ML20058A419
| ML20058A419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1981 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A382 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-AII, TASK-SE ALAB-652, SECY-81-522, SECY-81-552, NUDOCS 8109300149 | |
| Download: ML20058A419 (2) | |
Text
)3
. (')
+
V SECY-81 -552 September 16, 1981 ADJUDICAibRY ISSUE diT es For:
The From:
James A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel REVIEW OF ALAB-652 - IN THE MATTER OF
Subject:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units Facility:
2 and 3.
Petitions For Review:
None.
Review Time Expires:
October 13, 1981.
To inform the Commission of an Appeal
Purpose:
Board decision,[which in our view, Discussion:
On August 28, 1981, the Licensing Board granted the applicants' request to.1) withdraw their application for construction permits; and 2) terminate this licensing proceeding.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.107 (a), the Licensing Board conditioned the withdrawal of the application for construction permits on certain conditions designed to restore the site to its natural state and to enhnace its qualities as a wildlife habitat.
Both parties to the proceeding, the J
This paper has been issued as an adjudicatory 1_/
information item because the General Counsel considers this to be a matter of minor significance.
As noted above, the time for Commission review expires on October 13, 1981.
3^
}[g(
CONTACT:
Informa ian ja i,tS IC;WJ rir dn'.ed Rodriguez in accareanc, y,;in 13, 7,ccet.,,,,nf,,,,1;cn gy;3 Act, exempticas _ S~'
)
[ gcj 3 g j tJC k
FolA_fl..f)/_
~
f4
,f
.a applicants and the staff, agreed to the afore-mentioned conditions.
In ALA3-652, the Appeal Panel Chairman 7
declined to convene an Appeal Board to consider sua sponte the matter of the imposition of the sub ect conditions.
3 In so doing, the Appeal Panel Chairman concluded that Appeal Board review was not warranted in view of the unexceptional nature and seemed appropriateness of the conditions for 7
termination of adjudicatory proceed:ng.
See: Washington Public Power System (WPPS Nuclear Project, No. 2), ALAB-571, 10 NRC 687, 642 (1979).
'0GC believes Recommendation:
No Commission review./
0
/
v Tames A.
Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel
Attachment:
ALAB-652 DISTRIBUTION Commi ssioners Com)ission Staff Offices Secretariat f
e t
E
e
[
LlD e
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
)
In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500
~~
)
50-501 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 2 and 3)
)
)
MEMORANDUM September 3, 1981 (ALAB-652)
On August 28, 1981, the Liceniing Board entered an un-
~
published order in which it granted the applicants' request (1) to withdraw the,ir application for construction permits for Units 2 and 3 of the Davis-Besse nuclear facility; and (2) to terminate this licensing proceeding.
See ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667 (1980).
Accordingly, two partial initial decisions previously rendered by that Boards (which had paved the way for the issuance of limited work authorizations (LWAs) for Units 2 and 3 under 10 CFR 50.10 (e) (1) (3)) were vacated.-2_/
J/
LBP-75-75,2 NRC 993 (1975); LBP-78-29, 8 NRC 284 (1978).
2/
Those partial initial decisions were struck from the Appeal.
Panel's docket in ALAB-622, supra,'12 NRC at 669..
The Li-
~
censing Board's August 28 order authorized the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to revoke the out-standing LWAs which had been issued in the wake of the decisio: l h
~
t.
In taking this action, the Licensing Board imposed a number of conditions which required the applicant to take certain affirmative measures designed (1) to restore the site as nearly as possible to its natural (i.e., pre-LWA) state; and (2) to enhance its qualities as a wildlife habitat.
See 10 CFR 2.107 (a).
It appears that none of those conditions is controversial; to the contrary, they have the full approval of both the applicants and the NRC staff (the only present parties to the proceeding).
" Appeal board review will be routi'nely undertaken of any final disposition of a licensing proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon substantive determinations of signifi-cant safety or environmental issues".
