43 <. p,. a 4.w.m,,., w W.hc. w.a x.w,t.w,.v.p%aylde.. p:.W.g M s ;:4., M.:.o.%.v.a c g. ans.. i;4,.n w m m m f qw& - x .m

..a.;

n,mg,_.y M....=c.t s.q

h. y.. :w. t. < 1....

w-

y..,

.c. m ..,.y ;..

g

.,;

,;y:n :.2 % lL . ~,. -,.,.. 8 q ~ .,,......c ..... e. .e e.y,.n.c:.r!.... a ~.. e e m. ~,. / ;&.3 a.... : ,C, . +.;. e. s. c". c .. v 's - l. 4 + ' e,,.2 t e ,;. C;;,.T. J::..ar 3.::a, e..m.e... ; f.. y.M.L.1 ..,6,.*,

' k..n.* q M f.C.

%,3, .m ,+. Y T. W., ' '..., : ~. % .m ?. ',... ;; L u' ^ ~' a N l 7':.,.,T,;e,; (.^ f.,,,f g,{.f.,* -l e, y.c..,.,

• i '.y * *{n. ' ;., ;,s.3,'6

, '.g pl ' * .j. .,,., g ;,.'. *

• ,,. * ',.1,j

, *. c.. .Cva*';*e,"? w < 5 <:~..v'. .*~. ,, O~ ~e. :,...:,. *.., y x. c J. &S.,#.u,q*d,w.$pg$. tin',.*.',\\.p5)7l$.c$l,h.M.+ 0 W. ' pl:$. h,d,,..,.., :',f.'.t.J.,m. ;

• b, y u,.j...,.$
• d' '-,.

'b $j],,0. f & Q.l al.?$.h. e./ $o'? k?.$,$.:..Y Nrl.55. nil.5-i c.w....r,,7'v; p. .*.,g.o ;. tr n N-3- . r. i. ..1 y.u - *- ..M.'.. ' e

• w

.N.k,.Y; ' W., u

f.,.

.3 ?i ha n. ...ms.... 4 c ..o .ml.&.a :.W:n..l.... 4.,h.Q w.~.N ;;. 4 ?,.

g..f.+,G.e[.p% %a

$ M O V l:. Q? 4 I B*, ll

s;m&

a

ws

mm :..; e.

TECIINICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED: EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS oi Reviews performed to date of the Chernobyl accident and the Chernobyl "0 plant design have not identified any aspects of the accident that show a clear. cut j- ,".j nexus to U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. At this time, it is too early to i i'j, - s + determine whether any changee to current emergency planning regulations will .T be required. i , 1 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 s y 5.n.k. ?,. ,.,,., i INTRODUCTION r* c . ;.g w.y. l e,, .s y .'t..[ 5 3 p.,.,. '. j By petition dated May 27,1986, the City of Laguna Beach, California (Pe- ,'. 4'l i

r..

M.: j titioner), requested, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 02.206, that the Nuclear Regulatory 4 1 Commission (NRC) estend the 10-mile radius of the emergency planning zone j for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to include South Laguna and j Laguna Beach. ,j The bases for the action requested in the petition are concerns about the lack c* j of emergency planning for Laguna Beach, the topography of the South Orange

• +;

County coastline as it relates to the transportation netwott, and the effect on ..j the residents of Laguna Beach as others who live to the south drive through 1 Laguna Beach as part of an evacuation procedure. The petition also referred to j ei the "recent circumstances in the Soviet Umon" as a basis for reconsidering the d ':.j emergency planning zone issue for San Onofre. .d Notice of receipt of the petition indicating that a final decision with respect to the requested action would be forthcoming at a later date was published in the i 1 Federal Register on July 23,1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 26,484). Because the petition involved matters related to offsite emergency planning, the NRC requested ] the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in c responding to the issues raised in the petition.8 The FEMA response, dated ,.1 October 21,1986, is attached to this document (not published). In addition to wi '. 1' ',M, the response from FEMA, the Southern California Edison Company (Edison ?? .? .7, j f.j or Licensee) provided a response to the petition. The Licensee's response of V ' D., j.'.} ) ;(,a.[4 October 3,1986, is attached also (not published). i s. a 1 -. '. 4 .3 '.i cy 9 t x... u. - i-J - t i,4, FT.MA. by Presidenual duecuve, has been assigned the responsibihty for assessmg the adequacy of offsite s s. 3 ..!. J ' q.'h emergency plans for the sms surrounding a nuclear plant. The NRC is responsible for assessms the adequacy of F ;.., {,.y onsue emergency plans and has the fmallicensmg authonty. .y'- .' ;'.lm ,n,, ' '.9 p :".I ^ 9 qr a: m a.. .,..,.c...t..,..., - .,. 2,...s. y .....y,. . m [. s.,yQ. a.v ., 4 ;( r.,....,.-] ~ '.,_1 .'7 .n..

0,.,p; M..-

v:yw; ..c W &.e;. v...,:4,.e^ 1 m,. 0

p.,p..

.s . -.. w. <.h D,'N. ;. x.u.xMU M. N $hM,M;-- ;n;.g,1 yh.v?.qlQw,'_,, cy..;a, ;.p.s v.. ~. y. g.Q y.,m.m^ ~. l; y<.::,n.....' f,'? :m s..~,.: %...r.x,. C;;s.. m m .. ~,,., a r. 5..., , y m... v. q, : -... m . g

^,

m m. ,c

s. m

.. %., ;, y.,s ;..s.y e.1,y. ,.,4,... .. o., ; M.... ~. ', : p< - [,.. 3.. r ..s E 1.1,.:.. y - cc. ,1,,, )1 ~ '.!..,, ../.',',.. ?.', e,... ' +

• ,.,wi,

..a s.,;.. n.e,. ;. 4 t..,u, a .a. /.. . :7ll3.,,,.9..... s. (. ..y . n. av. o., .w r z,.., n,. ~ u.. c)* ' ; i.Ss..,;.:., ,

• w. . :

,1; *-@:3.?.' :y': 4; v.sf; ;*,Y.

• ' T

^l' '1. ?.cw

c..

- ? y'.,.. R '... ,' :-m'y l, .v i

• ' a;,.; ~.fcs-

.,/ U., ? c c.t...Q'p ;.:.n.,f '/., <x'"., d C,h*h;j v... 's.,9&$-h&?'U;LN;. ? l$;3?0 $. ?.

?y *.,e ;.. ey.

&:.\\'Q'(~?,h.'j:'C ',g.C. A:,.:~ m c. .j b h '; ash.f").ki?$l$h qiM.0".p.':h* 5'D$ M We,;. Q,,.l. '

y}e i hiVn;,u '& n. 4 so.Q*Q :p,.,p,.f.*Ca.;.yy. ;,T..Q.[:: '.WQ,& nf. N'.>.'A f:

~Q& : .L

d,I; gh - f

.y f-4:c%yy.jl,;)a%,y;y:wa 6.-.n:rz.v;yQ.l.. ' *f&. l

• l.

e u.. =. % ej.vlQg,'lQr ?'r NQX;$.,c. y;y

• O }.' '

.l;. i *.',yQ.f,\\.J. * (;.

}

j-f

...c ? y -..._---_.________m____,.,,,__,,_

a, a. ~ 'l n z, \\ ^ t3 4 DISCUSSION c ,,: p.; i y.7 ,'f/ j.. - ' g..., 5.;. F. 'ey he size of the emergency planning zones (EPZs) for commercial nuclear 4, y, p y ,.J. -r e .y ) b J [' ' 'Il t Eg, 'j J-S'C Power plants is established by NRC regulations. The EPZs are de6ned as the m @@,.., ' ;;i ' ' f ' % . W.] areas for which plannmg is needed to ensure that prompt and effective actions : t can be taken to protect the public in the event of an accident. The' choice of .j the size of the EPZs (about 10 miles in radius for the plume exposure pathway =

}.g and about 50 miles in radius for the ingestion pathway) represents a judgment

y#y; ' b 3.,5 t. ,w on the extent of detailed planning which must be performed to ensure adequate o. e,. i' > protective action and is based on an in-depth study of the technical issues by a l. w.

J n N.

~T' Joint NP.C/ EPA Dsk Ibrce.8 4.. JV y'; y, M,,2 i $. %.':et*$, %~ De size of the plume exposure pathway EPZ for San Onofit was litigated \\, t,s JW', y!'.y 4 in the emergency planning portion of the licensing proceedings. In that portion WRs y,3 j, j *,. q IQTi;t of the proceedings, the interveners contended that, in determining the exact 9.y Q /./l?. ', * ]I Y 7.pfp L;,-l : .Yi; size of the EPZ, emergency planning of6cials failed to consider speci6c local ' , ] %. * .,- / - , 'f,. ' conditions including topography, land characteristics, population, and evacuation - {,p y,,- 'y' g,,- routes. In support of its position that the EPZ had been properly determined, M' W. .1

. j;

.. N.

the h== introduced an evacuation time analysis report that speci6cally 8 f ' '..Q g.,.,. f. [ D, of roadways designated as evacuation routes. The Licensing Board's' decision, t-considered the effect of local topography in determining the traf6c capacity 2,'Z : 7 * >, /g } < ..fQ issued in May 1982, found that the boundaries of the EPZ for San Onofre e s ,j,, 74. . were drawn in accordance with relevant local conditions and comply with the y 9,; appropnate emergency planning regulauons. LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163,1228 l ~.Q.. c (1982), qf'd, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983); see also ALAB-680,16 NRC '4 4 ,&4 127, 132 (1982). 7f t. De PEMA and Licensee responses (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively)~ ~ provide information on emergency planning for Laguna Beach and South lr Laguna. De California State Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan

1. p

,', ; - ',.- 7: Station identify a public educatior: zone (PEZ) which is de5ned as that area and the Orange County incident Response Plan for San Onofre Generating c,ej outside and adjacent to the plume exposure pathway EPZ extending for a distance . 1 ". [,.. ; M. of approximately 20 miles from the plant. As described in the Orange County ' Jg7 zyN, A 4 O ;9 Q,, l"* l...JD,,, j i,, MO' plan, the PEZ for San Onofre encompasses the communities of Laguna Beach, .,,: ; "* l,. f,V.'y k,!.. Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, South Laguna, El "Ibro, and Mission Viejo in a.$ >ypp L. pg Orange County. The PEZ was established by the State of California to ensure that 4

.), V,y ';

. 4 y,,";..Mi, the public would be informed in advance about how it would be notifled of an

. [ %..,,.. 2 *.,. ' emergency and what protective actions, if any, r.hould be taken. De California i y m. y ' :, 0 /9, 3;;;&. y - w; m

.p -

E.** ,,t

• d3 '. -

.J*, 2"Planmag sans for the Developmem of saaes and Immel oevernmen Radiological Emessency Response Mans Q. in suppen er tJsla Wow Numiser Power Mams." NURBo@96/ EPA 52Wl48-015. December ms. ..- C,*;4 y, s. g:y.a q,.

7. Q, $;

p,e,f... . v.a. s Analysis or u, a.wis.d i s.a.um. Tammma and Pwmansa R>pulation imm Vanous Ames Whhin die gv 'f %. /.l* q *}. ,y 2 /,% -y J.,; ;,l C.7,,. ; Pluma Espamuse Aishwey Esnargemey Plannans Zane. sen Onorm Nuntaar osnersung Stataan." by Wilbur smith , b. i ?. ?~ ; ; '. ? p . T 7 i ; *. and Assemaans. July 1981. (this study has - "y been updeasd in June 1982 and November 1985) '.'f-,%'. " l ' !* ..= tm,j p_g - 5 c, A -;7 f 4 4 , n. f

W M{g),,.

1'. R,t~. L%,. W 'g* E*j .. +.-Q '?j '., .L*, %:,

'.%

.ll. &.Q_. 4;%..'.W.6, 45 s ~.,.A

w. r.. ~. w..r. ;r..a. m...u.......,;.e,w,m.g m....y

w.,.. v.

~.., s ... m. =. w ..... s. w...... r. - ...w hne76Kg %p. t.p.s. v. ~ s. ~.a%1.m n

v. y,,..,

W y. w m q 4" W h ip.f, u, w @ g> WQW % %;w%q.w p.:.g m3 i e . t..:;.ySy,s,; m. q.y i ~! m

r.. :n..%... >.$,,e :Wy%,:;*;:m j;K97..'q.: ' p*;;.m(cy.;; c' y.M. W y;.: y n;..:yq.yq. ;

3 Q. ., {q. ....v.

o. m..,.4.

7 r. ;.......;,,. 7 .... y....., r.

3..., r,.;.,I Y4.y a,, ~ t. r :r............

