Text

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for March 1987.Pages 129-266
	ML20238D497
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/31/1987
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V25-N03, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V25-N3, NUDOCS 8709110219
	Download: ML20238D497 (148)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:: .a-- .; s. 1.' w#74 / -te . -...p. c ~.' o ,.t y . x.. %,.. : x.,... s,.,. 2 .. 5..:. y. q., jv.,L m.,..

>.: .,.t;

...a.. t. u ..ys y.,*, w. u . _..s.: a a u ,.,...~ ~ a., ; m, b..,.9. +e ~ >.y .,)

s. e.

a

4. s e< ). -

s, ..,,..+,..v..,.,t -. 3,.,. v.,c a. 1 .c v. . m... ...i s i. S..- .v... .a. 4 c,.. .,1 .g .4

qv y

I. a' I ., ' 'a (,, n' a ,s

.j

. ^1 ,47 ..i w. L,c

e. w.

e .a ........ a. ... y,q... _, _. g t. .y o . g., 4 .s..t.. u.,...... ;.... ...g -n. t. .e ~ 's L' a b .,a. .k.. a 8 " ~. . a.-.."g e, e .e C NUREG-0750 ' o..... U. 4. L... .f '..'i.. Vol. 25, No. 3 cl k..~. ,..i.

1,. Q g s1

-1 Pages 129-266

3.s..;..

,r sg

. s...

,e m.

.~ s.., gs 8 9*

e. M J... _.

.a. a,,.. g. p. ' L~n,.' ' '.. N. a..

,. T.

1. a N... ^ a > ...?.9-NUCLEAR REGULATORY C COMMISSION ISSUANCES t.x O. ; '... ..W...?. .. ~., ~ March 1987 R ;.y4,g.uq..e..,.. g ;w a E.. m . -..s, ,...r,. .m.. . 3 o. -:.5.: j p J. p ..g j 8 1 4

c..

.,o

~

J', a This report includes the issuances received during the specified period ~ ' ' from the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal I Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Uconsing Boards (LBP), the t. AdminiRretive Lmv Judge (ALJ),' the Directors' Decisions (DD), arid the Denials cd Petstrons for RQemaking (DPRM). i, < n .o, s ... Q. - - {it.'. ' ".,/ --] The summarbs and heednotes preceding the opinions reported herein

}

are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen- ,' ) ',.., -;p x dont legal alonificance. p, . e,;.... .m.. ..t i .- m: up 6.: 1 h:" - a +t . ; p.,.,+ y L.. m,.. .9 s T,..c.D , 'c . r U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM' MISSION .4

.y :....,,

~= r. y.. : :..a.... t.....;. s ~. .... -- y : w i l. Prepared by the s'O e M.'.f : p 1 Division of Publications Services Office of Admittistration and Resources Management j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

y Washington, DC 20555

.'e'- (3011492-8925) r'. .g..- v .. p.,., 4 f !.c..,<,., ,..,,. + r. ...n

w

. m. s .s . g... .. z m.c.... f 4 '3 'M} B709110219 870831 H - vv.f M. . i,.. ~$ M....,. c%.:. s.:. , q w:::,.;$, y a a ~'O'!Y%e 9. m# p f m.js.m~ f;n:.i 7*e%y@f'[%,y ~,&gn.c% ,b'i'd ?.*. N h $6.pd - f? '. 6. PDR NUREC PDR .... a o tx .my.0.750 R R

m. %

w s': %..?

D/n F:.,. 1.'.#NMfD'%w.myw7;nmyMNhhMNPf*;A"$',T.d".D w 71%; . - W '. N k. Mi O C__.___._.m__ .2 ..._m. e e. ...e, m

.-.= =. n.:. m + m = y ~., ' :.WM.g9.,9.,$.ip..m.MM.%pp.gep eJ 9tc M6MNMNWhE.xw:si: MdM 0%$.. r ~. M....$h..y.m.rw$1MMM....a

n.

..a v.x. .a -.w. p ,. ~, N. y- .M.e.g. ?;Q49;y.,..e ..e@,.,: gn .. n~... a.,...~. n..

. e. a m.

./ : e a

x. +v.

..w.,i, , * ;;:.w, ~ q~,s,N ; ' ~ r. &. :2 y t. ... t.,. ". # :x.:.;,.:,., ...,,).p. .n., ' s m. . r.. . w'. ,,,.,?.,, .g u .. s ', ' . h*v../. ' ~.,.*. L. .1 Art 1. M' M' ' ' ' ~ ' = h,, ,, y , t' 'h. .e e, '. s e 6. t L 4, 3 .o o f 1 m.

x.,.

c

s s-s

+:.>., . gt .y + e .e., a,,.,< : ; w a.1 v. ....n....,..,...s.,. . r., ... ~ ' /,,.. y, ,, n. e g, P > r . +..,.~...,..6,,..., u. v. :. u,_. ,..o.....,.; m.e...f.,.. w..;

c.. i.

A. t. -i. m. c,. ,.1 . 2 W.'l;,',a:. COMMISSIONERS i

.. ;.....3

..,,e ...,. a ' 7;p r "... g'. Y,1 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman. ~ i '%l ' ' 4., ' ;. g.'.i '. ',' ;., ' 'q Thomas M. Roberts O> l . s l - ". J ' w., .j James K. Asselstine l f..' l.. Frederick M. Bernthal t' r. . N. ..1.1 Kenneth M. Carr .P.,. e. + .?. > qi s f- ,4 s ,/ t e t = I, a. p 4

f..

?* g s ..j = l. i \\.-. 's .or

',..v...

?. (

p.-

c., ,- o ,.t...,.... q .c.. a o i. . ~ . e. .1

H ::- '.*/,.

m g

.i.

e* . i.,.. ?...F,. a 1,. 9 i j;. '; ' t. / } Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Uconsing Appeal Panel u a..,., J B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel - L.. .s 9 4 re ,5,,,,,. ., ? ; ;,, ) /*. i i 4., n 1v,.,.:g g ,A. l c.,'..* s..., . c c,4, ..,:. 3.. s%,::, :3*:. <... g D...f . y ~- ..3* \\ .. o m..,3 y. ..w,f.,..... ., o .r.....

e

...*,.*,*Q l41a

J..%. 7 *.,.

c.,.?"6 ; a e.+. s.i. e

u..

, '.,.,....s. sQ '. see. a v . * *

1;"

.5,,. -en, f e -O F t+..g t'

n.y

< i, a )#. eg.,,".' s..:4 4 5.

s.,

e 3 m,a .4 . es : a,e ,... ic s .s s ,' a. j., .,i w +\\ + - ..... y.;. .H..W.,:: g*,../ '?.... .1 d p ?* >.-3.,' 4 P *';*.

s

4

Q *, l.,.,.

e - !, i.;,'. *p;.f ,-. p'.p *. -e e..,. J.:# a;.,.1A s a t.. 4 i. g ' *I

.,v?

1 j s.. 1 r ) f1 ,j 1e ' r f

e. '.

f. g ] 'T M ke . /

3

,f d .g 1 d- .T ,,4. ! t 6,. ',.. j 4' e f i .,N, a 5 j j l ^ i, e '*

..y.6; y o f' '. ". t..

] ,a.. s.4

;. i.,y, 5, 1.,.,g ',.,,'.

. s.

r

,f.- t l e.- Oh.. - !i M? 'i %)'.,

J

%J'.y .g y qI. p 8 y. C4. y-i ..~.g....-..,y,. .i.-

d. i.. $. ',

1 U. ? M ' 4. O. L 1 "

D dd.,

.....,a.' l'. I ?e,,.'." %j + 4 i 4. %..,f,6.? ?,. 9 .. '., t '.. ' N.,.,,oy %, ).../ ',. '. h' 4 ~ ':Y.*.e;'.&,.? 'f. I t l, ~ % ~.' '. * '.v .y. i.'; $ ? 4.;; l ~ 3, q d, L.. -[*e:.* 4, *e i a ~.., ..e .,.14. 1...A1

L.

L, s d $,.'"V,, iS a5 ..J . a .s. ' s. g.. J' 4 I *

=

54 r as '.,. - G 4 - 4,, 4 * +,.* ; t.- 6 . t.-.,7.f . 9.1 .,p.1 /./ y

p./ ; ;.r ' ? V.. * *i g *:. O, ',. d* ;

.,, - (*, ?, ,.,,*s 4.:* .t6 + 5 .,+ ... f

- #. g. ).)k j.. w i.

3 t + d p. ,.f ,):. p,

4..g,<

N*

f 5

..q :.f... tK. y..._$ 9 . ly. g*,.* 1

g. =92,

,,n,,*,, is. c .iva. r~a ',1.. ,.,.. s ~f,41,l'l.: /e.,. l,, / ~ < v .e .9 . s *.% r .a A . ;. s>,i ' s 4.h : yt r;,, k... ' 5,, ? m: . * *a t v we N y.c. R,k.+.

x.... #..

g.- .zy ,n-. s. ',s..L., e.a,4... ,.,.,f.\\-, s; g.. : i .c.

7.c v.

a,.,#, - m.cf,,g. A c.e w. i u .c ~,,,,,, ",,... + g,,. , e.. .g, ,;a e ________m_____

./. c 1 . c. >>a . ) f -l 9 f 5- ' k f3 ),,,

'...,,,!! L ' _:g n. fit a.

' = I ' c y: - g t i ,,;f.' t h "'h ..i s pg t c xc 'q ,n

6. ;, ; >
g c.' g. t.; >

3 _.;;, y 4 " c a

4 c

f.D ' % o... n y g;

s..

W .ps Available'from ' 4G ...y 's i "., 21 ' .n. 'Superintsrdent of. Documents ~ e .J$ j', 1U.S, Govstnment Printing Office' '. x- .x "~ y~ ' Post Office Box 37082.

y;1

~ Washington, D.C. 20G13 7082; p ' A" year's'subscriptiohconsists of 12 softbound iss'ues[Y, '[ds% ? J.. 4 indexes,'and.4 hardbound edtions for this publication ( .p. m. o ' l Single copie's of.this~p'ublication'., 5 E ~ n

are'available froni National Technical.

1 Information Service, Springfield; VA 22161 g;p il pr f.f

h

.,.. ?#. .rs v r ~ ~-, n ,a. x M m 8 Errors in this publication may be reported t'o.the ; Division'of Publications Services s Office of Administration and Resources Management ' 3.y U.S. Nuclear Flegulatory Commission, y Washington, DC 20555. g (30:1/492-8925)! e;g B ...g.q ?.fi n, y, I.' ' - FTE- ' y'~

l,t <.ll.}ll: .}d

<n + .w 9 i s. 1 y d,

4 l a 2 3, m, r-m. - c., c 'Q q

y n..f,.t [:.'. y '

c.~.$ h,, h,: O $,.h.7. h ...F 4 i ~ i u 4 s E.. m.>... & . s.., 1, m n. s s o .. w, o g ', e,...... ,3.. .t j\\.,If ~; F. C u.,.- s,

y.

s ,c.,. 3, ' e. 4 r

s..q s.

....;r. p 1

n....

t. 9

y.,

m..g ~... 4 1 , m,,, i ,(., i .,s, i ~ 4; - i ? CONTENTS .s a.

e q

..c { Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board .'. <;c,!. -,/,. ' + r '. 3.

.,.,.i 9,,>,,.TT, i l,

," N. i J 3 LONO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY j Docket No. 50 322-OL 5 (EP Exercise) I. ~ (i' ' j i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1) .f "., r j !p g, . f, *,., MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-861, March 2,1987...... 129 t v .' ?. s.; g. ) ??353 C.. A '3...,. - PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et d. ..

1

.a.. .ay ..,.,? r.' (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) p. T,. T 4. 6 'I 3 Docket Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning) i :. 4.. v- '.

r.

9 DECISION, ALAB-862, March 30,1987...................... 144 s t ...' e ,-..) 2 i.'l i 1ssuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards f :. c.yw ,u l A.. . ; o;< s 1 .l MICHAEL F. DIMUN, M.D. ., : M" q, 4 5 (Byproduct Materials License No. 37-13604-02) Docket No. 30-19378-ML (ASLBP No. 87-548-01-SC) '4.' i MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-87-9, March 10,1987..,... 175 j, { 'a s. t { PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et d. '..

C 1

i (Seabrook Station. Unit.; I and 2) 1., ] Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 1, 50 444-OL-1 (ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL) (Onsite Emergency Planning and Safety issues) PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-8710, March 25,1987 177 .\\ p* 1 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION r*'. s .,',f, .g (Sequoyah UF to UF Pacility)

/

L,,

1 6 4 i Docket No. 40 3027-MLA (ASLBP No. 85 513-03 ML) ' 2. I' i DECISION, L11P-87-8, March 4,1987......................... 153 'd.N ' i . g., r .? ? 9 4 Issuance of the Administrative Law Judge J.' f o.,,... 7*" , P, ?! HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER t ~ (One Hurley Pisza, Flint, Michigan) '., i. '

e. '. ?,

-,' ' y 't i 3 Docket Nos. 30 01993,70-13% (License Nos. 21-00338-02, SNM 1393) M/.,^t , ff ?. V ;* l '.. 1 .,.'l (EA 85-89) ,..' ' V..!. '. ' 7, INITIAL DECISIO.4, ALT 87-2, March 3,1987................... 219 ' i

q/

,.c . "j .s 'x. W ". - -s , :s 4 ' : /'. .a ' ' . 1 i iii ..,s 2 si. t g. t .? j .o s .s. ,c ..,,,s,, a A, i ee ~ .s ,,q ),.

l'

%A. E.,, r,. '..- gg .. 4,' W,.7. Q 7 'a

a.. p. '.' t,,

8 u qcc., r

[ $,.

1 N [.,,., p. ,,.

S'. -

.y.r.. 'A. s,4,. l g - 4,,. m 7,;;,. a' a. . ~- .. <..o, ;. 1 j ** [,.. b b'" f[, {x~.,.,.~%, {&,*...,^fp."'fR*)v,*&:.Sw,%....,,;+g;p,,'. 8

i. y,y(,g.j*}'% y,-5 %;fy %a,:,

n. ,,,,;, ;,,.; j,l,,,,,7

n,,.,

n.-. if ,c ,, j; .y.- ... a. 5. 'y , n.y j'.,. ; V;.;j.y:QyQ,,,ky 3; %,. p. J w 1. .vM.M ',p. o..: ..,, a. .a ~

q...

fWW

& ah [,........ -....- -.. m.._.._.',;.:lc. M !. g Ath;4:d g - y g; g g @u::.:h@.)

1.,4f".G'.,

3-;.,,h.hMh;gW.:f l,QQ.. 'M ~ 2.;.

7:.,

. u.,:-

,3. V.;

N'h. M k.'h h k Z/ N k h >5 h ;h N h @g - hh @s, M$ $]ty'....,. T -$ W T, M W W M. f :,: 4 a s..g#" ' y. s f4,. ;, + +.,. d._ " 9. y &wg;;n v.g .g p ..., w t.;... . s y o.. y. :~ x p. v e, v. . j 4 ' M ' 'YI R E-.e, ', a AMEQi N;p.r', 4. s.,' q, '.s,. y-

-s,.r I;.M; f..l'

. iN.s r-yMj ,f .., y

~

(,. ' ;, j.,,.q j 1' ,.; e ., t ,, s.: ', s. L.3 s y,., J* x. ' r. ' O.E,., Issuances of Directors' Decision k8 ,i. . sh* s, BABCOCK & WILCOX f,l

p. T, ' c ? :h*%.j

,'~ '+ M.:. a (Parks Township, Pennsylvania heility) 7.< t',. ,s.,g.,.'. W.. o Docket No. 70-364

U

4. v,f.,

I 4 s s [N ., ~ f Q-DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, o";cfy %,.. ' y. DD-87 5, March 13,1987..,.............................. 260 .'.,,3..[Q.[v.(, l.... ~,, e .s, - ~ - '.,2 'd.4'. '..H. i ;.i OENERAL PUBLIC U'ITLITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION s ~ ... J*o ... & ( i' (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) - Fj .J,I Docket Nos. 50-289,50 320 J1 '

c 3."..,.,.,9 + *.

.. n.y, ' DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.' 0 2.206, i T.., Q,. *. d i / w.. DD-87 3, March 6,1987 .................................245 5 'A*.' i _ q,. o l ". ' @......' !.PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at 9 ] (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ~~ '1 - i' y)@. Docket No. 50-344 - I 'i 'i C ". P D' RECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, F DD-O 4, March 5,1987 ................................. 253 i 1 4 e.i a.r: y 1 o i r..- ..i p i . 3 l i j 8 M.7". , e.,.- n

n. 4 n.-

\\< c ;e..t .j I g..r 4 4 t t'- 1 ,1.y%..c.

s. f..-

N.M. i J g g S e...f. .g n.... w. ...... ', i .) + e 1 g.,*,===., l i ,'.4 l ',J ' W 'eg y.u-r "y ec *,. f. l,, le %: f.,3,,. -F

.g -

l.. ] 'A. 4 *.1. 2 *. 1 + -v I cv w.w. ~8

i.#.
) ; '. eF*Jy *",.e*y -

) 4 6; . ta g.' I i ' ', ' ' * ~,.j ' E * ' * /e .c

,' (

8 ',.O h (* , }- j ie.

V 5

. [ e 'o.or,a e0., ***:., 4 Q. -, l,1 ., -. j j ' e,'.'. .f., A w , i . g. g.,**.., f ; - a ....c -,p.- i, s ,,.J ' '. 3 i ".. ?,. 7,,, e. 3'.,.,.. i

$ v. 3.4 ., J.

} ..,/ *

f' er e

s _g. = i j iY

4. '

P, * .t.I

j 8

s , s j -3 -,5 'f. i. I. g s. e ..I s a ic g,', <. : :,4

h

. 'p:. *,. } i b ' %..L _sr .< -1 l .y.,",.. s ~t ~ e <. .i ' M l'f! g. j s a... '. I "[,. - e . jj - ,.-* ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 7 ~-- r ' *.

r. * ~*. -- ~r :~: '

,7* v.~L 1,1*. '"* vtw < * '.** * ~~ ^ ^ ~F' '* R.*.,"*M ^* l'

3 Le..' k.

a -N. a J e. . e , r.:. s, ~ . b N. a.(* !,,E..,*.,. ...t p'

1..,*S k,

y s- ,h, -,'.,'t(, [# N' /t \\

4..'.- b. ? ' $. ;,

?

. ',,. 1,, - d [,',,, [,. 5 m .i

g( er, s

e . us:.. l'**., .,,,.... c. ....g 4 7. 6,., t ! e d "d..k< [f * ' O ' 4 %. - . Q )' 4. ' / * "4 .C a s-y 4 f '"e 3 N ' *, I' Q*k. " 5 h [,. ', h. f 5 sj OY , e, e}.$ ....".. v

e,. ;.g

...., e... m.s., - .* g't l > fgg t i.,. s, w *w' 2. L,, y.p.. ~e '.'8

g... m.

' h/e

M*,s ! 'f.P \\v. ' ey,, ;3..

y4d J-y '.,$..d.'

f

,'..a . ', N N f h*, **' 4 ' )4,,,,

)

. M. 'xM.. * \\ b. r [ i' - _ b" d I. 4 j % -]'.- m . h,,.m." -. i ' I' > ,.b ' ?.f ~ ~ " ^ g,r ii> 3,,..to e - %,e pw - .-r. .e m 3 ) L_ --u_. ---m-

.,,n,.. ~ + ' ' 1 O.

i,,,'kf'l.0i,.q-[W.w.h,. c

q[M h-[ 7'E:, M "g 7>,U [ ~ 1", l .t Q 4 s g,. <. . x,,.;... i. o t.,.. .:. y % c,.

y

n. ; c

.t,, t,..%Q ;,.,.,. y',

,- e, e..

-- + .,-9 .(. .r,,. ,.-t >r, A c., ' c,. ;,. s,. .. t t. ,. ~,. . r..

m..-

n. +.: u . y. ~ ~ .,g . ~... s.f ..g m.1 j. .h c r.4 S e. N . l g ?. :. 4.. C. ~ .r. ' J, 4 ,W 9, c..,.~.... R @.. ; Atomic Safety and-

4. -

4 y s.:.we$ o.Cw. L.icensing Appeal W.O. M. 8. ?.. m, Boards issuances .. n. w. .:. g. .x* e . e s.,, 2 ATOM:C SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL .,.J * .3- .s .,...~s ?- " l ...,s '.. i.' '. < '.,-,i,..,',.>g...,. i.' Asen 5.Wenthet, Cfinirmiri i Dr. W. Re' a Jotrimon e ,4..- Thomme 5. Moore c ~ ', ~ Christine N. Kote s Ggy,j, b ? ** 5 Howard A. WDber E 4 e gg a f s', 6 e s J a j e J 0 5 0 = n a e g

2...

e'

g*

i

4 ;j

.A.. .J t = ,t r, t .a, 4 ,N, ,ee i,.5,- af89., e e.

.."* a e

s. . j' . * ~ ,s s .. e .. j.. .s e

a-s,

",e .. ". - %. g.. p' r ,e j*..e ' * * ' j'd7,,*, .'[f'..i".

^

4, + 4 1,. . ;,., - ;, ",,. =. 1 - c..*,,..

,'s

... ;. - l. ~ :. ' ~ ?- ~.. ' e a ?. = a 4 e e v w.. qs .h a e e e i 4 4 ,. c. e r ? + / I ff a 8 g ."4 g .I. 3 9-88

O

't '1p- , g +.f g .'*.s.,[ e, - <,_

r..

b f y y > ( 4 .s s O ,'y 6, e 4 ,.4 [ ..?. a, 4,<,g., ' t4, e. L. a -:~,.u ~, t.... o.: c..... ,- {.... +. v *y a s,.- w,.,n..~.,.,.

4 g'i e

,fg****... j h,4.kk,;i,, e' %,;M.*., 9 b,'sN -d.

k; k

., ~, < .1, l.,,'.,g 3g [. '.,

v.,

.3 arr -e,

, P. -s. J.,..,a.4 #, '. 9, g '. y, # e 4,

.,e,-Q.,=p_.'. e., ,e., . N, b*k,Th'g,h *)g.' a}',d,ye,. .,.,.eL., - (,3,.J. ' ..14 [-. -* h, - ( s. .s e.. i, t...- b j,,,,*h.. N 4 2 h'g2 l#,.) { t;2

Y ', l,"/.,

k e,m.q,:j. 7,,,,s. m :.,.c g.,,...n.,.~.;:.. .v s,r.. sm ~

w.

..+- 7 .;f.y-r:.y. . 4.e u. , ~. y,..;y,. p ~

~...

.y. 'T'~Y-.,%. ': r.*Mi; ' ' 'W;r,',C,.%

. a.w.p DM / ' ' q _ q,...Vi','a,-,,; i < *.s %. .rd* .t.b s .,,. $%1. fs;. '..*1 ;.:t,,.Q,M a. .M_, j.4 i,,.ix 'g:.Np*.M A_..e .,,,G,Jj,;, ..= fw % v,.. g &b. 5, $Y ~p$f, if. ll[ '{f. hl k $ fh fh l f ,0 .hQ ' ' W,,l,.,,.xv; h}y,,g.**pf,; &, g &gf y q, g 5{- ,','? ''.Q }' j.C &. f,g"[ }e.p$'*.f 5 Y W

y: g rMy g4 4., O g,..&.~;,Y',%

.h-MW *1 %,.}e[ " c =;y 1 j,

rg,;.,,,

f27 y,

~

p ,e g % pe'y, o...;}. :.,,.'.Q, [',G, } }j))y;;f Qh :yQ% y (; ',' % Q } j,,;Q, r .m A. ' Q f., ~ . n,,

w;.

yoy

n..

../

.v( -,

's

N. ' '

g', ').; y, 9 .3. P,,. - j .C, u~ ,,,.?.f . - -....e.'. ,..,t,. .t d a 4 . e. .+- ~.t #

g....

e 3y 4. r, Q.9. , a,. w, i g g.a ', s ,.~ t.,,. ,? -.a~.. e - 29 .f e, t .,*x ~ '... t.j - ,l. g', e ,a t t g. . 4 ',4 ,s..* ..;., Q;p. ~ .: f . ?. r...i, .;..,x y,- > yl ? ,,. a., ,4r./+ ,n. ,,

oy

, 3 '5. =, ,s .a. u ~ s, .V s. ; , ' =,

s.,

? ?. se +g -'4,.,. ., #9 4 .,i -.. =.. e. 3, +,.. .s. -) s.,.r,,,f,**.. i v.. ,i .o s,, '.",, , 7 i '8.. 3 .V l 3 Jt. -.,.,4.,g..,,.. ,/e. 1 v-o, i j,- .'1 .y ; a..,,,.,;* r, .. ~., e \\ i i. 1. s e t l - p.u. t lit?. *

,1

'j d - (. .o

1 j

,s' ', j [ *., ! < _j ' !.O. s l s, ~s + ,r .s. e g e -1 ,p 3. 1 ,I -g r j arJ. ,+ ~ h..y f, J /**; /* ' k. < * . l

f.

= '.; g.a . s %

- n r

s. I . s. e 3 t.. ...I i i %.(. e .p a g I

e
E' a

..e.. ?. y , ~ ,4. : . f,m ,.j. .,+:.j .i = = 8 ?, %.,.;,s.,..'.*. ,.4,- 4 i '~ e = ~. ~j .g=*..., t.

i, Y. e l.,,. 4....-s.,

-t.',,,

4 l

m ,g: i,* l < $, e"g. 1 C 't. ".I

, ? ;.' ' ;,.,,. ' '., e,,.

'y e,..

1 3

t. s... n* m = w e. 4' s; .e ),.,_ s s;- e e e. ..e ..qr e .g.,-

h*..

'y',O e, y, ^,, s * ~ c.;. 2 '- .i. '..+ .s .l*L .,, * - *j,.e,,,- u ~ . c... .. ot 3 ? s l e p- -o,* g,' ?. n3;, w q.. l, r I 1,- ' t, S. t. e c. k k Y.'. ,5 i 0 4 s l .\\

p;..

,, -. h b - ~ - : :, ~ e l ,hA o, e s i. e r,. l

l

,e t l 3-A f. -- 7,;- n. : tr.g.~ 7- ~y. w-wr . -.g e -. ;-.

s. r. -

-.r. ? p J.

n. - -. c.- s

a..

2 g., s r. 9 i ,,1' <3,..., ~ u .w-

p...s

.S.. .,.i. e.sia. . q. r . - i 1 r. ., <,.4'tj s..,,m ..,s,' i .,9,* w., a- "?> ,. y; - 6.n, L'** = ,..*'9'- / v. .v'- "..9,...T-6 l,.. y..CA....e f _.h;*1, u,'. t u- .M *,t.', ;.t - f,<.,,.a 4 )p q ts,A A..s,,y t ', .s,.-,.,Q,..,e ;?... f,}.

t..

4, s',ja . Ti, 9..., ), p..i * 'V *, l ?.: '"

g.

e

r.. 9...

. 4. ' % .,,,s x' 5, s. a,.. + s 1 r ~- o s .re ,. e q;., p. .; J ...t' ,s .q: o n,- a.; s .e g ig,.. uy - ,4, a j .'i,. Q ;, j "{ ,A / %, ', <e',' . 8[ s ? g.. , y. g,,i,. e < i --.a--_

m." k.1 ; ' qL v' ..~h, jW k p;.'$.+fj.$., '. <j'G i, [Y. s. e ..p ;,,h @ ,b,;N ' - d. 4,, * ..:,,c . m 4. L.. ..p ,v. ; ..y ..y .v

,,,_ (,

. m *.

9: .

,y ye 3 y' w..,-O,,g

. Y. '.

?.'.. ' ' J7 y

a, e

y% ,,, a. g..j, y, g 4 s..r-y, ( n t. ?, 'y h. ......'.4.e.. u 4 .e ..4... o ^.- +. .,"p.. g o s .. i .s.

g..m

.l4 . ; g: w,d. W <e (>.;: 4 8 ..e x. 3...m.t r ,,.e.,.- t, g +,

j..j,.

s.) c

f-a o.'.

g*** ",s ,. w 4.. i .. s,- c/ c,a - ., yJ +' 9 i Cite as 25 NRC 129 (1987) ALAB.861 ,i ; '. .f R-y :):-fi. . ej..q..'.' y

w.

y.*_., h *. 1. ' 9..V.:;"*; " '. e...i: r W.S et ,,,s L b p o#j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I.,,.. {,.f, r a.'T.g. L

....' g;*,/$(f:.j{f

{% y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (:.; e y m. K.y n %. w..,.t,',... w..,,. g 2...: y .,.J.sq',c_f - ss.. w*;. .c o e ~n .z. .a 9.7/y;E, ., y.... '< %.. ?.: e.,e; p~.... i : m.. ; n.kp..;- ..,1* a.*,)n"N'9:: *n'f y l. -w .e j' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD'

n..

.s a b a.. -w e .1,- ,= d., ':;vl.'Q

n y

V-j. m.Q. ;,....a ~,y';rl;.t'g... e. ,c ., a. Administrative Judges: p:5%: e,"; ;Q:: :, "i

f.... s y

'~; %. %.. %;i.::*.y 9:: ~. V ,.'.: 4.,%, : '. ' ),. ' i.,.... ... c:. n w. g f ;... r,1, L. .- y O. 4 -~ Alan S. Rosenti al, Chairman ... -,.. c. Gary J. Edles ..i.Q;.';.~.;.y.,.,m.O. . w-

3 b

C ? W/ Q' Howerd A.WUber e :, ".,,. s~V.... .,,.t.:.s.ry. e . - t.. o.. -. ~ ..:...,; < s.

* '.'.74 j.fg. ?g

~ y.,,^.... ; e ll. *, }'p.

l' w:"

in the Matter of Docket No. 50 322-OL S ,. J '. h73.',, y *,.., - e,,..h.".%~ peg 'l

f '., w (EP Exercise) 4 n.

.. ?.., s.... :.. -' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING k*

.+

/[f.Jv:f.. ^f ';,f0", COMPANY

*:. " ;. M.1.(d (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

March 2,1987 [,' 1,.. .a [.',.. .a .,t.M..

.h. '

] s. i .,; 9.,

7. ;. ' 'g..

y 'Ihe Appeal Board denies a regt'.est by the Federal Emergency Management i ... ' A J,i Agency (FEMA), a non. party to this operating license proceeding, for interloco- - + ~. V Ti.. ',.' ' '? tory review of portions of a Licerising Board order admitting for litigation two j ;. i i; [' p.,.i '. "f a; emergency response plan for the Shoreham facility. l v, g,1 contentions challenging the adequacy of a completed exercise of the applicant's ~ . W N '.t.9 ..... ';,... ?. t,. y n, n,m.s :... ~. .,-. na. -. . r_.. ~:.,. y .fe - 'i :.,, s .n ... 3 W.,.:w,,... 4. ",.. W '. ,L3 RULES OF PRACTICE: NO. N-PARTY PARTICIPATION f .J,- ...,,e

s. ',n e

n.. <.*

.. l'yt t.J.7*- v. p - l h ~.(.Q,' ' M g,"g.l.'f' f,y,. % .c E,. fV It is well-settled that a non-party has the right to take an immediate appeal _ f .Q: y from an order granting discovery again:t it. This is attHhntable to the fact that.

i..;g.

1 "3 rr,;k f.. ',M,,'M f with regard to a non-party, such an order has the requisite degate of finality (.*.. M, i.7,G..li.['.[.(.1ju;".'.y.f'yR2 i: a (i.e., is trot deemed interlocutory). See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station. pelmc j.;. ~ {c;+.. Units 1 and 2), ALAB.116,6 AEC 258 (1973). c, A>.n ..... n. )...e.....y.. w.;...g ,..; > w:. < :..., ~ w<

y. m, y,, ~...e-

. g,,..g 4. . M,.,;..,'.4,i: f;; *; ] /r -4 s. '. 4., ' ,,, j I. 9l *..: r Q. 1h ',,,o'~ l**,'.,.,.,,. '., d -lq, f,. '. n g t a... l, ~t,., o g g t +

h. ',.

e. ..,j 3* I-5 .9 tr-. %, p' lp. '+ .; y. "i*3 4 p 3; q 119 + .t.g.,W..., f#. s ,t p.., t s 4;. w 9;y ;... .Q r . "*" %.dj.,; i .4.. ,;W s. s u4. e.m e .,,,.6... .9 4; g j. t e, ! h. [ j} $.*,h

i 1

y .j 'J ; ' j' ,t g.'.

y, ".'. ' ?,1 '

T ), 'l.g. ( 'l i' ,", d *" '8 ^t> p:. :.!.'." %* * .,f' .,,u f A ;;;.. .q.. ~ h}j s ] 6 ).b,. 1 ~

y. %g '.c9

.- A k;: .QF, k ~ ?. .ww

e. y.S l M;M y:.n.y.,:'s; gb.. n y), 3..:,a :y

.X.;j9.":.. e.r i

l ?, q : n'LW9ly >; ~ :.. , e,...r.d : %.p. p: w:: %Ww*f,.t.. Qv. x.. . pr* ml y;; }.-j:Q, g; a-}c v. 0,. ,k u s. q m. l ;dy, :.~ % l* - :.a;.,.. - -....a.

b. qS ;,.,s. '

?;mz9. 3.q

__--.-_m

.... =. .= w z.-m-:,.=. m w..=-z :-w..= =R ;--- I n. y %%;,.. ;)).,"p,T k.g q.~Ihed,.k.dM, ;c,/.'yQQ.{.h,qe: a \\["kf*('t. hM.MMf T.' 'E4:7.h . Q...,.. '*:. '.r. y ,4L,; v;, n.,g,y,..;., :.m. v. f:; >..s 9,

g;egy.

a w,.; ;.. ;. e J .s ,, a n ~7 ~,..s. sq :, s, ~.. a. . g.. -3

. n'. "..i..

, v. 3:. p > y. ]. y. a q.. un ,; o a ' ;.~.:l.. '.r,. r,. f;. s. e ~'q..

.+.: u. L..e >.ma d e-a

, 'a" .n -" ,A s. *- ' s 2 a .j .. a.. q v u.. w.-

s

,.w., .I,' ,. k.# y o ,.c, ~s e.....x a^ a'.., +e,,$ ,1 , a, e 1 RULES OF PRACTICE: NON. PARTY PARTICIPATION /s ! e .i 3l *... 7l >~ N 'p.... M., gi d'.E.: d: f ; f, Y.: ".i/lj Some non-paroes to NRC licensing proceedings - i.e., states and other i;. .a .? W/..T.9/ y;. 5..D.L ' gm m.e.i.1 bodies participating in the pia;&g by virtue of 10 C.F.R. .,.y $ l.,j.g'ip/ y.,.g vjid J,l 2.715(c) - possess broad appellate rights. FEMA's role, however, in NRC f'

e. :

N '.q,Q '2 t~6 praeaamaa is sui generis. Whether it is entitled to the same appellate rights , '. i. 2dihj,, j,l i'.??d 4 y. . i! 1 y, @TJ.c as enjoyed by State and local gvm-- invoking sec. ion 2.715(c) is thus an .?,Z / %, l',@ dA ','X '. T open and difficult question. i ... w, .a ,s

s ;.,.'. ?A.*
u

.. N%. 4 } f5%;..,.'"l*.( .s b', - .,., r.;;m,3,. 7,.m.9)a;;U x RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS .3 c.p N,.l, ;.c.s,[y v@ ..'. ? The general policy of the Commission does not favor the singling out of ] _ n....c an issue for appellate examinauon during the continued pendency of the trial .,1 k. 1;

9 q-pmceedmg in widch that issue came to the fare. Public Service Co. of New

.y c'j ? y L, Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 271,'1 NRC 478, 483 t f.., '.. j..' i P.. /. (1975). l, .2 +

3. *..

4 r 'i' N* (.'. RULES OF PRACTICE: DIRECTED CERTIFICATION ] ~ .I ~ ,l Drected certification will be granted by an Appeal Board only where the 3.' '5 ruling below either: (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it with ~ ~ >j immediate and serious im.y c.i,le impact which, as a practical matter, could not . c.. a i. be alleviated by later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding R,. d:: 'i ".1 M in a pervasive or unusual manner. Public Service Co. ofIndtana (Marble Hill u3 d. f - Nuclear Oenerating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190,1192 ,. ?. ... i '. + , ;:s ".x (1977) .2 a m <, y. 9. : S A. ;.,.., & R...jk..s.; -j.. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS .n s. ..y. [ l , /,. .; r., 'i.4 p'7 N ~' ~.' The basic structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply because ,~ . p,.p. ", , y..;.f., the admission of a contenuon results from a licensing board ruling that is ', s 7.#.

.f*S..S,.

4 is.pe.w.i or novel, or may conSict with case law, policy or Commission /' f '<,"- ),j,: h. I rW= hat Met-opolitan Edison Co. ('1hree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit .J :,M, '.5, ip,.5 /?. 9..:' f,7i. M, I ', d c .,~ y l 1), ALAB 791, 20 NRC 1579,1583 (1984); Cleveland Electric Illuminating h,....h; J ..lf'f p /, G. C..h.$;% Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105, , [)

e. A.W X..:.

1112 13 (1982). Similarly, the mere fact that additional issues must be litigated ..p. s

?. ,i. S f,M.y,f, j.d'tg{ge. -.[D)pM>W*h@c.Y..@%gO v

s.i a.~ : v .: 4. '. does not alter the basic structure of the pmceedmg in a pervasive or unusual /... way so as tojustify interlocutory review of a licensing board decision. Arizona ' /,';., / 5d'fr.y9 Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Oenerating Station, Units 2 and 3), %J.M',.J ,kN.ii,3 3fh ;/

/ d.,,, Tr?

'.J.; ALAB 742,18 NRC 380,384 (1983); Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North

fl 1, M,7 ; g,z.- ),. :<..i, pp "s7;.Jp

.c, Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371,378 (1983).

7

. c. ,4 a, - e ,A,..' ,./ 5 ...u, =, 8 l... l 7.- a { .," Y; ( 's s-M. 1 130 , " J :.\\. 1

g

.y 3

t.: p.

se 4 , , N '1 l g*-.. 't. *. .*y

a. t,..

.? } j '/.! k b* *, t w] a ,(,. [-[p.9,, > ;l 4:..,,. }k-T.- 'il 3 -f; 4.' f.7,7* "/ h, '.,?C sTr". '" "'9 a p - 4. p :<, 'i* t*0 > _ y. a y t., t'- "'***4 , - V" ".y" *.s,;. ] 5 - i.e., .g lA ; 7.,,, 9; ;s j,: , 31.. 6;ac t %. W.l,i Y:'U.,, ?,Y...- ,.w n r.e ,,. ;.. if.. s,t 1*/. .r.. q, ..,- A. > 4 Q;. ' ; -, - 'y.a,~,,,,. *3 3; *W, % ; or ., ;.,. m Y[, h, .c 'I, LY' ?' z.e v, a.3. ......:-- cy, .. N X W,. "h ',Y' ':.,.':?:.$s'. ;*V QPyW,,bh (.ylm ' ?D', l h' l':. i "Y * ' Cff% - i;r $f d

y ,v.-- j + " ~

h..,- r.$j. "

g4 'b.k-.Q.f.,.Mt/ Iq [ I.h>.. ;f - ,,k" :4-r y.,. - ~.e .h,. ^ - + .., M.[n T, SQ.f. 'y. f.. I -t4 .' 3 s .I ' m,7, w.m l..y 1. m.a... g, rw..- 2 p.y

.e p. -: ;;,

- l . ' q $, m. 9. g...g , y.7.o'. <

p. >.;. %.-,., _

c , ;.A. g y.y A. y,,4, .- 4.q,1

p, e

%..;.'7: 4 y, ..c .. ~. n .. ~ . s

3.. :.

.o"C. =:..w u.: .; : a. 1, ~ .y M]n.;,. 3.s +

i. i s :,%' o.M. e,

N; d' y-w .,;,3 ' e j (,, e 3.. g. v..ga.r. a.,.,, a.,. ...'s. f.C ,*,."'t. 1 1 c ,. j(, w J RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL , 5 v. qA.., , l; y 'Ihe single exception to the general proscription against inteixutory appeals p:+Kpf{m ^f y B' T)J U? is prtwided by 10 C.F.R. 2.714a. Under that sectioc.,4 pvrty may appeal from c / p,ygg,pju.;,py'?g, ;j v.r.y.:f..;+ ""s the acceptance or rejection of contention (s) at tM threshold if, but only if, j,gfff.O, y. such acceptance or rejection controlled the Licensing 3%rds d.isposition of the y d ,,y ggg zd ;Q.,b,g,; p C 2lp.$. @[. petition for intervention advancing the contention (s).10 Q.R. 2,714a.. r? p,g 'j,g,g y.G.'.*i;- M : %

h..;

+' + - ,.q.o g ~.y -e.. w, s >- m.~ -- --.c..,. m.:.,+. .e 2.w v 4, ; n [,n,.(. '[.5,b, ,f [. g.7y[' . s. >. y. j. RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL jj C

r.,;,.QJ.,$...p,s.1'..'. j '.,...;; '

. M.. (IRREPARABLE INJURY) 4 ay - 3 f w{- ;g. !,'.g.7,Q,;;,*. ;;,7 3,,g... i-p,x The concept of irreparable injury as developed by the courts contempaw that the injtny must be both certain and great, and must be actual and not '} p,g'jpg g;. t , },,,,,1

.q

: p9:. q.X;,,,;.-g,

.,, f. G theactical. Washington Metropolitan hea Trandt Comm'a v. Holiday Tours, u V d.P @..., 'f"'.O. z * ?. ""[. I Inc.,559 F.2d 841,843 n.3 (D.C. Cir.1977)1 i t I.y. t n. - .-.r;.. t.,3 f. ;,.,..p. v.a....sn ,m .i ,.e , W,. d.s :.y,. 5. F.

y :'f TF. ','.+.i RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERLOCUTORY APPhtL

[ a- ~ (IRREPARABLE INJURY) . tllg,s.f.iC.*Q ;.,,,. -., t. s. ,. s T l,,jS,,, f,., y' 3 c'., r, .., 4 j,,,. ,.;, ,,,l, Mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not

l. *-

constitute irreparable injury. Metropolitan Edison Co. (7h.te Mile Island Nu-y. clear Station, Unit 1). CLI.8417,20 NRC 801, 804 (1984), quodng Consumers V? d:. y },'A.Y. % V '.'. ' 1 '~' Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-395,5 NRC 772,779 (1977), f;. L. quoting Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft,415 U.S.1,24 (1974). 3 3 [., n y.;., s p. <. :.,. APPEARANCES i ... A, ~ ,f er;.. s + [ William R. Cumming, Washington, D.C., for ttw Tederal Eir% j Manage <

j. ;,, ', ',

{j.,, yjQ. ment Agency. c. ,f .s. h..;h [{., I 5.y. h Donald P. Irwin, Richmond, Virgink R.c the applicant Long Island Lightmg y.;.. % c Company. e t T ,.s e [Q,{l gf.i;. (.3 : ' M ') Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C. (with whom Martin Bradley Arit.m, U. Hauppauge, New York, Herbert fj. Brown and Lawrence Coe)m-pher, Washington, D.C., Fabian G. Palomino, Albany, New York, and ' y:y.g 7 >,. ,H Stephen B. Latham, Rivernead, New Yrsk, were on the brief) for the ,g.y; q.. l-e... ) , 'J,$. g... (.; c-a w 1 interveners Suffolk County, New York, et al. g -U,.;, d .T w b.f; y ',~, m.j*1 N.t..A..,;>.,f.. - .M h... v> 1 3g Q ,j Edwin J. Reis (Mary E. Wagner on the brief) An the 1% clear Regulatory < 3lA.y <w.M. P..,.s~. g M+u. Commission staff. r o 1 . ~,m. <lmlh se4 a

..c g,dk 3:

6.;..-

... a. '.s,,J ?.. ~ ' r,.. ,a. .~ sf.x. 4 -

,n, 131

'.s.,.Q' - ' ~ g, ty,'* %e ~ i 1 V,# s,A f.., t r. ll &...,lyat(. 2* j' [. ',. V

4..

~y g

1~

.1 %.J f;*s4:.6 :,7 Q ~

g L v, t

m. ,rf.- g... e.7 < $,aq* r.. +d- %..(v... .g j.,7,.. p 4 1 ,4 f a: #c,.,, = ) s..- {* )

f.. '

O b..

}+. ,,; l y,y g,. ' Nl^i ( A~ g - %1 &,i . y s &,n6.v$g.l$y n');s%. %e,

4. +Q. n..; p,; :(

Q

,'y. 4

.N* ;d s.&g; fe', w a. w ,.. s

~

i ::. s ' p 99 y x y.' r.w. n.gyg:[;a i a

t. m p w

y v..,. wgy...w,. c y x. m. g p. y xy~ghQ gRO:;y,.. p m.7 2.ph',;4.y.p?it.4:m.-a- ; :,g.y? n .L ~.cr n-: e,r.. ~.v!~ f,,c s .,x.7) L m _.,. ~ o _ _. _ _ _ _.mm__-.__....._1.d._.m., D. __.m

~.,..,, ~. -. .a.. p. o. .-...... _- ~. aw _ _... g,.. n~

..- 3 a,. -

N:~.EWee m,rMcWmM . [(W'f'..".G..f..fl}M -l.., r.Q ?WfQ,g*l'~'k,g }w,>: h M(n M W % - n.,.

[

?- u, t 3 %,j. c.e,- r 3 - r . C#- ' " " ".. ' ~ - - *" -*- 'g.p*' d,, s.,.' ' 'g "

y,.,, u,.. :

~., ..g. pm .t.- - 9 p "--"*'""~c. ',4 .3 s. -'A,*. 51 * *, .. ; ' Y.,i, o. w.,,, O@ J ( y ' g, a ". f/ 'M 7 ,'%g., s., a e ,t ,. ; t... f. * ,, a. e y, ll. p,y',,g, f '.j* . ): A y.... l g< *..,. yra.. %., a r,. ~r,, . yJ5 g : q?,C,..~t;. l: . s MEMORANDUM AND ORDER C.: g "*j @K M)(,a,? r. w. o 9.2 w ;. 4 .x

c... #.~...

e.,,

u. o .,s. ~ r.js ?, p.,[k: @.'*g 1W{../.;,5 $ Before us is the petidon of the Federal Emergency. Management Agency

f yJ
,3.Q,.p.*j (FEMA) for leave to appeal from pornons of the T wnsing Board's December'

'E g,..M A. NN'M;d W.:.ff,' 5.QdOq 11, 1986 memorandum and order in the emergency planrung exercise phase - M

$jIjJ l2iMQ'h of this operaung license proceeding involving the Shoreham elaar facility.'

[~ 1 1 i v Q@.A~@D@O.N,.$.NN)M<N$[1 A. .: Q 3.M Spam.ny, FEMA seeks interlocutory review of the seaf6rmation in that order N MM of the Board's prior acceptance for litigation of Contentions Ex 15 and 16, which .[ j p@l, % $% y{;;,.fr3,[$p$i E.?Oi. M $ 5 M $.N. had been advanced by interveners.,Suffolk County, New York, et al*, y'[ (;. .y. y In essence, these contentions assert that the February 13, 1986 f Q.,. M concerned with the emergency response plan of the appijcant Long Island. 'r .fl% ?'!j "'Y; '% y.F,,,.,e.; y .i V P,.j Lighting Company (LILCO)."could not and did not yield valid or meaningful U 4' h ' ' 1 ~.,; > ,, %;( f ' J q results" re@Eiing LILCO's ability to implement that plan.8 According to the ~ y y - r', i b f,. b " IA FA contenuons, the exercise "did not include demonstranons' or evaluations" of.

j

'f '. 3,T, y c.f.7,] ;, !., ' i W either " major poruons". of the plan cr the " emergency response capabilities /W 3., y of many persons and entities relied upon to implement" the plan." As a o d. y # [g.33M ', ! consequence, the contentions aver, the exercise results did not provide a basis-s. 3, t M ;, 3. } c, g' ', ' for a inding of " reasonable assurance" that adequate protective measures can - 1' and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.8 ' ~ e a 7% ; " b d, FEMA mamtams that the admission of the contenuons to the proceedmg was . ;., q O, '1 6 l foreclose.1 hy an earher Commission decision in this piseeding' and, further, .31. d. c,,:.F 'h.7c.;' that it wh1 be L@.hly harmed unless the contenuons are excluded at this i ]. N.j'l(i ]h. f, b,q @$ '. Q j;y;g.{e,'~.]9.q 1 M juncture. LILCO endorses FEMA's claim of Licensing Board error and urges D p3 ,1 us to rectify it. 'Ihe interveners insist that we lack jurisdiction to entertain the - w., J.MlM., y"J. ; - ), A 3." 3 Petition because FEMA is not a party to the proceeding; that in any event,

.( 7..pg,. N '.

the well. established standards for interlocutory appellate review are not met .s "-(N .G'l..

J. *e

,i,..;r 'f,*3 b].WM here; and, Anally, that Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were ccrrectly accepted for a Q litigation. For its part, the NRC staff urges us to undertake an examination of 7 ;C. a.', ;. i .\\ ....,.2..: g.. q ; g ~. y

1..

the merits of the controversy and to affirm the Licensing Board's admission of .,.,. t., N. 4 the contmions. ,y t'.$ k g JC3$QQ$ $($[gd hglQW, W$ dggy [hg pg(}{jQg jA*% ).,f 4 i. .w.. n :%*..*.. s,., t [ i.e e .s. afb t I _. 4 ;,, s w.. e.,c,... e. _p' y -. 3.. ~6 3 , JN,f,...w., m.,, s@.;T g, Q @ **: y,. d ...,:c g'4*f k:x.Q 4 t. : .,q.**. g *. 2' ', Isee t.aP 06 SsA,24 NaC s19. 1 &' ' r=c~,s , f* ,,ffh,.f 9A / ?ll C [3;t",YD(b,.i. V.,O.* k,} les." {..' S*

IDs FBlWA paddam abo suponed e assy of das Dummmber !! esderinsofar as k pendmed diessvery ammeurumas ayr-rh.Q' < 'irM.W,,.*$.

N4,if.3?l ' 6;} C8 adams as 15 and 16. We dudad sist sepam in e Jemmary 5,1987 ads ( r-u h d).

6. '

%.- C Q 8 smeett Casey, senes of Near Yesk, and Tose of samhampaanu.---.a.= Tr===r4mmar Emareas Commaams N PI'd;Mf!'d'Q'E. g% %g'M 5 %.?+j/.. W e-... fpc *y J.#!," Q (Amenst 1,19s6) at 14 31. 'id, at 16. 25. In emmest to aD ashar emergemey aspou.e pisms saammmed so does, beeh she esshe and ensue of y <f y y,y', -[*, /,- -@ W. -l te Qc * '] "7 '$'%'g.h "g + Pandoms of this plan was esvelsped and esand wahaut eis permapanen of mass and least eineels. Jan ALAB-4:"J. F /

%g.h > I..' *, m' ;.,;.. i. :",.., c,q,,.g q z l"e;p. ' 3l [;p. pg,{

^ See 10 CJ.R. Sa47(eX1). M $1s 22 NaC 651,659 0985). - i .g A. ,',./ "'c f N. y 8 s See CU.s611,23 NRC 571 (19s6). r .W.{ ..a.- 5 4 s s '[ 7. 's t,,.... 132 4

o N

I 4 4 l, A,, o on. ,) + o .e W ,s '4 - <'y). ,t,r s. .*..g, 't,e- ~,#

n P.

, _ A, ,,,.- h 3 ..} +. p*'., i .n., y y" .,g a ,,...j l[, . s.',i ? 3 4 },3 ~[' ...;. - r ,3"b. m.g,p p, c,. -,.e . 4,,,.. g 9:, ,. 4 i lg i ...,.,,,.,,,.-,,,,.,3,..,- y , f

r.. t t M8.c h % So ',;,i 4

,g = y l,*5,,' 1 4

4 q.,. g 4,...

,J' ' ', i f. Y, g 'Jg. jf.' T.*'

s. p,

b Q, p' @$ 5 {-

s q ',, ]*.]m..*[, [ f'..3 ^ j. ,].- [ r,. gp y(. 4 ~... m t f

- - M. ). *;, 3 M. m@S.(, r....., f. :T 's 4;,. t..!m@.W * ' 9:,Y,.,? k'+.6, ' A. ;f, 5 -

' '.)..;t. cy. s) >*?y',Is &- aw.,' n( ' e e G..- .,'f*. /# '.l l.L ' - ','.! ' ; #.;?.. ' : e *- -# ' *.'Y ',m e. ,...., ' f ' '* c.' %. * *

D,,r;c 4 'i g
s

. ~ *.... , P';*.,. ' t'1 , ;#l.. 3 e*,. ~ ., :' *Q,,',[.8 ..h >q....,,

\\s *l 1. ;,,,.,.,.

'].. f. t,...s +.. ],,,, &.,. ^ L ,1-**.* . e. ,,,4 j - e i' ?. f. *,.'d. i ' .f m' d.e1 "'. ^ y, g( s . _ g. u,p"s,Q.,t.t J' { p,.,

r.

' ', {m.c' A ,4 #.

e.[

l'?. '".8W - g s, s a l

-.a.. m g, ,f ," y 'g ] f,,,f'.. pf I'. " J i., ..he p "3;y.g +. f ( ~ ' Q. D 3. u

y

(.- l ;p, 3 y "f g s .Q % , fi - .,g . L.,as..,.;,,0c,.,.3. c7, q g; r jgii,. y p f.,

,..~,.

.y . g.e p y + s to ;.. ;5.:~.w +,

p.

4 n

..v y;,

j e .7p .y. . g,,s.7 y.. p y,,, p. .<+ or s-m.. _ 4 ,e.., 4. p,.. 7

z.

u. -.i.4 9

,f. r .+ s -. w.,y t. y. g, p; t i .3,

~^
,c

...-4 w g. A. As the interveners suess, FEMA was not admitted to this proceedmg as - i' s.j a party? But it does not perforce follow that PEMA lacks the standing to mount j s. .,;..,.j..t ~ v an appellate challenge to the admission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16. To the (~. ". 6, b ', M. e ?. ;"-4 3 M Q y.-lE, y (,.,. {'C h. 'y contrary, the maner is in considerable doubt.. I*.,U W Q v,C y.. d. +i.,4 In its brief to us, PEMA rested its claim of entitlement to seek appellate i-r 7-M review upon the fact that, three years ago, we entertained on the merits its appeal ,'. ? from a Ucensmg Board order requiring it to release to Suffolk Coumy certam F?^

,. - !.%.,.,.... V * $. 4,2.e.

t. ve... [ ', - agency documents concesiiing PEMA's emergtecy prepmedness determinehans k, H 7,g,.', ~ t ;.g,A

ty y',.

4 [ for the Shoreham facility.' ~But that actica is not consolling here. For, as we [ ".; ' . ?; *.,,,hy. ]M.Qd L p. g.4.,.,,p.Qy i - explained in a subsequent opmion in this proce3 ding, ist foundanon was the - l L , a ."{,,. 7 ,.? settled principle that a non-party has the right to take an immediate appeal f'

j.,..

p,.' ,I.'- ~* bom an order granting Gim m.d agrinst it? In this instance, PEMA does not ? challenge a discovery order but, rather, is endeavonog to narrow the scope of the l,, ' ',. i

?,\\

D' e ~' ? f'],,. (; proceeding by the elimination of certam contentions admined by the Uccasing

'. ~: 2.,. J. '

Board." Nothing in any prior decision of the Commmian or an appeal board i 3; j. 6 - 7 N,[l I$'.*,*S*"p;.". .. ~, directly supports the proposition that a non-party may pursue such a course, .y ,- 4 #4 i By the same token, howver, it is clear that at least some non-partes to i h' 5j' - NRC licensing proceedings do possess broad appellate rights - i.e., states and other governrnental bedies my dsg in the proceedmg by virtue of - 'i s. 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c)." PEMA, of course, is not such a r ; =.3. = Rather, its "7k,, <(' rc role in our i Osedings appears to be sui generist msofar as we are aware, / - (,. FEMA's responsibilities and privileges under its Memorandum of Understand- - ^ ingu are markedly different from tho6e possessed by any otner agency or orga. f t nizauon Whether it is entitled to the same appellate rights as enjoyed by tale [' and local governments invoking section 2.715(c) is thus an open and difkult l' .i question. ^,, Tertunately, in the circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary for us to 3 resolve the question. Por this much is plain: whatever may be its scopt, c FEMA's right to obtain imerlocutory appellate review of an order concunet! g 4 v; 4 ' PEMA panepsim in NaC presamenos pumaans to a h of f bd====-d=g (h000) hemma taalf and this Commaman. The laan vusman af the MOU ens menad in ApmA 1985 med puhhaked at 50 Fed. sag.15As5 .t 09:5). It prences, meer siis, that PEMA wG1 appear in NaC liammag pseeundaags as pan af the psummmahan of e 4 t-8 the NRC maff. Ahhanth ha ma=aal *wal mannauy psusses PEMA wumanas and be pesummed, a thed====.= of the NRC lassmans bassi, so x the womanas of pumas, ashar than the NaC wumummes, en masas involvms PEMA sedags med : palisam and spummeus." the MoU ampbasly masas thes "PEbdA is i. am a pony im Nac. _ " hL a 15As?.

7

+ ,U s 3mr As.AB.713,19 NaC 1333 0984). f. ' A1A5 7so. 20 NaC 37s. 3so s10984) (sisier Comumsemusin adissa Co. Essa simisa. Umbs 1 and 2h .', f;." j ALAS.t16,6 AaC 25:0973). ed asume shes the name eght emism la indsel,hadislal passen). d; ' *' i.*b 7 i-M; #."., - E . ' ' "To be ems. PEMA did ask as to sesy deussemy en Causm6 sus na R$ ad 16 puedag the suusmus of hs . 9l pauman. ain as endier mand (mens mass 2h its susy segnum was dumed. la the esmusman, k is or==d=====d=g Y '**"%f ,0.C t; ,a ;. g. head en = tens m.m pumdad a mal mammes, em dia.smy an e..mium.= he m ham omspiand. 4. } s z;- A V Tt.1516. q e j,, ,;g i;,g3 p5 sa carss.am usan Co. auva s.d summ. umm i ed 2). AtAB.30,3 NaC 175,0680 0976). / t- .p - M. h.;S M ~

ae moes mass 1.

J s.

..r~

,,.m. .u ,e s J , %s

zi L..

. - ~ . ~. y 133 . - a: A .( 3 . n ) e 9 T 4 p, g

.w 4

i s m; '[. 5 f i s .,, I -N .g, - m s n.m-m'0,,. v.. s 3

g. -

, ' [ *.3 ~4. ' ) k,.< a (* , 'l f...h* M,* [ ;'f.,,'.'4 d. d ,] [. 7,, .* y 3 .. p, .,y,,.p. 4.,.,e.. -* 3 f. , ], c.h,2 ,u- ,1, > s.; .. af. ..* 4 '. t 4,. f4.r.,...., a.... 4 ? l * *. i ,- t y.- e,. J.. $<.,.,,y it{f..., .6 ..g.* ? * ./' n 4,. :, o, u,'. . g ng. .4,.g ,A *

l-l l f

.~,i s c . e, u $", k W,yW . M &..,.g heQ @d% W 3j @{gQ,8,Q&@ .., JE ty['*y. q *~. f h*\\i. j.,,.. .s. /

ar9..:g;.:v:n.N:h,:qi,;e.r.,v.;,.+..mwc. r y., $pb. W;y. ~.. : ". ? 4n..s. g, : e.u - *g np,% + p n w

s g..

, c.,p n .< y

n., i. Lv.,..

%.,. [ .. e, ,p. : r -m r.,, , a.

.t; E.w m;.o..: v. s.z 9* q.>

-e a h AI w,.n,. t,.,yv. -- qy eyf-(, s x a, A,M.c:a,.;.. J 7,U. ., i ,, g ~ w < ; -- .). c.;, ..P^ }T;ji.J,.f S,.. . '7 7 J.. / .- ;; u a / y i sf.. t. ,, c j.. s-y >; 9.> d'n t.,. ~ e i c

9esg, E 'f-.,

[., 3 7 y,,f? [. S.' $., 7'i. J ' N.f.' with (be iswes to be litignaed fp the,1weding cannot exceed thatynjoyed - { H,M 0, l 7C. by the, estatnes having acknowledged full-pany statu3 - i.e., the ap% cant ; the [.g 4";./,Po,-Q.j,. * *g./[f 'k ,,. e f, ' di ' tatervemors, ar.d the NRC staff.82 As will be surm, on a showing akin to that .,i J '/C ' d ' % ;r,@ ' y'M D.*;'..;*?G. Op@h. Mih ty.'5'](7;, made by TEMA in its appellate papers and at oral argument,':r.me of those y l f R,. W.: I panies wooki satisfy the standard for obtaming at :his juncture appellawreview g ~. M.' ; of the interlocutory order that FEMA would have us overturn. 'Inis being so.- r-b h[1. bNhb, W,wdm of how one inay view FEMA's stams in the proceedag pr3 petition ]J )i.,N'7, f5%q.p... g 29 c i,%g $@y%j!jN$;y, /NM($ g,$ Y >;,:p mast fail, ~,. d,- B.h As we long ago otserved, "[t]he general policy of the Conmission - 3 f,' $ h J/ M 9 does ru (war the singling out of an issue for appellate examination dur5g 3( .,, p.c'y, g';;),. -{E f d'(, M the ciisonMpendency of the trial picceenig in which that issue came to the j m.. "i ,. t. d., ".y.., ?.. fase."* In the fulfdiment of this policy, the Rules of Practice (with a limited 'J' ' ', ' ',, ' i ' g c #;

g. r. <

exception isot swilable to PEMA herd explicidy proscribe interlocutory appeds 1 ( j,y: e, W X (/:/c'.fc., y. '.'(,d,.. Tb be sure, this proscription does not preclude, a pany fmm requestirg that from I.ic.ensing Board orders.28 n we exermse our discmtion,' conferred by the directed certification prtwisio,is ". y ,., ' ' ;.< s.. ; s.,- '.hA.. 0 W >? <. .g , ;j - .); in the Rules of Practice,8' to undenake an interlocutory review of a },ntictdar p, 7,rt;g:. r. ..,, y 4 -l ruling below.87 Because of our obligation to give effect to Commissica psikty i;

p.

4,.;,c 7, j respecting such reviews, however, we have granted directed certification only b ' ;. c, ;, . O[ z !. c, ine most extraordmary circumstances. More speciScally, as stated in the Marble] .'~ N. ,d .. /g. Hill roceeding-P 4 e a . S... n, . U *,, s .7. - ' g. Almost wi&an a=*=T=aaa in recas tini6t, we have w,danskan discreuonary interlocutory i, [. '93 Ci O ' <.,g % {li.

y review taly where the suling below eidser 4 t'.seeimmed the party adversely affected by

.c. ' m. - l.!,/,9,, f, '. .. ". z.'. 411ovamed by a last e spresl or (2) afected the basic anactose of the proceedins in a pervasiw. it wist ssasadians and suioms. irreparable imped whid, as a praaical maner, could not be , c, e f. t,,

O ',,f.)".I f, *. ',c: ( j, d t. ~

or unusual enemar.4 V 1 3;

3i eQ y

.,,..y 'f. 1* ". e y'.*<.,,,,;,'., ,.o .f 'f,.. y.,, m e..:.rt *,. s b *,,*.., %.,f ;. !

d ',a,. 9,.

~ 3 ...t. 7... 4 w 'p '*... % a

M' p'a

"[- li 6: nos that, se pnmed; $end, e non.pany Ona met a pony) saiy take en launedian appealinun a discovery '*

JE 3

U m,* - '.! :,Tl4;. ?(a,:. 't. ',, t atter. Thas is eatenaable, how.*wr. so she fam shai, as to the man pany, pudi an ouder has ths sospasus desses of ' 1 Andty 6.e., k metd -d innerleeuwryk 3es Zien,6 ABC at 234.: y . 't N ei

d

.1 1*p.Me Aarse Co. of New NonpsAus hl== 4 Station, Unies 1 and 2), At/J.271,1 NRC 478, st? o

'l ;-7,,f.,')*

O.' ,*;**M [, 097!b we addaisunny isak mas of the fast that a saniner pebey envens fedant judinalf--

14. at 4s3 D

s l ;* *[,f ;r. a ll.

W '.G 'N S [ -;;',(t.,--+m.,*,

g ;=j,1.j.s. 18 10 CJA 2.730(rk The ausspiism is famed hi 10 CJA 2.714a, absmused Wre pp.135 36. l M *,$ * '.;q.) **.9 $i Q.]?5'a )y ; '.C.. ,.. W..,,'. f;,,. .p 14 ,f 3ae 10 CJA 2.71861 3 3 .e I-373e Asaheet,1 PGtC at ett-B3. 1 4.i'f! M M r. 4 ;!.~tg y Ik Mit/.* j b./k *l**g y;N- . gr, ?,. g ,p.- 18 pane g,r c,, of Jag, gge,gg, G Nealmer Osammans sanan, Unas'1 and 2), ALAB 405,5 NRC I 1190, !!92 0977h 3m abo Aresses helic Sernise Co. (hlo Vede Nacimar Ganeoung sostian, Unos hed 3), '. '.1 *i?.,, '..'c,J ' ; G@ii.;[,];', T f.f,,,e. ALAB.')42,18 NRC 340,3aC-94 0$43) (* , appelbes sevisar of L===g bensd endam is dentseesed >*t ' 'M. M :. W,,. ,2 /, and wD1 be andanskan as e aliseraimuray===m= anly in the sama sunpeDag 4 "). AsseM 3such - . ;f .E :.5 i. h;tcy..i..* ' l*? r.4.:.f. /~.'.,. % 2, Ci !, ; ~ ~.,,. *; . j,f. k J'* M';J. Capodias alsteic and Car Ca. /(weil C. s=====r Naciser munim Unit 1), ALAB.463,14 NRC 114d).1162 s c.W,. " * ' 0981); Nasuten Urheat 4 FWur Co. (Sasah Tasas piosset, Unha 1 and 'D, ALAB 637,13 NRC 367. 370 4 6- . e cU'.j*.'i*f 'i c A d*,U h,l M'

w;.

0981)1 Nees*"' Manang a #s wr Co. (Adams Causk Nr.nser Omismans sisoon, Unis Na 1), ALAB-635,13

:.,./ "; a A. 4 $ M.', ;V,, :.

'W.. >;~.- '. ' ' 2' '. ,e'* NRC 309,310 0981); remar# emis Pomer me.f Uger Co. (5usquehamma Simon Elemas sistien, Uniw I and 2), y 3: ALAB 593,11 NRC M 09:0,) pape senime amene and Car ca. (selen Nunnar Omenans smaan Unt i t 7,.,. gc.mg) ; - + %\\ , s e .s 4%. i s i b ) 1 >, -- o..

s.

..1 J. n r , %, :, ' j ' T k '.. " ?.Iw...': & s ...,..-n es. 5 1Y y1 g;.,, '14~ ~_(* ' ' / t.) g ,p $. h,;j.-ti ':.. [. . ,; yN d, 3 p y,i ,[.(~, '..7'",..r,c.,-,.s4'. G.Q p i h,,,,,Fi +.,., Y 11 M,% JQpV.. 4'.. ..-.,u,-e, m~,.

.o vo,r,vw,".,~.-,*f,,'~~~'<**'"**

_f u 7, m -. ... Y' . f.'\\,6

c' j.;;.. ;([ *$,

tw c.svl.,s l, ,, )* Q l ,l s ' ;,. Qh Y. ~Q. t. ' J..s.:. . m,o' 4

v. y.

x;,. v ~. p' z +. t a,,ly 4 ^ > - 4. y ; ~,..r s,.a A. y' 3 o', y. 'a^ .e d ,;j~ c..; d j ; 9 1,. * ..,ah},pf,A*,9'%.y.,. a C M. h(n. +. p5 ;N. 8. ' ',,]..W '..,'s Q .y, 1 t e. > # %e,. 4..,.';g?'y:,. @.

g

"(, 0 .~ ';ccy.,,'ln,'4,b?'.[i?![

a

" }.e < 9, S '. T', les,%,..}. le ; *y y c.., ;,

c e

q..

p e a- ':<.' e' %.s z.wp 'e a.. :,, o

a.,

s;,

- a 6, T.4.s ' i . n s J, *, k.. .L.l"t. n .. f : y. ' .ws, L m - 1 ', i, - .. a .m - r s s? 9

M.<.nr... ~ '/ a- ... n s, ' e, "vj r, - ( I-j. ~ .i %.. ,,,rV;,,g, 5 *..

p;: 9.., n 4

y. M, . ~. ?,; > x a.,..s.? d. e - 2.: p~. p e e L. a, ~ -P

4 c'.....

e

'^ ,, m,; g- ? ,, p y t. c n . /.. M,,),., ..A.s.,,.*.... s w. ,s s. 0 ;.i'. i t 4 ' l ~ i v e + Given that the injection of one or more additional issues into an ongoing case i 7 f, seldom has a pervasive or unusual effect on the basic structure of a gweding. y i 47 ', )e, "j we have traditionally declined to review on an interlocutory basis rulings that F W simply admit another contention.""Ihe basic structure of an onrc.ing adjudication j..c

.,(., i '

W 'M.',' /,,y,*J l is not changed simply because the admission of a contention results from a f((1-l l f..* ','...,.. ?.., J. ....rl-S, N 2w* ' Ef 7,y.'Q. licensing board ruling that is important or novel,28 or may conflict with case. y, law, policy, or Comnussion regulations." Similady, the me:c fact that additional p%, - @ rg,,',p., ;,, '

g? l.w,4 issues must be litigated does not alter the basic structure of the proceeding in l'

f l . !3e a pervasive or unusual way so as to justify interlocutory review of a licensing ";.T i :..

%9'$ 7 board decision."

9 endeavor of the Attorney General of Massachusens to obtain interlocutory l 'P ~-? Just last June, we reemphasized these considerations in the context of the .1,. - ? .( ! . ~ [.,, ; i appellate review of the rejection of a contention that he had submined in the Seabrook proceedmg. Although noting our doubt that the 1.icensing Board had ~ ., ' ** id, l correctly rejected the contention, we determmed that it nonetheless did "not j., :.. appear that the strict standards for the grant of discretionary imerlocutory review ,,,,.,.,,,a ' 'b,,'.,,,. 9< 2. lp,..

Y I

6 are met here." This was because: [ l - r (* } j We employ our directed ceru6 cation authonry only where a licensing board ruling either that, as a pracucal maner, could nos be alleviated by a later appeal, or affects the basic ') l ducates the party adversely affected by h wuh inunediate and senous irreparable irnpser j .,c strucout of the promedmg in a pervaarve or urnsual manner. Neither inst ordmarily is l saus6ed whers a licensins boerd sanply adents or vejetz: partacular issues for considerauen '. O in a case." ' 5 7 ',, - j .'Y ^ 1 s It need be added on this score only that any relaxation of the Marble HW i ( + directed certification standard at this late date to accommodate the FEMA 9 i 4 l i challenge now before us would appear to clash with the purpose behind i i 3 I 10 C.F.R. 2.714a. That section provides the single exception to the general .t ) .I i l l 11 ALAB.5at,11 NRC 533, 536 0980X Peter sessed Faimer and ught ca. (sksgit Nunnser Power Project, Unas 1 and 2), ALAB 572,10 NRC 693,694 0979X ogshore pener synesis montag Noaiser Poner Planis), ~ ALAB-517.9 NRC 8.110979). t D see, e.g., Clevoimid Elecme Illassaammer Co. (Purry Nuclear Power Piera, Unus 1 ara A ALAB.706,16 NRC j' i 1754 0 952). Cf. Dade pe=ar Ca. (Cauwha Nucinar staum, Uuns 1 and A ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,464-65 + r!'. ' l i 0942), rev'd in part en oder gewiside. CU-ts 19,17 NRC 10410923).

Mapopediaan Eakeen Co. (Three hEle 1:1 sad Nucamar Swoon. Una 1), AIAB-791,20 NRC 1579,1583 0984) iI l'f MCleveJand Elecme IP

Co. (Perry Neder Power Plaza. Unus 1 and 2), ALAB.675,15 NRC 1105 "j

,k '+ i 111213 0912k see e4so #eanryevenne remer & Gr4r Co. (~ Essem Desmo sisaan,Unss 1 and 2), .~ j zuhng was "an the aseth of the 's segulaume and the Mra*magrange Prim =4=v Aat" and *tasy have ~' AtAB 641,13 NRC $J0. 352 0981)(duected osmacsuan deemed derpus aDsenuams that the Dannung Baud's d v e, 7

J'.. -

3 '*t' / * .f ernmoomly expands 4 the issues to be inad"). ~

P

ole Verds. It NRC at 384; Virgin s EJsene and Power Co. (Noah Anna Ptnrer Sunan, thtas 1 and A ALAB-741,18 NRC 371,378 0953).

DPad,lse semce Co. of New HaegwAire (sambrook suuan,Unas 1 and 2). AIAB-t31,23 NRC 585. 592 0956). h .f

;M,.Q.

a ,q g.. [ I-(eshas (m adduaan to Mar 6de Hill) Project Managenew Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Resonar Plars) ALAB-330, 3 NRC 613,615, rev'd on esher troends CU-7613,4 NRC 67 0976)). ( 'l

g. ; e,.

'.*5 h, ', _ y ; 'p(Ql [ . o. q ' 'i [ e. e s ~4.7' 8 135 . J .m i - L

- [

i g

g

,- o.

4, J .,08 +9 , y ** s p,*, '* { ] ,g. + e ,Lf,,

r. p,-

u. E[i..g1[{;},~[- ,e { g l '-[ 4 a ,y. a /. Q?%. S:. V.3; ? j.

n.

,}' .s,.. _S ..a,. .t bhhk hN .fw.g.m..y) _. n, .. w, y p, y 4.,,;;. g..g ,y. ,c. 1

.. w. - .=u...... . u.... =. : a..... . w..::: h f = i c. J YM.V P J #, $.'. M ' M ' O M O . i M C n M.. f e @.,,. M..lW T g....',M,4.6.w...,,3 n f &y.;...DYT.3 a.g.cggy s;.y c',y. ?#.M, W 4 ,,o. c i- - y,,. 7 pp 2q

q.

v t' .? n gn W: en v h' O 'l . W '.$. :.7.w C N.. .i i u..^1 .~ y h. e k.

z

.o .,4*' y

t..

j -6.e y+, .c r: .c - r s ' i, pt eu**,* 6e if."D proscription against interlocutory appeals. Under the express provisions of the .a 's-section, a party may appeal frotn the acceptance or rejection of contention (s) P .1,%, .p' f>d at the threshold if, but only if, sich acceptance or rejection controlled the ..Q " - d ;. ;. i-3 J. ' Licensing Board's disposition of the petition for intervention advancing the y1 contention (s). *Dms, for example, a would be intervenor may appealimmediately ' 'n ,- !! #:0.,...;'3.f b ',. s ,,, y, 7 "r

f'..! @

'~ the rejection of all of its contentions and the resultant denial of its petition." U$h*\\ '. :: ' S '.h

j (Should, however, at least one of its contentions be accepted and its petition

.p N. 4..

p' '.. "

u i.j is granted, an interlocutory appeal will not lie.28) Conversely, in circumstances P F; fn .h where an intervention petition is granted on the strength of the acceptance of 1 one or tr. ire of the contentions set forth therein, another party to the proceeding , ". W -,1 i. ~6~ J. } may appeal at once if its claim is that all of the contentions should have been 3' l ',J ] stjected and the petition therefore denied.2d Had it so desired, the Commission could have conferred a broader entitle-

j ll.

' [,; ment to obtain interlocutory review of threshold Licensing Board action on l i n. contentions. More particularly, it could have authorized an interlocutory appeal ,t, 'l from the acceptance or rejection of any contention, whether or not the Licensing ( i Board's ruling affected the grant or denial of the intervention petition. That that f i alternative was not adopted provides room for a reasonable inference that the M Commission was persuaded that, where the grant or dernal of intervention is J " not in issue, absent exceptional circumstances the appellate review of Licens. ing Board action on the admission of particular contentice should await the .7 rendition of an initial decision. l'

2. In light of the foregoing, the FEMA petition might well have been a l\\',

~ however, by the representation in the petition that, unless the admission of fit candidate for summary denial. We were deterred from pursuing that course, 3

}

Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were everturned at this time, " FEMA's ongoing exercise program [would) be irreparably harmed.*'" Although nothing in that G. L! filing adequately supported such a sweeping claim, we nonetheless could not ,,.. f f! dismiss it lightly. If, in fact, a sister federal agency was being threatened with p-

.p uf m

. v.<. q.- n..,*<4. immediate and serious irreparable programmatic injury because of Licensing Board action, our intercession might indeed be compelled.

% l' p, *, -

'i. petition for oral argument. And its counsel was orally requested in adysmce of the Accordingly, we decided to take the unusual step of calendaring the FEMA O.f f;,- ~{ argument to be prepared to particularize the irreparable programmatic harm that .".,r., " J..* i

,.g.~,*- ?

i .p I 1.y .J ,,,,,.'a. 'x A -. 3, c.~.,,.,.

,' '. \\,

6 'f n' ,* s. i ,L t 1..f; ,, b ',, j n t, e s., .[ "see 10 C.FA 2.714a(b). .. '.f' ,[ 25see, n.g.,PurerseasidPower andrJ AtCo. (skasiuHanfad Nuclair PowerPmject, Units 1 and 2), AtAB-712, t s, .1 s'. 17 NRC s109s3). l-El [ " san 10 C.FA 2.714a(c). +1 ](

4 h...-

N FD4A Petition far tamvo to Appeal, etc. (December 31.1986) at 11. } l ,? \\ l 136 i \\ Q, d l) y ,r. r _y o j' ?'. a..m - -., w. ~ f,. "t'. .s .~-w. n., 6. t, 3 '. '.,c..(v ;. o - . s,', i 0,g, e, v, ' .1

1-

.a ~. r. s j,,,c. /. ',7 ( F.. '. g. .,.., 4 f. y,.2.., _ o g' O s + E g m, p 9. c. c. L, '. g c., s4 ..c. ,.,y,...

h, i.: ' ll V u

% i. P k <~ ,h*' n ' % *r. s ' '.n@,- ..w s ,, q'i- / > .,j { ' ** 3 7 ' ' ' ,,j fg i'

9. /.$,

'l r ~ J

-: ~ + i.h ' y;! [ h. y*f;,.. ;- JI ( .r. ..at P.4 w.*?.?y.i ; - %,,n,[ zig. m .( ; %~..f,.,+ ' ,? ? m,.,-

o, (.

