ML19211A239
| ML19211A239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco, Skagit, Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211A224 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912170236 | |
| Download: ML19211A239 (12) | |
Text
.
Title 10 - Energy
/
CHAPTER I - U.S.
NUCLEAR REGCL ATORY COM".ISSION PART 2
- ROLES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS P00R ORI INIb I
i Modified Adjudicator.v Procedures AGINCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. mission ACTION:
Suspension of 10 CFR 2.764 and Statement of Policy cn Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings S ~M::ARY :
As a result of the Three Mile Island accident, the Co..ission has decided to make interin rodifications to the p ccedures bv whier it supervises and reviews adjudicator.v licensing decisions involving power reactors.
It has decided to suspend until further notice 10 CFR 2.764 which is its rule of
,c r a::i:e en issuance of licenses after adjudicatcry de cisions.1/
F u r t h e r.m c r e, it hr.s specified the pr:cedures by which new licenses, per.its and su ho:.i:ations may be issued.
As provided in the Interi-State.,ent on Policy and Procedure, 44 Fed. Re. 53559
'0: : e-10, 1979),
this action will not affect ncn-adjudicatory pre:eed;ncs er other adjudicatory matters including enfercement and license amendment proceedings, appellate decisions and partial initial decisions not authorizing issuance of new licenses or permits.
This suspension of 10 CFR S 2.764 and the related statenent of policy.
det! '.ith Cc-mission Rules of Practice. For that reason, and 9 /
Che Co-tission currently has under.tay a study of whether, apart frcm this temporary measure, the ir. mediate effectiveness rule shculd be retained, modified, or abolished.
Nothing in today's acticn is intended to prejudice the outcome of that study.
1591 110 79131 70 gM
t....
becauss prior notice End c mment and delayed ef fectiveness would further delay adjudicatory decisions from being rendered and fr:m being addressed by the Comnission, and so would be contrary t.o the public interest, this suspension and statement of policy shall be effe:tive without prior public notice and comment and good cause exists for making the suspension and statement effec-
,tive upon publication.
Ho..ever, the Cc. mission will c'onsider any public comments on these m dified procedures which are filed with the Secretary of the Commission within 30 days of publication of this n tice.
The a:: ions described herein constitute the Commission's final a:ticn on the petiti:ns it has received in the Black Fox and 5::agit proceedings.
ETTI 23*I DATI:
NOVE-der 9,19 79 155F1 111 100R ORIGINAL 9
O
3
[ T i !- C-C l }
e t. : : t. r. u r l;T A r.Y ! !; F0E"AT i_l N :
The Ccer.ission's Interim State. ment of Policy and Procedure, 44 red. Re:. 5E559 (October 10, 1979), indicated that the Ccrr.ission would subsequently decide the procedures by which it would exercise increased supervision over adjudicatory licensing deci-siens in the afternath of the investigations of the Three Mile Island accident.
That Statement also indicated that new con-rtruction,rcr=its, limited work authorizations and operati.79 licenses for power reactors would be issued "only af ter acticn of
- he Cor-ission itself."
The Corr.irsion has now determined that, until further notice, adjudicat:ry proceedings will be conducted as described be"_ov.
The Cor.ission has adopted this approach because it achieves the obj e:tivc of increased Cornission supervision of licer. sing a cti:ns w'..il e (1) avoiiing undue delay and duplica:ic cf effort by adjudica:crs and parties; and (2) allowing the Ocm-issicn r.aximum flexibility in terms of deciding whether, in '.ight cf its other res,consibilities, particular proceedings or issues warrant ts early intercession or can appropriately be lef t te the ordinary adjudicatery pro: esses (subject, of course, to ultimate Cem-mission review at the conclusion of the proceeding).
?0DR OR GINAL 1591 ii2
4
[7590-01) 1.
Atcr.ic Safety and Licensing Boards Atomi: Safety and Licensing Boards shall hear and decide all' issues that cene.before them, indicating in their decisions the type cf licensing action, if any, which their decision would otherwise authorize. The Boards' decisions shall not become effe ive until the Appeal Board and Commission actions outlined below have taken place.
In reaching their decisions the Boards should interpret existing regulations and regulatory policies with due consideration to the inplications for those regulations and policies of the Ihree Mile Island accident.
