ML20003A821
| ML20003A821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ALAB-632, LBP-81-3, NUDOCS 8102090106 | |
| Download: ML20003A821 (3) | |
Text
5I r,
s i
g O
30cysn s
up.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6;
FEg,g1g3 73 I
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
&,,n' %
Administrative Judges:
N Lt Richard S.
Salzman, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck 9
I In the Mat.ter of
)
Us2
)
)
Docket No. 5C-471
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM February 5, 1981 (ALAB-632)
On February 2, 1981, the Licensing Board issued a partial initial decision in this construction permit proceeding involving Unit 2 of the Pilgrim nuclear facility.
LBP-81-?, 13 NRC Although, as its caption states, that decision addresses "all matters except emergency planning and TMI-2 related issues", we do not take it as paving the way for the issuance by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of a limited work authorization (LWA) under 10 CFR 850.10 (e) (1).
Before the Director may issue an LWA, Commission regulations l
require the Licensing Board to have made, inter alia, "all the l
l findings required by 851.52 (b) and (c) of this chapter to be made i
prior to issuance of the construction permit for the f acility B10 2 09 0 bb
\\
g
1/
Section 51.52 (c) (3) directs the Board to strike an ultimate cost / benefit balance in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act; i.e.,
to determine after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against en-vironmental and other costs, and considering available alternatives waether the construc-tion permit or license to manufacture should be issued, denied, or appropriately condi-tioned to protect environmental values.-
This has not as yat been done.
To the contrary, in finding 384, 13 NRC at (slip opinion, p. 191), the Board below expressly states:
The costs and benefits of emergency planning and TMI-related issues have not been factored into this [NEPA) cost-benefit analysis.
After evidentiary hearings on those issues are com-pleted the Board will reassess its cost-benefit balance.
In the circumstances, it would appear that the partial ini-tial decision does not bring into play that portion of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 which relates to the consideration by an appeal board of the warrant for - a stay (either on motion or sua sponte).
Such consideration is called for only with respect to decisions
~
which of themselves provide the underpinnings of " licensing ac-tion".
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear. Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-626, 13 NRC (January 6, 1981) (slip opin-ion, p. 3).
_1/
s For this reason, this Board does not now propose to invoke the Appendix B procedures with regard to the February 2 decision. 2/
Any party that disagrees with our interpretation of that deci-sion may, however, so advise us in writing within 10 days of the service of this memorandum.
Responses will be due within 10 days thereafter, following which the matter will be open for recon-sideration.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD e.. h U w JgnBishop
\\
C.
Secre ary to the Appeal Board 1
--2/
Although the Licensing Board's decision does not allow issuance of an LWA, it is nevertheless itself appealable now under the Rules of Practice because it disposes of a major segment of the case; our memorandum is not meant to imply otherwise.
Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(Allens Creek Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-301, 2 NRC 053, 854 (1975).
See also Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, 758 (1975).
4