Washington Public Power System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAS-571, 10 NRC 687, 692 (1979) (emphasis in original).
There thus might be occasions on which an appeal board would have to be convened to consider '
i the matter of the imposition of conditions under 10 CFR 2.107 (a) in connection with the withdrawal of a construction permit appli-cation and the resultant termination of the adjudicatory proceed-
~
ing on that application.
This, however, is not such an occasion.
Apart from the f act that they are acceptable to all concerned, the conditions at bar are unexce,>tional in nature and, on their face, seem entirely appropriate to the ' accomplishment of their
~..
laudable purpose.
That being so, it would be an uneconomic use I
l
s 3-of Appeal Panel resources to undertake a further formal examination of them.
FOR TIE APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN w,
- h, >-
J
,,_ 1_ &
w
,B f bara A. Tompkins aSecretary to the Appeal Panel O
em
@am O
M e
m O
O b
M e
L 1
.*l t
v
--s.
Cite as 10 NRC 687 (1979)
ALAB-571
,, [- --
~
.n UN!TED STATES OF AMERICA 3
b-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f-m L-~ ' -'
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL hdE p.Q
(('.{s Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman us yli.,'#
l;I.fL*
in the Matler of WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER Docket No. 50-397 OL as
~~
SYSTEM 7.c3 Novernber 14,1979 (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) h :, '
~
Tne Appeal Panel Chairman :ssues a =cmorandum explairung the q ;-
applicabie standard for deciding whether to consene an Appeal Board in a f,
- o. 31 particular proceeding.
.!._?,i ', ir
':ye APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW Under settled practice, the Appeal Board does not review on its own
. ; d' initiatne orders granting or denying intersention.
- fr
- APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW f fe
- An Appeal Board's review.ruc sponte of Licensing Board action is normally confined to substantive issues of public health and safety or p +,.
~ ~
l-
.e environmental impact.
M-Q.i APPEAL BOARD: SCOPE OF REVIEW GT Appeal Board review will be routinely undertaken of any finaldisposition l J,-$.Q,----
of a beenunF proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon
.h*yg n
substantne determinations of significant safety or envuonmentalissues.
- 3 V.,
MEMORANDUM On July 11. 1978, the Commission issued a notice of opportunity for j.,,'
hearing on the application of the Washington Pubbe Power Supply System
- g. g, for a heense to operate its WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, a boiling water reactor located on the Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington.
7 --
L-43 fed. Arg 32338 (July 26,1978). Within the time specified by the notice for Mi; doing so, a petition for leave to intervene was filed by Susan M. Garrett and Helen Voaenilek, on their own behalf and as representatives of the Hanford j
Conversion Project. Subsequently, an amended petition was filed on the sa me M..
i basis by Ms. Garrett and Creg Darby Stilllateramadmaruuthat. petition.
were tendered.
D 687
,!$hb b
W ~g m =. Mr -
f I
- EdkY?40?
,c,.+
- (%~ "_
~.
n -,~m _
__iqq y y E
I l
On March 6.1979. following a prehearing conference convened to some explanation of consider the petinon the Licensing Board entered an order denying That explanation is -
intervention. LBP 79-7. 9 NRC 330. No appeal was taken from that orde;t Monticello proceed:
and accordingly. on October 9.1979, the Board issued a notice dismissing the circumstances of the proceeding.
- 1. As has been see A. It is readily apparent that there is no occasion to establish an appeal a petition for interve board to senttinize the action taken by the Licensing Board. The petitioners provided all the justif might have prosecuted an appeal from the denial of intervention but elected the case of Monticch not to do so. Under settled practice, we do not review on our own initiative Since 1971, the.'
orders granting or denying intervention. If those affected do not deem allowing full-power o; themselves sufficiently aggneved to appeal, there is no reason why we should entered an order in w:
concern ourselves with the matter. And, when the only intervention petition under then Section E filed was denied. there was no need or authority to commence an adjudication determining whether of the merits of the operating license ap, plication.)