... e 3 - (. m. L y,..y. ,p.. y;3 y.: : *. {.. ..'q a - n,; .5.. ' g,, 5 h. l.1.1..'. f. e e y., y.,,. 7 }; f.;.).q' e p, %g ... c.-.. i.. .m h;_ , _.gg f'[. ":, l ~ .n - 1 e n l[" ' j[., 7.7; i*s

.s.[ * 'v>

'l p g < :.y, . O., ga, [. 4 j-el t-0 4.*

s-s 4 g

l A e Ti ,. ' y.. y1 ?R FEMA assenedly would suffer unless Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were excluded .L.. ' n - - ~. v ? l..;.d ^ .{7 !.3 from the proceeding at this time.8

' W: .i..; "_.. ;.. yl :.., / -.L..@ A..g In response to that request, we were told by counsel at the oral argument

[l a. T/. i., dg[3.k.j&y pl%j,@ j; that, as a consequence of the admission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16, FEMA { ]$ . gfk@ *py;,3 i %. l would have to reallocate its limited resources from currently operating facilities ft.;. a,;.;.,, p,- ...'.g,. to non-operating plants.8 When pressed to develop this proposition, however, 7,(;Q[$.76 G.;g. d] m p 13 W,,W T:. F. counsel conceded that discovery (in the form of document production and the ,j M ['". 1 h g f. & $. Q[ ; M ;c,. m j-D Q taking of the depositions of FEMA wimesses) would be completed on the y following day (i.e., February 6).8' He further acknowledged that FEMA did lq[ not intend to present at the evidentiary hearing witnesses other than those pig #p 9 W U 2' ' '-p, g.1 Mf, 7 g. individuals earlier designated by FEMA and already deposed.n According to y ;p '.ytc,. .f 'i c?unsel, FEMA's concern about the expenditure of resources was rooted in the .L..,W xs T e ]M 9; j arr.ount of time that its wimesses might be required to spend at the hearing: [...,,. 3, [ e M"' '4 (...* 4' w 4 i MR. CUMMING [ FEMA Ccamsell:... If the Board were aHe to represent that FEMA ' j< (mould be] on and off the stand in three days with respect to ' Ae other parties' interest in ? 7W aur witness, that might [presars a different siraation). But we believe that in fact because i;L Wi. 3 C. I of Contand- [Exl 15 and 16 we will have a subrianuaDy snore lengthy proceedins, our $3,Ky7, @k N,sy.,..,.A # f.,', N,.- $ i '8) y ~. ' 1j*' witnesses will be cm the stand far longer than three days, and in fact perhaps even marmhs. , :..,, t, e=** ..,s JUDGE EDtI.5: And if we set these two ocntendons out of there they wC1 not be on for Y

G"

~~ '7 - months: is that what you're tellas me?

"gs t.,

s . ( -,,,,j j J.,,,,;, MR. CUMMING: I would say it subsiars.iaDy canimas the scope of the y.-. g to what we did on the day of the snarcise and not what we did not do and why we did not do it.n 7 ;,,,, L,.. +. l ',"[ %.,,o .>n.. 'Ihis falls far short of the showing required to support a claim of threatened ~ irreparable injury. To begin with, as the Court of Appeals for the District of l-2- Columbia Circuit has pointed out, "[a}lthough the concept of irreparable harm g, ,.l does not readily lend itself to definition, the courts have developed several well .3 known and indisputable principles to guide them in the determination of whether .."i,- this requirement has been met." One of those principles is that "the injury must

_ ', ', l q*

{A( -4 in that principle is p

L be both cenain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical." And implicit s-n

,s .o 'a the further requirement that the movant subst.intiste the claim that irreparable injury is "likely" to occur. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Conun'n v. Holiday Toers,Inc., $$9 ,'Y

4 "

8 u., t :

f-y F.2d [8d1, s43] n.3 [D.C. Cir.1977). Bare aDesations of what is likely to occur are of no 7.'

D %.,?..',... i. .t,. 22 value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur. 'Ibe movent must ,, f -s . 4 e'%t ,S' F r4 ..}. i lf{ As a punami nula, pataicus for '- ' , ssview ass acend open wohaut osal arymm== fr the p===='s ) - Q,,~-D ',I,j,, v 8 t i do not themaalves asubbsb that the MarNe Hill===devd is mat. that is naisDy the sad if tha :mener. l - pApp. Tr.1213. {' - '+ !6 ; App. Ts.1s46,

j. Y. -

J f ;%f:]v t.e*>e f,l *-[. *', 'j :

"$. 3

.'.0

* ~d 3

8 J, d App. Tr.17. + e f,,, 8 W, App. w. n.13. f *;k..r. f.:(~. w . v s, s { 1.". k,^, .h. t * ,'o' % (- - T' e % flt c...q .1 i, d" #. 2 9,?'.. ~ y. I ' 6, 137 a[ v. ~ ~ 4 .l ,.21

',..a v.p.

p5 r+ [ )1 sd.p

p.,

a ' p. 1' 1 7

*, f 'l, ~

% X. ir. g .'s f ~ '.

" * <,f,.*; y,"A^.

.p,'., l uu s ys; . + e... r,, v. - o t.

'j

)

',+M, i

. *1 ,....'.T'%k"y,w..K j'e' -t..) p p g. a .ea

u.

-a f. .,,e 5. l. ,,a

j, a Z, w

,a .. "1.. ' s..lm. %. i:. + ' r .m't-J d l .i-h,?

t d

s .t g, 2 T* I J

.m _ ....m m._u2. um.r. _mx -e e 1 46 ,; {,;. <' a j,+,, f.. hyl.gg.9,3 _ w-w - Q. J.c.,c. q.,<.;m,; Q.; y Q. y m -.,,.fy".;g.Sg;y.7. y. ~., 6 + f. 7 y.. [- a. M,..,... s. - ' g.v.: p.., ~,. v r. 3.n Sb,,s.,fD,, m"ff,,.Q.[:,:,lQS QlQq Q.f:.q ~ f ? a, ,,' Y e - ~ { T' ..q.! qi ;y.' C mt .,,r? 9e, m. e. s, E D..O CC "" '1 "r., ^ h. #,' "x, , ?,:,. n g m$, w @ @ /. 9. V,,

c wn...

a yE q c,..,. y ., ~.e.u a. t7 i a-O. -,,..g;; 1 u ..,4 -. tt u 8 1 )9'.y.& :/j L indismiins that the harm is ennain io oener in ihn near fuimm. punber, um movem mum show g*. 4 k', ' prwide praat ihst she harm has acanned in the past and is likely to occur esnin, or pract i , $ M,O."[/ w4 ihm the anesed harm wili dinaly samla from the asian which she moient maks to endein." p

. ' %f u.., x o

t'y, i &,,.9 J .1', f .] Q 1'4 *' f i Manifestly, no such proof has been provided by FEMA here. To the contrary, ,S ?c. pp,. y. 7 t 4' y Q' a c.. p ' 7-N: '..'s,,. nothing more than rank r iaa undergards its counsers assertion that the ' 1 w .a ~ .. d j aMirirm of the two contendons will cause its witnenes to "be on the stand far lanser than thme days, and in fact perhaps even months." - 4 1 N.., y....L, ' ' .y [h h, P Ittther, it is equally well-settled - both in the courts and in our pracuce -- L ^ T.W's f. NN ?@Y 3.'.'.. not constitute irreparat,le injury.'"" Even had PEMA established the requisite ' t.Qf,j.k' that "*[m]ere litiganon expense, even substantial and s+i-m cost, does F O d..g '? 1 degree of probability that its witnesses would be required to devote a protracted '[f

" ~ gl Si period of time to the hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16, its irreparable injury f~

(I claim would have been torpedoed by this principle. Por nothmg put befone us .,. 1.;,,. </ : C,

l lends credence to its counsel's insistence that, unless relieved of the obligation

,p .,.,. f.V'. " to provide testimony at the hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16, PEMA will be y. "yi

f. ' - @

required to divert resources from currently operstmg facilities to non.operatmg - w_'S pianis. in inis connecuan, we were ioid at orai argument by interveners' counsel, s., without contradicdon, that only one of the three identified PEMA witnesses is '] J employed by that agency (the other two being contractor employees)." We were 3 - aMirianally informed that the PEMA employee has been transferred out of the . 34; radiological emergency p.q - b= program and will serve as a witness in this ?, ' 'l, proceedmg on a dotad." In light of these apparent facts, it is dif6 cult to see any q 1,.3 possible basis for s conclusion that PEMA would be thrmananari with 6p..ble ",,C.#%jl programmatic injury ifits counsel's prognosucapon respecting the length of the .i ', '.%i W' -'j hearing on Contentions Ex 15 and 16 were to turn out to be correct. Be that as it )i may, it was PEMA's obligation to demonstrate, rather than simply to allege, that 7 -3 4 , o.. z. d .t.3 . m., 9 *. .. + h .,6N [.( ".,a . :..,. m. .,N c.;;. d.%y p..M,g ec4 >. c. "mmenis c, ce, v. FF.AC,758 F.2d ed9,6M (D.C. Cir.19s5). 7hm deanen swealved en edever m. L,;..*J ' ifj may the spannen and effusa er annan esdess issued by the Fedssal Emmsy assmissary Commusassa, one of ths

,,, ' %i A a===a far due sress of smah seinstis, of emmen, a showing by the asums that,in the ehmsmos af a sisy, h likely

'

i. 5.' 4;. T l

wG1 he inspently henmed. Firpinis popoJames / ether. Aar's v. FPC,259 F.2d 921,925 (D.C. Cir; 1958). The 2. 4 l Commassese's suiss af Presume gewonens may apphemumms else adays this enssamm (as well as as ashes se fonh F , i7 'i, .* f'/*..'s.

f. '

4 'h' ] in Firydais pessimasiJethess) See 10 C.F.R. 2.7ss(e). 'thm, uma et the judinist and t' jusispendemos

7. "

T in es asas ofinapunkis insmy has base deveisped in ammanus weh any. f 'nnsemendsomem dass .i,$ ,'I ..f ? ~.,, < *. 4 ass, houmour, sonst the - ' ' of des;. hiso: 14., these is so seassa to impen a diffusum end '.1 y#*gJ if). f - y.,,j? infadar emessyt af inspeshie lasury whose the quasasm is the maalemens to ' , appenssa soviser . *l i,.,c., mens as, i,, y,,,e,,, s "ii, "Mesoposes: Edissa Co. (Thse Mns kl==d Numiser sammen. Unit 1), CIJ se-17,20 NRC sol, sed 09:4) f-

7. g

.d $ ; fN Nj t (ensning ear dummes in Ceemmesnr #emer Co. Odidlead Plass. Unia I and 2), ALAB 395,5 NaC 772,779 .d '.fs . g. - M- 't.q' % 0977), whiah in amm gamed *. aamd e. Aamssrese, d15 U.S.1.24 fl9M)k ses she Teami. Edissa ...,. M}9 p.g '.M d > 1 4 ~ . 3 +,. Co. (Derm.asmus Nominar Pomer saadan, Umas 1. 2 and 3). ALAB.3s5. 5 PGtc 621, das 0977)(smoeing Firriais ..f Popoiman Je66ms,259 F.2d as 925, to the ellest that *[en)ess isymim, hemover ht in terms af amasy, . 1 .<. ( + $ $ t,y, A'; *:.. [Jc4 l'C t .i j g.JN '. ' timme and ammsy" do est emmennme hasm for the pospasms of sheaumas twy solist). vw ',,..,f [c.

A " '7 h ?:

" App. Tr. 57- ,yr .<w

Maig,

,4'p hlk 3 AMN - *d , ' tj l[ ;$ . c. w o : ~ .f ik, g f' Ug L.b. Y y-i

<J,.J..

2 ,g d... .j v.q...g....,4 il.! d ' ') $ f,y, 2 y l T*. d ~.. / y .,s .a s. w - f I,.,,, l% "9 W e,W'. ,-4 ,.-..3..3..,,..,,%.

r.....

j .,.....y. g",. w. ' t, w f. ~. c, , e' l ~E l,~ ...,y ~ n . I ; q., g,; *; y' * $ lll } y 'l., '.jf' ?[; c.,q$, r y, . e...

m. r&,,,, K).:.n.1 4(J;@ m',.V.r gi.,.e, %.<.%;,., M';,. A q,..c. w hw. ;

f *,4 r:

e,

.~ -). ; 't. @ ,7 , i.f 5 M a ?m.. -.h.,, @ g,.. < ~ . O>W i y-cfM a e .s. ,0y w. ag. s %t w s,,, A .q ..g; 3. r

p.., #c. g:; c., '2 s m,.. %., _.

r u-3 a, r.

I m,.. .? ,-4,']m.gf,f;,[, y b.(; pg. 3;,j.7.,n. , /, w,. H,. f ' f.,,.,, e 7.,.,

f

~ / Q,, y'"..W. 3 Q6 ,;g. g , p., sM.,;..m -v, m 3,.fx.s s,. -j.. - 6,, b, 7 .,v,..., 3 m es. 4.a* .c.... q e ,+ .4 5 1..r. +. + . q v,...., w m e e gjg f_i7 h,O .,, y.v 4. q .a.- ,,g <..x 7.f [- ? j ' J. g V

c.x < ;(.

,N';... 4. s. a s.-.... a. ..a v-a 4 T.,,s.f,N. N., v '.b 2

4 r, Q g

.. ft ..d *o V Jb ,v..i + a .:..:w.:., _..t. z.. A;e..:. n.;;.i.. ,, / + i r A j . u,,. 9,L.g w;r. K.. 9 t, y 4 - y t c... L v n. ;. _r yn. ~ ., J; t. y ~,,.&.

y

,p -.,, m. t n,, m f,: v . A v. n .c L p 3 e t*. o n d more is here involved than the necessity to incur costs that would be avoided if I; y,%;l./h, ( O its wimesses were not called upon to testify on the contentions in issue. ,.g m(;. 0 f-d L. M b. FEMA's counsel also maia'aiad at oral argument that the litigation of [y ...c % .t.pr.h;;pt.j k: cA., J i;., ( q dM,):%;;7$ty.gi: Y Contentions Ex 15 and 16 would irreparably damage his agency's credibility f f~ 6 @% ; [s. d 2 g '.W.S! 4,$ 3 "with respect to the public's un&rstanding of its role in emergency planning," '_. 4 as well as *'=Imaihly" affect "the credibility of the reasonable seenwance we -{ h Eh.Q: A y,M 7,$ give to the Co'mmission when we in fact sign off on the dotted line, so to speak, 1-pyg.,g#.gg%w ;- .h c.4 ;

i. %

with respect to either a plan or an exercise."" We are unpersuaded that this is -: --;.h ~ xt a+q,,f.,C .W .1.:. go- .y i.. @ h.rQ/

z.:,g?; fy y g pcy.,

2., ii It appears to us, as it does to the interveners and the staff, that Contentions Ex. 3 K F. 15 and 16 present this question: whether the exer;ise conducted with respect h ~.: ' ~,..a.- l " d, &,,Q.f. y $,7, l4: to the LILCO emergency response plan (1) substantially met the regulatory W.:. 9y W.z l6,.... '. J requirements for a full-participation exercise, and (2) was suf8cient to enable a, 'Ao9 k,* p+;;j f [. its resuhs to serve as a basis for a Andmg of reasonable assurance that adequate i h'ct .-ry, y, p, i..d .. ~ I protective sneasuits can and will be taken in the event of a radiological Q CJ '[ emergency." If the coniennons remam in the proceedag, the PEMA witnesses p.g.glp j,Q,{'J #;.h,y , { ;,) .-Q undoubtedly will be called upon to address the question. It most likely also will '.y, }( be addressed by witnesses for the interveners (and very possibly in the testimony .W F.. %*Fq./. 6 sponsound by other par'ias). ~ O;?. ' (,j O _'. ' ....l C. 'c In its initial decision, the Licensing Board will render its indings on the y., question, which will then be subject to several levels of appellate review. 'lhe j.. ' $,. d@;.'c f-;;p.c;.

% l ' *.' y.+ : ' . A.;... f ~

6nal result of that review may or may not m. i, d with FEMA's articulated [ i position. Even if its thiniring is not ultimately =~===M however, it scarcely l ; L follows that PEMA's credibility would be irreparably harmed. Whenever there. l . %e lZ.O.h% - r ,A. '. q ',1(['.h,.3.~ [, is a conAict in expert testimony, the views of at least one expert necessarily [ will be rejected. If such rejecuan were enough of itself to destroy credibility, ,,ly the world would be heavily paaet**d with discredited experts. More important, as pieviously noted, the Commission's regulanons plainly allow FEMA's views c.

i, on the suf6ciency of an emergency response plan to be challenged by interested

[.. u pernes." Inasmuch as that type of challenge seemingly is not deemed a serious '..a'..K..+. '.4 3,s. :. ~ ;

a:

,.v. '+- .2,+ '7 lL II ) 'b Ly App.Tr.1$. I 6, ). : ) I..).

ss NRC sisif asspese to PEMA Pommen for laswa se Appest, ses. Gemmey 2,1987) a 17; App. 'IV. G.

A 2 ,i 64, 81 82. In this . we sepass PEMA's amampsenauem of CLI-s611, ths P-am+ f'. g- ../". ' o

'.. k..

and ander enthag fu shs inmassame of a tJanumma somni hasang in summesman wah the tJLCO aumensy plan Jyi* ensemas. Maso pesandsdy, we do nas apes wah FBMA thss the Casunnumm's desssve that the send enamuss , ja /.

5 + j. M

-? g, ,.i $.,f s - .,,. p g,. 4 the"suurjas" af ths aussess f===1== my soview of the emepe er dampn of the emmense immit. ' g, ,. ":-+;*# Q e ; 'e '.0*.' such a smedme of CL2.s411 mound somanualy comfar spun PBMA and ths >RC entf. wldsh joimly damids the lh 4)4,. ' f,$ lfc.T,ff. -h J.. %. J.I elemsmas se he tesul the immuussmehle emehasmy se desnamn ens ther sumphse of shearumble aimaamm af the / e N. tJL4o pian was suitama se entsfy Cmmmemman susuissams. whins PEMA's peufemmamel judgesus es as whas 5- %.W7.y w*t,(i4 M k,g ehemes simmend beimmed et the pus heemse sense is emudad is suhammal defamma, she Comunamann's supdmans .,fg.. "*;w. 9, f ji 4 piandy namese inimemed parass en appenemy se abus PsMA's eisse en gemens esmemunes ths assgemsy ed J, j umpiamessamma esyshday" of the plan. Ass 10 C.FA Sad 7(e)(2), And ths ' - af whaharihmIJ1ro j " (, s... N, n ,; s. pian, msnmens em en==m, snesass em Communnss's seminary segumummes sums squ-may sad eenham, iy in j Y.* f.), 4 'l ' ' c.$., j, f.". . ;*,.,,j,

r-one heads of thec-

+ "See apre mass 38. w,.w.n . f, M8'. h n. . y f.j e . e.,;.r e. - 4 9.a 1i 139 I 4 4

1.,W. >.

n e; w e, r * [j ; } ' y,,. ,J . 4 i ,y y h' l m d I.f, g w '. A I 4 'p . t. p .,n 1 a = ;Q [*' -i 4 4 . y.c, v a 44 + , p '" l 0; "..et y A 6. 4 f,

g.**
-+w=

,p. .~,a 'n .m I ), [t7 ( j '.g /***.*'**" r.+ g %M 3 - ;,, s '.a

>p 5

f

,e b

- L ., W k p 3L m .s. ;.+ .. l# 1, s% i 'r V n-) - p, ' r.,7c h. " * #, ' 7 * ,y ?,, 4 a 4! ' ". '.. ? *,. 8 t s!

.h.h ~.s.nM. s...m...,h.., v,. M..m.,<w,[, n w :.sa.:: :.w -_ ) '.., kh . f ~ fhp ~.m....,. . ~.. :,,w. e ;ow.;., 4 .. 2 . m% .3.... n.. . s,'

m...,

y je,.K'y./.Is..~.7 p~.y'h~' k a' 'h.. N N ", ,c.d [ 7 ' y '..7. 'j , G.. 'y..g.w..,, 'y

7.,

I5 .e - n,?1-. g Yfh. ,y', 's ; ' t j*. *.*

3',. );.., N.*;*.+ ?, * ';.,....

d gi,, 7 s w- , m .p. , (s. t.,. f -.,,/ -7 3'g g. ;.. :.g;.g"(jf./;,/'. . 'j t ..1 p m J. a , c..:... m.,,.; .n + L *.., v., c' b .8 k's. ) s'

a,

j c

, m. 1 j

'r ..,p a 1

f. -

,,1 / threat to FEMA's credibility, why should a similar challenge to FEMA's -d. .5N conclusions regardmg the sufficiency of an emergency response plan exercise . E' T., [,v' $Nd be considered such a threat? We can think of no reason and FEMA supplied j y c 4 ..., W JQ !- none." y }( $,. ' f., d,,

Z,,;;Y.".'.. 4M.,

3. One further mauer need be addressed. In its appellate papers, FEMA c

p

lQ(

asked that, should we decline to conduct an ' interlocutory review of the. ac. y e,. ~... ceptarr,e of CM'= Ex 15 and 16, the question of the propnety of that - f; Q.' .f >l# i/j,"; ' - EV--? be certified by us to the Comsr.ission. We decline to do so. The i ~ b; (...p.. I Commission has at least implicitly approved the Marble Hill standard for di. ?.. V.,..g-

f.,

" y ; /,.. sected certification and our rigorous application of that standard over the years j l'~ ,, ;, t, in the furtherance of the Commission's own policy agamst interlocutory ap. ,y, Y". . r., 3,'. j peals. In addition, none of the doctrines we have invoked in concluding that the ~ '1)/[ standard is not met in the circumstances of the present case can be considered W either novel or controversial. This being so, we could not accede to FEMA's e.. 3,' '.} alternative request without implying a belief that the Commission is likely to 1 ,l' s,.. depart from long-established principles that have enjoyed its explicit or tacit gg

,3..

endorsement. Needless to say, we entertain no such belief. ( . e. Treated as a request for directed certification under 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i), the -l FEMA petition for leave to appeal from the Licensing Board's acceptance of i

-f '.y Contentions Ex 15 and 16 is denied. FEMA's alternative request that the ruling i

below be certiSed to the Commission is likewise denied.' c - ',.- ~ .~..1 It is so ORDERED. 7.. '; c M ..i FOR THE AFFEAL BOARD s w t.. i L,

f,,,

'.y Barbara A.Tompkins (, b.M c[I -', [n.[ h.MN.h; Secretary to the g. .. c: .n, Appeal Board +_

u..

.c ... ~ * ~ M,. n' [,'* T,, 'W, a Mr. Edles, Concurring: ,,.7-i t a. j n.V I join in the Board's conclusion 'aat there is no reason to take up FEMA's r ,a 4, 4 .3 appeal fmm the Licensing Board's i 1 mission of Contentions Ex 15 and 16 or to i . W..,. f I % L. ~ ?.>.y;a; :9e.Q:.';d@%) y certify the issue to the Commissior. FEMA is a critical partner in determining .qy:.# :: y 1. 1 .m.u. a ., m. u =. b;lN' *.*'"!M';..,.[ M7b.d;${' gj "'nure was same him in ommers agen m ihm FEMA siishi usant the regerunsa that h.pand to ...' ~ f' ;5.<.g.M, M M d e-En 15 and 16 6.e explain tu pennian en the sufhe eney of the emerass) as per se 1..nging he + 'N

y'e -

4 :,,r - endibaby huo quenat. satsee h in say ihat we em et a nans so undemand how that enuta be so. d *;bK;, g '. ";3 W " ' ;.Pai'O.; 'j,. 7,y-h [4 Bessues they believe that buerlocatary soview is inappropriate hers. Messrs. Rosesh:1 and Wilber do not reach (p y'.. v

M)i ihe mani at the comm.orsy. mihing buyend that %ean should be infamd fna the fact that they hm
.T 4

' ". J ;.' ."v,. y. LV. ~ not joined in the views espressed in Mr. Ednes's ennemting apunan. %:C ', n'a - C,., .. P '*3 ,.4 H 140 3 *

m' '

d. g 1 -), r

4. g*

r y,, 3 . ' in 8# g

j..lf

.f, ., i..-.-. > s .,s..+. r , A. ).Lct"g. s,. %..c. W'_ .....-.-..,y ~.g- ... h r.

t' u

.5."

+ +..(. Yg? aN e 4'r e.q.. . + v '3. t + g ..?'>,+2'~. .e W.. f, * e . y',[ v. c. .1 ha.'. + q,,, hp' o .w,4..., 4, " n. >* **w., e s p 7, "L, "g,'4.,,',h',f, ' f'g i,,g.,'b.,>.> 1.:%, ri .i, w' % n '+

L

,r. =, 5.s.i v

3

.. : s +.. s '. i. ,, t v r I 'gh I g g* 8* -7 $6

,i g 4 h' j
h,

',p.i ' g Q 'f.f *.' f; }g.j,'y. E.7,'- ',,, .., d *. I ,g , 'f, h 't I .'F'. ', ,f4 '.,.,,- d; 37 "[,, i' .'f.i. 'i p p/'-! g '{9'f-o p i*.s g - : e.7,.l3. >; - u. ".. :(.. M. *,;; '.s; q ",. e' '.'* q;g.7',e.~d.i.$)4 y .. r rj '!. ;. y M.,' r"."..%.. 4k4.Qf* % !: J 1 '&N.j /+.i.#,";g

^

sj A~ e a. .~.9 q.. ..=.., d,.'.. 4 .-A.- e-

o t . I. . :d s o / ~. n i ,( , '* r ,,,; { - ,} t y) ' ' Q,, ,[ ' ', ,. 7.'s, ':tc. ,, n. 7,, ' n., -

'?

, m s. <r. a c

~

n, s., 3c " '.V :, . l

, y,,

3' n s. ., 3. r. - p n, y,3 ~ .p ,g .m g" t s., 9-a , ;.e..o ~ l m ' k,. '. .':.. A, 7.' . !jU. ~ .n L.

m..-

v ..: c. g aq 1 the adequacy of emergency plans and a special participant in Commission ci proceedings. Like my colleagues. I do not dismiss lightly its assertion of ~ 3. immediate and serious irreparable programmatic injury as a consequence of ( 3 the Licensing Board's action. But I join fully in our determmation that, despite h,, s. , $/ ' ~ p. c.' Q ~3 u every opportunity to do so, FEMA has simply failed to demonstrate that it is likely to be harmed if the contentions are litigated. I would add, however, that 1

(.

'...). ;.., N %. /-] ,.f the Licensing Board properly admitted the contentions. ., '. 7 ~ 7 gJ Section IV of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, requires that "[a] full partic- / f.' $'p / ipation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency ,J J' H

.1 plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation" be f.

4 l. conducted "within 1 year before the issuance of the first operatmg license for 7*,. -

g *,

',1 16 ' ' :. R ) full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power... and shall inchide [l:+ ',.I, t-l4 participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EFZ"1 lo f, f.g ', As the Commission explained in CLI 86-11, a review of the exercise results is ,,.'5 ?,M M *Q,6. ""[) N.. designed to reveal if there are any de6ciencies in the LILCO plan that would ,9 %.T 4.**. 7 preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency.2 Ihe Commission authonzed v .c.f, the admission of contentions l..,Y ' " ~ s l f N which satisfy the speci6 city and other requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 by (1) pleading that p .y the exercise demonstrated fundamental Baws in LIlf0's plan, and (2) by providmg bases ' ', 'I. .i for the contenucms which. if shown to be true, would -== : ' a fundamental Baw in the eas (.. e n e s.s The two contennons admitted by the Licensing Board allege essentially that j-the Shortham exercise did not satisfy Commission regulatory requirements. I j have no doubt that a failure to satisfy those requirements - such as a demon-y

,;.j strated failure to conduct a full participation exercise in accord with Appendix I

Lh E to Part 50 - would constitute a fundamental flaw in the LILCO plan that could bear on a Commission determination that there is reasonable assurance j l that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emer-t

j gency. While the Commission has some degree of flexibility in establishing the

,l 4 scope of the exercise adiodication, the interveners would appear to be entitled ,,'} at least to raise allegaaons that the exercise failed in a substantial manner to [ x;,,. '..- l ' ...c..

.,; Y;. ?e 1y

', (W,*...i . p il].. h}.),' ~ r,' :,.~ a.**'h* * * ' - bas vecently pmposed to nelas the tuning seqtmement for a fua penimpsooti ensstase prior to - 4, Ithe - , '.,, l( 'j issuant Jf a full power operanns buenas to allow such esercase to be held within two yees before issunnos d ,,q,,,,.g C the hr mas. Jes 51 Fed. Reg. 43.s69 (1986).

6 ;

. i. 4 ' e, g, . i, if, ' ~ p 223 NRC at st1. .s' '<t fg s >a. ~p. .At n rj . '.. ' i 7,:4 1 N f'g . sn. ,c 1 141 m. . g.. q. .}. m .~

f,

4 I w g8), 5. ..y-g ,s - ~ u. ( [hl , i, K'g., y,t. n t 'j \\ ,,.j : 4 s >l [ 3.' e ? w __

.m., 1 'l I ' Y..1y Q.,Q.:sQ'qA nC. Q,v m.:y ',"y.p.p. M ~ ".,;.;.L, '% g. & v=' g & _ u. X....V '%n M d - y - I # ~ [ 7. [, ';. k \\. h., d ;.,w:n.:. k.7.i. %...b 'h.'.. .s7,h. $ h h e hd5h..w

a s. m s.....

.[ N.'h ~ ..-7 %.. k.,. >. iJ w . y&,,,%. q,;v.,.,,y ::,; .y

x: . w m..

-+ .m.. a ..., y,g.. y r y m.c.<,, v,,Q,.. y ; 3 3. 'b;. 9,.. 2 + >r. r;, - ,.;.s.., .i .? ,,g.... r

t.,.

.,4 .. e. ', **. l, 7 ',,.. ; N.J i n. " s, ,,. ' "l demonstrate compliance with crincal aspects of the Commission's emergency t e r a. ,V - -, }, planning regulations.' i,. y s g V <; ,. 7,Y@%. ' o..; A. 1 F'.? W. U 4 4 ,. r. It seems clear to me, moreover, that the two contenuons are not intended to.. N; 4 N m a rocus on seneric a8pects of FEMA's exercise review program. To the contray,. y l \\i as FEMA readily concedes, the Commission is "the arbiter of its own regulatory , C a ;y,.4'g,[fg ;.. - .f d ? : v yj ,.. ' ] i. .; l ~ - pmcess" and " FEMA cannot speak to the issue of what is a ' full participation' \\ 'M. v A, f.,,f, $e W. exercise under NRC regatan== "5 As the staff aptly observes, j t ..,3 ~.n,:n .fn..a .3. e. f j. 7 ', ,.R ': the aboios at she pumalerensames to be sammlis +=1 o sh.PEMA afEcials desisnins.

y g

t j; ey, 4 ,,{ ihe mennes,,.. (B)s the semping nest be laced enough so give meseeabis asemanos that : ')

e..,,, y pi.s een be - r' - = ... 'ro ihn amm ihst shena -s-s somd win be -
nj

+4 c ',-;, V. l', loandes se she scope at she ammiss. k is no so desanine whsaber honor naarcases could be M T. developed but selsly to test whether this stenase was adBcient so that the usults... could.. j

J u

fann a basis for a Anding that these is senseashie assavanos that adequese pnnective measures -J eum and win be inkan.' .,.. ('4 - 4 $~ FEMA appears concerned that the Licensing Board may, in due course, . i,; : }er.s. f. y,- i "second-guess"its design of the Shoreham exercise, Le., the Board may conclude [' that the exercise was insuf6cient to demonstrate that the LILCO plan will n ?,* p 1,, - work. 'Ihe contention stage of the'proceedmg is far too early to address W that problem. If, as PEMA and the staff seemingly believe, the record, once .A f. ei developed, will reveal that the exercise fully satis 6cs all NRC requirements,4 , ), p ' V 4 .C i that will be the end of the matter. If the Board determmes that the LILCO plan - y, J ;' 1 :, is inadequate in a way that implicates the design of the exercise itself, however,- + ~L", some potential admittedly may arise for a conAict between LILCO's need to '." .L ,, ', ;g comply with the Commission's regulatory requirements, on the one hand, and I , ' ', f ' J. FEMA's unquestioned authority to administer its exercise review program, on 9,',U ~.,, the other. 'Ibe Commission can address that issue if and when it arises.' ,J., f In any event, I fail to see how the Licensing Board's actions simply admitting h.$5!.N,ly,.:-t.,+.4 Mc M [M.,N<., the=='has will adversely affect FEMA's design of emergency pitnning .p 34-exercises cr its exerciae review program. FEMA asserts that the Licensing Board ', y. f"lp .C,n may not unilaterally require it to modify its current approach. I agree. Any [ k D. j'g alteration in the cur ent exercise review approach would seemingly require inter- .. -w, ~ ".j ~ ",.*.., s _7 s. [*,g f g, '.c g A fas Union gConsernetsesanser v, NaC,735 F,2d 147,14444s (D.C, Cir.19:41 la this - the d ,a' .v+ C.V. 9 f 7;g 'f, esar. mm esWy pseposed to medsmus aho Caummamon's shsemseem *ent ths esmess is saly sulsuus to ins ij,l**., k M.,, g'3 ? f 3. ?. W 3- [, '. '

husmens decisine so the essen k indusses that mengsmsy psupasesams plass me A= man--any Assed, sad is J.;*- " W cs i. 2 ;'7 lJ. O.:% # N.2,7 set selsessa es to amor er ad has pushlamm assundag om the amendse day." M as 144s.

v.f'W,.7,;,4",.{.;d*>,a3 8 a.r,y.,,y "..,,),6%.., c,q 8 penta Pennies a 3. w y p r. ,NRC sent anspaans to PantA Pedsism $st tasan to Appest, eso. Osmesry XI,1987) at 17.1m amis ---==== , p /gQ2 7.,7.+. y M,.. . s, i <e ?p ;;@-?.,M i j _ dn'. J,' f/ 1 l jen folly in our esmahment that the -,==='s dessuve bt CLJ-s&1l that the tasemmg Beaul -- the 41 e i l'I'd. ,Z I' ";n,. t 'lI. J,?,' 4.*.. "susulu" of the assumes must be med so endesess the Bened to leak at the sospe er design of the essasse to [L*lQ' 4(({5*'s.c".e7, '[ ' Q, /* K

3 n,\\,'N 0.)

J '... if. A' 'E < J same depus. ,n ,{ 7 q The immvemms sus only andtled to litigsse reseau that am moedal to the C 's basemas demi-lW." } /t ("'i },*[ ' 7v sism, Pisisly met every musspus'y plemung alan== need les eusammend, and asahing is ear opuman shedd be - y k,,',",e ,. 1, esusmund as almadang that shassses enessgemry pisamag enemmes are er are est messunal . ? e- . 1 g,' p* , : w.J.g. '. .3 3 a r~ "a 1' ,.y I m i. Y 142 i'. ..p 1 p *' ) .L ..?,- ,,[, y , - $. ' 4 ,3,,. ' g -,r 1 e (. .~&,,c/..,1, .? .'y ' . &. 4d '...,. ,y. je. w p;t;l.;. -. ' [. i u.,----- .g .r m - - - w.,, T{ w g a

ys-s *

,... p g, ~!f:,. y. . V ;;

,}v g

,,./.,n,',_. '.,'.7

L a

.a o aw;f,,"y, t s 3 s I* [ " ' j j, g (, y h 4 + f>y6,, *,*f a# r, i* '4 s ) c,/ 4,* [' ' Q. ,.;'[Q.[ h!'G

4"
'*4 i

7'. ' ,. "

f. ' y ',,, r:r"

,,/7 &., ',,-,, y.T. ', R. 3. 4P nf,.'4, ' g,i ie. '7. iv%.s -,m%.'% W l h.-- 1.' 2 ', _,, 41 '%:n g*EQ,. - q p ' ~y. [hY?Y", :.&g.o"&y. ;h'.$hh.$ ^ ' r 7 3 4 v.., .,c.. - *t.. . ',sr g 1* u l. l l,5, ~.. ';. Q,W., f...h N , $.. N ?f,W ~ r .K

+ .. i., 4

s s i o

c f.[... l, r. c I Q r..'*; f*. a. -y , j.. { .(N} * ' '".,. '.t [n*,pp ' $,/' '.F 'h / ' ~ I Q.., ' S'.,', f,,'. r "O '" ' ' ' j~1 i-f 'C t.7 7 k. y : ~ n.... s ,t. c m. s - ,y.. ;;y,;. a y. 2, 'w , s., 3 C, a:-

., y m

..g ; : .~

9. L -

y:;< ~,,.c.,.,t a c y. ::;. ,s ~.r .:.: i,; L..,. a;;.. y

u..

~ u., . 4;fr. ~ i.+.,.- . ;u - s g '. p <,- 'f .g. I,.- -(t -3 s N '-l ' agency consultation and, perhaps, modification of the current Memorandum of q Understanding. That Memorandum provides in pertinent part: ~ ' -....,.l T.. J, *. s. .p... ,. g.- , N ? [..y v.[e. -.,. .li .1, a l C. Preparation for and Evalmuime of /oiar Ewcases. FEMA and NRC will cooperate in determining exercise requirernents forlicensees Staae and local governmeras. 'Ibey will .'4 o '.H,, o ' ' 'z ;g; q..,;-.;; p l ..,. c c h. '.,a s,. !su i.,.,, also jointly observe and evaluate exercises. NRC and FEMA will institute procedikres to. Li t. -;p 6 enhance the revww of the objecuves and :=aanos for joirs exercise:. ' Ibis review is to u 7",,', p ~',. ; >,,. ~., ~ M. s,f( ', l-7I?.,J y, ;,* I assure that both the onsite considerations of NRC and the assits amsiderstaans of FEMA f, i,' g,* Y

p.,'9;.i

,->; L are adequatrJy addressed and insegisted in a manner that will provide for a int hnir any sound Y-M r,",i,.9,1 exercise upon which an assessment of r. . t e capabilities can be based.' Li . ~ :,... g<,.,,t.,.... t p . *.,

i. ' l?.5,...,

s

. c,.,..a .s _u .s While the Licensing Board, in assessing LILCO's compliance with applicable

;,. ~

'e NRC regulations, may find at the end of the case that the features selected [f'.. P ;;..p, /, ~.' 4 'Q* ',, ' *. f,..'. i by FEMA for testing are insuf6cient to allow LILCO to demonstrate compli-M '. ' - .e

. '- ~ ? ';' ;

, f.o ance with the Commission's regulations (whether it will do so, of course, is [ pure speculation at this stage), it cannot direct any changes in FEMA's pro-a ', " .~ '.,;a'a ),.. i ? - ,.l **.,3,4,ff Q w '.y. ,1 gram. Only FEMA and the Commission, acting together, can bring about such C. I changes. Thus, nothing that the Licensing Board has done - or, indeed, could 'Y ' 9 d' Y ;'f! l 'Y.LP ', do - can unilaterally injure FEMA's administration of its emergency exercise T4," ("~, ; [ ,.;.,d.,,. } program.'

p. a -

,.i~., ~ f**. ),sL. e ' _. g.. i l + v. = n... <e a. e .e .r,. .v-n ,i t. 4 i, ~ %. si; ./ ] sup 's r* 4 ,,e i. > :... ..i . e. s o,...

a..

.~.i., s i, e,,. . ;.j- -, f s ',,i., m' .' 't j. s e i s. t *.. ...s y 4

n. t l.

...cf 3 ,.y- ,4.. + 4 ' */ .1 s '. W r ig, " * #J, ;'% . v "..',:{

c i
\\.

d: * *. ...,.'3,',v .,l, y . n 1 ,c ,..-..p, g4 - ~ c. ,,c.., y.....,r..,,, . N, r. - ,5 ).,, . e='y,.,,- < ..h', ['. , k,, 4 9'.h, a .- '-. - a . f. 4 z l,";. [,; y s 54, Fed. Res. 15.445, 15,437 0 9:5). i', l 'I appeciam tha applicant's oilmmrna in bang recured to foDow en eseremo densn omaW by FI:MA (with i.',' f -* ** -Q

, ;. 4 ;'

.' J My - j N,.' k 1 NRC sta5 approval) that may mrn out to be insuf5cias to pernst camphanas with NltC - ; Bxa surely ,, Q '. q.,. ;[,' '3, O,.,f. -. j the um= m that dilmmma cannat be in sunply faraclamns svarvenas at the Gueshold fmcs saempung m ' g,;. 7' ; - i 4.nonsu = es. v. utro pt aosi not maa.pplic.bi. comm segut norm. j.

t

' g '.,. 0.,., * . 1

W

...,) ,e ,6 2 A p '# .f m .t .'f E .) ?j 143 . - Q,.. 4 i vi.j i ,'5~-. l ja e I { , d.,

e e

A 'g' g i. .-} ,j ',?, . s, ,,a n4 u ,+ s n. gI ,- f - M ',',l 'g, 'r,' 'w*- e / g, [, ' ; f, f. ] Y Y ~,h Skh.';, 4 4' g ,. q f. 'f%' $: f. Yk M,h~N.,bw(th, *.M : k.'.'f y.;- $..M~,M @@ n$h kNM6 N.. DM.glan.NM_$k .../ n n t 3

...h:

____.aa_2_______ st - =w.... e aw e.... 1

u. ..-.......a am : a .. a a a :.u a u.....~. v ~ Y .4..L %h.h,j..,,s.* ass; :.*;r :4,h.h :,$r,., -.:y n.Q,A*2 y.u ;;3 .Y N ".\\.. ); $Q ;[y, N, n, -,,,, < ? c'r.

)* im:

0

M..

.t ] ' LS: .., ?.. + * .':,,w. s4 y .'m,.... f.,: s s - .,,s. u e,. 4 w, y.sq .f Q.. O Q,.,,.,.,..r..Y y';'^.,,.i %y.y y_[h... 1 , 3_ .a %;y.%. .',~.,y;y.)g..g ,".< p.,', Q ;,: y?. " >*;iW g y';.f..Q ;,% qgy f.i., n a:., ~; 5 g .c

3,

.,.g . ' 3. : *, ', J.. : _.M #ff J. ' 1 J,... e.....,,.':~.#m..:# ' - t-. .x: a, e {M 's t :( .o g ..cy 4. 4 ..,,.c 5 4 + b 9 / . 1 e. p-Cite as 25 NRC 144 (1987) ALAB-862 ~ -.t - V t .e. .3 i. J l.7 . - e-. t..;. :;. .o y, - . g' a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . rl ,..c l.. 7.., - e r d '-? ? ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD fr 4 .4 .~ p# Administrative Judges: h I af-i.,- ej v. J, g) l~ Alan fi. Ro.senthal, Chairman t ,j Gary J. Edles ,j Howard A.Wilber e... .4 3 j in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443-OL d I 50A44-OL j l (Offsite Emergency Planning) ~ i. 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMF ANY OF 1l NEW HAMPSHIHE, et al. q 1 2, ^ (Seabrook Station, Units 1 .j and 2) March 30,1987 ) a 1 The Appeal Board affirms a Licensing Board order denying a United States l . h, y..,.ty, t t, + ,..I as a representative of an " interested state" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c). The Senator's petition frt leave to participate in this operatmg licensing proceeding l ,7, lc,*. ,.:4.,: ;- Appeal Board, however, allows the Senator's panicipation in the proceeding as ., '. i l r 1 an amicus curiae. l i. q,, ,} l. J' RULES OF PRACTICE: LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS ,j Persons mahng limited appearances are not parties to the proceeding and l.,, < s.w -... ; e .;5 l.- (":.t; ;',. .,g i "T..- .] have no participational rights in it beyond the offering of a written or oral j statement. Rtrther, that statement is not part of the ofScial record of the ,j . M.r# 1 M,f(..ya 9, .c t,' lyl p N.s,. !, % c,. ~. ', proceedmg. ,$**Of g h-

,.c, w 5,

..,,, y. y '.a, y, g;,,.....f.,. v.:,..,.N ' .f. w-af s, . g F 'a.a t.,. - Ac

q s..~

2 to

4

..E +. ,e i E; . '.g .%.,i e w j 'l j ? l .a ' .b 144 I a a j ( r i N e,E p l ,, 1 xJ 4 a. 4 .{ ,m ---,y.-- v. . ;.;,..y . p. ,f,,W.f*i, ,L,., - *., .g..' 71. &,,,.,,, i 'h.*,' ,p-i + 4 '.f :,) 3. : k "g [,',. ' 9; j, 'g[. .h.,2,,:., - A <. ] '. ". [.<.qs. g,...:j

. ;9.

r- ,g 1 ., j f 6 y; ,..s ..Na Fe, ,..,,,c 3 ( p... ~, a 3.,,.t..-- ....,e ',: (,.. J. - .y. y.. ', y.. ,.ei.v.4. '.?.)'( ki ;. . v'. 3..~. '.e .#.l @rf, . "-Q*: ~, .,3 en g e t. ., qf. ,,,k, k., f,1,, n '* W.. U' l k t. p. &;l ? l ~* 'l' ".h' R,.e ~ * ; * ** '.,' i a' ,,,,.',s..s t,,'* y t 6* e g. ,g, i 3- . n u. g,. m e

t

i M

,. & n<,.,,,;a %a ; Y W Y C. s n .o Q::F.. l, ':3g C,. 9-. .. ~. f,../e t..; e y,, %., GK.. f+ 3.,.. : ~ ..i 4 I w: .,n .n .+, .. v. o_ .- ~, n .s l i, {'. .r .y l,.' .4.,- y 9;.y.. t...,.< ,L s.. .ct ,s

,. c u..

..:, *,w'.. t. j.,i f f s '. 7, ' .I C = . d $.b;. o, ~ /...M ' . d.;'*[ 's 4 .7 /. M 3 ~. Q v./ ' ~ ,.[, _;4 r.

,,/; J L.'

. / i' - 9 _ '. e 1~ e y 1 . s. s s ,1, .,s s n s ~ y9 'l ' RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION BY A STATE 4 ,.s-. . '? , ' :.{ / c g, W// :. h '.l J. A,M ;-y/,.{.@,. 3 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) was promulgated to carry out the congressional directive W..; c. q j 'l that, in the furtherance of cooperation between the Commission and the states, an k.;,'. f;; Q', w . ;.u ,q opportunity be provided to the representatives of interested states to. participate p.{,.;* y4,7 A;jg q,g u,'. gorp in the adjudication of license applications. It is reasonable to assume that the 3 7 z.f,S.;'..g ;M.:y.#p-J.p.M;.g H.W. <.,. l,.*g[.,7 :.. '. legislative contemplation was that the concerned state, and not the NRC, would t. h. L 'R.' % mwd .4c- @ ; e,, %. f.,.'w h. r 1 make the decision respecting who is to serve as its sph= aj PW . w,.: '. - - a..,, w j., ~..s e

v., *. ;,

... u/ ? 'G's.; > >,,.. c, a; w',n. W n l,n.li N,T V.) .d RULES OF PRACTICE: INTERVENTION

f. a-c g, - (f). i. '. ' T,,

.m. s e, m. - ../,'t'.,-[.%ffc.*. *~t (,y.Q $ N -l In contrast to a representative of a governmental body who desires to / m- ' ' 1 participate without party status under the aegis of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c), a person '..,.,, '. f - C[ G /.L. s f, i... 'n .I seeking leave to intervene must (whether a private citizen or a public official) , -. ',\\ pmvide the Licensing Board with a list of the contentions he or she wishes to js ! ; l*J .,f. '.,.. f..n,.,,e t-; r y. s 7 7. 3,, [. s litigate, together with a statement of the basis for them.10 C.F.R. 2.714(b). .4

.....n.,.._.

e. t,,. .. h.. p ..?.., e RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEF (AMICUS CURIAE) ' L f.,@sl n;.. d. 7.'. ..,v 4. -i... k, ' ','f N,'.5.'. j"' f. ',.W 6 '--

r. :

M. 3.6 'Ihe Commission's Rules of Practice explicitly refer only to the seeking of .; T ' leave to file a brief amicus curiac before an Appeal Board or the Commis. l j..*J.',)' ' MS.Q4W,4l 1 f ,a sion. But this consideration does not perforce preclude the granting of leave in appropriate circumstances to file briefs or memoranda amicus curiae on issues { ', ' 6 / 4 [ , e ' 1 [ Y ' 'i of law or fact that still remain for Licensing Board disposition. o.,,.c ,. a.. - .n t 3. 'y RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEFS (AMICUS CURIAE) .g p o i '? There is no real difference between an appellate brief amicus curiac and [ l,

V ',,,

t, ;l,7. / ', ;a 7 *. a brief or other submission presented to a trial tribunal that is confined to a + g y discussion of (1) legal issues that have been presented to that tribunal by the r*'C$ + f. [ q 9 parties; and (2) factual issues covered in evidentiary hearings. 'Ihe crucial factor ,;s 1 is that, regardless of where it files its brief, an amicus curiae necessarily takes b '/,/ 'l ', v. 1 ,d . c..- T' ; ;,, N, 3.. i the proceeding as it finds it. ',,f a ..g. - I e

.;* ' a...w.

~,.. s y ._ c [,~',u# N,.!'.h

,..' ).

1,

y. L ;

~ v y, '.N.II l .j RULES OF PRACTICE: BRIEF (AMICUS CURIAE) I N:N... :

l. j...

c, a. * :e " Q.. m.. :.; a. ... y (j An amicus curiae does not have the right to appeal adverse decisions. 1 @4 ~%',fm s ' '% f,f';.. -t@.,,f,e,; ,^.J ,.,J - i. of. c,...,. e,, c-4 I. r 9...,,q:*j; .p C;. (' ^,. g., ) .c Z,1, '. m ~ w;. ;~.4 . g, 1 C,q,. a. g.,.. $y "? f ', 's ',. ..o + I m y,,,, If ,,cJ Q ;, p,..g d ? v 4 %, . ' *. ,') t N '% t',, e'r ,c,- s. .4 N * % '. t[

h.*.! '

, 6 ', '.*. !. p'..y,.y );, ' ' [,.. ;* l l. , >[ e+. ; w;3,. : g.m.,, r, h. ,.e 9 u 4 ,u% , Y.,e T",,'. l '. '.Y E h.'. < f ^4 145 .3 . tr 6,. f 1 s q n' y i )

?.

.s m.;

n i 4.,

i 1.,1 .r ) r ( ,j.-. ', l,,v.. m 4 H' ,..tu 3,, E.. ., Nf '. f p u y, Y " L,. % g i ...? s,

*,h'

,,* y 3.; ' f,4 .r"',,F',.- . A -. j; %. y w ,,g, ( {>. ,t* .v', ,/ ' t) w 4 m. i4 ,4

p.g g..

.b0 \\ ,g , f* [k$ 2,* y.I. $; $sj$$QWWM$%$@,$,*)..'i@* ',l@h'*, [* ,-' W X ___.-_a.Aw1ussAm^.mu..--- w-_. sm. s -m.- s e.ar..ma ._-.--...a.- l

-.__.a...2a .u.aa2..r u a.e --" " " -e+- i f b ) ,, a k,f.,'. ?f f . :h: ,x", ;.:3,l. m, _.hf. 0'" k f,?l4,) .h? [ ~ r&.?. . -m e.;'~--',s1...y.... w" ' .m. m. ... +

3

. g &:, ".%,V ;w&n. g{. ;.: i . ~ .+ .r .:~<,e( a. ^ q, J. *A. - .s. .e' +r u... qa %..,.. a y,. m. y : r ;x.,. v> .,a..c ~.;- e .a *, m..co .... l.,N. ; & s.<%.:'.t *th APPEARANCES .s 'y# ,,.: Qln .?,.. }.,7 ' '.' T ..x; 6;.i@q :.g. United States Senator Gordon J.' Humphrey, Washington, D.C., appellant mh o..,. e e.., a,,..Y.. q 2 ,f }t e, :.- iq : +n.,.. pro se. . u.. m. ey>. :a. ;; 1 + g. v......> ms ,

S, e?[w'.$ f M !

~ George Dana Bisbee, Concord, New Hampshire, for the State of New Hamp- ? N shire.

f. [....a.j,.k.x,'*.j, '*.]A v

w:l j j ~ r [.f.... *c.s. M,, ' %..I.;g. 73./ .:M. Thomas 'G. Dignan, Jr., R.K. Gad, DI, and Kathrya A. Seueck, Boston, [ [' ,. 71 S Massachuseus, for the applicants Public Service Company of New w. ~. n f, :'.Wl.~ r - ' " _. W;r Hampshire, et al. n..., y :.'.a. .. a. : e.

v.. ' t,. ','m;. ;"T.g.c e. 'd ?

Sherwin E. Turk for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. Ip y ... x.. a. ,r -.:.. 3..,.t. m. ..,. <., m. -:r.! "w.s.s..b.'. 'i DECISION b v. ' ~

s v.

g:. .v.n.... .. x..e l ('j J.' O A. Befost us is the appeal of United States Senator Gordon J. Humphrey of. k. ^ - ' - hs New Hampshire from the 1.icensing Board's February 11,1987 memorandum . 8?, and order (unpublished) in the offsite emergency planmng phase of this operating j_ ..a '-lf.'~Fj .'1 license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility. In that order, the-v ~ ~ ~.'; Board denied the Senator's petition for leave to participate in the proceeding 1 7 i. j.5:j;.iMG.; under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) as the representative of an " interested. .;;, N s.g' M Q.] State"(i.e., New Hampshire).8 '!he basis of the denial was that section 2.715(c)

p.,g.3$/M.j;j!

" contemplates that a government unit of a State, county, municipality or agency Q l..' ,.@.'.l Jr will be provided a forum for expression of concerns" and that the Attorney i;. V. ;,U - qqc ?Jf-] General of New Hampshire is participating in the pihding under the section l ~ ~ J. *., '!l d{.<TA.@. "as an agency of and on behalf of the State" and, as such, represents its interest? II

h..s ". i.'. 4 In this connection, the Board noted that the section does not confer status upon

.' i . ?,, :.. e k;, f.JP. q<- V 4 4. r. .'"'**'t.. ',,C,..g. '.,h j '.; 9 an individual simply because he or she holds otBce in one of the governmental .J }h* C N units named in it (i.e., state, county, municipality or an agency thereof)? O .. ' ' ;y'

. f..,, ;'.;:,e.yD;

-J : J .,.. e.~ .;^.,

s.y%;; % * *:3

+ .<-['I,h;l4'--)'.d.h.$@t.c; b/ h I i seni.1715 is es m a se.many wish p e,.nen hiNac - d r= by a pesan met a pasiy." subsumen <.,3.-

e.,:..

4 r

,n

. <*c .- Q.:. i;n (e) p=ide = reus.= The psendiss aiseur win esesd sspessomsoves er en humsmed senes emumy. ----

.andieressames

>0 %}.) ' 'Y*;U W'.". 7 4.l.' . f:y.. 3. y,.c ,jp.,F. 8 v 7,.. ir .c..N g'g:; jpS; ? @y.. 7 hacer, a snuseeMe appeemahy in peampses and is immedens N haaruses wunassa, and advies .q t

,.e.

en commesem wisham saganns es upssammaava m inks e penden won aspes m me issue, sah ..,, 4 /.f panssipens may also sis proposed druimies and onespues resumess se 651754 and 1762 and panness i.*, '" ., -j..... w.M;/g., n'f ;tpf.6/ y '

imemen wah masenobis opensany. in advene er sin humas.me mobjam n=== en which he demum

'1 a.3 #- ,{!@ ',* ror seve* by es connusman piumem m $17e6. The psesides esseur may sapaso such sepassmaaive U A. .A 1 . /D .af t-3 q *,M...

,"?;f: f.:b.(;'[.Yd*g Sg N d.

+-,.c to l='=r-d 3 q r ?.d-d.' !g*,: Febauery 11,1987 samnesundamm and ender a 4. 5 '- r - in anM a .,/,..s. $ 2 ir ;, aj T. 'H. m s. ,n- ~h ,, ): .p. 11, 3, f. -.o. a -'.,s,=.,. .,. '.

1.,9 {.e
s..j p )}

,a .y .'g 1 a. 1 ss.. \\

.6

,.p

1 J

7.,, - .' Q, "j q [' j,~ ' 146 j 4 .ul. ..} 'j b m ::, - s= j.4 '.

4. *

- j t'*h, ' 4,//.. *.. r-n : y.. o" s ..

g g,.a,e. 's..,

e,h.).. 7 r s."'.-

.' > +

a 4**, a ' f: lgn q*j., f N '8, . 4 ,,,.-.=*.==v.- +e - -a + .e**.* -'t.***7..~ es.e .F g*. *, * * * * = = = t ** F t n.. ". a,...e. '. - ,',.yg. s e. !. y~. n..,3 ~ _~ 4 ; a.

./ ! j . " R

'c. {,. i s ~ %,.~' y - (. e , ~ v. n, a '..a ?.,~<*,..'./ 7 +*. ,f, c '. i'. -%5* ~ '. ./ _. , a.. q...). s.;,,A,). .R.L s , 4, c. ';;. t.. W > perf t', " - fl i "'

F ;*,

'e ,', y,: ),.'gfi.. ,d; a^,v,. ,,,,..,,e cJh, ? 4 T. ,p ; ,,g...,. 0.. m..a d-., u 3 ,.. m, g,"3,.;e.

,',g.,t

.... {% *. ;te, t.., i m,,.

m

,.. % [ ' J pg., - J te.d f 7 '.. .,.,s j b.}.y!,.;y7;*. 7 <?f d.$'786. *,h 4 m..b g A ps ~ + . r. ;P 1., t 3, .T ,p& q.,g;% .< n. p. ;. P. c ! tg.g: i, r. c ... a s .s - ~..

-r ( 4'., .c 'n. 6.g- -t [.,~ y - e. ; p p?.),., i.., <.,,,..y .., a s.. .. n .e r. 1 ,3 ~. v. y t, . L, c. ;.- 9a-6 ...+.-3, 3.. 3;.

9.,. '

L. \\, ,f m o-t;..,, ., s, -).. j y c,p-1' n g,c q 1 a . L. t s\\ 4.. ~ .M

y..,

, q. w f ~ i. (: c. ~. -e a V. ' r ' -, :.:.*_. .iu. , y p

u.. - t,.u e

l-

.g i,

t 4 4' s i s 1 ?. 1 i, e' " { In his appellate papers, Senator Humphrey does not dispute that die Attomey ,.l -~ 5 General is participating in the proceedmg as a representative of New Hamp- - / >. : shire. But the Senator insists that, with regard to a particular " interested State,"

p. i,.,,, p " ',,, f

3., e. j p,, 1 ; 'j section 2.715(c) envisions "the participation of a multitude of representatives

[* '/I P;. V'i N.ZN *, i holding diverse views."' On this score, he stresses that the scope of his repre-

p. T ', '

4 J. $ $ l.[l M M ~ d W,'.,.' 7 <g '4~5~&,2d, "q Ei'(,'fl {,.- sentation of New Hampshire in the United States Senate extends beyond "[v]ote , K., ~,;*'.N T. e'.'_'i,T. g " ", Qle%:!.,1 1..fr. casting and committee activity" and embraces the protection of the " interests of g,'Q FT,1l{. c .. < ~. -, 7., f. .7? his state as to all matters, particularly those relating to the federal government, ' K '?",(f ci [ '. a <- within the scope of his authority and influence, whether or not they appear to be ]':,.Q'j,['.-d' , F f i ; ~ Q ;4. < %,.:'.' 'j;] j or are affected by federal legislation "5 We are also reminded that the Senator and fr: '.. - % [ ?yf j the Attorney General have different " jurisdictional responsibilities," and that the .V .J.' former,"as the State's highest representative to fedeml office, can represent the ( State's interest from a different vantage point than can the Attorney General."* l. * ' .T I, !q 'i @I~4 - ! Thus, the Senator concludes, his participation would appropriately supplement j r.,'. - that of the Attorney General and " effectively maximize the protection of New p,l" ?,'s,. q Hampshire's interest."' p l,..g,..,.,t.,. p,,p,. ;f p,t'..,.yjg,.a [j.%. " o ',8? ' ' ~ f A,,'. New Hampshire, the applicants, and the NRC staff have responded to the /;. - [

.,'w' (

appeal. In his brief on behalf of the state, the Attorney Generalinforms us that, ? under the statutory and common law of New Hampshire, he is the " chief legal f ';, s officer" of the state and serves as the " exclusive representative of the state as [p. if a government entity in civil matters such as [this] proceeding."' The Attorney 1.: '. c,y_ General therefore is of the view that, given prior I.,icensing Board decisions, ?, W" the Senator would not appear to qualify as a " representative of an interested State" for section 2.715(c) purposes. Nonetheless, the Anomey General does not b ' ~ '. oppose the Senator's " participation in this proceeding in his official capacity on behalf of his constituents under Section 2.715(c)if the Appeal Board so allows, h or under [10 C.F.R.) 2.714(a)."' s The applicants urge affirmance of the result below on the ground that*sec. j. ,;, f tion 2.715(c) "does not contemplate state representation in Nuclear Regula- ,.g 7 tory Commission proceedings by a member of Congress."S 'nicy add, however, j' P that they "do not oppose the Senator's participation in the proceedmgs by way 4 s

((

l* m e.... r K, ,' ~, - w r ' -' :" M th. t!: .e., . s{ 'U.s. senstar oordan J. Ihanpuey Basfin suppurt of Appeal 0:sbmary 27.1987) at s. h r. io5 ,f* ' c 3M st 4. ,/1 f.' ". d ' I '.' b '

M-[' f **'"- [

. # ( " "'.p"4 ; Y'd,;' 6M at 6 7. 7M at 56,7. h**t.' Ji+ '. 45','. 7 ^ ' 'y N., l s ',,.. v..'. a Bnef of the suis of New Hargehne in Response to Appeal er U1 senator oordan J. Humphrey (Match 1s. ,y,' .,,.. r*j'; ', p(G l 2q 1987) at s, s. . ' -.s , 3 vi, t 'M at 6. secuan 2.714(a) is the proyuann in the Ruler d Pincues goverums p=aia = for naeve are uservens ,' ',c*,},.,g-- 4U I as a full pesty. Any such penuan at this la.o dans would be enumely and could be stemsed only en a favorable .rp., 3,,,.' f M,e; a,.i-f. ,a

]*.

8Appheants' Responsa to Puunan af U.S. seneiar oordan J. Hurnphrey (March 16,1987) at 1 ,',. y.,,' .j -, A,,,,

.;. 3.,

) balancans d the facines specaAed in that secuart e,. ,, o a 4.'9 r ... p l, y l * ?r} ' s = }. r 147 k ? ,0. g.. i-g N 9 l.' I [' '*g e a N -^ J,, ~ g y r., - '... n , o t, '.,. 7 a, ; - r ... e g,,, q., ,, l l v. A. m. A. . w h..', J.I,,[.{M [O f,Ik, M,h.~<.}f,,k,,[lM, $$ h* [' 'h i' a I @,.Q-@. @q,Q t 9, p@a@m@,n@mu.gJm$,p$p$mgy%g.S M 4

.+n.mv, $ -

_ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _

a w.~ a.o n...m u w .mw.... r a w :a.a. ?:) X&~.y.,,Q. u.

4..a

.

ma.:

.,.h ~;v .;.M i W Q Q [v.c.- h,.:M ,s a.. h M. , M "' h{ hf? y, . h, ep.Vh,.,~ ?.~,$>,v? ..,$$5~f<..,%' j'.&.. Jf.*h.'p&'f.W [.,; U '

j. ' i'd t jd;Vf '

'. '. ' d!Z (.. '.O ' M'MQ W ,g E' ? ! i W.' l.,' ~ j? l ~$n' o. ... w** s. .,.k* 5'~** s g.. ,.. p i." p 4 .,.m .. >.y. .+ . p.,. v .,,'M ,7

l5.).,, ;

e,,q 3, 2,. 3..-. n..... x.,. .a- . l..;.r.. , r..; ;p.t,.,. ~,c: -,.', 1 e i,,

9..

a

..v

..,v paref 1 .j y r. -~ ..i

g. W.y,...

~. 4 Nfg')y.r..f 4 .,.4 .9-of a late-filed petition to intervene or a limited appearance."" For its M [y T .;.?D. M J@4,n.N.' i. y]j the staff similarly maintains that section 2.715(c) was not intended to provide . T 3. M ;c '., i 6

e. f.i',, f, 2

y=iii,ipssonal rights to members of Congress and, consequently, the Senator's [9,9 f M,@ i:' *. 9.'.,J.J'..N' j petition was correctly denied. p D Ti.. ? S B. We afGrm the ! i=*ii Board's disposition of the matter. Ihr reasons M f~..' ' - 2.fj5M.>-N'U$.1 ' pr $.p,7s. / y.i.1. 9. r, ;.l T..*]ej - that will appear, however, the Board should nevertheless allow the Senator to l. record. M@ d, present orally or in writing, as apr rists, his views as amicus curfac on any - e ' f-K.'(qM? f[f;;'f.5

f *k.-N $d$.h 9 9,.? 9 G.'.,

legal or factualissue p_- M by the pleadmgs of the parties or the evidentiary 'c N y. .. 4 '.;; I. [ W.J..f$$.9 $' 7'i., k.,i . 1. For present purposes, we need not consider whether, as Senator Hum- {*A phrey urges, the Rules of Practace permit mom than one individual or entity to . 2 g;7 ',g,f.f.l;.N %:. ] f j.*i 7.'i y * '., f..y.,.,.l.- participate.in an NRC licensing proceeding as a wr-==ive of a particular

,.j f7

,m interested state. Nor is it necessary to decide.whether, as the applicants and .. ' Y !:i l 0 1.;i.;! '$ f,. ". Y l staff assert, in no circumstances can a member of Congress qualify as such ' y.4, ]h.i W. 2.*y'/.{ Wyf.' a rep., .; ive. For, no matter how those questions might be answered, the i'. l '6.,,. required result would be the same. M .b E-c, '. c'. 'i. ., d. /.? ;'. c,.4 '. As previously noted, the Attorney 0:.neral of New Hampshire has informed (, 4 us that, under the law of that state, he has the exclusive authority to represent .f the state in this proceeding. We accept, as we must, that advice. Assuredly, in

j 4

,.;3, -l' f * .r;.?, '. ?i ~ ' ,.~ q the absence of a controlling contrary judicial precedent, it would be unseemly. 3 ' I q..; y at best for a federal agency to take issue with the interpretation given by the .] ~* ~ W..M,., > J 'j , 5;- ! chief legal officer of a state to the law of that jurisdiction. In this instance, no j / c ..;7~..,. l party has directed our attennon to a New Hampshire judicial decision bringing . ;.p $.'r.*d y.M *%,., the Attorney General's inte,rd ion into possible question. 1 o /,,'..;,j'-lv.7 4' fj,r We are equally persuaded.that considerations of comity dictate that.we de-l t ;ig.Af. h. f c 'i.

fer to New Hampshire law on the matter of what person or persons should be 7.,j h-l.; ~;.j' H.f.il -

J. 's. deemed to speak for the state in our licensing proceedmgs. Section 2.715(c) was M.MS7 M f.b'.$ h.'..Q:y. - * " ' '. 5 promulgated to carry out the congressional directive that, in the furtherance of j "-j cooperation between the Commission and the states, an opportunity be provided j y;q.. se W,1 ?Qf 'y",..f:.. e' a to the representatives of interested states to participate in the adjudication of L. ,j.I W.f & .[, '? 4.. d license applications." It is reasonable to assume that the legislative contempla - -) i tion was that the concerned state, and not this agency, would make the decision c ~l '; e..n :a.':a f.!."....? %..? ~.. M.: i ...,?..- ~ w: '. - x y,. <Mr.) $..,... g:[/"',',,..u. q.

't."'

[ ; slj A H 4 4,e. l.' '., .f ld at 3. ' Die limmend appearenes posesse is en fenh in 10 CEA 2.715(e) see also esonen m(b) of O Appendia A in 10 CEA Part 2. Penans usaking lirnised appearamens ese est perums to the proomsdans and .... t ' /. g y p, "c .a A,N 4;.M,b.K. M *..',d,a m,.(*. /G." l have no par.=r=wmains in k beyond the aesmag of a wness or aunt summment. Fucher. that maasemme is act d...- ,' s J:.. @.' * ;, l - ? ?. part et the erneial samme of the passeding. In the .we think k unlikely ihat the sa-a-adshi he ,n

** {i $ Dh'i?.(,;?, ' '.,a,l.N'%f.,Q z i,s.@.,6' Y,.

} Wl mis 6sd wish the oppsummiisy no make e Immhed yp=- and thmefuse we sejast the opphemus' mggehen to / *,,, ihet adesi. J W.A ' ** 7. f,,. c' q 's ses subsesman L et osaden 274 or die Amunic Energy Ast of 1954, as emmend,42 UJ.C. 20210). ' Die d , 9 '/J..e, & %. ?, j.. u ~ l$;fj purpass of aessies 274, muitled "Coopersaan whh sisins." is est brib in =h==aa i s. That papens bestude ihe p ,,rf l-f *. Q..<8 M 3 N 51'? q l4 '.4 fj, Q'p..'fc.s, yt.W,' j' 3 .?

-- r-- of the "inimens et the sums in du puestut uses er senado magy." -

a =, %h. ;g

... e 2

*.$l,h fO 4 j 7 7 c. @~ h g.'. q g,; d *'

h. Ahhaugh beeh the maanes end, as ininally peandgeted, sostian 2.71$(c) sufused only to e sepsummaanv of

h4

.i 4

- ,i-an humussed mais, she laaer was===-6-d in 1978 to a=a =y== repremmuatives of -i=.

' and W.,. :i'Q.<j*}E t,r.."K ~ * *y. * **' -.,,,,., ..Q ".p,'; ;.;.. goverarnemial egeness having en homest. see 43 Fed. Reg. 17,798. 17,802,0 978).' v . 2y

4,.

l k.. '..c, .?.',. ',,'t.' .I y . s. ;,,..t. n .,.1 .148 c e - g Ql ;t. ~. s ..,, T.' _ g" g ;,,,,=.1 2 *., : .s -, m t Qa..lg.. i. s -4 J a 5.., %.g - s lgw 'pa

- ~] A* f,N.

,ww....-.----~.. . ----v c - g .,..hp t. .10

s.,. p. -. -..

,, b. v ? h,l'.' W m.- f.;,. q * ;. ~.

l 7,T L

",,*p<;? 1. r j vi'.' g O,,. Q.,', p %.y.,;;. g., v.

g

+. ",, ( ., - f' 'r? t '. t.e.?,g. f, '{.pp p p' y ^j l ef. / 0, g

7. i ' l r

s .e m , ' ' I., ., ? ' t".,**k 6 4 * '.L w ' ' %.s'..'. ' C 7 p w q.. A Y .4 ^ 1' ? a ' **.+y'.

~[f.,,. ;., @',h.'%

,~

r, a

b..

