ML20054C695

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Order Vacating Schedules Established in 820406 Prehearing Conference Order.Commission 820416 Order Granted Petitions for Review of & Stayed Effectiveness of ALAB-664
ML20054C695
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 04/19/1982
From: Frye J
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
ALAB-664, ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204210514
Download: ML20054C695 (1)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:I j f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'Sp ',# 20 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,( ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, ,,O S Before Administrative Judges- - ' ~ 81 John H Frye, III, Chairman A 'f 9 3 e @h Elizabeth B. Johnson Quentin J. Stober St.im $y@#y ;./ ' i qq ggp f ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-259-0L h_ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) April 19, 1982 ORDER (Vacating Schedules) On April 16, 1982, the Comission issued an order (copy attached) which granted petitions to review ALAB-664 filed by the NRC Staff and TVA. In so doing, the Commission stayed the effectiveness of ALAB-664 until such time as it issues a decision. In a Prehearing Conference Or' der of April 6,1982, this Board had set schedules for the briefing of the issue of whether Petitioners have standing and the filing of comments and revised contentions based on the ~ NRC Staff's environmental review. In light of the Commission's April 16, 1982, Order, it is this 19th day of April,1982, ORDERED That the aforesaid schedules set by this Board in *its April 6,1982, Prehearing Conference Order are hereby vacated. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 50 gs LICENSING BOARD 8204210514 820419 PDR ADOCK 05000259 j/ G PDR y .th Johnl p ye, III, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland Afhs jiveJudge

Attachment:

&a a1M hed

r- ., e' < ^ ] r* 'n 'I 1-4 { h 1 !Y,a 3 I,~I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C '62 ff - 10 COMMISS10pERS: t Nundo J. Palladino, Chairman i VictoV Gilinsky JohnjF.Ahearne Thomas H. Roberts ) SERVC APR191982 In the Matter of ) i ) TENNESSEE! VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-259 OLA ) ~ 50-260 OLA (Browns Fpery Nuclear Plant, ) 50-296 OLA Units 1. 2 and 3) ) i _) (Low-Level Radioattive ,1 Waste Storage Facility) i \\ ORDER }' i Various individuals 1/ filedpetitionstointerve;ne,accompaniedby requests for a hearing in this proceeding which concerns the Tennessee I i Valley Authority's (TVA) application to amend the Browns Ferri operating ). licenses.1 TVA is seeking pemission to store onsite,. for a period up to five year, low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated in the, course of normal. operation. I In ALAB,-664, an Atomic Safety and Licensing A'ppeal Board majority vacated a d remanded for further action, an Atomic Safety and Licensing t I Board's denial of the petitions to intervene and requests for a hearing 5 1 under 10 CFR 2.714. 14 NRC , (January 6,19B2)..TVA and the.NRC g staff hav5 petitioned for review of that decision. 2 f.~ e... y.- ..y y ~ 1/ 'ntervenors are David R. Curott, Uvonna J. -Qbrott, Nancy Muse, ! The - Hollts Fenn, Richard L. Freeman,' Noel M. Beck, a'nd Robert W. Beck, .i of F orence, Alabama; Alice N. Colcock.. Betty L'.! Martin, and. I'S i John]$. Martin, of Sheffield. Alabama; and Thomas U. Paul, r - i - 4.1 - Richard W. Jobe, Marjorie L. Hall, Gregory R. Bpough, Michael D. i j f(. Pier {on, David Ely, Debbie Havas, Rebecca Hudgin's, and 'j. Tom ornton, of Huntsville, Alabama. )

  • ,.g.
f. '

,1 ~

( ..l ,} 1 9. .s. .M After consideration of the majority and the dissenting opinions and - M H th' petitions for review, the Comission is of the opinion that this S e case presents an important issue involving the Comission's comitment to'a fair, balanced and efficient hearing process. The Comission is persuaded that the Appeal Board decision presents narrow issues involving significant policy and procedural questions which warrant Comission attention. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.786, the Com:ission 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 petitioners and TVA to coment 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 Comission issues the decision announcing the results of its review. 1 Accordingly, intervenors, the applicant, and the NRC staff are g .s.-us 1 I directed to fik written briefs on these' issues no later than twenty E,:.J. 2:y 1 days after the date of this Order. If the Comission desires reply M$ . ;. A.n briefs and/or oral argument, they will be the subject of a subsequent g For the reasons set forth in his separate op W er. Mc Gilinsky dissent s from this Order.