pendtng completion c:
In short. in the absence of an appeal from the denial ofintervention. the of the Appendix 8; anc Licensmg Board's course was mandated: the termmation of the proceeding beanng which migh:
without passmg any judgment on the WPPSS application. Whether that operating license. 4 /
application should be granted. and if so on what tenns or conditions,has now granted several inter become a matterfor determination-outside of the adjudicatory process-by opportunity for hean the Director of Nue! ear Reactor Regulanon, applying the standards set forth application CLI 12 3 m 10 CFR 50.57(a).*
hearing. As later mod B. The matter well nugnt be left at that were it not for recent developments
"(1) whether. conside:
in the proceeding insututed some years ago with respect to the Monticello Part 50. the provisio:
facility.8 In an orcer entered on October 25. 1979, the Licensing Boarc termmated or appropr dismissed that proceeding with the consent of all of the still remaining parues (2) wheth~er, in accorc to it. On October 29. an Appeal Board was established for the proceeding.
safety} regulations...
That Board promptly issued an order in which it announced its intention to Ret 28554 (Decembe review the dismissa! ma sponic. In the circumstances, there is warrant for
" As at esceenen to tr.e geais-al presenpt>on aga2nst interlocutorv appeais (see 10 CFR
! Dorfu.10 CFR Ulaa authonzes an immedia:e appeal from, vuer sha. "Ta)e order wholly
- An appbed to the pene -
eenyirig a pet: tion for leave to inte*vene andior request for a hearing
- The nouce of appeal and pnyssor. th A omic Er suppotur i bnei rnus: be fded within ten cays after sernce of the ordet.
Filed by the Minnesot. '
- B3 the sarne teten. we wdl not normally renew. in the absence of an appeal. alleged As rensed in Septembe procedural irregularues Sosion Eduon Company (Pdsnm Nuclear Po.cr Stanon. (;nnil.
dfC "9 Fad 1109 t1971 ALAB Ul. 8 AEC 633. 634 (1974i1. a liceras rts board holdirg that ceriaan contenuens in an general pohey and procec intenennon petrtion are not to be admined to the proceedteg (Louu4ans fo=rr sar! Lin, Gepumbu t mi). Secuc Compant(Waterford Steam Electne Stauon. IJnit 3) ALAB-242. 8 AEC 847.Sa8(1974)t orthe nuckar pown facdhi, su' resolution of pure!y economic issues posed in an anutrust proceeding (d., ALA B 258. I NRC 45.
operaung bcenses between.
a3 in. 6 f 19'511 in other words. an appeal board's review sus sponit oflicensing boasts action is Since 1974, the Lace:
confined to substantive issues of pubhc health and saferv or ennronrnentalimpact.
Protecuon~ hase been set fc
- la contrast. =nere a construcuon percut application is involved. adjudicat on is required
- As rected in the Cornm.
whether or not there are successful penuons for intervention.
(see fn. 7. saspral. tu o mer
- $retuon 30.3rlo) reqwsers a number offindurgs to be made pnot to the tssuance of an individual a state agency at ope rating beense: a g trtat there is "reasort*ble assurance" that'the actinties a uthorned by the
- The not ce referred spe operanne hcense can be conducted without endangering the-health and-safety trf the ptibhe." " -
10 CFR 50.57. As previoust f Northern Siores Power Compani (Monticello Nuclear Cencrating Station. L' nit 11. Docket heaIth and safety aspects of te No. 50 *6.1 to embrace bottretnitonmer 6B8 i
i
__ j L-
yyw...g : U :.Ez 9 ~.Wy VX - '.%ws.;=.,-n_-- -
. n paw.- ~. _.- _
mag.,_,
_mm._---.-,--
+__
2...
- .u--_.m a -;
g,
. : : m,.
[j w
- '..i.we.
. m4Qe I
y
~"
some explananon of the divergent treatment given the two dismissal orders.
