ML20054C472
| ML20054C472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1982 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204210146 | |
| Download: ML20054C472 (6) | |
Text
g.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'62 ff.!16 P1:02 COMMISSIONERS:
o co Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman c3 Victor Gilinsky S.
.sf0, John F. Ahearne r g',C # g s
, p,p 10 Thomas M. Roberts v'
D EtVED APR191982
)
/'
In the Matter of
)
/d'
)
/
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Doc
- t. os;.7
~ 9 OLA
)
-260 OLA (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
50-296 OLA Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
(Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility)
ORDER Variousindividuals1/ filed petitions to intervene, accompanied by requests for a hearing in this proceeding which concerns the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) application to amend the Browns Ferry operating licenses.
TVA is seeking permission to store onsite, for a period up to five years, low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated in the course of normal operation.
In ALAB-664, an Atomic Safety and Licensing A'ppeal Board majority vacated and remanded for further action, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's denial of the petitions to intervene and requests for a hearing under 10 CFR 2.714.
14 NRC
, (January 6, 1982).
TVA and the NRC staff have petitioned for review of that decision, gO) s 1/
The intervenors are David R. Curott, Uvonna J. Curott, Nancy Muse, Hollis Fenn, Pichard L. Freeman, Noel M. Beck, and Robert W. Beck, O
of Florence, Alabama; Alice N. Colcock, Betty L. Martin, and John R. Martin, of Sheffield, Alabama; and Thomas W. Paul, Richard W. Jobe, Marjorie L. Hall, Gregory R. Brough, Michael D.
Pierson, David Ely, Debbie Havas, Rebecca Hudgins, and Tom Thornton, of Huntsville, Alabama.
8204210146 820416 PDR ADOCK 05000259 G
P Dt'
O After consideration of the majority and the dissenting opinions and the petitions for review, the Commission is of the opinion that this case presents an important issue involving the Commission's commitment to a fair, balanced and efficient hearing process.
The Commission is persuaded that the Appeal Board decision presents narrow issues involving significant policy and procedural questions which warrant Commission attention.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.786, the Commission has decided to review two issues.
1.
Whether the Appeal Board correctly determined 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 petitic.lers 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.
The petitions to review are therefore granted to the extent consistent with this Order. The effectiveness of the Appeal Board decision is hereby stayed until such time as the Commission issues the decision announcing the results of its review.
Accordingly, intervenors, the applicant, and the NRC staff are directed to file written briefs on these issues no later than twenty days after tne date of this Order.
If the Commission desires reply-briefs and/or oral argument, they will be the subject of a subsequent order.
For the reasons set forth in his separate opinion, Commissioner Gilinsky dissents from this Order.
2
=
=
j J
The additional coments of Comissioners Ahearne and Roberts and the separate views of Comissioner Gilinsky are attached.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Comission f
4
[
SAMUEL J. (HILK Secretary of thd Comission Dated at Washington, DC this 16th day of April,1982 i
F 4
l l
l-i i
i 1
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS AHEARNE AND ROBERTS Based on a preliminary examination, we find the dissent j
persuasive.
In particular, we tend to agree that the Appeal Board majority " confuses the obligations of the NRC with the o'cligations of prospective intervenors."
(Slip opinion
- p. 23.)
We will be primarily interested in arguments of the parties which address the merits of that position.
1 i
i I
I 1
i f
4 a
f a
s
. -. - -. - -, ~.
,,,--,n,--.
, -. _,, -,.,,.,,. - -, - - - - -, - _,., -. -., -, - -+ -,,, --, _.-
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY The intervenors in this case have asked reasonable questions about TVA's proposal to store low-level waste on-site at Browns Ferry.
In particular, they have raised the issue of whether the Commission can approve a five year waste storage plan without foreclosing or prejudging the alternatives to on-site storage.
The Appeal Board, which concluded that the record did not contain enough information for it to decide this point, adopted the common sense solution of postponing a decision until the NRC staff had developed enough information to permit a rational decision to be made.
The Commission now proposes to m2ddle with the Appeal Board's common sense disposition.
The Commission will succeed only in demonstrating its abiding hostility to adjudication generally, and the exercise of discretion on the part of hearing boards, in particular.
Not only will I
8 this lead to a less reasonable result, but the Commission should realize that, unless it is willing to grant its
[
Boards a reasonable degree of discretion, no competent h
person will be willing to serve on those panels.
L
- Moreover, E
taking review of this case is a poor investment of i
the Commission's time.
Y:
I should add that I am more than a
{
little surprised that the same body which found the Diablo P,
a 15 M=
]
Canyon seismic decision to be of insufficient significance to merit Commission review should want to spend its time on this decision, which can do little harm even if it were conceded for the sake of argument that it is wrong.
m vi e
bl::
.k El b
l~:
AD h
I:
=:;
.