In this regard it should be understood that as a result of analyses still under way the Conmission may change its
, resent reg-.aniens and regulatory policies in irp:: tant respects
~
and th;s com,:1:ance with existing regulations may turn cut to no
_:nger warrant approval of a license application.
As provided in p ara gra_:h 3 h e '_ ow, in addition to taking generic rulemaking a :icns, the Cormission will be providing case-by-case guidance en changes in regulatory policies in conducting its reviews in ad udicatory proceedings.
The Boards shall, in turn, apply these revised regu'_ations and policies in cases then pending before ther :: the extent that they are applicable.
The Cenmission expe::s the *icensing Boards to pay particular attention in their decisions to analyzing the evidence on these safety and e vironmental israes arising under applicable Ccamission P00R ggjgjpg a
n3
5 (7i50-01]
regulations and policies which the 3:ards believe present seriour, close questions and which the Boards believe may be crucial to whether a license should become effective before full appellate review is completed.
Furthermore, the Boards should identify any aspects of the case which, in their judgment, present issues on which prompt Commission policy guidance is called for.
The 3 cards may request the assistance of the parties in identifying such policy issues but, absent specific Commission directive, such policy issues shall not be the subject of disecvery, examin-ation, or cross-examination.
2.
Atomic Safety and Licensin: Acceal Boards Within sixty days of the service cf any Licensing Board decision that would otherwise authorire li:ensin; acticn, the Appeal Board 7/
shall decide any stay motion-that are :inely filed.2-For the purpose of this policy, a " stay"
- tion is ene that seeks to defer the effectiveness of a Licensing 2 card decisica beyond the period necessary for the Appeal Board and Commission action described herein.
If no stay papers are filef, the Appeal Board
_2/
Such motions shall be filed as provided by 10 CFR 2.788.
No request need be filed with the Licensing Board prior to filing with the Appeal Board.
C#. Public Service Cor. any of New Haroshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), AL A3-3 3 5, 4 NRC 10 (1976).
The sixty-day period has been sele :ted in recognition of two facts.
First, allowing tine for service by mail, close to thirty days may elapse before the 'ppeal Board has all the stay papers befote it.
Se cnd, the Appeal Board may find it necessary to hold oral argument.
1591 114 P00R DEEL
6 17590-313 chall, within the same time period (or earlier if possible),
anal.vze the record and decision below on its own motion and decide whether a stay is warranted.
It shall not, however, decide that a st'ay is warranted without giving the affected parties an opportunity to be heard.
In deciding these stay questions, the Appeal Board sha11 employ the procedures set out in 10 CFR 2.728.
However, in additica to the factors set out in 10 CFR 2.78S(e), the Board will give particular attention to whether issuance of the license or permit prior to full administrative review may:
(1) create novel safety er environmental issues in light of the Three Mile Island ac:i-dent; or (2) prejudice review of significant safety or envircamental issues.
In addition to deciding the stay issue, the Appeal 3 card will infern the Commission if it believes that the case raises issues en which prompt Commission policy g_izance, particularly guidance on possible changes to present Co--ission regulations and policies, would advance the Board's appella:e review.
If the Appeal Board is unable to issue a decision within the sixty-day period, it should explain the cause of the delay to the Com-mission.
Che Cemnission shall thereupon either allow the Appeal 3 card the additional time necessary to complete its task or take other appropriate action, including taking the matter over it-self.
The running of the sixty-day period shall not operate to make the Licensing Board's decision effective.
Unless otherwise P00RORGK1
7 17590-01) crierci by t..e Commission, the Appeal Board will conduct its normal appel'. ate review of the Licensing Board decision af ter- ~
it has issued its decision on any stay request.
3.
Connission Reserving to itself the right to step in at any earlier stage of
..:ne procee:.._n, incluc..ing the period prior to issuance o_,
the
- icensin: Board's initial decision, the Commission shall, promptly u.nca recei.o: of the A.c.ceal Board decision on whether the effec-tiv en es s of a Licensing Board decision should be further delayed, review the r.atter on its own motion.
The parties shall have no right to file pleadings with the commission with regard to the A, peal 3:ard 's stay de cision unless requested to do so.
he C nission will seek to issue a decision in each case within 10 days Of receipt of the Appeal Board's decisfons.
- f it does
.0 : a:t fina '_ _' y within that time, it will state the reason for its f;.r her acasideration and indicate the time it anticipates wi'1 :e re uired to reach its decision.
