ML20205S506
| ML20205S506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/31/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V23-N03, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V23-N3, NUDOCS 8606120550 | |
| Download: ML20205S506 (129) | |
Text
- - - - _-- _
NUREG-0750 Vol. 23, No. 3 Pages 113-232
- w ww r;;f.
t ff, , . .. . ,:;a. ,
4, y r;> .::g., - ,
$g[g d .r
~
i s2 WMi)ssNOCLEAR ,.;;
pCOMMISSION ISSUANCES - REGULATORY 1 e. T -
,4 1
_- March 1986 .
l l
a
+
?l? pBREGy s co Ay
- $f , ,9E .t.
u$ o c.,
l
- c g
] O ,
~'
Il'j[ dis:
- QQ *,
.)}.,;<'Q E -
. . . . sr _ .e
' ,u }g'( , ,t' . . .
b ' ,'i ' e%
33 *
!l 0
+4 r
. ( :. _
1 %***4 .
, bl ;n ~ ,
- 'r!9 '
.,q*;' < '; , .
t j.'.[ *I .. ..)[h ,
i s,,
U.S. NUCLEAR REG l
8606120550 860531 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR
I
) .
I i i Available from Superintendent of Documents 1 U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 ,
A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, j 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication. ,! -
Single copies of this publication
.- . _ _ . . . . are available from National Technical , _ _
information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 l l
l l
l Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Technical Information and Docement Control, Office of Administration,
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C .mmission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/432 89:5) or (301/492-7566)
~a--.-m
,' O -
- - - . .. _ .. ..a-..-...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
. Ji . -
. - . g Vol. 23, No. 3 Pages 113-232
. '.m..
- m. .
..=
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
. 7.. .
'.4 %s.
.m. . .
COMMISSION ISSUAl\CES March 1986
~ .,
~
r
.s. '
.V*
This report includes the issuances received during the specified period G, from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boards (LBP), the
, , , ,.. . ...x' Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and J,
the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
. . / E. . .
e-
..,m.,.x. ..
. > i .
The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or to have anyindepen-
. dent legal significance.
. .. . ~ , .: : , , . . . ~
e -
a
~
4 ,#f , , . ;,'f
, . "- . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION f .
. 'vv
. s ' .!. *:f , , ,, ",,t . 6. . m, *
' . Prepared by the Division of TechnicalInformation and Document Control,
~.
- w' N; Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555
- (301/492-8925) f.- -1,
, p. ' .- q
\ ,[ f i 9_ d e y , , . ,
4
.>F"-
e . , ,
. .. -s3 .;..i .-- t .
.y.
.t,
_: p . . .- . , = -' .
. , . .a f-
+) ~.r ~..~, ~~:-- * ~ r. r-, ;n , m. y;.--- r. .n.; ;
> .e- .; L,%j.,2 ,, > -
'~,------;?,.3.nv-,... m - . ..
, w, <,
^. '
?;;
,.".' ".v -} h ' ..t ' *q*. .-j , ~. $ ; r ' , * , ..:- .s
V t
.. ' , .? ? .'
l 4Fh.. 4{9 :f .Wsl'C.tJ . ' i . .'c. : . _. , ,.!"3 Q' ' *Jt
, ' , /- t?.,.
.} '\* N> ;L s. ,
s*.b ). , - . .l*
- j6..:. .e-"j'.O
,m ,<
s
- W
.. .;. '2 w ,'>;; .
'k. ;.v. 5..)
~R.,.~#*
. . o. T .
M. A. . ' .. s . . hs ' . . .~ r
- 9. %g. 4.. ? .
f<j*:llh,rQ,MT$3l.',Q w; '4' '":{f; ~ ,!, 'l ,&,e y <
- Qfifh,*:hl -'
'. ., ,h, 'g; h,4 w m, ..w: f$$@$ a,n&:ggyf':;,l v. . ?k,.efi .% -t[#.
nw- - :; .q.?ig: -
.. . ~ .:r..m .;wlg ~. . ,;.c. .go. .~.g.m- . .g
.,x.
.c .vjny:mp,-4;pt3ygy.py,y r. y p c. .
f .v . ,.
1 C
., ' f 'ra .,,.
3,
. . c.W
.. .a. . , _ .
- - " ^ " ' *., - - ~. " * ' "
- lw
. , , p_c . .l,.',
J.s a.+ a -. ~ .*- ..-J'.-ar-*-"ae--'-~ ^ - ' - --
.q c ;. y . . ,.; ;, ,
, .y . ,
,+,.
. . . .~.
.,. g . , , ' =
_,W,..j;. a
- w -. . , , ,
. w
, ,: <. v" v d *e ...- .. .
. x. , .
2 ,
t . ~. w.*.,p.' y w; ,,.s 4m.a. a-' s c .
,,r.: , .. .,
- ' ?' . ,;, *'i. y , < a j .<.' .
> .. * : *
- f ll. y
, , :.m n.
- + w; .. . .
, . .w, . - . ., n. ;,, . 2. s . o 3. ,m. 5 ,o.. . '.' f;. -g ,,
- u. s.a,
.. ~ . . . +; , a , .. . m .a. .
. n. . . , o '.,..-~ + . . , w. w-. <w. . .n u .,.n .
. .y 7>
- ..-=..o.
. >... ,,e ,a .vp4 :..r.w:. W=c/ , M m .;.v.M r n . m.o .1 ~ u. _ . . c..>4,y,m. ,.9
. .s .. m. mec,ie m ..
. ...- c~..
. .g %. s , , s,. c f e,:. ,.Wp . Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
.e, cc, j. . . . ... .. -+~.;. p.. . m, r.
.. m. + Thomas M. Robe
.'...y. .
w James K. Asselst.rts ine 1...' .w':cwwpw.. 'M Frederick M. Bernthal
.hTM.
^
~z ,? ; , :#. .. 5 Lando W. Zech, Jr.
. ,. .y w : _ g,~ . y
. .a z .. :: :, . .,gs,.
., . . .. a.j r,
4 7. , . . . w.
- ,: . .... s.,..
- ,. ...-.p:. p, r.< ,,;;,
+ q...
W. .p. ..,t - - * ..v ,-
. .e '
,, ,:p.g3 ,Lfp
,....w.....s.
.2 .
. , .; .; ;w,;m, .:
_. J. .e s ~ . .e7* N..w .T : .
j - u. - my n ., . ~
~ . , ,.e .a- ,
Wl.J.m. m.+c...o. . w,E~%-M.x 4. :;m, : ,
.m. ~.: : ;n. ... ,a. .+. c.. .w, s,~.. .
.. .:w n m
-: ~ r ws, ,c
.::i. . ..,wyr.s:i.^
s.,w .e m.4.p,.n c g .o . . . s - m.. . .m.u M,g., y;m, >;p.,y.p e.M
~,n,.s pH.ms'c . , hw c m. /,m+q.x.M@y* . e. .,:.. y.T . -
e wg...s.+. - .. ~ 2 ..f.3.,cc . , va,o..g4 w . n .; . -
- p4 a': .'
. l.Q * * .]q 3 Q .
t.. ..
3.. . ,;.. y
. .(.=., m ; gf , ,. ...- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
....g >
- e .. ' j.ii,'J,d m, pd..L.
- g. . . . . ., .,y .
B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
~4
~
- . y <...,.s'*q
, ..j m..: ; ; . : ,.
~ ,. , q, aQ'e
.,.u.s.o.,.w.._~.
...g. 9: . ' . , -
'. n .:
.f. . ;;;'. ik*' ' ' ~. . p,; .. % ,nr.:','. p = - -
?f.,.-N h) . . . ,'"y ; . ~ ~. s ...a.'e,.* ' , ; ,.'t M, f *%. ., .
.,,,s-'.ss.
.. ,,'.4..,.
, s)y v*. ('.dt. % ;~.
- m. .-*
.E,.. , .
g
.s.$*- g
< 4.=.. ~f , y[ * ' * : , '/~ ; ,, d %"' .A
.s f; e .- s. . * . , st'e.*. ..' , ,
[!',e ;.C, ?l ~ % i _ l
- M o . *;*'-
. >.py . s . . . :v, , ..y'..
m,w ;sc :' % s _
%je;fn.,. .y pw; ...
s sev_
,,ja v w.
.- 'A
- : {' g g
'l .
.-,'g' 4 4
[ h [ ', h ', .
~
I" . y.: , 2 =.' , .*hY M' ,h i
;. k.: ;
.~ ~ '
R ... % , 6,, .'.,W.$.. - .. , . , 9 o. ' 1,
~.$M,. *>j a ag v<-
(* # l 4 y9' W$. ! '.. . .,'ss'. '9 W U
- m 'c 7. Ar -s O ..
- / , h'h. ., '.
,,s 2h
., [.._
'quq,
. 'c; %Y.'.
a<; t *Yz . . \ pi
*. 9
**[I
.+
hi7 , l .
/*y
- g g ]' . - s 2 e s., . ... . R R ua r.
b &,b l *
*' .-
- b e*e3.e n
- Y.
- ud3.'.-. , r ~
, ,.1
*r, w - l *-'s ;- 'N. ) *tR7'_ . . ,',s y _. --..z e-- -- 7 .., . - e r- -
Iy.pc,Wc. m;
.W U , j,y, t *_s."
p 3* A a #4 .bs7 h /- '- i n,, * *
- s. -
. .j . *',q.J;
'e . y* * ;; f, 1,N -
' c
.....f, ., c.q ,
,- . . . .. 2 cc.NQ p
.s c - .W
.4% *- .h .
4 w Je ',# 3'* c ; ** - + ,5 ' <
.'.C,l J'
- 4 . ./ # 1
; ^ '*
.,#+
?.y.;;' g A'. g7 : , g.-. ,..p p af, . f.
y"W;, . , , f. . '.-;s' e. , ..Q " .
', . %a 1-
&s p s
.M3,.
a .#. p'. ke, , j7
- y, w g.....i., ; c
%p,. FV f ..,,w?rl ~+. i .+ ,, ,i , g;p' t W .3 r !/gp% a
.,y % g #g K-v'MA .sG: W-u'in Q.- 0: p,1*..
eQA W WWhN etC% NrWrg[y)lM; %=p' *ig'M. %@m 7.:C.c.- ' . M.'/df m:.'# H.j:O p'j $
% gf ! .
r6 M.9 N'hM pr.we M.v j.@S 1 +,' y';We%*VQ *r. 9 n hg A4. -g ; A W & .)'$' g 4? M:. 6 f . Mih*WhW .
,9, .ww.W.MW 3.Y, d- f.Y@)/M.6 @%*j'.@'
..Y.;@'~[y 4m y#w.n%
N.s'Yi,EY,7 M&Opm%
' o J
.. .___.....m. .-
-m_ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . .
f f. i
, j CONTENTS
! Issuances of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- : PillLADELPlilA ELECTRIC CONIPANY l (L.imerick Generating Station, Units I and 2)
- j Dockets 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL ORDER, CLI-86-5, htarch 20, 1986. 125 l
PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC CON 1PANY
- (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2)
- - Dockets 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL h1EhlORANDUh1 AND ORDER, CLI-86-6, h1 arch 20,1986.
. - t 130 i
i TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COhlPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1) Docket 50-445 h1Eh10RANDUh1 AND ORDER, CLI-86-4, hfarch 13,1986. 113 Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CON 1PANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
- Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
DECISION, ALAB-832, h1 arch 26,1986. . . . . 135 T Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards COhthf0NWEALTil EDISON CON 1PANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2)
- Dockets 50-456-OL, 50-457 OL ( ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OL)
NIEh!OR ANDUh! AND ORDER, LBP-86-7, hlarch 28,1986. 177 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COhlPANY, et al.
, .' ,, - - (South Texas Project, Units I and L Dockets STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-4c9-OL 4 . .+ .;
(ASLDP No. 79-421-07-OL)
.,=
SEVENTil PREHEARING CONFERC_NCE ORDER, 1 ' J. ;J - , LBP-86-8, hlarch 28,1986 . 182 u.
; ...i .i . ..
. e- a a !
} ,
.. - 111 g j p, e , _ , , , , , , _ , _ _ ,
, [ 4, , g . -7,Pv*~--.t-----+, - _ m . .
,s
, ; . ef, ..;f ',7_ _ _ ,h[
j.T ,e s
' ~
k .y ((-
- , e
'[("[
, r:. , . . n. v:. r .g x~~
* ' .s.5 - {: .. l,:, ( ' .
.u.. .
.-' e,' -h
. .Q'. ;', . .:. W-
* %' p,-.7,> s -. i . a.
., ' ,', 3y M, pii:m. 3g i C*yp:j e.; ..,t.s; r# &,fdm..,,
',*; ,,2-
' it
....,..\ 7 m- u ;j< pl'Jt. yy*#.y &..+.a _. y , , 4.M <c 3;,'o.f..K. %
.v
- . 4
* ,j;ps y d . .? qq%>3p'j.. . . < W* K'+ ,. j
,t .
' _ :5,' ,q*',,.g p%.& ..< - syg ?.q.y* p / s.., ; Q, r.z'
- s O;
- G.. ,
m . G' y ': .' .r m.jQ9y. , s :n N,f
;h, ?, ;..,[7&g y.-, *
, J, A1";fspl,. A. -4 .,a.-- ;V%y..f. - P' 2%d M X o9 tw.v.:
- , . ..A, . <f. y wi%. 4
, N,,> c. -ec. p ,- .
yJ s + y l :.n, . g?.3cy y. p 7 ,hg., y.m.g ., .
- ;y 4 ,7,w.
.zs.;, ..
.:, x .. .. ~ ,;.- .
R$
- A . *
.9l , *y :t,
^ tr%: ; , L .- l .
;my (;-
qy, d >,-{ 'v:; *
- k h.'.) *_ -
\' . s
~
.L'
%. ~ .J.a- .. g ;
M;.
~
p qg:7g < ~ . :.. ,]c,.m.r
; ,,2, ; _._u..~., .; .._ ..s.- ai.v.m .m ;, .,
.w w e~ g+ u.- d
.j Mlf IV p
- t f( , ' '
4
~V.wp-
?
#.y t .; . M . <. .,.
-s.,
N
.. .S$(# ~'*[ #, y
;3- tg.F ru ..~-5, :. -
..p t W VJr g:g.'; & ' ? .
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY p'QfW4 . . * ,N .J
. ~..t *J*Luc - C..-
. ?
(Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) gw Jq% , g, ,j :p1.,
~.vn. .. , , , , . . Docket 50-352-OLA (ASLBP No. 86 522-02-LA) hhgN'f.
~
(Check Valve)
. MD? m MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON
[$@A [M' N M;.a@z,.u.~j WNE: Nd,@:.L.
....h 7f)k U.c d ' '
ROBERT L. ANTIIONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE A.SD,.*L.d$ c'INTERVENE, LBP 86-6A, March 13,1986 . . . . . . . . . TO 165 s ..w . . :xo . ^..', .
- a
- b. ,
!g&c9+
Of NW@c 3 33; i
.Jf4 s: eJ5.7D!*-h p I
- ; ; ~ -3: s:n , ... , v,I PHILADELPillA
+.wn ,'9 s .-.+
U ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1) i N T. k ,p) h d b . N .h % [ Dockets 50-352-OLA-1 (ASLBP No. 86-522-02 L A) k: W .,43,+Neww#..;3 . # u,m v c.- v, (Check Valves), 50.352-OLA 2 (ASLBP No. 86.uo-04-LA)
. .m .. (Containment Isolation) m.t:40 E$M es c $w,'G M.'.' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING G
%g.e,Q%.w,g D. Q'+ ?l7.; . ., .G.; m ,m
.c
, ?..- *f * . PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES, LBP-86-6B, March 14, 19 86. . . . . . . . . .
K.4 '* g&W 173 1, d vhq[N2pn.J. n. 4 f: T. .o@:. .
% ;m.n? M M w*- #
- Q w
.%N;,.f.a; W%g Mr 7'w.M#J.' ; , :,LV. Issuances of Directors' Decisions 9.-e o ~
HN esh.W,s.@!w;
$.5 h 1
.nv.n,.,. .. .
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. sqw t.n. . w, . , , .t 9A.,
..g ~ s.pm%m,.n; w E ,a&+y b. -
J. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) M i(bfy;W Q 4:,".~,9'c.n, 5, Dockets 50-440, 50-441
}Q) bl.9, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206, hh.h ,d;j h;h ;o - DD-86-4, March 18,1986 . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . 211 kh'ib Q w,.a-..
y'T4 . oy/
,y.;m.w, m.m. u, ,.
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC.
$ihSN.k 'engvN.t 1c5.33sym fr a.
. M D G 9. -
(Erwin, Tennessee Plant) Docket 70-143
~ ' '
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. } 2.206,
.D $ $p
; .W.m.,. 't 1h .' 1 . .
DD-86-3, March 3,1986 .. . . . . . 191 .t, s. + 3*'o. h; 73 .. , y '.N c :y t4 ..- ,.* * - .: g.pcA... en . p.w. o. A " f.4: PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMPANY O.N?A- . E,,, (Limerick Generating Station, Und 2) 2.d W* M,M@M E ;',P"; . .f *Docket
- 6: 2, P;3..
. s 7'.,.*;
r a/ '. d. . ~' ..,. ' .'. f, c j
. 50-353 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CI.R. j 2.206,
/ G;>.s. DD-86 5, March 21,1986 sd.
aq ,w. iM. . ,, .,. p , .m.%. . ,4,.. ...,r .
-. .'.n:;M.e\*
k ,w . r. L
' W .?. S;:
..., . . . . . .. ..... 226 vn.s.mn 5 s,i 7 ~.;.'.w., a Q)f. .W* is 4'Vf" b&y *d g$.> * . (4 6% i ff Ne A .. . - . Y &'?.I 'h' Y, .. f
.A.g,klq.1., * * ,. :h . '
- i d,.
- o. . .
- c ,: . 5 - ? -* Y . ,* * " . t 8
i,..
fYM9)@lL W.O.y ' *, ,p }* r
- y. -skW%G #4-?.5. .- :
r.Md
',. , *, g :(!N.$*$
en O C,'
. ?
e,O,-
N H. }MWM, ,M.I,P ? . /, .\. lY
- w. % y.4,,?, :,;.-; .. p.
, U, ;a ,.' ;.Y. ..-g.. Q:*
8.[m.. t 8 U a $ Ef q%. e sr .,h.: :%.N y~;;s .o . /. $f,,..14 2 W.,'pe ; . *; h.y k"t s w m',m.n
- k - [***j . . " ;hb "a
4 r
. g 4.4r 8
,I l . . hf g
. m :g
- y w*n%;w&c f p:awh.:.-
L ft,, . ev~a^ , :r n,, , ewx;
- y. p.W. e. w .,l y. y -k.o nc'f.v:t,.:. :. .
g~ qq W P n. a s p,t-n. 1
..~a.n:Y v y : m&n 4M' 'Hy.:
v.y?y
! f $u. : $h hh$$b h
- &y.m.c.k.:g.r.A..;f.9:.kl.hhEk$$.m$g.oym?
it W #e: M@. s.W. q%w%%w.+ 4 M@i p% % nm.y%m$S,bbh 4 .s
& m.~.$4 $ hMPM
# t
, 4 J - , v.
- - - .~ . . . ~ . _ . . _ , . .
i -._ _ m. -.,_. . . _ ~
.r. .: 2
. n .. .. .
* . ,
- 4 4
COmmlSSIOn
~
N. - . . . 4 ..m - -
- a. .
l lSSuanCOS
.4 e +
. .. . .1, f *
. e . ',,.% , * , . *
.a>. . , ,
1; ,' ,' .t. -* ,
, 4 e5i.$.
a 3
' ' /z .t - ' +
. . '., :,f . , ,
< r- ~
,1-
.- } ' ,j; : ?. i 6 .} i* e.,a, t 2
- a. m , ; ;,n d ' ~ -*:r';v 4-
* - *_' ,, s 7 l
t, ' r* l
. is ' * ,* . ,_ ;
s .& .. . s. if * * . '2, ,
. . e .
> . o .s7
+i 4. ' . - - .
1 '
?
-. *A '
, . . ,g,. s .
I f
. I I a n
. l s
i..
! t i
- ,! M.
. t a v,.**,. ,
- s ,.>-
] <, 4 .i. -
4' * *
' i '. E.. " 4 ;f ' , ,
g, i.
. ,.,.>. .* . , . L ... y -
l . 14 '6 , 1, v y m n.,v, c I wn) s Q s.
.v .e t * ,
A. ,
- .* .,se-
- 4? *
. g - i n * .
.r- p
- ; , 4 i +
6, - t y , , f -.- i.:n? ,'N C. a . v.,*, 5 g w -
; - i.,;, , j sv [p
, . {'. ,
(s- ~. c , ,
& .4. < .e.,
- f. e ny. p'. . l -
l,J
- s. 6 * *
- g
?q-Le %. .
6
' }'
9 4 2a
< an
,k*
,,g s.
, e e
[ .*.x %f . !* '. .
< , - 4[ , A - ' e *
.(
i c..%j.0,,f. .+ , ;.( i m.8 . , 3. e s, j b.
' d"V) [{N ! ,
',4 . 'g -, ' *. ', }
.4..,(,.,,'.,,'.",7..4 Y 4P "
- it' lp.y' . ,,,' .. 8 '
- )Q g [ , 4
=-
g,
' y*e'w#,%. ,u... . ,> .. -
I,. ' 6 k
- b j"l >* '
w a n',e .( { y .g ,,
't,.
S. .'g
.,g g$* .. _ y '
W ..-'e . . 9 9
- I 1
>&_; v.M &*** v '. .,f; t'-; f,'
e- , , 1 i ,. * [, I 'i~ *
,(/**'.% .7.h' 4 .
3 -,1 c.c s ., . ~. .y 7; . . -
"y J ,- x.-
1-m.< 1 i
, , s- Q. ,
+
I
,a a
/,
4 ac ., - , w e -(- , o, , ' ' 4
# j +j , .
ig
. ,4,; s.m ' ' ' - .1,<-s.g.
+
U s y
,2 e3 % Je .1* *.{W""'"*N -" * * *F-9" "'% ^4"'"'
"'**%""{ - ' p? D f*
- 7 19 t* < , 8 4,. . <
- , ,*n, s;4
.a., ..-f yyy -
,, f - i . *1' at f*1's e5 1ej,.. ,t ,-' h -- h. **4 s\ s},.,'.~, * ,,
b',,.*
*' '.r^# U'
- 4.4 I y< >g % s * .k.A. , e .4 m,,x,s.., 0,;= ey.~.,
. '; .'U.M(*ft , 4
, ,3 * ~
..~..
.s
.;. s ' ..* > .y,.; - ?
4,s :.;,g e .:e- ,- . :x :smp.h :. ' . N :.4/c.9 x,( w u% p.+ Q C. i.* . ' . , . , , . . : . a u gL. :, , e,,
. , , . ~.a,
; ;,. - fe c a
A' ; . v: t>.- -, av e **
%:+'
- M,.$ '.' ::g;iks.W. .4Q.u%.
- p.ylff L ..',3.e<
p%a.Ni s#x
,a9.**,..u.,. ,f'-M;:b pf i, t. . s,
-Wh;
.r W,>y'y*;
t. h .4,4 ',- ~ ; 3. s s t mt - c u .. - g ,..% O. .CP,, s.~ .; . c. ? !:l4.% _ ,3
'l - l' j ;.
& -ll &,.s.
w.f. ,s_ . - e c-4 +
.p M6t p%,i?<a s,(p.t, j ., -+. , 7. , ,g . %e . p., f ;w++,*pg /4, f.q. .
. ,#3-.4 ,y N .
#g,y,.p, *yy . , ,, , , , g f,. L j . j, . , yg4 T, g g-tM.,ir.Tfy fgj: $.pd';. f *. C d. ,. . ,-(a-f.');Ct+f,p-$+=I;7id ;*y, 3' p 's,!yn.s, 74 J gy, -
,,~
, . i
,a '/g 3, g* 7.e 4 r @, s.,jy_y,$,', *>,g;yp g.ig n.. .
.e
3 ,
-w .
. ;.l. . . .16 R b... , h*,'i,w f. ;' [,. ? ~e q,1.. , me ,
. ~ . . .
~:?[: ' -
; ,7 s.. { ,
'- m _ ; w_m;. 2,, w ,,
"M '. . '. . . . .. a.a.. -
2,_, _, _. , _ , _ _ , ,,,
--lM y 7,t-
,~ j
-.n, ,-
.: . i
.H y,.s y ,.. , .
. ... ., e ",,, .: .
c - y ; , C ,- . - * ' Cite as 23 NRC 113 (1986) CLI 86-4
,t
*.s" x, ,
. r '
,, ,, 2i.- '
. . 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~n..
. , ' ., ~ yv r. ,sy ; , . . ., A-
.e , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s ,
;. .u . . , e , . ,
. r r, . '. ;,. 7. ,
4
, ..~ e. - ,
- COMMISSIONERS:
, , v. . .. ,
v. M; ,. ' ...t n,' .,.'. , . ' .. ., Nunzio J. PaKadino, Chairrnan
.N ? ,;. %; 1. s . g; 5. Thomas M. Roberts
'.O
't . .h>.7 . . , , f ' , . . . .
,*. ** . ' .f, .3 James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
, , .fpr,. ,
c ,..
...s 4
' . ' u,
' ^
' .' In the Matter of Docket No. 50-445
,4 . s .
t i TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC A0'~b'
' COMP ANY, et al.
; (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1) March 13,1986
, f ..
,o.. . . -y ',. (;.. . .. . .
p , 6
, o.
.t
. ., ' 9-y r: w :e.,,,
c
-.. e .. . ,
.. - 9 s. ...m. ._ - .
'.' The Commission denies a motion requesting that Texas Utilities Elec-ppy i,6i ;. ., ..
tric Company, which neglected to request a timely renewal of its Unit 1 ' "Y?. g2W ; . . o 4 - - construction permit prior to expiration of the permit, be required to
, p / a :L,,...~. .M, . , ,
apply for a new construction permit. The Commission agrees with the
~
i- '.f....' NRC Staffs finding that the construction permit amendment granting
. .i . .* j "
.i extension o the construction completion date involves no signi acant
. . x , .; s
~ ' ' '
d, hazards considerations, and it therefore refuses to stay an extension of that construction permit granted by the NRC Staff, to halt further con- . s .n
.z. .F+ P3.,c? -.
y,, , , ,, <,,,
. ..-,j , .', struction, or to grant a "preextension,, hearing. The Comm.ission refers
. ,mw. c.t e J. . y, - .
.,.. .. .e the request for a heanng on the construction permit extension to the
- v. y m n. ;;, .. .m ' , . n j 4 .i. .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for appointment of a hearing
.yMi a -n .i,p ' o .' V. ,6, t . s board, and it refers the request for enforcement action against the Licen-
,l,13,.:W
.--. M,#,x.ve;s@tq N 3 f ;g. q;i !l'3 W .u.a.
. .e i i.>0'< ,, . ,.
~
s wy, . . ., see (or construct,on i act. .t.ivi ies after expiration of the construction
. .~. ,, ~..H permit, to the NRC Statifor appropriate action.
- + w.a , . . . . , , .
-n. ..:,..
- y. y g..,,>.~ aq >,:,:,e cn.y,:;a .g r ,y,e t
y n..
,- < i ;. -. .
y . . s, ,s . . . n.: ..
- 4
^
t
'.' 3 ; ? ,()\
ra. ,q.,, x';.y' ' c?,M.4',.s .' . .;7.m ,,a
. t i p. . . /. a e
113
$i 2 - *
-~!
'hk.h'[,['f 9 '.
d, ,',M& % s.
..w O j.
. k .. , n. *
"l, .
v ,,
-+ -
~ , s, 7
*** ~ J Va* } *- " - . - -
=: ' '*0 ~~' ' * ? '**"* }~;
^
+y ; ??T ,,, .
,e - .:*a 1.w ,P m. : . ;, .<
, .m ., j g'<p, :,* , ' ,""W'*T*****"'**"^'#*"*"*
w- ;
. S e. .pc . .x. ,;;, s, . . , . .e . . . . - ... .
Qc
%j s 'w k jj 15.:'-l .'n , '. p w.[.}.s.c ' ,.
- s
& t$ 'q,.14. 's p . ., , ; d '. h . , , , # ,
- ij V '* s s
- p s ,'*># t .. -- )
hh,'f*f)',['$i' fkhh'
.p~ ,
. ' .c v: y -
':.4. . ..
hY
.1 . . r,, w;? y m .<< ,v. . . . ..? ,
k h.}lb N d m u, n.,...c. w.,n,: w.y < w^: w; u w-y,,g-:;4. v.pys ;y y. m,. y;a n .o. u $ m
e ,. -
, . i
. . ' x,c,j'.
e*
.s;o.
7.:
;g.
.a, s
r
~ -_ . w; c. v .
'. I.
' ( l'* * ;[.} ' #
sq e (,g *l - [ *- Ft,
...,"7,
.~# , - , jft, er}
*a e p i. ~. , , e ': .g .
mm,w~ .m -
. - + - 9 : .,- -n : .
.. . , ~
.. .. .w ;y . e. n..- ,a. n, , ,
..ys
. - .. . . " -. -. = ~
a..G. .- #y . . ~_ , . -
..s M ' : n: wu=wn - 1 1 i. . -- a .~ a ..: w ,m.-- .
(, - _s d 4 . , ,, ,
- 4
,n, ...* , ~ '; ( *'
E* . 4 . 2, ' , CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: EXPIRATION OF COMPLETION
, ' ' ~ . - .. ,
"...=. u., DATEt FORFEITURE OF PERMIT
./( ~
., . Failure to make a timely application for an extension prior to the expi-
,. . h. : ..t:' . ration date of a construction permit does not have the effect of causing a
.h. ' *. .
i ^
,e
_ complete forfeiture of the permit such as to preclude issuance of an ex-
,. W ,. tension and to require an entirely new construction permit proceeding.
e .,' N ' x. '.. ,
... ,m . .. iy , ' !
..s
.o . . . .
'r, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: EXTENSION OF COMPLETION
, 'g' s.. .
~ e ( , e. yj, 1 , 4. . ;-- . . ,
DATE (APPLICATION)
.. . . : :.>.. .. ,, 3 4.3.,q ,.;; &. % ,W 7+.tG;. .
- The filing of a timely request for an extension under 10 C.F.R.
n n= r.~ . ,
..,y 5 2.109 keeps a construction permit in force.
. , . s o
. .e l
7 . j CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: AMENDMENTS (SIGNIFICANT
%,y ,.,' ,
..,,,; . . . 7.'! HAZARDS CONSIDERATION)
..: , t
')
> ;- cc ,
An amendment extending a construction permit does not necessarily
- y. :,. E involve a significant hazards consideration, especially when the amend-ment does not involve substantive changes in construction design or
* .] methods, but merely gives a licensee more time to complete construc-l t tion.
_i -H j
. y .s .-
" g . a. " .. ,. %
^7
. c,z.r ~ ' ' ' y 3 .
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: AMENDMENTS (SIGNIFICANT O, N *
&J HAZARDS CONSIDERATION) . .pa . < ', . , , -
4 :.t ..,.w. M ' M' i . . /.d f.7.f.$ . ff The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making signifi- [:y(,,3 .W ,
;, U.Q d iJ Ei:D cant hazards consideration findings to the discretion of the NRC Staff.
p .- s y , ., ? - . See, e.g., 48 Fed. Reg. 14,864,14,867 ( April 6,1983). in. 4 . o m.
- 4. ,,-
s
. '! Q ',. , . . , , . a e !. . ,, ATOMIC ENERGY ACT: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
/. - ' 7 " ..; . . , . AMENDMENT (IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS)
K j)1:.. : . F M., W . 6 .s Y
@ w; Md Y Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act allows the Commrssion
,. gg$$%w..gm;?Wp
.y n .. .,. ,
R::e wr . " ' . '1 to issue a construction permit amendment on an immediately effective N Im;.Wl& m) .. 4 basis, without offering a prior hearing, upon a finding that the amend-
. x!= ySA . ment involves no significant hazards considerations. 42 U.S.C.
,p Q 3?.vj
* .y; ; ';
,@,h'N
*,a..
.;, .7 'O r g .f' N 6i'1..f.% Q f[$ m yw : M y b a p@ ' n. W
+ a 4.
A 5 2239(a)(1) (1985 Supp.). s, ,.,%g'~. H .o 5 . W & u e;.:x =W mw p @ A %i,.e; V*i ] h t sur .u, ;',(.Y m. 4 k. %&, Q* 4 s u* f..n' lyk. 0 y' ,, , ;; y,y;;x, 3 ...,,r p , ;s .. ..
; n, , . : <:.. - 9
- 4. , 2 s
.t 3
4 ,b ,
' . E e , ,E. .? . ,, ,-
i ' *. In a p y'
- I,k [ h f:g'fh h 7 /.?f.
- a M .mn.. .
. cte.. . . l+ , s 7p ~4
@g j@'-l'.
114
,. V . ;.
,f. h .' m
\ ..c. , wj x ?. ) .
a g, .- g *e . I *g j
,,x,.
a
, . ; cg
,.: 3, L
};V 4 );F jj ',.*ip*.* ,g g .s ,-- 1 ,= rer ~*=e- '
. ' *7;* F .iv .'"Pr*
; ,,: J h - . , ? M a ,em .' ,av. e-* ?q .,
.,9 s ? & ,h. .,,, . MT.*} j,k b 3 [y^ t..',.s , i O v: , e..
,- ~ *'"~ " " *',~# .%Q *y. *, .ngl.y:
6,l Ehkd.*hd,4'h,w.. n r1 .. n((. -hl 'h ..m m. ~c .w s U$
, . ( '. . 6 v
.N-. i
- m f
.y.
.".[
aan,s,4.p
.%mb . s. .r :t,d - /h4 wr
',;'m~ '.'w.M m.'.-@w&;tpAw. ., a :./. .:%,,vCsM,%,v.
M.. ~:*.f.,, .,r. W Q- . L
- g4,$. . .a?%w:)
y
, sY,f..~.%~f.w.}..m}M~. s.-;W<J.-q
.~
u d.) .6 ;pw. c i.. ,
- o G..,rm.p,v p. - p
. r , , . qw, u' / Pj 1.
. . b N.r.W.
/ h kI $ .
~
f ' E} f f
~
1T - c ,
;. - . "u -
, s. . ,
. .u.:--
w ..a. a. . - w .. . .a, _ . . . :. . ,--.._? 49 a
, 4( ,.
sf' s
.. ,g., .
.,J ,
W .' y -S r
, ~
i CONSTRUCTION PER311T: EXTENSION OF COSIPLETION j ~. ./ DATE (SCOPE OF PROCEEDING)
.',1. , ,
-
- The scope of the postextension hearing is limited to challenges to the
,- licensee's efTort to show " good cause" for its extension.
,, . 7 ,,
CONSTRUCTION PER311T: EXPIRATION OF COSIPLETION DATE
' N.;;'
- r 4 ' , - ( ., ,
- - After expiration of its construction permit, a licensee is not rree to continue construction until told to stop.10 C.F.R. (( 2.109,50.10.
M ., < :
.. ,4 .-
I r
.:I MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
I. BACKGROUND
. .,... ]
s,y ,
, This case arises from a regrettable and wholly avoidable omission by
"' ' ' the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC), which in 1974 received a
-c' > - construction permit (CPPR-126) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric D '.' Station (CPSES) Unit I facility, to be built near Glen Rose, Texas. As extended, that construction permit was due to expire on August 1,1985.
, J,.j[,[
$'6fI^i {,T , -:1 ",J , '
Under 10 C.F.R. f 2.109 of the Commission's regulations, the filing
.7, of a timely request for an extension keeps a construction permit in 2 p,.. %;p;. , .;. 1. , .
force. TUEC failed to make such a request. The omission was detected
, f-d.. ,;.y',397 . by the NRC on January 28, 1986, during a routine document review.
/. ' 7 '
This represents the first time in the history of the civilian nuclear power
' '3'I '
! program that the holder of a construction permit allowed its permit to
.j expire without making a timely request for an extension. The result has j been the needless expenditure of time and resources by the Commis-
~ u.; -
sion. We note with approval, th<.:refore, that the NRC Staff has advised II'd.i,5;,- us, in its filing of February 13, 1986, that it is considering whether to
'_. .s take enforcement action against TUEC for conducting construction ac-m s pp., .- -
7t.,c/.? , . . ' tisities at Comanche Peak Unit I after the expiration date ofits construc-
, ,1 , . .
/. t. ion permit.
d@p: 'e %, - On January 29,1986, TUEC applied to the NRC StafT for an exteasion f@y J W .A r-T y;; ' ( y l' of CPPR-126. TUEC advised the Staff that while physical consti action of the plant was essentially complete, some onsite work remained to be
' Mp /,; L completed, including an effort to reinspect portions of the plant and to
, J., ,f. 3 . #u(N.I:N y
'd .h, , '!
identify and replace any defective or nonconforming materials or sys-
- i tems, and that it had ceased most construction activities at Unit 1 pend-TYh'.
h.3 ', '
'l
? 5]f t,i 'y i ' .l
;'.L q- . <
' ~
. M ./ '
wm
' i ,
115
-h gg
+
. .? 3. . .
] '
'! '.1, ,, .
.n, * & * * ,<.- r' r n ,
i g . ) '9 ;*4
.*w P'*.* = . gee
- ee .m e, _ 9. % ,,, wm%..,_ ,, _ _ . , , , ,
y,d,.' M(,E. , , .. ,
't ;
! * :l $Q
.' s ,
,_y ,# ,,, t, ; fb t ., ._ ; . '} ,
.h ,y e. -q
~ .:,
m,'c e#:.y~f;: - :x' 6
, *.* J;.2$3'i n. .c.:l.
a kyylj% 2 .
. Y' 5 - L 1..: ' ~
- ll 's: -
l h ,' . . . . +.s.
- - ..p.. *~ o . "
%j dw,y Q; ,' ,( s .
wn.
.r. - _-
***- r .
' a'
. ; . 3 *
* . &. - . ;I;-
f' ,. M.Wg?r*.C'#p tMQ . y< {f g fl.,f . ",- m ~~O
;6: WY 7 n
, .f%
QVh e.y; y&.*.%. - , **
.wu a*w Y' .'
w / .+,e. n . K> .
.e . k _ - - , , .
- m. . & ,.;m ., .. : a
- . 1
,- 3.
/ ~ 9 o,
.N ^ > T M ; . M , ?. 9L --.~;-~ L ' J -
2.= ' - W%*M"
.N. . .:. Q L. N. l<Ckt ~
f;f..; g;&g. *
.e
" 2y' .;l l Q
.&a:,fG'.. g&&. g s . . n.N. ,
- w. qwp .- . w .c1
.,,' x. ,s 3 \
e
, a j/ '",
jp; x ;.' .>> 4 [ *. F
-o [ ', [" ins NRC action on its application.' On January 31, 1986, the Citizens Q@h.,{.[P' @
- fcN S-f .'. ,,5 f' Association for Sound Energy (CASE), an intervenor in the Comanche
.P. 2 .; . ; %* "' f , . Peak operating license proceeding, Gled a pleading with the Commission R.g;, .;. . .f , 2,', itself seeking (1) the imposition of a civil penalty against TUEC for con-
,j;,..glW, '<, W:.
.,[.
J. : struction activities at CPSES Unit I between August I and January 29,
. rye?
- , (2) a dennitive order directing TUEC to file an application for a new gy ,
- ~. s s.
construction permit and to cease all construction activities at CPSES
- l. m .fr;s.,1.. 1
. Unit 1, (3) a determination that signiGeant hazards considerations exist- . .f. 9',E . a . . ' P ,. '
1,.-" . ed in any extension of the construction permit, and (4) a hearing before
;$ ',J,j,. / T.', ;'.t/l.i
- the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) on the request
.e,- Ui' ';. '
dMN.$ ' . ,;, 'M',,' m :f' J %);,.A f h '> 1.V. 4 ~ to extend the construction permit. TUEC responded to CASE's pleading on February 4,1986, asking that the Commission reject CASE's argu-
. ;mg. , . /- -:, ment that a new construction permit was required, refer the remainder ysw. qi4 4 47 g.' 4 v v of the Grst three items in CASE's pleading to the NRC Staff for appropri- . . -i. j < . .. .
o- . ate action, and deny the request for a hearing. o ppz,1, & f.: . , , , . While this matter was still pending before the Commission, the Stali
.)n,3, ,W,, . U 't. gf f ,. d\.