'#d +* ' we 4j ia / * '. 2:..,.k; r,f -Q?!". r,:.. 1. p/ 4 $' 9;e...., /,n.. e .,?gg 14 '. s.,g, :{a* 3, s --*, 5 *,',i "d .s .i - s ,,, A t... p' 3 4. s, , J ;./..... . _. p.. A f4. ny s,,..+g..c....m f e .w.. g.w 7.., t. .i .i.3.... -o p3 y .#, <.s. ay .c",,-. . g,,,, n 4 e g

~ /

6 e'

' 'g, y g '7.....,... - 4,.. 7 .s : e ~, { .c-

..c e,p-f

.- c ; p j". g'l 'j ,. ,7 J. [ s k

1

~

. c ;[ q 9 ,.g . r. ~.....~.....w .,o r5.m. r i N ~ respecting who is to serve as its spokesman. Be that as it may, however, it scarcely would fulfill the stated objective of state-Commission cooperation if the NRC were to place the mande of state representative upon the shoulders of ,v, I ~, g an individual who is precluded by the law of the state from wearmg it. Indeed, .. q f ' ' %. ' "' ',.- there appears to be no conceivable basis on which a licensing board could accept .. n-j the views of an individual in such a category as reflecting the official position . ;* m R, f

, i,y '-

s. %.h of a state on the issue (s)in controversy.12 2. The short of the matter thus is that New Hampshire law (as presented j ]'j{.; 3', 'R to us without contradiction by the Attorney General) stands in the way of ...*1_,,~.? .".p Senator Humphrey's participation in this proceedmg as a representative of New I'Nt. ' h [' N Hampshire within the meaning of section 2.715(c). Nonetheless, we have not M ' T' ' e ' - './ ... ; X k' ' ' '.; f g, ,,,.*ft t %? l*&$.f$$ff

)f '. '
,..,j> .J, L
g;
,,, a-je,,,k.s ),*
5) ?
,a,l lf , f.., g4 .h.k bh N,h[ f ) ~Y'. t.Jw* y; 'W,;& "I /,,k ,j .hNhhk*h ....; sg,%z. @ t ,' an ,4 q. m " 1..'., g.. rv p 1 , 3 7,J p g 4*. -.. q e n,,7 ;.7,. - .a ,.y,- (g.,g _ _ j g,,, q e,6 ; %p,7 ;;7 ; .g, p,
i. -}.
@v 3, ,c ~ ~ r,. . i.. s .i >s ~ What that leaves for examination is the Senator's possible participation in j" f ,7 p- .~ the proceeding as an amics cwise. 'Ib be sure, there is no provision in the- ~* ," y, ', d Rules of Practice speci6cally authorizmg such panicipation on the Licensing "y ~- 1 's. .f O.m.,.5 Board level. He Rules explicitly rcier only to the seeking.of leave to Ale a ., 6 (, 'r% ' {,f 'y'.;..*j i.,y% C;;j.$q brief amicw cwise (and perhaps to take part in oral argument) before an appeal .. ',g. ,.;. A. ' 7, , ;.f., s (j board or the Commission!' But this consideration does 'not perforce preclude ' i ,3
. " ', J, i,@

t. ', ; y c g 1 f..![
the granting of leave in appropriate circumstances to Ale briefs or memoranda !ji
9. 6 M. 'j amics cwaae (or to present oral argument) on issues of law or fact that still g,y. ' ',!2 e.f(2-j. i -
f,,, '. ",1 remain for Licensing Board disposition. 'q tC..... ,,? .l One rarely, if ever, encounters participation amics criae in the actual trial f./ Y * ' ; ;.f.]2 - of factual issues in an evidennary hearmg - i.e., an amics criac customanly y"".' O > ;, c'/; f".. ;*','r,, A.., ' % does not present witnesses of his or her own or cross. examine the witnesse: of .G ( ,G J/, Q ;. ' ;;#[ 'N .?.?.,.' +]. ' the parties. This may well explain why, in focusing upon panicipation amicus .N. ', 7.{,j , f,,
cunae, the Commission thought solely of proceedings on the appellate level But -
[y
M, there is no real difference between an appellate brief amics cwaae and a brief.
[-i l f# ' .],-e' ,(,
1 or other submission presented to a trial tribunal that is confmed to a discussion
.y of (1) legal issues that have been i - d to that tribunal by the parties; and. "~ , p'i (2) factual issues covered in the evidentiary heanng. %e crucial factor is that, .) ,, ~ regardless of where it Ales its brief, an amics'criae necessarily takes the u [. } proceeding as it Ands it. An amicw cwiac can neither inject new issues into a ' .J proceeding nor alter the content of the :ecord developed by the parties.87 (, f.,. ' i In light of the foregoing considerations, we And no insuperable barrier to 3' i allowing the Senator the same measure of participauon amics criae before d'. s [ ' ', M,, .>i the Licensmg Board as he would be free to seek were the proceeding now f - i before us or the Commission on the merits of the emergency planning issues in controversy. Although granung such relief may be imusual in our proceedmgs, it 4 4 } is no more so than the course recently pursued by the Commission in connection %! e j . I
s.....j with a staff briefmg on a draft proposed rule in the area of emergency response
'/ 's f,*, :. J... ;,. V 'lI '.3.<.i,fl planning. As the Commission Chairman noted at the outset of the briefmg:- 4,. y.. ,e, .; m ~ 31.J~Qc' i ) OrdinarGy we do not beve public perucepation on the deliberesive process until the Com. p] 'f ;, 4 (;,,,,*. 4 mission has decided to issue a proposed sule for public comment. However in this case the - tG!
'. 'J. e Commissica has made en esception to bear from abose sovernors and members of Consress i
,- *,t ? '; who hews sequested the oppommity to present abeit views on the Staff proposal to the Com- 'y .S. *.,'. j,,, b-aussaca disectly.38 1 .= q,',
?
, * =
i
.9, .....;..- 's ,.,.:' y;s...4 +.; ,, *,. =,6. *,,. ; s... ;, - < '. e.,3, ,..',4,., p *i \\,. . i,..g
4, ga.,., y "*y., f..=,
2,,
v'
,,)
1
,,, .'. ;. S... 4* %,. J '. N ',-.y ,,*q r. ' ' *nS. s J 5 V. g ;,'.,$. p .,i j(,+ l 4f < 3es 10 C.F.a. 2.715(d). 18
p..',y 4.H;*,,
,,','lI.,.J 3 'd Q /.' - 37 ', ','g-1adsed, it appsers that parampsman monisur arias su tv, essis ensunned in the ness is met an mammunen fasamu
f., ;/, ?
et indesal 6suist eman pemen. Ses, e.g., Fip v. Pesens,406 F, supp.1566,1567 69 (D.N.f.1945): Asiericei y.. r p tp*,,3 , > f 4(..< j, y'. y.*,.,j q (4 6 ? ' ; '? *.,,1 ,c +J *f. ' f. pse eft.6e,.. x.n 472 F. sere :,91 a e ca.o.c.1979). ,' i 38 , yl,,,; y v y< /y.. i; G.g, W; A.3 9.*,f. Ij (Feinumy 24,1987) et 3. l f. Tsumsenpt of Beis6mg en Commesrauen of Pieposed Esserpensy Pleamns Rule,Chamess (Public Masung) l ,. a.:. ,.Q .::.3., e,, ..:y- ,;n;.,. 3 ? 150 s. 3. '#5 a .a a u 4-b j 4 J,t, t,. <i s 8 .i j 's .'l *$.',- 6.. -p f o .r y l-5* {, ' '. K,,' f, n i 4 .. l t., ,.g@. s.7 7 9 p-.,. --.. - 7,., y w.a. ,3 7.m.s..y <<,. -;,:. w r,,. + n~ ' * *, ',,,y p" j ' *4,4 f S "
. #l
[, " ' + C Ys j .#[ 5, ' c j'. f J Q.f, ' / "I
Y.
1 ' % ' * 'y 'k.
' d *, *;,, "
e 3.,, . f [/,,f(::,.',G. r.i.,'f.. *a) e,.{. t, 'I D,b q.f '.p'.+,' <,! ~.t
c., ~~.
%,,%, :. y
4. '.?
+* m' ,.u:.) .t .w 3 ' a,'$ n' (i ' y * ;
f..I 'l 4 '. *.,
,s.,,. i..1 '/ 9 .,,4- ,4 3., ,..e m. y,. n., . j'. f. a%.c ) ,,,., ] 4 ~ 8 h , 1 '(~ g ., 3.,,..,g. , n ..,.n.v..* 1.. J,.e, ,,, y. ,:.w.. ..v. y 7,,
A ~ I - _....,...,, _ _,..p.. l o.$. f .d ',,e ie 3
s.y,

0.., -. jm m f. :, c.,..
,r e ,..o .. 3 4 .3'
.W n y 4. '.dc....,,.. ".,.
. r..$.f .., h.::,,,:, n,, 71. .s.2nf . u .4.?,. .~ f;. p a,, .'}.._ i.u,., ;. t,, ., a, t. e,. 4 <*.j., y. .v i y4ij r ,M..=. 3 ,. y .7 .,..+~ .v, ,,\\q }t <.t ,.s % y].",4,..
4,
~. ;.. ,, Q 3., l 9. p ..I ';D
r g...
t w
,,.9 : s
~
+. g y s x,. .,1 p.
i..
1 ,u s ,. s ,m... 3 y t .,4... p- .i . s, f .,,.;, { 1 . s.:....a c. j..., .. f,.,, ' ..i j a L l N1 i' i )I .e 4* I ,i
3.,
d The Commission obviously thought that the public officials in question might ~
, yC I
1. T' have something worthwhile to contribute at that early stage of its deliberative process on the proposed rule (i.e., before the draft was put out for public com-f,, l f.
. g S. %, J a ' i ment), Similarly, we think that Senator Humphrey might make a worthwhile t ^., /f,, p d.,p; ?e?. '. jf.' ', ',) "h contribution at this early rage of the deliberative process on the offsite emer- [-[., g '., "'; ' [ ],_,,, ']*My ~k(( ~
3.. (*d.u.
~', I gency planningissues in connection with the Seabrook facility (Lc., before those. t,. r. .3, .) issues reach the appellate level). t, n, --.. '. g%,,.:,3 ( %-[ %y.,c T. f,,. :,Q%,ll7,' d Accordingly, we authorize Senator Humphrey, if he so desses, to participate y&- M amicus curiae in the proceedings before the Licensing Board to the extent of , N; ~. 't, ;., .},,- ,,Q {/,'. ~~ 1 the submission of his views, orally or in writing as appropriate, on any legal f;j k J+1 or factual issue p-esented by the pleadings of the parties or the evidenuary .l,. A.7
O ;."
r; i
record. 'Ihe Licensing Board may impose such conditions on the timing of the l -) Senator's presentation as might be reasonable and necessary to avoid undue != i 9, ,.f e i';;% ^,, j delay to the disposition of the issues in contmversy and to ensure fairness to 4.T.y '. ) l the partiet ' ',, [
Jj.s. ' '
l An amicus curiae does not have the right to appeal an adverse deci-
1. ;,,,; '.,, ' "l g,Q..
j sion. Should any aggrieved party take a permissible appeal to this Board from a '
1 **,.
.' / .:y., Licensing Board decision, however, the Senator may file a brief amicus cursac f. ,1. * ('. I 3,. restricted to the issues raised by the appellant." 'j. m, 'Ihe denial of Senator Humphrey's 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) petition is afirmed. The ., '1 l .{.] l Licensing Board is to allow the Senator to participate as an anicus curiae in r l. accordance with the terms of this decision. It is so ORDERED. .0 p l FOR THE APPEAL BOARD h,, i. iJ . a. s- . n..< f.., !.1 Barbara A.*Ibmpkins t: f'.,*',',,.~. W) Secretary to the .. e[i, ] '.. l y', Appeal Board j,', 1 . ? 3 'm.
b.
't l
1;c.!.y,.
6 -y ,...r. l / Mr. Rosenthal, Concurringt W /.a ..,,9. ' L 1 Although joining fully in the Board's opinion, I am constramed to record
/,f ;.

a e
j I' C, u h; j my belief that there are two separate and distinct reasons for not taking very ,3 1 seriously the suggestion of the Attorney General and the applicants.that, if Q, ..b;- ^ ;.T ) p,. ) c. 6 .u.*... .A s
l y* g o l9
\\
p.i %ny exh bM unut be bd Mh de ham & mod us b pany Wee pondon de basf appens, see 10 [*[,, o 7 j C.PJL 2.715(d), .. - ' g. ' *..:'. ' l C ,, 4.
4 '
n gu ..y d 151 $~. r:
m-f' t'
,* * ',q,' I $'g ) '. - ? E l T5. 1 t,.5 ' I l i,,,,. c... .r . T ',. a .J o%
,; a.
l ...t.,,,.
*y'. o
.g,.,. t,.e .. k_4 j .p.' 3.<* .}" p'i.,, j # l. ,a 6 i > l.
4 w
W 6EMEM. I N m; @ k m.e:s mg N g W @u s(c,.M W G M @ . a mn p v.sewe l 1 -.I
y,._:,y p a .7 4 .-a,.-,_.v__, _n . ~,,,, '$m;' *em[m E i i 43%.s,s.: w %, m: x,3,...; g~.,n.,. m.a @,m,w; q:.1 y m* w ,.y ..a. - ,. nr. 7, m. Q,. at,n., w ,.A 4...,n. m. ,.. +. $:*.p.. . a. 4. h!h ? '. ^?E.**'. A l.S...d:i. d 4 AY .4 O y g..,f.h ' ;, ', ~, '. e*> c. ? '..,. 1 d' ~ .. s q, 5> q< 7 . ~,. -.. ,j ps,,.t r-
i a-. :o.. :
a-
.-l 4. -r Y' p./':;,' : 7 denied participation under 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c), the Senator might be allowed to - ~ . intervene as a party under 10 C.F.R. 2314(a). One of those reasons is noted in. 7 ,, a V-3 the opinion: the Senator has provided no cause to believe that he would be / f Y"T jF. i ; ff.
y.1.3 j
inclined in any circuristance to assume the significant burdens associated with a -
g. ;.,,
o../.,.i ) i j 1. section 2314(a) intervention. The other, not similarly developed in the opinion, jd, e l 7, c. 1 is @ps of even greater morr:ent.L O..;.,. L -}p ly 2 ;v".,, ',',*. 4. '. j,. Q.c c & p, An intervention petition at diis juncture would be extremely tardy. Conse- .Q ,.,f ,.'.* f ' Q:. 3 K .1-quondy, as the Board's opinica observes it, passing (note 9), in order to enter yl %*,,M the proceeding now as a party uder section 2314(a) the Senator would have to. 'IX ' Y. f lj '. '...:. .') satisfy the Licensing Board Gmt, on a balancing of the five. factors set forth in the. p 4' .. ; ;.f.l i a /l '( ' ' Rules of Practice, the tardiness should be excused.1 Whether the Senator could 'O 3
5 /. ', '. ], ~ ;,'
overcome this hrsdie at such a late stage of the proceeding is problematic. This ' .a l is true 4:' spite tM fact that it appears frcm their briefs that neither the Attorney , ' f. [ ' Generr,.! nor the applicants would urge the Licensing Bard to reject the Sena. p'd .f o /' i. " 4 tor's ir.tervention petition on lateness grcunds. For it is settled that, even if all of : e (~ 3 j the existy paruet to a pg ding (or section 2315(c) non. party participants). g(, i l choose n waive the tardiness of an intwemion petition, the Ucensing Board must nevertheless review me petition in !!ght of the f ve facto:.. If a weighing and balarfng of those factors so dictates, the Board must deny the petition on its own initiative.2 Thus, even should our surmise respecting the Senator's inclination turn out ["q ^ ' to have been wrong, the required conclusion will likely remain the same:. if. - the Senator is now to par.icipais at all in this proceedmg, it almost certainly .'J ,/,- l must be in the cepacity of an tmicus curfoe. I agree with my colleagues that 4 allowing such participation on the ba3is outlined in the Board's opir. ion is both J.e..j 5: permissible and sensible. ~ 'l b ..i j - 3 1 ..Ny..' $3 lt f. 4 b '....'r e * % '?. .j$. '/
i, s'
.,c r...; .(. n .P . ~ .s.. .y. g Then incism, feed hi 10 CJ.R.1714(a)(1). as:
]
p..,'..,s'.,'. q*,
d. *
~5 4 o q; g y. 7. i, 3, (0 osed sense. If asy. for feness to Als en tienew j a N'y,,(.;" ~.-( c..* i i* $,. 2, I . ; - @[ g 'y,, * '.i '/ *.O 00 'the evenehaity er eiher sneese wheehy the patinensr's imasust win be preseast f1 GiO 'nse ames to which the pmanoser's pernasp'= sney seasonably be espemed to mesist in >-) 3 i ". ;a developmg a sound sesent.. ,.;* / ,,..',":'. {d
g, q,.*.
- + gy).!he emen to which the p w. 's homest wC1 he sepsussened by etians penses.
J.
$ / /. 4{.1 -,,
l*
(v)'nis amant to which the pennener's para **Fn =.i win breeden the issues or deley the piumeding. .. } *... ?.. < .,' *. d.. ;'. * y.M.. s Q lesefer as the sWa= el the femme is .- i eastien 1714 draws so distinction between psivets citiesna
.. v.r
'( and public ef6cials. To the esmuery, the esos mandards severn the senspimies of en lean bearvenien peticisms. "h. 'd p..'.
f. p'..,, *. S, no maner who snight be their spessor. -
""t..y l, y.. ,l 2 see sesses Edises Co. (PUsnm Nuolmar Power station). A1AB.816. 22 NRC 461,466 (1985). y. 4 P e.. 4, ,) 'g 152 c. n 0 ',k , j ,.e- ,"k. ,( '*.l'.,.',,y'.,,, * [, i.' 4.. (* n7. 3 e I '[ E*..g,..f. I $4
W, c
4.e
^ j k,7, ~ M* f ' n..m.h @. -.WE/ T #$' g N I'@.4!?i.
*I.
.,I,,g [ d i',, . 'l J".s - *.O g I d 's..,a .a. 4 z.. .- i ...e,.. .p't, 'E' h* s (.; i. 5 ' w + 'y , g,-* g '4
t ii / ;yrJ1
? ' :. \\ ' i ~.c f i *i.1 %; W t rE, g, ' ,,s %q, s.%. m.h.,;Q.. a. ;a.; 7.~.. -M M , { 6.A.7;/ q x,,, - o a.;.M,9'.:. n..y y:,. ".. Q ?.y .4W ~ h~
1., n r.%* ^%
M y .L<.:i; p y .. s. b %
f.. &
s.L." n 'x.,'. q* - .-sw , a. ; %:: &.... pg.. v. <t. "m.'.%;' &y.4,.;: h, < o W ^ v;. * -my m
g.,,' d.w, m;,,'.c,
m. "; ;>. :s,,, a,.,
,,, Y,._:.. w m iv.,,y.,. s.y,,s. ~. -r q; j a. e,y,. ; -,,a p. ; .c,.,... y v, Q., ,,y c,.a... .,.,..,f,..q, ..a. 4 .s,.,,. u e
i ..J.y ..m.,, N. < l lb 5O' ' h
p. 5,' _
'., nt s ;.,. s
r. b:*
.s. '. ,05 ,a.s sn T* f* f. u'f .,x.. n,. m,, '. v:f ) ..s. ,.. L..1 ,c
c.
p ; *: .f. g p, ".,, L 'a'e. $ 2 f., +4 '* g - L' 5; e. f.,,. v.' -.. i. , + W. e .t -3 .r s.1 r s r s. .c 9'.
., ' '. (,*,
,] g' ' ; r (- " y.,.,, " (* / "/. g,; .,f,.t ' Q '. r,, s ..-{
1b
..q. v -#8 7. ' g' g. {. . ((.. .*fa - i ** 'g - ~ I, r* .g P' e .( ,k.. . t i.. ' ~ 8 .m .u
\\

.
.g 'p e D, '3
n'
.) jl f 1 .w s].. '. 3 I 6 C ,1 ~sy ,,y. 4
I
>c o . i' ..s4,,.... ...a, .,,n
n. c, s;..
r w.p- .- -~ ,3 a . a::. v Atom.ic Safety 'x: y.:.. y';..=.;.....W
. u-
- a s 1 a n d l_. censing. ? w,6*. i s- .... u.c, =...< m . b !;
v Boards lssuances t.

.w.,'n' ?. %.
e a. ..,,.. 1 8 s
l;,

1
,....S,. v, ,s -l ATOMIC $AFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL ff}.. ~.'[p).' ' 2 '. :,,,., * . /l,R..' m B. Paul Cotter,
Chairman
- -Q Robert M. Lazo, 'Vice Chairman (Executive) ( . ' f'-[.' g.. i Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) O', ' r. \\ . v j. 7, $'i .a. O
s., t. -
~' -r i Members .j i l. Dr. George C. Anderson Herbert Grossman' Dr. Emmoth A. Luobke' ' i+ ' ') l Charles Bechhoefer' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom I Peter B. Bloch' Jerry Harbour' Morton B. Margulies' l l Y Glenn O. Bnght' Dr. David L Hetrick Gary L. Milhollin .J l Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Emest E. Hill Marshall E. Miller James H. Carpenter' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Morris' m l Hugh K. Clark Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Dscar H. Pens' W Js J l .Dr Richard F. Cole' Elizabeth B. Jonnson Dr. David R. Schink s .9 Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Watter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith' .,,., 6..;. ',, 'I +1 Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley' Dr. Martin J. Steindler M + > f Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Quentin J. Stober ] - '.q k,... ^ "l ~' 1, ', Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb Ill Seymour Wenner A,,.,. ']
H,3, ;l.
John H Frye til' Gustave A. Unenberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe' i a. 3 James P. Gleason Dr. Unda W. Uttle -,,."g.?'.,,,, y n + 1 i . ;.. / ,'.t**
j
.f. , l 7 i.. e, g a t., -4
i..
--)t c
.. ;i
. ~, s.. 4 's, *. ; p. <,, . j- ,.t j ..,..~.3.. .y ( , < i. ' y 1 ,1 3.s v .w. j s, . t. . e.n J
} -
s s.
j
) 4 .1
Permanent panel members
^ ~. '. a^ w n - '.";A i.
g

y f.
J .,...l 1 ,I...,.,*,, D ~.,.,,.. N (f[.(}. r .J-. e 9 ,..a s, a, ?., ,.,,,.,f ./, - 3 { ..f* p e, " 'p,.,". .j -,i. 4 N 4
s.
a psy'o m@ M @w #.hR, W E id @ % D, 9 h M M M,5*.0,... I' I M .a ?.
2. '.
idek n 4 1 p. 4 m. w wp.y n n w e 1
~ A ~ *; p ~., ]y y -..o. c... .1 1J .g-c q-1 J.<1.i:,...;.- i.J., f.gy. ',, . s, t.4 17 ;, C. \\.r. r y M. '. Q:. u .y h*. ,y' vd -*;k, 3 ~, q. * ** m,, ?. .: p. f.'M:y~q<Qyy y.. v a ,M y' ". W. c
c. -
i
r v
i q
~,
3 v,.;ls/n. rW
i b. ; ; ; i '
.t W
p,p ' [.* p - 3 e. .~, 4 R s'.
/. '
3 e* g .....n,.,. c .. m.i .w 2...,, e T :.t. 2. v,., , q.. s ,, g _l s.. r.,';. Ni ~ l.,3,y [.'3? 1 1 . 2.:3
?.
s-s +
r. i
,) 1- .f,. r / i ?.,*'.,7 ' (' r 4 Cite as 25 NRC 153 (1987) LBP-87-8 (*.D.. .f, '.
j,
..3,, 3 [d... .'M.;1.,., q q,,..'./h..4 / l'. .n 7k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , d ' o *' P..,;. " W- ~ 0,. NUCLEM REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 3.,c - ~ v-. y,, n..- pt ,s. -c,......... /,.c y .m...j3, ,.s,.. a ,e i v., r '. k.,,,,,.., '.,. c,, :.y..', a . ~., w/ .Y Before Administrative Judge: J. u ?. ..i.:. +1s.. y
.. Q.;, ~.
~ 3 ; g a,.. y,.., ' (,, "f P'
t;,
t . s-v - <.y ..C '. q.. N.c, ;
y *.

s %l ^ ;
John H Frye,Ill F.
j.
c, m.e+ -, 2 msg,4c,a. ~ 4., .I ...c ( In the Lietter of Docket No. 40-8027-MLA 4 / .. i ^/, '. (ASLBP No. 85 513 03-ML) 6 c.- .*i .s
c. s
, I' gEl;~P l SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION ~ (Sequoyah UF to UF Facility) March 4,1987 .,, U,.]. ;. i l, ,, %:.I,j,, p 6 4 s ,e g.. ~ ' r- ~ . c After considering numerous filings and conducting a 3-day oral hearing, the l.". "'. I I Presiding Officer authorizes the issuance of a hcense amendment permitting the .
s operatkin of a facility to convert depicted uramuri hexafluonde to depleted ura-a
./, nium tetrafluoride at the Applicant's Gore, Oldahorna plant. "Ihis authonza* on p l J p.; is subject to four conditions: first, in order to ensure that the automatic tele-phone emergency notification system will function properly, the Applicant is to i! verify that all residences within a 2-mile radius of the facility have telephones and make provisions MSNe to Staff to notify any that do not; second, the l Applicant is to verify that all telephone numbe s listed in its emergency response plan are accumte at each major exercise of the plan; third, the Applicant is to l l.* 1 L,g"* mai'itain the level of staffmg outlined in its testimony presented at the hearing 1 -X *.., 1, -,, l and to promptly report any changes in the duties of those individuals to Staff; H y l', and fourth, Applicant's President and its General Manager are cach to spend at ,}. .eas one uf ll workday each month at the facility while it is in operation. L '..V.c ".*."'A,, 1 l t + y' .s .,,.0 u- .z-w. f DECISION S . ~ <.. ~. > - l' (Authorizing Operation) L[,. '3.' ~l + ., % l e.: m' ... (. m
D_1J
?,. - r. .. m.N,. 9 "..;..?.. - 'r o f...,.d ~ INTRODUCTION- + . ~.... -. This proceeding began on July.M.1985, when the Nuclear Regulatory i . - Y,.,, ' l ' Y; Commission issued an Order institut')g an informal adjudication to consider 3 L/' d
5.,^
^ '.. A }. 9 ~ c 1 1 y' .'C. 'l ,.i 153 ,- l
i. ;
l .) = g 4., '. . ) I ...a.. .9* . %. *,,P) 'g 'O 4 g j l* s ,4 h.k et j 'N* l 4 ~,, ,".',9. **; ). i
t' n
..y

1. "L,.g'
. /, pg.cg.. * &..%.^M. v_
. ).., > *...g., '?(.i.. %,4,

s. w.
Q,."
e M
A d i- .~. .v .i a , s O. ... W*... d t. ', .jf;y ei {, ,. 4
j
..p4 m ,4,,...,...,,7,,,, N h1'kJ, d ~ M N',as k," r,h*?/ -N.Y L h.' ' A,B% W, 'jW & % <r '~
a a
_s m....Aau-, ~ - -, -,.-, _ _ ____._J
W $ @ p$ d,s. d p M'[,._= x._ .-.. - u..y @ igg' %.tg,@g;.4 .m um..m.. m.. m ..;... w.m N&gNhM@_.. ~ "u$ug M'd ' ~ t M.dt 6-@d.. Qiq(.yg -% '4 M f i 4, Q;c., p.,&.. pm j$MS .Sh., /. +.y.g:gg&y; f.[,ggQ; h."%g:tnu,gg,s.% w Qfd. g% Q %wpa.n:,y. (f.y; n,
n: y.
q.. v.. y,,,,y.. ; y p y. S.wym. yy ~, g%q-a u.>.%q.p ; .y g y .. y,.. , : 1. wa..; .c ".-. n...a. -;
,,3;.., a r
v p r' y.. .#,.ef *.. (* p, ip <f ry.. ,. b , 3 ' a. : .q g ..s.. %[,, ' - 'e
g. /
Y an application filed by Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC), a subsidiary of Kerr-W,f McGee Corporation. This applit.ation requests authority to operate a facility to. .p J,'.. ,' '- M' conven depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF ) to depleted uranium tetrafluoride ! N 2lA; 6 7, / h;; h ,Q* (UF ) (hereinafter referred to as "the facility"). The applicauon takes the form f- @)l4.; 4 (.: G'y j ^%. 9.f,,.. f[. .j of a request for an amendment to SFC's existing license which authorizes it 4;iQ,. . f,,7 ' .l, ' 6 rom yellowcake at its Gore, Oklahoma plant.' Dis UF is l to produce UF f 6 .j :, v'.. . y, e j:.fJ rhipped to Departmr.nt of Energy ennchment facilities for further processing .,s
7,) ' x w mi eventual use as fuel in nuclear power plants. A byproduct of the entchment 9
,y-f.M process is depleted UF - b
4. *i. 1 L*f
' f,.y'"W'/ 6 ' ' O ! C ' ', that SFC wishes to produce will be shipped to Aerojet [ De depleted UF4 . f,.'.,. Heavy Metals Company where it will be further processed for use in penetra-y@- r $y..fQ.5-1 : '3,'.2 5 g. N tar munitions by the Dq,-u,,est of the Army. Depleted UF is useful in these F M, ' 4 ., 5., 9: munitions because of its density No nuclear reaction is involved in this appli-f' i,..f./ *. cation. (See SFC's October 16,1985 Response to Petitions at 15-17.). W. ., e g ' ..j.-(,.., E.7 De Commission acted following receipt of petitions requesting a hearing [ r f* W -' y.. ,j on the applicauon from Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE), 4,4,. 1.. I f d the Cherokee Nation (Cherokee), and Citizens' Action for a Safe Environment -.} (CASE). Pursuant to the Commission's Order, on August 8, I issued a Memo-7 ^ 4, " j J2 0, ~ .q..? randum and Order that afforded NACE, Cherokee, 'and CASE an opportunity to ~ supplement their petitions, invited additional petitions to intervene, and set out - 4 O the FOce&ue to be followed in considering the application. Several petitions . ]6 - ,c were filed in response. Subsequently, the petitions of NACE and Ms. Jesse Deer U g.,(, in Water, CASE, Mr. Ed Henshaw, the Arkansas Peace Center (APC), the Town ~ 1 of Gore, the Oklahoma State Departmem of Health (OSDH), and the National. ..: J "O ,.;j Water Center (NWC) were granted. De petition of Cherokee was dismissed at f Lv .'o..Ml its request. The petitions of Aerojet Heavy Metals Company and the Muskogee L ^ p;f g - j, J.' '1.... :i], g)/,, .c County Client Council were denied. (See Unpublished Memoranda and Orders
1.'
of September 26 and November 5,1965.)' The acceptable complaints stated y;p.,c.9,. - in the petitions and an agenda for a hearing were set out in the November 5. q .q.4.r ;. *..'., d..,p'? p.1,:.w.1. -),C E '
9)
,. gp A; Memorandum and Order. The hearing was scheduled for December 17 and 18, Q '*. ~, 1985, and subsequently rescheduled for January 7 and 8,1986.'(See unpublished December 2,1985 Memorandum and Order.). T
n. 7 ',,4. -
f.v.,,.,.. -- L. On January 4,1986, an accident occurred at the UF Production plant. A V; 5. 7,'N l. ~... l M .. ;. j UF cylinder had been overfilled. In an effort to remove the excess material 6 1., ; f,,,.1 f 6 r,' from the cylinder, SFC employees reheated it in a steam chest. His caused the - ?.5.y. ' ',.7 ?.'t .,1l,"f i 'h.l j.y. ; *l, ; / *9 as a result of exposure to hydrogen fluoride, a hydrolysis product of UF, and , ;,, ~. cylinder to rupture, releasing a massive amount of UF. One employee died 6 W.,.: t , e.g ,7 6 Mdj..i ', 7Phy'i., h. /4.] 97;Q:) several others were injured. About 130 individusis who were off site at the time Of of the accident were screened for uranium contamination. Much of the plant and fi./ ;.M ' n.,5 ::q/..,-;, ]~(/C3 some areas off site were contaminated with fluoride and uranium. (See Staff's U g 'ryg.s { 'c, ,d fq7~ y ',.3. y. p.,.,4..u,Qd,, '.,. 3 SER Related to Restart, October 14,1986, at 1.) The heanng was postponed.' v,. ,r * . a. a g' s 8*s I $, ,,p t g.,:'- ].vt * ' : 4 %
l. "" fy s.3l
,b.a i ~ ,e'. 1, N... - q f,P. ,n, j.j .,,.r..,, . - U,, 154 r.,.?,' + a O' n }-
Q;t
+ .p.
4.,,,.
.e =*az I g. g s .. j 7. m..m,. l f; ' f * * ',, ,3. -
N.,.
3 ~. 3, f.,,.w,y., ..,,,,q - f g y 1, bri.... T, @4 g, w% D N. it f,'.
f 't"*". s.. = > I
~[,,;t ;*
e.,... M Ai
",J u e. r.-e,',' ,g ["' ' ? he --tv+ %.i, " h. ..JF* (< s "g t,' - f. .C.,'..c ,4 3 y ..y"* l 4>.., e n. r ..,, ; 4 y., n. Ct.<,$ ' J }. I. _j'.h y M,3 4 g.t,. r. .,..n y n M /... i " )h h'*;.* ; M;. ir'- g;T.,;.1f..o :.'.iQ.,:c' {.lpf.m$o bl *,I D *., E( ..,. 4 ' i Q}. U [b a* 'M,6 } ',j. M.[u y,t(,P J., p e,e p C.,f, e..' 6 **~. Q fiq f Q/y.sg:,,-.Q. 6. jk;14 'QhijQp +$M, 9 G . + $ h k 3';~ ; @p W.!;f c':Q' 2. i 9 ? ,%;.ph. &, .s'sQ q : ! WX'M ~':. ' :,,. f,; n.; $, n ' L
4 n.
...W.;.,,QL 1.Q...y E L:&y[ p 2. u. m -.m.-.. ..n -4 ] e c. i
t ,. g., _,.,.. h.[ 3l,, e' , p.;.4 ,o 0 :. i '.,,, Q'.. M. ;,5 "g },.j ;&,*h, ( ~'9.~ . *; '.\\. ] Y* Y fa
e. -
%; ;w,.. , I,. ,( o. 9-w,, 1, A L.
g ;m. p, :r,.,; \\ -
3* f ..e 9 ,i 1 i,yA' ,., /
/,-
= ' e t ?g Q s' .4 3, * ,?*.J.
1..l.
..n. s er s , : n.. . c. .". 8
g..
9..- .q tl + y i u... .m.. ..O m.. e. ....:.7 u i p4 o j, o q; 1 i 3 -2 y In the January 7,1986 Memomndum and Order (unpublished) postponing i.'. ;. l .y 3s 1 the hearing, I requested SFC's and Staff's conclusions with regard to the '.p. M ' l g. d j implications of the accident fcr the facility and their reports on the circumstances y: y, 6., j g,; -- ;,.gl.[.~cc, Q '*c " f.
-j

':4f. f,- Q 5..,fy V t 3 j:
of the accident. I indicated that interveners would l'c afforded an opportunity to j ,.],,,..Q,,".".jf,p...]1 V respond following receipt of these reports. Th* chronology of events following
j.
j,..

i-January 7 is set out below.
l- ". '. 91ldrn 1 e, J .j. % 1 b.- '.1,). f-March 31 - Staff served NUREG-1179 concerning the circurnstances ?[.-. . ',,.,~%,,, D *,,". r ; m. ,C...,., ".. - .t
y. H e %.
l :l, y '" M ';.'" f.J is* i W 'i ;9] A of the accident. 3 '[ April 3 - Staff served NUREG-1189 concerning the public health cffects of the accident. t>- .d-' a t P ;. < ~ - o i t' < + N e.. 6 April 11 -The Carlisle Area Residents Association (CARA), a group a..- composed of individuals residing within 2.5 miles of the plant, was \\ ', / ' ' -;.. *, ' [", #j ' '.W ;[v admitted as a party in the absence of objection. d May 7 - Environmental Action was admitted as a party in the 9 '. [ ' - j absence of objection. In a second Memorandum and Order of that date, ,[, ,, ?,, s N. Q intervening parties were afforded 30 days following the last of the reports c., ,7 *l ~ j on the accident to be filed by SFC or Staff to state additional complaints f, . ' e.,4..H . f /.,}, ;f based on the implications of the accident, and any party wishing to q* request additional procedures was directed to do so by June 4 [. },, May 22 - Ms. Barbara Synar was admitted as a party in the absence l , ;,N of objection. p ? [. S. June 9 - I wrote counsel for SFC and Staff inquiring when their i
r ~ '
reports on the implications of the accident for the facility might be expected. l June 27 - Memorandum and Order (unpublished) issued scheduling ]' j a prehearing conference and a hearing for August to consider the ) matters set down for hearing in the November 5 Memorandum and
l
/ Order plus any acceptable complaints based on new information. This
'.,.,. h.., J
'J, schedule contemplated that an opportunity to file new complaints based . f." '.~ ,', f, 9.s on information contained in the forthcoming teports on the implications t f of the accident wor.1d be preserved, but that the hearing on matters 7/ - 2 ] already properly raised need not await the completion of that step. f., 'Q.', . if, d V '.[ ~ - SFC issued its repon on the implications of the accident. K,',*.,i.. ( r.,')/l t, ',4 July 3 -I recommended that the Commission adopt formal proce- [ O' ~ . !,';l. '.* e-e. j ,f ."j;,.p']~ dures under Subpart G of Part 2 for the completion of this proceedmg. l. ? j July 23 - Memorandum and Order (unpublished) issued postponing t1
% I,;;4 r
<f the August prehearing and hearing at the request of APC and EA and l. ' 9 . 'l in light of the fact that responses from SPC and Staff to the July d.' ; J A;. .,, cD.Q }l 3 recommendation precluded a Commission decision on the July 3 ,., " -ifE NJ: '
recommendation prior to September.
,-"J ' - N.,
f l 1y July 25 - Staff issued NUREG-1198, the " lessons learned" report v
emanating from the accident. ~- 4'
m 2
3 ,', i 3 4 h 155 n i. W ) Q J 9 y ,t" g. 4.. Tj 2 5 g /lj . g. L ;, :. 5 w. ? .6 c h ':f*;, j:,, ' a p .s f ',',':k. q, " 6.i.,s( 2.7 w, a ., y.,. ".: 'k . 2,. .., z, y'.m -).-Q.-v1,.,,- -y tLe e
p. e.
,u m.$
u. );7h'e:'t.t[s. k..i'j;.:
-p '.N'{ ~. ] b.i., \\% - T' 'Y' h fN9 c ;. f.. '. -.... e 1*& a. . +. 'n. A... ~., ' a.h.<. .c.r, r,. M.,' *
).
w, ~ 9,.. i
. z.m m ~.m .o .. m m- --- =, m=---yr _s. s .k...s,...,. '%. r % s. '.go - p g.,.p..:u, w u g,; @ g.. A : n &,;:. w..,A n e c. c.. i :'...~n',i a. p. s .p. y,r v .a- .m 1 7 .r q.. n. y
w..
' s. $' ' ? ". !. h .. Yf k ' f *y . $ { A..,fN:h.. ??,W,.,.f.m.f.$hf.&,e..l.$}{!,Yh . f,QAW;.. t.&. i ~k :. "Y e*U* c.
v. %.,a...y e.,.e 1
o .,*, z,e ~ 7*. ..,. p. s.
e.. ~.
. b r.,. - .ws
=
^ ~ ' ' ' ", m. f,.. a'3 3.. :. i . s.,-4 L-- " R " 3, W ' % m} - .s .g. >? e.; y . ~. ,.,K V 1, N '***l' ,s' Q % '. Q r,i
c.,.t, _. '.f
'~ ..r. - . r.. st ..w. '. m L. -e.'o n ~ u + v -,.*.. =. ...c,'.,- s A .p .,.:...(. e.. ,1 4. gem >1 Septeniber 4 - Mernorandum and Order (unpublished) issued deny-s q ' @,.w .r ' ' l ing the petition to intervene filed by Citizens in Support of SFC. ,4 ' $ [ /,.M N !. :,, S ,} l1 October 3 - CLI-86-17, 24 NRC 489, issued rejecting the July 3 i i,. > ?M. # 'O;,.hg,f%.H64y.I .~. '.%.7, recommendation to "mtute formal pmcedures. y i..' October 10 - Memorandum and Order (unpublished) issued ruling ' i.'J./. 35y{c.@d N L on new complaints :nd revising se topics to be addressed at the hearmg. s.
4%
oceber 27 - Prehearing conference scheduled for November 20 in
, u., :...t Sallisaw, Oklahoma.
.,.. a,..w. n. 't a 4,r.. @:f. '.%"..{c November 14 - Staff issued its report on the implicauons of the y .a. .; 5 [> e-
w..w accdent.
~ -g,c, lf;]. A,.. November 25 - Prebsdug Conference Order issued setting schedule .t 2 , w.u s. e e u ' G... ' [ y& for the Aling of new complaints based on the reports on the implications ,' ).. '. .. ', A d,l,..,' T..". of the accident and requests for additional in, formation, and setting ~ hearing for the week of January 12,1987. m 1, ' _j; December 31 -Memomndum and Order (unpublished) issued ruling '. c. # ';,, 'f .~-l,- j
y,.f}
on new complaints and requests for information and establishing an g' + .~ ~ 'j agenda for the heanng. i;c January 12 through 15,1987 - Hearing completed as scheduled. All ^ 't' ~ l the interveners except EA participated in the evidentiary hearing. EA ~.g submitted a closing statement. + ~

. t
' ~ 7 + * ',, ~. a..r PRELIMINARY MA'ITERS i .',t 4 . +.. .l-Deep.WellInjection of Raffinate 4., u -*? ); ay p 7 In the past, Staff granted a license amendment that permitted deep-well injec-dy-;..' tion of treated raffinate from the existing plant. APC, NWC, and Mr. Henshaw 7 .,,. [ ' - : .5 : r., ; ,-] expressed concerns with regard to this activity in their original complaints. Be-m. 1, T.,.,{.. A L 6 ' % r; y j cause raffmate will not be produced by the facility and because SFC had not . M.- , .,. - l .. 7", Q ;. / ' il sought permission in its application to dispose of any effluents from the facility ,, 3. j '; r c.; by deep-well injection, I dismissed these concerns in the November 5 Memo-C;..d - l randum and Order (at 4). ,M r,','?...f. []..;S.-;.:n, r a,, Mr. Henshaw again raised this matter in his complaints filed in the summer of i '.,T ' : 1986, this time alleging that the Staff's action in permitting deep well injection 7, '
l', 6:.
,Y., W,.,.j was contary to an Initial Decision (LBP-74-7,7 AEC 113 (1974)) that had ,. R f[. I. ... s denied Kerr McGee's earlier application for this authority. While adhering to my j , /IV N..UKa Y
i. i. ',+ ' ' @f..y* gigI')?J,.;g
'- M.h i' @@ October 10, I called for Staff and SFC to respond to Mr. Henshaw's allegations earlier conclusion that this matter was outside the scope of this proceedmg, on ,. 4 ~,~.7. t f.p'.y*/ ? hk ' -;.$g.f.79y(t because they raised concerns for the integrity of the pmceedmg. SpeciScally, ' l p i ff 4*f Mr. Henshaw questioned whether, based on Staff's prior action in issuing the r ' k *$;', y.. <W N.6,3'l.vNf?: 4 amendment permitting deep-well injection, Staff would be permitted to act r G. 7 2 g ', y ? l. Q independently of any decision issued in this proceeding.
:.~...*i' V :;; p.. -
t. r g. 156 t. 3 e .e g, j. a .g w 6 e ..,; y - r. -M. 4 4 i; ,N;., ') .W G .. ;p.. ' 3,...--...-,.-....,,.,.. ..m._., 4.' ../ ) I'
4
/ 3.,'"4.,. %,. ;.. f. _',. .g ? 4 ,y g ' g.".. ') 36 a' t 's*, ,./ i y..,y ' S a, ',
n
,.y. i a,. f..,,, Q ,, p N +?*. ..{,, W N f., 4,. 3 ..,4 s. A- \\
t'.'
h .:.'*f.n,, m _., '. J., ',,>,.,. m,... a... {, a g' ft,,... - r.. J I +, e. w .+ f,bf' ^*- f* 8 * ' '+" .,l[
w o r: ~. 4, .f. '.. y{,i...; ! s a q 1.y. ' 3 :,:;s.:y ;, 4,.... y,. r t r r r 1 s s. c. e.
sx.. -
a q-v u i ..Y. 4. ,'J ' ..l f. m. (, ,; e y r. c ? 'l.. q ., p., .. a.,.'. . > w'y n.,.: j s. 3 c.- ...n...]. i.- ..,.a; .n. ..e, a. s c . J .e,' ; p. a:,,- , O: tn - .,4, Staff and SFC responded ce November 14 and 20, respectively. This matter
7,;,,y ;cp j
~ :Q p.,1f j was discussed at the November 20 prehearing conference (see Tr.1129) where p ', f $..Jj-i. it developed that Mr. Henshaw was not satisfied with the Staff's explanation. In f - r. f,.l w ] ; Q.,.,, g'7;.py,n;., the absence of any objection, Mr. Henshaw was permitted to reply to the Staff 'y
f;,?..
5-and SN ex pane. Drl Gourd also filed an ex pane reply. In his reply, Mr. Henshaw takes issue with the Staff's c,onclusion that the ,$;.g.5y P.Y1 .., ] ' 3.J,(. f, gN5. i 1 "( application that it granted was sufficiently different from the earlier application y -,f, that was denied in LBP 74-7 so as to permit this action. Staff's response h -Q']e, c.Y,),.;; J,w.ylk f;.y,.g: /; c.'?". d;,*["yy g -C. brings out thPt. prior to permitting the test of the injection well, Staff was y Jf q.-l,1.g[.p f y.e ., concerned that it take care not to take any action that might be contrary to the conclusions reached in LBP-74-7. To this end Staff sought legal advice. That l '; T y ',i '" + !,,.3 T.,,Q; % 1 advice is contained in an October 27,1982 Memorandum from Robert L. Fonner
f
f.,,'..
d.+ty. 9 to Ralph O. Page, Chief. Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch, which is attached to Staff's response. Mr. Fonner correctly concluded that changes in the facts y.y.: } # l.? yr.(4. Eh - C.',.?-l ',',(:.S 4,l.- l underlying the application and in national policy permitted the Staff to again consider the amendment request and thr.t a grant of the amendment would not g th, p, p.f 9 7.'! g [p.[.We ' " '{ l,i f!f j f%*,. be precluded by LBP-74-7 With regard to changes in factual circumstances. {:.c y 3 ' t.w a ' f y,.. 1 treated and thus contained radioactive material more than an order of magnitude l',- ';** /.,f.v ', "l. '] Mr. R nner points out that the raffinate that Staff permitted to be injected was i below the NRC's standards for unrestricted release. This contrasts with the l b. .--O O * '.[. ?','.'y radioactive content of the raffmate that was the subject of LBP-74-7 which '[ ~l was high enough to be classified as low level radioactive waste. 'Ihis change in [. C ". ' circumstances alone is sufficient to dictate that the Staff not only did not violate i ? M.. ;'..i the terms of LBP-74-7 in issuing the amendmen' but that any refusal of Staff to have considered the amendment application on tne basis of that decision would . 'l 7
^
,. ' [ l have been improper. Consequently, I conclude that the Staff's issuance of the amendment was proper and in no way implies that Staff would ignore the terms .[ ..' A. 3 ',.' ; '.O' i and conditions of this decision. Mr. Henshaw's quarrel with Staff on this point amounts to a difference of
... s i i; 1
~ ^ .#.C.'.i,' 2 ' opinion as to whether the amendmeat should have been issued. That quarrel C., - f, I .c~ i could have been taken up in a hearing on the injection well amendment appli- [.. ( ' f. - . Kl..' ]Ql it', .... p gj / ' j cation. Mr. Henshaw requested such a hearing and subsequently withdrew the p, ', *' ' M,}y, ';, ( 3,. z J request. No hearing was held. This proceeding may not be used as a vehicle to .. "P *,.* /. e. C i. take up that quarrel now.
6..
Dr. Oourd's reply does not address the issue of the implications of the Staff's I : - % s i.,.
U,,/.P

9' j
.,*ty'.% ( action in granting this amendment for the integrity of the proceeding. Rather, it 7 t. ,, ' '/d ; '. -'k
~,'
f .' k, / k'3; raises numerous allegations regarding the deep-well injec* ion matter which are ' ' !.'y. ',
y.i.
?,. ].y, ' c
j. :
c, 7 ~! outside the scope of this proceeding. Consequently, it is referred to Staff for ..r;,..rw.,g,] review and any action that the Staff deems appropnate under 10 C.F.R. 52.206. m. .' /;,..p '.,' :.G ,.I . g:,.Q, j.A. * "*,O t - ? 'q.,-4.. y.. J T,g.s ?.e., - A]: 'f g ',' .4 3 a* s 1 . A <. W.,e C;* [' ' 157 . J :.v.~. U:( W .m :p a a,*. \\g:4 k..,.* w y. } &q, ' d, Nij.h;, f"- 4 [*
?.M K
e i .gf,t..a . J.f,g.4 ' ' */
T, b
e w. ,a ..u. 4 t d. y rc-... p..c. J
f. ' *
[y { e .A = 8' i.f,,, '{ "
w
~-
t,'.-/ h5?.y &-
i
9. '.:
' p. v. ; *i:. :.A . s U. t.. ~.;- W.4. g r.1 s -/ .q. .S - <r j h;.t 4.(., i n f.! f. Y'* 'a [lf: .'o d Aj f ,c. m %W. -A y. ~... #.- .o.. s. 4
-. w. .c 1 ~
w. n _...
n. , ~. . ~ ~ _ p.~ _.: - - a. w en. p w ..~.m w ^ M. h. + 'E Y. k %;,+f M. 4. 'r '7 ff QMy'%. ;yJf.m,.;,& M G r K.;w.. '.3>.:.l c z; lM ~c.Q < ~~. ~. o o.;,..g:. 2 % *?,t. %Y:K:.) g . w.,. g 7'.,,. r., A.,4 1o 2.a p.: ,,,,.,.,t. w-1 $.'. n. i ,. ;,d I~7 " " T $( ' ftM,' /.. ' ' F ^ ~ ~ > 7.. i ;., g.3; r.-..:, .w, y 0 ,.,n.. cx.4 l u). s, ~., c.;4, s 4* v. i.q., m, .s,, ,....m,,..- y. Y. $'., ' f:, f ' 7., g... o,.v-s 1, ,, Adequacy of Notice of Hearing .Q , ;( ' ~j.v.' o...s g gg ..,1 c + k ;., '.l Counsel for CASE has objected to'the adequacy of the notice of hearing g..l , 9 * --?..;9.W, : # ;;Q:. D.f. g. / 9,4%'N~..g,M
3-]
E .a given in thy:vceeding. Counsel maintains that the Jan'aary 2,1987 notice was d 4 . 7f .1 N pceived on Jaranry 8 and constituted 6%nate advance notice that the hearing
Q FK *~ M.,4.5,(?,g;[,4@yry.-@..O.%
Sould be held beginning January 12. Counsel's posiffon would be entitled to M $ ~$ O.' [^$ 4 - h ,sericus considemtion were the January 2 notice the sole notice to her that the ed lyh " ). h t,k,% $ ) 3 ".?j [.9 6.1 ;.fd 3 Scuing would begin on Janaary 12. R was not ~ 9 -,4 g,f,.D. G,', rt,d.,. ' &*$fj&,4.. '.T-MDbd,lW,.'.$ he schedule for the last filings an1 rulings in advance of the hearing, as m A.. ,.m;.
M well as the schedule for the heming incif, was discussed at the November 20 R
y 4,,.Nf::,c.. s- ? prehearing conference at which counsel was present. (See 'n.10712.) At that ~ ($f,,(,y yp:Z 3': time the hearing was set to begia on January 12. (Ses 'fr.112.) Further, the [ [ e i L _,,[r..,: QN * '? Prehearing Conference Orduksumi on November 25 natal that "[t]he hearing ,q. f,, ' 7 7. will take place the week of January 12, M47...." The notice that the hearing .l ; + s 'would take place that week clearly was adequate. .o ' ~ _ f, W f; 'J;>. % S ^ N 'l ' '.. ) Requests to Reepen the Record t-1 *, s" ' - f. q'3 3, ' 6 i On January 10, two days before the com/nencement of the hearing, a small I; 1 amount of UF was released at a cylinder filling station in the existing facility-L.' m ~..,. j.- e 6 1 J.4 from a pigtail that was not connected to a cylinder. The spill was contamed i~- u ~.j ".. within the fill station area, and apparently there were no injuries to plant .1 persocncl. Although this incident was not re. quired to be reported to the FRC, -m 1,... M t,.., '
;.B ??fllIA,. '
SFC did report it. 'f.:- -, @ J, J J,].f[,. NACE and APC have requested that the record be reopened in light of this (:j E f,f, - incident. Both allege that this incident was kept secret from the interverors J, >, y,,; T, and that this alleged concealment adversely reflects on SK's com}xter/cc and r ..s .,,y y, *- '. 4, 7( y integrity. SFC responded to the NACE request on February 9, pointing out that 0 M SFC had addressed this incident in the testimony of Steven Emerson ('n. 498-s.w. ~.i <... 2,..,. i,ci,g.3.. 3./.,. 99, January 13,1987). NACE and APC are mistaken in their belief that SIC E q.e g ...+ < 3 .5.. 5 .s c ,l ' 7.,,.s. concealed this incident during the hearing. Moreover, in view of the fact that it q J.7gy.Q' ' c.? -, 's. g'3 '. ' ( does not constitute an incident that must be reported under the Commission's () 7 '. G y,. ' $ >. 7,1, '... - *? regulations, no adverse implications for SFC's compet'mce and integrity could y,M pp / A.,. : ', have been drawn had SFC elected to remam piltat. De incident appears to be ~ : >. :.a. p.;{~.. u:p.
,..c,,.m.
o , f, e..t, Q n .;'s 7.,, M. minor. These requests are denied. - ) 9'.. ;-.+ -n . au. 2,,.;,v.. 4.s,,. '. %,..v...,.C.6,3'j~f4.6..,M, s, i."f;;e* w:;.a..Y,'..@..t .;&c.. M MNITERS ADDRESSED AT HEARING ,.]v.~, m.s.w p. g. . -.. ~p, -.e... p-... -., n.. a.. Wp.AQ. y.., m,...j%, %,,.7 l.y s ;ij"(,4 The following constitutes fmdings of fact on the issues raised at tae hearing, q . n.y w
1
,.;Y.. .. m* t,.," 1,.,.,,,.,:W **. :. Q ? 9.Q,.*,,.;,*,.o,, .7,, '.,*, L }
..d.."
ea
,. .$.a e
,, '.,-.,">,'tg w,<un ;,. -l 1 N ? ~* [*% b,.,,';., .e + s. ,o j ,, 3, ,.,, g, ,. y .-7 v . t.. . (,{ e.
4.. i t,;t l-158 g
a - ..., ' < 8.,- 5.* n,; ? 4 4 .67
l. j
= ,,,, g H, i ['s, = / >. ).. p Wh {- e ' i - 1 e af., v.j,, "{, g ', i* 1 4. ~ ?;,p-
j. ~,
4 ;, f L... s.. y ;m; ' o:. ,- gpmy :m s: p-~v:. m%?q y~p y.y >43f v + t, w+ e. '+ 5 ,,s 3.. v.., ),. ...., c., .. he e., y'y,,...,t. g g,' ,9 ,,6,- .A .f,, .,n +e e w ', -.s a ......'s A rs. g,.n 9 g
, '.P.
g 6,.,
1 ; i
'.,;N.;' u +.,,. 9, : g,J 1, g,L.h,,..; w...Q ? '.t,. , r
s. R, l.g } M:'!.', f.eo. b ' Q Mr
.A - ; t. .w ,s '.. y !",p..,, y p, e + . 4 J(..4
. v.,: f.
..g,y y.A q .&n~ .',, y:./., a. 3 4. ps..t.w . r. e,o - y.. w e. v,f ug.,,,'.:f y.. .., 9;. y9 ,. 3 _ (A, .,,t
h.h,,.. ;1, A.,.'Wh.. al,k.l, s
.. g' ?t l . t NO ,R 'j e ..,, t L, p s.i. Yi,. ;Q' fe. hn,..,.,k., o,,.: Q,:
h;.D..? }. b,,..l,.';;"., p. g'.
i4 i 4 c l'Ws ~; r * ' $;l
). ';
n .b.,.]. ,.a.~.', a .s
i n.. ..e,
'h
. i. L t[. V-s- 7 " 4;. 5 (4 k j ? Q ~,, ,*4 9, y 2 y. ,e i f k.;'..;e .s'"'*
EC 3.t.
4 a e
y
... '.,,. ~ -c ; ,q, 3, y y., y -"a, '.j e ~ } f. 5, y ..y ~ >ea;3,7, 1 .e -l 1,. y.,; 1 r ) s.. u,. (... 1 i r ~. y . v. : .s c ..y,.< ,Q,. j ,...X 1 g jf f, . l g@, M c '.i Training +a .3.. -l hu matter was discussed in the October 10 (at 3) and December 31 (at D ~' 'T;" ' 1., N&- y$.'$ ' ' [. ('., ^~ + '. -2; '. l
8) Memoranda and Orders following complaints by EA and Ms. Synar. Their
}, complaints focussed on the inadequacies of the tmining program as it existed M,. <.>j.,;.,;i ,,. ' ~ ',si before the January 1986 accident. EA relied on Staff's conclusions concermng these inadequacies es support for its conclusions. 8 f f,f'A ?,7', ""} .1 p'y/}, W.:,,J S ~.. 'Ihe trammg program has been substant ally improved since the accident, and 'i Staff has imposed two license conditions with regard to it. (See SFC Testimony, y y, h',(.' 3 [.' -g Tr. 273 et seq.; Staff's October 14 SER Related to Restart at 19-21.) At the hearing, the principal concern voiced was not with the adequacy of the training g4;.( ;. .c. M program as it was described by the SFC wimesses, but with SFC's commitment n';T P. ' ' ', y gl^ ..s. to maintain the prograrn as described. (See 'n. 295-97,30611.) Indeed, given the apparent laxity that exi'ed prior to the iccident, this is a valid concern which p,i,.;, 3y,. '* y. ~ is discussed under the heading Corporate Character and Competence, below. f .g - g
a..,,. :.,,
u. :...;.s... x ".,
t..ty,,.. y : g.
,. m. m ~ s Contingency Plan .7 o. The complamts bearing on this topic were filed by EA (April 10 Petition C. / * "? n' at 1213), CASE (December 12 Filing.127), and Ms. Synar (June 8 Filing, [Q,' %ph ' ^ 112). Additionally, at the hearing CARA raised concerns with regard to the O^ adequacy of the system for notifying members of the pic in the event of t ? an emergency. EA's complaints focus on the stace of contingency plannmg at the time of the accident. Therefore they have largely been mooted by the filing .1.. of SFC's new contingency plan. 'lbs new plan, prompted by the weaknesses , [', i disclosed in the old plan during the accident, applies to both the existing UF6 production plant as well as the new facility. In the restart SER, Staff concluded [ that "the Plan exceeds the requirements of [the Order for Modification of I icense), and that the Plan is suitable to alert offsite residenm of an imminent or i '. actual releasuo onrestncted attas and the p-oper response to be taken." (Restart 'p'
)
SER at 33.) 7g CARA's concerns regarding the effectiveness of the notification system will Ri- ,( [.!,.. te irerestinted by SFC, and appropnate corrective action taken. TI.ese ecncerns s T,J'] inclnde vn audibility of the three sirens designed to alert individus!.s within y a 2-Jo 3. mile radius of the plant who are out-of doors and the reliabilky ' I, p.?[5. - ~..,. '. of the automated telephone alerting system designed to alert those within pp. ~ j approximately 2 miles who are indoors. (SFC's Statement on the Contmgency h'lh ' M H.*
l YW, ff. 'n. 320, at 3-4.)
I :[,' <$ T h. * ? 4., ! i' s CARA is concerned that the siren system may not be audible in all circum-
~
j van::es and that the sirens can be confused with train whistles sounded along a l .l heavily traveled main rail line that passes close by the plant. CARA also reports $8O,[' 1,, ..i', h' $', .l' /f, l that the automated telephone system, which is designed to dial the telephones of j .Q% : {i .H d P'M [ 's *\\.' l 159 .k yQ ; - .t a.: 8 ,q. 1 ), $, ;' i ^ %(,'i k.'. t. ' _ {,. ': I 3 ?
n.
.. e%..j.~ s J o r 3 e q .y - t . y:. y.: 'l ;, _ 'l h ~* r s- . j z. n.. m.v u,#, T.<g.4, 2 yi. e.u ph 'P e M:.a 'i.p.,
. r. u 4..,,u;t:m,4. p.i,[rM ;....,..,.
r,.,.b e ,-,A, ?,'y , ?..r 4 y .g .<-4.Q,.c.
y. S-
..r @. d.. 7 ,;.c %. m ? W .j,,,,.o / r. l ......, e ,. 1 ,,,a A, Oe: ' ~ '.: )m.c*,.', w: q;i',. . n.g J,.;q? ai g.f f*f.).gn l ;~ ~ s^ Q .r eMQ.s ", s D,,6. ?.~ ' ~*. ' ' i p .~ 'v l.: ~ ny
p.yy v ~.,. .. - ~....- c.. m.~.a. n a.n. n,,*m%,,'H. ..., -.:. % OQqf g,.u% k;, +hs m s ? W w ~. c... W a w g :9 e;st.r.P;Rty N v* V - in y -[wg h w ffQ is - f* hy,h. g s,MMM.y.u?9M@W.h* f, n.1 e..i:e -Qm;R. ; . c &. RM% N%W % :: MQ lW. M., '; c h @gy. 1 Q.%. <, .f....$., ;, a,.O h..t.-Q... .^ a %.7
0. m
... a s.m%.. y,.
c. _
m <+ a %o - t.u ..e w. d , n. .ut. a.: ., ? 9 g., ;, V y, s. '.*/ ', N 1 s g l. .y ..,., :, m ,)
'g. a e..
.'..r. ( - u ,e .u,- w l:,,,, g, y - n- '4 .,.+ n....
,n.. '..
' ' j.[:fNp W,..s,.., s1hl Q s, ;,I,. ^~l 3 .j nearby residents and deliver a recorded message in the event of an emergency, J". t XS t sometimes delivers messages that are garbled and k,w,..r,,Uble.' Addition-j', a;;.A,gk;*q' ?. ql4. l'q ; sf < e*h ally, CASE raised the possibilky that not all residents wnhin the 2-mile radius {. .y.,: 'g%;,TC.%.9.M/g(, l%;iN,,*)d - have telephones. (See Lammers, R. 352-56; CASE,2. 361-62.) ' h, . n W 5 Md,.i.;'$'J M. K ' h: SPC is aware of the problems with regard to siren amhbility and miaphane R d.k.PGj:.M.Q f{. y W.2c. 3 ;d ' W A. M..'g p # q
=1= hey and at the hearing unde took to investigate them and to take appropri.
.j ME,TY;dh~;,,f.M.p/d.*j N'J.'1 - c ;g h W ate corrective acten. (See D. 324-29.) AminnaHy, g]C is to verify whether . ff. g w E;. p,Q all of the residences wuhin the 2-mile' radius of the plant have miaphanas and h .ScQ%'ilj make peisions acceptable to Staff to nodfy any that do not. i. y ; p V y.,;;pi g c ~.:9 C. M.Q.;Jj !;,,' s27,Eug.it. ejglW".Q:..re? adopted by SPC. SIC tastabed that analyses by NRC, DOT, and EPA show Ms. Syner and Dr. Oourd quesman the adequacy of the planning mdius r ;* , 7.yU.,c,: -' j that resideras within a 1-mile reduas of the plant shoukt take pr nective action
,7 i *.je., l.f' e

% ;..., f (,, ;
in the event of an accident by takag sheher indoors and closing all outside w;. ' ? ;. JF.A: J'- the plant do not reqcire similar protecoon, but that nonAcanon of residents within j$') '. 7 ' N f.; ' p.}.[ j,, K.1 ' ~ V ventilation. SPC further testi6ed that residents located at greater distances from y.: ...,, L.--;. 3 fg*.t.I a 2-mile radms is advisable and, fcr certain wind c= h. desirable within a ' y ^ / 7 r 1'g.i.y l g 9 g ];j 7 3-mile radius. (See SIC's Statement on the Contingency Plan, ff. W. 320, at 3.) k _, s 4. * :.y, S'g; f., During questioning SPC's wunesses indicated that their offsis plan was also 'p.j predicated on NUREG-1140l (D. 340-41.)
l
,., { ' '; i; i n..' m,. - ' q s,.., T,,.,, ' W1 Ms. Synar resides about 8 miles from the plant and believes that she should' M '../ 4 ' ', y * ~.;- be included wittiin the notiacataan radius. (See 2. 330-31.) Dr. Gourd believes a y 7. ~ y ' ' 7' *. that the notincanon radius chosen is arbitrary in light of the fact that the plume + ' i 4;Q ?,, ., W;.3 g resulting from the arntlant savolod 18 miles. (See W. 358 59.) However, 3.' [ f. }(;f y, T 3, g? W, d'.~ '.g.;C,* ( j / the distances chosen clearly comply with existing regulatory gahe and no b '. '. v,; S M,7 ,, f4. 'e showag has been made that circumstances exist that would dictas that different, '/ 4,,Y ff. 'y * * ; 1..[ ' M,1 more stringent standards be employed. The fact that the plume resulting from C l.:.?(:N pf ' ;;7.; ;', f y jy,'s.. $*;lJ.]' .Q. the accident may have travelled a much greater distance than that chosen for d y, % plannmg purposes is not it itself season to require snet protecdve acuans be M..yyJ . k,, k e;sMd")fj 'y.-@4~p).,{ .J provided for out to that dastance. 7b justify such planning, it wcxild be necessary ] 1;:..: y to show that the plume would have adverse effects that require such planning. No g ',fI.Y/. I: T .*; q such showing was made. R .M.".:."3..'. y g:.1;,,.,i;. 'three remammg topics must be touched on before leaving this subject ~.! 1i S.* .,'. y f.. e, '] matter. First. APC brought out that, during the January accident it developed that ' j p ly t.fl.b@' y. ;. p 6N, @j. C-.'.] r; q. telephone numbers for the NRC (and presumably other concerned government j %y.T.y,h 7;;.lT i 1,'p% v.IS.y ' agencies) that were listed in the contingency plan were erroneous. (See W. 359-u hMJ f'pi !RW't,3,i 'ij.5 W q's rf@:i$$.g?,M $MH,y,.T 60.) SPC testined that it is required by the i- " Fy plan to conduct one i 't h,; % p major exercise per year. (W. 328.) During that exer;.ise, SIC should verify that l i fS 'R- .f the telephone numbers listed in its plan me accurate. p.4,b.; ; c., t Second, EA in its complaint raised the possibility that an accident at the UF 6 M,j:n.y,d,i,O,MMI 8{,c~.ld.d5.4' ggc.;vg; M. ] plant could have adverse consequences for the UF plant. SPC points out that 4 the UF plant can be remotely shut down and that provisions exist to protect 'M 4 . A, d m. :.;y.sc rd,~i this plant from any plausible event in either facility. (See Starament at 6-7.) d c , w :. n.
^ ^ u,

n
.c. 2 i y" q. v.., .o a 160 v. e s -, m ,,g b 6, v s. .s -.i. 4.. a. ,.m l MI I ti y ,(, ". 4 r - .,s
M.(.

%.- - L '? '
4 o' =/.(M .,.,-l. d 4 Wf
T%Q."
],[; V M17Q} we;.Q 9 **.. %~ ' slK 7'T"' .,u@, g,... ., 2 ;,+
'- y.... - m...,.
.m& - h ; .; '. t v
y..%.s x i %, :.r. l s j..
3 ~ n, "AIw..,,:; .,l, :. ;;b;,.L n:lr 4'y* ' F ~ L.,.... W, ', ' f 7 i "", w..,t,1",q a 4.' t j
9
'G ~ p, ;v..s, e.sd. 1 4 y .l + ... v v -.r.,Nq ..v..y.m. 2.m. g.9,s.v.,n,., s n.p t &v- ...... ". s. - - m , ' m. q...,g[g.' W. 4.,., j,,4;. e:,1. y.<j, y. './ o .n ,, ' %a ag.* I (. A i g n . j[ . D
p,b..,, #' t. } gg
[ *Tk b-n 1eM )4 q=.., Q..
,k
- *.[ [,j , [--* @*j..]w. ...,.*W* 4 'i, j.. s# ; Y ' . er .e, 4 .,7 .,, ' y
4
,, b,.,.,);..i., *ga' .j .t .4, .) e,r 4 P
'...,,3.f t...,e e
y. j g f,. t 1 e 's . f..< . g,' I m ii .c 4 ,4,. "... a "3.. r, 'K, '/,0.' %!ei x .s .e .f. 4 gt r s, n. .~
i. i-tX f...
'q's q.", ~ ..:. y J. j.. ., y'.' _ f f., - , y? l.f' .f... .3 p;u.g 3:y 4 - } 't i ?- sy e;.. 4: : e3 - + q, ;e +, e; s_ i f; - o, a; ,a . 3 r s k N .y[. Nl;O. ;.' $ j'. / # t , t, 3 q.y,* ,a l .pa, u .m.; ln .... ~ * :.b : 'A. .~.._[ n,,, .y j p . e, n s / .,n Third, OSDH asked whether SFC planned to continue to cooperate with ' ~- c the Sequoyah County Health Department with respect to ':ontingency plan-i J.- 5 ning. SFC's wimess responded affirmatively, stating that the company had en-y joyed excellent support from all of the county agencies and had worked cicnely N[J,,," 9; ,~~'7 E,,','y ~f {' e ,, ?, i< with all of them. Counsel for OSDH later stated thet the county health depart-ment was very interested in wortmg to ensure an effective contingency plan. (See j' ., ?;, % f f.y. f -' r ' TY. 321-22,364 65.) This kind of cooperation is laudable and is to be strongly y _- f,. g, g ' encouraged. g - a -. _.., f?~;ql T 7,.7 f y - - ~. 2 3 r : a, a,. ,-2 .,c -a.f3..' Dust Collection System and Radiological Contamination t ;. - /~' CARA (July 15, 1986 Motion at 6, 7-9), EA (April 10, 1986 Petitice at 10-11; July 18 Amended Contentions at 3-4) CASE Quly 18 Supplemental r r ~ Response, 117, 23, 35; December 12 Resporre,15 at 4), NWC Quly 18 Statement, nrst, fifth, and seventeenth complaints; December 12 Response at 7), l , h and Mr. Henshaw (July 18 Motion at 3) have raised a number of complaints , ~+ 1 d? DV -p '*r k 4/;- i concerning this topic. CARA, relying on reports concernmg the Deparunent of lf. g Energy's Fernald, Ohio plant, is concerned that a large volume of uranium l dust will be produced with the possibility of widespread contammation in , ~~ [-' the area surrounding the plant. EA raises similar concerns and points to past j ] ~ ~ ~ inspection reports detailing allegedly high concentrations of airborne uranium in the UF Production plant and SICS allegedly inadequate responses to these f l 6 incidents. CASE alleges that, because of launidity, the vacuum system for i collecting dust will not function property. NWC's fitst complaint alleges that there is widespread and pervasive radi-ological contamination on and near the facility, and its seventeenth complaint challenges SFC's monitoring program. Mr. Henshaw and CASE also challenge the monitoring program. NWC also challenges SFC's calculation of the nitration p efficiency of the facility's baghouse because it is based on a repcrted filtration j,, efficiency for foundry dust, rather than the material that it will acmally en-counter. [, At bottom, these concerns are related to the designed efficiency of the b'.g-i house installed at the facility and SFC's commitment to maintain the baghouse in good working order. SFC's record b respect to radiological releases from I the UF production plant has been relied on by interveners as evidence of a 6 l !ack of the necessary commitment. The equipment in question is a pulse-type plenum baghouse manufactured h ^ by the Riller Company (model number 32-f e 'J2). SFC believes that it is far j. j superior to the baghouse at the Department of Energy's Paducah, Kentucky l ;] plant which provided the model for this facility. The baghouse is the same make t -~ I Di and type as that in use in the UF6 Production plant. The baghouse itself is ,. f. t i. t () a metal t.ousing containing 192 Gore-Tex fabric (12 ounces per square yard, II " },. j - ~ l 161 ~t 1 L '9 [ ' g ? " w( t y:,, - ) . f s,, . :.. p ~ i s
1 r.
a 4 c l- ;]i; p *, Y.' M ;g. - Q,. ,..Q$yQQ ' yg.e...:L -ysf f %y ..s Q: Q
Q.,7 k W. M.'%'Q Q j k ? p n. , %.a & %.% $ $ $ $ M +3 & 'h h h $-W f.?$0. N. t Y j }iW :.h;>f :lf y. } V 'l 'l ' ' [ 'p,.f. 5', [& .,.f;; *.7,.}n ".7<,q 'f}2.L,w.R$ f..Q ijf v '.r~ ,d ',;.g?'. d H : ".:.,',.,. , <..f;,,. .h , +.; . u.. s y g ; .v. 4 4 j 4 . =., r-i,
u..,
( .N' 1 3 g I' ) s.. . 2..*y ' ' polyester needled, scrim supporting felt). bags, each of which is 5 inches in 'a ,',e< 'Oy'*,. diameter and 8 feet long. An exhaust fan draws air through the bags from a i. '-h} ' {3 points of dust lenknge. The filtered air is continuously monitored for uranium [ ,J system of ductwork which is connected to ventilation hoods located at potential b . ~.. ,,. r y' f {'. .y, ? ... ~.. 'eg . P, and fluoride. It is then discharged through a rtack. (SFC Statement, ff. W. 377, ( i'f?".. - ji,,,' y@ c Q, % q. 4 :',,I,:; '. [.,, j at 12; n. 417; SFC August 1,1986 Response at 7 9.) . i 3, _ Y ;, UF gathered by the ventilation hoods will be deposited on the outside of the ^ c' gy; g-a., The bags are supported on wire frames and arranged within the house so that .g. '( g >,'.,Y,. @bl(t y,5 Y(.9 "*. ' d
4.,
4 .{..ej, '& d bags. Periodically, small bursts of compressed air are applied to the inside of the j j{' .,d.d'/ %']l<+'g % ' l/d i bags in order to dislodge the UF that has collected on the outside. This falls 'i 4 1 into a hopper where it is contained until the openmg of a star valve transfers it i,<. '. e.. g P ; , c '. x '.p.,. to a series of two dust screw conveyors which convey it to the product drum 4 'J l filling station where it is added to the output of the plant. (Id.; W. 378-80,383.) ' ]q
I';,, f a 3.. P 1 From the above, it may be seen that the Fernald plant does not furnish -an
,b.'j. ' 's-appropriate model for comparison. (See SFC Statement, ff. Tr. 377, at 4; W. 384- /*- .f,, ~ 85.) Moreover, given the facts that the baghouse, although modeled after that in ..Y . - ( :.9 i ' ' i - )., ?'. .i } use Et the UF6 Production plant, incorporates an improved filtration medium and a reduced flow rate (7600 cubic feet per minute (cfm) vs. 20,000 cfm), emissions . C
y j
should not exceed those expenenced at the hrter plant and in fact should bg,, ?l ' h. ,,l much lower. Because SFC has based its esti nate of emissions from the facility's ,,,a, baghouse on its experience in fihering UF in the UF6 Production plant, there .j 4 is no need for SFC to calculate performance based on the size of particles that .,;.] will be encountered. Finally, SFC has put to rest CASE's conectn that humidity s Y. ~ will prevent the vacuum,ystem from functioning effectively. SFC agrees that c 4 3 C ".3, if: 5 5. ': (',.. ' i_. humidity would cause problems were the UF hygroscopic, and points out that 4 1 it is not. (See SFC Statement, ff. W. 377, at 3-4; August 1 Response at 9-10; v
n. 390 91,)
v ....s ' 'f!. A . j,7,'p,,,, - q CARA posed questions that were put to the SFC witnesses concerning the C y length of the nozzle to which each bag is attached (n. 403-04, 421), the ' ; NlMy.ffp,... $..' 'vj',U',S'.f d 9f b.]a method of inspectmg the bags, and the maintenance schedule (n. 402-03, 'lj'
~.

