ML20248D209
| ML20248D209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V29-N01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V29-N1, NUDOCS 8904110415 | |
| Download: ML20248D209 (95) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ NUREG-0750
- Vol. 29, No.1
- Pages 1-87L.
;r . . ; .;g :
\, 3
- f)+:: ;:,? , .'Ml' .' ..-' C ' .f3 .
- 7. g p- .. .:>
y
~
y f g: h . f I~ ', - l
.(f " ) . .
I/ s g m.f , ,
. . . . n. . . , i. t . s 1, .f.
. ,. ,; ci. ,
gi 1,{ :. ., /, g s 4 , ' . . ' , . . , , ' . ~ , ,
. , . g f) h ,' . f , ,
. - - s
} , 3, .. * . .
O
. , f, [ .
e
. '(' fj P
s
. f 4
}'. . , ,,
' '# + + ,
J s
,a
.e ,# .p
(' ) g' e ^ . . -
-g ('. , _.
l,
.} s gT I
1 _ (h
-. ~ x y ;; . >
' ' ' g
- 4 . .. A . . .
.~ ., w. ; , ,, , g. w, j s g w ',.,,.,.gw A fri.:,f3,,,
- - y. y..y.1,3 .
.:. 3ej.?Jy'{.gp,,.p..
, -,qg , . yg,g-
. , ,e , ;.
nc , . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i
~ >
I j I 1 i ,
/
0904110415 890331 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR l i 4 _--m-_____________.__.__.... . _ _ _
I t, NOREG-0750
! Vol. 29, No.1
. Pages 1-87, J
1
-1 T
'> ,;; gc; y u. ., ... _ , g g .,.g.,
' ~ y y 9 ,. ,.
xy , . , f
-i 4
., . 4 I
i 1 3
'\ !
1 0904110415 8903317' PDR NUREQ l 0750 R PDR' f
';]
m i vailable from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082:- A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 Indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication. Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical l Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 0- e l 1
, w Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Washington, DC 20666
{ (301/492 4 925) '
o ) , Y j
= -
- u e
A 4 ' , - NUREG-0750
^*. . ' .i .' ' .
' Vol. 29, No.1 4.'.[,.$. v.'q. . '. .Ts0 '. .,. . -:. . . ' .:;Q' l' ! . ) Pages 1-87
. e. . .. , , .,3"- i . ;
~.+ .. ' , .,.**4. . .1.,.. .... ,. ..., ..... . . .-. , . .. . . . . .
e.. .<. c. - ,.
., ;r,., 4 f
- s ' ;'
, , ~ . . ,..
. .; .j '.. >. '
. t ..
0.g. :... . . ~ . . :gl"j:n".;.l ..
,. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY l
(. t . . 3 n. ;. ' COMMISSION. ISSUANCES I
., l + .. . ..:.' -
.~*.: : : :o.
- o. ; . '*.. \
. . ., . e g
c..
.P . . ; ,f. a. ...~;- --
January 1989 j
.- .. . , . j I
- t. -
. . . , . I
)
'e - > i
, . ,, .. - e s, .
s. i
+ .
, [I s
c' '
; This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
~ ,.
1- ,
. .~ '
Boards (ALAB)., the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the
' - Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and
,~, "
the Denials of Petttions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
,.fy. .
j
/ .;., ...
The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein
,. ._...c.'.'
are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have any indepen-
/.,. . ' . -
dont legal significance.
. s .
, , m ,_ .....
- t. ,. . , .
. . . , .3> . . . . . ,. . .
., : . .- , . . U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c.
.".n3 , .
. ; { . . '*2 *: .
. Prepared by the l, , e,.. ,
.,.,. .'. . .i.,..
, . Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services
.' e, . ,. ,
Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- s. ,
" 'c ~ .
Washington, DC 20555
, (301/492-8925)
\
- 3 ~
.\
.. . . .. . - . , . w ,.: ,
. a .
J
+
1
~,..
,.:.d. .:..... . - ... ,
4 ..m .** . . , 4
.*.y
,.,-s.,.'......a,..~. .1.f.. .., ... .. .. ... . -3.'... . .
,p
- m. , ... .., . .. . .. .,;. . w, . : , e>,a f, y9.-. 4.-
.....,.., . , . ., s . .s . .
e .r #s .; ..,.,-. .. .. ~.., . . .. . . ..* ..
. . 1::(. .,.. . . n ; . .
.. ,. ,l
~ .- * .
s,y.... , ,
. . :. .- . . , . , . " ........;...e. .,
f
;, . . . . . ,.s ,
. , .. , nm.. .. . .. ~s .. ....,.-, ..,...~.. .
~
, v. ,. . .. . .. . .. , . ~ , ' , ,'. f. 3 ... . , .
,v v,{ c. ,v' , , e ' ' ' . * . .
. . ,- ; . .... ...n .." ..
. ., . . , c. .<:
.. .... .. , . . . . . . . . . ,.o.... ,
... ... . 4, m..
, 7.f.u. .t'.g.c', @s i %.
,,',1. ,c. p 7.; ' COMMISSIONERS
.= .
..i. , - . .
' 7. ., t -
,.. . fo , ; , ",.., ,. .
Lando W Zech, Jr., Chairman 4.' . ..
.q^,. .*
. c .; .) ' .. *
, ,, . g. , 3 Thomas M. Roberts
. , . . .- . . . . .l
- Kenneth M. Carr s . ..
'4 7. . .. . .:
,~ *
- Kenneth C. Rogers
,! .. . . g~,, , W . . j.. / /. ,,.* . .
. - ... ' . .f[- o,..',:'/.
- James R. Curtiss i . : . .+.. , 4.
- -,i i
....*~s.
\ . . \,, . . . . 1.,- , , p 1e . .
. 4 .
,- .. . ., .-)j.
.... . .i .., . .g .
l
, , e, ' ..
( . s .. . .. ,
, N. ' .
1 t-
. . J. . < .,,. , . , .
.e ,. . .$.r .
,j .. .
3
. . . . .s
- < t
- - .. v. ,'
,..7,... ,
- q. 7,. . Christine N. Kohl, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
-o .'.,' ,
B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
< .,- ,s ..
., s .
n . . . . s .. .; .s
...i .. ,. .
. ... ... .. . . -.. . *e .> ... .s :.*a,.
', * , . . 1
. J y .. .
... .. <* ca 1
-. . ,. 2 . . . >. , .. . .s.. .
m
,i 3
r , ,- .... . .. . .r. ... . . . ... .... . . . ... ; .. .... , . 4
.. .. e.:m
,. a.. . ..
.i . . , . . ,
. s .
{.
. 4. ,8.. , .
,.ie .
b
,h,. ,-
. .. . # ', e 9
'I se 4
e
.h - - -- - ---
, > q . ,
.~
. .. r - .
, + . , .
+- -
c ,,
. . ... = .
-- . 2 J. , E
, , +4-
,i.. ..w. .. . ;
e4 ., 8*k, . , , ,. . 8#
's..,
.u >
.s
. '. . ,/ . . A.e;a;:.
..,s l 4,* , ., & s} ,. ',. .; ,
~.-l....,,..~.,.. ,y...,. .r.
u . + ; _,. . 1.. . ~
,. , y .g p.g.
CONTENTS
>. ..,..,,c.,...
. . . . . ..n. . .' .c,, . i :.
,9 ;. ..-;d,,, , ,fy ,,,j'f , f. '. '.,;..' * . {. . . . :m, ji.','d. . Issuances
. . . ,; .]. of the Atossic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards -
L. .:*- ,M s . W,' ,. q.1;m y ;;> j. c,, t ,l s.. .fly' .':-,
- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
L, M y M.' w l.,'. " ~ +,' [J 1 ,.'f l. . ;, '.,"..(Scab. , , Grook Station, Units 1 and 2) -
- "Y R " ?,q.""N y f.h.
. , .* . . '/, i ..
Dockcu 50-443-OL-1,50-444 0L 1 (Onsite Emergency Planmng
. ;f, .;. w4
, . , ,,'. and Safety issues)
. . . ,/, . /.! 7
- y . 7' .j .">*,.,3 '-
. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB 909, January 17,1989 . . . . . . 1
. el.. ' . <
.t
,,.,..'.c.c '.
~r .
e...)
,,. . . ., +..>.. .
y ; ,+
.- ... . .. t . . ... :,.. ,
. . g . g. , .. .;
.>.,s...
Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards n . .,, ...
- 2. * +
.,,y c ;.s . - c,:. . u a
, .p s .
.y< .
, ,.c.g;,;;_;d ,,
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
;l g f (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) -
,- 7, ., .
~~
1 7 ',t .* c / . " ,[ .
,..')
; s . Docket 50-322 0L-5R (ASLBP No. 89 581-01-OL 5R) (EP Exercise)
, J ' .
+ . ,f , ;.. " ,
' ** 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-891, January 3,1989 ........ 5
. . .. .s, r,
- f.
- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 44* ..'. . (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
L : ;. . , ...d. .. .
.' ., *4 .. p,...
Dockets 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL) 4 .;. *.. .
.. , - (Offsite Emergency Planning)
- 7. %a.. ; ..%a..'
, ,.. . r,z' . . . . .' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-89 3, January 30,1988 ...... 51 3~
, 'n ;. " *
',' ,..,.4 **
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
. .,q . s .. .. ,- ..
. d (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) -
, . . . <~.
q..., . .
, Dockets 50-443-OL 1,50-444 0L 1 (ASLBP No. 88 583 01-OL) l y. e . .;. .
.<.e.. (Onsite EP Exercise)
. ' ^ ., . ; J '* $, .;, ~;
.' '.-,'.,,.4,.'
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 89-4, January 30,1988 ...... 62
=*
.,'.',s..! ; ,
+ -... .l'
. ... + '
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
.j... ; N ,
(Research Reactor) i ',. . ' ;
~ .. * 'l Docket 50-224 0LA (ASLBP No. 87 574-07-OLA)
* , ; *2
' , , . ..i ...... . , .' .
.', ORDER, LBP-89-2, January 5,19r<a . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . 49
. .... .' .' .... , .. ?, ..3 .
. .s., .
. ,j , . .... . , , , ,
- ~ *. * .'
......,...s..
,..4
;. a.
e .
- 4 7,
;j
. , . , . ..s,q'.
' J ; .,.
r= . ' ' . . . . *.,, . a.
* . . , , e . , . . e.* 8 .
- s.. ::.. .. : G: ,
i
. 4 4 h
. . .' 4
, . . 7 * ,, . g ill s ; s 4 i l
l
+
9
1 I Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal , . Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Christine N. Kohl, Chairrnan Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S Moore g Howard A. Wilber ( O ao _J , 4 tu Q. Q.
. .<( -
)
- m. -
. .; ,,- .w 0 i
. ..1
- r. .
J l
.,< \
*. .= ,
.A
',,, ,. . *e, ,
. . . w : r . , ' , '. .,:, y . ; , .:: ,. c . ..- ,* . , . -:, ,- ) ; . ' . .
n.. j*. , f.,, <?, . ; .. s, ...s, g.T-.,..;w- .
- Cite as 29 NRC 1 (1989) ALAB.909
. . ., . . . . . .. m , ., ., . , , , , * , .
2, Q ; .- l' ?.
.,.,'r,.,
, p, . '. .~. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L, w . ' ',,og!n, . , . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..,".,.e I4' ,, $ , j
, .{ ,.. . . ,, .. .
. ' fy . .,.,. . . .{~*g .,.j .f. g .. . . ,i'. , SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ATOMIC
. ,-. : , .. . . 4
.~ . , .-' , .;,
... ..~.. .
. (., .. . . , , , -'.
f,; . l ' '. - l' . . -
, *. . Administrative Judges:
..f , , . ,
* s..
~
,., ,, n l . -
,,. : .1 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
* : .2 . ,. : ,
' .) ..l Thomas S. Moore
"/. ,. 3. , ,,;.' . ' ' ^e,
.- '.I Howard A.Wilber r..<
* *~
.. In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 0L.1
~
50-444 0L 1
' ~'.
3 ' ,' ' . (Onsite Emergency Planning 1.. - and Safety lesues)
' 'rs . '
,. a u'
' '- ' ~
. T . PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 5
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) January 17,1989
. .,, ? . -
.e
'.," 7 *-. ',* ' ' '" * . -
In the absence of an appeal from a Licensing Board's grant of the applicants' J' .,' - ;, . . motion for summary disposition on an issue relating to the envinmmental
., . : i qualification of a particular coaxial cable used principally for data transmission
' .. . . ' . ' 5 . .' ' ' , .*; 1 '* l in the Seabrook facility's computer system, LBP-88 31,28 NRC 652, the Appeal
,,J.,' ,
.s ' , * (~,,; ' ' ,' Board conducts a sua sponte review of that decision and affirms it.
.:. e 4
.-j , .' , . * , ' - -. ( ,. .
, ',... . ... $ RULES OF PRACTICE: SUA SPONTE REVIEW
,, . . n ,
~
,.,,. ' , . ., , 7,
, it is appeal board practice to review on its own initiative any unappealed
/. . .
;.'.' licensing board decision that finally disposes of significant safety or environ.
;,.'}.
i' mental issues.
.','.-';.. . , ny . ,'; . .
. .;'".,~,'.> .
g , g *
,, , g
.g,- k8 ,8 6
. * ,- ,, ,.a. . .
e ..\- 4 e ,
. g f l
[ .
. ' at .
, 1 l
l
.. . j 1
I I l
. 1
. e . .
, e o '.
u: 4
., . .y .
. s. .
. w, .,' . , . ,.
.'..m .:,v~ .t. ~
.. j
. g -w r.
q - . :. . b,;a - * .a f . . y ." 0 1 ' '. M..*. Q. . a ,',a.c, a;;c% - i-.* 1.M. ./ . '. ). i' V .l. ; )
; .:'; , MEMORANDUM AND ORDER s - . . , ,,". .g. .. 8/. e*_.,- .- *
?- - . ** e.,z.*6 .,
y, , D ,. ,7 , a
. y ., $ . * ,,e...
- s, y;2'..[ $, ...q?,I ,j ',;.i',.( M .'"".f: We have before us once again the issue of the environmental qualincation y- -
of the RG58 coaxial cable used for data transmission in the Seabrook nuclear Q,;;g'. ' c; [*f fy% <'% : 'M . ] ~ . ]9 ., }., ""'
, . . , , . . power facility's computer system and certain other purposes.' Following our )
~.' c.14 s M.J.:,*//;;. ,LTi;,'%, a, . i , . j ,, f., *d most recent remand of that issue to the Licensing Board in ALAB-891,2 the -
, ,, q , - p, ; N .c ..f ' *.i. M , M'c)'. ,,'. -
applicants Aled a motion for summary disposition of the issue in their favor. In X .w. . ; *' :. ., , ; ' i. .l.;., *l,~), . , h
., a December 7,1988 memorandum and order, the Licensing Board granted the l
,',, l* o, - 4:.j..- ,..,.i/, . motion, which had been supported by the NRC staff but opposed by the New
~,
(' ]:. ] t .. ~. ' ' '
- e ,; ;! England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (the intervenor that had raised the issue; .)
- i , . r e ,, . , ,
.n :: 1 # in the first instance).'
V , ( ,,' ) ,l "1 [ '[j,'.'~ff.i Despite its position below, the Cor.lition has not appealed the December
. v ,.. .
y . . . . r .. . ,, .: . 7
. ;.
- j .. 7 memorandum and order.' Accordmgly, in conformity with our established A. S . , , , , , t .. . ' , l..
' ' i -'
practice in such circumstances, we have reviewed it on our initiative. That ,
',(>[+ [ ' , , - [ ~ , , ,* . " review has disclosed no enor requiring corrective action. Because'we are !
, b .-' y ' *j/
? '
-in essential agreement with not only the result but also the reasoning of the .
4 ' . '; -
.( 2" ] Licensing Board's published opinion, a lengthy' discussion of the' matter is !
. ., 9===y and we therefore con 6ne ourselves to these brief observations.
l
' ~ y , .i' ' ,
~
- ^
From the outset, the applicants have maintained that the environmental i . , , , .
;., [, '. , .
.. , quali6 cation of the RGS8 cable - i.e., its ability to continue to perform its
.m l .
- !*- 8 i ' .. .
f .
^
intended function for such period after an accident as might be necessary - was 1 ' - t'
- Y . +, / .
, J . .. . i demonstrated by the results of tests performed on RG59 coaxial cable supplied
. .o by the same vendor (the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation).
',,, .. . ' , ,. . , 7*a Although on the prior occasions that this issue was under scrutiny, we determined
- .g ,
. ,a that the record did not support the thesis that the RO58 and RG59 cables were
, . , i, . . , .
n .
#, 7 suf6ciently similar to warmnt the environmental qualification of the former 3
o / .;., .J .. .'. ) ' .< . .i .1 on the basis of the testing of the latter, the applicants' motion for summary
.,,. 'd, disposition advanced it anew. But the motion went beyond that claim and rested ,", ; [% .. , . h '7. c . ' :* q * ,. 4
- j.
~
. , . on two additional assertions: - (1) the RO58 cable has now undergone testing and l 3
' L. , . f 4 *; , . . ' , . has been found environmentally quali6ed, and (2) despite this development, the (
. p ., , n .+ . . . . . . . -
*1' , .; ,,!v.'4' , ' . ...l'..
r. y . ., l .
,,y,.,,** ../ , j. ,; . ,..
_ , Iwe ,,,e inhily led w undermand ht the enhas would be used senely in the senpeter symern, blue recently.
.,g = , *,',,e' however, we own gives sussen to believe that same of the emble would be put to ese outside er that syman. see , . . , ' . . . , ' ~ , . .*.,.* "* .* ' * . . .
A1.Aa-894 28 NaC 27,29 a.2 (1984). 1
'. , ,,,.,, 27 NaC 341 (1988k A1.Aa-891 danile die lemory of the esaded ungsden af the issus sad en himary need
,,,7
., . act be aa===a.' here.
,*.* e' ' ..#..'-
- z. -l ,. .
,. 3sse 13p.as.31,28 NaC 652.
,*s,, '
* * *. ,.. ( , J'f .,. .. ein a January 3,1989 enter ( . ""), we -4=ta.i that. bessene it disposed of the Inst meneming safay
,.,*,,-;,.t.,* ", ;", . .. [
issue befsee k in ens aparatang lisense pressadas, the IJeansing Board s saien was irrunedimely ap,sestable
't
'l } , ,, , .4 ' , T/
under die uma esa fank in TeJedP adisse Co. (Devis assee Nuclear Pbwer station), A!.AB-300. 2 NRC 752,758
'( 7 ,JN' ., ... - (1975) Inesmush as k has not sought sussenderatimi of that canchaien. we infer that the Maa=1 made a .
t ,. ,
.; )1., ', . '
. . i * * ' ,
- desision asa se pusene the cable maner funhar.
.+
0- , 7
,,,s.,."e. . ,.
. ; ..' , . ' \ . ,
8see 10 C.F.R. I50.49; 10 C.FJt. Pan 50. Appendia A, oaneral Design Catarian 4.
. % 4 e *e1 ,
u .e
- 4.. \
l
, \
I e s A
y , 7
.. . : c, .
s
' + - , .
. ,. , n ,. .
.: a.
.v 1
+ . 4 a
~;.., -
4 x o
~
,e. i. #
;* . ' - %,, . r ; ,,;n ;
. . n . l .* '
a o .c , . . ,. .... .. . m.. s.,,. m,. .u "p. .~ n .;
.a.w/ * .' ['." applicants have substituted RO59 cable for all of the RO58 cable that, because y.ffj.'y . .cb. ,Z VJ[7. ;;., i. o ,
- iI };J ' y.'i % ', j .:of its particular locauon, required environmental quali8 cation.
*4 d '. ;L ' - i In granung the summary disposition mouon, the Licensing Board relied
.] ' fi[h
?.j l- m s M. '. P,st .f ' ;s ' ..'. exclusively on these assertions - i.e., it did not pass upon the apphcants' 4,'W').
A 3'-( i1.;f j..E..' W.i. hj , ,1.$,
, ; \ . v.* g l 7 ,; .s.7,.'
. renewal
'the, RO59of and their insisteace that, for present purposes, any differences between RO58 cables are of no momenL We think that course was a
.. '/
l wise one. Ibr, in common with the Licensing Board, we are sads6ed that the z- (, J,l'i'ny i (w j(,..#
. . c,1, I'Q ~*j .l,,i._..,'. *V[ af6 davits and analyses offered in support of the mouon suf6ciendy demonstrate
'K;'y[s,; t; , . , y.! .' , J './ 'Y;'?,
< both the environmental quali6 cation of the RO58 cable on the basis of the testing
,; m ,g ., . of that cable and the substitution of RO59 cable to the extent relevant hem. Yet ( ; j,' '.
, ] } ' ,. :4 r . J * *
- It would have suf6ced had the applicants established either one of those factors.
. ' GQj,3.s De fact that RO59 cable has now replaced the RO58 cable does, however,
" ,j , \..*.
g , C,*o
;. 4, ,4
{4 .
,.7c- * , ' , '.'. 5 o c.,
;f./ ,' at :
- t.' ','
give rise to a possible concern. De record discloses that, in the event of an accident, the substituted RO59 cable will not perform a safety related (i.e ' .c, 'c g* , ' , y W -/>
. accident-mitigation) function. Rather, its sole responsibility will be to remain
. '. . ! '. . intact to the extent necessary to ensure that it will not impede the performance
- 5. ,
. (? ;.: of other components that are involved in accident miugation.* De record addidonally' reveals that n' color codmg system is to be employed to provide a
'~
l ". - T ." ' ~ 'j ready differenuation between cable that has a safety-related function and cable that does not.' Dis being so, we expected to Snd some initheadrwn in the papers
./ ,
' [ , . ,, ' ',., *
~
+
f ,2* ' ' ./ "d ' ' . , . accompanying the summary disposidon modon that the substituted RO59 cable has a color incing in itsJacket that renects that it does not possess a safety. related function. Our search for that indication, however, has proved unavailing. 3 .' . s
... Dis considerauon does not affect our ability to af6rm the result below.
. / . '? ' "' j Ihr that purpose, it is enough that the environmental quali6 cation of the RO59
,j/
*. , ,. ' ( , , . ' , ' ., - 3. . ' :- cable -i.e., its ability (when substituted for the RO58 cable) to avoid impeding
,y.,,.',**./
/ .,
the performance of components with accident-mitigation functions -is not in
"?' question. Rather, we have noted the uncertainty with respect to observance of e y-
.,. ~ p., - , . . ,. .
,. p. . . ' the color-coding scheme only because we have been given reason to believe that
,,s -.,*,'
- the scheme has practical signi6cance in the operation and maintenance of the
..c.-
facility.' Accordinitly, the staff should ensure that it has in fact been observed
- I
.'r.N'.....,'.,
with respect to the substituted RO59 cable.
. .< . F* . . , ... .. .
t.
* ' s . . x. . . .
r
- c .... ,, n . -.
- .',' .. , , f , ,. ' ,,
.i.,,,. .
.. t
,4, f. r . ,,
; e . .,, .
.p. > * ' ; j ;' ,.
*
- s~,. , y',' *Jee u.nenndes in suppen of Apptwares' Motion fa senmary Dupeakien of NECNP Ceumenen LB.2 (Ro.
- lj C, =% '
. / $4 Cesaial Cable) (Sapeambet 9,1948). Affidsvn of Rishard Beressai Ousenener. "Bergeren Aindsvk"). In
* ,A.
. . . c# ALAB.891 we pened that, as a than saasind, the receed did not adeqissely demannroes that fast wah meerd to
* }~ .* 'J
. , . . . . j#
e ., i )., -*.. '..-
?
, the AC3s cable. 27 NRC et 3451.
, . . , . .. ';. .c *
,Jee Bergesen Afndavit at 2-3. As the afndeva uneces, the Final safety Analysis Repen (PSAR) for des sembreak .
,l,,*, ',
, .,,y,, - ~ '
l* . *. 4
* . ,4 i
',f.. facilky enurass the apphcans te use the celer.eed ng symem.
'Jee p. s.3 53 of the FsAR encoryt that was one of the amantenenes u ibe Bergunm AfRdawn.
C 'y .. 4 ( - a..
- 4,.. . / 9 , , .
6 i r ,
, 3
?
6
. I 4 .
. 1 J
w -
, .~, .
o .n . a + f w . 1, -
., ~.
.. ..- + ,. ..
is . , h ., i d
- t. ., .
o.
. .- 7,.. . . .
.,,,,.ss.
*,a. . .t ,
- w. 9J , k .- * , . , ,. *. s
;, . f ../
y';.f,.,yq G. .; W ;... g' ,. ', g, .1']
. .,p. .e', . . .*j The Licensing Board's December 7,1988 memorandum and order, LBP 88-
% ;.; y . , ,,,, , . w* , ,,
31, 28 NRC 652, is of]irmed. g t ., C., . '.9,.. n . *g , ,* : ,,', , ~s .s.,,, . ,'.,, ,*., s.,.,* o ., i f ..J It is so ORDERED. 4 .., .
.. . .. r. . . o , ,. .e....,. .,
f .M.:;l.... '. .. -, . . -. .; , ,, .' .,Q s .;e.u., , ; .. ?, , " 9', .' ,,,-
.l, *
. , s . . , . , POR THE APPEAL BOARD N ,. ., . q, ,n s,. . ..<
.e r . ,.
n...,,,.,,...,... . . . . , , , , 2.*..- .,.
,,: $. s s .
-.- . .4
.g .. . 6
.,g,; .... . . .,.c; , . .;,+ 3. ,.O.... , . , , , ,
. Eleanor E. Hagins t',G. . ',.'a*.
,,f p' ;
- 9 4 ] . '. . ,..:.: ;*.. ..4
,, Secretary to the
.n * >
,r
, . ,...1:, ,. .,,gs,. .y , ,' l; , q . , , ,
, 4 Appeal Board
,,,=.,,e
. .+
,, .- ,.,. . .., , . = . ,
m .. .
* .. ,..4 . 4, - ;
a ,. ,
,* 4 # * .,I
, *' *e 4 .'T ' '
'.'ae e s o
- 4. e..
e.,' 9
- A '.,t
%,h 'g ) < *N Q * ' aug* * * \, ~ j *. %
e
' , i'is' . > *. .-*;e,. ,
e
* 'k.
- , _4 +
<
- e4 e
- t.~ , ,
': ,.e. '
. ,
- 1 1
> + .e s a., es* * * .. 1
. 4 , e , . , .
g , e, . ** .
., + 1 , ** * , -+
- 3,, ,, , .
l., m . . .
+ sk
[p 8, , eg e g *4
... * .. 1 4
.,.,8 4 6 # #
~<.**
1 n
, n ' . > ., . . , e
* .* % c v, : ....
p - ., , . , - .%,e .. ,. <,a . .. . j - . ..
.e
+
. i i,,*.**. , ,,' *;
. .a e b e** ?
, , .#4 ,
en - [ "
'4 .
j s
, 1 a .g a
O* 8 j
= s' m. - :,
,ee
*S
- s. " %
,"f., * - , *, ,; * * .
'a, . , e 1
' ,- s v ,e "
,=, , , ~
*+ , ,f.,a . da p 4 U e 8
e g,
,"*
- 4es 0 $g @*
e O e e e e e e e
" 'e e, * .
.r e
/,- e * , . . . p ,
y .. . . 1 g ..
/
. . . 6
+ e ,, . , r4 e "e # I
*,- ** t .'t e- a 1
. . -4 m,, . ,4 g4 e*
.,*s. +
=$
+' .
e 6
.* O.'
O8
. i
> s . , . *
, , . *. 4 -
c ] > e ., ys * "
* , , l
. , ' , . . *3,....d 9< .i 8 .* . ,
.* ,, r
$ g
.i e,
.e; ]
4 e 8 - 'j g , 9 E* l .
. . 9 ...l 4 ,,e se
. P e , *.e D ,9 s '.4 e
y*
- ge 4
*t ,
g
+ 4
< * *0), a
., *s
$ )g
.-e e* . ; * * . . '
6 *
- e g
e g e g
-I*
4- e
*
- e
'*4.* +'.6" s , n .- 6
, m <
, 'g . e . . . . .
,, * ** g *.e, .' . * * ' , . ' . . . .', , #}
, ' , e e,,,. , : . , gj ; ., *s i
.,' . , , . e* ,' .,,, .
~ *,,
, ,. ,' e6 4
/,=.,, , % 8 e 4-4
+
. .., v.,.. ,e
/, -
.' ,. 'j
. , , , + c. = , . .
* , i.
- p ..
. ' ' , Q,, * * +;
e I
*" e
*I s
s ; 4 r e
- f.
A r" 4
- 4
\
l i i l Atomic Safety ! and Licensing ' Boards issuances ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) Frederick J. Shon, **.' ice Chairmen (Technical) 1 Members Dr. George C. Anderson Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. Dr. Linda W. Uttle Charles Bechhoefer* Jerry Harbour' Dr. Emmoth A. Luebke Peter B. Bloch'- Dr. David L. Hotrick Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 4 Glenn O. Bright
- Emest E. Hdi Morton B. Margulies' Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Frank F. Hooper Gary L. Milhollin James H. Carpenter
- Hebn F. Hoyt' Marshall E. Miller Hugh K. Clark Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Oscar H. Paris' Dr. Rkhard F. Cots' Dr. Wetter H. Jorden Dr. David R. Schink Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Michael A. Kirk Duggan Ivan W. S,nith' Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Kline* Dr. Martin J. Steindler Richard F. Foster Dr. James C. Lamb Ill Seymour Wenner John H Frye til* Gustave A. Unenberger' Sheldon J. Wolfe' James P. Gleason 1
- Permanent panelmembers 1
i i I l l
- 1
.. . <1 d
h e
.+.,
't
,: ,.;:.s 1. ,l.* ;.
... ,.e ., .. ,o.s, .
w *, L;'.':. i,*... , . .n. s .. ~y . . L8P.es.1
- u.: ,., ,
+ ,'"
.. . .; .j' b ,.p . ,
Che as 29 NRC s (1989) i I
> ,.; r ~t . . , .
il ,' T.;c .? . i b .;. .,. . ~ [ 3'#,'.;...
.f e;*., {.' ,*
UNITED STATES o o u <, ;_.,y.. ...; * , l ', . ,
. . . ,+
..*> NUCLEAR REGULAToft ION c< .m.;,
A. A j ' 'r;{*, , l 5jj . l 8AFETY AND LICENSING BoAgo r; -
+ .t.
p; ,
,3,..,'..,.
', .j
'
- 6
'l
, , ' , f .,-
, , ;..-:, .[ .
. . . . Sefore Adminlettative Judgee:
- ~. , ~[ ,
< . , :g.
4 John H Frye, #1, Chairman
,t, .. * ' .'. .'
; .r ,,
,;lj'.,;~l Dr. Oscar H. Perle O..
, Frederick J. Shon l', , ;, : l > , <.* , ' ,,,' . .a*.r' * , ;. , ,
In the Matter of Docket No, so.322.ot.5R f
.. .,f - (ASLBP No, eg.581410L.5R)
- 1 -
'C , *;
i' ', ' , ~ . ' * ,
- 1. . . .
LONG ISLAND UGHTING
'.'\S.:' COMPANY
- * * , , (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station =
';,! Unit 1) January 3, Ige,
< .~ ,
,.;4
,7 , ,
- c. . .. ,
"'].
;= . .
, . . , .. , , /
Applying the sq e ding in ALAB-903 28 NR 499 (1988), the Licensing Board < 8"' (OUI Of /
's
,.j,?,,~-
.,.. " } " ns dvanced ih Ioc g re f the l
~' 3
- Sh reham station gg #lI
- ' _
- I.,f' A U an o fsite a Wiege a failure in an es Ia!