... issued a NEPA Onding of no signiGeant environmental impact relating to the extension of CPPR-126 and published this Onding in the Federal h.e 4 y.W1. g 4 , t., M'. 4 a,
.c[i, Register. See 51 Fed. Reg. 4834 (Feb. 7,1986). Subsequently, on Febru-a ,p4u L. A. : q -:. ./, ,
ary 10,1986, the Staffissued the requested extension of CPPR-126 after
![7A . , .,s" / ..e- making a finding that the extension involved no signincant hazards con-W MC7'**.?"' '
siderations. CASE has responded with a request that the Commission
$hiiNbMT'N'WQ,-G
. ,:Q M
}IN. stay the efTectiveness of the construction permit extension while granting the relief previously requested in CASE's January 31st pleading. The
.. .%.4v G.a.3.ymice.ymgen - (f*y.% ,ya n:,[ w w: m ['. .fiM. ,my;. Staff and TUEC CASE has 4,.h,D, moved have responded to file a a reply
.o?n in opposition to that request, and memorandum, which we have accepted 9 and considered.
7t
%$d.f';,', N.,,'4,WM q v.6 g q<.N 2 , ..Ol%,d/1 After due consideration, we: (1) deny both CASE's request for a m .g; b] Q 9J' C'i .' -[' halt to construction and its request for the institution of a new construc-lh ui tion permit proceeding; (2) deny CASE's request for a 3tay of Staff's ex-
$.ypM.,4 , . l Q p k. .
tension of CPPR-126; (3) reject CASE's siew that signincant hazards egC m considerations are involved in the extension of CPPR-126; (4) refer D.q . > c 3 , M_ f . !n . - w ww CASE's request for enforcement action to the Staff for consideration
',G :A' under 10 C.F.R. l 2.206; and (5) refer CASE's request for a hearing to p%,.d
- M)h 7
/.e",7.y,n.. ..'.cM+J.a#Q;,
.. :l i.
-a
/, 6
.t W' FW';Ma y @ &....~ 6.; E. ,
the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for ap-pointment of a hearing board to rule on the hearing request and to con-Mr7. Wm$ @WW,M.4% l 'St N f 0'&[c&Oh)f(8Oli7p.,. 4;Q,.N St% t- **.
. . mo.m f; s* 9 p.M..q
- yt ,
.,,.. iTUEC continued activities that were related to (0 mainienance of systems already in operation. O)
M design activities. O) ongoing inspection and planmns activities that responded to NRC stafrenticisms.
- h. 7.
D d-[,yK. p! T( f
? $ %h 9[@(Y IKf%. .MM ! .@il{;P '.
.(
O,w
,3 5. . e i esclusive or actual physical corrective action, and (4) corrective maintenance of systems that were un.
dergoing repairs at the time of discovery,ir TUEC Judsed such activities necessary to preserse the in. <g- .$Ap q a .q" . , b>; $ . tegnty of the installed system
. . i .' '4 : m n. ( .', ,*
- i. igg,y\ h 9*h, 5 h[# ? \* iD #
.,me
,i
. p. . . w .c m -
..h[mj yk;h .o ,L@- !C;
,M. c.d~p
- , . , ~.
I
).; s,,
. 116 Q: EQ-g .:;i% v .. g Wm, M&' .; .;*,4w ,/U, W.t
,u , , . c w;g r g ,j- , .- 'nn MS E 7/
g& ts: ;J .,. .Q :/ h..',f'e' .;, i b '* ' 'hn w ,s.~- 9. .cm- n ---.-= ** * .L 7 ,. ,
, . ,---"g ,; ** 7". T f '
- T * ' '" ,P 7.Te***K**
. . ..ps..yc u . q. .
. ;~.n.m ..
C ,' y M, , - . *
'h s w, L 3
w.wasqpn
,r
.f sm,mugmq, yaws..g. n . ,.
n v $v.n% w+Gi.1.N:!W.D&n% .. . U%uQ W ~Q % ' ) , m?.i V..P ,m?,eI*' e
&. w& ~W 5 Y $. & .i. Wc . M. /Q n $e t!
~ ' -
.; .: m ,. .
.'N s c. m , s -
p r.
.a ,
T ' 4
.4[
, "I I -;
.i -
' s Y . ' .h ,;'a m*N ' ' * , 9.. _-
.we.m,Wr -m '..c
.e .
,..3,
- g. s s:r. 3 ,as s c ,m. ~ . ' , m ., u..-, >
>c
- w. 2 -
.u .. e. ,
, ,; ,. a : ~
- . a .:.,: u . _
x- 3_
. ,..ay&. .m mg.c a .e g_ 3 p ' = ~
3., w .,, -
. / % ? q, .
,: m y' . :.W. ;
, pp. .- n.
.;r'.ht f. n.
; y. . w W, .m ., .
, t /,s . , [ ,.3 ,. g,M'~.,
.q.
.* p..>..~. ;, . , *
. %xy 7, ? -
;..p a.y.'-. - . y 9 @. .c .,a,,,!. ;*g duct any necessary hearings in accordance with Subpart G of 10 C.F.R.
.7 . .,
.w: Part 2.
~ Q t w'. ,,
; f. '.
II. RENEWAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT R M. Y ; J/ ..g .
@n. [m:.g. .f : The first legal issue before the Commission for decision is whether
, ?7'.6'.C
- l. . . . TUEC's failure to make a timely application for an extension prior to y -
the expiration date of its construction permit had the effect of causing a f, , , , . .. c-, > @My;- , . complete forfeiture of the permit, such as to preclude the issuance of an i.y/6.j;M.QT:_ * * ' y M 99";- ;. extension and to require the initiation of an entirely new construction D NG. permit proceeding. To answer this question, which we resolve in the (.g,h( 7,q".{.~ M e ;\,,h.;
. m negative, we begin by looking at the statute.
Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) provides in pertinent 4 <
. , . ., - ,.; f 2 %em.r .
part:
-;,m.q n '
* ! s t s, ,.
~;L. . s. .'
The construction permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for the completion of
,,g / ,1 * ,'s , - ll ; .;.
, ,; w. >
? f s' $4 g.,[f s'r W'. the construction or modification. Unless the construction or modification of the 4 ./ if. .i .
+"
~* f*; facility is completed by the completion date, the construction permit shall expire.
t
" w'yl, .., y? "
- . . . :.E and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Commis-
'f' '.
sion extends the completion date. al. ' . ? E,,", e s ,%. fN. y ,. cg
,t,,,
u. The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act does not explicitly
. c. . y ', My l[
M ,l*c % ,N ,' Ok$ h; state the purpose underlying this provision. It is noteworthy, however, that the quoted language was modeled on the provision of the Com-W 9 tt y . f, .%' *%'y$ m munications Act of 1934 which governs the issuance of radio station con-k.MM u d.W; @ j[.y @ . struction permits by the Federal Communications Commission.2 At the
- .7p d g: p@,}%; !@hd5&%d time that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was passed, all nuclear fu:1 was owned by the United States government, and it was envisioned that
'j!.ky@d@i.cy[gg@a;;%@O
,y y, [.C % 1 "Y T >l recipients of construction permits would, once their facilities were completed, receive some of that publicly owned fuel for use in the reac-
!L * '
' U.M. [.
j 7, 2 tor.) Thus in 1954, there were significant analogies between the issuance
@,,.n
' .V e , @1.d 4 fQQ 2.. - :9; ,
of construction permits for radio stations and nuclear reactors: both in-3@MD.f -Q'3pB volved the allocation of a scarce resource in the sole possession of the
% h T.";,1 %$-3M CM.' y d[ k ; %j $ m federal government. In both cases, moreover, it could be presumed that if a permittee failed to make use of its allocation, some other applicant would be in a position to use it.
sNNJ W v MMb p p j
*.? p.W b '.y}W;QMn M,,,@,..'S
;l9
.C .$Of.$g ..n. The regulations promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission for W , $x, ofathe.y,pFM@p/F the implementation Atomic Energy Act demonstrate 4- the signifi-MT, pi[~j7yh ',',t,d h W o.
A AaW
**a . . is . %,.:p p .#figf.ied _M %.y/s, pgQ u 2 See Proposed Amendments to the Atomt Ency Act of I94e: Hesrtners on S. 3323 and H.R. 8862 Before W% di~ Q gia the loint Comm. en Atome Emergy. 83d Cong.,2d sess 116 (1954) (Representative flinshawl, reprmted
- it%* .4:ff M.; Ng"yes ik <,,.y, w*Q.%,y A*Dag's ,!.1 -e %
'ls'
( ,
,-f -
3 Q JC*
;< f . / , d .J \ . @ ,.l .
]I.
in il L.egislative History or the Atomic Energy Act or 1954. at 1635.175156 2 section 52 or the Atomic Energy Act. which provided ror sole Commission ownership or all special nuclear material, was repealed in 1964. Pub L 88 489 i 4,78 stat. 602 (1964) [*. , c, y.
, -' . .g:gm ,
" 51 ' W[b, j&,d,$*p'y
[Q.'s,llA .
. . n.v4ww.s%. ,.n w ,n. ." .~3% f gN%U*p7 g...g a 117 b.af .
- k. y *,.('isA $,
- Q:",&,,
,, ~
,, c jf,e t % R '( . . .
$ . , , p * ... .
w}.e 9-.
., * ' g .g' ;
w -. . , - , ,, ,-,-e .ew.nw.g , .% ;,,,. , n; v pyV
.t . , -
,;,j':Aya, x .v.mW kWin nn g.g t %{.s u .
3,y s,,
;,1 .
n- , t 3:3
%N Q +,.v.Q L. qQ %g,%.g 3 .
c m e. ,
*.E*.4 . , ;;'.. ;y.o w
. p', ~g V p.MITf .A* ,4t . .i, 4;w;,, yiv. ki.-
2f.M " W2 p. p , * ;g.cq,n t. ,4.3>.. @p,s,jn.p.,.qq fggf g gP p - ', q .. jr, .t 'i + pn m.gyggy,fgwy - e n,g,ygggggy h 5 *
*- f y
; . ~
.y
t p
~~ ~
->. ,; g t
, s-
. ..t a
..> 2 ,
s
/ s,. - - *
- n. ..- _
, + ..
-=
-} ,
_, , e p. : g 7
~
. a . ... . . . ~.: v . w . ~ .': = -. . &.-...= ~---- . - . . u- - -
te e k* . 4_'
- , , , ,< . - t
.+
,1
.- cance that attached to allocations of nuclear fuel. Under 10 C.F.R.
. E1
- j 50.60, " Allocation of Special Nuclear Material," the Commission was
, . authorized to include in each construction permit a statement of the
., .d, amounts and scheduling of transfers of special nuclear material from the i
~
.,,,; Commission to the permittee. 21 Fed. Reg. 355 (Jan.19,1956). Signifi-
'i'.
' - cantly,10 C.F.R. ( 50.55(a), which now provides simply that "[t]he i,. ',-
', permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for completion of the con-
/ . .e struction or modi 0 cation," then included a second sentence: "If the 9 construction or modification is completed before the earliest date speci-
1 -
Ged, the holder of the permit shal' promptly notify the Commission for
' . . ~
', ,~ ., ; [
the purpose of accelerating final inspection and any scheduled delivery of
. i. materialsfrom the Commission." (Emphasis added.) Likev ise, the regula-q tions foresaw the possibility of competition for scarce nuclear fuel, and q therefore provided, in 10 C.F.R. j 70.23(f), that "[iln the event that ap-j plications for special nuclear material exceed the amount available for 3 distribution, the Commission will give preference to those activities
. which are most likely, in the opinion of the Commission, to contribute to basic research, to the development of peacetime uses of atomic
'! energy, . . to the economic and military strength of the Nation . .[or]
. ,- , '. i to major advances in the application of atomic energy for industrial or j commercial purposes." 21 Fed. Reg. 764 (Feb. 3,1956).
. j Taken as a whole, these regulatory provisions indicate that at the time a .- -
+.j ~
the Atom c Energy Act was passed, the allocation of scarce fuel was of major concern to the agency charged with implementation of the Atomic
~,- ,
~
Energy Act. Ten years later, the development of the nuclear power and
*;. . .P a, . . , -
uranium mining industries made government ownership and allocation y . .- e i c. . . ir5 - of nuclear materials no longer a necessity, and ( 52 of the Atomic
,. ;~ .'; Energy Act was repealed. See Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Mate-rials, 1964: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the Joint *
- . Comm. on ef tomic Energy, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964). It thus appears M that though the requirement that construction permits include termina-
, ,j tion dates remained in the statute, the policy reasons underlying that re-
<* i ,,
, ,: - quirement had ceased to exist.
. .s. '
OO As we have said earlier, TUEC's failure to Glc a timely renewal re-ld '[ (C ,
- ;. quest is unique in the Commission's experience. There is thus no case s
, ., , p ; i.) law which interprets { 185 of the Atomic Energy Act as it applies to this
,e , ,. .
t
/ . , Ai;;. Q situation. There is, however, case law interpreting the parallel provision d 's < ' , ^ ,? * ; -" J.M of the Communications Act of 1934 which holds that the expiration of g -
.c ,
the original construction permit did not preclude the Commission from W
.h ,. ; .o . . . .
i,-
- - renewing that permit. The decision is all the more signincant in that it
. . .m,.
.J l .. . ,
l g' *, ' . , i 2,. , , i - ',. ,,' 118
'" 7,
, .3
.>,. - - , L ...... , ._ , . . ,- . m - -- - y~ .
--~m
~
* % n.&:;. .d i ' : . ~O
'2.e . .:.,
9 %, _ . .
- 2 ...,
, ..x e.-
-.- f '
n' w y ' y.. * ; + q, ok ., * ,- *S s. * *
- niy _
,- ,Q ( s
, . .c < ,'4 ,
, < Q-[,, 'h[y , ,y. .
. + , n _' . " y' ; . -
, .y .- ". 'Q. , ' l g *;R'/.. r. 'W ,I'nm,h,2-Qy$
- t. .e:
*i[ I' ' 3, . . -+ ' I*
. s v. @c ' , , * <7 W' iM, ' 3 y ' , , ,', h ; -' # O " ' - *7
.a h-q$w7'qQhY', AgM h ,7,h.h./ -
p+ : ,v
.t
.w
,%s, ( l; * . l - ?}.s'.f f ' . g } % ;;. y Q ,' ,. ;. y g:,gyzg%". ..,.Q,Q g&n.}.;.; ,
~ ~ a. .
".s.,,'t;;) - f;.d.
. .. s .. -- ,
- g. sr. # .
. , ]
m a,
- s. .~, , : .,
.,n m . ; y#::n,n A.. .y,~..,,.
; y , -
( ,.c. ,-
%s . [ ]!((p 2 \, Q_
^ * '(( } J
- j
__-__.. - m, ;u_w_ m, # _ . , .,a
.c ..y. w "
, ,3,
._ . - . ,,,_f . L n__ ; _ _
;9 a ,
J p g p gn ' ' . , .
- r. .
6". ..; . . - p involved - as present conditions before the NRC do not - expiration
,l'4
. , of a permit in a context of competition for a scarce federally owned
.y
. resource.
t M. 0 ;. o, '
' .J . In Mass Communicators. Inc. v. FCC, 266 F.2d 681 (D.C. Cir.1959),
f'pr .1( 'e v. I.. m jy
- _ 1, ; n *
- . cert. denied,361 U.S. 828 (1959), the D.C. Circuit reviewed an FCC de-
. cision involving an untimely application for the renewal of a construction
permit under i 319(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
' 3 @ % j' ' .;, L..
?f 4< -
. .- { 319(b), which is almost identical to f 185 of the AEA, 42 U.S.C.
,i ,1c, ..!
- m - .
f 2235. Section 319(b) of the Communications Act required that the
;;;&f;fp*y f ,* s ~f..a permit for construction of a radio station specify the earliest and latest p,, . I '
construction deadlines and that "said permit will be automatically forfeit-AC* m ;g [r ;,M MON.k 'J.Y* E I ^ W % . N ' . . ed if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified or
, R ' A* .; ,' ' "
. 'i within such further time as the Commission may allow, unless prevented
, g4 . , ;T ' q .: by causes not under control of the [ holder of the permit]." 266 F.2d at
^c '" - 683. One such holder of a radio station construction permit failed to file Q An ; ,
3 a timely application for extension. Mass Communicators, a rival enter-prise, filed a challenge to the FCC's extension of the permit, alleging y , 9l ' '
.s i'N - that the FCC had to begin new proceedings in which it would have an )O i . opportunity to compete for the license, The FCC refused to require automatic forfeiture of the construction c N -: .
permit, even though the extension application was untimely under regu-l1 '
. . . j c ., .
lations which, like the NRC's current regulations, provided for continua. A>';eya,= . , .;y tion of the permit pending a final determination if a filing was made 30
*U days prior to expiration of the permit. See Bremer Broadcasting Corp.,3
((1,y Ag' ii', Fed. Reg. (P&F) 1579 (1947). Compare 10 C.F.R. { 2.109 (1985) with
,, ; ; 4 '.g,p b g ,
, . , FCC Rule 3.215(b), 10 Fed. Reg. 2006 (1945) (now 47 C.F.R.
m le,; qw.s c w z .. .
%. .'6 5 75.3534 (1984)). The D.C. Circuit found that the automatic forfeiture
- p. .x, W.J . o ' '. -
M4 % provision in the statute did not leave the FCC powerless to extend the
,( * <*E'
- '
- T. permit, even though the application for extension was untimely filed.
266 F.2d at 684. With respect to Mass Communicators' claim that the j- L f , radio frequency had become available to other applicants, the court Q.[ ie* found that "the frequencies are not 'available' . . . until there occurs an actual forfeiture, either by abandonment of the permit by the original @-Wi'.? !%p h , v.Q,l $.!:
- permittee or by adverse - and valid - administrative action by the
..uM "*f.',rM .%m A. ..j W N lf :<t1
.,. y ~ . . . '
Federal Communications Commission." 266 F.2d at 685.
.gS if.W n ; . e In essence, Mass Communicators stands for the principle that the au-
>yh,M,1%;n tomatic forfeiture provision of f 319(b) does not apply until FCC either M. 4
.hyy% y%? g .
W.E, k cMh: S47ll ym
%gQ a{N 21 (1) makes a finding that the cause of the failure to complete construction was "not under the control of the grantee" or (2) affirmatively chooses
..m . . i m m.. 4 guy . v ., a 7 We s.ny ,,% e not to exercise its discretion to extend the construction permit, regard-V y., M .,"+) G i,f .
. .W.l Vi,% less of the timelines s of the renewal application. In sum, even after expi-t'f i i . . ",, , <R- - ration of the permit, the FCC had to act affirmatively in order to com-
'} plete the forfeiture. See, e.g., MG TV Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,408 F.2d
. ; . . . . 0' f@ c..y 4, ' ,. . ( .. . . .
tp, 2 :
. . 4 .
119 Q'[&K f'jf. e , y . j e r q. - . 'k.(. . '7e
- f l, n?lf ) ; '
1 i-
. q pp 5 . ;(u .- %w\
j[Ds . ;* *e k lf., .h'y n.
, .. .n;c%v rv ~ w y ,..,. v c~~m-m 7;:3m7 m-wm rnmmun
'h .
' ' h *. . .
4
.hh c,"' . . m
. . ' m. . m.
m$m W yp.4h em b f, m,N . - %mm.vy ..
- m. jiW,.s' % Q.s s
w #;.y. g g%.M , g ,y %, w m,s 9/m.g f 84Q m YWMM n hv%may,. y, gpa&e:n%me: dyp$@m'nMMMnhWL y n$nM ,' y Q .P. we'p .n , o n$ pe Q,w n gQw(&ww ,1@y iQdr @py.G . p.Mid
e i
- l. . . .
4
~
, .~t F
' ..g i '
'\ .
i L : w . : s s n i l.~s~ .a' . L. *. ~ . - - . - - - - - --'%
. , =
* * ' h. l <'
~.
. ~ , , '
j . , ^i 1257,1261 (D.C. Cir.1968) (" lilt is well settled that a construction
~
permit does not ' lapse,' notwithstanding a failure to abide by its own q, ?j Q. 7 .
/*7 8 terms, until the Commission declares it forfeited") (citations omitted)
% . .: ., / ,. c, i. (footnote omitted).
.. ' '... t
,G.,C- ,? . _ Section 185 of the AEA, like { 319(b), provides that the construction S' '. ~ . ' .i .
~
7. c' permit for a nuclear facility shall include the earliest and latest dates for the completion of a facility and that unless construction of the facility is s- . ,.
~
- c ,'
completed by the latest date shown on the permit, "the construction
,.. 3I , . . , ,
. f. permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder shall be forfeited, unless
~
. . 'c' upon good cause shown, the Commission extends the completion date."
., *: Q,," ,* M,'. ; F - "l;? ' 42 U.S.C. f 2235. We read 5185 of the AEA to be similar enough to
-- . l 319(a) of the Communications Act to apply Mass Communicarors to
(, ' , , 7,.' this case. First, the requirement of both earliest and latest construction
~ *
, dates is identical. Second, the forfeiture provisions are essentially identi-
~ '
. cal. Third, neither statute by its terms limits either administrative
' j' '
. agency to accepting only applications that are timely filed. E.g., Mass Communicators, 266 F.2d at 684-85. Therefore, we hold today that the
. J; '
expiration of the construction permit did not at;tomatically effect the for-
,, , _- feiture of CPPR 126, and that the Commission was not then barred from considering TUEC's application for extension of the latest con-struction date. As a result, a complete de novo construction permit pro-
, ig C ' i, .,', , ceeding is not warranted.* IQ - -, , . ,+
,.s., .
,p.
" ~
111. CASE'S JANUARY 31st Pl.EADING
, ~ ,P.' . . . .. ,7, . ll. n. .
em-yv , .
. ,~
^
We now turn to the issues raised by CASE in its January 31st pleading. [' ,,,, ? - First, CASE requests that the Commission assess a civil penalty for unauthorized construction between August I,1985, when the latest completion date in the construction permit passed, and February 10, 1986, when the Staff renewed CPPR-126. This request is best handled by the StalT under { 2.206 after final agency action on TUEC's extension
,v, . .. ,.
a,e s _ request.5 d 'yfk [,.' ' ' Second, CASE seeks a definitive order directing the initiation of a
* ~. ' S' ?, , O ' ' ' ..' - .
- new construction permit proceeding and the cessation of all construction ht.{ [,. .F.'
B' '..
.- at CPSES Unit 1. We deny the request for a new construction permit 3g ?.j%( g - ' '
;4
A* .
4 This holdmg in no way absolves the permittee in this case. TUEC. rrom its burden or showing good
,I, cause" as the statute and NRC regulations require, we will not prejudge the ments or TUEC's case. .h.(,1 3,N 6. ,,', T L i .*. . .
f ., 5Although the D C. Circuit has held that the license does not "lapw" until the Commission takes some 7,h. ,m . N'J4 !.;b
- y y- offirmative action to complete the rorfeiture. we do not read this to mean that TUf C was tree to con.
y' . tmue construction after August I,1985. until told to stop such an mierpretation would render meaning-i,c ,' , ,,' [, - less the requirements that construction permits be obramed and estensions applied ror.10 CER. s , H 2109. 5010. Nf g d, y y f F.' t ; ,( ,, - ' .
- t. s ,.' ,' q - * * .
jhf '
,- 120 w5?. '.,t. -
.s
.'**e
,7# $'*****
[.W.4
- i 8
e-. g.._
'r . 4- s
_,.js-,*--+-*=*-
,. Y[h g *' - ' '
--****'*"*""l**t**v"*'"'e'-
.' m' T "**~""]
'"**f '
'# . '-" " '*l',*"k
. e. .7.t' i , , s)fY '
k .s .,
. , . .r %[, -t 3h
...t ' .. Y * .Y : .f e; ; 0l* . ~.
,'.-}y. . -,mhhQ . ,.
.. .p%,9 '. *_E!, , . .t ~ - .*. UW.
E D,* t'.' N.
- .'t ,%
jf,$'%., . .af , l, s, ?,.*h. g(,h .,..# k_We.f.. s g, .x ,k,a l ' ',,' i j
* 'J
'!*4' *- y ,
'W ,.<
,. , . , J . .,
a.- u* M M, -aii %.. ,.y t..W.q. d,;p <n . .Q. 8, . A., q p. ;#,0,.,,r, e a4 . . ,.
'y.. .h .. -
r W ',a mvc.,4.n. m.v,,
- 4,x 0h.s.b.f
+; t,
- .D..rr%n , M n ,o M g
f_g* j 4q.
. s y . ~
t a
, 7
, . ;. . .~ .. u .- - . -. . - . ~ -. u - ~ . . . . ;;.w
~
N proceeding for the reasons discussed in { 11, above. We deny the request
- s for an order to halt construction for the reasons discussed in { IV in con-nection with CASE's stay request.*
- Third, we dismiss CASE's request for a finding that extension of the construction permit necessarily involves signiGeant hazards considera-
..- ? tions. The Commission has delegated the responsibility for making this
', - finding to the discretion of the Staff. See, e.g., 48 Fed. Reg.14,864,
$f . . ' ,- .i.'
14,867 (April 6,1983). We have reviewed and agree with the Stafi's
- Gnding in the circumstances of this proceeding. The term "no signiGeant
'. ' .N ~ % ' . . hazards consideration" is directed to consideration of radioactive l'a hazards that are involved in the amendment extending the construction 7 .e u., . _ .
, T ,,4 ' y,@^,?. .' , , .n' permit. Here, the grant of the extension results in no substantive
'" + 5 4 *
- change: the design and construction methods will be the same as
'l
,~ D. - -
o . .,
- provided in the original Comanche Peak construction permit. The
.6' - .. ~
. amendment granting the extension merely gives TUEC more time to
' J,J ' , .
- ! complete construction in accordance with the previously approved con-struction permit, and thus it involves no signiGcant hazards considera-
. ' i IL ., ..'
tion. The safety issues that CASE seeks to raise in its attack on the i Stafi's finding that the amendment extending the construction permit in-n , .. ; volves no signiGcant hazards consideration are more appropriately raised in the ongoing operating license proceeding.'
- Finally, CASE correctly notes that it is entitled to a hearing on the construction permit extension. Brooks v. 4EC. 476 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. < 3, , . 3 3 , ,
- . i' '
, , 1973) (per cwiam). Therefore, we refer CASE's request for a hearing to
"'~o
. the Chairman of the ASLBP fer designation of a hearing board and fur-
. . . s.
% 1- ,
ther proceedings in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G. Ilow-
"- - ever, the scope of the proceeding is limited to challenges to TUEC's
'* S$'., .-," ,'
- effort to show " good cause" for the extension. Washington Public Power
>c D .
Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2), CL1-82-29,16 1 NRC 1221,1229 (1982).
- s
, a j
- IV. CASE'S STAY REQUEST
' 'i
',1'., "
,,M -
j,' We turn now to CASE's application for a stay of the immediate etTec-l' f ' '
~ , ' '. '
.4 '
tiveness of the Staff's extension of CPPR 126. Our regulations require n, ?
. . ,i
.1-4 g <,.4 , ,y '.- ,y-
,%t8# f
^
.: , ,. 6 CASE's pleadings ask for a construction halt as a necessary legal consequence to TUEC's untimely es.
- tension request and staff's allegedly illegal issuance of the estens on. Thus, this Memorandum ad
- ;JN"$ I's *. f. - , ..
.t order addresses this request only from that perspective. If CASE has substantive safety reastm. for a
. Y * . ..
'.. .i
' construction halt. it should submit those reasons in a { 2.206 petition addressed to the stafr %e M&mo-randum and order does not prejudge the submission of any petition based upon safety considerations.
p"?'p.;',' ** , y . ;
' ^*
- f. , [ ' 7 Indeed, me read the record before the Licensing Board to indicate that many, if not all. of the allegs.
tions CASE seeks to litigate in this proceedmg are in fact included in that proceeding. t+ * < . m c ,. j
- p. <- . ., ., ,
l 4 a. , , ' , .... .--,' 121
,t'gpp. ,
. Q.u e ,i, c. - Q,
. 'u ~S,.A.. j
,. . . - s.,,...._ ,
4 ;.. . , '
, .f ) o,i
~
* .e s,
.: cf , .- ,-.- ,#! rg:y.- - , . , ,
i l' b], &p*g .o g' r.3f. "* ; ~ M s .
~,. *~[**
y, . ; ., .
- W 7 q'* ,
h 'iv c . , ,
' Qf.r LA
< .13f.sl%,j N .b r,. w :.q W ie U.A 1Scy S M Vs. fJ , .J; M ei '
N ' ,, .5 WPg g 3hf.fr l1
- 2 m:l y . s :.3 lz . ,; ..',,[..
h L' 3. h [3 p. -$ *.
.y:9 .
- 0. #'< )V[T'l, Y f & .>
_.,.- . m . t o, , . y q.:k' h 0
.g;
.f hf j Q Q ;;:l'<Q'. f .,;~ -l 'W ?6y/ '
>? N nl . ' . 4 W;'h %
g e .a . ' h -r *
%^
a -
- 3: :r -my
, m y .
% ,2- Q 1 s .. e .-W; ,
.<. 26., .:
- M . a ;. .px & ;,;'.:::, Y'N 'u y, 2 :- '-
W ~, ' *' *
- 3. a'.D
*h : '. w. '
. c. . y .. . .
- " ", " ' ",. " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
&y . . /..( :l.'. " .g. k -~~..-. - ---- ~
M & m %. m. &.. m
- s
~ y'. w .;;. M ,.:h... ,.k : n . , ' .a t,4a- 3, v,., e, .n v.,, . . ~, . c g - . Q)cch. S.& , W 's.:
@c.
QlD i../ r.q.. .l? . ' .*. ?. p. -
*. , Q. -
that CASE meet the traditional stay requirements set forth in Virginia Pe-7,M p[ %I.,/.J3. *, troleum Jobbers Ass'n v. EPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir.1958) and Q, f & : *' ., ,n l
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc.,
,m, SS9 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir.1977). Those four standards are (1) likelihood
?(.d}j.Nh*Mh,{jj2 N I. d h M ;; % .'j .." of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury to the moving party if
'.Q'495%?
",,,6 y iW' VA 4. the stay is not granted, (3) any harm to other parties, and (4) the public n -- .-
interest. See 10 C.F.R. f 2.788(e) (1985).
. g%i. y%, W,% .. 3 fc' i n.. . t (. <- m .r ,
,,, Significantly, CASE does not allege that the resumption of construc-J '? !.. U l V ~1. . ...' # ,j tion activities at CPSES Unit 1, in and of itself, would constitute irrepa-
.;6$[MM, r p g W ?!$,I]. g ?.1 ,3.'f F EiM* " rable harm to CASE or anyone else. Instead CASE argues that the irrep-arable harm results from the NRC's failure to grant CASE a preexten-M !Nhh,MIM[M. sion hearing on TUEC's request. We disagree. CASE has made no show-
?[.T $' t M . I. T' [ .', ' E8),$- [ l'Jll Du'.,' -;
ing that failure to grant it a preextension hearing will cause it any harm which cannot (and will not) be remedied in a postextension hearing or
' 6.t O 3Nj%. ' (4;; - ' > that by such a decision the Commission is depriving CASE of a "due process" right. The Supreme Court has consistently held that unless u,
M y,/+;M$@jf '. f? n % >.. .: t,$)- _y
- J . '
"fundamer.tal rights" are involved, a prompt posthearing on an admin- . r, '* 1, '< istrative :.etion complies with requirements of "due process." See, e.g.,
e 'D-f$ % ) J;.0, , ,
,(
, Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. SS (l979); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 a.y.4re, T */ (1976). We find no such " fundamental right" in the circumstances of
.Af. . this proceeding.
,,. . lM w , , s. . -.
We agree that CASE has an interest in the safe construction of
+.m;%Me,M g .g
n CPSES. Ilowever, in this instance, immediate efTectiveness of' the con-T struction permit extension has no effect on CASE's interest in safe con-
@g #W
!W.D"('gM- R ,6.
. . -m g =, 3,^. .,u, .j Ms . ,
4
,~-r. ', struction because (1) the plant is essentially complete, and TUEC pro-cceds with the remainder of construction work entirely at its own risk, Q dMMM t g g, @.,- @ fg A M k 6@ 'M i'.(2)dwhat b [ little$ ..new construction work remains can be halted at any time
.T @A.'
M-rd, Q-Q'+1$,1.. 1 if evidence warranting that action becomes availah!e to tiie NRC, and
*,49p ' o
) (3) CASE is assured of a prompt postextension hearing to the extent
.f.. y ,<
%A . . .
. , ' d@$.* % c .'
.: . . , - ..'...i3
_ ! - . . ' a(3 that its request raises proper issues for consideration. Brooks v. AEC, supra, supports the proposition that allowing construc-tion to proceed does not violate any fundamental due process rights. In W%@MDM,7.@ CQa %3 ,,N - Brooks, the Commission extended a construction permit without making a "no significant hazards considerations" finding. The reviewing court D @I d[19%,E ./45 '*o held that this action was contrary to f 189a of the AF A IIcwcw, tiie W@ MW7 C.ir'b $ffi@5M/l' a Y Brooks Court allowed construction 10 continue, concluding that "[t]he
*% W l'kr p.p.. g $u ,D
- N coMauing validity of the construction permit is made subject to the out-M.,*x*'e Q come of a hearing on this issue." 476 F.2d at 928. If continued construc-r ql ., N',f y .t , . ;.G;p " *. W .N :i';c d' ,&;g 4//N , '
tion pending a hearing may be allowed in the absence of a formal finding vey en ,i g, . n ., of no significant hazards considerations, afortiori continued construction h.h.iQ,%yd*fb..* khN should be allowed when the Staff has made a finding of no significant wMb6 d w$ h,,,f..*.. M 'i ' * , ' ,
$* h h
- M b ' '
- I
' ;*,wgAN#
h.406M;M. N i t ?, 1*. p We m m e. vC/Q'N. Q,,'.3 w * ' _ sa A
. p' t ,
122
.q<. . G.#f* .c W..,,..e *
- i,h tJ I'Y
- t* ,. 4 .
3 f1@ 'Q' d %.g.:b;[Q.* #* [W :
. .A;p.d.r uy
. , J. . f{ ..W-. . . . >.. -. ,,
l '4* q- [T\ ,fh 7 7* g
'g-a a r 5* #
- - (.i hh [g N' h/?O " "', O
' . < * "
- E-D '
' eY4
' $ N bi '
M[3 k$5.Q.; 9%5 $"dN. M N < 7 W M@MMM&MhMi&bApMw&,M,%'].MMr6 MWWeM,MW[. ?v MMMW% 8 Q G d . 2 M u4% d ! Vgt MM&sh w
- l 1 , 5
.? . s ;.;
.. a ~
=- =;.~ ~
M:w D,. -3 Y.v.. , .',p&+ ,;
+ p a a;.w ...:>.
.y'M &g 3.;w.%,..n, 1
- ,. , ~ .
- s. m %. . .
.. w. .
-- ~ . ~ -
- > . ~a -: - . - .
yn +h.g,L. . ; y.sw. v .
..V.
..e
." ~m w._;<t
- ..,,s,. v& g. -.
^?t G Q j $.s. i ,
;;- M W.L:
, ;, . c r : y 3 . m ,,' c :;>..i
- w ,
;y 4:3.% . ,:.w;:
+ . .. ,v:duh.. ..
.,y
, h = . y' T ;6 % j ,s t :
iQ) ,.4 f g.y. .. iM 6 ,M.NM hazards considerations. Furthermore, here, as in Brooks, continued con-struction is subject to the outcome of the extension proceeding. f$U e$ W.[c .Ff 6 . I Ml@6 "@.! "
" Q S R (fCASE argues that it has a statutory entitlement to a preextension hear-ing under Sholly v. NRC,651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.), reh's en banc denied, K @$M:N MX,%f[MMM. 651 F.2d 792 (1980), cert. granted, 451 U.S.1016 (1981), vacated and re-
'$9:&$k d.pn y Lr W.y:lO
.< W WChh.$ p#e d manded, 459 U.S. I194, vacated and remanded to the NRC as moot, 706 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir.1983), and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.
S.M.'Y3YT.CWl. @MR%I;E,M NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), vacated in part and reh*g granted
" $ [( In part 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Cir.1985). We disagree. We read i 189a(1)
MQM,Y.[. . )N).QM;Nf? to allow the Commission to amend a construction permit prior to the h.irMM,,ny.w OfYC *d%WP.% ,%(h :1 completion of any requested hearing, if we find the amendment involves
,$ D @ b'$ h'< no significant hazards considerations.*
in sum, CASE has neither a fundamental "due process" right nor a {eH.
- , a 2:m s.t.r.c.g.g m,e,.;# g,
. .e . :
statutory entitlement to a preextension hearing. Moreover, CASE has
'; W[!s% t* - %,. .
Mi o d, @y. . 2 g ;@M,., M failed to show that a postextension hearing will not cure any harm ,ti X . T ; A .. :4 ;; f $sh p.M may suTer. Thus, CASE has filed to show any irreparable harm, the key
.9w . , ,1 factor in any stay analysis. See, e.g., Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 s
m
. . ,;. a
.M , .. . , 7 ., %.. ,. .w
_ y.m r..Y.
. s vp ~S, W.s>.F.2d
- c. ,J q_.r W. (D.C. Cir.1985).
669,674
- 3. . n Furthermare, CASE has failed to show the probability of success on
'A M>,-'n. t,;
' . W 3 JMd.Ab A 'W N. y.n the merits. We have rejected CASE's arguments that a new construction cr < M.- " N 6' JIM permit pro (eeding or a preextension hearing is required. Moreover, N'yh 2 ?',S. g y g g CASE's plendings to this point have failed to demonstrate a high proba-3%D dp.M.gggg bility of sue:ess in challenging TUEC's claim of good cause for the ex-A. - . .nc,. tension. Un;ier WPPSS, supra, CASE's substantive safety concerns mtc. m.m g w4N.tE about continued construction are inadmissible in a construction permit mN
- r
'id d7*~:
u pN[M.>.;jarms
. nm.5.,,.
Me yf . 4, y(,'.p, ff y s s y,M. ,W,M., .n 1 extension hetring.' As we noted earlier, these concerns are more ap-
*9M.'J UMV propriately raised either in the operating license proceeding or in a
'MMW'@ @M D.O ;\f M],J j 2.206 petition for enforcement action by the NRC Staff against TUEC.
- t.pf g ; / J.;2.T Y Q @ ' Q / 3 .- U Finally, CA.iE does not demonstrate that the other two factors weigh y .
, , : m.', ^ in its favor. A :essation of construction at CPSES Unit I may cause sig-
- a. -
,;,.,.,;,3 ,
,. nificant harm toth to TUEC in the form of delay and a possible loss of y, ,. , p 3 : . :,;. . c.: 1 its trained comtruction force and to the construction workers at the
%w*;. M 7 ; . M iMU.yW " plant themselves in the form of lost wages and lost jobs. We see no
..m.W.m. .e . q. . ' .I;3. .- . ., v. ;f ,.yCy; +1
.u m ;-, . .
'-l~s *4 i . , . ! ,,
94 3 y p. :
*' .,e ? '.*{..,*: p.. e? ' *
"M' 'p.h TW ,q: t 99r !*' r= 8 The See Luts oesspo case dealt with a situahon in which the NRC refused to grant any hennes to the q y f *.1/ c[f y *y p#."f.*'i peutioners. In Shob, the question berore the court was whether the NRC. presented with a request that 2 *M. it hold a heanns prior to issuing a particular amendment to an operating license, could issue that amend-
., M. Ip .-
}{f d **;f e ' *
- y',
. g. y h;*. g h s. i , ,d ( f." "Q-[4 "
h ment and make it immediately efrective upon a rinding that it involved no signiricant harards considers.
*' uon. (The amendment in queshon had the effect of permitting irreversible releases or radioactivity into 4 'i,, c..g 6 5
'. < ,',,s'j
. ifiae *f ., . Al -'Q,8> the environment) Shelly was vacated as moot after { 199 was amended to include an explicit authoriza.
.g.* A % i ,* ; s t .$ @.4. ' a .' ty#,..P . ..s. tion for the NRC to continue issuing such amendments on an immediately cifective basis.
' Encept insofar as we direct the Licensing Board to follow WPPPS. supre. on the scope or the construc.
- t h* , N,s'b. e . bd .U tion permit estension proceeding, our decision today is without prejudice to the Licensing Board's p[' .9 ; u y'1vp.,p /a , '. 3
?M , , , - f. / ;.y - a ruling on the admissibihty or the merits of any contentions CASE may present to it.
s a,,'.. .1 . g , - , * , . ;, s <.h u . v . , . t dd $ $f . *>S j' ,3; Mh? Q *;f
'n wf.3 4
-rr.
S f .
- h,?fx, c: .
4 ] t j,y] J e );.,* .: g
.h..,f.. k. . q,,. iY, 0,
. ..l%,
- e,h. .
r ,'i t& h. .'A Y 1 1 ?%..g; W,
? 4 h ' _ ,.&.fQ . :. 'jw il.,v:,n
.,Lw&n : , t ;;"
~. .
