ML20052E235
| ML20052E235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | Rawson R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ALAB-664, NUDOCS 8205100220 | |
| Download: ML20052E235 (21) | |
Text
-
A o
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S
/
7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION s
/
/
In the Matter of
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260,
)
50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
(License amendment to permit onsite Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
)
storage of low-level radioactive waste)
NRC STAFF BRIEF TO THE COMMISSION ON THE REVIEW 0F ALAB-664 s
1 l
l 1
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff
\\,
l May 6, 1982 l
ENCD.TD On:cIrL 3
Certified Ey ] [ '{,]
-),
$g/
saosioo220 s20506 PDR ADOCK 05000259 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION BEFORE THE COPEISSION In the Matter of
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260,
)
50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
(Licenseamendmenttopermitonsite Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
)
storage of low-level radioactive waste)
NRC STAFF BRIEF TO THE COMMISSION ON THE REVIEW 0F ALAB-664 Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff I
May 6, 1982
i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
INTRODUCTION............................................
1 II.
SUMMARY
OF THE DECISION BEL 0W...........................
2 III. ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW.....................
5 A.
The Appeal Board Majority Erred In Holding That A Ruling On The Petitions For Intervention In This Proceeding Must Await The Filing By The Staff Of Its Environmental Assessment And The Opportunity For Petitioners And TVA To Comment On The Assessment.........................................
5 B.
The Appeal Board Majority Erred In Reinstating Contention Nine Despite Petitioners' Failure To Address Its Dismissal By The Licensing Board In Thei r Bri ef To The Appeal Board....................
10 IV.
CONCLUSION..............................................
12 l
~.
. ~
~.
11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES l
Cases Page Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-270, 1 NRC 473 (1975).................................
12 Duke Power Co. (Amendaent to Materials License SNM-1773 --
Transportation of Spent Fuel for Oconee Nuclear Station for Stora e at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-651, 14 NRC 307 (1981.................................................
3-4 Duke Power Co., et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),LBP, 15 NRC (slip op. March 5,1982).......
9 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly(Generating 1974)............
12 Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-207, 7'AEC 957 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188 (1973),
affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973), affirmed sub nom.,
BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974).............
7-8 Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-461, 7 NRC 313 (1978).......
12 Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B, and ZB), ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341 (1978)............
12 United States v. White, 454 F.2d 435 (7th Cir.1971), cert, den.,406U.S.932T1972)...................................
12 Wisconsin Electric Power Co., et al. (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928 (1974).........
6-7 6
iii NRC Regulations e
Page 10 CFR 9 2.102...............................................
5 10 CFR 6 2.105...............................................
5 i
10 CFR @ 2.714...............................................
5,6,8,9, 10, 11 l
10 CFR 6 2.751a..............................................
5 10 CFR $ 50.34...............................................
6 10 CFR 6 50.90..............................................
6 l
10 CFR Q 51.20...............................................
6 10 CFR i 51.21...............................................
6 i
o l
+
e e
e o.
8 d
.m
iv Miscellaneous P3 age Fed.R. App. P. 28 (a)(2).....................................
12 National Environmental. Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 4321 et seq.....................................................
9, 10 43 Fed. Reg. 17798 (April 26, 1978)..........................
6 l
}
l t
I i
6 e
e e
i
+
--evew.,-w,.a.,-w,-
.,,r,m-.n,
--n.---,=m,----...n,,--.
_,--,--v--n-an,-nw w-ew, m----
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, (License amendment to permit onsite Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3) storage of low-level radioactive waste)
NRC STAFF BRIEF TO THE COMMISSION ON THE REVIEW 0F ALAB-664 I.
INTRODUCTION The Commission issued an Order on April 16, 1982 granting petitions by the NRC Staff and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for review of a decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Brard (ALAB-664) in thisproceeding.3/ The Commission limited its review to two issues:
"1.
Whether the Appeal Board correctly determined that a ruling on the petitions for intervention in this proceeding nust await the filing by the NRC Staff of its environmental assessment and the opportunity for petitioners and TVA to comment on the assessment.
2.