J: 2
',; i 417, 421). CARA maintains that it did not receive adequate answers to these -] '4., r ?, y l' -" l* c-questions. While it is true that the SFC witness was unable to answer these C i .1_'. ',, j'; questions in detail I am satisfied that the answers given were adequate. These .d ~ h *f.,1.. , W, [ n., /. ., ~
d was unable to fu-tish the length of the nozzle to which the bags attach, perhaps 4. m n
questions all concern the possibility that a bag may deteriorate and leak. SFC Ij s, f.jc: ~
.y /.j.5.,[.M;', ? '.y,:',, ".' i because this question was not clearly put. The witness did indicate that access 7yp,,T'/J fi.'g.,

. y '_A Q.[d.f.,3.4,,,%,
to the baghouse for mahtenance was through inspection ports on the clean side .. 3..~$sg,g7.fm;, of the bags, and that the precise maintenance schedule will be worked out based ' "N.,3.;7.r,;rc.,....T O ',YM Mg f;'( -_<. '.l on operating experience. Small or large tears, which will be detected by the "J. V.J: C ,.'. [ [ Particulate monitor or DCS respectively, or a gradual deterioration, which will .g be revealed by trachng the results of the daily air sample fiker analysis, will -)
9 ;, r.. i & -
v..
[*'
r,D *j , ~.... ' ', '. .. 3... 3j 6 ,g j _d f. ^ 162 s q, .O. 4 .f t' i y a } iz ) y v r a a . hF. y g . g.g
e'ry'-*F'"'**'***@'
-S' s ?n ^ vW,...f. ~. : y ' '.:;. 4, n, ; . : G;.{, ' k..,' i .'d' 's ~* s, }n. v.~..),%,., y,
r..
, ~,,p e w.;',. *f k.. ~ c.:, n .a- ,, a,. f-a o v
?.
e, r e J..:y s s g; Uy,j?'.egyf'".[*f.; k,, k. p.1 3 ' f- 'M t 3
4. 'l "' ?
./>' A l'V ., y 7.g.1 W. ; ' ~ l l +- W -..,
i..{ 'l?/n,lQ. ~ Y,. *. S,' '..
l [ :.'..
$ 's
.i ~.,!..,.,...' "
d. *i.
'*D- + p, W'
^

g
~. J
1 i .e fi_ . o J t _. ~
Y.
e. "., I Vt. ' Q. d ,3,'. y
s..'- *... g,,,
,... *v";M. ' u f. f.. + i c- .. p,, .s,. g e .; " j.3- .l* .f. n s- ,M, [,.. ll r 7 l , i. /, - s ..e .I 1 ) V s. jy. ' a : t -.;&.. >. '... _. n b,; y . ', d f t [_ 4 t ., u ~ r prompt inspection and corrective action. (See SFC Statement, ff. 'Ir. 377, at 2-3; e, Tr. 402-03.) a As noted. Interveners allege that there is widespread radiological contamina- ~ fJ tion surrounding the plant, that it resulted from the operation of the UF pro-pt .l, .,"; 'gy. 6 . M [; '. $ 1 i duction plant, and that the monitanng system for detecting such contamination I Of ".,, .,y#f h ;i p{.(,7. is inadequate. They urge that the application be denied for these reasons. These N !?. ", , py.. < %7% ll allegations are stated in general terms. SFC denies them. The discussion of this ",,. T ' topic begins with a review of the evidence supporting Interveners' claims con- '.;.j.}cQM A T 3 - + g;y%, jR cetning radiological contamination and concludes with an examination of the ~7 NWC's first complaint states that there is widespread radiological contami- -[.gg" ,, j monitoring system. . C,. 7 nation in the vicinity of the plant. It supports this allegation with general refer- 'f, ences to NUREG 1189 and aerial radiological surveys conducted in 1980 and .i i 1 1986 which are discussed therein. (See NUREG-1189," Assessment of the Pub-lic Health Impact from the Accidental Release of UF at the Sequoyah Riels
Q. /
6 Corporation Facility at Gore, Oklahoma." Vol.1, 5 5.4, at 49; Vol. 2, Ap- -i "' "!g, +:.A fp "' '~ pendix 5.4.1, at 383.) NWC relies principally on the aerial surveys, asserting '< h m that they show " widespread and pervasive contammation on and near the cur-i. E. " I -P rent facility" (NWC's Matins of Contention, July 18, at 1; NWC's Review of NUREG-1189 dated July 8 and revised July 15 and September 8,1986, at 4-5; 1 Tr. 478-79.) ~ J l A review of the 1980 and 1986 aerial surveys in&nts that the terrestrial 7 ' f. i,' exposure rates off site are less than 50 microrems per hour. Part 20 of the i 'l Commission's regulations requires that licensees conduct their activities so as ,i to limit the dose to any individual in an unrestricted area to no more than 0.5 .? rem, and to make every effort to limit exposures to such individuals to a dose that is as low as reasonably achievable. (10 C.F.R. il20.1(c),20.105(a).) The s 1980 survey indicates that the exposure rates reported may be converted to a dose expressed in millirem per year by multiplying by 8.76. (NUREG-1189, Vol. 2, at 390.) Thus it is evident that the offsite doses, whether resulting from SFC's operations or other sources, are well within regulatory Jose limits and furnish no basis to deny the instant application. NWC's seventeenth complaint has to do with monitoring. Speci$cally, it takes 1 issue with SFC's statement in its October 16,1985 response to the petitions (at - s e
33) that historically its releases of radionuclides to the atmosphere have been i
within annuallimits.NWC asserts that the aerial surveys discussed above suggest e y that, if this is true, it is because SFC's monitors have not worked properly. NWC ,,c . V. _.7 ; repeats this allegation in its December 12 response. NUREG-1189 and the 1980 E l and 1986 serial surveys provide no support for NWC's allegations. l ' ",# l Mr. Henshaw and Dr. Gourd testified concernmg monitoring. Mr. Henshaw i L* C Mjp (Tr. 431-43) relied on certain inspection reports and correspondence for the i _.,g - - i ',4Jq-[,,..%,,; proposition that SFC and NRC Staff lack the competence to perform effec. L. 3. d.,. ',. i
_$l '(.,f '. ;,., t
i, o
u.- , y c.,. '.. C,
163
,1 ?. .p. o p: 5 ~,j. '. + s. ,.s ,',a [% 8' s ,v. Y .P .I ^
g, 8
N . :.. p. -. :,, .i s - l - U _ 3,w.n9...,. ~g,. .pge -;,, w a
1 w
' h f,* 4
m_. m u.~., .~.-.e -4 h, .. %.4, o,. J..;,: y,. vj 9.; p %7,tp hy,a.ggy7.:..qn,.;$p 4. ^.,.,,7.t. g..v e,,. j) g,. f e,.3 -. es
n wc:%,.
4 9:, ;g.~.3,,., u.,,,, m.y.e.. r s n,c . s.. A, n: 2:1~ v., : f. p..,. y.s.n m 4 s.a ..a. v,,. 5. ' - ; ..,... g 1 - (>, ( V; 'v ,.y~ 9;., ;. e : n n. c,s.: L. x
n
~ ya e :' .n:, ~
j%' '..
p . M, o s.:.1 s ' h d,2
=- =" '~
~' F a,e 2 c1. 't '.,,c,.*, y - w.,.- .} , e.. - q'- . q-1r 's, 1 'i tively. Dr. Gourd (R. 444-53) cited certain enors in reporting meteorological [.'? data, asserted that. Jf would not rely on such data compiled by the National .N J :. p. _ To Weather Service because it is not controlled by SFC, and stated that, sometime ", J- ~ after 1975, Staff assumed inconectly that the wind at the site is predominantly L ,.,. @4 ',4,, J. ca ., g.;, ? 'm If easterly. I have reviewed all these matters. Mr. Henshaw's conclusion is not y f . '... '. 5 / ' .r,,.i' 9 (, h,[ .'.a h, ' ~ %} uarranted by the facts on which he relies. The matters recited in the inspection f reports and correspondence appear to be re!atively minor and, by themselves, j, - ]. do not question SFC's or Staff's competence. Dr. Gourd's concern about the fin '; ~.,.. p.. ;M,[4. c l ' ;F,',l,? s '1 errors in reportmg meteorological data have been adequately answered by a gj v J V.N '. L ~ 6 10). This report casts doubt on his concern that Staff will not rely on National 'j Staff inspection report (Docket No. 40-08027/86-08, September 4,1986, at 8 f, ,l
'i*S^
~j Weather Service data; the author took such data into account in dealing with d Dr. Gourd's concern. A review of the environmental assessment accompanying .j this application reveals that the Staff does not assume that the wind at the site is predominantly easterly. ~ ',f' Ms. Deer in Water (n. 423-27) and Dr. Gourd (Tr. 448-49) have raised i., ' t q concerns about the cancer mortality rate and the adequacy of an Oklahoma State J Department of Health study ("An Assessment of Potential Environmental and Adverse Health Impacts Resuhing from Operation of the Sequoyah 1%els Facility s c' - Gore, Oklahoma," November 1985) which was prompted by the concern of citizens in Sequoyah County. While the OSDH study has recognized limitations b (., - 1 (Study at v vi), Dr. Gourd and Ms. Deer in Water have not advanced any -} reason to reject it. Their position would require not only that I reject the OSDH 4.- i study, which appears to be the only scientifically conducted study available, but that I fmd that an increased cancer rate exists in Sequoyah County which is directly attributable to SFC's operations. Nothing in this record comes close .? l to justifying such sweeping conclusions. This conclusion in no way belittles 1 4 11 these concerns. Indeed, I note that the OSDH study itself recommends that a ,T. ' n j ,f, i q. c. g.,:., ,3,.- c.,s.. <. ;.. more detailed epidemiological study be conducted (see Recommendation 4 at t 45), and that the problem has attracted the attentiori of the Cherokee Nation
i p,,. i
[ (see testimony of Wilma Mankiller, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation,. i ,,. y, 7, s '1h 766-A). .. ~ g. ' z ,j. - 4.s ' f.. Accidents, Malfunctions, and Fire Prevention a ,l V,: .~ .y W j ,,. y
w't These matters were set down for hearmg in Memoranda and Orders of

1 i
f$ l f? 9i- / 9] November 5,1985 (at 15-16,18), and October 10,1986 (at 11). They were '{ a,( 3 '.".., '~ 7 addressed in SFC's testimony (Statement, fr. Tr. 501.) Additionally, despite " ;}.;.q:, t ~ the fact that it had been excluded from the hearing because no specific com- ] .J.M - plaints were filed, SFC also addressed the question of the handling of UF 6 l 0'Q cylinders. Several questions and comments were offered by Interveners, based 1 vv. d% q. { e .f i 164 Jj .n. i y l s 1
y u'
I . I ,4ty ,g b g .a. h =_.o.sn q s.y -.* *=. we sa.y -eae. ..-me.-e. -e S g..Y,- e +., f ' \\ ? a ,',,_,AM,, f* j, 4 e 3.* ' ~ ., p,s.; .'y e 7 -l.,, y, v,. Y q, y, s 1 / . :{ " ... J O..*'( ,y. A ,t p, :,. h -, ;.h. , r, e ,,.e s.*. s x{ ' '.: , D,.e " ,[ I. M M[. a -. ~
[;
u.,.,',gm,,.gp,,, '# h.,;z .r y .s ; <,; g....n o . n....... n. _m;g .z .v ,..~ A* 3 - * ' * *A, Nt'. _3 .,> e, e.m;-. u,..c._. p. ').r 4,n.- sk, l Q..- s, i ,g. m. y c-
t j e,,
r
,f^ , s. -
V. g.
a,.,,, a. ~ .,d,. '.'.Q.}, r.g..; *y..g + H.. a G I.. %.$ ;.^[ Q: y'1 s ;. a. 7- . N..wl - g.,,, y ;gf,. : g,,, g, a.; y r .. ys ., a % - 3 .a,- c. ' ' :.c.,y., ... y . ; '.,v
,. s%
~'4 ' I ,3 .a 8 A af..,g. a 3 i... 'n p,...' , g.g. _1...o? " J' 4 ,p
.4* ; - i s
.'.9.T I. 'y ' ' ',ll % y[ ,j s 3 ,} c s +- 3 ,a ) on this testimony. They do not reveal any controversy with respect to these s y matters. .,<u. .u+ pr.. 3., y .e., . wy ,~. Mn.,.:1 c b,;.$, ~ /,g - b, y ',yN., h.,N- ;7.. fj O n' d Stalling r 4. s g
. [, ' - ~ ' ' "
b 's,% 5f).TO'mC,p.@ nis matter was discussed in the Memoranda and Orders of October 10 (at d
12) and December 31 (at 5-6). De October 10 M+ w i and Order notes
=k that CARA, CASE, Ms Synar, and EA have raised questions concerning the 3 -(0-~.;, e.~., ' ' KP~ ~..{ ?{C '., l. ~ c,j i(> adequacy of staffmg. Rese questions stemmed from an assumption that only ^ [, d' ~ ~ 'O. ; ' j,)} one person would be assigned responsibility to operate the UF facility. SFC's 4 1 / clarification of the staffmg level contained in its August I response (at 5-6) did 1 not fully answer these questions, and they were set down for hearing. D 3 c. @k, ~, 3 Prior to the hearing. SFC submitted statements on this issue on November 20 and January 7. At the hearing, Mr. James G. Randolph, President of SFC, [* y ]g,) . t testi5ed that each shift at the facility will be staffed as follows: [, f N'+- M M U$ %..; 1. Shift supervisor - this individual is responsible for the operation of the UF facility and, in addition, will devote 10% to 20% of his time ~ k.N,T,I. 'i -'; 4 to the utilities that serve both plants; 2. Chemical operators - one chemical operator is assigned to the l
I i
control room (which is never left unattended during operation of the U .Y ts m- ' 3 facility (1Y. 662)) where his sole duty is to operate the UF plant, one F, is assigned to the plant itself to serve as the " eyes and ears" of the ['.;~ .y'j' m,,y.c. 4 control room operator with whom he is in radio or telephone contact, ( .h N-and one who works the day shift only and has responsibility for loading i N' the product in drums at the drum filling station; and / N
3. The yard crew -this crew has responsibility for the unloadmg of
[. UF cylinders and installing them in the autoclaves. They are supervised 6 ,.j bp the shift supervisor. When they are sequired (perhaps 15 minutes per
p. ;,
q day) they report to the facility from the UF Production plant. Q .Q, 6 9 (See 'lY. 556-61.) k "; ' l * $e ne hearing did not disclose any relevant centrtnersies concerning this level P "( 4 of staffing. However, CARA did express concern that the shift supervisor dccs not devote full time to the UF4 operation and that the 80% to 90% that he i,, g2 7 does devote could diminish. (See D. 565-67,) NACE is concerned that this c : i ~ level of staffing be incorponted into the license as a license condition so that - [f P', j it may not be changed without Staff approval. (See D. 562-65.) SFC did not L' l. ..i 2 .M,:d I object to this. Consequently, the staffmg level of the facility as outlined by, h.f 1(,' f j{ .g p%',. Mr. Randolph is to be incorporated as a license condition. Additionally, should ,3 ' j,.,i'* epenting experience teveal that the dutier of any individual are, as a practical 4 maner, significantly different than those outlined (e.g., utilities consume more h, ~_, 'i.>", up, 4 T. Q<
c * /.
M p..,A'?.'," 3' ,J than 20% of the shift supervisor's time), this fact is to be promptly brought to E, *;'., '!, l '..e Staff's attention. e : t..., ~.,- $ ,'p 5 f ' 9 g. l,, fl: ' f, . c. 165 q; t s.lltp.'. ',, .s. ,g. -f) \\* t j; m
\\
a
t a
t r .,t,, ,m a \\ L% r,., P a.0 6*',e g*
?
'.\\.'- .1 i i p-m e.: +. ,. ;,.~ ; - - - l m, : i.,w.W,'.b,..;f - ~ ~ ~ - t' 'y.. " -. u. n
.g '
o
l s
. a
,a 5 m ' ;( 4,fc1f e 4/, ,m . 2 i.,, 'y . ;C "*.> lt s e .A ( ?r %"g,,,.k. 1.e ?- .,.. ~.. . y ' y* *. 4 m G g.' ' ,y * -j 1 e.? v3.. .,g w .. w w. w w w. w w m..$ m'.p w.g 'h +,. K' n. l ~. ~ __.__-._--.____q_
.m-=am + y - "; - a ~.~.~ ~.... = e' \\,h %.Ry M., Q. :. ::. : :jv Lv.3 "..;Q s%fG. My p,:e/?;m:,~.> ; te G f %r.. s.. .. ; f, y.1 a.. v. ft:. ;.. c : y pC ? -=:n n a ~. - ,, '.. g.$.x g ' -. yn f:? ',k,e K<M.l '. !;~>. f, q ~ ~. ] 1 3 ".,,v .~ t, c ..n. .a p/ a s ; + - :,.;.l., 4.. :,,, > :. t..... :. C... ~ .} %.e :,y Q. mm n, t 4 1 r.s. e i .' s ,,<.g 'M+ - f'.. j y, 3.
d. e : ;V
.s. s v 4. t ';3I'.J 5 Personnel Qualifications bj. l This matter was discussed in Memoranda and Orders of November 5,1985 (at f>,h I.d 7 %..,.. A 15), October 10,1986 (at 12), and December 31,1986 (at 6-12). It was raised h' %,- d. by NACE, CASE, CARA EA, Mr. Henshaw, and Dr. Gourd. As the matter ,.,,1 ]$ % 4 q* $ ' y l. p,.' eventually evolved, complaints were accepted to the effect that the muumum 12, + . 43., j personnel qmlincations are not sufficient to assure that the UF facility will be 'f' - d [i:l (4 -; j',h,. j 4 J6' 7 , if i safely operated. These quilncations are stated in the underlying license and are y applicable to both the UF facility and the UF Productan facility. Because of
1 f.
4 6 g - l.Q..;M, @t 7-y this, I made it clear that these complaints would not be entertamed as challenges i NJ;.W c ,j to the requirements applicable to the underlying license. 'Ihis tuling required
.(,
S' Ji Interveners to show that the qmlincations that were found acceptable for the y '.N UF Production facility were not acceptable for this facility. No such showing 6 J. Of - i was made. (See December 31 Memorandum and Order at 6-8.) ^' [A \\ In the December 31 Memorandum and Order, I denied NACE's extensive l ' +, < l requests for information concerning the January 4 accident. (Id. at 8-12.) In so 4[ ' ' ' /t i doing, I noted that the Interveners were " free to argue that SFC, its officers, I and its employees lack the competence to safely operate the UF6 o UF4 t ~ j facility" (Id. at 12.) NACE Dr. Gourd, and Mr. Henshaw made arguments j j to this effect at the hearing. These are discussed below under the heading i i " Corporate Character and Competence." I r-1 '. c,, ;', Paragraph 1.8 of the Application - Exemptions and Special J Authorizations ~ 4 t p' This paragraph concerns the definition of uncontammated articles and posting requirements. It was discussed in the October 10 Memorandum and Order (at 13) ~ ~ '; ^ z. i following questions raised by CASE, EA, and Ms. Synar.There, SFC was asked w., T j to indicate the source of the terms of the exception it sought to the definition of
j),
fe a -M.'. Nr. p. I,,4 ./ g~.g.meM uncontaminated articles and how the exception differed from NRC reqmrements j and why it did not wish to follow the posting requirements for rooms containing ,.g.' 7 l a specified amount of natural uranium. ) , p. s.,j.i l In its statement following Tr. 633, SFC has answered these questions. SFC ik ^l. (( e 1 notes that it does not intend to depart from NRC guidance witti respect to these f '[Mi ri; -lj.) ] matters and that it may have misled Intervenor, by placing them under 11.8. It ,.j explained that its definition of uncontaminated articles was merely an alternative ,.t'M.N: 1 formulation of the regulatory guidance and that it wished to post the entire UF4 % y.E., f. y
f ]
facility because its configuration does not permit the posting of discreet areas , - pM.! ~ t.. }..Nf.
g

Q Qf; rb within it as containing more than the specified amount of uranium.
J
'. p CM.$. g
Interveners asserted at the hea.ing that no article that might be contaminated . _ f.i
b 1
should be released, thus posing a more stringent standard than that contained in fg. "EOp., j@ ] the regulatory guidance. No showing was made that would support this standard. s.5 A y ne, J .. ) 3 4 'M y;g a . s.y.
.f
' " 9'. y; s 166 p: 4 ;l : ? . ];.,.. 'l i
g q%*. s ;
8 i. (' '
f.
c i, 3 n,o, t M . J.g.;.h s ... -,c, v.. m.. g ep %. s., ..,w. r 4-s.;, 3

.3 ( '. <,
!. a. ~' . ;g - .y g ,f . gj, i%^'I
' 'f"
.I j,(*6 p *'2
%.,h .r.. s -p ,T.,. {' -,y f3 p g.y ;' *. W yy gc;.,.;,,y y '.., ' g a. '.,, ,s.,' .: n-. hf ,i A i ff, &,_.,, .,,,,,,..p. t : -
l
~ L ------
.c + ... _.. ~.. ~ .. e... [. '[,l.{p. ' k.h. /g [: / r '/ J. .) ', [ w,, paA.r i ,7 3 . n,. : ~..ux e,. ~9. =. ~y. e. 1 y. 9,. ...., n[,
p.,
p. c r ,,:.c e w. a .x* b ,?. v 4 .-. i..,s o,j.,. ,,,. - u,,... l ,~u ; ,.h 7, 4 a,,.., s.].. g~ Ai. .h.g. g. .l _. g q ,.,. - y q j s n y.. ~ p. s. ,y g g, g.. t,.... L. ..........u...__r_...%,.; a.. j.. ;
q.y.
t.- -e
(
l ??s ' p. gj 3 ../.
,.a p 3
.,,., t. r. r.,. .I+. e - ~ f j,.).l, ,.4.7 Special Process Commitments g,. g g ',.3 4.. p.., ~.._,... .y. 'd 'Ihe topics raised under this heading, cooling water emergency system, gas ,.7 gy p%.,f ','g1,..p <a,,; Q J,..~ j" r. p,,.. f -.. T.,... coolers
nitrogen supply, and the meanmg of the term " routine con 6rmation,"
q.. 3,g.
c.. ;,%. -
were discussed in the October 10 and December 31 Memoranda and O. ders E ;* M.%, y;g",',,f.p'j, r .,3 .e. '. j at 14-15 and 13, respectively. They were raised by CASE and Ms. Synar. The .yg'?.. 'g{~.~ g, j ' questions raised were adequately answered by SPC (see 'IY. 650-63) and no ' J. reievant conneversies were raised. ye m, a. v.ww. t(k.w*}'% w .y .s t-s, >y . m ;f;y u.. .:v K ' 's l ' i. {. 4: f v s' :, ;,e w .. :. - :. e, y M' Seismicity ,I 0 5*f'r*4,2'1- + ,p u y ,,d :,(973, / This topic was raised by APC. SFC was directed to respond to it. (See + i, y[y. p ' f p'. t.:[p November 5 Memorandum and Order at 14.) SK did so at the hearing ('IY. 668- [
<;f.j ;.f

78) concloding that the design loading of the building is more than adequate j-C to cope with any earthquake that reasonably could be expected to occur at the
{ [
g,6
.] l; e
6. f M y v 'R ].y.-f 1 4..t M i; q w site. Although APC sought to contradict this testimony ('It 679-81) and NACE offered tesumony on the local effects of distant earthquakes ('It 68184), no
+ +,p..<c.7.rg.'f.u. 1 .4 n l r.eason ta doubt SFC's conclusion was advanced. ~.s r -t .w.- . q, <t..y s ..n., ~? .i,, .a w ~' ~ Need for the Facility ' r .^ + P 7.,7;.T;.> ^. .r . _.x .., u. l J -l In the November 5 Memorandum and Order (at 17-18), I noted that NACE ,. / j,p - f.4 a . q. 7.,.y '2 and CASE had questioned the need for this facility and, because need is a %' a a, %g f,,,, a 'i matter that must be addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act and ,., '. " i%, ,Q y,, Part 51 of the Commission's regulations, duxted SN to address this point at l ]q hearing. SFC did so (Tr. 686 93). Although CARA, NWC, APC, NACE, CASE, i. ^? Ms. Synar, and Mr. Henshaw a!! took isgp with SPC's statement, none of them [ ,e controverted SFC's statement of need. Moreover, their presentaticas tended to r '.4 raise plulosophical concerns associated with the end use of the product to be ' ? f W' produced which are not cogmzable in this pamding. I fmd that SPC has stated ,i p{ [,'(.' - OQ,.. ^ a need for this facility. .1-p,. -t-m 2 -. ; - EnvironmentalIssues F y, v,:. A-lc,j. 7. y +. N
pa
.,g i g,, i In their original petitions, Dr. Gourd, NACE, and Mr. Henshaw raised ' questions concerning the cumulative environmental impact of the addition of Qg..Q, 4f'.$,;/,,,, .] d} this facility. These questions were answered in some detail by SM in its ' fg:!d.hffg.4 'M.g 2iggTig's?,f,,, d October 16 response. 'Ihe November 5 Memorandum and Order (at 16) afforded ' /{f. / ,, j Jg h,, y, p NACE, CASE, and Mr. Henshaw anmouuuty to indicate how they quarreled y.m
g.?.4.D 7
.j with SPC's data. The October 10 Memorandum and Order (at 14) noted that 3-; 44 4 > ' q,,.p].gp [,[ y !. .',a . [' CASE's water quality. concerns stated in its July response were re'.ated and yg f y] afforded it a similar oppormnity. Further, the latter Order noted that SPC had not I x,*
n. &..
yw ? &(,** $ G a. x) b ..s'..
l..,% y.-e. ;0'.
Ll t b d 167 .Z 3. .e ) ,,, at , 4 f. .{ I.. .,. g 7.7 k 1 jw .~ .......*s.sm 4 .~ 'ysl p , af, l >. (
. c >
Y l ),I. .. i .U -1.. ' ' 7
y f e.
,,,r,.,. g,. r, ... e. , :.%~ * ,,.,., '^?'...%s' %. (y % b, \\ ~' i'2. . ^ .a ;^
e -
v. .n A.
t.

,$.%4 : s*~- j i s .: 1 >'a p,. 21- [ I'4 7, , q.. -l y j]" h d m s. %}.7{ v%;gngMy g M W s. @. e?.,,.$... W..g.p 4.,q) M.y.@,,.g 4@.. u,._p 2,m.. w. m.s 1 .S,
. ; ~ wn.g. g.g.w......p

y :.... ;.,.
.m. c 7 s~. - ..s,q..,. w. 3 meye p;,4x. n., y 4q~.7, l..] +

.__m

___..._-_m____m____,_,,,..,__.,,________._,.,_,,,)
.m. m. .w...._..p...;,,=m-t..w. - =_..m .m..N W.c m
s. ~.....;,, c;w, ne v.Q.e...~.. :: hp.v.v.

8. -
,~.- '~ 4, cd:v. aw,. pf. p, 4 ,.. m.;, y m.;.r., p.;;.,.g,b u. yy ; Q. s.. 4.y,v. :.g x '., _ y. x _, 4,.l. . =;. :.e r s-e ,...c . c ;v ,l v... e,. s ?,,. :,,y. yya9. v,g,.,, .; u 6 e. .r a, .., G.. n,:r-,.a. n-. r - - p' ,..., y>{. . *,. ~, c. .1 c- --.c., -.., y,,. , a.1 - .,.e s ,,f. -. 4 +.,.,.. ,.. *r. a :;.. ,3: .,ip ,y ;*:/,.....h. ~ t. ',. r le. . n..W'. y <.\\. , v..,', n y .4 ? . p,; a . as. .W. '/{[t$,,, -?.~ ? answered CASE's question whether any radaation pu nou, efBuent control, ,;,,.L y i ,.[ or momtonng w,q,J.. had been changed as a result of the January 4 'h, - i S.: i I.r'W:, [ 4 '/i am idaat Consequently, SK was directed to respond to this inquiry at heanng. ij.. >,i , A Y,.. - r i~ ...*:.J At the heanng, CASE p.- d the testhnany of Dr. Jim Maxie,~a hisa IN '@, 5 J ',?.M., N' 'N['.'(N' r *.~.; i,j dentist, on the harmrds of Baande (Tr. 766 et seq.). It, also offered testi nony ~.; .o / p g... ' y - r - 1 W, 9'd to the effect that SK should be required to comply with state law (Tr. 788-f
f. ~ g$'g ',. ;,
' %.'./A[]i 97). Except to the extent that it alluded to CASE's position that the liquid - p. }j.c, 'y%gla.ml:, ;6.~ 4 e, 'c y J M,.q tV etBuent from the SPC facihty should bc mannared prior to being diluted, this p.' 6 u testunony did not focus any of the issues set down for hearing. De tesumony ( f *, py ;)1 l7.j.. '.-@Jy,, q '. ' w -m 7,., ' - with regard to the duudon of liquid efBuent is not persuasive. Mr. Hardaw's and APC's testimony (Tr. 797 825 and 826-29, respectively). ,.1; o J.T '...- addnesed the environmental data identiBed in the November 10 Memorandum. 5-W. ry. w M 'J. 'j - and Order but supphed no substannal reason to question that data, the momtonag ^ v} , y *; j program, or to quanel with Staff's conclusion that an environmental impact-t ( . ;, z., f,, 1 statement is not necessary. p{ 8, 0 ]*] L NACE offered the testimony of Wilma Manblier. Pnncipal Chief of the - y-
s. a. ~ y.

a. ~ '.1 Cherokee Nation of Oldahoma, in sir ort of i'.s position that the Nation should
.[ 0, 3 have been consulted and h:vited to participate in the scoping process =1'=i=y 5 to the preparation of an environ:nental impact statement (Tr. 753-58). NACE re- ,~ lies on 6302 of the Safe Dnnbng Waar Act Amendments of 1986'and 10 ,l ~j.. C.F.R. I51.28 for its position. The Safe Dnniong Water Act does not appear i J to be applicable so this pr*ias and, under 10 C.F.R. I51.30, it was not / . g;' necessary for Staff to engage in a scopmg process prior to preparation of an p : p.. f ', 2" ~
,.V.
environmental assessment. No showmg having been made that an environmental ..,,,g 3 : e, ~, (' W - ,b# impact statement, rather than an environmental assessment, should have been prepared in connection with this application, NACE's argument must be re- ..u~ j.,, t 1 jected. Moreover, as noted in the Introduction to this *ielaa. the Cherokee T r r,< y '. _ '. Nation initially pa'itibd to meervene and subsequently withdrew that peti- ,, i,r. s y
g. f.9 t e,i.+. :r.Jg i,* 5.
F._,. tion;Thus it affirmatively chose not to paracapate in the process afforded by the ~ ~.,p y.. p. s-; 7
Commission with respect to this application.
y ...y s .a. w 'J y' 3 9.. [~ _ '. (. Corporate Character and Comipetence , s.. . x., -.. J., I This topic has pervaded this pmceeding. Some Interveners have quesuoned I T1ylt .J .N _ ~ % i ?'.7 SPC's veracity from time to time, a practace that has elicited strong objections l.;
p,
W:9 %.,.' . ];j from its counsel Rirther, they have questioned its character and sought'to .q a g.., ;. : .t., j.,(,., [,,g support their position with references to the Silkwood litigation, the so called Ef@g@j,.2.g.7 M.TL'?'W Phillips Report, violations of the NPDES did.-p. permit, alleged failure on 4(:7,p;pr - 3:.; y4 the part of SPC's parent to dispose of mill talhngs at certain of its sites, and L
y 3; M,:,,.,,'
S.N.e,$.. %.7.;/..q. n-
(
SN's attitude toward the applicanon. (See NACE's September 1985 Petition e a.q);j %.-. w.. ..o V.. and December 1986 Responte.) .t {'" < q :;. ]l'.,. ..s. . n.a d'sNirT.,,@'A *. l
"
f,4 4,,... ?

4
f 3.';_.,j _? S. r;' ' 'b G s c' ? ~. l
}
~ 4 168 t, .5 ^ ",,..a
. *

s.3 f,'
p g
t d-.+
.s . [l .'.] n J .[ n .[*#
" s. I QN ~..

i *
,.._$. m, - .,& :.N. ' L.d:h,,.,..,._ f- 'L,,,,_,,,,.. L lx.~ E: 4,, Li . N,, ',.~ T- .C C tG n .s f, ' '.. ' f..,. p.*'f., f ;) w. ~ Q..= q., . '?b' i 1..R
y ?
q & ,,e ,,..r.'*
b,,
'Q.;' *? 3 g[ &l. s 'A V ~- ~..y m..p_. z, q. g ; y.
c.., : 3 a.,, i. y.,e..
.w
v. *.e.
,.n. .t ,,,,..c-
c. r
,a k...),. 4 - , 2. U 4 .~ Al*W,~JQ&. 4. 4, . l *, g '. .vh + w.'Zll :m,.( % W;.,,
1.. g.,
,D .,;.g:,.sv.. O.bl,w,Lh'Y,,,.. l l~ f '.i,l'd ~lu & -l. [,
ji' a
n2- .1..,..;.. y,a u! _2 < 4... f ; * * : p -4. m- ' c,. : .r % ar..- ;- .df, : w.; ;, q,_... ;a r~ E __.__m
-1 3 , ' ~ f *, * }. e& - s.;v ~,,; ,]-
,. ; f*,..
+ f u, 9 ,L,
i i;
'e .~: .e h .,;..g .~ -. v,, >c . w , q,,, 2 .r ; t . 9-7 ~ y y p ,7; f*2 o m y y r a...s i
9. (
.t <p. .L_g:f. r .e s--.. t n $r nere is no basis in this record to question the veracity of SFC. Nor do the ^ other matters that Interveners cite furnish a basis to conclude that SFC lacks .J'~ "'(.. the necessary character to be an NRC licensee Further, SFC's witnesses at the hearing were forthright in their approach to the issues and questions raised, and g'_ , 4 l....;.C...f. Q J G. D.. Z 4,'..... illustrated sincerity in their undertakmg to run a safe facility. However, this o i ..e ..,,; l, y H ( . :F, , Q_ y ; inquiry may not end with these conclusions. F:J0Q;..1' Q 4 nroughout the hearing many Interveners reiterated their concern that SFC ~'. 1. ~ ~ .. ~ "i.7 $;' [(I, may become lax in its operation of this facility, thus defeating any safety ' [4 margins that exist as a result of its careful design. They sought to support their position with references to inspection reports made by the Staff and 'y*, h,,"'. i. - c..j f. c other documents. Staff's various reports and enforcement actions following
.U 1
the January 4 accident clearly support Interveners' concern. They illustrate a J
,( vd. 3. d,
I complacency that apparently was responsible for that accident. SIC has clearly met the regulatory requirements and is entitled to the license ),., - it seeks. He fact that its complacency may have led to the accident does not [' .4. . ?w " N,6,M. i ? alter that conclusion. However, it does argue for a license condition designed b.d4: ..,'4, to guard against a repetition. Consequently, I have concluded that SFC's license [ c s.;, ~ .3.>, ' 7.. ?;,7 /t facility should be conditioned to regture that its t 6 o UF4 to operate the UF t Y President and its General Manager, who are not located on site, each spend at i. least one full work day each month at that facility while it is in operation. His condition should help to ensure that the top managers are aware of any tendency toward laxity. i V 7,. 1:, MATTERS ADDRESSED IN WRITING t fl In the course of this proceedmg, a number of acceptable complaints were i raised which did not require oral presentations and consequently were considered s and decided on written submissions. These are identified below together with references to the memoranda and orders that constitute fmdings of fact thereon. .'? Criticality Accidents and Accidental hiixing of the Two Product i l' . '.. s- ~' Streams - November 5 at 7-8. 1 Authorised Signatures - November 5 at 8-9.
^
Decommissioning Costs - November 5, October 10, and December e 31 at 9,17 20, and 13, respectively. < -, ' <1;:7 y,. M, t L ..g Transportation - November 5 October 10, and December 31 at 9 l -5' [. 10, 20, and 14, respectively. Applicability of 10 C.F.R. f 40.34 - November 5 at 10. p ... l.L > ::(.{ **.;}u ; i Use and Disposidon of Cooling Water - November 5 and October i , 2.', :.X c, '., :... Nf ' e; ?! ' l 10 at 11 and 21, respectively. ' Y.a Site Suitability - November 5 at 11-12. q,.. 7 ' {: t .' ? W N g.p Duration of the Amendment - 0:tober 10 at 16. e
v.'
s.
(. _ 3.x J (.,. 169 l 4 g e ..k ..9 k g \\ ') '* D ' $, ' -4
f.m i
e. ,.~ 4., I ' [$-
[,
'i.,, .3 j t i6 t 5.. ,, e - 8 t. ~2 ]!:, W, $. _.. r ' /~~$h,,. %lhk.-[4 [* 7dbhhIQ! '*( f 2 f.." ' ...,6 .,fg - fhfkf a .m. m._ _ _ _ -m. m._m____-_..-__m
..~. y.erw=rm.,.==mm m ru mm-~ - > e - - s b. @c, m%.m t w%..}p.'.i.,'M. ,..;9, w.,,p.n o +: ( Q, % M.M D il '. p '.,4 ' K ;>. (. .a. w t...< :. Q,i' 6 n4 b..,-Q:w. m} '.ff),w}D.
.c,.:.a

n%M '.#,,
.pd f .a >.;,,,e. ,m. a ~ <. 1<.; a ..M.f. M,,.s .e wn.p: . c..v.<.4, a &...x.,. x:. &,....~._.i.. L< q *( w e~. . k . d>,.2 a 3, . ~,. - k:A .. :.s,". % T
s.
%. r h..
i.,.e g..-
a ..c &, a " :,, Q.f.'. c e <.f ;. 2
y A e>
c. s.p. o..l s s , ; *., :.. s : g;#, ,,;~, - ,. g. 3 ; .e, Defmition of Depleted Uranium - October 10 at 17. \\. .l Changes in Procedures, Facilities, and Equipment - October 10 at , f h*.h,. ; 4.d: & W,..
. #.

7.,i

y. W. '..
20 21. ,. "j e. c;:,. :.,. O.,',. Q g. bl.,n, 9 '.; L introduction of Oxygen into the Reduction Process - October 10 at b,,,
9
~ y, f..,..,. e.* : W.3.,..y,:.., ' u.Q,.}e.;.f~ & ', :'; e.t..%. 4 .w 21. w< v j!c Q Relationship of the Two Plants - October 10 at 22. h a,.. e...'.. ru,..n.v..< p t, , e v e 4 + <~ , v.. . e, m..,a - +c.
y. e p
.;.: q. ,..1
SUMMARY
OF SK'S COIOUTMENT AND -1, '4.'.,,,. f.4,..;~$. [. d LICENSE CONDITIONS S y ,m-n,- n. q a ,l .m."';.hi. SFC's Commitment i . d@. ; ; _) At the hearing, SFC committed itself to investigate problems of siren audibil-- [., J y .,j. :. -. / n, - ity and the reliability of the automated telephone system and to take omvr;&te r .t N t corrective action. ,a i ~ ;., .. o. .s. .n. -t . ?.. .. j L {..., s a }; g e 4 O,3. License Conditions. N 4 4 1 }
e-The following conditions are imposed on the hcense amendment authonzed q;
...o;/ by n Decision: f) j - y..: l 1. Within 1 month following issuance of the license amendment, SK is . /., N 'O: to ascertam whether all residences within a 2. mile radius of the facility have j ~" telephones and make provisions acceptable to Staff to notify any that do not; l ,M(p.:N " response plan are accurate at each major exercise of the plan;. 2 .s f.,, 2...SFC is to verify that all telephone numbers listed in its emergency ..,i... s 'f.
3. SFC is to maintain tiae level of staffmg outlined at 'It 556-61 unless 3,y ;.1 a change is authorized by Staff, and SFC is to promptly report to Staff any JJ ; --.-
3a; significant changes in the duties as described on those transcript pages; and. - d...$.h' hM,d.30~..c d l'lM,q 4. SFC's President and its General Manager each are to spend at least one j full workday each month at the UF production facility while it is in operation. ,] -f.!.*.;.l. &. ! , c. 4 i c ,,.. w. -; ,a 4 ..n ,, c gy@- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I .u<s.,.,,,=. m y if j"s, [.,' h In accord with the fmdings of fact entered on the admitted complaints and ij [, g, h M yl 58:r % y$ I.'.N5kkMb[OS.b:- gg subject to the license conditions set out above, I conclude as follows: ~i 1. SFC is quahhrt to use the source material for the purpose requested in . l W%yE@hrF;,J".. ~f.y 3 g such manner as to protect health and mimmize danger to life or Fvpsy; and fH N@.[S. M.-iv.C,.% , NT ii. 2. SFC's equipment, facilities, and procedures are adequate to protect health O s9 w.. w and minimize danger to life or property; and ; q,,3+.,y,, M. W@.7$) D. M ha. g; fg. g@j,# common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
3. The issuance of the license amendment will not be inimical lto the
.jj. ,q. .+v..,,. ,,m .e,:.,C. v p. '=.... ;.. .r., c 'Y 170 l . p. (,;.e 7 .v. u.n 1 .4. 1, p. ..s- ,,,,.2 . s 4 v., .*,,5 .r sv i.*A.~
i... '.
., (, 1;! -.;, 4 e, - .a. +,4'.9. f .p s,. e*]j ' ..o_,,,.~.c., .-o..., s N r* s. ~ (;, yp.., s, .'F %. ;..a a c. + .s: n v w .e. _.n.. ..y n-9 m'I
E I
J .6 8 ww-m - x M %y.. w.cs w,. A m e e*. v x 'e .r2.g.,e gn M n,q? J: #9 W -7:R"W W G W;.y. M y;t.< g JKAy..y.Mii.p.g O.1.,;;iOg q_ y,,a.y,gi,:c.~ f.i g a G ___._______..-__m
g,.., ..c + +.,. q- ,a., ,,;. g%.; [w. ~...W,,3 p %,; s. c., .y
\\ q, 4.;; ?f,\\..' 3..
a4 s . s. y,, A .g., t .e m.; ; n-s Q* y. * *. .; p., r.. ,a a%. y.. 4 e 3,, g.< j. .,"y ,,c;...,. ga m y, u ..'.e 'r '. . p? ' '. y ~.y p p.;,, 3 y,9.y ,.;f. ; Ag '...,c. s.,tq.. y,,. -*
y. g,q + :<.
~~ ~ 3 :. _. .~ 3 .y_~s m- .,,. f qa. s ~ v :n:v..w:w.s v. 4
g;,,g.
s..,.4 4 s w c. x a f . *, c,. w ,a . ;J..,sw t.~ p ,d, ~ - Q. .i .e.,. e...,,.y. y'..,.. ;., s .c : .~ ,., 'p>e L. :.,,, a,,,.;,,..,. s,s. y,. ., s. ' ' &..)..- 's %: y '.- .s t . r. ..p., w, .., n ,,i m y, ' f'. g,.w,w
<,.s
.s, .Le . s ; ;,q - r- .~. t..,.. y 3 -, a>,.,,, q. : ..y, ;,.. p s.< _,e... m ,., [ w. cg.,,... ;.. - ./...s ._.a .w.; a e,. * (. :. A. 3 .,ys t i .g.,,,,','c 'a. '> 4 ,. :.; ~., g ;..}. 1, .h y.9
'~q.
.,~ j] .e c; .. s 4, 'd ~4. The NRC Staff's environmental assessment is adequate and its fmding s .g~' l.,q., " ' ?;.. 4
Q of "no signiacant impact" appropriate.
o c.
lts,,,, v u, .7 -, p .,, ~.,g - - e,.~u.. c c, g...,.3 m.. a, 4 y'F. ;. .,y j' ORDER-c.;a. v-c...... r..c.;.u b. v., n p/ 4 ~ J rc C- .r , vl lfiih.'f?.D. ?j f' 'j hh,[iQ8. e.
9. y[ ...*. g : yf.i.

n 4
'j In accord with this Decision and with his findings on matters not %
N.i!.y'Q.0,li;M&, !J

;.I %.y.Q.h; y;
G h by this Decision. 'the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and. Safeguards W 9 / y ;.f.:h. % ~f,'.,'",} 2 Q M [ is authorized to issue a L.cns amendrnent to I.icense Number SUB 1010 'If Q,j',,.j,/ [I authorizmg SFC to operate a facility to convert depleted uranium hexanuaride , p.E,Qh. /g'f.~ 7,;i;g 7 $yt.q:p to depleted uranium tetraDuoride at its Gore, Oldahoma site.. N,G. ~ 'c. : " M.p].t.M'(.h;.,,, In accord with the Commission's July 24,1985 Order, this Decision shall g!. : yl. ? li'l/.f l ' t.". l e.,.f.',.!;,._ ' i<!. Q, ;'g@ j' / constitute the final action of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 30 days after ,g its date unless the Commission, on its own motion, undertakes a review of it. No - L ,,. 3 :. ',. '[,,, i,. f.. ' p,.y ; t N. petition for review will be entertamed by the Commission of this Decision. S.. ...,i.......,a,,<,...,,,;- 1 c. ,' ~
u y

; M i[l' M. Jk h.9
., ~.. ,u. i '.Y,'/.ir. ,f @l.?.k*
l'~.tt John H Frye, III

' ; " ~,f'.,i. m?.Mi. W <" ' M :"
I .V ADMINISTRATIVE JUDCE 1: ~ ,s- .,.,;.7.9.:..:
\\. ~.:.
r ; ;,.s p* j'. a f. r. Bethesda, Maryland . 4 ;, ;. ',, Zq,,,? .. f; t:,. '; Q. [,J# ,, s,. .o ..y.,j
p. x.
y~, 1 s, ' SM. l. '.,... r.. b,. y , s D s., P' ! s ', APPENDIX s ,p v, ,.;,,.,. ~ ,'E i .q.. QUESTIONS SUBMI'ITED BY INTERVENERS AT THE h.d ,. ;.-,I ' ',..i~' . ',;,i. HEARING THAT WERE NOT ASKED s r. r, f,,n,:. K. ', 4,., .s.. i ~,, ', m., A y Ed Henshaw Questions s s ,.j Is the DUF radioactive or is it depleted of radiation as stated by a plant ^ s.~ e. J...., '4 M;*: ,,. s . 1, 4 I ;. W:
r... e.
v o? 9 v j^ J,. ..s. . m - ,? manager? t,' ' $.,c Did the former plant manager meet the minimum license requirements? l"3.,.. e.: ?. 7-
i j':>.,.,7 y
. g. ?" ' '{, ' 'j, :.... i. i, '7 What type of trash incinerator is used at the facility? ', N, ' >: f
r..*. m
. y r... s. , y' 'M,, Will floor sweep and other contaminated trash be burned at SFC7 / ';<'. E.' %
l /.,,..'.' %.. %.;,
3 ,t p:u. > >~:W@-.. i. wcl w 7. y Could the NRC licensed burial ground be a licensed burial ground at this r s.4/.;'8,,:My.:'9.'nW. 7.'.:. S W J3/ facility? 2,'. p &. y x .u s. .p. .. m y,) ? pQ.., n..- f (;// ' f'[, TN... a.p;2 ~ m pi],lJ(N.gsg.y,,{'.).M" 3 Why was the commitment by General Randolph to the Congrss of the U.S. to m M.g install autoclaves in the existing UF Facility not fulalled? See page 211 of-fj 6 '.j'Q Q:}}, fWl
Q.l,.M

\\y Review of Hazardous Chemical Regulation at Nuclear Facilities by the Nuclear - ,; ), }. %..,,::.;.,,:..tg. 9 'q Regulatory Commission and Other Federal Agencies, Match 14,1986 Hearing Q. L.; _ . +,.. y o u. v),. ,a t
N,.

.. j
w ',,,,.. v,...,,m e m
, +., ",. * /., y- ,is I- . + f..- 3 s, M g 171
a,,;,.,t -;,,,.~.,N-
..# 5.. g6... g v ? c.. .'y) g ' 1 7 f., e + " j,j S.,f g, t 4* ,g pA* if ,.s. ,",.'r. '. ( (L
3,. 9..,
f c h. f,Q[y., +g +,,, s t " 't, g' ,4 " ">'e i v* C yr/, .w,j, g*TI"- ,. g ? - f ; 00'., *,./, e 'c l. l
l.
~,. s q ig J J - }, ;.,.b MEMM@y.-by. 3.,p.@.w$M,E,d nE id,gmv.. #6 iM M d dMf5 n ngw. nn
,,nn -r- ,e..- . - - - ~. - --- -- ~ m: x -~ w, - ~~ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -~--~--'[-- .a .,.p*h~ h W( g.,G' W p Mq h.[ ~ S' ' s' h Qd 'l I
N'"Y O
..i M....M.s#,;As m#.s%9 4( # d P '.. e P M % v
wa.
,2 t~u 7:e e .. ;S.h.g%, W.y g.f.,pt.%.0, m,,, A~enW,-es %., y e... ,, ?.W. Q,. v ~ ya 4. = ',y s.. ,e. g;, h e[ n a.e ,{ s. m?;t 'r: z. - s,. ... w.<r x s A. .y s j . 'Jin.T~: l ) y,. +.. .. f ' '. *. l S."' * ?,..
{.
.... ~ ., + .s: ; .p...,, .-.. a... i e. o, s s Q [, l(',.,,[1[3,[. i before a subcommittee of the Comminee on Government Operauons, House of i;, ,," e. O i Representatives. y n> .geny:.,Vp~ g:. j ~ fJ . e V..,., 'ff,n,,.."2
i. -
Barbara Syner Questions - o U. g.. ,m 3 Y... uf d. 3. I How much fire p-.Gon are we assured of? Since Gore is rated as a-9 in
y
..;; '.,. J r., C %J. d ' W,.; Q... .f i. f. f 4. /. 4 l 'Are protection? J,. . s Is K.M. still putting out and applying radioactive masenal on 270 acre plot [q t .H p.4,j.. y- .;$g.; and 160 acre plot at facility?. 1 c. Where will the radioactive waste be put in the UF plant? - /.. 4 6 5 1 7, -. ,r Do you write your job descriptions to 6t plant needs? { u, [~lJ .j How do you determine for area ssp==';M with high school diploma we h.' 7 'l will be assured the safety? e s .l Memorandum & Order Dec. 31,1986: [h ~ 3 shifts a day,5 days per week E' i.l' [ Area Manager '[ Supermtendent-3 shift J 4 j 7 chemical operators [ 4 - Nov.15,1986 - NRC: '~ l-, 3 shift - 7 days area manager, I shift chemical' operator, located in 1 DuF to duty facility under shift supervasor. Additional shift 09 ) shall assist. ,c i-* 5 .i I 7 ' i,. - -'^ Is this from UF 7 Is it seven or 5 days? Is this pertatning also to UF 7 UF ' 4 6 4 .i was to be separate from UF -is this correct? 6 l hp 3... sh>.
Why is revision stating 7 day work week and we are told a 5 day work week?
l ".m. m. w.3,[a u. e..,.. .~ 1 ~ ,j ^!' CASE Questions [ -d.
' {., ' '1E y4 for purposes of reaching its conclusion of no adverse impact, the heavy metals
"] u In the 10/85 Oklahoma State Health Dept. Assessment. 'did OSDH include, - ') j T, ' g,- { "?.v. sh,,. s 1. loading problem on the treated raffmate disposailands? d; .y.. t.- . v m.. K,. V; l ". N.c;i,::y.- w,.J, '..('...c. k.&. K,f,.Q.,' c, %. would result in new employees being hired?
4 bM*.

.1 r4R . :.c. ' Please state the total number of new jobs created by the UF facility which ,. J,.,.s ~ 4 . %.QQ.,. . y$; :. E,.. l a r,.f,? What is SFC's objection to the release standard proposed by CASE 7 l :.,. f O.h,w.,!;d.w" p. y ' "T$. s w. M;,o j., f...,1 3, What is SPC's objection to posting each radioactive matenal arm?- $,a. g ,t;,g ; i , p. - How will reheated UF cylinders be cooled? - i-6 ..A
a...
., +.. 'a s 'r.... ti r .b r .I .'I
a..,
.,i 172 .y .c
A

, I.',
1"(/,G - <.e; -. '~ q; 3 J-..,.. g g .4.t', .,u_ ,~~,6 1:p , 4 'w';T*
s

**"*~~c
~*e-***-.- .. ~. .g.. m.- em a.7.m. g**p3 ',y yo:g ; =.,t y...p. 4,r 4' i. . = 4-_ i.i a T. ,v.C",. s ,*, (( 6 w 4 .y =,. y .c s, .s., .e - . <i, Ih I ., a /= ,.,. b ' '{ ..j y.v'. ; m. 4; g.y.w w,i, t '.~ P . _ s..,. s...w,n%*,.w.
,w
-. n.. u.. .~ 9.t ;;..m,.1 ~ p .p. e. ' .y . g ' t' .z.,. 2 yas 1;,gh. W g$MN,. i' y r.Ml.M, 'h.
10
...2'*,.. L. 4' - .- c P.- t-N,... [' '.2 ~j; M b = < I D 1 , ") " (*, ? N'. '. '.[' ~ I.k,'..!d.- Y..,.. ..e .Z. ~ ^ .6?.. 4
. y .r. n t t. s c" %.a,)e,.y..,j g,g
n;y i p.,;4
.N - l.,;. ,y g,,. p.. k., [ .e, ,,.p,i y 9 ". c c <- . 3 r,.. ef. ga 3fy 7,
5..
.) (- y(..,.,-
c..
>\\,.. - r,. r r -): . n. n 1. 4. s o ( y,. w. . fe . t . e, - f + g,, -( ~ ?. ~
e

.,Gc

3. t
,c. w s," ..~ t .. e,. " " ' - 'i ,j- ,V, ',,. ;;4;
s. m:..
?. . m.;.. s i 1 i f-s 4 facility were to be 3 6, ~ ]:. ' -J.1 Does SFC agree that if the Sequoyah Facility or UF4 closed for maintenance or other reasons, does (SFC, KM) agree to close the I: '%!/L...... ~1 I.. other facility if remaining open constituted a risk of any sort? {" s,,q 7 f r. !,, m.,. _.U;m, -m
z.,.
e. l - 5..;5..,'J# ',.., . s.:ye. 4,s*,., W,. '.i b S ~,, '. 5 ~ '..i,, 9. '" ys-e.n*. f
u.. 'll J N,": f.'.
N.;cs.( V.4,w Personnel Questions of CASE pa u '..... . M: L : F,h'@. 3I:
$8. @:b[
f.ff+.P[w.,u 3 'j+.3[.':'. -G Was UF proposed startup manager, Billie J. Buntz, plant manager at the 4 N Cushing facility when it exploded? y g..;,.s, ..' / 4,rh :{ f,.fgf:(4..,.;;.05,;-TI {, ki ':.f 1 i Was UF proposed startup manager, Billie J. Buntz, engineering manager at l 4 0,, .l^ : t,-- , 4,,' j ?,,.e Cimmaron Uranium / Plutonium Plants on November 14,19747 .,., a i. g, - .) l CARA Questions ,i,-,,. '.. : ,. ;, { .y l What type of schedule and how often will the bag filters on the dust collector
k. ; ".,..
' d'f. ,i, t .~;...;%,' W f -<... :i4.',.t V."i. J '. C. 1 I be inspected visually? r Does the health physics manager have a scientific degree or formal education [,'. ..; 'l ',..,. ( '[ in that field? Are there any special qualifications not reflected on in SFC's '? N ,.;,;f., V, responses to interveners? i '. '.,.., ' ~9", - r, J.' .?.. ( The DOE facilities that were closed, you stated they were outdated facilities, n' ,,.a ( were they also contaminated by long years of manufacture? Fernald, Ohio is j l; S + g ' '~,..
~
l one case in point. i-t. \\ l a, 1 j v l NWC Questions I 1 b. j L Since this procedure is to license this UF plant, how is it they're already I l. ' - 4 gone ahead and hired / trained employees for their new positions? i., 1 },, l 1, Please clarify how and why you found my request for "Matenals Unaccounted b,'. l, For" reports? t.. l< s.. 7,. _ '. r :.,; \\ ..,-u. j a;. NACE Questions - l ?? '
w. -
1 v . jM;t',,~ ;, ;6. .l Will anything we say here today make a differenec7 Y. ".) Y, ^ " t ;:,' ~,J '. M C. N,' % ".. ',f.'x.p '$ u, r ,. - 3 y ? bf..cf .. &.s;.'s is there presently an UF facility in operation? If so, where? 4 . s.. .s ;, h., c - . r. ' '
g. ;.y
.; " j M;., $ ' %c, T. g Who paid for the UF facility? b i 4 ., c:.r, n. ;..:g. ' 7,,,
-;'.,T.,'g ' g... g
' 5 1,,p -}. Lj SFC will provide follow up medical assistance (page 4). Why was it that 7i . ' T.S l i' g., ' .,"[ l 5, KM ended up with all the hospital records of people treated for the January 4th N ..f r,, accident without their signature? ' r.
. 9 R..y a
r- ', k .,,, g, g g,
l 173 n
n I I
/
W f.:'
s,.
.s l L .q s i., y' 5 c 9 y ( .I*'
g..
T ~ s 4 ' 'd* S } 4,,, [. f ';.f, g*- ) _ }. - " l_ .. 'A , a 4 7' 1.,3.Q;s y, p' P;. ( Y. ', q q, *,%,3,g g yygMgwp, %ggg%.,/-Q 8, ~s.,,s'+',0 ~..,q,,,,'A pylcM Q Q ,,"* g 4,f* g.X;4. - 7%. ? ',y, r p
y f.* g.I '. 5 7 l
" tj /. - f P.c ->e
..y,.:..,..,<,"...,,: p"ve..... e.,,,.;4 f.e
s..>.,. y,v v; '
,u.....,~...
m..q.
.,,:.. 4.,. %m s,,,.,.j,...a .r. e . n, 9 ~ 7; s..g,' a g... .m.,
p. g *.
e,.
"q y
- y' g.;,,Qf,&. Qe, p., 7 .a .s g., Q ",3..s.- Q,@ ',tr.:'. Q - p,.l R. ;,; ' *.. g.u* .j x< v , e.,
. t,
..o. 4 yn., . b...,.,,.. j.3. vJ..; n.... ; a. 1. g c. s. n .p. ..S.~. e e, + 1,.. e. ,c. ; #. I, .,v _1 ..As ..,s a. -{ ~. .c. . e.
g
,.. g2 I e --.i,.,.t .. s y., n..; i..a ,,N i .. L. .a ,i , 4,
.4 m,
The EPA rules state that Indian tribes must be treated as " states" when citing d J/j' (f M ',3 ,%.3 2 " [.
A f,'f j facilities within their boundaries - have you consulted with the Cherokee 'I ibal
.q,l /$ Government on this facility? j@ 7,*- o ~ .y y .i>s *..... q, .w .e .., y t .r, .. a. s..g. . e, 6, *...s .. v. .a e... s - ..4 APC Questions - n, J.2 > e..m....( 3. c %;,e.
g.. :.m..s,.,
].j.. s. .o... jge g, . What is the "know" safe level of exposure to rarhahrm? s. e ./.w .+.... ~ n.s
k. I
+ 'Is there any other committee or agency set up besides SPC and NRC to v4'. .Ml ; g".-T'{, determine levels of toxic wastes disposed by SIC upon the land, sir, water of { ra 4 . W -, ' ~. <j the local environment? Testing study without vested economic interest to SFC. l.]
,~.
1 ra
n u-
. o, y, (p J. Are we at the brink of conventional warfare with a Warsau Pact nation? e c - Why is part of the.supeshy staff to shuttle between the plants if we are ~ ]..,, .l f ', v, }.. . j-supposed to consider the pivpow,d plant a separate facility? - 'c. j s .-',7 ' .j. ' " permit rapid mitigation of small releases" in paragraphs a. - as this .[. Re: ,j goes to the atmosphere, what is the safe level of exposure. Can the panel name / one and verify it? [' ), m Why did SFC after the accident announce to the public there had been a
1. '
" toxic chemical accident" and make no reference to the fact that it was also a nuclear accident? ~3 g -+. ; 'Ihe five offsite air monitors did not detect the toxic cloud of January 4, even ' ) ^
),Q ' ;
though Monitor I was in the path of the plume. 1 /. a,v ..*[. p.f *p What provisions exist for regularly checkmg these monitors now? y - ~ .y Why did NRC in a past accident report say only 7 of approx.100 people , ' r ;. had low 1cvel uranium exposure when NUREG 1189 shows 58% had excessive ~ d. ';c. s ;.d.aM;, levels of uranium in their urine, and of these 70% has urmary uranium levels ,.]. ./ M'Jh. above the SFC permissible level for workers? K' l.M 1 -4 s l6 ' '.. Why was there no emergency warning system for the community before the 'is i ?'; j,P.. ',,, i... +. ;,.. accident? +
r...
.f.. ,g* ..,..m...
n.,*.. - e _ -,,
Y* g 4 ..t.. f 9,,,'s....*,,s..q -,.g,*,F. L, ,k ,, k. ' [. j h,<*f..', f l i. *. =f s... y.. ,a ..f. ' .,.,,,,. a ?lS.e ~ r f.z 3., J* g,* p + - = >.' , =. -r*j. ,; g., e' . T g, e j;, M j' t., ',., }'.,_ Y,' *. ; f N.,,'.
. i.1=g
. t i. q. ', * $.a, r..j -y *.. :.
3'
, / '.'. [>. ,,N..,.'.'
+
. /. t,...,. .,...p'. 'o .v Y,. ;:.a ; L..,*... o, a., ,C ~,t '< ; <y-c '*. * *. 33 d *,," 'rv. y
,' p -
t. y.' W = j,. k. y! Y Y*,) L, +, ' f. et. .t ,g.-' 9 .4' w.- u 2
.s :t i
.i ci 174 y m
s s..
f.M,. ( 3 8 3 $- 4 -e -j
n. G,,
,,l 1,0 ~, C. V, ;}.L &. i,*- ,p ,~ e A h,. ' ' Y.~ *w**.r =~ - ---.- ~ ~ ' e r ~ ~ + r- -v ,v. ~~r-*:--~~,---. m - ~ - -: m.-. ' $ $,7 0 1,, *.,..;/. :. s ~ a . f f'. [ - [ i , j 'g....p{a,;,, ~ 9., ~ " l a "- , j., {,i s k,,...,,,. s m g 4
3.,
4- + s,c. ~ p
$d f.",f &.. Q.... Y.
m. - u., f,) &m. m #-
lb
.,g(,..,p. a (, l N' j' s Q' . u '. .s
7, s
e s ig. ..'.%..'..'t'Y,,.,' * * 'e ;.- m . ~,- '. X -.g,....; 5 ..,r o"A # .9 .h 4--_____-____._w
e p~ '..e,. Jt s*. ,, + y ......4.. . e.( Y
f N.'W3.. Pf,. jf, :T N',' y j.G.h{.s M.s.,l. f,.'.,' f.
. o ~ i.-,., 4, A, y.-. v p# ,,A.' Ja ,L '. r t j 3 s. .r * . jd' *' a 3 - a
,, ;&. A'Q

-.fg\\,f'?'..' '4 &.k.,,%..d,yf.,. x..,, )4 f
m i.-.. r..
i... u L'y ' - Q,,.
% g..'.; a ,O,w '. f *.. 3'w (.... g q. 3 gx J . f. .g, 8(l ' p', n i g'. } r y 9 .t 'f. 3 ,s t g. sc. 4,'h ,,( &,, s, k,lc t.', \\ ^ Wi <. a,Q -. y. % J:; . 1 v 'g } n
,L.%
n s ~ 1 .w.. , a m w '.r,.e;f.(Y [
k..
h ,, ;, 4 .*p (f, i([. )" ^' . ',,9 * '. % n v '[h.lt*. O sa,
! -/,
t
,.F f r
m. 4 "
.. Lp L ,"4.. ~ ..r ! O,,,.,,,,. ',l's L.'. 4. d;},, ,., s,,.% '. J. *ue ;,,.,,L',,; ,g % t. 7 + h ',, y ) }b j.*, g W.y * * :s ,6 :n M.*! (;.T ,, p 3 +wJ ,n g y.., '4 spai t, < . f ". tJ ', - ... i ', e g. 5 .t ,S q' ul. > i. - g
c. f.
t .i, 'u -f .[ ,,j t..' ., [E 1), *,, '. ~ q t !? 8' 'e" . [ 'l a d. p ' y[.,, 4 ,g.."..M' d.;4,.;j,,, t f Cite as 25 NRC 175 (1987) LBP 87 9 n ~. 7 r, y, ;:e. > c ..r-s +n,.
, g,
,.g.,. w, %. C'dt'.W,~.. w-;,. ~.,..o. r ~ -.~ a,.s. e.-.. .s . n. n. ' ;d p, $' ids:kt. P;'W 31 men:nir;J@w. y.f,4a :,@ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '3 NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION : 3;. 20$MM.,'.A.~...p:.N MC.',D1,. s Y m ym9 .w 1 @6 ...g$.5.* (QN. i?..l.:'.4 J..'.'Q .,C I ~k ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL
,Wp,.g...w.
.. m.- .e .s.,. 4 m %. U :, M 9,9..+<%sNQC. L<. a. W. ? h-Before Administrative Judge: i } z,. i.m... e q..... '.. '
o. i 7..
) 4
t. c i.

s..
y<..~c,,. c. e. a .j.. o ^ '3 Charles Bechhoefer .i 7 l 4 , p.s. "s". . *. e ',. l ge,.v., I
f.... r
.p.-.. . ~... 9. . q e > - s e.
a
J ' ^
!t. *d/b f"' [p a, ').- t,(.4 )
w. 7, f *
5.,,. ', ; c '
in the Matter of Docket No. 3019378-ML (ASLBP No. 87 548 01 SC) g g g,y '. y 1, gr,iQ.,,.g., o : .-g?T.-,. n.: n'>.... N.a; Ic s.
i. c..V.. ~.. : -
l MICHAEL F. DIMUN, M.D. ..n f. ...W. a Fl. ' <., M I. (Byproduct Mateflats License .,,:. s p :,' No. 3713604 02) March 10,1987 ',l' j vC. S. "., :. w- %'.. J. ~...'.i. 3 8.:... r: ~. . i 9 g.w, 4..a, c m. t, 4.~, s, .s... ,o. .a ~, In a proceedmg involving an Order to Show Cause why a license should not '
f., a
.f.f '.l. , t ~' I 'f f,;
, g '
j be revoked for nonpayment of a fee due the government, the Presiding Officer 7 . j dismisses the Licensee's hearing request as moot and termmates the pick.uiing, .y, d where the Licensee pays the amounts due the government. p .[' .[ - )< .. '{
t..
si. ~ 1 a., : l ) y MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [.. ' K.4,)p - f.C 1 (Dismiming Proceeding as Moot) !gi 7.;,. ? - [j 4 L ,w ~..,. s.._ +..s .a - .,t r. pIm%
O,7 m._,
3. s
[' } The Licensee is the holder of Byproduct Mainta License 37-13604-02. On ,,,.s 9 April 18,1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission billed the Licensee for M j,
N' b
{;// g .KQl,l- ] ' : p,t, an inspection fee of $480. A second notice of payment due was sent to the . v i ;I$j,; V If..%,. i.lp p]l 7.f. / f g Y ( % 7.. - L-Licensee on June 5,1986. The Licensee responded by letter dated June 24, j,& ip [-] 1986, protesting the amount of the fee. A final notice of payment due was sent - M
,J f, ?
","f- $... bj M i i.y ;P. M.3 1:0 to the Licensee on July 3,1986. On July 17,1986, the Commission %-- M e.N4 ~,
..1
'WJ k > J. to the Licensee's letter of June 24,1986. ,r.M f.q@.! &)//.'.h * ' V, 4 J Lackmg payment, the Commission on September 29,1986, issued an Order {h. W.->' Tel. ly,4. to Show Cause, ordering the Licensee to show cause why License 37 13604-02 g. a,.;. p. j should not be revoked permanently and permitting him to request a hearing. By $ / Jy ' %Q % ' y w - i , g,i r. A2 v a r Ys - 'k-f,. *?., k ',W 3 9 ',, a ,g u. i, v
+
s, i ."sj ' ". *' V.e v .1 175 Ai y + c; i s.3 :
3
,, e. \\. ,O s' 4 i .?+ p ,j i t,s f* ff
m., G.
a M c.', % y 1 '3 5 {[Y.;((g ;,- e [, e. ...,4 - l t.",y - %.e. , y.,(, tn.; w
- + +
P,. 'y rt pag,
. e ue a
,,.. ~ \\: )
Mg,,,.:. + 4- .: t.g :. r a.. _ _ _ _.,.,.;. w.,?e;.g f M 6 - r .Y :...,s m W;..; Mg.. 1 %.. y ; y f. k p.,&. ',,
y,K.: g,~' >;;&
.h
p. tr y,.;,

%. kW m i..w W
.,. 7X.. i~. { g .% g,lt Q*.~ ~ ,.x g..,, a&.."..< g; ';%w.g c. .a.~,..'htR, . n -
y. >.,.v WW
. - N. 5 .a s,.
n. -
t v.. ,x.s, l' w.g. o p.,::p s.k,.w. s .si .. w,,. 7.y-.. 'q~ ~ 3 ..g. e,,,.g.. p <; m~ ' g, - p- ~ '~ + m
1. o A.. c...y
.y i m, a. f. 3 +'d,; *;g'g441* L ' *V.,," ),, 'j'd. .y. e .,s. c s }- V - .n. : y.., - q. C,, w p; h.y s. - .i~, y. y ~ .) ... w.1 -2.- + s..- .e g[.<pi,.p$p%^ t:,... i, ',....t leuer dated October 24,1986, the I.Jcensee requested a twanngi On March 2, {' ~ l E *,C 4 9 ,b*y.rl f,21 - 1987, the undersigned was designated as Presiding Ofacer for this piswiing
W s
d.7%, M {F. ',' J.'. r.';p,%) g1 (52 Fed. Reg. 7049 (Mar,6,1987)). jlq ' /. + 9;',^.f,/.L~Mj M/[" N..'.
k"@7@*1 By leuer dated March 6,' 1987 (conarming a *ahana noti 6cadon of March 5,1987), the NRC Staff advised that the Licensee had paid the _laeae+ian fee, il'
'. s 5 y W.: :, W6 H.1.;..N.M.. y L.* together with penalty and interest due the governmant. As the Licensee had i i f] . f./.M:lJ;',;,"{f%E ?.?.lM". l i previously been advised, such payment would result in withdrawal of the Show l 9 ) 'n.;jh.'.ilb U f.' */.* ; Cause Order and ternunation of the proceeding. Since the NRC Staff no longer p ' 7, P "." ? -;.. j p 4,} G j %y. y ':",c,l[ =,. '/ . } seeks to pursue the Show Cause Order, the beenng request is hereby di.mdssed 4 }'J.t..'4.:mt.
r. :
y. as. moot, and the proceeding is terminated. '4. W.p. .. E lo.,....,..O u, IT IS SO ORDERED. y e. n w.. f 4 a n.- t.... d. s., f u.s ".:.. m.Lp l.s p. i L. +.., t. .> s 4 e. 1,.,. ?.q 1. gf'; %..S i.l.J'9:.j PRESIDING OFFICER ';,j
. ;. o..,x
., e.. L. ,. m..,,a.s. g. 3,,. s,
r.,,I e.
q,... 4
~*,
-5, - p @2 4. s *, g:..f. '.[,Y; ' . J.a Charles Bechhoefer q ,...r'.~' hj. j ADMINISTRATIVE JUDOE y 'J s * '. s ?.i; 7..J.., ['[4. g.,j-n.. this 10th day of March 1987. .H d Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, [# l (' 6 ,..p /
3..
pc, .+.,.. ,.1 c.>* l +, -. ?, 6 -... .i 7.
1..
i .s.
e
,o,. r ?, S.,7 f.@.4,. s .i i
j n. '.'..h-.*,,^*.n.%
.W l; .w i W .[y - i , $ t.,, g, ;f. u.*,'*"'7 .-.. g.... - ..ve.'
.e 4
6 g , a. ajm- } ,,,.... ~. -....... , i m s
., WA"M* v*

,. '. H :p.*
c
.d
. -f'T.
.- =
.'+ Y.- O.%.*.. c. '... %..:,,. ..: < :. r o ~ 4 e.
M, *<* d +.. * *
i
?. ' t e d. e.5 '* * =.., e* a t. ,,)
+ (, 3.j., p
.e,.p (j',.. a .f -..4,.,* -. -
j
...3.~,,'a.,,, --t,
a
.] ..s ../ /d,'.,* t ;.,.,'j...' - { i
e*
. t k,'.. g',, [ f e # [8* h *. E'.. y, - {a e ?. l, a. a..b,.. :.,,...., .r 3 y..'..... = ~..... e.
e e,,
Y h.. _.J,,_.s..,;(h ~ -".Q, .)! *l{.**." l' - s 1 " g. 9 . *. g &.... L.
fa?
...J**..*. .:s ' 2dM k,d f eSb5.* C. p[k 'a t%'.N,C'.'%* 3 ^ 1 s p . '.d.!* (. .r, t.h 7.A e / . h' d.;lW;.'~;.$ ..L.h' '. %."? $.f$f&'d[W*#~4
8 t..,, % d -
[!y* $ p*.*
A* .o..,, h g*, f]r?N JS3 Q W 's.n. 5 - 4. i~g, r :
s',.7.,. ? *
..: s.,.~.r..,. A. v l o.* ... =,. ; *J m.*. d ! [,iy /h. f.g. p"; y;. A,. 4E % kh,,
"'.".?*
.o .t <i
..$. 7.y
,a .? !. 2,,.- t. '

c.
[,';.N'.*[.(
,7;ec E'. ' w
~8 '. -vy**:...;.,u:c .d'. yf *..,,- W.. y,t..; * " ',. ' .j...s., =.., ps.- .<t. f= s,. a.,... j 3 h. .. + s-
g Ne, y 4
3-s 1
176 y.
..=.7' u.I .mp y ) ,.
f,M, V. ',s..?','
.J. c i .n j 1 . i, ',. g. w s... } .{ 2% s, A, t ** ;.3..,j ' A...ga< j f.p '- ' q. 5 cQ. + i - 4 ;~,...,.. '-.~.-,..n...-.. . m n.,.,,- y', 4,, (.4 = ;,. ',, .~ z,,*.,.,. ',' ' ',}
4
.'4.a". I. - g. (. e6'g
i.
5 7 J,:., % at v, . sp ,*,,.. A.,; e s~.t. Ms,, o + a 4 y E#* [ 7 b $ [:a... ~,,,,, =, '.' l' I ' 4'.*[N"', . N '. si . u,,,,.x l 2,, m.. a*:,M ;,,,.....
. e,..
-~ ..,.s.... e..,,., ,.4 < *W. 3..,. .g. s.. o . #.,, j 1 + e
y : f.. g,,.9. 3 A,.%.g,.
..J }s, .a. -u +Q-..-4.. - a a a -e *.,,.e.4*,., g , -.,...u..a.... : *._.., -,Y A~ " 5., %m. mn ~. ", ..A s 7.s ~ i,..,; w,,. q, ,*p. :, 6s;,. - f. +, e .e . u.., i , C,s..*t es,, n ,. e -~ e s v a u _.m_.______._ _ _ - A-
..~ L.~. 1 .c ,;n, s s... l , g sg. g-m: .,..fe,.M..% g.q ; s.* : c,..n" . + ' sn 4 .y 9;.,.,yr,..y..
cy1,
/.. r v.., m..' s y g,
4. ;. c
.a j >g 1.. s. 4 ,s t +.. f., y,J,. ,,* p,., y h. y N;g. ) r e,,- ~. s?,' . +g. ';. < y.r e- ~
p.. %
o,. r.., -... e ;g. c,.r.. 5. q
s.,..,
j 4 ,.f c ' .t.. 3., v-.. ', <. , n g,,; 4,s.. - v 4 4,.c m', i 3 'a;- , f 4, 4.,. .t .t, 4.... .s e f- { r., ,;j g y,(; < 4,. .,. n
p,
.y. u 7 .... s... d. C.2.- 1. J e /...c:. c.4 _. - ...] - 'j t c
l s
L;,,..
. 1 a .e . l*k s'. .. 'Q d. l] 5P . l ?,' r,. l Cite as 25 NRC 177 (1987) LBP-8710 r L } a;db,. J. .?. n. e k b.J N :...' b ' ' U J. 'dd!f!* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION = ' F.,l,.,. 7. ; ' y' s '.jg.g.?, s k .,.3 q L:, #. ' *.c.,. ~ .?.. \\ ~.' M.y%.;v f ,y [,2.,.~.... . u .v ~ 1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .~. t,. ... ". ;.W. ?. . L., r. u. ~ :,... M..,.,....... :..; ... m. %. 3 ; ,'s. 6* Before Administrative Judges:
P V > ".. "..
.i
,g y. w%. o f..>.
,\\ y.T; ....p.- c. j f.'),.Y '] . 4 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman l,. Emmoth A. Luebkg i k," i \\;, * ,[' l .cc. 1 p J.rry s.rsour
#. w.>.
. 4, .t. .4 .f& l. V i <,:r. '; ",' ' '! M.. in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443-OL 1 M,...". .p ., 9. ' 50 444 OL 1 N '. L,,, s (ASLBP No. 82-47102 OL) 4C ,i-(Onsite Emergency Planning .~. v. i, and Safety lesues) L' .',a.. ? l .~ Iq PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY .:w. { ~ f-MM 1 i OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al I,j (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ~ /, and 2) March 25,1987 [ r. >3 i. a.. ' '(, V l.d The Licensing Board authorizes issuance of a license to operate Seabrook j. 'a b, g s. l~ Station, Unit 1, up to 5% of rated power. It resolves the three onsite emer-
i. :
2, gency planning and safety contentions relating to (a) Applicants' emergency {' :,,, " .,%;' i 4 .p.p"jp classification and action level scheme, (b) electrical equipment environmental l.c i ..f. '+ . 3 y.; ]~ qualification time duration, and (c) Applicants' safety parameter display sys-tem. It authorizes the issuance of this low-power license provided that, prior N t f..,..., ' n to the issuarre thereof. Applicants have satisfied one condition imposed with G '. # '. ,. y', D L '. - '. [,,. ' - '.,, ; 3 *' ii respect to contention (b). With respect to contention (c), the Board orders that, t . ;W fI if a full. power operating license is ultimately authorized by the other Licens-- j'] y.. # h (, ing Board which is considering ogsfre cunergency planning issues, prior to the
j. i L'
issuance thereof, Applicants must have satisSed three conditions.
5. 9.
, E, W. jp,;,", ' 'a
m. v n.,
L4 s. s .i s
o..;
,>s . ~, v : i. v.. *,. u
?.7 l.
g-r .e t :> ) .v.m 4 + ,.1 i u
.,; r 4
i j.'. .W; .3 o NJ 1 4 l 177 e t f*'.* l ' )
1~
? h. : ~. .. R l; , %. l.. j)* p,v t,,/, t . ;p~ Gr-a, ~~ 4-g,.,f h, h( @, M' 4.
t,,..
, c.,,;,.'>.- f 7. f ^., y y N 1., j g):7 4 W...
9 " ;cd.(.Y.(M?fl-@b hbk hhUkkIfdh:ns;W.(;; r. ?, Lt.',n m..hk SkCN,,..cy +.
'1*e, m !p.. .vppdM ige;h.,..;n * ;nN W., ;., n; w%c h. p..,. 'v%. M' y .. L. :.. '.....
.u ;rgip w

.
Nbhh
m. dif'hAmmm.Q..w w,, m.aaga.m..
.m-- mnh 3.Y ,4 L_.__' m .a-mm_u,,,me.. ( 1 _._s_ , w m e h i. r._e, ,,.,.,,.wcu,.. y,mm,,,p,4.,w,,,g.,,g,m,,, ,,yy
mm._ mm.a, m s.. , w.. ...a.. _.o. r..g. 7 ! e.y. .y y: ..y>n 9,w ; g.,, t kgy .- n . t. m, q.5;ra ypw. w.. &g p h....E, ~.,:ge.h.h'M{hg,fg3 %t.@'h.M+*W;}@m*,%g,gyk.. j gIf[ h g /@*%p % i. h '4.& W j, .g. . %?*m 2.& j <; *:. Wh% e1 4 Bry,f.Q M> g.g'@e,p:fg.3. s.,g 7 g y.,;.3< g[.f 3 4.y;.lf.;;;f *,;t #y,. e. p y a 3x.q. g ,,,;.. g.. l y.p g..c. g j fT. t, e O (. A. [u8N,M, @t'. N$ h,>.r)(g, e. c ,7 M.,e,,iM-ll.i.E. i 7 '. (*$.9 d h +c .~ , w. .s .r e 1 . t..,. e ;...: 1 .l ,, +.. + s :.~ s.
. ' T. r 6., >
);....,- fW-r, . +. - o +_ k. Q .V
?
w.Q;rq*/, U E.n..p,.;. ~, = ' 1 u. 4 o s
6 wm 4.,
p4,.' ; n - -e e,: ~.f;'g., ? Ls; y ,s NUREG 0737: SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM A j, m. en., c s.:, g NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 does not require implementation of require - -w@ [7;PA.;lMM d. [ " *,. 'f,'$ k..v, i,w ments for the safety parameter display system prior to initial criticality. How. LF' h,.Y 24. 3 hhst '<C'. - I n./l y;' 3."4 CVer. O Pmtect the public health and safety, implementation of certam SPDS p. .' t. .7 FA:.-Q N =A.'5.
W.'t'...-
requirements must be effected prior to c5-.= = at power levels above 5% of. p %....w.h,g. ;M.::G.)'d;y-p rated power. -.. ef 2 1. 'q. . b, s;. s.
av.
..w. . +.. [.. M;,,.rf.f. *p;.. c,(.... #..,.N$.M...,.. f :..,. i11;7,f ( n.a..l v.y:. W. P ..,6. 0.y TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED
1,4
.v. ~ - w. .e ,, +. > s,. Sl M '.~: Emergency Classi6 cation and Action Level Scheme;. .w. 'f 'Q[ j' / Electrical Equipment Environmental Qnh6 cation; and 7 @p.c..j'[;%,. .. ~.,. 4..... V. ' 1, ';,...,.,.'..,...., .s... ;, 7 f, ( '1 Safety Parameter Display System. ,r;. : s .s ..p.c..,,.,,.,.,...,.,,.. ;.... - ;... APPEARANCES U. - .i ., w .5... .,...._g,. ; .y - y .,f.,-l '.7 . 4.4s. .....,.:.m........ s . ~.. .,. n. l. */., e, i
A.
n,, Robert A. Backus, Esq., Backus, Meyer & Solomon, Manchmter, New-I ~- ] Hsieds, for Intervenor Seacoast Anti. Pollution I.cague. f f, j N, V. N - ~ ~ Diane Currm Esq., Harmon & Weiss, Washington D.C., for Intervenor New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollutiort. U ~ l<. Y y u,,y y' O.. -... -' p. h. r ..., - q Carol Sneider, Esq.,- Ofice of the Attorney Generali Boston, Massachusetts. I &,...s. ; "<. C. ~... _.o'.,,. for the interested Commonwealth of Massachusetts. .j ff .J'".....y George D. Bisbee, Esq., OfEce of the Attorney General, ' Concord,' New c/t ' M..', '.' a ~ 3.* ?:... /': .,'./. ' ?,.M.,g 's ?,y>I ~' " Hampshire, for the interested State of New Hampshht.L q ..', ? ,.n1 n ' [';jd Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq., and R.K. Gad, III, Esq., Ropes and'Oray, 7 7:'q;..:.j'~.."**]t* l Boston, Massachusetts for Applicants,' the Public Service Company of: 7 4. ' Sc,,. n' , '.... '.,..c,. f.,c....li New Hampshire, et al. i c. 7 s 1 (.'.*k.[ ' l:.., ','.. Robert G. Perlis, Esq,, and Sherwin E. Turk, Esq., Of6ce of the General J '.1 Counsel, Washington, D.C., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrms., f.$.7 i.'$j,:,/.'g. +t,. ..... W, c., W.., 1,, sion Staff. ..s.
c. 4,.,...
a.4 }f.e.. r.,.. / g.... ..a. ..f... * =. v,.:. *,, g - o. ~ . %;., s.e.. f,, .,.t ...,s, .,, e., \\ w. * .a 9 s
c...,.., O,..1.,a.b y,,,,...a.n.,,..n p.
.. g u........~... a. m.. p... .,e
s. w:
i*., n.. . ~i..'w,?' %.. ug ...;.9.. ?, 5.,.t,;..w.. ,y,, : -;.
d n
.n: r, r.'t ;w/.W.: rv -: :n .:.'..c. n ,,a, z s.. n sq., :: p. *,.'..-t..:4,-: u, y,.wz.' d .e - c7 ~, ~ ....: n... j. J., - 4 w. ,., : w; s .,....r.. ,,.,,.,o,..4,.....,,.~..
m.,
r . i. s,. f. ,. a 8- , ?..,, 178
.s a
4 .g
a.,
.i 1 .b . s., .s.. - ..l I \\ a. L...,,..,.,,y... .....,;...,.,.... y.y, - r y. - s $ g e., : ..,4 .a ..v. 2 < . ;., 7 di '.,.y ,,,'<c.,, ftf. m.,/,e/y c, '. h 4,,, W,g.f.. y 4,- s a s.. ,,i.>-4 z '. 4
a ',,
p.. a a + = o +,, 3- .w ...'.. w.(,,.e g ,p.6 c, .6: .,1.+ 4 n, ,4 ..
o. % < /4. '*,i, a#,,O,y, i
e .J ,.,,3 ' ~ T,,.
N
g .f,... ', c,pr/ ; r., i .s ..((,'*.'.i + n, I 'b h, p, ), ',+ a N-* '.*.[* ,..'[.t g.. ' #.o.f gb. ( 1 J '. '.' # 4.{..,f.f.,('. '.$ q 9 J '& r y' . ~, ,e >[jC,, rt(i h l g.'4.!' 3. h,' M ,. 2 O h 1 st ~ 4,,..., ' t = m,;s' . i t 4 y 4,
a. g.
.x... ;.,;._ 'a .,,4 7 '.: ..g f -.f :. .t .. y"4;- a x e a u. _,,.g.'..
,.,,f w,
.?5 j .I L ___._.__.__w
~
2..
.. ~ ,,...,.....,.,. r .,;. :. r.,/. i.
p.. ;,8. 2....,.,..w p. n u
s.,,r...g+ ..m.. :
3..., x,. r.1 2,.g r
.a. s,. g.J., _ e.....p;a. s.n ", ;.., 4; ,h.. ., u " .+.. ~. n c A: .c .n c.,c, -n, kA< 3 y - ,4 ,. +. .. + ' '. ' :M..:.n,%. y't. t ?. . +;5 ^ :,s. b.. y - cf.. s ?;. c v .s wp c b yg ~ n ;.,y ;$.:nj {,. Q Qg., m .y t. p o },'.
~
}, : >.., $. ' ',.a \\ ; s,. ....c .,g [,, -+ .p ~ . ~:,.,,: y
9. yj
~ p.v.. p. y
W. -
M. y v (b.7.,,. f., ; 1 , 1. l S... -.t
a. -
c 2 .:.. r... ....y.. .e.,, ; .r.# ,2 -, '[p. [. [ 7* ' f I',$,[ ] j' v .;,. 3 - .. n,.. s ,e p. .:. u.,, .s c ~,..,... c ,q v8 a ~ @f #E. 7 n ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Cw %. M.. ;,
W-
$. v ;j;;.. c
7...,.... c....,~,
9 Page ,a,.,,v,,., w.. r. - t.,a.. n... .,%**=,. ,- i t; 6,, y c.
, m
.s y n. h* h,.'?.:cp?.. .,. A E '. ^ *u' f 7.,0 ' 180 OPINION...................................................
s.,
2 s y'.. J L INTRODUCTION................................... 180' ' !'k *.h ~ '. ? 4 . y. .W. .'p* %,M ).,M '[ f[,'%@r# 180 A. Background..................................... ~..q :1 7.,M $. N ?' f,.....,$.,f.., [ : t, B. Content of the Opinion and Findings................. 182 r I A. ru., h NECNP IIL1 and NH.20 - Classification ,..?s.", ' .C.' f". 7,, * < ~d7' ?T.* Il CONTENTIONS.................................... 183 ,( 6 Scheme and Emergency Action Levels............... 183 eISt S,'. B. SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 - Compliance of the 4.; fG ', f. Seabrook. Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) .. T.[0 .i a ' ? ,1 i.' l with NUREO-0737.11em LD.2..................... 183
d. c. f
. n, i.,,- * * , <.Q c }4"{ C. Electrical Equipment Environmental Qnatifwarion .... r J. q'. ' J. +s. .. '.. ' i:, il Time Duration................................... 187
.a
+ ,.,f,,,'. IIL CONCLUSIONS.................................... 189 I,.. J FINDINGS OF InCT...................................... 190 y
a :'
o '... 7 I EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION AND ACTION LEVEL 'A.. A. S CHEME.......................................... 190 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYS*IEM 194 5, f ' * - 2 ELECTP.ICAL EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL .e S. QUALIFICATION TIME DURATION.................. 205 .. (. s. ,i.is.4, - s. ~@, CONCLU SIONS OF LAW................................... 215 L..'...'. 1% 1, >v
u t,
,s T. i,., . F. 1 ORDER.................................................. 216 ,*t
x. :. r t.,..
. p., j ?.,,. 3 . "es P.*..j. '.e l' .,f"a [- 9 f '. y , 5, a...,,, e t a, ,, y% ~ : l., L
d. ; p.'. l. l
.-,1 .3 ;.', s .... ~ ..*,, /.' E.'% E .'. f f ,,,', 7, :,d yJ j'.,.,,.c..'.e.. s 4 8,.,*. .I i a - 4','t. '. t i fge 1. !, +z>..n. ; r...( c - 3 y,: %. 3., a .., t 8 - 1 y... , t.i;g "7 ..3 w 4.' .au, c .s I I*Q,
^
h '2a a - f, f *,.. ",. y.. %; pg v..'. ' a,.. t,?. s .f .,e. .g',.,yg.c1-., 7, 7 ..l ,y.y*' e ye te ~m. ..g <. ' p 'Mr i,. f Ei 4 .4,,- f' 4 ,..s g mM-4 f '#D . ! \\'. r i
N
( 179 r.
Y
','.) i. t%"' 4.. ty
a e..
y ,, q. 1 .j s, a ~ J-. P / 74**g-A w es. ',,4 j ' h ,a ..A* 7 lk"~\\. ? <[* : ' .. N;&.., '.h t, $ ~? I,.
.1
,p f ,6'
~
i.$4 ,?4.',Lja 'f.
a. ;
.: j 'n ; r(, '. i $q.,9 ? *** 'a kod flJ. g.' T G A d *i"J h ba j,*,r ; y.. *. o. s. [i'e.7 t' ;W.5 hb .h j ' k;, S 4.' ), r x. w m r.4., h~ b b h N b hh h h.i /W 4 pu >,whkk - - n.mk
n. n u.n 4
'u, I )
._...~...-~._.-_.__._._W-. ~. Q Q h @. c Q.c.,. % j$' %' h l%' % 8.frfWigM M;E,@;.;jgMM:MP.@yA,,.
.n,:.4
.c. A ML 'yRW.dw%x.:
1l4,ND
.M$$ I, g?Tffkh'NhN., hkhj p ( I hh!hhhbM[
x. p k
'[ .,;w p -:M. p.y..mp 3,.: - -';.. y ... g:.n n w c m,n*...; y .1..y ,y. .i; n,n st y .+ .Jy ,, L y .., = 3,(.=+ , ~ ~ s , : n,. . w, ;.,..,. -.: n. ....m ~ 9. g., e. /..
v.,t
.;.~ v.,.;. s. J ' a.d; e, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION d 8" ^ .M. (Operating License) N .l' i ,,.,...-s .c.. .i.,-. t...N:,.,., Op. ion ,m, 4 .(- m s .3 .. 3 . y, c,;.,,.. ;.. ' D..o.,.,cg.l L INTRODUC. ION' T M. .i. <.. - ,, fl (..t,, 4.? s. .g.>
c. -;.
~. v u 1 v! 1,, '~,. ]c t, l. '. ; ', ;i. M A.
Background
<5. - ~ // d '. l.; On July 9,1973, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et. 7;.-!~. :(, y' ",; ' ' '.;p - ! - y at (Applicants) had fded with the then U.S. Atomic Energy Commission an ~. l. ~ 7;. ~y' N ' application for licenses to construct Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2. Each of y .. >, ' 7 'c the units is a Westinghouse pressunzed water reactor and each is designed to 2? 1 d operate at a thermal power of 3411 megawatts. The site of the nuclear generating ' 1~ i.f,j ~ 9 '1 ', / facility is located on the western side of Hampton Harbor, in the township of Seabrook, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, and is appronmately 11 3( miles south of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and 40 miles north of Boston, Iy, (. , 'J.- j. i j Massachusetts. After a public heanng before an Atomic Safety and Licensing C Board, the construction permits were issued on July 7,1976. { i The application for operating licenses was docketed by the Nuclear Regula-t l .a tory Commiasion on October 5,1981. Notice of the opportunity for requesting a 2i public hearing was published in the Federal Register on October 19,1981. (46 4 j 4 Fed. Reg. 51,330.) On November 30,1981, an Atomic Safety and Licensing ) e ,f Board was constimted and the following Administrative Judges were appointed: i Helen Hoyt, Chairperson; Emmeth Luebke; and Oscar Paris. On August 25, 1982, the Licensing Board was reconstituted with Administrative Judge Jsrry ~
~
Harbour being appointed to serve in lieu of Administrative Judge Paris. .i ,i Ultimately, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a), the Licensing Board admitted (,% ',.. ', l various individuals and orgamzations as intervening parties (Interveners), and, ', '.'. l,, m ;. '. [ b.), ',j n, m.N pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c), it permitted representatives of various inter- ! c. f m P ", ' ' ",. q,',, ested States and municipalities to participate in the proceedmgs. Amongst those ,y y*, t, admitted as intervening parties wers New England Coalition on Nuclear Pol- 'I . 2',.; 3 ~ lution (NECNP) and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL). Amongst those { b , .) pcrmitted to participate as representatives of interested States or municipalities - . t, .1. i, - ',, ? e ~.. d.,' l were the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire (NH) and the At.. l 1 b;+ S, ?n,' torney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass.). >' ' W.. ., 3 .-}. g.;l [,, M (,'. .[. j During a hearing held in August 1983, the then-presiding (Hoyt) Board heard
h.
l @o*.'7';;,.'.i; 4.b @ U. $.; ;] the Applicants' and the Staff's evidence upon three onsite emerSency planning j! . c... i ..., v..... u. v.. ;. ~,..., m .e. . 9; .. s,, -....... .....,.,., 2: .: d a 4 ' [.( ' ' q., j y- /. ,. ) .;. / H
3..,
g. +! ,r. - a i. j x; 7, a" .~> 180 ) / c, ' C :,
)
a i ' i {,, ' ( -7 .i ',,,< j -J;. J .,. ',, ~,
i 4
l ,3.; h,.- f m. -- p ry . p. 7 *--...ce y, .g {. .-e.-- a i
a"*q.
,\\. L'.. oc (, e s ^
.t,e t
e y *. .eq *
aT*. b..A, w,,

t.
\\ g pf a q '
'. I.
/['o q k *.,
0. [ %
g' .f *,[ ' i- f
s ->
o p ]t ' *\\,P .,N. 3,.%. t., I .,.']:,. - ~ s...w.. %.... ;.. x.,,,- J. ,,a ., 4.., ,c, ., pa,1 + 3,.. x, s. g ,f [ = ,,r.. x. s v.,
a.
~, ,c. s. x,,,... ; g....,.. 1 I -_s--___...-____...__.._a
a l 4 ... ~ ,y * '[ j g.: '[.I b, h,, - ',, [E d' 57 L
p') k. - [w
[ 2i}f. gs G.yF-;L qq e.. ,e ,3 9,V .w M; u z +- m e, t r e
y.
r 2, w; 5 7. r. i. s l ,.e
c. -
y ... s .e. 1 t '. n n n .y c. ..,. y l =o . -s %- s.
m.