, Q ,'
- O W '< ",0 .i p f 7; nw'l E 5 w v e..s.}eY@'fi u- Q qwg Q l, .i.*. y f@.kg,,Y w .'\.'{4 e,.A[is,"y,} p w?
s e o ww,.f.5;*%p@Ql,h %-, 4 m.u m.om._ _ % _ _.
/ ~
39'..
.nsT ,
q- .
~
) .0 *
,.e i._~. ,.u _ . .. . ~ . _ . .. w.u_-.-- - --
R. j, .
~ - -
., ;9, ?
y, : . N* . 4, .3 , ' -
; l benefit accruing to CASE from a stay and a preextension hearing which would counterbalance this harm to TUEC and its construction workers
, which a postextension hearing avoids. Likewise, any public interest in a preextension hearing does not outweigh the public's interest in contin-ued construction efforts on CPSES Unit I while that hearing is progres-ij'W'- sing. If the NRC ultimately finds " good cause" for the extension of the
,,1.I, *, -
[ ,, construction permit, TUEC will have been needlessly delayed in its ef-
'; l ,
- ' E forn to complete the plant.
1:. sum, the four factors required for a stay of the Staff's action do not
- 3, -
-,, jus:ify that action. Therefore, we decline to grant CASE's request for a
. . sta).
,fy,,g. , ,
Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this order and provided separate
,, views.
'e: ,
. , It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission t ,. . S AMUEL J. CHILK
^ s Secretary of the Commission Dated .it Washington, D.C.,
this ISth day of March 1986.
. . .- :s f .-
- 'w>'
.,.. , .r W , n.'
, , e . m. . SEPARATE VIEWS OF COSISIISSIONER ASSELSTINE
~ ,- ,
. . . e. , ,
I agree in part and disagree in part with the Commission's order.1
~'
agree with the Commission's conclusion that we need not grant interve-nors a new full-scale construction permit proceeding, but I do not sub-
.L scribe to all of the Commission's reasoning in reaching that conclusion.
....n.
Further, I would have stayed the Stafi's extension of the construction e.. i- % permit pending the outcome of the renewat hearing. 84 d . G 0 4 s *e v e
,,.'.f' , * ~ .T. \
4, i.: . . * , &p'f 3
., . .. .y ,. y .
.,.', * . c ..< ,
.% e A. g ,Yg' (fJ. I ' %
y 4 c , a
,,o 9 -
g
*t
- 124
- v. ,
. 5y ' , ',' ~. ,
'47~
'.J-
,h' . , e M; ' a , ,
8se '
<< 4 e io ,
N'? ,y.
- 1. ..,t .-. . . .
, m.
.., ,,a,
.r-x r , ,, v y-N,'f,.y g g (.s m . .e ym*jf. . .
l' . ,
' , ,, , ,, , .s'* -
- y { d.f'- '_f.'I,,.. ', f l ?'i;. k% m,. y;l.T. f! , .i j
. . .;, r . . .. _. 'y . T. 3 E,
3 , . ', ' l y.'.7.
- 7. e #.. x .
. .1 .
,o .:: 2 : ., ,. ' . ' ,
- o, . ;- j ;
- l '. -
(* .
- v. - r.. .z.o-i;. ,x, .-,W ~w4
.. .; s,e, sw ,. . ,> ;.. en ,~.J*~uag'.e. , W, mA m, .m w - w . .~p,
.e ,. , , e
. .% s ,c .y.
. :a Q r . mL ;J, {,;2; -.n ya Q; {*] N .*5iy A 1j - o s . ?. ..}* s .I.,*' 'p ( 'U*N ./4,N #,. Q M'%.t:y, y -(!.u I
. . ytj
.p. (, y . "', y , W 6 9.>y ,Y; Cr.% g 8
f.'[ '. .
. ?.
m ,. , , , . a...,.. .
. c.
.v ,. g. , f,.
. . . . . . _. . .._..M...__.w_~_._.._.__.
ge-
.r..
*yy
. n-
; ;. -~
CLI 86 5
. X.; ; f * ' ** ' -
Cite as 23 NRC 125 (1986)
.;3,,s . .
s .
. d.* .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A$ , , , ' . ' . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. , r. -. a. . .
'.. ;g , .:
A '% f.m; / COMMISSIONERS: y ; rf . . . 3, .. ,
. ;'x ' .
3
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
. .O~ ;h'-i,-. i <
., +
E..a.a.T .. . . N,,,'.
.e,. .
Thomas M. Roberts
?.3,w .Gg3 a w' 4.. .- ..
T James K. Asselstine
, g ' E .p ' i . .
Frederick M. Bernthal I Lando W. Zech, Jr. t u . '1. ,,W , j.' ( .
,l
. -y r'
.g
. e ,.. .;r . >
... t e v* . '
, in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 352 OL
'* 50 353 OL i a...,
1, * < /; .
.s .
u.
, J 7,. , '. - . PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
. I (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) March 20,1986 14 <s,a .
.g. y..
y> 1'? ? ?
,,,..,..,:. . 'l. -
- The Ccmmission declines review of ALAB-819, but provides com-ments on (a) ad.j. d.u icat. ion of severe accident m.tigation measures and
.;. ,, ,,% ,-Y , .,.
i
;M +4 . f,' - ,' (b) emergency planning arrangements for treatment of onsite personnel M ,( ' T ,'
who are radiologically contaminated and traumatically injured.
, RULES OF PRACTICE: UNTIMELY PETITION FOR REVIEW
. .. .i W. ,p . a. ,, ,
, y Parties are to Gle petitions for review within the time limits prescribed
..w, *
. w..-o. , . .a . p; ., . I ,
" .W... - by 10 C.F.R. l 2.786(b)(1). If parties cannot meet that Gling schedule,
.1..+, y c , - . , . motions are to be Gled seeking an extension of time.
, Y ., y;.;;.~ r - .,., C 9 i
,es
~
.y. ;
;. m ,. 6x,,.. '
f . t, g , 9,p / . 1 4 RULES OF PRACTICE: PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
,N ,
..,'~
rg.q m. . . . ' (CONTENT) q:
,y3,. -
.s w . ",ge. ,. . .. ,
A petition for review Gled with the Commission shall contain a concise
~e- . , c %%,4 ' s f">, statement why in the petitioner's view the Appeal Board's decision is er- %a roneous.10 C.F.R. 6 2.786(b)(2)(iii).
W.:, .. ,
^
a Y f
W'M: s 1
,'\
.r nn . l .
s M.m,:':. ,
. 115
*%e
-qu.}- t.
4% (' , ', ge-
- ;'Q .* .
a, .
%)j '.
,p..
-3. -
4 =.=y +- -. -- -m g er , . - . ,-vv.=**-.*-- . .-g
, ,.[
N .g) .,#
,1
( *k
+ yg i ' , - , ,
1
',q ,._. ,l/
p y' pijh' *y. Q. e,[f f - * .
";. ,... (. 3-. , ~
- r. ' 4 7., g ,,-
' , R'h e a d. j. ,, ;
's .e.
p f*J
, ,,1.s ? ' '
m Q, 3':f. .a^.
;s 3 ', s's, ,, s ' . . ,
i -
, ? ' j ', t i
~ y' . '. > < n.w e u u y,c ;;u.had,
.,,%Mh aL,xM[fw,';,,>
i .
.+o
; Dys C Q;'E, , d..
w n, .[,,$.',$..u'Jf@M. t
- m p.' MW$' pjsMd,Ll: ~.h.
p, -.llpFl*.)]$$,';$.gllj.'h.Wh,i k, ~y
.t%. _.'., .y
.- r 2 ' , a, ms..y, ,, .h'M %yng@hYl;bh
.w. ..
. ' &s., ,. h ~ '.~ Vi' f O'.!.: &N
$.lf,",s
,' &, .. $. . % ,$a'5 h,. w ,h i N .a.. . ,
& .~.,T.e.::.
t
$s.yp
l _ ,' . . , ' ,
.- o i . .
*.',.v . .-
> +, . s j.fy,.. 4 .l
.l .
. t_.. :. h _ .. . - -- - - - - -
. w.3-v n =.:
<m - 7. y ; , n
. o a .. .,g3. . ;,
w;: v. * : -. , c, . y; g . 3 .y .+3. s - 3. j -:p,y, ., . . . % . . , . NRC: POLICY STATE 51ENT ON SEVERE ACCIDENTS
..y
. . .s - . n . .
g.y.;,y N n; ., - The Commission's " Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents 2 , 4, 'c ' . Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 Q.%p:~!.*..G W,7.r y -1 ,
- i ' e. (Aug. 8,1985), bars litigation in case-related safety or environmental
'N;f.p?OgIII...1,
.r ge -.
%. ,[ - hearings of accident mitigation measures beyond those found in Com-
~ mission regulations.
7.... f:w,w&p.:d: .g.g.Q m, .
.. w < .
o ~r.* ' *g. m . . .y ; ; y l 7 JE _/ ~ ' m , E51ERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (ARRANGE 51ENTS FOR Mg%QM W,, , M *.' ' . Y 51EDICAL SERVICES)
.M)M.a)d:.W:p.
h The reasonableness of emergency plans must be determined in each M'lg.(@N.E.5.O. 4... /: 7%.5 M.-
, , U , .m, - -; .
- ~[' c? case in light of the specinc facts. In areas where many nearby medical facilities are available to treat onsite personnel who are radiologically n s w4.;p~.w. .,i y M -
- contaminated or traumatically injured, a prudent course of action under y'..' M : U[i
~
10 C.F.R. j 50.47 would be to select for a backup hospital a facility rea-sonably close to the reactor site, but outside of the emergency planning
.m 'Q .(N. ?.g> s . ?,,.
2,e ;,.s p s. .3.Ud.N.m[.*M.) ;[
.A -1.- * . Zone s J C 6 .,
w.a~u
. c..sp C f. h e}Wmcw 3 4 .-
*4y % .4 C ' '
n."'.l} m .
- s w [,a e.;, i ORDER a, 4m %.n y,c.e w 1
.;n ~
r w;q.m...p .s, c . b Limerick Ecology Action (" LEA"), Robert Anthony / Friends of the
- Earth (" FOE") and Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECo") petitioned
.<.g$
ca %@ *t n c$7!? h h y a, the Commission to review various aspects of ALAB-819,22 NRC 6lIl M4.,gu @.W.. g-g M6 q@. 4.) ,..,ev. .' ;.. ALAB .- . b Although the Commission has determined that review of (1985). 819 is unwarranted, a few comments are appropriate.
. $ (,.',:. J .;' % 'i b . 2 3.'g:, ... Section 2.786(b)(2)(iii) of 10 C.F.R. provides that a petition fer
'g .q,t. .j,f:., ' #,h .!. % ${. ', y. .~ * ,
review shall contain a " concise statement why in the petitioner's view M'.*?- . ' y , ,' ~ the decision or action is erroneous." The petitions for review Gled by LEA and Anthony / FOE fail to satisfy this requirement because neither M 4l*< . w ' ;u ,
}
i.E.dj.C .', , c ', > j attempted to explain why the Appeal Board's reasoning is erroneous.
..s.3i n a v. <.;.y
', 3
.. - ..s. . .
.) Moreover, Anthony / FOE failed to Gle their petition for review within 2 4.h in .- e . I the time limits prescribed by 10 C.F.R. l 2.786(b)(1). Parties to NRC 1.'.Q j i ' ' ).
, .] proceedings are expected to comply with the time limits speciGed in the
'. 4. . .t]n regulations. If parties cannot act within the specined time period, exten-
- y. .h- s,M. . ,,. 7,: ..
- e i.l.. < r . , .- . . -; .'. d' sicns are to be sought.
'. 3 e . . i,a
- .. . ,4' . 3.? Two substantive issues addressed by the Appeal Beard in ALAB-819 M@($t.
M,h.&,'. Y .: g.
. ~. , .y. s.i -g'4. :* N.1 '# . ] also warrant comment. The Appeal Board in rejecting LEA's claim (Con-
,. . 4, .- .. $ a x . , y, . . .
tention DES-5) that the National Environmental Pohey Act of 1969
. ,<y;. g .Q.w.+ : ,n . ,m .f,. : .
~ - -.
("NEPA"),42 U.S.C. ! 4321, and pertinent Commission regulations re-
.w y w['.i.>..:..t t ,l' Jh .' . , +'
/'~ .
' ,4 quire consideration of additional design alternatives for the mitigation of Qq;. -
; . 1
*4 d .df.i . 4 9 f
- Y,;
- t % , I , A c - l, /
;',3 .h op. %.?. P .
. ' . .:. ~,. <
a g2s g'i y, . .- \; .
~' a ( b ,, .
/.(' . wax d <:..,...a !.- , ' .'a;' D' s' 7.-
e w a c- . s , , . , , . . - p
.-'-*'*-*'*se,'-***" 'V N * * ' y
* * *=*.a r
,' [ v* *- - g,w*=$ < g y *- e ;* r *
- r*
'y s.e . a m . ,,- - +, ,m- ,,m p-.=~e-
.! W C,*. ~y s *'
6, . ,,
- ~ .
,: i. , ... . , - . .,
"a: ,l. 1'
^ lr.m . - . . e e ?1 * *L^.
&j? ' ;;; : ,* > t.
s
.<. ..-f ., , ,
+ a);' .* d
- 4. .; , .g f,(g.Q@..
- 4..f. '.,g, y &.fy- d J -= Y h s g,5 . .T m , . .p .
n,. f y,'w,.l# .a. n: , % a.. .y u.. g.u.; : . w y'.; .g .p. & . . 4 g'f. .,?m&( g , - N .;4, 2 j
.y)$M. W u%
93.-u.. rmg, .. %y. QMjo'
, ,4 ,
6-
! Q M ::Sy.n .'..,'
e<u.r h,9M.u% . . .w r . -A
- s. , . w ..
4 -v t<, m; W,:w. y @ 9/.7,.. M.Q .a ansf. 4>.q:
- L
- b. ..".s-,-(4',
+
f,.o V,f.A..avQ.#n
.,c*
%s,. :
.L.c
..,,M fr , %b. o.* e,, ,C vtdy 4 } % Q y ~ p. 4j,^< *j ; O g V'M
.W .. 2
* ' m*
?
.W, NfA_ e f. *ti- ,M&m !;; m cWM
*Kf1 +4l. ~'_ $.1V,:
. . , .,, -U
'_ A,Y . &.
W?'% p "'>W
., 2.. N" M: , ~'. ' w ".s. ,
on _ %;*'C;c W.
. &> m . .- m _mA._s
=
m 2 M : - -
D eA ,- -
.~ v. ,
<n . ,
~ c . = . . . .:. . -.~~.-.x-- . . .~ . u :~ u
.., 'e
+
4 e . -#s > '
. . (, S
, ' f ,., . , , * -
- severe accidents at Limerick, explained that the Commission's " Policy x .a .~ '
- ', , c. >
Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 (Aug. 8,1985) barred litigation in
. . . . - t(*7,fS , case-related safety hearings of accident mitigation measures beyond
.!7u ,/ e.u,y,.w those found in Commission regulations, in ALAB-819,22 NRC at 696
,; . s.J . 7,',m.-. ,, . , ; ...
p ;'i; T . . eJ .A * .. ,
.,- n.10, the Appeal Board noted that LEA had argued that the policy state-
;, r ; y p , fc , -
ment does not apply to its contention because the Commission in that
-r 4 policy statement referred to " safety hearings" and LEA's contention ~
raised environmental - not safety - issues. The Appeal Board rejected c> w ' .
.>s,. A., y ..- " .' that line of argument stating that LEA read the Commission's statement
;.l h. ,f r,v .3,, .
t too nar owly and that "[ilt is unreasonable to believe the Commission
~ . , ~s .
'eN. .. intended to preclude litigation of severe accident mitigation measures
.4 '.i f y ) . - ti under the rubric of safety issues, while permitting the litigation of the
',.,. t
.y same subject matter as an environmental issue." Id.
d The Commission afGrms the Appeal Board's holding on this issue. 1 The Commission's August 8,1985 policy statement was intended to ad-
.- ',- . . ', dress both NEPA and Atomic Energy Act reviews. Insofar as is relevant to disposition of LEA's contention, that policy statement states that once a plant has been found to comply with NRC safety regulations and provide adequate protection to public health and safety, the need for design alternatives to further mitigate severe accidents is not to be ad-
)
u , dressed in case-specine reviews and hearings. Insofar as this type of acci-W,h r . y . .,
.M"v
- ; t .a . - '( dent mitigation is concerned, NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act 9;* d ' ,-
reviews are both directed at cost-efTective measures to reduce the risk 'ElG .T * , , ,
.".{
from accidental discharges of radioactive materials, and it would make
' Q . ,'. & * *
., .g no sense for the Commission to implement dilTerent review policies
,g _ . p .. . , W. 5 ' "~=i* under the two statutes. If, as a result of generic or plant specific re-
*- c , y., & search, the Commission determines that changes in the designs of exist-
.;]
i
,,~
, ing plants may be warranted to prevent undue risk, changes will be im-
, 9 posed through rulemaking or plant-specific backGts.
9,- E{. l The other issue warranting comment is the Appeal Board's determina-tion that PECo had not made adequate arrangements for the treatment
'Sc J ., . . 1 of certain onsite personnel who are radiologically contaminated as well vl 0,' % n. ,
'. - :. ,:~ as traumatically injured. The Board in effect found that the ilospital of CM,o. *#
a.. , the University of Pennsylvania (" HUP") is too distant from the Limer-r.i "J7 .
~ ';.
> ' " ,.s ick site to serve as an adequate backup hospital. 22 NRC at 713. The
.M[$ , ,$ Appeal Board remanded the matter to the Licensing Board for further
. E.p 7..,. '. .; r. ' , ' , - proceedings, finding that the Licensing Board's reasons for declining to
,' ' ;%, require a closer backup hotpital do not withstand scrutiny. As a result of
- . - " #.-e the Appeal Board's remand, PECo has entered into formal backup ar-N1dZ -
V . ';/o.h5 . rangements with Montgomery Hospital, which is closer to the Limerick TC . -
/ facility than llUP.
44 % g, #e
' V. C.:
yx ,.p(.,
. .,c
~.
gg7
.t v . . : r e..j\
+:
', 'g ,
+ -'
na
)s) t ,- . . _ . . - _ _ . . . . _ _ . - - .~. - -. - ~ . ,.- - y ,-.-, v.
~
@ . * - ' . . *- e -
o- *a' 0 s
\ , ; .
Y ~ML, s '.q m.,: - - t ' &^.,; , ! . . , ,
.} , a * .. .
i 1' (, M h f lcy l. . ] f w
~ . . m.~. m . .
j f' *&.f;$an.h.
. , .. .m .c . x . , . -
, !, ' .' l ; ' ~ f Y ' ' h o' _
l$f. i h l Thy ' o,YNf '
s L ::.;' , 1 . ,, ; %. . & ;
.w.g .
v.y, , - a,. r . m.
. s L,.g%..,-;_
w:r;.<y; w L.y/ s fw4
-; ,* ;. qg; :y:,
,w.
~ , .
g>,g , .m. a.- s .
.. t- , . n. .y wf -
- g. ?. ' .
4b; 4.
/ .
w.: . . .. . w : =.a.a .,. s., a
-. c. -.ln.-
. a-.a
,1A; z..,
u~ v y -me m .v. -
,[ 4 .9 a- c.x
. ed. , ' 7.,7 .
. U. ; , , . , < .
, ;.u. . r. .a.e w y,Q r.:;,b.. The Licensee argues that the Appeal Board has in effect established a Q3 . , , ,
. new generic rule regarding the proximity of the backup hospital by imposing requirements beyond those found in 10 C.F.R. { 50.47 and fW4 f-
.' ,'- l'e1.M.- .
- l. . L ,,
Part 50, Appendix E. The NRC Staff disagrees, arguing that the Appeal f;/. e . .; */ . Board's findings were based on lack of record support for the Licensing Y'.$.3 it,
~
,N Board's rationale. We agree with the NRC Staff.
The large number of hospitals within 20 miles of the facility makes Dgc' ..' f. ' . . .. the situation at Limerick somewhat unique. The reasonableness of M i k. ..$ ' . '
. . l.j . mergency plans must be determined in each case in light of the specific
..v yn,J : D.. . -. : .:nV. ..,. facts. Here, establishment of formal arrangements with a backup hospital
.; 4 y. 9 - m , ,.n . ' ,.;.u.m ' .. j o.; .'1 outside of the emergency planning zone, but closer than HUP, appears M, :s9- > * ' J " '*
.!..,' to be a prudent course of action under 10 C.F.R. { 50.47. But this is not EM.@ , . - .
.G . .-
to say that a similar result would be required in other cas:s. I' . h.*f .' Commissioner Asselstine approved this Order in part, disapproved it
..y:@Q[g.i Q,' 6 in part, and provided separate views.
. , :. .T.; ') "., It is so ORDERED.
~. ~ . . .,
.: y '*s;; ~
v .a- 1: .
<. For the Commission
= f 3 * .f. . . ,_
. c. . . y ' ) n. .- - , f SAMUEL J. CHILK
~
f., , ~ , .c ...
, Secretary of the Commission w,
a..y>s. -
.y
- - A . y .,.. - .
. ...' .a ~ . Dated at Washington, D.C.,
- w h. '. .....
... J' a ., ., , -
this 20th day of March 1986. n.m n-a . ,3 , - , ...
,.i 4 -
s SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE e . 7,. _u, , v .. . . A. ; . . l. N ' . I agree with that portion of the Commission's Order dealing with the
- M #[p.d'y , .- ? "* . backup hospital. However, I do not agree with that portion of the Order
*lpt '.$ ; f r -" . which deals with the consideration of additional design alternatives for
- c. /..pr.",
n s. .. s *
/;f" (,..
n [, J i . ' O N. a , the mitigation of severe accidents at Limerick. In its Severe Accident Policy Statement the Commission coaciuded f b'.%p,'y/',,@'.F .... * ;' Q ' L. ' . . ': , , W,. A , , o
. J,.
that the severe accident risk presented by existing designs for nuclear f',jNL
~
...'..t.'... .,
power plants is acceptable. The Commission decided, therefore, to bar
.,*W;;'Eh, .' " .( . [. ; ; o. , .
participants in individual licensing proceedings from litiga ing the
!hd/A 4'.I 6 :, necessity of design alternatives, not now required by Commissian regu-
'c;y,b,g%'.)$. T..-.-- '*
,, lations, to control or to mitigate the effects of severe accident.> 50 Fed.
. s n .:- ' Q, ? "- ,
.,.,
- Reg. 32,138 (1985). In this Order, the Commission extends that decision
. 3(;,. ?$,hZI$%
s' n ,. E,;f* 's A* 't r.n ,
%* .w;99
- f. ^
e Q;';. e . .
. .
- r r .
3 " '/3. M$ m' # / tL F.,) ,,G .'4 tr 128 a.mI
. P,i.% . ~rw m
...,f,.i. ..,,
n P 9 ^* ^ } .s
', df
' .n* * ' , "' '
;t n; % &. J G
' . '.s.. J :.
- r.~ t.p -mr ~ wr ~~
, f $. , - - - W L - ,- . - ,
W O Q k J.'k L,& '1 l ' 'f " {N:.ilf h ? (; . Q ,l, M ${f- N$D. ;%.',N&l:% h
- s. w b a,,R4~5 $. b @hh.@.1.' M.}h@$N. nh a.M M. N
&u M. ,WmT.wuMM -.
- +k.;,pgWM%g a-QQWQWn%.x%m .
-p 6.
0 %pge .*5'- a ' , f- 5 w
%* ',p;
.w '
,,.; .s
'.s* ' ' '
sy. ,Rf.. e (~x. . ep .> y -,<s..e...i ~." k-p-::-';-y, g, , . , .'x 4;
,d ,
- c-
-.S
^
, . ;se ,'
m' .,. W. -c.ql,p
- e. s. ! . k . . f. .~ ,' , % o \ ~w
< a u , a
- r . ., t
".fy : .* m . .
- 4 A. % m N . .. ' a, d~ ,
, , ,3. ' . ,
,.n1,.l' s"; 9 '. *Y.5?*A l? ".--a n "--=.~.^*M-~***
?,
' f. . *$. .f, w
.<q/ 2 d, *
==-*-*~.* *-~--. *= d f: Y it A - 1.- J ' N * -~~<~ -- *- *. ; A _
- g. s .a. :sa . r, #- -
tip
-.n .1. z. . - -
.e
- o. . c, -
z.w. .p,v;
, . , , . . .- e
- ,;.ev. ;m. 7
. .EUs ;, n gf .
i
* , 3
,, ., ? 4 , ,
.o
, . p,, , , -
4 ' (* ' * . ..r-r , f . 8
+.. m' rs.>-
.n.g. f.. ;
,d,.
- s..
to exclude irsues raised, not just under the Atomic Energy Act, but also
'E
.. . 3 ;
. p,- . . W. . *' .<' , ,
.s * .
to issues raised under the National Environmental Policy Act.
.. i *7 1 ' '. . ' I did not agree with the Commission's conclusion in the Severe Acci-
--1 -
. .. , c. 4 :,., & W, " dent Policy Statement that the risk presented by existing plants is accept-
- L . . .3 - m [ @,9 - .
able for the life of the plants. See " Dissenting Views of Commissioner
.* .' ;.. ..; ... -I ' ' : '
- f * $ '.N ff i Asselstine," 50 Fed. Reg, at 32,145. The Commission recently told the
.[n- *
.v' ,. ? f ,'.ib 1, ff ' . Congress that, based upon existing accident risk assessments, there is
;;. . . . . 4: ,
about a 50 50 chance of a severe core melt accident, an accident at least
as severe as the TMI-2 accident, within the next 20 years. I do not bc
- *D .. W N.W .g .
L.,Q..*PhsQ?.3M
/.
*, - lieve that a 50-50 chance within the next 20 years is an acceptable level g c. . of risk. Further, I believe that particularly at high population sites, such m.. '. ..c.mi. *
; , - ? 4.p.%g.Mys,. .
y., 4. ;;- -
.x , as Limerick and Indian Point, consideration should be given to addition-
. ( . .- .
. .c al accident prevention and mitigation measures because of the uncertain-
.- 'j .- .- ..;
-l' i ties associated with estimating risk and because of the high cost to socie-
. v g.' O,,
^'
ty should a serious accident occur at such a site. See " Dissenting Opin-ev . . -
, ...,4 ( g. ,'U q; ion of Commissioner Asselstine," Consolidared Edison Co. of New York
- ', ";, g f y' N (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI 85-6,21 NRC 1043,1092 (1985). The Com-
- h. .. ? '.".'../.*.~,.,'.. . mission's Severe Accident Policy Statement and its decision in Indian c w * . .,;. '
+' .
- e. '
Point efTectively preclude such consideration. I believe that is a mistake,
** +
4 . y p/ - . and the Commission's Order today merely exacerbates that mistake.
/* .. . .,, '
,? .. .
r* . , n ,;r * ' . .e. E ' pm . . .
- g 0 ,
.- ,# +b= Di ,,, % g [ ,.'/ D ge #
((
, g. in?',
m 4 n( - '- y % f 4, .e 4 . g 5+ .
- 1. l.1; "' ;'% N ,*,) *L.'. ,~?'
- <.a;
..c..
;]J?.U".;-q% c
'r%
e . - sp,,, R. ylq .,
- s, ' . <evs'
** **'-8,- , ! ** ;.
- ~3,Y . .- ", U. f..r,.i.'" .. .
- Q '.t. g rjr,
$ 4
, ,'N b ll .,9 - { 4 f'.- &. . *s 6Y . , b %. 't 4 3 f 5 ' .? / { '. 5 h p.
4 2 , p' ,J $f .'4 0 .: 9'
- ug J.a s.s
.. y g " E t , , '.,,* ,g ,y, 4,U e. y ,y7
.e .- ,.e
!~ p'.n . ^ 6,. p.
.o
. <y.
1 g
,'"(; # . *$ .,
O ,u
, ; .. i ,p'N:,U*'
1-
,. .]
a, 'ss l 3 '\ o s , p . e . .e ,r. .
". f .s 'V;
. ,-9, * *.
J.W r A'4 g, < %; 6
- r. *l $n ap T*. . ,. 4 l. ,' , $* k - kY* ys' p (3',.\ , "(p '. d
'f 74%,) 7** th',,v, s5',,Te .,) ' d
.W s. . f w.,, .. t,e,%.n ,
,. k
,_.h. .. ' .' . ,, .. . J.,
. v-r .: , <.n.*gg,...,~... - s s .r-
'((4
- W J.(*>
=1
. . *b *[y ... ', 3
- fy /d *e ,'4.yg , N t "f; ' '*
i s .. , . s . ~g r . g./QiOfRIilejt,-QdiyN,f. l 1i[ '.i,."p'? {y}
%rj *** . .- <N { 34 f'*'s$
y 4 y gp e.s,r, , 4 'g4 N.s . 'N Q'M. ' .. e 6, ' ,* ,e *.f . .. j ;.* , g9,e
,<a.,.. f.
,...' . 3'.f . 'm - %, s 6, r
. 4 '.+I t .
. - c.s h , e ' [ '* 4.N k ,'(
3 h..,. n.( i 8k h .y ,* D /y.J
- s. . c g, ja:
,#43e- a e l,. .+
r .' q e - .. ..ss *
,s' i-y , ,
' F, .
af ,5 ) I
. aI w; ,
,c m
e' Q.,; s n h ". m 3 >+t
.t W ,.;
s. h2g J ' , .*
,, , v l. I:a b e, h . Yr',
N ~ ~p a
.' . {p q ~
-~
'La
. f.; , , y.r g.'fm~*.&,. . r ;
[ .w p % ... } Q . .?-@
.. , . ,, c %. - . .p o u , * < c9 m . p.+.---m.-.. . , . . . .
pa- * .pe,.w *--ee .
-+
- t e -,- .9 5
.m W + }'",. v y; 4*N '
, i *
, '- fg4(4 g, a a......
yaJ*m t,, . (g ', !' s C %__ .
- +m * *re -e.-e--. y
, '- 1 . -(e s * '%. .c u +
3
.p r Ww,..;s i -a n c u c4 *3,,.. %... p. n.,
.r .
. c .o
' ~"'.,,Js% , .q&..(f.,*{c ' j'.; 3 :
.L-' *./ w 1, 3 'c .Qfo ' - -
g ,, . ,, .,.f-
, 'ly,,y;. ,, w. . .* ' ' * ?p %r g,. -: V , . .. - -
6-
- e. . ,
i ,Q y^ .
..r
., ) ! % l. ?
'I 4
. , ~n ~n .a . w. _w f m ., ...
~.. _w ...~ ._. _ n - w. _u.. . . , .
. .. _ . .w _n.e ;. w% ,
.o
'Y I T b$ '
.h -Y P M. k h*' d . I
. ,, . ._= ... .
y3. '
- ~. o-
' J. t8 -
y : 'N -)
- 6 '
m . s..
- e. p $ . a . ..+. ._4 ..,5(
< ,,.s
.p ,
, a.
.w . -m, ,_. _ . u,u *..-
.m. , _ _s C.N. . . _ ' . a.. . . .
y .
- o. - , ..
m-._..
. _ _ . . . w . ; u , m , _ _. ,
.e ,
J 4 4
? - j' #- Cite as 23 NRC 130 (1986) CLI868 , 3;' * .- ' .; - , - :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. r ,* ,
-< ..o .
?/ . J.y - r,
... COMMISSIONERS:
~[
',., - . Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
.e ,
. f ,,' .
/,n .,-,,1
. ., J~,ref . Thomas M. Roberts
.$* i 4,... .A",.- . , . , . . ,.e.
'. < ' s,' .
- 47. .p.' , James K. Asselstine i . , .. . . .
7 -
. < Frederick M. Bernthal J, Lando W. Zech, Jr.
g , , ,
,, +. -
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352 OL y ' . . 50 353 OL s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
^
. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) March 20,1986
- g- ,
, 'e . ... . .
~
- e. .
. .f
- . , ,I.,J. The Commission denies joint intervenors' request to reopen the
,) . , , '
4.v . ,- . .i .. v , j . . record and to stay operation of Limerick Unit 1. The Commission Gnds (.
'l . ; i that the "new information" proffered by intervenors does not meet the
.._h. -
1 criteria required to reopen a closed record, and, that since no signincant safety issue was raised, there is no basis for a stay.
- I h- f f
. RULES OF PRACTICE: REOPENING OF RECORD aa . . .s. , , s, mo< ..
, m . . ,4. . .~ . .
. y ; w.. The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of
._4
;> .. . 7. ., three factors: (1) whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether
. , : 9 >, f:c3. g . , ,
the information raises a signincant safety (or environmental) concern;
,' '4; 0, - Q; ;<
> and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to t ; . ;];;'j, .
f ;,.tP..Y, ,.n , I J,V;
?
',g, C,f
'.' . y' % reach a different result. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile
'..fjM'b a'.';Y;., . . , J, ' ; 3 . .t . @
Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI.85 2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985). N ,. i .: * ; 4.%.' W , c. ., .y
. .~ #d 2,.
.. e.,- @. e; s o.w - *,
,*T . ,? f
- 4.4 / g ," ) ,% ,- "
,#*d
. f .h $.,.
.. ' . *c ..
t'"', , 9 M',. , .\ ~..r ,
* '?
$.W,h ., , = ' ,
. !, 4
- 130
.A'Ac6."
i
- t. A.. ..u .,. *
. . *11, 4 x ,, T., , , . A-g. .
2 ', . .c .i . s t. I,3 h d% . . . . ' _ hl$ 3 a s
*;.3^'W fr.
. kf [ [ 7 [. 3 S [_ '.
.y
. . . .. u,
%'; .n '* s ..
2-h..'..-t-..fi,,,.
' r ' . ' ."*~
' N YIE
..,;.,.~* W ' :,, : .
- q m ,. m , .a, V.Sw]'....- >; .,e sl.. w]. ;&.+.i )m.. p ~ . ,x .- ..,.,. ,+ V,.
=, .
l
.g.:y -
- ,s'qi qf;: ,
,. v.
.ca: vy;h
$ Y ,,r. Y. f h ',
- g%%,W: W9k'kl.?h;l ,g ~ , %. g hj, g; 5. kqg Q jQ:.:f g.,q. Q $ Qy
v ..._. . - -
+. ,
. ,o ,. . . w sc.,. .m,, n. e.
. m,..
u.
,,Wj;.p.g. w > ' ,
g
+y4 . . . . > , . -
- - -. - .d.
~ . . '.i
- f.
>:wdG8 Q5.-v.. i 4 ;: y; .*.., , ' ,. n. 2 a.: ~ ~ - " ' - -
- - - ~ * " - " " ' - " ~ - ~ . - .
- w. .. -- . ..
,~<g
,, p %l.:.
;. 5,A. , , . . ."m'
.. .. ? a y. #
.s.
.L n* L:
*%w .
s ..e. . A '
- . g '> m,. p :r
.<e my . '. ,
y W.. ._ .m ..,r?.w u-L, - .- - v,. ., .
'.'ed~ 3g T RULES OF PRACTICE: NONTIMELY SUBMISSION OF u, p.n.c h.4., x, .
' , w. u1a '. e '. .
,My;;q, Mi ow. y +
- , CONTENTIONS
~,,.c e9 .
1 in seeking to reopen a record on contentions not within the scope of
. L issues raised previously, parties must address the criteria for determin-ing whether late-filed contentions should be admitted.10 C.F.R.
- p. c. l;' r.,i ; < .
r
% 2.714(a)(l). '1lllw ;f'}' , ,;. y,..;; :;
_1
~ , ,..,
-f[g:,'
.c ....: + . . .
u. RULES OF PRACTICE: STAY REQUEST Summary denial of a motion for stay is appropriate when the criteria
' !W .7 @,%
./'N '..tcip.O Q i;1?.E.**, ,,
v{.j ~
-' w* ,< -
set forth in 10 C.F.R. s 2.788 have not been addressed. c.,.3 ir*;&'.y) . .,.,,;
. , y;n * '
-"ew,. ,.
7
.pdr.n :% -
TECilNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED
,w n.; o, c ., . .'. -
.07. . - S
' :-v. Flood Protectian i'@. A.,. .
, Pipeline Rupture.
4.-,nw :. v.yn . . ,
+, . h*
- W *l y?Wa, ~e;..^.,.
. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A h.4.D.p.. s .
. . ..c .-
. . , L i,/ M. .. ..e ,
. Robert Anthony / Friends of the Earth (" FOE") filed a motion on 6 FAN .h ,w - -e:, November 12, 1985, requesting the Atomic Safety and Licensing M. n,.b)%w,C,9.: gm, ?"j', < M: ' ", , Appeal Board to (a) reopen the record on two contentions which had m . ^. .
hv -/.if ' r .' ' .. f - been litigated in this proceeding and (b) stay operation of Limerick Unit
% Q t W; # !-l M : O W'. . l. In ALAB 823, 22 NRC 773 (1985), the Appeal Board determined % 7. W . F
- P M "~ 7 F that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion because it had already issued QDI'h ?,[' V7"[",
,%,a ..A.- -
.l its appellate decision (ALAB-819,22 NRC 681 (1985)) on the merits of the two contentions. It then referred the motion to reopen the record to
- h. . , ' , . .
<., the Commission. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Commis-sion has denied the request to reopen the record and to stay operation of 8:j W N?,o. ,
5, . Limerick Unit 1.
,w$.
, . %c-sag 4,.
( 4 .,
,a. --
4 e.
\ - Us
- l.'. .*,.v t
e *s t 4 y ~ ~ g. e p ,s 5. e %w ae*A j i,m .W'j;J k % S*g' Y..V.v.,L' N. M<* 6. -/. n
.,y . n n.,.: , em. , *, ..M .o r.-oo .
?',,, ,
BACKGROUND 9.; g.,gs**e"
..6 M. . ,MV . ' Anthony / FOE seek reopening of the record on two of their conten-n y%.W, -
. ~.,,Q
. ,Qcce. n. s.~ t . . y ,m.;;e.. . .W
, e'. W..! .),, ,;u -a ;
tions that were littgated before the Licensing Board. Those contentions read as follows:
%c . %WMf.W- .7 p a v 2 v aQn-6' .. % ,s,M. :
N 'gMUIb W? ,o $.M tf.c
'h. c W -i V.ja. In developing its analysis of the worst case rupture of the ARCO pipehne (which carries gasoline throughout the site), the applicant (in its FSAR) ,a ?. <^; % - . n.,
p . 9 ', f .q } ;i. c. . ...
,..'.s
,, q M: Q ;.A , s 1.
- p , 't l ' '
. '%* a',;4f .e(-l,h ' A p s 'ey*1,ci -
.. ..w. ' ' * ; . .
,JE u
ic,ekn ['.'Q..,.t t * *?;,,..,,e* ?
%, ,,f.d> 9 .U.,g, J ?,
W.A;. t '- Ns , s r.
,( 9 , 4 ,
s .; e t , o .m. .i. 1 f,s.,- ...i vsy.2s 77 $.., ' i. .,. !. , 5 M)*
.*.,,,',.r- . it . .,%y'.y%, , . , e . * '. 4 s, :* .
_ , , , , , , , , , . . . r,._. . . . - . . . . . , . , , - - , . -
---v.7,-~~
ye , .l. . .' pQQ
- ..M w . , g Jy.
e ,
..; .', i s* ' '
a .
+ -~. &....
m, 'hf.ui k .*:- a ..u .m' M,..-' w,.
, e.
( g ,.c.. s i , ,_ l *f i . w. f (d ,,
' " , -' ' - I ', l
~
*b 1.'_ % , .- . ,
i b' . . . . . s * .
.2 I'
'b h k.wr &.% ,
y.,n, :k'.'.;; '.
- n. .;;.,e. ' . e./ ~', '., .& '~ .: .,s
, e
.,; I* 4
- J. 'l . i v- . ,'. ;,g 7 g. a w : a . w;t;.g. v;; w,5
~
3 a%qg4.c h .* s
. J,e r ** 1 .. . ', O. ', .,pv-i *' *
. m gW '4 *
- .#g ; , 3 h._ .j . m. . s, j; r,
>'a.a,U;.g.,...,? .~,3 '.
a w.$w$.V. bf . Qm. $$h ;. ~s . Dn . Lwm$,9 "' ' . i:" ;'. ' ' Ylo ' ' . NW hh,. g 4;' GA: .g,c ! ' i W, M .rW&.yd
~
. , b** Q, m',, :. ,, 7 - - < *
. !, cs c q 6 , . . . . [
>: . , W, * -
~.
s f/J .'.~ - ..
-* r?-
4 :Dy'; m: .,; . . .; . ' w
, e
, ;,,6 - o:
q w'ds*Q!