3. ...m,.,,, .,,.,...,,...v.. ..c v c..<. c; .a.. _ ;q. u,, g .d.. .s... 9 r, . s. 1 j * * 'p;p,Q. Q. +. f'...,' (f g (( ",-l t, **. ~. 'fagw( ]1 y ,,3,..l.;{. p.,,, ;% ,JY (*. * . s,

• i'

,y t ~. . _p (g..' ;'O,

K. ] = } -. ( [. S

/....,.......

j._

t,,y f.,]y3 g. p. 6

• t, s

e,. s, - ,.,.,,..s.,,,1 p c., y - , s,. ., a.,n.. ......j,c yr .....c s b i. f .g J WQjs,p.e, g.m..( . 4..u$,s.,1,4. m.n.glgggg~@w@..w..w..W h M. - ,e..<.gMMRMs, sa .L3 z4 M, M @ ..c gg

1 1 plan requires Edison to create a public education program for the PEZ. As part of this program, Edison annually distributes an " Emergency Information .h,,- oo Handbook" which includes information on the levels of emergency that could arise, emergency planning for San Onofre, notiScation methods, and the steps ,( l,.. ~ .i, ',l, f.i the public can take to avoid or greatly reduce the potential effects of a radioactive f release. FEMA reports that the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement provides for support from adjacent jurisdictions and would be implemented l jl jurisdictions within Orange County including the cities of Laguna Beach and during an emergency. Orange County would coordinate mutual aid between 1 South Laguna. FEMA notes that under this arrangement both communities would \\, '. /, :f.-.,...h., g. z..,, ,., c j be protected in a radiological emergency at San Onofre. In a letter to FEMA ,4- .c a, i' dated September 22,1986, the Director of the State of California Governor's .j Office of Emergency Services states: "'Ihe position taken by the State of ,,.} , i f, c:.l,...,. 7.s;,,%.g.y,

• ""'^d California is unchanged; we feel the existing emergency planning :one around San Onofre is adequate and the residents of the City of Laguna Beach are

- q adequately protected." On the basis of an evaluation of emergency planning information for the 7 ' ' ~ 7 State of California and Orange County, FEMA concludes that offsite radiological - g e"nergency preparedness at San Onofre for the current plume exposure EPZ is ~q adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the public In the event of an emergency; the level of offsite planning i' and preparedness provided for the cities of Laguna Beach and South Laguna H in the existing emergency response plans for Orange County and the State of ,.. m.h California is adequate; and these plans seem adaptable to supporting response Ei activities beyond the current EPZ boundaries if it would ever be necessary to - tl expand the response base. The NRC is currently engaged in evaluating the consequences and impli. 1 cations of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union, 4 particularly as they relate to U.S. nuclear regulatory policies and practices, in-S cluding emergency planning. Reviews performed to date of the accident and the Chernobyl plant design have not identified any aspects of the accident which q.; show a clear. cut nexus to U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. NRC studies, . y ;,,. ', d. m coordination with many other ongoing national and international activities, y w 4, - Y., ,M are receiving priority attention to either confirm that the Commission's current (,3.n e. 'Q ' *. *., ~ j'.f. $ regulatory practices and policies are sound or to identify improvements. Any new requirements arising from these investigations, including emergency plan-

• - ' j-ning requirements, will be carefully evaluated by the Commission. At this time, 7 i. ', v

. i* it is too early to determine whether any changes to current emergency planning C', - N regulations will be required. .+ ..* % a. ;,,. i. ) .g , 7l.4 j ,,1, .pq + ... ;,a ' ~;:. .. <,. t. s... ~- " -; w o N v' .... n '. 9, e ; j,* '... j '.,. *. s, s

• ;7 m 4()

5 9 m.c..,, .. '.,._..,.,,s m, m .....w~ . 4 ~

• [*

,, [/.o.. *..",~i.. a. ., p,:i r ~ M. y,.'. ...,v. .. r..,- > ~.". a.p.ty;W:., t

.a, e... n

. r

-y, Q.,.... c.,n.el v. %.; .u T..;*. M j..f 6,;v.n :.1.q ' y 4 ;'. O,3. v,.'.;* 1.;eq:,. .m w. k 3. . s. . t*..- . r. e.r. .: y f,.. i v %....,' ;, a. yN.3, m,.3t.,......, - - - - -... i,.,,.w,.a .r- ~3 - r .i -.. ' '.. g' w.; e.

g.. A u.

,.c,. n o...%, -.s '..W,. ~.y, '

:, >, c

..s. . y.. ?.. ,,,q k,

n.,.,,.: n..., ~,

~ >ye. s, L,,.. - .a c '

• e,.* - AP }.y..

,,;. : ! '.4.J '.; 3 3,. '. ',,.,s,.:. s! x .. Q, ' "'. [ - p,8 - '1 a. ' s #. ..., I.

e. '.' ?,,..,.',:

p..;,. s. .-l.' ra, y. 'e ~.., ( .,'..t*, ..,h,,

i '. s.

- - t i ,,g.,.?'.... <*,. ') t,..'.y,N...=,.,;,. . i$ ,. ',.,. g ,.}. f,<,g ,,.,,,.I ,s +

ep.. e e-w 17, J.,.%.,&7'*

V .n

• G 'd k..'*!, t 'M y.....

.b,,., 4 , /. ', m.. ' .f,,. */., '. 5

• I (g r

.pg. l* ~ s'. -. y 4.. =1.... /,**,, [,% s,';. ' i 3 '.

,

., ~i,

'a N 4".'# 'd ~. ..._.,q. .,,?le, .C', i ' * (- 4 . 4.y e.g e t . g.,x. c.a ns

y..,

s ,3..g, y

• [

. ww mqMp$ w%m: kqm.:y.....w.,+w.a.w,w.w[ wu('. :n. a..e ~..::m p' m.h. ,m.. m. nmms:nw m ww 9

..am I .= 4-i, CONCLUSION ' 4 t .a .. 3 . S' For the reasons discussed above, I find no substantial basis for taking the 4 ,I'. ; '[p.O [ ( action requested by the petition. 'Ihe NRC supports the FEMA conclusion 1

4. <...F'; !*i.

9,l *.' 'F. I that the current plume exposure pathway EPZ. for San Onofre is adequate and .. ' ' f. '; ' ; !. ' A . that Laguna Beach and South Laguna, which lie within the public education '.d ~,. zone for San Onofre, are adequately addressed in the existing emergency plans W for Orange County and the State of California. Accordingly, the Petitioner's I G '/ .h . ;.J request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 is denied. As provided in 10 f C.F.R. 52.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for t # the Commission's review. w- . H i, ;,;.; {. <.{p,,71,~f,(;.

rg,.l', '.,[.d.

James M. Taylor, Director ...u. ,,e d ; Of6ce ofInspection and , Q.. '.i j' G....J...i j.?.. r _.s9l:.M. ,.h..J, p Enforcement i c. y,,, ..i .,e..-....... .-,...e, 3.. e.,. c~- (' i " N Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, F;i.*..',,jq-thir 29th day of January 1987. 3 .a ..... g 1 }*e.i 3 ['Ihe attachments have been omiued from this publication but can be found in M y., s m,.,. ",;..Z.- the NRC Public Doctanent Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.] .. c"p' r .v + 5 .u I, L g,'. t .,.,.f. ', 'l. *,y.. odZ g,f, t. ,(. 3: a v, 4 e w '\\ L r* r 4 , b ' l i 3 4 4 If .j 8 8 # .) 3 I r t w 6 A ,se g, Q, ,o ., 7 "",

g. 74. -

. f Q., * * $ t;8. 7 p " ', 'e. tp , '; 3) e

• i.., *,.cy+

,*1.. ,,i.. ' ;;,.., J '"f.R,..;c '.R., ..i t,,y, a, '. W,. .f,C. 4, f n

• h*.'+"..

', e M.1,e k*- s 3' l ' ", 0.,, .,r,. e..'., y - k .o q y

• n-b y....

,'y-f s* 4' . b. ft,y 6 a +.'

• \\ ' ^ ' *,f' e

'a '3 ,#,f# ? +. .a -n.. y, s.~g gi* ,t.,, ~ w +.e, 7- ,[7.. *, ' t.: ,', i,+,,, *, y i., I '. - m. c -

• j. y*

.,4' et, - ' Y

• y

r. { ^ ' 's"

'l,s {', s- ,v. - ,~ y'. t ..g, s....gJ. >w- "p .y .% f't' \\,q-ea',,r w ..e' g, a e ea ,q-'*'y. .,,s.A.,,.a .. *,v. -.y ee 4 g;**- c ' ' :9 ...gw.* e' s s .f' *l..'... ~2 4 p j,' l.* y '.T. '. # $-[ ' f. .'*.'w.,.1/* j i /4 , ;*' : ;.v,, ~ <.. # il. g, ' 1 i ' T.~,,, 6 + , ( + 8 '6 sc (g I. 'a. 47 M, w.. :?a. e..,.. r~. d. w, m. w~~.n %.y' . u,.,,. ... r ' 'fb l [*. ,b . D.)* g' l c V, y, d d.:i..[$,4' 8 $i';f M *j-D,' g y,M,vy, Q,N Q'tgif * ' ~ 4 f: ,. Mg*"y<.;' w/ N 4,b d 7[. 4? y y^..;'i ? $y, s.q %,),3 w$. *l g g y g q.**'f'Mf...:.gNkQ st

• E:.. :p' q.@'; l%,t,g :.7;; ' ;t:y;;%%_,:..., p, f f--...g.3.

.,.1n 'g p.K,Q...jf".xG;, },f.q[,." %; 7, y 3,. m(;;,.,..., ;. y,,,fn'.} ,.v..,..-.,c.... f., o.N;. z 3.~; t 3 ~. '..\\.'. :. [, H.',p"p'E. r, v% y,,,. uy:; .: ; i,.. f.,,

• 5;;i t ; N.3 *.; * ':,; p i..e,

". y ; ; *, .y .+ %He, au -l, s. ,lp f. t*:. y*/ J 9 Y,,:

• l,..,

7 f.E ...' 'l../ +. 9 ' ' b,j.;. - U + d /,*s 9,,P ' F s,,'ly., .= s - < w. *

• r,. *

%, e?Q 4.~( 4.i sp., O,e ~.. "( 7,Jh k., L' *.~i.[r /,,$ g.,., e '.',.f.,, '* 6,,t,,.}. 'O s.,. ., ' ". <.,. Y,* ',,". 7 2 ; ae 1 ,t,. .. ^... - '.j,. q,f a P.,.','r'.o,,([g '-. ..., 9., 44

• I 6.'.'

d ' ' %.,,*, i /..,,. t

g. -,

p..',8.,,/',.$.*"..,

• d" %.. =.,...,

,7 +e

• v..

e.a,,..,, f) *@g,,,, d .3. W,.. ; p.-@e.. 'd., tv, hP}.1$p e.f..W. ;,p, 4..9 +.,p 6.*, e.,[.f h, am 4,4 r, ,s.< ,,o,,,..- c - .i3'-, .,'.#.i +- ng ,, hae e e, e. N, s. ? .,.',.m. *y ',, s.1 s. ,,4 3

• A e. 4,,.a,...>

,? a. V%, S. q,. 3 5 .c>, 5: :. rv, y..'; e. .*n w$dM,'u/M, EURY.'.$, 0.N" Q, ;*j ' o,4.,.k.a . s s s,,.., *%'..,.. '. ' ).e,, 'E',..,.. 1,4 %a g* ,e ,,4., f., c.. (f.*c; 0,.; 4. *.. s.,ea, .J - c.. irf 'l$ .i M...U'l,I 'd*D O $ >.':' iil h 95 NDMD. m;S*g %

t. o m w n pm4y ;. vg.c.~:g4%.m.g.Wymyg%p%:

p w w :: s. w : a.e ::A..m.m. mm a s, g. p.+ n

s 4 .i t. t. ...s. a e 3 d !3 e e $q Denials of 1 Petitions for jl Rulemaking L 4 ii !i i ). l

l ~ l. ( - 1 l Cite as 25 NRC 49 (1987) DPRM-87-1 . w...%.3....'.:g ~ ~' ef 1,, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ".I. 1" ,,.' d ' '. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s..- , o vM . %.< - 1; t, s-e

• ',.. r. ;.'.

(-

4 i...