3*
- f.'. , [.4 j
' ~ ,
838 ment requiring signi5 cant p to correct. The Liceq dons that allege facts that f' ; * ,
'. 3 ,J -
- not terially differ from those f " 8 8 fundamental flaw i
', -j 5 ', ; :.* .i ,.. '*. , , Liga: ion of the 1986 cxercise and g,g a doto
- f. . those found to cons tule a undar
',4 j.. . J.- .,>l ,
'~ l ga on q[j . . ,
?..
.i' . .. .
'- RULES OF PRACTICEr CERTIFICATION OF RULINO
,,....;.. !; ,5;,l, I ,[. ' Because litigation of offgjge t comp 88[8g
' - . . . , ; c ; . . . . f. - ./. s . , ' In 2 years following the exercise, an a flate
" ] * / ;.
5 4
<em .
m # t 9
v . ( -
~
. . . 7.
.p ...
- 4 ,s
,~ . .
. q
*' in (
g ' l i
.. .,,. .e 7 . , , - g y ,,
W'.e(..l..,,,..t.'.. ' V,y'*yQ. . f.. ',,,; . . y],;s/ [,1 . . f. *. '.6..i'*..ll-r - , , . decision and reverses the denial of a contention would leave little if any time to '"' M .'.' .' .i.[ f.*"l:
...j . ..
*N hear and decide that contention. 'Iherefore, the Licensing Board concludes that
- t. deferring appeals of its rulings on contentions could affect the proceeding in a
3<K):. g * [ p ,. . .'d ; b.; f
;a .
'.f.f" y
[ I; N ,',,, >
. pervasive or unusual manner and certiftes those rulings to the Appeal Board.
V M ' , } [
*. # f. $ ' , ,
- k .._j,,s'.,*h.,
- c. .. e, ;
Q. (Y. ., Q, :, ;3.; % ' . ..n . a,i ! EMERGENCY PLANS: EXERCISES (PARTICIPATION IN)
.o. . . . . ..-
. : - .,". *g ,. , 'G,". 1. ..j
. i.S: . " c...y .
;) ' ' :. *
- Tbotnote 4 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,1IV.F/1 defines the scope of l3 . * < ;,' ' ,'.,1- . , . ' *~4,' y . .,
,. the " full-participation exercise" that is required prior to full power operation
,.t'.'
',y.7 ,- -
, of a reactor as one in which " appropriate offsite local and State authorities -
.,,, . l + - , ' , ', .; '.].., and licensee personnel" participate. It does not require the participation of
. ;. ,' 2 3 organizations such as the American National Red Cross, the U.S. Departments
- f, f ,-l,;,f '; -[..'-
t- f,,, , . of Commerce and Agriculture, the Federal Aviation Administration, and'the y t ,.p'j, . . .
, . , . '.: Long Island Rail Road.
. i'
..3 ,
1
- f. , ,
,.. .~
.. RULES OF PRACTICE: CONSOLIDATION OF CONTENTIONS l
- - 4 ~. -
~
, . , , . , . It is inappropriate to consolidate an otherwise inadmissible contention with
'1 .- . '! , one that is admissible if to do so would require an applicant to mount a defense
'. , ' 3 l ,5 '
'.. . . that is substantially different or expanded from that which is required by the j- 'g..,'
admitted contention. I . ;. ' ,. ,. . . t . . . , . . [.:
- ^' ' '*- '
~ *
. , . . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
,- i
, . . .a.
'.I:: . .
(Ruling on Contentions) l INTRODUCTION -
.1
;-7. ,
'(,,n'[*,'.'.-
/ .
Ibliowing an exercise of the LILCO emergency plan for the Shoreham a
;,. 'J, ., , Station held in February 1986, the Commission directed that a licensing board
., . ,-,.'s .,'i . N ,J. , . , - be appointed to hear any acceptable contentions that Interveners might put 1 I ,',
,! ...J. forward alleging that fundamental flaws had been demonstrated.8 Subsequently, C' , . , ,
'^ < .
Intervenon put forward acceptable contentions which alleged that the scope of
. .; j ' .g q ', . ? . . . . , ., '. ,f .
, ,., the exercise failed to comply with the Commission's regulations and that the j
. .. results of the exercise demonstrated fundamental flaws. In two Inliial D:cisions, !
- t- <
* ' */ ,
, , - this Board upheld Interveners' position in part.2
?.
t
,*E* , . . . ,
.,,?
, . , .)
.. I
.f' CU 86-il 23 NRC s77 09561
'- ,' ,,' ., . , M !] . , , ,. . * ! ; ** . . . , ' ,#' ,* /
2 tEP47.'32,26 NRC 479 (1927),( d, ALAB-900,28 NRC 27s (1988), rvview declined. CLI 8811,28 NRC i
, g J. * .
603 (19f8); and L9P 88-2,27 NRC 83 (1988), need@adin part. ALAB 903.28 NRC 499 0984), appeelpending
,1.< . O * ". .
= . . . , ,' ;e ,
- is part. In a third nding.1.BP.88.7. 27 NRC 289 (1988), Otis Board determmed that its jurisdiction sided when k decided all of die usuas in cenuoversy before k related to the 1986 esercian. In ALAB-901,28 NRC 302
*.,. , >- 6 . . . .'
.J.,
- i. . .
.; . .,, (Conansard)
, , .t )- , ' *
.+
,'- 6 e
e 4 4 4 _ ______.--m._- _w
-y- % ,
, r
~ q-
~ t-b
"':.,.. % *.' ..)' . 2 s * . :.: , : J. '.. i. *. ,J-( . v 1, g.n .
- u, v .m. ,s.
- . .,. w . .
. . ,, .c T. .
. m. % e3. o.:'. * ; ,
".af;;;f ? ~,J ,. l, M;,. *w, g .~ ; LILCO requested a second exercise which was held on June 7,8, and 9, M.$5yl.)*1.-I':'~.'.2,1%;.., , , 1988. In unpublished Memoranda and Orders of September 22 and October 12, 1988, we set a schedule for the Bling of contentions and responses. ALAB-
- 7. .1 ,:c,.'. ],' f g n j d,..?fi M ,)9 g-.? j
- 4, - ~ , / .y . .
4 y, 903, which modi 6ed the dennition of fundamental flaw that we had adopted Q: yN'y..?. j,; 7 .;.U. /.,$; .. !,, in LBP-88-2, was issued shortly before the Interveners' reply to LILf'O's and Qi,'. cA ]M , _
.,", ,Li,' f,' M b .'Y i Staff's objections were due. Relying on ALAB-903, LILCO filed a motion to
',P ' t. ' f. i 9 0. i;.59.". '; dismiss Contentions 4 through 20 on November 21. Interveners opposed this Q[A
- Nh' ftl.' .)J ; ', w g '. f . j e,on December 1, and Staff supported it on December 6.5 Then, on November 29, g
., .. *',_4, I
; 7 ' ; . ' i . . , . ' ' ' j '. . l ., j Interveners Aled a motion seeldng permission to amend their contentions in light
- 4. ;,.,..f n a,-e . s a .,
c, .V, , of ALAB-903. At a conference of counsel held on December 6, Interveners' j r - i, . ..;.;;Y[.* ' . motion to amend was granted.' LILCO's motion to dismiss was denied with the
' ~ 9. O. , . .f -E . , ,'- '.'"C 'j ; ', -
- t. ,
understanding that the arguments set forth in it, and in Interveners' and Staff's
. [ .l l j';l, ; . /,,*,3 .},&;
~ .' i . . ."
. Q . O c ,%.
4 responses would be considered in the context of the amended contentions.s
...**# On December 1,1988, the Commission issued CLI-88-9,28 NRC 567, which,
,. ;,. ,7. o ,
4 .. , ,. . ...3
~~/: - among other things,' sets an exg edited schedule for this proceeding, eliminates v ., 7. . 3, .;* ,' ,' . . - ~ .
+ ,.
formal discovery, and places the burden of going forward with the evidence on
' E. ' ; . : Interveners. At the conference of counsel, Interveners raised and considerable
_* ^' ' I . ;- ; discussion was devoted to the schedule set by the Commission and discovery.
,f.. :..,."i.*-- '
Subsequent to the conference, on December 9, Interveners filed a motion with
. '. 1 '
0 y
- y, .' ;. the Cornmissbn seeking reconsideration of CLI.88-9. Conseqwntly, pending a
_ , . .~
. i *
. ' '... p ' i Commission ruling we will not further consider Interveners' concerns on these
~ " . '- **' t.*
, . i r c, c j points.
- At the conference of counsel, we raised with the parties the problem posed by
' - f'
> ,,y LILCO's response which, as will be seen from the discussion of the individual -
"j u ' ;( # _. '- * .
' contentions, often raises factual arguments against the admission of a particular
./ -
c, - ,, basis for a contention. Considerable discussion was devoted to this topic which
]' .'fE. . * , ,
- 3. ~ :-
d illustrates the problem well.8 In the course of that discussion, we !*atad to the
, , , ' ' ;.}.-
- ' . . , , ' *. . ",[ ' *l *' . ' .
perues that it had been ow intendon, following the example of Rule 12(b)(6),
- v. . ,.,.' Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to treat LILCO's opposition as a motion for e -l. y., * '
S .. : .. . '. ; - summary disposition. permit LILCO to supplement its opposition, and afford
, s ,l, ? " ,.g I "'l j' ,
Interveners the opportunity to demonstrate that LILCO's factual arguments are
',,'.,.,'.4]a
, ' '~
either incorrect or at least subject to dispute. In this way it would have been
. ' e ;;
, ,. , 4 .
. y w .. . , '. . . ;. . ,, ,
- p. ., oses), s. App t as.sd =m nded om susman d om ==hs or n. iss:--:=e w this a w. nounso ut du
, .. ,, ~ , ,.... . . , , ,
, a f, ,- , *, , '
*, ,, .. semelusion seashed in TAP-88-7 was incessess. 28 NaC at ses n.6.
.
- J r'
* , * . .. ,.* ... ?. 3sierr's paper was surved en the assal and the panies at the eenfuenos of onunsel held on December 6. De
,'.. /.,,s . , , , panies wue aNeeded an appanunity to soview h over the hinch tsunk and resped earing the saarnoon session c- * > ....'.',',/..**,
l ;>'
- '. - )7 . erom eenr.en a Tr.es-s7.
4 - in diis M and ordu me w dw anended carnarnians.
,,, Aurdssumes a um a * * *
- 7 I ., $ . , . , . ' . .,] 3Tr. 60,62, on Demenbw 27. t.!LCo also Aled a lenar with us dawing mar enantion to dw December 15
,. * ] *
..'4 , .,*
" *
- Mamaranden and order maling en - issued in the ongoing Seabrook samaws litisation and assoning
-. / (, . f,
- f.', .. ' I '* . ,*, ** *, ,'. 1,
.*f f .c , , , that it is selevers precedet ror sur P.% of the Shoreham coreannons. This Sung was not authonamd and
- y , . ' , , ,. ,
,g, #
has not been aansidered
'Tr. 63 86. See else Luarvenors' Reply at 17-D.
- d. f,'. ' . ,. ,h . .' ,
,4
- 4 .
. n1 . .
o r .
> 7 4
- I
. _ ~
v -- y , y .
. , *Q
'5 ,-
t- . ,
,..'+ '
~ ..
. ..r...
. ., U. : . .l;
- W.
(jd ir} ','p,1.%;;fd ; 3 4'l. 4(j . I ~d*7. Q and .' ultimately useless, factual distinctions. And those facts that are not possible in the process of miing on contentions to avoid the necessity of making fl'h; .;. ,(.' '. . .p l- [ . . . precise, V' ' [' .
'8 . n , , ,
subject to genuine disputes, and set down those that are for hearmg. However, l ,.5h;P,V'i,, p { .tf* '. ',,; ', g., '., . .... . . . because CLI 88-9 eliminated summary disposition motions, we are bound by 5, CLI-8611, supra,23 NRC at 581, and ALAB-903, supra,28 NRC at 506, to
,0 d ;.,+['V 1. (i;t ; ; V%';M h 'Nh.[0. .G, ., ,,y
t J ,$, '[. ~
accept for litigatum all those contenuons that establish a sufficient foundauon N.:p[U.f,);[4,,
~ ,
. f./ > .
? *'t 3 l. ,
- i. -
' Ya ./y j for further inquiry by setting out bases with reasonable speci6 city alleging facts that could amount to a fundamental Saw.- In applying this standard, we have M' h ]).1 ; C#,['? '; . ' 5,I" .
p..O )/., sought to avoid accepting bases that are fairly c'taracterized by the example E : .k . .-
., . C',';t., l of an unacceptable basis given by LILCO's counsel: "'Ihe moon is made of
+.*~9;}A.
,, 4 f..;f . ' _. ,.!* * .' ',7, ,f. ?, ,'f. ;
balsawood.'#1 However, very few bases fall into that category, and very seldom ,, e.- '
. . . , . /. ." ; are the facts so clear as to permit us to safely rely on them.
7 ' , * ' ". ' .' ". . . a , . ,,.. "g J c.]- ., . In its opposition to the contentions, Staff takes the position that, at least to 1.3 .1, ' , . g?'. D .',5 7,; .
/[f,/,l j ; g* - f by
[ l.* l [ l1 the extent they are based on Interveners' observations of the exen:ise as opposed to the FEMA Report, the contentions are late nied and should be dismissed for i
- v. g ' . ..~; ',, ,
, ' . i. ' ;- - - - -
y failure to address the factors set out in 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a)(1). Interveners
...-1.'y .
4,
." 0
(. 7 ,, - N" 3 . . g oppose this position.: We are in general agreement with Interveners. Staff does
. .- not dispute the materiality of the FEMA Report to this proceeding and the j
~
! , 3. .
. ; formulation of contentions. Irideed, in view of the fact that FEMA's Andings l
, ~ . . , , .' ,- . .i . '," - ' '
constitute a rebuttable presumption,' and in view of the holding in Union of j 4
.O '
"p Concerned Scientists v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984), that a heanng
, ' ' i,- , ,
- l. ; ; . ' must be afforded on issues of material fact, the contrary position is not arguabic.
. T . ,~ . ,, .
, Whatever Interveners may have observed or learned prior to the issuance of
',,.',, .,- ( ' f.: "'""l", the FEMA Report, the fact remains that. given that FEMA has issued Andings i
,. ; favorable to LILCO, they 1;'ust refute those Andings if they are to be successful.
E, No usAl purpose would be served by requiring that contentions be Aled in
),
,,'?f.**,,.. s . .; . . ~ - adva.y . the FEMA Report, and nothing in the history of this proceeding
~
f', . ; .: , suggrets c the Commission intended that some earlier deadline should apply.
, ' ;* / -.. . ,, ; t . ,
, ; * ..*:, ? Star,'s position is rejected.
,,1;..*., ,0 ;
9..?'. 7 in this N emorandum and Order, we address complex and, to some extent, [. ' ' * ' '* . i;
.. .wel issues 8 concerning the proper scope oflitigation of the results of a second
- c. , . , ' t
,l,, .' " g <* ""[, .
exercise of a utility's offsite emergency plan. Moreover, the litigation of this . ,,/ g.,. - -
,. exercise must be resolved within 2 years (i.e., June 1990) if the exercise is to l- *
. . .- .i, . qualify as the relicensing full-participation exercise required by 10 C.F.R. Part
. .. [, '. . . < $,; .'. ; +. ;*..:,,:,'. ,
- 50, Appendix E,1IV.F.1. This situation prompted the Commission to change
, , f., , .* . .
< = . , , ' . ", ' "e.' .. g i ,- ,
. .V . " - . * , * ..~ . ., .. .. ,. . i
,p.'.'~*. **
, . ' . *e
,. 'Tt. 64.
;,.* ,. , , ' i , i* s see statra Response to the Comennens at 611. Response to taro's Manico to Dimiiss at 4-5; toeneisse'
,1.{- [ ., "r*.[;7 , j*,. i, .. l .A; ,'s'
,*,,e N Reply to tilfo's and Suff's obpsemens et 23 30.
10 C.F.A. 6 50.47(a)(2); C1J.as.9. sapes,2: NRC at 571: AIAB-9 2, empre,28 fGtC st 507. y ". . y. ' . . ,.,-.'. .. . .. ,' , -
.t , v. .
y,;- ,,., ! "Fw asample. AIA8-903, whidi dennes tha maical conospt. "fundamenal Raw," was insend Isas than 2 menshe
, ,;.. 7<
e
. . < . ,.4,.. sei.
j,'-
'*,,g.'
* . a s * .b
. P ,
,. , s Y ,
~
4
.e
v - * ~ q
- e . ,; . '
, Y , .
.(
~
- i. .
, g. , t
*.5 wak
. .. w , :
)
c , s ( ' u , r.
, y-
. . ? ~
- 3 j
./ ! ,
. . . . w .* fl f . , -
. *. w 4
.,. .r. , . .
~
..~...
m . . .^ ..: : ; c.'..3-.
. ,...n..
. . :. qs....
. . .- ; s
]/. ;- . ,' ' **', ." ,-. m
- y. .qd
; . , f.Q., . . . . n *.. the procedures that normally apply in order to reduce the time necessary to.
(y@r 3 ,l;
.;' ' d .;,
complete;, l /g;, p h,, "7 the proceeding."
' , . E';f v... j lM,..VG.
De Rules of Practice provide that appeals from rulings such as those made J.~. 7. ' 9 /;Ni , . " '
" y,' herein must normally await the conclusion of the hearing and the issuance of ' j, E ,; > .'2. , '.' [. .' f '
@5.d E/ .;.l' C.f[. ,'- .E.[/ / . '.1 . ' , of[.a licensing board that merely admit or deny contentions in the context of an
*i an initial decision.'2 De Shoreham Appeal Board has pointed out that rulings i.,}W!.'.t .
1' ' 'Af
" Ml.. (*s',,?
.-[,.-
/, ;1; -). O.I,lO .
9.'.) ongoing proceeding rarely provide reason for an exception to that rule.18
'y>' :,p ' ' [,. . (' .f'; ,'; ' ; ,'s.- " . j. . ..,', .i' We believe that the circumstances of this proceeding dictate a different.
, J,. :. . . . . "1 ' , .;.j .' / ' ?/; ., i conclusion. Here, should an appeal following an initial decision result in a
*.r".,, 'J.y/ , ; q .,. ,.5', ".-I .
ruling that we have improperly excluded a. contention or contentions, little if
,.Y. " " "' '
'y' ' ' .'. ,y
.- "c.*** . .. .' .,
J L.j " *j any time would be left in which to hear those contentions. ' Thus we conclude j .$ . , , , . .
~
..'J. 70 that deferring appellate review of our rulings, as called for by the Rules of
'5[ y.
.. ' ,1?M. y ' M. f;; ( i',l.}'j Practice, could affect this proceedmg in a pervasive or unusual manner by
.] .* .r u 9
,. possibly preventing, CLI 88 9 notwithstanding, the completion of the proceeding g..~ ; jl .a ' ,'.';., ' ,
l3
. ,..~.3
/ '- - -
.';. s , .
J. in the time allotted. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.718(i) and (m), we certify our rulings herein to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
. ;i
. . .. ~ , ;
, .a '.I
'1~
, Nl . S l, .a CONTENTIONS 13: THE SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE, 7 772 . - 7.
, . THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING IT, AND FEMA'S EVALUATION WERE DEFICIENT 1,
*a * ,,*
9
... -l i 3-
# ' ' 7 " . .' " .- " ,
, , , , ', ; Contention 1: Scope of the Exercise
. . . t His contention alleges that the exercise did not comply with 10 C.F.R.
. .a il 50.47(a)(1), (b)(14), and Part 50, Appendix E,1 IV.F "in that critical elements
, ,,' { . * '
, , 5 ". of preparedness were omitted from or insuf6ciently tested during the exercise."
'.L' . . , . * .,. - ? .< '. . '.5]
. .o /; . . It is supported by the following bases:
., ' .y . , ; , .; * . j
- Basis A asserts that the public noti 6 cation system was insuf$ciently tested
*/. . ,,;p. j. :
~ ' ' '
. , , ' ' ^ . ' ' -. '
- because there was no adequate testing or evaluation of the siren system, no test l
,,* ;,/ ,; ..' , .. g brnadr en of an EBS message, and the test of the EBS radio network did not
,, . ,' - y'. ., . e] invohe the lead station and did involve a station that had withdrawn prior to the
'. ,l) ;. - </e,' ,
. . . ,; .- exen@. The Appeal Board in this proceeding has held that the public alert and
. u, , , . ' '-
notifiestion system is a major element of emergency planning and has pointed
. , '. . y'. . . . : .
,.'..v s
/* . . ~. . .s
. g
.e-.
. . *** . . .. a. + .,./..- . . . ,
' ,/..,, ** * ,, ,
, } , , ' *' il CU-8s 9m -
,.,* .).
', * - 12
* * ,, y
, . . ' /. , .* 3ee 10 Cf.R. I 2.714a. of esame, mular the terme of this errtism,I.R.co aney appent our esder by massrums
,. . .. , /./- ' '/ . .- that a5 of die --
shmaid have been denied.
., ,1 , ... *1 j 'r.1, . ' * * ', ? I [ ' . .. ..' .. '
- D
,',s' ,,$ 2 d * * .<.*,' Al.Aa-861. 25 NRC th L,4 35 (19s5), vuossig pasWie 3ervics Co. of New Nasupshare (sesbrosdt station.
,. , j. ., Units 1 and 2). At. AB 83s. 23 NRC 5s5. 592 (1986).
--*DJ..,,'.,'.,,.,.',.,','*,'
. y . * *
, .'/ 3 . . . ' "oivon the pnaruend nanire of this husseinn and ties feet that this is the escend ; " ; esamies hearins.
..'.* k nisy also by appspriate to soview our ndings adnismins causannons. Cf. Vermiset Yanese Nordear pei.or
- r. .,
~'
i
. . ' f. A 4 Ceep. (Vennant Yankee Nuclear Power seetism). At.AB 849,26 NRC 13. 25-27 (19s7).
I
, s.1 j ,
, , , . . J ' , .
+ ,
9 ( , . 1 as
. f
- ______.____________.__m_____ _
c", . 5 ,. ; .; 7 , . _g - s 1s.* 7
~ .
e s.
.)
. . i
.~
A ?
^ , , . .o . ,1, .
. . -? ;; . . < . g .; . .i
' b; , . . .q.... '4
.:a- s. ~. ; - - . . ' .. .,,3,,
<, .. ., u. . ,p.,:. ; ; t'
,@N2,[y f,, . (([N? ,1..
. ..:k .
out that Appendix E,1IV.F., makes it clear that this system is to be tested in the exercise.n ['[J',%y ::.r.r:. . .m s .f;,q'.f.y.,';',ph,",,',,.[9 In its response, LILCO cites the FEMA Report at 44 for the proposition 7.^ ,'". 0' , .",, . '(,*' ..' 7. , ' . , that LERO met the objective of demonstrating the ability to sound the sirens ( {.. A ~' M f ,t. i,M[hlJd.?'d i~ g ':; 0 .J "'; Q' [ ' .
.; *, in a timely manner and in connection with the dissemination of emergency v f. W ,s.O information. LILCO asserts that the participating EBS station, WPLR, was
!.
- Y,'d.6'7;'.' T i "$#l. J i e .@' j,* fi 3 accordmg to the FEMA Report at 44, prepared and equipped to carry out the l , o,y:4,. " < ~. 9,i g ",,
- y , ' ' "' . . .i < broadcast and did conduct a test broadcast within the station. LILCO notes that "l :! 2 j "! ,", , , ,D*,, >a,';'..',. .
political opposition led to WPLR's decision not to conduct a public broadcast. : Y" y' M
,4. .J-i f ','";. ~f.. , .Y; '[. . Finally, LILCO notes that at the time of the exercise. WPLR was the lead station
, ,4 f ;,; .
', ; . ./ ? for Shoreham, and its subsequent replacement by WCBS does not invalidate 5 t ,y * '* * ; . ' % 2 ,/ 1 'J (.J." 3
. this portion of the exercise, and that its decision to rely on the realism principle
. m. . , G '. . Q..u ,!.e l ;n f 2 < f.[.;
in order to utilize WCBS and the Nassau Suffolk Operauonal Area EBS was
, , , ,e'*4 Jb. , . approved in LBP-88-24, 28 NRC 311, 331 (1988). Interveners counter that to f.,', po M;c, - y,*'. ..,,- .
j ;- V
* ~
.' accept LILCO's assertions in opposition to basis A would be to impermissible
. ,..,i . , ..-N. # decide the merits of the contention without an evidentiary record.
- Interveners
. . .. 'r..,: -
are correct. We may not consider the merits of this basis at this time. ' m
., ,' - i~>* Basis B asserts that LILCO's plan for school preparedness was not suf6ciently
' . ' .{ ' ..
, ' . , ,.' 1 . '
'e '
. ' .". tested because only one school district participated and then only to a limited
_ i,( ,
$l - + '
extent. LILCO points to ALAB.900, supra,28 NRC at 297, for the proposition 4-fa.. ,
- . , . , ' < ,- ,;...: that it should attempt to obtain the participation of a sufficient number of schools 5 % ; _,...: _ ', . .: - - '
,! and, if the schools decline; establish that fact under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(c)(1)
' " *~ " ' " - ' ,
and Appendix E.11V.F.6.3 LILCO has documented the schools' refusal to 7 ,J ( ~ ,' -
., 1 1 ' ,; l '
participate, in its Attachment 2. l
. .. Interveners take issue with LILCO's position that public school districts are N.,' ,E ',
r.; . ~ ~ .
~,
g.
. ' O ].' i government
, . , . . ~-
.t .j.
entities, assert that in any event there are a number of private schools that did not participate, and that, in opposing the basis, it is improper for LILCO
,, q - f , . ...,;4
. .c . / '
to seek to prove the participation issue through Attachment 2. They also assert A . ., . l ' ,. that LILCO has made no showing that si fies the criteria of f 50.47(c)(1) on
., . . ; . . . , . . J
- ?,. .* - .- .
.o .. . . i this issue.88
'.,,*,4 j i ,f,1 " ,g "r*, ,1 .
Again, we find that LILCO's response goes to the merits of this basis and is
, ." / - -J , ,
' " ., ' I
- a. .. thus inappropriate for consideration at this juncture. The questions concerning I
, , .. . ,t
,s. . . .
, ;I
, , . ' ' . a. ' 6* '. r
. 5' ,
f..,..,'.,' s ir
..,,',"4 ..
4 t ,,, ,, .a 15su AIAB 900, si+re. 28 NRC at 294.
, e ,. . , 'f . . . ,. , ,,Y- ,
legu g,nro s Nevernber 3 Response at 911; Innervenars' November 15 Reply at 4145. staff does not object
.j . .*
. ,.',' 4'..'*'.
to this bens beyond noting that the adequacy of the EBs symem was deserunned in LAP.8s 24, are, ums r
;'r g i * , , 'j .,..,, . , ',.,,
4 u Jr poucluding relitiganon of that issue hese. se stafr's Response of Novenber 8.1988, et 24. Imervenors assuse us that they do not seek to selitigste that issue but to raise the quesnan whether what was tested was in the plan.
'- , , , , ' *
- f, ( , . j. 8j* q. ses !.;_. .
- Reply at 42 a.33.
, .g-.,' ,. ., e- ; , ;. t . , . 47 AtAB.900 also noted that the pesannat evacuanei of sdiocas within the EPZ is a major elenent af the o# site
.*k.. , ,t* '. , ,' / t1*,.'J f
. . , , Pl an, and thus a sufScimit nurnber of school pemannel nest participais in des eascine in order to sessus that s
.';,. ,' ," , 5. 1,,i.l W . .
capability. see 28 NRC st 29L
./* [., , e,. -
.'.,1 l.'. 7I sw 1lLCo's Respeise at 11; Interveners' Reply at 45 48. staff does not opposel
?, - s. ., , ; Respaien st 24
. . ~ - *
, a p -
=% .
g a 10 l J 6 4 o
. a i
)
}
- x, .
, 3 . ,
+
, .< , . . ... j 3
^
. - 'd
.,< 1 2
.c.' . .4
.. ,. .......;. . p . ".
.; .m,,.. 7 .*., f,.r..;, . .e < .-:, ,;, .g. . , ' , ;, ? .,, n
, ;. .f; ,'. , .. , * * , f, 3 s ^ i '
.",' the status of the school districts as governmental entities and the exact nature
,{.'
, g' .. . *+. 9 ['f [ ^i l6. ~ 5, ,' * = ; .. . l . of their refusal to participate may well raise factual issues that should be aired l N; . fi $'l.,,) D,' ' 5 / @, . , j in an evidentiary setting. In this regard, the parties should be guided by our
- . ,. :* ;s n . + ..f .,
.. :- ' discussion of bases 1 and N, infra. i id " ' > E .g . h . ; .' Z. '; ., , s . d, .
, .' , 1 Basis C alleges that the provisions of LILCO's plan for schools located out-7,$ d'E I :, M ; , % .?. e./ ,[ i , ' .*! ,
. side of the EPZ were not exercised. Although it solicited participation by thesc
. ; ,,.l. 3 >;. .;l . . ,l '.]
*.. '.( ' . , , , schools, LILCO takes the position that these provisions do not constitute a major
, ' [7 . , .*7.;t+ '
~ r.,.7, . .,,. , ,', d
- observable portion of the plan, citing the FEMA Report and FEMA Ouldance
, l', , .: ' ; , ^ ['. ;.J Memorandum EX-3. Staff opposes on the ground that 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(10)
( ", ,, j ,
-tr does not require LILCO to develop protective actions outside of the plume ex-
, :q .' ~ ., , , ' . , "r ;. V. J.. , *.11.l Qe *'
.. posure EPZ. Interveners assert that LILCO and Staff are improperly opposing
['.c ,. . R.h, . i this basis by arguing its merits and have taken issue with those arguments.2' , ," , i ;'t . 7 ' f, , " , l ; '1 " '.""e' ..
,... With regard to Staff's position, Interveners believe that the fact that many of the
- f. . , ' . . . , ..
l
...i 1'. e o ,1 schoolchildren reside within the EPZ and could be released back into it brings iL.., * , '? ,
~
*< .l '
J these schools within the purview of 650.47(b)(10), despite the fact that that
.,' (.. "..' provision is clearly limited to protec /e actions within the EPZ. They believe
~
' ' s :
. that it is clearly wrong to argue tha. this situation is outside the scope of the !
, ,. - [ ', ' regulations, especially given the existence of provisions within the LILCO plan !
'# ~
covering it. They also believe that this situation presents a kind of access control d l'. problem covered by EOC Objective 20.28 l'
'>> +
a
.- ';:" l Clearly, this situation is within the spirit but not the literal scope of the j
T ,-.
,,,?,
j regulation. It should be, and has been, covered by a plan provision. But that
;. ,, does not make it a major observable portion of the plan which must be tested.
'.~ 7 4
, .] We do not believe that LILCO may be fairly penalized for not including matters
~, .
in the exercise which, although covered in the plan, lie outside the literal scope
' .9 ,
. . ,- + ;. ~ .
t of the regulation's requirements.22
" N . ,'~ ',
' y . ,' ' . *
. , . *'d
' *,. 'l l ;
. Basis D alleges that although the LILCO plan calls for EPZ schoolchildren .
to be evacuated, if necessary, to the Nassau County Coliseum and the Nassau ,j , , ., ,-; s.