,C .f.
'J-b , ,<(( ,~ c
, ' w^(w
, f. ,,i';; */,%< .,'*, j*a$.s v. ./ h ' ' d . . N 'lm ;;,
h.J .t
. :p *
. ' s
, '9U.1 ic.I';;sY'ehT .i" .- - ',
*- 1
'.J
< s 4 . ,.
s c;.g ; r ., a.A. eit- n. - - -rn .s .1,4,,
- .. .u wg % .% @p *.
..- t:
+
,< j / %
*O ~'4
,4
.n 1 }s..,, .;W. m, + . n n. . .
'5 ?
;d m, :
W,%?&,dj. [. h ;3. cQ,uDQ. U%g% . , E' :'. gc"..[t' .
,%.y.fhH.> '/ *.e .(;k , -
, o .,; prosided no basis for excluding consideration of siphoning. Thus, the conse-8 i ',
' ; M' '
.' ?, ' ,p ,i[ ",D[D3 .
) f l , ', ' [, . '
quences of the worst case pipeline accident are understated.
,' . .t 4 V 3b In discussing deflagration of gas and petroleum due to pipeline rupture of the ARCO pipeline or of the Columbia Gas pipeline (which carries methane in a
- . .9 6 '*, h E ' .3.h,a / . ',.,,,
gaseous state near the site), no specific consideration has been given (in the
't - **<*.") K , ,7 , .,
FSAR) to the effect of radiant heat upon the diesel generators and associated t # y., : t . . ,' .% .C.
. ...;* w
~
.q,- q, 1 .. .
- 7. '
*' diesel fuel storage facilities.
; *. . .,:', ~ M
'. , M ". 3. p * ' . . ,
in litigating these issues the Licensing Board asked the parties to address
',* /Tf4.(Q Q.',' jy ; e ,J I J
- considerations that went far beyond an analysis of siphoning and radiant
,% d " heat effects resulting from a pipeline rupture and de0agration. The
,' I,C. , .. dG ./ TM. 7.U ' ~.TV' &n 7.%j N., ; * * . '
Licensing Board also inquired into, among other matters, the effect of a
' postulated blast shock wave on the natural draft cooling towers which re-
.', 5,%.N.Z suited in a collapse of the towers. This scenario, as addressed by the
. . .(Q wag: ., @ .'"f,'7.N,.V ,
~
Licensing Board, could result in the Gooding of the Unit i Turbine
?.i m . 3 41 y n o ,. . ,. Building and Control Structure via open doors in the Turbine Building.
l,? . ;Mi N../. ' r, . , . .
- After thoroughly analyzing the issue, the Licensing Board concluded that "there would be no entrance for water into . . . [ safety related)
?-7.Q 7ClW/.d
, y 1+%
i ' ' structure [sl and no adverse impact on the ability to safely shut down the 4 y:,.w f. . m. t - S- reactor." LBP-84-31,20 NRC 446,491 (1984).
. a.. The Appeal Board in ALAB-819, supra, 22 NRC at 730-41, afGrmed
? . $.I.g. i T.,e. '. ,y ,,
the Licensing Board. The Appeal Board concluded that "nothing directly
'; -; 3 :q . 3. -
c,3$pl. .W.w& y [,' r: N bWmw . pertinent to Anthony /F0E's pipeline explosion scenario was or is 'unre-W.t 5, solved' by the Board's decision." 22 NRC at 740.
.BWlv6i. .. gh".;.@M,M@t.d,N#'
. pa D%$? ; '. .
NQf Following issuance of ALAB-819, Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECo") filed a Licensee Event Report (LER 85-080) with the Com-WW/
' 'IM@M'M0%.Y;m/J49. . # @ /. N b ff.t %d mission on October 31,1985. In that report, PECo advised the Commis-sion that it had recently discovered that because final site grading had Q N $g@lf/Z @b e d # ::*( #M. M not !,'.?'YMM" been completed in conformance with its Final Safety Analysis Report, the potential existed for the Control Structure to be Gooded in f.' d W.G'./.M, s.8 E . , , the event of design basis rainfall or from a failure in the cooling tower W:A. s '
basins. PECo advised the NRC that it had immediately initiated and M. $!.$.,.L cr 7,?"WD },9W
- jf ;py'la./, s W,m.*/4 c completed actions to eliminate the safety concern - Dood barriers were
& y installed at critical building openings, curbs were added to control the
' m.. Tr# t . .u, s (t, b.L r ,,F WA awy.xa..m . / i. Mr N,g,p ,r w .- . W flow of water in the buildings, and a new plant procedure was developed m q .~ . m .
y')A <.yyS(g w. . ; o.M.s. . . i: , ~
- m, . ...
to assure that Unit I could be shut down safely, even if the redundant bl% , Control Structure Chilled Water System ("CSCWS") was disabled by
,.N' Y h 'W kkD, 9 3 -p{l[d%5%p1i)n h flooding.
V ': h@M W
'i &s e .ss
.m..Wmp .%"@, m.yk: p,g .y. ,MWWW n .~.m ,
m fy
% WM l7,h-;f;ws h,h. W b; h ?m - @W W^-
cw h.dy %$Q N;y. M u :: .2 Q<
>Qqw%2
,Mg,yIye,wo@,e@c W %; WMy.%:%W?,9 wnt,a 4
.1 O .f f C.,*.h i ,
,f. , .Me y,W'il 1b
%;.*A.%.p.,g;.T - Q yc ap.
132 c-w. r. g %. ,.g%.a. W .q p 4.A. ...* , h +' [*h
+
.$ .)~h b[
o s' t : c.3:.,s m 6% lk .in .qgQ1 e.y, p . x. q,w.u y'l,. . # n s
- m. ;..y . . . ,
-c+ ~m- +. -. - -. .,.
e .s; .e
, , , o, ' , , -.
- .7
.Q tsh 4g- ,,.. .e - -,. ' ,r' w--e n. p j. ,',%a? &:m-- 9 s. --u AWy&r TQ+ ' h'. y&.8' yp . N p $ .y,%
emmmm#m.ggewgm b i
. : . .: . q.
s
'f ,
.p; * .
- m .- . ,, r m
..t +.m . . . , 9;f.**
.. r y y#Y),c .ea:w .. +.. '
. . &. b. < ' - . ,
~
s.i,*
'. . %+
a A . ? c. .c. f
,- Y b:jy
\ . .
. M .
. '.[ ' . q 2N", ,7 35,4 , - R. -+ W. ;. r .
x L*%,. ; .' s %.
- m. -
- u. y %% :.' xx MCM ' m & , s
, - c.m wl* -
t ,.r v 9 4 M :iv o *
,4 2-a E :- -*,h*'3
- m A:
. +
. . . e. .
..s
, n . p. ., g
# je , ,,.;w),.,,i.,
v 2 .. " ' MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD
, o .:
,.f > . .
Anthony /F0E argue that the new information contained in the LE establishes that, if the cooling towers collapsed, water could enter
.y,,
. ., 4 3
- Control Structure and disable the chilled water pumps. They cla
' ,.Q'.. t3" i x s ~ - M7 - this disabling of the CSCWS could leave the control building with -
'.' , .- tain cooling facilities for the Main Control Room, Auxiliary Equ
( / ,i, , P i .i .; , , i .$[ *
' 7 Room, Emergency Switchgear Rooms, and Battery Rooms. T W
;- cooling could result in excessive heat that could prevent safe sh
..g1.. ,.d , S M. . *: ,y of the facility. Anthony / FOE argue that if the Licensing Board h cf '
y t 'MWJ
%' ?9Jg.., f M'FMD ,j g m , known this, it would have reached a different, unspecified, concl y.,J,D .
. -;.p. y y; j . -
- regarding the potential for the loss of Control Structure cooling as result of flooding from a collapse of the cooling towers.
W The NRC request.Staff and the Licensee both filed pleadings opposing
. , . . 7, c
*- Anthony
.: ., .' ,v, e.g In determining whether a closed adjudicatory record should be r
.;3 .
h'.c M. opened, the Commission applies three criteria: .
'. ..a (1) is the motion environmental'. is j \c-
~' % "' timely; (2) does it address significant safety or 7' (3) might a different result have been reached had the newlyi pr 3 c M" material been considered initially. Metroprlitan Edison Co. (Three, M Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3 (1
. There is no question that the motion here is timely. Anthony / F
,l, , g , . , g . ,,. s 7. pr.$ filed their request promptly after receipt of the LER. q
.J
; .9..i~? The other two criteria, however, have nct been met. In its plea i
&'.., . c. ,
., ,; .. V
- 2 response to the Anthony / FOE motion to reopen the record, the NRC Jo o : r . 2 ? .," >; @ u .. Staff provided a detailed technical analys s of the consequences k
.. 9. Q ' g flood. The Staff concluded that the correc ive action taken by Lice [6:
g.,Q y,1 ,
' i,3',. f< ry;) wf, . M Fu@j c is satisfactory, and that a worst-case event would p 4 j., ' d . , - not result in water in- s'
' ;Tn trusion in the Unit 2 turbine building or the Control Structure in qua b
V7 ties sufTicient to cause significant flooding.8 i (,,
~ '
The Staff also determined that the CSCWS is not required to shut $ s plant down safely, Anthony / FOE offer no credible technical reason P m.; e . - t'c..Mt gW w 2 dispute the Stafi's analysis. We therefore conclude, based on the U S A .'., W/ ,' i W ** l,h. 3lN . i. M+. D MV .y \' .t4 [i yh'[
, ' 5
.* ^* h*J ./*f Q ., :.f b3
.,.4 1
,,,,. 4 *;)f.Wy p y C3*nyrv6 4 8,j j $ worst-case pipeline rupture, the issue they seek p*
, gp 2 3.*r y a q M rom a e scope or to reope ;J the two contentions that they filed with the Licensing BoardngAccordingly in seeki by
'.. *h[4M / % [t Ry!M'4
~
to reopen the
?:
h=C4 ny,M<y j8 i .j. M*. 8Q'p vy4, ,M . #5 .,; . 3 V ;$h,O$g should motion 2 to reopen.be admitted.10 C.F ll l 2.114(alti). This failure offe
.j 1
,' M '{'A . . %?% {,
dt;'hdAl ,
- b u. *~l. N WQ -*
the few days of the year that have the most severe a e place during atmosph upture would The have h,./Ji.hg *,'4Iy2%.f. k.
- t 7, .'
to lead to an esplosion capable of destroying the coolms towers towers would h j,i
.4
+
ave to fallin such a (f,
, .i-
, 'e . O3 :y
' * ' * .s... the Turbme Building The nood bemers and new procedures would ,
.~t i. * %s .
?c-:c. . ..> . ~ , y-I h.$ 4
,.,*e. i-We v
f.],a,,t
.e&.
,_ o 3.h
$,. w4 -
,i %J! 133 Ni
/r
, ' ., . , f.c' g ,
s g, q,n
,' y 4 h M;.
p 4 .
'QJ G h
.., , ;. s.
- j. . . ;>Py_(
.' . h g t. m fP .
., . y , s . .) ' jeg;; 4
- e. ~ - n ,- ,--
x , , a c s 9 e ,J . Ay. m yrf R T,, ?_ %p.l _.;,,y':;e f,m.4-
.JW
, *n. ;f ,7n., y ?', -*~
.d s
' ' N ,'-e -
, . v
. . . , 7 A f* gy .. . .a; m7 .". sf, u s,+'
, {
.x w : ' . '
*k V Ih o ' ,
V seJr&g, ;jm N& kM aq
.d ,'
Ms3%an.,M,WMMMhD?@,?$@d.@\NMMMM[ _ i, nn Adh.gmcW4$ rd W r.n.wn " n- u Q gr r -
' - '~
1
,,"vt", *
~
*,- 6l, ,l
,f *-
21,( ., ,
' ."_ -'u ,., ..e+*
' . e. f k,x *
{. ,
- ~ . ,-
'Qt*Q f .s ,-
e
. . .: ..u. .: . u; . :, . - . L .n. :. . . . . _.J L_ g f*/:,. - .{. ,
W, ; ' ' .: .
., j M:.- .. 1 r . a. .
..4,. ,
a W.;.
]
t
%n u.;& ,'
. 'j analysis, that petitioners have not raised any significant unresolved
"+' > - -
,, i safety issue warranting reopening of the record.
Finally, the new information, even if it had been considered earlier,
} could not have led the Licensing Board to reach a different result. In 4
light of the Staf1's analysis, not credibly disputed by petitioners, that
- - . i. " flooding of the Control Structure would not prevent a safe shutdown of
.- / .
the facility, and that proper corrective action has been taken, the Licens-
. l l I ing Board could not have concluded that the scenarios postulated by peti-
- - .I tioners warrant further corrective action. Accordingly, the motion to T,. .
.. . . .1
. M.' '
". J1 reopen the record is denied.
, r,. . . o . . . , . .4 ,
..: . . y 1
STAY REQUEST
,. . ,I,
'a.. .-
. j With respect to petitioners' claim that the new information warrants a
.~i stay of the Limerick facility operating license, petitioners in their motion
,.i.'
j did not address the criteria for a stay set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 2.788. In light of their failure to do so, summary denial of their request is ap-
, ,'[ , ) . ,
4 propriate. In any event, since the Commission has determined that peti-
'i tioners have not raised a significant safety issue, there is no basis for any
'j ' - . .
.'~' . ... * . ; stay.
- s . -;
- ,- For the Commission
< 4, ff/S.
m c,K .
.,C~
- v, .
~ 7g.. .
M:.. , , .
. ;l ,
. f.u .y '. . -v.- ,: >
SAMUEL .J. CHILK
.:.pd ,-
.c. o.
c ,. 3 , . , 7,
- Secretary of the Commission
- .,,,..,.- %.y 9m;e. : .
a: , - - ; . i2 1i Dated at Washington, D.C., ,
.! this 20th day of March 1986.
M . .. g
$i g
+.'1
/4 s .
- :, . . ...i
.~ ~ ~
. ,,,-[.hIF. ',0 . ..s.j , ' ' ' ' ' ,fh .
4 .rf
.'.- g ;: . . t
- 4. , .
1 -i -., 'p .. t , d' e ,g 4 , I . ,[
, * . g , 5 k y, ,6, , ,
- 44
.h ,9 % * ' ' ,
l , p 1 ; <. r.i p l < ,+.
,Ee
- , ~.a * ' *v%: .q
. ;M ;;#p? . ;, ..
. , 4s: ' '.1
,,m . , e .. ... .
, l k ' . #s' s' ,
* .Q.,rQs.acM8 a
~
-? l'.R1 - ', . b , ,
E ,,7 e
'{.'.**a',.
; u-
. .,t._ ,, + :. ,.>:, <
. 1
. br e '
' ', g'f,
' **~. , , j A
x' ,sy. e.
.b :
e
- v:s .4, 9': - - ..,:.g, y .- . }, 134 e% n.gsa ,
,.1- a
$, -)&~
. g 1 c. ..e. .J
^~>Q e
!8 m , , . . ' .
*a mm E /v g I . ?g 4 (, . .. .,
g
- a. , 9. ' s a
'a.- J.+ .:'
~
- :: :[by
. m.
e -
. . :- 2, . . . ... a :.:. y-
"p'N .- _a , n..,
. s.
- w. ;. .
.p, Dh^/f ?Q . syftzg";g, ! M W
'j:i' &n;i c R 4
% ' ' &. . . nh',t;& ;.4 .,D.i s l& Wi:??&,.:W .
' ,
- L'L ,
,,a.,
. yg h,- f\. k.rWlk m~ b m, N.3,&hm:m hh h .m,-$ ww mpy.;b??kh$ w t,,, a hk m, Yl e.m.pp .s.. ,.y y.g9.g.n-
, n,y .gy s ., i . ,
t,s ; e g. 9 J $ - r
.l
.. ~.,
s
+
~
+ 1 .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1: L.c.c.. v E : %s. e.+,, .;.-.r..... s, Boards issuances m- . . ., y - ,,.
,*r . *r a >
s , ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL l , . c. , ; . . I
.. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman l ' .
Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore O
.f S l' l , ,
i
=
- Christine N. Kohl
/ +
g I Gary J. Edles
' , ".4 i ' .
] Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy
^
Howard A. Wilber
/ .-
1
- f %'4
- t*
- yn
! k * $
&' . 5 i
.-a ,
9
'_i JvW g le * %**< . FW' 4 t.
- g - (,* ., & . 4 = .
, e
- p. t 4 l
p* #Y',> q ** s
, 2, ..s .J ,e ,
W I'# I' ky*%, $
..t..,+). e .*
e 4g'ii ' ' , f) ' . ? * , ',' .
; s. v
*;, . t. e g
. . g
. s . t s
< 'l
- g. ' s e e * .' ,
%i g 9 f....,-
1 a
. . , , ~ , , .
g 9 $O g
- g. 9 y , . . %
g b O f" >J e e . g - 4 G'"
- e. b .
E --+c, &#e
*' s e* . . , - ,* *,, L*al 5 . . 2. . .
.,, h* ,e .' t.-* .7, ,
- .g ' ,, *
. , g,
,YO 4
- g .b ' '6" S %
,' . " s"= .,- i ,,
'i,'.,i i
- 3. ,,./. -
7+. e, ,,.,3,. ,
.
- V ,': ,, 4 t. d s . , , _F -
. - t,C ~ n ;.;
, , .g. . 'n, ' ,
,"" t/<
? k-e
t
,["
g n 9 # g g
,y-e 1 'I l l y *, q - ' ,
j . a , i. ( a l443-I ' /*'*,.d
< , =w, , .) . . ' , ' .
F ,
- g 'i57
- 8 **
p y'-. -n'.- ,-T.
- s.
' y
, y
,. .f*'4 4 W'., L ..) o'
- sc .
l e- s > s, . .?. esy.. . s -
}
a g. 4 1 'l9 -
- g. ,
, (l d *g, , '. ,
% .', '+*
'.s 1(
.'t %. % - ,s,,
i ;fh'<& r.q, ,'{
, ...-~,.. ,.-- - - ,.m . , - .-
_, . ;- ,_- m' e.,,..._ _ , n s,,*,, '
~<< , pm, '
l.
- 5' v-a 6,'.7*,,
.- < :*ae.
,h*T*/ 4- ' ' ,
'c -
.* - < ~,.+:
. /. n
*~'. 3
# :.c.- p*6.
3i _
.- r
- e. f *, . . ' *.
N
.<q;J,w yx' . , +mm.,,.t -. .9.f s. ~ n
#, . . ,%:n s Ay.: .M: . r- < g, 'G, eca .
M. zE -:@%;p$ :c w e..~.ve. .- 4: mg,. :
%. . ry ~ -
vy .3.:m 3,v.m+k 7 s'- olc
- i. ff I+fw;:..;:YwJ W; V,.; y.h}.%;&... 2 - Qf y~ m+ ,s O 'i r., @m . @f., #'l,k+.;i I.J; kf[.
a. i . - ..dl , ; m .v.'.2 . .];o,; p~ ,, b . m y.
.4kibi w,i'pm. yi. ~h, ' Q'j](,.g
.-:s. . . . ~ -
c y94 I 3
* . cM
. ! ..* = ;, ss.".'pg--QL:a 7,'y .g . c k/
Q*i e rtvw 1{. e NJ ;/3 4.,
../e
^p
, 6 Q. - ~ .. < g*>i7 jy . '+;i ,p,,-
m[ g 8J ,. . . .
--- .%.- -c i '.e.
~,S -
WkV'~ , !.~ N'l'?p -) ?.W.$j5?y?p..:. ?f" . . , e v .. .. '.!,hfij?!?' W R' ? ~ ? N* S~W
- x. I_ _ _ - - _ . _ -
~
5
.W: :.
,e g .' ,' '
> g;
; ; ' ~, ,
'r sgg ,, ...
. - - - ~ - . - - -
a------- - - - ~ -' - ~ *^
- Q M1r
~
- J , ; - *
.a ; . .
rw.
%. f.. .,, , .t ,. . .... , ,a . .: .z i.g. " . . , , . .~ .; . . - .
w' , .- > ; r
?.gg;
, , 7.g , ,.-- - ~ . , ,f ,
' ~ g?y ,v. b:4jj' .Y. : ' . .; j *
' @ggPi..u o , y '., ,
y %..,'.Q _ .
'1 ".;*
. . .. 7.- Cite as 23 NRC 135 (1986) AL.15 832 e'
j'*d
$ v ,eE *r .f' a~'f.3 9 *> ' '
s 'e.. , y
' V.
[ Ni@ ' , < YM ' .'M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j/h;6 7, .M @$Q Q.4
, ;. g + v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e> y9..;%n W.l. y . . .
.;m - '
g,.~, . . . .,w 2,
. w.. w. y > % . -
f.3fp/$:..l;C'..G4 '.'.p M.z . .
~ 7c.:...'NM, ,M. sATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
.Q %. , f > af. N, : ^ %. ,
7..?.,r.t
;?.. +
.3 m,. ep 'o O. - *'w-a 3 Administrative Judges:
.. n%.
- . R. ~ hf ;.; < .
- ... : m.~.s. 45.
- 4 .;<.. m:pa.,r.., n. p... R , -
%:M:Mr..
su m.o .c;W.g!.g.,.c.c_ w;n.%.n e 2 cc *>. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
, -l@, . r.Ay v .-
2; '. s: . . m~. cph.4 ? P Jh. w w .f.e 3 r.c, Gary J. Edles*
,. p.e..
.c p . ,< v. . w.. m.
Howard A.Wilber q.s.m. +. p rw. :. <- m . . ,.
.i..
;a .x .
s,.
.:., ., ' s. ~n;;.4.,
. c r. ..m .. . 'f. y ,
, w- .a ; '
- . a- , o%<'fjfc d .,. . ,
(i[.'.YlJ* .. . . .O.a~NM in the Matter of
'l. y . p n; Docket No. 50 322 OL-3
.,o d. r s.E,m e, _ .. ~_.;
-rp ? M W :7.m w,,'..: y +It v.,,:
y i .- u w..,,: f .,' N.. (Emergency Planning)
. @C . . g.,. ;&. * .
- f H d iWi M. U.M LONG ISLAND LIGHTING
, ' ,. % ; 0 ; p' . - f,.. .Mg -
COMPANY
.., gc6 v,. g- O. y .g ,e 6* : s e < s. ,ii..g**J' .n . . p + u.s.,. '.@m.. Wrg *-
(Shoreham Nuclear Power
, j:WeWF.W+.
Mjit*6
- . t.. >d9-qtq w c.w. c ./ Station, Unit 1) March 26,1986 p
.f,$g.p.W'@-@@, : h:$.y 6gg' nJ
--mdpeph 4:stm%o.p;?p;;.0,M. W.
6 :, .D' M %sr=.Me;
.ce%@6M 2pg Q Deferring action on the applicant's appeals, the Appeal Board acts on
;4'f . .f'p. .. t..fii ;[4*? hg'".I Q j
>YUJ w. M.,%. ~ s r 4@6.
j : 3 1;.. c. ' l Z'S. o
. m. ,'C U.
the appeals of the intervenors from two Licensing Board decisions on emergency planning in this operating license proceeding. The Appeal t c; J- C , .- % > .;: Board affirms the decisions in part and remands them in part. It directs 1 ..'r, a ', ,,,.4- .. the Licensing Board. however, not to proceed with the remand unless
; n.c. s . ;,- + , ; 4 and until directed to do so by the Commission.
A, . gn ,
. . .. .s agt. . v.a s. a .
m, s . -he.- n ; 4M.i- .: .., ..' 0.o'T ~ '.' - 5:. . .. .* . ./
> &.Q' ~ . :O l%*W, A* y. 1 y2 RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW 3&T, J. 4 i U.. N r. It is well. settled that a party may appeal from a Licensing Board deci-K Mp$$.W. h';.[.$NE[.A..N, m
. 7' 'pg.- M. .a.6result QalteredU. in' some ' L.material '? respect. See South Carolina Electric & Gas sion only if aggrieved by the ultimate result - i.e., the party wishes that
;@.> %,.;;, .q i 'J3
;,3 % ,
p'w . - - . ,.T4. . 'g m ;. - -' ,giq [pf.
. eD m m.o u^/;'Q ,
t.
' L% *since January 28;1986, Mr. Edles has been serving as the Acting Director or the Commission's Offee
,>Ad c.,',.*. Jll* [ d ?.ViA *, i' ,,; .' . . %
of Inspector and Auditor. For this reason, he took no part in the consideration or disposition or the mat. s :. ' [" l- . ters covered in this decision, M S p l g-M.:.kf 3 9 . hY N. + ' .l
%^ j '; ~ . b 4- '?
C' [x.n.;w,y. : ;,KM ~m hMJ,{:g.g z. 135
.- t , n .. a r ; .f . ;
, , ,g
- s. , .', *
..e
+ , & ebe e
.--,..g,' - f.e'".&. ,;. . %
- s
.a. ' e *' ?
.'g . _
. d- .f '..M.,. .y Ug g e-o e= ye-i.e. r*Ng 4$ -jp y
, 8W. -1 -P
#6
~ k.: $ ..;i'.y>=*w,. g,'.-Gr,y .. .;.g'.*.j
,* '*I P. N.6 **v 7 . .
4.;%g:
.,j, g o.. 3.z y.,.fr. _ 'gE I, ,'
.r*,'
- M- f3 , e t.
,.y S. s * ;, y'...;s,k {s.,:;; :~,z f;ggyp, qs- 3;5 a. yy , ;; f *.9 : 4 L .
wq .. u . . ;.A.n~ .
, ,~;, :p%p' ' ~;; 4 .K ^ '.
. r; _
a w s-Wm rMss
~
b Y =V,s.,h.\i'&mnsk y m.;.;p. &n.c.n n .;4 n. P &n;e g;*o,*W p1rc - <%~ . v' M f.;' wP . .Nes' A. n.~. .-'. 't.
,~*.;*,
n'p ~W.c ~:w ~+'
; io fW?N% ? c%M.. 2v s .. w .w w wa Wl M S5V.N "N .Y: ~ . . .,
M. w~ . .. r- --
~ '
V
<: a
... +
R:' .. s s
- e. g - .
.s. . . - a w: . .'
..a.. .- - ~
- e z.;;c , . ..e 2..'
- .~.:.___
~-: - . - . . . . , . . =
;. ,3 .. ~.m:- _ . _ _ _
- (, e .
n
~ . . .n
- u. m- ..
- e. .e . - .y . ..
.w.. ,-
w d
.. u. . p , . 4. - , .
- 9. ;3'n ;,.
- .f:f. d '. - *
- . . .~"
- Co. (V rgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB.694,16 NRC 7 ey , , 9 . . ; . - ,
958 (1982), and cases there cited. h .. s N [. 7. b..c,.c.,w.. <~. w
.c . y v Q.,4. .g . -e .g . .
- n. , . ..
3:4, .x,CW> >..x.i. ,a,7;f.
. . . . . .q:. :1,,i RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW It is established that a party prevailing on the trial level may defend its
. fe'.; .(.. .6 ] ." % .";.,;. @ . M favorable result on any ground that is supported by the record. In this i,!. . , q, f.6
. , . /. ' corinection, it matters not that the precise claim (s) offered as a basis for Q * '. m. c 9 affirmance may have been urged upor at.d rejected by the trial tribunal.
S.p y... ; y ,: $. $* 9, o . .7 / ,y.; . ne: . Sd. 53 W 3.T c, e . . (j s.gg,e
, g . . c, y, , -
.cp . .
. :M. M{, M. .w a Of crucial importance is simply that an adequate record foundation for the claim be present. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron. Nuclear
- +
..~ .
. . .-~f. W,'..s
..m
; Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-793, 20 NRC 1591,1597 n.3 (1984); Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and
- n. . . u+. w g ,mm S i% . .,
w. 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,789 (1979); Public Service Co. ofIndiana
' '. t. . '/: Y 5l
^ (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 t .,
..D k. * <
NRC 179, 202 (1978); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point
,- %39 ...r..-...,....-
. . 4
. , , , . .K.. ".- Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB 264.1 NRC 347, 357 (1975) (citing
., lw" l y .
Jaffke v. Dunham. 352 U.S. 280 (1957) and California Bankers Assn.
' c'i
*~
- Schult:. 416 U.S. 21 (1974)).
- - .. , - .j RULES OF PRACTICE: APPELLATE REVIEW it_ F m. " ... < M h . M . . w, S M,.
Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for
@ ;f;. % . ~
4.,g 'J . d:. cff .,
'f
,]O 1 ,
g.:n: OQ'A simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on significant matters, not
.IF y.Q'1 ' ,p. f.;,gggy
'^ "5MMJW every colorable claim of error. ALAB-827,23 NRC 9,11 (1986).
my .,y .s- m ...w< t o.u/w7r .y9 qh- .
. ..or . w ~.
' M . .,, p ' ,
.4--
. , %s %
.-a
. ..Y.- iQ ht p:, ! .
_ . -.% p W . '_ EMERGENCY PLANS: OBJECTIVE
,n-q '
4 s .afe The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facility is focused 11; ~^ E'N N d; ' to a large extent on assuring that prompt and effective actions can be r~.
- 1. w ,
...w .
n.'
. M,
.s M - M,. T l'.-yfie ' taken to protect the public from exposure to released gases or other radi-
' J '.- E ' . . . . ,,
oactive material. NUREG-0654 (FEMA-REP-1), Rev.1, " Criteria for Z. 2* C '. Z .: V..W : &. g..% e 98
,Q; g .. $ f (;d M ;J Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans dUf-p^W f'}UN^i. %M..gg . ' TS M W and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980), at 10-12.
'tpy..v%s...,g;,, g y+:4. .gL;;wgQy, wg4.< NM,Q.('J W w c
;r ; :*E.C . ~ .- ' EMERGENCY PLANNING: EMERGENCY PLANNING " $ . W. [ @W ' N d, d-;SdQ Q $ ,1 ZONES (SIZE) +.W_., M. ; sc ,
- f%6.51.4.@.,.,M. @;h >
4
%j.i The 10-mile radius figure for the plume EPZ contained in 10 C.F.R.
p.a. , :
.- ?. .f. w g g- n@M., ,~k t s~ 50.47(c)(2) was calculated in order to remove the need for site specille
-; W..- b.
w.
. . .n. - -g, -' . . q
- g, y;.
w Q~vg*, ~ kQ
'5 J' a._ ,=
a...sjIl u.. m, & w$??w. f m{ s, '
* [. .' -
136 Q:!: 4' -.:e, :g.r . n;. wY.*w. .n W C. A.q s. W,. .. W,. ; . e ; ,. . p
.[.*
.cw a ,n s.8mmpN , .1
~;
~ %J$ 4.M; ":MQN.Y,M %*4 W"."** y,Qr Ly :- :^. 7. m o gg ~~m,3
~
. , c . p, * . .
22 ; O;L ' = R G g.:.J.: ' f : ' b ,. N !'.* ; W.. Mh.:,/, V ..,,,._,, Q.#x_.,_ 5;We R. M. WL lQ@WffR.T *f.M&NM.Q .hf.:'-iWi%g[a..pQ$g.%e,m:e wq e p*M.W: v:y.y. .?r%whggQ:M MMtp
$w ,f e%!%pW s%p%mWW W:*d bl% gequ&
ff } v} } q Q @;;$ M.b b ?.R e f, g ; O.i g : f Qgfk h),9
}l .fh %
- w:. , . ,
~
, in . , 1 '. . u.; ., - - ~.~w__._.._._.~. ..L.'s._..,_.__.__.___ _ . _ _ _ m.. . 3 4 . calculations. NUREG-0396 (EPA 520/1-78-016), " Planning Basis for W.- - '* the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergen-
;N(
g' J , cy Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1978), at 1517,24 and 111-7 through 111-8. o ,
*'p ,
EMERGENCY PLANNING: EMERGENCY PLANNING ' .' N I .
- .- ZONES (SIZE) u fe -
Although the regulations provide that the exact size and configuration
- t. >. of a particular EPZ is to be determined with reference to site-specific fac-Y. ~. . .,
tors, the , wholesale enlargement of the Commission-prescribed EPZs by
- P.
', f M
' 9M , ' ' a state cannot preclude a licensing decision based upon the requirements of the NRC regulations. The Commission's regulations " clearly allow
~
' y f[a . , . .' leeway for a mile or two in either direction, based on local factors. But
#. (section 50.47) . . clearly precludes a plume EPZ radius of, say, 20 or h -
more miles." Paci/lc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
' Plant,' Units I and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 831 (1984) (quoting 1 ,
Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
~. ~ ~ Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163,1181 (1982), aff'd.
ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983), c.ffd sub nom. Carstens v. NRC, 742 F.2d 1546 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert denied,105 S. Ct. 2675 (1985)). l ' " 2 r. 7 ' EMERGENCY PLANNIF.6: EXCEPTION TO REGULATIONS
,j*c ',.T' J-A party seeking to imp >se a substantial change in the area of the Com-p.. .
'7 ' mission's prescribed EP.C should seek an exception to the rule pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758. Diablo Canyon. 20 NRC at 831.
, J.Mp
. _M~. . u.. ,,y
- RULES OF PRACTICE: EVIDENCE It may be true that evidence need be adduced but a single time on any alleged fact, no matter how many contentions might rest upon the pur-
'b'Y s - ported existence of that fact. But once that fact is established, there is no M cy;,;V.; :'@@" 'G - good reason why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to but-tress multiple claims.
},; j .' . '. . , . . . - 4. . W: m.
' ' 'F g %-
m e,*- =y .. ' EMERGENCY PLANNING: BASIS FOR REQUIREMENT . .u. c - -
' ;;7 .c e.q?D :*
;;R;4 Q:f; , .~ "The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on
'f[@ . :, E , the assumption that a serious accident might occur and that evacuation wg ,-y
; iv ' 4;,Q4 4 ( of the EPZ might well be necessary. . . As a corollary, a possible defi-c .
ciency in an emergency plan cannot properly be disregarded because of
'9 % Ef
- 4 g i e '
.M . ~ a ef 137 Cs:
l' f g; j ' ' % q,~
. n ;~- ~y
. #e e i.8
. f/ ' ., ,.
j , [fe '
.*< ;?jv. y .
W- * *
.l6-
- i .' ;s' ', .
.. , , -w , .
. - n.a s. . . . r. , : v .. " e n w, a. n.* , ... . -~ ~ ,
~ lf;. Ik:lj $ W .'.,~l1... ; ,h , " }-j l-Q&;, '*. f. ?$
X' f'}& 5 'Qf, Q ..;:ik(:a ;9&, . y.. . .& .n).;W',;
- a. .m .~ . & ~ . ;
y .
%.. . g.p;.yk.+g;.,
;. ,Qff W} $.'~
.,.,- 24,h:f j.f {% / q.?JM.%;c, _w,;
s jg.m.hkk k k w ., Nh ffY *k
%, W. .
if
- h, .Y,5h_.,,.w.w
.m.
r ff ' (.u?;[t. m %. mQ.. hf 'qh,'O
#ai.xl 49.# %'y :..,m &&_
, w ....
MQ m 3'Q:g,A u n j y x 7 .*a ; 7 ".+. y :. 9 ; M e;w 2.ga: , . .
~y e ; w- -
.. :w .*<p, w- . .w: 'if.ng e.,
-,.y pp; g 'n' , . ; ,_ m _ _. qp.;-.m;pQ.%y&q
. c.-Q %%,..M.{ ., .. ,.
g....,y n .. n tay y q :p p ;c.y..r
.q.~...
,s. .
',* - p J ,,r' ,
. ,. . . . . ~. : .~ . - ..w -- au :w . . - - - . .-- . - - -
./
l e.l' . J. the low probability that action pursuant to the plan will ever be neces-
. 4;,, sary." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,713 (1985).
, e
~
i a EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (EVACUATION) Mi' - Emergency response planning for nuclear facilities must make provi-
}, '
sion for the care of persons removed from the plume EPZ should cir-cumstances necessitate evacuation measures. g; *
~
~
4,. y; . </ . . . wm - o EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (EVACUATION)
'. ; , Section II.J.10.h of NUREG-0654 provides that a relocation center ,,,j /, 7. 3 ,
must be at least five miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the bounda-q~ ' ries of the plume EPZ. .l , .
. + t LICENSING BOARDS: DISCRETION IN MANAGING PROCEEDINGS (TIMELINESS OF MOTIONS)
Licensing boards are vested with broad discretion in the conduct of
, the proceedings before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foun-dation, board determinations on such questions as the timeliness of mo-
. e. , tions are not likely candidates for reversal.
.. : e. '
j, Q g.. , _..,.. EMERGENCY PLANS: CONTENT (SUFFICIENCY) P.?jy;; ," - ' ~ Neither the law nor the Commission's regulations dictate how many
%M '
Tp ' opportunities an applicant has to bring itself into compliance with the N* '+ - . Commission's regulatory rules. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York j (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983).
.t>
s,.g -
' =- ,t.,
1< * ' ' . ' APPEARANCES $11.' 4 y
.,.. ;-- 4
,. & k n,
_4, j, ..,*. ,- .s,... Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C. (with whom IIerbert H. Brrma Et9? 9,, and Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Washington. D.C., Martin Bradley m w. J[** ' ,
^
Q's .'l - Ashare and Eugene R. Kelley, Hauppauge, New York, Fabian c.aji/J
- y. ,; * , <: ;A ' . 3 w.g . , ,
- G. Palomino, Albany, New York, Robert G. Abrams, Attorney v .,
g;& . _3-.A;v',*.,* n v.. , , . >
.. General of the State of New York, New York, New York, and Stephen B. Latham, Riverhead, New York, were on the briefs),
G l, ,w . J, y $j.,. ";O. for the intervenors State of New York, Suffolk County, New e.- York, and Town of Southampton, New York.
- s. .
,. . , ,8 ,r ' ,
- 33. , , * -
V..b .f
- 3. r, .
138
. +
f 9
' . y [r .,
~ ,,N.Fc * ,.}. , s
' >-^ ' { .i_
,- %f -
- Me[', - ~
.f : , 4q , ,1.7. .A .
- = ' j,' .yg ;
. r
!i,f; Q 3;; ...' '2.'[.2NhiN:Y#
"~
kh ekm*use, mum m a_mamm m
v ,. 3,. , . , _ _ . . . _ ._.-.. _ .m
- l. 5
> .s , ,
.~, ..
c. e,- e t
".. James N. Christman, Richmond, Virginia (with whom Donald P.
't.
~^. . - (.
Irwin, Lee B. Zeugin, Kathy E.B. AlcCleskey, Jessine A.
..c, .
- Stonaghan, and Scott D. 51stchett, Richmond, Virginia, were
,- . .~ .
on the briefs), for the applicant Long Island Lighting Company. sw :- , hN_fl;'f . Bernard 31. Bordenick (with whom Sherwin E. Turk and Robert G. Perlis were on the briefs) for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- /.,~ .. o. ,I staff.
. ' e
*. ' 4, ., 8
. w, . ,v .; ... ,4.
- a. , .
DECISION
];39 .1,, .ta . , - o; . v , .
M ./,' ' .
,3.. . .,-. r,
.' ' The Licensing Board has rendered two partial initial decisions in the
< $jg.' . -
emergency planning phase of this operating license proceeding involving yQ- ;.c> the Shoreham nuclear facility in Suffolk County, New York. In the first 7'~s. , tr ' of these decisions, issued last April, the Board resolved most of the con-tested ofTsite emergency planning issues in favor of the applicant Long
] ' * '
island Lighting Company (LILCO). It further determined, however, d
- ' - *, that the applicant lacks the legal authority to implement material features i
of its emergency response plan, with the consequence that an emergency
, j plan in conformity with Commission regulations cannot be carried out.'
In the second and " concluding" decision, issued the following
, , c.,y a . - .
l August, the Board addressed the issues remaining before it.2 These were
.7 ?-- -
J'; ' 'i- " ' ' primarily concerned with the adequacy of the Nassau Veterans hiemorial
~ ,. .
h@p . u : , - Coliseum as a reception or " relocation" center for the monitoring, decontamination and transfer to sheltering facilities of evacuees from jW7l f; .,,. . the area surrounding the Shoreham facility in the event of an emergency.
"r. . ~
- t ~ " ff
~ h I' ' ' - - Although the applicant prevailed on most of those issues as well, the Board ended its August decision with the declaration that the applicant's
~ '
emergency response plan is " fatally defective." The bases of this declara-i tion were (1) the Board's determination in its earlier decision that the MY. #. ~:. .. applicant lacks the legal authority to implement its plan; and (2) the 2Qu.h 3.I,p W '
'- '~,'
- ? ', Board's belief that the opposition of both the State of New York and Suf-folk County to the plan "has created a situation where at any given time
%F :'r
,C
^
1,. ' N'-<" - it is not known whether the [p]Ian would be workable."3 s ',b' - ! (('.!.T p ,(?': ;-
,J;- 7 f . ; .- ,
', '- ~. .