.c ?, Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations ,.4 .u; s,- i

v.,;

,., g.; in the Matter of Docket No. PRM-50-41 '.s Y j. '-[; y 3.[.,.. 4,. .c. Q [e',7.}'.:j.{.,:.l PUBLIC CITIZEN January 14,1987 ~ _.L. e 1 ,, _ u.. ,., Q.. t e.q. n

.7, w,%;,

w... n. p; ;;g .o........e r y ,: 1 the Commission denies a petition for rulemakmg submitted by Public Citi- ~ zen. The Petitioner requests that, to comply with the mandate of the NRC Train- .c i '. ~ O, ing Authorization, 6306 in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, NRC adopt 2,.. i.. s,. specific regulations or other regulatory guidance setting forth detailed require-j. ments for training and fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel. 'Ihe ', f. ".,, 1,.. c Q":. lg denial states that NRC is denying the petition, among other reasons, because it - f c.x4 .,. E has determined that the statute does not cover fitness for duty and with respect N 5 to training that it provides NRC with flexibility to issue the regulatory guidance s y, in the form of a policy statement. .p e.. . m.. ?.2 3,."- NWPA: SECTION 306 (FITNESS FOR DUTY) s .Section 306 (NRC's 'Ibining Authorization Section) of the Nuclear Waste E' Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) does not cover fitness for duty. Therefore, NRC has ' not engaged in a rulemaking; nonetheless, the Commission has issued a policy statement on this subject. .' t L,W .t. . + ..u: s V ' M.s ;i:;.

c.,,~:.,:,., i. e.M.

NWPA: SECTION 306 (TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION) .g. - .a .I ,. ' ; 3',k.('>'e; ~ ,, fp, '$pif A Section 306 of NWPA provides NRC with flexibility to' issue regulatory . ;(.: f ; $. W guidance on training and qualification in the form of a policy statement: NRC 7 M Qa, .< w,, 3 m.g, g 7:M' c. does not have to engage in a rulemaking on this subject. J ~ c

.....

g.

,-.,y ',,}.. u . [ [.-. m. y ..

• z

'D ) 't, m.s f-'a', # 4]l ' }. '. #,(...., /[ "h ~.

u..

r:~

. J~. x. ;. _' m .-x i ~.:.y, y . o,. %<.. af ;,. - :; q i;., we,.m.q<, 7, ,r. J , 7.. ;, p. ;.,... -.. s... ; ~,.. ?... m .v 4 . t. m.. ./n.w :. ,.3:;. a / 1,7..c,.y. :; W :i"u' - s e f '~. 49 .wo m..n ;....:. n; r '. ;..:wo

v..qa

.. w ~. ,.u - ? g. .., n. y V..,..;. %,., ~. w. . 4M.,.. -r... 2. :.w, f.,,pgTD,:..e?.gg. ? a. =.,g -. m.. ,o. ~ m .; h y w<'M 6. V @m... %. 6 7 .? 3 y, p ac.-'. a Qq.. s.. v..~. q- .\\ w n..., w&.sYlt...f.._.fhf.'$Y..$_f.r...WR?,?.A'?.l?*P ' M?

• L V s# ?' T N' A

[.?'. ,,.D,', 7,r a q.,. - .. m. q *. ,.4 a s R .c.u. v )- s e ..g y . a... #,. ~ n. ., + - . 3 .? t'... r. o,~'.,n. ?: ,>s,

4..

o, - ...o - :,,,., h,w.. .q. m :. y,y. :.: n...< :?;\\s.5.. v s. .... g, ..a.y... ;., ,.., g .~ p,'., +;** J c:, e$.,9 g, e..l.,r'. 3."r. ~*:.;.,:;;t.., :p;.

0.,:,,,,.

~-..% 4o.-..g. a a.v.,.. y ~ 4 .c. ; s r q .y .c l .g .~v..a e. ..r . ~. .~ eC. 2..g,..... i.

• . *,.. 'y. r.v.m

, r.. v'.. ).,. n.... :.;..yf 4.., oa'.*a1. w > ya?.* 9. c. s e. h;.c& y.,, e ;..g:w, 2 ;r.n..,./ v.. .i; .n; .,, ;,. \\ /. .,1....y ,s o. ...;gis . 7 y.. . >.,..u,..,: 1,. e:

.r s

o

• I*

~ mm-.. w. w;..w m'.' e..w.g,~ m w m. e. =:w v.w a, r.,. .e--

e' l .i 1 DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING / , / i. ; b w... 3

SUMMARY

7.' c v,5 , La.i., [,'le '9 - [', ;.h(l, ~ . m. N.'< ' '.) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rule-9 making filed on behalf of Public Citizen by Eric Glitzenstein, A'llorney for Public Citizen, and Ken Bessong, Director, Critical Mass Energy Project (Pe - n...,, titioner). The Petitioner requests that, to comply with the mandate of 6 306 of 4 + - r Q' / the Nuc! car Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the NRC Training Authorization Sec-y .j tion), NRC adopt specific regulations or other regulatory guidance setting forth .?[ detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty of nuclear power plant 6* m @.Y;; 4 'r (J j q 4q,q.b;y';j.y ';.f, personnel. NRC is denying the petition, among other reasons, because it has i determined that the statute does not cover fitness for duty and, with respect to , Af;lg.. % 4 i.,..g, q,? training, that it provides NRC with flexibility to issue the regulatory guidance [,[ -f[ ih in the form of a policy statement. 1 , V 3. ~ ).* DENIAL ..a-v e 4 'Ihe Commission is concerned that the Petitioner's assertions could cause mis- " &j f - i '..' ', A yl f. understandings about the Commission's policy statements on fitness for duty and - ,7.. ? '(. on training and wishes to use this opportunity to clarify any misconceptions. The y ~ Commission will provide in full the Petitioner's arguments, the arguments of the opponents of the petition, and its own determinations so that all of the ar-x ',,:J'j guments are presented clearly and in order that the two policy statements and their backgrounds can be better understood. 'E ...q. ~,., l .r The Petition m The Petitioner beheves that NRC has failed to fulfill its statutory obligations under 5 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy P of 1982 (NWPA) (the NRC H, Training Authorization Section),42 U.S.C 6 It,/;.!6,19 Stat. 2201 at 2262-2263, y Pub. L. No. 97-425, and that the statutory deadline for compliance has long since 40 a. 1 :[, A j'W@M.4r ' I 'h.M' f . f v., ( passed. The Petitioner contends that this failure results in increased danger to C d.k* i 'M the health and safety of the public from inadequately trained nuclear power plant personnel It urges NRC to adopt specific regulations or other regulatory y . s' y C,.V A.. #.A, .q. 3, guidance setting forth detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty of 4,,.( O g" 1 nuclear power plant permnnel. ",,.a c t.:., l....,., c p . j*, .-( *, ' *, l , f y/..! ,,, ]. ; [, ' ~- '0 ' ., g [ ' ]." p i'- , ':;.> y P

• j,,.,;-

y .y.L. u' .,,.. y y g;.., + u,, ...s,; .. p,.t.. 6. ' ' *. T. ;,. 7 3:, - V..:. 7.: 4;. :- f._ll . M. 11 5,... 9., r p;,4 N .4 t -+2 g;, ~ p q.e.y., e 7 y. 4;4 7. ;,,. g ; :,a. l ,. 6. f., U..~.< ',. U.. ~(W. c.,.. '?...i-w lg J 4 .,g 50 \\ o -e..f o-.. r:. 4 .s a. .,,.. e 4 . yc5..,3..: m.;.y w%a. .a,... s ; sia .h,, 3.hlf%m. &.. q);. .%Q^WMi;.p,;n.c; ',!cr%m:<:.

p. 2 ~ -

.Q'W*t, f*9*. e: ',, y?m n i.i. 4 ;p...r. m.q */+g. R 6,%.f,Mf.h. 3,* :,h. 3..i sr., y ; y ^.. ; a..* ;...u. k.w ;n, ,j m,. - .p s y u. r.~rr p },<....*5 9 :yj*]Q y R,,%p{;m'p,s. m-.ers ' W rj f.,*,' p m,;:em m..m,w* '

• D '., f ',. [ ' ' ; *
• e ' lt n'. ' ' ' y;. ;Q 6..{l* ( f.' Y p

, s;.,, ,...,,...i. I p , 7 4 . "o b *.l. -

'~,.,','

.*. ;, n, : ' '. g ve. 4M' : % .L '.y ... ~. .....i. U. 'a., n.

• - ^

- t .,V W, .,',w,, l.

9. ;,

i. e ,,' n,, c .a .a .-:.~... 3., ? ' ** G.,.. f f;fi g,.fy %' #, ~ll b, v 9 5,* z'?.;, M ' A .. ;i' ' '...c M ' 'f., - ; t i f .. C,r,.,..;:;.:.. .'g;,, s ;;., v., ,1 ~ ) '. M. *g.,.~&~, ge,f, n.i Y,R. i n,.' 6. :' M . y r k ' y.' D i ?,

• . ' ~h.
• ?*.'

i Y

• ?

%,,i[ -. l s .e,.* v. 4,? ,4. d... 3 s;;* y.'.r:f..'r - s o* e. o e r

r. s i.

{ c. ~- ,njr. ',n. ~ l,* :; G.], y % v

• ..". ;,, G '.y
  • c, P 5,o:.g a,;,.

.. 1,.,,.*; *'.,

r,r,; p* a,,, ;,.',9:a:., '* t ,, p ;,* Y<v.r.w, y'.7.n%)y.r,a;p b Y9 ~f,Q,., f. %). f:** * .4 l.. J.,j&. a v's he.y..:.$. t.%.v;;y: s. A,cogb y?. ..y;;;, n ;sy; p.. t,;; a y:%;.G', q + s.:. a . e: +;; K,. V, :. g. A,;~;..:**. M.,,,,,, ' ? Y %. :. v; y y :h...,, ;;~.c .,.L.. s, M Y **;'. N:.: *.., ;..,, ;YI e 'O'l.;*.4' ; A ed 7- <L !* ' 4 e 4 ' t h *Y"* n ' f.W r l"t'i ' $' y..' x ' <,'j's'l.' ~.J: - n - -iv /* e. . s e 'Y r - hb.$ q$ A' h N i~ qp }Y$.,rw ~ '- ,s = ~ p ,k yE . W, N ' n,>.Y. <...YW:. "n -r. y e kJ v,c,.. c,b,,g. f,.r&Ws f;*,g..;;,:y:Qp;,,H,M:

e. % ; x? B :.

• b Y

.Y . s Al. "l sh; ~ m. 1 .y. 1

y i [ 1 ~ 4 .i 2: ' Basis for the Petition ' A 'Ihe Petitioner bases its petition on the statutory mandate of $306 of the ' ~ y. ) / 9 q,w,,,i,. i. F 3 NWPA which requires various NRC actions by January 7,1984, as follows: .1 . <. x, h,., c,. *9 SEC. 306. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TRAINING AlmiORIZA-r + w, ',..., s

.,U,.

s t 3, , 'Q TION. 'Ibe Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorised and directed to pmmulgate i regan=a, or other appropriate Corranission segulasory guidance, for the trauung and qual-inomaions of civilian nuclear powerplant operators, supervisors, tedinicians and other appro- /M.+ a.L 5. e prinse opersamg personnet Sudi ;. or guidance shall establish simutator training P q,q * * ,) sequismense for applicanas for c vilian miclear power. plant operaser laconses and for open-ter requaliacasaan pmgrams; requis= manas governing NRC admimstrauen of sequalincation 'i; . ' f // examinauens, seguisements for operatirig tesis at civilian nuclear simulators. - , N.. y,p,5 l f.gd., f,.' ((V, ;/ r 3 z p, R... and instrucesonal seguisements for civilian nuclear poner. plant -a== personnel training s ys M - y. ,,M ^i's.) I programs. Sudi regulations or other segulatory guidance shan be " by the Com-r .7* s' mission within the 12.enonth period following =naannient of this Act, and the Commission e J, ?!i,, ' y, '; *l."3 ( e.6 ;7 ^ 7 within the 12. month period fonowing enecanent of this Act shnu submit a suport to Congress d M.,. @ y. ; ~.'; "; i,.../* y. '. *g(?gi.,' l G. seuing fonh the actions the Comminion has tahan with sospect to fulAHing hs obtigmions .e unde, this secti.,. . f. s r ,b i c ^ 4c.R'.> .g, /. o. 7c O Statement on Tkaining and Quali6 cation of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (50 'the Petitioner contends that the Commission's March 20. 1985 Policy.' e. o. - -~ Fed. Reg.11,147) and its then-pmposed, now Snal, Policy Statement on Fitness l'.,* ; g ' " for Duty of Power Plant Personnel (51 Fed. Reg. 27,921 (Aug. 4,1986)) are y j,J,7, 4: ~ J. legally insuf6cient to ful611 NRC's obligations under $ 306. iz With respect to 6tness for duty (on which NRC had not published a Snal %.n policy statement when it docketed the petition on April 17,1986), the Petitioner y 4,, states "that the NRC has totally abandoned its responsibilides under section ~ 't, " Y 306." J The Petitioner argues that the Commission's Training and Quali6 cation Policy Statement does not comply with the statute in three ways. First, it asserts that the Policy Statement gives 6ve elements of an acceptable training program that 'n i are vague and general and fail to set forth any speci6c standards against which g compliance can be measured or enforced. Ritther, the Petitioner contends that because these Ave elements do not outline " requirements for personnel training { c .j A O Programs" they do not comport with Congress' intent in enacting $ 306. ) ~ 3- .y..., ye J.,,. y c c, ;, d v.. ' Y Second, the Petitioner insists that NRC's endorsement of the Institute for N ' J 9,,/kiy Nuclear Power Operations' (INPO) accreditation programs, instead of NRC's [ f.),( g ' '.' 'l i.