That expianation is to be found in the disparate histon of the WPPSS and
--.' U NT Monticello proceedings. as well as in the marked difference in the
- w;- qg:
w-
' p m,,,
circumstances of the dismissal orders entered below.
- 1. As has been seen, the WPPSS proceeding never got beyond the stage of
..h9?d:' "
a petition for intenention: that that petition turned out to be unsuccessful
- f provided all the justification required (or assigned) for the dismissal. Not so in
[
' '. ". 5. W.
' ~. u. ~ -M
' r. th~TMe"ag the case o( Monticello.
h["
Q Since 1971, the Monticello facility has possessed a provisional license r
N,N allowing full-power operauen. See 4 AEC 496. In May 1972. the Commission *
' ~~I" _"g entered an order in which it (1) granted a request that a hearing be conducted 7
. : tm4 T
-m under then Section E of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 for the purpose or.
. g-ggg determinmg whether the license should be suspended,in whole or in part.
%%m pending completion of the SEPA environmentalrenew required by Secuon B
- ...c * ~ '"--"% 1 of the Appendix ; and (2) directed the consolidation of that heanng with any
- SE55 8
heanng which might be held with regard to the issuance of a full-term e'- A Q operating bcense. 4 AEC 530. In December of that vear. the Com=ssion
.. ~ ~_FCEw -
.- - m.ws a = sm,. m granted several intervennon petitions Gled in response to a noum of
.cs em opportunity for hearing in connecuon with the full-te~n operaung license
-[-w.[Q applicatien CL172-31. 5 AEC 25.' Simultaneously, it issued a non= of
.. J'W a=
RsM
~'7 %s d W I hearint. As later modified, the nonce stated that the heanng would consider
~-
'(1) Ectner. consicenng those matters costred by Appendix D to 10 CFR 7-1 Part 50. the prousional operat ng license should be continued, modified.
~^^* M #LMW.
i terminated or appropnately conditioned to protect environmental values, and
.d/8:M (2) whether. in accordance with.. the Commission's [ennronmental and
~ ~~' ~ **;
safet> ] regulations.. a full-term operating license should issue. See 37 fed.
, ;.y g g.
, _. -.-9%
Reg 2E554 (December 7, 1972); 38 Ted. Reg. 2489 (January 26. 1973).
.mp tw".,'
.,...L_z-
- -4;'Q
- . ;._sJ M.h.;,a^
- 9; y J M.: q
--: nw
- Z ' + #5.M N
- As applied to the penod onor to Januarv 19. 1975, the term -Cor.museon* refe s to oct
'{
2.. C M,i,' W *23 prececessor. tse Atomic Ec.ergv Cr mmissiort
- Filed a the M.nr.esota Emronrner tal Ccetrol Citaen's Assoc.at.cn iMECCAL
.i
' As revned in September !9"l tola Le into account Coherr Chgi Coorduieur't Com-tr;te s 4 EC. uo F '.d 1109 (1971). Appendix D cor.sututed ibe Commasion's "intenrn statement of
.j. _.E{p_. - m
' ? ^-
'M genera: pohey and procedure" in the.mpleinentauon of NEPA. See 36 fed. Rig 18071 j
=5 N*TMW-simmaus;
- I.
(Septemoer 9.1971). Secuon B was specifically concerned with the er.nronrnental renes of
-Y
- ^^
nuclear power facahties. such as Monticello which h.as been issued construcuen permita or
!' i *
~.w -1. w.: a.w.,.
operating bcenses between January 1.1970 and September 9.1971.
r m e.
i
" "# iW Sinct 1974. the 'L. censing and Reguistory Policy and Procedures for Ennronmentti
,o Proteruon" have been set forth in 10 CFR Part 31. Set 39 Ted. Arg. 26279 tJuly it.1974)
, n',_,,' : h-%
' As recited in the Commtss.on's order.those toten enuon peuuons had beer fued by MECCA c g,,g'" wi.g,
.w~=9.;. p%
"N*
(set frL 7. supra). tuo members of that organizauon in their indmdual capacitv. anotAct
.ndnidurl a state alene) and a municipahty.