In such an event, if the Appsal Board has not stayed the Licensing Board's decision, the initial de:ision will be considered stayed pending the Commiss en's decision.
'- =- onncin: the result of its review of anY APrmeal Soard stav decision, the Commissien may allow the proceeding to run its O rd i..a r; =carse or give whatever instructions as to the future 1591 116 P00R ORIGINAL
8
[7590-01]
handling of the proceeding it deems appropriate (for exanple, it may direct the Appeal Board to review the merits of particular,
issues in expedited fashion; furnish po'_ icy guidance with respect to particular is' sues; or decide to review the merits of par-ticular issues itself, bypassing the Appeal Board).
Furthermore, the Commission may in a particular case deternine that. compliance
'with existing regulations and policies nay no longer be suffi-cient to warrant approval of a license application and may alter those regulations and policies.
4.
Aeolication of Procedures The above procedures apply only to matters considered in adjudica-tery proceedings for the issuance of nuclear power ceactor con-struction permits (including limited work authoricatiens) and c,cerating licenses.
They do not govern the issuance of an Operat-i ing license (a) where no formal adjudicatory proceeding has been cenducted on the merits of the application for the licenre er (b) tc the extent that some of the matters considered in the course cf the staf f review of the operating license application have been neither placed in issue before nor deternined by the Licens-ing Ecard or Appeal Board in the formal adjudicatory proceeding which was conducted on the application.
Further, these procedures will not apply to appellate decisions in cases where a complete inicial de !sion has been issued by a Licensing Ecard before the effective dace of this Statement of Pclicy, er to partial initial decisions not authorizing issuance of new pernits or licenses.
P00R ORIGINAL 1591 ii7
[755:-L1]
-5
- ' hen no formal adjudicatory proceeding has been cenducted on an application a
for an operating license for a power reactor, and insofar as issues have 'not been placed in controversy or determined by the Licensing Board or Appeal Board in a formal adjudicatory proceeding on such an application, the Comission will informally review the recomendations of its staff on license
~
. issuance and any su:h liter.se will be issued only after action of the Cc=ission itself.
In ccncacting such an inforcal review, there will be due regard for rights to a hearing as provided unter present law.
pursuant to the Ato-ic Energy Act of 1954, as acer.ded, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as ame.ded and Sectior.s 552 and 553 cf Title 5 of the United States Code, the fellowir.g amendmer.ts to Title 10 Chapter 1, Code of Federal P.egulations, Part I, are published as a document subject to codification.
1.
Section 2.754 of 10 CFR Part 2 is amended by adding a footnote 1 at the end theresf to read as fcilcws:
"Tne ter:perary suspension of this rule in certain proceedings and related ca ters are addressed in Appendix B to this part."
2.
10 CFR Part 2 is amended by adding an Appendix B at the end thereof to read as follows:
" Appendix B - Suscension of 10 CFR 12.764 and Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings".
(Sec.161, Pub. Law 83-7C3, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201, as amended, Public Law 93-433, 85 Stat.1243, Public ' aw 94-79, 89 Stat. 413
~
?00R BRIGINAL
t....
.i.
10 (42 L*.S.C. 5841 )'.
/
5 6 eay or reovember 1979.
Catec at Washington, D. C.
this FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V f_t_f _t
(
SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of th(e Commission P00RBRilut 1591 119 a
f 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY
)
Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT
)
)
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CEC'S " MOTION... FOR RECONSIDERATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION,"
in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 13th day of November, 1979:
Michael L. Glaser, Esc., Chairman Gary Hursh, Esc.
1150 17th Street, N.W.
520 Capitol Mall Washington, D.C.
20036 Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard D. Castro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2231 K Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Sacramento, California 95816
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon James S. Reed, Esc.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael H. Remy, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reed, Samuel & Remy Washington, D.C.
20555 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento, California 95814 David S. Kaplan, Esq.
General Counsel Christopher Ellison, Esq.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dian Grueneich, Esq.
P. C.
Box 15330 California Energy Commission Sacramento, California 95813 lill Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Timothy V. A. Dillon, Esq.
Suite 380 1850 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 1591 120
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Michael R. Eaton Soard Panel Energy Issues Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sierra Club Legislative Office Washington, D.C.
20555 1107 9 Street, Room 1020 Sacramento, California 95814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Comission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C.
20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert H. Brown, tsq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 i
s Steptfen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff 1591 121