~
,-*'%7eJf j
, County Community College, and although such an evacuation was called for
. .: .- i ; in the exercise, these relocation facilities were not activated, staffed, tested, or 1 "*l
," .. , ', ' s . ', 2 *3 evaluated. LILCO opposes this basis on the grounds that first, these facilities
's
-( '
.' do not constitute a major observable portion of the plan; and second, that their
,. :i, , ,. " ,
- l' '. -
refusal to participate has been documented. Staff opposes for the same reason ; F. - ..
- ." 3
..y * .. ~
. . ,.. '/ . , ' ..
I, . [ ', [
- E,....
.. g , ,',,.*
l's,s 1.Kro's Response at 12; stafr's Response at 25;Inservenors' Reply at 49 51. l , e 7, *
,...,a ,
20see FEMA Rapoet at is. l' l'
. f . ,.
*'i . ',
21 Moreover, in AI.AB-900 the Appeal Bosni held that the FEMA objecoves set forth in " Procedural Policy on Radiological Emersency Preparochtens Plan Reviews. Esercise observations and Evaluations, and inteam l ; *-- ,,
. ,. e ' ' . , Findings"(August 5.1983)"can provide an appropnata measure for desarmining whether an esercise meets the
. ' . , ' , , .,..a. ;J * , , , . . .
1 V* regulauon's ' major observeble paruens of the plans' cnierion for full panicipatiort" see 28 NRC at 291, objective
;. " * ! . ! *j * * * , ,, 19 set forth in that document covers school evacuation and does not include this situation. ht objective was I./
"~*
. , , .c ,e . . ', ' .. , ,* ., '
. modined in FEMA oM EX s "Managmg Pm-Enercise Activities and Post-Enemse Meeungs." February 26
+4
*:.ls+ ,' 1988, im which tl!.Co rehen. Medined objective 19 was used in this exercise tses FEi!.A Report at 10 11.13).
, .. *;,= -. a*.., While h is less clear, we do not behove that h shot?,d be interpreted in sudi s way as to require demonstration of maners that are outside the literal terms of the applicable regulation.
9 , .
'. 11
y , , ,
,.,s
. . > e ,
*.r,, ,
. 3
. ,e , n, .. % .
. t v' ,
_f . .
,e ;
J... . t
;. . ' . . . .< , ' . ~
1
. ~. . . .O, , '? :.
O . '. , .
' , .r,p. , t,.s .' .;.^ l., <aJ . , , . . * ,
J
. 'h- '. advanced against basis C. Interveners again assen that LILCO improperly argues f
*! the merits in opposing this contention, take issue with those arguments, and point 7Tj,*[3'4
$4'q: .y IG,..g q, ,*c.y>,*;{';f, . . q .y .4 ; p'M out that Staff's objection is not relevant because reception facilities should be - j.. .;. . . l. I;.q 'eS ., /*, ;l, m.:.. . . 4..p..'.m , . ",, . q.,1. . c:,; .
,y outside the 10-mile EPZ.8 lAl!"j.i, t'JZ'. ' f.y.",,<. We agree with Interveners that Staff's objection is not relevant.' llowever,
)J[{,@. i.M.U . M .j'. l'I.l ,(,' i.',hD. l LILCO is correct in its position that school relocation facilities by themselves W/;ip';f[*i.!!.;"ns'd "t ' f. i T ; C do not constitute a major observable portion of the plan. The FEMA Objectives - J.%{:,.9 h . y. g [ . 'j YJ.~.'Y' 'j . do not specifically include testing of relocation facilities.
.y .,;.3 ,j*, y Nonetheless, Interveners correctly point out that FEMA evaluated school k,;/ .t? y wlI '
# M . [. ,(..**L.? . ' '( { relocation centers under Objective 19: " Demonstrate the ability and resources y 3y *, ,, .d. N'y .
' ,'.)[ . [...; ,
# . ,? c .F. '.!0.fL3,.M .2 5 :',
necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for school children within the plume EPZ."D Interveners also assert that this basis should not be considered p:.Q,y.V'/ , 7 , *.f.4, '. ./},' d n ,F 6,@M , (;r 7, !. :. in a vacuum, but should be viewed as a pan of their overall challenge to the scope of the exercise of school plans. We agree that this matter can be appropriately I.f"if,ig,e.' /, ;[ * ; ,,14 p '([. ' j considered in that context. We also agree that LILCO's other objections raise l ' ,' * ;' . , . ' ...'p .. ,., .. . merit considerations which may not be properly considered now, s- ' (' j
.;. " A '"
l;,7'1-s
. -/. l' /!
Basis E alleges that there was an inadequate test of LERO's ability to provide buses for and manage an evacuation of the EPZ schools. While Staff does not -
. . n .. , , '; .. 3
,e ,' ..
- y' object, LILCO objects that this basis is "so lacking in specificity and clarity as to P ;- , gS c . .g... make it impossible to understand what Interveners are alleging," and disagrees
- y y.. . .
} ~ ", " 4 , . . . . i with )he accuracy of some of the factual allegations of the contention. In reply,
$ v < , .. . , . . - ? ,u * .
. m
.y.~.-
p: Interveners assert that the basis is both specific and clear, and that LILCO once
. y. ; . ,
again improperly argues the merits.2' l We agree with Interveners that this basis should be considered as pan of their L.' ' {1.
;* y ;
. 'y . f
- contention that school plans were not adequately tested. We interpret it as raising l~,,E'- .-~~,.,_.
,,.....,.,..-] issues under that portion of footnote 4 to Appendix E,1IV.F.1 which states that:
' . . ' * . " .(.:.,,.*/.,,,./ .,,"* f ,,'
., l .;
; q';j " personnel and other resources [shall be tested] in sufficient numbers to verify
,.',t the capability to respond to the accident scenario." We also agree that LILCO's
,', 0 . . ... J y . ,
. . . . . v ; ( .,. , ,4 reliance on the FEMA Report improperly invites us to consider the merits.
j,'*N* * ,,
.,i ., ,/ l '. ! Basis F asserts that there was no panicipation by special facilities and 3.*.3-l "
....'+1 that there was no meaningful interaction between LILCO and the embulance
, i ' ' , . l.* j. . ~ ' .f* * ,*.i companies, and between the latter and the evacuated or relocation special
- z.;/ ,/ , -
i l- ' ' . ...,,; .: j facilities. LILCO responds that every special facility identified in the plan was a F ,. ,," O f.'i.';i * .. : .
* / . ;, ' . i contacted and asked to participate. "Ihose that agreed apparently wem contacted p .' . . ' . ..':...".... - .!., '. /..i. .j during the exercise. With regard to the allegation that insufficient resources
';. , ' ', ; .,T ,. ,. . (ambulances and ambulettes) were employed to provide meaningful results g.;, ;'.-. .;.s f _.; .g. .. t. , C, -
. . 4 ,.
LILCO asserts that to have involved a greater number would have impinged on . N {.,. .. .,M*.1/. . , *,,s..
.. ,f, s b ; ,' . . '. ' i N the ban against mandatory public participation by depriving Suffolk Countians
. . .. lf.;i,
/ ,
; , ~ ,. . . **
- 7 I ., # ma.. ...,,,4
-._.'t...'. ..
*i
'.. ,*a,;e ..'.
y e ,s Q.,p.' ;,..D'**,( - 3 3ss LILCo's Response at 12; starr's Response at 2s; In arvenois' Reply at s153.
,f ,* ,,' s * * ', '; ; ; ., .. ' . ;8 -'[ * * * \ ' ,', ' ,. 4 23 344 FEMA Repon at 13,113.
',l . /j, , ;
! , /, , <if,, . , 2'344 staff's Response at 24; ut twe Respens. t is.34; 1s.,,,ne,.. g.pty at 34 33.
C* . . . *] .
- q. . ..,.,
.y
~.1,, **
' - 'lr .
,, , e s 12 l
I O
._____.____m____.__ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ -_
N,
~
, a ~
o . 2
. ~ -
_ _ . . . l .
. v
. e *j
.. . ,y ' ,
.. , . . - ? ;f . . .g .e , +
,.q-o -
,,t ,
a ; ., . - . n*, .*. ;.. . .y : <.l' l . '.
.u ,,h{. *; .ej.a. f'
. . . 33 "y, .c ' .(r V,
9 *q,.y / . , . ;j/' ' n q.L., We 'g> ;f . of their services. LILCO also asserts tlat the FEMA Report indicates that the
,,. c ,. " . i . a '. '. 4 ability to manage an evacuation was demonstrated. Staff does not object to this j' .',y':,,}..
E Mf 'Mr" .. . f 0;, % ,,'s.f%.~ ., Mj ,,i ',K 'q[..n;
. 7,f, . ,.' , . . .f., . ,' basis to the extent that it alleges that the evacuation of special facilities was not i.
c adequately tested. Staff does object to Interveners' allegation that there was no g2 .4'. -la ' 1, , : . . f. . '., 'd, .].1' ." '.l9 %? " meaningful interaction" on the ground that it is overly vague, an objection that
.M . ..' i ' 3 *l. , - l7 -
LILCO also raises.
,) Interveners again make the point that LILCO is improperly arguing the dl
[.k .;'C,' '.'+;1 1 ['g.M >;Q -
, , , ,,. e3 .y .
. .f. '6merits of the basis, not whether it is acceptable. 'Ihey also assert that the
;,' !? ,~S, , , , j e
,. . . . ') ' ; J '. . w ?, " . ., , " meaningful interaction" allegation is specific enough to assert that there was
',,.i ' ,e , '.96, _ . ' , 9 . V, . ' . l l insufficient interaction to test response capabilities and that it is not possible to , M ' ' < :q " ! " , ' .',' . i " .! be more specific without discovery.28 We agree with Interveners that this basis [' ', *
',.: ,. J ' "' - ) ,*:J1 is acceptable.
' m[ ;y . 'O . . y. ~ i.if l . f./ l[G, . , Basis G asserts that there was an inadequate test of LERO's ability to evacuate the homebound disabled. LILCO focusses on Interveners' assertion that an
. .". " ;. ~ .T -.5,,o.q,l:
J; . '. ',.
.'.,'0 ^ , , . actual individual should have been transported and points to the ban on public
(,.-'** participation. Staff also makes this point. Rirther, LILCO quarrels with the
. . ,l . , ;
, .j Interveners' assertion that the testing of only two ambulances was inadequate
{ .
. . ", for the same reasons as those given in connection with Basis F. Interveners note that neither LILCO nor Staff objects to the thrust of this basis - that there was
. , - t . , ']
an inadequate test of the ability to evacuate the homebound disabled. Rirther,
.. .). -
,',2
' ; ' }': 4 s they clarify that they did not intend, by asserting that an individual should have been transported, that a disabled person should have participated. Rather, their J
. _ ) .~ intent was that such a person should have been " simulated."a* We agree that this
. .' " ; i basis is admissible.
, . ; .l - ,,.
,.~]
' . Basis H alleges that during the exercise there was no designation, as called
' ' '? f ~ -
+, e. .
" c -
w for by the plan, of hospitals, nursing homes, and similar facilities outside the
.. .,'",.t,M
^ ' n , * * ~, ' . l- '
.: EPZ to provide relocation services and health care. LILCO objects that this
. '. '.: .;' ~ , l,- ,
*l .* l basis fails to allege that a major observable portion of the plan was not tested.
. ... < . g,- Staff asserts that there is no requirement to plan for such facilities outside the
*' . . . -s
,- .' . : i ; 4 EPZ and that this basis raises a planning, not an exercise. issue. Interveners
'. , ' . ' ' '$g
.g [b ,*l j ,
take issue with the assertion that this basis does not involve a major observable
'.,, portion of the plan. 'Ihey point out that it is necessary to plan for these facilities 9,;, ,
4
' * . outside the EPZ and that this basis must be considered together with bases F
".,,,.-j * -
'.('.. .
and G. Together, these assert that part of the plan relating to special-facility and , l. , ,.- " .
,, t . ./ .* , J . ' homebound individuals was not tested."
,* :, ' ,- . ,,. .,' , . .y, ' ,
. , The evacuation of mobility. impaired individuals is covered by FEMA Ob-
, . S,. . .
, ,,f jective 18. Consequently, we agree with Interveners that this basis should be
, t. . .
f.
'u:.'- * '; '
e
- . .. ,, h...'.#
., ./j . , "8dd t.llro's Response at 14-15; stafr's Response at 24; interveners' Reply at 58-60.
- 7. , . - '.
. *;i *; - ,.,.'. 28s,e 1.Itro's Response at 16; stafr's Response at 24; Iruervanois' Reply at 60 61, r-b4- .J,y ..
; .,*'s Usse 111 o's Response at 16; stafr's Rasponse at 2s; tntervenors' Reply at 61-63.
. . . ,i,. f 9
. I
*, j
) 13 e
a h 4
w . . , E . ;. ' o,. .
. o; J
,w -
~
' ~
3 L 3
., .;p i .
?, . . ' . - '
, . .2 ,
. . :. m .
6 . h,
*,,, v. .,c.
.# ~
.qe.
- . .We-2 m,,.
'. ? ,
'd C , . ... . <>E.F;. J
'"l.
M, ,7 %n;.*,'h'j. , C. -
. , ;i' 7",p,.,:h(/1;j;
%. . 7 considered N,'s',';I(
together with , bases F and G. As Interveners point out, thesc
;; , ;; 7 .y, , .*, . ' ~. : , ( 8m:
individuals must be evacuated to a specific place, j.; . JJi,,1.pi5, f'9 ' ; ~ . p"k., . .'.,.' , Basis I alleges that the test of LERO's ability to transport and care for
'M .d.,n 7.~.3k 2 ' .,[.'1 contaminated injured individuals was too limited. I.ILCO argues that this basis
. c;,L ,,'s. f 2.'.y..t.si,
.9 f,lal[~ M .- f. .g,!
- .i. 'Wf o . #li lacks specificity, would require mandatory public participation for the reasons given in response to Basis F (in that it quarrels with the number of ambulances
'g$yjffV.'.h..'M .;[ti ;. N $' ,that
.*,'/j participated), and is contrary to the facts set out in the FEMA Report. Staff
,~ < , ' C '
.??-19 i * { :,' ' f . ; ..f[y; *t ' . ,; does
' .{'i ;"*/,.
- ,X not object to the extent that the basis asserts that there was an inadequate
, j .
test of LILCO's ability to transport and care for contaminated injured individuals. ?E "f 4 . 'if l f, . .W , [ ';. 7.,';;
'f. * ' L , g y; . .J "' ,
- f" ... P tj Interveners reply that the basis is speci6c and clear, and that LILCO is once again improperly arguing the merits." We agree with Interveners that this basis 4 ;
' pj , f ' ' ' ; *:J.1.1 is admissible. ' .[g ' j t ', ' b. : . .q. / Q' ,f] . .G .'.M Basis 1 points out that there was no activation or testing of procedures and l , ly- , .
O s. l u .:T communications with regard to the congregate care centers run by the Red q
. /o , 5 v. , . ..,,..: , , + = . ' .- '.! Cross. LILCO maintains that this basis is inadmissible because the failure to test -j
..['
.,, t ' p , ' , '
, ...e .
, , . - ?, ' the congregate care centers resulted from the Red Cross' refusal to participate, 4
~-t .,' ""
bringing into play the provisions of Appendix E,11V.F.6. Similarly, Staff asserts - ~~ m . that the Red Cross' refusal to participate does not dictate the conclusion that
, . , ,.' .i ',e .
l the exercise failed to meet the full-participation requirements.
.'p;..e
~
+
Interveners point to FEMA Exercise Objective 22 and assert that clearly, the
,c r e , , f ,. , . , . * ' J. - ':.;..; ~
congregate care centers constitute a major observable portion of the plan. They 1 T . .. ? ,
. also maintain that the arguments based on the Red Cross' refusal to participate
+ 'd ' -
improperly seek a determination on the merits." I* ' De subject matter of this basis appears to be covered by FEMA Objective
' . P.y '.~
. .- 28: " Demonstrate adequacy of facilities for mass care of evacuees." Rus
. , ,1"' ' .
#Q*;
~,c, . .,,....,
a major observable portion of the plan is involved. We believe that the Red
.n'. ..,.?- / Cross' refusal to participate presents a legal issue appropriate for resolution at
,' '1 # ,, .
.. ' . .*./ ,t , ,. ' . v .;' ,* ' this time. As Interveners point out, the Red Cross clearly is not a state or lo-
,.'
- f . . . . f , . 3 l . "'- 2 . j ,. ; cal government provided for in 6 50.47(c) and Appendix E,11V.F.6. Thus its
,' f.'. refusal does not excuse its participation under those provisions. However, nei-
'c 3 ? R.. / 5' ther is the Red Cross " State, local, and licensee personnel and other resources" l
,,,',"*i*
- - i' j . ..
l~ . - . which, under footnote 4 to 1IV.F.1, must participate in sufficient numbers to ] g*j , verify response capability. As the Commission noted in CLI-87-5,25 NRC 884
..l.. , ..
i .. .,. .
+ (1987), reconsideration denied, CLI-88-3,28 NRC 1 (1988), the Red Cross does
.s .
, . l'. .- '. , , ' .** ,( ',
not furnish assistance under an agreement with LILCO, but rather honors the ;
. '*[.-y
,e j, / * *'
\ obligation imposed by its federal charter to provide assistance. Apparently the j obligation imposed by its charter does not require the Red Cross to participate
,,e;*'-
i,
.l,.l+ ,.
",.**,*',',<4-s.
-..,~
*.4...', . . . , g
. . .* *+' 7 , [ *. .D.,,
- .;;s('i
,.'9
.r. ( [ , ., ".'q s ,-
,, ,c , .r e s ; ., , , , .
[;g l.'.l , ,. ; 7 . . . 'i 7 ** sV " . ',
, Ms,, tJtro's Respose at 1617; starf's Respones at 24; Interveners' Reply si 63 64.
l t ,
, #see LEro's Response as 17; stafr's Response at 25 26; Iniarvenors' Reply at 65 66.
t . ., . -
- + 8
-F .
, , gl g ,
g ., 0 ,# s 14 y . + I 6 -
-- ------__,--_u-. , - - - , , - - , - - , , - -
m. va3 .
..' . i e -
,.- ... - ,s ., ,
- .: .w. . A; 7
.'b ,*
m . . 7 , j
.. n-
.. . 3. . s . , - . .. 2,.
. , y ?. -,c......... 3
* . m,. +
. ' . ;,i
, . 1-f3.,.5lA
' l .h* ' .,9,' ?..j./f-l ' t 'D.
g,. p.[ q N. l. *;,,/[*Pl.k,. i d -/ . ;. / in exercises." Under these circumstances, we do not believe that LILCO may be
, '; '- faulted for a refusal to participate over which it has no control. The regulation l '7 *.('[,4fi?j, W, .'".S,: . v,. '
- 8 d : .
(.clearly
, does not require participation by the Red Cross, and the fact that a
. - ,.g /,s. 4,'L +. Z' } , y.,,-' >',.. gy', , y',lc; 9 .major
. c ,observable portion of the plan was omitted as a result does not dictate
- 3. ,,
n .
...-r
'Q; r . . , , .
.ls'; ' .M;
- the conclusion that the exercise was less than " full participation."
/p.:@.. :..) Y f, F . W c, I P/.a . ' ?f j .,!,,(lp - u / ;i g,. Basis K alleges that procedures for public education and the dissemination of ',;" M[s Z,[;*E,fr :' f ).
, i public information were not tested, nor was the adequacy of the public education materials demonstrated. LILCO cites LBP-87-32,26 NRC 479,491 n.13 (1988),
;',;;.l, . * "i.. y!,, 'y:lf
'; ,r
, 3,; 3 ., '. /.. /i * ,jj*',; .' , '; ,
p , y .gl 'Itthe proposition that the public information and education materials do not for 3 .
- , . v G ,. need to be tested in the exercise. Staff asserts that this is a planning issue.
[t-'.l.J-isl;','7(',.','Mj$ l f, F ' s ;.; jh.! Interveners correctly point out that the cited portion of LBP 87 32 did not set
,. - ,.. g g ;. : %; forth the proposition asserted by LILCO, but rather that actions taken by Suffolk ;
.s. . ., ?, . ?, v ,..jl9. .U f..;.!
. 'd * ,,
County had prevented any test of these materials. They go on to argue that - '
. ', f., . u. . , , . -:
,H " 7 r.) that ruling did not hold that the contention should not have been admitted, and
, .f J. . * . . y . , *. ,
6 **~ '. 4 1 indicate that they wish to proffer evidence that these materials constitute a ma
.,'. s,.. . . > ;' observable portion of the plan. Finally, they assent that there is no basis for the g , . C *. .
Staff's planning issue argument.3t
'y
- J Public information materials of this sort do not constitute a major observ-
^ able portion of the emergency plan for purposes cf an exercise. While 10
. ., f .' ' . 3' '. 7 , ""- C.F.R 5 50.47(b)(7) provides for them, that provision contemplates that these
'(
&qe ,
.i.., , l ,. f. 4
,s:1 materials are to be distributed periodically, not in connection with a specific 4
y,,'...'. emergency. 'They do not constitute the type of function that can be effectively
* * ' ',' ~ f.: ' " - " ' ' '."3 , ' .
tested in an exercise and are not covered by a FEMA Exercise Objcctive.
-- '-5 . : [~,*
- t '
j Basis L alleges that procedures related to the monitoring and decontamina-
'j . ,
,'/.. '
tion of special facility evacuees were not tested. LILCO counters that these
.,.7 , .(
procedures are not a major observable portion of the plan, relying on FEMA
- e. ' , *
'3. 9 Objective 21 and LBP-87-32, 26 NRC at 501, and that even so, they were in
* ?; , . .* ..t.
,' f - f ,, -, . . . , ' * , , , -[ , *
?" !
fact tested. Staff points out that the exercise did test the ability to monitor and f, .f ., . ., . 9,, . : .; / +* ' %
' . / l", l decontaminate emergency workers, and that Interveners have put forward no
'N'* '
reason why any additional demonstration was needed. Interveners reply that the
' , , ,' , i ; -
.. -.. ', ., f, . ' s ', ? " , - [*" ; . question whether these procedures constitute a major observable portion of the
, ;y ~
plan, and the question whether they were tested, is one of fact which they w contest? l- . .. , ..','t's.,*
,.y i ,. 7 - ' ' .' ;, , . LILCO is correct that LBP 87 32 held that there was "no reason to reject 3 ,[, l .r.. ', 1,'. f. / .,', f,*. '., J LILCO's position that the monitoring and decontamination of special facilit ,d,, .'
populations requires no showing in addition to that made for the general
,; v'
?.
* . u. ** ~
~.
p; ' . . ,. , , y,. , , ; .,, ',,. e
.....,,../ M
. ;f. '-
.. An Apul 27.1984 lamar from Dauslas hl Cmcker, Manseer or Nuclear Emergency Prepa to the Eucutive Duector of the Nassau Chapier of the Red Cross a!!udes to the Red Cross' posij
,. .;. .; . **' ",. * ,.., .2, g,.
, . ; ', .), y, /
',f
' ( e ..{* ' . i ./*',' 5' -.,e 1* 1
, ., , a only suspends to state requests for its participeiian in enereises. su Auscivnent s to LEro's Ri Contentions.
5, . .
. *.' '.', ' 33 su tJtCo's Raspanas at 1718; Staff's Response at 2s; Interveners' Reply at 66 69.
32
. -e . . gu tygro.s Resprmae at 18; stafr's Response at 26. Interveners' Reply at 69 70.
i-,7 , , . :*:, .~' , 4 - s' j
., ,r .
, \l ,
> 4
- sc. 4 .
- 15 g
- e b
s 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ -
- v. ._
0 ... ,
,p g.
3 .
;r_ +
- s. -
s ..
- - . l t .'
...e.
.. . 'a<,
a . a
,$.. ..s, . . . .c ;...r...s ..... .. * ~ l . ), *.N.... *
- w. , ,, . . v :.' p. $., ..
. ' , ., y /... . , . - , - .a,7 -
~~
,y* ,. .. ., , ; Ii population." Interveners argued this point in connection with the 1986 exercise N Q;._ l , - 1. [ '.,.;c....W' , '
and lost. 'There is no reason why they should be permitted to argue it once 9 .'.. &,[.p('v . . . .T. ?;, ! . f.e.c. '. %. .
again."
. N. -. .W . ! " j, .t . i 7:..M, V Basis M alleges that the Long Island Rail Road, the Federal Aviation I$'.". .l.$.7: g. 'y, * ,,%y. ' '- Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department 3.h.
\> j y ,.. . U,jy,1,,1.y; p . .,
.j of Comme ce, although relied on by the plan, did not participate in the exercise.
l
;ac.,Q,& W ' f3 .l .f. , e : J. * ,y., 1 LILCO asserts that this does not amount to a major observable portion of the ;
g.g, , , , . .- , .j plan and that, in any event, its ability to contact outside agencies and request I assistance was demonstrated. Staff states that there is no regulatory requirement a " *)
- .4 o r .- ' c. . .'/ . . ', . '
;, .
- J c' ' ' . ' .'.?' .' t . . i that federal agencies participate in the exercise and that Interveners have offered
'J ' . .
- Y ], a..
.;- .;O j no reason to believe that the functions of the railroad under the plan constitute d
' ... 4" ,,.,7 ..;*
"l.c' 4.- ,. .M.'i.j a major observable portion of the plan. Interveners assert that these objections q , s,.euM . raise a factual question, that the basis somehow raises the question of LILCO's
; .y,1. .., t .; ,.. y f, 'l ability to communicate with these entities, and that the lack of a regulatory
[. '.* ! L, , . * ~ . . , *# . ~ ,' '.i . requirement calling for their participation is irrelevant to the question of the 1 l,, , , , . . c .7' . requirements of Appendix E,1IVE.1." l- "-
., .v. a We find that this basis is governed by the same rationale governing basis
' ,',S
.e , . J concerning participation by the Red Cross. None of the organizations that y
- Interveners assert should have participated are within the category of personnel
' > or other resources of the state, local government, or licensee set out in footnote j- r- ., ,
;l . ; '. . ,i
[ 4 . 7 , ,,, [ .-' 4 to Appendix E, JIVE.1. Thus there is no regulatory requirement that they.
, * 'y '
'.. / ~ . - participate in the exercise.
l - > ". . . . . Basis N alleges that the exercise improperly failed to test the implementation
~ *
",., of ingestion pathway protective actions in Connecticut. LILCO and Staff assert L
yy .
-f , ,, .. . ' ,a that this failure is not contrary to the requirements of Appendix E, jlV.F.6,
, *]
~
..,n., .
,y . ,
. because Connecticut refused to participate. Interveners assert that this objection b ,
- fj .L ,, / ,'. ; i.<,c .'.
raises a question of fact which may not properly be addressed in the contention
* * '-1.j . . f .,, . ; ;,' 2 admission process."
v' s - ., 4.., },.f ' ' j. .. Appendix E,11VE.6, specifically excuses the participation of state and
,;,,Nl local governments that LILCO identifies "as refusing to participate further in 9 , ff . ' >
, 2 . .
+..a emergency planning activities, pursuant to 10 CE.R. 50.47(c)(1)." LILCO has s ' ;, ' , .
. ,3fJ '
furnished a letter from Connecticut indicating that it would not participate in
.' . ,. the 1988 exercise absent coordination with other state and local governments."
g ., ./ .j ' ' , ' ,' l 4 ,. ;
.[ . :
It is beyond question that the other state and local governments that are affected i;.
' 'e .
.'l" . . .' .'. .
', .. - '<[., . ; ,
have steadfastly asserted that they will never participate in emergency planning s, . . .i .
. t..
. . . , . * ', ~ . * , ,
** * ,' , . ?. ', . , '
** , * ' M latervenes nly en ALAB-900, myrs. 28 NRC at 299 300 for the pmposanon that maniionn8 and decon.
**' ,! / ',
. , .. . - . -J *'*,[, *
** y ', .. , tamination should be included in the esercise af the special. facility of the plat. Neshing in the Appeal
*, r '
- t ' ,, g ?,. - .. - * * , , , ,.7.
. Board's opinien intimates that our conclusian in tap.87 32 an which alies was incorrect indeed, because
/, ' ;
, y; ;
, , ; ,. . .' . s , ! ,
- * * . . .5',* ,
Ireervencrs did nas appeal, it is daubtful that that issue care 2 to the Appeal Beeni's suantion. Mg, ggco.s Response at 19; staff's Response at 2s.26; intervanors' Reply at 7172.
,,'- /, ,
./,,*
; l,, i , Msse LILCo's Respanse at 19; stafr's Response at 2s.26; linervenors' Reply at 72 73.
,. ,* . Msee Anachmera 6 to L!tro's Response to the Caraentions.
. a,.
s -
\
16 o 5
n.; . , o 9 . 2 1
. ' ~ ?
.u .. ,
.o .
1 ,, ,
.3
.. e . ..
. .~, . ,. ,
0
. 1
, i
.
- I
. .j: :
j
. . . , ,.4.~ ,,.
,s:, ..
.m s.4 , ,,..t e ..n ..., . .. ..., . ,. ;v < , .... g. >
.,t,
..~. . ...j
'[,g;.-lV[,.p...
. ' ' . " ~; activities. Under these circumstances, Connecticut's failure to participate is
, (' "O . '. ';,,f 'T'f,.* '
' j,D. .
excused. This basis is denied. Q.*; V. f,..,[. .p, ... d'.:.,*7. . !<.. ^ . .. h [. ~ p(,'*,**.. N Bases O and P allege that there were an insuf6cient number of bus and i r i ambulance companies and ambulances participating in the exercise and there was 7,; ,.'~:t i, '. %' f 4 . . '.f'J',.;! no#p7 check of .the.. . .'..yof the nonparticipating companies. LILCO argues yM3 f , ' l1.J ' ', W 3;.
- J availability .
that this basis is precluded by our earlier conclusion that there was no reason to k ' ' ?,9 h .j7g,p' ..*, ;j ,$./ y.".,ill7 y,M-Q[ ,
, .1 i'[,' ,' require i a greater role in the exercise for these companies, citing LBP-87-32,26 ]
. . f l '! * 'J' *. 'j NRC at 494. Staff does not object to the assertion that there were an insuf6cient
, s.:7 a, " C. - i
[ Y * } ' C. ,, '[ p[. -[" ' ' > ) '. 3 .Anumber
' of companies participating, but does object to the asserted need to check the availability of those that did not participate. Interveners assert that our . .r . 4 . , .7
- 2. , g* . . ' i conclusion in LBP-87 32 is not dispositive on the question of the compliance of
' , ,,3 * ' * -
,]cju.
. T , , ,. d l l
,t" *
,;.. } C f f.'i, .j the 1988 exercise with Appendix E. They also take issue with Staff's objection to j
, c- 's ,
- the allegation of a need to check the availability of nonparticipating companies.
7, , , ,,. > y ' g;. . ;' .;o.q.g. . f, . }. i4. g.,j y.. s /4
.Ihey believe that LBP-87-32 and ALAB-900 support their admission."
/.
.. fg'; 'j We and that Staff's position is the correct one. In the portion of LBP-
. . .(j,
,,..'..,i.,,-
.' ; 87-32 cited by LILCO, we held that there was no need, in order to meet the
.c.~'j
* *- full participation requirements of the regulation, for FEMA to count available
; {' - . 4 ~~.i buses. Nothing in ALAB-900 appears to contradict that conclusion. However, in ALAB-900 the Appeal Board expressed agreement with the proposition that
. ' f,, , , , , ,
,- ;*1
,3 ] ,
;. , ') the participation of only one ambulance and one ambulette was insuf6cient to :
meet the " sufficient numbers" requirement of Appendix E,11V.F.1." Clevly,
- l (6 . . ,
- ,v
. . / , c. , p. ..;
Interveners may raise the same challenge with regard to the 1988 exercise. 4 u ,.1 c., ;. .
