ML20039F218
| ML20039F218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1982 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| ALAB-664, ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8201120205 | |
| Download: ML20039F218 (3) | |
Text
~
,m 3
- ~
- yy
,y
.e
_ g. '
p g
y
,,g.?
y g
g~
January 11, 1982 d
W f..' Jq CmNO 9
b 5Q9 k Note to: John G. Davis, Director, HitSS From:
Howard K. Shapar
+
Executive Legal Director
/Q
Subject:
APPEAL BOARD DECISION (ALAB-664) IN TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT) LOW LEVEL WASTE STORAGE FACILITY The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has issued a decision (ALAB-664) vacating and remanding for further action the Licensing Board ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Hos. 50-259 0.L., 50-260 0.L., and 50-296 0.L. which had denied petitions for intervention and requests for hearing. A copy of the January 6 decision is attached. The Appeal Board, by a 2-1 vote of its members, directed the Licensing Board to await the issuance of the Staff's environmental analysis in the proceeding and then to reconsider its ruling after inviting comments from the petitioners and the licensee on the Staff's analysis. The dissenting Appeal Board member voted to affim the Licensing Board's decision.
TVA is seeking an amendment 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 problem, including incineration on site. The petitions to intervene alleged that TVA was seeking improperly to segment an overall LLRW management plan for purposes of HRC review. They sought review by HRC of the entire TVA " plan" at this time. The nine contentions submitted by petitioners were all variations on this theme.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board had 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.
In the Licensing Board's view, no improper segmentation existed because five year storage authorization would have utility independent of any future license applications for longer term storage or disposal.
Further, storage beyond five years would require another amendment, with separate NRC review, 'and the approval of the present amendment would in no way prejudice NRC evaluation of future amendments.
Accordingly, allegations concerning an overall TVA LLRW management plan were
~DSC)7 held to be beyond the scope of this proceeding.
., /
l l
//O omer) 820112O205 820111
^
ounspr>
PDR ADOCK 05000259 G
.l...........l.
NRC FORM 318 ttO< s30) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'- w-a2o24
c<
' I %
v g,,
g v.,
p.
G y
y' g
g; **
u The Appeal Board held that the issue of the independent utility of the five-year storage anendment application could not be decided in advance of the Staff's environnental analysis. Only after the Staff had considered whether a suitabic offsite storage facility was likely to be available at the end of the five year tem or, in the alternative, whether unreduced low level waste could be stored onsite for a longer period than the five year tern, could a decision be reached on the independent utility issue. The Appeal Board noted that, in the ordinary case, a ruling on intervention need not be deferred until after Staff docunents issue.
In this case, however, the right to intervene night turn on the conclusions reached in the Staff's analysis and the petitioners are therefore entitled to an opportunity to review and connent upon the Staff's analysis before their petitions are ruled upon.
The dissenting Appeal Board nenber noted that petitioners did not dispute the independent utility of five year storage onsite. He found no reason for the Appeal Board to depart in this case from the established policy of ruling on intervention petitions at an early stage in the proceeding without waiting for the issuance of Staff safety and environrental reviews.
We are currently reviewing the legal questions presented by the Appeal Board's decision in an effort to determine whether the decision warrants the filing of a petition for review by the Connission. We would also appreciate your views as to whether you believe Connission review of this decision should be sought. When we have completed our analysis of the decision, we will discuss our views with you and solicit your reconnendation. Any petition for Connissicn review of the Appeal Board decision must be filed by January 21, 1982.
Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director Enclosure as stated cc: W. Dircks Internal Distribution:
0 ELD Reading File RRawson JGray EChristenbury Chron Shapar/Engelha rdt SEE PREVIOUS: CONCURREflCE COPY OELD OELD DELD f OELD O nesp
--> 9 f. f.'.'.. '.UM.'. '..'.'.. "
.3.5.N.*.3.60? / ~'l.'}p}" ". ' * " ' " ' ' " ' " '. .~"',"]'"," T""}{',T" h " ' > 1.!8(82,.......1/,8/82,,,,,..,,,,1,d,,(82 ,,y,, (82 NRC FORM 318 6tO<80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY '*8 -32* 82*
y ri [ h h [ p$ [ [7 9 q _. o p. p. g. 4 2 The Appeal Board held that the issue of the independent ptility of the five-year storage amendment application could not be d cided in advance of the Staff's environmental analysis. Only after the ff had considered whether a suitable offsite storage facility was likg1 to be available at the end of the five year tem or, in the alternatiy6, whether unreduced low level waste could be stored onsite for a longer pe'riod than the five year tem, could a decision be reached on the independent utility issue. The Appeal Board noted that, in the ordinary case,/a ruling on intervention need not be deferred until after Staff docume6ts issue. In this case, however, the right to intervene might turn gn the conclusions reached in the Staff's analysis and the petitioners pre therefore entitled to an opportunity to review and comment upon t e Staff's analysis before their petitions are ruled upon. The dissenting Appeal Board member noted that petitioners did not dispute the independent utility of five yep / storage onsite. He found no reason for the Appeal Board to depart in thip case from the established policy of ruling on intervention petitions /at an early stage in the proceeding without waiting for the issuance of Staff safety and environmental reviews. We believe that the Staff shp Id consider whether the policy issue raised by the Appeal Board decision warrants a petition for review by the Comission. One purpose of the NRC's jtitervention regulations is to provide for early decisions on intervention'and on whether a hearing is required. The Appeal Board's decision runs co'unter to this purpose and sets a precedent which is contrary to establishe,d intervention procedure. Any petition for Comission review of the Appeal oard's decision must be filed by January 21, 1982. Iloward K. Shapar Executive Legal Director / Enclosure as stated W. Dircks/ cc: / QE LD..........QELQ.[ 0 R p... => ... 0 ELD .Mlfl8? .ms#. r.. y.... ecnr.isteneurs..asne,ar.. .l ...I{${2.7... ..y'tpa.. NRC FORM 3tB 410'80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ]m m-m2}}