Whether the Appeal Board was justified in reinstating contention nine, despite petitioners' failure to address its dismissal by the Licensing Board in its brief to the Appeal Board."
Order, dated April 16, 1982, at 2.
Intervenors, the applicant and the Staff were directed to file written briefs on these issues. This brief is filed in response to the Commission's directive.
-1/
The Commission also ordered that the effectiveness of the Appeal Board's decision be stayed until the Commission announces the result of its review. Order, dated April 16, 1982, at 2.
The Staff does not interpret the Commission's Order as reinstating the Licensing Board's decision (LBP-81-40) at this time and will take no licensing action until after the Commission rules on the issues under review.
II.
SUMMARY
OF THE DECISION BELOW By a 2-1 vote of its members,2_/ the Appeal Board on January 6, 1982 issued a decision (ALAB-664) in this proceeding vacating and remanding for further action the Licensing Board's denial of several identical petitions to intervene and requests for hearing on the application by Tennessee Valley Authority for an operating license amendment to authorize for a term of five years the retention onsite of low-level radioactive waste; ("LLRW") produced during normal operation of the Browns Ferry facility.
Petitioners, all residents near the Browns Ferry facility, proffered contentions alleging that TVA's application for authority to store low level waste onsite for a five year period is but the first step in an overall plan by TVA which will include installation of equipment for volume reduction and solidification of waste through incineration and evaporation.
Petitioners contended that TVA, by submitting only the first portion of this alleged plan for NRC licensing at this time, was seeking improperly to segment the plan for purposes of NRC's environmental review.
The Licensing Board denied the requests for intervention after discussing and rejecting each of petitioners' contentions. LBP-81-40,14 NRC 828.
Petitioners' allegation that TVA had impermissibly segmented its plan for purposes.;f NRC's environmental review was rejected because: (1) the portion of the plan submitted for licensing had utility independent of any future
-2/
Dr. Buck and Mr. Edles voted to vacate and remand the Licensing Board's decision; Mr. Eilperin voted to affirm the decision with a modification.
licensing action (which petitioners did not dispute); and (2) petitioners did not allege that NRC licensing of subsequent portions of any TVA plan was unavoidable or would be prejudiced by issuance of the license now sought.
The Appeal Board majority held that the Licensing Board had ruled on the petitions to intervene and requests for hearing " prematurely,"
stating:
"In our judgment, a definitive ruling on the petitioners' requests must await the filing by the Staff of its environmental assessment and the opportunity for the petitioners and TVA to conrnent."
ALAB-664, 15 NRC at (slipop.at3). The majority explained that under Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 --
Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-651, 14 NRC 307 (1981), the agency may confine its environmental review to that portion of a multi-step plan for which approval is sought so long as that portion has independent utility and the approval does not foreclose the agency from later withholding approval of subsequent portions of the overall plan.
In this case, however, the majority found itself unable to apply the Oconee-McGuire i
standard because the Staff's environmental analysis was not yet complete.
Specifically, the Board ruled that:
"[T]he issue of the independent utility of the five year storage proposal, and thus whether the petitioners have set out a litigable contention, cannot be decided in advance of the receipt of the staff's environmental hssessment which will evaluate the options available to TVA at the end of the five year term of the license.
We also believe that the Licensing Board must await TVA's comments on what options it would -- or could -- pursue at the end of the five year phriod. Finally, we think the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity to address the independent utility of the five year storage plan in light of the Staff's environmental conclusions."
ALAB-664, 15 NRC at (slipop,at8-9). The Appeal Board remanded the proceeding to the Licensing Board "for a fresh look and a new decision after receipt of the Staff's environmental assessment of the currently requested amendments." ALAB-664, 15 NRC at (slip op. at 3).