'. r .' r, i. . '
h Q,y [' ':_r y' ;*. 3' , .' s . . I LBP-85-12,2i NRC 644 0985). 3; . , . '
. 2 LBP-85-31. 22 NRC 410 (1985).
. fr- -"4' 3/d. at 431
<v
- 9. . . . ,
i kl~* - l , , . 9 .:yr. .
'f'q d . .
139
- s. ,
..ci. r,4Re.f.
' j.R ' , #
g;*,; .Q . ?
'dN.6 ' .
t g
, - - ,-.-.;- - : :. m .- .
_ p. g> . a . , ,
. , ;,4., .
.. a j, - . - , ,,
w, - m s s , r~, s *.,
. ,.,.y -
. ~
'}- Q' a, -
'fi .; , ,
;- . ; 'L c < gg , :A . .gir . .?- &q. .e4?g' %g.3 y
y A .. l f. * . w.a - i .a - ,.
- .ps.u w,.. -6 a;
.c
. .p:. . P.x ~m.: . ..' S g 7. .y.f x ~ n M: * ',%. < Y . . .g:e2%;.n s u-c ; c ., . . . . , . - 'z'.W.%; - . '
', , 2 '
,n :?: % '
hM 'Nk '"'N(.f}hhh
- fMES h,$hg
$ ["
hfi a ME 9.#gff.%%xfM&?% %%QW5%p@f Q - M i y ., "j Q % g g gigj
t =. g e h n - , ;
. ,m
, ~.s ,
, 2 / ; , a. -
, . ..e ; c. ~ ny a s ,**- > .-
~j>>_ ' .% -
, . L T '. )<.y-,.
,g g g ,"-,
't f ' 4 ~ 5 .
. ;. r 3 ,
. ~ j , .
. o . .
.s w. . , / .
s x
~*
, , dQ; /;p;;.:= % - w -s . ' ' ' a -. - - - --
=.-
.x n '; .W~:. .vg.;ga
-s
- ly, s [e. #
7, ' + . gig.' g h t ',zy e...
<,r:.
- S;; * .%y ~ . j ... e 4
i The applicant and the intervenors State and County took appeals from
?' "y>p$y@p' z.3 ; %%y%
W. ,.T . portions of both of these decisions.' With the parties' acquiescence, we
-).. l.,3$; 9 : .g separated for expedited review the applicant's appeal on the legal author-
. +
V .qq~ .?qi(pg ity question. In ALAB-818, we affirmed the Licensing Board's conclu-Of> .i- ..n+-_ . slons on that question.5
.f r.b."t' J M ' The elTect of that affirmance was to render academic the issues pre-
[' M - M [.' $ M sented by the various other appeals from the April and August partial l
^V
- x ' - dr[e if Sl. @.P initial decisions. In granting the applicant's petition for review of
, ,, [ %l 1 Z',' d Q.4 ALAB-818, however, the Commission stated thct "a detailed specifica-
.. , , v'VA f.l 9.y tion of issues, briefs and, if useful, oral argument will be deferred at
+o ,' j, P - T5 least until the Appeal Board's resolution of intervenors' pending appeal
. . a N;, on other emergency planning questions."6 In that circumstance, upon
.o . O ', [ the co~mpletion of the briefing process, we scheduled oral argument on kM',.
'1..,N,1cfquy R;
- g, 3.W'y the pending appeals.
At the argument, we raised on our own initiative the question wheth-
... 'S"
. er, inasmuch as the result reached by the Licensing Board (i.e., the
' ~' . MfJ f*@ denial of a full power operating license) was favorable to them, the inter-M ML . venors' appeals from the two partial initial decisions were impermissible.
i ' " . ' f.* N That question was fully explored, along with the merits of several of the
,.,?.nx. ;'%...9
.1e
. %[a$., f.. numerous issues presented by those appeals and that of the applicant
~ .$;; M.- t/UNNM from the August decision.
gm For the reasons hereafter developed, we dismiss the intervenors' ap-
~.n. . f.e. vw.:m,.g . g, .. ny .m,g e.
w y peals, but nonetheless have considered on the merits the claims encom-h MggL.M
'.g:
- MQW@~d
'. passed in them. Our conclusion is that the Licensing Board committed W ' 7,M p*g ?y&@Q: ; */ 24 several errors requiring further proceedings before that Board. Although
.;. g . " $ !
.f v thus remanding to the Board for that purpose, we are instructing it to
- 1 ,
' .M %,s .) take no action in furtherance of the remand, pending a determination by
. N;. o
~ _s.
2 :'+ 5.g the Commission as to whether the Board should await Commission vs ~ vi.... . . .. p ,, 1 .. : , action on review of ALAB-818.
- .-- . p;.rs d e.c.. , 4, - Insofar as the applicant's appeals are concerned, the current posture f@.d[%.p .y- s
+"..73* *;Y*~ .M
../ c; ...4 e-of the proceeding 'makes it unnecessary to reach the still pending issues .
c. c i ,4. s.; z w . m. . , presented by them.7 We are therefore holding those issues in further
- w. .
('m,@.:: e mi fQf abeyance until such time as their resolution might become warranted.
- e. w. y V A: ;n .9J. ,a, y
.. 7 -
t r s n,. .:5:,- .,m. . .
,. , ,:.!.c .,y ** M s . ; , n ; ,, , ~ M- -47... .( c
- " q @ ? . ' . .? * < ? .2,t .R '.".y . g *'
- M, * >,
'A W@Qp '. ~.4 E..: 7,1 *
- y? ,. %( q ]< 4' y, = Y .
*.f.a
' i 0Q lp ,h'h. & , & s0 ? k Y
?
..' %% X~ , . ?7 * ' s '* : q. ;s.j-A}?5q: .,
.[; . '-
4 In addition, the Town of southampton appealed from portions of the August decision.
. cc .9 %. ~. , ' & ,4N 5 22 NRC 65) (1985). =
- g. . 9 O /? i . " .- g g.1
- December 19.1985 Commission order (unpublished) at 12.
. . - .p 7 'C*; * , ;W( ,;- . 7in addition to its appeal from the August decision, we still have before us a small portion of the ap-
. 4(f I h .
phcant's appeal from the Apnl decision. See ALAB-318,22 NRC at 677-78. 4 $.Uc .['k % & x. % MY ;+ [.3[7.k
, e.4 *cr..J
%. ~~ a M..[Ih(
pg.*&y,a. C7'
.m : e# 3 ~ ,- n-
.%$k!T f &' .@M ,), a+, v. P/N yg
;.g.jd ).gM W,[Y.y[,9:*g'
, w
...,s-d. w
-b'h$
4y d,[ f s. . ~ h..w, n. .v , .g
- .fM*[~J. m.
W[ T.'g,1v aN b gIkfCf'*C h 4 A[% e g$C ._ . ... . , ,- - ..- - . - - .
. < - .- r. m -- - < z<n- C'777
)
kk O
.j,; kA .; . , .
< n' ,
- c . W. ' :
. , 7. ., .%...? ,. -
n *
.X ,
.a-[h Y
..e _x.
l.. - . - ,--
- t. 3 ......:.,, . .
- W..q;, ,p*t
- q .,,x,,np. .- s ;.g;gc . . ; ay - ? .;?. . ,C'
't ?,."
; .sg g4 .-
. c -% m .w, s
s
- . s p.
; :g. q. ct,u.up f , w"G.R g ;. p: .z y-: c
- - - , , ...- m.m :.w .:. u. w _. _
-Jm .
g.p . . g .
. A .. , q
.yc..
V
*~,0 r.1 %'W;7w
,t
,, p fk
, ;?,g l:l.g e c
. :n
" ; ;: Au y;h ,.y : T -T , &; r;.' .vM. p .;.;., . p 3 W.S ,W,,. , s*.Je,y/'K m m.-
s 2.:M,
- ?
- ,p. < .!n.
. . A:p*. s@./ :,
.m y-
,a p,wN. , :G;,,t , w,' %
- p. : ,
e, ;u. i. ; ,o- ,
- ,....:.- e.; t a
. @f.Y.s.,S sQ ,., din 9Ff Although dissatisfied with a number of the f'mdings contained in the M*M,.}a.gyfffMy[ April and August decisions, as well as with numerous interlocutory rul-c.1((MM'(bMhg'.} . . ings preceding those decisions, the intervenors do not quarrel with the ultimate result reached by the Licensing Board. Nor could they. The 3gr @3W '. ' :J .R; N:gl< Board's determination that the applicant lacked the legal authority to ggp M.Q ' 4*p'!-7; " - - j'f["
% ;, carry out its emergency response plan in full rendered inconsequential all of the findings and procedural rulings adverse to the intervenors.
.' 47 g p 6'/ p.r..y. .. . s M.; e,'J.6M. w.t .
rg, For, as the Board observed in the August decision. given that determina-9 ./
M{p%U.t@hN,Mygg[de g tion no operating license for Shoreham can issue. That is the precise out-M'p$h; sg 3 ;; s r w - . come that the ,intervenors sought. r gl
+
g.. It is well-settled that a party may appeal from a Licensing Board deci-m . F. .JY_.
's ,i,l'
,..m,
; q m,7. %.5C'
~'r.];":@~
' ~
sion only if aggrieved by the ultimate result - i.e., the party wishes that result altered in some material respect.' The intervenors not being in
~
' ' , O, ,-
' e <,. ; c ,1,' _
- ' that position, their appeals must be dismissed.
It does not follow, however, that the intervenors were precluded from CR , ( . @ C ~S L
, (; 94W ,'; % l 4::.t. D,: presenting to us their claims of Licensing Board error. To the contrary, they were free to put those claims forward in responding to the appli-
'J,.! f, y, ;. : > . M.. ,
#,w t
.,J M, ,3k ,; .
, f ,'C ,
cant's appeals from the partial initial decisions - appeals that did seek a
;. change in result. For it is equally established that a party prevailing on
- y. w a - . .:. ,
JT
- the trial level may defend its favorable result on any ground that is sup-
. > *q,. ' .Wm ,x : 6 7.i,,3G . s . -,st;' . .w. ... ported by the record. In th.is connect. ion, it matters not that the precise TW.P.; .
-f 6 . w :
' claim (s) ofTered as a basis for affirmance may have been urged upon and
$.M$$$$y,?, .M U cS ,p:&r.QT([i$ '
3 rejected by the trial tribunal. Of crucial importance is simply that an ade-4.p[W.n, M. s .M. sW. ,f.y.d. .n.sw.p;126,:SM.@Q,ia
- ,.. quate record foundation for the claim be present.'
a Although . tervenors' counsel should have been aware of the forego-
. g Ij/ w;gAf W*/ # in . ',(. c p( f e # "'
Z? ing considerations, it nonetheless seems appropriate to treat their appel-
. y<. y . ;
- o. , ,
/4\u late assertions at this point as if thos,e assertions had been offered in sup-port of the Licensing Board result, instead ofin the furtherance of an im-N%- ,' ,
jpg; W ' '
- m. permissible appeal from findings and rulings not affecting that result.
.. M WplJ T .,#[.qQ % M ' But the question remains whether there is any warrant for our examina-tion of the assertions at this juncture. We have, after all, already aflirmed jQ@/pQhT.gG;gg - in ALAB-818 the outcome below on the precise ground assigned for it M-QMfgMM.c:.MV by the Licensing Board - the applicant's lack oflegal authority to carry
.D C ? y 4, $,:q." " :
- 7. . a.4 pi,Rh
&hc :* .e b .: M ." 7.-4
/ d % @ !A.
( Mjgegyp w.SYUh N M @hk,* M:. ( k [h h 8 s,, sowh Carohna Elrrrre A Gas Co. (Virgil C. summer Nuclear station, Unit 1), ALAB-694,16
.*-.o n,y =, . ,.epg y , ;. .g ;y.-$
l
, NR,C 958 (1982), and cases there cited.Sec Common =cabh Edaos Co. (Byron Nuclea 3 593,1$97 n.3 (1984); Pubtr Servre Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox station, Units I and 2). ALAB.573.
M,V,I p M'd .[,,,*i",16 'DA"7/pM-!9' 10 NRC 775. 789 (1979); Pubhe Servre Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating station, Units 1 y$$ . /, [p':Qy r.g .',[W i,yJ' ,
' ' *):d i.,
y9, and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978); Masara Mohawk Powr Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347,357 (1975) (cirms Jaffke v. Dusham 352 U.s. 280 (1957) and
'}.N,.t.
ve J d -
.';g '+'
.'. Cahfornia BanAcrs .4ssa. v. Shw 416 U.s. 21 (1974)).
r & l,*M h h y 2; ,r' b..iq ,W n:n X % g .,r 1 s ikk1*hy..,I.h . . * . ' , i h f, , S %L %, ec..e 141
*f ;, -{e, ey.[m
$$E. 4]?C
%w$m.s:w .s m ./j; - aE
, gy- m;m.; m..f.,
~;Qm Qa:.n,.,y. Q._g
.-..,m._
y @%n . - Q:; mm- c._ . 2 .-r, .. g. g3:. ,j ' to p ';k,7 g y.%s g kgfy2;.' ,.Q 3~ f .
.. 4p s
< m, n - ,
w u.-m,.v. s.y 3, n m
, m f.4 hkkhh kkk ff kkfhf k -.m...;.mIhIkkhfhfhk m e s w e m w e s$ h fk f hwegt
_ . . . , . - .c . ' , -
.~, ' , +.:,.
,o
.s.
3.n : % L. . , ,.
, ,e
,w -
;u. ,j. .
_ ;n. f a.,.s; .,w.sc- :. ,. -. .; :.
.m.4 & m ,9.;-%47.,,.f,y .
, ' g; , *>.
,,,',].,,- . *. C .t '& y, *e. -
L
* .' s i .*.. '#
.a.
. [* d *c/#h'.; C.
S>,
-'O,
-. ~
,[ .
7.,
" " ' b**
~
. c. % ~, q :,- ;i.m
> .',99:
W.f.+ ~.ngx ?~ cp- - c .%4.p ,, , t ,.
.a
; ;$s ,.w...:..q g g g,sw L, .- .sa.uu;.y- - m, J 2.: ;.=~ J. .'-- ~. - . ~: _" m
+. .
m<;-), ?
~
.- . s.
4 e
#~
- i- .;-
c,im :s .- ;
* ,*c p . ,,.' --
+
..t t q.' - out its emergency response plan. Consequently, at least so long as our
- 1. . - c - , . conclusions in ALAB-818 remain undisturbed, there is no compelling
%.,7 -
y, U necessity to search for possible alternative bases for afrirmance. +..~ ..
.. .. . c For this reason, we ordinarily would be inclined to defer consideration
&.e....*,,,.
. . , ' s ' p.. ' .
of the intervenors' claims of error to await the completion of Commis-
.p .
7.i ./- ...- S sion review of ALAB-818. The Commission's election to defer its ]*..'* I ,_.
*$ } .' - "e ALAB-818 review pending our appraisal of those claims, however, dis-suades us from pursuit of such a course. True, the Commission un-
', M, ( n , tjW ; f c'{ doubtedly made that election on the assumption that the claims were dff . Wi 7 e. .; ', ,.l ..' l * ? { presented in the untext of a viable appeal by the intervenors. Nonethe-I*hM.YM['S,.bdh, .; 3 .. .- + y B less, we have been given no cause to believe that the Commission's determination to defer review of ALAB-818 hinged upon the validity of A ".( that assumption. In the absence of a contrary indication, we must pre-
, ' . -, ..],.% , .
. . ~. .
. E sume instead that the Comm.ission desires to have m. hand our evalua-
, (i *
.g
, i. W..
g tion of the intervenors' arguments on the merits of the applicant's
.: . ;( ;. s. . . .f emergency response plan - whether advanced by way of an appeal or l ; ,. ; . >
i 4 . u-
.Mife otherwise - before it decides whether the plan has insurmountable
,- ' t.2-0 legal Daws.
~
- ..$, , We thus have undertaken to examine the intervenors' claims and will
. y set forth our conclusions in Part II of this opinion. For their part, howev-er, the applicant's appeals stand on a quite different footing before us. In l ..,_- ,
^ -l 1, s i m .,
- e. , ;. h, . s. common with the issues raised by the intervenors, the applicant's pend-
,C , < 3 ' 4.4 . a . y,;'A ing challenge to the April and August decisions is of no significance in 2
- f.Jjn f{ x., f . the face of ALAB-818. Thus, there is no reason to decide that challenge
. , yg Q , . , 9 ; /.[i, ,. q, k in advance of Commission review of ALAB-818 unless the Commission L.w .w J.,,la >..'.c..
w w / i.J.ik has asked that we do so. We find no such request. To the contrary, as
.. j....i...s<.;
,s ..m M,,. cA, e. w2 9w u..a, seen, the Commission deferral of its ALAB-818 review was cast exclu-N f, .;;. 4 ,. 'f A d..is^ M P,e sively in terms of our resolution of the "intervenors' pending appeal."'8
,,v +t e . . . , ; ..
v.
't s .,.- .
n- '% Qa m .y gg-
- r. ,n.-.,; pyg:
.m . .
U.Eh. ...- ..i - M.Mi9..~ .,"'k@n. + of denying the interverjors' motion for leave to submit a j.. In the course 4~ f. p second 20-page brief in supplementation of the 100-page brief they had l hY.pm 74 s -M pr .r.1d.[:.":k L '>N, NM* hM,, 4 alreadyk$ tendered in support of their appeals, we observed:
- Q,WQg % v WM;J
2
. .L.,p %, , M. 3 v y ,w . 5a e M$y? ". . i w. N5.b,me . :. m< y 0k'.$4.Y
- Ac/g)g.M. ~.h, <
v T .w m .f A %pW
. v,tr,,p k.dm,gcw% , 'S.O d' d. WimM. , M...', s t.y,. MW 10While we need not speculate on the Commission's reason for drawing a distinction in this regard be.
se a'. 3 *f t m ..--f? tween the intervenors' and the applicant's appellate challenges. one possMe explanation comes readily M*14Uc.W..D. M p,Q.Mg M." $ql to mind. were the intervenors to prevail on their appeals, the Commission might find it unnecessary to
'A . . . , . ' , . ;AS pass judgment on the legal authority matter (at least at this time). on the other hand, an apphcant vie.
,
- g,lg%g[t c . ? T s * 'r ; * ;*j + p .!p. 4 . tory on its remaining attacks upon the Licensing Board's decisions could have no such efrect. such suc-g g g p, Iif ': ' ' ; ., h f cess would avail the applicant nothing so long as ALAB.818 continued undisturbed.
feg ?,Ye; ; . \
- s gl&e- [* '
n .. o , ~ ,. U '
. s 142 u$s.'0'. :,
.m,..+C ss . - g.i
- l. 8f: ,' *( , y, ; .%v. ,M
.* %gG?.:W$.;,,,% ..V.s w>:? ? ~ i h-s %
, ...,y, l5 t.
y* * . c& 1 , . W . , >:..K9p r M p:7 .f yD,e . %)1 *; , _ _ .p. r, r < w . ' 7 .' ,T-- X Vf , . 5 : 4
%6 . [ W *
- dk. ' i 3 C..U*5.7
.Q v .%g'W$$ k , Y wh'k/,m?: ?y %y* g %'
b 'k hY$5l
.:.wnm:.wl ~f.'t,3 -n e
f5 g&*.,*$$;.. l. : -. ..$5kh y.'sn.w;n.: m( :.he sw?*k$;hWg:w.- &m
,$ *bk k' dk Uk N5n nyx- w v m. il i ~
nWMMM . a n g) % %r gM@ hk. o , MMM$diMW w % x n , & r p r e ., y# M B E N M W W =
.. ~ ,- c -
y *
.2 N- - .
%&;y-
, .: 8 , , ,; . , u -
p 4" 7 ", , x r,fyy;j' . . g g y. :'
' ^>:,
~
n , , y n . . - y - : n . . , y. .
.. w>
.l ' , , ,
.$. D. -
.* - u; j c? c. 4 ', T-V '.Tb~*-*<-~a - -*' }
- O.'.. L* a a
~ (' : ' / ~ ^ ' .i - " /h.-- e '
.L ' . '.c c.!m_ 2. . .
.%., W. M[M; ",. f,....-
%. s y
~- - ,
. Q., .' .s'y x ( '. v ;
; h;s l.~ , -l; - '
.l
- , \ . ,,
.' .M
. t'
." - ' . t[
,.o ,
i * '.
- i y; V [ '
." jf
. - c Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forurtt for simply renew.
. j . .Q' ' , ; #
'.C, . ing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. To be sure. NRC licensing
,. proceedings ordmarily involve lengthy evidentiary records and present numerous J.J. . , complicated and detailed tachnicalissues for resolution. In recognition of that fact.
.~ . ".. the Commission in contrast with many federa! nencies. has provided two levels of
*.*/,* i, , i, appellate review, and appeal boards frequently examine ift some depth a wide range
,.y*.t - ? ; ** of technical and legal matters. But that does not alter the fundamental pufpose of ap-
*f'., .. , N,. ***i pellate review. Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on significant matters.
not every colorable claim of error. We expect advocates to cull the issucs and argu-s .
. g .
ments to be pursued on appeal.H
+ .
.. y. . . . : >g. s
~
.. '.::.. ,? 3
/ ; d A fresh examination of the content of the briet on file recon 6rms our
. r.....?>.
.h . - - .' " Jy conviction that the intervenors made little, if any, effort to select the "most promising issues for review."12 To the contrary, from all appear-
,c .
. , ,w . ances, we have been favored with an uncritical rehearsal of virtually every claim - large or small - that was advanced to and rejected by the p.' ',-J , . > O '- Licensing Board below.
- .* ;" Each claim has received our attention. But we see no reason to freight
' I this opinion with a cataloguing of those that lack suf6cient merit or sig-
' ~- nificance (or both) to require further discussion. We thus confine our-
. .,- ., / - selves to the relatively few substantial assertions of Licensing Boavi
, .. ,~ ,
error that have been put forth by the intervenors. a .s . , .. ~ Before turning to those assertions, some additionalintroductory obser-ag a.. .~y
- * , - + . vations are in order. A nuclear power facility may not be allowed to oper- ' y .3 ,. .
m s .*O ate at levels above five percent of its rated power in the absence of an 3C ". ' '. ,3.' y C NRC finding of reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological
. ;W .m & o ,-
G,6 % emergency, adequate measures for the protection of the public health
, 91 q . c C., '.
& % $. and safety can and will be taken both on and off the facility site." The i, J J g.g _ ,
'N (Q@,E procedure for passing judgment on the acceptability of a facility's
e n ' emergency response planning and the minimum content of such plan-
. ,. .a. ning are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part
. .x .
b 50.
, '-v. . . . - . , ' .
Although the responsibility for making the ultimate reasonable assur-
.G,-3f . -
; s 'W- ance finding is entrusted to this agency, the Federal Emergency Manage-a*l. ty".f. ,5 }S 5;/$yr,.id ment Agency (FEMA) plays a significant role in the appraisal of the ade-R.;2 , , ;.j t . C -l MN quacy of ofTsite emergency preparedness. In 44 C.F.R. Part 350,
] :/ {. ' f ',' , ;, ? > r .yp'.:.
FEMA has established " policy and procedures" for its " review and ap-
- r. agy ; % . n ~ 'yc,.s yQK . proval . . . of State and local emergency plans and preparedness for hy, ,Q&fjg( W~ ., h f%i m
,' p*'*Q.%
=, ,u ;*
.. .. .- v i . .y.-. 7< 11 AL.AB-827,23 NRC 9.11 (1986) (footnote omitted).
b hf;.M'YQ.*, ;.,- i . '
..; l$4 -'"'
12SeeJones v. Bames 463 U.s. 745,752 53 (1983). citedm ALAB-827,23 NRC at 11 n 6. O10 C.F.R. 50 47(a)(1). g
-4 q;J 14Scr Memorandum of Understandmg Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear
, _ Regulatory Commisson. 50 Fed. Reg. 15,485 (1985).
.J
,.C{ -
.~
s . - m' lka.* < T-[ '
*y O /y..'*
e l 7 4
..M.
.r.,. . ,. ,. m ' , . . 143 4 - .. -
w:-
" . 0 OR g 'a
.{ _ .
[
j 3, , .~ ' MF .4%v .- - -, m + m,w . . . .
;[ ..
h , -hh . s wm,mmm 4.z.
.w...c c .p :'. y y.w'e ; www % am,g ,yg: ow.%w w':;<<. :m.h.MgM m%m. ,.q m wa:Lggy m ;N ,' , w g ~:.y !k W. . ; %.
..a. - n
~ . . .- _ - -
.~ w._.
m
~ , ;. a .--. . .p.opp
=^ "- .n o -
;.M h v? a3 ac 2 .-.~'gm Q ;; ; ;- %,~..,- } -
7, .p: :s %.L --. .z q,.?e w :
-s
~-
- .,Q..,,. x,;n/.im*
.a . - :.y :x , ,,-n;e a nl}. > -n,.
p&.m7 ),...g7l'(
~.
, Q m.
.- ge&.v.2 G:Q.,,;y W h; &aq& Q &;c'..w;r\l Q ; 5 )5,:q:.Qfq,,,f,cn;ggy,,-r u;-m :. .
m, n.'.& .~ ;; ' ';qi:R ,. y~v
.g
, ..g., . 5,n ny ww
=; . s. ew.x.m v.m. _ ~ ,. n& c .
. ;s , ,m . .. g g-:n , m .,. a
&,4,;%:
...,.w.,_- v4o,, ..
^,:, <. .M~Q .7 --w.4 n y : ,KM& wt.a.wu.
o .-
.M .a.:.% 0,x.G a.s.u- - ~a~.
. 4 .r.,,.
m 1:au':L p a .. , w,4aMm +._n ; hm.v.e.e
+
- q.,,.
..m.
?-
.jj .
~~'.
ww. W* iou.. w e
=
'Qs
[
- ,s .y - -%. ..-b m ,4
;y@ lQ. :" ,y m } g y p_-y .
c J ..ji$:F,96
',1 4 coping with the offsite effects of radiological emergencies which may
- g!Js-(~
V$[. +;Sf(_ Qgy.6 -
, . p;,"'" r .* WMMM ' " -
occur at commercial nuclear facilities."" In addition, FEMA has joined the NRC in issuing a set of guidelines for the development of radiologi-d!K '. s .1 'y/c d cal emergency response plans by the utility and concerned state and Q.&.h*: %- .pt , 9. gh;.. .yc..y . I c,1 local governments.16 < Qf,gu.w 2a n,a d M. wn m The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facility is focused
% j- to a large extent on assuring that prompt and effective actions can be
- J,q g+ ,b:..>. ;p, . ' -.X,
- e .g.4, p,.S M. nyl.., taken to protect the public from exposure to released gases or other radi-
' NE , .
; -i, s', s oactive material." The closest area surrounding the plant for which detailed planning efforts must be carried out is characterized as the
%(hjd.f@$KM, % -; *Nf%;@e e
. 6 m,.3 " plume exposure pathway" emergency planning zone (plume EPZ).'8 fb.
*'dM;f/d;W . . . %. n3 ,W,,c 7,.Q?p$..yy
.n
./4, The emergency plans must, among other things, allocate responsibility
- qm - .- 7 y+,. . -; W . M. . %. v .
for making the crucial decisions as to the necessary specific protective . m a y . ;v,q; c w g ; 4 e, , :. -
. . ,. r . . . ..Wy. ,M;) rneasures in that area. Additionally, arrangements must be made for the m
g . 9 y - . /;c.*.ud communication of these decisions to the appropriate persons - namely,
%y$$'
'd the public within the plume EPZ and the individuals who are to play
' .[MO.N@hfh /. MMi,yM M @ g d,M some role in the execution of the determined protective action. Still fur-m.p.e.c/.w.
>. . . . . -- n;m.v W .
ther, the plans must insure that the individuals who will participate in W,,O.yMFR, i .%,. Wj the emergency response (1) are adequate in number; (2) are familiar ' 2by.[hij!'t:;?p..z. khh.M9M v,g, nM with their assignments; (3) have received any training that may be re-
,eeid-/{yM; S quired; and (4) will have at their disposal any needed equipment." Final-
. lM% M i k. ,, [. 7 Q M Q ly, to cover the possibility that evacuation from the plume EPZ will be necessary, the emergency plans must provide for the requisite transpor-
. MM;h.6p $ pgl%)ygyg 32 tation, as well as for the availability of facilities outside the zone for the Q
!Q&@M%g 'Mgf73 3 g$i pf gWQ y% g; d f g@M M p reception, monitoring and, if necessary, decontamination and sheltering of evacuees.20 dd In reaching a decision on the emergency preparedness of an applicant, the Commission normally bases its conclusion on (1) a review of the f g} MKgg%f$p%
% pf e % ; h % %plans,4and@
dMMYMMMfMW@M MMLg% FEMA findings and determinations respecting state and local emergency (2) the NRC staff assessment of the applicant's onsite @ggg,mn.s . d, ;.v.n.#,-)fp%s.., e
*rW % emergency plans.21 In this case, however, the State of New York and a -y e
- u. g y W P T; Q : g f.' g i Q . Suffolk County have refused to participate in emergency planning for 3
A MMyMhbd(hgn.M
,6 W -
4 *M/Waqh*.d 4 w@ e .2 K&rL the Shoreham facility. Thus, the applicant here must be able to provide,
, , . e j e 1548 Fed. Reg. 44.332 (1983).
?l "' f*M 72CvYi -Q % e,; y.; 16See NUREG 0654 (FEM A REP.1). Rev.1. " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological 4 , Y @MNMNjd$h 'I%:] Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980). ? QR% WQfWQM.W '114. at 10-12. IS M $hh[S\h@2ih( h h 4.qDEM 5)N 18 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2). Protective action planning must also be developed for the ingestion pathway 1 J f-;
% .$5* de'~.(U At E -(4g* 5 v EPZ (an area extending beyond the plume EPZ). where the ir sestion of contaminated water and foods is the pnncipal esposure. But these efforts are less extensive than those for the plume EPZ. See h
d%mRM hif3 MQty.g fMhg NUREG-0654 at 64. 3 Q Q M 10 C.F R. 50.47(b). hl gs Wrx W[?Gy4:QM
*p .. ,
.! h Dv- h W M h 20 NUR EG.0654 at 61. 63-64.
2310 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(2).
- . ',3 Qd'VNY h w W $ b, & "&9. % .!
s-n$ / p? D $ $3 llYf$.>h e QM[6Eh N @ M U't n c h'm,.yy.m@nmy.w% r Y,9 144 si 1 s. q' .h. ; f%p.48
. M.r . h.m$M
. ;.. b r M,;. kQQ L ty. 4t m,,,,X 4,; < 2n ; m , <* :.< > .v ) v oi. 9 5 @D
.*. j = fv ,,-;.3f:2 52;. m .&my,;q
- t.
c a 2 , 3
. .[&, o.Myy:
sg . [% g.I
.hs ', ,, * -ej d
; 4 ave - % Q C.~. 6t9fh%, IKW, f 'Q,ah _ ; ,r w . . . _ ,
. : Q~
6 't Wh4e-
%, Q %',Q.m y . f W 3 -: ;; W
% y y ? %n @: m y :s q ' q E, W J:.. - ; * , __._ ,'* V, ' B *P % t; &- @. .
My'i g i g M% M S:% % &y9w W #%$un s %qMR$a n.:mm $y %4m a m &sM m gs Q
- p. Ab 4 d m$ $ m$$$e?d$h.minxxWww m$ $p q $ N M EiRM Y5 S W Y p p$m g
.i .-
, c, . e - - . -
o >y. , - . . . . w e .m v.
.s . , v . . . .
. . m-. ;n . .- .D , wn . .
3.~
. %m. . a
.a , ;: m; . . ; w&n . u c -4 ,. : v ., .
7.
.. pg .c _ ;,
s
,> .g . . m,n. n. . s;s~ . . ., . . . ,_
. . a.s. ~ . .
,'s %' .,s . . ,,,
, c.M.W
- =w : '. m w .c.._.;
Q.y py.@. L.1 = ' f u
. , . , v .
5.. , w.
..m;..
- e. * -e y , q q ;.f..: q ,
- g. .
,. . ~
es.9 7o . . . .
.ac ,.
w n.t.e y .
, c;m . > > ;:- , 4, V ', * '
,OR AM by itself, the necessary reasonable assurance that adequate protective
!A
- m- ja G oiz. - *
.' M %.if
+
3 measures both on and off the site can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.22 q.; . . s-m x:. . . .
,> . m.
noi.. m .m,
.,g , O; .-
A. Plume EPZ Size
.z:. cy.
vf- 4 . In 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2), the Commission stipulated that,
' ' ,7M 'f? ' - 2.J ' .1
T . 1.
"[glenerally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ . . shall consist of an y7 J, g c?-
4
. .N!
L'}k. . . 3.?; V ^ t y:gp. ..
'S
'- area about 10 miles . in radius." The foundation for this directive (which accordingly led to the establishment of a plume EPZ for Shore-
, W W. s e,.
. .:. A M E. ham with an approximate 10-mile radius)23 is a recommendation of a om.
6y3g,' n'YR,-S.'V. n . d Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Environmental Protection Agency 7 7 .' f W p;PO.@h
~ T'(7l.
Task Force.24 From its review of a spectrum of possible nuclear plant accidents, the Task Force concluded that a 10-mile radius for the plume "1 f,.g i'.O.l. y( [$f .p.'/ . EPZ is acceptable because, among other things, (1) projected doses MN . / 6 -, *. ' _ [- N..?, from most accidents would not exceed Federal Protective Action Guide Q, '.,9 dose levels beyond that distance from the facility and (2) detailed plan-ning within 10 miles would provide a substantial base for expansion of
@MW. [ ' i
( MU. .' I ..z.2, 5
$f R25 * .ZM,qdF response efTorts if this became necessary.25 Notwithstanding these gener-ic considerations, however, section 50.47(c)(2) goes on to direct that 7'f N
C. s. 7.$ ':' .%2[L ' F the " exact size and configuration" of the plume EPZ
- s. . .
. ' . . . n.
jf.y . J , shall be deterrnined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as
- M [ ,1 b ci L .Ir . . gMn h,.. , they are affected by such conditions as dernography, topography, land characteris-
, 3,M W f'- -{ }yM, y4N E tics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
#w;?Ah: g - .. m g
. ; e.:nmr..a.n ysv w y;;ny,
- y. ,,
,nQ i. ?
%.y v.y
-Qs n .: $ No M5f@5 d 5M,;;q d's;; 7-n: a" .MGQ,,f Pointing to this direction, in July 1983 the intervenors submitted Con-
,My. . r e. . r . . r.y/ a m e. y sy tention 22, which asserted essentially that the proposed 10-mile plume m;e EPZ surrounding Shoreham should be enlarged.26 Relying on the inter-venors' own Shoreham-specific accident consequence analysis, Conten-J.e-[.
T- 6 O ? T . ! .1't o Q y" M [L @ .NM@Jf tion 22.A maintained that an EPZ up to 20 miles in radius was necessary 2*( ~L. .
..g$.+5,3;g-s vm - @ $[ $3 . ,.g.
in order to enable planning and preparations for protective actions in areas where doses were predicted to exceed the Federal Protective
. N~. n.
Ms cv v/w,. &N,xm
,s g ,h-G 3@.. .< Action Guide levels. Contention 22.B claimed a need for emergency re-g.M.Jg.,t.
.sponse planning beyond the 10-mile EPZ because of, among others, the
. . %. . , c . %.:r f.hbhh.
II! gy -
$ , v.c pl? F&h ,'h; -k 22 CLl-8313.17 NRC 741 (1983).
g;M;h'9 2 ) f '.- 23Cordaro er oL. rol. Tr. 8536. at 10. 24 See NUREG-0396 (EPA $20/I.78-016) " Planning Basis ror the Development or state and Local Trup M2 Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants M N ifbp +3 . Jot- 1; ;9d ' M
. f MM M " ; @.yrdkb7 @'.7 ' \.Mh@J9;gy (December 1978). at 24.
[g N';th'M* *' Jd';,J: Q 2514. at 15-17. See aho NUREG-0654 at 12. The concept of Protective Action Guide dose levels was vqk M *j'% 4;fdm.yyW .t 73gi- * . included in emergency response planning to assist in decidmg at what radiation hazard levels protecthe actions would be initiated. NUREG-0396 at 3. 9hid@h< <
?de .
26 Memorandum Regarding Revised Emergency Planning Contentions Guly 26.1983) at 36-47. With
.f s -
.),h R h. " ' (( - ' ((,]hI N:p-w w<.
,I.
~
3 its preamble and rour subparts, this contention is approximately 11 pages in length.
. h . .~ :~..Q Lqg
. h,.
- 4 s %; A
*f iM M GO -l.% * ;%:'-
4#'2 fsQqA p g 145 ts h ,( P@o $ ... ; .1,.: R. m,1. ..M W.,m - e.,
%1ly ,<t .f .. L *- ; ? :.s; f .,.
WQ.,
. m. h., D . -Z. ,, . . f ~7:.K.di.f
. T g,h_
.,..m y.
7, ,f, $9 '.>..;e ] cp,'j f.. g ;j;f r .337.e.7, , , .~.~ 3 - .. .
.,7.-. ~- _
O W. 4 ..
- . 4 -
, r . Qp. & r*.h:s.. ;n X.
y' :;y . . ' -: ) . .- x % > ;g: y / .y. &n %., ~ . , sa-z.-
- t. ." : r c
, . n. 4.. &;. 7.,f ,,~\w k, s. ~
- . . . v< y -pi e-4 g .J . . ; s ~t.=
,,~
% :e. .:.;; , s,: y ' . .
yg p& v]' $y 9./R$E}- ;faa.u;~ %,y, e44'[,<
- '&Y;smg'hQ%p%MY , ,-l(y i . . W Y ,',:*.iA N 15,l 3l: Y &,.n.h g$
s, m..f4.%s>.p g we My d;.Vgg W. c.w pASMW.v;3Mw a : 4,* -~ -w ,; ,%;- = =o/ m:m.ffb>A ws m %4WAM%an.y%9 g q% N D M O;yg@n .U, NM .. ..., M.n;gy$ IMP . .h.h xM,'
- 3. .
.. .. N_ fs.M,,$$.p$.,M,ggwg/M__
8t M M N
- 1
=mL., , ,
~ .
' ..~' .u
'j_(y,;
y G >
+ -
P,. ,f,' .
' Q' J. , " '
o,~ . ' ;;;Q :p > w'W {;"< ~ . a, s+w , Q.- ,
, _o .. _
U-3 ,
, ; , w..~ a*-- ,
- " - - -_ -- -~ ~ -'
ps . . .- - m- . . 2M - '., , ,
,g , .s.n . --
m m
, ~ - , ,
pf.~ -a '
',.,', '., following asserted local conditions: (1) in the summer, transients add JN '
substantially to the population of Eastern Long Island and many of them 2 ' : .4 [' ^ ~ are dependent upon the limited available public modes of transportation;
'u
and (2) the Suffolk County road network, containing but two east-west
; arteries, is heavily congested at all times and is inadequate to accommo-
- y. -
date the additional seasonal population. In Contention 22.C, the interve-
-(,g '
. I b ,) nors referred to the " evacuation shadow" phenomenon - here, the
. . . ' . . , , :ej voluntary decision of persons located outside a 10-mile EPZ in the event g" b. y-{ . -
'] of an accident to move still farther away from the facility. According to
- u. i .,. - the intervenors, such movement would impede the evacuation of per-Q&a4- ,
sons within a 10-mile radius of the facility to more distant points. For
. , . ~ *5 -
; this reason, the intcwenors insisted, the detailed emergency planning r- -
effort should extend beyond 10 miles. Finally, Contention 22.D pro-
' 'O , , ' ,
,' posed the expansion of the EPZ to encompass certain jurisdictional ff. ' '
boundaries.
, After considering the opposition of the applicant and the staff to Con-N ~- '- -
tentions 22.A, B, and C, the Licensing Board denied their admission on
.j -
the basis that the intervenors were challenging the portion of section
.C" - --
50.47(c) that referred speciGcally to a 10-mile radius for the plume
$ [.. C 7. *i, EPZ.27 In the Board's view, the 10-mile provision was adopted as a
'ff ".1 ,, - .. g 2
*'.~,~,E.-
generic rule for planning purposes in order to preclude case-by-case liti-iD
.g.g . 7 - -
.v.