q s,.
>.w nt. ,.c p J ya ; ,3 . (,, ,f y. j 1 l w. j w-i . I and safety issues.2 That Board also heard evidence presented by Applicants, the ~ ^,' r, j ,1; a g' .C * - Staff, and Mass. on an offsite emergency planning issue.8 After the closing of the i 5,J g.. f A o g;,~,-Q record, the Applicants, the NRC Staff, and NECNP filed proposed fmdings and
t. ' -.,
t c'.),?* :.Q ~ / W,,. i. 4 i
S
'1 conclusions of law with respect to NECNP I.B.2 and with respect to NECNP s e1'< e v
g. ', yy%,,g,/g v.
L III.1 and F *120. NH filed submissions only with respect to NH 20. Appliennte, e7 - 6'- J ~ S the NRC m.:.ff, Mass., SAPL, and NECNP filed proposed findings of fact and i l conclusions of law with respect to NECNP III.12-III.13. On November 23,1983, {M fg ',' jp ! *, > i f $..i'J ', - Applicants filed a reply to the various proposed findings. jn ',r s Nl,' 4;,2 % e' The Hoyt Board did not issue a partial initial decision with respect to the con-f 9 [y i 7 ;* [ * ',,p, _ ; t tentions referred to above. On September 9,1985, the Board was reconstituted i and this Board (the Wolfe Board), consisting of Admmistrative Judges Sheldon Q',, ' '; ' p Wolfe, Chairman, Emmeth Luebke, and Jerry Harbour, was appointed to pre- , f g * *. s,. side over all onsite safety and emergency planning issues. (50 Fed. Reg. 37,608.) The Hoyt Board retamed jurisdiction over all offsite emergency planning issues.$ ,' ] ~[) ,s .- [., ;'. / 8 ~ ',... In an Order issued on November 4,1985 (unpublished), this Board stated as '.... f.Q ... ~ ,,\\ ' follows: J..., = - 4 ,, r i
l. i l
i We have reviewed the record and have r-Aa t-<I that the secord needs to be reopened
+ ~ ~ ^ for the hmited purpose of. c= 11 is not our humanion and we will not permit H***' the retrying of issues beant before the closing of the record on August 23,1983. After a "l..' preheanng conferenon, and after discovesy. if any. a. ' y hearms will be ordered i' - ; y to take evidence on the above-idanu6ed matters pertainmg to Coniaanaaa NECNP 1.B.2. s NECNP III.1 and NH 20, which involve signinant health and safety issues. and whidi were r not previously ripe for bearias. i Footnote 2 stated that, if NH Contention 10 (Detailed Control Room Design a ) Review) was not informally resolved, evidence would be taken on that contention s ,/ as well during the supplementary hearing. l In a Memorandum and Order of July 21,1986, LBP-86-22, 24 NRC 103, the Board granted NH's motion to withdraw its Contention 10, but, herme SAPL i, 1 v, ~,
.n
~ , <>m e n s,' ,~ s <i, 1NECNP t'===aaa LB.2 assened thm Apphemmas had ons satia6ad the seqiuremmens af oDC 4 that au =tF""" e~ 1 - *'. ~, anpanant to safety be environmentally y=N busimo Apphoems had failed to spamfy the erns dunnen e=ar ,.1 ,( whadi the eqmpment was quahned. . t semilar t',===- NECNP El and NH 20 assunad. in embstansa, that the maargumey plans did not seassia .? g] ' -/,. * *. tj en adequais annagency slemt6estian schane as rerused by to CIA I50.47 and Appendix E, and by NUREo-t j. 0654 6 t,, ,e 'I 2As rouesdad by em Board, NECNP E12.Els needs as inuses:
f.*
4 Esamemoa rknes Eremuse 7. J ,JT..[. 3 ',f3,,l N 4 N' ' ;,8 ^ 2
~
.I Thec tuns emnese pumded by the Apphasens k Appendix C of then =A%*aal Emergmasy j *,. 4*hd,
}
Plan so deemes k feaha to indsde an essansas of: 0) the amas for euesuates dunne ed,ues weather yt a 4,
13, q
,j -, e en a tesy - weekend; and (2) the tune for sunshansens _ of beash ,g ; g C ** .?#. l esses lyin6 NE no ssE of the sembreak east I 3 sobseqamely, on Manh 25,1986 Judge Hoyt ruled that that Band had ; over the eunamation tus t anunais --i in its entum3. both as to ese paar lingsaan and as h, any funhar hugsman on that issus i ..] beione ihm Board. In a Monarenden and order of August M,1986 (unpubhahed), thes Baad ruled that NECNP ^ c. .~ Caessnuen E12 ! L13 did not pesant an ensus esaargency plamung issusL t c s 181 \\ 9 h b f. 9 8 - 3'- g.s,, . A s, p .9g** ,, f, I' 8 ,.9",',P
fj
,4 c ,f g. A , r, - 2-e .%m. y, s, ..s a ,.r-q., ,,, f, %. i; ,.,,*c e ;E j[f ~ Q,4)A;5o ' t; - e' .%g5,' PC.Q; "*
K,- q e,.3 *, -h
. l 4. * ',i. ' (*
t.
4 f ,, A J'es% r. ' ",,ga -*'. .,tp rel ' p3. ' j,W # y *y " jil' ~,",,,. W.?%~ w.. l 'd.
s 4
p! ,g Q t., .i
;,n h Q y*

j flj( %w y M.. W e,g *, M' %. g ' k.. 4.a * " y. w.~.;
4 e,, .h 4 f .. Ya f. I w;.M, 'b :Q.,q;\\, y %q6 6%s..Q o f.:.?. n
g.,
+. > i 3 n w' W,V s .v M ' s ;.Qt/ fx4 [.7. L,?:f. S.. A d ". 3-" 5 fr; 4ppf( .?@'< # N, 'j" * *
l
.i t
n_-. h9,,, #Ml'%AMOD^T.Y#{$, h,,::'khfh k:::.L,f'.::t.} u..x0 % L6? o.:. , ci ',.., c;. ~;..y . *h N hhf -. kb G ~.4 . 9 N'hih0$4*bkM wm., w..... e... vTDMW w>., $n...... w>. n W w%r, e..v
w.,
.4 ~a s ..'7,.- .l 5 .L
s$. l 'e Y k i%
$*4. ]s.. JY. 5"
=** ;
n. n ).. L * ,m y g:.,. :. 1 /. ,,A."-
7'
' ' [a%. ~ had preserved its rights as a joint intervenor with respect to that comention, it [, .a, f. <? '... convened NH 10 to and replaced it with SAPL Supplemental Contention 6. m ,, hrh in a motion that had been filed on June 17.-1986, Applicants requested ' ,f. -+ 'l* - (*19yt; inter alia, that the Board's Partial Initial Decision when issued should authonze 's . d, 7,, i.. ,q'f:J'Y issuance of an operstmg license for operauon not in excess of 5% of rated b. 4p'5' .i; q ( ',1,. ; y'Y.,,, ; ~ 7., % power. '!he Memorandum and Order of July 25,1986, LBP-86-24,24 NRC 132, j', ,' e,y,., l. M *., }jj j.. O.;. % 1" reaccted that, after considermg the evidencer_ J during the supplementary ,,. p q
i,. s,,, ' g ',1 hearing, the Board would decide in its Partial Initial Decision whether or not to Q
.'[.U,g,~.'.'*l,;,,%*; q'.. authonze issuance of an operatmg license for operation of Seabrook Unit 1 up ,p~ y' ,g,, to and including 5% of rated power. g, 3 s 'N: ' 9 %, On September 15,1986, the Board partially granted Applicants' motion for .h f.9 ; * "
$y.(
summary disposition of SAPL Supplemental Contention 6. (LBP-86-30,24 NRC ( ',~'c~ g'@!-[ 437.)
4 The reopened hearing began on September 29, and proceeded on September
[ l l.' ,N,g. - 30, October 1, and October 3,1986.4 "Ihe same parties and interested States, b S'.c which had suended and participated in the 1983 heanng, also attended and k ~ ' o ),. AM.;. inni.irded in the 1986 i uya.ed hearmg. Propcsed $ndings of fact, conclusions B" .e. t oflaw, rvycsed forms of decision, and briefs were filed on the following dates: ~ [,] Applicants - October 30; SAPL - November 7; NECNP - November l'2; j' y Mass. - November 12; NRC Staff-November 26,1986.s Applicants Gled a J,5 reply on December 1,1986. ,4 ,f w On November 25,1986, Applicants advised that Unit 2 had been officially i. V..D cancelled. e ,r, B. Content of the Opinion and Findings I
sh.. (t -
Part II of this Opinion discusses and resolves the contentions. Part III reSects s [ g. our conclusions. The Board's underlying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of .g g, Law are appended and incorporated by reference. An Order is also appended. " '^* .,.; 7..,
It should be noted that all of the proposed findings of fact r.rxi conclusions
+ .;/,, ' ' _,L
T.h,,
of law submitted by the parties that are not incorporated directly or inferentially c.y '. ' in this Partial Initial Decision are rejected as unsupported in law or fact or as H ),,, ;t.. ?ic
p,y unnecessary to the rendering of this Paruallnitial Decision.
y c
. :.._. 1
+,' ,4..
...... t,
, [', - m *.l.y -6 i, ,s. .3. '.
, - 2v.. ~,q w, '....

3. e ne -
i .s.. <.i .., e
4.
.~ 4 .~....at.u.'..;; ~ n ?,,."r.& .s e,.. a
.;:....,..s....

n. s
[... %,.
4P '., $..' s
.. i. E'*Y*[ ...C, f.; ? '^ U..M.,,.yi . ?.C. L.,c.' ' 5., 6 'tmind appumma mammum = mamd eums m - Ausw 19ss humans and Amins m e----' e e .y g,s4 hemmis. f .f 1 ~W 3*4 'sJ, *.s. ., o# S {.
J, gM did W b b m>IIus.emaan.ma, @g gbiatamma VfWG Md to % M Cgamenet
[. I
d
's ,,,.P""' t.B.2 Masa.'s and sAPt's subsmanees wee liamend to addenauis ApL. *,, " c-6. only Gu l s ,,g T,,y,,** *, j [ q ; [ [ i.; Applaseau' and das seafr's =an==- addromed all of the ensue safay and onesury planning
..t

9. ;.
".s y ,[ ' e,4 y '
o.,
.s ;....: 182 ei. t N\\ 4
,.,..e' 4
4 ', .,.. g- - r e q t ' %l\\ i',,,
1 a;
. Y. <e e
f Q G

),,,.. 4.:
i. .,d,,,,., '. c ...~ e ,,s. g: g. v-*. -..~. .j t .. s.c.p,. ~_,..,m.. a r, ~ *-p re 5 ;,. g v- *., av-.~,e- -e <m .p (.,.. a Y. *A. 1 .,iL* m. ,,.J L3. - m,+*,.,., 'g{. "h.,,.* . +.) s, l' "t
j
\\
.=.s 6, l., : 1 t. s 'h a: Fr~~ , n. . ~, - ..L q[, j'y,is I'. * / =.f'*yp ( a f.l 4( ' 'g' ~ l s,, *,, N ' * *. p, ~ M.{7 af';,,d. i.. ', ', fyfa-y %.];
4,',,y ;g. e, q 5
g,m,q
. r. p - s 4 ,+c'.,..,p..., vbu.; ;1 :,.4,,, -. 4 4x 4*,gr 3,e s.. m...s,1q x G,%. .,.+ v-n iS.4. a.; , ',.,.......e ,' 4.. - e,' . 4,4.. a w ' -- J y y; j ' 7.,..,.17.V.1. s..', ' r-, Q ' '.. 3.o. o. . e..,. 9.g,,f 73, 7, ' Q e ;.
m.
.m.,.c', I. a. o, A*, - ." l g. 4 ,5 f,1 .,,'i.' A.., N r. g... ;, ,,e t .. m. m .u.f., .s. s <~
.t,., .t .c r. 3 "u ', 4 , y,p..) :. r ". 2-e.
8!,
3+ .p. '4. .k .J t y s 'y .v i . R .3 j e e ... o. s s c,K, e c.- .4 r %, ~ -l. .ev F....d... u . i.,: r c; .1.1 L '.g 3 r d -. f -w.i .1 IL CONTENTIONS' i 4 ,.. t, ,c. v c,; ,,-r ;;.', 1 ~ ".. b.'; . i a...v '. , @9. re 77..'.d. -.. = c'V:7 g Q c, ~.j.: A. Contentions NECNP IIL1 and NH 20 - Classification Scheme and . [. d., 7.th...g...- Emergency Action Levels (Fdgs.113) <c, , ' w.- 7 'f,, g :. 3 ., g. [;G N In substance these contentions assert that, comrary to the requirements of 10 [/ l ' ' /.j,' [, j,".',,y{~E,.;;..;Q:.,t. 5' C.F.R. 5 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E, and of NUREG-0654, the emergency plan does not contain an adequate emergency classification and action level (.3 ! 3,. ; - t.gg. ",i,[.U,g/i; scheme. It should be noted that, pursuant to a stipulation, the written direct (. d q. / ',. - 4,*-p.j.J.)-Tp2g ,; ') ' * %. y testimonies of the Applicants' and the Staff's wimesses were admitted into exammation, and only the Applicants and the Staff filed proposed findings of l.,.., ' < !, 9 ","*..; @ t evidence and incorporated into the 1986 record as if read. There was no cross- -.Q4 -;.. yr;; W '..' 4 ;2 fact, conclusions of law, and briefs with respect to these contentions. Thus, ,i*.*,.'.- although these two contentions are no longer controverted issues, we decided to a'-***'.; - ' *,,. }'[ .!.,, [ .s Je.d ' f prepare factual findings and to set forth our conclusion.' ', '*,Np.y. !. H q ' Q At the time of the 1983 hearings, the Applicants' emergency classification and [.F.)' ' ; ;*i['f ( /, ; y*J..W .t action level scheme was not complete. In light of the supplementary evidence i presented during the course of the 1986 heating, we conclude that Applicants' !.~ ',,..C. 7 ,f'?.[ emergency classification and action level scheme fully satisfies the requirements -"' [J' of i 50.47 and Appendix E of Part 50 and meets the guidance entena of NUREG- .7 F,:
l..,,V ]
0654. f,,., .5 -. g8' y
i B.
SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 - Cornpliance of the Seabrook 5. '$ Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) with NUREG-0737, n l' J Item LD.2 (Fdgs.14-47) s The central issue of this contention is whether there is reasonable assurance [ . j V.. . f #* O $,'.,' 4? 1 that the health and safety of the population in the immediate vicinity of the s l U plant will be protected if corrections to deficiencies in the Seabrook SPDS M ,' ' f., r i are deferred until the first refueling outage. Requirements for the SPDS are l c ~., '/ 5. f,s I $ 7 pl set forth in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1,7 a Commission-approved document l'g. ', 7..,. i.,[,' @,# 7 - C
p 4,'.f O,;. ( g
'7*
providing certain post-TMI requirements and guidance to be implemented both !,,3.. c& t'f' , %..s by applicants for, and holders of, operating licenses for power reactors, in order p. m-to upgrade emergency response capability and facilities. j.(],., ',,
4.,* ;5:g.'J 'h'(~bs' } 'cj
. g [**p Q -i - j,',t. With respect to litigation of TMI 2 issues in operating license proceedmgs, ' t ?;/ y ', ? g the Commission specifically endorsed NUREG-0737 requirements as being
i. ~
c.
$N.. ;. J U,., '... f, p W..f,i, necessary for responding to the accident at TMI-2, and categorized the NUREG-
+.. ~ : D *;., .y. 1 j. 4, 9,;.,, '. ... T,,. y, y...... .,[ h /,,].,' h
' ('/
j
! base exmtersaans camsunsa the only :==-mg issues in smusrovesy wuh suspecs to ensus safery and smayency i l ; plaurung unanent - [. ".* ' ' ?d.d q' - 7"n for Emegency Raspanas Capabairy (cenanc teuer No. s2 33).* transtmund to he= -= and ' '* s apphaaras by neuer dated Doomnuar 17,19st m 9, ..~.:,f.j _ f, - 5
+< A <
183 ... 4, e Me-*4 ,4 ..,,;- N. e 1 h h k< e a Y d.r$'. '*$ f' #y .,r: ., ') 4' t.',, ' h 1
i. [ 'i' L ' i 4 ' - j.i, ' u G.

g.,, [,
s t. C' e 'g,..,W. g 2 j.* r 'Q ' G i ;. s ,. c.*t 3f. f.s ! L - e g,9 J' y $(l.y ' :l Q n I. k. e " ~ Q " 7.; e
2
Sj j.

n.',.q,; r.y.Q.:t "'?(R'jd. .gy:37. Q* '" ,,3,+ ', f, /g,
4. p
. i. .,.g &,J ;.w&'j'[-Q_'c.* Q.*', 0 .. s, s.,,,. l'
k.[.dQ[?-QQ _W%.&j' __..... _ d. .h m s::n.l w... k w.s. p a,. +.~ ". Q:Qi.f.4 " M,Mhp.h?S$W.MN.; YFi.MhMf,hM@:.:ph';f 3.W.h.Q.Q:.:h56, .Q.Mh{$y( 34 9,.h 3 7.q..,Q; ? gW;. Q:ijg;p?fWfj,p.g;g;,. g'.iLggy.% g,,n &y.. g. g 3, h > l _,,. Q W Q.f . a.*,: , fig < p. ps g.e.g.ty.g 4.: gy, ; < v < c n - a,.. y q.z...:; !v m. 4..s.,... p y g.p,g. s . W.. :i.. & :L'T.7".y..-[f.7 .y j 3.y :.g.fy+.G W
,' 3,T, sy 3

m
.J,.y e,y.'
n.
~ *v q-e,, =l R...c.u...::..=..;U., M % iti. % ;. M ' 4 :. 5 j 1'. s + .t.. - i 4 .;, a y. .e... t, .4.w x; r; 0737 requirements, like those in NUREO.0694,' as falling into two categories - }Q s y '~.,.,, y* in terms of their relationsidp to existing regal ='iane-J, h"
., w. c.,
.e A.y 1
0) no ese inesspru, eene or quesdy es ss===lleasuaes d saimiss
'^ - }.'
m:y, a. :. y: ::..,; y;
,a ..3 r" c. ..-1 %y.? '.l. ;- N.. j G)' hoes thec =rph es esishal segulanons by impoems sequeurisms in addman (s-1 c . g. e. .,,s. .i wy mm.w 4 A . r w.1 .u t, ' l' '"] (Statement of Policy; Purther Commisalon Guidance for Poww Reactor Operat. 5.' n ,, ' :q p;,*f..y '.,, ' ' q*,l'd ing Licenses,45 Ped. Reg. 85,236,85,238 (Dec. 24,1980)J *1he regarements L. / t for implama*iag the SPDS fall into the second category. f (
pg'yc,, f '
' Q, 'j 'Ihe implementation schedule of TMI Action Phn requirements for applicants. - (., 4 . ;&.Db .d for an operating license was given in Racianure 2 of NUREO@37 (at 2-3 to W 9; 2-11). Depending upon safety 25== and the imawhacy of the need for. ,,/ h;. -
e')
corrective acnnne, the schedule required : '= Gon of different items at -[. i.,v[. y- / (,,' 'O. .j various times, such as prior to fuel load,' prior to initial criticahty, prior to ' j. * . O.g.,. full pomer, by some fixed date, or for some requirements, by a schedule to be p* ' I c'l. ,f determined. The implementation dase for.the SPDS requirements fell into the '( j last category. While Supplement I to NUREO@37 indicated that. ehehlac n therem superseded previous adaAalaa the 9ehadula for implementation of the jk SPDS remained unfixed and to be set by agreement between the Apa*aaa and Staff. The Board notes that the SPDS was never inchidad among those ' ~. p / %= c s whose implementation was required prior to fuel load or prior to l' i('g
initial criticality.
?' While Supplement I to NUREO@37 permits implementation of SPDS - ,)5 :.p' p requirements by a schedule agreed upon between the NRC Staff and Applicants, ,,@,'... g . - t J,., it also stresses prompt implementation as an important. contribution to plant . F.j ; ' safety. NUREO@37. Supplement 1, does not requae implemaatarian prior to v ..M'%. a. ,,..y: initial criticality, and no evidence was adduced to indicate that it must be.. 4 $,.1 ' ", j 'Ihe principal function of the SPDS is to aid control room operators during i
Q., ',
.,e abnormal and emergency conditions in determining safety status of the plant and t S.y, ., 'l in assessing abnormal conditions that may require corrective actions to avoid a y
.i degmded core.
,. b P,. 9 .c ,',,1 The Seabrook Station SPDS is not in full aamali-with the requuements s l hic '.3 .t I t' ^ 5,@,..r. c s . ; c*,j. '1o (and guidance) provided in NUREG-0737,' Supplement 1, because of certam r ,A 11 [; 7.,- <, ? .3...,, u g 'l.. 9~C i /<}..- deficiencies of disparate severity found by the NRC Staff in its revaew of the operatmg bcense application. (See Pdg. 27, hpa.) *!he severity of deAciences J ' : q.f e q.. a gc.p";p,s - 3 -.2'. 7 ranges from those in "g'Ma=ea" items, i.e., vnnhade of achieving perdcular U E*Q. p. /; Q7.. ; G.., (;
m..-
functions or operations (deficiencies 5, 8, and 9), to absence of minimum or .:..#..:. j g g y, n e ,; y!y
g.g :.' '.,3 J'.,h 4..;.
wzd u~ n {p
8
'. 7.*
f **... 8,.l l, p,.,
8"!M.h W rm % ha'hm p p hggg Ay', : "" '"' " " I"" N N * "W k i j s,..
$../, * )
I' .,? ?8. * = p , ' r gg4 .,'(r S f r.*, L e N-*..- ,i
q s
, I.,j n, * ,i-i Y ,. 'F ". i e". " G, q .,e A 6.'
m...
N ',..f. i * ' ,,y.p.y~..~y,.-.,.... n v.. >* rj ,.n .g -, -n ,.,. y,; dv, y e.. . 3..
', 4.
s
3
'4 ..e g> g, ;, w.
9.,;; 4 ; e W.
+ r... q 4..,., ."'.*,.',x e 4 ,e ~,,. ",.d". o . ~4,.'l m.. a p 'a, A * 's.4 . :,T'. f, l." * % fs j3 .s*' m W n ?.', [y L .c.*. w.y yy 2,'g Je..".y'.*i.' . " ^ n ' in '., '(. I '.(.g ".p, f 4 'ds,; , ?Q - :.. A ' L %. o. ~. ' ; ll: M 4m.,e n. g%:.4W'',;. t $.;.n.l q.y & ? % :p; a.
;.TA r
,j'4y
j' I
,.'. ' [ "f.[ ^f i ( . Q . i, 4 .d:y }. a . g Q e. n. M,. x..'...g ,,..:s:. :n. n.i n..,. 3-m,,m., e. w4v v. 4,.. ,1g%,m,.v.. w, , av ...w, % &. 3,.,,.. :.* .w ,js ,, r, at,., < .t.e.. k.... i s J sy t ^ n. ,* %,, r a. * ,.w.., 9 g o., ,t. .J. #, ,.e 4 . %,,,;. g y r e a.y
,..J,v
^ r l..l., ^. c x:, p,p..y. x. .,.y : .u n y y. ., %.). n. -..,. .eQ w ; *e' 3 ;, f.,.. t o.r, s.1 J :t s u e-c. .r e ~... t ,,~ ww.. w.. r. c.- ..+. n
l e. l . +t - i' - + s. h;, - 'f S 4.i j. )g:,U,d, 1%
s.
'y,,,.., 'e %y& + + -L n v y; me. 3-.g n 4e a.3 t e, e 7 t. e
,.

, f e ).; + c
.) f is 4 s' ' k,' '. :;q. ',
q w
-.~ ., g.. + ]- ,a
m, e.
r' 1 ... a.:. L... --.w ',i ch ..y
J,' <
'e s M. A. 'j ] .p.?., ', ,f I .a ; g v. ',I .t.
Q. c.
> 3),Qf critical plant variables specifically required by NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, as h,, $g"ny,.h; y, , y, .] @]- part of the SPDS displays, e.g., absence of displays for residual heat removal (RHR) flow and containment hydrogen concentration variables (deficiency 2). @j, j C *.g /. j.yy,.). 3(pq W;J: pej.;th,, @y*g, ,J [, r,
d
.y One SPDS deficiency (No. 7), which had been fully resolved before the hear-k g.f. i ing, involved proper isolation of nonsafety-grade circuits of the SPDS from the Cass IE systems to protect the safety systems from possible interference. Ex-r;, y"i N Y . f -,, 5'- [^f IP V K,f'?';c,,ufh., 4M, istence of this deficiency, which is controlled by requirements for safe intercon- /. 9 *.,
y. >
nection of safety-and nonsafety-related systems as well as by SPDS require- .,.3, j. - f.3 'f 'ft ments, was one of the main reasons that impelled this Board on September 15, e P '. 'J q;,l .c, d (,.t. ',, ' (,}4@p - l,t
1 1986, to order adjudication of the status of the SPDS. LBP-86-30, supra,24 j
NRC at 446-47. Evidence of the resolution of this item received at the hearing i was uncontmverted, and the resolution is described in Appendix 8 A of Supple- !,[ [ *'<[,$,,' [.{, " [. - .j
,. -.; *. W G
~ 7. >;. : ment 6 of the SER.
3,.
g p t ".. "niis Board has not attempted to make any independent evaluation of the rel-p ',%;,jif:[,[,[.. s.':0. '... ? s;' ative safety signifmance of individual deficiencies; indeed, the record would not j ~ ,[ completely support such an evaluation. Instead, we have relied upon NUREG-( 9 4 9 D.Q.!'J. ua 9 0737 which sets forth certain requirements for the SPDS and describes some y(,.' @'$'::* m: -l of the critical safety function requirements as " minimum information to be p*o-vided, for which the Staff has identified a nummum set of twenty plant param-
/ ~< ;,*,. ;
.j eters that it believes to be sufficient to provide plant operators with information , ; c ".. ' j about the critical safety functions. The general standard for resolutions that we ' /, ' ; *,,., % 3 '3 -9 l
J., $- 6.5" ", j '. i. "
'l have applied is that each of these specific SPDS requirements shall be met, or that equivalent alternative means for the control room operating personnel at 6 ,4 the prime SPDS station to obtain the information, shall be implemented prior .X j to wation at levels exceedmg 5% of rated power (except for deficiency 11 .e, t .l discussed below). We have determined that three of the deficiencies (Nos. 5, 8, M J +* g '~ . j and 9) have been largely resolved between the Staff and Applicants as to how o', best to achieve certain functions or operations. Indeed NUREG-0737 merely (,- lE provides guidance and does not mandate how to achieve these ends. Similarly, [;, '... j a 9' we could find no clear requirement in NUREG-0737 for SPDS availability cal-y ,f./,- j l [! j ' - '.9f$. ~ culations (deficiency 10). We, nevertheless, present our findings with respect to i. j ', ' "),S-l ;i the deficiencies 5,8,9, and 10, infra. '. /, f With regard to deficiency 11, the tests that must be conducted to determine .i,).,:,h; %,.J [',, L i,.. f SPDS computer response time are required by NUREG-0737, but meaningful "i ~ 'h,6 i, - (*-j f[t p y,y.:.7.. iq tests or statistics from computer response times must await plant operations
)
., l at power levels when significant total loads are placed on the main plant computer. In the interim, public health and safety will not be adversely affected .l ;,h. h q}j {i'~ j." cf".Ql,7 ;, ' ' l.
by the unknown system response time under heavy computer loading because
( p...,e I ;;; the SPDS will be functional and available, and operating personnel are required y ".'...r g y{ f
p ' ;:, f,
c. :d,4.
I ' /,*W[h ";i ' M ,i' to verify any SPDS indications prior to taking any actions on them. Applicants l q], [; have made the commitment that, prior to restart following the first refueling [, f, ) 6 -),.; J.
1. ?.Q h..l.1,.f Q' ',f
/ l 3,. outage, load tests shall have been conducted to determine response times for ll. c T p. t 1 < - s.,21 ?i'~, :*'s.' :/ U w ,? 1:0, ti ~ 7xya p.,. e. - lW
e /.; :P.,.
W 1, l 185 t}; .. " h '.y 1 j.f'.' 'p .m s~> 5', r 4W .1 &;*'g'.m,. <y ,? i. !f s i,,", t 9 k ,c . s 6 ~ I' 4,. ,,,.e..,,.,j.,, a , *+ g _ $,p
f..}
,8, '} r 18 6 y hl T h. {. ); *
4,Y
, " ' _ ~ l "~h A-Jif i% ,y~ n ?:$. g $p * ;,%;b y lb 4,s. ,~c.,,. 9 ' b J.-. ~' .~ q.. -,,, u.gg&y, re l h;( 'm : % p i n M.;q, g p g ;.,q:.p% e.wwg
.. m,. r Q
y}c;.. m g a & ;m. w...,. W n.r.. gg o.g 9.g;;?,. 9g.j g..., ?. ~y , p 'gI;,y;4,g a a -e
pg~
j W..-. a-
m._ %'}.}%2:.;M[@WW:?fyy&QEW,&.dQ"%&f%%f 1,f Y %.% j,,, O h -L., .~ Q.lN W Q'.}j&f f-y, E b, eh&y;:W'.f-l %i W M ,g-f p$;y, ig'! gQ Q y;,, ng.yj g> ;.,,..g ;,g..qqXg.t.gggJy,w. e. y. gig,.y .;; !c. ,p.1 +. .a. ..p.. e '-~n'..q,>,,'....,.. ,1 .3..- ~.s ..,s . s. N ;., f .;a. . s .a.a .,., y,, n,, e g x w..~. s ..t a. a.. .r.- u;y g .., %, r 3 ,,c. ,F ,b ,'[ '.N, p G r C ,' x ],. , ~ .yv e t ,- c ')., g;c v., ...[ "".jf TM SPDS indications, sufficient to evaluate SPDS priority requirements on the main 1. e, n >J ,... n. k.. i, 4. @x, f. plant com.puter. r(
G.r.$ '..
W.l With respect to two of the minimum plant variables identined by the Sdf ' g,' :7. fl.7,@q'y% )/ as essential to the provision of information on critical safety functions as '[ , w. /.%,., 2 MQ.y.pg. ' a required by NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, viz., residual heat removal (RHR) b [ N.(.. 6 Aow and containment hydrogen corsus.i. ion vanables (de6ciency 2), we fmd 6 'M.'.,'JS.:a,,A.?#1%]$g,f'. . S./
j that Applicarts have not met their burden of showing that public health and j'
,5,%. "..ilY:O QiA.JZfM4l* y safety will be protected if addition of these vanables is deferred until restart f 4 ... J....W:. Dj. M. following the Arst refueling outage. Accordmgly, we impose a condition on the + ]c,. o .;;; ; Q.,p! . operatmg heense to requite addition of these indications to the continuous SPDS displays prior to operation above 5% of rated power. il,
<.,.Q[jb;
'l M., ' t., 4 . The requirements addressed in de5ciencies 3 (readability of the contamment : !? j.n;.{,.'-, is i
..?'
,;, f t isolation display) and 4 (location of monitors that display steam-line' radiation 'l; .c.. ' i'. y ' y.,. (. l ',. 1,'.. ~ -j and vent-stack radiation g. rwWn) constitute three other minimum plant pa-( f ..JJ
V W ". f,1 '
11 rameters identi6ed as essenual to the provision of critical safety function vari-J 7, /g 'f l ables. The Applicants aver that improvements, already made'to'the arrangement E f 7.' y~
&..";5],
of lights that indicate containment isolation valve status, provide to the oper. E . J' 9 .,. L.j ator at the prime SPDS location the information on contamment isolation that-f j.*s., # 3.p 3 t,j is required by NUREG-0737, Supplement 1. With regard to the location of the { two esserWal rn&ntion monitorri, Applicants have committed to establish a ra-o .7.g g [@ .g diological control screen on the SPDS prior to plant operation above 5% of A ~~ i(.,.?.'.j rated power. While this screen will require a selection button to call up the-8' V f,,
1. p. y,i radiation rnonitors, the same information is displayed an arm's length behind y,,q.y *,.,. " _
the SPDS station on the Radiation Data Management System (RDMS) displays, y ,.J.' A. which have auditory alarms that sound if radiation levels exceed a designated ? . 5%... l. ( 4 i set point. We fmd that the nearby auditory alarms adequately compensate for the l,i lack of continuous display of the radiological control screen on the SPDS. Thus ' f -(f Q '.' l1., -
.i.
o .I .g we And that the corrections already made and the commitment to implerrant I Cy I corrections described by the Applicants, when veri 6cd by the Staff, will provide - .j J 9 1,. '.i....., .., "..,,[ M,. 3 (.; c: reasonable assurance with respect to these three SPDS essential requirements. i ' yJ' -
Q Y.A S;r $
that the health and safety of the public will be guisied (Lring operations M .V _ f..., 4.[], 3 the radiological control screen r.' the SPDS be implemented, as committed to, above 5% of rated power. We impose a conlition on the operating license that - 'g.;' 'fl @g. ;.
7. ;,.j
.;:N 2 M,. ' i J J Pnor to operauon at power lereis above 5%. We consider Staff veri 6 cation of [I r.f,; :/ 6. M,9 % G., these corrections, and others described below, to be ministerial tasks. j ~.:.;;; v.3M,NM}f,, ' /.; . Applicants have committed to correction of another de6ciency (No.1), the. /#.. '. ' '...j 'Q.. b>2 /. ' lack of continuous display of SPDS vanables, as required by NUREG-0737 .d ', 2 Q.f.';?g W/: Suppiement 1. Two alternative approaches to meeung this is@.a.r.; were ij [i.h W.# J@.c.! '.. '? 4 TO'O.Cf; 'd : .~ tl* h ] d described by the Applicants. (See Fdg. 30, infra.).We And, and so condition the 1 ? ( ". %. x'.) [.. h.Gy @ f C y ,(. ', ' ; . [,,.d. T,.ph,}}a rated power, and sub).ct to Staff veri 6 cation, will provide reasonable assurance lice.nse, that either alternative, if implemented prior to operation above 5% of f ..'.y <\\ .s e
x.'.n-s,,. u -e.
!.n..,. e a, u '.6, < * 's.l-. W.q., a;.,e.y,;.',, n, r s.. f;, O ' 'g c
a..
j. ?. 186 5 .i c < c bj E'e ,",*)"*
.ie1
m...
b,- n, ,2 'p.
k.*.,f L
.b., .WDl'***"'**'"~*' ..L % **** *"," ' M * :" 1
J ' 3'W W, W

* *fe. ' ' '.
t
s. q,,f,p. 3,.Q W ;; ;_n % %w@, y,$,D.. '..... w

n '
.b.: . e 7. g geg x .9 'p e w ,a
s. a m
e. 1,. k ;.4
g.,
l,s.,, .f ' j[ . %. : %,.L Qv. t;* [.,W,a,".,.. V y )..* ;. ., e,, - r m' + .. ~ J -M.. >* 4.y. %u,, 1
1.. ;y J, 3 -
1
3., '
y;.~
,L,., l +. 7;,,'J. j h,,;.L; . g .? 2., . c.. w t. n, .,,.-s V .y'. f 4c'- f. y g ~ l i.3'.'y 4 .w og..,,.S. , 'a.. ? es e s e / f 'f.f. g f. s, b; j ,4-J. w 's m 1 l d ..b ',1 ' q* ' *k ' m. _.a... a c._ i s, 2 l s t Y t ~ that the requirement that the SPDS display be continuous will be met and that f - ~., +-G public health and safety will be protected. Also see deficiency 4, supra. 1y- + .', 1 <. 4 1 .. [ O 23@ Two SFDS displays, the subcriticality and core cooling status trees, had been Di '.4 ; .c. ' K. f found to be capable of providing erroneous indications of the status of these [. f'6- '-( N.- 7 L % [ Q 1
7
-@/
critical safety functions at normal operatir g power levels. 'Ihe Applicants have {',. e 7, w. f)s 4',,',y j ! corrected this deficiency (No. 6) so that the status trees will function properly
,j,,
- - 6 y,"W t h 'U ' at all power levels or requisite operational modes. Subject to verification of the j-corrections by the Staff, we fmd that this deficiency is resolved. p ', '7s ~ - - -- ?T "'N.~A % deficiencies (Nos.1, 2, and 4) cited by the Staff in SSER-6 that must be V' 1 } 47h~ a We are imposing license conditions with respect to three of the SPDS -(~ / i' 4- /' . j corrected prior to plant operation above 5% of rated power. With regard to A the other cited deficiencies we find that Applicants have demonstrated that any h; f-}_ needed correction of certain of them may be deferred until the first refueling outage without adverse impact on public health and safety, and that the remainder r already have been corrected in a manner that we find will protect public health and safety. Our findings on these corrections already made by Applicants is y"'/ y' M I N # '~T. W j contingent upon verification by the Staff. i. F C. Electrical Equipment Environmental Qualification Time h c Duration (Fdgs. 48 90) As set forth in our Findings of Fact, infra, assisted by its contractor, the NRC Staff made a preaudit review of the Seabrook Environmental Qualification program. Approximately 112 equipment qualification files (EQFs) were exam-l ined. The contractor's report, showing many deficiencies, was sent to the Staff i 4 in a memorandum dated February 21,1986. The Staff's reviewer had received a copy of this preaudit report sometime prior to February 21. Prior to conduct-ing the environmental qnnHfication audit, the Staff's and its consultant's review team members met with the Applicants and discussed each of the deficiencies t found during the preaudit review. Applicants agreed to correct these deficien-3 ~ ~ ~ ~ cies. Between February 24 and February 27,1986, the review team conducted I an audit - some of the twelve EQFs audited were chosen to determine if Ap-i plicants had corrected the deficiencies as they had previously agreed to do. The results of the audit, recorded by the Staff in a Meeting Summary dated April ~ ",., e 11, 1986, reficcted that specific deficiencies were found in six of the twelve files audited. In Supplement 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued July 1986, .~ ' the Staff noted that the Applicants had " proposed acceptable corrective mea. .J sures in the form of additional information and file revision to climinate the I< .,... V:. ' i - ~ 1, deficiencies cited." The Staff concluded in Supplement 5 that "on the basis of l the results of its review and subject to confirmation that all audit deficiencies - have been corrected, the Staff concludes that the Applicant has demonstrated ,,j; - compliance with the requirements for environmer;al qualification as outlined in .(. y-o l ~ =,. " l 187 ~ t l ID I ~ o. ="p,g ' [,, .-e,,. _m y ..e; f* 9...yj g y - 4, '..g.,,,;'[%.,g.[ s .g 3 j er s A l [ a'.)q.,]Q*-$ l$f ~ ~ l '."y ? - >:. l... c - y r-h'., 3 j <[ ,l,;,p}. w]$. ' ' gm...,w,,s:.3. $*, r'4 j,,, . :.;,.. w. ; ng%,,, pq -.gg,, y.4p - ew g.wa.r e - +. ~ I y.g v.m.x y l
W"g,".W.N.,, W..i ;~W...:. H.%e...N.,rh.j,(l..M '.5f.N..$ T C }k&g$$$r;& N.S 5{! D, Q 6, .g. ,.j,;g;
f. e f.,
e
$y@M, c ],&-. 6.%.M r.
!.b ~ w m.&. D.. %4 K L p. 'p? c&.. ,. ~ N 4 m,?,, ssr ".%. 9 +.y? '.Y'.. ~. M$p s& .W. . s .&;, sA.g.+,:- W :' a%s Q,yM.,, 3 ..e ',y.,.F,9.s.' 'b,"> 7.%; ;y.., .d .. 4 ' e ;.: 2 7: - n .'.e...r.e tv O.*.' +. '
r...

c. P. 3i W

e. -
c >- J U -N 9 o sO.
s...
. u. n,.
n j...t
- M .m ..m,.,:, .,9.--.,.. ~ , a,.m,.. is. + p.. ,r ..e,... q .,.:p p j., - ~ 9: s. g..,, , :. n. s
3..
): .w.
L.
, : ::lf U.k.. :.. q:,, : y ' N.' 3
;,~ 3,'; *d 0588.* 'Ibe Staff has received a letter from the Applicants notifying it that all M ,.qs:.y
.,,. y..

3.. i de6ciencies have been corrected and that the SQFs have been changed to reflect U O.M)W:N,j W U D..*@ these corrections. $.i ~> $ j. M A '.f.b9 6' M l'h, ? M: :,M l f[.%)'.. '/C NECNP has abandoned one aspect of this contennon - viz., that Applicants' 1 'y S

" S.

ermmnmental qualification of electrical equipment program is deScient in failing d r a J....$ Md.l.j to specify the time duration over which the aq@rnant is qualined. As to this L. 4.}. >,[,@.,l y ~; l..,' ~ f., p p f. % aspect of te contention, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the-p c 3'. ( d $';\\,J;' '.*'y.) [(^ "l';: J'M t.14,J J postaccident quali6 cation time duration for electrical equipment important to ,q 3 g

,f i l safety at Seabrook, which is required to be environmentally quallned under j

...J' } General Design Cnterica 4 of Part 50, Appendix A, and 10 C.F.R. I 50.49, has .], "j been specified for a period of 1 year following a postulated accident, or, in the N ~.a' T f: 1,. y .l. ' j. alternative, for the time required to perform its safety function plus a margin, 1 _ cf as speciSed in Position C.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.89. Revision 1. ' 4 , y. 'j: I I,gl 1 J However, as to a second aspect of the contention, NECNP pmceeds to urge / that Applicants' EQFs do not contain either complete or accurate h=ntation y [ demonstrating that each safety component is capable of performing its safety '.r,.. a. function for the duration in which it is required to be functional during an acci. ] 4 .. ' o y' ] dent. It argues thus that Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurance 7 L- .g. ( that Seabrook's safety equipment car. survive an accident for the requisite du-d; ration. In support of its position NECNP alleges first that five of Applicants' l ?. 3 s environmental qualincation files reflected deficiencies and that the " systemic and l. . c. e r + f,7 pervasive nature of Applicants' noncompliance with the NRC's environmental o .f 12.. . ' ~, quali6 cation requirements is confirmed by the NRC audit," in which six of the /, L 4',.y twelve equipment gnawadan files audited by the NRC Staff showed deficien- ~,. ,. 7, ~f., cies. It also alleges that the Staff's sampling technique was flawed in examining t.1 [, (, ', 7 only twelve equipment qualification files. (NECNP Brief at 9,10.) Finally, it

t,' t.h..;b./..

. e...,4...'g. A, alleges that, given the large number of de6ciencies found during the preaudit, .p+w p it was premature to begin the audit until the extensive corrections found at the gy M.,. p. >. ?..-- ..i 4. preaudit stage had been effected. (NECNP Prop. Fdg. 84.) .f,.I h O 'O i 'NECNP's first allegation is without merit since its basis is faully Except for J, 7 7 f 'i.?,.~.,D /} '...?... 7 a missing maintenance requuement document in one of the five files alleged .j N,N ;, ch, by NECNP to be deficient, there is no evidence that the equipment listed in t.1 '( .,,j y.7 . de. f, %. y ?;, s hf the five challenged files was not properly qualified or that the files failed to 4 5';.Y M.S M U. 4..c M[. g J9 meet the recordkeeping requirements of f 50.49. We have directed in our Order, j 'F,;dd[MM8[. 94 4 infra, that the missing mamienance requirement GM be supphed. As to l Q ' qC'; the six file deficiencies found during the audit of the Applicants' EQFs, four < f M"qQ.f.fq{pM;$f g f;p q,bc$g T.p';. merely called for addition of clarifying or supportmg information already in ..p',h. g f s Q ?j...n,,.. Applicants' possession, and two called for corrections to two equipment items i: 9,0 y,y M A jr. Q.I '$p. observed during a walkdown inspection. In a letter to the Staff, Applicants have Wu T y 3.,e / .d g 7. 7 i.;,. confirmed that all file deficiencies have been corrected We do not find that ..e N 'i'3' ( C, ') *. . i,j e r. t. .w 188 f* ) V E a

j'

' $ 't 5 4 i s..' O] ); r r 1, n vl.,L '

y *.- ~..~ v er-- -.~.~... ;

.a .L =p, l ,, :.. - :. w;. r.. i;-.9. ~., : 5. y y.-, .J ~. -~s., .w. ,4'i 1 ' l. 1 't. 'l.7. 4%;c* . ~.x j q. s.. J .,e .;, h,A*** ?j.' /, s /. j .,(. $4 s' A^ 'm k ~ T,.e k ;j'y; +_ " ', -.v -.j

h

.,.u. 9 p. _,., y .fi, ,k .t, %,,y;3., 3.1 M' ;:; ;:n, -.,w

4' *.y :

s ., ;, \\. .f"r

3. v.s.

.e j. .J.,

.1,-

(, ,,:y. s .q > 1. s {,,.. .. ; A.,.,,.a ' 3 3 ~. .4. .( 4 e .~.. ..;p,

e..

,e a.,,..g 3.~4

7. j.,,

w yf ' f* ..,,p. ' 7..'.#feQ l' . ' -h j, j, ,,f... .' f h./. b 'II .. y [ l% l. A . A.g jg ,n nc t6. 2 ,,,M,# 4 Y \\(n(s'hj gf a q 'e. if '.,'h3 y;.",[ 0 l[ 'z Qe .n...". W 5 ,,. ;,49 -:p, s,

4,,

r. 3.. ,p. y,. c ~ .~ 4, 6,g.,,&f ' l j;3,.M? %.;p;,g O ; _ .w@ g

cph;?rp.,-
(
ah t Q,

,M..' %,.,,. p r.j.g;- ; % q H,M yd.,nJ ,2 q.7t:,4 G. %... e g[!,.g [{ }

MW.

em,w;:. y. N; .3 p, y, z. q. * > o~ ,3, C: g. n

s.s,.,A' u

4.,. w %,;,.

m. - -
... s-

,. ~ + [ s..Y. .. c : ,, ~.;-r a . ;.l" [ ' h*y,' v ~ v c a. ,.a

9. g --

[ r. 7... ',,, ;$D. hit?'k i ~ 5 ] s4 s ,. k.%.. J ,f 1 s.; .T ' i 'd se 6 ,,. -.,; v.g, j,,, + n- ,' t '. r. ~ .; Q,. c sp ' h,'y the audit denciencies suggest, much less confirm, a " systemic and pervasive" l [k. noncompliance with environmental qualification requirements, and there is no .l.i i,dY] ' M, evidence to support such an allegation. Instead, the record shows that Applicants . Jg ~ N, yljJd have responded to the audit fmdings by correcting the deficiencies. q 7% g' y.'- NECNP's second allegation is also without merit since it lacks evidentiary support in the record. It did not present an expert witness to testify that the 4 Staff's sampling technique was flawed and it did not cite the testimony of if , c any witness called by the Staff or by Applicants in support of stch a barren. n allegation. Moreover, the record reflects that some of the twelve audited EQFs 1 j were selected to determine whether Applicants had corrected the deficiencies e; which they had agreed to do. yc 1 Finally, NECNP's third al.egation is without merit in its Proposed Finding 61, which we have adopted, NECNP asserted that the Staff generally performs an audit after it has reviewed a license applicant's equipment qualification program and concluded that it is basically adequate. (See Fdg. 57, infra.) As reflected above in our discussion of NECNP's first allegation, the environmental 'M P,.- quali6 cation program at the time of the audit was basically adequate, and thus the Staff's audit had not been conducted prematurely. 4 ,p s ' % i - In light of our discussion, we conclude that the eleven equipment qnMincation 5 M (.y, files, which had been challe.nged by NECNP during the hearing, are complete 4 r.nd accurate and thus show that each safety component is capable of performing -) S" ,, 6,' f ". ' e Its safety function for t!a duration in which it is required to be functional ,") 1S i during an accident. We also conclude that there is no evidentiary basis for the

9
, [. .n allegation that Applicants systemically and pervasively failed to comply with the Commission's environmental qualification requirements. ,..n ( Y., y 4 g.'*a t.- IIL CONCLUSIONS 4 4 < n..c... ; . + wr .1 The Board concludes that Applicants' emergency classification and action y. g r... level scheme fully satisfies the requirements of 650.47 and Appendix E of Part i' 50 and meets the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654 We conclude that, except for three SPDS deficiencies whicts must be corrected prior to plant operation above 5% of rated power, the Applicants have established /- that the other SPDS deficiencies contested in this proceeding either will have no 543 .l adverse impact on the public health and safety if corrections are deferred to the ,44 i,. .,/ ;u y ',, " . ).3 &p3.tg;: ;.~ u~. L,,&,...,.,&p[f %}% 'Q. g-g ;,, NN!.1,.y%*q)W@;g' :K 4 >, b, W.? - c . W h ; y : %;.g y M w. n p , 4,. 4 y%y. %'3 c 4,, &,L.7; r%. ; x. g w,. ,.n.m e - v ? y-w g._... n ,<j 3 e m. ,,. y,. - 4_ ,. >~ u).. m. ', y e;,.9- - a c 4 o . c. x A;., .:;~.y 'y {3,f . '. y i y el .,2 ': ., ' U J s ?- .L l e. i t
p 4
i i ~ alternative, Ihr the time required to perform its safety function plus a margin, j as specified in Position C.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.89, Revision 1. Finally, we j conclude that, except for a document absent fmm one file which we have or. i '1 .,.' iE.. '.. Q. l dered to be included, the eleven equipment qualification files, which had been L' ' ?" challenged by NECNP during the hearing, are complete and accurate and thus s show that each safety component is capable of performing its safety function for ) ,iJ [';- - t the duration in which it is required to be functional dunng an accident. 'Ihere j ,e .q is no evidentiary support for the allegstion diat Applicants systemically and ] i pervasi.dy failed to comply with the environmental qualification requirements. i 7 l i ~7 g 1 Findings of Fact' j ~. i I EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION AND ACTION i LEVEL SCHEME s i l 1. NECNP Contention III.1 asserts: I The ernergency plan does not contain an adequate emergency classi5tation and action level scheme, as required by 10 C.F.R. 4 50.47(b)(4) and NUREG 0654, in that (a) Nojusdficadon is given for the classincation of various system failures as unusual events, alerts, site area emergencies, or general emergencies. I l i (b) %e classincadon scheme minimizes the potential signiAcance of transients. i .g',! w l. / l (c) The Applicants' classi6 cation scheme fails to include mnaideradon of spucine plant circumstances, such as the andcipated time lag for evaluation due to local problems. l a + y if; (d) The classincation scheme fails to provide a reasonable assurance that Seabrook ,s onsine and offsite emergency rerponse apparatus and personnel can be brought to L*' -3 an adequate state of readiness quickly caough to respond to an accident. U' (c) he emergency acdon level sdicme fails to identify errergency action levels or .j. ; .;,p,.,E 8'.* /,. classify them according to the required responses. (f) The scheme is incapable of being implemented effectively to protect it e nublic health and safety because it provides no systemade means of identifying : onie 4 ,{ ing, analyzing, and respmding to the symptoms of transients and other indicators that transients may ocem. l i ) 3 c.
4
.3 Ihe factual background is een forth in the inueducnon to our opuum, sapra. At the close of the reopened la. [^ y 1986 heanng the Board duected the parties to Ble, and stated a party would be deemed to be in default if it did 3 e'., 4 .J aat fue, proposed Andmss of fact and conclusions of law and bnsfs and a proposed farm of order or decisian Crr.1024). Further, huar alia, the Board insuucted that propused 6ndings should be integrated and based upon
y. ' :,?i.-
J u. 4 the original (1983) record and upon the instara (1986) secord. Finally, the Board irstructed that the Angust 1983 O,,G', .s ] transcnnt should be cued as 1.Tr. followed by the page number in order to disdaginah it from 6he September-j '.,b, O. G. ~ October 1986 transenpt (Tr.1025). .,,+.i -f, .+ - na l., yI i>w A' ,i i a .i
s.,
T i. J q r i 190 'A. ~ h l 4 4 ,.4 ~.--.---,7,ecm.----.-.-- 33 -- O g.h , c c. .c I, 4 )",
s 1
m g 2 + c g r q d,,., ;,. '4, V,,o ', / v y ;g., ^ 4
. i.
.s .f . g,% y ]$ s t ,, c ! > p. Y,h W' N I l' $fp p'.t"fd' Nj)[f.'M,k M... i -., g. E f[ ' 7 ~ c%T J ~ v y,.. .m.__.. v.. 3;,, w. q 7,gy. .%7.:,q. @&, sQ.~/@ 4; qs);Q..wq p. y% . f.m-fcn,,m.,. W;ay4 4. 4,s. : ' 5., v.y m.,,1 m y< afw, [.ta.4 4,y 6 4# g}.. .a g)a 3.yry f f Q4Q.y' .. +. c g ;;y.m y '.'.;mi q;y&g [ W p,g.a.g,f,.,,f;t ..y-s \\Q 'K s,&. Q ~. HQ y o tx,, g e p u., H>ng.,::. ,. w ;. x 2 m x. m. . w-p :e g. p., ..a u.- . ;.....q:>, . y.... :. c W .y.v
3.s m m,a.s
~ ~ ps '., *q g.. .,s. .e <. y u 'y + =
s s
{,, '} '*k 4 3 P.UYwM J, {h ~_ g*, ht, v. ~ g g et u w. s 4 _,, a .g u. ~, 4 '*g. y, ,y n
9. c.
r.. k ( ~d' NH Contention 20 asserts: 'A e v. . a 's 7d,'.,, r /p ' ' '.. f; ha accident at TMI demonstrated the inability of all parties involved to mmprehend the h :.~./. 1, ]- 1 nature of the accident as it unfolded; communicate the necessary information to one another. y, i, m.f D. * *,%N', [,c _, Y to the Federal, state and local gcivernments and to the public in an accurate and timely .M; fashion; and to decide in a timely manner what course to take to protect the Sealth and i 4 37' l M 3 @. 'f K safety of it. public. The Applicants in these proceedings have not adequately demonstrated jl? @ ?' that they have developed and will be able to implement procedures necessary to assess the e , %. l.,f . C. ' affeaed government bodies, and the public, all of which is required under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 impact of an accident, classify it properly, and notify adequately their own personnel, the d[$ s' .j., ' v.'1 and f.ppendix E and NUREG.0654. rp,. %..,. p
2. Section 50.47(b)(4) of 10 C.F.R. requires that emergency plans meet the
.M., s] s following criteria: d r.. t 4 ,n. s d (4) A standard emergency classificadon and acdm level scheme, the bases of which l include facility system and efAuent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee, and i,., + 'i State and local response plans call for reliance on informadon provided by facility ticensees g- "j. '1 for determinadons of minimum initial offsite response measures. , - :s q .i,. u f 'j Part 50, Appendix E, in pertinent part, states: . ?; t m a. IV.B. Assessment Actions ~ "') d . 1 ',f ~ .], The means to be used for determining the magnitude of and for condnually assessing the 4 - ; 9 ', impact of the release of radioactive materials shall be described, including cmcrgency action ,? "/.. l- ! levels that are to be used as criteria for determining the need for notification and participation ,J'!. .. j. of local and State agencies, the Commission, and other Federal agencies, and the emergency ' ' } J, f,"d action levels that are to be used for determining when and what type of protective measures 3.*, j% , } s !y, should be considered within and outside the site boundary a protect health and safety. The C 7j emergency action levels shall be based on in-plant mnditions ud instmmentation in addidon c ,.' ?.Q, :. j '5 .c,. y to onsite and offsite monitoring. These emergency actan levels shall be discussed and agreed i'. v;,:,A 4y,).7, @,.. ; ? j [,lt on by the applicant and State and local governmental authorides and appioved by NRC. They shall also be reviewed with the State and local governmental authorities on an annual basis. a ,r q n i 7 'i
3. During the 1983 hearing, only Applicants' panel (Messrs. Ander-son, Thomas, and MacDonald) testified (ff.1-Tr.1483) and ae Staff's wit-y,' '.,F =
,/ ~ ( ness (Mr. Sears) testified (ff.1 'IY.1691). ' Relying upon cross-examination, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and New Hampshire ? 9,. '.c~ d (NH) did not present any witnesses. In the 1986 reopened hearing, addi-
;.'~
.,, y tional testimony was presented by Applicants' panel (Messrs. MacDonald and J fp 1 Thomas) (ff. Tr. 487) and by the Staff's panel (Messrs. Perrotti and Bryan) l [Y ;y s ;.; - 7 Q7 " g.)) (ff, Tc. 489). The testimonies of the two panels were incorporated into the ) n p 'n. l s, u t ' b. (g.,. ,4 [ ;* Dunne the 1983 hearing the foDowing eahibits were adnuneo into evidence: staa Enh.1 -Safety Evaluation ) 10 i, , ;'/p a ' ', ' ' , Q, >.,.M-4_ Report dated Mard 1983; sta5 Ea!L 1 A - suppl.1 to the sER dated April 1983; Staf Eah. IB - Suppl. 2 to -C."- the sER dated Juna '.983; staff Enh. 2 -Final Envuonrneual steismera dated December 1982. ) l b, ..g..i , 1: ' 'y i l <w 1 1 A m fM J t 3 - .y }. 4 l 191 y h: .' ~ q 7 t i. l ts e. l< r + v 4 i L q y. s,- s I b S-P .P g 3 i., 4, 4 i .A. 4 's g' ,.e, m.- a ==4 y m, g.9y y_ ,3 e ' g * (%
5 "[ P M*' + f**

7
' 5 4 a {%. .[ t 3 d ?. e, ?I q 'f k ' /,, ' C 4 - d '~, f( ,g, 9 8 y' y L C- / N,.4 a f L :g, .., ' - p'
) 5 y g 8[,. ' '
w 17l s [.e "? M [v;.7"'.2 ' 5 .e d, JU% k,. i l' c
4. "
4, / ,7 ~ yi, l y e ~ y. .) ( $ l.",., I w-r, 9 .,g < p.,. s u fy ', ].c N, J . r* ' %
If 9 Q.*
A , t ' le: n,, .. *n ~.C h, ) m%,.,, ls> '5., p, .~ m-. ~, ... w x ? (y.,,],," fu V - ,l i My ,vs, e ,p ur' <,+%, a 6 t .r 4' F', e.. I g 1 ..4 3.f.:.. :, y. , l. - y,,,.. yllqq:u'f. p,,,,,,~ g,m ;* .s ..Wqy f: &:g.
j,
.i
8.iQ - p g< j,34,p m. Z,.].

f

% 1,

, v.
...y;7 ,,4 . c,%.. ;.,r :.e ; t c .u~)y. f.# ' m.U ~ s.n ro. e.,,, yv s,,7.;,.T ' .a ' % [ '; ?,t' ai. W.;p :g, ;,,,; g 'g.o m ~ p
~ ;; &.7..g.
,4, 3 j q., .. j, A .j .,g. g s r 4 g ,.- w 'A a .e (.A y, .;p,%.. 'j c s ~. z m a
w %,'
Ath$ i record by stipulation (R. 485-87; Tr. 489) and no cross-examination ducted. Only the Applicants and the Staff 6 led proposed findings of " N $$7.$[. O ,i A L.', clusions of law, and briefs with respect to NECNP Contention f s a l 7.~ S
4,M(;y,.'@ h,'
Contention 20.An emergency classification and action level scheme is enable responsible personnel in the control room to recognize a 4 .' j c b;.$j ; - L ' 4 l> e c '.'( ;,q'f.. an emergency of a particular category or severity so that ons c f emergency response organizations can be j.%.Y : C j . m - [ ' 4.- { F y., 1-Tr.1495 97; Sears,1 'IY.1700-03.)
3. q.-g 74

5. The emergency classification and action level scheme for

c.... t Q f,'
set fonh in Applicants' Radiological Emergency Plan was Srst 27,1983. De to the NRC and to all the parties to the proceeding on June i c.'I' k . j J' ;, ' L scheme utilizes a symptomatic approach to emergency recog ~ cation. (Appl. Exh.1, ff.1 'IY.1483, at 5-1; MacDonald,1-TY.1486 Nl,, ,t quent amendments were made to the schem Mf r ^ " i-l-l 6. unusual events, alerts, site of component or system failures into four classes: d area emergencies, and general emergencies. An unusual ei et is \\. ( condition indicating a potential degradation of station safety ma ) [', ". _ ^ -,, to affect personnel on site or the public off site. An alert indica degradation of station safety margins whi 'O f J*I l F, f public protective action. A site area emerg [ l..,, ', 4 p,;. %,. :... /l / y,s ; ". ' P public. A general emergency indicates substantial core d.fr ). .;,. q f with potential for loss of containment integrity. (Appl. Exh.1, ff , ;'. y' p *,.,,', :.j I 51 and 5-2.) The four classes of events included in th V ": h j consistent. with the classes identified in NUREG-0654, Appendix 1. c, .., - t :.. 7.g ;... e Q. ; *p.' f 1,' a i. ..i'. The symptomatic approach used at Seabrook is a result o [j performed by the Westinghouse Owners Group. This app 7. i w,' monitoring of five critical safety functions and the recognition of va M (.,'i,f V s}s of challenge to said functions. (Appl. Testimony, ff.1 TY.1483, a .r - J i, *, subcriticality, core cooling, heat sink, reactor y l' * ) ~ - five critical safety functions are: 1." h,.j coolant system integrity, and containment integrity. Color-coded sta s 1'f.! based on plant events that pose a threat to the safety status of W X %lj,;p, . f '. j been developed for each of the critical safety functions.Dese tre g% ' y operators of the plant in emergency classi , ( ' ,Q.pMJ, ]
fj i
, l T.. . ' N..,M. 9 -M 1,, s Z M,*:.'. h;!- .d ', ab "Tb8 acant takes OniciAl DeLiC0 Or penmes Comatuasion's NUREos and Resu .Y,.' f' i r n ' ,m .R .g* 'g,, aE,emq s , (), ' '.*5.y.y /'., kj 3 y t 192 .4 '. f a . 5' ./V. j',e, v
l.,s E
a i [e *
i j + 7 4,a.
~ $ i, ',. q'.j ....._m ,i 5 E **.,e 4 l ^4 e S '.%.e,.. e y, ~,> t m. ',.y ;j),, " 4
. ' L. ~
. ~ rp
f
- l-h.y j f .s.s q ~v .l
p.
, * ~. #,[ ,e 'e /) , p f,, ~.. (e s; M F. +.. a i s n / ',ny; 9 3 j h I y :.J w.< 3. q.:;, yjp,gg,,g.;, g,3,,. ~4,,@s i. T ,a. J ; / h..;.t.,m# g i.,,.. g/W..,.. ,y . :g/g. .j$.gy,.s.cf,,..v.;,.. s ,4 .. p..qu gy . si g g. ,".9 4 .s .j.y.. .c. "g. y4[. $ 3,,';. [+ 2; m..D.]g ...c qg,j g wSe. p. g y f g< > , o g,
q. z
./ ,e m.,. t 4
r.
'y ,,,i, a ..J., g . s. "yk '. J.,, y ,j g ,d w .f kJ s. + a \\ y,, r s 2 -X r ~* 2, a ;' > a. ., l. ;g. ,.y the operator as green (safety-function satisfied - no operator action indicated), j 3 ] y.? 4 ;J4, ) yellow (function not fully satisfied - action may eventually be needed), orange { (function under severe challenge - prompt action necessary), or ved (function l .; C/.' W; in jeopardy - immediate action required). (Appl. Exh. i., ff. Tr,487, Figure ] N d j ? ' k C.1, s, m' . j,1 5.6.) The classification scheme at Seabrook relates the status of the critical 1 ; ! 5: f,@.g 5 safety functions to the four emergency action classifications. (Id., Figures 5.1 l p@9 a :, $g "I through 5.5.) j D,
i. GL 8.
In addition to the status of the five critical safety functions, Applicants' j scheme takes into account thirteen miscellaneous emergency conditions (Id., j _J." 1. ',y ' },l ' 35 ' * ), Figure 5.6). Each of these conditions is related to at least one of the four [i 5 ~ p d emergency classifications. (Id.) f f 4 'l 9. He NRC Staff had reviewed the framework of the emergency action j c l level scheme utilized at Seabrook and had found that framework to be accept-l +' able at the time of the 1983 hearings. (Sears,1-Th 1699-1700.) The frame-l 's /. t 4 ' MF' ' l work as described in Findings 6-8, above, fully meets the requirements of 10 ) ,i C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(4) and Part 50, Appendix E.
10. At the time of the 1983 hearings, the Applicants' emergency classifica-
/ tion and action level scheme was not yet complete. De testimony introduced in ) 1986 indicated that the system is now complete. (Appl. Testimony, ff. 'It 487, j l at 3; Staff Testimony, ff. R. 489, at 4.) The Staff completed its review and { I evaluation of the Applicants' scheme and provided its detailed evaluation of . Y,. ~ '.-).'y the EALs in SER Supplement 4, May 1986. (Staff Exh. 4.) Subsequent Staff l " l, (!
j inspections verified that the corrective actions, identified in i13.3.2.3 of Sup-l
- M. J-plement 4, have been completed. (Staff Testimony, ff. Th 489, at 4.) The Staff I [ V, -,. y,.,;. t <*I concluded in its review that Applicants' emergency plan provides an adequate d planning basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness with regard f(K
y. '
to the emergmcy classification system planning standard of $ 50.47(b)(4) and 7 g..L f^ 4 i.- f ; .k.d..f 'If,.t. * ? the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654. (Staff Testimony, ff. Th 489, at 4 Staff
h. c; j., :i M m Exh. 4, i 13.3.2.3.)
l ,, 4 , t,. g ls!.{
11. Based on the evidence adduced in the 1986 hearing, the Board concludes 4
that @e open items that were discussed in the hearing in 1983 have now been ^ p.,..;. fJ ' ',V- 's satisf acterily resolved. In particular, the Board finds: H 'M a. All the Seabrook-specific set points for the critical safety function status trees have now been selected. (Appl. Testimony, ff. 'It 487, at 4; ~
.j[.y y<y
..o y'T ,'[1 Staff Exh. 4 at 1310; cf. MacDonald,1-TL 1489-91,1511-13,1544-45; Thomas,1 ~It 1516-23,1545.) t n i., V1 1., , wl b. Applicants have now incorporated indications and alarms from 'jfy- .[ 1 six different condition monitors as emergency action levels. (Appl. Tes- ~ l. e'..). n. timony, ff. Tr. 487, at 4; Staff Exh. 4 at 13-10 and 1311; cf. Sears, .jv.? W d.!' 1 'It 1717-20.) q f ',f" fQ, wn,? tween their emergency action levels and NUREG-0654. (Appl. Testi-c. Applicants have now performed an acceptable comparison be-M3 e,(.r ..). ' y :e a. 1, i. y.. r. ;l q> 1 .4..- 5.J: - t 193 s-g, .,',...e g. [ .lj j 3
Jg&
r.. ~,. ..g ~ g 7, q.;n ! y w, +,_ .,. A s, s V u ,e n s f ",V .f .c 'r i e n e ' ~(',% .h, . "3 - / c .4.% .Qi
V ',
\\. i 4 p ) ) g 7' I.t - ' _dl g}* 1[ i M ' .t y ' j\\'; ,i s 'l-, e f m s 2 ,11 . ' R,.4,;h%p: s,. s & ' '?Q' W - n. h'n..,.s:;'l' Q. a.-M R:...s, i x
a4;.:, -
' %.,&..,J;. ..+ ..<1 - v. a ; M(?,;u.-~,,.
w
, -. 4 y
;.+;
+ .8.~. a .w x.p R- ,, s,, -.
r s-ym s,,.
3- .:y . L %..m2 . o n; 17',. a. m.; * $,, hy.s;. ; '. t
.r
- 1.. 4 L 'ri, /g. ,( 3 w* + c -1 f,...Q j/S'.1Q,i 41 'tg
~ ' '"
s { -;. 4.... 5..y,.f J,.w 1 /
7 3ga.

