ML20039A702
| ML20039A702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039A686 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112210177 | |
| Download: ML20039A702 (5) | |
Text
.
q e
C\\/
j
't t
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA jj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WN@c I
SEPig;gg;,}_
Ofrf:, g g COMMISSIONERS:
%~& $
&tt Nun:lo J. Pallac..ino, Chairman D
Victor Gilinsky Peter A.
Bradford Q)
-J John F. Ahearne SERJED SEP 211981 Thomas M.
Roberts
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2))
)
Docket Nos. 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 revised 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 adjudicat6ry in form, is not mandated by the Atomic Energy Act, it is not an'"on the record" proceeding.
Although normal ex parte constraints will apply to communications to the Licensing Board, the Commission will not be limited in its ability to obtain information with respect to Indian Point from any source.
Because the Commission itself is designating by this Order the issues it wishes to be addressed in the adjudication (see the series of questions on pp. 9-10. infra and the reference to the Union of l
Concerned Scientists' petition below in this note) it is important that contentions raised by parties l
and sub-issues raised by the Board in this j
proceeding contribute materially to answering those designated issues.
Contentions based on the 8112210177 811124 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
allegations in the Union of Concerned Scientists' petition to the effect that certain Commission regulations are not met in one or both units will be accepted if they meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 without regard to whether they fall within or outside the questions on pages, 9-10.
However the Board will not be bound by the provisions of 10 CFR Part'2 with regard to the admission and formulation of other contentions.
~
In granting this discretion to the Board, the Commission emphasizes that its purpose is to ensure that the Board is empowered only to accept and formulate, after consultation with the parties, those contentions which seem likely to be important to resolving the Commission's questions on pages 9-10, 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 presentat, ion 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 Licensing 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.
2
l (b)
Question 1 on page 9 is revised to read as follows (including footnote 5):
1.
What risk may be posed by serious accident., at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in the plants' design basis, pending and.after any improvements described in (2).and (4) below?
Although not requiring the preparation of an Environmentcl 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).
5/
5/
In particular, that policy statement indicates that:
Attention shall be given both to the 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 3
m m
- - m
(c)
Question 2 on page 9-10 is revised to read as follows:
2.
What improvements in the level of s'afety will result from measures required or referenced in the Director's Order 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, according to the Licensing Board, admission of the contention seems likely to be important to resolving whether (a) there exists a significant risk to public health and safety, notwithstanding the Director's measures, and (b) the additional proposed measures would result in a significant reduction in that risk.)
2.
The Commission hereby appoints an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside over the proceeding composed of the following members:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman; 3
Oscar H. Paris; and Frederick J.
Shon.
f' 5/
(Footnote continues from previous page.)
Thus, a description of a release scenario must include a discussion of the probability of such a release for the specific Indian Point plants.
4
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 recommendations no later than one year from the date of this Order.
It is so ORDEFJC.
Fo the Comm ~,ssion
[
rc @
j V
SAMUEL cu LK
$ecretary of '7e Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.,
h V l981 this day o I
r 5
1 y
i=