-r. 2 gation of the size of the plume EPZ. As Contention 22 suggested the es-
.u .s az ; .- .., . .: - , ,~ ,'v tablishment of a 20-mile EPZ, the Board also relied on a Licensing y ,o. <
..e# . 0-Board dec. .ision in another case, rejecting a proposed contention that as-q;4
- p. --
. j , f; serted the need for a plume EPZ with a 20-mile radius based on a site-i '.
specific study.28 With respect to the local conditions speciGed in Conten-f( -
~
tion 22.B and the evacuation shadow phenomenon, in later rejecting the
'D: 7-
. y, .;p
~
intervenors' challenge to its ruling the Board pointed out that those mat-ters also had been raised in other admitted contentions.:' T ,.
'..., , ,. . Without objection, however, the Licensing Board admitted Contention
@M.L, i:Y Ef' 22.D, regarding jurisdictional boundaries. Following its review of the
%.2 : ' * ' ' ,' C '
; . .a . evidence presented on this contention, the Board required in its April
$ph. ?'
^
decision that the plume EPZ boundary be expanded to a certain extent a .@j d$10 ..g- j d',W - W 3: 4 , and that several schools be included in the zone.20 in all other respects,
*m.g.,.m .. .
A.e .4,
. w.c- ,
qm s. ., K p 3. V e k ' f W 1
%f[',' ,
- e, p' 27 special Prehearing Conference order ( August 19.1983) at 8-12.
Qg t ., . '
. 5 28 Sourbers Cahfornaa Edson Co. (san onofre Nuclear Generating station. Units 2 and 3). LBP-82 39 t ' .' *- -
15 NRC 1163,1177 (1982), affd. ALAB.717.17 NRC 346 (1983), affd sub nom. Carsicas v. .%RC 742
;. % ;'.c- p .,
r ' (:i ' F.2d 1546 (D C. Cir.1984), nrr. dened.10$ s Ct 2675 (1985). 29 order Ruhng on objections to Special Preheanns Conference order (september 30.1983) at 3-4.
%; .;pf%' + 4 - *
,, ,, 30 LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 701-06.
' N I h.' l',,7 ', l,t" . '< ' '
- fl f ,m l
t f.c , ' 3 ,'l m A. ; 146
- j. Q V._,' Y g,q y', ; {y '..'
~,
[,% f..;, . '= .
!MM,M, I';gM;'
* ._ c- ,
k$? Y:E '. ~:\ d . - r, . ,
-MMQO &,;jM ' '
-~~7=~*~^".n'Tr .r';.;. 'h Q' y; yr- q ' -(
- ' hN.D>
. J.o. t .' 4 *. '
y
~~2)(:My$AS
-)'-@
- 9 - '
* ^ ' W %N
, . r .
- " ' * . ,m m', - .
t, m , r; Q 1 3 :Q:f V ^. l , -&s ' m ~ - . y . . , , z
.m , p .1- : x. ,
+ .
. s.
. m-n
* . Wy .? , ,..ec . -. '
Q~G. . ' '., i
.] ,..a G^
=
._. . - _. ,_._._? . . V 1. . . .. m.
c !y ._. w...,w,.m , u.;_, 4
, y
.e
-N ' - the Board found that the boundaries of the plume EPZ were in compli-ance with the Commission's regulations.3'
- 2. Before us, the intervenors charge that the Licensing Board both
- <i, ,
, ~,
- ' mischaracterized Contention 22 and failed to apply section 50.47(c)(2)
'% ~
properly. We are told that the thrust of the contention is that the appli-
+
. c 3 [,- $l, b'; cant had fixed the boundaries ofits proposed plume EPZ without consid-
.'. fe{.
> ' I. ering local conditions of the stripe explicitly listed in section
~
~~ '
. 50.47(c)(2).32 The intervenors also insist that the section allows the con-L. : e g i?.. _c . sideration of other local factors.
M . " [ '. h,_ ;,' . a. Turning first to Contention 22.A, we agree with the Licensing Ql[C; M.
. .cm,
.,.< w~<, .et ' , . Board that section 50.47(c)(2) does not countenance the intervenors'
.., w ~s.,. " endeavor to create a plume EPZ with a radius that might extend as
.; y e;. ; .
. much as 20 miles from the facility. To be sure, the section allows for ad-
' " ' . '* . . w t M -
justments in the boundaries of the basic 10-mile EPZ to accommodate >l' ..t .
. local conditions. But increasing the area of the EPZ fourfold would scarcely be a mere adjustment. Further, as earlier noted, the 10-mile 4, . -(' ~
radius figure contained in the section is based upon the NRC-EPA Task j..( ' ,
. l ' ' . ' ,[ . P -
. .'. '^9.,
Force analyses covering a broad spectrum of possible accidents. As its report makes clear, the analyses were intended to remove the need for site-specific calculations, such as those on which the intervenors base
.g.
their claim in Contention 22.A that the EPZ should be drastically ex-panded.33
' Q' . ,
v'.u..h ( i 7I (j. *'. c.' In rejecting a similarly-based attempt to impose a 20-mile plume EPZ on the San Onofre facility in California, a licensing board aptly observed e,. +
,l;l$.M Qi: that "it would make httle sense to attempt to replicate [the Task Force]
studies at reactor sites around the country."34 We endorsed this result in
. a ~ , vj.k%
- Mo f '. ; .!?', ['.,. 7C !,;.,A i:.f. , f. Diablo Canyon. Confronted with California's attempt to obtain the
. , j 'yi - ..
~
NRC's agreement to conform its approved EPZ to the state-prescribed zone (which, at least in one direction, had a 20-mile radius), we stated:
,,^ - -- - ~
- 4 ,
'#A ,-
Although the regulations provide that the exact size and conGguration of a particular EPZ is to be determined with reference to site.specine factors, the wholesale en-7
, , a;. , . .
s y :'
.,,7<0;4 *. , .. largement of the Commission-prescribed EPZs by the State cannot preclude a licens- . h D.M:7h/%'Nk$';
- ing decision based upon the requirements of the NRC regulations. As the Licensing Board concluded in considering the same type of expanded state EPZs in (San
,../4
- W !%-l.t 9 %i .mE'j 'y[j.fl. goi j'.4p G ,.* g. .j Onofrel, the Commission's regulations clearly allow leeway for a mile or two in
% Z h /l either direction, based on local factors. But (section 50.47] . . clearly precludes a
']EJ Q. , 4 @[y$h a .% {[Ja p[e: /. d MS'4,' plume EPZ radius of, say. 20 or more miles." The same Board then correctly deter-mined that a party seeking to impose such a radical departure from the Commis-
.% nfd(. ;. f } cp ;cy:lg>qi[Y
..W'.Y. : t i,W,,'\,,-;&' i- 3 : 2# *g .x .
**. . 1 ;
.-9 Q 4 9 '.'3 .*g ,: ,;'.. q . K ;. ' ) ..- .q-: e n. +
i qg 3114. at 707. r'9."'...O y grqgeq:.%;.;-?.Q;.' , 32 $,,,,p,, p_g43, 33NUREG-03% at 1517,24 and ill-7 through 111-8.
'"a '?.4 e ,
- y. , ' 7,^ ;
.< 34 San Onofer. supra note 28,15 NRC at 1182 4
3 ,',, , An. g V @* k , ,, p , "* *(W
;. p -
'3e,
. .. % .g.
s< . , ' s
-a, '
.}- Q 4* 3% 147
&, .,c .. .s
- q.r -
e N,y.g p,.; ; . . *' s
~
ff' ' , h5hN M w e(_ i h 9hn. > - s
.h .
N
., o . q.
m x- m w --n-. w ,,.rv Fm.:n.
~ qQ.- . L.., .;y:s
_ y% ig . cj;.:_2gM94
- q. ce s :gg,;y s'a:p n c , w. ;v.,, :,
; .; - pL . ' .: ):, n.
V i; y n s.w ,1.: yLyx&W ' .;.n . m. h.,;..y.yym Mi .CS, h
, y,
- e. ,,
- 9 ; * :,w.: ' ; , % ' . &,
m 1 '.;l6 J .' Q . Q : ;%$$ ' MQ:d&@wnNw.M,QVx% %; ::"h.; iv,:, avp Q +:' %.
% M:Q4%mDM.dQ Q Y; 6.. ] &- . - 2M:;p T
% NQP' W M: BRWQJ gy:4 gyg?M:#tj:g:yppy&G-j?mm:g M 2.H.
pfry w+b+:.yqy;g%P.M
; n.
.; m.g..pg(
t .
.w - -
+
3 .
.u .
,, '. o .
i u ~ AL ' A---
;U: . ' ,'.i .D ,
i...
. .- .L.. ~ -
.reg
-& n : ,
.< ] p.. '
,'O , ' y , j
+ - , i fr f,vF ', qj -
sion's prescribed EPZs should seek an exception to the rule pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
- o. . .
2.758.35 z, . p,: ., ,
.}' .
.. s l,. r - ,y .- . ; b. We come to a different conclusion, however, with regard to Con-
],[ J Q ".' q. F h l tentions 22.B and C. In sharp contrast to Contention 22.A, these conten-Nj tions do not appear to seek anything more than that to which section
' @g;%t, .Q w .. : , ,. : ,w..g ,,
, 50.4?(c)(2)' entitles intervenors: a determination of the " exact size
- 7. t , . . w ,- 3 and configuration" of the EPZ based upon, infer alia, local conditions.36
, p, ( . -
Thus, it cannot be said that the contentions amounted to an impermissi-
'.>' y.. ;. -. - ble attack upon a Commission regulation.37
- 'O_O f 1[ E '.,b .[> .:
Nor is there substance to the other basis upon which Contentions
.d ..
22.B and C were rejected. Apparently, the Board assumed that it is not g.,;%;p Q, ,m, . .zw. .:7, s_ , ; ~ .@. . n ~a j .a 3 y:'l permissible to allow an intervenor to present two contentions that, al-
.i M ]: E- ,- though having different ultimate objectives, rely in whole or in part on
%r./ > .4 ',,W ,
the same alleged facts for their bases. But neither precedent nor
.l .
ey , 7 * .? ' . \" - ; common sense calls for any such limitaticn. To be sure, evidence need
; re ,i 7 g.t 4}e-be adduced but a single time on any allege:'. fact (e.g., traffic congestion y' Ji.% , ,' .$, * - - 9 , '
in a given area), no matter how many contentions might rest upon the
.,. ., purported existence of that fact. But, once the fact is established, there
- c. I is no good reason why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to
~'
i buttress multiple claims.
+
.I In this instance, the intervenors endeavored to invoke certain local 4 ,, " ,
.j conditions to support two distinct lines of argument: (1) that, as a
, ] ' % " % j '~ ~. *'
. .j general proposition, the applicant's emergency plan is inadequate,38 and 4% ,j (2) that, in any event, the boundaries of the plume EPZ must be altered.
j:,..9.? J,qu . c . e _l t.. w .. ; .r'?i The effect of the Board's action on the several contentions that advanced
'.. .,owme . .J W.7 .,w.
~
... m .t. g .,3. 3.eq.c. . : ,v these theses was to permit the intervenors to seek an invalidation of the
.< .w. . r:, c a.
..a
,a plan because of local conditions but not an alteration of the proposed
-, :=7; g , ]...nm
, , , , at
;~ j
; y; . . ,, ..I 3 ,,.
.t q;
," iV ,- . A'
'4r? r, - 1 .. - 35 Paci/ic Gas and Elecrrr Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 1.l:uts I and 2), AL.AB.781, 20 "g. s.'i w.,. ' '? h..m ^f, .;,-' ,f ,. . '. ;. ..r ,fa'
. #C: .1, N RC 819. 831 (1984) (footnotes omitted).
% .c 4 - . . -
36 With respect to Contention 22.C, the evacuation shadow phenomenon can be considered to be a M~, .. '.f@f A; ' ,. ?'. g,. , f.., f* .i" e'l?i . ~ ,) local condition within the meaning of section 50.47(c)(2) only insofar as the voluntary evacuation ofin-
;g + ~ "%. . . < , /
,s : +>a.,i . 11,
- dividuals outside the plume EPZ from areas immediately adjacent to its outer boundary might afrect the evacuation of persons from the EPL i .gph'N/ , q $ ,
- 4 h. , 37 One local factor asserted by the intervenors is that the emergency response would be provided by c .,
;f li. . 4 ;. q3t4[ t .7 ^. the utility alone, rather than a government organization. Because a utihty may have less extensive
- , M.:WRMM t,D Q.*'s ? i,M . Dg:1,0 s' 7,'.
~
- resources for response expansion than a government organization, we consider such a utility.alone re.
'.;7'
- * .+ep ,@MM;i. y (M' ". A4 e
;.-J , ,
- sponse to be a local factor that may be litigated in accordance with section 50.47(c)(2). As with any local factor, the need for minor adjustments to the plume EPZ may be argued on the basis of a utihty.
SIQ W52C8'.'Mc ir .* ' , alone response, but an attempt to press for significant espansion of that EPZ would require an exception j
) kkkf[NMMki..' I,R , . . to the regulation.
e
'["
- v. g! d(.!;;f, m 6:vp i Q j '.?r1 *
, 38E.g. Contentions 16, 23, 59, 61, 65 and 97. See LBP.8512, 21 NRC at 968-69, 972 74,1001, 1003 04,1005 10,1027 28. .
- y. *. v:k. . i.y \
,;.;s:.g v.>,w 4 ,
. ,. . + . , , , . 1 T e . * ,;g /
7;.i d Q p J 7. @ ' %. 1
. w w ., cw w . -
148 w w.n;a.a y..' .
.{i
';(Q M' N & M;p.4 G ,%$YQpc, '1' 4 , - ;
W At ;&yV g,,rj!YhOO r .
,y m. ,~.w.w--e=~.~.-,
k '. .
- s. . . . , , , _ , v v m meefy*.~5yc; i
' -*W-b n .:- - ':
% - ~. . .- --... m -. -~;m cGir.gu wJ y
}h:a#l MM67+%?[$ .e
, . . ;. , s' l
,e $
[ ,{ d )Ib $kt
. .s \ 't a @. *< .i,e <
. Y h h I NsW [
.5.N .k'N U ', s [b - 4:f's5 w hL.w =.m....m@w M.b b. b $Nhs E
. w MW
-w;g% .. nWe% pny)M w. w. .. m t M .~J.m wn $ n.a n- wm%+mw.m::;.n G.W ?; - m.,wnm&m v .+ m':..w;*igi%. m < m a-m;,Mt-
- w.m!
sm-hepgsp 4p
&Q$.%. ,d%e%W,8%@,Q:$Q?C"M.M ? W.h MMMbghMNQ
f
,- . . _ _ .._,__._s. . _ . _ . _ . . . . _ u _ .a .,. . _ .. ,_
, . y .
V. '
. E.. 5 EPZ boundaries." To repeat, inasmuch as section 50.47(c)(2) entitled the intervenors to insist that the " exact size and configuration" of the EPZ be determined with local conditions in mind, it follows that the
.'/ ,% .
- Board's error in excluding Contentions 22.B and C was prejudicial.*o
/~_ Accordingly, we are directing the Licensing Board to admit Conten-
- g. i , * , .-
;' ? - *
- tions 22.B and C and to provide the intervenors with the opportunity to
" M' . + -
- , supplement the existing evidence on local conditions with such further
., ",n l ' ,. (fi' ev dence (if any) as might be directly relevant to the question whether the boundaries of the proposed plume EPZ should be further adjusted.
,.,. N. ... .W.
x,
.,. i,. . V. . . Once the record is closed on those two contentions, the Board is to
. a . . .
y : 7 ._ ,- aM make its findings and conclusions on the merits. g'*[f ye,i'k(M$i-
. . . . , , ,.r .
B. Role Conflict w... . .
$,'",' ' "l , .
In the event of an emergency at the Shoreham facility, hundreds ofin-
. l i ,, N dividuals may be needed to assist in providing protective actions for the public. More specifically, the applicant's emergency plan would be imple-
, i mented by the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO), which dj[$,
is composed primarily (if not exclusively) of applicant employees and f' . j . , contractors, working with support organizations such as the American Red Cross. the U.S. Department of Energy, and local ambulance compa-
,,. , j nies.42 This organization acts, in part, as a substitute for Suffolk County u d ,. ~ ,
and the State of New York in performing emergency response functions. sm W.; a . ,
.e ,
In addition to the individuals who are members of LERO or its support-
.$O. 'W. '
ing organizations, an emergency response will involve persons who do m,., 't (Q . '
;[ , .
;Q.y ,./ ' ... .
- w . , w .,.
.. ,9 n
- ..* . .- a
} ,,h p t; ,
4 ,s, i ,;
. , ;T '~; , , 'l , .
/. . .
mas counsel for both the applicant ano the statT acknowledged at oral argument, any attempt by ir:ter-
' ' '~ venors to L.rge such an alteration based @on the adduced evidence on local conditions (other than those relied upon in Contention 22.D) woull have been opposed by reason of the rejecti.n of Conten-
' tions 22.B and C. App. Tr $5-56. 76-77.
40 For proceedings in which intersenors were allowed to p.ess for adjustmer.ts to the proposed plume f s ,* v EPZ based upon local conditions. sec. r g.. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear station. Units I and 2),
, , ,.'i. ;. ., ',- J J ,",1
*3 y . ', ,
LBr.84.37,20 NRC 933. 979,988 89 (1984), a0*/. ALAB-813,22 NRC 59 (1985) (an admitted con.
-3; ,, . . . ,
tention asserted, in part, that the flow of evacuees from the then-present plume EPz through a high
' D,' }M , , .
o
.- 4 ' '
- population area indicated a need for expansion); PMade@he Decrrr Co. (Limerick Generating Station,
;p ,
. ; - * '. i . ' Units I and 2), LBP.85-14,21 NRC 1219,1236 (1985) (an admitted contention asserted that either the
. 2. - , -* ',j .'
' plume EPZ should be expanded to include certain areas lymg just outside the EPZ or trafnc con:rols be
. . R ,'ifr4.
.P., *.~
.jp g .*- }' 4, ,
- provided because traffic congestion in those areas would impede the evacuation of the plume EPZ). (An appeal is pending from the Lunerick decision, but the admisses of the contention in question is not an
' 'y j a . i n ,
., ,. q W y' < . ,, issue.)
p',q..,,,, '*
..]* -e
;.f. ' . .'n '! ,.
. 41 The Licensing Board should determine whether any additional discovery is justified.
**. .y*. . . . We w sh to reemphasize that section 50.47(c)(2) allows the consideration only of minor adjustments 6 f .r,,,L A
'3 j'.{Jh' (- ', . ' c. ';[,,,q : . ,y ,, *h
....g,' ;t, (such as a mile or two) m the plume EPZ radius. Thus. the Board should exclude any ofrered evidence a *
' .. that concerns conditions at some distance rrom the facility.
4 " s , ; 42 LILCO Exh. 79 (Chapter 2). 8 [Y e 1 -s* e *;4 ' b.b * * * ;4.. Q V #
.m. #.x,
=s. *V 3
-c.s- . ..
.J ~ ".W ' .; 149
. M.3f , , < w q q p w;n - n
. ;. N ~ '
TV L's ,,
* ; ,. ' .Q ' '.
Q c.**
-) :,
-Q. v 4
.'y
. , .- : ( s.
7.,-4
.n
- x. ~ ,
' " ' * " ' * * " " * " ' * * * " * " * ' * " ' *** - -~7**
UMj ,Q******'*~""'~~5'"' 'T***~'*' * * " " yen.w tr - , 7 p,.e.g
* *~
,"'h*"
'* w
'..- .w#. ".' '"t4 a
l x(, ., , , . J' 6.[. a-
- dn,j k .' -)
; _. e .
r* ,. .[, %'# . , *
. r . ,
ya& -' . - - b ( - I' Mhy &.b5&&m.;;AN. chN$ Chm'%
- . v, .n
'O'Wc. v. L as .w ^
- ,: -?. -W' .
shk& n e- < a: -~ u. ^a~ :w. q- y: , ,W s. m.,~q+W.n:n,re,%.;y.nm.g.;& ,y
'wa. L v' .
.l;n; ~ ~3my,w..p.y g.., x ~.c,y}92 4.g y Lj - -
[.3 .- t*p;g gyp .m .-+
;; m ~
y -
',. ya. .;.,s w !A
, e. . ne n y, w.1,. ,. .. m.m n. . - ; x n .w.m. -
- s. .,,
t
- a. .
y .-
; lf.j ~,
7;f
~
,: , p. - _ .
;y - - _*
;y L> . ,
4~y.,: . ,
' ',: ,yj n -
N ', -
- .7.. -s
, , L.
n.>
.S
., n
. %, . ; -' ' X, . , . , 3; ;lp: 2 .- z' ;,1; o . -a -
1=.52e .
,; 9 m a ,. -
. .: _ .'_ u .. ..w a :
- 4. a _ _ -
, . .- N, . , , ..
m . m .
.-L -
.,; V J y ., . ,
~3 ,
c y' q [:3. ' j not have such an affiliation, e.g., teachers, school bus drivers, and some
" 7. o health care personnel.42 At the hearing below, the intervenors asserted that many individuals
. ' , ' Q" w 3 :d
. Cy, . -f - ,
will experience a conflict between the discharge of their emergency
.' .j '
duties and the fulfillment of perceived family obligations and that, as a
- , .n. L consequence, many of them will not promptly carry out their specific re-
' #; ' , , ^ sponsibilities. Although agreeing that some role conflict will occur, in its
.' '.M[,
$8.- ' , . J_. . .
April decision the Licensing Board concluded that a sullicient number p* , , ; ggy ' ,, N of the individuals will perform their duties in a timely fashion."
'+ ,
) Before us, the intervenors challenge that conclusion. In this connec-J . ;d, . ,yr 1 tion, they focus primarily upon two categories of individuals who will
'Ic' f.~' . , , . l0.",. ,
have some role to play in the event of an emergency: teachers and
.*.-:e school bus drivers.
-a '
'f '
- 1. School teachers are among those individuals who are not members
,J1
' * *%, N
.j 4,o '
of the applicant's Local Emergency Response Organization, but are relied upon to perform essentially their usual duties in the event of a
. + .- L ac --
Shoreham emergency. Were an accident to occur during school hours,
.. ;.f ~
., the applicant might well advise the schools in the plume EPZ to imple-i .
- ment an early dismissal of students.45 Teachers would be relied upon for
" - c assistance in supervising and coordinating that dismissal. If, instead, i
e?y .
- ... d ',4+ [. < ' '
sheltering in the school were called for, the teachers would be needed to supervise the students until the instruction to release them was received.
.Ci " .
yp. ,w ,~.m.7 n .; ; - SulTolk County presented testimony of five school administrative 014
. m.(f < , ?
C . .. . , cials to the effect that a significant number of teachers and administrative y$/J.b :' *,; . personnel would abandon their duties during an emergency " In addi-7,7 %,, . ,7c;,.. ,
, , ,(.j , ..' -
tion, the County attempted to present the testimony of a panel of teach-O *
.- ers to the same general effect. The applicant filed a motion to strike the p[.[ , ,
. latter testimony as unreliable and irrelevant.47 The Licensing Board m ,- .s,- ,.
granted the motion. Among other things, the Board concluded that, e . ..: , : . O. . i.Mm s r.m@.~.M7. 'n#, c . . W , +"S . both. given the testimony of the school officials, the teachers' testimony was 6, , irrelevant
, ~, : and cumulat.ive."
m1 ,fy,
S; a tn ,W$$( ~ . ':K', The written testimony of the school officials asserted that any protec-
, t W h M.W 4 ' ' .> ~ , . tive action, such as early dismissal, evacuation or shelteringi would re-1.d;]3 WON F # ,'. ." ' - quire at least a full complement of school personnel. Based on a general
% & ?ly G* M W ?-C '. ~ ' ' ' **
s 1.jR ' u, '.Q-
.W m. ' 3..;sM.%
- d 7s .M.. &
L ;,y
- 4* 3
. D p;g,r $ ,f.M = .j*g k ; . -. .
43 Babb et al. rol. Tr.11,140, at 78, LILCo Exh. 79 at 5.16.
.M ?- [7 % >".Y 7* h.. [ 44 LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 679-
.f.Q ; .* MN,7 ,., 45 Cordaro er al., roi. Tr. 9154. Vol II at 33 35.
;*' . de Petniak, rol Tr. 3087 (Direct Testimony), at 4 5: Jeffers and Rossi, rol Tr. 3087 IDirect Testimo-4 v- [- , e.- * '
ny), Attachment I; Muto and smith, rot Tr. 3087 (Direct Testimony), at 3 4.
.h C =* 47LILCo's Motion to strike or for Discovery and Rebuttal on the Testimony on Behalf or sufrolk I:A b?.- PV J.il,.N e c[y, . . County Regarding Emergency Planmns Contention 25.D (November 28,1983).
m.f f ;..'3 K* Q b . ,. 'S 48 Tr. 790 91. MM%M;M 4 , it '
.MNh n m': q.;. - UKhggqc k kn7.,i.@i p ~ J b/; 150 h 'k%eQggyQ* .s h;
M.%w, ; ;v;,:,
. .l ;? W@** &'f % Q."h.;W ~ &c.'* '. f.e i gpyQ ;d *- ww "chs&w@cw%,l:N A
spojot h a 6 . *)
^
b "' Y,;v.&,fc m.+ 4.fl@fk f5(n h,Yh jf.k.f$h f h f h . .- - i m; .
. & &. ue S,m..&. . f.,fhff+if c
- w. .. t._3 f S*kcM%$nWP&.N h.$
w;:r
.w. ,-~ : .
..a
\ ty
. w
; , - * - , *?.*y:
- it _% , - ,
pw :%,w:cy : ,-
,,v..,. .m -
,y -
4nyg ,p.g.y~-,sug., <
,m. ; g-v
' s i
-w a
- ~~: w.-.A a- -
-lL:~4
~ -
~- -
A~ f@% 3 ':. 3 q- M .(& 9m2W,,:.:: &~. TI.M.'..,h.*
% v. A;
- f. !6hM pjd@M d. .h *
~,tq.[g? n(s. w :n.: W-f
** 6 r f g f
'W
%,..- M.3-s N v w '-
%, q h%h b:M..g , khd$'J W.. .n ,m.s:. knowl w &edge .;.s;-
of teachers and their family obligations, the school officials
& W$ N'q': $ '? - considered the potential for role conflict to be a serious problem in '.$@WQ.M$$f providing for pro:ective actions at schools. Similarly, the proffered tes-NN.Mf:bEIE.ZW,h i$[ME$i 55 timony of the panel of teachers maintained that family obligations could h)ffkk.h@hdNM.@,y.C N
k h M $p g C cause many teachers to abandon their students in the event of a Shore-ham emergency. The teachers, however, were testifying directly from the perspective of those individuals who might experience a conflict be-L dMOT T N fQ g f $ 'lfy g - MMMMiffe tween their professional respon Bilities and family obligations. D i.a A9MM M We conclude that, in the circumstances, the Licensing Board erred in f, N $N[h; excluding the prolTered testimony of the teachers. True, in some re-h'*h@?.';.@W;.,
- M@ 6A A g W ,v p e 4h
- 4. wwwse Amy 194p spects the teachers' testimony was cumulative to that of the school offi-cials." But it provided perhaps a more authoritative indication of the l N o y.y M potential for role conflict among teachers than did that of the school offi-cials. Nevertheless, the Board's error was not prejudicial for, even con-
%MM;) s N %'X % h $ %
dT-
%.m sidering the additional views of the teachers, the outcome on the issue is l 7.%M9[::.
%m.n. .M.hgI$'.d[N.y 4. W W not altered.
,a r
- w. p Sq'bp%em Q m Whether the potential for teacher role conflict fatally flaws the appli-
" M ;$ Y Q N QQ [ h. ff%. .t,$q, cant's emergency response plan hinges upon whether such significant M y:n 9 /d' g M9W job abandonment might occur as to result in an insufficient number of Wr. iDj' rf.M M teachers being available to supervise early dismissal, evacuation or M.Q+H b
; w N %9.q.W.r %,Wv.
p- .. sheltering activit.ies. The teachers, proffered testimony did not provide e pm . m ,a. p. w . p%-;:j - firm evidence on this question. While opining that some of their col-mmwn, w m.ej ,w astm. w m , n. g g..y. w:/ %; leagues would likely abandon their posts,so the teachers did not discuss m%.4y%y6y$ wn4 . m-y% SW --V; the minimum number needed to allow for proper supervision of the stu-4 'y
. w.wep, = , .t p MepS. e.a n .a.s.Q A,7 W- 5 dents. For example, they did not address the possible placement of stu-dents in larger groups, which would reduce the complement of teachers i .- m xqr r hh : h}}w necessary for supervision. ; %e*u.%.~n. l ^ 5,.
Th 33 fN.j,: m. on In th.is connection, neither the included nor the excluded testimony teacher role conflict stood in the way of the Licensing Board's reli-QG.FG?.D3 N' y.4 [?' . . . g...p tvm; 1 - y<.gK:g: r s 'Y ance upon the testimony of the Chief of FEMA's Natural and Tech-
.g,.M, P nological Hazards Division. He stated that, based on his 15 years of ex-f 6Tw,n
% ," pJ.T,
. Q@pM g.D . w (g; '. perience in emergency operations, "[tlhe history of disaster response
. ;? has consistently shown that . . . teachers . . . more than meet [their] re-h.M:'W iclifliEENN'.., N sponsibilities when faced with emergency situations."5' This observation M.h[IhkNN@#i%.$lM ir E M M $ was supported by a school official who testified that, in his experience, while some individual teachers were affected by role conflict, teachers as
*OMM,.4 W .:.4 :@ 4.M.,,-$s.d g C n % ($ ,
M S :f W MM M,y:q' PW,
'j[.9 E N '
.Wgnr Pi "The profrered testimony of the teachers discussed a survey of teachers concerning role conflict that
- . g.3 g L Mg(N/%%.1$;h.}'*L* N "T, *'i'M di,*. .f 1,h *g #g K was not part of the prefiled testimony of the school officials. This survey, however, was extensively dis-
= cussed during cross-examination of the school officials. so any error in its rejection by the Licensing .?
g-ngIyprpQ:@'M W. Wg'e*,'l6,7. b x;*W eis,0 4 Board was harmless. See, e.g.. Tr.3091 100. 3170-74.3190. y ,M: ,.'/ h % p,p% %.4_ 50Apparently, no teacher was prepared to s:ste that he or she would rollow such a course.
'- W Qep ,y ... h gW Q.'g[ .. , . '( .Q[f, -
.' M 5t McIntire fol. Tr. 2086. at 5. See LBP.8512. 21 NRC at 677.
3 :n u < a y A c,.s ..,., 7 3 w l Y 0
- b @;w e ml
!. @ s u M. i H@ % W4*kp% p.g n.v .
.h p'ik f. '.n 8'C:
151 vp 9: ;~ v 1 ys i ,e g;*% gb p?.9 't 7w.SpsyTA.} : -Or,.y.[>s 'T7i # w>e kM 'M $U 'N .
%g &. ~ l M.,.$ ; & . &.h.I Q~h.Y $ $ &,g m
M .M. _ . k N.' y dy . 9. ~. ,a m, % - . .. . f h ':J.V. &. D W ll$ &. ; - .--. ,!? *v';N T'LrW(*M W_% G% d'.Wc&r?)._&3 4% WO&rQ&@&&":t, f $ )h M %.dM-& Ph{$'.s CA
$ 5 $ k I M S M M F# M @!M M M M M $$_$
7 .
<. . ,Im- cl'm:- h,g. ( *
. .-yl s,t. . ,
, < . 7, r -
j', V' ^
* . ,. , , . - p }. , -
.( a '- ,
.w.i 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _no -
a . _.c a . . r c _.ms.
., s
- + ~ -
- , i l
, . c si-t
,' .b[ , ,
a group met their responsibilities during emergencies.52 In sum, even if
.; - 6 .- A '
some job abandonment were to occur (as the proffered testimony of the s.L - panel of teachers hypothesized), the totality of the evidence put before
' ' ' '. f , ,'
. the Board precluded a finding that the remaining teachers would be f ;['ls e 2 - . unable to provide adequate supervision of students during an emergency
*/ .
r- -
. at Shoreham."
' Ex ; , . ,1 , *
'. 2. Students attending schools in the plume EPZ are transported in
.' 17* . ! buses owned and operated by either a bus company under contract to
. , .' provide such services or (in a few instances) by the school district j
tG.. . - itself.9 In the event of an emergency at Shoreham, the applicant will b@MC , m-x ~ rely on these schools to implement any early dismissal using those
.c;,T W t,l': C 7 cd
,, ' 7.;
. t, resources.55 If immediate evacuation is directed, the bus drivers will be
. ~ e, l.
1 expected to take the students to the appropriate reception center.56
.a 4, .
, The applicant does not have any agreements with the school bus
~c.
- - Y .I companies to ensure that the bus drivers will respond during a radiologi-
,,,y: ,
, , s j cal emergency.5' Further, a survey of school bus drivers in the Shoreham
> 5 c, m , , ,
d EPZ indicated that significant role conflict might occur.58 While the ap-
" plicant points to the fact that the bus companies Me required by their
". , , , - , ' * , ' , ' ' . ;]! contracts to have ordinarily available 10 to 15 percent more drivers than lr ,,. ,
n.t. . .- l are actually needed to transport the students, no evidence was presented to establish that that surplus would likely compensate for any abandon-ment caused by role conflict of tne dimensions suggested by the driver 1, 9 n. 1 survey."
. .# - , ,; ., g
.,;, . ,, ,*. l
.? . .. ,
+J d- .;-
'! $2 Tr. 3185-87.
' t !. (. ,.4 .
, , . . . .. 53An applicant witness testined that certain individuals who perform duties during a shoreham
" , , ,j , , 3 g a
- emergency but are not members of LERo (such as teachers) will be provided information regarding the worker tracking system and the special relocation center for their families. Tr. 904-06. See LILCo's Pro-3 ', , ,
' posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law en offsite Emergency Planmns (october 5,1984) at 34 i ,
- n.44, see Cordaro er al, fol. Tr. 831, at 2124. We assume that the apphcant will fulfill its commitment
. l to make arrangements for teachers, and other school personnel needed during a shoreham emergency,
,1 '
. . to participate in the worker tracking system and special relocation center, where they so desire.
- 54 Cordaro er al. fol. Tr. 9154. vol. II, at 6162
' ' ,' l
. r -
55 /d. at 33-35 only in the case of the evacuation of nursery schools will the apphcant assume transpor.
"p -
= .. ..
., I tation responsibehty. Id. at $2,83 85.
" . ,- j 5614. at 51-52. In contrast to the contemplated arrangements for the evacuation of the general pubhc
- [
- g ' *f.* * .s' ,. / .; , 4{ .~e*'*** ,
, ., 1 (ser htfra pp. 157 159), the reception centers for student evacuees will most likely be schools outside
- ( ,' I the plume EPZ. /W
' ' N *r;q
*
- i ' , g. . ., ,
?j; '... * . , 7 57 This matter was raised below as Contention 24.M. See LBP-85-12,21 NRC at 978. A FEM A witness J'* i
,o testiried that the lack of agreements to ensure the availability of school bus drivers was a deficiency in
.i 47
, , J. .* , ,d* * *;- '. the emergency plan. Tr. 12,432 34. Despite the lack of agreements, however, the Licensing Board concluded that the emergency plan provided reasonable assurance that an adequate number of school y ' ['I Y , !'~i. ".v .' .
,'*i2, , , "'...'- '*
7
+
bus drisers will be available. 21 NRC at 858 59. - ' ' t M 1 - * (. , , The apphcant's emergency plan indicates that training will be ofTered to school bus drivers but it is
.h ,' . kc '. 2.f. , M I x , ', , - '
not mandatory. LILCo Exn. EP-79 at 51-6. Applicant witnesses testified that training had not been provided to the drivers. Babb er al. fol. Tr.11,140, at 79 80. See LBP 8512,21 NRC at 753-55,859.
.> - ,.w... <
'h; -'v ,' L ,
.Q, c .7, ., , ,, y '. . ' 1
.. 58 Cole, fol. Tr.1216, at 7. some of the surveyed drivers are bus company employees, others are in the
, / r. , ,
employ of a school district. Id. at 3.
'N E-(l i / - t ,'.' - 59 Cordaro er al, fol. Tr. 9154, vol. II, at 59.
wr k. .; ( .4 *: '. <.
%"c .gr . . v .
.. : ;G . ,y :,p $;,* 152 M' : p ;bM.
- f. . n M. ;.x
. d %'; r . - C. j . E ' M .
"x
. "' -(
W;m. : i' s s ,y. .
, [?
- mpkf h. ,*.Q. .-, ..
I ,
.t . ....,,..
5~.* 0 6*'9 p.--
'-'"'h-.T'1D3-- Q- -
',"s"St*TM*',*9, *K-*
- F '
%- T gg f '
g .' g 3 7 h .h h
- r)? N.; ,5 Y Y k. "$ ?$ '
l's h-lE . p Nf*[ hf
. l][ a ?_ hYh E u. $m v'
_$ M Q% d t G '_' 's W , a, frQm.agg }p: _M . . _ f _' 04 % c~i G & ' ^m* L .+ '.m*, H.W'r gf.y%m 4 a . .*
- t em o
,q'. .
.;pJ p *
- i. e. -
<a ,s yy'=.4t%R *b '
e ,, y ' u'y. k ,A
. .'Mq.x. nm v.wwp O,,Eh. W- .?. ' <&m'&~M.d g.w g &g m p '- -;- s.3 A p. 4 W d .' u m-ggf 5N- m %4.: 9 v;.n . Q.-' q. L-f'3, M+ ,7w3L WP w Mc wp,%p
/
3. y l W hj...% g@.H
-+
a
., m .
i y , C . .~...o..a,_..- - u - '._,,,,,;,. ,, , , _ _ _ _ , , , , ,,
,. i 7
1
..' .. w,' In addition to that survey, the intervenors sought to introduce tes-timony on the results of a survey of SulTolk County volunteer firemen 1 on the subject of role conflict.60 The stafT objected to its admission on the basis that it was irrelevant because (1) the emergency response plan under consideration does not rely on firemen, and (2) the survey did
' not include members of the fire department closest to Shoreham.*' The
, . - LiceWng Board concurred with the objection and, at the hearing, also
. stfuck those portions of the testimony of County witnesses Kai T. Erik-son and James H. Johnson that dealt with the results of the survey.62
.' We agree with the intervenors that the Board erred in excluding the h.} ' .
- J' - -
'+;' .
- te:;timony related to the survey of volunteer firemen. While the applicant
'M. ~'.
'i1 .
does not rely on volunteer firemen to implement protective actions in
~
.J the event of a Shoreham emergency, that fact alone was insuflicient to
.'
- deny admission of the testimony.63 In our view, the results of a survey 3 ;, f, 3 as to the potential for role conflict among firemen, if they had been part
.: ;. , 3 . -
of the emergency response, would provide insight into the likely course
. of conduct of school bus drivers."
.n. ., . .
Stated in its simplest terms, if a trained professional emergency C worker such as a fireman would put family obligations ahead of the dis-
~
charge of any Shoreham emergency duties that might be assigned to him or her, it is a fair inference that an individual not in such a line of en-
' deavor would encounter at least as great role conflict.65 It is thus un-surprising that, in the consideration of emergency planning in Zimmer, we found that surveys of volunteer life squadsmen and firemen concern-
' ing the role conflict they would encounter raised "a serious question as to whether bus drivers could be depended upon to carry out their re-
.- b -c - ' > sponsibilities in the event of an accident at that plant. We further deter-N o
. ,, . s - , ,
- s
. . i
. I
- . ! 60 See Cole, fol. Tr.1216. at 1216.
i .
! 61NRC stali Motion to stnke Certam Prefiled Testimony of sutTolk County Wovember 28,1983) at
- p^ '62 See Erikson and Johnson, fot Tr.1455 at 24-26. 28,30.
3 .7 * , ,, .a[
- 63 We do not consider t'n e other basis presented by the stafr for exclusion of the testimony (i c., the b
y . * ' 6,' -.4::. q,'. ' , ,1,'
- survey did not include the rire department closest to shoreham) to be any more persuasive.
.~, H We do not slew the firemen survey as applicable to the members of the applicant's Local Emergency
- 1. ; , ,~ ' '
f
..J'- ,', ,
'7 .'
- Response Organization. In contrast to the firemen, the LERo personnel have undergone considerable
<e; ,L e ,. : J . . training with regard to their required duties and responsibilities in the event of a radiological emergency.
- af. j , , <
.,.. See LBP-8512. 21 NRC at 745-56.
65 some non-LERO individuals, such as teachers and health care personnel, would merely continue [l 7 ['?+- 4'..;;
' 5
,g during an emergency in essentially their usual functions at their current Icration. The potential for re'.e
,p . W* .