The dissenting Appeal Board member found Oconee-McGuire, supra, dispositive of this case since " petitioners neither contest the independent utility of the five year storage plan nor claim that its approval will prejudice later environmental reviews...." ALAB-664,15 NRC at (slip op. at 25) (Eilperin dissent). He found no reason for departing in this case from the long-standing Comission practice of ruling upon intervention petitions "near the outset of the proceeding, well in advance of the completion of the staff's environmental analysis I_d_. at 28-29. Because petitioners had or safety evaluation report."
d failed to frame an admissible contention raising any issues about the five year storage application, the dissenting member voted to affirm the Licensing Board's denial of the petitions to intervene and requests for hearing.3/
i l
l l
I
-3/
Mr. Eilperin noted that petitioners' stated concern was with the possibility that an incineration system would be built at Browns Ferry. Because he found it unclear under Comission rules whether construction of a facility to house an incineration system can proceed prior to an application for such a system, Mr. Eilperin would modify the Licensing Board's decision to require that TVA give petitioners and the Staff 60 days notice before initiating construction of such a facility.
Id. at 33, n. 7.
. _ - _ _. III. ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW A.
THE APPEAL BOARD MAJORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A RULING ON THE PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION IN THIS PROCEEDING MUST AWAIT THE FILING BY THE STAFF 0F ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PETITIONERS AND TVA TO COMMENT ON THE ASSESSMENT NRC regulations on intervention in proceedings for the issuance, amendment, modification or revocation of a license are designed to resolve early in a proceeding the identity of the parties and issues in the proceeding. Under 10 CFR S 2.714, a written petition for leave to intervene must be filed not later than the time specified in the notice of hearing. / In the case of an application for an operating license or operating license amendment for which it has been determined to offer an opportunity for hearing, the notice of opportunity for hearing is issued as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed and it provides that a request for a hearing may be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register.
10 CFR Q 2.105. A petitioner's contentions must be filed 15 days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference and that conference i
is to be convened within 90 days after the notice of opportunity for l
hearing, or such other time as the presid',ng officer deems appropriate.
1 10 CFR 6 2.7Ela. A petitioner must submit at least one contention which meets the requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714(b) in order to be permitted to I
participate as a party to the proceeding.
These requirements normally result in intervention ' petitions being ruled upon prior to completion of the Staff's environmental analysis or
~
'-4/
In appropriate cases, the time for filing petitions for leave to intervene is as provided by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition, or as provided in 10 CFR ! 2.102(d)(3) (for antitrust proceedings). See 10 CFR 6 2.714(a)(1).
safety evaluation report for a given license application. No undue burden is imposed on petitioners by these regulations, since petitioners have available to them at least the application and the applicant's environmental analysis which must contain sufficient information to satisfy the agcncy's regulatory standards. See 10 CFR 95 50.34, 50.90, 51.20, 51.21.
If new information becomes available through the Staff's environmental analysis or safety evaluation report, petitioners may file new or amended contentions upon satisfying the late filing requirements of 10 CFR % 2.714.
See NRC Statement of Consideration, 43 Fed. Reg. 17798 (April 26, 1978).5_/
The Comission and the courts have upheld these regulations and the obligations they impose on prospective intervenors in NRC proceedings.
In Wisconsin Electric Power Co., et al. (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928 (1974), petitioners claimed that the issuance of a notice of hearing in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2 denied them an adequate opportunity to prepare a petition for intervention which would meet the reasonable specificity requirements of 10 CFR 6 2.714(b).
They asked, inter alia, that they be permitted to file their petition to intervene at a time subsequent to the issuance of the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the Staff's safety evaluation and the draft environmental impact statement. The Comission denied this request, stating that it was unpersuaded that its early notice of hearing
-5/
Waiv6r of the late-filing requirements at the outset of a proceeding,' as the Appeal Board in effect has done by its ruling in ALAB-664, removes those mechanisms (the late filing criteria) designed to assure that late filed contentions are, in fact, based on new information and could not have been raised at the outset of the proceeding.
denied petitioners an adequate opportunity to prepare specific contentions:
" Insofar as petitioners intimate a total absence of any helpful material upon which to predicate an intervention petition, the argument is without merit. Although the regulatory staff safety evaluation, the draft environmental impact statement, and the ACRS review have yet to be completed, petitioners inexplicably ignore the wealth of data available in the application filed by the utilities seeking construction permits in this proceeding."