3":g, L
- The not ce referred specifically both to the Commission's ennronmentt! regulations and to q_._f Z*.-[-li
.lT.C--"m - c ' ^^'
10 CFR 50 5*, As prewously noted (In. 4. suprat. Scenon 50.57 is addressed to mier saa the
._ h[(
- g.,
health and safety aspects of reactor operanorL Thus,under the terms of the nouce. the heartog mas to embrace both enwronmental and safety rnatters.
t,',,
M-y6 :.* *.Q'e y9
- .._ '.w 521.tr9h.,.mn.w.
' -. ~o-9 e.to-- %. -- -
I I
wm,.
I
_. Sam l
~
~
~
=
w ^ ~ ~ w n _ --w. ~
m ~.,. n
. w
- v. e. ~.- q -
$wm.- 5 E
h a n.~..~~n.~ n.emwm.--- m..em;
-~-
=.
m, ~ --w.c:-
._., g,g.r;3 '_
___ j h -
g-
- M;i@*;=
~
---J
?
u C=ng the ensuing years. the Monticello proceeding mosed forward at a conclusions. Put ano rather leisurely pace-with esidentiary hearing sessions being conducted only contentions of all of t twice im November 197 s and Ma) 1975). In March 1978, the applicant, the mio 1978. the Board r staff. and the intervenor state agency filed a joint motion to terminate the pending its receipt of' proceeding. grounded upon that intervenor's withdrawal of its remaining applicant. Specifically contentions. The remaining intervenorst: depaned the scene three tnonths satisfied itself on the t later, leaving the proceeding uncontested. And, because a hearing had been the reactor *can conti:
ordered in the first instance only because one had been requested,0 the ATWS" In light of tt Licensmg Board became free to terminate the proceeding unlessit determined doubted that given it that "a serious safety, environmental. or common defense and security serious safety... matte matter existed.10 CFR 2.760a.
to pursue the course s On October 13.1978, the Board issued a memorandum and orderin which Thus, whether the it statec that its review of the record had surfaced only "one item of possible the correctness or inc:
concern": vi:.. the safety of continuea operation of the facility pending full substantialissue thou:
resolunen of the problem of antic: pated transients without scram (ATWS).
WPPSS)upon a manc The paraes were requested to respond m wntmg to cenain questions pos:d by successful petition ic the Boarc with regard to that issue.
adjudicatory considerc Botn the staff and the applicant submitted responses, followmg which the operating license. As !
former '.:ed a renewed rnot on to termmate the proceeding. After considenng an appeal board as wc the respenses. the Board entered the October 25.1979 order which, as earlier board s:milarly roote notec. an appeal board will now review suo sponic. In that order, the Board environmental quest c gran:ec tne joint motion to termmate, and then dismissed the proceeding. In The rnost cursors domg so, the Board made a number of substantive determinations on the regard. Had the ATS ATWS issue-culminatmg in its ultimate conclusion that "the Monticello Board bv an intervenc plant can continue to operate with acceptably low risks from an ATWS And. no matter whethe pending implementation of whatever modifications eventually are required by summaty'disposit on Comtmssion rule."
hase been routmely te
- 2. In a nutshell. then. the dismissal of the Monticello proceeding (unlike that cf tne WPPSS pioceeding)was preceded not merely by the development of an endentiary record on some matters but. more imponantly, by the L:cers:r:t Board's rendition of affirmative findings and conclusions on a spectic :ssue relaimg to the safety of reactor operation which it thought worth.i of its consideration. And. it is equally manifest that the Board's ultimate decision to bring Monticello to a close rested upon those findings and i The.nienenor muncpahti mithdrem in 1976.