,. l ' -
.+ ' " '
.f..., Basis Q alleges that the exercise failed to test the plan's communications net-7 > ,- ]
- 7 i.
, G ,9{
' work. LILCO maintains that this basis should be excluded as being duplicative of other bases and unsupported in law or fact. Staff objects that this basis is un.
Y .' 'a supported and overly vague. Interveners point out that this basis is most specinc
.[ .' 6 '
in enumerating those communications that were not tested and that Appendix i . .
. e ; .. . . .'i
,*-(, .; , ,, . ' . .
E,11V.F, requires the testing of communications networks. They believe that j
,', . . g. 4, , ,; q . ;' * ~ S, . * . .;
LILCO's objections are unavailing." i e-*
' , . - ; , . '.1
- In an exercise, an applicant or licensee must "[ demonstrate the ability to -
communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations, and 6 eld person-l
,4 - - s '; a 3 fS
- ,", ' . - ~ ,f* nel."" Thus Interveners have raised a major observable portion of the plan in
,.3 0 .
. - "l , , , , , ,
. 'j ';
- this basis. Moreover, we agree with Interveners that this basis is suf6ciently speci6c. It lists the organizations with whom it is alleged that communications
-[.*6~',..,y,,.
. ; ' .j .
i f* were not demonstrated.
.. , -- . ,ft
, . ,' /
In conclusion, we 6nd that Contention 1 is admissible to the extent of bases
* [ y ,: *.- '( .' ' ..1'i A (concerning public noti 6 cation); B, D, and E (concerning protective actions in
...{<r .,.. !
.7,..
y . ,. i* l
. t.' s[. .\ .-;
- 1 , , . . I ;l *;- ', f;,s -
* '",. * ' * . Uses tltro's Respense at 19 20. staff's Respones at 25; Interveners' Reply at 73 75.
M see At.AB.900, ay,s. 28 NRC et 300. .
. h j [ * * * ', ; ; . . . , / " N d ,* . *
"see ilLCo's Rampones at 20 21; s6atr's Response at 26, Interveners' Reply at 75-76.
A oyecnw s.Eaeme oyectin (
/ , ,' r g
[ f, ,i.,. - ..
.1 o -
',- J 17
.a I
e m____________.__.
_ r- _ _
'3 .
y c
, l 6 .
,' \ '
' ,l' '
.. > > , , J. .
. ~ .., .
.d , _ t. t'. . . IT I:
.~ ., ,
I y .. , , -; . _f'7.,; . J 1 ', 4
' *fm ! .,. -s, .- @y ,.. p, .l . ...q.- y ,,,. i '7,
- z.m c
.A, M/g ;f.;'.t'*,y.t.(b l,,g. F f. 'i'(9 . .
schools); F, G, and H (concerning evacuation of disabled persons); I (concerning ! fi.q.3 ; .',v;,s,y ,';. y , m,
. *: contaminated, injured individuals); O and P (concerning the number of buses ;
"f. .: * ', .*; ,* and ambulances that participated); and Q (concerning communications),
y e.f.lp ;; . ,y/s.3 t-O . e./ .; .>t... ? .;..sy.~ . .. ; 2: ll* .l. @ l .n i p w. . . .-c 2 ..* .. f.. M l.N; / g # g.. a%
- 4. ,f.. f',? f y T.d >.. ., . s .. . .
',, ' ,6. . J-. ufb i ,,, .f.' r.. .,,,
Contentico ? < 2:i 'The Exercise's False Premises and Assumptions ( J This contention challenges the assumption that the various affected govern. ?~.f>f f ,z.Q.y p*,L .i;,,;. d ^ ; *vq. pp. g f y' y " ; ments f N, ., j.' q
- y
- f ;g J.;q . p;;. , would interact with LERO in such matters as approving EBS messages, '
l h .; ,. . authorizing LERO to take various actions, and delegating certain authority /,rfff S ', .g ' 'q ..[,# h'j;('d N a-to LERO, and the assumption that these governments would provide certain i 1 ', . ' . ., s a
~ . .' e L ', resources. Any test of LERO's ability to interact is invalid unless there is a e q ,. c. yc. V. ' . ] "., '.. . ; ..; n; >C , ,
- s. ,
realistic basis for the assumption that the affected governments would in fact
. s. . %;(., f ,
y,..
.c f M 7 f act in such a manner. The contention asserts that there is no such basis. .j,;p,, .j,,, ,~.".2 y.. v ' . s..R;,, (.) s / t. .
z ..*O. Both]"LILCO and. Staff assert that this contention is a challenge to the
. J' . .
y0'.. Commission's realism rule, 650.47(cX1). LILCO goes on to assert that the- '[',r ? j f .' ....'y '
, i- '.. .
contention is also a collateral attack on the findings reached in LBP-88 24, s .' 7'.
- / supra,28 NRC at 385, and that it lacks basis and specificity, l ' ,( ,t o ' . . * .
. -t . */ Interveners argue that there is nothing in the realism rule that requires the
; . " i . ...
. assumption that the affected governments would authorize illegal acts, such as 4.' ' ,
- c ] l,, t '
.. , directing traf6c ney also argue that FEMA's assumptions must be open to i q;b, * *
. . 4, . ..i scrutiny, and that the contention is adequately supported by reasonably specific R..';, a
- n. . - bases."
\
^. . . , , .
, . s ', . r .
g 7 .. . . l< .
, We agree with LILCO and Staff that this contention constitutes a challenge 9 .
>p to the realism rule and thus is inadmissible. That rule specifically directs
- j. .
, . '., ' , c. , 7 ' us to presume that the affected governments will follow LILCO's plan in an l.: Jg 3
,, , , , }' .
, emergency unless these governments rebut that presumption. These Interveners l , ., /; . . , .
~
were afforded an opportunity to do just that in the OL 3 proceeding, but refused t
, co / . '.-,,' . , . 1',e .' to do so.*2 Almost 3 years ago, the Commission found the proposition that l.,..,'.. .',
!.. . , ', ..,, ,' .c .. *e* . t
; these governments would be legally precluded from making use of the LILCO
. . . , 1
...c.'.J
.. . , . C' plan in an actual emergency to be "too preposterous an abrogation of [their]
.,.f ( ,, j ..< l obligadons . . . to be taken seriously "*) Despite that conclusion, the Interveners
,.j . ., .
,+...yo persist in making this argument. This argument clearly violates the realism rule.
',, . ' '. ; ' . , *; , Consequently this contention is denied.
. e, . *., ' . .
..;.. v '
~ . . / *, j' '. , 3.,. /. , . :...%...., .( f'? ,. .? Contention 3: The FEMA Report's Unfounded Conclusions
- s. - . -
..e
,,}*, .. . l ,
*i' . .,,b.
His contention asserts that no weight should be given to FEMA's conclusion [%.j .. . # ' f f. , " ', * * * : t l. ,' ~.. i * ...
- y,'.
that the exercise re:ults permit FEMA to make a reasonable assurance finding. ', - ... . c' , .: ., . , , ' ,. ,.*';
',',.. g/ *
'- ~5.* 41 3de LILCo's Response at 2122; siafr's Response it 27; intervanors' Raply at 76 78.
..' y f' . .; 3 ,, *2 t.BP-88 24. sacre. 28 NRC at 3s7 60.
./**. ','; .,..!i
. ' .j . ja , 4)s,, Ct.I-8614. 24 NRC 36. 40 n.10 986).
i ef, * .j ';.e.' *
, >. . .r, -
p d
)
.h .*
4
._ ____.________m___. __
, - y
- - ~
..,- .3 ..
. -
- s
, 7
. .. 2 , ..
., .- 1
.V7..
.. . .1a(
3 - ;
* .q . .
,, , . . ,...7.. .........f,.,....x
, s - 4,
. . . m. . , . . , ,
., , a . ,
l ,. . ' .. r.T*y .7 ' l, .,y {7 .
+ -
To support this assertion, Interveners attack FEMA's review process. They
' ).' I.. W,.;'.I 2, [ ,1 2 , f1 assert that they are clearly entitled to do this. Both LILCO and Staff counter
' ', tint the contention does not allege a fundamental flaw and improperly brings
't,
. , ., . ,, . Tl , w. ,
.;. . ' ' ,[*
~' ' ,l * ' ' ') /
f /fi:; .'-; l', .. FEMA's review process into issue." LILCO and Staff are clearly correct. FEMA's review process cannot
- c. *M'; '" ) , ' ' ." '. 1 ', "
J',,.',- L,b.g 'y M.);...a','..'.' / ."'.I-
- .'D,Ni constitute a fundamental flaw in the plan. Thus the contention fails to satisfy the
[.df'.,*T[.?t,',.'t5,',,.
'd essential requirement for admission. Moreover, it is not appropriate to challenge
. 3::. ' . -v '. , { ,,, -; - . ' ; " /, ' ~. j *. ,
FEMA's (or Staff's) review process in this proceeding. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777, Q*.' y ,',,';.f' .',". -l* "' l . 807, review declined. CLI-83 32,18 NRC 1309 (1983). This is not to say f'e".f',,,'.f. -
- s c j, .
~- '
,' q ; ; * , ' ^
l
,j.. .: that Interveners are precluded from arguing that FEMA reached inappropriate conclusions. They remain free to assert that. contrary to FEMA's conclusions,
. . .: ;,*. i f
."' V, -
../ ' u .,~..s c : /"rif. the exercise did demonstrate fundamental flaws in the plan. See ALAB 903,28 9, - .i .
.: NRC at 508.*5 But they are not entitled to challenge the integrity of FEMA's ,
'. . . . ,,1 -
. fA, { }.. ]t review process as an independent matter.
i
.',..sJ.
* * =
. a ,,* ,,.,* . .
d 4, . =- , j'
~4 1. ' . ? CONTENTION 4: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS RELATING TO LILCO'S l
~'.# l
~
INTERFACE WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ; 9- p . , *
%v . ,' .. . J '
'" .* , [ Jl < . .., "Ihis contention alleges that the exercise demonstrated a fundamental fle.w in
',' - LERO's ability to interface with stat ; and local governments as required by 10
~,
C.F.R. Il50.47(b)(1) and (b)(3) av150.47(c)(1)(lii)(B). It is supported by the j
./ "
J
- following bases:
, '* j Basis A alleges that LERO dif not keep the simulated government officials informed of the status of the emttgency on a timely basis, citing two example'
.W-;
.- a
',* ce, . 7
~,
/
Basis B alleges that LERO did not inform the governments of the failure of
. k .. . * {. [; ,j /
,' / .
fifty seven of the system's eighty nine sirens.
, * :. . . * , ., 1 Basis C provides nine examples of allegedly " wrong, confusing, or unhelpful"
*; f . . . , ' .; , b ' ,'
. ,f',* ^
information that was provided to the simulated governments.
*^
.
- L, . [4 ..' . ..g Basis D alleges that many LERO representatives exhibited difficulty in con-K. , i veying and eliciting pertinent information from simulated government officials.
' , > ~Y -
,,,,' ~.y .'
' . ' , .. l .
. . y .. ; . x '. . ... '. .': .,. , .
^".
,"... ,l g , ,, , 44g,, g.a Ram M M swr's Rp u 29. h' Raph n M 43 We recognize that the staimment in AtAB-903, angre. 28 NRC at 507 08. that a party asaking to establish
.i- ..
. *7 ,.~/*
' ' ' . that a FEMA finding is incorrect "has a greater. but not impossible. task . . ." may not be enursly consistant
. . '.s .
with the holdmg in Herrepolassa Edisco Co. (three Mile Island Nuclear station. Unit 1). ALAB-698,16 NRC
,.5 ,-* , *. ' , ,.
;. 1290,1298 99 (1982), that a FEMA 6nding is akin to a Regulatory ouide and is to be tressed sisnply as evidence or compliance with regulatory reqmrummts. We do not believe that possible incassistency is relevant at the
'*l; . ,
" , ' "*i , -
contertuon admiasmn stage and have not spplied a more stnngent standard in ruling on coniantions that challerMe
- g. "; * .,
FEMA's ccmclusions. (la this segard, we agree with Interveners that the presumpuen that attaches to the FEMA Andings is not relevant at this stage. saa intervmors' Reply at 1s 16.) However these two holdings will need to be
* ! M.
g .
* % l *
, y ; ,. . . . e . * . . * ,', reconciled when deshn g with the evidence addrensms the question whether a fundamernal flaw was demonstrated
/ /
* ,. . a.. .
,' i '
by the caeresse. S
., *j e ,
c 19 a
* =
0 4
y - . . _ _--. - r . g ' ' ' '
' y. - , l4 . . ,
. O :
.'+
r ,- , , r ,,. , ,. -n . a.
. . . ., s 3 /.
n . . . . .
< . , -j
. . . < .t~c. .
.s.,. .,
..i w
a . s ,: ~'.-.
=
m .s ..
,,. ;~
%m. ,;Y,d.. ,Y.L.
. y .; , ' t,'N.7";
!;'; <. R'M .nLn...~.
.. - ?z;
.p;,I, Basis' '.;E alleges that many LERO workers requested information from the 7,f*ipIc,/.,*ff.u
. N .
', f.
1 d !. b :h 9. . ; simulated government representatives that was in the plan. Basis F alleges that LERO representadves contacted the wrong simulated 2', f;', K,? 4..C ,?* I's,'.lT,,..
*- ' * -~',i f , ,y '.. ." ,. l . '., l government to obtain informadon.
.),' ', .<'
.., d Basis G provides two examples of LERO represer.'atives allegedly taking
[p. M ';;I 7J,i, ,',l*$?j,' f]y [I/.i i,M.'.V/<.'. LI * ,' , ,u / '[.";.j actions without having first consulted with the simulated gs.vernment concerned. Basis H alleges that LERO representatives prematurely requested government ',;w,q.yg " d ,M'ppp,')7,.v,'Q ,., .
/ * . 'N. J c;Basis t '.I alleges
, . that spproval of certain actions. 7,,LERO's '. ydifficulties in interfacing with the simulated
?;* ^- & O'y ('i ,.;c4, , p' ' p 'y(,'- .,
y y: .. . , , g,;l 4 .
'f. ./. _'
. . .t, . , . .
' , e l governments resulted in delays in the broadcast of Protective Action Recom-
, . . . .w '
, .-,' f. . . ,j >
mendations (PARS). 4
"(?' . ' , , i Id. $ LILCO believes that bases supporting this contendon, either singly or collec.
*.m,'l
- S. k . .,., . ,:*
,'; S. : ?p;.'4 tively, raise only minor ad hoc problems that occurred on the day of the exercise.
7, 9 , g"c' .' , .. 4 ; 2 D'.:j
, . LILCO also notes that some of the bases are fatally nonspecific and that others J
. *O^.' j raise unrelated incidents which do not have any impact on the public health and j
. "*, .4,4,1. ? p. , ' , .' . f " , .*i .,,.r
, . . . . . safety. Staff raises the same objections but would accept bases A, C.1, C.2, C.6, j
,, f ; J ,
. ..f'j C.9, and D. Interveners believe that these objections, in the main, improperly q s .( ~ /! invite us to determine the issue raised by Contention 4 on the merits."
' . .' , ' -., 1 q
'. -' i.. . '
, , ; , *e
. ' ,1 LILCO, Interveners, and Staff all agree that in order to be admitted under 1
. 'O,. , < ~ q' e *
.. . / ALAB 903, a fundamental flaw contention must allege that the exercise revealed y ,',~ .
, , * , 2. , g . 1 a failure in an essential element of the plan, and that that failure can only be
* .T4 .; ; - ,
n - l.; ^ i corrected through significant plan revisions." They sharply disagree with regard
~'
* * - . . . " . - to the application of this standard. LILCO believes that this standard states an i'- p '
-[
.,. ,. extremely difficult test. LILCO concedes that the requirement that the contention .
,e '
identify an essential element of the plan is relatively easy to satisfy. -I
-T ~ ' "
Contendon 4 cites il50.47(b)(1), (b)(3), and (c)(1)(iii)(B) as the essential l'f ' / ,
. y. .. .
l 0.,'.- *
, . . , . , ,a ... j elements that allegedly failed. The first two relate to the assignment of j
. . , , .c y y;. j .qe . *
., .,e ,, ,
responsibilities and arrangements for requesting and using assistance. We i
- f. " ..l7, , . , l ' , . > ,' . i . , i j , .
interpret the citt. tion of the last to refer to that provision which states that the 1'N** - Commission will presume that nonparticipating state and local governments wil!
' , . . ' , - s l,2
" ,r*' ,
respond with their best efforts in an emergency and will, in the absence of
,,.y,.- .,j
- . ?;
evidence to the contrary, follow the utility emergency plan.
". .. ,c. . ,* y" ' . *; */
-.Qy,"
,l- .
We do not believe that the factual allegations set out in the bases supporting
; , j. , v I '3 . '. 0 i . . ~., ; . , , ' . , . - ,.
Contention 4 concern 6 50.47(b)(1). Because subsection (b)(1) requires the as-
,,l..* '
'.: , f, * ,, ' . ". 1 - f. - . signment of responsibilities in advance of an emergency, it is not implicated by
,'(* 'f '/.*'
allegations concerning communications and coordination during an emergency
,4 . ' I ',1. 'i . . ', f exercise with governmental units that refuse to participate in emergency plan- ,,- ._ f . .< : s ., , , .
c.
. 1. ,,'l. , . ,'k j e t ., ,
ning. Subsection (b)(3) is arguably relevant because it concerns requests for as-
** g
, f'e .,. *i a
', .' . ' * . ,.;' . ' , <,. r ,
- f. ' ;
- t ; ' .
. , 'y;; ,, , *' . , ;;; .. ,'.! ,- . ' . ' , ' ,
"see t.040's aespanas at 23 28; stafr's Response at 33; Interveners' Reply at 82-97.
"see IJtro's Manen to Dismiss Carmentians &20 orNovember 21 at L5; intervenas' opposinon of December
/, ' , , , , c, ',, , a .,;. , . ,,a., g I at 1411; staff's Response or December 6 at 24.
i O
.'. ,, .J s
', , 20
.a-1
' - m m'.ln
- * - y ;. . i , s .
- -l
.e ;, . ,
^
.r. <
0 y s .
- r. > *'..-
.:..i Q . ,
,. {
gy. . . .. ' ." .< ..
,. j , , M ,., [.7. .. . .M.;.<,. ; .,
r.*s., / 9..
- 'll.,, ,3 ..). . j .
- ; .. "y . .!
, u ..m.y,..' ..
. ' , q. ;.y;j,, . r .{.q *
.. %w.
,. w!:.-7.., "-
f;;,.i sistance. Subsection (c)(lXiii)(B) seems clearly implicated because it implicitly . 1 j
'((,,':lJ,[,$d'.6;s.; raises the question of communication between LERO and the nonparticipating p',y/>'./
'f. INN'q;' -[M',W :, y,, [ ,. %Q '/. / j governments. Indeed, the contention recognizes that one of the objectives of the ' :. - M N,/. . 2.W ' >. exercise was to: hh;& f j Q.h , ,l n'y .: ,f'{., : >? _., _ Idlanonstrate the capability of utility offsite response organization personnel to interface .j M/ ,",'.~;-f'.i. is,,J-l
- ,0 'h!f.* E 4[, . A.l's , (([ .15 . ,[,';
- with nonparticipating state and local governments through their mobilization and provision - .
. c; ?,. O i . . ./j -
of advice and assistance." r
,m. m. i -
'.s g,*. p u. /,t. ., .1
" . 'v s. . " .e,,.., , , <
', ' , ,, +,
j .,:.fj v i, . /,'. , ;; -jq 'C'Dus 3 we agree with ' Interveners that Contention 4 implicates subsection
.,f,' d j . .. ' ". .T' l (cXIXiii)(B) and perhaps (bX3) relating to communications between LE30 and -
i 'p.? .+6 ,
- ;( i . g '
', (, ;$, j the nonparticipating governr. ants.
V f. , t V ,. : 3 Dere ir disagreement amorg the parties with regard to what is required in
.y,.52 ' 7 , * /9g, .f .i f :
4 Q.:f V]
- order to sucasfully allege a faihee in an identified essential element. LILCO -
maintains that it !s not easy to satisfy this element, arguing that minor or isolated
/. : .* ~. . t ' . .: ,,
- 7 .
'#7 , ' , f
. ~-l ,[* .:. .
, - .. j problems do noi show a failure in an essential element unless they are pervasive
,, ,' 3 " - ?
** .i and show a pattern of repeated failures. LILCO also argues that a FEMA
.; V* .
. .~
. 4 .
(~f}I deficiency does not necessarily amount to a failure, that an allegation of delay .
' , * . , ' ~ -
.e ,
. I must be substantial and likely to affect PARS in an actual emergency, and that
' 'j i y. ~ -.g.
, ', ~'," , '
.,fj an allegation that a particular individual failed to discharge his responsibilities ;
c' f o, . , .. . y ,
.. . must also allege that that individual's role is critical and there is no backup.
- 4. c , ,- [* ,
. ! ' .]l LILCO bases its position on ALAB-903. Staff generally agrees with LILCO.*
.. ,# . ..a ' .4 J t Interveners assert that LILCO has, in arguing that it is most difficult to meet
"'> . -t
. ,~ . '4 this standard, confused the standards for pleading with that for proof. Interveners
).
~ '
,n '.,O argue that the Appeal Board did not intend that an intervenor offct proof that
. y c' . C .- . -,' ,
,' ,. . '. 7 its allegations are correct in order to have a contention admitted, citing, among 4 -/; . 7 , , .
, , , y". 1 other authority, the Commission's statement to this elrect in CLI-86 11,23 NRC
'. . '/ *
.;,,./. . ". .- 1. ?;, / . . at 581. Interveners maintain that the test set out in ALAB 903 is designed to
';.. ' ? : ' v q *. ..i, M ensure that any contentions that are admitted at this late stage in the proceeding
," r .. . s
., / ' '.1 are well focussed."
.e . . e n, m, ., ) . . ' : Interveners are correct that ALAB.903 did not and of course could not
*<.3.-
N,
,+...' establish a standard for contentions that is not in accord with CLI 86-11. There is
'j *;
s . N. ", ' no requirement that evidence be pleaded in order to have a contention admitted L o . . i ., ,i for litigation. What is required is that the bases be set forth with sufficient .;2, 4 y '.',', '* ,' ?,b .: j' . ,]e l , ..
' ~ specificity so that all parties are on notice of what the intervenor intends to
. . ,' ' ,l {.*'f . ' , . ; e
..'j
*
- litigate and so that the board can determine whether the assigned bases, if true,
, g , 't .
, ' ; *f *., s,.,
.; q :- .j g . ' .
4 demonstrate that a fundamental flaw exists. We also agree with Interveners j
, . , . ,..l, .. .s *."
, .";~.. ~..*,,,*,.l-
..')....:: . .v 1
g {,.. ,. ** y V, *, , .
- e *
- 1 l * ' . , ,' ,. ? ,
,,' , ', b [i- .. }
,** , [ *'a-
'8su Causrsions at 20. while it is not totally clost, we believe that "their in the tivated objective afscs to
[* '
....,,*e '*
. [. .V i .. , the offeats response orgemaation pareannet, not the 3,.-..
< t,s 1. *
, *.1 #su tJLfo's Metian at 4 5; stafr's Maica at 2 3.
E ,t! , 'y ~ .'.;) * . e 4 - d .' < Msu 1. . ' oppositaan at 10.ls. , g
. a 8.$ , .
J '
. 0
,' 21 e
l e, I e d W
o
, ; - .v:
3.s *-
- 4 .
.: s
.( ,
.. , ,. +
* ;r. . ., r. c. .W e
u a j w! x y
.-. .q q, *-
lJ .l *: '
.Q}
.e a n .
,, u :
m..
- g. ... ..
*lK. . ..L., 4, i. v . .. / %, 4 s ;+ , :.u.~ .
M.. .;,%. > n;;r c. t. ;. .y' ,"s; . . ; ,,.u :%:.-,c-. .. ~ 4
;y
...s,..., m
. . af . ;,e. , ,e . - w .39. .,p ,'y , a;.,i*" 8 '.,.m .
that we should consider the bases collectively, not in isolatioti, in determining
- 'r l.
. . .: ' 2 .' : ,
' " . - f,J, + ?s., whether they allege a failure.
M,.,N,I ','Q, y?'&'.T.,Y , s .(..;.'f i 0% Basis A alleges that LERO failed to keep simulated government' officials ' 4 C . informed of the emergency on a timely basis, citing a delay from 05:40, when N. ..cy . , ?
.: 3. ,, ",9 i
. .1-ef :q p, f..j;,',. f,4,Q '
;- A. an alert was declared on Day 1, until 06:43 on the same day; when the State' J W@. V'#;r ;u y;& *. ::.8a,i '.".,m. # ' , " 'E. i ,, f. " d,,w ,q
.was informed, arn allegedly "very slow" communication of dose rate estimates f,/ 4'.P. b.v J to Suffolk County. Basic G alleges that L2.RO did not always consult with the
- d. i.
W d.Q,[ j[l.[gl'] l % ~~.m!y;;I"* g f..': ,Q governments prior to taking action, citing as examples a failure to coordinate : .$lai ": 1 prior to extending the ingestion PAR to 50 miles and prior to implementing .
'.'M..-l'y.9"jia/*j 2 ,+.',. .
,h a , ,, ' ; ' .; h . .
- i, access control in certain zones. Basis B asserts that the governments were not i
- e. - ,; informed of the siren failures. Basis C lists nine examples of allegedly wrong, .
; ,, *N. ", '. .;;if T y g;, ' '.- ' Q ..- . .. /$C. . e confusing, or unhelpful informal. conveyed to the governmena.51 Basis'D '
./ FI),, - [, . . . N alleges that LERO had dif6culty in conveying important information, citing as !
d./[, dg [i' ~"~! fQ an example the alleged inability to relate how many emergency vehicles were
, ,A ' , f. . h, ' . , ~ , . ~ . } .
needed for hospital evacuation purposes.52 Bases E and F allege that LERO y",, .*f. N . y * , 7.. ,.,
*' E , 9,
.Jq / *. ~
(, .
;j l personnel in some instances called government officials for information that was - .j
^ ;I available in the plan and in others called the wrong officials for information, j
.l< " ,f , -' ( . , , - J '. -
.g ,. ,a respectively Basis I alleges that, as a result, delays were incurred in broadcasting -
j .. .n> 3, - .
.f I PARS, citing a 35-minute delay in EBS 2, and a 53-minu;c delay in the initial . ,
f i , , ' ',' j- ;$ .
,. ' ' *' . , y' . 7. ' j evacuation and sheltering notification.88- .
j
, , l.,!*. Dese allegations indicate that Interveners may be able to show that a failure
{ f.,s " t{ 7 . . ', { < ,7j. f. . in communication and coordination required by il 50.47(b)(3) and (c)(1)(iii)(B)
. ,_ exists following a hearing. While the examples cited in suppoit of the allega: ions i
,, .. may not be sufficient to demonstrate such a failure in themselves, to deny 1
. . .,j~' -? -f -
, admission to the contention on that basis would be tantamount to requiring the l
'y
, ,[c . ,; . ,
?* "; . ': Interveners to prove their case at this stage of the proceeding. Dat would not -]
- / ' *..~ l f..q d be proper. See CLI.86-11, supra. The bases that we accept are set out with i '
'- t ., ; f. .;: , ( ;.i .'
reasonable specificity and establish a suf6cient foundation for the contention to
,,,N .'. warrant further inquiry into the question whether a failure i" this element has l f. * ; ; 4. , . .' . ' , -
, . ' i,..,,,"'
,.* t, . , ( occurred." l
..,,c/,'Y '
However, Interveners have not, in the bases for this contention, addressed ]
. ",,f . , . . e, , '
#, " , . .. Q , . .,/ '.
....- the second part of the ALAB-903 test: . - Would conection of the alleged failure . l
,' j require signi6 cant changes to the plan. De amendments that they submitted in e, , : . . , , . ' ,
j
, ' , ,; ..>'; w g ' , / ,: . , . " . . * .
response to ALAB-903 argue that such is the case, but Interveners provide no if ,. ',y .
,i i ,..',i.- ,
factual underpinning for that position, despite the fact that ALAB 903 requires i a .
- .a . . .a. .. , , ,
;s- ; , . . m. y, m,.,, . *
- it*
. .-~ =
. , +. . . .,
. . c,. . : ' .j*. ~' .
. . # ~** '
.> 31
/ , '. .\*; ' 7,fu Exarnples 4, s, and 7 are overty vasus. !
; , ; .' e 4, ,
.. 3 . 52nis be s'seresences to "visve,"- and incompi e"inforenation and to a uRO representauve a .- who appeemd "very shock up* dse overly vesus.
82 t.4, y.*' . *;, ; *, . > ' ,. '
' , , , i **f . * . .-.,,' .
\,'.,.
we .e 6 H = bons riy visu. Msm ALAB.903 anpre. 28 NRC et s06. i
' 3 :.
- l. -4 s. .. .,
l_ . - 4 l 22 I l- f 9 T u , t
y, , - m
. . . 1 n ...
,c.
1 . 4; .
. j ,
,,.. ,s..]
. . . , ... ~ ~ . .
, v. 3
.(
.' .7 -
.?
% . , ;,;, c '. ;._ .,.. <'. ,,.l ,4-,* j-f..()' i ml ...*C; ; . ;;m,l',:..' i j
~pyy" , , ,* -
,"-4, i
., ", ( . a . , .
g '
"e e. ., ; , , ,, y . , ; . ,
1 ,,; 1t.88 Rather, they argue that, while not explicit, such factual underpinning is , 6. y. ,. ' '.f . " '2 . L ', .*f, ' - : , ' '.-" ./. V, h . s. implicit in the contention.88 , 9, ? O. .. .. . . . , 'rc ' . .-. ' ?;,-;G , .' ;f De bases contain three references to the plani All three of these provide
..,i"
- ra
, 4, f 7,
. f.G,f 7.. ., ' ',: citations to plan provisions that require certain actions that the bases allege
$, (,..,f.I:., . ~:g. a.6 .5. r. ?.,.. '
were not accomplished. Interveners have extensive knowledge of the plan. It is
' 'p .*' f.a j - (' ,j ^$
f.
' 1 .,*7, X. -l not unreasonable to require more than mere argument on this point, and to deny ?.'
g.S::,. ff;j!!.U':.j '3 d' ,,' ' ' W.M' admission to any contention that does not provide factual allegations concerning F.7. "' " the plan provisions that must be revised or reassessed and why. Moreover,
*,js
.l ; f W ,7* ' { .3', ,3 . ..
j
<; y ..j ,
,. .j. .-4..
s
- ., ' .o; r . ; .. M .
ALAB-903 (28 NRC at 506) made it clear that such is required: < p e- .* . , , .. * ,
~a Raw in the emergency plan l$-. -, Jl
. - 3.* . N , ; . Q; , , ,, Any centaaion n!!eging that an exercise revealed a t- "
";., \,.~e.,, ,. ',:. y ite,, . Q amst address both of these factors in order to satisfy the Commission's requirernent that "the
, ..O c ,r : . l ,' k "
bases for each contenuon (bel ses fonh with reasonable specincity." 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b). 7 , *. 3. ,, , .o7, l;, . 'cf. . , , .
' r l,( ;.1,; ,1
.54, CU-8611,23 NRC at 581.
l,<.4.4. . 3.- 4
'.t> ' ,'
. [. . . ', c 7 ,,
.1 Although they sought to amend their contentions, and although they have j 4
J (' . ' extensive knowledge of the p:lan, Interveners did not seek permission to add - i
~- *
- i'i factual bases to their contentions on this poinL Contrary to their assertion, the
. . . , . .. 3 , .- ..
+'- significant changes that they believe are necessary to the plan are not implicit in the bases given. Consequently, this contention is denied.