  • f.g

'.'t i.q i e..f .s '~

  • j -

. p*. ,. n ;,.' 'e .= y ..u..: .t l The additional coments of Contdissioners Ahearne and Roberts 'and the separate vieYs of Comissioner. Gilinsky are attached.- It is so ORDERED. For the CoTnission f 'd s f N f SAMUEL J..Q'HILX s Secretary of thd -Comission 8 Dated at Washington, DC this 16th day of April, 1982 - ~. u,. . i a....:.. ~.; ...;,... g' 0 gj *.-.g JA 4 ..e n, . y t.. - . 2 -. :t.n.... .t, ... <.. ~. ..: :... p..i.. .s..,... e

, 8. >.,.-

. ~. ..r.. p.

f...'.

.%.'.'.4...* s A

~j, e ~u an ..e,- .~

  • 2

~

a.

-..-{ *.,, i : * '.y. ~..~= D,.

  • ~
  • ~C.

T-- ..r. f t Y T. ~ ~..~ dj. '..*:.'.* ~ il SEPARATE VIEWS OP COMMISSIONER GILINSKY J. 5 ^ The intervenors in this case have asked reasonable questions about TVA's proposal to store low-level' waste on-site at Brow-.s Ferry. In particular, they have raised the issue of whether the Commission can approve a five year vaste storage plan without foreclosing or prejudg,ing the alternatives to en-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 meddle 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 pr.r: cf hearing boards, in particular. Not only will this lead to a less reasonable result, but the Co= mission should realize that, unless it is willing to grant its Boards'a reasonable degree of discretion, no competent person will be willing to serve on those panels. Moreover, taking review of this case is a poor investment of cj the' Co= mission's time. I should add that I am more t:han a -[ 'i. i '- little surprised that 'the same. body which found the Diablo ~ ' s. m9 n. 1:

[ ..M"',., .g 1 5 I .,- ; e 6, ~ g ., g i *;,, ' 3, ...c.,-**-.s.. f,. ~ y. g- .,.e.. s....-. .e.-s-........ .....-. ; s a,......,.,,.,. g

5. ' ;; *.-

i ,.x,-- - .. ~. y

  • is L. _...no f

?. ,'<...,r.., .c _.' ..., s.. s.. m. t c. y P ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS AHEARNE AND ROBERTS Based on a pre'.tminary examination, we find the dissent perruasive. 'En particular, we tend to agree that the Appeal s soard majority " confuses the obligations of the NRC with the obligations of prospective intervenors." (Slip opinion

p. 23.)

We will be priraarily interested in arguments of the parties which address the merits of that position. r-u p.s. w [ e l 1' l , r t (&

  • s.

9 'W 7 L,'. ..u. P4 ..p t,.T .a h. . ~.. ...s ,..g,..s-p ., >..s '.', G.%..se.. .. /. "',I s '*'.*.*e '.Q6..*.%.."3 .. a.g ~ ~ '

. 4...... y a,..,, 4... /. 2.. ' >'.$.......

Q

y. ~.,: 1. myty;% %c..,

.r n . :<-.Y...... Q'.e .. :M ' '. . '.' X . p't.';&,* a:Q+ ~.Q:.W-{,rf.. ~ai,g.r; '..e' !.'.* %} '*I;%. ' int,W ? -d gC; ...; s,, ?. WWlQ' $ 44 w.. ~.,=,. '.. f.v. W y y*.G., ,c..b...o J qt h.s~. S.Q.~ r e. ... + -+ n.t. L.,. 0, ..u., :.F ~ - =..;

%,~

n 1s. e.,.,.. .'S.*..- ".. c. ....: u c -- +.a. A.. .,.s".,.q.p... t..- .,,,.1.-,e..g. ... :.r i ....w. .e ,~, .y...,..* -- e ,&.y ' ',. -,,4s. u. ?* 2 '. ?' '

  • hi.'a -k '.e.. g,..

r"(..f

.o.. - r '. h.s C,

..*e h..... a.. a* .. e. 4;2.*. *.. = s %..,m... f g. u. g* -t -

  • 3

. -.. a .....s.. t .s

2.. - -....-....

s- 'a m o

- -.. f c. . -:::.. E ; ;..

p..: 5..r-teg~ c'99 7,M..: f. J ' p en:**see*.

. 4 %.;,.._ y,,..f.-... w .rf, . u.,g,, e .. n.?,.: #%. r w: ;.e pc.c. 2/.wic;gg;f:..mQn: e.,,u .-M.,,n.:- w,W.. z.... a g.. m;.

m..r..(..,..u,g,,........

w,,;.: ww7m ,.1:e1: -: :.. - : :.