- W n reprd to fae:hties sL>ect to the pronsions of Sectaon B of Appendia Dio 10 CFR Part 30. a neanng.n conneenon with the ennronmental review called for by that Secaon was mandaton only shere a construction permat was arnolved. In circumstances where the facility hoe re:enes an operstitig hernu between January 1.1970, and September 9.1971 (see in. g.
u An analogous appree supret a neanng was held only if requested. Absent such a request, the AEC Director of Carohne pow er end lign, Regulatten was fr-e to pve etTe:t to ha own conclusions regarding whether the license should be (Ocaober 31.1979). In tha t continued. modded, terminated. or a pprepna tely conditioned to protect environmental values.
the staff and the appheant
- See Secaen B ' of Appendit D. Needless to say, a heanes on the health and safety aspectsof the resort to its Secuen 2.760s a oppi. cates Or a fuil-terrn operating hcense was tikem'tu not tr.andatory but. rather. depended the meaning of that Seenc upon a nr:eistu. petition for interuntion and request for hearing being filed, reached after it receives ic 690 t
t'**{"u % _---
b h-
-"'#,U b[N N'--
M 12.va----.
'" W F' Q } g g w_1 h im" -%J-1a & # W M.Ae@Rcpeqmn& GN W W M '
y ~ug.g;:4.g. g-j g ygg g ySRC7" "
- kMk@yMiQ
.. Q u.E g
'M..
....s q
". 5S E__* W W=_'~ Y 'M%sT&
,-ig g.-
-c
' - :.5.-:
~ (-
.,n
. ~m
._ g M atra i
% :I'*
aZ H 3
. ~. = Ms:.
--7 conclusions. Put another way. despite the fact that the witndrawal of the contentions of all of the intervenors had left the proceedine uncontested in
- m..
' #~
mic 19?S. the Board had declined to act upon the joint motion to terminate E diw. - '~
petiding its receipt of responses to the quesuons posed by it to the staff and
- W-.... -
applicant. Specifically,it withheld its grant of the motion until after it had satisfied itself on the basis of those responses that,for the time being at least.
t
.,.,;~ r
~
the reactor "can continue to operate safely with acceptable low risks from an
..: gf ATWS' In light of the express tertns of 10 CFR 2.~60a, it can be scarcely
,i.5,.L doubted that. given its obvious belief that the ATWS issue consututed a C "' _.a=
senous safety.. matter.' the Board was not merely authorued, but obligated.
... 'T M ~~.N@
Q$$
to pursue the course which it did.8)
Thus, whether the Monticello dismissal was nght or wrong hinges upon 4--
tne correctness or incorre:iness of determinations made by the Board on a eg
.. ~ - -. -vx substantialissue thought by it to be important-rather than (as the case in WPPSSj upon a mancatory ao. plicauon of the settled pnnciple that, absent a
-. w.7."
.O.
heanne. there :s no
~ -. u. ~m.3__
successfui pennon for intervenuon and reouest tot J Z *.te adjucicatory censioerauen of any issue penaimng te ine issuance of a facility
. _3 7.M6sd) operat:rg !icense. As such. that dism:ssal called for.ne same exarrunacon by
- 2 '
' ' ~ - ~ '
an apprai board as wouid be extended to any other final action bv a licensing
. kN N^T.
" k-board similarly rooted in the censideranon and disposition of safety or 7i 3-- -
4 environmental questions.
The most cursory analysis suffices to dispel all residual doubt in that regard. Had the ATWS issue been pressed before the Monticello Licensing
. " _~~ ' * - - - vma ~.
- u-Board oy an mtenenor.the Boarc would have been obbged to determineit.
And. no matter whether reflected in an init:al dec:sion or in an order g+ anting
-: :r g -[
g
... ;d.q, j
summary disposition under 10 CFR 2.719. that determination then would
- 'A r
have been routinely reviewed by an appeal board-on its own imtiatise were
.=w-
,m_____
-' " i
't.
-r-T.r.G:Emij&E i
~... - _..
i
... - _..gu e :-. -.
_w
. _, c.: I. - P 2.o 2.sn- - c - v
,.a %
'EI M
.. A.m..s te e.
s
.MWW ~
Ii-
..., _ J ' ZO +~1%
. _.s,TtM
.-?