,p ..
'o- . . . -
. 1. .;- - , ,
f.' ' , . . , - '
.r
'. ~'} Y ; , '. . r ~. . . , ,
CONTENTION 5: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS RELATED t-. , . . TO NOTIFICATION .
,i
,.,4 I W, .7 . ~,I. His contention alleges that a fundamental flaw was demonstrated in that !
f. y
,. .'... ,- J LILCO was unable to promptly notify the public as required by 10 C.F.R.
. ./ . l Il 50.47(b)(5) and (b){7) and Appendix E, j IV.D.3. The contention is supported "j
" ' , , , 5.
- .4,,..,.,',
- ,. . - .
by the following bases: 1
, J Basis A alleges that during the exercise, when the sirens were activated to )
j *
- - '3 f i test the public alerting capabilities, fifty-seven of a total of eighty-nine failed.
; / , .,. - .
,", s ; ? ,. 3 q"*,*
, /'.'? Basis B alleges that LILCO did not follow the provisions of the plan when
,f (i y '
. ', 4 confronted with this failure in that it did not notify the governments or dispatch
+ -
'.. , . . . ., r> . .- route-alert drivers.
(~,y'.i ,+* T ,,* ,. , , J ' j . * '. , . Basis C alleges that LILCO did not comply with the regulatory standards '.,,,'e
; , , T , #' .' governing timely noti 6 cation to the public of PARS.
l'( f- Basis D alleges that in several instances, route-alert drivers assigned to notify
*[*y,
;. ....'A., 'f the deaf were unable to identify the homes of the deaf or the routes they were
*tr.
*y
-(,.l.-
.. rs drive.
i
? l, ; f . .: , ,.;,'. i *. .
.'.) ,*., 88su a utro .no starr erso. om corn.imar. 4 20 should be dismi.e.4 rar this re an. s., tnro s waaen
,. 's .
*', at 5 8; stafr's Raspense st*/.
;/' ' 8's,e Irn.rvenors' oppositian at M. l s *
*I,*
- '. .s $.
i , 23 9 b e e 4 4 w
j v,s , s ;
.' .~ '
. i , ,
1
. . m. , q s
1
, , , , t , . - 4 .-
I e
- g
,m ; - 3, . l u . ,,, . , i j
4 . .,
. ~i, . . .
. . , .- v. . .;y n a ,
I.; M - "., l l7,('E;}. , Jg[.'y,*i ?. LILCO responds that the siren failure presents a minor ad hoc problem which s %^ 5- - '. ; ;' can be dealt with through additional testing. that the siren failure was overridden f'.h,E d..
- fi M .;,' W ll,,.i 'M Q:4 ;'P.$ ' :' '.1 ,.y ',"$.D * *.,2 M by a controller message that stated that only three sirens had failed and that the response to that failure was appropriate, that the assertion that LILCO did not 4 y;p y5 f,9(A, ; . .g 1,p f,;"' y comply with the standards governing the timing of public noti 6 cation is based on Q
A-'E M, } g , i [ ,%.);,.;.1 4' J d '
i f U .1 , i,.~, 1 ,y k '?.,D ! siren failure as a maner that is not relevant to the exercise. Interveners maintain
' ya: ilI . l ',*g. : 1 . . ,
3 .
'* . ,.'. l
. . ' ,' l , g .j that LILCO's and Staff's interpretation of the regulations concuning the timing of public noti 6 cation is erroneous and that their other objections raise questions
. A.
,. , ~
-i . .. ..
. . , . ., .- : m- 1 of fact.
p, ,,t, .s /. . , c'N. . *-! Applying the ALAB 903 standards to the amended contention reveals that l
.gf.'
N f
, *- i:.s y ' ly/ 7 j' J,",f.M*
Interveners have adequately alleged that there was a failure in a major element of the plan, but once again have failed to allege that speci6c portions of the ' 1, g,; j
~ * , -
-, ].
- l. J (' ,f,"
~.
i 9, plan require signi6 cant revision or reassessment as a result.
.q .
,e
.g 4 . \ ,,, ;.,
# Contention 5 cites ll50.47(b)(5), (b)(7), and Appendix E, (IV.D.3, as the 7 ..
. [' - " .- .
, j ' :-) elements that are implicated by the contention. We agree that the 6rst and last s . -
... . ' ~ .. citations are relevant to the allegations stated in these bases. They both concern
-Q., *
, ,, , 3 7
J' - prompt noti 6 cation of the public.87 Further, we believe that the factual allegations
/e*.
' j.s t ' - ., '
,; ,, 7, 1 of the bases are suf6ciently specisc and establish a suf6cient foundation to p
warrant further inquiry. While LILCO and Staff may be correct in their positions f' ' ~ :] Y . . i. 2 ,,
, fy, . . . . with regard to such matters as the siren failure and the dispatch of route-alert
,_,#- ., ,,, drivers, those positions invite us to make factual 6ndings prematurely.se
'[' '.x .
~
,'[~ .-
However, the bases provide no factual allegations whatsoever concerning
*(f .'# -
which provisions of the plan might require signi6 cant reassessment or revision
""7'f f, * *
- a
, ' f -c. , ' as a result of the above failure. While the statement of contention does provide
.. , *,,.' ' ; .e,:. .
d general references to provisions of the plan in order to demonstrate LILCO's
.. ,'f- ., , ' ' s .; .' . . . , -
,% g ' ,' i;. ;. . . .- :,- *
. , .; .; , ;,; , .o recognition of the need for prompt public noti 6 cation, these provisions are
,,'j lengthy and complex. Thus the unsupported assertion that they must be revised
- o. l.j 'J .., ,' ) is too vague to put LILCO and Staff on notice as to what is to be litigated f
. / , ', ~ * ( . k . . . ;. ,e. - . ..s ,,,
or to permit us to determine whether a fundamental Saw has been alleged.
~
. . , ' , ' - ,' .o.
..,; Consequently, this contention must be denied.
4 -
. . . . . , . . 4 .
- . . . ,. - ., . . x, s. .. s.. a. . .
[. . . . *; ,.'
,, . i
',? .
.. s .
-o. -
. , . v. -. . :.
.* 4 ,,
j -{
. . / . j, . . l . . - *
, ,3,.>
* ,J , a .j .,g.
4/ 7* ... 8%e , g sac (bxn pencip.ny one ns infe matun shardiana Un sdvance of an smagency, as o watt sis - as the aahaw dassermnation of inrarmation to the public, mattes that ase not caDed into quesuen by .t g .. e. ,, . n , ,,;, -
, ' s .. . *; ' .,
- e , #, ' ' seWhosher es sisen hion was a pas of es enmuse and wheth. FEMA M 6e actual ranum wim
,y,; y
, . * ,* f*
- y ; , , , a message that requised e skfreras ensanpaios ase quesuons that appear to be amanshie to a resolution at this
- l ', '; ; ;.. 4, l, 3 junctuse it the FEMA RaqMet were clear en thses painss. It is not l ;~ .
- r. ,
t 9 s .?. , ' . ,
- n *
.,,..e a , ' n.1 . .
, M s
. e e **
q .
. e-I
_ . , ____ .___m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _---- - - - - - - - - - - -'-
F a. v.en . , .
. 3 - ;
p ,,* - ,, .,,,
- u.
.4
. .+.
4 1 e :
, g . !
.. f E., j
. . , .s
- 4 "..,
s , .
.ll . ,., d . ,,. a.j -., ,* . '
4
; c.-e.,' T :. ,<., . '
*- .t
,. (p;;/.? '.(. g,'. i c
- e. . .; ,
;,6 ,.,' 1,,,:'h;:d:
- 3g O :.. g CONTENTIONS 610: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS CONCERNING PUBLIC INFORMATION j
,,. . . . .: , . . . .+I
. ., : 0 .
7,. > ..O. . .... +, .;, ...+. ,. - .:, a . .
,, . 4 ,.
. n, . ...v .:, 9, .::: . ,.~. .- )
. 7,. -,a.
-Q, ~..:
; .e e L, # . *l f, . .% "Ihese contentions raise matters that are similar to those heard in the liti. !
M{' ,9;(,.)g[; -I,.[:.p#
"M.- EQ.b.'.3., '
..,0 <Y'1.lJ;.,
l ( fundamental h,m 3:. gation concerning the 1986 exercise. Following that' hearing, we found that flaws were demonstrated with regard to some aspects of the public !
.A . fI::,.? O ,',[+(.4 '.' [ . ' H 'd'.E"'.h information program, and that they were not demonstrated with regard to others.
7 ; s .r , . -
- u ,,g,
,) .; .., ,
. While we will apply the ALAB-903 standards to these contentions, the similarity -
,v , ...Ir; , ;, ,f ' ? . . q Yl of these contentions to those litigated previously cannot be ignored. Therefore,
'e sc ,,
l .' t . . . where a contention raises matters that are not materially different from those
' i ."". ' % . , ] '
; . ;- [
- 3. - 4 decided in LBP-88 2 and where ALAB-903 does not mquire a different result, O 7 f., n. ,< f";,f.:; we will be guided by LBP-88-2 to the following extent:
',F3. ' * - . -
,(.A. ;. z f .
g .:} F rst, we will deny allegations that do not materially differ from facts j , . [' * -'r,,' f. . * . . ,l '
.,, .- : t ' . . j found not to constitute a fundamemal flaw; and
.. ,..s -N. i Second, we will admit allegations that do not materially differ from
. 4c.'2
,~ ? 't .
facts found to constitute a fundamental flaw even if Interveners have '
- . ^. failed to allege ' hat significant plan changes are required to remedy the
. . . ',. ; , (c -.
i alleged flaw. In this situatian, we believe that the possible persistence f
,'xo e C .. . a of a fundamental flaw from one exercise to the next amply supports the j
,*/.., ' ' .
- .* g' '.1 inference that a significant reassessment of the plan is necessary in order j J
. . . . . , . . ., ' <y -
, to remedy the situation.
.' '. :. . , c,
',...~. .. Conten:lon 6: EBS Messages
?..
.. 'Ihis contention alleges that the EBS messages " broadcast" during the exercise
"- '. ,j
. , .l ,
', - .~.. , ' (,..i-) .a
?,
were confusing, inaccurate, inconsistent,' untimely, and poorly organized. It
.. alleges that the fundamental flaw that we found to have been revealed by the
, , .f . ., ,
.* . ' . ~
. , , ' *l .- -. Z 1986 exercise has not been corrected and additional fundamental flaws exist.
..- , .: . i ". l* It is supported by basis A, which provides six examples of allegedly incorrect
*, '. i c. ', ' s /, 2 '
"3((*.g ,
information; basis B, which provides ten examples of the alleged omission .~*. - c' ;, ,- .' - of important information; basis C, which provides five examples of allegedly .-),,,, ,.( % ' ,.,,,; -'* , 4 poor organization; and basis D, which provides thirteen exampks of allegedly
,.'.'~,,- '
,-l,,-
. . y ' ,,a , .. . ..N. ,, .,1.J 3-
* . ' 4- .
confusing and vague aspects of the messages.
'Ihe contention cites 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(6) as that planning element which
- r, ,,* . -
, . .l l >; is implicated, and argues that ALAB-900 and LBP 88-2 both support the
' '.,.,c i . .'"f.
t . ' E. ' , . . , , conclusion that the EBS messages constitute a major element. We agree. There
.;', ,'; ,j / "
f .l.- *
, .,. , ' . ' ' can be no doubt that the EBS messages are a major element of the plan.
.#... . 2', LILCO points out that the EBS messages have been litigated twice before,
'. T , .. y "/, ..y .a,w ? .,",. ' , ' . ., , ' " * *}.
; citing LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 660-63, 669-71, 687-91, 698 (1985), and
,8 ,
. .- o ,. ". . . LBP 88-2, apra, 27 NRC at 168 74. LILCO argues that LBP-88-2 found g 7. ~ .. ; J , ,., 4 s', only three significant problems, despite allegations that the messages were
',. 26 u -
- f 4
1
m- _ ( . 3-
+ .
s r.
, s. .+.
e . . .
~
.. t -
' * ~
~-
.; . , . 3
,, , .e ,
.- 1 .s.- ,
;j . .
,- v ,e.*
- s. . ,
. i 4
i- < v., : ,
,, , , . 'I
- ~, .. .,c ... . . 7 .. .
.w.. 4' ., .. .f. a *s. . .
f.< ,
.g : . ..l . a,(, . y .s. ' m ., . _.q,.$ ,,. . :n ;.,;; .
i.p".[.t.;" 'j'??[*4p.* *y'/.g.%. . ... inaccurate, * ,. h. "?,,; vague, [. l and confusing, which, together with other problems in the public information area, contributed to a fundamental flaw.M Interveners argue 9 [.Q~e,,L. . ify,'? ; ,,' 4' .tf' */ ' '* ,' y (,. , A that 4 c. '.prior*'.litigation
,, n.,does t 4..,; j
- the EBS messages from scrutiny. They take not shield
/f' * T,W'SZ [ ' Wh!, '["'1_ .if J.. ' issue with the conclusion that only three significant problems were found in ...~,. Q :;ll ?.s ,f.
- l :n, u "? y.'].,.{i
. LBP-88-2.
I ' f. k ?d. / .4'/,N; In this connectrm they argue that the first significant problem cited in LBP- ,,. g$7.,g,)..N'e.dM. s' . , . g, .1 .
- 3. . m >. 3 - 88-2 is similar to the examples given in bases C.2 and D.8. That problem
@;q. "
4," , s.y. - 4%
- y. e, , 5 c. 4
- c. , . Y. , c.; ,..,..g , . , . ..; .2, .n. concerned 4 * *. o statements in the same EBS message that a minor release had occurred
, .c. . ,
;.3, and that a release was not imminent 8 'Ihe first, but not the second," example
, y f y,e
.i 3 ,c, ."A.
2, e
. ., ,7 e '
in basis C.2 and the example in basis D.8 are indeed similar. y Similarly, Interveners draw a parallel between the second and third signi6 cant
- j,p, f .y. *.* . ., f,*.;' 4,J
/
3.] H L , , yi, u, i problems, concerning statements about the thyroid dose at 10 miles, and bases j.;
.y,' *.wly.$q..,. .(2JM V ; ./ ;. B, 4 - @W,j 4 D.10, D.11, and D.12. We agree that these similarities exist. We also agree M that these problems formed a part of the overall problem that LBP-88 2 found
. .f'E.ip.R . ;'! ^ -
. j with the EBS messages, that the overall problem was not limited to the three f.? 0 g , * . * .,,4 0 .. . ' Y> .N'.,,
examples cited by LILCO.* f
,i'!
, C~'. LILCO next argues that the bases given in support of Contention 6 all state
. .'?- -
- 3 ~ minor, ad hoc problems or planning problems. Staff takes a similar position with
. , , [. , , " 'f ', ' , , , . - l .;
3 respect to bases C and D. !ntervenors disagree.53 We have reviewed the bases in
~ , Q ' .i
.. the light of ALAB 903 and have concluded that bases A.1, A.4-A.6, B.1-B.10, s ,p. , . . . ,
-.., .g,;..,
., , C.1, C.2 (first example only), D.2, D.7 D.8, D.12, and D.13 collectively allege i , 3. , ' "'
a- - a failure in the EBS messages. The remaining bases allege trivial or planning
, p. .. .-. . -
- > " 7 ,a . ..',#
- n. ,
i matters which do not add any substance to the aheged failure.
- T ,
. ., ; . ,'j Finally, LILCO argues that bases A, C, and D allege minor problems similar p .
.}.. t
, .x , ,
,.e: '.
to those that were previously litigated and found insignificant, that basis B has '
.. .~, no regulatory foundation, and that many of the alleged problems are not EBS
(. 'r.W' - ', ".
] , , , c' *. ,j - 1 ,
problems at all, but decisionmaking issues. Interveners disagree.6* LILCO's
- * . f ,, .J . ,,A , . . , . . /7: arguments raise issues that may be appropriately addressed at hearing. The first
;.J*.' .,
;', ' : % , , - ,. ,,' two arguments are not sufficiently specific to be addressed now, and the third
,- .' ; Y - .
.. -[ -
.s raises factual matters that require an evidentiary record.
. . . , ., .: .. . . y., , .
.. - ' m
. * , , , .. ~
(,,
-s,... , ,
.,s.* .
, \; ,_
. . ~ . , .
. v .,. .. .
. .Ys<..3 .
~
-f. .+ . ,
#3.* -
,.' ,*f ? Ms,, Ulfo's Response at 32 33.
. . , .-'.,***..4 j ,
; 80 3ee t.BP 88 2. agre. 27 NRC at 171.1suervenars somewhat mismans the record in that the Board did act
** ** 'I
. .N. , .. make a nnding that this wee siyuacent bemons U1fo conceded that the errer was not invist and could be d
..i,.
i *
,#* ' * .' , 4. * *I *a confusing.
~.
; '.?
'- ' ' * ,,,y.
** ,%*.,. a
'.i \*
- 61 The second stample in basis C.2 does not appsat to cor.Autute an inconsistency in the message.
.'a *. .f" .; 1,*,* "Jee l. ' Reply st 108.lt.
+,'.
." , . . f e a , '< ... ,- d! . I, j'I. ,,/ ' * + , , . - 83 3ee Ulfo's Response at 33-36. st.ff's Respanas at 47. staff does not object to bases A and B;Inservenars'
'[ h ; [ ,$ ',* ', y ^* ; . .' ' ' /,* * * * , * , */ .
l 7
. j$*.,,, ,. ,
. <' ,'*,r Ryly at 11216, t19 20.
Jee utfo's Respones at 37;Intervanors' Reply at 116-19. lY , ,e 4
% q s
s, $s ,
, .o n . .
l
\
3 26 i a . f s O
y . _
- ' ,J- 6 , 'p , ,
s
*. ., - i. , . -
, ) e, wA.
.O e b '
a
.y. ..
,) ;.w .
m. s-w w
- c. ., .
. . .e. ,
, .n, ,- :
. . . . . 'y. .
..-7 w.
y . m.v. . .s..,. . , y a , ' ; , .~. .f . , . ! c.. n . :. . ~.
> - n.~, ..
- 1
.s ,
b,J,};} ,- ..y;, . r. ,.. tj ,, @.
. .$ l, 'O,.5 ..
3
- .N"..
. v . .,
; Contention 7: Emergency News Center.
,'*l,. . . :[' ~ .?'.'i,'pf3 This contention alleges that LILCO was unable to provide timely, accurate,
@' g G :'. f.,,".h..oc.d *
, p .; P.@'.y , . ?v.M consistent, and nonconfusing information to the news med a. It focusses on the f*' Operations of the ENC, which, it is alleged, demonstrate a failure in the planning
$,i ,, ';,e .WQ'.; . ; i;. .,E7 ' ;9j m.. i
- f. ^ b.
j 7' ] elemenu embodied in 66 50.47(b)(6) and (b)D)." It is supposted by basis A, ' *v Q>)j
.i ',*.1l. , p]l ; %.hj.7, Q * { ," / .] which alleges that the organization and management'of the ENC and the skill OI the spokespersons were inadequate; basis B, which alleges that the frst press -
.p,.p,..
l,.j';.d.V ' . ,)*'y.5 ,. l, C , d ".
- h 'J * ' . ] bu,efing at the ENC was tardy;' basis C, which alleges that the spokespersons
- g 7 '-)p' ; )<3 4 ..j , ". j,f 3,.. ,...q . would be unable to control the press briefings in a real emergency; basis D, a
, c. . - ',7 j 1 c.
. . h,. ;. ;
j which alleges that information that conflicted with EBS messages then being m . . .*- ;. ,
, ,- broadcast was disseminated; basis E, which alleges that information was not l, " d. . i,... .'. y ' '; , - .d;%C. . . uA made available at the ENC on a timely basis; basis F, which alleges that in a
.gj . g - ,f,,; ;w.. r.1~ .
y ",- ..j real emergency the tardiness of the EBS messages wuld create major confusion
, j . ' , ', , 1 , c l.
*'.q, . . . i > " '.j among the media and the pub'ic; basis G, which alleges that there was inadequate 7",,.9 C' . . ' ' , y.}
*',.,s.'
coordination between LERO and LILCO; and basis H, which alleges that the fact that only fifty seven of eighty-nine sirens sounded on request was kept from {t, < ' a .t, the media.
,,, , , LILCO and Staff oppose the admission of this contention, while Interveners
,(J' f
.9 ( argue for its admission.** The former regard basis A as stating trivial matters,
- i. . ; , , . ' '
. { .. , ' * . ,,sf , 7.', while the latter assert that it asserts that the ENC did not provide timely
,4.- c
.. , ! > . 1 information and cites LBP-88 2, supra,27 NRC at 167, for the importance of
~i ' I] V . , '. . r - ., f', 3 . , this function. While it is true that in LBP-88 2 we regarded the tardy provision
. , j '; - .. ,. of EBS messages to the media to be signl6 cant, this basis does not raise any
,- ~, a '.
.,', .) issue of similar impost. Rather, it faults the Emergency News Manager for
,- .. q .
failing to adhere to the scheduled starting time of certain news conferences,
. j.[.; i . , .
> '].."j ,;
cites "LILCO/LERO spokespersons joust [ing] with reporters" and failing to respond properly to the latter, and complains of a failing to post a knowledgeable
. f . , , f. . ' . ; , ,* c ..; ' :. . . C g;'j
. - spokespersca, m, addition to a technical advisor who was available, between 7/ '. 9 f. f. ':
',, J , ..
, , '; - ' ..y briefings. Even when considered with the rest of the bases supporting this
*~
.;,. ,( ,. * ' , :., q contention, this basis raises only minor, ad hoc problems.
<*.,'e."
, . .{;,, , .g LILCO and Staff correctly assert that facts not materially different from those
~
.. ; ,,e: -
. .../' alleged in basis B were rejected in LBP-88 2,27 NRC at 153. While Interveners
- , , .' . 7 ., . ,
have, as they point out, framed this contention in terms of the time that elapsed
,. . .l f . j . .; Q *.- l ., .
. ... between the activation of the ENC and the first press briefing, as opposed to their
-p -;. . -
, y. i . , . ' ,.. ' ,. { earlier complaint that the ENC was not activated promptly enough following the
.a .. ,,,. -
.a .. ,, 9
, ..;n
.o. . .-
"s.;-
;i'..-
q.'.,.
., ,. . . y
. ~,' ,: 3 .. ,~, . ..
f, . , - ..('*,,
,we asr== ihat mes 1=mma anpue. ny em -
g e':,' .l .
- p l ',
y ; ; . .' . ' ; * * '. *,,, '. i
,, Joe tilfo's Response et 37 42; staft's Response at $2. Response to 1.nro's Motion at 11; Iraarnners.
Reply at 1213a ta, ,?:4 , ;l, -. . s .
, g k. ' ,
M
- 27
#. j g .
. P 5 >
4 D I
.. M. - v . t e .
~
s .
. . , m s
n f.,,,, . , , * . ' G'y ..Q" y.f.' '*.y,:,C: .% )' l y .p, , $/}R j * . ',. ' y
;"1j Alert at the plant, the fact remains that, according to this basis, approximately L , T : ' -
2.5 hours elapsed between the Alert and the first press briefing, while in LBP [A/,6, , .,,?,. , T ,.m .3 ,d., ' . , .. ' 3 , . : a , ,
- ", ; ' N 2, we found that a span of 3 hours between those events was not unacceptable.
.- . i. ,. - -
9- - 7; y. ;y .~ . m3>,,; q ;g t.. .
, . .,.a.
Basis B is rejected. f ' l '. :. ',' c',' a; ' Moreover, Interveners' position to the contrary notwithstanding, we agree 3,;M,,Tl;. I '; ^ s,# s U' m
-lY'j.' with LILCO and Staff that bases C, D, and O are speculative, lacking foundation
- 1. -fg}g.j,.j;;;;M ..- -.
" .;. .j.:. g ' ' B,7, - ",
, .;j in the events of the exercise, and fail to adequately set forth the facts sought to be litigated. We disagree with their position that basis II is inadmissible for the M[-1 ' . v,',' h , ,,, j' [ - ]g: ' '..'. ', ' . ' y'
/,r j - 'y. (., .3,'s , .l , , ., . G ,
same reason given with respect to Contention 5.B. Bases E raises the question of whether the media were promptly provided
" ~
,,' f ' * , ~.,
4 . ,] + , " ] j w. .; with EBS messages.' In LBP-88-2, we agreed with " FEMA's assessment of a deficiency with regard to the failure to promptly provide the EBS messages to J [ ! L..:. 3
' - .- .- , ? %. J
'g a * ; . 'e
, '2. the media, and regard that failure as an integral part of the . . , fundamental A ;f j
.l-
,, flaw" concerning the failure to promptly provide the Call Boards with these
/:' .
f.- *. . , . ' , *. *
. * 'f , ) messages." Therefore, we find that this basis adequately alleges a failure in the
* '.r * , . . - # - ... cited planning elements in order to be admitted.
. f'
", d E .q Basis F must be similarly treated. When stripped of speculation, this basis
,,. j - .< '/' alleges that confusing information was being promulgated by LILCO/LERO. In
. s3
. , 3 LBP-88 2, we found that another integral part of the fundamental flaw relating
,l . -
.. .' to public information was the fact that some confusing information was included
' .' N:..; . .; in the EBS messages and also noted the importance of providing the media with 4 ;, _; ..
- ' ~ , accurate information." Consequently it too adequately alleges a failure in the ;
'3
. ?"j cited planning elements. !
- /* ,
, .i
. . .. , . , ' . ' ~ .- .',, Contention 8: Rumor Control
,'. (
. '~.
n'.~. *
,. ,.~ . ;. Interveners candidly admit that this contention raises problems that are
. 'f'/, . ; . ., . .
, , .' . .t , ' ; ' essentially the same as those that were reviewed in LBP 88 2 and found not
,f * .'...* . -1., -
. ', , . , to rise to the level of a fundamental flaw." They argue, however, that the fact
, ,; , that these problems persist dictates the conclusion that LILCO's inability to t - ?, , ', . s l, ?
../ ..[ V - ,
institute effective rumor contml procedures must be viewed as a fundamental y - - l- ,..--['* flaw. We disagree. 'Ihe mere passage of time is not an element to be considered
" ,; f
,- ~' ;. . ,.- */ 'l i in determining whether a fundamental flaw exists. This contention is denied.
* ' .. ,; .; ,- ..j . 4 ', . ; 9 -
. ., c,.... ., .
, e :. . ' .
?.
.t,.',- ..
* ~
, ; ,. .; 'y; .,
e su 21 NRC at 151.
.- c. . . .j,v- \*.*I,,,'
, . ; /s' "see LBP 88-2. sves. 21 NRC at 172 and 151. respectively.
f . ;, -
.,O -
" Ahhough Imervmors snempt to distinguish the 1988 Rumor Corttrol contention fmm its 1986 predecessor in
. ' . ; 'a .l
*.s'*." their reply to LILCo's oppositim (at 13434), they have not cited any mai,erial differences between the two which
, ,* '['.
~- <' *', eculd lead to a difrarers result.
., f. .
, a g4
.g-
+
m an. L - -____.m_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
? y .
. ,v. ,
, 7 s
, y s ,, <
. . s:.
. .t s
. e ..
. .. .a . : . . : . ~ h. - s \
i
)
A.
. :v. ..c m
.p k. . .
Q '.Q. l. . ' v': n,9.,. n,,,;.-;
. .l* ;
+ .,.
Contentloa 9: The Public Would Reject LILCO's Flawed EBS Messages I
- b. f ( p. , n ..,... u..
c.,1 a .i; ; ; "1
,, : j/. c ..,f..W ,r;j; < as a Primary Source of information
, z. rn sv,. t m. .n .. . . . S.;.; 7 ;ig';V V *.. p &.,.P.@! T 3 'Ihe title of this contention neatly sums up its content. LILCO, Staff, and
' .. .; M _ , ?/ '. ! Interveners argue over whether the contention alleges a fundamental flaw, with d $y,l y,f ".l'G 9 4 :...<,. ". 7.' I ; L..3. '; Interveners pointing out that it does because it alone alleges that the public . i r.N M.g,W{'y,,70 'f.' .e . , y . c,+
M J.'. *J*l );f . ,i > l+,';6, would not, accept contention M the EBS messages as a source of information. However, the furnishes no bases for this assertion other than those furnished in 4
- 3. < . ; ; . , ..
- j. ./ , ]' , { . **. /)/ other contentions. Indeed, because the public did not participate, it is unlikely
,fN;;f., gig',*!l2, 3., '/ w 'l7.; j '>i rl . .. that the exercise would have furnished any information concerning the public's -
',.,$ " [ / S-/o ,
"> -6'.; n, T.1 reaction which might support this contention. Consequently this contention
,e -
.. . , ., .". . , . . c e,..
. /, -
cannot be admitted. m ;- ;) e ,.
- ~> -
w>. ... . r
. : . r g .. . .:...p. .. --* < m,iy i.u. , u4 7 c . .*,
Contention 10: Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon
,C,3 :. *, , . ,l ' *.'
o ,; a Here, Interveners put forward the proposition that, because the public in-
',t'.,,*,*
,,,"i .
.. > '*. i formation made available during the exercise was not clear and unambiguous,
, '~j ~
a substantial evacuation shadow would develop. It is based on a conclusion d, ,J [d
~
- reached in LBP 85 12, Jupra 21 NRC at 670, that conflicting information would 5
c
.j have that result LILCO and Staff oppose.71 {
j:
' ' , .^ .] ( ' J
; In LBP-88 2, we concluded that conflicting information had been provided )
. P :,,.
, ' g, <. . ,i to the public in the 1986 exercise. Accepting the conclusion reached in LBP.
1:.' -
. . . . '.I' 8512 as the law of the case, we also concluded that a fundamental flaw was
~ ?' . .'. P
~ ^
- demonstrated in that, in those circumstances, "a controlled evacuation . . .
,-/*, [ -
- . s .j probably could not be achieved."n There is no reason why Contention 10 is
, , * , ., -1
, essential in order to permit us to reach the same conclusion again. So far as we
,... are aware, the conclusion reached in LBP 85-12 remains the law of the case. If
,,f
+.
'. a
, e * '
- c.~ 3 Interveners once again demonstrate that conflicting information was furnished 7 N., '. - ) to the public, the conclusion that we reached in LBP-88-2 would appear to be
, , f. . ' , ; ,.
'.y .i , . * * ? * ?j ., warranted. Contention 10 is denied.
. . y. ..*. .
w, . , , 4
' .s .
#~ .
. J ( h ... ., .i Rulings on Contentions 610
~* .;' , . , ::l
..s .a
.,,,-P ,
., 3 .* ',*.
. , , . ', ; ,, We have identified a number of bases for Contention 6," concerning EBS
- j . ,, ,'. ,* , '; l v* messages, which collectively :.dequately allege a failure in those messages. We
.i
., . . y j . ..g > . .* ' .<. , ;t ., '/.,.* .
have also identified base'; E and F of Contention 7 which adequately allege t,n l j ,af...,' ,,,-.f,* ,,J.j failures relating to the ENC. However, Interveners have provided no bases that
, e :, -
. , , .. ,. .1,
.a. .
4 ,....,,,3
' ' N s't,.C -
-. '4
. . . . . * . ,* l/', ,-
.- ,,' . n , l -
, ,....; :,- . ., ,; , %* ln
} *(t;'. ' * ; . '(yy'.y' i * ,,.
. , 70su g.g,co s Response at 43-45; stafr's Response at 56; interveners' Reply at 134 38.
73 3u t.nfo's Respese at 4s-47; stafr's Response at s7; latervances' Reply at 138-43.
.l,' .