,., y a

.., -... v... :. a. ...~....s.s .... p,w...m-,..r.:,mw.3 g_. v,,, .... : p,.. s, ..~,...,....2,. y. a e - F.. ;:-* n,:. ?.. - e : - 1. -- W ::;.s m.,s'a w,.e.JQ.. >.. s w .,.s,s..~... -#.s. .... ~, ...,.t.,,....;. S -%.s-. g.; .:y.,,... $., 5...:. J u.g.* n... g ;.e.,.- M' c ".. _

-e
:'.: c 7::t, :W..a.,..r.a ;p ;.y.m.. -

v, * : e..s.,. . a .g, ...w. .,. s. w. a..~q;,5.r y;.s,..,. ..s.....,.., .....p ..,.,....e.. -e y, y...... ..n. ..<:. e.. a. c, .. g.. e e,,q { >,... - {..< :: :. .:..;. -e.+ -7. c.5 9. g:.;:,;:.: r..y:g.. : = "y,;, a.s.u~ z;n' :q,:r..-;.:........,... ; q.,: ; .s., y... ,1. e-:rt,t .. ~.

w..

-y.. e s.u,.y. ~ -. > r:, .c.~ p. _ e. +e

c.

i - m: Canyon ses..smic dec.rswn to be of. insufficient significance......,.. g 6 M. /.b .s Jr. t to' merit Commission, review should wanti to spend "its time on this decis. ion, which can do little harm even if it were ~. conce'ded for the cake of argument that it is wrong. ..9

  • * '; f 3.._,v..'

1 .,.,. W .c* . ~ ...i, - i t.$..:g,,

.r-'.

-.',C i 'I f,- ~'- .,.g......,... y. c<..-. b.,a ~, f, l .s %....:' -. v c., ..c 1.. ..., '...1 .e. v....<y.,, ..,-d... .g .g.;. .A c. .:+. ,f,, 3 .,,,,g '. I J-*W* t -- \\. Q..,,.,.1 j .. p ! *,.. -.....6,y .'.1, \\ 1 --* u ; : v ', *,;_ n.,g... .J.. 3- .-. :, a u.s,g on. ia:, ; n ' . e.1./ y,.,,m :.-:;.,a?..,.,,p .... u.. ~ 3

t. ; -

v. ,. - ~. ~,.. - .s - y. T.g. .3 g l 4 e, ,.,.,..Me...,. l-W.s s..,,. -l%'.;,c R ***.,.. .q. .. +., s s.., . -.,. '.. > 8 * ' :@ "- D t..W ~r :3 F>. p.,i:

e.. ;, ;,..; e3

,.3; $ '.g.. ' r ?J.,y ...f. 1 ..: e. '..;.,.....:.. ;. M,.2. !

  • M 4

, _. _..J c. g e.gf.., p. ** 4 '. e' I,,A r '. M.,..N,,, w q, a.* : ra,.. *. - g - e.~..>

g... ;,

a. .n, e e,.,} .c if. - -Y'. f,,, ';N.h) ~ ' * s M. A( jh c f. 'k. sf W.V:: *A as Pad ".. l T.fu..;.. 1 ...,.'.:.s..f...'.: a.r*. e ".'.e..,. '.i c..A..*: . g. p.c. t,.=. s. f.i.',e.p. WA. . ~ ?.. f. g.. n,,..p e h,-1i .., p p.,. a.e 4 .e-4 yq,4 ,..r. p 3 r...... ..,,.,. 3....,. o.5. q.. >,.,...,,s;;;.. : a.,1 . t.<w.a.%2.es:...g.e.g.m..w .,e ,... ~. a. .s.r

r. : :..

$ '.Lt , 3. .g<. - ... :.y . a.:. ..s...; - ;. -...... g. 3. - .% y. W..,. y%,..%. a ',. c.. s..

,. -c.m...,-.<.s n.y..

. ~. .M. 30. f q c, a..t r.5.%.m.c.;.ps e ,,..'.,.a:,. >.: l* . :tq. e s,..~.., a ..~.9.; p,.1. p;_ m l ... y#.3, . j ~;.... g..o. o.. ;,.. 3.,. -3 a3 + ....:,,.e g,, ..y . :. - c

a. g., -....,.,..

g .. y,g._ y. g a .....;j s x, s. _.. .-}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20054C695&oldid=4498985"