Qy-?j,

' ry,,,j @g,plF.f 9 promulgation of its own training requirements, does not comply with the ,32.,t y .?., statute. The Petitioner m. entions in this context Senator Weicker's statement .,s, .s 1, c ".y v i.' that notes "the shortcomings of relying only upon INPO or other existing ,. ; Wy. ' 4.,7.V W O. institutions." See Cong. Rec. S15643 (Dec. 20,1982). The Petitioner also x l ('[; - ,,[c contends that NRC's endorsement of INPO's accreditation program sacrifices a, . ry. f,.,W,, ;; @c.. M. c.;. yn*c.t. E,. ' public participation in the development of regulations or regulatory guidance m s w a. .a ...y ;.4.* ' ;j.... y *v j.Q,;, '.',, * -)% s,, '?-

• • ll 4r.'I. N.43
• ~.p

2..,,", k.3

. '70 i' '.,j / ..,y; w.,g' c.,,; :p>.;v m.W..; 3 4, Oy a,.c,.,,7. t,. w. .,. w g+.. .w 51 4.- e..--,,.1... u o.co g .v J..n.s;f ',. +, y;. 'y,,,fe%. g.. ?, s,' ; f '{t.e xl4 x.,. ,. gu M.. t,n-

l. -

s .' g fi.. i. l*f. c b

u..,-;,. 4.j_ j.1%. p,

4 .K w y: h! h.Ay . s. .ea 3 u -e. .e.g.,

h. [1 l

.~ n, I ' M,c 2.;;* f o,g"... 4.'.E ' '. ],' e# } ;( E **'[_...l.q f. ~'..' $s.N c. F' 2, " ; 7. '" ' *7 "', (:' * %.* '.i N " t*y yy;.y t,, * ' u..y ,. -,8 0'.{s 'J**" fi f '

• i' d "

[*,','.'f) e i .p g- .e. . r"- s p, $v. '.., [... ' < *- ;c, ~, *. i ..c,.. a ., / /. ;, C.. '..' /. n. PT e p. t / ', ', -.., .[ . 7 .'i .j J,e 0 R..., n: t " '..f f.r% g. (V (m.s, y 9i.s'.p,y.,r. s,a ?, M..w r. ...*.a.. 1,- ,* *l -., + . ~ ..t,. s -. -,, ~ e~ )* l V '., o .t.p>, o.,.7, 7 t. 4 .a, x. ., os g u .c -.. i. y v,ws,..s /' e i si 5,,(' '.g*- 8

• I

%8' ,dgap g F f a [ p ,[. m b. 4, '"$/.. %. 4 [ M,.**.

• 1. .*
• I $ ; [

p I kWBa

b.,.f.li.Qi, j.Id 2.-

%up#;h..f;N;M, $a[,.,s.:...M.,...+Ql7 'In f

• 0 s[-

'#.e,' If*'. .Q q' f , $* 'r '4 " f g, ,, l. * [., ,J l. 8 [ks I %. ,e b %.% & Q 'M Si m p. 6 h 6M.'46@;.w;s.3.m..%...%.i %.w. !'@ N. S$$ $g ' .M MDW' D W ...&y,,f eX,'.#iW.) L s z E

and public access to documents reflecting licensees' implementation of these requirements. <.b

p j

Finally, the Petitioner argues that the Training and Qualification Policy i , ' {,,~

• g Statement does not allow for adequate monitoring of the effectiveness of a 4

,J. ,.,..s" training program because (1) the five elements are vague and do not provide adequate standards against which to measure an individuallicensee's progress or i to tvaluate the effectiveness of INPO's program as a whole; (2) it provides only for NRC monitoring of licensees that achieve INPO accreditation and does not i W W'. provide for NRC monitoring oflicensees with the most severe training problems; and (3) NRC has not retained authority to ensure prospectively that each licensee ,i implements adequate training programs and that all achieve accreditation within 3 N.'...Q.l'z,.g;) . ' i J, s s,,,'. I 4 a specific time. l +. l i'7U g..). ' ' 7,.V <, (<,,'A... '. A. v Public Comments on the Petition and NRC Responses ...e. NRC published in the Federal Register on May 12, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 17,361), a notice that the petition for rulemaking had been filed. Interested i l ~ ~' persons were invited to submit written comments or suggestions about the l petition by July 11,1986. NRC received twenty-one comments in response to the notice, twenty from utilities and their various representative organizations .~, . e '.. ? opposing the petition and a short letter from another gmup supporting it. The i latter organization states in essence that it is concerned that NRC monitors only licensees with INPO accreditation and not those with the most severe training ,'yJ.l problems. a. 'Y. Fitness for Duty With respect to fitness for duty, many of the opponents of the petition point to the words and legislative history of 1306, stating that neither mentions policies for administration of fitness-for-duty programs or broader, more generic, I continuing observation programs. Several commenters indicate that the Petitioner .i is incorrect in stating that the Commission has abandoned its responsibilities in t.$ <j this area and say that apparently the Petitioner is unaware of NRC's ongoing T .(,. M,',;g' \\y efforts which provide guidance and direction to utilities with nuclear power y,.i programs and make rulemaking unnecessary. ep. , ( ' J-4,q The commenters note that the Commission approved a fitness.for-duty policy v y statement on June 25,1986 ($1 Fed. Reg. 27,921 (Aug. 4,1986)) and that NRC . I, guidance on this issue has existed for many years. They disclose that the Nuclear 4 4. ^ . M Utility Management and Resources Committee (NUMARC), an organization l c,

ly

,,4 composed of the top officers of all utilities with nuclear power plants, proposed 7 ~ ~ ,

• b.%

?,.1 M.. to NRC during the summer of 1984 a 2-year trial period for the development l-,,,',, * . g;,,..,.y, - { >, C (,, ', '_ 1, , '[,,f ~. :,. y:,t . Q.O.' ;

c. '.e.T ej ', R /.5

' ;.'%, r;,it ~; 52 ~ ' ;.;. M ;j,d e.. m d . ~ ..';,f,. p, '..lm.. p~~.? +.1 . +.s.c. - . r, + 4 %q. s 'ii!C O. p. L' Q.'S}J [' k W.lr?b % i1:y h :.. y. f....< ;.. ;: i i gi},. s. s3.Q. :m.., 'a W.;V [.. ~., a, ~ ~

4.. ;.. ;,., :.

.;";'1 m ;;y *y'.L..!, % g s '.. *, .j.. ..., y - r. r y.. p._ = .s .g D' _ l - c ..l .'..v.'..... ...*s.(* .1 c,.

o. o,..

'y*l'.,,:rt'.' /). ~ se ,('r, ./'.' { ;... ( r -+.,,.. 4;. y .. /+M>.. ' s

x..'.

.,.s ,,... ~ .W 4 . ", w ?.y p.~ q - .r y .t. =,, .......3., .,., ;+ .t s vn. ',,2 ".'.. '.'..; ;. '.,. ', 4 ',f,.'.,., ' J.,. -. J % -.,,W. . =i; ....c e ..... ~.. c.i '... u- 'q.. /" ,t . =. : L ' s' '- Y, T 9 .. s* py;h; t.:,%.i. y.' '.Na v g...,,N:...d 'J:.?.,.M.p M.E % N, Mi~NM;QM';.. MW.N M. > '.. ' YWM,[.M M., ~>,r

.'v'Df yn

= P M:e rr

s i ? and implementation of fitness-for-duty guidelines at all of their plants, to be evaluated by INPO. They indicate that in October 1984 NRC began working with the industry to evaluate this proposal and that all nuclear power reactor . C O f g. ' 3,..t licensees committed to review and upgrade their programs, as necessary. Wrther, ~ . 'h - "s the industry, acting on its initiative, instituted routine INPO evaluations of each ,' i*. utility's implementation of a fimess-for-duty prcgram. The commenters stress that in developing its program, each utility has used thr., guidelines of the Edison Electric Institute, "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development," described in the Policy Statement and that NUMARC and INPO have kept the Commission apprised of the ongoing INPO evaluations in 7 public briefings. J ;, :, :s. e. c.

'r y

. ' o, ',. y ' v: 1l c-

• '/

'IYalning and Qualifications 4 r.- s ( l-. "c.; .,%,', '., /..I The comments on the Petitioner's three basic contentions are provided below. m.. n.

• First Contendon

- ~ s,._ With respect to the Petitioner's first contention that the Policy Statement rnovides only five vague and general elements of an acceptable training program ~ ? ww and fails to set forth any specific standards with which compliance can be [, measured, monitored, and enforced, most of the commenters point out that i the five elements are based upon detailed accreditation criteria developed by j INPO and reviewed by NRC. 'Ihey argue that the Policy Statement provides tj the necessary NRC guidance for the industry to implement acceptable training d programs while allowing sufficient flexibility to bring about self-improvements ,,j in nuclear training programs and personnel qualifications. One commenter notes that 6306 does not specify the degree of detail that the i regulation or regulatory guidance must contain or require that deta!!cd acceptance .I. criteria be included. It argues, therefore, that the Petitioner's contention that the id Policy Statement is vague, general, and lacks specific standards and requirements ,- ] is a " subjective opinion" and is not a basis for measuring the Policy Statement against the statute. 3- ,7, ;, ~. Je ij Another commenter notes that the Policy Statement was formally issued more

.u.

' 't,. J t,'.. M than a year before the petition was filed. During this period, the industry has ~ 3.,; r."' relied heavily on the Policy Statement and has dedicated time and resources to ~ yU . Y/., comply with its intent; the same period in which the Petitioner apparently did y nothing to challenge the NRC's decision. o "1 .' ;. Q t,, : 'Ihe commenters generally contend that the Policy Statement and NRC's own t ,. :o,. - '3,- ft.. extensive involvement in related matters, such as licensed operator requalifica-E ~ * ".,,;.,; ',, f -. g j;. ! [Y, p]..J tion examinations and routine training inspections, provide for a thorough NRC ..s.,..- s, j r.p. , r f, - '._.A ,, 4.:ji .f .W .,., '9. e., $\\ ' h, * [.

f. f 7, r. ff h h,,

4 .m a: ,. c,. 53 e , [.1.. ~ y.. 3['{..

• • 1 r '4 r,..

-l 3.. < n...y '.. c *..,%.+.- t... ;.pW :) [..g 8.c. ., 4 .U ? 'w i+ .4 .r*- s

• ...Y.
• a. g - y,,, '..*, ; q. d s.,,,,,. -

.7 ge

• / 1',j *

--g, .,.pA

• ' ' \\ l (*,,y 6 'e 9

e.- y P j s. '. * [ *'. ;3 jf.* ( f,,?';.,,. l l f. [ l'

• l.U Q.l'~-.f

,. ?} i.^\\. ' ;;;~* # f. 0'? ' ' 'Q. @ m 's. m $ 1, . '. * *.. - m + s,

s 4

1 b. j,.'.g.p*,. . *i. b y, .1', ) =...m .p .t., g,.;- i ', ' i,, g, ' q N,q. * * $,. ',. 8. .'.07, , /,, ,7!*..',.,.l p [ ' f,8 ' i.;.,' ..t .8 ,,.,'.<q'- .,,' ', 'g %., q

• h

.... ~,;. :-(, 9.,,.,..,I,,, f, ,'.g.. :.,mg u qc. < s;. 3'. q O .'.n *R .y f V 'g g e. 8 . 'g I. n :m.. r .m....n.' /. c.,, m. m,. h.a.w"n.. . wy :<hb.e. w...m f g $h ;g;hh.hW$!h:pMy&,.m.m.,.,.Mh.,yyYN.q.y..ryf 5.dkf,f.J,hh.f.h[1.hd,$h.N,h'g$?m h...M;.E.(.$hk ihE. ,w... a ~,: c. i T.s k o-i.5.W u ?