' ' conihet causing job abandonment among these individuals is quite distinct from that potential for indi-N,.' ! viduals who must respond to an emergency. T hus, we do not consider the firemen survey to provide any 3..'* [f O1*,
* * significant information on role confhet among those non-LERo individuals. such as teachers and health care personnel, who essentially continue to perform their regular duties during a shoreham emergency.
t
" , ,4 e ~ ,
~,
. 153 s.. 9 ,
..y .
gg e' , , m
-v- ,. , , , , . _ , , , ,,
,- --- ,i y 7 _
, ,' --- - vyg-m m y 7 - - -. - -.y -l y't ,ev' u-s ..:, s,__e J.'c C Q
* > s
. ; se-i .e %a ~ y
.y g ,
- u'* '
,-_ . l /
Q.,:(' f". .. . , l,Q . ~ O g* A ; % - ;.2
- g. ;, ;S4.e-cg.
}y':;;,x .;;- { i-j,..;~:,ys. -}!ll p ,q,.,[ y
,.L
^ ' '
- k.a .%. '.
'.ch..grysA44 i,s. , n ..
3 w p.y g l,y',..; 4 . n ( 7,*.f,. .,y ; . ,q , . ';< 7 ..p h -.f q KgQ.pt,g'k
.c. ,
hh f k khk 5' ' k ' vh Yk W52%%?$WA M W W. M @;h:QQQQQQi& i .
e. b
, 3
.o -
-'p.,.
, g ; 4 ,' =
y-
- - . . . u .. . -. ... w ..:.- - -.~. + .. .. ~ . . - . . u.
mined there that those surveys precluded, on the evidence of record, a (, ; , , finding that the school bus drivers would respond promptly.66 p.. . On the record now before us, we similarly cannot make a finding that
".9, . ,
a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform
- their duties if an accident occurred at Shoreham. Therefore, we are re-A,S ,,
manding this matter to the Licensing Board for further exploration. All l parties will be free to adduce additional evidence on the issue; at mini-( UM ,f./l- ,- ' ' . mum, the Licensing Board is to accept the testimony related to the
. survey of volunteer firemen. Upon review of the evidence presented at 4*' the reopened hearing, the Licensing Board should reconsider its prior
( findings and conclusions regarding the potential for role conflict among 4 ',
. school bus drivers.67
" ,- C. Emergency Planning for Hospitals Two hospitals, and possibly a third as well, are within the plume EPZ and, thus, must be included in the emergency response plan.68 On that
- score. It'e Licensing Board concluded in its April decision that it was enough that the plan listed several hospitals outside the EPZ to which evacuces from those hospitals might be sent." The Board also deter-5 .
+ :s.
mined tlit, if a need for such evacuation arose, arrangements for the trutispo-thtion and relocation of patients could be made while the 3 ,, . . -
,js g. . .; s - J.' .x emerge
- y was in progress.70
- n. .:
. Seve:UI bases were assigned for these holdings. As the Board saw it, T, y "
-.; there ii ittle t likelihood that patients will be evacuated from the hospitals withir. the EPZ because: (1) those hospitals are close to the edge of
~1 . the EPZ: (2) the hospitals are so constructed a-; to be particularly suita.
W. . . ' ble for the sheltering of patients in the eveat of a radiological emergency; v (; . . and (3) substantial health risks attend upon the movement of patients '. h,j L. '. ..% . '
,-:' :n- ;a.
N .*2. i [. Yi** 66 Cinemnati Gas J Electne Co. (wm. IL Zimmer Nuclear Power station. Umt No.1), ALAB.727.17
'. ' NRC 760,772 (1983). It is true that solunteer life squadsmen and firemen were included in the Zsmmer
.MQ
;,ti
. ' c.
, emergency response plans. See Zimmer. LBP-82-47,15 NRC 1538.1596-98 (1982). But that fact played
, U Qa i,; J '. g,/i; ," > no part in our determination that the surveys of those individuals were pertinent to the question of the Lp4 L ,3 g g , , . , ' , likely response of the bus drivers to a radiological emergency. Indeed, we did not even mention it.
,' i N', -
67In their brief. the intervenors point to an asserted failure on the part of the Licensing Board to ad-g, ? '-
- dress the potential for role conflict among health care personnel our review of the record reveals no
',k .y
'; .. )
%' . . j - .
" ., .' ' clear evidence that such personnel would abandon their duties in sufUcient numbers as to make the care or individuals in hospitals ard nursing / adult homes inadequate.
pgry '
/ ,
-Y l' 68 At one point in its April Jecision, the Licensmg Board stated that "ttlhere are three hospitals in the vicinity of the plant; two just inside the EPZ boundary and one just outside it." LBP 8512,21 NRC at 829. At a later point. however, the Board referred to testimony of an applicant witness with regard to the "three hospitals in the EPZ." which the Board opined would be "among the last facilities to be evac.
uated in any event." /d. at 844-45. on the remand (see utfra p.157), the Board should clarify this
, .? -
s matter. 64fj, ,, g39 40 NM , - ., 70 /d. at 840,84 4-45. TEfr , e.;l' ~ , , r
.Nd ,s y:& n.rY l - .
f . ,
- ' ,- 154 M.
- n. 7(?g.pp.a y%*,
,s 3 ,. ,
f 4.q.*.1.3 i'. .' y .q. , '; J k
- f&..h
- r W % ,(!., ',. .g w J,.
w e . -
% ,p . , x -" W -
. g .s s
_m.__.___ aj.? 4 e, x
- __ . . - y}_ l N, __ p ?.v ; .
.---__n..m.,-.
_ *., y ?. ....e % Q w 3 .:. e ' '*
~Id -
EjMdN ' M c. ,s.n U . , ,
,i [ ' Y @ @ T .*~ h. M b-~.,.'.T ! ~
, yqr % , . .C. - .
. ,.g:., ....g .
P
. 4c. * ~
., s w ,y_. _ -
. s..,5" <i:;,%.3,. y ,e h, .. - .- . - c.,. ,
- &c
- t
?'. ' " '
' f '/y> p: 'W.a . .
- k j .; .., s -, ,
;g- s
,: W l" N ', _,
. Wnl;:lit
.T n.
4 .
.T..***,., .. :O
~.
x
- 1.-
5-4'n' *
, l:g. rWJ, ., .,
, . , , . . i '. . . . . *' .
' ..'..p -gg ( ;.
~
_ l- m . -
,. . Q.
, . ,;., . .aT ., ' s . .- . , .
.....u. - .
g,
,e- ^ * * ' . ' ,
y 2 ,n ,.
^**"--**d**~-*-"*"**"~~D- -- ----n-- , ,,'eW l. ' 9 .
Q
- h; . [ . 4 ? ' -" -
. !;t', , ". ." 'E's .
~
;. Q,F .:. ,
i ./; . ,,., ; % . ;p y . .. < , ~ ,
.:g;.n' ' ' . $
. w. g -
4 L m., :c, ^ . . .s'a . - C-
- x. . , , , .
m
. ' . c. . . ^, ~m
;, r . . from one hospital to another.n With respect to the sufficiency of the g< o 'n.ldi.y ' . S . l ,y W"' mereQ, s .( 3 4
' @. 'y>7. ID.,. , . @[lMi. . . ,%. s :. .. . u . ,.A.py,j listing of possible reception hospitals located outside of the EPZ, the Board observed that those hospitals were on notice that they might
'My/; {'4%;; f,..'.;; .
* . : dm,yy.R, .m cu;, < .
- " .; be called upon for assistance, but none of them could predict in advance
.l< p, , . .
. g. . . ' ? > .,.,.-r'n --
.f what facilities it might be able to provide to transferred patients.n Be-3 . . .
&J *
. . ;% f , m J . .g cause of these considerations - in addition to the improbability that Ol).,MM. ..
;
- c 2 *, #.* ' EM,a'.M:. M evacuation would be decreed - the Board found no need for letters of y np, . . . msu 7 fr g.r agreement between the within-EPZ hospitals and potential reception
%pp Rp') .d . y p.p';y] '
hospitals.n In the case of nursing / adult homes," however, the Board took an en-j.,. 7 , ' . n. .7
, f. . .'
s; n ., - ...,.
,n r
+
tirely different tack. Without explicitly setting foith its rationale for dif-
. f. . , .
. - '. ferentiating between that type of facility and a hospital, the Board criti-
. W. *. .,'....,.l "mT:,.'
9-:
. s../. - .
cized the emergency response plan because it neither identified more
,.lsua., .c ; ,
, , .: than a few reception centers for the residents c,f nursing / adult homes dySh;u '* .- M. nor indicated the existence of letters of agreement between the within-pg -.7.; ., -y. *
, .~ " , . f.m '
EPZ facilities and such centers." The Board directed that these deficien-3
' ?.- ?
cies be cured prior to full-power operation of Shoreham.76 No similar di-t ., 7;. . . 4 ..t - - . rection was needed with respect to the arrangements for the transporta-C '.W -fc . . ,$;s. f :P/ tion of the nursing / adult home residents to facilities outside the EPZ.
.. -tpfl '.i For, in contrast to the situation with the hospitals, the plan sets forth 3'.eso tg,.v,77.,%. n , y . ,f , c_
.*. 9. 7. ~n,p@.. J, ' "m.j
; ;s. Q~ h.the,~number t. v of vehicles required and the arrangements made for securing
, w .. . ? vx e ., z../. " M,.-m. . :
W, M *,. . i ... them in a timely fashion, should the need arise."
.gMNi$ @n a. .,.s.:'g.: .'. n:) . Before us, the intervenors challenge the Licensing Board's acceptance of the portions of the plan concerned with hospital evacuation. In their
, _h@Q,4 u J . ';T M,t N, . view, the Board had no legitimate basis for treating the hospitals dif-j#g.s.n;* ;
. 1.C, 3 },T.j ' : h. ', W.{,8.N ferently from the other special. facilities for the care of the infirm and
,[ '.
!! M.W , , 4 ' , .j.. .. MJy .. '
aged. We agree. ASQ v q.fi . *yg ; 1,* ,. Assuming, without deciding, that the probability of a hospital evacua-
,e.- @ v;A9.' ,,m,. J ..t;. .. -
tion is as low as the Licensing Board believed, it does not follow that the m ... m emergency response plan need not concern itself w.ith how such an evac-a m E . . . . g o.. w.. .c v,e 3*.&g M;$4 , :. a.. t. s. gW. 4.c,A 1 m,,, cx ,/:.s s uat. ion would be carried out if it should be directed. To the contrary, as 1 5t g .: we recently observed in a related context: M1r u y -t -
. ni$NCe/ fM. . T.. .: M .
D,' .f T > ,s];.; % ;g ) % ' O Q.Yyt' . D '
- f. The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on the assumption -
QJ that a serious accident might occur and that evacuation of the EPZ might well be
$.*(..
..} -
+
. g j. - .
;s y;. w,e. naga..e: w i,q a ~ . . . -,j. .
{* OIM Yh M..hfV*.,,'(M* % { *
- 1 - 1. ] ;' l $g }*y '
74An " adult" home presumably is a racility ror elderly persons, a % g .v, 4 , y 1*e" W 5 t 75f g D 4*N @ C d ,, $ g,..f i- 76 fg
.m ^ S M / ,*i.
- M .1 l at 828 29. See aho LILCo Exhs. EP.l. Appe'ndix A at IV 175 through IV.180 and EP-79. Appen.
Wt,6m dix A at IV.173 through IV.178.
.6 .. cs M'[(k[Mhf t
AM. ..
*M s
4,* h
%f *.
+;W *s ,v v .
,N
%s g g .. = % e.<.* ,f~k' 'N w*.u- - -'
e - -
...u 155
.c ,.
Xh%lSW..; % ,4% ~ Q* y? ;.,T %.pl.
- h ' .
W M l~ A***+&Y fisO*cji.V* ' % ~.' W++h
-a #
% #,. W..m
.r e g, * *e
- et r o -r - ,. *-
*g 4
%ndg w ' b r o tlv-g'
- W. &. - -
r -- ,. 1 ; 7d,&f
.7, n . ,. ,cs y v a x . . ., g. : n.4 m ltA.A.O- QS SQ ' % l. Gn.-*%i% Q e v Nm > m, ,. .lR- .ain; . 7.r ;vg2 4'~p % #n .,~.Y, W' .
%y:hN
, $rT ~
h['[@f Nh+ #:h hk d h Ny M M?.\?*?MM."h.. Nhhh NNh..NE. . _ hh. hhb h!fh_n:.hh, . I
-.~ A. ' a
~. a ^ . w u .~ . a . - . -~ ...a w : o . u _ . . -w.
*- +: ,
Y?
.r . ' .
.y'[
.L
.. (,'
if necess ry. .The adequacy of a given emergency plan therefore must be adjudged j
- u. ,<. - with this underlying assurnption in mind. As a corollary, a possible deficiency in an
~..
. ' ; l emergency plan cannot properly be disregarded because of the low probability that L.# .MJ action pursuant to the plan will ever be necessary.Thus, the Licensing Board majori-
, %- m,[' <U
~
. ty gave undue weight to the fact that evacuation of [a hospital within the EPZ] is
'g;<. remote.78
,- . g.
- . y . .a
. , # . 4 We find no occasion to reconsider that general proposition here. More-
.. .<.;: ~ ,q .
. ~ l over, we are satisfied that the Commission's regulations and the guid-j ance contained in NUREG.0654 provide su0icient reason for treating
. h ??' - i< hospital pati,:nts in the same manner as the residents of nursing / adult
.; ' . -a f b c . " . homes insofar as planning for evacuation and relocation is concerned."
,,, ;, ; ' ' ' First of all, although 10 C.F.R. 50.47 does not itself address the
'- - - L matter, NUREG-0654 dennes (at 4-2) the term "special facility" to in-y p*W clude " institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes." And there is
( not the slightest suggestion anywhere in that document that, as a class,
*1f' hospital patients are not entitled to the benefits of precisely the same
. ~ .M
~ '
. '., emergency planning as are those individuals confined to nursing / adult r homes.
With respect to the necessity that the emergency response plan con-
. '.1 cern itself with the transportation of hospitt.1 patients to reception hospi-tais outside of the EPZ, the regulations do come into play and counter
.' ].
any thesis that such transportation requires no pre-planning but can be q, t,.17 4 o -w. . left to ad hoc resolution once the emergency has occurred.80 Specifically,
' "" 1 in connection with its emergency plan, an operating license applicant m.' ' ' t
- e . , -.
'. p .
i':, , - must provide "an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for
#.- %, . . .: m .- .
taking other protective actions for various sectors and distances with.m
.s"s 'w" - '*: w y.
..m m.- . : u-e..
4,.. e the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent popula-
..4<
.~ , .c,, .
' /.g ; . , y7 - i T.7, .
tions."8' Such an analysis cannot be made for the hospitals without an
~' -
awareness of the extent of the transportation that might be required to f*,
- 1 .
remove the patients from the EPZ, as well as an understanding of how
*:[v ,
.a*.,
M.? ,
..-+.j
.,g, .
l .
* . ~.y g- ~;
. 1. # ,.*
78 PWadelphu Electric Co. (Limencit Generating station. Umts I and 2). ALAB-819,22 NRC 681. 713
. (1985). renew declined. CLI.86-5. 23 NRC 125 (1986). In this connection. we cited Southern Califorma
- i. , .E*. *
' T.. ' <
o Edison Co. (san onofre Nuclear Generatmg station. Units 2 and 3). CLI.8310.17 NRC $28, 533 (1983). rev'dinpart on other grounds. GUARD r. hRC. 753 F.2d ll44 (D C. Cir.1985L
. , D.. ' , '
79Quite apart from the matter of regulatory requirements and guidance. as earlier noted the Licensing
+ 1.. ^ . .. . .
~.
., ' .4 - Board did not explain why it was drawmg a distmction between hospitals and nursmg/ adult homes. Nor
* *' is a factual basis for such a distinction readily apparent. To begin with, in common with the hospitals.
. if y /,,. f. * . e
, f 5 1,' ' ' . * .. sit or the ten nursmg/ adult homes he on the outer reaches of the EPZ. Attachment I to LILCo's Tes-
.;F **
- timony on Contentions 24 J. N 72 C, D and 96 B (Planning for special Facihties), fot Tr. 9017.
^
=
. . second. it is not unlikely that the evacuation of a sigmficant number of the residents or the homes
;, - .E.
- might pose a sufficient health risk to them that such a step would be avoided if at all possible. Third, the
- .q r [.7 s
, , if.-. '2+m Licens4ng Board has not referred to any eudence beanng upon the sheltering capabihty of the homes.
+ - '
80 Cf. Guard v. NRC. supra note 78.
% sl 10 C.F R. Part 50. Appendix E, section IV.
'W .
% ,,.N,, *
,$M . .a ,
1, 156 c' e,
- n ,. t =* .
~
f+Q:. , , . . ,
.k %;?'g' ;. q?' '
- l, D
'% g/* si . ,, , -
.)
7 '. mm-- . .w e W'6 i ,*Y- - w .,m , - - - --w w ---. - - ~ .
--r-----' -
t,#
* ^
rw.,.'~ YNL l' 5 " .e ,$ e' Q)} e. , \ ^ ,p; - - _g 6 I!A? Q ', ' s' v t"% ? ? , .; 4 ,,
,...M.
s
,- .!<( - b; >;,,;s .;.'y' l . , p . 9 s - -}
> ,. m.
h, - cqyy-y.7
- 9. , c '
# %g . . [n;Q T. e d y -ep,xj. YN.N .. ( ' .n F
.s
. [_ ,
g%$ ,A; @y.g:p &@ g'(.' 4 .,.g;sm.;y, y. w, , . - ys ww[y G g...x g ,g:A p
. + y, ,,.y y p g y '. d;Tj'n,..:
g , . j - 4 R.q.ns,-g
- q. .IvQ~4p-
%% ,n a n.n g aa,. m;, Q.- y. p.y.
c ~, - p+y teuw , ga,.9g.pty* y.t g;y m~m r_w ;p
#aw. .r.g;
.m g
- g. g w.: w, s
.c3 m e.,n w w r.o
.. y ;v cw v/.w.. w .W w4. .-q:i t. g- ppm m y
x:w. m t &, m s. %v 4 : ,- a
.2. p ., y .. e 4 . y m o g ; q .s p g.;;g g}..~n ~Qg~
m g.ypy .i :.n+n a w.p,w ..,n,y e.g.p.r
. 9. . m q, q.: w wWg;. g43 p ?~
g.gg,
~
^ '
- Q . .'
4 .;,. 'i , ,. e yyg : : gL .
- c ,-
w~c' .a .
,,', s -
,. 7,, -g w
., *gig. 'y >- an. , . . .
- . . - .,,;. q
, *: .A', + . 5, -)- - r .
o g ' y ts I A
,y: . n ;. . %. .
.? , - %
,.e , z.'n : .a
. Y 4 e . p jy , a.L. m ..=w..... -.:. . -. . - .
?_y.. .. z, *-* . m;.
.y-, -
- n f.: , ,
m-
,..'m,,
.- . ,~.>;
%w
].ts -e!c . . .
,.- .j
- and when the evacuation would be accomplished. Yet the proposal to 8RQ N 7.lQ '.g-QMD deal with transportation requirements only after the need arises supplies
- 5. no insight on either score.
t h.[6 l;:.N '~ ' .,, f. 4 ' '.V
, - . e, . . '
Further, NUREG-06f4 contains several criteria for the evacuation of
. >l t . .
- i. .
special facilities. The criteria set forth in section II.J indicate that the emergency planning for special facilities such as hospitals shall include: a?,5. . ' . ' .' 1 ., ' X.i;o .',t. .
; , )v. ; - +
- c. .? . ~
, ;&g;; h..s '.'. >. .j./.r.v , ' -y.=c. l.,. ,
. ? u,T ,. . .., . -< 8. . ;,,
. .,M
. : . .n ; -; i.; l - .
It.J.10.d. Means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as mstitutional or other confinement;
, d
. "tx . , . .
.,..f- ,, t .....
.* . ' s + n s n..,4 ; .:. . .-
-G II.J.10.l. Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a g,., . dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditions) for the 4
f plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone . ;and
*~.* }. , c.,, ..
- .1 n
. {'. , ' .f "
.i
[ ' , . . J II.J.10.m. The bases for the choice of recommended protective actions from the W +'y., <i- * -
' . . plume exposure pathway during emergency conditions. This shall include
'k - expected local protection alTorded in residential units or other shelter for
? ). -,., .
direct and inhalation exposure, as well as evacuation time estimates.s2 s.<','.'. . i.' ,
%.. .,g .. .
The ad hoc evacuation does not provide a foundation for ascertaining
- d. e.. e .. ..
.c....". .-
,w.p.9 . >.m .,- e: y @a ..": .. evacuation time estimates in conformity with these criteria.
W 5 : y, # 'l : C u p : ' 'Ji:r In sum, the Licensing Board should have required the applicant to ful-J fill the same planning obligations with regard to possible hospital evacua-g.t,T_; ?. , . .e.
, u,w - -p *. , '. , . 4 yp;' 7'O. A - 4 :.' e t c . ..?
tion as the Board imposed in connection with the nursing / adult homes. MUfd Y %'29.?Y(p*l We therefore remand and direct the Board to rectify this error. ' %hQ;l[ , ' 'Q ' ' l;; i '
- e. % .. ~
. C TL;F' .* D. Nassau Coliseum m.. ,,.% .. .
'0 . .
gcD@r ,.. .,.
- g. ('. ? [. -
a 3 As earlier noted. emergency response planning must make provision d h 1 [ ' ~ ' ~ ;'. ..' - for the care of persons removed from the plume EPZ should circum-stances necessitate evacuation measures. Initially, the applicant's . ~h:, . ;,n',. a q .,m v. . . m. . 1..,. - .. %M"W' .g. P , C'@ . emergency plan designated for this purpose five facilities located in Suf-Q M b o.,. W h. 323..::.s! folk County - three to serve as primary " relocation" centers and two as
- m. . m Q l._7m
.g d i'o Q Q N, .. f3 backup facilities. Each was to provide radiologica! monitoring snd decon-2 f;e
!j ;wf %p Th. .. Q:,M . Q S .e '. tamination services, as well as emergency sheltering 83 M, N.A In their Contention 24.0, the intervenors asserted that one of the pri-
. 3.,7.j.Y. _
. s eW mary designated centers - Suffolk County Community College - was W,5y - . not available for use for that purpose and that, as a consequence. the 4 g),) E q p p y.y..ipf .L.< dK. . . .' M ', occupants of a significant portion of the plume EPZ would be left with-
. M.*d, J *
' ' #M ' .- 4 out a place to turn to in the event evacuation became necessary. Another
' ;p ; a
.s' q W.
W . :p T '
.-d.s.a., p ,., , . .'. e; , . . ur a .-: .m..
.p
;- -_ ' s2NUREG-0654 at 61,63-64 (rootnote omi ted).
i'W (K .fce. tj.; .f e6 D. L. . .'c Q4
,s s) Lit.Co Exh. EP.I at 4 2.l. 4 2 3
? %.h. %,f+. ,w n.s.p;p '.w....... , .oggy i m
* *,..' . i1 .
4 s YN&h',? N $,t ? n- c --: ~ 11 - - - 2.
~
157 _. .%. .,3
.c,( ', 9 T D f '1** ei . (h ,'g-. . .%g}b * .,
4py 1 '. * . g ^; . A.'kWf Q 'gj.
'l fu lbEl: **? W h .T.x '.' .
&m.pg&y::y&. M v.m.g ' ,:. yw . .&.s, . :w e d C, *,mQK
- r,g~,s .x w ~.a. m?;..
- x;mpm g+it
- mne.
sg ;,g
-w w.mcc g.... ..&. y..,
.m ,:w
-m p
. . .g... .. . . x.
c . 4 e,w v e .. . . ;;n . . . . ,a.., ,, e Q ..v .c g ~ e f .t.*.
$ g .p c . % . Q yg M;; f '. W M p -
m [ Q7'P. #( _ # M y [ifg'd,.;he g.y9, QLhyjd.Lnydjp. .q.,gg-jg.png y
?*"',,-+
i + e .
,a _ ' . Su .
u, . :
-~ , ,
Ep: .y . .
.m - ,
>a:
4 ny'/..L eup' .
~
w , :W h .
. . . w,, 'y .. : ,,-
c ,.,h. --
.E..
wy.ro. m .
.o. e. .. s
- m. ,./.sg . .
. ; ,. 5 . ,
v(.e. , :. .. . 4 . . ,
> pc .
+
. , m,, . .. w v. . . ~ s._ a
,.y 1 w s ,.
, . y. y,- , q7.s. 7.,,,.
.j.y g- - , .
7 , , v:.. w
.4 6 .* ' , ,
, 1 n n..-. 1
.,<N m..a a. e
. :. m; , :,
* . .z . ..; 1, .s i,I
, . c.
8 j(' ' ; A. ? r f;
,. .,,: :s g+se,o
& . o ,.a . -
.' w 3 ,; .y. t / .. pa u ( ..
v, m.m. . , . .?,
, t ,. u
. . .j t
.. n .
., a O, . . ;, 1 contention (No. 74) alleged that, contrary to NUREG-0654, section j.Q.e.3'. . M4* / %.ai
,Yk.+E..N 'J. 3 II.J.10.h, two of the primary centers were within three miles of the
- ,q:,' .s -.< [ ' [q$k,;
t; .*y. c...: plume EPZ boundary.84 A third contention (No. 75) maintained that:
.'4 y ,. .',;*
- 0; n.,V.,
- 94. ' ,' '.' , . - '. ,
<- ,l The LILCO Plan provides no estimates of the number of evacuees who may re-
.' ;' .? :, f ' ~ . . . ,.. e quire shelter in a relocation center, and the Plan fails to demonstrate that each such Q. $/ facility has adequate space, toilet and shower facihties, food and food preparation
' l'
,,[' .D.,[k, '.E.h V -;;i "h*
.[dr#2 ..M,p[' .MC1 areas, drinking water, sleeping accommodations and other necessary facilities. Ac. [; . ..G* /J. '..o f dp!~ L cordingly, there is no assurance that the relocation centers designated by LILCO
. - will be sufficient in capacity to provide necessary services for the number of evac.
uees that will require them. Thus, LILCO fails to comply with NUREG-0654
- cy.s.V j', .$ , ',. .?, 'f,, f. . ,. ., . '-('
,-., filIJ.10.gandJ.12.
o- . .-
',.W.,..; .' - . . , ,_ ,c., . /
- j. y .
1 Before a hearing could be held on these allegations, however, the ap-
.;y.:#,% , ' ? w / ..
n .
-c-f : . '
plicant revised its plan to eliminate the use of the five facilities it had
. gb 'd C. ? 1 :g. '- ';L . previously designated. In addition, it made several other significant y .Y ' ' *
~
T.r-
~y changes in the plan. Instead of all-purpose facilities, the revised plan
- ?lFf,3,. ; d ' 3 .: 7 ' .'..;-c l -
contemplated that some facilities would be reception centers and others C , q;J .
'i would be shelters. All evacuees from the plume EPZ would be directed
' s#iB Sf.
. y initially to a reception center for registration, monitoring, and possible f decontamination. If necessary, an evacuee would then be transferred to f .d"Mc; ? 9 f,y,.
_ .;. e . .
*u . ~ ;.;q M5/.9 %m ',p%t;N o
, v.s.y; .,y .
,3 , ,.
. i.V
- - . 5, o. -.1 one of the shelters.35 2.%,, . ,:7'..,. . .c. ..;. 2 /.3 " J.n? r By the time the hearing began on the relocation center issues in
- w. <
gM, c, . . M -
%. ..W . . * .%p August 1984, the applicant had designated some 50 facilities, all located within Nassau County, as shelters.86 But there was no designated facility
[M' y 2;@T( ,m: g<n;. .c.t '.' .
' that was to serve as a reception center. The applicant explained that h '.3, q, ,'lW.'. T i .N . . O negotiations were still being conducted for the possible use of two facili-
%"TE 7 ties in Nassau County for such purpose. It was reluctant to name them 2.h~ s ;*
$7(Q.,.c;((,.
at that point, however, fo'r fear that outside pressures might lead to with-3 org.:. . . g drawal of the facilities if their identity became known before completion m w n.. . ... .t .w*,. .f I , . of negotiations." The hearing ended with the Board declaring a " void" 2 Am. y%y . .s ,J .,,ct, e, s.r' z. :./ , .!.., ..-, . , - .
- q:.t .
.cf.p. w. ,. v in the record on th.is matter.88 j?M'@;n
..n. t u.
; , Jf ? 4@;i.;%d:
Two months later, the applicant notified the Board and the parties of H.C.m?: . . the completion of negotiations for the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, located some 33 miles from the closest boundary @$Q[Nc. M.!),M,'IQd@fM
'.nM%s 1 M N $ 9f i P . X-W of the plume EPZ, as a reception center." In the applicant's view, this EV development merely confirmed commitments on the applicant's part
,,,D.y.y...w' sm ,p+ nfe p., :w .. v i~ g.g,g.p,gNJ. . . .,weg Q,M;.,' ,. . . -
.,7
- h. ;2Y;, L , ,t .3 ,N 84 section IIJ.10.h provides that a re ocation center must be at least five mdes, and preferably 10 L g.m , c . ' e- t "
miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume EPZ.
. e, .;.[, dj b3 -l. .s.
85 Cordaro et al fol. Tr.14,707, at 15-16 and at Attachment I; see Tr. 14,781 85,14.801 02,14.809. 86 Cordaro et al. fol. Tr.14,707, at Attachment I; Tr. 14,780,14,784. W Yp,.R , (, $.s 3' , 8*' 87Tr.14,793,14,796 97. g 'JrQ'V M f. $[ %y <"' b*.,e t 88 Tr.14.806 07,15,713. ps.wM.ak.. i 'L ,, ; m .? :,cq Q b [ ., g g, p w. g .y. 3 yu g %. m s t A a .m . . - r . ,. . , 158 qn. . & m ,.:4a e .w u .m "M-M tw E.4#v.
.' /
> , .,. ,' I ' * ". f . j~g '"
g 5
.a'avy n .9.
r
.a e a.- .* , , ..v y. ,.p - ,.6..m i a
,, w .
P* I e w4. 4 $ .
. * ^ 4,7 e , * .
G i.dy WN 3b - 7 ;@ [ A @.$ ; W h e Q. W E M M 8 Q. @ g# g,M. . y,;C .,rQ. m.m.n gg
@y s , g ;jiTt.S-@p @..,3g
;! G ' '
r .= ( ,'I , r LQu; A . m s. .
. - e , , .6 ne' :.:)s a:.L.. c: . * ,
4
-W*'p; . j. :,.. .
.n u,: a _.:. s-L : a _ .a. = .. . .. = .::. a . ~
,d r ..-
. ,d,y 5 .; -
i mp..w. .r . s y ~, - . ;, ; a ;-(f. y - :- l.- 4Q,'. . j f,- s (( ., u.w . y '& .f r.. ii that were already reflected in the record and thus it could be taken into y K
;' ' fg Q@Q$;l.!'
~
.j 'j , 2
~
account without a reopening of the evidentiary record. The Licensing Board, however, disagreed and, on January 4,1985, ruled that "identifi-
. J
. dc .
- 1' cation of the Nassau Coliseum as a relocation center is not merely a con- i , ;. % Nf
firmatory item, considering the state of this record."* A week later, the L T N.'
p ,? . -m:i R: applicant moved to reopen tne record, subm.it tmg . with the mot.ion its
,py .g#
W l- .f #
' ' ' proffered evidence on the Nassau Coliseum." Over the intervenors' #, . ,~* ,
opposition based upon asserted untimeliness, the Board granted the .y motion and set a schedule for responses to the evidence submitted by . .
. t, .t the applicant.'2 ;7 .;;f.C $$ f@:6'..
. hr.
. 9 ,,
Following a hearing on whether the Nassau Coliseum was " functional- .l -
. .. M ,1, . . ' > ,
ly adequate" to accommodate the number of evacuees that might be ex- h.}.f?$j,d .
, % K * # k(*
gc - pected to show up in the event of a radiological emergency, in its ' F; 3 m
,4a *. Q * * - August decision the Licensing Board found the applicant's "overall ,,
..h..- '
~.1 procedures for processing evacuees at the Coliseum to be conceptually ,
. e-Ja . .Jf ',[,,'
adequate."') Before us, the intervenors attack this finding on a variety of 7.5-grounds. For the reasons now discussed, we conclude that some of the , i.
' /[5 '
- intervenors' claims are meritorious and others are not.
. b., :' ._". .
.W .*
The intervenors maintain that the applicant's motion to reopen
#v ." 1. , ,
*. 47e* the record to receive evidence on the use of the Nassau Coliseum -
- t. . ..
.f,) - ,
should have been denied as untimely I"cause it was not filed until Janu- , W _ . ' ~ .7
- ary 11,1985 - approx.autely fise month 3 after the applicant formed its mtent to i nploy the Coliseum. We disagree. , ,~ . ~., .'
@ ,.tv, ,y. 5 6..% ,
Licensing boards are vested with broad discretion in the conduct of ; . .m. . . M. +,. ? c
. S. %. , 9 . Vs. , 4' % .* M,g
&& M t, . . " the proceedings before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foun-Wr. dation, board determinations on such questions as the timeliness of mo- 9. r, 5!'d5.h, a i
% , m. .2.. [3unm?/ " .
tions are not likely candidates for reversal. . n.wWc ... . . . ,. . em n. t. In concluding that the reopening motion here was timely filed, the y g . .4
.7.v$s v.y : . .G' ~- Licensing Board found that the applicant could not be certain of the ,. . . 3 ., . ?
b ' -*
~' ' ' "
J;$ 'k availability of the Coliseum as a reception center until final arrangements were completed." That did not occur until October 24,1984. A few days Z.: ..s , later, the applicant informed the Licensing Board and the parties of that .
, 3. g a g 7; ' W
, '.y , ll., fact and ofits view that the record need not be reopened in order to take cognizance of it." Inasmuch as it was not until January 4,1985, that the i, $:.), M. .
du %[%[al'GN ,w, u
, I'. . . .
If v; A -> a , gv.t n % - ?' '
, . \'# *Y OhN Ny n '$ y* '.
w
- s. yg *'t ; 8' Letter from Kathy E.B. McCleskey to Licensing Board (october 30.1984). This and earlier develop-
.fhu h.W -iJ {. ~
C' , n""a f 1,'.J <
'W N .- . ' ments placmg all shelters m Nassau County rendered the intervenors' Contention 74 moot. #' '>
- LQ{g:.ph. ;.h. . "'-
, 90 Tr.15,739-40.
' .' 4 9'
' ' ' +
9I LILCo's Metion to Reopen Record Ganuary 11, 1985).
"N.?.
$i 2 6 i'i f.,[y.,p_L .
'*9 l = 92 Memorandun. and Order Granting LILCo's Motion to Reopen Record Ganuary 28.1985). p s!s -J q t
'pz -f c . g 4a' ' 93 LBP-85-31,22 NRC at 41719 The Board found, however, a rew correctable defects in the plan.
'-..e e, g g.
{N .#'
- d. l
%?jf,f,p.
S."
,' - , " January 28,1985 Memorandum and order at 6.
U See mera pp.158-59.
'. - O wg;c . . ; 8 ,.
r:
- e ,- . a ti.y f ,, ' Jj 9' 3 {-,.; c 'A'
,. .m > ~e ysw. . - .*- 159 ; 3 ,.1 ' .4 94.% N, ^["~ '
yt .H , - ,- ~ ,
~ .w , :4 y? .
5,sy 3 . , +5% .
;- p ". * * - f *' l9 9h.- ;g *. -,-.- , ,.- .~ -- -m., w
%N .q. ,.w.. . .
, Oh w( #
?
2 f-
' , . ', i' ' ['(.t;:sk,,.'t N r. . . -s .
g *. 4 ' . f. har'N
'[hm,@y .'s.
,.'N.
3 'l
- 6 f s
-"**j N .
.v.,
' c .2 ? 4w[n-* li ,i
-< Oy ,
.Yy . a+ 4'r
. 8%*b'g . <ty1.%l '
' %%lQl.5%
I w - .' , ',. ;'
- l. K W [ga)(n.' ^'.yY.,,
o y' L.-
,' , _' , Q: e M, iMi - Q; ,1
- _ ' >&',. ,:x[,.': nae
@M N f'J.l,' .
- }x. %x .ga Mta g,g*,3~ w.,^y
,}j .cw%x .r .~ ,, -a , Q; , .w,.* !',, g., .,,r;'.9.,: y; g,
.~,
. 3 - f g s;r-lQ .]
9 4,
,'<, +
y-1 s ., y.-; , .= s, Ty
-/V,s ; gD, g,; 4g,
~
_7,,,
+
- ' , ' : 5.l
- L ::ay" 3- - - . . n;'
z' . . . w . P. Ll:^ * .; ; N:y. c :Mg::..ft :fg' . xu .:
.- ?/ g . .. ,' .
,^'.&^q'a-
,, q7.J A ;a *
.,,.c , . - ;P ~ .
- ', ^L.* f:- ~( $'y , . c. . .
. x. . - ~' - c:s.m . .
. s. s. , -: :xu :
2- _..-,r. a z .. ._.a_. . .: , .. 3 J s..c L. ._ 5: 1, 7 .c .a. p
- . % % ,;7 ,
zV .. ..
-. u. . P *m
.n. i
* . . 1 -
.- . w. , , /. -
.F.*M M',
Licensing Board made its disagreement with this view clearly known,*6 the January 11 filing of the reopening motion certainly did not involve
~
an unreasonable delay."
- 2. Three days after the Licensing Board granted the motion to
. A[2' , s ,
p ,, - reopen, the intervenors requested information from the applicant, the
^
7.# ~ .- .T staff, and FEMA retaing to the applicant's proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center. The sought information pertained to the [ ,, , ,. arrangements made for the use of the Coliseum for reception center pur-
,y . y * . ;. . ; '
e poses; the physical layout of the facility; and the schedule for sporting
-w gt m. .. ' ... .. .N. _ci r : . . > ~
and other events.'8
.fj;j ?c^ ~.WG.. M O
$. The applicant objected to the request. Following a telephone confer-
-t ence, the Board upheld the objection and announced that the reopened
_, m f - ' , ;7 r 1, - proceeding was an " expedited" one that did not allow for discovery." m . - The intervenors' motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground
,4 that no good cause for the requested discovery had been shown "at this
, W. .
late stage of the proceeding."i" q' (, , . In challenging that ruling, the intervenors stress that it improperly re-J (. J' quired them to present direct testimony and to prepare for cross-
. J ;g , , ,
examination on the applicant's proposed use of the Coliseum without e the benefit of any discovery. We agree. Although some aspects of the reception center issue had been litigated
+. . y *. . ,,
. t. -( earlier, the proposed use of the Nassau Coliseum did not surface until a m. - . . jib] ; . , ., t i..' after the record was closed. Once the Coliseum's identity became
'l ; - ,,.~cg -
known, as a matter of simple fairness the intervenors were entitled to be g s. } q. ,.
. M> accorded the opportunity to discover any information that might bear gy,n % upon the suitability of that facility for the applicant's intended use.
-+
't '. p } - % . 4...h .
. ( ; (thi ' .
35 (, , .'(Q
.)' ..Q., .
'[^ , 96 Tr.15.739-40.
\ " Nor do we find merit in the intervenors' charge that the Licensing Board applied a double standard
, ~.' 3'. * .,
in passing upon timeliness questions. The assigned basis for that charge is the Licensing Board's treat.
..'- W , e , .
5 .
.9 ment of the intervenors' pnor motion seeking the admission of new contenuons dealing with certain
.,f , .
- f. issues assertedly presented by a sinke by applicant's employees. That motion, riled 27 days after the
'r'- ~
, ' C ,, , .. *- d strike occurred. had been denied as untimely. The intervenors have not established a simitanty of rete.
vant factors in the two situations. It is also noteworthy that. at oral argument. their counsel explicitly dis.
$p f .YM,; hfM i... ,
", d *.iY,L %'tN
' . claimed any suggestion that the Licensing Board was biased against her clients. App. Tr.15.
,. J.w'f'q- c .Ia f 'g ' ". lid ; s.p * ' *f No more substantial is the intervenors' complaint that. in granting the reopening motion, the Licens.
N QT 1 ' ' ' f y 3
/ . M ; } . .,'p ing Board unfairly gave the applicant a fourth attempt at establishing the viability of the evacuation por-yf j t 4 '. p'(.W.i i ,,<*-*
3 ; g.M; / tion of its emergency response plan. See ConsoWared Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Unit No. 2). CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983). M fcCR.g. ? y Nf, ,
*&*: dE li i j k .;i: ' QC*; 98 See letters appended to LILCo's opposition to Suffolk County Discovery Requests Concerning Use
- of Nassau Cohseum as a Reception Center. Motion for Protective order and Request for Expedited Js'gyg
-t h.k(('aj "3:M h ,f *
,' I '.D. Board Ruling (February I.1985).
