ML20011A275
| ML20011A275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, LBP-81-39, NUDOCS 8110080420 | |
| Download: ML20011A275 (2) | |
Text
-
\\.
jB3" [O? lY
- 1 3 ?, ; Q,=
[
k
.4s+
y-q
-9 D)
\\
October 5, 1981 4
,s b
Ogy Ah$
IO8 HEliORAt4DUM FOR:
John G. Davis Dog /A Director, littSS
,Q FR0ii:
Howard K. Shapar b
i' Executive Legal Director tul h SU8 JECT:
BROW 3S FERRY LOW LEVEL WASTE STORAGE FACILITY The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has issued a decision (LBP-81-39) denying all petitions to intervene in Tennesse Valley Authority (Browns Ferry t4uclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3), Uckt. itos, bu-259-OL, 50-260-OL,
'50-296-OL. A copy of the October 2nd decision is attached for your convenience. Unless reversed on appeal, the decision means that no hearing will be necessary in this case TVA is seeking an amendaent to its Browns Ferry operating license to permit the storage of. low level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated at Browns Ferry on the site for a five year period. Petitioners are area residents who are concerned about an allegedly increased " risk of radioactive contamination".
Specifically, petitioners are aware that TVA is considering various alternatives for a long range solution to its LLRW disposal problemi including incineration on site. The petitions to intervene alleged that TVA was seeking improperly to segment an overall LLRW canagement plan for purposes of HRC review. The nine contentions submitted by petitioners were all variations'on this theae.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board adopted the position urged by the Staff.and the Applicant in this proceeding and rejected all nine of petitioners' contentions, thereby denying the request for a hearing for lack of one good'-
contention. lio improper segnentation existed because storage beyono five years would require another auencuent, with separate HRC review, and c:e approval of the present amendment would in no way prejudice hRC evaluation of future anendaents. Accordingly, allegations concerning an overall TVA
- LLRW aanagersent plan were held to be beyond the scope of this proceeding.
The Board noted in this connection that the HRC Staff was conducting a
" life-of-the-plant" review despite the five year limit on the amendment sought by TVA.
The Board also held that a contention attacking the five year amendment application for failure to address decommissioning costs was too vague to be aduitted.
i' As a result of'its ruling with respect to petitioners' contentions, the Board did not-find it necessary to reach issues concerning petitioners' standing or the tiueliness of petitioners' anended contentions.
Pursuant
.to 10 CFR 92.714a, petitioners have ten days from service of the Board's
. order.to appeal the denial of their request for a nearing.
l
- c' >
hla......
.. 0 ELD..
.... QELD......
../.
....h..........
euwar) ray:pl EChristenbury EShapar
%[
f y y h......
"' I...1015/B1....1D /..f.181.......10 4.... /B 1.... l................. l....~................
ec.c romu aie eie,so wacu e24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- = " - =
- 7. -
f a
, We consider it important that NilSS go forward with its plans to conduct a " life-of-the-plant" review of the amendment application.
This commitment was made to the Board and was acknowledged by the Board in its decision.
In addition, the Staff's position in arv appeal of the Board's decision is strengthened considerably by the fact that the more comprehensive review that petitioners seek is already being conducted by the Staff.
Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director cc:
W. Dircks