* .g , ,
,**, ,'. 'l/r * ;' f'. ,l,.* U taP.48 2, apre 27 NRC at 173.
p,J. .%
^
6 ,, . . .
,' D specinceUy. beams A.I. A.4-A.6, B.1-B.10 C.1, C.2 (Arat example mlyk D.2. D.7. D.8. D.12, and D.ts.
t 4 , NI s i b 4 e
- e
+
4 N &
y x
- v. . .
.)
. J
'. ..~
. i -
r . c .
- . .,., a
A-
)
. - : .? . e 1 s
. . 1
,b -
l
]
. .. s 1
.\
. . n. f 7r . .
,> . . .s. ., . ,
. ~
, ;;q. c.~;, h -
.. 7; p,.; ['t ; .; ,f.@' * [s .j, p[,,..C' '. .b *
'... ,I 9 ' ,.would . . .support
.m .Y. ,,
i . the proposition that correction of these alleged failures would j i ., C * . . .' " C .' " 4 ;,; ,,z , require significant revisions to the plan. The problems alleged in these bases are, j 2
- s,
.,i' 5 l,... ;-', ..' ..'
f, y-. l;,... . -
. . ,, .4 ,T,1>7 r . .n , - y. ..: 7l.'N.**~.
y * , . .
- ,,r.M .
j
. however, suf6ciently similar to the problems that we found following the 1986 exen:ise to justify the conclusion that earlier problems have not been corrected, l
N.f'. S V Mi 'f . / i;. *. . J.R' y. .' and that significant plan changes, if not required before, are indicated now.
,?,M .U.Sf. '. v f/Q,;'-l' '.t. 7) /- The only other bases that we have identified as adequately alleging a failure yr , , yf f i J. '. , . s , ,. , *. . ;'
- is basis H to Contention 7, concerning an alleged withholding of information -
'.i>J:.t..
. ..*y . "' G ,. y. ,',7..
., f r*. , '~ . N. < j from the media at the ENC. No similar problem was identified in LBP-88-2;
. . . k',;
' '; ., i
'i '. t, ....p,.', , consequently, there is no reason to infer that this alleged failure might require j,g,' f. .,
'. M f , ; 4 +.
j f.' ,
". 1 significant plan changes.
! ,,, w..- -
- . . . , .J. .. , uj y , ;
. . . . , , , .- .-* 2 .,
.? . -
- c. - '
. ... ,: . - m
'.,q.,..
.. . .c
,,7 T.>r .
. ~ . , %. .. N.. .
CONTENTIONS 1112: PROTECTIVE ACTION a
.. * .t
; .r .
g ;e..,. , RECOMMENDATIONS -
; *,,w.,- . .; ,, . y ,
+. -.. ".', . .. > ..
' ? 'c . At the outset, it should be noted that none of the allegations of these
, ",.',.., contentions relate to a fundamental flaw that was identified in LBP-88 2.
s n l
~
[. ? k . ( '
'.' Contentbo 11t Ingestion Pathway PARS p: '
This contention alleges that the exercise revealed failures with respect to 1? -
..Q,,,?. .
,y the elements embodied in 10 C.F.R. il50.47(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9), (b)(10), and
,,'~ .
Part 50, Appendix E,1IV.F.1. It is supported by basis A, which alleges that 4
, '.( LILCO should not have waited until Day 3 of the exercise to issue ingestion I
- pathway PARS; basis B, which alleges that prior to issuing a PAR on Day 3,
'.'..? J .
4, .- , . . ,.' - LILCO knew that it would become necessary to issue PARS for the ingestion
" N , * * ', 3,'. , . / pathway but took no action to warn residents; basis C, which alleges that the EBS
,' ,,~ (.
. .". ,' * ' ,C; .?
; *'.'l *.l j messages improperty sought to minimize the hazard in the ingestion pathway; 7 .;,. * ',
.. .- ;;+. .. ,
,.; basis D, which alleges that LILCO never issued ingestion pathway PARS to
.. .: , i .
those persons who chose not to evacuate; and basis E, which alleges that certain 3- {*l, j
, ., . , ' , ' ' s /, .' PARS that are to automatically issue following a Site Area Emergency and
'uU-
,- , . .i ' *
., , , ; ,. a General Emergency were unjustifiably delayed. We agree with Interveners
. -l' ,. ' ", , . , ,;* l' i . that subsection (b)(10) is clearly implicated, and that subsection (b)(9) may be
. . ....v .,a * . . '
.. 9 ,. .. '/..,5, implicated. The other citations seem of dubious relevance to this topic.
I . . .' ,} ? '. , i; . .'(. .! . ' .; i . LILCO opposes bases A and B on the grounds that they state minor, ad hoc 1,
- f,
.,; '," ,.f
/ ,
,' ly .-l,. . ' , ) problems, and that the FEMA Repott does not support Interveners' claim that i
, . . ?. i . . '. . i . f .d there were sufficient data available on Day 1 to justify the issuance of ingestion f,4.q" , ' l ' . 7 .
- J ? c. '., '
,;* . T, pathway PARS. Interveners counter that the problems alleged are not minor, ad
; hoc ones in terms of the provisions of the plan, and LILCO is again arguing
. < . " <3,.. ',7 7,' e, . . . ,h ; h , l# fy,
., . . , a,..,- , . ., .
j~ ,. :. ,.. , . ....., , - . . . :. v . .
. .. ; f..
, , . . . ' { i' , l. * *s s' c'. . . .;
y % e ap 4
x . 4 o, c.
.J c ,
2 ,
<, # , ),
s 4 . y J. ]
. .: . .+, ,w ~
. l.1 ,
.v. , 2 _
q i i i J o. t Us .
- 7. . *m , -
7.,,. .:
. ..* S, i 4 p 7 4.(,
.. . 3 r........n~.:,a,
,p.L , ..
e-0
.j js !.QM. /,,'c.h,';.W < . e : ,,;Sf. * ;n.Nc.~;
.- .* i
.;7.,/;;,*.,'J y .'*.>.; f g p n . i3 > - d the merits of the contention. Because these allegations concern the issuance of ) g.,"1,$.Z. ' j.".
- PARS, we believe that interveners are correct that they adequately state a failure ]
%..g, .,.1.g8.. (* } 7^7. $,
,f.w. U. ~e ;,,
.c . .....s
,. . . c..,, . p.g,". . . . ,. .; ;
, ' ",k 1l/:(; Jij in the elements covered by the implicated regulations. Moreover, we find that-LILCO's opposition does indeed raise factual issues which are not appropriate
.j.9.- ,"'/ :. ~ ,../- ,.; ..i j
- considered with the others, and not in isolation." Because its substance concerns -
M , , ,,, . g,! l, ' supposedly confusing information, basis C does not appear to allege a failure of g .(. , ' ' 3 , ,', ' ,*]..P: . . , , y C )I . an element related to PARS at all?* LILCO opposes basis D by contradicting the C ( ., ', * < ( ' z . % , g 7, . i '" , .
. ' ' ,: J I: d d facts alleged. Interveners argue correctly that LILCO's opposition raises merits
. 'l' y *. a. , , vp. ,.*. .r:.>
n' .. . . .. s a t. f ? f f.'ai . considerations." Moreover, we agree that this basis adequately alleges a failure
;. C f J' ? . , ' . " . ,- -
j' "u] in the implicated elements. N , ,, S. ~,; * ' . ;.,- , '., , J , i - : , 1 . Both LILCO and Staff oppose basis E on the ground that the alleged 35-
- 1. . ': ? ., .
., w ? . . ' c.1
- minute delay in issuing the PAR related to milk-producing animals, which is' wt
, , , ;. I automatically required following a Site Area Emergency, does not violate any. ~" 't "
{; . , . - regulatory requirement citing Appendix E,1IV.D.3. Again Interveners assert-
- ../' . , . ..(.' -
i . '," -
.] that this argument improperly raises the merits." While we cannot categorically Q,p e
' %, rule out the possibility that the facts alleged by this basis state a failure in the f , / i, - ,. ,' .
, . .,.M*i implicated elements, it seems unlikely that they do. A determination that a
+
. T >. ,, . . ? . ,
' ' ' ;p ,
- f. ' '
. . . . " ? ],
failure is demonstrated by these facts will depend upon whether Interveners can show that the exercise events required the virtual immediate issuance of this
"~ ' * '
.. . i , ,y
+
.a , PAR to the public."
. ,, s . ..
,.,s', . , ,. .. :.. * *; 1
.., . O, .
Contention 12: Plume Exposure Pathway PARS
. . ... )
. .. . . . N . , - ( 7 *; ,* ,
This contention alleges that "LERO personnel were untimely in making
.; ;. *J ~., - { . . e .
f,- *
. / ;-', :.l ,
PARS for the plurne exposure pathway, made inappropriate recommendations 'r
, . ,. . f ,.a -;, ~ . , : +
in violation of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(6), (7), (9), and (10) . . . , failed to amend
+
*9 . . , ' * , + .;. , , *,
m.. . ,
*[ , i
' . . , ' , * , , .', ,* , , 74 3m tJLCo's Raspanse at 48-49; interveners' Reply at 144-46, suff does not oppose these baass; suff's
..,'i.,' f .', **
- r. ,.
Response at 6142 and respones to tJLfo's Monan in Dismiss at 1213. M
**, ** * ," ;) t*",,,,
. 3m t.nfo's Response at 49; !aservenom' Raply et 146-47. staff did not oppose this bass criginally taae c . ., . , " , . . . . .. g - . ,,y staff Respanse at 6142) but did oppose it in im Raspanse to tJLCo*s Menon (see id, at 11 17).
* , , , * , ?., , * . . ' . . -
,e,# *
,. + * '
"Indeed. bees C is very similar to Ceremum 6.A.2. which was dened bs u.use it raises a trivial aunser which
, . does not add any substance to the falure alleged by the other bases of that comentie.
., b*.
f.', . ,* "See tJLfo's Response at 49 50; Intervenous' Raply at 147-48. staff dos not oppose thu basis su staff's .,p.,, ,7. ,'..i. ,,,,s,* 4 - ; ,- Respese et 61-62; stafr's Reply to llLCo's Matim et 12-13.
, Y * ' ' , * ,.i ;J ,' *~ ;.,. * , , J.*;, -
- 47
,, "Ju IJtfo's Respones et 50; stafr's Respanse at 6142; Interveners' Reply at 149M
,, i, " g ., ,
, l"= . t* .', ,,
M Appendia E.1tV.D.3 provides in part that "[t]he use of (the 15 mirunel nouncanon capability will rangs from
*s.
. . , ' =,,
,,,'O
.~..',,,*,r",
s ,
. .,, 1 . . .
, immediais noti 6 cation of the pubhc (withan 15 minutas of the time that state and local officials are notaSed that a situana exists requinns urgent acter0 to the more ldtely evenu (sic) where there is substantial tame available
. , . ' ' ' +4 ,, . .~i ,' J.** for the state and local government of5cials to make a judgment whether or not to acuvais the public nou6 canon
,,7
., 4 d5 symem."
,, ' 41 s ,
*
- 4 i
' , 31 I
A 0 g.
- y. , ;
- . , .t,. ,
r .
. , , - i 1
*,. , s. . . .* , . o. -
1- -
, ,y .,
. i,
,e
- .. - -...s:,,.+,..
' v;,';.. ,".'.'d'j ;y. ,
M ,'; '9 - :
- b. 3 emergency broadcasts containing PARS in a timely manner, and failed to satisfy 3 y, ,. .j, M . ;'. '. q; 1 g,;a .. EOC Objective 18.- It is supported by basis A, which alleges that a delay on y}:lj's,*':,,h
> .:e ,. , y, .
- cf,,
.{.q4 *ey,1.e'... 7,,j g- . .;c.,
y 4, l.,.'. Q; Day I from 09:37, when the LERO EOC was notified of the EOF's evacuation and sheltering recommendations, u' ntil 10:20, when the EOC. decided to accept i (hh,N&jy/Q'. b[, . f,- l' .'fM.[%. P ,* ,, . )'s . b ..h f jj ! them, and then undt 10:26, when the public was notified, was unjustified; basis B, which alleges that LERO's PAR issued to schools at 06:13 on Day 1 to ' ' 3ffi'? l'N.I:.[ . !) {. 3//'-' *.3 implement early dismissal was ini.yyn.ydiste and contrary to the plan; basis C,
. d .O '; t, " , ~ [.)t. . % 'd 4 "> <
which alleges that LERO delayed issuing a PAR for thoce persons who did not
; Y/ {'s , g*, ' .g. '. 0y , . ; ', .c , */'/?'.
i d follow the recommendation to evacuate from 10:26 on Day 1 until 11:35 on 33 3', ; ,3; . " - , ' . . :. j . 5 ' . )/1 . Day 2; basis D, which alleges that LERO delayed for 1 hour after determining . l ,A'/ - 4 g 'N, * *t , " ,* ' . , g,(n ' !
. * ' 1, a , . ,: g l ' '.Q M i.'1 that evacuees shoulti report to reception centers before advising the public to do so; basis E, which alleges that LERO was tardy in issuing advice to the public
, concerning road impediments; and basis F, which alleges that LERO did not
- 3. ;'1 y., ' , '4~. ,'l ..q 1. - . , e' .y M.',/ , b C,p / l'.
- fplj
'
- issue any Pans to residents of special facilities. We agree with Interveners that
/ .
-, , D-b : ,. .:
the elements embodied in 650.47(b)(10) are implicated by this contention, but
,n. -*- y[' , ,. , . ,? ,
..[,.] we disagree as to the other subsections cited. Rirther, we note that Appendix
- - - ?
.. E,1IV.D.3 is also implicated.
;5' ', - " d~
LILCO and Staff oppose bases A and B as being "without basis"in that they [ . '. , . . ..33. ' 3 . ' ,e 1< fail to allege a violation of any regulation. LILCO also asserts that they are
. ,, . , /% . A . .'- duplicative of Contention 5. Interveners believe that litigable factual disputes y.... f ', . .; y. - R' , l. ; . . ' exist." While these bases do not appear to overlap Contention 5, basis A does
' .T s.
,,....- , ' p: ,, - < - - -
, present the same controversy as basis 11.E, delay in issuing PARS, and is
~ # ,'
- governed by the same rationale, and basis B the same controversy as Contention
, ^... 6.A.3, which was rejected as alleging a trivial matter.
- 1. - , *
.' LILCO asserts that basis C raises the same issues as those presented by
- 7,2 - -
7 'q.! Contention 11.D. Interveners point out that this basis alleges a failure to issue aN"". '
-; . * .-..t plume EPZ PARS for those who did not evacuate, while Contention 11.D
,I . ,, */ ,{ pl' l ,
concerns ingestion EPZ PARS.88 While basis C does not specify which PARS
,1 * / . ; , ,* * , . ,;. ; ;,
- .f .e ',l . should have been issued, we will accept Interrenors' explanation and treat it in J, . , ,- , , ,' i ;
the same way as Contention 11.D. ;
'a, * ' ' s l,2 'I LILCO opposes basis D on the gro mds that it fails to tie the alleged failure
, .' / ' g. ' .-" '3 fl ]
]
to adequately advise evacuees to report to reception centers to a regu'atory , .; *i . , '
~, l .- ,j standard, it is contrary to the facts recited by FEMA, and it does not allege j l
, , .... a..x>..), ..'J. i facts that show that the public health and safety would have been threatened.
+
, , l".,' r
- 1:. , j, * > ,, , j " ,.. -,, ,' . 1 Interveners counter that the basis does allege a failure in a planning element l
*~ . . . ' ni. .. ,. . ' '. , ,... ,. J and that LILCO's opposition improperly raises factual issues.88 We agree with
. . V. . .. . , . ,, . ,
-. , . /. .
Interveners.
.>. p
,e * , .',- g q. , . . . f.f': i .. .v ::.
e -y *. "* g j' . ..
.- l % , e - . 4 .; p
,;. p.
- a,_., .
. , ' J*. *, , ,
- sok IllCo's Response at 51; stafr's Response at 64, sistf's Response so tJLeo's Etica at 13-14; 1rsarvenars' Reply at 15153.
,.-;;; ,' a
.- - , ; .,, st
,I t, ,;,/,*
.; .,e k l.!LCo's Rasponso st $1; !ntervenass' Raply st !5s-54.
32see IJLCo's Raspanse at $2 53; Innervenors' Reply at 15456
?s
, [ . 4
- '. e j l s
, '. 32 i
- s. 8 I
b -
m
,- ~,
~
; ~p
. ., 7 J ',-,
i'[
. = ;
.+ .
..,\
.- ~. , g .. v
. - . .. . - 9, D- ' 1
. ,s ( .;
)
. 3
,, r, *.,r
,s. f ". " . ; ,p .f., )
y ,. .m8... ,.v , i
. . g . + : '; ' 4~ .
v,'. ..y z ,n 4.-l.Y.m:,. , . . . , s. .pe ,%. :~,. , ~ } - i 7; . f. , ,.., c y.1.f, p . .;. - t?. ,;j LILCO opposes basis E on the grounds that it has no factual basis and does .
- g. not concern PARS. Interveners correctly point out that the basis is adequately )
- y,n,j.Z'y>l.'Ip'-',:[>.;J@9.;,;y,j WQ! "',:,i e, y; W c. g e supported with specific factual allegations and that it does allege a failure in the PAR concerning evacuation."
q J '.T[,'.N.' G.d'-;. .. gf ;;. y .,>..h
,%.Y.Q .(-l' .y b ,p*- )
y p .j;
.. , j ,/, f, ,,,[, [ i y .jQ. M]. ),C gN LILCO opposes basis F on the grounds that it alleges that LERO followed the plan in not broa&asting separate PARS for special facilities. Interveners' j'
*g f~,c?, 3
- N , .j;i..,l ,*, argument to the contrary amounts to an assertion that the plan should be
, *. Ily.( ';.- '
'., q. <. 7;;L *^ {.f[ ,. ,4'[,, d changed.*' This basis clearly raises a planning issue not appropnate for this j
. ". . {l l - ?, :. : , : ? O L c ?.. .-?, . .Q' ; Proceeding.
j.; .
. -/o ya .,: <>.N .
We find that Contentions 11.A.11.B,11.D and 12.C,11.E and 12.A,12.D. i * **., *l. l" jf. i and 12.E adequately sliege failures in planning elements. Once again, however, p p,t,' ', , p '.p+. .
; .. ~n interveners have failed to allege that a signi6 cant plan revision or reassessment
>4 {, . D. .. . j; .' [(/,1I .! *g}1j ,.
is necessary as a result of these failures. However, although they implicate
;, y, - - ,
.. ,. .'. s n " 1 different planning elements, many of these failures are duplicative of mauers s.y j,:[ l ;,. 1 ,'.f . ' ~.' :. , j admitted under Contention 6. Therefore it is necessary to considet whether it is
<. c , j ; .. . . . >. ,,q.j ..
appropriate to consolidate these failures with the latter on the assumption that
' ' ,
- 3l the former will not entail the expansion of the planning elements on which proof y , . ,
Y- 't is required. Because these failures are not independently admissible under the
. i . '. . .-
standards set out in ALAB-903, it would be inappropnale to comolidate them
,( ~ ',
- 5. - .- < p. e
.- f
- 7. . j a with admissible allegations if to do so would expand the scope of the heating
.f,i- , ,. ., e , g.1 subsentially. Hus, these alleged failures should not be adtniued if to do so
' . *. ; ' j would require LILCO to defend against matters that it had successfully opposed 9T .
, , , ., f o
";- ; at the contention stage. But where their consolidation with properly admitted matters does not require LILCO to mount a defense that is substantially different
'j!
u,
;. , .-(j or expanded from that which would be required by the admissible matters, we believe that the public interest weighs in favor of consolidation.
' % ], ;* * ;
, . . ,i, . . e J We have compared the above bases with the admitted portaons of Contention 6 and fmd that Contentions 11.A and 11.B. which concern an alleged delay in
,,', ' f , .- .. t . .,
', ' < +f 7 l
,j
; y., # ...p
. ,7. / " :,j issuing ingestion EPZ PARS and a failure to warn residents of the ingestion EPZ
.4.. , : (' "
i ; i, of the possibility that such might be necessary, respectively, properly may be consolidated with Contentions 6.A.4 and 6.A.5, which concern the same subjects.
,.,,',i T ', ? t* j
, , . f, - ,
,, ., ,.. 3 .- .' f ' Similarly, Contentions 11.D and 12.C, which both concern the issuance of PARS 4
.' Q , , , ( , - l l 7, . ~ , , ' '." *i l directed to residents who remained in zones that had been recommended to evacuate, may be consolidated with Contention 6.B3. And Contentions 11.E and j
' a f ..,' .. : . ; ": . .,.-
12.D may be consolidated with Contentions 6.B.4 and 6.B.2, respectively. The j
;, . ,1* 3, f. * '.,*..*,'",.,L,...*
- first set concerns an alleged delay in issuing a mandatory PAR for dairy animals, l
.s i. ,,
',..,..,.- and the second a delay in issuing appropriate recommendations concerning the j n . f X ., , f.*'4. ,
.e n' . . (' ,,.,. need to report to a recepdon center. Contention 12.E concerns delays in advising
- T.
.% ~ , ' . ' y .;
' the public concerning three traffic impedimenu. It may be consolidated with -
, g, ,.
, . 7 .; 4- ',. ,; ,'.;;c
.w
{ . *'*., '* l . , , - *
.'* *Y',',',* n see LILCo's Response at st; Imsrvenon' amply et 157.
.jU [ ' , * '. ' ,' i ( ,
"3*e 1Rro's Raspanse at 53;1rservenom' Reply at 157 58.
- '. (. f . . . * ;(, **
.,
- f, ,
c.. .. ,. k f
' ,t
,- a. " ,
.e -
s s. a.
' , ,1 - 4, ,
* ,,e.
- .o
, cs .
s.
,2
- y. .l[,:#.f.U;(ff)l'.;7f.%,f,'f,',b 3
h.S.'.:i f. '.;.,'f Contentions 6.B.7 and 6.B.10.85 Finally, there is no counterpart for Contention d
. .... ., i. ,,.;.g l . i . -i . 12.A in Contention 6; consequently it is not consolidated and is denied.
. ~. 4 7 .' . ;, ..o. , . . . . . v,...a,,. .
.... ... , . - . .. c ky,.?' ,fi S.' / ' #.V . . . ',',7 /
'a ' , , .- * CONTENTIONS 13-17: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS RELATING TO M;h'. f.y &,V ;. w,W : ,
, .'M x.;'I C i.Q, a IMPLEMENTATION
~, . '$ q '*'OFb,PROTECTIVE '.. . ACTIONS n;; 7 . ;. . i.e . . .: ': ,r.e .v.'
.s v 4
. . :y
- y. . w a., ..f: y ,. ;,.
. wi.3, y ,.
. v , ,1. -
Contention 13: Medical Services
'1.ft ,- , o (. *;. W Q:, , ; ,9< ..,f...;.
...j This contention alleges that the plan fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(b)(12)
S *,~, :\ ; in that the hospitals participating in the exercise did not properly handle u .Q ,- ,, ,
- ,[' (]7
. f 1 . .. ' '. V .3 ,' l ,. J. ,j
. ; , ': 9 ..;j contaminated injured individuals. It is supported by basis A, which alleges that the radiation safety officer (RSO) at Brunswick Hospital used improper
" '; , j '
f.g/ .6 .f,C
'f 7, ,J 3,,? techniques to monitor patients; basis B, which alleges that contamination control
- ~ . e -, J . ; .f ' .1 T,._,e
~ was inadequate; basis C, which alleges that LILCO failed to provide sufficient
. . . / * * " Di RSOs; basis D, which alleges that, no one having played the role, there was
. , y ';l "
i
. e ,a ; , .
- y. ,
y .' . . ,,, cf.i no demonstration of the ability to transport a contaminated injured individual; and basis E, which alleges that the ambulance driver who simulated transport of
., ..,- ' .5 such an individual did not know the proper entrance to the hospital, and hospital personnel were not present to receivc him.
o ' ,, .! ' . : ., ; ,' LILCO, relying on the FEMA Report, maintains that none of the problems
, y' , ,, ,j cited by these bases rise to the level of a fundamental flaw,8' and that Interveners
, /, ' , , c '
~ >;
have provided no basis to discredit the FEMA Report in this regard. Staff takes
, ; .. '. v .,/,...4 a similar position but would admit basis C. Interveners maintain that LILCO
; 7 .. .j A
may not properly rely on the FEMA Report in order to deny admission to the contention and that they are entitled to present evidence in an attempt to
, d Jf '
.6 substantiate their claims."
? yj *
(/.,, , s a
./ - ;.4-j We agree with LILCO that bases A, B, and E state matters that, if true, do not
.. ',. .c , *
, ,', .' f, .' /. . ' .i
, rise to the level of a fundamental flaw. Moreover, we do not need to consider
. j ., - ). -.f'. ' ';; ,
;'g, . ,1, j' ,.
d the FEMA Report in order to reach this conclusion. Basis C, however, states a matter that is litigable in that it alleges that the exercise revealed a failure with
;,, q . i o (,. ) ... . l respect to the planning element embodied in 6 50.47(b)(12)in that the plan does
~
$,.. .i not provide for sufficient RSOs.
. , c' ,
[ ..:, ; ' . ' , ,
.. .; i' Basis C is not related to a fundamental flaw found in LBP-88 2, and Inter.
. J..,.. ,a- <
- venors have provided no support for the allegation that basis C, if substantiated,
, .,,.,,.l. .- , . :i ', ., ' . . ;s ;.
. y
..>,1
-, , ..~' ... ..t '
. . *n
.e.s . . , ,
...?
, ',..?'.-
,' ,f * *
. 83
, '-._ . - . *.~
a .,' , .
' ' *[. Cesanuans 6.B.7 and 6.8.10 onut one or the impediments treated in Comention 12.E. We suspect, h
,. . *.* .. e ,.,,',",, , , .
f- that the proof that LJLCo would offer an the two that are included in Contenuan 6 will not be signifkam
*J
., *
- l.
- espanded by the inclusion of the third and therefore have consobdated it as well. t.fifo is free to sock relier
;*2 1 ' ,. . , ',,*,,,..J , * ' '
. ., f l #- (* .
,, fmm this ruling if this assumpaan is in enor.
** LIlfo maintains that basis D is in error. eiuns the FEMA Report at 98.
'? - [,.)* '.e....',,,i ' .'
' . -K*. .
a
, . * *\ \ * ,,
Usde tJ1Lo s Raspese at 53-55; statt s Response at ss 56; Interveners' Reply at 158-61. E, a
- a
,m q, -
34 i G
. d l
, i b
- v. . .. .,.. -
a - 4
,. . .~
,+ . . .
....-< n. ; a e .
o e u.~l,
. r. . , .
o . . , , t 4 4, -
, ,s i
- . o,
., _.. ,~ , , . . . ..;
. > . :- y
- z.-.:.i,[s.;.m;.lp,.sl'.'.:y].4
.?}
;Ql Z ,'.' % ,[.'s. T h. ['.;
, would rec,uire significant plan revisions." Consequently, this basis must be
[C ~ ' '* .h - I,, , W >; Q L. ~.h., M.g* . ., , , M 9 denied. Basis D raises a scope issue which is embodied in admiced Contention ll and is consolidated with that contention. L Cr.', y ., ; .g,q.. .d':,'.4.. . J.; c kf.,w - : g j
~.3 ;uc ..,..:-. ., ,y s . . . /s; : . ..,O , . : ._ ; .
cQ:<% ,' , C.a..: --( M.. ,. ( . . L. 6, , .,1 . 3 , Contention 14: Schosis
- 6. ej 4 ;3. .... - v-
.. . .s . . ,' ' g,,, This contendon alleges that the exercise revealed a fi.ilure in the essential
" .g. c{'" , . y .q', q , ,jr.4* *
,,.1 9:-:t N '. . ,, ,g; f * ._ . . , , .'E- planning element related to schools, citing 6 50.47(b)(10) and ALAB-900, supra,
;7: .* s' ,
". ,t
- j'. 7 'Ja.":.,j 28 NRC at 296 97. It is supported by bases A through H.
,q,".,
j'e~ '.-{l
'. ,y q . [ '" o j Basis A alleges that so. called " assignment packets," which the school bus
~; f. ..7 2
, ~ . , ;.; 4 drivers must have in order to carry out their assignments, were not avadable j
? *'?.R, .,, / ' ' ) ,*d ,.j at many school bus companies and bus yards, while basis G asserts that in
,9 N.. '. 7 some instances, buses were not available at tiu yards. LILCO opposes this
,7 - -
.. j, : 4+. 'g.f .
, 51fl 'W basis on the ground that, ss recited in LBP-88-24, supra. 28 NRC at 340,344, ff' ; 150% of required bus drivers are mobilized in order to ensure the evacuation of '
. ' ,*.'.;, ; *.. ,;N , f ..,,' ~i; c ' . C .)- '. '
,, schoolchildren in one wave. Thus, argues LILCO, if an assignment packet or
,1 / ' '* /
~
. bus was not available to a driver, it was because that driver was surplus to the 1..
".[ j j
'- M needs of the day. Staff opposes basis A on the ground that it fails to allege that
'- P ,'
't . "
'e a 'j a bus route was not run because ci the lack of an assignment packet, and basis 1
- . ' . ' . , <i- .
1 O on the ground that it does not cite a source of facts."- )
+
' t. " ,.
, . ' ' . . . ;;. , Interveners contradict LILCO's explanation of bases A and G. They point out )
f.: ' ' .
* ~
T t *... B. , 4 that Staff's assertion as to basis A is incorrect and that there is no requirement
~
-] ' "
for them to cite a " source of facts" for basis O." We agree with Interveners that
,,. ',d ' the parties' arpents raise factual issues unsuited for resolution now and that j r .
., ,- , - '- ' these allegation.s stata it failure of an essential planning element. !
'.,7 , . '
~,., . *
,. ,, ,
- j
, Basis B alleges that the fact that LILCO implemented protective acti ons for 1 J t children who aitand school outside of the EPZ, but reside within it, illustrates
" . *, '.*-" f.< .;L '.
, ,, f , *>. * ,. < ../ la , .
the need for planning on this subject. LILCO argues that Interveners have E, .
- l . ;. . , . ; .
, failed to show how the implementation of these unplanned protective actions in y
l ., '* ' % ;! . any way compromised the health and safety of the students, while Staff asserts ; t
, , , , '. G ', 2 . , . / ""( ' . that this is a planning issue. Interveners' reply appears to be that the fact that l
~".
".p ' ad hoc measures were taken demonstrates that planning is needed and thus a i
-. : 'l fundamental flaw exists."
..s . . .
... 4 .
l
- . . [ ' . '. u y...ys~ . . We denied Contention 1.C, which asserted that the plan's provisions for these i
, . l .e,? '. 1. . ." * * ,; s. .f.". . . .
. .'/,,
g- schoolchildren were not adequately tested, on the ground that it raises matters
,8 f, .
8 . ., i
., , - " .s..
,.',I',* * ' * .' * * .
"Indeed. thei- argurners in the amsedad corsarmaans in that overaB. the ==.=a=*===t shows that agrunesis reiranung
;-; ' , ; -, ..., ., ,,V'
**.* *.,, a.
of pesonnel is in.quuert h4arsover, k is hard to innagire that one could mount an effective argeners that she
*t .,f y *, * , , ' . * * * -
. * ,, . ,,,s addauan of personnel passesang perucusar skills inquired e agmficant - or revisimi so long as such i
. ' , . ; .;* /*
*, ,t .
el wese ressuebly evalable. 5 f, e ; *
, , ! . , De. -
see tJ1Co's Raspense at 55; staff's Respense at 6s.69. .; 4 y;q l. + .