i . 4 i M@, y s mony, ff. Tr. 487, at 5; Appl. Exh. 2, ff. Tr. 487; Staff Testimony, l Ff ff. Tr. 489, at 5; cf. Sears,1 Tr.1717-20.) 7 isf. ;f d. Applicants have now completed the training of operators in the p;, f.);' use of the emergency action levels. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 489, at 5; j r.* A W 6 cf. MacDonald,1 ~1r.1506-08, and Sears,1-n. l'i.1-13.) i ', ' 'M
12. Applicants have also revised their treatment of fire and control room
',Q. ..A evacuation events so that the treatment is now consistent with the guidance (.Q;h,{ ' 4 ', ;, i,
5..E g contained in NUREG-0654. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 489, at 5-7.)
j ,y
13. Finally, training on the Seabrook Station emergency classification sys-J 2 e Gd,. >,I' F '..
] tem has also been provided to representatives of the State of New Hampshire (.I,a 3 -
"k.
Civil Defense Agency and Department of Public Health Services. Both agencies f ;t. N. l , 4 have indicated their agreement with the procedure used to classify emergency - 7 , s 3;,,.j '[ [", ' T fj conditions. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 487, at 4.) i s. ~ 4 + ' ' - ~ SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM .s f-., x c..".. W{ [ ' ,'c New Hampshire Contention 10) challenged the adequacy of two aspects of [.
14. As originally admitted, SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 (formerly
^ i S the Applicants' control room d'esign, i.e., the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) and the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS). Following l '4 this Board's partial granting of summary disposition with respect to the DCRDR i p* issues, the surviving portion of this contention with respect to the SPDS asserted:
,,. ;i
'Ibe Seabrook Station control room design does not comply with NUKEG4737, item I.D.2. .r /; ' 'r We further focussed the issue in controversy as: l e l
,,' ':Q
,j [Slh * 'w SPDS is not cunently at an optimum,i.e.,inco:nplete,in light of the deficiencies 1 e wit .,e listed in Draft t.icense No. NPF-56 at C.9 and in light of five additional deficiencies 't I,', ',. ! o >;, '. #.,. e,. / which will be listed in Supplement 6 to the SER, [is there] reasonable assurance that. '. j in deferring ims,-. ;. to the SPDS untit the first refueling outage the safety of the j popdation in the immediate vicinity of the plant will be protected? N,. ,S A. e,,..,. f (Board Memorandum and O, der, LBP-86-30, 24 NAC 437,447 (1986).)
15. NUREG-0737, dated November 1980, is a letter to licensees of op-erating power reactors and applicants for operatmg licer es forwarding post-l
%, sf. ; * +; r t TMI requirements that have been approved for implementation (NUREO-0737 .,4..& at lii). Requirements for implementation of the SPDS are included under item
l I.D.2 in NUREO-0737. The implementation schedule for the SPDS is shown
$P.$U.',. ' [
'g'g.
i,l y./.,q. 'J.,"/ i ',4 as TBD" (to be determined) rather than as required before operation at some s g p ((' j. f... ',' ' 'f 's. c 1' specified power level, or prior to a fixed date, as is shown for other require-l }. ps - .',... ' f, ' 'i. ,i ments. Supplement I to NUREO-0737, dated December 17, 1982, provides 3.,. e,. c./..'.g. e .f, e.','",, Is
% L. * *,*. -.
I J.,c yg,g.
y *,',,p,,.,
- ~+,+ .j ,y. . - s - n. ., 5 /,,.; 4 ~ i s .e i i % 4 5 l 7 'S' 4f I -j r,..,. '.,. _ . ; ;.. q,.
,' ; V
, 'a - I f{,y.k ,,,f'. ,g.o a r g. ',,4 ./.. ;, 9-e r I; ' , ' p a b; s., ?
w -
p f, y 4D.. .u'., 4 ,R :. s f'
i, i'*.
A a3 :Wf..m *ag 'tL '...i .+ ,( [...,., ',M' ,p .g-i s g k f '. * ' ' e " * ' ~ L g j ~ ~ a i:~ O e.,.:,,,w w,w ,n.g; gLv&..p<e";, f,g.;&.a.%. s,fi<:.@;Q+.s. &. z ;.p::. :a:ww.,,n.c... ~.,.. ~ .v k. ., bMk,. 9.,;r $,bfN. m Mh'h'9,*rp[yhUU k l . h.hNk[Ni, [". Gk'Y, y m e, , gv v o [*N. N p,./'. g s %f,,,,QM,M QY -?7w- ,'6 ~~: <".b. ,r,4'gl? y:,qp._, R h' - V TAM.~ .~ ,j , ' y,'- =
.f
,, p 4.,. f-s, *
j
,6 4,,,3 4, .ys 4, f.:.; . s -g m s - s 9, - q. E, c. s. 3 c M.s = .s, adtitional clari5 cation on requirements for era gency response capabilities, in-cluding those for the SPDS. The requirements set forth in NUREG-0737, Sup- ' ' 9.,. p, ,' y plement 1, have been reviewed and approved by the Commission (on July 16, e a,' 1982). The document notes that the requirements therein "are to be accorded the E 4 ~ ~ ! 0,, ", ' status of approved NUREG-0737 items as set forth in the Commission's State-l ment of Policy: Ihrther Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating i lt q .l., Licenses (45 Fed. Reg. 85,236), December 24, 1980)." While NUREG-0737, 7... Supplement 1, also indicates that any schedules for implementation of require-i c ',,: j ments therein supersede previously set schedules for those items, the SPDS j y.,i - - j implementation schedule remained indefinite. (NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, at l .V ' c: - 2, 5; see Fdg.18, irgfra.) ( .t, l
16. The purpose and function of the SPDS is described as:
l ? De SPDS should prwide a concise display of critical plant variables to the control .c room operators to aid them in rapidly and reliably determining the safety status of the c 4 ? '/ plant. Ahhough the SPDS will be operated during normal operations as well as during abnormal conditions the principalpurpas andfunction of the SPDS is to aid the control room personnel during abnormi and emergency condition in determining the safety status of the plant and in assessing whether abnormal condhions marrant corrective action by operators to avoid a degraded core. This can be particularly important during anticipaud N. transients and the initial phase of an accident. NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, at 7 (emphasis added). ?
17. The minimum information required to be provided to the plant operators
'~ by the SPDS shall include information about five designated critical safety 5 ;.s functions (CSFs): 4. ? (i) Reactivity control (ii) Reactor core cooling and heat removal from the pnmary systern 7 (iii) Reactor molant system (RCS) integrity e r,,. 9
1. *,. *
(iv) Radioactivity control n. (v) Containment cmditions 1. 1 '.,] he specific parameters to be displayed shall be determined by the licensee. s + ,li c >I~ f (Id. at 8.)
18. NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, addresses implementation schedules for 3 -
g.,' - the post-TMI emergency response requirements (including the SPDS) at several aO i M'.. T 3, places. The general scheduling instructions state: .y, .'4 .i 4 P .p You will note that the enclosure does not 9ecify a schedule for completing the require- T a .. ;i. mems. h has become apparmt. through discussiuts with owners' groups and individual 1- , I. licemees, that our previous schedules dit not adequately consider the integration of these %. '.d.; u ' r] related activisits. In recognition of this and the difficuhy in implernenting generic deadlines. t 195 f r ,I [ ,Y l ^ 'i 'H 3' .,, '.,l 4 r ! T'.' *
ey_
^ ~- '~ x. n
,, y ;.
~ tw~q~~-- - 4(,.! C. _,,-
a 4.w m,
.m-t 4 e.i.,,, s s l 8' a-
p "y
( 4 j%,< K, :, y ; '. n i ' l .{ 4f. :< '.~..y , J ;j% 3; , :u g
p. Q ? f >,a
,1 ..+ w,
a s.
. A,, w,,, M,:g:ng g j.,. e g. s W. -1 yj., y,', q. ; ~, tj.; m ' ' ;. Y. r., a c'i n. ~... l3 > a. m ..s "g,s ,p. /4 .pi,e. .t i jl 4 f g,
9 W
Q I
j.
4' 3; u,c_ .f - ~~ n ..e . p * } b,, gym,. <- 1 Q :,'.il?4; hist .o, +. s- .j,. w. f Yhl.* I. QI ?'*:;,%, ; ]' , k',*) 4 ; * ?. A i k...; :,b. Y ?.$ s .h
i, [ $q;m, w[,
y c
c.
u u[.u.,I ' k. >a . m ~ m lh. aj.. .-, - ~('
T
^ }) ' $l. N' "l, , '. [ . c l. L, G f 'u
y. '[.
m .o '..a s .y ,r W s the Commission has adopted a plan to establish realistic plant.speci6c sdiedules that take into account the unique aspecu of the wodt at each plant. By this plan, each licensee is to develop and submit its own plant.speci6c schedule which will be reviewed by the assigned NRC Project Manager. He NRC Nject Mant.ger and licensee will reach an agreement on the 6nal schedule and in this manner provide for prompt implementation of these important u ... f~ improvements while optimizing the use of utility and NRC n. sources. ,g 1 ... For holders of construction permits and applicants for operating licenses, plant. J-specific schedules for the implemmtation of these requirements will be developed in a . ~ v. .( d,
i =
manner similar to that being used for operating reactors, taking into consideradon the degree ,,.~ -: v< of completion of the power plant. i n. i ' ;..? (/d., Transmittal Letter at 2), and: .1 ..a i '] Speci6c implementation plans and reasonable, achievable schedules for improvements that l 5 ~'
.g3 g
will satisfy the requirements will be established by agnement between the NRC Project ,~* Manager and each individual licensee. s s,. .,j (/d. at 5.) ~
19. While the above findings do not show that NUREG-0737. Supplement c
1, requires a fully complying SPDS by any fixed date, or prior to issuance j' of an operating license, the importance and safety significance of prompt [ ] implementation of an SPDS is emphasized elsewhere in the document, viz.: Prompt implanentatim of an SPDS can provide an important contribution to plant safety. He selection of speci6c information that should be provided for a particular plant shall be based 1, J' q: on engineering judgment of individual plant licensees, taking into account the importana of - 3 prompt implementatiost l. g ', 1 i, l g (/d. at 8), and .. e , ;} '. ' '; N' Prompt implementation of an SPDS is a design goal and of primary importance. He g f N' schedule for implememing SPDS should not be impacted by schedules for the cxmtrol room y'9, ' ; 'I' t* I / I.'~ J ', design review and development of functioneriented emergency operating procedures. For ,s this reason, licensees should develop and propose an integrated schedule for implementation in which the SPDS design is an input to the other initiatives. If reasonable, this schedule s t will be accepted by NRC. ~ b, e i (Id. at 9.) 1 'J
20. The Board heard evidence on SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 in f'el q
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on October 1 and 3,1986. De Applicants pre-6 2,.- ;., f. i,.',i, I' sented direct testimony from Messrs. Lawrence A. Walsh and George S. Romas i ',' / ., y. 9 (ff. Tr. 739); the NRC Staff presented the dimet testimony of Mr. Richard J. Eck-f' y,! enrode (ff. 'n. 822). Seacoast Anti Pollution League (SAPL) and Massachusetts e,. , ' i 5, 1,1 (Mass.) presented no direct case, participating throug!' Ac cross-examination of i j the witnesses presented by the Staff and Applicants. No other party participated L,,...; .-v. . c. < t. x j,c....yG-9' l i l ...v 196 I 't. - i a s ;l r. ( . 1:. + .*.p:
l,...,-...
f ~ .t'_ tv - v P - M y;' i 4 4 d,,'.."', 3( [' C 4-e ?.s* = U y s 0
p y
-{' l & Y,, [
_" j ' l W -
} { f, h,. s %. 4 .A g i*
'J-4 m.
4 .g -m ! g, ,}. j f]3'f g,l 0 ) ; 4Q.p(Q f'Q,,Q. ;Ek 9 tj ..t,,. 1 q l ,,y s y e ,a t 1s ,a 4
r.
_m_m._m. . & $ : D & % lh.- $ h,fh&js% f.&:.klnd ckg, p., .,V M. % T, S.... - '1_ h.% w g; ;.@y.v.' y. b; 2 ' o '
q. y. -
m.% .t. yg 1 .' v,,u 3 s y. 4;.,9 y. - sy
.Ui'.uprpp.3. g,

a.c p m.
,m%.m g.. , 7 ~,n,. - .y~a p,, 9,. ~ 4. 4, y'k, 9: C ,,t/t - r' 3.. .,J, ? ,,.,[ h
7 p
, v . t s.. 4 s .a 4 r (' y s J u, s l, in the litigation of this contention, and no evidence had been presented during
7....' M}. 4 y.l f,
,... t,,,. *; y ',.r- -G the 1983 hearing. 9, 7 ,r s.
21. The SPDS is designed to provide a concise display of critical plant N.
variables to control room omators to aid the operators in rapidly and reliably 3 . f "'.* N j ;, determining the safety status of the plant. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 2.) y,J. y,f '. f .l s' T. The SPDS primarily serves to accumulate important safety information m one q ;.,, s,, N.' l'M -.. S] centralized location. (Eckenrode, Tr. 985 86,995-96,998,1001.) f;., 7. '. ;. f g 3, g 2.1 y '.J.y *: 7.f: .;1,~," 5, 3
22. The SPDS is not considered a safety system; no operator actions are i
. n, '. _ 7;, to be taken at the SPDS or based exclusively on information displayed on the ' ~, J f :.. - ;., J *
q ";1 SPDS. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 2; Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 1-2;'
7' , ~ q,.l >..< V 7g ' i^ Eckenrode, Tr. 978 79.) The SPDS is used to refer operaton to various other qI., ~.. displays and controls in the control room where corrective actions are to be n 'I taken if needed. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 2; Walsh, Tr. 808; Eckenrode, J' J', r,: 9 j Tr. 839, 979.) 'J-f'
23. Operators are trained to respond to emergencies both with and without
. '~ ? the SPDS. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 2; Walsh, W. 812, 817;.see NUREG. ';.j. 0737 Supplement 1,14.1.c, at 7.) 1 ..D' ~. 7 24 The Seabrook SPDS is incorporated as a function within the main plant computer. The displays are presented on cathode ray tubes (CRTs) that are an ' ~, J Y .[ f ./ l l integral part of the control room displays. The designated primary SPDS CRT is located near the center of the control room at the shift technical advisor +. l (STA) station. The SPDS displays may be selected and presented at any of six ~. t.,2 J other CRTs on the main control board. Operator access is through the existing ' y.f,j' {,A,," ',(, ~. Or ? keyboards used for accessing all plant programs and displays. (Staff Testimony, v'. , ' '!.3 , Oc ff. Tr. 822; i18 of the Seabrook Safety Evaluation Report (SSER-6), (Staff '? 'j Exh. 6 at 1, ff. Tr. 822.) n, 7> P ,T ,. ? ". '. - T >,,..} f ,l l
25. The top-level SPDS display format consists of six color-and position-4 C%,,..,7 ' ' 'y..'., {y
. c O,'. I coded bars representing the summary status of the six critical safety functions 'd.@' , o/.l; .py':;e/ 6.'y (CSFs). Each CSF status tree is displayed on the second-level format, which J. { includes parameter values and a color-and shape-coded status circle for each ' -/ j tree branch. The color-coded summary bar for the six functions appears in the - l. ~ ~ lower left corner of each CSF status tree. (018 of SSER 6, Staff Exh. 6 at 2, i, - .n 3 , v i.I ff. Tr. 822.) v,- r y,,,1 ',c, '. /.,;....L,'. [,C % U j
26. Applicants submitted their SPDS report to the NRC Staff by letter dated
,, % "c'% d January 6,1986 (SBN-920). (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 3.) Additional (,, Gj.7%,'4' W " ^ ' f ' i,2 information was submitted to the Staff by letter dated April 2,1986 (SBN-9 f '. s J, /.i ' : 987). The Staff and its consultants reviewed the information submitted by ^ [1. ~ ' ' ?,% / Applicants and conducted an onsite audit of the SPDS in May of 1986. (Id. at 4; 'l[ 'g , ",,,;y.Q. Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report), ff.Tr. 822.) The results of the Staff's review are set out in i18 of SSER-6 (Staff Exh. 6 (SSER-6 and Appendix 18A), ff. Tr. 822.) c,, pc mf.s, - y , J' ?y. 5 1., c'
l'~f,

27. On the ba is of its documentation review and information gathered at m
~.,M the onsite audit, the Staff concluded that the Seabrook SPDS does not fully l r.,.; p,J. 1. , ' m. l ! e,:.. {, i i o e 197 .o .o I. v u
[ ^,
v:N, " a., ~. 'r f-yn 4. -- . [j. j,
m 4
,,,-.s f, g - _...,.,.,.,y},,.,,.., .,. r , p '. s ', 3;.Q p Q. ).
) [j
,o e n4. \\ b. w ' s< "-s,- g 9 _L _4 - % M, e,, ..,p, y,, ', g... ), ',.,. S , p( ' S .i<. y j M ,,i 4 i s. s y r .1.. p p. t i s %, %' y '. k.V W *P : :,., ?,
.l l, fA s.*,.
Q,.a
j.,..
,4 ' - .J. 4q r 'L e j, gl:' :.., f p svh q., ~ + r us &" li , < ?. .V '[l,%
.;

Q %
0 d'y% y ^ > - Q: n.... i;,:MW '-"..t< n- -A 1 s y +e n 3, e, .q. 3,
. y.
. g,., n c.g,y ..s s .m x .o ) ,n I rN '[l, 9. '( $f . [h ~ jd h('[ $hY/' $ [. [ h t h h j,k^^
T W3 g"~Yy) f.(h'
~ "q-Q' c ,9 ~ 7,. '
o t
.n ; ?',.;4 4 / v.' -e y 7 i 1-1 ..4. .9 meet the applicable requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREO-0737. Eleven ae 'yy .y deficiencies, including the six listed in Draft License No. NPF-56, at C-9 (see ci. Fdg.14, supra), were set out in $ 18 of SSER-6 (Staff Testimony, ff. W. 822, - i i, f.- at 5; Staff Exh. 6 (SSER 6 at 6-10), ff. W. 822.) nese are listed here, and , y~ findings applicable to each are presented below: (' ,.Y ... J,1 (1) The SPDS display is not continuous.
9
'. g (2) RHR (Residual Heat Removal) flow and containment hydrogen con-j s n p. f s q.) q /. ,, J j eentration variables are considered by the Staff to be part of the min- '.? ',//, " r ' imum information required to assess the CSFs and are not displayed j 3 ,7 on the SPDS. 'l d ,,.. i .(3) The containment iso!ation display is not satisfactorily readable from j T,, O the prime SPDS location.. j i ~ ' , fj (4) The SPDS does not display sufficient radiation variables. { !M (5) Several human engineering discrepancies have been identified, i.e., ' 7 ;,' awkwardness of calling up the lower level displays and inconsistency i y of heat sink display geometry with other displays, in addition to items - ) (1), (3), (6), and (9). 1 O -(6) Two CSF status trees (subcriticality and core cooling status) are not mode dependent and have the potential for misleading the operator. ] a (7) The Westinghouse RVLIS (Reactor Vessel Level Instrument Systerr.) isolators, used to protect RVLIS from SPDS, have not yet been approved by the Staff (but see Fdg. 39, infra). (8) Data validation algorithms may not be sophisticated enough to ensure valid data are displayed to the operator. (9) The usefulness of the lower-level SPDS display formats to the oper-4 r, ,) (10) RVLIS and RDMS availability has not yet been factored into overall W ator is in question. u..A SPDS availability calculations. .l f 4, ' p.? (11) System response time appears to be satisfactory, but a system load C i.n test is needed to verify the worst condition of loading. ,e, ?:
'y

28. Based on reasoning chiefly addressed in Staff Prop. Fdgs. 57, 59 61,
> ~ ' M [i and Appl. Prop. Fdgs. 56-57 and Response Fdgs. at 13, including the fact that h.,.- the Seabrook SPDS, while incomplete, is functional and useful, both the Staff and the Applicants take the position that correction of any incomplete SPD5 I _, y requirements can be deferred until the end oi the first refueling outage without ?, adversely affecting public health and safety. (See Staff Testimony, ff. W. 822, -.CJA at 4 5,10; Appl. Testimony, ff. D. 739, at 12, 7.) ne Board rejects this ?.9 position because it runs counter to the thrust of the comention as restated by us j -i., , %] (Fdg.' 14, supra). Interveners SAPL and Mass. take the opposi2 position that ]4 ' q, NUaDG-0737 and its Supplement 1 provide requirements for a complete SPDS ,(., g, and that all deficiencies must be cured nrict to operation of the plant. We reject c = .'[ ,;*a I * ) b., ,. ~ y-as \\ ,.,1 .y y + 1 . (i .a 19g l 4 a ,l _ {ly e. i u ep -.. y e s .?} y[,,y
c. 4
.f o> (; e, i' } ;., -- ~ ~ ~, c 7 3 p p g -
( n:-~ -
yr-y y yr.,.. p s yg ~~ w b(- ~O p.g i 4~.j.. ? { j g.. ..y d ', O ', &;
s.. p s.
p-w, E', t,,,,n Q; v ,do " g. ' gt !, h, m,. 9 4 +m p l6 C. 4 .n . L, ; q;,, g.g i 2y 4 .. 7.;,A A j -g, N j f {. 6 f f l l 'm. %. n, @g . h..w. ', WA. ;ea,'gge.wn$;.v +b, 4 $c r- @ A , %w,a p u:4 ' 4 t ? e4 4
C w:
,. p d s ,,g. my x, s ll f, ;., p go w., % ,l'# b' f .] s l M i Q* R.'*;,A'.L A ! e* Q f M.yy M-M.W M.N;my u ?.p 9. ; %. w tl .+ LY f' .h 3 5,igy p mr p 2] $.x, q,w.y;K3;) %. p" w... A, n; Jy f..;,. f.., .g j 1, 4 s + %,. y L w v 17,7 j1 p. e,,. yu,,j g . y g., w.,- 7 g 3 j.9,.9 . g., 7.., t g.; 9 .s 3, q e - g. .,y. #... ' 4 y. , %,,= 4 C y t " ax 3 W , -u y i j >J: { i. r. o 2 ')- e., y;j. this position as not supported by our opinion or our findings. We now address ,, j.D.:.i,.-(.u ' , l'*g the specific de.ficiencies seriatim in findings below. ^ ,5 -(?
29. SPDS display is not continuous (deficiency 1). The Staff found that l
L l ~ because the Shift Technical Adviser (STA) at the SPDS has the capability to call ~,, 7.6 ..e ' -, .t ,t* j up displays other than the SPDS at the SPDS terminal, the Seabrook SPDS is ~ ~ y. [. % '- '.,. 72 not a continuous display as required by NUREO-0737, Supplement 1. The Staff
y,,Y[C'1 requirement for resolving this discrepancy is that either the CSF (critical safety
] [.y ' i,?, jg M p .y. y function or " top level") summary display must be added to all CRT (cathode j ' 'l '. Q'.-g [%
.e ray tube) formats accessible on the STA's CRT, or a dedicated CSF summary l
j g Vj display needs to be added to the STA station. (Staff Testimony, ff. W. 822, at 'i ",(? '..l 8; Staff Exh. 6 (SSER-6), ff. Tr. 822, at 5-6.) ~ I ' /.1
30. The App'icants have committed to dedicate the SPDS terminal so that
? a continuous display of the CSFs will be achieved or, alternatively, through a ~'; - ' f (' i test function and test computer, Applicants will have an SPDS display on every CRT format in the control room and regardless of what display is called up this - Q '( } CSF monitor display will be shown. The Applicants indicated that at least the ~ ~ - j separate dedicated CSF display at the SPDS terminal could be achieved prior { ,5
.f' to full-power operation. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 2 3; Walsh, it 764-i j
65, 804-05.) The Board finds that implementation of either alternative prior to '~ ,t! operation above 5% power to provide a continuous SPDS display of CSFs at l the STA station provides reasonable assurance with respect to this matter that s 4 g>,..,.j public health and safety will be protected. J' "
q

31. RHR flow and conta:nmers hydrogsn concentration indications (den E 7(' i Y.f.l :
ficiency 2). Indications of these parameters are not specifically required by l '... . #],h'M. i a7 * 'Q[. T,'j ? 1.' NUREO-0737, Supplement 1, to be included as part of the SPDS. However, Staff l ^ I s -] review of the Applicants' SPDS parameters found that the five CSFs specified T... .,C in NUREO-0737 (see Fdg.17, supra) are not fully co;ered by the parameters T 7
y. 'y (g' ' ' '
i.1 to support the somewhat different critical safety functions selected by the Ap- , U...
!"'.'l
.e<r.;&,aff/.,g., ;.g ;.j plicants in the Seabrook SPDS design (correspondence between the two sets of i N, 4 ,l',,,'""', CSFs is presented in Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 10), ff.1h 822). RHR flow j and bydrogen concentration parameters are among those minimum or titical N'O ;,[ c* Q plant variables found missing fmm the SPDS by the Staff (also see containment i ,.f isolation and radiation paramers, infra). (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 6-7; l ?, :... "/j Paff Exh. 6 (SSER-6), ff. T_ 322 ) < e.;,. 'A
3. g.
.,i
32. The Applicants' posaion is that they are still negotiating with the Staff l
y,.ii as to whether RHR flow and hydrogen concentration parameters should be j <,,,,. J / I.i..,. ~.,, l"1 g; displayed on the SPDS; their belief is that indications of these parameters . $..~,t ps.. <,- - f.'1 on the main control panel are sufficient from the safety standpcat and their Fu..a, e ' 1 inclusion on the SPDS display is not necessary. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr 739, 7 p;. u '.4-.. a.
n lj
.,,,,m
1 at 3; Walsh, "It 768-70.) The Staff continues to require 'that R':-IR flow and vw... y.
i 7 '.U - Q..,... -M[E e T, ' S, q. y'a hydrogen concentration parameters be added to the SPDS, but its position i., . w. that addition of these to the SPDS may be deferred without undee public health l - V ;, ;e, c+ 4 w,
,c s.
,e
h[
I
i
>g-f j a. + ol 4 .,o 1 199 4 1, y ~s* ,,,.t Ha k, p ** $ t-- m ~* ~ ;d, 3 ( t y -<. ,ne ~ y r 9 J' f .g ? m {, (e .j t (.?, N., ; 4, u 6 ,4. m y .E', L., L,~?E * ; ~. ' [e U* .,y ow .'k. , I 's y g) k ,3
..; i
. g. 3)' ji .j. y, ' N'$ " ' 9.;[ ? [ g 5, 'a p q y l. < q p f g 3(y4xyty%,'.3;24 Q j g. e. 93 .x " 9 .q } g -j 3% ?g, y 2 - p y >- b l 7, {~.g. p },i' Q ) y,} % l y.,[g.Qy.,Y s 6.G f] l._.$ ~ (, l * $ l (.l '4"* .e .r- ,/ l 7, l ': ~ G. 1 }, % lN.
4.sy,:
c :.,)r;;; ~~ p, e + S .O,, S-ca. f ? 3- ~v %( and safety impact until the first refueling outage. (Staff Testimony, ff. 'IY. 822, at 4-7,10-11.) On Board and cross-examination, however, the Staff witness, a ,?' human factors engineer, couched his response with respect to deferral in terms of J.,.d~ reliance upon the Staff eview practices set fonh in NUREG-0737, Supplement 'q 1 (14.2.b, at 8; also see Mass. Exh. 2, ff. "lY. 964), and credibility of the Staff's I ' ', a position was undermined by its witness' apparently poor understanding of the ?,b underlying operationa! systems, the, challenge to which is required to be shown i 5' I by the SPDS. (Eckenrode, 'IY. 834-37,940-44,978, and 984.) e.
33. The Board finds that the Applicants have not met their burden of proof
~ in demonstrating that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and e safety will be protected if addition of RHR flow and hydrogen concentration l parameters to the SPDS is deferred until the first refueling outage. r~, 34 Containment isolation display is not readablefrom the prime SPDS 10-cation (deficiency 3). Containment isolation indications are also among the min-imum or critical plant variables required by the Staff as part of the SPDS. While the containment isolation status indicators are not displayed at the SPDS con-j ~ sole, a bank of valve position indicator lights showing containment isolation ) status on the main control panel is visible from the prime SPDS location. The discrepancy cited by the Staff is one of pattern recognition and the Applicants aver that 9 has been resolved. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822,11 A.9.a. A.9.c, A.9.g, at 6, 8, 9; Eckenrode, Tr. 863; Walsh, 'IY, 771 72, 781 84.)
35. The bank of valve position indicator lights showing containment iso-lation status on the main control panel is about 26 feet from the prime SPDS J-station. The lights are in boxes with windows, in a matrix (or grid) a: range-ment. Previously, some of the boxes that were not used were bir.nk and the blanks I
were randomly placed in the matrix. The bank of lights has been rewired so that j 'j light boxes for components are grouped in a system!stic order and the blanks are { l all in one location and off to one side. (Walsh,'Ir 771-77 781-83.) The Staff { ,U 1'$...]s witness, a human factors engineer familiar with the position and arrangement l jj 'r f this bank of lights, testified that if containment isolation has been called for { r in the plant, the correction.: described by Applicants' wimest would enable an ,i .g ' operator at the prime SPDS location to determine containment isolation status ^ from the bank of indicator lights on the main panel. (Eckenrode, Tr. 965-66, A 986; also see Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 8,14.1.2).) Staff review of Appil-f g cants' corrections to the installation, however, has not yet taken place. (Walsh, j ..,J., 1Y. 782-84; Eckenrode, Tr. 856.) Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board 1 'j finds that, subject to Staff verification of the described corrections already im- .y A 1,. plemented, there is reasonable assurance that public health and safety will not ?[h . - ]) be adversely affected by deferral of addition of containment isolation indicators .'y to the SPDS console until restart following the first refueling outage.
36. The SPDS does not display suDicient radiation variables (deficiency
?. M-v 4). This item specifically refers to two radiation pr.rameters, steam-line radiatica ' T
J '
~,, f.; A 4 q s l 200 i 3 :,,,. ' (., g y. -,<+......me. p ,g. e. , e p. vs.,.*.=re. my7 ,? -.+,. ,,,3 er = g xe =
q. 4 [,a j,
bh, fI bl - i O ~.. g' s 4, u. 1;[]g. n 3~ + s-9 '( {'.s M' q. c',. J-y,y t,, i 1 m,,(. r +.- s c r-c av 2-k* .$ M h, m 4, U b, /... 3 4's., s.k I b 't ? 5l,f f.y Si);3.,y^ t, o., ' g*
e',
., ! U t,, r . ?'gy'q%n;[. ;.p,[+l,}f.. r 3 i,. C. ~ 3.y .h> 4; 6' t J' ! c Q. ' s - M, _.t + c, 7. %.L..,(W (f:,q.;;}Wuf M.v&h&;i,v Qf.e _ (1) h. -T .y*,... ~ M:.1 5. g.. ' n s . 'n. .g} y f i & F h-f: l -9 p +, 1 y N, W g,J. (. h. y, q g.,,a, f,'./y '%..n..q ~ /3 ,z. y y-W 4,; (30 ug 3, s c + .7,. .,o r. 4 c. 4 A i s ,g .b 8 ?' { and stack radiation, that are also minimum or critical plant variables that n..i ' 4-I are not displayed on the SPDS console. The Applicants have committed to t establish a radiological control CSF screen on the SPDS, which is a requirement k "N ,D, of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, prior to plant operation above 5% of rated @cz. ~' s, ' QI; {,: Ji power. There will be a selection button to enable picking up of the screen that ., N;.t ;.;, ? ; will show all radiation monitors, but radiation parameters will not be added to the ~!- 4 top-level SPDS display. (Staff Exh. 6 (SSER-6, Audit Report at 9), ff. W. 822; y } ' yl ' ', ' p, e ' " ') M Walsh, Tr. 774 75,806,816; also see supra Fdgs.17,30.) Also, these radiation '^ ", l variables are continuously displayed on the Radiation Data Management System [',. '[3'j l 'p j (RDMS) which is located on a panel just behind the prime SPDS location ("about an arm's length" away). The RDMS has auditory alarms to inform l ~ operators when radiation exceeds a designated set point. (Walsh, 'IY,774-75, j' C, 780, 805-06; Eckenrode, 'IY. 866,969,9G6.) Based on the foregoing evidence n, I and subject to the Applicants' commitment and Staff verification thereof, the l- ' Board finds that there is reasonable assurance that public health and safety will N. not be adversely affected by deferral of addition of steam-line radiation and ^' stack radiation monitor continuous displays to the SPDS console until restart following the first refueling outage. ' i i
37.. Human engineering discrepancies (deficiency 5). In addition to humt.n factors aspects of other deficiencies addressed separately herein (viz., deficien-I cies 1, 3,6, and 9), the Staff found that the format of the heat sink indicators of the SPDS displayed the flow data value above the decision block instead j,
of below the block as do all the other formats, and that the SPDS display callup method for the first two CSF ttatus trees is awkward. (Staff Testimony, .c. ff. 'lY. 822, at 9; Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 17), ff. 'lY. 822.) The heat sink ? sciten format has been changed and is now consisent in its labeling with the
, ?
i other formats on the SPDS display. (Appl. Testimony, ff. n. 739, at 4; Walsh, u. 'IY. 777.) Thus, subject to Staff verification of this improvement, this deficiency .v-4 is resolved. As to the SPDS callup method, operators currently are required to 91 . ;g,. y. - T-position a cursor and press two buttons simultaneously. 'Ihe Staff recommends C" }; that a single callup action be implemented, but finds that the current callup [ a' method, while it could be improved, is adequate in that the requested improve- ,,. a } ment would mean a difference between about 0.5 second and 1.5 to 2 seconds .i J., j in time. (Appl. Testimony, ff. 'IY. 739, at 5; Staff Testimony, ff. 'lY. 822, at 9; ..3 i Eckenrode, Tr. 855, 968.) The Board agrees. ,3 l l', &,& ' x)
38. Subcriticality and core cooling status trees are not mode dependent 1 '. '3
,;E j. ;, (deficiency 6). The problem with these displays was that they would indicate Se.'.' ',.. q-that these CSFs are being challenged during normal operations which would ~ ]~~ .i ~2,'
{'
have misled the operators. The subcri'icality status display would have indicated red (under extreme challenge) whenever rea A power exceeded 5% Similarly, ', g because the reactor coolant system (RCS) stAaing criteria used by the status > s 3. a. ',, ' a. 3 9 4' f; - tree might not always have been met dudng power operation, the status of ',-( .t' Y 3, lg 1 y. ? 201 c.. 7, i fE ll W, c.s 1 ',.-......9, ) ,a a n'.- v 39 .e t a ,u e C,
M.
',,. 'j t: Q; s ..s' Mi -jg <<'s - c q r m s ,s ,3 s. .b, . y.' 4 .$. p,.; (
s. y[.. *h, y
4'+ U';
f. a ;,s vt, s:
p fl ; ..,.3> o' " y [,.' i 4* A. 1 f. d' [ '/ ?> i s 1 'c f j _ f,. Q f,s y @ g K q. ~ x ;; g f. B j d f Q :. f...,,..n Q f gJy'f k ; y.,., D .l ~ .j ww -hv', 'ar,~ , ': F.. <y.;-nn s. j, m ) f < 'm y. .e ? J. 7 a .m 3. ~ s w ,y n ,I + ; ,/ 3 core cooling might have erroneously been indicated as orange (under severe 0-challenge) during normal power operations. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 5, ,i ',l 7; Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 12), ff. Tr. 822.) Correc+ive changes have been 4-made to the SPDS so that these status trees function properly at all power levels y 4,;'> g!. (are now mode dependent). (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 4 (as corrected j '] ~ at Tr. 730); Walsh, 'IY. 774.) Applicants are preparing documenta, tion of these l .,$Q Vir ; I. o changes for Staff review. (Walsh, Tr. 814.) b }...[U.l.f> -
39. RVUS isolators (deficiency 7). The problem cited by the Staffinvolved
~ m' f. the requirement for properly qualified interface devices between the SPDS and [>f^] the Class IE safety-related instrument systems, the purpose of which is to protect e V., the Class IE systems from interference. Prior to the September / October 1986 ','q hearing the RVLIS isolation #wices were analyzed and tested by the Applicants, i and the Staff in its evaluation concluded that the RVLIS isolators were acceptable and that the proposed license condition requiring their installation and approval prior to exceeding 5% reactor power had been met. (Staff Exh. 3 (Appendix 0 18A), ff. Tr. 822; Appl. Testimony, ff. 'lY. 739, at 4-5; Staff Testimony, 7 ff. Tr. 822, at 8-9.) No party challenged the resolution of this noncompliance, including the deferral of replacement of GA RM-80 isolator devices used 4 elsewhere in the SPDS with approved nonfused devices until the first refueling j! outage. (Staff Testimony, (f. 'IY. 822, at 8-9; Staff Exh. 6 (SSER-6 at 8 and x Appendix 18A at 18A-3), ff. 'IY, 822.)
40. SPDS data validation algorithms may not be sophisticated enough to
( ,_i ensure wild data are displayed to the operator (deficiency 8). The issue here j is presentation of reliable synthesized data on the SPDS. Concern was raised that a parameter value could be within an acceptable range but significantly ^ ..' s. ~ different frorn other measures of the same parameter, causing the average ., O c, value displayed to be incorrect and possibly misicading. Ihe source of the 7 y concern is the SPDS algorithm; it utilizes only range checking, averaging, and c, .Q f auctioneering (i.e., selection of higt.est or lowest values in a set). Accortling ,, {. W / . 7..j to the Staff's consultants, their audit concluded specifically that PSNH must s..,,. '.-l ,,y. implement data validation methodology that makes more effective use of, or { ,. g,, 4 interchannel comparison of, redundant information available via the main plant 1 ,l ,.I computer. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 6; Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 'a y ,a',, ';, 7; Staff Exh. 6 (SSER-6, at 4, Audit Report at 1213), ff. 'IT. 822; Eckenrode, ? 4 'IY. 839, M2-43; Walsh, Tr. 806, 809.) l .,s 7 i 11 1
41. According to the Applicants, the present algorithm is not inadequate for l
, ; e f ' jf -(.3 the task. Although under the circumstance where an average value is erroneously '3 'J .c, 7." '. offset by a single high (or low) value in the set, and the SPDS does not indicate n, 2. ;,- < { ~ f,$ Q >3 an abnormal situation, alerting the operator to validate the SPDS parameters ~ -..? f,. f is not the only function of the SPDS. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 6; 'y y- . d Walsh, Tr. 807, 809.) Acccrding to the Staff, it is most likely that an individual w.' ( ,.. f. - p [, d, parameter value in a set would have been picked up by an operator a' the main s.,, ,n
t. :
s, ~. b ~ 202 .o h 5 3 s .h h . NP t % '* 9 p * *., 71+" g 'i* ~,.{ ' f{,' ,"#.m ,g s .u' eg q. . o :t 3.Jg A m s.. ., f i si.,, /g. G q 'C '*s ,
J}f
, ^ 9 S...' Pl. V ' ,A
3 i
<.a.., + g ^ n L, "i +?( y ll'}jx y,, y:e, .t -0 h '] }y,[ [L y... ' li ' s j. ci k } Q Q {vy h}elq.,,-yW j:.g j?{, ,+ n. v x ..u ~ 5 d. ,3 5 j -; q; ~ g f;3 g &)p. g ; yn ppey y,p;q.. h :.,,c, y y.;y & u g,1 Q~.. 3y n ,,. g s, o yeg s y y u ,s; q .r a _. w c < s .,p Ng a a
s., o
'Is., y g j. 4 i: c ~ a v-
1.. _
control board through an alarm by the time the operator (STA) at the SPDS, w / alerted by the top-level display, went to the lower-level display to see what the ,j e ,1. ; individual parameter value war (Eckenrode,'IY. 985; see Eckenrode, W. 935.) A l -M' fortiori, the operator would be quick'.y alericd by an alarm of a single pammeter ,. ", a ' value in a set even if the single parameter value did not offset the average of the set sufficiently to affect the top-level SPDS display. The 54f believes that there q g. is not likely to be any confusion resulting from use of the current algorithm in i the SPDS but, because there is a potential for confusion, Star h.as esked the c.- Applicants to examine it. (Eckenrode, W. 988.) l -,i
42. Thus the Board sees the resolution of this issue, which is but part of
<~ . d the general requirements for overall speed and reliability in determining the safety status of the plant, as one of guidance and degree of reliability (see Staff ? N :* Exh. 6 (Audit Report 64.3), ff. Tr. 822). For those instances in which a potential for misleading information mry occur in the SPDS top-level displays because ,1 N of the validation algorithm, the Board fmds that in this case reliance by the plant operaton on alarms and displays on the main control board is an adequate l interim compensating procedure. Accordingly we find that deferral of changes to the SPDS algorithm employed in the main plant computer until the first refueling outage will not adversely affect the public health and safety.
43. Usefalness of the lower level SPDS displayformats (deficiency 9). %e question posed by this item is utility of the lower-level displays on the SPDS.
During Staff observation of an accident simulation at Seabrook, it was observed that the Seabrook operators did not use the SPDS lower level displays on the 4 j SPDS terminal, but instead used hard-copy representations of the lower-level display. (Staff Testimony, ff. Tr. 822, at 7; Wahh, Tr. 759-61; Eckenrode, Tr. 972, 979-80.) ne Staff did not identify any problem with the contents "",t of the lower-level displays, but wanted an evaluation of why the operators used '7
3...f, l the hard-copy representation rather than the SPDS lower-level display; i.e., was j # '..
. 1, . ;i there a format pmblem, or the like, that made it more difficult to use the SPDS 'I J display than the hard copy? (Eckenrode, Tr. 979-80.) o 'i-44 The Applicants' explanation at the hearmg of the operators' use of the ,3:h hard copy was that the SPDS lower-level screens an i the hard-copy version show s the same thing, and that when verifying SPDS indications on the main control , g.a f q j board, as they are required to do, some operators prefer to pick up the hard j l ,, g,,, ' r.] copy in case they forget what they are looking for. Other operators simply use ^ 7 the SPDS screen and " walk the board" to verify it. (Walsh, Tr. 815-16; see also
, U-
.j. 1 I SAPL Exh. 2, ff, Tr.1016.) Thus the hard-copy representations of the SPDS p. .fy,'. }..,' ,., 2. lower-level displays serve a memory assistance function. While the Applicants p ggm continue to be required to furnish the requested evaluation of the utility of p,,, .z, M- ,_-Q, the lower-level displays to the Staff, the Board finds that there is reasonable j assurance that the lower-level displays on the SPDS, and the procedure whereby '< ? b._ ) W['.,. t f,, ' 2 ;jA, operators may utilize hard-copy representations of thelower-level screens while y,,,, .) ..; 'y f ,y .T f n e s f
y.
j 203 i 9Y I d 4 ,.r m, 9884 seesT*3+.go. .a, 3gp-,,p g 4,py .,g g sengr-e g..av. .g ..go...3 e ,g 4 7 q i 4-y,l - f.' d. f< ' - u;
". ' - ~
f3 A
.j
) - S. ,si (
, L.',
4 ,9, 1, y 3,, Q 3, ,,m 6
q
],,.s{ y,. hg& f l
b ' f [ [;.
p ,3 tsy- ,y n 3 *3l. t4 es te .s 3 v-j({;; V ';l f.
$l,.

l.Q
. A l g n 8 .g, y..
(
y .' f s - ~ \\ + 1 1 1 "qc / a d. QgFf:MM1,$$M@df@.hhq:t,$N Pf -4...f@emh.hMM MNQ)iT D f ~, J d.2.[NNN h a$ L .kf0$ MN EMUDh;NH f# %. % Q M Q Q.rQ.W W Q,':q = %y.~~f7 m j V~ C' ,{ G',,. .h. .. t ' y,, q } y e. j, 6 i I !u Y yerifying indications on the main corriol boara pose no threat to public health ] 'I 'j, J and safety. On its face, the procedure dwcribed during the hearing for utilizing 2 ' /'.... the hard copy representations to aid operators' memory would appear to improve ... t, y ;~ .'t' ,4 7, q l.: (. sal sty. L '~;.?' l. [ ' - .[ .k ..w j
45. RVUS and RDMS availability has ;;ot yet been factored into owrall 3 'Q ( + y 4h [,,~," M' ' W o
e Jiability calculations (deficiency 10). According to the Staff, system avail-43,44f y, 3, f,, ' l,,. s ] ability data indicated an acceptable (over 99%) availability for the SPDS, but the ~- 4 J calculations did not include the availability of RVLIS or RDMS data input. (Staff ff. 3 [ M f, N '_ P<. i,j !(+..:.j 4 7 g,,. . '.q Testimony, ff. 7t 822, at 7; Eckenrode, 'lY. 973.) The overall availability cal-j.,. e. culation cannot be made prior to the actual interface of bath units (RVLIS and j
d..
jl.r..A ,i I ai RDMS) with the SPDS. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 739, at 6-7.) These appar-i ' 5 ently are separate data processing systems which will input data to the SPDS
j via the main plant computer. (Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 2 3,6 (13.4.2),
Q ~ 11), ff. 'It 822; Eckenrode, Th 973.) The additional calculations would in-j volve only the RVLIS and RDMS availability and would not affect availability 'j of other SPDS parameters. (Eckenrode, Tr. 974.) RVLIS and RDMS availabil- ,~, H ity is not expected to have a signi5 cant impact on overall SPDS availability, 3 and there is no evidence to suggest that RVL'S and RDMS availability will 'g 'V be significantly less than that of other Seabmok plant computer-controlled data ? ' 'i processing unit;. (An unavailability criterion (0.001) is given in the gt.idance .i document NUREG-0696 at 8.) Thus the Board finds that up to the first refueling I .m l 1. outage, the high availability calculated for the SPDS alone, without the RVLIS l ',J' and RDMS availability calculations, provides reasonable assurance that public l '3 health and safety will be protected. G ',. '$. Q : &
46. System response time -a system load test is needed to ver(fy the worst a

~.
y. . W. s.9 co.ufition ofloading (deficiency 11). Although system response times for the '",. ' [ / 'i, j ~ SPDS appear to be satisfactory (most factors are updated every 5 seconds), the - :. j Staff observations were made during a lightly triaded sequence. (Staff Testimony, i cu . f,, [. rj'b C.6 Eood chance that in the event of a severe accider.t a Isrge number of nearly l ., ;/, :q ff. Th 822, at 7; Staff Exh. 6 (Audit Report at 18), ff. Tr. 822.) There is a very. l7. ;_'.>.g, ml ./ simultaneous processing demands will be made on the main plant computer, but ,q ' + t i ~ ,....b"; whether the update rate of the SPDS indications would be slowed down dependa ll 1 F -, '. ' upon what priority the SPDS has in the main plant ccmputer. (Eckenrode, l -j. Tr. 974-75.) Durmg a period of heavy load on the main plant computer, l even if update rates were delayed, the SPDS would be available as long as , '.-3, i 1 p 5 'l';d nl the main plant computer is running. (Eckenrode, Th 857-58.) From a human i 4, $a
p factors stardpoint a delay in updating could lead to e mistake on the part of the p

c d
a'e,- ' ,I operatcr. (Eckenrode, it 859.) However, since no operator actions are taken Y [.h x;,. ' lM, [. ; N Y'f Q ' %, ; y' at the SPDS station and any SPDS indications must be verified on the mam
y

control pane' prior to taking actions ;Fdg. 22, supra) a delay in updating the { , QL. 'l ; l v.. k SPDS indications is not likely to lead to incorrect actions or operations. / *, f w t w v. i :;. c;,. j r w, t,r. ' - a L'
j..:. ; ;
l / e , ? - v.>.s.) % 'n ' j~'r, ,,., ~, a >) ^ y . ~. ca 204 7 s j e e I -j ..V ,, UY g m-
f e
,g 7' 4,./,, .,-( p.,. .. y. -. g, - .7 m. p,
,,.3,
1, m.,.. p U. d,. y h' ~ .A if nu,yy,Q[h .e t*[ ~ f ,f., k;, w,.g,.. 3-m +2 y3a 1 k h ;+ d. _. f.y{ yhkN h.[an,[.:/,[, r ;.. T((a =[j k M w' .+ sawa . a.y W K, ~, j . n a' A, n$. v<' lif;. ;,' 1 j Os l:c- . t., .M.. ~. s ,F .is r 4 t 3 _.o a y;.j pjn.$, a :;g;L,,".;; :el' } kjflQ %lyf,f,2"'S a w +- Y h b a ' E &('Yh.Q ~ r.,; %, @ k ' Y h',Js.. W g.,, e.l.$ g. % ^EYl,?f : ^ ,' 8 g[< . c h, 4,. 4'_j..f p. N ;f 4 L. Q;., yh i F-y c y m. .r. r ' ~; 4 es .e s, ,j .e ..e p. s u x 3 :. .+ 1" I
v I
?, l 4 e
47. Applicants have agreed to perform a system load test under heavier loading conditions, which in order to provide meaningful results, would require t
.
Y' \\..
some level of plant operation. (Appl. Testimony, ff. T. 739, at 7; Walsh, 'lY. 788; Eckenrode,'IY. 989.) The Staff witness was unable to say whether an adequate ...:a# system load test was part of a low-power testing program. (Eckenrode, Tr. 087.) '.h 5 c Subject to the commitment by the Applicants to perform memJngful syttems load tests if power operations are anthorized, and because the SPDS won.'d be 1, 't., ' ' available even during overloading conditions, and because SPDS indications must be verified prior to taking any actions, the Boar,1 finds that there is 6, reasonable assurance that deferral of evaluation of results of a future system y< load test until the first refueling outage will not adversely affect public health CV ; and safety. .,s. ', i s; i i e, .( ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION TIME DURATION l R c, - l 4 .)
48. NECNP Contention I.B assert.3 that i
The Applicant (s have] not satis 6ed the requirements of GDC 4 that all equipment isnportant } to safety be envirmmentally qualined because [they have] not speciSed the time duration j over which the equipment is quali6ed. j 4 i
49. NECNP does not now urge that the time durations of the equipment 3
important to safety have not been specified in Applicants' equipment qualifi-l cation files. Since NECNP has abar.doned this aspect of its contention but has proceeded to contest another aspect, upon our review of the record we decided i .g to render the following ultimate finding upon the abandoned aspect. We find that ') the postaccident qualification time duration for electrical equipment important l yCr to safety at Seabrook, which is required to be environmentally qualified under ',, ~ J'. I* GDC 4 of Part 50, Appendix A, and 10 C.F.R. 0 50.49, has been specified for f., a period of 1 year following a postulated accident, or, in the alternative, for the time required to perform its safety function plus a margin, as specified in Post-7'd tion C.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.89, Revision 1. NECNP instead urges that the specified time dumtions are insupportable because of incorrer.t or incomplete a i,;.. '.j equipment qualification files and thus that Seabrook's safety equipment cannot 4
*$ j survive an accident for the requisite duration. (NECNP's Brief and Proposed
+ Findings filed November 12,1986.) 4.c.4 r.a
50. During the 1983 hearings, the Applicants' panel (Messrs. Maidrand and
( g Anderson) (ff.1 'IY. 970), and the Staff's panel (Messrs. LaGrange and Walker) ..y,'
j hD. t.
testified (ff.1-W. 990). In the 1986 reopened hearing, the Applicants' panet c %/ ) J,i (Messrs. Salvo, Thomas, and Woodward) testified (ff. 'IY. 357). The Staff called 9' a witne:. (Mr. Walker) to testify (ff. 'lY. 494). No other witnesses were offered ~ ', ' ' - l e ', e 6 l h 4. ,c .e 205 1 . y, 0 8 ,g e y. 4 x ' ' " ~ 7*
y g-
- ~, +, .,7 r a 3, jw, ,a ,s , J 4 0 r 4.. h,' I,9('.#, j ' y 3 y %gqll3.' (., y p, f; (q.p. p - =:,. + , Y. Q q :. i , %q w.h g.e. g+. 4 -r, hp. 4 ; yp a y ~ .e r
.w

a ) W;&&$& fhh.1 +.. 'y & Qg j';Y lY @*$l,8 K1W,@@:}.3l.$;}.h. ~. 5 Y (' h.. 4' h,: ' ] '. $,,;e ~ f.,7 [w.., y.w. t .o y.Dd]h,I,3,h...u.b.k.b. ~Ys,,..%A 'Q. h N).s k Y :k.Y ,L. .. ;s %' ^ '[ Y ?,# M,'7 .s.., - Jf.'{i ".[ f 5 }@ t. a.4 t 3, p m 9 j J.' ) ~ b 1'E ~. d# ^ i y,. .o (.
3 by any party. However, NECNP did cross. examine the Applicants' and Staff's
{ % J, ~6l. witnesses. Only the Applicants, the Staff, and NECNP filed proposed findings %,. 7. ;,',',' y,., y O.:.,; :.' Uf.
y c c, "..y,'.
of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs with respect to this contention. js ,: a"
51. General Design Criterion (GDC) 4,10 CE.R. Part 50, Appendix A.
J,% f. ;,s [ ~,4 requires as follows: ..+8, ../ n ,y- /. f '.3 - ?' Q..L.'y. l important to safety shall be designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible l 7- ,*2 { Cruarion 4 -Environmental and missile desigs hues. Structurea, systems, and ccenponents ( f,,,, a 1 ..i' . I., j..h l6 1*s T[. jJ, 5,G with the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, f f[,.b4
9'.p and postulated accidents, including loss.of. coolant accidents. 'llese structures, systems, and j
s g'.. f '. *, g ,(, { fa.,. - ?! components shall be appropriately protected against dynamic effects, including the effeas ] ' ' i,.., ' *y of missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging Buids, that may result from equipment failures q, f .,o q and from events and cxmditions outside the nucleac power unit. r
52. ' Section 50.49 of 10 C.F.R. specifies the requirements that must be met to j
.f,.- '] demonstrate compliance with GDC 4, relating to the environmental qualification r of electrical equipment important to safety that is located in a potentially harsh s s ...} ( environment. In conformance with 650.49, electrical equipment may be qualified s. l ,;,y j', j in accordance with the acceptance criteria specified in Category 1 of NUREG- '[ e '-,,' ,,. 0588. In addition, guidance as to the means by which 650.49 may be satisfied e N. iM is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.89 (Walker, ff. Tr. 494, at 2). Regulatory Guide 1.89 which endorsed the Standard, T5iEE 323-1974, provides that electrical .c i Q' bl'_[_ - ' equipment be qualified to withstand an ac. lent environment after having been ..s exposed to preaccident conditions for the qualified life duration under the normal 4 ,'1_ , 1,," operating conditions. (Appl. Testimony, ff.1 'lY. 970, at 910.) The focus of b ,C 6 s.E l.I,' ','.E D.c,." y:Zf, M.y ',,('?,$ f... y and the documentation in Applicants' environmental qualification files. testimony in this proceeding was on the postaccident qualification time duration, l h f c ? ,...g,, l>
53. Requirements for maintaining records, in auditable form, of Environ-
.;. ? 7J[. A mental Qualification ("EQ") of electrical equipment important to safety are spec-E..Y ~f'.,,, f,. M,,,j ified in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49G), which provides: ,f' l",.,.yv.k,'. l. g
f A record of the qualincation, including documentation in paragraph (d) of this sectiqn must l
.,,)** :.a, j"c?., l 7 ,y, be maintained in an audir.able form for the entire period during which the covered item is
s.,.
I
[
,, q'. installed in the nuclear power plant or is stored for future use to permit verincation that each e 7, / item of electric equipmera important to safety covered by this secGun: 'V 'i 1', (1)is qualified for its application; and .'3j (2) Meets its specined performance requirements when it n ubjected to the conditions ',' c 4 predicted to be present when it must perfonn us safety function up to the end of its qualirnd 3, ^- c '.s, 4.; life. '., s'.. m - i. e i y. 4 I ...;,.j..i W, 7,Q.,;.;. ",u. ,, :p - ,. (* Section 50A9(d) specifies: l s-m. 1., f1 }gr %,.',,, f,,M.. ,'y.,, c.< m; }- } (d)'!he applicant or licensee shall prepare a list of electric equipnent imponant to safaty a 1 g g l y., ; t, 7' < ,r *, !i information for this electric equipmera important to safety in a gurlincadon 614: 1 j covered by this section. In addinon, the applicara or licensee shad include the Udowir.g 9v gy-. I' t ' ' p:,.. *> ' g *: ' s 'h i' ) i 'I .e l' < 1/ .x i s ) i 20G , 4 l 4 t-k t. 4 '} e eh* 'e N 4 ,. *.= g 4- ,4 ,., _~ s ,,s , g ? $. w* - 4 j. 4. 4 4. e., 7-7., +, r. ',,. s,, s - 1 o .s C o g +, y e c ;.:.a : y n .w.' N k b y' l . t,,,t. c. 4. a.,,. +
,. v -
y . o.., s, #y 9. '..3.{ ]
f.
.. (g 3 ' s' iq; v;m.q],, ?. 3 $ 7 i e,,.
w. ;
e
1.f.\\ '
y ~ d. ~ s' l k ',;; 3 4,;'..,[ 1 y t, f j .4 s q a. i , _ w- , y,7.. '." ' C ' b., ] d, 4;.h ys-i..',,'k.h' h3' 1 J ,,,. o /,' j a f 74 ['
~;'t j (.
J'! ...,. 3, j
7 Q 5}.; ).* g A..

+ ;.. x,,. _
.n
} ',.
.},, f i.,, 4 s., ..,,3 .. t ./' i. .h l i F i k a g l (1)'!he performance speciScadons under condinons exisung during and following design basis accidents. i-(2) The voltage, frequency, load. and other electrical characteristics for which the ,M priormance speci6ed in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section can be ensured. (3) The environmental conditions, including temperature, pressure, humidity. radiation, l ' E., chernicals, and submergence at the locadon where the equipment must perform as specified in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. l .*- 4.,[.,.,, ~t i ' [. ' s
54. At the time of the 1983 hearing, Applicants had completed approx-

li
. l imately 80% of their review of their equipment qualification program to de- ., ; 7 ' I termine whether all electrical equipment important to safety could be qualified for a harsh environment duration of 1 year (Maidrand,1-Tr. 978). As of that ,"#'.!~ time, the Staff had not received Applicants' envimnmental qualification submit- . i tal in order that it could perform an audit of Applicants' qualification files to verify that electric equipment important to safety located in a harsh environment ~ l,", fu l was qualified for 1 year or for the required operating time determined plus a i margin. (Staff Testimony, ff.1.Tr. 990, at 2, 3.) l j.
55. The Staff made a preaudit review of the Seabrook qualification program l
l based on 6 3.11, Amendment 56, of the Seabrook Station Final Safety Analysis l Report and on the Applicants' EQ Submittal, Revision 2.2211 was assisted by I a contractor, EG&G, the prime contractor of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The contractor's report, showing many deficiencies, was transmitted to the Staff by a memorandum dated February 21,1986. (NECNP Exh.13.) The contractor's report also stated that the deficiencies, while a cause for concern, did r not necessarily mean that the equipment was unqualified and that the Applicants l should resolve the deficiencies and document the resolutions in an auditable I form. (/d. at 4.)*The Staff reviewer had a copy of the EG&O preaudit report-l n 1 sometime prior to February 21,1986. (Walker, Tr. 697.)
56. Prior to conducting the EQ audit, the Teview team membess met with m.'
'l ? the Applicants and discussed each of the deficiencies found during the preaudit /"',. review. Applicants agreed to correct them. (Walker, Tr. 700.) l
57. During the period of February 24 through February 27,1986, the Staff's e
l reviewer and consultants conducted an audit of twelve equipment qualification ~. i C, - files as part of their environmental qualification review. (NECNP Exh.11.) 2h i The Staff generally performs an audit after it has reviewed the equipment ...( l qualification program and concluded that it is basically adequate, and after ! t, ,\\,,. g 1 an applicant has agreed that it has sufficiently completed its environmental qualification program. Moreover, in choosing files for audit, the Staff attempts L.'~f. -, - :.'. c.' ~,' to achieve a random selection, except where it believes that there could be 1 ^ c. problems, or lack of information, or any indication that there are reasons to i l- , ^ ' iy j 1.., - l. ~. f: ..M 'I f* j, . 4, + ~[' 12While the mal testimany did not speciAcally indicats the number d EQ Ales reviewed, perusal of Table 2 in ..y '. ',) : j the EG&o repeat (N'ECNP Exh. f 3) 4* cates that an 112 Ales were milable at the uma for saanunation. ..l,. f*7 .l 1 ...i + l s 1 4 .] <~, 3 e i.+ d. 207 r a '7;;,+ 1 \\ s v !\\; s a.
d,
,p 6 w k
9***]"*.f"*
4
9* 9e C
m i
g..
.) 4 e, r. c3, ,, 8. s ,b. . 9 i ' \\ / ;, k. - [ 4 r g d 4 ,}
n. >
.s . a q 'b ,f. -. A: ,L. Yt f,% '.s '. j '.. h .y w-,, fy - s2 r a y >, m, z y ~ ~ 8: . py:;4 + e ,+ ( -e. j g 4 e. >k 7 .t z + MN l k :;,,. $ $ N. W M M f '. M, ~, h ;.O M @ D.,,: E 4 {, $,[ ' 6. O % h'W 7 th;f.W WCygp.# c .f
~
dM M k M$M m. css &, ylM.g'k,p ; ~, 'y; n:.'J. ' i y m, .,., - %. ] >M i
.'.Wi,;;D* M'kl V.lT1 %
j h m, ..-:4.. ' q -- ,,g. ,A - y;, y > n, :& .,.s-
y. -
..i: z ,i ; *., r, /. 7p .o )- .~ wh..t i. b, if^ -M. + - 4 4. , ;;a ~ believe that a file may not be complete. (Walker, Tr. 692-93.) For the purposes ~f.,*3 of the instant audit, some of the files were chosen to determine if the Applicants y s 't 4 a *1,f J-V. - J..j. " - had corrected the deficiencies as agreed (Walker, Tr. 696-97). 7 y,'- ! / V :;,..
58. Results of the audit were recorded first la a report to the Staff from its

.y$, -
(.,j. .M j.. % consultants dated March 31,1986. (NECNP Exh.12.) 'Ihis was followed by an ~ exit interview Meeting Summary dated April 11, 1986, prepared by the Staff *) x 0 ' 5 [1 ' ' ",,>f. lD 'g, '# to document observations and comments made by the Staff and its consultants r.. N.. to the Applicants at the end of the F' bruary 24 27 audit. (NECNP Exh.11.) e
2. " ( Y -
, -- l 'J The general comments noted in the Meeting Summary indicated that, inter alia, J, '3 i. the Staff did not agree with the way that the Arrhenius equation" was used to a 5:q... a-calculate postaccident operability time. (NECNP Exh.11 at 1.) ~
4

59. In response to the Staff's comment on improper application of the i
Arrtenius equation, Applicants recalculated the postaccident operability times l for all equipment files using the methodology recommended by the Staff. The results were that equipment in all files, except eleven, met Applicants' original I J goal of 40-year normal operating life plus 1 year postaccident life. Technical ~. 1 j justi6 cations were given for the postaccident operability duratio ts of equipment Ml in the eleven files not meeting the 1-year postaccident life. (Appl. Testimony,' f',' + f y, p, ff. *1Y. 357, at 4-171 Appl. Exhs. 2 and 7 (13).) The Staff reviewed the qualification information for equipment items in those files and found that they ,l; met the requirement of 100 days or the postaccident time margin requirements specified in Position C.4 of Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.89 and were thus r, y >[ I acceptable (Staff Exh. 5 at p. 3-24 and 'Ihble 3.1.) l
60. The Meeting Surnmary also reflected that six of the twelve EQ files au.-
.1 7 ;' '. 3, ; <,.g -, i. 's; J. dited contained deficiencies that required correction. (/d. at 1 ; Walker,'IY. 517.) . Q $ .. ~ F ;; g. Of the six files, four called for supporting or clarifying information. They were: ,3 T. " s ' y. ', (a) one file (#113-01-01) should be updated to include test information that , l; /,.' A j had been provided by Applicants during the audit, (b) a second Sie (#174-y 3. ' ;,,.p :f. ~}.g% ; [S", - 15-01) should be supplemented to include additional information justifying the '.O 9, '..p.. g f e. ' ,# h use of a test sequence different from that specided in IEEE 323-1974, (c) a p ~, ,. third file (#113-06-01) should include a statement specifying that submergence -*s qualification was not required (d) a fourth file (#236-11-06) should be supple-j }' mented to include clarifying test report data in the equipment summary evalu-
, y
'E ation. (NECNP Exh.11 at 2.) Two of the six audit deficiencies addressed two s spdc equipment items observed during a plant walkdown conducted as part n, f <;( g, ~ -] of the audit. They were (e) three internal wires and a terminal block in a Limi- ..? f. c:.. a, n 4 .I torque Motor Operator (EQ File #248-37-01) were not identifiable and must bc X ~.g /, f ( 't W. replaced with qualified components, and (f) an ASCO Solenoid Valve (EQ File . m, :,, :,y, l., ../.,,,, f U $f [
J The Anhenius equation is a ameAsmperature intatianaiaip tht compares the test time and temperinue with 3

" '.fr'.,, ',*"-
',, 'h, q the time and ternperaune equivalency m the plant, with a constarit in ths equatian that is represernauve of the f g f maseriab of the dwiost (Woodward.Tr As2.) 3 q s - 208 9 s 6 Ts A ? f h {
h g '[
4' W,
j_
r-t. ~, Q.. S. M ?^ Y^ l ,.i '}ke*. .,,nlt l9 9' v' t ' y. b s'. ?., .js,, +, a n. ,y, v 'hf) r..,, ^ "1 4 ~ s,'L s' -j
l
) e~. u, m. g. <. l p r;; ~ h.~ p;f :p- : y. n. g[.7,o - 4 MX
NSSS-220-02) had two different equipment identification numbers on it, which d
situation must be rectified. (Id.) f$' ?e ters of April 3 and April 10,1986, were attached to the prefiled testimony of j
61. Applicants' responses to the NRC audit observations, contained in let-q
~ r,.7 J y{' ' 7' cants have completed, or have committed to complete, actions on the deficiencies i ' ' ',I - Messrs. Salvo, Thomas, and Woodward. These responses indicate that Appil- ~ i S('E '%{,'. - '-.N and open items noted in the audit report. (Appl. Testimony, ff. 'IY. 357, at 20-21, I [
i Exhs, 2, 7.)
l ' ~ },3 'g c mS,' (, . i 'l, ' 'l
62. With respect to the files requiring clarifying or supporting information, as found during the February 24-27,1986 audit, the Staff noted in Supplement g,
y,, ', r, r.,, 5 of the Safety Evaluation Report (July 1986) that "[t]he applicant proposed j M<..'..' .m, . A, acceptable corrective measures in the form of additional information and file c. ^ "~i revision to eliminate the deficiencies cited." With respect to the two deficien- /, '. -.,h" y cies noted during inspection of the installed equipment during a plant walkdown conducted as part of the audit, the Staff noted that "[t}he applicant proposed ac. ,l9 e ceptable corrective measures for the deficiencies that were found and committed .2 6N <.,,, f '. ' ~5'[ ~ to correct all deficiencies by fuel load." (Staff Exh. 5, 6 3.11.4 at p. 3-25.)
63. With respect to the overall Seabrook EQ program, the Staff, in SSER-5 (id., 5 3.11.5 at p. 3-25) concluded:
y, he Staff has reviewed the Seabrook program for the environmental qualiScation of elec.trical i equipment important to safety and safety.related mer.hanical equipment. "The purpose of the review was to determine the adequacy and scope of the qualincation program and to i*..,, verify that the methods used to demonstrate quali6 cation are in compliance with applicable ,l7'.. W regulations and standards. ' ?.', * ]. l On the basis of the results of its review and subject to confirmation that all audit deficiencies )
f..,..
,j have been conected, the Staff concludes that the Applicant has demonstrated compliance j W. with the requirements for environmental qualification as outlined in 10 CF.R. 50.49, the. j S.,,.H,g j relevant parts of GDC 1 and 4, and HIII, XI, and XVII of Appendix B to 10 CF.R. 50 j Q,.. .b a . / j.', .....,,5 and with the criteria as specified in NUREG-0588. i *., g.. 3, 3 m ,m m...
y y # h

64. Typically, the Staff asks an applicant to notify it by letter when all y
,...m-deficiencies have been conected and the EQ fdes have been changed to reflect e ,,y - those corrections. Here the Staff has received such a letter from the Applicants A '. '." [~ ~ bg.",'",,* (Walker, *1Y. 688, 713). c,
65. In addition to the six audited EQ files discussed above, during the 1986
~ A @.C 1 4,,' r i hearing, through cross-examination NECNP challenged the adequacy of several EQ files." (See generally 'IY. 358-457.) Our findings with regard to the specific MN'. [. 5 - .. s [. -. 1 2;u ;. -1 e ',.m e. .3.1 i., r?, t, e x ..c.:'.. ~ f a \\q. ~.,, $'.j. n ~ *,.,, t, /,, s 9 *. p - ";2 l M ' W %... ' - ., ',, j l, 1 i in Apphcanss' motim for issuance of a pamalinmal decman suihannns low. power apersuan owe addressed by With respect to at least one af the 6les, concerns that had bosn raised in NECNP s appasstian of July 2,1986, i 1,. '.. *[ [', ...C
j. Y, 7,,.,,' / ~ *,,.,,
n., },. f >,,,, 'f ". ',s,' APP eanu' wunesses in their prealad tammany (Appl. Tesamony, ff. Tr. 3s7, at 18 20% h .y y .s " 4 l, { I'.
. }. ;

y fv%
s' e. r.' 209 y '. + I.s (.. lB e l l,. ' ' ', s R Q.: 1 ,b. ..,. -. -.,.. _. p-m. -. if!, ,g . i (J - 4 ) "3 s ' + u. O$ i q ,y _j .. " -'kj a ,) 'y, 3 se 5 ',%,,. '4 i '.; 1 ' f ',. s U .,f v-g y t p'f,3 2., ;., j f y 4
A,,
e> n., f. .~ b D $f i 4 ,;4.5:; $,,,' -~, 3.,.f,'Q; C, 4. G. .; A ].A,4i ?ty'ni. % g ;'*/ Y . W '. 10 m . c g, x 3; ~ 3g-Sq 7 e 3 em a
,}. ?
~. - 'y .S, 7, 6, a 4 3-4 J. J h ' ) $!' n - )q + F, 4 ' 3I'* items in the five EQ files challenged in NECNP's proposed findings are set forth j +.,. ' ..(f/, below. , a. . 'i R,
66. EQfde #113-01-01, item: Anaconda 5-kV power cable (multiple con-

, 9 j'7, y, ductor)- The multiple cenductor cable was qualified on the basis of compari-j i;
3. L,[:d..pi son with test results from a single conductor cable as tested by Anaconda. The ', ( t .,[Q.,j construction of the tested specimen was refened to as being " exactly similar" g fj to that of the individual conductor in the multiple conductor cable. (NECNP ~ Exh.1, reference 6, 5 page attachment to letter from Anaconda Company to p$'h i' V. M United Engineers and Constructors, dated December 10,1979, at 2.) Applicants' 1 W witness felt that the term " exactly similar" meant that both the tested cable and .OF"1 the multiple conductor cable are similar within the bounds of environmental l I i qualification so that the test report adequately represents equipment supplied to j Seabrook and that the test is a representative test of that equipment. (Woodward, A~ 'Ir. 368-69.)
o. - 1

67. The Board does not find that the term " exactly similar" in this instance is j) confusing and notes that the reference 6 letter, supra, explicates the similarities and presents other information as to why the testing of the single conductor cable would be representative of and applicable to the multiple conductor
~ ,j cable. Environmental qualification by testing of similar items, with a supporting analysis, is acceptable according to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(f)(2). No evidence was adduced to challenge the tests or supporting analysis presented in the EQ file 7q H
113-01-01 (NECNP Exh.1, reference 6). Thus, the environmental qualification 1
is acceptable and adequately documented.
b

68. EQ fde #113-19-01, items: TIT Suprenant RG-38 coaxial cable and
~ - j}( RG 11 triaxial cable -These two items were qualified by comparison with sim-q ilar types of cable, RG-11.U and RG.59-U coaxial cables, that were tested. The c 4 J'(,,{ J [.] bases for similarity and qualification by comparison of the two untested cables , f, ; 7/f '[; with those tested was explicated in a letter from the manufacturer. (Woodward, '11. 378 82; NECNP Exh. 4, Equipment Summary Evaluation at 1 of 1, and ref- . p 4 g - l %' erence 4, i.etter ITT Suprenant Division to United Engineers and Constructors, .y
.3 s~
~ g ,r, '; y j dated February 11, 1983.) , g U f r i
69. The absence of quali6 cation for submergence was justified on the
,g3 ';, ground that the ITT Suprenant cables are not installed below postulated plant ~- . y, flood levels; hence submergence qualification is not required. The basis for this i 4 6 J,i y conclusion was a plant walkdown that is documented in the EQ file by a letter from Impell Corporation to Yankee Atomic Electric Company, dated February ~,.)."",'a 2,1986. (Woodward,1Y. 377 78; NECNP Exh. 4, reference 10.) The Board ij aj finds this conclusion to be justified. j ~ i j '-yN
70. Justification for similarity of the untested cables, generally, was that all R'.
.. r,,..J,% four IIT Suprenant cables were similar in construction details and the materials i .'., p.. A,. n \\ used to construct them were identical. Further, the dimensions of the untested .. k '~I RG-11 triaxial cable and the tested RG-11 coaxial cable are identical throush 3y. 3{ ',y l(- v 3 1 _ M, ~ ' 210 j A lt ' 1 v + + g. e . / l '.. j i ~ $ ): l
*) A [.l '
m.- ~. 4,.
g. y _.p x.). ?
Q [q ;.p' ;'_. ' ,, ~ s, s .-..g.x. o.,.. b.. i 4 d ., ~ 'h<. ) ', g. s ^4,*,,* 7, .;S ,'g 4 4 ,a i
y [ h
+ N ,f: 3. y :x.', w ~yys ~ ^ y- { .v,
lv
.g x i ^j f ."' ; p[' Q+.V'VW j Q' 7,y,','N",41*%. Q,y ,,13. Q p,, 4 g y g /.x % -, .f .j4 + g s W e, y.
,- 1 g
% ar 1 y > ;.,,,.3 m j,,,,,..; 3 3 f$ YY g ?, L,;3.g.., : g 4.Qf.$,;${Q, Y yQ. ~ . u@. fg. hyA... ,4.,..'Aa,; : ,= n. . y ,.4.m. v...,<. n.. g @. a ev _ < "... x y agp S.o.h..":r. A n." .:+ e d. t.... y. c ;.%e@v_ P ' ' n' rs -' - 6.c : yy ur t ~3 S, '. \\ W, r.- f % w. .,p< u.y.. g :4].' ~ , q,, Sc - -.c. S. t ...g .' s. s, g, s, .f WT 3.1.E i .Q.3',,., Q.. ],yclV.'.; .i f v-c y q .,e + v w e t h,. p. y e ) ,o m.., e. a >
f. -
- 6 . ;,. s,7-v W+:. m. .s 4, ) .a 4 3,., - i ly L R. i A m ..n c y 8 3..I the first shield, and the triaxial cable has an additional shield and jacket of - p ',j j.f g[ ' ' 4 materials identical to that of the coaxial cable. (NECNP Esh. 4, reference 4.) While NECNP dallenged the similarity between the types of cable as not being " ';,. ?y' C,' %@h.. ,4 ,L. 4... 4..x. documented in de EQ file (NECNP Prop. Fdgs.1519), the Board found little ~,. ' [ J $f * * [ dif6culty in accepting the manufacturer's certification, or for that matter, in ) { (-l Q y J.i*f.. locating testing requirements, matenals specifications, and dimensions of all ] 6.. O
P four cables in the EQ file provided by NECNP. (NECNP Exh. 4, reference 1, l
i * ;-.%,$ ' -']8f,M, '.,. ' ' 7,, L l W. at 3-8,12-13, Appendices A and B.) Thus, the Board finds that justification 'i for environmental qualification of cables RG-58 coaxial and RG-11 triaxial by )
c comparison with tested coaxial cables RG-11-U and RG-59-U is adequately l
~, j,$TW ;'j: q. g;..;.. W/; f? 'l. A documented in the Applicants' EQ files.
j; y1, 5gj,je y;33 20 01, items

ITT Suprenant 300V instrument cable (and c.g:
l
. rp
'. ' l V )..".: ' h MM-IR 12 instrument rack) - nis cable was not subjected to a submergence l ' ' 1.,.,' !.f ,O test, but was qualified for 30 days' submergence by immersion in tap water ] f D 7 ' 9 ' 1 and conducting a high-potential test based on 80 V/ mil of insulation thickness l M yj after completion of the 100-day SLB/LOCA testing where peak temperatures j
i' C
reached 390 F, peak pressures reached 113 psig,100% humidity was maintained i 3 y' ,f ,.] through the 100-day test, and cables were exposed intermittently to chemical 'T f i :' spray. The cable specimens were energized and electrical loadings were main-M. # ' ' Q,...c' ' +d tained throughout the 100-day test. Since the greatest depth of flooding that this { cable will experience in the plant under accident conditions is 3 feet, producing J a static pressure of about 1.3 psi, the static pressure is regarded as negligible t ?.s 1 in comparison to the 113 psig pressure during the test. ne presence of high L i, ",d *! l i 7, 5 q temperature,100% humidity, and chemical sprays,,with the high pressure is ' ' ', j 4 ' ni f.ptlc{ 'l considered adequate to account for the submerged condition of this cable for P 7.,-y.,,., - a 30-day duration. (NECNP Exh. 5, reference 14, at 12.) Further basis sup-4 plied for acceptance of the judgment that this procedure adequately qualified . c., c[... i... F,ed b.,') the cable for 30 days' submergence was that the cable had undergone thermal
A

W' s i
}.,, c.g.g g;* 7. .q. g.,- and radiation aging to end-of-life conditions prior to the test sequence and that "]Qy,,.j actual moisture contact with the cable would not have produced more severe l e, ,'-, f ic. J'i conditions of stress. (Woodward, "R. 404-06.) M '
,Q ' ;. - *, " ]

72. The 300-kV ITT Suprenant instrument cable associated with three
, 7 '- 'J" fli'f l', valves located inside the reactor containment building and subject to submer-J.9. 7, L%.. *. j gence due to LOCA flooding was found with other items, not to meet a 1 year -.t ').iW y postaccident operability time, as shown in Applicants' prefiled testimony. That l '. EY,$5kO ,$.] ~s-testimony indicated that the valves served by the cable would close in less than ? - W/yf~. 'A. 1 minute, which time when added to the 1 hour margin required by Regulatory C L *:.M[p.'!L,, Mit ; :, [..I, neering analysis further indicated that once the inboard letdown isolation valve Guide 1.89 results in a required operating life of 61 minutes. Applicants' engi-9 a ~ ,. ? ,. ~n p' [ ; 7 Q ",,[f[7 '. R,c; /+7 Y,,j . f- ' f, c[.).t*.[i[ ,*.x has closed, it has performed its safety function and is not required again in the ~ M. near term or for long-term recovery operation. he other valves (accumulator ,7 G .p., C ' tank isolation valves) are normally open during power operation and also re-q. .,, - t N '. 8,,, yy*'y .A ,r 4 .. N. (, - / ' " J.7 - j 211 ..?; m D a
i-4M.,.
9 ..,.,, n.r.a., ..v s, 6 y ^ f. 4 \\ af.-. _ u,.,m i
f 4 y,i
~ ,.3-..s-f 7.p s ~y. - x, + q(.?. s, 'eo l. .; ; y +
Qi" jf
}
. *lp
.,7 g . 2-
j. t j n,..,
,j- .s -4..~,. e _n(- f a
JM'
,..Q ),Q - , ib .,. I d .p
f L '
l -, f d g\\_ ey s. ' ' q. " *l m ')}-**%3 't ' r ) E _--- 2 . MM g.S @ ...O
f. g. v..
. - e ;;y w p%.;, d@.s,$,.f.e[$ 2 W'y...% M k,o @'n(>.d. @ANM$$ M.A-m QN%$(d F q? CWo n s s 'y 7 v ' p; . ; f,.y*e,-m. _ t n e.w g.
, 3 41 7
o <v, j ,; p p > .y v .p.. q,, .3 .? ~ y p. ,a~ w .: s
y, s,,

.
e k:y, J :,," > C I ^ e ^ W. * ! ' N'~ N'M' 4,, }; l ")D.;; } N y >}*' k..,,- 2* l q ; , ; J.4,; p Ak ceive an SI signal to open. Applicants' engineering review determined that all ^ ..d h *, ' ' term failure of the cables does not result in a change in valve position. Bus iV' the valves would perform their safety function within 24 hours and that long- , $.;4 ' a Q a O: Applicants concluded that the 30-day postaccident operability qualification of ..i ,,Q, MT U ' k ,' ', s ~.' ',h the associated cables has sufficient margin to ensure that the required safety i .b.* J function has been perfotmed. (Appl. Testimony, ff. Tr. 357, at ?; Appl. Exh. 4 $ h.[ % [ $ iP .I at 1-2.) B agree. i %(,N, did, 9 '
73. As another matter, NECNP ' challenged the completeness of EQ file 1

