ML20040A079
| ML20040A079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1982 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD, LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8201200311 | |
| Download: ML20040A079 (4) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pc ----
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
Before Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman p; c.
t.
)
Dr. Walter H. Jordan DC.,r D i.; C T.
~gyls N [' 3 Dr. Harry Foreman c a*
N I
,;if SERVED g7;y g 79g, J
mv
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-382-0L LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station,
)
January 15, 1982 Unit 3)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Appr'oving Revised Joint Intervenors' Contentions 17 and 26; Granting Applicant's Motion For Establishing Hearing Schsdule; and Granting Applicant's Request To Withdraw Motion To Compel)
MEMORANDUM 1.
On December 15, 1981, the Applicant and the Joint Intervenors filed a Joint Request For Board Approval Of Revised Joint Intervenor Contentions 17 and 26.
In a Response of January 4,1982, the Staff did not object to an approval of the request except in two areas.
The Staff objects to Contention 17/26(1)(e) which, in substance, alleges that, contrary to applicable NRC regulations, Applicant's Emergency Plan fails to provide for the actual testing of moving individuals located within the 10-mile EPZ.
Staff argues that this portion of the contention, in seeking to impose requirements not 9 07 5
s 8201200311 820115
/
PDR ADOCK 05000382 G
pon
4 i i contained in the regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 50, IV(F)(1)), is an J
impermissible challenge to the regulations.
The Board does not perceive that this portion challenges the Commission's regulations - it l
merely alleges that Applicant's emergency plan does not meet the requirements of the regulations.
Further, both Applicant and the Joint Intervenors are bound by their statement in the Joint Request that "No part of these contentions is to be construed in a manner inconsistent with NRC rules and regulations".
The Staff objects to Contention 17/26(2) which, in j
substance, alleges that Applicant's Emergency Plan has failed to I
adequately provide for the storage of potassium iodide in accordance l
with accepted public health practice in locations which are readily accessible to affected individuals as protection against thyroid i
irradiation.
Staff argues that this portion of the contention, in seeking to require that potassium iodide be made accessible not only to emergency workers but to all "affected individuals", is an impermissible challenge to existing regulatory requirements - i.e.,
The Staff's objection comes too late.
In a submission of I
May 31, 1979, captioned Joint Positions, the Staff, as well as the Applicant and the Joint Intervenors, agreed, inter ali_a, that Contention 17, inclusive of the portion now objected to by the Staff, was allowable.
As a result, in our Order of September 12, 1979, we admitted this contention. Again in a subniission of October 1,1981, i
as authorized by counsel for the Staff and by counsel for the Joint Intervenors, Applicant's counsel advised that they had agreed to a
i a
- I a
revision of Contention 17, which retained the wording of the portion now objected to by Staff.
As a result, our Order of October 15, 1981 i
approsed this agreement.
Further, NUREG-0654 is not a regulation.
On its f ace, NUREG-0654 states, inter alia, that it provides guidance for State and local governments and nuclear facility operators in the development of radiological emergency response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear power plants.
As guides, NUREGs are not a sub-stitute for regulations and compliance with them is not required, and methods and solutions different from those set out in them will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission.
See I
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 90a, 937 (1981).
2.
On December 23, 1981, Applicant filed a Motion For Establishing Hearing Schedule.
Therein, it was stated that Joint j
Intervenors concurred in the motion.
In a Response of January 12, i
1982, the Staff stated that it believed it would be able to comply with the proposed schedule provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency timely completed its findings on January 20, 1982, and also indicated j
that other matters might interfere with its ability to comply with the proposed schedule.
3.
On December 31, 1981, Applicant filed a Request For Leave To Withdraw Motion To Compel, which had been filed initially on October 2 and renewed on October 29, 1981.
i
. ORDER In light of the foregoing, it is this 15th day of January 1982, ORDERED 1.
That Applicant's and the Joint Intervenors' Request for Board Approval Of Revised Joint Intervenor Contentions 17 and 26 is granted.
2.
That Applicant's Motion For Establishing Hearing Schedule is granted.
(On January 22, 1982, Staff shall advise whether 1
FEMA has completed its findings, and explain in detail any other reasons and show good cause why Staff wi'.1 not be able to proceed on March 23, 1982.
It is our present intention to issue an Order on January 25, 1982, noticing the time and place of the hearing, which is
^
to comence on March 23, 1982. The parties shall confer and, by no later than March 12th, shall advise whether there are any matters that will require resolution by the Board - e.g., disagreement over the sequence of cross-examination or regarding the admissibility of exhibits.
If there are such disagreements, a prehearing conference will be held prior to the beginning of the hearing.)
3.
That Applicant's Request For Leave To Withdraw Motion To Compel is granted.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Jr/A Theldon J.flfe 8~
ADMINISTRATF E JUDGE
_ _ _.