"*.V*.'c,, "lauervanon' Reply at 162 44.175. '
[ , , ,. ,, ' , ; ,.{ .. .[ r. '.8 "see tJ140's Respesa et 58; staff's Raspanse et 64; Iniarvencis' Reply at 165-6&
# '., 8, J
.- e i *s as
+ i
- e. 4 t
r .2,,, %
, s ', ,
7...
, ~ .. .
a s, f -
..,. ..;p,. cs 2. ,-
n < .
, 9..
~ .
,, s 3,9
, .J- *
, i
- n. .. .;
~
N ~ s
., , . , . f .),'] .. . .
.. q
. . . ~
, . t that are outside the literal scope of the regulations. This basis must be denied f L ?/.'; . M ..';*. . v . '; << p "i for the same reason. Its allegations simply do not implicate a major planning -
"p 4.,'Up f ?/7.,.'; y p.,.,,,g?4
- element embodied in i 50.47(b)(l0).
?'f 'J'.7.j!.C '*.""../ ' ' ; ' ..]/ $
Basis C alleges that a significant number of bus drivers deviated from their C assigned routes out of the EPZ. LILCO believes that no fundamental flaw is
.R *,..T.O.i
- .k.Wl; .
,N.[ [ *
; f ' Dc..f i @ f,W.[ ?. af]
N~ n Wtraining. ,."M 3,@g.).l.$'f %.7, alleged because the deviations were few and easily corrected through additional Staff points out that there is no allegation . affected that the deviations
,e the public response. Interveners reply that LILCO improperly raises factual
.;Y f : Q i'9 4 ;iy *?; ( 4 i'.'. '. } Z. V"., j arguments and that Staff's response is not comprehensible." We fmd that this
'f.,*'y..~'J-f/,
'. '. [ ^ +" . . : > . -Q 4
, basis adequately alleges a failure of an essential planning element.
' * ; j , g. . ,j Basis D alleges numerous pmblems associated with the implementation of g,y.p ?;f,*; , :y,.;.
, g. ,.. ? ; ' ) (p ,j protective actions for the Rocky Point School District. LILCO raises numerous
, . 7 ' *. g, ~'f: l : E.3 objections to it many of which it: vite our attention to exercise documents that are y,'. .y j g , cd g, ,e a f ?. ,r zgU not properly before us at this stage of the proceeding. Interveners, needless to
J. f. ~. , . ,l * " '.t ' [. . 'i say, take issue with'these objections." We find that Interveners have adequately
.,'.m j~ ','." ...'# . , ,
. d alleged a failure in an essential planning element.
,' - . {. ', ,*
Basis E alleges that the exercise revealed that not 'all school buses are 1-4 ' equipped with two-way or AM/FM radios, anJ basis F that LILCO did not f..'.g demonstrate how schoolchildren at relocation centers would be cared for. LILCO O 3 r. 4
' . ,*, ;. '). objects that these bases raise planning issues, while Staff points out that there are
, f . . . , , , ,? .,,g..
f l c , . .. no such regulatory requirements. Interveners take issue with both assertions."
& 'r - . . . . ,
'; .. .p; } We agree with bcth LiLCO and Staff as to basis E. 'Ihe absence of radios
.m ....i certainly was known prior to the exercise. Moreover, we 6nd that these 7 T
',,; , allegations do not demonstrate a failure in an essential planning element. Basis
.y .-
r , F raises an inue that is within the scope of and is consolidated with admitted
^
g'i j .
- ? Contention 1.D, alleging that the exercise on.itted major portions of the plan n..*. *'
.e related to schools.
.. y f , ' .f. , c i. - ,".y{../., ' ' . Basis H alleges that t!:e maps provided to bus d.-ivers were inaccurate. LILCO
,y..,
- y b [ . "*- y ,. , ,
; points out that there is no allegation that the inaccuracies in any way interfered j'
- 1; with the drivers' response. Interveners regard this argument as raising factual
* ' ',. $ , .. t issues." LILCO is correct. While we may not consider the merits of the bases
},.p,q t,"
/ .
. [f ?j..
' ' . - - ,' e '
advanced by Interveners, Interveners nonetheless have an obligation to allege l- .,
. , facts that would demonstrate a failure in a planning element and that establish
*, ' ' . . ' .+ . ^i...y. . . > .
. a suf6cient foundation to warrant further inquiry?Ihey have not done so with
,. , ' , ' .. ;. ,. respect to this basis,
, ,7.
- n. . . s . . , .,
a,. .,. .
, ;. ., ,, ; , ?, .
,4,*.,,, j
[,*;,;.,,,.
,,,a ~#". ,
J. n see LJtro's Response at 59; kaff's Raspeias at 68; Leervanors' Reply at 1666s.
*r - M a 3ee Iltro's Respaian at 56 57,59; Intervismis' Reply W 16s-72, suff does not object to this basis. j
'(.
v ~ . ' ' -. . ] ",., ,* ,* * */* ,;.; , ,, e *
* ; ,, ,e *
,,. W see 1.ttCo's Respanes at 57 58; statr's Response at 68-69; interveners' Reply at 172 "4.
yl , ;' ., t..',,.
*. ',';;;...'.' g .
, t ,
v....
.la',*, ,.-' <
4 Msee tJtro's Raspans at 59 60; Statt appears to agree widiIJICO tsee siafr's Response at 69); tnierveners' gy at 175-77. At.49(0, anpre,2s NRC st 506.
. t 3 .*,.,c, r (* + ~
. ,. =, ,.
, g 80
..t.' .I , -
g e .w k
,,y
- m. . 3 .
u .
. ..n
,~,
!,y . , y .
't ' -
.- , <4 .
-3 ,. .'.,,s
.: . , . . ,'.e v. w .: -
. s~ .. ,y..
t 4
- e. ,. .
,L
, o 7< = ,
i s .,,v~.. . . a.,
+ . . .v. . : ,..a ._....,,f.;,,., .m......,
ev
. . ...)
+ -
,..~..
*.#,,r..m..**,,.... 3 p.-% i . .3;
,6,',,,.r "y,. .,,,. 7 4 ;;7. .,.' , t.y;,, M, ,. : >:? In summary, we find that Interveners have alleged failures in the relevant
%.j planning element with respect to the availability of bus . driver assignment if, gyp.5. 9,',4.A ~$'O,.f7' N .i;;A; ., packets, buses, and the propensity of drivers to deviate from their routes. Once
- n, .M .;'.'.. p':'f.y.q .
. ,a ... ,'*l,J .,
' J- .. ;;..(.,3 - , . ..l j again, Interveners have offered no basis for their position that these alleged' o.. . . .
failures require significant revision or reassessment of the plan. Nor does it seem
.q.? $9 C .j '.h, f l * .Q ~ ';,7.7'? , Sl . likely that these kinds of failures would require such action." Although there - ,
A
,f ,, . ..,. . t.i' , ? . ,
. t. . ;.i f,,;
.y .W. ' - , ,. id.-
'. s ,., 4( ..' ;;'.,,
! ,ii p... a;g was some demonstradon "of the organizational ab:lity and resources necessary to effect an orderly evacuation of the schools within the plume EPZ" in'the -
' ;. %{l j . g"..'.Jg'.7; .e, >
;*? ; ;,,f.?;s},3 {r;: .
. 1986 exercise, no contention survived to hearing which challenged the results q:,",...,.',..
# ..,' f.. ,. . ,'
of that demonstration." Dus there was no fundamental flaw found with respect c,. f;.",,6 y e. + , .4., < .. ,. .;. . ; ,
. ,g . . ; to these matters. In this situation, this contention must be denied.
;, 9.; %, ' . ' ..~* w ., . rf. ..e. t.ng.u 2-J. .. . .
j
.- .j 1,.. ;;g.y Contention 15: TrafBc Impediments !
P n,3 c
./,. 7 *, ... c.y j, a a ;.,
His contention alleges that LERO remams unable to adequalcly respond to
. ,,,4, ,g 7 ", ,- 4 c, *
-4* ,
- e. . 4 < . -. - ) . * .f; . ,
traf6c impediments. It is supported by three bases. Basis A asserts that it took 1 ' {
. ;. i hour and 15 minutes for road crews to respond to an overturned truck on Granny 1 Road. Basis B points to the misdirection of traffic by a Traf6c Guide and alleges 3
j.. 1,,.. ..
'"3 that LERO remains unable to adequately reroe. traffic around impediments, ,
m '>,. '
. ', 4 ,
%. - and basis C raises the delays in advising the public of the impediments alleged 4 }> o in Contention 6. LILCO asserts that the first two bases raise only minor, J
. 3l } .~ ? . 4 j.: *
, ,^
; ad hoc problems aru that the third should be considered under Contention 6.
Staff agrees. Interveners disagree." We agree with LILCO and Staff thatyhe
.J lj
'.4" ...
allegadons of bases A and D represent minor, ad hoc problems and do not - 1
~'.
.. I
,f./.- ,.'
~
. D ~. ' ! demonstrate a failure in a planning element. Basis C will be considered under W,..,
,,.. .c..~
j , l Contention 6. Contention 15 is denied.
- i. . .... . .-
).
y ~, ..., L,', * .', . ., . .* ',$.- ' ' . ;'v f.* ...; *I Contention 16: Access Control -
. . ; ~ , ..,
His contention alleges that LILCO's plan makes inadequate provision for - [,'.',. ' ' . k , .j.
,' a3, ' ' <(,'
access control and that, as a result, access control over evt::uated areas was j
.?- '. , , . j
.; ' not established on a timely basis, apparently was not in place to proicct that
' +l c ,,
, . ;. : ..;y !
P. , ' . .
'.- t
,, portion of the population that were " unsheltered" on Day 2, and LERO per:;onnel
; " . '/ . , - displayed inadequate knowledge of whom should be allowed access. It is not
.. ... . a . .s '* . . .
i . / , ,' ;, -, *;, ,,f,g('j
. supported by spect factual allegations. Essentially, the parties' arguments
* :. .t.-'. . . .' . , . . , . . . - -* . ? .:
.g..
ij ,
.e . ,- . * - . - . ..
y
' 'y.
*.,.,.,., ...+ . ;f
, /* "However, as discussed iWhs, we believe the impissatums rar the timinins psosam nr these railwu is another -
3 't.. ,
.**T*,;'.,,**d inauer, j l'; *i', '
,, , j >*
,..
- 4 .* J".
M see !.BP 57 31 apre. 26 NRC at 495-96; 12P.88.2. apre However, our daarmination that tre scope or that desnanstratian was inadapate was amrmed, see A1.AB-900. myre. 28 NRC at 296-97.
.* J*..' 3 , , '
.. ( , ,. , . .
,,M, .,
* ',,,/r.*.'
, ,j,. "see IJiro's Response at 6462; staft's Response at 70. Reply in tJiro's Motion to Dismiss at 14; I"vanase' Reply at 177-81.
j f, . ,. . * ; [ * . ,,, # a , ,* [ .4
- , - a.. . . .
s
.. j I
k ,
~
l . i , e
3, ,
.'; .',-' ,( . ,s ,
c' .. ,
". _ , , s .,
. 3 ,
g . \, . s 4 1,
,u.
g _.
., c ..
.>. .s. x .p O,- ' VI .g , }; < < l ; ' b .< ', ". $. . .i (I(kfl.[.] .lY;fx';I I [ .).hE h;). '[ 'j focus on whether this contention is too vague to be admitted.'" We agree with
- r < ' .[ . ..,. .' ..P.' d. ,.*. .. a...,.,
i LILCO and Staff that it is. The contention simply provides no factual allegations y ~ . . .
- (r.7m. ,; .. ,7., r . . s ' '..* [: that would permit us to determine whether a failure in a planning element may *k* !.g.;*?). Pf? , J have occurred that would warrant further inquiry. Derefore, it is denied.
, m.i,'f ,L f.,l('* ,',.'. , 3, 9 ,c. ,, .-
. s e. 7 ...e .
;u ,.);L , J. :. . ; . , * . ) ,, ; d ,%.; . s ',
x;oy, , Contention 17: Monitoring and Decontamination of Public and
?.5%#;if:, W, e g e. ,? b .M,i * "I; ; ,
. ;. 3; ' { 7. ";H ; f*, y * ; q '.j;.. . , ' '.*j Emergency Workers
+ . . . . ..
- p. 7 y {.. .. ..] ]. . , ~ , R ., . . ',:
This contention alleges a failure with respect to the ability to provide timely
.- -( ' . ,
"...A.. .
3, ,3 ' '" ,' ! and effective monitoing and decontamination for the public and emergency
' ,,* ' M ,, , '
f ,, lj , . '.I workers which is required by 150,47(b)(10). It is supported by two bases.
'.., .., n ..4,, zl 4 p.. . < U"ft '
4l ? ,: ' ' , . . E. .i Basis A alleges that LILCO failed to properly advise the public to report to
'.1 ) ?la reception centers for monitoring and possible decontamination. Both LILCO
,g, J.
,,[' t * .,':' ,."o p'. *.',
;* * .; . y c" .2 ' ., '.
> e1
],f,,
j f ,7, i and Staff point out that this basis is redundant of Contention 6.B.2. Interveners acknowledge that fact but argue that the same facts may support more than
~.'. . ; one contention. " Contention 6.B.2 has been admitted. He facts alleged
, '.. C ]
in the two bases att not materially different, acd the legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts, if they are substantiated, does not differ between the
,~
4 i.i 5
.', 'f. ~ ' , g
. * '; two contentions. Both allege a failure in the planning element embodied in
,..' - I 50.47(b)(6), while Contention 17 concerns i 50.47(bX10). This basis does not
, ,p.,.;. n., ,
, , . . ? . "g . 1 . support this contention; consequently there is no reason to separately admit it.
ny, ,, .. '. , ; -
. : .. - ' . Basis B provides four examples in which LERO personnel allegedly followed r
q, + - -
. ." " 1 incorrect monitoring and decontamination procedures. These focus on the
-~>< '
- - ;- Roslyn, Hicksville, and Bellmore reception centers, and on the Emergency
. . . 7,'t d Worker Decontamination Facility (EWDF) LILCO and Staff argue that they vi i . ,I ,
.- .'....',,-j ,
present only isolated instances which, either singly or in combination, do not
-n$~., -
,N -
} , ,, ", ] amount to a fundamental flaw. Interveners recognize that, while singly these
. , ' ' *- f ,. .) , ,g / , . . ,l . . .,. e . l examples do not amount to a fun <!amental flaw, together they demonstrate a
/ *J. . 7 ,. . , . . - [. . ' m ,. 3 . ,. y pervasive problem that does reach that hvel.5" While we agree with Interveners v.* *
, / '. , that a suf6cient number of the type of problems alleged in this contention could
,s . .'
,/ i demonstrate that a failure ht.s occurrr.d with respect to this planning element,
~ ,/ /
, , , . . .,'d* we do not believe that the allegations of basis B reach that level.- They are
* *; i essentally isolated and unrelated instances.which do not show a pervasive
' .. 3
.?
pattecn. Contention 17 is denied.
<,.3,..., . , , . ' , . ./- . .
r.
* * <. * ,r , ' . ' .; . *' . -
. '**. *. t .,
. .o.. . , .
1 .i . .
- j ^ . . , :l. l -
'[,'
. $ / , .. ', I , ... .' ' ,* ! ,' [ "
^
1#s,e tsLCo's Rupeias at 62-63; Siafr's Response at 71; iniervenars' Reply at 13184.
<,'..
- Im see illCo's Repanse at 63; sisfr's Raspese at 72-73,lararvenars' Reply at 124 86,
,.l l#s44 tlLCo's Repanas at 64; staf"s Response at 73;1ntervenms' Reply at lifL87.
, .- l , ' .
- f * ,'.
f, , . . -'.,- . * ' ' ' ' ,~ , s n.1 , ,
+ , ,
e e t
.v.-
w"- . r 9: .
- w. *
* ^Z g
- 4
~%
4, ,
+.
. .)-
m
'f 9 6-y , r c' ,,
j
. 1
.e ,
, , ,. . n
*' ;* . + <? J'( . ..* ,
,. ..a. ,
. . . v. . .%,. j ,. ,4 -
,4 . , .
. ,,.. , f i . 5. , , , , . , a* : ;,
# ; g N.' ..*s -
,, *f
, '. ,,.3. .a ,t i. .,. , . . . ' * . *,.9.',,*
-eg. ' # ye
. , , I s,5, t /,f ,.f;j,. ', ,- ,, /{ .4 r. ,* ' f .,l;,
. -. i ':s F M ... g CONTENTIONS 18-19: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS RELATED TO COMMUNICATIONS g',,
.: 7. ,.%; w',. :.m: . ' , -Ml."1 ,.,.[.+ ','.,,.,; la. t ',{,Q..: . . . y
- t. .. ..-~... ..
. . . ... . . , , x-.q Contention 18: Equipment and Reception Failures
'.t L ., 7- m;,. Q; . ,,,,
~. J.:".,y .. $ Z 'c <.j,:.' p; 1
- %.,$.M,':t , .
Dis contenten alleges that, pursuant to $ 50.47(b)(6), LILCO has installed O : )Y' d ,;f . .'. q % .!r. [ , G ' P Y4 / pQa communications
'; f.',b system that was shown by the exercise to be unreliable. It is
' .;S , '"."'j.. :.0,- + '
,;,',...,','d supported by bases A through 0. Basis A, which asserts that some radios failed '
, 'f J, .** *; .;/ c".- ,
i l,{ ' - f (,; f *
,' . and were replaced, does not allege a failure with respect to this planning element.
Bases C and D, which rely on the FEMA Report in alleging that inadequate ,. a C 'f, f . -, , ;.
,, o
",V, % ,*..: **
K D. ' g, y ,., . ; 1. radio coverage hindered communications with respect to two traffic impediments, Q. quote that report out of context and hence do not provide any reason to inquire
.. g ,, . O o i . f .#,/ r ' ) /j!
- J[
- 6 . , ' . .
further. Basis F repeats allegations concerning the lack of radios on school buses, which were denied in connection with Contention 14. Bases B, E, and G . +f; ; *y. , , .l . , .;. - f 9. ,-
*' l f.ff"$ . ,.
' concem the ac'equacy of the communications system itself and present different considerations. LILCO argues that these bases are inadmissible by contradicting
~'
.f ' '4 . - l 1.
them on the merits. Staff asserts that all of the bases taken together do not allege .
,, ; . ^. ' , - .'
.' ' a iendamental flaw, and that basis O is too vague.28 Interveners defend these
,?- ,~>x f -
bases.2* We may not properly consider LILCO's arguments at this stage of the T O l, ' *' proceeding,' and we believe that these bases do allege a failure with respect to
.,,,' ._1 g.,' . >
;d : - this planning element which requires further inquiry.
s) f
,.}
/*
De failure alleged in these bases does not correspond to a fundamental flaw
found in LBP-88 2. Derefore, we must consider whether Interveners have '
.. [ " l j,
. provided a factual basis for their argument that significant plan revisions may
,O be necessary. In contrast with the other instances in which this consideration-
. ,* /,- . ,,./ 7(* ' has arisen thus far, bases B, E, and O themselves indicate that, should they 7, . . ' j
.' s
- i be substantiated, a significant reassessment of the communications methods and
, . ' '.. . .'..;.'.,".,','?...
,* ! resources provided by the plan will be necessary if reliable communications are
, - i/,j, ', ,. - ,<; ,- . . . ' ' '..,- .
. to be provided.25
..e - ,
..a. .
. ..g :
.',s
,'e..
- Contention 19: Failure to Communicate Information
.y.
j
..A
'J' Dis contention alleges that the exercise demonstrated that LERO is " unable 9 to obtain, identify, process,' communicate, and transmit essential information
[ * ,. ,,,* , j ' , j 'j ... ?t , . ' l,
}' . .. and data effectively, accurately and appropriately, and on a timely basis. . .',"
y..g
....e, S, . .
> ;e '../..,'..~. .
~.
' , ' *I .
* .,'*Yl .]*..,.,. ' ' 103 gg,gg.s a 6 m b sufm to be M A M's em Ww h h
/
; ,, s J
.. - ., . *' understands the irnpart of dus baas.
J,.' * $.3 .,, ,',[.,' - k '.'; 7f,'f.i g.
' 3881.RJCo's Raspanas at 64-66; str .r's Response at 74, Interveners' Reply at 187-91
- This appears to be solargely because these bases concern a hardware problern. as opposed to en crganintional
*
- P'obiern where speciAc rurneibes are nas necessarily otwiaus.
- f. ( , *
.- ';f ' ,
4 , r ** .
. 4,.
a 0 b h e
-_.__.m________.___- _ _ _ - . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _
- y. - n .
,n. .
- .m . , ,-4 6 ,
~.
+ . . a ,
.,, v. >
9 , _ .. : a . .. i / .V - .
-.w
. ~-
,~ ,
. y2 u, , ..
. . ,g >
'. +.-"; . .. ,, a '
,w s. ;'. q
.. .t." ,. ...
. m ,,y . . ,, ,pe ,,
,,t e:
s
*.g..
.. ., s . e * . p. s. . 3
,w ,..e. 4
, d' *9 .e,.,.,*f...,.,,,,,...,m..<
- r. . . : ,;,r, ,;v 3, w- m .
..3
' 'p' .
," v, v. ; , , JJ . "' > a , ./ . ,, " . s . thus demonstrating a failure with respect to the planning element embodied in .
. . ., ., . . ' ; i,,:
** 5 50.47(bX6). It is supported by 6ve bases which, to a very large extent, rely '
M. V ' ./ e' l..I'f d 3 i
;h. (' ';;[?;@.' , .,/ f ,f ".,*,p.,$ ';>,,i;,' 'V59 t
f on the allegations of other contentions for their support. f,:, p7;. ;i t . .; % Q,,g " 9. J. "' ' LILCO opposes bases A and E, which allege. inadequate briefings and QU., s U if4-]". - c. . * ()communications c ;, . / /b,associated ,],with Staging Areas and inadequate guiG ac and , Q h ;;.~'i..'.';. m Ef..li a,i
- G " .'E." maps issued to some emergency workers, respectively, on the ground u at they are too vague and lack the seriousness of a fundamental flaw. Staff opposes Qc.G 4 Pf f' 'ty., Jf ,.j ',l s . i; y.},,. basis E, but not basis A, on the ground that it is too vague. LILCO opposes -
. Jj ,.1 $g,, . '. 4
%' ', ; ' *f
/' c> , c yy. "; .f
..,i!.,, bases C and D, which allege communications problems in the ENC
- and EOC,
,,r..cf '
" p y ~,7 ,Vg respectively, on the ground that they are redundant of other contentions. It
. ';j.)f *i-b . J, .1 L 4.. .
-
- J. ) . f <+. 3 v ' opposes basis B, which alleges comrnunications problems between the EOC and y.j jf~ Q,"_,f.'M".d}
Ci ENC, on the ground that it is not supported by any of the contentions that it ri.tes. Staff ooposes bases B, C, and D on the ground that there is no nexus between y.c.,i, 4 ,,- 4* ^ ,, ;r , - y *.7*c., y : the factual bases of the contentions.to which they refer and their allegations. i.'.'.* . ' . . a, 'y
. ; .' . a '
Interveners assert that the allegations do demonstrate a fundamental 6aw and l [;',r ./.h, '
,'..~
, , ' ' , , , ,, *cc4
+
4 , ' * ]~ . . *, .; ' that they may rely on the same facts to support more than one contention." 4
, , . , ' 5; o - *
, y. ,: . We 6nd that basis A is too vague in all particulars except its reference to
,.j
. . i < "'
- the failure to advise the EOC of the lack of assignment ' packets for s:hool V ,' '
bus drivers. Although basis B cites Contentions 5 9 for its support. a quick
/, - . f .e b J (,,Q ,. pF 1,p . ., , ~ >' .a y' , ' ',* , ', * '
- review of the bases of those contentions reveals only one relevant isolated i , . .- , . s - { '
.' , l D- allegation. Because' basis C and the relevant portions of Contentions 6 9 on
;.' .4
.,; c, .. . ; which it relies both allege failures with respect to 9 50.47(b)(6), this basis
.** 9 ,_: adds nothing new. Basis D, however, concerning LILCO's alleged inability to communicate with the affected governments, does implicate different planning
, , .N l
'N ..
elements than Contention 4, which does provide factual support. Therefore it
.,.'M ., s , . (. '<*'
'c se, , .
. l c.; ?; ,
adequately alleges a failure with respect to i 50.47(b)(6). We agree with LILCO
; ,. . '.. '. .l and Staff that basis E is too vague. - .. /. . *j .... ...
Thus only basis D provides reason for further inquiry. However, Interveners
, 'f* j . . , r.' ., ,".'.' .c
...f:.,.;l,f,;-]
., - - . ,f ,
have not alleged facts that would indicate that the alleged failure would require
;,c.( '
" -, ..g 7 significant plan revisions. Thus this basis can be admitted only if it is suf6ciently
.y.
. ,' c - 'M' .
. .ee related to a flaw found in LBP-88-2 to justify the inference that such is indeed W,.",,
s*,. ' . ; .. ,
...;. the case.
in LBP 88-2, we found flaws related to communications in four sp/:ific areas,
,"*,,{
..g..
only one of which was related to the EOC.* That area concerned the failure
'y ,'/'.9*~,,,-
7',, ;' of the Evacuation Route Coordinator to inform his superiors and coworkers
, y. t
; E, ", .
.c - .r-(,->[..U of traffic impediments. It seems obvious that any plan revisions that would
,e;'-*, * *
. , . .s.; -
have been occasioned by that failure are quite different from those that would y *.. * ,
,,/... . . .* . . . , ,
j V * ' * .' y ,. 3
.'.,,,?,,,^',p.,'.s-1 Droblems concerning the prtmsson of timely advice to the media concerning the stanis of the emergency will
, */ ;, ' * ' * . . ; D -
**'..,*.;,**.y,,
..'i-
. be ecn.idend under Corsentians 7.E and 7.F.
y,*,'
', /- -* f. W3se taco's Rampansa et 67 69; starr's Respones at 76 77; interwenors' Reply at 192 97.
n *
-+f ;* . .. ,
. , J ,[q
*s ts?.ss.2 :7 mtc si 213.
4 r
. %,' . '. J e
s ' e
. r e
a.
. _ . _ . . _ m.__.-..___m
~
~ .
,)
. ;; . .- .,. 3 >
, j
'l
.c
~
+
s
. ,.. . . w -,. . ..
~
. . .. . & t. , J
, - 5 .
se - t
. i l
.,.,.- t
.,m , .
,. - . ?, ~ .
, .s e g.- a = . . , . .c,,
. . m l. ,, .,,. . o . ..
@.lp.','y'T].'y.'<. c, f' ;;'.. ,.:.[r.,;; M;, g. .+.
' i
.3 t
~
- c. ....Nf ', ". be occasioned by the failure alleged in basis D. We find that basis D is not
. "' ' $.' y , ,.i.?,}; ( ),,$. , ;;.Q.y y,s . sufficiently related to justify its admittance.
. y. ; ,'.,.-.4 3 .,. t:m. .. . .
.4., -
>, , ~ . . . . . . . .n
..'.q,+-m t
*W.
i , .r . 2 3.. ..
- '- '.j CONTENTION 20: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN LILCO'S X;:,.w .7. .w.ry.s . . i ,7. . 4q. 4, ej! ; .J 7,. . i . 'r7 . . 7: ,' s .;f;1
,4 t.
TRAINING PROGRAM 2, % > w:;; :. .. :.,L ,:,*, , p . .'. y .* . ; ! .'. 7: ::, A,.f *";,1 6 ,n* * ': ' i, .j ,. .J ,,'. dj
'Ihis contention alleges that the exercise revealed a failure with rest.ect to 10
'[. }'g .y. ..j 4 C.F.R. Il 50.47(b)(14) and (b)(15) in that it demonstrated that LILCO's training .
G . , jl%7;.)', .. . ' ., j;j .(j ]p l' y..~ { . Jy] . \ g..']u.
;. .. program has not been effective. It points out that in LBP-88-2, supra, we found 9 -
, - that the 1986 exercise revealed a fundamental Saw in the training pregram.
Interveners assert that virtually every error made by a LEkO player re3ects - i j [ .,' , '
. " 1, m . ,, , . ' '
- ). ,
* ! -. , .., e*
, i-ya "f "j..j sdversely on the training program. The contention is supported by basca A gg.
]* .y ,
- 3. ,.1. 6 -r(;g ; >l through I which refer generally to other contentions and to speci6c portions of the FEMA Report for their factual statements.
. [' * ( . , ~. . 3 *..,
.. 1e,.
0
'.y .' '~ . " .
LILCO mounts an attack on the admissibility of a training contentira in this ; pt. , .. . ,, ," " " y.t *; ...- . proceeding as a general proposition. LILCO nnds support for its position in 1 M. ' .1 LBP-88 2, which pointed out that, following the 1986 exercise, FEMA found a
., ; ,l -
. ( -(, ~
g
- e
'j significant number of training problems and did not find that the plan could be -
U ,. , S(. ' ' ' , '
.. , . satisfactorily impleinented with the training program then in effect. LILCO also f.
.*if, T ,..c.,_
.'. .,, ' .7 .
- 1. , . /. relies on LBP-88-2's conclusion that, because of the fundamental flaws found in the training program, a Snding of reasonable assurance would have to await 8
i y.; ,
- s# ,<. ~ c * - - >
.. ....' a demonstration in another FEMA graded exercise that these flaws had been
~
* +
. ,- . 'j corrected. Pointing to the FEMA Report. LILCO asserts that this condition has r ,
, , now been met and, consequently, Contention 20 must be denied in its entirety.2"
/,E ,
, P, ,
.. ..,1 LILCO's position overlooks the fact that Interveners have clearly alleged L..', .
.i,. -
,f,, -
, :'. a failure in the training program required by 18 50.47(b)(14) and (b)(15), and l: . . ; . ,,f . ' ., , *. . ,, - , [ .' '. .' j that they are clearly entitled to challenge FEMA's conclusions. Consequently, g.., i ;j
," ' f ,, -
,1
- J ..,...*',.c.
.. . LILCO's position must be rejected.
Staff takes a different position. It also cites LBP-88 2, but for the propo- j
,_ j +
t -
,,ea ,? " sition that the standard to be followed in evaluating the training program is , , . *f ',', ,
7* , * whether a systemic problem or pattern of defects has been shown in LERO's f . ;, .
,.~,. . . ,.
, . *; performance."' Pointing to the fact that Interveners have not provided specinc' l
'.,.7 ~'
.' factual allegations in the bases to this contention, but rather have generally ref-g *. l'.. I'. ', . 1 : . ", * . ,, , * " / * . l .
'. x s .- ,
,, '/.,
crenced groups of contentions, Staff argues that Interveners have failed to allege
.l-
' f ,. ' j a systemic problem or pattern of defects and have failed to satisfy the basis and spec!6 city requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.5"
'....4. * * :.
D 7.,;,,,. . . " . . . . . - "
~
*4
, , . , , . . . .j g., ' . , . *f ' ;^.,
, , ' , ( , , ,h ', .. ' 1 **
*[
l# ee5 tJtro's Raspanse at 69 72. cing 1.BP-St.2. 27 NRC at 174,212.
' * ' *
- H0 lj . . * *;, . .. , * . ' . .c.l \ . ' ,
3ee L.BP.88 2. 27 NRC at 177.
',q 7,., ,
,.f 11Ig,, $g gr.s Respemas at 79-80.
4 y . ,s, -
.4 i
. k,, #
. u. i e s t - ,
4 41 s. t i i f
+ . .
p. _ X. . .