- r.. L. ; ' h -
v : p :--
,- ~ 5.,,n.
3 An analegous approach by another heensing board recer.ny re:med our approvat. See Cam;;na 6 er ad Lrm Compani i H.B Robituon. Unit So :.. AlaB.!69.10 NRC!f.$59
- EFM tOcte xr
- t.19?90 in this rega rd.ti is = orthy of mention :hatthe f act that here the subtruss. orts of
.7 L.kEsFGenr ; a.
reson to au 5ection !. 60s authonts *asimproudent.Whethers saict) matteris senoin withire.l-
~
a.
the s.aff and the appbcant were suffic.ent to atteviate the Board's concern does not mesa tr.as the
.f5 TNN Inc mesetng of that Section manifestly is not controlled by shateser ultimate Je:s.on may bc l' D.. {
-M
~
reachte after it recenes futi exploration.
1 EMM-T,.T@
I
~-
691 m.
Y d"".
f 2
~1
'7' S i*.** ? " % Q. l
. - ~mmm.,
_,.n,
we.w -. _ -
MbM. [C~,y r ;-
g._,
l~~
}gh
,rwh
'W Q
no appeal taken. As it turned out, of course,it wasthe Board ttself(and not an intervenor) which wished to pursue the issue. But that did not perforce make
(,
it--or its resolution-any the less significant." Nor could its importance be NUCL said to have been diminished by the additional happenstance that, all of the intervenors having withdrawn from the proceeding, the Board was no longer instead, could embody its required to rencer an initial decision but.
ATOMIC SA,
conclusicins in a document entitled " Order Dismissing Proceeding?'Indeed, any other conclusion would exalt form over substance.
C. What all of this comes down to is that the decision on whether to convene an appeal board to consicer final action by a licensing board in a particular proceeding turns neither on the Board's label nor on the parties' agreement. Appeal board review will be routinely undertaken of any final in the Matter of disposition of a licensing proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon suestantae determmations of significant safety or environmentalissues.
PUGET SOUNO '
It was the applicat:en of this standard that led to the establishment of an LIGHT COMPA but not for WPPSS.
appeal board for the.tfonncello proceedinE (Skagit Nuclear E FOR THE APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN
- Units 1 and 2)
The Appeal Boa:
(and related stay re C. Jean Bishop conduct of further Secretary to the Appeal Panel proceeding.
RULES OF PRAC" The Appeal Boa review of a licensing adversely affected by as a practical matte:
basic structure of !!
Service Company c.
I190, 1192 (1977).
in fact. it r.ight be thought that specalsignificance should attach to tssues which a licenstrig Messrs.
board deems unous enough to justify beitig esamined notwithstanding the absthee of any Sea ttle, Power a:
controum among the parues.
Messrs.
- Because this memorandurn is in e.iplananon of cien taken by hitn under his delegated
- Seattle, authertty to establish appeat boards for parucular pr wed2rigsIsee to CFR 2.787(all.the AppealCom Panei Chairman is issuing it on his ou n. C/ E. astern Seairs terreirum Corp. v. Rogers. 265 F.2d
?9)(D C. Cat.). mandomus densed sub nom. Easie,n Stones Petroleum Corp. v. trrirs man. 36i Mr. Ric L;.S. 505 (19591. In '.ignt of the fact that the memora ndum does refer to the October 29.1979 order Commis.
h the entered by the Monnctuo Appeat Board (see p.4f 9 npra)he has,however.consultedxt i
other members of ist Board. Boca Dr. Buck and Mr. Farrar have authorized him to note
! their with the views expressed above and to state that those views ur der ay agreement partopstion in issuteg ne October 29 order.
692
_ _. a
- m. m --
--.d~~~'
f k-k
'8%'Rn3Rt l d
~
. N1 M
Ma
-Y RM'17M23Wi%Mbid.,h&sifW,d. liv ~52.W:2:
gg
~
.. - ~.
_