~
8 AEC at 929. The Commission added that the rules provided for amendment of contentions under appropriate circumstances:
" Insofar as petitioners may be precluded from adding to their original contentions should an unforeseen issue present itself further on in the proceedings, we can only answer that a petition for intervention, like any other pleading in modern practice, is not l
etched in stone. Leave to amend petitions for intervention will be granted where a petitioner shows that good cause exists for the belated assertion and where such amendment will assist the Board in resolving the issues before it without undue delay.
-Cf. also 10 C.F.p. 2.752(a)(2)."
Id. The Commission also noted what petitioners' request for Licensing Board permission to file their petition after issuance of the Staff's i
documents and the ACRS letter was, in effect, a challenge to the rule which provides for early issuance of notices of hearing. 8 AEC at 929-30.
Similarly, in Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 192 (1973),
affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973), affirmed sub nom., BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir.1974), the Appeal Board rejected petitioners' argument that they should be permitted discovery before being required to submit contentions:
"We are uniihpressed with petitioners' suggestion... that it is not possible for them to state specific contentions until after they have been permitted to intervene and avail themselves of discovery procedures.... [T]he suggestion ignores the fact that there is abundant information respecting the particular facility available to the public at the time of the publication of the notice of hearing or an opportunity for hearing -- including at least the applicant's detailed safety analysis and environmental reports."
6 AEC at 192 (footnote omitted). The Appeal Board also rejected petitioners' argument that the Comission exceeded its statutory authority in requiring identification of the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceedings as to which intervention was sought and a specification with particularity of the basis for their contention.
Id. at 191. The requirement of the NRC's Rules of Practice (10 CFR 9 2.714(b)) that contentions be submitted with a specification of the basis for a request for a hearing prior to the admission of a party to a proceeding was upheld when petitioners appealed this decision to the Federal court of appeals. 502 F.2d 424, 428-29.
(
Petitioners in this proceeding had available to ' 'em the " wealth of data" contained in the application and supporting documentation and they used it to the extent they thought appropriate. As Mr. Eilperin points out in his dissenting opinion, petitioners did not claim that the available information was insufficient to formulate a contention on the segmentation issue they sought to raise. ALAB-664, slip op. at 32 (Eilperindissent).
Rather, it was the Appeal Board majority which first introduced that argument and decided that petitioners should not be required to submit litigable contentions until after issuance of the Staff's environmental analysis.
The Staff agrees with Mr. Eilperin that the Appeal Board majority has confused the obligations of the NRC with the obligations of th.
prospective intervenors in this decision. Had petitioners thought there was a real possibility that five year storage would necessarily lead to incineration of the low-level waste, they could have framed a contention raising those issues. They did not. Petitioners could have contested the independent utility of the five year storage or claimed that its approval would prejudice later environmental reviews. They did not. The fact that the Staff must address those issues in the course of deciding on the proper scope of its environmental responsibilities under the 6
Natural Environmental Policy Act _/ does not relieve petitioners of their quite distinct obligation to submit a litigable contention at the time required by the Comission's regulations. Having failed to satisfy that obligation, the petitioners were properly denied intervention by the Licensing Board. The Appeal Board majority erred in ruling that the l
Licensing Board should have delayed its ruling until after the filing by l
the NRC Staff of its environmental assessment and the opportunity for petitioners and TVA to coment on that assessment.E The decision of the Appeal Board majority in this proceeding (ALAB-664) undermines the principle of early identification of parties and issues contemplated by the Comission's regulations, is contrary to 6/
42 U.S.C. % 4321 et seq.
7/
The Staff noted in its Petition for Review, dated January 21, 1982, l
that the decision of the Appeal Board majority in this proceeding raised important policy issues because it would result in complication and lengthening of NRC adjudicatory proceedings where petitioners sought to raise contentions relating to yet-to-be issued staff environmental and safety analyses.
In a recent Licensing Board decision in Duke Power Co., et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP, 15 NRC (slip op. March 5, 1982),
ALAB-664 was one of the decisions cited by the Licensing Board as it overruled objections to the lack of specificity in several contentions. Although the Catawba Licensing Board conceded that l
certain proffered contentions were not adequately specific to comply with~the requirements of 10 CFR 5 2.714, it admitted those contentions, relying on ALAB-664, because of the " limited information" which petitioners had available to them. Catawba, slip op. at 8, 3-13.