,. n ,
* * , .~~
;g d.
a -
- s. . .. . ., ~
, . . . . .s c , ,
- ... , .a. . . . . /.- - ." . w .1 '
J. q
$ . , , Nr./7. :' . . .. .,.
i '. ,'
. , Aa. e . %
t*: ,8 . qQ.,% *qf..e<:n,L..U ; }'.^ :Q ~..v s *'.' l., ';y. '. "M
. J
%y;,. 7'f f
- -E% ,
l.;,*' ;. '.' ]. ,f j ' 'd Staff's argument is correct. The very general references provided by the bases y
- i'. to tais contention are insufficient to aBege a pervasive or systemic problem or Q
% Q.T. ~~)],$,((*.y '.
- h' ': 'J ;[,F .
y.Yi.[(-7 ' ' * 'i/.. ,? ', 3 J to meet the basis and specificity requirements."2 For example, basis B, which
. QV JM ;, I 7 '; 97 #
c3s ' 'a alleges that the training program has not prepared LERO personnel to adequately S:c.;p;/ .M ;;.i.M. 4 ,3 ~. " respond to unanticipated and unrehearsed events, states: " Exercise actions and ).*. lf,.f ' **,* .j 'y'; ',' events which support this contention subpart are described in Contentions 4- ". ..j;p,. V@iC - @%f ]N. .8,1415." dl,s .a contentions cover sixty-three pages in Intetvenors'
" - - The referenced u,,,
" ,i . ,
- H, . f *;",%, ^ amended statement of c' ontentions and deal with such diverse topics as access y y , g 7. - - , .' . ., . < - j I r. 7 ".'./ ,.
I s ' 7'. [ ,' . 6 /9 -
.'. l l ,, ,; 4 control, rumor control, EBS messages, and monitoring and decontamination.
This is the quintessential example of a basis for a contention that fails to 1 y .: , j &, ? s .. d '-) s.B ' - ]. j C f ;, T, - adequately inform the board and the parties of its subject matter. '. 'A . : ,c' ,.* 1.; r,, a '?. '* s c'7, Staff overlooks the fact that, in addition to the general references, interveners y, , ,Q'
> l<
, j.n. ; ,; Q-
. have also provided references to specific portions of the FEMA Report. We -
have reviewed these and the performance contentions that we have admiued, f! /. . f, , s, . . ' .
;4 )
, f a I .'.* $ p , " l * , ~ . . ,
- 0 .- ,
.I as well as.those that we have not admitted solely because they did not provide '
.t
.; any factual basis on which to conclude that significant plan changes might be
? ,j j..t6 '
. ,; . a '? i required to correct them. Together these are adequate to permit us to review
,' ~'f
~ l . ,. l~ , I the bases in order to determine whether a systemic problem or pattern of defects
. ;. ( y. :] 3, J. ,
~~-
,[ *- { is revealed which implicates the training program.
A J, . . .# , . . l- . c. , Basis A alleges that the training program has not prepared LERO personnel i i,..l, , 4
, ~
l . /
- j! .
to interact with the governments in a timely and effective manner. No specific i
', 5FO 5 .i? .
f,'...l facts are cited. Contentions 4.A,4.B. 4.C.l-4.C.3,4.C.6,4.C.8,4.C.9,4.D. 4.0, { i>" .
.l and 19.D were all found to adequately allege a failure in the planning element related to interaction with the governments, but were excluded because they did
]j
% ,. ?
y , .
,, ,. ., .*4
! -q- . , ( '
. i not provide a factual basis for the proposition that significant plan changes were . J e '" ~ .;. ", 'i
*
- I
, , ,, e, .
. ,q . .
, requked as a resull 'They also adequately allege that the training program has
,' m * ', i' / . f .'. ',.1 .d failed in this respect.
- g. / ., *..
Basis B is denied for the reasons given above.
*,;.,,,j.,.,,.y. . ;,. . ,, -. t*cy.;..* "l
. Basis C alleges that the training program has not successfully taught LERO
. _ , ., * ;,. f ,.' ..,.- personnel the terms of and the necessity to follow the plan. It cites sixteen 1 T ;. }. ,, .
. y, . .'4','<* ARCAs. These all concern school or general. population bus drivers with {
N ',, ,
..a[, . " , . ' '
, . . . .,/ . the exception that two ambulette crews, an EOC communicator, route spotter, I traffic guide, radiation monitor, and Radiation Safety Officer each received one
.. .. ... . 9 7. *.;. .. . l .. , i
,.l...
r ARCA."2 Additionally, Contention 5.D which asserts that route-alert drivers p ,. , .
, f . #c ,
7.,f.,.....,'.., , could not always identify the homes of the deaf whom they were to alert, raises
, .. l ,c > , 7ll *g,
, 4 similar problem. While the ARCAs pertaining to the EOC communicator,
. . 'r' raaetion monitor, and Radiation Safety Officer, appear to be isolated events,
_, . . 7: * . u3.,' ',f ; *.- '
' .. o.
p,.,,
., ,. ,. ,".. ; .J. . 'e. . . . ; ; ..;..,o 4 . , l ', N
..i' .
e,
.,,, . U2 interveners' argurrent that staff is in reality saaddng the meriu of die conuntica is clearly inconect, see 9,,.l ,.*..,i*' . Interveners' Reply st :0243.
- l. y; -
.j lt3 1t is interesung that one of the fundamental taws found in the treamns program in t.SP.88 2 concerned the *!. .7
- j*'
'*r ;/ * . ' '
4 basic knowledge of traffic guides and bus dnvers.
, e." .,
- s. . . . ., . 7 l
l e r e e
m s .
,e
, . . n. .
.^ -
i .) , r: m. .
, 2
~ . ,
, .. s ;,
..... .f..
.. . , . . a. w. .
l
, 4 g
+
- j
. av
. e .
I e
. . ,. 2 ,
,. 4, >,: n. ; ' . . , . .
a g ... .
- w. .,:;";V.5.. .
u .. . v i., .y , ., : US G:uZ,,d.d.',l.4Id[..,,;Y.!j3,f'l.f<d . :l the remainder may, if substantiated, indicate a systemic problem or pattern
;. p ,2*Jf.U']< , *~ f of defects with respect to the category of workers represented by bus drivers, J .h'* *dN 3 4ll. C 't. . ,f . .1 . ambulette crews, route s -4:ers, and traffic guides. nus, they allege a failure -
f% MAN'.*. . .';', ?;@,J4j'I'.Q; 4..i ,l./ 'f * , M.*p 's lBasis D alleges that the training program has failed to teach LERO personnel i with respect to this aspect of the trrining program.
< jb, , ,i S;;. 7]',hFQ.4 lC4';;,;.j to communicate adequately' among themselves and with the public. It cites three .
ARCAs, two of which appear to be uolated instances of inadequate internal p,? j.t >iY ., ,j i;'?.., % g.", 2 Eh Q* c,.' ; '.f "...b , .') communications, ne third concerns insecurate information in EBS messages
'. ', < * - ,l '..1 4 7 His, when coupled with the contmtions we have admitted concerning 7[.k,, 7 ' n , ,%'
, y .; i <':.' t ,-' -
.'. n
,.: i
- il'*j ,,),](, } 7.] .'. 1 communications with the public,"* could demonstrate a systemic problem, and thus alleges a failure in this aspect of the tr.sining program.
[,., t .i]. 4M ,. . g . ,- ; D;. yy 1 ',: . Basis E alleges that the training program has failed to teach LERO personnel d.' , . / ~ " ';: . ' .. ; f.N'..". M . to exercise good judgment and use common s(nse. It cites three ARCAs which
' . n f. .' d'E .e..j;. . ; Q,'.3,, .t e o n '. ; ;C' concern three unrelated events and thus does not adequately allege a failure with A
t.'.,4 .a- - respect to this aspect of the training program. 9,,,7,.q1] ', / v. .;. - - -* _ , 1 Basis E alleges that the training program has failed to teach LERO personnel
- n. . ~ . . ;, . . ,
,y -
to detal with the media. It cites Contentions 6 and 7 as its support, the admitted
,7. '
. .f .j e portions of which have been accepted under basis D. Consequently, basis F is
. , . ~, ,,, consolidated with basis D."8
. , , . . .. ., .y .
.i, y" . '
.I Basis G alleges that the training program is insuf5cient in the areas of.
j [> ' , , > .'3' L '
.' ,,v, ,.
I dosimetry, exposure control, potassium iodide (KI), and radiation terminology. a
, '- l ( n : [ lt recognizes that a similar contention concerning the 1986 exercise was not
, , i, #,,,
- l .. . i successful,"' and cites ten ARCAs as its support. With the exception of the last
,j
... . , ARCA cited, these all raise the question whether a systemic training problem
. + -
, ,',,,,.-1
, exists, particularly with regard to KI. nus this basis adequately alleges a failure
; ;,, ;/1 *
.i in this aspect of the training program.
a
*f ,
A.
- c.~ .
1 Basis H relies solely on general citations to the contentions and is denied.
,..f ' ,V . .
* ~
[.. ' ,i ,1 Basis I alleges that those LERO personnel who participated in the exercise
'. . v,' . f*,, .f , .'. ' '% ,.(
- , ,,1 ; [ g ,; *i , demonstrated that they lacked the training to implement the plan. His is too
,f 3
. . , ;; q - a ;q.;' ^
general an allegation to be litigated and is denied. ( ., We find that bases A, relating to interaction with the governments, C, relating s .-
'<,* - M ;,g, .i , to the training cf bus drivers, ambulette crews, route spotters, and traffic guides
. ,, i.
. In the plan's procedures, D, re' sting to communications with the public, and O, V. . . . ,
- ' i . + relating to dosimetry, exposure control, KI, and radiation terminology adequately
[,*". ,, .l l ' ..9 * $ ', >
, ' ,; . ' ,' ' . f. {
. allege a failure in the planning elements related to training. The question remains j .. ; ., f .
- c . whether the contention adequately alleges that a signi6 cant plan revision or
- 4 ~,' .
l .; *
.c ; O*,'.}
?. *.o.. *
.... e, a
lj .l+ , .
' .* i l.?
, , . ;*o.. ..[,
114 These are t' -6.A.1; 6.A.4 and &A.5, with which 11.A and i t.B aus consolidated; 6.A.6; 6.B.1-6.B.10 (11.D and 12.C are consolidated whh 6.B.3.111 is consolidated wnh 6.B.4,12.D is consolidated with 6.B.2
, . , ,. *y ** , ./ r '..* ' ' 'I * *'- I*/***,*' . .j
* '4 and 12.E is consolidated with 6.B.7 and 6 B.10); 6.C.t; &c.2 (nrut saarnple only); &D.2; 6.D.7; 6.D.8; 6.D.12; y . .- g .. . . 6.D.13; 72; and 7.F.
. ~' . ., ,.* ., ]l, 'y '. ',
H3
,'",i*- I,
. . this cannotidation does not espond the evidanuary inquiry as denned ander basis D.
g y*,# ' *
- H*ses t.BP-88 2.sapre 27 NRC 204-05.
.J ;.'
/, . , . , , . ; . .'
- r. . . : .
b
.,1,.
a
,. . , 43 4
e r t I j
~. ,,,.v ..
' . :w ,,.'l
. . . \
u ,s e p .
,. ; ; 4
(
.n
. ~
,. 4
, , , '3. . , /, .
T , J
.. . v: .
~.
-,'. 9- . .. *. m ,.a . . .
.c -
* . :S. ,.
- X f,,. . .; g .C. .. .s,...
. n .o,... .- .,
. , v,
~ , .a . . . . : . . . . . , m.. : .
, u:%,e .. . y ...,. w. ,.
. .-a. . 4 n..
cM . . . . . .. .. n <, p . .. . . s n._,6,p .x *.. reassessment is needed. Similar to the situation with respect to Contention g a., . , ;......... ar.... W .., v*, . _... 3. .* c !
.q. 18 concerning communications systems and equipment, we believe that the .l t J..f. p ", s'.gg e.4.- f...l .
U Y. ' ' ' .,.'.Y p)ossible existence of a systemic problem or pattern of defects in an aspect of the ] j' \
','[V y. ' 't training program in itself states a need for a significant revision or reassessment.
h.S/.;&[' T y ' ",, ) J,Q ' .*l.M hI'.. f. .M ' .[ *[. .Q. \.'M* ,..;]; h,,'N[*h Y
.U' If, for example, bus drivers are not following plan procedures,' a significant reassessment of their training program will be necessary to determine why and c3'. g l ..,,6 W h ,'Y, ..
- , Q;.:. W,Uf"y t' . . ' ' .f0-lr., " ' .
correct the problem. Consequendy, Contentions 20.A,20.C,20.D and 20.0 are
. . y u;. , . . : :.. .p, , ,>'. -
, u nj admitted. _j r
6 ,y, ; l < . ' . L. w.: , ',.7.s.... .
.J..;;.,
r. e .- i
; ....'
- Y., ,,',... . . .. .; . ; fy. .,
'4
+ +
SUMMARY
OF RULINGS ON CONTENTIONS
- 9. , . 7 - ...'... . g .... J
- g. t... , . ' .
The followirig summary lists the admitted ontentions. The summary of eact i
'&q.z ;', /' ; g ..'1;.]% '
contention is given for convenience only and is not intended to supercede the l (71.,7,, .) C.. [/,,..,. . i~
' 1.,l ' f
- rulings contained in the discussion of each contention and its bases. Contentions 1 t s . ; g. , ,,, .
'l
*e,q ,.
, ,ej ( . ' '7 .,. L ' '
that have been consolidated with a given contention are listed with the latter. .
,. n. - .
6 . .' . Public notification system was insufficiently tested. Sirens were <4 ; * .
;.'. l.A .
l o > . , not tested. nor was there a test of the EBS.
. .: o J*
w ._ *.. . . School preparedness was inadequately. tested. Only one school j y, . . . . . ( - l. 3 ,
. R.p ; '. ..! 1.B district participated; this participation was limited to one school
.'. <. . S. 1 , y; -
with enrollment of 170 students. There are eight other school
~ [, ~ ,.,' distrets and twenty-three parochial and private schools within
* ' * +
.;.. i;
* ,G .1! the 10 mile EPZ that were not contacted during the exercise.
.*s.- ,.;. ,
.~
a
,'. + .;... g 1.D Exercise omitted ' major portions of the emergency plan relating to
, , , ' t.s ' ' c,
. - . . 'j school evacuations. Includes 14.F (Failure to show how children
, * '..c...S
. i . f . '. . I**. ?' .,i taken to relocation centers would be cared for).~
. . .4-7.,.,., -
. ,, / .lj 1.E School evacuation plans were inadequately tested. There was no
'.] y .*
,,. : ,.s demonstration of how bus passengers would be directed after
. - . '3 ,
*,s ; ,.
.. t
. l
- j, . - ' .- .. ' j : disembarking, only 30 out of 613 drivers were dispatched to
,/, !
.a, .;, a the bus yard, and no demonstration of how the buses would be directed at relocation or reception areas, or how potentially
' ,' .l. *'...y,',. .,,, .
! : . .i contaminated children would be monitored and decontaminated,
.r.,,,
. ; ',,.,.. t..,'. ;J i- . . .. i Evacuation of srecial-facility residents was inadequately tested.
.a, , ./ 7. '
- J , ,, u . .;9 1.F During the operation of the exercise, none of the special facilities
,1.. ; 6 '. / . . .I , . . s.. 1 . ).' . .
Participated. None of the special facilities were contacted, either l 5.*' ..O. . . . l,'....,.'[J.'.*...,,.!D,
. ., 4 a
y*
,f. ..
r . : * ,N. . , within or outside of the 10-mile EPZ.
* ' 1.0 The exercise failed to test evacuation of homebound disabled l 1. . ,. .t; ,. ..,.a_
~
1., population residing within the EPZ. During the exercise, two
; */.
...';. q e.. ' ... ,
e . ,.
... +...
. , - . . i.,
. t- . > ., .
44 i 96 l e 9 h
' - ___.____m__ _ . _ . _ _
. ~
y . -
- ...- m' ,; .
- e. .,
.i
' ' .e n: & -
;l 8,
' .. .,ts .t .,-
3 ,
,w. '
M I s . 1
' . .. a
, . . l t
4 .1 .y.\.., r ; = 3 . ., y. y.
.,. . .g y n,s' ;m. .. .,,M.. !.y. .. p'.
r
~ ,
r.. i g;,y. , n e .a. .... 1 (/.f/;,',;,**'.qQ;.,,.... ' W ,^a :r,; n .-<:% . . H. .p ..* ambulances were dispatched to zones B and C, but no actual l
.,"'... . .. . . . . . . 4 *
- i. , 4 g,7. l. t .. ,. . , . n. . .,-.s ,. . . :' *l ,". g- ., . 7, :. .i persons were transported.
sp,j . 1.H 'Ihe reception hospitals did not participate in the exercise, and
> r fyj ; n.Q. . .,. < . ' : . . . . . aL Q ;[.fct .'[y'cc'j's, T,"j ( ,9of hospitals at the time of irh. .
i no capability to implement selection
- k. ihk*'?;)kf. ..!.l:, Y" Y" i * E*"'Y *** **** *
. /#l* C. 1 1.! ' Testing of evacuation of contaminated injured individuals was .
*l 7."( g[, ;*(Md .l, [. 6/ ,,'7.' ..ei :' ,.,. ,h* ; . q9, ' $
. inadequate. One ambulance was dispatched to test the ability to f Q .. f . *: f:. ..
transport the injured individuals, while only one radiation officer [ fe;]F..'. ; . ( J , l p ._ , . , . . - '70 .
- 3 ,.
. 'G .
was present during medical drills designed to test ability to care -!
+' ,
. ,.f; *! for injured individuals.
. - . ' l ' ... f 2. . ' ~ e . . .
.V ' ' S- * ; '" .,. . . l ', . r, , J.
1.0 & 1.P
. y, ,
c I/*s', ' ,' f.I 79 g.- An insufficient number of bus and ambulance companies partici-pated in the exercise. 1<.,. ' .
. . .- n- -
j,,*,. *~,"., ..
; ', . , 1,Q lhe communications network in the plan was not tested suffi-1..- .-
.f .
gyg,, i ,
' E. " .
. M. 7 6.A.1 EBS Nos. 4 7 erroneously stated that doses were below EPA
> - [' ., , {" ] , . .',
l '. j . guidelines for protective actions. (
,. t - '
4 ,g 6.A.4 E*lS No.10 inconectly advised that no action need be taken in 7 s. . ~. r - /
!*.; areas outside the 10. mile EPZ.
+T .
. ,, '. . h . m- -
,,..~.! 6.A.5 EBS No.16 advised that no action need be taken in areas outside'
,<' ~ .. ,' * .
. - '.j '
the 10-mile EPZ even though certain doses had been found to
.j . ,
.'; ~. '
be above EPA guidelines and the same EBS contained a dairy d' N : 1' animal PAR for those areas. '
. . . . .. 's .
...'...'.4, .
. .. 11.A and 11.B consolidated with 6.A.4 and 6.A.5 (Delay in h..,'. ' . ..' - -* c; *.; issu!ng ingestion pathway PARS when aware of " hot spots" l c - .j. ';, . ; . , ; .. q
/ .,] and increased ra:11ation risk, failure to warn persons outside 1*. . . .
,., ,f
,.6 ,_'.f-, l ,
the 10-mile EPZ). q t .
,., ,*..i...' 6.A.6
., ,, EBS Nos. 4 and 5 incorrect!Y advised of the location of Rocky l point schoolchildren who were enroute for monitoring and pos-1
[. .. ;,' . ' . ' ' . . ' '( -
. . ,.i
- c. sible decontamination. l
. .#, .' .. e
. -A. . . .e.. . .. ,4 . .,
6 . 7, , -
., f , ,. . ' ' {
6.B.1-6.B.10 Important information was not disseminated in a timely fashion. le .- -
- j. . , - *:- Kc,, , ' *j 6.B.1 Incorrect advice was disseminated by EBS regarding a release of i
- 1. ... . ; .
,.;~*
- ;i- ,...p :
radiation into the air. 1
% . . i : ...'...
i ., 1 - 6.B.2
.l PAR directing persons in evacuated zones to go to reception
's s, .c' . . . ' , ' ' ^ . , ' ' . . .
J ,' , ', .
, . ' l ., , l ' ' ~ j . centers was untimely and confusing. fncludes 12.D (Untimely l'f
[ f;c; f , * , , * ; ,. . ; * [ , * . * ',., * . , , broadcast of information to report to reception centers). (, i -
,,# 4 g d. ,
1
. 45 i, 1
. l e
1
. 1
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ .. _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J
Y
- t. ,.. y ,
i
, r -
.I
. , . 4 , .
.; , . .. , i < /
.. s
, g,
. . . . '. w . , -
, . :.u. . q t,
,sv. ,. - . . . .
.y.
.r,,
.e;.... ... s .
.i
- ~; m
. : y . c, . ,>,.T:, . . . - ....q~,,u . '
- l. ., m. :. . .
- L.1 . ,,..p
; .e;.c..w 6 - u "t..' y, .. .. , . J , ,,; d w 3 6.B.3 1.H;y ,.;. w . = .. .. . > -.. ...
4, . r';. < . . . ; ', - :, : .". , .l , . a
- > 3c . - .8 ,3
. - PARS were not issued to those choosing to remain in evacuated areas. includes 11.D and 12.C (No announcements regarding -
%. Tig*;l;[ ?, . m *, 'c;rl, ./ f% ' ' *'. j ingestion pathway precautions to those choosing not to evacuate; N..c .. : ;,'../,. (* K.'. . ., V,,'.. a g. i.,, > ;
untimely broadcast of PARS for persons remaining in evacuation l A .1 i ; . ". (f. / ..M ,! J Q c*.:;,, , r.ones). g *. ,. *g 4 , . '.' , .
,;,y. '
44 v
,M,. ' ? ' ,* ' . .'J.g. g'.. "v*d 'l , y ,,. 3 , ' .-.J,7j 6.B.4 EBS announcement of the PAR for dairy animals was untimely.
'. j information released at the ENC conflicted with EBS messages.
. a,?.'.a.. '*o '. - ($J 7; i ' -( l, )!.'i V,. Includes 11.E (Delayed EBS announcement to place dairy animals 5Jf, i
- I.,I ,".4'.t .l . "V;t f ..j ..W , ',~
' ( . '. I 4' ',' .
. .; j on stored feed).
c... .,s....s.., .
.. ~..c...
5-
,, * ' ,, . + ( -
,. .. ;, . . ; 6.B.5 Broadcast of EBS message regarding evacuation of children .
,} l , ' ,+
.. y,
, .. 1; (.2
& g. d. 3, Cf. >a ...it residing in EPZ from schools outside the EPZ was delayed.
.y . . . . = . . ,. . ,. p . .. .- ,
. . ; c.g. , , -r
'i ...% .f.:1 -
6.B.6 EBS information regarding pickup and evaciution of children ' f," , j. ; 4, 1,... , . ., j f.3- , . ; attending schools outside the EPZ but residing inside the EPZ i .'
. . . ,0 t.,,, .
.. 1 .
was confusing.
} .
- t **
.,' ,y
~ ,1
.. ,j 6.B.7 EBS announcement of traffic impediments was delayed. Includes 6.B.10 and 12.E (Delay in advice regarding road impediments
,l',- :T .i, . . '/.. . 4 which could lead to delays in evacuation).
~ ;e .
.m yi,.... , , . - '. ,' . Jf ., g. .j 6.B.8 Announcement regarding extension of ingestion PARS for dairy f
1
.., n .
'. x'.: :-v. .
. ; .,' a .
- ' - animals was delayed. :
l J
,j 6.B.9 EBS information regarding contaminated milk and vegetables was
^
.', , ., -l; delayed and inaccurate. >
- . t
*/. . ,
. . . . .. ~.
! 6.C.1 Road impediment information was placed at the end of EBS
, . ,! ' . . . .j messages. ,
..,f.'.1'. f ,.c... *
.*-; ,[' . . -
- _ . .*. c .; ,
6.C.2 New information placed into EBS messages was not in context
/ 3.',"- ,
, f '; s- ;,7 ., ,' .. and thus confusing (fint example only).
-. - .,.i ss. .l. l . '.,.
6.D.2 There was no EBS announcement of altered LIRR service for , e ,i means of evacuation. j
.* .' s . .9,,.,,'..
j 6.D.7 EBS gave inconsistent advice to the same group.
-,.'...- ',; ..~r ..
; .l- .-
, ..,",f ,, , ' . 6.D.8 EBS gave inconsistent messages juxtaposed against one another
/ , '. .' 't-, ', f.f.'
, . f, ,-
.s leading the listener to believe that the people "in charge" did not
. .... . . . . , . . . ' know what was happening.
.- l . . '.i. . ..
. (*- . . , ., . , i j.' f ; . 6.D.12 EBS gave inconsistent information regarding ingestion PARS.
". , . ; , . ' .;. . J, .", .
.n. ,g4 6.D.13 EBS gave confusing infxmation regarding ingestion PARS.
. , . . , ,. a . . .
,4. . .,
. . .f ;.l
'f .l;. , ;S*
, ; ; c '. . . \ ,*
- a C ' .'. ,
7.E EBS messages for the news media at the ENC were not timely
'4 4'.
4
- , posted.
'...si.. .
u I _ ._____.-_.-._m-_ . _ _ _ _ _ _
;4 .
. ;l. ' , , , ,
I O 4 e
.+.
, s. , . ,
. <' e.
s
- c. ,, 1
' +. g
- .t s ,* .
.. . .s *, .e >, *
- j. S ,
e,?, y;,,. ,c.g, . .. . ,, c s ,. . ",, ..'.;':.
# * .b
* . ~. * ; ; , '
O a. .r.4 ,. y.~;. . , ,*p, W* , s. .
- s
. .. .,,.,f:s
. .; ; j
- ':- 7.F The untiroeliness of EBS messages would' create confusion for c;;,f;j ,7; ;. *.J.. , , .. . /. 1 * ' .? . ^., .,,. ,3 aca " the media and the listening and viewing public.
,.,y....- ,. .i.
,,.. v. , -. . .. e . ..: 1.]. .
..i.. ! ' .. . i d. . ,',.,; ! f'.f n.~, .'. . '. " A 7,M." / , 18.B Loss of radio contact between LILCO and field workers delayed l
t' x ."; g- . . l ,"s ;. . ' ; 7.J <; . . p? u ; ,, . .. s
.,.,- ..1 receipt of P.nd response to messages.
n, . .;.. . ?,C.'{ . ' :h;. d f;,j,';, .; N. , .7;,nk ,*;j
, 18.E Heavy mdio traffic resulted in a potenual for delay of priority
. ': ?. .r. %. ,: ..-.e. .'c...
messages.
. . ' .. . ' . .. J.
L , 7. , ,./ g.7,,3 . .*,4, . ,- 18.G RECS (dedicated) t. lephone sy.ttem did not function correctly at 3,..., ., ,, i 4
, . . . . . * .J times.
..q
, 'e'..
. y ; ., 4 . ' . e.. e. ..
i ,y .. . .. . . ? * .i ' 20.A Personnel lacked sufficunt training to interface in a timely manner with state and local govttnment officials. v f, _ '.,... z . . &..
- m. . ...
, , . ' ; Q:. .
,:% ;q.a
- l , s. -
y- . c , , . .. . ,, , h.M 20.C *naining programs ineffecti re in instrue:ing bus drivers, ambulcue crews, route sponers, and trsflic guides to follow the plan. L. ', >. . y, - '.,, ,.. , ,; ,
}
l'
'l.
, i
. , - # (.
"1
.. 20.D Personnel were ineffectively taitted in communicating and ac.
quiring data and information oc recognizing the need for in.
. formation, resulting in an inability to communicate emergency
' ]' ,
information in a clear and timely manner. Includes 20.F (Per. sonnel not effectively trained to deal with the media to provide J; . i.
'd
- d timely nonconflicting information).
4 ,
,,,- . .; . j
. <.+ '
, ., , . . q 20.G Training was deficient regarding use of KL
- a. ;
..q 3
- e. . .. .7, . . "
ORDER
- Vf. .
.. 3,
' '.. . e.<
.. g
,',,'. f- **
., ,'. .. .~.- *l .* l t In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
..)J
- 1. The contentions enumerated above are admitted for litigation in this
.- . i; i proceeding; and
, .e ..
% s-s - ..
.. -..,,.,4 1^,'.,.. *
\. .
?
. . < o
. . .x '. . . :
..> . i
. .. , .. . a
' ,4
,,- , , . . . . , ,f, j
- s.- -
,t
. . . s. ., .
t
>...'.,.. . l
.,*r *
. . .; - ; m., ,. .. ., -.
q . - ,, .,....
- ;.,. r,*.
,~',.;.
... . :.p , . ., .
. 4
'.e l
. 4 2
- - . u.. -
47 !
r, - y. *+ ,
- m
. i-
% i
..s . _. . . - ,
, - . 'H- .
l e
- q l
* ' s 1 e s e
.. f.>.;.,<
..c.> .
, , %. ,j ,#F k. .
. 7,,
y ' .<,:...ce...p.'...,t. y +m; /; t:. ., ,.,.,, ,,..; ...',,,.;. 3 .: - ,
.. s l..}// ?c, .Z..f * . c<.' * '! ,, y P.,., ^ r ' - .
. .; 2. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il2.718(i) and (m), the rulings cmtained in this
. /*r . , .,'/. *c . ey'$ . ". ., . * . ' ./. *-+C ' ; . g, ; , *' Memorandum and Order a certi6ed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeul i- .
, . c; -(, ,+, .
Board.
- p. . . , , , 3.. ."9 . ' 2. .j ., *. ; ,, ,.,.,' ., . ,,g,. p ;cw,. 3
, , 5 er , ,,,, . . . . , , .,..
..... i
<;; > . .. : . . ...L . ' i 20 .
z
, THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND he2 '
.. yf,.p ,.. r 1..,d. '.N,9,'. .s.
[
.. m '. ,0 l,7,;'.'. 3.~ 5.((,$
.. 3t .
LICENSINO BOARD
- . . .; ; . - lc .
.c .ey,. .u, >. .. .~ii . y . ,. , . c , . ' ', *,. s;..:..:-,L., a. ..-
t
, . ; : ,3 Frederick J. Shon
, ;; y ,.' > , ', 7. . '. c ; , L,* ... v i * . J'j ADMINIS'IRATIVE JUDGE
. , ~ < .
, ,. . 1
, i' . ., . p .. , :
- e ty )
. Dr. Oscar H. Paris
' . ,; " gc?,
. .,. ; s . , ' <, ;.... . '..y.. '. .y.c.:*.}. .' y. .. .,~ ,
,.f ' ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
,,e, u -
g....* .. .. . - .
... ,- ..- 1
. . . . 3 r..'.* ..,'r . - . - Mn H Frye, III, Chairman
+ ,
t . S<
. .- .; - i ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
" , .s..
.- y
. c -
* ! Bethesda, Maryland
', ' 'o, * *
.l January 3,1939
, , . . . , 4. .. ,
- 4. . .i . .
.... . . . ..}.
...,3
,...r . . ;
= .
*,J
,4 e. i
- ,..,.,z. ...
, h .
}
.r. .
. . . . . . . . .j
~. ..,. .
. .- . i e*.. .
. .l
.. .. . .. . . , . ,;. . ....,,e .;
i
, .. .. . 4
., . ~
..g .
..v.
..*e .
.t
..c. ,
.. s_ ,
,. .,. ..s..,
*s
.s
...a
. , a. .r,,
. .. ... +...
..... . 4 . ;
,t,... ,
,/,-
..,.....m , . . '.,.:., .' .. ,. .. .. ,. . ..e' .. .*; .?
- 3. .
3 . . *. s . .
.. . , , o .
. . * . * * . .. 's * *,
'.s*,e. .i
* ?. * * . * .
. t
,}}