1. W. n.y:n vn ; y,y& n,%.

Y$

• 'E t.9
• ?$.kW SWN YY

'Y =, l

1 w l i. .r .v overview of training and accreditation processes.This overview f,ncludes, among other things listed in the Policy Statement (1) NRC observation of site visits o .c g by an INPO accrediting team; (2) NRC nomination of members to the National. . 9,'

p

z, %'p,,,,'.. Ygf j

p g J.o.(.;n.f

/ *.7,7;p.1 Nuclear Accrediting Board (this board, which is composed of members from '....,. ? W., n <., < J ' %' D -, 9l accreditation of individual utility training programs); (3) periodic accompani-the academic community and the nuclear and other industries, awards or defers etM ment of INPO or, selected plant evaluation visits; (4) NRC post-accreditation L s audits at utilities, in accordance with NUREO-1220, "Daining Review Criteria i* L- , J % * / p. and Procedures," July 1986, to ensure that the accreditation process is effective l m .W d (the criteria are identical to the five elements in the Policy Statement and the ^ ^ ~ I procedures describe the systemanc review process to ensure the effectiveness .x . @ U $< RN.p d of each element); (5) periodic tramng inspecuans by NRC's five Regions; and 9'/ i,.7. Oy,O q;.j; P.1

• A (6) a traming summary evaluation included as part of the NRC Systematic As-e ;~ j.

y,f .. M 7,..,'., ( ' sessment Report of Licensee Performance (SALP). ney suggest that such close - [:y,p*l,... J.;%$'*;N(.V.( pg,.'. C*r;,q' ".M .s NRC monitoring indicates that the Commission is not simply endorsing INPO's %l m. O i't,' f accreditation programs as clamed by the Petitioner. Dese commemers also Sf 'E.N,~.' - i note that improvements obtained thus far in utility traimng programs provide f }, C. 3 ;, y'

',4,.

7' evidence that the intent of 6306 is being met, including better focused man-agement control, more and better training staff, and irr. proved and expanded m ,.I L f - M)) training facilities and equipment. 1 Un f-i ',u, - p,; ;

• 'c.

..,y Many commenters also argue that the Policy Statement provides NRC guid-a .p (A ance on training and quahfication and the basis for NRC's oversight of the l industry's programs. De Policy Statement encompasses the elements of per - s $4 formance based training and provides the basis to ensure that hcensees' per- ,M ' Q R'f, sonnel have qualifications commensurate with the performance requirements of f ~ gj'd their jobs. They contend that tasks performed vary widely and that, therefore, a rule requiring detailed training prograra standards would have been inappropri-ate. They note that NRC's own experience has shown that technical detads for c resolution of specific issues ase best handled at an administrative level below that of rtiles and regulations.They cite vanous examples of documents that ad- ',S dress the training issue and are in addition to INPO programs, includine,urrent Y, Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and "IYaining"; /3L 18.1 (1971), .7 .+ l " Selection and 'Daining of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel"; ANS 3.1 (1981), , J :' ( yd... . p 8 ya.s p]M s ' ;,. y, " " Selection, Qualification, and *IYaming of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants"; .(, S ' " D N:W ANS 3.5 (1985), " Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator 'nairn .Q.M:)6'k. " ' l i, '4 Z Q :., j,y ( Q'.Vyj p ing"; and NUREG.1021 " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," October !s.. "MJ 1983. They maintain that to attempt to impose detailed requirements thmugh 2 h;~).* ',. * ' I!' a regulation would be a needless and ir yrvri.is burden on both licensee i c ; '. and NRC resources: needless, because the desired effect of improved training +,l_.,; ${ y$ e f,. ~?, l is already being obtamed by the current system and NRC's Policy Statement, m,,.,0 f l a ..;y p.'. Fq,% A/' M;'i '.,9 fg R '..3 including NRC's guidance documents, industry standards, INPO accreditation, 4., {3,3 [ M

• n ? "g g.n ; j'M

../.i.

and NRC's undiminished enforcement authority; and inappropriate, because of , M. C )/,. Q*9

9 y;g.m

. "^

n

. L,,,

y f

p. w;w. * $~ p'.,?... A '. + k.*v":. M. icG~.O.T 54

. MW 4 v/,%.,O!w-i. 4.iM..v.K.w'.,w. M.p%J+&..,, 2:n%2. @v... ~ w .m.. ~ ~!yM ry,. ~ M;<! .N c.:.*..f;*y* *O *')~g~g. 4* * '@v ' W % 4sFa~ a. <s*+, ,gg 6.,,.

• • e,;. 4tw,.

> < p 4,%, _,* u.x.s y.* y.15 Q go.,. s gy

Q%, y[s% >

. sf**

4) :g L.

.;i [* ' - -,#* 5 ;'# " dY '] 'D ~.** * # * .'.~a,. n '((. ' '.k ',. l.,

• • • • "['.'

1. ' **Q.

c' ' A

• q. *,. 8
• g

.f p - "' }.

• b /*

f.iJ ' e.s ...,,,a .. n. / .[t-d. * 's '..t { '. I '. ., c C ' s'. # '. .S'. 3 ', (' j @h. ~Jr,.k, %. 3, [,.".j,.,'; ..h. t j i.A.,. '. ~ ', S,- '......'.c -. d a *

c. 3,.;g... ;. y,j f. #. *,.' t f.,*;y,f *m,, h.',4C *,w,7,',J'[.:

5- $s', .tp, .pf-y .r. i g .b ',6 ~'. 'f. [,,

• f f, /*. Y s e ' o '.*e3 U-T 'I *., ' f,. d'y..

4.4. #.4.?.:'; ;,.!.i,%. A,., W L P c. Y o ,- S,.. a,". , O '. 4 ,n v,,,,..g y o Qu..,....'.=* l f.. : s ,. ~

• r.

..,,y k hl:q. c. :.f; * '. 'l P.e k... . 'Y.. 2-(.p.'.. f..<,Y.$*$%.Y'(h.hiY.yv.h,*,.v,, ,,o-' 4 +' }' ..s:. ., bl A. *'.% h ' ' Q '; * ,E k ; -r eY:. ,y*;i 5.?' .f,'l h.N ,s. . ~ W. bh

'N

n 6 l l s the many plant-speciSc circumstances that would cause many licensees to be . l'. affected unequally and in some cases unfairly by a generic rule. g- ,c o.......e y a. .,: ' ^ ;., ;., ( ,,,.. ~, f h,i.. ,.',. '. H Second Contention .,' t w With respect to the Petitioner's second contention that the Policy Statement I i l on Training and Qualification is legally insufficient to fulfill NWPA's statutory l - QlI mandate, most of the twenty commenters argue in detail that i306 clearly ' ",A' intent. They maintain that Congress directed the Commission in 6306 to -k provides NRC with alternatives on the best way to accomplish Cor:gress' ,j establish instructional requirements for several categories of personnel either .h .,. m P~:y. : <. C,.; '. /. Q,,. Q.? ' t;;',M through a regulation or through more general guidance, leaving it to NRC to , f ( .] decide which option it wants to adopt. In this regard one commenter makes ,,:.. \\p l,. '., ; ', ' k ;, Ml j..., ',p detailed arguments about the legislation, showing that the legislation gave NRC l t ; ~ < ;,, y >. a wide degree of latitude, flexibility, and discretion on the manner and scope of -.;.c y " ~ its compliance with the statute. Both this and another commenter declam that an interpretation of 6 306 is not dependent on one statement made by one member of s. + '.f 7, *,, j / 1'. Congress. The commenter also argues that INPO accreditation of utility training l n. 4 programs would probably have been a central feature of the Commission's final s. E, rule and that, when such accreditation is completed, the Petitioner will have ';~ p .r received the equivalent of the relief sought in the petition because accreditation h would probably have taken 2 years by either the rulemaking or policy statement w .l route. .' D 7..l Several commenters explain that they think that the Policy Statement, when .F 1 taken together with NRC's present and proposed rules and guidance, is more .:n;, ] than sufficient to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that per-sonnel at nuclear power plants will perform their jobs in a safe and competent 7 j manner to protect the public health and safety and, at the same time, permit util- ,1. '.j ities to develop and implement plant-specific training programs. One commenter g stmsses that the five elements contained in the Policy Statement are profession-ally accepted components of any training or educational pursuit and that the i t ' 9 . ld Commission's proposed revision to 10 C.F.R. Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," 1 _ :; y ;, . ( y, ' f;... incorporates these elements. 4 ,]..) Another commenter discusses the proposed revision to Part 55 and the three ..p'-- , g g' ;' / ;. . c p.. ' '.1 '. c.. T ',V #.,.] propotied regulatory guides related to Part 55: Reg. Guide 1.8, " Qualifications

'.t. '

and Trsining Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants"; Reg. Guide 1.134, "Med- . v. a. . - y ical Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses"; 1 and Reg. Guide 1.149, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use , _. ', 7, 3 l ',s,'. V ]f in Operator License Examinations." The commenter points out that a pro. 0 posed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 26,1984 (49 -.~ K,7,,', ..;. [g.",;j,,r.,'.* f j ) Fed. Reg. 46,428). It sought to clarify the regulations for the issuance oflicenses ... i.c .*.,.t.,. 41 to operators and senior operators; to revise the requirements and scope of written } j- . ? :..,,N '.,! r. ' * ' ";. j. f,Nl2 m,. c i r- ~

t. t..

h

• p.'%s.. z.[,.y. [,,.. O'. { y y.A f

55 ? . 1.. p ts. e,.s% *.j.; %. k.s . 3 x.., i . n.o. 4 ';. ;n.e,,. "s!

k ' m.r.,6/I.E*. 4,9'.* Q.N.,,'.[{ Ol 4

.L

.' a g,. A.]

D

w..b..;. x;?. e.:.*&p,:.?

• :q i i w.

v 7..g>..g.f y_ w. g ef:t.g;..g.y ..,q 7 7,y j;,, w - c., w. 7. n m; e f: o. yr. : t '. .,.;7 j,]3 4 ...,s.g, s s. ,s = i I 4

• 4:

,N +-* ./ f !!,.v h * '.li..* 1 .y,.' ' O: u.D k,' ll L lt U M*. S. 0 .: ' 'S l - ?. .i 'l G. ' ',, f., c.',' - , y. . t' ry ; ] *.L,;.' '; ;. ; v.g,., i. '. # 3.r .c. T g.. ,c e.,.- y j m L i: - . yy .....,b b, '.. ..., v.,, .,. t. i.... >,.m. . s.,y- .,, m ,.3., h ,I ii. 5 .,b,,, /,.* ' (( f. ',,,t,,' , ;p Iw*,,,'*J..e... l. ..,m s / 5. .' p.,) '= m. m l. n'. ,? mm w w,!ee f WlNM3#.~2 M'#~.n.u#m'],g& ?mn yMQ)690;?yNWn@WRWdQ,.a:4p... %;W b RW C,. 1

o '] 4 examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators, including.. 7 ',,y7,- a requirement for a simulation facility; to codify procedures for the adminis. .. ~ ~ / , p g n y. y y. tration of requalification examinations; and to describe the form and content of ? /.o 9., M..)],q operator license applications. The purpose of the proposed rule and regulatory NA,,.,.]4 y, mig p! % j:/ m. G. guides was to improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by in.prov, N j ing the operator licensing process, including examination content; to provide l J [Q NRC with an improved basis for administering operator licensing examinations and conducting operating tests; and, to respond to the specific direction given ; "p4., ( "}j, p, . by Congress in f 306, to promulgate regulations and regulatory phe in the ?J ti 5 area of examinations. (De NRC Staff proposal for a Snal rule can be found l ' ". :~4

a. i

..E in SECY-86-348, November 21,1986.) De commenter argues that it is only 'n. q,., y.B. s O,/;.pg; ';,,y f J,q?7p through such an approach to training, one that allows differences in various cir- . f 'J,~ v - g, " O'j. J cumstances, that effective training can result; indeed, an overly restrictive rule . e.u M A ? M '; R N.Y' f.. T / would ensure compliance, but may not give encouragement to improvements u N]jg . ; 7y;'p,9(@ * / j, .M-f J beyond the scope of the rule. Still another contends that many utilities are already well on their way to. l, y %.4. ^.. $, d' ," '.. s implementmg the requirements in NRC's proposed revision to Part 55, and the ' ,O regulatory guidance, described above. a 9... e y p.s) a ' ', d . c i " d;. Many commenters argue that NRC's decision to issue the Policy Statement .a = instead of a rule was based on a number of public meetings and interactions ' e i.j.. .6,/Ii ~ 'O.-+,_ between the industry and NRC thrnughout 1984. They emphasize that industry y representatives, in presentations to the Commission on proposed NRC training' .g y. il1 regulations, stated that the regulations were not in the best interests of nuclear ..... ),.. safety and reliability and, in effect, would have undermined industry initiatives in -e y

9%.'

training and accreditation under way since 1980. They explain that the industry, j lg' recognizing the importance of training and accreditation activities and drawing upon one of the principal recommendations of the Kemeny Commission on the ~ accident at Three Mile Island, established training and accreditation as one of - INPO's key programs and committed itself to upgrade training activities. Dey ~ stress that NRC's Policy Statement recognizes the signi6 cant progress achieved ,,,.j. by industry initiatives through NUMARC, INPO, and the associated National y' ? - Academy for Nuclear 'IYaining in developing programs to improve nuclear utility 4 l 5 l $ M.'.' 7,3, y, l ' p M d, training and personnel quali6 cations, and that the Policy Statement has provided ,f W.Z::j, ,y p,7iQi the industry an opportunity to demonstrate continued progress.