The Staff has filed its objections to the Licensing Board's ruling and the Applicants in that proceeding have moved for reconsideration or certification on this issue.
specific Commission precedent on this point and promises needlessly to complicate and lengthen this agency's adjudicatory proceedings as is aheady evidenced by the recect Licensing Board decision in Catawba.
ALAB-664 is in error on this important point and should be reversed.
B.
Tile APPEAL BOARD MAJORITY ERRED IN REINSTATING CONTENTION NINE DESPITE PETITIONERS' FAILURE TO ADDRESS ITS DISMISSAL BY THE LICENSING BOARD IN THEIR BRIEF TO THE APPEAL BOARD In only one contention -- Contention 9 -- did petitioners attempt to raise issues concerning the five year storage authorization sought by TVA in this proceeding. TVA objected to the admission of that contention because it was too vague to satisfy the specificity requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714(b) and both TVA and the Staff objected that the contention sought to litigate the sufficiency of TVA's (rather than NRC's) environmental review.0I The Licensing Board agreed that "to the extent this contention seeks to litigate the adequacy of the consideration of matters in TVA's Environmental Assessment which are not the subject of requests for license authority pending before NRC, it is outside the Board's jurisdiction." The Licensing Board went on, however, to hold that "[t]o the extent the contention seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the environmental information furnished NRC.... it is too vague to be admitted." LBP-81-40, 14 NRC 828, 837.
Petitioners' brief to the Appeal Board focused entirely on the allegation that TVA had a long-term plan which NEPA required NRC to consider at this time. As Mr. Eilperin points out, not a word of a Federal agency, TVA has its own obligations under NEPA which l
8]
A:
are separate,and may be different from those of the NRC. See ALAB-664, supra, at 18-19 and 27 (all three Appeal Board members agreed with the Staff's and TVA's argument on this point).
complaint to the Appeal Board was directed to the five year storage plan itsel f.E Nevertheless, the Appeal Board majority not only reinstated Contention 9 along with the other contentions but also opened the say for petitioners to submit new contentions directed to the five year storage
" prompted by the Staff's environmental assessment" without having to meet the standards for late-filed contentions under 10 CFR 5 2.714(b). Again, Mr. Eilperin disagreed with this result:
"It simply does not follow that a prospective intervenor who has not pursued a contention should be free to litigate in an adjudicatory hearing every issue the Staff is obliged to consider. We place too great a burden on ourselves if we hold ourselves out to search the record for an ' improperly' denied contention not thought by its proponent to be worth pursuing.
I would rule the contention out now."
ALAB-664, slip op at 35-36 (Eilperin dissent).
Mr. Eilperin suggested that the unbriefed issue of Contention 9 in this case should be treated as waived in accordance with the Appeal Board's nonnal practice. ALAB-664, slip op. at 36 (Eilperin dissent).
The reason for this practice is well-stated in the Appeal Board decision quoted by Mr. Eilperin:
"We have observed before that briefs are necessary to ' flush out' the bare bones of the exceptions, not only to give us sufficient information to evaluate the basis of objections to the decisions below, but also to provide an opponent with a fair opportunity to come to grips with the appellant's arguments and attempt to rebut them. The absence of a brief not only makes our task difficult, but by not disclosing the authorities and evidence on which the
-9/
Petitioners did mention Contention 9 in their brief-to the Appeal Board, but c.nly in arguing that the Licensing Board had incnrrectly
~
held -that intineration was outside the proper scope of this proceeding... W titioners failed to address to the Appeal Board any complaint about the Licensing Board's ruling that Contention 9 was too vague to be cdmitted as a contention under 10 CFR Q 2.714(b).
appellant's case rests, it virtually precludes an intelligent response by appellees. For these reasons we generally follow the f.
course charted by the Federal courts and disregard unbriefed issues as waived. We do so here."
l Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, IB and 2B), ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, 370 (1978) (quoting Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-461, 7 NRC 313, 315 (1978)).
