ML19309C404
| ML19309C404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ALAB-587, NUDOCS 8004080562 | |
| Download: ML19309C404 (4) | |
Text
_ __ _-___
s.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
ce c a:T m I.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD f ly/
- g. ;;ng
>fA Vg su Richard S. Salzman, Chairman Yj MA? C (.: 1980.s 1)
Dr. W.
Reed Johnson CIC tit lie$xtbry ((
sana e
~
th0
~
)
c2 In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA )
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 et al.
)
STN 50-557
)
~
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER March 28, 1980 (ALAB-587)
Last December 7th we held in ALAB-573 that existing NRC policy precluded consideration of " Class 9 accidents" in licensing proceedings involving individual land-based nuclear power reactors.--1/We further ruled that this policy had not been set aside by the Commission's recent Offshore Power decision.-
Rather, we noted in ALAB-573 that "the Commission has reserved to itself the right to decide whether
--1/
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-573, 10 NRC (December 7, 1979) (slip opinion at 29-32).
_2/
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
8 0 04 0 804 Kip.
.. such matters
[i.e., Class 9 accidents] are to be considered in any given case until it adopts a new general policy,"
which it would do following completion of a formal rulemak-ing proceeding on the subject to be commenced presently. 3/
We also noted that the Commission had instructed the staff to advise it whether Class 9 events should be considered in pending cases until the new policy had been formulated fol-lowing completion of the rulemaking.
In ALAB-573, we read the Commission's Offshore opinion to have called upon the staff to advise it on a case-by-case basis whether Class 9 matters were to be taken up.
Consist-ent with that understanding, we told the staff to render its views on that subject to the Commission in this case, and gave the other parties opportunity to respond to the staff's advice (we took no position on the question ourselves).
In due course the staff followed our instructions.
It and certain other parties furnished the Commission with their views on the appropriateness of taking up Class 9 accidents in this construction permit proceeding.
In acting on those papers, however, the Commission has made clear that we have misconstrued the policy it expressed in Offshore Power.
In
_3,/
ALAB-573, 10 NRC at (slip opinion at 31).
a decision rendered on March 21, 1980, the Commission va-cated that portion of ALAB-573 dealing with Class 9 acci-dents.
CLI-80-8, 11 NRC (slip opinion at 4).
In doing so, the Commission confirmed (as we had held in ALAB-573) that NRC policy remains not to consider those events in individual licensing proceedings involving land-based
, plants and reiterated that it wished to reconsider that general policy only af ter a rulemaking proceeding and not on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis.
Id. at 3.
The Commission did allow for the possible consideration of Class 9 accidents in the interim, but only where special circumstances in particular cases warranted doing so.
But the Commission stressed that it alone would make that de-termination and explained that its Offshore Power decision
" envisioned that the staf f would bring an individual case to the Commission for decision only when the staff believed that such consideration was necessary or appropriate prior to policy development."
CLI-80-8, 11 NRC at (slip opin-ion at 3) (emphasis added).
We read the Commission's deci-
'I sion in CLI-80-8 as telling us that we were mistaken in ALAB-573 in not leaving entirely in the staff's discretion when to alert the Commission to the need to take up Class 9 events in individual cases.
- ~.
Accordingly, the Licensing Board should continue hear-ing the radiological heelth and safety proceedings in this cause in a manner consistent with this opinion and the Com-mission's Memorandum and Order in CLI-80-8.
J 4
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Q,d_g= AL _ _ )
C. JQ n Bishop T
Secretary to the Appeal Board 4
y I
J 5
1 n
4 4
h t
,,. _ _ ~. _. - -. -.