., ;.

;4, ;,y,,:,;. l 't, i:,<... m..- p *. ;j s.

g,. s c, ~., 4 ...r. 3 Qi 5 . ;..* w' + a s- ,.=,n. e,

<., y,v.,y s TMrd Contention n

,w v q: Most of the commenters opposing the petition argue that the Petitioner is 'W. ( yq i. ", ' ? C;d, wrong on all three counts of its final contention. First, they contend that the , g. y, .jf7,6.fr/ ' f)

• 4

~ f. U.' y 5,g' 'd.; ?, [!,] five elements do provide a standard against which training programs can be pf, 3,27 ; pg. g,%.h. 7.f 'j measured when viewed in light of NRC's existing regulations and regulatory M S 9'ON.h guides. Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," contains the procedures and criteria for 5 [a~n, %,* g,'.sU.d ~. m.1,.;.w m. , ;. 2 J, e

u.,,,.. S;7

,4 %,,u. -

s., m, r.,,,.

..y ..m~. ...m ..,,,.s ,. z. ... a.m., :.2..y,,. n y ;.c... s.. y;m. a.. a _,<,.,.w .. e c.u.,,. o 56 y a%9. *g m, s.1..r.M.%,W%n .. s,...s e. n m y% Q Q. dr

u. n.. ~. 9 w. n.v.,;.;m.m.,w n,?.,%w.. n : w w.c. %.6,;.. y g.

c .u m & w,. ,w g. n +i ::.,- .,a .:... w..- u. e..,~.7.s,.s.s.. 4.,...;~ zu. + ...r. - ~ $ p?..' <\\,'.;3, C ;Y, f k * ?,Gk.. ...x e,,r: c g-m, - . y c,, y, r., p....,.q,, ; f. 3..,,,,. a +.- o ...,,.p... 4e l., ..c 'y,u,,'.,y' g y., ,6 v. .,5 t s ,g,,*. ,.',,a.. L .R

t i

.V' f. 8J. p* J,. 3 s,'.,l ; *'. . y'! *. g ? M. gr,s t. m...,. - '. -....i, c. : w,.,. F 9, .,..':4y/ qu,ta-3. ..t, -i .s.N., '. ', f,.- .q .*bc7 a [.h,y.... ,V g b[,,% f* % o., y', s e J, /,,[.C ' ],*f '.'+]h. ' 4,, N", (,* - - '..N ' '1, .t r r s , ",,*'[~ f' ^ .' ' E 'a .t b,,',,'- + M i . 'l.h : f. '.i ' h h :U ',, - J.1:.. k..,.cu,w,.p.:.e w;:;y ;r.3.n.p.v,,.J. :.,.4 v.. n..h;. hh.. suhhb::.?.n. mi. a.,. w..u hhhb. . h . p.- u ~

b. e 1 l l i the issuance of licenses to and requalification programs for operators and senior i - f.. ., f ; a .s,; operators. Currently, this part and Regulatory Guide 1.8 detail rhe education, i h.,. M 1.j experience, and training requirements for individuals to be administered exami - j i1- // f,.' n.... i y..j;31. V, ' 7.. y q,.. e - nations for operator or senior operator licenses. The training programs for these mj individinis are submitted to NRC for revirw and approval as part of an appil-( i E, 6 T .:y

y.

cant's F nal Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). De commenters stress that NRC. ..,a, n- ,u: i also evaluates the effectiveness of licensees' training programs based on exam- .t ination results of applicants for operator and senior operator licenses. This is in

9. W '3 y effect an audit of the effectiveness of licensecs' programs. Further, NRC admin-

,q. (' 'J, istration of a percentage of the required annual requalification examinations is i .,o g: xO: an additional audit of the effectiveness of the training programs. Based on the. M 4,., ' ; f. results of these examinations, NRC may take other actions to_ have reasonabic O Q..,z,]b. /Q,&g7 gi,.c,/* ?, [, >q // pg assurance that licensed personnel are being requali6ed to perform their tasks in . ' ? % y,. a safe and competent manner, ne commenters emphasize that, therefore, the ~,.L. g .~.q..j..7lG.n. pg.. ;,p,- Commission has knowledge about applicants' and licensees' training programs q,3 c:p' ;. ';J g,. 3. a ", r, for operators and senior operators. 7.m .' '..N With respect to the second part of the Petitioner's final contention, several L 3 '.

.a l us j. 7,

a. c;j /' commenters argue that the Policy Statement is based, in part, on the commitment f.';'. j; of each utility with a nuclear power plant to submit its training program to INPO 4 ~ ^ A for accreditation. They note that NRC is mindful about how these commitments f w y. i.? are being met, among other ways, through its review of periodic INPO accred-w; y,...f' .. e f. 7 ' j^ itation status reports and NRC briefings. One commenter emphasizes that NRC J ~ remains responsible for evaluating the implementation of improved training pro- ) CQ ' grams to ensure that required results are achieved, and argues that the Atomic ) w.

• ;.J?

Energy Act provides broad authority for the Commission to take prompt action i - W / should NRC determine that a facility of an NRC licensee is not operated in a 'lf.j manner that adequately protects the public health and safety. Others indicate that j (1) the Policy Statement specifically addresses NRC's enforcement policy, (2) ~J that the Statement does not limit NRC's authority to conduct inspections or to take appropriate enforcement actions, and (3) that there is nothing in the Policy S Statement that supports the Petitioner's statements that NRC will monitor only ' ~ V, those facilities that have achieved INPO accreditation or that NRC has retained L 6.; no authority to ensure that adequate training programs exist at individual facil. .* N':',.;.,. Q.m ?. w. 3 o .s c '. c. ' ', ' q ' 8.t .. y 7 3 ities. The Policy Statement's enforcement provisions state: 'M

:9.( y. ' :

r l,

]j*v,p p

- Notwithstanding its Enforcement Policy in 10 C.F.R. Pan 2, Appendix C,49 Fed. Reg. s583 7%*Q~'.3<r,y' (M.. y'c (March 8,1984), the Commission witl exercise some discretion in selecdng appropriate ~.. o 4i' enforcement acdon for violations involving unining in light of the NUMARC/INPO ini. -.y / ' [,- tiative. Licensees who are making reasonable efforts in developing arY. implementing the e< ',i, .p~"[* { * ;. u.i,g 44

• INPO/NUMARC programs described above will generally not be ci%d for violations related

, ij. ' .,.. ', M,.(, ::,3.M to these programs, provided the violadons, whether or not identi6.d by NRC. are appropn. L

v. ; [l / 4. - f.

• W y. y '.:.f L 3 ately correaed in a timely manner. However, violations which e-a not conected in a Omely j

fl'M.. -mer, violations of any applicable reportmg re9 rement, sM any willful violadon may q d U.. '.' y;S.,,, '* 3 ['"/,E.[ r a s .;d.) w..' ?;"%, m. b o l .3... - w.,;,.. v . 'q?y -qt, ; ;.4 '.,f, n,.W)

• 1.

C' 4

. 2 ;;l'l

>,y-6 9 N O.. c +, t 7 M N D.,$;m.,th..,'.'.Mf.[.d'Y.,< %<. /g' _a

.u..

57 ...<w.. a

.m. +

., + w 4.p.. f.,,,.r.,7.h,e: ,.L+y.;rg %s.- m. .00+ -tA' y 's *

• -.4 y.%;;ry..

. q;.,:.;7 >? .a. e Z..,.xf m. n dQ; d B g .4 A 4 &y ?; > q,p 5...,.. a u\\ d

e. -, k.' 9.. p^..; %g; e..,.y n..a.q;g$ @ n~;.:7 m,";7v y y.7y 3

,e :v. ,;: 7,e n:. c.,:n ~y A e:.. o q oy W'. .,n... f y 5. r:ls; %, ': Q'!M, ..e s ~,.. ..s ..., a q.,. . v., 7,:. .s. .~.. .,r Mc. ...a......,. ..,,a:.

7. o c

.,m... n." w.. x.,..v :,:q., .,1 m ~.,. ...;..~,...n., h, 4.t... ,.w. v:.... n. :gry. n.u,. .~-. . m.. u. n. ~,,.., ~, u...< m. W.,.m .~ w . v?M,. s,.

.....r.

r. '.:,.w

.,a .i., u,. s,~ , 1, M.,". (.. c..,., n: ..,........... ~.,...,...... n n..,. v ... m,G... " g. D". d I'!,' ',_..,..... .....;.,....,k* : ) #....,, y [ >. ?. 's, w ). v[ 1*b o...,. , '. /...- .. C , u. w :. 4 l., I3 :.: N... -c. I y.r,:w:tg;:W,3 0.arsk,:.. :, d.*d.1 IIsh...',y U.

• 3; n..

1,. ..t.... ? 7. +. r.my.,,,:p. : 4 ~ .a 9 i L; n A... >s .. v u,,. w$a v.p:::p, ;d,w.,Q,qN..~:'n 'n Fp :w%.,y.y%p: . T ); y ?,2.. m: ~, 7; w ;. e.3 a .gn. n. a ..% n.. .9 NMymq<q

% p

,.h, ___.__.__.______w

l l l 1 ) i I i be subject to enforcement. Any enformment action taken during this grace period will bc ) taken only with Commission concurrence. In addition to required reports and inspections, informadon requests under 10 CF.R. 50.54(f) may be made and enforcement meetings held to ensure understanding of corrective actions. Orders may be issued where necessary to j .U .i. f. . Q.,( achieve correedve acdons on matters affecting plant safety. In brief. the NRC's decision to l , '[.,, o' use discredon in enforcement in order to recognize industry initiadves in no way changes the ) i P, 'i,<' NRC's ability to issue orders, call enforcement meetings or suspend hcenses when a saf:ty ) problem is found. Nothing in this Pohey Statement shall limit the authority of the NRC to j conduct inspections as deemed necessary and to take appropriate enforcement action when j regulatory requirements are not met. j e d Finally, with respect to the third part of the Petitioner's final contention, j several commenters explain that there is a timetable for utilities to obtain INPO d accredi*ation. Utilities have committed to submitting to INPO all of their self-l s 'p : .': f.' f i ' &,:[ evaluation reports by the end of 1986. Completion of the accreditation process / usually takes about 12 to 15 months after submittal of this report. In addition, j (,':, j W l, Q. .,p these commenters point out that NRC has stated in the Policy Statement that it y, e..* .s g C e.: f ' j will revisit the entire training issue around March 20,1987,2 years from March 20,1985, the effective date of the Policy Statement. .c ,. ~ Reasons for Denial ,_.4 . c]

• Ihe Commission believes that it has been responsive to Congress' mandate

~ U in 6 306. The Commission has determined that 5 306 does not cover fitness for duty; nonetheless, it has issued a policy statement on this topic, t.s mentioned 4 above. With respect to the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant personnel, the issue raised by the Petitioner arises out of the language of $ 306. That language provides for the promulgation of regulations or of other T appropriate Commission regulatory guidance. The Petitioner and one commenter believe that compliance with the statute requires enactment of legally binding regulations. The nuclear industry believes that NRC acceptance of INPO's y accreditation program for training and qualifications by a policy statement meets ~ r the need for regulatory guidance. Indeed, the industry argues that conversion of the voluntary effort into a compulsory regulation would be destmctive of its j. 4' voluntary efforts. In this connection, the House of Representatives Committee .s /

g.: l-

, V,., 4 }. y on Appropriations in reporting, on May 15, 1984, the Energy and Water e.' -, N,'y' '~ ' p ,.J.,;r ... d Development Appropriation Bill,1985, Report 98-755 to accompar.y H.R. 5653, r '; .,, 2d.. at page 145, submitted the fo!!owing view: y ~ t ...U. '. Reactor Training and Operatiorss .%j The Committee is concerned that the NRC may inadvertently undermine the initiatives 't .,5 I ~, ~ ". '. /^*.. ". y, e.. - <,. N, of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. The NRC should carefully review its activities .4 .(;..., f. ~., ' 'f* $ ' .q .. - nc.n..