113-20-01 with respect to Instrument Rack MM-IR-12 which is supplied by
? 4 - 9,z 1 M ," Z o i 1 the 300-kV instrument cable. According to NECNP, the EQ file indicates that L s& submergence qualification for the cable is not required because the instrument i i rack has been downgraded to Operability Code C, and that no explanation or ,3 1 ]j justification for the change (in the instrument rack operability code) is provided in the file. (NECNP Prop. Fdgs. 22-23; see NECNP Exh. 5, Environmental i j Qualification Assessment Report, at 11 n.9.) + .? ' y' 'i 74 Equipment categorized as Operability Code C is that which may see a
d harsh environment, including submergence, subsequent to design basis accidents,
~;- 0 '+ but which performs no safety function relative to mitigating the accident or ,l. ? putting the plant in a safe condition after the accident. Operability Code C J ,i equipment is also evaluated to determine that failure of the equipment due to t 4 environmental conditions will not affect the safety of the plant. (Woodward, 1 Tr. 386-87; see also Regulatory Guide 1.89, Appendix D,13.c.) W (d
75. The Impell Corporation, for the Applicants, reviewed locations of Class
' ' y' A IE electrical equipment in the plant and determined that some were located ,.l g.; ., ',,. O i below flood level for the specific equipment locations. With regard to instrument 'i rack MM-IR-12, located below flood level in the mechanical penetmtion area, ft Impell found that the rack, its accessories and the transmitters are not qualified ' t, for submergence. It recommended that the equipment be relocated above flood 3, ',. f . (i * ' ,.f. ['.' 5 - IcVel unless it can be shown that operability for the moderate energy line Mf T..[ j'% ',E break (MEI.B)is not required. (NECNP Exh. 5, reference 12, at 4; Woodward, ~ ~ * * ' ". i ) _
d..
', q:f j s < f Tr. 387.)
76. United Engineers and Constructors performed a specific review and
'.i*... M t-determined that no piece of equipment in instrument rack MM-IR 12 was required to perform any safety function during an MELB. Accordingly, the Q.
.;f.
instrument rack was downgraded to operability Code C. The report of the change 4.- is an Engineering Change Authorization (ECA No. 03/114514A dated 2-21 ,jf".
86) that is found in the EQ file, NECNP Exh. 5, reference 16). De ECA j ly.[. f
~ < ... U ]l shows the signoff that indicates that several engineering disciplines reviewed the 3.. 5 operability requirements and determined that there is no impact on downgrading p; A in .M the equipment from operability Code A to C. A pencilled-in change reflecting Qv.' [. $ C.. , ! ",A ' ".4 the change on the Class IE equipment list also is present in reference 16 and this s .' Q x >
t. g s

l

* 'z y
{ l, b* w r. :8 o 1 ~ v
M. [_
212 4 .. - y' s ' i c f g. s
l

u. -
ul: J -,'.,.] -4, e.. s : , y,,,,;.e., s s..- i d @ 3] c ', D', ,, _ - l[, */ ,4 ,1,. l 9 % ~ ,n 'r M (,
f SS 4
?',e y.,(5 a; w %.m O,4 N,,u.. M,,.[$y,t, ! '_j;. g y " '7lj(. ;;k ' e 2.,.,f J , a )ap' ,w y , y; im. . I.h.d. p..; ',.s h t ; - i,..;,, < ;. x, a,n,m ; ' ,7 , 'r
f..,.. ' N, 7, ".
w 3.,, t n. A 1 .x y9 4 p 9 ~ .s 1 , 7,,. _,,,,gy{ gggw.. j y.j'hih%.k; k.; yy yO W.wQ.g.i - ..,,yg y 'M g%gQra,
w. G Y W +U. ;i M ] Q p m
" @Wy;j;? % Mi 2h-xm' QIhM! WIGV - = W ?% a .~ m g.; 8,;g e w. ~ w x Ly ;m x ,..y a, ~
q. L w ~
m. 's . 'y t s T.2-e
. A;. p.' l 4.q;,9 '
~ . % :2 3k,. y. A ',4' ? + pg; m 4 ,. ~. .% %1 @w v- . y* ? '.M.h; ;. .. h
G.C '
s W.'t M a w. y
y
,, s m O g-' 7 q4 e 7' change will be reflected in the next scheduled revision of the harsh equipment t 5. A,.. .f. ?'t list for Seabrook (Wcodward, 'IY. 386-91; NECNP Exh. 5, reference 16.) t .. [ ys 7.,. -y"
77. The Board finds that detailed explanation of the criteria used to down-pi
( 3. grade the instrument tack MM-IR 12 in the ITT Suprenant cable EQ file #113-4 20 01, beyond that contained in the file, is not necessary to satisfy the require- , 8 ', ; #. ,4' i; ment of 10 C.F.R. 550.49(j) that EQ files be maintained in auditable form. No other requirement for inclusion of more detailed explanation in the EQ file wra ,. p,. s, 4 ,,...,e j ..f,, averred by NECNP or any other party, and we know of none. l
78. EQJile #NSSS-220-03, items: limit switches RH-ES 618 and RH-2S-
) 619 - NECNP challenged this file on essentially the same basis as the foregoing j instrument rack (Fdgs. 73-76, supra). NECNP alleges incompleteness because j ~ # ,l there is no explanation in the EQ file of the reason for downgradmg the limit 4', switches to Opembility Code C. Indeed, the same ECA (No. 03/114514A) is ~ . N
a
~ referenced to documat the change in operability code. (NECNP Prop. Fdg. 29; NECNP Exh. 9, reference 12, at 2; Woodward, TY 446-48.)
79. The Qualification Evaluation Worksheet for the components in this L.,
j' file indicates that all items are located above flood level. Applicants' witness f - j,, believed that this was incorrect and that the entry for the "above flood level" L. / question should be "no" rather than "yes" because some equipment is located i '; below flood level. Note 1 on the same page indicates that the limit switches RH-l a ZS-618 and RH ZS-619 are located below postulated flood level but that the j { operability code has been changed to Code C. (Woodward,1Y. 446-47; NECNP 4 Exh. 9, Envimnmental Quali6 cation Worksheet at 2.) l. J' .}
.i

80. Ibr the same re1 sons held in Fdgs. 76 77, supra, for the instrument rack, l,
p i 'd we find that NECNP's allegation of incompleteness of EQ file #NSSS-220-03 ,.,a - s. for the limit switches lacks merit. p. ' } ~,'-, =
81. EQ fde #174-15-01, item: Transamerica Delami level transmitters
+ b m b ',, .[ and silicone oilfdled-conduit riser assembly - This equipment measures con-X. Y.w g., y,y'; N
/.~,, ;. d',,,
tainment water level from a ball on a rod sensor and transmits the corresponding ^ 'el water-level electrical signals to the control room. A 30-minute submergence test i. [' 'a* 'I had lecn conducted on the level transmitters, but in order to qualify the trans- ,. y d,- . } mitters for a 1 year submergence duration, Applicants designed and installed a .'. c.; riser device of metal conduit with sealed connections through which the inter-connecting wires run, and which is filled with silicone oil to prevent moisture I, ^ ,.i ' I intrusion into the transmitters. (Woodward, 'IY. 429; NECNP Exh. 7, Qualifica-l y ~ tion Evaluation Worksheet at I and reference 7 at 5.) X,.,,.-,,'.s. l l = 1
82. Each of the conduit riser assemblies is configured in an inverted "U" s
, x.. M,f 4.C.3 f junction box or splice box attached to one of a pair of level transmitters. Only A shape with its downward-pointed legs of unequal. length terminating at the A@; p.- l 'y (. .ol l;; the lower transmitters (ID: CBS-LE-23841 and CBS-1.E-2385 1) of each riser U y. ff.
f assembly are below flood level and subject to submergence. A " Tee" fitting with

@g -(.y w {a.-, c.
,;/ gr,;, y a threaded plug or cap is located at the high point of each inverted U shaped riser ~-
~
^ 4 (4,c. t< h'. ",. - - 4 .M 213 i o ? l,- l i ( /j
a q
~ .y ({ M.. .i s ...q--3...g,3g . 7..,, F b +, s y r, y '. ,,j, .. ?*7.a ,\\ 1.,.- G, 3,: .v '.. ; n y x},, < v , ?A 4
i,.,
e y r, % ? ..,N < (* ,y +
w
^ <. -T< J, 4' ,, e. t a ** N <3 $..,. 9 #,, 5 "..., e-4. - ', .s '3 4 l p.., n, yj '. ' h I g,, ~ 51 * . '.( ' E ' ' ' E,c - 'f'N',h,:..a.c.*[k:, 4 ...m ys 7 ,g hN.[,[; 4- .y u .~ .s. % g Q.h.;pWj Q.ag g ; f C4.%,,e'p . j t., Y ).- ,,,%. &.M}i.W Q M y ,l di .h Y
h.h h h.h,
,'hk [, kh/? ,e, v x.. e. +.. 2l.. n >
v.,, --.
a m x.. .r > .x 2m. + ,. 9,. : ,c . a. - 2 '.y 'm .g e e m
m.
.O,. 1, .u. ~ [ [
'O-f 1 r
A ,p; s ..,(,.p),3. %,, j>... - ,\\ s . s. y,. ,;' :)*, r, ", 3 V,.. _ i Q, o
.5, 2
- t"4
O.. [,.,%l..',?,'
j constructed, are intended to provide a static head of 4 feet 6 inches of oil above 3,1 y assembly to permit filling both legs with Dow #710 silicone oil. The risers, as .yVB'%[y(,'h(:f,.'..r~. I. " s c, A. %'[ j'?. J;$/{J.' postulated flood level to counter the 6-5/8-inch head of water that would cover
?-
Q lc the lower transmitters. (NECNP Exh. 7, Equipment List at 1 Environmental 7'. s.; I[ld Qualification Assessment Report at I and 11, reference 5 at 1-4, reference 7
6,W,,U at 2, 3, 5, and 9; Woodward, Tr. 452 (post line 16)-454.) The oil used in the s
4 fj 2 risers is the same as that used in the equipment boxes and was used in the ~ -v ',,f.9('m environmental qualification test configuration. (Woodward, 'It 436.) >+ '.j. J ,J
83. NECNP challenged two aspects of the riser assemblies, principally on y
c' 1,. grounds associated with information provided in reference 7 of EQ file #174- ' ? ;.} 15-01, the Engineering Change Authorization (ECA) which was prepaled to S.'. ,1 obtain authorization and to provide instruction on installation of the risers. First, ' [ ', 'I the ECA is inconsistent with other parts of the EQ file in that the flood levels differ by 2 feet 8 inches and the instructions to fill the riser would result in 611. s, - 4 [
7. e Icvels that differ by 4 feet relative to postulated flood levels.ls Second, NECNP asserts that elimination of a pressure test to check for leaktightness of the riser
,n.- . J',gl,U ~ f q assembly, that was originally called for by the ECA thsign, compromises the
i..; 's j '
1 ability of the transmitter to function for the duration of an accident in which it ID Nt(/E.k[ 'g' lt might be submerged. (NECNP Prop. Fdgs. 35, 37,40,45; NECNP Exh. 7 at 2, w.M J 3,5,9; Environmental QualiScation Assessment Report at 11 n.11.) O D f 84 The ECA of this EQ file (NECNP Exh. 7, refere 3e 7) contains the '., [ tj g [f[ '. [ d installation instructions for installing the riars. Sheet five of the ECA illustrates ',' M. y 2.' f
f, (Q '
'l. ,{ the concept of fil:ing one riser to a 6-inch.ninimum point above the flood level J which corresponds to the spreader fill connection (" Tee"). This is not inconsistent , / >.';. 3. J *; y v 4 ,l. T ; - y"'g 'r;$ , l g; with the fill instructions on sheet five of the ECA. Once the equipment was . *a ;,; \\ "yq'U,; ; installed, the ECA is no longer the drawing of record for the. plant. 'Ihe ,f l.;,,(~' ,. J (, h ~ _ ~ ;. postuEted flood level in this location at the time the ECA was prepared was .: ~, ' (-)18 feet. (Salvo, Tr. 451; Woodward, 'It 452,454; Thomas, R. 455.) -a c,- [ p rl' j J...dWi,6,, g ,5 %
85. After issuance of the ECA (NECNP Exh. 7, reference 7) the postulated s-
- y, m-g .. l-flood level at this location was changed to (-)20 feet 8 inches. (Woodward, i'f. ' .'c 'It 454.) Also, actual measurements of the riser assembly during a plant /. J 'ef walkdown indicate that the elevation of the filler " Tees" are 8 inches above (-)l7 .f ', l feet 13/8 inches (equals (-)l6 feet 5-3/8 inches) and 9-1/2 inches above (-)l7 N + .] feet 13/8 inches (equals (-)l6 feet 3-7/8 inches). (NECNP Exh. 7, reference 5, J L '. j]! 4] hf.' O. b at 2,4.) Filling the risers to the respective levels of the filler " Tees" will provide an oil head of 4 feet 21/2 inches above flood level at one riser and 4 feet 4-1/8 .. y, g -. ? I. g ^ H inches above flood level at the other riser. (14. at 1,3.) This would counter the ,,vi.ra 'N .,,g t 4 ~n, - q... .f I
13
.. a, 15 "t} q- [ 7 ^ s,,.g " Q.;.j.3 . 4 "" 7 {~ '}w[ g..- 'y, i. Y d.t !n Proposed Finding 40 NECNP nnstakenly asses eat a Sood level of (-)18 fee is 2 fast 8 inches lower m o t 6an 2004 level (-)20 feet 8 inches. An elevadan of (-)18 feu is 2 foot 8 inches Aigner man eleveden (-)20 Fl*(j, ' V ' ',',.* y, /*$ y' 4 .,,. [./ fast 8 inches. Also, des All levels (Tes" 6ttings), at comrpucted, are in easess of I foot abms the minimmun l f, L.4 i -C'* (-)l7. foot 6. inch level specined in the ECA. he the as. built All levels ate not inconsistent wuh those in thn i r .] C.f, d ECA installsijan instnictions. tses Fds. 84.) i ef d ,4 , m p.ay r + L.- ,,,,c .gs n., i i ). q.,, t i
. y'
~,t y 214 . m y 4f u 4 d .g-(0 ..d,gN.,,. T M.. u. ..I. _.m.",' y, s,...,,,,, - * ' i, e , gy{p+.. J. " y. 4 a i f l*, *..*
t
' q + %.' 13 ' J3 : ., b a s ,~ - %g U .p 1' a ),., > A,6 ysa q f,. y :., -j**
L s#.
_ e) *. i. ~y 3 't ,, ' } w'eg?,,, s ,8 ,c
[,..=".p'
k. ),$1, '.M e h'
1 Q qc y;"hg&g l W sf%,( ).N
(',,,,,it*;('",9{?_ ,U" E m, " 3%[]f.,y. ,F l A i gyTQp.," gdQ 4 *: ~- y n =w r"'. i y..g g lN g,-. ;c-.i.,4y D k b.hk. ~ T
h.,g 4 ;dNN NhN Nh' pl, g..
? ..,1 ,s.,. kjh hk h N h' 9 , 2. Q: 'Q, W;;.k r."h' ' T Wl.1 * '*W 4.rh,y %.$5ff.,YD, l ~ w'- ~,
(L;.>;n;.:;;y.,
.o ,m W ~ 3,t 3. l q )" v: f, r e i . !. p.. 4 *p.L x* fl,,p, 2 a m ..s s e o,3 g., ee i ,a 9 7;,. o. V h,, 6-5/8-inch head of water that would cover the submerged transmitters during the postulated flood. 'Ihese elevations and static pressure heads are in approximate, . q. '. ;; -ih 6.l ^ but not exact, agreement with the design as specified in the "Special Conditions" ~'; 1 .gg;]%{5 ' <. ~,, ', ' f for acceptance of the submergence qualification of this equipment. (NECN?
1 Exh. 7, EQ Assessment Report at 1; see supra Fdg. 82.) Thus, we find NECNP's allegations concerning the design of the risers and the alleged discrepancies in a

j flood level, fill level, and filling instructions to be without meriL "] -e t i
86. In regard to the elimination of the pressure test of the riser assemblies (Fdg. 83), the original purpose of the 60-pounds per-square-inch test was to examine the assemblies for leaktightness. Upon later review, Applicants determined that the equipment could be damaged by the pressure test, so the test f
was eliminated. (Salvo,'Tr. 450; NECNP Exh. 7, reference 7, at 2 (Rev. "C"), 3,5,9.) /
87. According to the Applicants a visual examination was performed to r
verify that the system was leaktight. (Salvo, Tr. 451.) Applicants also asserted j that leakage could be adequately monitored during periodic calibrations that take l l place at intervals of a year to 15 months and, generally, during entries into the /M '.;t.. [ containment. (Thomas, Tr. 433-35.) lG i, Al
88. Applicants also asserted that under accident conditions the design of the
( .,j $, ' ' equipment is such that pressure on both sides of the device would be equalized, ,l' 5i and that there would be no differential pressure on the system other than the (.%JJ, static head of the liquid which is minimal. (Salvo, TY. 480-81.) No explanation of 9{ Ji how pressure equalization would be achieved by the design was given, however. J,
89. The environmental qualification duration for submerged conditions of
'.,d'"".,,~, the containment water level measuring transmitters depends upon an adequate 4 ^..U" 1 level of silicone oil remaining in the riser devices to maintain a small static j~j head to counter the 6-inch static head of water above the lower units under <e. f 5 i%, 1 'W(Q w - submerged conditions. Absence of a differential pressure head in the system J under environmental pressure conditions is also required. (NECNP Exh. 7, ..l 3 g;p. y...3 e ' 6 ? v.. ..l, ,j Environmental Qualification Assessment Report, at 1.) I
90. No maintenance requirements are specified to maintain the qualified

3. t life of the level transmitters in EQ file 174-15-01. (Id. at 3.) The Board directs t
s,[ - that maintenance requirements for the silicone-oil-filled riser assemblies be developed and included in the EQ file to ensure that an adequate level of oil is j continuously present in the riser assemblies to maintain the qualified life of the level transmitters under the required enviromnental conditions. I 4.4;7 j1 >I e. w.,o. m' t.r. v ..s. gg7 .i Conclusions of Law ( f.y ! i. [ [4 y if$. ~- -[ . W., ' J 5 The Board has considered all of the evidence presented by the parties and 4n. , W,[g 4 q 1 the entire record of this proceeding. All issues, arguments, or proposed findings 4;r,.m. u ,o t "4 g j n ~ 215 a I ~ g j ma c .,q. ..w-..,,,.,.z.
p. eyj,',
( - q. n w . 1 4 V /
.)
h I 4 y a, ' (
j, J
' 'i' l, s ',1. ; s. Os l T
r
^ s 0 [.[9 9 *b, { T,\\ g[h/f j' k a 4 h-i.s '
I A [ ;q'-
,p ,;,] 'e . ~,. ~ u Q.k',f ,. l %
dlll f;F.. i,y:YlA.
,, F.,,,)*:? l ...,. Y.lg -y%e,Wjh.;.Qh ) . s >. i,t ;<.W' 'g g,:9 y% k %.g,h(; l;l W Q* * ',,$ s %'4 -y5 ? W.
%C8 L :
R';k$N/' ' *" N,', %%Ci M ", [
,f,d

h. M'..,' y/.f a%,
0W M P 3 .qgy. :' ' r .b W 'l t, b
, ; y.

.3 ;
~
1.*p q&p,.
,a .'L ' ' ht ' :, '. -'y V,(* g P j,",. ~ A' .t l 3: v .e. i y
. L
'"1 g( presented by the parties, but not addressed in this partial initial decision, have j /. been found to be without merit or unnecessary to that decision. Having resolved j all onsite safety and emergency planning issues in controversy, pursuant to 10 p.4 j q' a C.F.R. 6950.57(c) and 50.47(d), the Board authorizes issuance of a license ) Q: 4
j', l

- 3 to operate Scabrook Station, Unit 1 up to 5% of rated power, subject to the i
condition set forth below in paragraph number one of our Order. We find that -f , f, ' '[- [',,l<;, e there is reasonable assurance the Seabrook Station, Unit 1, can be operated up l to 5% of rated power without endangering the public health and safety, and that l' ' 1 the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that j adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological a emergency. Further, if the otlier Licensing Board, which is considering offsite emergency planning issues, determines to authorize a full-power operating l license, prior to the issuance thereof Applicants must have satisfied the three i 1 conditions set forth below in 12 of our Order. s l 4 l ~ l ( l Order i L., -.
Q3
[ WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules of practice of the Commission, and based upon the N .4 - '1, 4 foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. Upon making the applicable findings required under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(a), I g.4 the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized to issue a license i; ' +. .I authorizing low-power testing and operation limited to % of rated power for l},,C .1 the Seabrook Station, Unit 1, provided that, prior to the issuance thereof, l [ 4... t' .h., Applicants shall have developed and placed in the appropriate environmental l qualification file, maintenance procedures required to ensure that an adequate (, ' a.. level of oil is continuously present in the silicone-oil-filled riser assemblics l-).< ~,' 3 associated with the containment water level transmitters to maintain the qualified n. g,M ,,a Y S 3.',., yj,f life of the transmitters under the required postaccident environmental conditions L ; (see Fdg. 90, supra); l./ s ,a 2. If a full-power operating license is authorized by the other Licensing ~! Board which is considering offsite emergency planning issues, prior to the '~ I' issuance thereof, Applicants, with respect to the Safety Parameter Display a System, shall have: l l., 'f (a) dedicated the SPDS terminal so that a continuous display of the I Critical Safety Functions will be achieved or, by means of a test function b" 14 ' 7 "; 4 - j and test computer, have an SPDS display on every cathode ray tube '; i format in the control room to continuously display the SPDS top-level (N s q-display (see Fdg. 30. supra); e ~m e(',M ^.T../.: -
.J-X z 2.

p.. -
f. s 4,. l,.';. ?, g. j ^ V .l ( n ) ~ 216 ..a l $ '_. I n 3-i .l. - j.,...,. .,.,.,o. 6, '(,'. ". 4]"- F. i p' er. 'y "(c 1; r a-s u ~,., .). >gj', a e 4 s t \\ v'f. a. ',e' '. <s " l' 2 ) e
[n...[.;'-l4 A,
. V,j .Q f i, j ; t .A ,y sQ ___i________f____________________________.___._.__. _._.r 4 . j?yg,p,g. f *. b[,c Q$;;),h s %," lj'),,y;M, 7,,(, g,C y-E ',l.'%Jy,)Yh9hQh&hh ,,y, ylTn., %)Q., p}&: ll&~% ~, 'f,.4...,.;u.t 7,, y;s,#.f., ; sllp.,( k;&r &,Q*.;, f G.:.%. f ~ 3. ~~ r
w. ; "?.
s y-r.k :
n.q. pp y 4
~ ,.t. ,L o ., f'..,0-. Ai, d; b4,..
j.,

y. 4, m cJ

. j, s
.i. t. ,n
s ',
v "e. r. m. . e' * .,s. ,e,
g.

v.,
l 9,' f 7,., (b) provided for continuous display of residual heat removal and q.y hydrogen concentration critical safety function variables at the prime .i M,
$ p SPDS station (see Fdg. 33, supra); and
( f t (c) established a radiological control screen at the prime SPDS "' i 'l ' ) ' [,I ' '.. h,,',, p' station which, at the minimum, can be called up by the operator and will ~ ,4 g display steam-line radiation and stack radiation parameters (see Fdg. 36, .e'
l supra).
~ 4 l Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.760(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. .1 ' z/ j this Partial Initial Decision will constitute the final decision of the Commission . '~ 4; forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance, unicss an appeal is taken in 3 N ^ l accordance with 10 C.F.R. 62.762 or the Commission directs otherwise. See t I, i also 10 C.F.R. Il 2.764,2.785, and 2.786. li - + p .J Any party may take an appeal from this Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal j within ten (10) days after service of this Decision. Each appellant must file a I, I brief supporting its position on appea! within thirty (30) days after filing its 1 Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty ] 7 (30) days after the period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of l // ' M , : l all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), a party who is not an ? l l ,y..",+ ',, ' appellant may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the appeal of any J[,,';}j other party. A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief regardless of [ ...d ';,,,, I l the number of appellant briefs filed. See 10 C.F.R. 62.762(c). l: g y;; 1 4 'J..,- e.? * ? THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND l '. i g . < ;f,.. -, ". N,.,sd LICENSING BOARD 3.- ., :. s.* ~. n q.,,,.<.g. g. c; i Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman . ~, V - n,J .' ;e -;, ',p J. A, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE . s.
,, i sa y s,,-..
.,.. l.g 4. *Q_ t t<...' 't W,3.y m, c ';- A r. c. Jerry Harbour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE c Emmeth A.Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 4., ? E T.T s Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, m ;,rs]- this 25th day of March 1987. s.,iS ; i - n w, - .d. ton
1.., s
.,' r,f' ,,,a j' Q 'Q' ,u . Q* f E [ L O ' }:0 ' ? s A
F g-
,', g e ~* n 1.- I' - 4 217 r .i I .i i s'6 ' f I. s J ,, V,...._.M,' y, s-,, s- '; W'r. .g', 'i 44 , g f i,,' ;e j- z. r c l .t 4
f
~r*- s.] y,3 ,l s.? a 4 & ~ f,, ' e,e., .'e-
4, =
,'Vl.2,b y,,,. k,, _ 3 .w, 5 9il 'a, . 4[x 's' . '%; z. a w, g; ,, y -- fd 4 *ge.w; . u,, fw ". m.- , s +I i, - i *-., h '. ,r a,., a.
l.
e- .g 3 4 -w* g j s a. .'*?- [w.... . _ ~ ..v..m..e.. .u...w... a. m ~. m o. e a.. :. n h #'. g I'4 '> c. f,,,/y ' N*.i, k'., \\,,~, . d,. J,l s',i.f. ,Q,k ff,- ..O, . -.IfI ~'. .";'f.k [**e t 58b[ g ,i t f 3 ..vd, ate,,-, .u'
>.9.. *e g,,p s.
. *.-g q' - s,, s'. s, q, 1. n 'w g ~ ~,. ~ ,s ..m 's a ,y,...,. n ~ s t 4 'b b' 3 = = e. 1 7., 'g. 3 h,*. h. e e e .- r it 1 4 a a
g g*
? ',, '] ' b f. ,i t yp ..' ) y I 1 s .$,'**g [ m., ,4. ,I ( ' u,r 3 i .4 ~ < i 'p '. n i 4 l .,., 5 3,
a...y J
s,. 3 r j M.. Q
1 Administrative-M~r...
e a Law Judge - J ',-I ~ !, .I' np:- a 5 .3 - 4 s l t ..)
I o-e a
a 1 1. c,: s' e 4 g 'f 9 A I 4 l r. 4 4 ',I. 4 i e 3 Y g 4 s, ) - ' 4 , 'e ( .j 4 e s e, _s,. e q (.....,.e. 4p e g
y..: -w.2..; -:p n.: c v,.,. y I
.,.4-
' ', f+
7 -5. / = g 4 ' 6 s d r. A. e. b 8 1 q,, 1 6 {' 9 e ' 71.' p._. I w n e. f . _ 3. ,3... ,.m s-- A d 4 %e . + - - .a ,*4.,
c. w 6 e
'4. yr b f e .p ,3 ;( i " e i N' ' y y ) i-
.l,_
,*,L..
p. h i
g. + ,.t., ..g 9 ~ t + 3,,,, 3 s-g, 9 , y,. wo-e r . ~. '. k 4 .O p \\ 4 r m. .{ A t. .? ' w . A s ,) a rr s a ) ( I; ', .e, 4 a h s.- W ,i,Y, g- ) g %I E
f g,
'i 6.,' ' h, 9 g s e 1,, - rq j,, se ,3,. ;. u., < :., i 3(, < t,"c
g, i
w. f 'a;, . a. a 4 '.9,;p) Mt-gf 5,7,,;. % ggf. g.Q.;y :r q,.g,w,,cp.,4._.9 % ,.$.QWey v/.,:n 4.a, .p .,7 k 4 3 ~. g r.y. : ~M,,y': :.h!.1 ; %.... a ' M,7.. m c \\ >t " n;,j. M y % %,g w wQ w s.,it,s.* m x9. M. :/ r.;, }r.%:m s' ~4 x. - Q; -,
b rQ

G. 2 n,,*
.~ n .a * ?,,,: p'..j,,.. v;..,, N. f. o 1 se, 3 '"s,, ,y 4 , 3; q.,4 y - + <, g +, q".., + .- c g.S. ~ c is ,r. D J. 5 JW ' .p, '. ' 3M.V., i .., ; 1 ' O f ,'
3 $.
t.- A ,
p.'
. j;. m., g t. s 3 , 5, '., M i. Cite as 25 NRC 219 (1987). - ALJ-87 2 , n.,' _'.,, y ;. ,..e ..y >,Nf ~ Y f f j l i . j, < UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,.4 %... '. J.. .,/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 1, -., c,c L ,, r. ~ ,q..,. .,,..m
m,3 <
,. ;8. 4, 4', ' ; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE - i" u,,.,* : yf... .)- <>~..f. g, ; e, .S . d. A,- t. ; !...,.Y Ivan W. Smkh I '.e,
i.,.i.

i..;-
i o...-; u s, 35. /Y. ,f,. - ? yl. NY; ,f..A i . - -. 1 .? g. -'~,9., , 3,.4 ,,.4... .N.,' i 3'>' in the Matter of Docket Nos. 3041993 - A s yi', h ". 70 1396 .,n.. (Licenes Nos. 210033842 i SNM 1393) j.
1-i
. (EA 25-8W) A,,~',,. a 1 S O t HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER g, * ', (One Hurley Plaza, m \\., 4 Filnt, Michigan) March 3,1987 [,. n., l: r.. s. r l,' ' ','. j ~ ',.f j.s i in an Iniual Decision, the Administrative Law Judge sustains a civil penalty in ~ the amoant of $2500 imposed against the Licensee by the Director of Inspectico W- ', n. N. fi and Enforcement for failure to comply with NRC requirernents concerriing the " J, '., ( V possession and use of a variety of nuclear materials in diagnostic and therapeutic ',.-. T x. l^.F 't . ', 1,. medicine. nr,. y. m ',, p L. ;'s s. ? ,~; ;$.: ;..% r'. % p pd ,<. v L. Q,i + tW ' u '.* W CIVIL PENALTY: ENFORCEMENT POLICY .l o - t.;a j In this enforceraent action, the NRC Staff and the Licensee, a commur.ity. J. : ' l(" q. 4 A i hoepital, had stipulated to fourteen violations of NRC requirements. The issue ,a- , f';f .[ } remaining was whether a civil penalty should be imposed in accordance with the j General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (10 p..',3l, s ((., j f ;,i C C.F.R. Part 2. Appendix C), and in consideration of the safety significance of . ] the stipulated violadons. The Commission's Policy and Procedure for NRC En-J, y", s.., ', y forca. ment Actions, by its exrress terms, must be followed by the administrative 4 ( *'... ((W + 'I law judge in detsmining wh:ther a civil penalty should be imposed, mitigated, '!,j.(Jl'f s l l W,, t' M. or entirely remitted; .,. f c mn - 1 , i J (.',' ?s..
'5.
.f. w- .e y ,J-c,; 3-y a.,*. - - e, e [g [ ,.b' 3 E 3 g 7
._, sn e
4 4 J 219 4 1 1 g 44 i 1 4 f 'i g I= s .o~ + y. 5 lQ % k t I 'N I' f8 ' y * ' *-' 4 * "'. 45b '.* ' '
7 4e v
,, ff[ ' +' *C M *&*"% '". ' ~ r **F"*'.' ' 4". f r 3
9. [
?* ' # @;. 1,((' ' } , $ [I ' l, j }i , M,; -f " [; G s. 8 + (', g.y,)? I e ) 9,. [,ye,a [A. Gf. (:.. 9., a s b ' kh6I.. [ N, i g,. ... v y~w, q,
y. ; ; y s p.,
o m. .[A < 1 ~1 +l,. ? 4
- jk Y 1
} '[. ,p; y rt w e..,, m,,. j, _0+ -
(J.w x$,, - e,w. p. ;, # g 'i' Q;a.g.g

,,,,( p..
,a.. c ,w, j $', c.3 f m, s.. ; 1., L x F 'a n';. 3pm-c.,9
p%
,e-p: ,..m g - e m , 34.*. k.:.., j ". 5 - ;;.. N.v,y. -.~ ; -, "l,c 5 f,g i r#, %,- @f.,w, g c.,9 -t q j n1 e -,. 9,.9,,,, p-A,. - .g c i g =,.y 4. ..,y e 4 ...., ~. -. 3 j,,,, .s n .4- _m______ dt . v...O d',':$ ?, Mh,p?M{n,M, $g,W;n.p. m... 4 '.. 7 Q >. -7,M,Wu., 4 , e,wL,' w n,+... ,h( M ._,.. Wy wm,.
/ ~ '
t.J4*,M:V ( . - r- 'y> m
u..

4.,. ;
g. o r* ' q < t- .J t...v:,. t t ., y<>- s. .o.. .n 4; o o.y >g , [$.y,.j . e v + pc v. ,t + ,.... v r= f.*( v.. m ::,0 x - I L..- q- 'v r CIVIL PENALTY: AGGREGATION AND ESCALATION OF ..t LICENSE VIOLATIONS .s. When several Severity Level IV violations stemming from Licensee's general L.: ? ~ ' _ P failure to exert management oversight and contml over its radiation safety s-program are found, the Severity I.4 vel IV violations may be aggregated into I a Severity Level III violation and a civil penalty appropriate to the escalated ,r violation is imposed.
i.. -[ 2 i.
4._ hs ,s. 4- ,0 i 1 I CIVIL PENALTY: BURDEN OF PROOF .i ygg gg 9 9, 97 i' the charged violations, the administrative law judge cannot substitute his own i - t' judgraent for that of the Director of Inspection and Enforcement if doing so 5 .. c '.4 ~., would mean imposing a penalty on charges not specified in the Director's order ,.g ~', imposing the civil penalty, thus distinguishing Atlantic Research Corp., ALAB-594,11 NRC 841, 848 49 (1980). t s CIVIL PENALTY: FAIR NOTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS As a matter of fair notice and due process, a licensee in a civil penalty proceeding must be timely informed of the theory of the case against it, citing
y'*
,1 Golaberg v. Kelly,397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). ~ CIVIL PENALTY: IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKER AND DUE j i PROCESS s.,. 4 t , La > S,. .,.i 'Ihe administrative 1stw judge may not save the Director of Inspection and ~ J.. c- .,,l Enforcement from a failed theory of the Director's case by substituting another J, thecy because the Director, not the administrative law judge, has the burden of i X proof, and the licensee is entitled to an impartial decisionmaker. "Ihe function of the adjudicator may not be commingled with the function of the prosecutor, l c. citing Wong Yang Sun v. McGrath. 339 U.S. 33,46 (1950). + \\ U g p v' s o M ) APPEARANCES a.. . s,., 3,,,cn.. v, ,s. /., J Edward P. Joseph, Esq., Counsel for Hurley Medical Center. [n ;.c.., [..[ ' i. ^ s.-d .;. *-} ); Lee Scott Dewey, Esq., Counsel for Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ,.9 - - 1 s ~ ~ - t- ,*r,. a 'i h. s 't' e 0 220 4 I t e I s .e-e----.,ee +, e-w,
==
"6 O ,"i fL a 's, + v ,i,- 4 ",-g y )- ...a, ya'l. # e i 'f/* - ', l 3 i ..s t e y 9 . 'i.;,#,.m .P. ~. p%.w.t f QCT.y.%'13*t)f ? M. t c..m, n sg.m..* : ~, "..u.. 4
s. '.
>.J,.h. y.m;, mJ; Y,) :(%'M,,'. m, 9 A g2 f 3 2 ';e.y,,,m<4c y ' ,Mr-s5 ~ ~ * /.' g. ' 'w.' 'e s ' " L,, r. j r. n g ",,.@; r'l' .%s*' ' f Q I. s( 1. ,.. l., '7: ,3>a . Jf ', ', r 3,.
. p ;,,.
y, n.- yp e. 1. - n. .,; / ;l 3; 2 o- .. ~..;. t.. N / y
a.,:.i.'t c
t g.,... Lm w. ,.2 . g t .... c.., 2 ,, 3 g e ~.,,,. 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS f, T s fbeb. 8 f . x, N* 4 '.,p,#@ /],I. 'g,7,. *,.,y ' {a.Jf.. ' ] d p Page g p a. a,.'c
. ~,a'.N L INTRODUCI' ION....................................
222 o.- y; ;T ".2 d ~ Q.W ' 222 [ .l A. Background...................................... I
t B.
The Iss ues :...................................... - 222 L G ?.:,e t[fj j., %,. C. Applicable Principles of Law and Procedme........... 224 W t._ 3{, a,.c, ' 'f.,'x. i' W. \\; '.E w .,.. ?. 1:... C. IL PINDINGS OF FACT................................. 225 4 V f.. < 9..g "y, g'g".,,. A r 'S.J 6 y .'; 3M A. The Violations................................. 226 ? p.f. s l.,A e 3,,7 y j. p :* M Violation A...................................... 226 Violadon B...................................... 227 ' ', ( 2..
,N.[ ( > '
(: </'- yi Violation C...................................... 227 y c; d Violation D...................................... 229 . 14: ?' r,:- 7 .). - l Violation E...................................... 230 ,.q, ', ~'., 2 : ' '.gr J Violation F...................................... 231 l, y-
.9 4-.
H Violadon O..................................... 232
.p 4

.] Violadon H and I................................. 233 M . t. 2 {' Violation J and L................................. 234 -- O.. ;. ', ' : M... .y ,j Violadon K...................................... 235 3. ,7-7. Violadon M..................................... 236 .Wr 1, C' - c. Violadon N...................................... 236 S,. l 'J. B. Licensee's Violations Compared with Other Licensees... 236 .;;. v...- mc;y g,,,,. '.g 6 s ,,a C. Hurley's 1981 Inspection........................... 237 N.'.;,.. (}- W.4r. .y. ,,':: - f, s,.. [, ;.'.. l.4..1,t ?. :z y :j.}n.T.,; 6. '? ".~ e r. .4 ,rd IIL REASONS POR DECISION -CONCLUSIONS s- //.,!'s. OFLAW........................................... 238 s. -1l' 7l. f Q,* V..'$.5[;4' .r A. Innoduction - Enforcernent Policy.................. 238 fn
gpg e. ~, ;~ q 't "'f U. .....?
l4 ? B. The Severity Levels of the Violations When ,f,.. %. *' ' y.. '. m,. b'. d,./. :.W, d.i ;f,, -lM' :+',9'"d.p.['p'. Considered Seperniety............................. 239 . /f* 1, l r.1
E j C. The Significance of the Violations When Considered 4,.
240 ...;.),..
m c 7,,o,,, p Tbgether........................................
D. Whether a Civil Penalty la Needed................... 241 1. . 'N ' 3,, - .m. c IV. THE AMOUNT OF THE CIVIL PENALTY.............. 243 2 l r :.y. :... 3 '., - .,p,. - ,.k..; ~ i ,.2,.,. 6 yr 'f., SW t.,; 7,,,.y 9. [.,.s.,7,, V. ORDER........................................... 1 24 3 J ...'i w /. 3 g .,.'.* d- , ~e, s t't.. .. e. ~, ,.'.,**',,3,' 4 Q, e . '.y 3 ', 4 ) a ,'I', h., 1 '8 .4 S - n' n ].... ar'. . 4 < 1 A, . f",4 ,g"y, .;8.p.r i,i. .,J - -.i,.. m,
4 7
s. .g ~. c ,V
~d-

a
.1 ,-.,4.,.,,a 4 l ..s : 'f . [ -j 1,*'.. N'3 *,,,*, q'
ir.
,.J ,1 i 9 4 9 6 g 4., g.w ...'[,. 4 w 221 .o _'* - ..I y i4- 'j i I r-9 e ~l s n e I} I ag [$ j.. $',, f p. W.; y. %-.,,.. ..'s ~ ,.,+. n,m s.., - ~ e .e,_;*g - n.,, n s- %.:f:'g . p- , v, ' 4,, .e,. c 4. I,* s-p % o - g. ,e ~ 9' 3, , i m - os ',s. 'm .,,,,3,..,e,,.,,',,m,.g,. . tr., g, ' t,, w.' s g* - . g..}
to 7,, v 4,

J g. ~ n.A r1
.y 8 3 .. - y p. ys 3 ,' y'[J.4 . j :,; - .>g ', :,, Q,., a ny;e. 9 ..n...,.a,. .s o,,. g g6 v .r. ../. e 1 ~

Rp i.,-
f-y ( + s,3. 4. e,~,,, s, m. g t ;. u .b a $" ", ' s j . y et ) i. 4 -' "f, i O y s, } N ' e ' I ,,* W Qj U *,q? " ' ' : j f',i. :7 f ] M p $@ Q', & p &.p'[gj y[.44, h)hQ * ' 3. ; bp :, q;,,,,6 % ;N l +k Y?f*g7[.)S ." U.h S @g.33"q%. .p3 .f f z y Mf
m

M f,,
" Q
J.
T'); lM,. m .m i I t .x m.J
w. :w mu' :-
, x n.:m... .?w?.'% }f.'}.y.ff &n % f,pQL.L - .n, .y (....h'f I.i'.q 9Q y .Q - f: - ? : ,Q ~!lhy ~.QQq*Q,j ,, l; j { %;y '
' Q '
f t' o s. 9 3 ,,o + G ..r .g ..+. 1 4 \\ ~ bc INITIAL DECISION l' I. INTRODUCTION . b ~ A.
Background

~ - , ~ ^ 4 This is a civil penalty action brought by the NRC Staff against Hurley ~, 0 7"' Medical Center of Flint, Michigan. Hurley is a community hospital holding 1 NRC licenses authorizing it to possess and use a variety of nuclear materials q in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine. The action is brought under $ 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended lations of NRC " requirements"* observed by Radiation Specialist William (42 U.S.C. 6 2282), and 10 C.F.R. 52.205. It is based upon fourteen vio-P. Reichhold of NRC's Region III during a routine inspection on May 2, ^. 3, and 24,1985. [ Ibl'owing the inspection, the Administrator of Region III issued a Notice + i of Violation and Pmposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $2500. Hurley responded by protesting the imposition of penalties, but, on February 24,1986, the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, for the NRC Staff, issued an Order Imposing Civil Penalties in the amount initially proposed. In an appendix to the Order, the Staff evaluated and rejected Hurley's response to each of the fourteen violations. Hurley exercised its right to a de nom adjudicatory hearing which I conducted in Flint, Michigan on October 15,1986. O b B. The Issues None of the core facts underlying the Staff's action are in dispute. Li- ',b, ' censee concedes that each of the fourteen charges against it are violations of Commission requirements.8 Only the significance of the violations and g adequacy of corrective actions were litigated. 'Ihere is no allegation that e Hurley personnel engaged in any personal wrongdoing or intentional mis. Conduct. J .e i = l ? i. ~ I NRC "requhunenas." as that term is employed by the NRC statt. innans agulations and licenas condaians. Aa - /....,, Y ls usua!!y the case.!terley's liammses ends consam a candition whu:h incorporates the.- -n madebiths .J, i, ,.i p geenes appu, ww. ~ 2 c. The perues supulased that a panian of ths order Impasms ivil Mansiery Penalues (Staft Enh. 4), muitled c a 'Appendia, INahasiana and Caielumans" (hmanaher "Stipulauan") is a fair and encairste statement of the facts undsdymg ihs vialsuona. 'Ilr.14. s2 5s. see mise Mamarendum and order Pollomns Prohmanna Canfounce. May l 23.1986 (unpubliebed). The sapulation thesefare soniains (1) e statement of the violation. (2) e pamphrase of l S. l tjoenses's responam to the Nouco of Violatum. and Q) the NRC evaluauan of the nepanses. ,,j .g.. ,j.., ., t 222 j + 3 s,' r i 5,, 7; o t1 v ,] i .'+ ' d, ~ ,-~ 7.; y y m g;,,-

m.

n b

g,

.E I i 1, /. .,s t s,, e i c,i, 4 c 4 ,g..= ~ y i .gS.. ' ' ' - .E. " J *i

/' -

i ',; Q 3 ,/,'- y,, f.O H;. Y.,k ' ~ ,e jf s { L x v. a 2 _ m.
k ?&.'$ j. hh f '.&[bh* b V 9 .[,f.:9 k., ? Y p, [ W'.. $ $ N'$ v.c v,ag.m&.:?l k: ~*,. Nk&fhh?.f.e.,m?G.f, f{td[ lf fd '. S 2 0 ]$ $ f. f. V ^ w~ '?. f ?. Y m,e m m.:,gc,, nw.. - .. f ,~ x. m n,., 9,., y m+ v. .), s e. f, ,c ,j., a 4 9 g. s, _ f. .c;. n - 1 ,,s s-u l b In summary, the fourteen violations were: .g. w'.f .'.J (A) the failure of Hurley's Isotope Committee to meet quarterly;

l. C.%,, ",, '

(B) the use of xenon-133 in an unauthorized room; i 4 f ~ ^ (C) the failure by nursing personnel to wear film badges; ) y '. O,, ; - ' (D) the failure to perform surveys of patients' rooms and adjacent areas;

}'

,a s (E) the use of a physician, other than the physician listed on the license, s .5."' t,e ',, (F) the failure to explant, recover, and return for disposal a nucicar ,j to be responsible for the nuclear pacemaker program; .f .[, ~ f, o,, }J O-l.'V ~, ?, ',l f Dj pacernaker; ,. ? y'. (F) the failure to report the death of pacemaker patients; ,.4 - ~ (G) the failure to report the loss of contact with pacemaker patients; l' .,1, (H) the failure to contact pacemaker patients monthly; L i, '1 (1) the failure to conduct quarterly physical inventories of Group VI sources; s (J) the failure to conduct quarterly physical inventories of calibration ,? l sources; M l (K) the failure to semiannually leak test Group VI sources;

j (L) the failure to assure that shipments of radioactive material were within

~, ]i l allowable limits for external radiation and contamination; and (M) the failure to maintain survey records of technetium-99m ccutami- ,.1 nated waste, m 'i ..V>,.i Stipulation. o s. l i s '> d Ec broad issue is whether, under the General Statement of Policy :'nd v t gy., f ' ' !h Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C) l ijyp,j7j (Enforcement Policy) and relevant regulations, a civil penalty should be imposed 4 . 6i'd given the stipulated violations. Notice of Hearing, 51 Fed. Reg. 12,582-83 ',r 4.. ' J (Apr. 8,1986). Both parties agree that, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, a

f. }' g, [..,. '}l the safety significance of the violations must be considered. De Staff argues l,

that each of the violations, except for Violation N, has more than minor rafety ':. J. '.., t. '.fa,7 c.1.

j significance. Hurley contends that none of them do, and at most, some are of

_ m.. ,..I' only minor safety significance. 'f

f,1,'

'Ihe parties dispute whether the violations have been correctly categorized c j in accordance with the five possible severity levels set out in the Enforcement a pot cy, ., jl The Staff also contends that the violations should be aggregated and increased ' ?;c. % ' J]; h. to a Severity Level III violation because of their common cause, and that Viola-A c. '. ~, - ,.: ' *. r,';:,' tion F, standing alone, calls for a Severity Level III designation. Consequently, according to the Staff, the civil penalty should be imposed. Hurley vigorously , a;{ /// -,. .li. '. argues to the contrary. Moreover, according to Hurley, its own corrective action ( 1 obviated the need for any remedial penalty. s,. y l a ,t 1

l. *

'b. y y '. 1' e ) ] i e a p g l i 2D l H + t g a ' .l \\.r p- 'J, ,'s ....o n,, e r e y s .s. 3,. % e .m. [ _ 7 s .j J, ,,'l1 e, [ g M 1+ e ,c yy,, , t"l.Nr .s , 2, 4 .r-4 y 4

n.

at ; .,<t,-

s'_, [t k.

a s 'Y { ^* j.(t [ ( ,1 . g y"c r. 7(.9 ,y M J ! ',g.. s g..,s, t 4 s 4 ',.4 i y. jf 3 ,,...L g, e',w,7.y '1, .C.;, g 1,.. .,,7 3 ,1, - pg,,g 4 p.,,4 .e-f v; i +, e j
y f%,3,NL.X.J a% Q.Y,a%.'. . W 5 E. ? ? 4. h ' ? L..., d -E.. ,',, s.~f 74 7 */,. $ $. Q $ M f.,"Q. g ,q }. % ~$ s- , /... "<c;. m.,., nw %'Qyby;- ll,~

Q '/$ %A':]w} Qw y.3 %

v.,, . i A t .f ' : :.n.q 3 v;f M Q,y&.

f. i 9 ; u '>

.g3 n. y, ' Gn c y., . f' q - m:.N w.3, .y w.s 979 W, ...,,t e.lf.

- V -

+ s , ~q ~ a.y. :; ; F ' 's L 4-4 4 j. - g ~t.g-a

.9 d 1

C. Applicable Principles of Law and Procedure 1 6 g h zt The NRC Staff, as the proponent of the Order Imposing Civil Penalties, has f.. '- the burden of proof.10 C.F.R. I 2.732. The Staff ruust support its burden by the ~ ' s. . j, preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Administra- ' ' ' [r. - 3

9.

tive Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 9 556(d). My decision must be, and has been, based i upon the whole record of the proceeding. I have considered all the arguments i and proposed findings of fact advanced by the parties even though this decision may not address each of them. Id. De NRC Enforcement Policy, by its express j terms, sets the policy and procedure to be followed by the Commission's pre- - 1 ,,,i l siding officers in enforcement proceedings. Part 2, Appendix C, preamble. The f ', Enforcement Policy is discussed in detail below. + ~ Because this action is brought pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.205, the action I may .f' take is limited to imposing, mitigating, or entirely remitting the civil penalty im-1 l posei by the Director's Order Imposing the Civil Penalty.10 C.F.R. 6 2.205(f). ..j See also Notice of Hearing, supra. I may not, therefore, increase the amount of I~ the penalty. Furthermore, I may not impose a penalty on any theory of the case not timely advanced by the NRC Staff. 'Ihis is a mixed question of jurisdiction and substantive law which has never been thoroughly covered in NRC case precedents. Because it is relevant to a portion of my decision below, some elaboration of my reasoning may be helpful. l c, '. In Reich Geo-Physical, Inc., AI.J-85-1, 22 NRC 941 (1985), another civil { { penalty proceeding, I noted that I could not assign a severity level to a j violation that would exceed the positicn taken by the Direitor in imposing ) . 2 the penalty. Id. at 960 n.10. The Staff apparently disagrees because, in this ..7, proceeding, the Staff argues that I am not bound by its theory of the case and that 7 -,y +

c,-

I can independently determine the basis for the penalty. Staff Proposed Finding 1 b ]' 8, citing Atlantic Research Corp., ALAB 594,11 NRC 841, 848-49 (1980). It ' ~ Y Q, j ' ' ' ~ is true that the Appeal Board in Atlantic Research stated that the administrative .1; law judge, the appeal board, and the Commission "may substitute their own judgment for that of the Director [ imposing a civil penalty)." But the Appeal s' ..i Board went on to explain: "S;ated otherwise, if deemed to be warranted in the j totality of circumstances, the adjudicator is entirely free to mitigate or remit the ~D, assessed penalty."Id. at 849. t i j i ?.F.'. In the case before me, I cannot substitute my own judgment for that of the ,s ., i[ '., q Director if doing so would mean imposing a penalty on allegations not specified ,r Q: r.%.,C.KnRE in the Director's Order imposing the civil penalty. That order, because it is _ -j J=. y, W[iy.,, incorporated by reference in the Commission's Notice of Hearing, sets the limits .p-j of the presiding officer's jurisdiction in the noticed hearing. Public Service Co. of .c h.2 _c' s3 3 Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, q.: 9 ;x s, 3 NRC 167,170 (1976); Metropolitan Edison Co. (nree Mile Island Nuclear - 'p.'. . HNT,. - l ~,f-4 Q M7-

.)1

[- -) s 4 224 ~, I e - .. e .i J .s t. '8 4 ) 1 '[* 7[ ], * *

9 D[

~,i.. ~ 'I

F' " - ? "' [,

ll ~ " * - j, l. [ __ }y,a - - ); ~ ' '"~.0 9 A a g' c n s. . o'

s p

ca

N pW 3

tj 1'. 4. s y - + t Vy b .1. W ;;v- ;v f, i' , Q ' q. )h , } %,.Q..; f:,, Q _j ,q.S y,

(, 3.

x-n ygoy p f:. 9 s 2 q p. 7 4' s
% ch,d.%.g c.u.ifak 3p A 4@.. ]Q S,, <y.g pQQQQgQ:v$9&C :p.v.,H W/j ' % %@l' & L:{ @::

u, ga i H p

+. %).%y. 2.; ? . p '.3 y, tm Wv-f w y. p +m %,q,y y *!) ', m n,~ ...y 9 - ,., s, g,. ~., ; -, - s .:n y. . v.g x .s c, 7 ,c o

p 3

., ? ,r. .w ,\\

n k

.4 p,, ,6 / .g + s .I, g Station, Unit 1), CLI-82-31,16 NRC 1236,1238 (1982) (Commission notice of o O2" t hearing did not give licensing board jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty). 1 't .J Moreover, as a matter of fair notice and due process, the Licensee must .3 v. +' be timely informed of the theory of the case against iL My decision must be n',7, 4 S based upon the legal principles established during the hearing process. Goldberg

OA

M

v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). Therefore I may not substitute my own theory

, ', 's J J. ,t,,dC*q of the case for that of the Director if the consequence is to impose a penalty on } J[d [ @s.l ', ' s ..] any basis not made known to the Licensee in time for it to be confronted. Id.

..C i Nor would it be appropriate for the presiding officer to save the Director from i

i:'. -. j " 'l ") a failed theory of his case by substituting any other theory. The Director, not the .C presiding officer, has the burden of proof.The Licensee is entitled to an impartial j. decisionmaker. Id. 'Ihe function of the adjudicator cannot be commingled with y .J the function of the pmsecutor. Id.; Wong Yang Sun v. McGrath,339 U.S. 33, i 46 (1950). Accordingly, in this proceeding at least, the Director, in carrying his e ~ ] burden of proof, must stand or fall on his own theory of the case. o Mindful of these principles, I turn next to the findings of fact and reasons i for the decision. i IL FINDINGS OF FACT i L 1. The NRC Staff presented a panel of witnesses consisting of William ] g g i P. Reichhold, an NRC Region III Radiation Specialist who conducted the "j inspections: Donald J. Steniawski, Mr. Reichhold's Section Chief in Region x g III's Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards; Perry D. Robinson, f ,-l Enforcement Specialist in the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement; and 5 . e "l,- 1 Bernard W. Stapleton, Region III Enforcement Specialist The facts underlying, J l the violations having been previously stipulated, the Staff Panel testified about ~ the safety significance of each violation, whether the severity levels of the l ti J. ~.6 % ..@ g.[ k, violations were correctly assigned, the basis for imposing the $2500 civil penalty, .j and whether the penalty should be imposed, remitted, or mitigated. Staff Panel, + ff, 'Ir. 71. > 'J ^ ~ ' '

2. NRC Staff exhibits offered and received into evidence at the hearing

,1 + were: NRC Exh.1 - the NRC's August 22,1985 Notice of Violation and J Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties; NRC Exhs. 2 and 3 - the Licensee's ' $ [i - ~. two responses (both dated October 4,1985) to the Notice; and NRC Exh. 4 g.' - the NRC's February 24, 1986 Letter and Order Imposing Civil Monetary ,.a s., y. Penalties with an appendix which is now the Stipulation. ~..;, c.3 y<,.. F. i.. j %

3. Hurley presented Jack Dagenais, Hurley's Assistant Director, and Dr.

'~ 3 ".y Morris L Bank, Hurley's Radiological Physicist. ff. 'IY. 206. Mr. Dagenais '1 described steps taken by Hurley to improve its radiology program in recent ,,,,,3 j',, years. Dr. Bank testified concerning his view of the safety significance of the .6 e 3, 3 a 'i ,13.* ~ 7~ ,'k' ,[a1 a s .g.- 225 f t i 3, .a 4 ]C, ,-.*-*,ep..w,g..-+ ga= m f7l 1 t,' ym [ i+ ,,8 f., ,(

h.,,

3.,. s c,..... ;t. c o, + g y s t' + s. c'g* I W o ,4,, 1' - },, ,8 .f 'y'F ,e s v w 4 .,7 ' .x y g 3 7 1dq; #,, g, / e. O s, W4 S. w.., 3, .c +8 .j 6. e - p }^~ r+ j .j Pg. t w e. ___n___.________
, lh .f f . (, , [ u: n,y y, 7;.3 3y..g y 3.

x.ic. s :.., v e y';> p> yp%q.., ;,.,9llJ ' y 1;y%yy y 7, 3,

y 0.p s. s '.

r

? ~' ~ s v qi, - iw

p..

~ ,f. + eg 4. 4 -,.y v. y 3 o. Q ,r. + t:,.v violation and explained the background of the events at Hurley. Hurley offered v no exhibits. Id. ,q i, q } A. The Violations ,?. 3% v' - Violation A i ~,. i: -!/ i 4 Hurley's Medical Isotope Committee was required by the license to j meet no less than once in each calendar quarter, but it failed to meet during - E the first, third, and fourth quarters of 1981 and 1982; the second and third quarters of 1983; the first and second quarters of 1984; and the first quarter of j 1985. Stipulation at 4. i - A ~

5. The Committee's duties include performing audits and ensuring the j

j' medical facility's safe use of radioactive materials. It also has overall hospital j

Nj responsibility for ensuring that all uses of radioactive material are in accordance i

with NRC regulations and the conditions of its nuclear license, for recommend-l ing corrective action for any deficiencies in the nuclear program, and for ensur-1 ing that the byproduct materials license is amended when necessary. Staff Panel (Steniawski), ff. Tr. 71, at 8. 6. The Staff maintains that the failure to meet regularly was a significant safety concern which probably played a role in the numerous violations identified by the NRC during the 1985 inspection. The violations might have been prevented if the Committee had met and performed its duties as required. Staff i Proposed Findings at 5-6. ] 7. Hurley explains that the Committee thought that meeting semiannually .2 was sufficient, and that the failure was not willful. In any event, according j to Hurley, the failure to meet had no environmental or safety significance, }. ,, ; q and compliance was brought about immediately fo!!owing the May 24, 1985 1

,., $j inspections, 8.

'Ibtning first to the issue of willfulness, Hurley has not been charged 3 /,, q with willful or intentional violation of the rules in any of the fourteen counts, nor ~5 l 14 do I find any willfulness. Accordingly there is no need to discuss this aspect of l A Hurley's defense each time it is raised. The standards for assessing the need for - i a penalty ate discussed in llII.D, below. Similarly, I discuss in iIII.D, below, the issue of the timing of Hurley's corrective actions. i d ' 9. It is true, as Hurley argues, that the failure of the Committee to meet y :(; 't cannot be traced directly to a safety incident. But the Staff is absolutely correct on this issue. The Committee failed in its duty to ensure that the uses of ci,q Pep. ~- radioactive materials were in accordance with NRC requirements. Since I find [4,,.

1*1 Q that some of these violations had safety significance in themselves, the failure t.P(;

of the Committee to even meet as scheduled, let alone perform as required, is a " Y. [ ~ J/ t e. m. matter of safety significance. Moreover, the fact that the Committee did not even .- v ['

f. "G

[: i U e i 226 - 1"., l jt." r,. n,. .,..-..,...-.,-,,.,,.;7.,.. ....,.,4,4 ~ 7 '. ', "52 -? , i. ,V. 5 i =. > s - n ,i ..y: + [y' .:v. "[., a g h 3? O['wf ', ).,, d' W'J', f o ) g i-

4

a.. -

',I., i 4 3 s 9, 53,hY

*,.t c.

D ' 'l l' l,* l {' 'M ~' n.
y J J.p < 7 '3. / ', d.':,., 3,Q g;,; p. t[,h anW .l Y.f[,&f& g . & y '. ?,'l' =clR..l.f.9, g ot.y q.y,~y,' h;.i,N&Q$(( g[;q, yjgr.h..,g

- W

..f A .e. ..y y - _ j'r Q. '~ , ca ; g.e ! y ; y9 3f;v.4, g,, Q p ;. p y. g g q. ,,.c r .y p* g 9 g,. .m ,.s ,g 3-4 e c w a + y] , r ,e .JO _..m. . G 3.. t b,, b 'c 3. .y. f *, b know how often it was required to meet is not, as Hurley would have me find, an attenuating factor. It is, in fact, an exacerbating factor. The meeting requirement T was clear and should not have been subject to any misunderstanding. Stipulation . '.4' S, at1. ,9 = ( .'< L.4 Violation B

10. The application incorporated as c license condition described Room

..A, / j 22, equipped with a ventilation system, as the area where xenon 133 would be ,Li used. However, Hurley began using Room 20 for xenon-133 procedures without O.; .'i NRC authorization and without informing the NRC. Dr. Bank testified, without 7 ' I elaboration, that the Radiation Safety Officer had determined that "the new I' 3.' room had same airflow as old room." Bank, ff. Tr. 206, at 3. However, on the i M. day of the inspection, even upon questioning, Hurley personnel were unable 4 to provide information that the airflow in Room 20 was adequate. 'llr. 97-98 3^ (Steniawski). The basis for the Radiation Safety Officer's conclusion that the ~ ventilation in Room 20 was adequate for xenon-133 use was not revealed. If T indeed the Radiation Safety Officer had carefully calculated or evaluated the airflow of the ventilation system and the potential concentration of xenon-133 in Room 20, I would have expected that information to be presented at the hearing in support of Dr. Bank's terse conclusion. The information presented in the hearing and during the inspection at Hurley is scarcely the type of information needed to provide the requisite assurance that the statement is true - which 1 is the issue here. It may or may not be true that Room 20 was adequately O ventilated. The NRC inspectors have the statutory duty to assure themselves that d the xenon-133 imaging room was operated with adequate radiological controls Jr 6j to protect workers, patients, and members of the public against unnecessary l c. ] radiation exposure because the activity has safety' significance. Staff Panel f. (Sreniawski), ff. Th 71, at 9. The rule that I apply with respect to violation

f..

, - f ' {q. B and similar violations is that where the activity has a safety significance, the r' ; r ~ - j l j failure to demonstrate when required that the, activity has been safely conducted - ( s is in itself a matter of safety significance. Violation B is of more than minor safety significance. '~

Violation C t-

,,~ 7 :. ;

11. Contrary to the terms of its license, in 1984 and 1985, Licensee's nurses failed to wear film badges during care of patients who had undergone M ~'

~ s ., /*7, brachytherapy implants. Stipulation at 2. cy

12. According to the NRC Staff, this failure was a significant safety concern s*'.,v since the badges are needed to evaluate the radiation doses a nurse receives

. J g.s -, .,.4 ~ ..g. K. e , y.. s fs s 98 y c 227 ~ tf ". f '1 4 1 m.....,.,. , /. -

'/

j. n 3 f ~' v g ,y -k >q y w-d ',. [y. v, _' [ "!M ~h y. \\. f

k', D -

33 ()g

y..g - }3

. q. " ,i y .L. ,3, 8,; ~ ..., ]
!;Q.f:.{Q5kO:hh&&,.&M..fy =~ a c. Q,wy;Q Q $hO, > N ' N .e t %...c' 36, d c,n 0'L,.y e ~, p..:q , 2.y % & &qK&,';Q;.0, ;,Nf;, g' .3 y% 4 5;:f..$.',y,fl&&,Nlid:k. A, y s.- , w.:.y s. 4 p.. y 4 n' i j ty'

.y Q,,%l; n.

.y y... q., , x + 4 .a< 9 d v s c.i.- e... s.4 i y 3j g. + s. 3 O J %d .4 ,f'. . I _ ig. 'j 1 , y 7 q- ' I'. during time spent with a patient. Badges are particularly important when medical 9, !, emergencies develop with a patient's care, requiring nurses to spend more time

3. d.c " ' :,

V in the immediate vicinity of the patient. Badges are also especially important i ,.g 1 if brachytherapy sources become dislodged from patients undergoing treatment, , % :lf . ~. thereby subjecting nurses to significantly higher radiation doses. Staff Panel j s > j. M /, - l. - ] i. (Steniawski), ff. Tr. 71, at 9-10. 1 p,q h } l; % ; *

13. This activity is addressed in Part 20 of the Commission's regulations:

.*y [y * .[ q q Ia / A _ ] (a) Each licensee shall supply appropriate personnel manitoring equipment to, and shall '1 ( 20.202 ltrsonnel monitoring. . ' + Ji 'T [ J ] require the use of such equipment by: s (1) Each individual who enters a restricted aies under ruch circumstances that he remives. q or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in ear.~s of 25 percent of the applicable ' 0 .? 4 value specified in paragraph (a) of $ 20.101. ,i 0

14. Hurley's Radiation Safety Officer determined that the nurses would be 3 '

4.; exposed to less than 25% of their allowable doses, therefore film badges would l I not be required. His calculations were based upon a very carefully considered ~f evaluation of the potential doses and they were not disputed by the NRC Staff. Stipulation at 3. In fact the Director conceded that 10 C.F.R. 9 20.202(a)(1) would ret require the issuance of film badges to nurses, but that since the license application was more restrictive than the regulation, Hurley was nevertheless in violation. Id. With nothing more, the violation would be proforma technical, with no self-evident safety significance. ] '1 . 7 ulation. According to Mr. Sreniawski, Hurley was in violation of $ 20.202(a)(1)

15.. The Staff, through the testimony of Mr. Sreniawski, reneged on the Stip.

'., s .( - ' ?)> ' M because the Hurley Radiation Safety Officer's determination "does not take into / q account exigencies that might occur." Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. Tr. 71, at y

10. De Staff now takes the position that a " worst-case analysis"is required to

. ' ~ '....,. :., [,

take into account the possibilities for greater exposure. Id. J ;.,. ; ,,.{. 1 3 yaN "j

16. The Staff has failed to carry its burden on Violation C. First, it is S 4:? ']

bound by the Stipulation that Hurley's film-badge determination complied with s: Q l 20.202(a)(1). Second, even on the factual merits, i 20.202(a)(1) refers to doses - 1.'

s that an individual receives "or is likely to receive." The Staff's asserted re-

'c .4 quirement that a worst-case analysis must be made is not required by the na-regulation. Third, the Hurley Radiation Safety Officer calculated that a nurse .o 1 ., f [f - [ would receive "10 mR per month or P mR per quarter (sic]." Stipulation at .y ~ O N.

3. This arithmetical incongruity may W. the result of a copying error. De Ra-1

lp

p diation Safety Officer may have been referring to 90 mR for three quarters of

,( ; y. +.. r.)ljl p, .l -; , l. 6 3,. 4 L,,,, g<y-1 x.,y. ! i ,c.. w ](.n 3 -l , y,; z s z.! j { .n 33. .,e e J r N' p ,s j 228 j g a b. _ g n .a I M y^ i \\[1., ' d, 1 l ,y 77-m.r * ^; O ,#, %/., y 2 1' n. q ~- .. J s.p. .l m., s .J +4

I l

y 'h 1 3 e i, c{N' ..,j 'l - ll I;l {A-

If s. 9,f,[p#

j p d ' * *c. e s %,* [ *g[v lj.f - p' N[ .5 9 [ jj / /

" b.

7 ,,;*. [ ). y s{, ~ r. _ 4 g ^ " - " y n a 4Q
p, m g ;. g, h k h$ k5.h h L.. l :. h. [;n ] v o a,...g,s:qn,.pyf.u , y...

x 4.n.

~ ~ qq y .n ' m.a a .w.

s...

,q ,, ? s,t.- s ,- W,. ,,. +, s.

g

?u J[ 'y y pregnancy relevant to a group of fertile female nurses.$ If such is the case, the j ~ f Radiation Safety Officer's determination was conservative because, according to y Mr. Sreniawski of the NRC Staff, a fertile female is allowed to receive 125 mR

V$

per quarter or 375 mR per 9-month period. Calculated from Tr.106 (Sreniawski). P

17. The Staff argues, however, that Hurley cannot make a unilateral decision

{ not to comply with the condition of the license. I agree that the better course l ) -5 would have been to seek a license amendment, and for that reason I find that l c, Violation C had minor safety significance. However, I disregard the violation I 7 : h'., ' 4 for the purpose of determining whether a civil penalty should be imposed. s s f ,,, l, Violation D

18. A license condition requires that, when patients are being treated with

-(%(. therapeutic quantities of radionuclides, surveys must be made of the exposure rates in the patient's room and adjacent areas. Hurley acknowledged that it did l not meet the terms of the license but countered that it complied with the more ^ m i l,. lenient standard of the Michigan Radiation Rules, i.e., Hurley may rely upon calculations from previous surveys rather than a survey in each case. Stipulation at 4.

19. It is not disputed that Hurley made a series of surveys in areas where patients had received brachytherapy treatment and that no excessive radiation levels were found. The Staff, however, does not accept the result of previous

) v. surveys because they do not take into account variables in each treatment case l such as changes in the location of the patient's bed, changes in shielding, ~ changes in the type and magnitude of treatment, and possible errors in source loading. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. 'IY. 71, at 11. i; ~

20. The Staff concedes, however, that if Hurley evaluated for the variables

,,,J J in each case, the Michigan Rule would satisfy the NRC requirement. Tr.109, ,y, 110 (Sreniawski). There is no evidence either way whether Hurley made a L, .e {' 1-determination in each case that there were variables to contend with. Nothing was found during the inspection to indicate variables - for example, a change f ' ' .,, T. 1

' ~

in the magnitude of treatment. 'IY,109-14 (Reichhold).

21. Hurley has by stipulation admitted that it violated the terms of its l.

liva W PNnse condition has obvious safety significance. If Hurley has affirmative evidence that its practices meet the substantive expectation of the ,1, *.,,. 7 m ~ _ e- ( 2 license condition, it had the burden of coming forward with that evidence.1 c _ -l -( v : c L :. ~.m,:;. Presume that Hurley would have presented such evidence to the inspector. I -- c g, j Yl. ~ h1.3, c ~.

g[ ' '

sThis Anding is not rme fat d+ bt however. Hurley's anginal esponse stated that "[i}f the same nume suended g - e A. N thac pauents per month, ah. *,uld nectve 30 mR per month or 90 mR per quaner. staff Exh. 3. Anachment at 1 I have elected to follow tne terms of the supulation, however, on the prestenpuan that the lawyers in this Y., ',* ( 1 ptoceedmg supulated to the accurate verman, because supulauan has persuasive legal effect as a mie of evidence. " p's -.. and because the NRC staff has the burden of proof. a ,e. e y 3 5 1 , e ; )* 229 k

re g

m-f d ( q l y.. v c., y I. ' # hf ,f'. i,,; a-N .k sf s ', j.w., i c a ,s s N + u h '.y M. 37 8 1, i '.,T 41- ) .a gz, ;

Q)

V .f; g. ..a,,, s P s l e s g l z\\ * ( f,, g ] {,. ~ 4 a .A
% f 5 'M, ggh.g;h,.. 4 f. [L,,,. ~;.. d.,, (, ;,p,,. J,' f:..t T '..,,,,y g, r; f.p g,hyh.((r. 9..,% yg, ;,9igh/hOh.p q .;. % &..A;q.p,3 e , o., q.-., J..- p+..,, . c, w ((.,. p$k y .-. n... m g )7

y. g%h,f,,,(M f

- P M ',h 3 5.x(4.. ' t. = .u 4 f.5 3 x y o .i i 4 s'('l e s

u.1... s.

a

+ Y ' c. ~ It do not regard the fact that the NRC inspection did not identify any variables 3 y / adversely affecting safety to be such evidence. Accordingly, I find that Violation 6,',.'?,,e i J D has more than minor safety significance. + y ('.;.?,. , ?. ,.7., ', Violation E a y c. { .,,/' f .S. ,[

22. A condition of the special nuclear material license, based on a 1973 l

representation, was that Dr. Weber was responsible for the nuclear pxemaker '(f: j' O'1 .9. program. For many years, Hurley had not implanted a nuclear pacemaker. When Y' ~, [} it resumed the pacemaker program, Dr. Weber had been replaced by another i l' N physician, a cardiologist, who was quali6ed to be in charge of the program. How-l '? ) ever, Hurley failed to identify to the NRC Dr. Weber's successor. Stipulation at i 'l 5; 'It i14 (Sreniawski). l

23. The NRC is concerned when an unauthorized individual is given

( .s responsibility for a nuclear pacemaker program without NRC approval since 1 individuals having this resporuibility, without adequate training and knowledge , ~ ~ - of hazards and procedures, can cause the loss of a pacemaker. This loss, in turn, J - j can result in unnecessary radiation exposure to the general public. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that an individual's training and experience be ~, d. properly reviewed by the NRC to ensure that qualified individuals are responsible for the pacemaker program. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. 'It 71, at 12.

24. Since the NRC was satisfied retrospectively that the physician succeed-q ing the authorized physician was also quali6ed, the essence of the violation

. ~ ' q was that the NRC was denied the opportunity to review the second physician's [" ' j D, P..l qualification before the activities under his direction took place, 1

25. In Radiation Technology, Inc., A1.AB-567,10 NRC 533, 546, 547 s

.,, f ', x .J ?f' (1979) (cited by the NRC Staff in its proposed findings), the licensee failed .1 'fi 1 in its effort to mitigate a penalty by arguing that the unlicensed employee (using g;,, ( M "

r. v. a, Q.. j byproduct material) was in fact properly trained. Id. at 547. But unlike the

, yy. -: e,.. .E. > j case here, the Radiation Technology licensee had previously been cited for a y,,., g,. similar violation which was resolved with a promise of future compliance. The

.. -l.'

gravamen of the violation in Radiation Technology, it seems, is that the licensec l failed to comply with an express pledge not to repeat the same violation. The c two cases are quite different. There is no suggestion that Hurley had ever been t involved in a similar infmetion of its license. .s.,

,}

.,j

26. This is not to say that the matter lacks safety significance. The fact 4.

4 that the NRC was denied the opportunity to exercise its duty to review the M: - e ',J. ';[.,- j second physician's qualifications has safety signi6cance because the pacemaker [' M j program has very important safety significance. In such matters, the licensee ~ 1 } 'j cannot substitute its judgment for that of the NRC, thus cutting the NRC out of .. p. : ;,, the process. See Reich Geo-Physical, supra, 22 NRC at 951 (cited by the Staff in j. 'g ,,, L., ; its Proposed Finding 22). Therefore I must find that Violation E had more than ,B e,.,. v,, .o 1 4. ~ il. O 230 .,.3 I '.\\ \\...i = ',. 'i'* N' cj ]. u,..,. .~,,,. 4. r. - - 7. -.y9.. n v ,7.-. ' ' '.. 3, ' % d, @r ,',,,l4,A g,. n, 4 +. s "ie g }.. .r y -3 g. 4, -4 s j 'l. (* .. ;,.g ,Y c yyp3 ,f q; ,r m - .,4 ( 4 - .y ..ym 1 . Q ;[ ]. ~ -(' y)' ( A Y ,.Jl' ~ e \\.
l h) n' / , 7,+ t - \\~ 'M . [,, Q),'.. s. y g

p. Q.,,,

r. ; c, y M

-,9. ~,. % stis.

a

},< 'l. .,3 ,Lg. y_.. .f... , j y g ' '.? ;> ^ ~ .v Ls , sl. c 3 n. .a s b minor safety significance despite the fact that the program was always under the direction of a qualified person. Had the successor physician been unqualified to oversee the pacemaker program, the NRC Staff would have regarded the a matter as "at least a Severity Level III" violation in itself. According to the 4 Staff, the fact that the physician was qualified is already reflected in the severity s a level assigned by the Staff to the violation. Tr.189 (Robinson). In view of the problems noted in Hurley's pacemaker program discussed below, I agree with e,'. .; i f y the Staff's evaluation.

377, f

~ Violation F \\ ..i.

27. Contrary to the conditions of its license, Licensee failed to participate

'4' in or supervise the explant, recovery, and return of a nuclear pacemaker of a patient wb had died in February 1985. This incident resulted when Hurley, rather than immediately taking charge of a pacemaker of a deceased patient, instructed a funeral director, who was unauthorized and unqualified in the { n handling of pacemakers, to explant and return it to the manufacturer. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. "IY. 71, at 12. l s

28. The patient with the pacemaker died at the hospital and was removed 1

to the possession of the funeral director. Someone fmm the Hurley staff called the funeral director and instructed him to remove the pacemaker. Otherwise the funeral director would have allowed the pacemaker to be interred with the de-I ceased, or in the case of cremation, the pacemaker would have been thrown into l the trash. The hospital sent a container to the funeral director with instructions to I { send the pacemaker back to the manufacturer in accordance with Department of I 'nansportation regulations. However, the funeral director had never made such ?' shipments and was not familiar with DOT regulations. Stipulation at 6; Staff j y Panel (Steniawski), ff. 'IY. 71, at 12 13. ? L G 1

29. The pacemaker arrived at the manufacturer, but it is not known if it l ".,, f.

l arrived in a proper package. It would be a fortuitous happening if the pacemaker had been sent in accordance with DOT regulations. I assume that the package i l" provided by the hospital was a good one. In any event, the pacemaker was l e 7 ^ ', " not leaking when it arrived at the manufacturer's place of business. Tr.117-18 n-(Steniawski).