The Staff agrees this is the normal rule under the Conr.ission's regulations E and appellate rules generally. E The Appeal Board should have adhered to its nomal rule in this case and disregarded the unbriefed issue of the Licensing Board's rejection of Contention 9.
No justification was given by the Appeal Board majority for its abandonment of its normal rule, and the Staff is aware of no reason to justify such an action in this case. ALAB-664 is in error on this point as well and should be reversed.
TV.
CONCLUSION The Appeal Board majority erred in its decision in this proceeding
( ALAB-664) insofar as it held: (1) that a ruling on the petitions for intervention in this proceeding must await the filing by the NRC Staff of its environmental assessment and the opportunity for petitioners and TVA to coment on the assessment; and (2) that Contention 9 should be ALAB ge.., Consu~.ers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
-10/
c (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-207, 7 AEC 957 (1974).
-11/ See, e.g., United States v. White, 454 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir.
T971)(, cert. den., 406 U.S. 962 (1972) (construing Fed. R. App. P.
28(a) 2)).
reinstated despite petitioners' failure to address its dismissal by the Licensing Board in its brief to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board should have resolved these two issues in the manner suggested by Mr.
Eilperin's dissenting opinion.
In each of these two holdings the Appeal Board majority acted contrary to the Comission's regulations and settled Comission precedent. The decision promises needlessly to complicate and lengthen adjudicatory proceedings and is clearly erroneous.
Respectfully submitted, fE&_. fm w
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of May, 1982.
e V
.,,,,... ~.. -.,...,.. _,.
_ -. - ~, _ _ _ _ _ _, - _ _. - _. ~,. - _..... _ _
.m..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 1
50-296 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (License amendment to permit onsite 1
storage of low level radioactive (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
)
waste)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF TO THE COMMISSION ON THE REVIEW 0F ALAB-664" in the above-captioned proceeding have bee'n served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mali system, this 6th day of May,1982:
- Stephen F. Eilperin, Chairman Dr. Quentin J. Stober Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Fisheries Research Institute Washington, DC 20555 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195
- Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Ron Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Tennessee Valley Authority Washington, DC 20555 400 Chestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
- Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board H.S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission General Counsel Weshington, DC 20555 Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Comerce Avenue
- John H. Frye, III, Chairman 3 11B 33C Administrative Judge Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Richiard L. Freeman Washington, DC 20555 429 Calhoun Drive Florence, Alabama 35630 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Mr. John Martin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Route 1, Box 949 P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Sheffield, Alabama 35660 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mr. Robert W. Beck P. O. Box K Florence, Alabama 35631 Mr. Gregory Robert Brough Ms. Noel M. Beck 1726 McCullough Avenue 426 North Wood Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Florence, Alabama 35630 Mr. Michael D. Pierson Mrs. Betty Martin 736 Lily Plagg Road, S.E.
Route 1 Box 949 Huntsville, Alabama 35802 Sheffield, Alabama 35660 Mr. David Ely
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 1500 Sparkman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apartment 6G Washington, DC 20555 Huntsville, Alabama 35805
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Ms. Debbie Havas Board Panel 517 0'Shaughnessy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Washington, DC 20555 Leroy J. Ellis, III, Esq.
- Docketing and Service Section Omer, Ellis, Brabson, McNutt, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephenson and Tomlin Washington, DC 20555 421 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37219
- Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Comission Robert B. Pyle, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 16160 Washington, DC 20555 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416
- Leonard Bickwit, General Counsel Mr. Thomas Wayne Paul U.S. Nuclear P,egulatory Commission 1120 Pratt Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Mr. Richard W. Jobe 1134 Halsey Avenue l
Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Ms. Marjorie L. Hall 1134 Halsey Avenue
{g '
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
' NJ George E Johnson Ms. Uvonna J. Curott Com.sel for NRC Staff 1201 Ingleside Florence, Alabama 35630 Ms. Nancy Muse 205 Edgewood Drive Florence, Alabama 35630 Ms. Alice N.- Colcock 305 Mitchell Court..
Sheffield, Alabama 35660
$