.. ~.

yn J. ..f,

• ' ;. L U. 4, 7.1 58

.,..s,...,n, r. ..v,.,,. f '.

',c

+ ,,., d... m .4 ..r,.,g. 1 =. p, w. e, y

• n.y,.,, -

m \\..~ /. ... c a q.., ';. '. ', % r ;;..,,.. W :' . : ?( M.;:.r.a.v;q q ..f 4 ~ '.. -\\,. , w '..a.: q s, w..,. y v.e, 7o.:.,:..m. n.. 2,w v;, p~..,...,-..,,, 3 .r .s ... w, e., $j a.;.,I,.,,l b ,(. e. ?f

• l

. 'Y. lll. hM?r' l # Y 'h. ~, " .'s l-Y,' )*

• l.

.V s,% u .s.. .c . r w. I,7' N 4,,,, ', ,,.y.. ./ ',,, s. ,a T ./. .4 a. .S h y ', *., '. ' ....,. 7 f. '.. "'7,! ;.. ( f', y,3, ". W .

• c'

) ..g' , '; ( 4 :.. p - 2, ,?, gfug / 7,'f y. ',\\ ,]5

],, - Q <.cN f,

N', T' .'3...' g'& W.j..Y ~,' 'y;,b.**';'.,.;,$. g,y '3, i }, Q. ',' _ ).;:\\,~?p;,.,.,; Q ;. j {'

y Q:, g.'.

I.f. .t v..., Q,., a-r.,. .k o', k,.l,, j# [, u + u.,. y* *. j. I* . 2[ Y&.. ; &p.. p + {.,,' [',... a 'g. ...x. . 3 . h s* .... gN.,.,, f.. . I/ [.. .S $M%N;k1.h%;_ &,xO$.,.[y&q p,.* 9* g(3, - * ' .,d .,'..'f,M.~* s.,e &.r. . ' O, g. ',$.. '. ;:.: ,Eg.$ I.,. .3 M s ~ -,,,, .. ex"o ,,' e c,.g '.i f5* / 4, 9 a ,+ s ,p s s f. r. p.Eic w&! .m.. ^,9 : 'N6/.!.G.h,N.(* {,Q[',&% ;,.* '.f$$k MN." dW{ s... N ' W N W, g .'y pgQWy l } >' %l 59 N L-

T a 6 .I in the area of reactor operations and training so as not to prevent the licenses [ sic] from rnaking needed improvements. %e Commiuee agrees with the President's Kemeny Report .i ?;..C,'.; / that prescriptive and voluminous regulations can serve as a negative factor in nuclear i. . I, ,[;# ., e '< - .,7 safety. Derefore, the Committee urges the Commission in complying with 6306 of the ' q. p'. ' *, /. 3 ' 'N. ',,y ]! NWPA to develop alternatives to prescriptive regulations, he Committee does not agree s with the Comrnission that the proposed training rule as currently fo.rmulated achieves this purpose. j Before analyzing $306, the Commission wishes to explain how it views a 4 ':"s C' policy statement and its uses. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. S 65552(A)(1)(D) and (A)(2)(B)) requires an agency to publish its statements of ? -c L,. general policy or interpretations of general applicability in the Federal Register 1 a s W.;;,; $,y [. 3.? (.p:l.. for guidance to the public. One of the recommendations of the Administrative g..y,,, 4 :~ Conference of the United States is that an agency should articulate its policies [, ' ;. Q.J ;, through published policy statements.1 C.F.R. I305.71-3 (Recommendation }_y'F'y,('?',2*[i*4;].,?.7,;, '. ';g].] No. 71-3). The Administrative Conference explains that a policy statement is ~7f an agency's indication of how it will exercise discretion.1 C.F.R. 5305.76-5 / J. ~ (Recommendation No. 76-5). See also 3 Mezines, Stein & Gruff, Administrative qf.c;y,,f i.'..' Law 515.04 (1982). A policy statement in and of itself provides guidance only ,y W and does not carry regulatory force or statutory force. A person cannot be cited f. for not" complying" with a policy statementper se. A policy statement, however, ',,1 Z-J may exphin how an agency interprets a statute or rule. See Pacific Gas & Electric o Co. v. Federal Power Commission,506 F.2d 33,38 39 (D.C. Cir.1974). In such cases, the agency can enforce that statute or rule in the way it states it will in iX that statement. '.g Consequently, the Commission does not rely on policy statements in lieu

• l of regulatory requirements imposed either by rule or by license condition. The Commission has not taken enforcement action against a licensee for failure to follow the guidance given in a policy statement because policy statements are not enforceable as such. If an unsafe situation arose at a licensed facility with respect to a matter covered by a policy statement, however, the Commission could issue an order under its general Atomic Energy Act authority. Such an order could require the licensee to take remedial action and impose appropriate f. ;f' :. 5 :/f; license conditions governing matters otherwise covered by the policy statement.

.;.1,

Q '. B % 7 '. NRC would not necessarily need a specific event to trigger action related '.%';; e ' ~,1.J %'{ MMj. s to the policy statement. It remains NRC's continued responsibility, as noted in . J p.c.., A.? (.;+ g,7 4i',w 7 both policy statements, to independently evaluate applicant development and ~. ~,[.y i licensee implementation of NRC's guidance to ensure that desired results are achieved. Nothing in any of NRC's policy statements limits NRC's authority

• '. f 7' ';. ' - l, y,

or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority ]."t

• 1
• [t when regulatory requirements are not met. Ibr instance, in the Policy Statement 1,. ;f m. s ; y,' Jga on Training and Qualification, the Commission explained that it will evaluate Ui a

ml[:,,i.c +.Olf ".o *.A.E.::] the effectiveness of utility programs by, among other ways, direct inspections '. ~ m 4, g.. f., w'n. :., :.... w. Y. Y h.c. 1 .f j c Q. 4 / m. w y g~ go W. s.Ac ::.<

1

.-a 5p .. ~ - ,,.--..r. c# m >.+Q. m.a &. ; y.,w....... w. -gm. :. .e. i

p.ww

. s..a y.. m. w,r:.. a',?_' p_ -l.y. r_*ll.#lq:3'y ~ .. n 7 \\ A s... q ,i3;*s,i'f f.. .. y..

• tQ *.

.:s? p., n,. n w,. c. e, m r;. go &? *

• o m y*

,.w y e e y :.;..:,, .,...,,... ~..w w< ... u, .m. .> s.,.. e, o e...,. m.

s. :.>...

h$hk:.....

c ;;M...v

.a,,.. h&g ..w

a. !.: r.hN$c. -

..i. - ;.'l@a : :,7, JD. 'q. " 3 l Mln; 1.. .t E. '.:.. ~;;, ? ~, b c. 'w%Wfg.h:w.. ..a.n.. .q.. a .v .~. ~, n:.w. w c l'N.. msw.%m&$$a. u. .W........o !$$?,l lM.py.$,..m:. b ub, n (m.w MO i hbWY %m?Lys, M,y'W.M,h'.n.s.p.xQ@%/;*#gy&. p PW . O e: n gC M,g,j:w@M.a@@%Q .z.. Ap v?;;'..,Y,";..,.1:. I, '.m e ?f.(@%.. .dk .y ye < ' 7.. hn n d.'n O d y %ra'ufc.G - % Qy L,,,f e. h n y h. e,/s.y g.. p ~: @N $ r y ;a

• . ; n.. M.V' m, W,y

- st; y e

V U. *.

rA: A r

G -

.tr m r et .W p p;; p"v .<.. m -

w .i m, l. conducted by NRC's appraisal teams, resident inspectors, and inspectors from a,. 9 its Regional Offices. It also stated that violations of any applicable reporting'. 4 Y. 3 (M, 1 g. 6 p, ',.C T, requirement or instances that potentially affect plant safety will be subject to , %,' y; S ' 7- ,' g,,,,4 / y.7 '. NRC's enforcement process. If the Commission suspected that a licensee were o . 9, '[ not developing or. implementing adequate programs aking the lines indicated-m.; 3 m~.p,, 's. p' ' in the Policy Statement, it could inspect the licensee and require information ? 1 l i.- O under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.54(f) to determine whether the license should be modified, >n_j ..g e.. i suspended, or revoked. Thereafter, if the Commission found that the licensee's - e , < W.,,, ./ 7g . program were indeed inadequate, it could make, for instance. a public health. ~' y, ? . and safety determination under which it could order modification of the license - /W , 'i.d W $. ' q. j.. by inserting the elements of the Policy Statement as a condition of continued 4 $ L'/M4.... >',g~jx{*i'd,c,g'i .y operation. it g.jy '. Industry urged the Commission to allow the industry to demonstrate its- ',W; N. s.iDsc /

• • d initiative in the area of management and human resources. The Commission

.},9%@",!G,fj@.l;yjtj".'".h~] stated in its Policy Statement on Training and Qualification that it would evaluate

; N ' 9 j (,

1 '.., its own guidance and the industry's response for a fairly short period, i.e.,2, R<, .A ,; A years from its effective date. Le Commission believes that it has not lost any - % g;,".., '

.,,,N.K T,. ~ '[

time in the industry initiatives and that, in fact, it has gained much that it i ll. could not have achieved using its own resources. The Commission also believes ... w.. %[d that the industry could achieve more, and could achieve it better and faster, if . q ; +:, ..,/ 9 . V i. 'i'y J/ ', NRC allowed it to implement its own istitiative with NRC guidelines rather than i / through a rule imposing upon it limited, minimum stardards. 1 The Commission believes that Congress directed NRC in I?.06 to establish ,'. g,5 g d instructional requirements for several categories of personnel cder through a .y regulation or through regulatory guidance, leaving it to NRC's discretion to .r , g'.g ' ' decide which regulatory approach to adopt. Section 306 in effect provides that - the NRC is " directed to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission Y" regulatory guidance," which "shall establish... Instructional requirements for civilian nuclear powerplant licensee personnel training programs." s e :,, The Commission believes that " guidance" or " regulatory guidance" do not l s ,m necessarily mean a mandatory, enforceable regulation, order, or license condi- _ + s

L1 tion.

2 A M.d

.. 3 ' h ?, #,J.<, N h.~;.M and qualifications regulations during a short evaluation period. During this e;W f , W@ The Commission decided to withhold action on promulgating new training 7:p $@d..[ n.' - f:,y$ 77., $6 period, NRC has been evaluating the results of the accreditation program R [cf: */ 4 ( $$.jp %' to determine wheder the industry's efforts ensure training and qualifications E. ^ .>.:. 1. ' 0 that meet or exceed the elements included in the Policy Statement and other - x f,...,,,zg //. "~ d.. n t $.,.. f.: Commission guidance documents. The Commission has not, however, stopped %,,,,.W ".,42 M,., '. I %l with issuance of the Policy Statement; it is in the process of issuing a revision ',.J M ','. {y f.j to 10 C.F.R. Part 55 and to the three regulatory guides described above. f-{M;e.'g,5 l tl1.lJ".y.Vf,.j'$.s "Jf H The Commission believes that the industry's efforts to date have been pro- .x. .Q ",:' g g " d.s' 6.. $,d ductive. NRC has increased confidence in the training process as a consequence g., ..,.. a .o- . l lr l -l l 5>

n..;.;,.q,.

. w.g.v..:s. m : 3 u m,. ~ .e'lp 6".. 9 .pi !*enl5 S' Y?. ) , q '....p' J @n",,, g q'. ; '- p,, ,R Sh,,,y&f. hb..,k{. f.1;.s g 3 < p.,7...,@e.,y,v, el (,,y ../ l.n...,.s.t 1'6 1.s ,, M. ..t. v at .NfG'r 'd ' i ,pi C * *' e; [s ***[. ' 't [ l ~, p &R, r._.h:.:&g.,.,h

• 'T

,a g p i, ' V..s,4 l. t j ? h,. [4 % ' 1 0 -[, _.7 '.I,, * '.,,'..e,,'[ s. y *, ;4 re. *' ,+ $ ;.,j. g....;*.t ,, ' 7'* 3. ;n ; m. e 4 .4' g,.3, ,4 !,.... b 3V g *, ..,~..,.,g7 ...,.-..;.g,...,;., ,y .e e. g g.