30. The outer casing of the sealed pacemaker is attractive - highly polished

' ( stainless steel. It would not break open if merely dropped, but it can be broken j I .?, open with tools such as a hammer or a vise. Once opened and the contents C 7,7 released, the hazards from even very small amounts of the plutonium-238 would 't ? ' 'J * ~ ' M., be significant and would be a hazard to any individual coming in contact with

g 7*

it. Even small quantities of plutonium-238 are extremely hazardous since they 4' f,' (a,

c can be ingested or inhaled and taken up by the body and distributed to various i

'l .[ - f body organs. Once the radioactive material is in the body, it presents a significant ..c i 231 ~} l' 4 e s ~. n L.- J,. ' #J ~

f. G..N {

<F f .g a v. y;; .t p f _s 5 y./. 9 - < ( ' 8' ( ,, I ,,'iJ

Q[

y r' *.,f ~*, '

b

y,

,,,/ b. x + xy a
+ .~ I y %.;,.,-'.i.,+ w' :. e' g' e w e., <, s w e * ~ =.. < w+ u gv.M 2 ' 3,. y y 3~y s s. .:q f 3 ? - +

p., 9 o

-<. - s l ,s g e .i,. g,', t s., + y_ s -) q> ss 4e s c ,, 71 \\ .s i +' 1 p 1 e' ,, ~ 'G p l,'.g(7-health hazard if deposited in the critical organs. The hazard of plutonium 238 { ', t -. !v ..T y Vi* is long term due to the very large,87 year biological half life of the material. j t' r

31. In addition to personal injury, the environment could be adversely af-4 1

3, fected by the radioactivity, and the cost of decontamination could be extensive. If a 7,0 y'

~ - ;. <

this niaterial was not detected promptly, the problems with decontamination and ~,,f i h - J: ,g d, health hazard would increase since the longer radioactive contamination goes 1 ' j',,,' ; 'i ly . (J ~ .L undetected, the greater the chance the radioactivity will spread and the larger e . c;.,, ',. ',,%j the cost for cleanup. Staff Panel (Steniawski), ff. D. 71, at 13-14; Tr.118-19 '. J, ; V;, ' ', -, j;n-3, 3 (Steniawski), i ,,,. <, ~,"e c', 9..i

32. Hurley seeks to dismiss the safety and environmental significance of the l

6 ^ ?j violation by (1) noting the device arrived at the manufacturer in a safe condition, ,d( A, " 3 'l and (2) it would be necessary to apply force, such as with hammer or vise to ,. C i break it open. 'c,.. u c;

33. As to the first argument, the fact that the pacemaker arrived in good s

condition is partly a matter of luck. Although Hurley contacted the funeral i director and prevented the pacemaker from possibly being consigned to the trash, and although Hurley provided a shipping container, much more could have been and should have been done. HurleY knew or should have known y *, y .,f-M the safety consequences of losing the pacemaker. But Hurley failed to recover it 3 . f,. ,b' when, without dispute, it knew it had the chance. Second, the fact that a hammer l J ~, or vise would be needed to open it does not persuade me that the matter lacked j' s,e. safety significance. A child with a rock could and probably would open it. I j c,,. J ,(d. agree with the NRC Staff. 'Ihis was a serious violation. As I discuss below, I l,',caf, 'd., '. M ',,. Y'.,1 ^'.; adopt the NRC Staff's reasoning that Violation F, standing alone, is a Severity c e d. o a Level III violation. 3 .. j cy "..W f' I..t i, cf ,A , ' ; f.,e ; t1, <, '., L. ', 1 Violation G* . a ', j-c,,j C ; 'd; J'M :.., jw.r. :.f,,,? d .4

34. Contrary to the provision of its license, Licensee failed in 1984 and

. 7 g .g v t 'C,,J 1985 to report deaths of two nuclear pacemaker patients within 24 hours of occurrence 7he Staff testified that this failure was a significant safety concern ,, ~ + < ' ' ' ~ *.,, since the NRC was unable to evaluate whether these pacemakert possessed any , J, E,..,, H v immediate hazards and whether they had any defects that should be corrected .,r ,l. by their manufacturers. It is also important that the NRC be informed about (.. 4 3j pacemaker deaths to ensure that licensees are maintaining control of their a .y':.,? y'3 y.q ' S..lp ; > %, ; * - q nuclear pacemakers. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. R. 71, at 14-15; Tr.120 23 ,(,... q (Steniawski). i f f,. e. '+ *

3. G.

Pf l

, ;, Wlj, ^ }; " llY. , [, ~ *,, : ;,.., J '" .f '.( '* '=.4 'The NRC staff unintannonally emined its Pmposed Findina 26 (a restatement of Violation o) in its 61ing of 'l r.*',' ? ,.y,. a, N* November 1s,1986. As a result, Proposed Finding 27 seems to be a part of the Staff's prnposed Ernhngs on 'i "J z. f,,% A 6,1987,atn.1. Violation F. The staff tansly explamed the probiern in its Response to Hudey's Proposed Faubnss, dated January

)-

/tc. e.' .I ; n, y o- -? l s n >s 232 + a q e' 4 h t 4, -' y; M.(L ,; + [.6 ; .). ,9

je

.,,,t.,^ . ~.,.,.... .y. g .r 5*-

u'*i'.

r< y,,

t.

j s -.,.i, a- -.7 Sc q'l Y c ~- ,^ 4 y n .b i s r. n'

~ *

.g, _,n . '.. g e, y\\ [ y'f i f' '4 -k "4-i 3 , g.[, 4 , 4 9,,.. '> )..

3. -. m *,J s s,,,

f y3.,.w... .s - .y T;M .y .y '% m , /,L , i '. M y s&..s 7M;w( ~ , A l d.,, e > v J.1 i, f t,. 3., 4 -u, G, 4

3 %[ o q

-S 4 .. 9. t <c;, %c,g.f 4 ,i,, G U p

N ' '.i t t. ' *3

,xE ", /,'c 4. a n , 4,, '", r.g + - T ps 4 s, y.., , #\\ l'= g .w..

.j r

,..e; .a ,q pj
l' t'

35. However, upon cross-examination, the Staff witnesses were unable to support the written direct testimony cited in the preceding paragraph. TY.120-

30. I regard the thrust of the charge to be de 24-hour reporting requirement, compared to say, monthly or quarterly reporting, or maintaining a log for examination during NRC inspections. One might envision a reporting scheme where a pacemaker failure, reported to the NRC within 24 hours of the death of the respective patient, would be information useful to immediately identify possible generic defects in other pacemakers. However, the NRC Staff could a

not explain that this was so. The Staff Panel could not identify the information required in the 24-hour report. Mr. Sreniawski believed that the requirement was to report only the fact of the patient's death. Tr.129-30 (Sreniawski). Moreover, I cannot determine from the record how the 24-hour requirement, as compared to a more relaxed reporting requirement, better enables the NRC Staff to verify that proper control of the nuclear pacemaker was maintained by the Licensee.

36. I suspect that somewhere in the events underlying Violation 0, there may be some important safety significance. But as I explained at the outset, I cannot postulate a theory of the case not put forward by the Director. Accord-ingly I find that the Staff has failed to carry its avowed burden that Violadon O has more than minor safety significance. On the other hand, the failure to report is a violation, as stipulated by the parties, and it demonstrates the relaxed attitude toward NRC requirements. I find that Violation O has only minor safety significance. However, I also note that the violation was a result of Hurley's failure to be aware of the terms of the license, which is a factor I consider in i

the aggregation of the violations. 6 III.C, infra. i Violations H and I 4

37. Violation H charges that Licensee failed to report to the NRC withm j

10 days of loss of contact with a nuclear pacemaker patient. Violation I alleges that Licensee failed to contact such patients once each month as required. I

38. Licensees are required to contact the premaker patients at regular 1

intervals to evaluate the patient and to determine if the pacemaker is functioning properly. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. Tr. 71, at 15. The safety significance of j this requirement is obvious. Also, the contact and reporting requirements are important to maintain control over the pacemakers to avoid exposing the public I to plutonium-238. The importance of this control is discussed under Violation l F, supra.

39. Hurley, however, deprecates the safety significance of these violations

'1 l by arguing that, (1) the failure to report was nothing more than that-a reporting failure, (2) contact was regained with the patients, and (3) there were only five ( instances involved. Hurley Proposed Findings 28-30. l I ( 233 1 6 1 =4 f i s
^ ' ' L,... f 1 .e

40. As to the reporting requirement - the failure to report that a safety-significant situation actually exists is the most serious form of reporting failure. It is part and parcel of the safety-significant event. It is more serious than in the case of Violation E, for example, where a qualified physician was in fact in charge of the pacemaker program, but Hurley failed to report it, or the case of Violation N, where proper surveys for technicium-99m were made but records were not kept Violation H is safety significant. The NRC Sta7 had no opportunity to 3

react to an actual safety significant situation.

41. With respect to Violation H, the fact that contact with the lost patients was reestablished might be accepted as mitigation if regaining contact was the result of diligent effort But the Stipulation on this violation is that Hurley's Cardiovascular Study Unit was not properly trained in that its members were unaware of the necessity for the contact. Ignorance of the contact requirement i

is the gravamen of the violation and is safety-significant.

42. Nor am I persuaded by the assertedly small numbers of loss-of-contact L

incidents. Hurley Proposed Finding 29. There were more loss-of-contact inci-dents than there were patients to be followed - five patients between 1982 I and 1984 (Tr.133 (Reichhold)) compared with twenty-seven loss-of-contact in-cidents for those years. Stipult. tion at 8. Violdons J and L

43. Violation J charges that, contrary to the conditions of its license, i

Licensee failed since September 1983 until after the 1985 NRC inspection to inventory quarterly Group VI sources such as cesium-137 needles, cesium-137 "microrad after loading sources," and cobalt-60 needles. Id. l 44 Violation L charges that, contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. l 6 35.14(b)(5)(i), since June 1981 to the time of the inspection, Licensee failed to perform semiannual leak tests on the same Group VI sources. Stipulation at 10.

45. Hurley's position with respect to Violations J and L is that neither

. j hr'1 safety significance because the sources had been maintained in locked l storage during the entire relevant period and because the solid-state somtes are scaled. Id. at 9; Bank, ff. 'lY. 206, at 3. l

46. According to the Staff, even though the sources are believed to be in locked storage they must be inventoried as required by the license to ensure that they haven't been lost or stolen. The loss of Group VI items would be a significant safety concern. Their small size makes them easy to be picked up and transported and their high-energy radiation, chosen for their ability to damage living tissue,is potentially dangerous to humans. Loss of control of these items can also result in their being recycled as metal scrap and subsequently introduced l

^ 234 e' 4 ( f D e 'g I g: 4 s s ~ lh: ' ' ( '1 L_. i
0j o.J ', 4 s. y< y ) 6 L s 4 ? l s in a consumer item that can cause unnecessary exposure to the public. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. 'IY. 71, at 16-17.

47. As to Violation L, failure to leak test these sources would be a signifi-cant safety concern since an undetected leak from these sources could result in therapeutic misadministration of patients, radiation exposure to licensee per-sonnel, and radiation exposure to the public. Id. at 18.

48. Violation L assumes that the Group VI sources were in therapeutic use during the relevant period, but Violation J seems to depend upon an assumption -

that the sources were, as Hurley alleges, unused and maintained in locked storage during much of the same period. The Staff never reconciled the differing approaches to the two. violations.

49. I fmd that the failure to inventory the sources, Violation J, has more than mit or safety significance for the reasons advanced by the Staff. However, 1

I find t!wt Violation L has no more than minor safety signifbance because of Dr. Bank's unrefuted testimony and the Stipulation that the sources were believed to b in locked storage. The Staff never explained why it assumed the sources were used therapeutically. That assumption was important to Violation L Such use could have been proved by Hurley's records if the Staff had elected to refute Dr. Bank on the issue. Since 10 C.F.R. 5 35.14(b)(5)(i) (under which the violation is charged) requires testing of such source notwithstanding the fact that they were in storage, I find that Violation L does have minor safety - significance. But I give it little weight. Violation K

50. Violation K charges the failure of Licensee to quarterly inventory calibration or reference sources - specifically, barium-133 and cobalt as required by 10 C.F.R. I 33.14(f)(2). Failure to inventory reference or calibration sources is similar to Violation J since, by not performing an inventory, the j

Licensee is unable to verify its control of these sources. These sources may be removed by an unauthorized individual or they may be lost. Without an inventory, the Licensee would not be aware of their unauthorized removel, loss, or theft. The loss of reference or calibration sources is significant because it could cause unnecessary radiation exposures to the public.

51. Licensee's violation is diluted since it did, in effect, inventory semian-nually (including wipe tests), as opposed to quarterly. This violation is never-theless significant since semiannual inventories are half the inventories Hurley is required to make. The violation has safety significance.

- l: i u 4 i j 235 s j I L q e .u; 4 ' ) e A F i,,

b-

^ t +
= e J Violation M

52. Violation M involves a violation of 10 C.F.R. {71.5 which states that no licensee shall transport licensed material out of his facility unless the licensee complies with 49 C.F.R. Parts 170189 (Department of Transportation Regulations). Section 173.475(i) of 49 C.F.R. states that, before each shipment of any radioactive materials package, Lbe shipper shall ensure by examination or appropriate tests that external radiation and contamination levcis are within the allowable limits specified in this chapter. Contrary to the cited regtilations, the

{ ' j Licensee failed to ensum that the external radiation and contamination levels I were within allowable limits for packages containing molybdenum / technetium j returned to the manufacture for disposal. Since the date of license issuance, the ] 1 Licensee had not performed direct radiation surveys and wipe tests forremovable contamination on packages returned to the manufacturer. Stipulation at 11.

53. This violation was a significant safety concern since radiation surveys l

measure the radiation levels and wipe tests measure the external surface of l a package to show the level of removable radioactive contamination. Without i radiation surveys and wipe tests, shippers and members of the public can be exposed to unnecessary radiation. Staff Panel (Sreniawski), ff. D. 71, at 18; D.199-200 (Steniawski).

54. Hurley states as its entire defense that "at least a portion of this violation is the failure to record. [7herefore].., it is of minimal safety significance." Hurley Pmposed Findings at 7. Simply stated, that defense is i

illogical and nonavailing. I find that Violation M has more than minor safety f { significance, i Violation N

55. Violation N charges that contrary to 10 C.F.R. Il20.401(b) and c.

20.201(b), since the date of license issuance until after the 1985 NRC inspection, ( the Licensee failed to maintain records of surveys for technetium-99 contami-nation. Stipulation at 12.

56. Staff and Hurley both agree that Violation N has relatively low safety l

significance and I so find. Staff Proposed Findings at 18; Hurley Proposed ) Findings at 7. j B. Licensee's Vio:ations Compared with Otter Licensees l

57. The parties have digressed into a debate over the significance of I

Hurley's record of violations compared to the record of other facilities. Staff 'l j Proposed Fm' dings at 19; Hurley's Proposed Findings at 7. It would be unfair i to both parties and inconsistent with a sound record to adopt either position. ] j f 236 a 1 l p d 7 y Y t
e ~ .1 1 i l I

58. By way of background, the Staff, explaining the significance of Viola-tion A (failure of the Medical Isotope Committee to implement duties), stated

) that "the number of viclations identified by NRC during the last two inspec-i tions far exceeded the number found during inspections of the vast majority of j licensees of this type." Staff Panel (Steniawski), ff. Tr. 71, at 8. The cited testi-mony constitutes the only affirmative charge grounded on a comparative-record l, violation. No such allegation appears in the Notice of Violation.

59. Cross-examination and redirect examination of Staff witnesses indicate that the charge was not lightly made, and was founded upon substantial ex-l perience. Nonetheless, the record in its entirety provides no reliable basis to 7

add a comparative-record theory to the case against Hurley.~nie record presents j i no basis upon which I can translate Hurley's enforcement record, compared to that of similar facilities, into a public health and safety standard set out in the regulations, the Enforcement Policy, and license conditions.s

60. As for the Staff, it has the prosecutorial discretion to bring an enforce-j ment action against licensees under the Enforcement Policy without justifying the action on a comparative basis. Within the context of this proceeding, Staff's

] effort to impose a comparative-record theory simply clutters the record. C. Hurley's 1981 Inspection

61. A previous inspection of Hurley facilities in June 1981 had identified ten violations. Problems identified at that time included employees not being familiar with the terms of the license, patient followup not being conducted, and records not being available. Staff Panel (Stapleton), ff. Th 71, at 24-25, i

62. As can be seen in the findings above, the problem with Hurley em-i ployees not being familiar with the terms of the license persisted until the 1985

{ inspection. The Staff also testified that, specifically, Violation H (failure to re-port loss of contact with pacemaker patient) and Violation I (failure to contact pacemaker patients) are repeat violations. Id. at 25,

63. During the 1981 enforcement action, the Staff notified Hurley about its weaknesses and gave it an opportunity to rectify de6ciencies without further action or civil penalty by the NRC. Id.

i i SThe staff argues that " + -- imphcidy er expbcady. an mutmaly made at the agional and national levsts so that the NRC can ootain consistency in its enforcemas piogram." staff Reply Bner at s. Peuhaps sa But ~j the staff's cumuan to iVH cf the Enforcement Pobey does not support that statament obviously consistency in the staff's enforcement pmsnm is desirable. That is one of the purposes of the Enforcement Policy. The staff logically smuld use compansons ernong hcensees to pinpaus enforcement tegens as a maner of maamco anor,anan. However, until it provides notace to bcensees that they must meet a cunpative performance standard and esplams that standard, it cannat, as e meusr af fair nonce to licensees, apply a comparative.performenos e ' i standard in its civil penalty adjudiceove proceedmgs-i i 237 I,.. 2 e 4 s 5
1 ~ *

3. -

1 1 I 1 1 64 Hurley argnes, however, that the fact of the 1981 violations is not, m j and of itself, of any significant value in deciding the issues. Hurley Proposed i Finding 7-8. As far as that narrow argument goes, it is correct. Hurley is not now I charged as a separate violation with repeating 1981 violations. Also the Staff i does not assert that all ten violations were similar to the situation in 1981. Nor l 1 does the number of 1981 violations standing alone have significance.

65. The significance of the 1981 violation to this pmceeding is that the 1981 l

notification to Hurley and the chance to correct its deficiencies without a penalty did not bring about compliance with the respective NRC requirements. This is ) demonstrated by the similar 1985 violations. This finding, in turn, is relevant to j j whether a civil penalty is required in the present action, as discussed below. j 1 'i j III. REASONS FOR DECISION - CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l 1 A. Introduction - Enforcement Policy ) i

66. Having found that the NRC Staff and Hurley have stipulated to fourteen violations of NRC requirements by Hurley, and having found that many of m

i these violations have more than minor safety significance, I must now consider ] whether a civil penalty is appropriate. As stated at the outset, the Commission's ) presiding officers are directed by the terms of the NRC Enforcement Policy to l apply the policy in reviewing the Staff's enforcement actions.10 C.F.R. Part 2, i Appendix C, Preamble. }

67. The Policy Statement sets out five categories of Severity Levels in each i

of eight activity areas. In this case the relevant activity areas are set out in Supplement IV, Heakh Physics; Supplemetat V, Transportation; and Supplement ~; l VI, Materials Operation. i l

68. Within each activity area Severity Level I is the most signiScant i

and Severity Level V the least. Severity Levels I and II, not alleged in this proceeding, "are of very significant regulatory concern involving actual or high potential impact on the public." The most severe level alleged by the Staff is 1 Severity Leveilli which involves matters of"significant concern." Severity Level j IV violations are of course less serious than Level DI violations, but are still of ) l more than minor concern. The important aspect of Severity level IV violations is that, if left uncorrected they could lead to a more serious concern. Finally, i Severity Level V violations are of minor safety concern. Policy Statement, 6 III, j j

69. The Staff has evaluated each violation separately and urges a specific I

finding of a respective severity level for each - one Severity Level III, twelve [:' Severity Level IV, and one Severity Level V. The Staff urges that the violations be aggregated into a separate Severity Level DI. As noted below, the Policy I Statement sanctions the Staff's theory of aggregation. l l ) 238 d k 7 i p h L 1 O
,c* ,g. D' ,l 4 w.

70. The Policy Statement also provides guidance in determining whether a civil penalty should be imposed for particular severity levels. A civil penalty is to be considered for Severity Level III violations. 'Ihey may be imposed even for Severity Level IV violations that are similar to previous violations for which effective corrective action was not taken. 'Ihere are several other factors that snust be considered in determining whether a particular severity level violation, or a set of them, calls for a civil penalty, and whether a civil penalty should be increased (by the Staff), reduced, or perhaps entirely remined. Policy 3ttlement.

I V.B. Several of ther,e factors are present in the instant proceeding. l ]

71. Also entering the calculation is a table of base penalties for various types of licensed facilities with power reactors at the top, and medical institutions near i

the bottom (Table 1 A). Another table establishes percentages of the base penalty amount for particular Severity 1.4vels (Table 1B).

72. As complicated as the process rnay seem, if examined carefully, one can

~ see that it progresses in a logical fashion snd provides a sound framework for a fair policy of imposing civil penalties and for other enforcement actions. More. over, after all of the factors of the Policy Swement are considered. I may look to the overriding purpose of the policy, i.e., whether a civil penalty is needed for lasting remedial action and to deler futuse violations. Id. And in that context. whether a civil penalty is needed will be considered in the light of whether a penalty will improve conduct found to be deficient. It is not imposed as a matter a of punishment for the sake of punishment. Atlantic Research Corp., CLi-80-7, 11 NRC 413,419 (1980). 1

73. Finally, one of the objectives of the Enforcement Policy is to improve j

] by example the performance of the industry. Policy Statement, II; see also l Atlantic Research, supra,11 NRC at 421. ) lI B. The Severity Levels of the Violations When Considered Separately

74. The Staff argues that all of the violations except F and M should be categorned individually as "at least" Sevetity Level IV violations. I agree that nine of the violations are Severity LevelIV violations:

Violation A (Isotope Committee) ~ Violation B (use of xenon-133 in unauthorized room) Violation D (failure to perform surveys of patients' rooms) Violation E (failure to report the name of the physician in charge ~. of the pacemaker program) 4 r' ' rj Violation H (failure to report loss of contact with pacemaker [ - c 1 patiems) 'l Violation I (failure to contact pacemaker patients) _^ ~ 4 1 Violation J (failure to conduct quarterly inventories of Group VI sources) i et 239 1 1 t l .L.-. j i l 4 l l l E .q l'm + L g <y .L.__- - - - _
.i el -2 4 1 i i i l Violation K (failure to conduct inventories of calibration sources) l Violation M (failure to examine shipments of radioactive materi-als) They fall squarely within the reach of Severity Level IV categories. Each has more than minor safety signi5cance and, more importantly, each of them, if left uncorrected could lead to a more serious concern. Enforcement Policy, 6 III and j Supplements IV, D.5; V, D.2; VI D.2. Moreover, as noted above, Violations H and I are repeat violations, and for'that reason alone might justify a civil penalty in that Hurley did not take effective corrective action following the - i initial violations and inspections. Enforcement Policy, i V.B.

75. Violation F (ee failure to explant, recover, and return for disposal a pacemaker) is, 7s the Staff alleges, a Severity Level III violation. It is clearly a cause for significant concern as discussed in the findings on that violation, supra. It 6ts neatly into the Severity Level III categories of Activity Area l

IV (Health Physics), C.10. " Conduct of licensee activities by a technically unquali6ed person (the funeral director]" and the similar category under Activity Area VI (Materials Operations). Moreover, as tM Staff alleges, Violation F represented a significant failure to control licensed material (plutonium 238) and is therefore a Severity Level III violation as defined in Supplements IV. C.11, and VI, C.11.

76. As noted above, I found that Violation C (failure of trirsing personnel to wear film badges) had only minor signi5cance. I assigned a Severity Level

,i V to it, but disregarded it nevertheless in assessing the civil penalty.

77. Violation G (failure to report deaths of pacemaker patients) has only i

minor safety signi6cance. It is, therefore, a Severity Level V violation. How- - f ever, I do not disregard it in determining whether the violations should be ag-gregated. Violation L (failure to conduct leak tests on Groups VI sources) has only minor significance because the sources had not been used while in stor-age. It calls for a Severity Level V designation, and I give it very little weight in assessing the need for a civil penalty. The parties agree that Violation N is i a Sevczity Level V matter. Its significance is lost when considered in light of the overall safety consideration involved in determining wtether the violations should be aggregated. C. The SigniScance of the Violations When Considered Together j

78. The Policy Statement provides that in some cases the violations "may I

be evaluated in the aggregate and a single Severity Level assigned for a group j of violations."Id.,5 IIL The Staff urges aggregation of the individual violations i j into a Severity Level III violatioa in addition to Violation F (itself a Severity Level III item). Staff's argument is based on a theory that "the Licensee's 14 l violations can be attributed to a common cause, namely Hurley's failure to 4 1 240 i l l / ~ e a !_ - a
I ~

q.,

s ) I exert adequate management and control over its radiation safety program." Staff Proposed Findings at 22.

79. The Staff theory is valid and is supported by the facts. While I have not i

found that all fourteen violations are to be considered in assessing a civil penalty, l or in the aggregation of violations, more than enough violations remain to { demonstrate Hurley's general failure to control its radiation safety program. For j example, the individual findings relating to the pacemakers (G, H, and I) i I demonstmte that Hurley had lost control over that program. Having lost control over the program, Hurley also lost significant control of licensed material - a Severity Level III violation in both the Health Physics and Material Operations a activity areas. Supplement IV, C.11, and Supplement VI, C.11. The Staff asserts, i and I agree, that Hurley's repeated far res to report required information to the i NRC (Violations B. E, G, H, and I) are also indications of a lack of management oversight.

80. One aspect of the violations is especially significant with respect to i

the quality of Hurley's management oversight. Some of the violations were not simply a result of overlooking the requirements or mistake. Rather they were a din:ct result of ignorance of the conditions of the licenses. The Medical i Isotope Committee, at the very top of the nuclear-medicine hierarchy, did not know how often it was required to meet. Violation A, Stipulation at

1. Hurley misunderstood, therefore overlooked, the need to designate a physician authorized for the implant of premakers. Violation E, Stipulation at 5. Hurley did not notify the NRC about the death of two pacemaker patients within 24 1

hours as required by the license because it thought the responsibility rested elsewhere. Violation G. Stipulation at 7. Hurley did not contact pacemaker j patients monthly because its staff did not know that it was required to. Violation I, Stipulation at 8. Not only did Hurley fail to exert management oversight and a control over its radiation safety program, but, in those cases where it was ignorant of the terms of its license, there was not even an opportunity for such oversight and control. i

81. Accordingly, I conclude that Violations A, B, D, E G, H,I, K, and M (in addition to Violation F) derive from a common cause - management's failure to exercise adequate oversight and control over its radiation safety program. An aggregated Severity Level III violation is assigned to that failure.

-j D, Whether a Civil Penalty Is Needed - c

82. The Staff has by a comfortable margin established a threshold case for imposing a civil penalty under the guidance of the Enforcement Policy. Even

~ ' L so, I need not and would not impose the penalty if none was needei The Enforcement Policy explains that "[c]ivil penalties are designed to emphasize the need for lasting remedial action and to deter future violations."Id., iV.B. 241 i. 1 ,il y ~ ~ y ^ ___..._____.__3
'r y, 1

1 0

4 J

83. There is no doubt that during the May 1985 inspection Hurley's Radiological Safety program needed lasting remedial action and an incentive to avoid future violations. Nor is it disputed that, with respect to the cited violations, Hurley had achieved compliance mostly by June 7,1985 - which I find to be prompt. Stipulation, passim, Staff Proposed Findings at 27.

84. The Staff, however, views the corrections to the program with skep-j ticism. Prompt corrective action, according to the Staff and the Enforcement l-l Policy, is always required. To earn mitigation for Hurley, the corrective action l

4 must be " unusually prompt and extensive." Even then such action would serve K' { only to reduce the amount of the penalty to "as much as SOE" Enforcement t Policy, i V.B.2. There is no basis on the record before me to cone'ude that Hur-i ley's corrective actions exceed simple regulatory requirements. Though prompt, i ~ compliance was not unusually prompt. Nor was it extensive. 'IY. 227 (Robinson).

85. There are, however, other actions taken by Hurley that I have examined to determine whether the need for enforcement action has been obviated.

i

86. Hurley presented evidence that it had hired a Radiology Administrative Director in July 1984, established a Supervisor's position in Nuclear Medicine in December 1984, contracted with a firm wittlexpertise in nuclear medicine and diagnostic radiology in October 1984, and hired a chief technologist in radiation therapy in March or April 1985 - all in an effort to improve the radiological safety program.' Dagenais, ff. Tr. 206, at 1-2; Bank, ff. Tr. 206, at 2: Tr. 214 15 (Bank, Dagenais).

87. However, as the Staff points out, some of these appointments had been in place for many months before the inspections in May 1985, but had not yet proven effective. Therefore, I cannot find that the appointments will bring about 1

any lasting remedial effect or will deter future violations.

88. In Atlantic Research, supra,11 NRC at 420-21, the Commission set l

a very severe, even harsh, standard for assessing the value of a civil penalty as a deterrent to future violations. There the Commission found that "the very fact that the licensee has instituted procedures that are designed to obviate a repetition of the incident implies quite strongly that the prospect ofimposition of penalties in this case has already served a deterrent purpose."'Indeed, if I were to find that the licensee would not improve its performance as a consequence of a civil penalty, I would not impose one. Rather, I would terminate the case on that basis and recommend stenger enforcement action. i ~ 'Hurley dad not refer o eus testimony in its pmposed Andags.'Dus may have been an avuustght Perhage ommsel 3 intended to inoarparse by inference staff Proposed Findmg 66 where staff descobes these im._- In any a svent. I bsve carefuDy canadered the testimany of both of Hurley's wunessen. 1 j Of comes,in Adentic Aassere4, the Comnunnan did not use the licensas's subsequent : - to establish q culpability -only as evulance that the heersee's conduct would respond to anmg enforcernant actum. let at 421 n.19. l c - t I i 242 I 4

T i_. E i _.h _.

/ ~ 'l
4,, ,e ' b * ' ' [# - + t 1 f' - d t

89. As the record stands, however, I conclude that a civil penalty will' improve with lasting effect Hurley's radiological safety program, by emphasizing the need to comply with the conditions of its licenses. Therefore, in the order below, I impose a civil penalty.

IV. THE AMOUNT OF THE CIVIL PENALTY q 1

90. The base penalty for a medical institution under Table 1A for health q,

ll physics type of violations is $5000. In accordance with Table IB,50% of the ( base penalty is applied for a Severity Level III violation. Therefore, the Staff was 1 justified in imposing a civil penalty of $2500 which I also impose by ratification.

91. Hurley disdains any mitigation of its pencity, seeking instead to have it i

set aside as inappropriate. Hurley Proposed Findings at 10. Nevertheless,1 have examined the mitigating factors set out in the Enforcement Policy for any basis 60 reduce the penalty and have found none. Id.,6 V.B.1 V.B.S. V. ORDER

92. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the licensee pay a civil penalty in the l

amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, pajable to the 'IYeasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement ~'

93. Pursuant to 10 CE.R. 62360, this Initial Decision shall constitute the i

i final decision of the Commission 30 days from the date of issuance unless an appeal is taken in accordance gith 10 Cf.R. $ 2362. See also ((2385 and 2386. Either party may take an appeal from this Decision by filing a Notice of 1 Appeal within 10 days after service. The Licensee must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within 30 days after filing its Notice of Appeal. If the NRC Staff appeals it must file its supporting brief within 40 days of the filing of its Notice of Appeal. Any further briefing schedules shall be in accordance with Atomic Safety and LicensMg Appeal Board direction. i t i i I l; Ivan W. Smith x ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 1 -] Bethesda, Maryland March 3,1987 U ll a,

j j.

4 ~; 243 l. I J 1. In i l s. ,n e n .m e g? s-a v . ~ ,f.

's i,

l , 7, e r a _m ?.( _p .m
6 I, Directors' Decisions Under 10 CFR 2.206

.h W

s ( 8 "'": ' d K :y ' '.. ) i' s ... ~ [, A , 's j,,
.- t. v. Cite as 25 NRC 245 (1987) DD-87-3 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director in the Matter of Doeket Nos. 50 289 50-320 GENERAL PUBLic UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mlle island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) March 6,1987 The Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition filed by Randy King in 1983 on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center (TMI-PIRC) and others requesting that the Commission " halt all work at TM1 Units 1 and 2 immediately, save for maintenance necessary for safety." TMI-PIRC based its request on the allegations of Richard D. Parks concerning implementation of the quality assurance program and related areas I at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.2% INTRODUCTION By letter to then Chairman Palladino of the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission dated March 23,1983, Randy King, on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center and others (TMI-PIRC or Petitioners), requested that the Coinmission " halt all work at TMI Units 1 and 2 immediately, save for maintenance necessary for safety " TMI-PIRC t'ased its request on the allegations of Richard D. Parks concerning implementation of the quality assurance program and related areas at the Three Mile Istard Nuclear Station, Unit 2. 3 i 245 i l l 5l ,,. y -- ,+ v. m r .i a ad 4 g s V E

p l

,; p e ' q' ~ 3 .j -C,., ( ,.2 - u. o - _s_ ___ j
1 i: i l i On May 17,1983, TMI-PIRC was informed that its letter would be treated as a request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 02.206 of the Commission's regulations, and that its request for immediate action had been denied. The i Staff's interim response to the petition was set out in " Interim Director's I Decision under 10 C.F.R. 92.206" (DD-83-18,18 NRC 12%) issued on November 18,1983. This Decision is the final response to the petition. l The Parks' allegations were more fully set out in DD-83-18 as follows: I Richard D. Parks, a senior start up engineer at TMI Unit 2, provided a signed, sworn afndavit to Damas Devine, legal Director of the Governmera Accomtability Project, on March 21,1983. hat afndsvit, which was provided to the Commission by letter from Domas Devine dated March 23,19 3, contained Mr. Parks' concerns regarding denciencies in the remvery program at TMI Unit 2. Several allegations were made concerning a breakdown of TMI management controls and administrative procedures. The limnses was charged with no longer having a working, systematic review process for cleanup activides due to its attempt to meet " unrealistic schedules.", Work requests regardin/ the polar crane were alleged to be inadequate because the request did not cover er;gineermg functions or documentation of design quality assurance. Barthermore, modi 6 cations and changes regarding the polar crane were alleged to be intentionally classified as "not important to safety" so as to circumvent administrative procedures. Technical Specincation violations were also alleged. As to polar crane testinc itself, Mr. Parks alleged that load test procedures had not been developed in accordance with applicable administranve procedures, and that the polar crane refurbishment violated quality assurance with dissimilar replacement of parts of the polar crane. Mr. Parks also alleged that the polar crane safety evaluation report prepared by General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (the licensee) was inadequate because significant deficiencies were not addressed or resolved. De allegations also focused on concerns in both the quality assurana and quality control area. In particular, continuous quality assurance vbtr.tions were said to be evidenced by manerous quality denciency reports and inadequate corrective action. Rarthermore,it was alleged that the managemera of the Bechiel Power Corporatim, project director of the cleanup effort, improperly caerted influence on safety evaluation reports. 18 NRC at 1297-98, In DD.83-18, I concluded that ] [N] notwithstanding the identified procedural denciencies in the refurbishment of the polar crane, the program utilimd to refurbish, test and operationally venfy a working crane wn techrucally sufficiera and provides reasonable assurance that the crane is safe for the conduct of the requali6 cation test. Furthermore, the licensee has taken action to correct the quality as-sarance de6ciencies identified by Mr. Parks and substarsisted by the OI report. Therefore, the .l petitioners' request is denied in part to the extent that it seeks to have the NRC prohibit the li. censee from conducting a load test of the TMI Unit 2 polar crane or otherwise quaWying that crane for use. De staff will, however, conunne to evaluate the merits of Parks' allegatiam i J i, and the OI Andings regarding those allegations.The staff reserws judgment as to whether enforcement action is appropriais concerning the allegations and Andings related to this / I 'r l 246 i I l i q _ _= n =
my matter. I wi!! issue a final decision with regard to the remaining aspects of the petidoners' request upon the completion of the staff's evaluation. 18 NRC at 1301. For the reasons discussed below, I have decided that Petitioners' request should be denied. DISCUSSION i A. TMI 1 L Safely Signyicance of Parks Allegadons at TMM l The Parks allegations and their implications, if any, for operation of TMI-1 i were thoroughly considered by the Commission in the TMI 1 restart proceed-l ing. In Mefropolifan Edison Co. (Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282 (1985), the Commission determined, for reasons set out in detail.1 that the harassment issues raised by Parks did not raise sigu!6 cant safety issues for the operation of TMI 1. ^ In a Memorandum and Order dated May 29,1985 (CLI 85-9,21 NRC 1118), the Commission, after extensive hearings in the restart proceeding, authorized l TMI-1 to resume operation subject to certam conditions of operat on. In CLI-i 9, the Commission concluded: In sum, the Commission has found that GPU Nuclear, she cumnt thensee at TMI. 1, represeras a signi6camly impnmd organintion over Metropolitan Edison Canpeny in 'serms of personnel, organi==al structure, ;-:_- _. and resources. %e Commission is satisfied thas the pre-accident management faults at ThG have been conected such that there is reasonable usurance that TMI l can and wi2 be safely operased. The Commission also Ands that none of the other conmms raised outside of titis proceeding warrant separate j I enfortsment actices to keep ThG 1 sNa down. Accordingly, *he Corunission is lifting the t immedicte effectiveness of the shuidown Orders. l i l 21 NRC at 1157. On October 2,19&5, the NRC Staf( authorized the restart of TMI-1 pursuant to CLI<85-9. l I I I%st, Parks was a Bm:htel employee, and Bedsel enust bearpomary responsibility for his ; n ahhaugh OPUN bears responsibility for acts of its conunctor" (Fuosnoes 55,'"Ihe f.nannup at M2 is bemig condamed as j a jeun effort by OPU Nwdear and tes canuncsar 8ednal The limized diress involvement of OPUN employees in - j ~ any aces of haraserners da not reim a spham safety issus bensuse of de amadial acts taken by GPU Nuclear i manasenens, ses supp. Na 5 (NUREG 0680, TMI 1 Rastaal at 13-9, and basause af the limited nature of that j W. - ") "Second. there has been no showmg of a widespond ponern of dwannunatian apunst trare than i one individual. Third, Robert Arnold, the unajor GPUN epicist irr nived, is no longer assempel with TMI-1 activities. Founh these acts occuned at M2, ses Th0-1, and hence they suists to the safs operatien d TMI I l only insofar as there is an overlap of individuals or pohcias. The Carr.nussion nads ths: the ressaval ef Arnold j 3 eluninstas any mach owedsp. Pifth, Licenses has now adopted clost palunar is psevent any funue hamsunars or 6 anunudauan? 21 NRC at 329 & ESS. o 247 1 + m, l 4 ay 4 I \\^ .g [ _..} h'.. s VD$, ( g i } .O ? .[ 7( "' S, ~', y ; ;,- ..y, + n c ' ',~ y
y Thus, the effect of Parks' allegations on operation of TMI-1 already have been considered ar.d found by the Commi sion not to be a basis for preventing opemtion of TMI-1. In addition to consideration of the Parks' allegations in the TMI 1 restart proceeding, the Commission has taken enforcement action against GPUN based on allegadons of discrimination against Parks. On August 12,1985, die Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement served a Notice of Violation and Proposc<1 Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) on GPUN. The NOV alleged that Richard D. Parks was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in t repening safety problems to his management, requesting assistance from the NRC, and commencing a proceeding with the Department of Labor. On March 4, 1986, after considering GPUN's response to the NOV, the Commission imposed a civil penalty in the amount of $64,000.2 2. Current TMI I SAU' Report l On October 24,1986, the NRC issued a Systematic Assessment of Licensee l Performance (SALP) report for TMI-1 for the period September 1985 through April 1986. A SALP is an integrated NRC Staff effort to collect available observations and data on a sampling and periodic basis and evaluate the Licensee's performance based on this information. Of eleven functional areas, six were rated a high level of performance (Category 1), four were rated satisfactory performance (Category 2), and one was rated minimally satisfactory (Category 3). The NRC's overall assessment is that the Licensee has coittinued to demonstrate competent management and has generally exercised effective control of activities. A SALP repon for the period May 1986 through October 1986 was issued on January 5,1987. Licensee response to the report has not been received. Eight of the ratings of the eleven functional area 3 remained the same. Of the remaining three, one improved from a category 2 to a ca,egory 1, another improved from a category 3 to a category 2, and the third was not rated. The NRC's overall assessm:nt for that period is: a Overall. the licensee has continued to operate TMI-l safely with a generally strong orientation toward nuclear safety. The organization is comprised of highly-qualified and well-trained personnel. Many licensee initiatives go beyoivi regulatory requirements. 4 3e } s ,,. -. v. e, w-au ~ r- -r e., wv

u e

n - r e, ,c,.,., l l,. L v. 2on Mardi 2e.1986 the lacenses requestad a hasnng. A maico af besang was issued and the proceeding presently is in the d' cavery mage. a l J-l 248 1 1 l --.~ l w
A % 3. Conclusion with Respect to TMII I Ibr the reasons described above, the Parks allegations do not warrant" halting all work" at TMI-1. B. TMI2. 1. Sqfety Significance of Parks A!!egations at TMI-2 After release of the 9/1/83 interim OI Report addressing the Parks allegations, ' I the Commission asked the NRC Staff to review the report. The Staff's technical review (SECY 84-36) was sent to the Commission on January 25,1984. The q l Staff agreed with many of the findings of the OI Report and concluded: .I l Re Staff is of the opinion that separate organizatioris operadng semidadependently on the I cleanup effort during the time period that was under invesdgedon contributed signi6 candy i to the management de6ciencies and instances of administradve noncernpliance. De licensee has undergone an extansive reorganization integradng GPUN and contractor organinGons under one management organizadon. As of November 1,1983, this reorganization has been essentially completed. In additbn, the !icensee has subsequently introduced a new administrative procedural system to improve control of the cleanup acdvities. j As noted above, the 01 Report did not sisempt and was not expected to evaluate the I safety signi6cance of the instances of procedural noncompliance or the management de6-ciencies. An evaluation of safety eigni6cance has beeg conducted to place the de6ciencies in perspective, he Staff, after & careful evaluation, has emcluded that the speciSc de6ciencica in plant activides or modi 6 cations covered by the OI report, particularly the reSrbishment i of the polar crane, did not result in a signi6 cant increase in the risk to public health and i safety. i I s On January 9,1985, after extensive safety review, the NRC approved use of the polar crane to its load rating capacity of 170 tons.$ f 2. Recovery Quality Assurance Plan for TMI-2 One of the principal allegations by Parks dealt with the adequacy of the GPUN Quality Assurance / Quality Control Department. After issuance of the technical review (SECY 84 36) of the September 1983 Interim 01 Report, the Staff conducted a special inspection on the implementation of the GPUN Recovery Quality Assurance Plan (RQAP) for TMI 2. The purpose of this inspection was -10 examine and assess the effectiveness of the Licensee's management i controls as promulgated in the RQAP. The RQAP describes the Licensee's ) i i 8 taaer finm BJ. snyder, Propam Duestar, Thies Mas Island Program office, ornae of Nuclear Rescur Rasulation,in GPU Nuclear Carporatian Oanuary 9,1985). 4 249 I 4 Y **.** 4 4., e s 4 g 6 4 y. t + ~ ~ ) , + e 7,,' ;l k

s e

- h A "' ' / ,'o['~ Af b}g5 [p.;Yl# ,s, ~ l l ^ ' l \\ n. e y:.:

n.. -

+ c , w ; O ,.s .% IF d a e 3 i
~ 7. 1 formal program to assure that the requirements of applicable regulations, codes, and standards are applied in plant modifications, systems, and activities that are determined to be important to safety or nuclear safety related, to ensure the health and safety of the public and site personnel. In addition to examining the implementation of the RQAP, the inspectors examined the management cor.trols that are applied to modifications, systems, and activities classi6ed as not important to safety. That inspection (50-320/84-12, dated Oc:ober 10,1984) i found that there is an extensive, detailed, and largely effective QA program at TMI2. .Q l. ] 3. Enforcement Actions at TMI2 On February 3,1984, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) issued a U Notice of Violation (NOV) for several procedural control violations that involved the failure of GPUN to adequately control activities to ensure compliance with GPUN-approved procedures for refurbishment of the reactor building polar crane Since the Staff found that each procedural violation was of minor safety significance which, if left uncorrected, could lead to more serious concerns, the violations were characterized in the aggregate as a Severity Level IV problem in accordance with the Enforcement Policy,10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C. GPUN i responded to the NOV on February 28,1984, setting out corrective actions that j had been taken and others proposed for future implementation. By letter from }j Richard C. DeYoung, Director of IE, to GPU Nuclear on April 18,1984, the NRC acknowledged those corrective actions and indicated that the Staff would 7] review those actions in future inspections. I GPUN advised the NRC by leuers dated October 5,1984, and October 8,' -l 1984, that a modification had been made to the reactor building polar crane I without proper engineering review and documentation. This modification, made in 1982, involved the addition of a hand release mechanism which had been found to directly affect the operation of the polar crane main hoist brakes. The Office of Investigations (OI) investigated this matter. The O! report was issued on September 23,1985. On September 29,1986, the Staff issued an NOV and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the amount of $40,000 as a result of the modification to the main hoist brakes of the polar crane which was carried out without following the required GPUN-approved procedures. He NRC recognized in that enforcement action that the addition of the hand release mechanism appeared to be another ", ~ more serious example of the original violations in which modifications were made to the reactor building polar crane without proper engineering review i and documentation. De Staff concluded that GPUN and Bechtel Northern ~ ~~ ~ ',, j Corporation personnel were aware of the requirements to comply with GPUN-l approved procedures and that Bechtel was not complying with them with regard 250 -i ,. y ...~..,7 e( 4 _. e.. ;. % - Y'7f., *.' & %

l n.

~ l $f.ffQj l- ~. " ' 's = a A;;q,[a e la e n( b: gh -Q.> _-__ _-_____ = __
.e 4 i to refurbishment of the polar crane. The Staff concluded. therefore, that the violation apparently was willful and, in accordance with the General Statement of Policy pd Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, categorized the violation i as a Severity Level III. On October 29,1986, GPUN paid the S40,000 civil Penalty. 4. Curnnt TMf4 SALP Report On May 8,1986, the NRC issued a SALP report for TMI-2 for the period May 1,1984, to February 28.19%. Six of the functional areas that were examined in detail have some relation- ,,q ship to the allegations raised by Mr. Parks. These are (1) shutdown plant oper-y ations/defueling preparations, (2) radiological controls, (3) effluent monitoring 1 and control, (4) quality assurance, (5) maintenance, and (6) design, engineering, j and modifications. Ibur out of the six categories were rated as a high level -} of performance (Category 1) and two as a satisfactory performance (Category 2). The SALP concluded that: OvernII. the licensee has carried out its cleanup and shutdown activities in a safe and techmcally competent manner. 'Ihe licensee's emphasis on safety F.ts been demonstrated by a conservative approach and a generally high degrce of managema involvement in TMI-2 j issues. 5. Conclusion with Respect to TMI2 .I Rr the reasons described above, the Parks allegations do not warrant halting I all work at TMI-2. 1 CONCLUSION The allegations made by Mr. Parks in March 1983 concerning implementation of the quality assurance program at TMI 2 do not warrant the halting of all work at TMI Units 1 and 2. Petitioners' request is denied. A copy of this Decision i t J ~ l n. a j l 251 -. ~.. ,.u ,.-t 'g W 9 '. L whQ@ fib Df;dy - l .?

v... - sy aL "M

s 4 ~?E s' ? 's y J I( g. f e-1 ~, will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 52.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. Frank J. Miraglia, Acting Director l Office of Nuclear Reactor l Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, l this 6th day of March 1987. - I i e e -\\ I s 6 t b t i i t t i i t 4' l 4 1 l- ' l 1 . t l4 .r-l 1 s. 252 .B q \\ 7 -..,-

-.g.-

y s .r n, -... _ f, ,3 y,,.. -.,. g..,,,,. ~ v a- .g

' i

( g g 6 e f

i. ; '

s i -

~, . ' M, ',.., f< v', r > l' 2 1 i-. ;. v. .y >.,, [ J,. I l d 4 J j ,,.2y.... u. ,,, e..,1('e,, a

3 /$ g.y...... - - -

4.y 64 * + .., <.r;.<,,, < 't j ef., ..). P; a~ o. .c s. 1>*:. s s .s , $ [_ '_ef,'] j.... e. 3 [7_.y 3g. ' s .s e 7 f.;' r .. a ,a G- + ,.. ' ~ _ g__ 3
l ~ o f.,.y, c i,

9-

.t { q 1 V l Cite as 25 NRC 253 (1987) ~ DD-87 4 . j 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' { L> + NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J w OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION. .r }. ' ] Harold R. Denton, Director ~, I in the Matter of . Docket No. 50 344 - J PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) - March 5,1987 J j By Petition dated November 3,1986, submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.206, John Arum, on behalf of Forelaws On Boar:1, Elaine Kelley, and Lloyd K. Marbet. ) (Petitioners) requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to institute a proceeding to suspend the operaung license of the 'Itojan Nuclear Plant, to hold public hearings on such a proceeding, and to suspend i==M=My the operating. i license for the Trojan facility pending completion of such a proceeding. The Petitioners alleged that the Portland General Electric Company, the Liceisee, failed to disclose the magnitude and extent of certain seismic design deficiencies 1 in the walls of the control building and the turbine building, and diesel generator enclosures. I The Director of the Of8cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied Petitioners' I requests because the Petitioners raised technical issues that the Licensee, the Staff, and other parties had resolved in proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, and the Petitioners had submitted no new information that would cause the Staff to -J alter its previous decisions. RULES OF PRACTICE: - PETITIONS UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 .z.t W}.,1."',"i,- .Ihe Nuclear Regulatory Commission, having already considered and resolved the technical issues that a petitioner raises, need not reconsider those issues if l H: I 4 the petitioner pmvides no new information. See Northern Indiana Public Service - i ,..y ,, 4,- m.

a. s 7.~.

Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), CLI 78-7,7 NRC 429,434 (1978), i. e; - a. .? 'c .n I i 253 -i i 1 1 l. ,g 'l o l ! t -s . s; n ,, f ' ,3 p;$ ll ^. p. I..* c., d..V 'sC g,, 3,, =5 y r 3 L x.\\ ; ~ L .e n, s.
,y af'd sub nom. Porter County Chapter of the haac Walton League of America

v. NRC,6% F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979).

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 'C.F.R. f 2.206 i s INTRODUCTION l .. 1 J ^' By Petition dated November 3,1986,1 John Arum, on behalf of Ibrelaws. - i On Board. Elaine Kelley, and Lloyd K. Marbet (Petitioners) requested the l Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to institute a proceeding to suspend the operating license of the Trojan Nuclear Plant, to hold public hearings on such - a proceedmg, and to suspend immediately the operatmg license for the Itojan 3 facility pending completion of such a proceeding. (Petition at 1,7).2 By letter - { dated December 16, 1986, the NRC acknowledged receipt of the Petition and { denied Petitioners

request for immediate suspension of the 'Dojan Nuclear Plant 1

operating license. The instant Decision addresses in detail Petitioners' technical and regulatory concerns. l The Petitioners allege that the Portland General Electric Company (Licensee) failed to disclose to the NRC conditions that undermine the safety of the Trojan l J facility in case of a seismic event. The Petitioners allege that the Licensee failed ' to disclose the magnitude and extent of certain design deficiencies at the 'Dojan facility, specifically alleging structural deficiencies in the walls of the control building and the turbine building, and the diesel generator enclosures.1he Peti-j r tioners allege that because of these de6ciencies, the Licensee has not satisfied the - { i-General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix - ] A (1986), and the Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, 1 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A (1986). Rarthermore, the Petitioners allege that the facility is not designed to withstand the safe shutdown earthquake. In addi-tion to alleging that the Licensee failed to disclose this information to the NRC, the Petitioners allege that the Licensee violated the reporting requis.o~. e of 10 ' C.F.R. Part 21 (1986). The NRC has thoroughly investigated and evaluated the ] masonry wall design at Trojan. Public proceedings were conducted on these de-i 1 1 Request for Insaman af "-- s . to uspend operadas tJames (Pedman). S In suppest of the Pueden. Psamamus stanimed a member of desumess. Faunamme see that Puntand omen!. Elecido and Bestaal Carpenden ayend met to diseless thess h. (Pteden at 2 ) By 1smem deced Namember 5 24.19s6. the NRC med6ed Ptudaad ommel h and andaal et the Nac's sensipt of the escumans amashed - 77 s m " .m. .y,-.,. * - to the Puuden. By lesesse desed Doommber 11,1986, and rw is,1936. Bedesi Corposeman and Pestled i 2 oeneral Elecide Company, moposevely. inienned the NRC that theos desenemas eso subjsst to a posessuve eder } issued in ihs esse af Perdaad Caseelslarrie Co. v. ses4ast Corp., and squemed the NRC io rufssin fuse makins j. then swailable to the public. Perdend GenwulKleepic Ca. v. Asc4est Cary., civ. No, 79-105 aE (D. or. has 4

29. 1979),

M4 ? [ ' i .2-' [: H :V,.m 7'~' :'" " < " ' " ' ~ ' '*t. G ff '* ~ C ' 9 'e '. :V, q, T 4Qf ,t .33 4 a a y n w. D:. V~ i ,.p v. a: A, -[. m.- ,s. + < ,,.e ,<s, l s :- t g _ r cq -.e ,t.- .ytM..,. ; e [i.%g; p%j '.[1 q. 4 g u s -Q', = ,.,4 +- }>y[} +

g 3;g W.

..6 n, ;.
I j sign issues between 1978 and 1981. As explained below, the NRC has resolved all the technical concerns the Petition raises. Therefore, the Petition provides no basis to suspend operation of the 7Yojan Nuclear Plant. For reasons discussed below, I deny Petitioners' requests. j

t DISCUSSION l

i ] The major areas of technical concern, as expressed in the Petition, can be a summarized as follows: l A. Calculational errors in the design of masonry block shear walls i (Petition at 3); B. Inadequate analytic modeling of structures resulting in inadequate resistance to seismic forces in the control building complex and the turbine building (Id. at 2, 3); C. Seismic inadequacy of the double wythe block walls of the control building complex and the turbine building due to: 1. Discontinuity of the steel reinforcing rebar within the walls (id, at 3); and, 2. Void space in the concrete grout used to fill the space between the wythes and connect them (id. at 4); and, D. Seismic inadequacy of the double wythe block walls of the diesel generator enclosures due to void space in the concrete grout used to i I fill the space between the wythes and connect them (/d.). While 'Dojan was shut down for refueling in April 1978, the Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel), architectamgineer for the Licensee, studied the feasibility .;'j of cutting an opening and installing a security window in a wall of the control 'i building. During this evaluation, Bechtel identified potential design errors with i respect to the shear walls of the "Dojan facility's control building. As the NRC stated in its Order for Modification of License, the Licensee promptly l reported this potential nonconformance to the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on April 14, 1978. 43 Fed. Reg. 23,768 (1978). The NRC Staff's ensuing investigation of the matter led it to conclude that, as a result of those errors, the design of the control building did not meet the operating basis earthquake 3 seismic criteria. At the same time, however, the Staff determined y Ib " operating Basis Eanhquae" is de6ned as fenows: s (d)'!he " operating Basis Eanhquake"is that ennhquake which, considering the regional and local C I?. geology and semmology and spectSo claracienstics of local subsurface snatanal, could reasonably be expected to affect the plant suo dunns tlm alperaung Ilfe cf the plant; h is that eenhquake which produces the vihreiesy growth [me] monon fa wtuch thans features d the auchser power plars necessary fa , s j carninued operation without undus nsk to the heahh and safety of the pubbo ass designed to remain

k functional.

i. g (Comam.ed) j s a 255 Y 4 y w_____.___ .I: m L md.
j; y d, f v g ,g' ^ j y~v ';Q ' r r that there was adequate assurance of safety in the event of a safe sh'utdown earthquake

and.that the plant could be shut down safely in such an event,.

notwithstanding the design errors. 43 Fed. Reg. 23,768 at 23,769 (1978). On May 20,1978, the NRC's Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. issued an Order for Modi 6 cation of License that directed the Licensee to perform modifications to the control building to bring it into substantial compliance with the requirements of the operatmg license. 43 Fed. Reg. 23,768 (1978). The order - 3 stated that the Staff was prepared to allow the intenm resumption of operation H of the stactor pending the completion of the modi 6 cations, provided that the L l Licensee observed certain conditions. The order gave the right to a hearing to ' the Licensee or any other person whose interest might be affected by the order.- Several organizations and individuals successfully petitioned for intervention 1 and for a hearing. In addition, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Boan.1) 1 granted the State of Oregon leave to participate in the jewdimg under the . interested State provisions of 10 C.F.R. 62.715(c) (1978). .} The Board divided the proceeding into two phases. In Phase I, the Board considered the safety of interim operation prior to nodincation of the control' 'i building. In Phase II, the Board considered the proposed modifications from a safety standpoint. The Board took evidence over a total of 15 hearing days on l whether the facility should be allowed to operate pending a determination of the precise nature of ti;e required modi 6 cations. . On December 21,1978, the Board rendered a parttal initial decision on the interim operation question (Phase I). LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717 (1978), af'd, T ALAB-534,9 NRC 287 (1979). Based on its $ndings, the Board concluded that I reasonable assurance existed that interim plard operation would not endanger ~ i the public health and safety so long as the license amendment authonzing such. operation contained the following conditions: ~ 7_, 4 (a) ' no modinaation whidt may seduce the sannsth of the existing shear walls shau he made wuheet prior NRC appewal; and - (b) k, that eves that an earthquake occurs that exceeds the facility criteria for a ' 0.0sg peak ground acceleration at the plant sine, the facGity sha1 ha brousht to a cold shutdown condition and be inspected to determine the effects, if any, of the eenhquake. Operation cannot sesurne under these circumstances without prior i h2C appewal ^ se5mnic and omologic siing Cneeria for Nusleer Poww Planes,10 C.FA Pan 100, Appedia A. Im(d)(1986) N j 1 Final safety Analyns Rapet (PsAR).4v the Trojen facility de6as Trojen's operating basis senhquake as mi - eenhquehe widipeak psumed h of 0.15 (PsAR S s.7.) 3 1 'he "safs mandown Banhquehs" is dodnad as feDows-c... m. ,y (e) m asses sholdown Banhquebe" !s5 is that eenhquake which is beesd open an ovalmenon af du =*h eenhquehn poems.nl eaW=nna the aginal and local geology and summology and spec 66e r ' 4 ahmesionnies of lonel suhemsfase meinnal. It is that eenhquake which pendemn the manusun vibetory y '- /p apuund motion far wimah annais struessus, symans, and enmpenses an demseed to semain fumananal

N-

> r.. '. ~ ' i 10 C.FA Plut 100, Appenda A. $ tD(c) (19s6). De PsAR do6ase the seis aheadown eenhquake for the Tmjan s. feeGisy a an aardupiehe wish peak ground *= af 0.25g. (PsAR ls.s.). 'l 7 G d 256 t N d s vs ~i ',L ,4. s 3 y + ~ ,~ .~k. ' w n l 4 4 "p g l 'o } r o i Jy;.Mg@+g.},[?(^ ".. Nb' ' 1 "W :.%e s'f 23 A.L, 22 ~ Q iAN [ ,7, j ' s. g,,j l i, uv. .wn

j-m( g&n.C,'

q '*) J vyj 4 g

g ku

=~ ...i l - W " s gsn p;. J ?

f. c

q l AJ t '.j 4 l l 8 NRC at 748. The Board further directed: Operation of the Trojan facility pursuant to this amendment may commence only after completion of such additions and modifications of pipe suppoits and pipe restraints, as are necessary to assure that piping systems within the Control, Auxiliary, and Fuel Building Complex required for safe shutdown and to maintain offsite doses from accidents to within the { guidelines of 10 C.F.L 2 art 100, are qualified to withstand e*nhquakes up to and including the 025g SSE. 4 Id. i During the course of the proceeding, structu al concerns relating to the es-pability of certain masonry walls to withstand imposed piping loads were also j identified. This came to be labeled the " wall problem." Because of delays in conducting an evidentiary hearing on Phase II and because of the Board's con-cerns over the wall problem, the Board entered a modification of its December 1978 decision precluding resumption of operation pending further order from the Board. LBP-79-32,10 NRC 699 (1979). (Trojan was already shut down at that time for an unrelated reason.) The Board held the Phase II hearing in Porthnd, Oregon, during March and April of 1980. On July 11, 1980, the Board rendered an initial decision on the control building modifications (Phase II). LBP-80-20,12 NRC 77 (1980), . appeal dismissed, ALAB-627,13 NRC 20 (1981). Based on its findings, the Board concluded that (1) the proposed modifications would satisfy the May 26, i 1978 order by bringing the control building into substantial compliance with the requirements of the operating license and by restoring the intended design marginst (2) the wall problem had been adequately explored and resolved; and .l (3) the resumption of power operation, as stipulated by the license conditions, would not endanger the health and safety of the public.12 NRC at 100,111. The decision also imposed requirements upon the conduct of the control building modification program. Id. at 112-16. The Staff continued its extensive involvement with the resolution of the wall problem and on May 27, 1986, informed the Licensee by letter that the Staff had concluded that all modifications had been completed and that there was l reasonable assurance that the safety-related masonry walls would withstand the specified design load conditions. The control building complex and safety-related masonry block walls, as currently built, meet the requirements of the operating l license. I 1 The Staff's Order for Modification of License,43 Fed. Reg. 23,768 (1978), l l the Board's partial initial decision, LBP-78-40, supra, and the Board's initial de-cision, LBP-80-20, supra, discuss in detail and resolve all Petitioner's technical 1 concerns, in particular, the Board specifically considered steel rebar discontinu- ' T: ity and wall strength miscalculation in its initial decision. LBP-80-20,12 NRC at I i 257 l l 4 4
frga . [.p ' I

86. The Board considered concrete material properties, including void space, in both of its decisions. Id. at 94, 95; LBP 78-40, supra, 8 NRC at 729. Moreover, the Board thoroughly analyzed the recalculation of the control building walls' resistance to seismic forces throughout its opinions. As the preceding analysis demonstrates, the NRC has extensively considered the Petitioners' technical con-l cerns, including public hearings. De Commission, having already considered and resolved those concerns, is not required to reconsider them in a case such i

as this, in which Petitioners provide no new information. See Northern Indiana [ Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-78 7,7 NRC 429, 434 (1978), qf'd sub nom. Porter County Chapter of the Izaac Walton League of America v. NRC,606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979). In summary, the Petition does not express any technical concern that the Staff or the Board did not consider during the past proceedings, nor did it provide i any new information that would cause the Staff to alter its previous conclusions. In addition to the technical concerns addmssed above, Petitioners allege l that the Licensee violated the mporting requirement of 10 C.F.R. 921.1 by l failing to inform the NRC of the defects in the control building wall design and construction in 1978. As described above, the Licensee did inform the NRC of these problems on April 14,1978. The Petition contains no information, other than Petitioners' unsupported allegation, indicating that the Licensee violated $ 21.1 by not reporting the defects in the control building walls. Consequently, there is no basis for any NRC action on the allegation of a violation of f 21.1. l l CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion, I have determined that the Petitioners' claims that the Licensee has not satis 6ed the requirements of the General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix A (1986), l and the Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,10 i C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A (1986), and that the Licensee violated tne reporting requirements of 10 CE.R. Part 21 (1982), are not supported. Thus, the Petition provides no adequate basis for ordering the shutdown of the 'IYojan Nuclear Plant. I hereby deny the Petiuoners' request for proceedings to suspend the operating license of the 'nojan Nuclear Plant pursuant to 10 CE.R. 62.206 (1986). He NRC will place a copy of this determination in the Commission's Public l Document Room at 1717 H St., NW, Washington, DC 20555, and in the Local l Public Document Room for the Trojan Nuclear Plant located at the Multnomah l I County Libra y,801 SW 10th Ave., Ponland, OR. A copy of this document will _ { also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance 1 with 10 CE.R. 9 2.206(c) (1986) of the Commission's regulations. 1 \\ 258 1 t w s i a m 9 5 e p i 4 a t +
1 quet) 6 ^

, nh(

7.",j W f a p{ l ' e [ M.a'y. ~ ' 3;,. i ,4.. .r .m ~.. -_,. N s v w. e, 1 In accordance with 62.206(c) (1986) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, j this Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission twenty five ' l (25) days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of this Decision within that time. Frank J. Miraglia, Acting - ] Director i i Office of Nuclear Reactor, ) 1! Regulation t i ( Dated at Bethesda, Maryland ( this 6th day of March,1987. I l l l i l I ~ r 1 I . l. f 1 T i i \\ I 1 l i i o a -l;I l 1

a. i.

r.. u.

--3

l

- l \\ +. .4 ') =y 259 \\ Nb ,I i i 1 k my ~ l = l P--: ,u. ' t', y i 4 g a 4 A' ,__m____ m m.__m_ j
...] N . g i-

RfC'.,

q W.4 7 :g ;.1 } ] j

q...

, ' t.:p 1.t; i s,a- +:,. - <n-i Y Cite as 25 NRC 260 (1987) DD-87 5 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS +, 4 Hugh L Thompson, Jr., Director + l d in the Matter of Docket No. 70 364 'i l' BABCOCK & WILCOX (Parks Township, Pennsylvania Facility) March 13,1987 ( The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies petitions filed by Frances L Munko and Mildred E. Cheiko requesting action .i with regard to the Babcock and Wilcox Padcs Township facility. The Petitioners requested that a proceeding be instituted to revoke the license for the facility and that the site be cleaned up, and Ms. Cheiko further requested that any other site that contained matenal from previous activities or licenses be cleaned up. 'Ihe Petitioners had asserted that present and past releases and residual contamination from activities at the facility posed a threat to their health and safety and, y in addition, Ms. Munko asserted that since the Licensee had terminated fuel production operationTat the facility, this constituted the end of plant life and necessitated decontammation of the facility for atlease to unrestricted use. i, d RULES OF PRACTICE: SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING

4

,:j . Where petitioners have not provided the factual basis for their request with - ) the specificity required by 10 C.F.R.12.206, action need not be taken on their request. l AEA: SCOPE OF INTERESTS PROTECTED x o. : The Commission has determined that the NRC need not consider psycholog-M, p:4 ical impact or mental stress to the public in exercising its regulatory responsi-3 i bilities under the Atomic Energy Act. +- F4 n .r i; 260 if f 9 .n.~ -=-----7 ,w- ---( , ~, %, *1 9. p i r y ..f, J g L V D '. b,t,.4, [E

9 e.

I k e s/ I '831 .e . e g <* ~- e -i ,w.('

/

., c ii:;, 2., ;,. ; Q.l.c <,,,;, p:.' O', + +.

&sg

,s =

s..,;._

3 ff. _m__, v w.;*; , f. f. ' s W N '. ',* g, 4s. / - ; J._ L i c s..,
i. hq.

r

_[, } u; f y gg,,- y v. i6 NEPA: SCOPE OF INTERESTS PROTECTED The Supreme Court has held that the NRC need not consider psychological impact c; mental stress to the public under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ~ U l AEA: SCOPE OF INTERESTS PROTECTED . )' Absent any basis for application of financial protection under i 170, protection s. l of economic interests is not within the scope of the Atomic Energy Act.' DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 ^ q INTRODUCTION. . e On July 31, 1986, Frances L. Munko Sled petitions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 requesting that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Rstor Regulation, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), and the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) institute a proceeding to revoke the license for the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Parks Township, Pennsylvania facility and to require that the site be cleaned up. On i ~ j August 1,1986, Mildred E. Chelko filed petitions pursuant to 62.206 requesting I that the Director of IE and the Director of NMSS institute a proceeding for the - same purpose and, in addirmn, require that any other site that contains matenal or waste from B&W's previous activities and licenses be cleaned up. The Peti:foners assert as a basis for their requests that present and past g. f' releases and residual contamination from licensed activities at the facility pose ~ a threat to their health and safety. In addition, Ms. Munko asserts that since the Licensee has terminated fuel production operations at the Parks Township facility, this constit.ites the end of plant life and that, in accordance with License Condition 22, B&W must decontaminate the facility so that it can be released for o unrestricted use. Ms. Chelko further asserts that the ultrahazardous operations conducted at the facility have caused the value of her property to decline. She also expresses concern that there are no NRC or Environmental Protection a 4-,.. - - Agency (EPA) regulatory limits governing the maximum amount of radioactivity / s.. ; c g.. s.. w.x. w w.e that may be in the soil on her property. o y. '. ,_ f ' ' i.l.. ( l' The petitions have been appropnately referred to me for a decision. Ibr the ' fj reasons given below, I have concluded that the Petitioners' requests should be

s. 4 e: -

4 2-,. denied. 1. e i 261 ) g ..w r44. ~ w -i

e.g. a

+ p we, u '}. A + s ) 4, '[' 4 ..? ( b. ,\\ ,N', q i g '.(;, . [. {.i[. Jia v jp "3a. ,j 'l N L___m__ _1__ m_ u 4 i
~,} E,hy ' hN, ' ' a,.g,N

m

' i /# s. .s. . v,., a I. ,n jj. s l ,,f .) '? 4 DISCUSSION \\ L

Background

'Ihe Parks Township facility was established as a commercial venture by Nuclear Matenals and Equipment Corporation in 1960, principally to design, J, develop, and fabricate nuclear fuels and sources containing plutonium. Other - y~ # ~ e,, S activities such as byproduct source preparation and hafnium metal production s

n., ', F, were added later. In 1967, the license authorizing these activities was transferred ~

J. Z to a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, which continued these activities l C' ,?,, A 'l until 1971, when this subsidiary was purchased and the license acquired by . J Babcock &.Wilcox. A plant to process high enriched uranium fuel materials ' ^ j war authonzed by license amendment dated June 20,.1973, after completion s i of appropriate safety and environmental reviews. These high-ennched uranium operations were discontinued by B&W in 1978. In 1980 B&W decided to discontinue plutonium fuel fabricadon, and em. barked on a program to decontaminate the building in which this activity had - i been conducted. All plutonium processing equipment was re:noved and shipped ~ "I for disposal, thus removing the major fraction of the plutonium contamination associated with the fuel processing operations. B&W's license was amended on December 9,1981, after NRC review and issuance of a Safety Evaluation ) Report (SER) to delete authority to conduct fuel processing operations. Con-currently, B&W decided to undertake new activities involving the servicing, 1 i, repair, refurbishment, and decontamination of nuclear reactor components and ~ equipment (designated as nuclear service ope ations), and on October 18,1983, Y C after appropnate NRC reviews and issuance of an SER, B&W's license was .s j amended to authonze receipt of nuclear reactor components for decontamina-j tion and refurbishment. NucNar service operations now comprise the bulk of i .j.j the work at the Parks 'Ibwnship facility, and building decontamination activities i'" 7 . ~,. condnue,i,0. -l, On October 31, 1984, B&W requested authority to operate a Volume Reduction Services Pacility (VRSF) that would use portions of the plutonium building to receive and reduce, by either use of a hydraulic high-force compactor j or by incineration, low-level radioactive wastes principally from other licensees i 'f prior to return to the originator, or shipment for disposal. On July 24,'1985, 4 ca.; the Commission ordered that an informal heanng be held on this request. A-L.. ,in [' li hearing was held before an Administrative Judge on September 30 to October ,, e -l .T q 2,1986, during which founeen complaints related to the proposed VRSF were y 9-t ^ considered. In s' decision issued December 23,1986,1 BP 86-40, 24 NRC 841, f. ?,.. the Judge found inter alla that, in spite of compliance problems during the ) a. s.. carly years of its operation of the facility, B&W had become a responsible i q liccasee with a very good record of compliance during the past 10 years.14. at 1 r e i 262 ? \\ s .. _;. -- r-q + p

~

l' a . N ,a b ~ i ', s d ., h. ( (i h* l , j ' ,[ 0 3 4 1 5 L'

j'

( m 3

e ~ ' ,yc vg i.,i n ,g x-5

9:p (.

g {*,7 Y.3 ' ' " v Xb7 (+ h ]{ ' Q, ( y i - ' i }] jf I

h. ', --

es 'W '*U _- u-o t t 1';> i
i / 4 9 -) 0

}

% 4"%$ %, c i + A + 4 e,+, h3 ~ 'E4 ik / 4 :;; &.:::: b. e s} a'.8'"'hy !$3 g 4$ '#jy$9W;$$ff 5 %s g <>$w!:I4l$h !! w s'. 'x:s c %e3 e. N or \\, \\
4 2 4+ 6*/o*#k le#*# g +* s A %j$+*/j*9 W 5!5 )t, \\ /' f ?.d4xt< 1 46%6?':Sh& 'W 6A'

w n ?t y.

a, f'+gf p b ts: ftQ$$ % v:.1 9, h $ k 5 'x N#l jih ;' $r .;gg': x ~ ' -,.-, p : e n' s <9<. p+s*,/s + x s e,. s+ p fe

8

\\ st V

/

R r [+*4 \\ 1a ?> . k *,,

x

-.y ?! r. ,/ '1, f l

f a

S 867. The Judge authorized the Director of NMSS to issue an amendment to B&W's license authorizing operation of the VRSF utilizing the compactor.t On December 31,1986, this amendment was issued. The Petitioners raise several issues as a basis for their request for relief. For the most part, however, the Petitioners have not provided the factual basis for their request with the specificity requimd by 52.206, and for this reason, action need not be taken on their request. See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric I Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-85-11, 22 NRC 149, .c 154 (1985). Nonetheless, the issues raised in the petitions have been evaluated l to the extent possible without further specificity. As discussed below, there is no basis to take the actions requested. { Releases from Licensed Activities and Residual Contamination The Petitioners assert that past releases and residual contamination from li-censed activities are a threat to their health and safety and have caused them mental stmss. However, the Petitioners provide no information regarding any particular conditions or events that might have caused releases of radioactive materials from the Parks Township facility that would have resulted in con-centrations in air or water in unrestricted areas exceeding NRC limits, or that would have resulted in offsite residual contamination. The NRC has reviewed the records maintained by the Licensee during site inspections and the semi-annual effluent monitoring reports submitted by the Licensee. These indicate that the NRC annual limits specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 have not been ex-j ceeded by B&W off site or at the site boundary. Offsite monitoring of air, water, t soil, and vegetation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the past 10 l years has confirmed the information in these records. Furthermore, Oak Ridge i Associated Universities (ORAU), in a study performed in 1981-82, found no evidence that radioactive materials in waste had migrated out of the trenches where the waste had been buried by the former licensees. See " Radiological Assessment of the Parks Township Burial Site (Babcock & Wilcox), Leechburg, i Pennsylvania" (December 1982). By letter dated October 17, 1986, the Licensee responded to the petitions submitted by Ms. Munko and Ms. Chelko, and submitted information regarding past releases from the facility. The information provided by B&W supports the facts documented above. . l Based on the available information, there is no merit to the Petitioners' assertion that past releases occurred or residual contaminations exist as a result of activities that have been conducted at the Parks Township facility which would 4 I The Judge held that ihs amendman atahorizmg operadan of the incinerator would not be issued undl certain ^ testing was completed and other condtnans had been met. 263 h a N 4 s
b 4 J pose a threat to their health and safety. Consequently. these unsubstan concerns do not provide an adequate basis for granting the relief requesteo - the Petitioners.* Decontamination of the Facility 1 1 Ms. Munko asserts that since the Licensee has terminated fuel production I opemtions, this corresponds to the end of' plant life as defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 70, and the plant, therefore, should be decontaminated in accordance with A License Condition 22. ~ l Sections 3036 and 7038 of 10 C.F.R. provide that each licensee shall request 'j termination cf its license when it decides to terminate all activities involving l materials authorized under the license, shall terminate use of such material, and shal! remove radioactive contamination to the extent practicable. License Condition 22 provides that B&W shall decontaminate the Parks Township ) facility at the end of plant life so that the facility and grounds can be released for unrestricted use. The intent of these regulations and license condition is to prevent abandonment of the fxility without decontamination prior to license termination. As described above, following cessation of fuel processing operations in 1980, B&W has been actively engaged in nuclear service operations at the Park Township facility, and has requested authority to conduct low-level waste volume reduction. Thus, it is clear that B&W has not decided to terminate all licensed activities at the facility. The term "end of plant life," as used in License Condition 22, is meant to refer to the cessation of all licensed activities. Consequently, there is no merit to the Petitioner's assertion that the Licensee should be required to i complete decontamination of the facility at this time. Limits of Radioactivity in Soil i Ms. Chelko expresses concern regarding the lack of NRC or EPA regulatory limits governing the maximum amount of radioactivity that may be in the soil of her property. Although there are no NRC or applicable EPA regulations specifi-cally governing the maximum amount of radioactivity in soil, nevertheless, there l are limits upon the radioactivity that may be released into the environment, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20. As indicated above, there is no indication that these 'I 1 1 2 Pouuoners argue that sudi releases and cantammation have caused them mental suess as weu as threatened their haahh and safecy. In this regard, the Comnusman has desernuned that the NRC need not conside psychological innpset or mental strees to the public in exercasing its regulatory responsiklities under the Atomic Energy Act la is Meaopolisen Edson Co. (Thres Mile Island Nuclear station. Unit 1). CU s2-6. is NRC 407 (1982). The supreme Court further held that the NRC need not consider these factors under the National Envuonmental Policy 'l Act (NEPA) Metropolises Edson Co. v. People Against Nuclear Easrgy,460 U.s. 766 (19s3). Ij 264 i r i j. Q .A s i ^ b
s N ',,.., L'n L',< ~ :* 4 ;- s o _~ i I . limits have been exceeded. In addition, the NRC has published guidelines for j concentrations of uranium and thorium in soil. See 46 Fed. Reg 52,061 (Oct 23, 1981). Furthermore, the results of the 1982 ORAU study discussed above in- ] dicated that radioactivity in soil at locations suwvunding the Parks Township j ~ y facility was at background levels and well within the guidelines set by the NRC. l r t i ...s j i W Effects of Operations on Property Value m P j G Ms. Chelko asserts that ultrahazardous operations conducted at the Parks i Township facility have caused the value of her property to decrease. In support s 4 - ~ of this assertion, she has submitted an appraisal done on neighboring property

~

j which shows that it sold at a price approximately 13% below its appraised value. H Absent any basis for application of financial protection under i 170, protection l ] of economic interests is not within the scope of the Atomic Energy Act. See, e.g., Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and - 2), CLI 76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976); Long Island Lighfing Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 292,2 NRC 631,638 (1975).5 / i Accordingly, any decrease in property value that may be incidental to the j licensed activities by B&W does not afford a basis for taking the action requested by the Petitioner, i i:a CONCLUSION .s. u c For the reasons stated in this Decision, the Petitioners' requests that I institute a proceeding to revoke the license for B&W's Parks Township facility and ] require that the site be cleaned up are denied.' ~. y 1 l' l l. i lE 3 As thus is no avndenes of any nedser inadma, say Anammal pseessman sequbed unds $170 would est he g , ^. 2

svedalde, 3

,? /,1 4

- i Ms. Oneke sogneses that any ashar eine aa======ag memorial er wasm fsen B&W's pasvisus asavnes and llama===

s "O be cleased up. The Pusanoner has nas paavided any infenneman as to oldsk sher seguise such andet er set fenh 1

4

, yl any apen8s faces that psevids the bash for des eussern. ses lasserist, aupra,21 NRC at 154. The NRC is aven of anly ens other sus in the eres soutaamns insteial er wome inna S&W's pesynaus aanvass and lia-a= That ans t, i 'y ' u,L, is B&W's Apeus, Pennsylve.sa fasGhy when usanium Aiel fahnseman has hemi===d====d mdar NRC umsmae i' i s,, '.j No, sNM-145. The she is ennently hang d========a-I by the th shbough B&W has Wissend that

i t plans to request NRC =ad-iny for eendusung aber beansed esevass sa ihe fasGhy. Phnhar asnam em the

)y , c. Pennener's supian is ihasfen asi wenessed. (,. c -r. a l ~! 265-o a i 1 i . 1 l { l. 'p y.= 3 .,y s... .j 'e

f'

$l p,. r_ = T' a e ll ', y q 'a ( p 9 t - it. 1 ],, [.. J e g' ?> 1 s ~ ~
fD ~ A copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206(c). For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hugh L.. Thompson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland, this 12th day of March 1987. f e s ? i 1 ) . 1 i { ( i a 'i e i I .u. s.cosammEnt Paintanc orrict 19st-isi-677 60006 l i I j ,}}

ML20238D497

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

Background

Background

Background

Navigation menu

ML20238D497

Text

SUMMARY

Background

Background

Background

Navigation menu

Search