., . y "Tr.15.803. This bench ruling was memorialized that same day by the Board's February 5.1985 Q,
MM.A c.i T 4
- l- L ruling on LILCo's Motion for a Protective order (unpublished).
Mg %'ks*.-a M.M P. #:%' ., O.p: a im Memorandum and order (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration of Board's February 5.1985. Pro- .a C ? s s.--
,- tective order) (unpublished) (February 12,1085) at 5. The Board pointed to the provision in 10 C.F.R.
C;a4 2.740(b)(l) to the effect that "no discovery shall be had after the beginning of the prehearing confer.
.j..L, ' *
,j cf ence held pursuant to { 2.752 etcept upon leave of the presiding officer upon good cause shown.'
QLA M' , . R(.'
- : , m o . J' . ..
h& $Y.y; ' ' [ ~ 160
- J;$@l4g m .. ,.Q
.c . x n y> m . .39. +g
, ,g..p$m%
. < o *
.~&
.M kI- Y
"[ q , f ia~ e
, , 4 9
...ea-o a w .-
LM .; .: . ..x.. . a- ..h, w - . e - - - - - Moreover, although there may have been a need for an expeditious hear-
, ing as declared by the Board, there was no indication that the requested discovery would cause a delay in the hearing schedule established by the
, Board.~In the circumstances, good cause plainly existed for permitting j , : <, ' , 'l: ,
discovery and, thus, the Licensing Board abused its discretion in not so
'... finding.
- 3. In response to the affidavit of the applicant's witness Elaine D.
]' ' . * ~ . ' - ,,
. Robinson on the use of the Coliseum as a reception center, the staff
~
~'
(jointly with FEMA) and the intervenors submitted the proposed tes-d,g ..
,, timony of their respective witnesses. Upon considering the proposed tes-
.,i,,. R. , '. . , - .. timony of all the parties, the Board declared-
,"' .me v?s,
' g;t -# . 'q . .
, ~;
[Aln oral hearing is needed to resolve the contested issue in Contention 24.0 as to
' . ~
, whether the designated relocation center, the Coliseum, is itself functionally ade-
, , quate to serve as a relocation center for the anticipated general evacuees. The
, number of general evacuees that car: be expected to use a relocaticn center has al.
ready been litigated and that subject will not be reheard. The Board will only consid. cr evidence that goes primarily and directly to the question of w hether the Coliseum I *
*~
is adequate for use as a relocation center. Col'ateral matters will not be heard.Mi
- d. The Board went on to accept the proposed testimony of the four staff witnesses (FEMA officials). It rejected, however, all or substantially all
, of the proposed testimony of the intervenors'seven witnesses as either relating to issues that had already been litigated or as not relevant on the W//
issue in the reopened proceeding.m2 Except with respect to the testimony of Mr. Campo, which dealt en-i tirely with the subject of sheltering, we conclude that the Licensing 9, , . T, *
. ,'.,. ~ Board erred in its rulings cn the intervenors' proffered testimony. The 7 ,
.o .
.,, r, ,
error stemmed from the Board's unjustiGably narrow interpretation of
' ~N TI:. V -
the issut to be heard at the reopened hearing: whether the Nassau "n* - - Coliseum "is itself functionally adequate to serve as a relocation center
.' , [ * ' .
for the anticipated generai evacuees."m3 The Licensing Board construed k'y,c' , ., < the question as relating only to the capability of the Coliseum's physical
,w ..; .
facilities to allow successful conduct of the necessary monitoring and
.q/ ,*m.' ,- decontamination of evacuees who arrive there. It d d not deem it to in-p : .. f , ,
clude, as well, consideration of either the Coliseum's accessibility to NT.kk,- ,.,S[ ' ' evacuees from and around the plume EPZ, or other factors that could
, . k . v. ,,
c , likewise affect its utility as a reception center. But, manifestly, a recep-M.%' fgg j { -
, gg ?'y
;'q,
/4 *
.o J tion center that is beyond the reach of the persons it is set up to serve
,se.
.;- - g .-,t .
*
- M Mernorandum and Order (Reopemng of the Record) (unpublished) (May 6.1985) at 4.
t).'* ,. *g. i qy . .. y 7- .. - , , io; /J. at 5 7. These witnesses were: Leon Campo, Dr. James H. Johnson. Jr., Dr. Edward P. Radford.
. j I * .M ( Yq Richard Roberts. Charles E. Kilduff, Langdon Marsh. and Sara *. J. Meyland.
.h. ( ' < .* '
; 103/J. at 4.
a.g , 3 R. , y e , 1$ k ( * , =
- y. y .
'eg., ,a .
/*
Jf-
;s; ;. ,.
Jy :>: w s , , e
- w. -
l 7 S*h ,Y *, *
.[ \ .
e- : yg ,
,' A; .
. , _ _ . , ,,.,,..,.-.,r' .,-gg-,------- ---..m j"fe*m[~y %fs ', ' ,
4- " ,_ ' t it __
- ene
' A. u ~7(p t m f ,. 1**
f % - , i_ _. s
;e .A, -
,y ,
,-@4- P.c.Cd 6 s .v..S '
2 4: ,'?'
? %n .- " ryh ' . N i.s a-; ..'ke
, - 'g s'
- ju ,~. ~'
. .': '., Sq',' .-l a f. mM .
if N; .r e./ J . .;.Q f . );j
. ?.W '
, N s p.p. ,
+f,6l n f % , ' ' f,c .;'a % ,4 @:.[ ~ s
+ Q* . ;Q L l: ,. Q .
@f ,; t T
. W;e . . y y ', u gj,yb v' . .
4; h: 2:. f e%f:~~ W,..f.+ , . v. . a- ~ , . >
..,c nn:
9 ,m.y% ?*.M0* e.C.&.yyl.;.~. :d y.
- y [.? 7 4.y.. ; ,!.6 ~ v.Mo .is _.- t ,. . +.' m. b,y .4*, _
- o y.
- q.s as. _. ;g. v. V; .( ef! y ... < ,
e
?,/ t*p* '. *.p#h}
. ( ' ) c ; ', . S, ' . c , . :4 ,.
J: . "
,7 L. - Y . %g * $; ps -
y-g J /. .' ' - >.g s,
- N .s . : :>>
' .,r.. 'O N . 2 e ;- .,.
\ % ; 4 ", "4,g;.w t 4 u "y
. ,-' cA' ,
%. ev
't c/ Q ' *( -
^'.(; Q :e e
; q,b, '?' ' '"
n
%h : Js.. s
- s .
.q.
,s
. t. p ' .
s ..
- gggc;c.m,& , . g m.g:.;y , . v., t, 3
,,1 % ,
vm x . . .
' ~
MNr :
- l .
Qff .Sx,.D, a *- : ._w ' . .a l h fly Q : Q ;; m - -w-.... . -_ , d. .m. .
- w. ,- . .w _~ ..
^1. %'?M %.Q " h ' ,.m' m . .
W ~y: ?.Q; m m;yc k - ( , 44 n'-
&:.WiqG%*Q X@f&& ~.? . ' ' '
, X+&M..$.hy%y vmy- , _.4 w; >;w g ;w%
%% :4-)a ..
. . J. . % , t .v . ..sS, . p. a.3 cannot fulfill its intended purpose, no matter how well the facility might
;w%. . . p ; ,
. N...pa v.
b, ug
- w,, #s ;
be designed and equipped. M~o@w@N; t 6th
- +. ..w.p
/ :
a W%m;po.c.~.L,y.,g'.t.]. f4 In short, especially given the concerns expressed by the intervenors M O ii @ti .% M U d @g Q . e from the very outset,'M the Board should have taken the issue before it to be whether there were any factors - including the location of the QM$g@yd9.%l@@SM'7 %ca.m%we-e.QW@h@G[-3, d s hM ' - r Coliseum
. relative to the various portiens of the EPZ - that might make
- MMP pheQ W'.W that fac.lity i unsuitable to serve as the sole reception center for EPZ evac-uees. On remand, the Board is to revisit the Coliseum issue in the con-
'P MY lW Q N hR $0.h$$ '.S'W @.M W@. text of that broader scope. And, in doing so, it is to admit the previously.
[ haMhMS g Z $. h. Mg Q [h k k,. rejected testimony of all of the witnesses for the intervenors other than that of Mr. Campo (whose testimony, once again, did not deal with the @$mQs?Y. w - m~.N~ ~MW.t?g+s,${ Coliseum but, rather, with already fully litigated issues concerned with
.&. % Q'qMN.*s y%rw W M Un- * .,s c
4 wry d l
% am~rog%. M.2.6 wdesignated shelters).'" Moreover, the Board is to provide the interve-nors with the opportunity for discovery that was improperly denied to
- .3.w .p . q,sq pwgip h .
ihem and is to allow the introduction by any party of such additional evi-d{@k E U M d , O $ 3 Q M yi %g dence as may be germane to the Coliseum issue as delineated above. qd)uQ~gMS.Mhzdhe , bsg ,p ym pp.. Or "g .ay r.s.
...r
+ wuMAmt Wh. iW@p.wi. Q 4
;.A. For the foregoing reasons, on those issues raised by the in . tervenors,
? M.* M gi W .M T/FM;.M 43; y
.fS M Q @ appeals, the Licensing Board's April 17 and August 26,1985 partial ini.
..h tial decisions are a/Jirmed in part and remanded in part for further pro-N6h?hd@Mbk MO.if gpf ceedings in conformity with this decision.'" Given this result, the Com-mission may wish to consider whether it should proceed now with its
.$f!We d M@% lAN?n$ # t^t h M / Mf; * @f M
.,.a y *W g c qQm;Q,,w-&;.,..;):pe a.
GM,Q gyV 4 Although the relocation center contentions were cast in terms of the lack of agreement evidencing d' A'M,w.k .- . i . m 'e, p , .3Mh g.,- permission for use of designated facilities as relocation centers. the intervenors' essential concern was whether those facilities were adequate to fumil their purpose ir actually called upon to do so. This intent kD. -%.p T.h,n J. 4 W;*$g[IMiy'MM. 5 y N' i M4 , f.VM.,
, LVQ V.$g 1,2 9 . is manifest, for example, in Contention 24.0. It states in part:
suffolk County Community College is an entity of the sufTolk County Government. LILCo has Ag,MMy sd '7 no agreement with sulTolk County to use suffolk County Community College as a relocation ry f ,,..
' N.1. y . J [MM.. %,
J' center. . . . Therefore, there is no relocation center designated for a signMcant portion of the an-ticipated esacues. Thus, the proposed evacuation of rones A.E. H-J cannot and will not 1e
. T .N *f. J , '. a .Iy. .yc,Z..v
,g ea a{#*' g[g m;$'. -
implemented.
' The same thought is inherent in Contention 75, which asserts that "there is no assurance that the reloca-o
,f ( %,s [*; ,y.a~ % 'J h s[.,,[..; , . S.Yr
' a e s; .I *1 1_* tion centers designated by LILCo will be sufncient in capacity to provide necessary services for the number of evacuees that will require them." See supra p.158.
% *y ;lQ C *p. @ h W % *)f M,. M 'M The testimony of Messrs. Roberts and Kildult is concerned with transportation and traffic problems
- /o t
. L..
that might develop as a resuM of the Coliseum's location and its distance from the plume EPZ. Clearly. Mc iYk.gi 7 _T ;' ;W.d .-fr OM f . s'i./
.. . ib
- Q M , this QisJrelevantpI Vto the(s - f of the accessrbility of the Coliseum to evacuees. Dr. Johnson's testimony question
" 6',f C.y r..Q%y' . :,3 p n Q ,. e r.Jli deals with the evacuation shadow phenomenon. See supra p.146. While that matter has already been ca-
.@a Wt
./Q if C% 4 D tensively litigated, it was not done in the context of the Coliseum and any problems its location vis.d-ws
.d 3.*';.7.',*Q-yg k M M N. ',h ; the shoreham facility might create. Mr. Marsh's testimony addresses whether the proposed use of the Coliseum is precluded by state law. This question goes to the availability of the Coiiseum for rece;nion W,Mh % Y M g .A "j-lNJ$7f.'A%,, i.N N b *[/SM, *. L.k.)pi center purposes , f*7 N;'
and is, therefore, televant. Ms. Meyland's testimony deals with possible health and safety problems that use of the Coliseum for reception center purposes might cause to the area water
>CQ /* $4'. Wi *.lvf Jy> A, nifvkt y supply. This testimony focuses upon the auitability of the Coliseum as a reception center and is clearly
,a%
*4'W' . 4 g? Ir!h'. 4. arf yK.MQv; @ WN c. M.J g in relevant. y p Dr. Radford's testimony is conce:ned with the matter of exposure to radiation and any addi-tional problem that the Coliseurr's distance riom the EPZ may cause. This testimony likewise is relevant
<bd S A.h,0, ED ,( NM W.% y[ > T ' ,g.,{r t. C to the question whether the Coliseum is suitable to serve as a reception center. s . .i
- 3%As indicated in Part 1. the appeals themsches are dismissed.
NlM
.& &My, .b* f d is[.4, f %'fD.lR " ;( . ,Qy %s&JMry R 9 c%%M 3%y u. y : . pm U;r;?.ir Q.Wg 2 f " W. w ' wQ~g " -\ m bcv 162 W@WSpf t . s a y$y go ;.
n, v., , Y o.. .,0V 3.h. u 4 /'$se.Q E8' .% I ..-* m M Pm.e WMV-6-WN.tw - #v,;f W: . cye'c %f.w
-o>re s: e. ,- ,.
;,s ; - ,
- - - - - - - - " - ~ . - '
. .- - - . . - . . - ~ . - ~
. v. - -. ..
u- [ , t <
% ,, . x
+
i.. -. s g,.,.
'. . ,1 2
'.e
,../ : ,
/f.,
F., .
. x 3.. .
n' review of ALAB-818. Should it decide to do so, it might further con- MO E. D e , . ,
4, 4'* '.- clude that the proceedings on the remand should be held in abeyance to , ' y ;. @~ > '. await the outcome of the ALAB-818 review. Accordingly, the Licensing '~ 1 j'. ' ( ;i . . J Board shall take no action in furtherance of the remand unless and until 4 4' . g. ', so instructed by the Commission. ' Review of the still pending issues raised by the applicant's appeals [.,l7 '4.-l n : ., from the April and August partial initial decisions will continue to be - id '
- o. f...' e. -.' -~
i deferred to await either (1) completion of Commission review of . , g, . . ALAB-818, or (2) further Commission instructions to this Board. .
-l S7? -
lt is so ORDERED. !; , '.F; " " y . ,%, . J ( e
~
.n,. . .a . '.
O.@. mn. , - i' " FOR THE APPEAL BOARD f 7.R.
., . . a.
. I",.
< 'c,#'.. ' . .
lb I g
. m i...., '
.'-g.., P, , , .y, .h,. .-
. s
-e-. ~. .
C. Jean Shoemaker - - . . , . Secretary to the D'^P-- '^
^
Appeal Board .U -
- y. '-I.C.. . e. 5 c
,~,
*q.'
e Y *'
. 4 h.
S 8 ^
- b. b
, - , , '- e
;2
- i .
p ,, .. 3.s , *, e o , .- 6 '& . p . 9 , .. 4 er .e f f, ,, , w i r.- * ~
,-t's..
' , {. % ' { L *. '
n.-
- t. s* ~<.ot. , .w! .:.c .. ', R .:
.,1 ,-
a, c .(*.M. ,s. . '![.k,h. . * [ 4.
**Pe
.,p. 1[
.,,# 0 ;1f* '
T *as1, -. ..; . * % ., *4,..4 , - f. -u pI/. e
.[ - . .-
e t"~' b',$< ,.,,, #. ?.J
.t_.m2 's -)7 e..';; f; .: ,.
i
-. ~ , . . ' 4
* ' *6 t .. . .%% ...
st'a . .-
.l
. ,. - [- .n ~; .%' :
",. . p;4 r*
. .,v
. e.
,- -' Y;. L '^ l dj .*
~
( ?,
, .n,
[p.
% g, g - +
t .,54' ag' [ a pr ,. . , J ep + d (W}' s P .'.Ne rWp ' g
. d,,..
e . i.,g , . , , j '
- w . W. s b- 4 . W. y s t U ,,44= . ,
, e. . , . ,i. .,g. .. * . 4?. < ' ,. ,
>=..e,-.
*',***['.8 l(. J, , -I k[l I , ,,',4 V jJ
- , Iv.: y.0- . . y, ; z;su v
.'.'W* m;, #q. ,, ,
h * '%. ,,,. 4
*O ,9 -
g<- ,
- i, i
.&u .
.- 6
} a.', .,,tm
~ ; <, .-
., '-7-,'* q, , . . * . ,5 ,
'-m i r e. 6..- .J 5 -
1. r ,. '= k' .- ' l, s j ';,K, . = .,3 '
.k i ' fc ps.y 7,g,5 ,' g , ,'
*Oj ,
- @r ~ * * ^
1< .. . .
*.*%. ~.*
*s t. +;
..r +s; '.,~^ * \; &.: L . .
,4
's*
'8 ,P .? .p ._ . ,, ,- g,6, g '('
e, ^
'}
,, l.,..,c,,.c.q%l'.a.i- .3..<.,,
.y, ,
.*l 9
',...A.,.. .
7'f '" 4,
,i ,
e.
. [ pgep
.e . u :-
^* ,"W
.,,r
,, ;%* [Y ><
. h I's s. }Q .
t .;,W. ;,i.$y;.;i w t rg y19'
' E.w. g" u
./<
A. .
;, :, . fy;,.y -
. .a ' F, . , , f, .,
-#up;.,*p .. . r ., e, .
g;? ); 4,a.
.~
. 3
.,n. swm. ..
y . m. 4,,.
- a. s-
. Y
', ,'I9
' 1 # , e' n-".
.. ~^
-n m.- -~~-. m L.? j -
&. 1 : . y ,a D + .;% :
r- , ..< ,v
.x > . _ _ . ,
.y. - > .~
W i @
- E ,. .-
',^
c4 "J t
, ' . .: CO.
Y sfI sj >< ; <. ' 4' ,p: . - . g m W, ,;p.g+ ;s . ?. 6g.
- 3. /. (G *l. ' fl?; m s .', .
4- . .. c - ,y .. f!h a- > '
- i ,5'
- l . ' h. . w.
. ' h w.w;;hh r.. .: @a y
., . . . . .c. . . .
c
,.S W R ' , Q.. . ;-n 'i 'f, %y :. 6 -.. ..w.[hf@,y,i-$f.,.QT*QQ n .,n.y:f,^.J. w.
%~}.w$tqv&v'. w, m. ,,a.w;Q:. uw l.F,[ FC=%p'e: aE,.m;xy . wq~py,.g.
. . . . , . < ..a m"p.. .
l' } ,
..._m. __ _ ~ _ . . .
~ . . ,
4 v.- ,;A., 5$',.y. . \
. . .-r e .
i
':- .. .t . -.. .
Atomic Safety we. and L.icensing
.: .?.
, .. . m.
Boards issuances
. c,.n;&'l .
, t >c'qf^ :':es. .,
s
*1, 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL m
j
. B. Paul Cotter, ' Chairman j
, , 7
.! Robert M. Lazo, *Vice Chairman (Executive) a
- . * . Frederick J. Shon, 'Vice Chairman (Technical) =
4
. - . h
~
*- . y;;
.... ri. Members es-w% lp Dr. George C. Anderson James P. Gleason Dr. Linda W. Little ,J Charks Bechhoefer* Andrew C. Goodhope Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke' "
'4 '
Peter B. Bloch* Herbert Grossman* f' , Dr. Kennth A. McCollom
,s ', ".'". Lawrence Brenner* Dr. Cadet H. Hand. Jr. Morton B. Margulies*
. , Glenn O. Bright
- Jerry Harbour
- Gary L. Milhollin c !-*
- Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. David L. Hetrick Marshall E. Miller s o James H. Carpenter
- Emest E. Hill Dr. Peter A. Morris *
- - , Hugh K. Clerk Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Oscar H. Paris *
, ' ,; f i Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Helen F. Hoyt* Dr. Paul W. Purdom I ..
Dr. Frederick R. Cowan Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. David R. Schink Dr. Michael A. Duggan Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ivan W. Smith'
, . Dr. George A. Ferguson James L. Kelley* Dr. Martin J. Steindler
; Dr. Harry Foreman Jerry R. Khne* Dr. Quentin J. Stober 5 Dr. James C. Lamb 111 T, ,.. .,* ,. Richard F. Foster Seymour Wenner A* , ,
John H Frye lil* Gustave A. Lir'enberger* Sheldon J. Wolfe*
.M
- 2 , m,, ~ .+ .y . . ~.
c :: . . .
.nt; & ,
jp.y s .; ,
*m,s, QQ'f. .v , ,'* ,- ~
. . : ..l...
.q. ~. .qq,. 3-
,9 7 ,.,
st .. .. .
.cv, -e_.s .3..
..; *..e.-
. $,*) . j s , e
.',t g '.(='
- o. . ] +. ~a
.y .: . s .3 7 ., ,p
%.y
. . . . s
', vA - c, kN.l.?.,' ' '
' Permanent panel members
.c *
. e. i3
,Is.# .
',4
,4
. % ; ?:, _ Jc >:
ir$L. = ^ %l' .'c:w u . 's.,p,y .4 ;>t,. ,. .i < g:
$ ,f+.;*M ' ?. .
.q v,
.~ f,; 3; rw ~ ~=. -. m. .y ye~ ,~=--*y*- . ' ~ Y.q' ^***j"**;~ ';}
;) ~, , mm .~ . _ . y p "
;; 1:- . > , .,-; . y. - r . .; :. 'q*
31711'. l% e- , -
,a,; ,
,. Q y.* d g V -
- .. . > Q.n .
4
, < , ,y . x +::. Q; . . .w: ; , m:.r-:.s.s u . ,,', ; 4J.74 .1 ; .
- ). s. ,j.
;a y m.
--. . 6 .,a -
.;q,. w. ,. - >
pm n
. r gi.u . -
.:W f.i m ; , ;,' .
=Ay ., s;
. ;c q..
uw n.~ , ~, . . '^. ,. ~a.>,
,a..
=
- - a . w
. L.s,cy. %
.+ '.
.. *_ t a
M. . ,.p ,
, e; , w\.g
' sx,,r.
.c..
*, g ,. ,.~., s ,. , j,% 4.t . *}*; * .,
- e. n.y . . ) W. . . ,y .,e mA.:J
, w C p>.'p).t w,..o ; .hr e ,%Qy p :s e,.
~+
ps : 4 t,. % *s., .{,,,*-
+ .s.=.~:*::%...:..
#wc :* .hw;m.
*y' r
',y:
w<1 . y.:.g:6.::
-s:
- ts:- - i,:, :.
y Q[. '. %.1h,.. "$;c,*g))*
. -; 'f
.. y :* . . 's u c .%.t ? %.+ 0*',v M ,' i
. ' Q..z..... y, n . ,. n '\' ,'
?.y ** ?.Q l* -h e:lf, y E.
.p l'
~ 8
.< ; . . ,,: . pc."; g; ? ;;f.,g
,v . n, - - z ? ': - + .
g,7;y;3,. -, y. : gy s~ . ..y:4. 7:. :t,'m,
. . . y p,n . ? * -
ho,.; y 5. N,c.<.t -, g h.-?
.m ):.e, :;M W;;<!,;,t;9;p g? 9 3 :;.m ',@, . .
v' , % .: 7 = - ;4 -.n
,,..i
. N,4: y.,.py. ..,,s. .. s ..
i3 s
A * - l i
* - - - ' ' ~ - - - ~ - ~ * ~ .
; s.1:,
. n
..+~ --. . -
i
.i..m-.. -
y_ ;_ c , -- [4 <-
. . *;r .
~. 'r .
~" ,
w* r ~ . b.- . 1.'-
. . . - LBP 88-SA *'V. -
.; g , _ . . . -^ . Cite as 23 NRC 165 (1986) ['.y, . ,9
. .if ,~,, t,
- s. r
- 1a~* .
.e .. .. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k.fc. _ . 6.,.9 ,
,7 J, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ , v'"., :.
W- .;.- ' v
~ .#. . . 4- f.,w., .e...+
w r ..
,.*M.
% Ie."**4
;! a ,.- . , , . . .
.e E,.c .,-
p o , -f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.s .
'" ~.,; f,,. ,* *
.g
',~
w
~ ..x;t - :. -
e'
' , c".: l ',t ",
..v... . . . .
Before Administrative Judges: 7. 9.,;;: A
... , . ..~;
k,$m,*,5 g. ;9w:h.,: . 7-mm3.%e l
-t v i; - : .
p y*M',s!J". '#. M,
; ; q , ? - y~. - o tvan W. Smith, Chairman n.l. -.
% x . , ' ,' *
. Richard F. Cole y; y*. a F*% 5 P.
p , n.u, m*n.s y '. S .
, ' . x"3
.s
]
- Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
- r. e ,.
s, . s (v. . u.7 . c
. k,. ~<. .
p, :
- e. .
s Docket No. 50 352-OLA D'?m; .?.3u'. ..
'.Tr,,
, ::m . ' ,
in the Matter of fP(h ~::fr.'W (ASLBP No. 86-522 02-LA) s 8
~
(Check Valve) .h
._..a...-
. v- m
' # '.?
e
-f ,ME.if'MW npy sA.yrR p ~4.u .
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMP ANY
~-
a
'4~ .
(Limerick Generating Station, March 13,1986 W.Wg .
'.(, t f., , 3.:' %e
~
'"m
- Unit il g# h,a Vg %w .
, .'c b '. < a t2 a ..v . .e3
. .E, .: . __ -
- e. v - . .
e&m%$ i)Q MdM
/ M'i,%c,3 ~ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RUI.ING ON W%.a%,
e W.d!- 'p- .' ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE Nm. t a k 5. TO INTERVENE L.W ;2
-. , p. > .. .:, t i
'?,c:> .
1- e'. 4. M s, e ..
.. HACKGROUND ;
,. . A+m. n3. .i
. E. ' ' . L f. .' . ,, w .s! ,s &
Wr.y 7, o.. i ,. ., . This proceeding involves an amendment to the operating licensel. for y
- w ..
g: $ s ', the Limerick Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in Montgomery f ..- Q* d
,'2/M'g:~ if. -- .
County, Pennsylvania. The Licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, -- r ' .f , C ap-The yN, a, 18, 1985. V*-
@ ?* h 9.' plied for the amendment on December
.,5:[. .':yfNf tially determined that the requested amendment would be a "no signifi- .k @O '
./M j cant hazards consideration un<ler 6189a(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy [R ' .T,'.
N g' .. rs VFD[fd@@> .Mq.f ,, y , 'yg .4 -
"4.
Act (as amended in 1983 by the "Sholly Amendment"). That section b ' ,'., e. .7d% provides that, upon an initial determination by the Commission that an L. e,';bM;M .2'. amendment to an operating license involves no signincant hazards, that f,. * ,'. 7*
.M a . 4
+-
1.N. ,%. . , % , i - '.4,,
,. h 4 .' . . :. . - .u. su. .o . * ' ' , .
- pw. .. ..[;4 ~, ,. ~- ,;m.,.*.
W n .o/, y.,.
. s t-yne . 0 % . . , . 165 my :'f , . .
? * . ' (.h 3
% @n.2,.!. : .; A ,. -
.h [ - ' ' ' '
. .u q m- w~~m' v= ,-' n-~,.'-f..?,x,9 ; ~n .! .
w--.-~~
'. ,7* jt:*y.)4 ;. c;,
p e~ g; *~~-~-~-m~
-F ., . .,,.;
W G,.'; "n, c w -c ~~,.-?. ~ ~~.'
~ w[ P -
*;. t
.y y%,4 4'1. ; W. t >;.,: , ,
^*
' .N,??$%: ,2 E ww,h T
l Nk.'g.;);
- i.'? . '
.Q
- I ls.? K. , a4%.u2 c?;;,,.;
Y&, t flY:;q:.;$y; W ~ ', .%:, z ..a 'Lf , f n, &%,.'OT,
. . .n 74';';;Y Q.:i M :-
Tyi%c i f
,Y W.
U'v*:
.;d
,4
- djV
, . . . n ^ . 'n %. t -[ .e4.iY l' ..f4' 4,'
6' i- . W
- <% f U4@ y %
- $ y wl.
Ql% s, .3 .<rfc %. ;mf,.w Q ' % Wca , s.m ;; O: y,'f %.3
- u. w; % /
cS MQ n-;UgW
, . g.g
-m a ,vl. W;l. W. e.Na..e . .c..,;;.
-- m p. 7.h.,g #v Q
.u1
- y ., ,
g ty - . .. q,g, T :. en..; &g *i ;_.g.4 o.g._a;. ; Lyt,p:g gep M. , r* e-m't ;r.s. .WR r ,;,W, .w. a ;.;m.1. .', a.. ' *
- qv. c. :. ,gm y -a ;. w,y,.,p
_ .g;N.%;.gwe%
'+
~ '
u, e , s . ; -
, , ... .. , w...$
.m -
, n.
m ey y , , y. ,
- s Mst m
..~ , ,3 . ,
* < r .' . ja; -
-m . . _ .
m.; -
.m_m . _ . u.. _ < _ . , , ,
- i .
7 l.&
,s,- 9;
..;_. w
.c. ..> -
.4 s.. .
- amendment may be immediately effective in advance of the holding and fp' ;': ,
completion of any hearing required under the Act.
,y'A- * '
' On December 26, 1985, the Commission published in the Federal Register the notice of " Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to
/ ' Facility Operating License and Proposed No Signincant Hazards Consid-
/,e , ,
eration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" on the proposed
- ' ~ e ;-
. .5. ..- '
" amendment. 50 Fed. Reg. 52,874. The notice explained briefly the
. ;. , y ,
. '[;' -
technical details of the proposed amendment, explained the "no signifi-
, g&.. ' -'-* cant hazards consideration" and the hearing and intervention procedures
,[l the Commission intended to follow. Any petitions for leave to intervene
...y .,
1 were to be Gled by January 26,1986. Id. at 52,875. l, d, On January 30, 1986, hir. Robert L. Anthony submitted a letter j i, , ,. / ' g, requesting a hearing and seeking leave to intervene. The Chief of the a4c- 7Jt U} Docketing and Service Branch and the General Counsel noted several defects in the letter and declined to docket it hir. Anthony was informed
%-}'
' N
% '?'-
,- r of this determination orally on February 5,1986, and in writing on
' 'W . ' - . . , ,
'- February 6. Subsequently, hir. Anthony, by a pleading dated February 1], 5,1986, submitted an amendment to his January 30 pleading. The g- ,
i
. . @ , 1. g JM Docketing and Service Branch docketed the amended petition.
On February 6,1986, the requested amendment to the Limerick Tf.i - , . operating license was issued. According to the federal Register notice, u ^ . q . 9 ,. the amendment revises the technical speci6 cations to allow a one-n mc flyfMh t N']we r
.g
;6pe, .
- JiWW v time-only extension of time to satisfy a limited number of testing re-quirements for the excess-flow check valves in certain instrument lines.
F..~M. . .' < /.M, n#e h. <Fa The testing must be performed every 18 months and requires a plant CC*' 1%j,y: .m
-; shutdown. Under the amendment, the surveillances would be performed g '
; .\
; i, during a plant shutdown beginning no later than hiay 26,1986, which
*f;,[ s .f will occur a maximum of 96 days beyond the time otherwise designated
.m.gm9,.- m,
, c .< ; p - .. 3
. :. .s by the technical speciGcations. The stated purpose of the amendment is
..r.w ; q .s y ,, 4 ,- .
a n , . . -.l ^g he. . .qV to allow continued operation of the plant until other more extensive sur-j$MTyji. .;E 'd,.. 3 4 hf > , %49W." . veillance testing needs to be performed, and for which plant shutdown is 9e.3.9.nm.; . ' . tym.f
.u . . . [
' % : .W.y :{ unavoidable.
?7;.M.' ;,. Limerick Unit No. I has been operating under the authority of the NM& a ' , ?? MJQO, M ? M f'%p amendment since February 19. Pursuant to G 189 of the Act, persons h.Mif $6'p? y a who qualify as parties to the proceeding are entitled to have a hearing on hkJ C 7%%.smR the amendment even though it has already been issued.
The Licensee and the NRC Staff oppose hir. Anthony's petitions. GMS[.t Mip . d. 3 ).?y M ?ff( Q Q Their arguments raise issues of timeliness of the petition, Str. Anthony's
',1,gE 3, .. .
' ' p;[.,$;pf,Q .
d 0 9 .% , , uG,- x p;I QV
.'ff,,.
- n. .~ f!};-
. ,.,w , . , ,
n['" * . . * *? 6 $*#5 * ' * . * ) k*
~
~
_ lslf' n d& n, - .
.i' g , ' '['; . ;.-
- o. . * ) ',
cTM', G..
. C $f ; l .Q, j66 1 4 *o ;f' n[M LAf*.O ,
..d.%',}l,1,.g r.l &v.*,#.. , 9.
;. C
. ., -A- . . . .i. j
.$s p.th ,,p (t , I' t . . ,
I n.s%- (v[w* .x, ,f)
. ": .w' .
3 w- , ,
'~ '. , ? ' ,
w-.r.-
'gdD M.7 . . fki$Nh
, , . y
. . e ~ --
- v... ;
q t 7 3; - .. , s. , e.g ,,,s yrp%e . .
, ,. . - 4 ..
, yw.c%a.;o,g@,. ..7, %,.,.,.,2,
.p7
-:e , 1 ._
, ..y, . . .;.g.,
.~ .. , . > s . 9, - q. .
;y . . . , .
, , . .g.r
c . [~,;.: q .; d .. '
' f.t q.. .i.'i M: g{!r:.
;:.u. '. -
~
Mm n.
. x'""*"^"-*"---~*~-**--"--""-+;+.+~.
~
--.---.u
<. y "y.
p ,:x% m.p ,Si+',: - c.; w's
;s
- a. ; - : . ~ .u
. _.+ u
.,%.s.ee w4 . .% , .o
- .e.>.?t y 3.. : ~m r , ,? c i
.,a v ,. u.
. >, g i w . . . ,3, , , . -
. . ~ . . . , . -
u ...
' , , , 7 o.7 y p. ." standing to intervene,' and whether the aspects of his proposed interven-tion are within the scope of the notice of opportunity for hearing.
"7.;r N ; - . ;g ' ( .7 . ,, . .
1 ., j Efq, ,,. ., C. -.t LA 1,"
.l . , . THE PETITIONING c- : .,
..,.,3: ;M, .Wc. . . /
.o '
! s. .' The Board regards the initial petition of January 30 and the amend-
- f. o. .;. ;; >. ..-l. '. ; ,,.
* -a.'a u.. . s .2 c ment of February 5 together as Mr. Anthony,s .intervent. ion petit. ion.In
~.. M ,7 ". 6 -
o r> , l ;q ' . ;*~ i c i .' ;
,. addressing the threshold requirements of the intervention rule,10
;* , y' . ]. .;. , , s, .j, * *
. C.F.R. f 2.714, we do not now consider Mr. Anthony's subsequent fil-ings of February 15 (contentions), his " petition" of February 26, or the
, c' ,
b several papers filed with the Commissioners.
,..',. y,Q. :: ? ; * . . . ,.
y /),{m' '.;., ,
; ~ .z, .],
w "r. ,. ,...g
- , J. %'qq ". . .; . p A. Timeliness
' [i . ' , ' ' ', ' d ,"/ . l - . - The intervention rule requires that nontimely filings not be considered
. . . l'
~.
without a determination that a balancing of the five familiar factors of
.. .O
- the rule favors granting the petition.2 Despite Licensee's protestations,
;, ' .3. ' * . we accept Mr. Anthony's letter of January 30,1986, as the pleading for
.' 6.;7 .
7 measuring timeliness. Functionally the January 30 letter performs about ep J.y .; ' Q . as well as is required for the purpose of testing the threshold merits of
. a . c. , ' , - - j .'..' . ..,
the petitioning. It tells the Licensee and the NRC Stafithat Mr. Anthony wants a hearing and gives the reasons why he does. With some effort it
~.. ~'
; ., 1 " ~ 2.'
is understandable. Despite the informality of the proof of. service nota-
' tion, it is apparent that Licensee was put on notice of Mr. Anthony's in-u, . - n-s,.. g$J. . %;q,f .J ,v l g.
v> s ' 1,. , . . tervention intentions on January 30.2
- j>...';
, ; , , , WwR... ,".[ ','i. -
,( 'm
- p g*uT, .J, y 14 q, . " 2.'
. , , m, .
. ' ** * * @ UNM[,s -.. .rU'D F , l Mr. Anthony refers to " foe" in some of his pleadings, which we understand to be a reference to the 9 ' ;b[' [ ""(* Intervenor in the Limerick operating license proceeding. Friends of the Earth. However, he explains c, p .",*g*
s,.,s, y" f;,*/ ' J f j' .,; .', .- . nothing whatever about foe or its interest in this proceeding. We have viewed the petitioning as an in-
- f. . N h;
- s j j gM
- 3 /U., dividual cliori by Mr. Anthony.
',b ,','
- 2 section 2.714(aHl):
~\ ' c' ;?.}M. ,' *
^
(i) Good cause,if any, for failure to file on time.
, * ,j; ".* .Y.h * . 3 ' . *
- t , C .e*
[ . (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected. (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in
?? p,'.,. ,? developing a sound record.
t ,, I r. ;
.d.j h* ,%..,a
. n ) E. S.) ^y (t M' s ?. *.I ' ?"i! (.* (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the
.'I Q,.i., . ,3 d-* . h. f. . I. '- f. t , }
4
- " +,
V. . V!fl.' . d,.f ' F(CC**dini-2It is not within the purview of the Licensing Iloard to ratify or reject the action of Mr. Clements. Chief
~ y .',cQ 'bc,%g * .ar. f,fN.? :,y%.
*. M.M 6 f ,;. 4*;*d,' x ;'. *
- i W.b .
of the Docketing and service Branch,in declining to doctet on January 30. the January 30 letter. How. w* 1.J.d@g' M - 7.;'g , s4:- Q
*-'1 ever. Mr. Anthony's letter efearfy did not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.70s. The fact that Mr.
M l;'82*' [* 7.I :.N-D il.. Clements specifically informed Mr. Anthony of the formal requirements for NRC intervention petitions 1 yr7s g,M . - *s; ;y.Z['f ., . 9 ?M /.1 C [. M. y*$
./p .
Q, . ,; .,f.W (s 3986 Q' (unpubhshed), in which we admonished Mr. Anthony about the poor form of his pleadings. Had did not come to the Board's attention unul after we issued our Memorandum and order of March 4 c' , ? .%
- we been aware of Mr. Clements' esplanation to Mr. Anthony, our March 4 statement would have been i . . . < . . ".t c * : . . ) 9.g ,M 4 stronger. Mr. Anthony should regard this discussion as the rArd warning that he must comply with the
.k.i9/ N S h h h.Se .
c -* [-h ,'.$ As ' N RC rules on filing documents. qe ,.y,
' Q *%j f f. _ . , ; ,,.w c o*
3 , *y I (g' C2. g.~. 8, .
}f g , .-
. , . ~ , ,'
1 .Nr.atf. . ~ .. .,M, y M. w .~ ..h-T.? y >;iN , .
/ . i. . -t
< u * '. . Ws?? ' N
- e. $,
~ . #- .g s
?('
+
, , ,g,g,h%((
fh v.h. hfw., :.Q.Q '.:
' .e 1 ' c . . m, yfy%, , ,$.
c.&, @ w; , .,e. ..i, g gM,9.,. .
,. g 7 k{+.f.D.'s - ' : ., .
.?2. . .Wf.,q<.f.c.y
'. 3_., -- .
,q. ,.<.,r,..,, , , ____
, . , ,. x.
'ff , ,) y * , g . , cf '. ! .1.%
=4 ,,
% . A.(< / ,
es
*p. ,
3 . f. g
- d cA e ;.-
's
.u . s 4t . :t . , .
.. ' ' . N' .':-/<sy e . . 4(,.
- e .4 '.'.w.,
g ' .fa.. . / *. ** ,,.' ,. . . ~
- .M.h$,h';.*f LM. _ Q.,? .$,(;;? .' ef.[k , yt ?;'.
t",vrA[s '.^ .4 we
~,,.u8 's. g , $ 'I " /,, *
[,* f.#x 3 r../.. w-M,M i
- a '/. N ..,y .t.,. % . . r,.m s my-y r n .- .
s _a . a a..e y g* a ~
. dc . _.yW p. yn,:nW -w J, 4 *Qp, s., o, >
+.
'g ;- Q /r y < p ' h,pa s g s_ s.. < .w sr g/g'* g.6c gW. ,..C5 , y, -
.h e ,._ c
's \
f}}