ML19251A673
| ML19251A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1981 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19251A674 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-AIA, TASK-SE SECY-81-553, NUDOCS 8109280772 | |
| Download: ML19251A673 (6) | |
Text
.
p nous September 17, 1981 3N.,
- 'e SECY-81-553
( )
0
, Qt -
,e gj...../
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Affirmation) fDlLT (
4 h
I c)q, M For:
The Commissioners y
1
/
.5
'q, /.
f From:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel o-
Subject:
REDRAFT OF INDIAN POINT ORDER Discussion:
Attached for the Commission's approval is a draft Indian Point order intended to include the changes requested by the Comnission at its meeting last week.
The draft order includes Commissioner Bratdford's suggested revision to Question 2.
.G
(-
. c_
L r
r.
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
Gener31 Counsel Attached:
Draft Order Commissioners comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the 7ecretary ASAP.
SECY NOTE:
This paper is identical to the advance copies distributed on Thursday, September 17, 1981.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices i109280772 810917 LT SUBJ CF
e e
4 ATTACHMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne Thomas M.
Roberts
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2))
)
Docket No.s 50-247 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
50-286 NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1.
The Commission has examined its January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order in this proceeding and has decided that certain aspects of that Memorandum and order require clarification as follows:
(a)
Footnote 4 on pages 6 and 7 is revirId to read as follows:
Because of the investigative nature of this proceeding, further guidance is necessary with respect to certain procedural matters.
Because the proceeding, although adjudicatory in form, is not mandated by the Atomic Energy Act, it is not an "on the record" proceeding within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act.
Although normal ex parte constraints will aoply to communications to the Licensing Board, the Commission will not be limited in its ability to cbtain information with respect to Indian Point from any cource.
Because the Commission itself is designating by this Order the issues it wishes to be addressed in tile adjudication (see the series of questions on pp. 9-10 infra) it is important that contentions raised by parties and sub-isrues raised by the Board in this proceeding contribute materially to answering those designated issues.
Accordingly, the Board will not be bound by the provisions of
10 CFR Part 2 with regard to the admission and formulation of contentions.
In granting this discretion to the Board, the Commission emphasizes that its purpose is to ensure that the Board is empowered to accept only those contentions which seem likely to be important to resolving the Commission's questions, and thereby to assure that the proceeding remains clearly focused on the issues set forth in this Order.
The Licensing Board may also, without regard to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, establish whatever order of presentation it deems best suited to the proceeding's investigative purposes.
In other respects, except as provided elsewhere in this Order, 10 CFR Part 2 will control.
If the Board concludes that further departure from Part 2 is necessary for the efficient conduct of the hearing, it should request such authorization from the Commission.
In any event, however, the Commission expects that, consistent with the approach outlined above with respect to contentions, the Ticensing Board will use its existing authority under Part 2 to assure the relevance and efficiency of discovery and cross-examination, in the interest of a focused proceeding.
The Licensing Board shall not reach an initial decision, but as noted in the Order, shall instead formulate recommendations on the questions posed by the Commission.
No party will have the " burden of persuasion" as the term is normally used in adjudicatory proceedings; if evidence on a particular matter is in equipoise, the Board's recommendation may be expected to reflect that fact.
The staff will be a party to the proceeding, and the licensees will be admitted as parties upon request filed within 30 days of Federal Register notice of the appointment of a Licensing Board.
All others wishing to intervene shall file petitions for intervention within 30 days of Federal Register notice of the appointment of a Licensing Board.
The appointment of the Licensing Board will be announced by subsequent order of the Commission.
(b)
Question 1 on page 9 is revised to read as follows (including footnote 5):
1.
What risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accideurs not considered in the plants' design basis, pending 2
and after any improvements described in (2) and (4) below?
Although not requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the Commission intends that the review with respect to this question be conducted consistent with the guidance provided the staff in the Statement of Interim Policy on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;" 44 FR 40101 (June 13,1980).
1/
5/
In particular, that policy statement indicates that:
Attention shall be given both to r.he probability of occurrences of releases and to the environmental consequences of such releases; The reviews "shall include a reasoned consideration of the environmental risks (impacts) attributable to accidents at the particular facility or facilities "Approximately equal attention should be given to the probability of occurrence of releases and to the probability of occurrence of the environmental consequences
"; and Such studies "will take into account significant site and plant-specific features...."
Thus, a description of a release scenario must include a calculation of the probability of such a release, with the probability calculated for the specific Indian Point plants.
(c)
Question 2 on page 9-10 is revised to read as follows:
3
2.
What improvements in the level of safety will result from measures required or referenced in the Director's Or6er to the licensee, dated February 11, 1980?
(A contention by a party that one or more specific safety measures, in addition to those identified or referenced by the Director, should be required as a condition of operation would be within the scope of this inquiry if the additional proposed measures would result in a significant reduction in risk.
Measures based on alleged noncompliance with Commission regulations will be presumed to reduce risk significantly.
However, this presumption may be rebutted and the contention eliminated using the summary judgment procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.749.)
2.
The Commission hereby appoints an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside over the proceeding composed of the following members:
[ to be inserted ]
3.
In view of the delay in constituting the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the schedule for decision as originally set forth in the January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order needs to be revised.
Accordingly, the Commission would like to receive the Board's 4
recommendations no later than one year from the date of this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission SAMUEL J.
CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.,
this day of 1981 5