• M;,.

p. ..p 4 .c -,.: c-j. .g i T,

• 4 y.1 '
• o,.c
• L.

'." a' *,,-t ,[ ,g. s 'n- ,, L.*c.., ' q' D, p"D,.. .,. = f J i, '... / ;.a*t 1 { r , y..,, O. r . ***?***e N

• 3e e,

o*.pr*. t t i1, ^ e' a'c.' j d

• . ( N.7. N [
• *S

.f' ' ' vs N

1. .'w-*

• h9

, g.'s ,'. g - ' ' ). s' ? j, - * '1, ' /. 1+#, 1, /. ; (Q + *. Pe & $u'g '47., ; N. h.'.,'h. ' e - c i ' J, 4., g 7 * ('.~:,. og %. .Y.,";*. 'i .\\ is r p, g. ^ Q,* '.*.,..- : ... <..,p.g.: 4,Q.sg. (: - W ~ 3 N'; i u ..c G? N..y.

• f. e *
• O',j.% ?, -l 4

h r ';.,' t % ., <..,$* ' l '?s h. l l, - s,Y E. *l,, ;..%. *,*. ', s.. 1,..., e, ; :.;.q,.';, s.. y,, :a g S tf.,,;.,,. >,, ~ Ul ; & ? (r*, -Q oba.e :. f. 1 G ' J. N.' h * >wy w s y;~,v r

ga v r: lcm r.,,p

.o . z,, a. a.,, .y ; v 9 3. :, s,, . i,.. esq@, a'S.p,, g@-h* *M w g.m m, M c N.e @ 4r m'e m m*a % 9 i a j

l i I > i \\ of the systematic analysis of job relevance of training and improved manage- ] c .,.m:- ment of training due to improved job relevance and a better audit trail for the i !" a i p 1,

2. ',,y n Q "... j training program. De Systems Approach to 'naining appears to be working in j

...b 's l ' /. (. the nuclear power industry. This training method is currently used in techno-l ',.3,~ 0 ; logical environments where human performance and safety concerns are very J ,3 5,il;o - l ',.lr important. Noteworthy examples include the military, the NASA space program, 3+ and the field of aviation. NRC determined that its approach was consistent with 5 that being used by INPO in training program evaluations for its accreditation W [ is }' i j process and, therefore, decided not to promulgate a rule but to issue the Policy .g, Statement and evaluate for a short while INPO's accreditation process. 1 y} j ,.. O l, To further assess license candidates in a realistic job setting, NRC revised ,..^ [j~-lc4 %,. j f. ,,.;t p :;,~ fj , y,.,i. 10 C.F.R. Part 55 to require that operating tests be co 1 ducted not only in oral v.4 j ' walkthrough of the plant and in its control room but also in a simulation fa- ) ..., 6.. 'h,.... d..}.,c;- ,1,y cility. This facility, which may include the plant, a plant-referenced simulator, , 0 ;fW;,,,.r:,y /% j'.' q%. 3- ;a.V or another simulation device, alone or in combinatiore is used to demonstrate w .g,,,. ,s understanding of and ability to perform essential job tasks. The ^ ,j. F Policy Statement and NRC's revision to Part 55 enhance the NRC licensing E.. ~ X' ;,'] o.y s examination process. The facility licensee's systematic analysis of the job and ,f , t.m learning objectives phases of the Systems Approach to Training are used by ~ a: NRC as a basis for developing examinations. License candidate evaluations are i ',..c,'. g". y ,,,. 7,, ';. based, therefore, in part, upon performance standards and evaluation criteria ' y; delineated in the objectives. Once licensed, individuals participate in requalifi- + cation programs that also are based in part on learning objectives derived from the Systems Approach to 'haining. NRC's requalification program evaluations M, use information developed by its licensees under the Policy Statement.

[' %

De Commission is also considering a rule on degree requirements for operating staff at nuclear power plants. 'Ihough the rule is not addressed by 6306, it is responsive to the concern about personnel quali6 cation. In a related 5 activity, the Commission published a Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise t on Shift to ensure that adequate engineering and accident assessment expertise is provided to the shift supervisor (50 Fed. Reg. 43,621 (Oct. 28,1985)). %/ ,,D: - w% CONCLUSION w.,.; '., M,r:.3 ;; v..,, a .w..<': ., ; Y.d,t.wM., In conclusion, the Commission believes that the industry's efforts to date [.p, Jy... t... -. j: * ' ',.. :, ..,..a 3,;.. 7 q.. 4,.g,, y,.X have been productive. NRC has increased con 6derc.e in the industry's training il ', 'y process, because the industry is systematically analyzing job performance re-y, e..y y '. m_'. l6 i, ,g. p 1, quirements. The Systems Approach to ' Raining appears to be working in the l:,['J.. nuclear power industry. This training method is currently used in technological 2 f'i c,, < S,,. I j ', % 3] 3., environments where human performance and safety concerns are very impor-C.,l.? ; ...n' . [i' [ s' " @ j' [,'f[. #.. '. 9 & C tant. Noteworthy examples include the military, the NASA space program, and

• C. k4. ',,'.: '; L /.; '

' '...,.. 'Q. g s - n.. t.,,(, w..W, 3. .~ ,r, r. o

,. Sl., Ns.,.'s f.1

. g, f..:.; D l , q.,5 ),, A, y. sy',;..,,,..ds A:,,y,,. # p;,f j er. .,,,y .s ,;j .,t(;- 61 e . v... t ...g-,,..- f. + g .o. Oh j ,.(,y. ge..'.bh '.[g;# \\i;. Nr,.,Q," &;% %,n ', * #.J" M h hy o v\\,g,; 9 y. ;: ~ ~. .if w Nj;,' W2;m . O,fh*h. rlW' s *,.j' Y)%:; h,Q,. h*i.' Y'sM'j. j, *h i A .l 6.23. '%.3,N.,5 .d &l.{

.p.; W (1t%,J?; M p,.,*;# N ;: %y n

..G b.6. h. t. K. %. ',

• y#...n.3%. 7^k." ".T: E V" 't*P ' M ="; e, N +' ?,T ' * & :X. Q,

~ -i. .t 3 , d *. E }*j ',

• ' /

,.,g -i .'.e..,..,.V/.'...* ,s 4,3,t,,, y.s4..,., ;l ',',., ;!..j y , P,,;E t., .t ~ .1 <nas s e lb '

• M..
• I.

... v,. Y i,. lJe..) ,, ". "*.. w3,.,.,[ *d 'l, .,,.1 - [* f4 ,7-n.t ,x.c s,, ,c, . a. _ m q",, )c,....!, u. . p.,. u.,?,,. o..

p..

p. *,(...,,, d, e..,,.,.

. +. .,,,,f.r ,-y-* .'1,, s .,...r. ,u n,.v..'Ml ','s',. ),\\, g, j P ;.' N?y; . g.., ;,,. [*'.*h, i g.,,., , f.;, ..a,s. s. y# ' A.3 ,,. 'c, " ;, ;. -

• ,,. T.,,

l ik y ; '. 4 ' 4 '. ;: \\ s f; d.'< ? 4 y,; ', '..j , < -j

di.vw.m,.,; 8,,,.*jX,t t:<f+.U,.'.aym W{?

N, f 9 p,.'. . n.~ a. v., %.

l 'C ,t-4 the field of aviation. NRC determined that its approach was consistent with that being used by INPO in training program evaluations for its accreditation pro-( cess and, therefore, decided not to promulgate a rule but to issue the Policy ['d.., J, , f, ' ', i, t/;'. ') Statement on "Ikaining and Qualification and evaluate for a short while INPO's - a !, accreditation process. l +"' A,*p ...e i 'Ihe Commission agrees that a highly prescriptive rule would have damp-J ened the industry's enthusiasm and creativity and thereby set back its training effotts. It believes that, in light of the language of $ 306, it had a choice to 'en ,p-choose the better of two means to achieve the statutory goal and that it has been responsive to Congress' intentions. Accordingly, the Commission denies . i> 'c, the petition. g.g 3 ,,ie. v'

1. 8 a

y ;,- z. ":3.;,g,4 6.e ;.g. g,.. - For the Nuclear Regulatory l .,a,:,.... . >,. :.Y,.. 6 '. '.* Commission ~.. .. q 16 y e.. e.,. ,v,,....%.,.y )'..,. w...9:.... r i A. s i .4 .A, ;a .u. t.. s n a A. y . i Victor Stello, Jr. T ^ Executive Director for ,1 u .a.... ,,.,,..c. .4 ;.. y. Operations Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, v' :' c c,}, .. e g ,..,,s ,c . :, ? - this 14th day of January 1987. (,. 'l ~~ t b h i ,s.. u, ~~ cii ..h.+. ,' y.e Y *,*[ .. I.4 ',g- ,'e,. y .. lg' [ y v . r.,.., s p,3. v '..., ; ^ :;: M,. 3.e.. : .s . y. ~,, c,.. c4y - s., 7 p. p g..... .s w-. _o ~...n,

q '.'

.,. c., ..,, c.f s s, ,u.. , o r,.c .. y J.9 l h. .l*~ .+,p., 4

• q' g -g, t y... j.? h,,y

.c' -..a.... t; ,7:,,.. .,.n,.,.....w,.,...,.,.., - a. ,t .. i ..,~.,3..- .s.. ~a. .m.. .,.,..t.,. .s by[;.' y,,. 3, _') ~ D '. la '. . "<:y ' { w, ' i",/,[;. t ' ;- '..'. M;..k,t , s..h,_,,",73 h'4N.., J. 62 ....m., < c.S.. r . e,.,y 4.. a. ..,~..,,f~,-.3.".c.e*'...c. .y ,'7.~.4... lO !,'fC. %. u., E.f* '.3 .,,. d p j%4 3 1 ., a. s.n, ..: +..n,t : 3 ...a. .,% '. A.:piff. 4.)9;p,9@A,ff.* O.6$.W.clA / ; <..2 .u.s.covcansat paintrue orrscc 19e7.ts1677i60cos ; Pfd., 3fv.*v r . y ;;.: 4. f&?p,s,q,.

• ~ ; :' h y n ' g

. 1 's M... ;,* w s. & D.t..;n;*R.{t'u*,l,: h.y. ?& * (?ft1;" ' T.a~5[7 : ? ". w' .,' *.WA *W"*

.6. * )

• . c, n',5 '.7, s,, ^

'..,.a;.. '". y.,.p.. u \\..;,r l.,. ; ';?';. .e, r.

u f,

.,., m.. - t o 5 ;. q .,. y. p.:.; <.., c, v., - 4. s. ..;, 6 ~ ,r. s t. ~. a u. k. .,,/,,.'*'..,-.r., r ...'e..,,.- 1-..' ' (, (. ,V -i t S . *s lg.... 7 'e. ']. .,';(',*.* '. * *. 'p 15 s .'$ *,3 '.'..,y,* .y i /, - ,:,','.'r,3 e, i..,,.'

• I [ q.4 ',,.~ D '*'. +' ',6 1. "

, g.. 5 , r : 4.- .,5 . 4 ,,i gy*

.,s.

s 3. ;.., a.. i.' 's, y - f * ; '. " ?., d ( T '..} [ ' ',". i ^.;Il.. / %., 'A.k. j ' . y,d.5 8 * *', 3,.t. V '.'.-?. .i * ., d ['[n',,,,,'j ; C*,4 a,,*:.,, Q..:n' # '...;a. :. n 4, e -

• I.,,[ l g,IIF. % a,[:.1.W' ', i, M. '.

.,'. ".E ' / ', y c + n a. .v $R. W. g !.l ' {,,

• 'l. >*

,,. a; u. ... c, ; y 7. ;c..'9 : :,.,,.. v _..l 4 iq { '"y e,. s e.W;i.*H.:..,-r.:g.y. pl ;r:w* ;.g y,.,cgw'f*.fQQn.;,,.... c.c. 9,.;-c..,g,.c,., v' k.!;.% v' &.\\.Q u { -g.JQ C' .;a n.. .,.. '.1*r ? ': Y,. usf,';p:W,.Q*@b.k,,';,l.hal-wlllQ;?l'ma.e u. 4...'.:!wla YY

• *y Qi'j,j Q 9;' *::::slQ..

i ri y n I. -

W e

.a. d 7.&.> g e,W r. {l: Y! $q q % C, W. w ?;,e.i.'- ..)'".,.c. v,?si;y Y

y?

i..

n C !.,'*l.*$'4 :.,' v.q ;Y' p, a. c.. e fY' '$ Y 'h h'$$? . N., - -}}